(Jan de Waard) A Handbook On Isaiah PDF

A Handbook on Isaiah
i
Textual Criticism and the Translator
Volume 1
Edited by Harold P. Scanlin
Published for the United Bible Societies,

New York, New York
by Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, Indiana
ii
A Handbook
on Isaiah
by
Jan de Waard
Eisenbrauns
Winona Lake, Indiana
1997
iii
Ç 1997 by Eisenbrauns.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Waard, Jan de
A Handbook on Isaiah / by Jan de Waard.
p. cm. — (Textual criticism and the translator ; v. 1).
Includes bibliographical references (p. )
ISBN 1-57506-023-X (alk. paper)
1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Criticism, Textual. 2. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—
Translating. I. Title. II. Series.
BS1515.2.W22 1997
224u.10446—dc21 97-32827
CIP
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†
iv
CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISAIAH 1–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ISAIAH 11–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
ISAIAH 21– 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
ISAIAH 31– 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
ISAIAH 41–50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
ISAIAH 51– 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
ISAIAH 61– 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
v
vi Contents
Page vi
Blank Page
P R E FAC E
The United Bible Societies, a global fellowship of 135 national Bible So-
cieties, is currently engaged in over 600 Bible translation projects throughout
the world. It is the Bible Societies’ policy to base their translations on the best
available editions of the ancient texts. UBS and its member societies have
taken an active role in producing critical editions by calling upon leading tex-
tual scholars, specializing in both Old Testament and New Testament, to pre-
pare these editions.
For the New Testament, the American Bible Society, the British and For-
eign Bible Society, the Netherlands Bible Society, and the Württemberg Bible
Society, under the inspiration and leadership of Dr. Eugene A. Nida, brought
together an international team of New Testament textual scholars: Kurt Aland,
Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, later joined by Barbara
Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, and Carlo Martini. The result was the publi-
cation of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (1966), now in its
fourth edition (1993), which has served an entire generation of Bible transla-
tors. A perusal of the prefaces to most modern Bible translations reveals that
this edition has formed the basis for their work.
In 1969 the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project was launched, again under
the leadership of Dr. Nida, with Dominique Barthélemy, Alexander R. Hulst,
Norbert Lohñk, William D. McHardy, H. Peter Rüger, and James A. Sanders
serving on the committee. The purpose of the project was thoroughly to ana-
lyze about 5,000 textually di¯cult passages in the Masoretic Text with a view
toward offering translators the insights of these leading textual scholars and
providing proposals for translation of these di¯cult passages. This project pro-
duced a ˜ve-volume Preliminary and Interim Report, and under the pen of the
committee’s chairman, Dr. Dominique Barthélemy, the ˜rst three volumes of
the ñal report, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, have been published.
Based in a signi˜cant measure on the groundbreaking work of Barthélemy
and the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, it became clear that
the time had come to produce a new edition of Biblia Hebraica, to supersede
the Stuttgartensia edition, which itself was a revision of Kahle’s third edition
of Biblia Hebraica. It is hoped that the ˜rst fascicle of this new edition, The
Megillot, will be published in 1998.
vii
viii Bibliography
Preface
All these publications have taken their place as basic tools for original lan-
guage Bible study, text-critical studies, exegesis, and Bible translation. Never-
theless, the United Bible Societies felt that it would be important to offer
Bible translators additional help if they were to make the best use of these
fundamental works. Accordingly, we have launched this series, “Textual Criti-
cism and the Translator,” to provide translators with additional help in
applying the results of these textual studies in their work. We are convinced
that many others will bene˜t from these studies, and we are pleased to launch
this series under the publishing auspices of Eisenbrauns, thereby reaching a
wider audience.
The ˜rst volume in the series is a Textual Handbook on Isaiah, produced by
Dr. Jan de Waard, who combines a high level of competence in Old Testament
textual studies and experience as a translator and translation consultant for the
United Bible Societies. Through this special combination of skills, he com-
bines careful textual analysis with practical recommendations for exegesis and
translation.
Future volumes are being planned to offer similar treatments of other Old
Testament books, as well as an English edition of the introductions to the
three published Final Report volumes by Dominique Barthélemy. These ex-
tensive introductions, totaling over 400 pages in the original French edition,
provide a comprehensive guide to the whole subject of Old Testament textual
criticism and its implications for Bible translation. It is hoped that other vol-
umes will deal with the text of the New Testament.
This series, which we hope will serve to encourage textual studies by both
Bible translators and exegetes, would not have been possible without the vi-
sion of Dr. Eugene A. Nida, who recognized the vital importance of source
texts based on the best of scholarship. Special appreciation and thanks is also
expressed for the monumental work of Dominique Barthélemy which forms
the foundation of the present volume.
Harold P. Scanlin
Series Editor
L I S T O F A B B R E V I AT IO N S
BDB Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament
BHK Biblia Hebraica (ed. R. Kittel; 1937)
BHS Biblia Hebraica Suttgartensia (4th edition, 1990)
BJ La Bible de Jérusalem (1973)
BP La Bible: Ancien Testament (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1956–59)
BR M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig, Bücher der Kündung (1985)
C De Heilige Schrift, in opdracht van “Petrus Canisius” (1990)
CTAT D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament
EÜ Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift: Das Alte Testament
(1974)
FC La Bible en français courant (1986)
GN Die Gute Nachricht: Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch (1982)
GNB Good News Bible (1978)
GrN Groot Nieuws Bijbel: Vertaling in omgangstaal (1983)
HUB The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah (1975–81)
HALAT W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum
Alten Testament
KJV The King James Version
L Luther Translation: Biblia germanica (1545)
LB The Living Bible (1985)
LV De Bijbel naar de Leidse Vertaling (1899–1912)
Moffatt James Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible (1935)
NAB The New American Bible (1970)
NAV Die nuwe Afrikaans Vertaling (1983)
NEB The New English Bible: The Old Testament (1970)
NFB The New Frisian Bible (1978)
NIV The New International Version (1988)
NJB The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
NJV The New Jewish Version of the Jewish Publication Society (1985)
NRSV The New Revised Standard Version (1989)
NV Nieuwe Vertaling (1953)
REB The Revised English Bible (1989)
ix
x Abbreviations
Bibliography
RL Revidierter Luther Text (Revised Luther Version; 1984)

RSV Revised Standard Version (1952)
S Version Segond (1910)
SR Nouvelle version Segond révisée (1978)
StV Staten Vertaling (States General Translation; 1618–19)
TEV Today’s English Version (= GNB)
TILC Traduzione interconfessionale in lingua corrente (1989)
TOB Traduction oecuménique de la Bible (1988)
TOT Translator’s Old Testament: The Book of Isaiah (1987)
W Willibrord Vertaling (1975)
Z Zürcher Bibel (1947)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, F. M. Géographie de la Palestine. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967.

Abravanel, I. Commentaries on the Tanach. Jerusalem: Books Export Enter-
prises, 1955–1963.
Aistleitner, J. Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1974.
Allegro, J. M. “The Meaning of ˆyb in Isaiah XLIV,4.” ZAW 63 (1951)
154–56.
Azharî, M. Tahdhîb al-lugha. Edited by çAbd al-Salem Muhammad Harun.
Cairo: al-Dar al-Misriya lil-Talif wal-Targama, 1964–67.
Bach, R. Die Auôrderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen
Prophetenspruch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962.
Bahbout, S. “Sull’interpretazione dei vv. 10–11 del cap.3 di Isaia.” AStE 1
(1963–64) 23–26.
Barth, H. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1977.
Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 2. Fribourg: Éditions
Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Bauer, H., and P. Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache
des Alten Testamentes. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922.
Begrich, J. Der Psalm des Hiskia. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926.
Ben Hayim. Biblia Rabbinica. Edited by Jacob ben Hayim ibn Adoniya. Ven-
ice, 1525 / Jerusalem: Makor, 1972.
Ben Yehuda, E. Thesaurus totius hebraitatis et veteris et recentioris. Berlin:
Schöneberg, 1908–59.
Bergmeier, R. “Das Streben nach Gewinn: Des Volkes ˆwO[;.” ZAW 81 (1969)
93–97.
Beuken, W. A. M. Jesaja IIA, IIIA, IIIB. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1986–89.
Bonnard, P. E. Le Second Isaïe: Son disciple et leurs éditeurs. Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1972.
Böttcher, F. Proben alttestamentlicher Schrifterklärung. Leipzig: Weidmann,
1833.
Böttcher, F. Neue exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese. Edited by F. Mühlau.
Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1863–65.
xi
xii Bibliography
Bredenkamp, C. J. Der Prophet Jesaia erläutert. Erlangen: Andreas Deichert,

1887.
Brockington, L. H. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings
Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1973.
Bronznick, N. M. “The Semantics of Root hls in Its Branches.” Leshonenu 41
(1976–77) 161–75.
Brownlee, W. H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1964.
Buber, M. “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja.” MGWJ 74 (1930) 191–94, 340–44.
Burkitt, F. C. “The Waters of Shiloah That Go Softly.” JTS 12 (1911) 294–95.
Calderone, J. “Supplementary Note on HDL-II.” CBQ 24 (1962) 412–19.
Calvin, J. Commentarii in Isaiam prophetam. . . . Corpus Reformatorum 64–
66. Brunswick: Appelhans, 1887–89.
Cappel, L. Commentarii et notae criticae in V.T. Amsterdam: P. & J. Blaeu,
1684.
Carmignac, J. “Six passages d’Isaïe éclairés par Qumran.” Pp. 37–46 in Bibel
und Qumran: H. Bardtke. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft,
1968.
Cheyne, T. K. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Critical Edition of the Hebrew
Text. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899.
Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1–39. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980.
Cocceius, J. Lexicon et commentarius sermonis hebraici et chaldaici V.T. Am-
sterdam: ex o¯cinâ J. A. Someren, 1669.
Condamin, A. Le livre d ’Isaïe. Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1905.
Coste, J. “Le texte grec d’Isaïe 25, 1–5.” RB 61 (1954) 36–66.
Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV.” Bib 47 (1966) 403–19.
Dalman, G. “P˘ügelänge, Saatstreifen und Erntestreifen in Bibel und
Mischna.” ZDPV 28 (1905) 27–35.
David ben Abraham al Fasi. Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
S. L. Skoss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936–45.
Delitzsch, F. Commentar über das Buch Jesaia. Leipzig: Dörf˘ing & Franke,
1889.
Dieu, L. de. Critica sacra sive animadversiones . . . editio nova. Amsterdam:
Gerardus Borstius, 1693.
Dillmann, A., and R. Kittel. Der Prophet Jesaja erklärt. Leipzig: S. Hirzel,
1898.
Donner, H. Israel unter den Völkern. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Donner, H., and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Wies-
baden: O. Harrassowitz, 1973–76.
Driver, G. R. “Some Hebrew Verbs, Nouns, and Pronouns.” JTS 30 (1929)
371–78.
Bibliography xiii
. “Studies in the Vocabulary of the O.T.” JTS 34 (1933) 33–44.

. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX.” JTS 38 (1937)
36–50.
. “Mistranslations.” PEQ 79 (1947) 123–26.
. “Hebrew Scrolls.” JTS n.s. 2 (1951) 17–30.
. “Notes on Isaiah.” Pp. 42–48 in Von Ugarit nach Qumran. BZAW 77.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1958.
. “On hemah ‘Hot Anger, Fury’ and Also ‘Fiery Wine’.” ThZ 14 (1958)
133–35.
. “ ‘Another Little Drink’: Isaiah 28:1–22.” Pp. 47–67 in Words and
Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by P. R.
Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Duhm, B. Das Buch Jesaia übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1902.
Ehrentreu, H. “Sprachliches und Sachliches aus dem Talmud.” JJLG 8 (1910)
4–8.
Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Vierter Band: Jesaia, Jer-
emia. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1968.
Eitan, I. “A Contribution to Isaiah Exegesis.” HUCA 12–13 (1937–38) 55–88.
Elliger, K. Deuterojesaja 1. Teilband Jesaja 40,1–45,7. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.
Emerton, J. A. “A Textual Problem in Isaiah 25,2.” ZAW 89 (1977) 64–73.
. “Notes on Two Verses in Isaiah.” Pp. 12–25 in Prophecy: Essays Pre-
sented to Georg Fohrer on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 6. September 1980.
BZAW 150. Berlin, 1980.
Eusebius. Eusebius Werke IX: Der Jesajakommentar. Edited by J. Ziegler.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975.
Ewald, H. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes.
Göttingen: Dieterich, 1863.
Feldmann, F. Das Buch Isaias. Münster: Aschendorff, 1925–26.
Felix de Prato. Biblia rabbinica: Editio princeps. Venice: D. Bomberg, 1516–
17.
Fischer, J. In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? Giessen:
A. Töpelmann, 1930.
Fitzmyer, J. A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sef îre. Rome: Ponti˜cal Biblical
Institute, 1967.
Fohrer, G. Das Buch Jesaja. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1964–67.
Foreiro, F. Iesaiae prophetae vetus et nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commen-
tario. Antwerp, 1566.
Gesenius, W. Ausführliches grammatisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebrä-
ischen Sprache. . . . Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1817.
. Der Prophet Jesaia neu übersetzt. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1829.
xiv Bibliography
Gesenius, W., and F. Buhl. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch

über das Alte Testament. Berlin: Springer, 1949.
Gesenius, W., E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Ginsberg, H. L. “Some Emendations in Isaiah.” JBL 69 (1950) 51–60.
Gordon, C. H. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Ponti˜cal Biblical Institute, 1965.
Graetz, H. Emendationes in plerosque sacrae scripturae V.T. libros. . . . Edited
by W. Bacher. Breslau: Schottlander, 1892–94.
Gray, G. B. The Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969.
Greenberg, M. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” JAOS 76
(1956) 157–67.
Grotius, H. Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, auxerunt G. J. L. Vogel et
J. C. Doederlein. Halle: Apvd. Io. Iac. Cvrt, 1775–76.
Guillaume, A. “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah.” JBL 76
(1957) 40–43.
Gunkel, H. “Jesaia 33: Eine prophetische Liturgie.” ZAW 42 (1924) 177–208.
Halévy, J. “Le Livre d’Isaïe 1–39.” Pp. 234–851 in Recherches bibliques V.
Paris, 1914.
Hatch, E. , and H. A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint. Graz: Aka-
demische Druck U. Verlagsanstalt, 1954.
Hitzig, F. Der Prophet Jesaja. Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1833.
Holladay, W. L. “Isa. 3, 10–11: An Archaic Wisdom Passage.” VT 18 (1968)
481–87.
Houbigant, C. F. Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis et versione latina ad notas
criticas facta. . . . Paris: Apud. A. C. Briasson & L. Durand, 1753.
Ibn Ezra, A. The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah. Edited by M. Fried-
laender. London: Pub. for the Society of Hebrew Literature, 1873–77.
Ibn Janah, Abulwalid. Le livre des parterres ˘euris. Edited by J. Derenbourg.
Paris: F. Vieweg, 1886.
Irwin, W. H. Isaiah 28–33: Translation with Philological Notes. Rome:
Ponti˜cal Biblical Institute, 1977.
Iwry, S. “Massebah and Bamah in 1QIs-a 6,13.” JBL 76 (1957) 225–32.
Jacob, E. Esaïe 1–12. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987.
James, F. A Critical Examination of the Text of Isaiah. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni-
versity Micro˜lms (Ph.D. Thesis, Boston University), 1959.
Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud . . . and the Midrashic
Literature. New York: Pardes, 1950.
Joüon, P. , and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice
Ponti˜cio Istituto Biblico, 1993.
Judah ben Qoreish. Risâla: Epistula de studii targum utilitate. . . . Edited by
J. J. L. Barges and D. B. Goldberg. Paris, 1857.
Kaiser, O. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kap. 1–12. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
Bibliography xv
. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. London, 1987.

Kissane, E. J. The Book of Isaiah II. Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1943.
Knobel, A. Der Prophet Jesaia. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1854.
Koehler, L. , and W. Baumgartner. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum
Alten Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967–90.
König, E. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1881–95.
. Historisch-komparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs, 1897.
. Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik. Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1900.
. Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament.
Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Sändig Reprints, 1986.
Kooij, A. van der. Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Freiburg: Univer-
sitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
Koole, J. L. Jesaja II, Deel I: Jesaja 40 tot en met 48. Kampen: Kok,
1985.
. Jesaja II, Deel II: Jesaja 49 tot en met 55. Kampen: Kok, 1990.
Koppe, J. B. R. Lowth’s . . . Jesaias . . . mit Zusätzen und Anmerkungen.
Leipzig, 1779–81.
Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll.
Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Laberge, L. La septante d ’Isaïe 28–33. Ottawa: Laberge, 1978.
Le Clerc, J. V.T. Prophetae ab Esaia ad Malachiam usque. . . . Amsterdam:
J. Wetstenios and Gul. Smith, 1731.
Lemaire, P. , and D. Baldi. Atlas biblique. Louvain: Éditions du Mont César,
1960.
Leene, H. De vroegere en de nieuwe dingen bij Deuterojesaja. Amsterdam:
VU Uitgeverij, 1987.
Lilienthal, T. C. Commentatio critica sistens duorum codicum manuscrip-
torum . . . notitiam. Leipzig: Regiomonti, 1770.
Loewenstamm, S. E. “The Lord Is My Strength and My Glory.” VT 19 (1969)
464–70.
Lohñk, N. “Isaias 8, 12–14.” BZ n.s. 7 (1963) 98–104.
Lowth, R. Isaiah: A New Translation with . . . Notes. London: Printed by
J. Nichols for J. Dodsley, T. Cadell, 1778.
Lust, J. A Greek-English Lexikon of the Septuagint, Part I. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelsgesellschaft, 1992.
Luzzatto, S. D. Il profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato. . . . Padova: Anto-
nio Bianchi, 1855.
Marti, K. Das Buch Jesaja. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900.
McKenzie, J. L. Second Isaiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
Michaelis, J. D. Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek 14 (1779) 99–155;
14a (1779) 3–223.
xvi Bibliography
. Spicilegium geographiae hebraeorum exterae post Bochartum. Gött-

ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1780.
Montfaucon, B. de. Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt. Paris: Ludovicum
Guerin, et al., 1769–70.
Morgenstern, J. The Message of Deutero-Isaiah in Its Sequential Unfolding.
Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1961.
Muilenburg, J. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66: Introduction and Exege-
sis by J. Muilenburg. Pp. 381–773 in vol. 5 of Interpreter’s Bible. Nash-
ville: Abingdon, 1956.
Musil, A. Arabia Petraea. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1907.
Nestle, E. “Miscellen.” ZAW 24 (1904) 122–38.
Olshausen, J. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg
und Sohn, 1861.
Oort, H. Textus hebraici emendationes. . . . Edited by H. Oort. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1900.
. “Kritische aantekeningen op Jez. 40–66.” ThT 25 (1891) 461–77.
Orelli, C. von. Die Propheten Jesaja und Jeremia. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1891.
Orlinsky, H. M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll.” JBL 69 (1950) 146–
66.
Perles, F. “Notes critiques sur le texte de l’Ecclésiastique.” REJ 35 (1897) 48–
64.
. “The Fourteenth Edition of Gesenius-Buhl’s Dictionary.” JQR 18
(1906) 383–90.
. Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments. Munich, 1895. Re-
printed Leipzig: Gustav Engel, 1922.
Pinsker, S. Einleitung in das babylonisch-hebräische Punktationssystem
. . . nebst einer Grammatik der hebräischen Zahlwörter von Abraham ben
Esra. Vienna: Philipp Bendiner, 1863.
Procksch, O. Jesaia I. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1930.
Qimhi, J. Sepher ha-Galuj. Edited by H. J. Mathews. Berlin, 1887.
Rabin, C. The Zadokite Documents. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Radaq. “Commentary on the Bible.” Miqraot Gedolot Nebiim u-Ketubim. Ed-
ited by J. Levensohn and J. M. Mendelsohn. Warsaw, 1860–66.
. “Commentary on Is. 1–20.18.” The Commentary of David Kimhi on
Isaiah. Edited by L. Finkelstein. New York: Columbia University Press,
1926.
Rashi. “Commentary on the Bible.” Miqraot Gedolot Nebiim u-Ketubim. eds.
J. Levensohn and J. M. Mendelsohn; Warsaw, 1860–1866.
Reider, J. “Contributions to the Scriptural Text.” HUCA 24 (1952–53) 85–
106.
Rignell, L. G. “Isaiah Chapter 1.” StTh 11 (1957) 140–58.
Rosenmüller, E. F. C. Jesajae vaticinia. Leipzig: Sumptibus Joh. Ambros.
Barthii, 1829–34.
xvii Bibliography
Rossi, J. B. de. Variae lectiones veteris testamenti librorum. Parma: Ex Regio

Typographeo, 1784–88.
Saadya. Oeuvres complètes III: Version arabe d ’Isaïe. Edited by J. Deren-
bourg. Paris: E. Leroux, 1896.
Saebo, M. “Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Jesaia 8,9–10.” ZAW 76 (1964) 132–
43.
Schleusner, J. F. Novus Thesaurus philologico-criticus sive lexicon in LXX et
reliquos interpretes graecos ac Scriptores apocryphos, VT. Leipzig:
Weidmann, 1820–21.
Schoors, A. Jesaja. Roermond: J. J. Romen, 1972.
Schultens, A. Opera minora. Leiden: Joh. Le Mair and H. A. de Chalmot,
1769.
Schwally, F. “Miscellen.” ZAW 11 (1891) 169–83, 253–60.
Scott, R. B.Y. “Isaiah XXI 1–10: The Inside of a Prophet’s Mind.” VT 2 (1952)
278–82.
Seeligmann, I. L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1948.
Selwyn, W. Horae hebraicae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1848.
Simons, J. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959.
Slotki, I. W. Isaiah. London: Soncino Press, 1949.
Snijders, L. A. Jesaja deel I. Nijkerk, 1985.
Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959–73.
Stenning, J. F. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1949.
Strugnell, J. “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean
Desert of Jordan.’ ” RdQ 7 (1970) 163–276.
Talmon, S. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1 (1960) 144–
84.
. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of
Qumran Manuscripts.” Textus 4 (1964) 95–132.
. “DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah.” Pp.
116–26 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M.
Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Thenius, O. Die Bücher der Könige. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1849.
Thomas, W. “The Root hnv = yns in Hebrew.” ZAW 52 (1934) 236–38; 55
(1937) 174–76.
Torczyner [Tur-Sinai], H. “Dunkle Bibelstellen.” Pp. 274–80 in Vom Alten
Testament: Karl Marti zum siebzigsten Geburtstage. . . . BZAW 41. Ber-
lin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1925.
A. Trommius. Concordantiae graecae versionis vulgo dictae LXX
interpretum. . . . Amsterdam: Sumptibus Societatis, 1718.
Tur-Sinai, N. H. “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah I–XII.”
ScrHie 8 (1961) 154–88.
xviii Bibliography
Vitringa, C. Commentarius in librum prophetiarum Jesaie. Basel: J. Rodolphi,

1732.
Waard, J. de. A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the New Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.
. “The Interim and Final HOTTP Reports and the Translator: A Prelim-
inary Investigation.” Pp. 277–84 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Oêred
to Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by G. J. Norton and S. Pisano. Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Warzsawski, L. Die Peschitta zu Jesaja (Kap. 1–39). Berlin, 1897.
Weisz, H. Die Peshitta zu Deuterojesaia. Thesis, Halle–Wittenberg. Halle,
1893.
Wellhausen, J. Die Kleinen Propheten übersetzt, mit Noten. Berlin: G. Reimer,
1892.
Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990.
Wildberger, H. Jesaja. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965–82.
Ziegler, J. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. Münster:
Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934.
. “Die Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolle
von Qumrân (1QIs-a).” JBL 78 (1959) 34–59.
. Isaias. Septuaginta 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Since 1979 translators of Isaiah have at their disposal the fourth volume of
the Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project
(New York: United Bible Societies), pp. 1–173 of which deal with the textual
problems of Isaiah. And since 1986 they have access to the ñal report in the
second volume (OBO 50/2) of Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de
l’Ancien Testament (Fribourg, Switzerland: Éditions universitaires, and Gött-
ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) which on pp. 1–465 provides in remarkable
detail the evaluations and justi˜cations of the committee. Both publications
present a powerful instrument to solve a number of basic complexities of the
Hebrew text to translators who normally are no specialists in the ˜eld of textual
criticism and who cannot be but at a loss when faced with the contradictory
evidence of modern translations. The considerable e¯ciency of the two texts is
mainly due to two factors: (1) the translational divergencies were the basic
principle of the selection of the textual problems, and (2) the treatment of each
case ends with a suggested translation.
Nevertheless, the e¯ciency has its limitations, and these in turn perhaps
justify the present publication. First of all, the committee consisted of textual
critics trying to ascertain what is most likely to have been the form or forms
of the “second phase” of the Hebrew Old Testament text development. No
member of the committee was a translation specialist. The suggested transla-
tions, at least in the preliminary report, were therefore rather literal and pre-
sented without the context necessary for understanding. Practical experience
has shown that such a presentation is often not su¯cient to assist translators in
their search for an adequate gloss which would render the solution proposed
by the committee. In the ñal report the paraphrasing of the interpretations
acts as a stimulus for translators, helping them to ñd a solution in their own
language.
Second, although translations in major European languages were used for
the selection and illustration of textual problems, showing the mainstream of
diêrent textual and interpretational traditions, the majority of them belonged
to the types of literal or philological translations. Translators of other types of
translation such as interlinear or communicative translations did not always
ñd the help they were looking for. Moreover, although some of the versions
1
2 A Handbook on Isaiah
cited were interconfessional, no major Jewish publication in any Western lan-

guage was consulted.
Last, but not least, the major discussion of the problems is to be found in
the ñal report, and their are two main obstacles to its accessibility: its lan-
guage and the level of the discussion. A translation and adaptation into English
of the ñal reports had been projected and, for at least part of the material, ˜rst
drafts of such a translation were made. Now it seems that plans for this project
have been abandoned, although it is still hoped to publish an English edition
of the valuable introductions.
The aim of the present publication is to give translators a better insight into
the viewpoint of the textual critic and to help them to ñd a good base for their
translation. Occasionally, the treatment of a textual problem treated in CTAT is
omitted when the problem is judged to be translationally irrelevant or of little
relevance especially in cases of textual divergencies concerning pronominal
issues. These ask in all types of modern translation, with the exception of the
interlinear type, for assimilation. Some problems, more of an interpretational
than of a textual nature, are treated nevertheless because of the di¯culties they
present to translators.
Since several new translations have been published after the two reports,
a new selection of translations has been made for this study. The main diêr-
ence with the selection for the HOTTP is that the present selection embraces
diêrent types of translation in a greater number of languages and that it in-
cludes three major Jewish publications in English, French and German. The em-
phasis remains on English versions and non-English versions are only quoted
when the issue in question cannot be illustrated with any recent or older English
translation. An English gloss is provided with every citation of a non-English
version. The new selection occasionally has some bearing upon the treatment
or non-treatment of a textual problem. In the reports a number of textual prob-
lems has been selected on the base of a translational deviation found only in
NEB. In the cases, however, where these deviations have been corrected in
REB the textual problem has been omitted. The same rule has been applied
when all translations according to the new selection follow the proposal of the
committee.
Readability and intelligibility of text have been a constant concern. It is
hoped that the consistent threefold division of the treatment, the regular trans-
lation of all foreign language data into English, and the care not to leave out
steps in the explanation, will help the reader to see the point. Limitations are
unavoidable and the subject is so complex that at least some knowledge, es-
pecially of Hebrew, has to be presupposed.
Although the main target audience consists of translators, students and
scholars interested in textual criticism may also ñd the present publication
useful as it provides in English and in a nutshell data, arguments and ratings
by the HOTTP committee.
page run half pica long

Introduction 3
The present writer would like to express gratitude to Harold P. Scanlin and
the staff of the New York o¯ce of the United Bible Societies for having care-
fully checked the quotations and the bibliography items and for having cor-
rected the English wherever appropriate.
January 1995 Jan de Waard

Isaiah 1–10
ISAIAH 1–10
1.7
Textual Decisions
An A rating has been given to the second occurrence of μyrIz:, “strangers,”
in the Hebrew text. There are several reasons for such a rating: (1) the reading
μyrIz: is generally attested, whereas the proposed reading μdos], “Sodom,” is only
a conjecture; (2) the conjecture μdos] can be explained as having arisen from a
confusion between textual criticism and traditional interpretation of the expres-
sion “overthrow” (namely of Sodom); (3) a reading μdos] would be incomplete
since in the standard expression “Gomorrah” is always associated with “So-
dom” (compare 1.9 and 1.10); (4) μyrIz: is the reading of the most primitive, at-
tested text; and (5) Isaiah shows preference for an emphatic repetition of the
same word.
Evaluation of Problems
In spite of the high probability rating translators will note that many com-
mentators (Gray, Wildberger, Clements) express themselves in favor of the con-
jecture μdos]. It is therefore no wonder that this reading, which in addition, has
been “commanded” in BHS, has been adopted in a number of new translations
such as EÜ, FC, GrN, and REB: “it (your land) is as desolate as Sodom after
its overthrow.” Nevertheless, translators should not comply with these sugges-
tions and resist the temptation to compose unacceptable notes mentioning
“probable” readings.
The translator who does not become a victim of confusion between tex-
tual criticism and traditional interpretation, however, still has to ask the ques-
tion about the meaning of the Hebrew expression μyrIz: tk'Peh]m'K]. There can be
no doubt that all recent translations which take the Hebrew as their base, con-
sider the construction as a subjective genitive: “as overthrown by foreigners
4
1.12 Isaiah 1–10 5
(strangers)” (NIV, NRSV), or, after passive-active transformation: “foreigners

take over your land” (GNB), “als hätten wilde Horden bei euch gehaust” (GN).
In this they agree with G and V among the ancient versions. There are, how-
ever, strong indications that the construction should be interpreted as an ob-
jective genitive: “defeat (overthrow) experienced by foreigners.” As has been
pointed out (Hitzig): when the Hebrew verb is used to express a catastrophe,
the agent is always God, never man. God is therefore the implicit agent also
here. And he will treat his children who have alienated themselves (1.4) in the
same way as he has treated foreigners outside the covenant.
Proposals of Translation
The only existing translation which re˘ects this insight and which there-
fore could be used as a model is BR: “(Starrnis) wie nach jenem Umsturz, der
einst den Fremden geschah!,” “(desolation) as after the overthrow which once
happened to foreigners.” If the translator wants to make the agent explicit, he
could render the Hebrew as follows: “(desolation) as after the defeat which
God in˘icted upon foreigners.” The allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah was evi-
dent to the Hebrew hearer and reader, but it may not be evident at all to a
hearer or reader of a modern translation. Therefore, the translator may, in ad-
dition, want to inform his readers in a footnote that the allusion is to Sodom
and Gomorrah, referring especially to Deut. 29. 22 and Jer. 49. 18.
1.12
Textual Decisions
A C rating has been given to the qal vocalization twOar“li, “to see (my face)”
instead of the niphal vocalization twOar:le, “to be seen (before my face).” The con-
siderable doubt expressed in the rating is technically related with the fact that
such a vocalization is only supported by S yyp|a azjml and that there are
some hesitations with regard to the weight of this version. There are, however,
strong additional reasons to believe that an original phrase “to see the face of
God” has been corrected and revocalized as “to appear before God,” the major
one being theological. Moreover, a terminological reminiscence of the original
expression can be detected at the beginning of the Christian era in the term
hY:air“h;, “the seeing,” (namely of the face of God during the three pilgrim fes-
tivals) in the Mishnah tractate Zabim I 1 and II 2.
The translator will have become aware of the problem by reading the stan-
dard commentaries which are along with BHS all in favor of a more original
reading in the sense of “to see my face.” As far as translations are concerned,
6 A Handbook on Isaiah 1.17
she/he may only have been alerted by some older translations of a formal equiv-
alence type, such as Z “Wenn ihr kommt, mein Angesicht zu schauen” or LV
“als gij komt om mijn aangezicht te zien.” Or the translator may have come
across a footnote in a more recent translation. NEB in its 1970 publication of
the Old Testament translates “to enter my presence” and observes in a footnote:
“Lit. to see my face,” although this footnote is absent from the 1970 edition of
the complete Bible! Only NRSV, although preferring to put the transmitted text
“when you come to appear before me” into the text of the translation, never-
theless provides a footnote: “Or ‘see my face’,” containing the variant reading.
In many instances, however, in which a more speci˜c cultic terminology has
been used in translating, it is hardly possible to know what the exact Hebrew
Vorlage has been, as e.g. in GNB: “. . . when you come to worship me” or in
GN: “Wenn ihr zu meinem Tempel kommt.”
Most frequently, the necessary transformations of the idiomatic phrase “to
see my face” in the receptor language will no longer show traces of the textual
discussion. The translator, because of the degree of transformation, may not
even consider it to be appropriate to provide any kind of note. In some projects
with Jewish participation such transformations may even be recommended in
order to avoid certain theological discussions. The advice, given in the reports,
to introduce the original reading into the text and the corrected one into a foot-
note, is therefore only valid in the case of literal or philological translations. In
interconfessional projects of this nature which include Jewish participation, it
may be considered to keep the transmitted text in the translation, in agreement
with Jewish practice (see BR: “Wenn ihr kommt, vor meinem Antlitz euch se-
hen zu lassen”)
1.17
Textual Decisions
An A rating has been attributed to the vocalized form ≈wOmj;,, “oppressor” /
“oppressed” (?), over against a presupposed vocalization ≈Wmj;, “oppressed,”
which would have been read by all the ancient versions. The reason for such
a decision is the strong conviction that in fact no textual problem exists, and
that the diêrent meanings and translational glosses can all be derived from
one and the same Hebrew form. In other words, the problems would only be
exegetical.
1.17 Isaiah 1–10 7
The vocalized form ≈wOmj; could carry three diêrent meanings: (1) as an in-
transitive adjective of the type qat≥ôl it would have the meaning of a passive
participle “oppressed” (Luzzatto, Rignell, 1957, 151); (2) as a transitive adjec-
tive (derived from a perfect with qames≥) it would bear the meaning of an active
participle “oppressor” (Gesenius, Ewald, 1863, par. 152b and König, 1895, II,
124); and (3) as an inñitive absolute it would convey the meaning of a noun
“violence” (David ben Abraham I, 560, 73).
All these options are present in modern translations, although there seems
to be a tendency within one and the same language to particularly favor one
interpretation. Almost all English versions follow option (1): “oppressed” (NIV,
NRSV, REB, GNB) with the exception of RSV, which favors option (3): “op-
pression.” The majority of French translations (BP: “le violateur” ; SR: “l’op-
presseur”), some German (GN: “die Gewalttätigen”) and Dutch versions (GrN:
“uitbuiters”) clearly prefer option (2).
As already has been remarked, however (Wildberger), the choice of the
translator will clearly be conditioned by the way in which the preceding He-
brew verb WrV]a' will be rendered. When a meaning “to lead” is selected, option
(1) becomes unavoidable, although this meaning may still be rendered in diêr-
ent ways as our translations show: “guide” (REB), “lenket” (BR), “help” (GNB,
EÜ), “rescue” (NRSV), “encourage” (NIV). Option (2), on the other hand, ne-
cessitates the selection of a meaning “restrain,” “keep within bounds,” “cor-
rect” (RSV), “haltet . . . in Schranken” (GN), “mettez au pas” (BP), “houd . . .
in toom” (GrN).
In the ñal report option (2) has been considered to be the most probable
one. This would implicitly mean that a sense “restrain” be selected for the He-
brew verb. No translation, however, is oêred in the ñal report and it is not
entirely clear how the proposed French and English translations of the prelimi-
nary report, “faites marcher droit l’exploiteur // make the exploitioner do what
is right,” relate to the possible meanings of rva.
It is not the purpose of this handbook to prescribe interpretational choices.
The choice is left to translators, and they will certainly pay attention to the
wider context as well, especially to the structure of the immediate context in
which ˜gure “orphans” and “widows.”
Translators may want to provide variant translations in addition like in
NIV where “encourage the oppressed” is read in the text and “reprove the op-
pressor” in a note. They are certainly not advised to put textual footnotes (like
in TOB and FC).
1.20
Textual Decisions
An evaluation B has been given to the form WlK]auT] br<j,, “(by) the sword
you shall be devoured.” The main reason for this is the syntactical insight that
a verb which in its active voice governs a double accusative, is in its passive
voice only accompanied by one of these two, the other one becoming gram-
matical subject (Gesenius, 1817, 821). The little doubt expressed in the B rat-
ing is uniquely caused by the fact that the passive form of the verb in relation
with “sword” only occurs in this text. The attested form brjb, “through the
sword,” found in 1Q-a is therefore considered to be a syntactical facilitation,
and the active reading of G: mavcaira uJma'ı katevdetai, “a sword shall devour
you,” a translational operation.
Unique is the rendering of NEB without any comment: “locust-beans shall
be your only food.” Such a translation presupposes a diêrent vocalization:
Wlk]aTo broj} based on an exegetical play upon words as already found in early
midrashim. It may be interesting to mention this technique, the so-called al-
tiqre, but it will be clear that this reading cannot be taken into account as a
serious textual base. REB has therefore abandoned this reading and replaced it
by the probably translationally based active formulation: “the sword will de-
vour you,” a model also followed in other translations like TOB and EÜ “wird
das Schwert euch vernichten.” Most translations, however, prefer a rendering
along the lines of NRSV: “you shall be devoured by the sword.”
A slight problem is raised by a discrepancy between the two reports. In
the preliminary one the translator is advised to render “you will be devoured
by the sword.” In the ñal one, however, such a rendering is said not to be ap-
propriate, because it would re˘ect a niphal form. One has to respect the pual
form as a passive of the piel and to translate: “you will be delivered as food to
the sword.”
In a case like this, translators are very much dependent upon the genius of
the receptor language. If a passive voice is lacking, or if a passive translation
would be stylistically awkward, they will have to act in the same way as the
Old Greek translator. It may also be possible to use the active transformation
of the pual form suggested in the ñal report, by reading: “I will deliver you
as food to the sword.” This may be a good solution since verses 18–20 present
a continuous discourse of Yahweh. Otherwise, special idiomatic solutions may
1.21 Isaiah 1–10 9
be found like in FC: “vous serez la proie de l’épée,” “you will be the prey of
the sword.”
On the other hand, if a passive voice can be used, the translational pro-
posal of the ñal report should be preferred. It may, however, not always be
possible to express the ñe nuances of the Hebrew, in which case the transla-
tor will have to fall back on the traditional rendering. Since translation is not
merely a matter of words, the translator may want to keep in his rendering the
maximum of repetitions and contrasts, present in the Hebrew of 19–20.
1.21
Textual Decisions
The Old Greek has literally: “How has she become a harlot, the faithful
city Sion, full of judgment,” presenting the extra information “Sion,” absent
from the Hebrew tradition and lacking in all ancient versions. To this absence
of the word “Sion” a B rating has been given. The reason for this decision is
the clearly secondary character of the reading “Sion.” Such a reading may even
have entered the Hebrew Vorlage of G. A Hebrew copyist who would have
been no longer aware of the poetic value of the construct state “i” in ytia}lem],
“full,” could have read ytiaLemi, “I have ˜lled,” and, since “I have ˜lled with jus-
tice” needs a second accusative, could have added “Sion.” The reading “Sion”
in G could also come from 1.27 and 33.5 or could simply be a technical op-
eration of translation to provide necessary information.
There can be no doubt that the identi˜cation “Sion” in G is correct. How-
ever, with the exception of the daughter versions of G and their more recent
descendants, most translations faithfully follow the Hebrew. On the contrary,
BJ adopts the reading of G, justifying it in a textual footnote. Without such a
note, Moâtt does the same: “Sion once so full of justice,” and, amongst more
recent functional equivalence translations, the same example is followed by
GrN: “Ach Jeruzalem, die eens zo trouwe stad.”
The advice given to translators in the ñal report is to avoid such explic-
itness of information, for the good reason that the implicit information in-
creases the dramatic tension and impact. The Greek gloss “Sion” could at the
utmost be mentioned in a footnote.
The advice given above should be taken seriously. It should be noted that
translators also have other means of hinting at the identity of the city. Verse 21
starts a new section of the discourse which therefore may need a preceding
heading. See, for example, BJ: “Lamentation sur Jerusalem.” In translations in

which headings are more sparely used, the need may be felt to give the explicit
information either in the text or in a footnote. In translation projects with
Orthodox involvement it may be wise to follow G on translational grounds.
1.29
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst verb in the Hebrew is in the third person plural, whereas the three
following verbs in the same verse have a second person plural, “For they will
be ashamed of the oaks in which you delighted . . . .” In a harmonizing way,
G, S and V read third person plurals throughout the whole verse or ˜rst line (in
the case of V), whereas T adopts a second person plural for the ˜rst verb. A
rating B has been attributed to the Hebrew for two reasons: textually the read-
ing is strongly supported by 1Q-a, whereas the two Hebrew manuscripts in
favor of the second person plural for the ˜rst verb are without textual value.
And the fact that the ancient versions assimilate into two diêrent directions
indirectly proves the primitive heterogeneous character of the Hebrew.
The syntactical harmonization of the ancient versions is a general transla-
tional phenomenon. In this case it is the universal tendency of translations to
read a second person plural in the ˜rst verb as well. This is frequently done in
complete unawareness of the existence of any problem. And it is done with
great facility since such a reading is simply “commanded” in the apparatus of
BHS and since the Hebrew form in most commentaries is simply disregarded
as an obvious error (Gray, Wildberger).
Although the need for assimilation is generally comprehensible, each case
should be analyzed in particular. Here the Hebrew third person plural could be
interpreted as an impersonal third person: “one will be ashamed.” Or the rapid
shift from exclamation to reproach might be considered as a rhetorical ˜gure
(König, 1900, 239), focusing attention on the addressees and their conditions.
Translators are advised not to follow the vast majority of assimilating trans-
lations, but to render the text along the lines indicated above. For the imper-
sonal pronoun rendering BJ could serve as a model: “Oui, on aura honte des
térébinthes qui font vos délices,” but also BP: “C’est que l’on sera confus à
cause des térébinthes que vous appréciez” or BR: “Ja, zuschanden wird man
an den Gotteichen.”
1.31 Isaiah 1–10 11
If the translator, however, wants to match the function of the rhetorical

˜gure in the receptor language, he may have to do some restructuring of the
text. For example, after a statement of the idolatrous practices, GN puts the
focus on the condition of the hearers in the following way: “Es wird eine bit-
tere Enttäuschung für euch werden!,” “It will be a bitter deception for you”
(compare also GrN).
1.31
Textual Decisions
Two distinct textual problems are combined in this case: (1) all ancient
versions have the ˜rst noun of the second half line of 31a understood to mean
“his work.” According to some scholars such a meaning would presuppose a
change of vocalization into wOl[’p;W , since the attested wOl[}poW should be read as an
active participle with the meaning “his maker,” (2) distinct from the Hebrew,
the words ˆsoj;h,, “the strong,” and wOl[}poW have received second person plural
possessive su¯xes or pronouns in 1Q-a and V and third person plural posses-
sives in G, S and T, which sheds some doubt on the Hebrew forms. A majority
rating B has been given to the reading wOl[}poW for the good reason that an inter-
pretation “his work” does not need a change of vocalization. In fact, the problem
is interpretational and not textual. The same rating has been attributed to the
readings ˆsoj;h, and wOl[}poW , for the diêrent su¯xes of the versions are due to con-
textual assimilations. The fact that 1Q-a has even kept the deñite article in the
case of ˆsoj;h, clearly shows the secondary character of the su¯x.
No translation seems to provide a textual note, and only some present a
variant translation or interpretation in a footnote. NRSV renders the text as
follows: “The strong shall become like tinder, and their work like a spark” and
provides the variant translation “its makers” in a note on “their work.” But it
remains unclear to which item “its” refers back. NEB is better with its inter-
pretation of 31 as the continuation of 30 and its rendering: “the strongest tree
shall become like tow, and what is made of it shall go up in sparks.” Variant
translations are given in a footnote: “the strong man” for “the strongest tree”
and “what he makes” for “what is made of it.” REB keeps the rendering of
NEB with minor stylistic changes, but regards the footnotes as super˘uous.
Nearly all modern translations consider wOl[}poW to mean “his work.” The only ex-
ception is GrN which follows the majority of translations of the 16th century
interpreting the word as “worker” along the lines of Jewish exegesis. ˆsjh is
taken to mean “˘ax” and the total sense is: the ˘ax will become tow and its
worker (i.e. God) becomes a spark. (A. Schoors, 1972, 35 and Tsevat, 1967,
261–263). In the restructured translation, God becomes the agent of “break-

ing” and “kindling.” It has been noted in the past (Ehrentreu, 6–8) that even if
ˆsj is taken to mean “strong,” a play upon words between ˆsoj; and ˆs,jo, “strong”
and “˘ax” was certainly intended.
When the interpretation “strong” and “his work” is chosen, the translator
should show the close relationship with the immediate preceding context as
in NEB/REB or GN: Wer glaubte, stark zu werden, ist dann wie trockener
Zunder, und was er getan hat, wird zum zündenden Funken,” “He who thought
to become strong will then be like dry tinder, and what he has done will be-
come a kindling spark.” Such a relationship will also be established in a trans-
lation along the lines of Moâtt: “Strong men shall become like tow, their idols
like a spark” (so also Kimchi). It may be useful to give the variant translation
in a well-conceived note (GrN). This could certainly be done in a Study Bible
or in a translation with Jewish participation. The pun too could have an appro-
priate place in such a footnote.
2.6
Textual Decisions
According to many scholars, the Hebrew sentence μd<Q,mi Wal]m; yKi, “they are
full from the Orient,” does not make su¯cient sense and several corrections
have been proposed. A few centuries ago, Lowth had already suggested that
originally the word μs;qmi, “divination,” preceded the word μd<Q,mi, but that it had
disappeared from all witnesses through a kind of haplography. More recently
Driver has conjectured on the base of Arabic and Syriac that the Hebrew form
should be vocalized μyDIq'm] in order to obtain a meaning “traders” or “hawk-
ers.” In spite of all this, a B rating has been given to the form μd<Q,mi for mainly
three reasons: (1) 1Q-a and Sym strongly support the Hebrew; (2) all the other
ancient versions do presuppose the same form or a slightly diêrent one: μdqmk;
and (3) the diêrences in meaning can be explained translationally.
The type of correction suggested by Lowth has been taken over by RSV,
NRSV, “they are full of diviners from the east” and GNB, “the land is full of
magic practices from the East.” The ˜rst two translations state in a footnote that
a correction is made and that Hebrew lacks “of diviners,” the last one identi˜es
in a note its translation with the “probable” text, stating that “the Hebrew is un-
clear.” Other translations like BP and EÜ do not follow the haplography thesis,
but simply replace μdqm, “Orient,” by μsqm, “divination,” stating the correction
2.9 Isaiah 1–10 13
in a footnote. As to the Driver conjecture, it is followed in combination with

the haplography thesis in the rendering of REB: “Their towns are ˜lled with
traders from the east.” No footnote is given. The Driver conjecture as such is
rendered by Moâtt and NEB. The last states: “for they are crowded with trad-
ers” and gives in a footnote the pseudo-variant translation “hawkers.” BJ has
understood μd<Q,mi in a temporal and not in a local sense: “car il regorge depuis
longtemps de magiciens.” This rendering, however, presupposes another cor-
rection, namely the suppression of the waw in μynIn“[ow“ ,” “soothsayers.” This sup-
pression is meticulously mentioned in a footnote.
The Hebrew text does not need any correction and textual notes are super-
˘uous. It can be rendered as follows: “they are full of what comes from the Ori-
ent.” It contains the implicit information of “superstition” and “divination,” or,
more generally, of “customs.” In some languages it may be possible to keep the
implicit reference. See TOB: “Ils sont submergés par l’Orient.” In others it
may be necessary to make some explicit statement like in NIV: “They are full
of superstitions from the East.”
2.9
Textual Decisions
Instead of the second person singular imperative of the Hebrew ac;Ti la'w“ ,
“do not forgive,” many witnesses must have read the negation aolw“ , “and not,”
followed by a future tense of the verb. In S and T the second person sg. of the
Hebrew verb has been maintained, in 4Q-a it has been changed into a third
person plural, and in G into a ˜rst person singular. This case is only discussed
in the ñal report and no committee rating has been attributed to any text.
Nevertheless, the Hebrew has been preferred for two reasons: (1) it is sup-
ported by Aq, Sym and V and (2) the other readings seem to be softening and
facilitating, since they want to avoid the impression that the prophet would
have summoned God not to forgive.
NEB has the deviating rendering “and how can they raise themselves?,”
called the “probable reading” in a footnote. This translation is indirectly based
upon Duhm’s proposal to read μh,l; taec] ˆyaew“, “and no rise for them.” This con-
jecture, however, which presupposes a metathesis açt÷taç is not very convinc-
ing, and it has been abandoned in REB. But REB does not render 9b at all, basing
itself for this omission on 1Q-a according to the footnote. Before Qumran dis-
coveries Moâtt had already done the same.
Most modern translations keep the Hebrew imperative. EÜ, probably in˘u-
enced by Wildberger, tells the reader in a footnote that the contextual meaning
of the short sentence is not entirely clear. BJ connects 9b more meaningfully
with its preceding context by rendering: “ne les relève pas.” FC does the same:
Et toi, Seigneur, ne les relève surtout pas,” but it gives the variant translation
“ne leur pardonne pas” in a footnote.
No conjectures should be followed and the information of 9b should not
be omitted in the translation. Although translations like BJ and FC ingeniously
link 9b with 9a, they choose a clearly secondary meaning of the Hebrew verb,
better to be mentioned in a footnote. The primary meaning “to forgive” or its
receptor equivalent should be used in the text. In some cases, stylistic reasons
may impose a softening translation (compare TOB: “tu ne saurais leur par-
donner”), but wherever possible, an imperative should be preferred. Translators
may want to make the adressee explicit as in GNB: “Do not forgive them, Lord.”
2.10
Textual Decisions
G has the additional information o{tan ajnasth≥' qrau'sai th;n gh'n, “when
he shall rise to shatter the earth,” at the end of the verse. As to other Hebrew
evidence, verses 9b and 10 are lacking in 1Q-a and it is di¯cult to evaluate
this absence correctly. 4Q-b supports the shorter Hebrew and the only Hebrew
manuscript in favor of the longer text (Kennicot 96) is late and its evidence
can be neglected. All the other versions agree with the shorter Hebrew text.
Moreover G can easily be explained by an assimilation with the two other oc-
currences of the same refrain (verses 19 and 21) in which the additional sen-
tence of verse 10 is also present in the Hebrew. For that reason a B rating has
been given to the shorter text.
The only modern translation which follows G is BJ, “quand il se lèvera
pour faire trembler la terre.” It should, however, be noted that G is also present
in a number of its daughter versions which are used as base texts for modern
translations. In the case of Orthodox projects, or interconfessional projects in
Orthodox majority situations, it may therefore be necessary to adopt the longer
text. As the reasons of G to give additional information may have been stylistic
(harmonization of refrain) and not textual, there are no objections to adopting
here the Orthodox tradition. Nevertheless, the shorter Hebrew text (which is to
be preferred!) should be mentioned in a footnote.
2.12 Isaiah 1–10 15
2.12
Textual Decisions
Half of the committee has given a C rating to M lpev;w“ aC;nIAlK; l['w“, “and
against everything which is exalted, but which will be humbled,” the other half
has equally given a C rating to the reading of 1Q-a: lpçw açnw , “and exalted,
but it will be humbled.”
The longer text of G presents not only, as in the Hebrew, two synonyms in
the ˜rst half line of the verse, but in the second half as well: kai; ejpi; pavnta
uJyhlo;n kai; metevwron kai; tapeinwqhvsontai, “and upon everyone that is high
and towering, and they shall be brought down.” This longer text should, how-
ever, be considered as secondary, since the synonym may render a literary con-
cern of the translator and the verb which re˘ects the Hebrew is attested by the
total Greek manuscript tradition.
The English Bible translation is remarkably united in the rendering “against
all that is lifted up and high” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB). The only exception is
NIV which renders the Hebrew “and they will be humbled,” but places it within
parentheses. Most translations honestly state in a footnote that this reading is
obtained through correction and they invite the readers to compare their
translation with G. This probably means that G is supposed to have read orig-
inally H'boG:w“, “and towering,” instead of lpev;w“ and that the Greek reading kai;
tapeinwqhvsontai, “and they shall be brought down,” is a late adaptation to the
Hebrew. Such a conception has been presented by Lagarde and most modern
commentators, and it can be reconstructed from the apparatus in BHS. Con-
trary to this English tradition, translations in French and German are uniformly
based on the Hebrew.
In the ñal report translators are advised to translate either M or 1Q-a and
to put the rendering which has not been chosen in the text in a footnote. Since
the diêrences between the translations of the two texts are rather subtle, it may
not always be possible to follow this advice. One may render both indistinctly
without making a textual note, as has been done in GNB: “On that day the Lord
Almighty will humble everyone who is powerful, everyone who is proud and
conceited.” In languages without passive voice such a rendering becomes even
obligatory. Corrections should be avoided and certainly no comparison with G
should be suggested in a footnote as G stays rather close to M.
2.19
Textual Decisions
An evaluation A has been assigned to the Hebrew verbal form Wab;W , “and
they shall go,” although one often proposed to change its vocalization in such
a way that a plural imperative WaboW , “go!,” is obtained. Reason for this proposal
is the parallel form in the same refrain of verse 10: awOB which has been inter-
preted by many scholars as a singular imperative “go.” The Hebrew form Wab;W
was nevertheless preferred for three reasons: (1) this form is supported by V,
S and T; (2) G has a peculiar reading eijsenevgkanteı, “carry into,” “And they
shall hide all idols made with hands, having carried them into the caves.” This
rendering is closely connected with the particular interpretation G gives of
verse 18. One can say, however, that the Greek translator has made an active-
causative transformation of the same verb and that the indicative mood of the
verb is presupposed; (3) it is far from certain that awOB in verse 10 should be
interpreted as an imperative form. It can also and better be read as an absolute
inñitive: “It is a matter of going into . . . ,” “da wird es gelten” (Ehrlich, 11).
When dealing with 2.19, it may be useful to check the translation of 2.10
at the same time. A number of translations follow the conjectural imperative
vocalization in verse 19 without signaling this in a footnote. The tendency to
harmonize is sometimes strong, e.g. NEB: “Get you into the rocks” (2.10),
“Get you into caves in the rocks” (2.19). The vast majority of translations fol-
low the Hebrew in verse 19, but they render awOB in verse 10 as an imperative.
So e.g. NIV: “Go into the rocks” (2.10), “Men will ˘ee to caves in the rocks”
(2.19). Very few translations render awOB in 2.10 as an absolute inñitive. There
are two outstanding examples of such a rendering: BR “Da kommt man in die
Felskluft” (2.10), “da man kommt in die Höhlen der Felsen” (2.19) and GNB:
“They will hide in caves in the rocky hills” (2.10), “People will hide in caves
in the rocky hills” (2.19).
Translators should not give in to the conjectural vocalization in verse 19.
They are even urged not to render the form in verse 10 as an imperative and
to prefer the interpretation of the form as an absolute inñitive. It may be dif-
˜cult, however, to start a new paragraph in verse 10 with the information: “It
will be a matter of going into . . . .” In such a case, and in order to guarantee
a smooth transition with the preceding paragraph, an indicative could be used
as in GNB.
3.1 Isaiah 1–10 17
3.1
Textual Decisions
Commentators have generally felt that the last sentence of the verse fol-
lowing the expression hn:[ev]m'W ˆ[ev]m', “stay (= support) and staˆ,” “the whole
stay of bread, and the whole stay of water,” is a later editorial gloss. This
explanatory gloss would connect the prophecy with a state of famine brought
about by the siege of Jerusalem. “Stay and staˆ ” are metaphors of military
and political powers, described in verses 2–3, and the sentence about “bread
and water” disturbs this connection. It would therefore have to be omitted. In
this case (only presented in the ñal report and not submitted to a vote of the
committee) several arguments plead against such an omission: (1) none of the
ancient versions omitted the sentence, which was therefore part of the canoni-
cally received Isaiah text; (2) the “editorial gloss” is particular to Isaiah, as a
comparison with 25.6 shows; (3) the word for “bread” reoccurs in verse 7 and
is a formal feature of inclusion.
This problem is not an isolated one and the type of problem will continu-
ally present itself to translators. The principles of each translation will there-
fore have to deñe whether the translation will uniquely re˘ect the canonical
shape of the text, or whether it will take into account the prehistory of the text
and/or its hermeneutical post history as well. It is only on the base of such
principles that correct proposals of translation can be made.
For translations based on the canonical shape of the text, M should be
translated and no note should be made. If the translator feels that the sentence
under discussion disturbs the progression of the discourse, he could put it set
oˆ with dashes as in BJ “—toute réserve de pain et toute réserve d ’eau—.”
When the principles of a translation admit an annotation regarding the pre-
history of the text, and when the translator is convinced of the gloss character
of the sentence, two ways can be followed: (1) the sentence can be put into the
text between brackets and a note can be provided as in EÜ “Späterer Zusatz,
der im Gegensatz zu den Versen 2 und 3 steht” or (2) the sentence can be omit-
ted from the text and given in a footnote as in NEB and REB.
3.10
Textual Decisions
A majority rating B has been attributed to the reading of M Wrm]ai, “tell,” so
that the sentence literally runs: “tell the righteous that it shall be well with
them.” The main reason for this vote is the solid support given to this reading
by 1Q-a and all the other ancient witnesses. It is di¯cult to trace back the He-
brew Vorlage of G which reads: kaqΔ eJautw' n eijpovnte" dhvswmen to;n divkaion,
o{ti duvscrhsto" hJmi'n ejstin, “saying against themselves, let us bind the just,
for he is burdensome to us.” This presupposes the existence of a doublet Wrm]ai
WrS]ai, “tell/saying, bind,” as was seen by Cappel (1684, 493). The expression
WrS]ai, “bind,” forced the Greek translator to change bwOf, “good/well,” frequently
rendered in G by crhstov",” into its antonym duvscrhsto".
BHS goes still further and proposes to read yrEv]a', “happy,” which results in:
“Happy the righteous! All goes well with them.” But the ˜rst half of the dou-
blet Wrmai, “tell,” of which kaqΔ eJautw' n eijpovnte", “saying,” may be the transla-
tion, has been omitted in this proposal. Moreover, to arrive at a conjecture yrEv]a',
“happy,” one has to presuppose a series of misunderstandings: rsa > rca > yrva.
Many of the older and some of the more recent commentaries (Wildberger)
pronounce themselves in favor of the conjectural reading “happy.” Such a read-
ing is also imposed by the critical apparatus of BHS. Therefore, it is no wonder
that some modern translations follow the advice: NEB, REB, GNB, EÜ, RL
etc., normally with a note showing the correction of the Hebrew. If, however,
as is recommended, M is followed in translating, an interpretational problem
may be involved. The prophet is supposed to be the speaker of verse 10, but
who is the adressee of the imperative “say”? According to Bahbout (24–25) the
judges are addressed by the prophet and they are asked to declare that the righ-
teous are good. This would be a reaction against those who declare the evil
good and the good evil (5.20) and it would prepare the statement of 3.12. This
interpretation would need more explicit information in translation. On the other
hand, the Hebrew verb can simply be taken as a verb of “re˘ection,” and not
of “saying,” and this would certainly be in agreement with the typical wisdom
context of 10–11. The prophet will then continue to address the same audience.
If the last (and easiest) solution is adopted, GrN or GN may be taken as a
kind of model: “Denkt daran: Wer Gott gehorcht, um den ist es gut bestellt,”
“think of this (take into consideration) all goes well with him who obeys God.”
3.12 Isaiah 1–10 19
3.12
Textual Decisions
The textual problem in this case is a matter of vocalization. One should
either read with M (and Sym, V and S) μyvin:, “women,” in which case the mean-
ing of the sentence is “and women rule over them,” or, one should read with
G, Aq, Th and T μyvinO “usurers,” in which case the meaning is: “and usurers rule
over them.” The last reading is the preferred one, although it only received a
C rating. Any textual decision will be dependent upon how the preceding par-
allel half line, and in particular the word llewO[m], a noun for “children” or the
participle of “to strip bare” is understood. Consequently: “My people, its rulers
are children,” or, “my people, its rulers are stripping it bare.” Backed up by all
the ancient versions, the committee judged it preferable to attribute to llewO[m] the
metaphorical meaning of “stripping bare,” which makes a meaning “usurers”
more probable in the second half line than a meaning “women.”
In this case one is faced with a strong interdependence of a textual (μyvn)
and an interpretational (llewO[m]) problem. Solutions will be largely conditioned
by the starting point of the argument. If the vocalization of M with the implied
meaning “women” is taken as a starting point, “children” will be the condi-
tioned parallel meaning. One may even want to quote an Arabic proverb in
support: “I am ˘ying to God from the dominion of youngsters and from the
government of women.” (Delitzsch, 87, note 1). The whole will result in a
reading like NIV: “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.” If, on
the other hand, llewO[m] is taken as point of departure, and if it is taken to mean
speci˜cally “to strip bare” (literally “to glean,” i.e. even after the vintage the
rulers come back again and again to see whether something is left to be taken),
or, in vaguer terms, “to do evil to,” “usurers” will be the conditioned parallel
meaning in the second half line and a revocalization μyvinO imposes itself. The
result will be a translation like FC: “Mon peuple, dit le Seigneur, ceux qui
dominent sur toi sont des rapaces; ce sont des gens avides qui excercent le
pouvoir.” A third possibility of interpretation, which is closely related to the
meaning “child”: llewO[m] has still to be mentioned. It is derived from an other-
wise unattested verb ll'[; with the meaning “acting the child.” (BDB) This seems
to be the interpretation behind BR: “Mein Volk, spielerisch ist seiner Treiber
ein jeder Weiber walten ihm ob,” “My people, each one of its oppressors plays
the child, women play the lord over it.”
In agreement with the textual decision, preference should be given to a
rendering like GN: “‘Du mein Volk,’ sagt der Herr, ‘Ausbeuter herrschen über
dich, Wucherer saugen dich aus’” (compare also GNB). The variant transla-
tion, however, should be given as a whole in a footnote. “My people—children
are their oppressors, and women rule over them,” because the possibility of a
double entendre exists. Reference may even be made to 3.4: “And I will make
boys their princes, and babes shall rule over them,” and to the following section
3.16–4.1 in which “women are the central theme” (Marti, 40).
3.13
Textual Decisions
M, followed by 1Q-a, V and T, reads μyMi[', “peoples,” “he stands to judge
the peoples,” whereas G, followed by S, renders to;n lao;n aujtou', “his people,”
“he enters into judgment with his people.” M has received a B evaluation, since
it clearly is the most di¯cult reading, whereas G, and also S, can both be ex-
plained through assimilation to the immediate context, especially that of verse
14 where the reading wOM[', “his people,” is found.
Most commentators simply follow G under contextual constraints: three
times “my people” in 12 and 15, once “his people” in 14. Reading wOM[' “his
people,” with G in 13 as well would even produce a nice chiasm! Most modern
translators feel the same obligations. Some commentators have tried to save
the reading of M by giving the plural “peoples” the contextual meaning of the
“tribes” of Israel. This seems to be rather far-fetched. The more di¯cult mean-
ing of M, however, makes excellent sense. After the description of the univer-
sal judgment of all peoples, God’s people is mentioned speci˜cally and among
this people its leaders (Delitzsch, 88).
The particular rhetoric device which helps to provide a surprise focus on
the people of God may be very well kept in many translations. See e.g. NRSV:
“The Lord rises to argue his case; he stands to judge the peoples.” Translators
who feel that they have to respect certain contextual constraints can act like
G and render: “The Lord is ready to state his case; he is ready to judge his
people” like GNB. They should not develop textual notes like in GNB, FC,
GN, etc. In fact, they act translationally like G and they should not presuppose
a diêrent Vorlage of M, in spite of the vague clavis of the ñal report.
3.24 Isaiah 1–10 21
3.24
Textual Decisions
In this case the textual problem has been provoked by an interpretational
one. If Hebrew yKi in the last half line of the verse is taken to be a noun with
the meaning “(mark of ) branding,” one obtains a balanced sentence reading “a
mark of branding instead of beauty.” If, on the other hand, yKi is considered to
be the usual conjunction, one either gets an incomplete sentence, “for instead
of beauty,” or an abbreviated one, “yes, instead of beauty,” depending upon the
meaning one wants to give to the conjunction. The copyist of 1Q-a, who was
not aware of a substantival meaning of yKi, took it to be the conjunction and
completed the incomplete sentence by adding tvb, “shame,” “instead of beauty,
shame.” G only kept the word for “beauty” and combined it with the next sen-
tence in a free rendering: “and your most beautiful son whom you love, shall
fall by the sword.” V and T took similar options. On the other hand, the He-
brew consonantal text is strongly supported by Aq, Sym, and S as well as by
the Greek Antioch tradition. It is, therefore, no wonder that M as more di¯cult
reading has been preferred and that a majority rating B has been given to it.
The ancient versions which took yKi as a conjunction and which connected
24b with 25, did not have many adherents. The ancient tradition, on the other
hand, which glossed yKi as “this” or “all this” and which made an independent,
abbreviated, sentence of a concluding nature out of 24b, had somewhat more
success. It is even re˘ected in Luther 1545: “Solchs alles an stat deiner schöne,”
“all this instead of your beauty.” The interpretation of yKi as a noun has, however,
become most popular, although it is not entirely unproblematic (Wildberger,
136). The oldest interpretation of yKi as a noun with the meaning “burning” can
only be found in the Talmud Babli (Shabbat 62b) where the Babylonian Amor-
ite Raba (˜rst half of 4th cent. AD) observes that Is. 3.24b resembles the prov-
erb which said: “instead of beauty burning.” Even then it must be said that the
editions of the Talmud read: “instead of beauty ab;yKe, “ulcers,” and that, in order
to obtain the meaning “burning,” one has to follow the reading ha;w:k] given by
Radaq and adopted by Kimchi. Positively, it can be said that a root hwk with a
meaning “to burn” exists in Biblical Hebrew and is even attested in Is. (43.2).
For translational reasons it is certainly important to know what the cause
or purpose of a “mark of branding” was. The two most important of the ex-
planations which have been given are: (1) the marks of branding were stigmata
caused by a therapeutical application against certain illnesses, and (2) they were
marks on the forehead of slaves. The last explanation seems to be the most
probable.
In recent translations a tendency exists to prefer the reading of 1Q-a, “in-
stead of beauty, shame,” either with a footnote, as in RSV, NRSV and FC, or
without, as in GNB and EÜ. From the preceding discussion it will have become
clear that there is no reason to follow this trend. Translators are encouraged to
render yKi as a noun in the sense of “mark of branding,” although certain rela-
tionships in the sentence may need more explicitness in translation. One may
have to say “instead of beauty the shame of a mark of branding.” One may even
want to put some cultural note like in NIV: “Captives were treated like cattle.
They were led away by ropes and sometimes branded.”
4.5
Textual Decisions
The textual problem of this verse, which has been the despair of genera-
tions of commentators, is in fact a syntactical, and therefore an interpretational
problem.
One of the syntactical divisions would yield as translation: “for over all
the glory there will be a covering,” the other one: “for glory will be a covering
over all.” Main issue therefore is whether there is a semantic discontinuation
after lk, “all,” or not.
For M there is not and its syntactic division is supported by 4Q-a, G, V and S.
1Q-a is indecisive in this respect because of a lacuna. The blank is due to
a mistake of the scribe who jumped by accident from μm;wOy, “by day,” in verse
5 to the same word in verse 6.
On the other hand, the Alexandrian group of manuscripts of the LXX has
felt the necessity to qualify “the glory” as “the glory of the Lord.”
T does the same in choosing the other syntactic option: “for with greater
glory than that which he promised to bring upon it (i.e. the sanctuary) shall the
Shekinah be protecting it as with a canopy” (Stenning 14).
Both the external and the internal evidence in favor of the syntactical di-
vision of M are very strong and it is therefore no wonder that a B rating has
been attributed to it.
Many of the modern translations seem to opt for what the committee con-
sidered the wrong syntactical construction. The semantic implication of such an
option is that the “glory” can only be the “glory of the Lord” and this implicit
information has to be made explicit in some way. So in REB: “for his glory
will be a canopy over all,” or, with even more explicitness, in GNB: “God’s
glory will cover and protect the whole city.” One can ask whether these trans-
5.9 Isaiah 1–10 23
lations do not only testify to a wrong syntax, but also to a wrong grammar.
Especially when Rosenmüller is right with his statement that dwObK;, “glory,” with-
out the deñite article never refers to the glory of God. If this is true, the glory
can only be the glory, or the glorious condition, of Jerusalem which will be
further protected (Delitzsch, 101).
The syntactic division and implied interpretation of M are behind transla-
tions like NRSV, “Indeed over all the glory there will be a canopy” and SR,
“Car tout ce qui est glorieux sera mis à couvert,” which can therefore be used
as a literal model. Translators may, however, want to make explicit that the
“glory” is the glory of Jerusalem, as in NFB: “want al dy hearlikheid sil ôfsket
wurde mei in tintkleed en tûken,” “for all your glory (i.e. of Sion) will be pro-
tected with a baldaquin.”
5.9
Textual Decisions
M has a very concise text: twOab;x] hw:hy“ yn:z“a;B] in my ears, Lord of Hosts,” and
ancient versions as G, S and T already felt the need to make a verb “hear,” ex-
plicit in the translation or to provide at least a minimal gloss: “sunt haec,” “are
these,” like V.
Especially G has drawn the attention, and it has been suggested that Greek
hjkouvsqh, “were heard,” was the result of a misreading of an original Hebrew
[B'v]nI, “he has sworn,” as [m'v]nI, “was heard.” This conjecture, ˜rst launched by
Marti, has been taken over by many recent commentators. The committee has
nevertheless given a B rating to M for two main reasons: (1) the strong support
it receives from 1Q-a and (2) the fact that all versions had to provide some
form of explicit information on translational grounds.
The only interpretational problem is whether the possessive su¯x in the
Hebrew for “my ears” refers to the Lord or to the prophet. For G the ˜rst is the
case: hjkouvsqh ga;r eij" ta; w\ta kurivou sabawq tau'ta, “For these things have
reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts.” Such an interpretation and translation
are not impossible. They have, however, received little modern support since
Luther 1545: “Es ist für den Ohren des HERRN Zebaoth.” In the light of the
parallel text 22.14 it is more probable that the possessive su¯x refers to the
prophet and that, in view of the following oath formula, a verb “to swear” has
been left implicit as self-evident.
In modern translations explicit information will likewise have to be pro-
vided, not on textual, but on translational grounds. In interconfessional projects
with Orthodox participation it should be considered whether G and its adapta-
tion to the prophetic discourse of 8–10 can be taken as a model. Otherwise
NRSV can be taken as an example, “the Lord of Hosts has sworn in my hear-
ing,” or REB, “In my hearing the Lord of Hosts made this solemn oath: . . . .”
On a common language level it can simply be stated: “I have heard the oath of
the Lord of the universe,” or, more neutrally, “I have heard the Lord Almighty
say” (GNB).
5.13
Textual Decisions
In M “the nobles” in verse 5.13 become b[;r: ytem], literally “men of hunger,”
whereas two Hebrew manuscripts, G, Sym, V, S and T seem to have followed
a diêrent vocalization b[;r: yteme, “dying of hunger.” In spite of majority evi-
dence for the last vocalization, a B rating has been attributed to M for mainly
two reasons: (1) in view of the relationship between “hunger” and “dying” the
vocalization yteme is clearly facilitating and (2) as 1Q-a has the same orthography
as M, this should be interpreted as a support. For everywhere else in Is where
M has tme in the singular or plural, 1Q-a has a scriptio plena with yod, tyme. On
the other hand, the quotation in the commentary on Isaiah, found in Qumran
cave 4 (4Q162), does not permit any conclusion because of its generally de-
fective writing.
Probably in˘uenced by the imperative “read” in the apparatus of BHS,
translations generally tend to follow the ancient versions. Interestingly, there
is a diêrent tendency among commentators. Since the last century (Hitzig,
Roorda, Ewald, Böttcher, Delitzsch, Duhm) up till very recently (Wildberger,
Clements) the emendation yzEm], “exhausted,” has been proposed on the base of
Deut. 32.24, “exhausted from hunger,” as a better parallel with “parched with
thirst” in the second half line of 13b. This purely conjectural reading has not
been taken into account because of lack of textual evidence. Ehrlich refers to
Gen. 34.30 where he remarks (1908, 176) that μytim] always has a pejorative
meaning of “poor devil” and thinks (1912, 21) that M should not be changed.
5.17 Isaiah 1–10 25
Translations, as said above, tend to follow the ancient versions in such ren-
derings as “die of hunger” (NIV, NRSV) and “starve to death” (GNB, REB).
The correctness of such translations is largely dependent on the degree of ˜gu-
rativeness verbs as “to die” or “to starve” have in the context. Since exter-
mination through hunger was not the aim of the exile, any literalness should
be avoided. Compare the idiomatic rendering in GrN: “de adel zal vergaan
van honger.” “Vergaan” is literally “to die,” but the expression “vergaan van
honger” only means “to be very hungry.” Sometimes it may be better to avoid
ambiguity and render the text along the lines of GN: “Die Angesehenen müssen
Hunger leiden,” “the nobles will suêr from hunger.” If a possibility exists to
express the negative associate meaning indicated by Ehrlich, it should be
seized. Compare Barthélemy (34): “sa glorieuse élite: des pauvres aâmés.”
The conjectural reading should be avoided. Only older translations have
occasionally followed it.
5.17
Textual Decisions
In this verse there are two important textual problems which, at the same
time, are problems of interpretation. A literal rendering of M would yield the fol-
lowing text: “And sheep will graze as in their (own) μr:b]d:K], pasture, and the ruins
of the prosperous μyrIG: , strangers, will eat.” The only really deviating ancient
version is G with its reading: “And they that were spoiled (oiJ dihrpasmevnoi =
? μyviBuK] for M μycib;k]) will be fed as bulls (wJ" tau'roi = ? μyrIyBia'K;) and lambs
(a[rne" = ? μyId:G“) will feed on the waste places of them that are taken away.” As
becomes already clear from the above translation, it is very di¯cult to guess
what G has understood from the Hebrew. The majority B rating given to M is
therefore no surprise. M is in fact fully supported by Aq, Sym, V and S. 4Q-b,
although it is full of lacunae, supports at least the reading μyrg , and 1Q-a sup-
ports only in one case through its full writing μyçwbk what could have been the
base of G.
There does not seem to be any particular problem of interpretation in the
˜rst half line. In the second half line, on the contrary, there are two main prob-
lems. The ˜rst is whether μyjime, “fatt,” is the genitive of the preceding noun
twObr“j;w“ , “ruins,” in which case it will have to be taken in a metaphorical sense
as “ruins of the prosperous,” or whether it should be taken as a qualifying ad-
jective with the next word μyrIG: in the sense of “transhumant fatlings” or “fat-
lings on the move.” They would then “eat the ruins,” i.e. the abandoned orchards
and vineyards, the fences of which are broken down. Herewith also the second
problem is touched upon. M does not necessarily mean “strangers”; it can in
the light of 11.6, also have the meaning of “transhumant ˘ock.” Procksch (94–
95) has drawn the attention to the fact that 17 has a chiastic structure and that
in this structure μyvib;k] and μyrIG: correspond with each other. If structure can be
decisive, the ˜rst interpretation of the ˜rst problem should be preferred and
μyrIG: should be taken to mean “transhumant ˘ock.” It is less likely that μyrIG:
would stand for “wandering shepherds.” This preferred interpretation of the
preliminary report is no longer mentioned in the ñal one.
Both NEB and REB presuppose too many arbitrary changes in the text to
be acceptable. NIV comes close to the ˜rst interpretation “Then sheep will
graze as in their own pasture; lambs will feed among the ruins of the rich” and
gives a textual note, which can be considered as super˘uous. GN is not far
from the chosen interpretation: “Zwischen den Trümmern der Stadt weiden die
Schafe, und was die Reichen in ihren Ruinen zurücklassen mußten, das essen die
umherziehenden Hirten auf,” “Among the remains of the city the sheep graze,
and what the rich had to abandon in their ruins, the wandering shepherds eat.”
Nevertheless the word “Hirten,” “shepherds,” has to be changed into “Herden,”
“˘ock,” to obtain a usuable translation model.
5.18
Textual Decisions
The ñal report, in contrast with the preliminary one, signals two diêrent
textual problems, the ˜rst one being on a syntactical, the second one on word
level. The ˜rst problem is that M, followed by 1Q-a, 4Q-a, 4Q-b, V, T and pos-
sibly Aq, reads one metaphor: “with cords of deceit” and one comparison: “as
(with) a cart rope,” showing an alternation of the prepositions b], “with,” and k],
“as.” G, S and Sym, on the other hand, have read a comparison twice and
˜fteen manuscripts (Kennicot and de Rossi) have read both times a metaphor.
In both instances a harmonizing and facilitating reading of twice the same
preposition is concerned and therefore a B evaluation has been given to the
reading of M.
The second problem, far more interpretational than textual, concerns the
vocalization and interpretation of M hlg[h which only G seems to have read
hl;g“[,h;, with the meaning “heifer”: damavlew". In spite of some confusions, both
S and T seem to prefer a meaning “chariot,” in agreement with M, Sym and V.
Moreover the association of a rope with a cart seems more natural than the
5.26 Isaiah 1–10 27
association rope / heifer, and therefore a B evaluation was given to M in this

case as well.
In the light of these decisions, it seems rather problematic to follow G by
introducing the “heifer” into the translation. It seems even more problematic
to give the “heifer” the company of a “sheep” by emending the last word of
the ˜rst half line as has been done in NEB: “Shame on you! you who drag
wickedness along like a tethered sheep and sin like a heifer on a rope.” Since
Ehrlich (22) such an emendation has hardly been defended in scholarship, and
it is therefore strange to see that the changes in REB are only syntactical.
In the ñal report it is repeatedly stressed that the meaning of M twOb[} is
singular (a rope) and that the plural translation of many translators is the result
of a lack of attention. The plural rendering may nevertheless have been in-
spired by stylistic arguments, and this discussion therefore does not seem too
important. The distinction between metaphor and comparison, however, is es-
sential, especially when Mowinckel (1921, 51) and Wildberger (193) are right
in their presupposition that “cord of deceit” refers to the knotted strands of a
cord used in Babylonian magical ritual to attract evil.
A literal translation could follow NIV as its model: “Woe to those who
draw sin along with cords of deceit, and wickedness as with cart ropes.” In a
study edition of the Bible it may be good to cite, as NIV does, the contrastive
parallel of Hosea 11.4: “I led them with cords of human kindness” and to refer
to the Babylonian practice mentioned above. Functional equivalence transla-
tions may have some problems with the metaphor and comparison. Elimination
of both along the lines of TEV, “You are doomed! You are unable to break free
from your sins,” should, however, be avoided in order to prevent serious loss
of impact. In some languages, the metaphor may have to be changed into an
idiom and the comparison kept. In others the comparison may have to be
spelled out.
5.26
Textual Decisions
M presents a syntactical problem: the noun μyIwOG , “nations,” has a plural
form, but these same “nations” are twice referred to in the singular in the same
verse, “he whistles for it” and “it comes.” Therefore, it has generally been pro-
posed that the plural should be changed into a more “original” singular ywOG, “na-
tion.” Two possible explanations have been given for the “wrong” reading of
M: since the following word qwOjr:me, “distant,” starts with a mem, a copyist
could have been victim of so-called dittography, or a copyist could have made
a wrong word division and the original text would have read qj;r“M,mi ywOG , “a na-
tion from far away.” The last explanation has almost universally been accepted
since Roorda, especially since the same expression reoccurs in Jer. 5.15.
In spite of all this, a B evaluation has been given to M because it is the
lectio di¯cilior which is, in addition, supported by 1Q-a, V and T. In fact, both
G and S present facilitating readings, since they harmonize by using every-
where the plural (not the singular!).
It is possible, indeed, to explain the shift from plural to singular in M
through a change of focus. In the following verses the nations now present
themselves as the unique army, as a coherent body of indeñite shape (Del-
itzsch, 118). The problem, however, is that not all languages are able to make
such a shift. Translators may even have to be alerted as to the existence of a
problem! For almost all modern translations have made the harmonization by
changing the Hebrew plural noun into a singular one without informing the
reader in a footnote about the existence of a textual problem. Only TEV and
GN tell their readers that they have followed a diêrent and more “probable”
Hebrew text, whereas the footnote of FC refers to Jer. 5.15 so that (only!) the
insider knows that the Roorda reading has been followed.
When the receptor language requires a harmonization, G and S should be
used as a model and plurals should be used throughout. NIV is one of the rare
translations having done this and it could therefore serve as a model in En-
glish: “He lifts up a banner for the distant nations, he whistles for those at the
ends of the earth. Here they come, swiftly and speedily!” Such a harmoniza-
tion has, of course, the advantage of making any textual note super˘uous.
6.10
Textual Decisions
Instead of the Hebrew series of imperatives: “Make the mind of this peo-
ple dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes,” G has read forms of the aorist
indicative: “For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed.” Since Cappel (1684, 496) it
has been noted that G may have vocalized the ˜rst Hebrew form as a hophal
ˆm'v]h;. But this seems unlikely as the hophal indicative of this verb does not
occur (de Waard, 1965, 6–8). G is supported by Sym, S and, very indirectly,
6.13 Isaiah 1–10 29
by 1Q-a, whereas V and T follow M. M has received a mixed B/C rating for
the following reasons: (1) even if G would have read a hophal form of the ˜rst
verb, it could not have done so in the case of the two remaining verbs, which
are in the singular, whereas Hebrew syntax would require a plural with the two
dual forms for “ears” and “eyes”; (2) G and 1Q-a only have in common the fact
that they have avoided a statement according to which God would have ordered
the prophet to make the mind of the people dull, etc. In other words, one faces
here a modi˜cation for theological reasons. (3) If G would be original, it could
hardly be understood how the more di¯cult reading of M came into being.
Translators may not be aware of the existence of this problem, since it is
mostly ignored by commentators and since it does not ˜gure in the apparatus
of our Hebrew Bibles. To our knowledge, NEB has been the ˜rst modern trans-
lation to reintroduce the indicative mood: “This people’s wits are dulled, their
ears are deafened and their eyes blinded.” The translators did not ñd it nec-
essary to give any justi˜cation of this version in a footnote. REB adapted this
to a slightly more “common” language and proposed M as an alternative read-
ing in a footnote. All other translations render the Hebrew imperatives although
occasionally the harshness implied in the direct speech may have been taken
away. See BR: “Zu verfetten ist das Herz dieses Volks, seine Ohren zu ver-
stumpfen, seine Augen zu verkleben.”
It cannot be the task of the translator to eliminate consciously or uncon-
sciously a theological problem in his translation. Nor is it his task to charge
himself with all the responsibilities of the exegete. He will therefore have to
render the imperatives of M, paying above all attention to the correct render-
ing of the Hebrew idioms. In Study Bibles and in interconfessional transla-
tions with Orthodox participation, a note highlighting the theological factors
may be necessary.
6.13
Textual Decisions
This very di¯cult verse presents two main problems: (a) which text should
be read and (b) the interpretation of this text. The ˜rst problem will be dealt
with here, the second will be discussed in the next section.
The imagination of researchers has especially been excited by the diêr-
ent readings of 1Q-a: tklçm for M tk,L,v'B] and hmb for M μB;. These diêr-
ences have inspired Iwry (1957, 225–232) to an entirely new interpretation:
“Like a terebinth, or an oak, or an Asherah, when ˘ung down from the sacred
column of a high place,” an interpretation, which with minor modi˜cations,
can be found back only in NEB.
The last words of the verse HT;b]X'm' vd<qo [r"z< often rendered in English as
“holy seed is its stump,” are lacking in G and S, and for that reason many trans-
lations put this part of the verse between brackets (Moâtt, NAB, TEV, EÜ).
Some even do not translate it at all (LV).
M nevertheless received a C evaluation in both textual problems. For in
1Q-a an important space separates hmb from tbxm, and since such spaces have
a semantic function in this manuscript, hmb can only be taken with the follow-
ing, and not with the preceding information. Iwry’s interpretation is therefore to
be excluded and hmb should probably be considered to be a full spelling of μb.
As to G, it is not a witness of an older and more authentic text, but the trans-
lator must have jumped from tbxm to htbxm and omitted words by “homoio-
arcton,” an identical beginning of words.
The interpretation of this text is very di¯cult. It is not clear, for example,
whether there is a relationship between 13a and 13bc, or between the informa-
tion preceding the comparison and the comparison itself. The last item of 13a
r[eb;l] can be interpreted in diêrent ways: (a) as derived from r[b I in which
case it would mean “to be burned up” (Moâtt); (b) as coming from r[b II in
which case either a speci˜c meaning “to be grazed” (FC, GN) or a generic
meaning “to be destroyed” (REB) could be obtained. The meaning chosen will,
however, largely be dependent upon the deñition of relationship between 13a
and 13bc as well as upon certain interpretations of 13bc.
The two main problems of the comparison are the interpretations of two
lexical items: tk,L,v'B] and tb,X,m'.
The ˜rst one has been interpreted in four diêrent ways: (a) as a proper
name “Shallecheth,” name of a gate of Jerusalem, west of the temple (1 Chron.
26. 16); (b) as “the falling of the leaves” (T: “like a terebinth and like an oak
which appear to be dried up when their leaves fall”; Luther: “welche den
Stamm haben obwohl ihre Blätter abgestossen werden”; KJ: “whose substance
is in them, when they cast their leaves”); (c) as the pruning (of the trees), so
Abravanel; (d) as the cutting down of the trees (all modern translations).
The second lexical item has frequently been interpreted as “rootstock,” or
“stump,” a meaning which becomes contextually obligatory when the trees are
“cut down.” There are, however, considerable doubts as to such a meaning of
tbxm (Baumgartner, Holladay, Wildberger). Another meaning given to the word
is that of “bare trunk,” a meaning which contextually would ˜t into the context
of a bush ˜re or “the pruning of trees.” Cazelles (1975) has even been thinking
of the “Djed pillar” of Egyptian ritual which has the form of a bare trunk. In
6.13 Isaiah 1–10 31
that case Isaiah would have been alluding to the “dynastic stone” and the con-
tinuity of the Davidic dynasty. Finally, Tur-Sinai (169) comparing the Aramaic
root bxn and the translation of S, has proposed a meaning “new planting”: “The
new growth to come forth after the trees have been entirely denuded of foliage
and fruit.” (as cited by Wildberger, GN).
A number of statements can be made:
(1) An imaginative interpretation of 1Q-a along the lines of NEB should be
avoided. It is noteworthy that REB has already followed this advice.
(2) There is no reason to put a translation of 13c between square brackets.
(3) Diêrent interpretations seem to be possible and no translation can there-
fore be considered as compulsory.
(4) Depending upon the type of translation and the particular audience, variant
interpretations could be provided in a footnote.
The two reports give preference to the interpretation of “Shallechet” as a
proper noun. In the ñal report the following translation is proposed: “And if
still a tenth remains, it will be given to the ˜re, as the oak and the terebinth at
Shallechet of which only a trunk remains. This trunk is a holy seed.” The prob-
lem with this proposal is that it is only based upon the oldest Jewish interpre-
tation history (Saadya, Ibn Ezra etc.). Such a translation is still mentioned as
a second possibility in the Geneva Bible of 1588, but it is no longer considered
in modern interpretation history, Jewish interpretation included.
It seems therefore preferable to stay with the closely related interpretation
of the “bare trunk” as a result of burning or pruning, since such an interpre-
tation seems to agree most with the ñdings of modern scholarship. BJ is one
of the rare examples of this interpretation: “Et s’il en reste un dixième, de
nouveau il sera dépouillé, comme le térébinthe et comme le chêne qui une fois
émondés n’ont plus qu’un tronc; leur tronc est une semence sainte,” “And if a
tenth of them remains, it will be despoiled again, as the terebinth and the oak
which, once pruned, only have a trunk; their trunk will be a holy seed.”
Less probable, but still possible, is the interpretation of the bare tree after
the falling of the leaves which is still re˘ected in Luther, KJ and StV.
Still less probable is the interpretation of the felling of the trees which
does not seem to have any ancient support, but which seems to have become
prevalent in modern translations.
7.1
Textual Decisions
Although the Hebrew sentence has two subjects (Rezin, king of Aram and
Pekah, king of Israel) the last ñite verb of the sentence is nevertheless in the
singular lkoy: aolw“, “and he could not.” Only T is following M in this. 1Q-a, G,
V and S all have the verb in the plural. In spite of these many and diverse
witnesses of the plural, an A evaluation has been given to the singular of M
because the plural is seen as an assimilation to the plural in the parallel text 2
Kings 16. 5, and the committee judged that the speci˜c literary character of
each of the parallel texts should be maintained.
In languages in which, unlike English, no grammatical ambiguity exists in
the surface form of the text, the plural form of the verb will not necessarily be
the result of inner Hebrew assimilation. More likely it will be conditioned by
the requirements of the syntactical grammar of the receptor language, espe-
cially when also the ˜rst singular verb of the Hebrew sentence has been ren-
dered with a plural. The only question of importance therefore is whether there
is a particular meaning connected with the singular in M. It seems that through
the use of the singular the initiative of the king of Aram is brought into focus
whereas the activities of the king of Israel become entirely secondary. The next
verse (7.2) underlines the correctness of such a view.
It seems therefore appropriate to translate the verse in such a way that the
focus on Rezin is maintained. For some languages REB could serve as a model:
“When Ahaz son of Jotham and grandson of Uzziah was ruler of Judah, King
Rezin of Aram with Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jeru-
salem, but was unable to reduce it” (so also GrN, BJ, Chouraqui).
7.11
Textual Decisions
The problem in this verse concerns the vocalization and meaning of the
form hl;a;v]. This form could either be interpreted as an imperative “ask,” or as
a noun with the meaning “Sheol,” “underworld” + direction, or, + locative.
Among the ancient versions, T, although it presents a paraphrase, seems to
have read the verb: “Ask for you a sign from the Lord your God, ask that a
miracle be accomplished for you on the earth, or that a sign may be shown to
7.11 Isaiah 1–10 33
you in the heavens.” S certainly has done the same, whereas nothing can be
concluded from 1Q-a because of its defective form. It is also di¯cult to induce
something from G because it presents the information of the verse in a very
compact way. On the other hand, Th, Aq, Sym and V have read the Hebrew
form as a noun for “Sheol.”
Four B votes have been given to the vocalization hl;a;v] of M and the
meaning “sheol” on the basis of the following arguments: the vocalization of
M is a deliberate rhetoric device to permit a more successful assonance with
the following hl;[]m;l] as defended by Vitringa and Ewald, or the vocalization of
M can be considered as a pausal form of hl;aov], as defended by Delitzsch (140).
Two members of the committee, however, thought that the M vocalization im-
plies a meaning “to ask,” that both vocalization and meaning are the result of
a theological correction, and that the original would have read hl;aov]. Accord-
ing to them, the text should be corrected in this sense and they gave a C eval-
uation to this corrected form.
If a correction has taken place on the text of M, it certainly is of a theo-
logical nature. The correction ensures that God will not be asked to perform a
criminal act as the one carried out by the medium of Endor. Moreover, the
identical interpretation of the hexaplaric witnesses and V clearly shows that the
interpretation “Sheol” was the predominant one in the proto-Massoretic period
and, most probably, the original meaning of the text. If necessary, one can add
impressive arguments from the discourse structure. As several commentators
have remarked, a repetition of the verb “to ask” would not only be weak, but
it would mutilate the antithetic parallelism of the last clauses. (Gray, 122).
In the Preliminary Report both possibilities of translation are given, in the
ñal report only the rendering “Sheol” is correctly retained for the text. This
is in agreement with the practice of the quasi totality of modern translations.
Compare TEV; “Ask the Lord your God to give you a sign. It can be from
deep in the world of the dead or from high up in heaven.” TOB is one of the
extremely rare translations which presents the other interpretation of the text:
“Demande un signe pour toi au Seigneur ton Dieu, demande-le au plus pro-
fond ou sur les sommets, là-haut.” Although it gives the variant rendering in a
footnote, it should not be followed.
8.2
Textual Decisions
According to M, the verbal form hd:y[ia;w“ has to be understood as a ˜rst per-
son singular of the future: “I will take as witnesses.” M is supported in this by
4Q-e. However, V seems to have vocalized the Hebrew consonants as follows:
hd:y[ia;w: in order to obtain a ˜rst person singular of the past: “I took as wit-
nesses” (et adhibui . . . testes).
G and S follow 1Q-a by reading an imperative form d[eh;w“ “and take us wit-
nesses.” A majority of the committee has given a C rating to M since it con-
sidered the past tense reading as an assimilation to verse 3 and the imperative
reading as an assimilation to verse 1.
The textual problem can only be analyzed and solved through an analysis
of the total discourse 8.1–4.
In the case of the future tense, God is still the agent of verse 2. But this cre-
ates a di¯culty since Isaiah is the one who has to take reliable witnesses. This
can be resolved by reading an imperative and by introducing a third order given
by God to the prophet. However, this solution creates new problems: this order
should logically precede the second one (Kaiser), and, what is even more im-
portant, the text should then have to read “take for you” instead of “take for
me,” because the so-called dativus commodi has to agree with the verbal form
(Ehrlich, 33; Feldmann, 99).
The other solution of reading a past tense creates less problems and one
can therefore understand that it is deeply rooted in the tradition.
The only way to understand M correctly is through the maximal perspec-
tive reduction indicated by Delitzsch (151): God tells what he wants to do and
the prophet does not need an explicit message to know that he will be the in-
strument through which this will be realized. Translationally, this can be ex-
pressed through the rendering of a particular aspect of the verb: “I intend to
take as witnesses.”
NIV is one of the rare translations following M: “And I will call in Uriah
the priest and Zechariah . . . as reliable witnesses for me.” It also presents the
continuous speech of God as a discourse unit. This translation, or the aspect
translation presented above, can serve as a model in case the translator could
be sure that not too much discourse comprehension is lost.
Otherwise he should preferably shift to the past tense with the tradition:
KJ, RSV, Luther, EÜ, GN, FC, etc.
8.6 Isaiah 1–10 35
Discourse ties may have to be strengthened in the translation. See FC: “Je
montrai alors la tablette à deux témoins . . .” or GrN. This has also been done
recently in REB: “I had it witnessed for me by . . . as reliable witnesses,” but
the way it is done creates the wrong impression that a passive meaning is given
to the Hebrew verb.
When the imperative is read (NEB, TEV) care should be taken that the
di¯culties of the Hebrew are not simply smoothed over. In that case (and un-
like NEB and TEV) a textual note will be necessary. NRSV should certainly
not be followed as a model here, for (a) its translation “and have it attested for
me” creates the same wrong impression as in REB and (b) its note is wrong.
In fact, M cannot be translated as “and I caused to be attested.” No textual note
is required when a past tense is read for translational reasons.
8.6
Textual Decisions
This verse does not seem to contain any real textual variant apart from the
reading çyçmw in 1Q-a for M cwOcm]W , “and rejoicing.” Although 1Q-a clearly dis-
tinguishes between waw and yod, it seems to have had an archetype in which
both characters were frequently confused. Probably one of the copyists of 1Q-a
has opted for a facilitating hiphil participle vocalization. However, no semantic
diêrences are implied. In fact, all witnesses (1Q-a, 4Q-f, G, V, S, T) support
the reading and interpretation of M expressing either “joy” or “preference.”
For that reason a B evaluation has been attributed to M.
There is, however, a whole series of interpretational problems connected
with this item, which do directly concern translation. First of all, the construct
noun cwOcm] followed by an accusative, “rejoicing Rezin,” has been considered as
a syntactically awkward construction. Even if this problem is solved by taking
with Genesius (725c) cwOcm] as a verbal noun substituted for a verb, the problem
of meaning still remains: how can “this people” rejoice over Rezin? Burkitt
and BHS, avoiding this problem, have proposed to vocalize the Hebrew form
as cwOcm;W which they consider to be identical with swOsm;W . Taking up this proposal,
NEB and REB have given to this form the meaning “and gently” which they
then connected with the “soft ˘owing waters.” Since the following information
about “Rezin and the son of Remaliah” does not make sense anymore, it sim-
ply is deleted: “Because this nation has rejected the waters of Shiloah, which
˘ow softly and gently.” Such a translation, having no textual base, is not ac-
ceptable. Others keep the end of the verse and give to the same form a diêr-
ent meaning, “lose courage,” an interpretation followed by the large majority
of English versions (comp. NRSV: “and melt in fear before Rezin and the son
of Remaliah”). Such a meaning is, however, di¯cult to admit, since in such a
case the Hebrew would use a preposition, the metaphor of the heart, and a
diêrent conjugation! The easiest solution remains to maintain the traditional
meaning and to see in “this people” the people of the Northern Kingdom and/
or the pro-Syro-Ephraimite lobby in Jerusalem (Delitzsch, 154).
Translators may need some encouragement to go against the majority
opinion of commentaries and translations. In the English language domain in
particular, they will have to jump from KJ to NIV in order to ñd a suitable
model: “Because this people has rejected the gently ˘owing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah.” Compare also the para-
phrase of LB: “. . . and are enthusiastic about asking . . . to come and aid them,”
and the rendering of GN: “they prefer Rezin and the son of Remaliah to their
own king,” “und zieht . . . seinem eigenen König vor.” Because of the many di-
vergencies in translation, an interpretational note (as in GN) may be necessary.
8.8
Textual Decisions
The last words of this verse in M are as follows: lae WnM;[i Úx]r“a', “your land,
Immanuel.” It has been proposed (Duhm, Marti, Gray) to read instead of this
lae WnM;[i yKi ≈r<a,, “the land, for God is with us.” The corrected reading would
function as a kind of refrain which is repeated at the end of verse 10. However,
all witnesses, 1Q-a, 4Q-e and 4Q163 included, seem to support M. Only one
subgroup of the hexaplaric recension, 88 and Syh, and one subgroup of the
Lucianic recension plus a few manuscripts which underwent the in˘uence of
these recensions, have omitted the possessive pronoun in th'ı cwvraı sou,
“your land.” The comparison with Syh, as suggested in BHS, cannot be made,
because o{ti (yKi) of verse 10 has not been added to the reading of these sub-
groups in verse 8. In the light of this M could only receive an A evaluation.
The main problems are of an interpretational character. One of them is at
the discourse level. Does verse 8b start a new discourse unit and verse 8a there-
fore close the section 8.1–8? Or should verse 8 as a whole be considered as the
closing part of the section?
The other main problem consists of the interpretation of the “outspread
wings” as either protective or aggressive.
8.9 Isaiah 1–10 37
The discourse structure has received little attention in commentaries. Only

occasionally it has been defended that 8b starts a new section (Marti, 84). Most
modern commentators interpret the image of the wings in a protective sense.
But also the aggressive meaning has been defended on the base of the parallel
image in Jer. 48.40 and 49.22 (Yefet ben Ely, Rashi, Delitzsch, Jacob). Trans-
lational decisions will largely depend upon the interpretational options which
are chosen.
According to Brockington NEB (now also REB) has followed the Duhm
conjecture: “With his outspread wings the whole expanse of the land will be
˜lled, for God is with us.” (REB). In fact, Moâtt did the same, but in a clearer
way: “But the Lord’s wings outstretched, shall cover the country from side to
side; for ‘God is with us.’ ” Such translations are only acceptable when based
on translational and not on textual decisions. If the aggressive interpretation of
M is followed, “Immanuel” can be considered as a vocative, in which case the
proper name cannot be translated: “Its outspread wings will cover the breadth
of your land, O Immanuel” (NIV). It seems, however, wise to present with
TEV one interpretation in the text: “God is with us! His outspread wings pro-
tect the land,” and one in a footnote: “They will spread out over the land. God
be with us!”
8.9
Textual Decisions
M, followed in this by 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S, T, has read a Hebrew form
W[ro, frequently translated as “be broken,” whereas G by rendering gnw' te,
“know,” seems to have read in Hebrew W[D“. The same may be true for the read-
ing ejpakouvsete in g and for the reading ajkouvsete in Syp. The ˜rst letter of
the Hebrew form in 4Q-e is unreadable and in 4Q-f it cannot clearly be
identi˜ed. Although G has been adopted by many commentators (Lowth, Gray,
Procksch, Bentzen, Kissane, Kaiser, Fohrer, Driver), the committee has never-
theless given a B evaluation to M for the following reasons: (a) G is the only
witness against M; (b) its reading can be understood on the base of a frequent
“resh-dalet ” confusion, therefore as a graphical error; (c) G has also been in-
duced to its reading by taking the ˜rst imperative of 9a as a parallel to the sec-
ond one, “give ear,” whereas the real parallel in M is the repeated imperative
of 9b.
The main problem is a lexicological and interpretational one and it con-
cerns the meaning to be given to the Hebrew form of M. Depending upon the
verbal root from which the imperative form is derived, several diêrent mean-
ings have been proposed. Most frequently a meaning “to break” has been de-
fended, either as a transitive form “break,” or as an intransitive: “be broken.”
Another meaning which has been proposed, particularly by German exegetes,
is “toben,” “to rage.” Closely related to this is the occasionally suggested mean-
ing “to tremble.” The classical interpretation is the one followed already jointly
by Sym, V and T: “associate yourselves,” whereas most recently a meaning
“raise the war cry” has been proposed (Saebø, 1964. 143). None of these pro-
posals is entirely without problems: both forms of “to break” imply much
anticipatory information, “rage” is a very questionable translation, a meaning
“associate” is not easy to arrive at when the M vocalization is respected, and
a meaning “raise the war cry” is typical of the causative form of the verb [wr,
not of a qal form which nowhere exists. However, in the light of the immediate
context with its parallelism, the last two meanings are the most appropriate
ones and a preference should be given to the meaning of “association.” (Wild-
berger, 329).
NEB follows G in its rendering “Take note” without saying so in a foot-
note. REB also follows G in providing the same translation, but justi˜es its ren-
dering by noting: “so Gk; Heb. unintelligible.” Neither such a translation nor
such a footnote can be recommended to translators (see also Gordon and NAB).
In the light of what has been said about the meanings of M, no particular
preference should be given to such translations as “Be broken” (RSV), “Rage
away” (Moâtt), and “Do your worst” (LB). NRSV should be used as a model
“Band together, you peoples . . . .” TEV also renders the idea of association:
“Gather together in fear,” but making at the same time the conditions of as-
sociating explicit. This creates the impression of a wrong combination of two
distinct meanings “to associate” and “to tremble.”
In view of the many interpretations even within one language, it seems
wise to provide a footnote with alternative interpretations as in FC.
8.11
Textual Decisions
The Hebrew vocalization of the verb in verse 11b M: ynIrES]yIw“ is even ac-
cording to the most fervent defenders of M, quite unsatisfactory (Judah ibn
Balaam, Radaq). As it stands, the verbal form should be analyzed as a qal im-
8.11 Isaiah 1–10 39
perfect of the root rsy, “to teach,” but contextually the imperfect form has to
be excluded. The qal perfect of the same verb would require a patach under
the resh instead of a tsere, and if a perfect of the piel is read (Elias Levita), the
tsere has to be considered as irregular. A same derivation and a same meaning
“to instruct” are only shared by T and V which must have come to such an un-
derstanding via a vocalization ynIr"S]yI (w“).
The Qumran evidence has frequently been presented in a somewhat dis-
torted way: ynrysyw (BHS, Wildberger). 1Q-a reads in fact wnrysy. One can say that
1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym and also G and S have read a form of the root rws, “to turn
(from).” The committee judged that the Hebrew vocalization ynIrEysiy“w", presup-
posed by Sym’s translation kai; ajpevsthsev me, “and he removed me,” takes an
intermediate position between the vocalization of M on the one, and of 1Q-a
and G on the other side. Therefore, a C evaluation was given to the corrected
vocalization implied in the translation of Sym.
With the evaluation mentioned above, one of the “imperatives” of BHS is
followed and at the same time a suggestion which goes back as far as Foreiro
(1565) and Michaelis (1779). Among older commentators only Gray (151) pro-
posed such a reading as variant reading, “and withdrew me from going,” and
among the most recent commentators Wildberger (334) proposed it as the bet-
ter reading. Moreover, the proposal does more justice to the discourse structure
of the verse.
Those who accentuated M did put an atnach under the word preceding the
verbal form under discussion which indicates that they considered the verb as
a parallel to the ˜rst verb of saying rm'a; and not as a continuation of the pre-
ceding inñitive construction “when he took me by the hand.”
When the Hebrew form as read by Sym is followed, however, the verb
continues the event expressed in the preceding inñitive: “when he took me
by the hand and turned me (from following the ways of his people).” This
seems to be a less forced solution, grammatically as well, since the preposition
ˆmi frequently follows the verb rws, but never the verb rsy.
Translators comparing modern versions will normally not be reminded of
the existence of a textual problem. Nor will they easily ñd translations in
agreement with the proposals of both reports. The only exception is EÜ: “Als
die Hand des Herrn mich packte und er mich davon abhielt, auf dem Weg
dieses Volkes zu gehen, hat er zu mir gesagt,” “when the hand of the Lord took
me and withheld me from going on the way of this people, he said to me.”
40 A Handbook on Isaiah 8.13–14
The only English translations which oêr a reading “and he turned me

from following” as variant reading are NEB and REB. All other translations
have “and (he) warned me.” It is true, of course, that the two metaphors have
to be handled correctly and that such an operation may lead to diêrent solu-
tions. Nevertheless, translators should be encouraged to follow the proposal of
the reports or, if they are for any reason not willing to do so, to present at least
a variant reading in a footnote.
8.13–14
Textual Decisions
M reads in these two verses two derivations from the root çdq.(13) WvyDIq]t',
you shall regard as holy (the Lord Almighty),” and (14) vD:q]mil], “(he will be)
a sanctuary.” Several commentators have proposed to correct (13) into Wryviq]T',
“you shall make your conspirator (the Lord Almighty) and (14) into ryviq]m' or
rv;q]mi, “(he will become) a conspiracy.” Reason for the proposed corrections is
the twofold occurrence of the noun rv,q,, “conspiracy” in verse 12. Moreover
it has been observed that the original idea of making the Lord a conspirator
was felt as oênsive and later changed into the dogmatically acceptable idea
of regarding the Lord as holy.
It has also been proposed to correct vD:q]mil] into vqewOml] “(he will become) a
snare.” (Duhm, 59). Since these corrections presuppose a contextual harmoni-
zation, it is not astonishing that the opposite harmonization has been proposed
as well: to change the twofold rv,q, of verse 12 into a twofold vdoq;, “(do not
call) holy . . .” (Secker, Lowth, Ehrlich, Tur Sinai).
There seems, however, not to exist any textual base justifying any correc-
tion whatsoever. M is supported in both verses by 1Q-a, G, Sym, V and S. In
13 the three ˜rst letters of the verbal form are con˜rmed by 4Q-h (which is es-
sential) and additional support is given by T. In 14 Aq provides such a support
whereas T ˆ[;r“Wpl], “(his Memra shall be amongst you) for vengeance” can only
be considered as a paraphrase of M. All these considerations could only lead
to an A evaluation of M.
Although the image of God-conspirator may be rather interesting, it lacks
any textual base (Jacob, 127). Moreover the proposed corrections are not with-
out di¯culty since they introduce non-attested forms and uncertain meanings,
whereas M is not unintelligible (Clements, 99). One of the main arguments
against M in verse 14 has been that God cannot be at the same time a sanctuary
and a stumbling stone (Duhm), but the atnach under the debated words shows
that two contrasting possibilities are concerned. The same contrast is present
8.21 Isaiah 1–10 41
in the next combination of “rock” and “one stumbles over” (Lohñk, 103). The
meaning of M therefore seems to be that God, if not regarded as holy by Israel
and Judah, will become to them a stumblingstone instead of a refuge. The
translation should clearly mark both potentialities.
In the light of what has been said, a translation like NEB “It is the Lord
of Hosts whom you must count ‘hard ’ . . . He shall become your ‘hardship,’ ”
cannot be recommended. REB has come back to the traditional rendering in
13: “It is the Lord of Hosts whom you should hold sacred,” but in 14 the con-
jectural reading vqewOml] has been followed: “he will become a snare,” a practice
which cannot be advised. NJV, giving the traditional translation in the text, pro-
vides the emendations and their results in footnotes. Such footnotes, although
pro˜table perhaps for certain audiences, should normally be avoided since a
clear explanation can hardly be provided in little space. Some of the common
language translations cannot be followed as a model because of correction and
unacceptable paraphrase (FC) or because of the incorrectness of the interpre-
tation: “Because of my awesome holiness I am like a stone . . .” (GNB). Trans-
lations should therefore render the traditional understanding of M (RSV, NRSV,
NIV), but preferably in such a way that the alternatives are clearly made ex-
plicit, as in GN: “Ich bin der heilige Zu˘uchtsort, aber ich bin auch der Stein,
an dem man sich stößt,” “I am a holy refuge, but I am also a stone one strikes
against.”
8.21
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst two words of M: HB; rb'[;w“, “and he will pass through her,” present
a problem because it is di¯cult to see to which item in the preceding context
the expression “through her” can refer back. The preposition plus feminine
su¯x third person singular of M is supported by V: transibit per eam, which
should refer back to matutina lux, “morning light,” of verse 20! It is likewise
supported by Sym: ejx aujtou', for the masculine Greek form is conditioned trans-
lationally by the masculine gender of its Greek antecedent novmo", “law.” M is
even indirectly attested by T: “(And destruction shall pass) through the land,”
because the feminine su¯x has been taken to refer to the absent feminine noun
≈r<a,. As to 1Q-a and S, it cannot be decided whether a feminine or masculine
su¯x has been read. G by reading “and famine shall come sorely upon you
(ejfΔ uJma'"),” has taken b[er ;w“ hv,q]nI as subject of the verb rb'[; and by rendering
Hb; with ejfΔ uJma'" has made an assimilation to the second person plural verbal
42 A Handbook on Isaiah 9.2 (3)
su¯xes in the translation of verse 19. Because of the certain support of Sym,
V and T, the committee has given a B evaluation to M.
NEB and REB “So despondency and fear will come over them” have taken
the same syntactical decisions as G. Only, “over them” presupposes a vocal-
ization hBo and “fear” suggests that they followed Guillaume’s proposal (1964,
289) to read for Hebrew b[er:, “hungry,” the Arabic cognate raçîb, “frightened.”
Most commentators and translators, however, adopt the traditional syntactical
and lexicographical meanings and they consider—depending upon their dis-
course conception—the feminine su¯x either as referring back to a noun ≈r<a,,
“land,” which was mentioned in a preceding, lost, line or as referring implicitly
to such a noun which has not yet been presented. As Knobel has pointed out
(1854) with regard to 1.6, the last phenomenon is rather frequent. The other
possible implicit reference may be the one to Jerusalem (Barth, 1977, 153).
“Roam through the land” (NIV), “pass through the land” (NRSV), “wan-
der through the land” (GNB) are all possible translations. Since normal, ex-
plicit information is provided for translational reasons, textual notes (as in RSV,
NRSV) should be avoided. The way in which the agent of “roaming” etc. is
expressed will largely depend upon discourse decisions. If a new discourse unit
is started with verse 21, the grammatical subject may have to be stated explic-
itly as “the people” (GNB) or impersonally as “one” (FC). In a continuous dis-
course the reference will be to the preceding subject “they” (NRSV) or “he”
(NJV). An interpretational note with the reading of G may be useful in inter-
confessional projects involving Orthodox participation.
9.2 (3)
Textual Decisions
The ketiv reading of M is: aOl ywOGh', “the nation, not,” which, if the negation
particle is taken with the following information, would yield the KJ under-
standing: “Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy.” The
same reading and understanding are supported by Sym and V. The qere read-
ing of M has wOl ywOGh', which leads to the NJV understanding of the verse: “You
have magni˜ed that nation, / Have given it great joy.” This qere is supported
by T: “You have increased the people, even the house of Israel, to them (ˆwhl)
you have increased the joy,” and S. It is di¯cult to conclude anything from G:
to; plei'ston tou' laou', o} kathvgage" ejn eujfrosuvnh≥ sou, “the greatest part of
the people which you have brought down in your joy.” Cappel (1684, 500) has
9.2 (3) Isaiah 1–10 43
reconstructed T;l]G"rhi wOl as Vorlage of oJ kathvgageı. Anyway, in view of the

absence of a negation marker in all witnesses of the Old Greek, G may be an
indirect witness of the qere. The spelling awl in 1Q-a is entirely ambiguous per-
mitting both readings. It is not impossible that such ambiguous spellings are at
the origin of such types of ketiv / kere. A majority vote C has been given to the
qere wOl, which means that a majority considered the ketiv as an error originat-
ing in the kind of spelling found in Qumran.
The real problem for translators is that most commentators since Selwyn
(1848) have adopted a conjecture hl;yGIh', “joy,” for M aOl ywOGh' and that many
modern translations (NEB, REB, GNB, TOB, FC, GN) have followed it. In
spite of Jewish hermeneutics, it has even been taken over by BR! Curiously
enough, Christian exegesis remained attached to the unsatisfactory ketiv read-
ing which was promulgated in dominant translations as V, Luther and KJ and
considered the Jewish preference for the qere as untrustworthy. This may his-
torically explain the relative success of the conjecture. It is also true, of course,
that the conjecture provides an excellent parallelism between 2aa and 2bb.
Nevertheless, the proposed conjecture also presents many di¯culties. It
presupposes a text which no early witness did know and which was very proba-
bly even unknown to the author of Is. 26.15 who quotes this text according to
M! (admitted even by Duhm, 63). In addition, as observed by Ehrlich (36), hl;yGI
belongs to the post-exile language and both lyGI and hl;yGI never occur with a de-
ñite article. It will be clear that, whatever its value may be, the conjecture can-
not be discussed under the heading of textual analysis.
In line with the textual decisions, preference should be given to a transla-
tion of the qere as in RSV, NRSV, NIV and NJV: “You have enlarged (multi-
plied, magni˜ed) the nation, and increased their joy.” Such a preference should
even be stressed in interconfessional projects with Jewish participation.
In the case of Orthodox participation, the deviations of G may have to be
mentioned in a footnote.
In projects, the principles of which allow the adoption of conjectures of
the type described above, GNB could be used as a model: “You have given
them great joy.” Footnotes should be given containing correct information, and
avoiding the characterization of the conjecture as “probable text” and of the
Hebrew as “not very clear.”
9.10 (11)
Textual Decisions
The reading ˆyxir“ yrEx;, “the adversaries of Rezin,” in M has generally been
corrected into a reading wyr:x;, “his (i.e. the Lord’s) adversaries,” since the im-
mediate context, which speaks of the Syrians, requires an identi˜cation of “the
adversaries” with Rezin. M is however strongly supported by 1Q-a, V, S and
T. It is true that 22 Hebrew manuscripts read yrEc; “chiefs (of Rezin),” a reading
which tries to solve the problem, but, as is clearly shown by the Hebrew Uni-
versity Bible, the classical Tiberian manuscripts support the reading yrEx;. G by
translating tou;ı ejpanistanomevnouı ejpΔ o[roı Siwn, “those that rise up against
him on mount Sion,” must have read in Hebrew something like ˆyOxi rh' yrEx;, but
why he did so will forever remain unclear (Seeligmann, 81). Some more re-
cent Targum manuscripts read “the enemy of Israel, Rezin,” a facilitating so-
lution. M remains the more di¯cult reading and presents a textual form which
is clearly at the base of all other textual forms. For that reason, M has received
a B evaluation.
Among modern English translations only NIV and NJV render M, consid-
ering that “the enemies of Rezin” were the Assyrians and those Arameans who
took the side of the invaders. They presuppose that Isaiah uses this particular
periphrasis in order to remind the Ephraimites of the failure of their alliance
with Rezin.
If it is judged that such an explanation is putting too much strain on text
and context, the only solution is that of textual correction. This means that ac-
cording to the opinion of the translator the di¯culties of the text can no longer
be solved on the level of textual analysis, but only on that of literary analysis.
The easiest solution then is to presume that a reader somewhere in the pre-
history of the text had made a marginal note identifying one such adversary:
Rezin; a note which became at a later stage part of the text (Clements, Jacob,
Wildberger).
If M is followed: “The Lord has raised the enemies of Rezin against them,”
an interpretational note, explaining the periphrasis and its reasons, should be
added. In projects with Orthodox involvement it may be worthwhile to note the
deviating reading of G. It can in no way be recommended to follow the minor-
ity reading of some Hebrew manuscripts as has been done in BR: “Er wiegelt
Rzins Unterfürsten gegen es auf,” “He stirs up Rezin’s o¯cers against him.” If
the translator has recourse to literary analysis, and to correction both the text
9.16 (17) Isaiah 1–10 45
“So the Lord raised adversaries against them” and the note “Correction. Heb.
‘the adversaries of Rezin’ ” of NRSV can serve as a model.
9.16 (17)
Textual Decisions
M, followed in this by G and V and some Targum editions, reads jm'c]yI,
“take pleasure”: “Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men.”
In order to avoid such an anthropomorphism, S and T clearly have vocalized
the Hebrew form as jM'c'y“, “give pleasure.” “Therefore the Lord will not give
pleasure to the young men.” 1Q-a, however, reads lwmjy, “show pity,” “there-
fore the Lord will not show mercy to the young men,” which presupposes a
diêrent reading jm'v]yI. This presupposed and corrected reading received a ma-
jority C rating since it can explain on the one side the modernizing reading of
1Q-a, which substitutes a synonym at a time when the meaning of jm'v]yI was no
longer understood, and on the other side the facilitating punctuation of M out
of lexicographical ignorance.
All corrections, proposed in the course of history, ñd their origin in the
fact that M does not present a satisfactory parallel to the verb of the second
member μjer"y“, “he will pity,” “nor will he pity the fatherless and widows.” The
correction jcpy (= jspy), “he will spare,” ˜rst proposed by Lagarde and fol-
lowed by many others, should no longer be considered. Grätz, followed by
Ehrlich, made the proposal to read lmjy, an attractive suggestion now that this
reading has been con˜rmed by 1Q-a. But Perles (Notes, 63) was no doubt right
with his conjecture jmvy with the same meaning as the Arabic cognate samu-
cha, “be merciful,” “be good.” Although unique in Hebrew, this verb and this
meaning have now become an entry in modern dictionaries. As has been seen
in the textual decisions, 1Q-a has become an indirect witness of the conjecture
proposed by Perles (Wildberger, 206).
Translators are advised to use a translation such as REB as a model: “That
is why the Lord showed no mercy to their youths,” or any other English version
adopting the same interpretation, like NEB, NRSV or NJV. A footnote can be
recommended, but it should not justify the translation by calling attention to
1Q-a (NRSV, GN) which is only an indirect witness. It should give, however,
the reading shared by M, G and V: “Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure
in the young men.” An added comparison with 1Q-a is, of course, always
possible.
9.19 (20)
Textual Decisions
M has “each devours the ˘esh of his arm (wO[roz“).” The reading wO[roz“ is for-
mally supported by the full spelling w[wrz in 1Q-a. 4Q-e by reading wy[rz can only
be considered as a facilitating variant, for the plural is a simple adaptation to the
fact that each person has two arms. The reading can in no way be connected
with [r"z< , “posterity,” which in Hebrew always is a collective singular. V and S
also con˜rm M and the same should be said of the Old Greek. The much quoted
variant of some manuscripts of the Alexandrian group tou' ajdelfou' aujtou', “of
his brother” is not part of the ancient Greek tradition. T has given the follow-
ing paraphrase: “they shall plunder everyone the goods of his neighbor” which
presupposes a Hebrew reading wh[r for w[rz. The same should be true for Sym.
Although Sym has only been preserved in Armenian, Ziegler has reconstructed
the Greek original as ta;ı savrkaı tou' plhsivou aujtou', “the ˘esh of his neigh-
bor.” Both these readings can, however, easily be explained as assimilations to
Jer. 19.9 “and each one shall eat the ˘esh of his neighbor.” Therefore, and in
view of the strong support it receives, M has been given a B evaluation.
In order to complicate things even more, there exists an old al-tiqre which
has been proposed in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 33a), namely to read wO[r“z",
“his own posterity.” This homiletical tradition and the one of M are combined
by R. Joh≥annan in Talmud Babli Taanit 5a, in which it is said that during a fam-
ine of seven years one eats the ˘esh of his children in the sixth year and the
˘esh of one’s own arms in the last. For Talmon (1964, 127) this al-tiqre is based
on an ancient textual variant.
This al-tiqre has strongly in˘uenced English translations: “each feeds on
his own children’s ˘esh” (NEB, REB), “Each will feed on the ˘esh of his own
oˆspring” (NIV), “They even eat their own children” (GNB). It can also be
detected in the more general rendering “own kindred” of NJV and NRSV. If the
al-tiqre is not followed, English translations tend to adopt the reading of T as
in RSV and NAB: “each devours the ˘esh of his neighbor.” KJ is the only sup-
porter of M!
It should, however, be noted that wO[roz“ of M only makes sense when it is not
taken in a literal sense, but, like in Arabic and Syriac, as a metonomy in which
the instrument stands for the act: “help,” “helper” (König, Dictionary, 94). But
“helper” would certainly refer to children and the extended family, so that the
diêrences between the various readings become minimal (Delitzsch, 176).
10.4 Isaiah 1–10 47
In view of the strong support of M translators are advised to render M and
the problematic “arm” in a ˜gurative sense. The verb for “to eat” may also have
to be rendered according to a ˜gurative meaning. In the absense of any English
version which could serve as an example, GN could be followed as a general
model: “Jeder vernichtet den, der ihm beistehen könnte,” “Everybody destroys
those who could help him.”
10.4
Textual Decisions
The main textual issue is whether one should vocalize (with M) rySia',
“(among) the prisoners” and μygIWrh}, “(among) the slain,” or rwOsa;, “(under) the
goaler” and μygIr“ho, “(under) the executioner.” As to the reading μygIWrh', all ver-
sions support the passive participle “the slain” with the exception of G which
has a lacuna here. With regard to rySia;, it should be noted that 1Q-a reads rwsa,
but as Kutscher suggests (366–367) this could be a simple modernization. It is
therefore most probable that 1Q-a should be read as rWsa; which means that it
con˜rms the meaning of M. It is also most likely that G has read the reading
of M. Th, Sym and V must have read rWsae, “captivity,” but the interpretation
of these versions, as well as that of S and T seems to be based on a text like
M. For all these reasons, a B evaluation has been given to M.
Translators will have little di¯culty with such a textual decision. In fact,
the only translation following the vocalization deviating from M is NEB: “so
that they do not cower before the gaoler or fall by the executioner’s hand?” REB
found it necessary to revise NEB according to the majority understanding.
The only interesting conjecture has come from Lagarde (1877, 105) who has
proposed to read the ˜rst four words in the following way: rysiao tj' t['r"ko yTil]Be,
“Beltis is crouching, Osiris is shattered.” This proposal has been rather enthu-
siastically accepted by a great number of commentators, from Duhm till Fohrer,
but it never convinced translators. When one looks at the arguments developed
by Wildberger (179–180), one can only say that the translators were correct.
The main problem for translators seems to be a syntactical one. One can
consider the two Hebrew phrases of verse 4a as coordinate constructions: “there
will be nothing left than to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain.”
One can also take the ˜rst phrase as subordinate to the second and principal
one: “unless one bows down as prisoner, one will fall under the slain.” The
second interpretation may even have to be preferred.
Translations normally follow M and render verse 4a as two coordinate sen-
tences. Translators wanting to express the preferred subordinate relationships
between the two sentences, can only use one German translation as model, BR:
“Wer dem Kauern am Platz der Gefangenschaft entgehn will, an dem Platz der
Erschlagnen müssen die niederfallen!,” “Those who want to avoid couching in
captivity, will have to fall at the place of the slain.”
10.12
Textual Decisions
In M the verb of the independent sentence has a ˜rst person singular: dqøp]a,,
“I will punish,” whereas the reading of G ejpavxei, “he will lay on,” seems to
presuppose a third person singular dqopyI. Since M is supported by 1Q-a, Sym,
V, S and T, and since G can easily be understood as a contextual harmonization,
necessary for translational reasons, M has received a C evaluation.
Abrupt changes from the third person singular to the ˜rst person singular
in a direct discourse are rather frequent, as translators will realize. König (1900,
19–22) has enumerated seventeen cases of these in Isaiah, many of them en-
tirely unmarked. What may have facilitated the unmarked shift here is the lack
of ambiguity, since the Hebrew verb can only have the Lord as subject. In other
languages, however, ambiguity will exist and translators will therefore have to
mark the shift to direct discourse explicitly, or they will have to adopt pronouns
for translational reasons as in G.
NIV is a good model for translators who want to mark the change ex-
plicitly: “When the Lord has ñished all his work . . . , he will say, ‘I will
punish . . . .’ ” Stylistically, it may sometimes be preferable to start the direct
discourse right at the beginning as in GNB: “But the Lord says, ‘When I ñish
what I am doing . . . I will punish . . .’ ” (so also GN, GrN). In that case, the third
person singular of the ˜rst verb of the sentence has, of course, to be adapted.
When translators prefer the indirect discourse as an overall feature, they will
have to change pronouns as in RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NJV and NJB. How-
ever, unlike these versions, they should not make textual notes suggesting that
G has been followed. In fact, no diêrent Hebrew text is presupposed. Modern
translators will have to make the same contextual harmonizations as G for
translational, and not for textual reasons.
10.25 Isaiah 1–10 49
10.25
Textual Decisions
The last sentence of M has μt;ylib]T'Al[' yPia'w“ , “and my anger will be directed
to their destruction.” Four Hebrew manuscripts read the last word with a kaph:
μt;ylik]T' but this does not imply a notable diêrence of meaning. The reading
with beth is strongly supported by 1Q-a, V and T. As to the reading of G, oJ de;
qumovı mou ejpi; th;n boulh;n aujtw' n, “but my anger shall be against their coun-
cil,” if anything can be concluded from the Greek translation of 32.7, G should
most probably have read a kaph. This, and the fact that the form in M is a
hapax sheds some doubt on the originality of M. Nevertheless, M got a C
evaluation because the form with kaph which occurs ˜ve times in the OT can
be considered a facilitating reading.
This case has only interest for translators because of two conjectures which
have been made. Luzzatto (1855) has proposed to divide the Hebrew consonant
text μtylbt into two words with the following vocalization and meaning lbeTe
μToyI, “(my anger against) the world will stop.” This conjecture, which has the
advantage of reading the Hebrew text as a chiastic structure, has been accepted
by Grätz, Perles, Marti, Oort and Procksch and it has been adopted in at least
one translation (LV). Wildberger’s (417) argument that the anger is not against
the “world,” is not entirely valid, since the conjecture can also be rendered with
Procksch (173): “my anger on the earth will stop.” Driver (1937, 39) adopts the
Luzzatto conjecture, but he corrects the ˜rst word into lk,T, which, together with
the preceding word l[', should mean something like “entirely.” This conjecture
has been taken over by NEB: “and my wrath will all be spent,” in a slightly
diêrent way by REB: “and my anger will be ñally spent,” and by FC: “ma
colère complètement ñie”; “my anger all over.” One should, however, note
that the word lk,T, is not attested in Hebrew and that the verb μmt never occurs
in combination with words for “anger” (Ehrlich, 44).
Even with the traditional reading of M, two diêrent interpretations exist:
(a) “and my anger will bring about their destruction (i.e. the destruction of the
Assyrians)” and (b) “and my anger will turn against their crime.” The ˜rst mean-
ing remains the most probable one.
Since the conjectures involve too many problems, translators are rather ad-
vised to follow M and its above preferred interpretation. NJB presents a simple
and e¯cient model here: “and my anger will destroy them,” especially since in
the context of NJB it is very clear that “them” refers back to the Assyrians. For
certain audiences a note may mention one (so NJV) or both conjectures.
10.27
Textual Decisions
The last sentence of verse 27 runs as follows in M: ˆm,v; ynEP]mi l[O lB'juw“ , “and
the yoke will be broken because of fatness,” a sentence which is rather incom-
prehensible and therefore, untranslatable. M is, however, strongly supported by
1Q-a, V and, if the reading of Ephrem according to the Roman edition (ajçm)
is taken as the original one, by S as well. T has a midrash here: “and the nations
shall be destroyed from before the Anointed One” and this midrash not only
con˜rms the syntax, but also the presence of the di¯cult last word of M. G
reads: “and the yoke shall be destroyed from oˆ your shoulders” and has there-
fore used the preceding ˚;m,k]vi by way of al tiqre to interpret the di¯cult ˆm,v;.
In spite of its problematic character, M received a C evaluation, since neither T
nor G have su¯cient weight to justify a correction of M.
It is very di¯cult to get any acceptable meaning out of this voted text. Sim-
pli˜cation of language structure as in NIV, “the yoke will be broken because
you have grown so fat” does not really help. For the pressure of the yoke might
as well wear out the fat. Taking “fat” as a metaphor for “prosperity” (Jacob,
154) is, apart from oêring no solution, problematic since the only attested ˜g-
urative meaning of the Hebrew noun is “something slippery” in Prov. 27.16 (de
Waard, 1991, 279). Remains the possibility to take the expression as a whole
in a proverbial sense (Buber, 1930, 193). Only a few translations have tried this
emergency solution: BR, “Und dann heißts: Am Nackenfett kann ein Joch zer-
mürben” and GrN, “Daarom zegt men: ‘Op een sterke nek slijt zelfs een juk
door’,” “This is why it is said: ‘On a strong neck even a yoke is worn through.’ ”
This solution is not less problematic since such a proverb is nowhere else at-
tested, the technique of implicit quotation not very well developed in Isaiah
and a proverb not to be expected at the end of the rhetorical unit 20–27.
It is therefore not amazing that many scholars corrected the text by reading
the verb as lD:j]y< taking it with the preceding information and by seeing in the
last three words the beginning of the itinerary of the invader: ynEP]mi hl;[; followed
by a place name: “He came up from Jeshimon” (NJV, note), “He has gone up
from Rimmon” (NRSV, NEB, REB), “L’ennemi monte à Samarie” (FC).
10.30 Isaiah 1–10 51
The most honest proposal is a proposal of non-translation! This means that
GNB with its note “Hebrew has three additional words, the meaning of which
is unclear” or the notes of GN or NJB can be taken as correct models.
If a translation should be provided, and if conjectures are allowed accord-
ing to the principles of a project, it can be recommended to follow the von
Orelli variant (1904) which proposed to read Samaria as the place name. This
variant has become the majority reading of modern commentators. There is a
strong possibility that this conjecture re˘ects a very early state of the text. There-
fore, even if M is rendered or no translation is given, it will be good to provide
the conjecture in a footnote, as has been done in NJB. This may even be done
in projects which use G as base text.
10.30
Textual Decisions
As is shown by the vocalization and position in the sentence, hY:nI[} in M
should be taken as the predicate of a noun phrase, the subject of which is the
following place name “Anathoth,” “miserable is Anathoth.” On the other hand,
S, by translating yn[w , seems to have understood the Hebrew as h;ynI[}, “answer her,
Anathoth.” 1Q-a has the same consonant text as M and it cannot be used in
this case of vocalization. T presents a paraphrase: “(Listen) you that dwell in
Aniyah Anathoth,” or: “(Listen) you that dwell in poor Anathoth.” It is not im-
possible that this paraphrase is based on a double translation, especially when
h;ynI[} should not be understood as “answer her,” but as “take up the cry” (NJV;
Ehrlich, 45). G has certainly understood hyn[ to come from the verb hn[, “an-
swer,” but the translation of this verb has been assimilated to the rendering of
the preceding verb: ejpakouvsetai Laisa, ejpakouvsetai Anaqwq, “Laisa shall
hear, Anathoth shall hear.” Only V, by its rendering “paupercula Anathoth,”
clearly supports M.
The committee, judging that the support of S for a correction was too
weak, preferred to retain M, be it with a C evaluation.
Christian translations normally do not render the vocalization of M. TOB
and NIV, with “Poor Anathoth” are notable exceptions. SR also, although one
has to consider its translation “Anathème sur toi, Anatoth!” which has the merit
of trying to preserve the Hebrew play upon words, an illegal paraphrase. Even
Jewish translations, with the sole exception of Chouraqui, who translates: “Sois
attentive, Laïsh, Anatot, l’humiliée,” do not respect the vocalization of M. The
translation “answer her,” ˜rst proposed by Lowth in 1778 on the base of S, has
been generally taken over by all commentators and by all translators. In fact,
one may even say that in view of the indirect support of G and maybe T, S has
slightly more weight than the committee wanted to admit. Arguments from the
discourse structure can hardly be decisive in this case. It is true that the edito-
rial division of BHS “Anathoth is miserable, Madmenah is wandering around”
would yield good parallels, but the same is true for both half verses of 31:
“Madmenah is in ˘ight, the inhabitants of Gebim ˘ee for safety.”
Translators are therefore encouraged to adopt the diêrent vocalization
which is at the base of S. It can also be recommended to take for the whole of
verse 30 NJV as a model: “Give a shrill cry, O Bath-gallim! Hearken, Laishah!
Take up the cry, Anathoth.” No textual note is needed when the principles of
a project admit diêrent vocalizations of the same consonant text without foot-
noting. When it is stipulated that deviations from HOTTP reports should be
footnoted, a textual note will have to be provided stating that the translation
follows S over against M which has “poor.”
10.34
Textual Decisions
In the second half of the verse M reads ryDIa'B] which could mean “by a
mighty one,” “Lebanon will fall by a mighty one” or “in (its) majesty.” On the
base of G: oJ de; Livbanoı su;n toi'ı uJyhloi'ı pesei`tai, “and Lebanon shall fall
with its lofty ones,” Cheyne (96) proposed to correct the Hebrew into wyrydab
and to see a reference here to the cedar trees of Lebanon. 1Q-a however, is
identical with M and in the lemma of the commentary found in 4Q–161 the
reading rydab is con˜rmed. In the case of G, in verses 33b and 34 the word oiJ
uJyhloi; is found four times, but as a translation of four diêrent Hebrew lexical
items. Such a translational procedure weakens considerably any textual argu-
ment. V only copies G in this case and from the midrash found in T it can only
be concluded that ryda has been taken to refer to the land of Israel. S largely
translates M and its translation “in its glory” shows that it understood the prep-
osition b as a beth essentiae. Because of the strong support, especially from
Qumran, it was decided to give a B appreciation to the reading of M.
The problems in this case are not really textual, but interpretational. The
exegetical tradition has normally interpreted the preposition b as instrumental:
“and the Lebanon falls to the blows of a Mighty One” (so NJB, but also NIV
and EÜ). Capital letters clearly indicate that the Mighty One is considered to
10.34 Isaiah 1–10 53
be the Lord who is the principal agent since verse 33. It has, however, also been
proposed to read in rydab an instrument, parallel to lz<r“B'B', “with an axe,” of
the ˜rst half verse (Ehrlich, Cheyne, Procksch, Tur-Sinai). This cannot be done
without changing M. Minimal change is involved in Tur-Sinai’s proposal to
read with metathesis drab, “by the bronze,” connecting the reconstructed He-
brew with Akkadian “arudu.” This proposal got occasionally into the notes of
a Bible translation (NJV).
It should, however, be observed that the syntactic position of ryDIa'B] be-
tween subject and verb as well as the grammatical absence of the article favor
an interpretation of the preposition b as beth essentiae: “and the Lebanon, with
all its majesty, will fall.” “Majesty,” may, of course, indirectly be understood
as a reference to the cedar trees.
In line with these arguments, translators can be advised to take a transla-
tion like NAB as a model: “and Lebanon in its splendor falls.” If translators
want to identify the “splendor” with the cedars, several English translations
can be taken as an example: “and Lebanon with its noble trees will fall” (REB),
“as even the ñest trees of Lebanon fall” (GNB). Such a translation is, how-
ever, based upon translational considerations, not on textual ones. Therefore, no
textual note should be given. It may be useful, however, to give an alternative
interpretation / translation like the rendering of NJB or NIV in a footnote.
Isaiah 11–20
ISAIAH 11–20
11.4
Textual Decisions
In verse 4ba M reads ≈r<a,, “earth” or “land,” “he shall strike the earth with
the rod of his mouth.” In order to obtain a better parallelism with the “wicked”
in 4bb, it has been proposed to correct the Hebrew form into ≈yrI[;, “ruthless.”
All witnesses, however, support M, the only slight variation being the addition
of the article in 1Q-a: ≈rah. Since the addition is facilitating, the committee
assigned a B evaluation to M.
The correction has ˜rst been proposed by Gesenius (1821) who, for the
rest, did not insist upon its obligatory character. Interestingly enough, the cor-
rection has been endorsed by the quasi totality of commentators, Delitzsch and
Jacob being the rare exceptions. This probably is the reason why the conjecture
entered into at least some of our modern translations such as EÜ, NAB, NEB
and REB, “like a rod his verdict will strike the ruthless.” It is not to be ex-
cluded, however, that the correction has been inspired by a number of misun-
derstandings. Noting the chiastic relationship between ≈r<a, and the preceding
≈r<a;AywEn“['l], “the humblest in the land,” ≈r<a, must designate, as Luzzatto has
seen, the total population of the land (see GNB, “the people”). Another mis-
understanding at the base of the correction is that “striking with the rod of the
mouth” and “killing with the breath of the lips” should be parallel and synony-
mous expressions. But “striking with the rod” is a current educational termi-
nology and the addition of “the mouth” makes the presence of an educational
component of meaning even more likely. Moreover, in Prov. 23.13 it is said in
connection with children that “if you beat them with a rod, they will not die”
For all these reasons, the reading and interpretation of M should be reinforced.
54
11.6 Isaiah 11–20 55
Translators should not be encouraged therefore to adopt the conjecture as
many older and recent English versions (Moâtt, Smith-Goodspeed, NAB, NEB,
REB) have done. The main problem faced by translators is the rendering of the
˜gurative language. Sometimes, the metaphor may have to be changed into a
simile: “like a rod, his word will strike the people” (compare FC). In other
cases the text may have to be demetaphorized as in GNB: “At his command the
people will be punished” (see also König, Dictionary, 478: “Strafsentenz”). If
translators, in addition to demetaphorization, want to make the component of
“education” explicit, GN may be used as a model: “Seine Befehle halten das
Land in Zucht,” “His commands discipline the land.”
11.6
Textual Decisions
In 6b following the two nouns for “calf ” and “lion” M has a third one:
ayrIm]W , “and the fatling.” For structural reasons, Kittel, following an earlier pro-
posal by Perles (1906, 385), had already proposed in BH3 to correct the noun
into a qal verbal form War“m]yI, “will feed,” “the calf and the lion will feed to-
gether.” As has been pointed out by Greenberg (1956, 164), Brownlee (1964,
217) and Talmon (1975, 123–124), this proposal has received strong support
from 1Q-a which reads wrmy. It is true, that an elision of the aleph has taken
place in this spelling, but there are twenty instances of such an elision (Kut-
scher, 505). Both G and S have a con˘ate reading based on a double translation
of noun and verb. M is supported by 4Q-c and T and also by V which makes
a verbal form “morabuntur,” “will stay (together)” explicit. A verb arm with
the meaning “to grow fat” would only occur here in the Hebrew Bible, but it
is current in Ugaritic (Aistleitner, par. 1663). The hapax character of the verb
could explain why M substituted it with the more frequent noun ayrm. Since a
corrected reading War“m]yI, “will feed” is indirectly attested by the diêrent read-
ings, the committee decided to give it a C evaluation.
In verse 6a two pairs of nouns for animals are the grammatical subject of
two diêrent verbs in a chiastic sentence position. Since Houbigant (1753)
scholars tried to ñd a parallel situation of two animal nouns governing a verb
in the ˜rst part of verse 6b. Several proposals have been made, but only the
correction which was retained by the committee remains close to the form of
M (Wildberger, 438). It should also be noted that both verbs of verse 6b take
exactly the same slot within the verse and this provides an additional structural
argument for the justi˜cation of the correction. The reading of the verb should
therefore be retained by translators.
A good model for translators is provided by GNB: “Calves and lion cubs
will feed together” or by NEB: “the calf and the young lion shall grow up to-
gether.” If the HOTTP reports are taken as normative, a textual note is super-
˘uous. If the textual position is deñed in relation to M, it may be necessary
to give a justi˜cation in a footnote. In that case not only “ancient versions,” but
also 1Q-a should be quoted in favor of the translation. Many English transla-
tions still follow M (RSV, NRSV, NJB, NJV, NIV), and they only give occa-
sionally the evidence from 1Q-a and/or G in a footnote (NJV, NIV). In spite of
this practice, translators are encouraged to follow the corrected text and, if they
are inclined to insert a footnote, to put the reading of M in there.
11.11
Textual Decisions
M reads tynIve, “a second time,” “The Lord will do again his hand.” Since
tynIve has been considered as super˘uous after πysiwOy, “do again “and since a verb
of movement with regard to the hand is lacking in this sentence, it has been
proposed to correct tynIve into taec], “raise.” M is clearly supported by 1Q-a, Th,
Aq, V and T. It is true that Strugnell (199) identi˜es a reading taç in an un-
classi˜ed fragment of text which he thinks belongs to 4Q165, a commentary
on Isaiah. But this fragment is too mutilated and its identi˜cation too uncer-
tain to be used as a textual argument. G seems to have rendered tynIve πysiwOy by
one word, prosqhvsei, and to have stated explicitly the movement of the hand
by tou' dei`xai, “to show” (Schleusner, 1820 II, 56). S also seems to have ap-
plied a speci˜c translation technique. The variants having been considered as
facilitating, M received a C evaluation.
The correction taec], “to raise,” ˜rst proposed by Marti (114), has found
most adherents among commentators. Closer to M remains the proposal made
by Thomas in BHS to vocalize the Hebrew form as twONv' and to analyze this
form as a piel inñitive with the meaning of Arabic saniya, “to be high.” This
proposal should explain the translation of NEB: “the Lord will make his power
more glorious.” Since such a meaning cannot be proven, REB has rightly aban-
doned such a rendering.
It seems, however, much more correct to take the verb πsy in the meaning
“to act again,” and to see in the expression wOdy: πysiwOy stylistically a so-called
11.15 Isaiah 11–20 57
brachylogy or concise expression in which a verb has been omitted (Feldmann,

158). In fact, the author purposefully did not want to insert another action be-
tween tynIve, which deñes more precisely πysiwOy and twOnq]li, “to redeem,” to which
verb tynIve also refers. The full understanding of the sentence therefore is: “the
Lord will apply his hand again to redeeming a second time the remnant of his
people.” Since such a brachylogy is not possible in all languages, translators
may have to supply another explicit verb for translational and not for textual
reasons.
If the metaphor “his hand” can be kept in the translation, NIV can be taken
as a model: “the Lord will reach out his hand a second time.” If, on the other
hand, demetaphorization is obligatory, one can render like GNB: “the Lord will
once again use his power and bring back home,” or like REB: “the Lord will ex-
ert his power a second time.” Textual notes like in FC are misleading and should
not be provided.
11.15
Textual Decisions
M reads μyrIj‘h,w“, “he will utterly destroy,” “And the Lord will utterly destroy
the tongue of the sea of Egypt,” and it is supported in its reading by 1Q-a and
ThAqSym. On the other hand, G, V, S and T by reading verbs with a meaning
“to dry up” seem to presuppose a reading byrIj‘h≤w“. In spite of this at ˜rst sight
strong evidence, the committee nevertheless attributed a B evaluation to M for
mainly four reasons: (1) the strong support given by 1Q-a to M; (2) the fact that
G ejrhmwvsei presents a phonological translation of M (Lohñk, Jacob), which
indirectly con˜rms M; (3) the fact that the roots μrj and brj share a number
of components of meaning which makes it di¯cult to decide which root has
been translated and (4) the high probability that the reading of the versions also
re˘ect an assimilation to Ex. 14.21.
This is one of the cases in which the vast majority of commentators follow
the correction ˜rst proposed by Cappel (1775, 782). Such a feature is of con-
sequence for translation as is testi˜ed by a number of English versions like NJB,
NJV, NIV and GNB of which only NJB states in a footnote that it follows ver-
sional evidence. So one may perhaps conclude that the translators of the other
modern versions were motivated by translational, and not by textual reasons.
These reasons not being compelling, such a rendering should be avoided. Even
BHS commands the translation of M.
It has still to be decided, however, how to render M. Since the Jewish-Arabic

lexicographers a comparison with an Arabic cognate root has been made and a
meaning “to divide” has been attributed to Hebrew μrj. In fact, a root μrj II
with such a meaning has now entered into modern Hebrew dictionairies as well
as into some translations such as NEB and REB: “The Lord will divide the
tongue of the Egyptian Sea.”
On the other hand, as has been pointed out by Lohñk (ThWAT III 194),
a meaning “to destroy utterly” provides an excellent parallel with “raise the
hand against” in the second half verse.
NRSV could serve as a model for translators: “And the Lord will utterly
destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt.” “Tongue” is used here for a tongue-
shaped piece of water and it refers to the Red Sea and the passage during the
exodus. If the utter destruction of “water” presents a problem to the receptor
language one may have to follow GN as a model: “Der Herr wird die Meeres-
zunge östlich von Ägypten für immer zum Verschwinden bringen,” “The Lord
will let the tongue of the sea of Egypt disappear for ever.” However, a trans-
lation “to divide,” “to split” as in NEB, REB and GrN is certainly possible, and
if such a rendering is not entered into the text, it could certainly be provided
as an alternative translation in a footnote.
12.2
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst half verse of 2b M reads: hw:hy“ Hy: tr:m]zIw“ , “and a song is Yah, the
Lord.” It has been proposed to read instead hw:hy“ ytir:m]zIw“ , “and my song is the
Lord.” M is supported by the hexaplaric versions, the Vulgate and, most proba-
bly, the second hand of 1Q-a; the proposed correction by 1Q-a, G and S. The
committee considered M as certainly authentic and attributed even an A eval-
uation to it for the following reasons: (1) scribes were accustomed to omitting
a last character when the ˜rst character of the next word was the same (Luz-
zatto, 1876, 77–78), (2) this graphic particularity is extremely old (Torczyner,
1938, 54); (3) the qamets under the resh instead of the expected patach is in-
tentional and should avoid an interpretation of the word according to a con-
struct state; (4) the reduplication of the divine name is also found elsewhere in
Isaiah (26.4 and 38.11) and it can therefore be considered as a literary char-
acteristic of the book; (5) it is only on the base of M that one can understand
the explicit reading ytrmzw in the Hebrew manuscript 355, the omission of hy
in 1Q-a, G, S and of hwhy in 8 Hebrew manuscripts of Kennicott and 12 of
13.2 Isaiah 11–20 59
de Rossi, and the translational treatment in T which presupposes a reduplica-

tion of the divine name.
This textual case is of minor importance to translators. For in spite of the
reading tr:m]zI, the vocalizators, as has been universally recognized, had an in-
terpretation ytir:m]zI, “my song,” in mind, and this is the way in which all trans-
lators will have to render it. And whether the divine name is reduplicated in
one way or another (see NRSV: “the Lord God,” footnote: “Hebrew for Yah,
the Lord”) or not, could be a textual question (NJB with note and NEB and
REB without), but it could also relate to the way in which generally speaking
divine names are treated in translation (GNB, GrN, GN, FC).
The only real problem for translators therefore is an interpretational one:
whether tr:m“zI has to be derived from hr:m]zI II, which would have the meaning
“strength” like in Arabic (so NRSV, NJB, NJV, GNB and NEB, REB: “defence”)
or from hr:m]zI I which would have the meaning “song” like Ugaritic “dmr ” (NIV,
GN, Moâtt). Although modern commentators tend to go for the Arabic mean-
ing (Clements, 128–129); Wildberger, 478), it should be noted that the Arabic
root probably comes from Syriac and that already Ugaritic has a verb “dmr”
with the meaning “to play on a stringed instrument.” (Loewenstamm, 465). A
derivation from rmz I should therefore be preferred.
A literal rendering “the Lord is . . . my song” (NIV) cannot easily be fol-
lowed as a model. The Hebrew means to say: “the Lord is the object of my
song,” which can be more clearly expressed as in Moâtt, by “the Eternal . . . ,
of him I sing.” GN can also serve as a good model: “den Herrn will ich rühmen
mit meinem Lied,” “I will praise the Lord with my song.”
13.2
Textual Decisions
M reads at the end of the verse a plural noun yjet]Pi, “gates,” “and enter the
gates of the nobles.” G, on the other hand, seems to presuppose a reading of
the verbal imperative Wjt]Pi when translating ajnoivxate, oiJ a[rconte", “open (the
gates), you rulers.” M is strongly supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-a and Aq. Sym, V, S
and T all make diêrent kinds of syntactical facilitations, but they all concur
in reading the noun. G is isolated in its reading of an imperative, a reading
which is part of a reinterpretation of the verse and an assimilation with Is. 40.9.
Therefore a B evaluation has been attributed to M.
Procksch (185) has proposed to read the imperative “open” with G, but not
to take with G “the gates” as implicit object, but, as in Ezek. 21.33 and Ps. 37.14
“the sword,” “open (unsheathe) the sword.” This suggestion has been taken over
by Kissane (160), Bach (58) and Clements (133) and it entered as a “command”
into BHS. The only modern translation to obey this order is NEB: “draw your
swords, you nobles,” but REB wisely changed the text back to “the Nobles’
Gate.” All translators can only be recommended to keep the transmitted text
(Wildberger, 501) and not to surrender to the strange mixture of textual and
interpretational arguments contained in Procksch’ s proposal.
It is less clear which component of meaning of μybiydIn“ has to be made ex-
plicit in translation. One could think of “volunteers” in relation with Judges 5.2
and 5.9. So NAB: “the gates of the volunteers” and FC. It is more likely, how-
ever, that the component of “noble” has to be chosen as a mocking reference
to the civilisation of Babel. So GNB: “the gates of the proud city,” or as a sim-
ple reference to Babylon itself (so GrN).
Preferably the component of “noble” should be rendered as in NJB: “to
the Nobles’ Gate.”
If nevertheless the component of “volunteer” is chosen, a translation such
as GN could serve as a model: “Ruft die Freiwilligen auf, winkt sie herbei, sie
sollen sich bei den Stadttoren melden,” “Shout for the volunteers, beckon to
them, they should gather at the gates of the city.”
13.13
Textual Decisions
In 13aa M reads zyGIr“a', “I will make tremble (the heavens)” whereas G oJ
ga;r oujrano;ı qumwqhvsetai, “for the heaven shall be enraged,” at ˜rst sight pre-
supposes a reading WzG“r“yI. M, however, is strongly supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-a.b,
Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. And G should be considered as due to a translation
technical operation of transformation, since the same technique has been ap-
plied in the immediate context, in verse 12 where ryqiwOawO, “I will make (men)
rare” has been rendered with kai; e[sontai oiJ kataleleimmevnoi, “and they that
are left shall be (more precious).” Therefore M received a B evaluation.
Since only the ˜rst words of verse 13 are divine speech, already Duhm (87)
suggested to follow G. His suggestion has been taken over by Marti, Gray,
13.22 Isaiah 11–20 61
Procksch, Fohrer, Kaiser, Wildberger, and has so found its way into modern
translations like FC, Moâtt, “So shall the skies be trembling,” and NEB, “Then
the heavens shall shudder.” It seems, however, rather arbitrary to select one
isolated element from G in order to smooth Hebrew syntax. There are many
places in the Hebrew Bible, however, where the Lord ˜rst appears as agent and
grammatical subject and in which afterwards the divine name is presented in
the third person in order to produce a certain emphasis. If this rhetorical device
cannot be copied in translation, an adaptation to the structures of the receptor
language will be necessary.
One of the adaptations is given in NJV: “Therefore shall heaven be shaken.”
The fact that is stated in a footnote “literally ‘I will shake heaven’ ” shows that
the translation is not based on G, but on translational considerations of English
syntax. Another adaptation is presented by GNB: “I will make the heavens
tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place on the day when I, the
Lord Almighty, show my anger.” The last adaptation does more justice to the
emphasis of M.
13.22
Textual Decisions
M reads wyt;wOnml]a'B], a noun which normally has the meaning of “widows,”
but which in this connection can only be understood to have the meaning of
wyt;wOnm]r“a"B], “in its castles”: “hyenas will cry in its castles.” 1Q-a gives a graphic
support to M. V, S and T, all have understood the Hebrew to mean “palaces”
or “mansions,” but it is impossible to know whether they have read a lamed or
a resh. The same can be said of G which has a simple locative reference ejkei',
“there,” an assimilation to the threefold ejkei' of the preceding verse. This case
has only been dealt with in the ñal report. As it has not been submitted to the
committee, no evaluation has been made.
This case could have been omitted if some modern versions had not made
a textual problem out of it. So NEB by translating “jackals shall occupy her
mansions” and suggesting in a footnote that Hebrew has “her widows.” NJB af-
ter rendering “Hyenas will howl in its towers” suggests the same in a footnote,
creating in addition the impression that its own translation is based upon the
Vulgate! In fact, there is no textual problem at all. There is a case of free ˘uc-
tuation of lamed and resh with no diêrence of meaning implied like in As-
syrian almattu (Delitzsch, 208). It is, however, possible that by choosing this
phonetic realization a deliberate pun was made and a component of “desolation”

suggested.
In view of the absence of a textual problem, no textual notes should be
made. If the translator is convinced of the presence of a pun, he may want to
show this feature in his translation. GrN is the only model which can be sug-
gested in this respect: “Hyena’s huilen in de verlaten burchten,” “Hyenas howl
in the desolate fortresses.” In addition, in study Bibles, translators may want to
give a brief explanation of the pun.
14.2
Textual Decisions
M reads μyMi[', “peoples,” “And the peoples will take them and bring them
to their place,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading μybr μym[, “many peoples.” As has
already been noted by James (68), no manuscript of M and none of the versions
support 1Q-a. The reading of 1Q-a can be explained in several ways. Kutscher
(545) has shown that μybr μym[ occurs several times in Isaiah: 2.3,4 and 17.2
which may explain its presence in 1Q-a in 14.2. More likely, however, the am-
pli˜cation in 1Q-a is due to stylistic reasons. It is therefore understandable that
the committee was divided between an A and a B vote in favor of M.
Already Duhm (89) spoke about the “barbarian style” of M. Marti (122)
and mentioned its awkward syntax, and Ehrlich (53) tried to save the style by
changing μyMi[' into μM…[i, “with them.” The reading of 1Q-a presents, however,
another and more acceptable solution. Only two modern English translations
have the reading “many nations”: NEB and GNB. None of them has a textual
note. It is, however, clear from Brockington that NEB is textually based upon
1Q-a. The rendering of GNB may have been inspired by translational reasons.
In fact, many languages may require a quali˜cation of “nations” for syntacti-
cal and stylistical reasons. Such a quali˜cation should preferably be given in
such a way that textual and translational issues are not confused.
For translators who feel the need for a further quali˜cation, two models ex-
ist: FC: “Les peuples étrangers,” “foreign nations” and GN: “Andere Völker,”
“other nations.”
14.4 Isaiah 11–20 63
14.4
Textual Decisions
M has the reading hb;hed“m', a word which does not occur anywhere else in
the Hebrew Bible and the meaning of which is uncertain. On the other hand,
1Q-a reads hbhrm, “assault,” “the assault has ceased.” None of the versions
can be quoted in support of M. According to Jerome Aq has read “fames,” “in-
digence,” which could go back to a Hebrew Vorlage hb;[er“m' and therefore to a
Vorlage with resh. All the other versions have given to the Hebrew a meaning
parallel to the interpretation they had given to the participle cgEnO, “oppressor,”
of the ˜rst half verse. The committee considered that one is faced here with a
simple case of resh-dalet confusion and, in view of the fact that the roots cgn
and bhr also occur in a parallel position in Is. 3.5, it applied a mixed B/C
rating to the reading of 1Q-a.
Is 14.4 appears twice in a transposition in 1QH 3.25 and 12.18. Both times
the form of M hbhdm is quoted and the contextual meaning of the Hebrew form
should be something like “persecution,” “oppression.” It seems nevertheless that
the biblical hapax was repeated in a learned way and that it has been inter-
preted in a new way according to a certain context.
In the early days of lexicography the Hebrew form was derived from bhd
which, on the basis of the interrelationships between dalet and zayin was con-
sidered as an Aramaism for “gold.” “Gold” was then interpreted as a tribute in
gold to be paid by the kingdoms to Babylon (so still Luther: “und der Zins hat
ein ende,” “and the tribute has ceased”) or as a quality of the city of Babylon
(so KJV: “the golden city ceased!”).
Already in 1779 Michaelis has shown that such paraphrases are hardly pos-
sible. He was also the ˜rst to propose a reading hbhrm, a reading now con˜rmed
by 1Q-a and generally taken over. The underlying Hebrew root would permit
such meanings as “insolence,” “arrogance,” “oppression” and “fury.”
Modern English versions either choose a meaning “insolence”/ “arrogance”
(NRSV, NJB) or a meaning “fury”/ “frenzy” (NIV, NEB). Sometimes trans-
lators seem to feel obliged to combine two components of meaning: “raging
arrogance” (REB), “insolent fury” (RSV). More rarely a generic term is used
such as “oppression” (NJV, FC, GrN: “tyranny,” GN: “Schreckensherrschaft”).
All these solutions are permissible. If a textual note is made, it should state that
1Q-a is followed and it can for once justiãbly maintain that M is obscure.
14.12
Textual Decisions
In M the word for “nations” is preceded by the preposition l['. On the
other hand, G reads pavnta ta; e[qnh, “all the nations.” Since the verb in the sen-
tence normally does not govern a preposition, it has been suggested that G rep-
resents a more original Hebrew construction μyIwOGAlK;. M is, though, supported
by 1Q-a, Th and Sym and indirectly, in spite of diêrent translational treat-
ments, by V, S and T. The rendering of 14.2 in G is subject to a considerable
degree of Hellenization (Seeligman, 100) and the rendering oJ ajpostevllwn
pro;ı pavnta ta; e[qnh, “he that sent orders to all the nations,” shows that the
Greek translator applied a metathesis by changing the verb vlj in M into jlv.
Since it is therefore more probable that pavnta, “all,” re˘ects an ampli˜cation,
a B evaluation was attributed to M.
Translators should disregard the proposals made by Duhm (92) and Wild-
berger (535), repeated in the form of a suggestion in BHS, to follow G. Apart
from earlier editions of BJ, only RL adopted G.
This minor textual problem is of less importance for the translator than the
question of how to render the whole sentence μyIwOGAl[' vlewOj. Hebrew vlj has an
intransitive meaning “be enfeebled,” “disappear” and a transitive one “defeat.”
These meanings can be attributed to two diêrent homonymous roots (Baum-
gartner, Holladay) or to one and the same (König).
An intransitive meaning has been selected in NEB: “sprawling helpless
across the nations” and also in REB: “prostrate among the nations.”
The great majority of translations opts nevertheless for a transitive mean-
ing. Such a meaning has to be preferred since the basic signi˜cation of vlj
seems to be “beheading (the nations),” i.e. “killing and deporting their kings
and nobles.” (Bronznick, 1976).
Several English translations could serve as an example: NJB: “conqueror
of nations,” NJV: “vanquisher of nations.”
14.19
Textual Decisions
M reads rx,nEK], “like a shoot,” “you are cast out, away from your grave, like
a loathsome shoot.” According to Jerome, Aq has the reading ijcwvr, “putrifac-
14.21 Isaiah 11–20 65
tion (of corpses)” which would correspond to Hebrew lx,nE, “a corpse which is
dissolving” (Jastrow, 929b). Both Sym, e[ktrwma, and T, fj'y"K], have words de-
noting “untimely birth” and these words could re˘ect a Hebrew reading lp,nE ,
“abortion.” G remains in the same semantic domain with its reading wJı nekro;",
“as a corpse.” The committee nevertheless attributed a C evaluation to M for the
following reasons: (1) M is strongly supported by 1Q-a, Th, V and S; (2) rxn
may have been chosen in Hebrew because this word corresponds to the ñal
consonants of the name Nebuchadnezzar; (3) uncertainty exists as to the precise
reading of Aq, and if lx,nE is taken as a base, it could be explained as a graphical
error; (4) both Sym and T may go back to a rabbinic interpretation of M and
(5) the rendering of G may have been inspired by rg<p,K], “like a corpse” in 19b
which remains untranslated in G.
It was Nestle (127 ˆ.) who suggested for the ˜rst time that lx,nE , “dissolving
corpse” is at the base of Aq, G and Jerome. His suggestion entered in an in-
formative mood into the apparatuses of BH2 and BH3. This suggested reading
was afterwards taken over by the majority of English versions: “like (a) loath-
some carrion.” So basically REB, NRSV and NJV with textual note and NEB
without. On the other hand, Schwally (1891, 258) adopted the correction lp,nE ,
“abortion” which was taken over by many translators such as RSV, “untimely
birth” and FC, “un enfant mort-né.” If translators want to endorse the last trans-
lation, they should not do so on textual grounds, but, as is most probably the
case in Sym, T and Saadya, on interpretational grounds. But since the lexico-
graphical base of the interpretation is not very solid, translators are advised to
stay with the traditional reading and understanding of M.
The best English language model probably is NIV: “like a rejected branch.”
It seems rather necessary to provide at least a footnote like in NJB: “ ‘branch,’
in Hebr. netzer, alluding to the name Nebuchadnezzar.” Since the Hebrew rx,nE
normally has a ˜gurative meaning only, EÜ renders unambiguously with “ein
verachteter Bastard,” “a despised bastard.” It certainly follows here Fohrer’s
interpretation of a “rejected member of the family.” Such a translation is pos-
sible and may be supported by texts like Eccles. 40.15.
14.21
Textual Decisions
M has the reading μyrI[;, “cities,” “˜ll the faces of the world with cities,”
whereas G reads polevmwn, “wars,” “˜ll the earth with wars.” In addition, T ren-
ders: “˜ll the face of the world with enemies,” bbd yl[b. It is almost certain that
T simply read a homophone with the meaning “enemies” so that it joins 1Q-a,
some Greek manuscripts, Th, Aq, Sym and V in their support of M. The same
could be true of the free rendering “wars” of G, but, more likely, polevmwn is
an internal corruption of povlewn (Montfaucon, 114b; Seeligmann, 14), a cor-
ruption which has been taken over by S. M, being at the origin of the whole text
tradition, therefore received an A evaluation.
Many conjectures have been proposed with regard to the word μyrI[;. Here
only those are mentioned which in˘uenced translations. Duhm (95) and Marti
(127) suggested deleting the word, a suggestion which still ˜gures as a prob-
ability in the apparatus of BHS. Moâtt adopted apparently this proposal:
“and multiply on all the earth!” Ewald recommended to change M into μyxiyrI[;,
“tyrants,” a reading which entered into NAB, “and ˜ll the breadth of the world
with tyrants.” Another change was proposed by Hitzig, μyYI[i, “ruins,” a conjec-
ture which was adopted in LV, RL, and, more recently, in EÜ, “und die Welt
erobern und mit Trümmern erfüllen,” “and conquer the world and ˜ll it with
ruins.”
In view of the textual decisions taken above, translators should render M.
Most probably, the vocalizators of M already took M to mean “enemies” on the
basis of a homonymous noun. A translation along this line is possible. It is not
a surprise that especially Jewish translations like BR and Chouraqui render in
this sense. Recent Christian translations rarely do so. SR: “Et remplir le monde
d’hostilités,” “and ˜ll the world with hostilities,” is an exception. It should,
however, be noted that historically speaking nearly all German, French and En-
glish translations switched from the interpretation “enemies” to that of “towns.”
This interpretation should be preferred in the light of verse 17 “and overthrew
its (i.e. of the world) cities.” The fears expressed in verse 21 are those of a
powerfully structured empire.
A translation such as REB: “or cover the world with their cities” or trans-
lations like GNB and NIV could easily be taken as models. In projects with
Jewish and/or Orthodox participation “enemies” may nevertheless be preferred,
or it may be necessary to provide an interpretational note.
14.30A Isaiah 11–20 67
14.30A
Textual Decisions
Verse 30 aa reads as follows: μyLid" yrEwOkB] W[r:w“ , “and the ˜rst-born of the
poor will feed.” In view of the di¯cult expression “˜rst-born,” several changes
in the vocalizations of yrwkb have been proposed such as a change into yr"k;B], “in
my meadows,” “the poor will graze their ˘ocks in my meadows.” According to
the apparatus of BHS, a few Hebrew manuscripts, ˜ve according to Kennicot,
read yrkb which would be equal to yr"k;B]. But three of these manuscripts which
could be checked have the normal vocalization of M! Moreover, 1Q-a has the
full spelling of the classical Tiberian text, which is also clearly rendered by Aq,
Sym, V and S. The only real variant is oêred by G: diΔ aujtou`, “by him.” G
clearly wants to emphasize that God saves the poor of his people. In view of
the parallel position of yrwkb and jf'b,l;, “in safety,” the translator wanted to ex-
press the agent of safety, or the “˜rst-born” understood as the “˜rst-born of
God” brought him to the divine agent. In the light of such purely translational
variants the B evaluation of M is understandable.
The correction of M into yr"k;B], “ in my meadows” has been followed in a
number of translations. Some take thereby the Hebrew verb as transitive: “the
poor will graze their ˘ocks in my meadows” (NEB, REB), others as intransi-
tive: “In my pastures the poor shall eat” (NAB, BR). Another proposal to read
μyrIk;K], “like lambs” (Begrich, 72) was also occasionally adopted in translation.
(FC). Yet translators are advised to render M. It is true that a rather literal ren-
dering such as “the ˜rstborn of the poor will graze” (so with minor variants
RSV, NRSV, NJB and NJV) is not very enlightening and may even create mis-
understanding. The best solution seems to be to consider μyLid" yrEwO kB] as a super-
lative of μyLid" ynEB], “those who belong to the poor” (Delitzsch, 217; König, 1900,
33–36).
A good model of translation is NIV: “The poorest of the poor will ñd
pasture.” GN can also be used: “Die Ärmsten in Israel werden genug zu essen
haben,” “The poorest in Israel will have enough to eat.”
68 A Handbook on Isaiah 14.30B
14.30B
Textual Decisions
In 30b M presents a di¯culty in that its ˜rst verb has a ˜rst person singu-
lar “I will kill” and its second verb a third person singular “he will slay.” M is
only supported in this by a minority of Targum manuscripts, including codex
Reuchlinianus. All other versions witness to some kind of facilitation. S reads
the second verb as a niphal with a passive meaning “will be killed,” 1Q-a and
V have ˜rst persons in both verbs, and G and T third persons in both. All these
assimilations into diêrent directions indirectly con˜rm the discordance of M
which therefore received a B evalution.
It is not surprising that the same assimilations also occur in modern trans-
lations. Preference is thereby given to the assimilation to the ˜rst person sin-
gular (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NJB), no doubt because this could be done on
a textual base with more weight: 1Q-a. Assimilation to the third person singu-
lar is rare in translation (FC). The same is true for the passive interpretation
(TOB).
Assimilations are, however, in this case not justi˜ed since the change of
person in M is not, as very often, a rhetorical device. In fact, diêrent agents are
intended. Since Le Clerc (1731) the masculine b[;r:, “hunger,” has frequently
been taken as the grammatical subject of the second verb and this interpretation
entered into some modern translations like NAB, NJV, NIV and GNB: “and it
(i.e. the famine) will not leave any of you alive.” It seems nevertheless to be
more correct to take the “˘ying serpent” of verse 29b as subject. (Delitzsch,
217; Ehrlich, 57). This is at least the majority exegesis since Jerome.
In spite of a slight ambiguity, this majority exegesis is still re˘ected in BR
and in two recent versions: GN and GrN. GN could in its necessary explicitness
serve as an example: “Euch aber wird Gott vor Hunger umkommen lassen, und
was von euch noch übrigbleibt, das wird der Drache umbringen,” “God will let
you die of famine, und the dragon will kill any of you who will be left over.”
The decisions in GrN are basically the same. The only diêrences are that God
continues to be the speaker (I will let you die of famine) and that the dragon
has been identi˜ed as Assur. Depending upon discourse decisions, this may also
be a useful approach in other languages.
15.2 Isaiah 11–20 69
15.2
Textual Decisions
Verse 2aa reads in M as follows: ˆboydIw“ tyIB'h' hl;[;, literally, “has gone up the
house (or the people) and Dibon” which has generally been considered as un-
intelligible. Therefore, it has frequently been suggested to correct the Hebrew
text as follows: ˆboyDIAtb' ht;l][;, “has gone up the daughter of Dibon.” M never-
theless received a B evaluation for the following reasons: (1) M is supported
by 1Q-a and V; (2) for that reason, it is unlikely that S and T would have read
a diêrent Vorlage. The fact that in their reading “they have gone up to the
houses of Dibon” they omitted the conjunction w is probably due to a syntactical
facilitation; (3) the rendering of G: ejfΔ eJautoi`", ajpolei`tai ga;r Lebhdwn,
“(grieve) for yourselves, for Lebedon shall be destroyed,” shows that the trans-
lator ˜rst read the proposition l[ and that he replaced the problematic tybh by
a verb already present twice in the preceding verse, thus making an assimilation.
The correction mentioned above (The daughter of Dibon has gone up) was
˜rst proposed by Duhm (99). Since it is based on a parallel in Jer. 48.18 it is
rather tempting. The correction may re˘ect a very ancient state of the text and
its adoption in a number of modern translations is therefore not surprising (in
one form or another RSV, NEB, REB, NAB, NJB). Other translations such as
NIV and GNB, although diêring in their exegetical and translational approach,
seem to have omitted the conjunction before Dibon.
Since nonetheless one cannot be sure about the correctness of Duhm’s con-
jecture, it may be wise to render a possible meaning of M. In view of the fact
that two place names are mentioned in the preceding verse and that two place
names follow in the next line, it is probable that two place names can be found
in 2aa as well: Habayit and Dibon. In this case Habayit may refer to Beth-gamul
(Jer. 48.23), a town in the Dibon area (Schoors, Clements).
If one is not attracted by an otherwise unknown place name, it remains
possible to render M as follows: “Dibon also (w) has gone up to the temple on
the heights to weep.”
Only a few translations read two diêrent place names: BR, GrN and SR,
the last of which has a deviating syntactical interpretation. GrN can best be
used as a model: “De bevolking van Baït en Dibon gaat naar de oêrhoog-
ten . . . ,” “The population of Bait and Dibon goes up to the hill-shrines . . . .”
15.3
Textual Decisions
Verse 3ab in M (on the roofs) looks like a verbless sentence. But G reads
kai; kovptesqe, “and lament.” It has therefore been suggested that originally a
Hebrew verbal form such as Wdp]s; ˜gured in the sentence. In view of the Greek
standard expression perizwvsasqe savkkouı kai; kovptesqe, “gird yourselves with
sackcloth and lament” (2 Sam. 3.31; Jer. 4.8 and 49.3), it seems nevertheless
more likely that in G an assimilation with one of the occurrences of this ex-
pression has taken place. The comma after kovptesqe in Ziegler’s edition clearly
underlines this view. Since M is, in addition, supported by 1Q-a, V, S and T,
it received a B evaluation.
Since Duhm (99) till Clements (152) and Wildberger (591) the original
presence of a Hebrew verb has been suggested. Only the proposed verb dif-
fered. So Driver (1947, 124) advanced a nowhere attested “Hebrew” verbal
form W[q; since haplography of each of the two consonants could explain its dis-
appearance. Unfortunately, the Syriac verb designates war cries and not laments!
Driver’s proposal nevertheless entered into NEB, “they cry out on the roofs”
and was con˜rmed by REB.
M does not present any particular translation problem and there is no reason
why the “roofs” and the “squares” could not be taken together as the locations
of the wailing of verse 3ba.
Almost any English translation, apart from NEB, REB, could be used as
an example. So e.g. GNB: “in the city squares and on the rooftops people mourn
and cry.”
15.5
Textual Decisions
Verse 5aa reads in M as follows: qa;z“yI ba;wOml] yBili, “My heart cries out for
Moab,” a reading which is con˜rmed by V and S. On the other hand 1Q-a and
most probably also 1Q-b read wbl, “his heart.” G must go back to such a Vor-
lage in view of its translation hJ kardiva th`ı Mwabivtidoı boa`/ ejn eJauth`/, “the
heart of the region of Moab cries within her.” The same is true for T: “In their
hearts the Moabites say.”
15.9 Isaiah 11–20 71
The committee nevertheless has given a C evaluation to M for mainly two

reasons: (a) wbl can be understood as an assimilation to the third person suf-
˜xes of the preceding sentence: wOL h[;r“y: wOvp]n", “his soul trembles” and (b) cer-
tain scribes may not have appreciated the fact that the prophet would care for
the destiny of an enemy and they may have failed to understand the possible
sarcastic undertone of the Hebrew expression.
Duhm (100), Marti (134) and many others have pronounced themselves in
favor of the third person singular. Marti’s main argument has been that the in-
terference of the prophet would be out of place in the midst of the Moabites’
complaints. This view has had, however, very little in˘uence upon translators,
maybe because the variant was mentioned and rejected in BH3 and no longer
mentioned at all in BHS. Only a few translations like NJB “His heart cries out
in distress for Moab” and NAB “The heart of Moab cries out” adopted it.
Wildberger (591) has drawn attention to the fact that in 16.9 and 11 the
author expresses his sentiments in the same way. And Ehrlich (58) had already
noted that the reading wbl produces a rather awkward Hebrew syntax. Trans-
lators are for all these reasons advised to stay with M.
Most English translations simply have: “My heart cries out for Moab!” In
languages in which the aim of “crying for” has to be made explicit, it should
be noted that in Hebrew the cry is implicitly a cry for help. Compare GN:
“ich . . . schreie um Hilfe für Moab.”
15.9
Textual Decisions
M has both in 9aa and 9ab a place name “Dimon.” In the ˜rst case M is
supported by 1Q-b, T and V, in the second instance by the annotation to; ÔEb-
rai>kon of the codex Marchalianus of G, Th, Aq, Sym and T.
G reads in both cases Remmwn which testi˜es to a dalet / resh deformation
inspired by the well-known place name Rimmon.
However, 1Q-a and S read the place name throughout as “Dibon.”
Most interesting is the evidence of V which, according to the critical edi-
tion of San Girolamo, reads “Dimon” in 9aa and “Dibon” in 9ab, a distinction
underlined by Jerome in his commentary.
For the committee this ˜rm distinction could be original since in the case
of Jerome it was not based on topographical conclusions, “Dimon” and “Dibon”
being for him the same place and since this distinction is acceptable to modern
geographers. The committee therefore gave originally a B evaluation to M in

the ˜rst case and a C evaluation to the corrected reading “Dibon” in the second
one. Later, it reconsidered its decision, mainly for contextual reasons. Half of
the members maintained their decision whereas the other half gave a C eval-
uation to M in the second case as well.
The essential question is whether one has to do with one and the same
place or with two diêrent places. It has been admitted during a long time that
“Dimon” simply could be a dialectal variant of “Dibon,” which had been pre-
ferred in 9aa in order to create an assonance with μd:, “blood.” The reference
to one and the same place would also be in agreement with the similar pattern
of verse 6 where only one location is mentioned.
On the other hand, Musil (I 157), Abel (II 372), Simons (par 1261) and
Lemaire / Baldi (285) all identify “Dimon” with Khirbet Dimneh, 12 km north
of Kerak, whereas Lemaire / Baldi identi˜es “Dibon” with “Diban,” 6 km north
of the Arnon.
No translation opts for Jerome’s alternation. In view of the context it seems
wiser to see in verse 9 a reference to one and the same place. Since the asso-
nance of the source text is anyway lost in translation, there is no reason to
maintain two diêrent forms. Nevertheless, the form chosen should not be
“Dibon” (RSV, NRSV, REB, GNB, EÜ, TOB), but “Dimon” (NAB, NJB, NEB,
NJV, GN, FC), this in spite of “Dibon” in verse 2. For the rare place name “Di-
mon” has certainly been assimilated to the more frequently occurring “Dibon.”
A footnote should be provided as in NJB or the NIV Study Bible.
15.9B
Textual Decisions
In 15ba M reads hyEr“a,' “lion,” “a lion for those of Moab who escape.” On
the other hand, 1Q-a clearly has hwra, “I will inundate,” “I will ˘ood the fu-
gitives of Moab.” M is supported by Aq, Sym and V and, indirectly by T, for
its midrash “against the escaped of Moab shall a king and his armies go up”
surely is based upon an identi˜cation of “lion” and “king.” Even S although it
reads anraw, “and I will think,” does not presuppose a text diêrent from M,
since it should be explained by the frequent yod / nun confusion in Syriac writ-
ing (Warszawski). It is more di¯cult to evaluate the reading of G: kai; ajrw' to
spevrma Mwab kai; Arihl, “and I will take away the seed of Moab and Ariel.”
Most probably G represents a double phonological translation, hyra having been
15.9C Isaiah 11–20 73
rendered by Arihl under the in˘uence of 2 Sam. 23.20 (two Ariels of Moab)
and hwra by ajrw' (Halévy, 478). It is very di¯cult to judge whether a graphical
error has been made in M or in 1Q-a. For that reason a C evaluation has been
attributed to M and a D evaluation to 1Q-a. The diêrence expresses the fact
that the committee retained another cumbersome lion in Is. 21.8.
Already Houbigant (notes edition 1753, not retained in reedition of 1777)
was embarrassed by the lion in this context and, without proposing a correc-
tion, he interpreted M from a verb hwr, translating: “inundabo eos, qui de Moab
fugerint,” “I will inundate the fugitives of Moab.” This reading has now been
con˜rmed by 1Q-a. It seems, however, to have been disregarded by modern
scholarship and, therefore, by translators. Only NJV reads “I drench it” without
any textual justi˜cation in a footnote. The only other modern translation with-
out “lion” is NEB: “for I have a vision of the survivors of Moab.” It is based
upon Hoˆmann’s (104) emendation ha,r“a, which is unacceptable and which has
rightly been abandoned in REB.
If translators want to follow M the following translations could serve as a
model: “The waters of Dimon are ˜lled with blood, but I will bring still more
upon Dimon: Lions for those who are ˘eeing from Moab” (NAV), or: “I will
let lions loose on those who ˘ee . . . from Moab” (Moâtt).
If, on the other hand, they want to take 1Q-a as their base text, a transla-
tion could run as follows: “The waters of Dimon are ˜lled with blood, but I
will bring still more (disaster) upon Dibon: I will ˘ood the fugitives of Moab.”
In both cases the reading not retained should be presented in a footnote.
15.9C
Textual Decisions
In 9bb M reads hm;d:a}, “the land,” “the remnant of the land,” whereas G ren-
ders to; katavloipon Adama, “the remnant of Adama,” reading the place name
Adama. M is supported by Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. No conclusion, of course,
can be drawn in this matter of vocalization from 1Q-a and 1Q-b. The commit-
tee considered G to be due to a vocalization error and it attributed a C evalu-
ation to M for the following reasons: (a) the masorah parva of the manuscripts
of Cairo, Aleppo and Leningrad, in order to avoid the confusion of G, indicate
that one has here to do with one of the seven occurrences of the common noun;
(b) the expression “survivors of Admah” can hardly indicate the descendants
of the emigrants from Sodom; (c) only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in
Isaiah (1.9 and 13.19); (d) in poetry, the presence of the deñite article before
the common noun is not required.
Cocceius (1669) was according to Vitringa the ˜rst to have read in M the
town of Admah. He has since then been followed by many other commenta-
tors such as Duhm, Fohrer and Kaiser. Of modern translations NEB and REB
with “and for the remnant of Admah” and EÜ did adopt such a reading. The
many other conjectures without any textual base, mentioned in the critical ap-
paratus of BHS never entered into any modern translation.
Translators are advised to render M, preferably in such a way that the con-
trast between the fugitives on the one hand and those who stayed in the land
on the other, be brought out. Vitringa, who was well aware of the diêrences
in spelling between the common noun and the proper name, may have been
right in suggesting that M makes a word play on the name of the town which
was overthrown when Sodom was destroyed. Translators may therefore advance
such a pun in a footnote.
Both NIV “upon the fugitives of Moab and upon those who remain in the
land” and NAV “for those who are ˘eeing from Moab and for those who re-
main in the land” provide useful models of translation.
16.1
Textual Decisions
There are two major textual problems in the ˜rst line of this verse: (1) the
question whether one should read the plural imperative Wjl]vi, “send,” “send
lambs to the ruler of the land,” or the third person plural perfect Wjl]v;, “they
have sent,” “they have sent lambs to the ruler of the land,” and (2) how the con-
sonants of the words following the verbal form should be combined.
As to problem (1), nothing can, of course, be deduced from 1Q-a and 1Q-b
in this matter of vocalization. The reading of G ajpostelw' , “I will send,” can
only be understood as an assimilation to the two preceding ˜rst person verbal
forms of 15.9. Contrary to what is said in Wildberger (592), the third person
plural perfect is only found in the edition of the Biblia Soncinensia of 1488 and
in the paraphrase of T: “they shall bring tribute to the Messiah.” On the other
hand, the imperative vocalization is supported by Th and Jerome and it there-
fore received a C evaluation.
As to problem (2): M reads ≈r<a,Alvemo rk', “lambs ruler of the land.” 1Q-a
does not have any space between the two ˜rst words and the reading of G wJı
16.4 Isaiah 11–20 75
eJrpeta; ejpi; th;n gh'n, “as reptiles on the land,” presupposes a division çmrk
≈ral. Since both divisions are diêrent, they are probably due to a graphical
error. The division of M seems, however, to be supported by 1Q-b and it cer-
tainly is by V, reasons why a C evaluation was attributed to M in this case.
Very few exegetes and translators have been attracted by the diêrent word
division of G. The only notable exception is NAB: “Send them forth, hugging
the earth like reptiles.” NEB and REB insist upon reading the perfect and tak-
ing the ruler of the land as grammatical subject: “The rulers of the land send
a present of lambs,” which is hardly acceptable. RSV originally had: “They have
sent lambs to the ruler of the land,” but NRSV correctly changed the translation
into “Send lambs to the ruler of the land.” Most probably the genitive con-
struction in Hebrew has the meaning of “tribute of lambs due to the sovereign
of the land” (Qimchi, Galuy, 30 and 108) and this has been made explicit in
some translations like NIV: “Send lambs as tribute to the ruler of the land” and
GNB: “. . . a lamb as a present.” Whether more explicit information is needed
or not will depend upon the discourse divisions made by the translator. The
medieval chapter inventors started a new division here and this is still followed
by many modern translations. This does not correspond to any division in Qum-
ran or in the Masoretic tradition and other modern translations do realize this
(NRSV, NIV, GN, GrN).
A translation like NIV (see above) can be taken as model. If, in combi-
nation with the imperative, an explicit addressee is needed, “Moab” should be
addressed as in GrN. In translations which are traditionally in˘uenced by the
LXX as base text, at least a footnote should explain the reason of the important
semantic diêrences.
16.4
Textual Decisions
M reads in 4a ba;wOm yj'D:nI , “my refugees, Moab” and it is supported in this
reading only by V. The reading of G oiJ fugavdeı Mwab, “the refugees of
Moab” as well as the readings of S and of some of the Targum editions (Felix
de Prato, Ben Hayim and London polyglot) seem to presuppose a vocalization
according to the construct state yjeD“nI. Contrary to the statement in BHS, none of
the Masoretic witnesses supports such a vocalization. Finally, the polyglot of
Antwerp and some of the Targum manuscripts by rendering “let the outcasts
dwell with you, O kingdom of Moab” seem to be based upon a reading μyjiD:nI.
The committee, considering the variant as syntactically facilitating, gave a C

evaluation to the more di¯cult reading of M.
Translators, looking at the vast majority of English translations with their
apparently unproblematic renderings “let the outcasts (homeless people, exiles,
those driven out) of Moab settle among (ñd refuge with, ñd a home with,
come and live with) you,” may not even be aware of the existence of a textual
problem. They will only become aware of a problem when they turn to KJ: “Let
mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab” or when they cast a look into NJV which,
though translating “Moab’s outcasts,” footnotes: “Heb. ‘my outcasts, Moab.’ ”
If the discourse in its ñal redaction is taken seriously, the vocative does
not make any sense (Ehrlich, 60) since the fugitives are Moabites and Moab is
not addressed. M should therefore be understood in a diêrent way. With Ge-
senius (1817, 734–735) it is possible to consider the use of the ˜rst person sin-
gular su¯x as pleonastic: “Let my outcasts-mine, Moab, dwell . . . .” The other
possibility is to consider with Delitzsch (226) Moab as a casus pendens: “Let
my refugees dwell with you. The Moabites, be a refuge to them.”
Translators have three diêrent possibilities to render M.
First of all, they may want to keep the pleonastic use of the possessive in
their translation for reasons of clearness. BR: “in dir mögen gasten meine, Mo-
abs, Ge˘üchtete,” “let my, Moab’s, refugees ñd a home with you” and Chour-
aqui: “Qu’ils résident en toi, mes bannis, ceux de Moab,” “May they dwell with
you, my outcasts, those of Moab,” can serve as models in that case.
Secondly, they may not want to express themselves pleonastically in the
receptor language, in which case they can for linguistic reasons follow the vast
majority of English translations without making a textual comment, or, when
“Moab” would be pleonastic, they could render as in GNB: “Let us stay in your
land.”
Finally, they might want to follow the possible text devision made by Del-
itzsch. So does Moâtt: “let our outcasts live within your land, shelter Moab
from the ravagers.”
16.7
Textual Decisions
In M in the second part of verse 7 the collective third person singular of
verse 7a changes into a second person plural: WGh]T,, “you will mourn.” T reads
a third person plural here and G a second person singular. This means that T
16.10 Isaiah 11–20 77
assimilates the verb to the third person plural verb of 7a, “the Moabites howl,”
of its translation, whereas G continues to use the second person singular which
it had already introduced in 6. Both readings are therefore facilitating. On the
other hand, the more di¯cult reading of M has the support of 1Q-a, Aq, Sym,
V and S. All these considerations resulted in a B evaluation of M.
NEB renders in 7b “he shall mourn,” conjecturing still another original form
hG<h]y<. REB, by translating “they will mourn” and by providing a textual note,
seems to have returned to the more common conjecture WGh]y<. The textual base
for doing so is, however, insu¯cient. The change from description to interpel-
lation can be seen as a rather frequent rhetorical device which creates a more
vivid style. It frequently occurs in Isaiah (3.12; 17.10) and even, as Feldmann
(204) has remarked, in 16.9.
In many receptor languages a literal translation of M would cause confu-
sion and not vividness of style. Therefore, translators may have to proceed to
an assimilation similar to that of T: “They will all weep . . .” (GNB). The op-
eration will nevertheless uniquely be based upon the syntactical grammar of
the target language, and not on textual decisions. It will therefore be transla-
tional, and no textual notes should be provided. If, on the other hand, the shift
of person in a language would enhance the receptor style, it may be necessary
to make the addressee explicit as in LB: “Yes, Moab, you will mourn . . . .”
16.10
Textual Decisions
The last verb of the verse in M reads yTiB'v]hi, “I have hushed,” I have hushed
the vintage-shout,” whereas G by reading pevpautai, “is hushed,” seems to pre-
suppose the third person singular passive tB;v]h;. M is strongly supported by
1Q-a, Sym, V, S and T. G can be explained as a translational transformation in
view of the unclearness of the grammatical subject. Therefore, a majority of the
committee attributed a C evaluation to M.
Commentators (Ehrlich, 64. Wildberger, 594) generally deny the presence
of any divine subject in this oracle concerning Moab. If they do not, they
con˜rm at least the high degree of identi˜cation of the prophet with the divine
message (Delitzsch, 229) which contributes to the ambiguity of the partici-
pants. No wonder therefore that, with the notable exception of NEB, REB and
NIV, the vast majority of modern Jewish and Christian translators opt for a pas-
sive or intransitive verbal form. Some of them (RSV, NRSV, GNB, GN) declare
in a footnote to follow G. Translators should not base themselves on G, but
they should apply the same translation technique as G by focusing upon the
result of the event (de Waard, 1991, 281).
Any modern translation can serve as a model, e.g. GNB: “the shouts of joy
are ended.” But textual notes should be avoided. If translators feel obliged to
provide a footnote, the example of NJV is very enlightening. After having trans-
lated “the shouts have been silenced,” the translator explains in a footnote: “lit.
‘I have silenced.’ ”
16.14
Textual Decisions
M has vocalized the form raçw as a noun ra;v]W , “and a remnant” and it is
supported in this by T. G in view of its rendering kai; kataleifqhvsetai, “and
he shall be left,” clearly vocalized the form as a verb ra'v;w“ and it is followed in
this by Sym, V and S. 1Q-a is, of course, useless in this matter of vocalization.
The committee considered it to be more likely that G also read a noun which
it changed into a verb for translational reasons since the expected Hebrew
verbal form would be a niphal: ra'v]nIw“. Therefore, M received a B evaluation.
The noun phrase of M, similar to the one found in 10.19, clearly has the
preference of commentators (Ehrlich, 64: Wildberger, 595). Translators, on the
other hand, should be led by the genius of the receptor language as to the choice
between noun- and verbal phrase. Their decision should be translational and
not textually based and they should not look for a textual justi˜cation as Brock-
ington does in the case of the NEB reading “(a handful) shall be left.”
According to the syntactical and stylistic options of the target language,
such diverse translations as “and her survivors will be very few” (NIV), “an in-
signi˜cant remnant” (NJB), “only a few will survive” (GNB) and “those who
are left will be few” are possible.
17.2 Isaiah 11–20 79
17.2
Textual Decisions
M reads r[ero[} yrE[;, “cities of Aroer,” “the cities of Aroer are deserted” and
this reading is entirely supported by V and S (if the Roman edition of Ephrem
is taken to represent the original form of S) and partly by Th, Aq, Sym ac-
cording to ms. Q of G. The spelling wr[rw[ in 1Q-a seems to be based upon a
modernization of the place-name (Kutscher, 114). The same graphic form
could explain the rendering Wbr:j;, “demolished” in T as a pulpal of r[er“[æ. G by
rendering kataleleimmevnh eijı to;n aijw'na, “abandoned for ever,” seems to have
read d[w d[ yd[ on the base of a resh-daleth confusion: r[wr[ yr[. The reading
of M is no doubt the more di¯cult one and, directly and indirectly, the best sup-
ported one. Therefore, a C evalution has been attributed to it.
Most modern translations (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, GNB, NJB etc.) fol-
low to a certain extent G as suggested by a majority of commentators and by
BH 2, 3, S. The reasons for doing this are not purely text critical. In fact, three
Aroers are known, one in Judah (1 Sam 30.28), one in Moab (Numb 32.34)
and one in Ammon (Judg 11.26, 33), but none in Aram. Several solutions have
been proposed in order to solve this problem: (1) Aroer is used because it
evokes r[;r“['h; (Ps 102.18), “the destituted one,” so that the meaning would be:
“deserted are the cities of the destituted one,” referring to Damascus and the
neighbouring towns (Snijders, 190); (2) one (Barthélemy, 128) of the Aroers
mentioned above or both (Delitzsch, 233) are intended; (3) verse 2 belonged
to one of the chapters concerning Moab (Wildberger, 635).
The few translations rendering M opt in translation or footnote for one of
the solutions mentioned above. BR: “verlassen die Städte der Blossstatt,” “de-
serted the cities of the destituted place,” chooses solution (1); NIV by noting
“Aroer. About 14 miles east of the Dead Sea on the Arnon river. It marked the
southern boundery of Aram’s sphere of control (see 2 Ki 10: 32–33)” favors
solution (2) and GN by footnoting that none of the three towns of this name is
situated in the surroundings of Damascus, so that the verse perhaps belongs to
chapter 16, seems to prefer option (3). Translators are advised to adopt one of
these solutions and to make the corresponding footnote.
17.9
Textual Decisions
M has the di¯cult expression rymia;h;w“ vr<joh', which could mean something
like “branches and tops of trees.” It is supported in this by 1Q-a, Th, Sym, V
and S. For the reading of Aq, Jerome uses the word “testa,” “a piece of baked
earthen-ware,” which implies a punctuation error: cr<j,h' in stead of vr<joh'. T
makes a contextual assimilation and rymia;h; inspired the targumist to render
rM'j't]ai, “transformed into a pile of ruins.” The important variant reading is pro-
vided by G: oiJ Amorrai'
j oi kai; oiJ Eujai'oi, “the Amorites and the Hivites.” The
change of order has been used as an argument both against the originality of
G (Delitzsch, 235) and in favor of it (Duhm, 106). The committee, however,
gave a C rating to M for the following reasons: (1) 1Q-a is already substantially
identical with M; (2) Th already gave a simple transcription of the words be-
cause of lack of understanding: “ars” and “emir ”; (3) it is therefore more likely
that G gives a midrashic interpretation (see also Seeligmann, 60).
Translators are advised to render M against the majority of modern ver-
sions (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, GNB, RL, EÜ, FC). Unfortunately, the mean-
ing of the two Hebrew words is problematic. Several possibilities exist: (1) the
expressions might be rendered with “woods and mountain tops” (Delitzsch,
235); (2) they could be analyzed as proper names: “the Horesh and the Amir”;
(3) the two words could be rendered with “branches and tops of trees,” being
part of an idiomatic expression: “like the leaving behind of branches and tree
tops.” Such an idiom would have found its origin in the practice of woodcutters
and it would mean: “leaving behind what is useless,” especially during a mi-
gration (Barthélemy, 133); (4) in a translation “woods and mountain tops”
“woods” could evoke the Hittites as inhabitants of the low land, and “mountain
tops” the Amorites as inhabitants of the mountain area (Ewald). Such an evo-
cation would ultimately lead to the rendering of G.
These diêrent possibilities are re˘ected in several modern translations:
(1) a literal translation is given in Chouraqui: “comme le bocage et la cime,”
and with a diêrent interpretation of the second lexical item in JB: “woods and
heaths” and NIV: “thickets and undergrowth”; (2) proper names are given in
NJV “which the Horesh and the Amir abandoned”; (3) no translation has in-
terpreted the expression as idiomatic; (4) LB tried to combine the literal trans-
lation with a partly evocative rendering along the lines of G.
17.12 and 13 Isaiah 11–20 81
Since the existence of an idiomatic expression unfortunately cannot be

proven, a rendering like in GN could be recommended to translators: “Zu der
Zeit werden die befestigten Städte Israels so verlassen sein wie die Wälder und
Berggipfel damals bei der Ankunft der Israeliten . . . ,” “At that time the strong
cities of Israel will be abandoned as the woods and mountain tops at the arrival
of the Israelites . . . .” In projects with Orthodox participation translators may
want to mention the reading of G and its relation to M in a footnote.
17.12 and 13
Textual Decisions
M, after having ended verse 12 as follows: μyrIyBiK' μyIm' ˆwOav]Ki μyMiaul] ˆwOav]W
ˆWaV;yI: “ah, the roar of nations, like the roaring of mighty waters they roar!,”
starts verse 13 in this way; ˆWaV;yi μyBir" μyIm' ˆwOav]Ki μyMiaul], “The nations, like the
roaring of many waters, they roar.” Two manuscripts of Kennicott omit the ˜rst
element and ˜ve the second element of the repetition. The ˜ve last words of
verse 12 are also lacking in S. However, both verses are present in 1Q-a and in
4Q-a (as, in spite of the fragmentary character of the text, is shown by the
length of the lines) as well as in G, V and T. Verse 13 is also present in S.
Because of this strong support and because of the fact that the omissions can
easily be explained by homoioarcton or homoioteleuton (a same beginning or
a same ending), a B evaluation was given to M.
Many commentators considered verse 13a as a dittography and some recent
translations have taken the same position. They simply omit verse 13a without
any comment (so NEB, Moâtt, GrN) or with comment (REB, NAB) or they
put this verse between parentheses marking it as a gloss (BJ). Translators are
advised not to follow such a practice, but to pay attention to the stylistic vari-
ations within the repetition: μyrIyBiK' // μyBir" with chiastic change of beth and resh
(Hitzig; Clements, 162) and to the chiastic position of the two ˜rst vocabulary
items of 12 and 13.
Translators should try to match the rhetorical function of these stylistic
variations in the target language.
18.4
Textual Decisions
At the end of the verse M reads ryxiq; μjoB], “in the heat of the harvest,” a
reading which has the support of both 1Q-a and T. On the other hand, twelve
manuscripts of M read ryxiiq; μwOyB], “on the day of harvest” and this reading is
clearly followed by G, V and S. The reading of the classical Tiberian text of
M can easily be identi˜ed thanks to the masorah of the manuscripts of Aleppo
and Cairo. Although the support of 1Q-a has more weight than the deviation
of G, the committee expressed a relative uncertainty by giving one C vote to
the variant and four C votes plus one B to M.
Most commentators remain neutral in the textual debate (e.g. Gray, 314).
Exceptionally, they reject the variant reading with the (contestable!) argument
that ryxq ymy would be a Hebrew construction, but the singular ryxq μwy not
(Ehrlich, 69), or they defend it with the (likewise debatable) argument that
Isaiah would never have repeated the same form within one and the same verse
(Wildberger, 681). Most translators follow M. Some, however, opt for the “har-
vest time” either without making a textual note (NEB, Moâtt, GNB, FC) or
with a note (REB, NAB).
But it seems that the real problem for the translator is not in the ˜rst place
the textual one, but the correct understanding of the imagery. For some, the im-
ages enforce the care of Yahweh. T goes very far in this direction: I will give
rest to my people Israel and cause them to be quiet, I will be pleased to do good
to them from my holy dwelling, blessings and consolations I will quickly bring
upon them, as clear heat in the sunshine, as a cloud of dew in the heat of the
harvest.” For others, the threat of Yahweh is underlined in the images. So in
NIV: “Like a scorching heat upon sprouts, like a rain-cloud in the heat of reap-
ing time.” For others again, the imagery of a pleasant summer evening enforces
the serene indiêrence of Yahweh to the Ethiopian plan (Marti, 149 and Clem-
ents, 165). The last exegetical option seems to be the most enlightening one.
Image, object and ground of comparison are best handled in a translation
such as NJB: “I shall sit here quietly looking down, like the burning heat in
the daytime, like a dewy mist in the heat of harvest.”
18.7 Isaiah 11–20 83
18.7
Textual Decisions
By reading μ[' “people,” M understands the text to mean “at that time a
people tall and smooth-skinned will be brought as a tribute to the Lord of Hosts.”
By reading μ[m, “from a people,” 1Q-a understands the text as follows: “at that
time tribute will be brought to the Lord of Hosts from a tall and smooth-
skinned people.” This understanding is backed up by G and V. Because of such
parallel texts as Is 66.20 and 45.14, a minority of the committee gave a C eval-
uation to M. The majority, though, gave such an evaluation to 1Q-a, judging
that (a) M could be explained as a graphical error in view of the following μ['meW;
(b) that 4Q-b and 10 manuscripts of Kennicott by reading in the second case
μ[m and S and T by reading there μ[w can be considered as syntactical facili-
tations, and (c) that only this reading respects the rigorous parallelism between
this verse and verse 2.
Except for Delitzsch (243–244) who defends M considering the second
..mW as accidental dittography and Procksch (245–246) who takes this defense
seriously into consideration, commentators illustrate the point of view of the
committee. Translations do the same and they only occasionally provide a tex-
tual note (NRSV, NAB, REB). Only NJV puts “from” in between square brack-
ets to signal the presence of a textual problem, a practice which translators
should not normally follow.
Translators can either follow closely the reading of 1Q-a in the traces of
most modern translations or they can make active transformations as in GNB:
“A time is coming when the Lord Almighty will receive oêrings from . . . .”
Even then a textual note will have to be provided in which also the reading of M
“people . . . will be brought as a tribute to the Lord of Hosts” can be mentioned.
19.7
Textual Decisions
M has at ˜rst sight the somewhat redundant expression rwOay“ yPiAl[' rwOay“Al[',
“along the Nile, on the shore of the Nile.” M nevertheless has the strong sup-
port of 1Q-a, 1Q-b, 4Q-b, S and T, whereas the renderings of V and G do not
permit the hypothesis of a diêrent Hebrew Vorlage. The committee therefore
decided to give a B evaluation to M.
The decision made above shows that translations such as NEB and REB:
“The lotus beside the Nile” which eliminate rwOay“ yPiAl[', or a translation like NAB
“and bulrushes on the bank of the Nile” which omits rwOay“Al[' have no real tex-
tual grounds for doing so. After having solved the textual problem, the trans-
lator is nevertheless left with two interpretational problems: (a) the meaning of
the hapax twOr[;, the ˜rst word of the problematic sentence, and (b) the meaning
of yPi. As to the ˜rst problem, twOr[; has traditionally been connected with a verb
rr[, “to lay bare,” and it has therefore been rendered with “bare places” as still
in RSV and NRSV: “There will be bare places by the Nile.” Since such a ren-
dering does not make any sense, one probably has to relate the Hebrew word
to Egyptian çr, “rushes” or çrt, “bulrushes,” “lotus.” (Holladay; Baumgartner;
Wildberger, 701). With regard to the second problem, yPi has frequently been
translated with “brink” (RSV, NRSV) or “banks” (NJB) which has contributed
to the impression of redundancy of the Hebrew. Such a translation is, however,
problematic, and a rendering “mouth” (NIV) or “estuary” seems to be more
correct.
A translation such as EÜ: “Das Riedgras am Nil, an der Mündung des
Nils”; “The rushes along the Nile, at the mouth of the Nile,” would clearly re-
˘ect the positions defended above.
19.9
Textual Decisions
M reads at the end of the verse and at the end of its second part yr:wOj,
“white cloth,” so that the second part of the verse would mean “and weavers
of white cloth,” and one and the same verb WvboW , “will be confounded,” would
govern both sentences. Although G, V, S and T produce diêrent translations
of this hapax, they seem all to be based upon a same nominal form yrwj. On
the other hand, 1Q-a and 4Q-a and most probably also 1Q-b read wrwj, to be
vocalized as WrwEj;, “shall turn pale,” so that the second part of the verse would
mean: “and the weavers shall turn (grow) pale.” In view of the parallelism of
the same verbs in 19.22, the committee preferred the Qumran reading with a
C evaluation.
The proposal to read WrwEj;, already proposed by Pinsker (1863, 133), has
been adopted by the vast majority of commentators, even before Qumran dis-
19.10 Isaiah 11–20 85
coveries. In fact, structurally, this reading produces a neat chiasm, the verse
both starting and ending with a verb of comparable meaning. Translations, with
the exception of most Jewish versions (BR, Chouraqui) and some Christian ones
(RSV, NJB) are in agreement with the commentaries.
In many languages, a translation such as “the weavers shall turn pale” may
not be clear as to its meaning. Translators could therefore feel the need to make
its meaning explicit as has been done in FC: “sont pâles d ’inquiétude,” “are
pale with anxiety.”
19.10
Textual Decisions
M has in the second word the vocalization h;yt,tov;, which could mean either
“her foundations” or “her pillars.” On the other hand, 1Q-a and 4Q-b clearly
read hyttwç which should be vocalized as h;yt,t]wOv, meaning “her weavers.” This
reading is also supported by G if diazovmenoi, “those who set the warp in the
loom,” is taken to be the original Greek, and by T if the reading aj;m;, “to
weave” of ms Urbinat. 1 is taken to be original. S, Th and V all made a deri-
vation from ht;v;, “to drink,” either in a literal sense (S) or in the sense of ir-
rigation of land (V) and resulting fertility (Th). The committee decided to give
a C evaluation to the corrected vocalization of 1Q-a and 4Q-b considering that
the “weavers” interpretation, still accessible to G and T, was lost afterwards,
and considering that the vocalization of M for the same reasons brought the
Hebrew into relation with the mysterious twOtV;h' of Ps 11.3.
Qumran discoveries have con˜rmed the conjectural vocalization already
proposed by Koppe (1781). Since an adjective of the root shtt with the mean-
ing “woven” also exists in Ugaritic (Gordon, 1965, § 2504) the presence of the
same root in Hebrew is not unlikely. Translators are therefore advised to ren-
der a meaning “weavers.” It may very well be that G, well acquainted with the
process of weaving since using a more speci˜c rendering has preserved here a
particular reminiscence of Egypt. This has been taken over in some modern
translations like in Chouraqui: “ses ourdisseurs sont prostrés,” “her warpers are
exhausted.” It seems wiser to stay with the more general meaning “weavers”
which covers the whole process of weaving and not only the beginning. On the
other hand, a too general meaning like “The workers in cloth” (NIV) should
also be avoided, as well as speci˜c meanings which can hardly be defended
such as “spinners” (NEB, REB, NAB). The reading and interpretation of M,
still preserved in RSV “Those who are the pillars of the land” and in NJV “Her
foundations shall be crushed” should be abandoned likewise. It is, in addition,
very unlikely that “foundations” or “pillars” could stand for “leading classes”
(Delitzsch, 247). One certainly should not adopt an emendation “her drinkers” as
TOB by reading “ceux qui préparent les boissons,” “those who prepare drinks”
seems to have done. The problem, though, is not restricted to 19.10a and the
same translation renders the parallel line with “les fabricants de bière,” “pro-
ducers of beer,” instead of with “who work for wages.” The reason for this is
of course the interdependence of textual problems and solutions.
A rendering such as “the weavers (will be) dismayed” (NJB) will be suf-
˜cient. It is true that the text has “her weavers” which most probably refers
back to the weavers of Egypt and some translations felt the need to make
“Egypt” explicit (REB). The setting may, however, be self-evident. Since the
“weavers” were the last subject of the last verse, some translations (GN) es-
teemed that a simple pronoun “they” was su¯cient. A footnote may explain
some of the complexities of the text and signal variant translations.
19.12
Textual Decisions
M reads W[d“yEw“, “and they know,” “Let them tell you and they know what . . . .”
On the other hand, G by reading kai; eijpavtwsan, “and say,” “Let them tell
you and say . . .” seems to have read a hiphil vocalization of the same Hebrew
form: W[dIyOw“. M is probably supported by 1Q-a since the last has the same or-
thography as M and as a rule distinguishes clearly the hiphil imperfect through
a full writing. M is certainly followed by S and T. As to G, it is only supported
by V. M surely presents the most di¯cult reading since at ˜rst sight the “know-
ing” should precede the “telling,” and the readings of G and V are facilitating.
Therefore, a B evaluation has been attributed to M.
If discussed at all, the facilitating reading has the favor of almost all com-
mentaries. It is also “ordered” in the apparatus of BHS which may explain its
adoption in most English versions: “make known” (NAB, NIV, NEB, REB,
RSV, NRSV). Since translators are advised to render M, they should know
how the problem of the more di¯cult reading can be solved. Four possibilities
have been proposed: (1) the verb would have a diêrent meaning in this con-
text. So NJV: “Let them tell you, let them discover / What . . .” and Chour-
aqui: “Qu’ils te rapportent donc, qu’ils pénètrent ce que . . . ,” Let them report to
19.14 Isaiah 11–20 87
you, let them apprehend what . . . .” This variant translation does not, of course,
solve the problem. (2) The verbal phrase in the Hebrew would have a condi-
tional meaning. So GrN and GN: “Sie sollen dir doch sagen . . . —wenn sie es
wissen,” “They should tell you . . . —if at least they know.” (3) The meaning
of the verb would be the same, but the subject would be diêrent. So with
impersonal grammatical subject TOB: “et que l’on sache,” “so that one may
know,” and with slight variation NJB: “so that all may know.” (4) The Hebrew
presents a rhetorical device in which the second verb expresses a presupposi-
tion of the ˜rst: “Let them tell you and let them, ˜rst of all, know” (Dillmann /
Kittel). The solutions proposed under (4) and (3) are the most probable ones.
No translation can be cited which illustrates directly solution (4). Since,
however, presupposition and condition are semantically closely related, solu-
tion (2) could be adopted as well. In this case either GN could serve as a model
with the conditional verbal phrase at the end, or GrN with the same phrase in
initial position: “If they know it, let them announce to you what . . . .” If so-
lution (3) is preferred, NJB could be a useful example: “so that all may know.”
19.14
Textual Decisions
M reads HB;r“qiB], “within her,” “The Lord has mixed within her a spirit of
distortion,” whereas the translation of G: aujtoi'ı seems at ˜rst sight to presup-
pose a reading μB;r“qiB], “within them.” G is also backed up by T, but M has the
strong support of 1Q-a, 4Q-b, V and S and for that reason received a majority
C and minority B rating.
Many commentators preferred the reading of G which has even been
“commanded” in the apparatus of BH3 and BHS. This may explain the relative
spread of the reading in modern versions like NRSV, “The Lord has poured
into them . . . ,” REB: “The Lord has infused into them . . . ,” with statement in
a footnote that this rendering was given for textual reasons. Such a practice
can, however, hardly be recommended to translators. In fact, it is highly doubt-
ful whether a textual problem ever existed. Most probably, G and T read a text
like M and they made an assimilation to the context for translational reasons.
The same technique seems to have been applied in modern translations as NAB,
NIV, GNB, FC which rightly refrain from giving textual notes.
In M the possessive su¯x refers back to Egypt and Egypt is pictured as a
recipient in which the Lord mixes a spirit of dizziness like an intoxicating bev-
erage. The main problem is how this picture should be handled translationally.
If the metaphor of “mixing” presents problems, a general term “to prepare”
should be preferred on lexical grounds (Marti, 154). Most English translations
unfortunately change the picture by rendering “poured into” or “infused into.”
In most translations contextual assimilation will be necessary. In a rather
literal type of translation NAB could serve as a model: “The Lord has prepared
among them a spirit of dizziness.” If functional equivalence is aimed at, the
picture could be kept as a comparison like in GN: “Der Herr hat ihr Denken
so verwirrt, als wären sie im Taumel eines Rausches,” “The Lord has obscured
their thinking as if they were intoxicated.”
19.18
Textual Decisions
M reads sr<h,h' ry[i which could be taken to mean “city of destruction.” On
the other hand, 1Q-a, 4Q-b and some manuscripts of M have the reading ry[i
sr<j,h', “city of the sun,” which is also supported by Sym, by the quotation of the
Isaiah text in Menachot 110a of the Babylonian Talmud, and by V. As to the
other versions, S gives a transliteration of M; G by transliterating (Povli"-)asedek
must have read qd<X,h' ry[i, “city of justice”; T by rendering “Bethshemesh (the
house of the Sun) which is about to be destroyed” gives evidence of both read-
ings with sr<j,h' in the ˜rst position. Finally, Th, Aq give a transliteration ajre",
but their habits of transliteration are such that nothing can be concluded as to
the nature of the guttural under discussion. The committee has attributed a B
evaluation to the correction sr<j,h' ry[i, “city of the sun,” for the following rea-
sons: (1) the strong textual support of this reading; (2) the fact that the dis-
cussion by Jerome shows that he was not aware of any problem with regard to
the identi˜cation of the guttural, which for him was a chet; (3) the evidence
of some manuscripts of the treatise Menachot over against that of the editions
which have already assimilated the text to M; (4) the strong probability that
both M and G are due to diêrent polemical reactions; (5) the fact that sr<j, is
a Hebrew word and sr<h,, as far as known, is not.
“City of the Sun” is the vast majority translation of our modern versions.
Only EÜ, “Ir-Heres” and NJV “Town of Heres” follow the transliteration
practise whereas Chouraqui and GrN provide transliteration and translation,
“City of the Sun.” NIV is the only modern English version opting for M in its
rendering “City of Destruction.” Although a long historical survey about the
20.2 Isaiah 11–20 89
identi˜cation of the city could be developed in order to clarify the “relectures”

of both M and G, there seems to be little doubt that the city referred to was
Heliopolis.
Translators should take care not to mention the toponym in the text, since
the context: “one of them will be called . . .” clearly introduces a symbolic
name and not a place name. Therefore “City of the Sun” should ˜gure in the
text and a footnote could explain that the reference is to Heliopolis, the Egyp-
tian town of the sun god Atum which will become a real “city of the Sun.” Al-
though G cannot be considered with Seeligmann (68) as original, its reading
should be mentioned in interconfessional projects with Orthodox participa-
tion. A note could explain that the Greek translator of Isaiah probably was a
partisan of Onias who wanted to defend the Jewish temple built by Onias in
Heliopolis against criticisms from Palestine. (Van der Kooij, 60–61).
20.2
Textual Decisions
M reads dy"B] in the introductory sentence, “through,” “through Isaiah,”
whereas G has prov", “to,” “to Isaiah” which could presuppose the reading of
the preposition la,. In fact, la is the reading of manuscript Kennicott 30 ac-
cording to the Hebrew University Bible. However, M is strongly supported
by 1Q-a, V, S and T. G only has the secondary support of the Arabic version.
Moreover, G can be explained as a super˜cial correction out of stylistic igno-
rance. Therefore, M merited a B rating.
Many modern versions (NRSV, NEB, REB, NJV, GNB) show that the
facilitating translational solution is still popular. Only very occasionally G is
quoted as textual base in a footnote (REB). A more precise translation should,
however, start from the insight that the Lord addresses himself to the people
through the ministry of Isaiah who performs the symbolic act. On the other
hand, the direct quotation marker rmoale, “saying,” does not introduce this ad-
dress, but the preliminary order to Isaiah (Ehrlich, 73).
NIV can serve as a model based upon the insight discussed above: “at that
time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him . . . .” A same
kind of translational solution has been adopted in TOB: “En ce temps-là, le
Seigneur avait parlé par le ministère d ’Esaïe, ˜ls d ’Amoç: “Va, lui avait-il
dit, . . . .”
20.6
Textual Decisions
M has the reading Wns]n", “we ˘ed,” whereas 1Q-a reads ˚msn, “we relied.”
1Q-a is entirely isolated in its reading and M has the support of all the ancient
versions (G, V, S, T). Four reasons moved the committee to give a C evaluation
to M: (1) the isolation of 1Q-a; (2) the grammatical awkwardness of 1Q-a,
since the verb ˚ms is normally constructed with the preposition l[; (3) the fact
that 1Q-a can be explained as an assimilation to 36.6 where the same verb ˚ms
is used for the coalition with Egypt; (4) the fact that in 10.3 as well the verb
swn has been used in combination with hr:z“[,l], “to whom you will ˘ee for help.”
Kutscher (268–269) has rightly suggested that 1Q-a has preferred the use
of the verb ˚ms to guarantee a metaphorical understanding of the verb and to
avoid the impression that the people of Judah would have literally “˘ed” to
Egypt. Such a concern for clearness in communication constitutes an example
for translators.
Several solutions exist: 1Q-a can be followed: “on which we relied,” as
many English versions have done (NEB, REB, GNB), but since the problem is
interpretational and not textual, no textual notes should be provided as has been
done in REB. Other unambiguous phrasings are possible as well, such as “to
whom we turned” (Moâtt), “bij wie wij een toevlucht hebben gezocht,” “with
whom we have taken refuge” (C) etc.
Isaiah 21–30
ISAIAH 21–30
21.1
Textual Decisions
The title of the section has in M the mysterious expression μy:ArB'd“mi, “the
wilderness of the sea,” an expression which has been literally rendered by Th,
Aq, Sym, V and S. T presents a paraphrase: “The oracle of the armies which
come from the desert like the waters of the sea,” but the paraphrase contains
all the elements of M. On the other hand, 1Q-a reads μy rbd, “word about the
sea,” if at least the two words should not be joined, vocalized as μyrIb;D“ and
connected with the following which would yield: “words like storm-winds.” In
G the presence of rB'd“mi is attested, but μy: is absent. Taking into account that
1Q-a and G both distinguish themselves from M by one variant and from each
other by two, the committee judged that M has serious chances to be the oldest
preserved textual form. M received therefore a B rating.
In recent times commentators prefer to stay with M (Fohrer, Wildberger),
but this does not mean that the interpretational problems have been solved for
the translator. Many conjectures and changes of text have been proposed in the
course of time, but very few of them in˘uenced translation. Most frequently
followed has been the omission of μy or the reading of the (non existent) plural
with singular meaning: μyrbdm, “A ‘Desert’ oracle” (Moâtt, RL, EÜ). Further,
Driver (1968, 46) had proposed to read μwOy instead of μy: which should be given
the Accadian meaning of “day” or “demon” of storm. This suggestion has been
taken over in NEB which, after the title “A wilderness: an oracle,” starts the text
with “Rough weather.” It still stands, in slightly modi˜ed form, in REB: “ ‘The
wilderness’: an oracle. A day of storms. . . .” These conjectures being unsatis-
factory, they cannot be recommended to translators. For translation purposes,
91
three considerations are of importance: (1) the title should be seen as purpose-
fully emblematical as is the case with titles of other oracles against the nations
(18.1; 22.1; 30.6); (2) “wilderness of the sea” may be a reference to Southern
Babylonia which in Accadian is called mât tâmtim, “Land of the Sea” (so already
Delitzsch, 257); (3) μy: is a reference to the Euphrates.
If the emblematical nature of the title is considered to be in focus, a rather
literal translation should be given as in NRSV: “The oracle concerning the
wilderness of the sea.” If consideration (2) is followed, NJB could serve as a
model: “Proclamation about the coastal desert.” A rendering of (3) is proposed
in GrN: “Onheil over Babel: Woestijn aan de rivier,” “Disaster for Babylon:
a wilderness on the river.” Any translation whatsoever, should present a note
which explains the option, mentions the hypothetical character of any render-
ing and gives alternatives.
21.2
Textual Decisions
M reads two active qal participles: ddEwOv ddEwOVh'w“ dgEwOB dgEwOBh', “the traitor be-
traying and the destroyer destroying.” On the other hand, Sym seems to have
read passive participles, dWgB; and dWdv; respectively, given his translation oJ
ajqetw' n ajqetei'tai kai; oJ talaipwrivzwn talaipwrei', “the traitor betrayed and
the tormentor tormented.” Sym is supported by T “The oppressors are op-
pressed and the spoilers are spoiled,” whereas M has the support of G, V and
S. Although 1Q-a has the same spelling as M, a certain ambiguity exists since
1Q-a has the same spelling in 15.1 where M gives a pual vocalization of the
defective writing. The committee judged that the passive translations of Sym
and T had been in˘uenced by the parallel passage 33.1: “you destroyer, who
yourself have not been destroyed; you treacherous one, with whom no one has
dealt treacherously!” and it gave therefore a B rating to M.
According to Brockington, NEB followed Sym in its rendering: “the trai-
tor betrayed, the spoiler himself despoiled.” This rendering has been taken over
by REB which did not deem it necessary to justify its rendering in a textual
note. The only other version following Sym without justi˜cation is Chouraqui:
“Le traître est trahi, le razzieur razzié.” One can easily see that certain inter-
pretational problems are at the origin of this textual choice. The active parti-
ciples of M are embarrassing indeed when with Ewald and Procksch (261–262)
Babylon should be considered to be the subject of the utterances. This problem
21.8 Isaiah 21–30 93
no longer exists when with Duhm (122) and Galling (156) Elam and Media,
mentioned immediately afterwards, are taken to be the subjects of the active
participles. These two former allies of Babylonia in the battle against the As-
syrian empire now turn against her. In other words, one has to do with an an-
ticipatory summary of the oracle which follows. It is this rhetorical technique
as such which may need a special translational treatment.
Most of the background information should preferably go into a footnote
and not into the translation itself as in FC. Since in many languages, however,
the anticipatory summary as a rhetorical technique would not be understood, it
may sometimes be necessary to change the order of sentences within the verse
like in GN: “Es ist grausig, was der Herr mich sehen und hören läßt: ‘Elam-
iter, zum Angriˆ! Meder, schließt die Stadt ein! Die Räuber müssen rauben, die
Vorwüster müssen vorwüsten! Dem Seufzen der Völker über Babylon will ich
ein Ende machen!’ ” “The Lord shows and tells me harsh things: ‘Elam attack!
Media, lay siege to the City! The plunderer should plunder, the destroyer de-
stroy! All the sighing of the nations about Babylon I will bring to an end!’ ”
21.8
Textual Decisions
M reads hyEr“a', “a lion,” “a lion cried,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading harh,
“the watcher,” “the watcher called out.” 1Q-a seems to have the support of S
although the interpretation of this version remains somewhat doubtful. On the
other hand, M is supported by Aq, Sym, V and T, and indirectly by G since the
reading of the proper name Oujrivan con˜rms the consonantal sequence of M.
Th has the particular rendering Arihvl. The more di¯cult reading of M could
be the oldest form of the text since 1Q-a and S could be explained as contex-
tual harmonization, G as a vocalization error and Th as an assimilation to the
textual option of G in 15.9, a text in which another embarrassing lion was found
(see above). On the other hand, it remains di¯cult to draw a probable meaning
from M. This explains the D rating, given to it by the committee.
Only a few commentators and translators stayed with M and tried to give
a meaning to it. From Ibn Ezra till Delitzsch and Ewald it has been suggested
that M would contain an implicit comparison with a lion, and this conception
entered into a few translations such as NJV: “And (like) a lion he called out,”
BR and GrN. The only diêrence between the ˜rst and the last two translations
is that the last take the ˜rst two words of verse 8 as the end of the preceding
section in accordance with the sentence division of M. Older translations often

turned to conjectures (Moâtt, C, NV) while not being able to ñd any accept-
able meaning in M. It is therefore no wonder that the newly discovered reading
of 1Q-a found almost universal acceptance among translators (RSV, NRSV,
NEB, REB, GNB, NJB, NIV, etc.).
In spite of the textual decisions, translators are advised to follow the read-
ing of 1Q-a and to render: “the watcher / the look-out / the sentry called out /
shouted.” They should note, however, that they follow 1Q-a and that M reads
“a lion,” a word to which it is di¯cult to give an acceptable meaning. If trans-
lators insist upon rendering M, they should preferably follow the option of BR
and GrN: “then he will have to roar like a lion” as closing sentence of the
preceding section. The uncertain nature of the translation, however, should be
footnoted and the reading of 1Q-a should be mentioned. Interconfessional
translations involving Orthodox will have to explain how G came to the devi-
ating reading “and call Urias to the watch-tower.”
22.3
Textual Decisions
M reads ËyIa'x;m]nI, “(all) of you who were found” and this reading has the sup-
port of 1Q-a, V, S, T. G, on the other hand, reads oiJ aJlovnte", “the captives,”
which does not seem to presuppose a diêrent Vorlage, but simply a diêrent
interpretation of M. M has therefore received a B rating.
Schultens (1769, 267), Duhm (130), HUB, BHS and Seeligmann (50) con-
sider the equivalent in G to be oiJ ijscuvonteı ejn soi;, “the mighty men among
you,” in which case G would have read ËyIx'yMia' and one would have to face a
textual problem. Seeligmann even goes so far as to suggest that the translator
of G has been misled by the New-Hebrew meaning of yxm, “to be strong,” so
that he produced a mistranslation and became the victim of “false friends.” It
seems however more likely that oiJ ijscuvonteı soi; is explicit information in
order to create a concentric structure with pavnteı oiJ a[rcontevı sou, “all your
princes,” and that oiJ aJlovnteı is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression (so
also Trommius and Hatch / Redpath). This view is reinforced by the fact that
in the parallel text 13.15 aJlw'≥ renders the niphal of axm.
22.6 Isaiah 21–30 95
In the absence of any textual problem translators should not base them-
selves on a hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of G, neither implicitly like in NEB:
“your stoutest warriors,” nor explicitly with textual note as in REB. As to the
rendering of M, they could use NJB as a model: “all who could be found have
been captured at a blow, far though they had ˘ed.”
22.6
Textual Decisions
M reads μd:a; bk,r<B] “with manned chariots.” The only existing textual vari-
ant is the reading bkrw found in a Kennicott manuscript of the 14th century, but
this reading is isolated and without any weight. All other witnesses are either
identical with M (1Q-a) or more or less free renderings of it (G, Th, Aq, V, S,
T). M therefore received an A evaluation.
Houbigant and Lowth estimated that the presence of the names of two
peoples in the preceding and following half line (Elam and Kir respectively)
made the presence of the name of another people in the second half line almost
obligatory. Therefore they proposed to read μr:a} in stead of μd:a;. This conjec-
ture entered into a number of translations like Moâtt: “cavalry from Aram,”
NAB: “Aram mounts the horses,” NEB and REB: “the chariots of Aram,” C
and EÜ. The last translation even states misleadingly that it is following G! In
fact, the introduction of a third people destroys the parallelism of M. As to the
meaning of M, the genitive construction with μd:a; serves to distinguish the
chariot from the cart: hl;g:[}.
Although the syntax of the sentence is not too smooth, there seems to be
no reason for putting footnotes with statements about obscurity of the Hebrew
(RSV) or uncertainty (NRSV). The best understanding seems to be oêred by
a rendering like NJB: “with manned chariots and horsemen.”
22.17
Textual Decisions
M reads rb,G:, “man,” at the end of the sentence, whereas 1Q-b has the read-
ing rwbg, “strong one,” “hero.” This last reading is also supported by the Yemen-
ite Targum tradition. All other witnesses are, however, in favor of M (1Q-a, G,
S, V and all columns of the Hexapla). The testimony of 1Q-a is particularly

important since its defective writing here strikingly contrasts with the full spell-
ing which it provides in all nine cases where M has rwOBGI in Isaiah. Since the
noun rb,G< only occurs here in Is, the variant rwOBGI should be considered as facil-
itating. Therefore M received a majority B vote.
Apart from the textual problem, Ginsberg (1950, 55–56) had proposed the
conjecture dg,B,, “garment,” a conjecture taken over in a slightly modi˜ed form
by Driver (1968, 48–49). This conjecture entered into NEB “shake you as a
garment is shaken out” and in an ongoing paraphrase into REB: “as a garment
is shaken to rid it of lice.” In spite of even recent adoption of this conjecture
(Kaiser, 148), it should not easily be adopted by translators since it presup-
poses three accidents to arrive at the reading of M: omission of a kaph, meta-
thesis of a gimel and bet, and confusion of dalet and resh.
The reading of 1Q-b, although not signalled as such and diêrently inter-
preted, has crept into many modern versions: RSV: “O you strong man,” NJB:
“strong as you are,” NIV: “O you mighty man,” GNB: “You may be important.”
Translators are advised, however, to render rb,G<, preferably as a vocative
(Ibn Ezra) and with a sarcastic meaning.
The best model for translation probably is NJV: “The Lord is about to
shake you severely, fellow.” The other possible meaning of the verb has been
rendered in NAB: “The Lord shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man,” but
the vocative lacks the sarcastic undertone. Better in this respect are NRSV:
“my fellow,” BR: “du Kerl,” TOB: “beau sire.”
22.19
Textual Decisions
M reads the ñal verb as Ús,r“h,y<, “he will pull you down” and this reading
is only supported by secondary witnesses of G and T. V, S and the original
reading of T can only be understood on the basis of a ˜rst person reading
Ús,r“h,a,, “I will pull you down,” which most probably points to an assimilation
to the ˜rst person verbal form at the beginning of the sentence: ÚyTip]d"h}w", “I will
thrust you.” G has in a sense avoided any problem by having one verb ruling
both sentences and by applying a passive transformation: kai; ajfaireqhvsh/ . . . ,
‘and you will be removed . . . .” The Qumran evidence is divided: 1Q-a reads
˚srh which should with Kutscher (352) be explained as a partial assimilation
to the preceding verb, and 4Q-f most probably reads ˚ryshy, a form which prob-
23.1 Isaiah 21–30 97
ably shows a certain scribal hesitation after an accidental (?) metathesis of resh
and samek. Because of the clearly facilitating assimilation of the versions, the
committee decided to give at least a C evaluation to the more di¯cult reading
of M.
Translators have generally made some kind of adaptation. Sometimes they
followed the assimilation pattern of V, S, T, acting either on a textual base (NEB,
REB, NJB, NAB) or on a translational one (GNB, Moâtt, FC, EÜ). One trans-
lation made the opposite assimilation by rendering the ˜rst person verbal form
in the beginning of the verse by a third person, and by making the agent ex-
plicit as “the king” (GN). Other translations kept the two verbs of M, but fol-
lowed the method of G by making a passive transformation of the second verb.
So NIV: “and you will be ousted from your position”; NJV: “and you shall be
torn down from your stand”; NRSV (in the traces of RSV): “and you will be
pulled down from your post.” The last transformation can be said to be based
on an impersonal interpretation of M like in BR: “von deinem Stande reißt man
dich hinab,” “one pulls you down from your stand.”
It is very well possible that the discordance of persons in M is not a stylistic
phenomenon, but that the third person refers to the “master” of Shebna who has
been mentioned at the end of the preceding verse (Luzzatto).
If the translator shares the last mentioned insight, he could follow GrN as
a model: “Daarom ontzet ik, de Heer, u uit uw ambt, en verwijdert de koning
u van uw post,” “Therefore, I, the Lord, will thrust you from your o¯ce, and
the king will remove you from your post.”
The other way of doing justice to M would be to give an impersonal verbal
rendering as in BR, or to follow NRSV, NIV, NJV in their passive transformation.
23.1
Textual Decisions
The two terms awOBmi tyIB'mi, “without house, without entry,” in M create prob-
lems both of syntax and meaning. M has the support of 1Q-a and 4Q-a as to
both items. It is supported by 1Q-b and S with regard to the ˜rst item and by
V and T with regard to the second one.
tyIB'mi has not been explicitly rendered by G, and it has been paraphrased in
V and T. The last has assimilated its translation to verse 14.
G and S provide diêrent paraphrases of awOBmi for translational reasons.
Because of the strong testimony of the early Hebrew witnesses, it does not
seem justi˜ed to reconstruct a diêrent Hebrew Vorlage for the versions. For
that reason a B evaluation was attributed to awOBmi and a C evaluation to tyIB'mi
since this word could have been lacking in the Vorlage of G.
It was the problem of meaning which did NEB and REB render the two
terms by respectively “the harbour” and “the port of entry.” This rendering is
based upon a diêrence of vocalization: awObm; tybim; and, for the ˜rst word, on
a meaning suggested by Eitan (69). According to Ben Yehuda (2768) however,
this word has been used by Ezra ben Ezekiel ha-Babli, an author of the begin-
ning of the eighteenth century, who would have borrowed it from Arabic. To
read this word and this meaning in the Isaiah text is therefore a rather daring
extrapolation!
As to the syntactical problem, it should at least be noted that M, by putting
a zaqeph on the second word, consideres the two expressions as a unit. This
means that M wants to be interpreted as “There has been destruction which has
made disappear every habitation so that no place is left to disembark.” If one
does not want to respect the zaqeph, one could take the second term syntacti-
cally with the following which would yield something like “There has been
destruction which has made disappear every habitation. As soon as they had
arrived from . . . .” If the zaqeph is respected, translators should most probably
consider the two expressions as a hendiadys for “harborage.”
If translators want to render M according to its textual divisions, they could
follow Moâtt as a model: “for your haven is no more! You heard the tidings
when you touched at Cyprus’ shore.” (so also NAB, but on textual grounds!).
If the zaqeph is not respected, NJV could be followed: “For havoc has been
wrought, not a house is left; As they came from the land of Kittim, / This was
revealed to them.”
23.2
Textual Decisions
M reads at the end of the verse ËWal“mi μy: rbe[o, “sea-farers have replenished
you,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading ˚ykalm μy wrb[, “your messengers crossed
over the sea.” M is supported by V, S, T and, as far as can be judged, also by
1Q-b. 4Q-a should be read as follows: ˚alm μy wrb[ since in the last word the
space for a waw is lacking between aleph and the traces of a ñal kaph. The
last word is omitted in G. The committee judged that 1Q-a most probably was
23.3 Isaiah 21–30 99
closest to the original, that 4Q-a could be explained by haplography and M by

a concern to give a new interpretation and a stronger assimilation to the con-
text. The omission by G could be considered as an elusion of a textual problem
or, translation technically, as implicit information to avoid a second subject with
the same meaning as metabovloi Foinivkh", “merchants of Phoenicia.” Therefore,
1Q-a received a C evaluation.
M has been rendered by all Jewish versions, but only by a minority of
modern Christian versions (NV, NIV, SR). In these translations two diêrent
interpretations have been proposed: (1) “You traders of Sidon, / Once thronged
by seafarers” (NJV) and (2) “You merchants of Sidon, whom the seafarers have
enriched” (NIV).
Translators are, however, advised to render 1Q-a and with regard to the
interpretation of 1Q-a, two points should be mentioned: (1) the striking paral-
lel text of Ps 107. 23 shows that “messengers” should not be taken in a dip-
lomatic, but in a commercial sense as “merchants,” “wholesale buyers”; (2) the
conjunction waw in front of the ˜rst word of verse 3 has frequently been seen
as causing a syntactical problem, and, for reason of syntactical facilitation, the
ancient versions did not respect it. It is nevertheless present in the total Hebrew
tradition in which it marks the beginning of a new sentence.
The second of these two points, however, is hardly of translational rele-
vance, since modern translators as well may want to apply some syntactical
restructuring for translational reasons.
At a common language level, the paraphrase of GNB is a good model:”
You sent men across the sea to buy and sell the grain that . . . .” From a syn-
tactical point of view, GrN is a good example for translators: “kooplui uit Si-
don, jullie die de zee overstaken en het graan, geoogst aan de Nijl, aanvoerden
over vele wateren,” “merchants of Sidon, you who crossed the sea and imported
over great waters the grain harvested at the Nile.” In translation projects with
Jewish participation it may be helpful to provide the reading of M and its pos-
sible interpretations in a textual note.
23.3
Textual Decisions
In 3b M reads μyIwOG rj's] yhiT]w" Ht;a;WbT] rwOay“ ryxiq] rjovi [r"z<, “the grain of Shihor,
the harvest of the Nile was her revenue; and it was the merchandise of the na-
tions.” G, on the other hand, has the following rendering: spevrma metabovlwn…
wJı ajmhtou' eijsferomevnou oiJ metabovloi tw' n ejqvnw' n, “. . . a generation of mer-

chants? As when the harvest is gathered in, so are these traders with the na-
tions.” G has rendered the ˜rst two Hebrew words as a question to which the
rest of the sentence forms an answer. In addition, it does not translate the fourth
and the sixth word. M is strongly supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-a and V and, indi-
rectly, by S and T, which show, in spite of their paraphrase, the presence of all
elements of M. The committee therefore considered that G is at the word level
the result of some stylistic and translational abbreviation, rjovi and rwOay“ being
close synonyms referring both to the Nile, and it attributed a B evaluation to M.
In the traces of Duhm (138) and Marti (178) it has frequently been sug-
gested not only to adopt the omissions of G, but also to change the third and
the ˜fth vocabulary item in the following way: wOryxiq] and htoa;WbT]. This mixture
of textual argument and conjecture entered into a translation like NEB: “whose
harvest is the grain of the Shihor and their revenue the trade of nations.” The
same options still underlie REB which only shows some stylistic and informa-
tional improvements in addition: “whose harvest is grain from Shihor, whose
revenue comes from trade between nations.”
Translators are, however, advised to render M which should not present
particular problems. The most di¯cult expression to translate is no doubt rj's]
μyIwOG which can be taken to mean “pro˜t from the trade with the nations” (Wild-
berger, 872).
A translation of part of 3b has already been proposed at the end of the
preceding case. For the last three vocabulary items REB could be followed, not
on textual, but on translational grounds: “whose revenue comes from trade be-
tween nations.” If a less restricted paraphrase is preferred, NIV could be quoted
as a model: “and she became the market-place of the nations” (so also NJB, BR
and GN).
23.4
Textual Decisions
In 4a M reads rmoale μY:h' zwO[m; μy: rm'a;AyKi, “for the sea has spoken, the strong-
hold of the sea, saying . . . .” This rather overcharged text of M is supported by
1Q-a and 4Q-a. In 4Q-b only the ˜rst three words and the beginning of the
fourth one survived. G also supports M and it has taken the ˜rst three words
as referring to what precedes and the last three words as introducing the fol-
lowing information: . . . ei\pen hJ qavlassa: hJ de; ijscu;ı th'ı qalavsshı ei\pen,
23.10 Isaiah 21–30 101
“. . . the sea has said; the stronghold of the sea has said . . .” V is a literal trans-
lation of M and T provides an interesting paraphrase of M: “for the man of the
West who dwells in the stronghold of the sea has spoken, saying . . . .” Only S
deviates by omitting the last word. In fact, S presents the only real textual prob-
lem. Since S could be considered as a stylistic abbreviation, M naturally got an
A evaluation.
The real, interpretational, problem could belong to the prehistory of the
text. Olshausen, Duhm (138) and Marti (178) had already considered “the strong-
hold of the sea” as a secondary gloss. A glossator thinking that the “sea” ac-
tually meant Tyre, would have been responsible for it. If this insight is correct,
such a literary development of the text must have taken place before the sepa-
ration of the diêrent textual traditions. Only one modern translation has made
this insight its own: EÜ, which has the sea speaking and which puts “the strong-
hold of the sea” between square brackets in the text, mentioning it in a footnote
as a later, explanatory addition.
If translators want to stay with the transmitted text and produce at least a
meaningful translation, they should take with Ehrlich (81) “the stronghold of
the sea” as a vocative. The vocative could then refer to Sidon, mentioned be-
fore, or to Tyre in addition.
If the ˜rst possible reference of the vocative is chosen, NAB could be taken
as a model: “Shame, O Sidon, fortress on the sea, for the sea has spoken.” Of
the English versions, NIV comes closest to the second option by rendering
“Be ashamed, O Sidon, and you, O fortress of the sea, for the sea has spoken”
and by footnoting that the “fortress of the sea” is Tyre. Such information could,
of course, also be given explicily in the text. (GN and GrN).
23.10
Textual Decisions
This verse runs in M as follows: dwO[ jz"me ˆyae vyvir“T'AtB' raoy“K' Ëxer“a' yrIb][i,
“Over˘ow your land like the Nile, o daughter of Tarshish; there is no restraint
any more.”
Textual problems exist as to the ˜rst, the third and the before last word.
(1) With regard to yrIb][i, M has the support of 4Q-c, V and S. 1Q-a, on the
other hand, reads ydb[ (with confusion of resh and daleth) which also seems
to have been the Vorlage of G: ejrgavzou th;n gh'n sou, “till your land.” T pro-
vides a paraphrase based upon M. In its judgment about the originality of either
resh or dalet, the committee has been led by the insight that the qal of db[
has ten times in the Bible hmda as object, but never ≈ra. Therefore, it attrib-
uted a C to M.
(2) As to raoy“K', “like the Nile,” M is supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-c, V, S and T.
G does not have any equivalent of this expression, no doubt because it could
not be used by the translator in his agricultural reading of the text. For that
reason a B evaluation was given to M.
(3) ñally, jz"me has the support of 1Q-a and V: cingulum. In view of the re-
lationship between “girdle” and “force,” S and T should be regarded as an exe-
gesis of M. The greatest problem is caused by the reading of G: kai; ga;r ploi'a
oujkevti e[rcetai ejk Karchdovno", “for ships no more come out of Carthage.” G
probably arrived at this reading by making an interpretative metathesis, read-
ing zjom;, “harbor” and giving a paraphrase of the following Hebrew reading:
“for the daughter of Tarshish (Carthage) is no longer a harbor” (van der Kooij,
1982, 40). M received therefore a B evaluation.
Given the many problems of interpretation presented by M it is no wonder
that translators preferred the easy escape of the agricultural “relecture”; NEB,
REB NJB, FC, EÜ and even NIV: “Till your land as along the Nile, O daugh-
ter of Tarshish, for you no longer have a harbor.” Sometimes, translators seem
to have been selective, preferring to go with M in the case of the ˜rst textual
problem, and with G in the case of the two others. So NAB: “Cross to your
own land, O ship of Tarshish; the harbor is no more” and NRSV: “Cross over
to your own land, O ships of Tarshish; this is a harbor no more.” In other in-
stances they seem to have followed M in the ˜rst two cases and G in the last.
So BR: “Fahr nun über dein Land wie der Nil˘uß, du Tochter Tarschisch, es
gibt keine Werft mehr!,” Pass now over your land as over the Nile, you daugh-
ter of Tarshish, there is no wharf any more” and GN: “Ihr Bewohner von Tar-
schisch, bewässert euer Land wie die Bauern am Nil und baut Korn an; denn in
Tyrus werden keine Schiê mehr gebaut!,” “Inhabitants of Tarshish, over˘ow
your land like the farmers along the Nile do and cultivate grain, for in Tyre no
ships are built any more.” It can also happen that G is followed in the ˜rst two
cases and that an interpretation of M is given in the last one. So GNB: “Go
and farm the land, you people in the colonies in Spain! There is no one to pro-
tect you any more.”
All these diêrent translations show that the interpretation of the whole
verse is largely dependent upon the meaning given to jz"me. The most plausible
solution is to take the ˜gure of “girdle / corset” as a restraint referring to the
authority of Tyre which did not leave any commercial freedom to its colonies
(Koppe, Gesenius, Delitzsch).
23.11 Isaiah 21–30 103
Only a few translations re˘ect M in all three instances: LV, NV, RSV:
“Over˘ow your land like the Nile, O daughter of Tarshish; there is no restraint
any more.” The best understandable model for translators would be SR: “Tra-
verse ton pays, pareille au Nil, ˜lle de Tarsis, plus de joug!,” “Cross through
your country like the Nile, daughter of Tarshish, there is no yoke any more!”
A note should duly explain all problems of text and interpretation and give also
attention to G, especially in projects with Orthodox participation.
23.11
Textual Decisions
The last word of this verse reads in M as follows: h;yn<z“[um;, “her fortresses”
whereas 1Q-a reads the word as hyzw[m which seems to have a synonymous
meaning. The versions either render the Hebrew by “force” (G and T) or by
“fortress” (V and S), but the Hebrew base form cannot be deñed because of
synonymity of meaning. The committee attributed a C evaluation to M since
the form of M is supported by 4Q-c, and since the form of 1Q-a can be ex-
plained as a more current orthographical variant.
The grammatical problem of the nun in excess hardly concerns transla-
tors. Driver, however, (1968, 49) has proposed to vocalize M as follows:
h;yn<z“[]m', “place where goods are distributed,” on the base of the Arabic “ åaçzana”
and this suggestion has been taken over by NEB and REB: “he has decreed the
destruction of Canaan’s marts,” and also by GNB: “He has commanded that the
Phoenician centers of commerce be destroyed.” The strongly deviating trans-
lation “his harbours” in C also comes close to such an interpretation. The base
of Driver is nevertheless very weak, since he concludes the existence of a He-
brew root starting from a phonetic exception in Arabic (El-Azharî II, 138).
Such a solution can therefore not be recommended.
Staying with the traditional interpretation, translators can take NIV as a
clear model: “He has given an order concerning Phoenicia that her fortresses
be destroyed.”
23.14
Textual Decisions
M reads the last word of this verse as ˆk,Z“[um;, “your (feminine plural) strong-
hold” and it is supported by all the versions. On the other hand, 1Q-a has the
di¯cult reading ˚zw[m which should only be preferred if the criterion of the
lectio di¯cilior would be applied in an absurd way. Considering the totally
isolated position of 1Q-a, the committee preferred to give a B evaluation to M.
The reading of 1Q-a would accordingly be due to a graphical error.
The problem for translators is mainly interpretational. Eitan (1937, 70) had
distinguished two homonyms zwO[m;, one being derived from zy[, “refuge,” the
other from a root zz[, “fortress.” According to Baumgartner (577) these two
homonyms have merged in Hebrew to such an extent that the semantic distinc-
tion has become di¯cult. The meaning “refuge” has given rise to the transla-
tional gloss “harbor” or “haven” (NEB, REB, NAB, C, EÜ, GN). Even then the
meanings of the two homonyms seem to be combined since a harbor had to be
forti˜ed in order to function as a refuge.
“Refuge” should be preferred since it seems to cover the distinct mean-
ings of the two homonyms. FC could be taken as an example: “car votre refuge
a été anéanti,” “for your refuge has been destroyed,” or, more, explicitly, TOT:
“for Tyre, your secure haven, is laid waste.”
24.4
Textual Decisions
M reads verse 4b as follows: ≈r<a;h;Aμ[' μwOrm] Wll;m]au, “the elite of the people
of the earth languish.” The ˜rst hand of 1Q-a does not have μ[ and an explicit
equivalent of μ[ is also lacking in G and S. On the other hand, the second hand
of 1Q-a has added this word which is also present in 4Q-b, V and T. A majority
of the committee judged that in this context ≈r<a;h;Aμ[' has the meaning of “pop-
ulation of the earth” and that the copyist of 1Q-a and the translator of G (S
depending upon G in this case) omitted purposefully μ[' in order to avoid the
pejorative meaning “people not educated in the Torah” current in post-exilic
times. A C evaluation was therefore given to M. A minority of the committee
preferred the prima manus reading of 1Q-a: ≈rah μwrm llma taking it to mean
“the heights of the earth languish.”
24.16 Isaiah 21–30 105
The main problem is that many modern translations (NRSV, GNB, NAB,
GrN, EÜ, GN) have chosen an entirely diêrent track by following the con-
jectural vocalization μ[i, “with” and by considering μwOrm] as a periphrasis for
“heaven.” This results in such a convenient meaning as “both heaven and earth
languish/decay.” It is true that such a periphrasis is typical of the language of
Isaiah and that it occurs again in the same chapter: 18 and 21. These recur-
rences, however, help to distinguish the diêrences. Although the opposite
word-pair μwrm / ≈ra occurs in 18, the topic is entirely diêrent. And in 21 the
repeated μwrm is contrasted with a repeated hmdah. Moreover, no mention of
heaven is made in the discourse 1–13 and it seems very unlikely that verse 4
would be an anticipation of the host of heaven in 21, the more so as an identical
word-pair in 21 is lacking (Gray, 410–411). It is also improbable that an ori-
ginal μ[i would have been changed into μ[' because it was unacceptable to the
faithful that the place of God’s sojourn would decay (Snijders, 236). Transla-
tors are therefore advised to abandon the conjectural track.
Whether they can with the minority of the committee follow the prima
manus reading of 1Q-a and translate that reading with REB by “the heights of
the earth wilt” is highly questionable as well. For it is hardly probable that the
copyist of 1Q-a would have intended another meaning than that of M, admit-
ted that the omission of μ[' took place on the grounds indicated above.
Along these lines and considering that μ[' could be left implicit in trans-
lation, NIV would be an acceptable model: “the exalted of the earth languish.”
Such a rendering should especially be recommended in projects with Ortho-
dox participation. A textual note seems to be super˘uous.
24.16
Textual Decisions
Two problems are presented in the second line of this verse. The ˜rst one
concerns the cryptic expression yliAyzIr: ylIAyzIr: which could literally be rendered
by “waste for me, waste for me.” The second one is connected with the se-
mantic relationships between the following items . . . μydIg“Bo yli ywOa, “Woe is me!
The treacherous . . . .”
The cryptic expression of the ˜rst case is directly supported by 1Q-a, Th,
Sym and V, and indirectly by T and S. It is only lacking in G. In view of the
massive support of M, the committee attributed a B evaluation to it.
In the second case, M has the support of 1Q-a, Aq, Sym, V and S. G by
rendering oujai; toi'ı ajqetou'sin, “woe to those who deal treacherously” seems
to translate a Vorlage μydIg“Bol' ywOa and it is followed in this by T in its translation

“woe to the oppressors.” But the rendering of the whole verse in G testi˜es to
a literary creative activity of the translator and maybe to an expression of his
own religious conceptions (Seeligmann, 105). Therefore, a majority of the com-
mittee gave a C evaluation to M.
These textual problems have had very little impact upon modern transla-
tions. Only NEB: “Woe to the traitors . . .” follows G in the second case with-
out notice. REB, however, turns back to the traditional translation: “Woe betide
me! Traitors deal treacherously!”
The main problem for translators is the meaning of the cryptic expression
of the ˜rst case, and more particularly the meaning of yzIr:. The simple state-
ment “unexplained” (Holladay, 336) is not very helpful in this respect. In fact,
three meanings have been proposed: (1) a derivation from Aramaic zr:, “secret”;
(2) a derivation from the verbal root hzr, “to shrink away,” and (3) a meaning
“meanness” based upon Arabic radhîl and upon a Hebrew reading ylyzr. The
last meaning has only been chosen by NEB: “Villainy, villainy!” and by REB:
“Depravity, depravity!” Since it is highly uncertain (HALAT, 1129a), it cannot
be recommended to translators. The ˜rst meaning “secret” has been adopted
by all ancient versions for understandable reasons: the Persian loan zr: in Ara-
maic and Hebrew came spontaneously to the mind of the Aramaic translator of
Isaiah and through him to Jerome. This meaning has most recently been de-
fended by Kaiser (189), but modern translations never opt for it. They all pre-
fer the second meaning for which they use diêrent translational glosses. This
meaning is also the most likely one because of the semotactic relationships with
the following “woe is me.”
Several translations can serve as models e.g. NIV: “But I said, ‘I waste
away, I waste away! Woe to me! The treacherous betray . . . .’ ” Since the ˜rst
meaning is nevertheless a possible one, it may be useful to provide a transla-
tional note with the alternative translation: “It is my secret! It is my secret!” as
does SR.
25.2
Textual Decisions
M reads in the second line μyrIz: ˆwOmr“a', “citadel of foreigners” and the read-
ing μyrIz:, “foreigners” is directly supported by 1Q-a, 1Q-b, V and S and indi-
rectly by the paraphrase “idol temple of the nations” given by T. On the other
25.4 Isaiah 21–30 107
hand, two manuscripts of M present the reading μydIzE ˆwOmr“a', “citadel of the ar-
rogant” and such a text has frequently been considered as the Vorlage of G tw' n
ajsebw' n, “of the ungodly.” Considering, however, that G renders rz likewise
with ajsebhvı in 25.5 and 29.5, it is more plausible that one has to do with an
interpretation of the Isaiah translator and not with a diêrent Hebrew Vorlage.
The committee consequently attributed a B evaluation to M.
NEB and REB oêr a deviating translation “every mansion in the cities
is swept away” in which “swept away” seems to be based upon a conjectural
vocalization μWrz:. This vocalization seems to follow up a suggestion made by
Driver (1958, 44) with some slight modi˜cation. But Emerton (1977, 68–70)
has clearly shown that Driver’s linguistic base is rather weak, and such a read-
ing therefore cannot be advised to translators.
The reading μydIzE has been seriously backed up by a majority of commenta-
tors, hence most likely its relative impact upon modern translations: NAB: “The
castle of the insolent,” NJV (note): “The citadel of arrogant men,” and, along
the same lines: FC (with textual note), C, and BR. In the light of the textual de-
cisions, however, this reading cannot be recommended to translators either.
It seems, however, that translators would do well, when translating μyrIz:, to
make either the component of “violence” or the one of “ignorance” explicit in
their rendering.
Both components are e¯ciently combined in TOB: “La forteresse des bar-
bares,” “the fortress of the barbarians” and this translation can therefore serve
as a model. The component of “violence” shows up in a translation like GNB:
“The palaces which our enemies built” and the component of “ignorance” in
GN: “Die Stadt der Fremden, die dich nicht kannten,” “The city of the for-
eigners who did not know you.” In Study Bible projects, the textual and inter-
pretational note of TOB may serve as a model.
25.4
Textual Decisions
In the last words of this verse the “fury of tyrants” is compared with a
“storm” which is quali˜ed by ryqi, “of a wall,” “against a wall.” It has generally
been suggested to correct ryqi into rqo, “cold” and to change the storm into an
icy one. Carmignac (1968, 42) discovered even a waw in the spelling of this
word in 1Q-a. For the committee, however, the spelling in both 1Q-a and 1Q-b
is clearly with yod. V, S and T as well entirely support M. T even explicitly
renders “as a rainstorm which beats against a wall.” G has a diêrent reading,
but it is text-critically of no use since no correspondences in translation can be
determined with any degree of certainty. In the absence of these, the committee
attributed an A evaluation to M.
Inspired by the apparatuses of our Hebrew Bibles and by the majority
position of scholarship, translators have generally applied the correction of the
text. Sometimes they quali˜ed the storm as “cold” (NAB) or “icy” (NEB, REB,
BR); sometimes as a “winter storm” (NRSV, NJV, NJB, GNB, EÜ, C). Since
rqø signi˜es “intense cold,” the last rendering might be considered as a ques-
tionable paraphrase even within the frame of the correction.
Translators should, however, note that in the same way as “the bar of the
shoulder” in 9.3 means “the bar which hits the shoulder,” “the rainstorm of the
wall” can mean “the rainstorm which beats the wall” (Delitzsch, 294). More-
over, they should take into account the threatening character of the expression
in M which suggests the violence of the thunderstorm with its accompanying
inundations and the weakness of the wall which probably was made of mud
(Snijders, 247). M does make more sense than frequently has been suggested,
and there is no reason why it should not be translated.
NIV could function as a translational model: “For the breath of the ruth-
less is like a storm driving against a wall.” If a need to complete the compari-
son exists, GN could be followed: “Die Wut der Tyrannen zerstörte das Land
wie harte Regengüsse eine Mauer,” “The rage of tyrants destroyed the land, as
a violent rainstorm a wall.”
25.5
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst part of the last line M reads b[; lxeB] br<jo, “(as) heat by the shade
of a cloud,” a sentence which is lacking in G. Except for the scriptio plena,
1Q-a is identical with M. M also has the direct support of Th and the indirect
support of S and V. It is even supported by T, for its highly developed para-
phrase “as the shadow of a cool rock in a weary land, so is the peace of mind
of the righteous” does not seem to presuppose the reading of a diêrent text.
For the seven last words of the verse G only has oi|ı hJma' ı parevdwka", “to
whom you delivered us.” G is almost entirely detached from M (Coste, 49) and
it therefore cannot be used text-critically. For that reason and because of the
26.5 Isaiah 21–30 109
witnesses of which the Vorlage can be reconstructed, a majority A vote was

given to M.
According to most commentators, verse 5 consists of a series of successive
glosses. This opinion, combined with the lack of equivalences in G, has in-
spired some modern translators in diêrent ways. The sentence under discus-
sion has been omitted in TOT, NEB and REB and it has been put between
square brackets in EÜ with the footnoted remark that it is lacking in G and
should be considered as a later addition to M. Even more radical is the behav-
iour of NAB which omits the whole last line which, according to the textual
notes (411), should be seen as a dittography.
Translators are, however, advised to render M which they can syntacti-
cally do in several ways. One of the easiest devices probably is to make the
implicit comparison of the last line explicit as has been done in some of the
ancient versions.
NIV could serve as an example in its translation of the whole line: “as
heat is reduced by the shadow of a cloud, so the song of the ruthless is stilled.”
26.5
Textual Decisions
In the beginning of the second line of M Hl;yPiv]y", “he lays it low,” repeats
the preceding hN:l,yPiv]y", “he lays it low.” The repetition is supported by V and T.
On the other hand, it is lacking in 1Q-a, G and S and probably also in 4Q-c.
The committee gave nevertheless a C evaluation to the “swollen” reading (Tal-
mon, 1960, 177) of M. For in the context of 3–9 there are six word repeti-
tions which the diêrent witnesses have a tendency to avoid because of stylistic
considerations.
Evaluations of Problems
Translators should therefore not easily omit the repetition, as has been
done without textual justi˜cation in NEB and REB. The repetition can be dealt
with in diêrent ways. Irwin’s suggestion (1979, 242) might be followed: to
shift the atnach to the ˜rst form of the repetition, structuring in this way verse
5 as one chiastic sentence followed by one parallel sentence. But the opposite
idea that the accentuator of M deliberately disarranged symmetrical structures
in order to create a speci˜c impact seems not less valuable.
If the suggestion of Irwin is adopted, a translation such as NRSV could
serve as a model: “For he has brought low the inhabitants of the height; the
lofty city he lays low. He lays it low to the ground, casts it to the dust.” NJB
is a good example of respecting the accents of M: “He has brought low the
dwellers on the heights, the lofty citadel; he lays it low, brings it to the ground,
˘ings it down in the dust.”
26.7
Textual Decisions
This verse presents another example of word repetition: rv;y:, “straight,”
“plane,” repeating the preceding μyrIv;yme, “level.” This time M has the support
of 1Q-a, V, S and T. The lacuna in 4Q-c does not permit any conclusion. G is
the only clear witness of the omission of the repetition. But none of the six
word repetitions in the context of 3–9 has been rendered in G so that one can
easily conclude a systematic option of the translator. This consideration, com-
bined with the strong support of M has led to a B evaluation of M.
The only translation providing a textual note is RSV, and its note is rather
misleading because the comparison with G does not apply and the meaning
given to M re˘ects only one interpretation. In fact, traditionally two diêrent
interpretations have been proposed: (1) rv;y: quali˜es “path,” “straight is the way
which you make for the righteous” (Delitzsch, 299; Wildberger, 982); (2) rv;y:
has been considered as a vocative referring to God, “O upright One, you make
the way of the righteous smooth.” (Saadya). The ˜rst interpretation is followed
in RSV, NAB, NJB, FC, GrN; the second one in all Jewish versions (BR, NJV,
Chouraqui) and in KJ, NIV, NRSV, SR.
Interpretation (1) should be preferred as the more plausible one (Gray, 440;
Wildberger, 982). Moâtt could be cited as a model: “for honest men thou
makest the way straight.” The history of interpretation and the divergencies be-
tween translations, make a footnote with variant translation and interpretation
(2) recommendable: “O Just One, you make smooth the path of the righteous”
(NRSV).
26.8 Isaiah 21–30 111
26.8
Textual Decisions
M reads the verb in the ˜rst line as ÚWnyWIqi, “we put our hope in you,” “we
wait for you,” whereas 1Q-a reads the same verb without su¯x: wnywq, “we put
our hope in,” taking “the path of your judgments” as object. M only has the
support of V. 1Q-a is supported by G, S and T. G diêrs nevertheless entirely
from the two other versions by taking the verb syntactically with the following
information: hjlpivsamen ejpi; tw≥` ojnovmativ sou, “we have hoped in your name.”
M certainly has the more di¯cult reading since the su¯x of the verb as gram-
matical object competes with jr"ao, “path.” The committee therefore considered
the omission of the su¯x as due to syntactical ignorance and it attributed a
majority C evaluation (minority B) to M.
Instructed by BHS only a few translators followed the reading without suf-
˜x (NEB, REB, W, EÜ). A translation like REB, “We have had regard to the
path prescribed in your laws,” shows, that such a rendering is only possible on
the basis of a distortion of the meaning of the Hebrew verb. Another reason
why translators should not follow such a model!
The best solution is to take “the path of your judgments” as an adverbial
accusative: “on the path of your judgments” (Wildberger, 983). The ambigu-
ous genitive construction may hide several meanings: (1) We are on the path
of your judgments, or (2) you punish us (on our path).
The ˜rst interpretation is followed in NIV: “Yes, Lord, walking in the way
of your laws, we wait for you,” and in GNB: “We follow your will and put our
hope in you.” The second interpretation is followed in GN: “Auch dann, wenn
du uns strafen mußt, warten wir voller Hoˆnung auf dich,” “Even when you
have to punish us, we put all our hope in you.” This last interpretation may be
preferred.
26.16
Textual Decisions
This verse contains many problems, but only three of them relate to tex-
tual analysis. Of these three two are connected.
(1) At the end of 16a M reads ÚWdq;P], “they sought you,” whereas two Ken-
nicott manuscripts read ˚wndqp, “we sought you.” M is supported by 1Q-a, V,
S and T; the two Hebrew manuscripts by G. For although Ziegler has chosen
ejmnhvsqhn sou, “I remembered you” as the original reading of G, it seems far
more probable that ejmnhvsqhmen sou, “we remembered you” represents the ori-
ginal G in agreement with hJmin, “to us,” at the end of the verse (see next case).
Through interior corruption ejmnhvsqhmen would then have become ejmnhvsqhn.
Because of the strong support of M and of the fact that G can easily be ex-
plained as an assimilation to the wider context of 12 and 17, the committee
gave a B evaluation to M.
(2) At the end of 16b M reads wOml;, “to them,” whereas G reads hJmi'n, “to
us.” M has the support of 1Q-a and V. An explicit equivalent is lacking in S
and T. Here again, G can be considered as due to contextual harmonization.
The reason of the omission in some of the other versions is probably stylistic.
Hence the B evaluation of M.
(3) The second word of 16b is read in M as vj'l', “whispering” and in
1Q-a as wçjl, “they whispered.” M has the clear support of 4Q-b, 4Q504 and
V. It is also supported by G in so far as mikra/`, “small,” seems to presuppose a
Hebrew reading without ñal waw. On the other hand, 1Q-a is followed by S
and T. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a, S and T as a secondary
alteration in order to obtain a verb parallel to ˚wdqp in the second half of the
line. Therefore, M obtained a C evaluation.
The ˜rst two textual problems are of little importance to translators. They
may ñd it as di¯cult to identify the participants intended by the third person
su¯xes of M as the translator of G and they may want to produce the same
kind of contextual assimilation to the ˜rst person plural. This is the case in
NEB, REB, NAB, FC, EÜ, and GrN. These translations, however, with the
exception of the two last ones, base themselves on textual arguments, which in
the light of the textual decisions above, are hardly valid. Translators can base
themselves on translational arguments, but they should refrain from making
textual notes. If they want to render M, they better take the third person plural
as impersonal and translate the verse as a general statement (so TOB, GN).
As to the third problem, it does not really have a textual character, but its
di¯culty lies more in grammar and interpretation. The problem concerns the
form and meaning of vj'l' ˆWqx;. It has been suggested that this expression would
have a function in 16b parallel to the one of ÚWdq;P] in 16a. Depending upon the
reading of ˆWqx; as verb or as noun, the expression has traditionally been taken
to mean “they poured out a whispered prayer” or “the pouring out of a whis-
pered prayer.” The prayer could have the nature of an incantation in addition
(Snijders, 263). This meaning is, however, far from certain.
26.19A Isaiah 21–30 113
The following translation of verse 16 could serve as a model: “Lord, in
distress people come to you for help; they mutter when you chastise them.”
Translators are encouraged, though, to state in a footnote that the Hebrew of
this verse is unclear.
26.19A
Textual Decisions
After “your dead shall live” M reads ˆWmWqy“ ytil;ben“, “my corpse(s) shall rise,”
a reading also found in 1Q-a and V. S and T on the other hand, have su¯xes
of the third person plural, reading “their corpses.” G has the periphrasis oiJ ejn
toi'ı mnhmeivoi", “those who are in the tombs.” S and T can be considered as
harmonizations to the immediate context. G either is a Christian interpolation
(Ziegler, 1934, 67) in which case the access to the original G no longer exists,
or it provides a stylistic variant of nekroiv (Gray, 449). In the last case, G is
certainly secondary since by dropping all possessives it makes a general state-
ment out of M. The support given by 1Q-a and V to the more di¯cult reading
of M was su¯cient reason for the committee to give a B evaluation to the last.
Most modern English versions (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NAB) have the
harmonizing reading “their corpses” which they justify text-critically. Only NIV
seems to do the same for translational reasons. NJB makes, presumably also for
translational reasons, the opposite harmonization of the second person plural:
“Your dead will come back to life, your corpses will rise again.”
Translators should, however, attempt to render M. In order to do so, they
have ˜rst of all to identify the speaker. Two diêrent views have been defended:
(1) Verse 19 starts a new discourse with the Lord as speaker, and (2) verse 19
marks the end of the prayer by the community. Traditional text-divisions as
well as modern structural analysis favor the last view.
The rendering of the last interpretation may make it necessary to give more
explicit information with regard to participants. GN is a good model in this re-
spect: Herr, deine Toten werden wieder leben, die Leichen meines Volkes wer-
den auferstehen,” “O Lord, your dead will live again; the corpses of my people
shall rise.”
26.19B
Textual Decisions
In the second half of the ˜rst line M reads two imperatives: WnN“r"w“ Wxyqih;,
“awake and shout for joy (you who dwell in the dust).” 1Q-a, on the other
hand, reads twice future tenses of the verb: wnnryw wxyqy, “they will wake up and
shout for joy.” M is supported by V, while 1Q-a has the support of G, S and T.
According to Eusebius’ commentary Th and Aq would have future tenses as
well, but the context of the commentary may have in˘uenced the verbal forms
so that no certainty as to their witness exists. The committee considered the
future tenses as assimilations to the tenses of the initial verbs and therefore as
syntactical facilitations. It attributed a C evaluation to the more di¯cult read-
ing of M.
Duhm (159) was the ˜rst to propose the correction into future tenses and
his proposal has been accepted by the majority of modern scholarship, espe-
cially after the discovery of 1Q-a. This dominant position also explains the
adoption of the correction in many modern translations (NEB, REB, GNB, EÜ,
FC), although only one of these translations justi˜es the correction in a text-
critical note (FC).
One of the arguments of Duhm against the imperatives was that ˜rst God
would have been addressed, then the dead, and, ñally, again God (158). From
a point of view of formal structures, however, such an inclusion seems to be
perfectly acceptable.
Respecting the imperatives, one can render this half line as in NAB: “awake
and sing, you who lie in the dust.” The change of addressee in the last part of
the verse may need again some explicit marking as in GN: “Du, Herr, bist wie
der belebende Tau . . . ,” “You, o Lord, are like the reviving dew . . . .”
27.2
Textual Decisions
According to BHS, M would read dm,j, μr<K,, “vineyard of splendor,” “splen-
did vineyard.” Since the aim of the edition is to reproduce the text of the manu-
script of St Petersburg, this is a mistake. M reads in fact rm,j, μr<K,, “vineyard of
(unfermented) wine.” The reading with dalet is only found in the Soncino edi-
tion of 1488 and in one or two manuscripts. The real reading of M (with resh)
27.4 Isaiah 21–30 115
is supported by 1Q-a rmwj (with phonological shift, according to Kutscher, 375),

V and S. The reading with dalet is supported by the double translation of G
(ajmpelw;n) kalov": ejpiquvmhma (ejxavrcein katΔ aujth'"), “There will be a beau-
tiful vineyard and a desire to start a song concerning it.” It is also supported by
T which might well present another double translation abf [rab bsn μrkk,
“like a choice vineyard in a good soil.”
The reading with dalet obtained a majority C vote for the following reasons:
(1) the passage from one reading to another can be purely accidental; (2) μr<k,
dm,j, is a classical expression (Amos 5.11); (3) μr<k,, “orchard,” is normally spe-
ci˜ed by the kind of trees that are grown in it and not by its product. A minority
C vote was given to the reading with resh, mainly for three reasons: (1) strong
support of M; (2) a shift from a rare to a more usual form can be more easily
explained; (3) rm,j, μr<K, could be a poetical equivalent of ˆyIy" ˆp,G<, “grape vine.”
Due to the mistake in BHS and probably to the majority standpoint of mod-
ern scholarship as well, almost all translations rendered the reading with dalet.
The only notable exceptions, adopting the reading rm,j, are older translations,
based upon the Vulgate, like the Dutch translation of 1360 “Wijngaert des
puers wijns,” “vineyard of pure wine,” KJ “A vineyard of red wine (!),” and
among the more recent translations NV “een wijngaard . . . , die bruisenden wijn
voortbrengt,” “a vineyard which produces sparkling wine,” and SR “la vigne
au vin capiteux,” a vineyard producing heady wine.”
Among all the translations rendering the reading with dalet, only NJB makes
a text-critical note stating that the reading of M is not followed. The note is
wrong in so far that it declares the reading dm,j, to be a “conjecture” instead of
an attested reading.
Translators can follow the reading with dalet, but would do well to make
a footnote stating that they read so with a few Hebrew manuscripts and ver-
sions and that M reads “a vineyard of wine.”
27.4
Textual Decisions
In the beginning of the verse M reads hm;je, “anger,” “There is no anger in
me.” G seems to have read hm;jo, for it translates to; tei`co", “the wall.” M most
probably has the support of 1Q-a, since it is very unlikely that hmj would stand
for hm;jo, a word which is always written plene in the scroll. M also has the sup-
port of V. G, on the other hand, is followed by S. T develops a midrash in
which no Vorlage can be determined with regard to this word. The “wall” of
G is coherent with its totally deviating imagery of a strong, besieged city in
verse 2–3. G testi˜es to a free literary construction and it does not seem to be
justi˜ed to take one element of this construction at random in order to put it
into a construction of a diêrent kind.
This argument as well as the argument of the strong support of M made
the committee attribute a B evaluation to M.
None of our Hebrew Bibles ever proposed to correct M in order to read
hm;jo. Even among commentators such a correction is rarely suggested, Proksch
(338) being one of the exceptions. It nevertheless entered into the Jerusalem
Bible tradition (BJ, NJB): “. . . I do not have a wall.” Needless to say that such
a tradition should not be followed, even if it is supported elsewhere (BR!).
Some translations did not abandon M, but gave a diêrent interpretation of
it. This is the case with NEB and REB in which hm;je is taken to mean “wine,”
and in which the ˜rst sentence of verse 4 is taken with the last sentence of verse
3: “Night and day I tend it, but I get no wine.” These translations are based
upon an insight of Driver (1958a, 133) who interprets hm;je as “˜ery wine,” an
interpretation which has correctly been considered as “unacceptable” (Wild-
berger, 1008).
In favor of the interpretation “anger” are the parallel with hm;j;l]MiB', “in bat-
tle” of 4b (Ehrlich, 95) and the consideration that 27.4a is the key to the second
parable of the vineyard and the opposite of the key to the ˜rst parable of the
vineyard in 5.5a.
If an absolute statement like “I have no wrath” (NRSV) is not possible in
a language, one may have to spell out the object of the anger like in GNB “I
am no longer angry with the vineyard.”
27.8
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst half line of 8 reads as follows: hN:b,yrIT] Hj;l]v'B] ha;S]as'B], frequently
rendered as “Measure by measure, by exile you did contend with them.” Tex-
tual problems exist with regard to the ˜rst and second item.
(1) The reading of M ha;S]as'B] without the mappiq punctuation of the ñal
he, is supported by Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T, whereas a reading with mappiq
Ha;s]a]s'B], “by scaring her away” is found in two manuscripts and seems to be
supported by G. For in its reading macovmenoı kai; ojneidivzwn ejxapostelei'
27.8 Isaiah 21–30 117
aujtouv", “˜ghting and reproaching he will dismiss them,” the ˜rst Greek word
renders no doubt the last word of the Hebrew sentence, the before last word
the second and ojneidivzwn the word under discussion. Moreover, aujtouvı cor-
responds to three Hebrew object su¯xes.
The evidence of the unpunctuated 1Q-a is, of course, indecisive.
The committee gave a C evaluation to M for the following reason: since
the second form in M has a he with mappiq, its omission in the ˜rst form and
in the versions later than G constitutes a more di¯cult reading.
(2) The second item Hj;l]v'B] is missing in S. It is, however, attested by
1Q-a, G, V and T and its absence in S can easily be explained by the desire of
the translator to leave its meaning translationally implicit. M received there-
fore a B evaluation.
As to the ˜rst problem, there is no reason to follow NEB and REB in not
translating the second item.
With regard to the ˜rst problem, the major issue is interpretational. It was
the intention of the vocalizators of M to read in ha;S]as'B] a concentrated form
of ha;s] ha;s]bi, “measure for measure.” Since Th this interpretation has in fact im-
posed itself upon Jewish exegesis and upon all versions. That “measuring vessel
(for corn),” however, would have had a ˜gurative meaning is highly improb-
able. The interpretation of this ˜gurative meaning would be hard to give (mea-
sure for measure, with exact measure, moderately ?) and the meaning of the
expression in this particular context would be obscure. (Gray, 457–458). It is,
therefore, understandable that modern Jewish versions (with the exception of
Chouraqui) abandoned the traditional interpretation and that NRSV revised RSV
in this respect. Among recent translations only Gr N and GN try to follow the
traditional interpretation, but the last one with “has meted out punishment” is
certainly more clever than equivalent.
Another interpretation arises from a comparison with an Arabic verb based
upon an onomatopoeia sa’sa,’ the sound made by donkey-drivers to hurry up
their beasts. Such a verb is also used in Arabic with regard to persons (Driver,
1929, 371–372) and it would lead to a meaning “in shooing her away.” This
certainly was the meaning read by G and it might be preferred by translators.
Only W and TOT render the text according to the last interpretation. TOT
could serve as a model: “Lord, you contended with them, and shooed them
away into exile.” In a footnote, the traditional interpretation could be given and,
considering the divergency of modern translations, it may be useful to mention
that the Hebrew meaning is not certain.
118 A Handbook on Isaiah 28.1 and 4
28.1 and 4
Textual Decisions
In an identical context M reads in both verses ayGE, “valley,” “on the head
of a fertile valley,” whereas 1Q-a has yag which vocalized as yaeGE could mean
(with reference to Arabic) “dripping (with perfumes).” In the two verses M
has the support of V, S and T, and in the ˜rst verse in addition the support of
Th and Aq. G renders twice with tou' o[rou", “of the mountain,” which can be
considered as an assimilation to the context under the in˘uence of the preced-
ing word for “head.” It is more di¯cult to evaluate the reading of 1Q-a, which
might testify to a contextual assimilation in the sense indicated above or might
present a construct state plural of ha,GE with the meaning “proud” (Ehrlich, 97).
Kutscher (180), however, has noted that the scribe of 1Q-a seems to have had
the intention to eliminate all spellings ayGE found in M in order to avoid a wrong
pronunciation. The ñal sequence yod-aleph stands in the scroll for a long “î.”
By changing the sequence a reading with “e” could have been guaranteed. This
idea of graphical modernization has been retained by the committee as more
probable with a B evaluation of M as a result.
Translations diêr widely in their treatment of these verses. NEB, REB and
GNB render in diêrent ways what they consider to be a possible meaning of
1Q-a: “on the heads of those who drip with perfumes,” but only REB signals
this as a probable reading referring to 1Q-a. A diêrent understanding is of-
fered by NJV and NRSV: “on the head of those bloated with rich food.” In the
light of the textual decisions above, translators cannot be advised to follow
these rather speculative renderings.
Some translations seem to have followed the advice of modern commen-
tators (Wildberger, 1042) to consider the expression “fertile valley” in verse 1
as a gloss introduced from verse 4 which should therefore not be rendered in
verse 1. So NAB in verse 1: “on the head of him who is stupe˜ed with wine,”
but verse 4: “on the head of the fertile valley.” This is related to an interpre-
tational option that, in contrast with verse 4, verse 1 does not deal with the city
of Samaria.
It seems, however, preferable to render M and to see in verse 1 likewise
a reference to the city of Samaria located on the top of a hill and dominating
the fertile valley around (Snijders, 278).
EÜ can be used as a model: “(weh der Stadt) der vom Wein Berauschten
auf dem Gipfel über dem fruchtbaren Tal!,” “(woe to the city) of those intox-
28.25 Isaiah 21–30 119
icated by wine, on the top of the mountain above the fertile valley.” Some
rearrangement of images and comparisons can be done (compare GN).
28.25
Textual Decisions
Verse 25b reads as follows in M: wOtl;buG“ tm,S,kuw“ ˆm;s]nI hr:[oc]W hr:wOc hF;ji μc;w“,
which could be rendered as “he set wheat in rows and barley in its proper place
and spelt as the border.” Textual problems are connected with hr:wOc, and ˆm;s]nI.
In both cases M has the support of 1Q-a and T and in both cases there is an
omission in G and S. hrwç has been rendered “per ordinem” in V which may
presuppose a vocalization of late Hebrew hr:Wv. In the hexaplaric recension ˆm;s]nI
has been rendered by kai; kevgcron, “and millet,” in an asterisked note. Codex
Marchalianus attributes this reading to Th and Aq. This reading also seems to
have inspired V: “et milium.” According to Ziegler (184) the omission in G is
due to the fact that the Greek translator did not know how to render the two
di¯cult Hebrew words. And according to the committee, the textual tradition
does not oêr any readings which could compete with the more di¯cult read-
ing of M. Hence the B evaluation assigned to M.
Some translations do not render any of the two terms under discussion
(NJB, NAB, EÜ, TOB), whereas others (NEB, REB, GNB) do not translate the
second word. The reasons for the double omission are sometimes unknown
(EÜ), and where they are known, they are rarely textual. For NAB the double
omission is based upon dittography in M, for TOB upon the unintelligible char-
acter of the Hebrew words. “Unintelligibillity” is also the reason given for the
omission of the last word in NEB and REB. The omission by G was, according
to Brockington, a supplementary reason for NEB not to translate the last word.
The in˘uence from Koehler-Baumgartner who s.v. refrain from giving a mean-
ing to ˆm;s]nI is clearly visible.
The short overview above shows that the main problems are interpreta-
tional. With regard to hr:wOc Dalman (1905, 31–34) has related this word to the
Arabic cognate hraçm, a belt of approximately four meters large, demarcated
by the peasants for sowing by dispersion. This etymological suggestion could
be correct. On the other hand, the Panammuwa inscription (Donner-Röllig,
No. 215) provides in lines 6 and 9 a list of cereals, similar to that of our text,
which gives hrwçw , probably “sorgho.”
As to ˆm;s]nI, the whole exegetical tradition has read here a niphal participle
of ˆms, a verb related to the Mishnaic Hebrew ˆm;ysi, “mark,” and it was under-
stood to mean “in a well-deñed place.” König in his dictionary (303–304) in-
sists upon this meaning because of the parallelism with wOtl;buG“, “at its border.”
The verb ˆms is not necessarily a Greek loan (shmaivnw). It may have a Semitic
origin in the light of Accadian “simanu(m),” “appointed time.”
Translators may follow the traditional reading and understanding of the
text, but they will have to take into account the possibility that hr:wOc may refer
to a distinct cereal, probably sorgho.
NRSV is a good example of traditional understanding and translation: “and
plant wheat in rows and barley in its proper place, and spelt as the border?” A
footnote should, however, be added that originally the Hebrew word translated
“in rows,” may have designed a cereal distinct from wheat and barley, probably
sorgho.
28.28
Textual Decisions
In 28b M reads wyv;r:p;W , “and his horses,” whereas Sym by translating tai'ı
oJplai'ı aujtou', “with his hoofs,” seems to have read wyc;r“p'W. M has no formal
support in any witness. 1Q-a, which has the same consonants, is not conclu-
sive with regard to punctuation. Sym, on the other hand, is followed by V and
S. G has an entirely diêrent literary construction, maybe under the in˘uence
of the parallel passage 57.16 (Seeligmann, 71). The rendering of T, “and he
separates the corn and throws the chaˆ to the winds,” presupposes an interpre-
tation of the verb cr"p;. The committee attributed a C evaluation to M mainly
on the basis of two arguments: (1) The reading of Sym is not convenient, be-
cause the possessive “his” in “his hoofs” refers to the peasant (!); (2) in M,
stylistically, verse 28b takes up again, in a reversed order, the techniques of
treading out corn of verse 27a, whereas the punctuations diêrent from the one
of M do not re˘ect this stylistic phenomenon in a better way.
Three recent versions in English seem to have read a verb cr"p; with the
Targum: NEB “(his cartwheels rumble over it) and break it up”; REB “. . . and
thresh it”; and GNB “he knows how to thresh it by driving a cart over it.”
The reluctance to introduce horses in some translations may relate to the
fact that no mention is made elsewhere of the use of horses for treading out
corn. This practice is, however, attested by Plinius Maior (Historia Naturalis
18, 298) and by Xenophon (Oeconomicus 18, 4). Horses were even preferred
to donkeys and oxen (Delitzsch, 321). Therefore, a rendering which implies
29.3 Isaiah 21–30 121
that the maneuver of the peasant avoids the pulverizing of the grain, seems to
be justi˜ed.
NRSV can serve as a model for translators: “one drives the cart wheel and
horses over it, but does not pulverize it.”
29.3
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst sentence reads in M as follows: ËyIl;[; rWDk' ytiynIj;w“, “I will encamp
against you all around.” Instead of rWDk', “all around,” two manuscripts in the
collation of Kennicott (150 and 245) as well as the ˜rst hand of 1Q-a have the
reading dwdk. M is supported by the second hand of 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S
and probably indirectly by T which has translated rwdk together with the pre-
ceding information: “on a feast day round about.” At ˜rst sight, the prima
manus of 1Q-a seems to be supported by G: kai; kuklwvsw wJı Dauid ejpi; se;, “I
will surround you like David.” It is more probable, however, that the ñal
dalet in 1Q-a is a simple graphical error, for if the scribe would have intended
to write “David” he would, as in the nine other Isaiah instances, have used a
scriptio plena with yod. G can be considered as a facilitating assimilation to
verse 1 where David is mentioned. It seems therefore that the more di¯cult
reading of M which is well supported should be preferred. This case has not
been submitted to the judgment of the committee.
The reading of G has been adopted by many commentators. It has been
imposed upon the reader in the apparatus of BHS and in the dictionary of
Koehler-Baumgartner and it therefore entered into several modern translations
like NRSV, “And like David I will encamp against you,” NAB, EÜ and TOB.
All these versions state that they follow G. For NRSV the meaning of the He-
brew is uncertain; TOB translates the Hebrew in a footnote but prefers G.
rWd seems in another place to have the meaning “ball” (22.18), but com-
parison with Arabic dara, “move in a circle” and Akkadian duru, “ringwall,”
shows that a meaning “circle” is not at all impossible. Kaiser (263) strongly
protests against the treatment of this entry in Koehler-Baumgartner, whereas
Wildberger (1098), dealing with the content of this sentence, considers that the
comparison of G does not hold: God will not encamp against Jerusalem like
David.
Translators are thus encouraged to render M as, for example, has been
done in REB: “I shall encircle you with my army.” In projects with Orthodox
participation it may be useful to give and explain in a footnote the reading of
G (compare NJV).
29.5
Textual Decisions
M reads in the ˜rst sentence ËyIr:z:, “your foreigners,” whereas 1Q-a has the
reading ˚ydz, “your arrogant men.” M has the support of V, S and T, for by ren-
dering “your winnowers” these versions did translate a root hrz. The reading
of G tw' n ajsebw' n, “of the ungodly,” is debatable, and it could be taken as evi-
dence for M as well as for 1Q-a. The discussion of the similar case in 25.2 (see
above) has shown that G does not necessarily presuppose a Vorlage diêrent
from M (Laberge, 25). The committee gave a majority C vote to M on the ba-
sis of the following consideration: in this context the word ˆwOmh}, “multitude,”
occurs three times, and it is constructed with ËyIr:z:, “your foreigners,” μyxiyrI[;,
“tyrants” and μyIwOGh'AlK;, “all the nations,” respectively. The same three nouns
occur in a stereotyped expression in Ezek 28.7 and 31.12 and this makes their
association in Is 29.5 plausible.
Interestingly enough a majority of modern translations (RSV, NRSV, NIV,
NEB, REB NJV, SR, TOB, FC) render “your ennemies” or “your foes,” but
only RSV and NRSV honestly note that they follow a corrected text, no doubt
the conjecture ˚yrx. Only one modern translation renders 1Q-a: “The horde of
your arrogant shall be like ñe dust” (NAB). Such a choice is not only made
on textual, but also on exegetical grounds. If the people concerned are identi-
˜ed with the ruling classes of Jerusalem (Wildberger, 1099; Snijders, 291–292),
the reading of 1Q-a becomes almost obligatory.
Older translations, based upon the Vulgate, used to retain the image of the
“winnower.” So the Dutch version of 1360: “Ende die menichte der gheenre die
di wech waeyen sellen,” “And the multitude of those who will blow you away.”
Such a rendering might be rather correct. It is very probable indeed that in this
context of winnowing a double meaning “foreigners/winnowers” was intended.
Double meanings can hardly be translated in a natural way, so that one mean-
ing should go into the text and the other into a note.
29.9 Isaiah 21–30 123
GNB could serve as a model: “all the foreigners who attack you will be
blown away like dust.” Since the connotation here is that of “barbarian invad-
ers,” one could also render with “vreemde soldaten,” foreign soldiers,” as in StV.
The double meaning could be mentioned in a footnote.
29.9
Textual Decisions
After two imperatives in 9a, M reads in 9b twice a third person plural qal:
W[n: . . . Wrk]v;, “they are drunk . . . they stagger.” In both cases, M has the support
of S.
As to the ˜rst verb, some Hebrew manuscripts vocalize it as an imperative:
Wrk]vi, “be drunk,” followed in this by G, Sym and V. 1Q-a reads ˆwrkç which
most probably should be vocalized as a noun (Kutscher, 324) ˆwOrK;vi, “drunken-
ness” and contrasted with the following noun: “drunkenness, but not because
of wine.”
As to the second verb, it is most probably an imperative in 1Q-a, and cer-
tainly in Sym and V, whereas it is omitted in G.
T is inconclusive with regard to both problems because the indicative and
imperative mood have an identical vocalization for both verbs.
The committee considered all readings diêrent from M as due to either
syntactical or contextual harmonization, and it attributed a majority B evalua-
tion to the more di¯cult reading of M with its stylistic relief.
The vast majority of modern versions continue the use of imperatives in
9b. The lack of textual notes (only NEB and NAB provide them) shows that
the reasons for this continuation are mainly translational. The “imperatives”
to read imperatives in the apparatus of BHS as well as the absolute majority
opinion of commentators in this respect have certainly helped to make the trans-
lational practice more universal.
In fact, M can only be understood as the result of a change of participants.
The interlocutor abandons the addressees of 9a and by turning himself to the
public in 9b, he exhibits their state (Rosenmüller). After this brief intermezzo,
he addresses them again in 10.
It may be di¯cult to translate these rapid changes in a satisfactory way. If
for linguistic reasons the addressees will have to be assimilated, at least the
indicative mood of M should be maintained.
NJV may be seen as a way of saving the intermezzo by putting 9b between
parentheses: “(They are drunk, but not from wine, / They stagger, but not from
liquor.)”
For a continuity of participants and indicative mood Smith-Goodspeed is
a good example: “You who are drunk, though not with wine, / You who reel,
though not with strong drink!” (see also GN and GrN).
29.22
Textual Decision
M reads bqo[}y" tyBeAla,, “to/about the house of Jacob.” Since the days of Lowth
(1778) it has been proposed to change the vocalization of the ˜rst word and to
read lae, “the God of the house of Jacob.” M is clearly supported by 1Q-a, Sym
and V. It could be questioned whether G (ejpiv), S and T (l[) base themselves
on a reading of the preposition l[, but it is more likely that they present a cor-
rect exegesis of the preposition la,. Since the conjecture of Lowth does not
have any textual support, the committee gave an A evaluation to M.
With the exception of Ziegler and Kaiser, commentators adopted without
question the conjecture of Lowth. The apparatus of BHS imposed it upon its
users and many modern versions (NJB, NAB, NEB, GNB, TOB, FC) followed
it with only a few of them (NAB, FC) providing a textual note.
Lowth produced two main arguments in favor of the conjecture: (1) it cre-
ates a smoother syntax, especially with regard to the following relative clause
“who redeemed Abraham,” and (2) the discourse introduced by this verse does
not address itself directly to the “house of Jacob.” Against (1) it can be said
that the text expresses a concern not to separate the preposition from the gov-
erning verb rma. In fact, the risk to understand “the God of the house of Jacob”
would be greater if the prepositional clause would be moved after the relative
one. Against (2) it can be observed that la, in Isaiah sometimes introduces the
person talked about (37.21: 37.33). It is the rendering of this particular mean-
ing of la, which should (with RSV, NRSV and REB) be preferred.
(N)RSV could be used as a model: “Therefore thus says the Lord, who
redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob.”
30.6 Isaiah 21–30 125
30.6
Textual Decisions
After the mention of “the lioness and the lion,” M reads μh,me which could
be interpreted as “from where come (the lioness and the lion).” At least, this
is the reading and interpretation which are formally con˜rmed by V and S, and
indirectly by G, ejkei`qen, “there” and T, “place of.” Only 1Q-a reads μym ˆyaw ,
“without water,” instead of μh,me. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a
to be a literary initiative, probably inspired by the supplementary information
hyxw , “and dry country,” which the scroll presents in 6a. The solidly attested
reading of M got therefore a B evaluation.
Although the textual decision is rather straightforward, the interpretational
problem is not easy to solve. Therefore, several corrections have been pro-
posed, such as to read μhenO, “roaring,” a correction which has entered into NAB
and JB, or to read μheme, a hiphil participle of the verb μmh with the same mean-
ing, a correction adopted in NEB and REB. Other translations like NRSV, BR,
FC, GN make the same kind of correction without deñing their base text. The
most attractive correction is no doubt Grünberg’s proposal to read μheme. The
problem is, however, that the verb μmh is not attested in the hiphil and that it
does not have the meaning “to roar.” For such a meaning one has to refer to
Egyptian. In order to defend nevertheless the necessity of correction, frequent
use has been made of the structural argument of a parallelism between “roaring
(lion)” and “˘ying (serpent).” A closer view, however, reveals the illusive na-
ture of the parallelism, since “˘ying” only quali˜es the immediately preceding
noun whereas “roaring” would qualify two preceding substantives (König).
Translators are therefore encouraged to render the textual decision taken
above. Although a fully satisfactory interpretation cannot easily be given, two
possibilities of interpretation exist: (1) μh,me refers to the inhabitants and in an un-
usual way to their land: “from where come the lioness and the lion”; (2) “lioness
and lion” are a particular illustration of the dangers and hardships mentioned
in the preceding line.
A good illustration of (1) is RSV: “from where come the lioness and the
lion,” or, depending upon syntactical restructuring in the receptor language NIV:
“(a land of hardship and distress,) of lions and lionesses.” GNB provides a good
model for (2): “through dangerous country, where lions live . . . .”
30.7
Textual Decisions
Verse 7 is concluded with the mysterious sentence tb,v; μhe bh'r", “those
(called) Rahab (are) inaction.” It should be noted that already in 1Q-a the last
two words are separated. As to word division, M is entirely supported by Sym.
V can likewise be quoted in support of the consonantal text of M although it
seems to have vocalized the last word as an imperative: tbov], given its reading
quiesce, “be quiet.” G on the other hand, followed by S, gives a paraphrase of
M of which only the last word can be recognized in the form kaqivsa", “sit
down,” in the beginning of verse 8. The di¯culty of M has inspired T to pro-
vide a midrash. The ancient textual support on the one hand, and the degree
of di¯culty on the other, has brought the committee to a majority B and a
minority C vote for M.
Given the di¯culties of the text, it is not amazing that since the end of the
18th century scholars have proposed to correct M by joining the last words and
by reading therefore tbçmh. Such a consonant text would then permit diêrent
vocalizations, depending upon the verb from which a certain verbal form would
be derived. The correction tB;v]M;h' has most frequently been followed in modern
translations: “Rahab quelled” (NAB, NEB), “Rahab Subdued” (REB), “Rahab-
the-collapsed” (JB), “Rahab-the-tamed” (JB, note).
It seems, however, to be preferable to retain M as recently has been pro-
posed again by Donner (158–159), Kaiser (287) and Snijders (300–301).
One may also ask whether the debate about following a certain correction
or interpreting the uncorrected text is relevant, since translationally the result
may be the same. Translators will in any case have to render the aphorism with
its opposition between the meaning of Egypt’s nick-name Rahab, “assail” and
the meaning of the noun tb,v;, “inaction.”
A translation along these lines can take diêrent forms. One could use
NIV as a model: “Therefore I call her Rahab the Do-Nothing.” Such a trans-
lation would nevertheless need a note in which the meaning of Rahab is ex-
plained. If one wants to give a more explicit functional equivalent translation,
GN could serve as a model: “Darum nenne ich es ‘das unbewegliche Unge-
heuer,’ ” “So I call it ‘the motionless monster.’ ”
30.8 Isaiah 21–30 127
30.8
Textual Decisions
In the second part of 8b M reads d['l;, “for ever,” whereas two manuscripts
of de Rossi read d[el], “as a testimony.” This last reading has the support of the
large majority of the ancient versions: Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. As always in
matters of vocalization, nothing can be concluded from 1Q-a. As to G, codex
Vaticanus with its reading KAIRW, “in time” probably comes closest to the
original form of G since ejn kairw/' renders the only other occurrence of d['l; in
Isaiah (64.8). On the other hand, the Antiochian recension presents a con˘ate
reading in which the original form of G and the text of Th, Aq, Sym, ejscavthn
eijı martuvrion, are combined: eijı martuvrion ejn kairw/'. M would therefore
only have the support of G. In spite of this, M got a majority C vote for several
reasons: (1) the reading d[el] was seen as a facilitation suggested by the con-
text; (2) Ps 111.8 and 148.6 present parallel examples of the time sequences in
this verse; (3) it is possible to see a climax in the three temporal sequences of
M. However, a minority of the committee gave a B vote to the correction.
This is one of the cases in which only older commentators (Vitringa,
Hitzig, Luzzatto) defend M, and in which the whole of modern scholarship
embraces the correction d[el]. No wonder, therefore, that the correction mas-
sively entered into all modern English versions, with the noticeable exception
of JB, and into the vast majority of all other language translations, both Chris-
tian and Jewish. The noteworthy exceptions are SR, GN and GrN. Given this
overwhelming evidence, it may be di¯cult for translators to follow M. They
are nevertheless encouraged to do so, especially in interconfessional projects
with Orthodox participation since this is one of the rare occasions in which
daughter versions of the Septuagint back up M.
If M is followed, JB could be used as a model: “so that it may serve for
time to come, for ever and for ever.” If the translator opts for the correction:
“that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness” (NIV), he should
state the meaning of M in a footnote, especially when according to the princi-
ples of the translation project the vocalized text of M is taken as a base.
30.22
Textual Decisions
In M it is said of the idols: μrEz“Ti, “you will throw them away,” a reading
which is supported by G, Aq, V and S. It has been sugested (BHS) that T could
presuppose a vocalization μrEzIT], “you will detest them.” In fact, T uses an aphel
of the verb qjr which could have both the meaning of “to remove” and “to
loathe.” T, however, repeats this aphel of qjr twice to render the remaining in-
formation of the verse in M: “you shall cast them away as men cast away some-
thing unclean, so shall you cast them away.” It is therefore di¯cult to conclude
anything from this paraphrase. M received therefore an A evaluation.
It is true that some problems of interpretation of the verbal form exist. For
that reason Perles (1922, 60) proposed the same vocalization μrEzIT] and a deri-
vation from a root ryz which, mainly on the base of Arabic and Accadian, would
have a meaning “to detest.” This correction has been taken over by NEB: “you
will loathe them,” and it has been maintained in REB. As Wildberger has pointed
out (1191), however, this correction creates more problems than it solves.
If μrEz“Ti is derived from hrz, the image would be that of scattering the ñe
straw in the wind during winnowing (a verb and a picture reoccurring in verse
24), and the meaning would therefore be “to throw far away.”
One can follow the standard translation of all other English versions:
“you . . . will throw them away like ˜lth” (GNB).
30.27
Textual Decisions
After the statement that the Lord comes “burning with his anger,” M has
the expression ha;C;m' db,kow“, “heaviness of rising” or, according to a homophone:
“heaviness of burden.” This reading is supported by Sym and V which ver-
sions interpret the second term as a noun expressing an action: “heavy to bear.”
Th by translating kai; baru; to; lh'mma aujtou', “and heavy its burden” must have
interpreted the ñal h as a su¯x of the third person singular masculine. The
same applies to S and T. In addition, T by reading arbwslm yçqw , “too grievious
to be borne,” must have interpreted the initial m as the preposition ˆm. Whatever
one may think of the translation of G meta; dovxhı to; lovgion tw' n ceilevwn
aujtou`, “with glory is the word of his lips,” it is clear that the translator has in-
30.32 Isaiah 21–30 129
terpreted the ˜rst term of M as dwObK;, “glory” and that he has seen in the second
word the Hebrew ac;m', “pronouncement,” which he combined with the follow-
ing word wyt;p;c], “his lips.”
The committee considered that the interpretation of the ñal h of the sec-
ond term as a su¯x is far more a matter of exegesis than of diêrent punctu-
ation. It also considered such an interpretation as an undue assimilation to the
context and, therefore, gave a B evaluation to M.
As has become clear, most problems are interpretational. Two main inter-
pretations have been given: (1) ha;C;m' has been taken as a column of rising
smoke (with reference to Judges 20. 38, 40 and Jer 6.1) and that meaning has
entered a number of translations like RSV, NRSV: “and in thick rising smoke,”
and, with minor variations, such translations as NIV: “and dense clouds of
smoke”; (2) ha;C;m' has been taken to mean “burden” and this meaning has been
adopted by NJV: “with a heavy burden” (Note: “Presumably with a heavy load
of punishment”), NJB: “heavy his threat,” and NEB and REB: “and his doom
heavy.” Although a decision is di¯cult to make (Wildberger, 1218), a slight
preference should be given to (1). It should be noted that Hebrew πa' means
literally “nose,” and that in this context of “lips,” “tongue” and “breath,” this
literal meaning “his nose is burning and its exhalation dense” may be under-
stood as well. If a translator prefers not to render these anthropomorphisms, he
will nevertheless have to express in some way that ˜re and anger are two aspects
of divine anger.
GN could serve as a model: “Feuer und dichter Rauch zeigen, wie zornig
er ist; ” “˜re and thick smoke show his anger.”
In interconfessional translations with Orthodox participation, particular care
should be given to explain in a footnote how G arrived at its translation. It
should also be noted that the meaning of M is uncertain, as some modern trans-
lations (NRSV, NJV) do.
30.32
Textual Decisions
This verse starts with a rather obscure expression: hd:s;Wm hFem' rb'[}m', “the
stroke of the appointed staˆ,” the last word of which is especially strange. M
is, in fact, only supported by the likewise incomprehensible V: “transitus vir-
gae fundatus.” On the other hand, two manuscripts of Kennicott and the prima
manus of one of de Rossi read a r instead of a d: hrswm, “the staˆ of punish-
ment.” For some, this reading is also supported by the rendering adb[Wçd “of
subjection” or “of humiliation” of S. Nothing can be deduced from 1Q-a (wdswm)
which only has a third person masc. sing. su¯x instead of a ñal h. G deviates
to such an extent from any understanding of M that its Vorlage cannot be re-
constructed. T, by reading “the passing of their nobles and mighty men,” must
have understood at least hFem' as staˆ of the “ruler,” adding afterwards to the
obtained “nobles” a synonym. According to the committee, the last two versions
witnessed to a certain liberty, whereas 1Q-a could be understood as a con-
textual harmonization. It considered further the reading of ˜ and S as due to
a graphical error, taking into account Ehrlich’s observation that rswm as pun-
ishment always implies an improvement in the ethical status of the punished,
whereas in this context the aim of the punishment is destruction (111). There-
fore, the committee gave a C rating to M.
Even if the textual decision is correct, one still has to arrive at an accept-
able meaning of hd:s;Wm. The classical Tiberian vocalization of hFem' obliges to
take the form as a construct state which implies that hd:s;Wm has to be analyzed
as a noun. This noun only occurs in Ezek 41.8 with the meaning “foundation-
wall.” To make an acceptable sense in this context, one has to postulate in the
traces of König’s dictionary (212) a metaphorical meaning “destiny,” “appointed
lot.” Some translations dare to do this. So BR: “allwann der Stecken der Fü-
gung vorüberstreicht,” “when the rod of destiny passes by,” and SR: “A chaque
coup de bâton qui lui est destiné,” “at each stroke of the rod, intended for him.”
However, even if one does not agree with Ehrlich who states that hd:s;Wm cannot
mean “destiny” (111), it is at least clear that such a meaning is not without
di¯culty. And one can understand why the totality of English versions, with
the exception of NJV, opts for the correction hrswm, rendering “staˆ of punish-
ment” (NRSV) or “punishing rod” (JB).
Translators should feel free to follow the correction in a way which agrees
with the type of translation. Since the context is clearly marked, they may
want to leave the information of “punishment” implicit like in GNB and GrN.
Or they may want to make an explicit statement as in FC: “Chaque volée de
coups que le Seigneur lui administrera lui servira de leçon,” “each blow the
Lord administers to him will be a lesson to him.” A footnote in which a variant
translation is proposed and in which the textual problem is signalled seems
obligatory here.
Isaiah 31– 40
ISAIAH 31– 40
32.6
Textual Decisions
In the second part of verse 6a M reads hc,[}y", “works,” “his heart works
evil,” whereas 1Q-a has the reading bçwj, “thinks out,” “his heart thinks out
evil.” M has the support of Th, Sym and V, but G, S and T have a similar ren-
dering as 1Q-a. The vast majority of the committee considered the reading of
1Q-a and its supporters as exegetical and it preferred with a C evaluation the
reading of M. The main argument was that the three deviating versions (G, S
and T) use in this verse diêrent equivalents than they use elsewhere for the
verb bçj.
Ehrlich (115) already produced important arguments for the defense of M.
Recent scholarship (Orlinsky, 1950, 154–155; Kutscher, 240; Wildberger, 1250)
has reinforced the arguments from the literary point of view. An impressive
argument for the defense of M is the chiastic construction of the verbs for
speaking and doing: speak-do-do-speak. Translationally, however, the whole
discussion is rather irrelevant. For modern translators may have to follow the
example of their ancient colleagues by using a more speci˜c verb. This is in
fact what has been done in almost all modern versions. Contextual reasons even
reinforce the need to use a speci˜c verb.
Diêrent speci˜c verbs can be used in translation such as “to plot,” “and
their minds plot iniquity” (NRSV) or “to set on,” “and his heart is set on vil-
lainy” (JB). Since such renderings are the result of translational considerations,
no textual notes should be provided.
131
32.19
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst sentence of this verse runs as follows in M: r['Y:h' td<r<B] dr"b;W ,
“And it will hail while the forest crashes down.” The problematic verbal form
dr"b;, “it will hail” is a hapax legomenon as has correctly been indicated in the
masorah parva of the Cairo manuscript. This verbal form is only supported by
T since nothing can be concluded from the identical consonantal text of 1Q-a.
All the other versions have read the noun dr:B;, “hail.” Manuscript 30 of Ken-
nicott has dryw , “go down,” “And the forest will utterly go down.” According to
HUB, only the prima manus of this manuscript has this reading. The corrector
has eliminated the scribal error and, therefore, the prima manus reading has no
textual strength. Since the reading of the noun testi˜es to an assimilation to a
more frequent vocalization, the committee decided to give a B evaluation to
the reading of M.
It seems that a sound play has been attempted in which in the ˜rst sen-
tence tdrb echoes drb, as in the second sentence ry[h echoes r[yh of the ˜rst,
whereas in the second sentence hlpçbw is echoed by lpçt. It seems also clear
that Dilmann-Kittel are right in observing that the reading dr"y:w“ would necessi-
tate a reading droy: in the second slot instead of the attested tdrb. It is therefore
amazing that the majority of commentators and in their footsteps the majority
of modern versions (RSV, NRSV, JB, NJV, FC) nevertheless follow such a
reading. Their decision is certainly related to the problems of interpretation
the verse presents in its particular context.
One solution has been proposed by Reider (1952, 88) and afterwards by
Driver (1968, 52–53): they relate the verb drb to Arabic baruda, “it is cool.”
This has inspired the translation of NEB: “it will be cool on the slopes of the
forest then” (so also REB). Unfortunately, also lpç of the second sentence has
then to be related to Arabic ta˜la in order to obtain the meaning “and cities
will lie peaceful in the plain.” Driver’s criticism of exegetical violence uttered
to those who want to get an acceptable sense out of M, can in reality be re-
turned and applied to himself.
It is true, of course, that a traditional interpretation like that of NIV:
“Though hail ˘attens the forest and the city is leveled completely” entirely dis-
turbs the context, a reason why this verse has been considered as a foreign body
(Duhm, 208). Some translators, sticking to the classical interpretation, there-
fore put the verse between parentheses (so GNB). It seems, however, possible
to see in the forest destroyed by the hail, the enemy army and in the city itself
the world capital (Kaiser, 335–336). Such contrastive information is some-
33.3 Isaiah 31– 40 133
times clearly marked in the context or shifted to the end of the discourse unit
(GrN).
A good model of the last named interpretation is GN: “Den Wald der
Feinde wird der Hagel niederschlagen, und ihre Stadt wird untergehen,” “The
hail will ˘atten the forest of the enemies, and their city will vanish.” In view
of the di¯culties of interpretation, it seems nevertheless wise to mention in a
footnote the fact that the interpretation of the Hebrew remains uncertain.
33.3
Textual Decisions
In the second half of the verse M reads Út,mum]wOrme, “at your lifting up,” whereas
1Q-a has ˚tmmdm which could either mean “at your being silent” or “at your
roaring.” M is supported by Th, Aq, V, S and T. By rendering ajpo tou` fovbou
sou, “for fear of you,” G repeats its translation tou' fovbou sou, found in the ˜rst
half of the verse, a practice noted elsewhere (10.34 and 15.2). It is impossible
to determine the Vorlage of G. Half of the committee gave a C evaluation to
1Q-a, considering M due to a graphical error, the other half attributed a C to
the reading of M, considering the reading of 1Q-a to be the result of a scribal
mistake. The preference for 1Q-a was strengthened by Kutscher’s argument
(228) that hmmd occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible, twice in connection
with lwq, like here.
Some problems of interpretation remain. If M is followed, the “lifting up”
can be understood as the “lifting up of thyself ” (RSV) which can then be
glossed in diêrent ways: “when you rise up” (NIV), “when you rise” (JB) or
“when you rise in your majesty” (NAB). The last translation in fact combines
two possible meanings, that of “rising up” and that of “majesty.” The last mean-
ing is followed in NRSV and NJV: “before your majesty.” The “lifting up,”
however, can also be understood as the “lifting up of the voice” and it may be
impossible to distinguish such a rendering from the translation “at your roar-
ing” in case the reading of 1Q-a is followed. Without explanation it is impos-
sible to know where a reading as found in REB: “at your roar” comes from.
It may be a rendering of M as well as of 1Q-a. It could even be based on the
vocalization Út]m;m;D“mi of 1Q-a as proposed by Driver (1951, 28) or on his later
revocalization of M Út]m;m;r“me which he related to Accadian rimmatu, “rumbling”
(1958, 46). This reading was introduced into NEB. It seems, however, wise to
stay with M as Wildberger (1283) has convincingly shown.
A translation like “when you rise in your majesty” (NAB) or “at your roar”
(REB) seems most appropriate. Generally, it will be unnecessary to put a tex-
tual footnote. Only when the translator wants to render what he considers to be
a speci˜c meaning of 1Q-a, such a note may be needed (see GN).
33.7
Textual Decisions
The di¯cult second word of M is μL;a,r“a, which according to the Masoretes
should be analyzed as μl; ha,r“a,, “I will see them.” Th, Aq, Sym, the four oldest
witnesses of S and the oldest form of T likewise analyzed the Hebrew form as
two words, but they vocalized diêrently as μl; (h)a,r:ae, “I will appear to them.”
This may also be the understanding of 1Q-a which writes likewise two words
with a non-ñal m at the end: ml ara. The other manuscripts of S and T seem
to have read μl; a,r:yE, “it shall be revealed to them.” G seems to have given a dou-
ble translation of both verse 7a and 7b (Seeligmann, 18). In the place under dis-
cussion G also must have read two words, but the ˜rst one has been interpreted
as a form of ary, to fear.” V, on the other hand, with “videntes,” as a designation
of angels seems to be based on a vocalization μliaerIa}. The committee considered
the reading of M as due to a theological correction in order to avoid the idea
of God being seen by men, and it gave a majority D evaluation to the reading
of 1Q-a and all the versions with the exception of G and V. Some manuscripts
of S and T were considered as secondary assimilations to the context. A mi-
nority of the committee, however, gave a D evaluation to a vocalized form
μl;aerIa} (Luzzatto), taking it to mean “their brave warriors.”
The desperate D evaluations of the committee show already how di¯cult
it is to draw any valuable conclusions for the translator. Traditionally, trans-
lations have mainly tried to solve the problem in three diêrent ways: (a) by
taking the expression to mean “the valiant ones” or “their brave men” (RSV,
NRSV, NEB, REB, NIV, GNB); (b) by creating a connexion with layra as nick-
name of Jerusalem (Is 29.1) and understanding therefore “inhabitants of Ariel
(Jerusalem)” (JB, NJV, NAB, EÜ, GN, FC); (c) by understanding the word to
mean “messengers” or “angels” (NV, GrN). None of the translations consulted
followed the majority D evaluation of the committee, and among commenta-
tors, only Snijders (325) expressed himself in favor of such a rendering. Such
a translation makes, however, little sense in the context (Procksch, 419; Wild-
berger 1294). In spite of the support of V and of rabbinical Hebrew since the
beginning of the third century AD, the meaning (c) gives the impression of
33.8 Isaiah 31– 40 135
having been invented ad hoc for the parallelism with “the envoys of peace” in
7b. Remain the meanings retained under (a) and (b). The ˜rst meaning could
be preferred, for its contrast with the event expressed by the verb (brave men—
cry aloud) is not necessarily in contrast with contextual meaning (Wildberger,
1294) and meaning (a) could have an associative link with meaning (b) (Del-
itzsch, 352).
A translation such as GNB: “Brave men are calling for help” might serve
as a model. Given the great uncertainties as to meaning, a note should provide
information about the textual problem as such and give variant translations at
least of meaning (b).
33.8
Textual Decisions
M reads in the second half of the verse μyrI[;, “cities,” “one has despised
cities,” a reading which is supported by Sym, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other
hand, has μyd[, “witnesses,” “one has despised witnesses.” As to G, it is not im-
possible that its reading pro;ı touvtou", “with these,” could be traced back to
a Vorlage μd[. Given the fact that the diêrences between the readings of M
and 1Q-a can simply be reduced to a d/r confusion, members of the committee
had a diêrent judgment as to the direction of the error. Nevertheless, a major-
ity gave a C vote to the reading of 1Q-a since “witnesses” ˜ts very well into
the context of treaties.
Long before Qumran discoveries the reading μydI[e had already been con-
jectured by Houbigant and his conjecture had been taken over by Marti, Gunkel,
Procksch and Fischer. After Qumran discoveries commentaries generally make
the correction. It has therefore entered into most modern versions (RSV, NJB,
NIV, EÜ, FC). Recently, Fitzmyer (24) has suggested a comparison with Ara-
maic ˆd[, “treaty.” By vocalizing μydI[; some modern translations seem to have
adopted this suggestion: “treaties are ˘outed” (NEB, REB); “agreements are
violated” (GNB). The entry into the Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon (744a) may
have stimulated such a rendering. The word, however, is unknown in Hebrew
(Wildberger, 1294). The meaning “witnesses” should, therefore, be retained in
spite of the fact that d[e is never used in connection with tyrIB], “covenant” (Ehr-
lich, 119).
Translators may want to gloss μydI[e in diêrent ways, as in NRSV “The
treaty is broken, its oaths are despised,” or in NAB: “Covenants are broken,
their terms are spurned.” Compare also GN. It will be good to mention the read-
ing of M in a footnote.
34.5
Textual Decisions
In the opening statement of this verse M reads ht;W“rI, “drunk its ˜ll,” “for
my sword has drunk its ˜ll in the heavens,” a reading which has the support of
G, V and S. 1Q-a, on the other hand, reads hart which vocalized as ha,r:Te
would mean “appears,” “for my sword appears in the heavens.” This reading
was probably in the Vorlage of T: ylgtt, “shall be revealed,” “for my sword
shall be revealed in the heavens.” The committee was devided between the two
alternatives. M could be understood as a secondary assimilation to the same ver-
bal form in verse 7 in order to avoid the superstituous interpretation of heav-
enly signs. On the other hand, the repetition in M could be original, considered
the reoccurrence in verse 7 of many vocabulary items of verses 5 and 6. There-
fore, a C evaluation has been attributed to both readings.
In spite of some problems of understanding, older scholarship generally
defended M and this position is still re˘ected in a majority of modern transla-
tions (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJV, NJB). Koppe and Bredenkamp have proposed to
read hf;Wrm], “sharpened,” a conjecture which has had some in˘uence on older
translations like LV, C and Moâtt: “the Eternal’s sword in heaven is tempered
keen with fury.” Such a conjecture may also be at the origin of GNB: “The Lord
has prepared his sword in heaven” (so also GN). There are, however, no valid
arguments for its adoption. The same applies to the conjecture ht;a}d:, “swings,”
which, launched by Buhl and Procksch, has recently been taken over again by
Ziegler and Kaiser without having had any eêct on translations. Although the
division of the committee leaves all liberty to the translator, he may like to give
preference to the reading of 1Q-a with most modern commentators (Wildberger,
Clements, Snijders) and an increasing number of modern translations (NEB,
REB, FC, EÜ, W and GrN).
If the last reading is preferred, REB could serve as a model: “For my sword
appears in heaven.” In view of the textual decisions, a footnote with the reading
34.7 Isaiah 31– 40 137
of M should be recommended. This in spite of the fact that a literal translation

of M will not make much sense in many languages, whereas a paraphrase (as
in NJB and NAV) can hardly be attempted.
34.7
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst member of this verse M reads μM;[i, “with them,” “wild oxen
shall fall with them.” This reading is supported by 1Q-a, although the second
m is not a ñal one. It also has the support of G, V, S and T. Only Sym does not
seem to have rendered μM;[i since his translation uJyhloi; monokevrwte", “stately
wild oxen” should be considered as a double rendering of the preceding He-
brew word (Ziegler, 1939, 92). Taking into account the easier rendering of Sym,
the committee gave a B evaluation to M.
Because of certain problems of reference, it has sometimes been proposed
to delete μM;[i as a dittography (Ehrlich, 123). Translations rarely followed this
suggestion, the only notable exception being LV. In the light of the text deci-
sions, such a solution can hardly be recommended.
Another proposal to avoid the referential problems has been the one by
Procksch (430) to give a diêrent vocalization of the Hebrew consonant text
and to read μMi[', “peoples,” in which case the animals are only used by way of
comparison. Such a procedure makes the change of μ[i, “with,” in the second
half member of the verse into μ[', “people,” obligatory. This conjectural vocal-
ization has been followed in the ˜rst editions of the Jerusalem Bible, and re-
cently it has been taken up again in translations like TILC and GNB: “The
people will fall like wild oxen and young bulls.” There are, however, no appar-
ent textual reasons to justify such a translation.
Finally, Duhm (219), Marti (244), and most recently Wildberger (1327)
have proposed to read the preposition μ[ followed by the name of another
sacri˜cial animal like e.g. μyayrm, “fatlings” or “fatted calves.” In this way, the
˜rst member would contain two pairs of animals. This conjecture entered into
NAB: “Wild oxen shall be struck down with fatlings, and bullocks with bulls,”
and into NEB (but no longer into REB!) and C. In spite of its apparent lucid-
ity, one can only say that the conjecture is without any textual base.
If translators will have to render M, the referents of μM'[i will have to be
determined. In fact, two possibilities exist: (a) “them” refers back to the ani-
mals mentioned in verse 6; and (b) “them” refers to the “people of Edom,”
mentioned in verses 5 and 6. The choice between the two options is di¯cult.
Condamin may be right in his preference for (b) since the pronominal su¯x in
“their land” in 7b cannot refer to the animals.
If option (a) is chosen, REB provides a simple and clear model: “Wild oxen
will go down also.” If option (b) is preferred, NAV is a good model of explicit
information: “Die buêls val saam met die mense,” “The buâloes fall together
with the people.”
34.12
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst word reads in M h;yr<jo, “its nobles,” a reading con˜rmed by G Th
Aq Sym V and S. The only diêrences between these versions are diêrences
in translational glosses: G reads oiJ a[rconteı aujth'", “her princes,” whereas
Th Aq Sym stay closer to the Hebrew meaning by rendering ejleuvqeroi, “free
men.” The same applies to V: nobiles eius, “his nobles.” T has a long par-
aphrase: “They who used to say, We are free born, and would not accept a
king over them” which does not presuppose a diêrent Vorlage. 1Q-a distin-
guishes itself from M only by adding a conjunction: hyrjw. Duhm, Cheyne and
Marti have suggested that the extra sentence at the end of verse 11 in G: kai;
ojnokevntauroi oijkhvsousin ejn aujth'/, “and satyrs shall dwell in it” re˘ects the
original Hebrew. On the base of the translation of G in 12a: oiJ a[rconteı
aujth'ı oujk e[sontai, “her princes will be no more,” they suggest likewise that
originally h;yr<jo was preceded by some expression like ˆyIa'k] Wyh]yI. The committee
considered that the “satyrs” do occur in a similar context in 13.22 and in 34.14
and it therefore took the extra sentence of G in 34.11 to be a harmonizing
interpretation. It also considered that the text reconstruction of 12a was not
favored by the reading of 1Q-a, and it accorded a B evaluation to M.
Duhm’s suggestion has entered into a number of translations like W, EÜ
and Moâtt: “Demons haunt the spot, for the nobles now are gone.” Most trans-
lations, and correctly so, do not follow it.
It remains true that the ˜rst word of verse 12 presents serious syntactical
problems. Brackets and dotted lines in the standard commentaries show the
embarrassment.
Some translations like GNB do not render the ˜rst word of 12. Others
render it, but take it with 12b: “It shall be called, ‘No kingdom is there,’ / Its
nobles and all its lords shall be nothing” (NJV). Others again, like NEB and
REB, take it with verse 11 and give it the improbable meaning “frontiers,”
35.7 Isaiah 31– 40 139
“boundaries,” “. . . and its boundaries will be a jumble of stones.” Or, like RSV
and NRSV, taking it likewise with 11, they add, only partly following a text
reconstruction by Lowth, before h;yr<jo the preposition l[', “over,” “. . . and the
plummet of chaos over its nobles.”
If these proposals are not accepted, the problem of the interpretation of 12a
according to M remains. Two possibilities exist: (a) there are no nobles to be
proclaimed king, an interpretation by Vitringa, Rosenmüller and Gesenius and
(b), the exegesis of Delitzsch and König: there are no nobles to proclaim one
of the princes to be king. As the King of Edom was elected according to Gen
36.39, interpretation (b) may be the more correct one.
If interpretation (b) is followed, FC is a good example: “Plus de nobles
pour élire un roi,” “No nobles left to elect a king.”
35.7
Textual Decisions
At the end of the ˜rst half member of 7b M has the di¯cult reading Hx;b]rI,
“her resting place,” “in the haunts of jackals, her resting place.” The witness
of the medieval manuscripts of M is divided between the presence and ab-
sence of a mappiq in the ñal h. On the other hand, 1Q-a has the reading ≈br.
The freedom of the renderings in V, S and T does not allow any precision as
to the Hebrew Vorlage. This is even more true for the reading of G eujfrosuvnh
ojrnevwn, “joy of birds,” which testi˜es to a literary creativity of the translator.
The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a as an elusive abbreviation
and it gave a C evaluation to M in order to protect the reading with mappiq
found in the classical Tiberian manuscripts A, C and L against facilitations.
Both RSV and NRSV render 7ba as follows: “the haunt of jackals shall
become a swamp,” noting that this rendering is based upon a correction. In all
probability, these versions have adopted a conjecture hX;bil], “to a swamp,” ˜rst
made by Ruben according to Cheyne (1899), and taken up again by Scott (122).
Such a manipulation should, however, not be recommended. It is true that M
is notoriously di¯cult and that it is hard to deñe the antecedent of the singular
feminine su¯x. The best solution seems to be to consider the su¯x as a reference
to the “jackals.” In fact, the singular feminine su¯x can take up again a mas-
culine or feminine plural referring to animate and inanimate objects (Gesenius-
Kautzsch, 145k; König, 348gh). This syntactical insight would permit a literal
translation such as “in the haunts of jackals, their resting place.”
Some transformation of the literal rendering given above, would lead to a
translation as in NIV “in the haunts where jackals once lay,” or, as in NJB:
“the lairs where the jackals used to live.”
35.8
Textual Decisions
The sentence of M which presents textual and interpretational di¯culties
is the following one: Ër<D< Ëleho wOml;AaWhw“, “and he for them goes the way.” 1Q-a
has the conjunction w connected with the second item which ends with a yod
and not with a waw: ˚rd ˚lwh ymlw hawh. The rendering of G oujde; e[stai ejkei'
oJdo;ı ajkavqarto", “neither shall there be there an unclean way” has simply been
constructed in order to contrast with the translation of verse 8a: “there shall be
there a pure way.” G in turn seems to have inspired the translation of S. V by
rendering “et haec erit nobis directa via,” “and this will be for us a straight
way,” has either read or understood wml as wnl. The translation of T “but way-
farers shall not cease” may be considered as a negative transformation of the
following understanding of the four words: “but there will be for them (for the
road and for the highway) wayfarers.” These diêrences between the textual
witnesses do not permit the reconstruction of a text which could be preferred
to M. For that reason M received a C evaluation.
Duhm (224) transferred this sentence to the margin as a gloss. Wildberger
(1355) still comes to the same conclusion. This idea has been accepted by sev-
eral modern translations. (RSV, EÜ). NAB transferred it to verse 9: “It is for
those with a journey to make.”
Since Procksch (437) another problem-solving approach has been to re-
distribute the consonants of the sentence. Driver (1957, 126) e.g. suggested to
read the second and third word as follows ËLeh'm]l', a suggestion taken over by
NEB and REB: “it shall (will) become a pilgrim’s way.”
Preference should nevertheless be given to an interpretation and translation
of M. The proposal of Calvin who in 1551 suggested in his commentary to see
God as the antecedent of aWhw“ has had quite some impact. It has been adopted
in TOB, TILC, GrN and NJB: “He (= God) will be the one to use this road.” Lin-
guistically, however, such a back-reference is too far-fetched and other interpre-
tations should be preferred.
It is possible to understand Ër<D< Ëleho as “who ful˜lls the law” (Snijders, 337)
so that the text would testify to a certain play upon words: “The highway to
36.9 Isaiah 31– 40 141
Jerusalem is for those who go on the way,” an insight which has entered into
NIV: “it will be for those who walk in that Way.”
It seems, however, better to respect, contrary to most translations, the at-
nach and, therefore, the sentence division of M. “For them” will then be the
healed people of verses 5 and 6, or in a wider sense “the people of God.” Such
a rendering would be based on translational arguments, and not on the since
Bredenkamp proposed textual correction of wOml; into wOM["l].
For such an interpretation NRSV could serve as a model: “but it shall be
for God’s people;.” The rest of the sentence should preferably be rendered as
in NIV: “wicked fools will not go about on it.”
36.9
Textual Decisions
M reads the word tj'p', “o¯cer,” “how then can you repulse one o¯cer of
the least of my master’s servants . . . .” This reading has the support of 1Q-a,
G, Sym, V and T. It is only lacking in the most ancient manuscripts of S. The
committee considered the omission in S as due to a stylistic abbreviation and
it judged that the expression hj;P,, already used in 1 Kings 10.15 and 20.24 as
well as in Akkadian, was in no way out of place in this context. Therefore a B
evaluation was attributed to M.
The fact that the word tj'p' is in the construct state con˜rms for most critics
the character of a gloss. Even the change into a plural vocalization tjop' to ex-
plain “the servants” as “o¯cers” (Marti, Duhm) would not take away that char-
acter. The omission of the word has therefore been suggested generally and it
has been practised in a few translations such as NJB and NAB: “How then can
you repulse even one of the least servants of my lord?”
However, one should consider the possibility that the noun which should be
in the absolute state, has entered into the construct state through assimilation to
its apposition which is itself in the construct state. The more so since another
example of such an assimilation can be found in 2 Kings 19.21 = Isaiah 37.22.
In that case, “one of the least of my master’s servants” would explain tj'p'.
Although the word tj'p' has frequently been rendered by speci˜c terms such
as “captain,” or “governor,” a more generic rendering such as “o¯cer” could
be recommended.
If a more literal translation model is desired, Moâtt could serve as such:
“How, then, can you repulse even the weakest of my master’s o¯cers . . . .” If,
in a functional equivalent translation, the rhetorical question has to be trans-
formed into a positive statement, GNB can be recommended as an example:
“You are no match for even the lowest ranking Assyrian o¯cial . . . .”
36.19
Textual Decisions
The text following the proper name “Sepharvaim” in M is identical with
the parallel text of M in 2 Kings 18.34. Minor diêrences consist of the inser-
tion of the proper names “Hena and Ivvah” and the omission of a waw before
yk in the text of Kings. The old Greek of 2 Kings 18.34, represented in the An-
tiochian recension, however, followed by one manuscript of the Vetus Latina,
reads in addition: kai; pou' eijsin oiJ qeoi; th'ı cwvraı Samavreia", “and where are
the gods of the land of Samaria?” It has been suggested by several commen-
tators as well as by the apparatuses of BH 2, 3, S to read the same addition in
the Isaiah text. Since this extra is, however, nowhere represented in the textual
tradition of Is. 36.19, the committee attributed an A evaluation to M.
Several modern translations followed the suggestion and read “Where are
the (national) gods of Samaria?” (NEB, REB, NAB, NJB, RL). Other transla-
tions seem to arrive at the same result on translational and not on textual grounds
by taking the verbal subject in the sentence “And did they save Samaria from
me?” to refer to the “gods of Samaria.” So NJV in a footnote and Moâtt: “And
have the gods of Samaria saved Samaria from me?”
It is not impossible that M can be analyzed as an ellipsis (Luzzatto). On the
other hand, the historical context could justify a literal interpretation of M. The
reference could be to the nordic coalition led by Ilu-bi’di of Hamath against
Sargon II in the second year of his reign, one year after the capture of Samaria.
The gods of the coalition were unable to resist the king of Assyria and to save
Samaria.
If the interpretation given above is correct, a literal rendering imposes it-
self as in NRSV “Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?”
37.9 Isaiah 31– 40 143
37.9
Textual Decisions
In M the second sentence of this verse starts like the ˜rst with [m'v]YIw", “and
he heard,” and this reading has the support of V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other
hand, reads bwçyw [mçyw , “and he heard and again . . . ,” a reading con˜rmed by
G: kai; ajkouvsaı ajpevstreye, “and when he heard it, he turned aside,” where
“turned aside” translates bwçyw. This text seems to combine the readings of 2 Kings
19.9 and of Isaiah 37.9. The witness of 1Q-b is uncertain. Only the ˜rst letters
çyw are present. The photographs, however, show that the following lacuna in
the text does not oêr su¯cient space for the combined reading, so that it is
more likely that 1Q-b supports M. 1Q-a and G could present a con˘ate reading.
It is also possible that M and its followers would have omitted bçyw through a
similar beginning (homoioarcton). The committee favored the ˜rst probability
and attributed a C evaluation to M.
Modern research since Bredenkamp is on a slightly diêrent track in that
it proposes on other than textual grounds to delete the second occurrence of
[mçyw and to read bçyw as in the text of Kings. This proposal has been adopted
in NEB, REB: “he sent messengers again” and also in NAB and NJB. Such an
assimilation, however, has to be avoided.
If the textual decision of the committee is followed, two considerations
might nevertheless be taken into account by the translators: (a) avoidance of
repetition for stylistic reasons; (b) translational variation for the same reasons.
Avoidance of repetition may lead to the ellipsis of the second [mçyw as in
GN and GrN.
Stylistic variation can take several forms such as “. . . Sennacherib received
a report . . . When he heard it . . .” (NIV); “the king of Assyria learned . . . ; and
when he heard it . . .” (NJV).
37.18
Textual Decisions
M reads μx;r“a"æAta,w“ twOxr:a}h;AlK;Ata,, “all the countries and their country.” As
to twOxr:a}h;, “the countries,” ˜fteen Hebrew manuscripts read μyIwOGh' as in 2 Kings
19.17. M has the support of 1Q-a, G, V, S and T. For that reason, and in order
to protect M against an assimilation to 2 Kings 19.17, the committee gave an
A evaluation to M. As to the last two words μx;r“a'Ata,w“, “and their country,” they
are missing in 1Q-a and present in G, V, S and T. The committee considered the
presence of these two words in M and the versions as due to an assimilation to
2 Kings 19.17 M, and it considered the absence in 1Q-a as a representation of
the original text of Isaiah. Likewise, the absence of these two words in the Kings
text of G was taken to represent the original literary form of Kings (CTAT 1,
411–412). The omission in 1Q-a therefore received a B evaluation.
In order to avoid the di¯cult repetition of ≈ra many commentators, fol-
lowing Lowth, had proposed to read μywgh. This proposal has simply been taken
over in many versions as RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNB, NJV, EÜ etc.:
“all the nations and their lands.”
On the other hand, Ehrlich (134) and Procksch (454) had proposed to omit
the last two words and since this omission has also been found in 1Q-a, mod-
ern research (James, Fohrer, Wildberger) revitalized the earlier proposal. The
joint insights of textual analysis and modern research are su¯cient indications
for the translator.
NEB and REB should be followed as a model: “. . . it is true that the kings
of Assyria have laid waste every country” (so also Moâtt, GN and GrN). It
may be necessary to add a footnote stating that 1Q-a is followed here, and that
M adds the words “and their country.”
37.21
Textual Decisions
The last sentence of verse 21 in M “Because you have prayed to me con-
cerning Sennacherib king of Assyria” is syntactically dependent upon the ˜rst
sentence of verse 22 “this is the word that the Lord has spoken concerning
him.” This syntactical division has the support of 1Q-a, V and T. On the other
hand, G by reading h[kousa a} proshuvxw provı me peri; Sennachrim basilevwı
ΔAssurivwn, “I have heard what you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib
king of Assyria,” has added h[kousa, “I have heard,” as the independent sentence
on which the relative sentence “what you have prayed . . .” depends. G is fol-
lowed in this by S. Since this reading testi˜es to a syntactical facilitation as well
as to an assimilation to the reading yTi[]m;v;, “I have heard,” in 2 Kings 19.20, the
committee preferred with a B evaluation the more complex syntactical division
of M.
37.25 Isaiah 31– 40 145
The reading of G and S has had the preference of many older and recent
commentators and it has been imposed by all Hebrew text editions. It therefore
entered into some modern translations such as EÜ, NEB and REB, the last one
providing a textual justi˜cation for its reading in a footnote. Recent versions
such as RSV, NRSV and NIV literally copied the syntax of M, but they are
therefore not necessarily good models for translations in other languages or for
other audiences. Syntactical simpli˜cations may be necessary and these could
take diêrent forms: (1) change to parataxis; (2) change to indirect discourse,
and (3) change to independent sentences.
NAB provides a model for (1): “In answer to your prayer for help against
Sennacherib, king of Assyria, this is the word the Lord has spoken concerning
him.” GNB illustrates (2): “Then Isaiah sent a message telling king Hezekiah
that in answer to the king’s prayer the Lord had said . . . .” The third simpli˜ca-
tion is adopted in GrN: “U hebt tot mij gebeden om hulp tegen koning Sanherib
van Assur. Dit is wat ik over Sanherib te zeggen heb . . . ,” “You have prayed to
me for help against king Sennacherib of Assyria. This is what I have to tell
about Sennacherib. . . .”
37.25
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst line in M reads μyIm; ytiytiv;w“ yTir“q' ynIa}, “I dug wells and drank water,”
whereas in 1Q-a it reads μyrz μym, “I dug wells and drank foreign water.” The
reading of M is supported by Sym, V, S and T. G by reading kai; e[qhka gevfu-
ran, “and I have made a bridge” has taken its Hebrew Vorlage to mean “I have
built with beams” (hrq II) and put (some form of tyv) over the water.” The
only thing one can therefore say is that G indirectly con˜rms M! It is possible
that μyrIz: has been omitted in M by homoioteleuton. But it is also possible to
consider μyrz in 1Q-a as an assimilation to the parallel text of 2 Kings 19.24, the
more so since this is not the only case of assimilation in 1Q-a (36.5, 37.9, 37.20).
By attributing a C evaluation to M, the committee wanted to protect M
against undue assimilation.
Already in the eighteenth century (Houbigant) μyrIz: μyIm; was proposed as the
reading of M in Isaiah and commentators have generally followed this proposal,
especially since it was reinforced by the discovery of 1Q-a. For translators, it
seems wise to give a slight preference to the well-founded decision taken by

the committee. If, in spite of the arguments, they want to follow the 1Q-a read-
ing, they will still have to deñe what—exegetically and translationally—“for-
eign waters” mean. The most probable explanation would be that Sennacherib
brags of drawing the subterranean water in foreign countries to use it for his
own purposes (Wildberger, 1432).
If the proposal of the committee is followed, NJV could serve as a model:
“It is I who have drawn / And drunk water.” If the reading of 1Q-a and 2 Kings
19.24 is preferred NIV could serve as a model: “I have dug wells in foreign
lands and drunk the water there.” In the last case, the translator should make
a footnote stating that the reading “in foreign lands” is found in 1Q-a and in
2 Kings 19.24, but not in M. In projects with Orthodox participation, the read-
ing of G may have to be explained.
37.27–28
Textual Decisions
The end of verse 37. 27 and the beginning of verse 28 reads in M as fol-
lows: ÚT]b]viw“ . hm;q; ynEp]li hm;dEv]W , “and a ˜eld before standing grain (or: before it
is grown). Your sitting down . . . .” The reading of 1Q-a is, however, the fol-
lowing: hktbçw hkmwq μdq ynplp πdçnh (a yod was subsequently added be-
tween d and m in the third word, μydq), “blasted by the east wind. Your rising
up and your sitting down . . . .”
As to the ˜rst textual problem πdçnh / hmdçw , the reading of 1Q-a is indi-
rectly supported by V and T. The Vorlage of both Sym and S is uncertain and
G abbreviates the last part of 27 to such an extent that its witness cannot be
used. The committee judged that the hapax hm;dEv]W of M could hardly be origi-
nal, that the original probably was hp;duv]W as in the reconstructed form of 2 Kings
19.26 (Barthélemy 1982, 413) and it considered πD:v]NIh' of 1Q-a as a modern-
ized form of that original. For reasons of homogeneity of text, the committee
attributed a C evaluation to the reading of 1Q-a.
With regard to the second problem, the absence in G of the reading μydq
of 1Q-a has already been explained in the treatment of the ˜rst problem. Its
absence in M, V, S and T can be explained by the fact that in the Vorlage of
M μydq had already been dropped because of homoioarcton before ˚mq. This
word alone became incomprehensible and has then been changed in M to hmq.
The reading μydq therefore received a B evaluation.
Regarding the third problem: the change of the 1Q-a reading hkmwq in M,
V S and T has already been explained in the treatment of the second problem
38.11 Isaiah 31– 40 147
as a contextual assimilation after the omission of μydq. Consequently, also this

reading of 1Q-a received a B evaluation.
The discovery of 1Q-a has con˜rmed some of the earlier intuitions of
Thenius (1849), Wellhausen (1878, 259) and Duhm (1902 and 1968, 2nd and
5th ed.). Iwry (1957, 29) has clearly shown with many textual references how
the green herbs (˜rst item in verse 27c) are constantly in danger of withering
by the east wind, which leaves withered vegetation (twOpduv]). Wildberger (1418–
1419) is, therefore, certainly right in regarding 1Q-a as the original form of 27
and the beginning of 28. Translators are therefore encouraged to follow 1Q-a
as a homogeneous text, and not to follow many recent versions in their rather
selective renderings.
REB is a good example of such a homogeneous textual rendering: “as grass
on the rooftops blasted by the east wind. I know your rising up and your sitting
down . . . .”
38.11
Textual Decisions
The last word of this verse in M is ld<j;, “cessation,” “the inhabitants of the
(place of ) cessation” or “the inhabitants of the ephemerical (place).” On the
other hand, two manuscripts of Kennicott, three manuscripts of de Rossi and
the manuscript of Petrograd read dlj, “world,” “the inhabitants of the world.”
The ˜rst reading has the support of 1Q-a, the second one that of S.
G, Th, Aq and V seem to have read the verbal form ldEj;, “to cease,” an in-
direct support of M, whereas T provides a double translation, once rendering
a[ra, “world,” and a second time rendering qsp, “to cease.” The committee
judged that here, as in numerous other places in Isaiah, M was due to an in-
tentional metathesis dlj / ldj and that the author through this rhetorical pro-
cedure evoked both words at the same time. A permutation in the language as
suggested by most dictionaries since Judah ben Qoreish can nevertheless not
be excluded.
M got a B evaluation.
Since Michaelis up to our days (Wildberger) the correction of ldj into dlj
has been proposed and has generally been accepted. It is therefore no wonder
that it entered into many translations which even did not take the trouble of
providing textual justi˜cation (RSV, NRSV, NJV, EÜ, FC). Only NJB bothers
to note that it follows a conjecture because M is unintelligible. NIV carefully
gives the reading of M in a footnote, explaining that it follows the reading of
a few Hebrew manuscripts.
It seems very di¯cult to reproduce in a translation an evocative pun as in
the Hebrew, since these puns belong to the surface structure of languages. Even
if one wants to render M, it is not easy to determine the meaning of the hapax
legomenon ld<j;. Calderone (412–413) connects the hapax with Arabic gadira
“wealthy” and takes the expression to mean “prosperous land.” Such a render-
ing seems, however, to be rather speculative. Dahood (1971, 215–216) takes
it as a poetic name for the underworld, joining again the older exegesis since
Rashi. This insight entered very occasionally into translations (W). In light of
the parallel “land of the living,” the question can be raised whether such an in-
terpretation is likely (Feldmann, 451). More probably the pun would qualify the
world as one which will be destroyed, in which human beings will no longer
exist.
If the translator is convinced of the existence of this old pun and if he
wants to express the double meaning he could translate: “the inhabitants of this
ephemeral world.”
If he prefers to follow the majority of translations, he should not do this
without making a footnote along the lines of NIV.
38.12
Textual Decisions
The second line of this verse starts in M with yTid“P'qi, “I have rolled up,” “I
have rolled up my life like a weaver.” 1Q-a reads instead of this ytrps, “I have
cut,” “I have cut oˆ my life like a weaver,” a meaning also found in V: praecisa.
Th, Sym, V, S and T use passive verbal forms, and Aq an impersonal plural. The
Vorlage of G cannot be ascertained. The committee judged that the ˜rst person
singular of the verb in M caused di¯culties to the versions and that they solved
these di¯culties translationally. It also noted that 1Q-a testi˜es to linguistic
modernization, but that the scroll gives a precious support to the reading of the
˜rst person singular of M. Therefore, a B evaluation was given to M.
Since the eighteenth century (Clericus) till our days (Wildberger) it has
been proposed to keep the verb of M, but to change the ˜rst person singular
38.13 Isaiah 31– 40 149
into a second person singular tdpq, “you have rolled up.” This conjecture has
been adopted in some translations like REB, “you have rolled up my life like
a weaver.” The background of this proposal is the refusal of the idea that king
Hezekiah would have taken himself the initiative to end his life. The verb,
however, does not seem to refer to suicide, but to an act of mental resignation
(Delitzsch, 391). In that case, the ˜rst person singular of the verb, parallel to
the ˜rst persons singular of the verbs at the beginning of verses 10 and 11, does
not present any particular problem. The translator may only judge it necessary
to spell out the comparisons in a more complete way.
GrN is a good example of an elaborated comparison: “Ik had mijn leven al
opgegeven, het opgerold zoals een wever het doek,” “I had already given up my
life, rolled it up like a weaver the web.”
38.13
Textual Decisions
Verse 13 starts with the verbal form ytiyWIvi, “I imagined,” a meaning con-
tested by others who translate: “I remained quiet.”
1Q-a reads ytwpç which according to Kutscher (293) would have the mean-
ing “I was crushed.”
It is most likely that both Th and V with their respective renderings ejtevqhn
and sperabam (here: “I feared”), render the meaning of M.
paredovqhn, “I was given up” in G seems to render the verb of the repeated
refrain and not the verb under discussion. The occurrence of a refrain at the end
of verses 12 and 13 is also the reason that due to homoioteleuton verse 13 is
lacking in 1Q-b and in S.
T by means of a contextual assimilation to the “lion” renders “ I roared.”
Although three witnesses are lacking and although of the remaining four
only two support M, the committee decided to give a C evaluation to M, judg-
ing that M might represent a more primitive form of the text.
Houbigant was the ˜rst to propose the conjecture yTi[]W"vi, “I cry for help,”
and in his time it had already been suggested that the reading of T was based
on such a text. As the conjecture was generally accepted it is no wonder that
it entered into many modern versions such as RSV, NRSV, NJB, NJV, NAB,
EÜ. Since the textual base of T is, however, very uncertain, translators are not
advised to follow the conjecture, in spite of its success.
150 A Handbook on Isaiah 38.15A
Other translations base themselves on what they consider to be the mean-

ing of 1Q-a. So NEB and REB: “I am racked with pain.” They have vocalized
1Q-a as ytiwOPc' and for the meaning they have followed Driver’s comparison
with Arabic saâ (1968, 56). TOB, on the other hand, rendering “Je serai re-
duit à rien,” “I will be reduced to nothing,” has found its inspiration in the post-
biblical Hebrew form πpv, “to crush,” from which stems the participle πWpv;,
“to be crushed.” If, with Luzzatto, in view of the meaning of ytiyWIvi in Psalm
16.8, translators want to render M with “I imagine,” the following information
has to be taken as the content of the imagination.
Translators could translate with V and in the line of KJV, StV, GrN and GN:
“sperabam usque ad mane quasi leo sic contrivit omnia ossa mea,” “I thought
until dawn: he will break my bones as a lion.”
38.15A
Textual Decisions
M reads yliArm'a;w“, “for he has spoken to me,” and 1Q-a has the reading
awl rmwaw , “I will say to him.” M is supported by Aq, V and S, but the reading
of 1Q-a seems to have been the base of Th and T. Nothing can be concluded
from the very fragmentary text of 1Q-b and verse 15a is lacking in G. Since the
reading of 1Q-a seems to assimilate to the preceding words “What can I say?”
the committee retained M with a C evaluation.
Already Cappel (834) had proposed the conjecture wOl rm"aow“ as the Vorlage
of Th, and Houbigant, referring to T, had adopted the conjecture, which has ob-
tained the majority support of commentators. The more so, since it was con-
˜rmed by Qumran discoveries. Many modern translations therefore follow this
reading. So e.g. NAB: “What am I to say or tell him?” and, with minor varia-
tions, NEB, REB, NJB, EÜ, W, FC.
M, however, does not present any serious problems to the translator. The
˜rst question “What shall I say?” means “What shall I say to thank him?” and
it is an introduction to the thanksgiving expressed in verses 16–20. The second
clause refers then to a promise God has made (verse 5) and the last clause to
its realization (Delitzsch, 393).
38.15B Isaiah 31– 40 151
Two translations present a good model: (1) NJV: “What can I say? He
promised me, / And He it is who has wrought it,” and (2) NAV: “Wat kan ek
sê? Die Here het met my gepraat, Hy het gedoen wat Hy gesê het,” “What can
I say? The Lord has spoken with me, He has done what he has said to me.”
38.15B
Textual Decisions
The beginning of verse 15b reads in M yt'wOnv]Alk; hD<D"a,, “I will walk all my
years.” 1Q-a reads the Hebrew verb as hdwda to all probability from the root
ddn, “to ˘ee.” 1Q-a certainly has been the Vorlage of S which, in addition, has
read the last Hebrew word as ytin:v], “my sleep,” “all my sleep has ˘ed.” This
part of verse 15b is lacking in G.
The Hebrew verb has presented great di¯culties to the versions. Th inter-
preted it as a noun kaqodhvghsin, “guidance,” Aq as an inñitive probibavsai,
“lead on,” both of them making it an object of the preceding Hebrew verb. V
by rendering recogitabo, “I will consider” follows Sym: ajnalogivsomai. T may
express the result of such “considerations”: “how shall I serve, and repay him
all the years which he has added to my life.”
The committee considered the reading of S (and possibly of 1Q-a) as very
attractive, and it decided to give a C evaluation to M only because of its tra-
ditional exegetical support.
It is not worthwhile to mention the diêrent conjectures of Begrich (1926,
42), and Kaiser (399), which—and rightly so—did not enter into any most re-
cent translation.
More important is it to try to determine what M could mean. It could, ˜rst
of all, be interpreted positively in the sense of “humbly walking because of (or
“remembering”) the anguish” (Feldmann, 453) or in the sense of “continuing
life in spite of the anguish.” A positive meaning would also prevail if the verb
of M would have the meaning “walking slowly” (Abulwalid, 1880, 123–125),
and if such a meaning would refer to walking in a solemn procession of thanks-
giving. Secondly, a negative meaning could be present if the “slowly walking”
would be a reference to the way of walking of an invalid.
In view of the doubts regarding M, however, the translator may also want
to give, either in the text or in a note, the reading of S and—possibly—of 1Q-a.
A model of positive interpretation is NIV: “I will walk humbly all my
years because of this anguish of my soul”; a negative interpretation gives NJB:
“I must eke out the rest of my years in bitterness of soul.”
If the variant reading of S—which may be the reading of 1Q-a as well—
is preferred, NRSV can function as an example: “All my sleep has ˘ed because
of the bitterness of my soul.”
38.16
Textual Decisions
Almost insoluble problems have been posed by 16a: yYEjæ ˆh,B;Alk;l]W Wyj]yI μh,le[}
yjiWr, “by these things (men) live and in all these things the life of my spirit
(dwells).” M is nevertheless supported by 1Q-b for the ˜rst four words pre-
served in this scroll, and entirely by Aq. Apart from the orthography and one
assimilation (hmhb to hmhyl[) 1Q-a only distinguishes itself from M by four y/
w confusions. G by reading peri; aujth'ı ga;r ajnhggevlh soi kai; ejxhvgeiravı mou
th;n pnohvn, “concerning this, it was told you and you have revived my breath,”
has distributed the consonants of his Hebrew Vorlage in a diêrent way. Both
V and S went for an easier syntax. S, in addition, connected verse 16a with the
preceding verse. T provides a midrash: “with regard to all the dead, you have
declared that you would bring them to life, but before them all you have caused
my spirit to live.” In view of the numerous facilitations, the committee con-
sidered M to be well supported and gave it a C evaluation.
The problems of verse 16a do not concern the text, but its interpretation.
Wildberger (1445) is therefore entirely correct when stating that one should not
try to reconstruct another text according to the gift of one’s imagination, and,
through the translation of such an imagined text suggest a fully arbitrary un-
derstanding. The by Duhm and Driver inspired text reconstruction proposed in
BHS and followed e.g. in NEB and REB “Yet, Lord, because of you my soul
will live. Give my spirit rest,” therefore cannot be recommended to translators.
A translation based upon the facilitating reading of 1Q-a, however, as pro-
vided in NJB “The Lord is over them; they live, and everything in them lives
by his spirit,” cannot be recommended either.
A translation should be based upon M, the meaning of which has to be
determined. Houbigant already wrote: “Felix, qui potest haec verba, ut sunt,
interpretari,” “Happy who is able to interpret these words as such.” If the trans-
lator agrees with Wildberger (1444) that this happy person is not yet born, he
can only refrain from translating these words, as has been done in RL. This
38.17 Isaiah 31– 40 153
seems a better procedure than leaving out the translation of some words, re-
placed by dotted lines, as in NAB, or to provide a fully intelligible rendering
and mention in a footnote that the Hebrew text is unintelligible! (EÜ). If the
translator thinks, however, that M can meaningfully be interpreted, the follow-
ing presuppositions are necessary: (1) the use of masculine, μhl[, and feminine,
ˆhb, su¯xes should be considered as a rhetorical device in order to express to-
tality; (2) the su¯xes refer back to the divine interventions alluded to in verse
15; (3) lk refers to yyj in spite of the separation by ˆhb, a construction found
in Hosea 14.3. These presuppositions united may lead to the following under-
standing: “O Lord, thanks to these things people live and in these things is all
the life of my spirit.”
If the above interpretation is considered possible, NIV could be taken as a
model: “Lord, by such things men live; and my spirit ñds life in them too.” If
“such things” have to be spelled out in translation, GrN can be taken as an ex-
ample: “Een mens leeft van uw beloften, Heer, alleen daaruit put ik levensmoed,”
“People live by your promises, o Lord, only from these I take the courage to
live.”
38.17
Textual Decisions
M reads in the second sentence of the verse T;q]v'j;, “you have loved my
soul,” whereas V by translating eruisti, “you have rescued,” seems to presup-
pose a Hebrew reading T;k]c'j;, “you have preserved.” M has the support of 1Q-a,
1Q-b, Sym, S and T, and, contrary to what has frequently been said, also of G.
For G uses here the verb aiJrevw in the same sense as in 1 Sam 19.1: “to take
to oneself,” “to be fond of ” (Lust, 12a). M received therefore a B evaluation.
Houbigant had already proposed the correction T;k]c'j; noting that the He-
brew verb qv'j; is never used without a preposition. His proposal has been
followed by a majority of commentators and modern translations: RSV, NRSV,
NJB, NJV, NAB and GNB.
It should, however, be taken into consideration that qvj could have been
intentionally constructed with the syntax of ˚cj in a context where the last verb
is expected with the aim of evoking its particular meaning: “you have loved me
to such a point that you have kept me from the pit of destruction.” Such is at
least the understanding of other modern translations such as NEB, REB, NIV,
FC, RL.
REB is a good model for such a translation: “your love saved me from the
pit of destruction,” or, with FC: “car tu m’as aimé assez pour m’éviter la mort,”
“for you have loved me so much that you saved me from death.”
38.21–22
Textual Decisions
These two verses are not attested by the ˜rst hand of 1Q-a, but they are
present in all other textual traditions. Since there are su¯cient indications that
these verses are a secondary addition in M, the committee attributed a C eval-
uation to the omission in 1Q-a.
Duhm (246) took the initiative to insert these two problematic verses after
38.6 where according to his opinion they originally belonged. Procksch (461)
thought it necessary in addition, to introduce after this insertion verse 7 with
the words “And Isaiah said,” taken from 2 Kings 20.9. The two proposals com-
bined entered into the apparatus of BHS and by way of the apparatus into many
modern translations (NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, FC, GrN). Other transla-
tions, like C, inserted verse 22 after verse 6, and verse 21 after verse 8. Others
again, leaving them at the end, indicated in a footnote (EÜ) that in fact they
belonged to verses 1–8, possibly before verse 7.
It should be noted, however, that there is no textual evidence for such a
transfer and that it is a major rule that the assimilation to diêrent text tradi-
tions be avoided. Feldmann (455) rightly argued that these two verses nowhere
˜t into the Isaiah text and Ehrlich (140) simply pleaded for their omission. A
total omission, however, does not seem to be justi˜ed since the presence of
these two verses in all other textual traditions is not due to an accident, but to
the initiative of a redactor.
Two possibilities present themselves therefore to the translator: (1) to trans-
late these verses at the end as do RSV, NRSV, NIV and NJV adding, unlike these
translations, a footnote with the statement that these verses are lacking in the
˜rst hand of 1Q-a and probably are a secondary addition; (2) to put a transla-
tion of these verses into a footnote, adding the same information, as has been
done in GN.
The second possibility may be preferred.
40.6 Isaiah 31– 40 155
40.6
Textual Decisions
In the second occurrence of the verb rm'a;, “to say,” “to ask,” M reads the
third person masculine singular rm'a;w“, “and he/one said” whereas 1Q-a has the
˜rst person singular reading hrmwaw , “and I said.” M has the support of S and T,
whereas 1Q-a is supported by G and V. M presents no doubt the more di¯cult
reading since a textual change from the ˜rst person into the third can hardly be
expected. In addition, the prophet rarely emphasizes his own role. For these
reasons, a C evaluation has been attributed to M.
The vast majority of modern versions follow the reading of 1Q-a, G and
V without noting so. Only NEB, NJV, TOB, C, BR, NV render M, mostly in an
impersonal way: “(and) another asks” (NEB, NJV). Herewith a dialogue be-
tween two unidenti˜ed voices has been introduced. Interpretationally, however,
the best solution is to see in the ˜rst voice a voice from heaven and in the
second voice the one of the prophet who asks for more precision with regard
to his task. This question is then answered by the same heavenly voice in the
following verses. (Koole, 31–32). In that case, the use of the impersonal ver-
bal form in M is a device used in order not to put the prophet into the picture
(Bonnard).
In a type of translation for which it has been stipulated that the intent of
the original author has to be respected, NV could be taken as a model: “En de
vraag klinkt . . . ,” “And the question is raised . . . .” In other types of transla-
tion for which the intentional ambiguity of the source text would not be clear
enough for the reader, REB could be used as an example: “A voice says, ‘Pro-
claim!’ and I asked, ‘What shall I proclaim?’ ”
40.12
Textual Decisions
In M the grammatical object of the ˜rst sentence is μyIm', “the waters,” “Who
has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,” whereas 1Q-a has μy ym,
“the waters of the sea.” M has the support of G, Aq, V and S, and, indirectly,
of T, which makes explicit what is meant through its rendering “all the waters
of the universe.” The reading of 1Q-a can hardly be original. For when in bib-
lical Hebrew the construct state yme is followed by the genitive μy:, the last noun
is always determined by either the article or a local speci˜cation. Therefore the

reading of 1Q-a was considered to be a graphical error and a B evaluation was
attributed to M.
Since in some receptor languages translators may have felt the need to qual-
ify “the waters,” the frequent rendering “the waters of the sea” is not amazing.
In the light of the textual decisions it seems to be wrong, however, to cite in
a footnote the reading of 1Q-a as a justi˜cation for such a translation (NJB,
NAB, TOB, FC). The problem seems to be an interpretational one: is there a
reference to creation or not?
If no reference to creation is seen in this text, a rendering such as “(the wa-
ters of ) the sea” is justi˜ed. But no textual note should be provided. If, on the
other hand, the text is considered to refer to the creation narrative of Gen 1,
translators may want to expand the rendering along the lines of T: “all the
waters of the world.”
Isaiah 41–50
ISAIAH 41–50
41.3
Textual Decisions
The last two words of M are awOby: aol, “he does not come,” “the road with
his feet he does not come.” This reading has the direct support of Th, Aq and
Sym, and it is presupposed by S, T (“the strength of the way entered not into
his feet”) and also V. On the other hand, G does not have the last two words
whereas 1Q-a reads wnyby al, “they do not discern.” If connected with the pre-
ceding information 1Q-a would therefore read: “They do not discern the path
of his feet” (McKenzie, 27). If connected with verse 4, 1Q-a would read: “They
do not understand who has done this and who has brought this to pass.” If the
last syntactic division is preferred, the variant may be explained as an assim-
ilation to parallel texts such as 43.10 and 44.18. The textual support of M was
considered to be strong enough to justify a C evaluation.
The main problems concern the interpretation of M. One possible exegesis
is that Cyrus passes by a road on which he never put his feet before (Ehrlich,
Kissane, Snaith, RSV, NIV, NV). Another option is to take jr"ao, “path,” as gram-
matical subject as in T and V and in translations dependent upon V. In Jerome’s
paraphrase this would give “viae laborem non sentiet,” “he doesn’t feel the hard-
ship of the road.” This option has only been defended by Ibn Ezra and Kimchi.
In a last interpretation two possible exegeses converge, which take the sentence
to mean that Cyrus in his swiftness does not even touch the road. (NRSV, NJB,
NEB, REB, GNB). This last analysis is the most convincing.
157
According to the needs of the receptor language the “swiftness” can be left
implicit as in NJB: “his feet scarcely touching the road” or it can be made
explicit as in GNB: “so fast that he hardly touches the ground.” A textual note
should be provided in translations based upon G.
41.22
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst word of this verse reads in M the hiphil verbal form WvyGIy", “Let
them bring . . . ,” a reading con˜rmed now by 1Q-a. All the ancient versions,
G Sym V S T, however, translated the verbal form as if it was written in the
qal : WvG“yI, “Let them come forward.” Two arguments persuaded the committee
to attribute a C vote to M: (1) the reading of M is protected by a masora magna
(Weil, par 1601); (2) the same verbal form (with grammatical object) occurs
in the preceding verse. Moreover, it can be noted that in the parallel text 45.21
no correction of M has ever been proposed in spite of the same behavior of the
ancient versions.
Since still recently the reading of a qal form has been defended by com-
mentators such as Bonnard and Elliger, it is no wonder that a number of trans-
lations (NEB, REB, NAB, GNB, FC) follow this proposal. It is not always
clear, however, whether such a rendering re˘ects a textual emendation or an in-
terpretational option. McKenzie e.g. retains M, but he gives an intransitive and
intensive meaning to the hiphil form instead of a causative one. He is followed
in this by NJV which renders M as “Let them approach.” Such a meaning of
the hiphil is nevertheless extremely doubtful.
NIV has the peculiar reading “Bring in your idols” based upon two highly
improbable suppositions: (1) that these words are spoken to the nations and not
to the gods, and (2) that a meaning “idols” would be suggested by μk,ytewOmxu[} in
verse 21.
When rendering M, the normal hiphil meaning will have to be given: “Let
them bring . . .” or “Let them produce . . . ,” “them” referring to the gods. A
grammatical object will then have to be understood or stated. The most natural
thing to do is to take the explicit object of the preceding verse: μk,ytewOmxu[}, “your
proofs,” “your arguments.” NRSV can be taken as a model of translation:
“. . . bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them . . . .”
41.23 Isaiah 41–50 159
41.23
Textual Decisions
The last verb of 23b has in M the qere ha,r“nIw“, “and we will see,” whereas
the ketib has hr<nEw“, “that we may see.” The qere is clearly supported by 1Q-a.
All the ancient versions are based upon a reading of the ˜rst person plural of
the verb “to see,” but it cannot be decided whether they follow the qere or the
ketib. The committee, with a majority B vote, preferred the ˜rst one, the qere.
It considered that after a ˜rst verb with a voluntary mood the second verb
could use the indicative and that therefore the ketib should be seen as an as-
similation to the mood of the preceding verb.
Confusion amongst commentators and translators has been caused by the
erroneous notes in BH3 and BHS maintaining the ketib to read ar:nIw“, “and we
shall be afraid.” In fact, this reading which was for the ˜rst time proposed by
Lowth, is a mere conjecture and those who proposed it never claimed it to be
the ketib.
Whether the conjecture should be adopted or not depends upon the inter-
pretation of the preceding verb h[;T;vnIw“. If this verbal form is analyzed as a qal
of [tv, “to be afraid,” the conjecture should be taken over. If, on the other hand,
the form is analyzed as a hithpael of h[v, “to see,” the conjecture should be
abandoned. Most recent translators (RSV, NRSV, NJB, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB)
follow the ˜rst derivation and arrive at an interpretation such as: “that we may
be afraid and terri˜ed.” It should, however, be noted that the context does not
impose such an interpretation. The second half line of verse 23a makes that
also in the second half line of verse 23b verbs of veri˜cation are expected. And
although the prophet could say by way of derision: “that we may be afraid and
terri˜ed,” one should not forget that these words are uttered by the Lord.
Finally, it is not to be excluded that the last interpretation evokes the ˜rst,
and that the combination of the verb har, “to see,” with the hithpael of h[v in
this verse evokes the combination of the verb ary, “to fear,” with the qal of
[tv in verse 10.
SR could be used as a model of translation: “Pour que nous ouvrions les
yeux / Et qu’ensemble nous le voyions,” “that we may open our eyes and see
it together.” It is not impossible to introduce the derision by qualifying one of
the verbs of seeing as has been done in FC and in Moâtt: “that we may mar-
vel at the sight!” The other interpretation may be given in a footnote as has
been done in SR.
41.25
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst line of verse 25 ends in M with ymiv]bi ar:q]yI, “he shall call on my
name,” a reading also supported by V and S. G and T likewise con˜rm the ˜rst
person su¯x of the second word in M, but they deal diêrently with the verb.
G renders klhqhvsontai tw] ' ojnovmativ mou, “they shall be called by my name,”
a plural, translationally conditioned by the preceding double object: “him who
comes from the north and him who comes from the rising of the sun.” This
translation therefore presupposes a reading of the verb in the niphal: arEQ;yI. T
renders with ymçb hynrbga, “I will make him strong in my name,” which does
not seem to presuppose a ˜rst person Vorlage as Elliger postulated (173). Fi-
nally, 1Q-a reads wmçb arqyw , probably meaning “and he will be called on by
his name.” The committee considered the divergent traditions of 1Q-a, G and
T as due to corrections by copyists and translators who no longer understood the
syncretistic religiosity of Cyrus and who saw here a conversion to Judaism de-
nied by later history. Therefore, a majority B vote was given to M.
Modern exegesis apparently follows the line of the ancient renderings and
several conjectures have been proposed. Bredenkamp with his conjecture ar:q]a,
wOmv]Bi, “I have called him by his name” based himself upon 45.3 and 4. This
conjecture has recently been taken over by Westermann (69) and it is found in
translations such as Moâtt, C and EÜ. Recent translations sometimes follow
the ˜rst word of the conjecture, but keep M for the second (REB, GNB, GN).
Condamin vocalized the verb as a niphal and changed the su¯x into that of the
third person masculine singular. Since the discovery of 1Q-a others like Bon-
nard have followed him. This option entered into translations such as NRSV,
NJB and TOB.
These conjectures, however, become unnecessary if M is not taken as a
reference to Cyrus’ conversion to Judaism, but as an appeal to the God of Is-
rael for the actions described in what follows (compare Cyrus’ proclamation in
Ezra 1.2). So NJV, RSV, NIV, GrN, SR.
NJV can serve as an example for the translator: “one who invokes My
name.” It may be useful to explain the interpretational di¯culties in a footnote
as has been done in the NIV Study Bible.
41.27 Isaiah 41–50 161
41.27
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst half line of the verse ends in M with the word μN:hi, “here they are.”
This reading is presupposed by the literal rendering of S, and by the explicit
renderings of T: “They have come to pass” and of V: “dicet ecce adsunt,” “he
says: ‘see, here they are.’ ” G on the other hand, by rendering the ˜rst half line
with ajrch;n Siwn dwvsw, “I will give dominion to Sion,” omits the two last words
of M and replaces them by the last word of the second half line: ˆTea,, “I will
give.” 1Q-a has the peculiar reading hmwnh which could be analyzed as a par-
ticiple of a root hmn or μwn, used in Palestinian rabbinic Hebrew with the mean-
ing “to give information,” “to announce.”The reading of 1Q-a would then most
probably be based on a vocalization μN:h' of the consonantal text of M. Since,
however, there are no indications of the usage of a verb hmn or μwn with this par-
ticular meaning in the Hebrew of the biblical period, the committee judged it
to be more prudent to maintain the vocalization of M to which a C evaluation
was attributed.
In view of the di¯culties of interpretation Marti (284) already proposed to
read h;yTid“G"hi, “I have announced it,” and this conjecture has been taken over by
FC, RSV and NRSV “I ˜rst have declared it to Zion.” In more recent transla-
tions it has become customary to abandon conjectures and to translate the text
of 1Q-a. So NEB: “Here is one who will speak ˜rst as advocate for Zion” and
REB which seems to base itself on the “see, there is the one who speaks” of
1Q-a in its rendering “I am the ˜rst to appoint a messenger to Zion.”
It seems best, however, to render M in spite of its di¯culties. There can
be no doubt that ˆwOvarI should be taken in the meaning “the ˜rst” and that it
should refer to the Lord. As to the identi˜cation of “they” in “here they are,”
three interpretations have been given: (1) the Hebrew su¯x refers to the events
which will take place or which are taking place. So Delitzsch (431) and NJV,
(2) the su¯x refers to the armies of Cyrus. So Koole (138) and LB: “Look,
look! Help is on the way! ” (3) the su¯x refers to those returning from exile.
So the older Jewish exegesis, Calvin, Grotius, Snaith. Of these three interpre-
tations, the last one is to be preferred (Leene, 56, 108).
A more literal translation could follow NIV as a model: “I was the ˜rst to
tell Zion, ‘Look, here they are!’ ” If the need for more explicit information re-
garding “they” is felt, NAV is a good example: Ek is die eerste wat vir Sion
gesê het: Kyk, jou mense kom terug!,” “I was the ˜rst who told Sion: Look,
your people are coming back!”
41.29
Textual Decisions
In M the third word of the verse, the last word of its ˜rst member, reads
ˆw<a;, “male˜cence,” a reading endorsed by Th, Sym (a[dikoi, “wrongdoing”) and
V (iniusti). 1Q-a on the other hand, seems to have read ˆyIa;, “nothingness,” a
reading which may have the support of S and T: “nought.” Nothing can be con-
cluded from the reading oujqe;n, “nought,” in the Göttingen edition of the Sep-
tuagint since this is an editorial conjecture of Ziegler (1934, 54). As he admits
himself, nothing in G corresponds with the ˜rst three words of M. As to the tex-
tual judgment, it should always be kept in mind that 1Q-a derives from an ar-
chetype in which it is very di¯cult to distinguish a y from a w. In this case, the
committee judged that the variant reading of 1Q-a, S and T could best be ex-
plained as an assimilation to the twice occurring ˆyaw of verse 28. The result was
a C vote for M.
Medieval Jewish translators as well as Christian translators from the ref-
ormation period rendered on exegetical grounds ˆw<a; of M as if it were written
ˆyIa'. No wonder therefore that many modern translations, e.g. NEB, REB, NJV,
do the same. Their translations are the result of interpretational and not of tex-
tual analysis.
Other modern translators render the variant ˆyIa' providing textual notes, e.g.
NJB, FC, GN.The result is the same, but their decision was based on textual
criticism. (NJB, FC, GN).
If the translator, however, wants to render the literal meaning of M with
many other translations (RSV, NRSV, NIV, TOB e.a.)—he may be right to
do so since it is not impossible that the author intentionally created a tension
between text and context—the question about a meaningful rendering of ˆw<a;
remains.
Whybray (70) is no doubt right in stating that the Hebrew word can hardly
have the meaning given to it in RSV and NRSV: “a delusion.” Most probably
it indicates the trouble and misfortune resulting from idolatry.
For the rendering of M, TOB can serve as example: “Voici ce qu’ils sont
tous: une malfaisance!,” “Look here what they are all: harmful!” In intercon-
42.11 Isaiah 41–50 163
fessional projects with Orthodox participation, the translators may have to note
the important diêrences between M and G.
42.11
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst verb of verse 11 reads in M Wac]yI, “they raise,” with ellipsis of the
object “voice” or “their voices,” a reading con˜rmed by Th, Sym and Aq. On
the other hand, 1Q-a and 4Q-h read the verb in the singular: açy. In 1Q-a this
singular reading is conditioned by the omission of the conjunction before the
third word of the verse which makes the grammatical subject a singular one,
only the “desert.” 4Q-h has a lacuna after the second word so that the motiva-
tion remains uncertain there. V also has a singular verb, to which it ascribes an
intransitive meaning: “sublevetur,” “may (the desert) be lifted up.” G, S and T
seem to have read wççy, vocalized either as Wcyciy: or as WcWcy:, “rejoice,” “let (the
desert) sing praises.” It seems that the last three versions tried to solve the el-
lipsis of the grammatical object and that they anticipated the translation they
were going to give of the ˜rst verb of 11b: WNroy:, “Let . . . rejoice.” Because of
the singular verb in Qumran and—probably—in the Vorlage of some of the
versions, only a C evaluation was given to M.
Grätz has been the ˜rst to propose the correction Wcyciy: and he has been
followed in this by Fohrer, Westermann and Elliger. Mainly older translations
such as Moâtt and LV, but also EÜ, made the same correction. NEB and REB
present an identical translation: “Let . . . rejoice,” but this rendering seems to
be based upon a vocalization WawOCyI and the derivation from a verb hac which
like its Arabic cognate would have the meaning “to rejoice oneself ” (Guil-
laume, 1966, 53–54).
None of these corrections, however, should be made and with Whybray,
McKenzie and Koole M should be maintained. So RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJB, NJV
and others.
In a literal type of translation the classical rendering “Let . . . raise their
voices” (NJB, NIV) can be used as a model. In other types of translation, trans-
lators may want to make explicit the aim of the “raising of voices” and they
therefore may decide to follow the example of GNB “Let . . . praise God.”
42.19
Textual Decisions
In the second half of the second member of this verse M reads for the
third time the same word (here preceded by a conjunction): rWE[iw“, “and blind.”
This reading is supported by V and S and—BHS and Ziegler base themselves
on an erroneous quotation of Sym—also by Sym according to the reading in
Theodoret (168, 34). One manuscript (Kennicott 80) and the ˜rst hand of man-
uscript de Rossi 267 read vrEjew“, “and deaf.” The scribe of 1Q-a also started to
write a j, but then he erased this character and wrote raw[w. The aleph which
has been added in this orthography, should with Kutscher (163) be considered
to be a mater lectionis for sere. The midrash given in T is of no great use for
this textual problem. G omits the last two words of the ˜rst line and the ˜rst
two words of the second, no doubt by homoioarcton, the same beginning of
ykalmk and μlçmk. Its reading kai; ejtuflwvqhsan, “and they have been made
blind,” indirectly con˜rms M. Because of this indirect support and the direct
support of 1Q-a, Sym, V and S, the committee was equally divided between a
C and a B evaluation for M.
The rather weak textual argument for a reading vrEjew“, “and deaf,” has in fact
been seized for literary reasons. The ˜rst line of verse 19 reads once “blind” and
once “deaf,” and therefore it was considered that the parallel line should do the
same. It has to be noted, however, that 19aa and 19bb have a chiastic relation-
ship (who is blind but my servant?—and blind like the servant of the Lord?)
in the same way as 19ab and 18b (Koole, 186, 188). This inclusion character
of the text can therefore be quoted in defence of M. In addition, the repetition
of “blind” in 19b may also be an intentional device to stress the fact that he
who has to be a light for the nations and who has to open the eyes of the blind
is blind himself (Hitzig). There are therefore no su¯cient textual and literary
reasons to change M as has been done in NJB, NEB, REB, EÜ, TOB, FC.
The second half line of the second member of verse 19 could be rendered
as in NJV: “So blind as the servant of the Lord?” If the second line of verse
19 is considered to be a gloss, the translator may want to put his rendering be-
tween parentheses as done in NJB and GN.
42.24 Isaiah 41–50 165
42.24
Textual Decisions
In the second rhetorical question M reads Wnaf;j;, “we have sinned” and its
reading has the support of 1Q-a, V and S. G, on the other hand, reads the third
person plural, “they have sinned,” and so do most of the witnesses of T with
the inclusion of manuscript Urbinates 1. The committee judged that the read-
ings of G and T were due to contextual harmonization, in this case to an as-
similation to the third person plural verbs of verse 24c: “they would not walk”
and “they did not obey.” M received therefore a B evaluation.
Grätz, Oort, Marti, Kissane, Morgenstern and others have all proposed the
third person plural reading of G and T, on textual grounds. They seem to have
been followed by NEB and REB, in the ˜rst on the base of T and in the second
on the base of G. Most translators, however, made contextual harmonizations
like G and T, not for textual, but for stylistic reasons. They either used third
person plural forms (NJV) or ˜rst person plural forms throughout (GNB, GrN,
NVA). The last type of harmonization may have been chosen because it was
thought that the speaker wrongly “slips out of his identi˜cation with the people
after the ˜rst verb” (McKenzie, 46).
We have nevertheless to retain M with RSV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NJB, which
means that the prophet on one side expresses his solidarity with the public
guilt, and, on the other hand, takes his distance with regard to those who con-
sciously refuse to obey God. Translators will have to express such subtleties
without imposing awkward constructions upon the receptor language.
One way of matching M would be to take TOB as a model: “N’est-ce pas
le Seigneur, lui envers qui nous avons commis des fautes, lui dont on n’a pas
voulu suivre les chemins et dont on n’a pas écouté la Loi?, “Was it not the Lord,
against whom we had sinned, in whose ways people refused to walk and whose
law was not listened to?” If the impersonal forms are not considered to be a sat-
isfactory translational solution, FC may present a useful model: “N’est-ce pas
le Seigneur envers qui nous étions coupables? Israël n’a pas voulu suivre la
voie que son Dieu lui traçait, il n’a pas écouté sa loi,” “Is it not the Lord to
whom we are guilty? Israel did not want to follow the way which his God layed
out for him, it did not listen to his law.”
43.10
Textual Decisions
The second half line of verse 10a starts in M with the singular form yDIb]['w“,
“and my servant,” “and my servant whom I have chosen,” whereas in one manu-
script of Erfurt the plural vocalization yd"b;[}w", “and my servants” is found. This
plural reading is also attested by S, but M has the support of G, V and T. 1Q-a
has the unique reading ydb[ without the conjunction w. The plurals were con-
sidered to be contextual assimilations and their weak evidence was noted. There-
fore, M received a B evaluation.
From Duhm (290) till Elliger (307) the plural has been adopted by many
commentators for diêrent reasons, and it is not amazing that it is found in
many modern translations.
The real problems are, however, not of a textual nature, but they are in-
terpretational. M has a high degree of ambiguity and this is maintained in lit-
eral translations such as RSV, NRSV and NIV: “You are my witnesses, says the
Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen.” M may either mean to say: “you
are my witnesses—and you are my servant(s)” or: “you are my witnesses and
(so is) my servant.” Since Delitzsch (443) the ˜rst interpretation has become
the majority exegesis, to be found back in most translations (NEB, REB, NAB,
GNB, NJV). Older exegesis has almost unanimously opted for the second in-
terpretation which has recently been defended by Koole (221). This also is
clearly the choice of some modern translations such as NJB, EÜ and SR. The
second witness could then be Cyrus (Barthélemy 314), the prophet (Ibn Ezra),
or a messianic interpretation could be given as in Targum with its “and my
servant the Messiah,” G—where the sentence is preceded by kajgw; mavrtu", a
Christian interpolation according to Seeligmann (28–29)—and Calvin.
If the ˜rst interpretation is preferred, translators could, not on textual, but
on interpretational grounds, use NAB as a model: “You are my witnesses, says
the Lord, my servants whom I have chosen.” If the translator has a preference
for the second interpretation, SR with its pronominal repetition could be taken
as an example: “C’est vous qui êtes mes témoins, . . . , (Vous), et mon serviteur
que j’ai choisi, . . . ,” “You are my witnesses, . . . , You and my servant whom
I have chosen. . . .” The interpretation which has not been selected in the text
might ˜gure as an alternative rendering in a footnote, with or without evalua-
tion, as has been done in TOB and FC.
43.13 Isaiah 41–50 167
43.13
Textual Decisions
This verse starts in M with the expression μwOYmiAμG", “and from today on also.”
It has been suggested that G, ajpΔ ajrch'", “from the beginning,” V, ab initio, and
T, aml[m, “from everlasting,” would have read in their Vorlage μl;wO[me and a
correction of M has lastly been proposed in the apparatus of BHK. M, however,
has the support of 1Q-a, and, indirectly, of S whose rendering “from the ˜rst
day on” clearly is an explicit formulation of M. Elliger (308) has strongly ar-
gued that the renderings of G, V and T are simply interpretations of M. The
committee attributed a B evaluation to M.
No diêrent textual evidence for a translation “from eternity” should be
quoted as is done in NJB and in the notes on NAB (414). Since Rashi older
exegetes understood M to mean “from the moment there was a day” or “before
there was a day” (Vitringa). In modern translations this interpretation has lead
to such renderings as “Ever since day was” (NJV), “from ancient days” (NIV),
and “from everlasting” (REB).
More recent exegetes since Ewald have interpreted M in the sense of Ez
48.35 “from this very day,” “henceforth.” This interpretation should be pre-
ferred with RSV, NRSV, NEB, TOB.
See Evaluation of Problems.
43.14
Textual Decisions
This verse presents two major problems:
(1) The second line in M ends with μL;Ku μyjirib;, “fugitives all of them,” a
reading which is also attested by 1Q-a, G and S. Th according to Jerome, fortes,
“noblemen,” V, vectes, “bars,” and T, ˆyfwçmb, “in boats,” do not seem to suggest
a diêrent Hebrew Vorlage, but only a diêrent interpretation of M. So M got
a majority B vote.
(2) In the last line M reads twOYnIa’B;, “ships.” It has been proposed in BHS to
correct the vocalization of this word into twOYnIa}B', “in lamentations.” M, how-
ever, has the support of the whole textual tradition, and therefore it received
an A evaluation.
(1) The interpretation of V has been rather successful among exegetes (El-
liger, 331) and translators. It is found e.g. in RSV and NRSV, “and break down
all the bars” and, in diêrent wordings, in NAB, NJV, GNB and FC. It is some-
times combined with an emendation of the word μL;Ku into a nominal form of
the root alk, “to shut up,” with the meaning “prison.” So e.g. EÜ and NJB: “I
shall knock down all the prison bars.”
The most widespread interpretation is the one by G and S, analyzing M as
an adjective derived from a root with the meaning “to ˘ee.” It has recently been
defended again by Westermann (99) and Beuken (180–181) and it does not
need any change in vocalization of M. It is found in NIV, “and bring down as
fugitives all the Babylonians,” TOB, GrN, GN, and, with a diêrent interpre-
tation of the preceding Hebrew verb, in NEB and REB: “and lay the Chaldae-
ans prostrate as they ˘ee.” It is this interpretation of μyjiyrIb; which should be
preferred.
(2) The correction of the vocalization in M into twOYnIa}B', “in lamentations”
has also found recent defenders (Muilenburg, Koenig, Elliger). This correction
is normally followed by those translators which adopted the interpretation of V
in (1): RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJV, GNB, FC. There are, however, no textual or
contextual reasons for such a change.
TOB seems to be the best translational model when dealing with both prob-
lems “je les fais tous descendre en fugitifs, oui, les Chaldéens, sur ces navires
où retentissaient leurs acclamations,” “I will bring down the Chaldeans as fu-
gitives in the ships in which resounded their acclamations.” A footnote could
explain that the boats were used for the procession of the gods and that the
reference in M is to the praise of the Babylonian gods.
43.19
Textual Decisions
The last word of this verse reads in M twOrh;n“, “rivers,” “and rivers in the
desert,” whereas 1Q-a to all probability has the reading twbytn, “paths,” “and
paths in the desert.” Although M has the support of G, V, S and T, it is very
di¯cult to say which reading should be preferred. M could be considered as an
erroneous anticipation of twrhn in verse 20, and 1Q-a as an assimilation to the
parallelism of verse 16. The committee was therefore equally devided between
both readings and gave a C vote to both.
43.28 Isaiah 41–50 169
Before the discovery of 1Q-a Kissane had already proposed the emenda-
tion twObytin“. Only after the discovery of this variant the reading has been adopted
by a number of scholars such as Fohrer, Bonnard, McKenzie, Schoors and
Whybray. It also entered into a few modern translations such as NEB, REB,
TOB and EÜ. Other scholars such as Muilenburg, Westermann and Elliger pre-
ferred M just like the majority of modern versions (RSV, NRSV, NIV, GNB,
NJV, NAB).
It is very di¯cult to ñd additional discourse arguments which could turn
the scale in favor of one of the readings. “Way and paths” of 19 could be com-
plementary to “water and rivers” in 20, but “way and rivers” of 19 could also
be a transition between “way and paths” of 16 and “water and rivers” of 20.
Translators should therefore make the choice they feel justi˜ed.
See above. In view of the remaining uncertainties, it can be advised to
mention in a footnote the reading which has not been retained in the text. So
also REB, TOB and EÜ.
43.28
Textual Decisions
The three ˜rst words of this verse read in M as follows: vd<qo yrEc; lLej'a}w", “So
I profane the princes of the sanctuary.” This reading has the support of 1Q-a,
V and T. On the other hand, G reads kai; ejmivanan oiJ a[rconteı ta; a{giav mou,
“and (your) princes profane my sanctuary,” which has been taken to re˘ect a
diêrent Hebrew Vorlage: yvid“q; Úyr<c; WlL]j'y“w". The reading of G is also attested
by S. The committee considered that G and S did not accept the idea that God
would destroy the sanctuary and that for these theological reasons they made
the syntactical substitutions in the text of their translations (so still Ziegler,
1934, 154). The committee also observed that the correction in an opposite
sense in M would be more di¯cult to explain. So M received a C evaluation.
The proposal to take G as textual base, ˜rst launched by Houbigant, has
only found a few recent defenders (Ziegler in 1948, Snaith, BHS). In agree-
ment with this situation only a few modern translations adopted it (NEB, REB,
GNB, EÜ, GrN).
Translators are encouraged to render M with its problems which are of an
interpretational nature. The di¯culty of the expression vd<qo yrEc; has led Duhm
(295) to the emendation vd<qo yrE[}v', “holy gates” and this emendation has been
taken over by NAB: “Till I repudiated the holy gates.” Such an emendation is
without textual grounds. M could mean “the holy princes” (NJV) or the “sac-
rosanct authorities” (TOB), but most probably the chief leaders of the sanctu-
ary are envisaged by the expression. Quite independently from the use of tense
(either past or future), the translators should realize that the verbal aspect in
Hebrew underlines the fact that verse 28 has to be rendered as a consequence
of verse 27.
NIV could be quoted as a model: “So I will disgrace the dignitaries of
your temple.”
44.4
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst half line of this verse M has the di¯cult construction ˆybeB], “in
between,” “they will grow up in between the verdure,” a reading which is
basically attested by Th, Sym and V, and even by S. 1Q-a, on the other hand,
reads ˆybk, “as between,” “they will grow up as amid the verdure,” a reading
also found in two Kennicott manuscripts and in the ˜rst hand of four others as
well as in three manuscripts of de Rossi and in two others in the ˜rst and in
the second hand respectively. On the other hand, a number of manuscripts of
Kennicott and de Rossi omit the y (ˆbb). Others again combine the two variants,
omission of y and k instead of b. According to Lilienthal (339–340), the second
manuscript of Königsberg vocalizes the b with a segol (ˆb,k]). On such a variant
T seems to be based: “as a sprout of the grass.” G reads kai; ajnatelou'sin wJsei;
covrtoı ajna; mevson u{dato", “and they will spring up like grass in the midst of
water.” It has been defended that G was based on a Hebrew Vorlage μyIm' ˆybeK]
ryxij;], “like among the water grass,” but it can be rightly questioned whether
such a Hebrew can exist (Ehrlich, 160). It is more likely that G rendered a text
like M and took its inspiration from the “water” in the second half line of the
verse. The reading of 1Q-a with k was considered to be syntactically facilitat-
ing. The committee gave a C evaluation to the reading of M with b, qualifying
this letter here as “semantically redundant” and preferring it to the reading with
a comparitive k, considering that the metaphorical discourse had already been
su¯ciently marked with the initial verb.
Most scholars since Houbigant did adopt the reading of G and it therefore
entered into some recent versions like RSV: “They shall spring up like grass
44.7 Isaiah 41–50 171
amid waters,” GNB, EÜ and FC. Other versions made further facilitations such
as NJV: “And they shall sprout like grass.”
An eôrt should, however, be made to render the text meaningfully. This
has been done e.g. by Allegro (154–156) who on the base of comparative phi-
lology considered ˆyBek] to mean “like a tamarisk” and ryxj “green,” changing
the yod in waw. Such an understanding was adopted by several modern schol-
ars and it entered into translations such as NEB, REB, NRSV: “They will
grow up like a green tamarisk.” This interpretation, however, presupposes a
text with k and does not translate M.
There only seems to be one way of giving meaning to M: the real com-
parison is in verse 4b which gives additional information, and 4a should be
taken as circumstantial / metaphorical.
NAB could be taken as a good model of such a view: “They shall spring
up amid the verdure like poplars beside the ˘owing waters.” So also NJB: “they
will spring up among the grass like willows on the banks of a stream.”
44.7
Textual Decisions
Diêrent textual problems are presented in the second line of this verse
which reads in M as follows: wOml; WdyGiy' hn:aobT; rv,a}w' twOYtiaow“ μ=l;wO[Aμ[' ymiWCmi, “since
I established the people of long ago; and the things to come and those which
will happen, let they announce it to them.” This text of M has generally been
considered as corrupt, and Oort has proposed to restore it with regard to the
˜rst four words in the following way: twytwa μlw[me ['ymiv]hi ymi, “who has an-
nounced from of old the things to come?” The characteristics of this restoration
are the redistribution of the consonants, the diêrent division of the verse, the
addition of a h and the omission of the particle w before twOYtiao.
The ˜rst word of M, ymiWCmi, has the support of G, V, S and T. 1Q-a has
wmyçm, inverting w and y, but it is well-known that 1Q-a stems from an archetype
in which the shape of these two letters creates confusion. So the committee
gave here a B evaluation to M.
The fourth word twOYtiaow“ is attested by 1Q-a, 4Q-c, G, S and T. The particle
w is only lacking in V. 1Q-a, moreover, adds after this word rmawy, “let him say.”
The committee considered the omission in V and the addition in 1Q-a as sec-
ondary, judging the omission in V to be due to stylistic improvement and the
addition of 1Q-a to the desire to create a balance with the verb WdyGIy". So this
fourth word of M received a C evaluation.
Oort’s restoration has been generally accepted in modern scholarship and
it is therefore found in many recent versions such as RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB,
NAB, EÜ etc. It is very well possible that the proposal by Oort leads us back
to the original text. This can, however, no longer be decided by textual analy-
sis, since such an original text has not survived in any of the existing wit-
nesses. In textual analysis it can only be stated that M represents the oldest
attested form of the text.
It will depend upon the textual principles of a translation project whether
a translator can render a hypothetical original or not. If according to the prin-
ciples only the most primitive canonical form of the text can be translated, M
has to be rendered.
Such a rendering is not so impossible as sometimes has been maintained.
The ˜rst part of verse 7 seems to deal with past events and the second part with
events in the future. Exegetically, it will have to be decided whether μl;wO[Aμ['
refers to the humanity of long ago in general or to Israel in particular. The sub-
ject of “announce,” “let they announce it to them,” could be considered to be
the false gods and the addressees might be their people (Ehrlich, 160). This
could lead to a translation: “. . . lay out before me what has happened since I
established humanity in the old days; and what is yet to come and what will
happen, let they announce it to them.”
None of the modern translations renders in this way. Closest to it are NJB
and TOB—but they introduce the variant of 1Q-a—and BR, which takes, how-
ever, wOml; with Delitzsch as a dativus ethicus : “ihrethalben,” “in their own
interest.”
See above. If the principles of translation accept the reconstruction of an
original beyond textual analysis, (N)RSV could be taken as a model. It seems
necessary, however, to explain the textual and interpretational problems in a
footnote.
44.12
Textual Decisions
Verse 12 starts in M with the words lz<r“B' vr"j;, “ironsmith,” as subject of a
verbless sentence. This reading is con˜rmed by 1Q-a, V and T. The sentence in
G, on the other hand, starts with a verb by reading o{ti w[xune tevktwn sivdhron,
“for the craftsman sharpens the iron,” and it is followed in this by S. The Greek
verb certainly is a rendering of Hebrew djey:, a hiphil of ddj or hdj, “to sharpen.”
And djey: is a diêrent vocalization of the same consonants of the last word of
44.21 Isaiah 41–50 173
verse 11. One could consider M as original and G due to a transfer of djy from
the end of verse 11 to the beginning of verse 12 in the Vorlage of the last. One
could also consider G as original and both M and 1Q-a due to an archetype
which had already lost djy in the beginning of verse 12 through haplography.
The committee was equally divided between the two readings and attributed a
C evaluation to both.
The interpretation of M presents many di¯culties to translators. An ellip-
sis of the verb makes it necessary to provide a verb in the translation as has
been done e.g. in NJB: “The blacksmith makes an axe . . .” and in NIV: “The
blacksmith takes a tool . . .” (so also GNB and GN). Such a translational pro-
cedure certainly has to be preferred to the practice of the majority of modern
translations which base themselves on a number of highly improbable textual
conjectures (RSV, NRSV, EÜ). Which verb should be chosen, will depend upon
the global exegesis of the verse. If, with the older exegesis (still found in
Schoors), the manufacturing of an axe for cutting the tree, out of which the
image is made, is envisaged, “make” obviously is the verb to be supplied. If
the aim is considered to be the fabrication of a metal idol, only a verb such as
“take” can be supplied (Koole, 286).
Di¯culties are minor when G is preferred as base text, as has been done
by many commentators since Delitzsch (453) and in many translations (NEB,
REB, TOB).
When following M, NIV (see above) could be taken as example. When fol-
lowing G, REB is a good model: “The blacksmith sharpens a graving tool . . . .”
44.21
Textual Decisions
At the end of the verse M reads ynIveN:ti (aol), “you will (not) be forgotten by
me,” a reading supported by 4Q-b, G, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other hand, has
ynaçt, a form hard to interpret. It has sometimes been vocalized as a hiphil of
avn II: ynIa}ViT', “you will not deceive me” (Bonnard), but it was judged to be un-
likely that such a defective writing of the verb would occur in 1Q-a (Kutscher,
267). In view of this and other uncertainties, M got a C evaluation.
M has been understood to mean two diêrent things: (1) “you shall not
forget me” (so all the ancient versions and NEB, REB, NJV), and (2) “you shall
not be forgotten by me” (so most modern versions). In favor of the ˜rst inter-
pretation it can be said that the Aramaic verbal form of yçn which corresponds
with the Hebrew niphal has the active meaning “to forget” and can be con-
structed with an accusative. Against the ˜rst interpretation is the fact that one
does not expect aol, but the prohibitive negation la'. In favor of the second in-
terpretation the later use of the pronominal su¯x to indicate the agent can be
cited (Ewald, 1863, par 315b) as well as the fact that contextually an assurance
˜ts better than an order. Against the second interpretation the absence of any
other example in the Old Testament could be quoted. On balance, one may be
inclined to give a little more weight to the second interpretation.
If the second interpretation is followed, (N)RSV can, of course, be used as
an example “you will not be forgotten by me,” but, in view of the non-use or
restricted use of passives in many languages, an active transformation as in NJB:
“I shall not forget you” may be preferred. In projects with Orthodox partici-
pation it may be useful to note the ˜rst interpretation in a footnote.
44.26
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst sentence of the verse M reads the singular wODb][', “his servant,”
whereas T has a plural yhwdb[, “his servants.” M is supported by 1Q-a, 1Q-b,
G, V and S, whereas T has the support of the manuscript Alexandrinus of G.
Since the second sentence in M has a plural “his envoys,” the plural of the ˜rst
sentence in T and the Alexandrinus was considered to be a facilitating assimi-
lation and M therefore got a B vote.
A plural correction of M has ˜rst been proposed by Vogel and it has been
taken over by many exegetes and in many modern versions (NEB, REB, NAB,
FC, GN). Occasionally (so Elliger, 454) it has been put that, though the textual
base for such a correction is rather weak, the plural noun in the parallel line
necessitates such a change.
On the base of the textual analysis, one should, however, maintain the sin-
gular. The singular can hardly be analyzed as a collective (so Slotki, 1949) since
this would be a use without parallel in the book. Such a conception may nev-
45.9 Isaiah 41–50 175
ertheless have determined the plural translation of NIV. The singular should be
interpreted as a real one, intentionally contrasted with the plural of the parallel
line. Several possibilities of identi˜cation present themselves: (1) the prophet
is talking about himself (Ibn Ezra, Vitringa, Beuken); (2) “the word of the ser-
vant of the Lord” refers to the project of Cyrus mentioned in verse 28 (Bon-
nard, Koole).
NRSV: “who con˜rms the word of his servant” or, if some stylistic pos-
sessive adaptations are required, NJB: “who con˜rm the word of my servant,”
are useful translational models. In view of uncertainties, it seems di¯cult to
identify the servant in the translation. Some of the exegetical options might,
however, be mentioned in a footnote.
45.9
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst line M reads ycer“j', “pot(sherd)s,” “a pot(sherd) among the
pot(sherd)s of clay,” whereas 1Q-a reads a plural participle of the verb vrj,
yçrwj, probably meaning “those who plough (the soil).” M is supported by
Sym, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other hand, has the support of Th: ajrotriw' n
tou;ı ajrotriw' ntaı th;n gh'n, “the plougher the ploughers of the soil,” and of
the paraphrase in G: mh; oJ ajrotriw' n ajrotriavsei th;n gh'n… “Does not the
plougher plough the soil?” Aq also seems to have read a v, but from his trans-
lation keravmion su;n tevktosi cqonov", “a jar with workers of clay,” may be de-
duced that he vocalized yver:j;, “workers.”
The committee considered the readings of 1Q-a, Th and G, “plougher(s),”
as due to a harmonization with “soil,” and it considered the reading of Aq as
the result of an assimilation to the ˜rst half line. M got a C evaluation.
The change from c to v has ˜rst been proposed by Foreiro and, in modern
times, it has been taken over by many exegetes (de Boer, Morgenstern). The
result was a translation such as the one by Aq. Many recent translations did
the same, so e.g. (N)RSV: “(Woe to you who strive with your Maker,) earthen
vessels with the potter!” and NEB, REB, LB, LV, C. A major argument for the
change was that the particle Ata, in the ˜rst half line is used with the meaning
“with,” “to quarrel with,” and that it therefore should have the same meaning
in the second half line. Since, however, a translation as that of KJ: “Let the pot-
sherd strive with the potsherds of the earth” is devoid of any sense, the change
imposes itself. Not, of course, in the direction of 1Q-a, G and Th as in TOT:
“or the ploughed land with those who plough the soil? ” since the image of the
plougher does not ˜t into the context. But in the direction of Aq and RSV.
However, as Kutscher (238) has shown, the second half line, although
closely tied up with the ˜rst, is not its replica. It is therefore not to be excluded
that diêrent meanings should be ascribed to the twice occurring particle Ata,.
Since a potter makes pots, not “potsherds,” the meaning “pot” should, of course,
be selected in the translation.
NJB can be quoted as a good example of translation of M: (Woe to anyone
who argues with his Maker, ) one earthenware pot among many!”
45.11
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst line of verse 11 in M ends with wOrx]yOw“, “his maker” and the second
line starts with the words ynIWla;v] twOYtiaoh;, “the things to come, ask them from me,”
a reading which has the support of 1Q-b and V. 1Q-a reads the ˜rst word with
scriptio plena and without y, connecting it not with the following word, but
with the preceding one, the last word of 11a. This word is also written plene,
but without connecting particle and without possessive su¯x: twtwah rxwy. This
yields the meaning: “who fashions the things to come” (Kutscher, 217). 1Q-a
is supported exactly by G: oJ poihvsaı ta; ejpercovmena, “who has formed the
things which are to come.” S was judged to have interpreted twOYtiaoh; as “signs”
and T presents a con˘ate reading but both versions follow the syntactical di-
vision of M. Considering that “his maker” with reference to Israel is a usual
expression in Deutero Isaiah and that “he who fashions the things to come” is
a rather unusual expression, the committee attributed a B vote to M.
The fact that exegetes have proposed readings which are not based on any
text does not facilitate the task of the translator. Ehrlich (166) had proposed to
read ynIWla;v]Ti μT,a'h', “will you ask me . . . ?” and he has been followed in this
by Westermann and McKenzie as well as by NAB, NJV, RSV, NRSV: “Will
you question me (about my children)?” Driver (1933, 39) proposed a diêrent
division of the consonant text ynIWla}v]ti ytiaoh}, reading the emphatic accusative of
the ˜rst person followed by the second person plural of the verb. His proposal
has been adopted in GNB, NEB and REB: “Would you dare question me (con-
cerning my children)?”
How to interpret M, however, is less evident. One of the interpretations
since Gesenius and Rosenmüller has been that questioning about the future is
45.16 Isaiah 41–50 177
allowed, but that the care for his children and for the work of his hands should
be left to God. Another exegesis is that all impertinent questions (and orders)
are allowed (Leene, 194). The ˜rst interpretation seems to be the most plau-
sible one.
BR is a good model for the rendering of such an interpretation: “Über den
Weltlauf befraget mich! meine Söhne, das Werk meiner Hände müßt ihr mir
entboten sein lassen,” “You can question me about the course of this world!
You should leave me my sons, the work of my hands.”
45.16
Textual Decisions
According to M verse 16a ends with μL:-Ku, “all of them,” and verse 16b
starts with wD:j]y", “together.” The sequence of these two words is witnessed by
the second hand of 1Q-a which has written a w above the k, as well as by Th,
Aq, V, S and T. The ˜rst hand of 1Q-a reads hmlk which could be considered
as a contextual assimilation to the noun hM;liK] which follows in 16b. The really
deviating reading is the one by G: pavnteı oiJ ajntikeivmenoi aujtw' /, “all those
who oppose him.” It has been suggested that G presupposes a Hebrew Vorlage
wyr:j‘n<AlKo, “all who are angry with him.” The committee considered it, however,
more likely that the translator of G would have assimilated his translation to
the one he had given of a similar context before, in 41.11a. M got therefore a
C evaluation.
Köhler has been the ˜rst to propose the Hebrew Vorlage of G and to emend
M accordingly. He is still followed in this by McKenzie and others, and by
some recent translations (be it on slightly diêrent textual bases) such as NAB:
“who vent their anger against him “ and NEB: “Those who defy him.” In view
of the unreliable grounds, such a translation can hardly be recommended.
Remains the question whether the translator should respect the atnach in M
and render μL;Ku as the last word of verse 16a and wD:j]y" as the ˜rst word of 16b
or whether he should freely displace the accent and take wD:j]y" μL;Ku as one ex-
pression “all of them together.” Stylistically, arguments for both positions can
be put forward.
If the principles and procedures of translation prescribe a respect of the
atnach, REB could be followed as a model: “All the makers of idols are con-
founded and brought to shame, they perish in confusion together.” If, on the
other hand, no binding rules with regard to the atnach have been formulated,
and if the other stylistic option is preferred, translators could take NJB as an
example: “They are shamed and humbled, every one of them, humilated they
go, the makers of idols.”
47.3
Textual Decisions
In the last sentence of verse 3b M reads [G"p]a,, “I shall encounter,” “I shall
not encounter anyone,” a reading which has the support of 1Q-a and 1Q-b.
4Q-d, on the other hand, reads [ygpa, a hiphil form, ['yGIp]a', the meaning of which
will be discussed below. It is possible that G oujkevti mh; paradw' ajnqrwvpoi", “I
will no more abandon (you?) to men,” is also based upon such a hiphil reading,
for other forms of the verb paradivdwmi correspond with the hiphil of [gp in G
in 53.6 and 53.12. It cannot be decided whether Aq, S and T have read a qal or
a hiphil form. On the other side, it is clear that Sym kai; oujk ajntisthvsetaiv moi
a[nqrwpo", “and nobody will resist me” and V “et non resistet mihi homo” have
either read a third person qal [G"p]yI or, making a syntactical transformation, ren-
dered the ˜rst person qal of M. The committee took the last view. Moreover,
it considered the qal meaning the better one in the context and the reading of
4Q-d due to a vocalization error. M therefore got a majority C vote.
The real problem is not a textual, but an interpretational one, and it con-
cerns the meaning of the Hebrew verb. Since Rashi the last sentence of 3b has
been taken to mean that God would not use ordinary people for the execution
of his judgment of Babel. This interpretation is still found in TOB: “et je n’au-
rai pas recours à un homme,” “I will not have recourse to a man.” Most modern
exegetes ascribe to the hiphil of [gp the meaning “to spare” and render accord-
ingly “I will spare no one.” So with slightly diêrent wordings RSV, NRSV,
NIV, REB, GrN. Other interpretations (Ibn Ezra, de Boer, Beuken) however are
more likely. If the hiphil of [gp means “to intercede,” “to resist,” the qal can
express the behavior by which someone faces such an opposition. In other words,
it could mean: “I do not accept the intercession of anybody” or “I will not meet
the resistance of anybody.” These last meanings should be preferred.
47.4 Isaiah 41–50 179
The following translations could be taken as models: “And (I) let no man
intercede” (NJV); “I will yield to no entreaty” (NAB). If the stylistic transfor-
mation of Sym and V, “I will not meet the resistance of anybody,” is preferred,
translators could render as in GNB: “and no one will stop me.”
47.4
Textual Decisions
Verse 4 starts in M with Wnlea}GO, “our redeemer,” a reading con˜rmed by
1Q-a, 1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. The Greek evidence is divided. A num-
ber of manuscripts read eijp ' en oJ rJusavmenovı se, “says he who saves you,” a
reading which has been considered to be based upon a Hebrew Vorlage rm"a;
Wnlea}GO, “says our redeemer.” Other manuscripts, among which the ˜rst hand of
codex Sinaiticus, do not have a verb of saying. Moreover, not all manuscripts
containing a verb of saying read eijp ' en. Some read levgei which could indicate
that the addition of a verb is a secondary development in the textual tradition
of G (against Ziegler). In view of this textual situation, half of the committee
voted A and the other half B for M.
According to Volz and others an original rm'a; was lost in M by haplo-
graphy with the last word of verse 3: μd:a;, whereas for Duhm and others μd:a;
simply was a writing error for rm'a;. The ˜rst hypothesis would be backed up by
G. Only four modern translations follow G in this respect: NAB, NEB (accord-
ing to the footnote in the OT edition of 1970), REB and NJB. They are never-
theless not identical, since NAB, NEB and REB connect the verb of saying with
the preceding discourse (REB: “. . . says our Redeemer, the Holy One of Is-
rael, whose name is the Lord of Hosts”) and NJB with the following one: “Our
redeemer, Yahweh Sabaoth is his name, the Holy One of Israel, says: . . . .” It
should be observed that, without any verb of saying, part of the classical Tibe-
rian manuscripts of M connect verse 4 with the preceding discourse and an-
other part with the following.
Translators may feel the need to use as in G a verb of saying in order to
identify or identify again the speaker. They should only do so on translational
and not on textual grounds (compare FC). They may, however, also take verse
4 as a kind of intermezzo or interjection between discourses. This seems to be
already the interpretation in 1Q-a which leaves two blank spaces before and
after the verse. NIV, GNB, GN and GrN suggest this interpretation.
The interjection could be formulated as in GNB: “The Holy God of Israel
sets us free—his name is the Lord Almighty.”
48.1
Textual Decisions
The last sentence of verse 1b starts in M with yMemiW , “and from the waters,”
“and have issued from the waters of Judah.” This reading is supported by 1Q-a,
the hexaplaric recensions, V and S. Fourty medieval manuscripts of M read
ymymw which is a simple graphical error. G reads kai; oiJ ejx Iouda ejxelqovnte",
“who have sprung from Judah,” dropping the image and rendering the mean-
ing, whereas T by rendering “from the seed of Judah” interprets the metaphor.
This textual evidence led to a B vote for M.
A literal translation of M as still provided in NJB and NJV does not make
any sense. For that reason, translators frequently turned to Secker’s conjecture
(in Lowth) to read y[eM]mi, “from the loins,” “and who came forth from the loins
of Judah” (RSV, NRSV). This conjecture still has success (McKenzie e.a.), and
it is attractive for two reasons: (1) it is con˜rmed by 1Q-a in 39.7, and (2) it cre-
ates an inclusio with verse 19 of this chapter. Unfortunately, it is not con˜rmed
by any textual witness in 48.1, where therefore M will have to be translated.
The metaphor of M could stand for “seed” (de Boer, Bonnard) in spite of
the objections by many commentators that such a meaning is only attested for
late Hebrew. Rashi quotes the parallel of Numbers 24.7.
Depending upon the use or non-use of euphemisms translations could sim-
ply state “you that are descended from Judah” (GNB) or “(who) have sprung
from the seed of Judah” (REB).
48.11
Textual Decisions
In the second half line of 11a M reads lj;yE, “it be profaned,” how should
it be profaned? ” a reading which is only supported by secondary Targum manu-
scripts. All three existing Qumran manuscripts, 1Q-a, 4Q-c and 4Q-d, read ljya,
“I be profaned,” “how should I be profaned?” and this is also the reading of V,
S and the original Targum, preserved in the manuscripts Reuchlin and Urbi-
48.14A Isaiah 41–50 181
nates 1. G has o{ti to; ejmo;n o[noma bebhlou'tai, because my name is profaned,”
exegetically providing an explicit subject of the third person masc. sing. verb
of M. The committee considered that the joint evidence of three Qumran man-
uscripts could be original and that M could be explained as a theological cor-
rection to avoid a profanation of God. The Qumran reading therefore got a
majority C vote.
Since Lowth till McKenzie many commentators have based themselves on
G, either presuming that G to; ejmo;n o[noma re˘ected an original Hebrew Vor-
lage ymiv], or presuming that ymiv] of verse 9 could still act as the implicit sub-
ject of the verb in 11, and had, therefore, been made explicit in G (Rignell,
Schoors). So it is not amazing that in slightly diêrent wordings G, or G’s exe-
gesis of M, has been rendered in most modern versions: “for why should my
name be profaned?” (RSV, NRSV, REB, NJB, NJV, GNB, FC, GrN, GN).
Although such a reading can still be considered possible, and may even be
attractive in projects involving daughter versions of the Septuagint, translators
are nevertheless encouraged to follow the Qumran evidence with a minority of
recent translations.
Translations as NAB: “Why should I suêr profanation?” and NIV: “How
can I let myself be defamed?” can serve as models.
48.14A
Textual Decisions
In the second sentence of 14a M reads μh,b;, “among them,” whereas forty
manuscripts of M have the reading μk,b;, “among you.” The ˜rst reading has the
support of 4Q-d, V and part of the witnesses of T, especially of codex Reuchlin;
the second reading is supported by S and other witnesses of T, among which
manuscript Urbinates 1. The reading of the second person plural clearly is an
harmonization with the second person plural of the ˜rst sentence: “Assemble
all of you and listen.” In fact, 1Q-a and G which support M in the second sen-
tence, harmonize in the ˜rst sentence by reading third person plurals through-
out. The harmonizations into both directions seem to prove that the contrast of
M is original. So M got a B evaluation.
From Houbigant to Muilenburg the second person plural reading has been
defended and it has been taken over in many modern versions like NEB, REB,
NJV, NAB, FC. The harmonization is, however, unjusti˜ed, since it would
eliminate a semantically important contrast. The second person plural of the
˜rst sentence marks Jacob and Israel of verse 12 as the addressees, whereas the
third person plural of the second sentence “among them,” refers to the “gods,”
hinted at in verse 11. Although some modern versions such as RSV, NRSV
and NJB correctly maintain the contrast, a literal translation cannot convey this
information. Some degree of explicitness seems to be obligatory.
NIV is a good example of such explicitness: “Which of the idols has fore-
told these things?” See also GNB, EÜ and GrN.
48.14B
Textual Decisions
In 14b M reads wO[roz“W , “and his arm,” “against Babel and his arm (against)
the Chaldeans,” whereas 1Q-a omits the conjunction waw possibly interpret-
ing: “against Babel of which the Chaldeans are the arm.” M is supported by V
and T. G reads tou' aj ' rai spevrma Caldaivwn, “to abolish the seed of the Chald-
eans,” a reading which goes back to a vocalization [r"z<, “seed.” G is followed in
this by S which most probably is dependent upon G in this case. The commit-
tee considered both the readings of 1Q-a and G as facilitations and it attributed
a C evaluation to M.
Driver (1958, 47–48) proposed the vocalization W[r“zOw“, “and shall be scat-
tered,” a conjecture taken over by NEB and REB: “and the Chaldeans shall/will
be scattered.” Such a meaning is, however, quite uncertain. Many recent trans-
lations (NJB, NAB, EÜ, TOB) render in slightly diêrent wording according to
the Greek: “against Babylon and the progeny of Chaldea,” no doubt because
of the strong scholarly support of this reading and the imperative lege in BHS.
Although this reading makes good sense, the more di¯cult reading of M will
have to be rendered.
Diêrent interpretations of M remain possible. wO[roz“W could, for example,
be taken as an adverbial accusative as in NJV: “And, with His might, against
Chaldea.” It can also be taken as subject with ellipsis of the verb: “and his arm
will be against the Chaldeans” (so RSV, NRSV and NIV). The arm will then
49.12 Isaiah 41–50 183
most probably be the arm of God and a metaphor for power. This last inter-
pretation may be preferred.
FC solves conveniently the rendering of the metaphor and the problem of
ellipsis: “et fera sentir mon pouvoir aux Babyloniens,” “and he (i.e. Cyrus) will
let the Babylonians feel my power.”
49.12
Textual Decisions
The last word of the verse in M is the proper name μynIysi, “Sinim,” the land
of Sinim,” whereas 1Q-a has the spelling μyynws. M is supported by the hexa-
plaric columns (with the exception of G) and by S. The other versions are ex-
planatory in diêrent ways, G reading (ejk gh'") Persw' n, “(from the land of the)
Persians,” and V and T “(from the land of the) south.” The committee consid-
ered M as due to a graphical error and it attributed a C evaluation to the reading
of 1Q-a which attests the spelling of the proper name “people of Syene,” known
from the Elephantine papyri (Cowley, 24.33).
Last century exegesis saw in M a reference to the Chinese (!), but they
never found their way into any translation. Some modern versions (NJB, NJV,
EÜ, GrN) stay prudently with M, but there no longer seems to be any reason
for doing so. 1Q-a con˜rms the correction already proposed by Michaelis (1780,
32–42) and adopted by Marti (330) and—since the Qumran discoveries—ac-
cepted by almost everybody. Sewen, known to the Greeks as Syene, corresponds
to modern Assouan, the district on the southern border of ancient Egypt. In fact,
for the prophet it could represent the southern limits of the civilized world. The
reading of G (the Persians) is considered by Seeligmann (79) as an actualiza-
tion, but it is not impossible that in the time of the Greek translator it was still
known that Assouan had been a Persian military colony.
Translators could either select the proper name “Syene” (RSV, NRSV, NEB,
REB, NAB) and add a textual or interpretational note or they could actualize
and render: “(region of ) Aswan” (NIV, GNB, TOB). In view of the directions
mentioned in this verse (North, West) they might want to specify, adding: “the
extreme south of Egypt” (GN, compare FC).
49.17
Textual Decisions
This verse contains two problems which because of their connection are
treated together:
(1) The second word reads in M ËyIn:B;, “your sons,” a reading which is con-
˜rmed by Sym, S and the Targum text as it is found in the ˜rst two rabbinic
Bibles. On the other hand, 1Q-a has the reading ˚ynwb, to be understood as ËyIn"Bo,
“your builders,” a reading supported by the ˜rst hand of the Petrograd manu-
script of the prophets, G, Th and Aq (according to the commentary attributed
to Chrysostom, and only preserved in Armenian), V and the original text of T,
preserved in the Antwerp polyglot and in manuscript Urbinates 1.
(2) The third word reads in M ËyIs'r“h;m], “your destroyers,” a reading also
witnessed by Sym, V, S and T. 1Q-a, on the other side, reads ˚ysrwhm which
most probably should not be considered as a phonetic variant of M (Kutscher,
56 and 496), but vocalized as ËyIs'r“home, “(more) than your destroyers.” 1Q-a has
the support of G and Aq.
In both instances the committee considered M as due to contextual assim-
ilation, and it attributed a C evaluation to 1Q-a. Major arguments were (a) tex-
tual: G and Aq can only be based upon a misunderstanding of 1Q-a with regard
to the comparitive meaning of “min,” and (b) grammatical and syntactical: the
piel use of srh is an exception and the qal use the normal one, and the ˜rst verb
of the sentence Wrh}mi, “they hasten” is normally used in combination with a verb
of action of which the speed is quali˜ed.
Jewish translations up to the present have traditionally rendered M (so
BR, NJV, Chouraqui). Christian versions rarely did so, at least with regard to
the ˜rst textual problem. The few recent exceptions are TOT, NAV, GrN, SR
and NIV: “Your sons hasten back, and those who laid you waste depart from
you.” It has sometimes been suggested that M would contain a double enten-
dre: the builders are the sons (Bonnard, Koole). Such an ambiguity is, how-
ever, hard to prove and it could only be described in a footnote as in TOB.
Most recent translations (NJB, NAB, GNB, EÜ, GN, FC, TOB) seem to
follow 1Q-a in the case of the ˜rst textual problem, and M as to the second as
e.g. in NAB: “Your rebuilders make haste, as those who tore you down and laid
you waste go forth from you.” Translators are, however, encouraged to follow
1Q-a in both cases with a minority of contemporary versions (RSV, NRSV,
NEB, REB).
49.21 Isaiah 41–50 185
NRSV could act as a good model: “Your builders outdo your destroyers,
and those who laid you waste go away from you.” In interconfessional Bible
projects with Jewish participation a note as in NRSV could mention the variant
translation “Your children come swiftly; your destroyers and those who laid you
waste go away from you.”
49.21
Textual Decisions
In the second line of verse 21 Sion quali˜es itself in M as hr:Wsw“ hl;GO, “ex-
iled and removed,” a reading con˜rmed by Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. The pres-
ence of these two words is also attested in 1Q-a which reads, however, hlwgw
hrsw , adding a conjunction to the ˜rst word and most probably correcting the
second word into an active qal participle (Kutscher, 350). In G, on the other
hand, both words are lacking. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a
as a syntactical facilitation. In view of the presence of both words in 1Q-a a C
evaluation was attributed to M.
Ruben (quoted in Cheyne) saw in both Hebrew words hr:Wsw“ hl;GO a dittog-
raphy of the preceding word hd:Wml]g"w“, “barren.” In that case, the words are not
lacking in G because of ignorance of the translator with regard to their mean-
ing (Ziegler, 55), but because they did not ˜gure in the Vorlage of G. Ruben’s
hypothesis is not impossible, especially since it is strengthened by other argu-
ments such as metrical irregularity and the fact that Sion itself was not exiled
(Duhm, 338).
Although both words in M may be the result of a literary development
starting from a dittography, their presence in 1Q-a shows that they were al-
ready part of the literary content of the Hebrew Isaiah in the second century
BC. It may therefore be wise not to omit them as has been done in some ver-
sions (Moâtt, NEB, REB). One could, of course, put them between paren-
theses as in NAB if unambiguous procedures for the use of these have been
developed.
GNB can be used as a model by translators: “I was exiled and driven
away.”
186 A Handbook on Isaiah 50.11A
50.11A
Textual Decisions
The second half of the ˜rst line of M reads yrEZ“a'm], “those who provide them-
selves,” “those who provide themselves with ˜rebrands.” This reading has the
support of 1Q-a, 1Q-b and V. It may, indirectly, also be supported by G if its
reading kai; katiscuvete (˘flovga), “and you feed—literally “strengthen”—(a
˘ame)” can be considered as a translation of M in˘uenced by Arabic azara III
(Schultens, 1769, 105–106). S, on the other hand, reads ylzW\gmw, “and who
set alight (˜re brands)” which could represent a Hebrew Vorlage yrEyaim]. Noth-
ing can be concluded from the midrash given by T. In view of its strong attes-
tation, M got a B evaluation.
In the traces of Secker several commentators up till Koole (110) have
taken the reading yrEyaim] as the Hebrew Vorlage of S and they have emended M
accordingly. So also RSV, NRSV: “lighters of ˜rebrands,” NEB, REB and EÜ.
It remains, however, questionable whether S really found such a reading in its
Vorlage. The use of the same Syriac verb as in the second half line of 11b for
the Hebrew verb r[b could just as well be the result of a contextual harmoni-
zation. Such a harmonization also occurs in the allusion to this text found in
the Qumran-based Damascus document CD 5.13: twqyz yr[bmw ça yjdq, “(all)
kindlers of ˜re and setters-alight of ˜rebrands” (Rabin, 20, note 4). Even if
only on these grounds, a rendering of M seems to be preferable.
Several hypotheses have been made as to the meaning of M: (1) the mean-
ing of yrEZ“a'm] is the same as that of μT,r“['Bi in 11b to which it is chiastically re-
lated: “set alight” (Abulwalid) ; (2) it means “surrounding the glowing embers
with combustibles to stir up the ˜re” (Yefet ben Ely); (3) M could have the
more general meaning of “provide oneself with.” In the ˜rst case the problem
is only exegetical and no longer textual.
If meaning (2) is rendered, TOB could serve as a model: “qui formez un cer-
cle de brandons,” “you who make a circle of ˜rebrands.” If meaning (3) is pre-
ferred, NJB could be used as an example: “and arm yourselves with ˜rebrands.”
50.11B Isaiah 41–50 187
50.11B
Textual Decisions
In the second line of this verse M reads rWaB], “in the ˘ame of,” “in the
˘ame of your (own) ˜re,” a reading supported by T. On the other hand, G with
tw' / fwtiv, “in the light of,” V with in lumine and also S with arhzb have
clearly read a vocalization rwOaB], “in the light of.” 1Q-a, of course, does not
provide any information as to the vocalization. The committee considered the
meaning of M contextually more appropriate but it attributed only a C evalu-
ation to M because of its weak attestation.
Most probably under the in˘uence of V, Geneva Bible and KJ, many En-
glish translations (RSV, REB, NAB, NJB, NIV) have: “walk by the light of
your (own) ˜re.” They therefore seem to interpret the text like Calvin as an
“ironical permission.” However, if M is rendered, it is more likely that it con-
tains an announcement of doom: “those who have started the ˜re will be caught
by it” (Whybray, 154). One could then only hesitate whether such an announce-
ment is only suggestive (NRSV, NEB) or direct (EÜ, GN, GrN, FC).
If the covered interpretation is preferred, NEB could serve as an example:
“go, walk into your own ˜re.” If translators would endorse a more explicit
statement, FC is a good model: “voici ce qui vous attend: les ˘ammes de votre
propre feu,” “see what lies ahead of you: the ˘ames of your own ˜re.”
Isaiah 51– 60
ISAIAH 51–60
51.4
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst line of verse 4 M reads the singular nominal forms yMiWal]W yMi[',
“my people and my nation,” “listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation.” It
is supported in this by 1Q-a, 1Q-b, V and T. In addition, the ˜rst singular form
has the support of G and the second one the support of Th, Aq and Sym. A
number of Hebrew manuscripts, on the other hand, read the plurals μymwalw μym[,
“peoples and nations,” “listen to me, peoples and nations hear me.” This read-
ing is con˜rmed by S and, only for the second noun, by G. The remarkable
reading oiJ basilei'", “kings,” found in the last version seems to be based on
a rabbinic lexicographical tradition manifested in the Targum of Genesis and
Isaiah (Seeligmann, 51). The committee considered the singular μaol] as lectio
di¯cilior and both plurals as assimilation to the plurals in verses 4b and 5.
The result was a B evaluation of M.
From Lowth till McKenzie many commentators have adopted the plural
nouns, mainly because of the rare use of the singular μaol] and the fact that the
plural of this word usually refers to the other nations. They frequently ex-
plained M as due to abbreviation. Their view has had little impact on recent
translations since it has only been taken over in RL and EÜ.
Other commentators, from Duhm to Beuken, correctly remarked that the
singular μaol] is elsewhere used for Israel (Gen 25.23; Prov. 11.26; 14.28) and
that the remainder of the verse speaks about the nations and is not addressed
to them. A translation of the singular forms seems therefore to be indicated.
188
51.16 Isaiah 51– 60 189
The translation could run as follows: “Pay attention to me, my people,
listen to me, my nation” (NJB).
51.16
Textual Decisions
The second line of this verse starts in M with ["fon“li, “to plant” or “plant-
ing,” “planting the heavens,” a reading which is also attested by 1Q-a, G, Aq,
Sym and V. On the other hand, S, by rendering tjtmd, “to stretch out” seems
to be based on a form tfon“li. The elaborate midrash of T cannot be used for tex-
tual purposes. The committee considered the reading of S as an assimilation to
the usual verb hfn found in 51.13 and other contexts, and it attributed a ma-
jority A evaluation to M.
The fact that the metaphor of M is very unusual led many scholars since
Houbigant to opt for the usual one which is behind the reading of S. Many
modern versions did the same (RSV, NRSV, GNB, NJB, NAB, RL, EÜ, GN,
FC). An eôrt should, however, be made to render M. A literal translation of
the ˜gurative meaning as in TOB and NJV, “I, who planted the skies,” may not
be possible. Therefore, the metaphor may have to be replaced by a diêrent
but equivalent metaphor of the receptor language, or a demetaphorization may
have to be applied, as in NIV, NEB, REB and GrN.
There are further complications with regard to the translation of the inñi-
tive construction. Translators will have to decide whether the reference is to the
creation of the universe in the past (so most translations) or to a new act of
creation in the future (so Luther 1545 and C).
NEB and its restructuring of the text may be a useful example: “. . . that I
might ˜x the heavens in place and form the earth and say to Zion, ‘You are my
people.’ ”
51.19
Textual Decisions
The second line of this verse ends in M with Ëmej}n"a} ymi, literally: “who—
should I comfort you? ” whereas 1Q-a reads ˚mjny ym, “who will comfort you?”
M only has the support of T: ana ˆyhla ˚ynmjnyd tyl, “there is none that will
comfort you but I.” G, Sym, V and S have a third person masculine singular
like 1Q-a. Since the variant assimilates to the parallel at the end of the ˜rst line:
Ël; dWny: ymi, “who can console you? ” and is therefore facilitating, the committee
gave a C evaluation to M in spite of its almost total isolation.
Since Foreiro the correction of a in y has generally been taken over by
exegetes and translators. If, however M has to be rendered, its meaning has to
be determined. Three possibilities could be considered. (1) The rhetorical ques-
tion could be rendered as “by whom should I comfort you? ” an interpretation
defended by Rashi and Ibn Ezra and interpreted by them in the following way:
which example could I mention of a people which has been treated in the same
way as you? This exegesis has been taken over in StV and Chouraqui. (2) The
rhetorical question could be translated with: “how shall I comfort you?” This
interpretation, proposed by Levy and Beuken, can be found in NJV, NV and
GrN. (3) The rhetorical question could be understood to mean: “who am I that
I could comfort you?” i.e. “upon what grounds could I console you?” Such an
interpretation is followed in SR. Of the three possibilities the ˜rst one might
be preferred.
If preference is given to the ˜rst possibility of interpretation, Chouraqui
can be used as a model: “Par qui te réconforterais-je? ” “By whom could I
comfort you?”
51.23
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst line of the verse ends in M with ËyIg"wOm, “your tormentors,” “I will
put it into the hands of your tormentors,” whereas in 1Q-a one ñds a doublet:
˚yn[mw ˚ygwm (ËyIN"['m]W ËyIg"wOm), “your tormentors and your oppressors.” The reading
of M is most probably supported by Aq, Sym, S and, indirectly, by V. The
reading of 1Q-a has the support of 4Q176 and of G: tw' n ajdikhsavntwn se kai;
tw' n tapeinwsavntwn se, “them that injured you and them that a˙icted you.”
T by reading ˚yl ˆnwm wwhd, “them that were oppressing you” seems to be based
upon a graphical error. One member of the committee voted B for M assuming
that the doublet in Qumran and G was a gloss not yet known by M. The others
attributed a C evaluation to the reading of Qumran and G considering that the
second word had been eliminated in M by homoioteleuton.
52.2A Isaiah 51– 60 191
Already Duhm (350–351) and Marti (342) had proposed to adopt the dou-
blet of G and this may be the reason why it is found in one English translation:
“I hand it to your torturers, to those who harrowed you” (Moâtt). After the
Qumran discoveries, Ziegler (1959, 42) signaled this reading common to 1Q-a
and G, and adopted it in his translation (1948). BHS expresses hesitations as to
such an adoption just like most recent commentators. It is not particularly clear
why some of the last ones consider the textual arguments for the adoption to
be weak (Koole, 168). This may explain why the doublet is absent from all
modern translations with the exception of NEB.
NEB could be followed: “I will give it instead to your tormentors and
oppressors.”
52.2A
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst line of the verse M reads ybI¡V] the accentuation of which clearly
indicates an imperative: “sit,” namely “on your throne.” This reading is sup-
ported by G, V S and T. 1Q-a reads ybçw , and the added, syntactically facili-
tating conjunction w shows that the form was understood as an imperative. 4Q176
reads ybwç, an assimilation to the form of the preceding imperative ymiWq, pro-
ducing a meaning “return” which is contextually rather impossible. The strong
attestation of M engendered a B evaluation.
Duhm (351) proposed to correct ybiV] into hY:biv], “captive,” the word found
in the parallel position of the second line of the verse. He has been followed in
this by many commentators and recent translations such as RSV, NRSV, NJB.
Other commentators such as Radaq and Gesenius did not make any cor-
rections, but they understood ybiv] to mean “captivity.” Such an interpretation
may be the background of translations like RL, EÜ, TOB and BR.
Against such an interpretation it has been remarked that the noun ybiv] is
masculine and that it therefore cannot be related to the preceding feminine im-
perative. So the verb of M has to be rendered. As has been noted (Dahood,
1958, 43–44), the two lines of verse 2 witness the same kind of play upon
words between bçy, “sit,” and ybç, “captivity,” as in Jer 20.6.
GNB oêrs a good example: “Shake yourself free, Jerusalem! Rise from
the dust and sit on your throne!”
52.2B
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst word of the second line in M reads in the ketiv WjT]P't]hi, “they are
loosed,” “the bonds are loosed,” whereas it reads in the qere yjiT]P't]hi, “loose,”
“loose the bonds.” The ketiv has the support of 1Q-a and T, the qere of 4Q176,
G, Th, Aq, Sym, V and S. The committee attributed a majority C evaluation to
the ketiv on the basis of two arguments: (1) the fact that in the second line the
second word is not connected with the preposition ˆmi favors the reading of the
ketiv; (2) the qere can be interpreted as a contextual harmonization with the im-
peratives of the ˜rst line.
The vast majority of commentators opts for the qere reading so that, not
amazingly, this also is the reading of the great majority of modern versions:
RSV, NRSV, GNB, NIV, NJV etc.: “Free yourself from the chains on your
neck” (NIV). The ketiv reading, however, is recommended, and it announces the
good news of the consequences of Cyrus’s politics: “your bonds are loosed,”
which should then be considered as the base of the imperative statements of the
˜rst line.
NJB could be followed as example: “The chains have fallen from your
neck . . . .”
52.5
Textual Decisions
M reads Wlyliyhey“ wl;v]mo, which could either mean “its rulers wail” or “its rul-
ers howl in triumph,” whereas 1Q-a reads wllwhw wlçm, which could be vocal-
ized as Wll}wOhw“ Wlv]m; and may therefore mean: “they made up a proverb and made
an object of derision” (Rignell, 77) i.e. “they made ridiculous by proverbs.” M
is supported by Th and Sym: ojloluvzousin, “they howl,” and—according to
Eusebius and con˜rmed by Jerome—by Aq: dakruvousin, “they weep,” by G
ojloluvzete, “howl,” and by S and T. The rendering of V inique agunt, “they
52.15 Isaiah 51– 60 193
act unjustly,” does not permit drawing any conclusions as to its Vorlage. The
strong support of M motivated the majority C vote in favor of it.
Of modern versions only NIV seems to re˘ect an active vocalization of
1Q-a: “and those who rule them mock.” NEB seems to base itself (with inter-
pretation of the w as y) on a passive vocalization of 1Q-a: WlL]huy“, given its ren-
dering “their rulers derided.” One should, however, with all other translations
render M. The main problem of translation is interpretational and the interpre-
tation of the verb is conditioned to a large extent by the identi˜cation of the
“rulers.” If these are identi˜ed with the leaders of Israel (Saadya and Ibn Ezra),
they are likely to “wail” (RSV, REB); if, on the other hand, they are identi˜ed
with the Babylonian oppressors (most modern commentators), they most proba-
bly “howl in triumph” (NJB, NJV, TOB, FC, GrN). M has also been taken to
mean “to boast” (NAB, GNB, RL, EÜ, GN), following the Targumic interpre-
tation of M.
If translators identify the rulers with the rulers of Israel, REB can be used as
an example: “My people carried oˆ and no price paid, their rulers wailing . . . .”
If they identify the rulers with the Babylonian oppressors, NJB can be taken as
a model: “my people have been carried oˆ for nothing, their masters howl in
triumph . . . .”
52.15
Textual Decisions
In M the verb of the ˜rst sentence reads hZ<y", “he will sprinkle,” a reading
which—with the same or with a diêrent interpretation—is supported by 1Q-a,
1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. G, on the other hand, reads qaumavsontai,
“they will marvel,” “so many nations will marvel at him.” It was considered
that the translator of G also at other occasions (52.5) used this verb when the
meaning of a Hebrew verb escapes him. In addition, the Greek verb creates a
parallel with verse 14, so that contextual assimilation may be seen as another
reason for its choice. A diêrent Vorlage of G was considered as rather im-
probable. The committee was divided between an A and B evaluation of M.
Many modern translations—not all of them noticing the fact—follow G
(NJB, NEB, REB, GNB, TOB, FC, GN, GrN). There is, however, no objective
argument for doing so. Nor can it be recommended to adopt one of the numer-
ous text changes which have been proposed. Translators should therefore try to
render M in spite of its notorious di¯culty.
If one disregards the many metaphorical interpretations which have been
given of the Hebrew verb and which are all of them far-fetched, two possibili-
ties remain:
(1) The ritual meaning of “to sprinkle” as in NIV and RL. In spite of syn-
tactical problems, Delitzsch (514) has rightly argued that the construction of a
hiphil of hzn with the accusative of the person sprinkled remains possible.
(2) A meaning “to startle” in the light of the cognate Arabic root naza
(RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJV). In spite of what is said above, even G might be
based on this meaning as qaumavzein is certainly the result of “to startle.”
If the ˜rst meaning is rendered, NIV can be used as an example: “so will
he sprinkle many nations.” It may be necessary to explain in a footnote the
ritual character of “cleansing” and/or “consecration.” If the last meaning is
chosen, NAB can be taken: “So shall he startle many nations.”
53.8
Textual Decisions
M reads at the end of the verse wOml; [g"n<, “an a˙iction for him/them,” a read-
ing which has the support of 1Q-b, 4Q-d, Sym, Th, Aq, V and T. The corrected
text of 1Q-a reads wml [gwn, which could be vocalized as wOml; [G"Wn, “a˙icted for
them,” whereas the reading of G h[cqh eijı qavnaton, “he was led to death,” pre-
supposes—in spite of the verbal equivalent taken from verse 7—a Hebrew
Vorlage tw<M;l' [G"nU, “stricken to death.” In spite of its single attestation the com-
mittee attributed a C evaluation to this Hebrew Vorlage, because 1Q-a in its
opinion presented an intermediary textual state in which the verbal form [gwn
had not yet been corrected into a nominal one, but in which the t of twm had
already been lost by accidental mutilation.
Only very few translations render the nominal form of M (TOB, BR, NV).
Mostly, without noticing it, they translate in fact the verbal form of 1Q-a. So,
with minor variations, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NIV, RL: “for the transgression of
my people he was stricken.” Translators are, however, encouraged to render
the Hebrew Vorlage of G with the vast majority of modern commentators and
modern translations (NJB, NEB, REB, GNB, EÜ, GN, FC, GrN).
53.9 Isaiah 51– 60 195
In many modern translations the question whether in the same sentence

yMi[', “my people” (M) or wm[ (1Q-a corrected text) “his people” should be ren-
dered, is handled as a textual problem. In fact, the di¯culty is far more inter-
pretational and its solution depends upon the identi˜cation of the speaker: a
pagan ruler speaking about his own people (Barthélemy, 399), God himself or
the prophet (Koole, 248). The last identi˜cation could be preferred.
REB can be considered as a good translational model: “stricken to death
for my people’s transgression.”
53.9
Textual Decisions
At the end of the ˜rst line M has the reading wyt;moB], “in his deaths,” a plural
which is only con˜rmed by the plural context in T. 1Q-a, on the other hand,
reads wtmwb, most probably derived from tm,Bo, “tumulus,” “his tumulus.” G: ajnti;
tou' qanavtou aujtou', “for his death,” V pro morte sua and S htWmb, all had
the singular wOtmoB] in mind. The committee considered the readings of G, V, and
S as facilitating translations, the readings of both M and T as midrashic, and
it attributed a C evaluation to the reading of 1Q-a.
M has only been rendered in one Jewish translation (BR). The facilitating
singular reading “and with the rich in his death” is only found in a few modern
versions (RSV, NIV, NJV). The vast majority of modern interpreters and trans-
lations (NRSV, NJB, NEB, REB, NAB, GNB etc.) follow 1Q-a.
Already Lowth (quoting Jubb) was of the opinion that Hebrew lexicog-
raphy confounded hmb (plural: twmb) meaning “cult place” and twmb (plural:
μytwmb) meaning “tumulus.” 1Q-a still clearly distinguishes the two meanings
by its orthography and it con˜rms the opinion of Bauer-Leander (597h’) who
considered ytem’Bê; to be the plural construct of a singular tm,Bo. In other words, the
Masoretic vocalization and the dictionaries later on, confounded hm;B; and tm,bo,
a word now discovered in 1Q-a.
NRSV is a suitable model for translators: “They made his grave with the
wicked and his tomb with the rich.”
53.10
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst half line of the verse M reads ylij‘h, which can be taken to mean
“he made sick.” G th'ı plhgh'", “of the plague,” Aq to; ajrrwvsthma, “the ill-
ness,” Sym ejn tw/' traumatismw' /, “by wounding,” and V in in˜rmitate, “in sick-
ness,” all seem to have read a noun ylij’h,. From the writing of 4Q-d: yljh cannot
be concluded whether a verb or a noun has been read. 1Q-a, on the other hand,
reads whlljyw , clearly substituting the verb hlj of M by the verb llj, “to
wound,” in order to create an agreement with verse 5 (Kutscher, 236). S has
interpreted the word as an inñitive like the preceding word and the midrash
of T is of no help for the textual case. The committee, considering 1Q-a and
S as contextual assimilations and the noun reading of the other versions as syn-
tactical facilitations, gave a C evaluation to M.
Begrich (1963, 64), followed by others, lately by Westermann (205), pro-
posed to emend M to μc;Ata, μylij‘h,, “and healed him who had made (himself a
sacri˜ce to sin).” This conjecture, which also ˜gures in the apparatus of BHS,
has been taken over in a number of modern translations (NEB, REB, EÜ, FC).
Other recent versions, staying closer to M, followed the way of syntactical
facilitation by reading a noun: “(to crush him) with pain” (NRSV, NJB) or “to
crush him by disease” (NJV).
It is, however, not necessary to keep the global “sadistic nuance” of cur-
rent translations that it would be God’s good pleasure to “crush him with pain”
(Barthélemy, 402). The verbal clause of M ylij‘h, can be taken as a relative clause
of which the preceding word wOaK]D", “the crushed one, him,” is the antecedent.
This relative clause has the function to make “him” explicit: “The Lord ap-
proved of his oppressed servant whom he had put to grief.” The same inter-
pretation of the Hebrew verbal clause is found in BR.
Proposal of Translation
See above.
53.11
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst half line M reads ha,r“yI, “he will see,” without object. This read-
ing, according to ˜eld, is also attributed to Th, Aq, and Sym in the Barberini
manuscript. It is certainly con˜rmed by V, S and T. On the other hand, 1Q-a,
53.12 Isaiah 51– 60 197
1Q-b and 4Q-d have in addition to the verb the object rwa, “light,” “he will see
light,” and this reading is supported by G. The committee considered that not
only text types diêrent from M such as 1Q-a, 1Q-d and the Vorlage of G,
but also 1Q-b which is esteemed to be a pre-Masoretic text type, all oêr the
same reading. It therefore judged it likely that M had either been subject to an
accident or to a correction of theological nature. For this reason a majority B
vote was given to the text of Qumran.
A rendering of the verb “to see” without object is, of course, quite impos-
sible and has with the notable exception of BR and Chouraqui, not been at-
tempted. The few translations which still render M try to ñd a possible object
in the immediate context which they then make explicit. So RSV “fruit,” “he
shall see the fruit (of the travail of his soul),” or TOB “descendants,” “il verra
une descendance.” The ambiguous, indeñite, object “it” of older translations
is sometimes retained in recent versions, and explained in a footnote. So NJV,
based on emendation: “he shall see it” (i.e. the arm of the Lord).
With the vast majority of commentators and translators (NJB, NRSV, NAB,
REB, RL, EÜ, GN, GrN) the reading of Qumran should be followed. If the
metaphor “light” is not transparent, “life” and “joy” can serve as objects of
comparison.
NIV could possibly be a good model for translation: “he will see the light
of life and be satis˜ed.” Both objects of comparison can sometimes be com-
bined as in FC: “mon serviteur jouira de la vie,” “my servant will enjoy life.”
53.12
Textual Decisions
In the last line of this verse M reads μy[iv]Pol'w“, “and for the transgressors,”
“and he interceded for the transgressors,” a reading which is supported by V,
S and T, and, according to Pseudo-Chrysostom (1887, 399) by Th, Aq and Sym.
On the other hand, 1Q-a reads hmhy[çplw , to be vocalized μh,y[ev]pil]W , “and for
their transgressions,” “and he interceded for their transgressions.” The same
reading is attested in 1Q-b, 4Q-d and G: kai; dia; ta;ı aJmartivaı aujtw' n, “and
because of their trangressions.” For the same reasons indicated in the preceding
case the committee voted B for the text of Qumran. In this particular case M
could be either due to an assimilation to μy[iv]Po in the preceding line or to a
correction of a theological nature.
The silence of commentators is probably the cause that the vast majority
of modern translations simply renders M. Neither the neutral proposal in BHS
nor the clear defense of Ziegler (1959, 50) in favor of the Qumran reading seem
to have in˘uenced translators. One could, of course, accuse Qumran of assim-
ilation with the “sins,” af]je, of the preceding half line (so Kutscher, 383), but
the really strong argument in favor of the Qumran reading is its attestation in
diêrent text types. Translators are therefore encouraged to adopt this reading
with a few other versions (NEB, NAB).
A translation such as NEB: “and interceded for their transgressions” can
function as model.
56.5
Textual Decisions
In the second line of this verse M reads wOl, “to him,” “I will give an ever-
lasting name to him,” whereas 1Q-a reads hmhl, “to them,” “I will give an
everlasting name to them.” M is supported by 1Q-b. 1Q-a has the support of G,
Th, Sym, Aq, V, S and T. The committee considered the plural reading as an
assimilation to μh,l;, “to them,” in the ˜rst line. It also considered the support
of 1Q-b given to the more di¯cult reading of M as rather strong. M received
a B evaluation.
The vast majority of commentators has adopted the proposal of Lowth to
read the plural wOml;, “to them,” and, therefore, almost all translators did the
same. Only a few modern versions (NJB, NAB and OT edition 1970 of NEB)
noted that they did so for textual reasons. However, M has to be rendered, and,
as has been observed by Vitringa, König and Delitzsch, M should be under-
stood as having an individualizing meaning “to each of them.”
StV can be taken as a model: “een eeuwige naam zal Ik een ieder van hen
geven,” “an eternal name will I give to each of them.”
56.12 Isaiah 51– 60 199
56.12
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst line M reads hj;q]a,, “I will get,” or “let me get,” “let me get
wine,” whereas 1Q-a has the ˜rst person plural form jqnw , “we will get.” M is
(in spite of the absence of the cohortative ending) supported by 1Q-b jqa and
by Aq. 1Q-a has the support of Th, V, S and T. Nothing can be deduced from
G since verse 12 is lacking. The reading of 1Q-a clearly is an assimilation to
the plural form of the two other verbs in the same line. Since M does not
present any particular di¯culty and since it is supported by 1Q-b, the commit-
tee gave it a B evaluation.
RSV and NRSV, according to their note, base themselves on textual evi-
dence for their rendering “let us get wine.” Such evidence can hardly be consid-
ered as valid, and M will have to be rendered with all the other modern versions
(with the exception of GNB and FC, apparently guided by translational con-
siderations). In fact, the singular of M appears to be distributive: “ ‘Come!’
(everyone of us shall say) ‘I will take . . . .’ ”
NIV can serve as a model: “ ‘Come,’ each one cries, ‘let me get wine!’ ”
57.9
Textual Decisions
This verse starts in M with the following sentence ˆm,V,B' Ël,M,l' yrIvuT;w" which
could mean “you went down to the king with oil.” This reading is con˜rmed
by 1Q-a. Sym renders the verb with kai; ejkosmhvqh", “you dressed yourself,” a
reading which seems to have inspired V “ornasti te” and which is close to S.
The midrash of T is useless for textual analysis. G apparently did not know
how to render this sentence and replaced it with kai; ejplhvqunaı th;n porneivan
sou, “and you have multiplied your fornication,” a sentence taken from the
Greek translation of Ezek 16.25 and 23.19 (Seeligmann, 74). The committee
judged that Sym, V and S most probably interpreted the common reading of M
and 1Q-a, and it therefore gave a majority B vote to M.
Both NEB and REB render this sentence with “You drenched your tresses
with oil,” which seems to presuppose a conjectural vocalization ËLem,l] yrIvoT;w", for
which there is no textual ground. With all other modern versions M should be
translated, but decisions will have to be made with regard to the meaning of
the ˜rst two words.
As to the verb, several options can be made: “journey” (RSV, NRSV),
“go” (NJB, NIV), “approach” (NJV, NAB), “present oneself ” (Rashi). The last
interpretation was favored by the committee.
As to the second word, it could either be understood as a reference to a
great king or emperor (so Delitzsch, 554) or to a god Melek (Duhm, 390). The
last hypothesis is the most plausible.
Taking into account what has been observed above, the translation could
run as follows: “You presented yourself to (the god) Moloch with oil.” Variant
translations and /or further explanations can be provided in a footnote. In in-
terconfessional projects with Orthodox participation, the diêrences between
M and G, as well as the reasons for it, should be mentioned in a note.
57.11
Textual Decisions
In the last line of this verse M reads μl;[omeW , “and for a long time,” “Was I
not silent for a long time?” 1Q-a and 4Q-d clearly support this reading because
of their full writing μlw[mw. It also has the support of S and T. On the other
hand G, by rendering parorw' , “I disregard,” and V quasi non videns, “as if I
did not see,” seem to presuppose a vocalization μli[]m'W , “hiding (sc. the eyes)”.
The majority of the committee was impressed by the Qumran evidence and
attributed a C evaluation to M. A minority gave the same evaluation to the
variant, considering M to be a later assimilation to Is 42.14.
In order to protect the vocalization of M, the Masorah (Weil, par. 3352)
had already noted that the reading μl;[omeW occurs three times in the Bible (Is
57.11; 64.3 and Ps 90.2), twice with a full writing, and once with a defective
one. Nevertheless, Lowth proposed to correct M according to the vocalization
read by G and V, and he has been followed in this by many exegetes and by the
apparatuses in our Hebrew Bibles. This may also explain the presence of the
variant in a relatively large number of modern versions (NRSV, NAB, NEB,
REB, RL, EÜ).
With some recent commentators (Whybray, 207; Beuken, 71) it seems, how-
ever, preferable to follow the majority of the committee, especially because
57.17 Isaiah 51– 60 201
μl;[omeW is taken up again in verse 16: μl;wO[l]. The preceding w is emphatic and this
emphasis will have to be re˘ected in the translation.
NJB is a good model for translators: “Was I not silent for a long time? So
you cannot have been afraid of me.”
57.17
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst sentence M reads wO[x]Bi, “his greed,” “Because of his sinful greed
I was enraged,” a reading which is supported by 1Q-a, 4Q-d, Th, Aq, Sym, V,
S and T. G, on the other hand, renders diΔ aJmartivan bracuv ti ejluvphsa aujto;n,
“because of sin I grieved him for a little while,” a rendering in which, accord-
ing to some, bracuv ti would translate a Hebrew [x'B,. Since, however, G ren-
ders the piel of [xb with ejktevmnein, “to cut down,” in Is 38.12, it seems more
likely that, under in˘uence of the temporal data of the immediate context, the
translator simply provided an exegesis of M (Fischer, 1930, 63–64 and Berg-
meier, 95–96). The committee therefore attributed a majority A evaluation to M.
Lowth has been the ˜rst to propose a correction [x'B, and a translation ac-
cording to G and in the apparatus of BHS translators are still “ordered” to do
the same. This may explain its introduction into a number of modern versions
(NEB, REB, FC, EÜ). It is, however, very doubtful whether [x'B, can have the
meaning “for a little while.” If G, on the other hand, is the result of an exege-
sis of M, this exegesis should certainly not be preferred. The topic is here not
the duration of God’s anger, but its cause (Beuken, 88). The traditional inter-
pretation as found in the majority of versions should therefore be maintained.
NIV could be taken as an example: “I was enraged by his sinful greed.”
57.18
Textual Decisions
The ˜rst two verbs of the second line read in M Whjen“a'w“ WhaeP;r“a,w“, “and I will
heal him and I will lead him.” M may only have the support of 1Q-b since in
this manuscript the second verb is attested preceded by a lacuna which leaves
su¯cient place for the reading of M. The second verb is absent from 1Q-a,
probably because of an accident of either homoioarcton or homoioteleuton since

the ˜rst two letters are identical with those of the preceding and following word
and the last two letters are identical with those of the preceding word. The sec-
ond verb may also have been lacking in 4Q-d since the lacuna in the manu-
script after the ˜rst verb has a size which does not seem big enough to have
contained the second verb of M and does suppose that its reading is more in
agreement with the reading of 1Q-a. The second verb is rendered in G by kai;
parekavlesa aujto;n, “and I conforted him,” which is frequently considered to
be a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage Whmej}n"a}w". However, in 40.11 and 51.18 on
the one hand, and in 49.10 on the other, G renders two diêrent Hebrew verbs
meaning “to lead” with parakalei'n. So this may have happened here as well
(Seeligmann, 68). The “conforting” of the next sentence in M may have caused
a kind of contextual assimilation. This would also be true of S which is here
entirely dependent upon G, and of V. T: μyjraw , “and I will have compassion”
seems to be an assimilation with 54.7. All these considerations led to a C eval-
uation for M.
In 1891 Oort had proposed a diêrent vocalization of the second verb: WhjenIa}w",
“I shall give him rest.” This proposal still has the support of recent commen-
tators (Westermann, McKenzie, and more hesitantly, Whybray). It has been “or-
dered” by BHS and was adopted by NEB and REB: “yet I shall heal him and
give him relief.” (REB)
Such a correction, however, is not very well founded. In fact, a verb “to
lead” takes up again the topic of the “way,” which is rather central in this pas-
sage (Beuken, 90). It seems therefore better to stay with all other versions with
the traditional interpretation.
NJB could serve as a good model for the translator: “I saw how he be-
haved, but I shall heal him, I shall lead him, ˜ll him with consolation.” In
projects with Orthodox participation, the reading of G should be footnoted.
59.18
Textual Decisions
M reads at the end of the verse μLev'y“ lWmG“ μyYIail;, “to the islands he will ren-
der requital,” a reading con˜rmed by 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T. There is
no literal equivalence of this sentence in G, but it renders the last four words
of verse 17 and the whole of verse 18 in the following way: kai; to; peribovlaion
wJı ajntapodwvswn ajntapovdosin o[neidoı toi'ı uJpenantivoi", “. . . and his cloak,
as about to render a retaliation; a reproach, to his adversaries.” In other words,
spread run one pica long

60.1 Isaiah 51– 60 203
G provides an abbreviated stylistic rewrite of the whole passage, and it does not
just omit some words. Therefore, the committee gave a majority B vote to M.
Since Oort many commentators considered the last sentence as a gloss
which should be omitted in translation. Their view has been taken up by in a
few modern versions such as NEB, REB, NAB and GrN.
However, there is no textual base for changing the redundant syntax of M
and the information contained in the last sentence that the retribution will be
universal and touch the most distant nations in the west, will have to ˜gure, in
one way or another, in the translation of the passage.
FC is a good example of a good translation of the whole verse: “Il va
rendre aux humains ce qu’ils ont mérité, user de furieuses représailles contre
tous ses ennemies, même les plus lointains,” “He will repay everyone his due,
furious reprisals on all his enemies, even the most distant ones.”
60.1
Textual Decisions
This verse starts in M with two feminine imperatives yrIwOa ymiWq, “rise, shine,”
whereas G, which does not render the ˜rst imperative but which renders the
second imperative twice, has the extra information Ierousalhm, “Jerusalem.”
M is supported by 1Q-a and 1Q-b and by Aq, Sym, V and S, and G has the sup-
port of v and T. The committee explained the readings of G and T by their ten-
dency to make addressees explicit. G had already done the same in 51.9 and T
would do so in 60.4. In view of the strong support of M, it received a majority
B vote.
There are no textual reasons to render the vocative “Jerusalem.” When
NEB and REB nevertheless do so, they have been inspired by Driver’s sugges-
tion that, originally, after the last yod of the last imperative another yod was
present which served as an abbreviation of the place name Jerusalem (1964,
80). However, there may be several translational reasons to make the implicit
addressee of M explicit, one of the most important of which may be the fact
that this verse opens a new, major, division of the book. It may therefore not
only be necessary to mention explicitly the addressee, as in TEV, FC, GrN and
NAV, but also the speaker, as has been done in GN.
In projects with Orthodox participation it may be wise to mention the ad-
dressee, and to follow G in its translational procedure. Communicative transla-
tions will be obliged to do the same. Textual notes should, however, be avoided.
60.5
Texual Decisions
The last of the four verbs of verse 5a in M reads bj'r:w“, “and will be wide,”
whereas a few Hebrew manuscripts have the reading bhrw , which could have
the meaning “and will boast.” M has the support of 1Q-a, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S,
and T. There is some uncertainty as to the Vorlage of G: kai; ejksthvsh/, “and
you will be excited.” G renders only three of the four Hebrew verbs, and the
possibility exists that the verb under discussion has been omitted, especially
since the preceding Hebrew verb dj'p;W has three times elsewhere in G been
rendered with forms of ejxivsthmi. However, since the verb djp is at three other
occasions in the Septuagint of Isaiah translated with fobei'n, it is far more likely
that kai; ejksthvsh/ is an interpretative rendering of bj'r:w“. Although the variant
bhrw entered even into the ˜rst Hebrew Bible (Soncino, 1488), it is weakly at-
tested and it does not ˜gure in the Massoretic lists. It could therefore be con-
sidered as a graphical error. The committee was divided: two B and two C
votes were given to M, and two C votes to the variant.
In fact, the variant only seems to have been rendered in NEB: “then your
heart shall thrill with pride.” Although such a rendering is not impossible,
Marti’s observation (382) remains true that such a meaning ascribed to bhr is
questionable. Even when with almost all versions M is translated, problems
remain as to the meaning of the ˜gurative expression “to be wide” in relation
to the heart. “Broad of heart” is an expression which occurs in Ps 101.5 and
Prov 21.4 with the meaning “proud,” “arrogant.” This shows that one does not
necessarily have to read the variant in order to arrive at a translation such as
that of NEB. However, it is here rather unlikely that the Hebew verb would
have the same meaning as the adjective. It is more probable that the “widen-
ing” is caused by joy in the same way as “oppression” is caused by fear (Del-
itzsch, 578). Since the preceding Hebrew verb dj'p;W , “to throb,” is also related
to the heart and since the “throbbing” it expresses is likewise caused by joy,
translators may want to combine both Hebrew expressions in a way appropriate
to their language.
60.19 Isaiah 51– 60 205
If no combinations are made, NIV could be taken as an example: “your
heart will throb and swell with joy” or FC “tu en seras toute émue, ton coeur
éclatera de joie,” “you will be greatly touched by it, your heart will burst with
joy.” Diêrent models can be proposed when the informations are combined,
e.g. TEV: “You will tremble with excitement,” or GN: “Vor Glück wird dir
das Herz klopfen,” “your heart will beat with joy.”
60.19
Textual Decisions
In verse 19b M reads j"rEY:h' Hg"nOl]W , “as a light the moon,” whereas in 1Q-a
these words are followed by hlylb, “in the night.” M is supported by 1Q-b, V
and S and the reading of 1Q-a has the support of G and T. In view of the
frequency (Jer 31.35; Ps 121.6) and the naturalness of the combination of
“sun” and “moon,” the committee considered an omission of the words “during
the night” less likely than their addition. Moreover, the addition is redundant
since Hg"nO expresses already a nocturnal light of either moon or stars. For these
two reasons a C evalution was given to M.
The vast majority of modern versions render the addition, but only some
of them note that they do so for textual reasons (RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJV). In
spite of the arguments above, a translator should feel free to make the addition
for stylistic reasons.
There has been some grammatical debate whether the nouns in Hebrew
should be considered as a construct state introduced by the preposition l with
the meaning “with regard to” (Gesenius-Kautzsch, par. 119u): “with reference
to the light of the moon, it will not shine upon you,” or whether the proposition
l should be taken as introducing a predicate: “as a light, the moon will not
shine upon you” (Beuken, 184). The use of the zaqef gadol on the ˜rst word
is in favor of the last interpretation. This kind of hairsplitting is of course only
relevant for interlinear and very literal translations.
If no addition is stylistically deemed necessary, NJB can function as a
model: “nor moonlight shine on you.” If the parallelism is considered to justify
the addition, TEV is a good example “Or the moon be your light by night.”
Since the addition is translationally based, no textual footnotes are necessary.
Isaiah 61– 66
ISAIAH 61–66
61.6
Textual Decisions
The last word of this verse reads in M WrM;y"t]Ti, which, if derived from rmy
and interpreted as rwm could mean “you will change yourself (with their glory),”
“you will put on (their glory).” On the other hand, 1Q-a has the reading wrmaytt,
which, if not an orthographical variant, could be an explicit derivation from the
root rma II with the meaning “to rise,” “to culminate,” “to be proud of ”: “you
will pride yourself on their glory.” The same derivation is made in Th, Sym, V
and S and most probably also in Aq, G and T. Although the committee attrib-
uted a majority B vote to the reading of M, it considered the problem to be
more of an exegetical than of a textual nature.
NEB is the only modern version which by rendering “and (you shall ) be
furnished with their riches” follows a conjecture proposed in BHS: WrY:m't]Ti,
based upon a metathesis and inspired by the cognate Arabic mara, “to be pro-
visioned.” Such a conjectural base has rightly been abandoned in REB.
The interpretation of 1Q-a had the favor of many commentators, lexicog-
raphers and translators. It is still widely followed by modern versions (RSV,
NRSV, NAB, NIV, TEV FC, GrN). The interpretation of M has, among others,
been defended by Saadya, and, more recently, by Duhm (415), Bauer-Leander
(403) and Beuken (208–209). It is increasingly represented in modern transla-
tions (REB, NJB, GN, BR). Although a translator should feel free to choose
one interpretation or the other, it should be noted that an interpretation “to put
on their glory” is contextually more appropriate. Such a meaning has been pre-
pared in the beginning of verse 6b and it is continued in verse 7.
206
61.8 Isaiah 61– 66 207
If the interpretation of M is chosen, REB is a good model for translation:
“and (you will) succeed to their riches.” If the interpretation of 1Q-a is opted
for, TEV can serve as an example: “(You will enjoy the wealth of the nations)
And be proud that it is yours.”
61.8
Textual Decisions
The object of the verbal clause “I hate” in verse 8a is in M hl;wO[B] lzEg:,
which could mean: “robbery with a burnt oêring.” On the other hand, ˜ve
Hebrew manuscripts have the reading hl;w“['B] lzeg:, “robbery with wrongdoing.”
The possible meaning of M is also found in V: “rapinam in holocausto,”
whereas the meaning of m has clearly been read by G: aJrpavgmata ejx ajdikiva",
“robberies because of injustice,” S: alw[w, “and wrongdoing,” and T: asnwaw ,
“and oppression.” The vocalization of 1Q-a cannot, of course, be decided.
The committee decided with de Dieu (229) and Delitzsch (588) that a mean-
ing “wrongdoing” does not necessitate a change in vocalization of M, so that
the diêrent meanings are not a matter of text, but of interpretation. M there-
fore got a B evaluation.
Remains therefore the problem of interpretation. It could be remarked that
the use of the preposition b is more in favor of the interpretation of the noun
as “burnt oêring” than as “wrongdoing,” since the last meaning would contain
a considerable degree of redundancy in combination with a word for “robbery.”
On the other hand, the analysis of the total discourse should be taken into
account as well, namely the question whether injustice in the relationship be-
tween Israel and the nations is concerned or injustice within Israel. Because
of the immediate context, it seems to be most probable that the relationship
between Israel and the nations is concerned here.
“Robbery with a burnt oêring” would mean “a stolen animal oêred as
a burnt oêring” (compare Mal 1.13). In spite of strong Jewish support for
such a rendering, Saadya being the only notable exception, this rendering is
only present in some older translations (KJ, Luther 1545, StV) and virtually
absent from all recent versions. The only departure, even among Jewish ver-
sions, is NJV.
In view of this analysis of interpretation translators will probably opt for
the rendering “wrongdoing.” A simple sentence such as “I hate robbery and
wrong-doing” (NJB) will be su¯cient. It can be recommended to put the alter-
native in a footnote. No textual notes of the kind found in NJB or GN should
be given.
62.5
Textual Decisions
The last part of verse 5a consists in M of the following sentence: ËWl[;b]yI
ËyIn:B;, frequently considered to mean: “your sons will marry you.” The reading
of M is con˜rmed by 1Q-a and by all the ancient versions, so it got an A
evaluation.
This sentence has been “corrected” in several ways. Lowth (1770, 618–
619), shocked by the idea of incest which is the result of the double metaphor,
proposed to correct the vocalization of the second word into ËyIn:Bo, “your builder.”
As to the verbal form, Lowth refers to the plural participle form in the parallel
text 54.5, ËyIl'[}bo, and he thinks that the same participle would have been mis-
understood here by those responsible for the Masoretic pointing. Others, like
Duhm (418) and Marti (389), change the verbal form into Ële[;b]yI. The result is
the same: a meaning “your builder will marry you.” These corrections, which
have the advantage of making verse 5b entirely parallel to verse 5a, are ac-
cepted by two other commentators, Mc Kenzie (185) and Whybray (248). They
entered into a number of recent versions such as NJB, “your rebuilder will wed
you,” NAB, NRSV, GNB, “He who formed you will marry you,” FC, GrN. Al-
though related to this option, NEB, “so you shall wed him who rebuilds you,”
and REB, “so will you be wedded to him who rebuilds you” have some inver-
sion and passive transformation.
However, as has been pointed out (Delitzsch, 592; Beuken 229–230), the
primary meaning of l[b is “to possess,” “to take possession of,” and that mean-
ing also pertains to a “wife” in Hebrew. “Sons” is the well known metaphor for
“inhabitants.” Translators, who do not want to keep the metaphor as do, with
minor variations, RSV, NIV and NJV, should translate the ˜gurative meaning
of “sons” and the principal meaning of l[b as has been done in NAV and GN.
63.1 Isaiah 61– 66 209
GN is a reliable model for translators who do not want to stay with the
metaphor: “Wie ein junger Mann sich mit seinem Mädchen verbindet, so wer-
den deine Bewohner für immer mit dir verbunden sein,” “Like a young man
joins a girl, so your inhabitants will forever join you.”
63.1
Textual Decisions
The second half of the second line of this verse starts in M with h[,xo, which
could be rendered with “stooping,” and this reading is con˜rmed by both 1Q-a
and 1Q-b as well as by Th and Aq: katastrwnnuvwn, “laying low.” T presents
in this verse a midrash which does not permit any textual conclusion. Whatever
the reason of the rendering ˜yç[, “gaining (in strength)” in S may be, it is the
same rendering which has been given of h[,xo in 51.14, and therefore an indi-
cation that S did read M, but interpreted it in a diêrent way. The curious read-
ing biva/, “with force” in G is most probably due to the metathesis hx,[o, meaning
in Aramaic “to act with violence.” (Fischer 1930, 66). The metathesis may then
have been applied because of ignorance as to the meaning of the form in M, the
more so since the same form in 51.14 is left untranslated in G. It is not impos-
sible that—as to the form—the reading of G has inspired the rendering of Sym
baivnwn, “walking,” although the graphical resemblance with the Hebrew form
d[exo, “walking,” may also have played an important role. The reading gradiens,
“walking” in V can best be explained as a borrowing from Sym. Since M is the
only strongly attested reading, it received a B evaluation.
The conjecture d[exo has since Michaelis been adopted by the majority of
commentators. It therefore also entered into the majority of modern transla-
tions in a form such as “marching so full of strength” (NJB). Sometimes, as in
NJB, REB, GNB, NAB, a justi˜cation is given in a textual note. In other cases
(NIV, RSV, NRSV, GrN) no justi˜cation is given at all. Only a few commen-
tators (Vitringa, 990; Delitzsch, 596; Beuken, 248) defend M and only a few
translations (NJV, NEB, GN, BR, SR, TOB, Chouraqui) follow this option.
Nevertheless, it is this last option which should be chosen by translators. Re-
mains though the correct interpretation of M. There is quite some semantic dif-
ference between interpretations such as “stooping” (NEB), “pressing forward”
(NJV), “to stand up straight” (SR, BR) and “to incline oneself ” as an ex-
pression of self-assurance (Vitringa, Delitzsch). König (1936, 391b) with his
gloss “sich stolz aufrichtend,” “to raise oneself proudly,” may represent the best
interpretation.
In keeping with the option defended above, SR would be an acceptable
model for translators: “Et se redressant avec ˜erté / Dans la plénitude de sa
force,” “and standing proudly up in the fullness of his strength.”
63.3
Textual Decisions
The second half of the ˜rst line of this verse starts in M with the reading
μyMi['meW , “and of the peoples,” whereas 1Q-a reads ym[mw , “and of my people.”
The reading of M has the support of 1Q-b, G, Aq, Sym, V, S and T while the
reading of 1Q-a stands alone. The committee considered the reading of 1Q-a
as due to an assimilation to the many ˜rst person forms in the immediate con-
text as well as to an exegetical tradition, at least attested by Yefet ben Ely and
Abravanel. These considerations led to a B evaluation of M.
Dahood (1966, 412) considered the ñal mem in M as enclitic and it
would therefore through a modernizing orthography have been omitted in 1Q-a.
In fact, M and 1Q-a would then have the same meaning “and of my people.”
However, this argument does not take into account the existence of a Jewish
exegetical tradition which applied the text to Israel. It does, in addition, not
consider the masorah parva, which by indicating the form of M as unique
wants to protect it against the variant of 1Q-a, present in Exod 8.4. And, ˜-
nally, it cannot explain the plural su¯xes in the context which clearly refer to
peoples. On the other hand, the variant of 1Q-a can only exist because of the
absence of the immediately following three half lines. There is therefore no
valid reason to adopt with NJB, REB, NEB and FC the reading of 1Q-a. Prob-
lems of interpretation, nevertheless, remain. In the immediate context, the best
interpretation seems to be that nobody among the nations was on the side of
Yaweh so that he had to tread everybody in his anger (Beuken, 251).
NRSV could serve as a model: “and from the peoples no one was with me.”
63.6
Textual Decisions
In the second sentence of this verse M has the reading μrEK]v'a}w", “and I made
them drunk,” whereas 37 Hebrew manuscripts and the Soncino edition of 1488
63.6 Isaiah 61– 66 211
read μrEB]v'a}w:, “and I crushed them.” M has the clear support of both 1Q-a and
1Q-b, of Th, Sym and the Vulgate. It most probably also has the support of S.
For although S uses the verb awd, “to be a˙icted, to a˙ict,” this reading does
not imply that the translator read the verb rbç, as this verb is never rendered
by awd. Most probably it was the person responsible for the punctuation who
judged that the verb awd suited better the context than the verb awr, “to be-
come drunk, to intoxicate,” and who therefore, daleth and resh being written
alike in Syriac, put the point at the lower level. G drops the whole second sen-
tence while T to all probability does not render the verb. The committee was
of the opinion that it was the interpretational di¯culty which had forced G and
T not to render the verb, which had led to the particular punctuation in S, and
which had directed certain scribes of M to the variant with bet. For all these
reasons, M received a B evaluation.
The same exegetical problem has led modern commentators to the conclu-
sion that M “suits the general image but is unsuitable for this line” (McKen-
zie, 186). This conclusion and the encouragement to read the variant in BHS
brought many translators to a rendering such as: “I shattered them in my fury”
(REB, NJB, and, with minor variations, NRSV, GNB, NAB, BR).
Translators, however, though encouraged to render M, will encounter the
same problem as G, S, T e.a. and will hardly be able to make sense by trans-
lating literally, as in RSV: “(I trod down the peoples in my anger), I made
them drunk in my wrath.” And the proposal of Bonnard (438), to read this text
in relation with 49.26: “I will make your oppressors eat their own ˘esh, and
they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine” (RSV), can be useful
as a defense of M and can explain something of the imagery, but it cannot help
the translator to ñd a better rendering. Translators who want to avoid the dif-
˜culty are perhaps better served by the exegesis of Delitzsch (598), that the
image only wants to say that God has made his anger deeply felt by trampling
down the nations.
For translators, who want to abandon the ˜gure, GN is a good translational
model: “ich gab ihnen meinen ganzen Zorn zu spüren,” “I made them (i.e. the
peoples) feel all my anger.”
63.9
Textual Decisions
In this verse the qere reading of M is wyn:P; Ëa'l]m'W rx; wOl, “for him it was
a˙iction, and the angel of his face (saved them).” On the other hand, the ketiv
reading of M runs as follows: wyn:P; Ëa'l]m'W rx; aol, “he was not a˙icted (or: he did
not a˙ict), and the angel of his face (saved them).” The qere is without ver-
sional support whereas the ketiv is supported by Th, V, S and T. V, by reading
non est tribulatus, “he was not a˙icted,” chooses the intransitive interpreta-
tion, while all the others choose the transitive one: “he did not a˙ict (them).”
1Q-a with its reading awl is clearly ambiguous since it can support both the
qere and the ketiv. In fact, ambiguous orthographies may even be at the origin
of some of these qere/ketiv cases. G, by reading ouj prevsbuı oujde; a[ggelo",
ajllΔ aujto;ı kuvrio", “It was no envoy, no angel, but the Lord himself (that de-
livered them),” has clearly read wyn:P; Ëa;l]m'W rxi aol. In other words, G starts a new
sentence with the negation of the ketiv, it vocalizes the second word as rxi,
“messenger,” letting the negation rule over both following substantives and it
understands wyn:P; to mean “himself.” The committee, guided by considerations
of internal coherence and a long and outstanding tradition, considered that the
real choice is between the qere and the ketiv according to the rendering of G.
On the other hand the qere might nevertheless be preferred as the origi-
nality of G can be doubted for the following reasons: (1) the word rxi for
“messenger” is only used in a profane sense, (2) μynp (followed by a pronom-
inal su¯x) as subject of a verb requires a plural verbal conjugation; (3) the
interpretation of G requests an adversative particle before wynp.
Nevertheless, both qere and ketiv received a C evaluation.
In view of the overwhelming commentary support, most modern versions
(NJB, NRSV, NAB, NEB, REB, GNB, FC, BR) follow the ketiv according to
G. One of the main reasons for the preference of this interpretation may have
been the theological rejection of the anthropomorphic character of the qere.
Nevertheless, a number of recent translations (RSV, NIV, NJV, Chouraqui, GN,
GrN) render the qere. Whatever the choice of the translator may be, it seems
wise to provide the other options in a footnote as has been done in NRSV
and NJV.
Proposals of Translations
If the qere is chosen, NIV could be used as a model for a certain type of
translations: “In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his
presence saved them.”
63.11A Isaiah 61– 66 213
If the ketiv according to G is chosen, NRSV can be employed as an ex-

ample: “. . . in all their distress. It was no messenger or angel but his presence
that saved them.”
63.11A
Textual Decisions
At the end of the ˜rst line of this verse M reads wOM[', “his people,” whereas
a few Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Soncino edition of 1488 have the
reading wODb][', “his servant.” M is supported by 1Q-a, Aq, Sym, Th and V, the
other reading has the support of S. T reads hym[l, “for his people” and some
Vulgate witnesses as well as the hexaplaric recension have a conjunction pre-
ceding wOM[' as if they would have read wOM['w“. The word wOM[' as well as the preced-
ing and following word, have been omitted in G. The committee considered
the omission in G as due to exegetical problems, the readings adding conjunc-
tions or a preposition as syntactical facilitations, and the variant wODb][' as an as-
similation to the frequent expression “Moses, his servant.” The more di¯cult
reading of M therefore received a B evaluation.
The variant “(Moses,) his servant” has been adopted in many modern ver-
sions (RSV, NRSV, NJB, NAB, GNB), although only a few of them provide a
footnote with the correct textual bases for such a reading (NJB, NAB). Trans-
lators should, however, not render a facilitating reading, but the more di¯cult
one of M. In order to do so they will have to decide upon the interpretation of
the whole sentence which literally runs as follows: “and he/it remembered the
days of old, Moses, his people.”
First of all, the grammatical subject of “remembered” has to be determined.
One of the options is “he,” God. This option has recently again been de-
fended by Beuken (12–15) on the base of a structural inclusio between verses
8a and 11a. RSV and NJB adopted this exegesis.
The second possibility is to consider “his people” as the grammatical sub-
ject of “remembered.” Contextually this option has to be preferred since the
“remembrance” is elaborated in verse 11b—14 where the people are speaking.
This option is followed by Chouraqui and the majority of functional equiva-
lence translations: FC, GN, GrN, NAV.
A third possibility exists, where “the people” is in some way made explicit
as the grammatical subject and “his people” is taken as object. This is done in
NIV: “Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his
people.” The same construction was followed by those translations which, in
the steps of Judah ibn Balaam, have taken hv,mo as the participle of a verb at-
tested in Ex 2.10, with the meaning “to pull out” (of the water) as resembling
in sound the name of Moses (NJV, NEB, REB) REB: “Then they recalled days
long past and him who drew out his people.”
It is the second option which should be preferred since it corresponds best
to the Hebrew accents.
NAV can serve as a model: “Toe het sy volk gedink aan die ou dae, aan die
tyd van Moses,” “Then his people remembered the days of old, the time of
Moses.”
63.11B
Textual Decisions
In the second line of the same verse M has y[ero, “shepherds,” whereas many
Hebrew manuscripts and editions read the singular h[ero, “shepherd.” The plural
is attested by 1Q-a, Aq and V, while the singular can be found in G, S and T.
The plural reading is found in the best manuscripts and it represents the reading
of the classical Tiberian text. Not only is it the more di¯cult reading, it also
has, as the evidence of Aq and V shows, its roots in the protomasoretic text.
The support given by 1Q-a made the committee prefer this reading with a C
evaluation.
It is certainly under the joint in˘uence of Luther, the Bible des Pasteurs
and the KJV that the singular reading has traditionally been favored and that
most recent translations (NIV, NJB, NAB, NJV, NEB, REB, Chouraqui, GN)
still opt for it. On the other hand, since one Hebrew form evokes the other,
contextual factors may have imposed on some translators the singular reading.
For although the plural may allude to both Moses and Aaron (compare Ps
77.21), only Moses is in focus in the following verses. This kind of discourse
strategy is so common, however, that this argument cannot be used against the
plural reading.
The plural reading should therefore be preferred with RSV, NRSV, GNB,
FC and GrN.
In the translation the word preceding “shepherds,” tae, should preferably
not be rendered as the signal for the direct object, but as a preposition with the
meaning “with.”
63.14 Isaiah 61– 66 215
NRSV is a good model for certain types of translation: “Where is the one
who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his ˘ock?”
Translators who prefer to render the singular, are encouraged to mention
the reading of M in a footnote.
63.14
Textual Decisions
The ñal verb of the second sentence has been vocalized by M as WNj,ynIT],
“gave them rest,” hiphil of the verb jwn. Through the presence of the yod, 1Q-a
con˜rms this vocalization. G, V, S and T, on the other hand, vocalized the
Hebrew verbal form as the hiphil of the verb wjn: WNj,n“T', “led them,” a meaning
suggested by the preceding and following verb.
Since sound play evoking a homonymous word is a rather frequent phe-
nomenon in Isaiah, however (compare 38.11), the committee decided to give
a B evaluation to M.
The variant reading of the versions has only had a modest impact upon
modern versions. It only appears in NEB, REB and NAB. One of the reasons
is no doubt that modern commentators generally defend M, occasionally taking
the notion of “rest” as a code for the settlement in the country (Beuken, 18),
NAV: “led his people to a place of settlement.”
The majority rendering of modern translations (NIV, NJB, RSV, etc.)
should be recommended to translators.
Since one Hebrew verbal form evokes the other, a combined translation of
both verbs could be considered and NJB can function in this respect as a model:
“Yahweh’s Spirit led them to rest.”
63.15
Textual Decisions
The last two words of this verse read in M: WqP;a'thi yl'ae, “towards me are
withheld.” This reading is con˜rmed by 1Q-a and V, and, indirectly, by Th, Aq
and Sym who put the verb in the singular since it is ruled by a collective sin-
gular noun as grammatical subject. The only notable variant is found in G, S
and T which do not render a ˜rst person singular, “me,” but a ˜rst person
plural, “us.”
The committee considered this variant to be a facilitating assimilation to the
˜rst person plural su¯xes of the following verse and it gave M a B evaluation.
The syntax of M has been considered by some as strange and clumsy. There-
fore, the since Oort proposed correction qP;a't]Ti la', “do not withhold yourself,”
has been taken over in several recent versions: “Do not stand aloof ” (NEB,
REB), “O Lord, hold not back” (NAB), “Do not ignore us” (GNB). Sometimes
(as in NAB) reference is made to G, but G cannot favor such a rendering since
it reads o{ti ajnevscou hJmw' n, “(where is the abundance of your mercy and of
your compassions) that you have withheld yourself from us?”.
So M should be maintained with the majority of modern translations. Pro-
nominal assimilations as in the ancient versions may though be required for
translational reasons only.
NIV is a suitable translational model: “Your tenderness and compassion
are withheld from us.”
63.18
Textual Decisions
In the ˜rst sentence M has the reading μ[' Wvr“y: which could either mean
“the people possessed” or “they possessed the people.” M is supported by V
and T, T giving the ˜rst interpretation and V the last. 1Q-b has a lacuna here
and only the ñal mem of μ[ is present. 1Q-a reads μ[ çry, and the singular
verbal form is a clear indication that 1Q-a considered “people” to be the gram-
matical subject. This singular reading has the support of S.
G reads, on the other hand, i{na mikro;n klhronomhvswmen tou' o[rouı tou'
aJgivou sou, “that we may inherit a small part of your holy mountain.” G there-
fore does not take up the complaint again, but it continues the intercession, tak-
ing up the stereotyped expression “taking possession of your holy mountain”
as in 57.13 and 65.9 (Seeligmann, 114). The interpretation “we” of G seems to
be based upon μ[ as subject. Apart from this, G can hardly be used for textual
purposes.
The committee considered the singular reading of the verb in 1Q-a and S
as a syntactical facilitation and was divided in giving B and C votes to M.
64.2 (3) Isaiah 61– 66 217
Because of interpretational di¯culties Gesenius-Buhl (453b) proposed partly
redistribution of the Hebrew consonants of the ˜rst three words of the ˜rst sen-
tence, reading μy[iv;r“ Wd[}x; hM;l;, “Why invaded the wicked . . . .” This conjecture
was favored by a majority of commentators and it is still by some. It can there-
fore be found in NAB: “Why have the wicked invaded your holy place,” REB,
and, with a diêrent reading of the verb, NEB.
Translators are, however, advised to render M in one of the two possible
interpretations: (a) by taking “people” as grammatical subject: “Your holy people
have owned it for so short a time,” NJB, and, with minor variations RSV, NRSV
and NJV. Or NIV, which has “your holy place” and FC and GN, which have “the
land” as object; or (b) considering “our enemies” to be not only the grammatical
subject of the second sentence but that of the ˜rst as well: “For a short time our
enemies have dominated your holy people and they trampled down your sanc-
tuary.” This second interpretation can be found in BR, Chouraqui, GrN and
GNB. It might be preferred according to Ehrlich (224).
If solution (b) is preferred, for certain types of translation the paraphrase
of GNB could be a useful model: “We, your holy people, were driven out by
our enemies for a little while, they trampled down your sanctuary.”
64.2 (3)
Textual Decisions
The second sentence of this verse starts in M with T;d“r"y:, “you went down,”
a reading which is supported by 1Q-a, V, S and T.
G seems to have rendered this verbal form with trovmoı lhvmyetai, “trem-
bling will seize,” as in the fully identical sentence of 63.19, where, contrary to
64.2, all the words are rendered. It might be possible, that G read here through
metathesis and substitution a form of the verb d[r, “to tremble.”
Th and Sym read the plural form wdry, katevbhsan, connecting this verb with
the preceding sentence: fobera; a} ouj prosedokw'men katevbhsan, “impressive
things we did not expect, have come to pass.”
The committee considered this variant to be due to a contextual harmoni-
zation and M was given a B evaluation.
218 A Handbook on Isaiah 64.4 (5)A
NEB renders the second sentence with “the mountains shuddered before
thee,” and states in a footnote that it omits T;d“r"y: with G. As has been shown,
G does not omit this verb, and therefore the rendering of NEB is unjusti˜ed.
Duhm (428) proposed to omit not only the ˜rst word but the whole second
sentence as a gloss from 63.19. This proposal was accepted by most commen-
tators and by some translators. That the gloss interrupts the ˘ow of the text
becomes clear from those translations which leave it out such as NAB and
Moâtt: “at thy dread actions, far beyond our dreams, far beyond all that men
have ever heard of.” Other translations, such as NJB, keep the sentence, but
put it between parentheses and characterize it as a gloss in a footnote. There
are, unfortunately, no textual bases for the omission and translators may there-
fore prefer to keep the sentence as an integral part of the text with the vast
majority of modern versions.
The sentence as a whole could be rendered as a statement like in REB:
“the mountains shook when you appeared,” or as an invocation like in GN:
“Komm herab, daß die Berge vor dir erbeben!,” “Come down, may the moun-
tains quake in your presence!”
64.4 (5)A
Textual Decisions
The grammatical object of the ˜rst verb of the ˜rst sentence in M is
qd<x, hce[ow“ cc;Ata,, “the joyful person and the one who does righteousness.” This
reading has the direct support of 1Q-a, V, and T, and the indirect support of S
which has interpreted the ˜rst Hebrew word as a preposition and the second
word as an abstract noun “gladness.”
G, on the other hand, reads toi'ı poiou'si to; divkaion, “with those who do
what is right,” omitting the ˜rst Hebrew participle and reading a plural form of
the second one.
The committee considered this rendering as an elusive abbreviation to
escape a syntactical di¯culty. M received a B vote.
Duhm was the ˜rst to propose a correction of M according to G (429) and
his proposal has been taken over by most commentators, some of them ex-
plaining w çç as an uncorrected scribal mistake for the following word (Marti,
398). Some translations (NAB, Moâtt, RL, EÜ, W), therefore, follow the cor-
64.4 (5)B Isaiah 61– 66 219
rection. In addition, some of these even read, according to Grätz’s proposal Wl,
“oh, that . . . might,” before the ˜rst word of the verse, presuming that this word
in M was accidentally dropped out after the ñal wOl of the preceding sentence.
So e.g. NAB: “Would that you might meet us doing right.”
There are, however, insu¯cient reasons to apply the correction. For the
syntactical di¯culty can easily be solved. König (1897, 361k) has noted that
after verbs expressing joy, the object of the joy can be expressed by a verb
having the same grammatical form as the ˜rst. The meaning of the coordinated
sentence would thus be: “Who rejoices to do what is right.” This meaning
should be rendered with the great majority of modern versions.
For the translation of the whole sentence GNB is a good model: “You
welcome those who ñd joy in doing what is right.”
64.4 (5)B
Textual Decisions
The second half of verse 4b reads in M as follows: ['veW:nIw“ μl;wO[ μh,B;, liter-
ally: “in them for ever, and we shall be saved.” This di¯cult reading is also at-
tested by 1Q-a, Sym and V. It can be presupposed by the reading of S which
takes μh,B; with the last verb of the preceding half line and which omits the
conjunction of ['veW:nIw“, simplifying in this way the syntax. It can even be pre-
supposed by the reading of T which, like S, connects μh,B; with the preceding
verb and which paraphrases μl;wO[ with “by the deeds of our righteous fathers
who are from old” as the instrument through which “we are delivered.”
The rendering of G dia; tou'to ejplanhvqhmen, “therefore we have gone
astray,” remains di¯cult to explain. Lowth has suggested that G may have read
[v;p]NIw" whereas Michaelis proposed a reading [v;r“NIw". The ˜rst proposal is the
most plausible since plana'n sometimes renders [çp in the Septuagint of Isaiah,
but never [çr. It is nevertheless possible that the Greek translator simply made
an assimilation to 63.17a: tiv ejplavnhsaı hJma'ı, “Why did you lead us astray?”
Because of its strong attestation, M received a B evaluation.
Translators are in danger of being totally confused by the variety of mod-
ern versions. Most radical is NAB which does not render the whole of the sec-
ond half line. All the other translations do, but many of them follow some
form of conjecture in which a presupposed Vorlage of G plays some role:
(1) The conjecture [v;p]NIw" μl;wO[me ÚB], “against you, since long we rebelled,”
still recently defended by McKenzie (190), is followed by RL;
(2) The related conjecture [v;r“NIw" μl;wO[me HB;, “in spite of it, we have done
evil from of old,” remains closer to the consonantal text of M and is the base
of GNB, NEB and REB.
(3) The conjecture of Volz [v;rNIw" Úm]l,[;heB], “when you hid yourself we be-
haved wickedly,” recently again defended by Whybray (264), is taken over in
NRSV: “because you hid yourself we transgressed.”
Nevertheless an eôrt should be made to render M. Central in this respect
is the deñition of the antecedent of μh,B;. Some translations (RSV, NJV, GrN)
consider the condition of sinning to be referred to (Delitzsch, 610), and, in ad-
dition, they interpret the last verbal clause as a question: “in our sins we have
been a long time, and shall we be saved?”
It seems, however, better to take μh,B; as referring back to Úyk,r:d“Bi, “on your
ways,” the ˜rst word of the second half line of 4a, structurally in the same
place (Ehrlich, 226). This gives a meaning: “In these ways we will be deliv-
ered.” So NJB, FC, BR, GN.
NJB is a good example for such an interpretation: “now we persist in your
ways and we shall be saved.”
64.6 (7)
Textual Decisions
The last verb of this verse reads in M WngEWmT]w" the interpretation of which
varies from “you made us waste away,” “you made us melt” to “you made us
tremble.”
1Q-a has the reading wndgmtw which, on the base of Palmyrean and Arabic,
may mean “you have given us (into),” whereas G, S and T do presuppose a
Vorlage WnnEG“m'T]w", “you have delivered us (into).”
The Vorlage of V, et allisisti nos, “and you have struck us,” more di¯cult
to reconstruct, may indicate M as base since “striking” can be considered the
cause of “trembling.”
The committee gave a C vote to M as to the more di¯cult reading.
According to Barthélemy (451) M alludes to the vocabulary of the holy
war, more particularly to the “melting of the heart” of the vanquished, and
with Delitzsch (610) he consideres M as a pregnant expression for “you have
made us lose our courage and you have delivered us into.” This would then be
another example in the book of Isaiah of the use of an expression (dyb gwm) sug-
65.5 Isaiah 61– 66 221
gesting another expression (dyb ˆtn). Such a subtlety would then no longer
have been understood in the milieu in which 1Q-a came into existence.
It has certainly not been understood by the few modern versions which
follow M (NIV, NJV, BR, NAV). TOB probably is the only exception, but its
language can hardly be proposed as a translational model.
On the other hand, the lexicographical confusion with regard to the se-
mantics of the root gWm is extreme, as is well illustrated by König (211a). One
can therefore easily understand Kutscher’s preference for the reading of 1Q-a
(252). Semantically, there is even no distinction between that reading and the
one of G, S and T. That reading would even agree with the hidden meaning of
M if the analysis above is taken seriously. Translators may therefore prudently
prefer it.
REB and NEB are good examples of this solution with respectively: “and
left us in the grip of our iniquities” and “and abandoned us to our iniquities.”
65.5
Textual Decisions
The last word of the ˜rst line reads in M ÚyTiv]d"q] which can be understood
to mean “I am sacred for you.” It has been wrongly suggested (Ryssel) that Th
and Sym would have read a piel form of the same root: ÚyTivD"qi meaning “I
(would) have sancti˜ed you.” This is a mistake, however, as the rendering of Th
is unknown and the rendering of Sym aJgiwvterovı sou (eijmiv), “I am more holy
than you,” re˘ects the same interpretation of M as is found in T ˚nm anykd ana,
“I am purer than you.” A piel reading has also been suggested in BHS for S
ana çdqmd. But it seems preferable to vocalize the paÔel participle as a pas-
sive one with the meaning “because I am sancti˜ed” (Emerton, 1980, 447). S
would then be identical with G kaqarovı eijmi, “I am pure,” and it could be a
translation of it (Weisz). Both these versions could then be considered as an
elusive abbreviation of M.
The rendering of V immundus es, “you are unclean” shows a shift of focus
based on the interpretation: “in relation to you, I am clean.”
With regard to the qal–piel debate, nothing can, of course, be concluded
from the reading of 1Q-a.
M got an A/B vote.
The piel vocalization was preferred by the vast majority of commentators,
but it has had but little impact upon modern translations, BJ and TOB being the
most notable exceptions. As has been stated again recently (Emerton, 449), such
a vocalization is impossible, since a meaning “I might sanctify you” would
require an imperfect, not a perfect verbal form.
Occasionally, since the Reformation, the qal of M has been taken to have a
transitive meaning and this view has again been defended by NJV which trans-
lates: “For I would render you consecrated,” noting that it consideres the qal
as equivalent to the piel. But the same objection against the use of the perfect
would apply here, and since it is normally the piel which expresses the transi-
tive meaning, such an equivalence is most unlikely.
Remains therefore the interpretation of M which takes the su¯x of the verb
as equivalent to the construction l plus su¯x (Joüon-Muraoka 125ba, note 2)
with the meaning “I am too sacred for you” (so with minor variations NIV,
NRSV, GNB, NAB, NEB).
A rendering as “do not come near me, for I am too holy for you” (NRSV)
may be a good model. If, however, the translator wants to make the implicit
danger more explicit, he could turn to REB with: “Do not touch me, for my
holiness will infect you.”
65.15
Textual Decisions
The second line of this verse starts in M with the reading ar:q]yI wyd:b;[}l'w“,
“and his servants he will call (by another name),” a reading also witnessed by
a number of Greek manuscripts, Aq, Sym, V, S and T.
In 1Q-a there is a lacuna. The whole second line of the verse and the ˜rst
four words of verse 16 are lacking, no doubt because this part of the text was
lacking or unreadable in the Vorlage of 1Q-a. The scribe left some space and
improvised a transition (Kutscher, 289).
According to the editions of Rahlfs and Ziegler, G would read toi'ı de;
douleuvousin aujtw'/ klhqhvsetai (o[noma kainovn), “but his servants shall be called
(by a new name).” However, the most ancient manuscripts of G read moi instead
of aujtw'/, “but my servants shall be called (by a new name),” and this reading,
maybe inspired by a Hebrew Vorlage arEQ;yI yd"b;[}l'w“, should most probably ˜gure
in the text of the editions.
But this reading of G was considered to be an assimilation to the many
˜rst person su¯xes of the context, and M received a C evaluation.
66.2 Isaiah 61– 66 223
Since Klostermann M has frequently been corrected according to the pre-
supposed Vorlage of G mentioned above, or, according to a hypothetical Vor-
lage which kept all the consonants of M in a diêrent division: arqyw ydb[lw ,
considering the waw before the verb as emphatic (McKenzie, 197).
It is therefore not amazing that traces of such a correction can be found in
some modern versions. This is certainly true for translations justifying their
rendering in textual notes, such as NAB: “but my servants shall be called by
another name,” and TOB. It is probably also true for translations such as RL
and EÜ, although they change the passive into an impersonal active verbal
form: “one will give them another name.”
Such alterations are, however, unnecessary on textual grounds. This does
not mean that translators may not feel obliged to make the same kind of pro-
nominal assimilations as in G, or the same type of active/passive transforma-
tions for translational reasons only. No textual justi˜cations should be given,
however.
Depending on translational strategies, such renderings as “but to his ser-
vants he will give a diêrent name” (NRSV) or “But I will give a new name
to those who obey me” (GNB) can be taken as examples.
66.2
Textual Decisions
The second sentence of this verse begins in M with Wyh]YIw", “and so they
existed,” a reading con˜rmed by 1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V and T.
1Q-a has the variant reading wyhw , “and so they exist” which seems to be
an assimilation to the perfect tense of the preceding verb (Kutscher, 354).
G has the rendering kai; e[stin ejma;, “and they are mine,” a rendering also
attested by S. This rendering could be based on a diêrent Hebrew Vorlage
Wyh; yliw“, but more likely, it was an assimilation to the text of Ps 50 (49), 10.
Since M provides the argument necessary for the discourse and is well at-
tested, the committee gave a B vote to its reading.
Since Houbigant many commentators have adopted a correction according
to G, and the imposition of such a correction in the critical approach of BHS
may be the reason of its adoption in many modern versions (RSV, NRSV, NJB,
NEB, REB, EÜ, FC).
In the absence of su¯cient textual ground, translators are encouraged to

render M and to take Wyh]YIw" as a reference to the creation narrative, more par-
ticularly Gen 1.3 (Ehrlich, 230).
NJV: “And thus it all came into being” is a suitable rendering of such an
interpretation. Compare also NIV and NAB.
66.12
Textual Decisions
The last line of this verse begins in M with the reading μT,q]n"ywI, “and you
shall suck,” whereas 1Q-a has the fragmentary reading hmhytw[ . . . , which no
doubt might be completed to hmhytwqnwy, equivalent to μT;q]n"yO, “their infants.” M
has the support of 1Q-b, Th, Aq, Sym, V, S and T while 1Q-a is supported by
G ta; paidiva aujtw'n, “their children.” As is clear from other agreements in the
sentence, 1Q-a has been the Vorlage of G. In fact, 1Q-a could be explained as
the most primitive textual form, which is the reason why a minority of the
committee assigned a C vote to it. A majority of the committee did the same
with regard to M mainly for two reasons: (a) the vocalization as a verb is pref-
erable to the vocalization as tq,n<yO with third person masc. plural su¯x, since the
feminine noun in all its six occurrences has the meaning of a “shoot” of a tree;
and (b) the third person masc. plural su¯x of 1Q-a does not have an obvious
antecedent in the context.
Duhm (441) had already proposed to correct M into μT;q]n"yOw“ or HT;q]n"yOw“, “and
her nurslings.” In fact, the last correction makes Jerusalem the natural ante-
cedent of the third person fem. sg. su¯x. It is therefore in this form that the
correction has been taken over by many commentators and by some recent trans-
lations such as REB: “her babes will be carried in her arms . . . .” Although this
last correction does not agree with the reading of 1Q-a, it might be considered
as a translational adaptation.
Translators may, however, prefer to render M with the verb qny, as has been
done in the majority of modern versions (NJB, NJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB),
in which case they will be guided in their rendering by the way in which they
translated the same verb in the preceding verse. Since they have to render a ver-
bal metaphor, they may even want to make explicit certain implicit elements
of the comparison as is done in GNB, FC and GN.
66.17 Isaiah 61– 66 225
If 1Q-a is followed and translationally adapted according to the second
correction of Duhm, REB can be followed in its translation mentioned above.
If M is adopted in a literal type of translation, NJB can function as a model:
“You will be suckled, carried on her hip. . . .” In a translation of the functional
equivalence type, the metaphor can be marked as a comparison as in NAB: “As
nurslings, you shall be carried in her arms . . . ,” or be made more explicit as
in GNB. Projects with Orthodox participation may want to adopt the reading
of 1Q-a and G. Whatever the choice may be, it would be advisable to note the
variant reading.
66.17
Textual Decisions
The last three words of the ˜rst line according to the ketiv of M are rj'a'
Ëw<T;B' dj;a,, “behind one (masc.) in the middle,” but according to the qere they
are Ëw<T;B' tj'a' rj'a', “behind one (fem.) in the middle.” The ketiv is clearly sup-
ported by S and possibly by Th who reads according to Jerome: “alter post
alterum”; and the qere by 1Q-a, 1Q-b, V and T. Nothing can be concluded
from Sym who according to Procopius would have had the rendering ojpivsw
ajllhvlwn, “behind one another.” Instead of these three words under discussion G
reads kai; ejn toi'ı proquvroi", “and in the porches.” In several places the Isaiah
translator borrowed expressions from Ezekiel and this is one of them: Ezek
8.3, 7, 14 (Seeligmann, 74).
Half of the committee assigned a C vote to the ketiv, the other half a C
vote to the qere.
In the light of the interpretational problems, Böttcher (1833, 33) proposed
for the ˜rst two words the correction dj;a, rj'a' dj;a,, “one after another,” and
this correction was taken over by NEB and REB: “one after another in a magic
ring.” The overwhelming majority of English modern versions adopt, however,
an impersonal rendering which avoids a decision between qetiv and qere : “fol-
lowing the one in the center.” So with minor variations NJB, RSV, NRSV, NIV,
NAB, NJV. Such a strategy though cannot be applied in other languages where
for grammatical reasons it is obligatory to make a choice between ketiv (so
RL, BR, FC) and qere (GN, Chouraqui).
The great problem, of course, is the identi˜cation of the “he” or the “she.”
As to the “he,” one of the most accepted interpretations is that the reference is
to a priest, a mystagogue, who as a leader stands in the midst of a group of
worshippers teaching them the rites which they imitate (see Ezek 8.11). As to
the “she,” an ancient Jewish exegetical tradition sees in the feminine form a
reference to a holy tree, an ashera. So KJ: “behind one tree in the midst.” An-
other interpretation sees here a reference to a priestess. So GN. Because of our
ignorance with regard to the religious practices hinted at, no absolute certainty
can be obtained.
A neutral translation: “following the one in the center” or “imitating one
in the center” (NJV) where possible may be preferred. Such a rendering would
necessitate a textual as well as cultural footnote.
If the ketiv is opted for, FC can be a model: “derrière celui qui est au
centre,” “behind him who is in the center.” Even then a note is necessary and
the one in FC is a good example of an acceptable content.
If the qere is clearly chosen and made explicit, one could, according to the
interpretation followed, follow either KJ: “behind one tree in the midst” (comp.
LB) or GN “die sich um eine Götzenpriesterin scharen,” “who group them-
selves around a priestess of idols.”
66.18
Textual Decision
M presents in this verse basically two textual problems: (a) there is no syn-
tactical relationship between the ˜rst word ykinOa;w“, “and I,” and the two following
words meaning “their deeds and their thoughts,” and (b) the grammatical sub-
ject of the verb ha;B;, “it is coming,” is unclear. Both problems of text and in-
terpretation being related, they are treated together.
As to (a), the reading of M ykinOa;w“ presents an ellipsis of a verb, whereas G
has the rendering kajgw; . . . ejpivstamai, “and I . . . know.” The ellipsis of M is
supported by 1Q-a and V, while G is supported by S and by T: “before me are
revealed.”
As to (b), M reads ha;B;, “it is coming,” but 1Q-a has the reading wab, “they
have come,” taking apparently “their deeds and their thoughts” as grammatical
subject. G, on the other hand, renders with e[rcomai, “I am going,” which would
correspond to a reading of the ˜rst person singular ytab. There is no support
for the reading of 1Q-a and only a hypothetical support for the reading of M:
1Q-b, in the fragmentary text of which only the two ˜rst characters can be
read, but not the decisive one(s). G is supported by V, S and T.
The committee assigned in the case of (a) a majority B evaluation to M on
the base of the consideration that no Hebrew manuscript has read anything dif-
ferent. In the case of (b) a majority C evaluation was given to M on the base
66.19 Isaiah 61– 66 227
of the traditional interpretation which takes t[e, “time,” as the implicit gram-
matical subject of ha;B; like in Ezek 21.12 and 39.8.
Most modern versions follow the majority of the ancient ones in provid-
ing a verb “to know” and in adapting the verb “to come” to the ˜rst person
singular: “For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to . . .”
(so with minor variations RSV, NRSV, GNB, EÜ). The only diêrence in some
translations is that they take the ˜rst sentence with the preceding discourse unit
and that they start a new division with the second sentence (NEB, REB).
Other translations apply the same discourse division, but they consider
“their deeds and their thoughts” with Duhm (442–443) as an intrusion from
verse 17. They therefore restore the text by making these nominal phrases the
subject of the verb “to end” in the last line of the preceding verse: “their deeds
and their thoughts will perish together” (NJB, NAB).
However, as other proposals of transposition show, there is no objective
ground for doing so (Whybray, 289).
The best thing for translators to do is to take with NJV, GN, GrN, NAV t[e,
“time,” as the subject of ha;B; if they are convinced at least that such a choice
does not exceed the limits of implicit information. As to the ˜rst problem of the
rendering of ykinOa;w“, ellipsis,—if ellipsis as rhetorical device is present here—
can hardly be reproduced in translation. Therefore, translationally a verb may
have to be provided as in the ancient versions.
NIV can be cited as a model: “I know their deeds and purposes.” And after
paragraph break: “The time has come . . . .”
66.19
Textual Decisions
Following the proper name “Lud” M reads as apposition tv,q, ykev]mo, “those
who draw the bow.” This reading has the support of 1Q-a and 1Q-b, of the
Hexaplaric columns other than G which read according to Jerome “tendentes
arcum,” V, S and T.
G, on the other hand, renders kai; Mosoc, reading therefore the ˜rst word
as a proper name.
Two possibilities exist: (a) the reading of G is the original one and M has
given a midrash inspired by Jer 46.9: tv,q; yker“Do ycep]To μydIWlw“, “the Ludim who
grasp, who draw the bow” (Seeligmann, 60). Or (b) M is original, and the mid-
rash is based upon a play upon words between the proper name ˚çm and the
homonymous verb. G would then have decoded the midrash.
The committee was divided: one half voted C for M, the other half pre-
ferred G, equally with a C vote.
In addition to the reading of the proper name “Meshek,” Duhm (444) con-
jectured that the second word of M, tv,q,, concealed the name of another people,
vro, “Rosh,” also mentioned in connection with Meshek and Tubal in Ezek 38.2,3
and 39.1. Some commentators (Marti, 413) even see in the reading Mosoc kai;
eijı of a number of Greek manuscripts of the Origen and Lucianic recensions
a corruption of an original reading Mosoc kai; ÔRw"! Since this conjecture of
Duhm is still defended in many recent commentaries, it has found its way into
some modern versions such as NEB, REB, RL and EÜ. Such a rendering can-
not be defended because the reading of G is kai; Mosoc, and the existence of
a people “Rosh” both in text and in history is pure conjecture.
The translator should therefore choose between M and G. If M is preferred
with RSV, NRSV, NJV, NIV GNB, he may want to render in such a way that
skill is expressed. A rendering of G, as in NJB, NAB, GN, may be preferred in
projects with Orthodox participation.
In a literal translation of M, NJV can be taken as example: “that draw the
bow.” If skill is aimed at, a rendering along the lines of GNB: “with its skilled
bowmen” or NIV “(famous as archers)” could be given. Whatever rendering is
chosen, the variant reading could be given in a footnote.

(Jan de Waard) A Handbook On Isaiah PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Jan de Waard) A Handbook On Isaiah PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Handbook on Isaiah

Published for the United Bible Societies,

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISAIAH 31– 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

ISAIAH 41–50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

ISAIAH 51– 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

ISAIAH 61– 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

RL Revidierter Luther Text (Revised Luther Version; 1984)

Abel, F. M. Géographie de la Palestine. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967.

Bredenkamp, C. J. Der Prophet Jesaia erläutert. Erlangen: Andreas Deichert,

. “Studies in the Vocabulary of the O.T.” JTS 34 (1933) 33–44.

Gesenius, W., and F. Buhl. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch

. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. London, 1987.

. Spicilegium geographiae hebraeorum exterae post Bochartum. Gött-

Rossi, J. B. de. Variae lectiones veteris testamenti librorum. Parma: Ex Regio

Vitringa, C. Commentarius in librum prophetiarum Jesaie. Basel: J. Rodolphi,

cited were interconfessional, no major Jewish publication in any Western lan-

page run half pica long

January 1995 Jan de Waard

(strangers)” (NIV, NRSV), or, after passive-active transformation: “foreigners

heading. See, for example, BJ: “Lamentation sur Jerusalem.” In translations in

If the translator, however, wants to match the function of the rhetorical

261–263). In the restructured translation, God becomes the agent of “break-

in a footnote. As to the Driver conjecture, it is followed in combination with

association rope / heifer, and therefore a B evaluation was given to M in this

The discourse structure has received little attention in commentaries. Only

The only English translations which oˆer a reading “and he turned me

reconstructed T;l]G"rhi wOl as Vorlage of oJ kathvgageı. Anyway, in view of the

brachylogy or concise expression in which a verb has been omitted (Feldmann,

It has still to be decided, however, how to render M. Since the Jewish-Arabic

de Rossi, and the translational treatment in T which presupposes a reduplica-

phonetic realization a deliberate pun was made and a component of “desolation”

The committee nevertheless has given a C evaluation to M for mainly two

geographers. The committee therefore gave originally a B evaluation to M in

The committee, considering the variant as syntactically facilitating, gave a C

Since the existence of an idiomatic expression unfortunately cannot be

identi˜cation of the city could be developed in order to clarify the “relectures”

section in accordance with the sentence division of M. Older translations often

S, V and all columns of the Hexapla). The testimony of 1Q-a is particularly

closest to the original, that 4Q-a could be explained by haplography and M by

wJı ajmhtou' eijsferomevnou oiJ metabovloi tw' n ejqvnw' n, “. . . a generation of mer-

to translate a Vorlage μydIg“Bol' ywOa and it is followed in this by T in its translation

witnesses of which the Vorlage can be reconstructed, a majority A vote was

is supported by 1Q-a rmwj (with phonological shift, according to Kutscher, 375),

of M should be recommended. This in spite of the fact that a literal translation

seems wise to give a slight preference to the well-founded decision taken by

as a contextual assimilation after the omission of μydq. Consequently, also this

Other translations base themselves on what they consider to be the mean-

is always determined by either the article or a local speci˜cation. Therefore the

In many modern translations the question whether in the same sentence

probably because of an accident of either homoioarcton or homoioteleuton since

spread run one pica long

If the ketiv according to G is chosen, NRSV can be employed as an ex-

In the absence of su¯cient textual ground, translators are encouraged to

Potrebbero piacerti anche