[b-hebrew] What is the scholarly consensus about Isaiah 52:14?

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Sep 14 20:25:15 EDT 2011


Kenneth:

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:41 AM, kenneth greifer <greifer at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> University scholars have debated the meaning of Isaiah 52:14 for many
> years, but if you look through all of their books and journals, you will
> never see the correct translation.
>

Hey, that’s my line on some of the other verses I brought up!    ;-)

>
> Usually, Isaiah 52:14 is translated as "like multitudes were shocked about
> you (Israel?), so is marred (hophal) from a man his form and from sons of
> man his image, thus he will sprinkle (he will startle) many nations."
>
> I think it could say "like multitudes were shocked about you (Israel?), so
> is a destroyer (one caused to destroy) (hiphil or hophal), from a man his
> form and from sons of man his image, thus he will sprinkle (he will cause to
> sprinkle) many nations."
>

Problem, here we have an example of a comparative (used in a way that is not
common in English) where the syntax indicates that the participle indicates
not an actor, but a state or status of the subject. I recognize this as a
pual participle, though an argument can be made that this is a hophal
participle “caused to be ruined”.

As for the “sprinkling”, the only way I can make sense of it is to recognize
it as a reference to the New Testament instituting of baptism.

>
> Isaiah 63 says that G-d will be shocked that there is no man to help, and
> in the form of a man, He will trample the nations and sprinkle their blood
> on His clothing.
>

This is collapsing contexts.

>
> Most scholars say "marred" in Isaiah 52:14 is the hophal, and my
> translation is technically the hophal form of the verb, so this is an
> example of how university scholars have overlooked a possible translation
> that fits the rest of Isaiah with pinpoint accuracy. Jeremiah 22:7 might
> also be the hiphil (without the yud) or hophal form of the verb "destroyers"
> or "ones caused to destroy."
>
> The scholarly consensus is that the verb is hophal, and since my
> translation uses the hophal, my idea must be the scholarly consensus too.
>

Don’t pull a Jim Stinehart on us.    ;-)

>
> Kenneth Greifer
>
> (I hope you all like my new attempt to imitate a style that gets answers).
>

Heh heh heh heh as long as you use it only once.

Karl W. Randolph.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list