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

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Sep 14 23:29:06 EDT 2011


Kenneth:

Collapsing contexts is where statements are taken out of their contexts,
then put together to make it seem that they are talking about the same
subject.

In this case, Isaiah 63:3 deals with the sprinkling (splashing) of blood on
garments in battle, whereas the context of Isaiah 52:15 that this sprinkling
is some sort of blessing. Different contexts.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:51 PM, kenneth greifer <greifer at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Karl,
>
> What is a collapsing context?
>
> Kenneth Greifer
>
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:25:15 -0700
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] What is the scholarly consensus about Isaiah 52:14?
> From: kwrandolph at gmail.com
> To: greifer at hotmail.com
> CC: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>
> 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