Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 7/7/2002 9:58:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tony.larsson AT cling.gu.se writes:


> * Does anyone have any comments on which reading of BNYK is preferable
>   or probable, sons or Builder? Which did Isiah (and the Holy Spirit) 
>   have in mind when writing the text?
>
> * Any thought about what motivations the scribes had for vocalising BNYK
>   as "sons"?


As Ben has noted, the very letters of the text were counted by the scribes to determine if the text were being copied correctly.  This applies only to the consonants, however, and says nothing regarding how it might have been understood to be vocalized.

As was stated, it is also true that the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) is generally to be preferred.  This can be carried to an extreme though.  No reading can be accepted which makes absolutely no sense. Dahood has shown, despite some overambitious examples, a text may be incomprehensible only because we do not have sufficient knowledge of the Hebrew language due to the limited texts which we possess.  Both of these facts urge caution in making emendations or in simply accepting the received text.  We are on much more uncertain ground than is the case in the N.T. with its relative abundance of contemporary Greek writings and must therefore be more tenative.  

The passage must be understood in the context of the whole of either Second Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah.  This is dependent upon whether you acknowledge Trito-Isaiah as being a separate work from Deutero-Isaiah.  There are some problems with the assertion of a Trito-Isaiah.  If only a Deutero-Isaiah is acknowledged, it begins with the famous passage of Is 40 "Comfort, comfort my people . . ."  This announces the return of the nation from captivity.  It proclaims the restoration.  Israel is to march across the desert in a second exodus (or is the second really the first?).

In this regard BNYK would refer to "children", not specifically to sons (see BDB s.v BeN #2).  This would refer to those who would inhabit Jerusalem.  If it had been referring to dependent cities, they are generally referred to as BfNoWT (daughters).  They will espouse Jerusalem by again inhabiting it.  Understood in this sense it is perfectly understandable and forms a good parallel.

I might quote the JPS TANAK translation

5 As a youth espouses a maiden,
Your sons shall espouse you;
And as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
So will your God rejoice over you.

gfsomsel