Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
  • Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 14:31:05 -0500

Dear Rolf,

It seems to me that your comments reflect traditional Christian exegesis and are not rooted in grammar or syntax. On which *grammatical* or *syntactical* basis do you claim that "52:14 puts the suffering in the *past*"? I note that the LXX has future verbs in this verse, one translates the Hebrew QATAL and the other translates a Hebrew substantive. I take v. 14 as simple future, just as does the LXX. Why should I not?

HH: The forms are different, and the difference make sense exegetically. I can't speak for the LXX translators; I don't know their reasoning.

I do not reject the principle of "relative time," but to use it in translation often requires a great amount of theological exegesis. So please tell me your grammatical and syntactical reasons when you say "So the report in the more distant future looks back at the less future events. It looks back to them as past" Which grammatical or syntactical arguments will you use against the following translation of Isaiah 53:1: "Who will believe our report, and the arm of YHWH, to whom will it be revealed?" I note that the LXX uses two aorists in this verse, but the aorist can also refer to the future, even if this does not happen often (cf. Jude 1:14).

HH: It makes sense. It fits into the verbs as we generally understand them and accounts for the changes in the Hebrew. It creates a nice picture of what actually happened as though the prophet has the vision to foresee the unbelief that follows the Servant's death. Your view flattens out all the verbs to futures and does not seem to account for the differences in the forms. You could translate Isa 53:1 as future if you take it as a prophetic perfect. But translators who know that still prefer to use the past tense because they think it provides a better translation. Perhaps they are wrong. But the idea is certainly understandable either way. Isaiah 53:13-15 shows that this figure is a future figure, so the change of the time of the English verbs has to be understood in that context.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page