Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types

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] Verbs, text-segmenting and clause-types
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:49:39 -0500

Dear Bryan,

Thanks for your efforts. I enjoyed reading the translation and considering the thought processes. Certainly you restored some of the variety in the verbs that we see in the original text. Putting things in the present tense was different for me and attractive in some ways. John Oswalt's NICOT commentary on Isaiah 40-66 stays in the past tense a lot of the time, which is traditional. Prophetic visions, of course, present the most unique structure for translation in that something may be described as past even though it has not yet happened, for it can be past in the vision. There may be more than one acceptable way to handle the verbs. There are so many things that could be discussed once you get into the details. I had some trouble with this line:

Yet it is our sickness he is bearing

Here the verb is X-Qatal, but my training would not lead me to use a present progressive in translation.

One of the problems of using the present is that the person dies. So it is attractive to view the scene in the past, even though it is a prophecy. It is hard for him to grow, be despised, be punished, die, and perhaps rise again all in the present. Perhaps it is possible as a sort of prophetic historical present.

Isaiah 53:1 can easily be perfects or past tenses. Both the Vulgate and Septuagint handled the verbs this way, and both these texts show, to some degree, how ancients looked at the verbs. Admittedly they had imperfect insight. If the report of 53:1 is the report of the life of the man, much of a chapter 53 can be a review of that report as something disbelieved by many. This happened, then this, and then this.

Actually the LXX and Vg use a variety of tenses, and they do not always agree with one another. At 53:4 the LXX used the historical present for the first two verbs ("bears," "suffers pain") and then shifted to the past for "we reckoned." Both the LXX and Vg both have a substantial dose of past-oriented verbs.

I will put a few comments in the body of your text, having only kept parts of it.

First text segmenting:
52:13-15 are the words of YHWH that are +projection, expressing YHWH's
desire and predictions concerning His servant. Accordingly, the yiqtol
verb form in both the clause-intial and clause-medial positions plays
heavily, particularly in main clauses.

HH: Agreed

53:1-6 Here Isaiah is addressing his audience intimately and 1st plural
forms run throughout. The section is to answer the questions that it
starts with. It is neither telling a story nor making a prediction. It
is establishing the identity of the special man.

HH: I believe it is showing how and why the story was not believed, or why it might not be.

Clause-types:
You will notice my designations of the verb forms are somewhat different
than Rolf's. While he counts qatals and yiqtols, I count sub-categories
of qatal and yiqtol according to their positions in their clauses. For
instance, I will usually consider yiqtols which come first in their
clause to be expressing the speaker's desire, whereas yiqtol's that come
elsewhere than first are ambiguous. X-yiqtols *may* express the
speaker's desire. However, unlike the clause initial yiqtol, they may
express a one-off event in the past. X-yiqtols usually express a
prediction, a habit, or gnomic truth.

HH: I see words that precede the verb as giving those words special emphasis but not necessarily changing the force of the verb. There may be more than one way that such orderings of elements can function, however.

52:13 Behold!

HH: I find this separated "Behold" unnatural, and it seems better to regard verse 13 as divine intent than wish. This is what will happen. He will prosper. He will be exalted. "Behold" often introduces such statements of fact. It can throw attention on the prophecy or announcement: 3:1; 7:14; 8:7; 13:9, 17; 17:1; 19:1; 22:17; 24:1; 26:1; 28:2; 29:14; 30:27; 37:7; 40:10; 49:12, 22. And "behold" does seem to go well with a wish, since it ordinarily focuses the eye on some scene.

May My servant prosper (Y), be exalted (Y), and raised (WQ), and highly
exalted (WQ)! 14 Just as many are appalled at him (DCQ)--so marred is
his appearance, unlike that of a man, his form, beyond human
semblance--15 Just so shall he startle (XY) many nations. Kings shall
be silenced (XY) because of him, for they see (XQ) what has not been
told them (DCQ); behold (XQ) what they have never heard (DCQ).

53:1 Who can believe (Q?) what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of
the Lord been revealed (Q?)? 2 So he grows (W), by his favor, like a
tree crown, like a tree trunk out of arid ground.

HH: The "so" seems awkward here. It does not introduce the shift well but seems continuative. Maybe taking the waw as "for" would be better. It is an interesting question just how the waw is functioning, but it may just be opening a narrative section.

He has no form or
beauty (NS), that we might look at him (Y); no charm that we might find
him well-pleasing (Y). 3 He is despised (Q), shunned by men, a man of
suffering, familiar with disease. Like one whose face is hid from us
(NS). He is despised (Q). We hold him of no account (IrQ). 4 Yet it
is our sickness he is bearing (XQ), our suffering that he endures (XQ).

HH: This is another place where the past seems attractive. The narrator would not have understood at the time that the person was bearing his sickness, since otherwise he would not have held him of no account. By identifying with the people, the narrator more or less accepts that their valuation of him seemed right. But then to have the narrator not agree with "we" by his insight somewhat spoils the picture. It can be logical for the narrator to have such insight if he iooks back on a past scene, recording the general impression at the time.

We account (XQ) him plagued, smitten and afflicted by God. 5 He is
wounded (NS) because of our sins, crushed because of our iniquities. He
bears (NS) the chastisement that makes us whole, and by his bruises we
are healed (XQ). 6 We all have gone astray (XQ) like sheep, each one
going (XQ) to his own way. And YHWH visits (XQ) upon him the guilt of
all of us.

53:7 He has been maltreated (Q), yet he is submissive (XQ). He does
not open his mouth (IrY). Like sheep that might be led (XY) to the
slaughter, like a ewe, dumb before those who have sheared her (XQ), he
does not open his mouth (IrY). 8 By oppressive judgment he is taken
away (XQ). Who could describe his abode (XY?)? For he is cut off (XQ)
from the land of the living through the sin of my people who deserve the
punishment (NS). 9 So his grave is then made (W) among the wicked, and
with the rich in his death though he has done (IrXQ) no injustice and no
falshood is in his mouth(NS).

HH: All these present tenses strike one as staccato (abrupt, disconnected) when there is so much shift in historical development

10 But the Lord chooses (XQ) to crush
him by disease that, if he might make himself an offering (DCY) for
guilt, he might see (Y) offspring and prolong (Y) life, and that through
him the Lord's purpose might prosper (XY). 11 Out of anguish he will
see it (XY). May he enjoy it to the full (Y) through his devotion.

May my righteous servant make many righteous (Y).

HH: Simple futures seem more forceful as divine declarations of what will be. I understand that you're trying to reintroduce variety.

It is their
punishment that he will bear (XY). Assuredly, I will give (XY) him the
many as his portion. He shall recieve (XY) the multitude as his spoil.

HH: XLQ ("divide, apportion") in 55 cases does not elsewhere take B with the object except perhaps at Job 39:17, where it might function differently: "He did not give a portion to her in wisdom." Also one expects $LL ("spoil") as the direct object. So the other interpretation looks more likely: "He will divide spoil among the strong."

For he has exposed himself to death (DCQ) and was numbered (DCQ) among
the sinners. Whereas he bore the guilt of many (DCQ), he will make
intercesiion (XY) for sinners.

HH: That's an interesting attempt to deal with the verbal shift at the end of verse 12.

HH: You did us a service by putting our attention on a biblical passage with detail, and on a particularly moving and pregnant one. It was interesting to see the JPS if that's what it was, since you made many changes.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page