Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

You give an interesting answer that reads into the verse beyond what the
words themselves say. That is not wrong, as that is one of the layers of
complexity that I noticed among pre-Babylonian Exile writers, like Isaiah.
They expected the readers to read into the text more than what the words
themselves say, and wrote accordingly. It’s one of the reasons I find those
prophets difficult to read, even after going through them several times.
Your reading makes a connection that I had not noticed before. But you do
need to be more careful in your definitions.

The first verse uses words that are often used as euphemisms for dying: אבד
to be(come) lost, used as a euphemism in the sense that the dead are lost
to us, and אסף to gather up, used as a euphemism in that the person has
been gathered with his ancestors. So this whole verse is concerned with
death of the just, but that such death is not a curse, rather a blessing in
that the just will not see all the displeasing things that are coming on
the land, which came during the time of kings Manasseh and Amon, Hezekiah’s
son and grandson.

Now to verse two:

As you rightly note, it is split up into three parts,
1) fullness should come. (שלום does not mean “peace” as in the absence of
war, that word is שקט, but one cannot have fullness when there is no
peace.) Fullness is the subject of the verb. So are you saying that here we
have a contrast, mediated by a subjunctive clause, that fullness should
come but it won’t because the just have disappeared from the land?
2) they rest in their beds. (משכבה is a place where one lies down, as in
sleeping. Now this could mean where the people lie down in death, making
the connection you see with verse one. מושב where one settles down is a
word for dwelling place, can you think of others?)
3) in taking your reading, this would be translated as “his uprightness
goes”. I can see the connection that when the just dies, his uprightness
goes with him.

So, if I understand you correctly, in context and in simple English you are
saying that this verse says that fullness and uprightness are removed from
the land because the just have died. Is that what you meant?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me focus here and now onto Is 57:2.
> This verse consists of three parts:
>
> Part 1 ---------  YBW) $LWM ---- יבוא שלום
> Part 2 --------  YNWXW (L M$KBWTM ---- ינוחו משכבותם
> Part 3 --------  HLK NKXW --------- הלך נכחו
> In part 1 the verb is clearly in singular, not in plural.
> In part 2 the verb is clearly in plural, not in singular
> In part 3 the verb is clearly in singular, not in plural
>
> Now the context, Karl.
> Remark that this verse 2 follows verse 1. Now, verse 1 also mainly
> consists of three parts: the first one refers to the "tsadyk" (righteous)
> [a singular], part two points out to "anshey hesed" (men of goodness) [a
> plural], finally part three refers again to the "tsadyk" [a singular]
>
> Now, is it not quite logical to see verse 2 as the resulting outcome of
> verse 1?
>
> Namely:
>
> 1. the "tsadyk" will enter into the peace (into the fullness, as you write)
> 2. the "anshey hesed" will quietly rest in their dwelling places
> 3. the straighness of the "tsadyk" goes
>
> If so, NKXW (last word in verse 2) is the subject on HLK, but it is not a
> verb.
>
> Do you feel I'm right? Have you anything against this overview?
>
> One could argue that HLK is not a participle but the perfect or past form
> of HLK (as we find it in Gn 26:26)...  but this seems less logical since
> the two former verbs are in the imperfective...  In any case, NKXW would be
> the subject of HLK and not a verb form.
>
> Pere Porta
>
>
> 2011/12/14 K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
>
>> Pere:
>>
>> On what are you basing that claim? The Masoretic points? How far do you
>> trust the Masoritic points?
>>
>>  דבר אל בני ישראל וישבו ויחנו לפני פי החירת בין מגדל ובין הים לפני בעל
>> צפן נכחו תחנו על הים
>>
>> Express unto the Children of Israel that they settle down and encamp
>> before Pi Hachirot between Migdol and between the sea before Baal Tsafon,
>> they will go forward to encamp next to the sea. (These are verbs in the
>> plural concerning the actions of numerous individuals.)
>>
>>  יבוא שלום ינוחו על משכבותם הלך נכחו
>>
>> Fullness should come. They rest upon their beds, walking they go forward.
>> (Verbs and subject in the plural, “walking” is a participle.)
>>
>> Looking at the contexts, the contexts indicate that these are verbs.
>>
>> Now why do you claim that they are not verbs?
>>
>> Karl W. Randolph.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, Karl. Neither Ex 14:2 nor Is 57:2 is a verb.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Pere
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta
>
>