1richardbsmith
I am really stumbling over the list of society positions in 3.2,3. This is apparently a list of the essential positions for a stable and strong society, and these position are being removed from Judah by Yahweh rendering society unstable and weak.
It is odd to me that included in this list of essential positions are the skillful magician and the expert in charms.
Not getting much help from the initial checks with the lexicons.
Will do some more looking.
Also the word for "babes" in the RSV verse 4 evidently has a possible alternative translation.
It is odd to me that included in this list of essential positions are the skillful magician and the expert in charms.
Not getting much help from the initial checks with the lexicons.
Will do some more looking.
Also the word for "babes" in the RSV verse 4 evidently has a possible alternative translation.
2richardbsmith
NIV
2 the soothsayer and elder,
3 the captain of fifty and man of rank,
the counselor, skilled craftsman and clever enchanter.
NASB
The diviner and the elder,
3The captain of fifty and the honorable man,
The counselor and the expert artisan,
And the skillful enchanter
KJV
2 the prudent, and the ancient,
3The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.
LXX (My lame translation)
2 the considerer (or the guesser), and the elder, 3 and the leader of 50, (skips the honorable man), and the wonderful advisor, and the wise artificer, and the understanding hearer
RSV
The diviner and the elder,
3The captain of fifty and the man of rank,
The counselor and the expert magician,
And the expert in charms
The question is how to understand the bold words. Some versions include positions that Isaiah would seem to think helpful to a society – prudent, artificer, and orator. These seem to be of a kind with the other positions.
Some versions include positions that Isaiah would seem to think are against the Yahweh cult and would not think are good for society – diviner, expert magician, enchanter.
I have not seen any notes on the translation difficulties. Does anyone have any information?
How should these various representative translations be taken?
With the idea that Isaiah would problably have thought differently depending on which sense he was using for the bold words, does it make any difference in the significance of the passage?
2 the soothsayer and elder,
3 the captain of fifty and man of rank,
the counselor, skilled craftsman and clever enchanter.
NASB
The diviner and the elder,
3The captain of fifty and the honorable man,
The counselor and the expert artisan,
And the skillful enchanter
KJV
2 the prudent, and the ancient,
3The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.
LXX (My lame translation)
2 the considerer (or the guesser), and the elder, 3 and the leader of 50, (skips the honorable man), and the wonderful advisor, and the wise artificer, and the understanding hearer
RSV
The diviner and the elder,
3The captain of fifty and the man of rank,
The counselor and the expert magician,
And the expert in charms
The question is how to understand the bold words. Some versions include positions that Isaiah would seem to think helpful to a society – prudent, artificer, and orator. These seem to be of a kind with the other positions.
Some versions include positions that Isaiah would seem to think are against the Yahweh cult and would not think are good for society – diviner, expert magician, enchanter.
I have not seen any notes on the translation difficulties. Does anyone have any information?
How should these various representative translations be taken?
With the idea that Isaiah would problably have thought differently depending on which sense he was using for the bold words, does it make any difference in the significance of the passage?
3jimroberts
Moffatt:
Here is the Lord,
the Lord of hosts,
removing every prop and stay
from Judah and Jerusalem,
soldier and warrior,
governor and prophet,
seer, sheikh, and officia,
authorities and councillors,
expert magicians and enchanters.
He has "whims" for "babes" in v. 4. "Babes" would fit the poetic balance, though.
Here is the Lord,
the Lord of hosts,
removing every prop and stay
from Judah and Jerusalem,
soldier and warrior,
governor and prophet,
seer, sheikh, and officia,
authorities and councillors,
expert magicians and enchanters.
He has "whims" for "babes" in v. 4. "Babes" would fit the poetic balance, though.
4richardbsmith
thanks Jim, "sheikh" is an interesting option for "elder."
The phrase translated "expert magician" or "expert artisan" is confused because the same 3 letter root has different meanings. This is true with the same word in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, and Phoenican based on the definitions from the BDB lexicon.
It can mean as a verb to cut in, to engrave, to plow, and as a noun, graver or artificer in metal, wood, stone, or gems. It can also mean idol maker.
It can also have the meaning as a noun to mean magic art or magic drug. Related useages in Aramaic and Ethiopic, according to BDB, can mean incantation, preparing magic potions, one using incantations.
As a verb the root can mean to be silent, dumb, speechless. This sense has related words as adjectives and adverb, but no noun form. So this meaning is not one of the available options.
But artificer or magician seem to be both reasonable choices, and I really do not have an idea on what to base the selection. Context seems the only clue, and it is not conclusive for me.
The modifier means skillful or wise - so we have a skilled artificer or a skilled magician.
And I do think the choice impacts the significance of the passage.
The phrase translated "expert magician" or "expert artisan" is confused because the same 3 letter root has different meanings. This is true with the same word in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, and Phoenican based on the definitions from the BDB lexicon.
It can mean as a verb to cut in, to engrave, to plow, and as a noun, graver or artificer in metal, wood, stone, or gems. It can also mean idol maker.
It can also have the meaning as a noun to mean magic art or magic drug. Related useages in Aramaic and Ethiopic, according to BDB, can mean incantation, preparing magic potions, one using incantations.
As a verb the root can mean to be silent, dumb, speechless. This sense has related words as adjectives and adverb, but no noun form. So this meaning is not one of the available options.
But artificer or magician seem to be both reasonable choices, and I really do not have an idea on what to base the selection. Context seems the only clue, and it is not conclusive for me.
The modifier means skillful or wise - so we have a skilled artificer or a skilled magician.
And I do think the choice impacts the significance of the passage.
5richardbsmith
The phrase translated "expert in charms" or "eloquent orator" is a word that means as a verb "to whisper" and as a noun "a whispering".
I actually think that scholarship is determining that the word was used to describe serpent charming, and as a noun charms and amulets. It would nice if I could find some discussion of this development in interpretation. As it stands, I am assuming that KJV and LXX scholars were not aware of that useage when they translated "eloquent orators" and "understanding hearer". With the KJV, it seems reasonable, but not so much with the LXX translators.
Anyway, if we assume this word is best understood as "expert in charms" then it is easier to read the phrase discussed in #4 as "skilled magician". Even more so given the "seer" or "diviner" in verse 2.
These translations, for me, slant the interpretation of the passage.
I actually think that scholarship is determining that the word was used to describe serpent charming, and as a noun charms and amulets. It would nice if I could find some discussion of this development in interpretation. As it stands, I am assuming that KJV and LXX scholars were not aware of that useage when they translated "eloquent orators" and "understanding hearer". With the KJV, it seems reasonable, but not so much with the LXX translators.
Anyway, if we assume this word is best understood as "expert in charms" then it is easier to read the phrase discussed in #4 as "skilled magician". Even more so given the "seer" or "diviner" in verse 2.
These translations, for me, slant the interpretation of the passage.
6geneg
#5, "The modifier means skillful or wise...".
All things being equal, I would prefer wise over skillful. Skillful implies a level of ability, while wise implies not just skillful but using that skill wisely. An expert can still be a fool, it is much harder for a wise person to be a fool. In the biblical context a wise person will not be a magician or an idolator because those things represent the antithesis of wisdom.
Just my thought. Once again, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting here, Richard.
All things being equal, I would prefer wise over skillful. Skillful implies a level of ability, while wise implies not just skillful but using that skill wisely. An expert can still be a fool, it is much harder for a wise person to be a fool. In the biblical context a wise person will not be a magician or an idolator because those things represent the antithesis of wisdom.
Just my thought. Once again, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting here, Richard.
7richardbsmith
All things being equal, I would prefer wise over skillful.
geneg,
Agree fully. I think though the word more intends high competence in the associated field -whether we are speaking of a field with wisdom as the high competence or skill as the high competence, the distinction probably lies with the field. Reading it to mean wisdom in use of a skill may come close to reading an English significance into an ancient Hebrew phrase.
And I could be totally wrong in that point.
I wish I could find more info on this. Isaiah is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated with these hard to translate phrases.
I saw a decent discussion of this issue in Mauchline's Isaiah 1-39. I do not have this book, but will try to copy some notes on his discussion. There is a copy in a local used book store.
wise person will not be a magician or an idolator because those things represent the antithesis of wisdom.
This is part of the problem with figuring this out. The section begins with Yahweh Sabbaoth removing every staple and stay from Judah, and then lists these professions that include seers, magicians, and snake charmers. Some commentaries even suggest that these professions might have been thought of as corrupt.
I just do not know how to read this passage. The discussion in Mauchline, referred above, said some had thought that 2 and 3 were additions because they did not make sense with the passage. More modern commentaries that I have do not address the issue.
geneg,
Agree fully. I think though the word more intends high competence in the associated field -whether we are speaking of a field with wisdom as the high competence or skill as the high competence, the distinction probably lies with the field. Reading it to mean wisdom in use of a skill may come close to reading an English significance into an ancient Hebrew phrase.
And I could be totally wrong in that point.
I wish I could find more info on this. Isaiah is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated with these hard to translate phrases.
I saw a decent discussion of this issue in Mauchline's Isaiah 1-39. I do not have this book, but will try to copy some notes on his discussion. There is a copy in a local used book store.
wise person will not be a magician or an idolator because those things represent the antithesis of wisdom.
This is part of the problem with figuring this out. The section begins with Yahweh Sabbaoth removing every staple and stay from Judah, and then lists these professions that include seers, magicians, and snake charmers. Some commentaries even suggest that these professions might have been thought of as corrupt.
I just do not know how to read this passage. The discussion in Mauchline, referred above, said some had thought that 2 and 3 were additions because they did not make sense with the passage. More modern commentaries that I have do not address the issue.
8richardbsmith
All things being equal, I would prefer wise over skillful.
geneg,
Agree fully. I think though the word more intends high competence in the associated field -whether we are speaking of a field with wisdom as the high competence or skill as the high competence, the distinction probably lies with the field. Reading it to mean wisdom in use of a skill may come close to reading an English significance into an ancient Hebrew phrase.
And I could be totally wrong in that point.
I wish I could find more info on this. Isaiah is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated with these hard to translate phrases.
I saw a decent discussion of this issue in Mauchline's Isaiah 1-39. I do not have this book, but will try to copy some notes on his discussion. There is a copy in a local used book store.
wise person will not be a magician or an idolator because those things represent the antithesis of wisdom.
This is part of the problem with figuring this out. The section begins with Yahweh Sabbaoth removing every staple and stay from Judah, and then lists these professions that include seers, magicians, and snake charmers. Some commentaries even suggest that all the listed professions, including the "good" ones, might have been thought of here as corrupt.
I just do not know how to read this passage. The discussion in Mauchline, referred above, said some had thought that 2 and 3 were additions because they did not make sense with the passage. More modern commentaries that I have do not address the issue.
geneg,
Agree fully. I think though the word more intends high competence in the associated field -whether we are speaking of a field with wisdom as the high competence or skill as the high competence, the distinction probably lies with the field. Reading it to mean wisdom in use of a skill may come close to reading an English significance into an ancient Hebrew phrase.
And I could be totally wrong in that point.
I wish I could find more info on this. Isaiah is proving to be more difficult than I anticipated with these hard to translate phrases.
I saw a decent discussion of this issue in Mauchline's Isaiah 1-39. I do not have this book, but will try to copy some notes on his discussion. There is a copy in a local used book store.
wise person will not be a magician or an idolator because those things represent the antithesis of wisdom.
This is part of the problem with figuring this out. The section begins with Yahweh Sabbaoth removing every staple and stay from Judah, and then lists these professions that include seers, magicians, and snake charmers. Some commentaries even suggest that all the listed professions, including the "good" ones, might have been thought of here as corrupt.
I just do not know how to read this passage. The discussion in Mauchline, referred above, said some had thought that 2 and 3 were additions because they did not make sense with the passage. More modern commentaries that I have do not address the issue.
9richardbsmith
Some commentaries even suggest that all the listed professions, including the "good" ones, might have been thought of here as corrupt.
Along this line, it needs to be mentioned that prophet here may be a reference to the class of professional, court prophets, rather than the classical, ecstatic prophets such as Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea, and others well known from the OT scriptures. The class of prophets that is challenged and wrong generally in Isaiah.
Along this line, it needs to be mentioned that prophet here may be a reference to the class of professional, court prophets, rather than the classical, ecstatic prophets such as Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea, and others well known from the OT scriptures. The class of prophets that is challenged and wrong generally in Isaiah.
10richardbsmith
After some reflection on the questions about the precise translation of these positions, I am left with the thought that these are simply the positions that exist in society - good and bad.
Isaiah is not saying that the Lord Yahweh Sabaoth will remove the good society supports, he is saying that He will remove all society supports, both good and bad, reliable and unreliable.
Boys left to rule. Men left to oppress their comrades. No one to take the responsibility for leadership because they are only concerned to provide their own food, clothes and shelter.
This approach does not resolve the translation issues, it only recognizes that those issues are not significant. Which I think is the approach of most commentaries.
Isaiah is not saying that the Lord Yahweh Sabaoth will remove the good society supports, he is saying that He will remove all society supports, both good and bad, reliable and unreliable.
Boys left to rule. Men left to oppress their comrades. No one to take the responsibility for leadership because they are only concerned to provide their own food, clothes and shelter.
This approach does not resolve the translation issues, it only recognizes that those issues are not significant. Which I think is the approach of most commentaries.
11richardbsmith
NIV 4 I will make boys their officials;
mere children will govern them.
Verse 4 most all translations have children. Looking at the lexicons though it seems that to translate with "wantonness" may be a better choice.
Parallelism of the verse would lean to children, but it appears that the root of the word may require a stretch to mean child. The roots for child and wantonness have similar spellings, and neither are common in the form that appears in verse 4.
The thing is that the "wantonness" rendering has a slightly different meaning in English than I generally associate with that word.
The root is to act severely, to practice in wickedness, to be evil towards. I am taking this to be not so much lewd or unchecked, but merciless or cruel.
The subsequent verses may support this interpretation - meaning without strong societal support, men treat each other with self interest and cruelity, with wantonness.
This interpretation is contrary to the vast majority of translations, including the most modern. Jim above in #5 mentions Moffatt's translation has "whims". The English Standard shows "caprice" as an option in the footnotes.
The NASB tries to cover both possibilities:
4And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
I am sticking with the "wantonness" translation, but it is probably best to stick with the scholars who actually know and use the "children" translation. (Especially since I am taking the minority opinion, and then going away even from that. All without any Hebrew credentials whatsoever. Pretty impressive, huh. :) )
mere children will govern them.
Verse 4 most all translations have children. Looking at the lexicons though it seems that to translate with "wantonness" may be a better choice.
Parallelism of the verse would lean to children, but it appears that the root of the word may require a stretch to mean child. The roots for child and wantonness have similar spellings, and neither are common in the form that appears in verse 4.
The thing is that the "wantonness" rendering has a slightly different meaning in English than I generally associate with that word.
The root is to act severely, to practice in wickedness, to be evil towards. I am taking this to be not so much lewd or unchecked, but merciless or cruel.
The subsequent verses may support this interpretation - meaning without strong societal support, men treat each other with self interest and cruelity, with wantonness.
This interpretation is contrary to the vast majority of translations, including the most modern. Jim above in #5 mentions Moffatt's translation has "whims". The English Standard shows "caprice" as an option in the footnotes.
The NASB tries to cover both possibilities:
4And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
I am sticking with the "wantonness" translation, but it is probably best to stick with the scholars who actually know and use the "children" translation. (Especially since I am taking the minority opinion, and then going away even from that. All without any Hebrew credentials whatsoever. Pretty impressive, huh. :) )
12richardbsmith
Verse 24
KVJ and burning instead of beauty.
NIV instead of beauty, branding.
RSV instead of beauty, shame
These are interesting differences. In the KJV and NIV "burning" or "branding" come from a word that has the same spelling as the Hebrew word for "that" or "because" or "indeed". Its use in the sense of "branding" is unique to this passage.
The RSV translation is based on the Isaiah Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most translations retain "branding," I'm just not sure to what "branding" might refer.
KVJ and burning instead of beauty.
NIV instead of beauty, branding.
RSV instead of beauty, shame
These are interesting differences. In the KJV and NIV "burning" or "branding" come from a word that has the same spelling as the Hebrew word for "that" or "because" or "indeed". Its use in the sense of "branding" is unique to this passage.
The RSV translation is based on the Isaiah Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most translations retain "branding," I'm just not sure to what "branding" might refer.
13jimroberts
#11: richardbsmith "slightly different meaning in English than I generally associate"
Wanton is cruel in "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.". That example is a bit old, but the meaning is still current.
Wanton is cruel in "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.". That example is a bit old, but the meaning is still current.
14richardbsmith
>13 jimroberts: Wanton is cruel in "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.". That example is a bit old, but the meaning is still current.
Jim,
Very nicely subtle selection in the example of word usage, softly alluding to our brief discussion elsewhere of Gilgamesh, among other ties. Well done. :)
Thinking more on the treatment of verse 4, as it seems to me "wantonness" is the better translation despite the weight of scholarly opinion evidenced in the translations.
I do not have access to any translation notes on this, but it may be that "children" is preferred because 1. the word is not common for either root 2. therefore neither root can be reliably preferred 3. the possibility then exists for some text corruption or scribal change 4. therefore parallelism is the better guide. This leading to the common preference of "children."
Jim,
Very nicely subtle selection in the example of word usage, softly alluding to our brief discussion elsewhere of Gilgamesh, among other ties. Well done. :)
Thinking more on the treatment of verse 4, as it seems to me "wantonness" is the better translation despite the weight of scholarly opinion evidenced in the translations.
I do not have access to any translation notes on this, but it may be that "children" is preferred because 1. the word is not common for either root 2. therefore neither root can be reliably preferred 3. the possibility then exists for some text corruption or scribal change 4. therefore parallelism is the better guide. This leading to the common preference of "children."
15richardbsmith
Moving on to verse 9. (I am a very fast reader. :) )
It is probably not an important point, but it seems to me that verse 9 should be rendered in translation:
Their partiality answers against them,
Their sins, as with Sodom, declare (against them).
Most translations have something like "They declare their sins like Sodom."
It seems to me that the poetic parallelism is better with "their sins" as the subject. And frankly I think the reference to Sodom makes more since with "their sins" as the subject.
Maybe someone with better Hebrew can comment?
It is probably not an important point, but it seems to me that verse 9 should be rendered in translation:
Their partiality answers against them,
Their sins, as with Sodom, declare (against them).
Most translations have something like "They declare their sins like Sodom."
It seems to me that the poetic parallelism is better with "their sins" as the subject. And frankly I think the reference to Sodom makes more since with "their sins" as the subject.
Maybe someone with better Hebrew can comment?
16richardbsmith
Verses 9c-12
It surprises me sometimes the translations are so ready to let go the poetic force of some passages. Consider verse 10 as an insertion, and read 9c and 11 together, omitting the inserted 10. Sense the rhythm and word repetition that is missing in some of the translations, but is in the Hebrew.
9c Woe to their souls for they render to themselves evil
10 {They say the righteous that the good, that the fruit of their work they will consume.} (This is an insertion, breaking the poetic structure)
11 Woe to the harmful guilty for that rendered by their hands will be done to them.
Verse 12 Here again there is a loss of the poetic force from the “my people” as appositives. At least the KJV and the RSV hint at the poetic structure. It is lost in later translations when the phrase is generally changed to a sentence. NIV “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.”
My people
Their government (oppressors) from children
and women rule over them
My people
Your leaders lead astray
and the way of your paths they have swallowed
The shift from referring to my people in the 3rd person to the 2nd person, I also think is effective to communicate a movement from accusation to compassion. The translation of government or oppressors /despots seems to me to be simply one of personal preference.
Some translations have “confused” for “swallow”. The Hebrew words are similar, but the Hebrew text has “swallow”. To choose “confused” seems to me to have made a determination that there was a scribal error, but the verb is used wrt to land in 2 Samuel 20.19.
It surprises me sometimes the translations are so ready to let go the poetic force of some passages. Consider verse 10 as an insertion, and read 9c and 11 together, omitting the inserted 10. Sense the rhythm and word repetition that is missing in some of the translations, but is in the Hebrew.
9c Woe to their souls for they render to themselves evil
10 {They say the righteous that the good, that the fruit of their work they will consume.} (This is an insertion, breaking the poetic structure)
11 Woe to the harmful guilty for that rendered by their hands will be done to them.
Verse 12 Here again there is a loss of the poetic force from the “my people” as appositives. At least the KJV and the RSV hint at the poetic structure. It is lost in later translations when the phrase is generally changed to a sentence. NIV “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.”
My people
Their government (oppressors) from children
and women rule over them
My people
Your leaders lead astray
and the way of your paths they have swallowed
The shift from referring to my people in the 3rd person to the 2nd person, I also think is effective to communicate a movement from accusation to compassion. The translation of government or oppressors /despots seems to me to be simply one of personal preference.
Some translations have “confused” for “swallow”. The Hebrew words are similar, but the Hebrew text has “swallow”. To choose “confused” seems to me to have made a determination that there was a scribal error, but the verb is used wrt to land in 2 Samuel 20.19.
17richardbsmith
Verses 16-26
These verses come out strongly against women. It seems misogynistic to modern senses, but it may be that the focus is on the elite women of Jerusalem, and so it is the status of being an elite rather than of being a woman that is treated here.
The list of finery in 18-23 is an addition according to most commentators, and though many of the items are not known they point to excessive jewelry, etc.
Verse 25 and 26 seem to have a different theme, so to review the treatment of the women in this chapter I will focus on 16-17, and 24.
Some commentaries include 4.1 with this section, but I think that verse fits better with the themes in Chapter 4.
In the verses 16-17, 24, there is some idiomatic phrasing that is interesting. Will try to work through these.
While we are on the subject of how women are represented in Chapter 3, how should we take verse 12? "Women rule over them."
There seems to be a wide range of interpretations there: women in political position, women directing and controling the men (conveying the idea of weak men) or men described as acting like women, with any and all of the women stereotypes of weak and emotional. (Not my opinions, please.) No way to select between these options that I know of.
Even the verb can be rendered differently, I think. Women rule over them. Women govern them. Two different nuances in English.
ETA I have started separate topic on this question.
These verses come out strongly against women. It seems misogynistic to modern senses, but it may be that the focus is on the elite women of Jerusalem, and so it is the status of being an elite rather than of being a woman that is treated here.
The list of finery in 18-23 is an addition according to most commentators, and though many of the items are not known they point to excessive jewelry, etc.
Verse 25 and 26 seem to have a different theme, so to review the treatment of the women in this chapter I will focus on 16-17, and 24.
Some commentaries include 4.1 with this section, but I think that verse fits better with the themes in Chapter 4.
In the verses 16-17, 24, there is some idiomatic phrasing that is interesting. Will try to work through these.
While we are on the subject of how women are represented in Chapter 3, how should we take verse 12? "Women rule over them."
There seems to be a wide range of interpretations there: women in political position, women directing and controling the men (conveying the idea of weak men) or men described as acting like women, with any and all of the women stereotypes of weak and emotional. (Not my opinions, please.) No way to select between these options that I know of.
Even the verb can be rendered differently, I think. Women rule over them. Women govern them. Two different nuances in English.
ETA I have started separate topic on this question.
18richardbsmith
Looking more at verse 12, specifically the reference to babes and women.
Peakes Commentary writes wrt to vs 12:
"One might read, 'My people-its extractors(tax collectors) are gleaning (it), usurers (noshim) rule over it.'
This reading is very intriguing to me because it is difficult to place any context to babes (very young kings) or women ruling during Isaiah's ministry.
Jotham was 25 years old. Ahaz, 20. and Hezekiah, 25. Young for certain, but not boys. And the times were troublesome with Israel being completely exiled, but it is a stretch to think of them as boys, especially with the elder advisors no doubt present.
No hint of the presence of a woman of high influence at all.
In verse 4 there is a specific mention of boys as rulers, but the Hebrew word in 4 is not the same as in 12.
In fact the word for babes in verse 12, is the same root as the word for babes mentioned in >1 richardbsmith: and discussed in >11 richardbsmith:. And it is the same root that can be read in different meanings.
Peakes uses in this discussion about verse 12 an additional meaning to those offered in the discussion of >11 richardbsmith:. Now the meaning is from the root of "to glean."
Babes and women rulers also do not fit real well in the context of chapter 3. The context moves from the loss of society supports to everyone oppressing each other.
The idea of an oppressive government and rampant usurery may provide a better fit to the immediate context of woe to the wicked and leaders who lead astray.
Peakes Commentary is old, but I like it and this reading makes sense to me.
The word translated women has the same consonants as the plural participle for the word "to lend." The only difference is in the vowels (noshim vs nashim women), which in Hebrew are not part of the spelling, but are added to the text as aids. It is very possible that when the vowels were added the original text was read to mean women rather than usurers.
Peakes Commentary writes wrt to vs 12:
"One might read, 'My people-its extractors(tax collectors) are gleaning (it), usurers (noshim) rule over it.'
This reading is very intriguing to me because it is difficult to place any context to babes (very young kings) or women ruling during Isaiah's ministry.
Jotham was 25 years old. Ahaz, 20. and Hezekiah, 25. Young for certain, but not boys. And the times were troublesome with Israel being completely exiled, but it is a stretch to think of them as boys, especially with the elder advisors no doubt present.
No hint of the presence of a woman of high influence at all.
In verse 4 there is a specific mention of boys as rulers, but the Hebrew word in 4 is not the same as in 12.
In fact the word for babes in verse 12, is the same root as the word for babes mentioned in >1 richardbsmith: and discussed in >11 richardbsmith:. And it is the same root that can be read in different meanings.
Peakes uses in this discussion about verse 12 an additional meaning to those offered in the discussion of >11 richardbsmith:. Now the meaning is from the root of "to glean."
Babes and women rulers also do not fit real well in the context of chapter 3. The context moves from the loss of society supports to everyone oppressing each other.
The idea of an oppressive government and rampant usurery may provide a better fit to the immediate context of woe to the wicked and leaders who lead astray.
Peakes Commentary is old, but I like it and this reading makes sense to me.
The word translated women has the same consonants as the plural participle for the word "to lend." The only difference is in the vowels (noshim vs nashim women), which in Hebrew are not part of the spelling, but are added to the text as aids. It is very possible that when the vowels were added the original text was read to mean women rather than usurers.
19richardbsmith
Checking the LXX on verse 12.
The LXX renders the passage quite similarly to the Peakes version. This seems to make the Peakes version the better reading over the references to babes and women.
With the LXX there are even more differences though, which I do not have time today to research.
A new question that comes to mind though is why my Oxford Annotated bible does not mention these text differences. Too numerous to list or maybe the questions have been settled definitively?
Every English translation I read has some version of babes and women, rather than rulers glean and usurers rule. At the present, I am settled that the right reading is the latter.
The LXX renders the passage quite similarly to the Peakes version. This seems to make the Peakes version the better reading over the references to babes and women.
With the LXX there are even more differences though, which I do not have time today to research.
A new question that comes to mind though is why my Oxford Annotated bible does not mention these text differences. Too numerous to list or maybe the questions have been settled definitively?
Every English translation I read has some version of babes and women, rather than rulers glean and usurers rule. At the present, I am settled that the right reading is the latter.
