Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

Expand Messages
  • andrew fincke
    Dear Drew, I m unclear what you mean by It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for asurim =
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 2, 2011
      Dear Drew,
      I'm unclear what you mean by
      It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for "asurim" = "captives".
      Also vague is
      but it appears at face value we may have an instance of simple misreading.
      Great is that you see shin - with its 3 prongs - as mirrror image of ayin+vav, which also has three prongs. I like "simple misreading." The whole New Testament, whose thematic shrivels down to the healing of blind people - is the result of a scribal error at Isa. 61:1!
      Andrew Fincke




      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      From: drewlongacre@...
      Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:37:29 -0700
      Subject: Re: [lxx] Isa. 40:20






      I haven't had a chance to look at the examples in detail, but one alternate possibility struck me for Isa 61:1. Ayin - waw in the Qumran scrolls are often written together so as to be almost indistinguishable from the letter shin. It is probably not a coincidence then, that the letter shin/sin is a common alternative spelling for "asurim" = "captives". The aleph is a little more difficult to account for (perhaps omitted by quiessence "la'`ivirim" > "la`ivirim), but it appears at face value we may have an instance of simple misreading.

      -Drew Longacre

      From: finckean <finckea@...>
      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:18 AM
      Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20



      Never ceased to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article he as it so often does - thus asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming '+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" are homonynms - well you can draw your own conclusions. Anyway, I ordered J. L. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who
      sets up', as the LXX's �������ύ���� (kateskeuazen) suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19, b.t.w, and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei, ��ή���) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are quite indestinguishable. The translations "poor man" for hamesukkan has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect
      that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • andrew fincke
      At the risk of being kicked out of the list and being condemned by my Creator, I offer the following: PESEL at Isa. 40:20 is the abbreviation of pedestal,
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 14, 2011
        At the risk of being kicked out of the list and being condemned by my Creator, I offer the following:
        PESEL at Isa. 40:20 is the abbreviation of pedestal, something to stand on. The crucified person's intent - His obsession - is to "establish a pedestal" to relieve the pressure. Keep MISKEN, the wretched "poor man" on the cross, and marvel how Isaiah saw all these things 600 years before the fact! And you don't have to change "And he didn't totter (YAMUT with tet)" to "And he didn't die (YAMUT with tav)" as I earlier suggested. The Crucified finds a fulcrum to prevent "tottering" and establishes a foothold from which to continue His existence. After three days He emerges from the tomb intact. Now let the etymologists out of their cages to attack me for putting "pedestal" in Isaiah's vocabulary! Not only did he prophecy the crucifixion but also words that had not yet come into existence!
        Andrew Fincke




        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        From: finckea@...
        Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:15:11 -0400
        Subject: RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20







        Boy, it's hard to admit you're wrong!
        Driver's note 4 about the lack of support for MISKEN = "poor man" refers to Accadian, which reserves the root ShKN for SHAKIN "was put." The relevant note for MISKEN "poor man" is the next one, note 5, which heartily supports "poor man" with good evidence from Ben Sira. But Driver goes too far with the importation of 41:6-7 to betweeen verse 19 and 20 to make sense of the passage. What we've got here - if you don't want Kittel's MEKONEN - is a crucifixion prophecy: the "poor man" = "offering" TERUMA, the wood that doesn't rot, for "he chose" YIBCHAR read BACHUR "hero," For CHARASH "craftsman" read CHERESH "dumb" ("He didn't open His mouth"), wise, and finally "it doesn't move (YAMUT with tet)" read "And He didn't die (YAMUT with tav). Problem with that is the penumltimate clause: "He sought to set up an image (PESEL)," which the change of PESEL to SEFEL to get "He sought to set up a (drinking) vessel" (cf. "I thirst") is weak. You don't "set up" a drinking vessel. So if "He sought to set up an image" is fixed, then "setting up (MEKONEN) an offering (TERUMA)" is the most sensible way out, and Driver's appeal to Accadian TARIMTU, which is something of silver (see Driver's citations and Black/George/Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Accadian, 400), is helpful.
        Andrew Fincke


        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        From: finckea@...
        Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:16:30 -0400
        Subject: RE: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        From: finckea@...
        Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:18:36 +0000
        Subject: [lxx] Isa. 40:20

        Never cease to be amazed at how the Septuagint people loved to play with the Hebrew letter samek. At Isa. 61:1 is the classic example, where "captives" (Heb. 'asurim with samek) becomes "blind men" (Heb. 'ivvarim with ayin+vav for samek) in LXX and Luke 4:18. (Note that the aleph exhanged with the Hebrew definite article, he, as it so often does - thus 'asurim became ha-'ivvarim "the blind" with samek+vav becoming ayin+vav+vav.) Since 'ivvarim and 'ivrim "Hebrews" - i..e. "Jews" - are homonynms - we have one more evidence of Isaiah's antisemitic tendency. Anyway, I ordered J. F. Mozley's "Tyndale's Knowledge of Hebrew" through ILL, since Oxford U. Press wants $25 for the five pages online from Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935), 392-396. It came attached to an email from Tyndale House in Cambridge, and since 396 is an even page the scan included a bit of the following article by G.R. Driver on Isa. 40:20. There he agonizes over the Hebrew word hamesukkan and says (p. 397): "It cannot be 'he who sets up', as the LXX's kateskeuazen suggests, as it is difficult to find a root skn." But kateskeuazen "he set up (an idol)" - which is at the end of verse 19 and not at the begin of verse 20 - is exactly what the context requires in view of "he stood up (LXX: sthsei) an image" at 20b. Hamesukkan "?" is an error - so LXX - for hamekonen "he who sets up" with samek the misreading of the ligature kof+vav, what anyone with an eye for the Hebrew alphabet spots at once. Kittel proposed just that in his Isaiah fascicle (1937) for Biblia Hebraica, whose reprint in 1952 includes the IQIsa-a variants in a third apparatus added at page-bottom; but Winton Thomas in his 1968 edition of Isaiah for BHS rejected the conjecture. That the kof of hamesukan lost its upper horizontal to become the nun of hemekonen is understandable from Herodian script, whose kof - and this is supported by the photo of 1QISa-a to the verse - and nun are difficult to distinguish from each other. That's progress for you! I guess in the sixties there were bigger issues than correctly understanding Isa. 40:19-20. The translations all have "poor man" for hamesukkan, but that has little to offer other than the weak support of Eccl. 10:9, as Driver, note 4 explains. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Brill, 2010, 408 to the effect that hamesukkan teruma is a "second-hand" addition to IQIsa-a is not supported by the photo in Perry/Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll, Brill, 1999, 66.
        Andrew Fincke
        PS This is a resubmit of a message which I forgot to sign. I made a number of corrections to the original and added the bit about the Kittel conjecture from the Isaiah fascicle which somehow got into my library. I thank the list for granting me this, my first look into the Kittel's edition, which is a wealth of information and breathes the excitement of the discovery of IQIsa-a. The Thomas thing for BHS is a mere shadow of its predecessor - has nothing from Qumran and little else of use.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.