From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<78714@hydra.gatech.EDU> <fWYBWCD@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<adams.725124795@spssig>
Date: 3 Jan 1993 07:11:57 UTC

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Paul asks for the NRSV rendering of Isaiah 9:1, so I'll add it here, along
>with the NASB and a few comments...
>The NRSV is the New Oxford Study Bible, and the NASB is the Ryrie New
>American Study Bible.
>[I moved all the translations together, also]
  Isaiah 9:1 (NIV)   Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom
     for those who were in distress. IN THE PAST he humbled the land
     of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, BUT IN THE FUTURE he will
     honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the
     Jordan--
  Isaiah9:1(KJV): NEVERTHELESS the dimness *shall* not *be* such as *was*
     in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of
     Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievoulsy
     afflict *her by* the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
     nations.
  Isaiah 8:23(JPS): For (o-)if there were to be(-o) any break of day for
     that [land] which is in straits, only the former [king] would have
     brought abasement to the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali -
     while the later one would have brought honor to the Way of the Sea, the
     other side of the Jordan, and Galilee of the Nations.(p)
     ---
     o-o: So 1QIs(a); the others have "there is not."
     p: Meaning of verse uncertain. The rendering here assumes that "the
     former [king]" refers to Pekah (cf. 2Kings15.29) and "the latter" to
     Hoshea (ibid. 30). For the construction "lu ... ka'eth," see Judg.13-23.
  Isaiah9:1(NRSV): But there will be no gloom for those who were in
     anguish.  In the former time he brought into contempt the land of
     Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make
     glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of
     the nations.
  Isaiah9:1(NASB): But there will be no more gloom for her who was in
     anguish, In earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land
     of Naphtali with contempt, but later on, he shall make it glorious,
     by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the
     Gentiles.

>>OK, where to begin? First, note the KJV translation I have included and
>>note that the NIV is not based on the KJV/Septuagint translation, in
>>fact NIV has gone far off into left field, in my not so humble opinion.
>Hmm.  NIV in far left field?  It appears close to the NRSV, and to the
>NASB.  The English of the JPS is stilted, and the other versions, except
>the AV (what you call the KJV) are very close in wording.  They convey the
>meaning of the JPS.  

In case anyone really cares, NIV arrives at their translation after a
fair bit of exegesis. The Hebrew "former and later" are assumed to refer
to time, and Gentiles, from the Vulgate gentilis (Latin for Nations), is
used instead of the correct modern English word: Nations. Exegesis is
quite common in Christian translations where the two seperate issues of
translation of the word and exegesis of the word are often mixed.

>>At the minimum, please study and compare the three translations and draw
>>your own conclusions. That said, there are some shorthand notations here
>>that should be explained. First off, in the KJV, words have been added to
>>the Hebrew text to make the passage have some type of meaning and these
>>words are in italics or surrounded by stars as I have here. Any italics
>>in KJV are words that are not in the original Hebrew or Greek
>>Scriptures, they have been added as an aid. JPS has done the same thing
>>except words added are in brackets [] and a footnote describes how they
>>arrived at this rendering. 
>>Also, JPS references the complete ancient
>>Hebrew Isaiah scroll found at Qumran, (1QIs(a) meaning manuscript *a* of
>>Isaiah found in the first cave of Qumran), which was not available at
>>the time of KJV but may have been for the NIV. 
>According to the notes in the front of the NIV, they used the Dead Sea
>Scroll information to guide them, but used the Masoretic Text of Biblia
>Hebraica as a baseline.

>>And, regarding the
>>differences in verse number and chapter: Chapter and verse numbers are
>>not part of the original texts, neither Hebrew nor Greek, they were
>>added some time just before the KJV as a convenient means to index the
>>scripture. JPS uses the same scheme as KJV, except where they disagree
>>with the chapter breaks which happens only occaisionally, as in this
>>case. So, in the opinion of JPS, this verse is part of chapter 8, not 9.
>In addition, there are disagrements in chapter/verse numbers where the
>Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ.
>>You don't have to believe me and I'm certainly not going to try and
>>translate it here, but it's not that big of a deal. You can do it
>>yourself. Go to your local library, find the Hebrew for this verse and
>>find a good Biblical Hebrew dictionary and go at it and see what you
>>come up with. I think you will find yourself quite close to JPS, which
>>is after all a conservative, just what the Hebrew says, nothing more
>>nothing less, translation. 
>While a 'word for word' translation may be 'best' for some purposes, idioms
>must be rendered in different terms, or explained in text notes.  The trick
>is rendering something understandable that relates the message of the text.

All languages have constructions and words take on meaning from the
surrounding text, but a good Biblical Hebrew dictionary or lexicon will
have many of these. The JPS translation makes notes of rare constructions
where they are found, for example the "lu ... ka'eth" construction
mentioned above. Such notes allow the student to see how the translation
was derived. The trick in good translation is to capture the words and
overtones of the original in the target language and to allow the reader
to arrive at his or her own meaning or message. Exegesis is good, but the wise
know better than to alter the original word unless they specifically
state they are doing such and the situation warrants. The original word
stands on its own, only a fool would claim to know the author's intent.
The guidance of exegesis should be welcomed, but it should be made clear
what is exegesis and what is the original word - assuming one honors and
respects the original author.

>>In article <78714@hydra.gatech.EDU>
>>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>You know I consider the OT and NT vaild.  And the NT shines light
>>>on the OT, but yet too the NT comes from the OT, for the NT tells us
>>>what Jesus did, but the OT tells us he was coming.
>>You think what you know is the absolute right, the absolute truth. 
>Almost every religion makes this claim, implicitly or not.  That it holds
>the one, true way, and is the sole possesor of God's truth.  Christianity,
>Islam and Judaism sure do...

This statement is not correct. This kind of dogmatic thinking is largely
limited to the two great conversion religions: Christianity and Islam.
For example, from the Hindu epic, The Mahabharata, Buck translation,
Yudhisthira talks to the lake of unquenchable thirst, his father Dharma:
Lake: "What is hypocrisy?"
Yudhi: "The setting up of religious standards for others is hypocrisy."
...
Yudhi: "I don't know what you think of all this."
Lake: "You answer well," said the invisible voice. "I am you father
Dharma. I came to test your merit, and I have found it true, and I
return your brothers to life."

>>You think that what you know of the NT is the absolute truth. 
>For a Christian this is a basic tenet.

Do you really mean this Steve? The NT may be the absolute truth, but
can one's *knowledge* of the NT also be the absolute truth? Can any human
claim to know the absolute truth, to be as the Gods? My dog is always
barking, no doubt reminding you of Toto, but perhaps your dog should be
barking also, if only as a reminder of the perils of dogmaticism. Surely
dogma is to learm from, not a tool for enslavement to. Remember, Lion,
Iron, Zion. Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up
the fight. Government say don't use jah'erb, it make you rebel. Against
what? I hope you don't find my dog(ma) too criptic.

>>You use the OT
>>only as a prop, you already know what the OT says because you know the
>>absolute truth of Jesus Christ. Hebrew may just as well be a forgotten
>>language, it matters not what the Hebrew actually says because your absolute
>>knowledge of the absolute truth of Jesus Christ tells you exactly what
>>the Hebrew actually means. You use the NT only as proof that what you
>>know is the absolute truth and you use the OT as a prop for the NT.
>This is often the case, but not always.  There are Christians who do not do
>this, but they are few and far between.  I for one acknowledge the Tanak
>for what it is.  Hebrew Scripture.  While I do hold that the NT is valid
>truth, that in no way denies the valid truths proclaimed in the Tanak.
>Yeshua himself said this..."Not one jot or title of the Law shall pass
>away."  In other words, don't discard the Tanak you dolts, what I'm
>teaching reveals the Tanak, it does NOT replace it.

Of course Yehoshua ben Yosef (Jesus) also said something to the effect that he
did not come to replace the Mosaic Law (Torah), but to fulfill it.
Meaning, as in all good metaphor, uncertain. Did Jesus come to obey
Mosaic Law and set an example for others, or did his life relieve
Christians of the need to obey Mosaic Law?

>>Plain and simple. You use the Bible as a weapon instead of as a source
>>of knowledge. The Bible is merely the sword that proves your absolute
>>knowledge of the absolute truth.
>Just as the Pharisees tried to use the Tanak agaist Yeshua...and he burried
>them.

Perhaps a lesson there. It is said that the pen is mightier than the
sword, but perhaps there is a higher power, yet mightier than the pen.
What could be transcendent of word, of the word? The word is the herb
and I'll be(at) like Bob Marley?