From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:33:15 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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]

>In article <78714@hydra.gatech.EDU>
>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

     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.  

>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. 
The Authorized Version is known to have made translation mistakes (cf 'kill' 
for 'murder' in the Commandments), and to be inaccurate in places.  Most of
this information is in light of recent scholarship, and the newer
translations correct these errors.

>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.

>Then, if you'd like you can try to figure out
>what it could mean, you can see if you agree with the JPS rendering, ie
>the extra words they add and the meaning they think it has. And, if
>anyone has information on how NIV arrived at the translation they have,
>please post it. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing how they
>arrived at "IN THE PAST" and "BUT IN THE FUTURE" and "Galilee of the
>Gentiles."
>^^^^^^^^???????
There are no textual notes on this verse in my NIV Study Bible, and the
NRSV translates it as 'nations', again with no text notes.  Similarly for
the NASB and the use of 'Gentiles.'   This would be a good question to
propose to the committees responsible for the versions...

>>Oh.  The HEBREW is UNCERTAIN, but we can translate it CORRECTLY????
>>I think I now understand. NOT.
>
>Do you understand now? The translation is certain, exactly what the
>verse is refering to is not. There is a big difference between "the
>Hebrew is corrupted or no longer known" and "the meaning is uncertain."
I'll acknowledge this...there are terms for which we have no good
definitions (cf. the animals referred to as clean/unclean).  Here there
appears to be a difference in opinion of what the word means.  Remember
that the meaning of a word can change over time, such that how we translate
and understand it today may not reflect how the writer understood it.
Could the Hebrew word translated 'nations' have refered to 'Gentile 
nations'??  If so, then it is a judgement call.

>Make any sense? A conservative translation will keep the translation and
>add words to derive a rendering of what they consider to be the best
>meaning and make it known that they are rendering and where. The NIV
>apparently decided to abandon the Hebrew in this case and derive
>inspiration from the NT or other without mentioning it in the text,
>unless you have not included this information.
The departure is, as I see it, one word.  An important word, of course.
The question is whether or not there has been a change in meaning of the
word from the time of the author to now, and whether or not 'Gentiles' is a
valid alternate statement.

>>I checked the NASB (a very accurate word-for-word translation, whereas,
>>the NIV is a phrase-for-phrase translation) and found that the NASB
>>also gives the rendering of something like "BEFOREHAND was this and
>>in the FUTURE will be this."  Sorry, I don't have it in front of me.
>
>If you have the NASB available, it might be interesting to post it and
>compare, also the NRSV would be interesting. The more information the
>better.

I included the NASB above..and it does say 'shall' after 'later'...

>>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...

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

>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.

>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.

Happy Chanukah, Paul!  
Merry Christmas, Richard!

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558