Date: Sunday, 3 January 1993 08:56:58 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

[After I originally posted this I realized that many readers,
 probably including Mr. Pitts, would be home for the break.
 Apologies if you've already read it -- dcs]

This could get to be a REALLY massive bandwidth hog, and in the process
lose the entire readership.  Therefore, I'm trimming the long verbatim
passages and NOT posting the entire chapters which Mr. Pitts has
requested.  Where necessary, I'm throwing in enough context to keep
things from getting totally cryptic.  Otherwise, pick up a copy and read
the source material direct.  PLEASE trim followups as much as you can.

In <78670@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
# In article <765330d3663354t188@witsend.uucp> dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:
# |In <78497@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:

  [reference to the famous 'for unto us a child is born' passage.
  BTW, this is definitely US: "Ki-yeled yulad-lanu"  -- dcs]

# |  Dear me.  Please check with your local Xtian scholar; last I heard
# |  even they admitted that this one was CONTEMPORARY.  Isiah was
# |  referring to a child even then in utero.  Present tense, folks.
#
# Oh.  Since the above is Isaiah 9:6-7, then why does the first verse in
# Isaiah 9 (NIV) lead into this with "IN THE PAST ..., BUT IN THE FUTURE"?

  Why ask me why the NIV mistranslates the text?  If you want guesses,
  I'd say they had a theological ax to grind.  (Well, you asked!)
  BTW, why do YOU switch back and forth between the NIV and the KJV?
  Later you claim great accuracy for the KJV, so since the issue at hand
  is textural interpretation I would have expected you to use the one
  you consider most reliable.  Do you select between them on a
  verse-by-verse basis, and if so what is your criterion?

#     Isaiah 9:1-7 (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-- {2} The people walking in darkness have seen a great
#     light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a
#     light has dawned.

We have a numbering discrepancy here as well as one in translation.
Soncino _Isaiah_, 8:23:

  For is there no gloom to her that was steadfast?  Now the former has
  lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but
  the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by way of the sea, beyond
  the Jordan, in the district of the nations. {9:1} The people that
  walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the
  land of the shadow of death, upon them has the light shined.

Now I'll concede that the difference in tenses is open to dispute.
Even without them, though, the content differences here are pretty
dramatic.  Could you please refer me to the Hebrew for the "IN THE
PAST" and "BUT IN THE FUTURE"?  Especially since you place so much
weight on it?

I deleted 9:3-5 (your numbering) but note that these triumphant
passages are in the past tense even in your translation.

#                        {6} For to us a child is born, to us a son is
#     given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will
#     be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,
#     Prince of Peace.

  I have present tense: "And his name IS called [vayikra sh'mo]";
  The Hebrew doesn't require an existential verb.  Thus the name
  can be translated as "Wonderful (in) counsel (is) God the Mighty,
  the Everlasting Father, the ruler of peace."  Names praising
  God are common in Scriptures; naming kids the way Grace Slick
  did is, to put it mildly, less so.

# |# It seems that you believe/know that these translators of the JPS
# |# have mastered both Hebrew and English, but yet no one else seems
# |# to be able to do that.

# |  Well, the first is certainly true.  Chances are that they read it
# |  in the original before they ever saw a translation.  BTW, the
#
# And they have now mastered English, better than those who were
# reading English???

This takes mastery?  FYI, the folks I'm talking about grew up bilingual
in Hebrew and English.  I only said that they probably read Isaiah first
in Hebrew, since there'd be no point in reading the translation when you
can read the original.  Either way, the question here is not the fine
points of ENGLISH grammar but the meaning of a Hebrew text.

# |  The Xian versions are derived from a long history of translation
# |  going beck to the Septuagint.  Unfortunately, several gross
# |  misquotes made it into the Xian scriptures and ever since Xian
#
# Are you referring to the OT?

Is that what you call Isaiah?  I'm referring to the places where the
Xtian sources (Gospels, etc.) misquote the TaNaKh.

# |  translators have had to doctor their work to make everything fit.
# |  The best-known example immediately precedes the verse you cite,
# |  where Xian translators squirm around the fact that Isaiah does
# |  NOT say "virgin" despite Xian doctrine.  Oops.
#
# Oops, the word, to my understanding, means one who is engaged to
# be married - who traditionally would be a virgin - maybe not in
# today's society, but most likely true in Israel's at that time.
# They married pretty young.

  The word means a girl of an age to marry.  The masculine equivalent
  ('ehled) means something like 'lad'; the feminine, ('almah)
  can be rendered as 'lass'.  Unless you're suggesting that 'ehled
  means the boy is also a virgin?  Either way, there's a perfectly
  good word (b'tulah).  If the Author wanted to stress virginity,
  He certainly knew how as well as we do.

# Yes, let's cite all of Isaiah 52.

  No, let's don't.  This monster is already 22K long.  I quoted the
  end of 52 to smooth the transition; if we get into the fine points of
  52 we'll probably end up quoting all 66 chapters, with commentary.

# |  [Temple vessels returning from captivity, carried by the Levites,
# |  the Temple SERVANTS].  {12} For you shall not go out in haste,
# |  neither shall you go by flight, for THE LORD will go before you,
# |  and the God of Israel will be your rearward [thus the call for
# |  ritual purity].  {13} Behold, My servant shall prosper [who's
# |  this servant suddenly?  Golly, is this a major break or could this
# |  actually refer to the same people in the previous five?  Wow!]
#
# Maybe it is a special One, since the pronoun used here is He ("My
# servant shall propser; He shall be exhalted")?

  First off, there IS no pronoun "he"; secondly, it fersher ain't
  capitalized, since Hebrew doesn't HAVE capitals.  So any conclusion
  you reach from a capitalized pronoun is, by any stretch, strained.

  Perhaps this is where we part company (actually, we're both arguing
  from our conclusions, but we can pretend, right?)  You seem to be
  suggesting that Isaiah never uses the third-person singular to refer
  to groups of people metaphorically.  If you concede that the text
  COULD be using a singular reference to speak of Israel, then I would
  suggest that you explain why the parsimonious interpretation is
  inadequate.

# |  He shall be exhalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
# |  {14} According as many were appalled at you [the degradation of
# |  the conquest and captivity], so marred was his visage unlike that
# |  of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men, {14} So
#
# Again - His and He?  Hmm.  Maybe the You above is not the He?

  Your stress on pronouns is misplaced.  There are none in the Hebrew
  for 53:13, "Higeh yaskil avdei yarum v'nisah v'gavah m'od."  Hard to
  draw much conclusion from something added to the English to improve
  readability.  As for the second and third person shifts, see above.

# There is a change of pronoun even in your translation.  The
# servants in 52 and 53 are the same.

  Well, we're in agreement that the servants are the same.  If you
  really want to discuss pronouns, though, please point them out in
  the Hebrew, since the ones I found in English were additions.

# I agree.  But obviously, you and/or they strain to say the
# HE person is the YOU persons in order to make a point.

  Pronouns aside (I suspect your real point is grammatical persons),
  we can both argue parsimony.  I claim that the 'Servant' is a
  rhetorical device similar to that used by Isaiah elsewhere; you claim
  that the passage is a break from the immediate context (the end of
  Babylonian captivity) to discuss someone centuries in the future.

  [regarding the beginning of 53:]

# The KJV is considered a very accurate translation - it is a little
# archaic in style, but that doesn't mean it is inaccurate.

  You're assuming your conclusion.  If it comes down to proof by
  vigorous assertion, I'll concede now.  I have no particular
  desire to add my blood to that already spilled over this one.

#     (KJV) {53:1} Who hath believed our report? and to whom is
#     the arm of the LORD revealed? {2} For he shall grow up before
#     him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he
#
# |#                                                              He had
# |#     no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his
# |#     appearance that we should desire him.
# |
# |  According to your interpretation, who's this "we"?  You'll note
# |  that reading in the context of 52:15 leaves no such difficulty.

  Exactly.  52:15 introduces the kings of nations, who then speak in
  53:1-9.  I thought I had made this point already; my apologies.
  Fits rather nicely, doesn't it?

# WE refers to the people or people in general.

  Either way, a new speaker has entered.  My way, the speaker is
  introduced; in yours the AUDIENCE starts a dialog with the Author.
  I'm not aware of this happening elsewhere without introduction;
  can you point to an example?

# KJV:{3} He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and
#     acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him;
#     he was despised, and we esteemed him not. {4} Surely he hath borne
#     our griefs, and carried our sorrows:
#
# Takig up or barring (borne) are they different to you?

  Would you say that a horse took up a pack?  If not, why?

  [Reprise of pronouns/persons applied to 53:4; the issues
  are the same as above re 53:1]

#                                           yet we did esteem him stricken,
#     smitten of God, and afflicted.
#
# It is the Servant that is afflicted, as the NT tells us that God
# planned for Him.

  We agree, but differ on who the servant is.  Parsimony again.

# |#                                    {5} But he was pierced for our
# |#     transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
# |#     punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds
# |#     we are healed.
# |
# |  Whew!  Try "He was WOUNDED because of our transgressions, he was
# |  crushed because of our iniquities,"; there is a difference between
# |  causality and exchange.
#
# There is a difference between causality and exchange.  In context,
# the BECAUSE/FOR relates the sameing meaning.

  Hardly the same.  If I hit you and you lose a kidney, you are
  certainly wounded BECAUSE of my crime; this isn't the same as
  if you donated it for a transplant I needed.  In the latter
  case we could agree that you were wounded FOR me.

#                                               Could you quote
# the rest of the verse, so it is clear what the translation you use
# is saying?

  Just this once, OK: "V'hu m'holal mipsha'ehnu m'dukah
  mei'ah'onoteinu musar sh'lomeinu 'alav."

# |#                                                                  And
# |#     who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the
# |#     land of the living;
# |
# |  Babylonian captivity.  Land.  Get it?
#
# His death on the Cross - get it?

  Parsimony.  I suggest that being exiled from their Land and cut off
  from the Temple fits "cut off from the land" quite nicely.  Of course
  there are an abundance of other interpretations, including Mohammed's
  flight to Medina.  You're welcome to pick one, but there's no reason
  in the text to prefer any of the nonliteral meanings over the others.

  [Reprise of pronouns/persons applied to 53:8; the issues are the same
  as above re 53:1]

# |#               {9} He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with
# |#     the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was
# |#     any deceit in his mouth. {10} Yet it was the Lord's will to
# |#     crush him and cause him to suffer,
# |
# |  Now I wonder why your translation doesn't say "to crush him by
# |  disease"?  Inconvenient?
#
# KVJ:                     {9} And he made his grave with the
#     wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no
#     violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. {10} Yet it
#     pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when
#
# Cite the whole verse.  Inconvenient?

  No, just a waste of bandwidth.  {10}"Vayhovah hafetz dacho hecheli
  im-tasim asham nafsho yireh zerah yaareich yamim v'cheifehtz
  <THE NAME> b'yado yitzlach."  (So I lied about "just once")

# |  Whew! really a reach here.  Try "to see if his soul would offer
# |  itself in restitution".  Of course, that doesn't fit, does it?
#
# KJV: thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
#
# Cite the whole verse, if you can.

  There it is, as best I can do without Hebrew character set or spelling
  out the letters' names (A REAL bandwidth waste).

# |#                            he will see his offspring and prolong his
# |#     days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
# |
# |  If it's a king speaking here there's no problem, but otherwise
# |  you have to reconcile the "my people" in 53:8 with the third-
# |  person divinity here.

  Since you've got this thing about pronouns/persons, why did you
  ignore this?  Please address it.

# |                         By the way, how do YOU deal with the
# |  "that he may see his offspring, prolong his days" bit, if this
# |  means someone who died young and childless?  Oh, I'll bet it's
# |  intended FIGURATIVELY!
#
# KJV:                                                he shall see his
#     seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD
#     shall prosper in his hand.
#
# Could it be spiritual?  Could this dying young and being childless
# and then the offspring and prolong his day be a reference to the
# death and the resurrection (and subsequently living for eternity)?

  I forget; which one of us is arguing from parsimony?  The afterlife
  interpretation could apply to anyone.  The verse COULD at least as
  readily mean Muhammed, who died at a ripe age and surrounded by his
  children, grandchildren, etc.  Again, the text doesn't support any of
  the nonliteral interpretations over the others.

  [Reprise of pronouns/persons applied to 53:11; the issues are the same
  as above re 53:1]

# KJV:{12} Therefore will I divide him a portion with the
#     great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he
#     hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with
#     the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made
#     intercession for the transgressors.

  [not much different from the version I posted (and deleted
  this time around); why chew up more bandwidth?]

# |  Sure sounds like the joyous return to Jerusalem, with posessions
# |  restored.  Fits in nicely with 54, too:
#
# Yep, sounds like Jesus, for he poured out his soul unto death.
# And he was numbered with the transgressions (the two criminals on
# the two crosses).  And Jesus is our Advocate forever making
# intercession to the Father for us.

  Did you ignore my comment about tenses?  Even the KJV puts this ("he
  poured out ... with the transgressors") in the PAST, and yet you claim
  it's five centuries in the future.  Otherwise, see previous comments
  about nonliteral interpretations and preferences.

# |  .... and continuing with the verses of consolation, telling of the
# |  return of the exiles.  Seamless.  A single thematic whole, and some
# |  of the most beautiful poetry ever.  Why hack it up to twist a verse
# |  here and there out of context into another meaning altogether?
#
# I agree - Jesus will come and restore Israel and route the enemies.
# This is the theme thoughout the OT and is echoed again in the NT.

  Huh?  Are you claiming that NOTHING in the passages of consolation
  refers to the historical return from Babylon?  If I understand you
  correctly, we have this contrast:

  Prophecy refers to J        vs       Prophecy refers to return
                                       from Babylon
  Prophecy hasn't been                 Prophecy was fulfilled within
  fulfilled (yet?)                     the lifetimes of Isaiah's
                                       audience

  I won't address your statement about 'theme'; we're kicking around
  a corner of that one right now.  Suffice to say that since plenty
  of folk (like me) can't see this theme it must be a bit less than
  obvious.

  [Mr. Pitts closes with a reprise of pronouns/persons applied to all of
  chapter 53; the issues are the same as above re 53:1]

To summarize: I claim that there is a plain literal interpretation of
Isaiah 53, in which the 'Suffering Servant' serves as a metaphorical
reference to the people Israel.  Though nonliteral, this is consistent
with other instances in Isaiah where the people collectively are
metaphorically treated as a single person.  In fact, the practice goes
all the way back to the Pentateuch's references to Jacob and Israel.

Further, I claim that the text does not support a Xtian nonliteral
interpretation over any other; my chosen example is that of Muhammed.
Parsimony (or if you prefer, "Occam's Razor") favors the interpretation
introducing the fewer external assumptions and Mr. Pitts' reading
depends on myriad metaphorical substitutions (such as in 53:10) none
of which are supported by an unambiguously similar metaphor elsewhere
in Isaiah, rather than the one (Servant == Israel).

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---