I understand. I did not make the analogy. The writer of the book of John did.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isaiah 53:8
- Thread starter Tumah
- Start date
I understand. I did not make the analogy. The writer of the book of John did.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Well, I'm sure you see the problem then.
From the JPS Tanakh
Tumah
Veteran Member
A very well written article. I notice he didn't address some of the cases I mentioned in the OP. Compare:
His proof cases:
פנ-י-מו
כפ-י-מו
על-י-מו
My proof cases:
יבהל-מו
אינ-מו
עינ-מו
And the word in question:
ל-מו
His three cases all appear to have three letter suffixes. In that case, it is much easier to say that the suffix is derived from the "יו" suffix and that this two letter suffix nullifies the single plural letter "מ":
פניו (his face) with a מ
כפיו (his hands) with a מ
עליו (on him) with a מ
In my cases though, the verses don't make sense translating them as a "ו" suffix with a "מ" thrown in. Therefore, it must be a "מ" suffix with the "ו" added.
And so the rule is derived that the two letter suffix is balanced towards the "מ". Which is also why all the other cases of למו appear to be speaking about a plural.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I am not so impressed with the JPS. The original JPS was basically the ASV with a few tweaks. I don't think they did that better of a job with the second edition.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I am having difficulty putting your comment in the context of a thread dedicated to the discussion of a text.
I'm not at all surprised. I assume that you are equally unimpressed with such things as linguistics, archaeology, etc., but that demonstrated little beyond the comfort of selection bias.
so....you two have met?
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Does Isaiah 53 speak only about Israelite reality- or reality in general?
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'm sorry. What I meant to say was that my experience with the JPS has been that they tend to favor readability over translation and sometimes that can include changing/adding words. I often use the mechon-mamre website for quick references and just last nigh looking up the verses from your link I found this in Job 27:23 "Men shall clap their hands at him". There is no word "men" in the verse and their translating "their hands" and "at him" is mutually inconsistent.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The chapter speaks about Israel: what the nations of the world will say about Israel and what G-d was planning all along for Israel.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Hi Tumah, nice to see you again. I think you did a real nice job on this OP. Lots of supporting evidence. You almost convinced me....except, I know you have an ulterior motive. It is that the Isaiah portion refers to Israel not Jesus. So no need to spend hundreds of posts trying to convince us. You just don't come across as objective, sorry.
Anyway, lets move up one level in generality. I have seen Orthodox Jews (OJ's) like yourself approach interfaith sites before, in the manner that you do. It seems to me that you think interfaith dialogue is about trying to convince the Christians they are all wrong and you are right. I think it is wrong of you to take this approach.
Last edited:
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Good article, Jay. I think fundamentalists on both sides misappropriate this portion of Isaiah.
Every translation is an interpretation.
Correct. Would you be willing to offer your literal *translation of the verse.
How so?
* Alter offers
The east wind bears him off and he's gone,
it sweeps him away from his place.
It flings itself on him unsparing,from its power he strives to flee.
It claps its hands against him,and hisses at him from its place.
Tumah
Veteran Member
The question is a matter of how far away from the literal translation are you going. But yeah, I agree.
It's a hard three words to translate honestly:
The first word ישפק is used to mean "clap" or "stomp" or "enough". Oddly, I found that in Job 34:37 mechon-mamre puts a ישפוק and translates it as "clap" where the Rabbinical Bible puts a יספוק and translates it "more than enough". On the other hand, both put ישפק in 1 Kings 20:10 and translate it as "enough." And that was just the first word.
The next word עלימו comes from על which can mean "on" or "about". It could be a derisive clapping or a stomping with the hands (ie. punching) on either him or them.
The last word is כפימו. It is the word כף or palm/hand with the suffix that would render it either his or their.
So if the suffix means "him", Then it would be something like, "he claps his hand at him." If it means them, it would be "they clap their hand over them(selves with the remainder of the verse telling you that there is someone they are doing it to)."
The him/them his/their depends on how you are translating that "מו" suffix.
Because עלימו they are translating as "at him" and כפימו they are translating as "their hands". They are using the same suffix "מו" in one case to mean "him" and in the other to mean "them."
This one definitely has consistency.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The reason Christians are even able to identify Jesus with Isaiah 53, is what?
Perhaps Isaiah 53 reports of a basic human reality, proceeding both through and beyond Isaiah and Jesus? What does a guilt offering look like? Every servant of God gives glory to the Most High- both coming down the ladder and climbing again.
Perhaps Isaiah 53 reports of a basic human reality, proceeding both through and beyond Isaiah and Jesus? What does a guilt offering look like? Every servant of God gives glory to the Most High- both coming down the ladder and climbing again.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Because they draw comparisons between certain verses in Isaiah and the NT's description of the life of Jesus.
I am sorry, I don't mean this sarcastically at all, but I really can't understand what you are saying or referring to here.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I understand you.. And God understands us both.
You aren't able to control, or defend Isaiah's words, anymore than he is able. Is this God's will?
Tumah
Veteran Member
But He's not the one having this discussion with you!
I don't understand why I would try to control or defend Isaiah's words. They are what they are, I am only interpreting them according to what seems to me to be the most logical interpretation.