B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

וְשָׁפַלְתְּ מֵאֶרֶץ תְּדַבֵּרִי וּמֵעָפָר תִּשַּׁח אִמְרָתֵךְ וְהָיָה כְּאוֹב מֵאֶרֶץ קוֹלֵךְ וּמֵעָפָר אִמְרָתֵךְ תְּצַפְצֵף ׃ וְהָיָה כְּאָבָק דַּק הֲמוֹן זָרָיִךְ וּכְמֹץ עֹבֵר הֲמוֹן עָרִיצִים וְהָיָה לְפֶתַע פִּתְאֹם

I have included verse 4 for reference. This post is to ask peoples' opinions on a single word : זָרָיִךְ. My belief is that it should not be translated as "Foes" or "enemies", but should be kept as "Strangers".

Reasons why it appears to me that translators prefer "enemies or foes":

1. is purely on context and the obvious aspect of attack, I can not think of any other reason why other than this.

Reasons why I disagree:

1. The following adjective : עָרִיצִים is masculine plural, while the זָרָיִךְ is a plural with a suffix 2 Person Fem singular, one would expect this to also be masc plural IF pointing to the same idea, that is Jerusalem. The mere fact that the Hebrew says YOUR strangers is significant, otherwise why not keep it neutral as has been done with the hebrew word : עָרִיצִים.

2. The hebrew does not say Your Enemies, why not use the word "Enemy" if indeed this should be the idea. I have not been able to find anywhere at all where the hebrew word זָרָיִךְ has ever been meant to mean "Enemy". Quite the contrary.

3. Verse 4 - it seems to me quite logical to associate the first sentence of verse 5 with the last sentence of verse 4. However I notice two different words for dust here and can not quite figure out if there is any real significant difference. מֵעָפָר and אָבָק.

4. On a side note - I also noticed that זָרָיִךְ has an Atnah, and according to my reference grammar book this זָרָיִךְ should have the patach replaced by a hiriq under the Resh, so we have 'ZaReeK instead of ZaRa-eeK. I am not sure why this is since there are no explanations forthcoming.

Chris watts

Hi,

The meaning, in this context, as you said is being an enemy. And this meaning touches the meaning of being a stranger.
I saw in one of the commentaries that he gives the example of the Latin "Hostis" which started as the meaning of "stranger" and then evolved to the meaning of "enemy".

Plus, it is seen in the Bible a few times in this meaning.
For example, compare the (almost) same verses in Ps. 54:5 and in Ps. 86:14
זדים and זרים
Ps. 54:5 זָרִים קָמוּ עָלַי וְעָרִיצִים בִּקְשׁוּ נַפְשִׁי
Ps. 86:14 זֵדִים קָמוּ עָלַי וַעֲדַת עָרִיצִים בִּקְשׁוּ נַפְשִׁי

And in this specific verse, the word זרים is parallel to עריצים (like in other verses),
And with the meaning of those that would be beaten. (and why would a stranger need to be beaten if not for him being an enemy)

Plus, through this book of Isaiah, the זרים appears a few times with this negative context of war and enemies.
So it doesn't mean that the word is not "strangers" or "foreigners", but this is not an objective term (as 'just' a stranger).

And so, for the translation... Does the word "stranger", in this verse, really give the right sense to the reader?

****
About the last part...
Are you sure that this is what your grammar book says?
Basically, in this case, the Qamats in the pausal form replace the Patah.

(Once again), I'm sorry to bother, but can you quote your books note about it (or upload a picture)?

ducky wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:36 am Hi,

The meaning, in this context, as you said is being an enemy. And this meaning touches the meaning of being a stranger.
I saw in one of the commentaries that he gives the example of the Latin "Hostis" which started as the meaning of "stranger" and then evolved to the meaning of "enemy".

Plus, it is seen in the Bible a few times in this meaning.
For example, compare the (almost) same verses in Ps. 54:5 and in Ps. 86:14
זדים and זרים
Ps. 54:5 זָרִים קָמוּ עָלַי וְעָרִיצִים בִּקְשׁוּ נַפְשִׁי
Ps. 86:14 זֵדִים קָמוּ עָלַי וַעֲדַת עָרִיצִים בִּקְשׁוּ נַפְשִׁי

And in this specific verse, the word זרים is parallel to עריצים (like in other verses),
And with the meaning of those that would be beaten. (and why would a stranger need to be beaten if not for him being an enemy)

Plus, through this book of Isaiah, the זרים appears a few times with this negative context of war and enemies.
So it doesn't mean that the word is not "strangers" or "foreigners", but this is not an objective term (as 'just' a stranger).

And so, for the translation... Does the word "stranger", in this verse, really give the right sense to the reader?

OK Ducky point taken, you are right, thank you.

****

ducky wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:36 am About the last part...
Are you sure that this is what your grammar book says?
Basically, in this case, the Qamats in the pausal form replace the Patah.

(Once again), I'm sorry to bother, but can you quote your books note about it (or upload a picture)?

This one is nutty, use an analytical lexicon by B. Davidson dated approx 90 years before I was born (enjoy the maths) , I looked again and saw a 'hiriq' then decided to take a magnifying glass to the print - whoops, the ink has a sort of smudge un-seen with my naked eye that sort of blends in such a way as to conceal a patah and give the illusion of a 'Dot' under the resh. Well who else could make up such an original excuse as this?

Chris watts

Hi Chris.

Your excuse is accepted.

As for the main subject...
Notice that I finish my words with a question.

My point was just to show the reason for the translation that you didn't like.
And I don't know what would be the "better" translation.
I guess it depends on the translator and his translation way.

Ducky said: As for the main subject...
Notice that I finish my words with a question.

ducky wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:36 amidea

And so, for the translation... Does the word "stranger", in this verse, really give the right sense to the reader?

Sorry Ducky, I thought that this was Rhetorical. My initial feeling is that No, it does not convey the right idea, hence you are right.
Chris watts

Here’s an example of where there’s a mismatch between word meanings in differing languages.

“Enemy” in English includes peoples that the Hebrew words of which I know don’t include. The English word includes those who have no personal enmity towards Jerusalem but just see it as just another city to conquer as part of empire building. My understanding of the Hebrew words used to indicate enmity are persons known personally to the one hated, while these other “enemies” are strangers to the victim, hence the use of the word “strangers”.

As for the English translation, that’s a judgment call.

Karl W. Randolph.

Hallo Karl, good morning,

kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 12:26 am
“Enemy” in English includes peoples that the Hebrew words of which I know don’t include. The English word includes those who have no personal enmity towards Jerusalem but just see it as just another city to conquer as part of empire building. My understanding of the Hebrew words used to indicate enmity are persons known personally to the one hated, while these other “enemies” are strangers to the victim, hence the use of the word “strangers”.

As for the English translation, that’s a judgment call.

Karl W. Randolph.

Your very first sentence here, I can not for the life of me, get my head around. As for the rest of this paragraph, I am a bit onfused, in fact a lot confused. Whether I know the person or not he can still be an enemy. And even if I do know the person, I have sometimes heard that people will say of that former friend who is now an enemy, he is a stranger to me. I think this is just a case of two words beng used to describe the same concept, as I understand it from Ducky now. The Assyrians were well known for their barbarity so I have read many times, so they are enemies and their way of life is as a stranger to the Hebrews.
Chris watts