B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Could Isaiah 53:12 say that the person will divide a portion among mighty ones "instead of who (tachat asher) bared his soul to death and with evil doers was counted?"

Usually, it says "because he bared his soul to death and with evildors he was counted."

I think Isaiah 53 is about King Hezekiah because the Assyrian army or general was killed and the people were counted (185000) killed by an angel. Instead of that man or army dividing the spoil, Hezekiah divided the spoil.

Kenneth Greifer
http://www.hebrewbiblequotes.com/

Kenneth:

My answer to you here will sound almost like a broken record: you need to take this in context.

A verse taken out of context can often be twisted to mean almost anything. The context often shrinks the possibilities to only one.

This is the final verse of a passage that starts in Isaiah 52:13. When we look at everything that “slave” does and is done to him, no way can it be about King Hezekiah. His looks were not marred Isaiah 52:14. He was not “like a sucker” (an unwanted growth from a tree root) Isaiah 53:2. King Hezekiah was not despised Isaiah 53:3. We can go on and on, listing all the details of the passage, almost none of them can be made to refer to King Hezekiah.

Therefore, taking part of one verse out of context is like claiming that the Bible teaches atheism because in Psalm 14:1 there is the statement “There is no god”. I’m sorry, that argument makes no sense.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

I was just asking if my Hebrew translation of "tachat asher" could mean "instead of who." I was not trying to prove my opinion that Hezekiah was the subject of Isaiah 53. The details are extremely complicated, and I am not going to try to prove it here. I have a long discussion of Isaiah 52 and 53 on my site which has a free self-published book about Messianic prophecies where I go into extreme detail about why I think Hezekiah is the subject of Isaiah 53. My site is http://www.hebrewbiblequotes.com/

You didn't answer my actual question about the Hebrew.

Kenneth Greifer

תחת אשר is a very common phrase in Tanakh meaning "because, since" - See Num 25:13, Deut 21:14; 22:29; 28:47, 62; 1 Sam 26:21; 2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 29:19; 50:7; 2 Chron 21:12.

So, 'no' would be my answer in this case. Too many occurrences of the phrase for us it to have been misunderstood in Isa 53:12.

If words can have more than one meaning, then you can't take the most common one and say it is always used the most common way. If that was true, words would be very limited. Some people try to translate the Bible with computers using one word to translate each Hebrew word as if words had only one possible meaning.

In this case, the two words can mean more than 'because", plus this quote makes sense as "instead of who" because of what happened to Hezekiah.

There are more reasons to consider the possibility of Isaiah 53 being about Hezekiah. I don't want to start a religious debate. I just think all of Isaiah 53 is mistranslated and misunderstood by Judaism and Christianity, and also Bible scholarship. I am not picking a religious side. I am saying all of the religions are wrong about Isaiah 53. I think it is a tragedy because what it really says is not religiously controversial at all. Only the misunderstood version of Isaiah 53 is religiously controversial.

Isaiah 53 could say "The Lord desired his crushing the illness. If his soul will make a guilt offering, he will see a seed, he will lengthen days." Hezekiah cried when he was told he would die soon from a boil, and he was given 15 extra years to live during which Manasseh his son was born and started to rule at 12.

Another example involves dividing the Hebrew letters into different words: And rose up like wet ground (mud) (yud vav nun) (or yud nun) the announcement (koof lamed) (from koof vav lamed) of his presence, and like a root from dry ground, no form is to it and no glory. We saw him and not an image, and we desired him.

Mud doesn't have a form, and the root from dry ground would not have anything on it. Together, they represent a formless thing without any glory to it meaning he did not have an image, but he was himself to people.

I am not able to type out Hebrew letters right now, but the full version can be seen in my free self-published book "Hebrew Bible Quotes that are Allegedly about the Messiah" on my site http://www.hebrewbiblequotes.com/

There are many more details that fit Hezekiah, but I can't type them out.

(I am writing from memory because of a very difficult situation I am in now, so I hope I didn't make too many mistakes.)

Kenneth Greifer

Kenneth Greifer wrote:If words can have more than one meaning,

Words don’t have more than one meaning. By “word” the proper term is “lexeme” which also includes where more than one word are always used together to make a unique meaning that each word on its own doesn’t have. I call those “complex lexemes”. Then one also needs to watch out for homonyms, which are two or more lexemes that have the same pronunciation and often the same spelling, but are not the same lexeme.

A good example is “strike”—it is actually three homonyms, three lexemes—one with the idea of hitting, one with the idea of making a count, and a third dealing with labor relations. Then there are more than one complex lexemes that incorporate “strike” as one of their words, one of them being “strike out”. If we spoke German instead of English, “strike out” would have its own dictionary entry because it has a different meaning than either “strike” or “out”.

Lexemes have only one meaning each, but some can be used in many contexts, others in only few contexts.

Kenneth Greifer wrote: then you can't take the most common one and say it is always used the most common way. If that was true, words would be very limited.

If word meanings weren’t limited, then we couldn’t communicate. If every person made up his own meanings to the words he uses, then no one could understand what the other is saying. We are not like Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through The Looking Glass, we need to take words, lexemes, as they are used in society, then use them the same way.

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Some people try to translate the Bible with computers using one word to translate each Hebrew word as if words had only one possible meaning.

This is confusing understanding a lexeme within a language, and translation. These are two different arts, and should be kept separate. Lexemes in one language often have different ranges of usages than similar words in another language, an example being “unter” in German has a range of usage that covers both “under” and “among” in English, therefore cannot be translated with only one word in English.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:In this case, the two words can mean more than 'because", plus this quote makes sense as "instead of who" because of what happened to Hezekiah.

Sorry, this is eisegesis, starting with a conclusion, then making everything fit that conclusion. This is “putting the cart before the horse”. This is just as wrong in lexicography as it is wrong in theology.

The complex lexeme תחת אשר is always used for one meaning in all its other uses in Tanakh, therefore it’s wrong to say it has a different meaning only here.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:There are more reasons to consider the possibility of Isaiah 53 being about Hezekiah. I don't want to start a religious debate. I just think all of Isaiah 53 is mistranslated and misunderstood by Judaism and Christianity, and also Bible scholarship. I am not picking a religious side. I am saying all of the religions are wrong about Isaiah 53. I think it is a tragedy because what it really says is not religiously controversial at all. Only the misunderstood version of Isaiah 53 is religiously controversial.

You have the right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. I come to this chapter as a linguist, not a theologian. The linguistic facts of the chapter make it impossible to fit the history of King Hezekiah as recorded in Kings and Chronicles.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:…Kenneth Greifer

I didn’t answer all your claims in this response, because they would make this too long. Linguistically, this chapter is not complex. The controversy is in the implications of what the linguistics communicate. I won’t go into the theological fray here, but you take out of context, your mistranslations indicate that you don’t understand the Hebrew being used. In other words, you need to address the linguistics, before we get to the theological conclusions.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

If someone wanted to say "instead of who" in Biblical Hebrew, but it meant "because" usually, does that mean that person could not have said it? I don't think it is eisegesis to say it could also have a literal meaning of "instead of who." For example, if I wanted to say an airplane is flying over the hill, I could say the airplane is "over the hill." You might say it is an old airplane or it is flying over the hill.

Are there any examples in Biblical Hebrew of words used together to mean certain things, but that actually could be used together to mean something else in certain situations like this one?

Also, in Biblehub, it mentions Deuteronomy 28:62 and Ezekiel 36:34 as not meaning "because."

Kenneth Greifer

I edited my previous post, and maybe I should put the new information in a separate posting. Biblehub's dictionary says "tachat asher" does not always mean "because" and it gives two examples: Deuteronomy 28:62 and Ezekiel 36:34. Does anyone disagree with this opinion?

Kenneth Greifer

Kenneth Greifer wrote:I edited my previous post, and maybe I should put the new information in a separate posting. Biblehub's dictionary says "tachat asher" does not always mean "because" and it gives two examples: Deuteronomy 28:62 and Ezekiel 36:34. Does anyone disagree with this opinion?

Kenneth Greifer

This is a good example of where translation ≠ understanding within the language.

There’s no exact equivalent in English for the Hebrew word תחת nor the phrase תחת אשר. The phrase has more the meaning of “following which” which is bad English, therefore the usual translation is “because” to make better English. Deuteronomy 28:62 and Ezekiel 36:34 still fit within that one meaning.

Nowhere is תחת אשר used for the concept of “instead of who” or anything close to that.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

My translation could be an uncommon use of "tachat asher" just like Deuteronomy 28:62 and Ezekiel 36:34 are less common uses of the phrase. They don't mean the same thing as Isaiah 53:12, but they are uncommon.

You can't expect to see every possible use of every word and phrase in the Hebrew Bible more than once. Prophecies were given in poetry which is peculiar and could involve uncommon uses of words and phrases.

Kenneth Greifer