B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Friends,
Isa 59:20 (MT & DSS) And the Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah. (Isa 59:20 DBY)

Isa 59:20 (LXX) And the deliverer shall come for Sion's sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. (Isa 59:20 LXE)

Rom 11:26 The deliverer shall come out of Zion; he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. (Rom 11:26 DBY)

The difference is "unto them that turn from" in MT & DSS versus "shall turn away" in Rom and LXX.

The Hebrew word translated as "and unto them that turn from" is וּלְשָׁבֵ֥י which is supposed to be the qal masculine plural participle of שׁוב with the "and" and "to" prefixes.
I thought the masculine plural participle of שׁוב should be שָׁבִים, not שָׁבֵ֥י. What happened to the mem at the end of the participle? Is this an error in the MT and DSS text for this verse?

Thank you.

SteveMiller wrote:Friends,
Isa 59:20 (MT & DSS) And the Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah. (Isa 59:20 DBY)

Shouldn̛’t we have the Hebrew? I don’t see how this translation squares with the Hebrew text.

SteveMiller wrote:Isa 59:20 (LXX) And the deliverer shall come for Sion's sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. (Isa 59:20 LXE)

Enough of us know Greek as well, so to quote the Greek text as found on the free site http://www.crosswire.org

και ηξει ενεκεν σιων ο ρυομενος και αποστρεψει ασεβειας απο ιακωβ

There’s nothing in the MT that corresponds to the Greek απο “from” above. Did the translators have a different Vorlage before them? I don’t have access to alternate readings, but are there any in either the Greek and/or Hebrew that would make them match?

SteveMiller wrote:Rom 11:26 The deliverer shall come out of Zion; he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. (Rom 11:26 DBY)

καθως γεγραπται ηξει εκ σιων ο ρυομενος και αποστρεψει ασεβειας απο ιακωβ

Same as above for the LXX, but add εκ “out of” to the questioning.

SteveMiller wrote:The difference is "unto them that turn from" in MT & DSS versus "shall turn away" in Rom and LXX.

The Hebrew word translated as "and unto them that turn from" is וּלְשָׁבֵ֥י which is supposed to be the qal masculine plural participle of שׁוב with the "and" and "to" prefixes.

It’s possible that it’s a plural participle from שוב “to turn (back, away), to return” in which case the MT may read as “for those who turn rebellion away in Jacob”.

Another possibility is that שבי means “captives” making the MT reading “The redeemer will come for Zion and for the captives of rebellion in Jacob”. This was the first understanding of the text when I had when I read the MT in Hebrew. I find it takes a few more mental gymnastics to tease the LXX reading out of the text, and even then there are unanswered questions.

(To be honest, I find Isaiah the most difficult to read major book in Tanakh.)

SteveMiller wrote:I thought the masculine plural participle of שׁוב should be שָׁבִים, not שָׁבֵ֥י. What happened to the mem at the end of the participle? Is this an error in the MT and DSS text for this verse?

If it’s a plural participle, it would be in construct form, meaning “those who turn away rebellion’.

But do those who turn rebellion away need a redeemer?

SteveMiller wrote:Thank you.

Just my 2¢, thinking through my fingers. I may be wrong, but some thoughts upon which to ponder.

Karl W. Randolph.

Participles in Hebrew, just as in ancient Greek, are verb-noun hybrids that often function as nouns, and so are also noun-like in form. So yes, a participle can be in construct. See Gesenius-Kautsch-Cowley part II, section 50 for more info.

Thanks Karl!

What is "construct form"? Does it drop the final mem?

Is it wrong to translate ולשבי פשע as "and to those who turn away from rebellion"?
That is how every translation that I have seen translates it.
It seems there should be the preposition min before rebellion.

Dewayne,
Thanks, and thanks for the Gesenius ref.
Gesenius says that participles form their plural like other nouns, so why is the final mem missing?

Great Isaiah Scroll has:
ובא אל ציון גואל ולשבי פשע ביעקוב נואם יהוה

Which bar the plene spellings, and the use of אל instead of ל, is practically the same as the MT.

Checking the Hexapla for any alternative Greek renditions (Theo, Aquil, Sym), we have:
A: ... καί τοῖς ἀναστρέψασιν ἀθεσίαν εν Ἰακώβ ...
... and for those who turned away faithlessness in Jacob ...

S: ... καί τοῖς ἀναστρέψασιν ἀσεβείαν εν Ἰακώβ εἰπὲ Κύριος
'... and for those who turned away ungodliness in Jacob', says Yahweh

T: ... καί τοῖς ἀναστρέψουσιν εξ ἀδικίας ...
... and for those turning away from unrighteousness ...

One wonders whether we're to think of the verb שׁוב as somewhat reflexive here in Isaiah 59:20: those who turned away rebellion [from themselves] - The Greek of Theodotion looks to be understood this way as well.

Probably be best to understand the LXX as having a different Vorlage here - the omission of 'says Yahweh' at the end is a good indication of such, and I guess the translator may've misread the plural as hifil (ישב); would probably expect them to have had מיעקב in their text.

As for Construct, see Gesenius Grammar §89.a. Plus yes, the final mem is dropped in plural-construct, cf. Gesenius Grammar §89.c.

SteveMiller wrote:Thanks Karl!

What is "construct form"? Does it drop the final mem?

Yes, the construct form drops the final mem of the masculine plural.

The construct form establishes a connection between two nouns, usually has an “of” between the nouns. E.g. בתי האיש “houses of the man”.

SteveMiller wrote:Is it wrong to translate ולשבי פשע as "and to those who turn away from rebellion"?
That is how every translation that I have seen translates it.
It seems there should be the preposition min before rebellion.

Exactly, and not only that, but then the masculine plural would no longer be in construct, so the Hebrew would be לשבים מפשע . We’re missing two mems needed to get the translations you have. Either the LXX had a different text, or it too was mistranslated.

As for Paul’s statement in Romans, was he quoting this verse in Isaiah, or paraphrasing other verses?

Karl W. Randolph.

Seems to me that וּלְשָׁבֵי is but a variant of וּלְסָבֵי, 'turning, turning away, turning back, retreating.'
The prophet could have used ולשבים מפשע, שבים = שב-הם but preferred the curter and terser וּלְשָׁבֵי פֶשַׁע.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

S_Walch wrote:Great Isaiah Scroll has:
ובא אל ציון גואל ולשבי פשע ביעקוב נואם יהוה

Which bar the plene spellings, and the use of אל instead of ל, is practically the same as the MT.

Checking the Hexapla for any alternative Greek renditions (Theo, Aquil, Sym), we have:
A: ... καί τοῖς ἀναστρέψασιν ἀθεσίαν εν Ἰακώβ ...
... and for those who turned away faithlessness in Jacob ...

S: ... καί τοῖς ἀναστρέψασιν ἀσεβείαν εν Ἰακώβ εἰπὲ Κύριος
'... and for those who turned away ungodliness in Jacob', says Yahweh

T: ... καί τοῖς ἀναστρέψουσιν εξ ἀδικίας ...
... and for those turning away from unrighteousness ...

One wonders whether we're to think of the verb שׁוב as somewhat reflexive here in Isaiah 59:20: those who turned away rebellion [from themselves] - The Greek of Theodotion looks to be understood this way as well.

Probably be best to understand the LXX as having a different Vorlage here - the omission of 'says Yahweh' at the end is a good indication of such, and I guess the translator may've misread the plural as hifil (ישב); would probably expect them to have had מיעקב in their text.

As for Construct, see Gesenius Grammar §89.a. Plus yes, the final mem is dropped in plural-construct, cf. Gesenius Grammar §89.c.

I was thinking also we might be looking at an idiom. Maybe שוב ףשע is an idiomatic way of saying what the LXX translator rendered. What say you?

I see no reason not to think of it like that; "the turn-arounder of ungodliness" = "one who turns from ungodliness".