Double yod or just a single yod. Fear or See?

[Jason Hare]

Shalom, Chris!

For a second there I thought you were saying that it is a Jussive because I had written the shewa thus וְיִֽירְאוּ obviously it is not a jussive, but that is what I thought you had meant. For there is no speaker's desire nor any wish on the part of Isaiah or God, it is simply a future fact. Just trying to be clear that I understand it correctly.

You’re absolutely right. I didn’t actually read through the verse within its context. The veyiqtol is most frequently a type of jussive, but sometimes it is used as a yiqtol that simply has a conjunctive vav, as in this case.

On the other issue of translation, I think there is a strong case to read this particular verse as both 'See' and 'Fear'. Apart from the three Manuscripts from between 950 and 1300 AD where without the masoretes grammar there is clearly the verb 'See', there is also the issue of the violence of the context and more importantly, where in scripture is it ever written: To Fear the Glory of God? His Glory can only be seen.

Chris watts

These are the fourteen different translations (two different LXX versions) that I checked:

ASV — ¹⁹So shall they fear the name of Jehovah from the west....
CJB — ¹⁹in the west they will fear the name of Adonai....
CSB — ¹⁹They will fear the name of the Lord in the west....
Darby — ¹⁹And they shall fear the name of Jehovah from the west....
ESV — ¹⁹So they shall fear the name of the Lord from the west....
Geneva — ¹⁹So shal they feare the Name of the Lord from the West....
JPS 1985 — ¹⁹From the west, they shall revere the name of the Lord....
KJV — ¹⁹So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west....
LEB — ¹⁹So they shall fear the name of Yahweh from the west....
LXX (both Rahlfs & Göttingen) — ¹⁹καὶ φοβηθήσονται οἱ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου....
NIV — ¹⁹From the west, men will fear the name of the Lord....
NRSV — ¹⁹So those in the west shall fear the name of the Lord....
YLT — ¹⁹And they fear from the west the name of Jehovah....

I don’t know much about the collocation of “fear” with “glory,” but only one translation in my Logos library even mention the fact that “see” is an option in this verse (JPS 1985). It doesn’t seem to be on very good grounds. The DSS (וייראו in 1QIsaA), the Septuagint (φοβηθήσονται), and the Vulgate (timēbunt) all agree on this point. The Peshitta also says “fear” here (ܢܕܚܠܘܢ), as does Pseudo-Jonathan (וְיִדחְלוּן). It’s hard to see a good argument for “see” over “fear,” no matter the collocative weakness of the terms יָרֵא and כָּבוֹד.

I wonder if there are other instances of יִֽירְאוּ being written with a single yod without meteg and clearly bearing the meaning “fear” in the manuscripts that you mentioned. For instance, does Micah 7.17, which reads וְיִֽרְאוּ in the WLC, have a meteg in the 1280 AD manuscript that you made mention of? How consistent is the manuscript in the use of meteg? Could it be that it still means “fear” and that we shouldn’t attempt to reinterpret the verse simply because of a missing meteg? After all, the Aleppo Codex reads וְיִֽֿרְ֯אוּ at this point, clearly meaning “fear” (see image below). You could also check that manuscript at Eccl 3.14, which also has only one yod in the WLC.

[Chris Watts]

Jason Wrote :

I wonder if there are other instances of יִֽירְאוּ being written with a single yod without meteg and clearly bearing the meaning “fear” in the manuscripts that you mentioned. For instance, does Micah 7.17, which reads וְיִֽרְאוּ in the WLC, have a meteg in the 1280 AD manuscript that you made mention of? How consistent is the manuscript in the use of meteg? Could it be that it still means “fear” and that we shouldn’t attempt to reinterpret the verse simply because of a missing meteg? After all, the Aleppo Codex reads וְיִֽֿרְ֯אוּ at this point, clearly meaning “fear” (see image below). You could also check that manuscript at Eccl 3.14, which also has only one yod in the WLC.

Hi Jason, I agree with you in your comments. I was simply intrigued when I read that Carl Knobel (1807 - 1860 or thereabouts) mentioned that he takes the Meteg away and prefers to read "See", within this particular context. Now it has been said by one or two other early 19th century commentators that this actually is perfectly reasonable given the context. However the manuscripts you asked me to look at are at the bottom of the page here - two are from the Toledo MSS dated 1230 AD/1290 AD. The first image here is the Leida Cervera from 1299 AD. All three examples have a Meteg - though I can barely make out the writing in the Leida Cervera MSS. Enlarging it made it pixelated so this is the biggest I could make this screen capture from the PDFs.

I also decided to copy something that Knobel says, unfortunately I can not read German and even google translate could not make much sense either so maybe someone could translate the following assuming I picked the appropriate paragraph.

<<<<<nach ist Metheg bei •«"'• zu streichen und die Form von n«*^. a leiten. Die herrschende Erklärung: fürchten sollen sie nach Masorethen und den alten Ueberss.>>>> Page 478 of the following link ---------- https://archive.org/details/derprophetj ... ew=theater (1872 page 478 on website)

Also he wrote an earlier commentary some 11 years before the above one :
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 83&seq=464
August Knobel 1861 page 434 but page 464 on actual website page

If anyone can translate these pages it would be appreciated, only what he says about verse 19 though, nothing else.

Summing up, this was more of getting to grips with the various translations and opinions of Verse 19 that motivated this particular interest. Having spent two weeks researching everything there was to find about this verse I have concluded that its best translation and intended meaning lies in its ambiguity. Trying to strip it of this property seems to be the worst cause of action. I found also that when commentators speak they sometimes desperately seek a single meaning with incredible detailed analysis, but when the hebraists speak they offer up the ambiguity in its simplest and plainest form allowing you to see more clearly that, oddly enough, leaves the theologian in a vacuum. I suppose this is summing up my experience over the years rather than this one scripture.

I would like to comment concerning Micah 7:17, and this thought applies naturally to many other scriptures, that there can be no doubt that it should be read as : "Fear". However while agreeing that "Fear' is a correct translation, I still hold to the double construction since the original single yod without any pointing allows for the double thinking of see and fear. Sorry, but this is what I feel also from the context. This is a world wide realisation that is notably in Israel's favour, not a past event.

Chris watts

NOTE: The first Image = Micah 7:17. The second Image = Ecclesiastes 3:14. The third image = Isaiah 59:19.

[ducky]

Hi,

I'll write some words from a commentary book about this verse:

1. Two versions to this verse: יראו / ייראו

2. in this book's opinion prefers the version of ירא.
Examples for ירא+שם:
Ps. 102:16 וְיִירְאוּ גוֹיִם אֶת שֵׁם י״י וְכׇל מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ אֶת כְּבוֹדֶךָ
Deut. 28:58 לְיִרְאָה אֶת הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה אֵת י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ
Ps. 86:11 יַחֵד לְבָבִי לְיִרְאָה שְׁמֶךָ
Mal. 3:20 וְזָרְחָה לָכֶם יִרְאֵי שְׁמִי שֶׁמֶשׁ צְדָקָה

3. Examples For ראה+שם:
Deut. 28:10 וְרָאוּ כׇּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם י״י נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ (It is not a perfect example IMO).
And example of ראה+כבוד:
Isa. 66:18 וְרָאוּ אֶת כְּבוֹדִי

4. Chris, just for you...
You ask about double meaning... Well, I don't know if it is, or we are just overthinking. But here are two more verses which you can check:
Isa. 41:23 וְנִשְׁתָּעָה [וְנִרְאֶה] (ונרא) יַחְדָּו
Isa. 60:5 אָז תִּרְאִי וְנָהַרְתְּ

**************
By the way, what bible do you use?

[Chris Watts]

Hi,

4. Chris, just for you...
You ask about double meaning... Well, I don't know if it is, or we are just overthinking. But here are two more verses which you can check:
Isa. 41:23 וְנִשְׁתָּעָה [וְנִרְאֶה] (ונרא) יַחְדָּו
Isa. 60:5 אָז תִּרְאִי וְנָהַרְתְּ

**************
By the way, what bible do you use?

Hallo Ducky,

Thank you for the other verses you kindly gave. On the subject of Isaiah 60:5 and 41:23 I need time. A brief look at them - interesting enough - I will get back to you. The bible I use is the "Society for the distribution of Hebrew Scriptures", it is grounded upon the first edition of Ben Chayim. I have a BHS but would not touch it with a barge-pole.

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Ducky,

Regarding the Isaiah portions you presented me with.

Isaiah 60:5 - Perhaps, maybe? a double meaning here, the idea of both flowing and bright can be seen, coupled with the idea of the whole nation being of one purpose, since 60:5 has just followed and is within the same context as 59:19. There is a lot of talk about shining and flowing, light and darkness. I just needed to summarize this one because all my attention is on the following....

Isaiah 41:23

Be warned, we have two possibilities here, the first is the scholarly and well accepted interpretation also qualified by my ever friendly even-shoshan, this I accept, that the Keri is the correct word and the Ketiv is missing the letter 'Heh'. The second is going to be hammered down as being totally out of order but this is how I sometimes think...

My interpretation Springs nervously out of intuition, supposition and a bit of mental juggling:

The accepted version is 'See'. My version involves saying that Isaiah was performing a creative playfulness in his spelling. Playful because it is clear from the context that he was taking the micky, in other words, Isaiah was sarcastic and decided to play with the spelling. Maybe he wanted to have an incomplete spelling that demonstrated both the lack of vision (See)and the lack of fear (Respect) for God? So he left out the yod that would have given us "Fear" and he left out the Heh that would have given us "See". So now the scholars come along with their grammatically correct spectacles and decide on a correct spelling? I am not arguing, but I do believe that scripture can not always be squeezed into a grammatically correct strait-jacket. Being God's inspired word can never preclude poetic innovation and playfulness.

Or a scribe simply left out a letter after a few drops of tasty wine.....but I really do like my theory now....

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

I have a BHS but would not touch it with a barge-pole.

Out of curiosity, what makes you feel this way?

[Chris Watts]

I have a BHS but would not touch it with a barge-pole.

Out of curiosity, what makes you feel this way?

My mistake, should not have been so rash. I think and write without thinking....I do not believe that a fruitful discussion would ensue. Certainly not on this forum. Sorry.

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

When I gave you these two examples, I didn't want to bother you.
Just to let you know that also in these cases there are two views and Masoretic notes and so on.
You'll forgive me if I'll skip a discussion about this, right?

[Jason Hare]

My mistake, should not have been so rash. I think and write without thinking....I do not believe that a fruitful discussion would ensue. Certainly not on this forum. Sorry.

Wow!! I really want to know now!

[Chris Watts]

My mistake, should not have been so rash. I think and write without thinking....I do not believe that a fruitful discussion would ensue. Certainly not on this forum. Sorry.

Wow!! I really want to know now!

Ok Jason it seems I have to put you out of your misery, though I predict I will create more...I suppose the best thing for me to say to keep it short, sweet and simple and expressed via a succinct summary is...

BHS supplanted the Aleppo codex and the Sassoon Codex and a couple of others which I can not recall, with the Leningrad Codex. This might lead to some here raising their eyebrows I have no doubt, but let us just say that Rudolph Kittel, the father, not the son, Gerhard Kittel, who was a nasty little man and who also eventually had an influence on BHS, Kittel's fellow university colleague disagreed with Kittel's choice of making the Leningrad Codex the sole authority on the Masorete interpretation. On top of that, I question the motivation of the Deutsche Bibel Gesellscaft and its ethos of working. German Higher criticism is not something I have any regard for. either. Remember, this is just a summary. It's not intended to be a lecture for others who use BHS.

Chris watts