Isa 63:9 - Ketiv is most likely more correct here
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 7:53 am
I understand why the Qeri came about, and to be honest does make absolute sense on all levels. But I often like to delve deeper in some instances because there are times when I find it an absurd idea that a copyist could have made such a mistake, asking myself WHY is the Ketiv wrong, not just "Oh it does not make sense to us so let's seek an alternative explanation" .
בְּֽכָל־צָרָתָ֣ם ׀ לא ל֣וֹ צָ֗ר וּמַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיו֙ הֽוֹשִׁיעָ֔ם
This change from לא to ל֣וֹ is a classic. I am struck by the apparent humongous mistake supposedly assumed here and the obvious abruptness of this statement.
It does not matter whether wants to follow the Qeri or the Ketiv, both have the same problem - a lack of pronouns, either להם or הוא.
I prefer to translate this as 'in all their affliction (He is) not an/their adversary". This makes far more sense to me given that the following clause : "...so the angel of His Presence saved them". But then one might argue that in verse 10 we read that God did indeed become an enemy, however, the Hebrew clearly and most decidedly means 'ENEMY' as in 'Someone who is now AGAINST you. Whereas the hebrew word : צָ֗ר is not necessarily an enemy rather more that one is put into a straight-jacket of imprisonment or lack of freedom of movement, or one is afflicted or in trouble, the difference is acute. In other words by implication - God was not against them even when He was against them. Which is being continuously proven in History much more than we can prove that God empathises, although I would never dispute the latter at all.
So maybe a little more thought is needed before we jump in and agree with a Qeri reading, that truly there appears to be here just as much support for the Ketiv as there is for the Qeri. Comments?
Chris watts
בְּֽכָל־צָרָתָ֣ם ׀ לא ל֣וֹ צָ֗ר וּמַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיו֙ הֽוֹשִׁיעָ֔ם
This change from לא to ל֣וֹ is a classic. I am struck by the apparent humongous mistake supposedly assumed here and the obvious abruptness of this statement.
It does not matter whether wants to follow the Qeri or the Ketiv, both have the same problem - a lack of pronouns, either להם or הוא.
I prefer to translate this as 'in all their affliction (He is) not an/their adversary". This makes far more sense to me given that the following clause : "...so the angel of His Presence saved them". But then one might argue that in verse 10 we read that God did indeed become an enemy, however, the Hebrew clearly and most decidedly means 'ENEMY' as in 'Someone who is now AGAINST you. Whereas the hebrew word : צָ֗ר is not necessarily an enemy rather more that one is put into a straight-jacket of imprisonment or lack of freedom of movement, or one is afflicted or in trouble, the difference is acute. In other words by implication - God was not against them even when He was against them. Which is being continuously proven in History much more than we can prove that God empathises, although I would never dispute the latter at all.
So maybe a little more thought is needed before we jump in and agree with a Qeri reading, that truly there appears to be here just as much support for the Ketiv as there is for the Qeri. Comments?
Chris watts