Isaiah 53:12

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

My translation could be an uncommon use of "tachat asher"

So uncommon that it stretches beyond credibility. “Could” is not the same as “probable”.

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.

They do mean the same thing as Isaiah 53:12. It’s just that there’s no English equivalent that has the exact same meaning as the Hebrew, therefore translation may need different ways of expressing the idea to make a good translation into English. Remember, translation ≠ understanding a language within itself.

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

Poetry doesn’t change grammar and word meanings, rather it uses grammar and word meanings in creative ways that make people think. Poetry wouldn’t work if lexemes have different meanings than when they’re used in prose, because people wouldn’t be able to understand it, nor would they be able to appreciate their creative use. Similarly the grammar rules need to be followed, otherwise one ends up with gibberish. Bottom line, you can’t use poetry as an excuse not to follow good linguistic practices.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

I think Deuteronomy 28:62 could say "and you will be left few in number instead of (in place of) what (tachat asher) you were, like the stars of heaven for multitude..."

And I think Ezekiel 36:34 could say "and the desolate land will be worked (will be tilled) instead of (in place of) what (tachat asher) it was, a waste land (a desolation) to the eyes of every one passing by."

I think in some quotes that say "because", it could also say "in exchange that."

For example, Deuteronomy 28:46 says there will be a curse on the people, then Deuteronomy 28:47 could say "in exchange (in place of) that (tachat asher) you did not serve the L-rd in joy..."
Deuteronomy 28:48 says "then you will serve your enemies that the L-rd will send against you in hunger..."

It could mean that in exchange that you did not serve G-d with joy, you will serve your enemies in suffering.

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Kenneth:

One has to admire persistence, sticking to one’s guns even in the face of opposition. But that can also turn into a vice when pulled out too long when it becomes mere stubbornness. Wisdom is knowing when to bend, and when to stay the course.

Don’t get me wrong, I find your questions a challenge, and sometimes they cause me to change understandings that I had before by forcing me to analyze the data more closely. But sometimes I’m forced to stop because the data are so against your claims that the argument merely goes around in circles.

The idea of “because“ has both a logical and temporal aspect to it. The temporal in that the following action comes after, as the result of what happened previously. In English, the logical aspect is emphasized, though when the “because” is the result of an action, the temporal aspect cannot be ignored.

Karl,

I think Deuteronomy 28:62 could say "and you will be left few in number instead of (in place of) what (tachat asher) you were, like the stars of heaven for multitude..."

However, in Biblical Hebrew תחת אשר emphasizes the temporal aspect, the “following after”. That’s why “because” is not a perfect fit for תחת אשר though it often is the closest equivalent in English. In this verse the temporal aspect dominates indicating depopulation. “Only a small remnant survives after which you were like the stars for multitude”.

And I think Ezekiel 36:34 could say "and the desolate land will be worked (will be tilled) instead of (in place of) what (tachat asher) it was, a waste land (a desolation) to the eyes of every one passing by."

Here’s where the temporal aspect is explicitly stated in the preceding verse.

I think in some quotes that say "because", it could also say "in exchange that." … It could mean that in exchange that you did not serve G-d with joy, you will serve your enemies in suffering.

That’s stretching it to the breaking point.

Kenneth Greifer

Here in Isaiah 53:12 we have both the temporal and logical aspects, that the blessing that the “slave” enjoys comes after and as the result of the suffering and death of the “slave”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

There are many quotes where "tachat" by itself means "in place of" or "instead of", so I was trying to see if "tachat asher" can be used in a similar way, and that is why I thought of "in exchange that" or "instead of that." Do you agree that by itself "tachat" can mean "instead of " or "in place of?" The main difference I see is that "tachat asher" is used with verbs and not nouns like "tachat."

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

There are many quotes where "tachat" by itself means "in place of" or "instead of", so I was trying to see if "tachat asher" can be used in a similar way, and that is why I thought of "in exchange that" or "instead of that." Do you agree that by itself "tachat" can mean "instead of " or "in place of?" The main difference I see is that "tachat asher" is used with verbs and not nouns like "tachat."

Kenneth Greifer

You know I keep repeating that translation ≠ understanding within a language. Just because a lexeme can be translated one way some times does NOT follow that it can be translated that way all times. The reason is that seldom does a lexeme in one language have exactly the same meaning as another lexeme in another language. That’s true even in close cognate languages, how much more true for widely separated languages.

The basic meaning of תחת is “under” though even in its spacial use the two terms don’t have exactly the same meanings. However, the English word refers purely to a spacial concept, whereas the Hebrew term has a very strong temporal aspect in its meaning, with the concept of being “after”. Even there, the “after” is often the result of what went on before, hence sometimes translated as “because”. That is why different lexemes are needed to make a smooth translation that is readily understood by English readers, but they don’t get the true action that is described by the Hebrew usage.

So in Genesis 22:13 we find that the ram was offered “after” Isaac. Isaac’s sacrifice was interrupted and so didn’t reach its completion, so to reach the completion of the sacrifice after the one was interrupted, the ram was offered. The ram was offered in the place vacated by Isaac. The ram was offered as a result of the interrupted sacrifice. אחר doesn’t bring out the spacial and result concepts included in תחת hence wasn’t used here.

In making an English translation, are we to write a paragraph describing the full import of תחת or do we use an English expression that reads smoothly and gets the gist of the story? All translators that I know of opt for the second action. That’s why translation ≠ understanding of a language within itself.

Then for the complex lexeme תחת אשר the temporal aspect is always present. Usually the temporal aspect is the result of what was mentioned directly previously. So in English, a translator would use an English expression that best fits English, not Hebrew. What you are trying to do is to read the English translation as the meaning of the Hebrew expression. That’s backwards.

So in Isaiah 53:12 we find one action that occurs after and as the result of a previous action with an expression pointing to that previous action, so how do you translate it?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

Everything that happens because of something happens after it, so you could replace every "because" with "after" if you want to, but I don't think "because" means "after." "Tachat asher" is usually translated as "because", but you say it means "after", but everything that is caused by something else happens after whatever caused it. I am not sure that what you are saying is right.

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

Everything that happens because of something happens after it, so you could replace every "because" with "after" if you want to,

Not in English. In English “because” can refer to a logical connection that happens at the same time. Hence the English “because” is in itself a timeless element. Sometimes the context indicates a time, but that time is not imparted by the “because”.

but I don't think "because" means "after." "Tachat asher" is usually translated as "because", but you say it means "after", but everything that is caused by something else happens after whatever caused it. I am not sure that what you are saying is right.

Kenneth Greifer

Are we talking Biblical Hebrew or English? After all, those are two different languages, is there any reason we should take expressions in one language and say that they’re exactly the same as expressions in the other language?

Karl W. Randolph.

[S_Walch]

Not to mention that the English "after" doesn't have to indicate a period of time either.

We could translate תחת אשר as "since" in Isaiah 53:12:, and it would give the same sense, as the word "since" shares commonality with "because":
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, since he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Checking my Thesaurus, I find no mention of "after" with the English "because". They're hardly synonyms. So no, you can't just change the English "because" to "after", as it would give a wholly different meaning.

[Isaac Fried]

Appears to me that is also a possibility:
"Therefore I will divide him a portion of the many, and he shall divide the spoil of the strong"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Kenneth Greifer]

The basic meaning of תחת is “under” though even in its spacial use the two terms don’t have exactly the same meanings. However, the English word refers purely to a spacial concept, whereas the Hebrew term has a very strong temporal aspect in its meaning, with the concept of being “after”. Even there, the “after” is often the result of what went on before, hence sometimes translated as “because”. That is why different lexemes are needed to make a smooth translation that is readily understood by English readers, but they don’t get the true action that is described by the Hebrew usage.

So in Genesis 22:13 we find that the ram was offered “after” Isaac. Isaac’s sacrifice was interrupted and so didn’t reach its completion, so to reach the completion of the sacrifice after the one was interrupted, the ram was offered. The ram was offered in the place vacated by Isaac. The ram was offered as a result of the interrupted sacrifice. אחר doesn’t bring out the spacial and result concepts included in תחת hence wasn’t used here.



Karl W. Randolph.

It sounds like Genesis 22:13 says that Abraham sacrificed the ram after his son which would literally mean that they were both sacrificed. If it said "instead of" his son, it would make more sense.

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