Isaiah 5:17

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Isaiah 5:17

Post by kwrandolph »

Is this correctly translated?

ורעו כבשים כדברם

The context aside from the parenthetical previous verse is of those who do that which is displeasing before God. Therefore it appears that this verse says: “Subjugators do displeasingly as their expressions.” a hyper literal translation of those words. Or more colloquially, “Oppressors do evil according to their words”.

Does anyone have a different idea, and why would it be better?

Karl W. Randolph.
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by S_Walch »

The LXX translates this as:

καὶ βοσκηθήσονται οἱ διηρπασμένοι ὡς ταῦροι

"And those plundered shall feed like bulls"

Not quite sure what other ideas I would have for this. Some sort of "aim at" or "desire" for ורעו?
Ste Walch
Michael W Abernathy
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by Michael W Abernathy »

Karl,
I see why you've translated this passage as you have but I don't agree. The first part could be translated something like, "The rams will graze according to their will," more literally "according to their words." But I think כְּדָבְרָ֑ם is probably the word for field. "The rams will graze as in their field." The second half of the passage וְחָרְב֥וֹת מֵחִ֖ים גָּרִ֥ים יֹאכֵֽלוּlooks like it should read, “and sojourners will eat among the ruins of the rich.” As I read it, it describes a once prosperous land now made desolate by God's judgment.
Michael Abernathy׃
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by kwrandolph »

I delayed answering this because of the difficulty (for me) of making sense of this verse.
Michael W Abernathy wrote:… But I think כְּדָבְרָ֑ם is probably the word for field. "The rams will graze as in their field." …
I considered this reading, as in Micah 2:12 דבר is used for feedlot.

But in the Isaiah verse, the “in” is missing. The missing “in” makes a problem for me, which is why I suggested an alternative.
Michael W Abernathy wrote:The second half of the passage וְחָרְב֥וֹת מֵחִ֖ים גָּרִ֥ים יֹאכֵֽלוּlooks like it should read, “and sojourners will eat among the ruins of the rich.” As I read it, it describes a once prosperous land now made desolate by God's judgment.
Michael Abernathy׃
This second half of the verse is a real challenge. The problem is that in this first half of Isaiah, he often uses happax legonemen and words used only two or three times, and when they are also homographs with other words, it can be a real challenge to understand.

I agree with your basic idea, that it describes a once prosperous land now made desolate.

The word חרבות can mean swords, or desolated or dry places, or the act of desolating
The word מחים can mean scrapings, or marrow? or fatlings? The similar use in Psalm 66:15 of מחים (Aleppo has מיחים) seems to lead credence to “fatlings”.
The word גרים means sojourners
The word יאכלו has no question as to its meaning, but which of the nouns is its subject? The verb is masculine which rules out חרבות, but the other two are possible.

From the four words, it appears that the sojourners, who are often strangers from other countries, are doing the eating. But what is being eaten? Is it dry scrapings, i.e. that there’s nothing left of good things? Or is this that what swords scrape out is eaten? Or that the sojourners are eating and in that act desolating the fatlings or fatted places?

LXX has something completely different (thanks Ste for pointing that out):
και βοσκηθησονται οι διηρπασμενοι ως ταυροι και τας ερημους των απειλημμενων αρνες φαγονται
Either the LXX translators had a different text before them, or they were just guessing themselves.

Thanks for the response, this is an interesting problem.

Karl W. Randolph.
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by S_Walch »

The Great Isaiah Scroll has a slightly different spelling to some of the words:

ורעו כבושים כדברם וחרבות מיחים גרים יאכלו

See if that might help someway. Though to me it more just looks like spelling variations.
Ste Walch
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:the word דבר means to lead (someone) or to go (i'm sorry but i don't know the right word to use for that definition) like נהג in hebrew
Do you have any examples from Biblical Hebrew, i.e. from Tanakh, where דבר is used for this meaning?
aavichai wrote:also in aramic
in Genesis 31:18 וינהג את כל מקנהו
translated to aramic ודבר ית כל גיתוהי
דבר=נהג
This is a good example of why we should be very careful when using cognate languages to evaluate Hebrew, or any other language for that matter. I see that דבר ≠ נהג unless you can show examples to the contrary.
aavichai wrote:the מדבר is actually called like that because this is the place where the cuddle was lead to graze
Not all definition of מדבר but a lot - and this is probably the early meaning which develped to a not setteled place)
like וינהג את הצאן אחר המדבר Exodus 3:1
There are examples of דבר being connected with stinging or thorns, hence stinging and thorny plants. Yet, except in the driest deserts, between the thorny plants there are shrubs and grasses where sheep and cattle may graze.
aavichai wrote:also דברות is the rafts from the same root because they traveling (or leading) in the water
This is used only once—is it even a Hebrew word? Or is it a Phoenician loan word?

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by kwrandolph »

Avichai:
aavichai wrote:the מדבר was a place were there are no men living there
Have you ever lived in a desert? Yes, people live in deserts. Just not many.
aavichai wrote:and the wells was the place where the sheep rest and that area was green
It appears that at Abraham’s time, that the deserts were far more fertile than today. The same is true for Moses’ time. What I have seen from other sources is that the deserts were overgrazed, which is why they are so barren today.

The area around a well is too small to support more than a couple or three sheep, not counting a whole flock. The desert around the well needs to have enough browse to support flocks.

Another thing to consider what people consider “desert”. For example, the American prairie was considered desert for a long time, because the technology to bring it under cultivation wasn’t invented yet. As long as they couldn’t cultivate the land, all it was good for was for grazing livestock. The invention of the steel plow changed part of the American “desert” into vast wheat fields.
aavichai wrote:מדבר has also another meaning, probably rose from the first meaning, which is the desert
this meaning became very knwn because of the story of the sons of israel in the desert
???? please explain.
aavichai wrote:the verse that i put before it was on purpose
וינהג את הצאן אחר המדבר Exodus 3:1
it shows two things

1. he lead the sheep to the מדבר…

2. the word וינהג next to the מדבר - just to show the naturality
That doesn’t mean that דבר and נהג have the same meaning.
aavichai wrote:and like you saw - also in aramic

as for the דברות I think it is hebrew. why not?
The very practice of borrowing a word from a different language makes it part of the language. For example, “Kindergarten” came from German, but it’s now an American English word too.

If דברות is a loan word from Phoenician, then it has no Hebrew root.
aavichai wrote:there are no other occasions in the bible for that use and therefore we don't see it more.
and even if one wants to see it non-hebrew - it is still semitic
and the root will have the same basic meaning
The root שכח in Hebrew means to forget, in Aramaic to find. Just because both languages are Semitic languages doesn’t mean that words have the same meanings in both languages.
aavichai wrote:the root דבר in Hiphil - וידבר עמים תחתי/תחתינו some say is to "Submit" but some say that it is basically "lead" - like he will lead the peoples under us - and therefore submit.
Another way to read the verse is “… that he should express ‘Peoples are under me.’”
aavichai wrote:there is no 100% of what I'm not sayin - but just what i think
I'm ready to learn more opinions and other perspectives for that subject
Welcome to the club. That’s what all of us are here for. We learn from each other.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:Hi

The meaning of מדבר = Desert is the meaning that was developed from the not populated place
and therefore the deserted place (שממה) being called also מדבר
I just did a quick electronic search, and found no verses where מדבר = שממה. But an electronic search may miss a connection.
aavichai wrote:when you say ידבר עמים תחתי as express האל—הנותן נקמות לי    וידבר עמים תחתי
do you have any proof for that?
because I don't see it that way
Read the whole verse: האל—הנותן נקמות לי    וידבר עמים תחתי

As I already mentioned, the root דבר is already a homonym, or more accurately, a homograph, being connected with two ideas—one with stinging and thorns, and the second with expressing oneself through words, actions, specially prepared objects to convey meaning, etc. Secondly, this is poetry, where sometimes less common expressions are used' Between the two, it looks as if this is a use indicating expression.
aavichai wrote:about the comparison with other language,
they are all Semitic roots
even if you find roots that got similar meaning or not exactly similar meaning
you should see the basic similarity of them both, which from it - came the final definition in each language
I can't believe you cannot see the advantage of the comparison to other languages
I can see both the benefits as well as the dangers of comparisons with cognate languages.

As a lexicographer, sometimes a cognate languages can give clues as to a Hebrew’s word’s meaning, where the Hebrew words is used only once or a couple of times. But other times, the comparison can lead astray, is in my example of שכח. However, most of the time, I see comparisons with cognate languages as unnecessary, a waste of time.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by Jemoh66 »

kwrandolph wrote:Avichai:
aavichai wrote:the מדבר was a place were there are no men living there
Have you ever lived in a desert? Yes, people live in deserts. Just not many.
Turkana-tribeswomen-carrying-babies-walking-in-the-bush-Eastern-Lake-Turkana-area-Kenya-1.jpg
This is a midbar.

Population in the Turkana region: 900,000 as of 2009.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Isaiah 5:17

Post by Jemoh66 »

Turkana Family on the Move 1.jpg
Screen Shot 2017-02-19 at 5.35.55 PM.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Post Reply