Page 3 of 3

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 10:56 pm
by SteveMiller
Thanks very much, Karl.

kwrandolph wrote:When a participle is a noun, it usually refers to an actor or an action.

Do you know an example where a participle refers to an action rather than an actor?

kwrandolph wrote:These are notes concerning my musings on the participle, if you can improve on them, I’d be glad to hear about improvements. This may give you a start.

Thanks very much. I have copied it to start my notebook on the subject.

The fact that שבי would be plural if it were from שוב is one of the problems I have with the traditional translation. It’s equally a problem with your translation. That the noun there is a plural, that is one of the reasons I considered “captive” as the translation.


Why would שבי being plural be a problem for the traditional translation "and for them that turn away sin"?
In my translation, I was thinking plural may be a problem because the subject, "redeemer", is singular, but that doesn't seem to be a problem because the participle is a noun. The plural could mean many turnings away from sin, but I can't think how to put that in English.

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 11:06 pm
by SteveMiller
Jemoh66 wrote:Speaking of Paul, I think it is fair to assume he had access to the Hebrew, and being the finest rabbinic mind of the day, knew it quite well. If the Greek is to be trusted as that which Paul dictated, then I would have no problem with the idea that Paul agreed with the LXX reading, and believed that it was faithful to the Hebrew.


Thanks Jonathan. I agree.
But all English translations that I know of translate it to the effect of "and unto them that turn from transgression", including all Christian translations.
This means either:
1. Today's understanding of the meaning of a BH participle or participle construct is wrong. The LXX translators and Paul knew something that today's translators don't.
or
2. The MT and DSS texts are wrong as well as the texts used by Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion.

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:43 am
by Jemoh66
SteveMiller wrote:
Jemoh66 wrote:Speaking of Paul, I think it is fair to assume he had access to the Hebrew, and being the finest rabbinic mind of the day, knew it quite well. If the Greek is to be trusted as that which Paul dictated, then I would have no problem with the idea that Paul agreed with the LXX reading, and believed that it was faithful to the Hebrew.


Thanks Jonathan. I agree.
But all English translations that I know of translate it to the effect of "and unto them that turn from transgression", including all Christian translations.
This means either:
1. Today's understanding of the meaning of a BH participle or participle construct is wrong. The LXX translators and Paul knew something that today's translators don't.
or
2. The MT and DSS texts are wrong as well as the texts used by Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion.


I agree.

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:50 pm
by Isaac Fried
Not only "the turn-arounder of ungodliness", but moreover "the coming backers to godliness".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 6:04 pm
by kwrandolph
SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:When a participle is a noun, it usually refers to an actor or an action.

Do you know an example where a participle refers to an action rather than an actor?


Sorry I didn’t answer you earlier. I have seen participles referring to actions so often I didn’t bother to list any. Then when you asked the question of where, my mind went blank, where???

Examples include Proverbs 6:22 “in your lying down” and Nehemiah 2:6 “your going”. “Your saying” is found in Jeremiah 2:35, Ezekiel 25:3, 35:10.

SteveMiller wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:The fact that שבי would be plural if it were from שוב is one of the problems I have with the traditional translation. It’s equally a problem with your translation. That the noun there is a plural, that is one of the reasons I considered “captive” as the translation.


Why would שבי being plural be a problem for the traditional translation "and for them that turn away sin"?
In my translation, I was thinking plural may be a problem because the subject, "redeemer", is singular, but that doesn't seem to be a problem because the participle is a noun. The plural could mean many turnings away from sin, but I can't think how to put that in English.


Let’s go back to the verse in question:

ובא לציון גואל ולשבי פשע ביעקב—נאם יהוה


The word שבי could be either a participle from שוב as a plural in construct, or it could mean “captive” singular or “captives” plural in construct. (I misstated my case above, it’s more the context than the plural per se.) Then what is this ביעקב “in or among Jacob”? How does גואל fit in for those who turn aside, or turn back, rebellion? I find I have more questions than answers. I’m willing to admit that the MT has a mistake here, a mistake that was already in the Great Isaiah Scroll. Change one letter, ולשבו changes the reading to “in order for his turning aside rebellion…” gives us basically the same reading as the LXX. There are other verses where we have evidence of waws being misread as yods and visa versa, is that what has happened here?

Just my 2¢ here.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:35 pm
by kwrandolph
An update to my last message:

I just looked up the photographed copy of the Great Isaiah Scroll online (probably should have done so earlier). The scribe who wrote it was rather sloppy in his writing—many of his yods look like waws and visa versa. The yod in question that I mentioned in my last message was written in a way identical with other yods and waws. In the verse itself, the word is וישבו in that the final letter is very different from the earlier yod in the word.

I take this as evidence that the MT has a copyist error, that the correct spelling should be ולשבו, a reading supported by the LXX.

Just my 2¢.

What do you all think?

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#59:20

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:26 pm
by Jemoh66
It looks to me like the top part of the lamed has faded, but you can see its trace.
Isaiah 59-20.png
Isaiah 59-20.png (57.86 KiB) Viewed 614 times

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:43 pm
by Jemoh66
just ahead you can clearly make out the difference between his yod's and his vav's. Red circles for yod's and green ones for vav's.
Isaiah Scroll-yods and vavs.png
Isaiah Scroll-yods and vavs.png (56.27 KiB) Viewed 614 times

Re: Isa 59:20 compared to Rom 11:26

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:17 pm
by Jemoh66
He's quite consistent across the entire verse with the yod's.
Isaiah Scroll - yods across 59-20.png
Isaiah Scroll - yods across 59-20.png (160.99 KiB) Viewed 610 times

So I don't see this scribe as having a vav on the end of the word. What I see is ולשבי, not ולשבו.
I think someone else noticed this as well earlier in the thread: that he has el tzion, not l'tzion.