Micah 5 problem with translating

[Chris Watts]

This concerns Micah 5:5 in Eng and 5:4 in Hebrew scriptiures:

וְהָיָ֥ה זֶ֖ה שָׁל֑וֹם אַשּׁ֣וּר ׀ כִּֽי־יָב֣וֹא

1. And this shall be the peace when Assyria/the Assyrian comes.......(I know 'Man' is inserted in English) but I see no justification for this, even though the previous verse would justify it.

2. How would the translation be different if one were to write:
וְהָיָ֥ה זֶ֖ה שָׁל֑וֹם כִּֽי־יָב֣וֹא אַשּׁ֣וּר

Chris watts

[Glenn Dean]

I don't have an answer, but three comments:

1. I think it's very important to notice the atnah under "peace", because the way you have translated it makes it sound like "when Assyria comes ... this will be their peace". It's important to notice that "when Assyria comes" is the timeframe of "we will raise up 7 shepherds". That is to say I would translate as:

"And this will be their peace. <== atnah breaks the verse, but this particular atnah is really a "major division in the verse"

(At the time) when Assyria comes .... we will raise up 7 shepherds ...."

2. Does the paseq (i.e. the vertical bar) tell us anything??

3. I wonder if the parallel "ki" is why Assyria is put to the front. So Assyria will do two things:
A) "ki" they come into our land

AND

B) "ki" they trample on our palaces

So, if you changed the position of Assyria (i.e. כִּֽי־יָב֣וֹא אַשּׁ֣וּר), you "break up" that parallel "ki"

Glenn

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Glen,

Yes I should have deleted the atnah in order to demonstrate whether the same meaning arises simply by swapping around the order of 'Ashur" and "When he comes". nevermind. In other words asking why this strange order of these two words.

As for the paseq after checking I can only see one reason that makes any sense at all and that is to highlight a contradiction, an opposing set of two words. Ie the idea of 'Peace' and 'Ashur' which represents both literally and militarily the most cruel of all the nations back then to have existed. The profane historians record this as so. Well just a stab in the dark.

What i see here is that you can not apply these verses to anything that has happened (740 - 722 bc that is), since Israel, nor Jacob (Judah and Benjamin) ever went anywhere near or as far as Damascus let alone modern day Mosul that is Nineveh. Hezekiahs encounter and relief when Sennecherib left him has certainly nothing to do with this.

In a nutshell, the historical records do not fit what is said and the grammar is worded cryptically.

Just to clarify I see 'Ashur' not as the Syrian, but as a people that once dominated from Babylon to Northern Iraq and to the East accross the Tigris slightly. Even, I believe somewhere, that one of the Babylonian and one of the Persian Kings were referred to as Kings of Assyria. (I can not remember who though), so Ashur encompasses a whole civilisation rather than a distinct population in a single defined border. (However as far as Micah is concerned he only sees those pesky folk before Babylon destroyed them, this I understand)

chris watts

[Jason Hare]

First, Chris, I can’t imagine אַשּׁוּר being used of a person (something like הָֽאַשּׁוּרִי “the Assyrian”), so you can strike that option. אַשּׁוּר is the name of the country / empire, not of the people themselves.

Here’s the whole verse (for those who are interested):

Micah 5.4 (English, 5.5)
וְהָיָ֥ה זֶ֖ה שָׁל֑וֹם אַשּׁ֣וּר׀ כִּֽי־יָב֣וֹא בְאַרְצֵ֗נוּ וְכִ֤י יִדְרֹךְ֙ בְּאַרְמְנֹתֵ֔ינוּ וַהֲקֵמֹ֤נוּ עָלָיו֙ שִׁבְעָ֣ה רֹעִ֔ים וּשְׁמֹנָ֖ה נְסִיכֵ֥י אָדָֽם׃

I’d read זֶה, which bears the disjunctive accent tifḥa, as the subject of וְהָיָה (“and this [one] will be”). I think this refers back to the previous verses, the ruler who would have his origin in Bethlehem. He will be peace. Yet, the previous verse says of this ruler:

Micah 5.3 (English, 5.4)
וְעָמַ֗ד וְרָעָה֙ בְּעֹ֣ז יְהוָ֔ה בִּגְא֕וֹן שֵׁ֖ם יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהָ֑יו וְיָשָׁ֕בוּ כִּֽי־עַתָּ֥ה יִגְדַּ֖ל עַד־אַפְסֵי־אָֽרֶץ׃
He will stand and shepherd in the strength of Yahweh, in the eminence of Yahweh his God, and they will dwell [safely?], for he will now become great unto the ends of the earth.

Therefore, I’d take זֶה to be equivalent to הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה “this man,” even though the Septuagint doesn’t take it this way. The LXX reads: καὶ ἔσται αὕτη εἰρήνη—“and this will be peace” (since εἰρήνη “peace” is feminine, it makes the demonstrative pronoun feminine [αὕτη]—if it read as I’m saying, it would have made it masculine [οὗτος]).

It seems to me that אַשּׁוּר is fronted for topicalization. This is why it’s pulled from its clause. It reminds me of the article of faith regarding the coming of the Messiah as formulated by the Rambam:

אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה בְּבִיאַת הַמָּשִׁיחַ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּתְמַהְמֵהַּ עִם כָּל זֶה אֲחַכֶּה לוֹ בְּכָל יוֹם שֶׁיָּבוֹא

Notice the final phrase: “I will wait for him every day that he will come.” We might expect either of two formulations: (1) the insertion of עַד before שֶׁיָּבוֹא (“I will wait for him until he comes”); or, (2) a more direct expression (something like בְּכָל־יוֹם אֲחַכֶּה שֶׁהוּא יָבוֹא). It’s almost as if the הוּא element is lifted from its own phrase (the irreal expression using the imperfect) to bring it into phrase in the higher clause (“I will wait for him”). I really love the way that this article is expressed in the Rambam’s formulation, and Hebrew frequently allows this raising of the pronoun from the embedded phrase into the main phrase.

Thus, the change of subject pulls אַשּׁוּר into focus. “As for Assyria—when he comes into our land and steps upon our palaces, we will raise up against him seven shepherds and eight princes of man.”

That’s how I read it, anyway.

[Chris Watts]

It seems to me that אַשּׁוּר is fronted for topicalization. This is why it’s pulled from its clause. It reminds me of the article of faith regarding the coming of the Messiah as formulated by the Rambam:

אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה בְּבִיאַת הַמָּשִׁיחַ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּתְמַהְמֵהַּ עִם כָּל זֶה אֲחַכֶּה לוֹ בְּכָל יוֹם שֶׁיָּבוֹא

Notice the final phrase: “I will wait for him every day that he will come.” We might expect either of two formulations: (1) the insertion of עַד before שֶׁיָּבוֹא (“I will wait for him until he comes”); or, (2) a more direct expression (something like בְּכָל־יוֹם אֲחַכֶּה שֶׁהוּא יָבוֹא). It’s almost as if the הוּא element is lifted from its own phrase (the irreal expression using the imperfect) to bring it into phrase in the higher clause (“I will wait for him”). I really love the way that this article is expressed in the Rambam’s formulation, and Hebrew frequently allows this raising of the pronoun from the embedded phrase into the main phrase.

Thus, the change of subject pulls אַשּׁוּר into focus. “As for Assyria—when he comes into our land and steps upon our palaces, we will raise up against him seven shepherds and eight princes of man.”

That’s how I read it, anyway.

Hallo Jason,

Although I get some sort of idea about what you are saying, I do not understand it at all really. I can not read Ramban's comment very well, even though I understand half of the words I could not have translated the sentence. What would help is if you could give me some biblical examples of what you have just said, then I would be able to visualize things and do a bit of cementing.
Thankyou Jason
Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

A simple illustration will come from the book of Genesis. In chapter 3, we find the following:

Genesis 3.6
וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל
The woman saw that the tree [was] good for food.

The structure is what we would expect. That is, the woman saw something, and that something is an embedded sentence: “the tree was good for food.” We have two sentences joined with a subordinator (כִּי).

However, in the first chapter of the book, we have the following:

Genesis 1.4
וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב
God saw the light that it was good.

We could have expected the same structure, which we could rewrite in this way:

וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי טוֹב הָאוֹר
God saw that the light [was] good.

The subject of the embedded clause is raised to the main clause and made explicit. This calls attention to it, brings it into “focus.” It makes for a more interesting read.

Have you never thought about the oddness of the word order in that verse? “God saw the light that it was good.” That isn’t the natural word order. The structure was changed for the sake of focus. This is what I’m talking about. However, in the case of כִּי יָבוֹא אַשּׁוּר, we have the subject elevated for the purpose of focus (again), but this time it is not functioning as part of another sentence. Rather, the phrase on which the two כִּי clauses depends begins after those clauses. In fact, אַשּׁוּר functions as a double referent in the larger scale of things. It is referred to both as the subject of the two כִּי clauses (כִּי יָבוֹא and כִּי יִדְרֹךְ) and as the object of the preposition עָלָיו in the main clause.

Does this clarify it at all for you?

[Chris Watts]

Have you never thought about the oddness of the word order in that verse?

Does this clarify it at all for you?

Hallo Jason,

Yes I have, and surprisingly seemed natural for me because I saw that what was important was that God saw the light.....

the contrast with: The woman saw that good was the tree says more than the woman saw the tree that it was good. It is the complete opposite to the way God describes Himself and the way the woman looked at temporal things so the word order was not lost on me. It was nice that you used this example though.

I understand the creative process of focus, but I was confused by the use of expressions like : embedded clause raised to the main clause, I did not have a clue as to what you were explaining.

So in a nutshell, when you use these expressions embedded elevated to the main, what you mean is that a word/idea that has to have the centre of attention will be placed as close as possible to the beginning of sentence. will come to the front despite the awkwardness of translating? Especially since in Micah I now personally think that the Paseq is there to double the emphasis on Asshur, so I now prefer to see a difference in meaning to this verse:

" And this will be the Peace, Assyria, when he comes into our land and when he tramples our palaces (the smartest buildings that we have)....."

A bit like the subtle difference between saying:

And this will be disaster, Germany, when it invades Holland and tramples our streets..... " As opposed to "And this will be disaster when Germany invades Holland and tramples our streets...: There is quite a difference in emphasis between these two sentences. Do you agree?

Thankyou for your explanation Jason, you helped considerably to cement a concept that I thought I had grasped.?

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

One sentence can be embedded inside another. Think of this:

(1) You told me about a friend of yours.
(2) I met that friend of yours at a party yesterday.

These are two different clauses (sentences).

I can put them together by using a relative pronoun (whether implicit or explicit). I can say:

(3a) I met your friend that you told me about at a party yesterday.
(3b) At a party yesterday, I met your friend that you told me about.

There are several possibilities for joining these two clauses. In both of these examples, "you told me about [your friend]" is embedded in the main clause "I met your friend." In embedded sentences, it's common not to repeat the part that is connecting them. So, "your friend" or "that friend of yours" is the part that is shared by the two clauses.

We can raise that shared part out of main clause to put it in focus.

(4a) That friend of yours that you told me about, I met her at a party yesterday.

We often append "you know" to that raised element in English.

(4b) You know that friend of yours that you told me about? I met her at a party yesterday.

To raise an element of a clause means to lift it out of its syntactic order and bring it forward, separating it from the sentence(s) that it would naturally be part of. This is what happened with אַשּׁוּר in the verse in question. It was raised out of its own phrase.

From "When Ashur comes... we will raise up seven shepherds against him...," it was shifted to something like, "As for Ashur—when he comes... we will raise up seven shepherds against him."

Does that make better sense?

[Glenn Dean]

Hi:

I realize this is an old thread, but in my original post I said that there was a paseq, i.e. the vertical bar in אַשּׁ֣וּר ׀ כִּֽי־יָב֣וֹא, I think that's actually the Legarmeh disjunctive accent (the Legarmeh looks like the munah + paseq)

Glenn

[Jason Hare]

According to this Wikipedia article, "pasek" is the Sephardi way of calling "munach legarmeh." I don't think you were necessarily wrong. I also know it as legarmeh, though.