Double yod or just a single yod. Fear or See?

[Chris Watts]

There seems to be some difference of opinion with Isaiah 59:19. First Verb: I have not looked at any medieval Spanish editions yet but
Leningrad Codex = וְיִֽירְא֤וּ מִֽמַּעֲרָב֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֔ה וּמִמִּזְרַח־שֶׁ֖מֶשׁ אֶת־כְּבוֹד֑וֹ כִּֽי־יָב֤וֹא כַנָּהָר֙ צָ֔ר ר֥וּחַ יְהוָ֖ה נֹ֥סְסָה בֽוֹ
Al HaTorah = וְיִרְאוּ
BHS = וְיִֽירְא֤וּ
Ben Chayim Edition = וְיִֽירְא֤וּ

EDIT: Second Rabbinic bible has וְיִֽירְא֤וּ to be expected BUT...

I have a 1280 AD edition from Toledo and that clearly reads וְיִרְאוּ


Various commentators make reference to this verb and question whether it should read "See" or "Fear". While fear would be appropriate and consistent, I see no problem with combining the two ideas, or whether it actually did read "See" in some other manuscripts. However...

I have read the reasoning for the double yod, IE, who can 'see' a name therefore it must be 'Fear' the name. But this is a ridiculously naive piece of reasoning to be honest since poetic license gives it plenty of logic when one sees the "Name" not as a noun, but as a display of the Holy character of God. Which of course is what His Name represents, especially given the context of chapter 59 as a whole. Nevertheless, notes at the bottom of my Masoretic text (Not BHS) also offer the single yod option, though I confess that I do not understand all the abbreviations etc. So how did all this come about?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

I just checked the DSS. The Great Isaiah Scroll has וייראו but other Isaiah fragments don’t have that verse.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

I just checked the DSS. The Great Isaiah Scroll has וייראו but other Isaiah fragments don’t have that verse.

Karl W. Randolph.

Thank you Karl, good to know. Just looked at the Lleida Cervera from 1299 AD, it too has the double yod. So it seems only reasonable to ask why two reliable sources chose for writing this verb with one yod to give it a meaning of 'See' as opposed to 'Fear', so they must have had a good reason for straying from what would normally have been expected as far as consistency of use within this context is concerned?
Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

I see the Aleppo codex displays only one yod.

[Jason Hare]

Whether it is one or two yods, the vowel is long in that syllable, which distinguishes it from “see.”

וַיִּֽירְאוּ vay.yî.rə.ʾû = וַיִּֽרְאוּ vay.yī.rə.ʾû “they feared”
וַיִּרְאוּ vay.yir.ʾû “they saw”

Do you notice the difference? The open (long) syllable is normally marked with meteg, and the same applies to the specific jussive form that you’ve indicated with the regular vav rather than the vav-consecutive.

[Chris Watts]

Yes, the meteg. I know. Thank you. But what do you mean by the regular Vav indicating a Jussive here? I have never heard of that. You have me confused on this.
Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi,

It seems that this verse was known to some as וייראו, and to some ויראו.
But either way, it doesn't affect the meaning.
As Jason said, the understanding of "fear" (root: ירא, form: וייראו) can also be given through the form with one Yod (ויראו).
Just like ויראו in Micha 7:17 come with the meaning of "fear".

Jason brought cases with Dagesh, and here the case is forms without Dagesh.
But the principle is the same.
According to the Masoretic notes, every root ירא comes with a meteg.
And every root ראה comes without meteg.
except for one case: תראו in Job 6:21 which it meaning is "see", but it has a Meteg.

Chris mentioned the Second Rabbinic Bible which writes וייראו.
But there is some problem there:
There is a Masora note next to this verse of Isaiah that says (page 384):
ה׳ ד׳ מלא ודין חסר
meaning: there are five cases of ויראו/וייראו (conjunctive Vav+root ירא), four of them are written with two Yods, And THIS ONE with one Yod.
There is a contradiction here: the text writes it with two Yods while the note said that in this place it is with one Yod.
And also, the one Yod version is in Micha 7:17.

In the note next to the verse in Micha, once again it says (page 92):
ל חס וד' מל
meaning, this is the only case with one Yod, and there are more four cases with two Yods.
So now it fits.
But... in the Masora Magna it counts the five cases, and it writes the verse of Micha AND Isaiah as ויראו with one Yod).

Anyway, one Yod or two, it still can be understood as root ירא=fear.
But some, if they see it differently, can understand it as root ראה=see.

The commentator Ibn Ezra writes regarding to this verse (Translation from Alhatorah):
Some explain it, and they will fear; one י being omitted (וייראו═ויראו); others, paying strict regard to its orthography, render it, and they shall see.

He doesn't go against the other view.

But focusing on the subject of the text, according to his words, it seems that he also has a text that writes it with one Yod=ויראו.
And the commentator Kimhi also starts his commentary with the spelling ויראו - so it seems that he also saw it like that. And it is strange that he didn't talk about another version because he used to give notes about different versions.

[Chris Watts]

Hi David,

Thanks for the hebrew notes translation, very useful.

Ducky said: Anyway, one Yod or two, it still can be understood as root ירא=fear.
But some, if they see it differently, can understand it as root ראה=see

I think that without the masoretic points it may well have been the intention of Isaiah to offer a double construction, what do you think?

Regards Job 6:21, my bible does not have a meteg on the first verb that is translated as "To See', (though it has a note bottom of page written in that mysterious scribble that I shall never be able to learn) I notice the leningrad codex has it. So does Aleppo.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Yes, the meteg. I know. Thank you. But what do you mean by the regular Vav indicating a Jussive here? I have never heard of that. You have me confused on this.
Chris watts

I was just commenting on the difference between וְיִֽירְאוּ (your question) and וַיִּֽירְאוּ (my example). Mine is more common and called the vayyiqtol (i.e., vayyiqṭōl), which is the narrative past, whereas yours is called veyiqtol (i.e., vəyiqṭōl), which is the yiqtol as a jussive with a simple vav conjunction.

Jussive is just a type of irrealis or modal verb that is expressing some kind of wish. It is normally translated with “may he/she do” or “let him/her do.”

To simplify, what you’ve asked about might be rendered “and let them fear” (jussive) whereas what I wrote is “and they feared” (narrative past). I should probably have just repointed my text and made adjustments to fit what you originally asked about, but I didn’t think it was worth the bother, since the forms are the same other than the prefix / conjunction.

[Chris Watts]

Yes, the meteg. I know. Thank you. But what do you mean by the regular Vav indicating a Jussive here? I have never heard of that. You have me confused on this.
Chris watts

I was just commenting on the difference between וְיִֽירְאוּ (your question) and וַיִּֽירְאוּ (my example). Mine is more common and called the vayyiqtol (i.e., vayyiqṭōl), which is the narrative past, whereas yours is called veyiqtol (i.e., vəyiqṭōl), which is the yiqtol as a jussive with a simple vav conjunction.

Jussive is just a type of irrealis or modal verb that is expressing some kind of wish. It is normally translated with “may he/she do” or “let him/her do.”

To simplify, what you’ve asked about might be rendered “and let them fear” (jussive) whereas what I wrote is “and they feared” (narrative past). I should probably have just repointed my text and made adjustments to fit what you originally asked about, but I didn’t think it was worth the bother, since the forms are the same other than the prefix / conjunction.

For a second there I thought you were saying that it is a Jussive because I had written the shewa thus וְיִֽירְאוּ obviously it is not a jussive, but that is what I thought you had meant. For there is no speaker's desire nor any wish on the part of Isaiah or God, it is simply a future fact. Just trying to be clear that I understand it correctly.

============================================================================================================
Just a thought:

On the other issue of translation, I think there is a strong case to read this particular verse as both 'See' and 'Fear'. Apart from the three Manuscripts from between 950 and 1300 AD where without the masoretes grammar there is clearly the verb 'See', there is also the issue of the violence of the context and more importantly, where in scripture is it ever written: To Fear the Glory of God? His Glory can only be seen.


Chris watts