isaiah sonne, isaiah 53,10-12

Upload: gogu-postasu

Post on 04-Jun-2018

236 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    1/9

    Isaiah 53:10-12Author(s): Isaiah SonneSource: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Dec., 1959), pp. 335-342Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264730Accessed: 11/09/2008 11:21

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

    you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

    may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl.

    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

    page of such transmission.

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

    scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    The Society of Biblical Literatureis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

    Journal of Biblical Literature.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264730?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sblhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sblhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3264730?origin=JSTOR-pdf
  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    2/9

    CRITICAL NOTES

    ISAIAH 53 10-12

    Modern commentators agree that the text of these three verses is more thanordinarilyuncertain, and few will object to Duhm's skeptical attitude that it is verymuch doubtful whetherwe will ever succeed in fully restoringthe original text. I Yet,much work has been done to bring us closer to the genuine text.A survey of the various suggestions proposed in the last century is beyond thescope of this paper. We offer here another reconstructionof the passage, in the hopethat it may advance scholarshipa step beyond previousefforts. It is promptedby thegeneral observation that most reconstructions have been concernedprimarilywith thediscovery of the missing text to the neglect of the existing text. To borrowPlato'simage, it appears that scholars have been absorbed in the contemplation of the idealtext and have lost contact with the real, though imperfect, copies of it. Authorities donot exaggeratewhen they aver that it is easierto discoverthe genuinetext than to solvethe riddle of the distorted one. Nevertheless, it is the latter which we are seeking.

    There is an elaborate apparatus with a flourishingGreek nomenclaturedesignedto handle the corrupted text. Useful as this apparatus is for noting slight changesattributable to the copyist, it offers no help for the major alterations in this passage.Their presencecannot be explainedas simple mistakes of the copyist; rather they haveto be traced back to the editorialprocess. At that level the recognitionof anotherset ofmedia errorishas been stressed in modern Septuagintal studies and may be valuablehere.' The presenceof uncommonexpressionsor phrases in the original may lead theeditor to make faulty vocalizationsand worddivisions, or other kinds of correctionsandsubstitutions. Thus, it seemsvalid to assumethat wherevereditorial alterationsappear,there was in the original text some unfamiliarexpression, a lectiodifficilis, which theeditor failed to understand. This principle would render least plausible attempts atsmooth reconstructionsof the text. Again,in the editorialprocesscertainkey expressionsand fundamentalconcepts play an important role insofaras they condition the mentalvision of the editor. By way of resemblance hese imagesmay determineorinfluencetheeditor's handlingof unfamiliarexpressions.

    I B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, Gottingen, 1922, p. 405.2 For the general problemof reconstructing he Hebrew text on the basis of the LXX,the reader is referred to Wutz, Systematische Wege von der Septuaginta zum hebrdischenUrtext,I (1937). One can profit greatly from this remarkablework even if he does notsubscribe to the bulk of uncommon forms and idioms suggested by the author. Withspecial referenceto the book of Isaiah, cf. J. L. Seeligmann, The SeptuagintVersionofIsaiah (Leiden, 1948), chap. ii, pp. 39 f. 335

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    3/9

    JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

    Guided by these general observations, we turn to the text under consideration:3for vs. 10a-bwe proposethe followingreconstructions-But YHWH whom it had pleased to crush I D ' n n - 1Kt- ysn mrlilhim, restoredhim to health;He will return his person (soul) to men. IDv (D'w,, =) DW5 w'V

    We realize the full impact of these words when we see them in relation to the pictureofthe Servant given in 53 3: Despisedand shunnedby men; a man of pains and familiarwith disease. In our passageYHWH has restoredthe Servant to health, i. e. removedthe pains and disease. Also, he will returnhim to men, i. e. he shall not be shunnedanymore.The editor was confrontedherewith two rareexpressions,onKand l,'n'n, and theirpeculiarspelling must have added to his confusion. We have only to consult a concord-ance to learnthat the root MSn eaning health occurs but twice in the OT. In neithercase was it recognized by the translators of the LXX. Similarly, the plural o'mt isrecordedonly three times, and in each case the spelling is plene. Now if we rememberthat the two dominant themes of chap. 53 are: 1) the sufferingof the Servant from

    disease, and 2) the cause of that suffering the sin of the many in all its variations(transgression,iniquity, guilt), then it should not be difficult to see how the editorsuccumbed to the apparent force of ,inn, which led to a faulty word division, and ofDWK,which led to a faulty vocalization. Although modern commentatorssucceededinrestoringthe first uncommonterm, they failed to recover the second.4The section contained in vss. 10d-lla forms the second difficulty in our passage:

    ~rh rnT min, yDnI1H1'1 I Dyo

    Recently a step toward the recovery of the genuine text was made by Ginsberg,whosuggests that a faulty vocalization of ynr n the preceding ine marred the text.5 In thelight of his discovery, however, Ginsbergarrangedthe text at will; he did not try tosolve the puzzle of the formation of the corruptedtext. This puzzle can be clarifiedbythe recognitionof two phenomena n the text. The first is a well-knownmediumerroris,

    3 A more detailed and technicalexplanation of all the proposed changes is given atthe end of the article in the notes on the Hebrewtext.4 Duhm reads:... l.'Bv n D,nln. Kohler-Baumgartner, Lexicon, s. v. DSn: 1. o'lnnDW H. It is interesting that the readingo,inn;was sensed intuitively by the pioneerofscientific biblical exegesis at the end of the 15th century, Don Isaac Abravanel. In hiscommentary he outlines three ways of coping with our passage; the second reads:,Snn;is not derived from nrn, disease, but from the same root as n,uinn (Isa 38 16),meaninghealth and life. The phrasewould then say: 'AndYHWH whom it had pleasedto crush Israel in exile, restored them to health etc.' Rightly Abravanelrejected thesecondway as being an interpretationof MT, but his guess was right as far as thegenuine text itself is concerned.s H. L. Ginsberg, The Arm of YHWH in Isaiah 51-63 and the Text of Isaiah53 io-i, JBL, LXXVII (1958), 152 ff.

    336

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    4/9

    CRITICAL NOTES

    a misplaced marginalgloss. Coupledwith it is a less known factor of confusion whichcan be observed in certain medieval MSS where lengthy marginaladditions repeat attheir end the word with which the text is to be resumed. Functioning as a sign ofreferenceto indicatewhere the gloss ought to be insertedin the text, this wordshouldbeomitted when the insertionitself is made. Now if a gloss is misplaced, t followsthat thefunction of the last wordis not recognized,and thus the worditself creepsinto the text.Consequently,the last word of the glossappearstwice: oncein the originaltext and once,wrongly inserted, at the end of the gloss.6

    Recognizing these two phenomenaenables us to understandthe disturbing occur-rences of the verb rwn' n the present passage. It appearstwice (vss. 10and 11),and inboth places it follows the noun irnw. Hence, we surmise that 10d-llawas originally amarginal addition (containing another version of w .... ysn ri;n1) with the referencewordN-r, at the end to indicate the placeof insertion.7 Failing to recognizethe functionof this word, the editor mistakenly inserted the entire gloss between o'', and y='w.When the marginal version is restored to its proper place, with rin' omitted, thefollowing order of lines is obtained:

    lttDst c y .. . yrnmm'i a.WV3 nyv ...m.i' ysmnaa.

    y:: ...y. i rwl , b.lD' 1A .... p'w' iny-t c.

    .... i^5p'nr ]zh dWorkingwith this order,we proceedto the reconstructionof the lines:a) Since aa is a variation of a, accordingto our suggestion,we are justified in sus-

    pecting that behind the much commented upon iTr is concealed a term which corre-sponds to 1mnrn the first version. Accordingly,we proposethat the originalhad rT','his ruin'; this correspondsperfectly to ItK' 'to crush him.' Originally,then, the wholeline read:

    And YHWH took pleasure in his calamity; lVD: nr.yp n]-. 1-I';I-1 y,smHe will deliver him from the travail ofhis soul.

    6 This kind of textual disturbancemay be presentalso in Isa 52 14where a double Ipappears:;II 1p D?N ?3D * * *W'H nnrW p :' lp1y 1DntPnw

    Most modern commentatorsagree that the first p] should be eliminated. The writersurmises that originally the text read: ntr 1p D'm=..s. to which the clause . . nntrmDi:nn,generallyconsideredas a parentheticalone, was added on the marginwith thereference word p1at the end to indicate the resumptionof the text with nt, 1p. Hereagain, the editor failed to recognizethe referencecharacterof the Ipon the marginandinserted the entire gloss between p1and r,'.7 Marti pointed out that ysn min, and ;mmnsn form a doublet ; however, heretained only the second version, reading: lnyn mmn,snm.

    337

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    5/9

    JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

    'D, is not a common word in the OT. It occursonce in Proverbsand three times in Job;only once was it recognizedby the translatorsof the LXX. Nevertheless, if the editorhad put the marginaladdition in the right place, he might have grasped its meaning;but since he inserted it in the midst of the pictureof the Servant's prosperity,he wouldhardly have looked for a meaning of calamity or ruin. As a result, r's becamerrnm,nd the rest of the passagehad to be adjusted accordingly.

    b) ... w',' 1'tR' ytr nwr'. Ginsberg's suggestion that the arm of YHWH besubstituted for the seed of the Servant is enlightening. At first we thought that wecould follow it with a minimumof alterations in the MT and read:ywv, ',D,' 1I / (mn, = ) ' y~I1T N'

    It is generally admitted that the occasional failure to recognize, as an abbreviationofnmr;has been a source of textual distortions. On closer consideration, however, weobserved that this phrase, armof YHWH, is introducedinto the text as if by force,i. e. disregarding he existing text. Moreover,we concludedthat mnn,with which ourpassage starts, continues to be the subject throughout vss. 10-12. On this basis thefollowing readingis proposed:

    He will show him His arm; with length of Iny,w=,oa'' -lmN / lyi-irlnRndays will He satisfy him.

    c) Finally, we considerthe last two puzzlinglines::?,D' Kn =n:wll =,:S ,*ny p,~ prx, inyr:

    .... 1i'pSnR 1p5Here again the key to the difficulties should be sought in some unusualidiom. We startwith the word iny;n. Older commentators and translators were uncertain whether itforms the end or the beginningof its stich. Most modern commentatorsfind that byhis knowledge makes no sense in either position, and thereforethey adopt the readingnynnmr inylr and attach it to the precedingstich.8Ourrearrangementof the text renders most of these attempts precarious. It seemsto us that the traditionalpunctuation s correct. inynris the beginningof a newsentence,but it does not mean by his knowledge. The fact which did not occur to commenta-

    tors, or to the editor himself, is that here ny-r s not a noun but an infinitive. So iny-rmeans becausehe knew. It is the same idiom as that used in 48 4: ,~ ,nyrT'becauseI knew that ....' In our passage the conjunctive , was omitted, as is done frequentlyin Hebrew,and thereforenyi was mistaken for a noun. These two lines are by no meansa simple repetition and amplificationof the picture of the rehabilitated Servant; ratherthey expressthe motivationof what was stated earlier. To the questionof why it pleasedYHWH to crush him, the answer is: Because He knew that the Servant wouldremain steadfast, and would consideras just all his toil and sufferingfor others.

    8Ehrlich reads: iny-n yrs, n-r (Randglossen,IV [1919], 192); Ginsberg reads:nyin ynm.

    338

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    6/9

    CRITICAL NOTES

    In the light of these factors, the following reading is suggested:Because He (YHWH) knew that he (the

    Servant) would surely justify being aservant to many and that he would takeupon himself their sins; therefore He as-signed to him a portion among the many(or: mighty) ....

    D'i^ mlny pfin ipns Jny1nID' Himon3iyi.... D'a2: 19 pins 1z9

    The structure of this entire passage (53 10-12)bears a remarkable resemblance to thatof 48 3-5. In both the scheme is: 1) an action by YHWH; 2) its motivation (becauseI, or He, knew); 3) the restatement of the action as the effect of the motivation. Inour verses this scheme is expressed specifically as follows: 1) YHWH whom it hadpleased to crush him ... He will return him to men .... 2) Because He knew that hewould surely justify.... 3) Therefore He assigned him a portion among themany(returned him to men) ....

    In the search for traces of the suggested textual reconstruction within the existingancient texts and translations, we cannot ignore the LXX, the Qumran Isaiah scrolls,and the Aramaic paraphrase. We deem it useful to confront the reconstructed text( = RE) not only with the MT, but also with the Hebrew text reflected in the LXX. Weare well aware of the warnings of caution, voiced by older and modern scholars, inreconstructing the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX; our presentation is naturally con-jectural. The Qumran texts as well as the Aramaic paraphrase (both most likely de-pendent on MT and LXX) are dealt with in the notes.

    II. MTiND' y3nY. ,

    1WBDtW D n ON-innD'D'O ':' yit Ni'9

    I. RE: Archaic SpellingI D- n ,1, '

    ItI3 DO. i. M'1-'l n n n[iKii iDl yDYD*]

    pcn p'NY' lny-m y-n3. . . D0n1- 19 pins p1:

    123

    nr' ln' mrn,Fsmn 4;nH1' ItVD3 nyD

    p'NI p-n' inyri:,w 5:,O' N1i Donnyi -l1n -niy 6

    ... D'21i 1~ p%IbN JD 7IV. LXX

    / ,'nn 1N-r yrDnmrn,DPW 1 1Wn CDy-Nt 0Nt O tW 3

    D'D' I'lN'( ) ma' ysnm

    ,w5 ODynYin'

    123

    III. RE: Classical Spelling/ 11Dnn' 1iNKtySn mnlm

    ,1sBl3D'I1N W', I I1I rn -*]'*lW9B3^DyD rh'yb

    lyln l^nN5

    / iny'mn' QD'' 1lKbt

    339

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    7/9

    JOURNALOF BIBLICALLITERATURE/ nyin yv[i1 ilKr]1itK, 6 pnx '',inn

    ,,'b -=mlypn,x p-n 7 ,':i, n',y/ D' m1;inrnlyi 8 / omD'1i unryil... D.n, }= 1, pin, 10 9 ... D'3in3 1 pin, 1=1

    ImaginativeUrtext

    Notes on the Hebrew TextCol. I, 1. 2. irmbnn. This spelling may have resulted from confusion with K,6nm.

    However, in light of the many occurrences of w, wn,n,, etc. in lQIsaa (Q), it mayalso be some genuine regionalspelling.IV, 1. ,~nn [Symm.: 1,~nm;Q:r6~nn ]. These variants in the earlier sourceswitnessto a lectiodifficilisin the original. If Q representsa textual variant and not an inter-

    pretation, there may be in the suffixIn a residue of the originalin.II, 2. ao,n. The n in MT, LXX, and Q was formed through the fusion of thesuffixI with the, of the first letter of the followingword =i,v,. That, and I were some-times mistaken for n and n is commonknowledge. A readyexampleof the reversekindis given in Q's readingin.n,n, where the initial n is split into '. Similarly, the mat theend of a,vnis due to a fusion ofb=. A further commentabout o,onis pertinentin relationto the nt which precedes t. Whereas in this column and others of the Qumranscroll,the final, closed n is markedlydistinct from the non-final,open n, at this point in theQ scroll, the n of im is clearly open, non-final (this was overlooked by the editors).Moreover, the n of m,vn in the Q text appearsrather a clumsy tamperingwith 1 and',

    all ofhichoints to an original y1.

    IV, 2. iv,n. The Greekrendering s patternedafter the phraseovm=3', in I Sam6 3. Whetherwe have in the LXX a fragmentof the originalb,v', which substitutes 1for b, or a mere interpretationof the MT under the influenceof the passage in I Samremains uncertain.

    IV, 3. =Dm. The Aramaic paraphraseseems to have read mam. It shows how

    ... D'm p^rrnp1

    Nofluidheuffixwas; often it was omittednthe Hebrtexttself and supplied by the readerand

    interpreter.

    Col. I, 1. 2. 1DH1nn.This spelling may have resulted from confusion with ri>nn.

    However,in light of the suggestionyccurrencetis of , , , etc. While attractiveQ), it may

    also be some genuine regionalspelling.IV, 1. ino [Symm.:lina; Q: Iins ]. These variants in the earliersourceswitnessto a lectiodificilis in the original. If Q representsa textual variant and not an inter-

    pretation, there may be in the suffixIna residueof the original1a.

    improbable,ort could hardlyaccount forhe lacunan MT, LXX and was ormed makethrough theMT still morith thhepuzzling.efirsthesubstitutionf the followingwor is so tempting thatere some-

    times mistaken for n and ;n s commonknowledge. A ready exampleof the reversekindis given in Q's reading ;liinsm, where the initial n is split into '1. Similarly, the Dat theend of oDrtns due to a fusion of in. A further commentabout olwns pertinentin relationto the Qtwhich precedes t. Whereasin this column and others of the Qumranscroll,the final, closed o is markedlydistinct from the non-final,open D,at this point in theQ scroll, the o of DN is clearly open, non-final (this was overlooked by the editors).Moreover, the n of nDt)nn the Q text appearsrather a clumsy tamperingwith 1 and \,all of which points to an original'Dn .

    IV, 2. 'I3n. The Greekrendering s patternedafter the phraseore U^wnn I Sam6 3. Whetherwe have in the LXX a fragmentof the originalinyy, which substitutes rfor i, or a mere interpretationof the MT under the influenceof the passage in I Samremainsuncertain.IV, 3. D3prC9.The Aramaic paraphraseseems to have read DpB3.It shows howfluid the suffixwas; often it was omitted in the text itself and suppliedby the readerandinterpreter.I, 3; II, 4; III, 3. The suggestionby Marti is 1n^ynmil psm. Whileattractive, it is

    improbable,for it could hardlyaccount for the lacuna in the LXX and would make theMT still more puzzling. Yet the substitution of rnmyor TT3 s so tempting that one is

    340

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    8/9

    CRITICAL NOTES

    not surprisedto find the Aramaicparaphraserenderingthe hemistich homiletically, asif it read in ix r,my nlrryrsn, 1 and a being interchangeable n Palestinian Aramaic.Besides renderingthe first hemistich with nrx' attached, accordingto the MT, thesame paraphraserenders the second hemistich accordingto the LXX, with ','Xor yrn'attached. Combinations of different readings and interpretations constitute a wellknown feature of the Aramaicparaphrase(cf. David Oppenheimin Beth Hammidrash[HebrewMagazine], I [1865], ii ff., 92 ff.).

    I, 3; III, 3. [l]Tn'. This is reminiscent of Ps 22 9: ia ysn 'a in'x'. We prefer... ',x to the synonym ySn, favored by most modern scholars (Duhm, Kraus, Gins-berg), because it accounts better for MT.

    I, 3; III, 3. In a comparisonof these two versions, the second marks a consider-able improvementas far as meter is concerned. It is composedof three beats to eachhemistich, while the first version consists of 4/3 beats. On the other hand, the firstversion is much moreeffective in substance. It is linked moreconcretelywith the pictureof the Servant as familiar with disease and despised by men, while the secondversion is kept in general terms of deliverancefrom trouble.

    I, 4; III, 4; IV, 6. We adopt the Hiphil [l]rn,', He will show him, because,according to our interpretation, YHWH remains the main subject through all threeverses. This readingis supportedby the LXX in the secondappearanceof nsw',which,we maintain, is but a referenceto the first nw'.

    I, 4; III, 4; IV, 4. lynt. We adopt Ginsberg'svocalization;however,since YHWHis subject, the reading has to be lyir and not mnr'ypt. The droppingof the suffix inmn,', was probably the cause of the editor's misunderstanding,which promptedhim toseparate the r from yir and to attach it to the following word. It is still present in Q(lyNw) and is changedinto a in MT, LXX (l: ', i'w).

    Finally, although we considerGinsberg'ssuggestion as the most plausibleone, weare unable to share his certainty. His statement that ynt 'seed,' makes absolutelyno sense is exaggerated. As a matter of fact, y-i 'seed,' with reference to Israel, isquite prominentin Deutero-Isaiah; Isa 61 9 and 65 23seem especially pertinent to ourpassage. One might even be tempted to suggest the reading inrm;l= yir for 'Dp' yln

    IV, 6. ... 1 n1. Accordingto our view that nwK' crept into the text mistakenly, themuch debated question as to whether Tii is genuineor a marginalnote (Ziegler, Seelig-mann) is of little consequence. However, while we are able to explain reasonably theformation of MT, we have no easy explanation for the intrusion of ... l Im nto theLXX text. To attribute the introduction of ilr to the translator's fondness of the

    light of knowledge (Seeligmann) is hardly convincing. This writer noticed withsurprise that the number of letters added here is exactly the same which the LXXskipped in the first hemistich (rm' or rn'a)and that in both cases the last letter is a 1.It may be that the four skipped letters from the first hemistich were misplaced andinserted into the second hemistich. But how? If our suggested Irn be right, we canimagine the following process: Since lin is an uncommonexpression,it is possible thatit was deleted in the translator's copy and that its more familiar synonym 1i'K wasinserted (cf. Prov 24 22). If we suppose that the substituted IrN chanced to find its

    341

  • 8/14/2019 Isaiah Sonne, Isaiah 53,10-12

    9/9

    JOURNALOF BIBLICALLITERATUREinterlinearplaceover ywv,rwrn,t would have been only natural for the translator of theLXX to consider t as the directobject of rrh, an object forwhich he was looking. Thathe read l IKmnstead of rr'n can well be attributed to his interest in the light of knowl-edge. If we are right, it would seem that Q, which has ri'r in the first hemistich andIKmn the second, representsa combinationof MT and LXX.

    IV, 6. yn3n. Almost all modern commentatorsgive yvwi as the Hebrewtext of theLXX, but very few find it necessary to indicate that this readingis achieved only bycorrectingthe LXX on the basis of MT (Grabe, quoted by Schleusner,Lexicon,s. v.7rXaraaw;eeligman,op. cit., p. 11,n. 8). As it stands the LXX text (TrXoKra)equiressome Hebrew termmeaning to form,to fashion. To the writer the most suitable termseems to be the Piel of =xy (cf. Job 10 8where the translator used the same Greekword).Indeed, if we bear in mind, a) that w and x are interchangeable (pnx- pnw),andb) that in certain Palestinian dialects y was often dropped (cf. Q 48 14: xsn n -l1xn nvy,), it is not difficult to assume an exchangeof ymwvor axy. If yzwwas spelledyx, in the translator'scopy, this alone would have sufficedto make a confusion withn=y, possible. Further, if in both terms the y were dropped, then we would obtain thesame letters in the same orderfor both terms [(y)=x'; x(y)']. In this case the confusionwould be inevitable.

    I, 5. inyn. The correct meaning of the word and its function in the structureofthe passage have been discussed above.I, 5. p-nn pn'x. Rightly suggested by Ehrlich. The normalconstructionrequires

    the infinitive to precedethe conjugatedverb. The inverted order here is probablydueto conformitywith the precedingverbs. As a result of this unusualorder,the infinitivewas not recognized and the phrase adjusted to the familiar idiom p'-srn'n ip'nlm(Deut 25 1). It should be added that even the normal Hebrewconstruction, with theinfinitive precedingthe conjugatedverb, was not always recognizedby the translatorsof the LXX (Thackeray, Renderingof the InfinitiveAbsolute in the LXX, quoted bySeeligmann,op. cit., p. 55).

    I, 6; IV, 7. niT. The uncertaintyof the editor and translatorsmanifests itself inthe differentreadingsand translations. The MT has -=y. The LXX, following perhapsa traditional nterpretation,reads-mp,a participleand not a noun,in the senseof servingthe many by good deeds. The Aramaicparaphraseseems to follow the LXX traditionand takes the term lny n the religious sense of serving God, which is reminiscent ofDeut 11 13(cf.Sifre:nlnrn rrnzy1i); t paraphrases, Makingmany submit to the divinelaw, i. e. making many serve God. The Q text has inly. The writer surmises that itshould be vocalized 1lnY 'serving Him,' rather than i-rmTHis servant.' Despite thehomileticaltinge of all these interpretations,they seem to have preservedan importantelement of the original, which was marredby MT, insofar as they all took the wordrTyas verb and not as noun.

    I, 7; II, 7. We follow LXX here. MT pSnr is due to the substitution of 'lry forrnmyr iaiy.ISAIAH SONNE

    CINCINNATI, OHIO

    342