See in Reader
ISA 25:2 missing clause #493
Labels
No Label
After June_2023 merge
Audio Waiting
Drew
Henry
Info - different
Info - missing
Info added
John
Needs TN
No Audio Yet
Not Urgent
Rendering
Susan
Tom
unreadable
No Milestone
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: WycliffeAssociates/en_ulb#493
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
There's an extraneous comma in the first line.
\v 2 For you have made the city a heap, a fortified city, a ruin,
should be
\v 2 For you have made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin,
The second line is missing the final clause, and the first group of words seems to continue the list begun in the first line (NIV), but most versions make it its own clause.
\q1 and a fortress of strangers into no city.
either
\q1 the fortress of strangers a city no more; it will never be rebuilt.
or
\v 2 ... a ruin.
\q1 The fortress of strangers is a city no more; it will never be rebuilt.
I don't understand why many versions translate the first two city phrases as parallel (as complements of שַׂ֤מְתָּ) when the first one begins with the preposition מְ and the other doesn't.
Possibly taking a cue from the LXX, which doesn't translate the preposition ("you set cities into a heap" -- Lexham English Septuagint). The word city appears with a preposition later in the verse, and the construction of that first clause is a bit of a head-scratcher with the preposition, so it could be being treated as a dittography from the end of the verse.
My second suggestion fits better with the LXX than my first, so I'm starting to lean toward it.
Thanks, Henry, for the explanation.
Is there a reason the sentence alternates indefinite to definite articles?
the city ... a fortified city ... the fortress
The ULB of ISA 25:2 now reads:
\v 2 For you have made the city a heap, a fortified city a ruin,
\q1 and a fortress of strangers into no city; it will never be rebuilt.
This has been committed to the ULB.
Susan and John,
Please check the tN for Isa 25:2
At this point the ULB changes do not require any tN changes.
Should the articles in the bolded phrases be the same--either all definite or all indefinite?
\v 2 For you have made the city a heap, a fortified city a ruin,
\q1 and a fortress of strangers into no city; it will never be rebuilt.
With the exception of NASB, the English versions put in definite articles throughout to speak of this being generally the case, e.g.,
LEB For you have made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin, the palace of foreigners is no longer a city; it will never be rebuilt.
The NLT makes this interpretation explicit by using the plural (which would not use definite articles).
NLT You turn mighty cities into heaps of ruins. Cities with strong walls are turned to rubble. Beautiful palaces in distant lands disappear and will never be rebuilt.
Another way of taking the wording is that Isaiah had a particular city (or perhaps two cities) and a particular palace in mind, but even then he could be speaking of specific examples of a general practice.
No version uses indefinite articles throughout, which would be a slavish rendition of the Hebrew, which uses no definite articles here.
I'd go with definite articles throughout.
Are you suggesting?
\v 2 For you have made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin,
\q1 and the fortress of strangers into no city; it will never be rebuilt.
The rendering of the phrase about the strangers ... ought to read:
\v 2 For you have made a heap from the city, the fortified city into a ruin;
\q1 a palace of strangers is the city no more, it will never be rebuilt.
Give that a try.
Tom W
This was what I was thinking:
For you have made the city a heap,
the fortified city a ruin;
the palace of foreigners is no longer a city;
it will never be rebuilt.
I'm assuming that the first three lines refer to hostile cities in general (or to the same city); the third line implies that either the foreigners destroyed the city when they left or they left because someone else was destroying it.
Tom's "a palace of strangers is the city no more" looks like a predicate-fronted version of "the city is no more a palace of strangers," sort of like "it is no more a palace of strangers that the city is," emphasizing what the city is no longer. If the emphasis is in the Hebrew, we should include it if we can.
The second line in both Henry's and Tom's suggestions are similar in that it starts a new clause; it is not a compliment of "you have made". This looks good to me
Henry's suggestion seems to fit all the English versions where "city", "fortified city" and "palace of foreigners" are all the topic. This looks good to me.
Could the ULB be changed to this?
\v 2 For you have made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin;
\ q1 the palace of foreigners is no longer a city; it will never be rebuilt.
@drewcurley
Let me know what you think of this change.
That works, but I would change
the city to a city
the fortified to a fortified
the palace to a palace
This verse explains what God’s plans were that have now been executed. They were to humble all the works of human pride and oppression, here typified as the walled city and the fortified town. The usage here is the same as in ch. 24, in that no specific city is intended. This city is all those arrogant bastions of power that have crushed the righteous through all of time. But the prophet says that their power will not avail them in the end (9:3, 4 [Eng. 4, 5]). God will triumph, and it has been planned so from the beginning.
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 461.
The Vision has described the destruction of more than one city
John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, vol. 24, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1985), 330.
A literal translation of the words is: for thou hast placed from a city to the heap. The word “city” is indefinite, inasmuch as it is anarthrous.‡ Although the construction is somewhat cumbersome, the meaning appears to be, “thou hast changed a city into a heap.” It is perfectly possible that the reference may be to one particular city, such as Babylon; but it is by no means necessary to adopt such a reference. It may also be that the prophet is simply enunciating a general truth, namely, that God’s wondrous counsels have been carried out in that He has completely overthrown the order of things. A city is a place of organization and order, but God has changed it to a heap. On this construction the word would simply refer to cities generally.
This interpretation is supported by the phrase, “a village fortified to a place of ruin.” Here again indefiniteness is maintained, but there is the additional information that the city is fortified. The gradation continues in that the city is designated a place of strangers. By mentioning the place Isaiah designates the city, which is evidently conceived in its unity and stateliness as centering in a beautiful building. A castle or castles would be the distinguishing feature of the city. Penna aptly calls attention to the Hofburg of the German cities. To destroy such a place was really to make the place no more a city. God had acted in such a manner that the place ceased to be a city, and so thorough was His work that it would never be built again.
Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), Is 25:2.
I'm fine with using all indefinite articles. That is what NASB has. Do you want me to make this change?
Yes please.
Updated ULB and notes.