13 Emerton has a thorough summary of ancient interpretations of Isa 6:13, including the Greek (1982b, 212–13). The accent of ἐστιν follows B (Swete; Ziegler has ἐστι); Rahlfs has ἔστιν. According to Carson (1985, 50), the accent should only be on the penult when it stands at the beginning of a sentence or clause; when signifying existence or possibility; when it is preceded by οὐκ, μή, ὡς, εἰ, καί, ἀλλά (or ἀλλ’), τοῦτο (when elided as τοῦτ’); when it is strongly emphatic. The Hebrew clause has no verb, so that is probably why the Greek present tense was used, since the present tense is the most versatile tense of εἰμί. In this context, however, the present tense ἐστιν is surprising. Van der Kooij claimed it is in the present tense because the “tenth” is to be present constantly, in contrast to the the population, which will grow (according to Isa 6:12b). In this interpretation, the “tenth” is not ten percent of the population, but the tithe. ἐπιδέκατον is a financial term for 10%. Van der Kooij referred to Jubilees
32:2, where Jacob tithes his sons, to argue that this “tithe” is Levi (van der Kooij 2012, 73). Forms of היה ל meaning “become” are often translated literally as forms of εἰμί εἰς. Emerton suggested προνομήrefers not to plunder (contra Ottley 1904), but animal fodder. For ἀπὸ, with S and A (Rahlfs, Ziegler), B (Swete) has ἐκ; Emerton suggested the Hebrew had מן here. The word θήκη is used for containers, especially graves and sheaths (for swords). Muraoka suggested, “the ground in which the roots of a tree lie (?) or a husk of acorns” (2009, s.v. θήκη). In Isa 3:26 the ornament cases, αἱ θῆκαι τοῦ κόσμου of the women were mentioned. Emerton translated, “and like an acorn when it falls from its cup.” Arie van der Kooij saw in Isa 6:13 a strong interest in the priesthood, in that that an acorn falling from its husk refers to the loss of a position of power by the descendents of the tithed son Levi, and the imagery of plunder indicates that this loss took place violently (van der Kooij 2012).
1 The seventh chapter of Greek Isaiah is the one that generates the most discussion, even more than chapter 53. Almost all the attention is directed to Isa 7:14 and its application to the birth of Jesus. Eusebius said this extended prophecy presents “the divinity of the only begotten son” (1.43). This Christological use makes it easy to miss the intention of the prophecy, which is to encourage Ahaz to put his trust in Lord. There is no υἱοῦ to describe τοῦ Ἰωαθὰμ, as there is with Ὀζείου. Although both Rhaasson and Phakee went up, ἀνέβη is singular; ἠδυνήθησαν is plural.
Aram joined with Ephraim(7:2)[[@Bible:Isa 7:1-2]]
2 The agent of the passive ἀνηγγέλη (who did the reporting) is not specified. The preposition εἰς is unusual with ἀναγγέλλω. Twice (also in 7:13) Achaz is addressed as οἶκος Δαυείδ; Eusebius said those under Achaz were called the “house of David”: οὕτω δὲ ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ ἀπὸ γένους ∆αυὶδ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐκ διαδοχῆς αὐτοῦ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἀρχόμενοι (1.43). For λέγοντες with A (Rahlfs, Ziegler), S and B (Swete) have λέγων. The Hebrew rule is that direct speech should be introduced by a form of אמר. Etymologically συμφωνέω implies harmony, but the verb is used mainly metaphorically to indicate agreement. Despite the two subjects, both of which are ψυχὴ, ἐξέστη is singular; Eusebius retained the singular “their soul was confounded” (1.43). The identity of αὐτοῦ is not specified; the most recent antecedent would be οἶκος Δαυεὶδ, and that is how Eusebius took it, but it is also grammatically possible that if the quotation does not end after Ephraim but extends to the end of the verse, αὐτοῦ could refer to Aram or Ephraim. See the comment on ὃν τρόπον in 5:24.
3 The first part of the Hebrew name שׁאר ישׁוב is translated (καταλειφθείς); the second is transliterated (Ἰασούβ). If the article in the phrase ὁκαταλειφθεὶςἸασούβ belongs with the proper name, then the translation would be “your remaining son Iasoub,” but it is simpler to take it as Silva did, so that article makes the participle substantive. It is not clear why this son should be designated as remaining; in contrast to whom?
4 The form φύλαξαι looks the same as an infinitive but in this context must be an aorist middle imperative. When followed by a infinitive verb (especially a genitive as in Jos 23:11), it means to be careful to do that verb. ξύλων “timbers” (also in Isa 7:2) and δαλῶν “fire-brands” are both nouns; the main noun is indicated by the δύο, so the other genitive δαλῶν is specifying what kind of timbers. “Once” is used in the translation rather than “when” for ὅταν because γένηται is aorist rather than present. The healing is not contemporaneous with but subsequent to the anger. ὀργή and θυμός appear in 482 verses of the OG in total; 45 of these are in Isaiah. That the two are synonymous in Isaiah is evident from the parallelism of Isa 34:2. In 12 verses in Isaiah, the two both appear. They are joined by a conjunction in 10:5, 25; 13:9; 30:30; 34:2; they are in a genitive relationship in 7:4; 30:27; 42:25 as ὀργὴ (τοῦ) θυμοῦ; and in 9:18; 13:13 as θυμὸν ὀργῆς. The Hebrew words behind θυμός are usually אַף (14 times), and חֵמָה (6 times). Behind ὀργή are usually זַ֫עַם (4 times) and אַף (2 times). When G saw either אַף or חֵמָה or עֶבְרָה his reflex was usually θυμός; only זַ֫עַם prompted him to think of ὀργή instead.
Aram plotted evil(7:5-6)[[@Bible:Isa 7:3-6]]
5 The nominative ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Ἀρὰμ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Ῥομελίου does not have a verb for which it can act as a subject. The sentence lacks a main verb, since ἐβουλεύσαντο is in the ὅτι clause.
6 Swete spelled συλλαλήσαντες, which Q has in agreement with S, A, Bb (Rahlfs, Ziegler), as συνλαλήσαντες. The participle could indicate the sequence or the means by which the action of ἀποστρέψωμεν happens. Instead of the subjunctive ἀποστρέψωμεν in agreement with A (Ziegler), S and B (Swete, Rahlfs) have the future ἀποστρέψομεν. Note this is one of the few places where Rahlfs and Ziegler differ. The future tense would match the preceding Ἀναβησόμεθα and the following βασιλεύσομεν better. The basic function of the accusative is to limit or modify verbs, so τὸν υἱὸν Ταβεήλ expresses how they will rule.
7 The future ἔσται is a literal translation of תהיה, although γενήσεται would be better Greek.
8 The prepositional phrase ἀπὸ λαοῦ is a literal translation of מעם, which means “without a people.” ἐκλείπω denotes diminishing to the point of nonexistence, for which no one English word suffices.
9 Menzies argued that the reading of Isa 7:9b represented by MT, Vg, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Tg. Jon. “if you will not believe, then you will not be established” was corrupted by a scribe’s minor mechanical error compounded by a second scribe’s brilliant but mistaken conjectural emendation, to produce the reading of the LXX, Peshitta, and VL “If you will not believe, then you will not understand” (Menzies 1998). Menzies commented as follows: “It is likely that if 1QIsa reflects a corrupted text, it was corrupted from a form of the verb אמן rather than a form of the verb בין since תאמינו differs from the MT’s תאמנו by only a single consonant. This corruption should probably be attributed to an accidental insertion of a stray yod, perhaps by a fatigued copyist, and perhaps in unconscious imitation of the hiphil form of the word which appears earlier in the verse. At this point the meaning of the text became obscured. This first error was compounded when a later copyist, who recognized that there was a problem with the text of his Vorlage (1QIsa or a relative), attempted to correct the problem by emendation. This copyist substituted תבינו for (the second) תאמינו” (Menzies 1998, 126). Pancratius Beentjes argued that the Chronicler downplayed the prophet Isaiah in 2 Chronicles 29-32 in comparison to 2 Kings 18-20. Specifically, 2 Chr 20:20 transforms the prophetic warning of Isa 7:9b into a “positive summons” by King Jehosaphat that epitomizes the Chronicler’s message (Beentjes 2010).
10 Καὶ προσέθετο is a standard translation of ויוסף.
11 There is no word in MT prompting the εἰς before βάθος, but the Hebrew ל of the הגבה למעלה lies behind the εἰς before ὕψος. The sign beneath the earth and to the height above was interpreted by Irenaeus to be Christ seeking the perished sheep and ascending to his Father (Haer. 3.19.3). Irenaeus devoted an entire chapter to this prophecy (Haer. 3.21). Eusebius claimed the depths are the same as Hades (1.44).
12 The verbs αἰτήσω and πειράσω could be either futures or subjunctives.
Lord will provide the sign(7:13-14)[[@Bible:Isa 7:3-6]]
13 Here the addressee is called οἶκος Δαυείδ, who might appear to be Achaz himself since no others are mentioned in attendance besides Achaz, Isaiah, and Iasoub, but the verb Ἀκούσατε and pronoun ὑμῖν are plural. Eusebius identified this house of David as the descendents of David, in agreement with his interpretation of the phrase in Isa 7:3. The question introduced by μή expects a negative answer. “It isn’t a small thing, is it?”
The maiden will bear Emmanouel(7:14-16)[[@Bible:Isa 7:3-6]]
14 Because ἕξει is a durative verb, it appears to refer to pregnancy, whereas λήμψεται refers to conception. Matt 1:23 has ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθʼ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. The only difference is the third person plural καλέσουσιν for the second person plural καλέσετε. A, B (Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler) have καλέσεις, and so do D, Origen, and Eusebius, but S reads καλέσει. In Q, Achaz and those with him will name the child; in A and B, it will be Achaz alone; in S, the maiden will name the him. When quoted by Luke, the form of the verb is second person singular, as in A and B, but the subject is the maiden, as in S. Luke 1:31 has καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. Dozens of articles have addressed Greek Isaiah 7:14 specifically (C. H. Gordon 1953; das Neves 1972; Dubarle 1978; Cazelles 1986; Kamesar 1990; Rösel 1991; Heath 1994; Troxel 2003; J. Lust 2004; de Sousa 2008), and Lincoln provides the most recent review of the issues (Lincoln 2012). Much of the discussion over Isa 7:14 has to do with whether certain translations are justifiable. Is παρθένος a reasonable translation of העלמה? Yes, Gen 24:43 provides a precedent. Is “virgin” a reasonable translation of παρθένος?  But although these translations are reasonable, there is reason to think that sexual inexperience is not the prototypical characteristic of a παρθένος, even in G’s mind. Lincoln adduced many examples of παρθένος with the more general meaning of a woman who has not yet borne a child: Pausanias 8.20.4; Diodorus Siculus 20.84.3; Lycophron, Alexandra 1141, 1175; Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 1462, and most clearly Sophocles, Women of Trachis 1216-29, “where the dying Heracles implores his son to marry a παρθένος who has already been his own lover” (Lincoln 2012, 215). Similarly the LXX has non-virginal uses of the word in Gen. 34:3 and Joel 1:8, and even in Isa 62:5 we encounter the phraseσυνοικῶννεανίσκοςπαρθένῳ, wherethe cohabitation (notably in the present tense) implies that not sexual inexperience but age appears to be what G had in mind, since παρθένος is the female counterpart of νεανίσκος. Michaël N. van der Meer noted Rösel’s argument that עלמה rendered as παρθένος echoes the birth of Aion as reported
by Hippolytus. Pursuing this possibility that the Greek translator was influenced by Hellenistic mystery cults, van der Meer detected parallels between Greek Isaiah 7:14-17 and Greek Egyptian prophecies close in time and space to where and when Isaiah was translated into Greek. Specifically, certain phrases and images are shared between Greek Isaiah and The Dream of Nectanebo, The Oracle of the Lamb of Bokchoris and the Oracle of the Potter, and The Oracles of Ḥor. In common with the Dream of Nectanebo, Isa 6 stresses verticality (high; lintels raised). According to one possible reading, the Lamb oracle mentions a city called “a bundle of cucumbers and gourds,” reminiscent of the city razed like a cucumber field in Isa 1:8. The Potter oracle shares a topic and the word ἀνεμόφθορον with Isa 19:17, a general theme of self-destruction with Isa 19:2, the word ἀγάλματα with Isa 19:3, and most importantly, a common enemy: the Syrian king. Assuming Isa 14:4-21 and Isa 22:1-14 allude to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, van der Meer saw another parallel between the Egyptian oracle and Greek Isaiah: they both contemporize oracles of doom originally about Assyria to this Seleucid king. The Ḥor oracle contains a line, “The confirmation of this: the Queen bears a male child.” The queen must have been Cleopatra II, who would have given birth to this male child Ptolemy Eupator while she was a teenager. As in Isa 7:14, the birth of a male heir by a young mother while threatened by Syria served as a confirmation of the prophecy (van der Meer 2010). Van der Meer was right to admit these parallels do not indicate literary dependence. In most of the cases raised, the parallels (such as between Ḥor and Isa 7) are already present in the Hebrew. The few lexical parallels that are specifically Greek are not at all strong. The allegedly significant historical-cultural parallel exalting Memphis over the other cities is due (as van der Meer noted) to the translator’s misunderstanding of נשאו in Isa 19:13. Even the claim that the reception history of both the Egyptian oracles and Isaiah (evidenced by its Greek translation) both exemplify fulfilment interpretation regarding the Seleucid period (specifically Leontopolis around 140 BCE) assumes such an interpretive method is characteristic of the translator of Greek Isaiah. Christian interpreters since the Gospels have seen here a reference to Jesus’ birth. Even if sexual inexperience were the only meaning of παρθένος, G indicates that the mother was a virgin only at the time of the prophecy, not at the time of the birth. Lincoln demonstrates that Matthew’s account does not imply the conception took place without a male human, but only that the father was not Joseph. Usually the fathers quoted 7:14 to show that the scriptures prophesied the miraculous birth of Christ, but also to show that the Son had a physical body (Ignatius, Philippians 3). Justin Martyr bore witness to the Jewish interpretation that the prophecy referred to Hezekiah (Dial. 43 and 67). In response, Justin (Dial. 43, 48, 66, 67–71, 77f., 84) insisted that without a miraculous birth
there would be no “sign,” and therefore the mother must have been a virgin after a miraculous conception. Since Ἐμμανουήλ is given as a name, it is transliterated rather than translated.
15 The original reading of Sinaiticus, the infinitive ἐκλέξασθαι, shared with B (Swete), was changed to the future ἐκλέξεται by ca, cb2, in agreement with Q and A (Rahlfs, Ziegler), providing a finite verb for this clause. Eusebius wrote, πρὶν ἢ γνῶναι τὸ παιδίον ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ἀπειθεῖ πονηρίᾳ ἐκλέξασθαι τὸ ἀγαθόν.
16 Since the clause preceding καί was subordinated by διότι, the καὶ does not coordinate two clauses. It must therefore be understood adverbially.
18 The antecedent referent for the neuter singular relative pronoun ὃ is unclear. Nothing explicit matches its gender and number: day is feminine, flies are plural, Lord is masculine. Only the action itself could be neuter singular, but this makes little sense. Silva disregarded the singular form, rendering it “the flies that rule;” Ottley has “the flies, that which ruleth over….” Instead of the present κυριεύει, the reading also of S and A (Rahlfs, Ziegler); B (Swete) has the future κυριεύσει. The future is out of place here, since it is in parallel with the present ἐστιν. κυριεύει, normally takes its object in the genitive, therefore in Q, the genitive neuter noun μέρους is the object of κυριεύει and the neuter pronoun ὃ is the subject. The parallelism with the bees (who also inhabit a certain region) indicate an accusative, making the neuter relative pronoun ὃ nominative. Eusebius commented, ταύταις ταῖς ἀποδοθείσαις Αἰγυπτιακαῖς μυίαις συριεῖν ὁ κύριος εἴρηται, “The Lord is said to whistle for these recompensed Egyptian flies” (1.45).
19 The masculine form πάντες indicates it is people rather than flies or bees (both feminine) that will go out. Eusebius saw the “flies” and “bees” as metaphors for military forces (1.45). The Egyptians under Necho were during the time of Josiah, and the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar were from the
land of the Assyrians. They settled in the ravines and caves, but unsurprisingly, Eusebius made no mention of them on the trees. Note ξύλῳ makes a repeat appearance from earlier in this chapter.
20 ξυρήσει is the future of ξυράω, shave. The verb μεθύω means to get drunk, corresponding to the root שׁכר; μισθόω means to hire, corresponding to the root שׂכר. It is difficult to fit the prepositional phrase πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ into the sentence. It appears to express where the razor comes from. Silva and Ottley translated a different text, which includes the words ὅ ἐστιν before this phrase. Brenton thought the genitive βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων modified ξυρῷ. Again, Silva and Ottley translated a different text, which does not have this difficulty. It is hard to tell whether the accusative τὰς τρίχας τῶν ποδῶν belongs with the preceding τὴν κεφαλήν (object of ξυρήσει) or the following τὸν πώγωνα (object of ἀφελεῖ). Brenton and Silva took it with the former, as object of ξυρήσει; Ottley preserved the ambiguity, with “shave … the head, and the hair of the feet, and the beard shall he take away.”
21 The noun δάμαλιν appeared previously in 5:18, translating the same Hebrew word. It is not made explicit whether raising a heifer and two sheep is an indication of abundance or scarcity. Eusebius saw it as πενίαν ὑπερβάλλουσαν “utter destitution” (1.47). The preceding verse implies captivity; the following verse, abundance.
22 The neuter πλεῖστον (superlative of πολύς) is used adverbially. The production (ποιεῖν) is “most abundant.” The phrase βούτυρον καὶ μέλι appeared earlier in 7:15, translating the same Hebrew words. There these appeared as the food the child would eat before he was of the age of understanding. The implication seems to be that “that day” would come within several years. Here the abundance of milk production is stated explicitly, which seems unexpected given the clear threat of verse 20 and the ambiguity of verse 21.
23 The σίκλος was a weight or coin named for the Hebrew שׁקל, but here it translates כסף. χέρσος refers to dry land as opposed to sea, but also dry land as opposed to fertile land, especially in the papyri.
24 The dart and arrow imply that hunters will travel to these uninhabited areas.
From barren to fertile land(7:25)[[@Bible:Isa 7:23-25]]
25 An improvement on Ottley’s or Brenton’s translations, that every mountain “shall be deeply ploughed” and “shall be certainly ploughed” is to take the literal translation of the Pual (passive) participle מעדר ἀροτριώμενον as indicating the arability of the land. Silva left the participle ambiguous: “every hill being plowed will be plowed.” Ottley and Brenton rendered the phrase as an emphatic because the main verb ἀροτριαθήσεται is cognate to the preceding participle ἀροτριώμενον. At first glance the sense of ἀπό here seems to be to indicate the cause of the clause: “because of the dry land and thorn, it will be….” But the presence of εἰς makes the ἀπό phrase refer to the previous (barren) state from which the new (fertile) state emerges. In contrast to previous instances of ἄκανθαι in this paragraph, in this verse we have the singular form ἀκάνθης. Note the parallel between the δάμαλιν βοῶν καὶ δύο πρόβατα from 7:21 and the προβάτου and βοός here. The noun καταπάτημα appeared earlier in 5:5, there the result of destroying the vineyard. It will appear again in paragraphs 84, 125, and 164, always as the object of εἰς.
1 Chapter 8 opens with a first-person narrative, reminiscent of chapter 6, in contrast to the third-person narrative of chapter 7. Lord speaks to the prophet, impregnates the prophetess, and the prophet names the son. Swete accented πρός με as πρὸς μέ. The accentuation Λάβε follows Swete and Ziegler; Rahlfs accents this as Λαβέ. It is unclear what the genitive καινοῦ μεγάλου is modifying. Silva has “a scroll of a new large one” with a note, “Or a leaf from a large new scroll.” Ottley has “a leaf of a new great sheet.” Eusebius understood these as attributive adjectives: τόμον καινὸν καὶ μέγαν (1.48). Katz accepted the emendation גורלfor גדול, and conjectured τόμον κλήρου as the original translation that later became corrupted as τόμον καινόν. μεγάλου was then added to the Greek after גדול had become the accepted Hebrew reading (Katz 1946). The significance of ἀνθρώπου modifying γραφίδι is unclear. Ottley and Silva both have simply “a man’s pen.” Eusebius claimed that the writing with a normal human pen (rather than writing with the power of God) was to maintain secrecy to keep rumours from circulating. The usual interpretation of the articular infinitive Τοῦ … ποιῆσαι is purpose, although Brenton translated, “concerning the making a rapid plunder of spoils.” It makes no sense for plunder to be the purpose of the writing, so I take this phrase to be the content of the writing (as
implied by Ottley and Silva). Harsh vocabulary is used in this writing: προνομή refers to foraging, the spoils of war, σκῦλον also means spoils or booty, goods taken violently, and ὀξέως is adverb of ὀξύς, sharp. The subject of πάρεστιν is not indicated. Ottley and Silva both took it as a neuter, with “it is at hand” and “it is near,” respectively. It is not clear whether πάρεστιν γάρ is included in what is written, or if it is the reason for writing. Eusebius said the writing was about the plundering from spoils quickly, i.e., the binding the strong man and plundering his goods described in Matt 12:29 and Luke 11:22. In his interpretation, the exact words to be written (γράφε ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐν τῷ λεχθέντι τόμῳ) are: καὶ προσῆλθον πρὸς τὴν προφῆτιν, καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔλαβεν καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν (1.48). In other words, it was to be a secret that the Lord was the one who impregnated the prophetess.
2 The document is binding enough to require witnesses. Swete accents μάρτυράς as μάρτυρὰς. The accusatives τὸν Οὐρίαν καὶ τὸν Ζαχαρίαν υἱὸν Βαραχίου are in apposition to ἀνθρώπους.
3 Because Q has a textual variant shared by S and A (third person singular rather than first person singular or third person plural), it is not clear who the third person subject of προσῆλθεν might be. The possible candidates are Isaiah, one of the witnesses, Achaz, and Lord, with problems associated with all of these. Isaiah does not fit as the subject of a third person verb because in this chapter he is the first person narrator. None of the three witnesses is singled out; they are mentioned together as plural, not singular. Achaz does not appear in this chapter, and his presence would have to be assumed based on the connection to the preceding chapter. Lord is the best candidate syntactically (as the last third-person subject); although a reader might be surprised that Lord would engage in a physical act, that is certainly how Eusebius interpreted it (1.48). As also in MT, there is no indication here who specifically τὴν προφῆτιν might refer to, other than the observation that the prophet’s wife might be called a prophetess, which would explain why the prophet is the one naming the son. Eusebius of course took this prophetess to be Mary. At least several months are telescoped into this one verse, several centuries in Eusebius’s interpretation. Eusebius explained, “he relates the things that are about to be as though they had already happened.”
4 The reason for the statement just made is introduced by διότι. A phrase similar to διότι πρὶν ἢ γνῶναι τὸ παιδίον appeared earlier in 7:16 (πρὶν ἢ γνῶναι αὐτὸν in 7:15). The Hebrew is כי בטרם ידע הנער in both places (לדעתו in 7:15). The vocabulary σκῦλα recalls 8:1 and 8:3, and βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων recalls 7:20 (and τὸν
βασιλέα τῶν Ἀσσυρίων in 7:17). The reason the boy is given such a quick and looting name is that the threatening powers will soon be despoiled.
The subject of λήμψεται could be the child or Lord, or someone indefinite. The child is preferable because he is the most recent subject, and Lord is speaking. Ottley has “(one) shall take”; Silva has “it will receive.” Both are reasonable interpretations. Eusebius took this to be the child (1.48). Eusebius included chapter 8 in the prophecy of Emmanuel (1.48). He said that at this point the Lords shifts from addressing Ahaz to addressing the prophet privately.
6 The phrase τὸνλαὸντοῦτον recalls 6:9, 10; in both cases, the people did not listen to Lord. Sheppard suggested that τοῦΣιλωάμ most probably represents a Hebrew dual form compressed in pronunciation as הַשִּׁלֹחָם(1915).
7 In response to this rebuff, Lord intends to send the king of the Assyrians, an expression that recalls 7:17. The present tense ἀνάγει is used to represent the Hebrew participle, which indicates the impending future. The phrase ἀναβήσεται ἐπί is a literal translation of עלה על. The imagery of water overflowing banks implies that the Assyrians will be just as unstoppable.
8 Along with sending this flood, Lord intends to eliminate anyone of power from Judea. G differs greatly from the MT in 8:8. NRSV reads “it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” Although G literally says Lord will remove a single person, the context demands that this be interpreted as if πάντα were added before ἄνθρωπον. Without this πάντα or a negative particle, the disjunctive particle ἤ is not what a reader would expect.
8 In 7:14, the Hebrew name was transliterated rather than translated as it is here Μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. Matt 1:23 quotes 8:8 as καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ,
ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθʼ ἡμῶνὁθεός, combining 7:14 with 8:8 or 8:10. Seeligmann saw fulfilment-interpretation here (1948, 83–86).
9 The presence of Lord among his people guarantees their victory. Any opponents will necessarily be foiled. Among the translated books of the OT, ἡσσάομαι appears only in Isaiah, 10 times, always translating the verb חתת, which elsewhere tends to be translated πτοέω. As an imperative (in the context of other imperatives), perhaps ἡττᾶσθε should be rendered “yield.” The participle ἰσχυκότες translates an imperative in the MT. In G the participle could be (a) temporal (as Brenton and Ottley took it, “when ye are waxed strong, be overcome”), (b) concessive (“although you have become strong, yield!”), or (c) vocative (as Eusebius understood it; “You who have become strong, be overcome”).
10 The accusative λόγον makes the syntax awkward, since parallelism indicates this “word” is functioning as the subject of ἐμμείνῃ. The nominative form would be expected here. The reason for the word not standing is introduced by ὅτι, namely, the presence of God. The implication is that any human plan or idea will be overwhelmed by God’s presence (and will). Eusebius explained that “whatever word you speak” means “threatening to do anything contrary to Emmanuel” (1.50).
11 The confidence that comes from God’s presence leads to the following advice: do not fear what this people fears. Put yourself on Lord’s side, and he will then be a help rather than an obstacle for you. Arie van der Kooij (van der Kooij 1997a; 1997c; 1989; 1998a, 14) and J. Ross Wagner (Wagner 2007) have written on OG Isaiah 8:11-16. More recently a special issue of Adamantius includes several articles on Greek Isaiah 8-9 (le Boulluec 2007; Fédou 2007; Dogniez 2007; van der Kooij 2007; Morlet 2007; Munnich 2007). Lord’s message is addressed to an unspecified group, which is plural until the middle of 8:13, then the second person pronouns switch to the singular. Eusebius said the Lord is now addressing Jews. “The strong hand” is an awkward expression in Greek, and the English is an attempt to imitate this. The article τῇ, unexpected in Greek, is present because the Hebrew has it, in כחזקת היד. The continued themes of strength (ἰσχυρᾷ in 8:11) and inappropriate speech (εἴπητε in 8:12) connect this paragraph to what precedes.
12 Instead of μήποτε (accented as Rahlfs and Ziegler, μηποτε in A and B), S has μή. That which the people are not to say, σκληρόν, could be an exclamation “Hard!” or a statement “[It is] hard.” Silva translated, “Never say ‘Hard,’ for whatever this people says is hard.” Ottley has “Never speak ye stubbornly; for all that this people speaketh is stubborn.” In this context, perhaps like our “hardly” it is an expression of skepticism and improbability. The Hebrew of course is a different word, קשׁר (conspiracy), which was apparently read as קשׁה (hard), confusing resh with he. The reading ἐὰν agrees with S and with Ziegler (who included no note regarding A), but Ottley (with no note) and B (Swete notes only S with a variant) have ἂν. Normally the object of φοβέομαι would the thing feared, not fear (τὸν φόβον) itself. They are not to fear fear, or be troubled (aorist passive subjunctive of ταράσσω).
13 The proper source of one’s help is Lord, emphasized with the pronoun αὐτόν, which is a literal translation of the Hebrew emphatic אתו. The second person verb is plural, but the second person pronoun is singular. Instead of φόβος, as with all other manuscripts (and Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler), S has βοηθός. The Hebrew is מורא, which was translated by φόβος in verse 12. 1 Pet 3:15 alludes to Isa 8:13 with κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε, identifying Christ as Lord.
Jacob and Jerusalem powerless(8:14-18)[[@Bible:Isa 8:11-15]]
14 Those ἐγκαθήμενοι Jerusalem (from ἐν-κάθημαι) are caught in two ways: in a παγίς (snare), and in a κοίλασμα (an indentation, cavity or hollow).
15 The third-person plural subject of πεσοῦνται is most likely the powerless who sit in Jerusalem. The fate of these trapped people is predicted by the future passive of συντρίβω, which means to destroy by breaking apart. Q and A read ἀσφαλείᾳ ὄντες (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler). Sinaiticus corrector cb2
changed S*’s ἀσφαλείᾳ (the reading also of B) to ἀσφαλείᾳ ὄντες (in line with Q and A, and followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler), but this change was reverted by cb3. Corrector cb2’s addition of ὄντες after ἀσφαλείᾳ resolves an ambiguity regarding what ἀσφαλείᾳ modifies: the action (happening “with confidence”) or the people (“secure”). The text of Q, A, and cb2 (which Rahlfs and Ziegler accept) makes it explicit that it is the people who are secure.
16 The accusative object τὸν νόμον could be the object of σφραγιζόμενοι or μαθεῖν. Syntactically the former is preferable; semantically, the latter. The intention is probably both: seal up the law so that one cannot learn it. The identity of those who seal it (σφραγιζόμενοι) is unclear. Arie van der Kooij understood them to be the speakers of 8:12-14, the opponents of the “hard” torah-obedience of “this people.” Wagner, on the other hand, argued that the speakers in 8:12-14 are the faithful, and those who seal up the law are those who seek help from mediums and do not trust in the Lord (263). These sealers will be φανεροί, which carries the meaning of “readily known,” but it is unclear whether this means they are exposed for who they are, or simply famous. Ottley, van der Kooij, and Silva translated it as “manifest.”
17 The most recent singular subject for ἐρεῖ is the house of Iakob in 8:14. The Hebrew has no counterpart to these words. πεποιθώς recalls 8:13.
19 The expression τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς φωνοῦντας καὶ τοὺς ἐγγαστριμύθους refers to mediums (compare ἐγγαστρίμαντις: “one that prophesies from the belly.”) The Hebrew has the somewhat less explicit “the ghosts and the spirits, those who chirp and those who mutter.” Note the connection between κοιλίας and κοιλάσματι in 8:14. The subject of εἴπωσιν is presumably those who have sealed the law in 8:16. The plural addressees (ὑμᾶς) presumably are resumed from 8:12, where the second person pronouns were plural (in 8:13-14 they were singular).
The identity of the speaker asking οὐκ ἔθνος πρὸς θεὸν αὐτοῦ is not specified. The one asking the question could be the mediums (as Ottley), or the speakers of verse 19 (the subject of εἴπωσιν), or Isaiah (as Silva). It is unclear how this question is supposed to support the any of these speakers’ points. One possibility is that they are suggesting contacting the local practitioners rather than those that are far away in Zion. Ottley reads, “Seek ye them that speak from the earth, and the ventriloquists, the babblers that talk from the belly: is it not a nation with its God?” However, the next question more clearly supports Isaiah’s point that diviners should not be consulted, so I interpret this preceding rhetorical question the same way: that the nation of Judea has its God, namely Lord, and he is the one to be consulted. Hence the questioner here would be Isaiah. Silva translated, “And if people say to you, ‘Seek those who utter sounds from the earth and the ventriloquists, the babblers who utter sounds out of their bellies,’ should not a nation be with its God? Why do they seek out the dead concerning the living?”
20 The reason for the law was so that they would not say “such things” (ὡς τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο). The syntax of περὶ οὗ οὐκ ἔστιν δῶρα δοῦναι περὶ αὐτοῦ is awkward but sensible, with a resumptive pronoun in a relative clause. What is difficult about this phrase is the meaning. On the surface, the clause says there are no gifts to give about this word, but what “gifts” might be given about a word is unclear. Ottley translated, “For he hath given them a law for their help: that they may speak not as this word, concerning which there is no giving of gifts.” Silva translated, “For he has given a law as a help so that they may not speak a word such as this one, concerning which there are no gifts to give.” Unlike the diviners, Lord requires no gifts to buy his help.
21 The recurrence of σκληρά recalls 8:12. ὡς ἂν with the subjunctive (πεινάσητε) indicates the time of an event in the future (BDAG s.v. ὡς 8c). The speech implied by κακῶς ἐρεῖτε presumably refers to the same kind of speech as τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο of 8:20. Instead of πατριά (the reading also of S, A, and B), Rahlfs and Ziegler both have παταχρα, following 93 (and noting the same word in Isa 37:38). Since the ruler τὸν ἄρχοντα is in parallel with the ancestral customs, he is presented with approval here. Note the shift to the third person in ἀναβλέψονται. The subject is not immediately obvious. The ἄρχοντα is not a good candidate because he is singular. In conjunction with the following verse, it seems that looking up is presented as a bad thing to do, presumably because it is seeking answers from diviners. So the plural subjects from 8:19 are probably indicated: those who have sealed, and who recommend diviners.
22 Again, they look (ἐμβλέψονται) for answers in the wrong places. What they will see there is not what they are seeking.
8:23-
23 The syntax of 8:23 is awkward; its interpretation even less clear. Ottley has, “And he that is in straitness shall not be dismayed until a season.” Similarly, Silva has, “and the one who is in distress will not be perplexed for a time.” The Hebrew כי לא מועף לאשׁר מוצק לה כעת is difficult, literally “Indeed no gloom for whom anxiety for her. As a time …” Ottley showed that G was translating phrase by phrase: כי לא מועף=Indeed not being gloomy=καὶ οὐκ ἀπορηθήσεται; לאשׁר מוצק לה=which has anxiety=ὃ ἐν στενοχωρίᾳ; כעת=as a time=ὡς καιροῦ.
The verb ἀπορέω normally means to be at a loss, whether for goods or ideas. In the previous verse (8:22), G rendered a noun מעוף from this same root, so because he understood the form as a participle, he translated it with a future passive form of the cognate verb ἀπορέω. To preserve the play on words, I have translated “in difficulty.” The meaning then is that difficulty they see in 8:22 will not begin immediately.
1 Two differences of division appear at the boundary between chapters 8 and 9. One is the division of the last verses of chapter 8; the other is where chapter 9 begins. Rahlfs follows the MT. Ziegler follows Swete. The English versions follow the MT for verse division, but not for chapter division, and consequently not for verse numbering. The MT begins verse 23 with the words corresponding to καὶ οὐκ ἀπορηθήσεται and English versions begin chapter 9 here, but Swete keeps these words in verse 22. Swete begins chapter 9 beginning with Τοῦτο πρῶτον, which is partway through the MT’s 8:23. Rahlfs begins a new paragraph there, but does not start chapter 9 until ὁ λαός, following the MT. Therefore the verse numbering in the rest of chapter 9 is one less in the MT and Rahlfs than in Swete, Ziegler, and the English versions. The numbering in Brenton and both Ottley’s translations (Heb. and LXX) agree with Swete’s. Silva’s numbering follows Ziegler.
Although Q*, A, B and S all read πίε, Rahlfs and Ziegler transcribed ποίει, following a marginal note in Q. The imperative πίε is to drink, but just what is to be drunk is not specified. Ottley conjectured that the original reading was a literal translation of the Hebrew: ΠΡΩΤΟΝΤΑΧΥΕΠΕΙΤΑΠΑΧΥΠΟΙΕΙ which by scribal error became ΠΡΩΤΟΝ———-ΠΙΕ—–ΤΑΧΥΠΟΙΕΙ. Matthew 4:15 is not much help because its quotation begins after this difficulty. Matt 4:15-16
quotes this verse as γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλείμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα, καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς. Likewise, Christ’s Descent into Hell 2:1 cites it as ὁ προφήτης Ἡσαἰας ἐκεῖ παρὼν εἶπε· τοῦτο τὸ φῶς ἐκ τοῦ πατρός ἐστι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· περὶ οὗ προεφήτευσα ἔτι ζῶν λέγων· γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλείμ, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει ἴδε φῶς μέγα. As it is, we have two singular imperatives addressed to the inhabitants of Zaboulon, Nephthaleim, the seaside, the trans-Jordan, Galilee, and Judea: drink this, and do it quickly! ,
2 The noun μέρος is a technical word for “district” in the papyri (Seeligmann 1948, 81; Johann Lust 1998, 161). Hanhart connected the joy here with the joy Simon Maccabee brought in 1 Macc 5:23. ,
3 Q has two instances of the verb εὐφραίνομαι, and another of the cognate noun, εὐφροσύνη. MT has three words from the root שׂמח and one other verb of rejoicing, יָגִילוּ.
They are gladdened ἐνἀμήτῳ; which could be refer to either the time or the product of harvest. For the expression ὃν τρόπον see the comment at 5:24. They will be as happy as those who divide up or distribute (διαιρέω) the spoils of war.
4 Rahlfs and Ziegler disagreed about ἀφαιρεθήσεται; the MT has no word corresponding to it. The verb ἀπαιτέω as a translation appears mainly in Isaiah, rendering נגשׂ here and in 14:4, נשים in 3:12 (probably a misreading), and תפת in 30:3. What Lord does to the rod (διασκεδάννυμι) usually refers to scattering or dispersal. The day of Madiam might have been understood as a day in which Madiam was punished. See the note on 2:12.
5 The perfect participle of ἐπισυνάγω is used to provide the first image of the restoration. The noun καταλλαγή is generally an exchange; in NT usage, it is a change from enmity to friendship, i.e., reconciliation. Finally, ἀποτίνω is often used to refer to compensation for damages. In addition to Q, Swete also spelled ἀποτείσουσιν as ἀποτίσουσιν. On the form, see BDF §23. The Hebrew behind θελήσουσιν εἰ ἐγενήθησαν πυρίκαυστοι is לשׂרפה מאכלת אשׁ, which means “and it will be for burning – fire fuel.” Although Ottley’s judgement is overstated, that “the rest of the verse seems to have been beyond the translators’ knowledge,” G did apparently struggle with this clause, recognizing the ideas “be” “fire” and “burn,” but failing to make sense of them.
6 The conjunction ὅτι parallels the one at the beginning of verses 4 and 5. All three provide the reason for the happiness described in 9:3: Lord has ended their oppression, their property will be returned, and now a great leader has been born to them. Since the καί before ἐδόθη is not at the beginning of the clause, it must be adverbial, which would be unexpected in an otherwise parallel set of statements. The noun ἄγγελος generally means a messenger. In biblical usage of course this often refers to an divine (angelic) messenger, but here, the messenger is from a council, so he might be termed an envoy. At first glance, the genitive relative pronoun in the relative clause οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ appears to modify ἡ ἀρχή (“whose beginning”), but by the end of the clause it appears that we have a genitive personal pronoun resuming the genitive relative pronoun (“on whose shoulders”). The three words μεγάλη βουλῆς ἄγγελος are G’s original translation.
Ziegler indicates that this section is marked by a obelus in 88 and the Syrohexapla. The same words added by Sinaiticus corrector ca, θαυμαστὸς σύμβουλος θεὸς ἰσχυρός ἐξουσιαστής, ἄρχων εἰρήνης πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, are included in the manuscripts Alexandrinus, 106, 26, Venetus, 109, 736, the full Lucianic family of manuscripts (albeit with an asterisk in 22, 48, 51, 231, and 763) including 46, 233, 456 , the corrector to 764, 87, 91, 309, 490, 377, 564, 565, 403, 613, 407, 538, 770, except that
Alexandrinus and 26 omit θεός, 109 and 736 transpose θαυμαστός συμβουλος with θεος ισχυρος They are also added in the Syropalestinian translation, Eusebius (Dem. ev.), Athanasius, Chrysostom, and possibly Theodoret. Clementhastheslightlyshorterθαυμαστοςσυμβουλοςθεοςδυναστηςπατηραιωνιοςαρχωνειρηνης. Other manuscripts not listed here do not include these additional words. Most but not all of the words in the addition to S can be traced to interpolation from the Three; the exceptions are εξουσιαστης and του μελλοντος. Aquilahasθαυμαστος συμβουλοςισχυρος δυνατος πατηρ ετι αρχων ειρηνης. Symmachushas παραδοξασμος βουλευτικος ισχυρος δυνατος πατηραιωνοςαρχων ειρηνης. Theodotionhasθαυμαστος βουλευων ισχυρος δυναστηςπατηραιωνιοςαρχων ειρηνης. Ottley (1904, 1:2:155-156) summarized why these words are not “part of the true LXX. text: they are not in the earliest manuscripts S* and B (or Q); they are largely a duplicate rendering of μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος; the wording is close (but not identical) to that of the Three (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion). Ottley proposed that these words came from the version Theodotion revised (known from Daniel). Le Moigne noted that not only here in 9:6 but also in 22:21 G refrains from giving a person the title “father” even though that is what the Hebrew text has; at the same time, G attributes royal features to these (2008). Because in comparison to the Hebrew, the human messianic figure’s role has been reduced to that of a messenger, Johann Lust (1998) and John Collins (2008) disagreed with those (e.g., Coppens 1968) who claimed G enhances the messianic character of Isaiah’s oracles. (See also van der Kooij 2002.) Trigg compared Origen’s
use of the title “Angel of Great Counsel,” applied to Christ, to the image of the son as seraph in Isaiah 6 (1991). In place of γὰρ ἄξω, B’s reading is probably due to the absence of ἐγώ, so that γάρ falls in the second position in the sentence.
7 The infinitives κατορθῶσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀντιλαβέσθαι most simply would be understood as expressing purpose. ἀντιλαμβάνω usually takes its object in the genitive; here (in Q, as well as in A) it includes αὐτῆς, as does the Hebrew. The pronoun ταῦτα presumably refers to the birth of the child, and the peace that comes from his just government. ζῆλος means “intense positive interest,” according to BDAG, hence “eagerness” in the translation.
8 Earlier instances of ἐπί in G have carried a hostile sense, which certainly fits here with Lord sending θάνατον. Because the verbs in parallel (ἀπέστειλεν and ἦλθεν) both denote motion, yet the thing being moved is the object of ἀποστέλλω but the subject of ἔρχομαι, the semantic parallelism suggests the subject of ἦλθεν is death, not Lord.
9 The theme of arrogance reappears, confirming this as one of the main sins according to Isaiah.
10 The aorist subjunctive κόψωμεν (also in B) appears amongst other subjunctives, as the other uncials have it: the future ἐκκόψομεν in S; ἐκκόψωμεν in A (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler). In addition to Q, manuscripts A and B (followed by Swete, Rahlfs, and Ziegler) add another tree species, κέδρους.
11 The verb ἐπανίστημι denotes hostile uprising. Q (along with B and S corrector ca) contains the singular αὐτόν where S*, cb2, A (Rahlfs, Ziegler) read the plural αὐτοὺς. The singular form would refer to God; the plural would match the upcoming αὐτῶν. Silva has “And God will strike those who rise up against them on Mount Sion,” but the ἐπί immediately after the verb that also begins with ἐπί would more naturally be taken as the object of the verb, rather than the location at which the action indicated by ῥάξει takes place.
12 The Hebrew behind Συρίαν is ארם. This is a case of non-interpretive updating, since there is no change of referent. For another case, see the river in 27:12, which is called the “River of Egypt” in Hebrew, but the “Rhinokorouron” in Greek, with no difference in meaning. The expression ἡλίου ἀνατολῶν refers to the East, and ἡλίου δυσμῶν to the West. The Hebrew behind Ἕλληνας is פלשׁתים. This is a case of interpretive updating, since there is a change of referent (the Philistines are not the same as the Greeks), but not enough to be considered “actualization.” Those inhabiting Philistia in the translator’s time would have been Greek-speakers. Syria and the Greeks are presented as enemies of Israel, attacking it from both sides.
12 In 5:25 we had the words ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ὁ θυμός, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἡ χεὶρ ὑψηλή; this expression appears again in 9:17 and in 10:4. In 5:25, the preposition is unique; here the order τούτοις πᾶσιν is unique (but see the textual variants at 10:4). It is not stated explicity whose the wrath (θυμός) is.
13 The singular form ἀπεστράφη is repeated from the preceding verse. The collocation τὸν κύριον is a rare instance of the article preceding κύριος. The verb ἐξεζήτησαν is plural, despite the singular subject ὁ λαός and verbs ἀπεστράφη and ἐπλήγη.
Rahlfs, following the MT, places the division between 9:14 and 15 (his 9:13 and 14) after ἡμέρᾳ. Swete and Ziegler divide the verses after ἀρχή.
14 The complementary extremes head and οὐράν (an animal’s tail) and great and small convey completeness.
15 πρεσβύτην … προφήτην are still the objects of ἀφεῖλεν, in apposition to κεφαλὴν καὶ οὐράν as well as μέγαν καὶ μικρόν. Rahlfs put αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή and οὗτος ἡ οὐρά in parentheses as explanatory glosses. ἀρχή here translates ראשׁ, as did κεφαλήν. It can refer to leadership or beginning, as also in 19:11, 13; 43:9, 13. The phrase τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας is more literally rendered, “the ones who admire the faces.” The reason τοὺς θαυμάζοντας is accusative is because it (like κεφαλὴν, οὐράν, μέγαν, μικρὸν, and πρεσβύτην) is an object of ἀφεῖλεν. The accusative object of θαυμάζοντας is πρόσωπα, which is a standard literal translation, but θαυμάζοντας is not; it is an unusual translation of נשׂא “lift.”
16 The English standard gloss “bless” for μακαρίζω is misleading. As BDAG notes, it means “to call or consider someone especially favored,” hence “congratulate” (LSJ) in this context. The phrase τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον carries negative connotations for a reader of G, since it was used to refer to the rebellious people of Israel in 6:8 and 8:6.
17 The happiness expressed by εὐφρανθήσεται recalls 9:3.
For discussion of Ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τούτοις οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ὁ θυμός, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἡ χεὶρ ὑψηλή see the note at 9:12, where it also occurs.
18 LSJ identifies ἄγρωστις as dog’s-tooth grass, Cynodon Dactylon, and δάσος as a thicket or copse. The genitive τῶν βουνῶν is partitive in function.
19 The two words θυμός and ὀργή are synonyms in G. The tense of συγκέκαυται is perfect, a literal rendering of the Hebrew qatal form, but the time reference is future.
20 The obscure phrase ἐκκλινεῖ εἰς τὰ δεξιά is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The same is true of φάγεται ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν again, a literal translation of the Hebrew, with the resulting Greek obscure. The meaning in Hebrew is that although they devour everything left and right, they are not satisfied. G changed the meaning of the Hebrew by his choice of conjunctions: ἀλλά, and ὅτι.
21Ephraim and Manasseh are to besiege (πολιορκέω) Judah together. The genitive τοῦ is used rather than accusative, probably because a partitive sense is intended. Eusebius said they will devour the arms of one another (1.56).For πᾶσι τούτοις (πᾶσιν τούτοις in S), the other uncials A, B (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler) have τούτοις πᾶσιν. See the note on 9:12.
1 A pair of woes (10:1, 5) begin the next two sections. The first condemns those who use their privilege (τοῖς γράφουσιν, the ability to write) to distort justice for the marginalized. The participle γράφοντες could indicate the time or the manner in which how they write; the temporal use fits the following verse better. Tertullian, Marc. 4.14 and 27, used Isa 10:1-2 as an example of how God inveighs against oppressors of the needy. Eusebius said this describes writers of false prophecies, presumably referrring to non-canonical Jewish scriptures (1.57). They write wickedness; the first πονηρίαν is the object of γράφουσιν since there must be a clause break one word before the postpositive particle γάρ; the second instance of πονηρίαν could be the object of the participle (“when they write wickedness, they write perverting…”) or of the finite verb (“when they write, they write wickedness, perverting…”). Instead of the second πονηρίαν (the reading also of S, A, and B and followed by Rahlfs), Ziegler transcribed πόνον, hard work (with MT), citing in support only L′-96c, that is 22, 48, 51, 231, 763, 620, 147, and the corrector of 96.
2 Τhe participle form ἐκκλίνοντες indicates what form the writing wickedness takes. Although the intransitive sense of ἐκκλίνω is to turn aside (Gen 38:16), the transitive meaning is to bend or change (alter a name in Plato Cratylus 404d). So when justice is the object “pervert” is a close English approximation. Beggars, labourers, widows, and orphans are the representatives of the marginalized. The reading κρίματα of Q and S is plural in contrast to the singular κρίμα that appears in A, B (adopted by Rahlfs and Ziegler). Possibly two words are meant: κρίμα τά, but this would mean ἁρπάζοντες had two accusative objects. πενήτων appears without an article, giving an indefinite sense. Instead of the dative αὐτοῖς (as found in A, B, S correctors ca and cb3, and followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler), S* has the accusative αὐτούς. There is a number mismatch between a plural pronoun and a singular noun in εἶναι αὐτοῖς χήραν, but this is possibly explained by the coordinated noun ὀρφανὸν later in the sentence. In the Gospels, ἁρπαγή refers to greed, but in the LXX it tends to refer to seized property. Eusebius said the false prophecies are lawless,
and lawless people seized everything from the inexperienced, orphans, and widows (1.57). The reference to scribes (who write) devouring widows’ houses in Mark 12:40 alludes to this passage.
3 The prophet warns of the “day of punishment” ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. This day is referred to by 1 Peter 2:12 as ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, when the Gentiles will glorify God after seeing his readers’ good deeds. The original reading of Sinaiticus τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (shared with B) was changed by cb2 to ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, (agreeing with Q and A, and followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler), but with no change of meaning, possibly under influence from 1 Peter 2:12 (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς). The prophet then begins addressing the scribes in the second person, asking what good their seized property will do them then, and where they will hide their δόξαν so that it cannot be repossessed.The prototypical meaning of δόξα is opinion. Most commonly though,it is a positive opinion of reputation, so glory or splendour. But in the context of leaving the δόξαν somewhere, it might refer to material possessions, “riches,” as in Gen 31:16 πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν δόξαν, ἣν ἀφείλατο ὁ θεὸς.Note the change from third to second person in ὑμῶν.
4 The prophecy against the wicked scribes concludes the same way as 9:12: ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσιν οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ὁ θυμός, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἡ χεὶρ ὑψηλή. Instead of ὁ θυμός (the reading also of A and followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler), B has ἡ ὀργή; the two are synonymous in G.
5 Whereas the first “woe” was directed to the scribes who administered justice, the second “woe” is directed at first glace to the Assyrians. Both are in the dative case after Οὐαί. The normal interpretation of the dative Ἀσσυρίοις after οὐαί is that that woe is directed to the Assyrians, who wield (rather than experience) God’s wrath. Eusebius said at this point the subject of the prophecy transitions from being Israel to the Assyrians.  According to his understanding, the woe is not to the Assyrians, but because of the Assyrians. The reading of Vaticanus has the nominative and adds the article, ἡ ὀργή, so that the rod and the wrath are in their hand.
6 The prophecy then refers to sending wrath against a lawless nation, plundering, and changing of mind, but in a way that makes it difficult to discern who is doing each of these. The Assyrians could be the lawless nation, but so could Israel, as Eusebius read it. Although normally “my people” would refer to Israel, if Lord is using the Assyrians for his purposes, they too could be called “my people.” The phrase σκῦλα καὶ προνομήν recalls the same plunder vocabulary seen in the last few chapters.
7 The prophecy refers to someone not planning this, but it is not explicitly stated who did not plan, and what unplanned thing is happening. The most recent possible referent for the subject αὐτός is λαός, the lawless nation of 10:6, hence the translation “it,” but this identification runs into problems in 10:8. Eusebius understands the referent to be Assyria (Ὁ δὲ Ἀσσύριος τὴν παρ’ ἐμοῦ λαβὼν ἐξουσίαν οὐχ οὕτως ἐνεθυμήθη, 1.58). In this case, the phrase οὐχ οὕτως ἐνεθυμήθη means this is not the way the lawless nation planned it. Instead of the future indicative ἀπαλλάξει (the reading also of S, A, and B and followed by Rahlfs), Ziegler conjectured the infinitive ἀπαλλάξαι, with the note “scripsi: cf. Hi. (ut conterat)]-ξει codd.gr.et verss.” But the infinitive does not fit the nominative subject. Instead of καὶ τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἔθνη as with A (and followed by Ziegler), S hs ἔθνη ἐξολεθρεῦσαι, B has καὶ τοῦ ἔθνη ἐξολοθρεῦσαι, and Rahlfs has καὶ τοῦ ἔθνη ἐξολεθρεῦσαι. Both verbs mean the same thing. Much like Joseph’s comment to his brothers in Genesis 50:20 that what they planned for evil, God planned for good, Isaiah affirms that Lord’s plans happen no matter the intentions of the agents.
8 The subject of εἴπωσιν is either indefinite, or the nations just mentioned. The referent of αὐτῷ would at first glance appear to be the same as in the preceding verses, but here the addressee appears to be an individual rather than a nation. Likely the nation is simply being personified.
9 Οὐκ introduces a question expecting an affirmative answer.
10 Since the first instance of καί is not coordinating two clauses, this must be an adverbial use.
10 Clement of Alexandria quoted 10:10-11 in Exhortation 8, in a warning not to be idolators, saying those who wail are not the idols themselves, but those who trust in them. The verb ὀλολύζω is onomatopoetic, just as its Hebrew counterpart אליל.
11 The vocative τὰ γλυπτά is here synonymous with χειροποιητα and εἰδωλα. In the phrase ἐποίησα Σαμαρείᾳ, the verb ποιέω with dative indicates treatment (BDAG s.v. ποιέω 4). The presence of ἐν in Q and S breaks the formal parallelism with Samaria. With a city as its object, the natural reading is that the prepositional phrase indicates the location of the action. The way that Lord treated Samaria and her hand-made things will be the same as how he treats in Jerusalem.
12 The complement of συντελέω should be an infinitive or a noun in the accusative, not a nominative participle such as ποιῶν. The Hebrew here is a noun, מעשׂהו. The use of νοῦν recalls 10:7, where the νοῦς would change to destroy nations. The accusative case in τὸν ἄρχοντα τῶν Ἀσσυρίων is ambiguous. It could be part of the preposition phrase in apposition to τὸν νοῦν τὸν μέγαν, or (more likely, since there is no other object of this transitive verb) the object of ἐπάξει. Ottley and Silva both supplied an object: “he shall turn (his hand) against the mighty mind, against the ruler of the Assyrians;” “he will bring his wrath against the great mind, the ruler of the Assyrians,” respectively.
13 The subject of εἶπεν is the νοῦς against whom Lord is bringing punishment. His boast consists of future first person verbs, such as ἀφελῶ, the future of ἀφαιρέω, and προνομεύσω, which is cognate with the noun προνομή, plunder. Before both instances of τῇ, B has ἐν, which matches the Hebrew more literally. The division between 10:13 and 14 differs between Rahlfs and Swete/Ziegler. Rahlfs begins verse 14 after καὶ σείσω πόλεις κατοικουμένας, and Swete/Ziegler
begin verse 14 before these words.
14 νοσσιά can refer to a brood of young birds, but the context with eggs here demands a nest. In Greek, it is not necessary to explicitly identify the person to whom the body part belongs, but it is in English, so “my” is supplied in the translation.  Q, S, Swete and Ottley spell καταλελειμμένα ᾠὰ as καταλελιμμένα ὠὰ. On the spelling of ᾠόν see BDF §26. The future middle διαφεύξεταί translates a Qal participle, as does the aorist subjunctive of ἀντιλέγω (ἀντεῖπον). Clement of Alexandria quoted 10:14 in Exhortation8, between a warning against idolatry and a proof of God’s wisdom. He used the same verse in Strom. 5.14, claiming Orpheus got his idea of God’s grasp of the universe from Isaiah and Jeremiah. Hippolytus’s Antichr. 16 quotes 10:12-17 as referring to Antichrist. Chrysostom used 10:14 to show the folly of priding oneself in one’s wisdom (Homily 20, on Romans 12:3.
15 The negative μή introduces questions expecting a negative answer, as in, “An axe (ἀξίνη) will not be glorified without the one who cuts with it, will it?” In parallel with the axe is πρίων, a saw. The meaning of ὡσαύτως ἐάν is “the same applies to…” The expression καὶ οὐχ οὕτως is very awkward. Ottley rendered it “as if one should lift a rod or staff, and not thus?” Silva used the more sensible “Just so would it be if someone were to lift a rod or a log. But not so!” G read לכן as two words: לא כן, which would be literally translated as οὐχ οὕτως. The division between 10:15 and 16 differs between Rahlfs and Swete/Ziegler. Rahlfs begins verse 16 after καὶ οὐχ οὕτως, and Swete/Ziegler begin the verse before these words.
16 Instead of the future indicative ἀποστελεῖ as also in A and B (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler), S* has the aorist subjunctive ἀποστείλῃ. The preposition εἰς is puzzling before τὴν σὴν δόξαν. The normal meaning of εἰς, in which there is motion or at least change, does not fit here. Eusebius simply quoted the phrase without explanation.  The meaning from the
context, especially the parallel clause, is clear enough: fire will cause the glory to disappear and be replaced by dishonour.
17 The words ἔσται … εἰς are a literal translation of the Hebrew. Instead of the nominative χόρτος, A and B (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler) have the accusative χόρτον. In G, the fire is nonsensically compared to hay, consuming the wood. Origen (Princ. 2.10) used Isa 10:17 to argue that God’s fury helps purify souls. He used the same verse to show that ὕλη is not “matter” of the sort that bodies are made of (Princ. 4.1.32).
18 The division between 10:17 and 18 differs between Rahlfs and Swete/Ziegler. Rahlfs begins verse 18 after τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, and Swete/Ziegler begin the verse before these words. In Q the paragraph begins with these words, so my text division agrees with Swete and Ziegler here, against Rahlfs. The verb ἀποσβέννυμι normally means extinguish (a fire), and by extension can mean other kinds of coming to an end. The prepositional phrase ἀπὸ ψυχῆς ἕως σαρκῶν describes the extent of the consumption.
19 G moved the Hebrew preposition out of the phrase מספר יהיו into the preceding ἀπʼ αὐτῶν. Lust suggested that ἀριθμός may mean “census” in 2 Chr 2:16. Certainly the people are being counted. The plural object in παιδίον γράψει αὐτούς is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The image is that the number will be so small that a child can record it, as Eusebius explained, τοσοῦτοι ἔσονται ὡς δύνασθαι καὶ τὸ τυχὸν παιδίον τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν παραλαβεῖν καὶ γραφῇ παραδοῦναι τοῦ λοιποῦ πλήθους ἀπολωλότος (1.59).
20 In a translation from Hebrew, προστίθημι usually means “add” when there is an indirect object, or “continue” when there is an infinitive, but here in the passive form with no indirect object, it is difficult to see to what the remnant is being added. Muraoka (2009, 599) said the use here is elliptical, and resumed by a finite verb. In this case the meaning is that the remnant will no longer continue to trust in those who wronged them. But in order to preserve the awkwardness of the Greek, I opted for a more literal translation. The dative τῇ ἀληθείᾳ indicates that they will truly trust the holy God of Israel.
The remnant will be saved(10:22-26)[[@Bible:Isa 10:20-23]]
22 The two words συντελῶν and συντέμνων sound alike; this similarity of sound is not present in the Hebrew כליון חרוץ שׁוטף. The periphrastic nominative participles need a subject, and “is” must be supplied in English, “who is fulfilling and cutting?” The only subject available to the reader is ὁ λαός, but the subject in 10:23, where these two words are recalled, is Lord. Eusebius simply quoted the phrase, and interpreted based on Isa 10:23. G uses συντέμνω also in 10:23 and 28:22, all translating חרץ. Daniel has συντέμνω twice, once for חרץ, and once for the hapax legomenon חתך.
23 The two words λόγον συντετμημένον bring together two parts of the preceding verse. Normally with συντέμνω, λόγον would be expected to refer to a narrative rather than finances, but both are possible. The reading of B, Κύριος rather than ὁ θεός, is probably influenced by Rom 9:27-28, where Paul mentioned Isa 10:22-23: Ἠσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· Ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Paul is likely quoting not Isaiah but Hosea 1:10 Καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης for the sand image. Two themes were picked up in the early Christian writers: (1) God making a shortened word in the whole earth, and (2) though Israel be like the sand of the sea, yet a remnant shall be saved (the passage quoted in Romans), by Cyprian (Dom. or. 28; Test. 2.3); Justin, Dial. 64; Chrysostom, Homily 16 on Romans 9, and Homily 2 on 2 Cor 1:11; Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.
24 G consistently renders אשׁור as plural Ἀσσυρίων, except for once in 31:8 as Ασσουρ. The ὅτι before ῥάβδῳ πατάξει σε could express the reason not to be frightened (in the sense of Brenton’s and Silva’s “because” or Ottley’s “for”) or the content of the fear (“that”). Eusebius gave the reason they should not be frightened: although the Assyrians will strike with a rod, it is only for a little while. Ottley noted that this latter interpretation is the likely Hebrew meaning (Ottley 1904, 1:2.163). The subject of the singular verb πατάξει is unspecified. In Hebrew, Assyria fits because it is singular, but G has the plural Assyrians. God would be a natural choice as well, but then a first-person verb would be expected, as we have later in ἐπάξω. Eusebius saw here the king of the Assyrians (1.61). The word πληγὴν in 10:26 is anticipated. Matthijs J. de Jong identified (with the help of Neo-Assyrian texts) two layers in Isaiah
10:24-27, the first (10:24-25) from the time of Sargon (720 BCE) and the second (10:26-27) from the time of Josiah. The phrase “the road of Egypt” means not “as the Egyptians did” but is a name for the road to Egypt, “the Egypt Road” (de Jong 2010).
25 The object of Lord’s wrath is their βουλή, their plan or scheme (Penner 2019).
26 In Q (in slightly different order in A and B, Rahlfs and Ziegler), God will cause some unspecified antagonist to rise up against them; the textual reading in S says that God will cause them to rise up. This rising will correspond to the πληγή, a blow that causes a wound. The lack of the article τήν before Μαδιάμ in Q and B of course allows for the indeclinable noun to be genitive rather than accusative (as in S and A, Rahlfs and Ziegler). There is no explicit verb for the nominative subject ὁ θυμὸς; this verbless clause is in a future context. The phrase τῇ ὁδῷ τῇ κατὰ θάλασσαν recalls the ὁδὸν θαλάσσης in 9:1. Eusebius identified the way toward Egypt (τὴνὁδὸντὴνκατʼ Αἴγυπτον) not as a geographical location but as surrender to idolatry (1.61).
27 Behind ἀφαιρεθήσεται stands the Hebrew סר, which is the standard word G translates as ἀφαιρέω, as already in 1:16, 25; 3:1, 18; 5:5; 6:7; 7:17; 10:13. But G also uses it for all of the following words, כאת כפר אסף אפס הדף חלף מחה נטה ספה עבר עטה ערב פתח צלח שבת שלח, indicating ἀφαιρέω is a favourite of his. See the note on G’s vocabulary in the Introduction. The order of the two phrases ὁ φόβος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ ὁ ζυγὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὤμου σου is the same as in S and A (and followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler); B transposes these two phrases. The yoke is to be destroyed (καταφθείρω) from the shoulder, using imagery that recalls 9:3, significant in the light of the recent recollection of Μαδιὰμ in 10:26.
28 The division between 10:28 and 29 differs between Rahlfs and Swete/Ziegler. Rahlfs begins verse 29 after καὶ παρελεύσεται εἰς Μαγεδὼ καὶ ἐν Μαχμὰς θήσει τὰ σκεύη αὐτῶν·, and Swete/Ziegler begin the verse before these words.
30 Q reads Γαλλείμ ἐπακούσεται ἐν Σά (A and B have only one λ in Γαλείμ, and Rahlfs and Ziegler have Γαλλιμ, ἐπακούσεται Λαισα. Sinaiticus’ original reading Ταλείμ was changed by corrector ca to Γαλείμ.The future of ἐπακούω uses the middle form; the subject remains ἡ θυγάτηρ.
31 The division between 10:31 and 32 also differs between Rahlfs and Swete/Ziegler. Rahlfs begins verse 32 after παρακαλεῖτε, and Swete/Ziegler begin the verse before it. In G this word belongs with the words following, so my text division agrees with Swete and Ziegler here, against Rahlfs.
Encourage the daughter of Zion(10:32)[[@Bible:Isa 10:33-34]]
32 The phrase τοῦ μεῖναι is a wooden translation of לעמד, here acting as the complement of παρακαλεῖτε. The case of τὸ ὄρος could be either vocative or accusative. If vocative, it belongs with οἱ βουνοί; if accusative, in apposition to τὴν θυγατέρα. A first reading would not suggest the singular ὄρος as a vocative because the verb παρακαλεῖτε is plural. But by the end of the verse, the ὄρος makes sense as vocative when understood with βουνοί. Ottley has “Encourage her to day in the way to stay, encourage with the hand the hill, the daughter of Zion, and ye hills that are in Jerusalem.” Silva has “Encourage Sion today to remain in the way; O mount, as well as you hills that are in Ierousalem, with your hand encourage daughter Sion.”
33 All three instances of δεσπότης in G appear in the phrase ὁ δεσπότης Κύριος Σαβαώθ, as translations of האדון יהוה צבאות. In place of the present συντάσσει (from συντάσσω), Q’s corrector, A, and B (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler) have the present συνταράσσει (from συνταράσσω); S has the future συνταράξει. Because prepositional phrases normally modify verbs rather than nouns unless preceded by an article matching the noun, μετὰ ἰσχύος indicates that it is not those esteemed but the act of confounding that is “with strength.” 1 Clement 59:3 paraphrases 10:33 as τοὺς ὑψηλοὺς ταπεινοῦντα.
1 The prophecy regarding the root of Jesse (11:1-12:1) is one of the primary sources of messianic expectations in Early Judaism, although there is no mention of anointing here. The “root of Jesse” indicates this person is descended from David. God’s spirit resting on him indicates he will be inspired and wise. There is no mention of physical or military action; he will be a fair judge, using truthful words. He will reverse the fortunes of the humble and the esteemed. The result will be an end to agression and injury. The innocent will be safe; those they used to fear are now tame. The surprising reason for this transformation: everyone and everything knowing Lord. At that time, the one rises up to rule nations will provide hope. Judah and Ephraim will no longer be rivals, and they will be restored from the lands to which they had scattered. Their fortunes will likewise be restored, as they plunder those who had oppressed them, in what resembles a second Exodus. The prophecy as it appears in G presents the future Davidic figure metaphorically as a “rod,” ῥάβδος and a “flower,” ἄνθος. Although ῥάβδος can mean a disciplinarian’s rod (as in Exodus 21:20; Micah 4:14), or a shepherd’s staff (Psalm 23:4), in this context where the royal family is mentioned, the sceptre of authority is connoted (as in Psalm 44(45):7; 109(110):2). Although καί presents two metaphors, it can be inferred that these refer to a single person not only from the fact that they both come up from the root, but also that a singular verb is used in 11:2. The word for root, ῥίζα, appears again in 40:24, both translating גזע. As Sollamo noted (2006, 360), ῥίζα and ἄνθος both appeared together previously in Isa 5:22-24. There, the root and flower were compared to dust and chaff. Eusebius said the stump refers to the descendants of David, but Jesse is named rather than David because of Jesse’s decent lifestyle (1.62). Clement of Alexandria quoted 11:1 in Strom. 5.6, when he mentions “the seven spirits resting on the rod that springs from the root of Jesse.” Justin 1 Apol 32 mixed 11:1 and 10 with Numbers: Ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακώβ, καὶ ἄνθος ἀναβήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης Ἰεσσαί• καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν. In Q, the final three letters of ἀναβήσεται are written below the rest of the word on their own line rather than at the beginning of the next page.
2 The spirit of God “rests,” ἀναπαύσεται. The preposition (only in S) provides more of a sense of stopping movement, rather than the sense of ἀναπαύω by itself, of stopping activity. 1 Pet 4:14 quotes similar words: τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται.
3 The neuter πνεῦμα is nominative rather than accusative because ἐμπίπλημι takes the container in the accusative case, and if the substance with which it is filled is specified, that substance appears not in the accusative but the genitive
case. But the parallel expressions πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως, πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος, and πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας (11:2) indicate that here again the genitive indicates what kind of spirit. So rather than “a spirit will fill him with fear of God,” which would be the natural reading of this clause on its own, the preferable reading in context is, “a spirit of the fear of God will fill him.”
He will render justice(11:3-5)[[@Bible:Isa 11:1-5]]
3 The spirit filling him leads the figure to judge with respect to reality rather than to the surface appearance. Judging according to δόξα (“opinion”) would take the person’s appearance or reputation (the way they appear to others) into account. In a judicial context, judging according to λαλιά, “speech” would take their ability to speak well into account. Eusebius saw a connection between the filling here and the “fulness of deity” of Col 2:9. Other early Christian interpretation saw here the six (Gryson 1990) or seven (Schlütz 1932) gifts of the Holy Spirit.
4 Judging with κρίσις is a positive thing in this context; it requires discernment. Q and S differ from the other uncials in directing the judgement toward the esteemed ἐνδόξους rather than the humble ταπεινούς. Λόγος is an unexpected translation of שבט; LXX-D says this is an interpretation of the figurative meaning; a word is what comes out of mouths. An alternative but more far-fetched explanation is that שבט is phonetically similar to the construct of שָׂפָה, and שָׂפָה is translated λόγος in Pr 16:21. The πνεῦμα from 11:2-3 reappears, but this time because of the mention of mouth and lips, breath rather than spirit comes to mind. In the context of wind perhaps “carry away” would fit the meaning of ἀναιρέω. The earlier objects of destruction were masculine plural (people); here the ἀσεβῆ is either singular (an ungodly person) or neuter (ungodly things); Brenton and Ottley translated the masculine singular. Silva left it ambiguous (“the ungodly”), which misleadingly implies masculine plural to an English reader.
5 This future Davidic inspired judge will be equipped with righteousness and truth. These will be his tools. The accusative τὴν ὀσφύν (11:5) “the waist” is not the subject or object, but still limits the verb “girded,” ἐζωσμένος (perfect passive participle of ζώννυμι). Manuscripts Q, S, and A differ from B in reading εἰλημμένος, the perfect passive participle of λαμβάνω rather than B’s εἱλημένος from εἰλέω or εἴλω, “wrap,” which fits the parallelism and context better, and which Rahlfs, Ziegler recognized as the original reading.
6 The result of this truthful judging is that predators will coexist peacefully with their prey. Because Greek animal names are relatively uncommon to modern readers, I will simply note that πάρδαλις (11:6) is leopard (Panthera pardus/Felis pardus);ἐρίφῳ is a he-goat, μοσχάριον is the diminutive of μόσχος, a young bull, and ἄρκος is an alternate spelling of ἄρκτος, bear.
7 Carnivores will become herbivores, eating ἄχυρα, i.e., what is left over from threshing, “straw” or “chaff.”
8 The adjective νήπιον further diminuates what is already a diminuitive, παιδίον, emphasizing the innocence and powerlessness. Yet the innocent have nothing to fear from the formerly violent, represented by the notorious asp.
9 In parallel with the future indicative ἐπιβαλεῖ, Q’s first-hand, S, and B have κακοποιήσουσιν (11:9), in contrast to Q-corrector and A’s aorist subjunctive κακοποιήσωσιν, which fits better with οὐ μή and the parallel δύνωνται, and therefore is recognized by Rahlfs and Ziegler as the original reading. The conjunction ὅτι now provides the reason for this surprising future peaceful utopia: universal knowledge of the Lord. The reappearance of ἐμπίμπλημι recalls 11:3, where the spirit of the fear of God would fill (future, translating a weqatal). Here we have an aorist (translating a qatal), and the Hebrew roots differ. Because the active ἐμπίμπλημι takes an accusative to indicate the receptacle being filled, and a genitive to indicate the filling substance, with the passive ἐνεπλήσθη the receptacle is nominative ἡ σύμπασα, and what it is filled with is genitive τοῦ γνῶναι τὸν Κύριον “knowing the Lord.” An infinitive (κατακαλύψαι) is unexpected in this context but not unprecedented in the OG (Ezek 22:32; Num 23:19). Although Silva reads it as an infinitive “like much water to cover seas,” Brenton and Ottley take it not as an infinitive but as an optative in a comparative clause: “as much water covereth seas,” citing in support the clear optative in Isa 21:1. Manuscript V has a future here, as does Hab 2:14. The parallel between γνῶναι and κατακαλύψαι is somewhat weakened by the absence of τοῦ before κατακαλύψαι. Eusebius claimed the “whole earth” indicates the spread of the Church of God, which preaches righteous knowledge, whose floods cleanse the soul of all sordidness (1.62). The meaning is clear enough, even if the grammar is puzzling: the reason for the future peace is universal knowledge of the Lord.
10 The future peace coincides with one rising up to rule nations. It is unclear at first glance whether this person “rising up to rule nations” is the same or a different person as the aforementioned root. The καί (11:10) could indicate two distinct leaders, the “root” and the ruler, in what would be a dual-leadership role. But the singular verb ἔσται points to a single person, in which case the καί is epexegetical, describing another role of the same person. To confirm this
interpretation, the following clause, ἐπʼ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν indicates they are the same. Eusebius certainly considered one person to be in view here, and the rising indicates the resurrection from the dead (1.62). The mention of ἀνάπαυσις recalls the ἀναπαύσεται of 11:2, where the spirit of God would rest on the rod from the root of Jesse. Eusebius identified this “rest” with the Savior’s death, in which he was glorified (John 17:15). Isa 11:10 is commonly quoted in early Christian writings, probably because Paul quoted it verbatim in Rom 15:12: καὶ πάλιν Ἠσαΐας λέγει· Ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν· ἐπʼ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν. As mentioned at 11:1, Justin Martyr mixed 11:1 and 10 with Numbers. Cyprian quoted 11:10 in Test. 1.21. Novatian Trinity 9 quoted it to show Jesus would rise from the dead. Lactantius Inst. 4.13 quoted it to show Christ would be born according to the flesh, from the house of David. Apostolic Constitutions 5.20 quotes it to prove that the Gentiles would believe.
11 Those of God’s people who remain will return from all the countries where they have been scattered. The phrase ὃ ἂν καταλειφθῇ is neuter to match τὸ καταλειφθὲν. I therefore have translated both as “remnant” even though the two differ grammatically; the first is a participle, and the second is a relative clause. ὃ is not the masculine article, but the neuter relative pronoun, referring back to τὸ καταλειφθὲν.
12 The remnant are gathered from the four “wings,” πτέρυξ, a literal translation of the Hebrew כנף. Irenaeus alluded to 11:12 in Haer. 4.33.1, with the words, “He gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father’s fold the children who were scattered abroad.” The allusion is not precise, but because he quoted 11:4 in the same sentence, it is probable that he had this passage in mind.
Peace between Ephraim and Judah(11:13)[[@Bible:Isa 11:10-14]]
13 The practice of literal translation continues with ὁ ζῆλος Ἐφράιμ from the corresponding Hebrew קנאת אפרים. This ζῆλος is picked up later in the same verse with ζηλώσει, but because this second instance is in parallel with θλίψει, it is hostile. Ephraim and Judah are presented as the two parts of the remnant (Ephraim and Israel refer to the same people). The prophecy foresees peace between the two, and peace from their enemies, who will be destroyed.
Lord will desolate the sea of Egypt(11:14-12:2)[[@Bible:Isa 11:10-14]]
14 The reversal of fortunes enables Judah and Israel to travel the sea and gain from its riches, and reverse their relationship with Moab and Ammon. Although the form πετασθήσονται in 11:14 is from πετάζω, which is listed under πεταννύω “spread out” in LSJ, as Ottley noted, this must be the future passive of πέτομαι “fly,” as in Hab 1:8; 2 Samuel 22:11; Ps 17(18):10; 54(55):7. ἀλλοφύλων translates פלשׁתים, as usual; however in 9:12 פלשׁתים became Ἕλληνας. The accusative θάλασσαν does not fit with the intransitive verb πετασθήσονται, so it belongs with the upcoming verb προνομεύσουσιν. The rising of the sun indicates the East, the direction of Edom. Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 2.40 quoted 11:14 to show that Moab and Ammon are sons of Esau. Again in Antichr. 51, he quoted: “And they shall fly in the boats of strangers, plundering the sea together, and (they shall spoil) them of the east: and they shall lay hands upon Moab first; and the children of Ammon shall first obey them.”
15 The prophecy continues the reversal of fortunes, now switching from Israel and Judah to Lord as the agent. Previously, the violence may have been read implicity against Edom, Moab, and Ammon, but now it is explicit, with desolation, striking, and a violent wind. The phrase ἐπιβαλεῖ τὴν χεῖρα links the behaviour of the human and divine agents, which had been described with the words ἐπιβαλοῦσιν τὰς χεῖρας in 11:14, as well as 11:8. The reappearance of πνεύματι recalls 11:2-4, and πατάξει recalls the phrase πατάξει γῆν from 11:4. Even ὑποδήμασιν “sandals” is brought back as a symbol of force, just as it was in 5:27.
16 Just as the ten plagues struck Egypt, Lord will again strike Egypt. Just as there was passage for Israel through the sea then, there will be a δίοδος, a way through, for the remnant again. Although to this point Lord had been spoken of in the third person, now a first person pronoun appears in “my people.” Arie van der Kooij argued that Greek Isa 11:11-16 and 49:5-6 (in contrast to the Hebrew) distinguish two groups in exile: (a) the people of Israel, and (b) a particular
group of Jews. G presents the Servant in exile who “shall be gathered” (49:5) as “my people in Egypt” in 11:16. The Servant is named Israel in 49:3, and so are “my people in Egypt” in 11:16; 19:25. Van der Kooij therefore suggested “Israel” and “Jacob” in Isa 42:1 refer not to the people of Israel but to the Servant as a particular group of the Jewish people, as in 49:3-5 (1997b, 394). In van der Kooij’s view, this group is the followers of Onias IV in Egypt (1997b, 395).
1 G keeps Isa 12:1 together with what precedes, which is reasonable given the linking phrase “on that day,” except that it involves another change of person from third person verb endings, this time to the second person. The addressee is singular, one who will praise Lord on the day of the new exodus. Eusebius understood this to be Egypt, which at his time had largely converted to Christianity and therefore were praising the Christ of God (1.64). Εὐλογήσῶ translates a yiqtol verb; in Q, A, and S corrector cb2 (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler), it is a future tense. In S* and B, it is a present (εὐλογω).
2 The individual’s (first person singular) praise continues, with multiple references to Lord’s salvation (σωτήρ, σωθήσομαι, σωτηρίαν), and the resulting confidence this inspires. The clause ὁ θεός μου σωτήρ μου κύριος (in Q and S, followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler) has three nouns in the nominative case, but no third person verb, so one of them is a predicate nominative, and another is in apposition. The most definite (ὁ θεός μου) should be taken as the subject, the least definite (σωτήρ μου) as the predicate nominative. The name κύριος, being definite, is then in apposition to the subject, “Lord my god is my Savior.” Other manuscripts do not have κύριος here, thereby avoiding this grammatical difficulty. The resulting state for the individual is πεποιθώς, the same form that appeared in earlier in 8:14 and 8:17. Heb 2:13 quotes ἐγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπʼ αὐτῷ verbatim. Eusebius saw this fulfilled in his day, in that Egypt was no longer afraid to serve God according to the word of Christ (1.64). The two nominatives δόξα and αἴνεσις both serve the same function and are definite. Κύριος, a proper name, is also definite, so it is ambiguous which is the subject and which the predicate, i.e., whether “My glory and my praise is Lord.” Eusebius read it as I have translated, with glory and praise as predicate nominatives (1.64).
3 The theme of salvation continues with a metaphor; salvation will be as abundant as water in a stream. But the verb ending has shifted back to second person, as in the beginning of 12:1, except that now it is plural. Brenton translated ἀντλήσετε (12:3), the future of ἀντλέω, as an imperative. ἀντλέω refers to taking liquid (here ὕδωρ) from out of something, here the πηγῶν (following Q’s corrector), which refer to an abundant water source. Q’s first-hand reading πληγῶν is likely nothing more than a minor scribal error; however, before the correction, it could be understood as a reference to the servant of chapter 53 (he is ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῇ who carries sins and endures pain in 53:3-5). Eusebius allegorized this spring of salvation as the words of the gospel that pour from the Holy Spirit (1.64).
4 The verb ending now changes back to singular ἐρεῖς (12:4), as the person the prophet is addressing (which according to Eusebius is the preacher of the gospel) is foretold to exhort another group (the Egyptians, according to Eusebius) to praise God. The quoted words use second person plural imperatives. ὑμνέω with an accusative of the person sung of means to celebrate or commemorate that person in a hymn; i.e., to sing in praise to or of that person. The parallel verb, βοάω, with an accusative of a thing normally means to use a loud voice to call for or celebrate that thing. A second pair of parallel exhortations begins with ἀναγγείλατε; ἀναγγέλλω normally means report or proclaim.
5 The repeated verb ἀναγγείλατε in 12:5 connects this verse to the preceding. Similarly, in 12:4 twice Lord’s “name” was the object of praise, as it is again here. In fact, Isa 12:5 and 6 are an expansion of 12:4.
6 ἀγαλλιάω implies an extreme degree of rejoicing, and the sound of ἀγαλλιάσθε resembles ἀναγγείλατε from the preceding verses. ὑψώθη ties 12:6 with 12:4 (where Lord’s name was exalted) and ὑψηλὰ in 12:5 (where his deeds were exalted). Finally, the prophecy ends with a return to the singular pronoun σου, although the second person verbs here have all been plural.
1 The entirety of Isaiah 13:1 is indented within the column of Marchalianus. The introduction of this “vision” is comparable to that of Isaiah 1:1, which read Ὅρασις, ἣν εἶδεν Ἠσαίας υἱὸς Ἀμώς, ἣν εἶδεν κατὰ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ κατὰ Ἰερουσαλήμ ἐν βασιλείᾳ Ὀζίου, καὶ Ἰωαθὰμ, καὶ Ἀχὰζ καὶ Ἑζεκίου. In comparison with chapter 1, the introduction here has no time reference. Chapters 15 and 17 begin similarly, and are directed against Moab and Damascus. Eusebius saw the vision against Babylon as the first in a series of ten prophecies against the nations of the world: against Babylon (13:1-14:27) Palestinians (14:28-32), Moab (15-16), Damascus (17-18), Egypt (19-20), “the wilderness” (21:1-10), Edom (21:11-12), Arabia (21:13-21), “the ravine of Zion” (i.e., the Jews, 22), and Tyre (23). The direction is clearly shifted away from Isaiah’s own people, but not in a simple geographical widening of scope, since the first, Babylon is the most distant of these three adversaries. The “vision” against Babylon (13:1-14), which Eusebius called the largest city of the Assyrians (1.65), describes a near future of wrath called “the day of Lord” (13:2-16). The Medes will leave Babylon desolate (13:17-22). Lord will reverse the fortunes of Israel (14:1-3) and Babylon (14:4-23). The Assyrians will be expelled from Israel (14:24-27), and trouble is on its way for foreigners (14:28-32). Eusebius separated this last “theme” against the “Philistines” from the “theme” against the Babylonians (1.65).
2 The announcement of Lord Sabaoth’s coming wrath in 13:2 is presented in vivid imagery, full of sights and sounds. It begins with a series of imperatives, leaving the reader wondering who is being addressed. The command is to raise a visible sign on ὄρους πεδινοῦ. This is not a pair of two nouns (a mountain of a plain), which would be ὄρους πεδίου. Rather, this noun modified by an adjective could mean a flat or low mountain (Johan Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie 2008), or a mountain found on a plain (Silva 2007). πεδινός stands in antithetical parallelism with a forest in 32:19. Seeligmann suggested the word πεδινός was chosen because of the Aramaic root שפ”י “to be smooth” (compare Numbers 23:3) (1948, 50). The second imperative to raise their own voice still does not identify any addressees: who is being commanded to raise others’ voices. Since the command is to be comforted by the hand, presumably a comforting hand gesture is intended. With οἱ ἄρχοντες, an addressee is finally specified, but again it is not clear whether they are the addressees of ἄρατε and ὑψώσατε, or those referred to by ἑαυτῶν. I avoid “leaders” as a translation of ἄρχοντες because in the next verse I use “lead” for a different Greek word, ἄγω. Eusebius said that after this teaching directed generally to all arrogant rulers, he then focussed in on Babylon specifically (1.65).
3 To compound the ambiguity of the participants in this speech, in 13:3 now the speaker appears via first person pronouns. The reading of Q and S is followed
by Rahlfs: ἐγὼ ἄγω αὐτούς· ἡγιασμένοι εἰσίν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἄγω. In Vaticanus and Alexandrinus scribes skipped some words between the two instances of ἐγώ. Ziegler departed from Rahlfs’s reading with his ἁγιάζω αὐτούς· [ἡγιασμένοι εἰσί] καὶ ἐγὼ καλῶ. Ziegler’s ἁγιάζω and καλῶ are conjecture; the latter has support only in Tyconius (voco). At this point, because they are appointed, the referent of αὐτούς would seem to be the ἄρχοντες. Yet the speaker has still not been explicitly identified, though the fact that he must be someone in authority to make appointments implies that he is Lord. This inference is strengthed by the phrase πληρῶσαι τὸν θυμόν μου because the wrath mentioned so far in G has been Lord’s. Those who are fulfilling Lord’s wrath are called “giants,” whom Eusebius identified as either the personification of political powers, or the offspring of fallen angels (Gen 6:4; Baruch 3:26). Readers might revise their identification of those who Lord claims to appoint and lead. The identification between the referents of αὐτούς in this verse and οἱ ἄρχοντες of 13:2 is weakened in the reader’s mind. In G ὑβρίζω denotes a wicked attitude, so the reader becomes reluctant to believe the giants are Lord’s servants. The reader might imagine two groups: the sanctified rulers (appointed and led by the speaker), and the giants, fulfilling the speaker’s wrath.
4 The verbless clause φωνὴ ἐθνῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων ὁμοία ἐθνῶν πολλῶν φωνὴ βασιλέων καὶ ἐθνῶν συνηγμένων (13:4) could be understood as an exclamation, with the two nominatives in apposition. This is how Eusebius evidently read it (he said nothing but the kings’ voices will escape, 1.65), and Silva too adopted this second interpretation: “A voice of many nations on the mountains like that of many nations!” (2007). Although the identity is not stated and different verbs are used in ἐντέταλται ἔθνει ὁπλομάχῳ, the fact that Lord appointed them gives the reader to this point the impression that this heavily-armed nation is the aforementioned “giants.”
5 These heavily armed men of Lord come from ἄκρου θεμελίου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (13:5), where Eusebius said those awaiting the final judgement are imprisoned (1.65). These are the points where the dome of the sky rests on the earth. By this point, since the victims of the nation of armed giants are the whole world (not some sanctified rulers), this nation is identified with the rulers; their “sanctification” must therefore be a commissioning, setting them apart for this task.
6 The prophecy continues with a warning that the day of Lord is near, and this will not be a pleasant thing. It is characterized by crushing, weariness, and fear. See the note on ὀλολύζετε in 10:10, where an aorist of the same imperative appeared. Although the spelling of the original scribe of Q is ὀλολύζεται (indicative singular), the form should be plural to match the nominative ἄρχοντες of verse 2. ὀλολύζεται is a spelling variation of the plural imperative ὀλολύζετε, which is what Q’s corrector wrote, matching S, A, and B (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler). That the day of the Lord is one decisive day is indicated by the article. The crushing from God is in parallel to the day of Lord, which makes it clear that this day is not of peace, but of violence.
7 The crushing from God results in weariness and fear. Although the verb ἐκλύω(13:7) normally means “set free” (LSJ), in early Christian literature (BDAG), the passive has the sense of “become weary, give out,” which fits this context better, including δειλιάω “be afraid.”
8 The fear is depicted in several images: old men (πρέσβεις, 13:8) are troubled (ταράσσω, 13:8) with pangs, they wail, and their face changes. The pangs are in the nominative case, ὠδῖνες αὐτοὺς ἕξουσιν, so the subject is the pangs; the old men are the object. συμφοράζω is a rare word, meaning bewail (LSJ; GELS). G translates ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον idiomatically from אישׁ אל רעהו, which would more literally be “man to his companion.” ἐξίστημι is prototypically “change,” often in the sense of being out of one’s mind with amazement, which is the sense of the Hebrew יתמהו. But here, in parallel with μεταβαλοῦσιν (it seems G thought “faces” was from the Hebrew verb פנה, which can mean “change”), simple “change” may have been understood by the reader. Eusebius said their faces will change colour as a result of their perplexity (1.65).
9 The description of the day of the Lord continues, now with an image of celestial darkness. In 13:6, the reading ἡἡμέραwas in Q, S, and A but B had only ἡμέρα without the article. This time, though, Rahlfs and Ziegler follow the reading of B rather than S and A because Codex Marchalianus (Q) is anarthrous. The coming day is ἀνίατος from ἰάομαι, meaning incurable. The syntactic relationship of θυμοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς is unclear. Brenton supplies a noun, “the day of the Lord is coming which cannot be escaped, a day of wrath and anger” (Brenton 1870), followed by Silva’s “the incurable day of the Lord comes, a day of wrath and
anger” (Silva 2007). Ottley treated these as modifiers of ἀνίατος: “the day of the Lord cometh, and there is no healing of its wrath and anger” (Ottley 1904). Usually ἰάομαι uses not simply a genitive but the preposition ἀπό to indicate the ailment from which the person is healed (BDAG), although Muraoka did present this possibility for ἀνίατος (Muraoka 1993). ἀνίατος cannot be a predicate nominative, “the day of Lord is incurable” because that would leave ἔρχεται alone in a clause with genitive modifiers θυμοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς. More naturally, ἔρχεται has as complement the aorist infinitive of τίθημι (which literally translates לשׂום). The day of Lord is to bring desolation to the whole world; the phrase τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην links this verse to 13:5, where Lord and his heavily armed nation come to spoil it. Sinners will be destroyed from “it” ἐξ αὐτῆς, that is, from the inhabited world. Irenaeus in Haer. 5.35.1 quoted 13:9 to show that the end times prophecies cannot be allegorized; they will occur after the coming of Antichrist.
10 Not only is the earth desolated, even the celestial bodies are affected. The stars, sun, and moon are all darkened. Because ἀνατέλλοντος has no article, this is not an attributive use of the genitive participle, but a circumstantial use of the genitive absolute: when the sun rises, the light will be dark. It is this imagery that Jesus uses in Mark 13:24 (see also Matt 24:29) to describe the eschaton. Clement of Alexandria (Exhortation 8) quoted 13:10 to show how thorough the judgement will be.
11 The paragraph ends with a series of first-person verbs: I will appoint (ἐντέλλω or ἐντελέω), destroy (ἀπόλλυμι), and bring down (ταπεινόω). If ἐντελοῦμαι is the future of ἐντέλλω (as in Matt 4:6; Luke 4:10), it recalls 13:4, where Lord had appointed or commanded (ἐντέταλται) an army. Here, however, the accusative objects are bad things and sins, and the dative objects are the world and the impious. Usually when ἐντέλλω has both accusative and dative modifiers, the action commanded is in the accusative, and the person commanded to do that action is in the dative. If we have such a construction here, the people would be commanded to do bad things and sins. The alternative possibility, that ἐντελοῦμαι is the present of ἐντελέω, “complete,” would probably not occur immediately to a reader because it is a rare word. The difficulty stems from G’s choice of ἐντέλλω to render פקד in the Hebrew phrase ופקדתי על תבל רעה ועל רשׁעים עונם. This is a reasonable equivalent, if the sense is “appoint.” As Eusebius wrote, “the ungodly were delivered over to suffer” (1.65). 1 Clement 59.3 alludes to 13:11 that God lays low the insolence of the haughty, by quoting ταπεινοῦντα ὕβριν ὑπερηφάνων.
12 The crushing of the day of Lord is so extensive that it results in depopulation. Humans will be rare because the created order will have become inhospitable. Usually when used in reference to people, ἔντιμοι would mean honoured, but when comparing humans to precious metals and stones, “valued” is preferable as an English translation. The gold is ἄπυρον, literally “unfired,” so gold nuggets are in view. The Hebrew place name translated Σουφείρ is אופיר, Ophir, which is spelled with the Σ also in 3 Kgdms 9:28; 10:11; 1 Ch 29:4; 2 Ch 8:18; 9:10. Ottley pointed out that the added Σ is not unprecedented in Greek transliterations of proper names, since B reads Num 34:20 Σεμιούδ and Num 34:23 Σουφί for עַמִּיהוּד and אֵפֹד respectively.
13 Lord’s anger is introduced by the verb θυμωθήσεται (future passive of θυμόω). Q is unique in reading θυμὸν in place of the phrase θυμὸν ὀργῆς, which subsequently intensifies the wrath; when these two nouns are together in a genitive relationship, LEH suggests “fierce anger” (2003, s.v. θυμός).
14 The scarcity of humans in the land does not make them safe. Even those who remain will be subject to capture, defeat, plunder, and rape (13:14-16). The first sentence (13:14) in this paragraph indicates they will be disorganized, fending for themselves. The result is that they will be turned back, ἀποστραφῆναι, the aorist passive infinitive of ἀποστρέφω. The passive form can be used in a middle sense, as in Acts 7:39 “they turned back to Egypt.”
15 Those who were unsuccessful in their retreat to their own land will be captured (ἁλίσκομαι, 13:15) and defeated (ἡττάομαι, prototypically “being inferior”). Those who try to organize themselves (perfect participle of συνάγω) will be executed
by the sword. Instead of ἐάν (the reading also of A and followed by Ziegler), Rahlfs has ἂν (the reading of S and B). In 13:13, Ziegler had the reverse: ἂν where S had ἐὰν. In both cases, Ziegler followed Q and A.
16 Whereas the men are victims of the sword, the children are victims of being dashed, the houses of plunder, and the women of rape (13:16). The verb προνομεύω reappears from 10:13 and 11:14. I take τὰς γυναῖκας αὐτῶν ἕξουσιν in this context as an act of personal violence parallel to plunder and death.
17 The prophecy now returns to speaking in the first-person, last seen in 13:11. Presumably, it is still Lord Sabaoth speaking (although Lord has been mentioned in the third person in 13:13), and he is still addressing the rulers. Here Lord introduces the Medes, who Eusebius identified as those who replaced the Assyrians, and were themselves subsequently replaced by the Persians (1.67). Lord claims to be raising the Medes against the addressees. Usually ἐπεγείρω (13:17) takes the person or thing being stirred up in the accusative case, and the person against which it is stirred up is in a prepositional phrase, with ἐπί or κατά or εἰς. Here we have the accusative, but with a dative case as well, serving the same function as the prepositional phrase. The fact that they need no money indicates their prior wealth.
18 The claim that the Medes will shatter (συντρίβω) the τοξεύματα “arrows” (13:18) means weapons can have no effect on the Medes. Standard English does not allow the distinction between the two kinds of “your” in the Greek. The first mention of “your” children is plural; the second is singular. For the second instance, instead of the reading of Q, σου, which is also in S, A, and B, Rahlfs conjectured οὐ, and Ziegler followed, supported by the Latin of Tyconius (non). The singular σου is certainly out of place in the context of the two preceding plural second person pronouns, but such switches of number are not uncommon in G. Whether the reading is σου or οὐ, the the negation of φείδομαι (which generally means by inaction stopping something, usually bad) is already conveyed by οὐδέ.
The first device is a simile using ὃν τρόπον. The syntax is awkward, but the sense is clear enough: Babylon will experience the same fate as Sodom and Gomorra: catastrophe.
20 The catastrophe is of such an extent that people will not even visit it ever again. The Hebrew word behind τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον is נצח, not the usual one for eternity, but it is rendered this same way in 33:20, and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in 28:28. Three clauses follow, each with οὐδέ and a subsequent negation (οὐ, μή, or both). The original reading of the first two is disputed. In the first instance, Q and S both read οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ but A, B, Rahlfs & Ziegler have οὐδὲ μὴ. In the second clause, Q agrees with A, B, Rahlfs & Ziegler in reading οὐδὲ μὴ while S is repeats οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ; but the last of the three parallel clauses certainly has both οὐδὲ and οὐ μὴ. The subject of the first εἰσέλθωσιν is not specified; it could be indefinite or the Arabs, because they are the subject of the next verb. Not even Arabs or shepherds go there. Instead of the future indicative ἀναπαύσονται (shared with S and B and adopted by Ziegler), A has the aorist subjunctive ἀναπαύσωνται (followed by Rahlfs), which fits the other parallel verbs better.
Babylon will be populated by spirits and beasts(13:21-22)[[@Bible:Isa 13:19-22]]
21 Instead of human visitors, Babylon will be the haunt of wild creatures. Instead of shepherds, wild animals and Sirens will rest (ἀναπαύσονται). The houses will be filled (ἐμπλησθήσονται, future passive of ἐμπίπλημι) with ἤχου, sound, in this context of animals, probably “noise” is a better translation, to indicate the chaos that results from the absence of humans. A Σειρήν was a woman or winged creature whose song lured sailors to the rocks (e.g., Odyssey 12.39). The Hebrew here is בנות יענה, ostrich daughters. In Micah 1:8, the ostriches are known for their “mourning;” there the Greek word Σειρήν is also used, as also in Jer 27:39. The Hebrew word appears in Isaiah also in 34:13 and 43:20, and in the Pentateuch in Lev 11:16 and Deut 14:15, all rendered with στρουθός, which means sparrow or ostrich. The Hebrew behind δαιμόνια is שׂעירים “goats,” which appears dozens of times in Leviticus and Numbers as χίμαρος. G never renders it as χίμαρος; in its other appearance in 34:14, it becomes ἕτερος, but δαιμόνια does appear earlier in that verse, translating צִיִּים. These divine beings dance there, using the same verb (ὀρχέομαι) as in Matt 14:6 and Mark 6:22.
22 The other two wild creatures to settle where Babylon used to be are the ὀνοκένταυροι and ἐχῖνοι. ὀνοκένταυρος, literally “donkey-centaur,” is defined by LSJ as “a kind of tailless ape,” citing Claudius Aelianus, De natura animalum 17.9, which describes a creature resembling an orangutan except for grey color; so Gossen suggested a gorilla (1935, sec. 241), and Scholfield a chimpanzee (Aelian 1958, 3:333): Ὀνοκενταύραν καλοῦσι ζῷόν τι, … ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ πρόσωπον εἴκασται, περιέρχονται δὲ αὐτὸ βαθεῖαι τρίχες. Since this is a word otherwise unattested in Greek before the 3rd century (it also appears in 34:14), it is presumably rare, and the reader of G would probably discern its meaning solely by etymology, “donkey-centaur.” The Hebrew is איים, which is also the word for island, and is rendered ὀνοκένταυρος again in 34:14; Q contains a marginal note at 34:14 with the readings of Aquila and Symmachus, which use Λιλιθ and Λάμιᾰ respectively in place of ὀνοκένταυροι. The fact that ἐχῖνοι (which LSJ identifies as the hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus) would make their nests (νοσσοποιήσουσιν) there indicates the dearth of humans in what used to be the great city Babylon. This prophecy refers not to the distant future; it is imminent. 1 Clement 23.5 quotes from 13:22 with the words ταχὐ ἤξει καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ, to make his point that the end is coming soon.
1 Corresponding to Babylon’s reversal of fortune is Israel’s converse reversal from captivity to domination (14:1-2). Israel is called τὸν Ἰακώβ; the article on this proper name serves to indicate the direct object, and corresponds to the Hebrew definite direct object marker. Of the 40 times Jacob appears in G, 4 have the genitive article, and three have the accusative article. Never is the nominative or dative article used with Jacob in G. In the rest of the OG, the dative article is used with Jacob (more than the accusative and genitive combined), but never the nominative. The definite direct object marker אֵת gets omitted in translation before proper names in 7:12, 13; 8:13; 62:6, 9 (Lord); 11:3 (Judah); 11:13 (Ephraim); 13:19 (Sodom, Gomorra); 19:4, 13, 14 (Egypt); 20:4 (Ethiopia); 23:17 (Tyre); 36:2 (Rapsakes); 36:19 (Samaria); 36:20; 62:7; 65:18 (Jerusalem); 37:2 (Somnas, Eliakim); 37:12 (Charran). The definite direct object marker becomes the Greek article before proper names in 1:4; 6:1; 9:12; 11:9; 19:21 (Lord); 8:2 (Urias, Zacharias); 8:6 (Raasson); 9:11 (Israel); 9:20 (Manasseh); 13:17 (Medes); 14:1 (Jacob); 19:22 (Egypt). It is noteworthy that after chapter 19, the definite direct object marker never becomes the Greek article before proper names. The prophecy has Lord showing pity or mercy and “choosing” Jacob/Israel. The parallel between ἐλεήσει and ἐκλέξεται (a literal translation of בחר), is not semantic, but there is some similarity in sound. Their “rest” ἀναπαύσονται in the land recalls 13:20-21. The person added to their number is given as
γειώρας, a transliteration of גר, which would likely not be a familiar word to a Greek reader. Besides this occurence, Josephus also used the word as the surname of Simon (J.W. 2.652; 4.503; 5.11; 6.114; 7.25, 154, 265). Theodoret of Cyr (in Isaiam 5.208) explains that this is a proselyte (Γιώρας τῇ Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ ὁ προσήλυτος ἑρμηνεύεται), which is the word Eusebius indicates the other translators used. He describes such proselytes in words that sound like he means immigrants who adopt a host culture as their own: προσηλύτους τε αὐτῶν γενέσθαι καὶ προστεθῆναι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰακὼβ οὐκ ὄντας μὲν ἐξ αὐτῶν, διὰ δὲ τὸ προσηλυτεῦσαι οἰκειουμένους αὐτοῖς ὡς μηδὲν διαφέρειν τῶν ἐγγενῶν καὶ ἀλλοφύλων (1.68). The two instances of προστεθήσεται each translate a different Hebrew word: first ונלוה then ונספחו. Both mean “be joined.” The resulting Greek sounds redundant rather than poetic.
2 Eusebius saw the fulfilment of the prophecy that nations would lead the house (singular) of Israel into their (plural) place in Cyrus’ edict, quoting Ezra 1:5-6. The reversal of the captives and dominators was fulfilled when the Persians and Medes defeated the Assyrians/Babylonians (1.68). As they increase in the land, they will become bondservants (εἰς δούλους καὶ δούλας). The preposition εἰς seems out of place here, but it is a literal translation of לעבדים ולשׁפחות. Ziegler listed Q’s first-hand reading as κυριευθήσεται, but Swete as κυριευθήσοται. The disputed character was an epsilon which was transformed into an omicron; a nu was then superscripted between the omicron and tau (κυριευθήσονται) to match the reading of S, A, and B (followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler).
3 The restoration of Israel relieves them from their former suffering, which is now transferred to their former oppressors (14:3-4). In chapter 13, “that day” was a day of violence. Now (14:3), “that day” will bring rest, at least for Israel. The singular addressee implied by σε is not specified, but the context suggests it refers to the οἶκος Ἰσραήλ from 14:2. The verb for rest, ἀναπαύσει has three genitives: pain, temper, and servitude. Pain and servitude have parallel meanings, but θυμοῦ σου does not match the other two semantically. The pain and servitude are things God might stop his people from experiencing, and even wrath might fit, if it were God’s wrath. But it is the people’s θυμός. The possessive pronoun σου could modify ὀδύνης rather than θυμοῦ, but this possibility, attractive in both Marchalianus and Vaticanus, is weakened by the presence of the conjunction καί in S and A. The relative pronoun ἧς is genitive by attraction to δουλείας … σκληρᾶς; more properly it should be accusative or dative in the relative clause.
4 The singular addressee, the house of Israel, is to take up a θρῆνον, an expression of grief, over the king of Babylon. Robert Gordon identified various ancient near eastern stories of divine beings challenging their superiors and receiving punishment, and extended this theme to humans who likewise overstep their bounds by their aspirations to divinity. In addition to the Isaianic instances in Isaiah 14:3-23; 36-37; 26:13-15, biblical texts also include Psalm 82; Ezekiel 28, Genesis 6:1-4; 2-3, as well as the Gilgamesh Epic (R. P. Gordon 2010). A rhetorical question (πῶς normally introduces a question) celebrates the abrupt cessation of oppression. The active of ἀναπαύω in 14:3 meant to give rest; here the middle means to take rest, as those in Rev 14:13 retire (ἀναπαήσονται) from their labours. G manages to include alliteration in Πῶς ἀναπέπαυται ὁ ἀπαιτῶν καὶ ἀναπέπαυται ὁ ἐπισπουδαστής. Silva has “taskmaster” for the rare word ἐπισπουδαστής. The meaning of the MT מדהבה is uncertain: insolence, fury, hostility, and even golden city have been suggested. The opinion of most moderns is expressed by Wildberger: “מדהבה can hardly be the correct reading … the hiphʿil מַרְהִיב (tyrant, stormer) (or, if need be, the piʿel מְרַהֵב, ‘tyrant, stormer’) should be read here” (1997, 41). 1QIsaa confirms the reading מרהבה. Perhaps G had in mind the root מהר when he rendered it ἐπισπουδαστής.
5 The taskmaster has stopped because God has crushed (συντρίβω) the yoke of the sinners and rulers (14:5). These two objects of crushing are in synonymous parallelism, recalling the beginning of chapter 13 (13:2, 9).
6 The way God has crushed this yoke is expressed with the masculine nominative participle πατάξας, modifying ὁ θεός; the object of πατάξας is the neuter accusative ἔθνος. Both θυμῷ and πληγῇ are dative, but θυμῷ indicates the attitude of God, whereas πληγῇ indicates the means by which the striking happens. The blow with which he strikes is ἀνίατος, recalling the incurable blow of 13:9. παίω normally means to hit bodily; it takes an accusative to indicate the person receiving the blow. Here we have two accusatives, the other being πληγήν. In such cases the second accusative indicates the instrument, as in Aeschylus, Persians 408–409 ναῦς ἐν νηὶ χαλκήρη στόλον ἔπαισεν. Again, the blow (indicated by the feminine ἣ; it does not have God as referent) is unsparing; φείδομαι recalls 13:18. The phrase πατάξας ἔθνος θυμῷ πληγῇ ἀνιάτῳ is used by 2 Macc 9:5 ἐπάταξεν
αὐτὸν ἀνιάτῳ καὶ ἀοράτῳ πληγῇ with θυμῷ and θεός (from 14:5) in close proximity. Rahlfs divides 14:6 from 14:7 before ἀνεπαύσατο πεποιθώς; Swete and Ziegler do so after. In Q, the gap is slightly larger after these words than before, so my transcription follows Swete and Ziegler rather than Rahlfs here.
The appearance of ἀναπαύω again recalls 13:20, 21 and 14:1. No new subject has been introduced, so the one resting would seem to be God. The problem is that πεποιθώς is usually a word applied to humans rather than God (see the note on 12:2). Here it translates שׁקט “keep quiet.”
The land and trees rejoiced(14:7-8)[[@Bible:Isa 14:12-19]]
8 The second person pronouns raise the question of the identity of the addressee. Eusebius said the trees were to rejoice over the fall of the absolute rulers, and falling asleep refers to death. Ἀφ οὗ σὺ κεκοίμησαι is a literal translation of מאז שׁכבת, “from (the time) when you have fallen asleep.” The perfect tense is unusual in G (except for the perfect of πείθω and καταλείπω); it is used 71 times for a qatal verb. Alexandrinus has κόπων from κοπόω, “exhaust,” but κόπτων, “one who chops” better fits the context of trees, and matches the Hebrew כרת, “cut.” Eusebius identified the “us” as those on the earth and those who have died and are in Hades.
Counted among the giant kings91
9 The name ᾅδης properly refers to the god of the underworld (hence κάτωθεν), death personified, but Eusebius treated Hades as a place (1.68). Eusebius interpreted the embittering (πικραίνω) of Hades as its anger and wrath, when it rises up (συναντήσας, a circumstantial participle modifying ἐπικράνθη) against the king of Babylon. The dative “you” in the phrase συνηγέρθησάν σοι would normally be understood as “with you” when with συνεγείρω, but BDAG offers “all rise up together for you” for Isa 14:9. The mention of giants and rulers (γίγαντες … ἄρξαντες) recalls the Babylonians from 13:2-3, and 14:5. For πάντες (the reading of Q and S), the other manuscripts (A and B, followed by Rahlfs and Ziegler) read πάντας; this would make the kings (βασιλεῖς can be nominative or accusative; see 14:16) the direct objects of ἐγείραντες. The reading in Q and S yields an abundance of nominatives in 14:9: Hades with its singular verb ἐπικράνθη, and the giants and kings, with their plural verb συνηγέρθησαν.
10 The giant kings tell the king of Babylon that his fate is now the same as theirs. The ἑάλως (aorist indicative second person singular of ἁλίσκομαι) “you were taken” recalls 13:15. Here it translates חלה “be weak.” The king of Babylon is “reckoned” among the giants and kings; καταλογίζομαι appears only here in G, although it also appears in Wis 5:5.
11 The giant kings taunt the king of Babylon that his happiness is over; his buried body will be surrounded by decay and worms. Because Hades is the underworld, his glory and joy goes down (καταβαίνω). Below him they would spread (στρωννύω) putrefaction (σῆψις related to “septic”), and over him there would be a covering (κατακάλυμμα) of worms. σκώληξ refers especially to the kind of worm that eats rotting corpses; such worms are also mentioned in 2 Macc 9:9.
12 A parallel rhetorical question introduced by πῶς matches that of 14:4, introducing a paragraph of the dirge that continues to express astonishment at the fate of such a lofty person as the king of Babylon falling so low. The height from which he fell is connoted by the label ἑωσφόρος, etymologically “dawn-bringer,” the name of the star that appears at the dawn. Greek ἀστήρ had the same connotation of “star” as English; it could be applied to an outstanding person. The bright star ἑωσφόρος was also known as Ἀφροδίτης ἀστήρ (Eudoxus, Ars astronomica 5.2), which was in turn also called Φωσφόρος (Geminus, Elementa astronmiae 1.28), meaning “light-bearer,” which is translated into Latin as lucifer. (ἑωσφόρος appears in some manuscripts of 2 Pet 1:19 for Φωσφόρος.) In any case, an illustrious person is meant. The connection between Lucifer and Satan is therefore not made here in Isaiah, but by Luke 10:18; Ottley also noted the similarity between Luke 10:15 and Isa 14:13, 15. Origen saw Lucifer as one of the fallen angels (Hom. Jes. Nav. 1.6) but did not imply he is their chief. In Comm. Ro. 8.9.4 he suggested Lucifer might be referring to Israel. Eusebius in his Commentary on Isaiah gave not the slightest indication of the interpretation of this fallen star as Satan, even though 2.7 shows he was familiar with fallen stars in the context of Satan falling from heaven by alluding to Luke 10:18 there. Rather, in commenting on 14:8-21, Eusebius took great pains to argue that this whole prophecy refers to the historical king of Babylon. Nevertheless, in Praep. ev. 7.16 he did connect Isaiah 14:12 with the leader of the fallen evil spirits. The participle ἀποστέλλων has a definite article in Q and the other uncials other than S; it has phonetic similarity to ἀνατέλλων earlier in the verse. G misread חולש as שולח and probably also על as כל. The ideas of falling to the earth are taken up in 2 Macc 9:7-8, but the parallels are not mainly on the level of vocabulary.
The dawn-bringer’s plan(14:13-14)[[@Bible:Isa 14:4-11]]
13 After the rhetorical question, the pronouns shift back to the second person singular σύ. The nominatives in the preceding verse are not vocatives, since ἐξέπεσεν is third person. The private thoughts are indicated by ἐν τῇ
διανοίᾳ, rendering the Hebrew בלבב idiomatically. The rendering in Sinaiticus is more literal. Vaticanus has a different form for ἄστρων as well; by the second century, ἄστρον and ἀστήρ had become synonymous. The mention of the stars of the sky recalls 13:10. The king of Babylon plans to ascend even higher, to sit (καθίζω), i.e. be enthroned, on high mountains. Instead of οὐρανοῦ, Ziegler’s edition retroverts אל as θεοῦ, with support from Cyprian and Tyconius. The image of arrogance of reaching the stars of heaven is taken up in 2 Macc 9:10.
14 The upward mobility of the king does not stop with the mountains; he plans to be above the clouds, to the realm of the Most High. ὁ ὕψιστος is the standard translation of עליון, the title used of God (e.g., Gen 14:18; see Luke 1:32;Luke 6:35; Acts 7:4). This is the climactic expression of arrogance, the attitude condemned consistently in G. The arrogance of equating oneself to God is picked up by 2 Macc 9:12.
Those in Hades will be amazed(14:15-17)[[@Bible:Isa 14:12-19]]
15 After that climax of arrogant imagination, the reality is broken to the king of Babylon: intstead of reaching the most high, he will reach the most low Hades, the very base of the world, even lower than earth itself. Instead of the accusative attested in both Marchalianus and Vaticanus, the genitive is the appropriate case for ᾅδου here (following Homer), since it is etymologically a proper name: (the abode) of Hades.
16 The reversal is a source of amazement for observers. The provocation he was known for (παροξύνω) is etymologically related to the word for sharpening.
17 They considered him ruthless, making the whole world (οἰκουμένη) a deserted place. Usually when τίθημι takes a double accusative, it is in the middle voice (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 12:28). The phrase θεὶς τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην recalls especially 13:9, where God makes the world deserted, but also 10:14, 23; 13:5, 9, 11; anticipating 14:26; 37:18. The finite verb καθεῖλεν (aorist indicative of καθαιρέω) does not match the coordinated participle θείς. Another participle is expected, or at least a relative clause. The reappearance of ἐπαγωγῇ recalls 10:4; ἐπαγωγή generally means bringing in, so can be used for enticement, but in this military context, an “attack” would probably be understood, as in Polybius 10.23.7.
No honourable resting place for the dawn-bringer(14:18-19)[[@Bible:Isa 14:12-19]]
18 The taunters compare the king of Babylon to other kings, who have stately burials. κοιμάω recalls 14:8, where the trees had not been chopped since they had fallen asleep. In the expression “each person in his house,” ἄνθρωπος is a literal translation of אישׁ, used distributively.
19 That will not be the fate of the king of Babylon, whose corpse will instead be disgraced. The phrase ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν has no counterpart in MT; Tov suggested it is here under influence of 34:3, which also has the passive of ῥίπτω and αἷμα: οἱ δὲ τραυματίαι αὐτῶν ῥιφήσονται καὶ οἱ νεκροί, καὶ ἀναβήσεται αὐτῶν ἡ ὀσμή, καὶ βραχήσεται τὰ ὄρη ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῶν. The Isaianic phrase is used by 2 Macc 9:28 ἐπὶ ξένης ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν οἰκτίστῳ μόρῳ κατέστρεψε τὸν βίον. Loathing is conveyed by the perfect passive participle of βδελύσσομαι. θνήσκω makes its only appearance in G here. The plural genitive ἐκκεκεντημένων and καταβαινόντων match the dead τεθνηκότων, so the “stabbed” who are going down are not the king but the dead; ἐκκεντέω is an appropriate but unprecedented translation of טען. Regarding the case of ᾅδου see the note on 14:15.
19 At this point the taunt ends, and first person pronouns are introduced. The image of a stained garment drives home the point that the king of Babylon’s offenses are beyond forgiveness. The staining is conveyed by the perfect passive participle of φύρω, prototypically “soak.” The words ἐν αἵματι … οὐκ ἔσται καθαρόν have no counterpart in Hebrew. The future (ἔσται) is not the expected tense; because οὐκ ἔσται καθαρόν is drawn from the next verse, the future here was probably chosen to match ἔσῃ there. Tov suggested ἐν αἵματι comes from 34:3.
20 The king’s offenses include destroying (ἀπώλεσας) “my” land and “my” people. ἀπόλλυμι is a favourite word of G; he uses it to translate 20 different Hebrew words. The introduction of a first-person singular pronoun μου indicates the dirge over the king of Babylon is over, although to this point there has been no explicit speaker since 13:3, 11. Eusebius identified the destruction of “my” land and people with the Babylonian capture of Israel. As a consequence of this destruction, the prophecy says he will not remain.
21 Eusebius said nothing about the Septuagint’s reading of 14:21, instead giving attention to the other translators, who imply the king of Babylon offered his own children as a sacrifice σφαγήν τε τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τέκνοις προξενῆσαι. For the second σου “your father,” B has αὐτῶν “their father.” ἵνα expresses the purpose for preparing the children for slaughter: they are not supposed to rise (ἀναστῶσιν). By the time of Eusebius, resurrection from the dead would have been
understood, and the Christian reader would have recalled Matt 5:5 from τὴν γῆν κληρονομήσωσιν, but Eusebius did not develop these connections to Jesus’ preaching or resurrection.
ἐμπλήσωσι, the subjunctive of ἐμπίπλημι, matches the mood of ἀναστῶσιν and κληρονομήσωσιν.
22 Lord Sabaoth is now identified as the speaker, the subject of all the first person verbs since 14:20. He warns of his intention to oppose and destroy Babylonia. Several recurrences of vocabulary connect this verse to what preceded. The verb ἐπανίστημι recalls the enemies of 9:10. ἀπολῶ recalls 14:20, where Lord’s land was being destroyed.
23 The phrase θήσω … ἔρημον recalls 14:17 (see note there), where the whole world was deserted. The result of the destruction is that Babylonian will be inhabitable by hedgehogs. ὥστε with the infinitive normally is used in past contexts for the actual result (“with the result that”) but in future contexts can also be used for intended result “so that they could” (Matt 10:1; Luke 20:20). The reprisal of ἐχίνους recalls 13:22, where the hedgehog was building nests in a deserted Babylon. It will be demolished so thoroughly that it will become a clay pit.
24 Lord Sabaoth affirms his determination, as previously spoken. Nothing can change his mind.
25 He has determined to destroy (τοῦ ἀπολέσαι) the Assyrians from Israel (14:24-25). The mention of καταπάτημα recalls 5:5 and 7:25, where this trampling symbolized the desolation of Israel. The yoke is removed literarily at this point as well; after this chapter (and before this in 5:18; 9:3; 10:27; 14:5),
the word ζυγός does not appear again in G except for chapters 40 and 46-47. κῦδος appears only here in G; Seeligmann considered it a remarkably appropriate translation (Seeligmann 1948).
26 The prophecy ends with a final declaration of Lord Sabaoth’s determination. The two nominatives, Αὕτη ἡ βουλή must form a verbless clause since after the relative clause begins there is no independent finite verb. The subject is the more definite of the two nominatives: the demonstrative pronoun, indicating this (i.e., the preceding prophecy) is the decision that has been made. The same is true for αὕτη ἡ χεὶρ. The upraised hand image has appeared frequently (5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4) and here it is explained.
27 Lord Sabaoth’s decision cannot be foiled. διασκεδάσει, from διασκεδάζω or διασκεδάννυμι, means scatter to the winds. The rhetorical question is who will thwart (ἀποστρέψει) Lord’s plan?
28 A new saying (ῥῆμα) begins in 14:28. In Q, the entirety of the verse is indented within the column. The timing of the saying is indicated by the genitives Τοῦ ἔτους (Porter 1992, sec. <IP_ADDRESS>) and οὗ. Ahaz died around 720 bce (Watts 1998, 218).
29 The saying is addressed to foreigners. The etymology of ἀλλόφυλοι is “other-tribe,” and the word generally is used for what is foreign or alien. In the OG, it is used for non-Israelites, especially the Philistines. This is Eusebius’s interpretation; but he noted that their Greek name is Παλαιστίνοι “Palestinians” (1.69). These foreigners are not to be glad (εὐφραίνω). συνετρίβη recalls 14:5, where God shattered the yoke of the sinners. παίω recalls 14:6, where God hit a nation with a blow of his wrath. γάρ provides the reason such joy would be inappropriate (Porter 1992, sec. 12.2.5): the crushing of their oppressor’s yoke. But that does sound like a cause for rejoicing. G apparently misunderstood כי to mean γάρ rather than ὅτι, which would mean do not rejoice that the yoke of those striking you has been broken. Eusebius understands the oppressor to be Ahaz (1.69). ὄφις “snake” is used for both נחשׁ and שׂרף in this verse. In 6:2, 6 שׂרף was rendered
σεραφείμ; in 1:7 as πυρίκαυστοι. The reference to ἔκγονα ἀσπίδων recalls 11:8, where the child would put its hand on their bed in peace. The clause τὰ ἔκγονα αὐτῶν ἐξελεύσονται ὄφεις πετόμενοι has two nominatives, even though ἔρχομαι is not a linking verb. The form in which they will go out is expressed by the second nominative, ὄφεις πετόμενοι (πετόμενοι is a literal translation of מְעוֹפֵף). The image is that their descendents will be even more fearsome than the parents.
30 This slithering and venomous race (as Eusebius called them, 1.69, identifying them as evil spirits since they fly through the air) will no longer interfere with the food supply of the poor. The passive forms of βόσκω are used for what the livestock does; the active forms for what the herder does. The referent of αὐτοῦ would seem to be σπέρματος ὄφεων. These words have no counterpart in Hebrew. Διά with the genitive here expresses agency (BDAG, s.v. διά A.4). ἄνδρες is supplied by G; it has no counterpart in Hebrew. The reference to εἰρήνη recalls Isaiah 11. ἐπʼεἰρήνης (“on” peace) means under the conditions of peace, so “peacefully” rather than “rest in peace,” which to English readers would connote death. ἀναπαύσονται is reprised from 11:2; 13:20, 21; 14:1, 3, 4, 7. The Hebrew root here is the same as in 13:20, 21, but not as in 11:2; 14:1, 3, 4, 7. Two different Hebrew words for killing are behind the two instances of ἀναιρέω. The first recalls 11:4, where the breath of lips would kill the impious. The two phrases τὸ σπέρμα σου and τὸ κατάλειμμά σου are both accusative; if they were nominative, the transitive verb ἀνελεῖ would have no object. σπέρμα appears four times in this chapter, the first time since chapter 1:4, 9. The mention of κατάλειμμα recalls 10:22 and especially 14:22, where κατάλειμμα and σπέρμα were also coordinated. It also anticipates 37:20, where κατάλειμμα and σπείραντες appear together.
31 The foreigners are warned that a pillaging army is coming from the north, but they will not touch the humble of Zion (14:32). ὀλολύζετε recalls 10:10, where the aorist form is used, and 13:6, where the present is used. The adressees are πύλαι (vocative plural). It is clear that κεκραγέτωσαν is a third person plural active imperative, but it is not clear what the tense is. It has a thematic (connecting) vowel ε, which appears only in the present and second aorist principal parts. Normally the perfect imperative is periphrastic (Smyth 1956a, sec. 599g),