Aantekeningen bij de Bijbel: Jesaja 9:6

Bijbelvers
Context
Vertalingen

Jesaja 9:6

P.A. Siebesma, Door het Oog van de Rabbijnen, [1996], 7.5 In de Hebreeuwse tekst van Jesaja 9:6, staat iets merkwaardigs. In de uitdrukking "Voor hem is de heerschappij groot", letterlijk staat er in het Hebreeuws: "Om groot te maken zijn heerschappij", treffen we in het woord "groot maken" (lemarbeh) een letter m aan, die een afwijkende vorm heeft. Hoewel deze letter midden in een woord staat, wordt hier een zogenaamde sluitletter m gebruikt, die een andere vorm heeft dan de gewone letter m. Deze sluitletter vinden we normaal alleen aan het eind van een woord. De rabbijnse commentaren hebben getracht theologische verklaringen voor dit ver-schijnsel te vinden.
- -, B-Hebrew, [], 17/03/2005 Is 9:6 Mem clausum? Hallo, Could someone perhaps offer some ideas as to why the 'mem' in the word for: 'increase' is written this way?
- Kelton Graham (Thu, 17 Mar 2005): Looks like it is a dittography. The precedding word is LWM, it just gets repeated before R:BB"H. If you have a BHS it is illustrated in the apparatus.
- Yigal Levin (Thu, 17 Mar 2005): If you look at Second Temple period mss., such as some of the DSS, you will see that what we call the "final" mem was often used in the middle of the word as well. Basically, the two forms were interchangable. In this one place, the MT preserves that ancient scribal tradition.
- Jerry Shepherd (Thu, 17 Mar 2005): In addition to what Kelton Graham noted, Mention should also be made here of Hans Wildberger's argument (Isaiah 1-12, pp. 385, 387, 405), following Albrecht Alt, that the dittography also masks the fact that there is an additional fifth throne name at the beginning of v. 6 (EVV 7), on the order of "Great in his Kingdom" or "Great in His Rule." I find the suggestion attractive.
- Dave Washburn ( Fri, 18 Mar 2005): Based on the Qere correction by the Masoretes, it looks like a simple scribal error. Incidentally, if anybody uses the free Westminster Leningrad Codex module, the Qere here has an error in it. Rather than showing the final mem, it shows exactly the same form as the Qere, but with a different accent. If somebody from that project is on this list, that's an FYI. If you can tell me how to fix it in my copy (I'm using GnomeSword with the Ezra SIL font) that would be a Very Good Thing (TM).
- Daniel R. Pater (Sat, 26 Mar 2005) You could posit a 'parallel' tradition for the mem finalis, but I don't think we have any evidence of that. How would we know? Such a position as you suggest about a tradition for which we have no evidence would be more of an assumption than what I have suggested, which is supported by some pretty reliable evidence.
I am comfortable with 'my assumption' that 1QIsa_a and the MT Isaish are related, I do not believe that is an assumption, especially not 'my' assumption (although I'd like to claim credit, if I could...), given the textual and consonental proximity of Isaiah in this Qumran text and the MT. How they are related, whether that relationship is one of 'linear descnet' or otherwise qualified, is partially what DSS research is about. What is 'linear'? I do not think we have to suggest that 1Qisa_a is somehow the actual copy used for the lost intermediary pre-MT to consider how these de facto poles of state of the text in the evolution of the Biblical text are related. 1QIsa_a represents a ancient exemplar of the the same textual base found in MT. That is why it is so valuable. Even with variants, we are clearly before the same text, written with the same alphabet. 1QIsa_a and Aleppo are our best representatives to the state of the text of Isaiah at the distance of a millenium. With nothing in between to suggest any bifurcation of the that textual tradition, this compels us to make comparisons and even draw some tentative conclusions.
I consulted Emanuel Tov's _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ (Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 1992) for a summary of the comparative discussion. Briefly, and based on Prof. Tov, here are some points of difference. 1QIsa_a is among the DSS texts characterized by a distintive orthography called 'the Qumran practice' which is 'very full', i.e. with the addition of many matres lectionis wherein, e.g., /o/ and /u/ are almost always represented by a waw, etc. (pp. 108-9). Morphologically, the differences found in Qumran Biblical texts may be dialectical, some archaic, some features of which are known from the Samaritan reading tradition (p. 110). (I am not sure what this means, but it sounded close to what you may be suggesting, so I thought I'd mention it. It doesn't seem to affect the Isaiah text, however.)
The scribes of the "Qumran practice" wrote according to "certain rules" but also each scribe maintained a certain independence (p. 109). The scribes adapted seemingly irregular forms to the context, reflecting a freer approach to the Biblical text (p. 110).
The square (Assyrian) script, with final forms, etc. to which we are accustomed, is used, a notable exception being the names of God, which are often written in paleo-Hebrew. Another pertinent scribal practice to note in our discussion: the use in 1QIsa_a of medial letters in final position (111). Note that the reverse is not mentioned (nor have I seen any).
Anyway, for all these notations, I see nothing that disallows comparison (even "linear") of the textual tradition. The text, even after a millenium, is remarkably intact, despite the aspects mentioned above. These differences, after such a long time, are quite marginal and secondary: In other words, the text is by and large the same, outside of observable patterns of writing forms and orthography.
There are, of course, some serious textual variants, such as, if I recall correctly, at the end of Isa 6, where the MT has presents difficulties. 1QIsa_a provides seems to provide superior and preferable readings. Some of these readings, if I am not mistaken, were even incorporated into the New English Bible.
We have at least one ancient witness and at least two reliable medieval witnesses that show dates 'after which...' and 'before which... " for the mem finalis question at Isa 9:6. The Masoretes saw this as a textual problem, which they faithfully preserved. It wasn't that the mem finalis was there for some mystic reason, but that it this text somehow got to be written as two words, where it is in fact one word. They noted this textual problem, and easily overcome it by noting the correct reading, as well. (This was the point of my submission - I checked out Qumran as an afterthought, in fact.) Qumran fully corroborates the masoretic position. Until we find even a single trace of evidence to the contrary, then this is not an assumption, much less mine. It is, I believe, the only sound and demonstrable explanation for the question. Until some ancient textual witness should be discovered that shows otherwise, I see no reason to posit an hypothetical parallel scribal tradition to demonstrate that the mem finalis was always there and that only Qumran and the entire masoretic scribal tradition at our disposal saw that as something that should be written and read differently. Rather than be of spiritual value, wouldn't that conclusion undermine the general textual integrity that we have come to appreciate in our Tanach thanks to the industry and devotion of the scribes?
That said, I have deep respect for the devotion to the Biblical text which gives rise, I believe, to the spiritual interpretations of this and other textual phenomena. I'm wondering, in fact, if those interpretations can be dated before the 10th century, in which case perhaps they can help in dating this scribal phenomenon.
- -, Algemeen, [],
- R. van Hoff, למרבה and לם רבה: Isaiah 9:6 among the Scribes and Rabbis, https://www.torahresource.com/radio-files/the-rob-and-caleb-show/Vanhoff_160.pdf

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, [], Whether God always loves more the better things?
Vertaling Bijbel, Kanttekeningen SV, [],
Der grootheid ^[29]dezer heerschappij en des vredes zal geen einde zijn op ^[30]den troon van David en in zijn koninkrijk, om dat te bevestigen, en dat te sterken ^[31]met gericht en met gerechtigheid, van nu aan tot in eeuwigheid toe. ^[32]De ijver des HEEREN der heirscharen zal zulks doen.
^29. Te weten die op den schouder van den Messias zal gelegd worden.
^30. Als zijnde een rechte erfgenaam deszelven, en welke hem beloofd en toegezegd is; 2 Sam.7:12; Luk.1:32,33. Hij heeft het tijdelijk koninkrijk veranderd in een geestelijk en eeuwig; Joh.18:36.
^31. Want Hij straft alle ongerechtigheid, en bemint en bewaart de vromen.
^32. Dien Hij heeft over zijne eer en over de zaligheid zijner uitverkorenen. Zie de aantekening 2 Kon.19:31.
Georg Fohrer, Die Propheten des Alten Testaments 5, [1974], 137-139

Dr Claude Mariottini, Blog, [], January 20, 2009 From Text to Sermon: Isaiah 9:1-7