# Biblical Hebrew: וַיִּגְבַּה יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת בַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְהָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ נִקְדָּשׁ בִּצְדָקָה.‎‎



## Sharjeel72

Hi, what is the best way of translating the fourth line of the following, which is Isaiah 5:13-17?

לָכֵן גָּלָה עַמִּי מִבְּלִי דָעַת וּכְבוֹדוֹ מְתֵי רָעָב וַהֲמוֹנוֹ צִחֵה צָמָא.
לָכֵן הִרְחִיבָה שְּׁאוֹל נַפְשָׁהּ וּפָעֲרָה פִיהָ לִבְלִי חֹק וְיָרַד הֲדָרָהּ וַהֲמוֹנָהּ וּשְׁאוֹנָהּ וְעָלֵז בָּהּ.
וַיִּשַּׁח אָדָם וַיִּשְׁפַּל אִישׁ וְעֵינֵי גְבֹהִים תִּשְׁפַּלְנָה.
וַיִּגְבַּה יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת בַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְהָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ נִקְדָּשׁ בִּצְדָקָה.
וְרָעוּ כְבָשִׂים כְּדָבְרָם וְחָרְבוֹת מֵחִים גָּרִים יֹאכֵלוּ.

And the LORD of Hosts is exalted by judgment, the Holy God proved holy by retribution.

Should the first verb be translated in the past, present, or future?


----------



## Ali Smith

This passage in Isaiah 5 is _very_ difficult and scholars differ on its treatment. Some ignore the past narrative verbs and treat them as imperfects, translated as futures. The first verse, 5:13, has the oft-cited example of the so-called prophetic perfect ‘my people _went_ into exile’.

On the assumption that the text is correct, even then the past narrative usage is a bit odd. However, I don’t think there needs to be a concern that God was exalted long before this. I think the sense of exaltation is more limited and akin to how you translate the following clause: in contrast to the abased humanity, God has _shown himself_ exalted through justice and _shown himself_ holy through righteousness. The beth-prepositional phrases express the righteous judgement God executes that _shows_ His true character in the immediate situation, without commenting on God’s eternal exalted position.


----------



## Abaye

The Jewish tradition regards all these verbs as future. But this doesn't necessarily refers to the grammar, I believe it's about the meaning beyond the wording.
תנ"ך - מקראות גדולות הכתר - ישעיהו פרק ה פסוק טז


----------



## Drink

Also you have to take into account that this is prophecy. It could be he saw a vision and is relating the vision, and within the vision this is past tense.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Could not the masoretes have made a mistake when adding nikkud to וַיִּגְבַּה?


----------



## Ali Smith

JAN SHAR said:


> Could not the masoretes have made a mistake when adding nikkud to וַיִּגְבַּה?


Remember that the Hebrew text has three layers to it:

1) consonantal text
2) masoretic vowels
3) masoretic accents

#s 2-3 were added to the text between 500 and 900 AD. The vocalization should not be regarded as original or authoritative, but interpretive, though the Masoretes got it right most of the time.

Since the consonantal form can just as easily be read as a weyiqtol or simple waw-conjunctive + PC rather than a waw-retentive, that option has to be considered. The fact that the LXX consistently translates the "waw-retentive" forms as future passive indicatives argues that they read the text as simple waw-conjunctives + PC. So also the Vulgate, pointing to Jerome understanding the verb forms as future as well.


----------



## Drink

JAN SHAR said:


> Could not the masoretes have made a mistake when adding nikkud to וַיִּגְבַּה?


What nikkud would you think would have made more sense?



Ali Smith said:


> The vocalization should not be regarded as original or authoritative, but interpretive, though the Masoretes got it right most of the time.



This is not accurate. The vocalization is certainly not "original", but it is certainly not "interpretive" either. All the evidence points to the fact that the Masoretes were committed to preserving the pronunciation tradition exactly as they inherited it. Of course they could have made mistakes, and of course the pronunciation tradition they inherited could have changed over time, but to say that their recording of it was "interpretative" is simply baseless.

PS: And as for "authoritative", it's simply a misplaced term. "Authoritative" means sanctioned by an authority. If you are a Rabbinic Jew, then the Masoretic tradition is in fact authoritative. If you are Christian, it is not. If you are merely a scholar, then you shouldn't be subscribing to any "authority" with regard to this.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Drink: Maybe if the vav had a shva it would make more sense? Because then the meaning would be that God is still high.


----------



## Drink

What problem would it solve?

Do you have an example of the yiqtol of a stative verb used with the meaning you are asserting?


----------



## Abaye

May I ask what's the difficulty with this verse? grammatically both verbs are in past tense (the former due to the וַ), contextually we understand both as something that will happen in the future, for example because the prophet describes it as if he stands in the time after the prophecy is being achieved.


----------

