APPENDIX

ISAIAH 9:6 (5 in the Hebrew) foretells the birth of a ruler who will be, among other things, A-BHEE AHD, rendered “Eternal Father/Everlasting Father” or the like (a modern version has “Father of Continuity”, perhaps intelligible today but not 2700 years ago), translations not remotely correct. They did get A-BHEE right, “Father of,” a construct noun to be followed by another noun (cf. GENESIS 4:21, 10:21; DEUTERONOMY 22:19; CHRONICLES I 2:23) but AHD is one of those two-letter radicals whose precise meaning must be derived in context. Scholars gave it its usual temporal sense but this is inconsistent with Isaiah’s message and its being in adverbial form; its prepositional meaning, “until”, does not fit with A-BHEE (“Father of until” makes no sense, even with the most pliant poetic license), which impelled translators to fit the words to what they thought Isaiah meant. Had he agreed with them, he would have said ABH OH-LAM, ABH VA-ED or the more proper A-BHEE-NOO L’OH-LAM VA-ED (EXODUS 15:18) or MEI-OH-LAM AHD OH-LAM (cf. PSALMS 90:2; CHRONICLES I 29:10). Those equating AHD with LA-AHD, the preposition itself taking a "Lamed" {"to"} prepositional prefix, are also wrong, for this is an adverb meaning "indefinitely" [cf. AMOS 1:11; MICAH 7:18; CHRONICLES I 28:9 and how Isaiah himself uses it in 64:8] or "permanently" [cf. JOB 19:24; PROVERBS 12:19, 29:14]; neither match the adjective "eternal". The same applies to the construction at the end of ISAIAH 45:17. If we take the words as written, not as others wish them to be, AHD is a noun - and it means “prey” (cf. GENESIS 49:27; ISAIAH 33:23 – Driver’s Concordance cites authorities who render the phrase “father [distributor] of booty”, reading AHD correctly but not what the prophet had in mind). Isaiah is referring to the poor and weak “preyed upon” (cf. ZEPHANIA 3:8), his personage being “father” as protector. (ABH is used precisely this way in GENESIS 45:8, when Joseph tells Jacob that he has become Pharaoh’s ABH, and when Job declares himself ABH to the destitute [29:16]). He will protect the disadvantaged preyed upon by the powerful, a translation far more consistent with the passage and biblical grammar. Conventional translators may marshal proof from SHOH-KHEIN AHD (ISAIAH 57:15); the two are not comparable. SHOH-KHEIN, an intransitive verb, has an implied indirect object [common in biblical style] and thus an implied prepositional adverb. Nor is it likened to AH-DEI when that is itself in construct state, an adverbial noun indicating extremes or the utmost (cf. NUMBERS 24:20; JOEL 2:12; PSALMS 147:6).    

The last phrase of ISAIAH 9:6, SAR SHA-LOHM, is translated “Prince of Peace”, which requires HA-SHA-LOHM (more precisely SHEL SHA-LOHM). The closest biblical Hebrew for “prince” is NA-SEEKH (cf. JOSHUA 13:21; MICAH 5:4; DANIEL 11:8); SAR is an official (EXODUS 18:21), courtier (GENESIS 40) or military officer (CHRONICLES II 11:21). SAR SHA-LOHM is “peaceful officer” (“peaceable ruler” [The Israel Bible] is close), just as the greeting SHABBAT SHALOM means “peaceful Sabbath” (cf. ZEPHANIA 8:16; ECCLESIATES 3:8; ESTHER 9:30); Isaiah foresees a reign of benign equanimity, not overbearing despotism. 

To those who maintain these passages are sufficiently ambiguous to make the conventional translations defensible, we offer an example where such pretense is untenable. The King James of PSALMS 2:12, NA-SH’QOO BHAR PEN YEH-EH-NAPH V’THO-BH’DOO DE-REKH, is “Kiss the Son lest He be angry and ye perish from the way”, a reading obviously inspired by a theology that emerged after the Old Testament milieu, for this would have sounded strange to the hymn’s first audience or those in the era it was canonized, and accounts for readings such as “Serve the Chosen One/Worship the Elected One”, more neutral phrasings (one even has “Kiss his feet”, echoing a Levantine obeisance protocol) that retain imagery embedded in the King James. A phrase by phrase parsing of the Hebrew will allow us to readily elucidate the correct meanings.

“Kiss the Son”: BAR is “son” in Aramaic, not Hebrew. [There is some Aramaic in the Old Testament but not in Psalms. Translators made the same error in PROVERBS 31:2, rendering it “my son” three times. PROVERBS uses BEN for “son” in its first verse and over 50 times thereafter.  The Hebrew BAR is cognate to BA-RA (CREATED), which connotes the removal of what is not needed or wanted (see Exposition 1:1). MAH, in each phrase, is not interrogative but exclamatory - “How pure (honest) are my actions, how clean my stomach (I eat permissible foods that were not ill-gotten) and how perfected my vows (I keep my promises)”, all in accord with the mother’s instructions in the previous verse and supported by the conjunctive “Vav” in the second phrase, usually omitted but here added to emphasize that phrase as an independent category.] Even if we accept this translation for the sake of discussion, NA-SH’QOO as a transitive verb with BAR its direct object (it is BHAR in the text because it follows the diphthong of NA-SH’QOO) needs the direct object indicator ETH or, if intransitive, a “Lamed” prefix on BHAR (cf. GENESIS 27:27, 29:11; EXODUS 4:27; SAMUEL II 20:9); while poetic meter considerations in PSALMS can override rigid syntax, the absence of the definite article “Heh” prefix to BAR still rules out these interpretations.

Some commentators treat BAR as an adverb, allowing variations like “Accept Him in purity/Submit to Him in good faith” and the like. While these hew closer to the radical root “Beth-Resh”, they are still grammatically deficient, for NA-SH’QOO would have to be NA-SH’QOH, making “Him” an indirect object needing a dative “Lamed” prefix (cf. PSALMS 118:1) that cannot be inserted here because the object is implied by a vowel suffix. Such adverbial constructions also require a prepositional “Beth” prefix (see the preceding verse). All these interpretations are derailed by one insurmountable defect they share, regardless of how they translate NA-SH’QOO. They are all constrained to treat this verb as jussive (the imperative is ruled out by lack of the “Taph” prefix) but, when the first letter of a verb’s root is “Nun” (the “Peh-Nun” verbs), the jussive form doubles the initial “Nun” - it would be N’NA-SH’QOO. An example is found in this very Psalm’s verse 3 - N’NA-T’QAH (LET US SUNDER). This rule by itself eliminates all the extant translations of this phrase.

“Lest He be angry”: Translators had no choice; this flowed inevitably from their take on the first phrase. It is also a path of least resistance for interpreting the presumed root “Aleph-Nun-Peh”, an archaic form of “face” (preserved in the Aramaic AN-PIN). Hebrew dropped the “Nun” to form “Aleph-Peh”, “nostril” (GENESIS 2:7) or “face” (GENESIS 33:3). The former was borrowed for “anger” based on its manifestations - flaring nostrils and heavy breathing, but in all its occurrences, whether transitive (cf. KINGS I 8:46; EZRA 9:14) or reflexive (cf. DEUTERONOMY 1:27; KINGS II 17:18), it is followed by a prepositional phrase indicating the object of the anger or displeasure, even if obvious from context. These are necessary because their absence would beget a semantic ambiguity as to which root is intended by this construction. To avoid confusion, YEH-EH-NAPH (HE WILL BECOME ANGRY) should be followed by BA-KHEM (WITH YOU – cf. DEUTERONOMY 1:37; KINGS I 11:9). Its absence means the translations are wrong. Its problematic nature is further shown by the qualifier PEN (LEST), which implies a contingency, not a certainty (cf. GENESIS 38:23; EXODUS 19:22). The anticipated consequence must also arise directly from existing conditions, not the intervention of an element or agency not present initially. [The failure of traditional translations to reflect these points in the conversation between the woman and the serpent [GENESIS 3:3-4] caused serious misinterpretations of that  episode.] If the intent in this verse is to forestall adversities, it would use L’BHIL-TEE (SO THAT [IT] NOT - cf. GENESIS 4:15; EXODUS 8:18; DEUTERONOMY 17:20). 

“Ye perish from the way”: If they will be forced “off the road” [or “righteous path”], it would be V’SOH-BH’DOO MIN HA-DEH-REKH (cf. GENESIS 38:16; EXODUS 32:8; DEUTERONOMY 11:28). If they will meet up with mishaps while traveling or it is “the course [leading to] doom”, it is V’SOH-BH’DOO BA-DEH-REKH (cf. GENESIS 45:24; EXODUS 28:20; DEUTERONOMY 25:17). Furthermore, no reason is given why retribution must await a journey. It also is not “You will lose your way”; that is V’SOH-BH’DOO HA-DEH-REKH (cf. EXODUS 13:21; DEUTERONOMY 1:22; JUDGES 4:9). DE-REKH with no prefix or suffix is identified by an adjective or a following phrase (cf. GENESIS 18:19; EXODUS 8:23, 13:17; NUMBERS 20:17). None of these apply here; its meaning comes from its verb. Those associating “Aleph-Beth-Daled” with destruction or ruin ignore the fact that V’SOH-BH’DOO is an active verb, not passive. Had the text meant disobedience leads to a bad end, it would say that (cf. DEUTERONOMY 8:19, 28:22,51; JONAH 1:6); for deliberate destruction, the intense “Pee-el” form applies (cf. DEUTERONOMY 12:2; KINGS II 11:1; ECCLESIATES 9:18). The QAL form used here indicates a loss of something that disappeared (cf. EXODUS 22:9; DEUTERONOMY 22:3). But since the verb is active, the individuals addressed are not being lost or destroyed; it is they who are doing the losing – of an entity characterized as a “way”.

This verse must be read in context. The Psalmist exhorts kings and rulers to abandon efforts against His anointed and attend to their subjects. The indefinite noun BAR is “provisions” (cf. GENESIS 42:3; AMOS 5:11; PROVERBS 11:26), naturally joined to NA-SH’QOO (STORE UP – cf. GENESIS 41:40; ISAIAH 33:4; ZEPHANIAH 2:9). YEH-EH-NAPH in the next phrase has nothing to do with “face” or “anger”. Its root, “Ayin-Vav-Peh”, is “to fly/raised aloft”. Its doubled prefix (cf. VA-YEI-AN-CHOO [AND THEY GROANED] - EXODUS 2:23) to the radical “Nun-Peh” (the “Nun” indicating extended action involving elevation, like Y’PHEI NOHPH [PSALMS 48:2 {3 in the Hebrew}], best approximated by “a beautiful elevated view”) makes this a warning that lack of preparation will lead to “flight/evaporation” of resources. What will be “lost” is their ability to continue on the “path” to prosperity. [The abstract “path/way” is used often in Scripture (cf. JOSHUA 1:8; KINGS I 13:33, 15:26; JONAH 3:10).] These potentates were told, literally or symbolically, “Store up provisions (for your people) lest they (resources) be exhausted and you lose (the ability to continue on) your path”. This is supported by the vertical line [inserted by the Masoretes] between the second and third phrases, accentuating that what happens “on the way” is not a result of “anger”. Sporadic Hebrew commentators did proffer this interpretation, including Rashi {R. Shlomo Itzchaki - 11th century France}, who offerred it as an alternative reading, even citing the Norman French translation "garnimont".

Lack of resources results from failure to store provisions for the nation. The next phrase explains the urgency: His anger can flare up in little [time]; unpreparedness will bring turmoil and upheaval to the community. This is how the Israelites understood this verse; there is no other tenable translation. Those proffered over time are so far off the mark that, to quote physicist Leo Szilard’s reaction when a student presented an exceptionally unsound hypothesis, “That is not even wrong!” Yet, they persisted - which is precisely our point – and these errors are not limited to these two examples.