Who is speaking and being spoken to in Isaiah 16:3-5?

[clawrence9008]

I was reading Isaiah ch. 15 & 16 (an oracle against Moab; Isa. 15:1) this afternoon when I came across a wonderful promise regarding the establishment of the Davidic kingdom under the Messiah in Isa. 16:5. Given the context of Moab’s destruction (Isa. 15:1-9) and their flight of the Moabite people from their land because of the imminent Assyrian invasion (Isa. 15:9-16:2), it seems that v. 3-5 are either Isaiah or the nation of Moab pleading with Judah to allow the escaped outcasts of Moab to find safety under the rule of the Davidic king. In a broader way, this is an encouragement to the Gentile nations to seek shelter in their only true hope, which is Jesus Christ; see also Amos 9:11-12 cited in Acts 15:16-17. Verses 6-14 seem to then go on and describe the outcome of this proud and arrogant nation rejecting the salvation that has been put in from them, namely complete destruction. My Reformation Study Bible and ESV Study Bible both have similar interpretations of 16:3-5, but Calvin, Poole, and Henry all interpret these verses as the people of Judah speaking to Moab and imploring them to let the outcasts of Judah find shelter in Moab due to some imminent threat. This interpretation personally doesn’t make much sense to me, but these men are all far more gifted expositors than I could ever dream to be, and so there is a conundrum.

The KJV renders v. 4 as “let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler: for the extortioner is at an end, the spoiler ceaseth, the oppressor is consumed out of the land” (Isa. 16:4 KJV), which is the version that Poole and Henry make use of. The ESV, CSB, LSB, and NASB1995 all render it as referring to the outcasts of Moab, however. I don’t know Hebrew so I don’t know which is a better translation, so would anyone be able to help?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The interpretive crux is the proper noun, Moab. What is its relation to the rest of the sentence/paragraph? The Masoretic text is followed by the KJV and some others especially as to the vowel pointing and other text markers. The 3rd term in Heb. is "outcasts," and has as its final letter "yod." The Masoretic text renders it a 1s suffix, thus "my outcasts." But with slightly different vowel pointing, the same "yod" is the construct-form leading to the connection to the 4th term, "Moab," thus "oucasts of Moab." The Masoretic text indicates a major break in the sentence between "Moab" and the 5th term, the verb "to be" (linked to the following noun "shelter." It appears the Masoretic interpretation makes Moab a vocative, and the target of what amounts to a plea or request "let him dwell." However, according to the experts other ancient versions dispense with the Masoretic reading in favor of the alternate connection.

I find the alternative more fit for the overall context. Obviously, this is a point on which the experts divide (if modern translations seem collectively to lean against the Masoretic, though not uniformly). You could choose, based on a preference for the Masoretic; or you could judge that reading to simply provide a better sense. I think the Masoretic, though of great antiquity and generally reliable, is not infallible. It may at times preserve biases, rather than accuracy. We can't always tell what reason stands behind their one choice over another. Other ancient translations from the Heb. into Gk. or Assyrian show us that other options existed in the past prior to Masorete domination of the Heb. text. Treating "Moab" and "oucasts" as a construct chain makes good sense of the passage.

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Connor,
Just a few words to amplify Bruce's helpful post above.

John Oswalt comments "These verses continue to present severe textual and interpretational difficulties". I don't think I can make it easy for you, but perhaps I can help you see why the different translations go in different directions (in fact, there are three or maybe even four rather than two options, I think).

1) The most literal translation of the Masoretic text (as found in the Leningrad text and most manuscripts) is "Let my outcasts dwell among you, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler". However, that is hard to make sense of in context, where it seems that the focus is on the coming destruction on Moab. It also results in obscuring the shift in the original from mpl in the first half "my outcasts" to ms in the second half (KJV "for them" is really "for him")

2) Two Masoretic manuscripts, along with the Greek and Syriac witness to a different vowel pointing (remember the texts were originally written just with the consonants, with the vowel pointings added later) which would translate "Let the outcasts of Moab dwell among you...", which fits contextually much better as being addressed to Judah. See the previous verse, where it is surely the daughter of Zion (see v.1) who is to "shelter the outcasts" (the same word as in v. 4).

3) The CSB (probably following Oswalt, though I don't recall discussing it explicitly) detaches Moab from the end of the first line and adds it to the second clause : "Let my fugitives sojourn among you; Moab - become a hiding place for him from the oppressor" (Oswalt); CSB smooths it to "Let my fugitives sojourn among you; be a refuge for Moab from the oppressor". In this case, the Lord would be calling those who escape from his judgment on Moab "my fugitives" which would explain why Judah should welcome them in. This doesn't require any textual emendation, though it does disrecard the Masoretic accentuation system.

4) Oswalt's translation above shows how clunky this solution is, which makes me wonder if it is necessary to detach Moab from the first line. Could it not be rendered "Let my fugitives - [that is, the remnant of] Moab - sojourn among you; be a refuge for him from the oppressor". It seems to me this preserves all of the features of the original text, renders any emendation unnecessary and still keeps the shift from mpl to collective ms. Solution 2 above strikes me as precisely the kind of textual "correction" that occurs to smooth out a difficult text. But I don't know that anyone else has argued for this precise translation before so I may be skating on thin ice here!

Did I mention that Bible translation is often really hard?

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

As providence would have it, I too was recently pouring over some particular passages in Isaiah wherein I found significant divergence in the translations. It makes me exceedingly grateful to know that exegetical insights like Reverend Buchanan's and Professor Duguid's are so readily available for those who seek it out. May the LORD continue to bless you in your studies.