Translations of Tanakh passages Judaism considers Messianic

I am creating a separate thread for this because of Zivan's request.

Isaiah 9:5-6 is often considered to be a Messianic prophecy in rabbinical and Christian tradition. The Judaica Press Tanakh translation of chapter 9 says:

Quote:

1. The people who walked in darkness, have seen a great light; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, light shone upon them. ... 5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, the prince of peace.' 6. To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

According to this translation, the Lord shall accomplish a child being born to the Israelites whom the Lord calls "the prince of peace", and David's throne will be estalblished and supported with righteousness forever. The passage doesn't use the word "The Messiah", but it is predicting a figure with powerful attributes, like establishing David's throne forever righteously, that the rabbis call "Messianic".

It is also notable that the word in purple is specially written with a closed "mem" that according to the rabbis points to the Messianic era.

The 1984 Jewish Publication Society translation says:

Quote:

For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”— In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David’s throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.

The Hebrew translation is:

Quote:

הכִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַּד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַׂר שָׁלוֹם: ולְמַרְבֵּה (כתיב לְםַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין קֵץ עַל כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל מַמְלַכְתּוֹ לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם קִנְאַת יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה זֹּאת:

One of the translation issues is that ancient Hebrew did not have a separate verb form for the future tense than it did for the past tense.

Quote:

The ancient language did not have strictly defined past, present, or future tenses, but merely perfective and imperfective aspects, with past, present, or future connotation depending on context. Later the perfective and imperfective aspects were explicitly refashioned as the past and future tenses respectively, with the participle standing in as the present tense. http://ift.tt/2mCN3Ao

Quote:

The Hebrew language has the present and past tense but no future tense. In the Hebrew language, Joel 2: reads: (Young's Literal Translation) "And it hath come to pass afterwards, I do pour out My spirit on all flesh, but we read, (King James Version changing the tenses of the verbs) "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh http://ift.tt/2mCHQZj

Another translation issue is whether only one of the names above, like "prince of peace", are the child's names, or does the text give numerous names for the child.

Rabbi Aben Ezra commented:

Quote:

There are some interpreters who say that “Wonderful, Everlasting Father” are Names of G-d and only “Prince of Peace” is the Name of the Child. But according to my view, the interpretation is right (which says): all are the Names of the child https://www.onfaith.co/text/jewish-r...on-the-messiah

The Targum explaining this verse, composed in 200 BC-200 AD, says:

Quote:

The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is bom, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it.(63) His name is called from eternity, Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days. The greatness of those who do the law shall be magnified, and to those, that preserve peace. There shall be no end to the throne of David, and of his kingdom, to establish it and to build it in judgment and in righteousness from henceforth, even for ever. By the Word of the Lord of hosts this shall be done.

http://ift.tt/2n5IMBL

The Counter-Christian Jewish writers at "Messiah Truth" write about Isaiah 9 that it applies to the Messianic era because of the "Mem" as I highlighted earlier in purple:

Quote:

Can you please explain why there is a closed mem in the middle of the words "of the increase" in Isaiah 9? Prof. Uri Yosef answers: one of our great Sages, Rabbi David Kimhi (1160-1235 CE) explains it as follows. The closed "mem" instead of an open "mem" here at Isaiah 9:6, and the open "mem" instead of a closed "mem" at Nehemiah 2:13, have a "connection" that points to the messianic era according to the Hebrew Bible. As the walls of Jerusalem are "open" (i.e., breached) during the exile and will be will be "closed" (i.e., secured) as the time of Israel's redemption arrives, so will also "open" up, i.e., be revealed, the authority, which remains "closed" until the coming of the promised Jewish King/Messiah. Rabbi Daniel answers: Our Rabbis in Tractate Sanhedrin explain it this way. That King Chizkiyahu [son of the wicked King Achaz] had created such a spiritual revival within Israel, destroying idolatry and re-educating Jewry to return to G-d and His Torah, that it was of Messianic proportions. ... Isaiah reveals to us that these were not just coincidences and Chizkiyahu could have indeed become the Messiah. His reign could have turned into the Messianic era. Alas, as Isaiah laments, G-d saw fit to... close that door. So to speak. The *closed* mem reflects Isaiah's merging of all these ideas. In verses praising G-d, praising His messianic salvation of Israel, virtually all that had taken place with Chizkiyahu and Sancheiriv, yet the closed mem says it did not happen then. These verses will again describe the real Messiah's arrival http://ift.tt/2n5w3PD

In The Concept of the Messiah in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, Shirley Lucass explains that the destruction of the monarchy, the Assyrian conquest, and the Exile prevented the Jewish people from seeing Isaiah 9 as applying to Hezekiah's reign. She writes:

Quote:

Isaiah 9:6-7 and 11:1-6 are also understood messianically within Targum Jonathan. ... A number of features came together during this period- the exile, the reforms of Josiah and the emergence of the Deuteronomists - all of which undermined the legitimacy of the monarchy, with its final demise occurring as a consequence of the Exile.

Jewish Virtual Library explains that "Stage I" of the development of the Messiah concept was the belief that "David's present position of power will... be inherited by an endless chain of succeeding links in his dynasty". It sees Isaiah 9 as part of Stage II:

Quote:

Stage II began with the collapse of David's empire after the death of Solomon. There arose the doctrine, or hope, that the House of David would again reign over Israel as well as Judah and again exercise dominion over neighboring nations. This hope was expressed... in so many words in prophecies like Amos 9:11–12; Isaiah 11:10; Hosea 3:5 (the phrase – a Judahite interpolation – "and (the Israelites will seek) their king David"); Ezekiel 37:15ff., especially verses 24ff. (and see *Isaiah A, Panel 3, Field A, on Isa. 9:1–6 [2–7]). Stage III. Isaiah's shifting of the emphasis from the perpetuity of the dynasty to the qualities of the future king: the foundation of his throne will be justice, he will be distinguished by his zeal for justice, and, finally, he will be charismatically endowed for sensing the rights and wrongs of a case and for executing justice. (See [eg] the passage in *Isaiah just cited on Isa. 9:1–6 [2–7], http://ift.tt/2mCSz6e

On another thread, Zivan, who knows Hebrew, wrote to me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zivan (Post 11771403) The hebrew is in the past tense. It is not a prophecy, so it is off topic for this thread. If you would like to start a thread on translation or tanakh in general, I will answer your questions there.

So I decided to create this thread.

• My first question is how would Zivan translate this?
  
• My second question is what does he believe that the closed Mem signifies in the text?
  
• The third question is what he thinks about the Jewish writers' comments about the text that I quoted above.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2n5Ke75