MT: וְעַ֖ל כָּל־שְׂכִיּ֥וֹת הַחֶמְדָּֽה
KJV: “and upon all pleasant pictures”
1917 JPS Tanakh: “and upon all delightful imagery”
1985 JPS Tanakh: “And all the gallant barks”
NRSV: “and upon all the beautiful craft”
New Jerusalem Bible: “and for everything held precious”
LXX: καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους
NETS: “and against every spectacle of beautiful ships”
Pseudo-Targum Jonathan: וְעַל כָל דְשָרַן בְבִירָוָת שוּפרָא
English: “and against all those who encamp on beautiful
palaces”
Peshitta:
English: “and on all pleasant prospects” (alt. “watchtowers”)
A hapax legomenon which has been traditionally taken to be from śāḵâ and having something to do with
appearance or display (AV “pleasant pictures”). But the parallelism clearly
demands something to do with ships (LXX “every display of fine ships”;
conflation?). BHS suggests emending
to sep̱înôṯ, “ships.”
Scott emends to kesîyôṯ,
“canopy, awning” (with reference to ships; cf. Ezek. 27:7). Perhaps it is
simplest to see it as an Egyptian loanword, sk.ty,
a kind of ship (Kaiser, BHS), which
may be a cognate of Ugar. ṯkt (see H.
R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the
Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, SBLDS 37 (Missoula: Scholars, 1978), pp.
41–42. (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 [The
New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1986], 125 n. 2)
The expression כָּל־שְׂכִיּוֹת הַחֶמְדָּה (kol-śĕkîyôt haḥemdâ),
“boats of desire,” has given both ancient and modern translators difficulty. It
now appears that שׂכיה
is a loanword from Egyptian śk.tj,
“ship,” also found in Ugaritic as ṯkt
(HALAT, 1237). This fits the
parallelism with אֳנִיּוֹת
(ʾŏnîyôt), “ships,” very nicely.
Before the discovery of Ugaritic and the recognition of the Egyptian background
to the word, it was normally derived from שׂכה/סכה, “to look out, view.” Thus, Vg. has omne quod visu pulchrum est, “everything that is beautiful to
view,” and Syr. has klhwn dwqʾ drgtʾ,
“all the glances of desire.” LXX, while preserving this derivation, recognized
that the context required boats and rendered ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους, “upon every vision of beautiful boats.”
The vocalization of הַחֶמְדָּה
(haḥemdâ) may be questioned, since
“desire” is a strange parallel to Tarshish. One might think of boats bringing
luxury goods to Judea’s rich, such goods replacing Yahweh in these consumers’
affections and desires, but a place-name would be a better parallel to Tarshish.
G. R. Driver vocalized החמדה
as הַחֲמֻדָּה (haḥămuddâ)
(and understood it as a place-name for Arabia, thus NEB’s “dhows of Arabia.”2
While this reading remains uncertain, it is very suggestive. (J. J.
M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2015], 36 n. f)
שכיות:
a hapax legomenon, whose meaning has
only relatively recently been recovered. In antiquity, it was associated with שׂכה, which in later Hebrew and Aramaic means
‘to look out’, and this led to several possible interpretations of the phrase: lxx
θέα, ‘sight, view,
display’, hence ‘display of fine ships’; V quod
visu pulchrum est (‘everything beautiful to look at’, which Delitzsch
favoured as referring to all kinds of works of art); P (‘watchtowers’, as
look-outs); T בירנית (‘palaces’—a guess?); av ‘pleasant
pictures’; rv ‘pleasant imagery’; Gesenius (in his Thesaurus Linguae Hebraeae, though not in his commentary) suggested
‘flags, standards’ (of ships, as being conspicuous), and so on. The best
defence of this approach is that of Duhm, who thought that it furnished a
satisfactory summary of the whole of 12–16, and so led naturally into the
refrain in v. 17. Subsequently, the tight structure and parallelism of this
section (as observed already by lxx) led scholars to seek another word for
ships here and so proposed an emendation to ש/ספינות (cf. ספינה
at Jon. 1:5; BDB, 967B; Gray; Procksch). In 1931, however, Begrich (apud Budde) suggested a connection with
Egyptian śkty, and this was then
independently associated by Ginsberg and Driver with Ugaritic ṯkt, both being words for some kind of
ship. Not surprisingly, this convincing proposal has now been generally
accepted.30 There can, of course, be no certainty about how exactly
it was spelt and vocalized in Hebrew, though possibly the initial letter was שׁ rather than שׂ
(which indicates that the Masoretes themselves understood the word in the way
that had become common by their time). Driver suggested שֶׁכֶת* (hence שכתי
here), but the possibility that mt has faithfully preserved the consonantal
spelling cannot be ruled out. Muchiki, Loanwords,
255–56, maintains that Egyptian ś
could come into Hebrew directly as שׂ
(though is this likely in view of the Ugaritic evidence?) and more plausibly
that the vocalization may have been influenced by the parallel אניות.
החמדה:
Driver further argued that parallelism demands the name of a country here. He
therefore proposed vocalizing הַחֲמֻדָּה,
‘the desirable (land)’, seeing in this a reference to Arabia (cf. Arabia Felix); hence neb ‘dhows of
Arabia’. While this has an obvious attraction in context, there is no evidence
that Arabia was so designated at this early time, and the ‘demands’ of
parallelism by no means require it. More recently, Barré, ‘Isaiah 2:12–17’, has
conjectured that there is here a garbled reference to the (harbour) place-name Maʾh̬ādu associated with ships in the
Ugaritic texts (KTU 4:81.1). Although
the Hebrew cognate common noun is מחוז
(Ps. 107:30, and perhaps Isa. 23:10), he nevertheless thinks that החמדה is a corruption of an original מחד; once this word was no longer recognized,
it was conformed to a known Hebrew word by metathesis (חמד) and then again later the rare masculine form was changed to
the commoner feminine חמדה.
He accepts that the addition of the article ‘is somewhat more difficult to
explain’. This suggestion is very acute, and the process of corruption not
impossible, but it is certainly highly conjectural and unsupported and it falls
foul of the principles that one should not normally both emend and introduce a
new hapax for a text which in itself
is possible and that in comparative philology one should keep with attested
consonantal equivalents if possible. The reason for making the proposal in the
first place is the desire to maintain what Barré finds to be a very tight
chiastic structure in this passage as a whole, but not all will think that this
is a good enough reason for textual conjecture. In terms of textual criticism,
even on Barré’s view it will have been mt which was already in place by the
time of the text’s redaction, so that one can do no more than take note of this
just possible earlier form. (H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Isaiah 1–27, 3 vols. [. I.
Davies International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 1:199-200)
And upon elegant pictures. This second part of the verse shows
still more clearly that the Prophet condemns navigation, which had brought many
corruptions into the land. It is too frequent and common, that riches are
followed by luxury, effeminacy, and a superfluity of pleasures, which we
commonly see in wealthy countries and commercial cities; for those who trade by
sea in distant countries are not satisfied with the commodities obtained at
home, but carry away new luxuries which were formerly unknown. Since,
therefore, wealth is usually the mother of superfluity, the Prophet here
mentions costly furniture, as if he had said that the Jews, by adorning their
houses at great expense, draw down upon themselves the judgment of God; for he
employs the word pictures, by a
well-known figure of speech, to denote rich tapestry, and the productions of
Phrygia, and vessels framed with consummate skill.
It is certain that the manners of men are corrupted, when they eagerly
pursue, in every direction, superfluous enjoyments. And we see how destruction
was brought on the Roman Empire by delicacies of this nature; for before they
travelled into Greece, the greatest moderation prevailed among them; and no
sooner had Asia been vanquished than they began to grow soft and effeminate;
and when their eyes were dazzled by pictures, furniture, precious stones, and
tapestry, and their nostrils regaled by ointments and perfumes, all their
senses were immediately overpowered, and, by imitating the luxury of the East
as a higher form of civilization, they began gradually to indulge in every kind
of debauchery. (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the
Prophet Isaiah, 4 vols. [trans. William Pringle; Bellingham, Wash.: Logos
Bible Software, 2010], 115-16)
When God is bringing ruin upon a people he can sink all the branches
of their revenue. [2.] Of their ornaments at home; but the day of the Lord
shall be upon all pleasant pictures,
the painting of their ships (so some understand it) or the curious pieces of
painting they brought home in their ships from other countries, perhaps from
Greece, which afterwards was famous for painters. Upon every thing that is beautiful to behold; so some read it. Perhaps
they were the pictures of their relations, and for that reason pleasant, or of
their gods, which to the idolaters were delectable things; or they admired them
for the fineness of their colours or strokes. There is no harm in making
pictures, nor in adorning our rooms with them, provided they transgress not
either the second or the seventh commandment. But to place our pictures among
our pleasant things, to be fond of them and proud of them, to spend that upon
them which should be laid out in charity, and to set out hearts upon them, as
it ill becomes those who have so many substantial things to take pleasure in,
so it tends to provoke God to strip us of all such vain ornaments. (Matthew
Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the
Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume [Peabody: Hendrickson,
1994], 1081)
The following expression, “works of curiosity” (sechiyyoth hachemdah), is taken in far too restricted a sense by
those who limit it, as the LXX have done, to the ships already spoken of, or
understand it, as Gesenius does, as referring to beautiful flags. Jerome’s
rendering is correct: “et super omne quod
visu pulcrum est” (and upon everything beautiful to look at); seciyyâh, from sâcâh, to look (see Job,
p. 468), is sight generally. The reference therefore is to all kinds of works
of art, whether in sculpture or paintings (mascith
is used of both), which delighted the observer by their imposing, tasteful
appearance. Possibly, however, there is a more especial reference to
curiosities of art and nature, which were brought by the trading vessels from
foreign lands. (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 7
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 7:81)
pictures—ordered to be destroyed (Nu 33:52). Still
to be seen on the walls of Nineveh’s palaces. It is remarkable that whereas all
other ancient civilized nations, Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome, have left
monuments in the fine arts, Judea, while rising immeasurably above them in the
possession of “the living oracles,” has left none of the former. The fine arts,
as in modern Rome, were so often associated with polytheism, that God required
His people in this, as in other respects, to be separate from the nations (De
4:15–18). But Vulgate translation is
perhaps better, “All that is beautiful to the sight”; not only paintings, but
all luxurious—ornaments. One comprehensive word for all that goes before
(compare Rev 18:12, 14, 16). (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset,
and David Brown, Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 2 vols. (Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research
Systems, Inc., 1997], 1:431-32)
And upon all pleasant
pictures. Margin,
‘pictures of desire;’ that is, such as it should be esteemed desirable to
possess, and gaze upon; pictures of value or beauty. Targum, ‘costly palaces.’
The word rendered ‘pictures,’ שְׂכִיּוֹת,
denotes properly sights, or objects
to be looked at; and does not designate paintings
particularly, but every thing that was designed for ornament or luxury. Whether
the art of painting was much known among the Hebrews, it is not now possible to
determine. To a certain extent, it may be presumed to have been practised; but
the meaning of this place is, that the Divine judgment should rest on all that
was designed for mere ornament and luxury; and, from the description in the
previous verses, there can be no doubt that such ornaments would abound. (Albert
Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament:
Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Son, 1851], 1:94)
Lexicons on שְׂכִיָּה
[שְׂכִיָּה] I 1 n.f. image
(unless שְׂכִיָּה II ship
or III watchtower or IV high-flying bird)—pl. cstr. שְׂכִיּוֹת—<cstr> שְׂכִיּוֹת הַחֶמְדָּה perh. images of desire,
i.e. beautiful images Is 2:16 (or em. שְׂכִיּוֹת to שִׁכְתֵי ships of or סְפִינוֹת ships of); כָּל־שְׂכִיּוֹת all images of Is 2:16. <prep> עַל against Is 2:16 (‖ אֳנִיָּה ship).
<syn> אֳנִיָּה ship. (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines [Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 8:149)
שְׂכִייָה (śĕkîyâ). Image,
form, appearance. This noun is found only once, in Isa 2:16. From its
kinship to maśkît, “a stone image
that can be beheld visibly,” various translations have been hazarded for it.
Isa 2:16 is in a context of the Prophet announcing that the Day of the Lord
will come and humble the proud and destroy the evil. Among the things upon
which the judgment will fall are, literally in the Hebrew, “all śĕkîyâ of pleasantness!” The KJV renders
these as “pictures;” perhaps we should say “beautiful images.” (Gary
G. Cohen, “2257 שׂכה,” in Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr.,
and Bruce K. Waltke [Chicago: Moody Press, 1999], 876)
