Talk:Isa 6:1-4

Council of God (v. 2)

Joe, I'm a little hesitant to equate the seraphim here with the council of God per D&C 121:32 (are there other verses that use the term "council" in this sense?). Would your view suggest that the "Gods" of Abr 4 are these seraphim? A different (and my sense is, more conventional) view would be that pre-mortal spirits (with the potential of becoming like the Father) formed the council of God/gods, whereas the seraphim and other angels constitute the hosts of heaven (so the hosts of heaven are lower than the council of God/gods). Thoughts? --RobertC 12:24, 26 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional work on these verses, Robert. Concerning the council, I am not convinced there is anywhere a discussion of a council consisting of God and a collection of pre-mortal spirits in scripture. There is clearly a number of references to a council of God, consisting of angels and God, and there are references to a council that went (goes?) on before the foundation of the world, and some references fall under both categories. I assume, then, that the council being described in the scriptures is a question of God and the angels before (whatever that means) the world's foundation. Isaiah steps into that. Now, if the discussion of a council of God with a collection of pre-mortal spirits is to be understood as something separate from what I am here discussing, then I don't know exactly what to make of it. In other words, I imagine that they are one and the same event, and that we were "angels" in some sense. ("sons of God" is a technical phrase in the OT that means "angels.") --Joe Spencer 17:47, 26 Jul 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll start working on this a bit more. --RobertC 13:58, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Covering (v. 2)

This part of verse 2 raises a whole host of questions for me that I would like to hear from others about. If the purpose of covering ourselves is for humility, why is covering ourselves an act of humility? I tend to think of this question in Levinasian terms--by covering ourselves we approach others in a way that does not project ourselves onto the other, but we let the other speak for itself. That is, we listen to the Other. So if humbling and listening are very similar concepts, then I think it makes sense that hear seraphims cover their faces and private parts since these are the orifices out of which things from the body go (as oppposed to the ears). I think this view of covering sets the stage for the discussion of "unclean lips" in verse 5 (though, for me, it begs the question: only his lips are unclean? why doesn't he just say "I am unclean"?).

But I think veils and coverings in general signify more than this. This is something I'd like to study and ponder more, and I'd love to hear others' thoughts and/or reading recommendations on this topic.... --RobertC 13:48, 26 Jul 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy the connection between feet and face there, Robert. Could you work that into the commentary? I am about to do some work on verse 5, so I will keep the "unclean lips" thing in mind as I do so.

As regards the veil... Where does one begin with the veil? Perhaps with the four colors, the four elements, and Solomon's exploration of them in Eccl 1:1-8 or so? As a covering... certainly the veil is connected with the covering Adam and Eve received in the garden, and Paul calls the veil Christ's flesh in Heb 10:20. Suggested reading: Margaret Barker's The Great High Priest has a wonderful article (two, actually) on the veil. An article, in fact, that bears on this question of the pre-mortality of the council (she reads the veil as temporality; hence, the activities beyond the veil are beyond time, perhaps before, lpny, time, facing time). --Joe Spencer 17:57, 26 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this reference. I'm anxious to look at this (though I'm anxious to consider many issues more carefully that you've raised—thanks again. --RobertC 13:58, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Placement of Isaiah's call narrative

Robert, thanks for breaching this subject. I have some interesting thoughts on the subject, but it would be too difficult to hash out right away, perhaps untimely (I'd like to complete some work on the remainder of Isaiah 6). But here's a taste for you: Nephi pulls out Isaiah 2-13 specifically, which, taken apart from the remainder of the Isaiah text, has a very specific structure. Isaiah 2-4 discusses the excesses of Judah, Isaiah 5 discusses the excesses of Israel, Isaiah 6 dicusses the Day of Atonement and the calling of Isaiah, Isaiah 7-12 discusses the redemption of Judah (the destruction of Assyria), and Isaiah 13-14 discusses the redemption of Israel (the destruction of Babylon). In other words, a sort of chiasm:

  Wickedness of Judah/Israel
     Ritual: Day of Atonement/Calling of the Prophet
  Redemption of Judah/Israel

Isaiah 6 functions as the chiastic center of the prophet's first stretch of texts, a center that marks the exchange between the wickedness and redemption of God's two kingdoms during Isaiah's day, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. A thought to get the discussion started, but to exempt myself from it for a bit. --Joe Spencer 17:57, 26 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Posts of the door

Checking the Anchor Bible and Word Biblical Commentary translation notes, it seems they're taking the forearm connotation of the "cubit" meaning and inferring an architectural connotation (as in the "forearms of the threshhold), as opposed to thinking of mzwzwt: cf. "the uprights attached to the threshhold" (Anchor Bible), "the foundations of the threshold(s)" (WBC, NASB, NRSV), and "door frames" (NET). Interestingly, Avraham Gileadi gives this a slight variation and translates verse 4 as "The threshold shook to its foundation at the sound of those who called and a mist filled the temple." --RobertC 17:48, 1 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I've tried thinking through the possibility of rendering the word as "cubits." Gileadi's take on that is interesting, though rather conservative, really. I think the translation "posts" is probably based on reading "cubits" here: the several cubits of wood that make up the posts, the "forearms" of the threshold, etc. My interest in post-modernism tempts me to want to read "cubits" into the passage as if the very standard of measurement is shaken to pieces at the voice. However, since Hebrew measurements were in themselves variable (there was no "standard" as such), such a shaking is unnecessary. It has been suggested (where, I don't recall now) that the phrase might have reference to the posts holding up the veil (as in Ex 21:7?) in the temple. The shaking would be the parting of the veil, etc.

In the end, I come back to the reading I've posted already. I think there is a whole series of connections between Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 28, and the peoples dwelling at the gate would be another example of such a connection: when YHWH is crowned high priest in Isa 28:5, He becomes strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate/threshold (Isa 28:6). Such an interpretation, again, fits the Day of Atonement theme quite nicely.

This raises a side issue for me. Do we post a best interpretation or a number of possible interpretations? Or perhaps we ought to post a number of possible interpretations in order to settle on what seems to be most justified by the text? This much is certain: we should keep to words like "appears," "seems," "likely," "probably," etc. --Joe Spencer 21:30, 1 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I like the "tribes" interpretation you've taken, I was just adding the "forearms" thought in case you hadn't thought of it in quite that way.

Up till now I've been more interested in finding the different approaches others have taken to a passage. This is largely b/c I'm new to reading scholarly studies and have lacked the confidence in my own approach. I've become a little bit disenchanted with what I've found in scholarly commentaries and my confidence is growing (slowly) in my own ability to interpret the text. As this confidence grows, I will probably spend more time writing my own thoughts and less time summarizing others' thoughts. I think the onus is on whoever holds whatever opinion to write it up on the site. Other viewpoints should be acknowledged and tentative (humble? reverent?) wording should be used, but I think you should focus on what interests you the most and write up what you think is the best (or even just "most interesting") reading.... My $.02. --RobertC 13:53, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Formatting guidelines (again...)

Sorry for another meta-discussion but I think Rob's right (see Talk:Isa 6:6-10 page), that italics doesn't show up very well for section breaking. I think what I did with verse 5 is pretty ugly here. But I can't think of a good solution. I think it's really helpful to have signposts for this kind of page, both b/c commentaries in general fall more into the reference genre than, say, essay-type writing, and b/c this is a joint-writing project and without an easy-to-understand outline of the material, it's really hard to know where/how to add new comments. Here are the main three options I can think of:

1. Keep signposting sparse (or at least under control). Obviously not my choice, but this would make things look cleaner. I mainly added the sub-sections and sign-posting in verse 5 for my own benefit—maybe these additions should just be temporary. But in general I think it's hard to figure out where a comment fits into already-written commentary if there isn't some obvious outline of the content (like signposts and sub-sectioning provides).
2. Create subpages when commentary gets more than a few paragraphs. This would be my preference and it would sort of force us to write a summary/abstract of commentary that gets very long (I'm thinking here of what Matthew did on the Alma 13:1-5 page). However, this approach makes it much harder for users to print out commentary and take it with them.
3. Live with somewhat ugly commentary pages. No matter what type of fonts and emphasis we use, 4 layers of subheadings is going to get ugly—but perhaps the functionality afforded outweighs the aesthetic and convenience disadvantages. I can live with the page the way it is even though it's not very aesthetically pleasing. Personally, I prefer functionality to aesthetics, which is why I made the mess of verse 5.

The reason I'm obsessing about this again is that I'm still working on a draft rewrite of verses 9-10, but so many of the themes are interconnected and I'd like to be able to refer to the discussions of the themes in the previous verses with confidence that the reader can easily find those discussions. I'm planning on working this chapter for a couple more weeks, so any feedback now would be timely—thanks.... --RobertC 19:01, 10 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my only reaction is to number 2 above. The other issues do not really concern me one way or the other. I am the sort of chap who will either read the whole commentary (whether it is fifteen pages or whether it is a paragraph) or leave it entirely alone. As far as number 2 goes, I think it is best to keep as much as possible on the main page. I suppose I think this for a couple of reasons. A link gives the impression (albeit mild) that what is on the subpage is not exactly part of the community project, but rather an individual's commentary to which one is directed. The very structure of having the link suggests that the argumentation, etc., is rather arcane or unnecessary, or even that the argumentation is sound enough for anyone except a specialist who might feel inclined to work through it carefully. But in the end, the biggest reason I don't enjoy the link version of organizing commentary is because I, personally, read commentary for the purpose of thinking a text closely, not for getting a variety of approaches (I only come to a commentary because I have an approach to a text already, and I would only change that approach by being persuaded by a very carefully presented argument): most often, I read commentary in order to build on my approach by appropriating other textual insights from a particular passage, insights I've not dug out for whatever reason. I honestly think that the link business is a bad move. --Joe Spencer 00:40, 11 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joe that we shouldn't use sub-page links until they are called for. We might draw that line in a slightly different place but I think we probably both agree that generally a TOC and a good organization scheme is sufficient for a page but sometimes the page outgrows this (due to either size or complexity) and at that point subpages are called for. In my view this is a page that may not require subpages now but if it seems that we want to use more levels of TOC headings then works well for the reader it may mean that it is time to use sub-pages here.

Here's some criterion I'm thinking of for when sub-pages should be used. I see sub-pages as a different flavor of a TOC.

At this site we want to accommodate readers with a variety of preferences. Some readers want less, some readers want more. Some readers want to know everything about a scripture. Some come with a specific question and are just looking for the answer. We want to do our best to serve all of them.

A good table of contents is a great way to facilitate the differing preferences of our readers. I'm not hearing anyone argue against having a table of contents and organizing the text using headings that show up in the TOC so what is the difference between a table of contents and links to sub-pages? 1) The TOC heading is typically quite short. It summarizes the topic but doesn't give much information about what position is taken or place that position within a context. Linking to a sub-page allows for a more thorough summary. When a position itself only takes a paragraph to explain it hardly requires a summary--a toc heading is fine. But if a position takes several pages to explain, it makes sense to give a summary of that position so the reader can decide whether they want to spend their time reading through that or something else. 2) The TOC links to the text on the same page. This means that if we use the TOC to organize text the browser has to load the entire text. Typically on the Internet when long text is presented, it is broken down into several pages to both facilitate browser speed and also simply because people are more comfortable (or at least more familiar) with reading a 5 page article on something where each page is about the expected length of a page in a book then they are with reading one page five times as long. This site doesn't have any built in "paging" type functionality. This reason supports sub-linking for very long pages as opposed to solving the problem with the TOC alone. 3) The TOC organizes text sequentially. Linking organizes text more like a web. Sequentially organized text suggest a unity around a text. Linked text suggests different text linked together. (I realize this is sort of an obvious point.) It is easier to refer to a specific text or part of a text more than once using linking. With sequentially organized text this can also be done (e.g. "as argued above") but it gets difficult if there is much of this that goes on.

I see all of these three as part of the criteria for determining whether to add additional sub-headings in the TOC or whether to begin branching out into sub-pages.

In addition let me address a couple of Joe's concerns specifically around sub-pages.

1) subpages give the impression that one is not part of the community project.

I think this all depends on what we decide. We are still at a formative time in the project. We haven't grown so large that we can't set the conventions how we want them. Neither the concept of a page for scripture commentary that anyone can edit nor the concept of a subpage of that page that anyone can edit are concept familiar to Internet users. Therefore, I don't think people will come to Feast site with a preconceived notion of the idea that a regular commentary page is something everyone can edit but a sub-page is less so. The only people I think might have that impression are those that have been around Feast a while (we who are reading this) because to date sub-pages have mainly been sub-pages of user pages. And for user pages we do have a convention that a user page and the sub-pages there of are more the domain of that user rather than the entire community (though users often invite others to feel free to edit their user pages). However, if we all decide that sub-pages of commentary pages, like their parents, are the domain of the entire community than that is the way the convention will be.

2) sub-pages give the impression that what is behind the link is arcane or less important.

I think this is an important point since one reason to summarize something and link to it is because it is arcane or less important. But I think there are other reasons (as noted above) and the readers appreciate this.

3) (not sure I got this one right) linking suggests multiple readings and Joe is more interested in a single reading.

Maybe I misunderstood your point here. Some text lend themselves to a single view. Some don't. It is a pretty basic tenet of this site that when a text suggest a variety of views that we should reflect that in our commentary. In some cases I think this calls for sub-pages to provide more thorough explanations of that view while also making it easier for the person who isn't interested in reading that whole thing to know what is behind the link but not follow it. In other cases those different readings are best explained within the context of a single text on a single page.

--Matthew Faulconer 05:24, 11 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Rereading this made me think that maybe Joe really thinks that we ought almost never use sub-links. My response then is the same except that I shouldn't begin by saying we agree since then I lay out a position for using them. --Matthew Faulconer 12:42, 11 Aug 2006 (UTC)