“Tarshish Has Perished”: The Crux of Isaiah 23,10 117 The three words in v. 10 are to be read: vyvir“T' td"b]a; yKi. Thus I propose that the “original text”(12) of v. 10 was: dw[ zjm ˆya // vyvrt tdba yk ˚xra yrb[ Cross (back) to your (13) own land, for Tarshish has perished, (for) the harbor/port city (14) is no more. Does such a reading reflect the conventions of good Biblical Hebrew poetry? It does, because the restored bicolon is based on an attested word- pair, (dw[) ˆya // dba. This pair occurs 9x in the MT (15) and also in CD 5,17; 9,14-15. By way of illustration I cite one biblical example: µynbm hx[ hdba // ˆmytb hmkj dw[ ˆyah Is there no wisdom in Teman anymore? has counsel perished from the wise? (Jer 49,7) Finally, as I mentioned above, the proposed reading must fit well with the overall context of the passage itself. Does a reference to the destruction of Tarshish “fit” in this poem, and specifically at this particular juncture? First we shall consider the immediate context of v. 10. (1) The reading of v. 10 argued here is on the mark thematically. The theological center and the real message of Isa 23,1-14 is found in vv. 9 and 11, which in characteristic Isaian fashion speak of Yahweh’s intention to humble the “proud”(16) — in this case by destroying the ports (17) of the Tyrian-Sidonian maritime empire. —————— DELITZSCH, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament [Berlin – Leipzig 1920] §105a), it is possible that the proposed tdba resulted from an earlier hdba, the standard form of the 3d fem. sg. Qal. But prudence cautions against multiplying emendations, especially within a single word, though there are instances in which more than two errors in a single word can be demonstrated. (12) I am aware of at least some of the current discussion surrounding the term “the original text”, that the very existence of such a thing is controverted and that the term means different things to different authors. Therefore for this paper I take for the definition of “the original text” one of the possible meanings given by E. Ulrich: “[The original text is the text] as reconstructed from the extant testimony insofar as possible but with the most plausible conjectural emendations when it is generally agreed that no extant witness preserves a sound reading” (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible [Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI 1999] 13). (13) The subject of the imperative yrb[ and of all the other feminine imperatives in this poem (vv. 4 [yvwb], 6 [yrb[], 12 [yrb[ ymwq]) is Sidon. (14) In the ancient Near East many terms for “harbor” also meant “harbor district” and from this “port of trade.” zwjm has this meaning in post-biblical Hebrew (see M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [New York 1967] 757: “harbor, trading place”). Its Ugaritic cognate ma/i˙d = /ma(÷)˙˝du/ is occasionally written in Akkadian as URU.ma-a-˙a-di, where the determinative URU denotes a city-name (see G. DEL OLMO LETE – J. SANMARTÍN, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition [trans. W.G.E. Watson; Leiden 2003] 513). Cf. also Akkadian k˝ru, “harbor, harbor district, city quarter destined for traders and sailors” (see CAD K, 231). (15) Deut 32,28; Job 31,19; Ps 142,5; Qoh 9,6; Isa 41,11; Jer 49,7; Mic 4,9; 7,2; Zeph 2,5. (16) In v. 9 ˆwag, “pride”, is parallel to ydbk, “nobles (of the earth)”, and thus may be translated concretely in this context as “the proud”. For this “abstract // concrete” construction, see W.G.E. WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSS 26; Sheffield 1984) §11.10 (pp. 314-316). (17) Although many translate zw[m in this poem (vv. 4, 11, 14) as “stronghold”, strictly speaking this is not correct. This word is unrelated etymologically to the root zz[, “to be strong”,