“Tarshish Has Perished”: The Crux of Isaiah 23,10 119 imperatives occur at the beginning of a stanza, as does yrb[ in v. 10: yvwb (v. 4), “be ashamed”; yrb[ (v. 6), “cross over”; and yrb[ ymwq (v. 12c), “arise and cross over”(22). These feminine imperatives are functionally significant within the poem, since they act as indicators of stanza divisions and also drive the action (23). Sidon is clearly the subject of the first and of the others as well. That this is true in the case of v. 10 is beyond question, as the only other 2d person form in this stanza is v. 12a, “You (fem. sg.) shall exult no longer,” which is followed immediately by the vocative, “virgin daughter Sidon”. (3) Another feature that should be carefully noted with regard to the larger context is the movements of Sidon within the poem, which is indicated by the verb yrb[. She is first told to cross over to Tarshish at the beginning of the third stanza (v. 6). Thus in v. 10 the command “cross (back) to your own land” makes sense because she is ostensibly in Tarshish. Finally, in v. 12c she is told to “cross over (the sea)” once more, this time from her land to Cyprus, which by way of inclusion takes us back to the beginning of the poem (cf. µytk in v. 1). Given this itinerary, a command to Tarshish in v. 10 to cross over to her own land makes no sense whatsoever. This is without doubt the source of the reading ˚xra ydb[, “Work/Till your land,” in 1QIsaa and the LXX Vorlage, which is simply an attempt to make sense of a senseless imperative. In this discussion of Isa 23,10 I have attempted to show that P. W. Flint’s restored Vorlage of the LXX establishes a Hebrew text more pristine than the MT or any of the Dead Sea Isaiah manuscripts. Building on that text I propose a reconstruction of this verse that not only makes sense in itself — unlike the MT — but fulfills two other requirements that every such restoration should fulfill: it conforms to the established conventions of Biblical Hebrew poetry and fits well within the context of this poem. St. Mary’s Seminary & University Michael L. BARRÉ Baltimore, Maryland 21210 U.S.A. SUMMARY Isa 23,10 is a long recognized crux interpretum within what is a difficult passage in its own right, Isaiah’s oracle against Tyre (23,1-14). The MT makes no sense. The restoration of the LXX Vorlage reconstructed by P. W. Flint brings us closer to the “original text”, to the extent that only several minor errors separate us from what may be the original form of this verse. Once these are corrected the restored bicolon I propose not only makes good sense as a sentence but reads as good Biblical Hebrew poetry and fits the overall context very well. [pp. 208-211]) and with (ˆk)z[m by “distant parallelism”. (22) Of these, only the double imperative yrb[ ymwq in v. 12 does not begin but rather ends a colon. In this respect these verbs differ from all the other feminine imperatives in the poem, and also by being a a double imperative (the only example in the oracle). These differences are deliberate and by breaking the pattern established up to this point serve to signal the concluding stanza of the poem. (23) As I see it, the poem divides into five stanzas: 1-3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-12b, 12c-14. The feminine imperatives occur in the first colon of each stanza but the first which begins with