Essays on the Book of Isaiah (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161564826, 9783161564833, 3161564820

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) ∙ Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) ∙ Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

128

Joseph Blenkinsopp

Essays on the Book of Isaiah

Mohr Siebeck

Joseph Blenkinsopp, born 1927; 1958 S.S.L. (Licentiate in Sacred Scripture) from the Pontifical Biblical Institute; 1967 PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitics from the University of Oxford; John A. O’Brien Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

ISBN 978-3-16-156482-6 / eISBN 978-3-16-156483-3 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-156483-3 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by epline in Böblingen, printed on non-aging paper by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents

1. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case  . . . . . .  1 2. The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book .  12 3. The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25 4. Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35 5. Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50 6. Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God: Yahweh, Ahuramazda and Marduk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63 7. The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77 8. Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  90 9. Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location . . . . . . . 102 10. The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution . . . . . . 113 11. Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 12. Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Isaiah 2:6–22) . . . . . . 135 13. Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 14. Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20. Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 15. Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 16. Who Is the tsaddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 17. The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 18. The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12) . . . . . . 186 19. The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom . . . . . . . . . . . 198 20. The One in the Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Biblical Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Particulars of First Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

1

The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case Four Moments in the Pre-Canonical Process I propose to take as my point of departure a brief consideration of four “moments” in the pre-canonical process: Josephus, ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), Chronicles, and Deuteronomy with associated writings.

Josephus, C. Ap. 1:38–42 It therefore naturally or rather necessarily follows – seeing that with us it is not open to everybody to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written, seeing that, on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred – it follows, I say, that we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books conflicting with each other. Our books – those justly accredited – are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history down to the death of the lawgiver … From the death of Moses to Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own time in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.

Josephus testifies to the existence of a closed collection, one which he disingenuously contrasts with Greek writings produced without quality control, a collection which covers the period from the time of Moses to Artaxerxes I (465– 425 bc).1 The thirteen books covering the history after the death of the lawgiver must have included the four known much later as the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings) and the four prophetic compilations (Isaiah, 1  Josephus identifies the Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1 and passim with Artaxerxes rather than Xerxes, and in his view the book of Esther stands at the end of the biblical period. The prophetic diadoche, therefore, is limited to the biblical period.

2

1  The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve). The total number was filled out by Job, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Josephus is not the most disinterested and objective witness in matters of religion, and we may be sure that, in spite of relegating prophecy to a circumscribed era in the past, he wrote in awareness of his own profession as historian and his own claims to prophetic inspiration, opportunely discovered or activated as he faced the prospect of an unpleasant death while hiding from the Roman soldiers in the cave at Jotapata (B. J. 3:351–354).2 Nevertheless, his description of prophecy and the prophetic role, while incomplete, is not entirely inconsistent with rabbinic dicta, especially those which speculate on the subject of the end of prophecy (sôph hanněvû῾āh).3

Jesus ben Sira Josephus wrote his treatise Against Apion in the last decade of his life, towards the end of the first century ad, and Jesus ben Sira wrote his early in the second century bc. He treats of biblical prophets in an encomium of national heroes – rulers, warriors, counsellors, sages, prophets, poets and plutocrats (Sir 44–50). Since the survey is chronological, beginning with Enoch and ending with his contemporary, the high priest Simon son of Onias, prophets are named in the order in which they were presumed to have lived rather than in their “canonical” sequence. The list begins with Moses followed by Joshua who succeeded Moses in the prophetic office (Sir 46:1) and ends with the Twelve (49:10). It soon becomes apparent that the emphasis is on biography rather than the prophetic message of social regeneration, which has featured so prominently in the modern period. Beginning with Moses, these prophets are ᾽anšê ma῾aśîm, “men of deeds”, chiefly miracle workers, the miracles designed to recall the people to repentance. This proved easy to demonstrate with Elijah and Elisha (Sir  48:1–14), less so with Joshua near the beginning (46:1–6) and Isaiah near the end (48:23), in spite of the fact that both worked a sun miracle. Samuel, too, produced a meteorological miracle with the preternatural thunderclap which discomfited the Philistines at Mizpah (46:16–17; see 1 Sam 7:9–11). For Jesus ben Sira, therefore, the prophet is no longer assigned a destabilizing role in society as, in the language of Max Weber, a demagogue and pamphleteer. The concept of prophecy has been generalized and diluted to the point where the author can characterize his own sometimes pedestrian teaching as a form of prophecy. Above all, the prophet is an object of biographical interest, a “man of 2  On Josephus’ understanding of prophecy see my “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus”, JJS 101 (1974), 245–255. 3  The Holy Spirit, meaning “the spirit of prophecy” departed from Israel either after the destruction of Solomon’s temple (b. Bat. 12a; b. Yoma 21b, b. Sotah 48a) or after the death of the last biblical prophet (b. Yoma 9b, b. Sanh. 11a).



The Books of Chronicles

3

God” who stands apart by virtue of his thaumaturgic and therapeutic powers and the gift of intercessory prayer.4

The Books of Chronicles Somewhat similar views can be detected in the historical work written rather less than two centuries earlier than ben Sira known simply as Chronicles (dibrê hayyāmîm). The author lists prophets and seers so often among his sources as to leave little doubt that he takes the writing of history as essentially a prophetic activity. These prophetic authors are figures well known from biblical sources, including Isaiah (2  Chr  26:22; 32:32), and others less well known: Samuel (1 Chr 29:29), Nathan (1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29), Gad (1 Chr 29:29), Ahijah of Shiloh (2 Chr 9:29), Shemaiah (2 Chr 12:15), Iddo (2 Chr 12:15; 13:22), and Jehu ben Hanani (2 Chr 20:34). The progressive institutionalization and scribalization of prophecy is apparent at several points throughout the work of the Chronicler. Even preaching comes to be associated with the prophet rather than the priest.5 After the rebuilding of Solomon’s temple in the Persian period the role of preacher devolved on Levites, and in Chronicles it is represented as carried out under divine (i. e. prophetic) inspiration. Hence we hear of the Spirit of God coming on the Levites Azariah and Jahazael (2 Chr 15:1–7; 20:14–17). Preaching is therefore also a form of prophecy (něbû῾ā, 2 Chr 15:8). Another activity defined as prophetic in Chronicles is the composition and rendition of liturgical music. Prophecy and poetry had always been closely associated in antiquity, and the use of music and percussion to induce states of transformed consciousness is well attested in Israel as elsewhere (e. g. 1 Sam 10:5–6, 9–13; 2 Kgs 3:15–16). Typically, however, in Chronicles this activity is routinized and we hear no more of ecstatic states. The professional activities of the guilds of liturgical musicians are, however, now redescribed as prophecy (1 Chr 25:1–8) and their members as seers (1 Chr 25:5; 2 Chr 29:30; 35:15). These “prophetic” liturgists perform under the charter laid down for them by David, the poet and prophet par excellence. This tradition will lead to Psalms being attributed to David. According to the Psalms scroll from the eleventh Qumran cave (11QPsa), David composed 4,050 hymns “through the prophetic gift given to him by the Most High”, – no mean achievement. 4  “Man of God” advisably, since ben Sira lists none of the female prophets in Israel, seven according to a rabbinic count (b. Meg. 14a), not even Huldah during the reign of Josiah (49:1– 3). This is hardly surprising given this author’s extremely jaundiced views on women. 5  The closest term in biblical Hebrew for preaching would be hētîp, literally, “to drip”, which apparently did not carry the unfortunate associations then as it does now in the vernacular (Amos 7:16; Mic 2:6, 11; Ezek 21:2, 7). “Preacher” is therefore mattîp (Mic 2:11).

4

1  The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case

In summary of what has been said so far: According to the tradition typified by these mainstream authors, prophecy is no longer a presence that makes claims of a peremptory nature in the religious sphere. It is essentially a past phenomenon, the essential pastness of which is enshrined in written texts. The prophet has also become the object of biographical interest. Corresponding to these transformations, the language of prophecy has undergone a considerable semantic expansion to include such activities as preaching, liturgical psalmody and the recording of the nation’s past. By the time of Chronicles, practically any significant figure in the tradition, for example Abraham and Moses, could be called a prophet (nābî᾽).

Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History It now remains to demonstrate that these transformations on the way to canonical status can be traced back one stage further to Deuteronomy and associated writings. Mindful of recent admonitions about inflated usage and the dangers of pan-Deuteronomism,6 it will be helpful to clarify the terms as used here. The concern is neither with the origins of Deuteronomism nor with the authorship of the book of Deuteronomy nor with its formation. I have no problem with the use of the term “Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic school” in the sense of a plurality of learned savants who share the same ideology and who are active over several generations. This having been said, it will be convenient to take off from a remark by Richard Coggins on this subject, about “ideological pressures at work to impose a particular view of Israel’s past, of its relation with its God, of the meaning of the events which had befallen it, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of its leading citizens.”7 One effect of these pressures is that in the History the primary role of the prophet is to admonish rulers and the people in general to observe the laws, with political disaster being the outcome of non-observance. This can be seen in the paradigm case of Samuel in relation to Saul (1  Sam  7:3–4; 8:8; 12:10, 14–15, etc.), a pattern replicated, with variations, in the later History. It is also apparent where the Historian refers to prophets as “his (Yahweh’s) servants the prophets.”8 Reflecting on the fall of the kingdom of Samaria, the author states that the role of prophets and seers is to warn and admonish people to “turn”, that is, repent, and observe the commandments and statutes communicated through Yahweh’s servants the prophets beginning with Moses the protoprophet (2 Kgs 17:13; 18:12). The concern is to 6  See articles by Richard Coggins, Norbert Lohfink and Robert Wilson in Linda S. Schear­ ing/Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of PanDeuteronomism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 22–82. 7 Coggins, Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 34 n. 8. 8  2 Kgs 17:13, 23; 21:10–15; 24:2–4.



Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

5

associate prophecy formally with the law and with Moses the lawgiver as a way of explaining why disasters take place and to prescribe a remedy for the future. A notable feature of the History is that there is practically no overlap between prophets named by the historian and the canonical fifteen. The exception is Isaiah, but this is because at a certain point in the formation of the book of Isaiah episodes from the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah were incorporated with modifications into it, an issue to which we will return.9 In summary, the transformations in the understanding of prophecy we noted in Chronicles, ben Sira and Josephus can be traced back to Deuteronomy and related writings. Deuteronomy itself has several marks of a canonical work. It contains the standard prohibition against adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it (Deut 4:2; 12:32); in other words, it is a closed book. It is also an official document that must be deposited in the temple archives and read in public at stated intervals (17:18–20). It defines a normative epoch in the past coterminous with the life of Moses, thus providing a standard for all future institutions and conduct, including prophecy (34:10–12).10 It is, we may say, the first attempt to impose an orthodoxy and orthopraxy in matters civic and religious. These claims would make it imperative for their authors to counter prophetic claims to new revelations and the often destabilizing influence of institutionally unattached prophets. The idea was that once a written law is available, sporadic prophetic revelations were both unnecessary and undesirable. And it goes without saying that the prerogative of issuing binding interpretations of the laws translated into a great deal of political power, the power of coercion. We note some of the ways in which the Deuteronomists went about offsetting prophetic influence: by redefinition and redescription, as in Deuteronomy  18:15–22; by simple omission, as we have seen to be the case with the History; by concentrating on prophetic biography rather than the prophetic message, with the implication that prophecy is essentially a past phenomenon and, finally, by neutralizing by addition.11 Of this last we will find an example in the book of Isaiah, but first some preliminary remarks on Isaiah as a canonical book are in order. 9  See on the Prophetenschweigen issue Klaus Koch, “Das Prophetenschweigen des Deutero­ nomistischen Geschichtswerks”, in Jörg Jeremias/Lothar Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walther Wolff (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 115– 28; Christopher Begg, “The Non-Mention of Amos, Hosea and Micah in the Deuteronomistic History”, BN 32 (1986), 41–53; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Why Does the Deuteronomistic History Make no Mention of the Prophets to Whom Books are Attributed?”, in James K. Aitken et al. (eds.), On Stone and Scroll. Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 343–356. 10  Compare the Babylonian idea that all revealed knowledge has been handed down once and for all to the antediluvian ancestors, a dogma incorporated in the Babyloniaca of Berossus. On the latter, see Wilfred G. Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity”, JCS 11 (1957), 1–14; Francesca Rochberg-Halton, “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts”, JCS 36 (1984), 127–44. 11  I take this expression from Samuel Sandmel, “The Haggada within Scripture”, JBL 80 (1961), 105–22.

6

1  The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case

Isaiah as a Canonical Book The first stage in the interpretation of any biblical book has to be recovered from indications in the book itself. The capacity to generate commentary is one sign of canonical status, but unfortunately we have no sure means of determining the time when addenda of different kinds could no longer be incorporated in the text but had to take the form of commentary on the text. The earliest extant commentaries on Isaiah are the Qumran pěšārîm reconstructed from several fragments (4QpIsaa–e and 3QpIsa = 4Q161–65 and 3Q4), but the complete Isaiah scroll from Qumran cave 1 (1QIsaa) indicates that the text was more or less fixed no later than the mid- second century bc. The paraphrastic Greek version (the Septuagint) is usually assigned the same date, though this is only an educated guess. In the early years of the same century Jesus ben Sira was familiar with material from both major sections of the book (1–39, 40–66), since he tells us that the same Isaiah who worked the miracle of the sun and healed Hezekiah comforted the mourners in Zion and revealed hidden things about the end time (Sir  48:22–25). He therefore implicitly acknowledges that there was only one book of Isaiah, but it does not necessarily follow that the book had by that time reached the point of canonical closure. More important in that respect is Jesus ben Sira’s naming in sequence Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Sir 48:23–25; 49:6–10). This suggests that the literary construct we call Latter Prophets was in existence in some form by the time he was writing. If we accept that structure is an important vector of meaning, especially in ancient texts, we will give due importance to the efforts that clearly had to be made in order to come up with twelve prophetic authors in the dodekapropheton, no doubt symbolic of twelve-tribal Israel. It would then be a short step to concluding that the 3 + 12 structure of Latter Prophets stands for the three great ancestors and the twelve tribes. It was, therefore, symbolic for the ingathered Israel of the end time to which the prophetic books in their finished form beckon. If this is so, the end time perspective is encoded in the structure of the prophetic collection itself, and therefore in the biblical canon.12 Isaiah generally occupies first place in Latter Prophets, but the rabbinic text b.Bat 14b–15a places Isaiah after Jeremiah and Ezekiel immediately before the Twelve. Isaiah also adjoins the Twelve in the Septuagint. The critical study of Isaiah in the modern period lends some plausibility to this arrangement. As a compilation of diverse pronouncements with numerous addenda Isaiah resembles the Twelve more closely than it does either Jeremiah or Ezekiel. Then there 12  I argued this several years ago in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A  Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 120–23, and found confirmation in the finale of the collection, namely Malachi 3:23–24, which speaks of unification effected in the second coming of Eijah as prelude to the final judgment. The passage seems to be understood in this sense in Sir 48:10.



Isaiah as a Canonical Book

7

is the question of authorship. There is reason to suspect a degree of fluidity and artificiality in assigning attributions to the prophets in the dodekapropheton. Two anonymous sections – Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 – had to be assigned to Zechariah in order to maintain the important duodecimal structure, and Malachi may not be the only fictitiously named prophet to whom material of unknown origin was assigned. While there is no reason to doubt that a prophet or man of God named Isaiah was known to have existed, and in fact did exist, and while prophetic books are notoriously non-self-referential, attribution to Isaiah must be considered rather weak. All three titles in which his name appears (1:1; 2:1; 12:1) are acknowledged to be late, and one of them, 13:1 introducing an oracle against the Neo-Babylonian empire, cannot be by the same prophet who spoke or wrote under the Neo-Assyrian empire. Chronicles refers to the book of Isaiah as a vision (hāzôn, 2 Chr 32:32) and its author as an historian (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). Six other Isaiahs are named in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles and two in inscriptions. Three of those named in the biblical sources are Levites and one a Levitical temple musician who “prophesied” since temple music was considered a branch of prophecy.13A late date for the assignment of the name is also suggested by the designation “Judah and Jerusalem” used in the titles at Isaiah 1:1 and 2:1, in the order usually found in late texts and the reverse of the order in passages taken to be early (Isa 3:1–8; 5:3; 22:21). Isaiah is essentially a compilation like Psalms, and it is beginning to look as if Isaiah is taken to be its author in much the same way that David is taken to be the author of Psalms. As the record of different voices enunciating different and sometimes conflicting points of view, the book of Isaiah reproduces on a smaller scale important features of the biblical canon as a whole. One of these, sometimes overlooked, is that a canon represents the resolution of ideological conflict either by imposition of a dominant ideology or orthodoxy by force majeure or in the form of a compromise between different ideologies. Canon also represents closure, in the sense of excluding further authoritative revelations. It goes without saying, however, that these impositions are not always successful, for the texts are still there to be interpreted afresh after the authoritative and definitive interpretation has been issued. A  study of the ideological lines of force embedded or encoded in the final canonical form of Isaiah would call for a major scholarly enterprise. All that can be done here is to outline two examples of what would be involved in this task.

13  Ezra  8:7, 19; Neh  11:7; 1  Chr  3:21; 25:3, 15; 26:25. The name also occurs in the Elephantine papyri (AP 5:16; 8:33; 9:21) and on a seal. On the Elephantine papyri, see Arthur E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967 [1923]), 11, 23, 26. On the seal, see Nahman Avigad, “The Seal of Yesha῾yahu”, IEJ 13 (1963), 324.

8

1  The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case

Isaiah and Deuteronomism Our first example takes us back to our discussion of the Deuteronomistic (henceforth D) understanding of the prophetic role and the relation between the D oeuvre and the prophetic books. Opinions have been expressed for and against D influence on pronouncements in all sections of the book of Isaiah.14 We shall confine ourselves to the narrative passages in Isaiah beginning with chapters 1– 39. The first of these narrates the meeting between king Ahaz and the prophet (7:1–17). The introduction “In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah” is adopted from 2 Kgs 16:5, but it adds the names of his predecessors to provide the appropriate historical context. It also omits mention of a siege of Jerusalem by Pekah of Samaria and Rezin of Damascus in the same verse since this would presumably have ruled out a meeting between Ahaz and Isaiah at a strategic point in the city (Isa 7:3). It is tempting to conclude that Isaiah 7:1–17 originated as one of several prophetic legenda in the History. The meeting between Isaiah and Ahaz takes place at the spot where the Assyrian commander called for the surrender of the city in a narrative originally part of the History (Isa 36:2; 2  Kgs  18:17), and the parallel passage in the History breaks off suddenly and switches to Edom, suggesting that something has been omitted (2 Kgs 6:5). By far the longest narrative insertion into the book of Isaiah is the section consisting in chapters 36–39 corresponding to 2  Kings 18:13–20:19, with the addition of a psalm attributed to Hezekiah (Isa  38:9–20). It contains four incidents featuring the prophet – he is actually identified as a nābî᾽ (prophet) only in this section (37:2, 38:1, 39:3). (1) An intervention by Isaiah in the crisis of Jerusalem under siege in 701 bc solicited by Hezekiah (36:21–37:7); (2) an unsolicited intervention in the same crisis, probably a variant of (1); (3) the healing of the king and the sun miracle (38:1–8, 21–22); (4) visit of a Babylonian delegation to Hezekiah, Isaiah’s reaction, and prediction of exile in Babylon (39:1– 8). That these incidents have been adopted from the History with certain modifications rather than the reverse, as is the case with the last chapter of Jeremiah (Jer 52; 2 Kgs 24:18–25:30), is tolerably certain. The granting of fifteen additional years of life for Hezekiah is calculated on the basis of annalistic data in the History where we learn that Hezekiah reigned for twenty-nine years (2 Kgs 18:2), and the crisis took place in the fourteenth year of the reign (2 Kgs 18:13). The manner in which the ruler consults a prophet who announces good news for the short term and bad news further into the future (Isa  39:5–8) also follows the pattern in the History, the clearest example being the delegation sent to the prophetess Huldah during Josiah’s reign and her response (2 Kgs 22:11–20). 14 No attempt will be made to document these discussions. Robert A. Kugler, “The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets”, in Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 134–35, has some brief and mostly negative remarks on the views of Otto Kaiser and Jacques Vermeylen on Deuteronomism influence on Isaiah chapter 1 but nothing on Isaiah 40–66.



Eschatology and Canon Formation

9

As a footnote to these remarks on the D ideology at work in the book of Isaiah, a reading of the incident of Merodach-Baladan’s delegation to the Judaean court during Hezekiah’s convalescence (2 Kgs 20:12–19; Isa 39:1–8) may afford a glimpse into the ideology at work in the book. As critical readers, we would have to note that, according to the historically reliable version A (2 Kgs 18:14– 16), Hezekiah had just handed over all his gold and silver to the Assyrians, even stripping the gold from the doors of the temple in order to meet the conqueror’s demands. This leaves us wondering what he would have had left to display before the Babylonian envoys (39:2–4). We also know that the revolt of MerodachBaladan II (Marduk-apla-iddina) had been crushed by the Assyrians two years before the punitive campaign against Jerusalem, hence such a visit after that date is historically implausible. If, therefore, the visit actually took place, it would have been in connection with overtures for another anti-Assyrian alliance, and Hezekiah’s “show and tell” would have had the purpose of proving that he was a credible ally. This is not even hinted at in this brief account since it would have left him open to the accusation of making an alliance with the detested Babylonians. Even worse, it would have tended to make him, rather than Manasseh, his son and successor, responsible for bringing on the disasters to be inflicted on king and country a few years later (cf. 2 Kgs 21:10–15, 23:26–27, 24:3–4).

Eschatology and Canon Formation One of the most striking features shared by Isaiah and several of the books of the Twelve is that they conclude by presenting a scenario of the end time for Israel and the world in general. The scenario sometimes stays more or less within the bounds of historical plausibility, including return from the diaspora and a mission to foreign peoples. More often, however, it describes a “singularity” involving a total meteorological disaster, warfare on a cosmic scale, new heaven and new earth, a final judgement by fire, and associated motifs.15 This literary phenomenon occurring at the conclusion of so many prophetic books suggests a fixation on the apocalyptic world view among those involved in the final stages of the composition and final redaction of these books and perhaps also, as hinted earlier, of the 3 + 12 unit as a whole. We therefore arrive by a somewhat different route at the same point as Otto Plöger. Plöger’s examination of key prophetic passages (Joel 3, Zech 12–14, Isa 24–27) led him to conclude that the prophetic books were edited in the later Second Temple period by anonymous groups, the precursors of the Hasidim of 1 Maccabees 2:42 and 7:13 and the author(s) of the book of Daniel, in the direction of an apocalyptic and sectarian world 15  Isaiah 66 and passim; Joel  3:1–4:3; 4:9–21; Amos  9:11–15; Obad  15–21; Mic  7:8–20; Zeph 3:8–20; Zech 14:1–21; Mal 3:19–24.

10

1  The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case

view.16 Some aspects of Plöger’s thesis are debatable, not least the contrast between theocracy and eschatology, and his choice of texts imposes limitations. Yet the argument seems to be basically sound, and invites corroboration by taking a different route through the texts. Recent commentary on Isaiah has noted linguistic and thematic parallels between the last section of the book and the first chapter; for example, the condemnation of those who rebel against Yahweh (66:24 cf. 1:2, 28), festivals of new moon and sabbath (66:23 cf.  1:13), transgressive cults carried out in gardens (66:17, cf. 1:29), and the final judgement on reprobates with the imagery of inextinguishable fire (66:24, cf. 1:31).17 This inclusio is telling us that Isaiah is one book, and that all the parts of this book converge in one way or another on the final event of judgement and salvation. The last chapter of the book ends with three oracular pronouncements which speak of the ingathering in Jerusalem at the end time, a mission to the Gentiles preceding the final theophany, and the creation of new heaven and new earth (Isa 66:17, 18–21, 22–23). These are rounded off with a final verse so dark and menacing – the bodies of those who had rebelled against God, inextinguishable fire, the worm that does not die – that in the reading of the haftara in the synagogue liturgy the previous verse was read after 66:24. The final chapters of the books also provide evidence of intense internecine conflict provoked by these apocalyptic beliefs. Thus, the Servants of the Lord will be the ones who will eat, drink, rejoice, and sing for joy in the end days, while their enemies within the community will go hungry and thirsty and will suffer shame and anguish (65:13– 14). This typically sectarian theme of eschatological reversal also comes to expression in the address of a seer to those who tremble at the word of God, who are hated and rejected, and who have been excommunicated by their brethren on account of their eschatological beliefs or on account of their exclusive claim to salvation when the great day dawns (66:5).18 For the understanding of canonicity, it is of crucial importance that the protests of the socially and religiously dispossessed, nourished as they were on the interpretation of older prophecy, were not expunged from the record.

16 

Otto Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Richmond: John Knox, 1968). parallels have been noted by Leon J. Liebreich, “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah”, JQR n. s. 46 (1955/1956), 276–277; Rémi Lack, La Symbolique du Livre d’Isaïe (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973), 139–41; Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaiah Tradition (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 21–24. 18  I take a closer look at this section of the book in Joseph Blenkinsopp, “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990), 5–20 and id., “The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book”, in Craig C. Broyles/Craig A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies in an Interpretive Tradition, Volume 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 155–75. 17  Other

Conclusion

11

Conclusion The compilation of Latter Prophets may have gone through several phases, including perhaps a Deuteronomistic phase, before it reached its final configuration during the obscure century of Ptolemaic rule. It was at that time, the early Hellenistic period, that books began to be produced with explicit attributions, resembling more closely our idea of a book. In the absence of external information, the only recourse is scrutiny of the prophetic books themselves. The book of Isaiah reflects the characteristic features of the canon of the HebrewAramaic Bible in general; it can be read as a canon in nuce. One of these features is the juxtaposition within a canonical collection of different and ideologically incompatible points of view. We saw that the inclusion of Deuteronomistic narrative in Isaiah sets up an understanding of the prophetic role different from that of the prophet as social conscience of the society and preacher of reform and moral regeneration. The Isaian biographical tradition in the later biblical and postbiblical periods,19 including rabbinic statements, shows to what degree the Deuteronomistic element in the prophetic books, and Isaiah in particular, proved to be influential in the formation of a canonical collection. It was only in the early modern period that other aspects of the prophetic profile came to the surface. On the other hand, we see, already within the book, how the interpretation of prophecy by those excluded from power led to the “new prophecy” of apocalyptic and the revelation of truths of overwhelming relevance and transforming power for those who chose to live by them. Canonicity is generally taken to imply normativity and, as such, to justify mandatory acquiescence in and obedience to a comprehensive statement of religious orthodoxy. But what we have seen in Isaiah about different and conflicting views within the book suggests that normativity is not a straightforward concept, that there are tensions within normativity and canon which theological honesty requires us to take seriously. Acceptance of these tensions and antinomies would, we suspect, lead to a richer and more complete appreciation for the biblical canon in the faithful communities within which it came into existence and in which it is still honoured.

19  I dealt with this biographical tradition in Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah”, in Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff (ed. Erhard Blum, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 13–26.

2

The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book Structures and Divisions in the Book of Isaiah The tripartite division of the Book of Isaiah is traced back to Bernhard Duhm’s commentary of 1892, though Duhm himself observed that the distinct origins of chapters 56–66 had long been suspected (“seit längerer Zeit behauptet”), pointing out that several of the older commentators – Cheyne, Kuenen and others – had assigned the last eleven chapters, with the possible exemption of chapters 60–62, to a later author.1 In any event, Duhm did not argue the point in detail, and the same can be said for his contention that the Dichtungen vom Ebed-Jahwe (“the servant poems”), identified as 42:1–4, 49:1–6, 50:4–9 and 52:13–53:12, originated in a source distinct from Second Isaiah.2 Quite apart from the issue of authorship, this tripartite division accounts for successive new points of departure in the book. One of these is 40:1, recognized as such since the Middle Ages, for example by Rashi, though of course not on the basis of distinct authorship, but even here there is not a complete break. The Isaiah legenda in chapters 36–39 seems to have been interposed between chapters 35 and 40, the former ending as the latter begins with reference to the via sacra prepared for the return of an exiled people and their God to their own land (38:5 maslûl cf. 40:3 měsillāh). But the interposition of 36–39 was neither arbitrary nor inappropriate, for this hagiographical narrative ends with a prediction of exile in Babylon (39:5–8), thereby preparing for the return to the homeland and, in general, for the argument from prophecy which looms so large in the following section. Less evident is the break between chapters 55 and 56. Isaiah 56:1–8 is certainly a distinct and highly distinctive oracle beginning and ending with “thus says the 1  Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja übersetzt und erklärt (5th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 14–15, 19 and passim); Thomas Kelly Cheyne, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (5th ed., New York: Dodd, Mead, 1904); Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, Band 2: Die Prophetischen Bücher (Leipzig: Otto Schulze, 1892), 128–44. 2 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 311. Duhm appealed to the distinctive style and structure of these texts and contrasted the individual῾ebed of these passages with the identification of Israel as ῾ebed YHWH elsewhere in Second Isaiah.



Structures and Divisions in the Book of Isaiah

13

Lord YHWH”. The passage immediately preceding, 55:2–13, speaks of a joyful repatriation and, taken together with 40:1–5, could be taken as an inclusion, rounding out chapters 40–55. But 52:11–12 “depart, depart, go out from there!” could also serve as an inclusive marker, as also 57:14–21, “build up, build up, prepare the way”.3 The effect of a clean break between chapters 55 and 56 is also blurred somewhat by the repetition of the phrase about an everlasting name which will not be cut off (55:13; 56:5). There is also the repetition of the phrase “there is no well-being for the wicked” (48:22; 57:21) which, with the final scene of the worm that does not die and the fire that is not quenched (66:24), could serve to divide chapters 40–66 into three divisions of nine chapters each.4 The distinctive character of chapters 40–48 over against chapters 49–55 is also indicated by the theme of exodus from exile and the motif of the via sacra at the beginning and end of this section of the book (40:3–5; 48:20–22). With this structural feature we are on firmer ground since, beginning with chapter 49, we note a different set of concerns. We hear no more about Cyrus and the fate of Babylon, no more satire directed against Babylonian deities, and a focus on internal rather than international affairs. This different emphasis in chapters 49–55 is generally recognized, but we shall see that there is also a notable shift in the way the term “servant” (῾ebed) is used and in the idea of service or servanthood in general. The purpose of these preliminary observations is not to argue for one way of dividing up and structuring the book to the exclusion of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that different concerns, emphases, and perceptions have been embodied in different literary structures laid down in successive layers throughout an editorial history which extends over four or five centuries. In the following pages I  will suggest that one of these structural features which is less obvious though not without implications for the formation of the Isaian compilation as a whole is connected with the language, and the reality, of service or servanthood in the latter part of the book. Thus, chapters 40–48 end with a reference to the redemption of God’s servant Jacob, in keeping with a major theme running through the preceding nine chapters, while the following section is rounded off with a series of apostrophes to Zion (51:17–23, 52:1–2, 7–10; 54:1–17) among 3  B. O. Banwell, “A Suggested Analysis of Isaiah xl–lxvi”, Exp. Tim. 76 (1964–1965), 166, divided chapters 40–66 into 40 (introduction), then 41–48, 49–57, and 58–66. 4  These stylistic and thematic links in the book were the object of an older study by Leon J. Liebreich, “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah”, JQR 46 (1955/1956), 259–77 and id., “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah (Continued)”, JQR 47 (1956/1957), 114–38. They have often been discussed in more recent studies, e. g., Rémi Lack, “La symbolique du Livre d’Isaïe”, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973), 139–41; Peter R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet”, Congress Volume Göttingen 1977, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 16–48; Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja”, VT 34 (1984), 295–320; Craig A. Evans, “On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah”, VT 34(1984), 129–47; Anthony J. Tomasino, “Isaiah 1:1–2:4 and 63–66 and the Composition of the Isaian Corpus”, JSOT 57 (1993), 81–98.

14

2  The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book

which the fourth of Duhm’s servant poems has been situated (52:13–53:12). The last of the apostrophes concludes with a reference to the Servants of the Lord (54:17), thereby marking another significant transition in the book, suggesting a connection between the life and death of the prophetic Servant of the Lord in chapters 49–53 and the Servants of the Lord whose vindication is a major theme of the following chapters 56–66.

Servants of the Lord in the Deuteronomistic Corpus A glance at a concordance will reveal the extent to which use of the term “servant” (῾ebed) in the religious sphere is concentrated in writings of Deuteronomistic origin, that is, primarily in the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (henceforth Dtr), namely, the books of Samuel and Kings.5 An example: In Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:22–61), composed by an exilic Deuteronomist, the term occurs fourteen times, referring to Solomon himself, to David, Moses, and the people of Israel. Throughout the History (Dt) and in Psalms David is often designated “the Servant of the Lord”.6 After the monarchy had passed from the scene the same honorific title is attached to the once and future Davidic king,7 and to descendants of David who were thought to fit that role like Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23; Zech 3:8). This political usage provided a prima facie justification for those few scholars who identified the servant of Duhm’s Ebedlieder as a royal figure either an individual like Zerubbabel or Hezekiah, or as an embodiment of ideal or mythic traits associated with kingship.8 Of much more frequent occurrence in the Deuteronomistic corpus, however, is the designation of a prophetic figure as Servant of the Lord, signifying one who is in the service of the God of Israel and who has a special status in relation to the deity, corresponding to one of the more frequent secular variants – as, for example, Eliakim, majordomo of the royal palace, is a servant of 5  In the secular sphere the term can be used as a deferential and humble self-reference, for officials and courtiers, persons in service of different kinds, and slaves. 6  2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8, 19, 25, 27–29; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24–26; 11:32, 34, 36, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6. In Psalms: Pss 18:1; 36:1; 78:70; 89:4, 21, 40; 132:10; 144:10. 7  Jer 33:21–22, 26; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25. 8  The numerous variations on this theme in the commentary tradition up to the midtwentieth century are set out by Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study (2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955); Harold H. Rowley, “The Servant of the Lord in the Light of Three Decades of Criticism” in id., The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1965); Colin G. Kruse, “The Servant Songs: Interpretive Trends since C. R. North”, Studia Biblica et Theologica 8 (1978), 3–27; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, World Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word, 1987), 115–16.



Servants of the Lord in the Deuteronomistic Corpus

15

king Hezekiah (Isa 37:2, 5). Dtr describes individual prophets as Servants of the Lord – Ahijah of Shiloh (1 Kgs 15:29), Elijah (2 Kgs 9:36; 10:10), and Jonah ben Amittai (2 Kgs 14:25) – but the term is applied in a special way and with special frequency to Moses as protoprophet and fountainhead of prophecy, on a higher level of intimacy and communication with the deity than the prophets who came after him.9 The attribution of prophetic status to Moses, and the redefinition of prophecy in terms of the role and mission of Moses, and therefore having to do with the proclamation and transmission of the law, are essential elements in the Deuteronomistic understanding of prophecy; they constitute an important topic which cannot be pursued here. On the historical plane, Deuteronomistic theory translates into the idea that over against the endemic tendency to apostasy and transgression in general there must always be present those chosen individuals who serve the Lord after the manner of Moses, and who are therefore designated “Servants of the Lord”. Depending on the needs of the day, they will include military and civic leaders, judges and prophets. The first of these so designated after the death of Moses is Joshua (Josh 24:29; Judg 2:8) whose service covers the period from the death of Moses to settlement in the land.10 Among the “judges” only Deborah is accorded prophetic status (Judg 4:4), and the absence of explicitly prophetic activity during this period (the term nābî᾽ occurs only once and somewhat intrusively at Judg 6:8) suggests that, in Deuteronomistic terms, the “judges” were, for that epoch, the designated continuators of the Mosaic tradition of service.11 The standard term in Dtr for the prophetic succession or for prophets in general is “His servants the prophets” (῾ăbādāw hanněbî᾽îm).12 In view of the roles allotted to the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 40–66 it should be noted that these servants are privy to Yahweh’s plan for Israel (e. g. Amos 3:7, a Deuteronomistic gloss), they proclaim the necessity of observing the law (e. g. 2  Kgs  17:13; Jer  25:4), their message often goes unheeded (e. g. Jer  7:25; 29:19), and their service to Yahweh God can lead to persecution and death at the hands of their contemporaries (2 Kgs 9:7; Ps 79:10). These are examples of the ways in which the theology of this school have permeated the thinking of religious people in 9 For example: Deut  3:24; 34:5; Josh  1:1–2, 7; 9:24 (even the foreign Gibeonites acknowledged his status!). The unique status of Moses as intermediary over against other prophets is the theme of Numbers 12, the prophetic rebellion of Aaron and Miriam ending with the vindication of the special status of “my servant Moses” (vv. 7–8). 10 Hans M. Barstad, “The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy”, SJOT 8.2 (1994), 236–51 holds that “the prophet like Moses” of Deut 18:15, 18 applies to Joshua, which is perhaps too restrictive. 11 These šōpětîm were judges only in the limited sense of exercising rule attained by warlike deeds. Most of them could more properly be described as warlords. 12  2  Kgs  9:7; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; the same in Deuteronomistic passages in Jeremiah (Jer  7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4) and in later texts under Deuteronomistic influence: Ezek 38:17; Zech 1:6; Ezra 9:11.

16

2  The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book

the post-disaster period. Designating the entire people, or those who returned from exile, as a servant people is an innovation, one not confined to DeuteroIsaiah. The people of Israel is so designated in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple which refers explicitly to exile (1 Kgs 8:23, 32, 36). In other texts from the same period the exilic people, the golah, is addressed under the name Jacob Servant of the Lord in much the same way as in Deutero-Isaiah.13 This Deuteronomistic theme of servanthood will, therefore, give us a point of departure for our attempt to understand how the same language is used in the book of Isaiah, to detect lines of development in the way it is used, and to arrive at some conclusions starting from these premises about the formation of the book itself.

The Servant Theme in Isaiah 40–48 Recent trends in Isaiah studies have tended to emphasize the links between the three major sections of the book and to de-emphasize their respective distinctness, often under the rubric of “the unity of Isaiah.”14 At least with respect to servanthood as a religious category, however, the successive sections of the book are clearly differentiated. The term ῾ebed occurs thirty-two times in Isaiah 40–66 and only nine times in Isaiah 1–39 of which, however, only one is religiously significant, namely, the allusion to “my servant Isaiah” in the incident in which the prophet walks about naked as a proleptic sign of defeat and captivity (20:3). There is mention of “my servant Eliakim” as majordomo of the palace in place of Shebna (22:20), two references allude to slaves (14:2; 24:2), and five occur in the prophetic legenda in chapters 36–39 (36:9, 11; 37:5, 24, 35), probably taken from Dtr or from a source on Isaiah from which the Historian drew his information. The last refers to “my servant David” (37:35; 2 Kgs 19:34). In Isaiah 1– 39, therefore, we are dealing with prophetic material which shows no significant Deuteronomistic influence with respect to this particular usage. 13 

Jer 30:10; 46:27–28; Ezek 28:35; 37:25. literature on this theme is formidable and growing exponentially in bulk. The following list is by no means exhaustive. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 325–34; Ronald E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah” Int 36 (1982), 117–29; id., “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes”, JSOT 31 (1985), 95–113; Walter Brueggemann, “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition”, JSOT 29 (1984), 89–107; Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja”, VT 34 (1984), 295–320; id., “The Composition of the Book of Isaiah” in Rolf Rendtorff, Canon and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 146–69; Rainer Albertz, “Das Deuterojesaja Buch als Fortschreibung der Jesaja-Prophetie” in Erhard Blum et al. (eds.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 241–56; see also several of the essays in Jacques Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah – Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leur Relecture: Unité et Complexité de l’Ouvrage, BETL 81 (Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1989). 14 The

  17

Coming now to Deutero-Isaiah, we note significant differences between 40–48 and 49–54/55 reinforced by the bracketing of 40–48 with the prospect of return from exile at the beginning and end (40:1–5; 48:20–22). To restate a point made earlier: the centrepiece of chapters 40–48 is the Cyrus oracle (44:22– 45:13) and the career of Cyrus is the principal theme throughout the section. Much attention is given to the anticipated collapse of the Babylonian empire, and criticism is directed against idolatry and more specifically against the Babylonian religious and intellectual tradition.15 None of this appears in chapters 49–55 in which the principal concerns are with internal affairs whether in Babylon or in Judah. The language of servanthood is also quite different in the two sections. In 40–48 it refers almost exclusively to a collectivity, while in 49–55 mainly to an individual. A further point is that only the first of Duhm’s four servant texts occurs in 40–48, which would make it easier to conclude that the first of the four, in 42:1–4, may have a quite different meaning from the remaining three in 49– 55; a proposal which of course remains to be demonstrated. The term῾ebed, then, occurs thirteen times in 40–48, always in the singular. In several cases the servant is explicitly identified with Jacob/Israel or, alternatively, with the descendants of Abraham (41:8–9; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20), in marked contrast to the centrality of Jerusalem/Zion in 49–55. This servant community is called on to witness and make sense of what is happening on the international scene, but is also taken to task for being blind and deaf, that is, for being spiritually dull and imperceptive, a theme which recurs throughout 40–48. At the same time, the servant (῾ebed) is identified with the messenger (mal᾽ak), another synonym for “prophet”,16 and it is these servant-messengers who will predict the restoration of Jerusalem following the victories of Cyrus. The author of this section of the book would have counted himself among them, and at one point we may even be hearing his voice: “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit …” (48:16b). In spite of doubts which have arisen about Duhm’s servant poems, Isaiah 42:1–4, the first of the four, may be the one exception to the collective interpretation of servant language in chapters 40–48. It follows a passage with a clear reference to the victorious career of Cyrus (41:25–29) and is followed by what appears to be commentary on 42:1–4. A mission to restore law and order throughout the world is a task for a ruler, not a prophet, and certainly not for the Jewish community at that time; and it is surely Cyrus who is to “open the eyes that are blind and bring out the prisoners from the dungeon”, acting on behalf of those awaiting repatriation, as the author expected him to do (42:7)17 15  These issues suggest a date of composition during the reign of Nabonidus (556–539 bc), probably after the conquest by Cyrus of Ecbatana, Sardis and the Ionian cities. 16  For example: Judg 2:1–4; Hag 1:13. In the night visions of Zechariah the mal᾽ak utters oracular sayings with the usual prophetic incipit koh ᾽āmar YHWH (Zech 1:16; 3:6; 4:6–10). 17  Jer 30:10; 46:27–28; Ezek 28:35; 37:25.

18

2  The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book

The Servant Theme in Isaiah 49–55 Chapters 40–48 conclude with an allusion to the servant people who bear the name Jacob (48:20–22), and the following section opens with an address of a servant of Yahweh to coastlands, islands, and nations far off (49:1–6) to which corresponds, at the conclusion of the section, or the original conclusion to the section, an oracular assurance of the future vindication of the servants of the Lord (54:17b). The autobiographical language of 49:1–6 suggests a prophetic profile strongly reminiscent of first-person language in Jeremiah: the speaker is called from the womb, he is destined to struggle, beset by a sense of failure though assured of ultimate vindication, and is assigned a double mission, to Israel and to the nations.18 That the one addressed is charged with a mission in the first place to Israel obliges us to identify this Servant of the Lord with an individual or, less probably, with a plurality within the Jewish community rather than the community itself, and therefore to take “Israel” in apposition to “my servant” (v. 3) as an early stage in the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Isaian Servant of the Lord together with the saying immediately following about “the servant of rulers” (49:7). In the third of Duhm’s Ebed-Dichtungen (50:4–9) the speaker describes himself and his mission in unmistakably prophetic terms. Opposition to his mission seems to have hardened into active persecution. In this instance, however, the speaker is identified as the servant of the Lord only in a comment attached to his declaration (vv. 10–11). It seems very probable, and has been almost universally accepted, that this is the same individual whose life is celebrated and death mourned in the fourth and last of the servant texts (52:13–53:12). Then, as was noted earlier, the apostrophes to Zion conclude with an allusion to the vindication of the Servants of the Lord (54:17b), the only occasion in DeuteroIsaiah in which the word occurs in the plural:

This, then, is the lot of the servants of the Lord, their vindication from me. A word of the Lord.

A solemn conclusion to Isaiah 40–54 which emphasizes the principal theme of its second part (chapters 49–54) and serves as a link between the individual Servant of the Lord whose painful life and death it celebrates and the Servants of the Lord in the last section of the book.19 18  The Deuteronomistic editing of Jeremiah had the effect of presenting him as a “prophet like Moses”, in effect the last in the series of “His servants the prophets” who perpetuate the work and mission of Moses. See Klaus Baltzer, Die Biographie der Propheten (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), 38–53, 113–28, 171–77; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 35–53. The similarity between the Mosaic-Jeremian prophetic profile and that of the Servant in Isaiah 49:1–6 is a neglected aspect of the interpretation of the Isaian text. 19  Isaiah 55, which may have been added at a later stage in the formation of the book, re-

  19

The Servants of the Lord in Isaiah 56–66 In the last eleven chapters of the book, conventionally known as Trito-Isaiah, ῾ebed occurs ten times, all in the plural (56:6; 63:17; 65:8, 9, 13 [three times in this verse], 14, 15; 66:14). It opens with a highly distinctive saying assuring those of foreign origin and the sexually mutilated of their good standing in the community and access to temple worship, qualifications which are closely connected. As proselytes, they may even aspire to play an active role in the temple ceremonies. This opening statement goes directly against the law in Deuteronomy, which excludes from membership in the house of Israel the sexually mutilated and people from certain countries (Deut  23:2–8). The idea that foreigners could even aspire to take an active role in temple worship is not expressly forbidden in the laws but for Ezekiel it would be an abomination (Ezek 44:4­9). Struck by this extraordinarily liberal approach to such “dubiously belonging” categories, some commentators have concluded that this paragraph must have been added at a later date.20 On closer inspection, however, it will be apparent that 56:1–8 has much in common with what follows, and that the difference has much to do with the audience addressed. The speaker believes in an imminent divine intervention in human affairs (56:1, 66:5, and passim) preceded by an ingathering of dispersed Israelites and Gentile converts (56:8; 60:4; 66:18–19). He is no less on that account committed to observance of the laws with emphasis on the sabbath law (56:2, 4, 6). The long communal lament in 63:7–64:12 reflects a situation after the disasters of 586  bc, the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple, but how long after is a question without a clear answer. Prayer is addressed to God by and on behalf of God’s servants, “the tribes of your heritage”, in other words, the community as a whole. In this liturgical context, therefore, ῾ăbādîm has the same broad reference as in Dtr (e. g. 1 Kgs 8:23, 32, 36) and in Psalms (e. g. Ps 34:23; 90:13; 105:25). In the last two chapters of the book the situation with respect to this usage is quite different. If we have read so far we know that there are deep fissures in the community, evident from diatribe against syncretic cults and other deviant practices.21 In the first of two juxtaposed sayings (65:8–12, 13–16) that community is compared to a bunch of mostly rotten grapes which must nevertheless capitulates chapters 40–54 by repeating the themes of joyful repatriation and the permanent validity of the word of God enunciated in chapter 40. 20  Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A  Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 305–6; Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 162, 388–89. For both these authors, and several others, 56:1–8 and 66:18–24 form a framework for Trito-Isaiah. Other references in Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah. Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 115–25. 21  Isa 57:1–13; 58:1–5; 59:1–15.

20

2  The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book

be preserved on account of the few good grapes in it. This translates to the conviction that Israel will be spared only on account of the few elect within it, the remnant (šě᾽arît) of which the old prophets spoke, “my people who seek me” (65:10). Beginning with these few, Yahweh will in due course bring into existence a new people which will possess the land and the temple. The author then goes on to contrast the ranks of the elect with the reprobate doomed to destruction (65:8–12). This redefinition of the Israel addressed in chapters 40–48, and the corresponding shift of focus from the community as a whole to a minority within it which claims to be the nucleus of the true Israel, marks a significant turning point in the history of Second Temple Judaism and, with that, an important phase in the evolution of the Isaian tradition.22 The second saying (65:13–16) is different from the one preceding it since it takes the contrast between the elect and reprobate to its logical conclusion – logical, that is, according to the perspective of the author and the author’s associates. At a point beyond history, the end time, the elect will eat, drink, rejoice and exult with heartfelt joy while the reprobates will hunger, thirst, experience shame, cry out for heartache, and wail for anguish of spirit. This theme of eschatological reversal, familiar to readers of the gospels (e. g. Mt 5:3–12; 25:31–46), is characteristic of sectarian thinking. It draws an invisible line through the community, and it presupposes a social co-ordinate in the form of an actual group in which such ideas develop and come to be expressed. This last part of the saying (vv. 15–16) contrasts the future names of the elect and the reprobate in terms of blessing and curse. Names were, of course, used in this way as, for example, Abraham for a blessing (Gen 12:1–3) and the Judaeo-Babylonian prophets Zedekiah and Ahab for a curse (Jer 28:22). The new names are no doubt symbolic, like Hephsibah (“My delight is in her”) and Beula (“Married”) for Zion and the land respectively (62:4). We are not told what the new name for the Servants of the Lord is to be, but some association is suggested with the symbolic name Amen for the deity. Perhaps they are to be the Amen people, the people who say Yes to God.23 The clearest expression in these two chapters of conflict and division, with eschatological beliefs as a contributing factor, is the address of an anonymous seer to those who tremble at the word of God:

Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at his word: Your brethren who hate you, who have cast you out for my Name’s sake have said: ‘May the Lord reveal his glory, so that we might witness your joy!’

22  Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 404, describes it as marking a momentous change also because it involves a divine intervention beyond history, which I take to imply an anticipation of the language of apocalyptic. For a similar argument, see Odil Hannes Steck, “Beobachtungen zur Anlage von Jes 65–66”, BN 38–39 (1987), 103–16 and id., Studien zu Tritojesaja (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 217–33, 251–53. 23  On this name, see Alfred Jepsen, TDOT 1:322–33. There are no grounds for amending ᾽amēn to ᾽emēt or ᾽mûn or anything else.



The Servants of the Lord and the Final Stage in the Formation of the Book of Isaiah

21

But it is they who will be put to shame. (66:5)

This is a distinct saying composed of a call to listen, an oracular statement in oratio recta of the deity with a quote from hostile “brethren” followed by its refutation. Those addressed have been banned or excommunicated by their fellow Jews, meaning the civic and religious authorities including the temple priesthood.24 We learn from Ezra 10:8 that banning involved not only exclusion from temple worship but also forfeiture of civic status and loss of property, a situation which would help to explain frequent reference in these chapters to the poverty, insecurity and misery of the devout minority, also known as “mourners” (᾽ăbēlîm, mit᾽abbēlîm, 57:18; 61:2–3; 66:10). The quote from the “brethren” is a familiar type of response to eschatological or millenarian beliefs, though it is also possible that the opponents were objecting to the exclusive and sectarian nature of the claim rather than the claim itself. The threat of being finally shamed also concludes the eschatological reversal promised the Servants of the Lord in 65:13–14. The obvious parallels between these Servants of the Lord and those who tremble with awe at God’s word raises issues which now call for further discussion.

The Servants of the Lord and the Final Stage in the Formation of the Book of Isaiah We are now in a position to pose the question whether reference to the Servant and the Servants in Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah provides clues to the final stages in the formation of the book. We have seen that the terms ῾ebed, ῾ăbādîm refer respectively to an individual prophetic figure in chapters 40–55 and a group cherishing eschatological beliefs and alienated from the official leadership in chapters 56–66. We have noted the close parallels between these Servants of the Lord and the hărēdîm, those who tremble at God’s word. The use of a qualifying phrase added to this designation indicates that the trembling is on account of the prophetic word and no doubt also the law as an expression of the will of God. It therefore signifies something less than a fixed title, like Essenes or Pharisees, but something more than a vague description of devout members of the community since these “tremblers” could be excommunicated en bloc. We noted the parallels between them and the Servants of Isaiah 65:8–10, 13– 16, parallels close enough to suggest that they are alternative designations for the same group. The language used with reference to both justifies us in referring to those so described as a sectarian entity: there is a strongly negative attitude to 24 The verb śānē᾽ (“hate”) can have the sense of active dissociation, and niddāh, only here and in Amos 6:3, is close to the technical meaning of excommunication which it has in Mishnaic Hebrew (e. g., b.Ber. 19a; b.Pesah 52a).

22

2  The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book

the larger society, a millennarian perspective with the characteristically sectarian theme of eschatological reversal, and the conviction that the group has taken over the identity and mission which the parent body, from which the members addressed have been expelled, has forfeited.25 While the kind of language used in chapters 65–66 betokens a sectarian mentality, hence presumably a sectarian source, we know too little about the social situation to be able to know, for example, what degree of cohesion it may have attained, whether it had evolved an organization and structure with leaders or a leader.26 The texts do, however, encourage us to think of a link between the Servant of chapters 49–53 and the Servants of the last two chapters of the book, and to think in terms of prophetic discipleship, a concept already present with the reference to Isaiah’s own limmudîm (Isa 8:16–18). Going further back to the third of Duhm’s Ebedlieder in Isa 50:4–9, the prophetic figure who speaks here of his own mission is identified as Servant of the Lord only in the comment added in 8:10–11, in which the stark contrast between those who obey the voice of the master and those who ignore the message and will be consigned to a place or condition of torment recalls the language in which the same theme is addressed in chapters 65–66. The voice we are hearing in this comment is the voice of a servant of the master-prophet, therefore one of the Servants of the Lord about whom we hear more later in the book. Following the same line, it may be suggested that in the last of the Servant passages, in which YHWH speaks at the beginning and the end (52:13–15; 53:11b–12), the lament for the deceased Servant of the Lord in the middle (53:1–11a) comes from the same source. It is through the Servant’s “offspring” (literally “seed”, zera῾), his disciples, that the prophetic message will be propagated. 25  For a criteriology of sectarianism see Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, Volumes 1 and 2 (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1981 [1911]), 331–49;  691–729; Max Weber, Economy and Society, Volume 1, edited by Guenter Roth/Claus Wittich (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978 [1956]), 452–63; id., Ancient Judaism (New York: The Free Press, 1952 [1917–1919], 385–404; Peter L. Berger, “The Sociological Study of Sectarianism”, Social Research 21 (1954), 467–85; Bryan R. Wilson, Sects and Society (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961, 317–21; id., Patterns of Sectarianism: Organisation and Ideology in Social and Religious Movements (London: Heineman, 1967), 18–19, 31; Roy Wallis, Salvation and Protest: Studies of Social and Religious Movements (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979), 180–83. 26 Defying these obstacles, a few scholars have written on Jewish sectarianism of the Persian period: Alex Rofé, “Isaiah 66:1–4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed by Trito-Isaiah”, in Ann Kort/Scott Morschauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 205–17; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period”, in id., King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 165–201; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990), 5–20; id., “The Development of Jewish Sectarianism from Nehemiah to the Hasidim”, in Oded Lipschits/Gary N. Knoppers (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B. C. (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 385–404.



Summary and Conclusion

23

Summary and Conclusion The conclusion suggested by these exegetical observations is that the ServantServants link represents an extension of the Isaiah-limmudîm tradition in the direction of transhistorical, eschatological, and even apocalyptic thinking going on within a sub-group of the Jewish ethnos probably in the last century of Persian-Achaemenid rule. This sub-group, designated “servants of the Lord”, “those who tremble at God’s word”, and “mourners over Zion”, owed allegiance to a prophetic figure whose mission involved opposition, and who suffered persecution and death at what time and at whose hands we are not told (Isa 49:1– 6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). If we speak tentatively of these disciples as forming a sect it is on account of the nature of their beliefs, how they perceived themselves in relation to the community as a whole, and the language of radical rejection, separation and self-segregation in these last two chapters of the book. We can put together a reasonable case for the origins of such sect formation in the early Persian period, as was noted earlier, but we can only speculate about developments from then on down to the well-known sectarian groups and movements of the Graeco-Roman period. The question now arises: why do we come upon evidence for this group and its ideology primarily in Isaiah?27 One answer has to do with the destiny of Jerusalem/Zion. This is a major theme of the pre-exilic Isaiah and those associated with him, and it became a major theme again with the prospect of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple and the crucial issue of who would control its operations and resources. In Trito-Isaiah, God’s holy mountain, meaning in the first place the temple where God resides, is often mentioned (56:7; 57:13; 65:11; 66:20). The crucial issue was who will inherit it, that is, who will control the operations of the temple, the primary source of well-being, religious, political, and socioeconomic.28 At the conclusion of Deutero-Isaiah Zion is said to be the inheritance of the Servants of YHWH (54:17). That this remained no more than an aspiration, the object of the eschatological faith of a prophetic group, and a group excommunicated and therefore excluded from temple worship, is obvious from the strongly polarized language throughout Trito-Isaiah, language which is unsparing in criticism of the current temple priesthood (66:3–4). The lines are drawn very firmly in affirming God’s concern for “the poor, the afflicted in 27  I say primarily, since one finds similar beliefs held by certain God-fearers and Godservers in the much smaller book of Malachi (3:13–21). See Joseph Blenkinsopp, “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990), 14–16. In both Isaiah and Malachi we find dissonancereduction at work, as pointed out by Robert P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury Press,1979), 152– 56. 28  On the role of the temple in a temple-community like Achademenid Judah, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah” in Philip R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, Volume 1: Persian Period, JSOTSup 117 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 22–53.

24

2  The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book

spirit, and those who tremble at my word” rather than for the temple as presently viewed by those who controlled its operations (66:1–2). In following according to their own lights the lead of the Servant of the early exilic period, the members of this marginalized prophetic sub-group extended the Isaian tradition in new and unanticipated directions.

3

The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah Profiles of Isaiah In his annotated edition of the Authorised Version of Isaiah published in 1883, Matthew Arnold lamented that “the apparatus to Isaiah is so immense that the student who has to handle it is in danger of not living long enough to come ever to enjoy the performance of Isaiah himself.”1 His lament echoed that of Jerome who found writing a commentary on the book “a great and wearisome undertaking … one which has challenged the skill and stamina of our predecessors.”2 One of those predecessors, the great biblical scholar Origen, nevertheless rose to the challenge with a commentary on the entire book in thirty volumes, a work no longer extant. One can sympathize with Jerome’s complaint, and later commentators can appreciate the danger of losing sight of the wood for the textual, linguistic and exegetical trees, in Isaiah thickly overgrown as they are with scribal emendations, hapax legomena, and assorted inconcinnities. I will therefore come to the point and state what I  have come to realize is one of the major issues in the interpretation of Isaiah 1–39. I  refer to the existence in these chapters of two distinct prophetic profiles: the Isaiah of the sayings who pronounces judgement on the political leadership of the kingdom of Judah and predicts disaster and the man of God of the narrative sections who plays a positive and supportive role in relation to rulers and the political system in general. This gives rise to the question: are the differences merely perspectival, or must we conclude that they are irreconcilable and, if so, how is this split personality profile to be explained?

Late Biographical Traditions I suggest that we approach the issue retrospectively, that is, from the vantage point of later stages in the literary tradition about Isaiah, a tradition that comes to us mostly in the form of biography or hagiography. Often in such investigations the 1  Matthew Arnold (ed.), Isaiah of Jerusalem in the Authorised English Version with an Introduction, Corrections and Notes (London: Macmillan, 1883), 10. 2  In the prologue to his commentary on Isaiah, PL 24:18–21.

26

3  The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah

best place to start is the tomb tradition. A cult associated with a prophet (nābî᾽) or saint (saddîq) was well established by the first century ad in Palestine, and no doubt helped to generate edifying legends about the person in question. We recall that the gospels refer to Pharisees and scribes building the tombs of the prophets and decorating the graves of the righteous (Mt 23:29; Lk 11:47). According to The Lives of the Prophets, from the late first or early second century ad, Isaiah was buried in Jerusalem under the Oak of Rogel, appropriately near the spot where he and his son Shear-Yashub encountered king Ahaz (Isa 7:3), and we are told that the Siloam spring began to flow in response to his prayer for water as he was dying.3 Rabbinic attestations speak of Isaiah as the confidant of kings and himself of royal lineage since his father Amoz, also a prophet, was the brother of king Amaaziah.4 It is hardly surprising that the rabbis did not take kindly to Isaiah’s denunciations of Judah and Jerusalem, identified by Isaiah with Sodom (Isa 1:10; 3:9), and he is taken to task for accusing the people of having unclean lips instead of just accusing himself.5 He is even charged with blasphemy, claiming to have seen God, contrary to the explicit declaration of Moses that no one can see God and live; this with reference to Isaiah 6:1 and Exodus 33:20. Rather than answer the charge, Isaiah pronounced the ineffable divine name and was at once swallowed by a cedar tree, some say a carob tree.6 His presence in the tree being detected by his fringes (tsitsiyot) hanging out, on orders from king Manasseh the tree was cut down and Isaiah died when the executioner’s wooden saw – a saw for cutting wood not made of wood – reached his unclean lips.7 These fragments of fictional biography, which represent Isaiah as a martyr, are deduced, or fortified, by one biblical verse, the statement that Manasseh shed much innocent blood in Jerusalem which, for the midrashist, included Isaiah’s blood (2 Kgs 21:16). They incidentally illustrate the genius of the Midrash for generating new narrative out of old.8 The story of Isaiah’s last days is presented much earlier and in more cohesive form in The Martyrdom of Isaiah. This account is preserved as one part (chapters 1:1–3:12 and 5:1–16) of the Christian Ascension of Isaiah in Ethiopic, but The Martyrdom is acknowledged to be of Jewish origin, drawing on sources which antedate Christianity. It begins with Isaiah in the presence of kings 3  James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 2 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1985), 385. 4  Pirke deRav Eliezer 118; LevR 6:6; bMeg 10b. 5  Pirke deRav Eliezer 14:4; 125. 6  bSanh 103b. 7  bYev 49b, cf. ySan 10:2. 8  More on these traditions in Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1946) 6:370–76; Gary C. Porton, “Isaiah and the Kings: the Rabbis on the Prophet Isaiah” in Craig C. Broyles/Craig A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Volume II (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 693–716.



Late Biographical Traditions

27

Hezekiah and Manasseh predicting his martyrdom at the hands of the latter. Inspired by Beliar, Manasseh persecutes Isaiah and his disciples who flee first to Bethlehem, then into the wilderness. Their whereabouts being discovered by Belkira, a false Samaritan prophet, Isaiah is brought to trial and accused of blasphemy in prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and of calling Jerusalem Sodom. While being sawn in two with the wood saw, the prophet is mocked by Belkira. After instructing his disciples to leave Jerusalem, he gives up the ghost.9 The legend of Isaiah’s trial and execution, together with the accusations levelled against him, were well known in both Jewish and Christian circles by the first century ce.10 Josephus’ account of Isaiah is as interesting for what it omits as for what it includes. He reproduces none of the denunciations and condemnations and there are no dealings of the prophet with Ahaz, whose cultic innovations would have displeased Josephus. Isaiah’s reputation also suffers by contrast with Hezekiah, of high repute in rabbinic tradition and even elevated to messianic status in a saying of Hillel II (bSanh 99a). The Josephus who defected to the Romans was, predictably, unenthusiastic about Hezekiah’s resistance to the imperial power of his day, and Josephus even accuses him of cowardice for sending three of his officers to parley with the Assyrians instead of going and doing it himself (Ant. 10:5).11

9 On The Martyrdom, consult Robert H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah translated from the Ethiopic Version (London: SPCK, 1917); Michael A. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah”, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 2 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1985), 143–76; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: Volume III, revised and edited by Geza Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1986), 335–41. David Flusser’s ingenious argument for the origin of this text in the Qumran community has won little support. See his article “The Apocryphal Book of Ascensio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect”, IEJ 3 (1953), 34–47. More probably it is to be placed among the Maccabean martyrologies (Dan 3 and 6; 2 Macc. 6:18–7:42). 10 Hebr 11:37; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 120:5; Tertullian, De Patientia 14; Origen, Homilies in Isaiah I:5. For other references see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: Volume 3, revised and edited by Geza Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1986), 337–40. The parallels between the martyrdom of Isaiah and the death of Jesus are impressive. Accused of blasphemy, of having seen God, both remain silent. Isaiah is accused of being greater than Moses and Jesus is charged with claiming to be greater than Abraham. Both use the metaphor of a drinking cup for their sufferings and suffer thirst while dying, both were mocked in their final agony and Satan is assigned a role in both their deaths. Both, finally, instruct their disciples to leave Jerusalem. 11  Josephus deals with the reign of Ahaz in Ant. 9:243–57 and that of Hezekiah in Ant. 10:12–34. See Christopher T. Begg, “The Classical Prophets in Josephus’ Antiquities”, Louvain Studies 13 (1988), 348–51; Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Isaiah”, Craig C. Broyles/ Craig A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition: Volume 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 583–608.

28

3  The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah

Jesus ben Sira and Chronicles on Isaiah Moving closer to the biblical period, Jesus ben Sira writes about Isaiah exclusively in association with Hezekiah, one of only three kings whom he deems worthy of mention (Sir 49:4). Here, too, Isaiah is presented as wonderworker, healer, and foreteller of the future (48:17–25). About two centuries earlier, the author of Chronicles recounts the history of the reign of Ahaz but in doing so replaces Isaiah with another prophet, a certain Oded whose preaching to the northern Israelites saved Judah from total disaster (2 Chr 28:1–27). The Chronicler’s account of Hezekiah’s reign is quite puzzling (2 Chr 29–32). Hezekiah’s religious reforms are rehearsed in mind-numbing detail and only then the author mentions preparations for the defence of the city including securing its water supply (32:1–8). After the Assyrians are thwarted through the combined prayers of Hezekiah and Isaiah (32:20–33) – this being the only mention of Isaiah – the king falls sick, prays again, receives a sign and recovers without Isaiah’s assistance. Remarkably, responsibility for the future destruction of Jerusalem is attributed not to Manasseh, as in 2 Kings 21, but to Hezekiah. Manasseh, in fact, is said to have undergone a religious conversion with the result that he ended his reign as almost a model ruler, prayerful, humble, and obedient to prophetic guidance (2 Chr 33:10–20). At any rate, in these traditions Hezekiah is centrestage and Isaiah’s role is marginal. He is compensated, however, by being assigned the role of historian (2 Chr 32:32).

Isaiah and Other Prophets as Authors This brief survey of the development of a biographical or proto-biographical tradition about Isaiah, traced in reverse chronological order, takes us back to the problem with which we began: the existence within the book of two apparently irreconcilable prophetic profiles, the Isaiah of the discourses and the Isaiah of the narratives. With respect to the discourses, we would have to say that Isaian authorship is weakly attested. In his capacity as author Isaiah is named only in three titles (1:1; 2:1; 13:1), probably added long after the time of the “historical Isaiah”, the third of which introduces a pronouncement against Babylon which all admit to be pseudonymous. The title of the book as a whole, “Isaiah’s Vision”, is also the title of one of the sources of the Chronicler writing in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period (2 Chr 32:32).12 A late date is also suggested by the 12  Obadiah and Nahum have the same title, hāzôn (vision), and Sir 48:22 also refers to Isaiah’s vision (horasis). The term hāzôn occurs predominantly in late texts (seven times in Ezekiel, twelve times in Daniel) and seems to have undergone a semantic expansion, eventually coming to mean something like “revelation”, a point made by Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 13.



Isaiah and Other Prophets as Authors

29

reference in Isaiah 1:1 and 2:1 to “Judah and Jerusalem”, in the order standard in the later period (2 Chr 11:14; 20:17; 24:6, 8; Ezra 9:9; 10:7) but in the reverse order in sayings deemed to be of early date (Isa 3:1, 8; 5:3; 22:21). Furthermore, the six individuals who bear the name Isaiah in biblical texts are all from the time of the Second Temple. Three of the six are Levites and one of these three is a temple musician who, in his official capacity as temple singer and performer, is described as “prophesying.” One is a descendant of David. The name also occurs in the Elephantine papyri and on two seals of uncertain origin.13 Attestation as weak as this would arouse suspicion with any ancient text, and doubts will not be dispelled by the considerable amount of overlap between Isaiah 1–35 and the Book of the Twelve. A detailed demonstration is not possible in this essay, but I am convinced it would reveal a high level of fluidity in assigning discourses to individual names in the Dodekapropheton. The artifice is particularly in evidence towards the end of this literary construct where adjustments had to be made and an additional prophetic persona invented, that is, Malachi,14 in order to attain the number twelve, representative of twelve-tribal Israel.15 But indeterminacy and fluidity are not confined to this last section of the compilation, and Malachi may not be the only name created ad hoc for inclusion in the Twelve. It is beginning to look as if Isaiah 1–39 is closer to the Twelve than it is to Jeremiah and Ezekiel.16 The narrative passage in which Isaiah acts out the defeat and humiliation of the Egyptians by Sargon II by walking naked through the city, perhaps accompanied by followers (Isa  20:1–6 cf.  Mic  1:8), is closely connected with the History, and suggests that Judah was involved to some degree in the Philistine revolt against Assyria in 713–711 bc. The passage opens with the annalistic formula for a military campaign that is standard in the History, a formula which consists in a temporal indication followed by the name of the aggressor who approaches, fights against, and captures the place in question.17 The passage also contains turns of phrase common in the History but rare in Isaiah.18 But the clearest indication that this narrative originated in the History is that Isaiah is referred to as “the servant of YHWH” (“my servant Isaiah”, Isa 20:3), since this is 13  1 Chr 3:21; 25:3, 15; 26:25; Ezra 8:7, 19; Neh 11:7. For the Elephantine papyri, see AP 5:16; 8:33; 9:21; Arthur Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967 [1923]), 11 and for the seals: Nahman Avigad, “The Seal of Yesha῾yahu”, IEJ 13 (1963), 324. 14 From Mal 3:1, “Behold I send my messenger (mal᾽ākî). 15  The formation of the Twelve and the significance of duodecimal symbolism are discussed in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1977), 96–123. 16 It is worthwhile recalling that bBaba Batra 14b–15a lists Isaiah after Jeremiah and Ezekiel and immediately before the Twelve. 17  1 Kgs 14:25–26; 2 Kgs 12:18; 15:29; 16:5; 18:9, 13; 24:10; 25:1. 18  The temporal phrase bā῾ēt hahî᾽ (“at that time”) occurs at numerous places in the History and once only in Isaiah, in a prose addition (18:7).

30

3  The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah

the standard designation for the prophetic office in the Deuteronomistic corpus but in this form is otherwise absent from the book of Isaiah. We come now to the longest narrative passage in the book, one which runs roughly parallel with the corresponding section of the History (Isa  36–39; 2 Kgs 18–20). Only here is Isaiah referred to as a prophet (37:2; 38:1; 39:3). It contains four incidents in which Isaiah was involved: 1) A solicited intervention during Sennacherib’s campaign in Judah (Isa 36:21– 37:7). 2) An unsolicited intervention under the same circumstances (Isa  37:21–35; 2 Kgs 19:20–34). 3) Isaiah heals the king and works a miracle (Isa 38:1–8, 21–22; 2 Kgs 20:1–11). 4) Isaiah predicts exile in Babylon (Isa 39:1–8; 2 Kgs 20:12–19) The first two appear to be alternative accounts of the same incident. The Assyrian generalissimo makes two harangues (Isa 36:4–20; 37:10–13) in which the same cities conquered by the Assyrians are mentioned (36:19; 37:12–13); Isaiah pronounces similar predictions in both occasions (37:2–7, 37:21–35), and Hezekiah visits the temple twice (37:1; 37:14–20). That Isa 36–39 has been copied into the book of Isaiah from the History has been questioned,19 but the arguments for the priority of the account in the History seem to me to be decisive. (1) The promise made to Hezekiah of fifteen additional years of life (Isa 38:5) is calculated on the basis of data in the History according to which Hezekiah reigned for twentynine years and the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem took place in the fourteenth year of his reign (2 Kgs 18:2, 13); (2) Consulting a prophet who gives good news for the short term and bad news for the more distant future (Isa 37:2–4; 39:5– 8) corresponds to a pattern in the History. In 1 Kings 11:31–36 the prophet is Ahijah; in 2 Kings 22:11–20 it is Huldah, the Hebrew Cassandra. (3) Isaiah 7:1 has certainly been taken over from the History (2 Kgs 16:5) and we have seen that the Deuteronomistic character of Isaiah 20:1–6, which is not in the History, is beyond reasonable doubt. But the connection between 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39 is not a simple matter of the derivation of the one from the other. The account of the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem as recorded in the History – known to contemporary scholarship as version B – is inconsistent with the historically much more plausible account of the submission of Hezekiah recorded in 2 Kings 18:14–16 – known as version A. The reader cannot help asking how Hezekiah, having handed over all his treasure to Sennacherib, even stripping gold from the temple (2 Kgs 18:14–16), would have had anything left to display 19  Klaus A. D. Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: the Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii”, OTS 24 (1986), 70–93; Jacques Vermeylen, “Hypothèses sur l’origine d’Isaïe 36– 39”, in Jacques Van Ruiten/Marc Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997), 95–118; Hugh G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 189–94.



Isaiah and Other Prophets as Authors

31

to the Babylonian envoys whose visit is reported later in version B (2 Kgs 20:13; Isa 39:2). Hence it appears that version B, including the legends about Isaiah, has been inserted into the History from some other source. But there is a further complication. Even a cursory reading of the miraculous deliverance in version B will show that the author was familiar with, and has drawn on Isaian sayings as they existed at the time of writing. The Rabshakeh’s bragging about Assyrian conquests parallels Isaiah  10:8–14 and mentions some of the same cities. The low opinion of Egypt as an ally (“a splintered reed which will gouge the hand that relies on it”, Isa 36:6) reflects the frequent polemic against an Egyptian alliance in the sayings.20 Finally, in asking the Judaean officials sarcastically about the source of their confidence, the Rabshakeh touches on one of the most basic themes in the first section of Isaiah (chapters 1–35). In the book of Isaiah, therefore, we have a series of legends about a man of God who performs sign-acts, intercedes, heals, works miracles, and predicts the future. These legends21 probably represent a selection of such material in circulation in later times about the prophets of old. We even find a legend about Sennacherib’s invasion of Egypt in Herodotus according to which, in answer to prayer, the mice gnawed through the Assyrian bowstrings, leaving their owners helpless in battle. His account ends, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, with a grateful people erecting a statue to the Pharaoh holding a mouse in his hand (Histories 2:141). Some of the Isaian legenda were incorporated into the History with appropriate editorializing and, at a later time, into the book of Isaiah. Since the author of these narrative pieces was familiar with sayings of Isaiah, it seems that they were inserted to create a prophetic profile and a model of prophet-ruler relationship quite different from the figure behind the sayings and the frequently adversarial relationship of that figure to the ruler and his officials. To demonstrate that the difference between these two profiles is irreconcilable and not merely perspectival, I invite consideration of the prophetic diatribe in Isaiah 28–33. It is common in the modern period for commentators to read the threats and dire predictions in these chapters against the background of the early period of Hezekiah’s reign (705–701 bc). Reciprocal hostility between ruler and prophet is implacable. The leaders, civic and religious, are lacking in judgement, cynical, rebellious, and addicted to false cults.22 Their plans and schemes will end in defeat and death, since Yahweh himself is responsible for the dangers threatening Jerusalem (29:1–4). Hezekiah is not named, but he must be included among the leaders who were making a covenant with death (28:14–22), and it is impossible that negotiations with Egypt were going on without his knowledge and consent. In fact, one text speaks of his envoys on the way to Egypt (30:4). 20 

Isa 19:1–7; 20:1–6; 30:1–5; 31:1–3. use the term in the classical sense of legenda, which leaves open the question of their historical content. 22  Isa 28:7–11; 29:1–4, 9–10, 13–16; 30:1–7; 31:1–3. 21  I

32

3  The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah

Then, towards the end of this section of the book, we hear about an individual who violated the treaty and despised its witnesses (33:8). Here, too, we must consider the probability that the author is condemning Hezekiah’s violation of his vassal oath to the Assyrian overlord, an oath that would have been made with appeal to Yahweh as a witness.23

The Absence of the Canonical Prophets from the History How, then, are we to explain the presence in one and the same book of irreconcilably different presentations of Isaiah as prophet and of the prophetic role vis-à-vis the ruler? We may make some headway by taking another look at the much discussed Prophetenschweigen problem, that is, the problem of the almost complete absence from the History (1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings) of the prophets to whom books are attributed.24 Jeremiah is conspicuous by his absence from the History, even though the last chapter of the History serves as an appendix to the book of Jeremiah and the sayings in the book have been extensively rewritten to align Jeremiah with Deuteronomistic ideas about prophecy.25 The first of several indications of this “make-over” is Jeremiah’s commissioning for a fortyyear ministry, thus aligning him with Moses, the Deuteronomic proto-prophet. Amos, active during the reign of Jeroboam II in the middle years of the eighth century, is also absent from the History. In the book assigned to him he predicted the violent end of Jeroboam and ensuing exile (Amos 7:10–17), but in the Historian’s account of the reign Jeroboam is the saviour of his people, and the only prophet mentioned is Jonah ben Amittai, who supported the dynasty and even offered king Jeroboam religious justification for his expansionist campaigns in restoring the original borders of the kingdom and is therefore a quite different kind of prophet from Amos (2  Kgs  14:23–29). In the course of this brief account the author quite unexpectedly insists that “Yahweh had not said that he would blot out Israel’s name from under heaven” (2 Kgs 14:27). The statement is 23 Compare Ezekiel’s denunciation of Zedekiah for violating the covenant (běrît) and spurning the oaths sworn in the name of YHWH to Nebuchadrezzar, and doing so by appealing for help to Egypt (Ezek 17:11–19). 24  There is practically no overlap between the canonical series of fifteen prophets and the prophets who feature in the History. The list consists in the following: Ahijah of Shiloh, Shemaiah, Jehu ben Hanani, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah ben Imlah, Jonah, Isaiah, Huldah. The Jeremiah son of Hamutal mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah is a different individual (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:18). The issue is discussed by Klaus Koch, “Das Prophetenschweigen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk”, in Jörg Jeremias/Lothar Perlitt (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walther Wolff (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 115–28; Christopher Begg, “The Non-Mention of Amos, Hosea and Micah in the Deuteronomistic History”, BN 32 (1986), 41–53. 25  Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Oslo: Kristiania, 1914).



Once Again, Isaiah and the History

33

clearly polemical, and the reference to something Yahweh had said indicates polemic against a prophetic pronouncement of doom, and the only prophet apart from Jonah ben Amittai active at that time was Amos, who did make such a pronouncement rejected by the Historian.26 A final example: Micah issued an equally categoric prediction of doom on Jerusalem: “Because of you (the ruling class), Zion will be a ploughed field, Jerusalem will be a heap of ruins, and the temple mountain will be become a wooded height” (Micah 3:12). About a century later, Jeremiah’s life was saved by a timely citing of this statement in the course of Jeremiah’s trial for prophesying falsely. Micha’s oracle was in these changed circumstances interpreted not as an unequivocal announcement of disaster, which it surely was, but as a call to repentance addressed to king Hezekiah and accepted by him (Jer 26:16–19). We may recall that Jonah’s announcement of the destruction of Nineveh underwent the same transformation.

Once Again, Isaiah and the History The argument may be summarized as follows. The Historian (i. e. the author or authors of the Deuteronomistic History) omitted mention of prophets to whom books are assigned not because these books were written by Second Temple scribes and therefore not in existence at the time the History was written, and not because they were in existence then but unknown to the Historian,27 but because they were not in agreement with the ideology inscribed in the History, either on account of their remorseless criticism of the political and religious ruling class or their predictions of doom. What is central in the History is not prophecy in itself, but the evaluation of the rulers of both kingdoms to which prophecy had to be brought into conformity. Thus, in the kingdom of Judah, Ahaz is a reprobate since he submitted to Assyria and carried out reprehensible cultic changes while his successor Hezekiah is a figure of heroic proportions since he carried out a reform of public worship, frequented the temple, prayed, and revolted against Assyria with spectacular success  – whether he was personally responsible for the success or not. The Historian therefore ends with a perhaps theologically inspired alternating pattern of good and bad rulers: Ahaz bad, Hezekiah good, Manasseh bad, Josiah good. The alternation incidentally served to illustrate the Deuteronom(ist)ic rejection of intergenerational moral accountability.28 26  “The end has come upon my people Israel” (Amos 8:2), “I will destroy it from the face of the earth” (9:8). Note the scribal addition to this quite categoric statement: “– except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, says Yahweh.” 27 This was the opinion of Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (3rd ed., Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1967), 97–98; id., The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 86. 28  Deut 24:16; 2 Kgs 14:6, cf. Ezek 18:5–20.

34

3  The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah

We may detect one aspect of this Deuteronomistic reinterpretation of the past at work in the account of the visit of ambassadors from Merodach-Baladan II of Babylon to the Judaean court during Hezekiah’s convalescence (2 Kgs 20:12–19; Isa 39:1–8). Since the revolt of Merodach-Baladan II was crushed two years before Sennacherib’s punitive expedition in Judah, such a visit after that event is historically implausible. We have seen that, according to the historically reliable version A (2 Kgs 18:14–16), Hezekiah had just handed over all his gold and silver to the Assyrians and would therefore not have had much to put on display for the visitors. If therefore such a visit took place it would make sense only in connection with overtures aiming at an anti-Assyrian alliance and Hezekiah’s wish to demonstrate that he was a credible coalition partner. Here, therefore we see a Deuteronomistic writer engaged in exonerating Hezekiah from responsibility for an alliance with the detested Babylonians, and therefore from responsibility for the disasters that Babylon would inflict on Judah about a century later. One final hermeneutical consideration. I read Deuteronomy and associated writings as the first systematic attempt to impose an orthodoxy and a prescriptive reconstruction of the nation’s past in keeping with the Deuteronomistic ideology. Prophecy had to be brought into line with this ideology and this understanding of the past, and the alignment was effected by redescription, reinterpretation, omission and, with Isaiah, neutralization by addition. It may be going too far to claim that these Deuteronomists were the first to impose a canon, but the relation of this school to prophecy, and Isaiah in particular, provides an occasion to reflect on the nature of canonicity. We cannot without wilful naiveté concede exclusive privilege to “the final form” of the texts without regard for the tensions inherent in these texts and the questions which their juxtaposition with one another and their reciprocal relations generate. Normativity is not a straightforward concept, for there are tensions within what counts as normative, and it is part of our task as readers of these texts to expose them and take them seriously. This, it seems to me, is the best critical and theological justification for the occasionally maligned historical-critical method as applied to the biblical texts, especially those which speak with the voice of prophecy, including and preeminently the book of Isaiah.

4

Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background Prophecy and International Politics In the section on Prophecy in his Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Max Weber identified a concern with social injustice as a major characteristic of Israelite prophecy. Viewed as a religious issue, social injustice within Israel served to explain why the wrath of the God of Israel was inflicted on his people, and why that came about more often than not through the agency of foreign nations. Weber therefore drew the further conclusion that “the primary concern of the prophets was with foreign politics, chiefly because it constituted the theater of their god’s activities.1” The prophets, he continued, communicated their urgent message about social justice and injustice by means of vital, emotional preaching delivered either orally or in written form. In his study of Ancient Judaism, unfinished at his untimely death in 1920, Weber observed that the Israelite prophets to whom books are attributed would have appeared to their contemporaries as political demagogues or pamphleteers, and that this was a kind of prophecy which would not have been tolerated in the great Near Eastern empires contemporary with the prophets of Israel.2 One illustration of this last point which comes to mind is the execution, some would say martyrdom, of the Judaean diaspora prophets Ahab ben Kolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah for speaking out against oppression under the Babylonian empire ruled by Nebuchadnezzar II (Jer 29:21–23). Weber’s thesis is supported by the abundance of polemic in the prophetic collections against foreign nations, in the first place the great empires – Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Seleucid and, eventually, Roman. The category “oracles against foreign nations”, including those against the aforementioned imperial powers, is attested in most of the prophetic books beginning with Amos and 1  Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der Verstehenden Soziologie (4th ed., Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1956). For the English translation, see id., Economy and Society, translated and edited by Guenther Roth/Claus Wittich (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), 439–51. 2  Max Weber, Ancient Judaism, translated and edited by Hans H. Gerth/Don Martindale (London: Collier Macmillan & New York: The Free Press, 1952), 267–69. Weber did not understand “demagogue” in the commonly accepted pejorative sense; he used the term of one who espouses a cause and promotes it by addressing people in a public place, citing Socrates as an example. On Weber’s understanding of Israelite prophecy see Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (2nd ed., Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 34–36.

36

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

including Isaiah, as we shall see.3 The attitude towards empire was not, however, uniformly negative; witness the different positions and strategies vis-à-vis the Babylonian empire during the period preceding the fall of Jerusalem in 586 bc. The party in favor of actively pursuing independence from vassal status by open revolt is referred to in Jeremiah and the historical record as “the people of the land” (῾am hā᾽āres), the same party which had put Josiah on the throne after killing the conspirators who had assassinated Amon his father (2  Kgs  21:23– 24), and who some years later assured the succession of his son Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:30). These ardent nationalists and supporters of the dynasty were in alliance with prophets in Judah like Hananiah ben Azzur, who made a highrisk and unsuccessful prophecy of independence from Babylon within two years but then died following a successful prophecy of his death by Jeremiah (Jer 28). There were prophets of the same persuasion in the Babylonian diaspora denounced by Jeremiah (Jer 29:8–9), including the two mentioned earlier executed by Nebuchadrezzar. After the conquest of Jerusalem sixty of these nationalistic “people of the land” were among the first to be executed by the Babylonian general Nabuzaradan (2  Kgs  25:19–21), thus confirming that they formed a recognizable faction. Opposition to revolt was led by the powerful family of Shaphan, a high official during the reign of Josiah, a position acknowledged gratefully by the Babylonians when Shaphan’s grandson Gedaliah was appointed governor of the Babylonian province of Judah, perhaps as vassal king, a few years after the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:22–26; Jer 40:5–6). Jeremiah was the spokesman for this faction, no doubt regarded by their opponents as the party of appeasement and collaborators with the Babylonian conquerors (2 Kgs 24–25; Jer 37–44). As a codicil to Weber, let us add that Babylon as the centre of the Babylonian empire and residence of its powerful gods is reflected in the Genesis Tower of Babel story, a mythicized version of the building of the city and its temple Esagila with its temple tower or ziggurat (Gen 11:1–9). The story is perhaps dependent on the account of the founding of Babylon (Babel) in the epic enuma elish (VI 60–62), but the Genesis version cleverly uses the phenomenon of linguistic differentiation as symbolic of non-communication, dispersion, and collapse – in other words, a critique of empire. In real time, the establishment of the city was the work of Sargon I, founder of the dynasty of Akkad in the twentyfourth century bc. In the biblical account of origins his counterpart is Nimrod in the land of Shinar (i. e. Babylonia), the proto-imperialist and mighty hunter before the Lord (Gen 10:8–12), according to rabbinic tradition the ruler under whom the builders of the city and tower worked. 3  Amos 1–2: Syria, Philistia, Phoenicia, Edom, Ammon, Moab; Obadiah: Edom; Nahum: Assyria; Zephaniah: Philistia, Moab, Nubia; Jeremiah 46–51: Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Syria, Kedar, Hazor, Elam, Babylon; Isaiah 13–23: Babylon, Philistia, Moab, Syria, Egypt, Phoenicia; Ezekiel 25–32: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Phoenicia, Egypt.

Oracles in Isaiah 13–23



37

Babylon in Isaiah 1–39 Babylon is first named in chapters 1–39, the first major section of the book, in a series of ten prophetic oracles against foreign and hostile peoples (chapters 13–23). The series is divided into two pentads, in both of which the first of the five deals with imperial Babylon as the successor to imperial Assyria (13:1–22; 21:1–10). A mocking lament for the death of a king of Babylon and his arrival in the Underworld  – a somewhat unsubtle case of schadenfreude  – has been added to the first of these (14:1–23). Chapters 1–39 end with an account of a visit of a Babylonian delegation from Merodach Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina) of Babylon to Hezekiah in Jerusalem. The apparent purpose of the visit was to convey the friendly greetings of the Babylonian king, then a vassal of Assyria, to his Judaean counterpart. The visit ends with Isaiah’s prediction of exile in Babylon (39:3–8), which then serves to link with the prophetic announcement of return from exile in the following section of the book.

Oracles in Isaiah 13–23 It is commonly accepted that Isaiah 13–23 forms a distinct section of the book, “a single large unit constructed intentionally by a redactor.”4 Immediately preceding it, the psalm in Isa 12:1–6 rounds off the first sub-section of the book, and the series of sayings against foreign peoples, each bearing the title maśśā᾽ (“oracle”), is confined to Isa  13–23, the only exception anywhere in the book of Isaiah being Isa  30:6, an oracle dealing with something entirely different  – lions, snakes, donkeys and camels in the Negev. The distinctive character of Isaiah 13–23 is somewhat obscured by the profusion of eschatological additions in both chapters 13–23 and chapters 24–27 introduced with the familiar incipit “on that day” or something similar.5 On the other hand, the only foreign nation mentioned in Isa 24–27, a section often referred to as “the Isaian Apocalypse”, is Moab (25:10b–11), but it is not presented as a distinct oracle.6 The oracle series is set out in two groups of five, both beginning with an anti-Babylonian oracle. The first pentad begins with Babylon and ends with Egypt (Isa 19:1–15), the second begins with a saying bearing the textually uncertain title maśśā᾽ midbar-yām, concluding with the prediction by an unnamed ecstatic prophet of the imminent 4 

Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 1–2. Isaiah 13–23: 13:9; 17:4, 7, 9; 18:17; 19:16, 18, 19, 23, 24; 22:5, 8, 12, 20, 25; in Isaiah 24–27: 24:21; 25:9; 26:1; 27:1, 6, 12, 13. 6  The title “Isaian Apocalypse” seems to go back to Bernhard Duhm who remarked that Isaiah may as well have written the book of Daniel as Isaiah 24–27. See Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 172. 5 In

38

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

fall of Babylon (Isa 21:1–10).7 To the first oracle is attached an assurance of the return of Judaeans exiled in Babylon, not surprisingly since their repatriation depended on the overthrow of Babylon and with it the Babylonian empire. There follows a poem celebrating the fall of an unnamed tyrant (14:3–23). The description of this tyrant would apply to any one of several rulers during the NeoAssyrian period, and may in fact have applied originally to one or other of them, but if so it must have been seen to fit a king of Babylon, most probably the great Nebuchadrezzar II, conqueror of Jerusalem. The prediction of the defeat and undoing of the Assyrians in YHWH’s land, following the Babylon oracle and the arrival of the king of Babylon in the Underworld (14:24–27), unaccountably breaks into the carefully structured oracle series and is chronologically out of place. It will bring to mind the account in Isaiah 36–37 of the failure of the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib to subdue Jerusalem, his withdrawal to his own country, and his death at the hands of his sons. But then we go on to note that the following saying, against the Philistines (14:28–31), is also set in the Assyrian period, specifically in the year of the death of king Ahaz (715 bc). The same for the other oracles in the first pentad of the series: Moab (15:1–16:11), necessarily involved in all Assyrian campaigns to the west; Damascus (17:1–3), part of the Assyrian province of Samerina since 722; Egypt (19:1–15), the most formidable opponent of the Assyrians to the west and partner in anti-Assyrian rebellions. All these oracular statements presuppose the Neo-Assyrian rather than the Neo-Babylonian period, thereby permitting the hypothesis that a first series of oracles dealing with Judah’s relations with other nations during the ascendancy of Assyria was expanded and updated during or after the rise and relatively brief duration of Babylonian imperial rule (626– 539 bc). The change was brought about by simply adding oracular statements about Babylon at the beginning of both halves of the series (Isa 13:1–22; 19:1– 15). It was, after all, Babylon rather than Nineveh which became the paradigm of imperial hubris especially after the conquest of Jerusalem, and remained so until supplanted by Rome.8 The message conveyed by this structuring of the oracle series is that there is no essential difference between Assyrians and Babylonians. Both are empires which, like all empires throughout history, embody injustice on a massive scale, in the first place by denying freedom to other peoples, a 7  On the face of it, the title translates as “the wilderness of the sea” but other interpretations are on offer. Since the oracle goes on to encourage Elamites and Medes to attack an unnamed city and the passage ends with the announcement of the imminent fall of Babylon, the title may be an attempt to translate the Akkadian mat tam-tim or kur tam, the Sealand, the region inhabited by Chaldean tribes near the Persian Gulp, including the island of Bahrain, now known as Shatt al Arab, home to the Marsh Arabs. 8  Though not of imperial dimensions, Edom served as an interim object of opprobrium, apparent in the fierce anti-Edomite rhetoric in Isa 34:1–17 and 63:1–6. Its role is acknowledged in the Targum on the anti-Edomite poem in Isa 34:9: “The streams of Rome shall be turned into pitch.”



The Oracle on Babylon: Isaiah 13:1–22

39

message easily understood in our post-colonial epoch. One important difference should, however, be mentioned. It appears that the Babylonians did not continue the Assyrian practice of cross-deportation, hence Jerusalem did not share the fate of Samaria whose population was, to a considerable extent, replaced by foreign peoples (2 Kgs 17:24), thereby excluding the possibility of an eventual return. On the other hand Judah, as a vassal of Babylon, was shielded from the further expansion of Edomites to the south, well underway by the reign of Nebuchadrezzar.9

The Oracle on Babylon: Isaiah 13:1–22 The first of the oracles predicting disaster for Babylon consists in four stanzas (vv. 2–5, 6–8, 9–15, 16–22) only the first and last of which deal with real or imagined historical events, and only the last showing identifiable names: Medes, Babylon, Chaldaeans, Arabs. The second and third stanzas present a vivid scenario of the end time, the “day of YHWH”, prefigured in the fall of Babylon in much the same way as the final consummation is prefigured in the fall of Jerusalem in the eschatological discourse of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 24 and parallels). In Isaiah 13, the fall of Babylon is an event of cosmic significance; as John Skinner put it, “the air is alive with the demon cries of havoc and war.”10 The final stanza has generally been understood to refer to the conquest of Babylon by the Persian Cyrus II in October 539 bc, but there are problems. First, there is no record of the Medes, who certainly qualify as coming from “a distant land, a far horizon” (v. 5), taking part in the conquest. In the second place, the account of what happened to the city  – depopulation, ecological degradation, a return to nature as the haunt of wild animals and satyrs, which are goat-like creatures of corrupt intelligence and malevolent will – is inconsistent with what we know from our primary sources, namely the Cyrus Cylinder, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Verse Account of the reign of Nabonidus. These indispensable sources attest to a low-key entry of the Persian troops into Babylon supported by influential elements of the Marduk priesthood, followed by continuity of rule under Cambyses, son of Cyrus.11To this situation the Greek-language sources 9  Elias Bickerman probably had Edom in mind in writing as follows: “If Jerusalem had not been part of a Gentile empire, the nomads would have driven the Jews into the sea or swallowed up Palestine, and the rock of Zion would have been the foundation of an Arabian sanctuary a thousand years before Omar’s mosque.” Elias Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Post-Biblical Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1962 [1949], 10. 10  John Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters I–XXXIX (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 114. 11  On the sources see Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556– 539 B. C. (NewHaven/London: Yale University Press, 1989), 291–32; Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c 3000–330 B. C., Volume 2 (London/New York: Routledge, 1995), 656–61; Pierre

40

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

add little of value.12 However, Medes are often linked with and sometimes confused with Persians. According to Daniel 9:1, the Persian monarch Darius was born a Mede, and in Jeremiah 51:11, we are told that the spirit of the kings of the Medes were roused to attack and destroy Babylon. As for the lurid description of post-conquest Babylon: it follows a familiar hyperbolic pattern similar to the scenario presented in Jeremiah 50–51, which may have provided the model for Isaiah 13:1–22, and along the same lines as Isaiah 34:5–17 with respect to Edom, both with the same post-disaster animals left in possession – hyenas, ostriches, jackals and wildcats.

Isaiah 14:3–23: The King of Babylon in the Underworld This poem attached to the first of the oracles is called a māšāl (mashal), a figurative and often enigmatic type of composition often translated “parable”. The “parable”, however, is in reality a parodic lament or dirge, indicated by the mandatory initial ᾽êk introducing the two stanzas of the poem (4b, “How the tyrant has come to nothing!”, 12, “How you have fallen from the sky!”). The closest parallels would be the mock lament over the city-state of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:11–19 and the assembly of “great powers” in the Underworld, including Egypt, Assyria and Elam, in Ezekiel 32:17–32. Isaiah 14:3–23 is, in fact, a parody of empire and imperial pretensions. The empire is identified as Babylon only in the brief introduction (14:3–4a) and conclusion (14:22–23), perhaps to leave the poem applicable to any empire at any time in history beginning with Rome. The oppressor referred to in the first line also remains unidentified; the survivors of the obliterating attack on Jerusalem in 586 bc would naturally think of Nebuchadrezzar II who died in 562 bc, but there are other Babylonian rulers fitting the description of the tyrant who “in anger struck down peoples with unerring blows, who in fury trod nations underfoot with relentless persecution” Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, 1 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten/Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayard, 1996), 50–55. For the translated edition, see Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, translated by P. T. Daniels (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 40–44. For easy access to the sources see James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [ANET] (2nd ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 308–16. 12 Xenophon, Cyropaedia VII  5, 20–30 presents Cyrus as a well-educated Hellenic gentleman-turned-soldier; Herodotus, Histories 1:190–191, places the conquest of Babylon in the spring rather than the autumn as in the inscriptions. He reports that it came about by draining the river which flows through the city to make it fordable, a strategy unknown to the Cyrus Cylinder which states that the city opened its gates to the conqueror. Herodotus also says that this was the first time Babylon was besieged and taken, which is certainly mistaken. Josephus, Contra Apion 1:150, mentions a pitched battle between Nabonidus and Cyrus which also contradicts our primary sources, unless he was referring to the battle at Opis on the Tigris.



Isaiah 14:3–23: The King of Babylon in the Underworld

41

(14:6 NEB).13The reaction of the whole earth is a special feature of the poem. The earth relaxes and breaks out into song, and even the pine trees and cedars of Lebanon get to speak, expressing their pleasure that now no one comes to cut them down. We are reminded that the destruction of the Lebanon cedar forest was well under way by the collapse of the Assyrian empire towards the end of the seventh century bc by which time, to take another example, the Syrian elephant had been hunted to extinction. If the Assyrians and Babylonians had been more technologically advanced, they would no doubt have done more damage to the flora and fauna of the Middle East. The dirge comes to its finale with the rousing of the long dead, kings and commoners, from their sleep, and their assembling to greet the newcomer and escort him to his sleeping quarters: you will have maggots for your mattress and worms for your blanket – welcome to the Underworld! The second stanza (14:12–21) uses an old myth, best represented by Phaeton son of Helios the sun god or, in another source, Eos the dawn, who aspired to drive the chariot of Helios, lost control, and was struck by a thunderbolt of Zeus. Like other Greek myths, this one may have borrowed from a Phoenician-Canaanite source reproduced in a Ugaritic text featuring the god Hêlēl son of Shahar (the Dawn), no doubt inspired by the rise of the planet Venus, the morning star, and its rapid disappearance at sunrise. This myth of the fall from grace of a rebellious deity is now recycled to designate the fate of a proud and overbearing ruler of the Babylonian empire. He is described in this stanza as of overweening ambition, striking down all the nations,14 destroying cities, refusing to allow prisoners to return to their homes (17b), ruining his own land, slaying his own people and, finally, being dishonoured in death and cast out of his own grave (14:18–20). This last feature has proved the most stubborn obstacle to identifying the ruler in question. The candidates range from Tiglath-pileser III who also ruled Babylon (died 727) to Nebuchadrezzar II (died 562) and Nabonidus in the Neo-Babylonian period (died 538). My own preference is for Sennacherib (died 681) as the original referent. He was murdered by two of his sons as we learn from an inscribed prism of Esarhaddon his successor and from the biblical record.15 His titulature is especially grandiose, describing himself as king of the universe and the four quarters of the world, his eight campaigns led to the defeat and often the destruction of numerous nations from Asia Minor to the Sealand.16 His assassination, which opened the way for the succession of Esarhaddon, may well have 13  The description of the tyrant in both stanzas is not necessarily to be taken literally. Overstatements are common in these inscriptions; for example, Nebuchadnezzar claims in the Wadi Brisa rock relief in Lebanon to have torn down cedars with his bare hands. 14 Reading kol-gôyîm for ῾al-gôyîm at 14:12b with LXX. 15  For Prism S, see Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, Volume 2 (London: Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd., 1989), 200–201; also 2 Kgs 19:36; Isa 37:37–38. 16 Luckenbill, Ancient Records, 115–59.

42

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

led to the dishonouring of his corpse, though nothing is said of the disposal of his body, or that of any of the other candidates.

Fallen, Fallen is Babylon: Isaiah 21:1–10 This oracle is the first in the second pentad, as noted earlier, and is followed by oracles against Duma (Edom?), Arabia, “the Valley of Vision” and Tyre. In it the seer speaks in his own name in announcing his “grim vision”. The title, “An oracle: the Wilderness of the Sea” is the subject of a great deal of textual emendation and debate.17 As I noted earlier, a reference to the Sealand, the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia, the Shatt al Arab, homeland of Chaldean tribes including the Bît Yakin, seedbed of the royal Babylonian dynasty, is most probably intended. Also, the negeb in Isaiah 21:1 refers to the same region south of the city Babylon rather than the Negev in southern Judah. There are problems also with the unity and continuity of the oracle. The first section, 21:1–4, describes the unsolicited onset of a condition of ecstasy or mental dissociation which is well attested throughout history in many different cultures: bodily discomfort compared to labour pains in childbirth, convulsive movements, rapid heartbeat (cf. Jer 4:19), trembling and a sense of weakness (cf. Hab 3:16). In 21:8–9, however, it is a question of a solicited visionary experience. The seer is a watchman or lookout on his watchtower who is admonished to listen very hard – a quite different situation, therefore.18But rather than viewing this as evidence that Isaiah 21:1–10 is composite, we might read it as follows: the seer has a vision of the attack on Babylon by Elamites and Medes, here as elsewhere meaning probably Persians, which will put an end to a distressful situation for many, including Judaeans forcibly expatriated (vv. 1–4). At this point (v. 5), the seer envisions what is going on meanwhile in the city, reproducing a tradition reported in Daniel 5 about the banquet of Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, at which the participants make sacrilegious use of the sacred vessels from the Jerusalem temple. The tradition appears in more succinct form in Herodotus who informs us that as the Persian army was approaching, “they were dancing and making merry at a festival which chanced to be toward, till they learned the truth only too well” in the city (Hist. 1:191). At this point the seer is told to appoint a lookout and give him his instructions (vv. 6–7). He does so, and 17  Neither LXX to horama tēs erēmou (“the view of the wilderness’) nor 1QIsaa midbar děbārîm (“the wilderness of things/words”) is an improvement. For details, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 323–25. 18  For the prophet as watchman or lookout, a kind of antenna or early warning system for the community in which he functions, see Ezek 3:17; 33:1–9; Isa 52:8; 56:10; Jer 6:17.



Isaiah 36–39

43

the lookout sees messengers approaching in a chariot bringing the good news that Babylon has fallen and its gods, defeated by the God of Israel, lie smashed on the ground (vv. 8–9). The seer then turns and addresses his Judaean contemporaries, who had suffered so much at the hands of the Babylonian empire, using an agrarian image signifying crushing, flailing and pulverizing, which is what empires usually do. Looking back over these oracle we would want to ask: For whom were they written? What was their intended use and function? If they were intended as anti-Babylonian propaganda, among which groups did they circulate? Perhaps a faction like the “people of the land” in the last decades of the monarchy? And how did they circulate? Are they a transcript of pamphlets for the use of demagogues in Weber’s sense of the term or a later written-up version of what the prophet as demagogue had said in public or what someone thought he might have said? We simply do not know the answers to these questions; we can only ask them.

Isaiah 36–39 At some stage in the formation of the book chapters 36–39 were attached to chapters 1–35. This final section contains an account in chapters 36–37, roughly parallel with 2 Kings 18:1–19:38, of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah (715– 687 bce) under mortal threat from an Assyrian punitive expedition. The Assyrian campaign in Judah was probably a reaction to Judah’s participation in the revolt of the Babylonian king Marduk-apla-idinna (Merodach Baladan in 39:1)19, nominally a vassal of Sennacherib, the Assyrian overlord. Isa 36–37 contains two versions of Isaiah’s intervention in public affairs during this punitive campaign of Sennacherib, the first solicited (Isa 36:1–37:7; 2 Kgs 18:17–19:8), the second unsolicited (Isa  37:9–38; 2  Kgs  19:9b–37). The second episode (Isa  38:1–22; 2 Kgs 20:1–11) contains the following incidents: a serious illness of Hezekiah and the prophet’s prediction of imminent death followed soon after by a reprieve of fifteen years; the miracle of the sun’s shadow on the palace steps; and the healing of the king by Isaiah, now in the guise of physician. The final episode (Isa 39:1– 8; 2 Kgs 20:12–19) describes a visit to the king, now convalescent, from envoys sent by Merodach Baladan. The visit was ostensibly to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery; an only slightly more plausible motivation for a journey of almost five hundred miles than scientific curiosity about the sun’s eccentric shadow on the palace steps suggested by the Chronicler (2 Chr 32:31). It is reasonably clear, 19  2 Kgs 20:12 has berodach for Isa 39:1 merodach. The latter is a dysphemistic play on the name of Marduk, principal Babylonian deity, a component of the king’s name, in Akkadian Marduk apla iddina.

44

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

however, that the envoys from Babylon were in Jerusalem to solicit Hezekiah’s participation in another attempt of Merodach Baladan to throw off the Assyrian yoke. The account of the visit ends with Isaiah’s prediction of the deportation and exile of the royal family to Babylon (39:5–7; 2 Kgs 20:16–18). Since we know from the Assyrian record of Sennacherib’s fourth campaign that the revolt of Merodach Baladan took place in 703  bc, about two years before the Assyrian campaign in Judah,20 the account of the visit must have been placed deliberately at the end of chapters 36–39, no doubt to conclude with Isaiah’s prediction of exile (39:5–8), thus linking with the anticipation of return from exile at the beginning of Deutero-Isaiah. We should add that since the narrative of the crisis in chapters 36–37 concludes with Sennacherib breaking camp, returning to Nineveh, and being assassinated by his two sons while at prayer in the temple of Nisroch his god (Isa 37:36–38), it could not have been composed before 682 bc, the year of Sennacherib’s death, maybe even at a later date. Isaiah’s message to Hezekiah assuring him that the Lord of Hosts will save his city and that “from Jerusalem a remnant shall go forth and survivors from Mount Zion” (37:31, 35) will bring to mind passages about Zion as a safe place of refuge protected by the Lord of Hosts (4:2–6; 10:20–27), together with the apostrophes to Zion in Third Isaiah (59:15b–20; 62:1–5), which represent a mature stage in the formation of the Isaian collection.21

Babylon in Isaiah 40–48 Babylon is named four times in Isa 40–48 (43:14; 47:1; 48:14, 20) and Chaldaeans also four times (43:14; 47:15; 48:14, 20), and neither term appears at all in chapters 49–55 and 56–66. Though the fall of Babylon had already been announced in the oracle series discussed in the previous section (Isa 21:8–9), there is a gap of almost a century and a half between the last events recorded or referred to indirectly in chapters 36–39 – the death of Hezekiah in 687 bc (2 Kgs 20:6; Isa 38:5) and that of Sennacherib in 681 bc22 – and the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus II in 539 bc, an event anticipated throughout chapters 40–48. The gap covers a period marked by events of the greatest importance: the fall of Nineveh to the Medes and Chaldaeans (Babylonians) in 612 bc celebrated by the 20 Luckenbill,

Ancient Records, 121–22. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (London: SCM Press, 1967); Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980); Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation: A Critical Reading of Isaiah 39:1–8”, in Yairah Amit et al. (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na᾽aman (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 107–22. 22  The extension of Hezekiah’s life by fifteen years predicted by Isaiah is consistent with, and probably based on the account of the reign in 2 Kgs 18–20 (18:2, 13). For the account in the Assyrian annals, see Luckenbill, Ancient Records, 199–203. 21 



Babylon in the Context of the Theological Politics of Isaiah 40–48

45

prophet Nahum, the relatively rapid decline and fall of Assyria and its empire, and the founding of the Neo-Babylonian empire with the accession to the throne of Nabopolassar in 625 bc. It is especially surprising that there is nothing about the disaster of the fall of Jerusalem, the events leading up to it and the deportations which followed it. Perhaps it may have seemed to contrast too painfully with the rescue of Jerusalem/Zion a little over a century earlier.23 The linkage between chapters 1–39 and 40–48 is therefore made at the literary, but not at all at the historical level. After the addition of Isaiah 36–39 to the book, Isaiah’s prediction of exile during the reign of one of Hezekiah’s descendants (39:5–7) connects with the anticipation of return from exile in Isaiah 40. Absent these four chapters, the theme in Isaiah 35 of the pilgrim highway, the via sacra, creates a more direct link with the call addressed to prophets to prepare a highway for the return of the expatriates.24 But once the temple was destroyed and rendered uninhabitable, their God was exiled with them and returned from exile with them; witness the call at the beginning of the section to prepare “a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3, 9, also 52:8). As strange as this idea of a god being exiled and returning from exile may sound to us today, it fits a pattern well attested at that time; for example: on his famous cylinder, Cyrus claims to have repatriated the gods of Sumer and Akkad, exiled by the impious Nabonidus, by bringing them back to their own cities. On the other hand, Isaiah 46:1–2 maintains that the Babylonian deities Bel and Nebo (Marduk and Nabû) were destined for exile. We see, then, how the rebuilding of the temple and resumption of the temple liturgy was implicit in the anticipation of a return from Babylon.

Babylon in the Context of the Theological Politics of Isaiah 40–48 From the Isaian perspective, the conflict between Judah and the imperial power of Babylon was in the first instance a conflict between deities; hence the polemical tone in evidence throughout this section of the book, the prevalence of rhetorical questions, and the use of judicial genres and terminology. The central issue in these chapters is the claim made by the prophet on behalf of YHWH to 23  For Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 325–28, explaining and coming to terms with the disaster of 586 had to give way to the prospect of a new future full of hope for Jerusalem/Zion. 24  On chapter 35 as a bridge to chapter 40, see Hans Wildberger, Jesaja: 3. Teilband: Jesaja 28–39, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 1330–41; Odil Hannes Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als Redaktionelle Brücke Zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 121 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985). It is well known that Charles Cutler Torrey, one of the enfants terribles of Biblical Studies, argued that chapters 34–35 and 40–60 form one work from one author, a writer of the highest genius. Revisit Charles Cutler Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1928), especially pp. 53–67 and 279–301.

46

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

sponsor the conquests of the Persian king Cyrus II, which would lead to the fall of Babylon to the Persians and the dismantling of the Babylonian empire and therefore to the repatriation of deported Judaeans, the rebuilding of the temple, and the restoration of the temple cult. In the context of that time – let us say from the successful revolt of the Persian tribes led by Cyrus against Astyages king of the Medes in 550 to the fall of Babylon to Cyrus in 539 – the claim may be viewed as a refutation of the commissioning of Cyrus by the Babylonian supreme deity Marduk announced on the propagandistic Cyrus Cylinder: He (Marduk) scanned and looked through all the countries searching for a righteous ruler … He pronounced the name of Cyrus king of Anshan, declaring him to be ruler of all the world … he ordered him to march against his city Babylon.25

The claim is supported in the first place by presenting YHWH God of Judah as cosmic creator and therefore as incomparably superior to the Babylonian gods, including Marduk (Bel), supreme among them. The creation theme is in evidence throughout Isa 40–48, is rare and quite different in emphasis in 49–55, and appears in 56–66 only with reference to the creation of a new heaven and new earth (Isa 65:17).26 In 40–48 the description of creation is at first reading similar enough to the Genesis version (Gen 1:1–2:4a) to convince several scholars that it is dependent on it; an understandable conclusion but one which ignores the differences. Both use the standard creation term bārā᾽, but the Isaian text uses other terms not used by the Genesis version, for example yāsar, characteristic of the alternative Genesis creation narrative (Isa 43:10; 45:7, 9, 18 cf. Gen 2:7, 8, 19), and sûlāh (hapax) in place of těhôm (the Deep, Isa  44:27 cf. Gen  1:2). The scenario is also different in significant respects. A difference of a more substantial theological nature appears in the statement of YHWH in Isa 45:7: I form light and create darkness, I bring about well-being and create woe; It is I, YHWH, who do all these things.

In the P creation narrative, YHWH God separates light from darkness but creates only light while insisting at each stage on the goodness of creation.27 Here, both darkness and light, woe and well-being are created by YHWH. 25 

ANET, 315. On the Cyrus Cylinder and other texts relating to the fall of Babylon see Ilya Gershevitch (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 532–61; Muhammad A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, translated by Willem J. Vogelsang (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 47–53; Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse, 50–55. 26 In Isa 40–48: 40:12–17, 21–22; 43:10; 44:24; 45:9–12, 18; 48:13. In 49–55: 51:9–10 presents the Combat Myth often associated with the creation of the world; 54:5 speaks of YHWH as “God of all the earth” but not in a creation context. On the criticism of images see Michael B. Dick, Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005), 43–67. 27  The creation of both light and darkness is often explained against the background of early



Babylon in the Context of the Theological Politics of Isaiah 40–48

47

The features peculiar to the version of creation in Isaiah 40–48 can best be accounted for as a kind of mirror-imaging of the standard Babylonian mythic and cultic text enuma elish (“When on high …”) recited on the fourth day of the great spring akitu festival. This text, written in seven columns, was composed and recited to the greater glory of Marduk, supreme ruler over the gods and sponsor of the Babylonian imperial enterprise. It presents the creation of the world and its inhabitants as a by-product of conflict among the gods, reflecting in their sphere the violence endemic to imperial rule in the human sphere. It is extremely repetitive, no doubt due to its use in the cult in which repetition is to be expected, but it may be briefly summarized as follows. At the beginning there was only the male deity Apsu, representing the abyss of sweet water, and his female counterpart Tiamat, representing the ocean’s salt water. Their intercourse, the mingling of the waters, produced the other gods. In the course of time these gods rebelled against the rule of Apsu, who decided to kill them because they disturbed his rest. One of them, Ea, god of wisdom, took preemptive action and by the application of magic killed Apsu instead. Tiamat then waged war against the gods to avenge her partner and appointed one of eleven monsters, Kingu, to lead the attack. Terrified, the gods persuaded Marduk, son of Apsu, to lead them, and he agreed to do so on condition of being proclaimed supreme among the gods. Marduk emerged victorious and after a grisly account of the slaying of Tiamat, he created the earth and sky out of her dismembered body and the inhabitants of the earth out of the blood of Kingu. In gratitude to Marduk, the gods built for him the great temple complex Esagila in Babylon with its ziggurat. The story ends with the proclamation of Marduk’s kingship and the recital of his fifty titles.28 In responding to the theology of enuma elish, and therefore to the theology implicit in the akitu festival, the Isaian author rejects, in the first place, the idea of cosmogony as a sequel to theogony, that is, the idea that human beings appear on the scene as actors in a narrative already in progress, one which they do not own and over which they have no control: Before me no god was formed and there will be none after me. (43:10) There is no god apart from me, Zoroastrian doctrine, but it is doubtful whether such a clear formulation can be expected as early as the reign of Cyrus. See Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 342 and, more recently, Tina Dykesteen Nilsen, “The Creation of Darkness and Evil (Isa 45:6C–7)”, RB 115 (2008), 525; Herbert Haag, “‘Ich Mache Heil und Schaffe Unheil’ (Jes 45,7)”, in Josef Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972), 179–85; Michael Deroche, “Isaiah xlv 7 and the Creation of Chaos”, VT 42 (1992), 11–21. 28  For the text of Enuma elish, see Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (2nd ed., Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 1951) and for a summary and commentary H. W. F. Saggs, The Babylonians: A Survey of the Ancient Civilization of the TigrisEuphrates Valley (2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1988).

48

4  Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background

a god who overcomes and saves; there is none but me (45:21).

The incomparability of YHWH God, one of the great themes of Isaiah 40–48 (40:18, 25; 43:11), may be read as a rejection of the same claim made on behalf of Marduk in enuma elish: “No one among the gods can equal him” (VII 14, 88); hence the polemic against the manufacture and veneration of images of deities, a special feature of Isaiah  40–48. We recognize, of course, that this polemic is a deliberate misrepresentation of the place of the cult image in Babylonian religion. Space permits only one example of the mirror-imaging of the Marduk theology in the book of Isaiah. Unlike the Genesis account of creation, in Isaiah  45:7 YHWH creates darkness and woe as well as light and well-being (cf. Deut 32:7). Marduk likewise commands destruction as well as creation (VI 131) but in doing so requires the assistance of the god Ea famous for wisdom. YHWH, on the contrary, acted alone: Who has advised him as his councillor? With whom did he consult to be enlightened? (Isa 40:13–14, cf. enuma elish VI 38).

Queen Babylon Dethroned (Isaiah 47:1–15) We come now to a poem which presents Babylon, capital city of the NeoBabylonian empire, as a queen splendid and proud, adept at the magical arts, but now dethroned, humiliated, and reduced to slavery. The poem has no title, but the 3–2 metre, the “limping measure”, belongs to the category of the lament (qînāh), but in this case obviously a mock lament, either anticipating or celebrating the fall of the city. Division into stanzas of somewhat unequal length is indicated by the imperatives addressed in peremptory fashion to the subject: “get down from your throne” (v. 1), “ sit in silence” (v. 5), “listen to this” (v. 8), “persist in your spells” (v. 12). Feminine personification of cities is quite common, for example with Nineveh (Nah 3:4–7), Sidon (Isa 23:12), Tyre (23:15–16), and of course Zion/Jerusalem. The description of her fate no doubt reflects what only too frequently happened to female prisoners in Babylon’s many brutal wars. Reduced to slavery and to the hard task of grinding meal at the handmill would often be their lot,29 and being exposed naked would have been common, as with the woman Nineveh, also a “mistress of sorcery” (Nah 3:4–5). The fate of Queen Babylon is attributed for the most part to her necromantic and magical practices 29  The verb tāhan (“grind”) can have a sexual connotation. Job swears that if he has ever seduced a woman “let my wife grind for another, and let other men kneel over her” (Job 31:10). The condemnation of Samson to grinding grain in a Philistine prison, a typical task for female slaves, was intended as a kind of symbolic emasculation (Judg 16:21).



A Footnote

49

designed to predict the course of the future and ward off danger.30 The prejudicial nature of these comments is obvious. They should be contrasted with the more balanced attitude to the intellectual culture of Babylon in the story about Daniel and his companions at the court of the great Nebuchadrezzar. After enrolment in a three-year curriculum in “the literature and language of the Chaldaeans” (Dan 1:4–5), they acquired a high level of competence in “every aspect of literature and wisdom” (1:17), not excluding skill in the interpretation of dreams and heavenly phenomena. Though immigrants forcibly expatriated, they were about to profit by an education and culture more ancient and sophisticated than any other in the Near East including that of Israel. In the Isaian context what is most significant about this mock lament is the parallelism in contrasting what is said about Queen Babylon with the Woman Zion. Whereas Babylon is to get down from her throne and sit in the dust, Zion is told to get up from the ground and ascend the throne (52:2). Babylon is forced to expose herself, but Zion is told to put on fine garments (52:1). Babylon is shamed, but for Zion there will be no more shame (54:4). Babylon is now a captive, but Zion, once sold into slavery, is now redeemed from captivity (52:3–6). Babylon is widowed and childless (47:8–9), but Zion has many children.31 If this last analogy is pursued further, it will be seen that Marduk, head of the Babylonian pantheon, is the husband of Queen Babylon; and in fact Marduk’s claim to preeminence and incomparability is echoed by his spouse: “I am, and there is none other” (enuma elish VII 14, 8, cf. Isa 47:10). The claim notwithstanding, her husband was shown to be unable either to give her children or rescue her.

A Footnote As always, many issues remain to be addressed, many questions to be answered. One issue lurking behind those addressed above is what the authors of the different kinds of material in Isaiah really knew about Babylon and the Babylonians, their intellectual, judicial and legal culture, their religious beliefs and rituals, not to mention their long and distinguished history from the time of the great Hammurapi. These questions have generally been reduced to the issue of the location of the authors at the time of writing, whether in Judah or in expatriate communities in Babylonia. This issue is still sub iudice and the arguments cannot be rehearsed here but in any case, the location makes little difference to our understanding of what the Isaian prophets actually have to say about Babylon. 30  The re-use of Isa 21:9 with reference to Rome, the new Babylon, in Rev 14:8 and the more ample development in Rev 18:1–24 dwell on prostitution (porneia) rather than divination and magic. 31  Isa 49:2–21; 54:1–4; 60:4; 66:7–9.

5

Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism? An often-encountered assumption in the study of the Hebrew Bible is that the prophetic author of Isaiah chapters 40–55 and his disciples in Isaiah chapters 56–66, active in the exilic and post-exilic periods, proclaimed for the first time that the knowledge of the one, true God revealed to Israel was to be shared with the nations of the world. It is often added, as a more or less self-evident corollary, that in this respect Second Isaiah provided the model for early Christianity’s openness to the Gentile world.1 The purpose of this essay is not to refute this interpretation of the Isaian texts, though it is by no means self-evidently correct, but to argue towards a more nuanced formulation of the issue and propose a solution in keeping with it.

Isaiah 40–48 Since the end of the eighteenth century critical scholarship has agreed to date Isaiah 40–66 some two centuries later than the time of the original Isaiah named in the first verse of the book. The further distinction between chapters 40–55 and 56–66 was first argued by Bernhard Duhm in his commentary of 1892, though it may have been hinted at and even suggested earlier. The distinction has been almost universally accepted, as also Duhm’s singling out of the four Ebedlieder (“servant songs”) – a curious title since, whatever else they may be, they are not songs. All of this is well known and part of the critical consensus. Like most “assured results of modern scholarship”, however, these conclusions could do with a fresh look from time to time. For one thing, the division between the major sections of the book is not absolute. Chapters 36–39, corresponding to 2 Kgs 18– 20, breaks the connection between chapter 35, which concludes with the vision 1  To mention only some of the older authors: Harold H. Rowley, The Missionary Message of the Old Testament (London: Carey Press, 1955), 65; R. Halas, “The Universalism of Isaias,” CBQ 12 (1950), 162–70; U. E. Simon, A Theology of Salvation (London: SPCK, 1953); Robert Martin-Achard, Israel et les Nations: La Perspective Missionaire de l’Ancien Testament, Cahiers théologiques 42 (Neuchâtel, 1959); Robert Davidson, “Universalism in Second Isaiah”, SJT 16 (1963), 166–85; A. Gelston, “The Missionary Message of Second Isaiah,” SJT 18 (1965), 308–18; Paul-Eugène Dion, “L’ Universalisme Religieux Dans les Différentes Couches Rédactionnelles d’Isaïe 40–55,” Bib 51 (1970), 161–82.



Isaiah 40–48

51

of a joyful return to Zion along a via sacra from Babylon to Zion, and the beginning of Deutero-Isaiah (40:1–5). The break between chapters 40–48 and 49–55 is at least as evident as between 40–55 and 56–66. Chapters 40–48 deal with the political situation created by the conquests of Cyrus and have as their centrepiece his commissioning as the Anointed of the Lord (45:1–7). They begin and end with the theme of exodus from Babylon and return to Zion (40:1–5; 48:20–22). Chapters 49–55, on the contrary, deal with purely internal affairs. We hear no more about Cyrus and the downfall of Babylon, there is no more satire directed at the Babylonian imperial cults, and the language of servants and servanthood is treated in a quite different way.2 As for the third section (56–66), while there are significant new developments, there are also links with the previous chapters and hints of a different structuring of the material: 56:1–5 ends with the same expression as the final verse in 40–55, namely, 55:13, and chapter 57 concludes with the same ending as 40–48: “There can be no well-being for the wicked”3 Finally, if as several commentators have suggested, chapter 55 serves as summary and recapitulation of Deutero-Isaiah, with its return to the same themes as in the first chapter of that section, Deutero-Isaiah would have concluded with a statement of vindication for the “Servants of the Lord” (54:17b), one of the great themes of Trito-Isaiah, linking the Servant whose life, mission and death are celebrated in Isaiah 40–55 with the Servants, his disciples, in Isaiah 56–66, especially the last two chapters. Read as a political statement, Isaiah 40–48 is propaganda for the Persian Cyrus II which may have circulated during the last decade of the reign of Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king (556–539 bc), probably after Cyrus’ conquest of Lydia in 547 (Isa 45:3). The author, whose name is unknown,4 almost certainly belonged to the Babylonian diaspora, which might help to explain the harsh antiBabylonian invective (43:14; 47; 48:14), the satire directed against the Babylonian imperial cults (40:19–20), and the intellectual and religious traditions of Babylon in general (44:25; 47:9–10, 12–13). Much of the symbolic language can also be explained as opposing the ideology of power encapsulated in the Babylonian myths, especially the canonical creation myth recited during the akitu festival, which must have been familiar to the deportees. This would help to explain the closely related themes of cosmogonic victory over the forces of chaos, the 2 In 40–48 the term “servant” (῾ebed) refers to the people with the exception of 42:1–4, whereas in 49–55 all occurrences of the term refer to an individual with the exception of 49:7 and 54:17. 3  I believe it was Duhm who first suggested that the occurrence of this doom-laden statement at 48:22 and 57:21, together with the final verse of the book (66:24), served at one time to divide chapters 40–66 into three equal sections of nine chapters each. 4  It has been suggested that the name is Meshullam based on Isa 42:19 read as “Who is blind like Meshullam?” (mî ῾iwwēr kiměšullām), but this half-verse is very obscure and, in any case, is probably a gloss on v. 19a. See the commentaries ad loc. and Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah (2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), 89–90.

52

5  Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism

creation of the world and the theme of divine kingship in Deutero-Isaiah, which can be read as a kind of mirror-imaging of the ideology of the creation myth enuma elish. The claim that YHWH, not Marduk, is the only creator-god, that YHWH, unlike Marduk, is not begotten from other divine beings, (43:10–11), and that therefore he is the only source of salvation, can be understood in the same context. It is therefore not surprising that the language of monotheism in Deutero-Isaiah mirrors the Babylonian god’s claim to supremacy: “I am, and there is no one beside me” (enuma elish VII 14, 88; Isa 47:8, 19). These claims made on behalf of the God of Israel imply a drastic relativizing of power in the political sphere and especially, given the situation, imperial power. For if the ultimate source of power resides with the god worshipped among the diaspora Judaeans, the political power of the empire of the time is no more than a drop in the bucket, a grain of dust on the scales (40:12–17). And since it was believed that the God of Israel had mysteriously chosen Cyrus and his all-conquering army as the instrument of his purposes in the political sphere, current events, and even future events such as the conquest of Egypt by the Persians5 must be interpreted from the perspective of this apparently negligible people, “the servant of rulers” (49:7), all indications to the contrary notwithstanding. In this respect Isa  40–48 reads like a Judaean version of the manifesto of Cyrus on his famous cylinder text published shortly after the conquest of Babylon (539 bc).6 There is in both texts polemic against the impious Nabonidus including the charge that he had condemned his subjects to forced labour (Isa  47:6) and, what was much worse, had embraced a cult other than that of Marduk, imperial god of Babylon. Consequently, for the author of Isaiah 40–48, Yahweh, not Marduk, chose Cyrus as his agent, made the vast populations of the Babylonian empire subject to him, and inspired him to exercise rule without the violence and brutality characteristic of the Babylonians (Isa 42:1–4, referring originally to Cyrus). The author of Isaiah 40–48 was aware that Cyrus claimed to have reversed the policy of his antecedents by restoring the cults of the subject peoples (44:28) and repatriating those who had been deported (Isa 44:26–28). So far, Second Isaiah has not moved significantly beyond the theological range of the great pre-exilic prophets, including the original Isaiah. They provided a religious interpretation of international events and designated foreign rulers and their peoples as agents of the purposes of Yahweh (e. g. Isa 10:5). In fact, the 5  Cyrus probably planned the conquest of Egypt, but it was carried out by his son Cambyses in 525 bc. 6  ANET (2nd ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 315–16; Morton Smith, “II Isaiah and the Persians,” JAOS 83 (1963), 415–21, argued that the first part of the inscription which provides a theological justification of the conquest of Babylon and speaks of Cyrus in the third person was put together by the Babylonian priests opposed to Nabonidus before the conquest of the city and provided the model for the pro-Cyrus propaganda in Isaiah 40–48.

Isaiah 40–48



53

pressing needs of religious polemic against foreign cults, and especially the need to speak in the idiom of power, even divine power, were even less calculated to encourage a universalistic perspective. Yet in one respect the situation is different in Second Isaiah. With the extinction of the national dynasty and the deportations, Judah was no longer a political entity recognizable as such but was on its way to becoming a confessional community. Hints can be picked up in the following passages. The first is addressed to the people at large under such traditional titles as Israel, Jacob and, in one instance, Jeshurun (Isa 44:1–2). With this first passage, 44:3–5, compare the somewhat similar Ps 89:4–6: I will pour water on the thirsty land, streams of water on the parched land; I will pour out my spirit on your descendants, my blessing on your offspring. They will grow up like a green tamarisk7 like willows beside flowing streams. This one will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’ another will be given the name Jacob, yet another will write the Lord’s name on his hand, and adopt the name Israel.

The prophet has in mind the blessing of Abraham, which is to make of him a great nation (Gen 12:1–3), but he gives it a new slant by interpreting the blessing of the nations (reading “by you all the families of the earth shall receive a blessing”) in the sense that they are to be blessed through adherence to the religion of Abraham’s descendants. In other words, a well-know text is reinterpreted with prophetic authority in light of a new situation, that of a confessional community adherence to which can come about by personal decision. For the prophetic author, therefore, the YHWH cult is already, in principle, a religion which accepts proselytes. Adherence is sealed by certain external and symbolic acts which, perhaps significantly, do not include circumcision. As in Christian baptism, there is the taking of a new name, a practice observable also in Second Temple, and especially Judaeo-Babylonian prosopography.8 The writing of the deity’s name on the hand signifies ownership or allegiance, reminiscent of the custom of tatooing slaves which, however, did not prevent YHWH from reciprocating the practice: “Behold, I  have graven you on the palms of my hands” 7 

This line is textually uncertain and obscure. This is the REB version. the relation between cults and names in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, see Morton Smith in W. D. Davies/Louis Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 220–33; on the prosopography of Israelite-Jewish names in the Babylonian diaspora see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Age of the Exile”, in John Barton (ed.), The Biblical World (London/New York: Routledge, 2002), 416–39 with bibliography. On this subject, see also Ran Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), especially 332–33. 8  On

54

5  Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism

(Isa 49:16). For later readers it would recall the phylacteries (tefillin) bound on the hand and the forehead, indicative of Jewish identity. All this is couched in the future tense, and we have no way of knowing what it corresponded to in terms of social realities in the Babylonian diaspora or the Judaean homeland. Our next passage is well known and often cited in the context of the universalism issue (Isa 45:20–25): 1 Assemble and come, draw near all together, you survivors among the nations, (Those who carry around their wooden idols and pray to a god who cannot save are ignorant) State your case, present it, let them consult together. Who announced this of old, declared it long ago? Was it not I, YHWH? There is no other god beside me, none victorious and saving, there is none but me. 2 Turn to me and accept salvation, all the ends of the earth! for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, The word which overcomes has gone forth from my mouth, a word which will not be made void: To me every knee shall bend, about me it will be said, “Victory and strength come only from the Lord.”

The summons is addressed to “the survivors of the nations”, and the gloss which follows (in parenthesis) identifies them as Gentiles rather than diaspora Judaeans; and indeed this kind of summons is regularly addressed to Gentiles in Deutero-Isaiah, a notable example of a new situation. The prophet may have had in mind the defeated, or about to be defeated Babylonians among whom the deported Judaeans lived, but the invitation goes out to the ends of the earth. All Gentiles are invited to turn to the Lord Yahweh to accept salvation. Since the ability to save is the test of divine reality, the existence of other deities is, for all practical purposes, negated. What, then, does this “turning to Yahweh” as the precondition for salvation imply? One could turn to a deity and offer acts of cult including sacrifice without breaking with one’s past; to use A. D. Nock’s well-known distinction, adhesion was possible without conversion.9 The sequel, however, suggests something more than this. The bending of the knee (proskynesis) and the confession of faith 9  Arthur D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), passim.



Isaiah 40–48

55

in Yahweh alone implies abandonment of the worship of other gods and therefore a more radical reorientation of one’s religious life and activities. This is a point of quite exceptional importance, for now we have, in addition to the taking of a new name and other symbolic indicators of a new allegiance, the essential element of a confession of faith. Such a confession appears in a different form earlier in the same chapter: “God is with you (the worshippers of YHWH) and there is no other; no other god” (45:14).10 While we have little to go on, it appears likely that confessions such as these were drawing on actual experience and the practice of initiation as early as the Neo-Babylonian period. Other examples from the historical traditions which may be taken to exemplify conversion in the later period and in early Jewish practice deserve attention: 1. Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, receives religious instruction from Moses and makes a confession of faith: “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all gods” after which he offers sacrifice. This presented according to later procedures for the acceptance of proselytes, though in historical fact YHWH was already worshipped by Jethro and his fellow-Midianites. 2. Rahab of Jericho recites what sounds like a similar piece of catechetical instruction, after which she makes her confession of faith: “YHWH your God is the one who is God in heaven above and on earth beneath” (Josh 2:9–11) 3. Naaman the Syrian, on being healed by Elisha makes an extraordinary confession of faith: “Now I know that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel. As a follow-up he returned to his country with two mule-loads of Israelite earth so that he might sacrifice to the God of Israel on his (YHWH’s) own ground. (2 Kgs 5:15–19) The list is not, of course, exhaustive. Rabbinic tradition traces the acceptance of proselytes back to Abraham. In undertaking a journey out of paganism and idolatry to the promised land of the true faith, Abraham exhibited characteristics of the ideal proselyte. Philo represents Abraham as a traveller in keeping with a supposed derivation of ῾ibrî from the verb ῾ābar, to pass over, hence Abraham was “the one who passed over” (peratēs), that is, converted. See Philo, De Migr. Abraham 4:20 and De Spec. Leg. 1:51. There was therefore no difficulty finding prototypes in biblical narrative for proselytes. We can conclude that the indications in Deutero-Isaiah, few though they are, point to the beginnings of proselytism in the Babylonian diaspora in the late Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods. Since the claim of universalism has often relied heavily on a certain interpretation of the Servant texts, we cannot leave Isaiah 40–48 without taking 10  The situation in this passage is, however, different since it is predicted that Egyptians and other foreigners will serve as slaves. Another example of this “fantasy of the oppressed” can be found in Isa 14:1–2, a prose insertion, certainly post-exile, which sees now adherents as proselytes, others as slave labourers.

56

5  Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism

note of the only one of the four in this section, in Isa  42:1–4. Here, YHWH addresses an audience not specified but probably the Gentile world, that is the nations inhabiting that part of the world. The purpose of the address is to recommend an individual whom YHWH has chosen, whom he supports, who is endowed with the divine spirit, and whose mission is to establish an order based on law and justice, but without the violence and brutality generally associated with this task. The identity of this individual has long been the object of speculation. This is the only one of the four Duhmian Ebed-Dichtungen in this first section of Deutero-Isaiah, which should alert us to the possibility of an identity different from the other three, all in Isaiah 49–55. In the first place, it does not seem likely that the one designated is a prophet. The prophetic commissioning does not call for witnesses, and prophets are not called to establish law and order, least of all among foreign nations. Comparison with the commissioning of David by Samuel (1 Sam 16) and the Isaian poem about the ideal ruler endowed with the spirit and charged with establishing order in a non-violent way (Isa 11:1–9) point to a royal figure. When, in addition, we take account of the context of Isaiah 40–48, and the passage immediately preceding (41:25–29), the candidacy of Cyrus the Persian must be given careful consideration. And if this is so, the idea that the author and his supporters cherished the idea of a mission entrusted to a foreign prince by the God of Israel, even if a mission seen as benefitting the God of Israel’s people in the first place, represents at least a broadening of horizons.

Isaiah 49–55 Throughout Second Isaiah we detect a certain ambiguity in the golah community’s perception of the Gentile world and their relations with it. There are occasional intimations of a community prepared to serve as the humble instruments of God’s purposes in the world. With at least equal frequency, however, we hear the voice of an oppressed and resentful people, sometimes entertaining the expectation, or hope, of a reversal of fortune which will bring the great powers into subjection to Israel and Israel’s God. It must seem strange that this way of thinking, which reaches its most extreme expression in the so-called Isaian Apocalypse (chapters 24–27) should be mistaken for universalism. In the present section we hear allusions to the subjection of foreign peoples and their rulers (49:7; 54:3). They will perform menial labour, bow down before the elect, and lick the dust of their feet (49:23). If the nations are to be saved, it will be at the cost of subjection; the basic idea in these expressions is imperium, a Yahwistic empire (e. g. 51:4–5). The universal dominion of YHWH is a prominent theme throughout this section. Already implied in creation (51:9–11), it will be inaugurated in Zion, witnessed by the nations (52:7–10). Return to Zion is therefore a necessary precondition

Isaiah 49–55



57

for this reversal of political fortune, and the Gentiles are charged with the task of repatriating those dispersed throughout the vast Babylonian empire (49:22). If we recall that this task was first assigned to Cyrus (44:28; 45:13), we will have a clue to the interpretation of the Servant poems which opens this section (49:1–6). It opens with an address to the nations by the one commissioned. His mission is, in the first place, to re-assemble the dispersed descendants of Jacob/ Israel. He feels that this mission has not succeeded, but is told not only to keep trying but to undertake a mission to the Gentile world. He is to be a light to the nations by means of which the saving power of the God of Israel will reach to the ends of the earth. The second poem is no more forthcoming on the identity of the one commissioned than the first. The text itself testifies to an early identification with Israel (49:3), a view which has remained standard in rabbinic interpretation. But since it goes on to speak of a mission to Israel, an individual or plurality within Israel is implied. Since the task has to be accomplished by speaking (49:2), we are to think of a prophet, especially in view of the language of prophetic revelation in the third Servant poem (50:4–5). We are not told how the Gentile world is to be enlightened, whether by example or a mission of preaching, as in early Christianity.11 According to 51:4–5 the “light to the nations” is identified with the law (tôrāh) and justice (mišpāt), in other words, the jurisdiction of the God of Israel. As in the first of Duhm’s poems, these are to be the characteristics of Cyrus’ rule mandated by the God of Israel. But when it became clear, as it is clear throughout this section, that Cyrus had failed to discharge his commission,12 the responsibility reverted to the golah people and their prophetic representatives. Before leaving Isaiah 40–55 let us reformulate the question in the title of this chapter: To what extent does Second Isaiah – leaving aside for the moment the matter of single or multiple authorship – mark a break with the past and initiate new developments in the relations of Israel (nascent Judaism) to the rest of the world? The concentration on international affairs – the principal concern of Israelite prophecy according to Max Weber13 – continues to be in evidence, but the raison d’être is still Israel and its destiny, and the interest in other nations is not particularly benign.14 Cyrus is greeted with exalted language, he is even 11 

Acts 13:47; 26:23. Though he permitted the repatriation of the forcibly expatriated Judaeans, he ruled in the name of Marduk rather than YHWH, restored the great akitu festival neglected by Nabonidus, and failed to restore the Davidic dynasty extinguished by the Babylonians. 13  Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (Boston: Beacon Press 1952 [1919]), 51. 14  In this respect I agree with the cautious approach to the issue of Pieter A. H. de Boer, Second Isaiah’s Message, Oudtestamentische studiën 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1956), 88–89, 120 and Norman H. Snaith, “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah” in Harold H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1950), 191; Roger Norman Whybray, The Second Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 62–65. 12 

58

5  Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism

described as YHWH’s Messiah, but the new order which he is charged to set up is of interest only insofar as it affects his Judaean subjects. Disillusionment with Cyrus made way for the idea of direct divine intervention and perhaps also encouraged an apocalyptic approach to politics. None of this was calculated to promote a positive approach to the Gentile world and its ultimate destiny. The point has often been made that Second Isaiah is the preacher of monotheism, and that monotheism entailed religious universalism. But the negative side to this axiom is the correlation between triumphalist monotheistic faith and political domination, restricted to the realm of aspiration and fantasy in exilic prophecy, translated into ugly reality during many periods in the history of Christianity and Islam. The positive side is to be found in the servant passages.15 To the extent that servanthood is the expression of the prophetic idea of instrumentality in Second Isaiah, and is in the service of a wider public than Israel, we would have a breakthrough of great significance for the future. But it seems to be the case that only the second of these four passages (49:1–6) alludes in any way to a mission to Gentiles, or even an aspiration towards such a mission, originating in the golah community. Perhaps the most we can say is that Second Isaiah laid the foundations for later developments by making it possible to think of a role for Israel in the salvation of humankind.

Isaiah 56–66 Since the late nineteenth century, the last eleven chapters of Isaiah have been understood to form a distinct literary unit of post-exilic origin. A closer determination of date is complicated by the presence of much liturgical material in it and the suspicion that some of the prophetic diatribe in it may be pre-exilic (e. g. 56:9–57:13).16 Making due allowance for these considerations, and for additions to meet new situations as they arose, we note that the temple is still in ruins (63:18–19), Jerusalem is still a city without walls (58:12; 60:10), and the rest of the country has not yet recovered from the effects of the Babylonian devastation of 586 bc. (61:4; 64:10–11). The wretched economic and social conditions are matched by similar allusions in Haggai and Zechariah from the early Persian

15  Sheldon H. Blank, Prophetic Faith in Isaiah (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967), 149: “Behind the figure of the Servant stands the idea of the mission of Israel, and here it is a prophetic mission”; cf. Peter Altmann, Erwählungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964), 30–48. 16  On the pre-exilic date for 56:9–57:13, see Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A  Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 301–302. The communal lament in 63:7– 64:12 is perhaps exilic; see Roger Norman Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (London: Oliphants, 1965); Paul Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 87.

Isaiah 56–66



59

period.17 It seems therefore that some few passages could have originated in the province of Judah (Yehud) before the rebuilding of the temple in 516/515 bc. The close connections between chapters 56–66 and 40–55 suggest, further, an origin of some of the material among disciples of the exilic Isaiah who were attempting to come to terms with the disconfirmation of hopes which had been raised by the preaching of the Deutero-Isaian prophet. There is also a very probable link between the prophet whose painful life and death are the subject of the three servant texts in chapters 49–53 and the “Servants of the Lord” of chapters 56–66, to whom we shall return. In most of Trito-Isaiah, the concern is with the internal affairs of the community in the province and only incidentally with international concerns. It is generally assumed that the nucleus of the section is the compendium of eschatological teaching in chapters 60–62, where continuity with the themes of Deutero-Isaiah is most in evidence. According to this teaching, Jerusalem is the religious centre of the world, a circle of bright light in the surrounding darkness (60:1–3). The Gentiles will be drawn to this light as to a magnet in order to witness YHWH’s triumphant intervention on behalf of his people (62:1–2). Their role will be to bring tribute (60:5–7, 11, 16) and they will supply labour for the rebuilding of the city and serve as Gastarbeiter in a range of menial capacities (60:10, 12–14; 61:5–6). The whole world will stand in awe, the kings of the nations will be led to Jerusalem in triumphal procession (60:11), and the supremacy of Israel will be universally acknowledged (60:14). This has little to do with a universalistic attitude; indeed, it all sounds as if foreigners are being made an offer they can’t refuse. Also symptomatic is the interpretation of the Abrahamic blessing in terms not of proselytism but of imperium (60:21–22; 61:8–9). Following an older pattern of interpretation, the same text (Gen 12:1–3) is associated with the Davidic dynasty, the promise of its eventual revival, and nostalgia for the “Greater Israel” of the Davidic-Solomonic epoch (Isa 55:3–5).18 This fantasy of an Israelite empire on which the sun never sets can hardly be described as universalism or inclusivism. However, in the opening and closing passages or book-ends of Trito-Isaiah, we find a quite different approach to “the others.” Isa 56:1–8 may be translated more or less literally as follows: Thus says the Lord: Maintain justice and do what is right for soon my salvation will come 17 

Hag 1:6, 8–11; 2:16–17; Zech 8:10; cf. Joel 1–2 and Neh 5:1–5. The “Great Nation” theme, based on Gen 12:1–3, underlies passages such as Isa 60:21–22 and 61:8b–9. The transfer of the Abrahamic covenant to David and his dynasty is assumed in Isa 55:3–5, on which see Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55,1–2”, in Bernard W. Anderson/Walter Harrelson (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (New York: Harper, 1962), 192–207. 18 

60

5  Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism

and my victory will soon be revealed. Happy is the one who follows these precepts and holds fast to them, who observes sabbath without ever profaning it, who refrains from doing evil of any kind. The foreigner who is pledged to the Lord must not say “The Lord will exclude me from his people”, nor must the eunuch say, “I am a withered tree”; for thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, will receive from me something better than sons and daughters, a monument and a name in my house and within my walls. I will give them an everlasing name which shall not be cut off.” “As for the foreigners who have given their allegiance to the Lord, to minister to him, to love his name, to be his servants, who hold fast to my covenant, these I will bring to my holy mountain, and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on my altar, for my house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” This is the word of the Lord Yahweh who gathers the outcasts of Israel: “I shall add more to those already gathered.”

This passage is a coherent unit in theme and rhetoric despite many efforts to break it down into chronologically different components.19 It begins and ends with the assurance of salvation for the ingathered outcasts who are to form the future Israel. In its central part it speaks of two categories of those “dubiously belonging”, gives expression to their fears and sets those fears at rest. The sense runs over from one saying to the next. The conditions for blessing laid down in the first stanza are applied in the second, and the third places foreigners and the sexually mutilated (and therefore outcast) among those in good standing in both city and temple. We may summarize as follows: 1. Incorporation and membership in the community are determined not on national or ethnic considerations but on a profession of faith and a level of moral performance compatible with it. In this respect these sayings advocate an open admissions policy of remarkable liberality. 2. This policy is in function of eschatological faith, that is, belief in the reality of a final decisive intervention of God in human affairs. The ingathered people 19  See analyses of Jacques Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique, Tome 2 (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1978), 455–58; James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 237; Roger N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 199.



Isaiah 56–66

61

of the future is to include both ethnic Judaeans (Jews) and those who join them from the Gentile world. The originality of this statement comes into focus when we contrast it with the “law of the assembly” in Deut 23:2–9. The date of this legislation, which lists both ethnic and physical disqualifications from membership in the “assembly of the Lord” (qěhal YHWH; in the Septuagint ekklēsia tou theou), is uncertain.20 Excluded are the following categories: 1. The sexually mutilated, 2. “Bastards” (mamzērîm), that is, either those born of incestuous unions or, more probably, those of mixed Israelite-Gentile descent, 3. Ammonites and Moabites in perpetuum; first and second generation Edomites and Egyptians. The combination of eunuchs and foreign proselytes suggests strongly that the misgivings expressed in Isa 56:1–8 arose from the threatened application of this law. This would imply that we have here an abrogation on prophetic authority of a precept of torah. It may be possible to determine more precisely the circumstances which led to this prophetic reassurance. During his first administration, Nehemiah attempted to enforce this “law of the assembly” by excluding all those of mixed descent (Neh 13:1–3). During his subsequent absence at the royal court in Susa, the high priest gave accommodation in the temple precincts to Tobiah, an Ammonite, a situation which Nehemiah on his return lost no time in rectifying (Neh 13:4–9). He also took decisive measures against Jews who had married Ashdodite, Ammonite and Moabite women (Neh 13:23–27). Nehemiah is silent on the subject of eunuchs. If, as cup bearer and wine taster for the Persian ruler, he himself was a eunuch, his silence would be understandable, but this is by no means certain.21 We must now turn to the other “book end”, the finale of Third Isaiah and therefore of the book. The final verses (66:22–24) repeat the eschatological vision of the new heavens and new earth with the temple as the centre of the remade cosmos. This is rounded off, perhaps by a later hand, in the dark scenario of the survivors of the final judgement going out of the city to view, perhaps to gloat over, the corpses of the enemies. The preceding prose passage (66:18–21) is the one which concerns us. It reads as follows: 20 Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 145 described it as “a splendid piece of ancient Yahwistic legal matter.” Many follow Kurt Galling, “Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23”, in Walter Baumgartner et al. (eds.), Festschrift Alfred Bertholet: Zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950), 176–191, who argues that it stems from the cult of the pre-state period. 21  Neh 1:11. Not all cup bearers were eunuchs. If he himself was such, and this was known, his many enemies would have used it against him, and it would have rendered any allegations of messianic pretensions on his part quite implausible (Neh 6:7).

62

5  Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism

I am coming22 to gather nations of every tongue so that they may come and witness my glory. I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of them, those who have survived, to the nations – Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Rosh, Tubal, Yavan, the far coastlands and islands23 – who have neither heard about me nor witnessed my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations24. I will also take some of them to be priests and Levites, says the Lord.

The opening sentence places the events described in the context of the end time, and therefore parallels 56:1–8 at the beginning of Trito-Isaiah. Together with 56:8, it is the old theme of the ingathering, but here to be preceded by the despatch of emissaries and missionaries to the Gentile nations listed and others like them. The missionaries are certainly members of the Judaean/Jewish community, and what they have survived is the trauma of exile. No explanation is given for the sign to be set up among the Gentiles, but the same Isaiah text which we have seen to be reinterpreted at Isa 56:8, namely Isa 11:11–12, also mentions a rallying point for the assembly and homeward journey of the expatriated Judaeans, but this text takes it further. The central message of Isa 66:18–21, therefore, is that there is to be a mission to the nations as a prelude to the end time, the final manifestation of God in human history. Indeed, the final sentence even contemplates these foreign proselytes admitted to the temple priesthood and Levitical office which, once again, implies the prophetic abrogation of law, in this instance ritual law. To speak of a mission to the Gentiles does not, of course, mean that we are dealing with actual proposals and strategies. What these texts express is a positive attitude to the acceptance of foreigners, perhaps a projection into the future. That such attitudes and aspirations can be illusory and self-deceptive we may acknowledge, but it is also true to our experience to affirm that projections of a possible future, especially when emitted with the passion and power of conviction often attested in these chapters, can actually create a future, even if the reality is not always quite the same as the projection.

22  The Masoretic text adds “their deeds and their thoughts” which may have strayed in here from 66:17b. See the textual note in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 310. 23  The location of these places is not our concern and may have been equally unknown to the writer who is evidently drawing on earlier texts including Genesis 10 and Ezekiel 27 and 38. Meshech and Rosh are not to be identified with Moscow and Russia, as some have done. 24  66:20 has almost certainly been inserted into this passage. It deals with the quite distinct matter of the return of those deported to Jerusalem, and the repetition of “some of them” in v. 21 from v. 19 indicates that the author is dealing with foreign proselytes. It may have been inserted here to avoid the conclusion that these foreign proselytes would be qualified to serve as priests and Levites in the Jerusalem temple. See Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 423–29; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 308–317.

6

Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God: Yahweh, Ahuramazda and Marduk Creation in Deutero-Isaiah The unprecedented frequency with which Deutero-Isaiah refers to Yahweh as creator of the world and cosmic deity and, as such, incomparable, seems to call for an explanation. I use the familiar term “Deutero-Isaiah”, but in fact cosmological and protological language is limited to the first of the two sections in Isaiah 40–55, namely, chapters 40–48,1 1 in keeping with the distinctive character of these chapters over against chapters 49–55. Not only is the language of creation absent from 49–55, including the key verb bārā᾽, “create”,2 but we hear no more about Cyrus and the expectations raised by his victorious campaigns, a key issue throughout 40–48. In chapters 49–55 the tone is different, the emotional and affective level much lower. If there is to be a reversal of fortune, it can no longer be expected from Cyrus or any other human agency but only from direct divine intervention. The difference between the two sections also shows up in the treatment of the servant theme. With due allowance for the wide range of opinion on this issue, it seems that in 40–48, with the exception of 42:1–4, the first of the four Ebedlieder of Bernhard Duhm, the emphasis is on the servant status of the people, while in 49–55 the profile of an individual bearer of the servant mission is unmistakable. This does not oblige us to postulate different authors, or even different locations,3 but there can be little doubt that we are hearing about a situation dramatically different from the one to which the previous nine chapters are responding. The picture might have to be redrawn somewhat if we 1  Isa 40:12–14,

21–22, 26, 28; 41:3–4; 42:5; 43:10–13; 44:24; 45:7, 9–12, 18; 48:12–13. is named ᾽ělohê kol-hā᾽āres, “God of all the earth”, but not in a creation context (Isa 54:5). The call to Yahweh to take up arms once again against the forces of evil represented as malevolent monsters, denizens of the Abyss (Rahab, Tannin, Yamm (Isa 51:9–11) adopts the Canaanite combat myth but without any necessary connection with creation. The only allusion in these chapters to anything in Genesis 1–11 is the reference in 54:9 to the aftermath of the great deluge (Gen 9:8–17). 3 The location issue is surveyed comprehensively by Hans M. Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah (Oslo: Novus Forlag, 1997). Among the early proponents of a location in Babylonia for chapters 40–48 and in Judah for 49–55 are Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Critical, Historical and Theological, Volume 3 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1863), 5–59 and Carl Heinrich Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau: J.C.B. Mohr, 1892), 150–54. 2  Yahweh

64

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

the arguments adduced to date in favour of this more complex scenario are not, in my view, particularly persuasive. Confining our attention, therefore, to Isaiah 40–48, the question to be posed is the following: Why do we find this concentration of language about creation for the first time in the circumstances of that time and place? A  preliminary indication of the situation would be the occurrence of the verb bārā᾽ with reference to the creation of the world and humanity. This verb occurs fortyeight times in the Hebrew Bible. Of these, thirty-seven allude to the origins of the world or of humanity: eleven in the P source in Genesis 1–11, fourteen in Isaiah 40–48, and in the rest of Isaiah only three, all in the passage which predicts the creation of new heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem, and therefore looks to the future rather than the past (Isa  65:17–18). Of the remaining nine, four are in psalms which cannot be dated with assurance (Ps  89:13, 48; 104:30; 148:5), but in any case only one of the four (Ps  148) has any cosmic resonance. Two occur in the poem about the king of Tyre in Eden, a special case which relates to Gen 2:4b–3:24 but with no cosmic overtones (Ezek 28:13, 15), and one in the first of the three doxological hymn stanzas in Amos. The date of these three passages (4:13, 5:8–9, 9:5–6) is disputed but there are serious grounds for considering all of them to be interpolations. Another instance, Malachi 2:10, is clearly later than Deutero-Isaiah, and the remaining example, Deuteronomy 4:32, occurs in a homily or discourse of Moses (4:1–40) which is either exilic or post-exilic. It is accepted that questions of this kind cannot be decided on the basis of the incidence of one term, however significant. Creator deities are attested in the Near East and Levant long before the Neo-Babylonian period. On the basis of Ugaritic titulary, it has been argued that Yahweh, assimilated to the CanaaniteJebusite deity El Elyon, is designated a creator-deity in Genesis 14:18–24, the encounter of Abraham with Melchizedek, by means of the epithet qōnēh šāmayim wā᾽āres, “creator of heaven and earth” (Gen 14:19, 22).4 The translation of the verb is, however, quite uncertain. A glance at a concordance will show that its normal meaning is “to acquire” by purchase or other means. With Yahweh as subject it retains this meaning elsewhere: acquisition by ransom: Exodus 15:16, Isaiah 11:11 and Psalm 74:2, or by conquest: Psalm 78:54, with reference to David’s conquest of Jerusalem. However it is translated, the only occurrence of the verb with any protological implications is the opening statement of the much-debated 4  On the Ugaritic provenance of the title, see Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973), 15–16 and n. 20, 50–51 and n. 25; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, translated by John J. Scullion, S.J. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 205–6. For the original edition, see Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 193.



Isaiah 40–48 and Genesis 1

65

self-description of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22, “Yahweh established me (qānānî) as the beginning of his work”).5 Practically the only other affirmation of Yahweh as creator deity occurs in the account of one of Jeremiah’s symbolic actions performed in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, last king of Judah, according to which the necessity of submission to Nebuchadnezzar is reinforced by Yahweh’s affirmation that “with my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth, with the people and animals on it, and (therefore) I give it to whomsoever I please” (Jer 27:5). Commentators have not been slow to notice the parallelism between Nebuchadnezzar, described in the same passage as Yahweh’s servant (27:6) and Cyrus, Yahweh’s anointed one (Isa 45:1), and the political purpose which the affirmation is made to serve. There is a serious probability, therefore, that the reference to creation in Deuteronomy 27:5 derives from the same milieu as Isaiah 40–48.

Isaiah 40–48 and Genesis 1 What in any case is unprecedented in Isaiah 40–48 is the centrality of the creation theme and the cosmic scope of action assigned to Yahweh over and above his relations with Israel. Repeatedly throughout these chapters the creative activity of Israel’s God is celebrated. He created the vault of the sky spread out like a tent or curtain, the heavenly bodies, the circle of the earth rising out of the cosmic waters and resting on piles driven down through the waters, and its inhabitants animated and sustained by the breath of life. These features inevitably raise the question of the relation of Isaiah 40–48 to the Priestly (P) creation narrative in Genesis  1:1–2:3a. From early days mainline critical opinion has placed the P history in the post-disaster period, in the sixth or fifth century BC, allowing therefore for a broad margin of error.6 In recent decades the tendency has been to argue for a later rather than earlier point in this broad span of time, in the early decades of Persian rule.7 This seems to me to be correct. The sanctuary is 5  Hence E. Lipiński, TDOT XIII (2004), 62–63, is justified in rejecting the meaning “creator” in Gen 14:19, 22 in favor of “proprietor” or “lord” of heaven and earth which, as he points out, has the support of Targum Onkelos and 1QapGen as against LXX ektisen. 6  To cite only some of the standard works: Otto Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2nd ed., Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1956), 246–47 [id., The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956), 207]; Georg Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer Verlag, 1965), 201–2 [id., Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1968), 185–86; J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament from its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 138– 44; Walther Zimmerli, 1 Moses 12–25: Abraham (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976), 138–44. 7  J. G. Vink, “The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament”, OTS 15 (1969), 1–144. Norbert Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift in der Geschichte”, VTSup 29 (1978), 189– 225, locates the P History is the late exilic period (201). According to Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), the P complex belongs after rather than

66

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

thematic at key junctures in the P history beginning with cosmos as temple, the subtext of the P creation narrative, then the detailed account of the construction of the wilderness sanctuary (Exod 25–27, 35–40), and, finally, its establishment after the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan (Josh  18:1). This structural and thematic feature seems to insinuate a connection with the second temple, either before or after its construction, therefore a date in the early Achaemenid period seems plausible.8 In support of this later date I  would also cite the P version of Abraham’s journey from Mesopotamia to Canaan and the account of his relations with the indigenous peoples, especially in the matter of land ownership. The delicacy and prudent care displayed in his relations with the indigenous population suggest that he is being presented as a model for those who were planning to return, or actually did return, to Judah during the same period.9 A further indication can be found in the stories about Israel’s ancestors in which the prediction that kings will arise among the descendants of Abraham and Jacob is found only in the P narrative strand (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11). It is difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to conclude that such hopes could be entertained after the disappearance from the record of Zerubbabel, a scion of the royal line, in the early years of the reign of Darius I. In Isaiah 40–48 aspirations focus on return from the diaspora (43:5 etc.), the restoration of Jerusalem and the other Judaean cities (44:26; 45:13), and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple (44:28). Nothing is said about the possible restoration of the native dynasty; on the contrary, the designation of Cyrus as Yahweh’s anointed one at Isaiah 45:1 suggests an acceptance of the Persian conqueror as legitimate successor to the Judaean dynastic monarchy in the same way as he was acknowledged as the legitimate successor to the Babylonian throne and, fourteen years later, his son Cambyses was acknowledged as successor to the Pharaonic throne.10 If therefore a date no earlier than the Persian conquest of Babylon is correct, the P creation account must be later than Isaiah  40–48 which clearly reflect events during the final decades of Neo-Babylonian rule. The readers of these chapters are assumed to be familiar with some traditions about cosmic creation, before the rebuilding of the temple in the early years of the reign of Darius I (see especially 257, 305, 360). 8  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P”, CBQ 38 (1976), 275–92. 9  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis”, JBL 128.2 (2009), 225–41. This would correspond to the ideologia morbida (“soft ideology”) in contrast to the ideologia dura (“hard ideology”) represented by Ezra and Nehemiah, according to Mario Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia. Storia Antica di Israele (2nd ed., Rome: Editori Laterza, 2003), 283–87. 10  Note that towards the end of the Cyrus Cylinder Cyrus reports the discovery of an inscription of Ashurbanipal, “a king who preceded me”, that is, as king of Babylon. For the text see Amélie Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London/ New York: Routledge, 2007), 72.



Yahweh and Ahuramazda as Creator Deities

67

whether written or oral (“Do you not know? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not grasped how the earth was established?”) – but, if so, these would not have included the creation account of Genesis 1. In point of fact, the similarities in creation language between Isaiah  40–48 and Genesis 1 may appear impressive at first reading but are less clearly in evidence on closer inspection. Both use the standard creation verb bārā᾽, but the Isaianic text employs a considerable number of other verbs, none of which appears in Genesis 111. The těhôm (abyss) of Genesis 1:1 is represented by the hapax legomenon sûlâ in Isaiah  44:27. Like Job (22:14; 26:10) and Proverbs (8:27), but unlike P, the Isaianic author speaks of the earth or earth matter as a hûg (“circle”, Isa 40:22). In Genesis the sky is formed like a metal vault or bell over the earth (rāqîa, “firmament”, Genesis 1:6–8, 14–15, 17, 20), but in Isaiah 40:22 it is spread out like a tent or a curtain. In other descriptive detail the Isaian text is more reminiscent of the Yahwist than the Priestly version. Thus, the creative act is by analogy to moulding with clay in Isaiah (45:7, 9, 18) as in Genesis 2:7–8, and creatures are animated by God’s breath and spirit, which compares with the “breath of life” of Genesis 2:7 and 7:22, both from the Yahwist narrative strand. The order or sequence of creation in Isaiah 40–48 is also more often than not different from Genesis 1. In one particularly interesting case (Isa 45:7), the Isaianic version also differs in a theologically significant way from that of the priestauthor of Genesis 1 who emphasizes redundantly, seven times, the goodness of the created order: I form light and create darkness, I bring about well-being and create woe; it is I, Yahweh, who do all these things (Isa 45:7).

In the P creation account God separates light from darkness but creates only light.12

Yahweh and Ahuramazda as Creator Deities A line of enquiry which has a long history looks for an explanation of this new situation to Zoroastrian beliefs about the creation of the world and humanity by a god, Ahuramazda (“Lord of Wisdom”), who is supreme though accompanied 11  mādad, measure (40:10), tikkēn, direct (40:12, 13), šāqal, weigh (40:12), nātāh, stretch out (40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12), mātāh, spread out? (hapax, 40:22), rāqā῾, spread out (42:5; 44:24), yāsar, form, mould (45:7, 9, 18). 12  It is not impossible that Isa 45:7 is directed against Zoroastrian dualism, though the evidence for the official adoption of Zoroastrianism as early as Cyrus II is disputed. Besides, the idea of the opus alienum of God was already known; see, for example Amos 3:6. Tina Dykesteen Nilsen, “The Creation of Darkness and Evil (Isaiah 45:6C–7)”, RB 115 (2008), 5–25, maintained that the statement is directed against Babylonian not Zoroastrian dualism.

68

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

by lesser deities, the Amesha Spentas (“holy immortals”), and whose worship is aniconic, as Herodotus also attests.13 Ahuramazda is invoked as greatest of the gods in inscriptions of the early Achaemenids, Ariaramnes and Arsames, respectively the great-grandfather and grandfather of Darius I, but the authenticity of these inscriptions is seriously in doubt.14 As often happens with statements of a religious nature, Zoroastrian belief in a creator deity came to serve as reinforcement for a political agenda. We find this for the first time in royal inscriptions from the time of Darius I where Ahuramazda is presented explicitly as cosmic creator. The principal variant runs as follows: A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many.15

The wording invites comparison with similar creedal statements in Isaiah 40–48. Thus, Yahweh is introduced as the God who created the sky and laid it out, who spread out the earth and its issue, who gives breath to the peoples on it, the spirit of life to those who tread upon it (42:5).

A similar formulation appears later where Yahweh is described as the One who created the sky, the One who is God, who gave the earth form and substance, who firmly established it. He did not create it an empty void, but formed it to be inhabited (45:18).

In the Bisitun (Behistun) trilingual rock carving, by far the longest of Achaemenid inscriptions, Darius acknowledges receiving the kingship from Ahuramazda and invokes the favour of this deity at each phase of his suppression of revolts during his annus mirabilis (522–521 BC). He declares himself to be a worshipper of Ahuramazda and the restorer of his sanctuaries destroyed by Gaumata the magus. He denounces rebellion as the Lie (Avestan druj, Old Persian drauga) in keeping with the Zoroastrian idea of life as struggle between the Lie, the essence 13  “It is not their custom (i.e. the Persians) to make and set up statues, temples and altars, and those who make such they deem foolish” (Hist. 1:131). 14  For the texts and translations see Roland G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (2nd ed., New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1953), 116 and for discussion id., “The Oldest Old Persian Inscriptions”, JAOS 66 (1946), 306–12. Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre I (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996), 27, declares them to be “rien moins que sur”, and they are dismissed as outright forgeries by, inter alios, M. Schwartz in Ilya Gershevitch (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 684 and by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 278. 15 Kent, Old Persian, 137–38. From the tomb inscription of Darius I at Naqš-i-Rustam near Persepolis.



Yahweh and Ahuramazda as Creator Deities

69

of evil, and Righteousness (Avestan asha, Old Persian arta), the embodiment of cosmic and moral order; this last a concept similar to Sanskrit rta and Egyptian maat.16 Darius was not, however, a monotheist. In the Behistun inscription he attributes his success to Ahuramazda and “the other gods that are” (column 4 line 61), and in an inscription on the south wall of the palace at Persepolis he invokes the assistance of the gods of the royal household in addition to Ahuramazda.17 It would be natural to assume that Cyrus (559–530), contemporary with the author of Isaiah 40–48, was also a devotee of Ahuramazda since only eight years separates his death in battle from the accession of Darius in 522 BC. Unfortunately, however, we have no Persian inscriptions from his reign, and what we can learn from the famous Cyrus cylinder, together with the few relevant bits of information from Greek authors,18 aligns him with, respectively, the Babylonian Marduk cult and the polytheistic Indo-Aryan beliefs and practices of the Mede and Persian population as a whole rather than with Ahuramazda. This silence of the record notwithstanding, there has been a steady stream of Iranian and biblical specialists who have argued that Cyrus was an adherent of the religion of Zarathustra, and that it is entirely credible that Zoroastrian religious ideas could have influenced Judaean communities at that time and therefore also the author or authors of Isaiah 40–48.19 The possibility, even probability, of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism at this early stage was, in fact, entertained as early as the late eighteenth century. Lessing wrote about the effect of “the pure Persian doctrine” on the Jewish understanding of Jehovah. Cyrus, he claimed, would have been sympathetic to the Jewish people purely on the grounds of 16  For the text of the inscription see Kent, Old Persian, 116–35, and for a detailed study of the text and the events of that year, see Muhammad A. Dandamaev, Persien Unter den Ersten Achämeniden (6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1976). 17 Kent, Old Persian, 136. 18 Xenophon, Cyropaedia has him praying to ancestral Hestia, goddess of the fireplace (Anahita? Zoroastrian Ātar, “sacred fire”?), Zeus (Ahuramazda?), and the rest of the gods (I vi 1), and sacrificing to Zeus and other gods (III iii 21). In the same work Xenophon also locates magi, religious specialists, at the court of Cyrus and Cambyses (IV v 14), in agreement with Herodotus (1:132) on the magi as sacrificing adepts. 19  Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (2nd ed., London/New York: Routledge, 2001), 48–77, a summary of her A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume 2: Under the Achaemenians (Leiden: Brill, 1982), argues on the basis of archaeological data (stone plinths for worship and fire towers) and onomastics (Atossa, the name of Cyrus’ daughter, which she derives from Hutaosa, the name of the wife of Vishtaspa, Zoroaster’s patron) that Cyrus was Zoroastrian. See also her essay “The Religion of Cyrus the Great”, in Amélie Kuhrt/Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Achaemenid History, Volume 3: Method and Theory (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1988), 5–21. At the present time this is a minority opinion. Earlier defenders of this opinion include James H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism: The Origins, the Prophet, the Magi (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1972 [1913]); George W. Carter, Zoroastrianism and Judaism (New York: AMS Press, 1918); David Winston, “The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran. A Review of the Evidence”, HR 5 (1966), 187–89; Claude Herrenschmidt, “La religion des Achéménides: État de la Question”, Studia Iranica 9 (1980), 324–39.

70

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

religious affinity.20 Similar sentiments were expressed about a century later in Ernest Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1835): the victory of Cyrus seemed to have realized all that the Jews had hoped for; the disciples of the Avesta and the Yahweh-worshippers saw themselves as brothers; the prophetic tone of the Iranian teachings could be compared with the books of Hosea and Isaiah.21 In spite of, or because of, the relative lack of contemporary data, combined with the lack of consensus about such basic matters as the date of Zarathustra and the interpretation of the old Avesta and the Gathas, the issue has continued to be debated. An interesting approach to these textual affinities was taken by Morton Smith in a brief paper published in 1963.22 Smith argued along two lines which eventually converged. The first took its cue from an 1898 article of Rudolph Kittel in which he pointed out similarities between elements in Deutero-Isaiah and the clay cylinder inscription dealing with the capture of Babylon by Cyrus.23 Kittel’s point was that Marduk’s benevolent attitude to Cyrus in the cylinder text is identical, at times even in wording, with Yahweh’s benevolence towards the same ruler in Isaiah  40–48.24 He concluded that, since the Babylonian priests responsible for the pro-Persian propaganda in the cylinder text evidently did not depend on Deutero-Isaiah, and since Deutero-Isaiah predates the publication of the cylinder text in the year after the fall of Babylon, therefore in 538 BC, the parallels can only be explained by appeal to the stereotypical language of the Babylonian court. Smith accepted the parallels, which he went on to itemize, but rejected the explanation on the grounds that it does not cover all the parallels. His own proposal was that the kind of pro-Persian propaganda represented by the Cyrus Cylinder was already being disseminated by Persian agents in Babylon before the fall of the city. It could therefore very easily have come to the attention 20  See paragraphs 38 and 39 in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, The Education of the Human Race, translated by Henry Chadwick, Lessing’s Theological Writings (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1956 [1780]), 89. The same point was made, though in an overtly prejudicial manner, a few years later by Georg Lorenz Bauer, author of the first Theology of the Old Testament (1796), who held that the more elevated sentiments evinced by post-exilic prophecy were due to the purifying influence of Persian religious ideas; see Georg Lorenz Bauer, The Theology of the Old Testament (London: Charles Fox Burney, 1838). 21  Ernest Renan, Vie de Jésus (13th ed., Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1862), 52–53; id., The Life of Jesus (London: Watts & Co., 1935), 50. 22  Morton Smith, “II Isaiah and the Persians”, JAOS 83 (1963), 415–21. 23  Rudolph Kittel, “Cyrus und Deuterojesaja”, ZAW 18 (1898), 149–62. For the inscription, see ANET, 315–16. 24  For example: Marduk in the cylinder text and Yahweh in Isaiah 40–48 both treat Cyrus as a friend (Isa  44:28), who is called by name (45:3) and taken by the hand (45:1), who is summoned to go up against Babylon (42:6; 43:14), and who will exercise justice (42:1). There is the same theological topos about the anger of the deity against his own people and its disastrous consequences. In the case of Babylon, the anger is directed against Nabonidus for his neglect of Marduk’s rituals; in the case of Judah, the anger is redirected against the Babylonians who, as agents of divine punishment on Judah, went beyond their mandate.



Yahweh and Ahuramazda as Creator Deities

71

of the author of Isaiah 40–48, resident in the Babylonian diaspora at that time, who then reproduced it in his book. Having thus established the plausibility of sympathetic relations between Persians and Judaeans on the political level, Smith moved on to his second line of argument about the possibility of religious parallels between Zoroastrian and Isaian concepts of cosmic creation. He claimed to find evidence in an often-cited Zoroastrian text, Yasna 44.25 The speaker addresses questions to Ahuramazda in the form, “This I ask you, tell me truly, Ahura”. One example must suffice: This I ask you, tell me truly, Ahura. Who upheld the earth beneath and the firmament from falling? Who (set in place) the waters and the plants? Who yoked swiftness to winds and clouds? Who, O Mazda, is the creator of good thought? (Yasna 44:4).

In this and other stanzas of Yasna 44 the speaker, presumed to be Zarathustra himself, seeks to know who controls the movements of sun, moon and stars, upholds the earth and the firmament, puts in place waters, winds, and clouds, makes light and darkness, morning, noon, and night, and what is the source and origin of righteousness (aša). Smith maintained that for all of these queries about protology and cosmology there can be found parallels in Isaiah 40–48 but not in chapters 49–55, sometimes also in the form of questions (Isa 40:12–14, 21, 26), though rhetorical rather than addressed to the deity. We can agree that Persian agents may have been disseminating anti-Babylonian propaganda prior to Cyrus’ campaign against the city, that they may have done so among expatriate Judeans, and that the author of Isaiah 40–48, assumed by Morton Smith to have been one of these expatriates, may have come in contact with Zoroastrian ideas about creation in connection with these activities. But these speculations must be set over against the lack of evidence for Zoroastrian influence on the Persian court prior to Darius I, together with the plurality of deities, cults and religious practices during this early period for which there is evidence.26 There would also have been a language problem. The Gathas are sacred 25  The Yasna is a liturgical compilation of texts comprising 72 chapters. Chapter 44 is part of one of the 17 Gathas, considered to be of great antiquity and probably composed by the shamanistic prophet Zarathustra himself. For a survey of Zoroastrian textual sources, see Mary Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1984). Some verses from Yasna 44 can be found on p. 34 of that work. The translation in Morton Smith’s article may, in addition, be compared with those of James H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism: The Origins, the Prophet, the Magi (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1972), 367 and Helmut Humbach, The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the other Old Avestan Texts, Volume 1 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter/Universitätsverlag, 1991), 156–163. 26  In addition to the evidence from the royal inscriptions (see above) and the Greek authors, the Persepolis fortification tablets and seal impressions contain the names of several deities including Elamite Humban and Semitic Adad. See Richard T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948) and id., “The Evidence of the Persepolis

72

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

texts chanted only in the original Avestan, a notoriously difficult language. We need not be surprised, therefore, if the majority of specialists in ancient Iranian history and religion are sceptical of claims of significant interaction between Zoroastrians and Judaeans during the early Achaemenid period.27

Yahweh and Marduk as Creator Deities An alternative explanation of the language of creation in Isaiah 40–48 might run as follows: The exaltation in Isaiah 40–48 of the God of Israel as supreme and incomparable, cosmic creator, and controller of the course of history including the career of Cyrus can be construed as a kind of mirror-image of the ideology expressed in dramatic form in the akitu New Year festival, and in literary form in enuma elish, the myth recited and perhaps enacted on the fourth day of this ritual of renewal.28 By the time of writing, Cyrus’ conquests – Ecbatana, Sardis, the Tablets”, in Gershevitch, The Cambridge History of Iran 2, 588–609; Mark B. Garrison and Margaret Cool Root, Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Volume 1: Images of Heroic Encounter, Oriental Institute Publications 117 (Chicago: Chicago University Press); Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Darius I and the Persian Empire”, in Jack M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Volume 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995), 1044–46. By the reign of Artaxerxes II the Indo-Aryan deities Mithra and Anahita, certainly familiar earlier, were being invoked in royal inscriptions. 27  Among them M. Schwartz, “The Religion of Achaemenian Iran”, in Gershevitch, The Cambridge History of Iran 2, 664–97; Dandamaev/Lukonin (eds.), The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran, 320–66; Richard N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publications, 1993), 101, reminds us that “there was no organized Church with dogmas under the early Achaemenids”; Michael Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras: Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale, Volume 1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2002), 157–86. For a sobering account of the difficulties besetting the issue of religion under the Achaemenids see Josef Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD (London/New York: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 94–101. After a thorough review of the specialist writings on the subject, James Barr concluded as follows: “Iranian religious influence, if it did come in, came in through the admixture of Oriental ideas in the Hellenistic world”. See James Barr, “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity”, JAAR 53 (1985), 201–235 (for the quotation, see p. 229). See also the equally negative judgement of Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 458–66. 28 There is an extensive bibliography on the akitu festival. Among more recent contributions (the last half-century or so) the following may be noted: Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the Akitu House”, Iraq 25 (1963), 189–90; Paul-Richard Berger, “Das Neujahrsfest nach den Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches”, in André Finet (ed.), Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1970), 155–59; J.A. Black, “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon”, Religion 11 (1981), 39–59; Karel van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival”, VTSup 43 (1991), 333–44; Jacob Klein, “Akitu”, ABD 1 (1992), 138–40; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, īna šulmi īrub. Die Kulttopographie und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Mainz: Philip von Zabern Verlag, 1994), 110–36; Benjamin D. Sommer, “The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?”, JANES 27 (2000) 81–95.



Yahweh and Marduk as Creator Deities

73

Greek-speaking cities of the Ionian seaboard, Susa – were already far advanced, leaving little doubt about the imminent fate of Babylon.29 The claims advanced on behalf of their god and in favour of Cyrus by the Marduk priesthood and their supporters, as stated in the Cyrus Cylinder and the Verse Account of Nabonidus,30 were directed against the perceived impiety and heterodoxy of Nabonidus, last in a long line of Babylonian kings. He is accused of using untraditional and inappropriate rituals, replacing Marduk with the moon god Sîn, and neglecting to celebrate the akitu New Year festival. The devotees of Marduk anticipated that this situation would be reversed after the arrival of the Persians and the disappearance from the scene of the “heretic king”, and so it happened. After the conquest Nabonidus was deposed, Marduk was reinstated as supreme deity, and the celebration of the akitu was resumed, if only briefly, under foreign auspices.31 The purpose of the festival was therefore to celebrate the supremacy of Marduk among the gods (“Marduk is king!”, enuma elish IV 28), and his cosmic role as creator and sustainer of the world, while at the same time providing religious legitimation for Babylonian imperial rule. It will not be possible to prove that the author of Isaiah 40–48 had witnessed the eleven-day spring festival or had read a version of enuma elish. It may, however, be possible to demonstrate a degree of familiarity on the author’s part at least as striking as was demonstrated by Morton Smith with regard to the formulations in the Cyrus Cylinder mentioned earlier. Let us therefore assume, for the sake of the argument, that the author of Isaiah 40–48 set out to counter the ideology of the Babylonian priesthood inscribed in the akitu ritual and its related theogonic and cosmogonic myth, while presenting Yahweh rather than Marduk as the one sponsoring the victorious career of Cyrus and his conquest of Babylon. While there is a great deal of polemic against iconic representations of deities in Isaiah 40–48, the only deities who are named are Bēl (Marduk) and Nebo (Nabû), the principals in the akitu, and the stage of the celebrations at which they would have been most visible to the public was the joyful 29  The author refers to victories over kings and nations (Isa 41:1–5; 45:1), the anticipated conquest of Babylon and Egypt (43:3,14; 45:2-3; 45:1; 48:14–16) and, in general, repeated emphasis on the impermanence of nations and kings (40:15–17, 23; 41:1–5, 25; 45:1). 30  See Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 43–65. For the text of the Cyrus Cylinder see Pritchard, ANET, 315–16 and for the Verse Account, see ibid., 312–15. For an updated version of both texts with notes, see Kuhrt, The Persian Empire 1, 70–80. 31  Cambyses, son of Cyrus, was appointed king of Babylon (šar babili). Since his legitimacy was acknowledged by the Marduk priesthood, he would in that capacity have taken the lead role in the akitu. However, his royal status lasted only a year and shortly thereafter Babylon was governed by the satrap Gubāru and we hear no more about the akitu. See the detailed discussion in Muhammad A. Dandamaev, Persien unter den ersten Achämeniden, 100–102 and Pierre Briant, L’Histoire de l’empire perse, 82–83 [id., From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 71].

74

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

procession of priests and people to the extramural akitu house on the ninth day of the festival: Bel crouches low, Nebo cowers, their images are loaded on to animals, beasts of burden. These things you once bore aloft are a load for weary animals (Isa 46:1).32

This reads like a deliberate deformation of this high point of the akitu ritual, the procession to the bīt akitu, and the Isaian author goes on to contrast the Babylonian gods who must be transported in this way with the God of Israel who is the bearer and sustainer of his people from birth (46:1–7). Processions featuring the statues of the gods are dismissed elsewhere in Isaiah 40–48 as empty rituals without effect: Those who carry around their wooden idols know nothing; they make their petitions to a god that cannot save (45:20).

There may also be an allusion to the high point of the festival in the threat that the shouts of triumph of the Babylonians will be turned into lamentations (Isa 43:14). According to Babylonian priestly theology, Marduk, victor over the threat of cosmic and social chaos in enuma elish, is the saviour god par excellence. Here, too, in Isaiah  40–48, this claim is negated by appeal to the efficacious salvation offered only by the God of Israel: There is no god apart from me, a god who overcomes and saves; there is none but me (45:21).

In the context, the salvation in question is primarily political. The prophetic word announces a salvation more powerful and effective than the religious resources available to the Babylonians can deliver – their omens, incantations, and astrological calculations (Isa 47:13) – as they faced the end of their independent existence. Enuma elish is generally described as a creation myth, but the creation of the visible world and humanity described in it is incidental to events in the world of the gods.33 The creation of lullu, a kind of lowly, servile creature, was undertaken to release the lesser gods, the Igigi, from their service to the high gods, while providing the latter with their domains or spheres of influence (VI 1–44). 32  All translations of Isaian texts are from Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002). 33  Translations of the text in Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (2nd ed., Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1951); Ephraim A. Speiser, ANET (2nd ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 60–72; Philippe Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enûma Eliš (State Archives of Assyria, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2005). On the world view reflected in the myth, see Henri Frankfort et al., Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1949), 182–99.



Yahweh and Marduk as Creator Deities

75

It is a kind of Heilsgeschichte for gods. It is not surprising that a Judaean prophet would reject the sometimes complicated theogonies in myths like enuma elish (four generations of gods in II 20), and that is what we find: Before me no god was formed, and there will be none after me (43:10).

This is the first and most fundamental reaction to Babylonian theogony: the rejection of the idea that humanity emerges on the scene as involuntarily part of a narrative already in progress, one which it neither owns nor controls. Following the same line of thought, the author insists that Yahweh as creator needed no assistance or counsel: Who has taken the measure of Yahweh’s spirit or advised him as his counsellor? With whom did he consult to be enlightened? … Who imparted knowledge to him or showed him the way of discernment? (40:13–14).

In enuma elish the situation is different: the wise Ea (Nudimmud), lord of the underworld and counsellor to the gods (II 58), assists Marduk as cosmic creator (VI 38), and elsewhere is described as himself creating humanity according to a plan devised by Marduk (VI 35–38, cf. VII 29, 32). Both the myth and the ritual in which it is enacted and given dramatic expression focus on the supremacy of Marduk as world ruler, demanding absolute obedience, wielding power over life and death, whose creative and destructive power is reinforced by the symbolic act of tearing a garment and putting it back together (enuma elish IV 22–26). Both creation and destruction happen at Marduk’s command (VI 131), as also at the word of Yahweh: I form light and create darkness, I bring about well-being and create woe; It is I, Yahweh, who do all these things (45:7).

To repeat a point made earlier: the incomparability of Yahweh, one of the great themes of Isaiah 40–48, is equally thematic with respect to Marduk in enuma elish, reaching a climax in the final acclamation of the deity and the invocation of his fifty names by the assembly of gods: he is the one who has no equal among the gods (VII 14, 88) and whose divine kingship is highly exalted (VII 96). This mirror-imaging approach to the language of Isaiah 40–48 is reinforced by a consideration of the dethronement and humiliation of Queen Babylon, “mistress of kingdoms”, in Isaiah 47. It is not just another instance of the citywoman metaphor (e.g. Nineveh, Nah 3:4–7; Sidon, Isa 23:12). The description of the female persona Zion-Jerusalem in the following section of Isaiah is a mirrorimage, a reversal therefore, of the presentation of the dishonoured “maiden Babylon” in Isaiah 47. The latter must descend from her throne and sit in the

76

6  Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God

dust (47:1), while Zion is told to get up and shake off the dust (52:2); Babylon is stripped and exposed to view (47:2–3), while Zion is clothed in fine garments (49:18; 52:1); Babylon is shamed (47:3), but there will be no more shame for Zion (54:4). The most interesting of these reverse images is the prospect of widowhood for the woman Babylon (47:8–9). In other words, Marduk, city god and her “husband”, will prove unable to protect her and will therefore be as good as dead, while the woman Zion will no longer be abandoned, but will have numerous children (49:20–21; 54:1). Read in this way, Isaiah 40–48 pioneers a new way of confronting overwhelming political power – first Babylonian, then Achaemenid – expressed and projected through its religious symbols. In doing so, it represents one of the great turning points in religious history in antiquity.

7

The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah Prophecy and Politics The critical consensus is that the term “Deutero-Isaiah” or “Second Isaiah” refers to chapters 40–55 of the book of Isaiah, which is taken to be a distinct, anonymous text which, for reasons and under circumstances not entirely clear, came to be attached to chapters 1–39 which feature a prophet called Isaiah, who is referred to in it by name. This historical Isaiah was active in the eighth century bc during the heyday of the Assyrian empire, while the anonymous author of Isaiah 40–55 lived, spoke, and perhaps also wrote two centuries later, during the last years of the Babylonian empire and the rise of the Persian (Iranian, Achaemenid) empire with the conquests of Cyrus II, who is named in Deutero-Isaiah. This would be about the middle of the sixth century bc, which, in the province of Judah, would correspond to the half-century (give or take a year or two) between the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 and the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539. This period marks one of the great turning points in the history of the ancient world and also of course in the history of Israel, a period which witnessed the end of the great Semitic empires in the Middle East, which will reappear only with the Islamic conquests in the seventh century of the common era. So much for the title “Deutero-Isaiah.” The term “theological politics” should not be unfamiliar, since political activity driven by theological convictions is going on around us all the time, not least in the United States. But it is important to add that politics, including international politics, was a fundamental part of the agenda of Israelite prophecy. The prophets were not primarily mystics, and they have little to say about aspects of personal morality, especially those aspects which come under the rubric of sexual ethics which so preoccupy us today. Their focus was on the condition of society and politics, especially international politics. Here, a quote from Max Weber is to the point: It must not be forgotten that in the motivation of Israelite prophets social reforms were only means to an end. The primary concern of prophets was with foreign politics, since they constituted the theatre of their god’s activity.1

1  Max Weber, Economy and Society, edited by Guenther Roth/Claus Wittich (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), 443.

78

7  The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah

Hence the frequent intervention of prophets in international affairs. An example from the last days of the kingdom of Judah: the great issue during that critical period was the decision whether to participate in rebellion against the imperial power of Babylon or accept the status quo and make the best of it; a dilemma common to small nations at all times, who are confronted with the overwhelming resources and power of empires and superpowers. Combing through the biblical sources for those years prior to the final catastrophe, we can identify distinct parties opposed to and in favour of rebellion, with prophets on both sides. Jeremiah acted as the spokesman and point person for the party which opposed rebellion – the appeasement party as their opponents would have called it – and on the other side Hananiah, a Judaean prophet and opponent of Jeremiah who made a short-term (and therefore risky) prediction that the Babylonians would be finished in two years, which did not happen (Jer 28:1–4). In the Babylonian diaspora two prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah, were put to a horrible death for sedition. They would have been considered martyrs to the cause of resistance in the eyes of their supporters, but were vilified by Jeremiah (Jer 29:21­23). This was in the years leading to the final catastrophe. The prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah were in circulation, orally, in writing, or both, about three or four decades after the fall of Jerusalem. Cyrus II, king of Anshan in western Iran, was engaged in a string of conquests beginning with the Medes and Elamites, then Parthians, Armenians, Bactrians, all of Asia Minor, the vast regions of Central Asia, and some Greek cities on the western seaboard of Asia Minor, culminating in the conquest of the city of Babylon in October 539 bc. All of these became part of the Persian empire which, in terms of extent, population and organization, can be considered the first world empire. To make the point: the entire Babylonian empire including Judah became one of the twenty-two satrapies of the Persian empire listed by Herodotus.

The Eclipse of the Davidic Dynasty While this was going on, the survivors of the catastrophe in Judah were engaged in the task of putting their lives back together. It will be hard for those of us who have not had to live through a catastrophic situation to imagine what life was like for the survivors in Judah after the obliterating events of the autumn and winter of 586 bc. The disintegration of the Judaean state and the eclipse of the Davidic dynasty, which held everything together, had already begun with the death of Josiah, the last significant ruler, in 609 bc, and was hastened by the ineptitude or inexperience of the last rulers, three sons and one grandson of Josiah, all in their mid-twenties or teens. With the final conquest, the murder, mayhem, and systematic destruction of property, followed by the deportations, Judah became what sociologists call a post-collapse society. In that situation,



The Eclipse of the Davidic Dynasty

79

often repeated throughout history down to the very recent present, the survivors had to fall back on whatever resources were available in the household and kinship networks. Sooner or later, questions about why it happened and who was responsible would emerge, and sooner or later they would be directed towards the ancestral deity who, according to one of the psalms, watches over Israel without slumbering or sleeping (Ps  121). Especially painful was the thought that the same deity, after entering into a perpetual covenant with David, had now apparently disowned him by bringing the dynasty to an end. Another hymn makes the complaint: You have spurned your anointed one, you have rejected him and raged against him, you have renounced the covenant with your servant, defiled his crown and thrown it to the ground (Ps 89:39).

The extinction of the dynasty, signalled by the public execution of the children of Zedekiah the last king, after which he was blinded and led shackled into exile, removed the basis, the linchpin, which controlled every aspect of social life. The range of response to the religious crisis precipitated by the extinction of the dynasty and liquidation of the state is reflected in one way or another in practically every biblical text datable to the post-disaster period. One option was to reject the “Yahweh alone” theology established by Josiah and the reform party during his reign and to fall back on “the old religion”, the worship of the chthonic gods, the gods of the underworld, and the goddess to whose worship throughout the history of Israel and Judah the abundant archaeological and textual evidence attests. Chapter 44 of the book of Jeremiah has preserved a remarkably vivid cameo of a scene in Egypt to which some of the military leaders and people had fled after the assassination of the Babylonian-appointed ruler of the province, taking Jeremiah with them. Jeremiah is proclaiming once again that the disaster happened because of the people’s religious infidelity. In one of the few instances in the Hebrew Bible where women get to talk about religion, some of the women present summarily rejected his explanation for the disaster: We are not going to listen to what you tell us. We intend to burn sacrifices to the Queen of Heaven as we used to do, we and our forefathers, our kings and leaders, in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem. Then we had food in plenty and were content. But from the time we left off burning sacrifices to the Queen of Heaven we have been in great want, and have fallen victims to sword and famine. (Jer 44:16–18)

An alternative explanation for the disaster, therefore. Others who chose to remain faithful to Yahweh and the ancestral traditions would be left with the task of justifying their choice, in the first place to themselves, then to others including those who, as one of the psalms puts it, were asking, “Where now is your God?” (Ps 42:4; 115:2). This is the situation which Deutero-Isaiah is addressing, and to which he will propose a radical alternative as a basis for future restoration.

80

7  The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah

Tokens of Faithful Love for David (Isaiah 55:1–5) The only mention of David in Isaiah 40–66, occurs towards the conclusion of Deutero-Isaiah, at the beginning of the last chapter (55:1–5), a passage in which many of the themes which recur throughout the section are recapitulated. Since one of these themes is the future governance of Judah, this one reference to the Davidic dynasty could provide a point of departure for a discussion of the theological politics incorporated in the text. After the invitation to accept the free gift of food that really nourishes (vv. 1–2), the saying continues as follows (vv. 3–5): Come to me and listen carefully, Hear me, and your spirit will revive. I shall make a perpetual covenant with you, the tokens of faithful love I showed to David As I appointed him a witness to peoples, so you will summon a nation you do not know, and a nation that does not know you will come in haste to you, for the sake of your God, for the Holy One of Israel who has made you glorious.

The most natural interpretation of this appeal is that God will show you, the prophet’s fellow-Judaeans, the same favour he showed David in the past.2 These “tokens of faithful love” imply a guarantee of perpetuity for the Davidic dynasty, as stated in Nathan’s oracular pronouncement (2 Sam 7:8–17), and elsewhere (e. g. Ps 89:27–37), in effect a perpetual covenant, as is explicit in 2 Samuel 23:5 and implicit in our text. But the commitment made long ago concerning the dynasty has now been reinterpreted, reformulated and transferred to the people as a whole, those addressed by the author who had survived the disaster which swept the dynasty away. The passage continues by applying this insight to international relations, always of decisive significance for small nations, then as now, whose fate was to live in the shadow of great empires. David’s relations with foreign nations as overlord and source of the blessings of justice and peace are 2  hasdê dāvid, only here and 2 Chr 6:42, parsed as objective genitive in keeping with the context, as Hugh G. M. Williamson, “‘The Sure Mercies of David’: Subjective or Objective Genitive?”, JSS 23 (1978), 31–49, rather than referring to deeds performed by David, as André Caquot, “Les ‘grâces de David’: À propos d’Isaïe 55,3b”, Sem 15 (1965), 45–59; W. A. M. Beuken, “Isa.55.3–5: The Restoration of David”, Bijdragen 35 (1974), 49–64; Pierre Bordreuil, “Les ‘grâces de David’ et I Maccabee ii 57”, VT 31 (1981), 73–76. That David is the recipient rather than the origin of the tokens of faithful love is the view of most recent commentators, e. g., Roger Norman Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (London: Oliphants, 1965), 191; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 434–45; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 370–71; John Goldingay/David Payne, Isaiah 40–55: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, Volume 2 (London: T.&T. Clark, 2006), 371–75.



Tokens of Faithful Love for David (Isaiah 55:1–5)

81

now reformulated in terms of a new relationship of the people as a whole to the outside world which will bring the author’s fellow-Judaeans recognition and honour. Use of the singular, gôy, nation, in v. 5 (twice) would, in the circumstances, hint at Persia under the rule of Cyrus, a figure overwhelmingly present throughout the first section of Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–48). The statement “you will summon a nation you do not know, and a nation that does not know you will come in haste to you” echoes the frequent summons addressed to Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48 (Isa 41:25; 42:6; 45:3, 4), even though he does not know Israel’s God (45:4–5). In Isaiah 55:3–5, read in the light of Deutero-Isaiah as a whole, the summons would refer to Cyrus as representative of the nation summoned to act as agent of the God of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Babylon. The need to rethink the established dogma of the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty arose from the intractable data of historical experience. The eclipse of the Davidic dynasty, signalled by the public slaughter of the sons of Zedekiah, last of the line, and the dragging of the blinded king into exile (2 Kgs 25:7) had happened within the lifetime of many of the prophet’s audience, and perhaps also that of the prophet himself writing during the last years of Babylonian rule. Psalm 89 contains one of the most poignant expressions of bewilderment and anguish at the apparently definitive annulment of the covenant by which the permanence of the national dynasty was thought to have been guaranteed. The lament in this psalm has enough in common with the theme and even the language of Isaiah 55:3–5 to suggest that the author of our text, and of Isaiah 40– 55 as a whole, was familiar with it and had it in mind. It is clear nevertheless that the Isaian author goes well beyond the psalmist who can still plead with Yahweh to bear in mind his promises, and can still utter the age-old complaint “how long?” (v. 47 emended text). For the Isaian author, on the contrary, the dynastic promise has undergone a fundamental reinterpretation. Hence the complete absence of allusion to David and the Davidic dynasty in Deutero-Isaiah either as a historical reality, or the object of hope for the future, or a character in eschatological scenarios, a situation unparalleled in prophetic texts dated to the exilic period.3 But this situation, remarkable in itself, leaves unaddressed the issue of an acceptable alternative form of governance once the break with the native dynasty is accepted as inevitable. It invites us to ask whether the author of Isaiah 40–55 had his own answer to that question.

3 Cf. Jer 17:24–25; 22:1–4; 23:5–6; 30:8–9; 33:14–26; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–28; Amos 9:11– 12; Mic 5:1–4, and frequently in Isaiah 1–39 (9:1–6; 11:1–9; 16:5). Taking in this broader view makes it difficult to accept the more benign alternative that the promise to David is now to be shared with all the people rather than transferred to them, as W. C. Kaiser, “The Unfailing Kindnesses promised to David: Isaiah 55:3”, JSOT 45 (1989), 41–98.

82

7  The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah

The Historical Situation: Prospects and Options Any attempt to address this issue must take account of the historical context in which the author of Deutero-Isaiah4 was active, a context which takes in the period from the end of the dynasty to the time of writing, by broad agreement the last decade of Babylonian rule (ca. 550–539 bc). The final eclipse of the Davidic dynasty occupied the quarter century following the death of Josiah during which four of his descendants, three sons and one grandson, either were helpless to prevent the liquidation of the Judaean state or, by their ineptitude, contributed to it. The public execution of the male children of Zedekiah, last of the four (2 Kgs 25:6–7) was a deliberate act aimed at finally extinguishing the dynasty and, with it, any hope of independence for “the rebellious city harmful to kings and provinces” (Ezra 4:15). There was, however, still one surviving representative of the dynasty, the exiled Jehoiachin. An appendix to the Deuteronomistic History records that in the first year of his reign, therefore 562/561 bc, Amel Marduk (written dysphemistically as Evil-Merodach in 2 Kgs 25:27) granted amnesty to Jehoiachin and gave him a pre-eminent position among other exiled rulers at the Babylonian court (2 Kgs 25:27–30). It looks as if Jehoiachin was being groomed to return to Jerusalem as a client ruler, a move perhaps inspired by anxiety about the expansionist operations of Pharaoh Ahmose II in the western reaches of the Babylonian empire. But if this was the plan, it came to nothing since AmelMarduk was assassinated a few months later by his brother Neriglissar. Jehoiachin therefore died in Babylon after all, as predicted by Jeremiah (Jer 22:26). At the time of the composition of Deutero-Isaiah, this was very recent history. In retrospect, it must have seemed to many contemporaries who had survived the terrible half-century since the death of Josiah in 609 bc as if that tragic event marked, in effect, the end of the line for the dynasty. This would have made it 4  Use of the term “author” calls for explanation. Without attempting to argue the case in detail, I am assuming a basic thematic unity throughout chapters 40–55 and must confess to some hesitation with regard to recent attempts to section the work into layers, assigning dates to each. This seems to me to be especially the case with passages which ostensibly, in the context, refer to Cyrus II and have been generally so understood, but are redated to the reign of Darius I. I have in mind the dividing up of Isa 45:1–7, the primary Cyrus text, in the redactional tour de force of Reinhard Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), but also of the older study of Jean M. Vincent, Studien zur literarischen Eigenart und zur geistigen Heimat von Jesaja, Kap. 40–55 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1977) and, more recently, Odil Hannes Steck, “Israel und Zion: Zum Problem konzeptioneller Einheit und literarischer Schichtung in Deuterojesaja”, in his collected essays Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 173–207; also Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 322–413. On the need for a less drastic approach to Redaktionsgeschichte, see the remarks of Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas: Probleme der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes  40–55”, in Jacques Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah: Le Livre d’Isaïe (Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1989), 286–312.



The Historical Situation: Prospects and Options

83

easier to accept the transfer of the promises to David from the dynasty to the people as a whole. The same view is expressed in a more subtle way in the Chronicler’s rewritten version of Josiah’s death and obsequies (2 Chr 35:20–27). The latter concludes, uniquely, with a memorial lament which reads like a lament for the Davidic house as a whole and, with it, the passing of an entire way of life. In surveying this half-century of turmoil, we can detect the emergence of different points of view on what kind of future was possible and tolerable in the absence of the native dynasty and the overwhelming presence of imperial power represented by the Babylonians and, in prospect, the Persians. To these points of view corresponded parties with conflicting views on the fundamental issue of acquiescence in or active opposition to imperial rule in its different forms. The appointment of Gedaliah over the province sharpened the issue and raised the stakes on the conflicts about a future without the dynasty (2 Kgs 25:22–26; Jer 40:1–41:18). This would be especially the case if, as I would argue, Gedaliah was appointed as client king, since he was certainly not of Davidic descent. It would also make it easier to appreciate the reticence of the biblical accounts of his appointment, as also his assassination by a certain Ishmael who was, or claimed to be, of Davidic descent (mizzera῾ hammělûkâ, Jer 41:1). The biblical account of the situation is obviously incomplete, but the biblical texts have much to say about Jeremiah and the Shaphanids on the one hand and, on the other, on the policies pursued by the last Davidic rulers and their supporters, especially their determination to participate in revolts. Prominent among these supporters were those referred to as the ῾am hā᾽āres. It is accepted that this designation can mean different things in different epochs and situations. In the last decades of the Judaean monarchy it connotes a distinctly identifiable group with a nationalistic and pro-dynastic program. It was this group which put both Josiah and his successor Jehoahaz on the throne (2 Kgs 21:24; 23:30), who were among the most dedicated in support of the native dynasty and the pursuit of national independence, and who were distinctive enough for sixty of them to be picked out and executed by the Babylonians after the fall of Jerusalem (2  Kgs  25:19). Nationalistic prophets in both Judah (Jer  28:1–17) and the Babylonian diaspora (Jer  29:1–32) shared the same views. This party conflict in the last phase of the kingdom of Judah may be reflected in the final chapter of the Deuteronomistic History. It seems likely that it originally ended with the definitive statement that “Judah went into exile out of its land” (2  Kgs  25:21) rather than with the inconsequential bit of information with which it concludes in its present form (2 Kgs 25:30).5 If this is so, two appendices must have been added. The first is the account of the appointment of Gedaliah, his assassination, and an exodus en masse to Egypt to avoid the anticipated Babylonian reprisal 5  Recent discussion in Thomas Römer, La première histoire d’Israël: L’école deutéronomiste (Fribourg: Labor et Fides, 2006), 152.

84

7  The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah

(2 Kgs 25:22–26). The second, which holds out a sliver of hope for a future restoration, records the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin by Amel Marduk and therefore must have been added before the assassination of the latter in 560 bc.6 All of this is in sharp contrast to the conclusion of Chronicles where the focus is no longer on the national dynasty but on Cyrus as the divinely inspired agent of Yahweh (2 Chr 36:22–23). And with Cyrus we return to DI and its author’s answer to the questions of his own day.

Cyrus as Divinely-Inspired and Divinely-Appointed Successor to the Davidic Dynasty In chapters 40–48, the first major section of Deutero-Isaiah,7 Cyrus is destined to be the principal agent of national rehabilitation and restoration for Judaean communities in Judah and the diaspora. Karl Budde stated this very clearly many years ago: “Cyrus stands at the very centre of the prophet’s world view”.8 He is the one who will defeat Judah’s enemies, Babylon in the first place,9 impose an international order based on justice and peace (42:1–4),10 allow, even facilitate, the repatriation of those forcibly deported (42:7; 45:13), and make possible the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple (44:28; 45:13). These tasks are to be dis6  The situation is more complex for those who argue for a Josian edition of the history concluding with the statement about the incomparability of Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:25: “Before him there was no king like him who turned to Yahweh with all his heart and soul and strength, according to all the law of Moses”. After experiencing the four, or maybe five rulers who followed him, a later scribe has added: “nor did any like him arise after him”, followed by a statement in which Yahweh rejects Judah, Jerusalem and its temple (23:25b–27). The general sense seems to be that the dynasty ended, in effect, with Josiah. For a summary account of the double redaction theory, together with competing views of the “Cross school” and the “Göttingen school”, see Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer, Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 46–58. 7 On the structural and thematic distinction between chapters 40–48 and 49–55, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 73–74. 8 Cited in Max Haller, “Die Kyros-Lieder Deuterojesaja”, in Hans Schmidt (ed.), ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 261. 9  Isa 41:1–5, 25–29; 43:14; 45:1–7, 13; 46:11; 48:14–16. 10  The nature of the commission mandated in 42:1–4, that of imposing an international order based on justice (mišpāt, occurring three times in this short passage), is the function of a ruler, not of a prophet or priest. It has several of the features of a royal installation ritual, cf. Ps 2, 72, 110. The identification of the ῾ebed in 42:1–4 with Cyrus has often been argued or assumed, e. g., Haller, “Die Kyroslieder des Deuterojesaja”, 262–63; Sydney Smith, Isaiah Chapters XL–LV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944), 54–57; Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), 189–91. It should be added that since the book of Isaiah has been the object of a continuous and cumulative process of reinterpretation, this first of Duhm’s servant passages could have been reapplied to other figures at a later time. See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40– 55, 209–12.



Cyrus as Divinely-Inspired and Divinely-Appointed Successor to the Davidic Dynasty 85

charged under the direct inspiration of Yahweh, Israel’s king.11 Such expectations would not have seemed unreasonable in view of propaganda of the kind disseminated in the Cyrus Cylinder text published within a year of the fall of Babylon. In the second half of this manifesto, Cyrus, speaking in his own name, claimed to have restored the gods of subject peoples to their original sanctuaries and permitted their devotees to return to their native lands.12 Most commentators conclude that Deutero-Isaiah, or the greater part of it, was composed before the promulgation of this text, some time between 550 and 538. However, pro-Persian propaganda would have been in circulation during the last years of the reign of Nabonidus, probably disseminated by Marduk priests offended by Nabonidus’ neglect of the akitu festival and his other impieties, and the author or authors of Deutero-Isaiah could have become acquainted with it at that time. On the assumption that whoever wrote Isaiah 40–48 had a particular form of governance in mind for the immediate future, we must go on to ask in what capacity Cyrus was to fulfil this commission assigned to him by Yahweh. I will argue that this prophet is attempting to persuade his public that Yahweh is now bringing about a new dispensation in which Cyrus, as Yahweh’s agent, will take over the succession to the now defunct Davidic dynasty, warranted by an authority which transcends by far descent through the male line, namely, direct divine inspiration not only of the prophetic author but of Cyrus himself.13 Since this solution called for abandoning beliefs long cherished together with aspirations for political autonomy, we can appreciate that many of the hearers would be predisposed to reject the message. An earlier commentator put this is even stronger terms: “If Cyrus was the anointed of YHWH, he had taken the place of the line of David, and had become the true king of Judah … The consequence, equally inevitable, of this proclamation of Cyrus must have been that the prophet would seem to some of his own people a traitor, worthy of death.”14 Hence the weight attached to prophetic authority in Deutero-Isaiah, validated by the Deuteronomistic verification-falsification theory (Deut 18:21–22), in other 11  Isa 41:21; 43:15; 44:6. With the verb hā῾îr, “stir up”, “inspire”, in Isa 41:2, 25; 45:13; cf. 2 Chr 36:22; Ezra 1:1. 12  For the relevant statements correspond to lines 32–33 of the Cylinder, see the translation in ANET, 315–16. It is acknowledged, however, that this is propaganda probably emanating from Babylonian priests hostile to Nabonidus, and that Persian policy vis-à-vis subject peoples was not significantly different from that of their imperial predecessors. See, inter alios, R. J. Van der Spek, “Did Cyrus the Great Introduce a New Policy Towards Subdued Nations?”, Persica 10 (1982), 278–83; Amélie Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial policy”, JSOT 25 (1983), 83–97. 13 The verb (hā῾îr > ῾îr) can have a meaning analogous to prophetic inspiration, with reference to the Servant of the Lord (Isa 50:4), Zerubbabel and Joshua (Hag 1:14), and diaspora Jews (Ezra 1:5). I take it that this is the sense in which Cyrus is said to be inspired (Isa 41:2, 25; 45:13; also 2 Chr 36:22; Ezra 1:1). 14  Sydney Smith, Isaiah Chapters XL–LV: Literary Criticism and History (London: Oxford University Press, 1944), 74.

86

7  The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah

words, the fulfilment of earlier predictions.15 Hence also the repeated emphasis on the cosmic power of the deity who sponsors and guarantees the truth of the prophet’s message.16 These recurring themes testify to the earnestness of the prophet’s claim to a hearing while at the same time betraying an implicit acknowledgment of the likelihood of rejection. One indication of the latter may be detected in the prophet’s gradually increasing exasperation at the failure of those addressed to accept the message.17 That this is the author’s political solution to the current crisis is supported by the complete silence of Deutero-Isaiah on David, the Davidic dynasty, and its destiny, with the exception of the passage cited at the head of this essay. It can also be deduced more directly from the titles assigned to Cyrus. These include such familiar designations as “servant” (῾ebed) and “shepherd” (ro῾eh), which encapsulate the millennial Mesopotamian ideal of the just ruler and are likewise part of the Davidic titulature.18 If the first of the four Duhmian Ebedlieder (42:1–4), with the following comment (42:5–9), was at that time referred to Cyrus, as proposed earlier, it could imply a commissioning of the Persian ruler as Yahweh’s royal servant and a presentation of him in that capacity to the people. Isaiah 42:1–4 reads, in fact, like a solemn verbatim report of a ceremony of installation in office. The idea behind the ruler as servant is not, or at least not primarily, that he is in to serve his people, but that he is to function in the service of the deity who commissioned him and whose will he is to implement. Whereas according to the Cylinder text, Cyrus is commissioned by and acts in the name of Marduk, in our text he is the servant of Yahweh. An inscription from the Abu-Habba collection in the British Museum from the reign of Nabonidus refers to Marduk who “aroused Cyrus, king of Anshan, his young servant”, who then went on to defeat the Medes.19 The metaphor of shepherding, on the other hand, tempers the image of absolute royal power with a concern for justice and care for society’s losers and outcasts (Isa 40:11–12). As a metaphor for just and equitable rule, it features in royal annals throughout Mesopotamian history, for example, with reference to Hammurapi and Ashurbanipal. As shepherd, therefore, Cyrus will see to the well-being of the prophet’s defeated and dispirited fellow-Judaeans, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the restoration of the ruined cities of Judah

15 

Isa 41:22–23, 25–29; 44:7–8, 26–28; 48:3–5, 16b. Isa 40:12–14, 21, 26, 28; 42:5; 45:7, 12, 18; 48:13. See Blenkinsopp, “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Deutero-Isaiah”, CBQ 73 (2011), 493–510. 17  Isa 42:18–25; 43:22–28; 45:9–13; 46:8–13; 48:1–11. 18  David as the servant of YHWH in 2 Sam 3:18; 1 Kgs 8:24–26; 2 Kgs 19:34; Jer 33:21–22, 26. 19  Text in Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556–539 B. C. (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989), 108. Several scholars have noted parallels between this text and Deutero-Isaiah. 16 



Cyrus as Divinely-Inspired and Divinely-Appointed Successor to the Davidic Dynasty 87

(Isa  44:28). The most striking of these titles attached to the native dynast in several texts,20 and to Cyrus in Deutero-Isaiah, is māšîah, “anointed one”: This is what Yahweh says about his anointed one, about Cyrus: “I have grasped him by his right hand to beat down nations before him, depriving kings of their strength; to open doors before him, with no gates closed to him” (45:1).

Commentators have experienced problems with the text and syntax of this verse, quite apart from the question whether lěkôreš should be elided as an interpolation.21 There is therefore more than one way of translating the verse, but the translation offered above is defensible. Anointing is an important element in ceremonies of installation in the office of kingship, in Judah as elsewhere in the Near East, and such a ceremony may be alluded to in the passage which the statement cited above introduces (Isa  45:1–7). In this ceremony the deity addresses the king-designate directly, as here and in Psalm 2:7–9, and presents him to the assembly, as in Isaiah 42:1–4. Other features – holding him by the hand (v. 1, also 42:6), calling him by name (vv. 3 and 4), giving him a title or throne name (v. 4), ending, perhaps, with an allusion to investiture, are familiar features of the practice and ideology of royalty in the ancient Near East. Several of them appear on the Cyrus Cylinder with reference to Cyrus as appointee of the imperial Babylonian deity Marduk, and all are familiar from the language of the Babylonian court.22 20  E. g. 1 Sam 2:10, 35; 2 Sam 19:22; 22:51; 23:1 and often in Psalms; Lam 4:20 is particularly poignant and relevant to the situation addressed by Deutero-Isaiah: “YHWH’s anointed, the breath of our life, was taken in their traps, although we had thought to live among the nations, secure under his shadow.” 21  On these issues, see Karl Elliger, Deuterojesaja 40,1–45,7, Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 481–503; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66. A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 152–55, 162; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 243–45; Goldingay/Payne, Isaiah 40–55: Volume 2, 17–22. Few have followed Charles C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah. A  New Interpretation (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928), 42, 357 and James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 115–34 who, for quite different reasons, deleted lěkôreš as an interpolation. Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, Hermeneia, translated by Margaret Kohl, edited by Peter Machinist (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 223, agrees that it is interpolated but adds rather mysteriously that Deutero-Isaiah was the interpolator. 22  Discussion of parallels in Isaiah 40–55 with Babylonian Hofstil go back all the way to the much-cited article of Rudolph Kittel, “Cyrus und Deuterojesaja”, ZAW 18 (1898), 149–62. Kittel argued that the close parallels, even in wording, between Marduk’s relation to Cyrus in the Cylinder and YHWH’s relation to the same monarch in Deutero-Isaiah cannot be explained by direct dependence either way but only by familiarity on the part of Deutero-Isaiah with the traditional and stereotypical language of the Babylonian court. In the almost equally-cited article, “II Isaiah and the Persians”, JAOS 83 (1963), 415–21, Morton Smith, while not ques-

88

7  The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah

The International Context of the Prophet’s Endorsement of Cyrus The prophet’s endorsement of Cyrus is rendered more intelligible by what happened in the aftermath of the fall of Babylon in 539 bc. The Cylinder text states the claim of Cyrus to be king of Babylon as legitimate successor of Nabonidus, a claim justified by sponsorship on the part of Marduk, imperial god of Babylon. Marduk was angry with Nabonidus, looked for a replacement, chose Cyrus, and commanded him to take the city and restore the traditional cult.23 Cyrus was therefore given religious legitimation as successor to the last Babylonian king. Towards the end of the Cylinder text, Cyrus reports the discovery of an inscription of Ashurbanipal whom he describes as “a king who preceded me”, that is, as king of Babylon.24 One of the titles of Cyrus which appears on contemporary inscriptions is therefore “king of Babylon, king of the lands” (šar babili šar m tāti).25 His succession to the discredited Nabonidus, and therefore also to the illustrious Nebuchadnezzar II, was thus accepted as legitimate, at least by the Marduk priesthood, on the theological grounds of their god’s sponsorship. After the conquest, Cyrus restored the akitu spring festival in Marduk’s esagila sanctuary, neglected by Nabonidus, and confirmed his claim to the throne by presiding over the festival, a circumstance which could lead to reflection on the Persian attitude to the Jerusalem temple as emblematic of and instrumental in imperial control of Judah. (One indication of the new function of the Jerusalem temple, viewed from the Persian perspective, is the requirement that prayers for the royal family in Susa be incorporated into the temple liturgy, Ezra 6:9–10). It was the rejection of this religious legitimation of Persian succession to the Babylonian throne which led to the dynastic revolt of Nidintu- Bel who claimed, perhaps truthfully, to be the son of Nabonidus and heir to the great Nebuchadnezzar II. A second Babylonian dynastic revolt followed shortly afterwards led by a certain Arkha, referred to as an Armenian but of obscure antecedents, who was crowned in Babylon as Nebuchadnezzar IV, and whose revolt was suppressed towards the end of 521 bc.26 tioning the parallels, proposed that the DI author could have drawn on pro-Persian propaganda disseminated among Jewish expatriates in Babylon before the fall of the city. 23  ANET, 315. 24  Amélie Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy”, 88; id., The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London/New York: Routledge, 2007), 72. 25  Muhammad A. Dandamaev, Persien unter den ersten Achämeniden (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1976), 96–100; id., A  Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 54–56. 26  The primary source is the Bisitun inscription (columns I 77–II 5; IV 28–29). Cuneiform texts dated to the autumn of 521, during the brief reign of Arkha-Nebuchadnezzar IV, have come to light in southern Mesopotamia; see Amélie Kuhrt, “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes”, in John Boardman et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 4: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525–479 bc (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),



A Final Note

89

A similar pattern emerged after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 bc. Cambyses assumed the throne as legitimate successor to the last of the Saitic Pharaohs, Psammeticus III or, since the latter’s reign was short and insignificant, that of his predecessor Amasis (570–526 bc). As such, he was accepted as the founder of the twenty-seventh dynasty, and is addressed in those terms in the autobiographical inscription of the Egyptian notable Udjahorresnet.27 Jerusalem, however, was not Babylon, one of the nodal points in the Achaemenid empire, nor was it Memphis. Deutero-Isaiah’s argument for legitimation was of the same kind, but it was evident that Cyrus would rule over Judah neither in his own person nor through a native appointed as a client king, but through a provincial governor who would answer to the satrap of BabylonTranseuphrates. Perhaps the memory of the convulsive events following on the death of Josiah excluded the more accommodating option of relative autonomy under a native ruling as client king, even if a suitable candidate had been available.

A Final Note The prophet’s acceptance of the legitimacy of empire was not unconditional. It was contingent in the first place on Jewish communities under Persian rule being left free to worship in their own way and in their own place of worship, and to conduct undisturbed their own religious practices. In this respect it anticipates the situation described in the opening chapters of the book of Daniel in which Daniel and his companions exist for the most part peaceably in the Babylonian empire, profit by the educational opportunities available, serve at the imperial court, and can even rise to high office. They do so, however, while observing strictly the dietary laws and the customary prayers and refusing to worship other deities. Deutero-Isaiah’s theological politics were radical in contemplating, for the first time, the possibility of a future without the apparatus of a nation state including a native dynasty, and in pointing the way to living in an almost inconceivably larger world, the world created by the vast Persian empire, under the providence of a God whose concerns exceeded the limits of nation and ethnic group.

129–30. See also Herodotus III  150–160 who, however, is not well informed on the reign of Darius I. 27 Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, 76–78; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah”, JBL 106 (1987), 409–21.

8

Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48 The Late Emergence of Abrahamic Ancestral Traditions Abraham is a figure from the past known to us exclusively from the Hebrew Bible, and even in the Hebrew Bible he has a relatively low profile apart from the narrative cycle in Genesis 11:27–25:10. The triadic formula (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) suggests that at least the name was known from a relatively early date, and its evolution can be traced in the Genesis narrative subsequent to Abraham’s death: Isaac prays to the God of Abraham (Gen 26:23–24), Jacob encounters the God of Abraham and Isaac (Gen 28:13; 32:10), and Joseph assures his brothers that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will bring them out of Egypt (Gen 50:23). Apart from the Abraham narrative cycle, the only passage in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets (Joshua through Kings) in which Abraham is more than a name is the historical survey introducing Joshua’s covenant immediately prior to his death (Josh 24:2–13). Here, exceptionally, Israelite origins are traced not to Jacob, or to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, but to an earlier set of ancestors: Terah, Abraham, and Nahor. The critical consensus is that this heilsgeschichtlich recital and the covenant to which it is prefaced form a supplement to the book of late date, not far removed in time from the similar recital in Nehemiah 9:6–15, in a prayer attributed in LXX to Ezra.1 The chronological priority of origins traditions beginning no further back than Jacob’s entry into Egypt and centred on the exodus and wilderness experience, and the later extension of traditions about Abraham as the primeval ancestor, are confirmed in a more direct and expressive way in the language of liturgical song and prayer. Abraham is named in only two of the one hundred and fifty psalms (Ps 47:10; 105:6, 9, 42). The God addressed in Psalm 47:10 is “the God of Abraham,” but the title “God of Jacob” is much more in evidence throughout the collection.2 In Psalm 105 Abraham is the servant of God (vv. 6, 42), and he is remembered for the covenant and promise made with him by God in favour of his descendants (vv. 9, 42). The remarkable emphasis in several of the psalms on 1  According to Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua, Handbuch zum Alten Testament (2nd ed., Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953), 135–39, Joshua 24 is a late Deuteronomistic creation indicated by the list of nations (v. 11) and the inclusion of the Balaam cycle, as in Deut 23:5–6. Most critical commentators agree in general terms. 2  Ps 20:1; 46:11; 76:6; 81:1, 4; 84:8; 146:5.

The Late Emergence of Abrahamic Ancestral Traditions



91

the religious infidelity of the “out of Egypt” generation, leading to its forfeiture of the territorial blessing,3 was no doubt a factor in the extension of the origins story backwards to Abraham who is never included in these denunciations.4 A survey of prophetic texts confirms a relatively late date for the emergence of narrative traditions about Abraham. In the prophetic compilations Jacob is by far the dominant ancestral figure with which Israelites identify and for whom they are named. Leaving aside once again the triadic formula, Abraham is named four times in Isaiah (29:22; 41:8; 51:2; 63:16), once in Ezekiel (33:24), and once in Micah (7:20). Isaiah  29:22 introduces a saying addressed to “the house of Jacob” by Yahweh “who redeemed Abraham.” This may be an early reference to Abraham’s rescue from idolatry in Ur, a theme familiar from Jewish legend, for example in the The Apocalypse of Abraham. In any case, it serves, in context, as an appendix to the passage immediately preceding which foresees the restoration of the created order, the reversal of ecological disorder, and the removal of disabilities (Isa  29:17–21). It is therefore almost certainly late, perhaps as late as the Hellenistic period.5 The finale of the Book of Micah (7:18–20), reminds the reader of God’s faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham. Together with the liturgical lament in the last chapter, this language has persuaded most commentators to assign a date in the Second Temple period to the last section and conclusion of the book.6 Abraham begins to emerge from the shadows during the traumatic period from the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians to the fall of Babylon to the Persians (586–539 bc), to which we probably should add the terrible quarter-century from the death of Josiah, the last significant Judaean ruler, to the final liquidation of the state. Six years after the first of three deportations, therefore 592–591 bc, Ezekiel records an argument for exclusive possession of the land advanced by those left behind in the conquered province (Ezek 11:14–21). Abraham is not mentioned by name, but what is implied is the territorial promise to Abraham 3 

Ps 78:56–64; 79:8–10; 95:8–11; 106:6–33. A rather cryptic text which recalls the sin of the first ancestor (Isa 43:27) refers to Jacob rather than Abraham, since the saying ends with Jacob (meaning the people as a whole) delivered up to ruin (v. 28). There are other allusions to the moral shortcomings of Jacob in the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32:15) and Hos 12:3–4. The transgressive ancestor cannot be Abraham, “the friend of God” (Isa 41:8). 5  Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 278; Hans Wildberger, Jesaja 3, Teilband Jesaja 28–39, Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 1127, 1134; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 408–10. 6 Still important is Hermann Gunkel, “Der Micha-Schluss”, Zeitschrift für Semitistik 2 (1924), 148–78 [id., “The Close of Micha  – A  Prophetic Liturgy”, in Gunkel, What Remains of the Old Testament (London/New York: Griffin, 1928)], 115–49; See also Delbert R. Hillers, Micah: A  Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micha, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 83–91. 4 

92

8  Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48

on behalf of his descendants, contingent on his making the journey to Canaan and remaining in it. That those deported had “gone far from Yahweh” was taken to mean that they had been expelled from the Yahweh cult community, thus forfeiting their right to the land and justifying the confiscation of their real estate.7 This line of argument is not particularly persuasive, but even less so is the argument of those who remained behind after the fall of Jerusalem and subsequent deportations reported by Ezekiel some years later: “The inhabitants of those ruins in the land of Israel are saying, ‘When Abraham took possession of the land he was just one person; there are lots of us, so the land has been handed over for us to possess’” (Ezek 33:24). The point was not just that if one man could do it, a fortiori they could. They no doubt had in mind the “great nation” theme which, since they were the ones actually in possession, was thought somehow to justify their title to the land. This “scriptural” argument would certainly not have persuaded those among the deportees involuntarily separated from their holdings.

The First Disputation (41:1–5, 8–16) This brief survey brings us to Deutero-Isaiah, active about three or four decades after Ezekiel. From this point on, I propose to trace in outline what I take to be the essence of Deutero-Isaiah’s theological politics, starting out from an interpretation of the conquests of the Persian king Cyrus II, the providential role that he was destined to play in the future restoration of the nation, and the beneficial effects of his ultimate triumph on the prophet’s Judaean contemporaries in Judah and abroad. I believe it can be shown that Abrahamic traditions had a part to play in the attempt to persuade his readers or hearers about the truth of his message. Abraham is named only twice in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 41:8; 51:2), but commentators ancient and modern have picked up Abrahamic echoes in other parts of these sixteen chapters, especially in the first section (chapters 40–48) in which Cyrus is the focal point.8 The essence of the argument is that Cyrus, unknown to himself, is acting as the agent of the God of Israel in a new initiative parallel to the commission confided to Abraham in a comparable situation in the ancient world. Deutero-Isaiah presses his argument and confronts opposition to it with censure and reproof throughout chapters 40–48, but its essential features are laid out at the beginning in the form of a debate or disputation. This will be our main concern in what follows. 7 Compare the situation of those who failed to attend Ezra’s assembly to resolve the problem of intermarriage, and whose real estates holdings were therefore subject to confiscation (Ezra 10:8). 8  The point was made forcibly by Karl Budde more than a century ago: “Cyrus stands at the very centre of the prophet’s world view”. See Joseph Blenkinsopp, David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 64.



The Late Emergence of Abrahamic Ancestral Traditions

93

Deutero-Isaiah begins with words of comfort (40:1–11), followed by a barrage of rhetorical questions designed to persuade the prophet’s public that there will be a new beginning brought about by the power of the God of Israel, compromised in the eyes of many by the disasters of the immediate past. The emphasis is on the God of Israel as creator and cosmic deity and, as such, in control of the course of events, especially events in the political sphere (1:12–31). In this way the ground is prepared for stating the essence of the prophet’s argument set out in two disputations (41:1–5, 21–29). In each of these the God of Israel claims to have not only predicted but sponsored the conquests of the Persian ruler Cyrus II, already well advanced at the time of writing (41:1–5, 21–29).9 The prophet maintains that these campaigns would usher in a new epoch for the survivors of the catastrophe, including return to the Judean homeland of those deported by the Babylonians. This reassuring outcome is affirmed in discourses attached to each of the two disputations, addressed to the prophet’s fellow-Judeans under the titles “Jacob/Israel” and “the Servant of Yahweh” (41:8–1610 and 42:1–9). As is often the case in Isaiah 40–66, this recapitulation of the prophet’s message concludes with a psalm appropriate to its subject matter (42:10–13). This section of the prophecy can be set out as follows: 41:1–5 First disputation concerning Cyrus 41:8–16 Address to the Servant of Yahweh 41:21–29 Second disputation concerning Cyrus 42:1–9 Address to the Servant of Yahweh 42:10–12 Concluding psalm The resulting alternation of address to foreign nations and their gods and to the Servant of Yahweh, identified in the first disputation as Israel/Jacob and the offspring of Abraham, in the second unidentified, encapsulates the core message of chapters 40–48. In the first of the two (41:1–5 and 8–16), Yahweh states his claim to have summoned an anonymous warrior from the east and to have inspired and sponsored his rapid conquest of nations and their kings. Traditional Jewish commentary identified this anonymous conqueror with Abraham summoned by God from the east (Gen  12:1–3). The Targum paraphrases the 9  More often than not, Isa 41:1–5 and 21–29 are assigned to the genre of trial or pre-trial speech (Gerichtsrede, Appellationsrede), but since failure to predict and control the course of future events is not a criminal act, the category of disputation (Disputationsrede) seems more appropriate. On the genre issue, see Karl Elliger, Deuterojesaja 40,1–45,7, Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 108–12. 10  Isa 41:6–7, dealing with the manufacture of religious images (idols), is misplaced; these two verses should follow 40:20, as in REB. Isa 41:17–20 deals with a quite different topic, the provision of water and the ecological transformation of the wilderness (cf. 49:8–19; 55:10–13). It also has a different origins myth, i. e., the activities of Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. Unlike the disputations, it contains no direct address and deals with future scenarios, not present realities. See Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 78–81.

94

8  Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48

rhetorical question as follows: “Who brought Abraham openly from the east, a chosen one of righteousness in truth?”11. Rashi in like manner: “Who aroused Abraham to bring him from Aram which is in the east?”12 The identification with Abraham, common down into the early modern period, for example with Luther and Calvin, no doubt seemed to be supported by the reference to “the one who summons the generations from the beginning” (v. 4) and the obscure expression sedeq yiqrā᾽ēhû lěraglô (v. 2a), of uncertain interpretation but calculated to bring to mind the righteousness (sědāqâ) of Abraham (Gen 15:6), though the context suggests the alternative meaning of sedeq (victory) with reference to the victories of Cyrus. In his study of Second Isaiah (his preferred title) published in 1928, Charles Cutler Torrey, an exegete famed for daring and often brilliant conjectures, took a more drastic line by eliminating any reference in chapters 40–66 to Cyrus and his conquests. In pursuit of this end, he dismissed lěkôrēš (“concerning Cyrus”) at 45:1 on prosodic grounds as a gloss, and also excised the previous verse (44:28) in which Cyrus is named, since it repeats more or less what was said earlier (v. 26).13 Torrey concluded that the anonymous conqueror of 41:1–5 must therefore be Abraham whom God called from the east (i. e. Ur Kasdim) and, in 41:25, from the north (i. e. Aram-naharaim, Harran). In furtherance of this reading, Torrey emended sedek to saddîq, with reference to Abraham as righteous on account of his belief and trust in God and God’s word (Gen 15:6). He found further support for this reading in the mention in the following section of Abraham taken from the ends of the earth (41:8–9). He failed to note, however, that the phrase “offspring of Abraham my friend” (41:8b) is in apposition to “Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen”, and it is therefore the latter, representing the exiled Judeans, who are taken from the ends of the earth.14 11 Translation by Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Transation, Apparatus and Notes (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1987), 79. Cf. LXX, “Who roused righteousness from the east and summoned it to his feet?” 12  On later Jewish identification with Abraham, see b. Shabb 156a–b; b. Sanh 108b. 13  Charles Cutler Torrey, The Second Isaiah (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928), 40– 44, 357. “There is no more palpable gloss than this (lěkôrēš, 45:1) in all the Old Testament.” See also id., “Isaiah 41”, HTR 44 (1951), 121–36. Torrey’s prosodic argument does in fact merit consideration, but since Cyrus is named in the previous verse (44:28), the absence of the name in 45:1 does not exclude referring 45:1–7 to the victorious career of Cyrus II culminating in the conquest of Babylon. Only the second half of 44:28, not the entire verse, reads like a revised version of 44:26, and has therefore been considered textually insecure. There is therefore no justification for eliminating “Cyrus” from this verse as a gloss. See Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 339–40; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 152–53; Karl Elliger, Deuterojesaja 40,1–45,7, Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 455–56; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 244–45. 14 Torrey, The Second Isaiah, 313–16.



The Late Emergence of Abrahamic Ancestral Traditions

95

With all respect to Torrey and his campaign for a Cyrus-free Deutero-Isaiah, there can be no doubt that in 41:2–5 the prophet had in mind the Persian Cyrus II whose progress was well advanced by the time the prophecies were in circulation, about a decade before the conquest of Babylon. There is no other candidate for the one said elsewhere in these chapters to be summoned from the east – as a bird of prey (46:11) – and roused or inspired by Yahweh (41:25; 45:13, with the same verb hē῾îr).15 The description of warfare swiftly and ruthlessly conducted makes an exact fit with Cyrus’ conquest of Media, Sardis, Lydia and Babylon between 550 and 539 bc, whereas Abraham is represented as a warrior more by accident than choice, and only in the one rather peripheral incident of the “War of the Nine Kings” (Genesis 14). No surprise, therefore, that in the modern period practically all critical commentators find an allusion to Cyrus in this first of the two disputations with which Isaiah 40–48 opens.16 Abraham’s presence in this and later allusions to Cyrus can be discerned, but it is implicit, inspired by the conviction that the God who summons Cyrus and sponsors his campaigns is the same God who summoned the generations from the beginning with Abraham as his agent (41:4a) and is with those who came later – Cyrus and 15  Chronicles ends and Ezra-Nehemiah begins with a reference to the rousing of the spirit of Cyrus king of Persian by Yahweh (hē῾îr YHWH ῾et-rûah kôreš melek-pāras, 2  Chr 36:22; Ezra 1:1), but as the fulfillment of a prophecy of Jeremiah rather than (Deutero-)Isaiah. Similar language occurs in a cylinder inscription of Nabunaid (Nabonidus), last Babylonian ruler. It states that “he (the god Marduk) aroused Cyrus, king of Anshan, his young servant, who scattered the large armies of the Medes with his small army.” See Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon (New Haven/London: Yale, 1989), 108; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–45: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 206–7. 16  In a lengthy excursus, James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40–66 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 115–18, while critical of several aspects of Torrey’s thesis, questioned the authenticity of the two references to Cyrus, and the central importance of Cyrus in Second Isaiah in general, as an unworthy theme for an Israelite prophet. He argued instead for a radically eschatological and, at least implicitly christological, orientation rather than a concentration on the theological significance of contemporaneous world events. Christological interpretations could have been suggested independently by St. Jerome’s translation of 41:2a, quis suscitavit ab oriente iustum (“Who roused from the east a righteous one?”), with implicit allusion to Jesus as “the righteous one” (ho dikaios, 1  Pet 3:18; 1  John 2:1). On a typological interpretation from a Christian perspective, see Ulrich E. Simon, “König Cyrus und die Typologie”, Judaica 11 (1955), 83–88 and Gwilym H. Jones, “Abraham and Cyrus: Type and Anti-Type?”, VT 22 (1972), 304–19. For a relatively rare defence of the traditional identification with Abraham, see Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1943), 20–23. The “Kyros Ergänzungen” of Reinhard Gregor Kratz raise issues which cannot be discussed here. Briefly stated: according to Kratz, certain key passages in Isa 40–48, generally thought to allude to Cyrus II, actually date from the beginning of the reign of Darius I where they refer to the suppression of the rebellion of the Babylonian Nidintu-Bel (Nebuchadnezzar III). See Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Kyros in Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55, Forschungen zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 175–91.

96

8  Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48

his armies (41:4b). It is for this reason that the prophet’s Judean contemporaries are reminded that they are descendants of Abraham, friend of God (41:8). The alternation of address to foreign peoples and to the Servant of Yahweh in these two literary units encapsulates the core message of chapters 40–48: Cyrus, agent of a fundamental redistribution of power in international affairs, will bring about an equally fundamental change of fortune, involving repatriation and reconstruction for Judaean communities in Judah and abroad, and will do so under the sponsorship and inspiration of the God of Israel. In 41:8–16, therefore, the seer addresses his fellow-Judeans as Jacob/Israel, Servant of Yahweh, and offspring of Abraham, friend of God. Jacob, renamed Israel, is the standard form of address in chapters 40–48 for the survivors of the disaster of 586 bc, one of several features which sets this section apart from chapters 49–55. Another distinguishing feature is the designation “servant” (῾ebed), which in 40–48 is applied in every case where the context is reasonably clear to the people of Israel, more specifically to the prophet’s Judean contemporaries.17 Often linked with this eponymous form of address is the reference to the election of the people after the manner of the election of Jacob.18 The novel element is the introduction of Abraham as the primordial ancestor, the forefather of Jacob/Israel and the people named for him; Abraham, friend of God, a title cherished among Jews (2 Chr 20:7), Christians (James 2:23) and Muslims (Qur᾽an 4:124). “Offspring of Abraham my friend” is in apposition to “Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen”, and therefore it is the latter, with reference to Judaic communities scattered far and wide, who are to be summoned to return. But the same summons came to Abraham, thereby providing an occasion for bringing traditions about Abraham the protoparent to bear on the situation which the prophet is addressing. There may be yet another layer of meaning below the textually explicit level. We have seen that Cyrus has also been summoned from a far distant land, whether from the east (41:2; 46:11) or the north (41:25). He, too, is called by name (45:4), and his right hand is in the hand of God (41:13, cf. 45:1), a motif which corresponds to an element in the Babylonian ceremony of royal installation in which the deity summons the king-designate by name and holds him by the hand.19 These linguistic and thematic associations are perhaps more than coincidental. Perhaps they were intended to locate Cyrus within a prov17  Isa 41:8–9; 43:8, 10; 44:1, 21; 45:4; 48:20. In 49–55 the referent is, in contrast, always an anonymous prophetic figure except at 54:17, referring to “Yahweh’s servants”, in a statement concluding 40–54 and linking with 56–66 where these “Servants of Yahweh” form a distinct conventicle within Judah. 18  Isa 41:8–9; 42:1; 43:10; 44:1–2; 45:4. 19 On these features of royal protocol in connection with Deutero-Isaiah, see Rudolph Kittel, “Cyrus und Deuterojesaja”, ZAW 18 (1898), 149–62; Morton Smith, “II Isaiah and the Persians”, JAOS 83 (1963), 415–21. In the light of these parallels, the holding by the right hand would apply more directly to Cyrus than to either Abraham, Jacob, or diaspora Judeans.

41:21–29; 42:1–9)



97

idential plan or project of the God of Israel, a new initiative for that age and that generation, parallel with the call of Abraham in the damaged post-catastrophe world of his time, under the shadow of the imperial pretensions symbolized by Nimrod and Babel (Babylon) (Gen 10:8–12; 11:1–9). Later in 40–48 something like this will be stated quite explicitly: Of Cyrus he says, ‘He is my shepherd, he will fulfil all my good pleasure (hēpes).’ (44:28a) … ‘My plan (῾ēsâ) will prevail, I shall achieve all that I purpose. I summon a bird of prey from the east, from a far land the man to carry out my plan. Yes, I have spoken, and yes, I will bring it about; I have conceived it, and yes, I will do it.’ (46:10b–11).

The Second Disputation (41:21–29; 42:1–9) The second disputation (41:21–29) begins by inviting the devotees and prophets of foreign countries, Babylon in particular, to demonstrate the ability of their patron deities to predict future events and, by doing so, to control the course of history (vv. 21–24). The challenge is issued in the name of Yahweh, now described as “King of Jacob”, elsewhere “king of Israel” (Isa 43:15; 44:6). The association between divine kingship and creation suggests a kind of mirrorimaging of Marduk, imperial Babylonian deity celebrated in the great akitu festival as cosmic creator and supreme lord (“Marduk is king!”, Enuma elish IV 28). Once the claimants on behalf of other gods are, predictably, reduced to silence and mocked, Yahweh states his own claim. As in the first disputation, Cyrus is not named but he is certainly the one, now active on the stage of world events, who was roused from the north, as he was previously from the east (41:2). Persia, homeland of Cyrus, is east, not north, of Judah – and also of Babylon for those who place the prophet among the deported Judaeans in that country – a circumstance which persuaded Torrey to name Abraham as the one who was called first from the east (Ur), then from the north (Harran).20 Taken by itself, out of context, this is obviously possible, but Torrey neglected to note that the reference could be to Cyrus’s conquest of Media (550 bc), or Lydia and cities along the Ionian coast about three years later, all most definitely to the north. Moreover, trampling down rulers as if they were mud (v. 25b) makes a poor fit with the profile of Abraham in Genesis, even in the peripheral episode recorded in Genesis 14.

20 Torrey,

Second Isaiah, 312.

98

8  Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48

Cyrus is therefore certainly in view but, as in the first disputation, there are ambiguities. A first instance is the claim (41:25a) that the one from the north “was summoned by name” (NRSV) or “summoned in my name” (REB), or “invokes my name” (JPS). The phrase yiqrā᾽ bišmî can certainly be understood as the invocation of the deity’s name in worship, as in other contexts (Isa 12:4; 64:6), and in that sense it is said of Abraham’s invoking the name of Yahweh at the sanctuary of Bethel after his arrival in Canaan (Gen  12:8). How, then, could Cyrus be said to invoke the name of Yahweh since, as we are reminded later on (45:4b), he had no knowledge of the God of Israel?21 An alternative approach would begin by pointing out that the consonantal text may also be read as passive (yiqqārē᾽), and is so read in LXX which understands it to say that two individuals, one from the north, the other from the east, would be called (klēthēsontai) by (or in) the name of Yahweh. A further complication arises from the first person possessive pronominal suffix in bišmî (“in my name” or “by my name”), which has been questioned on the basis of a fragment of 1QIsaa, which reads bišmô, “in his name” or “by his name”. Several of the more recent commentators have accepted one or other of these alternative readings.22 In the context of 40–48 as a whole, and the important passage 45:3–4 in particular, in which Yahweh summons Cyrus by name, or pronounces his name to signify recognition, it may be proposed that the original text read yiqqārē᾽ bišmô, “he will be summoned by (his) name.” This is not only in accord with what is said elsewhere in 40–48 about Cyrus, but it also seems to correspond to an element of divine recognition and acknowledgment in Babylonian rituals of royal investiture and commissioning.23 The outcome is that, in both disputations, Cyrus is the focal point of the prophet’s theological politics and, as such, is viewed as an instrument of a new initiative of God in the world of the prophet and his contemporaries in counterpoint to the same deity’s initiative in the ancient world implemented through the agency of Abraham. As in 41:1–16, this second disputation is followed by a discourse in which the Servant of Yahweh is first presented to the public (42:1–4), then addressed directly (42:5–9). Duhm’s identification of 42:1–4 as the first of his four EbedJahwe-Dichtungen, composed by a disciple of Second Isaiah in late Persian period Judah, has had the effect, even on those who do not accept his interpolation 21  August Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia (5th ed., Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1890), 383, defended the MT reading on the grounds that, as a result of his great deeds, including the redemption of Israel, Cyrus would make the name of Yahweh known and revered. To this Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 309, responded that qārā᾽ běšēm can only mean to engage in worship of a deity either privately or in a collective act of cult. 22 Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 173; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 87; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34– 66, World Biblical Commentary 25 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 110, 118. 23  The Cyrus cylinder records that “He (Marduk) scanned and looked through all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead him (i. e. in the annual akitu procession). Then he pronounced the name of Cyrus king of Anshan.” (ANET, 315).

41:21–29; 42:1–9)



99

theory, of isolating this brief passage from its literary context. Read in the context proposed above, 42:1–7 or 42:1–9 would correspond to 41:8–16 as an address to Israel, Servant of Yahweh, following on the presentation of Cyrus’ victorious campaigns immediately preceding. Isaiah 42:1–4 would therefore refer to the Judean contemporaries of the prophet under the name of the eponymous ancestor, and that is how the LXX translator, who added the names Jacob and Israel to the first verse, read this account of the commissioning of the Servant of Yahweh. The descendants of Jacob/Israel are therefore presented as Yahweh’s elect and his servant whom he will sustain (verb tmk, cf. 41:10), in much the same way as in the first disputation. It would be especially important at this point, however, to bear in mind that the book of Isaiah has been the object of an incremental and cumulative process of interpretation and reinterpretation over a period of centuries, and this is nowhere more in evidence than in the passages in chapters 40–66 dealing with the servant and the servants of Yahweh. Eschatological interpretations, with reference to the ingathered Israel of the end time in Judaism, and Jesus in Christianity, are well known, but the process goes back much further. In this first of the four Duhmian poems, for example, LXX adds “Jacob” and “Israel” to 42:1, as we have just seen, and in the second of the four poems the servant is explicitly identified with Israel in spite of the fact that it speaks of a mission to Israel (49:3). To take another example, the language of 51:4–6 reads like an interpretative expansion of 42:1–9.24 This instance is particularly interesting for our theme since it comes almost immediately after the exhortation to look to the example of Abraham and Sarah, one of the two passages in Deutero-Isaiah in which Abraham is named – “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gave you birth” (51:1–2). Having made this point, however, we must add that the language employed in 42:1–9, the first servant passage and the comment on it, is strongly suggestive of Cyrus. The servant is summoned běsedeq (42:6, “in righteousness”, NRSV), as in 45:13 Cyrus is roused běsedeq, and his hand is grasped as Yahweh grasps the hand of Cyrus in 45:1. The liberation of captives which the servant is to bring about (42:7) reflects the expectation that Cyrus would set the deported Judeans free and permit their repatriation (45:13). His gentle handling of broken reeds and smouldering wicks (42:3), in other words, defeated enemies, reflects what he asserts in his famous cylinder text about his lenient treatment of Babylon after its conquest.25 More telling is the fact that the mission of the anonymous servant, establishing a just order for the nations (mišpāt, three times in 42:1–4), is the task of a ruler, a ruler like Cyrus king of Anshan, and the tôrâ to be imposed would therefore be the law of the Persian monarchs (data ša šarri; compare dāta 24  25 

On this passage, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 323–28. ANET, 315–16.

100

8  Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48

dî malkā᾽, Ezra 7:26, and dāt wādîn, Esth 1:13–14). Here too, therefore, we find the activity of Cyrus juxtaposed with that of Jacob or, more often than not implicitly, of Abraham.

Concluding Observations Torrey’s attempt to restore Second Isaiah (which for him comprised chapters 34–35 and 40–66) to its former condition as one of the great literary masterpieces of the Hebrew Bible, before modern critics had reduced it to “an incomprehensible scrap-heap” and its author to “a spineless and morally deficient sky-gazer,”26 involved the excision of all references in it to Cyrus, Babylon, the Chaldeans, and the return from exile. Apart from his radical textual surgery, which few commentators have accepted, his approach seems to have been based on a fundamental misconception about the role of prophecy in ancient Israel and early Judaism. The point may be made by citing Max Weber’s view on the prophetic role, stated in typically apodictic fashion in the section on Prophet and Lawgiver in his magisterial treatise Economy and Society: It must not be forgotten that in the motivation of Israelite prophets social reforms were only means to an end. The primary concern of prophets was with foreign politics, chiefly because they constituted the theater of their god’s activity.27

It will suffice to think of the prophetic careers of Amos and Hosea during the mortal threat posed by the Assyrians, or of Jeremiah in the years leading up to and following on the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. Moreover Cyrus was not the first foreign ruler to be referred to as “the servant of Yahweh”, the same title is assigned to Nebuchadnezzar, destroyer of Jerusalem, by Jeremiah (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). The interpretation of a series of shape-changing events brought about by Cyrus II in the world which the survivors of the disaster of 586 bc inhabited – beginning with the conquest of the Medes in 550 and ending with the fall of Babylon in 539 bc – does not exhaust the theological meaning of Deutero-Isaiah, but the career of Cyrus is the central theme in Deutero-Isaiah and in the theological politics of its author. Cyrus remains the focal point throughout, even when opposition to the author’s sponsorship of his career in the name of Yahweh reached a high point, and it became apparent that Cyrus was not about to discharge the tasks assigned to him by the prophet. An important aspect of the author’s theological politics with its focus on Cyrus is appeal to ancestral traditions and the forging of links between the past and the present, between events in the primeval world of the ances26 Torrey,

Second Isaiah, 13, 18. Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by Guenther Roth/Claus Wittich (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), 443. 27 



Concluding Observations

101

tors (ri᾽šōnôt, qadmōniyyôt) and the new and unforeseen event taking place in the contemporary world (hădāšâ, “new things”, 43:16–19a). Jacob/Israel is the eponymous ancestor, and in view of his twenty-year exile in Mesopotamia could serve as model and inspiration for those deported who wished to return. The dual nomenclature Jacob/Israel occurs with notable frequency in chapters 40– 48, the deity in these chapters is the King of Jacob (41:21) and the Mighty One of Jacob (49:26), and Jacob is his servant (48:20). It was probably the career of Cyrus which brought Abraham out of the shadows. Both appeared, as it seemed, out of nowhere, summoned by the God of Israel to act as agents of a new initiative in equally unpromising situations where the forward movement of history seemed to have stalled. What their God had brought about then, at the beginnings of their history, he was now bringing about at the present time. The hearers are therefore exhorted to activate their memory of ethnic origins: Remember deeds done long ago, for I am God, there is none other … I declare the outcome from the beginning, from of old, things yet to be. I say, ‘My plan will prevail, I will achieve all that I purpose’ (46:9–10).

What that plan entails, and how it is to come about, is made clear at once with the summoning of a bird of prey from the east, the one who is to carry it out, none other than Cyrus (46:11). In spite of the immense amount of commentary already dedicated to this text, there is still work to be done in interpreting Deutero-Isaiah as a political document and, at the same time, one that is deeply theological. This essay takes a preliminary look at one aspect, the bearing of the emerging narrative traditions about Abraham on this task, and is for the most part limited to one section, the opening disputation passage (41:1–42:9) in which the central theme of the work is presented.

9

Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location Place of composition One aspect of the continuity-discontinuity issue in research on Isaiah  40–66 which has influenced, at least tangentially, the way in which the different parts of this text have been read and the connections between them have been understood is the question of their original place of composition. The discussion has touched not only on chapters 40–55 or 40–66 over against 1–39, but chapters 40– 48 over against 49–55. As early as the nineteenth century Samuel Davidson and Carl Heinrich Cornill argued that chapters 40–48 were composed in Babylon and 49–55 together with 56–66 in Judah, and the same thesis was proposed with variations more recently by Menahem Haran.1 The place of composition of Isaiah 40–55 or its putative core has in fact been in dispute since the thesis of the distinct character and origin of these chapters in the book of Isaiah began to establish itself as the critical orthodoxy in the late eighteenth century. Since chapters 1–39 had always been seen as the work of a prophet or prophets active in Jerusalem, while chapters 40–55 deal with the anticipated fall of Babylon and the return to Judah from Babylon of expatriate Judaeans, it seemed natural to assign a Babylonian origin to the latter. The author of 40–55 also appeared to be well informed on international affairs, especially Babylonian intellectual and religious traditions and the career of Cyrus, to an extent that seemed unlikely in Judah devastated in the aftermath of the Babylonian conquest. None of this went unchallenged for long. It will suffice to mention in passing the hypothesis of origins in a Judaean community in Egypt, first proposed by Heinrich Ewald in 1868, or in northern Phoenicia, a suggestion of Bernhard Duhm in 1902. Both proposals relied heavily on the interpretation of the gentilic sînîm in Isa 49:12, by Ewald identified with the inhabitants of Pelusium in the

1  Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Critical, Historical and Theological, Volume 3 (London: Williams & Norgate, 1863), 57–59; Carl Heinrich Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau: J. C. B. Mohr, 1892), 150–54; Menahem Haran, “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is 40–48”, VTSup 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 127–55.



Place of composition

103

Nile delta, by Duhm with a Phoenician ethnic group, and by Franz Delitzsch with the Chinese. All three hypotheses have now been abandoned.2 Criticism of the Babylonian theory began to be heard in the early decades of the twentieth century, and has continued intermittently since then. The history of the ensuing controversy between “Judaeans” and “Babylonians”, together with a critique of the arguments advanced in support of the Babylonian near-consensus, has been thoroughly researched and presented in several publications over a number of years by Professor Hans M. Barstad, which relieves us of the necessity of covering this contested ground again.3 Those arguing against a Babylonian location seek to show that the author did not need to reside in Babylon to know about such matters as the career of Cyrus (44:28; 45:1–7, 13; 48:14–16) or Babylonian deities and their cults (46:1–2; 47:1–15). Nor does the adoption of Akkadian loan words or expressions, or the use of formulaic language indicative of Babylonian court protocol, require residence in Mesopotamia.4 On the contrary, it was argued, satire directed against Babylonian deities and their cults, together with zealous sponsorship of Cyrus, would have been dangerous if not suicidal if written and promulgated in Babylonia; witness the fate of the nationalist prophet-martyrs Ahab and Zedekiah as reported – or anticipated – by Jeremiah (29:21–23). The proponents of a Judaean origin also pointed out that the Babylonian thesis rested heavily on a naive acceptance of the impression conveyed by the biblical description of Judah after the Babylonian conquest as a country thinly populated by peasant farmers, presumably illiterate, who had escaped death and

2 Heinrich Ewald, Die jüngsten Propheten des Alten Bundes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1868), 30–31; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 373. On the proposed identification with the Chinese (sînîm in Modern Hebrew) see G. Lambert, “Le livre d’Isaïe, parle-t-il des Chinois?”, NRT 75 (1953), 965–72. The now generally accepted identification is with Syene (Aswan) at the first cataract of the Nile. 3  Hans M. Barstad, “Lebte Deuterojesaja in Judäa?”, NTT 2 (1982), 77–87; id., “On the SoCalled Babylonian Literary Influence in Second Isaiah”, SJOT 2 (1987), 90–110; id., “On the History and Archaeology of Judah during the Exilic Period: A Reminder”, OLP 19 (1988), 25–36; id., A Way in the Wilderness (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989); id., “Akkadian Loanwords in Isaiah 40–55 and the Question of Babylonian Origin of Deutero-Isaiah” in Karl Avid Tångberg (ed.), Text and Theology. Studies in Honour of Professor Magne Saebø on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Oslo: Verbum, 1994), 36–48; id., The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period (Oslo: Scandinavian Universities Press, 1996); id., The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah: “Exilic” Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40–55 (Oslo: Novus Forlag, 1997). 4  The instances of the latter most often cited are the god summoning the king or official by name (45:3), or clasping his hand (42:6; 45:1). Both may have their original situation in a ceremony of installation in office. This issue of the use of Babylonian Hofstil in Deutero-Isaiah was put on the scholarly agenda by the much-cited article of Rudolph Kittel, “Cyrus und Deuterojesaja”, ZAW 18 (1898), 149–62.

104

9  Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location

deportation; to all intents and purposes an empty land.5 What we now know of the archaeology of Neo-Babylonian Judah, always subject to revision, has persuaded most scholars that this view of post-destruction Judah is in need of correction.6 The myth of an original Israelite entry into an empty land, which appears in Hecataeus of Abdera writing in the early Hellenistic period, is probably a retrojection from Jewish apologetic in the early Persian period as we find it in both the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles and, somewhat later, in the book of Judith (5:19) and Josephus (Ant. 10:184).7 The land, a diminished version of the former kingdom of Judah, was not empty, but a reliable estimate of its population during the late Neo-Babylonian period which would settle the issue has proved hard to come by.8 On the positive side, the “Judaeans” claimed that the flora and fauna (cedar, cypress, acacia, pine trees, etc.), and the physical environment in the background of Isaiah  40–55, are characteristically Palestinian rather than Mesopotamian (41:19; 44:14; 55:12–13). Topographical and geographical allusions, especially with reference to “islands and coastlands” (᾽iyyîm), understood to refer primarily to the Palestinian-Phoenician litoral and the Aegean, also seemed to make a better fit with a Palestinian rather than a Babylonian perspective.9 Finally, urgent injunctions to leave Babylon in these chapters (sě᾽û mibbābēl, “get out of 5  That only the lowest social and economic stratum of the population was left behind is stated after both the 597 and 586 Babylonian campaigns (2  Kgs  24:14; 25:12). According to 2 Chron 36:21, the land was not even cultivated after the deportations. 6  Robert P. Carroll, “The Myth of the Empty Land”, in David Jobling/Tina Pippin (eds.), Ideological Criticism of Biblica Texts, Semeia 59 (1992), 79–93; Hans M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or, the Empty Land Revisited”, JSOT 27 (2002), 167–81; Charles E. Carter, “Ideology and Archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period” in Oded Lipschits/Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 301–22; Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 185–271. The archaeological evidence is reviewed once again by the most recent defender of Judaean origins, Lena Sofia Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55, VTSup 139 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 58–65. 7  2  Kgs  24:14–16; 25:11–12; 2  Chron  36:19–21. For the text of Hecataeus see Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Volume 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976), 20–24, on which see Doron Mendels, “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‘Patrios Politeia’ of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL.3)”, ZAW 95 (1983), 96–110. 8  The difficulty is apparent from the widely differing estimates of the population of Judah at the end of the Iron Age and the early Persian period. For recent estimates, see Oded Lipschits, “Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and Fifth Centuries B. C. E.”, in Lipschits/ Blenkinsopp, Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, 323–76; id., The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 258–71. Lipschits estimates 108,000 at the end of the Iron Age and 30,125 in the early Persian period. 9  ᾽iyyîm: 40:15; 41:1, 5; 42:4, 10, 12; 49:1; 51:5. In Isaiah 1–39 ᾽iyyîm has specific referents: the Philistine coastal area (20:6), Phoenicia (23:2, 6), the west (11:11; 24:15). In chapters 40–45, however, usage is associated with far distant peoples and the ends of the earth, therefore much more indeterminate.



Place of composition

105

Babylon!”, 48:20; sě᾽û miššām, “get out from there!”, 52:11) were thought to make better sense if coming from some one not in that city – someone in Judah, for example. We shall return to these two injunctions at a later point. Before going any further, one or two preliminary clarifications may be permitted. In dealing critically with biblical texts, it is generally not a good idea to begin with the issue of authorship. Stating the issue as “the original habitat of Deutero-Isaiah” risks giving the impression that Isaiah  40–55 is the work of one anonymous author produced in one place, if not all at one time. This is theoretically possible, but simply to assume it is rarely justified with biblical texts of the length and complexity of Deutero-Isaiah. One complication which confronts us at an early stage is the distinctive character of chapters 40–48 over against 49–55, or over against 49–54 if chapter 55 is regarded as the conclusion to both sections, or even over against 49–66. To name just the principal distinguishing features: the figure of Cyrus dominates 40–48 and is completely absent from the rest of the book in which the community no longer looks to Cyrus, or any human agency, for a reversal of fortune. After chapter 48 the tone is, by and large, quite different, the emotional and affective level much lower, and the focus no longer on international affairs, but on the internal affairs of the community. Another feature of 40–48, almost completely absent from 49–55, is the strong emphasis on Yahweh as creator-deity. A pointer in this direction is the incidence of the verb bārā᾽ with reference to the creation of the world or humanity: nine times in 40–48 and not at all in 49–55.10 This cosmological and protological language in 40–48 is related to the Cyrus theme since it aims to persuade the prophet’s public that it is the almighty Creator of the World who is sponsoring the enterprise of Cyrus. It also reveals interesting parallels with the canonical Babylonian creation myth recited on the fourth day of the akitu festival in honour of the imperial deity Marduk, especially the claim of incomparability.11 Another related theme is polemic against the manufacture and veneration of religious images (idols), prominent in the first section, absent from the second. Commentators have also noted a marked shift in chapters 49–55 in the language of servanthood, together with a greater concentration on traits of the Servant suggestive of an individual figure rather than a social entity. The fact that three of Duhm’s Ebedlieder are in this second section (49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13– 53:12) might, in view of the distinctive features of 40–48 over against 49–55, alert us to the possibility of a quite different approach to the interpretation of the first 10  Isa 40:26, 28; 42:5; 45:7, 8, 12, 18. In 49–55 bārā᾽ occurs twice in 54:16 where Yahweh creates the blacksmith and the destroying angel. 11  Compare the language of Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9, encapsulated in the formulaic expression ᾽ên ᾽ôd, with Isa 47:8, 10, the claim made by the woman Babylon in the name of her deity, and enuma elish VII 14, 18. This mirror-imaging in Deutero Isaiah is developed further in Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Deutero-Isaiah”, CBQ 73 (2011), 493–510.

106

9  Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location

of the four passages (42:1–4).12 None of this requires us to postulate a different location or a different author for chapters 49–55, but it may give some comfort to those who locate only these last seven chapters of Deutero-Isaiah in the NeoBabylonian province of Judah. I add, as a footnote, one instance in the second section of Deutero-Isaiah which may have escaped the attention of the “Judaeans”, one in which it is quite clear that inhabitants in post-disaster Judah are being addressed by one sympathetic to their situation, and therefore plausibly one of them: Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who gave you birth. When I called him, he was but one, but I blessed him and made him many (51:2).

This appeal to Abraham will inevitably bring to mind a roughly contemporary prophetic text recording a similar argument attributed to “the inhabitants of these waste places in the land of Israel”: Abraham was only one man, yet he took possession of the land; we are many; the land has been granted us as a possession (Ezek 33:23–24).

The concern in the first text is demographic and in the second territorial, but the “scriptural” argument advanced by post-disaster Judaeans resident in Judah is identical. Beyond this rather straightforward division into two sections, each with its distinctive themes and concerns, Deutero-Isaiah has been subjected to a great deal of analysis which either simply rejects its unitary character or, without denying the presence of an identifiably authorial hand, sections it into successive layers or re-readings (Fortschreibungen, relectures), in some essays covering a span from the sixth to the third century bc. Only a few examples from a vast body of commentary from around the mid-nineteenth century to the present can be mentioned, and without any attempt at an adequate discussion and evaluation. According to J. M. Vincent, Deutero-Isaiah is neither in whole nor in part the production of an individual but rather a collection of sayings emanating from Jerusalemite cult prophets over several generations. A somewhat similar position was presented to English-language readers two years later by J. H. Eaton.13 A more common procedure, however, is to identify the core of the collection and then 12  The reference to “the heritage of the servants of Yahweh” in 54:17 may be read as introducing one of the principal themes of 56–66 with chapter 55 as the conclusion to 40–54, perhaps even to an edition of the book of Isaiah as it existed at that stage of formation. 13  Jean Marcel Vincent, Studien zur literarischen Eigenart und zur geistigen Heimat von Jesaja Kap. 40–55 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1977); John Herbert Eaton, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah (London: SPCK, 1979). The idea that Deutero-Isaiah originated as liturgical drama is developed to its fullest extent by Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

Place of composition



107

add successive expansions in chronological sequence, generally on the basis of distinct but connected themes – Zion-Jerusalem, the Servant passages, polemic against idolatry, to name the ones most frequently recurring.14 Several of these studies have been criticized as unduly speculative and lacking the feel for the text as a literary work with its own integrity and coherence. We may share these misgivings, but this brand of scholarly Literarkritik, which seems to be coming back into vogue after a period of benign neglect, cannot be simply ignored. At the very least, it will be admitted that additions have been made to prophetic texts from time to time in keeping with changing needs and circumstances calling for new readings. For some commentators this situation would apply especially to the Servant texts, namely, the four passages identified by Bernhard Duhm as Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder (42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12), whether one agrees with Duhm’s conclusions about their origin or not.15 A further caveat on the location debate may be mentioned. Hans Barstad was right to criticize the “empty land thesis”, but to establish a Judaean origin for chapters 40–48 it is not enough to demonstrate that Judah was not depopulated 14  For

Jacques Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 2 (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1978), the core consists in the Cyrus sayings to which were added successive expansions, with passages dealing with idols and the destiny of the nations coming at the end of the process. For Klaus Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und motivgeschichtliche Analyses, Orbis biblicus et orientalis 24 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1979), Isa  40:13–48:20, the Babylonian core of Deutero-Isaiah, was augmented by Judaean expansions, 49:1–52:10 and 52:13–55:13. More adventurously, Rosario Pius Merendino, Der Erste und der Letzte: Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40–48, VT Sup 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), identified five small collections of sayings to which were added a universalizing strand, wisdom sayings, polemic against images, and numerous small addenda. Odil Hannes Steck, whose contributions to Deutero- and TritoIsaiah studies practically defy documentation, identified the core as recoverable from 47:1– 15 + 48:20–21 + 52:7–10, 11–12, to which were added three layers of Fortschreibung dealing with the Zion theme. The Cyrus allusions are from the early years of Darius I, by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the Servant had come to be identified with the Judaeo-Babylonian community, and by the time of the final redaction of Isaiah, ca. 270 bc, with the devout minority of whom we hear in Isaiah 56–66. See Odil Hannes Steck, “Israel und Zion: Zum Problem konzeptioneller Einheit und literarischer Schichtung in Deuterojesaja”, in id., Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 173–207. Steck’s influence on Reinhard Kratz is apparent especially in his dating of the Cyrus material to the first phase of the reign of Darius I. There is a Babylonian core in 40–48 dating from the fall of the city in 539 bc, augmented successively by a Zion phase, a Cyrus supplement, anti-idolatry polemic and, finally, the Servant theme. See Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Kyros in DeuterojesajaBuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55, Forschungen zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991). A similar sectioning appears in Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 322–413 (see his Schaubild on page 549). 15  Bernard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 19, 311. For different perspectives on the formation of Isaiah 40–55, see Hans-Jürgen Hermission, “Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas. Probleme der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes 40–55”, in Jacques Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le Livre d’Isaïe (Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1989), 287–312; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40– 55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 69–81.

108

9  Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location

after the Babylonian punitive campaign. The production of a sophisticated and complex piece of writing like Deutero-Isaiah, with its knowledge of the wider world outside the bounds of Judah, and its many rhetorical resources, would seem to require a specialized environment of some kind, something like a smaller-scale version of the Egyptian “House of Life” or the Babylonian “tablet house” (bit tuppi), or perhaps an establishment like “the place Casiphia” in southern Babylonia where Ezra was able to recruit temple personnel to join his caravan en route to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:15–20).16 The land was not depopulated, but the principal elements of the national infrastructure  – dynasty, court, temple, the professional classes who could be expected to sponsor literary activity – had been liquidated or deported. There was also considerable destruction of property, as the frequent references to ruins, desolate estates and demolished houses in Isaiah  40–55 attest.17 Benjaminite Mizpah (tell el-Nasbeh), which served as the administrative centre of the province throughout the remainder of the NeoBabylonian period following on the sack of Jerusalem,18 has been proposed as a site of literary activity.19 The possibility cannot be entirely excluded, but in view of the manifest political and ideological disconnect between Benjamin and Judah at that time, it seems unlikely that Benjaminite Mizpah would have provided a hospitable environment for the kind of ardent Zionism in evidence throughout Deutero-Isaiah. On the other hand, activity involving nationalist prophets was apparently at a high level at the centre of the Neo-Babylonian empire, and the strength of antiBabylonian sentiment and of aspirations towards national restoration among the deported in southern Mesopotamia can be seen in Jeremiah’s attempt to silence these diasporic prophets and undermine their message of an imminent change of fortune.20 Even leaving aside the disputed question of the location of the Priestly historical narrative and the Deuteronomistic History, the preservation 16  On the “House of Life” attached to a temple see Alan Gardiner, “The House of Life”, JEA 24 (1938), 164–75; and on the “Tablet House” see Eleanor Robson, “The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur”, RA 95 (2001), 39–66; and on writing in general Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 28–32 (“Writing in the Service of the State System”); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2007), 51–73, 82–89. 17  Isa 44:26–28; 45:13; 49:8, 19; 51:3, 19; 52:9. 18  Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period” in Oded Lipschits/Joseph Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 93–107. 19  Mizpah as the place of composition of a Benjaminite version of the history of Israel is proposed by Philip R. Davies, The Origins of Biblical Israel (New York/London: T.&T. Clark, 2007), 108–15 and, most recently, but for different reasons, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion. The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 63–68. 20  Diasporic prophets known to us by name are Ahab ben Kolaiah, Zedekiah ben. Maaseiah, Shemaiah of Nehelam (Jer 29:15, 21–22, 24–32) and, of course, Ezekiel, who seems not



Place of composition

109

of religious traditions would presuppose an institutional network of some kind, a sort of proto-synagogal organization of the kind hinted at in the meetings between Ezekiel and the elders in his house (Ezek  8:1; 14:1; 20:1). Not more than a century after the time of Deutero-Isaiah, Ezra was able to recruit a group of ᾽anšê śekel (“educated people”), an equal number of Levites, and 220 nětînîm (minor temple personnel) from “the place Casiphia”, probably attached to a place of worship somewhere in the Nippur region (Ezra  8:16–20). And, in general, Babylonia boasted an intellectual tradition much more developed and of far greater antiquity than that of Judah, and it would not be surprising if members of the Judaean diaspora were able to profit by it. The paradigm instance is the fictional account of the three Judaean youths in the Babylonian diaspora who, having completed a three-year curriculum in the language and literature of Mesopotamia, were fully endowed with knowledge, insight, and the competence required for service at the Babylonian court (Dan 1:3–7). If for a moment we look beyond Deutero-Isaiah to Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, which reflect the crisis precipitated by the usurpation of Darius and the subsequent revolts throughout the Near and Middle East, the emphasis is solidly on religious initiatives originating in Judaean expatriate communities in Babylonia. They focus on Zerubbabel whose name betokens a Babylonian origin, his secret coronation is funded by a delegation from the Babylonian diaspora (Zech 6:9– 14), and it is those far off who will come and work on the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple (Zech 6:15). On another point, Hans Barstad was right to doubt the validity of arguments picked off the surface of the text, for example allusions to botanical details21 and topographical and geographical features deemed to be more in keeping with a Judaean location.22 Quite apart from the fact that the natural environment and ecology of a region can change significantly after the passage of more than two and a half millennia, any reasonably educated person in Palestine or Babylon or, for that matter, anywhere in the Mediterranean region and Near East at that time, would have heard about the famous cedars of Lebanon, would have been familiar with cypresses and no doubt other species of trees,23 and would have to have been politically active. Their counterpart in Judah was Hananiah ben Azzur, Jeremiah’s opponent (Jer 28:1–17). 21  Isa  40:20 haměsukkān, “mulberry”, NRSV, REB, JPS, following a proposal of Charles Cutler Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1928), 307–8, is textually uncertain. Isa 41:19 lists cedar, acacia, myrtle, wild olive, cypress, fir and boxwood, but they are to be planted in the wilderness and the desert. Isa 44:4, ῾ărābîm, usually translated “willows”, is certainly found in Mesopotamia (cf. Ps 137:2). Isa 55:13, cypress and myrtle, are to grow miraculously where previously there were briars or nettles and camel thorn, but it is not clear where this is to take place. 22 Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah, 61, 71, 89. He nevertheless favours the Judaean view but is more concerned to question the hypothesis of Babylonian origin. 23  At least one of which, the ῾ărābîm of Isa 44:4 (probably the populus euphratica), served a useful purpose for dispirited diaspora musicians in Babylon (Ps  137:2), and was therefore

110

9  Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location

had an at least vague idea of the location of Kedarite Arabs (42:11) and Sabaeans (45:14). Further to which, it is a matter of experience that expatriates, and especially those expatriated involuntarily, will often retain a better knowledge of, and a stronger emotional attachment to the sights, sounds and topographical features of the home country than those of their current environment. Since what we do not know will always exceed by far what the biblical texts tell us, none of these arguments can deliver a definitive answer to the question where Deutero-Isaiah was composed. Within the limited range of our knowledge of conditions in Judah and the Babylonian diaspora at that time, we can do no more than ask which of the two would have provided the more hospitable environment for the production of such a text. I suggest that what should claim our attention more urgently is the emphasis in Deutero-Isaiah on making a new beginning with the return to and reconstitution of Zion. This is surely a dominant theme in these chapters and in numerous other parts of the Isaianic compilation where Zion is mentioned. The main lines are familiar: Yahweh will establish his kingdom in Zion, and those deportees in Babylon who have remained faithful will follow (52:7–12). Yahweh will comfort Zion and transform her ruins into Eden, the garden of God (51:3). Those ransomed from captivity will return and joyfully enter the city (51:11; 52:1–2). The Zion theme is dominant throughout the book. Zion is God’s dwelling (Isa  8:18; 18:7) where he will bring about salvation and judgement (1:27; 10:12; 24–27), take action against enemies (29:8; 31:4; 34:8), and set up his eschatological kingdom (24:21–23). It is to be inhabited by the purified and penitent remnant of Israel (1:27; 4:2–6; 37:32) and it will be the goal of pilgrims from foreign lands (2:1–5). The same complex of Zion-related themes occurs with particular urgency in Isaiah 56–66, especially chapters 60–62, the core of Trito-Isaiah, the close affinity of which to Deutero-Isaiah has often been noted.24 We are here at the historical origins of what, since the late nineteenth century, has been known as Zionism; and Zionism, whether ancient or modern, is in its origins essentially a diasporic phenomenon. In comparison with this indisputable fact, the question where this biblical author, or these biblical authors, happened to be living at the time of the production of Isaiah 40–55 seems to me to be relatively unimportant. The point may be reinforced by considering another feature of DeuteroIsaiah, one easily overlooked. The name Jacob, with reference to the nation or ethnic group as a whole, or some part of it, occurs often in prophetic texts and psalms but does so with notable frequency in Isaiah 40–66, more especially so certainly indigenous to that country. A ruling for the proper celebration of Sukkoth in Lev 23:40 mentions῾ărābîm together with těmārîm (palm trees). This should further discourage apodictic arguments about flora and fauna. 24  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 59–63, 207–8.



Place of composition

111

in Isaiah 40–48.25 In Genesis (25:19–35:15), the Jacob story has been skillfully composed as both a psychologically credible life history and a projection of the future destiny of the people who would claim Jacob as their founding father. The hinge on which the plot turns, the centre point, is the twenty-year exile of Jacob in Mesopotamia (Gen 31:38, 41). In Deutero-Isaiah Jacob, like the expatriates in Babylon, is to be taken from the ends of the earth and summoned from its furthest reaches (Isa  41:9). Since all Jacob’s sons except Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia (Gen 29:31–30:24), it is during this exilic period that the seeds of a new people are sown. Jacob is assured before, during, and after his exile that he will inherit the Abrahamic promises (Gen 28:3–4, 13–14; 30:27–30; 35:11–12), but it is only after the return to the Canaanite or Palestinian homeland that he does so as Israel (Gen 32:27–28; 35:10). It would be widely accepted that the Jacob story in Genesis reflects, in its broad lines, the experience of the Judaean deportees after the fall of Jerusalem, but we can perhaps go further by claiming that certain features of the narrative suggest the possibility that, in its final form, it was put together with the intention of rendering that experience less opaque and theologically more intelligible.26 One of its major themes is endemic hostility between Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:21–26; 27:41–45), which may be understood as reflecting Edomite hostility to Judah, a prominent theme in prophetic polemic following on the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportations.27 Along the same lines, Jacob’s vow made at Bethel before departure (Gen 28:20–22), the command given him both during and after his exile to return to Bethel (Gen 31:13; 35:1–4), his rejection of foreign cults before returning to that sanctuary (35:2–4), and the repetition of the name change there (35:9–15) reflect the role of the Bethel sanctuary, in close proximity to the administrative centre of the province at Mizpah, after the sack of Jerusalem and destruction of its temple. Jacob himself affirms that Bethel will be “the house of God” (bêt ᾽ělohîm) after his return from exile (Gen 28:22). Other features of the Jacob narrative may correlate with live issues at the time of the composition of Deutero-Isaiah. We know that title to real estate was a crucial consideration after expatriates began to return, and would have been a concern even earlier for those who contemplated the possibility of return. It has been observed that negotiations between “the people of the land” and Abraham, newly arrived from Mesopotamia, for the purchase by the latter of 25  The name occurs as a collective term nineteen times in chapters 40–48, three times in chapters 49–55 (49:5, 6, 26), and five times in chapters 56–66. It usually occurs in combination with Israel, but Jacob is named first with one exception (41:8). 26  I am assuming with the great majority of critical scholars that the Jacob story, comprising most of Genesis 25–35, is a composite of Priestly (P) and non-Priestly material, however the latter may be further defined and characterized. I assume further that these two components derive from a date no earlier than the Neo-Babylonian period, and that the narrative achieved its final shape even later. 27  Isa 34:5–17; 63:1–6; Jer 49:7–22; Ezek 25:12–14; Obad 10; Mal 1:2–5.

112

9  Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location

a plot of land (Gen  23), correspond to land contracts from Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid Mesopotamia. This circumstance, together with the emphasis on the complete legality of the real estate transaction, could have served as a model for immigrants from the Babylonian diaspora in their dealings with the indigenous population.28 A  similar function may have attached to Jacob’s purchase of land for a specific, named price from the Shechemites (Gen 33:19). A  related issue concerns marriage alliances. In the Genesis story Jacob leaves Canaan not just to escape retribution at the hands of Esau but to avoid marriage with indigenous women (Gen 26:34–35; 28:1–2, 6–9). This issue became highly visible and contentious with the běnê haggôlâ during the early and middle years of Achaemenid rule, but it would have been foreseen as problematic even earlier. We need not assume, finally, that all of this was present in the mind of the author or authors of Isaiah 40–55 in invoking so insistently the memory of Jacob the great patriarch. The point is rather that, irrespective of where these chapters were composed, they envision a future restoration dependent on the return of the deported from other lands, in the first place from the Babylonian diaspora.

28 On the land contracts, see Herbert Petschow, “Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23”, JCS 19 (1965), 103–20; Gene M. Tucker, “The Legal Background of Genesis 23”, JBL 85 (1966), 74–84. On Abraham as model for immigrants, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis”, JBL 128 (2009), 225–41.

10

The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution Towards a Definition of Sect The word “sect” derives through the Old French secte from the Latin secta, meaning a way of life, a party, a school of thought, often associated with, and perhaps derived from the verb sequor, Passive Participle secutum (“follow”), though a derivation from the verb secare, Passive Participle sectum (“cut off ”) is also possible. The term was first used in the Middle Ages to describe dissident Christian groups and even, in the writings of Wyclif, religious orders like the Franciscans and Dominicans. In biblical scholarship it became the standard designation for Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes following Josephus who applied the terms hairesis, hairetistai to such groups and their members.1 The first Christians preferred other self-descriptions. Paul’s accusers, for example, described him as a ringleader of the Nazarene hairesis, but Paul corrected them by declaring that he worships “according to the Way which they call a sect” (Acts 24:5, 14). Contemporary usage is generally traced to Ernst Troeltsch’s Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches and Groups) published in 1912. Troeltsch elaborated a phenomenology of sect in contrast to church, meaning Western Christianity, the Roman church as it existed in the Middle Ages. Writing a few years later in evident dependence on Troeltsch’s distinction between church-type and sect-type, Max Weber sketched out what he called the Sektenreligiosität (“sectarian religiosity”) of the Pharisees and their antecedents the Hasideans mentioned in 1 Maccabees.2 Weber went on to argue that Pharisaic and Hasidean sectarianism reflects certain basic features of Second Temple Judaism present throughout that period and, inchoately, from its beginning. Its roots are to be sought in the transition from nation state to confessional community (Glaubensgemeinschaft, Bekenntnisgemeinde) at the time of the Babylonian exile and the subsequent emergence in Judah of a ritually segregated Pariavolk (“pariah people”) in the early Persian period.3 1 

War 2:119, 137, 141–2; Ant. 13:171. Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952), 385–404. 3  In view of the pejorative associations of the term “pariah people”, it should be noted that for Weber it had a technical meaning not restricted to Judaism. He defined it as “a distinctive 2 

114

10  The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution

Starting out from a generally favourable critique of Weber, Shemaryahu Talmon took over and restated the hypothesis of sectarian origins in the early Second Temple period. He argued that the essential precondition for the emergence of sects was the passage from monocentricity to pluricentricity, with reference to the passage from the monarchy which, in spite of the two kingdoms, remained ideally and essentially one entity, to the situation in which diasporic communities existed together with the survivors in the Judaean homeland. After the return to Judah (Yehud) in the early Persian period, the measures adopted in the Babylonian diaspora to avoid assimilation served to segregate the immigrants, who claimed continuity with the old Israel, from outsiders whether the local Jewish peasantry or, a fortiori, Gentiles. Basically, Talmon did no more than restate Weber’s position from a more historically informed perspective on the period in question, though of course without the pejorative aura associated with the term Pariavolk.4 Talmon’s article brought to a point of clearer definition a number of studies of Second Temple religious history which traced connections of different kinds between obscure beginnings in the early Persian period and the dissident movements described by Josephus, which come into view more than three centuries later. These studies generally involved plotting the course of tension or conflict between contrasting parties and ideologies leading eventually to rupture and schism. The contrast takes on many forms including the following: between priesthood and laity,5 theocracy and eschatology,6 theocracy and messianic Zionism focusing on the person of Nehemiah,7 priestly theocracy and prophetic eschatology,8 and “Yahwe Alone” party and syncretists.9 The results are generally somewhat speculative, not surprisingly given the extent of our ignorance of Paleshereditary social group lacking autonomous political organization, and characterized by internal prohibitions against commensality and intermarriage, originally founded upon magical, tabooistic and ritual injunctions.” Max Weber, Economy and Society, Volume 1 (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), 493. 4  Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period”, in id., King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 165– 201. Talmon had argued earlier, on the basis of his reading of Ezra 4:3, that this self-segregating group referred to itself as a yahad, a term familiar from the Qumran texts but occurring in the Hebrew Bible only at Deut 33:5 and 1 Chr 12:18. In Ezra 4:3 Zerubbabel and colleagues reject the offer of help in building the temple with the words ᾽ănahnû yahad nibneh, according to Talmon to be translated as “we as a yahad will build.” 5 Aage Bentzen, “Priesterschaft und Laien in der jüdischen Gemeinde des fünften Jahrhunderts”, AfO 6 (1930/1931), 280–86. 6  Otto Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962). 7  Ulrich Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967). 8  Odil Hannes Steck, “Das Problem theologischer Strömungen in nachexilischer Zeit”, EvT 28 (1968), 445–58. 9  Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).



Isaiah 66:1–5

115

tinian Judaism during the late Persian and early Hellenistic period. But if we take the view that sects can arise at any time given the social conditions favourable to their existence and development, we can follow Talmon’s lead by identifying more specifically sectarian features in writings from the pre-hellenistic period. We will therefore take a closer look at texts which exhibit such features and can be plausibly related to a specific social situation.

Isaiah 66:1–5 We begin with a text which exhibits unmistakable signs of having been generated out of a situation of conflict, namely Isaiah 66:5. It occurs in the last section of the book, the so-called Trito-Isaiah, most of which is generally taken to reflect the situation in Judah at a relatively late date in the pre-Hellenistic period.10 It reads as follows: Hear the word of Yahwe, you who tremble at his word! Your brethren who hate you, who cast you out for my name’s sake have said, “May Yahwe reveal his glory that we may witness your joy!” But it is they who will be put to shame.

The speaker is an anonymous seer, and he is addressing a group which has been ostracized or excommunicated by their fellow-Jews. The verbs employed express a strong sense of shunning and exclusion from social relations and transactions. “Hating” (Hebrew śānā᾽) implies active dissociation, as in the divorce formula in the Elephantine papyri – “I hate my wife/I hate my husband.”11 “Casting out” (Hebrew niddāh) is close to the technical sense of excommunication from the synagogue which it has in Mishnaic Hebrew. The opponents are “brothers”, in other words fellow-Jews, but in view of the official nature of the ostracism they must have included the religious authorities, therefore the temple priesthood. Two reasons are given by the speaker for the exclusion of the group from the community. If the speaker is understood to be addressing the group in his own person, the phrase “for my name’s sake” would imply that association with a prophetic leader, and perhaps being named after him, is the reason for the hostility of the “brothers”. If, however, the passage is construed as divine oratio recta, the hostility would be attributed to the devotion of the group to the divine name, a frequent way of characterizing the devout at that time.12 The other reason for 10  On the formation of Isaiah 56–66, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 54–66. 11  Arthur Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967 [1923]), 44–50, 54–56. 12  Isa 56:6; 59:19; 60:9; Mal 1:6–7, 11, 14; 2:5; 3:16, 20.

116

10  The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution

exclusion from the community is expressed in the taunt of the opponents cited verbatim. It could imply outright rejection of their eschatological doctrine, but it is also possible that the opponents take exception to the conviction that those who “tremble at God’s word”, and they alone, will rejoice in the final intervention of God in judgement and salvation. This construction is confirmed by the final assertion that these opponents will experience shame when that day dawns.13 The description of those addressed as trembling at the word of God (hahărēdîm ᾽el-děbārô) is expressive of intense religious emotion and, as such, is well attested in the history of religious movements (Quakers, Shakers et alii), and in fact is still in use for the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel and elsewhere. With this specifically religious connotation the verb occurs infrequently in the Hebrew Bible: Israel at Sinai trembled at the theophany (Exod 9:16), the Philistines were discomfited in battle by a divinely inspired panic (1  Sam  14:15), and Eli trembled for the safety of the ark (1 Sam 4:13). In the participial-substantival form, however, the word occurs only in this section (Isa 66:2, 5) and in the account of Ezra’s attempt to coerce those who had married outside of his diaspora group, the běnê haggôlāh, to dismiss their wives and children (Ezra 9:4 and 10:3), a passage to which we shall return. Use of a modifier – they tremble “at his word”, also at 66:2 and in the Ezra passage (Ezra 9:3) – precludes aligning it with such well-known sectarian designations as Essene or Pharisee, but only the context can decide whether it is anything more than one of several ways of describing the devout current at that time.14 At any rate, the context in Isaiah  66:5 indicates a group sufficiently distinctive to be excommunicated by the religious authorities. In the matter of the marriage crisis provoked by Ezra, absentees from the plenary session called to decide the issue were threatened with exclusion from the assembly and confiscation of their property (Ezra  10:8). If this was the general rule, it might help to explain the frequent use of terms signifying indigence and low social status with reference to the devout in texts from that time.15 This last observation leads us to the saying immediately preceding beginning with Isaiah 66:1–2: This is what Yahwe says: Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool. 13 

On the idea of eschatological shame see Horst Seebass, “bôsh”, TDOT 1, 50–51. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A  Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 417, thinks that it was used only for a short time in the context of worship after the return from exile, but fails to say how he reached this conclusion. Roger Norman Whybray, Isaiah 40– 66, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 281, holds that “it was probably in the post-exilic period that it came to be a fixed expression describing the loyal Jew” again without further substantiation. 15  In addition to Isa 57:15 and 66:1–2 we might think of those psalms in which the speaker or the one praying is identified with one of the several words for poor, indigent, lowly, etc.; for example, Psalms 25 and 69. 14 Claus



Isaiah 66:1–5

117

What kind of house could you build for me? What kind of place for my abode? Did not my hand make all of these, and all these things came to be? But on these I look with favour – the poor, the afflicted in spirit, and those who tremble at my word.

We see here how attachment to the temple is contrasted with the attitude of those of lowly social status, the broken-spirited and, again, those who tremble at Yahwe’s word. The antithesis has led some commentators to interpret the passage as a rejection of the imperially-sponsored programme to rebuild the temple approved by Haggai and no doubt other prophets. Others read it as a rejection tout court of the temple and its cult.16 There were certainly those who did not support the rebuilding project, as is clear from the prophecy of Haggai itself (Hag 1:2), but we would need more evidence to align the writer of this remarkable statement with the opposition to the rebuilding in the early years of the reign of Darius I. Total condemnation of the temple as an institution is also antecedently improbable. If the hărēdîm (“tremblers”) of 66:2 are identical with those shunned by their brethren in 66:5, these people would anticipate an imminent parousia, an event associated with the temple in Isaiah 56–66 and other prophetic texts.17 Outright rejection of the temple would, moreover, contradict what is said about the temple elsewhere in Trito-Isaiah.18 Somewhat later, the Qumran sect will dissociate itself from the temple priesthood and temple cult as then practised without implying rejection of the temple as such. To summarize: Isaiah 66:1–5 witnesses to the existence of a pietist and prophetic-eschatological group in Judah, probably in the pre-hellenistic period, the relations of which with the parent body had been severed, at least temporarily, and which was excluded from participation in the Jerusalem cult or had dissociated itself from taking part in it. In addition, the group staked an exclusive claim to a salvation to be made manifest in a divine intervention believed to be imminent. However we choose to label these tremblers at the word of the Lord Yahwe, severance from and rejection of the parent body, together with the exclusive claim to make available to its members the salvation which the parent body had forfeited, are classical sectarian traits.

16  As, for example, James D. Smart, “A New Interpretation of Isaiah 66:1–6”, ExpTim 46 (1934/1935), 420–32; id., History and Theology in Second Isaiah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 281–88. 17  Isa 60:7, 13; 62:9; 66:6, 20–21, 23; Hag 2:6–9; Mal 3:1–4 (“Yahwe whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple”). 18  Isa 56:5, 7; 60:7, 13; 64:10 “Our holy house, our pride and joy.”

118

10  The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution

The hărēdîm and “The Servants of the Lord” The profile of this group will emerge more clearly when we examine a similar text in the same section of the book. Isaiah 65:13–16 reads as follows: These therefore are the words of the Sovereign Lord Yahwe: My servants will eat, while you go hungry; my servants will drink, while you go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, while you are put to shame; my servants will exult with heartfelt joy, while you cry out with heartache and wail with anguish of spirit. You will leave your name behind as a curse for my chosen ones … But his servants will be called by a different name, so that they who bless themselves in the land will do so by the God whose name is Amen; and those who swear an oath in the land will do so by the God whose name is Amen; for the former troubles are forgotten and hid from my sight.

If we read this with Isaiah  66:5 in mind, we shall see that it can have served either as the occasion for or the response to the taunt addressed to the hărēdîm by their opponents. The use of different appellations does not call into question sectarian status. Both are ostracized by their “brethren”, both share expectation of an exclusive vindication in the end time, and both have a special devotion to the divine name. The address to the opponents of the Servants embodies the quintessentially sectarian theme of eschatological reversal, a theme which will be familiar to readers of the gospels (for example, Matt 5:3–12). Here, the Servants of Yahwe are the true elect who will be revealed to be such at the imminent parousia. The claim is precisely identical with that of those who tremble at the word of God, and the same fate is anticipated for their opponents here as in 66:5, certainly including the temple authorities. This is made even clearer from the condemnation of priests taking part in pagan cults in Isaiah 65:1–12 and 66:3– 4. In the second part of the saying these elect are given a new name – another familiar sectarian-eschatological motif – while the name of those addressed will survive only as a curse. The new name is not given, except to say that they will be named after the God whose name is Amen. They will therefore be the Amen people, the people who say Yes to God. The Servants of the Lord Yahweh in Trito-Isaiah would also appear to be associated with the Servant whose painful life and death are celebrated and mourned by a disciple in the fourth of the so-called Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 52:12–53:13). The connection is made in the final verse of this major section of the book before the addition of the epilogue in Isaiah 55:1–13. Following on an apostrophe to the future, glorious Zion (54:1–17a), it is affirmed that



Ezra and the hărēdîm in Ezra 9–10

119

This is the lot of the Servants of the Lord, their vindication from me. This is the word of the Lord. (54:17b)

Ezra and the hărēdîm in Ezra 9–10 It was pointed out earlier that the term hārēd, hărēdîm occurs only in the last chapter of Isaiah and the account of the intermarriage crisis in Ezra 9–10. This is not the place for a detailed literary analysis of Ezra  9–10, but one or two observations are in order.19 The change from first to third person after Ezra 9:15 is one of several indications that this account is a conflation of two versions of the incident. Ezra is still fasting and mourning, and measures still remain to be taken, after the problem had been addressed by administering an oath to the guilty parties (10:5). The infidelity (ma῾al) of the existing population of Judah, including several who had previously returned from the diaspora, is mentioned twice (Ezra  9:2; 10:6), as also the accusation that Ezra’s group had been contaminated by relations with “the peoples of the land(s)” (9:1–2; 10:2). Ezra’s fasting is repeated (9:5; 10:6) and leading roles are assigned to both Ezra and Shecaniah ben Jehiel. Finally, in one version the group is described as “all who tremble at the words of the God of Israel” (9:4), and in the other as “those who tremble at the commandment of our God” (10:3). As it is described in Ezra-Nehemiah, the gôlâ group exhibits distinctively sectarian features: it is self-segregating, it carefully regulates membership, insists on endogamous marriage, controls recruiting, exercises the right to excommunicate, and appropriates the ancient traditions as of right. Its self-understanding is reflected in such suggestive designations as “the holy seed” (Ezra 9:2) and “the seed of Israel” (Neh 9:2). All of this presents a sectarian pattern of thought and action well before the time of the sects of the Hellenistic and Hasmonaean periods. The question inevitably arises as to a possible relation between the hărēdîm of Isaiah 66 and those bearing the same name in Ezra 9:4 and 10:3. At first sight, they seem to have little in common. As described in Isaiah, they are an ostracized and excommunicated group, while in Ezra they are presented as dominant, they themselves excommunicate those not in agreement with their interpretation of the law prohibiting intermarriage, they enforce the dismissal of the wives who have already married outside the group together with their children  – which, incidentally, is nowhere mandated in the Mosaic law (Ezra 10:1–5). Failure to attend their meetings is punished by confiscation of property (Ezra 10:8), and they impose their agenda with binding covenants (Ezra 10:5; Neh 10:1–40). 19  The reader is referred to Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), 173–201.

120

10  The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution

Perhaps, then, use of the title in Ezra 9–10 and in the last chapter of Isaiah is pure coincidence, since it is a title suited to groups characterized by strong religious fervour. The alternative conclusion would be that in reading Isaiah 65– 66 and Ezra 9–10 we are observing basically the same group at different stages of its development. This view of the matter is not excluded by the fact that in Ezra  9–10 the hărēdîm are proponents of their own rigorist interpretation of law, especially the law concerning marriage, whereas in Isaiah  66 they are essentially a prophetic-eschatological group. The Qumran sect will suffice to make the point that legal rigorism is not incompatible with a prophetic-eschatological world view. Ezra is himself presented as hārēd, leader of those who tremble with holy fear, the ῾ēdâ hărēdît. We are told that the hand of Yahwe was upon him and his supporters (Ezra 7:6, 9, 28; 8:18), an expression which connotes prophetic seizure. His initial reaction on hearing the news of the crisis  – he remained seated on the ground until the evening in a catatonic state (měšômēm, 9:4)  – is reminiscent of Ezekiel after his encounter with the Lord God seated on the chariot throne by the Chebar canal.20 Ezra fasts and mourns (Ezra 9:3, 5; 10:6), prays on his knees or prostrate on the ground (9:5; 10:1), and keeps night vigils (10:6),21 ancient traditions as of right. On the other hand, it must be said that Isaiah  56–66 is a fundamentally different kind of text from Ezra-Nehemiah, especially different from those sections which deal with the explicitly religious activities associated with the two principal protagonists (Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13).22 These passages describe a self-segregating group which excludes not only “the peoples of the land”, including the eight listed here, but also Judaeans who do not accept the teachings and practices of the Ezra-Shecaniah-Nehemiah sect (Ezra 9:1–2). They set great store by the law in Deut 23:2–7 [English translation 23:1–6] which excludes the sexually mutilated, those born of an illicit union, and Ammonites and Moabites from membership in the “assembly of the Lord”, the community of Israel (Neh  13:1–3). In striking contrast, the first discourse of Trito-Isaiah (Isa 56:1–8) assures foreign proselytes and the sexually mutilated of their good standing as participants in temple worship and civil society (“in my house and within my walls”). The discourse ends by bidding them welcome to the temple described as “a house of prayer for all peoples”, a description which we suspect would not have been endorsed by Ezra. The temple is at the centre of Trito-Isaiah’s vision of Zion, and Zion, a name absent from Ezra-Nehemiah, is the focal point of Trito-Isaiah. 20 

“I sat there among them stunned (měšômēm for MT mašmîm) for seven days” (Ezek 3:15). The claim of Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism”, JSS 19 (1974), 173–97, that “no other man of post-exilic times attempted so eagerly to realize certain prophetic promises” (ibid., 189), is surely exaggerated. 22  Three really, since the layman Shecaniah ben Jehiel plays an important role, and even has to urge Ezra to do his duty and act with decision (Ezra 9:2–5). 21 



Ezra and the hărēdîm in Ezra 9–10

121

These considerations lead to the following conclusions: (1) Ezra  7–10 and Trito-Isaiah exhibit fundamental differences in religious orientation; moreover, there is no consensus on the date of Trito-Isaiah or, more precisely, the dates of its different parts. This calls into question the opinion that Trito-Isaiah was written to support the measures imposed by the Ezra-Shecaniah-Nehemiah sectarians.23 (2) A connection between the hărēdîm of Isaiah 66:2, 5 and those with the same designation in Ezra 9:4 is rendered problematic by their fundamentally different religious profiles; if it is nevertheless affirmed, it must represent the same or a related group at different stages of its development.

23  This opinion is most recently argued by Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, Forms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 28–30 and Ulrich Berges, “TritoIsaiah and the Reforms of Ezra/Nehemiah: Consent or Conflict?” Biblica 98:2 (2017), 173–190.

11

Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah Psalms and Isaiah, two of the most substantial compilations in the Hebrew Bible, have a great deal in common. Their intertextual relations are also due for a more thorough study than has so far been attempted. This essay has the modest purpose of making a start with a preliminary study of the Zion theme, of central significance in both compilations.

Origins of the Zion Traditions The name Zion, of uncertain derivation, is certainly ancient since we first hear of it with reference to the pre-Israelite, Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem occupied by David and his band and thereafter known as the City of David.1 In the course of time the name came to be applied to Jerusalem, to the temple, and occasionally to the inhabitants of the city. Information on pre-Israelite Jerusalem is not abundant, limited as it is to what can be learned from reports on excavations in and around the city, often subject to revision, the Egyptian execration texts in which it is mentioned (19th to 18th century bc) and, four centuries later during the Amarna period, the correspondence between the Pharaonic court and the Hurrian prince Abdu-Heba, vassal ruler of the city then called Urusalim (14th century bc).2 The mythology of pre-Israelite Jerusalem seems to have contributed to Zion’s prestige as a holy place. The city took over some of the mythic features of the sacred Mount Zaphon, seat of the Syrian god Baal and the assembly of lesser deities, identified with Jebel ᾽el-Aqra῾ near the estuary of the Orontes in north Syria. The myths associated with this site, familiar from the texts discovered at Ras Shamra-Ugarit, seem to have served as a kind of prototype for Zion as a sacred site: Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise in the city of our God. His holy mountain is fair and lofty, the joy of all the earth. 1 

2 Sam 5:7; 1 Kgs 8:1; 1 Chr 11:5. in ANET, 328–9, 483–90; William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore/ London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992); see the index under Jerusalem/Urusalim. 2 Texts



Origins of the Zion Traditions

123

The mountain of Zion, the far recesses of the north is the city of the great King. God in her palaces is revealed as a tower of strength (Ps 48:2–3, English Translation 1–2).

The same motif appears in the boast of the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:12–13: How have you fallen from the sky, Star of the dawning day! … You thought in your heart: ‘I will ascend to the sky, I will set up my throne higher than the highest stars, I will take my seat on the Mount of Assembly, in the furthest reaches of the north.’

Mount Zaphon (the word means “north”) is also a place of celebration and joyful festivity, like a Garden of Eden before the “fall.” Zion likewise is “the joy of all the earth” and through it flows a river, emblem of fertility and healing: There is a river whose streams bring joy to the city of God, the holy dwelling of the Most High (Ps 46:4) … There (in Zion) the glorious name of the Lord will be ours, it will be a place of broad rivers and streams (Isa 33:21).

The mythology of pre-Israelite Jerusalem therefore contributed depth and a more universal appeal to Israelite Zion,3 nevertheless, the sanctity of Zion was due primarily to the presence in it of the holy ark, the sacred emblem of the deity known as Lord of hosts (YHWH sěbā᾽ôt). The history of the ark can be traced back to the sanctuary of Shiloh in the Central Highlands, territory of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam 3:3, 11).4 Carried into battle as a war palladium, it was captured by the victorious Philistines, eventually returned by way of Beth-shemesh to Kiriath-jearim in Judah where it remained for twenty years (1  Sam  4:1– 7:2), and from there transported in solemn procession by David to the City of David (2 Sam 6:1–19). It came to its final rest in the temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem (1  Kgs  8:1; 2  Chr  5:2), according to the author of Chronicles on 3  On this mythic background to Zion, see Gerhard von Rad, “Die Stadt auf dem Berge”, in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1958), 214–24; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Gottesdienst in Israel (Munich: Kaiser, 1962), 213–20, 234–39 [id., Worship in Israel. A Cultic History of the Old Testament (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 181–83, 201–205]; Konrad Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder Jebusitisches Erbe?, BZAW 144 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1977); Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem, JSOT Sup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 72–89; id., “Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest”, in Jacques Van Ruiten/Marc Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 3–17; Ben C. Ollenburger, City of the Great King, JSOT Sup 41 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 15–22. 4  It is possible that the deity worshipped at Shiloh was only subsequently identified with YHWH.

124

11  Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah

the site of the threshing floor of the Jebusite Araunah (in 1 Chronicles: Ornan) purchased by David (2 Sam 24:18–25).5 As the name, “Lord of armies,” suggests, this deity’s earliest associations were with warfare, the many small-scale wars waged by its devotees and the need for protection in battle. The hosts (armies) were, however, transferred from the earthly to the heavenly realm quite early, to judge by the appearance of the commander of the heavenly host to Joshua (Josh 5:13–14). There is also the vision of the prophet Micaiah ben Imlah during the reign of Ahab in the kingdom of Israel in which he saw the Lord enthroned and surrounded by the host of heaven (1 Kgs 22:19–23). Several psalms preserve traces of the origins of temple worship outlined above, together with the sacred emblem of the object of worship which irradiated such great power. The pilgrim Psalm 132 recalls the procession from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. In recollecting the ancestral traditions, the Asaphite Psalm 78 retells how their God abandoned his dwelling in Shiloh, chose the tribe of Judah over that of Ephraim, and established his new abode on Mount Zion like the high heaven (Ps 78:60–72). Psalm 68 records the effect on nature of the power emanating from the ark as the Israelites carried it with them in their journey through the wilderness, and Psalm 24 concludes with what looks like the final stage in the ark’s itinerary from Kiriath-jearim: Life up your heads, you gates, lift them up, you everlasting doors that the King of Glory may come in. Who is he, this King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts, he is the King of Glory.6

5  1 Chr 21:28–22:1; 2 Chr 3:1. On the origins of the Zion tradition see Jörg Jeremias, “Lade und Zion: Zur Entstehung der Ziontradition” in Hans Walter Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 192–6; Jimmy J. Roberts, “The Davidic Origins of the Zion tradition”, JBL 92 (1973), 329–44; Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion: the City of the Great King, JSOT Sup 41 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987); Jon D. Levenson, “Zion Traditions”, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6, 1098–1102. On the early history of the ark see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), especially pp. 65–83. 6  A similar “entrance liturgy” is assumed for Pss 15:1–5, 100:4–5 and 118:19–20. In their discussion of Ps 118 Frank L. Hossfeld/Eric Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, translated by Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 240–41, explain these passages as reflecting an official process of admission to participation in temple worship. Ps 24:3–6 may qualify as such, but Ps 24:5–10 is about the entrance into the temple of “the King of Glory”, with allusion to the destination of the ark. Ps 100 seems to refer to the temple musicians who did not need permission since they were participants in the liturgy. This may be deduced from the language associated with the měšōrěrîm in v. 1 referring to exaltation, joyful singing, thanksgiving and praise. Ps 118 is simply a request by a member of the public who wishes to enter to make a tôdāh (thanksgiving) offering. Isa 33:14–15 seems to be modelled on the catechetical list in Ps 15, but not as qualifying for entry into the temple, not explicitly at any rate.



Zion in Psalms: The Pilgrim Psalms

125

The title “King of Glory,” a title which occurs only here, has a particular significance. “Glory” (kābôd) is an evocative term practically synonymous with the holy ark. It was there at the beginning of the recorded history of the ark with the name Ichabod given the child born to the priest Eli’s daughter-inlaw after she heard that the ark had been taken by the Philistines.7 It was still there at its final destination in Solomon’s newly-built temple; we are told that the Glory filled the temple, though concealed by the numinous cloud of incense (1 Kgs 8:11). Wherever mention is made in psalms of God’s glory (kābôd) and power (῾ōz), we may suspect an allusion to the holy ark.8 Even more abundantly in evidence in Psalms and Isaiah is the epithet “Lord of the (heavenly) hosts”, which also originated in Ephraimite Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3, 11; 4:4). We shall return to these titles at a later point in the discussion.

Zion in Psalms: The Pilgrim Psalms We begin with the “Psalms of Ascent” or “Pilgrim Psalms” (Pss 120–134), since the destination of the pilgrimage, which includes the return from exile, is Zion. Zion is named thirty-eight times in Psalms and forty-seven times in Isaiah, more than in all other books in the Hebrew Bible together. In Psalms it is named most frequently in the fifth book (Pss 107–150, fourteen times), which includes the fifteen pilgrim psalms to be sung when “going up” to Zion. They replicate the original transfer of the ark from Shiloh by way of Kiriath-jearim while also commemorating the repatriation to Zion from the land of exile in Babylon  – whatever their original purpose may have been.9 Psalm 126 celebrates the reversal of fortune, the return from exile, in the physical language of the temple singers – laughter, shouting for joy, loud singing, all like a dream come true.10 We recall that the temple singers were deported with other temple personnel who survived the sack of the city, the murder and mayhem. According to one account (Neh 7:43–44), 148 singers of the guild of Asaph, twice as many as Levites, were 7  1  Sam 4:21–22. The meaning of this name of ill omen (᾽i-kābôd) is uncertain: either “where is the Glory?” or “alas, the Glory”, or “the Glory is no more.” 8  Examples: “ascribe to the LORD glory and power” (Pss 29:1; 96:7); “I have looked upon you in the sanctuary/beholding your power and glory” (Ps 63:3). In referring to the defeat at the hands of the Philistines, Ps 78:61 says that the God worshipped at Shiloh “delivered his power into captivity/his glory into the hands of the enemy.” 9  According to m. Sukkah 5:4 “countless Levites played on harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets and (other) instruments of music on the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of Ascent in the Psalms.” Much the same in m. Middot 2:5. 10  REB “like people renewed in health” derives MT keˇholeˇmîm (v. 1) from hlm, “to become ˙ strong”, “to regain strength” rather than “to dream”, but MT˙ seems more appropriate in the context and should be maintained.

126

11  Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah

eventually repatriated. Psalm 132 recalls the first “ascent,” the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem by David and the establishment of the liturgy in Solomon’s temple by the priests in their splendid vestments and the Levitical singers with their loud, joyful acclamations.11 Psalm 133, in which brotherly love is celebrated with the odd metaphor of the precious oil on Aaron’s beard, has given rise to a great deal of mostly inconclusive discussion, with one commentator suggesting that Aaron has been dragged into it by the beard.12 Leaving aside the beard for the moment, I venture to add one more hypothesis to the many available. Mention of Aaron in connection with the blessings of friendship and good relations may be read as an implicit rebuke directed by the dominant Aaronite-Zadokite priesthood at the Levitical claim to greater autonomy and control in the temple economy and the conduct of the services. This claim, with the tension within the temple personnel to which it led, is an important aspect of second temple studies first put on the agenda, to the best of my knowledge, by Hermann Vogelstein in 1889.13

Psalms of the Korahite Guild The psalms in which Zion is most clearly thematic are those assigned to the Korahite and Asaphite guilds. Rubrics attached to most of the psalms assign twelve each to the guilds of Korah and Asaph.14 We saw earlier that Korah (qorah) is listed as one of Esau’s sons, therefore Edomite or south Judaean, to whom the author of Chronicles has assigned a Levitical pedigree as descendant of the patriarch Levi (1 Chr 6:1–8, 22–23, cf. Gen 36:14).15 Korah is said to have died in the earthquake which brought the Levitical rebellion in the wilderness to an abrupt conclusion, but his sons survived according to Numbers 26:11, a no11  That the hăsîdîm mentioned together with the priests are in fact mešōrěrîm (“singers”) seems to be suggested by their loud acclamations (rinnāh, verb r-n-n), closely associated with the temple singers (132:9, 16). In much the same way the ῾ăbādîm (“servants of the Lord)” of Ps 134:1 who take up their position (literally “stand”) by night in the house of the Lord must also refer to the temple singers. Reference to a night service of praise and thanksgiving is hinted at here and there in Psalms (42:9; 88:2–3; 92:3; 119:55, 62) and is stated explicitly in 1 Chr 9:33. 12  For a review of the range of opinion on these three verses, see most recently Frank-Lothar Hossfeld/Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 469–83. 13  Hermann Vogelstein, Der Kampf zwischen Priestern and Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels: Eine Historisch-Kritische Untersuchung (Stettin: Verlag von Friedrich Nagel, 1889). See also R. Meyer, “Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen in nachexilischer Zeit”, Orientalische Literaturzeitung 41 (1938), 721–28. 14  Asaphite psalms: 50, 73–83. Korahite psalms: 42–49, 84–85, 87–88. Pss 42 and 43 are listed as distinct but structurally make up one psalm only, as is clear from the refrain at Ps 42:6, 42:12 and Ps 43:5. On the arrangement and redactional history of the Korahite psalms, see Erich Zenger, “Zur redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen”, in Klaus Seybold/ Erich Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 175–98. 15  See above.



Psalms of the Korahite Guild

127

tice which acknowledges the presence and activity of the Korahite guild (běnê qōrah, “the sons of Korah” as in the psalm rubrics) in the temple service at the time of writing. Nothing in the psalms of Korah alludes to the Edomite origins of the Korahites. They have been thoroughly indigenized in Judah and several of them evince a strong attachment to Jerusalem-Zion. The Korahite author of Psalms 42–43 prays passionately that he may return soon to “the holy mountain”, to God’s dwelling (miškānôt) in order to praise God (Ps 43:3–4).16 Psalm 46:5 mentions a river which brings joy to the city of God, an evidently mythic embellishment since rivers are not found on mountains; perhaps, therefore, suggested by antithesis to the quaking mountains and foaming waters immediately preceding. The same psalm has a refrain – “the Lord of hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is our fortress: (vv. 46:8, 46:12) which inevitably brings Zion to mind. We should note in passing that the frequent allusion in these psalms of Korah to “the people of Jacob” (Pss 44:5; 85:2), “the pride of Jacob” (Ps 47:5), and “the God of Jacob” (46:8, 12; 84:9), this last parallel with the quintessential Zion title “Lord of hosts”, does not imply a northern Israelite provenance for the Korahite singers. “Jacob” occurs frequently in Deutero-Isaiah in apposition to Israel and with reference to the prophet’s Judaean contemporaries. In Isaiah 2:2–5 “the God of Jacob” is another name for the God resident in Zion. The Korahite Psalm 48 begins by offering praise “in the city of our God”: Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise in the city of our God. His holy mountain is fair and lofty, the joy of the whole earth. The mountain of Zion, the far recesses of the north, is the city of the great King (Ps 48:2–3).

The psalm ends with an invitation to the reader to visit Zion, count its towers and consider well its ramparts, a conclusion reminiscent of Gilgamesh’s invitation to Urshanabi on his return to Uruk to inspect the ramparts, foundations and brickwork of his great city which, if so, would demonstrate that the singers were readers as well as singers.17 Here and throughout these psalms we hear this note of intense attachment to Zion, its temple and the God whose dwelling it is. In Psalm 84 the author declares those fortunate who, like himself, live in God’s 16  The author of Ps 42 recalls the temple and its liturgies with longing while resident in “the land of Jordan, Hermon and Mount Mizar”, this last generally taken to be one of the peaks of Mt. Hermon (v. 6b). We are given no hint why he was languishing in that region near the sources of the Jordan. Perhaps an earlier version read Hebron for Hermon and Yizhar for Mizar, both names associated with the southern Judaean origins of Korah (1 Chr 2:43; Exod 6:18). Ps 84:7 refers to “the valley of Baca”, meaning either “the waterless valley” (as REB) or “the valley of weeping” following LXX (en tē koiladi tou klauthmōnos) and Vulg. (in valle fletus). See FrankLothar Hossfeld/Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 349, 355. 17  ANET 2nd ed., 97.

128

11  Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah

house.18 A day in the temple is worth a thousand anywhere else, and he asserts that he would rather find himself at the threshold of the temple without being able to enter it than dwell in the tents of the wicked.19 The same enthusiasm for city and temple informs Psalm 87. This last of the Korahite psalms is introduced with praise of Zion, beloved of God: The city the Lord founded stands on the holy hills. He loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. Glorious things are spoken about you, city of God.

There is a range of opinion on the five foreign peoples named in the following verses as to whether they are foreigners, proselytes, or diaspora Jews, and whether what is described is conceived as happening in real time or an imagined future.20 What at least is clear is that they are being registered as citizens of Zion. The lands of origin of these foreigners represent the four cardinal points as seen from Zion, the centre of the world, the axis mundi: Rahab (i. e. Egypt, as Isa 30:7; 51:9) to the south, Babel (i. e. Babylon), to the east, Philistia to the west, and Tyre to the north. Kush, usually translated “Ethiopia” or “Nubia”, seems to have been added as an afterthought, perhaps because is so often linked with Egypt (Isa 20:3–5; 43:3; 45:14), or on account of the Jewish settlement on the island of Elephantine at the first cataract of the Nile. At all events, the basic theme is repatriation, a process which will be completed at an indeterminate date in the future, or perhaps only in the last days, as an Isaianic saying with the customary eschatological incipit “on that day” (bāyôm hahû᾽) attests: On that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that is left of his people, from Assyria, Egypt, Patros, Ethiopia (Kush), from Elam, Shinar, Hamath and the coastlands of the sea (Isa 11:11).

The list is more complete than those registered by the Lord in Psalm 87, but all five named in Psalm 87 are also among those repatriated in Isaiah 11:11. Assyria can stand for Mesopotamia, Patros is “the south land” of Egypt, and “the coastlands of the sea” correspond to Philistia. The citizens of the future Zion 18 The

temple singers and instrumentalists were on call day and night, as the psalms themselves attest (Pss 42:9; 88:2; 92:2–3; 134:1), and therefore had quarters in the temple precincts as stated in 1 Chr 9:33. 19  Ps 84:11b. The NRSV translation “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than live in the tents of wickedness” is misleading. There is no doorkeeper (šō῾ēr) in this verse, and the verb used (hištopēp, hapax) means to stand (JPS) or linger (REB) at the threshold (sap) without entering. 20  See, among many others, Charles A. Briggs, A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah, Volume 2 (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, n. d.), 239–42; Günther Wanke, Die Ziontheologie der Korachiten (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966), 21–22, 31–40; Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 579–84; Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalms 2, 377–88.

Psalms of the Asaphite Guild



129

include repatriated Jews certainly but, in keeping with a dominant Isaianic theme, Zion will be open to all people who seek righteousness. It will be the religious capital of the world.21 The message of this psalm is a source of joy and a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, however, the final verse (Ps 87:7) is textually defective and rendered in different and not very satisfactory ways, for example: Singers and dancers alike say, ‘All my springs are in you’ (NRSV) Singers and dancers alike say, ‘The source of all good is in you.’ (REB) Singers and dancers alike [will say]: “All my roots are in you.” (JPS)

Perhaps what the poet was trying to say is that the rejoicing at this ceremony of accreditation of new citizens of Zion took the form of dancing to the tune of a love song for the city, here as in Isaiah addressed as a woman,22 a song perhaps composed for the occasion with the title kol-ma῾yānay bāk, “In you are all my springs of life-giving water”.

Psalms of the Asaphite Guild By the time of Ezra in the mid-fifth century bc, this guild of temple singers was pre-eminent and not yet incorporated into the ranks of the Levites. The list of the first of the deported to be repatriated under Cyrus II includes 128 Asaphite singers according to Ezra 2:41 or 148 according to Nehemiah  7:44, twice the number of Levites (74). During the governorship of Nehemiah, a member of the guild was even overseer of the Levites (Neh 11:22). These Asaphite singers performed their service as musical specialists, we are told, according to the prescriptions of David and Solomon since “in the days of David and Asaph long ago there was a leader of the singers, and there were hymns of praise and thanksgiving to God” (Neh 12:46). The author of Chronicles fills in the details. Asaph, eponymous founder of the guild, was appointed, together with Heman and Ethan, by David to minister before the ark with singing and musical accompaniment.23 He and his associates performed the same task at the dedication of Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 5:12), and from then on, as long as the temple stood. The Asaph collection consists in Palms 50 and 73–83. Psalm 50 presents a scene in which the Lord God indicts his people from his throne in Zion, “the perfection of beauty”, in the presence of all creation, the heavens and the earth. Zion is therefore represented as the centre and axis of the world built, as another Asaph psalm puts it, “like the high heavens, like the earth he has founded for 21 

Isa 2:2–5; 11:11; 19:24–25; 60:1–3; 66:18–23. Isa 52:1–2; 54:1–17; 60:1–22; 62:1–5; 66:7–11. 23  1 Chr 6:24; 15:17–19; 16:5, 7, 37; 25:1–2, 6, 9. 22 

130

11  Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah

ever” (Ps 78:69).24 Psalm 78, the longest in the Asaph group, presents a resumé of the prehistory which emphasizes the failure of the central and northern tribes referred to as Ephraim or Joseph, the last phase of which begins with the delivery of the ark (the divine power and glory) into the hands of the enemy and the abandonment of the Shiloh sanctuary (“the tent of Joseph”, 78:67), concluding with the election of Judah and the establishment of Zion: He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved, He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, founded like the earth to last for ever (vv. 68–69).

This psalm will remind us that in both Psalms and Isaiah, Zion is not just the focus of shared desires and aspirations for the future; it is a present political and religious reality, chosen as the location for David and his successors through whom the divine power would be brought to bear in the political realm (Ps 2, 110, 20). It involves a real history. The rejoicing in the Asaphite Psalm 76 when the God of Zion “broke the flashing arrows, the shield, the sword, and the weapons of war” may reflect the euphoria following the failure of Sennacherib’s Assyrians to take Jerusalem in 701 bc, as recorded in Isaiah 36–37. Psalm 74 describes the sack of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple, calling on God to remember Mt. Zion and take note of the “perpetual ruins” (74:2). The author of Psalm 51 prays that God might “do good to Zion, rebuild the wall of Jerusalem” (51:20), while another psalm petitions that he might “save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah” (69:36). Yet another psalmist hopes that “God will build up Zion and appear in his glory” (102:17). Psalm  137, which all lovers of the Hebrew language will know by heart, testifies to the sadness of temple singers in the Babylonian diaspora who are asked by their Babylonian neighbours to sing “the songs of Zion”, that is, the psalms composed by them for the temple liturgy, but feel obliged to decline. Then, finally, there is Psalm  126 in which the psalmist and his fellow-musicians, perhaps members of the same singers guild as in Psalm 137,25 either anticipate a proximate return from exile or have actually returned. The most striking aspect, however, and the one with the greatest emotional charge, is the presentation of Zion as the object of desire and longing on the part of those far distant from it or deprived of access to it. This should not surprise us since what has come to be called Zionism whether ancient or modern, is essentially a diasporic phenomenon. So the psalmist prays:

24 

Cf. Ps. 40:6. Suggested by the allusion to “singing aloud for joy” (rinnāh, vv. 2 and 6), a term often associated with the singers. 25 



Zion in Isaiah

131

If only deliverance for Israel might come from Zion! When the Lord restores his people’s fortune;26 let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad (Ps 14:7; Ps 53:7).

Zion in Isaiah In the book of Isaiah there is the same duality about Zion as in Psalms: on the one hand, the actual city Jerusalem with its many problems, its often incompetent and corrupt leaders both secular and religious, and its precarious position in relation to the current imperial power; on the other hand, an eschatological symbol of light in the surrounding darkness, the original cité lumière, a place of security and salvation for the righteous and of judgement for sinners.27 So, for example, Isaiah 1:8 speaks with some exaggeration about “daughter Zion” besieged and left looking like a hut in a plot of cucumbers, probably with reference to the actual siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian army in 701 bc. In Isaiah  3:16– 26 “daughters of Zion”, namely Jerusalemite women, probably at the court, are berated for going around with necks thrust out, ogling eyes, and walking with mincing gate, though in truth none of these seem to be serious infractions of the social order. Throughout the entire first major section of the book there is much political commentary, condemnation of neighbouring hostile peoples, especially in Isaiah 13–23, and assurances addressed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem-Zion, especially in Isaiah 28–35. The contemporaneity of Zion is therefore fully in evidence in Isaiah, as it is in Psalms, but Zion is also, and frequently, a focal point in the distant future or in the end time. This is apparent in Isaiah 1:27–31, the final addition to the first chapter of the book: Zion will be redeemed by justice, her penitents by righteousness, but rebels and sinners will be destroyed together, and those who forsake Yahweh will be consumed (1:27–28).

What is said here is compatible with what is said about Zion in Third Isaiah, in keeping with other links between the first and the two last chapters of the book: 26  The meaning of the expression šûb šěbût refers either to reversal of fortune in a general sense or return from exile, depending on the context. The expression is most common in Jeremiah, where the exilic context is almost always explicit (Jer  29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26). 27  In chapters 36–39 we find only a reference to “the virgin daughter Zion” (37:22) and to “Mount Zion” (37:22); the first in an oracular statement of the prophet (37:22–29), the second in a sign given to reassure Hezekiah. The absence of any allusion to Zion in chapters 38 and 39 creates a problem for the interesting thesis of the centrality of these chapters in the book as argued by Ulrich Berges, “Die Zionstheologie des Buches Jesaja”, Estudios Biblicos 58 (2000), 167–98.

132

11  Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah

the radical distinction between penitents (šābîm) and those who rebel against God (pōšě῾îm) (59:20; 66:24), the prospect of salvation for the renewed community in Zion and judgement on the reprobates (66:12–16), and the image of the inextinguishable fire of judgement (66:15, 24, cf. 1:31).28 The second title in Isaiah 2:1 is followed by a statement of what will happen bě᾽ăhārît hayyāmîm, literally, “at the end of the days” when the mountain of the Lord’s house will be set over all other mountains (Isa 2:2–5). The temple in Zion will be the spiritual centre of the world. People from all nations will come there in pilgrimage to find enlightenment and moral instruction. The oracle goes on to predict that arbitration will take the place of conflict, warfare will be abolished, and a restored and purified community will live in security on its own land. This eschatological vision, which has lost none of its resonance, together with a similar statement about the core community of the last days in Isaiah 4:2–6 introduced with the formula “on that day”, the most common eschatological indicator in prophetic texts, serves to bracket the denunciations of different examples of moral disorder in contemporaneous society (Isa  2:6–4:1). An oracular passage later in the book addressed to “my people who dwell in Zion” (Isa 10:20– 23) predicts exile from which only a remnant will return: “a remnant will return, the residue of Jacob to God their strength … destruction is decreed, retribution comes like a flood the Sovereign Lord of the hosts will bring about the destruction that is decreed in the midst of the earth” (Isa 10:20–23). In the following paragraph the inhabitants of Zion are told to put aside fear; the oppressor’s burden will be removed from their shoulders and his yoke destroyed (10:24–27): My people who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of the Assyrians when they beat you with a rod and wield their stick over you as the Egyptians did. In a short while the time of wrath will be over, and my anger will be directed at their destruction.29

In reading such passages we bear in mind that the story of Israel is a story, often repeated throughout history to the present, of small countries faced with the ambitions and resources of great empires. The inhabitants of Zion are also addressed in 30:19–22. They are told to weep no more, for even though they will suffer affliction, their teacher will no longer remain hidden but will continue to guide them, if not in person then as they remember him and put into practice his teaching. In both 10:20–27 and 30:19–20 the inhabitants of Zion are the 28  Also reproduced in Isa 1:29–30 is the condemnation of idolatrous cults associated with sacred trees and gardens (Isa 57:5; 65:3–5; 66:17). 29  Verbal parallels in Isa 10:22–27 with the book of Daniel suggest a date late in the Hellenistic period for these verses. See Dan 11:36, which predicts that the tyrant (Antiochus IV) will prevail ῾ad-kālāh za῾am kî nehěrāsāh ne῾ěśātāh, “until wrath is spent, when what is decreed is accomplished”. Cf. kālāh za῾am in Isa  10:25, which suggests that the Assyrians stand for the Seleucids, the dynasty to which Antiochus belonged, in the same way that elsewhere in Isaiah “Egyptians” can stand for the Ptolemies, for example, in Isa 19:24–25.



Zion in Isaiah

133

“remnant”, the core of a new community which will be described more fully in the last major section of the book as “the servants of the LORD” and “those who tremble at his word.”30 In several other texts in Isaiah 1–35 in which Zion appears, sometimes against the grain of the surrounding text, Zion stands for a future of security for the afflicted, poor, and destitute (14:28–32), a place where justice and righteousness can flourish (28:14–22; 33:2–5), and a space which the oppressive power of empires  – Assyrians, Babylonians, or whichever  – cannot penetrate (31:10; 33:17–24).31 A provisional conclusion: We saw earlier that the ark tradition was transmitted along both cultic and prophetic channels, but if we are to speak of interdependence of some kind, it appears more likely that the authors and editors of the book of Isaiah, more especially with respect to the first major section of the book, were drawing on these ancient traditions of Zion transmitted in the temple liturgy and its hymnography rather than the reverse, this especially in the presentation of the Zion of the end times. In Isaiah, Zion is primarily an eschatological symbol, a focus of aspirations for a future quite different from the unsatisfactory present. This aspect is not absent in Psalms, but the greater emphasis is on the actual city which, after the destruction of 586 bc and the deportations, was the destination greatly desired, and by some attained, among expatriate Judaeans including members of the temple musician guilds.32 However, in the present state of our knowledge, or rather ignorance, the wiser course may be to think in terms of an ongoing, rich interactivity, both Psalms and Isaiah drawing on the same themes and sharing similar language. It is tempting to think of an actual encounter of temple singers and composers awaiting re30  Isa  65:8–10, 13–16; 66:5. On the identity of the unnamed and mysterious teacher, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Who is the Teacher in Isa 30:20 who will no longer remain hidden?”, in Werner G. Jeanrond/Andrew D. H. Mayes (eds.), Recognizing the Margins: Developments in Biblical & Theological Studies. Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne (Dublin: Columba Press, 2006), 9–23. 31  On Zion in Psalms and Isaiah there is a formidable bibliography. See Jon D. Levenson, “Zion Traditions”, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6, 1098–1102; Hans Wildberger, “Die Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion: Jes II 1–5”, VT 7 (1957), 62–81; John H. Hayes, “The Traditions of Zion’s Inviolability”, JBL 82 (1963), 419–26; Gunther Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966); Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophesy in the Old Testament, JSOT Sup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980; Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion: The City of the Great King, JSOT Sup 41 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987); Erich Zenger/Ulrich Berges, “Die Ziontheologie des Buches Jesaja”, Est. Bibl. 58 (2000), 167–98; Coriana Körting, Zion in den Psalmen, FAT 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Thomas Willi, “Zion und der Sitz im Leben der ‘Aufstiegslieder’: Psalm 120–134”, in Thomas Willi/Michael Pietsch (eds.), Israel und die Völker: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte Israels in der Perserzeit, SBA 55 (Stuttgart, 2012), 71–81. 32 The list of those returning under Cyrus II in Ezra 2 includes 128 Asaphite singers (Ezra 2:41).

134

11  Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah

patriation, or actually repatriated, with the learned and pious scribes who, then or later, were poring over and annotating the words of the great prophet of the eighth century bc, long dead, but on such a “meeting of minds” the texts are silent.33

33  On the respective Trägerkreise of these Isaianic and Psalmodic compositions, see most recently Ulrich Berges, Jesaja: Der Prophet und das Buch (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010), 11–46; id., “‘Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied’: Zu den Trägerkreisen von Jesajabuch und Psalter” in Johannes Bremer/Frank-Lothar Hossfeld/Till M. Steiner (eds.), Trägerkreise in den Psalmen (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2016), 11–33.

12

Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Isaiah 2:6–22) 1 Many would agree with Bernhard Duhm that Isaiah 2:6–22 is among the most imperfectly preserved passages in the entire book,1 and also one of the least amenable to regular prosodic analysis. It is all the more necessary therefore to avoid on the one hand arbitrary textual emendation and, on the other, doctrinaire prosodic theorizing. It may help to state at the outset the presuppositions on the basis of which this reading of the passage will proceed. (1) Isaiah 1–39 is the result of a continuous exegetical history covering about half a millennium; (2) the successive phases of that history can in theory be identified but in practice only partially; (3) the ultimate goal of such an attempt at reconstruction is to obtain a better grasp of the message of the great prophet of the eighth century bc where this is possible, and to come closer to understanding of the religious reality of ancient Israel and, in the later period, early Judaism. To come at once to the task in hand, I will argue that the core of Isaiah 2:6–22 is a poem about judgement in two parts: the indictment in 2:7–8 introduced by v. 6; the verdict in 2:12–16, with v. 10 serving as a link between them. The rest consists in expansions, glosses or variants representing a high level of exegetical activity covering a considerable period of time. The overall effect of these amplifications is to transform the original text into an announcement of a universal, final judgement in which only the elect, those in other words addressed by the anonymous seer, will find salvation. If this way of proceeding proves to be correct, it may provide us some useful methodological clues for reconstructing the exegetical history of other passages in the Isaian compilation since certain procedures and features may be expected to recur, and in fact do recur, throughout the entire book. The translation is from my Anchor Bible Isaiah commentary.2 Words italicized belong to the editorial history of the passage. 1  Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 39. 2  Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 192–200.

136

12  Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Isaiah 2:6–22)

The Indictment v. 6 v. 7a v. 7b v. 8a v. 8b

For3 you have rejected your people, the household of Jacob, for they are full (of sorcerers)4 from the east5 and soothsayers like the Philistines. They teem6 with the children of foreigners. Their land is full of silver and gold and there is no end to their treasures; their land is full of horses, and there is no end to their chariots; their land is full of idols (And there is no end to their idolatry)7 To the work of their hands they bow down, to that which their fingers have made.8

A special problem is posed by the parallels between Isaiah 2:6–22 and Micah 5:9– 14, which has been largely neglected in Isaian interpretation. Micah  5:9–14 is introduced with the eschatological formula bayyôm hahû᾽ (“on that day”) and it appears to have shared the same editorial history with Isaiah 2:6–22, as the following parallels suggest: Isa 2:7b Mic 5:9b Isa 2:6b Mic 5:11 Isa 2:8 Mic 5:12 3 

Their land is full of horses, and there is no end to their chariots (On that day, says the Lord) I shall slaughter your horses and destroy your chariots. for they are full of sorcerers from the east and soothsayers like the Philistines I shall destroy your sorcerers And there will be no more soothsayers among you Their land is full of idols To the work of their hands they bow down, To that which their fingers have made. I shall cut down your images … You will no longer bow down to things your hands have made.

Here, as at v. 12, the initial kî is a connective rather than asseverative particle (“surely”). “sorcerers”: parallelism suggests adding qôsěmîm or kěsāpîm, cf. Mic 5:11. 5  miqqedem: “from the east” rather than “from of old”; sorcery and soothsaying were routinely associated with the east. 6  śāpāq (Hiphil) is hapax, but for the meaning given see Job 20:22 śepeq, abundance, and modern Hebrew maspiq, “sufficient, enough”. 7  The stich parallel with the two previous “there is no end” has fallen out. See Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 41. 8  This first addition expands the indictment in the direction of anti-idolatry polemic present throughout the book but especially in Isa 40–48 (40:18–20; 41:6–7; 44:9–20; 45:20; 46:1–2, 5–7). The phrase “that which their fingers have made” occurs also at Isa 17:7–8, a saying introduced with the well-attested eschatological bayyôm hahû᾽ (“on that day”) incipit. 4 



The Indictment

137

What are we to make of this? No doubt a satisfactory answer will call for a thorough investigation of the tradition history behind Isaiah and Micah. In the meantime, we note that Isaiah 2:6–11 comes immediately after the poem about the Zion of the latter days which also occurs, with variations, at Micah 4:1–5, and the juxtaposition may not be fortuitous. It will be seen that the parallels noted above occur only with respect to the verses which we have identified as the original nucleus of the passage. One proviso must, however, be made. It seems that the original conclusion of Isaiah  2:8a  – in parentheses above  – has been dropped and its place taken by conventional phrases from anti-idolatry polemic especially in evidence in Isaiah 40–48 as we have seen. Since this change was already in place when the Micah passage was written, it seems that the Micah parallel was drawing on an edited version of the Isaian passage from the exilic period when much editorial activity seems to have been going on. The Micah parallels, therefore, strengthen the argument that the nucleus of Isaiah 2:6–22 is an eighth century bc indictment of Judah while the edited version, probably from the exilic period or later, presents the eschatological reversal of this situation with special emphasis on the elimination of idolatry, so that Israel, or a purified remnant of Israel, will be saved in the universal judgement. Returning to the editorial history of the indictment, it seems that the mention of idols (᾽ělîlîm) in v. 8 has given rise to two further additions in prose which predict the ultimate disappearance of idolatry. The first, at v. 18, “the idols will utterly pass away”, fits neither prosodically nor contextually with what precedes and follows it. The second, at v. 20, is a prose passage introduced with the eschatological incipit bayyôm hahû᾽ (cf. 17:7–8): On that day humanity shall cast away to the shrews and the bats its idols of silver and of gold which it has made for itself to worship.

That this statement was added to the expanded text of the indictment is clear from comparison with v. 8b. Since the bat is a ritually unclean animal (Lev 11:18), and presumably also the shrew, the idols are therefore rendered unclean themselves and the earth is thereby purified. The same point is made in another prose addition, Isaiah 30:19–22, where we are told that at some point in the future the inhabitants of Jerusalem will render unclean their silver-coated graven images and their gold-plated molten images. Likewise in Isa  31:6–7, a bayyôm hahû᾽ passage, about the last days, says that all will reject their idols of silver and gold which they have made with their hands. These are examples of a typical editorial procedure in the book of Isaiah: a prose expansion of an oracle in verse – or what we may call prophetic recitative – which interprets the oracle in an eschatological sense.

138

12  Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Isaiah 2:6–22)

The Link Verse Go into the rock, Hide yourself in the dust, from the terror of the Lord and the splendour of his majesty. (Isa 2:10)

Now the prophet addresses his contemporaries, unlike the indictment in which Yahweh God is addressed directly. The purpose of the admonition is to urge the hearers to escape a threatening disaster understood as divine judgement, perhaps the earthquake which caused widespread destruction in both kingdoms around the year 760 bc.9 The absence of this verse from the great Isaiah scroll from Qumran is puzzling since it would seem to make a good fit with the Qumran acute sense of an ending; we simply do not know the reason. What is especially of interest is the presence of parallels in vv. 19 and 21: v. 10 v. 19 v. 21

Go into the rock, hide in the dust of the earth from the terror of the Lord God, from the splendour of his majesty. They will go into the crevices in the rock, into caverns in the dust of the earth, from the terror of the Lord God, from the splendour of his majesty when he arises to strike the world with terror. … to go into the crevices in the rock, into the clefts in the crags, from the terror of the Lord God and the splendour of his majesty, when he arises to strike the world with terror.

The most common explanation of these parallels is to read them as variants of a refrain of a kind which punctuates and structures poetic and psalmodic compositions.10 A good example would be the poem in Isaiah 9:8–21 and 5:25 about the divine anger expressed in acts of judgement on the sinful in Israel and other parts. The poem is punctuated by the dire refrain: “Yet his anger did not abate/ still was his hand outstretched”, the presence of which in Isaiah 5:25 identifies this verse as originally part of the same composition, divided by the refrain into four stanzas. Such refrains do occur quite often in the prophetic books, and 9 Cf.

Amos 1:2; Zech 14:5. the older commentators see, in addition to Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 39–40, George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1912), 14; Paul Auvray, Isaïe 1–39 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972), 55. Hans Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag 1972), 95, rejects the refrain explanation in Isa 2:6–22 in favour of an understanding of the editorial history of the passage close to the one argued here. 10 Among

An Imprecation and an Admonition



139

where they occur they provide valuable clues to structure and meaning. In the present instance, however, the positioning of the variants in the passage makes this highly unlikely. We should therefore read v. 10 as the link between indictment and verdict, and the variants as added at a later time.

The Verdict v. 12 v. 13 v. 14 v. 15 v. 16

(For) Yahweh of Hosts has a day against all that is proud and high, against all that is exalted and lofty against all the cedars of Lebanon which are high and exalted, against all the oaks of Bashan, against all the high mountains and all the lofty heights, against every high tower and every fortified wall, against all the ships of Tarshish all stately vessels.

The theme set out repetitively in this section, reversal of fortune and status, is a central theme of apocalyptic, down into early Christian times, in the Magnificat, for example. It is as a threat of judgement against the mighty of the earth that glosses have been added in 2:9 and 2:11, the latter with a variant at v. 17. The point of these expansions is to indicate more clearly that the threatened judgement will be carried out, and that it will affect not just Israel but all humanity everywhere.

An Imprecation and an Admonition After considering the indictment and verdict with the surrounding expansions we are left with vv. 9b and 22, both of which are clearly editorial.11 v. 9b Do not forgive them!

This truly dismaying imprecation12 does not belong to the present context. It is absent from Isaiah  5:15 where we would expect it, and also from the great Qumran Isaiah scroll, for what reason we do not know; perhaps it was too much even for the Qumran sectarians. It is notwithstanding not entirely out of place in apocalyptic sectarianism. Apocalyptic groups generally believed that there 11 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 104, describes v. 9b as a Zusatz and v. 22 as a gloss added to vv. 6– 21. They would therefore presumably constitute the final stage in the editorial history of the passage. According to Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, they are later even than LXX from which they are absent. 12  I note that it is omitted in The Revised English Bible with Apocrypha.

140

12  Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Isaiah 2:6–22)

would be no possibility of forgiveness and therefore no room for intercession in the final judgement, for example II Esdras 7:102–115. v. 22 Turn away from mere mortals, of what account are they? No more than the breath in their nostrils.

This final admonition was appended as a postscript to the passage in its expanded and edited form. The translation is necessarily somewhat free, as will be seen by comparing the principal modern English versions. “Whose breath is in their nostrils” (literally) means not just “who are alive” but “whose life is on the way out.” The admonition may be interpreted as saying that, in the last analysis, the only option faced with the prospect of judgement is to turn to God and trust in God. In summary: we have two phrases, strongly apocalyptic and sectarian in character, added at the conclusion of the two parts, indictment and verdict. It seems that they represent the final phase of the redaction of Isaiah 2:6–22; we have seen that, in fact, one is absent from the Qumran Isaiah scroll (1QIsa) and the other from the Septuagint.

2 It goes without saying, but let us say it, that any attempt to reconstruct the editorial history of such a passage as Isaiah 2:6–22 will be hypothetical and subject to challenge. One must make prudent appeal to prosody, a graveyard of doctrinaire theories, and distinction between verse and prose, allowing for an intermediate form we might call prophetic recitative, genre, and exploiting parallels where they are present.13 It is also to be expected that additions will exhibit stylistic, thematic and structural similarities with compositions known to derive from a later period. It will be noticed that themes touched on in Isaiah 2:6–22 are found in the so-called Isaian Apocalypse (Isaiah 24–27): the Lord Yahweh will come in judgement (26:21), he will lay low the mighty and proud (26:5), the faithful must hide until the divine anger passes (26:20). In short, the goal is not just to present a possible solution, but to elevate a possibility to the highest degree of probability by a convergence of different kinds of argument. One promising type of analysis has been hinted at in our study of Isaiah 2:6–22. Among the additions to the core narrative there are three “on this day” (bayyôm hahû᾽) statements (vv. 11, 17, 20). This phrase is, of course, used in different kinds of contexts, sometimes with reference to a past event (for example, Jer  39:10; Ezek  20:6). Throughout Latter Prophets, however, it occurs often with reference to the final event of judgement and salvation in the future. 13 

In our case Isa 2:9, 11 = 5:15–16; Isa 2:2–5 = Mic 4:1–5.



An Imprecation and an Admonition

141

Another way of expanding the horizon of an earlier text into the future may be illustrated by Isaiah 2:20, which anticipates the destruction of idols and the end of idolatry. In this type of expansion we have a brief paragraph in prose serving as a kind of commentary or pesher on the existing text, whether in verse or prose, more often the former. One series of such commentaries or pěšārîm, of quite exceptional historical interest, is appended to an anti-Egyptian oracle in verse form in Isaiah 19:1–15. The series consists in five prose addenda each with the heading “on that day.” While the names and circumstances alluded to are not always clear, the reference in general appears to be to the period of the Diadochoi under Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule, these kingdoms being alluded to in cryptic fashion characteristic of apocalyptic as Egypt and Assyria respectively. Elsewhere in the Isaian compilation, in all three sections of the book, there are passages which recapitulate themes on the basis of older prophecies, themes which are explicitly apocalyptic in character: the destruction of idolatry (2:20; 17:7–8; 30:19–26; 31:6–7), the advent of a ruler bearing a mysterious name and title (4:2–6), destruction and purification preparatory to salvation (4:2–6; 17:9), the ingathering of dispersed Israel (11:11; 27:12–13), the presence and the rule of God in Zion (4:2–6; 25:9). This activity of creating new prophecy out of old did not come to an end with the final redaction of Latter Prophets, probably around the beginning of the second century bc.14 The practice continued outside the book with the Qumran pěšārîm and the different ways in which early Christian communities and their leaders appropriated and contemporized the old prophetic tradition. Our discussion of one case, Isaiah 2:6–22, will serve to show, no doubt in more than one way, how much still remains to be done in reconstructing the history of the interpretation of prophecy in Israel.

14  Writing about that time, Jesus ben Sira knew of an Isaian collection which included both chapters 1–39 and 40–45. He also refers indirectly to the Twelve (48:22–25; 49:10). See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 96–102.

13

Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22) 1 Isaiah 28:14–22 is a diatribe aimed at the ruling class in Jerusalem some time during the eighth century bc. It follows a similar denunciation of the leadership in the northern kingdom of Samaria. Both condemnations are occasioned by sarcasm directed at the prophet and in both instances the prophet responds by condemning them out of their own mouths (vv. 9–10, 15). The strange speech in the first (14:11) corresponds to the strange operations of the Lord Yahweh in the second (14:21), and in both the threatening disaster is presented as an inundation (vv. 2,  17). Isaiah  28:1–22 may therefore be read as a carefully integrated literary unit, consequently, the invective in the present passage could also have the inebriated priests and prophets in the kingdom of Samaria in view, even though the political leadership is now the principal target. After the usual prophetic call for attention addressed to the mōšělîm (rulers),1 also denounced as mockers, the diatribe begins with the familiar device of putting words into the mouths of the opposition: We have cut a deal with Death, we have made a pact with Sheol that when the raging flood passes through it will not touch us. For we have made a lie our shelter, in falsehood we have taken refuge (v. 15).

As expected, the rebuttal uses the language of the citation: Hail will sweep away the shelter of lies, water will overwhelm the refuge, then your deal with Death will be annulled, your pact with Sheol will not stand; when the raging flood passes through you will be battered down by it (vv. 17b–18). 1  This term is understood by Rashi in the sense of makers of proverbs and aphorisms (a pun on měšālîm, “proverbs, sayings”), with reference to the covenant with death understood metaphorically. A similar meaning is adopted by Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaia, 2. Band: Kapitel 24–39, Zürcher Bibelkommentare (Zurich/ Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1962), 54 and Otto Kaiser, Prophet Jesaja: Übersetzt und Erklärt, Kapitel 13–39 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 199.



Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)

143

The intervening passage in vv. 16–17a, with its prospect of a new foundation in a Jerusalem (Zion) of the future, is rhetorically ineffective at this point and does not fit the language of prophetic diatribe. It has almost certainly been added to counter the dire language of death and destruction with a hopeful note. The reply continues with further predictions of disaster, including a rather odd reference to inadequate bedding (v. 20) generally taken to be an interpolated proverb, but the language used here may have mortuary associations of a kind in evidence elsewhere in Isaiah.2 The prophetic saying is rounded off as it began with a warning against mocking prophetic preaching (vv. 22a, 14), and this admonition seems to have escalated into a threat of apocalyptic doom for the whole earth, probably from a much later editor. It will not be necessary to insist that the words attributed to the scornful Jerusalemite politicians represent an interested interpretation of their policies by an Isaian author, possibly by Isaiah himself. The prophet’s opponents would not have admitted taking refuge in lies and falsehood and would certainly have explained their agenda differently if given the opportunity to do so. We are dealing with a literary creation and only indirectly with social and political realities in eighth-century bc Jerusalem. What at least is clear that they have put themselves beyond the reach of an imminent disaster by entering into an agreement of some kind. A specific historical context is not stated, but the language of raging floodwater and hail, which occurs elsewhere in the book, suggests an Assyrian attack.3 Read in the context of chapters 28–33, Isaiah 28:14–22 is often taken to refer to the predictable outcome of negotiations between Hezekiah (727–698) and the Babylonian Merodach-baladan II, involving also Pharaoh Shebitku, with a view to an anti-Assyrian alliance.4 While cutting a deal with Death and making a pact with Sheol (the Underworld) could be taken metaphorically as disparaging the prospects of such alliances, the language is sinister, suggestive and foreboding enough, and contains enough peculiar features, to hint that there is more to it than that.

2 Cf. Isa 14:11 where the sleeping arrangements of the King of Babylon in the Underworld are described: “Welcome to the Underworld! Maggots are the bed you lie on, worms will be your blanket”; elsewhere in Isaiah miškāb, bed, can also refer to the tomb (Isa 57:2). Further detail in Baruch Halpern, “‘The Excremental Vision’ The Doomed Priests of Doom in Isaiah 28”, HAR 10 (1986), 109–21. 3 Cf. Isa 8:7–8 in which the same language occurs with reference to an anticipated Assyrian invasion of Immanuel’s land, probably Sennacherib’s Palestinian campaign of 701 bc. See also Isa 28:2 where the anticipated Assyrian conquest of Samaria is compared to flood waters and hail, as here. 4  John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 21 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 58–64, rejects the Egyptian connection and dates the passage to the reign of Ahaz (743–727) rather than Hezekiah.

144

13  Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)

2 First, then, the covenant and pact. The term běrît (covenant) occurs only twice in Isaiah 1–39 outside of this passage (Isa 24:5 and 33:8). The context in which Isaiah 24:5 refers to an “everlasting covenant” (běrît ῾ôlām) – the dispersal of humanity, pollution, a curse on the ground, chaos  – suggests a connection with that other everlasting covenant God made with the eight survivors of the great deluge (Gen 9:8–17). Isaiah 33:7–9 describes a desperate situation in the country, presumably Judah. It could be read as a combination of a military disaster and drought resulting from violation of the terms of a treaty (“He has violated the covenant, he has despised the witnesses”).5 Drought is listed, often with gruesome details, in the catalogues of curses threatened for violation of the terms in Assyrian vassal treaties.6 If the situation described in Isaiah 33:7–9 – natural sources depleted, highways destroyed, depopulation, general lamentation  – was the result of the devastating campaign of Sennacherib in 701, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the one responsible for the violation of the vassal treaty was none other than Hezekiah. The term hōzeh, parallel with běrît in Isaiah 28:15, is elsewhere unattested with a meaning compatible with this context. Elsewhere hōzeh means “visionary” (cf. hāzût, “vision”). Since the attitude of the opponents is described throughout the passage as one of mockery and derision (28:9–10, 14,  22), a double entendre may have been intended, perhaps a mocking allusion to the Sinai covenant tradition, since the giving of the covenant on Sinai was accompanied with a visionary experience – we are told that Moses and Aaron saw the God of Israel enthroned with a stone of sapphire under his feet (Exod 24:9–11).

3 This last point remains to be demonstrated. Death (māwet) and Sheol (the Underworld), with whom the Judean leaders are said to have entered into an agreement, are routinely linked in biblical texts.7 Certain mythic figures are associated with Death: Abaddon (Job 28:22; Prov 27:20), the King of Terrors (Job 18:14), the shades of the dead (rěpā᾽îm, Prov  2:18; 5:5; 7:27). In addition, a degree of personification is inevitably present in language about death: Death addresses the living (Job 28:22), shepherds them (Ps 49:15), and fathers children. Disease is the firstborn of Death (Job 38:13–14). While there is room for disagree5 Reading῾ēdîm with 1QIsaa for MT῾ārîm. In a treaty it was customary to call the gods of the two parties as witnesses to the oaths sworn in their respective names. 6  Simo Parpola/Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, State Archives of Assyria, Volume 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), 5, 11, 46–47. 7  2 Sam 22:5; Isa 38:18; Hos 13:14; Hab 2:5; Ps 6:6; 18:5; 49:15; 55:16; 116: 3; Prov 7:27.

Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)



145

ment as to the extent to which death is personified in the biblical texts, death as party to a covenant certainly qualifies as personification. Many commentators accept this line of interpretation, some interpreting it as a mere figure of speech, others linking Death and Sheol with Mot and Osiris, deities of the Phoenician cities and Egypt respectively.8 It was inevitable, in any event, that personified death would be identified with the deity Mot (another term for death), known from the Ugaritic texts and Philo of Byblos.9 Mot was a chthonic deity, son of El the supreme deity, Lord of the Underworld, bringer of drought and infertility, opponent of the young god Baal. This deity would have been known in eighth century Judah, even though we know of no cult associated with Mot from either the Ugaritic or biblical texts. One indication of familiarity with Mot is the frequent allusion to the voracious appetite of Death and Sheol.10 To be considered at this point is the hypothesis proposed by John Day that the covenanting mentioned at Isaiah 28:15 was with Molech, a chthonic deity to whom cult was offered in Jerusalem under the monarchy.11 In biblical texts Molech is often mentioned in connection with mortuary practices and necromancy (Lev 18:21; Deut 18:10–11; 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6), and in Isaiah 57:9 the sorceress denounced by the seer is accused of making a pact with Molech and Sheol. Both deities presided over the Underworld, and deities with similar attributes and functions are assimilated to them, for example, Malik (Molech) with Nergal, both rulers over the nether regions. But if the cult of Molech was practised in eighth century bc Jerusalem, we must ask why māwet, suggestive of the god Mot and not Molech, is mentioned in our text (Isa 28:15). There is also the problem that all biblical allusions to Molech associate him with child sacrifice, on which Isaiah 28:14–22 is silent. On the whole, therefore, it seems that the Judaean leadership is in touch with the realm of the dead and its ruler in the person of Mot rather than Molech.

8 

Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 199–200, suggests that those pacting with Death and the Underworld were perhaps hedging their bets by covert negotiations with Egypt and Assyria simultaneously, and that their relations with Egypt were expressed by necromantic practices involving the god Osiris. On this subject, see also Paul Auvray, Isaïe 1–39 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972), 250–51; Jacques Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique, Tome 2 (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1978), 393n; John Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters I–XXXIX (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 225, suggested that Osiris and Isis, gods of the dead, were sanctioning the alliance from the Egyptian side. 9  See T. J. Lewis, “Mot (deity)”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary IV, 922–24; J. F. Healey, “Mot”, in Karel Van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd. ed., Leiden: Brill, 1999), 598–603. 10  Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5; Prov 1:12; 27:20; Job 18:13–14. 11 Day, Molech, 62–64. On this deity, see also George C. Heider, The Cult of Molech: A Reassessment (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985); “Molech” in van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 581–85.

146

13  Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)

4 The question now arises how the ruling class in Jerusalem expected to survive death by entering into an agreement with Death. The answer will depend on what they understood the anticipated outcome of the pact to be. They anticipate that “When the raging flood passes through it will not touch us” which, as we have seen, refers to an anticipated Assyrian invasion and its possible survival. This would suggest an allusion to the northwest Semitic storm deity Hadad (or Haddu, Adad) assimilated to Baal and therefore enemy of Mot. Hadad is the god who bestowed the fertilizing rain but is also feared as the bringer of destructive storms, in which capacity he is known as “the Thunderer” and represented by a stylized lightning bolt and either a mace or a whip.12 Significantly with respect to our text, he was venerated by the Assyrians as a war deity and sponsor of their western campaigns. He also played an important role in in mortuary rites and divination and is named as a guarantor of treaties.13 The meaning would then be that the ruling class in Jerusalem, aware of the mortal danger in which they stood on the eve of an Assyrian attack, entered into a pact with the god Mot in the hope of surviving the mortal danger posed by the Assyrians represented by and acting in the name of the storm god Hadad, enemy of Mot. To repeat: this is an imaginary literary construct in the interest of polemics. While the charge could hardly have been brought if entirely lacking in plausibility, we have no assurance that the writer’s opponents, the king and his court, actually did what they are said to have done. The citation continues with the assertion that the covenanters with Mot have set up a lie as their refuge and have sought shelter in falsehood (v. 15b). While their position would probably not have been stated in these terms, the citation has a certain consistency with the situation as we have described it. In prophetic texts “the lie” (kāzāb) can refer to communications from a (false) deity, including visionary experiences and divination (e. g. Ezek  13:6–9; 21:34; 22:28). The parallel term “falsehood” occurs routinely in Jeremiah to describe heterodox and unacceptable kinds of prophesying including divination and visions (Jer 14:14, cf. Zech 10:2). We come even closer to the situation as described with Hosea 12:2 which describes treaty-making with the Assyrians as a form of lying: 12  The primary meaning of Hebrew šôt is “whip” (see 1  Kgs 12:11; Isa  10:26; Nah  3:2; 2  Chr  10:11,  14; Job  5:21; Prov  20:3; in Isa  28:15,  18 and Job  9:23), the secondary meaning of “floodwater”, “inundation” is called for. The connection is not difficult to make, and in the context of Isa 28:14–22 the second meaning is more appropriate than the first, pace Hartmut Gese, “Die strömende Geißel des Hadad und Jesaja 28, 15 und 18”, in Arnulf Kuschke/Ernst Kutsch (eds.), Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling zum 8. Januar 1970 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970), 127–34. 13  Jonas C. Greenfield, “Hadad” in van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 377–82.

Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)



147

They (Ephraim, the kingdom of Samaria) multiply lying (kāzāb) and destruction, making a treaty with Assyria, carrying oil to Egypt.

From the point of view of the prophetic author of Isaiah 28:15, the lie and the falsehood refer, in the last analysis, to foreign deities, cult offered to them, and accommodation with them which, on the prophetic view, were endemic to foreign alliances sealed by treaty, always guaranteed by the deities of the respective parties to the treaty. This is the point of the charge that the rulers found their refuge in such treaties, since it ought to have been clear to them that the God of Israel was the only refuge.14 In the context of that place and time, making a covenant of any kind involved ritual acts including sharing a meal and sacrificing. The first part of the passage under consideration (vv. 7–13) may provide a clue to the nature of the acts in this instance. It presents the disedifying spectacle of priests and prophets engaged in a drunken orgy, staggering around covered in vomit and excrement.15 In this condition they were naturally in no state for discharging their professional duties: for the priests, worship, the handing down of judicial decisions and teaching in general; for the prophets, guidance by divination and giving oracles. Making all due allowance for prophetic hyperbole, the description suggests a ritual meal of a special kind, perhaps in the temple precincts since priests and their prophetic associates are involved, which got out of hand.

5 Several commentators have noted that the Ugaritic text describing the banquet of El and its aftermath (KTU  1.114) is reminiscent of this scene in Isaiah  28. After inviting the other gods to “drink wine to satiety, new wine to inebriation”, the feast got underway: El took his seat in his marzihu-house; he drank wine to satiety, new wine to inebriation. El went to his house, stumbling towards his courtyard; tkmn and šnm propped him up. A demon (?) approached him equipped with horns and a tail. He wallowed16 in his excrement and urine. El collapsed like one dead. He was like those who descend into the Underworld.17 14 

Pss 14:6; 46:2; 61:4; 62:8–9; 71:7; 73:28; also Isa 25:4; Jer 17:17; Joel 4:16. Isa 28:7b šāgû bārō᾽eh, translated “They err in vision” in NRSV and “(they) lose their way through tippling” in REB. The latter emends bārō᾽eh to bārōweh > stem rwh, “drink one’s fill” supported by Theodotion and the Peshitta. See Godfrey Rolles Driver, “Another Little Drink – Isaiah  28:1–22”, in Peter R. Ackroyd/Barnabas Lindars (eds.), Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 52. 16  The meaning of ylšn from a verbal stem lšš is uncertain. See the note of Nicholas Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 411. 17  See Marvin Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit” in James M. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring 15 

148

13  Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)

Mention of El’s mrzh (Hebrew equivalent marzēah) in the same text has contributed to the hypothesis that Isaiah 28:7–13 is describing a marzēah festival held during the period immediately preceding the Assyrian onslaught of 701  bc.18 The one constant feature of the marzēah seems to have been drinking to excess, often in the context of a funerary feast, and generally in the presence of a patron deity together with deceased members of the lineage.19 Its social function of emotional unburdening at a time of crisis and of bonding within a specific affinity group would be compatible with the situation our text describes. But the parallel with  KTU 1.114 should not be pressed. Here is no suggestion of alcohol intake as a deliberate means to reach a state of sacra ebrietas, that is, a condition of mental dissociation conducive to visionary experience or making contact with the dead. It is not at all clear what happened after El’s encounter with the fearsome hby, and the immediate loss of sphincter control, if that is what happened, and if it happened to El, was not alcoholic ecstasy but fright. These reservations should be borne in mind, but it still seems that some form of necromantic practice is not only compatible with making a covenant with Death but is a necessary part of it. This reading of the text is occasionally rejected, but the counter arguments are not decisive. It certainly cannot be rejected on the grounds that Hezekiah’s religious reforms would have outlawed such practices.20 Consultation is not the same as making a covenant, as Day points out, but covenanting requires communicating, and communicating with Death and Sheol for whatever purpose is a form of necromancy.21 Such practices tend to flourish in times of political and social stress, and there are indications that the Judaean leadership had recourse to communication with the dead, meaning dead ancestors, on more than one occasion.22 Of interest in this respect is the extremely vituperative attack on the sorceress and her children in Isaiah  57:3–13. This symbolic personification, somewhat similar to Gomer and her children in Hosea and the “Outsider Woman” (᾽iššāh zārāh) of Proverbs 1–9, is accused of engaging in rites of a mortuary and sexual nature, including cult offered to ancestors, referred to as ᾽ēlîm, “divine beings”, perhaps also qibbûsîm, “gathered ones”, that is the dead. The Massoretic text of (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press 1972), 170–203; B. Margalit, “The Ugaritic Feast of the Drunken Gods: Another Look at RS 24:258 (KTU 1.114)” Maarav 2 (1979), 65–120. 18  Halpern, “The Excremental Vision: The Doomed Priests of Doom in Isaiah 28”, 109–21; Karel van der Toorn, “Echoes of Judaean Necromancy in Isaiah 28, 7–22”, ZAW 100 (1988), 199–217. 19  Much has been written on the subject of the marzēah. It will suffice to refer to the cautious assessment of Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1989), 80–94 and Brian B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1994), 62–66. 20  Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaia, 2. Band, 57. 21 Day, Molech, 61–62; also Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead, 160–61. 22  Isa 8:19–23; 29:4, cf. 19:3.



Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22)

149

this passage bristles with obscurities, perhaps in part due to scribal attempts to soften its sexually explicit content. But at several points we are reminded of the covenant with Death and Sheol in Isaiah 28. One of the accusations directed at the transgressive woman reads as follows: You made a pact with them for yourself; you loved their “beds” you gazed on the phallus. You journeyed to the King (Molech?) with oil, you put on lots of perfume; you despatched your envoys afar; you sent (them) down to the Underworld (Isa 57:8b–9).

The interpretation of v. 8b in terms of a pact with the dead is textually uncertain, but it appears to be confirmed by the envoys or messengers sent on a mission to the Underworld. The King who – on this reading – the woman visits and for whom she makes herself attractive may well be Molech, especially in view of the charge of cultic infanticide levelled against her (v. 5). The main point is that an agreement, a covenant is being made which involves the deity who presides over the realm of the dead. The parallelism with Isaiah  28:14–22 adds plausibility to the argument that the civil and religious leaders of Judah are represented as following the same course of action.23

23  Another parallel: the term miškāb (vv. 7–8), bed, with sexual overtones (cf. Ezek 23:17, miškab dôdîm), is also used for the grave or tomb (Isa 28:20).

14

Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden? 1 Isaiah 30:19–21 is one of several cryptic passages in Isaiah which seem to presuppose a readership limited to those who can be expected to grasp the point. It reads as follows: You people in Zion who dwell in Jerusalem, you shall weep no more. God will surely show you favour when you cry out for help, and he will answer when he hears you. The Sovereign Lord may give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, but your teacher will no longer remain hidden. Your eyes will see your teacher, and whenever you turn aside either to the right or to the left your ears will hear a word spoken behind you: ‘This is the way, keep to it.’

It may seem paradoxical to say that the history of the interpretation of a text begins in the text itself, yet there is a great deal of interpretative activity going on in the book of Isaiah, including several passages, most of them in prose, which serve as commentary on sayings immediately preceding, the latter often in a kind of high rhythmic diction or recitative characteristic of prophetic discourse. The address to some inhabitants of Jerusalem in Isaiah 30:19–21 is one example of such expansive commentary, one which practically all critical commentators assign to the Second Temple period and later rather than earlier in that period.1 The passage immediately preceding (30:18) provides the assurance that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, God is waiting to show favour to those who wait for God and with God: Therefore the Lord waits to show you favour, therefore he bestirs himself to have compassion on you; for the Lord is a God of justice, blessed are all those who wait for him! 1  Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 221–25; Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaia, 2. Band: Kapitel 24–39, Zürcher Bibelkommentare (Zurich/ Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1962), 102–3; Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980), 250; Jacques Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique, Tome 1 (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1978), 419; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary (2nd ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983, 301–2.

Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden



151

The link between the two passages is apparent. The repetition of the same verb hnn, ‘show favour’, in 30:19–21 states what form the divine favour anticipated in the previous saying will assume. It is addressed to those who, though in distress, continue to wait for God and with God, a prominent theme in Isaiah.2 It is therefore not addressed to all and sundry but to the remnant, those who in the Isaian context form the core of the new community which comes increasingly into view throughout the redactional history of the book and is most clearly in evidence in the last two chapters.3 They will have more to suffer and there will be more uncertainty and disorientation (turning to the right and the left), but they will have a teacher to guide them and keep them moving in the right direction. We are reminded of the twenty years of disorientation (groping like the blind)4 of the Damascus sectarians which came to an end when the Teacher of Righteousness (better, the Legitimate Teacher) appeared among them to guide them (CD-A 8–11). Debate about the meaning of the passage naturally focuses on the identity of the teacher.5 We are told that this teacher is associated with those addressed, that he is at the time of writing hidden, assuming this to be the meaning of the hapax legomenon knp (Niphal),6 but that he will come once again into view, at which time he will instruct those associated with him. But the strangest piece of information is that he will speak and be heard from behind them. Since the Lord Yahweh gives instruction (e. g. Isa 2:3; 48:17; 54:13), and is therefore a teacher – “Who is like him as a teacher?” says Elihu to Job (Job 36:22) – it is understandable that several commentators, following the lead of the Targum and Rashi,7 have identified the teacher with God. God was certainly associated with those addressed in a special way, and is often said to be hidden, or to hide his face, either on account of sin or for reasons more inscrutable, but what would it mean 2 

Isa 8:17; 25:9; 26:8; 30:18; 33:2; 40:31; 49:23; 64:2–3. same “people who dwell in Zion” are addressed in Isaiah 10:24, continuous with 10:20–23 (lākēn, ‘therefore’) which speaks about the ‘remnant’ more clearly and insistently than anywhere else in the book and concludes with language reminiscent of Daniel (Isa 10:23, cf. Dan 11:36). Not surprisingly, its implications for their own situation was seized on by the authors of the Qumran pěšārîm (4QpIsa a 2–6 II 1–9; 4QpIsa c II 1021). 4  An image perhaps taken from Isaiah 59:10: “We grope like the blind along a wall, we feel our way like the sightless; we stumble at midday as at twilight, like the walking dead among the healthy”. 5 MT môrêkā could be singular or plural, and in fact both LXX and the great Isaiah scroll from Qumran have plural, but in the context it is certainly singular since the verb yikkānēp is singular. 6 The older commentators, for example August Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia (5th ed., Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1890), 276, took it to be a denominative verb from kānāp, ‘wing’ and therefore to have the meaning of hiding (under the wing) in order to protect. 7  The Targum paraphrases as follows: “God will no longer remove his Shekinah from the sanctuary, but your eyes will see the Shekinah in the sanctuary, and your ears will hear the word behind you” – since no one can see God and live. Similarly Rashi. 3  The

152

14  Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden

for God to speak and his voice to be heard from behind them? Moreover, the Sovereign Lord is mentioned in the same sentence, which suggests that access to the guidance of a human teacher is the way in which God will answer their prayers and show them favour. It must be said, therefore, that attempts to explain this peculiar image with reference to God have not been successful. Bernhard Duhm and John Skinner, two of the great names in Isaian interpretation, had the idea of God as a father guiding his children as they walk ahead of him, while Georg Fohrer opted for God as maternal guide.8 Edward Kissane, a leading Irish commentator on Isaiah, seems to have pictured God the Teacher as a shepherd, but when he discovered that shepherds, or at any rate biblical shepherds, lead their sheep from the front, he emended môrêkā to ma᾽arahka, “your pathfinder, guide”, a form not attested in ancient Hebrew.9 More recently, Wim Beuken took the first môrêkā as referring to human teachers and the second to God, resulting in a rather peculiar translation: “Your teachers shall not be pushed aside any more, but your eyes shall be looking upon your Teacher”. I am not sure how Professor Beuken arrived at ‘push aside’ for yikkānēp, but in any case the riddle of the voice that is to be heard behind those addressed remains unsolved.10 It is tempting to find the subtext for this expression in the wilderness narratives, at the point where the alternative forms of guidance, by the angel and the column of smoke, come together. Both these providential agents lead from the front (Exod 13:21–22), but as the critical encounter with the Egyptians approaches they move behind the Israelites (Exod 14:19). Both here and in Isaiah 30 there is the theme of guidance, but the crucial point in the latter is guidance by teaching, while the purpose of the manoeuvre in the wilderness is protection, with the cloud column acting as a smokescreen. A more promising point of departure is the extraordinary experience of Ezekiel, an experience which was both visual and auditory. Ezekiel sees and describes in detail the sublime vision of the chariot throne (Ezek 1:3), but he hears the sound of the winged living creatures and the wheels behind him (3:12). Likewise John the seer, exiled in the island of Patmos, witnesses phantasmagoric scenarios and, like Ezekiel, actually sees the living creatures around the throne (Rev 5:6). At the beginning of the vision, however, he hears a voice like a trumpet behind him which gives him his mission (1:10). It would be tempting to read 8 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 223; Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters I–XXXIX (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 246; Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaia, Band 2, 103. 9  Edward Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Volume 1 (2nd ed., Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1960, 338, 346. 10 Willem A. M. Beuken, “Isaiah 30: A  Prophetic Oracle transmitted in two successive paradigms”, in Craig C. Broyles/Craig A. Evans, Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, Volume 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 371.



Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden

153

this strange way of hearing in the light of the belief that one cannot see God and survive. When Moses petitioned God for a vision of the divine glory (kābôd) he was told “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live”. The solution involved Moses being placed in a cleft in the rock with his face covered when God passed before him (Exod 33:17–3). But in our text it is their teacher they are to see, and it is he who is to guide them and therefore the voice is surely his too. There is never any question of them seeing as Ezekiel the prophet and John the visionary saw. The proposal to which these considerations are leading, and the solution least open to objection, is that those addressed, a minority group which saw itself as the holy remnant (cf. Isa 65:8–10, 13–16; 66:5), are being promised an expression of divine favour in the form of the teaching, guidance and example of a prophetic figure, a leader, now inaccessible in person; perhaps in hiding, perhaps imprisoned, but most likely deceased. In itself, this profile suggests that the cryptic “behind you” has a temporal rather than spatial meaning. After a period of sorrow and deprivation, they will see him not in person, as they perhaps had seen him in the past, but as an inspiring presence in their lives, and they would find strength and guidance in his remembered teachings. If this is an acceptable reading of the passage, it would be an early example of a pattern familiar from the Qumran sectarian texts and the New Testament. But we should now go on to enquire whether it finds support elsewhere in the book.

2 The idea of a charismatic figure whose personality and teaching attract disciples who, to a greater or lesser extent, segregate themselves from the society at large and deviate from socially accepted norms, is a recurring theme in the history of Israel. It is in evidence during the time of the kingdoms with those “sons of the prophets”, that is, ecstatic conventicles who lived a coenobitic existence in self-segregated settlements. The Rechabites, by some considered forerunners of the Essenes, fit this pattern, as also the Nazirites, fanatical opponents of statesponsored syncretism in ninth-century bc Israel. These and similar groups owed allegiance and obedience to a leader who presided over their assemblies (2 Kgs 4:38; 6:1; 9:1). Elijah and Elisha are both addressed as “father” (᾽āb) by their prophetic adherents (2 Kgs 2:12; 13:14). Samuel presided over a seance of ecstatics in the manner of a sheik presiding over a Dervish tawaf (1 Sam 19:18–24). Jonadab, founder of the Rechabite order, is still being referred to as their “father” by his followers two and a half centuries after his death (Jer 35:6). We are in no position to write a history of these movements, but Jeremiah’s acted-out parable of offering wine to the Rechabites in the temple precincts, and the persistence of the Nazirate down to the dawn of the Middle Ages, demonstrate that such

154

14  Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden

movements could continue to find guidance and inspiration in the teaching of the founder long after the founder’s death.11 The book of Isaiah refers only once to disciples (limmudîm) of Isaiah at the point when, after the failure of his intervention in political decision-making under Ahaz, he is told to secure the message and seal the teaching12 among his disciples, no doubt to authenticate it at the time of future fulfilment (Isa 8:16). Whether this injunction to secure and seal is to be taken literally to refer to a written document, as with the tablet of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz written with a stylus and duly notarized (8:1–2), or metaphorically with reference to disciples committing it to memory, it was at a later point interpreted in the sense of the reception or non-reception of written prophecy: The vision of all these things has become for you like the words of a sealed book. When they hand it to one who knows how to read, saying, ‘Read this’, he replies, ‘I can’t, for it is sealed’. When they hand the book to one can’t read, saying, ‘Read this’ he replies, ‘I don’t know how to read’. (Isa 29:11–12)

This cryptic text gives little away, but it is a reasonable surmise that it refers to the non-comprehension of the book of Isaiah as it existed at the time when this was written. We recall that the book is called “the Vision of Isaiah” (1:1), and it was known in the late Second Temple period by the same title (2 Chr 32:32). And since the Isaian tradition moves in the direction of the apocalyptic world view, in which esoteric book knowledge and sealed prophetic books are prominent motifs,13 the sealed book referred to here may be the book of Isaiah to be read as an apocalyptic prophecy of the end time, as in fact the Qumran sectarians and the gospel writers interpreted it. The leader-disciple relationship appears again in Isaiah  50:4–9, the third of Duhm’s Ebedlieder. Like Isaiah  8:16, this statement is in the prophetic first person. The speaker, identified as the Servant of Yahweh only in the comment attached to the statement (50:10–11), has been given the tongue of the instructed so that he may sustain he dispirited by word of mouth. He is therefore a teacher and a leader, and he discharges this mission in the face of opposition which has reached the point of physical abuse, but he is confident that God will be the one who vindicates him. The comment attached to this declaration (50:10–11) refers to the prophetic Servant in the third person and, in addressing the public, distinguishes between the God fearers who heed the voice of the Servant and those who choose to ignore it. The speaker clearly belongs to the former category and is therefore, in all probability, a disciple of the Servant. The syntax leaves it un11  On these self-segregating groups and their leaders, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (2nd ed., Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 48–64. 12  As elsewhere in the book (Isa 1:10; 2:3; 5:24; 30:9), tôrāh refers to prophetic teaching. 13  Dan 12:4, 9; 1 En 81:1–2; Odes of Solomon 9:11; 4 Ezra 14:44–48; 4QMystb; Rev 10:1–4; 22:10.



Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden

155

clear as to whether the walking in darkness (50:10b) refers to the condition of the Servant or to the wilful incomprehension of those who choose to go their own way. If the former, it would parallel the hiddenness of the teacher in 30:20, but in any case both passages reflect the theme of prophetic teacher and disciples. The same teacher-disciple relation is implicit in the fourth of the Servant passages (Isa 52:13–53:12). It begins and ends with the first-person discourse of the Lord Yahweh (52:13–15, 53:11b–12) but the part in between, the panegyric, is spoken by one who, after sharing the common interpretation of the Servant’s condition as divine punishment (53:1, 3–4), arrived at an understanding of their unique significance after the death of the Servant. The intensity of the language and its arcane, recondite character mark it as the language of discipleship. On the reasonable assumption of a degree of coherence in the book of Isaiah, these two texts would refer to one and the same prophetic figure. From casual abuse in the first we move to fatal injuries in the second. As the Servant of the earlier text anticipates that God will be his vindicator, so the Servant of the fourth and last of the Ebedlieder will vindicate the many, but will do so posthumously (“My righteous servant will vindicate the many”, 53:11). And both passages speak of the Servant as engaged in teaching (50:4; 53:11). The allusion to “the many” (rabbîm) deserves further consideration. In the course of the fourth and final vision in Daniel we are told that the maskîlîm, the teachers and leaders, will instruct “the many” (Dan 11:33), and towards its conclusion we hear that they will shine like the brightness of the firmament, and “those who vindicate the many” like the stars for ever (12:3). The link with Isaiah  53 is too close to be coincidence. Towards the end of Isaiah 53 there is considerable textual and prosodic confusion, but v. 11 should probably be read as follows: běda῾atô yasdîq saddîq ῾abdî larābbîm (“By his knowledge my [righteous] servant will vindicate the Many”). There is therefore reason to hold that Isaiah  53:11 offers the first instance of rabbîm as a technical term for a group of disciples, and that this term was adopted for the group in which and for which the book of Daniel was written. The same term was then taken up in the Qumran sectarian writings and perhaps also in the New Testament.14

3 Duhm was quite clear that his Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder were distinct from the rest of Deutero-Isaiah, not least in applying the term ῾ebed to an individual prophetic figure rather than to a collectivity. He argued that these four texts 14  1QS VI 1, 8, 11–12; VII 10, 13; CD XIII 9, XIV 8–9; XV 5. In the New Testament the term is restricted to contexts dealing with the death of Jesus: Mt 20:28; 26:28; Mk 10:45; 14:24.

156

14  Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden

were composed later than Deutero-Isaiah, some time in the early fifth century bc, and that they were inserted into the book wherever there was space on the papyrus roll.15 Nowadays, however, the tendency is to look for indications of inner consistency and coherence in Deutero-Isaiah, and therefore to seek ways of integrating the four Servant texts into this segment of the book. One line of enquiry starts out from those occasions where we hear the voice of an individual prophet, sometimes in association with a prophetic following. The second and third Servant passages (49:1–6 and 50:4–9) are in the prophetic first person, but there are others. The opening words of Deutero-Isaiah, among the most familiar in the Hebrew Bible – “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God” – are addressed to a prophetic plurality, but the voice of an individual prophet is heard asking for and receiving the message he is to proclaim (40:6–8). Other instances appear to be more detached from their contexts. In the third section of the book an address to an individual prophet reads as follows (Isa 59:21): As for me, this is my covenant with them, declares Yahweh God: my spirit that rests upon you and my words that I have put in your mouth will not be absent from your mouth, nor from the mouths of your descendants, or the descendants of your descendants, from this time forth and for ever more.

This assurance of the permanence of spirit endowment is addressed to an individual prophet, but is extended also to his disciples in the second and third generation. In the same way, the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 is also promised descendants (zera῾, literally “seed”): “He will see posterity, he will prolong his days” (53:10). The reference in both cases is to disciples in the sense of a prophetic succession which maintains and perpetuates the teaching and spirit of the master. Reading Isaiah 30:19–21 as addressed to prophetic disciples is therefore consistent with indications elsewhere in the book that prophetic groups owing allegiance to a master prophet and teacher played a role in the evolution of the Isaian tradition in the direction of the apocalyptic world view which comes to classical expression in the book of Daniel. Those addressed in Isaiah 30:19–21 who weep and suffer adversity in the present age belong with those who mourn over Zion (61:2–3; 66:10). They will be sustained by the remembered example and teaching of a master no longer present in person. Certainty eludes us, but it seems reasonable to make a connection with the Servant of the Lord whose voice is heard in Isaiah 49:1–6 and 50:4–9 and whose death is lamented by a disciple in 53:1–11, probably also in 57:1–2. This prophetic individual taught, exhorted, encouraged (49:2; 50:4), and he had disciples whose voices – if less distinct – can be heard throughout the book of Isaiah.

15 Duhm,

Das Buch Jesaia, 19, 311.



Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden

157

4 It seems as if the author of the book of Daniel had in mind the Servant of the Lord and “the Many” who are made righteous through him (53:11) in presenting the maskîlîm who teach and vindicate  – or lead to righteousness  – the Many (Dan 11:33; 12:3). This maskîl-rabbîm relationship is hinted at in the opening chapter of Daniel which presents the Israelite youths at the Babylonian court as comprehensively learned and skilled in the interpretation of dreams and visions (Dan 1:4, 17). This appropriation and interpretation of the Servant texts is only one aspect of a major theme and interpretative trajectory in the book of Isaiah which reached the first Christians by way of the Danielic cycle, the Qumran sectarian texts and other more or less related texts from the late Second Temple period, but also by their attentive reading of the book of Isaiah: the relation between prophetic teacher and disciples. A final word. Isaiah 30:19–21 is one of the more cryptic texts in the book of Isaiah which seems to have puzzled interpreters from early times. In its translation of this text, LXX took a quite different line from that argued in this essay. It seems to have been occasioned by a situation in which those addressed were being threatened by false teachers who were trying to blindside them by approaching them from behind, though how this was understood is no longer clear. The Vulgate stays close to the Massoretic text, but in his commentary Jerome fails to explain the phrase “behind you.”16 In this article I have argued that the passage can be read together with other texts in Isaiah including those in which the Servant of the Lord speaks or is spoken of which, taken together, contribute to the image of the prophetic master whose disciples are sustained by his teachings after his death, even long after his death. This pattern is replicated throughout the late Second Temple period, beginning with the maskîl-rabbîm of Daniel, the môreh hassedeq of Qumran, the martyred John the Baptist and his followers, Jesus and the first Christians. Among the many portrayals of Jesus on offer – marginal Jew, Galilean peasant sage, peripatetic Cynic philosopher and so many others – this approach with its point of departure in the book of Isaiah may strengthen the case for Jesus as prophetic figure whose disciples are sustained by his spiritual presence among them and his remembered teachings.

16  Roger Gryson, Commentaire de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe, Livres VIII–XI (Freiburg: Herder, 1996), 1091–95.

15

Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation: A Critical Reading of Isaiah 39:1–8 Two Versions of the Account The account of the visit of Merodach-Baladan to Hezekiah newly removed from a life-threatening sickness, comes to us in two versions: 2 Kings 20:12–19 and Isaiah 39:1–8. Apart from minor discrepancies, these parallel accounts are identical, and the few variants in the ancient versions do not materially affect the sense.1 The incident is referred to briefly in 2 Chronicles 32:31, where we are told that the visit was inspired by scientific curiosity rather than diplomatic courtesy, a propos of the sun miracle. Herodotus (II 141) mentions an attempted invasion of Egypt by Sennacherib, which was thwarted after the priest-king Sethos prayed, received a vision in the temple, and was reassured by a deity. The story ends, perhaps tongue in cheek, with field mice gnawing through the Assyrians’ bowstrings and a grateful population erecting a statue of Sethos holding a mouse in his hand. Berossus comes a bit closer to historical factuality in listing a six-month reign of Merodach-Baladan, but is badly off course in adding that he was murdered by Belibos (Bel-Ibni).2 Josephus, finaally, retells the story with his own characteristic elaborations, but may be closer to the real point of the visit in adding that its purpose was to persuade Hezekiah to be an ally and friend (summachos, philos) to the Babylonian ruler (Ant. 10:30–34). As interesting as they may be, none of these later notices has any independent historical value, and will therefore not be given further attention in this essay. My aim will be rather to illustrate some aspects of the ideological forces at work in shaping the presentation of the incident in the Deuteronomistic History (hereafter Dtr) and the book of Isaiah. To begin with the Isaian version. Isaiah 39:1–8 is the last of three episodes in chapters 36–39 which, with some adjustments, omissions and additions, have been taken from Dtr (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19). Scholars occasionally argue that the 1  In the opening verse, 2 Kgs 20:12 has běrōdak for Isa 39:1 měrōdak, an obvious dysphemism for Marduk in the name Marduk-apla-idinna. Other textual notes in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 486–87. 2 Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978), 23.



Two Versions of the Account

159

borrowing was in the opposite direction, but this seems to be improbable.3 In the first place, the addition of fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life in the second of the episodes (Isa 38:5) is calculated on the basis of chronological data provided in Dtr: Hezekiah was twenty-five years old at his accession, reigned for twentynine years, and the campaign of Sennacherib took place in the fourteenth years of his reign (2 Kgs 18:2, 13). Consulting a prophet who promises good news in the short term but bad news further into the future corresponds to a pattern in Dtr exemplified by the prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29–39) and, most clearly, the prophetess Huldah (2 Kgs 22:11–200). A parallel case is the conclusion to the book of Jeremiah, which is certainly taken from the History, even though it does not name Jeremiah (Jer 52; 2 Kgs 24–25:30). The commentators have been very attentive to the Dtr “makeover” of the prophet Jeremiah – most clearly in Mowinckel’s source C – but have been slower to notice something similar in Isaiah. In the latter, the opening sentence of the third-person narrative about Isaiah’s intervention in international politics during the reign of Ahaz, from the so-called Denkschrift,4 is taken with minor modifications from the annalistic account of the reign of Ahaz (Isa 7:1; 2 Kgs 16:5). It appears that the Isaian version is part of an alternative, more benign account of the reign parallel with 2 Kgs 16:1–20. There are therefore two accounts of the reign: one in Dtr from which Isaiah is absent and in which Ahaz submits to Assyria and introduces reprehensible cultic innovations, the contrary figure to Hezekiah; the other in Isaiah 7:1–17 in which the king consults the prophet and seems to manifest some scruple in putting the Lord God to the test.5 The brief account of Isaiah’s more spectacular intervention during Sargon II’s campaign against Ashdod (Isa 20:1–6) also opens with the annalistic formula for a military campaign which is of frequent occurrence in Dtr and relatively absent from Isaiah. The third and by far the longest of the passages closely related to Dtr, i. e., Isaiah 36–39, was at some stage in the formation of the book attached to Isaiah 1–35. It contains three episodes, the first of which (Isa 36–37) breaks down into parallel accounts of Isaiah’s intervention in the punitive campaign against Jerusalem of the Assyrians under Sennacherib, the first solicited (Isa  36:1– 37:7; 2 Kgs 18:17–19:8), the second unsolicited (Isa 37:9–38; 2 Kgs 19:9b–37), with 2 Kings 19:9a serving to bind the two together. The next episode recounts Hezekiah’s sickness, Isaiah’s prediction of imminent death followed by a fifteen 3  Among the more recent see Klaus A. D. Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii”, OtSt 24 (1986), 70–93; Jacques Vermeylen, “Hypothèses sur lOrigine d’Isaïe”, in Jacques Van Ruiten/Marc Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 95–118. 4 The idea of a memorandum (Denkschrift) from the pen or stylus of Isaiah was the brainchild of Karl Budde, Jesajas Erleben: Eine Gemeinverständliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des Propheten, Kap. 6,1–9, 6 (Gotha: Leopold Klotz, 1928). 5  Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah” in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 181–92.

160

15  Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation

year reprieve, the sun miracle, and the not-necessarily miraculous healing of the king by Isaiah now acting as a physician and applying a fig poultice. This episode also hews close to the narrative line in the History (Isa 38:1–22; 2 Kgs 20:1–11), the principal difference being the addition of Hezekiah’s psalm (Isa  38:9–20). The third episode is the visit of the Babylonian delegation to Hezekiah as he was recovering from his near-fatal illness (Isa 39:1–8; 2 Kgs 20:12–19). The three episodes appear to be arranged in chronological order, and since the order in Dtr is identical, this order must have been established prior to its insertion into the book of Isaiah. Information external to the biblical texts is available only for the first of the three episodes. The date of Sennachrib’s incursion, listed in the account of his third campaign in the royal annals, is certainly 701 bc. 2 Kgs 18:13 places it in the fourteen year of the reign, and in spite of well-known problems with the chronology of Hezekiah’s reign I take this to be correct.6 The sickness and recovery of the king, the miraculous sign, and the psalm are represented as taking place during the siege of Jerusalem since the prophet promises both the king’s recovery and the salvation of the city (Isa  38:5–6). As for the third and final episode, the visit of the envoys, we are told explicitly that it was occasioned by the king’s illness and recovery, and therefore is represented as taking place after the Assyrian army had withdrawn. In the commentary tradition it is generally assumed that this third episode was deliberately placed at the end of the first major section of the book (1–39) in order to create a link between the prophetic prediction of despoliation and deportation with which it ends and the announcement of the end of exile and the dawning of a new age with which the next section begins (40:1–11).7 The contrast is no doubt striking, but we have seen that the arrangement of the episodes in 2 Kings is identical, and that therefore the order in which the episodes are presented predates their insertion in the book of Isaiah. It is also worth noting that the poem immediately preceding Isaiah 36–39 concludes with the vision of a highway or processional route, a via sacra (35:8a), which makes a connection with the beginning of Isaiah 40 at least as convincing as 39:1–8. 6  Mordechai

Cogan/Hayim Tadmore, II Kings, A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 228, argue for 727/726 as the accession date on the basis of Isa 14:28–29 which announces that in the year king Ahaz died the rod that had been beating the Philistines was broken. They take the rod to refer to Tiglathpileser III whose death in 727 coincided with the death of Ahaz and therefore with the accession of Hezekiah. But this is a case of obscurum per obscurius. (1) The superscript to this oracle is based on Isa 6:1, “in the year king Uzziah died”, and is of dubious historical value; (2) There is no assurance that the rod in question is Tiglath-pileser rather than one of the three who followed him, all of whom campaigned against the Philistine cities. Furthermore, the authors’ contention that 2 Kgs 18:13 – “in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah” – served as originally as the title to 2 Kgs 20:1–11, the account of the king’s illness and recovery, is arbitrary. 7  See further Peter Ackroyd, “The Death of Hezekiah: A Pointer to the Future?”, in Joseph Doré/Pierre Grelot/Maurice Carrez (eds.), De la Tôrah au Messie: Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique biblique offertes à Henri Cazelles (Paris: Desclée, 1981), 219–26.



Hezekiah According to the Deuteronomistic Historian

161

An attempt to summarize the context in which the Isaian version of the visit of the Babylonians to Hezekiah is situated would look something like the following. A number of legenda about Isaiah were in circulation in which he is presented as a typical “man of God” (᾽îš hā᾽ēlohîm), one might say a kinder, gentler version of Elijah and his disciple Elisha. He heals, works miracles, gives signs, performs sign-acts (Isa 20:1–6), predicts the future, and gives favourable oracles. Some of these were incorporated into the History and, in much the same way as legenda about Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah ben Imlah and other “men of God”, served the purposes for which the History was written. At a later stage, to which we shall return, such legenda were introduced into the book of Isaiah.

Hezekiah According to the Deuteronomistic Historian A major clue to the ideological framework within which the Isaian legenda function in the History is the contrast between its account of the reign of Ahaz and that of Hezekiah. The Historian’s summary of the reign of Ahaz (743– 727 bc) is negative (2 Kgs 16:1–4). He is condemned for cultic abuses and innovations and, what was almost as bad, he submitted to the Assyrian overlord and became his servant (2 Kgs 16:3–4, 7, 10–18). The situation was not improved by his stripping the royal palace and the temple of their precious metal in order to pay the tribute imposed by the Assyrians (16:7–9). This scenario, in which the prophet as royal counsellor and link to the deity is conspicuous by his absence, contrasts with the third-person section of the Denkschrift (Isa 7:1–17), which, as noted earlier, can be read as an alternative and much less unfavourable account of the reign. The contrast with the Dtr account of Hezekiah’s reign in 2  Kings  18–20 is striking enough to permit the suggestion that the Historian has deliberately set up the two rulers as contrasting panels. The summary of Hezekiah’s reign is positive (18:3), and this ruler carried out cult reforms in keeping with Deuteronomistic orthopraxy (18:4, 22). We recall that, in the opinion of the Dtr Historian, the final catastrophe of 586 bc came about not primarily because of the neglect of justice and righteousness, which occupies relatively little space in the evaluation of rulers, but to heterodox and unacceptable cult practice. Hezekiah differed from Ahaz in another important respect: he rebelled against Assyria (2 Kgs 18:1–8). The likelihood that Hezekiah first submitted and then rebelled, and that he at least succeeded in maintaining his throne and seeing off the Assyrian army, does not accord with the Assyrian annals and fails to explain why, from the beginning of his reign, Manasseh, Hezekiah’s twelve-year old son who succeeded him, was a vassal of Assyria.

162

15  Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation

The Historian’s Account of the Babylonian Embassy (2 Kgs 20:12–19) A serious fault line in the Historian’s ideology is detectable in his account of the Babylonian delegation. Within the narrative logic of Isaiah 36–39 the episode had to be located in the final position because of Isaiah’s prediction of peace and well-being for the remaining fifteen years of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 20:6, 19). In terms of absolute chronology, however, its location is more problematic. In keeping with the rest of Isaiah 36–39, it is clearly intended to be favourable to Hezekiah. He was hospitable to the envoys who had come a great distance on a courtesy call during his convalescence, and he could be accused of nothing worse than naiveté for his “show and tell” display. Whether he could be blamed for reacting in the way he did to Isaiah’s prediction of future disaster depends on how his ambivalent response to the prediction is interpreted. The first sentence, “the word of Yahweh which you have uttered is good”, could signify acceptance of the oracle as of divine origin and resignation to the divine will, or it could be understood in the light of the following statement which can be read either “for he (Isaiah) said that there would be peace and security during my lifetime” or “he (Hezekiah) thought/said that there will be peace and security in my lifetime.” In other words: “après moi le déluge, but that is someone’s else’s problem.” More clearly than in other episodes of version B, the account of the visit betrays the Dtr hand, including the concern to maintain the high reputation of Hezekiah in contrast to Ahaz who preceded him and Manasseh who followed him and about whose responsibility for the disaster of 586 bc the reader is left in no doubt.8 Hezekiah’s initially evasive reply that the envoys had come “from a distant land” is Deuteronomistic,9 and may conceal an allusion to Joshua 9:6, 9, the strategy of the Gibeonites which permitted them to make a treaty with Israel. There is no doubt of the intention to present Hezekiah in the best light possible. There are, however, some signs that the Historian’s brief for Hezekiah is not entirely convincing. The first and most obvious problem is the implausibility of a Babylonian delegation coming such a distance, at least four hundred miles, to enquire about Hezekiah’s health. The bringing of gifts and Hezekiah’s anxiety to reciprocate the favour suggest not a charitable sick visit but rather diplomatic overtures with a view to making an alliance, in this instance against Assyria, the common enemy. This was standard practice. Asa, for example, emptied the temple and palace treasuries in order to induce Ben-Hadad of Syria to make a treaty with him (1 Kgs 15:18–19). Another problem is that the visit could not have taken place after Hezekiah’s submission to the Assyrians as recorded in 2 Kgs 18:13–16. Handing over all his silver and gold to the Assyrians, even stripping the gold from the temple fittings, would have left him nothing to persuade 8  9 

2 Kgs 21:2–15; 23:26; 24:3–4. Deut 20:15; 29:21; 1 Kgs 8:41.



Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles

163

the Babylonian envoys that he was a credible political ally. In addition, diplomatic overtures from Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon in the aftermath of the Assyrian campaign of 701 cannot be squared with information from the Assyrian annals and the Babylonian Chronicle about the long career of this Chaldaean chieftain Merodach-Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina II), one of the great survivors of ancient times.10 This Chaldaean-Babylonian leader was a thorn in the Assyrian flank from the time of the great Tiglath-pileser III. Upon the death of Shalmaneser V and the disputed accession of Sargon II in 722, he succeeded in making himself king of Babylon and maintained his throne until ousted by Sargon in 710. He continued to evade capture and execution in the last years of Sargon and the early years of Sennacherib by retreating into the marshes in the south near the Persian Gulf. He returned as king of Babylon for a few months in 703 until driven out again by the Assyrians. Following the Assyrian campaign against the Bit-Yakin, MerodachBaladan’s tribe, he fled once more into the marshland with his gods and the bones of his ancestors. He must have died, perhaps in Elam, some time after 700 bc. Since the visit of the Babylonian envoys seems to be too circumstantial in detail to be a pure invention of the Historian, it must have taken place before the Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701; either before Merodach-Baladan was driven from Babylon by Sargon in 710 or in the two or three years following the accession of Sennacherib, when Merodach-Baladan was making a comeback and plans for an anti-Assyrian revolt were rife – more likely the latter. It therefore appears that the Historian has rewritten an account of Isaiah’s intervention of an anti-Assyrian alliance, one not favourable to Hezekiah, in such a way as to exonerate Hezekiah from the charge of dealing with the detested Babylonians, thereby helping to bring about the disasters inflicted by the same Babylonians which would follow. The prophet’s intervention would therefore be parallel with his equally unsuccessful attempt to dissuade Ahaz from seeking the help of Assyria against the Damascus-Samaria axis (Isa 7:3–9).

Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles The existence of this alternative version of Hezekiah’s foreign policies and relations has some confirmation in the brief allusion to the same event in the 10  The most comprehensive study is still that of J. A. Brinkman, “Merodach-Baladan II”, in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim June 7, 1964 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1964), 6–53; id., “Sennacherib’s Babylonian Problem: An Interpretation”, JCS 25 (1973), 89–95; id., Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B. C. (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1984), 45–54; Heather D. Baker, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Volume 2, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2001), 705–711. I owe this last reference to Prof. Wilfred Lambert (oral communication).

164

15  Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation

Chronicler’s record of the same reign (2  Chr 29–32). The lengthy account of Hezekiah’s cultic reforms is introduced by a sermon delivered by the king in which he alludes to the judgement that came on the people during the previous reign as a result of neglect of the national cult (2 Chr 29:8–9, cf. 28:5–8). Significantly, this judgement is stated in terms elsewhere used to describe the situation after the disaster of 586 bc, for example in Jeremiah 29:18. The author omits the notice that “he (Hezekiah) rebelled against the king of Assyria and refused to serve him” which, in the History, served to underline the contrast between Hezekiah and Ahaz (2 Kgs 18:7). The account of the restoration of the temple cult is followed by an abbreviated version of the Assyrian attack with emphasis on the logistical preparations made by the king. The attack is thwarted, and when Sennacherib returns to his own city he is assassinated by his own sons (2 Chr 32:1–22). The incident of Hezekiah’s life-threatening illness is thoroughly reworked by the author of Chronicles (2 Chr 32:24–26). Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death, he prayed, his prayer was heard and he received a sign. Isaiah had no part in all of this. Hezekiah failed to respond to the sign, but what the sign was and how Hezekiah failed to respond to it we are not told. In any case, Hezekiah did not respond positively to the healing, his heart was proud, and as a result wrath came upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem – therefore on the entire country. In consequence, the inhabitants of Jerusalem humbled themselves, no doubt with prayer and fasting, and the wrath was postponed until after Hezekiah’s death.11 The inconsistency of this account with Isaiah 38 is explained by the author’s theological conviction that sickness is punishment for sin,12 and that such disasters as invasion by foreign powers are visitations of the wrath of God prefatory to the final disaster which awaited them in the future.13 In Chronicles the visit of the Babylonian envoys is mentioned only in passing (2 Chr 32:31). Since Babylonian interest and expertise in astronomical matters was well known, the author of Chronicles ascribed their visit to curiosity about the sun “miracle” (2  Chr  20:8–11). He then adds somewhat mysteriously that God had abandoned Hezekiah to test him in order to know his true disposition (32:31). We are not told the outcome of the testing but the tone, if not chilling, is 11  The author may have had in mind the drastic condemnation of Jerusalem by the prophet Micah, quoted at the trial of Jeremiah (Jer  26:18–19), which he assumed took place during Hezekiah’s reign (Mic 3:12). 12  See the parallel case of king Uzziah whose pride resulted in contracting “leprosy” (2 Chr 26:16–21; also 2 Chr 21:18–19). 13  Thus, the invasion of Shishak was punishment for the sins of Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:2–4). In Hezekiah’s address to the temple clergy (2 Chr 29:8), the wrath (qesep) visited on the country during the preceding reign is described in language used for the final disaster in Deuteronomistic additions to Jeremiah (Jer 19:8; 25:9, 18; 29:18).



Hezekiah According to Isaiah

165

less than enthusiastic. It seems that the author has combined the episode of the king’s illness and recovery with the visit of the Babylonia envoys.14 The effect is a much less positive evaluation of Hezekiah than the enthusiastic presentation of the king as reformer and overseer of the state cult in the preceding chapters. The author of Chronicles is clearly an admirer of Hezekiah,15 but we can only assume that he felt obliged to incorporate a less enthusiastic tradition which had come down to him. In this connection it is interesting to note that nowhere in the remaining segment of 2 Chronicles is blame for the disaster of 586 bc laid on Manasseh, as is the case in the author’s principal source (2 Kgs 21:2– 15; 23:26; 24:3–4).

Hezekiah According to Isaiah The presentation in the book of Isaiah of the prophet as “man of God” who heals, works miracles, gives signs, predicts the future, and counsels the ruler without challenging the status quo introduces a strong tension with the prophet as political and social critique which predominates, especially in the first section of the book (1–39). We owe it to the adherents of the Deuteronomistic theology that the profile of the prophet as social critic and critic of political establishments came to be subordinate to the idea of prophecy as essentially a phenomenon belonging to the past, so much so that the emphasis on social criticism came back fully into view only in the early modern period. The issue here is the relation between prophet and ruler, between Isaiah and Hezekiah. In Isaiah 36–39 the presentation of the ruler is positive: he prays, composes a psalm, frequents the temple, consults the prophet, and requests a sign from God through the prophet. Apart from the title (Isa 1:1) in which we are told that Isaiah functioned as a prophet during the reigns of four kings, Hezekiah being the fourth, he is not mentioned elsewhere in Isaiah apart from chapters 36–39. We may nevertheless assume with a good degree of probability that allusions to this ruler or to policies and activities in which he was involved are being referred to even though he is not directly identified by name. The following incidents deserve attention: (1) Several commentators agree that the Assyrian campaign of 701 bc is behind the opening diatribe in the book (1:2–26).16 The land is under foreign 14  In agreement with Hugh Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), 380–88. 15  The Chronicler’s enthusiasm, which does not exclude some inconsistencies and dubieties, is shared by ben Sirach (Sir 48:17–22). It contributed to the rabbinic tradition about Hezekiah as a messianic figure (b. Ber. 28b; b.Sanh. 94a, 99a). 16  Ronald Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 32, 34–36, dates 1:4–8 to 701, to which v. 9 was added after the fall of Jerusalem, but he dates vv. 21–26 to the reign of Ahaz; John A. Emerton, “The Historical Background of Isaiah 1:4–9”, in Shmuel Ahituv/B. A. Levine, Eretz-Israel Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies

166

15  Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation

occupation, Judaean cities are burnt, and Jerusalem is left “like a lean-to in a vineyard, like a shack in a rhubarb patch, like a city besieged” (v. 8). The metaphor may bring to mind Sennacherib’s image of Jerusalem as a birdcage in which he had imprisoned Hezekiah.17 If, therefore, the scene of desolation and destruction in Isaiah 1:4–9 does reflect the situation during or shortly after the punitive campaign of Sennacherib in the year 701, Hezekiah would have been included among “the rulers of Sodom” castigated in 1:10. (2) The same conclusion has been proposed for the maśśā᾽ (oracle) with the cryptic title “The Valley of Vision” (Isa 22:1–14).18 It presents a city in tumult, leaders have taken flight, troops have defected, Judah is defenceless with foreign chariots and cavalry everywhere. A  brief addition in prose (vv. 8b–11) gives details about preparation for an attack which correspond quite closely to those undertaken in view of an Assyrian assault during the reign of Hezekiah.19 The oracle also brings to mind the Assyrian annalistic account of the campaign: forty-six cities taken, Jerusalem blockaded, and Hezekiah’s army deserting (ANET 288). Several other passages scattered throughout Isaiah have been taken to reflect the political and military situation during the critical years following the death of Sargon II and the accession of Sennacherib.20 Among them are denunciations of alliances with Egypt against Assyria (Isa 18:1–2; 30:1–5; 31:1–3), though most are too unspecific to inspire confidence. Thus, the pronouncement of judgement on Ariel (Jerusalem) speaks of distress caused by a siege of the city (29:1–4). Another, a lively interactive exchange between Yahweh and personified Judah who claims that even if we are defeated we will escape on our speedy horses, a claim which brings to mind the mention of the defection and flight of Hezekiah’s forces in the Assyrian annals. Another passage describes Ariel’s people (Jerusalemites) crying for help in the streets in the midst of a scene of devastation (33:7–9). The reason for this situation is that their leader “has broken the agreement and despised the witnesses”, (v. 8b).21 This could refer to Hezekiah who, by rebelling, broke his agreement with the Assyrian king and his oath sworn in the name of, and confirmed by his own deity Yahweh as witness.22 In brief: the differences between 24 (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Project, 1993), 34–40. The issue is discussed in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 176–88. 17  ANET 288; Daniel D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, Volume 2, University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 143. 18  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (London: SCM Press, 1967), 22–27; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 330–35. 19  2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:3–5, 27–30. 20 The passages are listed in Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, 20–68 and Ronald Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem, 28–51. 21 Reading ῾ādîm for ῾ārîm with 1QIsaa. 22 Ezekiel (17:11–19) condemns a Judaean king, unnamed but probably Hezekiah, for



An Afterthought

167

these two profiles of Hezekiah in the book of Isaiah are not merely perspectival; they are irreconcilable.

Summary Taking 2 Kings 18–20 at face value, the enthusiasm of the Historian for Hezekiah is due to his zeal for the purity and integrity of the state religion in keeping with the teachings of the Deuteronomist school, together with his attempt to throw off the Assyrian yoke in keeping with the school’s strong sense of national identity. This positive evaluation remained dominant to judge by ben Sirach’s encomium (Sir 48:17–22). Reading between the lines, however, and sometimes on the lines, we detect a different assessment of this ruler’s personality and achievements.23 I have argued that the fault lines in the Historian’s ideological construction are visible in the two versions of Hezekiah’s relations with Assyria, in the somewhat puzzling retelling of this section of the history in Chronicles, in Isaiah’s condemnation of policies pursued at Hezekiah’s court and, not least, in the Isaian account of the visit of the Babylonian envoys.

An Afterthought Recent events in Iraq, the “distant land” from which the envoys came to seek allies in Jerusalem, illustrate the truth of the old adage about history repeating itself. A superpower trying by increasingly violent means to impose its control over a society that is partly urbanized but still largely tribal; an elusive foe thoroughly familiar with the many natural resources for disengagement, concealment and guerrilla tactics afforded by the terrain; an unsuccessful attempt by the superpower to exercise control through a client ruler. And the outcome? Sennacherib, one of the last great rulers of the Assyrian superpower, destroyed Babylon in 689 bc, but within a little more than half a century Assyria was in terminal decline.

violating the covenant and despising the oath sworn to the Assyrian king in seeking an alliance with Egypt. 23  Josephus (Ant. 9:260–76; 10:1–36) accuses Hezekiah of cowardice for sending three subordinates to parley with the Assyrians instead of doing it himself (Ant, 10:5). See Louis Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Hezekiah”, JBL 111 (1992), 597–610. Rabbinic criticism in b. Pesah 56a; b. Ber. 10a.

16

Who Is the tsaddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2? The Text and its Context The first two verses of Isaiah 57 can be translated more or less literally as follows: v. 1

The righteous one has perished and no one takes it to heart.1 The devout are taken away2 and no one gives it a thought. It was on account of evildoing that the righteous one was taken away.3

Isaiah 57:1–2 is one of several brief passages in the third section of the book (chapters 56–66) which sound a more personal and intense note. Mention of the fate of the righteous one and the devout is ostensibly out of keeping with the context in which it occurs, though not all commentators have been content to leave it at that. Some have found a deliberate contrast with the corrupt leaders of 56:9–12 and the practitioners of heterodox cults in 57:3–13. More ambitiously, Koenen reads 56:2–57:21 as one unit held together by three “clamps” (Klammer­ texte) of a didactic origin.4 While the contrasting fates of the devout and the reprobate is by no means foreign to the didactic and scribal tradition,5 it has often been pointed out that affinity with psalms of lament is rather more in evidence here.6 1  LXX adds “see how” at the beginning of the verse, Peshitta “behold”. Both verbs, ᾽ābad and śîm, are in the past tense, hence the death of the tsaddiq is a past event. 2  “By death” is understood “taken away”, literally “gathered” (i. e. to their ancestors), as in Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29, etc. The verb is often used by itself, as in Num 20:26; Jer 8:2; Ezek 29:5. 3  The initial kî in line 5 could introduce a noun clause giving the meaning “No one understands that it was on account of evildoing (of others, understood) that the righteous one was taken away”, but an initial kî is fairly common in Isaiah 56–66. 4  Klaus Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu­kirche­ ner Verlag, 1990), 15–17. 5  Echoes of Isa 57:1–2 in Wisdom of Solomon 4:7–15 are clear enough to suggest that the author is familiar with and has drawn on the Isaian text; on which see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Wisdom of Solomon 3:1–4, 19 and the Book of Isaiah”, in Jacques van Ruiten/Marc Vervenne (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (Leuven: University Press/ Peeters, 1997), 417–18. 6  Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 235. Also



The Righteous One of Isaiah 57:1–2 and the Servant of the Lord

169

While it is apparent that there is more than one way of reading 57:1–2 in context, at a minimum we may conclude that it fits a pattern in evidence throughout Isaiah 40–66 of alternating blessing and condemnation, consolation and commination. The pattern corresponds to tensions and eventually conflict between those who call themselves the righteous (saddiqim) and those whom the righteous call the wicked and reprobate (rěšā῾îm), in other words, between distinct factions within the Judaic community. The contrast is familiar from both proverbial sayings and psalms: The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, his ears are attentive to their cry; the face of the Lord is against evildoers, to cut off their memory from the earth (Ps 34:16–17)

One of the tasks of the interpreter of Isaiah 56–66, and by no means an easy one, is to identify the situations which precipitated this name-calling and the groups, factions or sects to which the names correspond.

The Righteous One of Isaiah 57:1–2 and the Servant of the Lord Returning now to our text: the issues to be addressed with respect to Isaiah 57:1, a lament for the unheeded and unmourned death of a righteous one (tsaddîq) and the devout (᾽anšê-hesed), are first: does the righteous one refer to an individual or a plurality and, if an individual, can he be identified? Second: did the evildoing bring about the death of the righteous one or did he avoid experiencing it by dying? The situation is quite different with the second verse from which interpreters and translators have been labouring to extract some consecutive meaning for centuries, often by means of emendation or by ignoring the shift from singular to plural and back to singular. The second verse reads as follows: He enters into peace They repose in their last resting places He is upright in his conduct

The Targum opts for the plural throughout: “They shall go in peace; those who observe his (God’s) law shall rest on their beds”, while LXX puts it all in the singular: “His burial shall be in peace; he is removed out of the midst …” Likewise, REB and NRSV put it all in the plural and JPS all in the singular. But what may easily be overlooked is that the sequence singular-plural-singular of v. 1 is replicated in v. 2. This suggests the possibility that the arrangement is deliberate, and Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 465– 66.

170

16  Who is the tsaddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2

that v. 2 consists in three glosses on v. 1 set in the same a-b-a sequence. Finally, that the glossator understood ha-tsaddîq significantly the first and last word of v. 1, as referring to an individual, not a plurality. This last point is crucial for the suggestion I wish to present in this chapter. The term tsaddîq does of course occur many times as a collective noun referring to righteous or innocent people, often in contrast to the wicked (rěšā῾îm). This usage is particularly in evidence in Psalms. The contrast may also be expressed by juxtaposing a collective singular and a plural, for example, rěšā῾îm/tsaddîq. Take Psalm 12:1: Save, Lord, for the devout (hāsîd) is no more, the faithful (᾽ěmûnîm) have disappeared from among humanity.

While such laments are similar to Isaiah 57:1, the a-b-a arrangement of the latter suggests a cryptic allusion to an individual tsaddîq, no longer living, associated in some way with a group of the devout. If this much is granted, it will be natural to think of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 52:13–53:12) who was “taken away” by oppressive acts of judgement (53:8a), like the righteous one of 57:1 who was “gathered.” The Servant’s death, brought about by evildoing, also passed unregarded – “Who gives a thought to his fare? (53:8a) – as was the Righteous One of Isaiah 57:1–2: – “Who takes it to heart?” Of particular interest is the statement about the Servant in 53:11b, which reads as follows: yatsdîq tsaddîq ῾abdî lārabbîm, “My righteous servant will vindicate the Many”. The language will bring to mind what the book of Daniel has to say about the maśkîlîm, the leaders who instruct and vindicate the Many, understood as those members of the group which acknowledge their leadership (Dan 11:33; 12:3–4, 10). What is less obvious is that in Isaiah 53:11b the adjective tsaddîq anomalously precedes the noun it governs and overburdens the verse. It was either inserted by error or attracted by the preceding word yatsdîq. In view of the links between 57:1–2 and 52:13–53:12 we have identified, it is reasonable to suspect that this adjective was inserted by a scribe who wished to identify the suffering and dying Servant of the Lord with the tsaddîq of 57:1, a verse in which the same term occurs at its beginning and end.7 It may be noted in passing that the Damascus Document uses language similar to Isaiah 57:1–2 in speaking of the death of the founder of the sect, the Unique Teacher or, more often, The Teacher of Righteousness or, perhaps more properly, The Legitimate Teacher (môreh hassedeq): “From the time of the ‘gathering’ of the Unique Teacher to the destruction of the warriors who followed the Liar there shall pass about forty years.”8 This section of the Damascus Document 7  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 348. 8  CD (B) XX 13–15. Chaim Rabin, The Zadokite Document (2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 3–40, accepts an allusion to Isa 57:1–2.



The Righteous One of Isaiah 57:1–2 and the Servant of the Lord

171

(CD[B] XX 14–22) draws on a combination of Isaiah 57:1–2 and Malachi 3:16– 18, a text which speaks of God-fearers and servants of God who pact together in the expectation of ultimate vindication on judgement day. This construal of 57:1 is supported by – or at least in conformity with – 57:2, read as proposed above. The first of the three glosses – yābô᾽ šālôm (“He enters into peace”)  – can be parsed in different ways. The Peshitta, Symmachus and Theodotion take šālôm to be the subject, as also the Vulgate (veniat pax, “may peace come”).9 LXX, however, reads it as an adverbial or locative accusative, running the first two glosses together: “his burial shall be in peace.” The Targum takes the more mundane view that those who observe the law will have a peaceful existence and undisturbed sleep; they will, as we say, sleep the sleep of the just. But the preferred option among modern commentators is to read the phrase as referring to post-mortem existence,10 following an interpretation of the author of Wisdom of Solomon.11 On the assumption that the first and the third glosses refer to the Righteous One who is also the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 53, we could read “he enters into peace” as parallel with “after his (the Servant’s) painful life he will see light and be satisfied” (53:11). The second gloss, “They repose in their last resting places” (yanûhû ῾almiškěbôtām), is consonant with the first, but the subject is plural and therefore must be referred to the devout (᾽anšê-hesed) of v. 1. The substantive miškāb (> verb šākab, “lie down”) most often means “bed” or “couch” or, by a natural extension, sexual activity.12 But the metaphorical meaning extends even further to take in the last resting place o the dead, the bier, catafalque or grave, and the gloss is so understood in LXX (hē taphē autou).13 The ambivalence of this term is fully exploited in the denunciation of the sorceress and her children (i. e. devotees) in Isaiah 57. 9  Followed by Karl Pauritsch, Die Neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt Ausgestoßene und Arme (Jesaja 56–66) (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), 60, and a few other modern interpreters. 10  Following Bernhard Duhm, “[Der Gerechte] geht ein in den Frieden”, Das Buch Jesaja, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 425. 11  Wis 3:3; 4:11–15. Death was God’s way of removing the righteous from the moral evil which surrounded them. This is the interpretation adopted by Calvin who cited Luther’s death as an example. See also Bernard Renaud, “La mort du juste, entrée dans la paix (Is. 57, 1–2)”, RSR 51, 1927), 3–21. James Muilenburg, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 5 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 664–65, is content to find “intimations of immortality” in the passage. 12  For the extended meaning: Lev 18:22; 20:13; Num 31:17–18; Judg 21:11–12; Ezek 23:17 (miškab dôdîm). 13  2 Chr 16:14 speaks of king Asa’s bier (miškāb) covered in perfume and spices; Ezek 32:25 refers to Elam’s last resting place, using the same term, and an anonymous poet contemplates with satisfaction the bed (miškāb) of maggots and blanket of worms reserved for the king of Babylon in the Underworld (Isa 14:11).

172

16  Who is the tsaddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2

The third gloss, holēk někohô (“he conducts himself with probity”), is no less enigmatic than the two preceding it.14 After conflating the first two, LXX apparently gave up on the third, to judge by “he was removed from the midst”, a rendering which has nothing in common with MT. The Vulgate, on the other hand, linked the second with the third: requiescat in cubili suo qui ambulavit in directione sua (“May the one who walked in his [God’s] way repose in his bed”). Similar conflations are common among modern exegetes. Torrey contrasted the lazy good-for-nothings stretched out on their beds with the upright man who leaves Jerusalem because he would feel more at home somewhere else.”15 Childs smooths out the rough spots by assuming that those who walk uprightly will enter into peace and rest in their beds.16 If, however, the arrangement suggested is maintained, the third gloss, like the first, must refer to an individual, therefore in all probability to the righteous one of the first verse. The designation tsaddîq does not occur in the Hebrew Bible in any obvious way as a synonym for nābî᾽, “prophet.” Psalms speak of the righteous one being subject to hostility and persecution (Ps 94:21; 146:7–9), and the assembly of the righteous is contrasted with that of the reprobates in language reminiscent of Isaiah 56–66. But both the tsaddîqîm and the hăsîdîm are associated in the hymns with the servants of the Lord (῾abdê YHWH: Ps 34:23; 79:2; 86:2; 116:15– 16), and ῾ebed is a synonym for prophet. The terms tsaddîq and hāsîd are also closely associated. The term used in Isaiah 57:1 to describe the associates or followers of the righteous one, that is, ᾽anšê-hesed, occurs only here, but is the equivalent of the hăsîdîm whose death is precious in the sight of the Lord (Ps 115:16). It would be going beyond the evidence to claim these ᾽anšê-hesed as ancestors of the hăsîdîm (Asidaeans) of the Hasmonaean period, though the possibility of elements of continuity between the dissident or excluded group referred to in Isaiah 56–66 and the more established sectarian or proto-sectarian groups of the Graeco-Roman period cannot be ruled out. The hypothesis that the Righteous One of Isaiah 57:1–2 whose death went unnoticed and unlamented is identical with the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 has been noted occasionally but, to my knowledge, never seriously argued.17 The idea is hardly far-fetched once it is accepted that the term used 14  Absence of the preposition before někohô is not unusual, cf. Ps 88:6, šokěbê qeber, “those who lie in the grave”. 15 Charles Cutler Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A  New interpretation (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928), 433. 16  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A  Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 460. 17 I proposed it in Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The ‘Servants of the Lord’ in Third Isaiah”, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 7 (1983), 16 and in id., “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990), 14. It has been accepted by James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A  Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40–66 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965),



The Prophetic First-Person Voice in Isaiah 40–66

173

here refers to an individual and that the second section of the book (chapters 40–66) has some degree of coherence.

The Prophetic First-Person Voice in Isaiah 40–66 It remains to demonstrate that the identification of the Righteous One of Isaiah 57:1–2 with the Servant of 52:13–53:12 makes good sense in the broader context of Isaiah 40–66 and, more specifically, when read in the light of references to the Servant of the Lord, Servants of the Lord, and first-person prophetic discourse in these chapters.18 In the first segment (chapters 40–48) the term ‘ebed occurs always in the singular and, with the exception of 42:1–4, the first of Duhm’s four Dichtungen, with reference to the people as a whole. This segment begins with a summons to a plurality followed by a call to an individual to proclaim a message. I take this to refer to a prophetic group associated with an individual prophet, probably the one we refer to as “Deutero-Isaiah”, that is, the source from which the core of Isaiah 40–55 derives. It is probably the same individual prophetic voice we are hearing towards the end of the segment, though in fragmentary fashion: “the Sovereign Lord YHWH has sent me, and his spirit …” (48:16b) – and there it breaks off. In the following segment (49–55) the term “servant” is restricted to the singular, but now with reference to an individual prophetic servant (49:1–7; 50:10–11; 52:13; 53:11). The only exception is the allusion to “the heritage of the servants of the Lord” (54:17), which concludes 40–54 and anticipates a major theme in 56–66, with chapter 55 serving as a summary of 40–54. This second part of Deutero-Isaiah opens with an individual prophetic address in the first person (49:1–6) which continues in the third in Duhm’s series (50:4–9) followed by a comment by one who evidently regards himself as competent to speak for the prophetic servant (50:10–11). This betokens commentary by a disciple who has internalized the message of the master; another example, therefore, of an individual prophet with a prophetic following. In the last section of the book, Trito-Isaiah, the same term appears exclusively in the plural, indicating a specific group of prophetic “Servants of the Lord”. It is generally agreed that chapters 60–62 form the core of Trito-Isaiah around which 240–41; Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 197, though understanding tsaddîq collectively. Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 235–36, thinks that the expression ᾽anšê-hesed implies a collective interpretation of the Servant of Isaiah 53. 18 The following analysis is an abbreviated version of the reading proposed in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 148–52. See also Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah: ‘The Servants of YHWH’”, JSOT 47 (1990), 67–87.

174

16  Who is the tsaddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2

the rest of the material has been organized. The position of these three chapters at the precise centre, with four chapters or eight Massoretic pisqôt preceding it and the same number following it results in the same a-b-a structure noted in Isaiah 57:1–2. The suspicion that this arrangement is not fortuitous is confirmed when we go on to note that the first-person declaration of a prophetic individual (61:1–3) is situated at the exact centre of chapters 60–62, with forty-four stichometric lines preceding and the same number following it. The point of this arrangement is to present 61:1–3 (“the spirit of the Lord is upon me …”) as the signature of the prophetic author of chapters 60–62, speaking in his own name of his endowment with the spirit and therefore the one qualified to proclaim this message. This passage, brief as it is, does not refer to disciples, but in chapters 56–59 the prophetic signature or colophon does so quite explicitly: This is my covenant with them, declares the Lord, my spirit which rests upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not be absent from your mouth, or from the mouths of your descendants, or those of the descendants of your descendants, declares the Lord, from this day forward and for evermore. (59:21)

Spirit possession is assured for the individual charismatic figure and for his “seed”, meaning disciples, his school, into an indefinite future. This assurance corresponds to the conclusion to the threnody on the suffering and now deceased Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 52:13–53:12: “He will see posterity, he will prolong his days” (53:10). The clearest indications of a prophetic group associated with a charismatic leader or founder are to be found in the last two chapters of the book. In the final chapter we hear a prophetic voice giving comfort and reassurance to those who tremble with awe at the word of God and have been shunned and excluded from society by their “brethren”, their fellow-Jews. The taunt of these opponents of the hărēdîm (“those who tremble”) – “May the Lord reveal his glory that we may witness your joy” is countered with the statement that it is their opponents who will be shamed at the end time (66:5). The same opposition and, in substance, the same answer is given in the preceding chapter by “the servants of the Lord” (65:1–14) in a typically sectarian affirmation of eschatological reversal, an anticipation of the gospel beatitudes (Mt 5:3–12).

Conclusion The proposal, then, is to read Isaiah 56–66 as witness to the continued mission of the master prophet known as the Servant of the Lord and the Righteous One, whose painful life and undeserved death, which went unheeded by the majority, are recorded in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 and 57:1–2. This mission is perpetuated



Conclusion

175

through his disciples unnamed in Isaiah 53:1–10, referred to as ᾽anšê hesed (devout or devoted) in Isaiah 57:1–2, and hărēdîm (those who tremble at God’s word) and ῾abdê YHWH (Servants of the Lord) in Isaiah 65–66. Needless to say, but let us say it, not everything in these chapters can be derived from one source only or reduced to one formula only, but this prophetic legacy, announced at the end of Deutero-Isaiah (54:17), is clearly a prominent theme and provides an important element of continuity in the post-disaster Isaian corpus.

17

The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran Duhm’s Servant Texts On the subject of Bernhard Duhm’s four “Servant Songs” (Ebedieder, EbedDichtungen) it is much easier to formulate questions – beginning with the question about the identity of this Servant asked by the Ethiopian official in Acts 8:34  – than to provide answers. The problems are many. Are they an original and integral part of Isaiah 40–55? If not, did they exist as one text prior to their insertion into the book? How do they function in their Deutero-Isaian context, irrespective of their origin? Saying goodbye to the Servant Songs is an understandable reaction of frustration faced with the immense and inconclusive amount of commentary on these passages both before and after Duhm had given them a distinctive existence as Lieder or Dichtungen.1 But by now it is clear that they play a critical role in Isaiah 40–55 and the book of Isaiah as a whole. They are not about to go away.2 In view of the amount of debate generated by these four texts, it is interesting that in the introduction to his commentary, and in the commentary itself, Duhm dedicated only about one and a half pages to discussing the Servant passages.3 His conclusions may be briefly summarized as follows: The four passages (Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–6, 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12), which originally formed one composition, are distinguished from their context in Deutero-Isaiah by style, prosody, and content, and were inserted into Deutero-Isaiah by a later hand wherever there was space on the papyrus scroll; they were composed by a member of a Jewish community, but not a diasporic community, some time during the first half of the fifth century; the author drew on the book of Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Job and, in his turn, influenced Trito-Isaiah and Malachi; the Servant was a historical figure, a teacher of the law who was treated abusively by his own people. None of these conclusions would pass unchallenged today, but it was precisely 1  I retain Duhm’s terminology in spite of its unsuitability; whatever else they may be, these four passages are not Lieder. 2  Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom, Scripta Minora Regiae Societatis Humaniarum Litterarum Lundensis (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup), 1983. 3  Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 311, 367, 379, 393.



The Isaian Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Archive

177

the mystery surrounding the identity of this Servant of the Lord which made it available as a model or pattern for later prophetic figures from the maśkîlîm (the wise teachers) of the Book of Daniel to Jesus of Nazareth. In the present essay I limit myself to one aspect of this early history of the appropriation and interpretation of the Isaian Servant texts, namely, the one which the discovery of the Qumran archive has brought to our attention.

The Isaian Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Archive All four of Duhm’s Ebedlieder (Isa 42:1–4, 49:1–6, 50:4–9, 52:13–53:12) are reproduced in the complete Isaian scroll from Cave 1 at Qumran (1QIsaa), dated to the second half of the second century BC. This version contains many minor variations, most of them orthographic, for example, frequent use of the conjunction to avoid asyndeton, but few of significance for meaning and interpretation. The addition of the word ᾽ôr (light) at Isaiah 53:11a gives the reading “After his painful life he will see light and be satisfied”, but this reading is anticipated in 1QIsab and 4QIsad in addition to LXX, Syriac and Vulgate. In Isaiah 52:14b, “so marred was his appearance beyond human semblance,” the equivalent in 1QIsaa of the hapax legomenon mišhat, presumably from the verb šht (destroy, ruin) is mšhtî (māšahtî, “I have anointed”), with the idea that this verb could be understood of priestly or even messianic anointing.4 But one does not anoint someone’s appearance, and the additional letter could be either hireq compaginis (GKC 90:1) or a simple slip.5 The complete Isaiah scroll also has frequent shifts from singular to plural and plural to singular and from third to second person and the reverse. In one instance (51:5) where MT reads “My arms will govern the peoples, the coastlands wait for me, in my arm they hope”, 1QIsaa reads “his arm will govern the peoples, the coastlands wait for him, in his arm they hope.” This reading lends itself to a messianic interpretation rather than an allusion to the Servant who speaks and is spoken about in 50:4–11, but here too other possibilities exist. There is no consistent messianic interpretation traceable throughout this text comparable to the reading in Jerome’s Vulgate.6 4  Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 262; Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, Tome 2: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 387–90. 5  See the textual note in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 347. 6  Martin Hengel/Daniel P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period”, in Bernd Janowski/Peter Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, translated by Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 101–2.

178

17  The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran

The other Isaiah text from the first cave, the incomplete 1QIsab from which Isaiah  42:1–4 is absent, is even closer to MT. In addition, some scraps of text from the four Servant passages have survived among the 4Q fragments but, here too, with no significant variants affecting the meaning apart from the omission of “Israel” (Isa 49:3) in 4QIsad.7 Unfortunately, no pesher on any of the four Servant texts has survived. The Damascus Document (CD V 13) cites from the comment following the third Servant passage, which refers to those who “light their own fires and kindle their own firebrands” (Isa  50:10–11). In the Isaian context those who do this are the opponents of the Servant whose voice is heard in the previous six verses, but in the Damascus Document they are identified as the opponents of the Damascus sect. Also worthy of note is the pesher-like interpretation of Isaiah 52:7 in II Q Melchizedek (11Q 13), which identifies the herald who brings good tidings with the one anointed with the spirit in Isaiah 61:1. The prophetic-authorial voice heard in Isaiah 61:1–4 has enough in common wit the Servant passages, especially 42:1–4, to justify assigning it to the same category, as several commentators in the modern period have done. Isaiah 61:1–4 was a popular text at Qumran and also in early Christian communities (e. g. Luke 4:18–19). In the Thanksgiving Hymn scroll from the first cave (Hodayot, 1QHa) the speaker routinely identifies himself as the Servant of the Lord. In this collection a distinction is often made between community hymns and hymns of the Teacher, one aspect of a rather complicated redactional history.8 Disregarding this distinction for the moment, it may better serve our present purpose to simply read through the hymns, attending where relevant to different recensions, with a view to determining what the author, when speaking in the first person, says about himself – bearing in mind that, in addressing God, the most common self-designation used by the speaker is “servant.” Following biblical usage, the term ῾ebed (“servant”) is used throughout the collection synonymously with nābî᾽ (“prophet”). There is no doubt about the speaker’s prophetic self-consciousness: he has been sprinkled with, even drenched in the Holy Spirit (IV 26; XV 7).9 7 MT Isa 49:3 “Israel”, also in the great Isaiah scroll, LXX and the Targum is by most commentators taken to be a gloss since it is inconsistent with a mission to Israel assigned to an individual in vv. 5–6. 8 See Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 171–73. Jeremias identifies the following as hymns of the Teacher: 1QHa II 1–19, 31–39; III 1–18; IV 5–V 4; V 5–19; V 20–VII 5; VII 6–25; VIII 4–40. For an update, see Eileen Schuller, in: Esther Chazon et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2, Discoveries in the Judean Desert 29 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 74–75. 9  The verb nôp occurs twice: in Ps 68:10 (Hiphil) it refers to a downpour of rain; in Prov 7:17 (Qal) “sprinkle” would be more appropriate. The same verb occurs with rûah (“spirit”) as its object in 1QHa IV 26 and XV 7.

The Isaian Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Archive



179

He knows divine mysteries on account of the spirit which God has placed in him (V 24–25; XX 11–12). He has been purified by the spirit (VIII 20). This kind of language is consistent with the way in which the Servant describes himself and his mission in Isaiah, but there are more specific parallels. The speaker in the Hodayot is acknowledged by God from the womb (XVII 29–30) as the Isaian Servant was called when still in the womb (Isa 49:1). His ear is uncovered (gālāh) to hear divine revelations (IX 21) just as the Servant’s ear is “awakened (Isa 50:4). His tongue is like the tongue of those taught by God (VI 11, XV 10) as the Servant was given “the tongue of those who are instructed” (Isa 50:4) and by this means – by speaking, by teaching – the author can support the weary by a word in season (XV 36, cf. Isa 50:4b). The one speaking in the Hymns has also suffered reproach and contempt, he has been shunned by those who earlier associated with him, and has been subjected to violence.10 There is no suggestion that any of this had redemptive value for others, there seems no reason to doubt that the Isaian Servant formed a significant part of the self-image of the author of the Hodayot.11 That the Legitimate Teacher12 was the author of several of these hymns seems to be widely accepted. It is consistent with the frequent mention of the Teacher being possessed by the Holy Spirit, meaning the spirit of prophecy, together with the equally frequent allusions to persecution and suffering consistent with what we hear about the Teacher in other Qumranic texts, especially the Habakkuk commentary.13 The language used suggests that the speaker has a leadership role: “You (God) have set me up as a reproach and an object of mockery for the traitors … on account of the iniquity of the reprobates I have become the target of slander on the lips of the violent, while the scoffers grind their teeth. I have become a laughing stock for transgressors, and against me the assembly of the reprobates is aroused” (X 9–12).

10  The

speaker is an object of mockery and slander (X  9–13, 31–34), he is rejected and considered of no esteem (XII 8). This is for him the cause of great suffering (XIII 22–39). He has been driven from his land and has suffered tribulations in the land of his exile (XII 8–9, XIII 5–18) including, apparently, sickness (XVI 26–35; XVII 1–7). 11  The contrary view, that the Servant texts had only slight influence on the author, was defended in the early days of Qumran studies by Jean Carmignac, “Les Citations de l’Ancien Testament et spécialement des Poèmes du Serviteur dans les Hymnes de Qumran”, RevQ 2 (1960), 357–94, especially 383–94; Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 299–307. Using a rather mechanical method, Carmignac concluded that only three Servant texts can be identified in the Hymns, i. e., Isa 49:4, 50:4, 53:3. Jeremias reduced these to one, i. e., 50:4 (pp. 306–7). My earlier assessment of this issue (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 86–87) I would now regard to have been too cautious. 12  I regard this to be a more feasible translation of môreh hassedeq than the too literal “Teacher of Righteousness”. 13 1QHa  X 33–34; XII 8–9, 22; XIII  5–18, XIII  22–XIV  3; XVI  26–35; XVII  1–7, cf. 1QpHab I 12–II 10; V 10–12; XI 5–8.

180

17  The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran

The Reconstruction of a Lost Text We now come to one of the most remarkable texts discovered at Qumran.14 This text, reconstructed out of several fragments, is the first-person address of a teacher who, though at one time despised and rejected, now enjoys divine or quasi-divine status in the company of the angelic hosts. The text was first published by Maurice Baillet in 1982 as 4Q491 fragment 11, column 1, later designated 4Q491c. Baillet assigned it on palaeographical grounds to the War Scroll from Cave 1 (1QM) and entitled it “Le Cantique de Michel” (“The Canticle of Michael”) on account of the role of the angel Michael in the eschatological war of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.15 Since then, the publication by Eileen Schuller of fragments from a recension of Hodayot from Cave 4, one of which has clear parallels with 4Q491c, has shown that it has more in common with the Hodayot than the War Scroll (1QM).16 Meanwhile four small fragments, two of which contain only one word each, also originally annexed to the War Scroll, turned out to have language in common with 4Q491c and were therefore judged to be closer to the Hodayot than to the War Scroll. Designated 4Q471b, this fragmentary and much reconstructed text provides a fourth witness to the “hymn” together with 1QHa XXVI, 4Q427 7 1 and 4Q491c. 17 All four are dated on palaeographical grounds to the late Hasmonaean-early Herodian period, but the criteria are not precise enough to allow us to put them in chronological order. The existence of even fragmentary variants provides some help in reconstructing 4Q491c, but not all the gaps can be filled in. We have seen that it has some kind of affinity with the Hymns (Hodayot). The related texts 4Q427 fr. 7 col. 1 and 4Q471b seem to fit near the top of 1QHa XXVI, though the fact that only a few letters remain at the beginning of lines 6–11 of this column risks the danger of creating a lion out of a claw (ex ungue leo).18 The Exaltation text 14 This composition is more usually referred to as “the Self-Glorification Hymn”, but I prefer the title “Hymn of Exaltation” proposed by Martin G. Abegg, “4Q471: A Case of Mistaken Identity?”, in John C. Reeves/John C. Campen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, JSOTSup 184 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 137. 15  Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. 3 (4Q482–4Q520), Discoveries in the Judean Desert 7 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 26–29. See also Florentino García Martinez/Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, Volume 2 (Leiden: Brill/ Grand Rapids: Eerrdmans, 1998), 978–81. 16  Eileen Schuller, “A Hymn from Cave Four Hodayot Manuscript 4Q427 71 and II,” JBL 112 (1993), 605–28; id., in: Chazon et al. (eds.), Discoveries in the Judean Desert 29 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 69–123, especially 96–108. 17  Esther Eshel, “4Q471 B: “A Self-Glorification Hymn”, RevQ 17 (1996), 175–203; id., in: Chazon et al. (eds.), Discoveries in the Judean Desert 29 (1999), 421–32. For a synopsis of the three versions see Devora Dimant, “A Synoptic Comparison of Parallel Sections in 4Q 427 7, 4Q491 11, and 4Q471 B,” JQR 85 (1994), 157–61. 18  John J. Collins/Devora Dimant, “A Thrice-Told Hymn: A Response to Eileen Schuller”,



The Reconstruction of a Lost Text

181

is not parallel in the same way, and it goes beyond anything in the hymns in both theme and style. It is also free of self-deprecating allusions to impurity and spiritual incapacity of frequent occurrence in Hodayot (e. g. IV 19, 25; IX 22). At the same time, the claims made by the speaker in the hymns, whether in his own person or as representing the aspirations of the group, are impressive: his glory is exalted beyond flesh (VII 19–20), he has a place with the holy ones and the sons of heaven (XI 21–22), he is radiant with sevenfold light (XV 24). How all this is to be accounted for is no easy matter. The Hymn of Exaltation may have been an independent composition inspired by first-person utterances in Hodayot, or it may have been intended for inclusion in the collection of hymns at some point in its editorial history. There is no way to be sure. 4Q491c begins and ends addressing the congregation as the Righteous, the Saints, the Poor, and does so in a way similar to the community hymns in Psalms. First-person speech in the middle of the text (lines 5–12) introduces a quite different style, certainly not hymnic, rather declarative in the manner of firstperson prophetic discourse well represented in Isaiah 40–55 and quite different from the balanced and parallel lines of verse in lines 2, 3 and 13.19 Furthermore, the seven rhetorical questions beginning in line 8 are reminiscent of the self-designation and self-vindication of the Servant in Isaiah 50:6–9, the third Servant passage, a point which seems to have gone unnoticed: “Who dares to bring an accusation against me?” … “Who will pass judgement upon me?” … “Who is the one who will condemn me?” … Even if it were possible, by dint of picking one’s way through the textual debris and inserting a few words here and there, to detect a metrical pattern, it would not alter the fact that this first-person declarative section is generically different from the psalm-like introduction and conclusion. The only other parallel which comes to mind is the first-person selfdescription of personified wisdom (e. g. Prov 8:22–31 or the aretalogy – minus the miracles – like the self-praise of the exalted goddess Isis. Clearly, more work needs to be done on this issue of genre.

JQR 85 (1994), 151–55, argue on the basis of style and content that 4Q427 could not have belonged to the Hodayot. The extremely fragmentary condition of column XXVI lines 6–16 is certainly a problem, but it seems to me that the reconstruction of a text more or less parallel with 4Q427 7 lines 10–20 is justifiable. It seems more than coincidental that the first words of lines 6–11 of 1QHa XXVI match lines 10–15 of 4Q427 fr. 7, col.1. 19  Morton Smith’s reading of 4Q491 fr. 11 is based on a metrical structure which relies too heavily on speculative reconstruction to be persuasive. See his “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa” in Lawrence H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in memory of Yigael Yadin (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 181–88.

182

17  The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran

The Hymn of Exaltation The following translation of The Self-Glorification Hymn or The Hymn of Exaltation is my own but it will be obvious that it owes a debt to previous attempts.20 The reader is any case encouraged to refer to the editio princeps in Discoveries in the Judean Desert, volume VII. 2a … Let the Righteous exult in His mighty power 2b … Let the Saints rejoice in … righteousness 3a … Israel. He established it as His truth from of old, 3b the mysteries of His prudence in all [generations] … might 4a … 4b and the council of the Poor as an everlasting congregation … The Perfect Ones. 5 … [He gave me] a mighty throne in the congregation of the angels on which none of the kings of old had sat, and their nobles shall not [be seated on it in judgement] 6 … my glory is without equal, and no one but me is exalted, nor can any oppose me, for I have taken my seat on … in the heavens, and there are none …. 7 … I am counted among the angels, and my abode is in the holy congregation. My desire is not after the flesh; rather, all that is precious for me (consists in) the glory 8 of the holy dwelling. Who has been accounted an object of contempt like me, yet who can compare with me in glory? Who is the one who, like those who cross the sea, can come back and tell? … 9 … [like] me. Who bears [all] afflictions like me, and who [bears the burden] of evil to compare with me? There is none. I have been instructed, and no teaching compares with 10 [my teaching]. Who will attack me when I open [my mouth]? Who will contain the flow of my speech? Who can contend with me and equal me in judgement? 11 [There is none to compare with me f]or I am with the angels. My station and my glory are (to be) with the king’s sons. [I do not crown myself] with either refined gold or gold of Ophirim. 12 vacat 13a … [Exult] righteous ones in the God of … 13b In the holy abode sing praises to Him … 14a … Let jubilation resound in the [house of] meditation (?) 20  I have consulted the following translations: Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. 3, DJD 7, 28–29 (with a system of numbering lines now abandoned); García Martínez/Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 981; Michael O. Wise, DSD (2000), 178–83; Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QM”, in Lawrence H. Schiffman (ed.), Archeology and History of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 181–8.; Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 77; Hengel/Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53”, 142–43.

The Hymn of Exaltation



14b 15 16 17

183

… … in everlasting joy; and there is no … … … to set up the horn of his Messiah … … … to make known his power with strength … vacat

Some few commentators on this exceptionally interesting text have remarked on its affinities with the Isaian Servant passages, especially Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the combination of threnody and encomium on the recently deceased Servant of the Lord detailing his humiliation, suffering, death and ultimate vindication.21 The “glorification” claimed by the author (kābôd, “glory” occurs four times) recalls the assurance that the Servant will be “highly honoured, raised up, and greatly exalted” (52:13). Likewise, the theme of the subordination of kings and rulers (lines 5–6) features in the last of the Servant texts (52:15). The Isaian Servant is taught by God and fulfils his mission by teaching (Isa 53:11; also 49:2; 50:4) and the exalted one of the Qumran text boasts of his incomparable gift as a teacher (lines 9–10). In mentioning these parallels I am aware that whoever wrote 4Q491c was not familiar with the historical-critical method and had not read Duhm’s commentary on Isaiah. But the practice of reading a text like Isaiah as an integrated whole with interconnected parts would have sharpened the eye of a motivated reader in late antiquity to note the close connections between those servant passages in Isaiah with distinctively individual traits. Among the parallels noted the most significant is the language in which the experience of humiliation and suffering is described in both texts, Isaiah and 4Q491c. The two compositions share the same verbs: both the Servant and the subject of the Qumran text are despised (verbal stem bāzah) and in describing their positive acceptance of suffering the paired verbs nāśā᾽ and sābal occur in both texts. What is lacking as an explicit element in the Qumran text is the self-sacrificial and atoning quality of the contempt and suffering borne by the Servant, but even here we cannot speak with absolute assurance. Apart from the many lacunae in the the Qumran text, line 9 can be construed to render a sense close to the atoning function of the Isaian Servant: Who bears all afflictions like me? And who bears the burden of evil to compare with me?

In the fourth Servant text the twinned verbs nāśa᾽ and sābal are used exclusively in the sense of bearing the burden of affliction and pain (53:4a) and the iniquity and sin of others (53:11b, 12c). Choice of the same verbs in the Qumran text suggests that something more is intended than a retrospective personal history of sickness, misfortunes, etc., and this would be more clearly the case if the 21  Hengel/Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53”, 143–44 refers briefly to the shared themes of exaltation after humiliation and suffering, and opposition to kings and princes. Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus, 44–45, has also noted similarity at the linguistic level.

184

17  The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran

speaker is identifying himself with the Teacher whose voice is heard throughout the Hodayot. This brings us to the issue which has understandably loomed large for readers of 4Q491c: Who is the incomparable teacher who makes these remarkable claims? Since a connection with the War Scroll is no longer accepted, Baillet’s identification with Michael the archangel has been dropped by practically all scholars in favour of a human candidate.22 Morton Smith, one of the first to offer an interpretation of the text, read it as an ecstatic experience of ascent and deification associated with practices or techniques designed to induce a state of transformed consciousness – the earliest example (he claimed) of a kind of ecstatic mysticism with which Jesus was also familiar.23 Perhaps influenced by local (Brazilian) liturgical practice, Paolo Augusto de Souza Nogeira read it as the speaker’s summons to the congregation to participate ecstatically in the heavenly worship.”24 Others have adopted, often with some hesitation, a collective interpretation in which the speaker represents the group, those addressed.25 John J. Collins, who has returned to this text several times over the last few years, suggests that the speaker is an eschatological figure, a high priest who will atone for sin in the end time. One problem with this hypothesis is the need to rely on the fragmentary 4Q541 (4Q Apocryphon of Levib) for support, a case of obscurum per obscurius.26 Collins was no doubt aware of this and stated his conclusions with due caution, admitting that the identity of the speaker remains mysterious.27 22 

Chazon et al., Discoveries in the Judean Desert 7 (1982), 26–29. Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens,” 181–88; id., “Two ascended to heaven”, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 290–301. 24  See Paolo Augusto de Souza Nogeira, “Ecstatic Worship in the Self-Glorification Hymn (4Q471B, 4Q427, 4Q491C): Implications for the Understanding of an Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Phenomenon”, in Florentina García Martínez (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, BETL 168 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/ Peeters, 2003), 385–93. 25  Emile Puech, La Croyance des Esséniens en la Vie Future: Immortalité, Résurrection, Vie Éternelle? (Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 492–95; Hartmut Stegemann, “Some Remarks on 1QSa, on 1QSb, and on Qumran Messianism” RevQ 17 (1996), 479–505; Martin Hengel, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit”, in Bernd Janowski/Peter Stuhlmacher (eds.), Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 90. 26  Collins/Dimant, “A Thrice-Told Hymn”; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 136–53; id., Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), 147. Esther Eshel takes the same line in “4Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn”, RevQ 17 (1996), 175–203 and id., “The Identification of the ‘Speaker’ of the Self-Glorification Hymn” in Donald W. Parry/Eugene C. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: NewTexts, Reformulated Issues and Technological Innovations (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 619–35, in Chazon et al. (eds.), Discoveries in the Judean Desert 29 (1999), 427–28. 27 Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 147–48. 23 



The Hymn of Exaltation

185

No such caution inhibited Israel Knohl, who identified the speaker with Menahem the Essene, an older contemporary of Herod the Great mentioned in passing by Josephus (Ant. 15:373–79), whom Knohl conflates with the Menahem who “went forth”  – whatever that means – in m. Hag. 2:2 and other rabbinic texts.28 While I remain sceptical about the name Michael Wise has assigned to the Teacher of Righteousness (or Legitimate Teacher) and his reconstruction of the Teacher’s career,29 I find appealing the idea that 4Q491c derives from and was recited by a disciple of the Teacher as a celebration of the Teacher’s life, death, and post-mortem exaltation. If the profile of the Teacher is modelled on the equally anonymous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53,30 we would have a striking parallel with the panegyric pronounced by a disciple after the Servant’s violent death. The most obvious difference, that the “Self-Glorification Hymn” is in the first rather than the third person, might imply more clearly that it was intended to provide a model to which the Teacher’s disciples could aspire.

28  Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus, passim. See reviews by John J. Collins in JQR 91 (2000), 185–90 and Eileen Schuller in Shofar 21 (2002), 153–56. 29  Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1999). 30  Proposals to find the name of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 42:19 (Meshullam), or in Isa  49:3 (Israel) are as hypothetical as the name Judah assigned to the Qumran Teacher by Michael Wise.

18

The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12) 1 The history of the interpretation of Isaiah  52:13–53:12 (hereafter Isaiah 53), including its most recent phase, reveals a range of opinion on the meaning, in relation to God, to the speaker, and to those whom he represents, of the life and death of the unnamed subject of the threnody. This person, designated Servant of the Lord only in the discourse of Yahweh God at the beginning and end (52:13; 53:11b), is nameless, a circumstance which inevitably gave rise to a wide range of speculation as to his identity. While identification of this Servant of the Lord is not in any way an essential precondition for the argument which follows, my own view, briefly stated, is that the one spoken about in Isaiah 53 is the same person who speaks in 49:1–6 and 50:4–9 – Duhm’s second and third Ebedlieder – namely, the prophetic author of Isaiah 40–55, or at least the core of Isaiah 40–55.1 With respect to his relation to God, it is stated explicitly that God afflicted him, though innocent, with severe suffering and persecution (53:4, 6, 10) ending in a violent death unjustly brought about (vv. 7–8), and that in some mysterious way, according to Yahweh God’s design or purpose (v. 10), his death and the many afflictions suffered during his life, served to erase the penalty for sin due to those in Israel represented by the speaker. This substitutionary or vicarious function of the Servant, resistant as it is to many of our taken-for-granted philosophical and theological assumptions, has always been the focal point of the numerous attempts at interpreting the passage and the principal source of disagreement among exegetes, at no time more so than the present. One of the most persistent of the many obstacles to understanding this remarkable and notoriously difficult text, the last of the four so-called “Servant 1 In Isa 49:1–6 the self-description of the speaker draws on aspects of the Jeremiah tradition: he is called by God from the womb (cf. Jer 1:4–5), like Jeremiah, he is one of “the servants of Yahweh”, i. e. prophets (Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19, etc.), and is certain of ultimate success in his mission in spite of present failure (49:5–6, cf. 52:13). On the probable assumption that 49:7–12 is a comment on this servant’s statement, this other speaker insists that, though now despised, he will be honored by kings and princes (49:7, cf. 52:15). The speaker in 50:4–11, whose self-description as prophet is apparent (vv. 4–5), is subjected to greater insults but, like the Servant of Isaiah 53, is assured of final vindication.



The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

187

Songs”,2 is the meaning to be assigned to the term ᾽āšām in Isaiah 53:10, usually translated either “guilt”, or “penalty”, either “guilt offering” (Schuldopfer) or “reparation offering” (Reparationsopfer), depending on the context. The following remarks will focus on the meaning of this term in the context of Isaiah 53:10 and the threnody as a whole. This will prove to be no easy task since this key verse, 53:10, is textually obscure, and, to judge by the early versions, was so even in antiquity. We begin with a close look at this verse. The Masoretic text (MT) may be translated as follows: Yahweh purposed to humiliate him,3 [he brought sickness upon him;4] if his life is laid down as a guilt offering, he will see posterity, he will prolong his days; through him Yahweh’s purpose will succeed.”

The repetition of hepets as substantive at the conclusion of the second verse – here “purpose” fits the context better than “good pleasure” – serves as a kind of inclusio, highlighting the point that the Servant acted as agent for the fulfilling of a divine plan. This may be read as a special instance of the affirmation with which Deutero-Isaiah concludes: “So shall my word be that proceeds from my mouth. It will not return to me unfulfilled without accomplishing what I purposed, and it will succeed in the mission on which I sent it” (Isa 55:11). There is here, in addition, an echo of the beginning of the passage where the success of this purpose is predicted (“See, my servant will succeed”, 52:13). The most intractable problem, however, is with the second half of v. 10a, for which I propose the reading “If his life is laid down as a guilt offering”. This admittedly tentative adjustment assumes the verb repointed as Qal passive, fem.,

2  “So-called” because, whatever else they may be, they are not songs. This designation goes back to Bernhard Duhm’s commentary in which he designated Isa 40:1–4, 49:1–6, 50:4– 9 and 52:13–53:12 as Ebed-Jahweh-Lieder or Dichtungen von Ebed-Jahwe in Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 14, 311. The genre of this last of the four, about a suffering and dying Servant of the LORD, is unclear. It seems to me to combine the characteristics of eulogy and lament, as if delivered by a devoted disciple and mourner over the catafalque of the dead master; compare the panegyric over the body of Julius Caesar as reported by Appian and Cassius Dio. Needless to say, there have been other proposals: e. g. for Gunkel, it is a prophetic liturgy: H. Gunkel, “Jesaja 53: Eine prophetische Liturgie”, ZAW 42 (1924), 177–208; for Julius Morgenstern a drama complete with chorus; see Julius Morgenstern, “The Suffering Servant: A  New Solution”, VT 11 (1961), 292–326. 3 With ‫ דּכּא‬cf. ‫מדּכּא‬, “humilated”, “crushed” (53:5a) and the designations ‫ דּכּא‬and ‫ מדכּא‬for the humble and lowly respectively in Isa 57:15. 4  ‫מחלל‬, 3rd person sing. perfect Hiphil of the verb ‫חלה‬, to be sick. This line is often elided metri causa or for some other reason, but it is consonant with 53:3 where the Servant is said to be no stranger to sickness, and with 53:4 where we are told he took on himself the sickness of others, both with the same verb.

188

18  The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

agreeing with ‫נפשו‬.5 The motivation for this divergence from MT is the impression that reverting to the second person singular (‫ )תשים‬is abrupt and unusual, even if not unprecedented (see, for example, ‫ עליך‬at Isa 52:14a). In this context, however, it is somewhat surprising for the protasis to be in second person and the apodosis in third person, despite the fact that this reading is supported by 1QIsaa and 1QIsab as also by LXX.6 But if, in spite of these misgivings, we retain MT ‫תשים‬, second person, the one addressed would most probably be Yahweh God, and it would convey the idea that Yahweh God assigns to the Servant’s life the character of a guilt offering; a difficult though not impossible meaning for the common verb ‫“( שׂים‬put, place”). On the whole, one would like to think that Jerome’s Vulgate rendering, in the third person, si posuerit pro peccato animam suam … (“If he laid down his life to take away sin”) is the best option, but that cannot simply be taken for granted even though it may most clearly represent the sense of the threnody as a whole.7 The promise that the Servant will see posterity and prolong his days has convinced a few interpreters, in spite of allusions earlier in the text to the Servant’s fate, including his being cut off from the land of the living and reference to his grave and sepulcher, that the Servant’s death is not recorded, that therefore he survived and was alive at the time the threnody was intoned or written.8 But the assurance given that “he will see posterity (literally, “seed”) would, in the context of the book of Isaiah as a whole, refer to prophetic followers who continue long after his death to live by his message. The same point is made in a later, contextually isolated prose saying with probable reference to “the Servants of the Lord” who feature prominently in the later chapters of the book:9 As for me, this is my covenant with them, declares Yahweh: my spirit that rests upon you and my words I have put in your mouth will not be absent from your mouth or from the mouths of your descendants (‫ערז‬, “seed”), or from those of the descendants of your de5  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009), 348. 6  LXX goes in a quite different direction: και κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αυτον τῇς πληγῇς (“The Lord desires to cleanse him from the wound.” Cf. Targum on Isa 53:10, which speaks of Yahweh God refining and cleansing the remnant of his people. 7  A different option was proposed by Mitchell Dahood, “Textual Problems in Isaiah”, CBQ 22 (1960), 406, and taken up by James R. Battenfield, “Isaiah LIII 10. Taking an ‘if ’ out of the sacrifice of the Servant”, VT 32 (1982), 485. Dahood’s reading “Truly, he made himself an offering for sin” comes from redividing ‫ אם תשׂים‬as ‫אמת שׂם‬, warranted, they claim, by the rare occurrence of adverbial ‫“( אמת‬truly”) and absence of mem sofit in 1QIsaa. But Dahood came up with only two examples of adverbial ‫ אמת‬i. e., Deut 13:15 and Ps 132:11, and not all have accepted that it exists in Hebrew as well as in Ugaritic. On the second point: if the 1QIsaa scribe had suspected the reading proposed by Dahood, why did he not just go ahead and divide the words accordingly? 8  See especially Roger Norman Whybray, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 177. 9  Isa 65:8–9, 13–15; 66:14.



The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

189

scendants, declares Yahweh, from this time forward and for ever more (Isa  59:21, my translation).

Moreover, the statement that the Servant will (literally) ”lengthen his days” may also refer to descendants, but in the metaphorical rather than in the biological sense, as disciples active after the death of the master over several generations.10 So understood, this statement in Isaiah 53:10 serves as a link connecting the Servant of the Lord of Deutero-Isaiah (or at least Isaiah 49–55) with the “Servants of the Lord” of Trito-Isaiah, perhaps also with the disciples of the original Isaiah (Isa 8:16).

2 We now come to the key word in this verse. The basic concept of ‫ אשם‬with its associated verbal forms and the closely related ‫אשמה‬, refers in the first place to a sinful and guilty condition of a person, social group, or the nation in general (e. g., Jer 51:5; Ps 68:22). Stated more specifically: it connotes guilt resulting from an offence against God by an infraction of the ritual order, or against another person or persons, constituting a violation of the social order. Contrary to our modern way of thinking, little attention was paid to the subjective and psychological aspects of guilt, or even to the intention of the agent. The emphasis was on objective violations which disturb the ritual and social order, even when done inadvertently. These called for rectification and restoration of the disturbed order, whether by restitution made to the injured party (Lev 20–26) or by satisfaction offered to God by giving God, in effect the temple and its personnel, something of value, generally an animal (Lev 14–19). In all cases, the erasure of the offence, and therefore the guilt, called for a ritual process in which the essential elements were the sacrifice of an animal, also known as the ‫אשם‬,11 provided by the guilty party. This was followed by an atonement rite performed by a priest with the sacrificial animal’s blood. Since the temple priests were responsible for maintaining the ritual order on which the social order, and indeed the cosmic order, depended, the role of the priest was essential for the efficacy of the rite. The ‫ אשם‬ritual (Lev 7:1–6), identical with the ‫( ַחָטַאת‬sin-offering ritual, 7:7), expiates the offence and erases the guilt once (1) the guilty party has handed over as settlement a ram without blemish for sacrificial slaughter, (2) the priest has made atonement by dashing the ram’s blood against the sides of the altar, (3) the fat 10  The expression occurs frequently in Deuteronomy, where Moses addresses the people about to enter the land, but also their descendants (Deut 4:40; 5:16, 33; 6:2; 11:9; 17:20). 11 Usually translated “guilt offering” (Schuldopfer); others, however, prefer “reparation offering” including Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York/London: Doubleday, 1991), 319–78.

190

18  The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

has been burned on the fire causing the smoke to go up like incense, and (4) the sacrificing priest and his priest-colleagues have shared the meat of the sacrificed ram in a common meal. The assessment of the animal’s value in species (“the temple shekel”), and the imposition of an additional fee of 20 % (for example in Lev 5:15–16), reminds us that the sacrificial system also provided a major source of income for temple personnel.12

3 Looking beyond the different meanings attaching to ‫אשם‬, we must now raise the question whether a reading of the entire text supports the sacrificial analogue to the Servant’s function. In the first place, one would think that the simple juxtaposition of ‫ אשם‬and ‫ נפשׁו‬in 53:10a (“a reparation offering”, “his life”) would, in spite of the surrounding textual obscurity, suggest the sacrifice of a human life. LXX 53:10a goes in a direction quite different from MT, but it renders ‫אשם‬ with the paraphrastic expression περὶ ἁμαρτίας, “(an offering presented) on account of sin”. This expression has strong sacrificial resonance, which deserves notice in spite of the second person plural address. More often than not, the LXX translator of Leviticus uses the term πλημμελεια for the the guilt or reparation offering and occasionally for the sin offering, by means of which the offended party is indemnified and satisfied.13 In several of the texts dealing with the guilt or reparation offering in Leviticus (7:7, 37; 14:13; 19:20–22), however, the phrase περὶ (τῇς) ἁμαρτίας (“on account of sin”) appears with the same meaning as in LXX Isaiah 53:10a, closely followed by the Vulgate si posuerit pro peccatis animam suam (“If he should lay down his life to take away sins”).14 If this, or something 12  Examples of the quasi-judicial sense in Gen 26:10; 42:21; Num 5:5–10; 1 Sam 6:1–9. Examples of the guilt offerings for involuntary ritual and moral infractions in Lev 5:14–26 (English translation 5:14–6:7). The special case of an ‫ אשם‬for “leprosy” (psoriasis, leucodermia, ringworm?) is laid out in detail in Lev 14:1–32. On the term in general, see Ludwig Köhler/ Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 95–96; D. Kellermann in G. Johannes Botterweck/Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament [TDOT]: Volume 1, translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 429–37; R. Knierim in TDOT 1, 191–95; Rolf Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten Israel, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 207–11, 227–28; Jacob Milgrom, “The cultic ‫אשם‬: a philological analysis”, in ᾽Avīgdōr Šinān/Malka Jagendorf (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, held at the University of Jerusalem, 13–19 August, 1973 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977), 299–308; David Volgger O. F. M., “Das ‘Schuldopfer’ Ascham in Jes 53:19 und die Interpretation des sogenannten vierten Gottesknechtlieder”, Bib 79 (1998), 473–98. 13  Often in Leviticus chapters 5, 7 and 14. Together with the corresponding verb πλημμελεω, it may have referred originally to a false note in a musical performance. 14  The same phrase does service for the sin offering and for the treatment of “leprosy” in Lev 14:1–32.



The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

191

similar, is the original text and the original sense of v. 10a, the sacrificial nature of the Servant’s sufferings and death would be clearly implied. Another clue to the sacrificial analogy can be found in v. 7b: He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, like a ewe that is dumb before its shearers.

The lamb is one of the animals most acceptable for sacrifice, including the Passover sacrifice. The lamb is explicitly identified with the ‫ אשם‬in the levitical laws about sacrifice, including the complicated proceedings for treating a person with a serious skin disease, which may have been the lot of the Servant.15 The bringing of the victim to the place of slaughter, with the verb ‫( יבל‬Hophal ‫)יובל‬, is, moreover, commonly used in accounts of bringing sacrifices and offerings of different kinds to a deity or potentate.16 Jeremiah’s complaint – or self-justification – that he was “like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter” may have influenced the language of Isaiah 53:7. In the final statement where we hear, once again, the voice heard at the beginning (53:11b–12), we are told that the ultimate triumph of the Servant comes about “since he poured out his life-blood to death” (v. 12b). The combination of ‫“( נפשׁ‬life”) with the verb ‫“( ערה‬pour out”) obliges us to adopt a translation which associates death with bloodshed and, in this instance, sacrificial bloodshed.17 There is an intimate association between ‫נפשׁ‬, the animating principle, and blood, and between blood and expiatory ritual: “The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation” (Lev 7:11, JPS translation) – or, more succinctly with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebr 9:22). The guilt offering is effected by dashing the blood of the slaughtered lamb against the sacrificial altar (Lev 7:1–6). Blood also has an essential part to play in the ritual for the Day of Atonement inclusive of the scapegoat rite (Lev 16). As the sins of the people are carried off into the wilderness, literally, “a cut-off land”, so the Servant is “cut off from the land of the living” (Isa 53:8b). All the iniquities of Israel are placed on the scapegoat’s head, and it bears them away. It is entirely probable that this rite, 15  The term πληγη (cf. Latin plāga) in LXX 53:10a is not specific about the affliction of the Servant, unlike the Vulgate translation of 53:4, nos putavimus eum quasi leprosum (“We considered him to be as it were a leper”). Leprosy, as understood here not necessarily Hanson’s Disease, is suggested at several points in the chapter: “So married was his appearance beyond human likeness” (52:14b), “he was shunned; one from whom people turn away their gaze” (53:3), “smitten by God and afflicted” (53:4). The suggestion was taken up by Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 398, and by one or other exegete since Duhm. The rite for sanitizing the “leprous” person in Leviticus 14 includes the sacrifice of a lamb as a guilt offering, the manipulation and sprinkling of blood, and atonement carried out by the priest. 16  For example, Isa 18:7; Hos 10:6; 12:2. 17 Cf. Ps 141:8 where the psalmist uses the same expression in praying to be saved from death at the hands of enemies, literally, “Do not pour out my life blood”.

192

18  The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

with atonement by means of sacrificial blood (Lev 16:21–22), was in the mind of the author of Isaiah 53. Atonement, the restoration of a relationship with God severed by sin, is essential for the validity of both the sin offering and the guilt offering.18

4 In recent years we have seen significant resistance, especially in German-language scholarship, to understanding the Servant’s mission, fulfilled by suffering and death, by analogy with the sacrificial ritual and the ritual for the guilt offering in particular. The preference for these commentators is for interpreting the function of the Servant in terms of prophetic intercession or some non-cultic form of identification with suffering and sinful Israel, or according to a theory of substitution or “place taking” (Stellvertretung), a concept which has proved difficult to articulate and convincingly exemplify. In addition, some of the same persuasion do not find supporting evidence for the ritual analogue elsewhere in the poem.19 We therefore have the task of deciding whether the term ‫אשם‬, in its immediate literary context, namely Isaiah 53:10, and in the broader context of the threnody as a whole, has a ritual-sacrificial connotation or is to be explained in some other way. I  am arguing that the term itself, supported by indications throughout the threnody, provides sufficient reason to accept the former proposal. The originality of Isaiah 53, surely unique in the Hebrew Bible, resides in the author, a convert to discipleship of the prophetic Servant of the Lord, seeking to render intelligible, by analogy with the death of the sacrificial animal, the idea that by the dispensation of the sovereign God this one innocent person can, through his sufferings and death, take the place, coram Deo, of the many in Israel who are guilty and whose spokesman is the speaker in 43:1–11a. 18 

Lev 5:6, 10, 13, 16; 14:29, etc. Among those sceptical about the sacrificial analogue are the following: Adrian Schenker, “Die Anlässe zum Schuldopfer Ascham” in id., Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 45–66; Bernd Janowski, “Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament”, TLZ 106 (1981), 779–80; id., “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place”, in Bernd Janowski/Peter Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, translated by Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 48–74 [a revised edition of id., Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996)]; Hermann Spieckermann, “The Conception and Prehistory of the Idea of Vicarious Suffering in the Old Testament”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant, 1–15; Heike Henning-Hess, “Bemerkungen zum ASCHAM‑Begriff in Jes 53,10”, ZAW 109 (1997), 618–26; Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant, 16–47 [id., “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied im deuterojesajanischen Kontext”, in: Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), Der leidende Gottesknecht, 1–25]. 19 



The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

193

It may be helpful first of all to take account of objections and alternatives to this interpretation of the threnody. With respect to alternatives, the view that the Servant’s salvific effect on the speaker and those he represented came through intercession has always been an attractive option, especially for those who view the Servant as a prophetic figure. Intercession may well have been part of the Servant’s function, a conclusion on which Jerome’s Vulgate is quite explicit.20 But the verbal form hipgia῾ (vv. 6 and 12), by some translated “intercede”, has a broader range than intercession. The more common verb for interceding, a characteristic prophetic activity, is hitpallel, which always involves verbalization and prayer on behalf of others, which is absent from Isaiah 53. As generally understood, intercession falls far short of adequately describing the Servant’s role in the threnody. One objection which may be fairly quickly set aside is the contention that the cultic laws catalogued in Leviticus and Numbers are later than Isaiah 53.21 As summarized and codified in Lev 7:37–38, the rituals may well be later, pace Milgrom,22 but everything we know about such practices suggests that, in their essential features, they go back long before any date that could be reasonably assigned to their final redaction. In any case, the date of Isaiah 53 itself is also disputed by those who argue that it was added to the book of Isaiah at a later time. Scepticism is also warranted by what is claimed to be the absence of knowledge of the vicariously suffering and dying Servant of the Lord between the composition of Isaiah 53 and the Christian period.23 One factor which complicates this claim, referred to a moment ago, is uncertainty as to whether this chapter is part of the original core of Deutero-Isaiah or a later insertion. One must also take account of interpretations implied in the Septuagint version of Isaiah 53. The Old Greek version, in fact, places the emphasis more on the Servant’s eschatological elevation and glorification and, as the text now stands, it is the people not the Servant who, offer up their lives on account of sin (v. 10b).24 All 20  In the Vulgate the final sentence of Isaiah 53 reads ipse peccatum multorum tulit et pro transgressoribus rogavit (“He bore the sins of many and pleaded for transgressors”). 21  Spieckermann, “The Conception and Prehistory of the Idea of Vicarious Suffering in the Old Testament”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant, 3. 22  Lev 1–16, 3–35. 23  Relevant texts from the late Hellenistic and Greco-Roman period are listed with a brief commentary in Martin Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant, 75–146. Earlier surveys by Gottfried Bachl, Zur Auslegung der Ebedweissagung (Is. 52,13–53,12) in der Literatur des späten Judentums und im Neuen Testament (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1982); Sydney Page, “The Suffering Servant between the Testaments”, NTS 31 (1985), 481–97. 24  “If you [plural] give your life on account of sin, he will see long-lived progeny.” On LXX 52:13–53:12, see Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant, 119–129. Also Isac Leo Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies, MVEOL 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1948); David A. Sapp, “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement”,

194

18  The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

of this notwithstanding, LXX reproduces and confirms much of the sacrificial language of MT. The complete Qumran Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa ) is also at several points different from MT, and some of its textual variants suggest a royal, messianic reading, in some respects like the Targum on Isaiah 53.25 1QIsaa 7:14b, for example, reads as follows: “As many were astonished at you, so I anointed his appearance beyond that of (other) men”; radically different from MT: “Just as many were astonished at him, so marred was his appearance beyond human semblance.” The anointing, together with the sprinkling of many nations in the following verse, explains why the copyist understood the Isaian Servant to be a royal, messianic figure.26 But kings are not the only anointed ones, and in any case one anoints the head, not the face or, much less, the appearance of a person. Something should be said at this point about the book of Daniel, much discussed as constituting an important phase in the history of the interpretation of Isaiah 53. What is probably the earliest appropriation of Isaiah 53 is to be found in the book of Daniel. The attention of exegetes of Isaiah 53 was attracted to this book in the first place by the description of the suffering and death of the leaders of the movement in which the book of Daniel originated during or shortly after the proscription of the Jewish religion by Antiochus IV (175–164 BC): The wise leaders of the people (maskîlê ῾am) shall instruct the many (o rabbîm) who, for a time, shall fall victim by sword and flame, captivity and pillage … Some of the wise leaders shall themselves fall victim, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed until the end which is yet to come at the appointed time (Dan 11:33, 35).

Purification and cleansing may have a sacrificial connotation, but none of the terms which describe the effects of the death reserved for the wise leaders – refining, purifying, cleansing – necessarily have such reference. Like the youths at the Babylonian court, they are versed in every branch of divinely endowed wisdom (Dan 1:4, 17), and this wisdom is passed on to “the many” – either the people in general or, more probably, their disciples.27 A stronger link between in William H. Bellinger/William R. Farmer (eds.), Jesus and the Suffering Servant (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 170–92; Eugene R. Ekblad, Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Leuven: Peeters, 1999). 25  On the Targum, see Klaus Koch, “Messias und Sündenvergebung in Jesaja 53 – Targum”, JSJ 3 (1972), 117–48; Bruce Chilton, The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum, JSOTSup 23 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983); id., The Isaiah Targums. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1990), 103–5; Roger Syrén, “targum Isaiah 52:13–53:12 and Christian Interpretation”, JTS 40 (1989), 201–12. 26  These variants were discussed in the early days of Qumran scholarship by William Hugh Brownless, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible with Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 204–15. 27 The ‫ רבּים‬are taught and given spiritual guidance by the wise teachers in Daniel (11:33; 12:3b), which suggests that the term refers to discipleship. It was taken over with this meaning by the sectarian Qumran movements, as applying to the members, especially in plenary session; see the Community Rule (1Q VI–VIII) and the Damascus Document (CD XIII 7 and XIV 7, 12). Some exegetes have understood the saying of Jesus at the Last Supper to have a sim-



The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

195

the ‫ משכילים‬and the Servant of Isaiah 53 is the promise of ultimate vindication and glorification. Like the Servant who will be exalted, lifted up, and see light (Isa 52:13; 53:11), the leaders of the group will shine like the brightness of the firmament and enjoy astral immortality (Dan 12:3). There is also a close parallel between these wise teachers who are said to bring about righteousness, that is, acceptance by God, for the many (Dan 12:3b), and the Servant of Isaiah 53 who fulfils the same function, expressed practically in the same words (v. 11b).28 The ultimate vindication of the wise teachers in Daniel reproduces in general terms the vindication of the Servant at the beginning of the poem (52:13) and towards its end, in the textually problematic 53:11. Since the phrase “he will be satisfied with his knowledge” does not make good sense in the context, 53:11 may be set out and parsed as follows: ‫ר וישבע‬‫ יראה א‬‫מעמל נפש‬29 ‫[ עבדי לרבים‬30‫ יצדיק ]צדיק‬31‫בדעתו‬ ‫ועונתם הוּא יסבל‬ “After his painful life he will see light and be satisfied. By his knowledge my [righteous] servant will render the many righteous; he bears the burden of their iniquities”.

Dependence on the Servant poem is clear, though it is not equally clear that the sufferings and death of the ‫ משכילים‬have a sacrificial and vicarious character.32 It seems rather that what they do for their disciples is instruction in knowledge about the end time, the spiritual and angelic world, and other heavenly mysteries, thus rendering them righteous. In this limited sense, Daniel 11–12 may be said to contain the earliest interpretation of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiilar meaning: “This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many” (or “the Many”?, Matt 26:28 and parallels). 28  The assurance given at the beginning of the Isaian poem that the Servant’s mission will succeed (Isa 52:13) is another link, indirect to be sure, with the wise teachers of Dan 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10. 29  ‫ר‬‫א‬, “light”, supplied from 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsad and LXX. 1QIsaa has the copula with ‫ישׂעב‬, which supports this scansion by making for a smoother reading. 30  The adjective saddîq should probably be omitted. It should follow the noun, it overburdens the verse; and was probably added on account of the similar yasdîq. ˙ any attempts to find a 31  The scanning of the verse presented here renders unnecessary different meaning for the common substantive da῾at. Examples include: Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Da῾at in Isaiah LIII 11”, VT 28 (1978), 118–22 (“rest”); John Day, “‘Humiliation’ in Isaiah LIII 11 in the Light of Isaiah LIII 3 and Daniel XII 4 and the Oldest Known Interpretation of the Suffering Servant”, VT 30 (1980), 97–103; Anthony Gelston, “Knowledge, Humiliation or Suffering: A Lexical, Textual and Exegetical Problem in Isaiah 53”, in Heather A. McKay/David J. A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday, JSOTSup 163 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 126–41, reads běrā῾ětô, “in his suffering.” 32  As claimed by Harold L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant”, VT 3 (1953), 400–4.

196

18  The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

ah 53. The interpretation is collective, but in the broader context it is also individual since the one “like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven” (Dan 52:13), to whom supreme rule is given, represents “the Saints of the Most High” to whom the kingdom belongs, and they in their turn cannot be dissociated from the wise teachers and their post-mortem destiny.33 It is no doubt this composite image, Servant of the Lord and Son of Man, individual and collective, which dominates the self-presentation of the Jesus of the gospels, most clearly in his predictions of his future sufferings, death, and resurrection. In all these predictive announcements in which we hear clear echoes of Isaiah 53, Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man, never as the Servant of the Lord.34 What is only implicit and hinted at in Daniel is stated explicitly in The Prayer of Azariah, inserted between Daniel 3:23 and 3:24, serving therefore as an expansion of the account of the three youths in the fiery furnace (Dan  3:1–30). The fictitious persecution of Nebuchadnezzar is code for the real persecution of his Jewish subjects by Antiochus IV, whose proscription of the practice of Judaism became the occasion for a new genre, that of the martyrology. In the prayer, written for this occasion and this place in the book of Daniel, the sacrificial language is explicit: With a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, as though with burnt offerings of rams and bulls … And may our sacrifice be in your sight today (1:17).

We cannot be sure that the composer of the prayer had the Servant of the Lord in mind, but the language is consonant with that of Isaiah 53, especially since the Servant also appears to have undergone the death of a martyr: “By oppressive acts of judgments he was led away, and who gives a thought to his fate?” (Isa 53:8a).

At a later point, the author of The Prayer of Azariah speaks even more clearly of sacrificial self-offering in death when those about to die pray that God may accept them “as though it were with burnt offerings of rams and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs, so may our sacrifice be in your sight today!” (1:17).

33  On “the One like a Son of Man”, see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 304–10, and on the “Saints of the Most High”, ibid., 313–19. The “Son of Man” also features in The Book of Parables in First (Ethiopic) Enoch, certainly dependent on Daniel 7 (1 En 37–71), but not as a suffering and dying figure. See Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant, 99–101. 34  Matt 16:21, 17:22–23, 20:17–19 and parallels.



The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)

197

We can therefore detect an interpretative chain – unfortunately with many missing links – from Isaiah 53 to Daniel expanded with several dependent and associated writings. Coming to terms with persecution raised questions, not for the first time, about God’s concern for his people. We see, with different degrees of clarity, how the new phenomenon of martyrdom presented one solution to this problem, the ultimate model for which was found in the idea of death as a willingly accepted sacrifice to God. Looking back, the author of 4 Maccabees makes the point forcibly about those who had died during the persecution. As a result of their sufferings and death, he tells us, the tyrant was punished, their native land was purified for they (the martyrs) had become, as it were, a ransom (ἀντιψυχον) for the sin of our people … By means of the blood (διᾲ το αἱματος) of these devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice (ἱλαστῄριον) divine providence preserved Israel. (4 Macc 17:21–22).3535

While acquaintance with Isaiah 53 is limited in texts extant from the GrecoRoman period and more often than not tacit rather than explicit, it was always likely, if not inevitable, that the Servant of the Lord, whose life and death are the subject of both lament and eulogy in that chapter, would come to serve as the exemplar of sacrificial and atoning suffering and death after the persecution and martyrdom recounted in the book of Daniel and its insertions, material which probably originating in synagogue preaching and worship, and is reflected in narrative form in the four Maccabee books. The sacrificial analogy, exemplified by the suffering and dying Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, was, however, only fully and unambiguously articulated in the language in which early Christian writings expressed the meaning of the life and death of Jesus.

35  For other texts from the pre-Christian period examined by Hengel for traces of influence from Isaiah 53, see Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53”, in Janowski/Stuhlmacher (eds.), 75–146. Hengel does not deal with The Song of Azariah or statements about the victims of the Antiochean persecution in the books of Maccabees. The texts which he surveys and which are omitted here as probably not directly relevant are: Zech 12:9–13:1 and 13:7–9; 1 En 37–71; the Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi; Wisdom chapters 2 and 5; Testament of Benjamin 3:8; and the SelfGlorification Hymn from Qumran (4Q491c).

19

The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom The hypothesis of Bernhard Duhm, first proposed in 1875 in his Dichtungen Theologie der Propheten, according to which Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is the last of four distinctive passages in Deutero-Isaiah about an individual Servant of Yahweh (Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12), has stood the test of time, and for good reason.1 A rapid survey of the incidence of the term ‫( עבד‬servant) will give an at least preliminary idea how these four passages are situated in their literary context. In Isaiah 40–48, the first of the two major sections of Deutero-Isaiah, the prophet occasionally addresses his public as “the cities of Judah” (40:9; 44:26) or as “Jerusalem” (40:24; 41:27; 51:17), but more often than not as “my Servant Jacob-Israel.”2 A major exception is Isaiah 42:1–4, a passage in which Yahweh presents to the nations of the world and their rulers an individual servant, his agent, chosen and sustained for a mission of great importance. Over several centuries of scrutiny this first of Duhm’s Dichtungen has been interpreted in different ways, but most probably the original reference was to Cyrus II, at the time of the prophetic author’s activity, around the middle of the sixth century BC, the anticipated conqueror of Babylon. In the first place, Cyrus is alluded to but not named in the passages immediately preceding and following this act of commissioning (41:25–29; 42:5–9). Furthermore, the establishment of a just international order, repeated three times in this brief address, is the task of a ruler, not a prophet. Cyrus occupies the literally central position in chapters 40– 48 (44:24–45:7), as he must have done in the mind of the prophetic author and in the aspirations and fears of the Judaean survivors of the Babylonian conquest. Karl Budde stated this clearly many years ago: “Cyrus stands at the very center of the prophet’s world view”.3 Isaiah 42:5–9, the passage immediately following 1 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922). In commenting on the first of the four passages (p. 311), Duhm refers to all four as Dichtungen von Ebed-Jahwe but goes on to call the second a Gedicht (p. 367), the third an Ebed-Jahwe Lied and the last a Dichtung über den Knecht Jahwes (p. 393). 2  Isa 41:8–9; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20. 3 “Er (Budde) betont, daß ‘Kyros im Mittelpunkt des Weltbildes des Propheten stehe’”. Karl Budde, cited by Max Haller, “Die Kyros-Lieder Deuterojesajas”, in Hans Schmidt (ed.),



The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

199

the commissioning, adopts the language of Babylonian court protocol for the inauguration of a new reign – the summons from the god, the god grasping the ruler-designate by the hand and presenting him to the people  –, stereotypical language which is used of Cyrus commissioned by the imperial god Marduk in the often-quoted Cyrus Cylinder. Isaiah 42:5–9 therefore seems to have served as an appendix to and commentary on 42:1–4, in this respect similar to the three Dichtungen in the second section of Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 49–55), as we shall see.4 This second section of Deutero-Isaiah differs from the first in a way no less striking than the difference between Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah. In it we hear no more of Cyrus, of central importance in chapters 40–48, and the language of servanthood is limited to Duhm’s three Dichtungen together with their attached comments: 49:1–7, 50:4–11 and 52:13–53:12.5 The only exception, and the only occasion in Deutero-Isaiah where ‫“( עבד‬servant”) occurs in the plural, is 54:17b: This, then, is the lot of Yahweh’s servants, their vindication from me: a word of Yahweh.

This verse concludes chapters 49–54 before the addition of chapter 55 which brings both sections of Deutero-Isaiah to an end, and does so by repeating the emphasis on the efficacy of the word of God expressed in the opening address (40:1–8, cf. 55:10–11). At the same time, 54:17b anticipates one of the principal themes of Trito-Isaiah, namely, the Servants of Yahweh, a group which saw itself as the true “remnant” predicted by earlier prophecy (Isa 65:8–9, 13–15; 66:14). The intent of linking these ‫ עבדים‬with the ‫ עבד‬of 52:13–53:12, as disciples with the master now deceased, would seem to have inspired this note about their destiny and vindication with which Isaiah 49–54 concludes. Each of the three Servant passages in Isaiah 49–55, therefore, has appended to it a comment which in one way or another expands its meaning and scope. Isaiah 49:1–6 is followed by 49:7, or perhaps 49:7–12 which speaks in greater detail about the Servant’s task in relation to “the survivors of Israel.”

EUXARISTERION: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 50. Geburtstag, dem 23. Mai 1922 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 261. 4  For the clay cylinder text, see ANET, 315–16. Its relevance to Deutero-Isaiah has long been acknowledged, beginning with the article of Rudolph Kittel, “Cyrus und Deuterojesaja”, ZAW 18 (1898), 415–21. See also Morton Smith, “II Isaiah and the Persians”, JAOS 83 (1963), 415–21. 5  I shall refer to these passages in a non-committal way as “comments” rather than “commentaries” since the latter gives the impression of a verse-by-verse explanation of or elaboration on the principal text, namely Isa 53:1–10. I considered but rejected the term scholion for a similar reason.

200

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

1.  The Suffering Servant in the Deutero-Isaian Context It also takes up and expands the anonymous prophet’s mission to the nations of the world and gives assurance of its success. The third of Duhm’s Servant passages presents a prophet rejected and subjected to casual physical abuse (50:4–9), to which is appended an appeal to all those who fear God to follow this Servant’s message, reinforced with a severe warning addressed to those who reject it (50:10–11). In both 49:1–6 and 50:4–9 the Servant himself speaks, but in the fourth and last the Servant, now deceased, is remembered and lamented (53:1–10). This account of a life and death marked by suffering is introduced and rounded off with a comment in which, and only in which, the sufferer is identified as the Servant of Yahweh (52:13–15; 53:11–12). Like the comment appended to the second Servant text (49:7–12), this addition gives assurance of the ultimate success of the mission which God had confided to the deceased. The distinction between the central statement (53:1–10) and the comment preceding and following it (52:13–15; 53:11–12) is essential for grasping the meaning and the range of influence of this pivotal text. In the central piece the speaker is, in all probability, a disciple of the dead prophet, perhaps one of the “Servants” of Trito-Isaiah who are assured of vindication, inspired by the life and death of this Servant (Isa 54:17b). The comment is in first person discourse of Yahweh. The distinction in literary character is also apparent. On the literary genre of the central text, about which there is a wide range of opinion,6 little need be said. Since it combines mourning for the dead and memorialization, lament and eulogy, it may be assigned to the category of threnody, represented as intoned by a leading mourner over the catafalque of the recently deceased, somewhat like the panegyric of Mark Anthony over the body of Julius Caesar as described by Cassius Dio and Appian. The comment, on the other hand, reads like an interpretation of the painful life and death, but with less immediacy and at greater distance. Since first person speech is attested explicitly only in 53:11b where the deceased sufferer is identified by the speaker, Yahweh, as “my servant,” the precise point at which the threnody ends and the comment begins remains somewhat uncertain. Nevertheless, a good case can be made for the break between 53:10 and 53:11. Isaiah 53:10 is textually obscure, but it begins and ends with an assurance that what has happened to the sufferer is the outcome of the plan or purpose of God (hps), a conclusion which corresponds to a prominent theme in ˙ ˙ Deutero-Isaiah, apparent in the conclusion to this section of the book about the 6  Examples: for Hermann Gunkel, it is a prophetic liturgy. See Hermann Gunkel, “Jesaja 53: Eine prophetische Liturgie”, ZAW 42 (1924), 177–208. For Julius Morgenstern, it is a drama complete with chorus: Julius Morgenstern, “The Suffering Servant: A  New Solution”, VT 11 (1961), 292–326.

2.  The Fourth Servant Passage Not Originally Part of Deutero-Isaiah



201

word of God “which accomplishes what I purpose and achieves what I send it to do” (55:11). Isaiah 53:10, therefore, serves as an ideal finale to the threnody. At the literary level, the statement in the comment that “he (the Servant) will see light” (v. 11a) creates a verbal and thematic link with “he will see posterity” in the preceding line (v. 10b), just as “what they (kings) have never heard” (52:15b), concluding the first part of the comment, links in sound and sense with “what we have heard” (53:1a) at the beginning of the threnody. I conclude that the entire verse Isaiah 53:11 belongs to the comment which therefore consists in 52:13–15 + 53:11–12. A final word on this division of text and comment is in order. The omission of the word “light” after “he will see” in MT7 seems to have led to filling in the metrical gap with “by his knowledge” from the following line, resulting in the improbable reading “he will be satisfied with his knowledge”. It seems preferable therefore to scan the first part of 53:11 as follows: After his painful life he will see light and be satisfied.8 By his knowledge my servant will vindicate the many.9

This reading is metrically regular and makes better sense than BHS Isaiah 53:11a. The verb ‫ שׂבע‬occurs in Psalms for spiritual satisfaction, satiety of joy in the presence of God, and the beatific vision (Ps 17:15; 63:6; 65:5). But the vindication or, more literally, the rendering righteous of “the many” (here with the article), and doing so by imparting knowledge, introduces a new consideration which will call for an explanation in due course.

2.  The Fourth Servant Passage Not Originally Part of Deutero-Isaiah It has long been suspected, at least since Duhm’s commentary, that these four Servant passages, or at least the fourth which is our present concern, originated in a different milieu and were inserted into the book at a later date. In the first place, all four exhibit traits which only with great difficulty can be attributed to the people as a whole represented as “my servant Israel/Jacob”. This is fully in evidence in 50:4–9 and 53:1–10, in which the reference to disfigurement, illness, and physical abuse is too specific to be applicable to a plurality. It is less transparently so with 49:1–6, but the fact that in this commissioning the one addressed is given a mission to Israel (49:5), at least excludes the possibility that it is ad7 

The word ‫“( אור‬light”) is supplied from 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsad and LXX. ‫וישׂבע‬, with the conjunction, lacking in MT, which supports this reading of the

8 1QIsaa has

text.

9  The adjective ‫ צדיק‬is omitted. It overburdens the verse, it should follow rather than precede the substantive, and was probably added on account of ‫ יצדיק‬next to it.

202

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

dressed to Israel the people, and this in spite of the addition of “Israel” at 49:3 in the Old Greek version. Finally, we have seen that the author of 42:1–4, the Duhmian passage frequently deemed to refer to the people as a whole, probably had Cyrus II in mind in the earliest stage of the formation of Deutero-Isaiah.10 Coming now to the fourth of Duhm’s Dichtungen: its contextual isolation in this section of Deutero-Isaiah is at once apparent. In the first place, it interrupts a series of apostrophes to Jerusalem-Zion (51:17–23; 52:1–2, 7–10; 54:1–17), which take the reader in a quite different direction. It comes immediately after an urgent call to leave Babylon (52:11–12) which, together with the preceding poem about the approach of the herald bringing good tidings (52:7–10), seems to have served at some stage in the long editorial history of the book as a conclusion to Isaiah 40:1–52:6. In this respect the contextual situation of the fourth of Duhm’s Dichtungen resembles that of the second, which also follows an appeal to leave Babylon (48:20–21) and is located directly after the conclusion to the first of the two main divisions of Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–48), both giving the impression of an addendum. A final point apropos of context. If we are justified in reading Isaiah 54:17b (“This, then is the lot of Yahweh’s servants, their vindication from me: a word of Yahweh”) as anticipating the “Servants” of Isaiah 65–66 while linking with the Servant of Isaiah  52:13–53:12, it will provide another piece of evidence for the contextual isolation of Isaiah  52:13–53:12. 10   At this point a parenthesis is in order. I  must express disagreement with the opinion that passages in Deutero-Isaiah which allude to a victorious but unnamed ruler (42:6–7, 45:13, 48:14–16), refer to Darius I and his “pacification” of rebellions throughout the Persian empire after seizing the throne in 522 BC, an opinion which necessitates referring the hostile mention of Babylon in 48:14 to the suppression of the rebellion of Nidintu-Bel (Nebuchadnezzar  III) by Darius in December of that year. In the first place, what the hypothesis attributes to Darius in these passages is assigned to Cyrus in the Cyrus oracle at the center of Deutero-Isaiah – for example, that the god summons him and grasps him by the hand (42:6; 48:15, cf. 45:1, 4), or that he will rebuild Jerusalem (45:13, cf. 44:28) – thus rendering the hypothesis unnecessary. There is also the problem that, shortly afterwards, while Darius was still putting down revolts including a second Babylonian revolt, a prophetic movement, presumably in Jerusalem, was expressing regret at the success of Darius’ new world order while predicting the collapse of the Persian empire in a cataclysmic intervention in world affairs of the God of Israel (Hag 2:20–23; Zech 1:10–17). Among the principal proponents of the hypothesis are Reinhard G. Kratz, Kyros in Deuterojesaja-Buch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55, Forschungen zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991); Odil Hannes Steck, “Israel und Zion: Zum Problem konzeptioneller Einheit und literarischer Schichtung in Deuterojesaja”, in id., Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 173–207. Most recently, to my knowledge, the issue has been addressed by Rainer Albertz, “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40:1– 52:12) in 521 BCE”, JSOT 27 (2003), 371–83. See also Ulrich Berges, who is not persuaded that the substitution of Darius for Cyrus is justified, in Ulrich Berges, “Dareios in Jes 40–55? Zu einem Vorschlag von Rainer Albertz”, in Ingo Kottsieper/Rüdiger Schmitt/Jacob Wöhrle (eds.), Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2008), 255–66.



3.  The Isaianic-Danielic Intertextual Trajectory

203

Rather than referring to what immediately precedes it – a poetic apostrophe to Zion Jerusalem (54:1–17a) – “the lot of the Servants of Yahweh” in 54:17b reads more like a coda to the fourth Servant text, since these Servants, like their dead master, suffer rejection and persecution but are assured of ultimate vindication: “My servants will rejoice while you will be put to shame” (Isa 65:13–15; 66:14b). Add that, like the comment on the suffering and dying Servant in Isaiah 52:13– 15 and 53:11–12, this assurance is also “a word of Yahweh”.

3.  The Isaianic-Danielic Intertextual Trajectory The argument presented so far leads to the following conclusions: first, that the threnody pronounced over the Servant in Isaiah 53:1–10 did not originally belong to the core of Deutero-Isaiah but was added to it subsequently; second, that the interpretative comment is distinct from the threnody, and probably added to it at an even later date, perhaps at the same time incorporating it into Deutero-Isaiah. Lack of evidence makes it impossible to hazard even an approximate date for these later additions to the book of Isaiah. In the late Persian or early Hellenistic period the Chronicler mentions Isaiah only as the historian of the reigns of Uzziah and Hezekiah (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32). In the early years of the second century BC, Ben Sira commends him as “great and trustworthy in his visions” and as the prophet who foresaw what was to happen in the end time – in other words as an apocalyptic seer (Sir 48:22–25). The book of Isaiah, a product of about half a millennium of incremental and cumulative literary production, provides ample evidence for what I have called the Isaianic-Danielic intertextual trajectory. In 1977–1978, Jacques Vermeylen published a two-volume study under the title Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique, subtitled Isaïe I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël. As the subtitle indicates, his study covered only the first of the three sections of the book, and not even all of that, but whatever opinion one may have about the author’s method and the conclusions reached on specific texts, no one doubts that the title and subtitle are justified. Granted this, it would be surprising if there were no intertextual links between the book of Isaiah – the entire book, not just Proto-Isaiah or the so-called “Isaiah Apocalypse” in chapters 24–27 – and the book of Daniel, which may be regarded as a compendium of apocalyptic theology. The intertextual linkage between Isaiah and Daniel amounts to a large area of research which I can venture into here only by way of a few examples.11 In both 11  On the more general prophecy-apocalypticism trajectory, see Otto Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, translated by S. Rudman (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1968); Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975); Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 482–99; Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress

204

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

Isaiah and Daniel spiritual resistance to successive empires is a dominant theme, Daniel taking over where Isaiah leaves off. The events recorded in Daniel are set in the Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid periods, which is to say at the time of the first circulation of Deutero-Isaiah. Another indication is the superimposition of the Seleucid tyrant Antiochus IV on to the Babylonian tyrant Nebuchadnezzar II, both of whom are represented as condemning faithful members of Jewish communities to a martyr’s death by fire.12 Only Isaiah and Daniel in the Hebrew Bible refer to a sealed book containing esoteric matters known only to God but revealed in visions and dreams to a chosen initiate.13 Allusions in Isaiah to the end time, the time of judgment and salvation, are taken up, at times practically verbatim in Daniel.14 Towards the beginning of Isaiah 24–27 we hear the voice of an anonymous seer raised in protest against contemporary liturgical euphoria. Overcome by a visionary revelation of impending judgement he cries out, “I have my secret! I have my secret!” (‫י־לי‬ ִ ִ‫רז‬,ָ ‫רזִ י־לי‬,ָ Isa 24:16b). In the Hebrew Bible the Old Persian loanword ‫( ָרז‬rāz) occurs only here and in Daniel, but among the Qumran apocalyptic sectarians it was a key term for secret knowledge about the end time and other esoteric matters.15 Later in the same section of Isaiah we come across a remarkable affirmation of resurrection from the dead: Your dead will live, their corpses will rise from the dead; you that lie in the dust, awake, and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and earth will bring forth the shades of the dead (Isa 26:19).

This prediction of a joyful conquest of death for those faithful to God, and destruction and oblivion for others (Isa 26:14), is paraphrased in the concluding vision of Daniel: Press, 1995); John J. Collins, “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End”, in id. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Volume 1: The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity (New York/London: Continuum, 2002), 129–61; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 14–23. 12  Ahab and Zedekiah in Jer 29:21–23; the maśkîlîm and their disciples in Dan 11:33, cf. 3:1–30, the youths in the fiery furnace who, however, were miraculously rescued from death. 13  Isa 8:16–18; 29:11–12; 30:8; Dan 12:4, 9. Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book, 8–23. 14  For example: “The Sovereign Lord Yahweh of the Hosts will bring about the destruction that is decreed (‫ )כלה ונחרצה‬in the midst of the earth” (Isa 10:23); “I have heard (in a vision) destruction decreed (‫ )כלה ונחרצה‬by the Sovereign Lord Yahweh of the Hosts over all the earth,” Isa 28:22, cf. Dan 9:26–27, a description of the cataclysmic end time in which will take place the destruction that is decreed (‫)כלה ונחרצה‬. In the Hebrew Bible the verb ‫חרץ‬, Niphal (“decree”) occurs only in these texts and in Dan 11:36, but the Qumran sectarians employed similar language, for example: ‫“( קצ הנחרצה‬the decreed end”, 1QS IV, 25), ‫“( כלה ונחרצה‬the appointed time of the decreed judgement”, 1QS IV, 20), ‫“( מועד משׁפט נחרצה‬the decreed destruction”, 1QHa XVI, 11). 15  Dan 2:18–19, 27–30, 47; 4:6. On Qumran usage, see Otto Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1960), 82–86.



4.  The Suffering and Dying Servant and the Book of Daniel

205

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting abhorrence (Dan 12:12, dērā᾽ôn).16

The term dērā᾽ôn (“abhorrence”, “horror”) occurs only here and in the last verse of Isaiah, in which the faithful go out of Jerusalem to view the corpses of the reprobates, probably in the Valley of Hinnom or Gehenna (Isa 66:24). More to the point, the promise made to the Servant that “after his painful life he will see light and be satisfied” (53:11) fits this same intertextual context of resurrection and final judgment.

4.  The Suffering and Dying Servant and the Book of Daniel The comment on the threnody over the individual lamented in Isaiah  53:110 gives a summary restatement of the transformation in interpreting the life and death of this unnamed sufferer (52:14–15). The comment identifies him as God’s Servant (52:13; 53:11), thereby acknowledging that his destiny is in the hands of God. It has more to say about the eventual outcome for the Servant and those attached to him: he will pass from humiliation to exaltation (52:13), he will see light and be satisfied (53:11), and will be an object of wonder and deference among the great and powerful of the earth who were formerly appalled at his abject condition (53:12). It is therefore only from the comment that we recognize Isaiah  53 as the fourth of the Servant of Yahweh texts identified by Bernhard Duhm, but this is not the only respect in which the comment is distinctive. In Isaiah 53:11b we read that By his knowledge my servant will vindicate the many.

That the servant vindicates or, more literally, renders righteous others by his knowledge, that is, by instruction,17 is attested only in the comment, but 16  See George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertesta­ mental Judaism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972), 70–78; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the early Hellenistic Period, Volume 1 (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1974), 196–202; Ulrich Kellermann, “Das Danielbuch und die Märtyrertheologie der Auferstehung: Erwägungen”, in Jan Willem van Henten (ed.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, Studia Post-Biblica (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 51–75; Ernst Haag, “Daniel 12 und die Auferstehung der Toten”, in John J. Collins/Peter W. Flint, The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume 1 (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2002), 132–48. 17  The parsing of the verse as suggested has the advantage of rendering unnecessary any attempts to come up with emendation or a different meaning for the common substantive da῾at, for example the proposals of Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Da᾽at in Isaiah LIII 11”, VT 28 (1978), 118–22 and John Day, “‘Humiliation’ in Isaiah LIII 11 in the Light of Isaiah LIII 3 and Daniel XII 4 and the Oldest Known Interpretation of the Suffering Servant”, VT 30 (1980), 93– 103.

206

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

much the same is said of the maśkîlîm of the book of Daniel who impart instruction to the many (11:33). They also vindicate them or render them righteous (rabbîm masdiqîm, Dan 12:3), the identical function fulfilled by the Servant ­(Isaiah 53:11b). This link between the Isaianic Servant and the maśkîlîm is strengthened by designating the beneficiaries of the Servant’s knowledge as “the many”. Use of ‫ ׇר ׅבּים‬as substantive, with article (‫הר ׅבּים‬ ַ ‫) ׇ‬, is rare apart from the comment to the threnody (Isa 53:11) and the book of Daniel. In one or two cases it has the more general meaning of a majority, but where both the Servant in Isaiah 53:11b and the maśkîlîm in Dan 12:3b are said to vindicate the many, or instruct them in the way of righteousness, ‫הר ׅבּים‬ ַ ‫ ׇ‬refers to a specific plurality, in all probability a group of disciples. This more specific usage was taken over by the sectarian Qumran communities who applied it to their members, especially in plenary session,18 and some New Testament exegetes have taken the words of Jesus at the Last Supper – “This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many (περί πολλῶν) – to have a similar reference.19 We have another reminder of the maśkîlîm in the opening statement of the comment: ‫ִה ֵנה ֵיְשִׂכּיל ַעְב ִדי‬ ׂ ‫ָירוּם ְו ִנָשׂא ִו ָגַבה ְט‬ ‫אד‬

See my servant will achieve success, he will be highly honored, raised up, and greatly exalted (52:13).20

The meaning more often than not assigned to the verb ‫שׂ ַכל‬, ‫ ׇ‬Hiphil in Isaiah 52:13, namely, “prosper,” “succeed” or the like, is neither unfamiliar nor inappropriate, but the related group of meanings – “understand”, “have insight”, “instruct” – is more frequently attested, is in evidence in the book of Daniel, and is reflected in the participial form ‫ַמְשִׂכיִלים‬, those who have insight and communicate it to others (11:33, 35; 12:3, 10). The Septuagint translates the verb in Isaiah 52:13 with συνῄσει, “he will understand” or “he will have insight” and the same verb (συνῄσουσιν) is used of the maśkîlîm, sharing their learning and God-given insights with “the many” (hārabbîm) in Daniel 11:33. The exaltation of the Servant which follows in 52:13b corresponds with the assurance given in the second section of the comment that “he will see light” (53:11a). The choice of words,21 18 

E. g. 1QS VI–VIII; CD XIII, 7; XIV, 7, 12. Matt 26:28 and parallels. On usage of the term ‫ )ה(רבים‬/ πολλοι, see Joachim Jeremias, in Gerhard Kittel/Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT], Volume 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 536–45 and Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book, 174–78. 20  This translation is from Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009), 34. 21  The semistich is overloaded with three more or less synonymous verbs. LXX, υψωθῄσεται και δοξασθῄσεται σϕοδρα, suggest that ‫ וגבה‬rather than ‫ ירום‬has been added (pace Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 346). 19 



4.  The Suffering and Dying Servant and the Book of Daniel

207

reflects influence from the account of the throne vision in which the enthroned One is described as “high and exalted” (Isa 6:1). This description also serves as an epithet for the deity in Isaiah 57:15a: ‫כהאמר רם ונשׂא‬, (“Thus says the Exalted One”, hendiadys). The promise that the Servant will see light (53:11a) corresponds substantially with the prospect for those maśkîlîm and their associates who had been put to death during the persecution of Antiochus IV (Dan 11:33– 35), that they would “shine like the brightness of the sky … and like the stars for ever and ever” (Dan 12:3). The comment continues by restating the essential point of the threnody – the amazing and unprecedented contrast between the humiliation and exaltation of the Servant: Just as many were once appalled at him,22 so will he astonish many nations,23 on his account kings will be reduced to silence.

Since this is a restatement of the threnody, among the appalled would have been those represented by the speaker in Isaiah 53 who at one time held the Servant in low esteem and had concluded that his condition was the result of divine punishment (53:3–4). But at some point, by what means we are not told, their understanding of the Servant and his mission underwent a radical reinterpretation, and they themselves experienced a corresponding change from disillusioned spectators to disciples, a conversion to discipleship which gives this text its unparalleled emotional power. These disciples are joined, in the comment, by representatives of foreign nations and their kings who play no part either as actors or spectators in the central text, but reappear in the concluding section of the comment as the great and powerful among whom the Servant will be numbered (53:12a). The Danielic vision series, located during the reigns of Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus (7–12), also place the maśkîlîm and their disciples on a part with nations and kings. The restoration of the Servant’s standing among the nations, however it was envisaged, is related to the conviction that “he poured out his life-blood to death” (53:12b). The death, willingly accepted, of the Servant could then serve as a model for the many in Israel who, in a time of persecution, as 1  Maccabees  1:62–63 relates, “chose to die rather than profane the covenant, and they did die (1 Macc 1:62–

22  Reading “at him” for MT “at you.”. MT Isa 52:14b is often suspected of having been located originally after 53:2 and therefore out of place in this sentence, and with reason. It would be unusual to have two consecutive verses beginning with ‫כן‬, and the repetition of ‫ מראה‬and ‫ תאר‬in reverse order makes a good fit after 53:2b. The point seems to be to mark the contrast between the reaction of the many to the abject condition of the Servant in the past and his anticipated exaltation, a contrast articulated by the particles ‫ כאשׁר‬and ‫כן‬. Anticipating and duplicating the account of the Servant’s condition would be out of place at this point. 23  ‫נזה > יזה‬, usually “sprinkle” (in a cult context) or “spatter” (Jezebel’s blood, 2 Kgs 9:33; Edomite blood, Isa 63:3) is well attested, but the context favours LXX θαυμασονται, “they will be astonished”.

208

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

63). Among those who died were disciples of the maśkîlîm and some of the maśkîlîm themselves: Those who impart wisdom to the people (i. e. the maśkîlîm) instruct the Many, but they (i. e. the Many) will for some time fall victim to sword and flame, captivity and plunder …. Some of the maśkîlîm will also fall victim, so that they may be tested, purified and made shining white until the end time, for it is still to come at the appointed time (Dan 11:33– 35).

In several respects, therefore, the comment relates more directly than the threnody to the situation of present crisis and future expectations in the book of Daniel. The last phrase of its first section, “what they had never heard they now understand,” juxtaposed with the rhetorical question with which the threnody begins: “Who would believe what we have heard?,” prepares for the drama to follow, the passage from the pain and humiliation of the Servant to his exaltation and, at the same time, the transition from incredulity to dawning comprehension and, eventually, to acceptance of the design of God.

5.  The Servant Remembered by Way of Prophetic Succession The book of Daniel contains the earliest clearly detectable allusions to the fourth Servant text, a conclusion reached by Martin Hengel after a thorough survey of references to the Suffering Servant prior to early Christianity.24 Most of the texts surveyed are later than Daniel, including The Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37–71), the Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi (4Q 540–541), the so-called Self-Glorification Hymn (4Q491c), and those passages in Wisdom of Solomon in which the righteous individual, referred to as παῖς κυριον, is persecuted by the reprobates.25 One text which is certainly earlier is Zechariah 12:9–14, comprising two passages, each introduced with the eschatological formula ‫“( ביום ההוא‬on that day”). The context of this record of mourning for one who had been pierced through, with its repeated reference to “the house of David” and its echoes of the death of king Josiah at Megiddo, obliges us to identify the unnamed “Pierced One” as a royal figure of the line of David.26 The anonymous author, writing in the late Persian 24  Martin Hengel, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period”, in Bernd Janowski/Peter Stuhlmacher (eds.), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, translated by Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 75–146 [an updated and expanded version of id., Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, Forschungen zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). The same conclusion was reached, following a very different route, by Harry L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant”, VT 3 (1953), 400–4. 25  Wis 2:10–20, 3:1–9, 5:16. 26 Discussion and references in Joseph Blenkinsopp, David Remembered. Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 156–60.



5.  The Servant Remembered by Way of Prophetic Succession

209

or early Hellenistic period, may have had Isaiah 53 in mind, but nothing in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 suggests that the Servant was a royal figure either in historical reality (Jehoiachin, Zedekiah), or designated as such (Zerubbabel), or as an eschatological projection.27 The functions assigned to the Servant are those of a prophet rather than a king, in which respect the fourth Servant passage is consonant with the second and third (Isa 49:1–6 and 50:4–9). An intriguing conclusion following from the review of these verbal and thematic intertextual links is that they refer to the comment much more than to the threnody.28 This is not to suggest that the comment was originally a text composed without reference to the threnody, a conclusion ruled out by the connecting verbal links at the beginning and end of the centrepiece. The reason may be that the comment states more comprehensively the significance of the sufferer’s life and death and his passage from humiliation to exaltation. As to when this expansion of the Suffering Servant text took place, and by what means it came to be known and taken up by the author or authors of the book of Daniel, we can only speculate. In a time of crisis and persecution an author accustomed to drawing on the book of Isaiah for inspiration could hardly fail to turn to the Suffering Servant text with its high emotional charge and its promise of ultimate vindication. But perhaps it is possible to go a step further and explore the possibility that the memory of the Servant’s sacrificial life and death was preserved and transmitted within a prophetic group active over several generations and known to us under different titles at different times. If this option is taken up, we might start with the assurance that the Servant will see posterity (‫זרע‬, “seed”) and prolong his days (53:10b). Rather than interpreting this promise with reference to the Servant’s survival of death, which would contradict clear indications to the contrary in the threnody, we may refer it with greater plausibility to his spiritual progeny, in other words, his prophetic disciples. This same “progeny” may be mentioned elliptically and in passing later in the book (Isa 59:21): This is my covenant with them, declares Yahweh: my spirit that rests upon you and my words that I  have put in your mouth will not be absent from your mouth, nor from the mouths of your descendants, or from the mouths of the descendants of your descendants … from this time forward, and forever more. 27  The inventory of individuals identified as the Servant of Duhm’s fourth Dichtung assembled by Christopher R. North more than seventy years ago has not, to my knowledge, been added to since then. It includes several actually or potentially royal figures: Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiachin, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel. See Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study (2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955). The first edition was published in 1948. 28  The most prominent of these links are: the maśkîlîm who instruct and vindicate “the many”, Dan 11:33; 12:3, cf. Isa 52:13a, 53:11b; their death as a refining, testing, purifying and cleansing event for themselves, Dan  11:35; their exaltation and bright luminence like the firmament of heaven, Dan 12:3, cf. Isa 52:13b, 53:11a.

210

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

The language – the spirit resting on an individual (cf. Isa 42:1; 61:1), and words put into his mouth (cf. Deut 18:18; Jer 1:9) – clearly indicates a prophetic succession, and use of the term ‫ זרע‬establishes a possible connection with the promise to the Servant who will “see progeny”. Equally cryptic allusions elsewhere in the book may point in the same direction: The Righteous One has perished, and no one takes it to heart; the devout are swept away, and no one gives it a thought. It was on account of evil that the Righteous One was swept away. He enters into peace (Isa 57:1–2a).

The first title, which must refer to a specific but unnamed righteous person, was assigned to the Servant in Isaiah 53:10 LXX, and the Servant’s death was likewise the object of neglect (“Who gives a thought to his fate?”, 53:8). The second title is the equivalent of Hasidim, a prophetic group active during the crisis recorded in the visions in Daniel 7–12, as we shall see.29 Speculation also surrounds the person of the teacher who will no longer remain hidden, mentioned without name or explanation in an address to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Your teacher will no longer remain hidden. Your eyes shall see your teacher, and whenever you turn aside to the right or the left your ears shall hear a word spoken behind you; ‘This is the way, keep to it.” (Isa 30:20–21).

The Servant not only suffered and died on behalf of those who followed him, but communicated his knowledge to them in common with other prophets. In other words, he was also a teacher.30 Any attempt to reconstruct a prophetic continuum between the Isaianic Servant and the group within which the book of Daniel came into existence would begin with the Servants of Trito-Isaiah, disciples of the Servant of Isaiah 52:13– 53:12, a prophetic-eschatological group described as a despised minority (65:13– 16), the good grapes in a rotten bunch (Isa 65:8–10), and destined for ultimate vindication in the end time when God would acknowledge them as his own (66:14–16). Closely related, or even identical with these Servants, would be 29  A connection of Isa 57:1–2 with the Servant of Isaiah 53 was proposed by James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A  Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40–66 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 240–41 and, more recently, by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York/London: Doubleday, 2003), 148–52; id., “Who is the Saddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2?”, in Peter W. Flint/James C. VanderKam (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 109–20. 30 More on this text in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 419–21; id., “Who is the Teacher in Isa 30:20 who will no longer remain hidden?”, in Werner G. Jeanrond/Andrew D. H. Mayes (eds.), Recognizing the Margins: Developments in Biblical and Theological Studies. Essays in Honor of Sean Freyne (Dublin: Columbia Press, 2006), 9–23.



5.  The Servant Remembered by Way of Prophetic Succession

211

those, also in Trito-Isaiah, who “tremble at God’s word” (‫חרדים‬, “Tremblers”), pietists hated and ostracized by their contemporaries but assured of vindication and a share in the vision of God’s glory on the day of judgment and salvation (Isa 66:1–5). This title, familiar from the history of Christian sectarianism (e. g. Quakers, Shakers) and still in use among Ultra-Orthodox Jews, is also borne by Ezra’s immediate circle of supporters in the sectarian golah group (‫בני הגו‬, Ezra 9:4; 10:3). It was therefore an identifiable group rather than a generic term applied to fervent adherents to the Law. Not far removed in time are the “Godfearers” in Malachi 3:16–21 (3:16–18; 4:1–3) who confer together in expectation of God’s imminent intervention in human affairs, and whose names are recorded in a “book of remembrance” (Mal 3:16–18).31 At this point, during the second century of Persian rule, the lack of relevant source material counsels a different approach. In his account of the crisis provoked by Antiochus IV (175–164 BC), the author of 1 Maccabees refers to a conventicle of the devout (συναγωγῂ Ασιδαίω, 1 Macc 2:42) with an intense commitment to the Law, some sixty of whom were treacherously slaughtered by the renegate high priest Alcimus (1 Macc 7:12–18). These Hasidim were actively involved in the struggle against the campaign of Antiochus to proscribe Jewish religious practices, initially even refusing to defend themselves when attacked on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:29–38; Josephus, Ant. 12:272–276). Their συναγωγή corresponds to the qeˇhal hasîdîm, the assembly of the Hasidim in Ps. 149, the ˙ most “hasidic” psalm in the collection. The author of 1 Maccabees cites a similar psalm, Psalm  79:2–3, apropos of the massacre of members of their conventicle by Alcimus: “The flesh of your devout ones … and their blood they poured out all around Jerusalem.” The psalm may have been cited from memory since MT reads: “They gave the bodies of your servants as food for the birds of the sky/the flesh of your devout ones to the beasts of the earth” – a striking parallelism between Servants and Hasidim. In Psalm  116:15–16, likewise, an affirmation of the great value of the death of Yahweh’s hasîdîm is followed by ˙ the psalmist reminding Yahweh that he, the speaker, is one of Yahweh’s servants. Martin Hengel pointed out that these Hasidim as presented by the historian appear to be well organized enough to suggest that they had been in existence for some time prior to the Seleucid epoch, and Otto Plöger ventured further in 31  On this first stage during the two centuries of Persian rule, see Alexander Rofé, “Isaiah 66:1–4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as viewed by Trito-Isaiah”, in Ann Kort/Scott Morschauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 205–17; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period”, in id., King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 165–201; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period”, CBQ 52 (1990), 5–20; id., “The ‘Servants of the Lord’ in Third Isaiah: Profile of a Pietistic Group in the Persian Epoch”, in Robert P. Gordon (ed.), This Place Is Too Small For Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 392–412.

212

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

associating them with the formation of the Latter Prophets some time during the second century of Persian rule.32 Even if we hesitate to accept the hypothesis that the book of Daniel and the earliest sections of 1 Enoch originated among the Hasidim,33 there can be no doubt that the latter played an important role in the events which the book of Daniel narrates.

6.  The Lure of Martyrdom The circumstances surrounding the Servant’s death are obscure, but the language permits the conclusion that he was put to death rather than having died as a result of illness, perhaps leprosy as suggested by Duhm following Jerome’s Vulgate (nos putavimus eum quasi leprosum). We are practically told as much in the recital of the threnody: ‫( מעצר וממשׁפט ל׷ח‬53:8a)

Literally translated, this reads, “By oppression and by justice he was taken.” The preposition in ‫ מעצר‬denotes instrumentality,34 and “oppression” and “justice” should be read as hendiadys, signifying an oppressive judicial act, in other words, a miscarriage of justice, as a result of which he was “taken away”, namely, to execution. The author of the comment seems to have understood it in this way since he concluded that the Servant “poured out his life-blood to death and was numbered among transgressors” (53:12b); in other words, his death involved violence and bloodshed and was, to all appearances, the death of a criminal. If, as I think probable, the anonymous individual of the three Servant texts in Isaiah 49–55 is the one we refer to as Deutero-Isaiah, it would not be out of place to suggest, given the political views expressed in this section of the book, that he was executed by the Babylonians; but in the absence of evidence this proposal remains in the realm of speculation.35 The prohibition of Jewish religious practices by Antiochus Epiphanes  IV created, for the first time in the history of the people of Israel, the situation where 32 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Volume 1, 175; Otto Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, translated by S. Rudman (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 114–16. See also Philip R. Davies, “Hasidim in the Maccabean Period”, JJS 28 (1977), 127–40; John Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A  Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988); John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 62–67. 33 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Volume 1, 178. 34 Compare Ps 107:39, ‫“( מעצר רעה ויגון‬When they are diminished and brought low through oppression, trouble and grief ”). 35 On Deutero-Isaiah’s sponsorship of Cyrus II, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel,” 54–70, reprinted in Alan Lenzi/Jonathan Stökl (eds.), Divination, Politics and Ancient Near Eastern Empires (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 129–43.



6.  The Lure of Martyrdom

213

the believer determined to remain faithful to the ancestral religion could be confronted with the choice between fidelity and death. The situation may be implied but is not clearly articulated in the visions in Daniel 7–12. We are told that some among the maśkîlîm and the rabbîm would fall victim to sword, flame, captivity and plunder, and that, in dying, the maśkîlîm would be refined like gold, purified, and rendered shining white (Dan 11:33–35, cf. 12:10).36 These effects may hint at a death like the death of the Servant, but the effect is limited to the individual victim; nothing is said either about salvific effects on others or even about death as a personal choice. The situation is more explicit in the narratives in Daniel 3 and 6, which have their origin in a milieu different from that of the visions. In the first, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, renamed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego respectively, refuse to worship the golden statue set up by Nebuchadnezzar and are condemned to die in the furnace; in the second, Daniel, renamed Belteshazzar, refuses to worship the apotheosized Darius and is condemned to share space with the lions in their den. In both instances, therefore, the victims accept death by a deliberate choice but a miraculous intervention prevents the consummation of the martyrdom. Another feature common to both is that the executioners receive the punishment they were themselves charged to inflict.37 For the author of 1 Maccabees these two episodes conclude the list of heroic examples of religious fidelity traced back to Abraham (1 Macc 2:51–60). After a vivid summary of the persecution by Antiochus, 1  Maccabees concludes by celebrating the many in Israel who stood firm, choosing to die rather than profane the holy covenant even by such an apparently minor precept as abstaining from food considered ritually unclean (1:62–63). A full-scale exemplum is the martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother in 1 Maccabees 7:1–42. This account may be considered the prototypical martyrological narrative, of a kind often replicated in Jewish and Christian examples of the genre. Prominent features of the genre are detailed and often gruesome accounts of tortures interspersed with much talking: lengthy denunciations and imprecations on the one side and defiance of the tyrannical torturer on the other. Prominent in this prototype are the frequent expressions by the martyrs of confidence in the resurrection from the dead for themselves and judgement awaiting those inflicting the punishment. With the account of the martyrdom of Eleazar, priest, scribe 36 This third transformation refers to white robes, which may imply martyrdom, cf. Rev 7:9–17, the multitude robed in white standing in the presence of the Lamb, with the palm branch signifying victory in their hands, who had come through the great ordeal, washed in the blood of the sacrificial Lamb. 37  The men carrying out the king’s orders were incinerated instead of the three youths (3:22), and Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with a disease for seven years which deprived him of his humanity (Dan 4:19–33). Daniel’s accusers, together with their wives and children, were thrown into the den after Daniel was miraculously saved (Dan 6:24). This redirecting the punishment on to the agents whose task is to inflict it is a topic frequently encountered in the genre of martyrology.

214

19  The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom

and philosopher in 4 Maccabees 5–7, a later example of the genre, the emphasis is, however, as much on providing a model of courage, justice and piety in the Stoic manner as of fidelity to the precepts of the Law. While it is clear that the author of Daniel 11–12, and perhaps of the entire book in its Hebrew-Aramaic form, is familiar with and influenced by Isaiah 52:13 and 53:12, as we have seen, the vicarious and sacrificial nature of the Servant’s painful life and death, most clearly articulated in the threnody, is no more than implicit. It is only in the first of the additions to the book in the Greek versions, Azariah’s Prayer, that this fuller understanding of the martyr’s death is articulated. The Prayer is interpolated in Daniel 3 between verses 23 and 24, therefore as an expansion to the account of the ordeal of the three youths in the furnace (Dan 3:1–30). It is ascribed to Azariah, assigned the Babylonian name Abednego (Dan 1:6–7), one of the three pious youths who will respond jointly, in the second addition, to their miraculous salvation from the fire with a psalm of praise to Yahweh, God of their ancestors (Verses 28–68). Like some of the canonical psalms, Azariah’s prayer is essentially a communal confession of sin which has resulted in the desperate situation in which Azariah’s fellow-Jews now find themselves. Azariah’s response to this situation is the self-offering of martyrdom: Yet with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, as though it were with burnt offerings of rams and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs; such may our sacrifice be in your sight today, and may we unreservedly follow you, for no shame will come to those who follow you (3:16–17 NRSV).

Though there is no allusion to the suffering and dying Servant of Isaiah 52:13– 53:12, the self-offering of the youths is expressed in similarly explicit sacrificial terms, and its representational and vicarious character is apparent from the communal confession of sin which leads up to it. Moreover, the complaint in the verse immediately preceding that the temple, profaned by Antiochus, is no longer accessible, suggests that the self-offering of the youths is being presented as a substitute for the sacrificial offerings in the temple, now suspended. Both of these features, the sacrificial analogue and the vicarious effect of the martyr’s death, are present in the account of the martyrdom of Eleazar in 4 Maccabees. At the point of death, Eleazar prays to God to make his blood the purification (καθᾴσιον) of God’s people, and to take his life as their ransom (ἀντίψυχον).” (4 Macc 6:29). As a result of their sufferings and death, he tells us, the tyrant was punished, their native land was purified, for they had become, as it were, a ransom for the sins of our people … By means of the blood of these devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine providence preserved Israel (17:21–22).38 38 

On the Song of Azariah and the martyrdom texts in general, see W. Howard Bennett, “The



6.  The Lure of Martyrdom

215

There is no explicit reference here to the Servant of either the threnody or its comment, no more than there is, for example, in Rom 3:21–26, where similar sacrificial language is used of the death of Jesus (ἀπολυτρωσις, ἱλαστηριον, ἐν τω αῦτου αἱματι), but the figure of the Servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 nevertheless casts a long shadow over both.

Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Children”, in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudigrapha of the Old Testament in English [APOT], Volume 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 625–37; van Henten (ed.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie; Ernst Haag, “Das Sühnopfer der Gotteszeugen nach dem Asarjagebet des Buches Daniel”, TTZ 116 (2007), 193– 220; Heinz-Dieter Neef, “Das Gebet des Asarja – Daniel 3,26–45 LXX und Theodotion”, in Hermann Lichtenberger/Ulrike Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 123–48; Thomas Hieke, “Atonement in the Prayer of Azariah”, in Géza G. Xeravits/József Zsengellér (eds.), Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 43–59.

20

The One in the Middle The Text (Isaiah 66:17) As for those who consecrate and purify themselves to enter gardens, following the one in the middle, who partake of swine’s flesh, unclean things, and rodents; their deeds and their devices will together come to an end. A word of the Lord.1

The description of this cult, deviant from the writer’s perspective, appears to be contextually isolated, as one of several addenda or appendices to the book of Isaiah. Following on the judgement by fire immediately preceding (66:15–16), it could have served to make the point that the practitioners of such garden cults condemned earlier together with several others (65:1–7), are included among those subject to this judgement. At any rate, 65:1–7 and 66:17 have enough in common to permit the conclusion that they derive from the same source, one keenly concerned with idolatrous practices. The only other reference to garden cults occurs in the first chapter of the book (1:29), in a passage which serves as inclusion with a part or all of the last chapter (1:27–31). Both 65:1–7 and 1:29 may be of help in understanding the nature of the ritual condemned in 66:7. An immediate obstacle to understanding is the enigmatic phrase “following the one in the middle” (᾽ahar ᾽ahad battāwek). The textual situation can be summarized as follows: Kethiv ᾽ehad (masc.) has the support of Theodotion according to Jerome (alter post alterum). Peshitta also prefers a male hierophant (had bātar had) and is the source of REB’s intriguing “one after another in a magic ring.” But Qere ᾽ahat (fem.) is supported by more than thirty Hebrew manuscripts in addition to both Qumran Isaiah scrolls and probably also the Vulgate.2 As often in LXX, Isaiah, a difficult text, is rendered freely. Here, it reads: “They who sanctify and purify themselves for the gardens, and eat swine’s flesh and their abominations and mice in the 1  Textual notes: “to enter”: the verb is supplied; “unclean things”: retaining MT šeqes over the objection of Duhm and others who emend to šeres, a generic term for small insects e. g. Lev  5:2 and 11:10; šeqes (1QIsaa šiqqûs) refers to any object which renders one ritually unclean (Lev 7:21; 11:10–13; Ezek 8:10); “Their deeds and their devices” is transferred from 66:18 where it is unintelligible. See Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 486. 2 Vulgate post ianuam intrinsecus (“behind the door inside”) is probably a corruption of post unam intrinsecus, (“after one [female] inside”).



The Preparation

217

forecourts (en tois prothurois) shall together be consumed, says the Lord.” Since “in the forecourts” cannot be construed as a translation of anything in 66:17, it seems that the translator was influenced by Ezekiel 8 where the reprehensible cult practices revealed to the prophet during his supernaturally guided tour of the Jerusalem temple are represented as taking place in the forecourts of the sanctuary (epi tōn prothurōn tēs phulēs, Ezek 8:7 LXX). The Targum also seems to have read ᾽ahat, feminine, since it substitutes a feminine noun for this word: “They who assemble and purify themselves for the gardens of the idols, one company after another” (sî῾ā᾽ bātar sî῾ā᾽). Similar readings can be found in the rabbinic exegetical tradition: Ibn Ezra, Saadia Gaon, Yefet ben Eli, et al. We may therefore break the deadlock over ketiv/qere which, according to Barthélemy, froze his text committee, by opting for a female rather than a male hierophant.3 It was no doubt inevitable that this strange expression would set off a flurry of emendations, especially in view of dalesh/resh confusion. Emerton listed some of these and himself offered, in a revised form, an ingenious proposal of David Winton Thomas, to the effect that these three words resulted from vertical dittography with the previous line. We owe an equally ingenious suggestion to Charles Cutler Torrey, one of the enfants terribles of Biblical Studies. Torrey proposed that the original text read ᾽ehad ᾽ahar ᾽ehad (“one [male] after another”) to which was appended a marginal note ᾽ahar battāwek, meaning “the word in the middle is ᾽ahar” which marginal note then found its way back into the text.4 But MT makes good sense and should be retained.

The Preparation Like other closely related denunciations of “pagan” cult practices in Isaiah 56– 66, Isaiah 66:17 is not forthcoming with either information on the ritual in question or a fair and objective evaluation of it. Read critically, however, these texts can provide some credible evidence about religious practices below the radar of official religion in Judah of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods.5 3  Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’ancien Testament, 2: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 462. 4  John A. Emerton, “Notes on Two Verses in Isaiah (26:16 and 66:17”, in id. (ed.), Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 6th September 1980. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 150 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 21–25; Charles Cutler Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1928), 474. 5  Several interpreters of Isaiah have dated these practices to the Hellenistic period; see most recently Odil Hannes Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja, Beiheifte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 203 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 38–40, 229–30, 273–74. In most cases,

218

20  The One in the Middle

The preparation for taking part in ceremonies in the garden is stated only in the most general terms, with reference to participants who are consecrating and purifying themselves. We can nevertheless make some progress by looking at comparable situations in that culture and elsewhere. We can be sure that all significant cult activities required a preliminary sacralisation of place, time, and officiants. One essential feature is the absolute prohibition of encroaching on the temenos in the pre-initiation phase. We recall the instructions issued prior to the Sinai theophany: “You must set limits to the people all around. Take care not to go up the mountain or touch its confines; anyone who touches the mountain must be put to death” (Exod 19:12). Both the encroacher, deliberate or inadvertent, and in due course the initiate are “sanctified”; they become měqaddēš, taboo, untouchable, by contact with the cult enclosure. This will explain the point made by the initiate in Isaiah 65:5: “Do not come near me, for I have been “sanctified” with respect to you.” Forbidden contact may also throw a sliver of light on the Woman’s reply to the Snake in the Garden of Eden: they were forbidden under pin of death, she told him, not only to eat from but to touch the sacred tree (Gen 3:4, cf. Exod 19:13). This prohibition was normal practice just about everywhere. In the Eleusinian mysteries, for example, any uninitiated person passing beyond the door into the telesterion was subject to the death penalty.6 In the Sinai episode the consecration consisted in the male participants washing their clothes and abstaining from sexual activity (Exod  19:14–15). Washing or changing clothes and bathing the body were common features of purification rituals. Since body fluids induce ritual pollution, sexual abstention was also necessary, and was often accompanied by fasting. Other preparatory acts attested in biblical texts are shaving body hair (Lev 14:8–9; Num 8:8), sprinkling with water or blood (Lev 14:7; Num 8:7), and sacrificing (Num 8:8; 1 Sam 16:5). Candidates for muesis at Eleusis first bathed in the sea, fasted, and underwent a purification ceremony seated with their heads shrouded on a stool covered with a fleece. We do not hear of sexual abstention at this point, but the hierophant, and probably all taking part, were expected to abstain during the msyteries.7

however, we cannot decide on the basis of the cult phenomenon itself, and the context is not always helpful. 6  Walter Burkert, Griechische Religion der archäischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1977), 429. 7 Kevin Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 64 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society), 45– 46; 116.

The Location



219

The Location The garden (gannāh here and Isa 1:29–30; 65:3) as a location for cultic activity calls for some explanation. As Ibn Ezra noted in a rare lapse into humour, this is not a vegetable garden but a grove or park  – paradeisos in the Septuagint.8 Garden symbolism evokes plenitude and abundance of life, and its primary associations are with running water (Num 24:6; Isa 58:11; Jer 31:12; Cant 4:12, 15) and, of course, trees among which we hear frequent mention of cedar, palm, and fruit-bearing trees.9 In the Neo-Assyrian version of Gilgamesh (5:1), the cedar mountain of Lebanon is called the abode of the gods, recalling Ezekiel’s “cedars in the garden of God” (Ezek 31:8–9) and the streams flowing from Lebanon in he garden of the beloved in Canticles 4:15. Palace gardens or groves created by monarchs to impress visitors and enhance royal status, like the splendid gardens of Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal, are attested in inscriptions and iconography from the Near East. An Assyrian prince had a dream in which he saw the shade of a predecessor receiving permission from the god Ashur to rebuild the akitû house “in the garden of abundance, the image of Lebanon”.10 Another example is the “Court of Palms”, a lush palace garden in a wall painting from the palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari.11 Gardens provided an appropriate setting for ritual activity, and especially for the ritual celebration of the union of male and female deities. Enki impregnated Ninhursag and several of her linear descendants in Dilmun, place of “the waters of abundance” – at one time a candidate for the real Garden of Eden. During the Neo-Assyrian period, the final act of the akitu festival took place outside the city, in the Garden of Abundance. The most fully documented case is the erotic encounter between the god Nabû and the goddess Tashmetu, which began in the ritual bedchamber and ended on the eleventh day of the festival in the sacred garden. Martti Nissinen has drawn attention to parallels, some practically verbatim, between this text and the “garden of love” scene in the biblical Canticle.12 While the dramatis personae in the Canticle are definitely human, the ritual undertones are unmistakable. 8 

Gen 2:8; Qoh 2:5; Cant 4:13 in LXX. Num 24:6; Isa 1:29–30; Jer 29:5, 28, etc. 10  Edward Lipiński, “Garden of Abundance, Image of Lebanon”, ZAW 85 (1973), 358–59. 11  Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theory 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 94–102. 12  Martti Nissinen, “Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tašmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?”, in Manfred Dietrich/Ingo Kottsieper (eds.), ‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf ’: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 585–634; id., “Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love”, in Robert M. Whiting (ed.), Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological approaches to intercultural influences, Melammu Symposia 2 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 93–135. 9 

220

20  The One in the Middle

A garden is appropriately the abode of a deity, or at least frequented by a deity. The paradigmatic Garden of Eden myth may have taken over and developed in imaginative narrative form the topos of “the garden of YHWH/Elohim”, an expression which begins to appear with some frequency in the Neo-Babylonian period.13 A garden is therefore a place where one can experience the deity’s numinous and beneficent power. Since the gardens in Isaiah (1:29; 65:3; 66:17) are shrines, it would be of interest to know what relation, if any, exists between these gannôt and the bāmôt, the “high places”, which were an important feature of religious life in Israel and Judah. Sacrificing and burning incense took place at both, and at least some high places were associated with tree cults.14 The fact that gan, gannāh refers to a cult installation only in Isaiah, while Isaiah (the book) never mentions bāmôt,15 may imply that gannāh is the specifically Isaian term for what elsewhere is called a bāmāh. It is tempting but probably mistaken to find another instance of garden as cult site in Isaiah  17:10–11 where the Judaeans, personified as a female, are encouraged ironically to plant their “pleasant shoots” or “shoots of Adonis”, a deity known as “the Pleasant God.” The allusion is to “the gardens of Adonis” mentioned by Plato (Phaedrus 276), Lucian (De Syria Dea 6–9) and other ancient authors. The cult of the originally Phoenician deity Adonis was certainly known in Judah under the monarchy, but the gardens in question were flower pots in which seeds were planted and left to wither after eight days to symbolize the life of the young god cut short by an encounter with a wild boar.16 These gardens, therefore, belong to a category quite different from the garden of Isaiah 66:11.

The Ceremony Any attempt to understand the rites performed in the garden must take account of the character of the source material in Isaiah  66:17 and related passages in Isaiah. We can test for plausibility by comparing what is said here with other kinds of source material from antiquity dealing with similar situations. Isaiah  66:17 mentions only food, presumably sacrificial food, and this text forms an inclusion of sorts with 65:1–7, which likewise deals with initiation and taboo foods, including pork. Isaiah 57:3–13, a vitriolic polemic directed against 13 

Isa 51:3; Ezek 28:13; 31:8–9; 36:35; Joel 2:3. 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:10. 15  Isa 36:7 is copied from 2 Kgs 18:22. In Isa  5:2 the Moabite high places are linked with habbayit, the temple, and in Isa 16:12 with a sanctuary (miqdāš). 16  See Roland de Vaux, “Sur quelques rapports entre Adonis et Osiris”, RB 42 (1933), 31– 56 [id., The Bible and the Ancient Near East, translated by Damian McHugh (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 210–37]; Mathias Delcor, “Le problème des jardins d’Adonis dans Isaïe 17, 9–11 à la lumière de la civilisation Siro-phénicienne”, Syria 55 (1978), 371–94. 14 



The Ceremony

221

a sorceress and her brood, meaning Jerusalem and its inhabitants, is also close enough to be relevant. Commentators have noted in this connection Isaiah 1:29, which mentions garden cults. In addition to a sacrifice and meal, incense (cf. Isa 63:3, 7; Ezek 8:11) and libations (Isa 57:6) probably also played a part. Both are mentioned with explicit reference to the cult of the goddess Asherah in one of the few biblical passages in which the opinion of women on religious matters is heard (Jer 44:15–19). Pork, a taboo food in the ritual laws (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8), is sacrificial material in these garden rituals (Isa 65:4b; 66:3b; 66:17). The pig was acceptable for sacrifice in contemporaneous Greece, for example in the Eleusinian mysteries,17 and pigs were sacrificed in many other regions of the Levant and the Middle East.18 The mouse or jerboa (Hebrew ῾akbār), another taboo species in Israel (Lev  11:29), seems to have had a religious significance of some kind with the Philistines (1 Sam 6:1–18) and, to judge by personal names, with Phoenicians, Edomites and some Judaeans.19 The other miscellaneous unclean foods referred to in our text as šeqets/šiqqûts correspond to the equally unspecific pěraq piggulîm (“broth of unclean things”) of Isaiah 65:4. It does not seem likely that these items were on the menu precisely because they were prohibited by the laws of clean and unclean. There are indications that, both before and after the fall of Jerusalem, cults were carried out in deliberate defiance of Yahwistic orthodoxy, which also became state orthodoxy. We hear of participants in such cults sticking out their tongues at Yahweh (Isa  57:4), provoking him to is face (Isa 65:3), and insulting him in their ceremonies (65:7). According to one reading of Ezekiel  8:17, the twenty-five sun worshippers in the Jerusalem temple perpetrated a gross insult by turning their backs on the sanctuary and breaking wind.20 But defiance of orthodoxy was surely not the main point in having recourse to deities other than Yahweh and to practices other than those prescribed by the priests and scribes of Yahweh. The participants would not have gone through a perhaps lengthy and expensive initiation just to have a non-kosher meal. We should therefore look further field. 17  It is depicted on the famous Lovatelli urn; see Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987), 55, 94. 18  Roland de Vaux, “Les sacrifices des porcs en Palestine et dans l’ancien orient” in Johannes Hempel/Leonard Rost (eds.), Von Ugarit nach Qumrān: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1958), 250–65; Franz Josef Stendebach, “Das Schweineopfer im Alten Orient”, BZ 18 (1974), 263–71; Susan Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah, Harvard Semitic Monographs 146 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 202–12. 19  Gen 36:38–39; 2 Kgs 22:12, 14; Jer 26:22; see William Robertson-Smith, The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions (New York: Schocken Books, 1972 [1889]), 222, 293. 20  Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel. A  Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1970), 128; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A  Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 244–45.

222

20  The One in the Middle

One aspect of these garden cults, explicit in Isaiah 57:3–13 and 65:1–7, is their mortuary character. We hear of kings, including at least two Judaean kings, who were buried in gardens (2 Kgs 21:18, 26), which will bring to mind that Jesus also was buried in a garden tomb (en tō kēpō, Jn 19:21). Isaiah 66:17 does not allude to this aspect, but the linked passage 65:1–7 speaks in the same breath of sacrificing in gardens and carrying out incubation rituals in tombs. The emphasis on necromancy is even stronger in Isaiah  57:3–13. The sorceress is a devotee of the chthonic deity Molech, seeking contact with the underworld and its denizens. Her children find their consolation in communing with the shades of the dead, and she herself makes libations and offerings to “the dead of the valley” and the “gathered ones” (qibbûtsîm, 57:13a). Solidarity with and evocation of those “gathered to the ancestors” fulfilled a powerful and deeply rooted need in ancient and some modern societies. An example from ancient Mesopotamia is the kispum ritual carried out in the royal garden.21 The cult of Demeter also had a strong mortuary character and the Bacchic thiasoi, whose custom was to spend the night in tombs, are reminiscent of those Judaeans who “squat among the tombs and pass the night among the rocks” (Isa 65:4).22 Strangely enough, communing with the dead and offering cult to them seems to have a certain connaturality with erotic activity. The association is particularly in evidence in Isaiah  57:3–13, in which the sorceress is condemned for both sexual transgression and participation in mortuary and chthonic cults.23 It is well documented for the ancient Near East and the Levant, for example, in the marzēah cult festival.

The Hierophant We must now go on to ask how we are to view the identity and role of the leader in this garden cult. Much, of course, will depend on how we understand the ritual in which this person plays the leading role. Commentators have trawled many waters in search of usable analogues. Paul Volz, for example, proposed the Dervish tawaf with the muhaddam or sheik leading the ecstatic circumambulation after observing it himself in Izmir.24 A somewhat closer analogue is the sacred dance of the Gnostic sect reported in the apocryphal Acts 21  Brian B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cults and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Traditions, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 11 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 27–46. 22 Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 23, 143, n. 60. 23 The link finds expression in the ambiguous use of the word miškāb, usually ‘bed’, e. g. 57:7, but also ‘grave’, 57:2, and ‘sexual activity.’ 57:8. 24  Paul Volz, Jesaia II, Kommentar zum Alten Testament 9 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1932), 292.

The Hierophant



223

of John, in which the participants moved in a circle with Jesus in the middle.25 Several of the older generation of Isaian scholars – for example Louth and Dillmann  – identified “the one in the middle” as a devotee and representative of the Syrian god Adad known, according to Macrobius (Saturnalia 1:23), as ᾽ahad (“the One”). Others, Cheyne among them, opted for an initiate of the cult of Tammuz/Adonis, a choice probably inspired by the third of the tableaux vivants in the temple shown in vision to the prophet Ezekiel. In this scene women were engaged in cultic lamentation for the god Tammuz (Ezek 8:14–15). In the scene immediately preceding this one (Ezek  8:7–13), seventy elders with the hierophant Yaazanyahu (with a definitely orthodox name) in the middle (῾ōmēd bětōkām), were making an incense offering to cult figures depicted on the walls of the sacred enclosure. This scene is often taken to be the closest parallel to the situation described in Isaiah 66:17, but of course would lack plausibility if the hierophant in the Isaian text is a female. The view adopted here is that this is, in fact, the case. The one who not only guides the cult followers through their initiation but also presides over the ceremony in the garden is a woman. The initiates were not following her in a procession, since it is impossible to be at the head of a procession and in the middle at the same time. She played the central role in the entire ceremony and occupied the central location in the garden ritual. Isaiah 66:17 speaks of a meal, probably following on a sacrifice, while the closely related text 65:1–7 adds the burning of incense, incubation rituals in tombs and night vigils among the rocks. None of this is stated in 66:17, but none of it would have been exceptional. We may find a clue to the identity of the hierophant in Isaiah  1:29 which links gardens as sacred enclosures with sacred trees (᾽ēlîm, usually translated “terebinths”, singular ᾽ēlāh, also “goddess”). The goddess in question would most probably be Asherah, whose cult was intimately associated with sacred trees, and who was represented in the iconography as a tree, often stylized, but in any case one that could be cut down and burned.26 Garden symbolism requires that a sacred tree, a “tree of life”, occupy the central location in the garden. The sacred tree called “the ᾽ăšērāh” after the goddess was associated with sacrifice and incense altars, but also with chthonic cults (2  Kgs  16:4) and cults of an erotic nature.27 This tree also appears in connection with the “high places”. The stock phrase “under every tree in leaf ” serves to mark a place where the great goddess was worshipped (Deut 12:2; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10) and where secret ceremonies were held (2 Kgs 17:10; Ezek 8:12). For the increasing number of scholars who assign a late date for the Yahwist writer (J), the question will sooner or later arise whether Genesis 2–3, which is 25 

Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja erklärt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900), 411–12. Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; Judg 6:25–26; 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:14–15; 2 Chr 14:2. 27  1 Kgs 14:23; Jer 2:20; 3:6, 13.

26 

224

20  The One in the Middle

assigned to this narrative strand, can be construed at some stage of its literary history as directed against garden cults such as the one referred to in Isaiah 66:17 held in honour of the great goddess. There can be no question of the popularity of this cult of Asherah, venerated as “the Queen of Heaven”, throughout the history of the two kingdoms, especially with women. One striking illustration of this is the reaction of women to the fierce denunciations of Jeremiah in Egypt where many had taken refuge after the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple: We are not going to listen to what you tell us in the name of the Lord. Instead, we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the Queen of Heaven and pour out libations to her, just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials, did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. We used to have plenty to eat; we prospered, seeing no misfortune. But from the time we stopped making offerings to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out libations to her we have lacked everything and have perished by the sword and famine (Jer 44:16–18)

Returning to the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1–2: We might think of Eden as a garden shrine, and the tree of life in the middle of the garden as the iconic replica of Asherah who, according to the author of the Genesis narrative, holds out the promise of life but delivers death.28 The woman Havva, mother of all the living (Gen 3:20) as the Canaanite-Hebrew Asherah was mother of all the gods, would be the human counterpart of the goddess, her hierophant and cultic intermediary. In view of the sacramental meal of the “One in the middle” in the garden shrine, her leading the initiates to the goddess would be symbolized by Havva’s eating the fruit of the tree. There is, therefore, a kind of symbolic superimposition of goddess, tree, and hierophant. The sexual constituent of garden cults is also present, and the snake, who lives underground, would embody the chthonic aspects of these cults vividly in evidence with the sorceress in Isaiah  57:3–13. The Eden narrative would then join those other texts, Deuteronomistic and prophetic, which fought against and eventually silenced or drove underground the religious practices into which Isaiah 66:17 provides an obscure but intriguing glimpse.

28  Speculation about the Eden story in relation to late Judaean cultic practice is documented by Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 310–12; Nicholas Wyatt, “Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2–3,” ZAW 93 (1981), 10–21; Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, Harvard Semitic Monographs 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 101–72.

Biblical Index Genesis 1–11 63–64 1–2 224 1 65, 67 1:1–2:4 46 1:1–2:3a 65 1:1 67 1:2 46 1:6–8 67 1:14–15 67 1:17 67 1:20 67 2–3 223 2:4b–3:24 64 2:7–8 67 2:7 46, 67 2:8 46, 219 2:19 46 3:4 218 3:20 224 7:22 67 9:8–17 63, 144 10 62 10:8–12 36, 97 11:1–9 36 11:27–25:10 90 12:1–3 20, 53, 59, 93 12:8 98 14 95, 97 14:18–24 64 14:19 64–65 14:22 64–65 15:6 94 17:6 66 17:16 66 23 112 25–35 111

25:8 168 25:17 168 25:19–35:15 111 25:21–26 111 26:10 190 26:23–24 90 26:34–35 112 27:41–45 111 28:1–2 112 28:3–4 111 28:6–9 112 28:13–14 111 28:13 90 28:20–22 111 28:22 111 29:31–30:24 111 30:27–30 111 31:13 111 31:38 111 31:41 111 32:10 90 32:27–28 111 33:19 112 35:1–4 111 35:2–4 111 35:9–15 111 35:10 111 35:11–12 111 35:11 66 35:29 168 36:14 126 36:38–39 221 50:23 90 Exodus 1–16 193 3–35 193

226 5:2 216 5:6 192 5:10 192 5:13 192 5:14–26 190 5:15–16 190 5:16 192 6:18 127 7:1–6 189, 191 7:7 190 7:11 191 7:21 216 7:37–38 193 7:37 190 9:16 116 11:7 221 11:10–13 216 11:10 216 11:18 137 11:29 221 13:21–22 152 14–19 189 14 191 14:1–32 190 14:7 218 14:8–9 218 14:13 190 14:19 152 14:29 192 15:16 64 16 191 16:21–22 192 18:21 145 18:22 171 19:12 218 19:13 218 19:14–15 218 19:20–22 190 20–26 189 20:13 171 23:40 110 24:9–11 144 25–27 66 33:17–3 153 33:20 26 34:13 223

Biblical Index

35–40 66 Numbers 5:5–10 190 8:7 218 8:8 218 12 15 12:7–8 15 24:6 219 31:17–18 171 Deuteronomy 3:24 15 4:1–40 64 4:2 5 4:32 64 4:40 189 5:16 189 5:33 189 6:2 189 7:5 223 11:9 189 12:2 223 12:3 223 12:32 5 13:15 188 14:8 221 17:18–20 5 17:20 189 18:10–11 145 18:15–22 5 18:15 15 18:18 15, 210 18:21–22 85 20:15 162 23:1–6 120 23:2–9 61 23:2–8 19 23:2–7 120 23:5–6 90 23:16 33 27:5 65 29:21 162 32:7 48 32:15 91 33:5 114



34:5 15 34:10–12 5 Joshua 1:1–2 15 1:7 15 2:9–11 55 5:13–14 124 9:6 162 9:24 15 18:1 66 24 90 24:2–13 90 24:11 90 24:29 15 Judges 2:1–4 17 2:8 15 4:4 15 6:8 15 6:25–26 223 16:21 48 21:11–12 171 1 Samuel 1:3 125 1:11 125 2:10 87 2:35 87 3:3 123 3:11 123 4:1–7:2 123 4:4 125 4:13 116 4:21–22 125 6:1–18 221 6:1–9 190 7:3–4 4 7:9–11 2 8:8 4 10:5–6 3 10:9–13 3 12:10 4 12:14–15 4 14:15 116

Biblical Index

16 56 16:5 218 19:18–24 153 2 Samuel 3:18 14, 86 5:7 122 6:1–19 123 7:5 14 7:8–17 80 8 14 19 14 19:22 87 22:5 144 22:51 87 23:1 87 23:5 80 24:18–25 124 25 14 27–29 14 1 Kings 3:6 14 8:1 122–123 8:11 125 8:22–61 14 8:23 16, 19 8:24–26 14, 86 8:32 16, 19 8:36 16, 19 8:41 162 11:29–39 159 11:31–36 30 11:32 14 11:34 14 11:36 14 11:38 14 12:11 146 14:8 14 14:23 220, 223 14:25–26 29 15:18–19 162 15:29 15 22:19–23 124

227

228

Biblical Index

2 Kings 2:12 153 3:13–16 3 4:38 153 5:15–19 55 6:1 153 6:5 8 8:19 14 9:1 153 9:7 15 9:33 207 9:36 15 10:10 15 12:18 29 13:14 153 14:16 33 14:23–29 32 14:25 15 14:27 32 15:29 29 16:1–20 159 16:1–4 161 16:3–4 161 16:4 220, 223 16:5 8, 29–30, 159 16:7–9 161 16:7 161 16:10–18 161 17:10 220, 223 17:13 4, 15 17:17 145 17:23 4, 15 17:24 39 18–20 30, 44, 50, 161, 167 18:1–19:38 43 18:1–8 161 18:2 8, 30, 44, 159 18:3 161 18:4 161, 223 18:7 164 18:9 29 18:12 4 18:13–20:19 8, 158 18:13–16 162 18:13 8, 29–30, 44, 159–160 18:14–16 9, 30, 34

18:17–19:8 43, 159 18:17 8 18:22 161, 220 19:9 43, 159 19:20–34 30 19:34 14, 16, 86 19:36 41 20:1–11 30, 43, 160 20:6 14, 44, 162 20:12–19 9, 30, 34, 43, 158, 160, 162 20:12 43, 158 20:13 31 20:16–18 44 20:19 162 20:20 166 21 28 21:2–15 162, 165 21:6 145 21:10–15 4, 9 21:10 15 21:16 26 21:18 222 21:23–24 36 21:24 83 22:11–20 8, 30, 159 22:12 221 23:14–15 223 22:14 221 23:25 84 23:26–27 9 23:26 162, 165 23:30 36, 83 23:31 32 24–25 36 24–25:30 159 24:2–4 4 24:2 15 24:3–4 9, 162, 165 24:10 29 24:14–16 104 24:14 104 24:18–25:30 8 24:18 32 25:1 29 25:6–7 82



25:7 81 25:11–12 104 25:12 104 25:19–21 36 25:19 83 25:21 83 25:22–26 36, 83–84 25:27–30 82 25:27 82 25:30 83 27 84 39:2–4 9 1 Chronicles 2:43 127 3:21 7, 29 6:1–8 126 6:22–23 126 6:24 129 9:33 128 11:5 122 12:18 114 15:17–19 129 16:5 129 16:7 129 16:37 129 21:28–22:1 124 25:1–8 3 25:1–2 129 25:3 7, 29 25:5 3 25:6 129 25:9 129 25:15 7, 29 26:25 7, 29 29:29 3 2 Chronicles 3:1 124 5:2 123 5:12 129 6:42 80 9:29 3 10:11 146 10:14 146 11:14 29

Biblical Index

12:2–4 164 12:15 3 13:22 3 14:2 223 15:1–7 3 15:8 3 16:14 171 20:7 96 20:8–11 164 20:14–17 3 20:17 29 20:34 3 21:18–19 164 24:6 29 24:8 29 26:16–21 164 26:22 3, 7, 203 28:1–27 28 28:5–8 164 29–32 28, 164 29:8–9 164 29:8 164 29:30 3 32:1–22 164 32:1–8 28 32:3–5 166 32:20–33 28 32:24–26 164 32:27–30 166 32:31 43, 158, 164 32:32 3, 7, 28, 154, 203 33:10–20 28 35:15 3 35:20–27 83 36:19–21 104 36:21 104 36:22–23 84 36:22 85, 95 Ezra 1:1 85, 95 1:5 85 2 133 2:41 129, 133 4:3 114 4:15 82

229

230 6:9–10 88 7–10 121 7:6 120 7:9 120 7:26 100 7:26 120 8:7 7, 29 8:15–20 108 8:16–20 109 8:18 120 8:19 7, 29 9–10 119–120 9:1–2 119–120 9:2–5 120 9:2 119 9:3 116, 120 9:4 116, 119–121, 211 9:5 119–120 9:9 29 9:11 15 9:15 119 10:1–5 119 10:1 120 10:2 119 10:3 119 10:5 119 10:6 119–120 10:7 29 10:8 92, 116, 119 14:44–48 154 Nehemiah 1:11 61 5:1–5 59 6:7 61 7:43–44 125 7:44 129 9:2 119 9:6–15 90 10:1–40 119 11:7 7, 29 11:22 129 12:46 129 13 120 13:1–3 61, 120 13:4–9 61

Biblical Index

13:23–27 61 Esther 1:1 1 1:13–14 100 Job 5:21 146 9:23 146 18:13–14 145 18:14 144 20:22 136 22:14 67 26:10 67 28:22 144 31:10 48 36:22 151 38:13–14 144 Psalms 2 84, 130 2:7–9 87 6:6 144 12:1 170 14:6 147 14:7 131 15 124 15:1–5 124 17:15 201 18:1 14 18:5 144 20 130 20:1 90 24 124 24:3–6 124 24:5–10 124 25 116 29:1 125 34:16–17 169 34:23 19, 172 36:1 14 42–49 126 42–43 127 42 126–127 42:4 79 42:6 126



42:9 126, 128 42:12 126 43 126 43:3–4 127 43:5 126 44:5 127 46:2 147 46:4 123 46:5 127 46:8 127 46:11 90 46:12 127 47:5 127 47:10 90 48 127 48:2–3 123, 127 49:15 144 50 126, 129 51 130 51:20 130 53:7 131 55:16 144 61:4 147 62:8–9 147 63:3 125 63:6 201 65:5 201 68 124 68:10 178 68:22 189 69:36 130 71:7 147 72 84 73–83 126, 129 73:28 147 74 130 74:2 64, 130 76 130 76:6 90 78 124, 130 78:54 64 78:56–64 91 78:60–72 124 78:61 125 78:67 130 78:68–69 130

Biblical Index

78:69 130 78:70 14 79:2–3 211 79:2 172 79:8–10 91 79:10 15 81:1 90 81:4 90 84–85 126 84 127 84:7 127 84:8 90 84:9 127 84:11b 128 85:2 127 86:2 172 87–88 126 87 128 87:7 129 88:2–3 126 88:2 128 88:6 172 89 81 89:4–6 53 89:4 14 89:13 64 89:21 14 89:27–37 80 89:39 79 89:40 14 89:48 64 90:13 19 92:2–3 128 92:3 126 94:21 172 95:8–11 91 96:7 125 100 124 100:4–5 124 102:17 130 104:30 64 105 90 105:6 90 105:9 90 105:25 19 105:42 90

231

232 106:6–33 91 107–150 125 107:39 212 110 84, 130 115:2 79 115:16 172 116 144 116:15–16 172, 211 118 124 118:19–20 124 119:55 126 119:62 126 120–134 125 121 79 126 125, 130 132 124, 126 132:9 126 132:10 14 132:11 188 132:16 126 133 126 134:1 126, 128 137 130 137:2 109 141:8 191 144:10 14 146:5 90 146:7–9 172 148 64 148:5 64 149 211 Proverbs 1–9 148 1:12 145 2:18 144 5:5 144 7:17 178 7:27 144 8:22–31 181 8:22 65 8:27 67 20:3 146 27:20 144–145

Biblical Index

Isaiah 1–39

8, 16, 25, 29, 37, 45, 77, 81, 102, 104, 135, 141, 144 1–35 29, 31, 43, 133, 159 1:1 7, 28–29, 154, 165 1:2–26 165 1:2 10 1:4–9 166 1:8 131, 166 1:8a 186 1:10 26, 154, 166 1:12–31 93 1:27–31 131, 216 1:27–28 131 1:27 110 1:28 10 1:29–30 132, 219 1:29 10, 216, 220–221, 223 1:31 10, 132 2:1–5 110 2:1 7, 28–29, 132 2:2–5 127, 129, 132, 140 2:3 151, 154 2:6–22 135–138, 140–141 2:6–21 139 2:6–11 137 2:6–4:1 132 2:6 135 2:6b 136 2:7–8 135 2:7 136 2:8 136–137 2:8a 137 2:9 139–140 2:9b 139 2:10 135, 138–139 2:11 139–140 2:12–16 135 2:17 139–140 2:18 137 2:19 138 2:20 137, 140–141 2:21 138 2:22 139 3:1–8 7



Biblical Index

3:1 29 3:8 29 3:9 26 3:16–26 131 4:2–6 44, 110, 132, 141 5:2 220 5:3 7, 29 5:14–6:7 190 5:14 145 5:15 139 5:24 154 5:25 138 6:1 26, 160, 207 7:1–17 8, 159, 161 7:1 30, 159 7:3–9 163 7:3 8, 26 8–16 93 8:1–2 154 8:7–8 143 8:10–11 22 8:16–18 22, 204 8:16 154, 189 8:17 151 8:18 110 8:19–23 148 9:1–6 81 9:8–21 138 10 104 10:5 52 10:8–14 31 10:12 110 10:20–27 44, 132 10:20–23 132 10:22–27 132 10:23 151, 204 10:24–27 132 10:24 151 10:25 132 10:26 146 11:1–9 56, 81, 97 11:11–12 62 11:11 64, 104, 128–129, 141 12 104 12:1–6 37 12:4 98

13–23 36–37, 131 13 39 13:1–22 37–40 13:1 28 13:2–5 39 13:5 39 13:6–8 39 13:9–15 39 13:9 37 13:16–22 39 14 73 14:1–23 37 14:1–2 55 14:2 16 14:3–23 38, 40 14:3–4a 40 14:4b 40 14:6 41 14:11 142–143, 171 14:12–21 41 14:12–13 123 14:12 40 14:12b 41 14:17b 41 14:18–20 41 14:21 142 14:22–23 40 14:24–27 38 14:28–32 133 14:28–31 38 14:28–29 160 15:1–16:11 38 16:5 81 16:12 220 17:1–3 38 17:4 37 17:7–8 136–137, 141 17:7 37 17:9 37, 141 17:10–11 220 18:1–2 166 18:7 29, 110, 191 18:17 37 19:1–15 37–38, 141 19:1–7 31 19:3 148

233

234

Biblical Index

19:16 37 19:18 37 19:19 37 19:23 37 19:24–25 129, 132 19:24 37 20 37 20:1–6 29–31, 159, 161 20:3–5 128 20:3 16, 29 20:6 104 21–22 46 21:1–10 37–38, 42 21:1–4 42 21:1 42 21:8–9 42, 44 21:9 49 22:1–14 166 22:5 37 22:8 37 22:8b–11 166 22:12 37 22:20 16 22:21 7, 29 23 73 23:2 104 23:12 48, 75 23:15–16 48 24–27 9, 37, 56, 110, 140, 204 24:2 16 24:5 144 24:15 104 24:16b 204 24:21–23 110 24:21 37 25 37, 73 25:4 147, 186 25:9 37, 141, 151 25:10b–11 37 26 111 26:1 37 26:5 140, 186 26:8 151 26:14 204 26:19 204 26:20 140

26:21 140 27:1 37 27:6 37 27:12–13 141 27:12 37 27:13 37 28–35 131 28–33 31, 143 28 143, 147, 149 28:1–22 142, 147 28:2 142–143 28:7–13 147–148 28:7–11 31 28:7b 147 28:9–10 142, 144 28:14–22 31, 133, 142–143, 145–146, 149 28:14 143–144 28:15 142, 144–147 28:16–17a 143 28:17 142 28:17b–18 142 28:18 146 28:20 143, 149 28:22 144, 204 28:22a 143 29:1–4 31, 166 29:4 148 29:8 110 29:9–11 31 29:11–12 154, 204 29:13–16 31 29:17–21 91 29:19 186 29:22 91 30 152 30:1–7 31 30:1–5 31, 166 30:4 31 30:6 37 30:7 128 30:8 204 30:9 154 30:18 151 30:19–26 141 30:19–22 132, 137



Biblical Index

30:19–21 150–151, 156–157 30:19–20 132 30:20–21 210 30:20 155 31:1–3 31, 166 31:4 110 31:6–7 137, 141 31:10 133 33:2–5 133 33:2 151 33:7–9 144, 166 33:8 32, 144 33:8b 166 33:14–15 124 33:17–24 133 33:21 123 34–35 45, 100 34:1–17 38 34:5–17 40, 111 34:8 110 34:9 38 35 45, 50 36–39 8, 12, 16, 30, 43–45, 131, 158–160, 162, 165 36–37 38, 43–44, 130, 159 36 12 36:1–37:7 43, 159 36:2 8 36:4–20 30 36:6 31 36:7 220 36:9 16 36:11 16 36:19 30 36:21–37:7 8, 30 37:1 30 37:2–7 30 37:2–4 30 37:2 8, 15, 30 37:5 15–16 37:9–38 43, 159 37:10–13 30 37:12–13 30 37:14–20 30 37:21–35 30 37:22–29 131

235

37:22 131 37:24 16 37:31 44 37:32 110 37:35 16, 44 37:36–38 44 37:37–38 41 38 131, 164 38:1–22 43, 160 38:1–8 8, 30 38:1 8, 30 38:5–6 160 38:5 12, 30, 44, 159 38:9–20 8, 160 38:18 144 38:21–22 8, 30 39 131 39:1–8 9, 30, 34, 43–44, 158, 160 39:1 43, 158 39:2 31 39:3–8 37 39:3 8, 30 39:5–8 8, 12, 30, 44 39:5–7 44–45 40–66 13, 15–16, 50–51, 80, 93, 99–100, 102, 110, 169, 173 40–60 45 40–55 13, 21, 50–51, 57, 59, 63, 77, 81–82, 87, 102, 104–105, 107–108, 110, 112, 173, 176, 181, 186 40–54 18–19, 96, 106, 173 40–48 13, 16–18, 20, 44–48, 50–52, 55–56, 63–76, 81, 84–85, 90, 92–93, 95–98, 101–102, 105, 111, 136–137, 173, 198, 202 40–45 104, 141 40 12, 19, 45, 160 40:1–52:6 202 40:1–11 93, 160 40:1–8 199 40:1–5 13, 17, 51 40:1–4 187 40:1 12

236 40:3–5 13 40:3 12, 45 40:6–8 156 40:9 45, 198 40:10 67 40:11–12 86 40:12–17 46, 52 40:12–14 63, 71, 86 40:12 67 40:13–48:20 107 40:13–14 48, 75 40:13 67 40:15–17 73 40:15 104 40:18–20 136 40:18 48 40:19–20 51 40:20 93, 109 40:21 71, 86 40:22 67 40:24 198 40:25 48 40:26 71, 86, 105 40:28 86, 105 40:31 151 41 94 41:1–42:9 101 41:1–16 98 41:1–5 73, 84, 92–94 41:1 104 41:2 85, 95–97 41:2–5 95 41:4b 96 41:6–7 93, 136 41:8–16 92–93, 96, 99 41:8–9 17, 94, 96, 198 41:8 91–92, 96, 111 41:8b 94 41:9 111 41:10 99 41:13 96 41:17–20 93 41:19 104, 109 41:21–29 93, 97 41:21–24 97 41:21 85, 101

Biblical Index

41:22–23 86 41:25–29 17, 56, 84, 86 41:25 81, 85, 94–96 41:25a 98 41:27 198 42:1–9 93, 97, 99 42:1–7 99 42:1–4 12, 17, 51–52, 56, 63, 84, 86–87, 98–99, 106–107, 173, 176–178, 198–199, 202 42:1 70, 87, 96, 99, 210 42:3 87, 99 42:4 87, 104 42:5–9 86, 98, 198–199 42:5 67–68, 86, 105 42:6–7 202 42:6 70, 81, 87, 99, 103, 202 42:7 17, 84, 99 42:10–13 93 42:10–12 93 42:11 110 42:18–25 86 42:19 51, 185 42:19a 51 43:1–11a 192 43:3 73, 128 43:5 66 43:8 96 43:10–11 52 43:10 46–47, 75, 96 43:11 48 43:14 44, 51, 70, 74, 84 43:15 85, 97 43:16–19 101 43:22–28 86 43:27 91 43:28 91 44:1–2 17, 53, 96, 198 44:1 96 44:3–5 53 44:4 109 44:6 85, 97 44:7–8 86 44:9–20 136 44:14 104



Biblical Index

44:21 17, 96, 198 44:22–45:13 17 44:24–45:7 198 44:24 46, 67 44:25 51 44:26–28 52, 86, 108 44:26 66, 94, 198 44:27 46, 67 44:28 52, 57, 66, 70, 84, 87, 94, 97, 103, 202 45:1–7 51, 82, 84, 87, 94, 103 45:1 65–66, 70, 73, 87, 94, 96, 99, 103, 202 45:2 73 45:3–4 98 45:3 51, 70, 81, 103 45:4–5 81 45:4 17, 81, 96, 98, 198, 202 45:5 105 45:6 105 45:7 46, 48, 67, 75, 86, 105 45:8 105 45:9–13 86 45:9–12 46 45:9 46, 67 45:12 67, 86, 105 45:13 57, 66, 84–85, 95, 99, 103, 108, 202 45:14 55, 105, 110, 128 45:18 46, 67–68, 86, 105 45:20–25 54 45:20 74, 136 45:21 48, 74, 105 45:22 105 46:1–7 74 46:1–6 12 46:1–2 45, 103, 136 46:1 74 46:5–7 136 46:8–13 86 46:9–10 101 46:9 105 46:10b–11 97 46:11 84, 95–96, 101 47 51, 75 47:1–15 48, 103, 107

237

47:1 44, 48, 76 47:2–3 76 47:3 76 47:5 48 47:6 52 47:8–9 49, 76 47:8 48, 52, 105 47:9–10 51 47:10 49, 105 47:12–13 51 47:12 48 47:13 74 47:15 44 47:19 52 48 105 48:1–11 86 48:3–5 86 48:13 46, 86 48:14–16 73, 84, 103, 202 48:14 44, 51, 202 48:16 173 48:16b 17, 86 48:17 151 48:20–22 13, 17–18, 51 48:20–21 107, 202 48:20 17, 44, 96, 101, 105, 198 48:22 13, 51 49–66 105 49–55 13, 17, 44, 46, 51, 56, 63, 71, 84, 96, 102, 105–106, 111, 173, 189, 199, 212 49–54 17–18, 105, 199 49–53 14, 22, 59 49 13 49:1–52:10 107 49:1–7 173, 199 49:1–6 18, 23, 57–58, 105, 107, 156, 173, 176–177, 186–187, 198–201, 209 49:1 104, 179 49:2 156, 183 49:3 57, 99, 178, 185 49:4 179 49:5–6 186 49:5 111, 201 49:7–12 186, 199–200

238

Biblical Index

49:7 18, 51–52, 56, 186, 199 49:8 108 49:8–19 93 49:12 102 49:16 54 49:18 76 49:19 108 49:20–21 76 49:22 57 49:23 56, 151 49:26 101 50:4–11 177, 186, 199 50:4–9 12, 18, 22–23, 105, 107, 154, 156, 173, 176–177, 186–187, 198, 200–201, 209 50:4–5 186 50:4 85, 155–156, 179, 183 50:6–9 181 50:10–11 18, 154, 173, 178, 200 50:10b 155 51:1–2 99 51:2 91–92, 106 51:3 108, 110, 220 51:4–6 99 51:4–5 56–57 51:5 104, 177 51:9–11 56, 63 51:9–10 46 51:9 128 51:11 110 51:17–23 13, 202 51:17 198 51:19 108 52:1–2 13, 110, 129, 202 52:1 49, 76 52:2 49, 76 52:3–6 49 52:5–6 183 52:7–12 110 52:7–10 13, 56, 107, 202 52:7 178 52:8 42, 45 52:9 108 52:11–12 13, 107, 202 52:11 105

52:12–53:13 118 52:13–55:13 107 52:13–53:12 12, 14, 18, 23, 105, 107, 155, 170, 172–174, 176– 177, 183, 186–187, 194, 198–199, 202, 209–210, 214–215 52:13–15 22, 155, 200–201, 203 52:13 173, 183, 186–187, 195, 205–206, 214 52:13a 209 52:13b 209 52:14–15 205 52:14 177, 188, 191 52:14b 207 52:15 183, 186 52:15b 201 53 155–156, 171, 173, 185–186, 192–197, 205, 207, 209–210 53:1–11 156 53:1–11a 22 53:1–10 175, 199–201, 203 53:1 155 53:1a 201 53:2 207 53:2b 207 53:3–4 155, 207 53:3 179, 191 53:4 186, 191 53:4a 183 53:6 186 53:7–8 186 53:7 191 53:8 196, 210 53:8a 170, 212 53:8b 191 53:10 156, 174, 186–189, 191– 192, 200–201, 209–210 53:10a 190 53:11–12 200–201, 203 53:11 155, 157, 170–171, 173, 177, 183, 195, 200–201, 205–206 53:11a 206–207, 209 53:11b–12 22, 155, 191



53:11b

Biblical Index

170, 183, 186, 200, 205–206, 209 53:12 205, 212, 214 53:12a 207 53:12b 191, 206–207 53:12c 183 54:1–17 13, 129, 202–203 54:1–17a 118 54:1–4 49 54:1 76 54:3 56 54:4 46, 49, 76 54:5 63 54:9 63 54:13 151 54:16 105 54:17 14, 23, 51, 96, 106, 173, 175, 202 54:17b 18, 51, 119, 199–200, 203 55 12–13, 18, 51, 105–106, 173, 199 55:1–13 118 55:1–5 80 55:1–2 80 55:2–13 13 55:3–5 59, 80–81 55:3 81 55:10–13 93 55:10–11 199 55:11 187, 201 55:12–13 104 55:13 13, 51, 109 56–66 12, 14, 19, 21, 44, 46, 50–51, 58–59, 96, 102, 106–107, 110–111, 115, 117, 120, 168–169, 172–174, 217 56 12–13 56:1–8 12, 19, 59, 61–62, 120 56:1–5 51 56:1 19 56:2–57:21 168 56:2 19 56:4 19 56:5 13, 117 56:6 19, 115

239

56:7 23, 117 56:8 19, 62 56:9–57:13 58 56:9–12 168 56:10 42 57 51, 168, 171 57:1–13 19 57:1–2 156, 168–175, 210 57:1–2a 210 57:1 168–172 57:2 143, 169–171 57:3–13 148, 168, 220, 222, 224 57:4 221 57:5 132, 149 57:6 221 57:7–8 149 57:8b–9 149 57:8b 149 57:9 145 57:13 23, 222 57:14–21 13 57:15 116, 187, 207 57:18 21 57:21 13, 51 58:1–5 19 58:11 219 58:12 58 59:1–15 19 59:10 151 59:15b–20 44 59:19 115 59:20 132 59:21 156, 174, 189, 209 60–62 12, 59, 110, 174 60:1–22 129 60:1–3 59, 129 60:4 19, 49 60:5–7 59 60:7 117 60:9 115 60:10 58–59 60:11 59 60:12–14 59 60:13 117 60:14 59 60:16 59

240

Biblical Index

60:21–22 59 61:1–4 178 61:1–3 174 61:1 178 61:2–3 21, 156 61:4 58 61:5–6 59 61:8–9 59 61:8b–9 59 62:1–5 44, 129 62:1–2 59 62:4 20 62:9 117 63:1–6 38, 111 63:3 207, 221 63:7–64:12 19, 58 63:7 221 63:16 91 63:17 19 63:18–19 58 64:2–3 151 64:6 98 64:10–11 58 64:10 117 65–66 22, 120, 175, 202 65:1–14 174 65:1–12 118 65:1–7 216, 220, 222–223 65:3–5 132 65:3 220–221 65:4 221–222 65:4b 221 65:5 218 65:8–12 19–20 65:8–10 21, 133, 153, 210 65:8–9 188, 199 65:8 19 65:9 19 65:10 20 65:11 23 65:13–16 19–21, 118, 133, 153, 210 65:13–15 188, 199, 203 65:13–14 10, 21 65:13 19 65:14 19 65:15 19

65:17–18 64 65:17 46 66 9, 119–120 66:1–5 115, 117, 211 66:1–2 24, 116 66:2 116–117, 121 66:3b 221 66:3–4 23, 118 66:5 10, 19, 21, 115–116, 118, 121, 133, 153, 174 66:6 117 66:7–11 129 66:7–9 49 66:7 216 66:10 21, 156 66:11 220 66:12–16 132 66:14–16 210 66:14 19, 188, 199 66:14b 203 66:15–16 20, 216 66:15 132 66:17 10, 132, 216–217, 220–224 66:17b 62 66:18–23 129 66:18–21 10, 61–62 66:18–19 19 66:19 62 66:20–21 117 66:20 62 66:21 62 66:22–24 61 66:22–23 10 66:22 23 66:23 117 66:24 10, 13, 51, 132, 205 Jeremiah 1:4–5 186 1:9 210 2:20 223 4:19 42 6:17 42 7:25 15, 186 8:2 168



14:14 146 17:17 147 17:24–25 81 19:8 164 22:1–4 81 22:26 82 23:5–6 81 25:4 15 25:9 100, 164 25:18 164 26:5 15 26:16–19 33 26:18–19 164 26:22 221 27:5 65 27:6 65, 100 28 36 28:1–17 83, 109 28:1–4 78 28:22 20 29:1–32 83 29:5 219 29:8–9 36 29:14 131 29:15 108 29:18 164 29:19 15 29:21–23 35, 78, 103, 204 29:21–22 108 29:24–32 108 29:28 219 30:3 131 30:8–9 81 30:10 16–17 30:11 131 30:18 131 30:26 131 31:12 219 31:23 131 32:44 131 33:14–26 81 33:21–22 14, 86 33:26 14, 86 35:6 153 35:15 15 37–44 36

Biblical Index

39:10 140 40:1–41:18 83 40:5–6 36 41:1 83 43:10 100 44 79 44:4 15 44:15–19 221 44:16–18 79, 224 46–51 36 46:27–28 16–17 49:7–22 111 50–51 40 51:5 189 52 8, 159 Lamentations 4:20 87 Ezekiel 1:3 152 3:12 152 3:15 120 3:17 42 8 217 8:1 109 8:7–13 223 8:7 217 8:10 216 8:11 221 8:12 223 8:14–15 223 8:17 221 11:14–21 91 13:6–9 146 14:1 109 17:11–19 32, 166 18:5–20 33 20:1 109 20:6 140 21:2 3 21:7 3 21:34 146 22:28 146 23:17 149, 171 25–32 36

241

242

Biblical Index

25:12–14 111 27 62 28:11–19 40 28:13 64, 220 28:15 64 28:35 16–17 29:5 168 31:8–9 219–220 32:17–32 40 32:25 171 33:1–9 42 33:23–24 106 33:24 91–92 34:23–24 14, 81 36:35 220 37:24–28 81 37:24–25 14 37:25 16–17 38:17 15 44:49 19 Daniel 1:3–7 109 1:4–5 49 1:4 157, 194 1:6–7 214 1:17 49, 157, 194, 196 2:18–19 204 2:27–30 204 2:47 204 3 213–214 3:1–30 196, 204, 214 3:23 196, 214 3:24 196, 214 4:6 204 4:19–33 213 5 42 6:24 213 7–12 210, 213 7 196 9:1 40 9:26–27 204 11–12 195, 214 11:33–35 207–208, 213 11:33 155, 157, 170, 194–195, 204, 206, 209

11:35 194–195, 206, 209 11:36 132, 151, 204 12:3–4 170 12:3 155, 157, 195, 206–207, 209 12:3b 194–195 12:4 154, 204 12:9 154 12:10 170, 195, 206, 213 12:12 205 52:13 196 Hosea 10:6 191 12:2 146, 191 12:3–4 91 13:14 144 Joel 1–2 59 2:3 220 3 9 3:1–4:3 9 4:9–21 9 4:16 147 Amos 1–2 36 1:2 138 3:6 67 3:7 15 4:13 64 5:8–9 64 7:10–17 32 7:16 3 9:5–6 64 9:11–15 9 9:11–12 81 Obadiah 10 111 15–21 9 Micah 1:8 29 2:6 3



2:11 3 3:12 33, 164 4:1–5 137, 140 5:1–4 81 5:9–14 136 5:9b 136 5:11 136 5:12 136 7:8–20 9 7:18–20 91 7:20 91 Nahum 3:2 146 3:4–7 48, 75 3:4–5 48 Habakkuk 2:5 144–145 3:16 42 Zephaniah 3:8–20 9 Haggai 1:2 117 1:6 59 1:13 17 1:14 85 2:6–9 117 2:16–17 59 2:20–23 202 2:23 14 8–11 59 Zechariah 1–8 109 1:1 7 1:6 15 1:10–17 202 1:16 17 2:1 7 3:6 17 3:8 14 4:6–10 17 6:9–14 109

Biblical Index

6:15 109 8:10 59 9–11 7 10:2 146 12:1 7 12:9–14 208 12:9–13:1 197 12–14 7, 9 12:10 187 13:1 7 13:7–9 197 14:1–21 9 14:5 138 Malachi 1:2–5 111 1:6–7 115 1:11 115 1:14 115 2:5 115 3:1–4 117 3:1 29 3:13–21 23 3:16–21 211 3:16–18 171, 211 3:16 115 3:19–24 9 3:20 115 3:23–24 6 4:1–3 211 Matthew 5:3–12 20, 118, 174 16:21 196 17:22–23 196 20:17–19 196 20:28 155 23:29 26 24 39 25:31–46 20 26:28 155, 195, 206 Mark 10:45 155 14:24 155

243

244 Luke 4:18–19 178 11:47 26 Acts 8:34 176 13:47 57 24:5 113 24:14 113 26:23 57 Romans 3:21–26 215 Hebrews 9:22 191 James 2:23 96 1 Peter 3:18 95 1 John 2:1 95 Revelation 1:10 152 5:6 152 7:9–17 213 10:1–4 154 14:8 49 18:1–24 49 22:10 154 2 Esdras 7:102–115 140 Judith 5:19 104 1 Maccabees 1:62–63 207, 213 2:29–38 211 2:42 9, 211

Biblical Index

2:51–60 213 7:1–42 213 7:12–18 211 7:13 9 4 Maccabees 5–7 214 6:29 214 17:21–22 197 1 Enoch 37–71 208 Sirach 1–39 6 40–66 6 44–50 2 46:1–6 2 46:1 2 46:16–17 2 48:1–14 2 48:10 6 48:17–25 28 48:17–22 165, 167 48:22–25 6, 141, 203 48:22 28 48:23–25 6 48:23 2 49:1–3 3 49:4 28 49:6–10 6 49:10 2, 141 Mishnah b. Batra 12a 2 14b–15a 6 b. Berakhot 19a 21 b. Megillah 14a 3 b. Pesahim 52a 21 b. Sanhedrin 11a 2 b. Sotah ˙



48a 2 b. Yoma 9b 2 21b 2 Qumran 1QIsaa 6 3Q4 / 3QpIsa 6 4Q161–165/  4QpIsaa–e 6 11QPsa 3

Biblical Index

Papyri Elephantine Papyri AP 5:16 7 AP 8:33 7 AP 9:21 7 Josephus, Flavius Against Apion 1:38–42 1 The Jewish War 3:351–354 2

245

Particulars of First Publication 1 The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case Unpublished 2 The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans (eds.). Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 155–75. 3 The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah Erhard Blum (ed.). Mincha. Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000, pp. 13–26. 4 Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian Background Unpublished 5 Second Isaiah, Prophet of Universalism? JSOT 41 (1988), pp. 83–103. 6 Deutero-Isaiah and the Creator God: Yahweh, Ahuramazda and Marduk Published as “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Second Isaiah” CBQ 73 (2011), pp. 493–510. 7 The Theological Politics of Deutero-Isaiah Alan Lanzi and Jonathan Stökl (eds.). Divination, Politics and Ancient Near Eastern Empires. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014, pp. 129–43. 8 Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48 Rannfrid Thelle et al. (eds). New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History. Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad. Leiden: Brill, 2015, pp. 29–41 9 Continuity-Discontinuity in Isaiah 40–66: The Issue of Location Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Hans M. Barstad (eds.). Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Developments in Isaiah 40–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014, pp. 77–88 10 The Sectarian Element in Early Judaism: The Isaian Contribution Unpublished 11 Zion as Reality and Symbol in Psalms and Isaiah Unpublished

248

Particulars of First Publication

12 Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Isaiah 2:6–22) Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981), pp. 51–62 13 Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah 28:14–22) Vetus Testamentum 50 (2000), pp. 472–83 14 Who Is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden? W. G. Jeanrond and Andrew D. H. Mayes (eds.), Recognizing the Margins. Developments in Biblical and Theological Studies. Dublin: The Columba Press, 2006, pp. 9–23 15 Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation: A Critical Reading of Isaiah 39:1–8 Yairah Amit et al. (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in the Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp. 107–22. 16 Who Is the tsaddiq of Isaiah 57:1–2? Peter Flint et al. (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Leiden: Brill, 2006, pp. 109–20 17 The Isaian Servant of the Lord at Qumran Published as “The Servant of the Lord, the Legitimate Teacher, and the Exalted One of 4Q491c” Duncan Burns and J. W. Rogerson (eds.). Far From Minimal. Celebrating the Work and Influence of Philip R. Davies. London: T&T Clark, 2012, pp. 41–51 18 The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12) Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016), pp. 1–14 19 The Suffering Servant, the Book of Daniel, and Martyrdom Unpublished 20 The One in the Middle J. C. Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.). Reading from Right to Left. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003, pp. 63–75

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

FAT I makes a point of publishing the works of not only younger but also of well-established scholars who give important momentum to Old Testament research all over the world. There are no religious or denominational preferences, and the series has no limits defined by certain positions. The sole determining factor for the acceptance of a manuscript is its high level of scholarship. Monographs, including habilitations, volumes of essays by established researchers and conference volumes on key subjects from the fields of theology and religious history define the profile of the series. FAT I is an international forum for Old Testament research, which is expressed in the broad spectrum of the subjects and aspects dealt with. FAT II makes a point of publishing the works of a younger generation of scholars who are giving important momentum to Old Testament research. As in the FAT I series, there are no religious or denominational preferences, and the series has no limits defined by certain positions. In this series as well, the standards for the acceptance of a manuscript are high. In addition to dissertations, conference volumes on subjects from the fields of theology and religious history with an interdisciplinary focus are also published. Unlike FAT I, the main goal of the FAT II series is to provide a younger generation of scholars with a platform. FAT II: ISSN: 1611-4914 Suggested citation: FAT II All published volumes at www.mohrsiebeck.com/fat2

FAT I: ISSN: 0940-4155 Suggested citation: FAT I All published volumes at www.mohrsiebeck.com/fat1

Mohr Siebeck

www.mohrsiebeck.com