Isaiah 28-39 0800695089, 0800695100

Citation preview

Hans Wildberger

FORTRESS PRESS

HANs WILD BERGER

ISAIAH 28-39 A Continental Commentary

Translated by Thomas H. Trapp

FORTRESS PRESS MINNEAPOLIS

This is the third and final volume of Hans Wildberger's magisterial commentary on Isaiah 1-39.lt includes not only the detailed commentary on each passage, but also an extensive overview of the prophet and the Book ofIsaiah-formation, theology, religiohistorical connections, style, and language. In addition, it includes a bibliography brought up-to-date through 2001. Each passage 1S treated under six headings: • Bibliography • Text • Form • Setting • Commentary • Purpose and Thrust

ISAIAH 28-39

ISAIAH 28-39 A Continental Commentary English translation first published by Fortress Press in 2002. Translated from Jesaja 28-39, published by Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, in 1982 in the Biblischer Kornmentar series. Copyright © Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins GmbH, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982. English translation copyright © 2002 Augsburg Fortress. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write to: Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, P.O. Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440. Biblical quotations from the New Revised Standard Version Bible are copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America and are used by permission.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Library of Congress has catalogued this series as follows:

Wildberger, Hans, 1910-1986 [Jesaj a. English1 Isaiah: a commentary I Hans Wildberger p. cm.--(Continental commentaries) Translation of: Jesaja. Contents: [l] Isaiah 1-12 ISBN 0-8006-9508-9 (v. 1; alk. paper): 1. Bible. O. T. Isaiah-Commentaries. I. Title. II. Title: Isaiah 1-12. III. Series. BS1515.3W53613 1990 224'.I077-- (of its gorgeous ornamentation) is in apposition to ?:::ll r'::> (the shriveled flower). What the prophet considers to be nothing other than the wilting splendor of flowers is viewed by Ephraim as its expensive ornamentation. It is not necessary to treat 1r:iN:lr1 ':::l::> (of its gorgeous ornamentation) as being in an actual genitive relationship to y'::': (flower) (Ehrlich, Randglossen, IV, 97). Of course, it is even less necessary for one to follow Gesenius's suggestion to insert an iON (which is) or an Nl;-J iON (that which is) before 'J::> (ornamentation). If one deletes ?:::l) (shriveled) and reads the preceding m';; (flower of) in the construct (SchlOgl; see v. 4), then one disturbs the intended antithesis, ld Gilula tries to make a case at this point for treating ':::l::> (ornamentation) as the name for a specific decoration for the head. le--e C'lOO-Wl (of the lush valley) disturbs the metrical structure of this entire section, which is surprisingly consistent throughout. But it is even more impor-

Isaiah 28-35 3 t~nt to note that. here, in con~ra.st to v. 4, th~ actual drunks of Ephraim are being dIscussed; the cIty of SamarIa IS not yet at Issue. Ehrlich alters what he calls the "nonsensical ~'f' (valley) to read '1'\' (a plural construct of :1~', "proud") and translates C':O~-'~J as "anointing pride," which supposedly means "Men who are proud of the great amount of oil that they have, which they are able to use frequentl~ to ~noint themselves." He himself is not particularly satisfied with thIs solutIOn eIther and wonders whether C)·;Ot.:l might in fact refer to "copious amounts of wine" in this passage. Driver (48) similarly chooses to follow J. Halevy (RevSem 21 [1913] 5) and Rost by reading C'lOO .~) ("men proud of fat things"); Q' ("~;) supports this emendation. Now it is true that one would value ri~h foods i~ the ~ear Eas~ (see I~aiah 13-27, p. 531), but certainly not oily wmes; the dISCUSSIOn here IS speCIfically about wine alone. Donner (76) wants to eliminate the entire relative clause in v. I b; he thinks it belongs to v. 3. Duhm, by contrast, changes the plural C'lDO (lit.: "fatnesses, oils") to a construct singular 1D9 and translates (after deleting i~~, "which"): "on the head of the lush valley ot those laid low by wine." In his view, one ought not remove "the lush valley ... , since the drunks did not carry the capital city of Samaria upon their heads." They obviously do not do that, but the discussion at this point is still about the wreath on the head of each one who is drunk. Finally, some have offered the suggestion that C)·lOt.:! (lit.: "fatnesses") was miscopied, the original reading being jiiO\:i (Samaria), but that is highly unlikely as well. The wisest course for solving this problem is to treat C)'JOO-X', (lush valley) as a gloss at this point, inserted here because the same phrase is read in v. 4. 2a-a Ehrlich (98) points yr:lt-t1 PI':! (lit.: "strong and powerful"; here: "a strong one and a powerful one") as substantives yr,li\1 plh (strength and power) suggesting that the adjectival forms do not make satisfactory sense. BHS adopts this reading by making reference to Syr (/fyl) wwfn), "the strength and the power"). But there seems to be no reason why this change must be made, since even Ehrlich makes the point that this is not a reference to Yahweh's own personal power, but to Assyria, which is available to him as a tool to bring punishment. 2b Instead of'lj~? (of the Lord/of adonai), Qa reads :11:1'" (of Yahweh), as had been suggested as the more correct reading, even before the discovery of that text, by Cheyne, Duhm, Procksch, among others, because it was read thus in some MSS; in light of its use in 6: II and 7:20, however, 'lj~ (adonai) should probably be kept as is (see FS Z. Shazar [1973] 720ff.). 2c--c Lit.: "as a downpour with hail." 2d It is hard to make sense of exactly what is meant by ~~p. For this passage, Ges-Buhl reads "destruction" but translates it as "epidemic" elsewhere, adding the comment that this word was used by Jews in later times as the name for a demon (cf. M. Jastrow, Dictionary, II, 1346); by contrast, KBL translates it as "sting" (with reference to Arabic qll/b and Syriac q~l:tb), "thorn"). . 2e-e Lit.: "potent, surging forth." Q' reads thIS C)'~~1"-, Cl·i~:l (orthographIc variants only). . . ' 2f-f Q': n'l:11 (and he will throw). That readmg mIght be correct; In any cas~, since this is describing a threat, one ought to translate the word so that It conveys a future sense. Donner thinks that ther~ should be an object for n'::1 (throws) in the text; to provide one, he suggests msertInj?; j"' 'O1?:1 ([those] who are under the influence of wine), which he had removed trom v. I. But r,1~J ~it:ll) jthe proud crown) in v. 3 .could provide a suit~ble object, even though that phrase is technically the subject of:1:ooin (they WIll be trampled). 2g Translators have usually. r:ndered j'. as "power" at this point, which doe~ make sense in the context; thIS InterpretatIOn destroys the parallelIsm between j

4 Isaiah 28-35 (hand) and C'?Ji (feet), however (cf. Guthe as well), Under no circumstances ought one remove ;' (hand) altogether, as Donner does, treating it as a gloss. 3a-a ~JOQir. (they will be trampled) simply does not fit with the subject ;ii~lJ (crown), which is singular. For this reason, Ehrlich alters it to read ;iloDi' (will trample it). l. Eitan (HUCA 12/13 [1937/38] 71), Procksch, Driver (50), and BHS treat this as an energic form of the third feminine singular, which supplies an II to help in the pronunciation, with an analogous form being used in Arabic, and M. Dahood (FS J. Coppens [1969] 25) points out that the corresponding forms are used in Ugaritic as well. Kissane reads ;i~obin C'7J-:;:t'(the feet will trample), but it is not likely that the article would be read with C'?;-, (feet). Finally, BHK offers possible changes that read either the plural n"1~.p ("crowns," so Kaiser as well) or change the verb form to read ornn (will be trampled) as a singular. Against the solution that the plural r,"1t:).p (crowns) should be read, this would then have to be the reading in v. I as well. From among the solutions, it should most probably be treated as an energic form of the third feminine singular suffix. \ 4a Duhm, Marti, among others, rearrange the text by placing ;in'~l ([and] it will happen) before ;iil:l:::l:l (here: "as the 'early fig''') in v. 4b, and they remove the mappiq in the;, at the end of ;'il:lJ:l. After such changes are made, one could read 2 three-stress + three-stress bicola in both vv. 4a and 4b; at the same time, one would not need to make sense of the difficult comparison between a flower and an early fig. In any case, the reading of;,n";'l (and it will be) in Qa does not help resolve this problem. 4b--b ?JJ r,:,;':'; (here: "the shriveled flowers") calls for special attention, not only because ?:::lJ r::; (shriveled flower) is used in v. I, but even more so because the feminine ;':';':'; (here: "flowers") is not used elsewhere in the OT. To be sure, the construct form n:,;':,; is not an impossible form, since an adjective and a noun in the genitive can occasionally follow a noun in the construct (sec Meyer, Gr §97, 6). It is unlikely that P. Wernberg-M0l1er (ZA W 71 [1959] 63, note 39) is correct in supposing that ?:::l: n:,;':,; can mean "flower of fading." r,:';':'; might have been read in the feminine after ;in';'l ([and] it will happen) was placed incorrectly at this point (see Donner, 76, note I). As is true of lniXEln 'J:'; (its gorgeous ornamentation) as well, which follows, ?::lJ yo:,; (the shriveled flower) is in apposition to ;';t:)lJ (crown) in v. 3 and the crown is still the subject of;,n';'i (it will happen), which is to be placed now at the beginning of v. 4b. 4c--c Rost explains that C)'JDi:l X'J ox; (here: "the head over the lush valley") is not an acceptable reading, neither making sense nor being topographically accurate; he changes it to read C)'JDO '~~ OXi ("head of [those] proud of oils"), which was suggested above as well for v. I. What a mistake! The text is very clear. The proud crown of the drunks of Ephraim refers to Samaria itself in this passage; this city is situated on a hill that can easily be identified as a "head" and that dom inates the very fruitful land in the valley below as it towers over it. 4d The suffix on ;'i1::::l (lit.: "her early figs") is missing in the ancient versions and modem commentators are in agreement that the word should be read in the absolute state. 4e Instead of ;';llJJ (hardly), Qa reads [the more common] ;':;1JJ::l (also: "hardly"). 4f Ehrlich, followed by Schlagl, is not satisfied with 1El:l (his hand), suggesting that it should rather be read ~~:l, which supposedly means "branch." That itself would be an unnecessary "emendation," even if ;'El:l really did mean "branch" (concerning this word, see Isaiah /-12, pp. 245 and 221, note l3b). 5a-a Targ reads nlX:::l:'; ;il;"; Xn'i:lD (the Anointed One [or, Messiah] of the Lord of hosts) in place of n1XJ::; ~l;" (Yahweh of Hosts); those responsible for

Isaiah 28-35 5 that text could not comprehend how such a radical change, as is described here, could take place without the appearance of the messiah. 5b :1~'El~ is related to Arabic ~afara, "interweave" (so Ges-Buhl), meaning something such as "interwoven, wreath." The word is used elsewhere only in Ezek. 7:7, 10, but its meaning in that passage is not clear (see W. Zimmerli, BK XIIIII, 161 f. [Eng1: Ezekiel 1, 195f.]). 6a-a Targ makes this more specific by reading X;'j n':::l:::l p'r;j'? (to them that sit in the house of jUdgement). Delitzsch noted already that the athnach in v. 6 should be placed under ~El~O:1 ([in] jUdgment). 6b Duhm's suggestion has been justifiably well received; he proposes that one ought to read '::'tio'? (for those who push [the battle] back), so that it corresponds to the parallel :::It:l''? (for the one who sits).

Form A kerygmatic unit is presented in vv. 1-6; the theme changes in v. 7, even though the catchword "wine" (see, in addition, O'j1:>0, "drunks," and j:;:b, "intoxicating drink," respectively) links the two sections. Verses 1-4 speak of Ephraim, whereas vv. 7ff. focus on Judah/Jerusalem. At the same time, it is obvious that the original message is to be found only in vv. 1-4; vv. 5f. are a later addition, composed in prose (which means that the reader ought not be misled by the textual arrangement provided in BHK). Taken together, the two verses are introduced by ~1;';' C1':J (on that day), completely typical in such expansions; this material, however, is quite out of place, since what is announced in vv. 5f. cannot have taken place on the same day as what is threatened in vv. 1-4. Verses 1-4 begins with a woe-cry but then is developed as an announcement of judgment; vv. 5f. are in the form of an announcement of salvation, though these two verses are not addressed initially to the same audience, Ephraim/Samaria, but are directed toward the remnant of Israel. If one wants to "rescue" this latter material and attribute it to the same author as well-that is, to Isaiah-then one has to assume that these two verses are an addendum, composed for a completely different situation, but that is highly unlikely. The actual woe-oracle is in v. I only. The message actually could have come to an end right there. Were that the case, it would have been directed against the drunks in Ephraim, which could certainly be attributed to Isaiah in light of 5: II f. and 28:7ff. Introduced in v. 2 by;,;;, (look there), however, an announcement follows, describing the coming of a strong and potent one, sent by command of Yahweh, who throws down the proud crown of the drunks of Ephraim and tramples it. No longer about the crown on the head of the drunks, this refers instead to the "head," that is, the hill located above the lush valley. Since the discussion has just been focusing on Ephraim, there is no doubt that the ;ijt;).!) (crown) on this head is the capital city of Ephraim, Samaria. The city is threatened with downfall, at the hands of a mighty foe that will rllsh on in like a flood, with the force of a hailstorm or a downpour, as is clearly stated in v. 4 by means of C'JOO ~'; O~j-"!) jO~ (upon the head over the lush valley). The specific mention of Samaria itself is admittedly lacking; but it need not be mentioned by name, since the woe-

6 Isaiah 28-35 oracle is uttered during a situation in which the eyes of every person in Jerusalem are gazing in the direction of Samaria. Meter: With a regularity that is seldom to be found, the poem in vv. 1-4 uses two-stress + two-stress bicola. Exceptions: vv. I au and 2b~.3a are each constructed using a five-stress colon. This places particular importance on the '10 (woe) at the beginning of the message as well as on the decisive announcen';0 (he throws to the ground with [powerful] haRd). Verses Sf. ment: ,':J show evidence of parallelism, but should nonetheless not be forced to fit some metrical pattern.

r,l{?

Setting

Based on the interpretation that has been set forth above already, it is assumed that vv. 1-4 are uttered by Isaiah,.the son of Amoz. Indeed, that is almost the unanimous opinion within the scholarly community, and even such critical exegetes as Marti and Fohrer express no doubts. But Kaiser still has reservations and raises questions concerning whether this passage can be treated as authentic. He begins his criticisms by referring to Duhm' s assertion that this material had to have been written before the Assyrians appeared on the scene and had to have come from the early period of Isaiah's activity. "Isaiah could have spoken in the mysterious terms used in v. 2 only before any attack by the Assyrians had taken place." But Kaiser disagrees, supposing that Assyria's power was too obvious and apparent even in Isaiah's early period of activity, inferring that such a mysterious way of speaking would have been out of place even then. Thus, for Kaiser, not only did the passage not originate with Isaiah, but every possibility that this section was authored by anyone in the preexilic period would be ruled out. He thinks that this threat provides insight into the expectations about the end time that were held by certain circles in Jerusalem, for whom the metropolis of the province of Samaria would have been a thorn in the flesh. He even goes so far as to speculate that the author could have been speaking during the fourth century, within the purview of the rebuilt city of Shechem, along with its temple on Mt. Gerizim. According to Kaiser, placing wreaths on the drunks could show Greek-Hellenistic influence. He concludes his discussion by raising questions about the artistic quality of the poem. His observations are not persuasive, however. Mention of Assyria is not "mysterious," and this passage is just as understandable as are those comments in such passages as 5 :25ff. and 10:28ff. that mention the anticipated arrival of Assyria as well, without referring to it by name. It may be that certain circles in Jerusalem expressed their expectations about what would happen in the end time in vv. Sf., but vv. 1-4 are set clearly within the context of preexilic, specifically Isaianic, prophetic activity. One certainly would not need to appeal to Hellenistic influence when explaining why drunks put wreaths on their heads. It is difficult to argue about the poetic quality of the piece; in any case, there is nothing in this style that speaks against Isaiah as author. To cite one observation: Duhm finds the imagery beautiful and says: "The characterization of Samaria is worthy of a master such as Isaiah; with just a

Isaiah 28-35 7 f~w sentences ... he sketches for us the picture of a beautifully situated City, the drunken revelry of its leaders, its pride and, at the same time, its

depravity." The message begins relatively harmlessly and uncontroversially by speaking about crowns on the heads of drunks but then switches suddenly to speak about an entirely different "crown." This is a tactic that finds a remarkable parallel in Isaiah's song of the vineyard, where the vineyard of the friend imperceptibly ceases to be a common vineyard and turns out to be Yahweh's beloved planting, IsraeliJudah. Isaiah knows how to lead his listeners in a completely different direction from that in which they initially expected to be going. The jump from the imagery of the crown to that of the early figs, without any transition, is characteristic of the prophet's Iively imagination. Finally, the vocabulary is clearly Isaianic. To mention just a few terms: m~J (proud), sec above, textual note la; concerning the reference to the Northern Kingdom as Ephraim, see Isaiah 1-12, p. 230; concerning "~JiD (drunk), see 19: 14; concerning '~i.J (intoxicating drink), see 5: II, 22; 28:7; in addition, the C',':::JJ 0'0 (waters with tremendous force) are referred to elsewhere only in 17: 12; the comparison with an enemy host that comes as a rushing flood with huge amounts of water is similar to what is said in 8:7; ~~iJ (cause flooding) is used in 8:8 and in 28: 15ff. Simply put, there is no way one can deny that Isaiah composed the passage, as long as one is of the opinion that it is both possible and makes sense for one to seek an answer to the question about authorship of such texts. In addition to the reasons just provided, one notes that the message fits very well into the time period of Isaiah. To be sure, someone in Jerusalem could have yearned for the downfall of Samaria during the later, postexilic time period as well (see Isaiah 13-27 on 27: 10f.). In contrast to that setting, however, for which it is difficult to establish the specific background and about which one cannot be sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is even about Samaria, the actual historical situation is very obvious here. When this describes the pm (strong [one)), the ro~ (powerful [one)), who strikes suddenly like a thunderstorm, it uses imagery that is employed elsewhere by Isaiah himself to characterize the Assyrians. He has spoken already about the fall of Samaria (17: 1ff.). And Samaria did actually fall during his lifetime. That everything did not happen as quickly as one might have anticipated on the basis of the description about the early fig does not prevent one from assuming that this was spoken after the time of the Syro-Ephraimitic War, after 733, but before the beginning of the siege of Samaria by Shalmaneser in 725/724. This message is apparently uttered after the fall of Damascus in 732; the Assyrians had not, however, as yet made their move to seize control of the heartland of the Northern Kingdom. After the Syro-Ephraimitic War, Isaiah sensl!d that his period of activity had come to a close, at least for a time (see 8: 16-18). Based on these observations, this woe-oracle in 28: I ff. would have been spoken not long before Assyria took control of the Northern Kingdom. Since the pride of Ephraim is accentuated so strongly, it might be that this message was uttered at the time when King Hoshea, in a foolhardy way, dared to declare that he

8 Isaiah 28-35 would no longer remain the loyal vassal of Assyria. This means that 28: 1-4 might very well have been composed during the year 724. An entirely separate issue deals with the reason why this Isaianic passage was first placed into its present position in the book of Isaiah, particularly since the lsaianic passages in chaps. 28-31 virtually all supposedly deal with the last phase of Isaiah's period of activity. One might assume that this message belonged to a collection of,yerdicts concerning foreign nations, as is the case for example with 17: 1-6, but that it was rearranged and inserted immediately before 28:7- \3 because of the motif of drunkenness that is common to both (thus Fahrer). This would mean that the collector of the messages attached no importance to the announcement about the fall of Samaria--the city had been conquered by the Assyrians in the meantime-but that there was an abiding validity in the description of the haughty actJons of drunks, something that recurs in fact in every age. Commentary [28: 1) Since the woe-oracle seems at first to be directed against the drunks of Ephraim, one would anticipate that it ought to have begun: "Woe to the drunks . . . ," or something similar (cf. 5:11). But when Isaiah formulates it: "Woe to the r,~N~ r.'::i1.) (proud crown) of the drunks of Ephraim," that is because he already has the announcement of judgment against Samaria in mind, since this city is itself going to be compared to a crown. The ;'i'i~1' (here: "crown") is, of course, not exactly what we think a crown to be, but, as will be described in detail in a moment, it is a wreath of flowers, and the boozers in ancient times loved to crown themselves with flowers that had been interwoven. The addition in vv. 5f. interprets ;-;,u1.) (crown) as ;'i,'~;;, which means "interweaving." The range of meaning for ;'i,t:ll) includes "crown" or "diadem" as well as ·'wreath." Kings wear r,';i::i1' (crowns) (of gold: 2 Sam. 12:30; of silver and gold: Zech. 6: 11) and the high priest wears an iEl mul) (pure gold crown) (see Sir. 45: 12). But nn:::1' can refer to wreaths of flowers as well (see Ezek. 23:42): Provo 4:9 uses r.'iN:li', mull (beautiful crown) in parallel with ~n-~"'; (fair garland) (cf. Provo 1:9 and 14:24 as well). Because of the double meaning of :1,ul), Isaiah can speak initially about the wreath of the drunks and then still use the same word to speak about the crown that is perched above the lush valley. It makes sense to compare a city to a crown upon a head when one considers how a city is positioned on the upper part of a hill, with its walls looking very much like a crown (see the plan of Samaria in BHH, III, 1655f. or the reconstruction of Lachish, ibid., II, 1037f.). We learn the most about wreaths being worn during drinking parties from the country of Greece, at which the boundary between cultic sacrificial meals and a symposium cannot be demarcated clearly (see Pauly-W, XII2, 1602). Evidence for the same practice is found in the OT in Ezek. 23:42. Whoever puts on a wreath or actually wears a crown declares thereby that that individual occupies an exalted position; if drunks do it, calling attention to one's elevated position becomes then a sign of one's unbridled arrogance. Isaiah no doubt uses this proud arrogance of the

Isaiah 28-35 9 drunks of Ephraim to depict the arrogance of the entire population of Samaria, those who, much like drunks, are not capable of viewing life realistically. From the moment that Tiglath-Pileser began to take over in Syria/Palestine in 732, the situation for Ephraim was most precarious. And yet, one can understand psychologically that someone for that very reason would seek a place to get away from it all by staging drinking parties instead of reflecting soberly on the reality of the situation. R. Fey (Amos und Jesaja, WMANT 12 [1963] 82) maintains that Isaiah makes use of Amos 6:1-7 in this present passage. It is certainly true that Amos severely criticizes the carelessness displayed by those who "feel secure on Mount Samaria," noted in the way they put on their sumptuous drinking festivals. Amos, however, says nothing about the drunks putting wreaths on themselves. Drinking bouts have been staged in all times and places; it would thus be more likely that Isaiah focuses on the arrogance that is clearly visible in the actions of those who frequent such festive occasions. The crown of arrogance is a m~mn 'J~ (gorgeous ornamentation); one might compare it with 'J~-?J l'~J (pride of all majesty) in 23:9 and C'lbJ l'~J r:1~Elr: (pride-filled magnificence of the Chaldeans) in 13: 19. This particular genitive construction m~Eln 'J~ (gorgeous ornamentation) is used only here; by contrast, in 13:19, the passage just mentioned, 'J~ (ornamentation) is used in parallel with m~Elr: (here: "magnificence"; there: "elegance"). In addition, that passage offers a beautiful example of the way the capital city of a particular country (there it is Babylon) can be viewed as furnishing "ornamentation" for its people (cf. Ezek. 25:9 as well). And yet, what is really in mind with the reference to this majestic jewelry? Nothing other than a ?Jl r~ (shriveled flower). The flower, which withers so quickly, is a favorite image for the transitory nature of life; see Isa. 40:6; Ps. 103: 15; Job 14:2 and, most importantly, Isa. 40:7f.: r~ ?:;:l~ (the flower fades) is used parallel to T~r:r b:;:l: (the grass withers). The same term r'~ is used when describing the "rosette of the holy diadem" worn by the high priest, which was apparently an artistically shaped flower, made of gold (see BRL, 125ff.; see Exod. 39:30; Lev. 8:9; cf. Sir. 40:4 as well). Reference to the Cl'El1~ 'iJ(J (drunks of Ephraim) is made once again at the end of the verse with r' 'r::l1?:1 (those who are under the influence of wine). w?;; actually means "knock (down)," being used at times in parallel with ;;~:1 (strike); see Provo 23:35, where it is mentioned that the drunks are knocked down, though it is not wine that does it there but one's own fellow drinkers. 128:2) With v. 2, the woe-oracle turns into ajudgment threat against the drunks of Ephraim. A strong, powerful one will come and will put an end to the proud capital city of the kingdom. In 5:26, Isaiah speaks about ~ people from afar. There is no doubt that he refers to Assyria there; in 10:28 he speaks of a "he" or an "it," and Assyria is the referent there as well; in 8:7, the mighty and powerful waters of the Euphrates River are mentioned, once again, a reference to Assyria. Amos announces that an

10

Isaiah 28-35

exile is in store for Israel (7:11, 17). It would not even have been necessary to add the comment in 5:27 that the place of exile would be "beyond Damascus." His audience did not need to be instructed in greater detail about where the power that would bring danger was centered. Besides, the name "Assyria" does not go unmentioned simply because the one who specifically carries out this punishment is unimportant. What will happen is not a national catastrophe, determined by an evil enemy, but it is Yahweh's judgment, even if it is carried oul by an earthly power. Assyria's coming is compared to a powerful storm and to a hailstorm. Concerning e,i (cloudburst), cf. 25:4 (Isaiah 13-27, p. 520), but see 30:30 as well. Whatever stands in the way of that mass of water, which clears away everything in its path in the violent storm, will be torn away. In v. 2bP the imagery is apparently' abandoned, since the subject of n'j;-J (throws [to the ground]) is not likely Dli (cloudburst), nor is it probably the strong one and powerful one of the Lord, but it is rather Yahweh himself; he throws down ..,'J (with [powerful] hand). It is a widely known concept that Yahweh intervenes in historical matters "with his hand" or "with a powerful hand." [28:3) But the construction changes right after this into the form of an impersonal passive: They will be trampled by feet. Only for a fleeting moment does Yahweh appear as the active subject affecting history; then he disappears once again behind those who are commissioned to bring his judgment to completion on earth. "The feet" are certainly not those of Yahweh, but belong to a rough-and-tumble bunch of soldiers. Concerning a city being trampled, see Isaiah 13-27, on 26:5. To be sure, a wreath could be trampled as well. Yet, in the meantime, it must be recognized that the text does not speak of a typical wreath nor in reference to a typical crown, since one does not need a strong one or a powerful one to crush that; neither does one need to summon a fearsome hailstorm. (28:4a] In v. 4ap, the tension is resolved: The crown rests upon the "head" of a hill, situated above a lush valley. Concerning the meaning of OK, as "peak," see 2:2, where Mount Zion is referred to in such terms; but see also Gen. 8:5; Exod. 17:9; 19:20, among others. This should not be translated as "high point," since heads do not normally have a point. When referring to a rounded mountain peak, which is exactly the shape of the hill of sebastiyeh, upon which ancient Samaria was situated, tDK, (head) would be an apt designation (cf. Arabic ra~s as well). One must additionally consider the possibility that tDK, can refer to the capital city of a country as well (Josh. 11: 10: Hazor; Isa. 7:8: Jerusalem). Concerning K'; (valley), see A. Schwarzenbach, Die geographische Terminoiogie des Alten Testaments (1954) 32f. The'~ (valley) of Samaria is also mentioned in a threat against the Northern Kingdom in Mic.1 :6. A lush, fruitful valley is in fact situated southwest of the hill on which the city is built; there are smaller valleys to the north and south as well (cf. the illuss., pp. 167, 169, in L. Preiss/Po Rohrbach, Pa/astina und

Isaiah 28-35

11

das Ostjordanland [1925]; L. H. Grollenberg [1962 4 ], illuss. 224-228 and, especially, H. Bardtkc, Zu beiden Seiten des Jordans [1958], illus. 62). It is thus entirely apt for one to identify Samaria as a crown upon a hill above the valley. One can speak of a hill that is crowned by a village or a city in German as well. (28:4bl Verse 4b changes to a completely different image: that of the early fig, which is gulped down quickly by the one who finds it. It is incorrect to assert that a comparison is being made to Samaria here as well, though no longer as a crown but as an early fig, which would be in fact a rather rare sequence of images. The point of comparison is specifically the qu ickness with which such a fig is devoured. The pride of the lords of Samaria would be gone quickly and it would be demonstrated, with uncanny speed, that all the hopes by which the people tried to comfort themselves would be comparable to the euphoric expectations of drunks. In its basic meaning ;1j1JJ refers to any kind of early fruit, but in fact, as with Arabic bakura as well (from which is derived Spanish albacora), it actually always refers to early figs, which can be harvested in Palestine beginning at the end of May. The late figs do not begin to ripen until the very end of August (see Dalman, AuS, I, 379, 561). The early figs begin to grow on the sprouts that formed the previous year, whereas the late figs form on new shoots. The O'j1JJ (early figs) belong to the very first fruits that one can harvest and are sought most eagerly. One watches for them to ripen with rapt attention, just as one yearns for grapes in the wilderness (Hos. 9: 10; see Mic. 7: 1 as well). Samaria did not fall as rapidly as this comparison would have led one to believe; it was well fortified, a real fortress for Ephraim (17:3). 2 Kings 17:5 reports that it was able to withstand the Assyrians for three years (see TG12 , no. 29). But one ought not say that Isaiah's prophecy remained unfulfilled. "The prophetic impatience, as was often the case, (had) anticipated too quickly the actual course of events" (E. Jenni, Die politischen Voraussagen der Propheten, AT ANT 29 [1956] 79). Nothing is really changed, since the prophet has every reason to raise the issue about the pride of Ephraim's drunks and to announce its imminent doom; in fact, the Samaria that existed at that time was never afterwards anything more than a "shriveled flower." [28:5f.] The additional material in vv. Sf. takes the form of an announcement of salvation. "On that day" cannot really be taken to refer to that day on which the proud crown of Ephraim would fall, but rather to that day on which the destruction would turn into a new beginning, because Yahweh would start anew after all his judgments had been completed. But, in spite of that, the connection with the preceding is noteworthy. The redactor does not insert his prediction as if there is no tonnection to what precedes, but Iinks it intentionally with vv. 1-4 as a whole. Verses Sf. should not be treated in isolation. The redactor makes use of the vocabulary employed in Isaiah's message: "On that day" Yahweh himself would become a crown for the remnant of the people-

12

Isaiah 28-35

not becoming an m~) m::llJ (proud crown) but rather an 'J~ m~l) (spleendid crown), not becoming a shriveling flower but rather a gorgeous wreath (;l..,~~n ;-n'::);:::). Of course, this promise is not applicable to the entire population-the judgment cannot be set aside and must be taken seriously-but there would be a remnant. representing the true people of God, who would be recipients of the promises of the God of Israel. The remnant is described here in the same way as in the postexilic era, whcn one might say it became a chief tenet (loc'us classicus) of the faith of Israel (see 6: 13b~: 4:2f.: 7:22: 10:20ff.: see nOT, 3, I 284ff. and Isaiah 1-12, pp. 167ff. and 296ff.). Yahweh himself would be the crown for this remnant, a crown of righteous pride, one might say a KaUXl11la (boasting), about which Israel could justifiably speak with pride (cf. Amos 8:7, where the JPl)' i1!C, "the pride of Jacob," is in fact Yahweh himself). ' The redactor, however, does not finCi "splendid crown" to be exact enough: he makes it more specific: Yalnveh will be a "spirit of justice" and will have the "power of a champion." The ~~i.:l~ m.., (spirit of justice) belongs to the one who "sits in judgment." The most important obligation assigned to the shoot from the Davidic family, the one who wi 11 be outfitted with the spirit of Yahweh according to II: I ff., will be able to ensure that justice is done. And according to I :26 it was Isaiah's great hope that Jerusalem would have judges in the future who would be like those who served in the past, so that the city would once again be called the "stronghold of justice." At that point a redactor added: "Zion is to be ransomed by justice and its returnees by righteousness" (see Isa. 4:3f. as well). To this point, the redactor stays within the realm of what the prophets can be expected to say; then, however, he adds: "and the power of a champion for those who push the battle back to the gate." One apparently has to assume that the enemy has broken into the city already. At that point, it will take special heroic abilities to bring such a precarious situation back under control. Yahweh himself can be called "1'];(;;) ([the] champion) (Ps. 24:8: Deut. 10: 17; Neh.' 9:32; -m; ';~, "mighty God," 10:21). In the final analysis it describes the very same thing, as what is intended here, when it says that he will become a ;'..,1J; (champion) for those who belong to him. Purpose and Thrust The kerygma of the material from Isaiah himself [28: 1-4] is clear. Yahweh breaks dO\vn the pride of the haughty who, like drunks, are incapable of seeing reality for what it is. One ought not ignore the fact that Isaiah's message does not take the form of a timeless truth but addresses the unique situation that the Northern Kingdom faced when its end was near. That he would mock the most important citizens of Ephraim as a bunch of drunks who beautify themselves with wreaths of shriveling flow'ers is significant for Isaiah: for him such behavior. is symptomatic of the inner decay in the kingdom of their relatives in Israel, in light of \vhich he sees no more hope for them. Even the expander does not venture to promise Ephraim/Samaria a new future; he mentions nothing but the remnant of the people of Yahweh and this

Isaiah 28-35

13

remnant would undoubtedly assemble itself in and around Jerusalem. But his message is important: When Israel finally comes to be nothing, at that time Yahweh will be its crown, a lordly crown, about which they can be justifiably proud. That author's vision of the future is not one of fantasy, not of a utopia that goes far beyond all semblance of reality, and it does not anticipate that Israel will rule the world and have fitting splendor and riches: The remnant is promised nothing beyond a faithful administration of justice within its own group and effective protection of the cities and villages of Israel where people will live while facing outside threats-but even that will come only in the sense that critical dangers can be fended off at the last moment.

Isaiah 28:7-13

Against the Drunken Priests and Prophets of Jerpsalem

Literature W. H. Hallo, "Isaiah 28:9-13 and the Ugaritic Abecedaries," .fBL 77 (I958) 324-338. B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the AS5yrian Crisis (1967) 28-31. O. Betz, "Zungenreden und sUsser Wein. Zur eschatologischen Exegese von Jesaja 28 in Qumran und im Neuen Testament," FS H. Bardtke (1968) 20-36. G. Pfeifer, "Entwohnung und Entwohnungsfest im Alten Testament: der SchlUssel zu Jesaja 28, 7-13?" ZAW 84 (1972) 341-347. A. van Selms, "Isaiah 28:9-13: An Attempt to Give a New Interpretation," ZAW 85 (1973) 332-339. F. Stolz, "Oer Streit urn die Wirklichkeit in der SUdreichsprophetie des 8. lahrhunderts," WuD 12 (1973) 9-30, esp. 19-22. R. F. Melugin, "The Conventional and the Creative in Isaiah's Judgment Oracles," CEQ 36 (1974) 305-306. ILiterature update through 2001: See addendum to Selected Recent Literature at the end of the volume.) Text 7

8

[And these here stagger because of wine as well. and because of intoxicating drink they tottera.) bPriest and prophetb stagger because of intoxicating drink;c they are confused d because of wine, they tottera because of intOlcicating drink, stagger in the vision,e reel' in the judgment utterance.g Truly, all tables are full of vomit,a no spot (any longer) without a putrid mess. b

* 9

*

*

"Whom does he want to teach knowing,a and explain revelation for whom? To those who are weaned from milk, Uust now) removed from the breast?

14

Isaiah 28-35 10

15

aFor say lasav say lasav

qav'laqa~ qav laqa~,

a little here, a little there. "a

* 11

12

*

*

Truly, with stammerings of lipsa and with strange tongue he will speak bto this people here,b he who indeed had said to them a : "This is the b place of rest, let the weary rest! And this is the bspot where you can rest!"b But they were not willingc to hear.d

*

*

*

*

[13 Thus will the message of Yahweh a come to them: b$av la$av $av la~'av qav laqav qav laqav,b a little here, a little there, so they will go and stumble backward cand break in pieces, be entangled, and end up in imprisonment. c]

7a and a I. Eitan (HUCA 12/13 [1937/38]71) believes that 11m (here: "totter") should most likely be derived from a root .11lm, which means "be exhausted, be asleep" in Arabic. But if it is used parallel to i1)0 (here: "stagger"), that is no improvement. 7b--b Q': 'Jl1 1i11:J (MT: X'Jl~ ji1:J) shows that there was no officially adopted way of using the vowel letters at the time when the Qumran texts were written. Instead of X"J: (prophet), Targ reads ~~o (scribe); was there an attempt here to shield the prophets from the serious charge of drunkenness? 7c Procksch suggests removing i:JtJJ (because of intoxicating drink), following the Gk and Aquila, which shows a lack of sensitivity to the stylistic technique. 7d A root ;;';J III has been proposed, meaning "confuse." It is possible that this could be related to 'I'I~ (BOB: "mingle, mix, confuse, confound"). G. R. Driver (ZA W 52 [1934] 52) links it with l)';J I, making reference to Syriac bl', "was struck down." Since Isaiah spoke about 1" 'Qi'li1 (under the influence of wine) in v. I, it would not be impossible that the translation in v. 7 could read "they are struck down by wine." By contrast, the traditional rendering "confused because of wine" would be closer to the parallel terms "stagger" and "totter." 7e i1X~ is a hapax legomenon; here it must have the meaning "vision." Procksch thinks that it should be vocalized ~~-" as does BHS-which is certainly possible, though there is no way to decide for sure. 7f The qat of ?1El (reel) is used only here; one would have expected it to be accented 1?$; the deviation from the expected is very likely necessary because of rhythmic considerations. 7g It is surprising that there is no preposition with i1'';'';S Uudgment speech). Some (in analogy to i1KiJ, "in the vision") have chosen to read i1'';'';:::;1 (in the judgment speech) (BHK; BHS: ,1'';'';~~, "in a judgment speech"), an adjustment that simply has to be made.

16

Isaiah 28-35

8a 0': :l'p (MT: K'p), showing once again the careless copying technique at Oumran (see Kutscher, 184). 8b Ehrlich (Randglossen, IV, 99) and Feldmann move :lK::> (here: "putrid mess") to the second half of the verse (naturally, the athnach is moved to K'P, "vomit"); BHS does the same. In this way, the metrical structure of the line is much more satisfactory as well. 9a The Gk, instead of :l." (knowing), reads lCOlCU (evil), which means that it was using a text that read :l.,1 (evil things); Targ: !tn'11!t: "law." IOa-a It would seem that 0" reads '::> ($i) instead of 1::> Cwv) as'ls true in v. 13 as well (see Kutscher, 278). The Gk reads for v. 10: 8A.1'l'lv Ertt 8A.l'l'lV rtpocrMxou, EA.rti~o Ert' EA.rttOt, En JltlCPOV En JlllCp6v (take for yourselves tribulation upon tribulation, hope upon hope, yet a little, yet a little). It is certainly possible, based on the meaning of the verb 1p (BOB: "wait for"), that one could feel comfortable translating ,np as "hope" (though the word never means that anywhere else). The Gk apparently read -:::>, (trouble) instead of 1::; (,sav) (or "emended" the reading). That change is tempting;,it would mean that Isaiah was being accused of vacillating, that he was bouncing back and forth, first with a little about judgment, then with a little about salvation; he would be considered completely unreliable. But since it is obvious that the word was intended to match the sound of 1p (qav), it would not be plausible to alter 1::> ($av) to read 1::> (trouble). Ought one spend any time at all trying to make some logical sense of the words in this line, seeing as how Isaiah may have intended nothing more than to replicate the babbling sounds made by drunks? Since CtD 1'''1 (a little here) does make very good sense, however, it shows that something specific is intended in this la la lalling as well. Others think that this is intended as a way to replicate the ecstatic babbling of the prophets (see Ehrlich, 100; KBL, 796). Based on what we do know about Isaiah, however, he did not speak in tongues. Procksch (following Wellhausen) comes up with a neat interpretation: The opponents of Isaiah feel that they themselves are being taken to task just as if they are being corrected by their first teacher in school, "who ... drills the letters of the alphabet and who has just gotten to ,sade and qoph (p )"; others offer a similar explanation; see Hallo (237f.), who would like to treat this as evidence for the existence of the ancient West-Semitic alphabet. The solution to the question depends on the way one interprets the double use of the phrase elO ,'l'l (here: "a little here, a little there"). It has been commonly interpreted as a neutral term ("a little"), as some sort of comment made by the schoolteacher. By contrast, Procksch treats it as a masculine: "Little one, here; little one, 'over' there!" The teacher would be first calling on one, then moving quickly on to another one of the lads. G. R, Driver (Semitic Writing [1944] 90, see esp. note I) suggests that co (there) should be read as c(')c (lit.: "put, place"), so that one might come up with the translation: "pay attention, child" (Kaiser: "Boy, 'be careful' !"). But scholars have felt it necessary to probe still more, not believing that the challenge of interpretation has been met. In the FS for D. W. Thomas (see above, Literature to 28:7-13), Driver suggests reading C::.1 1'l); with the meaning "another drop here," to be understood as a request for another little swallow of wine to be provided! A. van Selms tries a very different, brand-new interpretation. He suggests that Yahweh is speaking in v. 10, in fact, as v. 11 shows, in a foreign tongue, the strange language being Assyrian: ,sl (which is how he emends 1::>, ,sav, on the basis of 0') is to be read as an imperative of the Akkadian verb a~'u, "go out" and qi is to be read as the imperative of qu"um, "wait." The '7 before both 1::> (,sa v) and ip (qav) would actually be the Akkadian precative particle m ("if' or "if only"); correspondingly, 1'l)l would match up with Akkadian ,JutJru, which can mean "slave"; finally, lJ~ (there) would be the imperative of Akkadian semfl, "heaL" Verse 10 (and v. 13) would thus actually

(n

Isaiah 28-35

17

be a summons to the Judeans who were to go into exile: $i iU$i, qi /uqqi/u, Let him get out! Wait! Let him wait! Slave! Listen!" It may be true that Isaiah knew a little Assyrian, but one certainly cannot assume that he had such an exact knowledge about details of that language as this interpretation would presuppose. One ought not be surprised that scholarly efforts have not as yet been successful in making sense of the la la lalling of drunken priests and prophets who lived at the time of Isaiah. Maybe the best one can do is to stay with the old interpretation that connected 1;; with :11;; and that translated it something such as "commandment" (see Gesenius) and linked 1p with :11P, resulting in a reading connected somehow with "hope." In any case, one ought to be able to use the simplified substantive forms to replicate the la la lalling in the original language. And yet, virtually every interpretation is uncertain at best; we will thus forgo any attempt to offer a translation. lla The suggestion has been made that one could derive '"J)? from an (otherwise unattested) adjective )J)?, resulting in :1!:lil 'JJ)'?, meaning "people of stammering lips" (so KBL). But it is possible that HAL is right, treating ')J)? as a plural in the construct state, from the substantive ).p'?, "stammering," so that :1!:l~ '"J)?::l could be translated "with stammerings of lips," or something similar. I1b-b Donner (147f.) thinks that it is possible to replace :1l:1 ClJ):1-?~ (to this people, here) with C:1'?/'t (to them). Verse 12, however, is focused not just on the "they" of the priests and prophets, but rather on the people as a whole. 12a Q': iirn?~ (long form of "to them") (see Kutscher, 449f.). 12b and b-b Schlogl suggests removing the article in both cases, but it is there in both passages for a good reason. 12c Q' and many MSS read the "normal" form 1::l~ (also: "they were not willing"); there are other passages in the MT, however, where similar variant forms of spelling are to be found. 12d Q' reads J)1aC? (adding the mark of the infinitive); both types of construction are possible (see Josh. 24: I 0; Isa. 30:9). 13a The Gk reads Kupiou 'tou SEDU (of the Lord, of God); Procksch supposes that this line possibly ended originally with "Q~? (saying), which was then falsely copied as C';"1"~ (of God), but that is not very likely. 13b-b See above, textual note lOa-a. 13c-c According to Duhm, the last three words in v. \3 have been inserted here, with their original setting being in 8: 15. Marti thinks that this might be true, but such an assessment would apply only to 1i.:iP1'1 (be entangled) and 'i~?'1 (be imprisoned). That is possible, but it could be asked whether an editor inserted the entire verse (on this matter, see below).

$eberu seme, "Get out.

Form Though some offer a different opinion, it has already been established above that a new section begins with v. 7. The drunks of Ephraim are no longer in view; instead, the drunken priests and prophets who are active in Jerusalem are subjects of discussion. Verses 7-9 depict their vulgar, disgusting behavior. To be sure, there is a break between vv. 8 and 9, but one still ought not doubt that v. 9 is basically a continuation ofvv. 7 and 8. What follows in v. 10 is an (obviously fictitious) quotation, fashioned as a response from the opponents whom Isaiah attacked, charging him ~ith incompetence, trying to expose the absu:dity of his char~c. It is obvious that the prophet has to respond to thIS attack from hIS opponents. That is what unfolds in vv. 11 f., as Isaiah starts by using the very words spoken by his critics. Verse 12b: "They were not willing to hear,

18

Isaiah 28-35

however" apparently brings this unit of material to an end. One could in fact object that Isaiah, whenever he states that Israel "was not willing" (see 30:9, IS), always follows up such a statement with a threat, which is the logic of the prophetic message (cf. 1: 19f.). A threat does indeed follow here as well, in v. 13. But the threat in v. 13 is already anticipated in v. 11, which means that the threat in v. 13 competes with the earlier one in v. II. In addition, as has been recognized for a long time already, the conclusion of v. 13 originally belonged in 8: 15; this verse was inserted into this text only secondarily. And yet, at present, as the text now stands, v. 13 brings this unit of material to a close, having begun with v. 7. It is just as clear that v. 14 opens a new section of material. The observations just made in connection with v. 13 make it possible to assume that the basic core of this message might have been expanded elsewhere as well. Scholarly activity has also put considerable effort into trying to clarify the prehistory of this section. At the very beginning of v. 7 :1';~-D;i (and these here also) links the entire section to that which precedes it. As things were in Samaria, so also the same situation now applied concerning Jerusalem. But since the immediately preceding verses, vv. Sf., are no longer about the drunks of Ephraim, :1?~-C)i (and these here also) in actuality refers back to vv. 1-4. That proves that vv. Sf. are a later addition. One can thus assume that the redactional link between vv. \-4 and 7ff. was established already before the redactor inserted verses 5 and 6. One must thus ask the question about whether the link between these two sections, which were clearly originally separate, might in fact have been made by Isaiah himself. One certainly could attribute to him the thought that those in Jerusalem were now acting in the same way as others (once comported themselves) in Samaria. Procksch offers the theory that Isaiah, because of their vulgar activities in the political realm, would have stepped into the middle of a group of these drunks, "proclaiming afresh the ancient message once delivered against Samaria ... as a threatening speech against Jerusalem" (353). It could also be that Isaiah, at the time when his earlier messages were being assembled together, pulled out his earlier speech against Ephraim and placed it immediately before that which was directed against the spiritual leaders of Jerusalem on purpose, since the content of the two sections was so similar. Unfortunately, we know too little about the way in which the transmission of the prophetic messages took place for us to be able to resolve such questions with any degree of confidence. It would be more likely to assume that the connection was made as a result of activity on the part of a redactor or Isaiah's disciples, whom one must credit with assembling the collection of Isaiah's messages now in chaps. 28-32. Furthermore, the bracketed material, which interrupts vv. 1-4 and vv. 7f., includes not only :1?~-C)i (and these here also) but encompasses all of v. 7a. To be sure, Kissane proposes a different solution: from v. 8a on, the discussion is not about the priests and prophets at all; he thus does not eliminate v. 7a but rather v. 7b, allowing v. 8 to follow v. 7a. Duhm is quite vague about his views: vv. 7 and 8 are said to form "what to some extent was certainly composed later, as a literary intro-

Isaiah 28-35

19

duction to what is portrayed in vv. 9ff." Kaiser is more precise with his suggestion: along with v. 13, v. 7a and the second line ofv. 7b belong to an eschatological reworking fashioned by a proto-apolypticist, and v. 12 itself is really a summary of Isaiah's preaching, produced by a redactor whose work can be dated no earlier than to the years between 597-587. But there is no apparent reason to eliminate the last line of v. 7b from the original core text, and there is no indication of any apocalyptic thinker's eschatology, either there or in v. 13. There is good reason to have the repetitions. It is also not apparent why one should attribute v. 12 to a redactor, to say nothing of the problem posed when trying to make some sense of dating the passage as Kaiser does. The results are as follows: Verse 7a is a redactional link and should possibly be attributed to a collector of Isaianic messages, who must have done his work before the time of the redactor who was at work in vv. Sf. Verse 13 is a gloss, inserted by a reader who wants to further specify the threat of judgment uttered by Isaiah. Verses 7b and 8 are to be treated as a rebuke. Then, intending to see the result of his accusation from a different perspective, Isaiah inserts a quotation that cites the objections raised by the opponents. "This method of quoting either real or contrived responses of the opponents is a favorite technique used to dramatize what happened when a rebuke was uttered and can be shown to have been used by almost all the prophets" (Donner, 150). In this present case, it means that the rebuke culminates with the quotation. As in many other instances, a threat is appended to this, in v. II, which in this instance announces the invasion of a foreign nation. Verse 12 asserts that this invasion cannot be averted, not after Israel has consciously refused to accept Yahweh's offer of peace. Meier: It would be best not to try to identify a metrical structure for the additions in vv. 7a and 13; v. 7b: a two-stress + two-stress bicolon; vv. 8 and 9: 2 three-stress + three-stress bicola (N'? 1N'lO, "full of vomit," receives one stress); vv. 9b and 10: 4 two-stress + two-stress bicola; v. I Ia is presumably a five-stress colon; vv. lIb and 12 (as far as t:l'i''lN, "to them") is possibly a threestress + three-stress bicolon; in the rest of v. 12, one might be able to identify once again 2 two-stress + two-stress bicola (in which case one would place the stresses as follows: 1),60 N'~X N'?l, which would strongly underscore the unwillingness of Israel, so that the message ends with the harsh accusation of stubbornness).

Setting There is no doubt that vv. 7b-12 come from Isaiah; even Kaiser is willing to admit as much concerning at least a core of this material. But the actual dating of this message within the context of the prophet's period of activity is more controversial; the text does not provide us with any trustworthy indicator that might point to an exact historical setting. J. Scharbert (Die Propheten l\'raels his 700 v. Chr. [1965] 249ff.) treats vv. 7-22 as a direct continuation of vv. 1-4 and thus places these verses, as well, within the time period just before the fall of Samaria.

20

Isaiah 28-35

If one removes v. '7a from the text as it now stands, it is not completely impossible that this could have been spoken already in the time just prior to 721. But one can detect in v. 11 that the message comes from a time period when there is an acute threat against Jerusalem, brought on by the Assyrians. The priests and prophets are in the foreground, as Isaiah initially focuses on their behavior that arouses such disgust, but they are actually part of a much broader scene, since they do not think that they need to take the Assyrian threat seriously. They are counted among the aristocratic upper class of Jerusalem society, which detests Assyria and which pays no attention to the admonitions of the prophet to trust in Yahweh and thus to follow a political course of remaining calm. Some commentators are of the opinion that this material would have come from the heightened pressures at the time of Ashdod's rebellion (see Isaiah 13-27, concerning chap. 20; thus Fohrer); others think that it is from the time of Sennacherib's invasion (Donner; Wright: between 705 and 701; Marti: about 703; Eichrodt, Herbert, Kaiser: 701). One ought not try to date it too close to 701; this text belongs to a moment in time when no clear impression had been formed concerning the intentions and the strength of this Assyrian king, which means one could still express the viewpoint that it might be a good time to rebel against the Assyrians. Later then, of course, that moment came when Isaiah no longer needed to issue a warning about the Assyrians; then he had to summon the listeners to hold fast in faith even when the situation was most dire and threatening. When that time arrived, the moment for Isaiah's opponents to mock him would have been long since past. It is possible that 28:7b-12 is the earliest comment from Isaiah at the time when the Palestinian states initiated their resistance movement against Sennacherib. Commentary

[28:7a; 7b, 8] That which needed to be said about the redactional introduction, v. 7a, has been stated above already. In vv, 7b, 8 the prophet depicts a filthy scene, similar to what one would probably be able to observe if one visited an offering feast in the temple. Of course, one can assume that he paints this picture in its stark reality, using harsh tones, because he wants to expose publicly, in a fitting manner, the reprehensible nature of the activities of the authorities that are in charge of the sanctuary. In Lev. I 0:8f., Aaron and his sons were forbidden to drink wine and intoxicating drinks (cf. Ezek. 44:21 as well). This injunction may have been issued in order to reject cultic practices common among the Canaanites; but it also may have been necessitated because of the way in which festivals were being celebrated at the temple in Jerusalem; one might compare this with Hosea's polemic in Hos. 4: 11, as well as the attitude of the Rechabites. Wine also played a rather significant role at Israelite sacrificial feasts (cf. 22:13; I Sam. 1:9ff., but Isa. 25:6 as well, and the Ugaritic texts cited there). Essentially, one can understand how this happens. If participants are to furnish wine and intoxicating drinks and do not withhold such, even at normal parties held by whatever

Isaiah 28-35

21

random group of individuals gather together, then certainly such drinks are not to be absent from a special meal to which the deity has issued an invitation. One need not assume that those of the priestly rank were usually drunk; certainly the bounds of propriety were maintained on most occasions. Thus the sacrificial meal that is portrayed by Isaiah is depicted as being much more on the order of an out and out orgy. Not only are the priests and prophets staggering around, the table on which their food and drink is spread out is full of vomit. Concerning tables in the house of God, cf. Ps. 23:5. Concerning !('p (vomit), see Isaiah 13-27, p. 256, at 19: 14, as well as Jer. 48:26; this word is used only in connection with drunkenness. The parallel word ;1!(~ is derived from the verbal root N'~, which means "be dirty." It can refer to excrement; here it would probably be more correct to take it as a reference to vomit. One notes that Isaiah mentions the prophets along with the priests. There must have been prophets who were closely associated with the priestly ranks, who were headquartered at the sanctuary just as were the priests (see Isaiah 1-12, pp. I 29ff.). At the same time, it demonstrates that Isaiah, as is true for most of the other preexilic prophets, cannot be thought of as a cultic prophet. He never describes himself as a !('::J:l (prophet) (see Isaiah 1-12, p. 337); this title is applied to him only in the Isaiah legends (37:2; 38:1; 39:3). In 3:2, right after Isaiah himself speaks about the category of prophet, he makes mention of the category of fortuneteller. At the end ofv. 7 we learn about what is included among the duties of the priests and prophets at the sanctuary. They are to interpret visions and to render decisions. There is a question about whether one can divide these two activities too neatly, assigning the one to priests and the other to the prophets (see A. Haldar, Associations of Cult Prophets among the Ancient Semites [1945] 102, 124f.). In general, however, one assumes that it is a priest's task to render decisions and a prophet's to interpret visions. In ancient times the Cl'!('::J:l (prophets) were ecstatics and there were times when music and wine could be used to accompany the moments when they were "being seized." One simply cannot know for sure whether this was true of the cultic prophets who served at the temple in Jerusalem as well. In any case, the wine and intoxicating drink serves no such purpose for the opponents of Isaiah whom he addresses at this time; this was nothing but plain carousing. Yet there can be no doubt that these prophets would claim to have seen visions (cf. Jer. 23:16ff.). According to Hab. 2: 1 the prophet began his time of waiting in order to "see" what Yahweh would say to him. That which he was to proclaim could also be called a l~t~ ("vision"; Hab. 2:3), even though we do not actually hear about a vision there, but rather about a verbal message. More appropriately, Habakkuk spoke in 3:2 about a l'QiD (what is heard), which he had received; only then, in a parallel statement, did he speak about the action of Yahweh that he had seen in a vision. Visions and auditions are quite frequently puzzling or are open to several interpretations; for that reason they must be interpreted. And it is this particular activity that is depicted here as the actual task of the

22

Isaiah 28-35

prophet (cf. ;'1!Jl~~ 1'J;'1, "explain revelation," in v. 9); they believe that they are the appropriate personnel who have the technical aptitudes necessary for knowing how to interpret such revelations. If this assessment is accurate, then the "decisions" would be primarily the duty of the priests. ;"i''?''?::l (here: "judgment speech") is a hapax legomenon, but the related term i1'?''?::l, in 16:9, refers to the judicial decision, the judgment speech; '?'?~ means "pass judgment," specifically "be an arbiter" (I Sam. 2:25). It would be the duty of prieSts to render a decision to resolve complex issues. Evidence for this can be found in the "prayer of one accused" in the Psalter (cf. Exod. 22:8; Deut. 17:8ff.; 1 Kings 8:31 f. as well). Both offices were invested with the highest levels of responsibility; false information being provided by a prophet could pitch a country into an utter disaster and a faulty decision on the part of a priest could defame someone who was innocent, could even cost that person's life. They thus could carry out the responsibilities of their office only with great presence of mind and could hold sway only with wisdom; a great measure of wisdom (cf. ;'1!Ji, "knowing," in v. 9) was needed. Instead: "they stagger because of intoxicating drink; they are confused because of wine!"

[28:9] Isaiah's opponents are thus attacked at the very point where they believe themselves most deserving of honor; they carry out the duties of their office, having acquired the necessary knowledge, having figured out how to attend to all the practical details-and then this seer Isaiah comes from nowhere, having no legitimate status at all, and calls their authority into question, doing so in such a way that he treats them as if they are little kids (J'?n~ ''?lm, "those who are just weaned from milk," and c'iiD~ 'P'!":!J, '''just now' removed from the breast"), whom someone must now teach. One might compare the usage of '?r.J, in the sense of "wean," with 1 Sam. 1:23f.; Hos. 1:8, and Isa. 11:8 (on this latter passage, see Isaiah 1-12, p. 480). In the last passage mentioned, P)l' (there: "suckling") is used parallel to '?1~; (there: "a [weaned] chi Id"); here, mention is made of children who have just been weaned from their mother's breast (qal: pr,l], "move away, progress"; hiphr,:1:l (here: "for one who wants to cover up"), Q' reads CJ:lr::1:::! (when one wants to cover up). BHK suggests reading o::lmo (covering up), as a parallel to v. 20a. Q" is possibly right in this case. Ehrlich (10 I) does not agree with the traditional translation "cover oneself up" because it does not provide a fitting contrast to "stretch oneself out" in v. 20a, and he suggests it should read something about "pulling oneself tightly together." For the outstretched body, the bed is too short, for the one who is pulled tightly together (with knees bent) the blanket is too short. The translation "cover (oneself) up" does not quite get the sense exactly, but it is the best one can do. 21a Qa: ,:1:::! (on the mountain); Gk: wcmep opo.K.'::>, Tarbiz 24 (1955) 126-128. T. C. Vriezen, "Essentials of the Theology of Isaiah," FS 1. Muilenburg (1962) 128-146, esp. 142ff. 1. W. Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom (1971) 51---68. S. Amsler and O. Mury, "Yahweh et la sage sse du paysan. Quelques remarques sur Esai"e 28:23-29," RHPR 53 (1973) 1-5. [Literature update through 1979: M. Dahood, ",,:iiim 'success, victory'." Bib 55 (1974) 386-387.) [Literature update through 2001: See addendum to Selected Recent Literature at the end of the volume.) Text 28:23 24 25

26

Listen attentively and hear my voice, give heed and hear my message! Does the plower indeed plow the whole day [in order to sow),a furrow b and harrowc his field? Is it not so: If he has once smoothed it out, then he scatters black cumin seed a and broadcasts pepper cumin b and sets out wheat [millet?)c and barley, [ ... )d and emmer on its border.Thus he teaches hima the right way,b his God instructs him.

* 27

*

*

Truly, he does nota pulverize black cumin seed with a threshing cart, and one does nota circle around b over the pepper cumin with the cart wheel;c for one knocks the pepper cumin out with a staff and the black cumin with a stick.

48

Isaiah 28-35 28

29

49

Is something like cereal grain a pulverized? no, he does not continually thresh it [a threshing]b. If he has set the whee Ie of his wagon in motion, yet his horses d (still) do not pulverize it. That came forth as well from Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts; he makes his counsel wonderful,his circumspection b is great.

ll,i"

24a (in order to sow) is treated as a gloss by virtually everyone (see Amsler and Mury, BHK, BHS). Kissane suggests replacing it with ll~-''' (for a moment) and proposes moving the phrase to the second half of the verse. But that does not make good sense in that half of the verse either and disturbs the meter of the verse (three-stress + three-stress bicolon). A glossator simply wants to point out that a person plows in order to plant. 24b nn£l actually means "plough (up the soil)." 24c KBL follows Guthe (FS Budde), who suggests that it means "draw bordering furrows," but this translation makes no sense in the context. Others (see 1. Fischer, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta [1934] 132f) read "harrow in"; Ges-Buhl: "plow." Both verbs, t:i-,r; and "iD, are used together in Hos. 10: 11 as well, and the words "plow" and "harrow" make good sense in that passage too. In addition, "ill (harrow) is further explicated in v. 25 by means of the word in\:i, which certainly means "smooth out." 25a n~p is translated by the Gk with IlEA is rendered in Ges-Buhl as "romischer KUmmel" (Roman cumin); KBL reads "(pepper) cumin, curninurn cyrninurn L."; see Low, III, 435ff; cf Akk. karn(rn)unu; Arab. kammun; Greek l(UlllVOV (kuminon), etc., and naturally the German "KUmme\" and English "cumin" as well. The traditional translation "dill" is to be rejected. 25c ~"'1(v is usually translated as "row," or something similar (differently by Ges-Buhl); Buber and Rosenzweig translate it: "in rows." The Panammuwa Inscription (KAI, no. 215) from Zinjirli uses the substantive ~"'1(D (lines 6,9), and some link this word at times with ~liiD in Isa. 28:25. Others suggest connecting it with Arab. gurratun (a type of millet), but one wonders whether one can justify making this connection. The word is missing in the Gk and is metrically too heavy as well; it could be a rough dittography of~"'lliD (barley). But it should still be considered a gloss, even if one does attribute to it the meaning "millet." 25d ;00: truly provides us with a puzzle. There are some who connect it with al1ll£lov (sign) and suggest translating it something like "designated place" (Buber and Rosenzweig: "a designated tract"). But that proposal is more along the lines of a guess. Marchalianus and the Syh read KEYXPOV (millet) in its place, but the Hebrew for that word is jO"l (Ezr. 4:9). This word makes the meter too unbalanced as well; it is missing in the Gk, and one thus assumes that there must be some sort of dittography (of 1":00::>1, "and emmer"). In this instance, one will have to go along with KBL when it treats this word as "unexplained." 25e Qa reads the plural 1m"1J; (its borders); Gk: £V 't:Oi~ 6piOl~ aot) (in your borders). This could be correct. No matter what, the border markings for the portion of land are meant. 26a Q': 1~"'0'1 (also: "and he teaches him") (and later: 1~1';K [also: "his God"]). One can understand why Duhm calls this verse "a bit artificial." It could be that a (shortened version of) ~1~' (Yahweh) was originally in the first colon. When the metrical structure of the verse differs from the rest of the message, however,

50

Isaiah 28-35

that may be because the main point that Isaiah wants to make is being stated. Ehrlich has gone his own way concerning this passage as well (Randglossen, IV, 102): nO'1 (and he taught him) is said to be an unlikely reading because the message makes reference to ethical teaching. So he changes the text to read 1,m (and its remnant) and explains: "And how he is to make the rest obedient, concerning that his God teaches him." But that is impossible. God teaches the farmer about the right way of doing things for all kinds of work that he does. 26b Concerning this translation of t:lElOQ (the right way), see tb..e Commentary section for this verse. 27 a and a 1':'::> (not) serves to negate the second verb in the verse as well; see Jotion, Gr § 160q. 27b Concerning ::l01' (here: "circle around") (0": ::l10' [he will surround (or: "circle around")]), one might take note of the reading 'i~m (an established one) in v. 16. It is possible that this is not a hoph(al but rather a qai passive. 27c Procksch suggests removing jEllX (wheel) (0': lElX [also: "wheel"]); Kaiser proposes eliminating :1'::>,1' (cart). It makes no sense why one would have to do that. jD1!t (wheel) is certainly to be treated as a collective. 28a The translation "bread grain is pulverized," or something like that, makes no sense. To be sure, the meaning "bread grain" is correct, based on 30:23 and Ps. 104: 14. Some insert the interrogatory particle ~ before Cln? (Is [something like) bread grain [pulverized?)) (see BHK), but such an alteration is not necessary. The phrase poses a rhetorical question in any case. 28b t.:i11!t (a threshing) must be a mistake. 0" reads t.:i,:1, ..... hich means it reads the word as a niphcal infinitive (to be threshed). It has long been suggested, based on the Targ. that one should read an infinitive here (either qal or niphCal); this is possibly another case of dittography. 28c In other occurrences, "wheel" is spelled ?)"', which is how many scholars would point the text here as well. But maybe this is simply a less common form of the word. 28d l'O'El1 has attracted attention for a variety of reasons. Duhm thinks that mention of horses here is "irksome, since the last colon (becomes) thereby somewhat awkward." Besides, the horses should be mentioned before the cart. That is a subjective opinion. The objection from Ehrlich and Procksch has more substance, in that one never finds mention of horses being involved in threshing anywhere else (cf. Deut. 25:4; Hos. 10: II; Jer. 50: II). For thi!> reason, Ehrlich suggests reading ;'1Q;'1 (they) for CQ:1 (move noisily) and ~~iEl:11 (separates out) instead of 1'O-;El1 (and his horses), which supposedly means "And when the wheels of his cart begin to creak, then one separates out-the com." Even he himself is not convinced that this emendation is a good one. Procksch suggests reading 1'1f;l1 (and his bulls), whereas Duhm, Marti, Kaiser, Fohrer, BHS change the text to read ~"1 itii~1 (and his spreading, and not): "thus he throws it about ... ," which is unconvincing as well and destroys the parallelism. It is best to stay with the reference to the horses, and the intention is to say: it is just as unthink-able, and no farmer would let his horses tread out the grain. 29a on reads :1';~:1 (orthographic change only), but the MT is fine as is. 29b There is uncertainty concerning the meaning of :1't:j1r, (here: "circumspection"). Part of the reason is the fact that the etymology of the term is at issue as well. Ges-Buhl, in addition to the meaning "help, deliverance," suggests the meanings "knowing, wisdom, discretion." Amsler and Mury translate it "realisation." H. Bauer (ZAW 48 [1930] 77) links the word with i,:r (originally.'t.:)', "there is"), to mean "that which is at hand," in the derived sense "power, capability." Such a proposal is possible but completely doubtful. As this concerns the exegetical discussion, one begins by noting that the word is used parallel to ;'1:;1' (counsel).

Isaiah 28-35

51

Form In this particular section there is no problem identifying the beginning and end of the unit. Verse 23 contains the well-known summons to receive instruction. The content forms a single unit as well. Verses 24f. describe how a farmer goes about the business of planting. He knows m~ny specifi~ details about how to proceed. He carefully prepares the soll.for plantIng. Then he uses the appropriate methods for sowing each partIcular type of seed. Verse 26 draws a conclusion on the basis of these observations. God has given the farmer this perceptive knowledge. The section could have come to a conclusion at this point already, but there is no doubt that vv. 27ff. continue the observations. The further notations concentrate on the various methods used to extract the seeds from each type of plant. Each seed must be harvested in a unique way, appropriate to each different product planted in the soil. Every effort is made to make sure that none of the harvest is lost. Verse 29 once again accentuates the fact that God is the one who provides this knowledge. This time, however, God is called mI'Cl:~ ;11;1' (Yahweh of Hosts), to which the comment is added that his counsel is wonderful and his circumspection is great. The teaching is thus fashioned by offering a double parable, both parts of which are intended to offer the same insight. If one merely considers vv. 26 and 29a, one might assume that the author intends to speak only about the wisdom that the deity gives to the farmer. But it would seem that the actual intent of this section is reached only in v. 29b. The decisions that Yahweh makes, which determine his actions, are far above anything that humans can understand, and they come from a depth of wisdom that human beings are not able to penetrate. It is only at this point that it reaches its goa\. Parables of this type are not originally integral to the forms used by prophets but come rather from the rcalm of wisdom. The formula for introducing teaching, as makes good sense, comes from wisdom circles (see, e.g., Provo 4:1; 7:24; Job 33:1, 31; 34:2; Ps. 49:2). The didactic question in v. 28a points to the same source. Childs calls such a closing sentence a "summary-appraisal-form" «(sec Literature to 28: 14-22], 128ff.). This, as well, is a form that clearly has links to wisdom thinking (see Isaiah 13-27, p. 192). [n addition, we have specific vocabulary: ,0' (teach) and ;1,' (instruct) in v. 26; ;1~!J (counsel) and ;1'i.:Jl;", (circumspection) in v. 29 (see Whedbee, 54, note 66). With so many close, literary connections to wisdom, one must ask why such a section is found here in the book of Isaiah. If it is to be understood solely on the basis of what wisdom teaching would explain, then it says nothing more than that God's decisions are made at a level much deeper than humans can understand. But that is not a theme appropriate to prophetic utterances. Is that really all it has to say? The answer to this question is linked to the ,issue about whether the section is authentic and thus from Isaiah. MeIer: Verses 23 and 24 each consist of a three-stress + three-stress bicolon (in which ~1':1 "J:1, "the whole day," is to be taken as having one stress

52

Isaiah 28-35

and !lit?, "in order to sow," is to be removed; see textual note 24a above). Verse 25 can be analyzed metrically only with difficulty. Verse 26, the canclusia of the first part, is a two-stress + two-stress bicolon and is to be pronounced slowly, since every word has its own particular importance here. Verse 27 is also impossible to analyze metrically; v. 27a could possibly be a four-stress + fourstress bicolon, and v. 27b could be a five-stress colon. One must remain completely at a loss about the meter in v. 28a; a three-stress + three-stress bicolon might be in v. 28b, in which case the N? (not), since it follo....ws an accented syllable, would receive particular emphasis, which is completely justified on the basis of the content. Verse 29a is prose; v. 29b, corresponding to the fact that it provides the main point of the section, is composed using a two-stress + twostress bicolon that attracts attention. The apparent difficulties, when trying to identify the meter, are linked to the fact that Isaiah borrowed these ideas from elsewhere. In addition, it seems that the text has apparently been disturbed in places and that numerous glosses have been added to the passage.

,

Setting

Since, as Dietrich (126) states the case, this is a text that bears all the marks of wisdom and seems at first glance to be nothing more than an attempt to impart general observations about God's nature, it comes as no surprise that the section is frequently treated as a piece that does not originate with Isaiah (Cheyne, Introduction, I 84ff.; Marti; R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament [1948] 420;' J. Scharbert, Die Propheten Israels his 700 v. Chr. [1965] 249; Auvray; Barth, 164f.; Kaiser). Such an assessment is related to the fact that some scholars are not willing to attribute to a prophet, and particularly to Isaiah, the possibility that he might have expressed himself by using a genre that does not have its roots in prophetic speech. But the summons to receive instruction is employed in other prophetic texts as well (see Has. 5: I but also Isa. 1: 10). That 28:23, unlike the passages just mentioned, fails to identify those who are being addressed does not (as Kaiser suggests) speak against Isaiah as author, since it has been known for a long time that he is conversant with concepts used by wisdom. For,this reason one cannot automatically deny to him passages reflective of wisdom themes, or which use a wisdom structure. To be sure, in such cases it is difficult to be exact about the roots from which any particular prophet comes. Statistical evidence helps little when traditional materials are reused. But it has been established above that the utterance that brings this section to a close, and that provides the key to understanding this parable, is in v. 29b: ;'n.:im 'Ti);' ;'~.l) K''?~;' (he makes his counsel wonderful, his circumspection is great). Apart from the rarely used ;,'tD1ri (circumspection), not only are the basic thought patterns in this utterance, as a whole, Isaianic, but even the vocabulary matches his. Particularly noteworthy is the linking of N'?El (be wonderful) with ;'~.l) (counsel). Moreover, the material that was taken from elsewhere refers to God as O';,'?N (Elohim; v. 26) which conforms to materials rooted in wisdom -but the text in v. 29 refers to ri1N:l~ :-11:1' (Yahweh of Hosts), which is exactly how Isaiah speaks. This is admittedly slim evidence for attributing the source of this section to Isaiah, but it can be bolstered by what is to be said about the use of ii,QN ([my] message) in the Commentary section at v. 23. By

Isaiah 28-35

53

contrast, there are no sufficient reasons for denying that Isaiah is the source of the text either, unless it can be shown that the comparison w~rks at c~oss-purposes to the overall message that is found in the Isaiantc material. The explanation of specific items in this text will show that ~h!s is not th~ case. On~ must admit, however, that the assumption that It IS from Isaiah has an Impact on explaining the details as well. Rut one cannot escape the "hermeneutical circle" in this instance either. Even exegetes who are highly critical of what is authentic (such as Duhm, Eissfeldt, Fohrer) find no reason to doubt the authenticity of the passage. Note especially that Kaiser, who does deny it to Isaiah, is hesitant to offer a confident interpretation of the passage and has to be content with references to some possible explanations. Commentary [28:23-29) Parables lend themselves to many interpretations, since they do not provide any specific links to events that help to determine meaning. When, in addition, one cannot identify the speaker, and when the group of listeners cannot be identified with confidence, it is not easy to arrive confidently at an interpretation. Based on the reflections stated above, however, we believe it can be assumed that Isaiah is the author. The initial analysis has suggested that v. 29b must provide the key that determ ines the meaning of the entire passage. But this "summary-appraisal" is not nearly as specific as one might wish. Most significantly, we do not learn the identity of those being addressed. It is possible that it is spoken to the ]1~? 'i.:i:!( (proverb formulators) who are mentioned in v. 14; it could be addressed to a similar group of Jerusalemites as well, particularly if one is willing to assume what cannot be demonstrated, that vv. 23ff. are uttered at the same time period as vv. 14ff. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that widely differing interpretations have been offered. Some scholars suggest that the parable is directed against the Canaanite religion, since they identify the !Y?!l:1 as the overlords in charge of the fields, who serve as the dispensers of knowledge about the correct way for the farmers to go about their work (Koenig, La Bible. I 'Ancien Testament, II [1959]; see Amsler and Mury 2, note 7). But Isaiah's preaching can hardly be said to include a polemic against Baal worship. Most importantly: if this were true, then v. 26 ought not say that the farmer is "instructed by his God." The text would specifically have to mention Yahweh, the God of Israel, and there would be no way to avoid an explicit comment that the Baals were to be rejected. Duhm thinks that the poem comes from a time when little seemed to be taking place in the political arena; he proposes the time between 711 and 705, during which, in his view, Isaiah has to fend off those who are mocking him. They would have tried to make him look foolish by pointing out that Yahweh h~d not intervened as p~edic~ed (cf. ,5:19). Isaiah would have sought to pomt out that Yahweh, Just like the farmer, could not turn over the soil endlessly and could not pulverize the grain forever. That would serve to explain ~he, unequal treatme~t of ~a­ maria and Judah. The parable w(1uld be Isaiah s way of defendmg himself against the charge that his threats never came true. Procksch

54

Isaiah 28-35

believes that the prophet addresses this parable to his disciples who are to understand by it "the relationship between the two poles of his prophecy, the belief in judgment and the belief in salvation." He would additionally be using it to teach "about the destiny for the community of faith as history unfolds." As he went about the business of teaching, the prophet would have been introducing the idea that his people would need to be fully aware of the necessity of suffering. But t~ parable does not speak in this way. It says much more about times to come when the pressure will be off, which means that Duhm is basically correct. Leupold thinks that the main point of the parable is that the Lord of Israel is preparing for the fruits of righteousness to come forth; God is wonderful in counsel and great in his truthfulness. Israel needs to know that the Lord is not dealing too severely with his rebellious people, not even when circumstances appear precarious. That sounds edifying and comforting, but it does not square with Isaiah's message. G. von Rad (in his Wisdom in Israel [1972] 140f.) considers 28:23-29 to be an artistic, didactic poem that deals with the activities of the farmer, the most excellent illustration of what wisdom considers so important: everything has its time. One must take the risks into consideration and wait patiently for just the right time without being overly agitated in the meantime (142). Unless one attributed this poem to another author, this poem would provide evidence that Isaiah was to be counted "among the wise" as well. But von Rad is a bit more cautious in his Old Testament Theology (II, 163, note 21) when he offers the observation that Isaiah is speaking "in a very fundamental and theoretically didactic fashion about Yahweh's action in history." This assessment fits much better into the themes that are central to the preaching of Isaiah. Still another attempt to interpret the passage, one similar to that of Duhm, has been offered by Fahrer. He does not think that this is an effort by Isaiah to speak of the way divine judgment is handled; Isaiah is speaking of himself when he uses the imagery of a farmer. He would be attempting here to defend himself against the accusation that he says one thing now, another thing at another time. Fohrer suggests that this accusation originated because Isaiah changed his assessment of the Assyrians. He in itially considered them to be God's instrument of judgment; later he came to the opposite conclusion (l 0:5-15; 14:24-27). Isaiah would be offering the observation here that he was viewing the Assyrians differently now, when compared with his earlier assessment, because he-like a farmer-had to speak differently because he had received new revelations from God. Yet Amsler and Mury have proposed another interpretation. They believe that certain wise leaders are addressed, who are trying to fit the ~~!) (wisdom) of Yahweh into a uniform and rigid pattern that will function like the cause-and-effect pattern of retribution. Isaiah would be speaking out against them, suggesting that their "wisdom" was too "short-sighted" and that it did not square with reality as a whole; one would do well to think of the flexibility with which a farmer, who has learned from God, must act. God's actions in history would be viewed as

Isaiah 28-35

55

needing to be adjusted on the basis of certain times and special events in order for it to achieve its purposes. One can consider still other attempts to explain the passage. In the first place, one must recognize that, from among the solutions alr~ady mentioned, those of Koenig, Procksch, Leupold, and von Rad (in his book about wisdom) are not acceptable, since they do not fit in any ~ay into the context of Isaiah's basic message. That leaves the suggestIOns offered by Duhm, Fohrer, von Rad (in his theology), and Amsler and Mury. The first section concludes with the statement that the farmer is taught by God about how to do the wide variety of tasks connected with his livelihood. This idea is taken further in v. 29a with the comment that Yahweh is also the one who teaches the various ways in which seed can be extracted from plants. That these observations carry more weight, since they bring each section to a conclusion, speaks in favor of Fohrer's view. He suggested that Isaiah was defending himself against the accusation that he was following a crooked path in his preaching. Isaiah's reply would be that he, like the farmer in his activity, was following the instruction from God. But Isaiah would not be able to justify himself without having to come to his God's defense at the same time. God does not teach the farmer capriciously but rather with thoughtfulness and appropriateness. Why ought he not deal thoughtfully and appropi iately when he moves history according to his "plan?" Isaiah thus would be drawing a conclusion on the basis of an analogy that links God's activity in instructing farmers with an observation about Yahweh's overall activity. But a conclusion based on an analogy is not strict proof. For this reason, the assertion at the conclusion, ~'u1n '?'''J~ ~~.!J I't'~)~~ (he makes his counsel wonderful, his circumspecttion is great), is a statement of faith, though it is a statement of faith that Isaiah seeks to make intelligible. One must pursue the possibility that more specific details can emerge about the exact problem addressed by means of this didactic poem. The summary of views presented above included Duhm's view that this came during a period of "calm," during years of peace, at which point the activities of Yahweh in bringing judgment seemed to have faded far into the background. Fohrer thinks it reflects the "inconsistency" in the evaluation of Assyria. Amsler and Mury believe that Isaiah is addressing the rigid view of the wise concerning Yahweh's ~~.!J (counsel). Is there a way to decide among these (and still other possible) explanations? Possibly so. The first part of the pa~able begins with the observation that the farmer does not plow all the time. The second part of the parable includes a statement that in essence makes the same point. The farmer does not use the threshing sledge constantly, and not for every crop, but uses it only so long as needed. to turn t~e ce~e~l grain linto flour. These observations do not square With Fohrer s Opll110n that Isaiah assesses Assyria in different ways at different times, but also do not fit with Amsler and Mury's interpretation that the wise are being addressed in this poem, as individuals who would have had a particular, dogmatically hardened, viewpoint about the way God had acted in his-

56

Isaiah 28-35

tory. Duhm is basically correct. The message must have originated in a historical time period when Isaiah was not being moved to announce judgment. But one must go a step farther. It comes from a time in which Isaiah was speaking on behalf of Yahweh concerning the preservation of Judah and Jerusalem. A turnabout must have come within the nature of the messages Isaiah proclaimed that surprised even Isaiah's friends. Such a change of direction apparently occurred during thefrisis that was caused by Hezekiah's rebellion against Assyria. At the onset of that action, as the previous passages demonstrate clearly, Isaiah vehemently opposed the thoughtless way in which the people assumed that it would be easy to dissolve the relationship with this world power, since they thought that they had protected themselves by means of other treaties. But when the Assyrians marched into the land, the resistance offered by the Philistines, with whom the Israelites had. allied themselves, quickly evaporated and Egyptian support showed itself to be non-existent. Judah's cities fell in rapid succession and Jerusalem was in a most precarious situation. It was then that Isaiah would have risked proclaiming that the city would be spared (cf. 17:12-14; 29: 1-7). He does this because Yahweh of Hosts instructs him to speak thus. In actual fact: Yahweh's counsel is wonderful; his insight is great. It obviously seems to be too simplistic to explain this change in direction fer Isaiah's proclamation solely on the basis of the mysterious way God makes decisions. But Isaiah tries to use this parable to show that such a decision is not random but rather has good grounds. [28:23] The summons to receive instruction (see Isaiah 1~/2, p. 37) calls for the listeners to pay attention. But the verses under consideration here do not claim to be a message from Yahweh. The content is presented as instruction. Isaiah used the same formula in 1: 10. There one is told about those who are to be "instructed": the leaders of Sodom and the people of Gomorrah. That those being addressed here are not identified may have to do with the fact that the discussion is not really set within the context of a dispute but may rather be an explanation that justifies such a message to the private circle of his disciples. In 1: 10, the content of the teaching is labeled ;11;1' ,:J1 (word of Yahweh) and ;1,1r, (instruction). It would not be appropriate to speak here about the ;"11:1' ,J1 (word of Yahweh), and ;"I,m (instruction) wou ld not be appropriate here either, in spite of the fact that v. 26 contains a use of the verb ;1,1;1 ([he] instructs). God had indeed "instructed" both the farmer and Isaiah, but this passage is a discussion about the word of God. The teacher uses the summons to receive instruction simply to call pupils to listen attentively to what he will say. Isaiah speaks here about "my voice" and mentions "my message" (;"I'D~) in a parallel statement. Isaiah is the only prophet who uses the term ~n~~: 5:24; 29:4 (2x); 32:9. (In addition, in the last two of these passages, ;"I,D~, "message," and 71P, "voice," are used in parallel, as here, an indication that 28:23 is an authentic Isaianic passage; this usage is even more striking because ~n~~ and ?lP occur together nowhere else in the OT except in Gen. 4:23.) ;1,O~ (message) is used almost solely within the vocabulary of the

Isaiah 28-35

57

psalms, where.as the masculine it)~ (word) is used most frequently in Proverbs and In Job. One sees that inD~ (message) is thus used in the wisdom tradition as well. [28:24] The first part of the parable begins with v. 24. There is virtual agreement that a special formulation of the widely circulated myth about the deity who makes culture possible is in the background of the message. First of all, one should take note of the text that is cited by S. N. Kramer (History Begins at Sumer [1959] 137f.). Enlil wants to bring forth all sorts of trees and grain and plans to establish abundance and prosperity in the land. To accomplish this end, he creates two "cultural beings," the brothers Emesh (Summer) and Enten (Winter), and Enlil assigns to each their own specific duties. The following lines tell how these duties are executed: "Enten made the ewe give birth to the lamb, the goat give birth to the kid, cow and calf to multiply, cream and milk to increase ... , the trees, wherever planted, he caused to bear fruit ... , made grain increase in the furrows ... , Emesh brought into being the trees and fields, expanded the stalls and the sheepfolds, in the farms he multiplied produce, bedecked the earth ...." Then the two brothers get into a quarrel. They tum to Enlil, who acknowledges that Enten is the "farmer of the gods," since Emesh, who understands nothing about the soil, cannot be treated as an equal to his brother. What is important for our interests is that this is not simply about how cultivation of the soil is initiated; it deals with all the different matters concerned with agricultural know-how. Virgil speaks of the variety of agricultural tasks in Georgics 1.287ff., specifically in the sense that some of the tasks are best done in the morning, others in the evening, still others during the heat of the day, and that the farmer has festivals to celebrate during the winter, but can do some tasks best during that time of the year as well: "Many works too have succeeded better in the cool night; or when the morning sprinkles the earth with the rising sun. By night the light stubble, by night the parched meadows, are better shorn: the clammy dews fail not by night.. .. But reddening Ceres is cut down in noontide heat and in noontide heat the floor thrashes out the parched grain. Plow naked, sow naked .... In the cold weather the farmers mostly enjoy the fruit of their labor .... But it then is the time both to strip the mast of oak, and the bay-berries, the olive, and the bloody myrtleberries" (Davidson translation in Harper's Classical Library [1879] 42). The text offers a close parallel to the imagery provided by Isaiah in that it speaks of the proper time for each tYl?e of work. Another pa~sag.e from Virgil (ibid., 1.147) makes the same observatIOn as here, that the deity Instructed the farmers. According to an Egyptian myth, Isis and Osiris discovered how. to cultivate wheat, barley, and wine and taught humans how to do the same (DlOdoms 1.15; cf. also 14): "Osiris, they say, was also interested in agri~ulture and was ~eared in Nysa, a city of Arabia Felix near Egypt.. .. And ~he discovery o! the Vine, they ,say, was made by him near Nysa, and th~t, ha~lng further devlsed.the proper treatment of the fruit, he was the first to drink wine and taught mankind at large the culture of the vine and the use of wine, as well as the way to harvest the grape and to store the wine" (c. H. Oldfather translation in the Putnam Series [1933] 5Iff.).

58

Isaiah 28-35

In Ovid (Metamorphoses 5.341-345) one reads: "Ceres was first to break the earth with plough, first to plant grain, and first of all to nourish natural things, she the creator of all natural law-all things are in debt to her: Of her I sing, if I am fit to do so, a goddess who deserves the best of songs" (Horace Gregory translation in Mentor Series [1958] 149; see W. Frentz, "Mythologisches in Vergils Georgica." Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie 21 [1976] 6-27). Even Jesus Sirach (7: 15) shows some acquaintance with., that myth: il:lX"O X:::!~::J

nm "x

ilp"m "xo ... il,::J111

("Do not hate hard labor or farm work, which was created by the Most High.") (Gk, second line: YEwpyiuv \ntO \)\j1io'to\) ElCnollEVTjv) (Gk: "farming has been created by [the] Most High")

These citations do not provide exact parallels to the passage before us, but they are at least indicators that Isaiah could make use of well-known traditions and could adjust them to suit his purposes. His message makes sense only if he can assume that no one will be able to disagree with the idea that the farmer has been taught the basic facts about the right way to do his work by his God. This means that the prophet sets forth his argument by using a truth with which everyone could agree, using it in order to offer a new insight. The farmer does not plow all the time. It is necessary to loosen the soi I but the ecology of the soi I is damaged if one plows too much. In the OT era, the plow was made of a main shaft, a crosspiece for steering, and an iron plowshare (I Sam. 13 :20). Oxen pulled the plow (I Kings 19: 19; sometimes, donkeys were used, Isa. 30:24). The farmer steered the plow with his left hand (cf. Luke 9:62) while carrying the oxgoad in his right hand (cf. Judg. 3:31; I Sam. 13:21). One cannot be sure of the specific shape of the plow in the OT era, and it would have varied according to date and region. But it probably did not look all that different from the plows that are used in areas of Palestine today where ancient customs are still practiced (see Dalman, AuS, II, 64ff. and iIluss. 18-39; for Egypt, see W. Wreszinski, Atlas zur altdgyptischen Kulturgeschichte [1923] plates 19,20, passim; cf. ERR, I, plate Ia). It is not clear why the farmer is not supposed to plow "the whole day." But since n~:? (continually) is used in v. 28, as a parallel term to Cl';;-?:l, "the whole day" the latter term in essence means "all the time." By itself, plowing makes no sense. As a glossator has noted in the additional comment, one plows in order to ready the soil for planting seed. But one first has to harrow, to smooth the soil. There are differing opinions about how to translate "(u (see above, textual note 24c). According to Dalman (A uS, II, 127) an instrument that would correspond to our harrow has never been used in present-day Palestine. But B. Meissner (RA, I, 20) describes a "harrow-like instrument," furnished with teeth, which was used to smooth out the soil in Assyria. W. von Soden (AHW) mentions a verb Jakiiku,"harrow," and the corresponding substantive maskakiitu, "harrow."

Isaiah 28-35

59

[28:251 .S"!10~thing ?ut the soi~ must be meant in the present passage as well, as IS mdl~ated 10 v. 25 with the use Of:11ib (smooth out), no matter what typ~ of Instrument and methodology was used to accomplish it (on~ possibly used a ~oe). T.he activities connected with farming that are depicted here are qUite vaned. One plants not only grains; condiment seed~ are sown as well (on n;)p, "black cumin seed," and lr:lJ, "pepper cumm," see above, textual notes 25a and b). Various types of grain are known; in addition to wheat and barley, emmer is mentioned as well, which is the probable meaning for mOJo Dalman (AuS, II, 246ff.) thinks that no emmer was being planted in Palestine at Isaiah's time but that ~vild emmer would have been found everywhere. Isaiah's farmer plants It along the edges of the field as a border to keep plants that are growing outside the field from pushing their way in and damaging the crop. The emmer seeds are not damaged as easily as are those of wheat or even of barley, as, for example, when someone walked through a field on foot. Thus, in summary, the farmer makes very careful plans. The methods used for planting seeds have been thought through very carefully as well. There is no way for us to distinguish between 1'~:1 (here: "scatters") and pii (here: "broadcasts"), but it is clear that the planting is done with the greatest of care so that one can try to guarantee a most successful harvest. It is surprising that the verb l'il (sow seed) is not used here; CJ'ib is used instead (here: "sets out"). There is little doubt that the common method would have been to broadcast the seed by casting it as far as one could. The verb CJ'iJ hardly seems suitable for that activity. This use of the verb will thus have to be taken in its literal sense: the sower places the seeds carefully into the soil so that not a single tiny seed is lost, and each one is put into the exact proper place. (28:26] In addition to speaking about carrying out certain activities at the proper time, the care with which the tasks are done is depicted clearly as well. The observer from the city is astounded when he sees the farmer at work. Where did he learn about all these different things that one must do? We would say that it was learned from many past generations. The ancients would say that the farmer's god had taught him, in fact t:l~ibr:l? ([according to] the right way); all is done following established guidelines. The word t:lEliUr:l is not limited to usages that are connected with judicial matters; among its meanings it signifies "that which is right, appropriate" (Judg. 13: 12; Exod. 26:30); "the custof!1" (I Kings 18:28); "the proper way" (Gell. 40: 13; Jer. 8:7), etc. That which IS done in the proper way brings success as well and results in prosperity. The message could have ended at this point, but it is unt.hinkable that Isaiah would have in mind nothing more than propagatll1g the myth about the deity that brought culture to human beings. One of his strategies for proclamation is that he first gets his hearers' a~tention ~nd 1arouses their curiosity, only to force them to come to the pomt to which he wants to bring them by using a surprising turn of phrase. The poem calls for further comment. The conclusion in V. 29b could have followed immediately, at which point the meaning of the comparison would have

60

Isaiah 28-35

been articulated. But Isaiah first wants to make it even clearer, concerning what he wants to proclaim as he uses this comparison, that Yahweh does not only judge but also cares and preserves, protects and guards. [28:271 Isaiah thus makes use of the farmer's work once again, speaking no longer about how the field is prepared but now about how threshing takes place. "Threshing" that is carried out uSing improper methods can result in the loss or destruction of the harvested grain, particularly if one uses way too much force when driving a threshing cart over the threshing floor. on (thresh) is used quite often to describe the subjugation of a people (cf. 21: 10; 25: lOb). The wheels of the threshing cart, which one should picture as being massive wooden discs, are fitted with teeth made of iron or else of flint or basalt chips that are used to crush the heads of grain that are spread about. The oxen or donkeys that pull the cart around over the threshing floor do damage with their hoofs (illus. in BRR, I, 356 and Dalman, AuS, III, illuss. 21-24), a rather rough method that cannot help but cause some losses. For cumin seed and similar seeds this method is simply not appropriate. One knocks those seeds out with a stick, as one might do with various types of grain at times as well (on t:lJn, here: "knock out," see IsaiahJ3-27, p. 599, on 27: 12). For grain, this method would have normally taken too long, so one simply had to assume that there would be some losses. But one would still not pass over the grain, which had been spread out, so many times with the threshing cart that the individual kernels of grain (on,) would be pulverized. [28:281 The text ofv. 28 is unfortunately very difficult. But whether or not one sees a need to add the interrogatory particle, it is clear from the context that p1r on, (here: "is bread grain pulverized?") is to be treated as posing a question. Verse 28b goes on to state that one tries to' make sure that the animals that pull the threshing cart do not stomp on the grain. Verses 27f. thus speak very distinctively about the great care taken by the farmer when threshing, which implies that the Yahweh deals with his people in exactly the same way.

[28:29al It would seem that Isaiah is still operating within the framework of the parable in v. 29a: "That came forth as well from Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts," with reference to the care given to what is harvested and processed. He speaks of mXJ;) i11i1' (the Lord of Hosts), which in itself is indicative of the fact that he is not going to speak merely about the way the deity instructs the farmer, but will refer to the God who accompanies Israel in its history, the one who not only judges but also protects them (concerning mXJ;) i11i1" see Isaiah 1-12, pp. 29ff. and FS Z. Shazar, 722ff.). [28:29bl What needs to be said about v. 29b has been mentioned already. Why should Yahweh "continually" thresh his people? Why should he not pay attention, as well, to keep Israel from being complete-

Isaiah 28-35

61

Iy.pulverized? Judah and Jerusalem certainly had no right to expect anythm.g. othe~ than their,~nnihilation. But it pleases Yahweh to make his decIsIons wonderful. The commonly used noun forms derived from the root x,,~, x,,~ and nix,?~J, generally point in the OT to actions of Yahweh to deliver his people (see Isaiah 1-12, p. 403). But they refer not only to the deeds of God as such but also to "one's astonished reaction to God's unexpected intervention in one's hopeless situation of distress" (R. Albertz, TLOT, II, 984). For this reason, one can understand why such wonders are mentioned primarily in the psalms of praise. One senses from the text that the prophet himself is somewhat astonished by the actions of Yahweh. :1:)"", as is common throughout Isaiah, does not describe some plan for history that the deity established from eternity but refers to the decisions being made by God in the light of historical events. In 9:5, the messiah is called a rll" x"~ (planner of wonders); according to 11:2 he is outfitted with the :1~1l mi (spirit of planning). A king ought at all times to be the master of the situation as he makes his decisions. It is no different with the divine l"n (king) Yahweh. Unfortunately, as mentioned above in textual note 29b, the exact meaning of ;1'iJ1n cannot be determined. The word is used parallel to ;1~1l (good advice) in Provo 8: 14 as well. KBL offers the meaning "effectual working," which seems to make sense in its context at times (the ZUrcher Bibel translates it in Provo 2:7 as "Heil," "salvation"). One must keep with a meaning such as "circumspection" here, but one certainly can hear echoes of the idea of "success, deliverance." Purpose and Thrust The present passage is of central importance for understanding the message of Isaiah. It is not really accurate when von Rad says that Isaiah seems to be speaking in only a basic way, theoretically and didactically, about Yahweh's activity within history. H.-J. Kraus (Prophet und Polilik, TEH 36 [1952] 58) isjust as wrong when he suggests that Yahweh's lordship over the nations is as an authority figure who is immeasurably wise, wonderful, and intentional. Isaiah is not teaching anything about Yahweh's nature. Instead, he first defends himself against the accusation that so little of what he had proclaimed was going to happen had actually taken place. He is a prophet who has been taught by Yahweh, no more, but also no less. He does not have his own prophetic "program" that he has to push through stubbornly. He is bound neither by the principle of "salvation," nor by that of "d isaster." He is bound to the word of Y ahweh that comes to him and whose ;1:)1) (counsel) and :1'iJ~n (circumspection) he is to proclaim. And such things are surely great and wonderful. Scholars could have been spared much wasted effort if they would not have been so set on trying to force the prophets to walk a straight line, one with only a single consistent message. At the very same time, however, much that is important about ~Yahweh himself is being said here as well. His decisions are not the result of a pre-programmed conceptual framework; his views take their direction from the circumstances at hand. God is a living God. As Amsler and Mury correctly emphasize, one cannot force God to fit into

62

Isaiah 28-35

some schematic framework, to adhere to certain dogmatic principles. It is part of the mystery of the liveliness that characterizes his actions that he acts time and again in a justifiable way that is fitting for each situation. His manner is far from capricious. Yahweh teaches the farmer much about many different things, but in all the instruction he teaches him t::E)~D' (according to the right way), so that the growth, blooming, and fruit will be the best possible. He does not judge bxcause he is a jealous or wrathful God; he does not deal favorably just because he is moved to do good and act mercifully from time to time. One constant remains in all of Isaiah's preaching. He continually summons his listeners to look to Yahweh, simply to believe. This call is balanced by a constant situation within the nature of Yahweh. He has an unalterable will to bring forth t::£l~O Uustice). That could be extremely painful, could result in wounds, and could mean that one ~ould be threshed. But the goal is always the establishment of justice and righteousness. And where there is righteousness, there salvation will bloom as well (which is what one ought to hear in the term ;1'ili1ii, "circumspection," as well; see textual note 29b above). To be sure, this salvation is not based on some legal necessity, nor is salvation simply a right; salvation is an offer that can be received with astonishment, faith, and praise.

Isaiah 29:1-8

Ariel, Utterly Oppressed, Wonderfully Delivered

Literature Concerning '?W-:IC W. F. Albright, "The Babylonian Temple-Tower and the Altar of Burnt-Offering," JBL 39 (1920) 137-142. S. Feigin, "The Meaning of Ariel," JBL 39 (1920) 131-137. A. H. Godbey, "Ariel, or David-Cultus," AJSL 41 (1924) 253-266. Concerning other topics.· H. Gressmann, Der Messias (1929) 100-106. H.-J. Kraus, Prophet und Polilik, TEH 36 (1952) 58. ILiterature update through 2001: See addendum to Selected Recent Literature at the end of the volume.]

Text 29:1

2

3

Woe to you, Ariel,a Ariel,a byou city, David encamped there. b Add c (but) year to year, the festivals d should repeat in cycles. But I will afflict Ariel until ·sadness and sorrows raise themselves. b"You should" (really) be b to me like an Ariel (hearth of God). I myself will encamp against you in an encircling,will make the bulwarks b close up against you, and will erect siege ramparts b opposite you.

* 4

t5

*

*

aThen, from below, from the very ground you will speak,a band deep from the dust your word will sound forth.b Your voice will be as that of a spirit from the dead c coming from the earth, and your word you willlispd from the dust. aThen the swarm of your presumptuous onesb will be as fine dust; the host of the powerful ones a will be as scattered chaff.

*

* 63

*

64

6

7

Isaiah 28-35 And then it will happen, suddenly, in a moment: by Yahweh of Hosts you will be affiicted,a bwith thunder and shaking and loud roaring, with tumult and storm and flames of consuming fires. b It will be like a dream, a vision of the night, the swarm of [all]a the nations that are drawn together b in the field against the A?iel, ctogether with all of those [who are drawn together against him in the field] who besiege him, and those who press against him.c

• 8

*

*

*

•

[And it will be as when a hungry person dreams he eats, and when he awakes, his desirea is not satisfied, or as when a thirsty person dreams he drinks, and when he awakes, b[behold, he is exhausted and]b [thus is his throat dried up.c So will it be for the swarm of all the nationsd that are drawn together into the field against.Mount Zion.]

29:la and a Q3 reads ';~1-,~ (>r1l")1; admittedly. the 1 is not an assured reading in either case: see D. M. Beegle. BASOR 123 [1951]29 and Kutscher, 97ff.). For both occurrences. the Gk reads what originally would have been written ';~.-~ (,IT)/): ITOAI; ApI'1A (city of Ariel); Targ: twice ~n::::1rJ (altar). No doubt, the intention is to mention either Jerusalem or a section of the city. The designation is certainly connected in some way with the personal name ?~'-'x (Ariel) in the list of the returnees in Ezra 8: 16. but it is also to be connected with ';K-'00 (altar hearth) and ':-'K-~~ (also: "altar hearth") in Ezek. 43: 15f. as well (some 1',,1SS write it as ';-~·-.K;"'. also: "the ariel [altar hearth]" for both occurrences there). In Ezekiel. the word is a clear designation for the altar for burnt offerings. or. at a minimum. for the top part of that structure (cf. the translation in the Targ). But 2 Sam. 23:20 contains a reference to an ';K-.K that HAL alters to read '':-K-\'' and translates as "warrior." Both Gen. 46: 16 and' Num. 26: 17 use the designation ';~-'~ (Areli): in addition, Num. 26:17 speaks of a '';~-'X;1 r,n~:.:;r. (clan of the Arelites). Finall\'. the vocable :';K-'K occurs in Isa. 33:7. which is a crux interpretum as well. In-light of the obscurity of the etymology and meaning, one does well to stay with the MT in the present passage. Concerning attempts to arrive at a meaning for the term. see the Commentarv section on this verse below. ~ . 1b---b Such clauses in the genitive (cf. the construct state of .'-.p, "city") are common after nouns that refer to time ( ... ~-.:::: r'~K-.::::. "in the beginning when [God] created." Gen. 1:1) and after identifications of localities (cf. -'::::p c;;;-c',pr.. "at the place where the grave is located," Ezek. 39: 11). 1c Q' seems to read .~: (also: "add"). which makes sense in that Ariel or its inhabitants are addressed later with the second feminine singular form as well (see Kutscher. 559).

Isaiah 28-35

65

Id Ehrlich (Randg/ossen, IV, 103) suggests reading C'lh (encampers) instead of cnn (festIvals) and explains: "The besiegers will rotate places" but this is no emendation; instead, it makes matters worse. ' 2a-a i1'~~~ (sad~~s~) and i1':~ (sorrow) are used together to intensify the effect; (see E. KOnig, Stl/zstlk, Rhetorik. Poetik [1900] 157). 2~b For i11'1'i11 (she shall be) (0": i1n"i11, "and you will be"), one should p.osslbly f~II0:-V Duhm an~ read n';:J] (you should really be) (or possibly r,"i11), since. the cIty IS addres~ed In vv .. 3f. In the second feminine singular. But the MT certainly offers a possIble reading as well: "And he (Ariel) shall be an ?1('1~ (i.e., "a hearth of God") for me." But this small suggested alteration to the MT has received wide support (see BHK and BHS as well), whereas Schmidt's ~uggest~d reading ?1('1~ T'?.\: 'n'i1, "1 am coming upon you, you hearth of God," IS too dIfferent from the transmitted text. 3a For -111:: (in an encircling), the Gk reads ciJ~ ~U'\Jto (as David) and this reading has been adopted by many (Ehrlich; Bredenkamp; Gressmann, 10 I) since such a reading seems called for in light of the way it corresponds to v. I (see also Procksch, BHS). But the Syr and the Vulg both had a text that read i11:: (lit.: "as a circle"). Most importantly, the comparison i11:: (as David) would cause a distortion. Yahweh is not going out onto the battlefield against Jerusalem as David did. The other use of i1l, as, e.g., in 22: 18, has the meaning "ball," but Arabic dara means "move oneself around in a circle," and Akkadian diim means "(encircling-, city-) wall," so that the reading "circuit, circle" is certainly possible, particularly because it fits well in the context (see Kaiser, 210, note 4 [contra HAL]). It is possible that one ought to follow F. Wutz (8Z 23 [1935] 144) and read 111:::l (in an encircling) instead ohn:: (as an encircling). 3b and b For :::l~Q (entrenchment), the Gk reads xapa~, "palisade, entrenchment, rampart," Vulg: agger (heap, mound). Ges-Buhl gives the meaning "military outpost" for the present passage. KBL reads "unclear military expression: outpost?" The term has to fit, to a certain extent, with the parallel word ni~r. (ramparts) in the second half of the verse. But that vocable is unfortunately not clear either. 0" reads r;n1~r. (strongholds); some MSS read the form as n-;::;o (stronghold), but that cannot be right. KBL and HAL suggest changing it to read nn,,1;l, which (derived from i~J, "guard") supposedly means "watch." In this case, the translation of the term :::l~Q as "military outposts" would come close. But it sounds too harmless that the enemy opposing Jerusalem would be doing nothing more than setting up outposts and stationing watch guards. And i1-:~1;l never occurs elsewhere in the OT (its meaning is determined in Nah. 2:2 by deduction from the context as well). Gressmann (10 I) suggests the reading ::l~:;l, ::l~ meaning "lizard," which might have served as the. nam~ for some type of siege engine, but one can hardly accept such a suggestIOn WIth any confidence. 11~ means "tie up, encircle, besiege" as well; Arabic ~arra means "tie together" (see KBL), and Hebrew -:"'1~, among its usages, includes the id~a o~ "e~~I?se, hem in," so that i1-:1::>1;l, in the present passage, means something hke sIege rampart." :::l~O would serve more or less as a rough synonym. It is very possible that the Gk basically got the right idea. 4a-a For v. 4aa, the Gk reads Kat ta7tEtVweijoOV'tUl Ot A.OyOI OOU £i~ 'thv y~v (and your words will be brought down into the ground), bl:'t that is merely a paraphrase. It is very difficult to render the Hebrew expressIOn word for word (according to KBL, 1Y7 '1m;: means: he "speaks there from below"). ':::l9 is used ~ instead of an adverbial designation for a place; cf. passages such as I Sam. 2:3: 11:;l!n 1:l"'11}-,?~ (talk no more). " 4b-b According to Eccl. 12:4 nno means "make a muffled sound, so that the verb means something like "make a sound from the depths" here. G. R. Driver (BZA W 77 [1958] 45) suggests interpreting nno in the present passage on the

66

Isaiah 28-35

basis of Arabic sa~l;a, "pour~d out (words)." But the traditional translation is supported by its use in paralJel with ?:It.:i (from below). 4c Concerning :y,1{ (spirit from the dead), see Isaiah 1-12, pp. 371f. and also F. Schmidtke, BZ II (1967) 240-246; K. Goldammer, FS G. Widengren II (1972) Numen Supp\. 22, 269f., with note 2, 170, and 1. Lust, VTSup 26 (1974) 137ff. 4d Concerning "1~m; (here: "lisp"), see Isaiah 1-12, p. 372. 5a-a Procksch (370, note d) thinks that vv. 5aba, 5b~, which speak of a sudden change of fortune, anticipate in advance what is mentione!J exists, and it is also an unlikely reading. "'Ie Qa reads the longer form 'lOa (from me), but Isaiah uses the shorter form 'JO in 22:4 as well. I d ~::Joo is translated in the Gk as crUV8r,KTl (agreement, pact). Its translators could hardly have had a different text before them. In other passages, ~::Joo refers to a "molten image" (or "covering"; see 25:7; 28:20), which is what Dahood proposes as the meaning here. He thus suggests reading ~::>lJ, used parallel to ~::JOO, as flJ (wood), with an accusative ending, which he translates as "wooden idols." But since 10: and 1m both refer to the "poured offering" (sometimes: "the 'molten image"'), one ought to start with the meaning "poured offering" for ~::Joo. 1Dl I (or 19) TO~) means "pour out a drink-offering" and ~::Joo 10: would be another way to say the same thing. Such drink-offerings were poured out for the divine powers that were called upon as guarantors of a covenant. The phraseology can thus no doubt refer to the same as Greek cr7tov8at; cr1t£voecr8U1 (offer a drink-offering) (or with 1totetv, "make," or some similar verb) to mean "establish an agreement (covenant)." I e The infinitive r,mo seems to be derived from ~~O, "take away," but it makes no sense. The infinitive from "'10' (add) must be the intended root (the Gk reads 1tpocr8etvUl, "to add, increase," as well). For this reason, many scholars (see also BHS) suggest altering the text to read n~o (to add) (cf. the Mesha Inscription, I. 21). But since m~o (to increase) is also an infinitive form of "")0' (add) in Num. 32: 14, one need not alter the present text. It would seem that a certain mixing of forms took place between "")0' (add) and ~~o ("snatch away"; cf. also Deut. 32:23). That is not surprising, since both verbs are based on a bi-radical root "")0. 2a Qa reads r.", but the MT is correct. The original absence of n could be due to a simple oversight (or did a copyist think that this is an infinitive from "', "subjugate"?). , 2b !~lJ? (to be protected) calls for comment, since one expects nlJ?, an alteration suggested by most. And yet, pointing the infinitive construct for this class of verbs with a i is not without analogy (cf. Ges-K §72q, lotion, Gr §80k). 3a and a-a Duhm and Buhl remove i1lJ'~ (Pharaoh) and c'~::>O-?::': (shadow of Egypt), since they consider these words to be an aesthetically and metrically unsatisfactory repetition from v. 2. By contrast, Procksch suggests removing m? (to you), due to metrical considerations. But the repetition is intentional and the content suggests that the three-stress + three-stress bicolon makes sense as is. 4a Qa reads i1'i1 ("has been," sing.). Was this change caused by a desire to match it to i1'01 ("will indeed," sing.) in v. 3? 4b and b For n(v (its princes) the Gk reads apXTlyol (princes); for 1'::JN?O (his messengers) it reads ayye"A.Ol (1tOVTlPol) ([evil] angels). There are thus no corresponding suffixes (the Vulg, by contrast, reads principes lui, "your princes", and nuntii tui, "your messengers"). The text is problematic. If the suffix is correct, it must refer back to Pharaoh. But an assertion stating that the pharaoh has princes in Zoan and sends messengers to Hanes makes no sense in this context. Using the Gk and Cheyne, Marti suggests reading on:;:nr, C'::JI;(?Q1 C1"~ W~J 1:1;1 '::J (for princes encamp in

Isaiah 28-35

121

Zoan and messengers [in] Tahpanhes). According to this reading, the text would refer to non-Egyptian messengers who had arrived in the border towns in the Nile delta. But Marti's alteration of the text goes too far. BHS suggests reading 1'?,?m (and his kings) instead of 1':)!{"Q1 (and his messengers), but what would "kings" of the pharaoh have to look for in Hanes? Kuschke inserts still another solution into the discussion. In regions directly adjacent to the kingdom, the pharaohs ruled through royal messengers. By contrast, in the areas that were more distant, they ruled by means of local princes, as was the case with Shabaka. His messengers would have been responsible for administration as far as Hanes, which means as far as the border between Upper and Lower Egypt. But his vassals would have been in authority in Zoan. Donner (134) rightly asks whether one can assume knowledge in Judah concerning the specific details of Egyptian administrative measures. The Gk is presumably correct, at least insofar as the reading in both cases is an absolute plural, thus simply D'i(D (princes) and c':)!{"o (messengers), without suffixes. It would thus be possible to consider that the princes and messengers are those sent from Judah. 4c-c, c-c With its translation ~OtT\V Komocrouow (in vain will they labor) (which it takes as part of v. 5), the Gk seems to have been translating a text that read llT' c"n (for no purpose they will toii). But the rules of parallelism suggest that one should stay with om (Hanes). The Gk simply shows that it is not aware of what to do with the name of this city. 5a O'!{:::l;' provides a choice between C'K:::l:1 (Kethib) (lit.: "he made to stink") and i.:i'J;' (Qere) (lit.: "he put to shame"), a reading actually found in some MSS (see BHS). G. R. Driver (JTS 34 [1933] 38) wants to stay with O'!{:::l:i, which he translates "to feel bad." But the Qere is correct at this point. And yet, this halfverse seems too short. Marti, Cheyne, Schlogl, ct al. emend the text to read '~ 1X":::l:1 c'?::l (all of them bring a gift); see also BHK. By contrast, BHS, following Procksch, suggests reading O':::l~ K:;J;:T-"? (each one who comes will be ashamed). It may be that something like that was in the text at one time. But it is better to avoid any temptation to expand the text. 5b The athnach should be moved and placed under the previous word 1"'!!1' (they cannot help). BHK suggests reading c.p,? (for the people) instead ofiD,? (for him) (cf. Duhm and Marti), which would result in a reading something like: "because of a people that brings no help." But the repetition ofD!) (people) is not stylistically appropriate. 1D" (for him) could refer back to .,:) (each one, all) (cf. the same pattern just before this, where the pluraI1?'!)1', "they [cannot] help," is used with the singular Cll, "people"). But it is likely that 10" (for him) should be altered to read 1"" ("for us"; see Deut. 33:2; Isa. 44:7; Pss. 44: II; 64:6; 80:7). 5c-c There is no corresponding phrase for "'1l1i1? !{"1 (none that would be useful) in the Gk. The reading is hardly appropriate, since it simply repeats what was just said. It does not fit metrically within the framework of the context. The phrase should thus be eliminated (thus BHK, Duhm, Marti, Fohrer; cf. Huber, 113). Dietrich (139f.) is even more radical when he removes v. 5a altogether (as a result of which he suggests pointing it il.p" ("to help," an infinitive verb) instead of illl" ("for help," a noun). But such alterations to the text are inappropriate.

Form The section begins with the well-known '1;1 (woe). 0'"1i10 0':::1 (obstinate ~ons) are addressed. It is common for the reasons given for uttering a woe-oracle to be cast in constructions that use participles. That happens here in v. 2 ( ... C'J?;1;1, "those who go down"). But earlier still, one finds two constructions with infinitives, which serve the same purpose:

122 Isaiah 28-35

... mtw" (here: "forge a p'lan") and ... lO"'i (here: "pour an offering"). The threat of judgment is in v. 3, introduced by;,';" (here: "will bring"). The message could end at that point, and some commentators are actually of the opinion that vv. 4f. are independent ofvv. 1-3. It is difficult to be confident about how one can resolve this issue, since the text of vv. 4f. has been changed in so many ways. Every emendation is of consequence for the understanding of both verses and can result in prejudicing the case for how one answers the question about the unity'of vv. 1-5. Donner removes v. 3 as a gloss, since it repeats terms that are used in v. 2 and is not satisfactory in terms of meter either. Kaiser agrees with this view, adding the further observation that this verse overlaps at times with v. 5. He thinks that this is a later reinterpretation, inserted at a time when the message of the prophet was reactualized in a later era. But that type of addition is usually inserted at the very end of a section and is inserted to reapply the content of what precedes to fit the new situation. That is not the case here. Verse 3 is part of the original text. Ought one separate vv. 4f. from what precedes? If so, one would have still another warning issued to the Judahite circles that they ought not place their hopes in Egypt's help. By means of the few, simple textual alterations that were explained in the textual notes one can see that these two verses fit just fine with v. 3. Verse 4 gives concrete information about how Judah was seeking help from Egypt and v. 5 makes it clear that such efforts are worthless. Verse 5 adds the observation that Judah will only make itself look foolish in the sight of the whole world. Meter: 30: 1aa is composed as a five-stress colon; Y. 1a~b is structured as 3 two-stress + two-stress bicola. One might have a three-stress + three-stress bicolon in v. 2a (if 'Ell, "my mouth," is followed immediately by the stressed syllable ~'), "not," then great stress is put on the negation, as is obviously intended). In v. 2b one also has a three-stress + three-stress bicolon. It is clear that YV. 3a and 3b are two parallel clauses, which one cannot divide further; one thus has to analyze it as a nine-stress colon (5 + 4). Verse 4 is once again a three-stress + three-stress bicolon. Verse 5, as far as ,,'1)1' (they cannot help) (under which the athnach is to be placed), seems to call for analysis as a twostress + two-stress bicolon; the rest (after the removal of ')'1)1;'') K';1, "none that would be useful") is a three-stress + three-stress bicolon,

Setting

Except for v. 3, the authenticity of the verse has seldom been questioned. People from Palestine certainly sought help in Egypt on many occasions, in order to defend themselves against attack from the north or east. But this passage fits very well with other messages offered by Isaiah in which he questions the political decisions concerning treaties that were being made by the leaders who were in authority in Jerusalem. Hezekiah's pro-Egyptian political stance is so well known that it need not even be discussed further. There is nothing in the diction that speaks against Isaiah being the source of the verses; one might compare these words with passages such as 31: 1 or 29: 15 (from that verse, compare ;";"D, "from Yahweh," with ')D, "from me," in 30: 1). The accusation that they make plans without involving Yahweh is typical of Isaiah. Isaiah

Isaiah 28-35

123

warne~ against making treaties (also with Egypt) in 28: 14ff. In addition, he subjected those who were seeking to make an alliance with Ethiopia (chaps. 18f.) or Egypt (chap. 20) to harsh criticism. Attributing this message to Isaiah is thus not just because one can find "no real reason for not attributing the proclamation of woe to Isaiah himself' (Kaiser) but because everything in the balance weighs in favor of him as the author. What is not quite so easy to determine is the precise date of the passage; the question about making treaties with Egypt was a pressing issue more than once during Isaiah's time. We suggested that the basic form of chap. 20, in which Isaiah also takes his stand against trust in Egypt (and Cush), was to be assigned to the time of the rebellion of Ashdod that dates to 713-711. These same events are probably behind 18:1-7 (see the excursus in Isaiah 13~27, pp. 212ff.). The material in 19: 1ff. that comes from Isaiah is to be assigned to the conflict between Sargon and Osorkon IV. Chapter 18 discussed envoys that came from Cush to Jerusalem in order to look for support in establishing an anti-Assyrian front. But this present passage suggests that Judahite princes went down to Egypt in order to seek help from the pharaoh. Isaiah 30: 1-5 would thus be dated after 19: 1ff. but also later than 18: 1ff. It would have come from a time when Jerusalem itself was in the greatest danger from Assyria. It could be that the covenant that one sought with the pharaoh according to v. 1 was that "covenant with death" or the "pact with SheaI" mentioned in28:15. The pharaoh from whom protection is sought may actually be Shabaka, but it seems that he left the negotiations with Judah in the hands of the princes in the delta. No doubt, the delegation from Judah tried to get Egypt to enter the dispute with all the strength it could muster. The request seemed to have been successful, since the pharaoh (or his vassals in Lower Egypt) did send troops to Palestine. But, at the very latest, at the time when Egypt was defeated at Eltekeh (see S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times [1981] 257), the day came when Isaiah was proved right with this prediction as well. He predicted that a pact with Egypt would lead only to disgrace and contempt.

Commentary

[30:1) Concerning ";, (woe), see Isaiah 1~12, pp. 196ff. and the commentary on 29: 1au. The woes are directed against the 0';;,0 C':J (obstinate sons). In 1:2, Isaiah referred to all Israel in general as "sons" whom Yahweh had provided with many fatherly blessings and who had now rebelled against him. In the present passage the prophet is not speaking of the entire population but specifically about the people who forge plans and make covenants. This can hardly be any other group than the circles identified in 28: 14 as the 1'~? 'OlX (braggarts) and ~;, c.!];, '''00 (formulators of proverbs among this people). These individuals are the ones mentioned in 29: 15, who make dark plans. When this same group of political leaders is addressed as "obstinate sons," it is to confront them concerning the way they have handled the fatherly bles-

124 Isaiah 28-35 sings that Israel had experienced. It was unheard of that members of the people of God, who knew very well that Yahweh was father to Israel, would have dealt with him so shamefully. The imagery of the obstinate sons is used once again in 30:9, but there with reference to Israel as a whole: "They are an 'If.l D!.? (an obstinate people), D'tDnJ D'JJ (untruthful sons), who do not want to listen to the instruction of Yahweh." If the Israelites are called "sons," then Yahweh is indirectly being identified as their father; see Isaiah 1-12, pp. 12f:--.and cf. Deut. 32: Sf., wh ich identifies the sons of Yahweh as a perverse and crooked generation, but also explicitly refers to Yahweh as the father who created Israel (see P. Winter, "Der Begriff 'S6hne Gottes' im Moselied," ZA W 67 [1955] 40--48). There can be little doubt that, when Isaiah uses the imagery of God as father, it includes Yahweh's faithful care for his children (see passages such as Isa. 63: 150, his mercy, and his love. But he naturally would think of a father that had unquestioned authority and had the right to demand obedience without discussion, though willingness to obey ought to grow out of full confidence in him. "Obstinate sons" are thus those that fight against what is natural. Isaiah speaks in 1:23 about obstinate princes (see also Hos. 9: 15 and cf. Has. 4: 16; Jer. 5:23; 6:28). Our culture tolerates sons who make plans without consulting their father, and such behavior may even be seen as necessary. But the Israelite son was under the overall authority of his father as long as his parent was alive. If rebellion against the father were seen to be a most severe attack on the structure of the community (see Deut. 21: 18-20), a revolt against the divine father would be considered an unheard-of affront. Instead of trusting Yahweh, these sons make an ;'~ll (plan) for themselves. ;'~ll ;'~ll (forge a plan) could mean both "come to a conclusion" and "make a plan." The context shows that the second meaning stands in the foreground in the present text. Diplomats are at work and have concocted their plans (in hiding while they do so, as, mentioned in 29: 15), and they have already begun to bring these ideas to fruition. They do not comprehend that they are deluded, since such activity is without substance when it is placed into the historical arena of the events that pass before Yahweh. Concretely, this ~~ll (plan) is that they want to enter into a military agreement with Egypt. It was noted (in textual note ld) that the formula ;'JDf.l 10" (lit.: "pour an offering") is likely a paraphrase, referring to concluding a covenant. A sacrificial meal would be held as a regular part of concluding a covenant. The partners in the agreement and the deities would conclude the activities with a communio. Drink-offerings were likely offered to the deities at that time. '"f.l x'i, (but not from me) and 'nn x'i, (not by my spirit) must obviously be interpreted in connection with ,'iXtD l''i '81 (they do not consult my mouth) in v. 2 (cf. ltDl, l''i ;,,;-r-nl'1, "and they do not seek Yahweh," in 31: 1). As with 29: 15, one wonders whether this accusation deals with the fact that no oracle was sought in the temple. But it is unthinkable that Isaiah could speak so uncritically of priests who offer oracles or of prophets who are at home in cultic settings. How could he

Isaiah 28-35

125

call for people to rely on the information from priests and prophets when he said earlier that they totter when receiving visions and stagger about when making their decisions (28:7). '"0 N'? means simply "against my will" (cf. Hos. 8:4). As far as 'nn N'? (not by my spirit) is concerned, one notes that the prophet can be referred to in Hos. 9:7 as an nii:1 tJ'N (man of the spirit) (parallel to N'JJ, "prophet"; cf. also Mic. 3:8). But, except for these passages, the prophets in the OT never claim to possess the spirit or to speak by the power of the spirit. R. AlbertzlC. Westermann (TLOT, 3, 1216) might be right when they suggest that Isaiah, as he speaks in an abbreviated fashion, is employing an element of tradition that has its roots in holy war: "In response to nervous political maneuvering, Isaiah firmly maintains that deliverance is possible only through the spirit of God by which Yahweh himself intervenes in the battle (31 :4f.; cf. Judg 5:4f.)." It seems that nN~n-'?!J nN~n n1:JO 1!JQ'? (and therefore simply pile transgression upon transgression) is not used in the final (purpose) sense, but rather in the consecutive sense. Or else, as HAL (II, 581) reads it: "The result is often stated as if it is the intention: Deut. 29: 18; Jer. 27:15; or else 1!,lQ'? is used ironically, as in Hos. 8:5." In the present passage the second possibility should be considered likely. The obstinate sons act with so little insight that it is almost as if they have a suicidal goal of burdening themselves with the heaviest burden of debt possible. According to the synthetic understanding of existence, r.N~n, usually translated as "sins," intertwines the moment when the guilty action is committed, as would naturally be of central importance in this present case, with the consequences of the guilty action that are unavoidably set in motion. Isaiah uses the verb !JiD8 (raise against) in 1:2 when he describes the way the "sons" brought guilt upon themselves . .lltD:J is usually used in a political sense: "raise oneself against the duly constituted authorities" (see Isaiah 1-12, p. 14). But the verb K~n can also be used in a political sense. Thus Hezekiah delivers a message to the king of Assyria: "I have done wrong ('nKt!ln); ... whatever you impose on me I will bear" (2 Kings 18: 14). The Assyrian kings treat the rebell ion as sin. On this matter, one might consult the text of an inscription of Ashurbanipal (Rm, J, 118ff.: VAB V1II2, 12f.; in addition, one might consult Rm, V, 38, 46f.; Rm, IX, 73, 78f., and often elsewhere): "Afterward, these kings sinned (!;a.tu), as many as I had installed, against my commandments, did not keep the oath of the great gods, (and) forgot the good that J had shown them ... they conspired together to come to the following unjustified (?) decision: 'If one wants to drive Tarqu from Egypt, how can we thus remain?' To Tarqu, the king of Kusi [Cush], they sent their messengers to conclude a pact and a treaty .. ,,"

Thus, if Judah established a treaty with Egypt, such an action would be considered to be "sinning" in the eyes of the Assyrians. One 9ug ht to reflect very carefully in Jerusalem about how Assyria would react to such a relationship and about what sanctions such a pact would occasion. But nKt!ln (sin) is naturally, and primarily, a trespass against God as well, one that brings with it its own disastrous consequences.

126 Isaiah 28-35 Because of the formulation "and therefore (simply) pile transgression upon transgression," one can conclude that the attempts to win Egypt's favor that are condemned here had been preceded already by other overtures toward Egypt. That is certainly possible if one interprets this passage in the context of Hezekiah's revolt against Sennacherib. But one ought not force the phrase to say more than it does. It simply intends to state that this political activity will have disastrous consequences.

"

[30:2) Most of what is important about v. 2 has been said already. The

verse provides details about what is involved in the ;"1~.lJ (plan), concerning which the prophet utters the woe-oracle. Once upon a time Yahweh led Israel out of Egypt; people are now going right back down there in order to ask for protection. To say that someone "goes down" to the land of the Nile is to use a stock expression (see Gen. 12: 10). According to the observations summarized above concerning 'JO N? (not from me) and 'n1i N? (not by my spirit), '8 ?Nib (consult my mouth) cannot be taken as a technical term to refer to "receiving an oracle." Instead, it means that they do not pay any attention to the message of Yahweh that Isaiah proclaims. To be sure, there is no question that C';"1?N:::l ?NtD (ask God) or ;"1i:1':::l ([ask] Yahweh) originally assumed that there was a particular technique for such, which would have been used especially when one began a holy war (cf. passages such as Josh. 9:14; Judg. 1:lr When this action of seeking an oracle by casting lots was carried out, a significant role would have been played by the D''jN (Urim) and cmn (Thummim) (see Westermann, 10ff.). But the last use of ?Nib in the scriptures, when referring to consulting God, is written in I Samuel. When Isaiah says i?NiJ N? '8 (they do not consult my mouth) here, instead of "they do not inquire of me," it may indicate that he does not think in terms of an institution that functions by asking God for guidance (see Dietrich, 137f., note 23; in addition, see the literature references at the beginning of this section). The verbs n.lJ (be protected) and ;"1on (find security), as well as the substantives n.lJD (protection) and ?~ (shadow) (cf. r;~on, "security," in v. 3), are used in the Book of the Psalms and are employed there to describe the protection one finds from Yahweh upon Zion (one can compare the uses of the substantive ;"10riO, "refuge," and the verb inOl, "hide oneself," in 28: 15, as well as the substantives ;"1onr~, "refuge," and ino, "hiding place," in 28: 17; on n.lJQ, "protection," see discussions at 17: I 0; 25:4; 27:5; on ?~, "shadow," see 4:6; 25:4f.). Isaiah uses the vocabulary from the cult in order to make it clear that what is sought in Egypt can be found in Jerusalem. 130:3) This perversion can only result is a terrible disaster. Instead of protection and security, the people will find themselves in disgrace and contempt in Egypt. niJ:::l refers to the kind of disgrace that comes upon someone when great plans go awry, whereas ;"1Q?J (contempt) describes what comes to someone whose schemes have been exposed to the eyes of the world (see 20:5; 1:29; and cf. the reflections on the topic in Isaiah 1-12, pp. 76f.). The repetition of terms in v. 3, which have been used in

Isaiah 28-35

127

v. 2 as well, results from the axiomatic assumption that the punishment corresponds exactly to the wicked behavior. Verse 3 thus ought not be removed from the text (see above, on the Form of this passage).

[30:4] The problems caused by v. 4 in its present condition have been discussed already (see textual note 4b and b). J. Scharbert (Die Propheten Israels his 700 v. Chr. [1965] 272) thinks that the suffixes on the two substantives 1',(.:) (lit.: "his princes") and "J~?a (lit.: "his messengers") refer to Hezekiah (cf. Young). That would make perfect sense, since, as was shown above, problems of understanding would be created if this were taken as referring to the pharaoh. But Hezekiah is not mentioned anywhere in the passage. ]n addition, Isaiah never mentions the king when speaking all these warnings and threats. But if one treats these two substantives as being in the absolute state, then there is no problem with understanding these nouns as referring to the princes of Jerusalem or to the emissaries that they sent. Concerning the location of Zoan = Tavu; = $iin el-hagar, see Isaiah 13-27, p. 250 and the map on p.214.

o:n (Hanes) is mentioned only here in the OT. Its identification has caused some problems. Since it is mentioned right next to Zoan, it seems that it should be located in the vicinity of this Nile delta city. But it has been commonly identified as Herakleopolis magna, known today as alplas on the babr ),IISlIf that flows into the fayyum oasis (Egyptian: !:z(t)-/ln-nsw(t)); see Pauly-W, VIII/I, 515 and cf. the map in Isaiah /3-27, p. 214. Some scholars emphasize the fact that it would have been a significant principality, the next large Egyptian city north of the delta. "Nothing could be more natural than the words of Isaiah. as he sees the messengers of Judah going to Tanis, the strongest city of the delta, or even to Hanes, the powerful principality just beyond the delta" (1. H. Breasted, AJSL 21 [1904/5] 250). This possible location cannot be rejected completely. It is simply difficult to understand why the messengers from Jerusalem would have to go so far south. But there was also a city called Herakleopolis parva during the Greek era, near Pelusium, known today as biles. Some have objected to identifying this city as o"n (Hanes) because it would have been too insignificant for Isaiah to have mentioned it. Besides this, it has been stated that no one would have known the Egyptian names of these cities. But one knows today that this Herakleopolis was in fact known as /:zn-n-slflY in earlier times, which weakens the second argument. But the most important evidence to support this identification is that one notes, in a list from Ashurbanipal that identifies princes ruling in the delta (Rm, I, 95), just before pull/bitli, the king of $a)rzu, which is certainly to be identified as Zoan/Tanis, that mention is made of /labke, the king of bininfi (V AB, VIII2, II). It would be surprising if Ashurbanipal mentioned Tanis and this smaller Herakleopolis next to each other at the same time that Isaiah was presumably speaking in the same breath about the city of Zoan along with a city that lay much farther to the south. It would seem impossible that Ashurbanipal was speaking of the larger Herakleopolis, since the list in his text refers to states that were located in the delta (see W. ppiegelberg, Agypt%gische Randglossen zum Allen Testam~nt [19?~1 37f. and cf. K. Kitchen, §333, note 749 [Isaiah /3-27, p. 205]; In addition, see F. Gomaa, TAVOBei B 5 [1974] 109f. and W. Heick, TAVOBei B 5 [1974] 123), Kitchen thinks that the only alternative to identifying the city as the little Herakleopolis would be that o:n is really masking a transliteration of Egyptian

128 Isaiah 28-35 IJ.(wt}-nsw, "Mansion (or Domain) of the King." This phraseology would pro-

vide a parallel term to refer to Zoan as well, but that solution is quite unlikely. If it does refer to little Herakleopolis, the thesis from Kuschke, noted above in textual note 4b and b, is shown to be unnecessary; it is questionable in any case.

One is thus left to assume that the envoys sent by Hezekiah sought help from the princes who ruled in the delta. At that time, Zoan was a significant city; its princes were advisers to the pharaoh according to 19: 11. This advice doubtless came primarily concerning questions that dealt with Palestine and Syria. But it is only natural that the underlings from Jerusalem would have turned to other states in the delta as well. Sennacherib speaks of the kings of MU$ri and the archers, wagons, and horses of the king of Melubba (Clay Prism, II, 73f.; AOT, 353) who engaged in conflict with him in southern Palestine. Scholars have long been of the opinion that this reference to kings of Egypt was in actual ity a reference to the princes who ruled the cities and territories that were under the overall control of the Ethiopians. [30:5] All attempts by Judah to woo Egypt into loving them were senseless. They had to know that any alliance with Egypt was doomed from the time of King Hoshea of Israel and beyond. In addition, Hanno of Gaza's revolt failed and the king of Melubba had turned Yamani of Ashdod, who had fled to him for protection, over to Sargon. At that point, Hezekiah had to settle matters with Assyria. For a long time already, Isaiah tried to throw the full weight of his prophetic authority behind his attempt to expose the pro-Egyptian circles in Jerusalem as being caught up in a political action that would lead to destruction. One can well imagine that one could make a fool of oneself in the eyes of other nations as well. Purpose and Thrust It can be seen again and again that it is only an illusion to expect people to learn from their past history. One cannot understand such deluded activity rationally; sense can be made of it only if one applies the theological term "hardening" (see the discussion above, at 29:9f.). It is certainly true that "the obstinate sons" of Yahweh trekked toward destruction in stubborn obstinacy. The appeal to faith, which can be equated with a call to follow what has been learned and what makes sense, faded and fell on deaf ears. To be sure, this message addresses a specific historical situation concerning which the premises for action are painfully obvious to us. As an example of how one can be caught up in obstinate delusion that defies both God and reasonable action, the passage exposes for us typical behavior that repeats itself in history time and again. It is very difficult for humans to correct important decisions once they have been made, as is the case when Judah placed itself on the list of those who were in opposition to Assyria. According to Isaiah's recommendation, one must say: only faith possesses the power to distance oneself from one's own plans, which have become so compelling, in order to be free to pay

Isaiah 28-35

129

attention to God's ;1~!7 (insight). That insight alone can provide one, at the same time, with the freedom to understand reality as it really is, no matter how harsh that might prove to be.

Isaiah 30:6-7

A Senseless Undertaking

literature R. G. Murison, "Rahab," ExpTim 16 (1904) 190. E. Hertlein, "Rahab," ZAW38 (1919/20) 113-154. K.-D. Schunck, "Jesaja 30,6-8 und die Deutung der Rahab im Alten Testament," ZA W 78 (1966) 48-56.

Text 30:6

7

aThe burden of animals "in" the land of the South: a through a narrow b and oppressive land, with clions and "growling"d lions,c with vipers and flying dragons, they bring- their wealthf on the backs of donkeys and their treasures on the hump of camels tog a people that cannot help, [and toward Egypt),a whose help is empty and futile. To be sure, I call it: ba monster "that is (condemned to) idleness."b

This text is an EI Dorado for the fantasies of exegetes; is anyone able to offer a solution, just in regard to the text-critical problems posed by this section of material, which can resolve every contradiction? 6a-a If the MT is correct, one can hardly translate the text otherwise than the way it is done here. Some try to understand x(Do (here: "burden") in the same sense as it is used in the oracles against the foreign nations in chaps. 13-23 and translate it as "verdict." They explain that this text was composed as a verdict either against the animals that one encounters in the land of the South or against the beasts that one imagines are at home in that region according to the fables that are spun. But the animals of the land of the South are not the central characters in this message; that role is played by the power that v. 7b~ labels as ::l~~ (rhb) and that the glossator in v. 7a interprets as Egypt. Some redactor must thus have supplied the superscription, an individual who was interested in the animals mentioned in this section but who did not understand what the message was actually to say. ~O~:l (bhmh) is thus not really a good term to refer collectivelv to all the lions and snakes that are mentioned afterward. One can thus understand why some scholars seek a satisfactory solution to the problems here by altering the text. Duhm suggests reading :l;l n~m;;:l (in the wastelands of the Negev). This would furnish the section with a title, suggesting that the phrase

130

Isaiah 28-35

131

originally served as the beginning of the poem. But then, when it came to function as a superscription, Duhm' s :m r:1i.lt:lJ would have been separated from the poem. One notes the practice of using a key term in a superscription, because it is used in the section of material that follows, in 21: I, 13; 22: I. Dietrich advocates this textual change as well, though he does not read ~Wr::l to mean "verdict," but rather to mean "tribute." In fact, this word never means "tribute," though it certainly can be translated as "burden," which seems close to correct in the present passage because the verb ~tvJ (bring) is used later in the passage. But the change of text to read mC:1J (beasts) as rlli.ltJJ (in the wastelands) is too risky. It is easier to accept a change to emend mi.l:1J by pointing it r:~i.l:1J (Behemoth), to be translated "hippopotamus" or "crocodile." If Rahab has already found a place in this passage, Behemoth can also claim the right to be mentioned here as well. Schunck (49f.) favors translating nm:1~ as "hippopotamus." Daniel 11:5 furnishes enough support to justify the interpretation that J;!J refers to Egypt (see Buhl; Konig; Eissfeldt, Introduction, 316). But though it is true that there are hippopotamuses and crocodiles in Egypt, r,~i.l,'J (Behemoth) is never used as a reference to the land situated on the Nile as a whole. The best solution is to stay with the meaning "animals." By contrast, Dietrich might be right that ~(lm does not mean "verdict" here and that we are not dealing with any secondary superscription for the passage. The meter suggests the same. The Gk reads: ~ opoat(; ,roy n:,p01tOOWY ,roy £y £P~llql (the vision of the four-footed animals that are in the desert). One possibly ought to go at least so far as to read J;JJ (in the Negev) and, in the plural absolute state, n~r::l:1J (Behemoth). The animals in the land of the South are donkeys and camels that haul "burdens" through the JJ; (Negev). ~tvr::l (burden) is used in anticipation of o:1'?'n (their wealth) and cr,i,"1~ (their treasures), which will be mentioned soon. 6b After :1~," (narrow), Q' reads il'~l (BOB: "dryness, drought"). S. Talmon (Textus 4 [19641 113) considers this to be a variant either to the preceding word ;'i~ (narrow) or to the following word ilPl~ (oppression). 6c~ Concerning the designations for lions, see Isaiah 1-12, pp. 241 f. For WJ'? KBL gives the meaning "lion," but HAL reads it once again as "lioness," as does Ges-Buhl. But Bredenkamp offers a nice argument against reading it as referring to the female, since it would be quite surprising to have the lioness mentioned before the lion. 6d c:m (lit.: "from them") cannot be right. S. GrUnberg (see Konig) suggests reading Cili.l ("moving noisily, causing confusion," as a hiphcil participle from Cr::lil), since hmhm is used in Egyptian to describe the roaring of a lion and since the OT has a passage where ilr::lil is used for the growling of a bear (lsa. 59: 11). But there is no other example of a hiphcil form of the root Clr::lil. Bruno thinks it could be a hiphcii participle from the root C1il (808: "show disquietude, murmur"), but that meaning does not fit in the context. Schunck (ibid .. 51) proposes emending the text to read Oil:;I (among them): "lions and leonines are among them," but among whom? According to Duhm Cilr::l supposedly means "from whence" and is to be understood as a reference to the deserts of the land of the South. That works. however, only if one accepts his emendation of r:1r::lil::l (see textual note 6a-a). And finally, the reading in Q"' C'r::l i'~l (and there is no water) is little more than a fanciful suggestion that shows only that CilC was already giving problems in ancient times. It will not do simply to remove the word, since it is used parallel to 'lE:u)Q "]ltv (flying dragons), which shows additi9nally that one actually ought to read a participle here. The easiest and most generally accepted solution is to replace Clili.l with em, "gr~wling," which is als? used to describe lions in 5:29f. and Provo 28: 15 (so Kissane, Duhm, Marti, Procksch, Kaiser, Dietrich, 141, etc.).

,n

132 Isaiah 28-35 6e It is completely arbitrary to reposition 1Xtl)' (they bring) one line lower, at the beginning of the next line (just before Cllr'lJ), "to a people"; thus Procksch), for metrical reasons. Q' reads the singular xilJ' (he brings); in any case an unidentified "someone" is the subject. 6f Clil'l'n (their wealth) is certainly a correct reading because of how it is used with Cln;;;;1X (their treasures); some MSS read Clil''I'n (their fortunes). There is no justifiable reason to remove Clil'l'n (their fortune) "as a secondary insertion to fill out the parallelism" (so Donner, 158); the Gk text is not trustworthy enough here to give adequate support for a change. "6g One expects to find 'Ix (to) rather than "J) (upon). It may be a copying mistake, but 'Ix and "J) cannot always be distinguished as having completely separate meanings. 7a Most modern scholars treat Cl'I;;;~1 (and toward Egypt) as a gloss; see also BHK and BHS (which places the 1, "and," before "::Jil, "empty"). Metrical reasons are sufficient to favor this solution, but, even more so, mentioning Egypt detracts from the flow of the poem. The str,ategy is to mention the country only in paraphrases, so that the hearer is informed of the country's identity only when the phrase rm:;Dil ::Jill (here: "a monster that is condemned to idleness") is used (no matter how one proposes to emend this phrase). 7tr-b The conclusion to v. 7, r,::Ji.:l Cil ::Jil~, is difficult. Those who comment on the text are often unsure of what to do here. Lowth and Doderlein suggest reading n::J;;i~il ::Jill (Rahab the destroyer); Michaelis: n'::Ji.:lr;l;:T (the destroyer) (see Gesenius); Duhm, as a result of his emendation of m~il::J (here: "animals"), reads nbi;ia;:T ::Jili (Rahab of the wastelands). Procksch suggests: n:;J\;i~ il:;Jil"") "his noisemaking stops"; Fischer: r,::Jt.:i';:T ::Jili, which supposedly means "the resting dragon." Indeed, it is likely that a participle is to be read here. H. Ewald (I, 434) suggests that the three words remain mystifying so long as one does not recognize that the construction forms a short proverbial expression, one that would have been easily remembered. Recent scholars also stay with the MT, as, e.g., Donner and Kaiser, who translate the phrase: "They are Rahab? - Idleness!" But it would be most strange to find a question immediately after the previous halfline and Ci1 (they) would still be a peculiar reading. The most helpful suggestion is without doubt the emendation that reads r.:;Jt!i9;:T ::Jill (here: "Rahab that is condemned to idleness"; BHS, Kissane, Auvray; see also Fohrer, Schoors). To be sure, that change is dependent upon the interpretation of the passage as a whole.

One must try to make some sense of the passage even before its form is discussed. The beginning of the passage gives the impression that it will furnish a depiction of a vision. The author describes a fantasy that depicts a heavily laden caravan, making its way through the desert in the South. It is not a pleasant path. It leads through a part of the country in which one can experience great danger and where one risks encountering lions and dangerous snakes and where one might even meet fanciful creatures such as flying dragons. A person must have exceptionally good reasons for going on such a trip. The third line lays the secret bare: the individual in transit is bringing precious possessions to a "people that does not give aid at all." The glossator got it right: The caravan is on its way to Egypt. But even without this observation -the hearers could figure out which people the prophet had in mind, a nation whose help would be empty and futile. But this paraphrase is too bland for what Isaiah wishes to say. The glossator goes so far as to use

Isaiah 28-35

133

mythological concepts that depict Rahab to describe Egypt as a monster that is essentially done for already and from whom one can expect little more than snarling and showing its teeth. This text makes the real purpose of the strange expedition clear: Egypt is to be motivated to step in to rescue Jerusalem. The Ntoo (burden) is a gift that offers a present for the purpose of swaying the recipients to be moved to act favorably on the request. Jt is not a tribute payment in the traditional sense. Form This analysis makes the flow of the passage clear, at least if one recognizes the boundaries of the text that are suggested here. One can identify links between this section and the one that precedes it; cf. especially '';'!J1' N? O!J (a people that does not give aid at all). But the connection simply shows that the redactor did not place these two passages together thoughtlessly, and it suggests further that both messages from Isaiah were occasioned by the same historical situation. It has been noted already that some consider v. 6a to be a superscription. That interpretation is impossible according to the translation offered here and according to the explanation set forth here as to the meaning of the passage. Fohrer will find even less support from others in maintaining that v. 6aba is a later addition. He reasons that no one understands that the introduction was intended originally to refer to nomads of the J~: (Negev) who were bringing the tribute to Egypt. The end of the section has occasioned some discussion as well. Duhm explains that v. 7b (cf. his textual emendation in textual note 7b-b) is a later insertion by a glossator who wants to turn this description into an evil joke against Egypt, a country that is left without strength to do anything, mocked as being nothing but "a water monster on dry land." That individual might have been thinking of Ezek. 29:3ff.: "You monstrous water creature, I will let you crawl out of the Nile and will cast you out into the desert, etc." Some reader would thus have written such words in the margin of his copy as a joke (Jer. 3 I :22b, 26) and with dry wit, and some later copyist, not to be faulted, but without thinking, inserted these words into the ancient text." That may sound convincing, but one still ought not deal with the text thus. Dietrich (141 ff.) thinks that it is necessary to come up with an alternate solution. The suffixes on :1J1i:l (write) and :1pn (inscribe) in v. 8 are difficult to explain only if that verse is seen as beginning a new section. The suffixes are actually to be interpreted as referring back to v. 7b: Isaiah is to write down the epithet that Yahweh has settled his case with Egypt (similarly: Delitzsch, Schmidt, Fischer, Eissfeldt, Introduction, 316, Kaiser, Auvray; see Dietrich, 142, note 52). His main reason for thinking that the break should come just before v. 7b is the fact that Yahweh speaks from that point on, in contrast to what immediately precedes. But that is not surp~ising. p'? (lit.: "therefore"; here: "to be sure") is often used to introduce an announcement of disaster after a reproach. Egypt is in fact informed of Yahweh's judgment in v. 7b. The passage certainly does not use traditional vocabulary, but that makes it all the more impressive. When Yahweh identifies Egypt as n:;JiDi;l;:1 J:1i (a monster that is con-

134 Isaiah 28-35 demned to idleness), a message is sent within the utterance that has the power to make it happen. Egypt is condemned to idleness by Yahweh and is paralyzed by his word. But ifv. 7b, introduced with P?, functions as an announcement of judgment, then vv. 6, 7a function like a reproach. The text's basic construction takes the form of a description, but it is at the same time an accusation. One cannot fail to sense the derisive tone. How foolish it is for Judah to transport all of its possessions on such torturous, dangerous, insidious paths to bring everything to 3 people whose help is nothing but ?:J:l (empty) and p...., (futile). Meter: Verse 6: 2 three-stress + three-stress bicola (as far as ~El1lJO, "flying"). A seven-stress colon follows (as far as on;,,1x, "their treasures"). Verse 6 (the ending) and v. 7a: a three-stress + three-stress bicolon (after 0·...,::,;01, "and toward Egypt," is removed). Verse 7b: probably also a three-stress + threestress bicolon (with the emended word n~0Q~, "[ condemned to] idleness," receiving two stresses).

Setting The historical setting is doubtless the same as that of 30:1-5. Leaders want to make a pact with those who rule on the Nile. One expects something to be offered in exchange. This is not the time when Egypt or Cush was trying to get control over Judah. Egypt had pulled back by nowapparently as a result of bitter experiences during their confrontation with Assyria-and thought it best simply to abandon to their fate their "friends" in the south-Syrian and Palestinian regions. One wonders whether the delegation mentioned here went down to Egypt before the battle of Eltekeh-and would thus have had some success in its venture--or whether it traveled only after the Egyptian forces had retreated from the south-Palestinian region. The latter situation would suggest that Judah, in the midst of great danger, made one last attempt to motivate the pharaoh to engage the opposition in battle once more. It is noteworthy that the delegation travels through the :J~: (Negev) so that they reach Egypt by traveling through the Sinai Peninsula. One would normally take the road from Gaza that is located along the coast. It is not the easiest way to travel but is certainly more comfortable than the desert route. That alternate path suggests to Eichrodt, for example, that the Jerusalem politicians sought help from the peoples who made up the Arab tribes in order to strengthen their position when they sought success in their request. He bases this interpretation on references that mention that both Sargon (see his inscription from 711; AOT, 350) and Esarhaddon (see AOT, 358) had dealings with the Arab tribes. But mU:jri and melubba, mentioned by these Assyrian kings, refer not to Arab sheikdoms, as thought in earlier times, but to Egypt and Ethiopia. In addition, these territories can hardly be described as r':;JtDr;l;:; J:l..., (a monster that is condemned to idleness). But one can certainly understand that the delegation had to take this out of the way route because the Assyrians were already blocking access to the coastal road. Judahite messengers would have been able to reach Egypt only through a back-door entrance. Dangers that accompany the trip are dealt with because no other choice

Isaiah 28-35

135

is left. After the Egyptians suffered defeat at Eltekeh, the road through the Philistine territory would have certainly been blockaded. The blockade might have been in place even sooner, but Judah would still have been able to work directly with the Ethiopian and Egyptian troops stationed in Philistia at that time. This message was probably uttered soon after the battle of Eltekeh. This interpretation of the passage forces one to address the question about authorship. There is no reason to doubt that Isaiah is the source of the passage. Reference has been made already to other words of the prophet from the same time period. The way the message is fashioned, first arousing the curiosity of the hearers, then gradually bringing the listeners to an awareness of what is actually being discussed, is typical of Isaiah. The irony of the speech reflects the way Isaiah speaks. One takes on enormous risks and is ready to part with carefully gathered and protected treasures when setting forth on an undertaking that one certainly knows is little more than ,~;, (empty) and p" (futile). One can certainly be confident that Isaiah could characterize Egypt as "a monster that is condemned to idleness." Commentary (30:6a] According to 29: 15 plans had been forged in private in Jerusalem, but it had still become known that a strange procession was making its way through the ~)l (Negev) on its way to Egypt. This band is not simply a delegation of messengers. They are accompanied by beasts of burden. XOD is used when describing the burden of a donkey (Exod. 23:5), a mule (2 Kings 5: 17), and a camel (2 Kings 8:9). Camels and donkeys are specifically mentioned in v. 6b. But v. 6a speaks in a most general way about r;1D;'~ (animals), leaving one in the dark about exactly which animals are meant. Admittedly, the interpretation offered for v. 6a here leaves one with a strange impression. What does "the burden of animals in the land of the South" mean? But it is Isaiah's intention to get people to ask questions. One normally uses ;,o;,~ to refer to a domesticated animal, a cow, but it can also be used in a very general sense to refer to animals in contrast to human beings and plants. The word specifically refers to beasts of burden and pack animals. The :m (Negev) is the territory south of the land that Israel settled. The meaning "South" is certainly only a secondary meaning (cf. CI' for the "West" and ;1~:) for the "North"). The primary meaning of the root ~;J is "dried out." At first one would have spoken of ~)J;' riX, "the land that is dry," but then J;: (Negev) would have become a geographical term for the rain-starved territory south of Judah that began as one went south from the city of Beersheba. Use of :m;, (the Negev) as a way to refer to Egypt proper (i.e., the Ptolemaic Kingdom) appears first in the secretive apocalyptic speech in the book of Daniel. Concerning the i~tersecting paths that lead through the Sinai to Egypt, see H. Guthe, Bibelatlas (1926 2 ), no. I or The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (1945), PIs. III and IV [Tr.: and The Harper Atlas of the Bible (1987) 56f.].

136 Isaiah 28-35 [30:6b] The land of the South is characterized as an ;-Tp'~' ;-T"'~ r"'~ (a narrow and oppressive land). Isaiah uses ~i"~ (oppressive), in parallel with ;-Ti~ (distress) in 8:22 as well, when depicting a threatening situation. It is used only one other time, once again parallel to ;-Ti~ (distress), in Provo 1:27 (there: "anguish"). In addition, Isaiah uses i"~ (afflict, press against) in the hiphci! in 29:2, 7. One can come into distress in the J;J (Negev~ because of the difficulty caused by the unevenness of the land, climatic conditions, the fact that there are so very few settlements in the area, and also because of dangerous animals. The lion is mentioned, which can shake a traveler right down to the bones when it growls. Snakes are mentioned as well, just to give another example. ;'!J~~ (see Job 20: 16 and Isa. 59:5) cannot be identified specifically. According to J. J. Hess (ZAW 35 [1915] I 26f.), this is the cobra. Y. Aharoni, (Osiris 5 ([938] 474) identifies it as the poisonous Echis colorata. One suspects that Isaiah is not particularly concerned about whether his hearers have an exact picture in mind when he speaks of an ;'!J~~; his concern is to portray what is dangerous and sinister. Maybe he selected the word simply because it sounded similar to Cj~'!J~ (flying). Isaiah speaks OfD'~i~ (seraphim) in 6:2 (see lwiah 112, pp. 264f.) and mentions a r"j~'!J~ 'lib (winged seraph) in 14:29 (see Isaiah 13-27, pp. 96f.). The seraphs in 6:2 have wings. That makes sense there, but the reason for mentioning winged serpents is not as clear in this passage. Some commentators are thus of the opinion that 'l81sm is tlsed in a transferred sense, to be understood as "hurrying off quickly." But it is just as possible that the term simply identifies a mythical creature, which, if correct, would clearly make a zoological identification an idle exercise. Flying serpents are mentioned in other texts as well. Esarhaddon speaks of them in the report of his tenth campaign to Egypt/Ethiopia (R. Borger, BAfO 9 [1956] 112f.; cited here from ANET, 292): "A distance of 4 double-hours I marched over a territory covered with alum and mU$u[-stone). A distance of 4 double-hours in a journey of 2 days (there were) two-headed serpents [whose attack] (spelled) death-but I trampled (upon them) and marched on. A distance of 4 double-hours in a journey of 2 days (there were) green [animals] [Tr.: Borger: "serpents"] whose wings were batting. A distance of 4 double-hours in a journey of 2 days .... " After Marduk came to his assistance and reinvigorated his troops, he finally arrived at the border of mU$ri." It is interesting that Esarhaddon saw winged serpents right along the path to Egypt. Herodotus is also aware of such sinister creatures (2.75; see also 3.109). 1. Feliks (The Animal World of the Bible [1962] 107) identifies the flying serpent as the cobra that springs about on trees and can easily swing itself from one tree to another, which might account for the fact that they were thought to have the ability to fly (see also O. Keel, Jahwe- Visionen und Siege/kunst, SBS 84/85 [1977] 71 ff.).

One wonders whether mention of seraphs in the present passage in any way functions as a reminiscence of the legends transmitted in Num. 21 :4-9 (supposedly Elohistic). That is difficult to say, but there were apparently reports concerning stich sinister seraphs in the JJJ (Negev). The idea of "winged" seraphs would have developed from these

· Isaiah 28-35

137

reports. If one can link the tl'tD (seraph) with Egyptian sir, "fabulous winged creature" (see Isaiah 1-12, p. 264), then one comes close to the most ancient meaning of"~is]Q 'lib (flying dragon). The caravan from Jerusalem is thus traversing this dangerous region. Donkeys are bearing this "burden" to Egypt on their backs ('lm means "shoulder"). i',p is a jackass; Semitic half-nomads traditionally used the donkey as a caravan animal (see Haag, Be, 437£.). But after the eleventh century it was replaced, at least somewhat, by the camel. Caravans that are made up either of donkeys or camels or both are quite normal. Since nbJl (hump) is in the singular, it is possible that it refers to a one-humped dromedary (Came/us dromedarius; see Dalman, AuS, VI, 147-160, esp. 157). The burden borne by these animals is called o:-r'?'n (their fortune) and cr;i~it\ (their treasures). The suffixes must refer back to the principal figures, to those central figures that held power in Jerusalem. Had this referred just to silver and gold, one would have hardly needed a caravan for transport. But Palestine could also deliver other goods that were desired in Egypt. Among the products that Gen. 43: II mentions as "the best fruits of the land," which would seem to indicate that they would be welcome in Egypt, one finds reference to balm, honey, gum, resin, pistachio nuts, and almonds (according to the translation in the ZUrcher Bibel and the NRSV). But when the text speaks of a fortune and possessions, one thinks first of precious metals. One ought not assume that everything anyone in Jerusalem owned was sent to Egypt as a gift. But Isaiah wants to leave the impression that they stake everything on this venture, so as to show the senselessness of the undertaking (according to 2 Kings 18: 14-16 precious goods were still in reserve in Jerusalem; see also the Prism of Sennacherib III, 34ff.; ANET,288).

[30:7a] As in 30:5, the Egyptians are called an i?'S]r x'? 01) (a people that cannot help). The Egyptians apparently concluded that they were not in a position to engage in battle with mighty Assyria on Palestinian soil. They had to bolster their courage by hoping that the enemy would not risk crossing the barrier provided by the desert between Palestine and the Nile delta. But some in Jerusalem were unwilling to take Egypt's weakness seriously. Isaiah says it again: Egypt will leave them disappointed. Its help is nothing but a puff of wind. In fact, it is less than that, for it is empty, nothing, a nothingness! (On P'i, "futile," cf. passages such as 49:4, where it is also used ["in vain"] in parallel with ?J;"T, "vanity," but where iiir" "nothing," is used as well [NRSV].) [30:7b] The actual threat of judgment follows now in v. 7b. One notes the prophetic perfect: 'nxip (I call it). What Yahweh announces is already a reality, even when the punishment remains to be unveiled in all it~ brutality. The judgment is simply that Yahweh will permit Egypt to be seen for what it really is on that day: a monster, but a monster that is condemned to idleness. As is also true of words such as ?1xb (Sheol) and C~;-1ri (Tehom), J;"Ti (Rahab) is never used with the article. The sense of the word seems to convey the idea of "assailant, oppressor," but the

138 Isaiah 28-35 mythological element does not seem to have been repressed entirely. According to Ps. 89: 11, Rahab is the monster of chaos, whose power Yahweh crushed (parallel to 0', "sea," the opponent of Baal, at Ugarit; the same usage is found in Job 26: 12). According to Isa. 51:9 ~ill (Rahab) (parallel there to pn, "the dragon") was slain by Yahweh. Job 9: 13 refers to helpers who assist Rahab. The plural, as used in Ps. 40:5, simply means "oppressors," but in that passage the Cl'J:1l (lit.: "Rahabs") are opponents of Yahweh. Those who would not risk trbsting Yahweh turn to them instead. Finally, in Ps. 87:4 ::Jill (Rahab) is used in parallel with Babylon. The reference, no doubt, is to Egypt in that passage (see H.-J. Kraus, XVIII, 604 [Engl: Isaiah 60-150, 188] and Hertlein). Whereas that psalm passage assumes that everyone knows that the reference to Rahab is really about Egypt, the present passage reads: 'n!np " . . . ::J:1l nNT? (I call it: a monster ... ). The statement from Isaiah is certainly older than the one in the psalm verse, and Isaiah may have been the first to call Egypt by this name. Purpose and Thrust It is "hard to take" to label this neighboring country by using the name

of the chaos monster. It betrays somewhat the depth of feeling that Isaiah demonstrates when confronting Egypt. It has come to the point for Isaiah that the alternative is either Yahweh or Egypt. It had been that way at the creation as well, when the choice was either Rahab or Yahweh. An orderly world could result only after the fortunate result of that battle. The historical situation is clothed with the vocabulary of the mythical. What is described here is not simply an unexpunged remnant from an earlier, mythical phase of human thought. One sees behind this usage an awareness that forces arise in the historical realm that threaten to summon chaos to reign once again. Israel is not to let itself get involved with such powers in any way, shape, or form. They are rather to confront such powers with full confidence that Rahab has been laid low by Yahweh, has been condemned to idleness, and has in essence been destroyed.

Isaiah 30:8-11

The Command to Write the Message literature B. S. Childs, 35ff. (see Literature for 28:7-13). Concerning -,"0 (book) and m'? (tablet): I. Friedlander, "Das hebraische iElO in einer verkannten Bedeutung," JQR 15 (1903) 102-103. G. Fohrer, Entstehung, Komposition und Vberlieferung von Jesaja /-39, BZA W 99 (1967) I 13-147. esp. 140f. K. Galling, "Tafel, Buch und Blatt," Near Eastern Studies in Honor ofW. F. Albright (1971) 207-233. Concerning j1i1n (Torah): J. Jensen, The Use of tora by Isaiah. The Debate with the Wisdom Tradition (1973). 30:8

9

10

11

Text Go now,a write b it cupon a tablet [among them]e and engrave it on bronze,d so that for future times it will be a "witness"- forever. For they are an obstinate people, untruthful sons, sons a who do not want to listen b to the instructione of Yahweh, who say to the seers: "Do not see,"a and to the prophets: "Do not prophesy to us what is right! Tell us what comes across as smooth, prophesy to us what deceives. b aGo awayb from e the (level) way,a turn aside from e the (right) path, make an end (oftalking) to us about the Holy One of Israel!"

8a Some MSS read i1r (all types of pitchers) in 22:24. Here the discussion is about O'l~1' ?JJ (here: "potter's vessels"). One needs such vessels for storage; they could have been of considerable size. Wine can be preserved or transported in them (I Sam. 1:24; 10:3; etc.). But they are also used for flour, oil, water, and similar substances. ?JJ is often translated as "[leather] bottle, skin," but that cannot be the meaning here, as it cannot be in 22:24; cf. also tnn-'?JJ (earthen pots) in Lam. 4:2 and see Jer. 48: 12, which discusses smashing C'?JJ Uars). One must apparently quit assigning the meaning "skin" to the word (see A. M. Honeyman, "The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament," PEFQ [1939] 84f.). It comes as no surprise when sherds from such pots appear in excavations (concerning the way they look, see Honeyman, PI. XIX, fig. 8 and cf. J. B. Pritchard, "Industry and Trade at Biblical Gibeon," BA 23 (1960) fig. 9, p. 24). To be sure, such pots can sometimes just break. But conquerors can also smash such pots with fury, "without mercy," as, for example, when they are at the height of rage while conquering a city. As Isaiah says: the conquerors would care little about the value of the pot and sometimes not even about the valuable goods that the vessels might contain. The enemy leaves its mark, completely destroying a place where people live, when they smash everything to smithereens. No one is ever to have the pleasure of settling down on top of such a pile of potsherds. As one can recognize from Jer. 19: 1ff., smashing a pot does more than merely announce destruction; it also sets disastrous consequences in motion. Such action is analogous to the magical consequences set in motion when a certain type of result is acte~ out. One might compare this to the Egyptian Execration Texts (see LdA, I, 67-69). But the point of comparison in the present passage involves a radical destruction, which will mean that even a large pot will be nothing but tiny little pieces when all is finally done. By that time, there will not even be a potsherd big enough for someone to rake together a few embers from a fire in a hearth or to skim off a little bit of water from a shallow little puddle. In addition, this is a nice illustration to show at least some of the ways people made use of such potsherds. If not the most common use, the most well-known usage is that potsherds were employed as writing material for letters, as is the case, e.g., with the ostraca from Lachish. or for use in keeping daily records, as is the case in Samaria. One of those ostraca has an inscription that reads: "In year 10 from Asa (a place,name) to Gaddiyaw (receiver), a jug (?JJ!) of purified oil" (see BHH, II, 1359f.). Purpose and Thrust The message of this passage-that crooked ways can only lead astray and that "constructions" that one builds with superintelligent cunning

154

Isaiah 28-35

will end in a spectacular collapse-is, in and of itself, not bound by time. It is not surprising that similar utterances are found among the proverbs. "Those whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways, ... for her 'way' leads to death (emended text; see BHK) and her paths to the shades" (Prov. 2: 15-18). Such experiences that intrude upon everyone's life sometime or another have been actualized by Isaiah and relocated from the private realm of life into the sphere of'tliplomacy. He shows that there are no different "laws" in force in the political realm than those laws that are valid in the private realm, where one lives out one's own personal life. Even though the message is given a special character, by being introduced as a ;'1:1'-":11 (word of Yahweh), the first person "I" of Yahweh never appears. Nor is that necessary. There can be no other result than that such an lUI (guilt) will lead to a full-blown debacle. That the sins or guilt, in their essential character, sprout from the deficiency of faith stands as one of the chief characteristics that lies at the root of Isaiah's theology.

Isaiah 30:15-17

You Did Not Want To

Literature E. Jenni, Die Politischen Voraussagen .. (J 956) 83f. R. F. Melugin, "Isa 30:15-17," CBQ 36 (1974) 303-304. F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die andern Volker beim Propheten Jesaja, BZA W 137 (1976); see Excursus II, pp. 140ff.: "Semantische Analyse der Worter bi.tM und siibii in Jes 30,15." Concerning the "remnant": J. M Allegro, "More Isaiah Commentaries from Qumran's Fourth Cave," JBL 77 (1958) 215-221; see esp. 218f. U. Stegemann, "Der Restgedanke bei Isaias," BZ 13 (1969) 161-186. G. Sauer, "Die Umkehrforderung in der Vcrktindigung Jesajas," FS W. Eichrodt (J 970) 277-295. G. F. Hasel, The Remnant. The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (1972); see esp. 309-313. [Literature update through 2001: See addendum to Selected Recent Literature at the end of the volume.) Text 30:15

16

17

[For)- bthus says the Lord Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel b : In return c and rest lies your deliverance; in remaining still and trust you will find strength. dBut you had not wanted to;d instead, you said: "No!a We will speed along upon horses!"b So then you will speed away from there. b "Upon racehorses c we will ride!" Thus will your pursuers run.C aA thousand "will shudder" at the threat of a single one,· because ofthe threat of five, until you (only still) remain as a remnant, as a signal pole b on the summit of a mountain, just like a battle standard on a hillock.

15a ') (for) is missing in Gk h • It is a linking particle and certainly does not belong to the basic fonn of this message. One assumes that it did in fact appear

155

156 Isaiah 28-35 in the text used by the Gk translator, since the redactional arrangement of the various sections of chap. 30 predates the Septuagint translation. lSb-b One wonders whether the introductory formula might be secondary as well. That is Donner's opinion (160): "If YV. 15- I 7 are in a relationship with vv. 9-14, then the renewed use of the introductory formula is unnecessary." True, but this assumption is unlikely. Except for the introductory '~ (for), the passage is fine as is. ;11;1' (Yahweh) is admittedly missing in the Gk. The reason is that 'jiN (Adonai) was already being translated as ICUplOC; (Lord) '(so also 10:24; 22:5, 15; 28:22). lSc Q' reads ;1J'~:::l instead of ;1J1iD:: (both: "return"). Constructions such as ;1J'i.:! are common in rabbinic Hebrew (see Kutscher, 385) but MT is to be considered correct for just that reason. It may be, however, that the form ;1J1~J should be read in Q' also (see The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery I [1950]). The etymology and meaning of the word ;1J1tD have occasioned far more disagreement. Traditional semantic studies that relate it to the root J1tD (BDB: "tum back, return") seem to make it obvious that it should be translated as "return." Even then, exactly how one is to determine the sense of the word remains an open question. Fohrer suggests "retreat," namely, from battle. To be sure, J1i.:i can also mean "turn oneself away, depart from, not do," or something similar; see KBL. Duhm interprets the passage thus: "turned away from battle, peace-minded"; Konig: "Withdrawal . . . from the rivalry with the world powers." But one cannot be satisfied with such an explanation. What is withdrawal from war supposed to mean when the enemy stands at the gate already? Fohrer's questionable translation Of;1JltV leads him into a still more questionable translation of nm (here: "rest"). He suggests linking this vocable with what he concludes about the meaning of m; in 7:2: "reconcile oneself, enter into a treaty arrangement" (see Isaiah 1-12, p. 283, textual note 2a) and translates the word here as "treaty faithfulness." But it was noted already concerning 7:2 that there is doubt about the suggestion of O. Eissfeldt, "NOAI:I, 'make a treaty'," KS, III (1926) 124-128, made on the basis of Akkadian niibu (Tr.: R. Borger, Babylonisch-Anyrische Lesestiicke, I (1963], ad loc: "be at rest"). The sense assigned by Eissfeldt and Fohrer to the substantive r.m is even more questionable, particularly since other OT passages support translating nm as "rest, calmness" (see also Phoenician J' rm, "restfulness of the heart,:' in the Karatepe Inscription [KAI no. 26, II, 8; ANET, 654: "kindness of my heart"]). In addition, no one questions that the meaning "rest, calmness" is adequate when used in connection with the parallel substantives ~PtDi; (remaining still) and ;1nOJ (trust). If scholars cannot be satisfied with translating :1J1i.:! as "come back," that has to do with the fact that they cannot believe that Isaiah would speak of coming back (see Sauer). Indeed, Isaiah never directly uses the terms connected with Jl~ to demand that there be a coming back. That does not change the fact that he uses the verb J1tD in the sense of "come back" (cf. 6: 10 and see Isaiah 1-12, p. 250, textual note IOc-c). The name given to Isaiah's son, ::ltD' 1Nti (Shear Yashub) in 7:3, supports this claim as well. Sauer (286) argues that the interpretation of this name as "turn back" is to be taken in the sense of getting out of a battle. One must start with that idea in order to make sense of the overall concept. See Stegemann (173ff.) as well; he thinks that one at least needs to recognize that there must be some sense in which the theological interpretation "come back to Yahweh" must play some role in what is meant. However that is resolved, Isaiah does know the verb J1t.:i and uses it in the traditional sense. Gesenius suggests that ;1J1V might be derived from :::ltD' (BDB: "sit, remain, dwell") and has convinced some. M. Dahood ("Some Ambiguous Texts in Isaiah (30: 15; 52:2; 33:2; 40:5; 45: I)," CBQ 20 [1958] 41--49; see esp. 41-

Isaiah 28-35

157

43; in addition, see idem, Psalms /-50 [\ 966] 148) has brought life to this suggesti0!l by ~sing Ugaritic to link :mv to :It:i' as a parallel fonn. It is important for the discussion that both roots, Eb and nb, are used in parallel in 2 Aqhat 2.12f. ~nd 49.3.18f. and also that the phrase mlll n::JD, "comfortable living," is found m the already mentioned Karatepe Inscription (lines 7f.). That would seem to settle the long-standing debate. And yet, questions remain. How ought one translate the word? Sauer cannot help us. Dietrich (\49) translates the word as "sit still," but that is not what n:lt.:J means in the Karatepe Inscription. To be sure, there are times when Jq)' can mean "remain sitting, stay at home" (Lev. 12:4f.; 2 Kings 14:10; Hos. 3:3). But the postulated parallel fonn :m:i, instead of J::i" cannot be shown to exist in Ugaritic, nor in Phoenician, nor in Hebrew. G. R. Driver (JSS 13 [1968] 51) thinks that he can justify translating :1::J1I:J as "staying quiet," on the basis of Arabic raja(a, by noting that the meanings of both terms went through similar stages of development. But why is it impossible that it be translated as "return?" Why deny to Isaiah this traditional meaning that seems obvious at every tum? Isaiah 9: 12 provides an unassailable and undisputed passage to show that the prophet kept hoping for a return even though he had to state time and again that such a change had not yet come. 15d-d The Gk translates this as KUI OUK e~OUA.Eoe€ OKOUElV (and you did not wish to hear). That may be true, as one takes into account what is described in 28: 12 and 30:9 (see also 1: 19). But the MT is conect here. The issue in this passage is not about listening but deals with turning toward Yahweh. 16a [f ':) is correct in the text, then it should be moved to the next colon (and the maqqeph is to be removed); it should be translated "much more, but." Some (e.g., Donner, 161) alter it to read I:) (thus), so that I:n'? (not thus) is to be treated as an emphatic negative particle. jYx'? does indeed occur, but it means "not right, incorrect" (see Jer. 23:10; Provo 15:7; 2 Kings 17:9; [sa. 16:6; Jer. 48:30; but cf. Ps. 1:4). But, by contrast, there are occurrences of 'yx'? with the meaning "no, but [on the other hand)" or simply "no," as in Gen. 18: 15b; 19:2; 42: 12, among others. One can stay with the MT here. 16b--b The second time 01~ is used, it means "flee," as usual. But it is hard to comprehend that the addressees said: "We will flee on horses." It could be that Isaiah manufactured a quotation for his partners in the discussion here as well, in order to show their obstinacy and their lack of discernment. But the second half of the verse shows that this is not the case: "Upon racehorses we will ride" is not meant ironically; it is more likely that V. 16b contains a wordplay on the root '?p (fast). The same is the case in V. 16a; om ::110-'?l) must therefore mean something like "we will flee there upon horses." In order to use the same word in English to show the play on words, the translation reads "speed along and speed away." The meaning "flee thitherward," or something like that, cannot be justified by citing any texts, but a certain "stretching" of the semantic range is necessary when wordplays are used. .. . . 16c and c There is no doubt that "p refers to an aOlmal, which IS ridden, that runs quickly. This specialized meaning is never found elsewhere either. As with O1l (speed along), the word is chosen because it is part of a play on words. The meaning of the following niph(al of '?'?p, "show onesel,f to be fast," or some similar idea, is also rare in the OT. "P~ is always used With a transferred mean~ng ("degrade oneself," or something similar). In spite of this, the common translation "runner," because of the basic meaning of the root as "nimble, fast," is certainly justified. Instead of1'?p' (they will run), Donner (161) suggests reading 1':;p?~ (you will run) and suggests removing t:I:n:ni (your pursuers). One must admit that this alteration seems to make sense, since it would make the parallelism closer

158 Isaiah 28-35 to v. 16a(3, and the meter also seems to favor such a change. But the sense of the verse would be puzzling without O:J'::I.,., (your pursuers). 17a-a The text "a thousand before the reproach of one" raises concerns: there is no verb. Some, such as Fohrer, Donner, BHS, treat the entire verse as an interpretive comment. The Gk translates it: atCt ¢(Ov~v £vo~ ¢£u~ov'tat XlAtOl Kat cui (Ov~v 1tEV't£ ¢£u~ov'tat 1tOAAOl (on account of the sound of one a thousand flee and on account of the sound of five many flee). Itdoes not translate the first .,n~ (one) in v. 17aa, or else it reads some vero form instead, possibly as a word used parallel to 01: (lit.: "flee"). Kissane suggests inserting 101J' (they will flee) or else ,r,I}' (they shall be dismayed). As does Ziegler, BHK suggests reading .,-:n' (will tremble) instead of -m~ (one). But Procksch considers both 'n~ 'l"~ (a thousand, one) and ;,or.n nil') 'J::ID (on account of a rebuke, five) to be variant readings and eliminates both phrases. It does not seem to flow smoothly that a thousand flee from a single individual and that five foes appear right afterward. It would be nice if one could insert tn, "ten thousand," in v. 17a~, as does Kissane (see 1tOAAOt', "many," in the Gk; cf. Deut. 32:30 but also Lev. 26:8; Josh. 23:10), but one dare not risk making such a change. The second phrase does not intensify the first but is rather a concession. One single opponent strikes down a thousand who are in flight; it could be as many of five foes that strike down this many. On the basis of the Gk, however, one might indeed alter the first 'n~ to be read as a verb, most likely .,-:n' (will shudder). 17b KBL relates (here: "signal pole") to the Akkadian verb anA, "lead, direct." The meaning "mast," as it is used in 33:23 and Ezek. 27:5, does not fit here, particularly since it is used parallel to OJ (battle standard) in those passages.

rm

Form As was noted above, 'J (for) functions as a redactional Iink that joins vv. 12-14 with vv. 15-17. There is another linking particle, p'i (therefore), at the beginning of v. 18 as well. Based on the topic at hand, it makes sense to attach vv. 15-17 to vv. 12-14. As in that section, a reproach and a threat are linked together in this passage as well. The announcement of punishment begins with the double occurrence OfjY711 (s~ then, thus) in v. ) 6. Reproach and threat are meshed together in an artistic way. The reproach is found chiefly at the end of v. 15 and at the beginn ing of v. 16. It is stated clearly that they did not want to change, and the prophetic message was thus met with a resounding No! As in 28: 12, the assertion 1::J!ot !ot7 (they did not want to) is preceded by a reference to a gracious offer of deliverance. Meter: Donner (160) correctly notes that one cannot detect "a regular strophic delineation." In spite of that, he still tries to adjust the text so that it is generally constructed of five-stress cola, even though he is aware that some of his adjustments to the text are questionable at best (see chart XIII, p. 188). The introduction in v.15 is obviously not metrical. The rest of v. 15 is to be read as an inverted seven-stress colon (3 + 4). ;,';,n (lit.: "will be") should not be removed on metrical grounds, nor should one move ]1J)fJ1r, (here: "lies your deliverance") to the first half of the colon, contra Donner. One also ought hot follow Procksch by taking C:Jn-:1:) ;,';,r, (you will find strength) as part of the next line. This results in v. 15b and v. 16a, as far as':; (not thus, No!), being a two-stress + two-stress bicolon, as is also the case for the rest of v. 16a, whereas v. 16b is an inverted five-stress colon (2 + 3). In v. 17, as far as OnimJ (you

Isaiah 28-35

159

remain as a remnant), the difficulties of analysis are so great that one is better off simply to capitulate rather than to try to force the metrical structure into some Procrustean bed. To be sure, the last line supplies a nice parallelism in both halves of the colon, which could be analyzed as a three-stress + three-stress bicolon (;"1':::);1, "hillock," receives two accents, unless one removes the article and reads it as a five-stress colon). The question must be posed here as well about whether the difficulties with identirying the meter are at least somewhat the result of a reworking of the text. But one must admit that Isaiah was not under any obligation to make sure to follow metrical requirements correctly.

Setting

If one ignores the doubts raised by Kaiser, there is agreement about the authenticity of this passage as well. Fohrer rightly notes the connection with 7:4, 9, where the message is essentially the same: "It is important for understanding Isaiah to see that a particular set of basic presuppositions stayed the same even if his approach developed over time." But it is not only these basic emphases that are the same in both passages. The vocabulary is to some extent the same as well: QPi.:l:1 (remaining still) is also used in 7:4; :1nt!lJ (trust) corresponds to the summons to believe in 7:9; iXt:l (remnant) is represented in 7:3 in the name J1tj' iX[i (Shear Y ashub). The prophet also speaks elsewhere about the OJ (battle standard) (5:26; 18:3; 31 :9). cr;'JX X? (you had not wanted to) is typical Isaianic speech, and Isaiah warned already in 2:7 not to trust in horses and chariots. The links are also close with 31: Iff. (cf. 010, "horse"; J~i, "ride"; ntlJ, "trust"). The closeness of vv. 15-17 to 31: I ff., both in terms of diction and content, allows one to conclude that 30: 15-17 also belongs to the time when Judah sought help from Egypt in order to have rear guard protection in the confrontation they presumed would take place with Assyria. As one can see in the use of cn'JX X?1 (but you had not wanted to), the decisive step had already been taken in the wrong direction. But the confident statements that are reflected in the quotations leave one to assume that this message was spoken before the Assyrian army appeared in Judah and possibly before it showed up in the Palestinian region as a whole. Commentary

[30:15a] ?XiiD' [i1iP :11:1' 'JiX i~X :1~ (thUS says the Lord Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel) corresponds to CI;1''?!) i~X itjX (he who indeed ~ad said to them) in 28: 12. Both passages refer back to an offer of salvation made by Yahweh but rejected by Israel. This is not a message from Yahweh that has just been proclaimed. Instead, one might say that Isaiah quotes his God in order to prove that the people treated the promise as of little value. Transmitted material from Isaiah demonstrates again and again that the prophet was very familiar with the ideology of ho.ly war (see G. von Rad, Holy War in Ancient ["rael [ET: 1991] 102). It IS easy to picture how the terminology in v. 15a~ could have been part of a "battle address"; cf., as a model for such a speech, Deut. 20:3f. and note the promise uttered there: "It is the Lord your God who goes with you ...

160 Isaiah 28-35 (to give you victory)." Or see Moses's speech in Exod. 14:13f.: "see :11:1' n1'1ib' (the deliverance that Yahweh) will accomplish ... you have only to keep still (]1ib',nn DnN;)." ]1.!Jt.:im, "you will find help," seems to be a quite general offer of salvation. Taking that offer seriously, one who prays can expect to experience .!Jib' or :1!)1ibn/:1.lJ1ib' (deliverance) in a wide variety of conflicted situations. But the parallel word for that term is ;-;,1~;, "strength," which refers to the hel'oic strength of the messianic king in 11 :2. It is used in 3:25 in the sense of an abstract term, used for a concrete one, to designate the "heroes in battle." In the present passage :1,1JJ refers concretely to the power that would be needed for Judah during the time of extremely threatening Assyrian danger that had developed. This solution seems to furnish the best fit for a scenario in terms of the themes that are central to Isaiah's proclamation. One might compare this encouragement with the advice given in the teaching of Amen-em-Opet: "Trust yourself to the arms of God; then you will cast down your enemies without efTort" (F. W. Freiherr von Bissing, Altdgyptische Lebensweisheit [1955] 89). ]1-"ib1n should be interpreted as having the same meaning. By and large in the OT, the help that the believers hope to receive from Yahweh is assistance in Israel's battles against its enemies. One need think only of the D'!)'iV1D, the savior figures that came forth in its early history (see Judg. 3 :9, 15, and often elsewhere). Even in terms of specific details, Isaiah might possibly be citing a well-established tradition about salvation and might even be quoting an oracle of salvation, similar perhaps to what he quoted to offer Ahaz help in 7: 1ff. According to 7:9, the requirement for deliverance (as also in 28: 16) is faith. As regards the present passage, one might say that 1'DN:1 (trust, believe) is interpreted right away, by means of four concepts (cf. H. Wildberger, TLOT, I, 134ff., and see Isaiah 1-12, pp. 302ff.) or else is paraphrased by their use. The much-disputed ;':l1ib (return) comes first. The excursus in textual note 15c, above, showed that the text is not to be' altered and that ;'J1ib certainly belongs with the root Jlib, "return." If Fohrer thinks it means "retreat (from war)," beyond the fact that nothing about "from war" is in the text, his interpretation is too negative. Duhm noticed that and inserted the phrase "peacefully minded." But such a term does not fit into the spiritual framework with which the prophet operates. To be sure: if one translates the term as "repent," and also introduces into the discussion the NT term IlE'tclVOta (repentance), then one certainly goes beyond the conceptual world within which Isaiah operates. The interpretation is aided by 9: 12, where, parallel to Jib lot" ([the people] did not turn back), one reads lib" N" mlot~~ :1W-nNl (and it did not seek out Yahweh of Hosts). Isaiah utters the same accusation in 30: 1, parallel to the accusation about false trust (nt:lJ!). The entire passage thus corresponds closely with what he preached at other times when he states here that Yahweh expected a :1J1iV (return). "Return to him" means to think about and to act in accord with Yahweh (29: 15; cf. 30: 1). "Return" is a less than satisfactory translation insofar as it does not clearly express the notion that this is not about an inner transformation but deals instead with observance of and adherence to concrete prophetic instructions. D:liilot l"iV1:1"

Isaiah 28-35

161

It has been noted time and again that the concept of return, expressed by :1:mj, is so very different in meaning from the other terms that follow now, especially when compared with rm, "rest." nn: is not an exact parallel to :1:m:i, but it does convey an idea that is reasonably derived from that concept. One cannot simply have "rest" and one cannot demand rest. It comes as a result of turning toward Yahweh. One will ~hen no longer have to be actively and nervously running down to Egypt III order to beg for support. :1J1t.:i will also make trust, :1n~J, possible. One needs to interpret both terms on the basis of 7:4, where the narrative context of the situation, in which the call to remain at rest is issued, shows what is meant. "Remaining still" in that passage means that one will be careful not to look around for help from outsiders (see Isaiah 112, pp. 297f.). If one interprets this text to be "the message concerning restfully doing nothing in the midst of seemingly oppressive realities" (cf. C. A. Keller, TZ 11 [1955] 87), suggesting that Isaiah is speaking of, or has in mind, a quietistic demeanor that he calls for in light of the terrifying political situation, expecting that they will "limit themselves to what is merely religious," one misses the intention of the prophet. Isaiah expected a substantive change in diplomacy. That change would not simply be to do nothing, but it would be a political stance based on faith that could not adequately be characterized as "anti-military." His political program was that the leaders would get themselves away from interactions with the major powers, moving instead toward a way of acting that assumed an inner peace that could be given by faith alone. In the end, a :1'1JJ (strength) would be demonstrated thereby, one that would not have denied respect to the Assyrians either.

[30:15b, 16] "But you had not wanted to." The political realities, as set forth tirelessly by Isaiah during the time when Assyria threatened, with clear statements about how things would work out, had not met with approval. He was deeply upset because he could not understand such opposition to God, the refusal of his offer of salvation, and the irrationality of such sins. He sets forth the resistance of Israel in such sharp focus in v. 16 that he allows his partners in conversation to speak for themselves. They are proud of their horses; one detects in their words that they rejoice in the military potential that Judah feels it has at hand. They are itching to show their military prowess. That was unrealistic fantasizing for little Judah, a fantasy that unfortunately has been repeated in other times and places throughout world history and to which politicians have often succumbed, with destruction resulting both for them and for their country. Isaiah states this in a way that is poignant for him. They want to ride in on their horses; good, they will ride forth, but it will be in utter ,fright. They will be proud of their fast horses, proud to ride on their racehorses, as they would describe it, but they will only learn that their pursuers understand even more about racehorses. Yahweh will not need to intervene at all; it will be just like the proverb: "Pride goes before the fall."

162 Isaiah 28-35 The talk is about horses because the Israelite people's army did not include cavalry (and chariots; see 31: I). It is even more noteworthy that there is never any mention of horses and chariots in any description of holy war. But chariot corps and cavalry forces existed already at the time of Solomon (see I Kings 4:26; 9: 19; 10:26; cf. also the highly poetic description of the animals that charge into battle in Job 39: 19-25). But criticism of such forces is never silenced completely (see Deut. 17: 16). Egypt and Assyria could assemble such special forces, but Isaiah was of the opinion that little Judah could not. In terms of the sense of the concept, one thinks of the use of troops on charging horses when one visualizes lightning raids; they are of little help as defensive aids. Even in terms of military action, horses for Judah were more for prestige than for actual use in situations where military ac!ion was involved. [30: 17) Verse 17 also shows that Isaiah is thinking here within the framework of concepts that are informed by holy war terminology. If Yahweh intervenes, at most little more than a remnant of Israel's enemies will survive. If he submits Israel to his bedazzling power, which includes his judgment, that also will result in little more than a remnant being left. In I :8, where Isaiah reflected upon the bloodletting that took place in 701, he stated: "Zion's daughter is left like a booth made offoliage in a vineyard, like a shelter for the night in a cucumber field." The topic does not deal with Judah and Jerusalem as a whole in v. 17 but focuses instead on those who direct their hopes toward a military sortie. The ;'11JJ (strength) of these people is pure illusion. Even the "threat" (;'llJJ) of a single one will cause an entire thousand-man force to flee. Isaiah does not have a very high opinion of the "morale" of Judah's elite troops. r'J'?~ (lit.: "herd of cattle, a great number") does not refer only to the precise number "one thousand"; it is used at times to designate a military unit, one that is roughly equal to a battalion. Concerning ilJJ and iii,!)) (both: "rebuke, threat"), see Isaiah 13-27, p. 199. A ;'i,!);! is the threatening shout of an opponent. The translation is difficult because there is no English word that is an exact equivalent; the specific details of what would occur escape us. The opinion of scholars in the past has been that the "rebuking" resulted in a magic power being released, which the opponents in certain cases would fear more than the sword (cf. the Enuma Elish I, 60-72 [ANET, 61] and the Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, VII, 1033-1040, "rebuke, scorn" and II, 1096-1102, "censure, cast a spell"). The translation that uses "threaten" is the closest to adequately render the term [Tr: the German here is "Drduen," an old form of "drohen," "threaten"]. One is within the realm of military events here as well. When Fohrer suggests: "After the judgment ... there will be as goo~ as no one left on whom the gift of a new action of salvation can be bestowed," that is an over-interpretation of the text, which says only that the confrontation with the enemy will end with a deplorable collapse. That, to be sure, is bad enough.

Isaiah 28-35

163

The phraseology in v. 17 reminds one of Deut. 32:30: "How could one have routed ('l,j') a thousand, and two put a myriad to flight (,0';'), unless their Rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up?" The connection is so close that v. 17aa has consistently been thought to be a gloss. But there are other passages in Isaiah that remind one of the Song of Moses. Even if one removes v. 17aa, one must still recognize that passages in other parts of the OT sound much like v. 17al3. One might compare it with Lev. 26:8: "Five of you shall give chase to a hundred, and a hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand." What that passage prom ised Israel, if the people were faithful, is now expressed in the exact opposite way as the prophet looks at its stubbornness (cf. also Josh. 23: 10 and Amos 5:3). The text is certainly not to be explained as being in a dependent relationship with any particular passage, whether in one direction or the other. Isaiah simply makes use of the tradition at hand and turns it upside down, just as he does in the opposite sense in 28:21 when he refers to Yahweh's intervention, interpreting it in a new way: "strange is his deed; estranging is his work." This passage cannot be used when trying to elucidate the "concept of rest" in the normal sense of that term, as it is found in 1:8f. or in 17:6. And yet it also cannot be used in the opposite way to prove that Isaiah expects the utter demise of Israel and has no room for any hope. One ought not press a text to provide details that are not implicit in the theme with which it deals. The two comparisons, "as a signal pole on the summit of a mountain, just like a battle standard on a hillock," illustrate once again the dead aim that Isaiah takes when coming up with his metaphors. One also notes that the word 1,n (signal pole) sounds much like the preceding word C;nim:; (until you still remain as a remnant). Concerning OJ (battle standard), see Isaiah 1-12, p. 239. Ifl'n (signal pole) can be linked to Assyrian ani, "lead, direct," (see CAD, A, 11,313), it must refer to a tall pole, located on top of a high place, visible from a great distance and useful for orienting oneself. In contrast to 0:; (battle standard), it would not have been used originally for troops but rather for herds, caravans, and travelers in general. Purpose and Thrust Even though the observation is within a message that is addressed to a specific situation, Isaiah arrives at a formulation in v. 15a13 that can serve for all time to describe the true way for one to act in faith, and it has in fact been used in that very way. It should not be forgotten that its original setting was that of criticizing the official poli.tical d~cisions of the state. This insight protects the concept about whIch IsaIah speaks when he calls for being quiet, so that it is not turned into a Stoic resigpation that leaves one untouched by the events of the "world," which would suggest a mystical subjectivity or which could be confused with an Indian-Buddhist ability to be distanced from all suffering. Isaiah never preaches that a person is to flee the worl~, and his !deal. is certainly not Stoic resignation. He calls for persever1l1g, strong 111 .falth, under all oppression that might come at times to the people of God 111 the

164

Isaiah 28-35

midst of the real world-and that they are to stand firm. "The one who believes, in the sense intended by Isaiah, stays true to the earth because he stays true to God; his faith is completely active as it engages its energy in aiming toward a positive goal" (Eichrodt). The politics of faith have nothing to do with the politics of weakness. They have to do with the power, not of defeatism, but of having an unbending will that stays strong. It is not about capitulation but is rather about th'S defeat of all opposing forces, for "this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith" (1 John 5:4). This is not a victory that is won by a person who has run away from the real world.

Isaiah 30:18-26

The Time of Salvation

Literature W. Bacher, "Isa·ie, XXX, 21" REJ 40 (1900) 248-249. R. Gordis, JBL 49 (1930) 421-422. A. H. Gray, "The Beatitude of 'Them that Wait'," ExpTim 48 (1936) 264-267. L. Laberge, "Is 30, 19-26: A Deuteronomic Text?" EglT 2 (1971) 35-54 (not available to me). (Literature update through 2001: Sec addendum to Selected Recent Literature at the end ofthe volume.) Text 30:18

And therefore Yahweh waits thereupon, to be graciousa to you, and therefore he rouses b himself up, to be merciful to you. For Yahweh is a God of justice; salvation to all who waite for him!

* 19

21

*

*

*

*

aAnd the Lord will grant to you bread "without" need and water "without" affliction. a Then your teacherb will no longer be hidden,e and your eyes will (always) see your teacher,b and your ears will hear instruction that will guide you from behinda: "That is the path you are to traverse," whether you have to go off "to the right"b or to the left.

* 22

*

Yes, you people, that [upon Zion]a are livingb in Jerusalem you do not have to cryc! Truly he is merciful d to you when you cry out to him for help; he barely detects· it, then he answers you right away.

* 20

*

*

*

Then "you"a will defile your silver-bedecked idol images,

165

166 Isaiah 28-35 and your molten images that are covered with gold, as "unclean things"b you will throw them awayc; Dung d! you will say about that.

* 23

24

25

26

*

*

And he will provide rain for your sowing that you sow upon thea field, and the grain, the produce of the field, it will bebfull and lush. Your COwc will grazed on that day "on"8 a broad pasture land, and the cattle and donkeys that work the field will eat silagea [that is "stirred"b with shovel and fork]. There will be on every high mountain and on every towering hill ditches that will carry· water. On the dayb of the great slaying, when the towers fall, the light of the moon will be like that of the sun, and the light of the sun will shine seven times brighter a[like the light of seven days]a on the day that Yahweh binds up the injuries of his people and heals the wounds with which he struck them.

18a The infinitive construct qal im (to be gracious) occurs only here, and one would not expect it to be formed thus, because the "normal" imperfect is ]h:. Indeed, Q'does read c::>,m (also: "to be gracious to you"), a reading that assumes that the infinitive form would be J1n (cf. F. NOtscher, VT I [1951] 299, no. 4). But the MT reading is to be retained as the lectio difficilior; cf. fhe imperfect iln' ([the Lord] will be gracious) and see Bauer-Leander §58p' as well. 18b Some MSS read Ci"";' (and others read oi-;:), "stand still," or something similar. From the time of Houbigant and Lowth, many have favored this variant reading, since one looks in vain for a word that is parallel to 011' (he rouses himself). But that is not a satisfactory solution, unless one follows scholars such as Procksch and understands ;;::>n in the first colon to mean "delay," or something similar. Verse 18 would thus not be a promise of salvation but rather one of disaster, but see a discussion of the issue below in the discussion about the Setting. As D. Yellin suggested earlier (in the Israel Abrahams Memorial Volume [1927] 456), G. R. Driver (JTS 38 [1937] 44) offers an interpretation of cn; in this passage on the basis of Arabic riima I: "desired eagerly," II: "waited, tarried" (according to which he assumes that this Arabic root is identical to Hebrew cn in the final analysis). But there is no absolute rule that exact parallelism must exist for every passage (see I. Eitan, HUCA 12113 [1937/38] 73). Feldmann's suggestion (he rejects the reading Cn', "be silent," since it would have to be written with ;0, "from, on account of') that the reading be changed to C1i" (he will rise up) is unnecessary as well (see also BHK). 18c On the participle in the construct state when it precedes a preposition, see Jotion, Gr § 129m.

Isaiah 28-35

167

1~a. Procksch suggests removing i1'::>:: (upon Zion). Kissane would rather el.lmmate C'?i:i1-'-:: (in Jerusalem) as a gloss. The bicolon is admittedly too long. Smce the phrase ::0' ;1'::>:: (live upon Zion) is uncommon, it would make better sense to follow Procksch. 19b The Syr reads the participle yateb (living); Targ: ::'n' (inhabitant of). Based on these readings, the text is altered by virtually everyone to read ::tD' (are living). 19c Q' reads D::n (you [pl.] will cry) even though it later reads lJ1n' (he is merciful to you [sing.]). This manuscript frequently employs the plural verb when used with a collective noun. 19d Q': 'pn' (he is merciful to you); concerning the odd form in the MT, cf. Gen. 43:29 and see Ges-K §67n (transposition of the vowels). 1ge The feminine infinitive :1l?0~ (here: "detect") is unique but not impossible. Q' reads here the well-known substantive :11'11:1t:) (BDB: "report"). There is no reason to follow Schlogl and postulate that it should be read as the "normal" form 11'~y:l (when he hears it). Concerning the MT, see Ges-K §45d. 20a-a This section of material has given exegetes trouble. The MT can hardly be interpreted in any other way than as a threat: "And the Lord will give you the bread of oppression and the water of affliction," or something similar. Some try to resolve the problem by reading 1m1 (and he gave) as a preterit, as, e.g., Fohrer: "The Lord (also) gave to you barely sufficient bread and minimal amounts of water" (see also the Ztircher Bibel). But one ought not play around with Hebrew grammar in this way. Procksch removes v. 20a, which is undoubtedly too easy a solution. One is forced to conclude that the text needs to be altered. The Targ renders I::> (need) with :1K"O (enemy) and in'? (oppression) by using KP'110 (oppressor), which says it understands -,::> as "enemy," and it apparently read the participial form in'? so that one could translate it something like "bread of the enemy, water of the oppress or" (see BHK). By contrast, following Marti, and with reference to 33: 16, Kaiser removes both I::> (need) and in'? (affliction) as careless glosses, even though they are attested in all texts, since to him v. 20a makes no sense any other way. But that is not a good solution either. The easiest solution is to follow the BHS and read I¥O (without need) and iD70 (haplography of the previous 0) (without affliction) or, better yet, to read the construct '0 (water of) instead of the absolute C'O (water) and to take the final Mem with rn'? rn'? em (water of affliction) is unique in any case. Jotion (Gr §127b) considers rn'? to be an accusative of measure; Ges-K § 131 c takes it to be in apposition; M. Dahood (Bib 47 [1966] 412) thinks that the 1:1 at the end of em is the so-called enclitic Mem. When the text was once divided to read rn'? c'o instead of rn'?o '0 (water without affliction), the 1:1 before I::> must have been eliminated as well. 20b and b It is odd to have 1'110 (your teacher) occur twice in the same line. Marti, taking note of 33: 17, wonders whether 'p'?r. (your king) should be read for one of them but says that he would like to avoid succumbing to this "temptation." Since v. 21 speaks about instruction, "teacher" is correct both times, as is. 20c Instead of 'p:l' (he will be hidden), Q' reads mJ:l' (they will be hidden), which means that it understood 1'110 to be plural (your teachers). The Gk translates this as 1tA.avwv'te~ O'e (leading you astray), which means it interpreted the word to mean "misleaders." It also had thus understood 1'110 to be plura\. ~One cannot decide, on the basis of the grammar alone, whether TilO is singular or plural. The answer is dependent upon how one understands the whole verse (see below, on the Setting). 21a As one might naturally assume, T,nKo has given exegetes troubles. Feldmann thinks that the depiction of a shepherd who keeps the herd together from behind does not correspond to reality. In light of 3: 12 and 9: 15, Bacher

168 Isaiah 28-35 supposes that the text should be read -:r'-,t.:)~l:l i:;ll, meaning something like "the word of your leader" (see BHK as well). But a shepherd can in fact tend his sheep from behind (see A. M. Rihbany, Morgenliindische Sitten im Leben Jesu [1927] 128 and iIIus. 31 in Dalman, AuS, VI); the alteration suggested by Kissane to read ":j'l1i~l:l (from your paths) is not needed either. 21 b Ok: DeC,lcl (right [hand]); Targ: KJ'1Y? (to the right); Syr reads the same. This should thus be read 1J'l:l'rl (you go off to the right); such~ reading is accepted b~ everyone and is supported now by O' as well (1"r.lK'r,). 22a Ok s. (see also L, Vulg) reads Kat I..navel (your silver) and l::J:1l (your gold). ~oo (defile) naturally carries with it a sense of what results. 22b :1."'] means "sick," with the feminine form used specifically for "menstruating." But such a meaning makes no sense here. Some have thus suggested altering the text to read 'r.l, (like waters of) instead of the preceding lr.l:> (like, as) (Ok: 00