Reading Prophetic Books: Form, Intertextuality, and Reception in Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161523748, 9783161523779, 3161523741

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

89

Marvin A. Sweeney

Reading Prophetic Books Form, Intertextuality, and Reception in Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature

Mohr Siebeck

Marvin A. Sweeney, born 1953; 1983 PhD from Claremont Graduate School; Professor of Hebrew Bible at Claremont School of Theology and Professor of Tanak at the Academy for Jewish Religion California.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152377-9 ISBN 978-3-16-152374-8 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014  by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic s­ ystems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Dedicated to the Memories of my Maternal Great Aunts and Uncles

Bloomie Stein, z”l Harry Stein, z”l Jeanne Stein, z”l Mayer Stein, z”l

Preface This volume presents a selection of my essays on the study of the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible and post-biblical Jewish literature. It begins with the title essay of the volume, “Reading Prophetic Books,” and it continues with essays devoted to the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets, as well as to post-biblical texts, including the Temple Scroll from Qumran, the Babylonian Talmud, and Targum Jonathan on the Prophets. Following from my earlier Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Books (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), these essays further illustrate my fundamental concerns with the continuing development of form- and literary-critical exegetical methodology in the Hebrew Bible as well as the intertextual character of biblical literature. Many of these essays have been published elsewhere over the course of some thirty years, but four, plus the Introduction, appear in print for the first time. I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Cheflektor für Theologie und Judaistik for Mohr Siebeck Publishers, for his willingness to publish this collection of essays in Mohr Siebeck’s Forschungen zum Alten Testament Series. Among his many insights in the preparation of this volume, Dr. Ziebritzki suggested the title for the volume based upon the lead essay. I would also like to thank Ms. Tanja Mix Idler, Ms. Susanne Mang and Ms. Katharina Stichling, staff members at Mohr Siebeck, for their work in the preparation of this volume. I am indebted to my Research Assistant, Ms. Soo Jung Kim, Ph. D. candidate in Hebrew Bible at Claremont Lincoln University, for her meticulous work in proofreading the various drafts of the volume and for preparing the indices. This work could never have appeared without her. Any remaining errors are my own responsibility. My wife, Muna, our daughter, Leah, and Leah’s fiancé, Brian, continue to make my life a joy through their love and support. I have dedicated this volume to my maternal Great Aunts and Great Uncles. Uncle Mayer passed away when I was a toddler, but he was a gifted inventor and entrepreneur who did much to support and guide my Grandmother’s family as they made a new life in Springfield, Illinois. I still have a photo of him and a comrade in uniform as part of a World War I

VIII

Preface

U.S. Army Balloon Regiment. Aunt Blo, Aunt Jeanne, and Uncle Harry, were constant sources of love and support throughout my childhood and young adulthood. I owe so much to them all. San Dimas, California December, 2012 / Kislev, 5773

Marvin A. Sweeney

N. b. In keeping with some streams of Jewish tradition, the terms YHWH, G-d, L-rd, etc., are employed to express the sanctity of the Divine Name.

Table of Contents Preface................................................................................................... VII List of Abbreviations .............................................................................. XI Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books ..................................................... 17 1. Reading Prophetic Books.................................................................... 19

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah ................................................................ 33 2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6...... 35 3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah ............................................ 50 4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27: Toward an Understanding of the Redactional Function of Isaiah 24–27 in the Book of Isaiah.................................................. 64 5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah 27 Reconsidered .......... 79 6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah................ 94 7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55 ............................................... 114

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah......................................................... 133 8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10 .............................................................................. 135

X

Table of Contents

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context .............................................................. 154 10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah................................................................. 167

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel ........................................................... 183 11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah ........................................................... 185 12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28) .............................................................................. 203 13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform ......................................... 219 14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision............................ 233

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets .................................... 251 15. The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature .................... 253 16. The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered ...................................................... 263 17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum..................................................................... 273 18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk .................... 286 19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah ............... 303 20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah.............................. 323

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature ...................................................... 335 21. Sefirah at Qumran: Aspects of the Counting Formulas for the First-Fruits Festivals in the Temple Scroll ......................................................... 337

Table of Contents

XI

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek of the Temple Scroll ....................................................................... 346 23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature .................................................................... 363 24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3: A Gateway for the Palace? .............................................................. 376 Source Index ......................................................................................... 395 Author Index......................................................................................... 403

Abbreviations AASOR AB ABD AcOr AGJU AION AJSL AnBib ANEP ANET AOAT AOS ARAB ArBib ASTI ATD ATSAT BA BAR BASOR BBET BDB BETL BHS BHT Bib BibInt BibOr BibSem BKAT BWANT BZAW CAT CB CBQ CC

Annual of the American School of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Acta Orientalia Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Annali dell’ Istituto Orientale di Napoli American Journal of Semitic Languages Analecta Biblica James Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures (2nd edition; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (2 vols.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–1927) The Aramaic Bible Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblica et Orientalia The Biblical Seminar Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Cambridge Bible The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries

XIV ConBOT CRINT CurBS DJD EBib EdF EncJud ETL ETR FAT FOTL FRLANT GBS GKC

HALOT

HAR HAT HBD1 HBD2 HBS HCOT HKAT HS HSM HSS HTKAT HTR HUCA IB IBT ICC IDB IDBSup IEJ Int ITC JANESCU JAOS JBL

Abbreviations Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Études bibliques Erträge der Forschung Cecil Roth et al., eds., Encyclopaedia Judaica (16 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1972). Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses Études théologiques et religieuses Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. As edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch (2nd engl. edition, revised in accordance with the 28th German edition by A. E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957) Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Robinson; 4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999) Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Paul J. Achtemeier et al., eds., Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988) Paul J. Achtemeier et al., eds., The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (2 nd edition; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) Herders Biblische Studien Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Studies: A Journal Devoted to Hebrew Language and Literature Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual George A. Buttrick et al., eds., The Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; New York: Abingdon, 1951–1957) Interpreting Biblical Texts International Critical Commentary George A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) Keith Crim, ed., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation International Theological Commentary Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature

Abbreviations JETS JJS JNES JNSL JQR JR JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KEH KHC LD LHBOTS LUÅ LXX MT Mus NCeB NIB NIBCOT NICOT NJV NRSV OBO OBT OPIAC OTG OTL OtSt PJ POT RB RevScRel RHPR RST RSV SANE SB SBLDS SBLSP SBLSym SBS SBT ScrHier SemeiaSt

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal for Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Lectio divina Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Lunds universitets årsskrift Septuagint Masoretic Text Le Muséon New Century Bible Leander E. Keck et al., eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2002) New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament The New International Commentary on the Old Testament Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text New Revised Standard Version Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Occasional Papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palästina-Jahrbuch De Prediking van het Oude Testament Revue biblique Revue des sciences religieuses Revue de l’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Regensburger Studien zur Theologie Revised Standard Version Studies and Monographs on the Ancient Near East Sources bibliques Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Scripta Hierosolymitana Semeia Studies

XV

XVI SJLA SJT SSN ST TDOT TOTC TSAJ UT UTB UUÅ VT VTSup WBC WMANT ZAW ZBK

Abbreviations Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Studia semitica neerlandica Studia theologica Gerhard Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (trans. John T. Willis et al.; 15 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974 ff.) Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Cyrus Herzl Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965) Uni-Taschenbücher Uppsala universitets årsskrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare

1

Introduction The present volume builds upon my earlier, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). The title comes from the lead essay of the volume, and the volume as a whole focuses especially on the interpretation of prophetic and postbiblical Jewish literature from the standpoints of contemporary form-critical exegesis and intertextual method. But whereas the earlier volume began with the development of the study of prophetic literature from the latenineteenth century work of Bernhard Duhm through the present, Reading Prophetic Books begins with a critical discussion of form-critical and intertextual methodology as a means to orient the reader to the studies presented here. Form-criticism has changed markedly since the initial work of Hermann Gunkel in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, particularly due to its interaction with other critical methods.1 Although formcriticism originated as a diachronic critical method for attempting to reconstruct the oral forms and societal settings that stood behind the present form of individual biblical texts, it has now evolved into a comprehensive synchronic and diachronic literary method for reading biblical texts as a whole. Contemporary form-criticism has not abandoned diachronic exegesis; indeed, a full understanding of the final, synchronic form of the text is the necessary pre-condition for reconstructing its diachronic forms and settings.2 Form-criticism is a foundational exegetical method designed for the modern interpretation of texts. All written texts draw upon the larger language 1 For discussion of contemporary form-critical method, see my “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; 2nd edition; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89; idem, “Form Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings (ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove and Nottingham: InterVarsity, 2008), 227–241; and idem and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003). See also, Rolf Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 435–468; idem, “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition and Redaction,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. Knight and G. M. Tucker; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 123–165. 2 Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features,” 150–158.

2

Introduction

or linguistic system of communication and expression in which they are expressed, and each language has its own unique forms of syntactical organization and semantic expression that work together to make communication possible. Form-criticism therefore analyzes the formal linguistic features of a text, including its unique syntactical and semantic form or literary structure and its use of typical linguistic genres that aid in giving shape to the text and function within it to facilitate its communication. Form-criticism functions first synchronically to analyze the present literary form and communication of the present form of the text, without regard to its diachronic composition or settings, and then diachronically, based upon the synchronic analysis, to ascertain and examine the compositional history of the text in question in relation to its reconstructed written and oral stages. It works together with other critical methodologies, such as rhetorical criticism, redaction-criticism, tradition-historical criticism, textual criticism, narrative, plot, and character analysis, socialscientific criticism, linguistics, and intertextuality in the interpretation of biblical texts. Form-criticism is intimately concerned with the societal, historical, literary, and conceptual settings in which the biblical texts were produced, in which they function, and in which they are read. Form-criticism recognizes the roles of both the reader and the author in the interpretation of biblical texts. In the case of the former, contemporary readers construct meaning in their reading of texts based upon the perspectives, questions, and interpretative agendas they bring to the reading of texts. In the case of the latter, ancient authors and redactors wrote and edited the texts that we readers have before us in keeping with their own perspectives, questions, and interpretative agendas from their own times and settings. Ancient authors and redactors set the formal structure and semantic expression of the text at hand, and it is up to the interpreter to identify and analyze those features of the text as bases for the reconstruction of its authorial-redactional viewpoint. Such an enterprise meets with great difficulties; our attempts at reconstruction can at best be hypothetical as we can never be absolutely certain that we have correctly reconstructed authorial intention in a text. Indeed, even if we achieved such an understanding, we must also recognize that texts take on their own lives following composition and sometimes even the author does not grasp the full meaning of a text. But such difficulties cannot negate the attempt per se; they can only play a role in determining the extent to which the attempt is perceived to be successful. By the same token, the reader’s perspectives and world views play an important role in determining why we read ancient texts, viz., what do they have to say to our own contemporary world? The tension between the authors’ and the readers’ perspectives and agendas – and even the gray area in between – is where the key issues of biblical interpretation are to be found.

Introduction

3

Form-critical interpretation of a text entails seven basic factors: form, genre, settings, rhetorical function, narratological character, intertextuality, and interpretation. “Form” (German, Form) refers to the unique formulation of a text. “Genre” (German, Gattung) refers to the typical conventions of expression or language that appear within a text. Although form and genre are frequently confused in form-critical scholarship, they are not one and the same. Genre functions within form as a means to facilitate expression and communication. Settings include a variety of factors, including the societal setting (German, Sitz im Leben) in which language functions; the literary setting (German, Sitz in der Literatur) or literary context in which the text functions; and the historical setting, including both the historical context in which the text is produced (German, Sitz in der Historie) and the historical context in which the text is presented (German, Sitz in der Geschichte). Rhetorical function takes up the communicative side of a text, viz., how does it relate to and address its audience? How does it attempt to persuade or influence its audience? Narratological character takes up issues of plot development, dramatic presentation, gapping, and characterization as means to further a textual agenda. Intertextuality includes the relationship of a text to its literary context, including the larger textual work in which it appears, the larger textual universe to which it is either intentionally or unintentionally related, and the larger textual universe to which it might be read. Interpretation refers to the sum total of textual understanding derived from the readers’ encounters with the text in relation to the preceding factors. Form-criticism (German, Formkritik) refers to the analytical study of the formal features of a text, and the history of form (German, Formgeschichte) refers to the historical or compositional development of forms and genres as expressed in texts. Each text is uniquely formulated and constitutes a singular event of communication in relation to the language and societal context in which that text is written or translated. Every language, including biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, biblical and targumic Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, and others, employs a combination of typical semantic, syntactical, and generic linguistic features and elements that are combined to produce its unique textual expressions. Thus, the analysis of the formal literary structure of a biblical text requires a full understanding of the semantic and syntactical dimensions of biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, biblical or targumic Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, etc., in order to enable the interpreter to grasp the means by which a text organizes and presents its contents and communication.3 Such formal 3 See Harald Schweizer, Metaphorische Grammatik: Wege zur Integration von Grammatik und Textinterpretation in der Exegese (ATSAT 15; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1981); cf. Ellen van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

4

Introduction

literary structure appears in the micro-level of biblical texts, such as the seven-day creation pattern in Gen 1:1–2:3 in which six days are devoted to creative work and the seventh day is reserved for the Shabbat as a day of sanctity, rest, and renewal for all creation.4 It appears in the “woe” (Hebrew, hôy) patterns of Isa 5:8–24 in which the “woe” statements appear within the context of prophetic judgment speeches that articulate both a potential consequence and a statement of the offensive action that would bring about that consequence as a means to convince the audience to change its behavior.5 It appears in the vision reports of Amos 7–9 in which the prophet sees some phenomenon, such as locusts devouring the crops or a basket of summer fruit, and understands that phenomenon to be a vision from YHWH that instructs him in the means by which he must address the people.6 Formal literary structure appears also in the macro-level of texts. Diachronic presuppositions cannot interfere in the determination of structure. Following the critical discovery of Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah, critical interpreters have assumed that the structure of the book constituted three parts, viz., Isaiah 1–39; 40–55; and 56–66, based on the view that a different prophet wrote or featured in each section. But synchronic critical analysis of Isaiah points to a different structure in which the related but contrasting narratives of Kings Ahaz and Hezekiah in crisis (Isaiah 7–12 and 36–39 respectively) point to their role in defining the perspectives of the two basic parts of the book, viz., the narrative concerning Ahaz’s refusal to turn to YHWH in Isaiah 7–12 points to the concern with judgment in Isaiah 1–33 whereas the narrative concerning Hezekiah’s turn to YHWH points to a concern with restoration in Isaiah 34–66.7 Likewise, attempts to identify the contents of Jeremiah’s original scroll stand behind attempts to define a two-part structure of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1–25 and 26–52, but a synchronic reading of the text based on syntax points to the prophetic word transmission formulas as the key to the structure of Jeremiah.8 Likewise, the concern for judgment against Israel, judgment against the nations, and restoration for both the nations and Israel underlies attempts to define the three parts of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1–24; 25–32; and 33–48, but close attention to the chronological formulas of the book points to the principle that Ezekiel’s prophetic career begins at the age of thirty when he would have 4

See Michael Fishbane, “Genesis 1:1–2:4a: The Creation,” in idem, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979), 1–16. 5 See my Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 121–131. 6 See my commentary, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 1:249–274. 7 See my Isaiah 1–39, esp. 31–62. 8 See my paper, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 65–77.

Introduction

5

been ordained as a priest and concludes twenty years later at the age of fifty when he would have retired from active priesthood.9 Only after synchronic analysis is completed may diachronic analysis begin. Such considerations also influence the reading of textual versions. Analysis of the textual versions of the Hebrew Bible requires a similar understanding of the literary character of the version in question, including the semantic and syntactical dimensions of the language into which the text is translated or presented. Whether the versional language is Qumran Hebrew, Koine Greek, targumic Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, or other relevant languages, a firm understanding of the literary character of the version in question in relation to its own linguistic base facilitates interpretation of the means by which each version reads and conceptualizes the biblical text in question. The versions are not simply translations of the underlying biblical texts that are used only as a means to reconstruct the underlying Vorlage of an original Hebrew text. Rather, they are literary and scriptural compositions in their own right that present interpretations of biblical texts based upon the perspectives or conceptualizations of their respective translations and the communities in which they were read. 10 The interpreter cannot simply assume that a translated text conveys the same understanding as the parent text. The formal presentation of each text, whether it is a parent or a derivative text, must be evaluated on its own terms. At the micro-level, the well-known Septuagint reading of hē parthenos, “the virgin,” for Hebrew, hā‛ālmâ, “the young woman,” completely changes the character of Isaiah’s statements concerning Emanuel and plays a constitutive role in Christianity’s conceptualization of Jesus which is at odds with Judaism’s understanding of divine character.11 At the macro-level, the Septuagint’s ordering of the Book of the Twelve Prophets as witnessed in Codex Vaticanus, viz., Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, presents a very different conceptualization of the book from that found in the Masoretic text, viz., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Whereas the LXX order presumes that the experience of northern Israel as articulated in Hosea, Amos, and Micah, will serve as a model for that of Jerusalem and 9

See my paper, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 125–143. 10 See, e.g., Arie van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint Version of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision (VTSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 1998), who analyzes both the MT and LXX versions of Isaiah 23 in an effort to demonstrate the distinctive textual character and interpretation of each; cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 11 See, e.g., Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 65–66.

6

Introduction

Judah, the MT order focuses on the question of Jerusalem from the outset even when reading the very same books.12 And indeed the question of a different Vorlage comes into play as well, as indicated by the differing forms of the Book of Jeremiah in the MT and LXX.13 Although each text is unique, it employs typical linguistic patterns or genres that function within a specific social, literary, or historical context to facilitate the presentation of its contents and ideas. An example of a modern genre is the contemporary novel, which originated only in the eighteenth century and which employs typical elements, including a lengthy narration, well-developed plot lines and characterizations, and some challenge that must be addressed by the fictional or semi-fictional characters in an effort to entertain, stimulate, educate, and influence the reader. Alternatively, the ubiquitous offer of a credit card or loan refinancing, which emphasizes favorable interest rates, low monthly payments, and easy acceptance, is a well-known standard genre in contemporary American society. Biblical texts likewise employ typical genres that were easily recognized by ancient readers. The vision accounts in Jer 1:11–19 or Zech 1:7–6:15 are well-known examples of a genre in which a prophet or priest receives divine instruction, sometimes directly from YHWH and sometimes from an angelic intermediary, and often based on phenomena or imagery that was available to all but interpreted uniquely by the prophet. They typically begin with YHWH or the intermediary showing something to the prophet and asking what the prophet sees. When the prophet responds correctly as to the visual image at hand, YHWH or the intermediary then proceeds to explain the significance of what the prophet has just seen.14 The prophetic maśśā’, “oracle,” typically begins with the superscription, maśśā’ PN, and then goes on to describe YHWH’s actions in the world in relation to the subject of the maśśā’, such as the oracles concerning the nations in Isaiah 13–23 or the oracle concerning YHWH’s purpose in bringing the Babylonians to Jerusalem in Habakkuk 1–2.15 Indeed, genres can be mixed as indicated again by Habakkuk 1–2 which employs both the dialogue genre and the woe oracle genre as part of the larger form of the maśśā’.16 They may also derive from social settings outside of prophecy. The above-mentioned 12 See my paper, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 175–188. 13 E.g., Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie (OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). 14 See Susan Niditch, The Symbolic Vision in Biblical Tradition (HSM 30; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980). 15 Richard D. Weis, “A Definition of the Genre Maśśā’ in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph. D. dissertation; Claremont Graduate School, 1986); idem, “Oracle,” ABD 5:28–29. 16 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 2:458–478.

Introduction

7

dialogue genre is generally considered to be a wisdom form, and the prophetic books are filled with hymnic forms or psalms, such as Habakkuk 3, based on the theophany, or the so-called confessions of Jeremiah, based on the lament genre.17 Genres clearly function within texts as the preceding examples indicate, and they are sometimes mixed. But genres may also constitute texts, such as Ezekiel,18 which is constituted from beginning to end as a chronology of the prophet’s career, or Obadiah, which is constituted as a vision of the prophet.19 In all cases, genres never appear in their ideal, Platonic forms; they are always adapted to the need of the text at hand. The days when Westermann could reconstruct a prophetic text by supplying missing elements of an ideal prophetic judgment speech are gone;20 prophets didn’t always need all of the ideal elements and they could reverse the typical order of the genre as in Isa 3:1–4:1 by presenting the outcome first and then the cause, thereby pointing to the analytical character of the genre which asks the question, what explains the catastrophe at hand?21 Early form critics focused especially on Sitz im Leben, societal setting, but the development of form-criticism has prompted interpreters to recognize a variety of contexts in which a text is produced and in which it functions. Thus, the social, literary, and historical settings of a text are key factors in influencing its form, composition, and function or interpretation in the contexts in which it is employed and read. Setting is frequently a very challenging aspect of form-critical research insofar as the early literary as well as the social and historical settings of a text must be reconstructed, and because these settings can change throughout the lifetime of the text in question. Although interpreters are adamant in asserting that the proper Sitz im Leben of prophetic literature is prophecy itself, few have thought to ask about the setting of prophecy. Indeed, temples appear to be the most common settings for prophecy throughout the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman worlds in antiquity.22 Mesopotamian baru or divination priests were trained to function in temple or cultic environments, the Mari texts portray prophets who likewise function in temple environments, and Delphi was known as an important temple for oracular activity. 23 17

Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 2:478–488. Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest.” 19 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:279–288. 20 Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. H. C. White; Cambridge: Lutterworth; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991). 21 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 105–112. 22 Frances Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras (JSJSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 23 Frederick H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). 18

8

Introduction

Such an observation has important implications for the interpretation of prophets in modern historical scholarship. Interpreters, largely Protestant in background, so frequently posit a fundamental dichotomy or opposition between prophets and priests, based in large measure on the worldview of Protestant Christianity which views Martin Luther’s challenge of the Roman Catholic Church as a model for a prophetic understanding of their faith. And so Jeremiah and Ezekiel have so frequently been stripped of their priestly identity in modern scholarship to reveal the true prophet behind attempts by a self-interested priesthood to claim them as their own.24 But such efforts fly in the face of the construction of prophecy in the ancient world. Prophets do not need to be priests, but they frequently are, and their authorization to perform as such so often comes from their presence or association with a Temple. Isaiah is no priest, but his inaugural vision in Isaiah 6 is based on the imagery of the Jerusalem Temple.25 Amos is likewise no priest, but his visions are based on his presence at the Beth El Temple in Amos 7–9.26 In the case of prophets who are identified as priests, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, even their visions – a quintessential mark of prophecy – betray priestly identity. Jeremiah’s visions of the sprouting almond and the boiling pot from the north in Jer 1:11–15 are based on his identity as a priest of the line of Ithamar. The sprouting almond is based on the imagery of Aaron’s sprouting rod which designated the Levites as priests in Numbers 17–18, and the boiling pot is based on the role of the Levites in preparing and serving sacrificial meat at the Temple during times of celebration.27 Ezekiel’s inaugural vision in Ezekiel 1–3 is based on the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies of the Temple and the pattern of the ordination of priests in Exodus 28–29; Leviticus 8; and Numbers 8.28 And his vision of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in Ezekiel 8–11 is based in large measure on the understanding of the scapegoat ritual for Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16.29 24 Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches (FRLANT 196; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); Gustav Hölscher, Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch. Eine literarkritische Untersuchung (BZAW 39; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924); but see now T. J. Betts, Ezekiel the Priest: A Custodian of Tôrâ (Studies in Biblical Literature 74; New York: Peter Lang, 2005); Marvin A. Sweeney, Reading Ezekiel: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the Old Testament; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2013). 25 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 132–142. 26 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:249–274. 27 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 96–97. 28 Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest.” 29 Sweeney, “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezekiel 8-11,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 144–155.

Introduction

9

The literary setting of a text also plays a key role in interpretation.30 One of the great debates of modern critical scholarship is the unity of the Book of Isaiah. Since the nineteenth century – and the 1892 commentary on Isaiah by Bernhard Duhm in particular – scholars have recognized the eighth-century prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 1–39, a late-exilic prophet known only as Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 40–55, and possibly a Persian period group of figures known as Trito-Isaiah in Isaiah 56–66.31 The historical paradigm was so predominant that commentaries were assigned only on these portions of the book, never recognizing that the Book of Isaiah as a whole is presented as a 66-chapter unity. But beginning with the influence of redaction-criticism, which asked how the book came together in its present form, scholars began to recognize the literary dimensions of the Book of Isaiah and began to define its redactional or literary unity despite the diversity of its authorship. Such work made important insights possible. Second Isaiah’s constant references to opening the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf to recognize YHWH’s new actions in the world referred not simply to YHWH’s acts themselves, but to the first part of the book in Isaiah 1–39 where Isaiah was commanded to render the people blind, dumb, and deaf so that the world would recognize YHWH as the sovereign creator of the universe.32 Of course such work also opened theological questions as to how YHWH could sacrifice generations for YHWH’s own revelation? And it pointed to an important facet of prophetic literature; prophetic literature is not always written to change the world (although it sometimes is), it is often written to explain the world and YHWH’s actions in the world, particularly when evil rears its head as in the Babylonian exile. Similar observations might be made for Zechariah when it is read as a single book instead of a First and a Second (or even a Third) Zechariah.33 And they might also be made for the entire Book of the Twelve which functions as both twelve discrete prophetic compositions as well as a single prophetic book.34 The historical setting of a text is also a key element in interpretation, when it is known. This applies in two senses, viz., the historical background 30 Wolfgang Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturt heorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 117. 31 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (5th edition; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968). 32 Ronald E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982): 117–129; idem, “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaiah’s Development of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985): 95–113. 33 E.g., Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). 34 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets.

10

Introduction

of the composition of the text and the presentation of the historical setting within the text. Isaiah 1–39 is after all the work of the eighth-century prophet, Isaiah ben Amoz, except that it’s not. Many of the oracles can be traced to Isaiah, but much of the material of chapters 1–39 is the work of later writers. The third person prose narratives are a case in point. Isaiah’s encounter with Ahaz in Isaiah 7 may be based on the historical counter – although we really don’t know – but it is clearly written by a figure other than Isaiah.35 The same might be said for the Hezekiah narratives in Isaiah 36–39.36 Both of these narratives are editorial compositions, and many elements of the oracles are as well. Similar observations might be made of Jeremiah, Hosea, or Amos, all of which contain third person prose material clearly written by a figure other than the prophet. And the presentation of the historical setting must be factored in as well. The account of Sennacherib’s defeat in Isaiah 36–37 is a stirring account of YHWH’s deliverance of Jerusalem, but the notice of the great victory conflicts with Sennacherib’s own account of Hezekiah’s capitulation and the surrender of many hostages and resources taken to Nineveh by Sennacherib.37 Indeed, the notice of Sennacherib’s assassination by his own sons in the temple of his own god is a telling factor – because it took place in 681 B.C.E., some twenty years after the events recounted in Isaiah 36–37. We may be able to reconstruct the historical settings of Isaiah’s oracle – and even the narratives – but we must also be aware of account for the influence of later historical agendas in the presentation of prophetic literature. Rhetorical criticism must also be considered as a part of the mix. Early rhetorical criticism focused on establishing the coherence and esthetic characteristics of the biblical text,38 but subsequent work in the field recognized the classical roots of rhetorical criticism and focused on its communicative and persuasive aspects.39 Texts were designed – or not – to have an impact on their audiences, to convince them of a certain set of ideas or perspectives, or to persuade them to adopt a course of action. Jonah, for example, is not simply a narrative about a hapless prophet who tried to escape his prophetic task. Rather, Jonah is a rhetorical task designed to reflect on the character and intentions of YHWH, who was capable of forgiving the Nine35

Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 143–164. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 154–511. 37 James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 287–288. 38 James Muilenberg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18; idem, “Isaiah 40–66, Introduction and Exegesis,” in The Interpreter’s Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1956), 5:381–773. 39 Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Patricia K. Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” in To Each Its Own Meaning (note 1), 156–182. 36

Introduction

11

vites, knowing that some day they would destroy the northern kingdom of Israel.40 And Second Isaiah employed the figures of a male and a female servant, in the latter case Bat Zion, to reconfigure the prophetic marriage tradition between YHWH and Israel or Jerusalem as a means to argue that YHWH was now about to restore Jerusalem and therefore the marriage.41 The narratological side of texts must also be considered in relation to contemporary form-criticism. Although interpreters normally associate issues of plot development and characterization with narrative literature,42 they also impinge on prophetic literature. Prophetic books generally contain a great deal of oracular literature, but they frequently include narrative, even if it is only a superscription, and the arrangement of their materials demonstrates an interest in a progression of plot or ideas as well as a characterization of the prophet in question. Jeremiah is perhaps the most personalized of all the prophets. His book presents a chronicle of his receipt of prophetic words from YHWH. He tells us more about himself than any other prophet, and most of what we learn is that he is a very conflicted man who suffers the abuse of his peers, his government, and his G-d at a time when his nation faces collapse.43 At the end of the book, he is back in Egypt, where his predecessor Moses started, railing against those who would abandon YHWH and the land of Israel. Hosea is a lousy husband, who comes home from who knows where to accuse his wife, Gomer, of adultery which in turn becomes a metaphor for the relation between YHWH and Israel. Although Hosea’s accusations of infidelity against Gomer form the basis of YHWH’s accusations against Israel, it is YHWH who is tasked with protecting Israel, just as Hosea is tasked as a husband with protecting Gomer, and both of them fail to do so. One may wonder what Hosea/YHWH is hiding, perhaps abandonment of the bride? But in the end, both YHWH and Hosea promise to take the bride back, and so everything should be okay. Or is it? After all, northern Israel is never restored.44 Finally, contemporary form-criticism is heavily bound up with intertextuality in all of its dimensions. Based especially on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, intertextuality recognizes that every text is part of a larger literary 40

Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:303–332. Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBLDS 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). 42 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985); Mignon Jacobs, Gender, Power, and Persuasion: The Genesis Narratives and Contemporary Portraits (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). 43 Marvin A. Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 104–127. 44 Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:1–144. 41

12

Introduction

universe that influences a given literary work, whether deliberately or not, and thereby enables a text to engage in dialogue with other texts and with its own readers.45 Deliberate instances of intertextuality include citations of or allusions to earlier literature that are referenced or reworked in the work in question. Examples might include the citation of earlier texts from Isaiah and other prophetic works in Isaiah 24–27 or the reworking of the royal oracle from Jer 23:1–8 in Jer 33:14–26.46 Deliberate instances also include the interrelationships between a text and its larger literary context, particularly the place of a text within the larger literary work or body of literature of which it is a part and for which it was composed. Examples might include the place of Zeph 2:1–3 within the larger structure of the Book of Zephaniah or the allusions to Isaiah 6 in Ezekiel’s inaugural vision in Ezekiel 1.47 But non-deliberate instances must also be recognized. The depiction of a withered and desolate land in Hosea 4 draws on a larger literary world in which the condition of the land points to inhabitants’ relationship with the deity in question, whether that be YHWH, Baal, or Hadad or even Ishtar. Likewise, Ezekiel’s affirmation of Davidic promise in Ezek 37:15–28 points to a very real, if unintentional debate with Second Isaiah who maintains that the Davidic promise is now applied to all Israel in Isaiah 55 or MTJeremiah which maintains that it is applied to Jerusalem in Jer 33:14–26.48 Both of these texts were likely written after the composition of Ezek 37:15–28, but their inclusion together with Ezekiel in the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible artificially places them in dialogue with each other on the question of the Davidic House. And of course the reception of a text in a later context, and the dialogue that ensues therefrom, is an important dimension that scholars are now coming to recognize. The translation and rewriting of Zechariah 3 in Targum Jonathan and the rabbinic

45 Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1981); see also Barbara Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship: An Introduction (SemeiaSt 38; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); see also Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality”; Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things; and Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998). 46 See my studies, “Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27”; “New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard”; “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context”; and “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah” republished in this volume. 47 See my studies, “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah,” and, “Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah,” both of which are republished in the present volume. 48 See my studies, “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28,” and, “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah,” published in the present volume.

Introduction

13

debate concerning the canonical status of Ezekiel would be cases in point.49 The essays published in this volume, like those published in Form and Intertextuality, illustrate the methodological principles articulated above. Most have been published before, some as early as 1983 and others have only recently appeared. And some others appear in print here for the first time. All previously published works appear here with permission. Following the Introduction, Part 1 of the volume presents, “Reading Prophetic Books,” which was previously published in Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies. Volume 1: The Bible and Its World, Rabbinic Literature and Jewish Law, and Jewish Thought (ed. B. J. Schwartz et al.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 2008), 57*–68* (English section). A much earlier version of this essay appears as the second part of my “Foundations for a Jewish Theology of the Hebrew Bible,” in Jewish Bible Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies (ed. I. Kalimi; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 161–186. This essay addresses the major thematic interest of the volume with a discussion of the final forms and distinctive perspectives of each of the books of the Latter Prophets. Part 2 of the volume presents six essays devoted to the study of texts from the Book of Isaiah. “A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6,” previously published in the Hebrew Annual Review 14 (1994): 215–231, employs a combination of formal and philological arguments to make sense out of a passage that has so frequently troubled interpreters as a coherent work of Isaiah ben Amoz. “Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah,” previously published in A Gift of G-d in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. R. D. Weis and D. M. Carr; JSOTSup 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 103–118, employs formal and intertextual arguments to assert that Isa 11:1–12:5 reflects upon earlier Isaian texts as part of the seventh century Josianic redaction of Isaiah. “Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27,” previously published in Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 39–52, examines the intertextual citations and allusions in Isaiah 24–27 as basis for reconstructing the hermeneutical viewpoint of Isaiah’s redactors in reading earlier Isaian and other prophetic texts. “New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah 27 Reconsidered,” previously published in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 51–66, was written at the same time and with the same agenda as the preceding piece. “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah,” previously published in Studies in the 49 See my study, “Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3,” republished in the present volume.

14

Introduction

Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (ed. J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1997), 41–61, employs intertextual arguments to examine how the Davidic promise as understood by Isaiah ben Amoz was reworked in Deutero-Isaiah. “The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55,” previously published in The Desert will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah (ed. A. J. Everson and H. C. P. Kim; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 109–129, examines how the great Judean king from the late-seventh century served as the basis for Deutero-Isaiah’s own conceptualization of religious reform and national restoration in the late-sixth century B.C.E. Part 3 of the book focuses on Jeremiah with three essays. “Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10,” previously unpublished, employs a combination of formal and intertextual arguments to construct the different hermeneutical outlooks of the two major versions of the Book of Jeremiah. “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” previously published in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (ed. J. Goldingay; LHBOTS 459; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 308–321, examines how Jeremiah reread Isaian texts concerning the reign of a new Davidic monarch for the late-seventh century B.C.E. “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah,” originally prepared for a Festschrift in honor of Edgar W. Conrad but regrettably lost prior to publication by its editors, examines how the Masoretic version of Jeremiah reinterpreted the Davidic covenant following the demise of the House of David whereas the Septuagint version of the book continued to affirm the Davidic promise. Part 4 of the volume focuses on the Book of Ezekiel with four essays. “Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah,” previously published in Congress Volume: Ljubljana 2007 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 555– 574, examines the interrelationships between Ezekiel’s inaugural vision and Isaiah in an effort to determine how Ezekiel reinterpreted Isaiah in relation to the circumstances of the Babylonian Exile. “Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28),” will appear in Myth and Scripture: Contemporary Perspectives on Religion, Language, and Imagination (ed. D. Callender et al.; SBL Resources for Biblical Study series; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 109–125, examines Ezekiel’s use of mythological language in the oracles concerning Tyre to depict YHWH’s actions concerning the city. “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform,” previously published in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (LHBOTS 446; ed. B. E. Kelle and M. B. Moore; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 239–253, employs a combination of formal and intertextual argu-

Introduction

15

ments to demonstrate the influence of Josiah’s reform on Ezekiel’s early thinking concerning the possibility of Judean restoration. “Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision,” previously unpublished, employs formal arguments to establish the coherence of Ezekiel’s final vision concerning the restoration of the Temple and intertextual arguments to assert that his vision constituted his expectations concerning the future realization of Josiah’s reform. Part 5 of the volume focuses on the Book of the Twelve Prophets with six essays. “The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature: The Case of Amos 9:11–15,” previously published in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature (ed. E. Ben Zvi; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 175–185, reexamines the formal structure and setting of the Book of Amos in an effort to argue that the utopian vision of Davidic restoration in Amos 9:11–15 is in fact an integral part of the book rather than a post-exilic addition. “The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered,” previously published in G-d’s Word for our World. Volume 1: Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (ed. J. H. Ellens et al.; JSOTSup 388; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 315–326, reexamines the convoluted imagery of Mic 2:12–13 in an effort to demonstrate that YHWH is responsible for exile as well as restoration in Micah. “Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum,” previously published in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (1992): 364–377, employs a combination of formal and philological arguments to demonstrate the coherence of the Book of Nahum and its fundamental concern with asserting the integrity of YHWH. “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk,” originally published in Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991): 63–83, and republished in Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum (ed. D. E. Orton; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 224–244, likewise employs a combination of formal and philological arguments to demonstrate the integrity of the Book of Habakkuk and its fundamental concern with the issue of theodicy. “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah,” previously published in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 388–408, presents a formal analysis of the book that demonstrates its integrity as an exhortation designed to persuade its audience to support Josiah’s reform. “Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah,” previously published in Relating to the Text: Interdisciplinary and Form-Critical Insights on the Bible (ed. T. J. Sandoval and C. Mandolfo; JSOTSup 384; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 120–130, reexamines the metaphors of Zeph 3:14–20 in an effort to demonstrate that it is another example of the prophetic marriage tradition in which the bride, Bat Zion, welcomes her husband, YHWH, home.

16

Introduction

Part 6 focuses on post-biblical literature with four essays. The two essays on the Temple Scroll appear here because they illustrate the contention that the portrayal of the idealized Temple and its halakhot built upon Ezekiel’s idealized vision of the future Temple and its halakhot in Ezekiel 40–48 as well as in the pentateuchal instructions.50 “Sefirah at Qumran: Aspects of the Counting Formulas for the First-Fruits Festivals in the Temple Scroll,” previously published in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251 (Summer 1983): 61–66, employs intertextual arguments to demonstrate how the Temple Scroll rewrote and reconceptualized the process of counting the Sefirah, the fifty day period between Passover and Shavuot, to create three Shavuot festivals for the ideal halakhah of the future Temple. “Midrashic Perspective in the Torat HamMelek of the Temple Scroll,” previously published in Hebrew Studies: A Journal Devoted to Hebrew Language and Literature 28 (1987): 51–66, likewise employs intertextual and text-critical arguments to demonstrate the Temple Scroll’s understanding of the Torah of the King in Deut 17:14– 20. “Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature,” previously published (under the title “The Problem of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature”) in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet (ed. P. M. Joyce and A. Mein; LHBOTS 535; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 11–24, examines a number of Talmudic passages in an effort to recover at least some of the issues from R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah’s efforts to defend Ezekiel’s status as sacred scripture. “Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3: A Gateway for the Palace?,” previously published in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1– 8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (LHBOTS 475; ed. M. Boda and M. Floyd; New York and London: T&T Clark, 2008), 271–290, examines Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah 3 in an effort to reconstruct the Targum’s conceptualization of the text in relation to Heikhalot mysticism. Overall, the essays in this volume point to the importance of contemporary form-criticism and intertextuality in the reading of prophetic literature.

50 See Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary (trans. R. T. White; JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 59, who argues that the scroll describes the Temple that Solomon should have built. Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1:190–192, who argues that the pattern of the Temple Scroll does not follow the pattern of Ezekiel 40–48.

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

1

2

1. Reading Prophetic Books I The reading of prophetic books has emerged as a central concern in biblical scholarship as scholars increasingly recognize their significance as coherent literary entities that address central theological concerns.1 I therefore intend to exam the central role that the Prophets play within the literary and theological structure of the Tanak, or the Jewish form of the Bible, insofar as these books examine the questions of the destruction and the projected restoration of the Temple, and articulate their respective understandings of the significance of these events for Israel/Judah and creation at large. Overall, I attempt to demonstrate that the Prophets engage in dialog, both with their respective understandings of Israelite/Judean tradition and among themselves, in their efforts to make theological sense out of the crises engendered by the Babylonian destruction of the Temple in 587/586 B.C.E. The Prophets play a key role within the three-part structure of the Tanak, including the Torah, which presents Israel arrayed around the Wilderness Tabernacle or Temple as the ideal culmination of creation; the Prophets, which reflect upon the significance of the Temple’s destruction and restoration; and the Writings, which focus once again on the Temple as the reconstituted holy center of Israel and creation.2 Insofar as the Tabernacle/ 1

For recent contributions to the discussion of prophetic books, see Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Prophetic Book: A Key Form of Prophetic Literature,” The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M. A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003), 276–297; Ronald E. Clements, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon,” in idem, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 191–202; idem, “The Prophet and His Editors,” in ibid., 217–229; Terence Collins, The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (BibSem 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Michael H. Floyd, “Basic Trends in the Form-Critical Study of Prophetic Texts,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism, 298–311; David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). 2 For discussion of the literary and theological structure of the Tanak and the Christian Old Testament, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Tanak versus Old Testament: Concerning the

20

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

Temple serves as the ideal, holy center of creation in the Tanak,3 its destruction by the Babylonians and the question of its restoration must stand as a central concern in the Prophets.4 The first sub-section of the Prophets, i.e., the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), presents a history of Israel’s/Judah’s existence in the land of Israel, from the time of the conquest under Joshua through the time of the Babylonian Exile, that reflects theologically upon this history by attempting to demonstrate that the destruction of the Temple resulted from Israel’s failure to abide by G-d’s Torah.5 The second sub-section of the Prophets, i.e., the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets), likewise attempts to explain the destruction of the Temple as the result of Israel’s/Judah’s failure to abide by G-d’s expectations, but it also outlines divine plans to reestablish both the Temple and Israel/Judah at the center of creation once the period of punishment is over.6 In this regard, the Prophets play the central role in the Tanak, insofar as they provide the link between the ideal portrayal in the Torah of creation with Israel and the Temple at the center and the reestablishment of that ideal in the Writings following its disruption.7 Foundation for a Jewish Theology of the Bible,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. H. T. C. Sun and K. L. Eades, with J. M. Robinson and G. I. Moller; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 353–372. 3 For discussion of the role of the Temple in creation, see Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–298; idem, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985). See also the discussion of world order in Rolf P. Knierim, “Cosmos and History in Israel’s Theology,” in idem, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1995), 171–224, esp. 175–198, who points to the significance of sacred, cosmic space at the center of creation. 4 For discussion of the significance of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 587 B .C. E. and 70 C .E . and its relation to contemporary theological discussion of the Shoah or Holocaust, see Emil L. Fackenheim, G-d’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections (New York: Harper Torchbacks, 1972); cf. idem, The Jewish Bible after the Holocaust: A Rereading (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), for general discussion of the question of a post-Shoah reading of the Bible. 5 For discussion of the Former Prophets or the Deuteronomistic History as they are known in modern scholarly parlance, see esp. Richard D. Nelson, The Historical Books (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 67–148; Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 33– 177; Antony F. Campbell, SJ, Joshua to Chronicles: An Introduction (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 15–105, 111–233. 6 See now, Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature. 7 Cf. Gerhard von Rad’s treatment of the Prophets in his acclaimed Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper and Row, 1962–1965). By devoting the entire second volume to the Prophets, von Rad pointed to their central theological importance as the culmination of the Old Testament tradition, where they constitute the conclusion of the Old Testament and thus point to the New Testament in the Christian form of the Bible.

1. Reading Prophetic Books

21

II Although all four Books of the Latter Prophets, i.e., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets, appear together under the general rubric of Prophets, each book has a distinctive outlook based in part on the social identity of the prophet portrayed in the respective book.8 Thus, Isaiah’s royalist viewpoint relates to his role as royal advisor; Jeremiah’s concern with the application of Torah stems from his role as a Levitical priest; and Ezekiel’s concern with the reestablishment of the Holy Temple stems from his identity as a Zadokite priest. Although the Book of the Twelve includes twelve originally discrete prophetic compositions, they are now arranged so that they function as a single composition with a pervasive concern for the city of Jerusalem. Indeed, the differences between the prophets are such that the Books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve frequently cite or allude to Isaiah and express their differences with Isaiah’s views. Altogether, the four Books of the Latter Prophets each present their respective understandings concerning the significance of the fall of Jerusalem and the projected restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem. Isaiah generally appears first in the order of the Latter Prophets,9 and it functions as the most prominent dialog partner for the other prophetic books.10 As with the Pentateuch, modern critical scholarship focuses on the identification of the historical layers of the book, which results in reading Isaiah as a three-part composition, i.e., Isaiah 1–39, which portray the eighth century prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, Isaiah 40–55, which present the work of an anonymous prophet of the exile known as Deutero-Isaiah, and Isaiah 56–66, which present the work of an anonymous prophet or prophets iden8 For an introduction to each of the prophetic books that comprise the Latter Prophets, see in addition to Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature, Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996); Petersen, The Prophetic Literature. 9 See the discussion of the order of the prophetic books in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Baba Batra 14b), which identifies two different orders based on historical appearance (Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Twelve) and theological theme (Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Isaiah; Twelve). 10 See my studies “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in Truth: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in a Pluralist Age (ed. C. Helmer and K. De Troyer; Studies in Philosophical Theology 22; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 9–26; “Micah’s Debate with Isaiah,” JSOT 93 (2001): 111–124; “Zechariah’s Debate with Isaiah,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism, 335–350, all of which are republished in my Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 78–93, 210–221, 222–235. For discussion of the construction of the Book of the Twelve Prophets in relation to the Book of Isaiah, see Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch (OBO 154; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997).

22

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

tified as Trito-Isaiah.11 Although various aspects of the paradigm may be disputed, it represents a largely sound model for the reconstruction of Isaiah’s compositional history. Nevertheless, an exclusively historical reading of the book impedes a full grasp of its literary and theological coherence. A synchronic reading of Isaiah points to several fundamental concerns.12 The book presents itself entirely as the vision of the eighth-century prophet, Isaiah ben Amoz. Isaiah’s vision therefore extends forward for some four centuries, from his own period during the times of the Assyrian invasions of Israel and Judah through the Babylonian Exile and the early Persian period, when Jews began to return to the land of Israel to reestablish their life in Jerusalem and Judah around a newly reconstructed Temple. Overall, it contends that both the destruction of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and Babylonians and the restoration of Jerusalem under Persian rule are acts of G-d that are designed to reveal G-d’s sovereignty over all creation and nations. Within this scenario, nations such as Assyria, Babylon, and Persia act as agents of the divine will. Of course, the famous swords into plowshares passage near the beginning of the book in Isa 2:2– 4 signals that the nations will come to Jerusalem/Zion, the site of G-d’s Temple, to learn divine Torah. Ultimately, the Book of Isaiah envisions a future of world peace, in which the Jerusalem Temple stands as the holy center of both Israel and the nations in a new creation. Nevertheless, there are several very remarkable dimensions to Isaiah’s depiction of this ideal scenario, especially when the book is read from a synchronic standpoint. For one, the book is especially concerned with the issue of righteous Davidic kingship. Indeed, many have pointed to the ideological foundations of Isaiah’s, Deutero-Isaiah’s, and Trito-Isaiah’s viewpoints in the royal Zion traditions of the House of David. A diachronic reading of the book points to each prophet’s respective viewpoint, i.e., Isaiah the royal counselor looks forward to a righteous Davidic king, perhaps Hezekiah, Deutero-Isaiah contends that the Persian monarch Cyrus is G-d’s anointed as the Davidic covenant is applied to all Israel, and TritoIsaiah contends that G-d is the true king, whose Temple in Jerusalem serves 11 In addition to the studies on prophetic literature noted above, see the recent commentaries on Isaiah by Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996); Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000); idem, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002); idem, Isaiah 56–66 (AB 19B; New York: Doubleday, 2003). 12 For attempts at synchronic readings of Isaiah, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 39–48; idem, The Prophetic Literature, 45–54; cf. Edgar W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); Thomas L. Leclerc, YHWH Is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (trans. D. E. Orton; Leiden: Deo, 2005), 167–201.

1. Reading Prophetic Books

23

as royal throne and footstool in a new heaven and earth. At this level, the three major historical portions of the book are in debate with each other, as each asserts its own respective view of ideal kingship for Israel. But when read synchronically, the three positions collapse into one so that the Book of Isaiah ultimately calls for Israel/Judah to submit to Persian rule, i.e., the rule of a non-Jewish king, as an expression of G-d’s ultimate sovereignty in the newly restored world of creation.13 Certainly, such a contention stands in contrast with the viewpoint of not only Isaiah ben Amoz, but the entire Davidic tradition expressed in Samuel, Psalms, and elsewhere, that posited G-d’s eternal protection for both Jerusalem and the House of David.14 Although Isaiah’s perspective finds agreement in the Books of EzraNehemiah, which portray the reestablishment of a Temple-based Jewish community in Jerusalem under Persian rule as the fulfillment of the great prophet’s vision, Isaiah’s prophetic colleagues are hardly so accommodating. Jeremiah is a major case in point. The Book of Jeremiah presents him as a prophet and Levitical priest like Moses.15 He lives during the final years of the kingdom of Judah, and sees the ultimate decline and destruction of Judah as the Babylonians destroy the city and the Temple and carry the people off to exile. Literary critical scholarship has wrestled with the question of the interrelationship between the poetic oracles, prose sermons, and prose narratives of the book, generally concluding that the oracles are Jeremian, the sermons are based in Jeremian sermons, and the narratives are the product of another Deuteronomistically-influenced author, perhaps Baruch, or a Deuteromistic school. The issue is complicated by the interrelationship between the Masoretic and Septuagint versions of the book and by complicated questions concerning the redaction-critical reconstruction of the book and the prophet presented therein. In general, however, diachronic critical treatment contends that Jeremiah calls the Temple into question as a source for national security, sharply criticizes the House of David, and says little about the restoration of Jerusalem.

13 See my essays, “On Multiple Settings in the Book of Isaiah,” SBLSP 1993 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 267–273, reprinted in Form and Intertextuality; idem, “Isaiah and Theodicy after the Shoah,” in Strange Fire: Reading the Bible after the Holocaust (ed. T. Linafelt; BibSem 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 208–219. 14 See Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant, Davidic,” IDBSup, 188–192. 15 In addition to the introductions to prophetic literature cited above, see Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (BibSem 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Jack Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999); idem, Jeremiah 21–36 (AB 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004); idem, Jeremiah 37–52 (AB 21C; New York: Doubleday, 2004).

24

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

As interpreters begin to consider the synchronic literary dimensions of the book, additional issues come to light. One is the issue of intertextuality, particularly with regard to Jeremiah’s relationship with the Book of Isaiah.16 Although interpreters have generally noted Jeremiah’s relationship with the Deuteromistic History as part of their efforts to demonstrate Deuteromistic editing of the book,17 they have paid less attention to its links with Isaiah. Indeed, Jeremiah appears to cite or allude to many passages from the Book of Isaiah, most notably in the prophet’s portrayal in Jeremiah 5–6 of G-d’s plans to bring a far off nation to punish Judah which draws heavily on Isaiah’s similar statements in Isaiah 5 concerning G-d’s plans to bring a far off nation to punish Israel. Although Jeremiah appears to agree with his senior colleague about G-d’s intention to bring punishment, he disagrees on its ultimate timing and its target. Isaiah announced judgment against northern Israel and Jerusalem/Judah, but he never claimed that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Instead, Isaiah articulates G-d’s continuing commitment to Jerusalem as the holy center of creation. The Book of Jeremiah, however, presents the prophet quite differently. Jeremiah’s well-known Temple sermon in Jeremiah 7 presents a striking critique of the people’s contention that the presence of the Jerusalem Temple would guarantee the security of the city. 18 The narrative concerning his trial for sedition emphasizes the theme of Jerusalem’s destruction when Micah’s statement that Jerusalem will be destroyed is cited in defense of Jeremiah. In true Levitical (and Deuteronomic) fashion, Jeremiah maintains that security is achieved only insofar as the people abide by divine Torah; without adherence to G-d’s Torah, the city and the Temple will be lost just as Shiloh was lost centuries before. Jeremiah’s differences with Isaiah are also evident in his confrontation with the prophet Hananiah in Jeremiah 27–28. When Jerusalem falls under Babylonian rule, Hananiah contends that G-d will act to deliver the city within two years. Jeremiah, by contrast, wears a yoke around his neck to symbolize his message that 16

See my essay, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” for discussion of Jeremiah’s reading of Isaiah; Ute Wendel, Jesaja und Jeremia: Worte, Motive und Einsichten Jesajas in der Verkündigung Jeremias (Biblisch-theologische Studien 25; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995). 17 E.g., Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (WMANT 41; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (WMANT 52; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981); Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora (FRLANT 1961; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); but see now Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose (London: T&T Clark, 2003). 18 For the construction of Jeremiah’s Temple speech as a Levitical sermon, see the now classic study, E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition of the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Schocken, 1970), esp. 68–70.

1. Reading Prophetic Books

25

Jerusalem must submit to Babylon in keeping with the will of G-d. During the ensuring confrontation, Hananiah breaks Jeremiah’s yoke, but Jeremiah returns with an iron yoke to reiterate his message. With Hananiah’s death, he is ultimately identified as a false prophet and Jeremiah’s message is confirmed by subsequent events.19 But we must recognize that Hananiah’s position is in fact that of Isaiah, i.e., G-d will act to defend the city. The identification of Hananiah as a false prophet generally obscures an important point to be drawn from this confrontation, i.e., Jeremiah considers Isaiah’s message of security for the city of Jerusalem to be false prophecy. In Jeremiah’s view, Jerusalem would face war, destruction, and seventy years of exile. Although critical scholarship frequently denies passages concerned with restoration to the historical Jeremiah, a synchronic reading of the book indicates that restoration will come after the seventy years of exile. Jeremiah 30–31 employs the image of the weeping Rachel to portray Israel’s return to Jerusalem, but it does so in the context of a new covenant in which Torah is inscribed on the hearts of the people. Whereas the Book of Isaiah maintains the continuity of G-d’s covenant with David/ Jerusalem/Israel as the basis for its portrayal of Jerusalem’s restoration, the Book of Jeremiah posits a change in covenant that will ultimately result in the restoration of the city and its people. Interpreters might note that Jeremiah’s vision of the future does – in contrast to the full form of the Book of Isaiah – envision the restoration of a righteous Davidic monarch.20 Critical scholarship raises questions about the authenticity of the royal oracles in Jer 23:1–8 and 33:12–26,21 but a synchronic reading of the book necessarily concludes that Jeremiah envisions a restored Jerusalem ruled once again by a righteous member of the House of David. Whereas the Book of Isaiah reinterpreted the Davidic covenant to justify submission to Persian rule, Jeremiah envisions a permanent Davidic covenant based in creation as part of the scenario for G-d’s new covenant with Israel/Judah. Ezekiel is an extremely erudite figure, who cites both biblical and ancient Near Eastern mythological tradition as part of his efforts to define the theological significance of the Babylonian Exile and the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple. Ezekiel is a Zadokite priest, and his education, practices, and use of Temple-based imagery, such as the use of imagery from the Holy 19 For the construction of Hananiah as a false prophet, see esp. James A. Sanders, “Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy,” in Canon and Authority (ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 21–41. 20 Contra Bernard Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle alliance? Le message des prophètes (LD 189; Paris: Cerf, 2002), who tends to collapse the distinctions between the prophetic books on this point into an apolitical eschatological scenario. 21 For discussion of Jer 23:1–8; 33:14–36, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 164–177, 534–546; cf. Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil (OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).

26

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple to describe the throne chariot of G-d and the sacrificial destruction of Jerusalem in chapters 1–11, point to this role.22 Again, we must turn to a synchronic reading of the book to gain an understanding of its full theological significance. Critical scholarship has missed the mark in its efforts to separate priestly and prophetic elements in the Book of Ezekiel. Indeed, the attempt to excise the prophet’s vision of the restored Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 is fundamentally mistaken.23 The vision clearly stands as the culmination of the book to express Ezekiel’s understanding of divine purpose in which G-d first abandons the Temple so that it and the city might be purged of its impurity and then returns to it so that it might stand once again as the holy center of creation. Ezekiel portrays the destruction of Jerusalem much like the offering of the scapegoat at the Temple on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16), i.e., the seven men dressed in white linen act as priests in carrying out the sacrificial ritual by marking and recording those to be burnt and by setting the fire much as one ignites the sacrifice on the altar; those left unmarked are killed in the destruction of the city; those marked are sent out to the wilderness of exile.24 Ezekiel is after all a Zadokite priest, and he employs the imagery and conceptual categories for purification and holiness that are characteristic of the Zadokite priesthood. He shares some characteristics with his prophetic colleagues. Like Isaiah, he envisions the future role of the Temple at the center of a transformed creation and nation Israel. He shares with Isaiah a theological foundation in the Zion tradition, although he focuses on G-d’s sanctification of Zion as the permanent site for the Temple in contrast to Isaiah’s interest in the House of David. In this regard, he sees some diminishment of the role of the Davidic monarch, but he differs from Isaiah in that he does not dismiss the Davidic king entirely; instead, he clearly places the king under the authority of the Temple and its priesthood.25 He is able to employ Isaian motifs, such as the portrayal in Ezekiel 31 of Pharaoh as a high, lofty tree that must be brought down, much as Isaiah portrayed the Assyrian king in similar terms in Isaiah 10. Ezekiel likewise shares some concerns with 22 See my essays, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” OPIAC 41 (2001): 1–24; “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezekiel 8–11,” both (re)published in Form and Intertextuality, 125–143, 144–155. For recent treatment of Ezekiel, see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (2 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–1998); Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel,” NIB, 6:1073–1607; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary 16; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2005). 23 Cf. Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1976). 24 Sweeney, “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification.” 25 See Iain Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1994).

1. Reading Prophetic Books

27

Jeremiah. He employs the proverb, “the parents have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” in Ezekiel 18 to illustrate his contention that people do not suffer for the sins of their parents – rather they suffer for their own wrongdoing – much as Jer 31:27–30 uses the same proverb to make the same point.26 He might differ from his older contemporary, e.g., Ezekiel identifies Jaazniah ben Shaphan as one of those whose idolatrous worship profaned the holy Temple, but it was the Shaphan family that served as Jeremiah’s primary supporters in his conflicts with the monarchs throughout his career.27 Perhaps the Zadokite Ezekiel viewed Levitical supporters with suspicion as potential sources of corruption for the Temple and the people. But Ezekiel’s debate is not primarily with his prophetic colleagues; rather, it is with the tradition in which he has been trained to serve as a priest in the holy center of creation. Ezekiel cites and employs traditions that are well-known in the Torah, but his understanding of that tradition differs to such an extent that Rabbi Hananiah ben Hezekiah later burned three hundred barrels of oil working at night to reconcile the differences between Ezekiel and the Torah so that Ezekiel might be accepted as sacred scripture (b. Šabbat 13b; b. Ḥagigah 13a; b. Menaḥot 45a). For example, his discussion of individual moral responsibility in the above-cited Ezekiel 18 draws extensively on the so-called Holiness Code of Leviticus 17–26 to portray the actions of the righteous and the wicked in terms of the worship of idols, the slaughter and eating of meat, sexual activity, justice to the poor, etc. But he differs markedly from the Torah by stating that an individual alone is responsible for his actions, whereas the Torah indicates that G-d may punish later generations for the wrongdoing of their ancestors. His description of the restored Temple, its sacred precincts, and its altar differs markedly from the requirements of the Torah in many details – to the extent that the altar appears to represent a Babylonian stepped structure. He deliberately eats impure food to illustrate his life as an exile in a land that is not holy. His depiction of G-d’s throne chariot draws in part on the imagery of the ark in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, but it also draws upon motifs from the depiction of Mesopotamian gods, such as Assur, who flies in his own throne chariot at the head of his armies.28 26

See Gordon H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS 126; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), esp. 79–86. 27 See Jay Wilcoxen, “The Political Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 151–166. 28 See John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000).

28

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

Clearly, Ezekiel employs traditions found in the Torah, but his differences suggest that he is in dialog with them, insofar as he changes them to meet the needs of a very new situation. He is a Zadokite priest, raised for holy service in the Jerusalem Temple, but he finds himself with a life outside of that Temple in a foreign land that can hardly be described as holy by Temple standards. And yet he strives to act as a priest in very different conditions throughout his lifetime, to sanctify that land by demonstrating the reality of the divine presence even in Babylonia. In this respect, he demonstrates that G-d is indeed sovereign of all creation. His portrayal of the restored Temple at the center of a restored Israel and a restored creation supports that contention. Although Christian Bibles treat the Twelve Prophets as twelve discrete prophetic books, Jewish tradition treats the Twelve as a single book, which includes twelve components. Indeed, modern critical scholarship has recently begun to consider both the compositional history and the literary form of the Book of the Twelve.29 The issue is complicated by the existence of the Septuagint form of the book, which employs its own distinctive hermeneutical perspective to present the Twelve Prophets in a very different sequence from that of the Masoretic Text. Because the present concern is with the Tanak, the following will focus on the MT sequence. The MT sequence indicates a deliberate concern with Jerusalem and its relationship to G-d and the nations of the world. Thus, Hosea addresses the potential disruption in the relationship between Israel and G-d, but envisions resolution when Israel returns to G-d and the House of David in Jerusalem.30 Joel employs motifs from creation, e.g., locust plagues and images of grain to focus on G-d’s defense of Jerusalem from the nations. Amos points to the restoration of Jerusalem and Davidic rule following G-d’s punishment of Israel and the nations.31 Obadiah focuses on G-d’s judgment against Edom as a representative of the nations and its submission to Israel at Zion on the Day of the L-rd. Jonah tempers Obadiah’s scenario of

29 See now my commentary, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), esp. 1:xv–xlii; see also my “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; SBLSym 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 49–64, republished in Form and Intertextuality. For a review of research on the Book of the Twelve, see now, Paul L. Redditt, “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2003), 1–26. 30 Francis Landy, Hosea (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 31 See Max E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

1. Reading Prophetic Books

29

judgment by raising the question of G-d’s mercy to a repentant Nineveh.32 Micah portrays the rise of a new Davidic monarch in Jerusalem who inaugurates a period of world peace after punishing the nations for their assaults upon Israel. Nahum celebrates the downfall of the oppressive Assyrian empire. Habakkuk raises questions concerning divine justice as the Babylonians threaten Judah. Zephaniah calls for a purge of Jerusalem and Judah on the Day of the L-rd that apparently signals for the Babylonian threat against Jerusalem. Haggai calls upon the returned people of Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple as the holy center of the nations. Zechariah portrays the process by which the nations will acknowledge G-d at the Jerusalem Temple following a period of world-wide war. Finally, Malachi recaps the initial concerns of Hosea by calling for the observance of divine Torah, thereby rejecting calls for a disruption of the relationship between Israel and G-d. Of course, the Book of the Twelve includes intertextual relationships with a wide variety of texts from the Bible and elsewhere, but Steck, Bosshard-Nepustil, and others have noted that the MT form of the Book of the Twelve is especially concerned with the Book of Isaiah.33 A primary example is the repeated intertextual use in the Book of the Twelve of the famous “swords into plowshares” passage that appears near the beginning of the book in Isa 2:2–4. Indeed, the passage plays important roles near the beginning, middle, and end of the MT sequence of the Twelve. Thus, Joel employs a reversal of its peaceful imagery in its portrayal of G-d’s call to battle against the nations that threaten Jerusalem on the Day of the L-rd.34 Micah employs a slightly different version of the Isaian passage in Mic 4:1–5 at the beginning of a sequence that calls for the rise of a new Davidic king, who will confront and subdue the nations that have exiled Israel.35 Zechariah employs the Isaian oracle in Zech 8:20–23 as a means to express the nations’ proposal to seek G-d at Zion, immediately prior to its depiction of world war in Zechariah 9–14 that culminates in the submission of the nations to G-d at the Jerusalem Temple.36 Of course, there are many more allusions and citations, both to Isaiah and to other biblical texts, but

32 Uriel Simon, Jonah (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999). 33 See Odil Hannes Steck, The Prophetic Books and their Theological Witness (trans. J. D. Nogalski; St. Louis: Chalice, 2000); Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeption von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch. 34 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Place and Function of Joel within the Book of the Twelve,” in Redditt and Schart, eds., Thematic Threads, 133–154, republished in Form and Intertextuality. 35 See my essay, “Micah’s Debate with Isaiah.” 36 See my essay, “Zechariah’s Debate with Isaiah.”

30

Part 1: Reading Prophetic Books

these examples suffice to demonstrate that the Book of the Twelve takes up concerns very similar to those of Isaiah, i.e., Jerusalem’s role at the center of the world following a period of judgment. But it differs markedly from Isaiah, which envisions Jerusalem’s/Israel’s submission to a foreign monarch as part of the divine plan for a restored creation. By contrast, the Book of the Twelve envisions a period of extensive conflict with the nations in which the nations will finally be subdued as they submit to G-d. Although G-d emerges as the ultimate sovereign of creation and Jerusalem serves as the site of G-d’s sanctuary, a new Davidic king and restored Judah/ Israel play leading roles throughout the Twelve in realizing this goal. This survey of the Books of the Latter Prophets demonstrates that each addresses the problems of exile and restoration in its own distinctive way. Isaiah envisions a restored Jerusalem/Israel that will serve as a source for divine Torah and be ruled by a foreign monarch in the context of G-d’s recognition throughout the world. Jeremiah envisions the restoration of Israel to Jerusalem and the restoration of righteous Davidic rule based on divine Torah following the punishment of the nation. Ezekiel envisions the purification of Jerusalem and the world at large as the process by which a new Temple will be built at the center of Israel and all creation. The Book of the Twelve anticipates a period of world conflict in which the nations will recognize G-d at the Jerusalem Temple after their defeat by G-d’s Davidic monarch. Indeed, each takes up the problem of Israel’s exile as articulated in the Former Prophets by envisioning a restoration of Jerusalem/Israel at the center of a new creation. Each engages in debate, both with the tradition and with their prophetic colleagues, concerning the character of the future restoration.

III The Prophets play a decisive role within the three-part structure of the Tanak, i.e., the Prophets bridge the gap between the Torah, with its ideal portrayal of Israel assembled around the Wilderness Tabernacle at the center of creation, and the Writings, which portray the fundamental concerns of the Israelite/Jewish people centered around its restored Temple in Jerusalem. Insofar as the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the Babylonian Exile constitute the major challenge to ancient Israel’s/Judaism’s sense of identity within the world of creation, the Prophets provide the theological means within the Tanak by which Israel/Judaism constructively came to grips with fundamental challenges to their existence in a manner that enabled them to rebuild for the future. Indeed, this basic pattern, which calls for the building and rebuilding of the ideal Jewish people and

1. Reading Prophetic Books

31

its relationship to the world at large, has continued to inform and sustain Judaism throughout its history. 37

37

This is a revised version of a plenary paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Israel, August 3, 2005. I would like to thank Prof. Ed Greenstein, Tel Aviv University, for his role in securing my invitation to present this paper. An earlier form of the paper was presented as the second of the two-part, “Foundations for a Jewish Theology of the Bible,” the Thirteenth Annual Gustafson Lectures, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, Brighton, Minnesota, October 7 –8, 2002. I thank Dean Richard D. Weis and the United faculty for their invitation to present these lectures and their hospitality during my visit to United Theological Seminary.

3

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

1

2

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6 I Isaiah 8:16–9:6, especially 8:16–23, is perhaps the most enigmatic passage in the entire Book of Isaiah. For well over two thousand years, its messianic allusions have intrigued translators and commentators, but difficulties in establishing the referents of its pronouns, the meaning of its contrasting imagery of light and darkness, and its syntactical structure have continued to confound its interpretation.1 Although scholars such as Alt, Ginsberg, Driver, and Emerton have argued correctly that the key to the interpretation of this passage lies in establishing the meaning of the contrasting statements concerning “the former” (hāri’šôn) and “the latter” (hā’aḥǎrôn) in 8:23,2 there remains no general consensus concerning the interpretation of this text. Consequently, a reexamination of the passage is warranted. This paper will demonstrate that a form-critical analysis of the passage, intended to establish its structure and generic character, will provide the basis for a philological reevaluation of the language employed in this text. In addition, it will demonstrate Isaiah’s use of word play in the philological reevaluation of this text. It will argue that Isa 8:16–9:6 is a prophetic 1

For discussion of earlier attempts to interpret this text, see J. A. Emerton, “Some Linguistic and Historical Problems in Isaiah VIII 23,” JSS 14 (1969): 151–175; C. F. Whitley, “The Language and Exegesis of Isaiah 8,16–23,” ZAW 90 (1978): 28–42; J. J. Staub, “A Review of the History of the Interpretations of Isaiah 8:11–9:6,” in vol. 1 of Jewish Civilization: Essays and Studies (ed. R. A. Brauner; Philadelphia: Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, 1979), 89–107; and R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983), 5–10. 2 Albrecht Alt, “Jesaja 8,23–9,6: Befreiungsnacht und Krönungstag,” in idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israels (3 vols.; München: C. H. Beck, 1953–1959), 2:206–225; H. L. Ginsburg, “An Unrecognized Allusion to Pekah and Hoshea of Israel (Isa 8:23),” Eretz Israel 5 (1958): 61*–66*; G. R. Driver, “Isaianic Problems,” in Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: Ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966 (ed. G. Wiessner; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967), 43–49; and Emerton, “Some Linguistic and Historical Problems.” For a recent study of Isa 8:23 that focuses on its antithetical character, see J. Høgenhaven, “On the Structure and Meaning of Isaiah VIII 23B,” VT 37 (1987): 218–221.

36

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

instruction concerning YHWH’s signs announced in Isa 7:1–8:15, especially 8:1–15. This identification is based in a disputation in 8:19–9:6 concerning those who rely on mediums and sorcerers and those who understand Isaiah’s/YHWH’s instruction. Those who misunderstand this instruction will see the Assyrian annexation of northern Israel’s border territories as a disaster, but those who understand the signs correctly will recognize that the Assyrian defeat of northern Israel presents a new opportunity for the Davidic dynasty to reassert its authority over the northern kingdom. The form of the passage, including its structure and genre, will be considered first together with discussion of the philological problems posed by the text. Afterwards, the intention of the passage will be identified in relation to its formal features.

II Isaiah 8:16–9:6 is demarcated by its grammatical and syntactical features as well as by its interest in contrasting the positions of those who rely on YHWH’s “Testimony” and “Torah” as opposed to those who rely on mediums and sorcerers. The first person perspective of vv. 16–18 and the references to the “Torah” and “Testimony” in v. 16 as well as those to Isaiah’s children as signs and portents in v. 18 indicate that this section forms the conclusion to 8:1–15. Nevertheless, the imperative verbs of v. 16 interrupt the narrative perspective of 8:1–15 and indicate the beginning of a new sub-unit within the larger context of this passage. Furthermore, the material in 8:19–9:6 is connected syntactically to 8:16–18 by the introductory wěkî, “and if,” as well as by the references to “Testimony” and “Torah” that appear in v. 20. Although vv. 21–22 are frequently separated from the preceding material as the beginning of a new structural unit, the converted perfect verb chain in v. 21 and the conjunctive waw combined with the imperfect verb yabbît, “he shall look,” in v. 22 demonstrate that these verses are joined syntactically to the preceding statement in v. 20b with its governing imperfect verb yō’měrû, “they shall say.” Likewise, v. 23 is joined to v. 22 by the word play involving mû‘āp la’ǎšer mûṣāq lāh in v. 23 and mě‛ûp ṣûqā in v. 22. Although many follow Alt’s contention that v. 23aβ+b forms the beginning of a new unit that must be grouped with 9:1–6,3 the continued use of contrasting imagery of light and darkness in 9:1 indicates that this material is related to vv. 20–22.

3 E.g., H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT 10/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 365–366. For a recent study that emphasizes the role of 8:23 as a connecting verse, see M. E. W. Thompson, “Isaiah’s Ideal King,” JTS 24 (1982): 79–88, esp. 84.

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

37

The first major sub-unit of this passage is 8:16–17, which announce Isaiah’s intention to record his “Torah” and “Testimony” and to wait for YHWH to act.4 Although v. 18 is commonly included together with vv. 16– 17, the introductory hinnēh, “behold,” suggests that v. 18 introduces a new section.5 This is confirmed by the absence of a syntactical connection between vv. 18 and 17 and the presence of the conjunctive wěkî, “and if,” which connects v. 19 to v. 18. Verses 16–17 begin with a two-part command as defined by the imperative verbs in v. 16, “bind up (ṣôr) the testimony, seal (ḥǎtôm) the Torah among my teachings.” The two commands apparently form a hendiadys in that both convey the same basic meaning.6 Verse 17 is linked to v. 16 by its introductory conjunctive waw and continues the first person singular speaker’s perspective. It explains the reason for Isaiah’s commands in that the prophet announces his intention to wait for YHWH. The second major section of this text appears in 8:18–9:6. These verses are linked together by a combination of factors including syntax and content. They continue the first person singular perspective of vv. 16–17 and explain the basis for the preceding announcement by providing instruction concerning the significance of YHWH’s signs for Israel and the House of David. The unit begins with Isaiah’s assertion in v. 18 that he and the children that YHWH has given him are “signs” and “portents” in Israel. Although the balance of the sub-unit in 8:19–9:6 abandons the 1st person form of v. 18, it is linked by the introductory wěkî. Isaiah 8:19–9:6 provides instruction concerning the significance of these signs in the form of a disputation speech which asserts their validity over the mutterings and 4

The interpretation of bělimmudāy in v. 16 is problematic and the subject of much debate (see S. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis [SBLDS 123; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1990], 207–208, for a summary of the discussion). Although the term is frequently understood as a reference to the prophet’s disciples, there is little evidence that Uriah the priest and Zechariah ben Yeberechiah (cf. 8:2) were students of the prophet. The qittul noun pattern is derived from the piel verb stem and indicates the object of verbal action, in this case, “that which is taught.” The term is ambiguous in that it can refer to people who are taught or ideas that are taught. Given the ambiguity of the term and the absence of hard evidence that the term refers to individuals, it seems best to render it as “among my teachings.” This would be consistent with Isa 8:1–4 which describes the recording of the Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz sign in written form. 5 On the exclamatory force of hinnēh, see B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), sec. 40.2.1. Although C. J. Labuschagne, “The Particles hēn and hinnēh: Syntax and Meaning,” OtSt 18 (1973): 1–14, points to the potential conjunctive force of hinnēh, Isa 8:18 lacks supporting syntactical connectors and a protasis-apodosis form. Rather, the structure and content of the hinnēh statement in v. 18 indicate its assertive or exclamatory character. 6 N. B., outside of Isa 8:16, 20, where it is parallel with tôrāh, “Torah,” tě‘ûdāh, “Testimony,” appears only in Ruth 4:7.

38

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

chirpings of the mediums and sorcerers.7 Isaiah 8:19–9:6 contains two basic sub-units. The first is 8:19, which quotes those who would have the people rely on the mediums and sorcerers. It begins with the statement, “and if they say to you,” followed by a quotation of the people’s statement concerning the need to inquire from these sources in the balance of the verse. Verse 19b has proved to be quite problematic due to uncertainties regarding its syntax and the meaning of the term ’el-’ělōhāyw “unto its G-d/ gods.”8 As the syntactical parallel between ’el-’ělōhāyw and ’el-hammētîm “unto the dead” demonstrates however, ’el-’ělōhāyw must be taken as a reference to the spirits of the dead so that the statement reads, “Shall not a people inquire unto its spirits/gods? On behalf of the living unto the dead?”9 Consequently, v. 19b refers to necromancy as a means for understanding the events of a time of crisis.10 Its position following v. 19a indicates that v. 19b is a quotation of the muttering and chirping mediums and wizards who offer their skills in necromancy to the people.

7 For basic discussion of the disputation genre, see A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1984). Graffy notes (p. 107) that the genre consists of two principal parts, the quotation of the position to be disputed and the refutation of the position. As noted below, Isa 8:19 contains the quotation and 8:20–9:6 contains the refutation. For a thorough critique of the rigidity of Graffy’s position, see D. F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre,” JSOT 38 (1987): 95–121. Murray argues for a more varied view of the surface structure of the text in relation to its rhetorical function, but maintains that three essential elements constitute the genre: thesis, counter thesis, and dispute. All three elements appear in Isa 8:19–9:6. 8 For a full discussion of the problems presented by this verse, see G. B. Gray, Isaiah 1–27 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 157–160. For more recent discussion, see H.P. Müller, “Das Wort von den Totengeistern Jes. 8,19 f.,” Die Welt des Orients 8 (1975): 65–76, R. P. Carroll, “Translation and Attribution in Isaiah 8,19 f.,” Biblical Translator 31 (1980): 126–134, and Irvine, Isaiah, 179–233. 9 Cf. T. J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989), 128–132, who correctly notes Isaiah’s attempt to ridicule the people’s reliance on necromancy. Note also the use of ’lhym in 1 Sam 28:13 in reference to the conjured spirit of the dead prophet Samuel. The rendering of ’el-’lhyw as “unto its spirits/gods” eliminates the difficulties mentioned by Gray, Isaiah 1–27, 158, in that bě‘ad haḥayyîm ’el-hammētîm, “on behalf of the living, unto the dead,” becomes an appositional restatement of the first part of the question in which hǎlô’-‘am … yidrōš, “shall not a people … inquire,” simply carries over into the second part of the verse. Nevertheless, the alternative meaning of ’el-ělōhāyw as “unto its G-d/gods” will relate to Isaiah’s use of word play later in the passage. 10 See Müller, “Das Wort,” 68–71, who demonstrates that hā’ōbôt, “the mediums,” and hayyiddě‘ōnîm, “the wizards,” refer to necromancers. For a recent survey of material remains and issues related to the cult of the dead in ancient Judah, see E. Bloch-Smith, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213–224.

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

39

Isaiah 8:20–9:6 contains the refutation of the position quoted in v. 19 and therefore constitutes the second major sub-unit of 8:19–9:6. The refutation is based on Isaiah’s counter-assertion in v. 20a followed by an extended argument or elaboration in 8:20b–9:6 which contrasts the inefficacy of the people’s reliance on mediums and sorcerers versus the efficacy of their reliance on YHWH’s Torah and Testimony. The prophet’s counter-assertion appears as a basic instruction in v. 20a, “To the Torah and to the Testimony.” Although this statement lacks an imperative verb, the preposition lě-, “to,” lends the statement imperative force as a command to rely on the Torah/Testimony. 11 As such, it commands reliance on the signs from YHWH (v. 18) which constitute the Torah and Testimony referred to in vv. 16–17. The first element of the elaboration of Isaiah’s counter assertion appears in vv. 20b–22 which focus on the failure of the people to rely on the Torah/Testimony with a series of statements linked together by conjunctive waw’s. It begins with an oath concerning the inefficacy of the people’s view. NJV translates this verse, “Surely, for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn.” The Hebrew term šāḥar is generally translated “dawn” but the root šḥr on which it is based has a variety of connotations which suggest a wordplay with the verb diršû, “inquire,” in v. 19. The basic root means “to be black” and extends its meaning to “dawn” on the basis of the blackness of night that immediately precedes dawn. The root connotes a sense of efficacy insofar as dawn represents the beginning of a new day and the renewed act of creation associated with the rising of the sun that overcomes the chaos of night.12 This sense of efficacy appears also in the use of šāḥrāh, “its dawn/enchantment/atonement,” in Isa 47:11, “But evil shall come upon you; you will not know its atonement (šāḥrāh). And wickedness shall fall upon you; you will not be able to facilitate its expiation (kappěrāh).” Here the parallel with kappěrāh, “its expiation,” indicates the use of the term in a context of sorcery (cf. Isa 47:12) in reference to the act of correcting or enchanting away evil.13 Likewise, the root 11

On the emphatic function of lě- in this verse, see Müller, “Das Wort,” 67–68. Likewise, the use of šāḥarût, “blackness,” in Eccl 11:10 refers to the dawn/prime of life, “for youth and the dawn of life are vanity,” and šěḥôrāh, “black,” refers to the woman’s beauty in Cant 1:5, “I am dark and comely.” In both cases, the root conveys a sense of efficacy or animation. 13 Note the cognate Akkadian terms saḫǎru(m), “to be turned to, to bewitch,” and saḫiru, “sorcerer” (Müller, “Das Wort,” 74–75). Lewis, Cults, 132, n. 13, notes that no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the problem of the sibilant correspondences between Hebrew and Akkadian saḫǎru(m) and šāḫiru. Insofar as Hebrew šāḥar means “efficacy” and refers to “the uselessness of necromancy” in the present context (see below), it would appear that Isaiah relies in part on a word play with Hebrew šāḥar, “traffic, gain” (cf. Isa 23:3, 18). Certainly, the Sibboleth/Shibboleth incident reported in 12

40

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

frequently means “to look early, seek diligently, search” (cf. Isa 26:9; Ps 63:2) and commonly appears in parallel with the verb drš “to seek/inquire of G-d” (Hos 5:15; Ps 78:34; Job 8:5; cf. Prov 11:27).14 In the present context, drš describes inquiry from the mediums and sorcerers or from the dead (v. 19). When considered in relation to such inquiry, šāḥar must be understood not only as “dawn,” but also in reference to the efficacy of inquiring or searching from the sorcerers and mediums.15 The prophet’s oath in v. 20b should therefore be translated, “Surely, if they will say a thing like this which lacks dawn/inquiry/efficacy,” i.e., “Surely if they say a worthless thing like this.”16 Because of its range of meanings, šāḥar is a key transitional term which links the language of inquiry in vv. 19–20 to the imagery of contrasting and darkness in the following verses. Verses 21–22 then elaborate on v. 20b by describing the consequences of the people’s reliance on mediums and sorcerers. Verse 21 contains a number of problems relevant to this function. First, the verbs in this passage are all third person masculine singular forms as opposed to the plural forms of vv. 19–20. Although many scholars maintain that the subject for these verbs is an unspecified man,17 the antecedent subject is ‘am, “people,” in v. 19b, which employs a third person singular verb yidrōš “it shall inquire” in that context as well. The second problem involves the third person feminine pronoun suffix in the phrase wě‘ābar bāh, “and it shall pass by/through it.” There is no evident feminine singular noun that serves as the antecedent subject for this suffix in the present context. Consequently, scholars have concluded that ’ereṣ, “land,” should be understood Judg 12:1–6 indicates that words pronounced with a samek in the region of Ephraim might be pronounced with a shin elsewhere. 14 The Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic root šḥr also means, “to break through, dig, search, seek.” Cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Brooklyn: P. Shalom, 1967), 1551. 15 Note that Targum Jonathan plays on the parallel meanings of šḥr and drš by translating mik‘an lêt lêh mān děšâḥar wěyib’ôhî, “now he has no one from whom he will search and inquire.” The Targum translates the Hebrew verbs diršu, “inquire,” and yidrōš, “(he) shall inquire,” in v. 19 as těbāb‘û, “inquire,” and tabě‘în, “(they) inquire.” By employing the Aramaic roots b‘y, in v. 20 and tb‘ in v. 19, both of which translate Hebrew drš Targum Jonathan emphasizes its understanding of Hebrew šāḥar as “search, inquire.” For the text of Targum Jonathan, see A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (4 parts; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 3:17–18. 16 Although ’im-lō’ frequently functions as an oath formula, such a function appears to play only a secondary role in the present context insofar as it adds emphasis to the prophet’s statement in vv. 20b–22. It may also be used to express a condition. In the present context, it emphatically identifies v. 19b as the condition that will lead to the consequences outlined in vv. 21–22, On the syntactical functions of ’im-lō’, see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction, sec. 38.2d, 40,2.b, and especially Y. Thorion, Studien zur klassischen hebraischen Syntax (Berlin: Reimer, 1984), 56–57. On vv. 21–22, see below. 17 E.g., Gray, Isaiah 1–27, 160.

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

41

from the general context so that the verse is translated, “and they shall pass through the land greatly distressed and hungry.”18 The problem is that ’ereṣ only appears in v. 22, after this verse and not before it, which indicates that it is not the antecedent. Consequently, ’ereṣ is an unlikely subject for wě‘ābar bāh. The only feminine singular nouns that appear prior to wě‘ābar bāh in the present context are tôrāh and tě‘ûdāh, “instruction” and “testimony.” As noted above, these nouns form a hendiadys (cf. 8:16, 20); consequently, they not only provide an adequate antecedent for wě‘ābar bāh, but the only antecedent in the present context. In this respect, the meaning of the verb ‘ābar as “pass by” or “neglect” results in a statement that describes the experience of those who “pass by” or “neglect” YHWH’s Torah and Testimony, “and they (the people) shall pass by/neglect it oppressed and hungry.”19 As a result of such hunger and suffering, the people will become incensed and curse its king and its spirits/G-d.20 The statement, “and it (the people) shall turn its face upward,” appears to be derived from a contrast with the following statement that they will look to the earth, but it makes little sense in the context of the people’s cursing its king and G-d. Furthermore, there is no indication that the reference to ’ereṣ in v. 22 suggests that the people look downward in contrast to their turning upward in v. 21. The word lěmā‘ělāh is generally translated “upwards,” but the noun mā‘al can also mean “unfaithful, treacherous act.” It is commonly used for treachery against G-d (Josh 22:22; 1 Chr 9:1; 2 Chr 29:19; 33:19; Ezra 9:2, 4; 10:6) and provides a better conclusion to the statement that “they will curse their king and their G-d and turn to rebellion.” In this case, the he accusative added to mā‘al lends force to the turning towards rebellion.21 Verse 22 employs the imagery of darkness to describe the despair of the people when it looks at the situation of its land. A chiastic word arrangement appears in the description of the “distress and darkness” (ṣārāh waḥǎšēkāh) and “the gloom of anguish” (mě‘ûp ṣûqāh) which the people see when they look to their land. Here, ḥǎšēkāh, “darkness,” and mě‘ûp, 18

Cf. BHS, which suggests emending bāh to bâ’āreṣ. Although the construction ‘âbar bě generally means “to pass through” in reference to a land, city, or other locality (F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1953], 717b, paragraphs 3a, 3b), Ps 103:16 (cf. Deut 2:4) demonstrates that it can also mean “to pass by” in reference to wind (BDB, 717b, para. 4b). In the present instance, wě‘ābar bāh in Isa 8:21 refers to the people’s “passing by,” i.e., “neglecting,” the Torah and Testimony mentioned in vv. 16 and 20. See further, n. 22 below. 20 Note the word play on the meaning of the term ’lhyw. In the present context, it follows up on the theme of necromancy which is introduced in v. 19, but it also plays to the theme of rebellion against king and G-d (see discussion of lěmā‘ělāh below). 21 Normally, a ḥǎtěp pataḥ appears under the ‘ayin when ma‘al “rebellion” appears with a suffix (e.g., ma‘ǎlô, “its rebellion”), but see 2 Chr 33:19, ûma‘ělô, “and its rebellion.” 19

42

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

“gloom,” both refer to darkness and ṣārāh, “distress,” and ṣûqāh, “anguish,” both refer to distress. The verse ends with the statement wa’ǎpēlāh měnuddāḥ, “and it is thrust into thick darkness,” which takes ‘am, “people,” as the subject of the verb měnuddāḥ, “thrust out.” The second element of the elaboration on the prophet’s counterassertion in Isa 8:20a appears in Isa 8:23–9:6 which focuses on the results for those who understand and rely on YHWH’s Testimony and Torah. Such persons will understand the situation to mean success for Israel and the House of David. This passage is demarcated by the introductory asseverative kî, “but,” in v. 23 and the shift in imagery from gloom and failure to light and success. Verse 23 constitutes a counter-statement to the failure outlined in vv. 20b–22, the first part of the verse, v. 23aα, constitutes the counter-statement proper. It is commonly translated, “but there will be no gloom (mû‘āp) for her that was in anguish (mûṣāq lāh),” but this translation assumes parallel meanings for mû‘āp, “gloom,” and mě‘ûp, “gloom,” in v. 22 and mûṣāq, “anguish,” and ṣûqāh, “anguish,” in v. 22. Although the parallel appears to be correct for mû‘āp and mě‘ûp, it is not correct for mûsāq and ṣûqāh. Whereas ṣûqāh is a feminine noun derived from the root ṣwq, “to be distressed,” mûṣāq is a hophal participle derived from the root yṣq, “to pour, cast, flow.” In its hophal form, this verb means “to be firmly established” as indicated by its use in Job 11:15 where it is parallel with lō’ tîrā’, “you will be secure (mûṣāq) and will not fear.” A further problem concerns the referent for the third person feminine pronoun of this passage (lāh), here rendered simply as “her.” As noted above, the similar pronoun in v. 21 refers to the hendiadys tôrāh and tě‘ûdāh, “Torah” and “Testimony,” which appears in v. 20 (cf. v. 16). In the present context, “Torah” and “Testimony” provide an adequate antecedent to mûṣāq lāh in that they provide a basis for the optimism expressed here. Likewise, mû‘āp in v. 23 may well be a hophal participle derived from the verb root y‘p, “to be faint, weary” (cf. Dan 9:21). Such a word play on mě‘ûp in v. 22 would provide a parallel with that between mûṣāq and ṣûqāh in vv. 22–23. In addition, it would provide an appropriate contrast with the oppressed and hungry in vv. 21–22. Consequently, v. 23aα should be rendered, “but there is no weariness for whomever is firmly established to it,” i.e., the Torah and Testimony.22 22 The prophet’s use of a word play involving the term ’ereṣ in v. 22 should be noted here. The term ’ereṣ commonly means “land” as translated above, but it is also a common reference to the netherworld in ancient Ugaritic and Hebrew literature (see N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament [Rome: Biblical Institute, 1969], 23–46 for a full discussion). In the present context the use of the term ’ereṣ plays upon the reference to necromancy in v. 19 and the phrase wě‘ābar bâh in v. 21, which is commonly employed in reference to passing through a land (BDB, 717, para. 3a). Furthermore, the references to darkness in vv. 22–23 might suggest a reference

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

43

This is followed by an explanatory statement in v. 23aβ+b that contrasts the experience of those who do not rely on YHWH with the experience of those who do. Verse 23aβ+b is commonly translated, “In the former time (kā‘ēt hāri’šôn) he brought into contempt (hēqal) the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time (wěhā’aḥǎrôn) he will make glorious (hikbîd) the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations” (RSV), Scholars have been correct to see a contrast of images in this verse based on the parallel statements that employ hēqal, “to bring into contempt, despise,” and hikbîd, “to make glorious, honor,” as well as hāri’šôn, “the former,” and wěhā’aḥǎrôn, “the latter.” But there are several problems.23 First, both hēqal and hikbîd are perfect verbal forms and therefore refer to past events, which undermines the distinction between events pertaining to the past and to the future in the RSV translation. Second, ‘ēt, “time,” is a feminine noun but both hāri’šôn and hā’aḥǎrôn are masculine nouns that cannot serve as adjectives for ‘ēt. Emerton, “Some Linguistic and Historical Problems,” 158–160, has demonstrated that the term kā‘ēt must be taken as the equivalent of kě‘attāh, but in pausal form, and translated “now.” This means that “the former” and “the latter” should be understood personally as the subjects of the verbs. According to Emerton, ibid., 168–169, “the former” and “the latter” comprise “totality” so that the two terms refer to “everyone, from first to last.” Others have understood them as references to two kings of Israel or as a reference to Assyria.24 Unfortunately, each of these solutions is inadequate in that they do not account for the larger disputational context of the passage. Rather, the “former” and the “latter” refer to the contrasting positions that have been noted in this context. The “former” designates the position of those who to the netherworld (cf. Job 10:21–22; contra Tromp, Primitive Conceptions, 41–42), but the appearance of the phrase mûṣāq lāh reveals the prophet’s use of word play as part of his rhetorical strategy to argue on behalf of adherence to YHWH’s Torah and Testimony rather than to necromancy. The phrase mûṣāq lāh can only refer to the hendiadys tôrāh and tě‘ûdāh as its antecedent; a reference to ’ereṣ or an unspecified feminine object (RSV) would make no sense. Nevertheless, the use of ’ereṣ in association with wě‘ābar bâh suggests a reference to the netherworld and the disaster that will overtake those who rely on necromancy. But the unusual syntactical relationship between ’ereṣ and wě‘ābar bâh, the parallel between the third feminine singular object pronouns (wě‘ābar) bâh and (mûṣāq) lāh, and the exclusive reference of mûṣāq lāh to “Torah” and “Testimony” indicates the prophet’s intent to advocate adherence to Torah and Testimony throughout the passage. 23 For a full discussion, see Emerton, “Some Linguistic and Historical Problems,” esp. 158–160. 24 Ginsburg, “Unrecognized Allusion”; Driver, “Isaianic Problems”; cf. H. Eshel, “Isaiah VIII 23: An Historical-Geographical Analogy,” VT 40 (1990): 104–109, who argues that the verse refers to Ben-Hadad ben Tabrimmon ben Hezion, King of Damascus, as “the former” and Tiglath-Pileser III as “the latter.”

44

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

rely on mediums and sorcerers whose views lead to darkness and rebellion against king and G-d (vv. 20b–22). The “latter” refers to those who rely on the Torah and Testimony that explain the meaning of Isaiah’s signs (v. 23aα). It should be noted that Alt has argued correctly that “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” is equivalent to “the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” The former terms refer to the Israelite names for the northern part of the kingdom of Israel and the latter refer to the three provinces that the Assyrians carved out of this territory when Tiglath-Pileser III annexed it into the Assyrian empire.25 Consequently, the “way of the sea” refers to Du’ru (Dor), “Galilee of the nations” refers to Magidu (Megiddo), and “the land beyond the Jordan” refers to Gal’azu (Gilead). This has important implications when the verse is considered in relation to the following psalm that celebrates YHWH’s defeat of enemies and the enthronement of the new Davidic king as well as the larger context of 7:2–9:6 which maintains that the Assyrians were brought by YHWH to remove Pekah and Rezin.26 The “former one” who follows the view of the mediums and sorcerers which leads to darkness will “disparage” (hēqal) the Assyrian annexation of this territory as a tragedy and will likely turn against king and G-d for leading the country into such a disaster. The “latter one” who understands Isaiah’s signs properly, however, will “give honor” (hikbîd) to the annexation or recognize that YHWH has brought the Assyrians to remove the threat posed to the House of David by Rezin and Pekah. Such a person will realize that the defeat of the Syro-Ephraimitic coalition opens the way for the Davidic monarchy to reassert its control over the northern kingdom of Israel and thereby to repair a long-standing breach within the Twelve Tribes. The Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving in Isa 9:1–6 builds upon the contrast of light and darkness from the preceding material.27 It begins with an 25 Alt, “Jesaja 8,23–9,6.” According to 2 Kgs 15:29, the conquered territory included Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, the entire region of Naphtali. 26 For a full discussion of the larger context of Isa 7:2–9:6, see M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996). 27 For the identification of Isa 9:1–6 as a psalm of thanksgiving, see H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 148–151. Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 366–367. W. Werner (Eschatologische Texte in Jesaja 1–39: Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker [Würzburg: Echter, 1982], 22–23) correctly challenges the view that Isa 9:1–6 is an individual song of thanksgiving, based on the absence of elements relating to an individual speaker. Because Isa 9:1–6 contains elements of the Individual Song of Thanksgiving, he concludes that it is a mixed form which is based on the thanksgiving form. The relationship between thanksgiving songs

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

45

introductory statement in v. 1 which employs perfect verbs to describe the people’s perception of a great light from the midst of their darkness. The verbs shift to second person perfect forms directed to YHWH in v. 2 to introduce a new section in vv. 2–5 concerning the joy of the people. Verse 2 addresses YHWH and basically states that G-d has “increased the joy28 and made great the celebration.” Verses 3–5 then elaborate on the reasons for this celebration in a series of three statements, each of which is introduced by an explanatory kî, “because,” which explains the basis for the preceding statement. Thus, v. 3 addresses YHWH with second person verbs which explain that G-d has crushed the oppressor of the people. Verse 4 explains v. 3 by referring to destruction of military garments as a signal of the end of war. Verse 5 then announces the “birth” or enthronement of a new Davidic king as the reason for the era of peace. Verse 6 differs from the preceding material by employing an imperfect verbal form (ta‘ǎśeh, “it shall do, accomplish”) to announce YHWH’s guarantee that the new monarch’s reign will experience “peace without end” and “justice” and “righteousness” forever.

III The overarching genre of Isa 8:16–9:6 is prophetic instruction concerning YHWH’s signs to Israel and the House of David. The primary criterion for identifying the instruction genre in this passage is the content, insofar as the passage is designed to explain the significance of the “signs” (i.e., Isaiah and his children) to an unspecified audience.29 Formal criteria also indicate that this is an example of the instruction genre in that the various sub-genres of this passage are typical elements of instruction speech and facilitate its goals. The announcement of Isaiah’s intention to wait for YHWH in 8:16–17 begins with imperative commands to “bind the Torah/seal the Testimony” in 8:16. These commands are not only typical examples of instructional language, but their concern with Torah, “instruction,” and Testimony idenand songs of praise, however, indicates that Isa 9:1–6 is a hymn of praise with thanksgiving elements. On the relationship between the two genres, see O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of Its Results and Problems (trans. J. Sturdy; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 331–332, 336–337; E. Gerstenberger, Psalms. Part 1: With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 14– 16. Although this is not a pure example of the individual thanksgiving form, the presence of the many thanksgiving elements in 9:1–6 and the references to the Davidic monarch indicate that it is a royal psalm of thanksgiving. 28 Read haggîlāh, “the joy,” for haggôy lō’, “the nation not” (cf. BHS). 29 Note Irvine’s suggestion that the audience may be the Davidic House (Isaiah, 205).

46

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

tifies the basic concern with the signs that YHWH has given to Israel (cf. 8:17). That Torah and Testimony refer to these signs is evident from their present context which refers to the gillāyôn gādôl, “large scroll,” that Isaiah was commanded to write in 8:1. Insofar as this document contains the record of YHWH’s signs to Israel, the command to bind and seal it and the announcement that Isaiah will wait for YHWH indicate the prophet’s interest in preserving it until the sign is confirmed. The basis for the announcement in 8:18–9:6 comprises the essential instructional material of this passage. It begins with an assertion that Isaiah and his children are “signs” and “portents” in Israel (8:18). Not only does this assertion indicate the focus of the passage on explaining the significance of the signs, it also serves a rhetorical function as a proposition whose validity must be confirmed or denied. The following disputation in 8:19–9:6 functions accordingly in that its purpose is to invalidate the competing claim that reliance should be placed in mediums and sorcerers rather than in YHWH and the signs. Consequently, v. 19 quotes the people’s contention that mediums and sorcerers or necromancers should be consulted in the current situation of crisis. The balance of the unit in 8:20–9:6 then evaluates the relative merits of the competing claims. It begins in v. 20a with Isaiah’s counter-assertion in the form of an implicit command to rely on Torah and Testimony, hence, on YHWH’s signs. Isaiah 8:20b–9:6 then elaborates on Isaiah’s counterassertion by challenging the position of those who rely on mediums and sorcerers to understand the meaning of the present situation and by asserting the position of those who rely on YHWH’s signs. According to vv. 20b–22, those who reject or neglect the Torah/Testimony will see only the negative side of the situation, the oppression and hunger caused by the invasion of the land, and this will cause them to rebel against their king and G-d (cf. Exod 22:28). When they gaze at the land, they see darkness, an image used elsewhere to describe the invading Assyrian army (Isa 5:30). Following the evaluation of this popular position, Isa 8:23–9:6 states that there will be no darkness for those who rely on the Torah/Testimony, which indicates that such persons will realize YHWH’s beneficial action in bringing about the Assyrian invasion. This becomes clear in v. 23aβ+b where the two positions are contrasted with regard to their evaluation of the Assyrian annexation of northern Israelite territory during the SyroEphraimitic War. The former, those who do not rely on YHWH’s signs, will see this action as a disaster insofar as they will despise the annexation of the lands of Zebulun and Naphtali. The latter, however, will welcome it insofar as they give honor to the Way of the Sea, Trans-Jordan, and Galilee of the Nations, employing Hebrew equivalents for the Assyrian provincial names. The validity of this view is then reinforced by the Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving that concludes the passage in 9:1–6. The psalm celebrates

47

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

the enthronement of a new Davidic monarch against the background of thanksgiving to YHWH for relieving the country from oppression by its enemies. This indicates the ultimate significance of the sign, especially Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, “the spoil speeds, the prey hastens.” Not only will the Assyrian invasion bring hardship to the country, it will also relieve Israel and the Davidic dynasty of the threat posed by the Syro-Ephraimitic coalition. The annexation of the northern districts and the removal of Pekah ben Remaliah from the throne opens the way for the Davidic monarch to reassert authority over the northern kingdom of Israel and finally to bring peace to the land. For Isaiah, a proper understanding of the recorded signs entails acceptance of the suffering caused by the Assyrian invasion as the price to be paid for the return of the northern kingdom (i.e., Shear Yashub, “a remnant will return”) to the Davidic dynasty (i.e., Immanuel, “G-d is with us”).30 Structure Diagram Prophetic Instruction concerning YHWH’s Signs to Israel, and the House of David (Isaiah 8:16–9:6) I. Announcement of intention to wait for YHWH A. Command to bind/seal Testimony/Torah B. Explanation: wait for YHWH II. Basis for announcement: instruction concerning the significance of YHWH’s signs to Israel and the House of David A. Opening assertion: Isaiah and his children are signs from YHWH B. Disputation concerning significance of signs: deliverance for Israel and the House of David 1. Quotation of the opposing position: reliance on mediums and sorcerers (necromancy) 2. Refutation: inefficacy of reliance on mediums and sorcerers versus efficacy of reliance on YHWH’s Testimony/Torah a. Basic instruction: to Torah and Testimony b. Concerning results of people’s failure to rely on Torah and Testimony: failure, rebellion, and darkness 1) Introductory statement: oath/conditional statement concerning failure of people’s reliance on mediums and sorcerers 2) Elaboration concerning failure of people’s position

8:16–17 8:16 8:17 8:18–9:6 8:18 8:19–9:6 8:19 8:20–9:6 8:20a 8:20b–22 8:20b 8:21–22

30 This is a revised version of papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Jewish Studies (Boston, December 16–18, 1990) and the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Rome, July 14–17, 1991). I would like to express my gratitude to Klaus Baltzer, Moshe Greenberg. Robert Haak, and David Wright for their judicious comments and suggestions. Naturally, they are not to be held accountable for the interpretations offered here.

48

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah a) They shall neglect it oppressed and hungry b) Consequence: rebellion against king and God c) Consequence: consignment to darkness in the land c. Concerning results for those who rely on YHWH’s Testimony and Torah: success for Israel and the House of David 1) Counterstatement concerning success for those who rely on YHWH’s Testimony and Torah a) Counterstatement proper b) Explanation concerning contrasting views of Assyria’s annexation of northern Israelite territory (1) First case: those who do not rely on YHWH disparage annexation of the lands of Zebulun and Naphtali (2) Second case: those who rely on YHWH welcome annexation of Way of the Sea, Trans-Jordan, and Galilee 2) Illustration: Royal Psalm of Thanksgiving concerning YHWH’s deliverance of Israel and establishment of a Davidic Monarch a) Introductory statement: people have seen a great light b) Elaboration of concerning joy of people (1) Basic statement: YHWH has given joy to the people (2) Basis: crushed oppression (3) Basis: cessation of war (4) Basis: enthronement of a Davidic monarch c) Concluding promise: peaceful rule of Davidic monarch guaranteed by YHWH

8:21a 8:21b 8:22 8:23–9:6 8:23 8:23aα 8:23aβ+b 8:23aβ 8:23aγ+b 9:1–6 9:1 9:2–5 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:6

Translation: Isaiah 8:16–9:6 8:16) Bind up the Testimony, seal the Instruction among my teachings 17) and I will wait for YHWH who hides his face from the House of Jacob and I will hope for him. 8:18) Behold/Here am I and the children which YHWH has given to me as signs and portents in Israel from YHWH of Hosts who dwells on Mt. Zion. 8:19) And if they say to you, “ Inquire of the mediums and sorcerers who chirp and moan, shall a people not inquire unto its spirits/gods? On behalf of the living unto the dead?” 8:20a) To the Torah and to the Testimony! 8:20b) Surely, if they will say a thing like this which lacks dawn/ inquiry/efficacy, 21) then it (the people) shall neglect it (Torah/Testimony) oppressed and hungry and it shall be that when it (the people) is hungry, then it shall become incensed and curse its king and its G-d/spirits and it shall turn to rebellion. 22) And to the land it (the people) shall look and

2. A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6

49

behold/there is distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and it (the people) is thrust into thick darkness. 8:23) But there is no weariness for whomever is firmly established to it (Torah/Testimony). Now the former (he who rejects Torah/Testimony) disparages the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali but the latter (he who understands Torah/Testimony) honors/values the Way of the Sea, TransJordan, Galilee of the Nations. 9:1) The people who walk in darkness have seen a great light, those inhabiting a land of deep darkness, light shines upon them. 9:2) You have increased the rejoicing, you have made great the celebration. They celebrate before you like the celebration at harvest time, as they rejoice when they divide spoil. 9:3) Because the yoke of his burden and the rod of his shoulder, the staff of the one who oppresses him, you have broken as on the Day of Midian. 9:4) Because every boot strapped on in conflict/agitation and garment rolled in blood shall be (consigned to) fire, food (for) flame. 9:5) Because a boy has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and responsibility is upon his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father, Ruler of Peace. 9:6) There is no end to the amount of responsibility and peace upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it and to secure it with justice and righteousness, now and forever. The zeal of YHWH of Hosts shall accomplish this.

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah I When compared to its sister text in Isa 9:1–6, Isa 11:1–16 presents major theological and literary problems. Although both passages contribute to the messianic aspects of the book by speaking of a coming Davidic monarch, Isaiah 11 takes a much more militant stance than that of its counterpart in that it projects Israelite domination of various nations together with the return of the exiles and the restoration of Israel. Consequently, scholars are reluctant to assign much of the chapter to Isaiah, who is generally regarded as a prophet of peace. Large portions of the chapter, particularly vv. 10– 16, are usually assigned to the post-exilic period because of their emphasis on the restoration of Israel. Scholars are divided over vv. 1–5 or 1–9; many maintain that this material reflects Isaiah’s language and vision of a future monarch whereas others maintain that such idealism must also be the product of post-exilic hopes for restoration.1 This situation is anomalous in that various factors militate against dividing Isaiah 11 or separating it from its present literary context. The image of the new “shoot” in v. 1 clearly ties into that of the dismembered Assyrian tree in Isa 10:5–34; likewise, references to the “rod” (‫ )שבט‬by which the righteous monarch rules in v. 4 and the “remnant” (‫ )שאר‬that will be gathered from Assyria and Egypt in v. 11 contrast with the oppressive “rod” of Assyria in Isa 10:5 and the projection that Assyria will become a “remnant” of a withered forest in Isa 10:18–19. There are also obstacles to placing Isaiah 11 either in the time of the prophet or in the post-exilic era. The explicit references to the return of exiles from punished Assyria and Egypt (vv. 11, 15–16) are difficult to understand either in relation to the time of 1

For a review of research on Isa 11:1–9, see R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39 (EdF 200; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983), 10–12; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT 10.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 442–443; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1977–1978), 1:269– 270. Verses 10, 11–16 are almost universally regarded as post-exilic (see for example Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:279; Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 439, 466–467).

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

51

Isaiah, when Egypt was a potential Judean ally, or in the post-exilic period when the return of exiles from Babylonia would be the object of greater concern. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Isaiah would think about the domination of the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites and Ammonites at a time when Judah’s very existence was at stake, and by the post-exilic period, these nations had virtually ceased to exist. Finally, the image of the recovery of a disrupted Davidic dynasty hardly applies to the eighth century when no Davidic monarch was removed from the throne, and the image of a “small youth” (‫נער קטן‬, v. 6) as monarch hardly applies to the post-exilic period. A resolution to this dilemma appears in relation to recent research concerning the presence of a seventh-century “Josianic” or “Assyrian” redaction within Isaiah 1–39. According to this hypothesis, substantial amounts of material in chs. 1–39, and especially in chs. 5–12, are the product of a seventh-century redaction that presents the downfall of Assyria and the rise of Judah under King Josiah (639–609 B.C.E.) as the objects and ultimate fulfillments of the prophecies of Isaiah ben Amoz.2 This paper will argue that Isa 11:1–16 is the product of this seventh century redaction and that it represents an attempt to reinterpret Isaiah’s prophecies in relation to the rise of Josiah’s Judah.3 First, it will establish the relationship of Isaiah 11 to its literary context, particularly Isa 10:5–34. Secondly, it will examine internal references in Isaiah 11 that demonstrate the Josianic origin of Isaiah 11. Thirdly, it will consider the hermeneutical perspective by which Isaiah 11 reinterprets Isaiah’s prophecies, particularly the anti-Assyrian oracle in Isa 10:5–34.

2

On the “Josianic” redaction of Isaiah 1–39, see H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977); Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCeB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980); G. T. Sheppard, “The Anti-Assyrian Redaction and the Canonical Context of Isaiah 1–39,” JBL 104 (1985): 193–216. On the “Josianic” redaction of Isa 5:1–10:4, see C. E. L’Heureux, “The Redactional History of Isaiah 5:1–10:4,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 99–119; cf. B. W. Anderson, “G-d with Us” – In Judgment and Mercy: The Editorial Structure of Isaiah 5–10(11),” in Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (ed. G. M. Tucker et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 230–245. 3 Although Vermeylen argues that Isa 11:1–5 stems from the seventh-century redaction in the time of Josiah, he assigns the balance of the chapter to post-exilic rereadings of Isaiah (Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:269–280).

52

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

II Although Isa 11:1–16 is generally treated as a distinct textual unit, a number of syntactical and thematic features indicate that it constitutes several components of a larger textual unit in Isa 10:5–12:6. Isaiah 10:5–12:6 in turn constitutes the concluding sub-unit of the textual block Isaiah 5–12.4 Isaiah 10:5–12:6 begins with an introductory ‫ הוי‬against Assyria in Isa 10:5 that distinguishes the following material from the “outstretched hand” oracles of Isa 9:7–10:4 which are directed against Israel. Various syntactical features of the passage bind its sub-units together. These include the conjunctive waw “and,” in 10:12; 11:1; and 12:1, the conjunctive ‫לכן‬, “therefore,” in 10:16, 24, and the conjunctive formula ‫והיה ביום ההוא‬, “and it shall come to pass in that day,” in 10:20, 27; 11:10, 11 (cf. 12:1, 4). The introductory ‫והיה‬, “and it shall come to pass,” indicates that each of the ‫ ביום ההוא‬formulas refer back to the statement concerning YHWH’s work on Mt. Zion and the intention to punish Assyria introduced by the statement, ‫והיה כי יבצע אדני‬, “and it shall come to pass when my L-rd accomplishes …” (10:12). The superscription in Isa 13:1 introduces an entirely new section of oracles against the nations in the Book of Isaiah. Thematic features, including the use of tree-trimming imagery5 and the contrast of the oppressive Assyrian monarch with the righteous Davidic monarch also indicate the unity of Isa 10:5–12:6 in its present form. Because of the Assyrian monarch’s boasts, Isa 10:12 portrays him as a large overgrown tree in need of trimming. Isaiah 10:15–19 employs similar imagery to portray Assyria as a rebellious ax or saw as well as a forest that will suffer YHWH’s burning. Isaiah 10:27 points to Assyria’s fullness or fatness as a basis for the statement that Assyria will be trimmed or cut down in Isa 10:33–34. The phrase ‫ וחבל על מפני שמן‬in Isa 10:27b is problematic in that the reference to ‫שמן‬, “oil” or “fatness,” seems to make little sense to scholars, who attempt to identify it as the first of a series of place names in Isa 10:27b–32.6 But ‫ שמן‬makes perfect sense when it is 4 On the definition of the textual block Isaiah 5–12, see M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171: Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1988), 37–44. 5 On the use of tree imagery in Isaiah 1–39 in general and in Isa 10:5–12:6 in particular, see K. Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), esp. 123–144, 187–201. 6 Based upon the belief that ‫ מפני שמן‬here refers to a place name, scholars have attempted to emend the text to ‫מפני רמון עלה‬, “he has gone up from Rimmon,” or other place names such Samaria, Beth-El, Yeshimon and so on, in an attempt to reconstruct the beginning of the invader’s itinerary portrayed in Isa 10:27b–32. But the versions contain no readings that might suggest an alternate text, and the text must stand according to the MT. For a full discussion of the problem, see D. Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’ancien testament. Tome II: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO 50.2; Freiburg: Editions

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

53

considered in relation to the tree imagery employed throughout the larger ֶ , derived from the root ‫שמן‬, “to context of Isa 10:5–12:6. The noun ‫ש ֶמן‬ make fat,” generally indicates fertility or abundance and is frequently employed in reference to olive oil and trees.7 This is particularly important in that Isa 10:33–34 employs the imagery of a large tree that is to be pruned by beating its high branches and thicket with iron. Beating an olive tree with rods was apparently one means of recovering the olive harvest in antiquity, although this procedure often resulted in the loss of many upper branches.8 Thus ‫ שמן‬in Isa 10:27 appears to refer to the “oil” or “fatness” of an olive tree that is ripe for harvest. Verses 33–34 merely describe the punishment of the Assyrian monarch by employing the imagery of an overripe olive tree that will be beaten, harvested and trimmed back.9 Isaiah 11:1–9 then presents the new shoot of the House of David that will result from the pruning of the Assyrian, and thereby contrasts the peace and absence of destruction on Mt. Zion under the Davidic monarch (cf. esp. 11:9) with the destructive purpose of the Assyrian monarch and his threats against Zion (cf. esp. 10:7, 10–11, 32). The passage concludes with a portrayal of the restoration of Israel and a hymn of thanksgiving. The structure of Isa 10:5–12:6 is determined by an interest in announcing the punishment of the Assyrians and the future consequences of that punishment, including the fall of the Assyrian monarch and the rise of the Davidic monarch. Consequently, the passage comprises two major sections: the woe oracle in Isa 10:5–11 announces Assyria’s punishment, and Isa 10:12–12:6, characterized by its future oriented language in 10:12, 20, 27; 11:10, 11; 12:1, 4, announces the consequences of that punishment for both Assyria and Israel. Each of the above-mentioned examples of the ‫ביום ההוא‬ formula serves as a major structural marker within the larger framework of Isa 10:12–12:6. The announcement of punishment against the Assyrian monarch in Isa 10:12–19 is followed by four sub-units which elaborate upon universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 77–78; S. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS 123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 276– 277. 7 See Deut 8:8; 1 Kgs 6:23, 31, 32, 33; Isa 41:19; Neh 8:15. 8 See “Olive,” EncJud 12:1364–1366, for a description of the olive harvest in antiquity. Note also that the term for beating in Isa 10:34 is ‫ונקף‬, which stems from the same root used in Isa 17:6 (‫נקף‬, cf. Isa 24:13) for the beating of olive trees at harvest time. The use of the terms ‫שבט‬, “rod,” and ‫מטה‬, “staff,” to describe the beating of Assyria in Isa 10:2426 (cf. Isa 10:5) likewise relates to the olive harvest in that such rods were employed to beat the olive trees. Cf. Isa 28:27 which refers to the “rod” (‫ )שבט‬and “staff” (‫ )מטה‬used to harvest cumin. 9 Note the reference to the “fruit of the arrogance of the heart” attributed to the Assyrian monarch in Isa 10:12 which YHWH promises to punish. This statement apparently contributes to the analogy between the Assyrian monarch and the harvested olive tree in this passage.

54

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

the consequences of the Assyrian king’s fall. Isaiah 10:20–26 describes the future relief of the remnant of Israel from Assyrian oppression; Isa 10:27– 11:9 describes the future fall of the Assyrian monarch in contrast to the rise of the Davidic king;10 Isa 11:10 describes the nations’ future recognition of the Davidic monarch; Isa 11:11–16 describes the future restoration of Israel; Isa 12:1–6 comprises a concluding hymn of thanksgiving.11 Although Isa 10:5–12:6 includes a number of generic elements, including the woe oracle against Assyria in 10:5–11, the announcement of judgment against Assyria in 10:12–19, and the hymn of thanksgiving in 12:1–6, the overarching genre of the entire passage appears to be based in the announcement of a royal savior. This is evident from the basic structure of the passage with its future-oriented language which presents the emergence of the new Davidic monarch in 11:1–9 and the consequent recognition by the nations and restoration of Israel in 11:10, 11–16 as the climax of the passage. The announcement of a royal savior is a typical form used throughout the ancient Near East to announce the inauguration of the reign of a new king.12 It is generally set in the royal court, and it focuses on a description of the positive attributes of the new king’s rule with special emphasis on the justice of the new king’s decisions and the peace that will result from his rule. Naturally, a description of the prior ills of the land frequently precedes the idyllic picture of the new monarch’s regime.13 Although the preceding arguments do not require that Isa 11:1–16 was composed together with Isa 10:5–34, they clearly demonstrate that the chapter is closely related to its present literary context. This is particularly important in that Isa 11:1–16 constitutes the climactic passage not only within the immediate context of Isa 10:5–34, but within the larger context of chs. 5–12. Obviously, this has important implications for the overall interpretation of the passage.

10 For the relationship between Isaiah 10 and 11, see Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 57–76; Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree, 123–140. Note that the converted perfect verbs of the waw-consecutive verbal chain in Isa 11:1 (‫)ויצא‬, 2 (‫)ונחה‬, 3 (‫)והרחו‬, 4 (‫)וספט‬, 5 (‫)והיה‬, and 6 (‫ )וגר‬presuppose the imperfect verbal forms ‫ ישפלו‬and ‫ יפלו‬in Isa 10:33–34. They thereby present the rise of the righteous Davidic monarch as the direct result of the fall of the oppressive Assyrian monarch. 11 Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 478–479. 12 For example, “The Prophecy of Neferti,” ANET, 444–446. 13 For a full discussion of the announcement of a royal savior, see Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 440–441.

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

55

III Although Isa 11:1–16 clearly relates to its present literary context in Isa 10:5–12:6, particularly to 10:5–34, there is evidence of historical tension within 10:5–12:6 that suggests its composite nature. Whereas Isa 11:1–16 focuses especially on the rise of the Davidic monarchy in the overall context of the restoration of Israel, Isa 10:5–34 focuses on YHWH’s defense of Zion and the punishment of Assyria. Both sections share an interest in the restoration of Israel and the centrality of Zion, but Isa 10:5–34 shows no interest whatsoever in the Davidic monarchy. It focuses instead on YHWH’s authority as the essential antithesis to Assyrian claims of hegemony. These considerations in and of themselves do not demonstrate that Isa 10:5–34 and 11:1–16 (+ 12:1–6) were composed in different historical settings, but a number of other factors indicate that Isa 11:1–16 was composed during the reign of King Josiah and that Isa 10:5–34 is based on a composition by Isaiah ben Amoz. Vermeylen has already argued that Isa 11:1–5 stems from the late seventh-century redaction of Isaiah,14 but the following considerations demonstrate that the whole of Isa 11:1–16 must be attributed to the Josianic redaction. First, many scholars note that the passage presupposes a threat to the Davidic dynasty as indicated by its reference to a “stump” (‫ )גזע‬or “root” (‫ )שרש‬from which a new “shoot” (‫ )חטר‬or “sprout” (‫ )נצר‬must grow.15 Such imagery presupposes that the threat very nearly succeeded in that it portrays a tree that has been nearly destroyed but is still capable of rejuvenating itself. Although the Davidic dynasty was certainly threatened by the Syro-Ephraimitic coalition in 735–732 B.C.E., the threat never reached a point at which a ruling Davidic monarch was killed or removed from the throne. Instead, the threat to the dynasty was averted when the SyroEphraimitic coalition failed to install a certain ben Tabeel on the Judean throne (cf. Isa 7:6). Furthermore, the literary context of Isa 11:1–16 indicates that the threat to the dynasty comes from Assyria, not from the Syro-Ephraimitic coalition. The Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701 B.C.E. may well have threatened the Davidic dynasty, but neither Sennacherib’s annals nor the biblical tradition give any indication that he attempted to remove Hezekiah from the throne.16 On the other hand, such a scenario

14

See Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:269–275. For example, Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 121–122. 16 Sennacherib’s annals indicate that Hezekiah delivered greater tribute to the Assyrian monarch and even his own daughters and concubines, but there is no suggestion that Hezekiah’s position as monarch, or that of the Davidic dynasty, was threatened. For Sennacherib’s annals and building inscriptions, see ANET, 287–288; ARAB II, sec. 239–240, 15

56

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

corresponds well to the reign of Josiah. His father Amon was assassinated in a coup by his “servants” which was apparently motivated by an interest in reversing Manasseh’s policy of subservience to the weakening Assyrian empire (2 Kgs 22:19–26; 2 Chr 33:21–25). Nevertheless, “the people of the land” defeated the coup attempt and restored the eight-year-old Josiah to the throne. Josiah’s age at the time and the fact that no brother, uncle or other Davidic figure exercised authority during his minority suggests that Josiah was the only Davidic heir to survive the attempted coup.17 The imagery of new growth in Isaiah 11 signified by a “shoot” or “sprout” corresponds well to the circumstances that brought Josiah to the throne. Secondly, the passage makes specific mention of a “small youth (‫נער‬ ‫ )קטן‬leading them” in v. 6b (cf. v. 8). The imagery of normally antagonistic wild animals resting harmlessly together is commonly employed in the announcement of a royal savior genre to depict the new king’s reign.18 Although references to the birth of a child are not unknown to the genre, the portrayal of a small boy and his leading role is striking in this context. Again, it suggests an allusion to the boy-king Josiah. Thirdly, the emphasis on the new king’s justice and wisdom is certainly not remarkable in a text concerned with the reign of a new Near Eastern monarch; kings promulgate law codes.19 But it is noteworthy that one of the major features of Josiah’s reform was the establishment of a newly found book of law as its basis (2 Kgs 22:8–20; 2 Chr 34:8–33). Fourthly, Isa 11:1–16 emphasizes the cessation of enmity between Ephraim and Judah, their reunification, and the re-establishment of Davidic authority over Philistia to the west and Edom, Moab and Ammon to the east. These verses further emphasize the punishment of Egypt and Assyria in the context of the return of the exiles from these countries. This scenario corresponds precisely to Josiah’s attempt to rebuild the Davidic empire in the face of opposition from Egypt and Assyria in the late seventh century.20 284, 347. For the biblical accounts of this campaign, see Isaiah 36–39; 2 Kgs 18:13– 20:19; 2 Chronicles 32. 17 Cf. Athaliah’s attempted coup against the Davidic dynasty as narrated in 2 Kings 11. All of the Davidic House perished in the coup attempt with the exception of the seven-year-old Jehoash who was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba and later restored to the throne. 18 Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 378, 440–441. 19 Cf. the prologue to the law code of Hammurabi, ANET, 164–165. 20 The same scenario appears in Zeph 2:4–15 with mention of the same nations (with the exception of Edom). Zephaniah likewise appears to support Josiah’s reform and political ambitions (see D. L. Christensen, “Zephaniah 2:4–15: A Theological Basis for Josiah’s Program of Political Expansion,” CBQ 46 [1984]: 669–682; M. A. Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah,” CBQ 53 [1991]: 388–408 = below pp. 303–322). Recent arguments by N. Na‘aman (“The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah,” Tel Aviv 18 [1991]: 3–71) and J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes (A History of Ancient

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

57

His dismantling of the altar at Beth-El indicates his interest in reclaiming the territory and population of the former northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 23:15–20). His marriage to Hamutal of Libnah (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:18) indicates an interest in securing the Shephelah and Philistine regions and his marriage to Zebidah of Rumah (2 Kgs 23:36) indicates his interest in securing the north and the Trans-Jordan.21 Furthermore, as Assyrian power weakened during the course of the late seventh century, Egypt emerged as the major obstacle to Josiah’s ambitions and eventually caused his death at Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:28–30).22 Finally, the interest in traditions pertaining to the exodus is apparent in both Isa 11:1–16 and Isa 12:1–6. Isaiah 11:1–16 refers to YHWH’s smiting of Egypt and Assyria in order to recover Israelite and Judean exiles and to restore Israelite hegemony over the former Davidic empire. Several motifs from the exodus tradition appear in this context. The smiting of “the tongue of the sea of Egypt” (v. 15aα) calls to mind the division of the sea in Exodus 14. The reference to the “burning wind” that YHWH will employ against the Euphrates River of Assyria (v. 15aα) recalls the east wind that divided the sea and defeated the Egyptians in Exod 14:21; 15:8. Likewise, the “waving” of YHWH’s hand in a context that refers to the “ensign” (‫;נס‬ Isa 11:10, 12; cf. Isa 5:26) to the nations calls to mind Moses’ outstretched hand that resulted in the defeat of the Amalekites in Exod 17:8–16. The altar erected to commemorate Israel’s victory over the Amalekites was called “YHWH is my ensign” (‫)ה״ נסי‬. The “highway” for the return of the remnant of the people from Egypt and Assyria (v. 16a) recalls the King’s Highway used by Israel in the Wilderness traditions to journey to the land of Canaan (Exod 15:13–18; Num 20:17–19; 21:22). Isaiah 11:16b makes the analogy explicit by noting that the return of the exiles will take place “just as it was for Israel on the day of its going up from the land of Egypt.” Likewise, Isa 12:1–6 quotes an altered version of Exod 15:2a (cf. Ps 118:14) in v. 2b and v. 5a corresponds to Exod 15:1b. Verse 4a quotes Ps 105:1 which praises YHWH for leading Israel out from Egypt at the exodus. This interest in the exodus tradition is particularly noteworthy in relation to the reign of King Josiah. As 2 Kgs 23:21–23 and 2 Chr 35:1–19 Israel and Judah [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 388–390) that Josiah did not attempt to resurrect the Davidic empire correctly note that Josiah did not succeed in this ambition, but they fail to demonstrate that this was not his intention. The evidence cited here indicates that such political ambitions were indeed among the goals of Josiah's program, even if he failed to realize them. 21 On the political significance of Josiah’s marriages, see J. A. Wilcoxen, “The Political Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 151–166. 22 On Egyptian influence in Syro-Palestine during the reign of Josiah, see A. Malamat, “Josiah’s Bid for Armageddon,” JANESCU 5 (1973): 267–278.

58

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

indicate, the celebration of Passover served as the festival basis for Josiah’s reform. Insofar as Passover celebrates the exodus of Jews from Egypt and their return to the land of Israel, this holiday would be particularly important to the ideology of Josiah’s program of religious reform and national restoration. These considerations establish quite a parallel between the major concerns of Isa 11:1–16 (+ 12:1–6) and those of King Josiah’s program of reform and restoration. When taken together with the objections to Isaianic and post-exilic composition of the passage mentioned above, one must conclude that Isa 11:1–16 (+ 12:1–6) were composed during the reign of King Josiah in order to support his program of religious reform and national restoration. Although many scholars consider Isa 10:20–26 to be redactional additions,23 several factors indicate that Isa 10:5–34 is based on a composition by Isaiah ben Amoz. The speeches by the Assyrian monarch quoted in Isa 10:8–11 and 10:13–14 make reference to a number of cities that were taken by the Assyrian army during the late eighth century. With the exception of Jerusalem, the cities referred to were taken by 717 B.C.E. at the latest. Thus, the Hittite city of Carchemish was taken by Sargon II in 717, and the north Syrian city of Calno was taken by Tiglath-Pileser III in 738. Hamath, on the Orontes River in Syria, was taken by Sargon in 720 and Arpad, in north Syria, fell to Tiglath-Pileser in 738 and again to Sargon in 720. Damascus fell to Tiglath-Pileser in 734, and Samaria was taken by Tiglath-Pileser or Sargon in 722–721. A clear pattern emerges in which the conquests of Sargon II are grouped with those of Tiglath-Pileser III. Of course, we cannot be certain that the Isaiah text represents a quotation of the words of an Assyrian monarch,24 but it is well known that Sargon was a usurper of the Assyrian throne who strove to strengthen the Assyrian empire and thereby to legitimate his position as monarch.25 A comparison by Sargon of his achievements with those of Tiglath-Pileser III, who initiated the rise of the neo-Assyrian empire in the late eighth century, would certainly correspond with his interest to secure his throne. Although Sargon never mounted a full assault against Jerusalem, he passed through the region on various occasions from 720 to 711 in order to secure his borders and trade relations 23

For example, Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 43–49, 287–288, 292–294; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 114–117; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:262–265; Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 412–422. 24 See P. Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983): 719–737, who argues that the language employed here reflects that of neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. 25 On the reign of Sargon II, see W. W. Hallo and W. K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1971), 55 (n. 46), 138–143; P. Machinist, “Sargon II,” HBD1, 907–908.

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

59

with Egypt and to put down revolts by the Philistines. It is likely that the statements referred to in Isa 10:5–19 reflect an actual attempt by Sargon to intimidate Jerusalem in order to prevent potential resistance or support for a Philistine revolt.26 The itinerary of terrified cities mentioned in Isa 10:28–32 reinforces this view. Although these verses have often been related to Sennacherib’s campaign of 701, the fact that he conducted his campaign from Lachish and the Philistine plain militates against the march of an army from the north along the Shechem/Beth-El highway to Jerusalem as depicted here.27 Attempts to claim that this text represents the invasion route of the Syro-Ephraimitic coalition against Jerusalem in 735 must also be rejected as the context clearly indicates an Assyrian invader.28 It seems best to view this route in relation to Sargon’s western campaign of 720 in which he suppressed revolt in upper Syria, Damascus and Samaria, prior to moving against the Philistines in the south. A pass by Jerusalem would present the opportunity to display his army at Nob (present-day Mt. Scopus) with its commanding view of Jerusalem. Such a move would demonstrate to the Judean monarch the folly of attempting to resist the new Assyrian monarch. It would likewise secure Sargon’s rear prior to his advance against Philistia. Such a strategy is consistent with the route outlined in Isa 10:28–32, which bypasses the Judean stronghold at Mizpah. A protracted siege of Mizpah or Jerusalem would only delay Sargon and allow the Egyptians to move their forces in support of Philistia.29 In its present form, Isa 10:5–34 may well be the product of the Josianic redaction. But the preceding arguments indicate that this text, particularly vv. 5–19 and 27–34, stems originally from Isaiah ben Amoz.

IV Although Isa 10:5–12:6 contains several distinct textual sub-units that derive from different historical settings, the present form of this text constitutes a structurally and generically coherent text that was composed as a part of the seventh-century Josianic redaction of the prophecies of Isaiah ben Amoz. This has certain implications for the reading of this text, both in and of itself and in relation to its literary context. 26

Cf. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 109–110. For the details of this route, see G. Dalman, “Palästinische Wege und die Bedrohung Jerusalems nach Jesaja 10,” PJ 12 (1916): 37–57. 28 See H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern (VTSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964), 30–38; Irvine, Isaiah, 274–279. 29 For a detailed presentation of this position, see M. A. Sweeney, “Sargon’s Threat against Jerusalem in Isaiah 10,27–32,” Bib 75 (1994): 457–470. 27

60

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

First, it is quite clear that by composing Isa 11:1–12:6 as the conclusion for Isa 10:5–34, the Josianic redactors intended to present King Josiah and his planned restoration of Israel as the fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah ben Amoz. This is evident from the juxtaposition of Isaiah’s prophecies concerning YHWH’s planned judgment against Assyria and the Assyrian monarch for hubris with the Josianic announcement of the coming of a royal savior who would restore Israel and Judah. The rise of Josiah’s kingdom coincides with the fall of the Assyrian empire in the latter part of the seventh century. Although Isaiah ben Amoz spoke in the late eighth century, the Josianic redaction presents him as anticipating events of the late seventh century. According to the Josianic redaction, Isaiah prophesied Josiah’s reign and his program for national restoration. This is accomplished not only by the juxtaposition of textual sub-units, but by thematic development pertaining to the harvest and pruning of an olive tree as well. The use of tree imagery to depict the fall of Assyria in Isa 10:5–34 is well known, but scholars have noted some tension in the transition of this image from ch. 10 to ch. 11. Whereas ch. 10 portrays the fall of Assyria in relation to the felling of a forest of cedars of Lebanon (esp. vv. 15–19, 33–34), ch. 11 portrays the growth of the new Davidic monarch from a single shoot or stump. This discrepancy provides evidence for scholars who wish to assert the presence of a redactional link between chs. 10 and 11.30 Sargon II was well known for his logging operations in Lebanon and Armenia to supply wood for his palace at Dur Sharrukin, and this imagery apparently explains the use of the tree-felling metaphor by Isaiah in ch. 10 to depict the punishment of the Assyrian monarch.31 But when read in relation to the lopping off of upper boughs (10:33–34), the “fatness” or “oil” of the “Assyrian” tree (10:27), and the motif of the beating “rod” or “staff” (10:5, 20–26), the new shoot in Isa 11:1 presents the image of an olive tree renewing its growth after it has been harvested by beating (and lopping off) its boughs. Such imagery is particularly striking in relation to Assyria’s use of the Shephelah and the former Philistine regions as a major olive oil production center during the seventh century

30 For example, Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 57–76; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:265–275. Contra Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree, 123–140, who argues that the imagery is consistent and that it stems from Isaiah, but that it lends itself to reinterpretation in later historical contexts. 31 See A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 272–274. Cf. Isa 14:8 in which the cedars of Lebanon rejoice at the fall of the Babylonian monarch because no hewer will come against them. According to H. L. Ginsberg (“Reflexes of Sargon in Isaiah after 715 B.C.E.,” in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser [ed. W. W. Hallo; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1968], 47–53), Isa 14:4b–21 was originally written in reference to the death of Sargon II in 705 B.C.E.

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

61

B.C.E.32

The fact that a significant portion of the population of the former northern kingdom of Israel was shifted to this region in order to support olive oil production only adds to the significance of this image in relation to the Josianic redaction of Isaiah. Just as Assyria had employed the “rod” against displaced Israelites to reap the olive harvest of the land, so Assyria’s downfall in the late seventh century was portrayed as YHWH’s beating of a fat olive tree with a rod at harvest time. The aftermath of the beating/harvest was the new growth of a renewed Davidic kingdom. Secondly, by juxtaposing Isa 10:5–34 and 11:1–12:6, the Josianic redactors of Isaiah have dehistoricized the Assyrian monarch portrayed in Isaiah’s prophecy. Although the monarch is never named in the passage, various considerations discussed above indicate that the object of this passage is Sargon II. The narratives concerning Sennacherib’s 701 B.C.E. invasion of Judah and siege of Jerusalem in Isaiah 36–37 suggest that Sennacherib is the object of ch. 10 in that many of the statements concerning the gods of Hamath, Arpad, Samaria and so on correspond to those of Isa 10:9–11. Some have argued that Isaiah 36–37 is the product of a seventhcentury edition of Isaiah.33 If this is the case, it indicates that the Josianic redaction of Isaiah was not interested in an accurate historical portrayal of the Assyrian monarch or the prophecies of Isaiah; rather the redaction employed elements from Isaiah’s speech concerning Sargon to construct a portrayal of Sennacherib in order to serve its theological and literary aims. Sennacherib’s invasion symbolizes the oppression of Judah and Jerusalem by the Assyrians in general and YHWH’s defeat of the Assyrians in this narrative symbolizes YHWH’s guarantees of protection. The presentation 32

Recent excavations at Tel Miqne (Ekron) demonstrate the presence of sufficient olive presses to support olive oil production for the entire Assyrian empire. Furthermore, the presence of horned altars at the site demonstrates that Israelites were employed in this industry. On the excavations at Tel Miqne and the significance of these finds, see S. Gitin, “Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (ed. S. Gitin and W. G. Dever; AASOR 49; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 23–58; idem, “Ekron of the Philistines, Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World,” BAR 16.2 (MarchApril 1990): 32–42, 59; idem, “Last Days of the Philistines,” Archaeology (May-June 1992): 26–31; idem, “Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah,” Eretz Israel 20 (1989): 52*–67*; idem, “New Incense Altars from Ekron: Context, Typology and Function,” Eretz Israel 23 (1992): 43*–49*; idem, “Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron,” in Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990 (ed. A. Biran et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 248–258; T. Dothan and S. Gitin, “Tel Miqne, 1986,” IEJ 37 (1987): 63–68; idem, “The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines: Recent Excavations at an Urban Border Site,” BA 50 (1987): 197–222. 33 For example, R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (JSOTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980).

62

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

of the Assyrian monarch in Isaiah 10 thereby becomes the basis for a typological presentation of Assyrian oppression in the Josianic edition of Isaiah. It does not matter that Sargon II was the object of Isaiah’s speech; it only matters that Isaiah foretold the downfall of Assyrian rule over Jerusalem. The same might be said concerning the promises of a righteous monarch in Isaiah. Although Isa 9:1–6 likely refers to Hezekiah as the righteous monarch promised by Isaiah,34 the Josianic edition of Isaiah presupposes that Josiah will fulfill this promise. Hezekiah does indeed serve as a righteous model in Isaiah 36–37 insofar as he turns to YHWH in a time of crisis and thereby saves Jerusalem from the Assyrians. But ultimately, Josiah is the one who will reunite Israel and Judah after the downfall of Assyrian power. The placement of Isa 11:12–16 at the conclusion of the major textual block in Isaiah 5–12 ensures that the presentation of punishment against Israel and Judah, as well as the subsequent punishment of Assyria once judgment against Israel and Judah is realized, will culminate in the righteous reign of Josiah over a restored Israel and Judah. Again, Isaianic statements from the eighth century are dehistoricized to serve the interests of the Josianic redaction. Finally, the Josianic redaction’s dehistoricization of the Assyrian monarch has implications for the subsequent growth of the Book of Isaiah as well in that the image of this figure becomes adaptable to later historical contexts and theological agendas. The Assyrian monarch becomes a type of oppressor in the Book of Isaiah that can be identified later with the Babylonians; the figure thereby serves as a means to link Isaiah 40–66, which presupposes Babylonia as the major oppressor of Judah and object of YHWH’s wrath, to the first part of the book.35 Likewise, the Davidic monarch also becomes a type in that neither 11:1–16 nor the other royal prophecies in 9:1–6 and 32:1–20 ever identify the king by name. In later 34 For a full discussion of this passage and its context, see my study, “A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6,” HAR 14 (1994): 215–231 = above, pp. 35–49. 35 Note the juxtaposition of the oracle against Babylon and the Babylonian monarch in Isa 13:1–14:23 with YHWH’s promise to destroy Assyria in Isa 14:24–27. The presentation of these passages together indicates an interest in identifying the Babylonians as the successors to the Assyrians in the Book of Isaiah (cf. R. E. Clements, “Isaiah 14,22–27: A Central Passage Reconsidered,” in The Book of Isaiah/Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage [ed. J. Vermeylen; BETL 81; Leuven: Peeters, 1989], 253–262). Note also Isa 39:1–8 which anticipates the Babylonian Exile (cf. P. R. Ackroyd, “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38–39,” SJT 27 [1974]: 329–352; reprinted in idem, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament [London: SCM Press, 1987], 152–171, 282–285). On the links between First and Second Isaiah, see R. E. Clements, “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985): 95–113.

63

3. Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11

parts of the book, Cyrus is identified as the messiah (Isa 44:28; 45:1), the people of Israel are granted the royal promises of David (Isa 55:3), and even YHWH is identified as the king in Jerusalem (Isa 66:1–2). Clearly, the Josianic redaction of Isaiah set the pattern by which the referents of the book could be reread and reinterpreted in relation to later historical situations.36 It was this capacity for shifting referents and adapting them to new situations and theological concerns that ensured the continued relevance of the Book of Isaiah through the centuries that followed.37 Appendix Structure Diagram: Isaiah 10:5–12:6 Prophetic Announcement of a Royal Savior (Isa 10:5–12:6) I. Woe oracle against Assyria II. Announcement of judgment against Assyria and of a royal savior for Judah A. Announcement of judgment against Assyria B. Elaboration # l: concerning the future relief of the remnant of Israel from Assyrian oppression C. Elaboration # 2: concerning the fall of the Assyrian monarch and the rise of a righteous Davidic monarch D. Elaboration # 3: concerning the nations’ future recognition of the Davidic monarch E. Elaboration # 4: concerning the future restoration of Israel F. Concluding Hymn of Thanksgiving

36

10:5–11 10:12–12:6 10:12–19 10:20–26 10:27–11:9 11:10 11:11–16 12:1–6

Cf. J. A. Sanders, “Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon,” Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of G-d; Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. F. M. Cross et al.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 531–560. 37 I am indebted to Prof. Yair Zakovitch who invited me to present some of the initial ideas for this paper to his seminar on “The Exodus Tradition in the Bible” at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, April 24, 1990. – Postscript: H. G. M. Williamson’s recent studies, “Isaiah xi 11–16 and the Redaction of Isaiah i–xii,” in Congress Volume: Paris 1992 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 343–357, and The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-lsaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), came into my hands only during the final editing of this essay for publication. Although there is much to commend in Williamson’s hypothesis of a sixth-century Isaiah redaction, his analysis of Isa 11:1–16 does not take sufficient account of the identities of the nations in vv. 11–16 and the overall scenario of Israel’s and Judah’s reunification and domination of these nations. Likewise, his views on Isa 8:21–23a must be weighed against my arguments as presented in “A Philological and Form-Critical Reevaluation of Isaiah 8:16–9:6.”

1

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27: Toward an Understanding of the Redactional Function of Chapters 24–27 in the Book of Isaiah I For well over a century and a half, scholars have recognized that Isaiah 24–27, the so-called Isaiah Apocalypse, forms a distinct section in the Book of Isaiah. Its language, formal characteristics, and themes indicate that it is an anonymous, late- or post-exilic composition and probably one of the latest additions to the Book of Isaiah. The majority of scholars therefore maintain that Isaiah 24–27 constitutes an independent unit that has its own literary history. Thus, many studies treat these chapters as a separate literary entity, examining them in isolation from the rest of the book.1 Yet scholars have noted that these chapters contain a number of citations of or allusions to other passages in the Book of Isaiah.2 This certainly indicates that chs. 24–27 bear some relationship to other parts of the Book of Isaiah. Given the recent discussion of the redactional unity of the Book of Isaiah,3 an evaluation of these citations or allusions is essential for understanding the redactional relationship between Isaiah 24–27 and the rest of the book. Consequently, this paper will examine the Isaianic textual citations and allusions found within Isaiah 24–27 as a means for understanding the redactional function of these chapters within the Book of Isaiah.

1 For a brief review of scholarship on these chapters, see H. Wildberger, Jesaia 13–27 (BKAT 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 893–896. 2 E.g., R. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979), 148, 237; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910. 3 See, e.g., W. Brueggemann, “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition,” JSOT 29 (1984): 89–107; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 325–334; R. E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982): 117–129; idem, “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985): 95–113. See also M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1988).

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

65

I In their investigations of the redactional formation of the book, scholars such as P. Ackroyd, B. Childs, R. Clements, J. Vermeylen, and others, have begun to focus their attention on the final form of the book (or at least of chs. 1–39) in an attempt to determine its structure as well as the purposes and hermeneutical perspectives of its redactors.4 Consequently, they have examined the relative placement of various blocks of material which comprise the book in an effort to determine the logic (or lack thereof) of the arrangement of these units. In regard to Isaiah 24–27, scholars have observed that it follows the oracles against the nations in chs. 13–23. Noting that Isaiah 24–27 portrays divine judgment of the entire earth, a number of scholars have maintained that the placement of Isaiah 24–27 after the oracles against the nations is deliberate in that these chapters depict the judgment against the nations that was announced in the preceding section.5 Thus, Joachim Becker states that Isaiah 24–27 is “the key to the redactional understanding of the foreign nation oracles in Isaiah 13–23 …”6 4 In addition to the studies by Brueggemann, Childs, Clements, and Sweeney cited in note 3 above, see J. Becker, Isaias: Der Prophet und sein Buch (SBS 30; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968); R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCeB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1977–1978); cf. P. R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 16–48; idem, “The Death of Hezekiah – A Pointer to the Future,” in De la Tôrah au Messie: Études d’éxegèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979) (Paris: Desclée, 1982), 219–226; idem, “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function,” in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof Mag. Dr. Dr. J. P. M. van der Ploeg O. P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979 (ed. W. C. Delsman et al.; AOAT 211; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 3–21; R. Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” VT 34 (1984): 295–320. 5 Becker, Isaias, 63; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 196; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:352 n. 2; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 892–893; C. H. Cornill, “Die Composition des Buches Jesaja,”· ZAW 4 (1884): 83–105 (97–99); J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapters i–xxxix (CB; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905), lxviii, lxxii–lxxiii; S. Mowinckel, “Die Komposition des Jesajabuches Kap. 1– 39,” AcOr 11 (1933): 267–292 (276–278, 287); J. Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse: Jes. 24–27 (LUÅ 1.34.3; Lund: Gleerup; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1938), 116; O. Procksch, Jesaia (2 vols.; KAT 9; Leipzig: Deichert, 1930–1932), 1:19, 21–22; Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 332; R. B. Y. Scott, “The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39: Introduction and Exegesis,” IB 5:156–381 (297); M.-L. Henry, Glaubenskrise und Glaubensbewährung in den Dichtungen der Jesajaapokalypse (BWANT 86; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967), 198; P. Grech, “Interprophetic Re-interpretation and Old Testament Eschatology,” Aug 8 (1969): 235–265 (243–244). 6 Becker, Isaias, 63, translation mine.

66

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

In the framework of the book, these chapters are understood as the “fulfillment and interpretation of Isaiah 13–23.”7 This approach, however, also raises questions. Becker and those who follow him maintain that Isaiah 24–27 was originally an independent unit that was inserted into the Book of Isaiah. Therefore, he points only to the placement of this unit and to very general thematic factors, for example, the portrayal of universal judgment, in identifying Isaiah 24–27 as a “new interpretation” of the oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13–23.8 Vermeylen, on the other hand, has adduced more specific thematic evidence in associating the oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13 with the portrayal of the fallen City of Chaos in Isaiah 24.9 Wildberger notes that Isaiah 24–27 specifically cites or alludes to texts from a number of prophetic books.10 Many of his examples include citations from Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, but five refer to other texts from Isaiah.11 Two of these examples, the citation of Isa 17:6 in 24:13 and the allusion to Isa 21:2 in 24:16, stem from the oracles against the nations. This suggests that there may be more to the relationship between Isaiah 24–27 and Isaiah 13–23 than mere redactional juxtaposition and general thematic similarity. Another question concerns the limitation of the redactional relationship of Isaiah 24–27 to chs. 13–23 alone. Whereas Isaiah 13–23 is concerned primarily with judgment against the nations, Isaiah 24–27 goes well beyond this concern. These chapters include not only a depiction of universal judgment against the earth but also a description of a gathering of nations for a banquet on Mt. Zion once the judgment is complete. Such a scene does not appear to be anticipated in chs. 13–23, but similar concerns for universal salvation and the nations’ coming to Zion appear in Isa 2:2–4 and 66:18–23. Isaiah 27 portrays the restoration of Israel to Jerusalem after the universal judgment is complete. Chapters 13–23 contain brief statements concerning such a restoration in Isa 14:1–2 and 19:24–25, but this theme is much more prominent in other parts of the book, for example, Isa 2:2–5; 4:2–6; 10:20–27; 11:1–16. Furthermore, Isaiah 24–27 contains citations or allusions to Isaianic texts other than those of chs. 13–23. Thus, Isa 27:2–5 recasts Isaiah’s “vineyard song” of Isa 5:1–7, and the previously cited Isa 24:16 compares with Isa 33:1 and 48:8 as well as with 21:2.12 Likewise,

7

Ibid. Ibid., 63–66. 9 Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:354–356. 10 Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910–911. 11 His Isaianic examples include references to Isa 5:2–7 in 27:2–5; Isa 17:6 in 24:13; Isa 21:2b, 33:1, and 48:8 in 24:16b. 12 Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910. 8

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

67

Vermeylen notes the use of Isa 2:9–17 in 25:11b–12 and 26:5,13 and a number of scholars have observed a relationship between Isa 27:12–13 and 11:15–16.14 This suggests that the redactional function of Isaiah 24–27 is not limited to the oracles against the nations in chs. 13–23 but includes other parts of the book as well.15 These considerations indicate that the redactional character of Isaiah 24–27 requires closer examination in that the unit appears to have a much broader redactional function than originally conceived. Because of their role in establishing a connection between Isaiah 24–27 and other portions of the book, the first step in clarifying the redactional function of these chapters must be to examine their textual citations of and allusions to other passages from the Book of Isaiah. Such a discussion will not only identify the Isaianic texts used in Isaiah 24–27, but it will also examine how they were understood by the writer or writers of Isaiah 24–27 and used in their specific contexts within these chapters. Seven Isaianic textual citations/ allusions, identified by their high lexical correspondence and thematic correlation, will be examined here. These include Isa 24:13 (17:6); 24:16 (21:2 and 33:1); 25:4–5 (4:5b–6 and 32:1–2); 25:11b–12 (2:9–17); 26:5 (2:6–21); 26:17–18 (13:8 and 66:7–9); and 27:1–13 (5:1–7 and 11:10–16).

II The first textual citation appears in Isa 24:13, “For thus shall it be in the midst of the earth, amongst the peoples, like the beating of olives, like the gleanings when the harvest is complete.” This verse cites Isa 17:6a, “And there shall remain of him [i.e., Jacob] gleanings, like the beatings of 13 Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:365–366. Cf. G. T. Sheppard, “The Anti-Assyrian Redaction and the Canonical Context of Isaiah 1–39,” JBL 104 (1985): 193–216 (202–204), who links Isa 25:12 and 26:5 redactionally to Isa 2:6–21 and 5:15–16. 14 Cornill, “Die Composition des Buches Jesaja,” 97–98; M. Sweeney, “New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah 27 Reconsidered,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (ed. C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 51–66 = below, pp. 79–93; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:279–280, 378–379. Cf. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (5th edition; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 194; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja (2 nd edition; ZBK 19; Zurich and Stuttgart: Zwingli/TVZ, 1967), 2:39. 15 Cf. J. Lindblom, who notes linguistic and formal connections between Isaiah 24–27 and the rest of the book (Die Jesaja-Apokalypse, 111–120). Likewise, W. Eugene March examines thematic and lexical relationships between Isaiah 24:1–27:1 and the rest of the book, concluding that these chapters are firmly rooted in the traditions of the master (i.e., Isaiah) (“A Study of Two Prophetic Compositions in Isaiah 24:1–27:1” [Th. D. dissertation; Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1966], 199–232).

68

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

olives.”16 Here, the author of Isa 24:13 has used a text drawn from an oracle that condemns the northern kingdom of Israel for its role in the SyroEphraimitic War. Yet, in employing this verse in the context of Isaiah 24– 27, he does not describe a punishment of Israel. Instead, he has applied it in a context that portrays the downfall of the City of Chaos and the punishment of the entire earth. The imagery of judgment has been transferred from a context that focuses exclusively on Israel, that is, Isa 17:4–6, to one which includes all the nations. This does not appear, however, to be an ad hoc decision on the part of this writer. The justification for the transference may be found rather in the final form of ch. 17.17 Isaiah 17 begins as an oracle condemning Damascus but quickly shifts its concern to include Ephraim, that is, northern Israel, in v. 3. Beginning in v. 4, the oracle focuses entirely on the condemnation of Jacob. Verses 7–8 look forward to the time when, as a result of Jacob’s punishment, people will again look to the G-d of Israel instead of to their idolatrous altars, Asherim and ḥammanîm. Verses 9–11 describe the desolation that will result from the punishment, placing the blame on the people for forgetting their G-d. Verses 12–14 then shift the focus of the oracle by describing G-d’s rebuke of the nations that have threatened the people. In the context of Isaiah 17, this must refer to G-d’s defeat of the nations, which carried out the previously announced punishment of Jacob.18 It would appear that the author of Isa 24:13 employed this perspective in his use of Isa 17:6. Isaiah 24–27 does not explicitly discuss the punishment of Israel, although it presupposes that it has already taken place. Instead, it refers to the punishment of the City of Chaos, in the midst of the earth and its peoples, indicating the universal or cosmic scope of this punishment.19 By transferring this verse from a context of 16

The relation between Isa 24:13 and 17:6 has been long recognized; see W. Gesenius, Commentar über den Jesaia (Leipzig: Vogel, 1821), 766; see Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910. 17 For a full discussion of Isaiah 17, see Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 633–677. 18 See Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 161–163. 19 Scholars have been at a loss to identify the “City of Chaos” in Isa 24:10, although a number of suggestions have been offered (see W. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic [HSM 11; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1976], 15–21, for a summary of the discussion on this issue). The absence of specific references in this passage has therefore indicated to Clements that the “City of Chaos” is representative of all the earth (Isaiah 1–39, 202–203). Vermeylen sees the “City of Chaos” in similar fashion but identifies the city as Babylon, the symbol of all the nations and of evil in general (Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:354–356). Based on the lament genre of Isa 24:7–12, the meaning of terms such as měśôś hā’āreṣ and běqereb hā’āreṣ, thematic and lexical connections with Isa 5:11–14, and other factors, D. Johnson argues that the City of Chaos in Isa 24:1–13 must be identified as Jerusalem (“Devastation and Restoration: A Compositional Study of Isaiah 24–27” [Ph. D. dissertation; Princeton Theological Seminary, 1985], 124–137). Whether the City of Chaos can be conclusively identified with Babylon,

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

69

judgment against Israel to one of judgment against the City of Chaos, the author of Isa 24:13 apparently meant to convey the worldwide significance of Israel’s punishment described in Isaiah 17. His citation of Isa 17:6 in this manner presupposes a “holistic” reading of ch. 17, which indicates that Israel’s punishment will be followed by judgment against the nations. The second textual citation appears in Isa 24:16.20 Following the problematic “And I say, ‘I pine away, I pine away, woe is me,’” the citation reads, “the treacherous ones deal treacherously, the treacherous ones deal very treacherously.” This alludes to Isa 21:2, which reads, “hard vision was declared to me, the treacherous one deals treacherously and the destroyer destroys. Go up, O Elam! Lay siege, O Medea! All her lamentation I will bring to an end.” Isaiah 21:2 deals specifically with Babylon and her anticipated defeat by the Medes and their allies. Many commentators once regarded the phrase, habbôgēd bôgēd wěhaššôdēd šôdēd, “the treacherous one deals treacherously, the destroyer destroys,” as a reference to Babylon.21 The active participle forms of these terms undermine this interpretation, however, since the context of the oracle indicates that Babylon is neither dealing treacherously nor destroying. Instead, it is the object of these actions. The terms therefore must refer to the attackers of Babylon, the Elamites and the Medes, who will deal treacherously and destroy Babylon.22 The text of Isa 24:16 also alludes to Isa 33:1, which reads, “Woe, O Destroyer, that you are not destroyed, O Treacherous One, with whom they Jerusalem, or any other city must remain uncertain. Nevertheless, the role of the City of Chaos as a cosmic or universal symbol appears to be secure. Vermeylen and others have already pointed to the influence of the Noachic covenant in the portrayal of the punishment of the earth in Isaiah 24 (see Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:353). Other indications of the cosmic significance of this punishment of the earth are the reference to the opening of the “windows of heaven” and the shaking of the “foundations of the earth” in Isa 24:18; the parallel use of tēbēl, “earth,” with ’ereṣ, “land,” in Isa 24:4 and 26:9, 18; and the mention of YHWH’s defeat of the sea-monster Leviathan in Isa 27:1. The citation of Isa 17:6 in the context of the cosmic flood/chaos imagery in Isaiah 24–27, particularly in ch. 24, is especially significant in view of the comparison of the peoples to mighty waters in Isa 17:12–14. Perhaps the water imagery applied to the nations in Isa 17:12–14 was instrumental in suggesting the Noachic flood and cosmic chaos imagery of Isaiah 24–27. 20 Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910. 21 See Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 150; G. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 352. 22 Of the ancient versions, only the Targum translates the second participle in each pair as a passive, that is, ǎnǐssayā’ mit’ansin ûbāzuzayyā’ mitbazzîn, “the oppressors are oppressed and the spoilers are spoiled.” This understanding of the verse indicates that the first participle in each pair refers to the Babylonians. But, as A. A. Macintosh notes, this interpretation is influenced by Isa 33:1 (Isaiah XXI: A Palimpsest [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980], 12–14). Furthermore, nothing requires that these terms refer exclusively to Babylon. Note Isa 48:8, which uses the verb bgd to refer to Jacob/Israel.

70

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

have not dealt treacherously. When you have finished destroying, you will be destroyed, when you are done dealing treacherously, they will deal treacherously with you.” Isaiah 33:1 does not name a specific country or city but uses the terms “Destroyer” and “Treacherous One” as figurative references to an unidentified, paradigmatic enemy. As in the case of Babylon in Isa 21:2, this text looks forward to the time when attackers will destroy and deal treacherously with this enemy. In the context of Isaiah 24, v. 16b refers to an unnamed enemy that is attacking the earth,23 an attack which presumably centers on the City of Chaos. By alluding to Isa 21:2 and 33:1, the author of Isa 24:16 apparently has picked up the motif of an attacker destroying and dealing treacherously with the major enemy of G-d in the world. As Isa 33:1 indicates, just as this enemy once destroyed and dealt 23 That v. 16b must be understood in reference to an attack against the earth in general is supported by the following verses 17–18a, which cite Jer 48:43–44a in describing the hopeless situation of the party attacked. Whereas Jer 48:43–44a directs this statement to “the inhabitant of Moab,” Isa 24:17–18a changes the statement so that it is directed against “the inhabitant of the earth.” Likewise, Isa 24:21–23, which concludes this section, supports this understanding by indicating that the punishment is to be directed “against the host of heaven in heaven” and “against the kings of the land on the land.” Further evidence may be found in the citation of other non-Isaianic prophetic texts in Isaiah 24–27, i.e., Isa 24:2/Hos 4:9; Isa 24:20/Amos 5:2; Isa 24:23/Mic 4:7; and Isa 26:21/Mic 1:3 (see Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910). Each of these prophetic passages is drawn from a context that deals specifically with the punishment of Israel. Yet each is cited in a manner that excludes any specific reference to the punishment of Israel and replaces it with references to the punishment of the earth. The motivation for such a universal understanding of these passages appears to lie in the contexts from which they were cited. Thus, Mic 4:6–7 follows an oracle in Mic 4:1–5 which deals with G-d’s gathering of all peoples at Mt. Zion. The oracle in Hosea 4 takes up G-d’s lawsuit against “the inhabitants of the land” (Hos 4:1). Amos 5:1–3, directed against the House of Israel, is followed by material in vv. 4–9 that outlines the cosmic consequences of rejection of YHWH. Micah 1:2–4, addressed to the peoples and the earth, introduces v. 5, which condemns Israel and Judah. Further motivation for such a universal understanding of these passages may be found in the Book of Isaiah. Thus, Isa 2:6–22 announces the Day of the L-rd against Jacob. Yet, following v. 6, the oracle never makes specific reference to Israel/Jacob again. Instead, it employs general terms such as ’ereṣ, “earth, land” (vv. 7, 8, 19, 21); ’ādām, “human” (vv. 9, 11, 17, 20, 22); ’îš, “man” (v. 9); and ’ǎnāšîm, “men” (vv. 11, 17). Thus, whereas Isa 2:6 indicates that the Day-of-the-L-rd oracle in Isa 2:6–22 is directed against Jacob, its general language and its position following Isa 2:2–5 indicate a potential universal understanding. This is supported by other references to the Day of the L-rd in Isa 13:6, 9 which indicate that the day includes punishment for Babylon in particular and the earth in general. These considerations, as well as the connections between Isaiah 24–27 and the Day-of-the-L-rd passages in Isaiah 2 and 13 (see below on the citations from these passages in Isa 25:11b–12; 26:5; and 26:17–18), indicate that Isaiah 24–27 employs prophetic texts from Isaiah and elsewhere in presenting its view of the coming Day of the L-rd as a day that will see G-d’s punishment of the entire earth, apparently symbolized by the unnamed City of Chaos.

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

71

treacherously, it will eventually be the object of such actions by others (cf. Isa 21:2). Isa 24:16 indicates that this time has come. Like Isa 33:1, Isa 24:16 does not identify the enemy or the attackers as Isa 21:2 does. Instead, it portrays the fall of this enemy in universal terms.24 The third textual citation appears in Isa 25:4–5, which reads, “For you are a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from hail, a shade from heat. For the wind of tyrants is like rain against a wall, like heat in a desert. The noise of aliens you shall subdue, like heat in the shadow of a cloud. The song of tyrants, he silences.”25 These verses cite language from Isa 4:5b–6 which reads, “For over all the glory shall be a ḥuppâ and a sukkâ for a shade by day from heat and for a shelter and a protection from hail and from rain.”26 In Isaiah 4, this refers to the protection that G-d will give to Jerusalem once the city is cleansed of its iniquity. The author of Isa 25:4–5 has used this language in the context of a hymnic declaration of thanksgiving to YHWH for his overthrow of a fortified city. These verses refer to the protection that G-d will give to the people who suffered under the rule of that city. Here, there is no explicit indication that the area of protection is Zion, but the following description of a banquet for the peoples “on this mountain” in vv. 6–8 suggests that this may be the case. Isaiah 4:2–6 refers to G-d’s protection of the remnant of Israel which remains in Jerusalem. Isaiah 25:1–5 does not explicitly identify the poor and the needy who will receive protection, but Isa 25:6–8 suggests that all peoples are included. It cannot be certain whether the author of Isa 25:4–5 intended his textual citation to refer to Jews only or to all peoples, but the context of ch. 25 strongly implies that the latter is the case.27 The imagery of G-d’s protection of the poor and needy in Isa 25:4–5 is further bolstered by the citation of Isa 32:1–2 in these verses.28 Isaiah 32:1–2 reads, “Behold, a king shall rule with righteousness and princes shall govern with justice. And each shall be like a hiding place from the wind and a covering from the rain, like streams of water in the desert, like the 24 Cf. Isa 13:11, which portrays the fall of Babylon in universal terms, employing language similar to that of Isa 25:11b–12; 26:5; and 2:6–22. 25 Note that a number of scholars consider v. 4b and parts of v. 5 to be a gloss; e.g., Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 208; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 956. 26 See Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse, 114. 27 Note that Isa 25:6–8 announces a banquet for “all the peoples” on Mt. Zion. In this passage, not only will G-d remove the coverings and veils of the peoples/nations and put an end to death; he will also “remove the shame of his people from upon the entire earth.” The mention of “his people” in v. 8 apparently refers to Israel and indicates that Israel’s suffering will end when its significance in YHWH’s world order is revealed to the nations at this banquet (see Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 209). 28 See J. J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology,” Int 36 (1982): 130–143 (142).

72

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

shade of a great rock in a languid land.” Following the description of G-d’s defense of Zion and the fall of Assur in Isaiah 31, these verses describe the protection offered by the righteous king and princes who will rule over the people in the future. Furthermore, the two passages share common vocabulary, including rûaḥ, “wind,” zerem, “rain,” ṣāyôn, “desert,” and ṣēl, “shadow.” In citing these verses, the writer of Isa 25:4–5 apparently intended to state that G-d will fill the role of the righteous rulers mentioned in this passage, contrasting the protection offered by G-d to the abuse of the tyrants who ruled previously. In their original contexts in the Book of Isaiah, both Isa 4:5b–6 and 32:1–2 refer to the protection of Israel on Zion. By citing these texts in the context of Isaiah 25, the writer of this passage apparently understood that all peoples might be included. As in previous instances, specific references are omitted in favor of universal concerns. The fourth textual citation appears in Isa 25:11b–12. It is part of a short passage (vv. 10b–12) condemning Moab and reads, “And he shall bring down his [Moab’s] pride with the skill of his hands. And the high fortification of your walls he shall lay low, he shall bring down, he shall cast down to the earth in the dust.” As Vermeylen points out, there are numerous lexical connections between these verses and Isa 2:9–17, part of the Day-of-the-L-rd passage.29 Thus, wěhišpîl/hišpîl, “he brings down,” corresponds to the four occurrences of this verb root in Isa 2:9, 11, 12, and 17. The noun ga’ǎwātô, “his pride,” corresponds to the noun gē’eh, “high,” in Isa 2:12, which is derived from the same root. The appearance of miśgab, “high, exalted,” in Isa 25:12 corresponds with wěniśgab, “and he shall be exalted,” in Isa 2:11, 17. The word, ḥômōtêkā, “your walls,” compares with ḥômâ, “wall,” in Isa 2:15 and mibṣar, “fortification,” corresponds to běṣûrâ, “fortified,” in the same verse. The verb hēšaḥ, “he shall lay low” appears twice as wayyiššaḥ, “and he is low,” in Isa 2:9 and as wěšaḥ, “and it shall be low,” in Isa 2:11, 17. Finally, the noun, ‘āpār, “dust,” appears in Isa 2:10. The passages are similar thematically as well. Isaiah 2:6–21 describes G-d’s punishment against Jacob as the Day of the L-rd, although after v. 6 the oracle appears to be directed against the earth in general rather than against Jacob alone. The guilty party, whatever its identity, is being punished for excessive pride. Likewise, Isa 25:10b–12 describes punishment against Moab for excessive pride. In this respect, it calls to mind the mention of Moab’s pride in Isa 16:6. Scholars have been at a loss to explain why Moab should be singled out for special condemnation in this passage, given the effort to avoid identifying the condemned parties throughout chs. 24–27.30 The reference is especially perplexing because 25:6–10a describes a peaceful situation 29 30

Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:365–366. E.g., Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 210.

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

73

for the nations. Furthermore, Isa 24:17, in citing Jer 48:43, changes the verse so that it no longer refers to the punishment of Moab, but to the punishment of the “inhabitant of the earth.” According to some, the language of 25:11b–12 may also have been influenced by Isa 26:5.31 This verse also cites language from Isa 2:6–21, but, unlike Isa 25:10b–12, it fits well into its context. Consequently, most scholars conclude that Isa 25:10b–12 is a late addition by a redactor with a special peeve against Moab.32 Nevertheless, the passage is formulated in reference to Isa 2:6–21 so that the punishment described there is applied to Moab. This indicates the work of a later hand, which established a redactional link between this passage and Isa 2:6–21 by reflecting on the earlier Isaianic material. In this case, the writer’s application of the earlier material is not universal but quite specific. The fifth textual citation appears in Isa 26:5, which reads, “For he lays low those who dwell on high, the lofty city. He brings it down, he brings it down to earth. He casts it down to the dust.” Like Isa 25:11b–12, the language of this verse corresponds to that of Isa 2:6–21.33 Thus, the root of hēšaḥ, “he lays low,” appears three times in this passage, as indicated above (Isa 2:9, 11, 17). The adjective niśgābâ, “lofty, exalted,” appears in verbal form to describe the exaltation of YHWH in Isa 2:11, 17. The root of the verbs yašpîlennâ and yašpîāḥ, “to bring down,” appears four times, as indicated above (Isa 2:9, 11, 12, 17). The noun ‘āpār, “dust,” appears in Isa 2:10. Finally, the noun mārôm, “high,” corresponds to the five appearances of its root in Isa 2:11, 12, 13, 14, and 17. This verse appears in the context of an exhortation song to trust in YHWH following his overthrow of the “lofty city.”34 This city is not identified in the song, but in the context of Isaiah 24–27, it refers to the City of Chaos and the fortified city mentioned previously. By employing language from the Day-of-the-L-rd passage in Isa 2:6–21, the author of this song projects the result of YHWH’s punishment of the earth. Isaiah 2:6–21 describes the overthrow of all that represents human pride on the Day of YHWH so that only YHWH will be magnified when the punishment is complete. Isaiah 26:5 uses the same language to describe the overthrow of the lofty city, indicating that in the mind of the author of Isa 26:1–6, the city is the symbol of human pride to which Isa 2:6–21 refers. The song’s description of the fall of this lofty city therefore indicates the projected fulfillment of Isa 2:6–21. The author of 31 O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (trans. R. A. Wilson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 204; Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja, 2:22 n. 10; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 183. 32 Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse, 38–40; Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja, 2:22; O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (trans. S. Rudman; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 62–63; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 900; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 204; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 210–211. 33 Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apcalyptique, 1:365–366. 34 See Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 206–207, who notes that the purpose of the song is to call on people to continue trusting in YHWH.

74

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

Isa 26:1–6, however, has introduced a constructive element that is not evident in Isa 2:6–21. Isaiah 26:1–6 projects a contrast between the fallen lofty city and the strong city of the singers. Again, the strong city is not identified in the song itself, but the formulaic verse that introduces the song (v. 1a) states that the song will be sung in the land of Judah. This indicates that the strong city is Jerusalem. Thus, in the view of the author of Isa 26:1–6, the result of the Day of the L-rd described in Isa 2:6–21 includes not only the downfall of the lofty city, symbolizing human pride, but YHWH’s establishment of Jerusalem as well. The sixth textual citation appears in Isa 26:17–18, which reads, “Like a pregnant woman about to give birth, she cries in pain, she cries out in her labor, thus we were because of you, O YHWH. We were pregnant, we writhed in pain, as we brought forth wind. We did not make salvation on earth and the inhabitants of the world did not fall [i.e., were not born35].” These verses are part of the lamentation proper (vv. 6–18) within the psalm of lament in Isa 26:7–19.36 Using the imagery of childbirth, they metaphorically express the singers’ inability to bring about salvation on earth by their own efforts. Consequently, the psalm calls upon YHWH to bring about the desired result, salvation or peace, since he alone is ultimately responsible for all the singers’ accomplishments (v. 12). The imagery of childbirth appears frequently in the Book of Isaiah (7:14; 8:3; 9:5; 13:8; 21:3; 23:4–5; 33:11; 42:11; 45:10; 49:21; 51:2, 18; 54:1; 55:10; 59:3–4; 66:7–9), but two passages, Isa 13:8 and 66:7–9, stand out because of their particularly close lexical associations with Isa 26:17–18. The noun ḥebel, “labor pain,” appears in both Isa 13:8 and 66:7, but nowhere else in the Book of Isaiah. The verb root, ḥwl, “to writhe in labor pains,” appears twice in Isa 26:17–18, once in Isa 13:8, and three times in Isa 66:7–8. Finally, the verb root, yld, “to give birth,” appears twice in Isa 26:17–18, once in Isa 13:8, and five times in Isa 66:7–9. No other passages treating the theme of childbirth in Isaiah show such a great degree of lexical correspondence. But these passages differ from Isa 26:17–18 thematically. Isa 13:8 uses the childbirth imagery to express the pain that the earth will suffer when G-d unleashes his punishment of the world on the Day of YHWH. In this respect, the statement of the purpose of punishment in Isa 13:5bβ, lěḥabbēl kol hā’āreṣ, “to ravage the entire earth,” has special significance since the piel form of the verb ḥbl, “to ravage,” also means “to labor in childbirth.” Thus, the imagery of childbirth appears to play a central role in the portrayal of G-d’s actions on the Day of the L-rd in this passage. This imagery does more than serve only as a metaphor for pain. It characterizes the entire punishment as labor. Nevertheless, there is no 35 36

Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, 67. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 987; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 213.

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

75

constructive result from this labor in Isaiah 13, only destruction. This is in contrast to Isa 66:7–9, which portrays Zion as a woman giving birth to sons, presumably a reference to the people of Israel. Later verses indicate that many from the nations will also be included following a worldwide judgment in which G-d establishes the new heavens and earth. Although the immediate context of Isa 26:17–18 indicates no explicit thematic relationship with Isa 13:8 and 66:7–9, the larger context of Isaiah 24–27 suggests some links. In Isa 26:7–19 follows material that refers to a judgment of the earth by G-d centering on an unnamed city. Isaiah 13 looks toward a judgment of Babylon, but, as vv. 2–13 make clear, the judgment against Babylon is universal in scope because the entire earth is to be punished. Furthermore, in Isa 26:7–19 immediately precedes material concerning the anticipated restoration of Israel in Zion in Isa 27:2–13 which, as Isa 27:1, 12–13 indicate, has universal significance. Isaiah 66 likewise looks to the restoration of Israel in Zion as the center of a universal rebirth. By using the vocabulary and imagery of childbirth, which appear in Isa 13:8 and 66:7–9, Isa 26:17–18 aids in linking the major themes of chs. 13 and 66 – judgment against Babylon and rebirth for Israel at Zion – to those of Isaiah 24–27, that is, universal judgment followed by universal rebirth centered at Zion. In pointing to the singers’ failure to bring about a successful birth, however, Isa 26:17–18 makes it clear that this is no human endeavor. As both Isaiah 13 and 66 stress, only G-d can carry out such actions. Finally, we may turn to Isaiah 27. The units that comprise this chapter are viewed by many scholars as a series of unrelated supplements or late additions to chs. 24–26 which do not relate well to their context.37 I have discussed this chapter in detail elsewhere, noting its structural coherence, relation to chs. 24–26, and relation to other texts from the Book of Isaiah.38 Nevertheless, a few comments are in order. The chapter includes in vv. 2–6 a vineyard song that allegorically states G-d’s offer of protection to Israel. Most scholars have noted the relationship between this song and the vineyard song found in Isa 5:1–7, which allegorically condemned Israel.39 Isaiah 27:2–6 represents a direct reversal of the original Isaianic vineyard song, indicating G-d’s interest in protecting Israel, not destroying her.40 Likewise, Isa 27:1, 12–13 bears a direct relationship to Isa 11:10–16 in that there is great lexical and thematic similarity between the two passages.41 37

E.g., Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 903–904. Sweeney, “New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard.” 39 See E. Jacob, “Du premier au deuxième chant de la vigne du prophète Esaïe: Réflexions sur Esaïe 27,2–5,” in Wort – Gebot – Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (ed. H. J. Stöbe; Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 325–330. 40 Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 219. 41 Sweeney, “New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard,” 64–66. 38

76

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

Both passages employ the imagery of YHWH’s defeat of the seven-headed sea/chaos-monster Leviathan (Isa 27:1; 11:15)42 as the prelude to G-d’s gathering the outcasts of Israel from Assur and Egypt so that they may be returned home to Zion (Isa 27:12–13; 11:15–16). With Isaiah 27, this theme becomes the climax of G-d’s universal judgment and restoration in the so-called Isaiah Apocalypse.

III In sum, the above examples indicate that Isaiah 24–27 draws on a number of texts from the Book of Isaiah, not only from the oracles against the nations in chs. 13–23 but from other parts of the book as well. The use of these texts, however, indicates that the composers of Isaiah 24–27 did not necessarily employ them according to their meanings in their prior Isaianic contexts. Thus, the citation of Isa 17:6 does not refer exclusively to the punishment of Israel as its immediate context in Isa 17:1–11 requires, but to the punishment of the City of Chaos, the center of the earth and its nations according to Isa 24:13. Presumably, the appearance of Isa 17:12–14, which deals with G-d’s rebuke of the nations that punished Israel, served as the catalyst for this shift in understanding. The use of Isa 21:2 and 33:1 in Isa 24:16 does not focus on the enemies of Babylon as Isa 21:2 indicates, but on the enemies of the unnamed city, which symbolizes the enemies of G-d, as Isa 33:1 suggests. The use of Isa 4:5b–6 in Isa 25:4–5 does not take up the issue of G-d’s protection of the remnant of Israel in Zion but concentrates on G-d’s protection of all nations on Zion. Likewise, the citation of Isa 32:1–2 in 25:4–5 refers not to a human king and human princes but to G-d’s rule on Mt. Zion. The use of the Day-of-the-L-rd oracle from Isa 2:6–21 in Isa 26:5 points toward the deliverance of Jerusalem, a theme that does not appear in the Day-of-the-L-rd oracle itself, but could be drawn from the larger unit, Isaiah 2–4, of which this oracle is a part. The use of the childbirth motif in Isa 26:17–18, drawn from Isa 13:8 and 66:7–9, points to a contrast between the inability of human action to deliver the earth and the actions of G-d, who is acting precisely for that purpose. The vineyard song of Isa 27:2–6 reverses the message of the original Isaianic vineyard song from one of judgment against Israel to one of restoration and salvation for Israel. Finally, the relationship between Isa 27:1, 12–13 and 11:10–16 points to a common interest that these texts share in the universal significance of the restoration of Israel. With the exception of the Moab oracle in Isa 25:11b–12, which appears to be a late intrusion, the textual citations/allu42 For the portrayal of Leviathan as a seven-headed sea-monster, see Ps 74:14 in the Hebrew Bible and 67:I:1 ff.; 67:I:27 ff.; and ‘nt III:35–39 in the Ugaritic texts.

4. Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27

77

sions that we have examined in Isaiah 24–27 tend to universalize the texts that they employ. In many cases, a universal understanding is already apparent in the cited text. But in cases where such an understanding is not already apparent, the writer(s) of Isaiah 24–27 introduces it, often with the aid of other Isaianic texts. These considerations indicate that the author(s) of Isaiah 24–27 did not compose these chapters in isolation from the rest of the Isaianic tradition. The author clearly makes use of other texts from the Book of Isaiah, but the application of these texts in the context of Isaiah 24–27 does not always correspond with their meaning as expressed in their prior Isaianic contexts. Instead, the author of Isaiah 24–27 interprets and applies these texts according to a hermeneutical perspective which is consistent with the universal outlook of Isaiah 24–27, one that looks toward the universal or cosmic significance of G-d’s punishment of the earth and his restoration of Israel in Zion. In citing or alluding to texts from other parts of the Book of Isaiah, the author of Isaiah 24–27 brings out the universal or cosmic significance of the particular concerns that these texts convey. In this respect, the motif of the Day of the L-rd, which appears in Isa 2:6–21 and 13:1–22, appears to play an especially important role in the writer’s hermeneutical approach to other texts from Isaiah. This motif, with its emphasis on YHWH’s punishment of the earth and human beings in general, provides the conceptual framework for understanding the cosmic or universal significance of the texts that are cited.43 Thus, the textual citations/allusions which we have discussed suggest a redactional relationship between Isaiah 24–27 and the rest of the book which goes well beyond previous suggestions. These chapters need not be viewed only as a case of redactional juxtaposition, intended to fulfill and interpret the oracles against the nations. In their present form, they interact with and interpret other parts of the book as well, especially in chs. 2, 4, 5, and 11. Naturally, a full understanding of the redactional function of Isaiah 24–27 and the hermeneutical perspective of its writer(s) will require an examination of the structure and generic character of these chapters in relation to the structure and genre of the Book of Isaiah.44 Nevertheless, this examination of the Isaianic textual citations and allusions in Isaiah 24– 2

43

See note 23 above. Although Isaiah 24–27 was written at a relatively late date in relation to the composition of the Book of Isaiah, a study of the structure of the book as a whole indicates that these chapters function as an integral component of the book. For an overview of the structure of the Book of Isaiah and the function of chs. 24–27 within that structure, see the relevant sections of my monograph, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. 44

78

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

27 provides a basis for future research concerning the redactional unity of the Book of Isaiah and the function of chs. 24–27 within that unity.45

45 This is a revised version of a paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Anaheim, California, on November 24, 1985. I would like to thank my colleagues, Katherine Evans, John T. Fitzgerald, Jr., Henry Green, and Stephen Sapp, for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Of course, they are not to be held responsible for the views expressed here.

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard: Isaiah 27 Reconsidered Scholars have long recognized a direct relationship between Isa 27:2–5(6), the vineyard song of the so-called Isaiah Apocalypse (Isaiah 24–27), and Isa 5:1–7, generally regarded as the original Isaianic vineyard song. Both passages use the imagery of a vineyard as an allegorical representation of the people of Israel. At the end of the 8th century B.C.E., Isaiah of Jerusalem used the vineyard allegory as a means of announcing judgment against Israel and Judah.1 He portrayed G-d as a vinedresser, patiently tending His vineyard in hopes of producing a good harvest of grapes. But when the vineyard produced sour grapes, i.e., when Israel produced violence and anguish instead of justice and righteousness, G-d decided to stop tending this unproductive vineyard, break down its walls, and allow briars, thorns, and wild animals to take it over. This, of course, referred to the impending Assyrian invasion. The author of the vineyard song in Isa 27:2–5(6), on the other hand, used the vineyard allegory as a means of announcing G-d’s protection of Israel.2 Here, G-d states that G-d will tend the vineyard, water it, and protect it from briars and thorns so that Israel can take root and blossom. Most scholars date this passage to the post-exilic period and understand it as an announcement of the eschatological restoration of Israel.3 Thus, the new song of the vineyard is seen as a “late theological reflection upon prophecy and its message which basically develops, and 1 Scholars generally agree that Isaiah is the author of the vineyard allegory in Isa 5:1– 7 (e.g., R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 [NCeB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 57–58; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 [BKAT 10.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972], 166–167). Exceptions include J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1977–1978), 1:159–168, and O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (trans. R. A. Wilson; 2nd edition; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 93–94, who see the oracle as a Deuteronomistic composition from the exilic period. 2 H. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27 (BKAT 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 1008–1009. 3 E.g., Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 218–219; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja (3 vols.; 2nd edition; ZBK 19; Zurich and Stuttgart: Zwingli/TVZ, 1966–1986), 2:1, 34–36; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 224–226. Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 1008–1012, who claims that the eschatological perspective is not original to the song.

80

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

ultimately reverses, the verdict of Isa. 5:6.”4 It is a reinterpretation of earlier prophecy in relation to the historical and theological circumstances of later times.5 The old vineyard song was rendered obsolete by the events of the post-exilic era. Therefore, its message was transformed from one of judgment to salvation. In this respect, the new vineyard song seems wellsuited to the context of Isaiah 24–27 since these chapters contain much reinterpretation of earlier prophetic texts.6 Yet, the new vineyard song poses many problems for its interpreters. There is a great deal of textual variation between the Masoretic Text and the other versions, especially the Septuagint, which hampers efforts to arrive at a precise understanding of the message of this pericope.7 Furthermore, scholars have had much difficulty in relating the new vineyard song to its context in Isaiah 24–27.8 The vineyard song seems to be thematically distinct from the preceding material. The imagery of G-d’s protective care of the vineyard contrasts markedly with that of G-d’s eschatological judgment of the world which, according to many scholars, reaches its climax in Isa 26:20–21 or 26:20–27:1.9 Likewise, the new vineyard song lacks the mythological motifs and language that permeate the preceding chapters. Scholars have noted that the introductory bayyôm hahû’ formula in v. 2 distinguishes the song formally and associates it with the other constituent

4

Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 219. R. P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Crossroad, 1979), 148. 6 For references to other prophetic passages which are reinterpreted in Isaiah 24–27, cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 910. 7 The passage presents numerous problems for the text critic (cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 1007–1008). The LXX’s portrayal of the vineyard as a besieged city appears to be an interpretation of the song in light of the imagery of the desolate city of vv. 10–11 and the besieged Jerusalem of Isa 1:4–9. In this case, it is unlikely that LXX represents a different text tradition from that of the MT. On the interpretative character of LXX Isaiah, see J. Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982), 1–198. 8 E.g., B. Duhm (Das Buch Jesaia [5th edition; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968], 189) claims that the song is a marginal gloss since it has nothing to do with its context. 9 A number of scholars include Isa 27:12–13 with the climactic section, arguing that vv. 2–11 are later. See, e.g., B. Duhm, Jesaia, 172; K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (KHC 10; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900), 201; O. Procksch, Jesaia (2 vols.; KAT 9; Leipzig: Deichert, 1930–1932), 1:331–336; and also W. Rudolph, Jesaja 24–27 (BWANT 4.10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933), 50–52. Fohrer, Jesaja, 2:34–42, sees Isa 27:1–6, 12–13 as the concluding prophetic liturgy of the Isaiah Apocalypse. Isaiah 27:7–11 is held to be a later theological reflection (cf. “Der Aufbau der Apokalypse des Jesajabuches (Jesaja 24– 27),” in idem, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (1949–1965) [BZAW 99; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967], 170–181, esp. 173–174). 5

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard

81

units of ch. 27 which include similar formulas (i.e., Isa 27:1, 6, 12, 13).10 Not only are these units perceived as having little relationship to chs. 24– 26, they seem to have little or no apparent connection with the new vineyard song or with each other. Isaiah 27:1 uses the mythological motif of G-d’s defeat of the sea dragon, Leviathan, as a means of describing His victory over the cosmic forces of chaos. Isaiah 27:7–9 discusses the exile of Israel as a punishment for its idolatry. Isaiah 27:10–11 describes an unnamed, fortified city which is now abandoned and desolate due to G-d’s punishing it for its people’s lack of understanding. Verses 12–13 describe the restoration of the exiled people of Israel to Jerusalem where they will finally worship G-d on G-d’s holy mountain. The absence of thematic and literary unity among these units has prompted many scholars to view them as a series of loosely related eschatological “impressions,” written by various hands, which were added as supplements to chs. 24–26.11 This perceived fragmentary and supplemental character of Isaiah 27 has raised further difficulties, especially in regard to the unnamed city of vv. 10–11. By interpreting the depiction of the guilt of Jacob in vv. 7–9 as a reference to the Samaritans, a number of scholars have identified the city as Samaria.12 Noting the reference to Jacob/Israel in v. 6, they consequently understand G-d’s battling the briars and thorns in the new vineyard song as a reference to the conflict between the post-exilic Jerusalem theocracy and the Samaritans. Verses 12–13 then express the hope for a reunification of Israel and Judah in worship at Jerusalem. But this view raises several problems. The post-exilic Jerusalem theocracy completely rejected the Samaritans, allowing them no possibility to join the Jerusalem community.13 Furthermore, there is no indication that vv. 2–6, 7–9, 10–11, or 12–13 were meant to refer exclusively to the Samaritans or even to the exiled northern kingdom of Israel. The original vineyard song in Isa 5:1–7 condemned 10

Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 903, 1008. Cf. O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (trans. S. Rudman; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 71. 11 Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 903–905. Cf. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 199; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 224; W. E. March, “A Study of Two Prophetic Compositions in Isaiah 24:1–27:1” (Th. D. dissertation; Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1966), 187–198; M.-L. Henry, Glaubenkrise und Glaubensbewährung in den Dichtungen der Jesajaapokalypse (BWANT 86; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967), 192–199. 12 Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 220–221; Duhm, Jesaia, 191–192; E. Jacob, “Du première au deuxième chant de la vigne du prophète Esaïe: Réflexions sur Esaïe 27,2–5,” in Wort – Gebot – Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. H. J. Stoebe et al.; Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 325–330; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:378, 380; Wildberger, Jesaia 13–27, 1016–1018. Plöger, Theocracy, 72–75, argues that Isaiah 27 originally focused on the reunification of Israel and Judah. The concern with Samaria, indicated by a gloss in v. 10a, is later. 13 Cf. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 225, who notes that various texts in Isaiah do not allow for Samaria’s survival in the final age.

82

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

both Israel and Judah (cf. Isa 5:7). The references to Israel and Jacob in vv. 6, 9, and 12 are ambiguous, especially since these names are used throughout Deutero-Isaiah to refer to all Israel, including Judah, and not exclusively to the northern kingdom.14 One might expect a more explicit reference to Samaria in vv. 10–11 if the author had the Samaritans or the northern kingdom in mind. Others see here a reference to Jerusalem which lay in ruins in the early post-exilic period.15 The people’s lack of understanding mentioned in v. 11 would correspond to the reason cited in Isa 1:3 for the punishment of Jerusalem. But such a view of a desolate Jerusalem and a recalcitrant people does not seem to fit well with the themes of protection and restoration in vv. 2–6 and 12–13. Some see vv. 10–11 as a reference to the vanquished world capital mentioned throughout chs. 24– 26 (cf. esp. Isa 25:2),16 but this is puzzling in the context of ch. 27 which focuses on Israel. Others simply despair of identifying the city altogether.17 Clearly, the perceived lack of unity in ch. 27 has complicated the interpretation of the new vineyard song and the other sub-units of the chapter. Nevertheless, there are indications of thematic unity throughout the chapter. It begins and ends with references to cosmic/international events, i.e., G-d’s defeat of the cosmic chaos monster in v. 1 and the ingathering of Israel from exile throughout the world to Jerusalem in vv. 12–13. We have already noted the introductory eschatological formulas, bayyôm hahû’ (vv. 1, 2), habbā’îm (v. 6), and wěhāyâ bayyôm hahû’ (vv. 12, 13), which give the entire chapter a future orientation. Agricultural imagery permeates most of the chapter. The vineyard song, of course, employs such imagery throughout vv. 2–5. Verse 6 includes references to Jacob’s “taking root,” Israel’s “blossoming” and “blooming,” as well as their “filling the world with fruit.” The word běsa’ssě’â in v. 8 presents problems.18 Most scholars understand it either as a contraction of biš’âsě‘ǎ translating “measure by measure,” or as a pilpel infinitive of a hypothetical root sw’, translating “by her expulsion,” but recognize that neither solution is completely satisfactory. S. Daiches associates the word with the Akkadian sassu and Talmudic Aramaic s’s’ which refers to “the top of an ear of corn.”19 While his interpretation of v. 8 is problematic and the precise meaning of the word remains unclear, its association with an agricultural context is evident. Verse 9 contains pěrî, “fruit,” and vv. 10 and 11 contain sě‘ipêhā, “its branches,” 14

Isa 40:27; 41:8, 14; 42:24; 43:1, 22, 28; 44:1, 21, 23; 45:4; 48:12; 49:5. Rudolph, Jesaja 24–27, 53–56; Fohrer, Jesaja, 2:41. 16 J. Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse: Jes. 24–27 (LUÅ NF 1.34.3; Lund: Gleerup, 1938), 58. 17 G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 459. 18 Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 1014. 19 “An Explanation of Isaiah 27.8,” JQR 6.3 (Jan. 1916): 399–404. 15

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard

83

and qěṣîrāh, “its cuttings,” respectively. Verse 12 contains the statement, yaḥbōṭ yhwh miššibbōlet hannāhār, “YHWH will beat out from the branch of the river.” Šibbolet is the singular form of šibbôlîm, “ears of corns,” and yaḥbōṭ refers to winnowing corn. Finally, v. 12 contains the verb, těluqqěṭû, “You shall be gleaned,” which refers to the gleaning of a grape harvest. There are other indications of unity in Isaiah 27 in that references to Isaiah 17 and Isaiah 1 appear throughout the chapter. Vermeylen has already pointed to a number of references which associate Isa 27:9–11 with Isa 17:1–11 by using the same motifs and vocabulary. 20 Both texts treat the punishment of the northern kingdom of Israel, referred to as “Jacob” in Isa 17:4 and 27:9. He notes that hammizběḥôt, wěhā’ǎšērîm wěhāḥammānîm in Isa 17:8 corresponds to mizbēaḥ, ’ǎšērîm wěḥammānîm in Isa 27:9b. The reference to ‘ārê mā‘uzzô ka‘ǎzûbat … ‘āzěbû in Isa 17:9 refers to ‘îr běṣûrâ … wěne‘ězāb in Isa 27:10. Both share the theme of harvest (qāṣîr) in Isa 17:5, 11 and 27:11. Finally, both texts (Isa 17:7; 27:11) presuppose that the people have betrayed their “Maker” (‘ōśēhû). He uses this evidence to argue that the “fortified city” (‘îr běṣûrâ) of Isa 27:10 is none other than Samaria (cf. Isa 17:3, mibṣār mē’eprayīm) and that the purpose of Isa 27:9– 11 is to predict the punishment of this city “to expiate the guilt of Jacob” (Isa 27:9a). However, he has overlooked a number of other references to Isaiah 17 in ch. 27 which extend well beyond Isa 27:9–11. G-d’s invitation to seize G-d’s protection (’ô yaḥǎzēq běmā‘uzzô, Isa 27:5) and make peace with G-d stands in contrast to Isa 17:9–10, which describes a people who trust in their strong cities (‘ārê mā‘uzzô) and have forgotten G-d, their rock of protection (wěṣûr mǎ‘uzzēk). The statement in Isa 27:6, that Israel will blossom and bloom (ûpāraḥ) as a result of G-d’s care, contrasts with the futile attempts of the people who try to make seed bloom (ûbabbōqer zar‘ēk taprîḥi) without divine support (Isa 17:11). The imagery of G-d’s winnowing from the branch/ear of the river (yaḥbōṭ yhwh miššibbōlet hannāhār) and the gleaning of Israel so that they might return to Jerusalem (wě’attem těluqqětû) in Isa 27:12–13 contrasts with the punishment oriented gleaning of ears in the Valley of Rephaim (Isa 17:5). However, it compares favorably with the chaff of the nations which is blown away by the wind when G-d acts to protect G-d’s people in Isa 17:13 (cf. Isa 27:8). Likewise, the nations which threaten Israel roar like the roaring of the sea in Isa 17:12. G-d’s rebuke of these nations calls to mind G-d’s defeat of the sea dragon Leviathan in Isa 27:1. Clearly, the association between chs. 27 and 17 is intended not only to announce the condemnation of the people referred to in Isa 27:9–11, but to offer reconciliation once their punishment is over. Apparently, the full implications of the harvest imagery

20

Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:377–378.

84

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

of Isaiah 17 come to fruition in ch. 27. Isaiah 17:5 notes that the initial harvest will mow down most of the people like standing grain. But Isa 17:6–7 makes it clear that the gleanings which remain after the harvest is over will form the basis of a renewed relationship between the people and G-d. At that time, the people will look to their Maker for protection and ignore the Asherim and Hammanim21 on which they previously depended. Isaiah 17:12–14 indicates that afterwards the nations which threatened Israel will be blown away like chaff. Isaiah 27 thus picks up this message from the final form of ch. 17 and applies it by associating its own themes of punishment and reconciliation. Scholars have noted some connection between Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 1.22 The reference to a people without understanding in Isa 27:11 calls to mind the accusation against the people in Isa 1:3. However, most prefer to associate this statement with Ben Sira’s appraisal of the Samaritans in Sir 50:26, which uses similar language to describe the people who live in Shechem.23 But there are other thematic and semantic connections between these chapters. The fortified city which stands alone in Isa 27:10 (‘îr běṣûrâ bādād) resembles the besieged city of Jerusalem which is left alone in Isa 1:8. The comparison is particularly apt when one considers that the isolated Jerusalem is described “like a sukkah in a vineyard” (kěsukkâ běkārem) and “like a besieged city” (kě‘îr něṣûrâ). This language stands in contrast to the “delightful vineyard” (kerem ḥemed)24 of Isa 27:2 which G-d watches over (Isa 27:3; ’ǎnî ywhw nōṣěrāh … layělâ wāyyôm ’eṣṣǒrennâ). Isaiah 27:7 questions the severity of the smiting which the people endured (hakkěmakkat makkēhû hikkāhû) and this corresponds to the smiting mentioned in Isa 1:5 (‘al meh tukkû). Isaiah 27:9 refers to both the guilt (‘awōn) and the sin (ḥaṭṭā’tô) of Jacob and these are prominently mentioned as reasons for the punishment of the people in Isa 1:4. Furthermore, there is a short oracle in Isa 1:29–31 which condemns the people of Jerusalem for their idolatrous terebinths and gardens. This is quite a contrast between the delightful vineyard (kerem ḥemed), protected by G-d, which produces so much fruit (Isa 27:6) and the parched gardens in which the people of Jerusalem delight (Isa 1:29; ’ǎšer ḥǎmadtem). The leaves and branches of the terebinths and gardens are dry and will quickly burn with no water to quench the fire. In contrast, G-d waters G-d’s vineyard continuously (Isa 27:3) and burns any briars and thorns which might threaten it (Isa 27:4). Clearly, Isaiah 1 stands 21

Probably incense altars. Cf. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 228. Cf. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 230. 23 E.g., Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 242. 24 Most Hebrew manuscripts read kerem ḥemer, “a vineyard of wine” (cf. BHS; 1QIsaa). Leningradensis’ reading of ḥemed is to be preferred since it contributes to the positive imagery of the passage and agrees with both LXX, which employs generally negative imagery, and Targum Jonathan (cf. Amos 5:11). 22

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard

85

behind the descriptions of both the delightful vineyard of Isa 27:2–6 and Jacob’s guilt and the solitary city of Isa 27:7–11. The description of the besieged Jerusalem and the idolatrous gardens in ch. 1 contrasts with the delightful garden of ch. 27. But these same images, with their explanation for punishment in Isaiah 1, resemble the isolated city and the explanation for Jacob’s expiation of guilt in Isa 27:7–11. These observations on the relationship between ch. 27 and chs. 1 and 17 have several implications. First, the references to chs. 1 and 17 indicate that the various sub-units of ch. 27 cannot be viewed as lacking a relation to one another. They are clearly intended to stand together. Second, reference to chs. 1 and 17 helps to clarify the conceptual relationship of the various sub-units of Isaiah 27. Isaiah 1 begins a scene of punishment that is the result of the people’s wickedness in vv. 2–17. Yet, vv. 18–28 make it clear that the purpose of the punishment is to cleanse the people so that their relationship with G-d can be restored. Once the punishment is over and the cleansing has taken place, vv. 29–31 indicate that the people will be ashamed of their former ways.25 Isaiah 17 presents a similar situation. It begins by proclaiming judgment against Damascus and Ephraim, i.e., the northern kingdom of Israel. Most scholars see this as an oracle against the Syro-Ephraimitic alliance which threatened Jerusalem in 735– 732 B.C.E.26 Like ch. 1, the present form of this passage is not entirely concerned with judgment against these countries. Verses 6–8 make it clear that once the punishment is over, those few who survive will turn back to G-d. Furthermore, vv. 12–14 indicate that G-d will eventually rebuke the nations which carry out this punishment, portrayed as cosmic forces of chaos, thus protecting those who return to G-d. This demonstrates two things: 1) the purpose of punishment is to cleanse the people of their wickedness so that their relationship with G-d might be restored; and 2) this process of punishment leading to restoration is understood as having international or cosmic significance. These themes from chs. 1 and 17 aid in understanding the seemingly unrelated images of Isaiah 27. The isolated city of vv. 10–11 represents a scene of punishment whereas the delightful vineyard of vv. 2– 6 represents one of restoration. Verses 7–9 provide the link between them. They speak of punishment as expiation of guilt or sin which leads to Jacob’s rejection of idolatrous practices. This paves the way for the resto25

For a detailed discussion of the structure, genre, and intent of the final form of Isaiah 1, see my Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1988), 101–123. 26 The extent of the original oracle is disputed. Various proposals have been put forward including vv. 1–3, 1–6, 1–11, and 1–14. Others identify several Isaianic oracles in the chapter and some redactional additions. For a full discussion, see Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 633–677.

86

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

ration of their relationship with G-d. Verses 1 and 12–13 place this process of punishment leading to restoration in a cosmic, international framework. The resulting ingathering of exiles from Assur and Egypt, made possible by the restored relationship with G-d, is portrayed as G-d’s triumph over the forces of cosmic chaos. Third, the many references to Isaiah 1 which appear in Isaiah 27 make it difficult to maintain that the solitary city of vv. 10–11 is Samaria. Instead, it must be Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the vineyard itself must be understood as Israel and Judah as Isa 5:1–7 maintains. Chapter 17 deals with Israel, not Jerusalem, and Isa 1:8 makes it clear that Jerusalem stands in the midst of the vineyard. Once the people have been exiled and the city punished, the solitary city of Jerusalem will be repopulated as the exiles return. These considerations, pointing to the unity of Isaiah 27, will aid in establishing the formal structure of the chapter. This will clarify the precise interrelationship of the sub-units which comprise Isaiah 27. By this means, the specific purpose or intent of the chapter can be determined. The first sub-unit of ch. 27 is v. 1. It is distinguished formally by its introductory bayyôm hahû’ formula, indicating its genre as an eschatological announcement, and thematically by its focus on the sea monster Leviathan. A new sub-unit begins in v. 2, which contains another introductory bayyôm hahû’ formula. Verse 1 falls into two parts. Verse 1a contains the governing verb of the statement (yipqōd) and describes YHWH’s attack on Leviathan. Verse 1b, with its waw-consecutive wěhārag, describes the results of YHWH’s attack, the slaying of the monster. The structure is as follows: Eschatological Announcement: YHWH’s Defeat of Leviathan I. YHWH’s Attack on Leviathan II. Result: Slaying of Leviathan

27:1 1a 1b

The second sub-unit of Isaiah 27 is vv. 2–6. It is distinguished formally by its introductory bayyôm hahû’ formula, which indicates its generic character as an eschatological announcement, and thematically by its focus on the vineyard. Some have argued that v. 6 should not be a part of this unit since it contains its own introductory formula, habbā’îm,27 but this verse is necessary to explain the allegory in vv. 2–5 which would otherwise be incomprehensible. Furthermore, vv. 2–6 are cast in future-oriented, projecting language, whereas vv. 7 ff., which begin with a generically distinct rhetorical question, are oriented toward the present. Verses 2–6 deal with G-d’s protection of Israel, allegorically portrayed as the vineyard. Verses 7 ff. take up the punishment of Israel. Verses 2–6 fall into three sections, v. 2, vv. 3–5, and v. 6, each of which is formally identified by the perspective of its verbs. Verse 2 contains a mas27

Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 1008, 1014–1015.

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard

87

culine plural imperative verb, ‘annû. The speaker is apparently the prophet but the addressee is not identified. This verse serves as the introduction to the allegory which follows. Verses 3–5 contain the vineyard allegory proper and are formally distinguished by their first person plural singular form of address. The speaker here is G-d. Again, the addressee is not identified. The third person feminine pronouns refer back to the vineyard mentioned in v. 2.28 Verse 6 is cast in third person masculine form and explains the meaning of the vineyard allegory in vv. 3–5. The speaker is not identified, but presumably, he is the prophet. The addressee is not specified. The vineyard allegory in vv. 3–5 contains two basic sections. Verse 3 contains direct statements concerning G-d’s protection of the vineyard. Verse 3a specifies G-d’s actions of guarding (v. 3aα) and watering (v. 3aβ). Verse 3b summarizes the purpose of G-d’s guarding the vineyard with its subordinate clause in v. 3bα, i.e., G-d guards the vineyard lest someone comes upon it. Verses 4–5 outline G-d’s responses in the event that someone does come upon the vineyard. 29 Verse 4a states G-d’s lack of hostility toward potential visitors. Verses 4b–5 describe the actual responses. If someone comes with hostile intent, expressed metaphorically in v. 4bα as someone placing thorns and briars against G-d, then G-d will react with hostility, advancing against the vineyard and burning it (v. 4bβ).30 Verse 5, introduced by ’ô which expresses an alternative case, describes G-d’s reaction to a peaceful visitor. If he grasps G-d’s protection and attempts to make peace with G-d (v. 5a), then he will achieve this end (v. 5b).31 The third person feminine pronouns in v. 4b indicate that G-d is waiting for the reaction from the vineyard itself. If the vineyard produces briars and thorns, G-d will destroy it. If it accepts G-d’s protection, it will receive that protection. This indicates that the purpose of the allegory is to offer reconciliation to the vineyard, i. e., to Israel. It is up to the vineyard to respond. Verse 6 explains the meaning of the allegory. The vineyard is obviously Israel and this verse anticipates Israel’s acceptance of G-d’s offer of reconciliation. Jacob/Israel will take root, blossoming and blooming in v. 6a. The result will be a world filled with fruit in v. 6b. 28 While kerem is normally masculine, the feminine pronoun in the statement ‘annû lāh, “sing of it,” indicates that it is understood as a feminine noun here. Cf. Lev 25:3 where the feminine pronoun of těbû’ātāh, “its produce,” indicates that kerem is understood as feminine. 29 The absence of a nominal subject for yipqōd indicates an unspecified subject, i.e., “should one come upon it.” Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 1007. 30 The feminine pronoun indicates that the vineyard will be burned. On the significance of the burning of the vineyard for the interpretation of the allegory, see below. 31 The order of the words is significant here. Verse 5aβ places the verb ya’ǎśeh first, indicating the condition that he must initiate action to obtain the desired result, peace. Verse 5b places šālôm first, emphasizing the result of his action, peace, which he will obtain only if he shows the proper initiative.

88

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

The structure of vv. 2–6 is as follows: Eschatological Announcement: G-d’s Offer of Reconciliation to Israel; New Vineyard Allegory (27:2–6) I. Introduction II. Vineyard allegory proper A. G-d’s statements of protection 1. Specification of actions a. Guarding b. Watering 2. Purpose of G-d’s protection a. Case: someone comes b. Consequence: G-d’s protection B. G-d’s offer of reconciliation 1. G-d’s lack of anger 2. Alternative reactions a. Hostile 1) Hostile response of people 2) Hostile reaction of G-d a) Advance against the vineyard b) Kindle b. Peaceful 1) Peaceful response of people a) Seize protection b) Make peace 2) Peaceful reaction of G-d III. Explanation of allegory A. Jacob/Israel will be reestablished 1. Jacob will take root 2. Israel will bloom and blossom B. Result: world filled with fruit

2 3–5 3 3a 3aα 3aβ 3b 3bα 3bβ 4–5 4a 4b–5 4b 4bα 4bβ 4bβ1 4bβ2 5 5a 5aα 5aβ 5b 6 6a 6aα 6aβ 6b

The third sub-unit of Isaiah 27 is vv. 7–13. The unit is distinguished formally by the introduction of a rhetorical question in v. 7 which has no syntactic connection or an apparent thematic relationship to the preceding material. Verses 8–9 begin a response to the concerns expressed in the rhetorical question of v. 7. Syntactical connections at v. 10 (kî) and vv. 12 and 13 (wěhāyâ bayyôm hahû’), however, indicate that the response does not end with v. 9 but includes vv. 10–11 and 12–13 as well. Chapter 28 begins a new formal unit apart from chs. 24–27. Verse 7 constitutes the first sub-unit of vv. 7–13. This two-part rhetorical question, “Like the smiting of his smiters is he smitten? [v. 7a] Like the slaying of his slain (is he) slain?” [v.7b], apparently compares the situation of Israel with that of her enemies. Obviously, the question presupposes that Israel has suffered at the hands of an enemy, but it also presupposes that her enemy has suffered far worse. In making this comparison, the question suggests that Israel’s lot is not as bad as one might think. It could be far

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard

89

worse. It therefore challenges the assumption that Israel has been completely destroyed. The response in vv. 8–13 includes three sections distinguished by their contents. Verses 8–9 focus on the punishment of Israel as expiation for its guilt. Verses 10–11 focus on the image of the abandoned city whose people have no understanding. Verses 12–13 focus on the future restoration of Israel to Jerusalem. Verse 8, despite the difficulties in understanding v. 8a, addresses the current situation of the people. They are in exile, stated explicitly in v. 8a32 and metaphorically in v. 8b through the imagery of removal by wind. Verse 9 uses projecting, future-oriented language to explain the purpose or outcome of this exile, i.e., the expiation of Jacob’s guilt. This is basically stated in v. 9aα. Verse 9aβ + b states the proof or result of the removal of Jacob’s sin. A statement indicating proof appears in v. 9aβ and introduces the two specifications of the proof which appear in v. 9bα (when he crushes the altars) and v. 9aβ (when Asherim and Hammanim do not stand). Verses 10–11 describe the deserted city. The verbless clauses in vv. 10a and 11bα indicate that, like v. 8, these verses refer to a current state of affairs. Verses 10–11a contain the actual description of the city. This desolation of the city is basically stated in v. 10a which claims that it is solitary (v. 10aα) and abandoned (v. 10aβ). Verses 10b–11a elaborate on this statement employing the images of a calf grazing in its midst (v. 10b) and women gathering its dried cuttings for tinder (v. 11a). Verse 11b explains the reason for this desolation. The people lack understanding (v. 11bα). Consequently, G-d shows neither mercy nor favor (v. 11bβγ). Verses 12–13 describe the eschatological restoration of Jerusalem in two parts, each of which begins with the formula, wěhāyâ bayyôm hahû’. Verse 12 focuses on the recovery of the exiles by using harvest imagery. G-d will beat out the exiled people from the Euphrates to the Nile (v. 12a) which will result in the gathering (gleaning) of all the people of Israel (v. 12b). Verse 13 focuses on the return of the exiles to Jerusalem. The return is described in a three-part sequence determined by the waw-consecutive verbal structure of the verse. First, the great šôfar will blow (v. 13aα1). Second, the exiles will come from Assur and Egypt (v. 13 aα2 + β). Third, they will all worship G-d in Jerusalem (v. 13b). As noted above, the references to Isaiah 1 in vv. 10–11 indicate that the desolate city is Jerusalem. This helps to clarify the relation of vv. 12–13 to vv. 10–11. Verses 12–13, with their future orientation, function in relation 32 The appearance of the second person statement, běšallěḥāh těrîbennâ, “by expulsion, you contend against her,” in a third person context indicates that it is an interpretative gloss, addressed to G-d, which is intended to explain běsa’ssě’â in terms of exile. Cf. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 221.

90

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

to vv. 10–11 in a manner similar to that of v. 9 to v. 8. They explain the outcome of a current situation, i.e., they explain the future of the desolate city (Jerusalem) described in vv. 10–11. Not only do vv. 10–13 then form a structural parallel to vv. 8–9, they represent a thematic development as well. Once the guilt of Jacob is expiated (vv. 8–9), then the desolate Jerusalem will be filled with its redeemed inhabitants (vv. 10–13). Thus, vv. 8–13 respond to the concerns posed by the rhetorical question of v. 7. They refute the defeatist attitude which the question presupposes by explaining that the current situation of Israel, the exile of the people and the desolation of Jerusalem, will change for the better in the future. The exile is about to end and Jerusalem will be restored so that Israel is not so badly smitten after all. The purpose of this section is to encourage Israel, to convince the people that all is not lost in their present situation of defeat. Generically, vv. 7–13 are therefore an exhortation to the people of Israel to maintain hope for their future restoration in Jerusalem. The generic characterization of vv. 7–13 as an exhortation to Israel aids in clarifying its relationship to the vineyard allegory of vv. 2–6. As noted above, the purpose of the allegory was to offer reconciliation to the people of Israel. Should the vineyard/people react to G-d’s offer with hostility, i.e., by producing briars and thorns, then G-d will respond with hostility by burning the vineyard (v. 4b). Should the people/vineyard react peacefully by accepting G-d’s protection, G-d will respond peacefully (v. 5). The choice belongs to the vineyard, i.e., the people of Israel. As v. 6 indicates, the allegory presupposes that the people will make the proper choice. By offering encouragement to the people, vv. 7–13 reinforce the expectation of v. 6. They give the people a reason to make the proper choice, i.e., to accept G-d’s protection in expectation that their present desperate state will end when they are restored to Jerusalem. Thus, vv. 7–13 apply the message of the allegory to the current situation of the people. Consequently, vv. 2–6 and 7–13 constitute a single unit which exhorts the people to accept G-d’s protection in anticipation of their restoration to Jerusalem. Verses 2–6 make the offer of reconciliation. Verses 7–13 encourage the people to accept the offer. The structure of vv. 2–13 is as follows: Exhortation to Israel to Accept G-d’s Offer of Reconciliation (27:2–13) I. New vineyard allegory: eschatological announcement of G-d’s offer of reconciliation A. Introduction B. Vineyard allegory proper 1. G-d’s statements of protection 2. G-d’s offer of reconciliation C. Explanation of allegory: vineyard is Israel II. Exhortation proper: application of allegory to Israel A. Rhetorical question challenging defeatist attitude of people

2–6 2 3–5 3 4–5 6 7–13 7

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard 1. Concerning smiting 2. Concerning slaying B. Response: refutation of defeatist attitude 1. Concerning exile of people a. Current situation: exile 1) Expressed explicitly 2) Expressed metaphorically b. Outcome of exile: expiation 1) Basically stated 2) Proof/result of expiation a) Introductory statement b) Specifications i. Crush altars ii. Remove Asherim/Hammanim 2. Concerning desolation of city (Jerusalem) a. Current situation: desolation 1) Description of desolate city a) Basically stated i. Solitary ii. Abandoned b) Elaboration i. Grazing calf ii. Women gather tinder 2) Explanation for desolation a) People lack understanding b) Consequences i. Maker shows no mercy ii. Creator shows no favor b. Eschatological announcement: restoration of people to city 1) Concerning recovery of exiles a) G-d winnows foreign lands b) Result: exiles are gathered 2) Concerning return of exiles a) šôfar blast b) Exiles come c) Worship G-d in Jerusalem

91 7a 7b 8–13 8–9 8 8a 8b 9 9aα 9aβ + b 9aβ 9b 9bα 9bβ 10–13 10–11 10–11a 10a 10aα 10aβ 10b–11a 10b 11a 11b 11bα 11bβ 11bβ1 11bβ2 12–13 12 12a 12b 13 13aα1 13aα2 + β 13b

Finally, the relation of Isa 27:2–13 to Isa 27:1 and Isaiah 24–26 needs to be addressed. Naturally, full discussion of this issue is not possible here, but a few tentative observations are in order.33 Isaiah 27:1 announces G-d’s victory over the sea monster, Leviathan, the mythological symbol of the forces of cosmic chaos.34 In the context of Isaiah 24–27 this refers to G-d’s overturning the earth and His overthrow

33 For a brief discussion of the superstructure of Isaiah 24–27, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1– 4, 51–54. 34 Cf. C. Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), 1–9.

92

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

of the City of Chaos.35 Identification of this city is disputed, but it seems to be a mythological representation of the earthly power of the nations.36 The defeat of this city is portrayed with imagery drawn from covenant curse traditions indicating violation of the Noachic covenant.37 Once the defeat is accomplished, the nations turn to G-d at Mt. Zion. At this point, cosmic order is restored and this is symbolized through the defeat of Leviathan. A number of scholars see this as the climax of the Isaiah Apocalypse and question the role of Isa 27:2–13 which anticlimactically looks toward a restoration of Israel to Jerusalem.38 Yet, the defeat of the sea monster Leviathan and the restoration of Israel are linked together in other texts from Isaiah. We have already noted that Isa 17:12–14 ties the rebuke of the nations, portrayed in chaos sea imagery, to the restoration of Israel.39 Isaiah 11:10–16 makes the connection explicit. The passage portrays G-d’s gathering the exiles of Israel and Judah from the nations and their restoration as a second Exodus. Verse 15 describes G-d’s ban of the tongue of the sea of Egypt and His waving His hand over the River (i.e., the Euphrates). He then smites it into seven channels so that the people can cross dry-shod. The result is the return of the exiles. In Ugaritic and Hebrew mythology, Leviathan is portrayed as a seven-headed sea monster whom Baal/YHWH defeats to establish cosmic order.40 According to Ps 74:13–14, G-d breaks the sea in pieces and crushes the heads of Leviathan to create cosmic order. This imagery apparently stands behind the statement in Isa 11:15 concerning the smiting of the Sea of Egypt/ Euphrates River into seven channels. But in Isa 11:15–16, the order which results is the restoration of Israel. Similarly, Isa 27:2–13 portrays the restoration of Israel as the result of G-d’s defeat of Leviathan. There are other similarities between Isaiah 27 and Isa 11:10–16. The references to the River (Euphrates) and the Brook of Egypt (Nile) in Isa 27:12 correspond to similar references in Isa 11:15. The mention of Assur and Egypt in Isa 27:13 corresponds to the mention of Egypt and Assur in Isa 11:11 (cf. vv. 15–16). The “outcasts” (wěhanniddaḥîm) of Isa 27:13 correspond to the “outcasts of Israel” (nidḥê yiśrā’ēl) in 11:12 and Jacob’s 35 Cf. P. L. Redditt, “Isaiah 24–27: A Form Critical Analysis” (Ph. D. dissertation; Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., 1972), 224. 36 Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 202–203. 37 Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 183–184. 38 March, “A Study of Two Prophetic Compositions in Isaiah 24:1–27:1,” 170–175, 187–198; R. B. Y. Scott, “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39,” IB 5:156–381 (305). 39 Note that Isa 24:13 cites Isa 17:6 to describe the destruction of the City of Chaos. This indicates that the judgment against Israel, described in Isaiah 17, is now applied to the nations (cf. Isa 17:12–14), represented by the City of Chaos. Cf. Kaiser, Isaiah 13– 39, 181; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 203. 40 Cf. UT 67: I:1–3; ’nt: III: 38–39.

5. New Gleanings from an Old Vineyard

93

“taking root” in Isa 27:6 calls to mind the “root of Jesse” in 11:10. But the most important point of comparison involves the role which the gathering of the exiles plays in relation to the nations. The gathering of the exiles is associated with G-d’s “ensign to the nations,” a sign of G-d’s power to which the nations should look (cf. Isa 11:10). Thus, in Isa 11:11–16, the gathering of the exiles becomes the sign by which the nations will recognize the power of G-d.41 That recognition will be complete when G-d, having defeated the forces of chaos (Tongue of the Sea of Egypt/River Euphrates), brings the remnant of His people home. This aids in clarifying the relationship of Isaiah 27 to chs. 24–26. The restoration of Israel is the climactic event in G-d’s defeat of the forces of chaos on earth. Until Israel is restored, full cosmic order is not complete. The precise literary relationship between Isa 11:10–16 and Isaiah 27 is uncertain,42 but they appear to share a similar concept that the restoration of Israel is the climactic act in G-d’s restoration of order in the world. Clearly, the new vineyard song of Isa 27:2–6 and the other sub-units of ch. 27 cannot be viewed as a series of unrelated supplements to the Isaiah Apocalypse. There is a conceptual unity to these materials which offers hope for the future restoration of the post-exilic Jewish community.43 This conceptual unity is based in a theological reflection on previous Isaianic tradition, not only on the vineyard song of Isa 5:1–7, but on chs. 1 and 17 (and perhaps Isa 11:10–16) as well. In employing these older traditions, the writer of Isaiah 27 did not restrict their meaning to their original historical contexts in the eighth century B.C.E., but applied them to the circumstances of the post-exilic period. In this respect, the reinterpretation of older Isaianic tradition and its application to later historical circumstances testifies to the principle stated in Isa 40:8, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our G-d shall stand forever.”44 41

Cf. Isa 11:10; Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 262–265. While there are thematic and lexical similarities between these texts, there are also differences. Isaiah 11:10 employs royal Davidic imagery which does not appear in Isaiah 27. Isaiah 11:11–16 employs Exodus imagery whereas Isaiah 27 employs that of creation in describing the defeat of chaos. It therefore seems unlikely that these texts were written by the same author or redactor as Vermeylen maintains (Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 1:279–280). It is also uncertain whether Isaiah 27 is literarily dependent on Isa 11:11–16 or vice versa. Wildberger (Jesaja 28–39 [BKAT 10.3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982], 1572–1573, 1575) assigns both passages to his final redaction category, but hesitates to assign both to the same redactor. 43 There is no indication that the sub-units which comprise Isaiah 27 were written by the same hand. There is no unified literary style or semantic consistency in the chapter and the imagery shifts from unit to unit. Instead, the chapter must be viewed as a redactional unity. 44 I would like to thank my colleagues, Stephen Sapp and John T. Fitzgerald, Jr., for their assistance in the preparation of this paper. 42

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah I The past two decades have seen tremendous advances in the study of the Book of Isaiah; scholars have come to recognize the importance of considering Isaiah as a coherent literary whole as well as a composite text with a literary history of some four or more centuries.1 Such work has revolutionized critical study of Isaiah in that scholars are now able to explore the interrelationships of the various blocks of the text, identified by Duhm as Proto-, Deutero-, and Trito-Isaiah, that were previously treated as completely separate literary works that had little to do with one another.2 Indeed, the complexities of the interrelationships between the various parts of the present form of Isaiah and the variegated history of its composition have led scholars to conclude that it is no longer desirable or even possible to treat First, Second, and Third Isaiah as completely separate literary works; rather, any treatment of Isaiah must examine its various texts not only in relation to their immediate literary contexts within the book, but in relation to the book as a whole. Willem Beuken’s work has been particularly important in this endeavor, in that he has pointed especially to the hermeneutics of inner-biblical exegesis as an essential aspect in the reconstruction of the compositional history of Isaiah and in the interpretation of its present literary form. In his commentaries on Isaiah 40–66 and in a series of studies on various texts from Trito-Isaiah and more recently from Proto-Isaiah, Beuken demonstrates that the authors of these compositions draw heavily on earlier texts from the Isaianic tradition in order to articulate their understanding of Isaiah’s message and to apply it to the needs of their own later times.3 1

For a survey of current research on the Book of Isaiah as a whole, see M. A. Sweeney, “The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research,” CurBS 1 (1993): 141–162. 2 B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT 3.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). 3 W. A. M. Beuken, Jesaja: Deel II A–C (POT; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1979, 1983, 1989); “Isa. 56:9–57:13 – An Example of the Isaianic Legacy of Trito-Isaiah,” in Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 48–64; “Trito-

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

95

Especially important in this regard is his study of the main theme of TritoIsaiah which he identifies as “the servants of YHWH.”4 Noting that Deutero-Isaiah speaks exclusively of a single “servant of YHWH” until Isa 54:17, he argues that Isaiah 56–66 employs aposiopesis or a deliberate rhetorical silence to identify the “servants of YHWH” as the primary concern of these chapters. Trito-Isaiah speaks explicitly of “the servants of YHWH” only in 56:6; 63:17; 65:8, 9, 15; 66:13, 14, but develops this theme in association with the notions of the “seed” or “offspring” who will inherit the covenant of YHWH and the “righteousness” of the servants who will be vindicated when YHWH’s sovereignty is manifested in Zion. In this regard, Trito-Isaiah develops the image of the servant in Isa 53:10 who will ultimately see his offspring prosper. Important questions remain, however, concerning the identity of these anonymous servants of YHWH and the role that they play in relation to the book as a whole. One might hesitate to address this question in that a great deal of ink has been spilled on attempts to identify or characterize the servant of Deutero-Isaiah to little avail.5 Whether the servant of DeuteroIsaiah is intended to be a royal figure, either a Davidic figure or Cyrus, or the people of Israel in some form or another is immaterial for the present purposes. Clearly, a shift in perspective takes place in Trito-Isaiah, in which the servant of Deutero-Isaiah no longer serves as the major focal point for the realization of YHWH’s plans for the future. Rather, the servants of YHWH presented in Trito-Isaiah are considered to be the righteous and prosperous offspring that the servant in Isa 53:10 will ultimately see. Recognition of this shift points to several additional dimensions of this issue that are related to recent study of the Book of Isaiah as a whole. The first is the literary context in which this theme appears. Within the structure of the Book of Isaiah as a whole, Trito-Isaiah is introduced by Isaiah 55, which redefines the Davidic covenant as an eternal covenant applied to

Jesaja: Profetie en Schriftgeleerdheid,” in Profeten en Profetische Geschriften (ed. F. García Martínez et al.; Kampen: Kok; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987), 1–85; “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55,” in The Book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe (ed. J. Vermeyelen; BETL 81; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 411–442; “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: ‘The Servants of YHWH,’” JSOT 47 (1990): 67– 87; “Isaiah Chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah,” in Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 204– 221; “Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext in Jesajabuch,” ETL 67 (1991): 5–35. 4 “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings.” 5 For a full survey of research on the Servant of YHWH in Deutero-Isaiah, see H. Haag, Der G-ttesknecht bei Deuterojesaja (EdF 233; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993).

96

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

the people of Israel at large, not simply to the House of David.6 Given Proto-Isaiah’s presentation of several oracles concerning the future establishment of a righteous Davidic monarch (i.e., Isa 9:1–6; 11:1–16; cf. 32:1–20), such a shift has tremendous implications for understanding the hermeneutics employed in reading the Book of Isaiah that point to the continued development of the book and reflection on its meaning in relation to the social and political realities of the post-exilic Jewish community. The second is Trito-Isaiah’s explicit use of earlier Isaianic textual traditions, particularly the oracle concerning the nations’ recognition of the restoration of Judah and Israel under the rule of the righteous Davidic monarch in Isa 11:1–16, to portray the people of Israel as a priestly people in relation to the nations. Isaiah 11:1–16 appears in various manifestations throughout the framework of Trito-Isaiah,7 and, together with other Isaianic texts, it is especially influential in Isaiah 60–62 and 65–66, which portray the nations’ return of the exiled Jews to Zion and their presentation of offerings. Particularly important in this regard is the articulation of this priestly role to the nations in the context of the “eternal covenant” established between YHWH and the people of Israel in Isa 61:8–9. Finally, these observations must be considered in relation to the overall identification of YHWH’s reign with the rule of the Persian empire throughout the Book of Isaiah, especially in relation to the oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13–23 and the designation of Cyrus as YHWH’s anointed in Deutero-Isaiah. Overall, these factors combine to define the role of “the servants of YHWH” in the context of a reconceptualized Davidic covenant in the Book of Isaiah. Given the demise of the Davidic dynasty and the subsequent rise of the Persian empire articulated in the Book of Isaiah, the people of Israel will continue to represent YHWH’s eternal covenant in the world at large as a priestly people who serve YHWH at Zion. In this regard, Zion will serve as the holy center or sanctuary of YHWH’s new creation and the people of Israel will serve as the priesthood to the nations in relation to the establishment of YHWH’s sovereignty over the entire world. Given the keen interest in the Davidic tradition throughout the Book of Isaiah, this would suggest that this reconceptualization of the Davidic covenant in Trito-Isaiah permeates the book as a whole and constitutes a major aspect of the book’s overall perspective on YHWH’s relationship with Israel, 6 For discussion of the place of Isaiah 55 within the structure of the Book of Isaiah as a whole, see M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1988), 27–95, esp. 87–92. 7 Cf. B. D. Sommer, “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition,” in New Visions of Isaiah (ed. R. F. Melugin and M. A. Sweeney; JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 156–186; cf. Y. Kaufmann, The Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah (trans. C. W. Efroymson; New York: KTAV, 1970), 183–204, esp. 189.

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

97

Zion, David, and the world at large. The various dimensions of these observations constitute the balance of this paper.

II One of Beuken’s fundamental observations is that Isa 54:17 introduces the first plural reference to the “servants of YHWH,” which contrasts markedly with the portrayal of a singular servant throughout Deutero-Isaiah.8 He sees it as an important literary clue, introduced in the context of DeuteroIsaiah, which anticipates the cardinal theme of Trito-Isaiah. By this means, the statement in Isa 54:17b, “‘this is the heritage of the servants of YHWH, and their righteousness from Me,’ oracle of YHWH,” presents the “servants of YHWH” as the righteous seed that the servant will ultimately see prosper in Isa 53:10. The theme is then extensively elaborated throughout Trito-Isaiah. Beuken correctly notes the thematic role that Isa 54:17b plays in introducing the major concerns of Trito-Isaiah, but the generic character of this statement must also be considered in that it points to the overall role and function of this statement within the structure of the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah 54:17b is an example of the “summary-appraisal form,” which is employed extensively throughout Isaiah as well as in other prophets and the wisdom literature.9 It is a didactic form that is characterized by an introductory demonstrative pronoun (e.g., zeh, zō᾽t, “this”) and its function as a summary and appraisal of preceding material. In the present instance, Isa 54:17b concludes ch. 54, which proclaims the restoration of the covenant or marriage between YHWH and Zion, here portrayed as a wife and mother whose husband and children have returned to her.10 The chapter is formulated as the prophet’s announcement to Zion of her restoration, and comprises five major sub-units or addresses directed by the prophet to Zion. First, the prophet calls upon Zion to rejoice in v. 1 because the formerly barren woman will have a multitude of children. Second, the prophet calls upon Zion to enlarge her tent or dwelling in vv. 2–3, because her 8

“Servant and Herald of Good Tidings,” 67–68. For discussion of the summary-appraisal form, see B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2.3; London: SCM, 1967), 128–136; J. W. Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 75–79; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 539. 10 Cf. J. F. A. Sawyer, “Daughter of Zion and Servant of the L-rd in Isaiah: A Comparison,” JSOT 44 (1989): 89–107; P. Tull Willey, “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s Community,” SBLSP 1995 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995), 267–303. 9

98

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

children will spread out and possess nations and cities. Third, the prophet announces a salvation oracle for Zion in vv. 4–6 that proclaims YHWH’s decision to redeem or marry Zion and thereby to put an end to her shame and despair. Fourth, the prophet conveys YHWH’s “covenant of peace” to Zion in vv. 7–10 that compares YHWH’s restored relationship with Zion to the covenant made with Noah. Finally, the prophet conveys YHWH’s promise to adorn and protect Zion in vv. 11–17 so that Zion will be established with righteousness and never be threatened again. The summaryappraisal of v. 17b identifies this promise of YHWH’s covenant and eternal protection for Zion as the heritage of the servants of YHWH. But in considering the role of this statement, it must be recognized that it functions not only in relation to the promise of Zion’s restoration in Isaiah 54, but in relation to a major theme of Deutero-Isaiah and indeed of the Book of Isaiah as a whole up to this point. Isaiah 54 appears at the conclusion of a major block of material in Isaiah 49–54 that takes up the restoration of Zion/Jerusalem by presenting complementary images of the servant of YHWH and the Daughter of Zion.11 On the one hand, the servant is commissioned from the womb to bring Jacob or Israel back to YHWH, and the Daughter of Zion is presented as the restored bride to whom Jacob or the children are returned. These chapters draw upon a variety of images from biblical tradition, including the motif of YHWH’s marriage to the bride Israel in the wilderness from Hosea and Jeremiah, the image of the barren Sarah who finally bears a child with her husband Abraham, YHWH’s defeat of the chaos monster Rahab to restore or create order in the world and to redeem the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage and the transformation of the wilderness into the garden of Eden where the first human couple originally were placed in creation. Clearly, the marriage motif permeates Isaiah 49–54 and points to the restoration of the bride and mother Zion as the ultimate goal of this section. In this regard, it must be noted that Isaiah 49–54 takes up similar motifs from other parts of the book. For example, following the announcement that Cyrus is the messiah of YHWH and the builder of YHWH’s temple in Isa 44:24–45:8, Isaiah 46 portrays the weakness of Babylon’s gods, and Isaiah 47 portrays Babylon as a defeated and humiliated woman who has been deposed from her throne and who will sit as a widow who has lost her children. Isaiah 48 then calls upon Jacob to go forth from Babylon and to return to Zion as articulated in Isaiah 49–54. In this context, the restoration of the bride Zion is clearly contrasted with the fall of the “bride” Babylon. Furthermore, the theme of Zion as a restored bride whose children return is not confined to Deutero-Isaiah, but appears in earlier parts of Isaiah as

11

See Tull Willey, “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion.”

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

99

well.12 Thus, Isa 3:25–4:1 portrays Jerusalem as a mother who has lost her sons in defeat, and Isa 5:1–7 portrays YHWH’s dissatisfaction with his beloved vineyard, a common metaphor for a woman in the ancient world. Other images in Isaiah likewise build upon the theme. The portrayal of YHWH’s defeat of Babylon in Isaiah 13 employs the language of labor and childbirth to portray a new creation, and Isaiah 26 employs similar language prior to portraying YHWH’s restored vineyard in Isaiah 27. In this regard, Isa 54:17b summarizes and appraises the heritage of YHWH’s servants not only in relation to the restoration of the bride Zion in chapter 54, but in relation to a long process of restoration that is articulated throughout the Book of Isaiah. The servants of YHWH are those who will continue the relationship with YHWH as presented in the Book of Isaiah. Insofar as earlier materials in Isaiah anticipate the emergence of a remnant of Israel that will continue (e.g., Isa 6:13), the “servants of YHWH” in Isa 54:17b constitute that remnant. The summary-appraisal form of Isa 54:17b must also be considered in relation to the following material in Isaiah 55.13 Insofar as Isa 54:17b concludes the preceding material, it also points to the introductory character of what follows. Scholars have generally viewed Isaiah 55 as a part of Deutero-Isaiah, but they have generally overlooked its rhetorical function within the literary structure of the Book of Isaiah as an introduction to the Trito-Isaiah material in Isaiah 56–66.14 In this instance, the role of the literary-historical character of the text in its interpretation must give way to the role of literary context. Although Isaiah 55 may originally have been composed as part of the writings of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 40–55, the placement of the writings of Trito-Isaiah immediately following Isaiah 55 radically changes its literary function.15 Isaiah 55 is formulated as the prophet’s exhortation to join in YHWH’s eternal covenant; vv. 1–5 invite the audience of the text to join in YHWH’s eternal covenant, and vv. 6–13 12 For discussion of the feminine and childbirth imagery in Isaiah, see K. P. Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of G-d (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); cf. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, ad loc. 13 See W. A. M. Beuken, “Isaiah 55:3–5: The Reinterpretation of David,” Bijdragen 35 (1974): 49–64. 14 See for example, C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 280–292; P.-E. Bonnard, Le second Isaïe: Son disciple et leurs éditeurs, Isaïe 40–66 (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1972), 298–311; R. F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW 141; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1976), 82–87, 169–175 (but compare pp. 174–178 on the relation to First Isaiah); R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (NCeB; London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981); R. J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah (New York: Paulist, 1984), 188–194; P. D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66 (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 177–183. 15 See Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4, 87–88.

100

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

constitute the exhortation proper in that they provide the reasons why the audience should join, i.e., YHWH is near, YHWH’s thoughts and ways are higher than those of the audience, YHWH’s word will accomplish its purpose, peace and new creation will result. Although many have argued that Isaiah 55 was composed as a conclusion to Deutero-Isaiah,16 Isa 54:17b already fills a concluding role in relation to Deutero-Isaiah. With the inclusion of Isaiah 56–66, Isaiah 55 anticipates the theme of the eternal covenant articulated in Isa 59:21 and 61:8; the everlasting sign and name that will not be cut off for those who hold fast to that covenant in 56:5; and the role of the righteous who seek YHWH throughout Isaiah 56–66. The introductory role of Isaiah 55 is especially important to the present issue in that it presents a preliminary redefinition of the Davidic covenant. Isaiah 55:3–5 states, “Incline your ears and come to Me, hear that you may live and I will make for you an eternal covenant (běrît ‘ōlām), the secure steadfast love of David. Behold, I appointed him as a witness for the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples; behold, you will call a nation that you do not know, and a nation that does not know you will run for the sake of YHWH your G-d and for the Holy One of Israel for he has glorified you.” This passage has been extensively discussed,17 and scholars have recognized several essential features. Most importantly, it redefines the concept of the Davidic covenant in that the Davidic king is no longer the primary recipient of YHWH’s steadfast love, but the people who accept the covenant are now the recipients of that relationship instead. This is particularly important in relation to the preceding statements that YHWH has named the Persian monarch Cyrus as messiah and Temple builder. Obviously, a Davidic figure will no longer fill that role, but the Davidic promise still stands secure. Now, it is the people of Israel who receive that promise. This is highlighted by the statement that the people will call upon a nation that they do not know and that nation will run to them for the sake of YHWH. In context, the Persian empire and its monarch Cyrus fill the royal role formerly occupied by the Davidic dynasty as expressed in the royal oracles of Proto-Isaiah (Isa 9:1–6; 11:1–16; 32:1–20). The people of Israel will continue the Davidic covenant by accepting this new reality as the purpose of YHWH. Apart from generalized statements of adherence to YHWH, however, Isaiah 55 does not define what it means by accepting the eternal covenant other than to accept the role of this foreign people (and their ruler). Otherwise, the role of the people is not defined in this chapter. Nevertheless, Isaiah 55 clearly sets the agenda for what is to follow. A new conceptualization of the Davidic covenant that redefines the relationship 16

See note 14 above. For bibliography on Isaiah 55, see J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66 (WBC 25; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 240–241. 17

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

101

between YHWH and Israel has been announced. Isaiah 56–66 defines how that reconceptualization is to be understood.

III The recent interest in the literary form and formation of the Book of Isaiah as a whole has influenced the study of Trito-Isaiah in that scholars are no longer treating this material in isolation, but they are asking how this material relates to the earlier portions of the book. Beuken has already demonstrated how much of the material in Trito-Isaiah employs themes and texts from Deutero-Isaiah, especially as they relate to the theme of the “servants of YHWH.”18 He has likewise demonstrated how Isaiah 65–66 forms the conclusion not only to Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, but points to a relationship with Isaiah 1 as well that has implications for understanding Trito-Isaiah in relation to the book as a whole. Indeed, other scholars have likewise raised this issue. Rendtorff, for example, points to key terms such as “the glory of YHWH” (kěbôd yhwh), “the Holy One of Israel” (qědôš yiśrā’ēl), and “righteousness” (ṣědāqâ) from Trito-Isaiah that permeate the entire book and demonstrate that Trito-Isaiah plays a role in binding the entire book together.19 Likewise, Steck argues that Isaiah 56–66 does not represent a self-standing textual block, but constitute the redactional continuation of the earlier material in Isaiah from the sixth through the third centuries.20 My own studies have pointed to the role of Isaiah 56–66 within the structure of the Book of Isaiah as a whole, and to the citation and reinterpretation of earlier texts and themes from Proto-Isaiah in Isaiah 65– 66.21 18

See the studies listed in note 3 above. R. Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” VT 34 (1984): 295–320; idem, “Jesaja 56,1 als Schlüssel für die Komposition des Jesajabuches,” in idem, Kanon und Theologie: Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 172–179. 20 O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBS 121; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985); idem, “Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch,” in Vermeylen, ed., The Book of Isaiah – Le livre d’Isaïe, 361–406 = idem, Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1991), 3–45. 21 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4; idem, “On ûměsôś in Isaiah 8:6,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image, and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (ed. D. J. A. Clines and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 144; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 42–54 = idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 36–45; idem, “Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans; 2 vols.; VTSup 70.1–2; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:455–474 = ibid., 46–62. 19

102

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

Overall, this recent interest in the interrelationship between Isaiah 56– 66 and the Book of Isaiah as a whole has tremendous implications for defining the role of Beuken’s “servants of YHWH” in relation to the entire Isaianic tradition. Among other concerns, it points to a new understanding of the Davidic covenant in these chapters that accounts for the realities of Persian rule and the demise of the House of David. This is especially noteworthy in that the following discussion shows that Isaiah 11:1–16, the oracle concerning the establishment of a righteous Davidic over a reconstituted and reunited Israel, plays a particularly prominent role in the message of Trito-Isaiah. When read in relation to Isaiah 55, the Trito-Isaiah material in Isaiah 56–66 defines the requirements for those who will be included in YHWH’s covenant as articulated in the Book of Isaiah.22 In this regard, it functions as substantiation for the exhortation to adhere to YHWH’s covenant in Isaiah 55. Generically, these chapters constitute prophetic instruction concerning the reconstituted covenant community in Jerusalem that comprises three major sections. The first is Isaiah 56–59, which takes up the issue of proper observance of YHWH’s covenant. The basic criterion in Isa 56:1–8 for “those who hold fast to my covenant” (Isa 56:4, 6) is Shabbat observance, which may be undertaken by converts to Judaism or by eunuchs who were mutilated for imperial service.23 This is expanded in Isa 58:1–14 in an admonition to repent that calls upon the people to act in a socially responsible manner by releasing captives, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and observing the Shabbat. Overall, these criteria are articulated in the context of attempts to convince the audience to become a part of the righteous who will join in YHWH’s covenant. Isaiah 58:14 states that those who do so will feed on the heritage of Jacob (cf. Isa 54:17b), and Isa 59:20–21 argues that those who turn from transgression will share in YHWH’s covenant. The second is Isaiah 60–62, which constitute a prophetic announcement of salvation for the reconstituted covenant community in Jerusalem. Overall, this section employs the imagery of light to portray the reconstitution of Jerusalem and the pilgrimage of the nations who will come to Jerusalem to give honor to YHWH and to restore the city and its exiled inhabitants. Again, YHWH’s covenant is granted to the restored community (Isa 61:8). Finally, Isaiah 63–66 provides instruction in the process by which the identity of the reconstituted community is established. Basically, it argues that those who are righteous will be included in the community whereas those who are wicked will be destroyed. It likewise portrays YHWH as the ruler of a new heaven and 22 For detailed discussion of the form-critical issues treated here, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4, 87–92. 23 See below.

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

103

earth and the nations processing to Jerusalem in order to return exiled Jews and to recognize YHWH’s sovereignty. There are several key texts within these chapters that play important roles, not only in defining the character of the “servants of YHWH” in the reconstituted covenant community, but also in defining the reinterpretation of the Davidic covenant that stands as the basis of the renewed relationship between YHWH and the “servants.” Isaiah 65–66 must be considered because it portrays YHWH in royal terms as the sovereign of a new heaven and earth who presides over the restoration of the exiles to Zion, brought by the nations who come to recognize YHWH’s sovereignty. In keeping with the understanding of the Davidic covenant articulated in Isaiah 55, no Davidic figure appears within this material, but the people of Israel will serve as priests within YHWH’s new creation.24 Likewise, Isaiah 60–62 portrays the nations’ return of exiles to Zion, and posits that the people will become priests. These chapters take up the theme of “light” that plays so important a role in the royal thanksgiving song of Isa 9:1–6, and they present a figure whom YHWH has anointed (61:1). Isaiah 56:1–8 must also be considered. Although this text does not point to a royal figure, its assertion that foreigners can join in the covenant of YHWH has obvious implications for understanding the interrelationship between Jews and Gentiles as presented in Isaiah 60–62 and 65–66 and thus for the overall theme of the “servants of YHWH.” In this regard, it is noteworthy that Isa 56:1–8 and 65–66 constitute the introductory and concluding literary framework for Trito-Isaiah, and Isaiah 60–62 constitute its core. I have already treated Isaiah 65–66 in detail elsewhere.25 Overall, these chapters constitute the conclusion to the Book of Isaiah. They are presented as a report of YHWH’s response to the community that YHWH will require the evil and reward the righteous in a new creation centered around Zion. Within this context, Isa 65:1–7 report YHWH’s announcement that evil will be requited; Isa 65:8–25 report YHWH’s address to the wicked that the seed of Jacob will be restored; and Isa 66:1–24 report YHWH’s address to the righteous that they will be restored at Zion. In presenting this scenario of punishment of the wicked and restoration of the righteous, Isaiah 65–66 draws heavily on a number of texts from Proto-Isaiah that focus especially on the imagery of trees and seed. Among them are Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 6, which portray the destruction of the wicked as rotten trees 24 See B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 172–173, who demonstrates that the statement in Isa 66:21, “and also from them I will take for priests (and) for Levites, says YHWH,” refers to the exiled Jews whom the nations return, and not to the nations themselves. 25 Sweeney, “Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66.”

104

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

that will be felled in part due to their own rottenness, and Isaiah 11 and 37:30–32 which portray the restoration of the righteous remnant of Israel as new shoots that will grow anew and result in the restoration of the exiles to Zion. Likewise, Isaiah 2–4 presents an image of the nations’ “flowing” to Zion to learn YHWH’s Torah, and the image of Assyrian waters that inundate and “rape” the land of Judah in Isa 8:6–8 are reversed in Isa 66:10– 16 to portray the exultation of mother Zion. Altogether, the use of texts and themes from Proto-Isaiah stands behind the imagery of restoration of the righteous, and plays a role in redefining the Davidic covenant in these chapters. In contrast to the claims of Davidic rule in Isa 11:1–16, which is explicitly quoted in Isa 65:25,26 YHWH will be king and will preside over the paradisiac new creation envisioned in the oracle from Proto-Isaiah. The people of Israel will serve as priests to the nations who, in keeping with the perspective of Isa 11:10–16, will return the exiles of Israel to Zion as part of their procession to acknowledge YHWH’s world-wide sovereignty. Isaiah 56:1–8 must also be considered in that it constitutes TritoIsaiah’s programmatic introduction to YHWH’s covenant (cf. Isa 56:4, 6). Overall, it points to Shabbat observance as the overriding concern, which is developed more fully in subsequent chapters as indicated above. Generically, it is a prophetic instruction concerning the inclusion of observant foreigners and eunuchs in the Temple community. The basic instruction appears in v. 1, in which the prophet conveys YHWH’s instructions to do justice and righteousness. The prophet then elaborates on this instruction in vv. 2–8 by pointing to the inclusion of foreigners and eunuchs in vv. 2–3 and by reporting YHWH’s explicit instructions for the inclusion of foreigners and eunuchs in vv. 4–8. Many scholars have seen this passage as a warrant for the inclusion of foreigners in the covenant that overturns explicit instructions to avoid foreigners in the Torah, but more recent discussion has established that these chapters do not provide an overall warrant for the blanket inclusion of the nations in YHWH’s covenant.27 Isaiah 56:1–8 merely takes up the issue of Gentiles who would convert to Judaism, here expressed as those would observe the Shabbat. Likewise, the 26 See O. H. Steck, “‘… ein kleiner Knabe kann sie leiten’: Beobachungen zum Tierfrieden in Jesaja 11,6–8 und 65,25,” in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift für Horst Dietrich Preuss zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zobel; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 104–113; J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65:25 and Isaiah 11:6–9,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez et al.; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 31–42. 27 See G. I. Emmerson, Isaiah 56–66 (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 62–63; Schramm, Opponents, 115–125; P. A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth & Authorship of Isaiah 56–66 (VTSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 54–60, for summaries of this discussion and contributions to it.

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

105

concern with eunuchs envisions a place for those Jews who were mutilated for government service, either by the Babylonians or by the Persians, in keeping with common practices of the times. Scholars have noted that this passage constitutes interpretation of various aspects of the Torah tradition,28 but it also interprets passages from Isaiah. Lau demonstrates that Isa 56:1 builds on Isa 46:13, which states that YHWH’s salvation will not tarry. 29 Both Fishbane and Lau note that Isa 56:8 employs language and imagery from Isa 11:12.30 Thus, the reference to YHWH as one “who gathers the outcasts of Israel (měqabbēṣ nidḥê yiśrā’ēl)” and who states, “I will gather yet others to him (i.e., to Israel) besides those already gathered (‘ôd ’ǎqabbēṣ ‘ālāyw lěniqbāṣāyw)” takes up language from Isa 11:12, “and he (i.e., YHWH) will raise an ensign to the nations, and he will gather the outcasts of Israel (wě’āsap nidḥê yiśrā’ēl), and the dispersed of Judah he will gather (ûněpuṣôt yěhûdâ yěqabbēṣ) from the four corners of the earth.” Likewise, the reference to “my holy mountain” (har qodšî) in Isa 56:7 employs the same language from Isa 11:9. Obviously, Isa 56:1–8 is presented in relation to the Davidic oracle of Isa 11:1–16, but it does not envision the restoration of Davidic rule. Rather, it focuses on the statements in Isa 11:10, 12 that the nations will respond to the ensign of YHWH by seeking the root of David and the resting place of his glory, i.e., Zion, and that they will return the outcasts of Israel to Zion. In this regard, those from the nations who convert to Judaism and the return of the eunuchs respond to that call. The use of Isa 11:1–16 in the concluding verse of Isa 56:1–8 is noteworthy in that it signals the ingathering of the outcasts of Israel within the covenant, including converted foreigners and eunuchs, as a major motif of Trito-Isaiah. The motif appears again in Isa 59:21, which concludes the lament that calls for repentance on the part of the nation and completes the instructions concerning covenant observance in Isaiah 56–59. The lament ends with statements to the effect that YHWH will repay enemies with wrath and come to Zion as the redeemer for those in Jacob who return from rebellion (cf. Isa 1:2–4, 27–28). The prophet reports YHWH’s statement in v. 21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, says YHWH, my spirit which is upon you and my word which I have placed in your mouth shall 28

W. Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66 (BZAW 225; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1994); R. D. Wells, Jr., “Isaiah as an Exponent of Torah: Isaiah 56:1–8,” SBLSP 1994 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1994), 883– 896. A revised version of this essay appeared in New Visions of Isaiah (ed. R. F. Melugin and M. A. Sweeney; JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 140– 155. 29 Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 262–279, esp. 264–265. 30 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 498 n. 103; Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 278.

106

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

not move from your mouth and from the mouth of your seed and from the mouth of the seed of your seed, says YHWH, from now and until forever.” Overall, this verse expresses an important hermeneutical principle of the Book of Isaiah, viz., that the covenant and the word of YHWH will not depart from the people, but will stand throughout the generations. In this regard, it is analogous to statements in Isa 40:8 that the word of G-d shall stand forever, Isa 55:11 that the word of YHWH will accomplish what YHWH intends, and Isa 34:16–17 that commands one to read the Book of Isaiah in order to see the realization of YHWH’s statements. Once spoken, the word of YHWH will achieve its purpose. This is particularly important when considered in relation to the use of earlier Isaianic statements from throughout the Book of Isaiah in TritoIsaiah, but especially in relation to the present context. Isaiah 59:21 employs several texts from Proto-Isaiah to make its point. First, it refers to YHWH’s covenant mentioned already in Isa 54:10; 55:4; and 56:4, 6. Second, it notes that YHWH’s word is placed in the mouth of the righteous, i.e., the servants of YHWH as understood by Beuken, and their succeeding generations. This statement calls to mind the imagery of Isaiah 6, in which YHWH’s word is given to Isaiah after his mouth was purified (Isa 6:7) in order to see to the eventual emergence of the “holy seed,” or the remnant of the people who survive YHWH’s punishment of the land. Finally, the reference to the “spirit” (rûaḥ) that is upon the people calls to mind the spirit that fills the righteous Davidic monarch of Isa 11:1–16 prior to the restoration of the exiles by the nations, and the spirit of Isa 32:15 that is poured upon the people prior to the restoration of the destroyed city and justice in the wilderness. Again, earlier Isaian texts have been employed to convey the constancy of YHWH’s word and the promise of restoration based upon earlier texts that portray restoration of Jerusalem, the people, and the Davidic monarchy. Nevertheless, no Davidic monarch is evident here. Finally, Isaiah 60–62 must be considered. Many scholars point to these chapters as the core of Trito-Isaiah.31 They constitute a prophetic announcement of salvation for the reconstituted covenant community in Zion in which the prophet expresses this message by quoting or conveying the words of other figures. Thus, Isa 60:1–5 is the prophet’s address to mother Zion to rise and see the return of her exiled children. The prophet conveys YHWH’s words to Zion in Isa 60:6–22 in order to elaborate on the theme 31 E.g., Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 296; Emmerson, Isaiah 56–66, 20; Steck, Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch, 373–379; see also K. Pauritsch, Die neue Gemeinde: G-tt sammelt Ausgestossene und Arme (Jesaia 56–66) (AnBib 47; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), 241–244; S. Sekine, Die Tritojesajanische Sammlung (Jes 56–66) redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 175; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1989), 182.

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

107

of the nations’ return of Zion’s exiles and the exaltation of Zion by the nations. Isa 61:1–4 presents the words of an anointed figure, who states a commission to release captives and to restore the ruined Zion. Isa 61:5–9 conveys YHWH’s words to the people that they will serve as priests to the nations, and in Isa 61:10–11, the prophet rejoices over the restoration of YHWH’s righteousness before the nations. In Isa 62:1–5, the prophet addresses Zion again that he will not rest until Zion’s restoration is complete. In Isa 62:6–9, the prophet conveys YHWH’s oath that foreigners will no longer take the grain and wine of Zion, but that Zion’s own people will consume their produce before YHWH. Finally, the prophet calls for the return of the exiles to Zion in Isa 62:10–11. Beuken and other scholars have recognized a host of references to material from Deutero-Isaiah in these chapters, but relatively little attention has been paid to their use of texts from Proto-Isaiah. Several key themes from Proto-Isaiah stand out, however. First is the imagery of light and darkness that permeates Isaiah 60. This language and imagery draw heavily on that of Isa 8:16–9:6. Thus, the prophet calls upon Zion to see the light or glory of YHWH that dissipates the darkness that covers the earth and the peoples in Isa 60:1–2. Such statements are comparable to those of Isa 8:22, in which the people (of Israel) see darkness throughout the land and Isa 9:1 in which the people see a great light shining that puts an end to the darkness in which they walk. The nations’ recognition of this light in Isa 60:3 builds on the reference to “Galilee of the nations” in Isa 8:23, and more explicitly on Isa 2:2–4, which portrays the nations’ pilgrimage to Zion to hear the instruction (tôrâ) and justice (mišpāṭ) of YHWH (cf. Isa 8:16, 19 [tôrâ]; 9:6 [mišpāṭ]). The portrayal of the pilgrimage of the nations coming to YHWH’s light in Isa 60:3–18 is especially important for establishing a relationship with texts from Proto-Isaiah in that Isa 2:2 employs the verb wěnāhǎrû to describe the nations’ approach to Zion. The verb is generally taken to mean “to flow” as a river that flows to Zion, but it also means “to shine” and thereby reinforces the imagery of light that appears in Isaiah 60.32 The command to Zion to “lift up your eyes round about and see” in Isa 60:2 likewise takes up the theme of the blinded people of Israel from Proto-Isaiah (see esp. Isa 6:9–10), who are finally able to open their eyes and see YHWH’s new deeds in Isaiah 35 and in texts throughout Deutero-Isaiah. The motif of the nations’ bringing wealth to Zion is anticipated in Isa 23:17–18 which states that Tyre’s merchandise and food will be dedicated to those who dwell before YHWH and in Isa 18:7 which states that Egypt will bring gifts to YHWH at Zion. Finally, Isa 60:21–22 employs references to a number of Isaianic texts to convey an image of the righteous people who will possess the restored land, “and all 32

See entries, “‫ נהר‬I and ‫ נהר‬II,” BDB, 625–626.

108

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

of your people shall be righteous, forever they shall possess (the) land; the shoot of my planting (nēṣer maṭṭā‘ay, the work of my hands (ma‘aśēh yāday), is for my being glorified. The smallest shall be a thousand, and the youngest shall be a mighty nation; I am YHWH, in its time, I will hasten it (’ǎḥîšennāh).” First of all, the passage points to the realization of YHWH’s promise in a manner analogous to that of Isa 59:21 as indicated above. Secondly, it employs language from Isa 11:1–16; “shoot” (nēṣer) is the same term applied to the righteous Davidic monarch in Isa 11:1. But the passage also employs the term, “work of my hands,” a term that appears throughout the Book of Isaiah in various capacities. For the present instance, the appearance of this term in Isa 5:12 is especially pertinent in that it expresses the refusal of the guilty to see the deed of YHWH or the “work” of YHWH’s “hands.” Likewise, the statement that YHWH will hasten the “work” in Isa 60:22 refers back to the statement of the guilty in Isa 5:19, “let him (YHWH) hurry, let him hasten (yaḥîšāh) his work so that we may see it, that the counsel of the Holy One of Israel may draw near and that it may come, and we will know it.” The sarcasm of this statement is clear; consequently, Isa 60:21–22 employs it to demonstrate that the wicked will get exactly what they ask for and YHWH’s word will be confirmed. In doing so, it points to the realization of the righteous monarch and the return of the people portrayed in Isa 11:1–16, but no Davidic monarch is evident in the present context. Isaiah 61 is likewise filled with themes and textual citations from ProtoIsaiah. The statement that “the spirit of my L-rd YHWH is upon me” calls to mind the references to “the spirit of YHWH, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of YHWH” that descends upon the Davidic figure of Isa 11:1–2. The fact that the speaker of Isa 60:1 identifies as one anointed by YHWH reinforces the identification of this figure with the Davidic monarch portrayed in Isaiah 11. The references to the aliens (zārîm) who will feed the flocks and care for the fields and vineyards in v. 5 reverse the imagery of the aliens (zārîm) who devour the land and leave it desolate in Isa 1:7. Likewise, the references to the desolations (šōměmôt) of the land in v. 4 (cf. Isa 62:4) employ the language of desolation from Isa 1:7 and 6:11 as well (šěmāmâ). Verse 6 explicitly states that “you (Israel) shall eat the wealth of the nations” in contrast to the imagery of Isa 1:7. The reference to YHWH’s granting an eternal covenant to the people in v. 8 contrasts with statements that the covenant is broken in Isa 24:5 and 33:8. The reference to the “seed” of the people that will be known among the nations and that will be blessed by YHWH in v. 9 compares with the “holy seed” (zera‘ qōdeš) that will survive the destruction outlined in Isa 6:11–13 and serve as the basis for restoration. Finally, the imagery of sprouting seed and righteousness in v. 11 draws upon the imagery of a blooming root of

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

109

Jesse that produces righteousness in Isa 11:1, 4, although it employs vocabulary from Isa 4:2 that describes the “sprout of YHWH (ṣemaḥ yhwh)” (cf. the four uses of the root ṣmḥ in v. 11) in a restored Zion that will become “beautiful (lětip’eret)” (cf. “beauty, splendor [pě’ēr],” v. 10). Isaiah 62 likewise employs a number of themes and texts from ProtoIsaiah. The reference to the desolation of the land with the term šěmāmâ in Isa 62:4 was alluded to above. The same term appears in Isa 6:11 to refer to YHWH’s intention to destroy the land. Isaiah 6:12 immediately following employs the verb ‘ǎzûbâ, “abandoned,” for the same purpose, which stands behind the statements, “and it will no longer be said of you ‘ǎzûbâ (‘abandoned’) and for your land it will no longer be said šěmāmâ (‘desolate’),” in Isa 62:4 to refer to the restoration of Zion. The notice that Zion will be called Hephzi-bah (‘my will is in her’) in v. 5 is noteworthy in that 2 Kgs 21:1 indicates that Hephzi-bah was the mother of King Manasseh and therefore the wife of King Hezekiah. The use of the image of King Hezekiah in Isaiah 36–39, who turns to YHWH in faithfulness following the failure of his revolt, has long been recognized as a model of repentance and piety within the Book of Isaiah. The images of Jerusalem as a married woman with rebuilt walls in vv. 4–7 recalls the images of Isa 32:9–20 which portrays abandoned women in the midst of ruins (cf. the use of ‘uzzāb, “abandoned,” in 32:14) “until the spirit is poured out upon us from on high” (cf. the use of rûaḥ, “spirit,” in Isa 11:2 in reference to the righteous Davidic monarch). The references to YHWH’s oath in vv. 8–9 that the people of Israel will consume their own grain and wine in the courts of YHWH’s holy sanctuary (haṣěrôt qodšî, “my holy sanctuary,” v. 9) not only calls to mind the earlier imagery of aliens and enemies who devour the land (Isa 1:7), but YHWH’s rejection of false worship in the Temple courtyards in Isa 1:10–17 (cf. rěmōs ḥǎṣērāy, “trampling of my courts,” in Isa 1:12). Isaiah 62:10–12 deserves special consideration because Steck points to its role as a major redactional key that ties into earlier texts from Isa 11:11–16; 27:13; and 35:1–10 in order to constitute the goal of his proposed sixth century redaction of the “great Isaiah book.”33 Overall, these verses highlight the interest in this redaction to portray the return of exiles and the restoration of Zion in this edition of Isaiah. In this regard, the references to Isaiah 11 in these verses are noteworthy. The command to build up “the highway” (hamměsillâ) in v. 10 employs the same term in relation to the return of the exiles from Egypt and Assyria in Isa 11:16. The reference to the “ensign” (nēs) over the nations in v. 10 employs the same term employed in Isa 11:10, 12 for the signal given to the nations prior to the return of the exiles. Thus, Isa 62:10–11 employs references to 33

Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr, 60–68.

110

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

Isa 11:1–16 to close the announcement of salvation to Zion in Isaiah 60–62 and to tie it to earlier texts in Proto-Isaiah (and Deutero-Isaiah, cf. Isa 40:3–5; 48:20–22). Altogether, it appears that Isaiah 56–66 employs a great deal of material from Proto-Isaiah in articulating its understanding of the covenant with YHWH, the role of the righteous in that covenant, and the constancy of YHWH’s word. Although various texts are employed, Isa 11:1–16 appears again and again in this material, especially at key points in the structure of Isaiah 56–66 as a whole (i.e., Isa 56:8; 59:21–22; 60:21; 61:1–4; 62:10–12; 65:25) where it expresses the general theme of restoration of the exiles to Zion, especially by the nations, and the institution of righteousness in YHWH’s rule of the world. The major themes of this chapter, the spirit of YHWH, the ensign to the nations, the submission of the nations to YHWH’s will, and the ingathering of the exiles, are present with the exception of the righteous Davidic monarch. It would seem that, given the interest in demonstrating the viability of YHWH’s previous words through the prophet Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah presents a scenario in which the promises of Isa 11:1– 16, and those of other texts from throughout Isaiah, are realized. The absence of the Davidic monarch in this scenario, however, points to the new realities of Jewish life in the Persian period; i.e., the restoration of the people to the land is taking place, but the restoration of the Davidic monarchy is not. YHWH’s world rule is identified not with the Davidic monarchy as expressed in earlier texts, but with the rule of the Persian empire. In order to place this phenomenon in context, we must now turn to the entire Book of Isaiah and its expressions of the identification of the Persian empire with YHWH’s rule.

IV The preceding discussion demonstrates that the reconceptualization of the Davidic covenant presented in Isaiah 55 can no longer be read simply as an isolated expression of Deutero-Isaiah’s perspectives concerning the theological significance of the fall of Babylon to Cyrus for the exilic Jewish community. Rather, the “democratization” of the Davidic covenant must be read in relation to the following material in Trito-Isaiah, which presents an overall scenario concerning the future of the servants of YHWH in the post-exilic community of a restored Jerusalem and Judah and in relation to the traditions in Proto-Isaiah. This is particularly true of those traditions concerning the idealized future monarch of Israel in Isaiah 11 and elsewhere, that point to the character and constitution of the restored community. When considered in this perspective, it is evident that a fundamental hermeneutical shift takes place within the Book of Isaiah concerning the

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

111

portrayal of the ideal king who will preside over a restored and purified community. In Proto-Isaiah, it is a Davidic monarch and in Deutero-Isaiah it is the Persian king Cyrus, but in Trito-Isaiah, it is YHWH. Obviously, the understanding of ideal royal authority and identity changes from ProtoIsaiah to Deutero-Isaiah and from Deutero-Isaiah to Trito-Isaiah in accordance with the historical realities presupposed in each.34 Nevertheless, the book as a whole does not present itself as the product of three successive “historical prophets” or literary stages, but as the message of a single and consistent whole, in which the presentation of YHWH as world monarch at the end of the book is the natural outcome of the expectations of ideal monarchic rule articulated throughout the book. This is especially evident when one considers the royal oracles of ProtoIsaiah (Isa 9:1–6; 11:1–16; 32:1–8) in relation to the oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13–23. As I have argued elsewhere, even though the oracles against the nations in Isaiah contain a great deal of material that apparently stems from the eighth century prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, the present form of the section addresses the realities of the Persian period in that all of the nations included in Isaiah 13–23 – i.e. Babylon (13:1–14:23); Assyria (14:24–27); Philistia (14:28–32); Moab (chs. 15–16); Damascus/Aram and northern Israel (ch. 17); Egypt (chs. 18–20); the Wilderness of the Sea/ Chaldea/Elam (21:1–10); Duma (21:11–12); Arabia 21:13–17); the Valley of Vision/Jerusalem (ch. 22); and Tyre (ch. 23) – were incorporated into the Persian empire during the late-sixth through the fifth centuries B.C.E.35 Furthermore, the special attention given to Babylon as the subdued head of the nations likewise highlights the Persian period setting of the present form of the oracles against the nations in that the fall of Babylon was the key to the establishment of Persian hegemony in the larger Near East. Given the absence of Persia in Isaiah 13–23, the portrayal of YHWH’s judgment against the nations identified in these chapters, and the portrayal of YHWH’s banquet for the nations on “his holy mountain” in Isaiah 24– 27 following world-wide judgment, it becomes clear that the Book of Isaiah as a whole, by means of Isaiah 13–23/24–27 in particular, identifies YHWH’s world rule with that of the Persian empire.36 This is evident also in the portrayal of YHWH as king in Isaiah 65–66 and in the processions of the nations to Zion evident in Isa 2:2–4; 11:10–16; 14:1–2; 25:6–12; 49:22–23; 60–62; and 66:18–24. In all cases, YHWH is acknowledged as 34

See M. A. Sweeney, “On Multiple Settings in the Book of Isaiah,” SBLSP 1993 (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1993), 267–273 (= idem, Form and Intertextuality, 28–35), which applies this principle to the interpretation of Isa 9:1–6. 35 Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 51–55, 212–217. 36 Cf. R. G. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch (FAT 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), who argues this point for a specific redactional stage in Deutero-Isaiah.

112

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

king by the nations in a manner consistent with the tribute paid by subject nations to the Persian monarch from the time of Cyrus on.37 This obviously has implications for understanding the role and identity of the servants of YHWH as articulated in Isaiah 56–66. First, it is clear although the servants of YHWH are portrayed as the heirs to the eternal covenant of David, there will be no king among them other than YHWH. From the perspective of the present form of the Book of Isaiah, Davidic kingship has come to an end as first Cyrus and later YHWH emerges as the righteous monarch who fulfills the various prophecies of an ideal royal figure in the first part of the book. Second, it is also clear that the servants of YHWH are to fulfill a priestly or cultic role in relation to the larger world order being established by YHWH at Zion. Overall, the servants of YHWH are presented as those who keep YHWH’s covenant by observing Shabbat, as those who are born by the nations to Zion and who receive or manage the gifts brought by the nations for YHWH at Zion, and as those who serve as priests in relation to the nations.38 Third, it is clear that in the perspective of the present form of the book, this role has not yet been realized. Isaiah 2:2–4 calls upon Jacob to join the nations in their pilgrimage to Zion to hear YHWH’s Torah; Isaiah 60–62 points to the time when the nations will bring their wealth to Jerusalem where the people, i.e., YHWH’s servants, will serve as priests; Isa 66:18–24 points to a similar procession of nations who bring the exiled Jews, some of whom will become priests and Levites, to Jerusalem and who present them as an offering (minḥâ) to YHWH on YHWH’s holy mountain. Altogether, the scenario presented here corresponds to the restoration program attempted by Ezra and Nehemiah in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.39 Both Ezra and Nehemiah are appointed as officers of the Persian empire to fill official roles during a time of Persian rule when there is no realistic possibility of the restoration of Davidic rule. Nehemiah is appointed by the Persians as governor of the province of Yehud, and Ezra is appointed as priest and scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses, who is able to implement the local laws of a subject territory in keeping with Persian imperial policy.40 Major elements of their reform programs include observ37 On the payment of tribute and later taxes to the Persian monarchs, see M. A. Dandamaev and V. G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 177–195, esp. 180, 255–256. 38 Note that under Cyrus, subject nations were required to bring gifts to the Persian monarchs. Only later under Darius I, was a regular system of taxation instituted: cf. ibid., 178. 39 Cf. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 52–55. 40 Cf. K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah (SBLDS 125; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1992).

6. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah

113

ance of the Shabbat, restoration of Jerusalem and support of the Temple, and the expulsion of foreign wives and children who might compromise the sacred character and Jewish identity of the community. In this regard, it is noteworthy that foreign men who have attached themselves to YHWH and observe the covenant are not expelled by Ezra and Nehemiah. Koch has already noted the effort to portray Ezra’s return to Jerusalem as a “second Exodus” patterned after that of Deutero-Isaiah and the concern with establishing the “holy seed” as a remnant in Jerusalem in accordance with the statements of Isa 6:13.41 Furthermore, Ezra’s concern with establishing the Torah of Moses at the center of the reconstituted Jewish community corresponds with the concern for YHWH’s Torah articulated throughout the Book of Isaiah from the very beginning.42 In sum, the Book of Isaiah points to a priestly community restored in Zion as the “servants of YHWH,” and the Ezra-Nehemiah traditions point to Isaiah as a major basis for the self-understanding of Ezra’s restoration program. Altogether, the identification of the “servants of YHWH” in the Book of Isaiah with the priestly restoration program of Ezra and Nehemiah in the late fifth century opens any number of possibilities for future research. It breaks down the artificial distinction between priests and prophets or visionaries that has permeated the field and has pitted a priestly figure such as Ezra over against the prophetic Book of Isaiah when in fact their perspectives, particularly their concerns for the Temple and the Torah of YHWH, are very similar.43 It lays the groundwork for studies in the newly recognized phenomenon of “scribal prophecy” insofar as the Book of Isaiah appears to be in large measure the product of writers who interpreted earlier material from the Book of Isaiah and resignified it in relation to their own times and hermeneutical needs.44 Finally, it provides a model for the formation of the Book of Isaiah into its present form as the product of a community which took very seriously the claims of the book that YHWH was the author of their own historical experience. Such perspectives thereby point to the institutional context in which those claims could continue to form a major basis for the self-identity and continued life of the Jewish community in the post-exilic era.

41

K. Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974): 173–197. See M. A. Sweeney, “The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah,” in Melugin and Sweeney, eds., New Visions of Isaiah, 50–67 = idem, Form and Intertextuality, 12–27. 43 Cf. Schramm, Opponents. 44 Cf. Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie. 42

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55 I Interpreters of the Book of Isaiah – and of Isaiah 40–55 in particular – have long noted a fundamental distinction between Isaiah 40–48 and Isaiah 49– 55. Isaiah 40–48 focuses especially on the figure of Jacob as a representation of the exiled nation of Israel as a whole. Isaiah 40–48 also emphasizes the role of King Cyrus of Persia as the divinely appointed monarch who inaugurates a new age for the exiled Israelites by allowing them to return to their homeland in Jerusalem. Isaiah 49–55 focus especially on the Bat Zion or Daughter Zion figure to represent the humiliated city of Jerusalem who now looks forward to the coming restoration as her husband YHWH and her exiled children return to her. Blenkinsopp explains the interrelationship between these two textual blocks by maintaining that Isaiah 40–48 take up the contemporary political situation of the exiled nation Israel and that Isaiah 49–55 take up the internal situation of the community.1 Goldingay and Payne maintain that Isaiah 49–55 also emphasize the servant of YHWH as an individual whereas Isaiah 40–48 emphasize the corporate aspects of the servant.2 Insofar as the commission to leave Babylon in Isa 48:20–21 so clearly marks the conclusion of a major sub-unit in the work of Second Isaiah, interpreters have posited that Isaiah 40–48 marks a first stage in the prophet’s career,3 the conclusion of the work of Second Isaiah,4 or the first stages in the history of Second Isaiah’s composition.5

1 Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 186. 2 John Goldingay and David Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (2 vols.; ICC; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 1:19. 3 E.g., Menahem Haran, “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies in Is. xl–xlviii,” in Congress Volume: Bonn 1962 (VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 127–155. 4 E.g., Julian Morgenstern, “The Message of Deutero-Isaiah in its Sequential Unfolding,” HUCA 29 (1958): 1–67; 30 (1959): 1–102. 5 E.g., Rosario Pius Merendino, Der Erste und der Letzte: Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40–48 (VTSup 31; Leiden: Brill, 1981).

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

115

With the rising influence of structural form criticism, rhetorical criticism and intertextuality in biblical exegesis,6 more and more interpreters have come to recognize that the distinctions between Isaiah 40–48 and 49– 55 represent different stages or foci in the prophet’s argumentation.7 Patricia Tull Willey’s study of intertextuality in Second Isaiah is particularly insightful in this regard as she examines the interrelationships between the male Servant of YHWH (Israel and Jacob) and the female figure Bat Zion (Jerusalem) both within the work of Second Isaiah and in relation to the various intertextual references, such as Jeremiah and Lamentations, apparent in the text.8 She notes the interplay of masculine plural, masculine singular, and feminine singular address forms employed throughout Isaiah 40– 55 to indicate that both figures appear in parallel movement throughout the work of Second Isaiah as figures who have suffered at the hands of their enemies and of YHWH and who are promised by YHWH a joyful return of exiles from distant lands. Both figures clearly give voice to the theological concerns, questions, and aspirations of the exiled Jewish community at the outset of Cyrus’s reign and the beginning of the restoration of Zion. Yet a key question remains open, viz., why does Second Isaiah choose to portray the interplay between the male servant figure Jacob or Israel and the female figure of Bat Zion? It is well known that Second Isaiah draws heavily on various traditions, such as the creation traditions that depict YHWH’s sovereignty over the natural world; the ancestral traditions concerning Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and others to portray YHWH’s covenant or relationship with Israel; the Exodus and Wilderness traditions employed here to portray a new exodus from Babylon; and the royal Davidic tradition employed here to justify the role of Cyrus as YHWH’s messiah and Temple builder and Israel as the recipient of YHWH’s eternal promise to David at the conclusion of the Babylonian Exile. It is also well known that the figures of Israel/Jacob and Bat Zion/Jerusalem are key figures in the marriage traditions of ancient Israel that are employed to address questions of exile and return. Jacob leaves his homeland for Aram, and serves twenty years in exile before returning to his homeland in Israel with his wives Rachel and Leah, their handmaidens, and their children only to lose his 6 See Marvin A. Sweeney, “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89; Patricia K. Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” in To Each Its Own Meaning, 156–180. 7 E.g., Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1988), 65–95. 8 Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBLDS 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); cf. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversions; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).

116

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

beloved Rachel as she gives birth to their second son Benjamin. Whereas Jacob/Israel serves as the groom in the ancestral traditions, the figure of Jacob or Israel serves metaphorically as the bride in the prophetic representations of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. Such images appear in both Hosea 1–3 and Jeremiah 2 which portray Israel as the wayward bride and YHWH as the groom in a failed marriage that so clearly needs restoration. A similar metaphor of failed marriage in need of restoration is employed for the portrayal of the relationship between YHWH and Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. Zephaniah 3:14–20, however, emphasizes a time of restoration insofar as it portrays Jerusalem as the abandoned Bat Zion whose husband YHWH and exiled children are now returning to her. Indeed, the marriage traditions of ancient Israel, whether they are between Jacob and Rachel and Leah; YHWH and Israel; or YHWH and Jerusalem, are clearly constitutive elements in Second Isaiah’s portrayal of Israel’s and Zion’s exile and restoration. And yet interpreters must note another dimension of these figures, viz., the degree to which the figure of Jacob/Israel is identified with northern Israel in both the ancestral and the prophetic traditions and the degree to which Bat Zion/Jerusalem is identified with southern Judah in the Prophets. Indeed, the interplay between the northern figures Israel, Jacob or Rachel and the southern figure Bat Zion or Jerusalem is often a characteristic feature of Judean texts from the time of Josiah and other settings that envision the restoration of a unified Israel as the exiled or afflicted north returns to the south. In an effort to determine why Second Isaiah employs the Jacob and Bat Zion figures to address the questions of exile and restoration at the end of the Babylonian Exile and the outset of the Persian-period restoration, this paper analyzes Second Isaiah’s use of both figures in relation to the traditions from which they are drawn, including the ancestral traditions concerning Jacob, Rachel, and Leah in Genesis 25–35; the traditions of YHWH’s marriage with Israel in the northern prophets Hosea and Jeremiah, and the traditions of YHWH’s marriage with Jerusalem/Bat Zion in the southern prophets Zephaniah and Ezekiel. Insofar as these traditions appear to give expression to King Josiah’s failed efforts to reunite northern Israel with southern Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E.,9 this paper maintains that Second Isaiah’s use of the Jacob and Bat Zion figures draws upon the earlier Josian paradigm for the restoration and reunification of northern Israel and southern Judah.

9

For discussion of Josiah’s reform and its impact on biblical literature, see Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

117

II Second Isaiah’s use of the Jacob/Israel figure in Isaiah 40–48 emphasizes an interplay between the portrayal of YHWH’s role as creator and king of Israel and the Exodus tradition that takes up Jacob’s exile and return.10 Although the prolog in Isa 40:1–11 focuses on Jerusalem/Zion, subsequent material addresses Jacob/Israel, asking if Jacob/Israel knows YHWH’s role as creator and redeemer from old (Isa 40:27–28). Isaiah 41:8–9 identifies Jacob as YHWH’s servant and the seed of Abraham whom YHWH has chosen and whom YHWH will help and redeem in a scenario in which all creation participates in the projected scenario of Jacob’s redemption (Isa 41:5–20). The first servant song in Isa 42:18–25 identifies Jacob and Israel as YHWH’s blind and deaf servant given over to despoilment and plunder, and Isa 43:1–8 again promises that YHWH is Jacob/Israel’s creator who will see to the return of the people from the ends of the earth. Isaiah 43:22–28 charges Jacob/Israel with failing to worship YHWH, but Isa 44:1–8 identifies YHWH as Jacob/Israel’s king and creator, who reassures the servant Jacob of blessing and redemption. Isaiah 44:21–22 exhorts Jacob/Israel to remember YHWH’s past actions on behalf of the nation and promises to wipe away the nation’s sins in an effort to call for their return to YHWH and to Jerusalem as Cyrus restores Jerusalem and rebuilds the Temple. Isaiah 45:1–8 emphasizes that YHWH the creator and G-d of the servant Jacob has chosen Cyrus for the sake of YHWH’s people. Isaiah 46:3–4 calls upon Jacob/Israel to recognize that YHWH has brought down Babylon, personified in Isa 47:1–5 as the humiliated maiden Babylon. The final appeal to Jacob in Isa 48:1–22 reiterates the promises to the ancestors of numerous offspring (v. 19) and calls upon the servant Jacob to leave Babylon for a journey through the wilderness that will bring the nation home (vv. 20–22). Although Isaiah 40–48 employs the creation and Exodus/Wilderness traditions to construct its portrayal of YHWH as sovereign of creation and redeemer of Israel, the choice of Jacob/Israel as the means to portray the exiled nation is an apt one, particularly in relation to the role that the ancestor Jacob plays in Israelite tradition. Jacob is the key ancestral figure 10

For commentaries and studies on Second Isaiah, see esp. the above-noted works by Goldingay and Payne, Tull, and Sommer. In addition, see Claus Westermann together with Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (OTL; trans. D. M. G. Stalker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002); Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); Roy F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW 141; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1976); Klaus Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und motivgeschichtliche Analysen (OBO 24; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).

118

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

who is exiled from his land to Aram to find a bride and returns to the land of Israel after twenty years of service when he has finally found his brides and fathered his sons. Indeed, the association of Jacob with exile is a powerful one insofar as he goes into exile a second time to Egypt to escape famine in his homeland and ultimately to find his lost son Joseph. Interpreters largely see the Jacob traditions in Gen 25:19–35:29 as the product of a combined JE and P tradition that reflects upon Jacob and his wives as foundational figures in the early history of Israel,11 but it is also important to recognize that the Jacob traditions also give expression to the political and historical realities of much later times.12 Indeed, the basic narrative structure of the Jacob traditions, including both Jacob’s conflicts with his brother Esau and his relationship with his wives Rachel and Leah and their father Laban appear to have been composed as a reflection on northern Israel’s relationships with Edom and Aram during the ninth century B.C.E.13 The Jacob narrative emphasizes that the key male figures, Jacob, Esau, and Laban, are eponymous ancestors for the nations Israel (Gen 32:28; 35:10), Edom (Gen 25:30), and Aram (Gen 31:47) respectively. Furthermore, the emphasis on puns to illustrate the meanings of the names of the key male figures in the narratives, including Jacob, Esau, and Laban as well as Jacob’s twelve sons, highlights the geographical and political concerns underlying this narrative insofar as the puns also identify boundaries between Israel, Edom, and Aram and the twelve tribal and geographical components of the kingdom of Israel. Thus, the description in Gen 27:11 of Jacob as a “smooth” (Hebrew, ḥālāq) man and Esau as a “hairy” (Hebrew, śā‘îr) man recalls the place names Mt. Halak and Mt. Seir in Josh 11:17 that mark the boundaries between Israel and Edom. Esau’s willingness to trade his birthright to Jacob for some lentils, described in Gen 25:30 in Hebrew as hā’ādōm, “red stuff,” and his description in Gen 25:25 as a “ruddy” (Hebrew, ’ādmônî) and a “hairy” (Hebrew, kě’adderet śē‘ār, lit., “like a hairy mantle”) likewise reinforces Esau’s identification with Edom (Hebrew, ’ědôm) and Seir (Hebrew, śē‘îr). The name Laban, Hebrew, lābān, means “white,” which is associated with the Valley of Lebanon (hallěbānôn) that defines the boundaries between Aram, Phoenicia, and Israel in Josh 11:17. Likewise 11

For current assessment of the Jacob tradition in Genesis, see Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 12 For treatment of the Jacob traditions as a block rather than as the product of sources, see Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 5–270; cf. Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). 13 See Marvin A. Sweeney, “Puns, Politics, and Perushim in the Jacob Cycle: A Case Study in Teaching the English Hebrew Bible,” Shofar 9 (1991): 103–118.

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

119

the Hebrew reference gal‘ēd, “heap of witness,” in Gen 31:47 to the pillar set up by Jacob and Laban as a boundary marker between their respective territories recalls the location Baal Gad (Hebrew, ba‛al gād) which also marks the boundary between Israel and Aram in Josh 11:17 and the tribe of Gad that inhabits the region together with the half tribe of Manasseh. The various puns employed to interpret the names of Jacob’s sons highlight the tribal units that constitute ancient Israel. The name of Reuben (rě’ûbēn), first-born son to Jacob and Leah means, “YHWH has seen (rā’â) my affliction” and “now my husband will love me (ye’ěhābanî) according to Gen 29:32; Simeon (šim‛ôn) is so-named “because YHWH heard (šāma‘) that I was unloved” in Gen 29:33; Levi (lēwî) is named because “this time my husband will become attached (yillāweh) to me in Gen 29:34; and Judah (yěhûdâ) is named because “this time I will praise (‘ôdeh) YHWH.” When Bilhah gives birth to Dan, Rachel states, “G-d has vindicated me (dānannî) in Gen 30:6, and when Naphtali is born, Rachel states, “a divine/fateful contest I waged (naptûlê ’ělōhîm niptaltî) with my sister” in Gen 30:8. When Zilpah gives birth to Gad (gād), Leah states, “What luck (bāgād)!” in Gen 30:11, and when Asher (’āšēr) is born, Leah states, “What fortune (bě’āšrî)!” in Gen 30:13. When Leah gives birth to Issachar (yiśśāśkār), she exclaims, “G-d has given me my reward (śěkārî) in Gen 30:18 (cf. Gen 30:16), and when Zebulun (zěbulûn) is born, Leah states, “G-d has given me a choice gift (zebed); this time my husband will exalt me (yizbělēnî)” in Gen 30:20. No pun is uttered when Leah’s daughter Dinah is born in Gen 30:21. When Joseph (yôsēp) is born, his mother Rachel states, “G-d has taken away/gathered (’āsap) my disgrace” and “May YHWH add (yôsēp) another son for me” in Gen 30:23–24. When Rachel dies while giving birth to Benjamin (binyāmîn), Jacob names him “son of the right hand” (binyāmîn) in Gen 35:18 to indicate his exalted status. The locations of major events during Jacob’s return to Israel from Aram to face his brother Esau also evoke puns, which point to Israel’s presence on the east bank of the Jordan River. When Jacob departs from Aram and sees angels of G-d in Gen 32:1–3, he exclaims, “This is G-d’s camp (maḥǎnēh). Jacob divides his family into two camps (šěnê maḥǎnôt) in Gen 32:8–9, 11 to better protect his family should Esau decide to attack. Both of these puns explain the city name Mahanaim, whose precise location is unknown although it was located along the River Jabbok in the tribal territory of Gad or Manasseh. When Jacob wrestles with the “man of G-d” at Penuel by the River Jabbok, several puns indicate the region. The verb wayyē’ābēq, “and he wrestled” in Gen 32:24 indicates the name of the River Jabbok (yabbōq). The place name Peniel/Penuel (pěnî’ēl/pěnû’ēl) is named because of Jacob’s statement, “I have seen a divine being (’ělōhîm, lit., “god”) face to face (pānîm ’el pānîm)” in Gen 32:31–32. The River Jabbok served as the boundary between Gad and Manasseh in the Trans-Jordan, and Penuel

120

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

served as an important administrative center for the northern kingdom of Israel shortly after its founding by Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:25). The man of G-d explains Jacob’s change of name to Israel (yiśrā’ēl) in Gen 32:29 with the statement, “for you have striven (śārîtā) with divine and human beings and prevailed.” Finally, Jacob journeys to the city of Sukkot (sukkōt) to make stalls (sukkōt) for his cattle. Sukkot was also situated near the junction of the River Jabbok with the Jordan River in the Trans-Jordan. Although the puns employed in the Jacob narrative may serve in part as entertainment, their geo-political functions must not be overlooked. The puns ascribed to the twelve sons of Jacob define the twelve tribal units that make up the united people of Israel throughout early Israelite tradition. The puns associated with the trans-Jordanian region are particularly important because they point to locations associated with the tribes of Gad, Manasseh, and perhaps Reuben early in Israel’s history as well. Altogether, the puns point to an ideal twelve tribe structure of Israel that fills the land west and east of the Jordan in accordance with the ideal tribal allotments of Joshua 13–23 and Numbers 34. But the contents of the narrative, particularly the interrelationships between Jacob, Esau, and Laban must also be taken into account. Insofar as these figures serve as eponymous ancestors for Israel, Edom, and Aram, the interrelationships – or more properly conflicts – between these characters must be considered in relation to the interrelationships and conflicts between their corresponding nations. Biblical sources in 1 Kings 16–2 Kings 14 indicate that Israel was reunited in the ninth century B.C.E. under the reign of the Omride dynasty of northern Israel, which counted Judah and Edom among its vassals.14 Nevertheless, this was a period of conflict in which Israel was attacked by Aram in the Trans-Jordan during the reigns of the Omride monarchs Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, and conflict with Aram continued during the reigns of the Jehide monarchs Jehu, Joash, and Jehoahaz as well. Ahab was able to strike a treaty with the Aramean King Ben Hadad following an aborted Aramean invasion of Israel at Aphek east of the Sea of Galilee in 1 Kgs 20:26–34. Nevertheless, Ahab was killed in battle with the Arameans at Ramot Gilead, located in the Trans-Jordan. With the death of Ahab, the overthrow of his son Jehoram by his general Jehu while the conflict continued at Ramot Gilead, and finally Jehu’s containment by the Arameans following his revolt, it appears that Israel lost the Trans-Jordan to the Arameans until it was regained by Jehoahaz. There was also conflict with Edom during this period, which broke away from King Jehoram of Judah, himself a vassal of the Omride King Jehoram at this time, according to 2 Kgs 8:20–24. Although Israelite control of the Trans-Jordan was re14 For treatment of texts in Kings, see Marvin A. Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007).

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

121

established by the reign of King Jeroboam of Israel, there is no indication that Edom was ever recovered by either Israel or Judah. The conflicts between Jacob and Esau and between Jacob and Laban in the Genesis narrative appear to reflect the historical events of the ninth century B.C.E. Israel entered into conflict with Aram in the Trans-Jordan and ultimately settled its boundaries with Aram, first in the time of Ahab and later by the time of Jeroboam. Likewise, Edom began as a vassal of Israel/Judah during this period but ultimately broke away from Israel/ Judah, likely due to the reverses that Israel suffered against the Arameans. These considerations indicate that the Jacob narrative was composed at least in its basic form at some point following the ninth century B.C.E., perhaps in the eighth century B.C.E. when northern Israel had restored its boundaries under Jeroboam and had the opportunity to reflect on its history. But if the basic narrative was composed at such an early date, interpreters must also reflect on the impact it would have had on readers in later periods, particularly following the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/721 B.C.E. when the narrative would have been brought south and read by Judeans. The narratives concerning Jacob’s/Israel’s exile from Israel and his reverses at the hands of Esau and Laban on the one hand and the narratives concerning Jacob’s return and restoration to the land of Israel on the other would have played an important role in Judean attempts to reunite Israel and Judah and to restore Davidic authority over the north, either during the reign of Hezekiah whose revolt against Assyria failed so spectacularly or during the reign of Josiah whose efforts to reunite the nation in the aftermath of the collapse of the Assyrian empire were cut short by his early death at Megiddo at the hands of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt. In the late-monarchic period, the Jacob traditions of Jacob’s own exile and return to the land would have given expression to Israel’s defeat and exile at the hands of the Assyrians and the prospects for Israel’s restoration and reunification with Judah in the aftermath of Assyria’s downfall. Such a narrative could well have played a role in motivating attempts by either Hezekiah or Josiah to reunite Israel and Judah and to restore Davidic authority over the north.

III Interpreters will never be able to know the precise form of the Jacob traditions in the late-monarchic period or even the degree to which they influenced Hezekiah or Josiah, but Jeremiah 30–31, which portray the return of Israel to Zion and the reunification of north and south provides some clues concerning the impact of this tradition in the Book of Jeremiah.

122

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

The present form of Jeremiah 30–31 clearly presupposes the Babylonian Exile insofar as it posits that both Israel and Judah together must be restored in the aftermath of exile and disaster.15 Such perspectives appear at the outset of the oracular block in Jer 30:3–4, which portray YHWH’s promise to restore the fortunes of both Israel and Judah and return them to the land promised by YHWH to their ancestors. They appear in several other sub-units of this text as well. Jeremiah 31:27–30 declares that the time to uproot, to pull down, to destroy, and to bring disaster to both Israel and Judah is over and that the time to build and to plant has come. Jeremiah 31:31–34 declares that YHWH will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah – unlike the former covenant with the ancestor which the people broke – in which YHWH will put divine Torah in the hearts of the people so that YHWH will be their G-d once again. Finally, Jer 31:38–40 envisions the restoration of the city of Jerusalem as a result of YHWH’s promises never again to uproot or overthrow the people. It is striking that each of these passages concerned with the restoration and return of both Israel and Judah is introduced by a common formula, hinnēh yāmîm bā’îm, “behold the days are coming,” whereas the other primary formula throughout the passage is the so-called prophetic messenger formula, kōh ’āmar yhwh, “thus says YHWH,” which introduces the other prophetic oracular speeches which constitute this unit in Jer 30:1–2; 30:5– 11; 30:12–17; 30:18–31:1; 31:2–6; 31:7–14; 31:15; 31:16–22; 31:23–26; 31:35–36; and 31:37. Indeed, if the oracles introduced by the hinnēh yāmîm bā’îm formula are removed from the passage, the remaining oracles introduced by the kōh ’āmar yhwh formula display a sequence of oracles that are concerned not with the restoration and return from exile of both Israel and Judah but only with the restoration and return of Israel/Jacob to Zion. Jeremiah 30:1–2 serves as an introduction to the unit insofar as it presents simply YHWH’s command to the prophet to write down the following oracles. Jeremiah 30:5–11 portrays a time of trouble for Jacob, a common designation for northern Israel, and Jacob’s anticipated return to its G-d and David, the king that YHWH will raise for them. The oracle also addresses Jacob as “servant Jacob” in v. 10, a common designation in Second Isaiah. Jeremiah 30:12–17 promises healing from wounds to an addressee who is unclear until after the closing oracular formula of v. 17a. Although Zion emerges as the addressee in v. 17b, its placement after the closing oracular formula suggests later interpretation of a text addressed to another figure. Jeremiah 30:18–31:1 promises the restoration of the fortunes of 15 For discussion of Jeremiah 30–31, see esp. Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah 30–31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 109–122.

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

123

Jacob’s tents and the restoration of the covenant relationship with the classic formula, “You shall be my people, and I will be your G-d,” again applied to the clans of Israel in Jer 31:1. Jeremiah 31:2–6 recalls the Wilderness traditions when Israel became YHWH’s bride (cf. Hosea 2; Jeremiah 2) to address Israel as “maiden Israel” in v. 4. The passage also portrays the planting of the hills of Samaria and the proclamation from the heights of Ephraim that the people should go up to Zion to appear before YHWH. Jeremiah 31:7–14 employs characteristic language applied to northern Israel, such as the call for Jacob’s rejoicing, the return of the remnant of Israel, Ephraim the first born of YHWH, to portray YHWH’s gathering Israel from the ends of the earth and YHWH’s ransoming of Jacob so that they will rejoice on the heights of Zion. Jeremiah 31:15 portrays Rachel, the favored bride of Jacob and mother of Joseph and Benjamin, weeping for her lost children. Joseph, of course, is the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, the two key tribes of northern Israel, and Benjamin is the tribe of Saul, the first king of the north. Jeremiah 31:16–22 calls upon Ephraim to cease weeping and for Maiden Israel to return. Jeremiah 31:23–26 envisions the time the actions of the G-d of Israel will be recognized in the land of Judah and its towns; again, an apparent supplement in v. 26 envisions the habitation of Judah’s land and towns. Jeremiah 31:35–36 portrays YHWH’s promise to the offspring of Israel that they will always be a nation. Finally, Jeremiah 31:37 reiterates YHWH’s promise to the offspring of Israel in relation to the permanence of heaven and earth. Altogether, this survey of the oracles introduced by the prophetic messenger formula presents a portrayal of YHWH’s promises of restoration to Israel, Jacob, Maiden Israel, Rachel, and Ephraim, all references to the northern kingdom of Israel, that they will be restored and returned to YHWH at Zion and to David, the founder of the Judean dynasty. Oracles introduced with the formula, “behold the days are coming,” address the restoration of both Israel and Judah, and several instances indicate that an Israelite oracle has been supplemented so that it refers to Jerusalem or Judah. Such a phenomenon indicates that an early cycle of oracles concerned with the restoration of northern Israel to Zion has been reworked so that the edited cycle calls for the restoration of both Israel and Judah. The settings for each of the two stages in the composition of this text are clear; the concern with the restoration of Israel to Zion was a primary concern of the reform of King Josiah who sought to restore Davidic rule over the north in the aftermath of the fall of Assyria in the late seventh century B.C.E., and the concern with the restoration of both Israel and Judah presupposes the Babylonian destruction and exile of Jerusalem and Judah. Insofar as the superscription of the Book of Jeremiah maintains that the prophet began his career in the thirteenth year of King Josiah and that it extended to the eleventh year of Zedekiah, i.e., the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, it

124

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

appears that the prophet composed the earlier cycle in support of Josiah’s efforts to reunite Israel and to restore Davidic rule over the north but later updated the cycle to account for the reverses suffered by Judah, culminating in the Babylonian Exile, following the death of Josiah. But the oracular sequence also demonstrates the degree to which the figure of Jacob, initially as representative of the northern kingdom of Israel and subsequently as representative for both Israel and Judah together, was viewed as a paradigm for Israel’s exile and restoration in the Book of Jeremiah during the late-monarchic and early exilic period. It likewise demonstrates the first efforts to associate Jacob with the marriage tradition that identifies Israel as YHWH’s bride in the wilderness (Hosea 2; Jeremiah 2), insofar as it employs Rachel, Jacob’s favored wife as a symbol for Israel’s mourning in Jer 31:15 and immediately shifts to a portrayal of Ephraim’s lamenting and Maiden Israel’s return to Zion in the following oracle in Jer 31:16–22. Jeremiah 30–31 employs some characteristic phraseology and concerns of Second Isaiah, e.g., “have no fear, my servant Jacob” (Jer 30:10); “the anger of YHWH shall not turn back until it has completed His purposes; in the days to come you shall perceive it” (Jer 30:24); “I will bring them in from the northland, gather them from the ends of the earth – the blind and the lame among them” (Jer 31:8); “I will lead them to streams of water, by a level road where they will not stumble” (Jer 31:9); “hear the word of YHWH, O nations, and tell it in the isles afar, say, He who scattered Israel will gather them” (Jer 31:10); “for YHWH will ransom Jacob, redeem him from one too strong for him” (Jer 31:11); and “thus says YHWH, who established the sun for light by day, the laws of moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea into roaring waves, whose name is YHWH of Hosts” (Jer 31:35). From these parallels, it appears that Jeremiah 30–31 provided an important basis for the oracles of Second Isaiah to develop the themes of YHWH’s redemption of Israel, Israel’s return to Zion, and at least some of basis for the portrayal of Bat Zion as YHWH’s restored bride.

IV Like the Jacob traditions of Genesis 25–35, the portrayal of Israel as the bride of YHWH in the wilderness has deep roots in northern Israelite tradition, particularly in the work of the prophets, Hosea and Jeremiah.16 Both

16

For discussion of the marriage traditions in the Prophets, see esp. Gerlinde Baumann, Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship between YHWH and Israel in the Prophetic Books (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003); R. Abma, Bonds of

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

125

have affinities with the north, Hosea because of his concerns with the Jehide dynasty of northern Israel and Jeremiah because he is from Anathoth in the land of Benjamin. Both envision the wilderness period as an ideal period in which YHWH and Israel were betrothed, much like Jacob and Rachel in Haran, but both portray Israel’s subsequent abandonment of YHWH for other lovers. Such a portrayal differs from the Wilderness traditions of the Pentateuch which portray Israel’s murmuring against YHWH from the outset. In both Hosea and Jeremiah, the marriage tradition is employed to critique northern Israel in relation to the concerns of the time in which each book is written and read, Hosea in relation to the last years of northern Israel and again in the time of Josiah, and Jeremiah in the time of Josiah and afterwards. The Book of Hosea presents the work of the prophet Hosea, who lived during the last years of the northern Israelite monarchy.17 The superscription maintains that he lived during the reigns of the northern Israelite monarch Jeroboam ben Joash (786–746 B.C.E.) and the southern Judean monarchs Uzziah (782–742 B.C.E.), Jotham (742–735 B.C.E.), Ahaz (735–715 B.C.E.), and Hezekiah (715–687/686 B.C.E.). Interpreters explain the discrepancy in the reigns of the king by maintaining that Hosea left northern Israel for the south where his work was edited and published. Reasons for his departure might include his trenchant critique of the Jehide dynasty, particularly while Jeroboam ben Joash remained on the throne, or possibly the Assyrian assaults against northern Israel and its ultimate destruction of the kingdom although this process did not begin in earnest until ca. 735 B.C.E. In any case, Hosea’s critique of Israel would have served Judean efforts to reestablish Davidic rule over the north during the reigns of Hezekiah and later Josiah. The basis for Hosea’s critique of northern Israel lies in his charges that Israel has abandoned YHWH to pursue other lovers. Although such a contention lends itself easily to a strictly religious understanding in which the people were worshipping other gods, closer examination of the issue indicates that Hosea was especially opposed to the Jehu dynasty’s alliance with the Assyrian empire. King Jehu (842–815 B.C.E.), the founder of the dynasty, is depicted submitting to the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser III in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III,18 and King Joash ben Jehoahaz

Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3 (SSN 40; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999). 17 For discussion of Hosea, see Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 1:11–144; Sweeney, King Josiah, 256–272. 18 James A. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 351–355.

126

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

(802–786 B.C.E.) is listed among the vassals of Adad Nirari III.19 The Jehide alliance with Assyria was motivated by the continuing pressure from the Arameans, both during the reign of the Omrides and the early reign of Jehu. Israel’s alliance with Assyria meant that Aram would be surrounded and contained, and the period of peace enabled Jeroboam ben Joash to reestablish Israelite control over a kingdom that extended from Lebo-Hamath in northern Aram to the Sea of the Aravah in the south. Hosea’s critique emphasized Israel’s submission to Assyrian interests to establish a trade route between Egypt and Assyria. Egypt of course was Israel’s enemy in the pentateuchal tradition, and Israel’s ancestors, including Jacob and his wives Rachel and Leah, had come from Haran in Aram. Although Hosea never calls for the assassination of the king, Jeroboam’s son Zechariah was assassinated in 746 B.C.E. A period of instability then followed as proAssyrian and pro-Aramean parties vied for the throne and assassinated opposing monarchs until Israel was dragged into war with Assyria by the pro-Aramean monarch Pekah. Although Pekah was eventually killed, proAramean forces continued to push for revolt against Assyria until the kingdom was destroyed in 722–721 B.C.E. Hosea’s own critique of Israel begins with a narrative in Hos 1:2–2:3 in which YHWH instructs him to marry Gomer, described as a woman of harlotry, and bear children with her. Readers will never know whether Gomer was actually a harlot or simply described as one by her accusing husband, but she clearly symbolizes Israel, whom the prophet accuses of harlotry for abandoning YHWH. The children born of the marriage are given names that symbolize the prophet’s critique of the Jehide dynasty, viz., the first son is named Jezreel to recall the city where Jehu overthrew the House of Omri; the second child, a daughter, is named Lo Ruhamah, a Hebrew term that means “no mercy” to symbolize YHWH’s lack of mercy for Israel; and the third child, a son, is named Lo-Ammi, “not my people,” to symbolize YHWH’s break in the relationship with Israel. The following section in Hos 2:4–3:5 begins with Hosea’s reflection on his divorce of Gomer and his accusations against her. As the passage progresses, however, it soon becomes clear that the speaker shifts from Hosea to YHWH and the wife from Gomer to Israel to demonstrate that Hosea’s failed marriage with Gomer is symbolic of YHWH’s failed relationship with Israel. After detailing the accusations against Israel, YHWH, now the husband in the relationship, decides that he loves his estranged bride Israel and cannot live without her. As a result YHWH determines to restore the relationship with Israel, and the passage concludes with YHWH’s instructtions to Hosea to restore his relationship with a harlot. Although interpreters are 19 S. Page, “A Stele of Adad Nirari III and Nergal-ereš from Tell al Rimnah,” Iraq 30 (1968): 139–153.

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

127

not entirely certain that the woman is Gomer, the restored relationship symbolizes YHWH’s intention to restore the relationship with Israel. One of the most telling features of this passage appears in Hos 3:4–5, which maintains that Israel will go for a long time without king and officials, but will ultimately return to YHWH and David their king. Although this passage may have envisioned the restoration of a northern king, the present form of the passage clearly envisions restored Davidic kingship over the north. Such a contention serves the efforts to restore Davidic rule over the north at the time of Hezekiah’s revolt against Assyria in 705–701 B.C.E., and Josiah’s later bid for independence and restored Davidic rule over the north in 640–609 B.C.E. Hosea may well have looked for the restoration of a righteous (to him) northern monarchy, but the book was later edited and read to support Judean interests, particularly those of King Josiah’s program for the reform and restoration of Jerusalem and Judah/ Israel, in the aftermath of northern Israel’s destruction. The late-seventh/early-sixth century B.C.E. prophet Jeremiah likewise plays an important role in this scenario. As observed above, Jeremiah 30– 31 presupposes the return and restoration of both Israel and Judah in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile, but underlying the present form of the text is an earlier oracle by the prophet that envisioned the return of northern Israel to southern Davidic rule. Such a scenario of course supports Josiah’s program of reform and restoration, but the prophet was compelled to change his views following the unexpected death of Josiah at Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. and the subsequent decline of Judah. Although the marriage metaphor applied to Israel or Judah is not clear in Jeremiah 30–31, it is very clear in Jer 2:1–4:2 in which the prophet depicts Israel as YHWH’s bride in the wilderness.20 Israel initially followed YHWH in the wilderness, but the prophet charges that the people abandoned YHWH to pursue other gods. The contemporary (for Jeremiah) issue appears in Jer 2:18 in which he claims that the people have gone to Egypt to drink the waters of the Nile and to Assyria to drink the waters of the Euphrates, a charge akin to Hosea’s concerns a century earlier. Such a claim recalls Josiah’s efforts to free the nation from the control of the Assyrian empire and its Egyptian vassals in the late latter half of the seventh century B.C.E. as the power of the Assyrian empire waned and Egypt stepped in to replace its former patron in an attempt to fill the gap. Much of Jer 2:1–4:2 presupposes images of Israel and Jacob, but the passage appears as part of a larger block of material in Jeremiah 2–6, which begins with condemnations of Israel and appeals for its return to YHWH, but shifts in Jer 3:6–13 and 4:3–6:30 to charge Judah and Jeru20 For discussion of Jeremiah 2–6, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2–6,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 94–108.

128

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

salem with abandoning YHWH and to call for their return to YHWH as well. Insofar as the oracle displays two very different objects of concern, Israel in the first part of the oracle and Jerusalem and Judah in the second part of the oracle, it appears that Jeremiah 2–6 has undergone a process of redaction and expansion much like that of Jeremiah 30–31, viz., an oracle concerned with the restoration of (northern) Israel to Jerusalem and Judah has been expanded to call for the restoration and return of Judah and Jerusalem as well. Such a scenario fits well with a young prophet Jeremiah who supported Josiah’s calls for the return of northern Israel to Davidic rule, but who was forced to rethink his position following Josiah’s death in 609 B.C.E. For Jeremiah, Josiah’s unexpected death meant that YHWH was not yet finished bringing judgment to the nation, i.e., Judah would also experience judgment like northern Israel before any promised restoration of all Israel could take place. Judean prophets also take up the marriage motif for portraying the relationship between YHWH and the nation, but they focus on the metaphorical portrayal of Jerusalem as Bat Zion, “Daughter Zion,” rather than on Israel as a whole, as the bride of YHWH. Although there are hints of sexual characterization for Israel in earlier Judean prophecy (generally charges of harlotry and the like for abandoning YHWH, e.g., Mic 1:6–7), the full application of the marriage motif does not emerge in Judah and Jerusalem until the reign of Josiah and after in the Books of Zephaniah and Ezekiel. The superscription of the Book of Zephaniah in Zeph 1:1 places the work of the prophet during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (reigned 640–609 B.C.E.).21 Although many interpreters argue that the book is the product of exilic or post-exilic redaction, my own work argues that the major portion of the book stems from the prophet himself with only light editing in Zeph 1:1 and 3:20. Overall, the Book of Zephaniah is written to support Josiah’s program of religious reform and national restoration and reunification. It employs charges of apostasy and impending judgment as means to persuade its audience to return to YHWH and thereby to support Josiah’s plans. The marriage metaphor figures prominently at the end of the book in Zeph 3:14–20. This oracle concludes an oracular sequence in Zeph 3:1–20 which anticipates the restoration of Jerusalem and the return of its exiles once the period of Jerusalem’s punishment has been completed. In the context of Josiah’s reign, the period of punishment is coming to a close and the time of restoration is at hand. 21

For discussion of Zephaniah, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); idem, “Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah,” in Relating to the Text: Interdisciplinary and Form-Critical Insights on the Bible (ed. T. J. Sandoval and C. Mandolfo; JSOTSup 384; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 120–130 = below, pp. 323–333.

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

129

Zephaniah 3:14–20 begins in vv. 1–15 with exhortations to Bat Zion, also called Israel and Daughter of Jerusalem, that she should rejoice, cry aloud, and be glad because YHWH has annulled all judgments against her. The following segment in vv. 16–19 portrays the coming day in which Jerusalem/Zion will be reassured that she need fear no further threat as YHWH her G-d has returned to her. The initial portrayal of YHWH is as a triumphant warrior, but the imagery immediately shifts to YHWH’s rejoicing over Jerusalem and an enigmatic statement in v. 17, yaḥǎrîš bě’ahǎbātô, literally, “he shall plow/be silent in his love,” followed by “he will rejoice over you in jubilation.” The Hebrew verb ḥrš, which means both “to plow” and “to be silent,” is particularly problematic here as scholars have struggled to ascertain its meaning. Examination of the use of the verb ḥrš as “to plow” indicates that it can be employed metaphorically to portray sexual relations (e.g., Judg 14:8) and that cognate terms for plowing are employed in the Sumerian Love Songs and the Babylonian Harab myth to describe sexual relations as well.22 When v. 17 is read in this matter, the portrayal of YHWH’s return to Zion emerges as a portrayal of the return of the groom, YHWH, to the formerly abandoned bride, Bat Zion. The remaining elements of the oracle in vv. 18–19 promise that YHWH will bring to an end the punishment inflicted on Zion’s people and the “reproach” suffered by Zion. The term “reproach,” Hebrew ḥerpâ, is generally employed to describe the humiliation of women who have lost their men in war or otherwise been abandoned by their own men and left to their captors. With the end of this period of humiliation for Bat Zion, YHWH promises to end the affliction, gather those who have strayed, and exchange disgrace for honor and reputation. Verse 20, perhaps a later editorial addition to the text, clarifies the meaning of v. 19 by stating explicitly that YHWH will gather Zion’s people, bring them home, make them renowned among the peoples of the earth, and restore their fortunes. In short, the marriage motif appears in Zeph 3:14–20 as a means to describe YHWH’s restoration of Zion as a returning husband who restores his bride. Although this text is written in support of Josiah’s reform, it is read as a general portrayal of restoration after the time of Josiah. Ezekiel likewise employs the marriage metaphor to portray the relationship between YHWH and Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16, but his use of the motif focuses especially on judgment rather than on restoration.23 Such a concern 22

Yitzchak Sefati, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature (Bar Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Language and Culture; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1998), 90–92; Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harab Myth (SANE 2.101; Malibu: Undena, 1984). 23 For discussion of Ezekiel 16, see esp. Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as YHWH’s Wife (SBLDS 130; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), esp. 61– 63, 64–72, 91–109. For a general orientation to Ezekiel, see Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 127–164.

130

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

with judgment is hardly surprising since Ezekiel is a Zadokite priest exiled to Babylonia with King Jehoiachin in 597 B.C.E. and he serves as a major interpreter of the fall of Jerusalem and Babylonian Exile in 587/586 B.C.E. and following. Ezekiel’s work does include oracles of restoration as well, although they do not employ the marriage motif. It is striking that Ezekiel would have been born, raised, and educated in the context of Josiah’s reform. His oracle of restoration in Ezek 37:15–28 envisions the reunification of Joseph, i.e., northern Israel, and Judah around the Jerusalem Temple and under the rule of a righteous Davidic monarch.24 Such an oracle indicates Ezekiel’s acceptance of the basic Josian perspectives of reunification and restoration of Israel and Judah under Davidic rule, but the experience of the destruction of Jerusalem and Babylonian Exile would have compelled him to rethink this paradigm. His vision of the restored Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 envisions an ideal portrayal of the Twelve Tribes of Israel around the Temple and a restored creation, so that at least his visions of the future are still rooted to a degree in the principles of Josiah’s reform, but he must account for the realities of judgment in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction. As a Zadokite priest, Ezekiel’s understanding of Jerusalem’s destruction employs a paradigm for purging the city and Temple of its iniquity, much like the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16 symbolizes the purging of the nation at Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement, and the reconstitution of a purified Temple in place of the Temple that was lost. Ezekiel 16 portrays the history of YHWH’s early relationship with Jerusalem in relation to the marriage motif. The passage portrays YHWH’s discovery of Jerusalem as an abandoned baby in the wilderness, born to an Amorite father and a Hittite mother. The abandoned baby Jerusalem is described as unwashed from its birth fluids, having an umbilical cord that is not cut, and left lying in the open. YHWH takes care of the abandoned baby until she grows to adulthood, at which time YHWH spreads his robe over her and enters into a covenant with her (vv. 7–8). Insofar as Jerusalem had reached the time for love, the spreading of YHWH’s robe signifies a marital relationship with Jerusalem and the covenant signifies a marriage contract, which YHWH fulfills by providing the now young woman Jerusalem with clothing, jewelry, and food in keeping with the responsibilities of a husband in the ancient world. From v. 15 on, the passage describes Jerusalem’s abandonment of YHWH, described in keeping with the marital metaphor as sexual betrayal and harlotry with the Assyrians, Chaldeans (Babylonians), and anyone else who passed by. YHWH’s response to such 24 See Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform,” in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (ed. B. E. Kelle and M. B. Moore; LHBOTS 446; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 239–253 = below, pp. 219–232.

7. The Legacy of Josiah in Isaiah 40–55

131

action is to gather all of Jerusalem’s lovers and strip her bare before them of the clothing, jewelry, and support that YHWH had formerly given her and to turn her over to the mob. The remainder of the passage focuses on YHWH’s indignation, charges that Jerusalem’s behavior is in keeping with sinful behavior of her Amorite and Hittite forebears, and that Jerusalem’s behavior was even worse than Sodom’s and Samaria’s. In the end, YHWH promises to restore the relationship with Jerusalem, but only after the punishment against her has been carried out. In sum, the marriage motif has left a deep impression on both Israelite and Judean prophecy, both to portray YHWH’s judgment against Israel or Jerusalem as a means to punish the purportedly wayward bride for abandoning her husband and to portray YHWH’s willingness to restore the relationship once the bride has suffered her punishment. Notably, every one of the texts that employs this motif is tied in one way or another to the Josianic reform.

V The influence of the conceptualization of Israel’s restoration and reunification around the Jerusalem Temple and the House of David on Second Isaiah’s scenario of exile and return in Isaiah 40–55 should come as no surprise. Josiah’s seventh-century reform program addresses the same fundamental issues of exile and restoration taken by Second Isaiah at the end of the Babylonian Exile in the late-sixth century B.C.E. Second Isaiah’s construction of the images of Jacob and Bat Zion presupposes reflection on the earlier traditions concerning Jacob and Israel or Bat Zion as the bride of YHWH and the reconstruction of the images of Jacob and Bat Zion to fit the needs of the time, but such reflection and reconstruction has been witnessed before in biblical tradition. The Isaiah tradition developed extensively in relation to Josiah’s reform;25 Jeremiah was compelled to rethink his early support for Josiah’s reform following the king’s death as he began to understand that Judah and Jerusalem would suffer judgment prior to restoration much like northern Israel;26 and Ezekiel was compelled to adjust images of the purification of the Temple and the construction of an ideal Twelve Tribes of Israel around the Temple in relation to the realities

25 See Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 31–62, esp. 57–59. 26 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 78–93.

132

Part 2: The Book of Isaiah

of the Babylonian Exile.27 Second Isaiah was compelled to do the same, although the realities of the time called upon the prophet to rethink the tradition in relation to the rise of Cyrus and the prospects for restoration as the period of the Babylonian Exile came to a close.

27

See Sweeney, “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28”; idem, “Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah,” in Congress Volume: Ljubljana 2007 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 555–574 = below, pp. 185–202.

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

1

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10 I Interpreters have long noted the major differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and Masoretic (MT) versions of the Book of Jeremiah.1 MT Jeremiah places the oracles concerning the nations in Jeremiah 46–51 near the end of the book following the Jeremiah narratives in Jeremiah 37–45 but prior to the concluding account of the fall of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 52. LXX Jeremiah places the oracles concerning the nations in the midst of Jeremiah 25 following the oracles of Jeremiah in Jer 1:1–25:13a but preceding the largely narrative segment of the book in Jer 25:13b–52:34. Furthermore, the text of LXX Jeremiah is approximately one-seventh shorter than that of MT Jeremiah. The parallel text in MT Jeremiah frequently includes lengthy segments that are largely absent from LXX Jeremiah, although there are cases in which LXX Jeremiah includes text that is absent in MT Jeremiah.2 Although early critical scholars maintained that LXX Jeremiah was an inferior translation of MT Jeremiah, the latter twentieth century has seen a shift in viewpoint so that most contemporary specialists view LXX Jeremiah as an earlier version of the book that originated in Alexandrian Jewish circles whereas MT is a later expanded version that originated in Babylonian Jewish circles.3 The discovery of the Cave 4 Judean Wilderness manuscripts has lent support to this view. Most of the manuscripts represent a proto-Masoretic version of the book, but 4QJerb represents a Hebrew text that corresponds closely to the shorter LXX version of the book.4 Both versions appear to have existed simultaneously at Qumran without apparent problem.

1

Jack R. Lundbom, “Jeremiah, Book of,” ABD 3:706–721; idem, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 57–62. 2 J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973). 3 Janzen, Studies, 1–9. 4 Emanuel Tov, “Jeremiah,” in Qumran Cave 4: The Prophets (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 15; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 145–207, esp. 171–176.

136

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

Much of contemporary discussion focuses on the priority of the two versions. Most scholars view the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX version as the earlier text,5 but there are important representatives of the opposite view.6 One key development in this discussion is the recognition that the issue of textual difference is not merely a mechanical or scribal issue. Rather, interpreters have begun to recognize that the differing forms of the LXX and MT versions of the text have their own unique literary characters and hermeneutical perspectives. J. Gerald Janzen already raises hermeneutical perspectives in his 1973 study, although his work focused on the scribal aspects of the two texts.7 Yohanan Goldman demonstrates that MT Jeremiah 33 rereads the Davidic covenant tradition in Jeremiah 33 by applying it to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood rather than to the Davidic monarch.8 Andrew Shead recognizes that “the open book and the sealed book” of Jeremiah 32 is read quite differently in the LXX and MT versions of the book, viz., the closed book in the LXX provides a basis for further apocalyptic interpretation of Jeremiah in later times.9 J. Edward Wright demonstrates that LXX Jeremiah characterizes Baruch as a visionary prophet who succeeded his master Jeremiah to become the primary visionary apocalyptic figure in several later apocalyptic books.10 Adrian Schenker demonstrates that whereas MT Jeremiah 31 presupposes a new covenant based on Mosaic Torah, LXX Jeremiah 31 presupposes only a covenant

5 E.g., Janzen, Studies; Emanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert et al.; BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1981), 145–167; idem, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 (HSM 8; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1976); cf. Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 2–4. 6 Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 1/12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968); Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah (3 vols.; AB 21A–C; New York: Doubleday, 1999–2004); idem, “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah,” HS 46 (2005): 301–320; Georg Fischer, Jeremia (2 vols.; HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 1:39–45; idem, “Zum Text des Jeremiasbuches,” in idem, Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiabuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 24–41. 7 Janzen, Studies. 8 Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie (OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 38–64. 9 Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions (JSOTSup 347; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), esp. 114–124. 10 J. Edward Wright, Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia, S. C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 70–112.

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

137

based on YHWH’s instructions.11 My own work demonstrates a sharp difference in the literary structure and hermeneutical outlook of the two versions so that LXX Jeremiah focuses on the downfall and restoration of Jerusalem whereas MT Jeremiah focuses on the impending downfall of Babylon in the aftermath of the collapse of Jerusalem and Judah.12 One of the outcomes of my own work on the differing structures of LXX and MT Jeremiah is the recognition that Jeremiah 1–10 is presented quite differently in the LXX and MT versions of the book. The absence of the prophetic word formula in Jer 7:1–2 in the LXX version of the book means that the initial component of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon in Jer 7:1– 15 is grouped together with the preceding oracles concerning Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 2–6 rather than with the following material pertaining to the Temple Sermon in Jeremiah 7–10. Likewise, the absence of Jer 8:11– 12 and 10:6–10 in the LXX version of the book provides a very different understanding of this material from that found in MT Jeremiah. Consequently, this paper investigates the differing forms and hermeneutical perspectives of Jeremiah 1–10 in the LXX and MT forms of the book. Based upon the analysis of the distinctive forms of each version, it argues that LXX Jeremiah views the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as the outcome of a process that began with Israel in 722–721 B.C.E. and continued with Judah in 597–586 B.C.E. MT Jeremiah, however, views the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as a singular event that raises questions concerning divine purpose and anticipates the downfall of the Babylonian Empire.

II My earlier study on “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective” presented a comparative assessment of the synchronic literary form of each version of the book that served as the basis for drawing diachronic conclusions concerning their respective hermeneutical viewpoints and historical perspectives.13 The synchronic analysis of each version was based on a combination of the 11 Adrian Schenker, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zu Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche (FRLANT 212; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). 12 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 65–77; cf. idem, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 85–125. 13 Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality, 65–77.

138

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

formal semantic and syntactical features of each book.14 Each form of the book begins with a superscription in Jer 1:1–3 which identifies, characterizes, and contextualizes the following material as the words of the prophet Jeremiah which came to him from YHWH/G-d during the reigns of the last monarchs of Judah. A series of prophetic word formulae, “the word of the L-rd came to him/me, saying …,” then constitutes the basic formal literary structure of the book. This basic synchronic literary structure organizes and presents the respective version of the book and thereby stands as the basis for drawing conclusions concerning its hermeneutical perspective and historical setting. The MT version of the Book of Jeremiah begins with the superscription, “The words of Jeremiah ben Hilkiah (dibrê yirměyāhû ben ḥilqîyāhû) from the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin to whom the word of YHWH came (’ǎšer hāyâ děbar-yhwh ’ēlāyw) in the days of Josiah ben Amon, King of Judah, in the thirteenth year to his reign, and it came in the days of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, King of Judah, until the completion of the eleventh year of Zedekiah ben Josiah, King of Judah, until exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month.” A standard version of this formula, “the word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH, saying …” (Hebrew, haddābār ’ǎšer hāyâ ’el-yirměyāhû mē’ēt yhwh lē’mōr), then introduces the major sub-units of the book in Jer 7:1; 11:1; 14:1; 18:1; 21:1; 25:1; 30:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 40:1; 44:1; 45:1; 46:1; 46:13; 47:1; 50:1; and 51:59. A number of additional variations of this formula begin with the conjunction, “and,” viz., “and the word of YHWH came to me/him saying …” (Hebrew, wayěhî děbaryhwh ’ēlay/’ēlāyw lē’mōr), which indicates that the sections introduced by these formulae are subsumed structurally under the preceding blocks. The result is a general statement that MT Jeremiah contains “the words of Jeremiah ben Hilkiah …” followed by a succession of individual words given by YHWH to the prophet that appears throughout the balance of the book. Insofar as the historical narrative concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple lacks such an introductory formula, it stands outside the formal literary structure of the book as an appendix. 14 For the methodological premises employed in this analysis, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89; Rolf Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 435–468; idem, “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 123–165; Harald Schweizer, Metaphorische Grammatik: Wege zur Integration von Grammatik und Textinterpretation in der Exegese (ATSAT 15; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1981); Marvin A. Sweeney, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. J. L. Mays et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 113–126.

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

139

The formal literary structure of MT Jeremiah then appears as follows: Oracles concerning Israel and Judah A. Superscription B. Commissioning of the prophet C. Signs concerning YHWH’s purpose D. Oracles calling for Israel and Judah to return to YHWH II. Account concerning Jeremiah’s Temple sermon III. Oracles concerning rejection of YHWH’s covenant IV. Oracles concerning drought and marriage A. Drought B. Marriage V. Oracles concerning shattered pot/judgment against Judah VI. Oracles concerning Davidic kingship VII. Narratives concerning Jeremiah’s warnings to submit to Babylon VIII. Oracles concerning restoration of Israel and Judah IX. Narrative concerning field at Anathoth X. Narrative concerning YHWH’s decision to give Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar XI. Narrative concerning reneging on year of release XII. Narrative concerning fall of Jerusalem XIII. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s removal to Egypt XIV. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s oracles in Egypt XV. Narrative concerning word to Baruch XVI. Oracle concerning Egypt XVII. Oracle concerning Babylonian conquest of Egypt XVIII. Oracle concerning small nations XIX. Oracle concerning Babylon XX. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s instructions about Babylon XXI. Appendix concerning fall of Jerusalem I.

1–6 1:1–3 1:4–10 1:11–19 2–6 7–10 11–13 14–17 14–15 16–17 18–20 21–24 25–29 30–31 32–33 34:1–7 34:8–22 35–39 40–43 44 45 46:1–12 46:13–28 47–49 50:1–51:58 51:59–64 52

Overall, the MT version of Jeremiah begins with the prophet’s warnings to the people of Israel and Judah to abide by YHWH’s will, and it presents the consequences of the people’s failure to do so together with a portrayal of future restoration. The placement of the oracles concerning the nations, culminating in Babylon, points to the fall of Babylon as the focal point for YHWH’s plans. Such a structure indicates an interest in the rise of the Persian Empire as the agent for Jerusalem’s restoration and Babylon’s punishment. The LXX version of Jeremiah likewise begins with the superscription in Jer 1:1–3, although its wording is somewhat different, “The word of G-d, which came to Jeremiah (to rhēma tou Theou ho egeneto epi Ieremian), who was of Hilkiah from the priests who lived in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, which was the word of G-d to him (hos egenēthē logos tou Theou pros auton) in the days of Josiah son of Amos, King of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign, and it came in the days of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, King of Judah, until the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah, King of Judah, until the captivity of Jerusalem in the fifth month.” As was the case

140

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

with MT Jeremiah, the Greek version of the prophetic word formula, “the word which came from the the L-rd to Jeremiah saying …” (Greek, ho logos ho genomenos para kuriou pros Ieremian legōn) follows in LXX Jer 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 25:1; 37:1; 39:1; 41:1, 8; 42:1; 47:1; 51:1.15 Other examples of the prophetic word formula introduced by the conjunction, “and” (Greek, kai egeneto logos kuriou pros auton) in LXX Jer 1:4, 11; 14:1; and 50:8 must be subsumed structurally under the above-noted syntactically independent formulae. Again, the narrative concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in LXX Jeremiah 52 stands as an appendix outside the formal structure defined by the prophetic word formulae. The formal literary structure of LXX Jeremiah then appears as follows: The Words of Jeremiah Son of Hilkiah concerning YHWH’s Judgment against Jerusalem I.

Oracles concerning Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem A. Superscription B. Commissioning of the prophet C. Oracles calling for Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem to return to G-d II. Oracles concerning the rejection of YHWH’s covenant and the punishment that will follow A. Oracles concerning the rejection of YHWH’s covenant B. Oracles concerning the punishment that will follow III. Oracles concerning shattered pottery/judgment against Judah IV. Oracles concerning Davidic kingship V. Oracles concerning the nations VI. Oracles concerning the future restoration of Jerusalem VII. Narrative concerning the field at Anathoth VIII. Narrative concerning YHWH’s decision to deliver Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar IX. Narrative concerning the reneging on the year of release X. Narrative concerning the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem XI. Narrative concerning the aftermath of destruction A. Aftermath of destruction B. Jeremiah in Egypt XII. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s word to Baruch XIII. Appendix concerning the destruction of Jerusalem

1–10 1:1–3 1:4–10 1:11–10:25 11–17 11–13 14–17 18–20 21–24 25–36 37–38 39–40 41:1–7 41:8–22 42–46 47:1–50:13 47:1–50:7 50:8–13 51 52

The LXX version of Jeremiah indicates an interest in presenting YHWH’s plans for Israel, Judah, Jerusalem, and the nations, followed by a depiction of the consequences for Jerusalem in particular for failing to abide by YHWH’s will. Rather than culminating in the downfall of Babylon as in the MT version of the book, LXX Jeremiah offers a retrospective view that culminates in the destruction of Jerusalem as a consequence of the people’s failure to heed the prophet’s warnings. 15 This analysis of the formal structure of LXX Jeremiah differs from the earlier treatment by taking greater account of the conjunctive versions of the prophetic word formulae and correcting several typographical errors.

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

141

The very different structures evident for Jeremiah 1–10 in the MT and LXX versions of the book point to a very different organization and conceptualization of the material in these chapters within the larger formal structures of the respective versions of the book. These differences demand investigation.

III The formal structure of MT Jeremiah 1–10 includes two major units, chs. 1–6 and 7–10, each of which is introduced by syntactically independent versions of the prophetic word formula. In the case of MT Jeremiah 1–6, the superscription in 1:1–3 introduces the unit and identifies it as “the words of Jeremiah ben Hilkiah …, which was the word of YHWH to him in the days of …” The examples of the conjunctive prophetic word formula, “and the word of YHWH came to me, saying …,” introduce the three sub-units that follow the superscription, viz., the account of the commissioning of the prophet in 1:4–10; the account of the signs concerning YHWH’s purposes in 1:11–19; and the account of the oracles calling upon Israel and Judah to repent or return to YHWH in chs. 2–6. The four sub-units together provide an introduction to the concerns of the book, viz., identifying the prophet and the setting in which he spoke, recounting his commission as a prophet of YHWH, recounting the signs of YHWH’s impending judgment, and calling upon Israel and Judah to repent. Because I have treated MT Jeremiah 2– 6 in detail elsewhere, there is little need to repeat a detailed analysis here.16 The following structure analysis indicates the concern with the repentance of Judah based on prior experience with Israel in MT Jeremiah 2–6: D. Oracles Calling for Israel and Judah to Return to YHWH: Prophetic Summons to Repentance Directed to Judah (MT Jeremiah 2–6) 1. Prophet’s report of YHWH’s word concerning Israel: trial speech/divorce proceeding a. Narrative introduction: prophetic word transmission formula b. Report of YHWH’s word proper: trial speech/divorce proceeding 1) Commissioning speech concerning Israel as YHWH’s bride 2) Trial speech/divorce proceeding proper 2. Prophetic report of conversation with YHWH concerning Israel’s unfaithfulness in the days of Josiah 3. Prophet’s report of YHWH’s word concerning Judah a. Report of YHWH’s call for repentance for Israel b. Concerning future realization of Judah’s repentance

2:1–3:5 2:1 2:2–3:5 2:2–3 2:4–3:5 3:6–10 3:11–6:30 3:11–17 3:18–6:30

16 For a detailed analysis of Jeremiah 2–6, see my study, “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2–6,” in Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality, 94–108; cf. my briefer treatment in “Jeremiah,” in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. A. Berlin and M. Brettler; Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 917–1041, esp. 921–938; idem, The Prophetic Literature, 85–125.

142

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

The block of material in MT Jeremiah 7–10 demands detailed treatment, however, particularly because the Jerusalem Temple is the target of the prophet’s critique. The unit is demarcated at the outset by the syntacticallyindependent prophetic word formula in 7:1, “the word of YHWH which came to Jeremiah from YHWH, saying …” Another example of this formula marks the beginning of the following unit in 11:1. Within this material, three primary sub-units appear, each of which is defined by changes in the voice of the speaker. The first sub-unit is 7:1, which employs the voice of the narrator of the book to introduce the following material as the word of YHWH that came to Jeremiah. The second sub-unit is 7:2–9:10, which employs the voice of YHWH who gives a series of four instructions to Jeremiah, each of which is defined by YHWH’s direct address to the prophet instructing him to speak or not to speak in 7:2, 16, 27; and 8:4. The first instruction appears in 7:2–15. It opens with YHWH’s direct address to Jeremiah, “Stand in the gate of the House of YHWH, and you shall proclaim there this word, and you shall say …” The oracle goes on to instruct Jeremiah to speak the first segment of his famous Temple sermon in which Jeremiah denies that the Temple alone will save the people from judgment and argues instead that they must observe YHWH’s Torah. The second instruction appears in 7:16–26. It opens with YHWH’s direct address to the prophet, “And you, do not pray on behalf of this people, and do not lift up on their behalf a cry and a prayer, and do not entreat me, because I am not listening to you.” YHWH’s address continues with instructions to observe the behavior of the people who continue to provoke YHWH with adherence to foreign gods followed by YHWH’s observations that this is how the people behaved from the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The third instruction appears in 7:27–8:3. It opens with YHWH’s direct address to the prophet, “and you shall speak all these things, but they will not listen to you, and you shall proclaim to them, but they will not answer you, and you shall say to them …” YHWH’s judgment speech against Judah, Jerusalem, and the leadership of the nation then follows. The fourth instruction then appears in 8:4–9:10. It opens with YHWH’s direct address to the prophet, “and you shall say to them …” YHWH’s lengthy judgment speech then follows in which YHWH announces that the nation will go into exile for its failure to return to YHWH or to observe YHWH’s will. The third major sub-unit appears in 9:11–10:25. MT Jer 9:11 marks a major change in the voice of the speaker, viz., YHWH is no longer the speaker, but Jeremiah speaks instead in reaction to YHWH’s preceding instruction. He employs rhetorical questions to express perplexity at YHWH’s words and demands an explanation, “What man is so wise that he understands this? And to whom has the mouth of YHWH spoken, so that he can

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

143

explain it? Why has the land perished, fallen into ruin like the wilderness, without anyone passing by?” Following Jeremiah’s initial question, the prophet’s account of YHWH’s reply follows in 9:12–10:5 in which YHWH presents an oracle sequence that outlines judgment against the people for abandoning YHWH’s Torah and following in the practices of the pagan nations of the world. The account begins with a speech formula in 9:12aα followed by a sequence of four oracles in 9:12aβ–10:5. The oracle sequence includes a statement in 9:12aβ–15 of the premise that the people will go into exile for abandoning YHWH’s Torah; a lament for the death of the people in 9:16–21; a condemnation of self-aggrandizement in 9:22–25; and a climactic instruction warning against following the nations in 10:1–5. The third segment appears in 10:6–25 in which the prophet responds to YHWH’s oracles. His response includes a hymn of praise for YHWH over idols in 10:6–16; an instruction to Jerusalem to prepare for exile in 10:17– 18; and a lament in which he appeals to YHWH for mercy in 10:19–25. The formal structure of MT Jeremiah 7–10 appears as follows: II. Account concerning YHWH’s Instructions to Jeremiah concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (MT Jeremiah 7–10) A. Introduction: the word of YHWH to Jeremiah B. YHWH’s instructions to Jeremiah 1. 1 st instruction: stand in Temple and call for people to return to YHWH 2. 2 nd instruction: do not pray for people, but observe how they follow other gods 3. 3 rd instruction: announce judgment concerning Judah, Jerusalem, and their leaders 4. 4 th instruction: announce judgment concerning the impending exile of nation for failure to return to YHWH C. Account of Jeremiah’s reaction to YHWH’s words 1. Initial reaction: rhetorical questions concerning ability to understand YHWH 2. YHWH’s response to Jeremiah: oracle sequence announcing judgment against people for abandoning YHWH’s Torah and acting like pagan nations a. Speech formula b. Oracle sequence 1) Premise: exile due to abandonment of YHWH’s Torah 2) Lament for death of people 3) Judgment against self-aggrandizement 4) Climax: do not follow the nations 3. Jeremiah’s response to YHWH’s oracles a. Hymn of praise affirming YHWH over idols b. Instruction to Jerusalem to prepare for exile c. Lament appealing to YHWH for mercy

7:1 7:2–9:10 7:2–15 7:16–26 7:27–8:3 8:4–9:10 9:11–10:25 9:11 9:12–10:5 9:12aα 9:12aβ–10:5 9:12aβ–15 9:16–21 9:22–25 10:1–5 10:6–25 10:6–16 10:17–18 10:19–25

In contrast to Jeremiah 2–6, which is focused on the repentance of Judah, Jeremiah 7–10 is concerned specifically with the city of Jerusalem and

144

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

YHWH’s Temple. To be sure, Jeremiah 7–10 understands Jerusalem and the Temple to be the holy center of Israel and Judah, but the introductory prophetic word formula and the initial sermonic elements in 7:2–15 make it very clear that the Jerusalem Temple is the focal point of this unit. Insofar as the unit announces that Jerusalem is to be destroyed, the unit evokes Jeremiah’s own response combining both sorrow at the coming demise of Jerusalem and the Temple and piety in the presence of YHWH. Following upon Jeremiah 1–6, Jeremiah 7–10 makes several points clear, viz., a) the prophet’s commission to announce judgment will encompass not only Israel and Judah, but Jerusalem as well; b) in the prophet’s perspective adherence to divine Torah becomes the basic criterion by which YHWH decides to bring punishment or not; c) like Jeremiah 1–6, Jeremiah 7–10 holds out the possibility of Israelite and Judean repentance following the exile; and d) Jeremiah is a reluctant but faithful participant in this drama.

IV The formal structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10 looks very different from that of MT Jeremiah 1–10. Although the LXX version of these chapters includes the same basic material found in the MT, several major portions of text either do not appear or appear in a much shorter form than their counterparts in MT Jeremiah. These texts include LXX Jer 2:1–2; 4:10; 7:1–2; 8:10–12; and 10:5–10. The differing forms of these texts prompt a very different structural assessment of the LXX version of Jeremiah 1–10 as well as a different interpretation of the text. Before proceeding with an analysis of the formal structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10, interpreters must first understand the different forms of LXX Jer 2:1–2; 4:10; 7:1–2; 8:10–12; and 10:5–10 as the first three texts play defining roles in the formal structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10 and the second two influence the interpretation of the whole. LXX Jer 2:1–2 presents a much shorter text than that of MT Jer 2:1–2. MT Jer 2:1–2 reads, “And the word of YHWH came to me saying, ‘Go, and you shall proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, “Thus says YHWH …” The appearance of the conjunctive prophetic word formula functions as a means to demarcate MT Jeremiah 2–6 as a discrete unit within the larger literary structure of this text and it coordinates Jeremiah 2–6 with MT Jer 1:1–3; 1:4–10; and 1:11–19, which together constitute a sequence of sub-units introduced in the first instance by a prophetic word formula and in the later instances by examples of the conjunctive prophetic word formula to form the first formal unit of the book in MT Jeremiah 1–6 concerned with YHWH’s oracles concerning Israel and Judah. LXX Jer 2:1–2 by contrast lacks the initial prophetic word formula, and presents a

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

145

somewhat different and shorter version of YHWH’s instruction to proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, viz., “And he said, ‘Thus says the L-rd …’.” The absence of v. 1 means that LXX Jer 2:1–2 lacks the major structural marker that introduces Jeremiah 2–6 as a major unit within the MT version of the text following MT Jer 1:1–3; 1:4–10; and 1:11–19. LXX Jeremiah 2–6 does not therefore constitute a discrete sub-unit as in MT Jeremiah, but instead it is subsumed together with LXX Jer 1:11–19 where it is introduced by the simple speech formula, “and he said” (Greek, kai eipe), and functions as a continuation of this passage. Whereas LXX Jer 1:11–19 presents Jeremiah’s symbolic visions of judgment from the north, LXX Jeremiah 2–6 illustrates those visions with a detailed oracular presentation that calls upon Israel and Judah to repent lest YHWH bring the enemy from the north to carry out the punishment announced in 1:11–19. LXX Jer 4:10 presents a slightly different text than that of MT Jer 4:10. MT Jer 4:10 begins with the statement, “And I said (Hebrew, wā’ōmar), ‘Aha, my L-rd G-d, surely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, “You shall have peace, when the sword touches every life.”’” LXX Jer 4:10 reads, “And they said (Greek, kai eipa), ‘O sovereign L-rd, surely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, “You shall have peace, but behold, the sword has touched even their soul.”’” The difference between the two texts is textually minor. The Hebrew term, wā’ōmar, “and I said,” appears in MT Jer 4:10 whereas the Greek expression, kai eipa, “and they said,” in LXX Jer 4:10 presupposes Hebrew, wě’āměrû, “and they said.” Indeed, the LXX appears to have resolved an inconsistency in the Hebrew text. The MT reading presupposes an exclamation on the part of the prophet within the lengthy segment of YHWH’s oracles concerning Judah’s repentance in MT Jer 3:18–6:30. With the identification of Jeremiah as the speaker, the result is an interruption of YHWH’s oracles as the prophet challenges YHWH’s integrity. The third person reading of LXX Jer 4:10, however, fits easily into YHWH’s oracles insofar as YHWH remains the primary speaker in a text that portrays YHWH’s presentation of the people’s reaction to YHWH’s message. LXX Jer 7:1–2 presents a much shorter text than that of MT Jer 7:1–2. MT Jer 7:1–2 reads, “The word which came to Jeremiah from YHWH saying, ‘Stand in the gate of the House of YHWH, and you shall proclaim there this word, and you shall say, “Hear the word of YHWH all Judah who come into these gates to worship YHWH.”’” As noted in the discussion of the formal structure of MT Jeremiah, MT Jer 7:1–2 formally demarcates the presentation of YHWH’s instructions to Jeremiah to deliver the Temple sermon in MT Jeremiah 7–10 as a discrete structural unit within the larger structure of the book. LXX Jer 7:1–2, however, presents a much shorter text that does not include the prophetic word formula or YHWH’s statements to Jeremiah instructing him to stand in the Temple gate and speak to

146

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

the people. Instead, it merely begins with the content of the sermon that Jeremiah is to speak to the people, viz., “Hear the word of the L-rd all Judah.” Lacking the introductory material that demarcated MT Jeremiah as a discrete formal unit within Jeremiah, LXX Jer 7:2–15 is subsumed under the presentation of YHWH’s oracles in 1:11–19 and 2:2–6:30. But with the addition of 7:2–15, which focus specifically upon the impending judgment against Jerusalem and the Temple should the people fail to return to YHWH and observe YHWH’s Torah, the focus of Jer 2:2–7:15 becomes YHWH’s impending judgment against Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem, not simply Israel and Judah. In short, the LXX form of this text indicates that Jer 7:2–15 functions as the culmination of 2:2–7:15 rather than as the introduction to a discrete unit concerned with Jerusalem and the Temple. LXX Jer 8:10–12 offers a much shorter text than MT Jer 8:10–12. Much of v. 10 and all of vv. 11–12 are entirely absent in the LXX text of Jeremiah. LXX Jer 8:10–12 reads, “Therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to (new) owners, and they shall gather their grapes, says the L-rd.” MT Jer 8:11–12 reads, “Therefore I will give their wives to others, their fields to (new) owners, because from small to great, all of them have pursued ill-gotten gain, from prophet to priest, all of them act dishonestly. And they healed the wound of the daughter of my people lightly, saying ‛well, well,’ when it was not well. They acted shamefully because they committed abomination. Indeed, they were not ashamed, and embarrassment they did not know. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen. In the time of their punishment, they shall stumble, says YHWH.” In both cases, YHWH’s statements are directed against the people of Jerusalem (see 8:5), particularly the “wise” among them (see Jer 8:9), who do not observe the Torah or will of YHWH (see 8:7–9). The material in MT Jer 8:10–12 specifically condemns priests and prophets of the people, presumably those who are wise as mentioned in 8:9, for their role in failing to prepare the people to observe YHWH’s will. Although the entirety of MT Jer 8:10aβ– 12 is absent in LXX Jer 8:10–12, the concluding statement of the verse, “and they shall gather their grapes, says the L-rd,” appears to be derived from 8:13a. The Greek text for the verse, kai sunaxousin ta genēmata autōn legei Kurios, presupposes Hebrew, wě’āsěpû ‛anbêhem ně’um yhwh. Such a statement appears to be derived from the consonantal form of the Hebrew text of MT Jer 8:13, ’āsōp ’ǎsîpēm ně’um yhwh, “I will gather their gathering, utterance of YHWH,” particularly since the following statement, “there are no grapes on the vine,” employs the term, ‛ǎnābîm, “grapes.” The shorter text does not markedly influence the macro-structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10 but it does provide a somewhat different identification of those who are to be condemned. LXX Jer 10:5–10 presents a significantly shorter text than MT Jer 10:5– 10. The text of LXX Jer 10:5–10 reads, “It is worked silver; they will not

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

147

walk. It is forged silver from Tarsis. Gold will come from Mophaz and the work of goldsmiths. They are all the work of craftsmen. (In) blue and purple, they clothe themselves. They surely must be carried, because they do not tread. Do not fear them because they would not do evil and there is no good in them.”17 The much longer text MT Jer 10:5–10 reads, “They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber patch, and they will not talk. They must certainly be carried, because they cannot step. Do not be afraid of them because they can do no harm, and also they are incapable of doing good. There is no one like you, O YHWH. Great are you and great is your name in power. Who will not fear you, King of the Nations? For to you it is come, for among all the wise of the nations and among all their kingdoms, there is none like you. And they are both as one, dull and foolish, an empty instruction. It is (just) wood. Beaten silver from Tarshish is brought and gold from Uphaz, the work of a craftsman and the hands of an artisan. Blue and purple is their dress, entirely a crafted work. And YHWH is the true G-d, he is the living G-d, and eternal king. Because of his wrath, the earth shakes, and the nations cannot endure his anger.” LXX Jer 8:10 comprises a combination of a reworked version of MT v. 5aα, a slightly reworked version of v. 9, and a slightly reworked version of v. 5aβ–b. The problematic reference to the scarecrow in the cucumber patch in v. 5aα is absent in the LXX text.18 The adulation of YHWH and the polemic against idols in vv. 6–8 is likewise missing. The reference to “from Uphaz” is misunderstood as a reference to Mophaz in v. 9. The adulation of YHWH in v. 10 is absent. And v. 5aβ–b concludes the text. Apart from the exegetical problem of the scarecrow and the misunderstanding of Uphaz, the major difference is that MT Jer 10:5–10 includes elements of a hymn to YHWH but LXX Jer 10:5–10 does not. Although the praise of YHWH is curtailed in LXX Jer 10:5–10, additional hymnic material praising YHWH follows in vv. 11/12–16. Again, the different text form does not markedly influence the macro-structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10, but it does avoid an exegetical problem and it presents a somewhat curtailed praise of YHWH. With the major differences between the two versions of Jeremiah 1–10 laid out, discussion may now turn to the formal structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10. LXX Jeremiah 1–10 constitutes one major unit within the larger formal structure of the LXX version of the Book of Jeremiah. The superscription in 1:1–3 with its presentation of the prophetic word formula, “The word of G-d which came to Jeremiah … which was the word of G-d to Jeremiah in 17 N. b., the Hebrew text of 4QJerb corresponds to the Greek text of the LXX; see Tov, “Jeremiah,” 173. 18 William McKane, Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996), 1:222–223.

148

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

the days of Josiah son of Amos …,” demarcates the beginning of the book. The syntactically independent example of the prophetic word formula in 11:1 marks the beginning of the next unit within the book. The internal structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10 differs markedly from its counterpart in MT Jeremiah because of its textual differences in LXX Jer 2:1–2 and 7:1–2. The first sub-unit in the block is the superscription in 1:1–3, and this is followed immediately by 1:4–10, which is linked to the preceding material by the conjunctive form of the prophetic word formula in 1:4, “and the word of the L-rd came to him.” The prophetic word formula in 1:4 differs from its counterpart in MT Jer 1:4 because it is formulated with a third person reference to the prophet rather than the first person reference of the MT. This means that LXX Jer 1:4–10 coordinates with the third person perspective of 1:1–3 to form two components of a larger block in which the narrator of the book is the primary speaker. A difference appears in LXX Jer 1:11, however, which also presents a conjunctive prophetic word formula. But this example employs a first person reference to the prophet, which indicates that he is the primary speaker in this text. The presentation of Jeremiah as speaker continues all the way through the conclusion of the unit in 10:25, viz., 1:11 indicates that Jeremiah himself identifies the following material as the word of the L-rd spoken to him. The above-noted differences in the text of LXX Jer 2:1–2 and 7:1–2 make this clear. The MT versions of these texts respectively identify the following material as the word of YHWH which came to “me” in MT Jer 2:1 and the word of YHWH which came to Jeremiah in MT Jer 7:1. But LXX Jer 2:1–2 simply states, “and he said,” which indicates that the following material is a continuation of Jeremiah’s report of YHWH’s word to him, and LXX Jer 7:1–2 offers no narrative guidance as to the speaker, which indicates that the following oracular explication continues YHWH’s word to the prophet. Consequently, LXX Jer 1:1–10 constitutes a two-part narrative introduction to Jeremiah’s speech recounting YHWH’s word to him in 1:11–10:25. LXX Jer 1:11–10:25 begins with the sub-unit in 1:11–19, which relates YHWH’s explanation of the symbolic visions to the prophet as an introduction to what is to follow. The initial speech formula in 2:1–2, “and he said,” then indicates that the following material presents the word of YHWH to Jeremiah from the presentation of the symbolic visions in 1:11– 19, viz., the material beginning in 2:1–2 then explicates the symbolic visions of the preceding sub-unit. Two additional speech formulae in which the prophet employs a first person perspective to recount YHWH’s statements to him appear in 3:6 and 3:11. LXX Jer 3:6–10 recounts Israel’s and Judah’s unfaithfulness to YHWH in the days of Josiah. LXX Jer 3:11–9:11 recounts YHWH’s word to Jeremiah calling for the repentance of Israel in 3:11–17, Judah in 3:18–6:30, and Jerusalem in 7:1–15. Although YHWH continues to speak in 7:16–9:11, the subject of YHWH’s speech changes.

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

149

YHWH no longer speaks oracles calling for repentance, but delivers two major instructions to Jeremiah in 7:16–9:11. The first appears in 7:16–26 and instructs Jeremiah not to pray for this people (7:16–19) because the people will not listen (7:20–26). The second appears in 7:27–9:11 which constitutes YHWH’s instruction to announce judgment against the people beginning with the initial announcement in 7:27 and the detailed announcement in 7:28–9:11. A shift occurs in 9:12–10:25 when Jeremiah reacts to YHWH’s oracles and instructions. He exclaims in 9:12, “Who is the wise man who understands this? And who has the word of the mouth of the L-rd to him? I will tell you where the land has been destroyed, has been ravaged by fire like a desert, so that no one passes through it.” The prophet then recounts YHWH’s response to him in 9:13–10:16 in the form of a sequence of oracles, first introduced by a speech formula in 9:13aα followed by a sequence of four oracles concerning judgment and exile in 9:13aβ–16, lament concerning the death of the people in 9:17–22, judgment for self-aggrandizement in 9:23–26, and a climactic instruction not to follow the nations in 10:1–16. The prophet recounts YHWH’s decision to send Jerusalem into exile in 10:17–18. The unit concludes in 10:19–25 with Jeremiah’s appeal to YHWH for mercy, which picks up his initial reaction from 9:12. The structure of LXX Jeremiah 1–10 may be portrayed as follows: I. Oracles concerning Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem (LXX Jeremiah 1–10) A. Introduction: YHWH’s word to Jeremiah 1. Superscription 2. Account of Jeremiah’s call as a prophet B. Jeremiah’s account of YHWH’s word to him concerning Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem 1. YHWH’s symbolic visions to Jeremiah concerning the threat of judgment 2. YHWH’s oracles to Jeremiah calling for repentance from Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem a. YHWH’s oracular explication of the symbolic visions: threat against Israel and Judah b. YHWH’s recounting of Israel’s and Judah’s past infidelity in the days of Josiah c. YHWH’s call for repentance 1) from Israel 2) from Judah 3) from Jerusalem 3. YHWH’s instructions to Jeremiah a. 1 st instruction: do not pray for this people 1) Basic instruction 2) Reason: ancestors did not listen b. 2 nd instruction: speak further message of judgment 1) Basic instruction 2) Extended oracle of judgment

1:1–10 1:1–3 1:4–10 1:11–10:25 1:11–19 2:1–7:15 2:1–3:5 3:6–10 3:11–7:15 3:11–17 3:18–6:30 7:1–15 7:16–9:11 7:16–26 7:16–19 7:20–26 7:27–9:11 7:27 7:28–9:11

150

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah 4. Jeremiah’s reaction a. Initial reaction: who understands this? b. Jeremiah’s account of YHWH’s oracles in response 1) Speech formula 2) Oracle sequence aa) Judgment/exile bb) Lament over death of people cc) Judgment for self-aggrandizement dd) Climactic instruction: do not follow the nations c. Jeremiah’s account of YHWH’s decision to send Jerusalem into exile 1) Exile 2) Oracular basis d. Jeremiah’s response: appeal to YHWH for mercy

9:12–10:25 9:12 9:13–10:16 9:13aα 9:13aβ–10:16 9:13aβ–16 9:17–22 9:23–26 10:1–16 10:17–18 10:17 10:18 10:19–25

The preceding formal analysis of LXX Jeremiah 1–10 makes it clear that the initial unit of the Book of LXX Jeremiah provides an introduction to the prophet’s oracles that highlights both YHWH’s decision to bring judgment against Jerusalem as well as Israel and Judah and Jeremiah’s reaction to YHWH’s decision. It differs markedly from MT Jeremiah 1–10 which first presents YHWH’s oracle concerning Israel and Judah in MT Jeremiah 1–6 and then YHWH’s oracles concerning Jerusalem in MT Jeremiah 7– 10. By including Jerusalem in the initial set of oracles, LXX Jeremiah signals that its primary concern is with the city and YHWH’s Temple. The structure analysis of the Book of LXX Jeremiah as a whole bears this out, as it begins with a focus on Jerusalem and concludes with a focus on Jerusalem. MT Jeremiah begins with a focus on Judah, then turns to Jerusalem, and finally focuses on the downfall of the nations culminating in Babylon.

V Although MT Jeremiah 1–10 and LXX Jeremiah 1–10 purportedly present the same material from the Book of Jeremiah, the differing forms of each version indicate a very different understanding of the text. MT Jeremiah separates the material concerning Jeremiah’s Temple sermon in MT Jeremiah 7–10 from the preceding oracles concerning Israel and Judah in MT Jeremiah 1–6. LXX Jeremiah 1–10, incorporates the material concerning Jeremiah’s Temple sermon into the oracles concerning Israel and Judah. In the case of MT Jeremiah, the separation of MT Jeremiah 1–6 and 7– 10 has several interpretative results. First, it distinguishes Jeremiah’s calls for repentance to Israel and Judah from his call to repentance to Jerusalem and the Temple. Such a distinction conveys the notion that Jerusalem and the Temple are a distinctive concern within the MT version of the Book of Jeremiah even as Jerusalem and the

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

151

Temple are clearly related to Israel and Judah. The result is a signal that the Book of Jeremiah is especially concerned with Jerusalem and the Temple from the outset. Such a concern is evident in the presentation of the book that recounts judgment against the city of Jerusalem in particular even as it anticipates the ultimate restoration of Jerusalem at the center of a restored Israel and Judah. But it also indicates a concern to highlight judgment against the nations culminating in Babylon before that restoration can take place. MT Jeremiah presents a contrast between Jerusalem, the judged city that will be restored, and Babylon, the tool of YHWH’s judgment against Jerusalem that will ultimately be judged itself as Jerusalem is restored. Second, the MT forms of Jeremiah 1–6 and 7–10 make it clear that these oracles are presented as YHWH’s word to the prophet in which YHWH instructs the prophet on what to do and what to say to the people. MT Jeremiah does not present the prophet’s delivery of these oracles, only YHWH’s instructions that he do so. The result is the presentation of Jeremiah’s conversation with YHWH, especially in MT Jeremiah 7–10, as he comes to understand YHWH’s intention to destroy and exile the city of Jerusalem. To a certain extent, MT Jeremiah presents Jeremiah’s horror at learning YHWH’s plans as well as his acquiescence to them. Although the book does not present Jeremiah’s delivery of these oracles, the later narratives make it clear that he has done so, particularly MT Jeremiah 26 that presents Jeremiah’s trial for sedition and MT Jeremiah 36 that presents Jehoiakim’s attempts to arrest Jeremiah for producing the scroll with his prophetic words. By presenting this material as YHWH’s instruction to Jeremiah and Jeremiah’s reaction to the instruction, Jeremiah 1–6 and 7–10 set up the continuing conversation between YHWH and Jeremiah that takes place in the laments of the prophet as he increasingly resists YHWH’s message, even as he succumbs to his role as YHWH’s messenger. Third, the oracles in MT Jeremiah 1–6 and 7–10 are formulated as attempts to elicit repentance from Israel and Judah and from Jerusalem. Although that effort fails initially in the perspective of MT Jeremiah, it will ultimately play a role in the restoration of the city as the people repent in the aftermath of judgment and return to Jerusalem to restore the covenant with YHWH. In the case of LXX Jeremiah, the combination of Israel/Judah and Jerusalem within LXX Jeremiah 1–10 also has several important interpretative results. First, the combination of Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem within a sequence that calls for the repentance of each highlights the intrinsic relationship between the three as the components that constitute all Israel, viz., Jerusalem is the holy center of Judah and it is the holy center of all Israel by virtue of the presence of the Temple in the city. But the sequence also has historical dimensions insofar as the northern kingdom of Israel had

152

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

already been destroyed by the Assyrians prior to Jeremiah’s lifetime and King Josiah of Judah attempted to restore Davidic rule over the former northern kingdom and thereby restore the unity of all Israel with Jerusalem as its center.19 LXX Jeremiah recognizes the past experience of northern Israel and projects a similar fate for Judah and Jerusalem as a result of its contention that Judah and Jerusalem had failed to observe YHWH’s will by aligning itself with Egypt under King Jehoiakim ben Josiah of Judah rather than with Babylon as King Josiah ben Amon had done.20 The LXX version of the Book of Jeremiah then goes on to provide an account of Jeremiah’s oracles and the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem as a result of this failure. The book does envision both the downfall of Babylon and the restoration of Jerusalem (see LXX Jeremiah 27–28; 37–40), but the placement of these oracles prior to the account of Jerusalem’s fall in LXX Jeremiah 44–51 ensures that the downfall of Jerusalem is the primary focus of the book. LXX Jeremiah 1–10 then signals this interest by laying out a sequence that will culminate in Jerusalem’s punishment should it fail to repent, and the balance of the book is organized to carry out this agenda. Second, LXX Jer 1:1–3 and 1:4–10 together provide an introduction for YHWH’s oracles concerning Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem in 1:11–10:25. On the one hand, the superscription in 1:1–3 provides the usual introductory information concerning the identity of the prophet, the character of his work, and the historical setting of his activity, but 1:4–10 provides much more. This text recounts Jeremiah’s call as a prophet, including his resistance to YHWH’s commission. By presenting this material as a third person account of the prophet’s call together with the superscription, the LXX version of the book introduces the reader to Jeremiah’s conflicts with YHWH as an element of the narrator’s voice, not the prophet’s voice as it appears in the MT version of the book. Such a portrayal lends greater credibility to the portrayal of the prophet’s angst and thereby better prepares the reader for the tension that will permeate the entire book. Having been contextualized in this manner, the prophet’s first person account of YHWH’s oracles given to him, including his simultaneously horrified and pietistic reaction to the news that Jerusalem will be exiled, then becomes an objective fact in the reading of the book and less of a subjective factor of the prophet’s personality. Such a presentation enables the reader better to empathize and identify with a prophet who so frequently challenges 19 See Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 20 For an account of Jeremiah’s political associations, see esp. Jay Wilcoxen, “The Political Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 151–166.

8. Differing Perspectives in the LXX and MT Versions of Jeremiah 1–10

153

YHWH in his reactions to YHWH’s oracles and the laments and yet continues to adhere to YHWH throughout the book. Third, the shorter form of the text, particularly in LXX Jer 8:10–12 and 10:5–10, suggests an exegetical character to the LXX form of the book. As noted above, missing material from MT 8:1–12 identifies the priests and prophets as the targets of YHWH’s condemnation whereas LXX Jer 8:10– 12 simply identifies the people at large. Furthermore, the reworked version of v. 13 in the LXX form of the text suggests that the author/redactor/translator of the LXX form of the text – and perhaps its Hebrew Vorlage – shortened the text to eliminate criticism of the priests and prophets. Such a move is apparent also in the shortened version of LXX Jer 10:5–10 in which v. 9 has been sandwiched in between the two portions of v. 5. The result is the elimination of the exegetically difficult reference to the scarecrow in v. 5 and the hymnic material extolling YHWH in vv. 6–8, 10. The elimination of the hymnic material provides a cleaner text, viz., vv. 1–5 discuss the folly of idolatry. Why extol YHWH at this point, especially since v. 11 continues to polemicize against the idols in a text that no longer reveals its Aramaic formulation and thus its character as an insertion in the text. The adulation of YHWH then appears as a coherent sub-unit in vv. 11–16. Although the shortened form of the text in LXX Jer 8:10–12 and 10:5– 10 suggests the work of a hand later than that of the MT version of the book, the general consensus that LXX Jeremiah is the earlier form of the book still stands. LXX Jeremiah is focused on the destruction of Jerusalem, which makes eminent sense during the exilic period following the destruction of Jerusalem and prior to the Persian period when the city was rebuilt (cf. 1–2 Kings). MT Jeremiah makes greater sense in relation to the outset of the Persian period when the collapse of Babylon and the restoration of Jerusalem are anticipated (cf. Isaiah 40–55; Haggai; Zechariah). These observations would confirm Shead’s judgment that both forms of the book continued to develop independently well beyond the time of their initial compositions.21

21

Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book, 255–263.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context I Modern interpreters generally maintain that the prophet Jeremiah was not particularly sympathetic to the royal House of David.1 Indeed, the basis for such an understanding is not difficult to find. Jeremiah does not hesitate in Jer 22:1–30 to unleash a stream of invective against King Jehoiakim ben Josiah for his alleged lack of concern for the welfare of his people as he concentrated his efforts and resources instead on the building of his own palace. As a result, Jeremiah contends that Jehoiakim will suffer an ignominious fate in which no one will mourn as his dead carcass is tossed out of Jerusalem like that of a dead donkey. Even his son, Jehoiachin, is not spared condemnation as the prophet maintains that the young monarch, who was exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E. following his father’s death and failed revolt, would never see his son sit on the throne of David in Judah. Jeremiah 36 likewise portrays considerable tension between Jeremiah and Jehoiakim, insofar as Jehoiakim attempted to arrest Jeremiah following the prophet’s efforts to have the scribe Baruch ben 1 See especially treatment of Jeremiah’s criticism of the monarchy in Jer 21:1–23:8; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHC 11; Tübingen and Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], 1901), 168–182, esp. 181–182; Paul Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia (KAT 10; 2nd edition; Leipzig: Deichert, 1928), 215–234, esp. 231–234; Siegfried Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT 85; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965), 207–208, 210–212; E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Schocken, 1970), 87– 93; Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (WMANT 41; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 230–261, esp. 246–248; William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996), 1:491–567, esp. 553–567; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 404–488, esp. 443–449; see also discussion of the issue by John Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930), 310–319; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 12; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1968), 145–148; Douglas Rawlinson Jones, Jeremiah (NCeB; London: Marshall Pickering; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 296–302; Klaus Seybold, Der Prophet Jeremia: Leben und Werk (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993), 96–100.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise

155

Neriah read his oracles that were apparently critical of the Temple and the monarchy after Jeremiah had been banned from speaking in the Temple. The concluding portions of the narrative take the opportunity to reiterate Jeremiah’s earlier statements that Jehoiakim would die ignominiously without a son to sit on the throne of David. Although Jeremiah appears to have been less critical of Zedekiah, Jehoiakim’s brother and Babylonianappointed successor, he is no less adamant in his contentions that Zedekiah would also suffer evil as he has no future as king. In light of these portrayals, it is all the more remarkable that the Book of Jeremiah contains two very prominent oracles concerning the restoration of a righteous Davidic monarch. Jeremiah 23:1–8 and 33:14–26 both look forward to the rule of a righteous Davidic monarch, who will bring justice to the land and enable the people to live in security. Although the oracles are formulated differently – Jer 23:1–8 envisions a restoration of exiles from Israel and Judah and Jer 33:14–26 envisions an everlasting covenant for the House of David and the Levitical priesthood – their common material indicates that they are somehow interrelated. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that Jer 33:14–26, which is missing in the LXX form of the Book of Jeremiah, is apparently an interpretative reworking of the earlier oracle in Jer 23:1–8.2 Because of their clear sympathy for the House of David, in contrast to Jeremiah’s attitudes expressed elsewhere in the book, many interpreters maintain that these oracles must be the product of later tradents of the Jeremiah tradition who sought to express their own hopes for the future of Jerusalem, Judah, Israel, and the House of David.3 Nevertheless, there are indications of Jeremiah’s overall support for the monarchy. In his criticisms of Jehoiakim, he points to the example of his father King Josiah, whom the prophet clearly admires as a model of exemplary kingship.4 Furthermore, Jeremiah cites extensively from the Isaian 2

Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origines littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie (OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); see also Konrad Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), esp. 203–208; contra Hermann-Josef Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte (OBO 136; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 110–136, who maintains that the LXX is a shortened form of the MT. 3 See note 1 above. 4 A number of scholars understand Jer 23:1–8, or parts of it, to be an authentic Jeremian oracle; see e.g., Friedrich Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia (HKAT 3.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894), 127–129, who claims that vv. 1–6 are authentic; Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1914), 20, who assigns Jer 23:5–6 to his source A words of Jeremiah; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; New York: Doubleday, 1965), 135–146; Rudolph, Jeremia, 145–148, who maintains

156

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

tradition, which consistently expressed its support for the House of David in principle even when the prophet criticized individual kings.5 Indeed, interpreters have noted that Jer 23:1–8 and 33:14–26 both draw heavily on the language of Isa 11:1–16, which likewise looks forward to the restoration of a righteous Davidic monarch, who will oversee the restoration of the exiled people to the land.6 Although many contend that Jeremiah was diametrically opposed to the Davidic-oriented Isaian tradition, the pattern of Isaian citations in the Book of Jeremiah, even in material that appears to derive from the prophet himself, suggests that Jeremiah not only knew the traditions of his senior colleague, but employed them in his own reflections concerning the current situation of the kingdom of Judah. Fundamentally, Jeremiah appears to have accepted Isaiah’s contentions that Israel would be restored following a period of punishment at the hands of Assyria, but he concluded that Judah would undergo a similar period of punishment at the hands of Babylonia before it too would experience the restoration that Isaiah had envisioned a century before. Given these considerations, it seems that a reconsideration of Jer 23:1–8 and 33:14–26 is in order. The focus will be on the former oracle. As noted above, Jer 33:14–26 does not appear in the LXX form of the Book of Jeremiah, which most interpreters contend is the earlier edition of the book, and prior scholarship has demonstrated that Jer 33:14–26 is dependent on Jer 23:1–8.7 Nevertheless, the interpretation of Jer 23:1–8 has never been fully clarified. Four major issues remain outstanding. One is the claim that the oracle refers to King Zedekiah (Mattaniah) ben Josiah of Judah. A that vv. 1–6 are Jeremian, but vv. 7–8 are post-exilic; William L. Holladay, Jr., A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 1:613–623, who views vv. 7–8 as a fifth century addition to a Jeremian text. 5 Ute Wendel, Jesaja und Jeremia: Worte, Motive und Einsichten Jesajas in der Verkündigung Jeremias (BThSt 25; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995); see also my study, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in Truth: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in a Pluralistic Age (ed. Christine M. Helmer and Kristin De Troyer; Studies in Philosophical Theology 22; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 9–26 = idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 78–93, which takes up Jeremiah’s citations of Isaiah in relation to the question of true and false prophecy in the book. 6 See the commentaries, ad loc. 7 For the contention that LXX Jeremiah is the earlier edition of the book, see esp. Emanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert et al.; BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1981), 145–167; idem, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 221–237. For the contention that Jer 33:14–26 derives from Jer 23:1–8, see Goldman, Prophétie et royauté.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise

157

second is the claim that the oracle refers to the restoration of both Israel and Judah in relation to the reign of Zedekiah. The third is the oracle’s relationship to Isa 11:1–16. A fourth is the oracle’s placement in a context that denies a future for Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in Jer 22:1–30 and that follows up with a condemnation of false prophecy in Jer 23:9–40. Although many view this oracle as a post-exilic composition, there has been a persistent tendency to identify this material as the work of the monarchic period. Following an examination of these issues, this study will contend that Jer 23:1–8 does indeed express the prophet’s support for the House of David, although it may well have originated as an oracle that expressed the hopes of the Josian reform. Following the death of Josiah and the collapse of his reform, the oracle served as the basis for the prophet’s reflection on the future of the House of David – and indeed of Israel/Judah as a whole – which is now reflected in the Books of Jeremiah.

II For most of the twentieth century, modern scholars generally followed the lead of Hermann Gunkel and later form- and tradition-critics in treating individual prophetic oracles as self-contained literary entities.8 Each oracle presupposes a specific socio-historical setting in relation to the institutional life of ancient Israel and the historical circumstances that prompted the prophet to formulate the oracle and announce it to the people. Of course, oracles were originally oral compositions, since they represented a spontaneous and authentic form of authentic religious experience and expression, and the originally oral oracles were only later collected and reduced to writing so that they could be preserved for future generations. Later writers, who frequently misunderstood the original intent of the prophet or deliberately altered the oracle in keeping with their own theological agendas, added additional material to the original prophetic collections. The task of the scholar was to strip away this material in order to recover the authentic words of the prophet. It was precisely in such an environment that early scholars, such as Duhm and Volz,9 tended to treat Jer 23:1–8 as a later, exilic or post-exilic addition to the work of the original prophet Jeremiah. Because Jeremiah was an authentic prophet from 8

See my studies, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. James Luther Mays, David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 113–126; idem, “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes; 2 nd edition; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89. 9 See note 1 above.

158

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

the pre-exilic period, his message was understood to be one of judgment against Israel or Judah in general, the Jerusalem Temple, and the House of David. It would only be in the exilic and post-exilic period, after the judgment was completed, that these interpreters would envision the composition of an oracle like Jer 23:1–8 that would view the Davidic monarchy favorably and posit the restoration of the House of David together with the restoration of all Israel and Judah. Of course, such a restoration would be an eschatological event, and it would be propagated by Jewish writers dissatisfied with the failures of the post-exilic era in which the priesthood had come to dominate post-exilic Judah and to redefine the prophetic writings to support the restoration of an ideal Davidic state. In the minds of many interpreters, the envisioned call for the restoration of an exiled remnant of the people of Israel in Jer 23:1–8, esp. vv. 3 and 8, confirms that this oracle is an exilic or post-exilic composition that would postdate the lifetime and career of the prophet Jeremiah. Likewise, the restoration of both Israel and Judah would represent the eschatological ideal of the restoration of all Twelve Tribes of Israel, with a Davidic monarch at their head, as in the days of Solomon. And yet scholars have challenged this understanding of Jer 23:1–8, particularly as they came to recognize that the view of pre-exilic prophets as figures who were exclusively concerned with judgment owed more to theological prejudices that sought to differentiate later Judaism from the authentic words of judgment uttered by YHWH’s true prophets. The latter part of the century began to see more nuanced views of prophecy, particularly from a figure like Jeremiah who combines judgment and restoration in the account of his call narrative in Jer 1:4–10, “Now I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” In the case of Jer 23:1–8, interpreters began to consider the possibility that this oracle did indeed stem from Jeremiah, and that it refers to the inauguration of the reign of Zedekiah.10 Key factors in such a decision were the condemnation of prior monarchs, whose actions led to the scattering of the people, and the reference to the new monarch as yhwh ṣidqēnû, “the L-rd is our righteousness” (v. 6). In the former case, the condemned monarchs would refer to Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin, who respectively suffered death and exile as a result of Jehoiakim’s failed attempt to revolt against the Babylonians. In the case of the latter, the designation of the righteous Davidic monarch must refer to Zedekiah, the throne name given to Jehoiakim’s younger half-brother, Mattaniah, who was placed on the throne as a puppet by the Babylonians following the 10 See, e.g., Rudolph, Jeremia, 147, and the literature cited there; contra Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen, 210.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise

159

exile of his nephew Jehoiachin in 597. Of course, the word play between the term ṣidqēnû, “our righteousness,” and the name Zedekiah would suggest the identification. Likewise, the fact that this oracle follows Jer 22:1–30, which presents Jeremiah’s condemnation of Jehoiakim and his contention that Jehoiachin would never see his son sitting on the throne of David, likewise supports such an interpretation. The structure of the oracle would also seem to lend support. The formal language of the passage clearly indicates a basic two-part structure, which envisions restoration following punishment.11 The first segment of the passage in vv. 1–2 is formulated as a prophetic judgment speech which employs the metaphor of shepherds to condemn the unnamed leaders of the people. It begins with a woe (hôy) statement in v. 1 that metaphorically addresses the leaders as “shepherds” of the people who allowed them to stray and scatter. The woe statement closes with the classic oracular formula, ně’um yhwh, “utterance of YHWH.” The prophetic judgment oracle itself appears in v. 2, beginning with the particle lākēn, “therefore,” which typically introduces the formal announcement of judgment. In this case it accompanies the classic prophetic messenger formula, “thus says YHWH, G-d of Israel concerning the shepherds who shepherd my people …” The oracle then repeats the basic address of v. 1 in the form of an accusation, “you scattered my flock and led them astray, and you gave no thought (wělō’ pěqadtem) to them.” It follows with YHWH’s enigmatic statement of punishment, i.e., “I will give thought (pōqēd) concerning you for your wicked acts.” The oracle depends upon a pun involving the verb pqd, “to give thought, visit,” so that the negligence of the shepherds/rulers results in a corresponding punishment from YHWH. This segment of the passage closes once again with the classic oracular formula, ně’um yhwh, “utterance of YHWH.” The prophetic announcement of restoration appears in vv. 3–8. The introductory waw-conjunctive statement, “and I will myself gather the remnant of my flock,” in v. 3 initiates a waw consecutive syntactical chain in vv. 3– 4 that builds upon the metaphor of shepherds and flock to announce the return of the exiles and the reestablishment of righteous leadership. The classic oracular formula, ně’um yhwh, “utterance of YHWH,” closes out vv. 3–4 as the first element of the prophecy of restoration. Because of the use of the shepherd/flock metaphor, these verses are somewhat enigmatic. The following material in vv. 5–8, however, presents a two-part explanation of vv. 3–4. The two segments in vv. 5–6 and 7–8 begin with the formula, “behold the days are coming” and “therefore the days are coming,” 11 For general discussion of the formal and generic features noted in this text, see my Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996).

160

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

respectively. The first in vv. 5–6 specifies that the restoration of shepherds/leaders refers to the restoration of a righteous Davidic monarch to be named, “YHWH is our righteousness.” The second in vv. 7–8 specifies that the restoration of Israel will no longer entail YHWH’s role in bringing Israel out from Egyptian bondage, but instead will entail YHWH’s role in bringing Israel from the land of the north and from other lands where they have been exiled to return to their own land.12 Altogether, the passage envisions a period of punishment and exile that is brought on by the neglect of Israel’s leaders, followed by a restoration of righteous Davidic leadership and of exiled Israelites from the north, presumably Mesopotamia, to their own land. The passage represents a prophetic announcement of Israel’s restoration following exile. The structure of the passage may be portrayed as follows: Prophetic Announcement of Israel’s Restoration Following Exile (Jer 23:1–8) I. Prophetic announcement of judgment A. Woe address to the negligent shepherds/leaders B. Prophetic announcement of judgment proper II. Prophetic announcement of restoration A. Basically stated 1. with regard to return from exile 2. with regard to restoration of leadership B. Specifications 1. with regard to king of the royal House of David 2. with regard to return of Israel from exile in the north

23:1–2 23:1 23:2 23:3–8 23:3–4 23:3 23:4 23:5–8 23:5–6 23:7–8

III The above interpretation of the structure and intent of the passage seems straightforward enough, and it lends itself to a standard interpretation in relation to Jeremiah’s condemnation of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin and his optimistic assessment of the reign of Zedekiah. It is well known that Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin represented the pro-Egyptian branch of the House of David in late-monarchic period Jerusalem, and that Zedekiah represented the pro-Babylonian branch.13 Jeremiah himself consistently represents the 12

Most scholars agree that vv. 7–8 are secondary, even if they hold that vv. 1–4, 5–6 were written by the prophet (see the commentaries, ad loc.). These verses clearly interpret and clarify the meaning of the preceding verses. Furthermore, they appear only after Jer 23:9–40 in the LXX form of the text, which confirms their secondary character in the minds of many interpreters. 13 For discussion of the political background and parties in late-monarchic period Judah, see Jay Wilcoxen, “The Political Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 151–166.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise

161

pro-Babylonian side of Judah’s internal debate, insofar as he calls for submission to Babylon. Of course, such a position is in keeping with that of King Josiah, who died at Megiddo in support of his Babylonian allies, and Josiah’s officials, Shaphan and his son Ahikam, whose family members continued to support Jeremiah throughout his career. And yet certain features of the oracle suggest a need to pause for reflection. First is the contention that the oracle refers to the reign of Zedekiah. Although the present placement immediately following the prophet’s condemnation of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin and the phrase “YHWH is our righteousness” would seem to support such a contention, it is not immediately clear why the inauguration of this monarch should prompt such optimistic oracles concerning the restoration of exiles and a righteous Davidic monarch. Zedekiah’s inauguration as king came in conjunction with the Babylonian decision to exile King Jehoiachin of Judah and leading elements of the population of Judah. Such an occasion would hardly call for such an optimistic scenario except in the most general terms. Jeremiah does look forward to a restoration following the exile of Jehoiachin and those who accompanied him. His letter to the exiles envisions such a restoration, but the prophet claims that it will take place only after a seventy year period when YHWH will finally act to bring down the Babylonians (cf. Jer 25:1–13a). Otherwise, the prophet’s expectations for YHWH’s restorative actions are very short on details or substance. It is not impossible that the oracle is intended to be read in relation to Zedekiah’s inauguration. Given Jeremiah’s view that Judah must submit to Babylonian rule to insure its survival and to conform to YHWH’s will, it would make sense for him to see the rule of Zedekiah, a son of Josiah from the proBabylonian wing of the House of David, as a figure who would represent righteous Davidic rule and security of the nation. But one must of course realize that all or nearly all of the prophet’s addressees, including Zedekiah himself, would be dead by the time such a scenario would be realized. If the phrase “YHWH is our righteousness” is intended to refer to Zedekiah, this would certainly be an odd way to celebrate his role as the righteous monarch who would play such a decisive role in Jeremiah’s scenario of restoration. Even if one posits that the seventy year period for restoration is a product of the book’s tradents, such an understanding would hardly presuppose an oracle that saw Zedekiah as the harbinger of restoration. The second is the contention that the restoration of the remnant of YHWH’s flock (v. 3) to the land necessarily includes both Judah and Israel (v. 6) or even the house of Israel (v. 8).14 We have become accustomed to 14 Many interpreters see the use of the shepherds/flock metaphor as a sign of dependence on Ezekiel 34, which employs the same metaphor to portray Ezekiel’s contention that Israel lacks appropriate leadership (see, e.g., Carroll, Jeremiah, 443, 444, who claims

162

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

think of Israel as encompassing both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, and to view the restoration of both as an aspect of an eschatological scenario of messianic redemption. But when such a contention is viewed in the context of the inauguration of the reign of Zedekiah, such a claim rings very hollow. Coming together with the deportation of such important elements of the Judean elite, it seems difficult to imagine a restoration that would call for the return of exiles from both Israel and Judah from the north or anywhere else for that matter. We might imagine that Jehoiakim had in mind the restoration of Davidic rule over the former northern kingdom of Israel, but he would have been able to do so as an Egyptian and later as a Babylonian client. Given Egypt’s willingness to kill Josiah and exile Jehoahaz, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the Egyptians were prepared to grant Jehoiakim much in the way of autonomy – much less the capacity to rebuild his nation – by returning exiles lost to the nation during the Assyrian invasions of a century before. The imposition of Babylonian rule on Jehoiakim would likewise hardly signal Babylonian attempts to grant him more autonomy; the Babylonians did after all send an army to put down his revolt. As for Zedekiah’s prospects, the beginning of his reign signaled Judah’s low point to date when it came to the question of restoring exiles. Perhaps we may speculate once again that the prophet sees the inauguration of Zedekiah’s reign as a signal for the eventual restoration of all Israel and Judah, but evidence for such a claim is conspicuously absent. The third is the dependence of this text on Isa 11:1–16. Interpreters have long noted an interrelationship between the two oracles.15 The Isaian passage envisions the rise of a future Davidic monarch, who is metaphorically portrayed as a shoot that will grow from the stump of Jesse. The envisioned Davidic shoot will rule in righteousness, understanding, etc., and will preside over the restoration and reunification of Israel and Judah from exile and their subjugation of various nations, such as the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, etc. The links between Isa 11:1–16 and Jer 23:1–8 appear especially in vv. 5–6, although they tend to be thematic rather than lexical.16 They include the designation of the new Davidic that v. 3 represents an interpolation from Ezekiel). The so-called interpolation does not correspond in wording to any statement in Ezekiel 34, and the metaphor of shepherds and scattered sheep also appears in Micaiah ben Imlah’s portrayal of Israel in 1 Kgs 22:17 to illustrate his prophecy that Ahab would die (cf. also Mic 2:12–13 in which the image of scattered sheep with their king at their head functions as a metaphor for Israel’s exile). 15 See the commentaries, ad loc. 16 See esp. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40– 66 (Contraversions; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 6–31, for discussion of intertextual method, particularly allusion and echo; see also Patricia Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” in To Each Its Own Meaning, 156–180.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise

163

monarch as “a righteous branch,” which corresponds to the basic imagery in Isa 11:1–16 of the monarch as “a shoot” and “a twig” as well as the repeated designations of the monarch as “righteous” in vv. 4 and 5. The king’s attributes in Jer 23:1–8 appear through the use of the terms “deal wisely,” “justice,” and “righteousness.” These attributes appear to correspond generally to those of the king in Isa 11:2 which describes him as one on whom “the spirit of YHWH,” “the spirit of wisdom and understanding,” “the spirit of council and strength,” and “the spirit of knowledge and the fear of YHWH” have descended. And finally, Jer 23:6 portrays a time when “Judah will be delivered” and “Israel will dwell securely,” which corresponds to the general scenario of restoration for both Israel and Judah together in Isa 11:11–16. Of course the general theme of restoration from exile in Jer 23:1–4, 7–9 also dominates the concerns of Isa 11:11–16. Many interpreters consider Isa 11:1–16 to be an exilic or post-exilic work because of its emphasis on restoration from exile,17 but several features of this oracle indicate that it derives from a monarchic period context, particularly the reign of King Josiah, instead.18 Isaiah 11:1–16 focuses on the restoration of both Israel and Judah, which was clearly a concern of Josiah’s program of national restoration as indicated in his attempts to centralize national worship in Jerusalem and to destroy the Beth El sanctuary, which had served as the royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel. The specific references to the restoration of exiles from Assyria and Egypt in Isa 11:15–16 likewise indicate a monarchic period concern, whereas the exilic and post-exilic periods would be concerned with Babylonia rather than Assyria. The actions against neighbors, such as the Philistines, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, etc., also make far greater sense in the monarchic period, as these nations were losing their sense of national identity in the post-exilic period. Finally, the idyllic portrayal of the infant or boy king in Isa 11:6–8 suggests the image of the eight-yearold Josiah when he first ascended the throne. A Josian dating for Isa 11:1–16 has important implications for our understanding of Jer 23:1–8. If indeed this oracle is dependent upon Isa 11:1–16, it need not be seen necessarily as an exilic or post-exilic work. The abovenoted concerns with the rise of a righteous Davidic monarch and the restoration of both Israel and Judah from exile are key concerns of the Josian 17 See the discussion of this passage in Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 459–498, who notes that scholars are divided as to whether vv. 1– 9/10 stem from Isaiah or a post-exilic writer, but that most interpreters consider vv. 11– 16 to be post-exilic. 18 See my study, “Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah,” in A Gift of G-d in Due Season: Essays in Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. R. D. Weis and D. M. Carr; JSOTSup 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 103–118 = above, pp. 50–63; idem, Isaiah 1–39, 196–211.

164

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

period.19 Interpreters are well aware of the problem of Jeremiah’s historical setting, insofar as the superscription for the book in Jer 1:1–3 (see also Jer 25:1–13a) identifies the thirteenth year of Josiah as the beginning of Jeremiah’s career, although evidence for Josian period oracles is difficult, but not impossible, to establish. Insofar as claims that early forms of Jeremiah 2–4; 11; and 30–31 reflect the concerns of Josiah’s restoration,20 it seems wise to consider just such a possibility for Jer 23:1–8. Indeed, the dependence of the passage on Isa 11:1–16 calls to mind the extensive dependence of texts from Jeremiah, including texts that appear to derive from his earliest periods, on earlier texts from Isaiah.21 Among the more noteworthy texts for our purposes are those that appear within Jeremiah 2–6. Although the present form of these chapters presuppose the threat from an unnamed enemy from the north against Judah, they appear to have taken up and reworked oracles in chapters 2–4 that originally addressed the Josianic concern for the restoration of Israel to Jerusalem and Judah. We might note the references to the depiction of “the enemy from afar” with its weapons in hand in Isa 5:26–30 that appears as an approaching “nation from far away” with open quiver that will devour the produce of the land in Jer 5:14–17 and the coming “people from the north” that also “grasps javelin and bow” against Zion in Jer 6:22–23. Jeremiah 6:19 likewise cites Isa 1:10 in pointing to the rejection of YHWH’s statutes as a cause for the coming threat against Jerusalem, and Jer 6:27–30 draws upon Isa 1:21–26 in portraying the punishment of Jerusalem as a metaphorical refining of metal to remove its dross. There are of course numerous more examples of citations from Isaiah in Jeremiah, but these are particularly important because they point to a fundamental rereading of the Isaian tradition in Jeremiah. The early oracles in Jeremiah 2–4 and 30–31 indicate the prophet’s support for Josiah’s attempts to reunite Israel and Judah under Davidic rule in keeping with the expectations of the Book of Isaiah. But the reworking of these oracles to include an expectation of judgment against Jerusalem and Judah employs earlier Isaian oracles that called for the punishment of Israel and Judah by the Assyrian empire. Although Josiah’s reign would have been a time when Isaiah’s projected restoration would have been expected, Josiah’s early death at 19

See now my study, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 20 For treatment of both of these texts with bibliography, see my studies, “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2–6,” in Troubling Jeremiah (ed. A. R. P. Diamond, K. M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman; JSOTSup 260; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 200–218; idem, “Jeremiah 30–31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform,” ZAW 108 (1996): 569–583, both reprinted in my Form and Intertextuality, 94–122. 21 See note 5 above.

9. Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise

165

Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. brought his program of restoration and all of the optimistic expectations associated with it to an end. Jeremiah’s oracles in chapters 5–6 anticipate a judgment against Judah as well that runs along the lines articulated by Isaiah a century before, except that this time, the enemy would not be Assyria but an unnamed enemy from the north. Of course, later material in Jeremiah identifies that enemy as Babylon. It would seem then that Jeremiah accepted the scenario of punishment and restoration outlined by Isaiah, but concluded in the aftermath of Josiah’s death that the cycle of punishment had not yet run its course, and that Judah, too, would suffer as Israel had suffered before it. Although the projected restoration would come, the phase of punishment would first have to complete itself. It is with this in mind that two further features of Jer 23:1–8 take on greater significance. The first is the expectation of restoration from exile in the land of the north according to Jer 23:8. Most interpreters correctly consider vv. 7–8 to be a later expansion of the material in vv. 1–6.22 Such a concern is the natural outcome of the punishment of Jerusalem and Judah by the unnamed enemy from the north in Jeremiah 5–6, and it reflects the rethinking of Isaian expectations in Jeremiah 2–6 as articulated above. Although expressed as a return from exile in an unspecified land from the north and other nations where Jews had been scattered, such a reference must later be understood as a reference to Babylonian Exile when considered in relation to the rest of the Book of Jeremiah.23 The other feature is the placement of this oracle immediately prior to Jeremiah’s diatribe against false prophets in Jer 23:9–40. We have already noted the significance of the placement of our oracle immediately following Jeremiah’s criticisms of Jehoiakim in Jer 22:1–30, i.e., the condemnation of the shepherds and the expectation of a righteous Davidic monarch after the negligent shepherds have been removed indicates the anticipated outcome of Jeremiah’s criticism. But the attack on the false prophets must also be considered as more than merely the haphazard placement of two oracles that have little to do with each other. False prophecy is a concern throughout the Book of Jeremiah, but it is especially highlighted in Jeremiah 27–29, where we find the prophet attacking the contentions of Hananiah that Jerusalem would be delivered from Babylon in two years and the contentions of other false prophets that the exiles would soon return home. Indeed, many have noted that Jeremiah’s attacks against these prophets constitute an attack against the Isaian expectation of restoration following a period of punishment, and conclude that Jeremiah, a representative of the conditional Mosaic covenant tradition, would be diametrically opposed to the uncondi22

See note 1 above. Note that vv. 7–8 appear to be written by later tradents of Jeremiah in an effort to specify the meaning of vv. 1–6 (see note 12 above). 23

166

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

tional Davidic/Zion tradition that posited YHWH’s eternal protection of Jerusalem and the House of David.24 Nevertheless, our observations concerning Jeremiah’s citation of Isaian texts above indicates that such a view is far too simple. Jeremiah appears to have considered the Isaian tradition closely and taken its fundamental postulates very seriously. But the conclusion was that the outworking of the Isaian tradition was not yet complete, and would entail the punishment of Jerusalem and Judah as well before its visions of restoration could be fully realized. Isaiah’s expectations of the rise of a righteous monarch and the restoration of the exiles could be considered false prophecy – if a prophet contended that they would take place in the present. For Jeremiah, they would take place – but it would be seventy years, likely beyond the lifetime of Jeremiah and just about every one of his generation, before such a fulfillment could be expected. In such a case, the expectations of a righteous monarch and the return of exiles would be considered false prophecy in Jeremiah’s lifetime,25 particularly if the oracle was indeed first articulated in relation to Josiah’s program of reform and restoration, although they would still hold true for the future. It would be left to Jeremiah’s later years, or more likely to later tradents, to rework an early oracle of restoration to take full account of an anticipated restoration of the monarchy and the exiles, with explicit reference to Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood, in Jer 33:14–26.

IV In sum, the preceding discussion suggests a much more nuanced view of Jeremiah’s assessment of the House of David and his reading of the Isaian tradition. Jeremiah (and his own tradents) emerges as a much more reflective figure, who took past tradition very seriously in his attempts to understand it in relation to the circumstances of his own time.26 24 See, e.g., Carroll, Jeremiah, 544, 549; Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:126; Thomas W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (SBT 2.16; Naperville: A. Allenson, 1970), 40–41. 25 Note that the LXX version of this text places vv. 7–8 immediately after the oracle concerning the (false, according to the LXX text) prophets in Jer 23:9–40. This effectively makes Jer 23:9–40 a part of the oracle concerning the anticipated rise of the righteous Davidic monarch and the return of the exiles. Such a placement reinforces the interpretation of these prophecies as false in the LXX form of the text. Nevertheless, the close links between vv. 7–8 and the preceding material in vv. 1–6 indicates that vv. 1–8 were written to be read together, and that the placement of vv. 7–8 after vv. 9–40 is a redactional and interpretative move in the LXX version of Jeremiah. 26 A condensed version of this paper was read at the 18th Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden, The Netherlands, August 1–6, 2004.

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah I I was privileged to meet Ed Conrad during my year as a special non-degree student at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1975–1976 prior to commencing my Ph. D. program in Hebrew Bible at the Claremont Graduate School. Ed came to lecture on “Reading the Old Testament after the Holocaust” in Bernhard W. Anderson’s class on the Book of Jeremiah. I was taking the course at the time, was quite interested in the topic especially since I was the first Jewish student enrolled full time at the seminary, and engaged him with a number of questions. I later had the opportunity to get to know Ed much better through the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar on “The Formation of the Book of Isaiah,” which I founded together with the late Roy Melugin in 1990. Ed was one of the steering committee members, and his contributions to the work of the seminar were immense. We share a number of interests, e.g., Isaiah, Zechariah, the canonical formation of prophetic books, the questions posed to biblical interpretation by the Shoah (Holocaust), among others. I am honored to contribute to Ed’s Festschrift, and I hope that this paper will open further dialog between us and the rest of the field. I have already treated the question of reading Jeremiah after the Shoah in some detail in my recently published volume, Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah.1 This earlier work focuses especially on Jeremiah’s struggles with G-d as he is commissioned to serve as a prophet during one of the most catastrophic events in the history of Judaism up to his time, viz., the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Temple as well as the exile of the people of Jerusalem and Judah from the land of Israel to Babylonia.2 1

Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 104–127; see also idem, “Jeremiah, the Shoah, and the Restoration of Israel,” in Maven in Blue Jeans: A Festschrift in Honor of Zev Garber (ed. S. L. Jacobs; Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies; West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2009), 88–102. 2 Cf. Abraham Joshua Heschel’s treatment of Jeremiah in The Prophets (New York: Perennial Classics, 2001), 130–177.

168

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

An additional issue to be faced in post-Shoah biblical interpretation is the reinterpretation of major elements of ancient Jewish religious and political life in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. Insofar as the Davidic monarchy was the only major Judean institution not to be restored in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile, the conceptualization of the Davidic monarchy in the Book of Jeremiah, both in its Septuagint and Masoretic versions, demands attention. I have already written a study of the Davidic oracle in Jer 23:1–8 which attempts to demonstrate that this oracle represents the prophet’s efforts to define ideal Davidic kingship in relation to the earlier Isaian understanding of the ideal monarch in Isa 11:1–16,3 but it is clear that different conceptualizations of the Davidic monarchy emerge when one considers the two forms of Jeremiah 33 in the LXX and MT versions of the book. MT Jeremiah 33 includes a lengthy oracle in vv. 14–26 that reinterprets the Davidic promise and applies it not to the Davidic king, but to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood. LXX Jeremiah 40 (= MT Jeremiah 33), however, omits these verses altogether and speaks only generally of the restoration of Jerusalem and Judah. Such a lacuna in the LXX version of the text thereby allows Jer 23:1–8 to stand as the prophet’s affirmation that ideal Davidic kingship will one day be established in Israel and Judah. When read in relation to each other, these two very different understandings of the Davidic monarchy point to a debate that took place within the Jeremiah tradition and that ultimately came to expression in the differing LXX and MT versions of the book, viz., LXX Jeremiah anticipates the restoration of ideal Davidic kingship once the exile is over, but MT Jeremiah qualifies this expectation, and instead understands the Davidic promise to apply to the city of Jerusalem and to the Levitical priesthood that served the Temple within the city until such a time as the Davidic monarchy is reestablished.4 As it happens, the MT was closer to the truth. Davidic kingship was never restored in Jerusalem, but the city of Jerusalem was rebuilt and the Levitical priesthood returned to reestablish the Jerusalem Temple and to play its role in the restoration of the land of Judah and the Jewish people.

3

Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (ed. J. Goldingay; LHBOTS 459; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 308–321 = above, pp. 154–166. 4 For an attempt to differentiate the differing literary forms and outlooks of MT Jeremiah and LXX Jeremiah, see my “The Masoretic and Septuagint Versions of the Book of Jeremiah in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality in the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 65–77.

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

169

This paper therefore examines the forms and functions of the oracles concerning the Davidic monarchy in MT Jeremiah 33 and LXX Jeremiah 40 (= MT 33). Building on the work of Yohanan Goldman,5 it observes the means by which MT Jer 33:14–26 reformulates the Davidic covenant to refer to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood rather than to the Davidic monarchy. The paper then turns to consideration of the oracle concerning the ideal Davidic monarch in both MT and LXX Jer 23:1–8 in an effort to clarify the contrasting views of the future of the House of David evident in the LXX and MT versions of the book.

II We may begin with analysis of MT Jer 33:1–26 simply because the Masoretic version has been foundational for understanding this chapter in both Judaism and Christianity. Interpreters sometimes read MT Jeremiah 33 as a discrete unit,6 but attention to the syntactical features of the text which play such an important role in textual organization and presentation indicates that MT Jeremiah 33 must be read as a unit together with MT Jeremiah 32.7 MT Jer 33:1 begins with the syntactically conjunctive phrase, wayěhî děbar yhwh ’el-yirměyāhû šēnît, “and the word of YHWH was unto Jeremiah a second time …” The first syntactically independent macrostructural phrase in the immediate context appears in Jer 32:1, haddābār ’ǎšer-hāyâ ’el-yirměyāhû mē’ēt yhwh …, “The word which was unto Jeremiah from YHWH …,” and it introduces the macro-unit beginning in Jer 32:1 of which Jer 33:1 is a part. Indeed, the identical syntactically independent macro-structural phrase in Jer 34:1, haddābār ’ǎšer-hāyâ ’el5 Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil (OBO 118; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). 6 For current discussion of Jeremiah 33, see Leslie Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 360–380; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 632–639; Georg Fischer, Jeremia 26–52 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 219–241; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1989), 2:221–231; Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah (NCeB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Pickering, 1992), 419– 425; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36 (AB 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 525– 546; William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996), 2:853–865; Louis Stulman, Jeremiah (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 280–285. 7 For discussion of the exegetical methodology employed here, see my “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89. For similar conclusions concerning the structural coherence of Jeremiah 32–33, see Allen, Jeremiah, 364–365.

170

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

yirměyāhû mē’ēt yhwh …, “The word which was unto Jeremiah from YHWH …,” introduces the following macro-unit in Jer 34:1–7. Insofar as the various prophetic word formulae, i.e., wayěhî děbar yhwh ’el-yirměyāhû …, in Jer 32:26; 33:1, 19, and 23 are all joined syntactically to Jer 32:1 by the introductory waw-consecutive formation, wayěhî, and semantically by the phrase wayěhî děbar yhwh ’el-yirměyāhû, Jeremiah 32–33 must constitute the macro-structural unit of the text that will stand as the basis for analysis. When considering the internal structure of Jeremiah 32–33, the formula haddābār ’ǎšer-hāyâ ’el-yirměyāhû mē’ēt yhwh …, introduces the initial narrative of the text in Jer 32:1–25, which discusses Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem the land of one of his kinsmen in Anathoth. Indeed, the phraseology employed to describe “the deed of purchase” (Hebrew, sēper hammiqneh) beginning in Jer 32:11 as “a document” or “book” that is both “sealed” (Hebrew, ḥātûm) and “opened” (Hebrew, gālûy) in Jer 32:14 appears to have played a role in motivating attempts in the following material to interpret the plain and hidden meaning of Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem land throughout the rest of the passage.8 Jeremiah 32:26–44, introduced by the formula, wayěhî děbar yhwh ’elyirměyāhû, points to YHWH’s intention to “redeem” or “restore” the people of Jerusalem and Judah following the destruction of the city and the exile of the people much as Jeremiah attempts to redeem land in Jer 32:1– 25. Jeremiah 33:1–18, introduced by the formula, wayěhî děbar yhwh ’elyirměyāhû šēnît, then elaborates on the interpretation of Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem family land in Jer 32:26–44 by introducing a series of oracles, each introduced by a version of the so-called prophetic messenger formula, (kî) kōh ’āmar yhwh …, “(for) thus says YHWH …,” in Jer 33:2, 9, 10, and 12. The oracles in this series highlight YHWH’s actions to bring about the restoration of the people in the aftermath of the disaster culminating in the restoration of “a righteous branch for David” (Hebrew, lědāwîd ṣemaḥ ṣědāqâ) in Jer 33:15. These oracles envision the security of the city of Jerusalem and the continuity of the Levitical priesthood that serves in the Temple of Jerusalem as evidence that YHWH’s promise to the House of David continues to stand. The material in Jer 33:19–22 and 33:23–26, each introduced by the formula, wayěhî děbar yhwh ’el-yirměyāhû lē’môr …, “and the word of YHWH was unto Jeremiah saying …,” resumes the basic sequence of sub8 For discussion of the sealed and open book in Jeremiah 32 and its impact on reading the respective forms of Jeremiah in the MT and LXX, see esp. Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions (JSOTSup 347; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

171

units formulated with an introductory prophetic word formula, and elaborates further on the hidden significance of YHWH’s permanent covenant with David by applying it respectively in relation to the Levitical priesthood and to the people of Israel and Judah descended from the ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. On the basis of these observations, the formal structure of Jeremiah 32– 33 may therefore be represented as follows: YHWH’s Words to Jeremiah concerning the Restoration (Jeremiah 32–33) I. Introduction: narrative concerning Jeremiah’s redemption of family land at Anathoth by means of a bill of sale described as an open and sealed book II. The words of YHWH concerning restoration following the disaster A. Initial word of YHWH concerning YHWH’s intention to restore the people following the disaster B. Second word of YHWH concerning elaboration on the meaning of YHWH’s intention to restore the people following the disaster 1. Introduction: narrative portrayal of Jeremiah imprisoned 2. First oracle set concerning the hidden meaning of Israel’s and Judah’s pardon and restoration a. First oracle in the set: appeal to people to call to YHWH b. Second explanatory oracle in the set: YHWH’s actions to restore Israel and Judah 3. Second oracle (set) concerning joy in Jerusalem and Judah 4. Third oracle set concerning shepherds and sheep, viz., the city and its leadership a. First oracle in set concerning the restoration of shepherds and sheep with explication concerning city and its leadership b. Second oracle in set concerning application of Davidic promise to the Levitical priests C. Third word of YHWH concerning the permanence of the covenant with David and the Levitical priesthood D. Fourth word of YHWH concerning the permanence of the covenant of David in relation to Israel and Judah

32:1–25 32:26–33:26 32:26–44 33:1–18 33:1 33:2–9 33:2–3 33:4–9 33:10–11 33:12–18 33:12–16 33:17–18 33:19–22 33:23–26

In considering the means by which this unit is designed to elaborate on the significance of Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem family property, several features of this unit require further examination. First, Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem family property presupposes that the property had somehow been compromised by debt and that a family member was therefore required to repay the debt in order to restore the property to the family. Such mortgaging of property is a common means to raise money in times of economic downturn in ancient Judah, but its significance for the present context must be recognized in the role that such redemption plays in establishing an analogy for YHWH’s redemption of Jerusalem and Judah following the disaster of the destruction of Jerusalem

172

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

and the Babylonian Exile. Clearly, the destruction of the city and exile of the people indicate that both have been compromised, especially when one considers the Davidic tradition of YHWH’s eternal promise of protection for the Davidic monarch, the city of Jerusalem, and the people at large (e.g., 2 Samuel 7). The portrayal of Jeremiah’s redemption of family property compromised by debt thereby provides the paradigm for YHWH’s stated intentions to restore the city and people once the period of exile and punishment had ended. Second, the image of the “sealed” and the “opened” book or document plays a clearly mundane role when considered in relation to Jeremiah’s land transaction in Jer 32:1–25, but it plays a much more significant role in prompting reflection on the hidden meaning of Jeremiah’s actions throughout the rest of the text. Shead’s discussion of this terminology points to Yadin’s study of Aramaic, Greek, and Nabatean property deeds in the ancient world to demonstrate that such documents were written in two copies from a single sheet of papyrus.9 The top half of the papyrus contained a detailed statement of the property transaction which was rolled and tied to serve as the inner or hidden copy of the deed of purchase, and the bottom half was reserved for a summation of the transaction that would be left open for public reference. Anyone wanting to examine the details of the transaction would simply open the rolled or hidden portion of the document after identifying the transaction in question from the open portion of the deed. Although such a document (Hebrew, sēper) would hardly be unusual in the ancient world, the designation of the document as a sēper, “book,” that would be simultaneously open and sealed would present an image easily lent to writers with an interest in probing both the “open” and the “hidden” meaning of Jeremiah’s actions as represented in this text. On the surface, Jeremiah’s actions simply constitute a land transaction, but the hidden significance of Jeremiah’s actions may be revealed when they are recognized as a symbolic action that represents YHWH’s intentions to redeem Jerusalem and Judah after the punishment and exile are over. The image of the open and sealed book in Jer 32:1–25 thereby provides the basis for subsequent sub-units in this text to begin the process of elaborating on the importance of Jeremiah’s actions for understanding YHWH’s plans. Third, although Jer 32:26–44 speaks generally of YHWH’s interests in restoring the city and people following the disaster, the oracular sequence beginning in Jeremiah 33 more fully probes the hidden meaning of this text. Jeremiah 32:26–44 provides the “open” or “plain” meaning of Jeremiah’s action, viz., YHWH will restore Jerusalem and the people so that 9 Shead, The Open Book, 120–122; Yigael Yadin, “Expedition D: The Cave of Letters,” IEJ 12 (1962): 227–257, Fig. 48B.

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

173

deeds of purchase will once again be written in Jerusalem, Benjamin, and Judah. But Jer 33:1 begins with the above-noted statement that the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah “a second time” (Hebrew, šēnît) which indicates that something more than the simple portrayal of YHWH’s restoration is to follow. The following oracular sequence in Jer 33:2–18 then begins to elaborate on Jeremiah’s land redemption in an effort to bring out the various dimensions of YHWH’s intended restoration. Jeremiah 33:2–9 presents two interrelated oracles that point to the process by which YHWH will act. First, vv. 2–3 call upon the people to call upon YHWH, i.e., the people must initiate the action through an act of repentance after which YHWH will reveal wondrous secrets that the people have not known. Verses 4–9, linked to the preceding oracle by the particle kî, “for,” then make it clear that YHWH will cease to hide the divine face from Jerusalem and Judah, pardon the sins purportedly committed by the people, and bring about healing and restoration as YHWH restores the fortunes of Judah and Israel. Jeremiah 33:10–11 employs the image of a joyous bride and bridegroom to point to the joy that Jerusalem and Judah will experience as a result of the restoration. Jeremiah 33:12–18 then turns to the question of the leadership of the people, which is particularly important given the role that the Davidic king would play as leader of the nation. The first oracle in vv. 12–16 speaks generally of the sheep and their shepherds, obviously representing the people and their leaders before turning to a statement that YHWH will raise up a righteous branch of the House of David, employing language that also appears in the earlier royal oracle of Jer 23:1–8. Goldman’s careful reading of this passage, however, points to a very interesting anomaly, viz., the final statement of the passage, “and this is what it shall be called, ‘YHWH is our righteousness,’” refers not to the Davidic monarch as many have presupposed, but to the city of Jerusalem.10 The Hebrew phrase, wězeh ǎšer yiqrā’ lāh, “and this is what it shall be called,” does not employ the masculine pronoun phrase lô, “to him,” that would apply the promise to the Davidic monarch. Instead, it employs the feminine pronoun phrase lāh, “to her,” to apply the promise to the city of Jerusalem. Such a move subtly changes the nature of the Davidic promise, viz., it is no longer applied to the king, but to the city of Jerusalem instead. Insofar as the Davidic monarchy was never restored after the Babylonian Exile, such a move would recognize a fundamental reality of Judean life after the exile, viz., the king was gone but the city of Jerusalem was restored. Verses 17– 18, linked to the preceding oracle by an introductory kî, then takes the issue a step further when they reiterate the Davidic promise by stating that 10

Goldman, Prophétie et royauté, 9–44, esp. 12–15.

174

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

there will be an end to the line of David, but add that there will never be an end to the line of Levitical priests who present the offerings to YHWH in the Temple. Such a statement is particularly important when one recognizes that no Davidic monarch ruled again in Jerusalem and that Zech 6:9– 13 portrays the High Priest Joshua ben Jehozadak sitting on the throne of David with a priest at his side. In the Second Temple period, the Davidic monarchy is no more and the Levitical priesthood steps in to take its place in governing the people on behalf of the Persian authorities. The next oracular unit in Jer 33:19–22 then takes the next step in interpreting the hidden significance of Jeremiah’s land redemption by applying the Davidic – and now the Levitical – promise to the people at large. It asserts that the Davidic covenant is unbreakable, which is particularly remarkable when one considers the lack of a Davidic monarch in later times, but it then shifts its language to that of the ancestral covenant from the Genesis traditions concerning YHWH’s promises to Abraham and Jacob, viz., “like the host of heaven that cannot be numbered and the sand of the sea that cannot be measured, so I will multiply the seed of David my servant and the Levites who serve me.” Such language appears in Gen 22:17 when YHWH promises Abraham descendants like the stars of the heavens and the sand of the sea (cf. Gen 15:4–5); Gen 32:13 when Jacob reminds YHWH of the promise to give him descendents like the sands of the sea which cannot be counted (cf. Gen 28:13–15); and Hos 2:1 in which the people of Israel are likened to the sands of the sea which cannot be measured or counted. Here, the promise is applied to the Levitical priesthood as before, but the people are now included as well. The final oracle in the series in Jer 33:23–26 then invokes the descendants of Abraham and Jacob, here understood in relation to Judah and Israel, to reiterate YHWH’s promise to the House of David once again as a covenant that is grounded in creation itself. There will be a righteous Davidic king some day, but the city of Jerusalem, the Levitical priesthood, and the people of Judah and Israel will stand in its stead until such a time will come.

III We may now turn to analysis of the Septuagint version of this text. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the original Hebrew version of this text. Although it may be reconstructed, we can never be absolutely certain concerning the accuracy of such work. Consequently, analysis must be based on the Greek form of the text. As in the MT, LXX Jer 40:1 begins with a syntactically conjunctive introduction, Kai egeneto logos kuriou pros Ieremian deuteron, “and the word of the L-rd was unto Jeremiah a second time …” which would correspond to the Hebrew form of the text in MT Jer

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

175

33:1 noted above. LXX Jeremiah 39:1 begins with a syntactically independent statement, Ho logos ho genomenos para kuriou pros Ieremian …, “The word which came from the L-rd to Jeremiah …,” which again would correspond to the Hebrew of MT Jer 32:1. LXX Jeremiah 41:1 begins with a syntactically independent statement, Ho logos ho genomenos pros Ieremian para kuriou, “The word which was to Jeremiah from the L-rd …,” which would correspond to the Hebrew of MT Jer 34:1. These considerations indicate that LXX Jeremiah 39–40 constitutes a syntacticcally selfcontained textual unit much as MT Jeremiah 32–33 constitutes such a unit in the MT version of the text of Jeremiah. As for the internal structure of this unit, the syntactic, semantic, and formulaic elements of this text proceed along similar lines as those of the MT, except that the LXX form of the text concludes with LXX Jer 40:13. LXX Jeremiah 40:14–26 are entirely absent from the standard LXX text, although the Theodotionic recension does contain these verses. Following LXX Jer 39:1–25, which once again relates Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem family property in Anathoth, LXX Jer 39:26 again begins with a syntactically conjunctive formula indicating that the word of the L-rd came to the prophet, Kai egeneto logos kuriou pros me legōn …, “and the word of the L-rd came to me, saying …,” which introduces the sub-unit in LXX Jer 39:26–44 concerned with interpreting the significance of Jeremiah’s land transaction as a symbolic act that points to YHWH’s intentions to restore the people following the disaster. LXX Jeremiah 40:1 likewise begins with the above-noted syntactically conjunctive introduction indicating that the word of the L-rd came to the prophet a second time (Greek, deuteron), which identifies LXX Jer 40:1–13 as a second sub-unit aligned with LXX Jer 39:26–44. As in the MT, LXX Jer 40:1–13 attempts to draw out the meaning of YHWH’s intentions to restore the people, but the shorter Greek text indicates that the LXX version of this passage stops far short of the scenario laid out in the MT. The internal structure of the LXX passage proceeds along lines similar to those of the MT although some elements of the text are even shorter than those of the MT. LXX Jeremiah 40:1 begins with the above-noted formula that introduces the following oracles as in the MT. LXX Jeremiah 40:2–9 constitutes a two-part oracular set as in MT, each of which is introduced by the messenger formula, Houtōs eipe Kurios, “Thus says the L-rd …,” for vv. 2–3 and, Hoti houtōs eipe Kurios …, “For thus says the L-rd …,” for vv. 4–9. Again, the oracle in vv. 2–3 calls upon the people to appeal to the L-rd, and the syntactically conjoined oracle in vv. 4–9 explains YHWH’s intentions to restore Israel and Judah. The second oracular unit in LXX Jer 40:10–11 again begins with the messenger formula, Houtōs eipe Kurios, “Thus says the L-rd …,” to introduce an oracle concerned with joy in Jerusalem and Judah at the time of the restoration. The

176

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

final oracle of the sequence in LXX Jer 40:12–13, again introduced by the messenger formula, Houtōs eipe Kurios, “Thus says the L-rd …,” focuses on the numerous flocks that will fill the hills of Benjamin and Judah around the city of Jerusalem at the time of the restoration. Of course, the MT material concerning the restoration of the Davidic monarchy does not appear in this text. The formal structure of LXX Jer 39:1–40:13 therefore appears as follows: YHWH’s Words to Jeremiah concerning the Restoration (LXX Jeremiah 39–40) I. Introduction: narrative concerning Jeremiah’s redemption of family land at Anathoth by means of a bill of sale described as an open and sealed book II. The Words of the L-rd concerning restoration following the disaster A. Initial word of the L-rd concerning the L-rd’s intention to restore the people following the disaster B. Second word of the L-rd concerning elaboration on the meaning of the L-rd’s intention to restore the people following the disaster 1. Introduction: narrative portrayal of Jeremiah imprisoned 2. First oracle set concerning the hidden meaning of Israel’s and Judah’s pardon and restoration a. First oracle in the set: appeal to people to call to YHWH b. Second explanatory oracle in the set: YHWH’s actions to restore Israel and Judah 3. Second oracle concerning joy in Jerusalem and Judah 4. Third oracle concerning shepherds and sheep at the time of the restoration

39:1–25 39:26–40:13 39:26–44 40:1–13 40:1 40:2–9 40:2–3 40:4–9 40:10–11 40:12–13

Analysis of the formal structure and contents of LXX Jer 39:1–40:13 indicates that, like MT Jer 32:1–33:26, the unit is designed to explicate the hidden significance of Jeremiah’s attempt to redeem family land during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, but unlike the Masoretic version of this passage, it does not address the question of the restoration of the House of David. Rather, the LXX text focuses more generally on the restoration of Israel and Judah. Again, LXX Jer 39:1–25 presents an account of Jeremiah’s redemption of family land as the basis for understanding the prophet’s actions as symbolic actions that point to YHWH’s intention. The image of the open and sealed book or document, here rendered as, to biblion tēs ktēseōs touto kai to biblion to aneōigmenon, “the book/document of acquisition and the open book/document,” in v. 14 presents some difficulties. Although the sealed document appears to be missing in this text, v. 10 states concerning Jeremiah’s writing of the deed of sale, kai egrapsa eis biblion kai esphragisamēn …, “and I wrote in a document and I sealed (it),” in keeping with the wording of the Hebrew text, wā’ektōb bassēper wā’eḥtōm. Verse 11 then identifies the deed of purchase as both sealed and open, kai elabon to biblion tēs ktēseōs to esphragismenon kai to aneōigmenon …, “and I took the sealed and the open document of acquisi-

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

177

tion …,” which contracts the Hebrew text, wā’eqaḥ ’et sēper hammiqnâ ’et heḥātûm hammiṣwâ wěhaḥuqqîm we’et haggālûy …, “and I took the sealed deed of purchase (with) the transaction (literally commandment) and the specifications (literally, statutes),” perhaps because the Greek translator wanted a more esthetically pleasing text. Some interpreters might conclude that the Greek translator did not fully understand the legal language of the passage, but Yadin’s study cited above indicates that such documents were known in the Greco-Roman period. The Greek rendition of vv. 10–11 suggests two documents, the sealed deed of sale and a second open document of unknown function. Given that Jeremiah has already sealed the deed of purchase in v. 10, it appears that the LXX translator simply eliminated the reference to the sealed document in v. 14 as redundant. Such a reading again indicates that the LXX translator considered the open document to be a second document somehow related to the transaction in keeping with the interrelationship between the sealed and open documents in ancient transactions discussed above. The open or public document would then relate to the witnesses commissioned by the prophet in the text, but the sealed document continues to constitute the true deed of purchase. The sealed deed of purchase would still represent YHWH’s intentions to redeem Israel and Judah in the Greek version of the text, but the Greek text does not go far beyond general descriptions of restoration to probe the “secrets” of YHWH’s intentions concerning the Davidic monarchy. It seems unlikely that the Greek translator would have eliminated such a concern from the text. The concern with the future of the House of David in MT Jer 33:14–26 constitutes an expansion of the concerns expressed in the earlier portions of the text motivated by reflection on the interrelationship between the “flocks” or people and their “shepherds” or leaders in vv. 12–13. It appears that no such reflection has yet taken place in the LXX version of this text. Such an observation indicates that the LXX text is an earlier version of the text and that the MT is an expanded and later version designed to introduce and reflect upon the question of the nation’s leadership, i.e., the fate of the House of David. Such a question would have become paramount in the early Second Temple period when Jerusalem was repopulated by returning exiles, the Temple was rebuilt, and the Levitical priesthood installed for service in the Temple. Nevertheless, despite Haggai’s calls for the restoration of the House of David in Hag 2:20–23, the House of David was not restored in the early Second Temple period – or anytime later for that matter – which would have prompted the speculation concerning the fate of the House of David evident in the Masoretic form of the text. The LXX form of the text represents a Hebrew Vorlage from an earlier version, perhaps from the period of the Babylonian Exile, when the question of restoration would have been paramount but the fate of the House of David was not yet an issue.

178

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

IV In order to ascertain the full function of MT Jeremiah 32–33 and LXX Jeremiah 39–40 in the larger context of their respective forms of the Book of Jeremiah, it is necessary to consider the role of the royal oracle in Jer 23:1–8. The presence of this royal oracle in both forms of the book can help us to clarify the concern with the House of David in MT Jer 33:14–26 and the absence of such concern in LXX Jer 40:1–13. Interpreters have long recognized intertextual relationships between the royal oracle of MT Jer 33:14–26 and other biblical texts.11 The language concerning the Davidic promise in v. 17, “there shall not be cut off to David a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel,” quite clearly corresponds to language concerning the Davidic promise in 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; and 9:5–6. There is no corresponding language for the application of the Davidic promise to the Levitical priests in v. 18, however, so that the promise to the Levites emerges as a new element in this passage. The language in MT Jer 33:19–22, 23–26 concerning the unbreakable nature of the Davidic covenant, with its comparison to the covenant of creation (i.e., night and day) and the ancestral covenant (i.e., to compare descendants to the host of heaven and the sand of the sea; cf. Gen 15:4–5; 22:17; 28:13– 15; Hos 2:1 noted above), draws already on MT Jer 31:31–34, 35–36, and 37 which likewise compare YHWH’s covenant with Israel and Judah to the covenants made with the ancestors in Egypt and with creation. These examples alone demonstrate an exegetical or interpretative relationship between MT Jer 33:14–26 and other biblical texts from Kings and Jeremiah, which indicates that the author of these passages was reflecting upon earlier texts to develop a new understanding of the Davidic covenant applied to Jerusalem, the Levitical priesthood, and the people. But the intertextual relationship between MT Jer 33:14–26 and the preceding royal oracle in MT Jer 23:1–8 demands even greater attention insofar a MT Jer 23:1–8 appears to serve as a base text for the development of MT Jer 33:14–26. Various elements of the language of MT Jer 33:14–26 correspond closely to that of MT Jer 23:1–8. The general formula, hinnēh yāmîm bā’îm ně’um yhwh, “‘behold, the days are coming,’ utterance of YHWH,” respectively introduces the key passages concerning the Davidic covenant in MT Jer 33:14 and MT Jer 23:5. Likewise, the language of the promise itself corresponds quite closely in each passage. MT Jeremiah 33:14, “and I shall establish (Hebrew, wěhǎqimōtî) the good word which I have spoken to the house of Israel and concerning the house of Judah,” employs the same verb as MT Jer 23:7, “and I will raise up (Hebrew, 11 For discussion of the intertextual relationships of Jeremiah 33, see esp. Goldman, Prophétie et royauté, 38–44.

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

179

wěhǎqimōtî) for David …” The terminology employed for David in MT Jer 33:15, “I will cause to sprout for David a righteous branch (Hebrew, ṣemaḥ ṣědāqâ) and he shall do justice and righteousness in the land (Hebrew, wě‛āśâ mišpāṭ ûṣědāqâ bā’āreṣ),” corresponds quite closely to that of MT Jer 23:15, “and will raise for David a righteous branch (Hebrew, ṣemaḥ saddîq) and he shall rule as king and he shall prosper and he shall do justice and righteousness in the land (Hebrew, wě‛āśâ mišpāṭ ûṣědāqâ bā’āreṣ).” Finally, the language of MT Jer 33:16, “in those days (Hebrew, bayyāmîm hāhēm) Judah shall be delivered (Hebrew, tiwwāša‛ yěhûdâ) and Jerusalem shall dwell securely (Hebrew, tiškôn lābeṭaḥ), and this is what she will be called (Hebrew, wězeh ’ǎšer yiqrā’ lāh), ‘YHWH is our righteousness (Hebrew, yhwh ṣidqēnû),’” corresponds quite closely to that of MT Jer 23:6, “in his days (Hebrew, běyāmāyw) Judah shall be delivered (Hebrew, tiwwāša‛ yěhûdâ) and Israel shall dwell securely (Hebrew, yiškôn lābeṭaḥ), and this is what his name shall be called (Hebrew, wězeh šěmô ’ǎšer yiqrô’ lô), ‘YHWH is our righteousness (Hebrew, yhwh ṣidqēnû).’” These examples make it clear that the language of MT Jer 23:5–6 has been adjusted in MT Jer 33:14–16 to account for the shift from a focus on the Davidic king and his righteous rule in MT Jer 23:5–6 to a focus on the city of Jerusalem as heir to the Davidic promise in MT Jer 33:14–16. It seems clear that the author of MT Jer 33:14–26 drew heavily on MT Jer 23:1–8 as well as on the other texts in Kings and Jeremiah noted above. But the motivation for such a direct relationship may also be observed in MT Jer 23:1–4 which speak of the leaders of the nation as “shepherds” and the people as “the flock” that has gone astray as a preface to the royal oracle in vv. 5–6. It is likely no accident that the material in MT Jer 33:12–13 immediately preceding the royal oracle material of vv. 14–26 also employs the imagery of shepherds and flocks to speak of the nation’s leadership and its people. Insofar as Jer 33:12–13 appears in both the MT and LXX version of this text, it appears to be the basis on which the author of the MT version of this text expanded the passage and drew upon the royal oracle of Jer 23:1–8 to produce the application of the Davidic covenant to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood as indicated above. Whereas a very clear and deliberate textual interrelationship exists between MT Jer 33:14–26 and MT Jer 23:1–8, no such explicit relationship is evident between LXX Jer 40:1–13 and LXX Jer 23:1–40. Nevertheless, the broader question of intertextuality must enter into the discussion as both the MT and LXX forms of Jeremiah 33/40 must be read in relation to the preceding material in Jeremiah 23 as a function of interpreting each passage in relation to its literary context. Jeremiah 23:1–8, in either its MT or LXX version, anticipates the restoration of righteous Davidic kingship.

180

Part 3: The Book of Jeremiah

We may observe that the LXX version of the passage moves vv. 7–8 from their position at the conclusion of the royal oracle to a new position following the discourse concerning false prophecy in Jer 23:9–40, which may express some ambivalence concerning the restoration of Davidic kingship. Nevertheless, the royal oracle in Jeremiah 23 stands without clear qualification in the LXX form of the text, which means that LXX Jeremiah affirms a belief in the future restoration of Davidic kingship at some point in the future, although the means and timing by which such restoration will take place are left undefined. Jeremiah 23:1–8 likewise anticipates the restoration of Davidic kingship in the MT form of the book, but as the above analysis has shown, there is clear ambivalence, viz., the Davidic promise is applied to the city of Jerusalem and to the Levitical priesthood, although the passage continues to hold that ultimately the House of David will be restored, even if Jerusalem, the Levites, and ultimately the people of Israel and Judah themselves must serve as the heirs to the promise for some undefined period of time. It would seem then that MT Jer 33:14–26 was written to address some of the unanswered questions left open in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX text, especially the question as to how the Davidic promise can be maintained when there is no Davidic monarch on the throne. Indeed, a similar view is expressed in the Book of Isaiah when Isa 44:28 and 45:1 indicate that King Cyrus of Persia will serve as YHWH’s anointed monarch and Temple builder, Isa 55:1–13 indicates that the people of Israel will become the heirs of the Davidic covenant, and Isa 66:1–4 indicates that YHWH will ultimately be recognized as the true king.12 Likewise, Zechariah 6 identifies the High Priest Joshua ben Jehozadak as the figure who will sit upon the royal throne in the absence of the Davidic monarch.13

V The above analysis points to a question that is addressed in both the MT and LXX versions of the Book of Jeremiah, viz., the continuity of the Davidic promise and the timing and process by which the restoration of righteous Davidic kingship will be realized. The LXX version of the Book of Jeremiah, likely a Greek translation of an earlier Hebrew Vorlage, affirms the restoration of Davidic kingship although the text suggests some ambivalence concerning the timing of the restoration and perhaps some 12 See my “On Multiple Settings in the Book of Isaiah,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 28–35. 13 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 2:623–634.

10. The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah

181

concern as to whether such a restoration constitutes false prophecy. The MT version of the Book of Jeremiah, with its additional material in Jer 33:14–26, appears intended to clarify some of the ambiguities and uncertainties of the earlier text by pointing to a process in which the city of Jerusalem, the Levitical priesthood, and the people themselves will serve as the heirs of the Davidic promise until such time as the monarchy can be restored. As observed throughout the analysis, the author of MT Jer 33:14– 26 reflected upon earlier biblical texts, primarily from Jeremiah but also from Kings concerning the nature of the Davidic promise, in an effort to define the process by which the Davidic promise might yet be maintained despite the lack of a Davidic monarch on the throne in the years following the Babylonian Exile when the city of Jerusalem, the people of Jerusalem and Judah, the Temple, and the Jerusalem priesthood were restored, but the Davidic monarchy was not.

1

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

1

2

3

4

5

6

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah I Throughout the history of modern critical scholarship, the Book of Ezekiel has suffered from relatively less critical attention and relatively greater misunderstanding when compared to its better-known counterparts.1 Such hesitancy to engage Ezekiel and misunderstanding of its contents arise from its priestly world view and depiction of the holy; its often bizarre imagery, language, and concepts; its frequent disagreements with the Pentateuch and other biblical literature; and its exilic-period setting and concern with Temple purity and restoration in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile. Ezekiel was nearly excluded from the Jewish Bible until R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah burned three hundred barrels of oil working nights to reconcile the differences between Ezekiel and the Torah (b. Šabbat 13b; b. Ḥagigah 13ab; b. Menaḥot 45a). Modern scholars have generally followed Gustav Hölscher in stripping away major elements of the book as the product of priestly redaction, thereby denying Ezekiel’s identity as a Zadokite priest of the Jerusalem Temple.2 Some scholars charge that Ezekiel is mentally impaired or dependent on hallucinogenic drugs.3 Even Abraham Joshua Heschel did not treat Ezekiel in his celebrated volume, The Prophets.4 Fortunately, scholarly assessment of Ezekiel has begun to change in the latter half of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first as scholars have come to understand Ezekiel’s intellectual breadth and his

1

For discussion of modern critical research on Ezekiel, see Bernhard Lang, Ezechiel (EdF 153; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981); Lawrence Boadt, “Ezekiel, Book of,” ABD 2:711–722; Henry McKeating, Ezekiel (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel among the Critics,” CurBS 2 (1994): 9–24; Risa Levitt Kohn, “Ezekiel at the Turn of the Century,” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2003): 9–31. 2 Gustav Hölscher, Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924). 3 See, e.g., David J. Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park, Penn.: Penn State University Press, 1993), esp. 7–38. 4 Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper and Row, 1962).

186

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

priestly perspective.5 Gerhard von Rad considers Ezekiel to be one of ancient Israel’s most deeply reflective prophets and theologians.6 Walther Zimmerli traces the impact of Ezekiel on developing Israelite tradition and its understanding of revelation.7 Moshe Greenberg adds considerable insight into the literary and conceptual coherence of the book.8 Jon Levenson points to Ezekiel’s dependence on the imagery and theology of the Jerusalem Temple.9 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann emphasizes the role that concerns with exile played in shaping the book between the initial exile of 597 B.C.E. and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 B.C.E.10 Katheryn Pfisterer Darr recognizes the importance of Ezekiel for modern theology, particularly its relevance for engaging the question of evil posed by the Shoah or Holocaust.11 My own work emphasizes Ezekiel’s identity as a Zadokite priest of the Jerusalem Temple in the presentation of Ezekiel’s visions and conceptualization of G-d, Israel, and the world of creation throughout the book.12 Although Ezekiel continues to stand alone among the Prophets in the minds of many interpreters, it is essential to recognize his interrelationship 5 For examples of some of the most recent scholarship on Ezekiel, see the two volumes of essays published by the Society of Biblical Literature program units on Ezekiel, viz., The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (ed. M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong; SBLSym 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed. S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton; SBLSym 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004). My own recent contributions to this discussion appeared in “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 125–143; “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezekiel 8–11,” ibid., 144–155; “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29,” ibid., 156–172; “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform,” in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (ed. B. E. Kelle and M. Bishop Moore; LHBOTS 446; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 239–253 = below, pp. 219–232. For an overview discussion, see my The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 127–164. 6 Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; New York: Harper and Row, 1962–1965), 2:220–237, esp. 2:221–223. 7 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel (trans. R. E. Clements and J. D. Martin; 2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–1983); idem, “Knowledge of G-d according to the Book of Ezekiel,” in I am Y-hweh (ed. W. Brueggemann; trans. D. W. Stott; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 29–98. 8 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983); idem, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1997). 9 Jon D. Levenson, Theology and Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1976). 10 Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) (2 vols.; ATD 22.1–2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2001). 11 Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” NIB 6:1073–1607. 12 Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” cited with other contributions in note 5 above.

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

187

with the other prophetic books in interpreting the realities of destruction and exile in his world and in positing future restoration of Israel and the Temple together with continuity in the relationship with YHWH. Von Rad argues that the message and world view of each of the prophetic books is rooted in its respective theological tradition.13 Isaiah is rooted in the Zion/ Davidic covenant tradition that posited YHWH’s eternal relationship with Jerusalem and the House of David. Jeremiah, identified as a priest from Anathoth, is rooted in the Exodus-Sinai tradition of Mosaic Torah. Amos employs self-reflection, although the book is influenced by the Judean election tradition. Hosea is rooted in northern Israelite Levitical tradition. Von Rad subsumes Micah under Isaiah – although this is surely wrong, as Wolff’s work demonstrates Micah’s identity as a village elder.14 Ezekiel is dependent on the sacral traditions of the Israelite priesthood, although von Rad maintains that his intellectual breadth points to the degree to which Ezekiel was free from priestly tradition.15 To von Rad, Ezekiel may have been born as a priest, but the circumstances of life in Babylonian Exile prompted him to function as a prophet instead of as a priest. And yet the tradition of the Jerusalemite priesthood is foundational for interpreting the Book of Ezekiel. Although Ezekiel can no longer function as a Jerusalem Temple priest at the edges of creation in Babylonia, the book nevertheless portrays a priest who adapts his priestly identity, functions, and world view to the demands of his situation and that of his exiled people.16 Indeed, Ezekiel’s career as a visionary prophet of the exile begins in his thirtieth year, i.e., the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile in 592 B.C.E. at an age when a young Zadokite priest would be ordained for service at the Jerusalem altar. It continues through the twenty-fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile, i.e., Ezekiel’s fiftieth year when he would be expected to retire from his service as a priest at the Temple altar. The presentation of Ezekiel’s career begins in Ezekiel 1 with a vision of YHWH’s presence in Babylonian Exile that is informed by the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple, and it concludes in Ezekiel 40–48 with a vision of the restoration of YHWH’s presence in the restored Temple of Jerusalem, the restored Davidic monarch who worships YHWH in the Temple, the restored Twelve Tribes of Israel, and the renewed creation around the restored Temple. The intervening material throughout the Book of Ezekiel portrays a chronologically-ordered process in which YHWH 13 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology. Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, passim. 14 Hans Walter Wolff, Micah (CC; trans. G. Stansell; Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1990). 15 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:221, 225. 16 For the following, see esp. Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest.”

188

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

purifies the Temple and city of Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the nations that inhabit creation in preparation for the restoration of the Temple and all of its retinue. We may recognize in such a presentation of the judgment and restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple that Ezekiel is informed by a Zion/ Davidic tradition quite like that of the tradition that informs the Book of Isaiah.17 Indeed, Ezekiel’s age of thirty in 592 B.C.E. means that he was born in 622 B.C.E., the year that King Josiah began his program of religious reform and national restoration following the discovery of a book of Torah in the Temple. As a young, prospective Zadokite priest, Ezekiel would have been raised and educated in the context of the Jerusalem Temple and Josiah’s ideology of reform and restoration.18 Insofar as Josiah’s program was based in part on early forms of the Book of Isaiah – among other biblical works, such as Deuteronomy, the so-called Deuteronomistic History, Amos, Hosea, and Zephaniah – it is essential to examine the role that the Zion/Davidic tradition plays in the Book of Ezekiel. Comparative examination of the Zion/Davidic tradition in Ezekiel and Isaiah demonstrates that both books share the same basic tradition, but each gives it a distinctive emphasis, viz., whereas Isaiah emphasizes the Davidic or royal elements of the tradition in portraying judgment and restoration for Jerusalem and Israel at large, Ezekiel emphasizes the Zion or Temple elements of the tradition to inform his understanding of Jerusalem’s suffering and its anticipated restoration.19 Altogether, Ezekiel’s vision engages in dialog with the perspectives of the developing Isaiah tradition and builds upon it to account for the realities of the Babylonian Exile and destruction of Jerusalem in the latesixth century B.C.E. Ezekiel nevertheless maintains the goals of the earlier Josianic reform, viz., a purified Jerusalem Temple in the midst of the restored Twelve Tribes of Israel at the center of a renewed creation. The balance of this paper will examine the various dimensions of this dialog in relation to the inaugural visions of the two prophets, oracles concerning divine judgment against Jerusalem and Israel, oracles concerning divine 17 For the role of the Davidic/Zion tradition in Isaiah, see von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:147–175. For discussion of the Davidic/Zion tradition in general, see esp. Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant, Davidic,” IDBSup, 188–192; idem, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. R. E. Friedman; HSS 26; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 75–115. 18 For discussion of King Josiah’s reform, see Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 19 For discussion of Isaiah, see esp. my Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996).

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

189

judgment against the nations, and oracles concerning the restoration of Jerusalem and Israel.20

II Walther Zimmerli is one of the key scholars to point to the traditiohistorical interrelationship between the inaugural visions of Ezekiel in Ezek 1:1–3:15 and Isaiah in Isa 6:1–13.21 Together with Micaiah ben Imlah’s vision in 1 Kings 22, the inaugural visions of Ezekiel and Isaiah constitute a type of prophetic call narrative that is characterized by a throne vision of YHWH surrounded by angelic beings that constitute the divine, royal court.22 The throne vision is distinguished from the other major type of prophetic commissioning narrative that emphasizes the message or word of YHWH. Examples of this second type include the commissioning accounts of Moses in Exodus 3–4 and 6–7; Gideon in Judges 6; Saul in 1 Samuel 9–10; and Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1. Although the throne vision also includes some dialog between the prophet and YHWH, the setting of the heavenly royal court and the placing of the divine message in the mouth of the prophet distinguishes the throne vision from the commissioning accounts focused on the word of YHWH. The throne visions anticipate the later visionary accounts of YHWH’s court in apocalyptic works such as Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 14 and the works of Merkavah mysticism such as Heikhalot Rabbati 29.23 The throne visions of both Ezekiel and Isaiah presuppose the visual imagery of the interior of the Jerusalem Temple during the course of liturgical worship. This should come as no surprise since it is well-established that sanctuaries generally serve as the locus of visionary or oracular experience throughout the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman worlds regardless of whether the visionary is a priest or not.24 20 For discussion of the debates between other prophets and the Isaiah tradition, see the essays published in my Form and Intertextuality, including “The Truth in True and False Prophecy” (pp. 78–93) on Jeremiah; “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve” (pp. 189–209); “Micah’s Debate with Isaiah” (pp. 210–221); and “Zechariah’s Debate with Isaiah” (pp. 222–235). 21 For Zimmerli’s discussion of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, see his Ezekiel, 1:81–141. 22 Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1:95–100. 23 For a critical edition of Heikhalot Rabbati 29, see Shlomo A. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kook, 1950), 1:113–114. 24 See Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature, 23–32; Frederick H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Frances Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras (JSJSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2004), esp. 256–264.

190

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

In the case of Ezekiel, the imagery focuses on the interior of the Temple, particularly the Ark of the Covenant, housed in the děbîr, the inner sanctum or Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple which is patterned after the throne room of the typical Syro-Israelite royal palace. Indeed, the Ark of the Covenant is conceived as the throne of YHWH as indicated by the Cherubim, which typically stand beside royal thrones in the ancient Near Eastern World, and the formulaic statements, “YHWH Sebaoth who is enthroned above the Cherubim,” in 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Chr 13:6. The four ḥayyôt, “living beings,” later identified as Cherubim in Ezek 10:20, represent the two Cherubim built atop the Ark of the Covenant (Exod 25:18–22; 37:7–9) and the other two Cherubim built into the děbîr or inner sanctum of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:23–28; 2 Chr 3:10–14). The huge cloud and flashing fire described in Ezek 1:4 represent the billowing smoke emitted from the ten incense burners and the burning lights of the ten měnōrôt, “lampstands,” placed within the hêkal, “great palace,” or middle room of the Temple. The wheels that play such a prominent role in Ezekiel’s vision represent the bronze wheels of the incense altars (1 Kgs 7:27–39). The flickering light of the měnōrôt (1 Kgs 7:49; cf. Exod 25:31– 40; 37:17–24), represented as the “eyes” of the wheels, is the reflection of the lights from the bronze wheels of the incense altars. Perhaps the gold or bronze surfaces of the Ark of the Covenant and its four rings inform this image as well. The rāqî‛a, “expanse,” which appears like “crystal” or “ice,” represents the expanse of the heavens (Gen 1:6–8), where YHWH’s throne is conceived to be set above the Cherubim and the kappōret, “cover” or “mercy seat” of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod 24:10). The imagery of Isaiah’s vision is likewise based on the imagery of the interior of the Temple during liturgical worship.25 Following the initial notice of the death of King Uzziah, Isaiah 6 begins with a first-person account by Isaiah of YHWH seated on a high and lofty throne based on the imagery and conceptualization of the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple děbîr, the inner sanctum or the Holy of Holies. The so-called “skirts of his (YHWH’s) robe,” or more properly “his edges” (šûlāyw) once again represent the billowing smoke of the incense burners that fill the hêkal, “great palace,” or the middle room of the Temple with an amorphous but observable presence. The Seraphim that stand in attendance on YHWH are likely understood to represent the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant and the děbîr, but their flaming form, as indicated by the Hebrew term śěrāpîm, “flaming/burning ones,” indicates that they are conceived at least in part in relation to the Temple měnōrôt or lampstands, each with their seven flaming lights that would suggest the movement of heavenly beings when 25 For discussion of the formal characteristics and liturgical setting of Isaiah 6 in the fast of Yom Kippur, see my Isaiah 1–39, 132–142.

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

191

viewed through the billowing smoke of the incense burners. The shaking doorposts would naturally represent the movement of the great doors of the Temple when they are opened at the outset of the worship service as the Temple continued to fill with smoke. The purification of Isaiah’s lips by one of the Seraphim represents the mouth purification ritual employed by Mesopotamian bāru priests or oracle diviners prior to the delivery of a divine oracle. Although the imagery of each vision appears to be based on the same imagery of the Jerusalem Temple in operation during the performance of liturgical worship, the individual conceptualization of each prophet’s self-understanding as represented in their respective commissioning accounts reflects their respective institutional identities. Ezekiel is presented throughout his book as a Zadokite priest in exile, and his role and message as a prophet reflects his Zadokite identity. 26 His visionary experience recalls the ritual of Yom Kippur as described in Leviticus 16 when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple where YHWH appears above the kappōret of the Ark of the Covenant so that the High Priest may ask forgiveness for the sins of the people (Lev 16:2–5). Although it is unlikely that Ezekiel ever served as High Priest, his vision suggests that he was educated to do so, and that he would understand himself to be the intermediary between YHWH and the people in accordance with the typical priestly role. Insofar as the basic task of the priests is to educate the people in YHWH’s Torah, viz., the differences between what is holy and profane and what is pure and impure (Lev 10:10–11), it is striking that YHWH’s commission of Ezekiel as a prophet is represented by YHWH giving Ezekiel a book of Torah to eat, internalize, and then to convey to the people. In essence, Ezekiel’s task is to serve as a priest in exile who continues to teach divine Torah even in the midst of an impure land far from the Jerusalem Temple. Isaiah on the other hand is presented throughout the Book of Isaiah as a royal advisor to Kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. Because he is a royal counselor and not a priest, Isaiah’s viewpoint would be defined from a position outside the interior of the Temple structure, most likely by one of the pillars placed at the entrance of the ’ûlām, “portico” or “porch” of the Temple, where the King would normally stand during Temple worship (2 Kgs 11:14; 23:3; 2 Chr 23:13). Overall, the portrayal of YHWH’s heavenly court and Isaiah’s role as a messenger or oracle diviner on YHWH’s behalf presupposes the conceptualization of YHWH as king and Isaiah as YHWH’s royal messenger or emissary. YHWH’s decree that Isaiah’s task is to ensure the deafness, blindness, and general lack of understanding on the part of the people represents a royal command or task that Isaiah is commissioned to carry out as YHWH’s designated emissary. Although interpreters ha26

See esp. my “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest.”

192

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

bitually note that Isaiah must have failed to carry out his task by attempting to change the people’s behavior or that Isaiah 6 must be a later addition to the text,27 the narratives concerning Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, Hezekiah’s illness, and the embassy of Merodach Baladan in Isaiah 36–39 portray Isaiah in just such a role as divine or royal emissary who conveys YHWH’s decrees and announcements to their intended recipients. Despite the differences in their respective self-conceptualizations, both Ezekiel and Isaiah are preoccupied with the same fundamental issue, viz., how to interpret the impending or realized threats against Jerusalem and Israel/Judah as an act of YHWH, and how to conceive deliverance or restoration as divine action in the aftermath of such threat.

III Ezekiel’s understanding of the basis for divine judgment against Jerusalem and Israel is clear throughout the book. He constantly charges Jerusalem and Israel with infidelity to YHWH, expressed as idolatry or the pursuit of foreign gods and as the failure or refusal to observe YHWH’s expectations as defined by the statutes and laws of divine Torah. Ezekiel’s discussion in Ezekiel 18 of the guilt or innocence of representatives from each generation makes his priestly perspective on this matter clear, insofar as the chapter defines moral standing in relation to practices including idolatry and the consumption of sacrifices made to foreign gods without the proper disposition of blood, marital impurity either with another man’s wife or with a menstruating woman, economic injustice such as illegally taking a debtor’s pledge or robbery, social injustice such as refusing to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked, financial wrongdoing such as taking interest on a loan, etc. All of these issues appear in the priestly legislation of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 17–26 and some also appear in the other law codes found throughout the Pentateuch. Similar priestly views of Jerusalem’s or Israel’s conduct appear throughout the Book of Ezekiel. Insofar as the proper observance of YHWH’s expectations sanctifies YHWH, the people, the land of Israel, and all creation in priestly thought, the failure to observe YHWH’s expectations entails the failure to sanctify YHWH, which thereby profanes or pollutes the people, the land of Israel, and creation at large. The remedy for such transgression in priestly thought is the purging of the impurity and those responsible for it from the midst of the people. Priestly thought holds that repentance may be undertaken by the guilty party or parties to return to YHWH, to restore what has been lost, 27 E.g., Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (trans. J. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 118–121.

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

193

and to purify what has been profaned. Rituals of repentance, purification, and sacrifice symbolize the appeal to YHWH for forgiveness and restoration of the relationship. The priesthood is responsible for carrying out the ritual on behalf of those who would repent. Ezekiel’s perspective on the basis for Jerusalem’s punishment is especially clear in the account of the destruction of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8–11.28 These chapters portray Ezekiel’s supernatural journey from Babylonia to Jerusalem and his guidance by an angelic guide who shows him the impurity of Jerusalem. The angelic guide points out the image that provokes jealousy in the north side of the Temple court, and other abominations, such as the fetishes of the house of Israel within the Temple itself, the statements of the worshippers inside that YHWH had abandoned the land, the women weeping for the Babylonian god Tammuz, and the twenty-five men bowing down to the sun. Although many presuppose that sin was rampant in Jerusalem during the latter-seventh and early-sixth centuries B.C.E., we must bear in mind that Ezekiel’s vision represents an assessment of the Temple’s sanctity following the removal of the key Zadokite priests by the Babylonians in 597 B.C.E. An important key to Ezekiel’s perspective is the presence of Jaazniah ben Shaphan among the elders of Israel in the Temple. Far from engaging in sin, the ben Shaphan family was known for its role in supplying government officials for the royal House of David, including Shaphan himself who oversaw the renovation of the Temple under King Josiah, and for its support of the prophet and priest Jeremiah.29 Although Jaazniah ben Shaphan comes from a family known in Kings and Jeremiah for its righteousness, he and the elders are not Zadokite priests qualified to oversee the sanctity of the Temple, and their presence in the Temple highlights the lack of proper Zadokite supervision. Such a scenario would then entail the pollution of the Temple in Ezekiel’s perspective. The image that provokes jealousy is likely a Babylonian victory stele with images or names of Babylonian gods inscribed on it. The fetishes are likely the usual interior decorations of the Temple, such as the cherubs, palm trees, animals, etc., but the absence of proper Zadokite supervision renders them as fetishes in Ezekiel’s understanding. The statements that YHWH had abandoned the land are indeed realized by the end of the vision. The women weeping for Tammuz were likely engaged in a Judean mourning ritual characteristic of the late summer. The men worshipping the sun were likely performing the typical morning worship service of the Temple. 28 For detailed treatment of Ezekiel 8–11, see my essay, “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezekiel 8–11,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 144–155. 29 For discussion of the ben Shaphan family in ancient Judean politics and religion, see Jay Wilcoxen, “The Political Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 151–166.

194

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

Ezekiel’s depiction of the destruction of the Temple likewise presupposes a priestly perspective concerning the remedy for such pollution, viz., the purging of the city from its impurity and those responsible for it. YHWH appears in the divine throne chariot seen earlier in the inaugural vision ready to depart the city and turn it over to destruction. YHWH calls upon an angelic figure dressed in white linen with a writing case at his side, the typical garb of a Temple priest, who then supervises six armed men who carry out the destruction or purging of the city. The men who moan and groan over the abominations of Jerusalem are marked to be spared and the rest of the city’s people, including the old men, the women, the adolescent boys and girls, and the little children are then killed by the six armed men. The surviving men are then exiled to Babylonia to provide the basis for future restoration. Interpreters have struggled with the interpretation of this act, but it appears to be based on an analogy with the scapegoat ritual performed by the High Priest at Yom Kippur, the annual Day of Atonement, to ask forgiveness for the sins of the people. One goat is sacrificed as a ḥaṭṭā’t or sin offering to symbolize atonement for the sins of the people and the other goat is expelled to the wilderness to symbolically carry away the sins of the people. Those killed in the city represent the ḥaṭṭā’t offering of Yom Kippur and those exiled represent the goat expelled to the wilderness. Whereas the goats employed in the scapegoat ritual are themselves free from any impurity, their respective sacrifice and release into the wilderness vicariously symbolize the atonement and purging of the people as a whole – who are themselves considered as guilty and impure in Ezekiel’s vision.30 In this manner, Ezekiel envisions the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of its surviving inhabitants as an act of YHWH to purge the city of its sins and impurity. Ezekiel’s understanding of divine punishment is hardly limited to Jerusalem, and throughout the rest of the book his understanding of punishment includes both Israel and Judah. His symbolic actions in Ezek 4:1–8 include lying on his left side before a model of besieged Jerusalem for three hundred and ninety days to symbolize the years of the guilt of Israel and then lying on his right side for forty days to symbolize the years of the guilt of Judah. In Ezekiel 6–7, Ezekiel is commanded by YHWH to speak YHWH’s word of judgment against the hills of Israel due to the abominations and idolatry committed in the land. In Ezekiel 23, Ezekiel metaphorically portrays Jerusalem as Oholibah, whose harlotries and abominations are worse than those of her sister Oholah, who metaphorically represents Samaria. 30 For discussion of the function and significance of the ḥaṭṭā’t offering, see Jacob Milgrom, “Sacrifices and Offerings, OT,” IDBSup, 763–771, esp. 766–768; idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; Garden City: Doubleday, 1991), 226–318, 1009–1084.

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

195

In their attempts to explain Ezekiel’s concern with both Israel and Judah – or Samaria and Jerusalem – interpreters generally speculate that Ezekiel presupposes an ideal view of the entire people of Israel that would include all of the Twelve Tribes that constituted the ideal construction of Israel in pentateuchal tradition and in the time of the Judges and the United Monarchy. Such speculation is undoubtedly true – so far as it goes – but there are some other dimensions of this issue that point especially to the influences of an early Isaiah tradition and the ideals of King Josiah’s reform on the conceptualization of Israel and Judah in the Book of Ezekiel. First is the nature of the crimes with which Ezekiel charges Oholibah/ Jerusalem and Oholah/Samaria in Ezekiel 23. Although Ezekiel employs the typical metaphors of harlotry and idolatry to portray the sisters’ abandonment of YHWH, the issue very quickly turns to the sisters’ dalliances or alliances with other nations (cf. Hosea 1–3; Jeremiah 2). Oholah/Samaria lusts after the Assyrians and the Egyptians, which presupposes northern Israel’s alliances with Assyria and Egypt during the reign of the Jehu dynasty in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.E. Indeed, it was the breaking of the alliance with Assyria between 746 and 721 B.C.E. to ally instead with Aram that played such an important role in the Assyrian invasions and destruction of Israel during this period. Likewise, Ezekiel charges Oholibah/Jerusalem with lusting after Assyria, Chaldea/Babylonia, and Egypt, which reflects Judah’s submission to Assyria by King Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimitic Wars of 735–732 B.C.E. and again by King Manasseh during the first half of the seventh century, the alliances of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah with Babylon to challenge the Assyrians, King Jehoiakim’s alliance with Egypt following Josiah’s death at Megiddo, and Judah’s attempt to revolt against the Babylonians following Babylon’s defeat of Egypt and subjugation of Judah in 605 B.C.E. As was the case with northern Israel, such entanglements would ultimately lead to Judah’s destruction in Ezekiel’s perspective. Most fundamentally, however, such entanglements demonstrate the failure of Israel and Judah to rely on YHWH for protection from enemies. Reliance on YHWH for security is one of the fundamental tenants of Zion/ Davidic theology as understood by both Ezekiel and Isaiah. Indeed, Isaiah’s dissatisfaction with King Ahaz in Isa 7:1–9:6 resulted from Ahaz’s turn to Assyria rather than to YHWH for protection during the Syro-Ephraimitic War, and Isaiah’s dissatisfaction with Hezekiah in Isaiah 28–31 and 39 resulted from Hezekiah’s attempts to court Egypt and Babylon – and not YHWH – for support against the Assyrians. It was only after Hezekiah gave up his fight against the Assyrians and turned to YHWH once again that YHWH delivered Hezekiah according to Isaiah 36–37. Isaiah’s perspective also informed Josiah’s attempts to free Jerusalem and Judah from foreign control in the seventh century B.C.E. Just as the Zion/Davidic tradi-

196

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

tion which posited an eternal relationship between YHWH and David/Zion underlies Isaiah’s viewpoint, so Ezekiel shared the same perspective, but with the emphasis on Zion and the Temple rather than on David the king. Ezekiel’s viewpoint appears to update the perspectives of Isaiah to account for the political history of Judah’s alliances with foreign nations during the seventh and early-sixth centuries B.C.E. Such alliances constitute a betrayal of YHWH and lead directly to the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah in the eyes of Ezekiel just as they led to the destruction of northern Israel. But there is more. Ezekiel’s perspectives on the sins of both Israel and Judah also appear to be rooted in the ideology of King Josiah’s reform. Josiah’s reform envisioned the purification of the Temple and the reunification of all the tribes of Israel under Davidic rule in the context of the decline and collapse of the Assyrian empire. As Isaiah and other literature read and written in support of Josiah’s reform indicate (e.g., early editions of the Deuteronomistic History and prophetic works such as Hosea, Amos, and Zephaniah), northern Israel was judged to have sinned against YHWH and suffered as a result. In the aftermath of Israel’s punishment and Assyria’s defeat, the way was open for northern Israel to be restored and reunited once again with Judah around the Jerusalem Temple under the rule of the Davidic monarchy. But Josiah’s reform failed miserably with Josiah’s death at Megiddo in 609 B.C.E., and subsequent years saw the decline of Judah into destruction by the Babylonians much as northern Israel had suffered destruction by the Assyrians. Ezekiel’s portrayal of judgment for Jerusalem and Judah presupposes the model for judgment against northern Israel in the Josianic period and extends the model to account for Judah’s impending punishment in the aftermath of the failure of Josiah’s reform. Indeed, Ezekiel’s symbolic actions in Ezekiel 4 concerning the respective periods of Israel’s and Judah’s guilt posit a chronology of Israel’s history that reflects such a perspective. The year 622 B.C.E., the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign when his Temple renovation commenced (and when Ezekiel was apparently born), was supposed to mark the onset of Israel’s and Judah’s reunification. Israel’s three hundred and ninety year period of guilt would then point to 1012 B.C.E., the time posited for the origins of the united monarchy first under Saul and then under David. Apparently, the Book of Ezekiel portrays this entire period as a time of Israel’s guilt that must be corrected with measures instituted by Josiah. But with the death of Josiah and the failure of his reform, 622 B.C.E. also marks the beginning of the end for Judah. From the standpoint of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision in 592 B.C.E., his thirtieth year, the judgment of Jerusalem and Judah was still five years away. In this respect, Ezekiel emerges as an heir to Isaiah in announcing judgment against Jerusalem/Judah and Israel and in positing restoration once the judgment was completed.

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

197

IV Ezekiel’s oracles concerning the nations in Ezekiel 25–32 likewise reflect the perspectives of Isaiah and extend them to account for Judah’s and Israel’s experience in the aftermath of Josiah’s reform. Indeed, the judgment leveled against northern Israel and Jerusalem/Judah in both Ezekiel and Isaiah do not take place in a vacuum. Zion/Davidic theology posits that YHWH is the creator of the world of nature and sovereign of the world of nations as well as the guarantor of Jerusalem’s and Israel’s position as the holy center of creation and David’s position as the divinelychosen monarch among the nations of the world. YHWH had sworn to a běrît ‛ôlām, an “eternal covenant,” to see to the security of creation (Gen 9:8–17; Exod 31:12–17), the ancestors of the people of Israel and their descendants (Gen 17:3–14; Psalm 105), the royal House of David (2 Sam 23:1–7; Psalm 89; cf. 2 Sam 7:8–16; 1 Chr 17:7–14; Psalms 2; 110) and Zion (Psalm 132; cf. 1 Kings 8; 2 Chronicles 6), and the priesthood through the line of Phineas ben Eleazar ben Aharon that would serve in the Jerusalem Temple (Numbers 25). Both Ezekiel and Isaiah posit that YHWH’s punishment of Israel and Jerusalem/Judah takes place within the context of the natural world of creation and that it coincides with YHWH’s punishment of the nations as well. Natural imagery permeates both books. Animals run wild, plants and trees become uncontrollable, and the land itself becomes polluted in the Book of Ezekiel during the course of Jerusalem’s and Israel’s punishment.31 Likewise in Isaiah, wild animals run through YHWH’s vineyard, the land produces thorns and briars, the metaphors of cut, beaten, and growing trees portray the status of Israel, Judah, and even Assyria in Isaiah’s depictions of punishment. Indeed, the purported wrongdoing of Israel and Judah in both books affects the whole of creation in Ezekiel and Isaiah in keeping with the postulates of Zion/Davidic theology that YHWH is the sovereign creator of nature and the nations as well as the guarantor of Zion and the House of David. The portrayal of the nations is also a key point in both Ezekiel and Isaiah insofar as both include large blocks of oracles concerning the nations in Ezekiel 25–32 and Isaiah 13–23 respectively as well as numerous other references to the roles, experiences, and fates of the nations in relation to Jerusalem/Judah and Israel. Ezekiel 25–32 includes a sequence of oracles concerning Ammon (25:1–7); Moab (25:8–11); Moab (25:12–14); Philistia (25:15–17); Tyre (and Sidon, chs. 26–28); and Egypt (chs. 29–32). The absence of Babylon 31 See Julie Galambush, “G-d’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” in S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton, eds., Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 91–108.

198

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

and the exilic setting of the book suggest that Babylon will be employed as YHWH’s agent of punishment throughout the Book of Ezekiel, although we must recognize that Ezekiel’s scenario constitutes an ideal vision of punishment insofar as Egypt never fell to the Babylonians and Tyre succumbed to Babylon but was never destroyed in quite the manner portrayed in Ezekiel 26–28. Although an oracle concerning Babylon is lacking in the oracles concerning the nations, the portrayal of the defeat of the army of Gog from Magog in Ezekiel 38–39 immediately following the oracles concerning the restoration of the dry bones and the reunification of Joseph and Judah under the Davidic monarch in Ezekiel 37 and immediately prior to the vision of the restored Temple, Israel, and creation in Ezekiel 40–48 likely indicates that Gog from Magog represents the impending downfall of Babylon. Such divine judgment of Babylon like that meted out to the nations in Ezekiel is in accordance with Ezekiel’s view of the Zion/Davidic tradition and its portrayal of YHWH as sovereign of creation and the nations. Isaiah 13–23 likewise includes a sequence of oracles concerning the nations including Babylon (13:1–14:23); Assyria (14:24–27); Philistia (14:28–32); Moab (chs. 15–16); Aram and Israel (the Syro-Ephraimitic coalition; ch. 17); Egypt (chs. 18–20); the Desert of the Sea (Babylon, 21:1– 10); Edom (21:11–12); Arabia (21:13–17); the Valley of Vision (Jerusalem, ch. 22); and Tyre (ch. 23).32 Because the present form of the book stems from the early Persian period, interpreters have noted that the initial oracle concerning Babylon in Isaiah 13 is likely the result of exilic-period redaction and that the oracle concerning the Babylonian king in Isa 14:1– 23 originally referred to the death of the Assyrian monarch Sargon II. Otherwise, Isaiah’s oracles concerning the nations appear to be the product of the prophet himself or the so-called Josianic or Assyrian redaction of Isaiah that posited the downfall of Assyria and the restoration of Israel and Judah under a new Davidic monarch in the aftermath of Assyria’s downfall. Whether from Isaiah himself or read in the Josianic period, Isaiah’s oracles concerning the nations posit that the punishment of Israel and Judah will take place in the context of divine judgment of the nations, in which Assyria will function as YHWH’s instrument of punishment before itself falling to YHWH’s power and justice in both the Isaian and Josian editions of the book. In both instances, Isaiah’s oracles concerning the nations likewise reflect the Davidic/Zion tradition of YHWH’s sovereignty over the nations of the world as well as YHWH’s promise of a běrît ‛ôlām to Jerusalem/Israel and the House of David.

32 For treatment of the oracles concerning the nations in Isaiah 1–39, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 212–311, esp. 212–217.

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

199

Although Ezekiel’s oracles concerning the nations share much the same presupposition as Isaiah’s oracles, the sequence of Ezekiel’s oracles is adapted to the perspectives of his time. Assyria, Aram, and Arabia are all irrelevant in Ezekiel’s time as these nations had been absorbed into the Babylonian empire. Otherwise, the nations of Isaiah’s sequence, Philistia, Moab, Israel, Egypt, Edom, Jerusalem, and Tyre, are all included in Ezekiel in one form or another. In this respect, Ezekiel updates the earlier Josian and Isaian oracle blocks according to the needs and perspectives of the sixth century B.C.E.

V Ezekiel’s portrayal of the restoration of the Temple, the Davidic monarch, and the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the center of a renewed creation builds upon the ideals of the Josianic program of religious reform and national restoration, particularly as they are expressed in the Isaian tradition, in order to epitomize the ideology of the Zion/David tradition in the early exilic period. Ezekiel’s concern with the restoration of Jerusalem/Judah and Israel is already apparent in the first segments of the book. His portrayal of the destruction of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8–11 culminates in his view in Ezek 11:14–21 that those exiled will ultimately be gathered by YHWH to form the basis of the post-exilic restoration. Likewise, the various oracles concerning adulterous Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16, the allegory of the cedar in Ezekiel 17, his disputation concerning moral, holy conduct in Ezekiel 18, his assessment of Israel’s behavior in the wilderness in Ezekiel 20, and his oracles concerning Tyre and Sidon in Ezekiel 26–28 all culminate in promises of restoration for Israel. Although many of Ezekiel’s oracles concerning judgment appear with the prophetic proof saying or recognition formula, “and they shall know that I am YHWH,” YHWH’s promises of restoration once the punishment is over also constitute revelatory acts of YHWH in the Book of Ezekiel.33 Key elements of Ezekiel’s visions of restoration appear in the latter portions of the book, particularly the prophet’s disputations concerning YHWH’s role in bringing about punishment and restoration in Ezek 33:21– 39:29 and his vision of the restored Temple, Israel, and creation in Ezekiel 40–48. Insofar as these blocks of material envision a reunification of 33 See Zimmerli, “Knowledge of G-d according to the Book of Ezekiel.” On the divine proof saying, see idem, “The Word of Divine Self-Manifestation (Proof Saying): A Prophetic Genre,” in idem, I am Y-hweh, 99–110; idem, Ezekiel, 1:36–40; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 353–354.

200

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

northern Israel and southern Judah centered at the Jerusalem Temple and the Davidic monarch, they appear to preserve the legacy of the ideals of King Josiah’s failed restoration in the aftermath of the exilic period. Ezekiel 33:21–39:29 plays an especially important role in Ezekiel’s portrayal of restoration in portraying the prophet’s view of future restoration.34 The block is constituted as a disputation concerning YHWH’s role as author of creation in bringing about the re-sanctification of the land through punishment and restoration. The block begins in Ezek 33:21–22 with a notice of the fall of Jerusalem in the twelfth year of exile, i.e., 585 B.C.E., and the end of Ezekiel’s dumbness. His various oracles then follow. Ezekiel 33:23–33 reiterates YHWH’s role in bringing punishment to the land for its impurity as argued earlier in the book. Ezekiel 34 envisions the punishment of Israel’s leaders and the restoration of the House of David. Ezekiel 35:1–36:15 envisions the punishment of Edom and the restoration of Israel. Ezekiel 36:16–37:14 envisions re-sanctification of the land for the sake of the divine name by portraying the restoration of the dry bones to life. Such a vision is especially important because it purges the land from the impurity of death and makes the restoration of the holy Temple possible.35 Ezekiel 37:15–28 envisions the restoration and reunification of Joseph and Judah, i.e., the former northern kingdom of Israel, together with Judah. The emphasis on a single nation ruled once again by a Davidic monarch and gathered around the restored Jerusalem Temple recalls the ideals of the Josian reform from Ezekiel’s early years. The famous Gog from Magog oracles in Ezekiel 38–39, often separated from their context in the book as late proto-apocalyptic additions, emphasize the purging of the land by burning the bodies of the dead soldiers of Gog or allowing them to be consumed by scavenger birds once again purifies the land for the restoration of the holy Temple. The culmination of the Book of Ezekiel then appears in Ezekiel 40–48 with the vision of the restored Jerusalem Temple, the restored Twelve Tribes of Israel together with their Davidic monarch around the Temple, and the restored creation in which even the Dead Sea emerges as a fertile region filled with fish and overgrown with plant life. Although many scholars argue that Ezekiel 40–48 is a late addition to the book, Levenson rightly observes that it forms the quintessential goal of the book and “the crown and consummation” of Ezekiel’s life work.36 34

For discussion of Ezek 33:21–39:29, see my essay, “The Assertion of Divine Power.” The resurrection of the dead bones in Ezek 37:1–14 likewise symbolizes national restoration (see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the G-d of Life [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006], esp. 156–165). 36 Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 10. 35

11. Ezekiel’s Debate with Isaiah

201

Again, such a vision gives expression to the ideals of Josiah’s reform, but it also expresses the ideals articulated in the Book of Isaiah, albeit from a somewhat different perspective. The Isaian tradition emphasizes both the restoration of righteous Davidic kingship and the reunified tribes of Israel. Isaiah 8:23–9:6, for example, emphasizes that the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, the Way of the Sea or Jezreel Valley, the region east of the Jordan, and the Galilee, all regions of northern Israel lost to the Assyrians in the eighth century B .C.E., will be restored to the righteous House of David when the rod of their taskmaster is broken as on the day of Midian. Isaiah 11:1–16 envisions the growth of a shoot from the stump of Jesse who will metaphorically grow into the new righteous Davidic monarch to oversee the reunification of northern Israel and southern Judah and the redemption of YHWH’s people from Assyria, Pathros, Nubia, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the coastlands, all areas to which Israelites had been exiled by the Assyrians. The return and reunification of the exiles would signal the resumption of Israel’s mastery of Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Ammon as well as the punishment of Assyria and Egypt. Finally, Isaiah 32 looks forward to the reign of the righteous king who overseas the transformation of the wilderness to farm land, the emergence of justice and righteousness, and the dwelling of the people in peace. But whereas Isaiah envisions such peace and tranquility as the product of the restored and reunified nation under the rule of the righteous Davidic monarch, Ezekiel envisions such a scenario as the product of the restored Temple around which the people are reunited and creation is restored. In Ezekiel’s scenario, the Davidic monarch also worships YHWH at the restored Temple. Indeed, the central role of the Temple in such an ideal scenario is reiterated in the final statement of the book in Ezek 40:35, “YHWH is there,” viz., the final act of YHWH’s revelation in Ezekiel is the restoration of YHWH’s holy presence to the Temple with all of its entourage. Ezekiel builds upon Isaiah’s royalist perspective by emphasizing the priestly dimension of divine holiness as the basis for Israel’s future. In doing so, the Book of Ezekiel recalls the basis for Josiah’s reform, i.e., the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple and the center of a reunified Israel rule by an ideal Davidic king.

VI In conclusion, we may observe that von Rad was quite correct in observing the intellectual breadth and theological perspective of the Book of Ezekiel, but that he also fell far short in viewing Ezekiel’s priestly identity as a constraint to that intellectual breadth rather than as its foundation. The Book of Ezekiel portrays him as a Zadokite priest who found himself in

202

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

Babylonia at the edges of creation in an unclean land. Despite this very unfamiliar and unexpected turn in his life, Ezekiel drew upon his priestly identity to emerge as a visionary prophet of the Babylonian Exile. As such, he pursued his task as a priest to teach the people the difference between the holy and the profane and between the clean and the unclean so they might prepare themselves for the restoration of the Temple, the reunification of the people, the reestablishment of the House of David, and even the rejuvenation of creation itself in keeping with the priestly view of Israel as a holy people dedicated to YHWH. Given his birth in 622 B.C.E. at the outset of Josiah’s reforms, Ezekiel articulates his vision of Jerusalem’s and Israel’s purging and their restoration in accordance with the ideals of King Josiah’s reforms and the Isaian tradition which played such an important role in justifying and defining Josiah’s program. In the end, the Book of Ezekiel stays true to the principles of Josiah’s reform while accounting for the very real challenges posed by the king’s early death and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem to Babylonia and the exile of its people. The Isaian tradition forms an important basis for Ezekiel’s viewpoint, but the Book of Ezekiel makes sure to posit that the restored Temple – rather than simply the restored Davidic monarchy – forms the foundation for the ultimate realization of Josiah’s reform when Jews would return to Jerusalem following the end of the Babylonian Exile to restore the covenant between YHWH and Israel.

1

2

3

4

5

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28) I Scholars generally recognize the importance of Ezekiel’s oracles concerning the downfall of Tyre in Ezek 26:1–28:19 among the oracles concerning the nations in Ezekiel 25–32. Like the oracles concerning Egypt in Ezekiel 29– 32, the oracles concerning Tyre constitute an inordinately large block of material when compared to the smaller oracles concerning Ammon in Ezek 25:1–7; Moab in Ezek 25:8–11; Edom in Ezek 25:12–14; Philistia in Ezek 25:15–17; Sidon in Ezek 28:20–23; and even Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:24– 26. The importance of Ezekiel’s Tyrian oracles is generally assessed in relation to Nebuchadnezzar’s alleged thirteen-year siege of the city, which ultimately saw the capitulation – but not the destruction – of the city in 572 B.C.E.1 Interpreters have generally focused on diachronic issues in the interpretation of the Tyrian oracles, viz., the degree to which Ezekiel’s oracles interrelate with the historical event of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of the city and the compositional history of the oracles.2 In the first instance, uncertainties concerning the course and outcome of the siege complicate 1

For commentaries on the Tyrian oracles, see Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990), 70–100; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (2 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997–1998), 2:28–128; Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” NIB 6:1073–1607 (1358–1400); Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 528–599; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 186–203; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2005), 333–370; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) (2 vols.; ATD 22.1–2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2001), 2:374–398; Walther Zimmerli, Zimmerli, Ezekiel (trans. R. E. Clements and J. D. Martin; 2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–1983), 2:21–101. 2 In addition to the commentaries cited above, see Martin Alonso Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations (BibOr 46; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2002); H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Ez. 26,1–28,19): A New Approach (BibOr 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968). For discussion of historical issues pertaining to Tyre, see esp. H. Jacob Katzenstein, The History of Tyre: From the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. (Jerusalem: Schocken Institute, 1973), 295–347, esp. 316–337.

204

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

efforts at interpreting Ezek 26:1–28:19. In the second instance, the formal characteristics and contents of the oracles in Ezek 26:1–28:19 indicate that this material is a redactional assemblage of earlier materials. Although interpreters are generally correct in their diachronic assessments of Ezekiel’s Tyrian oracles in Ezek 26:1–28:19, two issues require further study and clarification. The first issue is the role of Ezekiel’s mythological allusions in these oracles. Scholars have noted allusions to a variety of mythological motifs known from Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Israel/Judah, including the combat motifs of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic Baal Cycle; the descent to the netherworld from Inanna’s or Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld; the creation narratives from Genesis 1–3; and the narratives concerning the construction of the priestly garments in Exodus 28 and 39. Although these motifs have been noted, interpreters have not fully explained their function within Ezekiel’s oracles other than to indicate Ezekiel’s literary or intellectual breadth in his portrayals of YHWH’s actions in relation to Tyre and the world at large. Insofar as Ezekiel’s worldview is based upon a mythological paradigm due in large measure to his identity as a Zadokite priest,3 the issue demands further study, particularly given the predominance of the YHWH recognition formula in this material and its importance for identifying acts of divine revelation.4 The second issue is the literary relationship between the larger block of material concerning Tyre in Ezek 26:1–28:19 and the smaller oracles concerning Sidon in Ezek 28:20–23 and the restoration of Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:24–26. Although these oracles were composed for different occasions and literary settings from those of the Tyrian oracles, study of the formal characteristics of the Tyrian, Sidonian, and Israelite oracles demonstrates that the oracles concerning Sidon and Israel/Jacob now clearly form the culmination of the block of materials concerning Tyre in Ezekiel 26–28.5 Further study of the literary form of Ezekiel 26–28 and the function of the mythological allusions within this block of materials concerning Tyre, 3 For discussion of Ezekiel’s identity as a Zadokite priest and its influence on his world view, see my study, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 125–143; idem, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 132–136. 4 For discussion of the YHWH recognition formula, see Walther Zimmerli, “Knowledge of G-d according to the Book of Ezekiel,” in idem, I am Y-hweh (ed. W. Brueggemann; trans. D. W. Stott; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 29–98; see also idem, “The Word of Divine Self-Manifestation (Proof Saying): A Prophetic Genre,” in ibid., 99–110. 5 For discussion of the literary form of the Book of Ezekiel and its bearing on Ezekiel 26–28, see my “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest,” 129–142; idem, The Prophetic Literature, 127–132.

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

205

Sidon, and Israel indicates an important dimension of Ezekiel’s theological world view, viz., Ezekiel’s portrayal of the downfall of Tyre portends the restoration of Israel/Jacob in the Book of Ezekiel and thereby points to the restoration of the Temple and Israel at the center of creation in the final form of the Book of Ezekiel. In order to demonstrate this hypothesis, this paper examines several issues, including the literary form and structure of Ezekiel 26–28 as a whole; the function of mythological motifs known from Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, and Israelite/Judean literature within the constituent sub-units of Ezekiel 26–28; and the place of Ezekiel 26–28 within the whole of the Book of Ezekiel.

II Study of the literary form of Ezekiel 26–28 begins with the observation that an introductory chronological formula appears in Ezek 26:1, “and it came to pass in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, that the word of YHWH came to me, saying …”6 Prior studies of the literary form and structure of the Book of Ezekiel indicate that the chronological formulae of Ezekiel introduce the major structural units of the book. Insofar as the next chronological formula does not appear until Ezek 29:1, where it introduces the first oracle concerning Egypt in Ezek 29:1–16, the chronological formula in Ezek 26:1 introduces a major unit of the book in Ezek 26:1–28:26. Such an observation indicates that the oracles concerning Sidon and Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:20–26 must be considered structurally together with the Tyrian oracles in Ezekiel 26–28. The introductory chronological formula in Ezek 26:1 plays an important role in defining the internal structure of Ezekiel 26–28 as well. The chronological introduction is based on an expanded version of the prophetic word transmission formula as indicated by the appearance of the expression, hāyâ děbar-yhwh ’ēlay l’ēmōr, “the word of YHWH came to me, saying …” within Ezek 26:1.7 This expression introduces the oracular report concerning Tyre in Ezek 26:2–21, and it anticipates the following four examples of the prophetic word formula, wayěhî děbar-yhwh ’ēlay l’ēmōr, “and the word of YHWH came to me, saying …,” in Ezek 27:1; 28:1; 28:11; and 28:20. Each of these examples of the prophetic word formula introduces 6

For methodological discussion, see my “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; revised and expanded edition; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–85. 7 For discussion of the YHWH word transmission formula, see Samuel M. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 314–319.

206

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

four successive oracular reports concerning Tyre in Ezek 27:1–36; the prince of Tyre in Ezek 28:1–10; the king of Tyre in Ezek 28:11–19; and Sidon and Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:20–26. Within the purview of Ezekiel 26–28, the punishment of Tyre and the restoration of Israel/Jacob are viewed as consequences or results of YHWH’s treatment of Tyre and her prince/king in the four oracular reports of Ezek 26:1–28:19. Examination of the literary form and structure of each constituent oracular report points to its distinctive concerns and its place within the whole. The first oracular report concerning Tyre Ezek 26:1–21 begins with an autobiographical introduction in Ezek 26:1, which includes both the above-mentioned chronological formula and the prophetic word formula. YHWH’s oracular instruction to Ezekiel then follows in Ezek 26:2–21. A statement of the premise of YHWH’s oracular instruction in Ezek 26:2, which conveys Tyre’s celebratory exclamation at Jerusalem’s downfall, “Aha! The gateway of the peoples is broken; it is now mine; I shall be filled because it is ruined,” then introduces YHWH’s oracular statements concerning Tyre’s punishment in Ezek 26:3–21. It is not clear why Tyre should celebrate the ruin of its key ally in the revolt against Babylonia as most commentators maintain; perhaps the oracle conveys Tyre’s relief at having escaped destruction and its view that the revolt would end now that Jerusalem had fallen. The following oracles in Ezek 26:3–21 make it clear, however, that YHWH will nevertheless bring devastating punishment against Tyre in the form of the Babylonian army. The consequences for Tyre are then laid out in two sets of oracular pairs, each of which is identified by variations of the introductory prophetic messenger formula in Ezek 26:3–14 and 26:16– 21.8 The first pair takes up YHWH’s announcement of punishment against Tyre. The first oracle of the pair in Ezek 26:3–6 begins with the formula, lākēn kōh ’āmar ’ǎdōnāy yhwh, “therefore, thus says my lord, YHWH,” and announces that YHWH will bring the nations against Tyre to level it to bare rock. The second oracle of the pair in Ezek 26:7–14 begins with the syntactically-joined formula, kî kōh ’āmar ’ǎdōnāy yhwh, “for thus says my lord, YHWH,” and announces that YHWH will bring Nebuchadnezzar against Tyre to destroy the city. The concluding oracular formula in Ezek 26:14bβ, ně’um ’ǎdōnāy yhwh, “utterance of my lord, YHWH,” closes the presentation of the first oracular pair. Each oracle of this first pair includes elements that tie it into the structure and concerns of the Tyrian block as a whole. The first oracle concludes

8 For discussion of the prophetic messenger formula, see Meier, Speaking of Speaking, 273–298.

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

207

with an example of the YHWH authorization formula9 in Ezek 26:5aβ, kî ’ǎnî dibbartî, “for I have spoken,” and an example of the YHWH selfrevelation formula in Ezek 26:6b, wěyādě‘û kî ’ǎnî yhwh, “and they will know that I am YHWH.” The authorization formula certifies the oracle as a statement by YHWH, and versions of the formula appear again in Ezek 26:14b to conclude the first oracular pair and again in Ezek 28:10bα to tie the oracle concerning the prince of Tyre into the Tyrian block as a whole. The YHWH self-revelation formula plays a crucial role in identifying events in the human world throughout the Book of Ezekiel as revelatory acts of YHWH; in the present case, the Babylonian advance and the projected downfall of Tyre will be recognized not as acts by Babylon or Nebuchadnezzar, but as an act by YHWH, the true sovereign of creation in Ezekiel’s view. The formula appears again repeatedly throughout the concluding oracle concerning Sidon and Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:22bα, 23b, 24b, and 26bβ to ensure that the downfall of Tyre and the restoration of Israel/Jacob will be recognized as revelatory acts of YHWH and to tie the concluding oracles concerning Sidon and Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:20–26 into the larger literary framework of the Tyrian oracles in Ezekiel 26–28. The two oracles of the second oracular pair in Ezek 26:15–21 are again introduced by examples of the prophetic messenger formula, kōh ’āmar ’ǎdōnāy yhwh in Ezek 26:15a and kî kōh ’āmar ’ǎdōnāy yhwh in Ezek 26:19aα. The first oracle in Ezek 26:15–18 emphasizes the mourning of the rulers of the coastlands and rulers of the sea, who intone a brief dirge in reaction to Tyre’s downfall.10 The first oracle thereby points to the worldwide impact of YHWH’s previously-announced revelatory act. The second oracle in Ezek 26:19–21 builds upon the first by emphasizing Tyre’s descent into the Pit or the Netherworld where the těhôm or “deep” will cover her and where she will join “the people of old,” i.e., those who have passed on before her. The oracular pair concludes with the formula, ballāhôt ’ittěnēk wě’ênēk ûtbuqšî wělō’-timmāṣě’î ‘ôd lě‘ôlām, “Horrors I will make you, and you shall be no more; and you will be sought but you will not be found again forever,” conclude the sub-unit to emphasize the finality of the catastrophe that will overtake Tyre. Insofar as variations of this formula appear in Ezek 27:36b (ballāhôt hāyît wě’ênēk ‘ad-‘ôlām, “Horrors you have become, and you shall be no more forever”) and 28:19b (ballāhôt hāyîtā wě’êněkā ‘ad-‘ôlām, “Horrors you have become, and you shall be

9 See Hals, Ezekiel, 360, who refers to the formula simply as a conclusion formula for a divine speech. 10 For discussion of the dirge form, see esp. Hedwig Jahnow, Das hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung (BZAW 36; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923).

208

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

no more forever”), the ballāhôt formula plays an important role in tying together Ezek 26:1–21; 27:1–36; and 28:1–10/11–19 into a coherent block.11 The second major unit of Ezekiel 26–28 appears in the second oracle report concerning Tyre in Ezek 27:1–36. The basic literary structure of this unit is far less complicated than that of the first oracle report in Ezek 26:1– 21 in that it comprises an autobiographical report of YHWH’s instructions to Ezekiel to intone a dirge over Tyre in v. 1 and a presentation of the lengthy dirge per se in vv. 2–36. The dirge emphasizes Tyre’s boasting that she was perfect in beauty, and it illustrates this beauty by portraying Tyre as a perfect or beautiful ship at sea and as a harbor at which ships from throughout the world were docked. Following a portrayal of the goods brought into Tyre by its extensive trade connections, the dirge then turns to Tyre’s downfall by portraying her as a ship that was wrecked at sea with its merchandise and crew sinking into the deep. The dirge concludes with a portrayal of the inhabitants and kings of the coastlands aghast at Tyre’s demise and repeating the above-noted formula, “Horrors you have become, and you will be no more forever.” The third major unit of Ezekiel 26–28 appears in the third oracle report concerning the prince (nāgîd) of Tyre in Ezek 28:1–10. Again, the unit begins with an autobiographical report in v. 1 of YHWH’s instructions to the prophet to speak to the prince of Tyre. The contents of YHWH’s instruction appear in vv. 2–10 which call for the prophet to announce a prophetic judgment speech against the prince.12 The grounds for judgment appear in vv. 2–5 which charge that the prince has been arrogant by claiming to be a god in the heart of the seas and that the prince’s arrogance may be explained by his shrewdness and success in trade. The announcement of judgment in vv. 6–10 contends that YHWH will bring ruthless foreigners to strike down the prince and send him to the Pit or Netherworld, thereby demonstrating that he is mortal and not a god. The above-mentioned authorization formula in v. 10bα certifies this as a statement by YHWH and the concluding oracular formula in v. 10bβ closes the unit. The fourth major unit in Ezekiel 26–28 appears in the fourth oracle report concerning the king (melek) of Tyre in Ezek 28:11–19. Insofar as melek is frequently employed as a synonym for nāgîd in biblical Hebrew,13 the oracle in Ezek 28:11–19 should be viewed as a development of the oracle in Ezek 28:1–10. Again, the unit begins with an autobiographical report of YHWH’s instruction to Ezekiel to intone a dirge over the king of 11

Cf. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 28. For discussion of the prophetic judgment speech form, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 23–25, 533–534. 13 HALOT, 667–668. 12

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

209

Tyre. The dirge is formulated with the language of the prophetic judgment speech, and it relates how YHWH created the king of Tyre as the seal of perfection in the Garden of Eden; how he was adorned with precious stones like those of ephod worn by the High Priest of the Temple; and how YHWH created him as cherub who resided on G-d’s holy mountain. Nevertheless, the dirge charges the king of Tyre with lawlessness, sin, and haughtiness as a result of his commerce among the nations so that the king ultimately desecrated his sanctuaries. As a result, YHWH has destroyed the king of Tyre and once again kings stare at the horrors that the king of Tyre has become. Finally, the fifth and final major unit in Ezekiel 26–28 appears in the fifth oracle report concerning the punishment of Sidon and the restoration of Israel/Jacob in Ezek 28:20–26. Although the contents of this oracle report and its formulaic differences from the preceding material indicate that it was composed separately from the Tyrian oracles, Ezek 28:20–26 clearly functions as the culmination of Ezekiel 26–28 in the present form of the book. Again, the unit begins with an autobiographical report of YHWH’s instructions to Ezekiel to prophesy judgment against Sidon and the restoration of Israel/Jacob to its land. The judgment against Sidon is expressed sparsely and very generally with threats of punishment that will reveal YHWH’s glory and holiness. No particular reason is given for the punishment other than the revelation of YHWH, although the following material concerning the restoration of Israel/Jacob suggests that Israel has been afflicted by neighboring peoples who despise them. The gathering of Israel from the nations to which she has been dispersed and the return of Israel to her own land then serve as the final revelatory acts of the Tyrian oracles that will demonstrate that YHWH is their G-d. In this respect, the downfall of Tyre (and Sidon) entails the restoration of Israel in Ezekiel 26–28.

III Attention may now turn to the identification of the mythological elements that appear throughout this text and the examination of their function within its various units. An important dimension of the use of mythological motifs in Ezekiel is their application to contemporary events. Whereas earlier generations of scholars viewed mythology as stories about the gods as well as the origins of the world and social structures,14 contemporary 14 See, e.g., Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. The Significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life and Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1959), 68–113; idem, The Myth of the Eternal Return,

210

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

scholarship recognizes that mythology relates to social structures and realities from the contemporary world in which it is produced.15 Ezekiel in particular among the Prophets and other writings of the Hebrew Bible employs a mythopoeic viewpoint to give expression to his understanding of contemporary events in his world. Such a mythopoeic viewpoint indeed is typical of visionaries in the Bible and the larger ancient Near Eastern world. Ezekiel’s visions of the divine throne chariot in his inaugural narrative and his account of the destruction of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 1–3 and 8– 11 and his vision of the restored Temple at the center of a restored Israel and creation in Ezekiel 40–48 constitute primary examples of his use of mythological motifs. These motifs are drawn largely from Israelite/Judean sources, but Ezekiel’s visions also display influences from Mesopotamian and Syro-Canaanite mythology. They function as means to express Ezekiel’s view of a heavenly reality that stands beyond and informs the earthly reality in which he lives and which he strives to interpret. By interpreting earthly reality in relation to his mythopoeic viewpoint, Ezekiel attempts to demonstrate direct divine involvement in earthly events. Ezekiel’s mythopoeic viewpoint is evident throughout the oracular block concerning Tyre in Ezekiel 26–28. The use of mythological motifs focuses especially on the sea, insofar as Tyre was an island nation located off the Phoenician coast that gained its wealth, power, and influence in the world through its large navy and its extensive trade connections throughout the Mediterranean world. Although small in size, Tyre was easily defended by its control of the sea which hindered its more land-based opponents from successfully overcoming the sea waters that constituted its first line of defense. The sea, of course, is a well-known figure in the mythologies of the ancient Near East (and indeed throughout the world at large). It functions both as a source of life or creation in the world as well as a threat to the life and creation that stems from it. In the Enuma Elish, the sea, personified as the female monster Tiamat, both gives birth to the gods and attempts to destroy them following the murder of her husband Apsu, the god of fresh waters.16 When Tiamat is killed in battle by Marduk, the city or, Cosmos and History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974); idem, Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York: Meridian, 1958), esp. 388–436. 15 E.g., William E. Paden, Religious Worlds: The Comparative Study of Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1988), 69–92; for discussion of developments in the study of mythology, see Robert A. Oden, “Myth and Mythology,” ABD 4:946–960; Kees W. Bolle and Paul Ricoeur, “Myth,” Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Lindsay Jones; 15 vols.; 2nd edition; Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2005), 9:6359–6380. 16 For a translation of the Enuma Elish, see ANET, 60–72; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1974); Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976), 165–191.

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

211

god of Babylon, Marduk cuts her body in two to create heaven and earth and thereby establishes a foundational element in creation. Likewise, Ugaritic mythology portrays the sea, personified as the god Yamm, as the chief opponent to Baal, who likewise defeats Yamm in battle and thereby stabilizes the world of creation.17 Finally, Israelite/Judean mythology posits that YHWH creates world order from the pre-existing sea or deep. Although the creation narrative in Gen 1:1–2:3 portrays no battle between YHWH and the sea, other traditions, such as Psalm 74; Job 38–42; Isa 27:1 and 51:9, posit YHWH’s defeat of sea monsters such as Leviathan, Behemoth, and Rahab, during the course of creation. Ezekiel’s use of the sea motif to portray YHWH’s actions against Tyre appears at the outside of the Tyrian block in the first oracular report in Ezek 26:1–21. In the course of announcing an attack against Tyre, YHWH proclaims plans in Ezek 26:3–5 to bring nations against Tyre like the crashing of waves against its walls and reduce the island city to bare rock set in the midst of the sea fit only for drying nets. Such an equation of attacking nations with the sea is hardly surprising in mythology. Marduk’s establishment of creation following the defeat of Tiamat includes establishing political order in the world – in the form of Babylon’s sovereignty over the nations of the world – as well as natural order. Early Ugaritic specialists maintained that Baal’s defeat of Yamm played a role in his displacement of the aging creator god El and reflected the establishment of a new political order in Ugarit,18 but more recent research maintains that El appoints Baal to his position of authority and that such appointment reflects the realities of Ugarit’s political and administrative hierarchy.19 Biblical tradition is also well known for equating threatening nations with the sea, as indicated by YHWH’s defeat of Egypt at the Red Sea in Exodus 15; Sisera’s coalition in Judges 5; and Babylon in Isaiah 51. Indeed, the motif of the sea continues in Ezekiel 26 when the oracle portrays the consequences of Tyre’s defeat. Not only are Tyre’s walls and splendid houses cast into the waters in Ezek 26:12, but the coastlands and 17 See the Baal Cycle, ANET, 129–142; for discussion, see now Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1: Introduction with Text, Translation, and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (VTSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 18 See, e.g., Arvid S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: Gad, 1952), 133; Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1955), 83– 104. 19 See, e.g., Conrad E. L’Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baal, and the Repha’im (HSM 21; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1979), esp. 3–108; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980); see also Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994).

212

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

rulers of the sea mourn and intone dirges over the island nation upon hearing of Tyre’s demise in Ezek 26:15–18. Such a motif constitutes a reversal of the normal course of events in the sea combat mythologies of the ancient Near Eastern world; normally, the protagonist wins the struggle, the victory is celebrated, and temples to the hero god are built. Here, quite the opposite takes place as Tyre sinks into the very sea that once formed the basis of her power. At this point, a new mythological motif enters the mix, viz., the descent into the Netherworld, well-known from the mythological patterns of the dying and rising gods, particularly Inanna’s or Ishtar’s Descent into the Netherworld,20 the Baal Cycle, and possibly the Legend of Aqhat.21 In this pattern, the usually male fertility god, Dumuzi, Tammuz, Baal, or Aqhat dies, leaving the world bereft of water and fertility. A female figure, Inanna, Ishtar, Anat, or Paqhat, must descend into the Netherworld, risking the possibility that she might never return, to rescue the dead god and restore rain and fertility to the world of creation. Because Israel/Judah lack clear female deities, the motif comes to expression in other ways, particularly through scenarios of national restoration or resurrection that will become important later in this discussion. Because of the finality of death, a compromise generally emerges in which the male figure is allowed to live for half the year but then must return to the Netherworld for the second half of the year, thereby explaining the origins of the Near Eastern seasonal cycle of rainy and dry seasons. Again, the usual mythological pattern of overcoming death – at least partially – is absent in Ezekiel 26. Tyre descends to the Pit to become a horror in the sight of the coastlands and the rulers of the sea, but no hope for Tyre’s return from the dead emerges. The sea motif continues to appear in Ezekiel 27, the second oracular report of Ezekiel 26–28, which portrays YHWH’s instructions to Ezekiel to intone a dirge over the now dead Tyre. Key to the depiction of Tyre in the dirge is the portrayal of Tyre as a mighty and splendid ship at sea that carries the many goods for which it trades among the nations of the earth. Of course, the ship is wrecked and sinks together with its crew and its merchandise in the midst of the sea while the inhabitants of the coastlands and their kings look on aghast. Such a portrayal builds upon the sea combat motifs examined above, insofar as YHWH is ultimately the source of Tyre’s demise, but the motif also draws upon other mythological patterns 20

ANET, 52–57, 106–109.; see also Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976) 25–73, 135–143, who discusses the ritual and mythological dimensions of the descent to the netherworld by both Inanna and Ishtar. 21 ANET, 149–155; see now David P. Wright, Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), who considers the ritual dimensions of Aqhat as a contemporary (for the time of Ugarit’s civilization) expression of its mythological expression.

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

213

known in the ancient Near Eastern world, particularly the Mesopotamian flood traditions and the Adapa legend. The flood traditions posit a human hero figure who, with the help of the gods, builds a ship to save human beings and animals from the floods that inundate creation due to divine dissatisfaction, irresponsibility, or capriciousness. Examples include Ziusudra from Sumerian tradition, Atra-Hasis from Mesopotamian tradition, Utnapishtim from the Gilgamesh narratives, and Noah from biblical tradition.22 But whereas each of the flood heroes builds a ship that saves the lives of its passengers, Ezekiel 27 reverses the motif by portraying the ship wrecked at sea, i.e., it does not save the lives of its passengers but instead serves as the vehicle by which its passengers and even Tyre itself meet their demise. The motif also calls to mind the Adapa legend concerning a sailor who is brought to heaven after he has successfully cursed the winds that threatened to sink his boat.23 When he refuses the bread and water of life offered to him by Anu, the god of heaven, he and all humankind are then destined to remain mortal and face death. Indeed, the question of mortality appears in the flood myths as well, insofar as humans are afflicted with mortality as a means to resolve the conflict with the gods in the AtraHasis epic and Gilgamesh fails to secure the secret of eternal life following his visit to Utnapishtim. The third oracle report in Ezek 28:1–10 shifts from a focus on the sea, insofar as it is concerned with the prince of Tyre rather than with the city itself, but it continues the earlier interest in depicting the descent to the Pit or the Netherworld. The motif is not completely abandoned, however, as the prophetic judgment speech focuses on his haughtiness and claims to be a god enthroned in the heart of the seas. As a result of these claims, he is condemned to the Pit. His wisdom is compared to that of Daniel according to the qere reading or Danel according to the ketiv reading, the major figure of the Ugaritic Aqhat narrative. Likewise, the claim to be a god recalls attempts to challenge the power or rule of the chief god in the Baal cycle when the god Ashtar sits on Baal’s throne while he is in the Netherworld, but his feet do not reach the footstool and his head does not reach the top.24 The fourth oracle report in Ezek 28:11–19 concerning the king of Tyre portrays him as the seal of perfection, who dwells in the Garden of Eden, wears precious stones as his adornment, and was created by YHWH as 22 See ANET, 42–44, 104–106, 512–514, 72–99, 503–507; W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969). 23 ANET, 101–103; Shlomo Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death (Mesopotamian Civilizations 10; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001); Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness, 115–116. 24 ANET, 140; see also ANET, 129–131; Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 210–259.

214

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

Cherub until his haughtiness caused his downfall once again. The Israelite/ Judean Garden of Eden narrative from Genesis 1–3 looms very large here as the king of Eden, like Adam and Eve, is expelled from the garden to become a horror once again in the eyes of those who behold him. His identification as a cherub also recalls the Garden of Eden, insofar as the cherub is intended to guard the garden from unauthorized entry by those who would sin and bring impurity into the garden, but of course the king of Tyre becomes the very agent of sin and impurity himself because of his arrogance. It is important to recall that the Garden of Eden is symbolized by the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple in Judean thought,25 and the king of Tyre is known in Israelite tradition as one who assisted Solomon in the construction of the Temple. In this respect, the role of cherub also comes to mind as the figure that guards the holy of holies in the Temple. The listing of precious stones all appear on the ephod of the High Priest who has access to the Holy of Holies, but only nine of the twelve stones that appear on the priestly ephod are present here. One may only speculate as the reason for the discrepancy. Insofar as Judah, Benjamin, and Levi were left in the south following the destruction of northern Israel, perhaps they represent the lost tribes of the north that came under Tyrian influence following the destruction, but this cannot be known. The identification of the king as the seal of perfection likewise recalls Mesopotamian traditions that the king represents the ideal human being sent from heaven by the gods to rule over the earth.26 Finally, the last oracular report in Ezek 28:20–26 concerning the punishment of Sidon and the restoration of Israel/Jacob also takes up at least some mythological dimensions. Interpreters have struggled to explain the presence of Sidon here; perhaps the conquest of the Tyrian coastland, including Sidon, played a role in Tyre’s ultimate submission to Babylon. No mythological dimension is apparent here, but the restoration of Israel/ Jacob to its land does build upon the restoration motifs of fertility and in later times resurrection that are known from Israelite and Judean prophecy. 27 In this case, the restoration of Israel/Jacob to the land emerges as the ultimate consequence of the downfall of Tyre, viz., when the mythological 25 See Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–298; idem, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985), 111–137. 26 See the discussion of the Assyrian king in relation to the tree of life in Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 53 (1993): 161–208, 165–169; Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1951), 43–58. 27 For the correlation between the restoration of nature and resurrection with national restoration in ancient Israelite/Judean thought, see now Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the G-d of Life (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

215

enemy is defeated, the hero god emerges as the ruler of the land. In the present instance, Israel/Jacob is restored in the aftermath of YHWH’s victory over Tyre by means of the Babylonians. N. b., Babylon is never brought down in the Book of Ezekiel; it functions as YHWH’s agent of punishment throughout the book.

IV A wide variety of mythological motifs appear with the Tyrian block of oracle reports in Ezekiel 26–28 where they give expression to Ezekiel’s understanding of divine intent and action in relation to the anticipated fall of Tyre to Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army. No single mythological complex appears to be predominant in these oracles. Key mythologies including the Sea Combat myths, the Descent of Ishtar/Inanna to the Netherworld, the flood traditions, the Garden of Eden narratives, and the portrayal of the High Priest’s ephod all seem to play a role. In the case of the Mesopotamian and Ugaritic traditions, it is striking that Ezekiel tends to reverse the usual outcome of the narrative from deliverance of the protagonist/s to the condemnation and death of Tyre and its king/prince. In the case of the Garden of Eden narrative, the demise of the king of Tyre is consistent with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden and their condemnation to mortality. Such a scenario of course reflects his view that YHWH is acting against Tyre ultimately to destroy the city and its monarch. We have already observed that the mythopoeic viewpoint expressed in the Tyrian block is consistent with Ezekiel’s mythopoeic viewpoint as expressed throughout the book. As a Zadokite priest trained for holy service in the Jerusalem Temple, Ezekiel’s world view would be defined by its mythopoeic perspective, particularly since the Jerusalemite priesthood would be expected to discern divine intent and action in the world of creation. Insofar as the Jerusalem Temple was conceived to be the holy center of creation in Zadokite thought, Ezekiel’s knowledge of Israelite/Judean mythological traditions and his assertion of YHWH’s presence and actions among the nations and throughout creation at large are to be expected. His use of Mesopotamian and Ugaritic mythological motifs, however, is not. Clearly, Ezekiel’s exile to Babylonia would have provided him the opportunity to become familiar with these motifs, although we may only speculate as to how this came about. The Babylonians were known to make use of educated and skilled people who were exiled to Babylonia from their homelands.28 As a priest, perhaps Ezekiel was put to work in some 28 See William Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 139–164.

216

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

sort of Babylonian cultic or administrative context where he would have encountered foreign mythologies as part of his training or professional service. However he may have come about this knowledge, he is clearly able to incorporate it into his mythopoeic world view concerning YHWH’s actions in the world and use of Nebuchadnezzar and Babylonia to achieve divine ends. Although the above analysis has focused primarily on a synchronic reading of the text, even when it draws upon the diachronic dimensions of comparative mythologies, several diachronic issues remain to be addressed. First is the question of the historical background of the Tyrian oracles. As noted above, most scholars tend to concentrate on this issue. Although most agree that the background for these oracles must lie in Nebuchadnezzar’s thirteen-year siege of Tyre, questions still remain.29 The thirteen year siege is known only from Josephus (Against Apion 1.21 [156–159]); contemporary records of Babylon’s relationship with Tyre are sparse. It does seem, however, that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege against Tyre in ca. 586–585 B.C.E. after his conquest and destruction of Jerusalem. Although Ithobaal or Ethbaal III was king of Tyre at the time of the beginning of the siege, by 573–572 B.C.E., Tyre had capitulated to Babylon and Baal II was on the throne. Nevertheless, even this sparse information reveals an important consideration, viz., Tyre was not destroyed in accordance with Ezekiel’s prophecies of punishment against Tyre and her king. The same may be said concerning Ezekiel’s prophecies of Egypt’s downfall and punishment in Ezekiel 29–32, viz., Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. The conquest of Egypt was only realized by the Persian monarch Cambyses in 525 B.C.E. This reconstruction of the historical background of the Tyrian block points to the second diachronic issue in relation to Ezekiel 26–28, viz., the compositional history of the text. We have already observed that the oracles concerning the downfall of Sidon and the restoration of Israel/ Jacob appear to be redactional expansions of an earlier block of material concerned with Tyre in Ezek 26:1–28:19. As noted above, the Sidonian and Israelite material in Ezek 28:20–26 includes four examples of the YHWH self-revelation formula that highlights the revelatory significance of Ezekiel’s oracles. Such a concern is absent elsewhere in the Tyrian block with the exception of Ezek 26:5b–6, which includes the only other occurrence of this formula within Ezekiel 26–28 immediately following the statement that Tyre’s daughter towns, i.e., Tyre’s vassal cities such as Sidon, will be put to the sword as part of the general destruction. Furthermore, the oracle concerning the downfall of Tyre in Ezek 26:2–5a begins 29 See esp. Corral, Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre, 20–65; Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, 316–337.

12. Myth and History in Ezekiel’s Oracle concerning Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28)

217

with the YHWH authorization formula and the YHWH oracular formula like those that conclude the parallel oracle Ezek 26:7–14 in Ezek 26:14b. Insofar as Ezek 26:5b–6 disrupts the parallel between Ezek 26:2–6 and 26:7–14 and ties the concluding oracles concerning Sidon and Israel to the initial oracles concerning Tyre, it would appear that Ezek 26:5b–6 and 28:20–26 are redactional expansions of the text that are designed to reveal YHWH’s ultimate intentions to bring down Sidon and restore Israel/Jacob to its land in the aftermath of Tyre’s downfall. The question of the compositional history of the Tyrian block must also consider the following material concerning Egypt in Ezekiel 29–32. Interpreters have noted the unusual chronological formula in Ezek 29:17, which introduces the oracles concerning Egypt in Ezek 29:17–30:19. The chronological formula dates the oracles to the first day of the first month of the twenty-seventh year of the exile, i.e., 1 Nisan, 571–570 B.C.E., and it alludes to the difficulties that Nebuchadnezzar had in conquering the city of Tyre. Most interpreters maintain that this formula is an update – perhaps by Ezekiel himself – of an earlier reference that would be more in keeping with the years immediately following the fall of Jerusalem.30 But such an update points to an important dimension of the compositional history of this text, viz., that neither Ezekiel’s oracles concerning Tyre nor Egypt were realized as he envisioned, and the book was updated somewhat to account for this reality. Indeed, we may observe that Ezekiel’s vision concerning the restored Temple was never realized either insofar as the structure of the Second Temple does not correspond to the Temple envisioned by Ezekiel. It would seem that the Book of Ezekiel would have been considered as a book yet to achieve fulfillment in the eyes of its ancient readers, particularly since the Egyptian oracles would have been fulfilled only in the Persian period with Cambyses’s conquest of Egypt and the Tyrian oracles would have been fulfilled only in the early Hellenistic period with Alexander’s conquest of Tyre. In the case of the Temple, Ezekiel’s Temple is yet to be built, and subsequent Jewish tradition considers his Temple to be the Third Temple of the Days to Come. Such a scenario also points to the addition of the oracle concerning the downfall of Sidon and the restoration of Israel/Jacob at the conclusion of 30

E.g., Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 616–618. We may also observe that the Egyptian block in Ezekiel 29–32 disrupts the chronological scheme of the book in other ways as well, i.e., Ezek 29:1 begins with a reference to the twelfth day of the tenth month of the tenth year, which would predate the first day of the month of the eleventh year assigned to the preceding Tyrian block. The first chronological formula following the Egyptian block in Ezek 33:21 likewise refers to the fifth day of the tenth month of the twelfth year, which would be prior to the last chronological formula of the oracle concerning the nations in general in Ezek 32:17–33:20 which mentions the fifteenth day of the twelfth month of the twelfth year.

218

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

the Tyrian block. We do not know the precise details of the fate of Sidon during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre, but it apparently submitted to Babylon without much resistance. Cambyses granted Sidon control of the Israelite ports of Dor and Jaffo following his conquest of Egypt in 526 B.C.E.,31 and Sidon may well have controlled these areas under Nebuchadnezzar as well following the siege of Tyre and the decline of its fortunes. Such a scenario would help to explain why the downfall of Sidon is linked to the restoration of Israel. Finally, the restoration of Israel/Judah did not commence until the Persian period as well, first under the rule of Cyrus and later under Darius and Artaxerxes. Even so, the restoration of Israel was never fully completed even in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Such considerations aid in positing the compositional history of the Tyrian block, i.e., the expansion of the Tyrian block to point to the downfall of Sidon and the restoration of Israel may be placed at any time from the aftermath of Tyre’s submission to Babylon, which would have prompted the modification of the chronological formula in Ezek 29:17, through the early Persian period when the restoration of Israel appeared to be imminent. Although we cannot be more precise in such a conclusion, it does point to an important dimension of the reading of Ezekiel in the exilic and early Persian period, viz., Ezekiel would have been read as a book yet to be realized. Although Tyre was not destroyed by the Persian period as Ezekiel envisioned, the fulfillment of that punishment – and the concomitant revelation of YHWH’s actions in the world – was yet to be realized.

31 Thomas L. McClellan, “Sidon,” HBD2, 1021. This statement is based on the sarcophagus inscription of King Eshmunazar II of Sidon, whose dates are uncertain although he is apparently placed early in the Achaemenid period. For the inscription, see ANET, 662; for discussion, see Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (trans. P. T. Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 490.

1

2

3

4

5

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform I Interpreters frequently view the oracle in Ezek 37:15–28 concerning the reunification of Ephraim and Judah under Davidic rule as a relatively late composition. Citing the uncharacteristic use of the term melek, “king,” rather than Ezekiel’s typical use of nāśî’, “prince,” Ezekiel’s tendency to place the Davidic monarch under the authority of the priests and the Temple, and the general scenario of the eschatological reunification of the nation, interpreters contend that the oracle must stem from the later years of the prophet’s lifetime in Babylonian Exile or from vaguely defined later disciples or tradents. Pohlmann, Darr, and others point to various later additions in vv. 22–28 to Ezekiel’s words that ultimately express the ideal of national reunification and restoration under a Davidic monarch.1 Block, Greenberg, and others argue that the oracle represents Ezekiel’s hope for ideal restoration in the aftermath of Assyrian and Babylonian deportations.2 Nevertheless, there have been persistent observations that the reunification of Ephraim and Judah under Davidic rule with the Jerusalem Temple 1

Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel) (2 vols.; ATD 22.1–2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 2:500–501; Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” NIB 6:1073–1607 (1505); Henry McKeating, Ezekiel (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 107–108; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990), 192; Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 251; Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 274; John W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCeB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1969), 196; Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel (HAT 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955), 211–212; Alfred Bertholet, Hesekiel: Mit einem Beitrag von Kurt Galling (HAT 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1936), 129. 2 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (2 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997–1998), 2:394, 412; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 759–760; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (trans. C. Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 512–514; G. A. Cooke, Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1970), 396–406; Johannes Herrmann, Ezechiel (KAT 11; Leipzig and Erlangen: Deichert, 1924), 237; Ferdinand Hitzig, Der Prophet Ezechiel (KEH 8; Leipzig: Weidmann, 1847), 284–287.

220

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

at their center reflects the ideals of King Josiah’s program of religious reform and national restoration. Indeed, Laato contends that the model of Davidic kingship presented in Ezek 37:15–28 must be linked to the presentation of Davidic kingship in Ezekiel 34 and that its salient features reflect the royal ideology of Josiah’s reign.3 Zimmerli is more circumspect in suggesting that the passage has been subject to later expansion in vv. 24b– 28, but he argues that Ezekiel would have spoken about the reunification of Israel and Judah as part of his proclamation of salvation since the issue “had acquired a new topicality from the time of Josiah and has also found clear expression in the Book of Ezekiel.”4 Because scholars are divided in viewing Ezekiel’s oracular promise of national reunification under a Davidic monarch as the product of later tradents’ reflection on Ezekiel’s message, as the prophet’s statement of an ideal future or as the prophet’s reflection on the concerns of Josiah’s restoration, this paper will review and reconsider the issue. Based upon an examination of Ezek 37:15–28 in relation to its current literary context in Ezekiel 33–39, a formal analysis of the passage per se, and discussion of the literary-historical dimensions of the passage in relation to Ezekiel’s birth, expectations for national reunification, and expectations for Davidic restoration, this paper argues that Ezek 37:15–28 represents Ezekiel’s reflection on the significance of Josiah’s program of reform and restoration in relation to the later realities of the Babylonian Exile.

II An examination of Ezek 37:15–28 in relation to its immediate literary context demonstrates that it is a component of a larger block of material in Ezek 33:21–39:29 that asserts that YHWH is the author of creation who brings punishment and salvation to resanctify the land. By portraying the resanctification of the land, Ezek 33:21–39:29 prepares the reader for the prophet’s final vision of the restoration of the Temple at the center of Israel and creation in Ezekiel 40–48. Many interpreters recognize that the material in Ezekiel 33–39 (or 33– 48) forms a relatively coherent unit of the book concerned with future hope.5 It follows the oracles concerning the nations in Ezekiel 28–32 and 3

Antti Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times (ConBOT 33; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992), 189. 4 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel (2 vols.; trans. J. D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 2:272; cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1990), 174–177. 5 E.g., Hals, Ezekiel, 3–4.

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28

221

prepares the reader for the final Temple vision in Ezekiel 40–48.6 Most literary structural assessments of these chapters, however, presuppose current chapter divisions and emphasize general thematic concerns without giving adequate attention to the formal literary features that signal the literary structure of this text.7 My own prior work on Ezekiel emphasizes the role of the chronological notices in the Book of Ezekiel as the key markers of the major units of the book.8 No chronological notice appears in Ezek 33:1, which defines Ezekiel’s role as watchman in relation to his people. A chronological notice does appear, however, in Ezek 33:21, which dates the following material to the tenth day of the fifth month (Av) of the twelfth year of the exile (585 B.C.E.). The next chronological notice in the book appears in Ezek 40:1, which introduces the final Temple vision in Ezekiel 40–48. Thus, Ezek 33:21–39:29 emerges as the formal unit under consideration. The internal literary structure of Ezek 33:21–39:29 falls into two basic sub-units. The first is the notice in Ezek 33:21–22 concerning the prophet’s reception of the news that Jerusalem had fallen and that the hand of YHWH had earlier come upon him, ending his silence and prompting him to speak. The second is a sequence of six sub-units, each introduced by the prophetic word transmission formula, wayěhî děbar-yhwh ’ēlay lē’mōr, “and the word of YHWH was unto me, saying …,” in Ezek 33:23–39:29.9 The prophetic word formula appears in Ezek 33:23; 34:1; 35:1; 36:16; 37:15; and 38:1, where it introduces reports of the prophet’s oracles in Ezek 33:23–33; 34:1–31; 35:1–36:15; 36:16–37:14; 37:15–28; and 38:1– 39:29 that follow from the initial notice concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the end of Ezekiel’s silence in Ezek 33:21–22. 6

Cf. Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1976), 161, who portrays Ezekiel 40–48 as the realization of the prophecies of restoration in Ezekiel 33–37. Like many scholars, Levenson distinguishes Ezekiel 38–39 as a proto-apocalyptic unit distinct from Ezekiel 33–37 (cf. Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 [AB 22; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983], xxx). Despite its proto-apocalyptic generic character, Ezekiel 38–39 must still be read as a sub-unit of the larger book. 7 For the methodological principles employed here, see my “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–89. 8 See my article, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” OPIAC 41 (2001): 1–24, republished in my Form and Intertextuality in the Study of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 125– 143. For discussion of Ezek 33:21–39:29, see my “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29,” in ibid., 156–172. 9 For discussion of the prophetic word formula, see Samuel M. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 314–319.

222

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

Each of the six sub-units presents an oracle spoken by YHWH to Ezekiel concerning the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem and the prospects for its restoration. Thus, the first oracular report in Ezek 33:23– 33 employs a disputation speech to assert that YHWH has brought punishment on the land because the people defiled it by failing to observe YHWH’s sacred instructions.10 As a result, the people will know YHWH and that a prophet was among them. The second oracular report in Ezek 34:1–31 employs the metaphor of shepherds guiding sheep to outline YHWH’s plans to punish Israel’s leaders for their failure to provide adequate leadership for the people and to restore Davidic rule over the nation so that Israel will recognize YHWH. The third oracular report in Ezek 35:1–36:15 contrasts the downfall of Edom in Ezek 35:2–15 with the restoration of the mountains of Israel in Ezek 36:1–15 so that the nations will recognize YHWH. The fourth oracular report in Ezek 34:16–37:14 employs motifs of blood and idol impurity together with motifs of the resurrection of the dead to symbolize purification in an effort to provide an overview and rationale for the entire process of punishment and restoration outlined in the Book of Ezekiel at large and in Ezek 33:23–39:29 in particular. Again, the people will recognize YHWH. The fifth oracle report in Ezek 37:15–28 emphasizes the reunification of Ephraim and Judah under the rule of a restored Davidic king and the authority of the Jerusalem Temple so that the nations will recognize YHWH. Finally, the sixth oracular report in Ezek 38:1–39:29 emphasizes YHWH’s fulfillment of earlier prophecy by defeating Gog from Magog and purifying the land from the dead corpses of the fallen enemy. Once again, both Israel and the nations will recognize YHWH. Overall, Ezek 33:21–39:29 is formulated as a disputation speech that contends that YHWH is the author who brings punishment and restoration to resanctify the land. The formal structure of the passage may be outlined as follows: Disputation: YHWH is the Author of Creation Who Brings Punishment and Restoration to Resanctify the Land (Ezekiel 33:21–39:29) I. Introduction: report of Jerusalem’s fall and the end of Ezekiel’s speechlessness: 12th year, 10 th day, 5 th month II. Report of oracles spoken by YHWH to Ezekiel concerning the destruction and restoration of Jerusalem A. First oracular report: YHWH brings punishment to the land B. Second oracular report: YHWH will punish Israel’s leaders and restore Davidic rule

33:21–22 33:23–39:29 33:23–33 34:1–31

10 For discussion of the disputational character of this text, see Adrian Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets (AnBib 104; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984), 78–82.

223

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28 C. Third oracular report: YHWH will punish Edom and restore Israel D. Fourth oracular report: YHWH will resanctify the land of Israel for the sake of the divine name E. Fifth oracular report: YHWH will reunify Israel, restore Davidic kingship, and the Temple at Israel’s center F. Sixth oracular report: YHWH will fulfill earlier prophecy by defeating Gog and purifying the land

35:1–36:15 36:16–37:14 37:15–28 38:1–39:29

III Having ascertained the placement and general function of Ezek 37:15–28 in relation to the immediate literary context of Ezek 33:21–39:29 and the general literary context of the Book of Ezekiel as a whole, it is now time to examine the formal literary structure of the oracle in detail in order to ascertain its specific concerns. Such an examination demonstrates that the oracle is fundamentally concerned with the restoration and reunification of the Davidic kingdom of Israel with the Jerusalem Temple as its holy center. Although interpreters frequently contend that such a scenario encapsulates the essential message of Ezekiel,11 we should note that the book as a whole tends to downplay the national or political elements of restoration – specifically, the role of the king – and instead focuses on the central role of the Temple to which the king and nation are subordinate. This has implications for evaluating the overall message of Ezekiel and the perspectives or means by which that message is derived. As noted above, Ezek 37:15–28 is demarcated at the outset by the appearance of the prophetic word formula in v. 15.12 Verses 16–28 contain YHWH’s word to Ezekiel, here formulated as a lengthy instruction speech that calls upon the prophet to engage in a symbolic action concerning the restoration and reunification of Israel and to present two oracles to the people that explain the significance of the action.13 The prophetic word formula in Ezek 38:1 demarcates the beginning of the next unit in the sequence and thereby marks v. 28 as the closure of Ezek 37:15–28. YHWH’s instruction speech to Ezekiel begins in vv. 16–17 with YHWH’s instructions to engage in a symbolic action that signifies the reunification 11

Cf. Hals, Ezekiel, 274, although he contends that the oracle has been updated repeatedly so that it functions as a summary of most items in Ezekiel’s message of hope. 12 Contra, Christoph Barth, “Ezechiel 37 als Einheit,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Donner et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 39–52, who employs thematic criteria in an attempt to argue for the literary unity of Ezek 37:1–14 and 37:15–28. 13 See Kelvin G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication (JSOTSup 283; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 214–216; W. D. Stacey, Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament (London: Epworth, 1990), 207–208.

224

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

and restoration of the nation Israel. The speech addresses Ezekiel directly with the pronoun, ’attâ, “you,” and the title, “son of Adam,” i.e., “human being,” which signifies Ezekiel’s identity as a priest of the Jerusalem Temple and representative of Adam or humankind before YHWH.14 The instructions proceed in three stages, each of which employs imperative verbs to convey YHWH’s expectations. The first in v. 16a employs a combination of the verbs, qaḥ, “take,” and ûkětôb, “and write,” to convey YHWH’s instructions to take a piece of wood and inscribe it with the words, “for Judah and for the sons of Israel together.” Such an inscription signifies the two major components in which the Davidic kingship divided following the death of Solomon. The second stage of instruction in v. 16b likewise employs the verbs, ûlěqaḥ, “and take,” and ûkětôb, “and write,” to convey YHWH’s instruction to take a second piece of wood and inscribe it with the words, “for Joseph, the tree of Ephraim, and all the house of Israel together.” This inscription does not simply repeat the concerns of the first inscription for the unity of all Israel, but addresses instead the question of the unity of the northern tribes and the role that Joseph, here appositionally specified – perhaps as an addition – as Ephraim, plays at the center of those tribes. In this respect, each piece of wood identifies the two major power centers within the tribes of Israel, i.e., the tribe of Judah in the south and the Joseph tribes or Ephraim in the north. The instructions concerning the two pieces of wood thereby prepare for the third instruction in v. 17, which employs the verb, wěqārab, “and bring near, join,” to signify the joining of the two inscribed pieces and thus the reunification of the two major components of the nation of Israel, centered around Judah and Joseph/Ephraim. Of course, such a combination signals the reunification of southern Judah and northern Israel, which had been split from the death of Solomon through the lifetime of Ezekiel. Following the instruction to engage in a symbolic action, vv. 18–28 then convey the main portion of YHWH’s instruction speech to the prophet to present two oracles from YHWH that will explain to the people the significance of the symbolic action. The instruction to present the first oracle in vv. 18–19 begins with a temporal statement in v. 18, introduced by the temporal expression, wěka’ǎšer, “and when,” to convey the circumstance that the people will ask for an explanation of the symbolic action in which Ezekiel has just engaged. The temporal statement thereby introduces the first instruction to speak an oracle in v. 19 which outlines YHWH’s plans to reunify the nation. The instruction speech per se in v. 19 begins with the 14 See C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), who cites various Second Temple period texts from Aristeas, Philo, Jubilees, Josephus, etc., that illustrate the portrayal of the High Priest as Adam before the Garden of Eden.

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28

225

imperative verb, dabbēr, “speak (to them),” and continues with a version of the classic prophetic messenger formula, “thus says my lord, G-d,” which in turn introduces the oracle itself. The oracle begins with the particle, hinnēh, “behold,” which introduces YHWH’s first-person explanation that the pieces of wood inscribed respectively to Joseph/Ephraim and Judah will be joined to form one piece of wood. The full significance of this act is not yet spelled out, which paves the way for the instruction to present the second oracle in vv. 20–28.15 The instruction to present the second oracle in vv. 20–28 begins once again with a circumstantial clause in v. 20, which states that the people will see the newly-joined, inscribed pieces of wood in the hand of Ezekiel. The instruction to convey YHWH’s second oracle then follows in vv. 21– 28. It begins once again with the imperative verbal expression, wědabbēr, “and speak (to them),” followed by the prophetic messenger formula, which introduces the oracle per se. The contents and form of the oracle indicate that it is an oracle of national restoration that includes two basic components, viz., the oracle per se in vv. 21aα6–23 and the explication of the oracle in vv. 24–28.16 The basic oracle in vv. 21aα6–23 includes three sub-units, each of which is defined by its subject or primary actor. The first sub-unit in vv. 21aα6– 22aα comprises four first-person statements in which YHWH outlines actions that YHWH will undertake to restore the nations, i.e., “I am taking” Israel from among the nations; “I will gather them” from round about; “I will bring them” to their own land; and “I will make them” into a unified nation. The second sub-unit in vv. 22aβ–23a employs third person verbal statements to convey the impact of YHWH’s actions on the nation, i.e., “one king” shall be king for all of them”; “they shall no longer be two nations”; “they shall no longer be divided into two kingdoms”; and “they shall no longer be defiled” by the abominations/idols, etc. The third subunit in v. 23b again employs first-person statements to summarize the restoration, reunification, and purification of the nation in its restored relationship with YHWH, i.e., “I will deliver them from their transgression”; “I will purify them” so that they will be a people to YHWH; and “I will be their G-d.”17 15

Hals, Ezekiel, 272, 273, views v. 20 as a somewhat awkward transition or resumption, due to his view that the oracle has been successively updated and reinterpreted. On the contrary, the oracle is designed to present a progressive revelation to the reader which mirrors the process by which the sign-act is presented, its elements successfully brought to the attention of the observer, and then interpreted by the prophet. 16 Contra Stacey, Prophetic Drama, 207–208, who maintains that this is an eschatological vision. 17 Note that the last two elements, “they shall be my people,” and “I shall be their G-d,” are the two fundamental elements of the covenant formula; cf. Rolf Rendtorff, Die “Bun-

226

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

The explication of the basic oracle in vv. 24–28 likewise employs a combination of first- and third-person statements to convey the restoration and reunification of the nation under a Davidic monarch and its relationship with YHWH, but it elaborates on the previous oracle by providing far greater detail in its vision of the reunited and restored nation and by emphasizing the role of the Temple in sanctifying the people at the conclusion. It begins with third-person statements augmented by first-person references to YHWH’s acts in vv. 24–25 which describe the restored nation, viz., “my servant David will be king over them”; “they will walk in my laws and observe my statutes”; “they will dwell upon the land which I gave to Jacob”; “they will dwell upon forever”; and “my servant David will be prince (nāśî’) over them forever.” Altogether, this represents a striking combination of northern tradition, focused on the promises of possession of the land to the (northern) patriarch Jacob, and southern tradition, focused on the promises of eternal rule granted to the House of David. First-person statements concerning YHWH’s covenant and associated acts then follow in v. 26, viz., “I will make a covenant of peace with them”; “an eternal covenant, I will grant them”; “I will multiply them”; and “I will grant them my sanctuary in their midst forever.” The summation in vv. 27– 28 again employs a combination of first- and third-person statements that convey the restored relationship between YHWH and the nation Israel, viz., “my tabernacle will be over them”; “I will be their G-d”; “they will be my people”; “the nations will know that I, YHWH, sanctify Israel when my sanctuary is in their midst forever.” The formal structure of this passage may be portrayed as follows: Report of YHWH’s Word to Ezekiel: Instruction Speech to Engage in a Symbolic Action concerning the Restoration and Reunification of the Nation Israel (Ezekiel 37:15–28) A. Introduction: prophetic word formula B. Word proper: YHWH’s instruction speech to Ezekiel 1. Initial instruction concerning symbolic action: two inscribed pieces of wood joined together a. Inscribe one piece of wood with Judah and Israel b. Inscribe a second piece of wood with Joseph and Israel c. Join the two pieces of wood 2. Subsequent instruction concerning explanation of act to people: two oracles concerning significance of act a. First oracle: concerning joining of pieces of wood 1) Circumstance: people’s request for explanation 2) Instruction to speak: restoration oracle concerning joining of two pieces of wood

15 16–28 16–17 16a 16b 17 18–28 18–19 18 19

desformel”: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung (SBS 160; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), esp. 40–41, 78.

227

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28 b. Second oracle: concerning significance of act 1) Circumstance: two pieces of wood joined 2) Instruction to speak: significance of joined wood: nation restored a) Instruction formula b) Oracle i. Messenger formula ii. YHWH’s statement aa. Restoration oracle i) YHWH’s actions aa) I am taking Israel from among nations bb) I will gather them cc) I will bring them to their own land dd) I will make them into a unified nation ii) Results for people aa) One king shall be king for all of them bb) They shall no longer be two nations cc) They shall no longer be divided into two kingdoms dd) They shall no longer be defiled iii) Summation aa) I will deliver them from their transgression bb) I will purify them as a people to YHWH cc) I will be their G-d bb. Explication i) Results for nation aa) My servant David will be king over them bb) They will walk in my laws and observe my statutes cc) They will dwell upon the land which I gave to Jacob dd) They will dwell upon it forever ee) My servant David will be prince over them forever ii) YHWH’s actions aa) I will make a covenant of peace with them bb) An eternal covenant, I will grant them cc) I will multiply them dd) I will grant them my sanctuary forever iii) Summation aa) My tabernacle will be over them bb) I will be their G-d cc) They will be my people dd) The nations will know that I, YHWH, sanctify Israel

20–28 20 21–28 21aα1–2 21aα3–28 21aα3–5 21aα6–28 21aα6–23 21aα6–22aα 21aα6–β 21bα 21bβ 22aα 22aβ–23a 22aβ 22bα 22bβ 23a 23b 23bα 23bβ 23bγ 24–28 24–25 24a 24b 25a 25bα 25bβ 26 26aα 26aβ 26bα 26bβ 27–28 27aα 27aβ 27b 28

228

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

IV Having analyzed the placement of Ezek 37:15–28 in the larger literary context of Ezek 33:21–39:29 as well as its formal literary structure and concerns, a number of observations and conclusions follow. First, Ezek 37:15–28 seems to be well placed in its context as a component of Ezek 33:21–39:29. The larger block of material is clearly designed to prepare the reader for the culminating vision of the Temple’s restoration at the center of Israel and creation in Ezekiel 40–48. It does so by focusing on the purification of the land and people as a prelude for the placement of the Temple at its center. Each major sub-unit of Ezek 33:21– 39:29 takes up this issue in one form or another. Thus, Ezek 33:23–33 focuses on the abominations of the people as the basis for the punishment of the land. The sub-unit thereby defines the basic problem of impurity among the people and its effect upon the land that requires resolution before the Temple can be placed at the center. Ezekiel 34:1–31 develops the point made in the prior oracle by pointing to the irresponsibility of Israel’s leaders as a key factor in the straying of the people and the desolation of the land. Although the passage is clearly concerned with the restoration of Davidic kingship over the people, the metaphorical portrayal of Israel’s leaders as self-interested shepherds who allow the flock to stray evokes images of improper priestly observance, viz., “the fat (haḥēleb) you eat and the wool you wear; the fatted calf you slaughter; the sheep you do not shepherd” (Ezek 34:3). This contrasts with pentateuchal tradition which states that the fat of a sacrificial animal is not to be eaten, but removed from the animal and burned (Exod 29:13, 22–25; Lev 4:8–12) and that priests are to dress in linen (Exod 28:43). Ezekiel 35:1–36:15 accuses Edom of having rendered Israel desolate by handing its people over to the sword. Ezekiel 36:16–37:14 points to the defilement of the land with blood and its purification as the dead are brought back to life. Ezekiel 37:15–28 charges that the people defiled themselves with abominations and calls for their purification (Ezek 37:23), which in turn entails the placement of the sanctuary at their center (Ezek 37:26–28). Finally, Ezekiel 38–39 charges that the land was purged because of the people’s abomination, and it calls for the burial and burning of the corpses of Gog’s army as a means to purify the land. Insofar as Ezek 37:15–28 envisions the defilement and purification of the land and people as well as the placement of the Temple at their center, it clearly functions as an integral component of the larger block in Ezek 33:21–39:29. Second, although Ezek 37:15–28 serves well as a sub-unit of Ezek 33:21–39:29, it does not appear to be designed with this role in mind. Its concern with defilement and purification appears only in v. 23, and it is a relatively minor issue when read in relation to the larger concerns with the

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28

229

reunification of the nation, the restoration of unified Davidic kingship, and the placement of the Temple at the center of the people. Indeed, defilement or the prospect of purification does not appear to be a major issue at the outset of the passage or at any point in the portrayal of the symbolic action that represents the reunification of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim. This is not to say that the issue of defilement and purification is a secondary addition to this text; it is merely an element in the larger concern with the reunification and restoration of the nation under its king and sanctuary. Given the concerns with the defilement and purification of the people and land in Ezek 33:21–39:29, such an observation raises questions as to whether or not the oracle was written for its present role in the larger text. Third, although Ezek 37:15–28 concludes with a vision of the sanctuary placed at the center of the reunified and restored nation of Israel, the conceptualization of that Temple does not appear designed to address the question of the Temple restored in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile. Instead, the conceptualization of the Temple is explicitly tied to the reunification of the people under Davidic rule and to YHWH’s promises made to the patriarch Jacob (v. 25). This is particularly striking when one considers the promises of land to the ancestors in the pentateuchal tradition. In the present form of the Pentateuch, the promise of land, nation, etc., to the ancestors includes all of the principal ancestral figures, viz., Abram/Abraham (Gen 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:4–8); Isaac (Gen 26:2–5); and Jacob (Gen 28:13–15; 35:9–12). Nevertheless, Ezek 37:15–28 contains no mention of the promise to Abraham or Isaac, but focuses specifically on Jacob. This is noteworthy since of all the ancestors, Jacob is the only one consistently associated with the land and institutions of what would later become the northern kingdom of Israel rather than the southern kingdom of Judah. Indeed, both instances of YHWH’s promise of land and posterity to Jacob take place in relation to the sanctuary at Beth El, which later became the primary sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel. Such an emphasis is hardly accidental. By focusing on the patriarch Jacob and the promise of land associated with him,18 our oracle deliberately draws upon a primary figure and sanctuary associated with the northern kingdom of Israel in an effort to associate it with promises and a sanctuary associated with the southern kingdom of Judah.19 A Davidic king is explicitly mentioned in 18

For discussion of Jacob’s association with the northern kingdom of Israel, see my study, “Puns, Politics, and Perushim: A Case Study in Teaching the English Hebrew Bible,” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 9.3 (Spring 1991): 103– 118. 19 For discussion of Davidic ideology, see Moshe Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. R. E. Friedman; HSS 26; Chico,

230

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

our passage, but the sanctuary remains unidentified. When read in relation to the proposed Davidic monarch who would preside over a reunified kingship including Judah and Joseph/Ephraim, one can hardly escape the conclusion that the sanctuary must refer to the Jerusalem Temple. Fourth, although Ezek 37:15–28 clearly calls for the reunification of Joseph/Ephraim and Judah under a Davidic monarch and YHWH’s Temple, there is no indication that the Temple has been destroyed or otherwise compromised. Nor is there any indication that the Davidic monarch has been removed from the throne or that the Davidic line has been disrupted. The exile of the people is mentioned in v. 21, but there is no indication that the people’s exile must be associated with any phase of the Babylonian Exile. This is particularly striking when considered in relation to the primary issues of the reunification of the people, the rule of a Davidic monarch, and the central role of YHWH’s sanctuary in the midst of the reunified people and the land. Each of these elements is essential to the program of religious reform and national restoration promoted by King Josiah of Judah in the late-seventh century B.C.E.,20 i.e., reunification of Israel and Judah in the aftermath of Assyrian collapse during this period, the restoration of Davidic rule over the reunified people, and the establishment of the Jerusalem Temple as the exclusive worship site in the land. As part of this general restoration, texts related to the reform indicate the expectation that Israelites/Judeans exiled from the time of the initial Assyrian invasions would return to the land (e.g., Isa 11:1–16; Jeremiah 30–31; Zeph 3:1–20; cf. Hos 3:1–5; Amos 9:11–15). Such concerns suggest that our passage was written in relation to the ideals of Josiah’s reform. Finally, readers must consider the significance of the Josianic interests in Ezek 37:15–28 in relation to the circumstances of Ezekiel’s birth and lifetime. Ezekiel 1:1 states that Ezekiel began to see visions of G-d in the thirtieth year while in Babylonian Exile. Although v. 1 does not define the thirtieth year, the following editorial comment in Ezek 1:2 identifies the thirtieth year with the fifth year of King Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim’s exile. The thirtieth year is therefore identified as 592 B.C.E. The significance of the thirtieth year continues to be debated, but I have argued elsewhere that the thirtieth year must refer to Ezekiel’s age at the time that his visions began, and that this age corresponds to the year that he would have begun active service as a priest in the Jerusalem Temple had he not been exiled to

Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 75–115; cf. Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–298. 20 For full discussion of Josiah’s reform, see Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

13. The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28

231

Babylonia.21 If this argument is upheld, it is of special importance for understanding Ezekiel’s interest in issues raised by Josiah’s reform since his birth would have taken place in 622 B.C.E. This would be the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, which both 2 Kgs 22:3 and 2 Chr 34:8 identify as the year that Josiah began the purification and renovation of the Jerusalem Temple. Ezekiel’s birth in 622 B.C.E. has implications for understanding Ezekiel the man and the formation of Ezek 37:15–28 within the Book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel would have been born at the outset of Josiah’s reform program, and the interests of that reform would have influenced the young Ezekiel as he grew up in the expectation of serving as a priest in the Jerusalem Temple. With Josiah’s death in 609 B.C.E. – the year in which Ezekiel would have turned thirteen – and the subsequent decline of Judah, a young Ezekiel – and indeed many in Judah – would have been forced to rethink the principles of the reform which would have shaped his earliest experience, education, and outlook as a prospective Zadokite priest.22 Israel and Judah were not reunited, Davidic kingship was not fully restored to its former role over a united Israel, and the Jerusalem Temple did not yet serve as the holy center of the full nation of Israel. Nevertheless, the ideals of Josiah’s reform come to expression in Ezek 37:15–28, although they are now read in relation to the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple in the aftermath of Ezekiel’s conceptualization of the Babylonian Exile and destruction of Jerusalem as the means by which YHWH chose to purge the people, the land of Israel, and creation at large in preparation for the restoration of the Temple as the holy center of all creation. Interpreters may only speculate concerning the process of rethinking earlier conceptualizations of the nation of Israel, Davidic kingship, and the Temple in relation to Josiah’s reform and concerning the process by which Ezek 37:15–28 may have been written and then reread into a later situation and literary context, but the considerations brought forward above suggest that just such a process took place, resulting in the present form of the oracle in Ezek 37:15–28 and its placement as part of the larger unit in Ezek 33:21–39:29.

21

Sweeney, “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of the Exile,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 125–143. 22 Cf. my studies, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in Truth: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in a Pluralist Age (ed. C. Helmer and K. De Troyer; Studies in Philosophical Theology 22; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 9–26, and “Structure and Redaction in Jeremiah 2– 6,” in Troubling Jeremiah (ed. A. R. P. Diamond et al.; JSOTSup 260; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 200–218, which likewise argue that Jeremiah had to rethink postulates of the Josian reform in the aftermath of the King’s death and Judah’s decline. Both studies are to brepublished in my Form and Intertextuality (pp. 78–93 and 94–108).

232

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

V In sum, Ezek 37:15–28 presupposes the ideals of King Josiah’s program of religious reform and national restoration during the late-seventh century B.C.E., which provides the socio-political and religious environment in which the young Ezekiel ben Buzi was born and educated. Although one may only speculate concerning Ezekiel’s view during this period, the ideology of Josiah’s reform would have informed the education of a young Zadokite priest who was born at the outset of the reform and who was preparing for service in the Jerusalem Temple. The placement of Ezek 37:15–28 in a context that presupposes the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the Babylonian Exile anticipates the restoration of the Temple in the aftermath of the exile. Our oracle therefore has come to serve a function different from that which it initially envisioned. Whereas Ezek 37:15–28 initially anticipates the reunification of Joseph/Ephraim and Judah under the Davidic king and the Jerusalem Temple as the outcome of Josiah’s reform, our oracle now anticipates the reunification and restoration of the nation, Davidic monarchy, and the Jerusalem Temple as an act of YHWH, who employed the Babylonian Exile as a means to purify the land and people from defilement in preparation for the establishment of the future Temple at the center of Israel and creation in Ezekiel 40–48. Such a conclusion has implications both for the interpretation of Ezek 37:15–28 and for the Book of Ezekiel as a whole,23 insofar as such a reconceptualization of the principles of the Josian reform provides the model for Ezekiel’s understanding of the significance of the Babylonian Exile and its aftermath.24

23 Note, for example, Ezekiel’s interest in northern Israel and the unified people or house of Israel throughout the book (see, e.g., Ezekiel 6–7; 20; 23; 33:1–20; 35:1–36:15). For discussion of Ephraimite influences on the Zadokite priest Ezekiel, see Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 282–286. 24 A version of this paper was read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, Pa., November 19–22, 2005.

1

2

3

4

5

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40–48) I For much of the twentieth century, scholars have viewed Ezekiel’s Temple vision in Ezekiel 40–48 either as a pseudepigraph or as a composite work formed over the course of many years.1 Hölscher carefully distinguished the poetic sections of Ezekiel, which he considered to be the authentic work of the prophet, from the prose sections that he viewed as the work of the fifth century Zadokite priesthood, arguing that Ezekiel 40–48 was entirely the work of later Zadokite writers.2 Torrey maintained that the Book of Ezekiel, including the Temple vision, was a Hellenistic pseudepigraph, set in the time of Manasseh, designed to support the myth of a Babylonian Exile as a means to undermine the Samaritans and their temple.3 Like his predecessors, Gese presumed fundamental opposition between prophets and priests, and argued that Ezekiel’s original prophetic vision in Ezekiel 40–48 had been traditio-historically expanded in three layers, including a stratum concerned with the “prince” (Hebrew, nāśî’), another concerned with the apportionment of the land among the Twelve Tribes, and a third concerned with asserting the role of the Zadokite priesthood.4 Gese’s work has remained especially influential as he was followed by Zimmerli and Hals.5 Other scholars argue for the literary coherence of the work. Rudolf Smend argued that the tight structure and unity of the vision precluded authorship by anyone apart from Ezekiel.6 Menahem Haran argued that the stylistic similarity to the P stratum of the Pentateuch, which he dates to the 1

For current research on Ezekiel 40–48, see esp. Steven Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 1–17. 2 Gustav Hölscher, Hezekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924). 3 Charles C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New York: KTAV, 1970). 4 Hartmut Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48): Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BHT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957). 5 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel (2 vols.; trans. R. E. Clements and J. D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–1983); Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOTL 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989). 6 Rudolf Smend, Der Prophet Ezechiel (2nd edition; KEH 8; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880).

234

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

pre-exilic period, pointed to Ezekiel as the exilic author of the text.7 Moshe Greenberg compared the organization and formulation of Ezekiel 40–48 to ancient Near Eastern law codes in an effort to argue that the Temple vision was a coherent work written in a common ancient Near Eastern style. 8 Susan Niditch maintains that Ezekiel 38–48 follows a common ancient Near Eastern warrior pattern that presents the establishment of a temple as the result of the defeat of the forces of chaos.9 Jon Levenson likewise employs comparative mythology and religion to argue that the mountain that figures so prominently in Ezekiel’s vision corresponds to Mt. Sinai in the pentateuchal narrative and that Ezekiel then emerges as another Moses propagating divine Torah.10 Nevertheless, these studies have failed to persuade the majority of scholars that Ezekiel 40–48 is a coherent text. Key issues include the formal discrepancy between the Temple vision in Ezekiel 40–43, the legal material in Ezekiel 44–46, and mythological portrayal of the restored Temple, the tribes of Israel, and creation itself in Ezekiel 47–48; the appearance of the nāśî’, “prince,” as a diminished royal figure subservient to the priesthood; the presumed differences in the portrayal of the Levitical and the Zadokite priests; and formal differences between the Temple vision and the material in Ezekiel 1–39. Tuell, noting some counterarguments for the coherence of the Temple vision, attempts synthesis by viewing the Temple vision as the religious polity of the Persian period Judean restoration, and holding that Ezekiel’s original vision achieved its present form in the Persian period during the reign of Darius I (522–486 B.C.E.).11 But several factors continue to point to the literary and conceptual coherence of Ezekiel’s Temple vision. First, proponents of the integrity of the Temple vision lacked a coherent methodology for assessing the formal linguistic structure of the Temple vision based on a combination of its syntactic and semantic features. Second, Levenson’s observations concerning the correlation of Mt. Sinai and Mt. Zion is pertinent here as Ezekiel’s Temple set astride Mt. Zion functions as the spatial source for the laws that follow in the Temple vision just as Mt. Sinai functions as the spatial source for the laws that follow in the pentateuchal narrative.12 Third, the role of 7 Menahem Haran, “The Law Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and Its Relation to the Priestly School,” HUCA 50 (1979): 45–71. 8 Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Int 38 (1984): 181–208. 9 Susan Niditch, “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context,” CBQ 48 (1986): 208–224. 10 Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula, Mo.: Scholars Press, 1976). 11 Tuell, The Law of the Temple; idem, Ezekiel (NIBCOT; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009). 12 Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985); see also Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

235

the prince need not be explained as the product of early Persian period reflection on the demise of the Davidic monarchy; Ezekiel’s own experience growing up during the Josian reforms and his own experience of the failure of attempted revolts against the Babylonians aids in explaining a reconceptualization of the role of the monarch.13 Fourth, the differentiation between the Levites and the Zadokite priests is not as pronounced as some scholars have argued; the Temple vision provides a basis for the differentiation of the two groups, but arguments for redactional expansion of the text by Zadokite interests have been over argued. This study presents a formal assessment of the synchronic literary structure of Ezekiel 40–48, including both its syntactic and semantic dimensions, in an effort to demonstrate the coherence of this text and to demonstrate the proper roles played within that structure by elements viewed by past scholars as disruptive within the context of the whole.14

II The first task is to assess the formal structure and characteristics of Ezekiel’s Temple vision in Ezekiel 40–48. This text is demarcated at the outset by a chronological formula in Ezek 40:1, and it is demarcated at the conclusion by YHWH’s statement, “and the name of the city shall be ‘YHWH is there,’” in Ezek 48:35b. The introductory chronological statement sets the vision in the twentyfifth year of the exile, the tenth day at the beginning of the year (Hebrew, rō’š haššānâ). This formula is the culmination of the chronological formulas that constitute the basic structure of the Book of Ezekiel and that date the book from Ezekiel’s thirtieth year in the fifth year of the exile in Ezek 1:1–3 until his fiftieth year in the twenty-fifth year of the exile in the present text. The present formula thereby dates Ezekiel’s vision of the new Temple to the tenth day of Tishri in the year 572 B.C.E. The tenth day of Tishri is Yom Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48 (SBLDS 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), who examines the spatial dimensions of Ezekiel 40–48. 13 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28: Ezekiel’s Reflection on Josiah’s Reform,” in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (ed. B. E. Kelle and M. B. Moore; LHBOTS 446; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 239–253 = above, pp. 219–232; idem, Reading Ezekiel (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2013). 14 For discussion of the methodological principles employed here, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. S. L. MacKenzie and S. R. Haynes; 2nd edition; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 58–85; idem, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. J. L. Mays et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 113–126.

236

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple to appear before YHWH and seek atonement for the impurity and transgressions of the nation Israel (Leviticus 16). Ezekiel appears to function as the High Priest would at Yom Kippur, but with the Temple destroyed, he instead is granted a vision of an ideal pattern of the future Temple that culminates in the recognition of divine presence in the restored Temple city. Consequently, Ezekiel’s task as visionary and priest is to transmit the vision and the means by which the Temple, Israel, and creation will be granted atonement and thereby become sanctified and completed. The vision of the Temple structure in Ezekiel 40–42 therefore requires both the halakhic section in Ezekiel 43–46 and the vision of the restored Israel and creation in Ezekiel 47–48 to achieve its purpose. Just as Yom Kippur is intended as a time for Israel to atone for its sins and thereby to renew itself, so Ezekiel’s vision serves a similar function with regard to the restoration of the Temple at the center of a restored Israel and a restored creation. As interpreters have noted, Ezekiel’s Temple vision corresponds to no known Temple, neither Solomon’s Temple nor the Second Temple. Consequently, Jewish tradition views Ezekiel’s Temple as a vision of the future Temple or the Third Temple that will be reestablished in Jerusalem at the end of time.15 Such a view is supported by the vision of the restored creation at the end of the vision in which the Dead Sea will become a fertile lake and all Israel will be gathered around the Temple. Some speculate that the Temple vision focuses on the heavenly Temple, but the transformation of the Dead Sea indicates that the vision takes up a restored Temple that will inaugurate a new creation. The basic linguistic structure of the Temple vision is already signaled in Ezek 40:1 by the statement that follows immediately upon the date formula, “on that very day, the hand of YHWH was upon me, and he brought me there.” “There” apparently refers to “the city,” presumably Jerusalem, which was mentioned in the chronological formula as a means to specify the date of Ezekiel’s vision, i.e., “in the fourteenth year after the city was destroyed.” The statement, “and he brought me there” (Hebrew, wayyābē’ ’ōtî šāmmâ), signals a series of guidance verbs in Ezek 40:2, 3, 17, 28; 41:1; 42:1, 15; 43:1, 5; 44:1, 4; 46:19, 21; 47:1, 2, and 6b, including 15 See Seder Olam Rabbah 26:51–52 (Midrash Seder Olam: A Photostatic Reproduction of Ber Ratner’s Edition of the Text, Notes, and Introduction [Brooklyn, N.Y.: Moznaim, 1988], 20); commentaries on Ezek 40:1 by Rashi and on Ezek 40:2 by Radak in any standard edition of the Mikra’ot Gedolot, i.e., the Rabbinic Bible. For discussion of Ezekiel in Jewish sources, see my essay, “The Problem of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet (ed. P. M. Joyce and A. Mein; LHBOTS 535; London and New York: Continuum, 2011), 11–23 = below, pp. 363–375.

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

237

variations of wayābē’, wayyôṣi’ēnî, wayyôlikēnî, wayyāšeb, etc., that convey the basic action of the vision as Ezekiel is guided from place to place as the vision is explained to him. Although these verbs carry the basic action of the vision account, there is a fundamental division apparent within them. The first verb in Ezek 40:2 appears as a finite perfect form following a syntactically independent subordinate clause, viz., “in visions of G-d (běmar’ôt ’ělōhîm) he guided me (hěbî’ēnî) to the land of Israel, and he set me down on a very high mountain, and upon it was something like a pattern of a city on the south.” Such a syntactically independent statement defined in relation to the “visions of G-d” serves as the introduction to the guidance sequence that underlies this text. Readers will note that “the man whose appearance appeared like copper” in Ezek 40:3 guides Ezekiel through the vision. YHWH does not appear or speak until Ezek 43:1. Throughout the text, Ezekiel is the narrator who describes the experience, but throughout the initial tour of the Temple buildings in Ezek 40:2–42:20 only Ezekiel speaks. Although Ezekiel continues to speak at the outset of Ezek 43:1, something of fundamental importance happens at this point, viz., Ezekiel sees the vision of “the glory/presence of the G-d of Israel” (Hebrew, kěbôd ’ělōqê yiśrā’ēl). When the presence/glory of YHWH enters the Temple, YHWH begins to speak and explains the significance of what Ezekiel sees throughout the balance of the narrative. Consequently, three fundamental divisions appear in Ezekiel’s Temple vision. The first is the introduction to the account in Ezek 40:1, which presents the chronological setting of the vision, Ezekiel’s divine conveyance, and the spatial setting for the vision (“there”). The second is the account of the first vision in Ezek 40:2–42:20 in which the man who appears like copper guides Ezekiel through the various structures of the Temple and provides him with their measurements. The third is the account of the second vision in Ezek 43:1–48:35 in which YHWH explains to Ezekiel the halakhic practices and outcomes of the restored Temple. Readers should note that such a sequence is analogous to that of the initial segment of the Sinai pericope in Exodus 19–24 in which Mt. Sinai is defined as Temple site, YHWH appears on Mt. Sinai, and reveals the various laws (halakhot) that will sanctify Israel and make possible the sanctification and completion of creation. The account of the first vision in Ezek 40:2–42:2 is an account of Ezekiel’s Temple tour in which the prophet is guided by the man whose appearance was like copper. The guidance formulas in Ezek 40:2, 3, 28, 32, 35, 48; 41:1; 42:1, 15 signal the basic structure of this section in nine stages. Ezekiel 40:2 serves as the introduction to this portion of the account insofar as it identifies the genre as “visions of G-d,” locates the setting on a high mountain in the land of Israel, and points to the pattern of a city to the south as the basic objection of attention. Ezekiel 40:3–16 constitutes the first stage of the tour that focuses on the outer walls and

238

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

gates to the south and the east. Ezekiel 40:17–27 constitutes the second stage that focuses on the outer courts and gates on the east, north, and south. Ezekiel 40:28–31 constitutes the third stage that focuses on the inner court and the south gate. Ezekiel 40:32–34 constitutes the fourth stage that focuses on the inner court and the east gate. Ezekiel 40:35–47 constitutes the fifth stage that focuses on the inner court and the north gate. Ezekiel 40:48–49 constitutes the sixth stage that focuses on the Ulam or the portico at the entrance to the Temple structure. Ezekiel 41:1–26 constitutes the seventh stage that focuses on the Heikhal, “the palace/great hall” of the Temple and the Holy of Holies. Ezekiel 42:1–14 constitutes the eighth stage that focuses on the priestly chambers of the outer court. Finally, Ezek 42:15–20 constitutes the summation of the first vision account that provides the measurements of the entire Temple complex. The second vision account in which YHWH conveys the halakhot pertaining to the restored Temple and the outcomes of its observance appears in Ezek 43:1–48:35. Again, the guidance formulas convey the basic action of this segment. The first stage appears in vv. 1–4 which presents the entry of the divine presence. The second stage appears in vv. 43:5–27 in which Ezekiel is taken to the altar in the inner court (v. 5). Following his statement of the setting in v. 6, Ezekiel hears YHWH’s two speeches concerning the halakhot of the Temple (vv. 7–17) and halakhot pertaining to the altar (vv. 18–26). The third stage appears in vv. 1–3 in which Ezekiel is taken to the closed gate of the outer court where the prince eats. The fourth stage appears in 44:4–46:18 where Ezekiel is taken to the north gate before the Temple where Ezekiel receives the halakhot concerning the priests and Levites. Following the introduction in 44:4, YHWH’s speech in 44:5– 46:18 conveys instruction and halakhot concerning the broken covenant that forbade access to the Temple (44:6aβ–8), access to the Temple by the priests and Levites (44:9–45:8), the responsibilities of the Prince (45:9– 17), purging the sanctuary (45:18–25), the role of the east gate (46:1–15), and the status of gifts presented by the Prince (46:16–18). The fifth stage in 46:19–20 takes up the northern chambers of the priests, i.e., the kitchens. The sixth stage in 46:21–24 takes up the corner structures and kitchens of the outer court used to prepare the offerings by the people. The seventh stage in 47:1 sees Ezekiel returned to the east gate of the Temple from which water flows eastward. The eighth stage in 47:2–6a moves Ezekiel from the north gate to the outer eastern gate where the water flows eastward. The ninth and final stage in 47:6b–48:35 sees Ezekiel conveyed to the bank of the wadi to portray the new creation. This segment includes Ezekiel’s account of the man’s portrayal of the new creation at the Dead Sea in 47:6b–12 and Ezekiel’s account of YHWH’s speech concerning the new creation of Israel in the land around the new Temple in 47:13–48:35. Following the messenger formula in 47:13aα, YHWH’s speech takes up

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

239

the boundaries of the land and its allotment to the tribes of Israel in 47:13aβ–23, the distribution of the land to the Twelve Tribes in 48:1–35a, and the naming of the city as “YHWH is there” in 48:35b. A detailed presentation of the formal structure of Ezekiel 40–48 appears as follows: Vision Account: Ezekiel’s Vision of the Temple (Ezekiel 40–48) I. Introduction: chronological setting: 25th year; 10 th day of the month (Yom Kippur); city destroyed II. First vision account: tour of the Temple A. Vision account introduction; setting: land of Israel; high mountain; city on south side of the hill B. First stage (and he brought me in): outer walls and gates 1. South gate, with heavenly guide 2. East gate C. Second stage (and he brought me in): outer court and gates 1. East gate 2. North gate 3. South gate (and he led me to) D. Third stage (and he brought me in): inner court; south gate E. Fourth stage (and he brought me in): inner court; east gate F. Fifth stage (and he brought me in): inner court; north gate G. Sixth stage (and he brought me in): Ulam H. Seventh stage (and he brought me in): Heikhal and Holy of Holies 1. Measurement of the Heikhal and Holy of Holies 2. Measurements of the wall, Temple side chambers, and walkway a. Measurements proper b. Measurements of overall structure c. Measurements of wall decorations and interior furnishings 1) Paneling and windows 2) Decoration and walls 3) Paneling of Holy of Holies, altar/table, and wall decoration I. Eighth stage (and he brought me out and in): to the priestly chambers of outer court 1. Expanded visionary guidance formula 2. North chamber 3. South chamber 4. Purpose of the chambers J. Summation: measurements of the entire Temple complex III. Second vision account: halakhot pertaining to the Temple A. First stage (and he led me): east gate; entry of divine presence B. Second stage (and the wind lifted me up and brought me): inner court 1. Expanded divine conveyance formula: inner court: divine presence; altar 2. Audition account of YHWH’s speech a. Ezekiel’s statement of setting b. Account of YHWH’s first speech 1) Speech formula

40:1 40:2–42:20 40:2 40:3–16 40:3–5 40:6–16 40:17–27 40:17–19a 40:19b–23 40:24–27 40:28–31 40:32–34 40:35–47 40:48–49 41:1–26 41:1–4 41:5–26 41:5–12 41:13–15a 41:15b–26 41:15b–16 41:17–20a 41:20b–26 42:1–14 42:1 42:2–9 42:10–12 42:13–14 42:15–20 43:1–48:35 43:1–4 43:5–27 43:5 43:6–27 43:6 43:7–17 43:7aα1–2

240

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

2) Speech proper: instruction speech addressed to Ezekiel concerning halakhot of Temple a) Ben Adam: concerning sanctity of holy place/Temple b) You Ben Adam: concerning communication of instructions for Temple to people c) These are the measurements: concerning measurements of the altar c. Account of YHWH’s second speech 1) Speech formula 2) Speech proper: instruction speech addressed to Ezekiel concerning halakhot pertaining to altar a) Prophetic messenger formula b) Message proper i. Introduction: statutes concerning consecration of the altar ii. Concerning bull as the first day ḥaṭṭā’t offering iii. Concerning seven day consecration offerings: goat, bull, ram iv. Result: holy altar employed for offerings to YHWH C. Third stage (and he returned me): outer court; gate closed; prince eats D. Fourth stage (and he brought me): north gate before the Temple; halakhot/instruction concerning the priests and Levites 1. Introduction: guidance to north gate and presence of YHWH 2. Account of YHWH’s instruction speech a. Speech formula b. Speech proper: instruction speech concerning priests, Levites, offerings 1) Initial exhortation concerning access to Temple 2) YHWH’s command to instruct Israel a) Instruction formula (and you shall say to …) b) Instructions proper (each introduced by messenger formula) i. 1 st element: accusation concerning broken covenant; forbidden access to holy Temple ii. 2 nd element: access by priests and Levites aa. concerning restricted access by Levites bb. concerning access, duties, and privileges of the priests i) Access of priests ii) Vestments of priests iii) Hair of priests iv) Drinking by priests v) Marriage by priests vi) Teaching/instruction and judicial functions vii) Defilement by contact with dead viii) Portions of priests from offerings of people cc. Concerning apportion of sacred compound for priests, Levites, Nasi’ i) Overview

43:7aα3–17 43:7aα3–9 43:10–12 43:13–17 43:18–27 43:18aα1–2 43:18aα3–27 43:18aα3–6 43:18aβ–27 43:18aβ–b 43:19–21 43:22–26 43:27 44:1–3 44:4–46:18 44:4 44:5–46:18 44:5aα1–3 44:5aα4–46:18 44:5aα4–b 44:6–46:18 44:6aα 44:6aβ–46:18 44:6aβ–8 44:9–45:8 44:9–14 44:15–31 44:15–16 44:17–19 44:20 44:21 44:22 44:23–24 44:25–27 44:28–31 45:1–8 45:1

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48) ii) Space for the sanctuary iii) Space for the priests (includes sanctuary) iv) Space for the Levites v) Space for the city/People of Israel vi) Space for the Prince iii. 3 rd element: responsibilities of Nasi’ aa. Practice of justice bb. Provision of offerings for the Temple iv. 4 th element: purging the sanctuary aa. 1 st day, 1 st month bb. 7 th day cc. 14th–20 th days (Passover) dd. Seven-day festival in 7 th month (Sukkot) v. 5 th element: concerning the east gate aa. Opening of gate on Shabbat and Rosh Hodesh bb. Prince and people at the east gate cc. Prince’s offerings for Shabbat and Rosh Hodesh dd. Exiting the Temple by prince and people ee. Meal and free-will offerings of the prince ff. Summation: daily offerings vi. 6 th element: status of gifts granted by the prince aa. Gifts to sons are an inheritance bb. Gifts to servants revert to sons at Jubilee cc. Gifts limited to prince’s holdings E. Fifth stage: northern chambers of the priests: kitchens F. Sixth stage: outer court: corner structures and kitchens for the preparation of the offerings by the people G. Seventh Stage: return to the east gate of the Temple with water flowing eastward H. Eighth Stage: out the north gate to outer eastern gate with water flowing eastward I. Ninth stage: return to bank of wadi: portrayal of new creation 1. Ezekiel’s account of the man’s portrayal of new creation at the Dead Sea 2. Ezekiel’s account of divine speech concerning the new creation of Israel in the land around the new Temple a. Divine messenger formula b. Speech proper: announcement of Israel’s distribution in the land 1) Concerning the boundaries of the land and its distribution a) Boundaries of the land i. Principles of distribution: equivalent portions ii. Northern boundaries iii. Eastern boundaries iv. Southern boundaries v. Western boundaries b) Principles of allotment for tribes of Israel and the gerim who live among them 2) Concerning the distribution of the tribes in the land 3) Concerning the name of the city: YHWH is there

241

45:2 45:3–4 45:5 45:6 45:7–8 45:9–17 45:9–12 45:13–17 45:18–25 45:18–19 45:20 45:21–24 45:25 46:1–15 46:1 46:2–3 46:4–7 46:8–10 46:11–12 46:13–15 46:16–18 46:16 46:17 46:18 46:19–20 46:21–24 47:1 47:2–6a 47:6b–48:35 47:6b–12 47:13–48:35 47:13aα 47:13aβ–48:35 47:13aβ–23 47:13aβ–20 47:13aβ–14 47:15–17 47:18 47:19 47:20 47:21–23 48:1–35a 48:35b

242

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

III The preceding formal analysis of the Temple vision account in Ezekiel 40– 48 provides the foundation from which to address the questions of literary coherence that have played such an important role in scholarly discussion of this material. First is the question of the formal structure and synchronic literary coherence of Ezekiel 40–48 itself. Interpreters have raised questions concerning the interrelationship between the description of the Temple and its courts in Ezekiel 40–43, the presentation of the halakhic material in Ezekiel 44– 46, and the mythological portrayal of the restored Israel and the fertile Dead Sea region in Ezekiel 47–48. As the preceding formal analysis demonstrates, these elements do in fact belong together despite their formal and substantive differences. Levenson’s earlier work demonstrates the role played by the Temple in ancient Judean thought as the sacred center, not only of Judah or Israel, but of creation as a whole.16 As comparative religion demonstrates, temples serve as the sacred centers of creation in most ancient Near Eastern cultures, and Judah/Israel is no exception. Just as Marduk’s or Baal’s defeat of the chaos monsters Tiamat or Mot leads to the creation of natural and socio-political order in the world symbolized by a temple built to honor the god’s victory, so the Wilderness Tabernacle functions as the pattern for YHWH’s Temple following the creation of the world and the establishment of Israel as the people chosen to bring recognition of YHWH into the world and thereby to complete the creation of that world. Indeed, the iconography of the Temple points to the various elements of creation and the natural and social order that is to follow from YHWH’s initial acts of setting the world in order. The interior of the Temple is decorated with various motifs, cherubim, pomegranates, lions, etc., that are intended to evoke the imagery of the Garden of Eden, and the approach of the High Priest to YHWH in the Temple represents humankind’s efforts to return to Eden and restore the pristine relationship between YHWH and humankind that existed prior to the expulsion from the Garden. Expulsion from the Garden was brought about by a case of alleged human disobedience of YHWH’s commands not to eat from the fruit of the tree in the Garden, and so the human capacity to observe the will of YHWH to bring about a stable and holy creation plays an important part in the conceptualization of the role of the Temple. Indeed, biblical literature posits that the Temple is the source from which YHWH’s laws are revealed, adjudicated, and taught to the people in an effort to create a stable, just, and holy society that will in turn bring about a stable, just, and holy 16 Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–298; idem, Sinai and Zion; idem, Theology of the Program of Restoration.

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

243

creation. Levenson’s work in particular demonstrates the parallel roles of Mt. Sinai, the source of YHWH’s laws in the pentateuchal narrative, and the Jerusalem Temple, the source for the revelation of YHWH’s laws in Judean society and prophetic literature. Exodus 21 designates the Temple as the place where a man might declare his intention to remain a slave. Deut 31:10–13 instructs the priests to read YHWH’s Torah to the people from the portico of the Temple, and Lev 10:10–11 instructs the priests to teach the people the difference between the sacred and profane and the clean and unclean. Isaiah and Micah posit that the nations will travel to Zion, the site of the Temple, to learn YHWH’s Torah (Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1– 5), and Jeremiah, himself a priest, holds that the people’s welfare depends upon their observance of YHWH’s Torah. Ezra, again a priest, reads the Torah to the people to serve as the basis for their relationship with YHWH in Nehemiah 8–10. As these examples indicate, the placement in Ezekiel 40–48 of the halakhot to be observed by the people and taught by the priests immediately following the description of the Temple should occasion no surprise on the part of interpreters. A primary function of the Temple was to serve as the source for the revelation and teaching of divine Torah, and that is precisely the role envisioned for the restored Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. The blessings and curses sections in the Pentateuch, e.g., Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30, and the Prophets, e.g., Isaiah 24; Jeremiah 34; and Hosea 4, postulate both social and natural disruption and disaster as a consequence for failing to observe YHWH’s expectations and social and natural blessing as a result of observing YHWH’s will.17 Ezekiel 40–48 does not discuss the consequences of failing to observe the halakhot laid out in Ezekiel 43–46 – indeed, Ezekiel 1–39 focuses especially on the consequences of corrupting the Temple. Instead it presumes the observance of the people, and Ezekiel 47–48 lay out the blessings for doing so, viz., all Israel will be restored around the new Temple, and creation itself will be renewed as indicated by the waters flowing from the Temple that will give life to the Dead Sea. Essentially, Ezekiel 40–48 posits a restored Israel and a restored creation as a result of the restoration of the Temple and the observance of the halakhot presented in Ezekiel’s Temple vision. The three elements of Ezekiel’s Temple vision seen by earlier scholars as disjointed in fact point to the conceptualization of the Temple as the holy center of creation. With the establishment of the Temple and the observance of YHWH’s expectations that are revealed through the Temple, Israel and creation are both sanctified and made whole. The second question to be addressed is the interrelationship between the Temple vision account in Ezekiel 40–48 and the earlier material in Ezekiel 17 Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964).

244

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

1–39. Scholars have persistently argued that the Temple vision is generically distinct from Ezekiel 1–39 and that the formal features of Ezekiel 1– 39, particularly the recognition formula, are absent from Ezekiel 40–48. But these issues are hardly valid reasons to consider Ezekiel 40–48 to be a later addition to the text. Ezekiel 1–39 posits that Jerusalem is to be destroyed and the people exiled because the Jerusalem Temple has been corrupted. This is especially articulated in Ezekiel 8–11 in which Ezekiel is given a tour of the old Temple and shown YHWH’s departure from the Temple because it can no longer function as the sacred center of Israel or creation.18 The portrayal of Jerusalem’s destruction is founded on the conceptualization of the scapegoat ritual employed at Yom Kippur to symbolize the purging of the people from wrongdoing so that they might be restored to their presumed sacred state (Leviticus 16). Jerusalem is to be purged so that it might be restored to its ideal state of holiness. Although elements of Ezekiel 1–39, such as Ezekiel 8–11 and 33–39,19 anticipate Jerusalem’s and Israel’s restoration, no full vision of restoration appears in these chapters. The Temple vision in Ezekiel 40–48 fills this gap. It serves as the culmination of the book that portrays the outcome of the process of purging, initiated by YHWH and anticipated throughout Ezekiel 1–39, but uncompleted.20 Ezekiel 40–48 posits that completion in detail; just as YHWH abandons Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8–11, YHWH returns to a purged and restored Jerusalem in Ezekiel 40–48. Furthermore, the preponderate role played by the recognition formulas in Ezekiel 1–39 find their culmination in Ezekiel 40–48 insofar as the recognition of YHWH by all parties named in Ezekiel 1–39 will take place with the restoration of the Temple as the holy center of Israel and creation. The third question to be addressed is the status of the Davidic monarch, referred to throughout the Temple vision as nāśî’, “prince,” rather than as melek, “king.” Indeed, this is an issue throughout the book as Ezekiel typically employs nāśî’, “prince,” rather than melek, “king,” throughout Ezekiel 1–39 as well. Interpreters have taken this designation for the Davidic king as an indication of the early Persian period setting for the composition of the Book of Ezekiel insofar as it would represent the political reality of the Davidic monarchy, which was never reestablished under Persian rule. Furthermore, the portrayal of the nāśî’, “prince,” as one of the worshippers at the Temple under the authority of the Temple priests has reinforced this view insofar as the priesthood emerged as the dominant leadership of 18 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Destruction of Jerusalem as Purification in Ezekiel 8– 11,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 144–155. 19 Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Assertion of Divine Power in Ezekiel 33:21–39:29,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality, 156–172. 20 Cf. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration, 10.

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

245

Judah during the Persian period. But interpreters must recognize two major factors. First, there was no Davidic prince to be subservient to the priesthood during the Persian period. The last major Davidic figure was Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the grandson of Jehoiachin, who returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Second Temple in 522 B.C.E. But by the time the Second Temple was completed in 515 B.C.E., Zerubbabel was no longer present in Jerusalem. His fate remains unknown, but there was no Davidic figure to succeed him and there was no major interest in Second Temple period Judaism in reviving Davidic kingship until the Hasmonean period. Furthermore, Zerubbabel’s relationship with the High Priest, Joshua ben Jehozadak, remains uncertain. Although some might maintain that Zerubbabel was eclipsed by Joshua as the leading figure in Judah, insofar as Joshua is named as the figure to be crowned as leader of Judah in Zech 6:9–15, Joshua’s role in this text appears to be the result of Zerubbabel’s disappearance, not his subservience to the priestly figure. Second, Ezekiel’s own understanding of the House of David could easily accommodate such terminology throughout his career from the time of the exile of King Jehoiachin in 597 B.C.E. through his final visions dated to 572 B.C.E. or even later. Indeed, the Hebrew term melek appears in Ezekiel in several instances in reference to the Davidic monarch in Ezek 1:2; 7:27; 37:22 (2x), 24. Ezekiel 1:2 is a third person editorial reference intended to explain Ezekiel’s first person statement regarding the setting of the book in Ezek 1:1, and may be set aside. Ezekiel 7:27 makes reference to the mourning of the melek, “king,” and the nāśî’, “prince,” in reaction to the doom that will overtake the land of Israel. The references to the Davidic king in Ezek 37:22, 24 appear in relation to Ezekiel’s projection of the reunification of Israel and Judah under the rule of the Davidic king in Ezek 37:15–28. Here, it is important to recall Ezekiel’s historical setting.21 Ezekiel was thirty years old when he had his inaugural vision of YHWH in Ezekiel 1 during the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile, i.e., 592 B.C.E. This means that he was born in 622 B.C.E., the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign when Josiah commenced his program of religious reform and national restoration (see 2 Kgs 22:3; 2 Chr 34:8). Josiah’s reform was based in large measure on his purge of the Jerusalem Temple so that it might be resanctified as the holy center of a reunited Israel under the rule of the Davidic king. This is precisely the scenario envisioned by Ezekiel in Ezek 37:15–28, viz., Ezekiel was a supporter of Josiah’s reform. As a prospective Zadokite priest of the Jerusalem Temple, such support makes perfect sense for the young Ezekiel. But with Josiah’s untimely death in 609 B.C.E., the demise of his 21 See my study, “The Royal Oracle in Ezekiel 37:15–28”; see also idem, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

246

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

attempted reform, and the exile of Jehoiachin and Ezekiel in 597 B.C.E., everything changed. First, there was no legitimate Davidic monarch on the throne. Josiah was dead, Jehoiachin was exiled, and Josiah’s brother, Zedekiah was placed on the throne by the Babylonians to serve as a puppet ruler. Throughout his reign, Jehoiachin would have been viewed as the legitimate monarch, not Zedekiah. Indeed, the weak character displayed by Zedekiah as portrayed in Jeremiah 37–39 indicates that he lacked full support from his people. Following Zedekiah’s death and the fall of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin remained in Babylonian Exile for the rest of his life. Thus, from 597 B.C.E. on, there was no legitimate Davidic king sitting on the throne in Jerusalem, and Josiah’s reforms and purging of the Temple would have ceased after his death in 609 B.C.E. With the puppet Zedekiah on the throne, or even his non-Davidic successor, Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan, appointed as governor by the Babylonians, Ezekiel would have employed the term nāśî’, “prince,” rather than melek, “king,” to refer to the ruling figure of Judah. Even if a legitimate Davidic king would ascend to the throne, his subservience to the Babylonians would render him as a nāśî’, “prince,” in the eyes of Ezekiel. But Ezekiel nevertheless envisions the future restoration of the Temple, Israel, and creation, as the ultimate outcome of Josiah’s efforts. Ezekiel would have still supported Josiah’s reform, but with Josiah’s death and the subsequent exile of Judah, Ezekiel would have posited the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as part of the process of purging and restoration that commenced with Josiah’s reform and would conclude with a future restoration. The fourth question to be addressed is the status of the priesthood in Ezekiel 40–48. Interpreters have argued that the differentiation in the roles of the Zadokite priests, who have full authorization to serve at the altar of the new Temple, and the Levites, who are relegated to secondary status in the new Temple, is the product of Persian period Zadokite efforts to promote themselves as the true priests of YHWH.22 A further consideration is the view among many nineteenth and twentieth century scholars that prophets and priests were fundamentally opposed to each other. But more recent research demonstrates that prophets frequently were priests throughout the ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic world as well as in ancient Israel and Judah or that they worked in temple contexts.23 Several texts are crucial to this question, viz., Ezek 40:44–46, which allocates the chamber 22

E.g., Tuell, The Law of the Temple, 121–152. E.g., Frederick H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Frances FlanneryDailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras (JSJSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2004); cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 23–32. 23

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

247

that faces south to the priests who observe the watch of the Temple and the chamber that faces north to the sons of Zadok who alone may approach to serve YHWH; Ezek 43:18–27, which designates the Zadokites as the priests who will offer sacrifice to YHWH at the altar; Ezek 44:9–31, which designates the Levites as secondary priests due to the alleged past idolatry and names the Zadokites as the priests who will serve at YHWH’s altar; Ezek 45:1–8, which allots distinct portions of land to the Zadokite priests, the Levites, and the Prince; and Ezek 48:8–14, which differentiates the land assigned to the Levites, again described as having gone astray from YHWH, and the priests, described as having kept YHWH’s charge. The first observation pertains to Ezek 40:44–46, which assigns the chamber that faces south “to the priests who observe the watch of the Temple” (Hebrew, lakkōhǎnîm šōmrê mišmeret habbāyit) and the chamber that faces north “to the priests that observe the watch of the altar, that is, the sons of Zadok who come near from the sons of Levi to YHWH to serve him” (lakkōhǎnîm šōmrê mišmeret hammizbēaḥ hēmmâ běnê ṣādôq haqqěrēbîm mibběnê lēwî ’el yhwh lěšārětô). This text has been crucial in the discussion concerning the alleged demotion of the Levites because it identifies both classes of priests as priests (Hebrew, kōhǎnîm). Indeed, Tuell attributes this passage to Ezekiel because there is no differentiation in the treatment of the two priestly groups; it does not belittle the non-Zadokite group.24 But there is in fact a distinction between the two groups. The passage differentiates the duties of the two classes of priests, viz., those in the south facing chamber are assigned oversight over the Temple in general, whereas those in the north facing chamber are assigned specifically to serve at the altar where they will approach or come near to YHWH. These are already the basic divisions of responsibility for the Levites and the Zadokite priests. This differentiation in duties is crucial. Those assigned to the Temple are not included among those who approach YHWH at the altar, i.e., they are assigned all duties of the Temple except service at the altar. Otherwise, their duties are not defined. The Zadokites, however, are assigned specifically to the altar. Altar service entails the presentation of offerings to YHWH and thereby requires that these priests come nearest to YHWH and the Holy of Holies in the Temple where YHWH presumably is revealed. The Zadokites are already a higher or more holy class of priests than those with general responsibility for the Temple. Furthermore, the Zadokite priests are identified as coming from among the sons of Levi; like all priests, they are Levites. There is no reason to assume that the other group of priests is anything but Levite as well. There is no overt belittling of the non-Zadokite group, but they already have a very different and less crucial role in the Temple service than the Zadokites. 24

Tuell, The Law of the Temple, 31–33.

248

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

The second set of observations pertains to Ezek 43:18–27, which again designates the Zadokites as the group who come near to present YHWH’s offerings at the altar. This text takes up the sanctification of the altar, and it assigns the task of offering sacrifice on the altar to the Zadokites. It does not polemicize against the Levites. Earlier scholars, such as Gese and Zimmerli posited a secondary layer because of the focus on the Zadokites and stylistic tension within the unit, but such conclusions are unwarranted.25 The stylistic tension may be explained as the result of literary freedom of expression. Unlike earlier generations, there is little reason to presume that ancient writers were restricted to such rigid stylistic criteria. The Zadokites are to perform the assigned task of offering sacrifice just as they were presumed to do in Ezek 40:44–46. The third set of observations pertains to Ezek 44:9–31, which distinguishes the Zadokite priests from the Levites and relegates the Levites to a secondary role in the Temple. The Levites are condemned in Ezek 44:10 for forsaking YHWH to pursue their idols (Hebrew, gillûlêhem, “their turds,” i.e., idols). As punishment for their alleged infidelity, Ezek 44:13 indicates that the Levites are forbidden to approach YHWH to serve as priests (Hebrew, lěkahēn lî, “to serve as priest to me”) to come near to YHWH’s most holy things, the holy of holies (Hebrew, ‛al kol kādāšay ’el qodšê haqqědāšîm, “upon all of my holy things, unto the holies of holies”). Such a prohibition forbids the Levites from coming near YHWH’s most sacred offerings presented at the altar before the Temple. Although some argue that this punishment prevents the Levites from serving as priests altogether,26 interpreters must note that the Levites are still assigned responsibility for the Temple at large. Ezekiel 44:11 states that the Levites “will be serving in my sanctuary (Hebrew, běmiqdāšî měšārětîm, “in my sanctuary serving”), appointed to the gates of the Temple, and serving the Temple; they shall slaughter the whole burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to serve them.” Likewise, Ezek 44:14 states that YHWH will appoint the Levites “keepers of the watch of the Temple (Hebrew, šōmrê mišmeret habbāyit) for all its work and for all that shall be done in it.” Ezekiel 44:15–31 goes on to specify the roles and responsibilities of the Zadokites, i.e., they will offer the fat and blood of the offerings to YHWH, they will enter the sanctuary to serve YHWH at the table in the sanctuary, they will wear the priestly vestments while in the inner court of the sanctuary and remove them when they go to the outer court where the people are, they will not defile themselves by various means, they will teach the people the difference between the sacred and the profane and the clean and the unclean, etc. The passage hardly disenfranchises the Levites 25 26

Gese, Verfassungsentwurf, 46–50; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:429–436. Tuell, Ezekiel, 309.

14. Form and Coherence in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

249

from serving as priests. It simply defines their respective priestly roles, viz., whereas the Zadokite priests will approach YHWH to present the most holy offerings, the Levites will have charge of everything else in the Temple. The Zadokite priests are clearly the leading order of priests who have the greatest responsibility and who are closest to YHWH and handle the most sacred tasks, but the Levites nevertheless serve the sanctuary in a different set of roles. Such a differentiation is presumed in the other passages discussed above as well as those that follow in Ezek 45:1–8, that allots distinct portions of land to the Zadokites for their special service, and Ezek 48:8–14, that differentiates land assigned to the Levites. In considering such differentiation, we must again consider Ezekiel’s perspective. Ezekiel 44:9–31 charges that the Levites engaged in idolatry, but it does not specify the wrongdoing. But Ezekiel 8–11 may be helpful because of its portrayal of the defiled Jerusalem Temple. The vision of the corrupt Temple identifies several issues. One is the image that provokes jealousy (Hebrew, sēmel haqqin’â) in Ezek 8:5, which is likely a Babylonian inscribed stele, which would have included depictions of Babylonian deities, and would have been erected in the Temple court when the Babylonians subdued Jerusalem in 598–597 B.C.E. From Ezekiel’s perspective, the presence of such an image entails the desecration of the Temple. That would also have been the time of the first deportation when King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel himself, and others were taken from Jerusalem to exile in Babylonia. Ezekiel would have been one of the Zadokite priests taken, but there were undoubtedly others, and the absence of a cadre of Zadokites would have played a role in convincing Ezekiel that the Temple was no longer properly supervised, particularly when priests such as Jeremiah, not a Zadokite priest himself, would have remained in Jerusalem to serve in the Temple. It is therefore striking to consider the other abominations named in this vision. The depiction of detestable forms, creeping things and beasts, and the fetishes of the house of Israel depicted on the walls of the Temple are a case in point. Was the Temple somehow remodeled and the inlaid Edenic images of cherubs, pomegranates, lions, etc., replaced with the abominations described in the vision? Or with the Temple defiled by the Babylonian image and the absence of Zadokite priests do the older Edenic images now appear detestable to Ezekiel in his vision? The seventy elders of the house of Israel led by Jaazniah ben Shaphan is another case in point. They offer incense and argue that YHWH does not see what they do. But we must recall two things about Jaazniah ben Shaphan. First, he is not a priest and, second, he is part of the family that gave support to Jeremiah throughout his career. The presence of Jaazniah ben Shaphan and the seventy elders offering incense in the Temple suggests that the Temple was inadequately supervised in Ezekiel’s eyes thereby contributing to its corruption. The

250

Part 4: The Book of Ezekiel

third case is the depiction of the women weeping for Tammuz, the Babylonian dying and rising fertility whose death and presence in the underworld mythologically explains the dry summer season prior to the New Year, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot when the rains come. Were the women actually mourning for Tammuz, or were there mourning rituals practiced by the people during the late summer that were somehow understood to bring about the rains? And finally, there are the twenty-five men with their backs to the Temple worshipping the sun. But the Temple mourning service would have taken place at sunrise and looked to the east to see the manifestation of YHWH from Seir to the east as depicted in Deut 33:2 and Judg 5:4. In each of these cases, Ezekiel describes events that may well have been normative for worship in the Jerusalem Temple under the supervision of Zadokite priests, but with the erection of a Babylonian stele in the Temple courts and the removal of at least some of the Zadokite priesthood, he now sees them as corrupt. For Ezekiel, the sanctity of the Zadokite priesthood is presumed, but other priests, such as Jeremiah, or unqualified figures, such as Jaazniah ben Shaphan and the seventy elders, would have rendered the Temple impure. These three sets of observations make it very clear that there is a differentiation between the roles and responsibilities of the Zadokite priests and the Levites, but they also make it clear that both serve in the sanctuary of YHWH. There is no indication that this differentiation is somehow secondary to the text.

IV In sum, the preceding formal analysis of Ezekiel 40–48 provides a basis for reading Ezekiel’s Temple vision as a coherent text that is not incompatible with the rest of the Book of Ezekiel. The analysis makes it clear that the Jerusalem Temple envisioned by the prophet will serve as the sacred center of Israel and creation at large and that the laws necessary for sanctifying the life of Israel and for bringing about the transformation of creation will emanate from that Temple. It further demonstrates that the view of the Davidic monarch as a prince and member of the worshipping community is compatible with Ezekiel’s understanding of the monarch in the late-monarchic and early exilic period. It also demonstrates that there is little reason to view the differentiation of the roles and responsibilities of the Zadokite priesthood and the Levites as a late insertion in the text that is otherwise incompatible with the rest of Ezekiel. Although interpreters can never ascertain authorship of ancient texts with absolute certainty, there is little evidence in these chapters that would justify denying its composition to the Zadokite priest and visionary prophet Ezekiel.

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

1

2

15. The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature: The Case of Amos 9:11–15 I One of the fundamental issues in the modern critical study of the prophetic literature is the historical reconstruction of the prophets’ authentic oracles. Employing a combination of literary-critical, form-critical, traditionhistorical, and redaction-critical exegetical tools, scholars throughout much of the twentieth century sought to remove the presumed overlay of later tradition and reinterpretation (or misrepresentation as many would contend) in an effort to identify and isolate the purportedly original forms of prophetic speech. The identification of such authentic oracular material would then provide the basis for a reconstructed portrayal of the prophet and his message within the context of the historical circumstances in which the prophet spoke.1 Although my purpose is not to deny the legitimacy of such attempts at compositional analysis and historical reconstruction, a retrospective view of such work indicates that various historical and theological presuppositions often guided such work and thereby played a role in determining its results. Most notable among them are 1) the view that prophetic books contain collections of individual oracles that are read exclusively as selfstanding oracles without consideration for their current literary contexts or relationships to other oracles within the same book, and 2) the contention that a true prophet would only speak a message that could be demonstrated on the basis of contemporary or imminent historical events. The first premise is based in the quite chauvinistic view that primitive prophets or ecstatics could only remember and speak in relatively short utterances that were 1

For discussion of the modern critical study of prophetic literature, see my studies, “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. J. L. Mays et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 113–126; Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Cambridge and New York: Eerdmans, 1996), 1–30; “The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel),” in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 69–94; The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005).

254

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

later recorded for posterity. Of course, more recent studies of oral poetic performance and the rhetorical dimensions of texts demonstrate that this premise is wrong.2 The second premise is based on a view developed in relation to the modern Enlightenment that the authentic prophets of the Bible must always speak the truth and that truth is historically and empirically verifiable. But more recent studies of true and false prophecy, in which a true prophet like Jeremiah might challenge or rethink the oracles of a true prophet like Isaiah call this premise into question as well.3 Nevertheless in the case of prophets such as Amos who were purportedly active prior to the Babylonian Exile, these premises frequently resulted in the contention that pre-exilic prophets must have spoken exclusively about the coming judgment of Israel, since historically speaking, a reading of the last centuries of the pre-exilic period pointed to a long period of decline that culminated in the Babylonian Exile. Messages of restoration would have to be relegated to the exilic or post-exilic period when the possibility of such restoration might be reasonably expected. Thus, any material that looked forward to restoration in the Books of Prophets set in the pre-exilic period must therefore be the result of post-exilic redaction and reinterpretation that could safely be omitted from consideration of the historical prophet and his message. In most cases, such material was even considered to be eschatological, insofar as it was understood to look beyond the realm of historical experience. Such a reading of pre-exilic prophets like Amos often results in a skewed reading of the prophetic literature as well as the reconstruction of the historical prophet. The relegation of pre-exilic prophets to figures who announced only doom leaves them relatively powerless and ineffective, not unlike the modern caricature of the long-haired, sandaled figure on a street corner with a sign that reads “the end has come” or the like. Such a portrayal of the pre-exilic prophets may satisfy a certain notion of truth, viz., the Babylonian Exile did come, Israel was condemned by prophets, etc., but 2

See Albert B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (New York: Athenaeum, 1974), who demonstrates the poetic fluidity and creativity of Serbo-Croatian singers; see more recently, Susan Niditch, Oral Word and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). For treatment of the rhetorical dimensions of texts, see Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method and the Book of Jonah (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Patricia Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 156–180. 3 See my study, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in Truth: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in a Pluralist Age (ed. C. M. Helmer and K. De Troyer; Studies in Philosophical Theology 22; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 9–26 = idem, Form and Intertextuality in the Study of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 78– 93, which focuses on Jeremiah’s reading and reinterpretation of earlier Isaian tradition.

15. The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature

255

it removes any possibility that our pre-exilic prophets sought any meaningful change from or even communication with the audiences that they addressed. Did they simply announce doom without the possibility of repentance? Did they not offer a means to resolve the problems identified in their oracles of judgment? Did they expect no response whatsoever to their very public proclamations? Such a rhetorical strategy raises a host of moral questions concerning divine intention to commit mass slaughter that would ultimately call into question the moral authority of the prophet and the G-d who sent that prophet to speak.4 Or did the pre-exilic prophets indeed include the possibility of restoration and repentance in an effort to persuade their audiences to adopt a different course of action that might be more in keeping with the prophet’s understanding of divine expectation? Such a contention seems to be the more morally defensible and intellectually consistent route insofar as it portrays the prophets – and G-d – as figures who are ultimately interested in effecting constructive change in ancient society and indeed as figures who are themselves morally accountable. In order to consider this issue, this paper examines the treatment of the oracle of restoration in Amos 9:11–15 and associated attempts in Amos 5:4–5, 6 to call for the repentance of the prophet’s audience. It contends that Amos, whether conceived as the prophet himself or the prophetic book, would necessarily employ utopian images of restoration as part of his/its efforts to persuade his/its audiences to adopt a new course of action. It further contends that such an image need not be viewed as eschatological, but that it employs mythological or quasi-mythological imagery to portray the idyllic situation that would purportedly result from the people’s repentance and change of action. Given the presentation of Amos as a Judean who appears at the northern Israelite sanctuary at Beth El at a time of Judean subservience to northern Israel and the Jehu dynasty, such an idyllic scenario would call for the rejection of the House of Jehu and the restoration of Judean, Davidic kingship over Israel.

4 See the very lively discussion of both human and divine morality after the Shoah that is only now making its way into discussions of biblical theology, e.g., Zachary Braiterman, (G-d) after Auschwitz: Tradition and Change in Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998); Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel: Post-Holocaust Church Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993); Tod Linafelt, ed., Strange Fire: Reading the Bible after the Holocaust (BibSem 71; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000); Zev Garber, Shoah: The Paradigmatic Genocide: Essays in Exegesis and Eisegesis (Studies in the Shoah 8; Lanham: University Press of America, 1994); Emil Fackenheim, The Jewish Bible after the Holocaust: A Rereading (Bloomington and Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press, 1990).

256

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

II One of the more important aspects of the historical-critical study of the Book of Amos throughout the twentieth century is the setting of the concluding oracle of restoration in Amos 9:11–15. It begins with the formula bayyôm hahû’, “in that day,”5 and continues with calls for the restoration of the fallen sukkâ, “hut,” or “house,” of David; the restoration of Davidic rule over Edom and other nations called by the name of YHWH; idyllic or quasi-mythical portrayals of the agricultural produce of the land; and an overall portrayal of the restored fortunes of the people Israel and their ruined cities. Some early scholars contend that this material is authentic to Amos, insofar as it represents the prophet’s call for the restoration of northern Israel to Davidic rule.6 Most modern scholars, however, hold that it represents an exilic or post-exilic expansion of the prophet’s oracles that was designed to counter his calls for judgment. A variety of reasons for the late dating of this oracle are put forward. Wellhausen, writing in 1898, bluntly states that this passage offers “roses and lavender” in place of Amos’ characteristic “blood and iron,”7 which presupposes his view that it is impossible to reconcile Amos’ message of judgment with one of restoration. He follows with the observation that the use of the expression, šûb šěbût, “to restore the captivity/fortunes of” Israel no longer presupposes the Babylonian Exile as a future event – or even an Assyrian exile for that matter. It therefore points to Wellhausen’s views that the question of exile – whether Babylonian or Assyrian – must be decisive in the interpretation of this passage; that the passage must presuppose an actual historical event, in this case, restoration; and that no further attempt to reconcile the themes of judgment and restoration in Amos is either necessary or possible.

5 It is commonly assumed that bayyôm hahû’ is an eschatological term; see Hugo Gressmann, Der Messias (FRLANT 43; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929); idem, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judäischen Eschatologie (FRLANT 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905); Simon J. De Vries, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); idem, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); contra, Peter Andreas Munch, The Expression Bajjôm Hāhû’: Is It an Eschatological Terminus Technicus? (Oslo: Dybwad, 1936), who denies the eschatological character of the expression. 6 Ernst Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (2 vols.; 2nd–3 rd edition; KAT 12; Leipzig: Deichert, 1929–1930), 1:270, identifies Gressmann, H. Schmidt, Köhler, Budde, König, and Orelli as scholars who hold this view. 7 Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten (4th edition; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963), 96.

15. The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature

257

Other interpreters from the first half of the twentieth century present similar arguments. Karl Marti, writing in the 1904 edition of his commentary on the Dodekapropheton, refers to Wellhausen’s comment concerning “roses and lavender instead of blood and iron,” in an attempt to characterize the later writer of this passage as a “corrector,” whose work presupposes a much later theology concerned with a future very different from that envisioned by Amos.8 In tracing this theology to the Jewish synagogue, he suggests that Jews had somehow changed prophecies of judgment into prophecies of salvation in an effort to bend scripture to their own interests. Of course, such a view reflects the prevailing anti-Semitism of the time. Harper, writing in 1905, provides a compendium of reasons why the passage should be considered to be late. Beyond the arguments offered by Wellhausen and Marti, Harper notes linguistic affinities with later literature; a favorable attitude to Judah that is not consistent with Amos’ prophecies; an emphasis on material blessings to the exclusion of Amos’ ethical concerns; a distinction between righteous and sinner not characteristic of Amos’ work; the presupposition of a ruined nation; and the presupposition of Assyrian exile.9 Many of Harper’s arguments may be challenged, e.g., the dating of many of his references, the role of Judah within the book, the exclusive focus on ethical concerns, and the presuppositions of a ruined nation and Assyrian exile. Overall, his views presuppose a prevailing interest of the time in prophets, particularly Amos, as spokespersons for ethical monotheism. Ernst Sellin, writing in 1929, ultimately returns to the argument of selfcontradiction between judgment and restoration in Amos offered by Wellhausen.10 He attempts to add the criterion of metrical change in this passage, but such an argument has been recognized by later scholars as indecisive. Indeed, Wellhausen’s criteria appear to be decisive among more recent commentators who hold that Amos 9:11–15 is a later addition to the authentic prophecies of Amos, including Artur Weiser, who ties it to the nationalistic eschatological salvation anticipated by Jews.11 James L. Mays contends that this oracle presupposes “a different time and situation from that of Amos, probably in the exilic period,” which presupposes yearning and nostalgia for former days of security.12 He adds that Judean resentment 8

Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHC 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 224. See William Rainey Harper, Amos and Hosea (4 th impression; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1953), 195–196. 10 Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, 1:270–271. 11 See Artur Weiser, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten I (ATD 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 202, 203. 12 James L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 13, 164. 9

258

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

against Edom would have risen to a shrieking crescendo after the fall of Jerusalem in 586, due to charges that Edom had participated in that fall. We must note, however, that Edom revolted against Judah during the reign of Jehoram ben Jehoshaphat (849–843 B.C.E.) according to 2 Kgs 8:20–22. Wilhelm Rudolph likewise sees the passage as an expression of eschatological hope in the post-exilic restoration of the House of David that presupposes the reality of the destruction of Jerusalem.13 Hans Walter Wolff notes the various thematic and linguistic arguments that point to a later origin for Amos 9:11–15, but ultimately notes that it is impossible to get down to the ipsissima verba of the prophet. He continues to hold that Amos’ disciples reflected on the prophet’s words and ultimately reworked the passage to point to the restoration of the righteous.14 Jörg Jeremias expresses the classic opinion that these verses reflect a much later Judean perspective.15 James Nogalski argues that the passage is the result of redactional layering in which the late-exilic or early post-exilic writers of Amos 9:11–15 (or at least, vv. 11, 14–15) had Amos 9:1–10 before them and reflected on the earlier text in the composition of this material.16

III Despite the arguments for the late dating of the restoration oracle in Amos 9:11–15, it is striking that none of these commentators consider Amos’ exhortations, “seek me and live, but do not seek Beth El” (Amos 5:4) and “seek YHWH and live” (Amos 5:6) to be later additions to the text. Interpreters seem to presuppose that Amos’ exhortations fell on deaf ears, and that such presumed rejection of the prophet’s message on the part of the audience lends credence to the view that Amos can only be interpreted as a prophet of judgment, viz., a prophet who announced judgment that was finally realized in the Assyrian destruction of northern Israel (and perhaps of Judah by the Babylonians). But a proper understanding of the roles of exhortation in relation to images of an idyllic future is a crucial issue in the interpretation of the book. Such exhortation establishes the fundamental rhetorical purpose of Amos’ portrayals of coming judgment – and restoration. Amos’ oracle cannot be taken individually as past scholars have done, 13

Wilhelm Rudolph, Joel – Amos – Obadja – Jona (KAT 13.2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971), 279–287. 14 Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary (trans. W. Janzen et al.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 346–347 (German original, 1969). 15 Jörg Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (trans. D. W. Stott; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 166 (German original, 1995). 16 James Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1993), 110–122.

15. The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature

259

but as components of a larger well designed text – whether oral or written – that presents a rhetorical argument designed to convince its audience to adapt the book’s viewpoint and recommended course of action. In this case, Amos’ exhortation to return to YHWH means rejection of Beth El and the northern Jehu dynasty together with return to Jerusalem and the restoration of Davidic rule over all Israel. By arguing that Amos 9:11–15 is a later addition, earlier scholarship missed an important dimension of this book, i.e., it is designed to address issues or tensions in the relationship between Israel and Judah apparent in the eighth century B.C.E., and only later came to be read in relation to the concerns of the Babylonian Exile and its aftermath. More recent commentaries by Andersen and Freedman, Paul, and the present writer have begun to pay closer attention to the rhetorical coherence of the argumentation in the Book of Amos.17 Such work is buttressed by greater attention to the political and historical circumstances of the time and the socio-historical dimensions of Amos’ Judean identity. The result has been a return to the contention that Amos’ oracles are designed to condemn the northern kingdom of Israel for its economic abuse of Judah, apparently a client state of the more powerful northern Israel from the time of the Omride dynasty through the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic War. Amos is clearly identified as a Judean agriculturalist from Tekoa throughout the book who journeys to Beth El, the royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel, apparently to offer at least a portion of the Judean tribute due to northern Israel as overlord. Amos legitimately dwells on the hardships born by the Judean farmers and shepherds of his time. We might note that his first vision in Amos 7:1–3 notes the impact of the locust plague after the king’s mowings, i.e., after the share designated for the Judean or Israelite king had been taken. A devastating locust plague would leave Amos and his peers with insufficient food in a subsistence agricultural economy. We might note that the fire depicted in the second vision in Amos 7:4–6 would have a similar effect insofar as late summer wildfires, not unlike those that occur in Southern California every year, would further destroy remaining crops. We might note that the third vision which depicts the presentation of summer fruit at the Beth El sanctuary points to an offering made at Sukkot as the summer season comes to an end.

17

Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos (AB 24A; New York: Doubleday, 1989); Shalom Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000). See more recently, Karl Möller, A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos (JSOTSup 372; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), who argues for a similar rhetorical-historical approach, but only treats Amos 1–4.

260

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

Although Amos and his peers would have ample reasons for complaint, we must recognize that the Jehu dynasty had its own obligations to fill as well. The so-called Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III depicts the northern king Jehu’s submission to the Assyrian monarch in the mid-ninth century, and a later stele indicates that his grandson Joash ben Jehoahaz (802–786 B.C.E.) continued to serve as a tributary to the Assyrian monarch Adad Nirari III through the early eighth century.18 The Jehu alliance with Assyria apparently played a key role in enabling Israel to restore its borders to Lebo Hamath and the Sea of the Arabah during the reign of Jeroboam ben Joash, king of Israel at the time of Amos (2 Kgs 14:25). We might think Assyria’s treatment of Israel to be harsh, but the alliance with Assyria kept Israel secure from the Arameans during the reign of the Jehu dynasty. Of course, such an alliance came at a heavy price, and Israel’s client Judah apparently bore a major share of this expense paid by agriculturalists such as Amos.19 We do not know to what extent northern Israelite farmers bore a similar burden, but it is likely that they suffered as much as the Judeans. Does this mean that King Jeroboam ben Joash of Israel was evil and deserved death as Amos contends? For centuries we have accepted the prophet’s contention without question, but we must remember that he presents only one side of the issue. Such a scenario calls for a rereading of Amos’ idyllic oracle in Amos 9:11–15. As a Judean, who both suffered from the heavy demands imposed on Judah by Israel and who would have recalled the so-called “glory days” of Davidic/Solomonic rule, it would seem that Amos’ call for the restoration of “the fallen sukkâ of David” was indeed a call for the downfall of the House of Jehu and a restoration of the old Davidic/Solomonic rule in which Judah enjoyed a far more advantageous situation.20 It matters little whether David and Solomon were relatively minor chieftains; Amos’ view of the early Davidic monarchy would be informed by Judean tradition that remembers them as imperial monarchs who brought wealth and power to the region by exercising control of northern Israel. Whether it is reasonable to expect such change or not in Amos’ time is another question, but for a 18 For the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, see James Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 351–355. For the stele of Adad Nirari III, see Stephanie Page, “A Stele of Adad Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from tell al Rimlah,” Iraq 30 (1968): 139–153. 19 For an indication of Judah’s subservient status in relation to Israel during the reign of the Jehu monarchs, see the account of the Judean king Amaziah’s reign in 2 Kgs 14:1– 22, which states that Jehoash ben Jehoahaz of Israel defeated Amaziah at Beth Shemesh and broke down part of the wall of Jerusalem to reassert his authority over his rebellious Judean vassal. 20 See the narrative in Amos 7:10–17 in which the prophet is expelled from Beth El for announcing the impending death of Jeroboam ben Joash of Israel.

15. The Dystopianization of Utopian Prophetic Literature

261

Judean like Amos, the restoration of Davidic rule over Israel would represent a means to remove the burdens imposed on Judean farmers like Amos. Various elements of the oracle then fall into place in relation to a mideighth century setting. The formula, bayyôm hahû’, “in that day,” so frequently read as a late, eschatological, formula, simply refers to a future time. The breaches and ruins of the fallen sukkâ of David do not represent the Babylonian destruction of the House of David; instead Amos employs the metaphor of the simple huts employed during the late harvest season immediately prior to the festival of Sukkot to depict the restoration of Davidic rule over Israel much as one would repair and rebuild the traditional sukkâ of the season. Possession of the remnant of Edom and other nations called by the divine name would refer to the restoration of Israelite/Judean rule over Edom following its revolt during the reigns of Joram ben Ahab of Israel and Jehoram ben Jehoshaphat of Judah (see 2 Kgs 8:20–22) as well as other nations that Judean tradition identifies as clients of David and Solomon in an earlier time. The quasi-mythological portrayal of agricultural bounty in which one who plows overtakes one who reaps, the one who treads grapes overtakes the one who sows the seed, and the mountains and hills flow with sweet wine, simply employs the images of agricultural bounty and splendor that depict the blessings enjoyed by those who adhere to YHWH. The restoration of the “fortunes” or even the “captivity” of Israel and the rebuilding of ruined cities need only refer to the potential for exile and attack by the Assyrian empire or other enemies. Alternatively, these statements might view such an attack retrospectively, not from the standpoint of the Babylonian Exile, but from the standpoint of the Assyrian attacks against Israel during the Syro-Ephraimitic War of 735–732 B.C.E., or even of the revolt against Assyria during the reign of King Hoshea in 724–722 B.C.E. Of course when such an oracle was read in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile and the fall of the House of David, its referents would change. From that point on, Amos’ oracle would indeed be taken as a call for the restoration of the House of David, not simply as a means to restore Judah’s position over northern Israel, but as a means to restore the people of Israel/Judah in general in the aftermath of the Babylonian destruction.

IV It would seem that the presuppositions of earlier scholarship, e.g., the hermeneutical lens of the Babylonian Exile, the need to associate the prophet’s oracles with actual rather than possible events, a failure to consider fully the political relationships between Israel and Judah and between Israel and

262

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

Assyria, and a failure to consider fully Amos’ Judean social identity, have played fundamental roles in the past dystopianization of Amos 9:11–15 and indeed of the book as a whole. Consideration of such factors, however, raises the possibility – if not the likelihood – that Amos, either the book or the man, was quite capable of using utopian images to achieve his/its rhetorical aims. Although this text may well have been written with specific socio-historical circumstances and specific religio-political objectives in mind, later generations of readers would have understood this text to refer to an eschatological age of restoration with all of its attendant consequences for understanding “the fallen sukkâ of David.”

1

16. The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered I Micah 2:12–13 is one of the most problematic passages in the entire Book of Micah. Although it appears in the context of Micah 1–3, which most scholars understand as Micah’s authentic words of judgment against Israel and Judah, its portrayal of YHWH and the king gathering and leading the survivors of Israel out of the gate like sheep is generally taken as a reference to YHWH’s future deliverance of the people of Israel.1 Because such a message of deliverance contrasts so markedly with the portrayal of judgment in Micah 1–3, most scholars consider 2:12–13 to be a later editorial addition to the original words of Micah. Such a contention is motivated in part by 4:6–7, which employs similar language and imagery to portray YHWH’s gathering the lame and afflicted of Israel so that they might once again constitute a strong nation ruled by YHWH at Mt. Zion. In contrast to 2:12–13, 4:6–7 presents little problem because it appears within the context of Micah 4–5, which portray YHWH’s deliverance and restoration of Israel. Consequently, scholars are generally at a loss to explain why 2:12–13 should be added to a literary context that is otherwise concerned entirely with judgment. Nevertheless, it appears that the interpretation of Mic 2:12–13 has been too greatly influenced by 4:6–7. A close examination of the language and imagery of 2:12–13 in relation to its immediate literary context in Micah 2 demonstrates that it is not concerned with YHWH’s deliverance of Israel at all; instead, it portrays YHWH and the king leading the people from the 1

For surveys of the discussion of Mic 2:12–13, see esp. William McKane, “Micah 2:12–13,” JNSL 21 (1995): 83–91; idem, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 87–94. Recent studies of the issue include Gabriele Metzner, Kompositionsgeschichte des Michabuches (Frankfurt on Main: Peter Lang, 1998), 119–129; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah (AB 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 331–343; Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 65–70; Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam: Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 2:365–367; Jan A. Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2–5 (VTSup 85; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 230–240; Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (JSOTSup 322; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 115–117.

264

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

protection of their walled cities into exile. Although Mays and his student Hagstrom have argued this point previously, 2 they were unable to account adequately for the threatening nature of the language employed in this passage or the role of the literary context in preparing the reader for the portrayal of YHWH’s leading the people into exile. In order to support this contention, this paper first examines the literary structure, imagery, and rhetorical perspective of Micah 2 and the place of 2:12–13 within that structure. It then considers the literary structure and character of the book as a whole in order to demonstrate that 4:6–7 represents a re-reading of 2:12–13 that is intended to demonstrate that in the perspective of the book as a whole YHWH will ultimately restore Israel to Zion once the punishment is complete.

II The materials in Micah 2 are generally treated as three relatively self-contained units, that is, a woe speech in vv. 1–5 that announces judgment against those in Israel who plot to take property from their neighbors; a disputation speech in vv. 6–11 in which the prophet challenges the contentions of his opponents that YHWH will protect the people; and vv. 12– 13, which portray YHWH and the king leading the people like sheep out of their enclosure.3 They are generally grouped together with a larger collection of Micah’s oracles or sayings against Israel that is variously defined as Micah 1–2; 1–3; or 1–5.4 Even when Micah 2 is read as a distinct unit in and of itself, these three sub-sections continue to be treated as independent sayings that are secondarily placed together in their present context. Such a disjointed reading contributes to the perception that Mic 2:12–13 con2 James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 73–76; David G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah (SBLDS 89; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 53–54. See also Gershom Brin, “Micah 2:12–13: A Textual and Ideological Study,” ZAW 101 (1989): 118–124; Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 115–117. 3 See, e.g., Ina Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments (BZAW 123; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971), 75–80; Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja (KAT 13.3; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 51–65; Mays, Micah, 60–76; B. Renaud, La formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1977), 61–118; idem, Michée, Sophonie, Nahum (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1987), 38–55; Delbert R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 31– 40; Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary (trans. Gary Stansell; CC; Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1990), 72–74; McKane, Micah, 59–84; Metzner, Kompositionsgeschichte, 68–72; Ben Zvi, Micah, 41–70 (cf. idem, “Wrongdoers, Wrongdoing and Righting Wrongs in Micah 2,” BibInt 7 [1999]: 87–100); Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 2:358–367; Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 253–343; Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation, 208–240. 4 See Hagstrom, Coherence, 45–87, for discussion and an overview of the proposals.

16. The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered

265

stitutes a portrayal of YHWH’s deliverance of Israel and that these verses stand in tension with the surrounding oracles or sayings of judgment. Nevertheless, close attention to the literary forms, syntax, and imagery or contents of vv. 1–5, 6–11, and 12–13 demonstrate that these texts are intended to function together as a coherent woe speech within the Book of Micah that points ultimately to YHWH as the cause of Israel’s suffering and exile in a time of war.5 Scholars have long recognized that Mic 2:1–5 constitutes a short woe speech that employs the basic pattern of the prophetic judgment speech.6 Thus, vv. 1–2 lay out the causes for Israel’s punishment, that is, the wicked in the land plot to take fields, homes, and property of those among the people who are less powerful. Verses 3–5, introduced by the particle lākēn, “therefore,” then delineate the consequences that the guilty parties are expected to suffer, that is, YHWH will ensure that evil comes upon them so that they are unable “to cast the line by lot in the assembly of YHWH.” This last statement indicates that the guilty will be prevented from playing a role in the apportionment of land among the people, thereby insuring that they will be unable to extract land and property of others as in the past. Although scholars have generally focused on the formal aspects of this text in their interpretation of this passage, several major metaphorical aspects of this text deserve attention as they point to rhetorical features of the text that anticipate the imagery of YHWH as shepherd leading the people out of their land into exile. The first is the shift in language apparent in YHWH’s statement in v. 3a concerning the intention to punish the wicked, “Therefore, thus says YHWH, ‘Behold, I am reckoning evil against this family.’” The statement includes a subtle shift in the language employed to describe the evil doers in v. 1, that is, whereas the prophet employs the masculine singular term ra‘ (“evil”), to address “those who do evil upon their beds,” v. 3a employs the feminine singular form rā‘â (“evil”). There is no recognized difference in meaning between the masculine and feminine forms of the term, but the consonants of the feminine form correspond to the consonants for the term rō‘eh (“shepherd”) so that the form subtly hints at the imagery of YHWH as shepherd that will appear in vv. 12–13. Such an image lends itself to the following statement in v. 3ba, “from which you shall not be able to remove your necks, and you shall not walk upright,” which employs the imagery of cattle put to the harness or yoke to portray punishment of the wicked. Again, such imagery anticipates the portrayal of the people 5 For discussion of the Woe-speech form, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 543, and the literature cited there. 6 See Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. H. C. White; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 190–194 (192); cf. Mays, Micah, 60–62; Wolff, Micah, 73; but cf. Ben Zvi, Micah, 47–50.

266

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

as cattle led forth from their cities and land with YHWH at their head. Finally, the taunt song in v. 4 relates the loss of land that the people will suffer when they say, “we are utterly ruined; he (YHWH) changes the inheritance of my people; how he (YHWH) removes what is mine; he (YHWH) apportions our fields to one who returns/captures,” likewise points to loss of land. Scholars have also long recognized that Mic 2:6–11 constitutes a disputation speech by the prophet concerning YHWH’s willingness to protect the people.7 The identity of the prophet’s opponents is unclear – perhaps they are false prophets,8 village elders, or common people reacting to Micah’s speech – but it is clear that they dispute Micah’s contention that YHWH will not act to deliver the people from threat. Indeed, the passage indicates that, according to Micah, YHWH is the threat who rises against the people, strips them of their clothing as they flee, drives out women from their homes, and takes away the young children. Overall, Micah portrays the flight of people from before a conqueror, here identified as YHWH. Scholars have failed to note that YHWH is the one who carries out these atrocities according to Micah. Such a view is clear from the prophet’s own rhetorical questions in v. 7, “Should this be said, O house of Jacob? Is YHWH’s patience exhausted? Are these his (YHWH’s) doings?” When read in context, these rhetorical questions are indeed assertions by the prophet that YHWH’s patience has come to an end and that the threat posed to the people does indeed come from YHWH. In this manner, the prophet’s disputation speech builds upon the assertion in vv. 1–5 that YHWH will punish the wicked. Now the people are fleeing from their homes and property as the invader, here identified with YHWH, approaches. The stripped clothing, the loss of property, and the threat to family members represent hardships once inflicted by those who plotted evil on their beds, but now they suffer the same threats. It is most likely that Micah describes the flight of people from the Shephelah and his own home town of Moreshet-Gath as the Assyrian invaders approached in 701 B.C.E. Micah was, after all, a war refugee in Jerusalem, and he contends that YHWH brought about the invasion. 7 E.g. Wolff, Micah, 73–74. Because of the diverse formal elements that appear within this text, some scholars maintain that it is a conglomeration of diverse elements rather than an example of the disputation genre (e.g. Willi-Plein, Vorformen, 79; McKane, Micah, 75, 86); but see Wagenaar’s remarks on this issue (Judgement and Salvation, 220–229). For discussion of the disputation pattern, see my Isaiah 1–39, 519, and the literature cited there. 8 See the now-classic studies by Adam S. van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-prophets,” VT 19 (1969): 244–260; “Micah IV 1–5: An Instance of the Pseudoprophets Quoting Isaiah,” in Symbolae biblicae et mesopotamicae (ed. M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland and J. Ryckmans; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 396–402; but see now my “Micah’s Debate with Isaiah,” JSOT 93 (2001): 111–124 = idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 210–221, which argues that the Book of Micah is designed to challenge Isaiah, not pseudo-prophets who cite Isaiah’s oracles.

16. The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered

267

Finally, the portrayal in Mic 2:12–13 of YHWH and king gathering the survivors of the people like sheep and leading them from their enclosure provides the climactic or rhetorical goal of the passage. As noted above, most scholars read these verses in relation to 4:6–7 as a reference to YHWH’s restoration of the people from captivity that was secondarily added to a text concerned with judgment. But such a reading overlooks the very threatening nature that is employed in this passage. First is the statement, “I will surely gather” (’āsōp ’e’ěsōp), that employs a combination of the infinitive absolute and finite forms of the verb ’sp,9 unlike the form employed in 4:6– 7. The combined form hardly portrays a situation of restoration elsewhere; instead it portrays a situation of threat in which people are swept away from the face of the earth (Zeph 1:2) or “gathered” and cut down like the grapes of a harvest (Jer 8:13). The following reference to the “remnant” or “survivors” (šě’ērît) of Israel likewise presupposes that the people have suffered a catastrophe. Following the statement that YHWH will set the people together like sheep in a fold/flock in a pasture, the NRSV translation, “it will resound with people,” misrepresents the meaning of the Hebrew těhîmenâ mē ’ādām, “they/you shall be discomfited/confused by people,” which indicates that the people are not at all content about what is taking place. The image of sheep being led out from their pens into open pasture hardly conveys an image of security; rather, it points to the potential loss of sheep as they scatter into the wilderness and require the constant vigilance of the shepherd to keep them from loss or harm. Such an image of threat is conveyed by the reference to “the one who breaks out (happōrēṣ)” and goes up before them as well as to the actions of the sheep that “break through (pārěṣû) and pass the gate.” The verb prṣ generally describes a destructive act, such as breaking down a wall (2 Kgs 14:13/2 Chr 25:23; Neh 3:35) or a fence (Isa 5:5; Ps 80:13; 89:41) or the breaking out of violence (2 Sam 5:20/1 Chr 14:11; Hos 4:2). Likewise, the passage out of a gate represents the loss of security as the gate of a city is generally the strongest feature of its defenses. Although many take these statements as references to escape from captivity or a gathering of the dispersed,10 they represent instead the loss of security, and convey the image of a decimated people led out from the security of their stronghold to the uncertainty and danger of the wilderness or open pasture. Such an image pertains to that of captives led off by a conqueror, and such images are well known from Assyrian reliefs and inscriptions that relate the victories of the Assyrian kings. Indeed, Sennacherib’s reliefs portraying his conquest of Lachish, not far from Micah’s home town of Moreshet Gath, portray captives who 9 For a full discussion of the expression ’āsōp ’e’ěsōp, see my treatment of Zeph 1:2, 3 in Zephaniah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), ad loc. 10 E.g. Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation, 230–240 (230–234).

268

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

are led away from their besieged or conquered cities into exile.11 By portraying YHWH and the king as the parties at the head of the sheep/people, Micah portrays the defeat of Israel’s king, certainly a major motif in his diatribes against the leadership of Israel, and identifies YHWH as the party responsible for that defeat. When read in relation to Mic 2:1–5 and 2:6–11, such a portrayal is the logical rhetorical goal of the prophet’s remarks, that is, they have done wrong and they are punished in kind.

III Although the previous discussion establishes that Mic 2:12–13 portrays the exile of the people of Israel, and asserts that YHWH is responsible for leading the people into exile, the question concerning the relationship between 4:6–7 and 2:12–13 remains, that is, why should 4:6–7 employ similar language and imagery to portray the restoration of the people if 2:12–13 is indeed a portrayal of judgment? In order to address this question, it is necessary to establish the overall form and perspective of the Book of Micah as a whole in order to determine the placement and function of both 2:12–13 and 4:6–7 within the whole. Most scholarly assessments of the overall form and perspective of the Book of Micah are determined by diachronic considerations, that is, Micah 1–3 represents the oracles of the eighth century prophet whereas chs. 4–7 represent exilic or post-exilic composition.12 Therefore, the structure of the book must fall into two or more parts, that is, chs. 1–3 and 4–7; chs. 1–3, 4–5 and 6–7, and so on. But such an assessment inappropriately allows a hypothetical reconstruction of the book’s compositional history to determine its overall synchronic literary form, and it overlooks various syntactical, formal, and thematic features that point towards a very different understanding of the final form of Micah.13 11

See ANEP, figures 350–373, for portrayals of Sennacherib’s campaigns in 701 and ANET, 287–288 for his account. 12 See the discussion in Hagstrom, Coherence, 11–27; Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 16–29, for convenient overviews. Other recent attempts to establish the overall structure and coherence of the book include, Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah: Rhetorical Historical Analysis (JSOTSup 145; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 2:339–416. 13 For discussion of the methodological principles employed here, see my “Formation and Form in Prophetic Literature,” in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. J. L. Mays, D. L. Petersen and K. H. Richards; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 113–126; idem, “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1999), 58–89; Rolf Knierim, “Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int (1973): 435–468; idem, “Criticism of Literary FeaB .C. E.

16. The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered

269

At the most basic level, a generic and structural distinction must be made between the superscription in Mic 1:1 and the prophetic oracles and sayings of Micah that constitute the balance of the book.14 Because of its third person reference to the prophet the superscription clearly represents the perspective of an author other than Micah, whereas the oracular material is presented as the words or oracles of Micah, whether it was in fact written entirely by the prophet or not. Insofar as the superscription identifies the following material as the word of YHWH to Micah and specifies the setting in which the divine word was communicated to the prophet, it constitutes the introduction to the book and its first major structural component. The following oracles in Mic 1:2–7:20, which ultimately communicate YHWH’s intention to exalt Zion, constitute the second major component of the book. Within the oracles of Mic 1:2–7:20, the syntactical structure of the text points to very different principles of organization from the diachronic perspectives that have prompted scholars to identify chs. 1–3 and 4–7; 1–3; 4– 5; 6–7; or other variations as the basic structural building blocks of the book. Although most scholars consider chs. 1–3 or at least 1–2 to form the first major structural component of the text, there is no syntactical connector that binds Mic 1:2–16 and 2:1–13 together. Thus, 2:1 begins with the exclamation, “Woe (hôy) for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds upon their beds.” There are syntactical links, however, that bind Micah 2; 3; 4; and 5 together. Thus, Micah 3 begins with the waw-consecutive statement, “and I said (wā’ōmar), ‘Listen you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel …’”15 Although there have been numerous attempts to emend the Hebrew text into wě’āmar (“and he said”), or the like based upon the LXX reading kai erei.16 Nevertheless, the MT may stand without emendation as it simply presents Micah as the speaker who recounts his own oracles. In any case, even the LXX employs a conjunction which ties chs. 2 and 3 together. Micah 4 also begins with a waw-consecutive statement, “and it shall come to pass (wěhāyâ) in future days …,”17 which once again establishes a syntactical relationship between chs. 3 and 4. Although the temporal reference shifts from the present in ch. 3 to the future in ch. 4, the portrayal of Israel joining the nations at Zion to learn YHWH’s Torah

tures, Form, Tradition, and Redaction,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 123–165. 14 For discussion of superscriptions in prophetic literature, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 539–540, and the literature cited there. 15 See John T. Willis, “A Note on ‫ ואמר‬in Micah 3.1,” ZAW 80 (1968): 50–54. 16 See McKane, Micah, 95, for an overview. 17 See Simon J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of the Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 89–93, for discussion of the meaning of this expression.

270

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

constitutes the projected outcome of the prophet’s present condemnation of Israel. Finally, Micah 5 begins with a conjunctive formulation, “And you (wě’attâ), Beth Lehem, Ephratah …,” which once again establishes a syntactical relationship between chs. 4 and 5. On the other hand, Micah 6, which many scholars associate with ch. 5 because both are believed to have been composed in the exilic or post-exilic period, begins with a syntactically disjunctive command, “Hear now (šim‘û-nā) what YHWH says,” which points to Mic 6:1 as the beginning of an entirely new structural unit.18 Likewise, Micah 7 lacks any syntactical connection to ch. 6, and begins with the syntactically disjunctive interjection, “woe is me (’alělaylî),” which marks the beginning of another structural unit. Altogether, the syntax of Mic 1:2–7:20 points to 1:2–16; 2:1–5:14; 6:1–16; and 7:1–20 as the four basic structural building blocks of the text. Thematic factors support this view of the structure of Micah. The first major unit in Mic 1:2–16 is fundamentally concerned with announcing punishment against Israel and Samaria, but it does so as a basis or paradigm for announcing punishment against Judah and Jerusalem. Thus, Mic 1:2–16 constitutes a warning for Jerusalem/Judah based upon the experience of Israel/Samaria. The second unit in 2:1–5:14 then provides a detailed overview of the process by which the punishment of both Israel and Judah/ Jerusalem will take place followed by the ultimate restoration of Zion to which the remnant of Israel will come to recognize YHWH. It begins with the woe speech in 2:1–13, which culminates in the exile of Israel because of those who ignored fundamental principles of YHWH’s justice to take the homes and property of their neighbors. Micah 3:1–5:14 then presents the prophet’s response to the exile of Israel, that is, a speech in which he announces YHWH’s plan to restore the remnant of Israel/Jacob in Zion. Following the speech formula in 3:1aα1, Micah’s speech in 3:1aα2–8 points to Israel’s leaders as those who are responsible for Israel’s exile, and then turns to the experience of Jerusalem in 3:9–5:14, including both the punishment of Jerusalem in 3:9–12 and the following exaltation of Zion in 4:1– 5:14. Included in that scenario of Zion’s exaltation are depictions of YHWH as shepherd gathering the lame and dispersed for eternal rule on Zion and addresses to Bethlehem/Ephratah concerning YHWH’s plans to raise a new king/shepherd who will secure Zion’s dominion over the nations that previously threatened both Israel and Jerusalem. Ironically, YHWH’s teaching of Torah to the nations and the remnant of Israel will preclude the absence of justice that led to Israel’s exile in the first place. The third unit in 6:1– 16 constitutes the prophet’s appeal to the people to return to YHWH. The fourth unit in 7:1–20 constitutes the prophet’s psalm of confidence in YHWH’s faithfulness to Israel, that is, YHWH will indeed bring about 18

Cf. Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 63–76.

16. The Portrayal of YHWH’s Deliverance in Micah 2:12–13 Reconsidered

271

both the punishment and the anticipated restoration after the period of punishment. Altogether, the Book of Micah is designed to provide a theological rationale for the exile of Israel, and to point to Israel’s exile as the model or paradigm for Jerusalem’s subsequent exile and restoration at the center of Israel and the nations. Ultimately, according to Micah’s scenario, the exile of Israel is designed to purge the nation of its transgressions and thereby to prepare Jerusalem to assume the role as the center of the nations from which YHWH’s Torah or justice will proceed.

IV Micah 2:1–13 clearly plays a key role within the overall structure of the Book of Micah as a whole. By pointing to the practice of expropriating land, homes, and property from those who are unable to protect themselves, Micah 2 specifies the transgressions that are mentioned generally in Mic 1:2–16. Furthermore, by portraying Israel’s exile in vv. 12–13 with the images of YHWH and the king leading the people like sheep from the gates of their city into the wilderness, it points to YHWH as the party ultimately responsible for bringing about the exile in the first place and to the role of the king for failing in his responsibility to promote justice among the people in the land. In this respect, Micah 2 builds upon the images of Samaria as the capital city of Israel whose protective fortifications are destroyed and whose wasted idols testify to the failure to follow YHWH. That point is reinforced also in 3:1–8 which accuses the rulers and prophets of the people, that is, those who were primarily responsible for ensuring YHWH’s justice in the land, with failing in their responsibility to guide the people. Micah 2 says nothing about Jerusalem, but its placement within its present literary context at the head of a section devoted ultimately to the punishment and restoration of Zion at the center of Israel and the nations reinforces the general point made in 1:2–16 that Israel’s and Samaria’s fate will be the model for that of Judah and Jerusalem. Insofar as 4:6–7 states that YHWH will assemble or gather the lame, those who were driven away, and those whom YHWH afflicted so that they might become a remnant in Zion, it builds upon the imagery of 2:12–13 to portray the ultimate restoration of Israel to Zion. Likewise, insofar as 4:10 states that Zion shall go forth from the city to camp in the open country in Babylon where it will ultimately be rescued, it builds upon the images of 2:12–13 to portray the corresponding exile and exaltation of Zion. Finally, insofar as 5:1–5 portrays the new Israelite monarch from Bethlehem as a shepherd who protects his flock against the threats of Assyria and other nations, it builds upon the imagery of 2:12–13 to portray righteous Davidic rule in place of the earlier Israelite kings who brought the people to ruin and exile in the first place.

272

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

In sum, Mic 2:12–13 is best read as a portrayal of Israel’s exile with YHWH and the king at the head of the people. When read in this manner, it provides the necessary basis for interpreting the subsequent exile and restoration of Jerusalem/Judah as an act of YHWH that is designed to purge Jerusalem and prepare it for its role as the center for YHWH’s rule over both Israel and the world at large. Appendix The Structure of the Book of Micah Prophetic Anticipation of YHWH’s Plans for Zion’s Exaltation (1:1–7:20) I. Superscription II. Body of book: prophetic anticipation of YHWH’s plans for Zion’s exaltation A. Prophetic announcement of punishment against Samaria/ Israel as basis for punishment of Jerusalem/Judah B. Prophetic announcement concerning the punishment and restoration of Jerusalem and Judah 1. Woe speech against Israel culminating in Israel’s exile 2. Prophet’s response: announcement concerning YHWH’s plan to exalt remnant of Israel/Jacob in Zion a. Speech formula b. Speech proper: prophetic announcement concerning YHWH’s plan to exalt remnant of Israel/Jacob in Zion 1) Concerning failure of Israel due to leaders 2) Concerning punishment and exaltation of Jerusalem/Judah a) Concerning punishment of Zion b) Concerning exaltation of Zion i. Exaltation of Zion ii. Exaltation of Zion defined aa. Initial statement: YHWH/Shepherd will gather lame/dispersed for eternal rule on Zion bb. Addresses to Zion and Bethlehem Ephratah concerning YHWH’s plans i) To Zion: dominion will come after distress ii) To Bethlehem Ephratah: king will come to restore security of Israel aa) Ruler/shepherd will emerge bb) Future peace when Assyria is stricken cc) Remnant of Jacob in midst of peoples like dew dd) Remnant of Jacob in midst of peoples like lion so enemies are cut off ee) Summation: Israel’s punishment/cleansing leads to punishment of nations and Israel’s restoration C. Prophetic appeal to people to return to YHWH D. Prophetic psalm of confidence in YHWH’s faithfulness to Israel

1:1 1:2–7:20 1:2–16 2:1–5:14 2:1–13 3:1–5:14 3:1aα1 3:1aα2–5:14 3:1aα2–8 3:9–5:14 3:9–12 4:1–5:14 4:1–5 4:6–5:14 4:6–7 4:8–5:14 4:8–14 5:1–14 5:1–3 5:4–5 5:6 5:7–8 5:9–14 6:1–16 7:1–20

1

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum I The Book of Nahum is particularly well known for the problems that scholars encounter in their attempts to interpret the book, especially with regard to its structure, literary character, and historical setting. One of the most persistent problems in modern scholarly discussion of Nahum appears in attempts to explain the relationship of the acrostic psalm in Nah 1:2–8 to the material found in the rest of the book.1 Now that early attempts to identify a full alphabetic acrostic that extends beyond v. 8 have been abandoned, there is general agreement concerning the extent, theophanic character, and general intent of the psalm in and of itself.2 The problem now centers on the material in Nah 1:9–2:3 which connects the psalm to the rest of the book. Unfortunately, the interpretation of these verses is confounded by their constantly shifting pronouns and forms of address, which exacerbate the difficulties in identifying the addressees to whom they refer. Because there is no general consensus concerning the interpretation of the address forms in Nah 1:9–2:3, scholars find a variety of generic entities in these verses, including condemnations of Assyria and the Assyrian king, condemnations of Judah, and blessings for Judah mixed together with no discernible order or intent.3

1

B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 441. 2 S. J. De Vries, “The Acrostic of Nahum in the Jerusalem Liturgy,” VT 16 (1966): 476–481; D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Reconsidered,” ZAW 87 (1975): 17–30; cf. Childs, Introduction, 441. 3 For discussion of the problems in establishing the structure of Nahum, see the comments by R. J. Coggins in his Israel Among the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of Nahum and Obadiah and Esther (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 6–8; B. Renaud, “La composition du livre de Nahum: Une proposition,” ZAW 99 (1987): 198–219, esp. 198–200; J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (WMANT 35; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 12–13.

274

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

The problem is further complicated by the presence of the Hebrew term bělîyā‘al, “worthlessness,” or “error,”4 in Nah 1:11 and 2:1 and the apparent relationship between Nah 2:1 and Isa 52:7, which employ similar vocabulary to describe the approach of a messenger announcing peace to Judah or Zion. The term bělîyā‘al is generally understood as a personified reference to Assyria or the Assyrian monarch.5 Because bělîyā‘al is associated with Sheol in Biblical literature (cf. 2 Sam 22:5–6; Ps 18:5–6), it is often understood as a reference to some sort of Satanic figure or opponent of YHWH, a meaning which certainly applies in pseudoepigraphical and New Testament literature, but which is less secure in earlier literature.6 With regard to the relationship between Nah 2:1 and Isa 52:7, a number of studies maintain that Nah 2:1 is dependent on Isa 52:7 and not vice versa as one might expect from the relative chronologies of Nahum and Deutero-Isaiah.7 This has led to two general results. First, scholars are reluctant to define the structure of the book other than as a loose collection of prophetic sayings lacking systematic order.8 Second, a number of recent studies, including those by Jeremias, Schulz, Renaud, and Seybold, therefore focus on the individual short units of the text in their interpretations of the book as a whole.9 Consequently, these studies attempt to explain the difficulties of the text as the product of post-exilic redaction, which arranged and altered Nahum’s sayings in accordance with the emerging eschatology of the early Persian period. In this view, the characteristic tendencies of the Persian period to anonymity and to assign symbolic meaning to earlier figures govern the interpretation of Nahum. Although Belial and Nineveh are 4 For a discussion of the etymology of bělîyā‘al, see B. Otzen, “Bělîyā‘al,” TDOT 2:131–136. Otzen reports that most scholars understand the term to mean “uselessness” or as a designation for a personified demon figure, but declines to translate the term because of the difficulties involved (133). 5 B. Renaud, Michée – Sophonie – Nahum (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1987), 267–268, 289. 6 Cf. 2 Cor 6:15; 1QM; 1QH; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; Martyrdom of Isaiah. For a full survey of Biblical and Pseudepigraphical sources, see T. H. Gaster, “Belial,” EncJud 4:428–429; idem, “Belial,” IDB 1:357. 7 Cf. Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 13–15; Renaud, Nahum, 293; idem, “La composition,” 205. 8 See Coggins, Nahum, 6–8. Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to define the prosodic structure of the book by D. L. Christensen, “The Book of Nahum as a Liturgical Composition: A Prosodic Analysis,” JETS 32 (1989): 159–169; cf. idem, “The Book of Nahum: The Question of Authorship within the Canonical Process,” JETS 31 (1988): 51– 58. Bob Becking’s work, “Is het boek Nahum een literaire eenheid?,” Nieuw theologisch Tijdschrift 32 (1978): 107–124, will be discussed below. 9 Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 11–55; H. Schulz, Das Buch Nahum: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (BZAW 129; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1973); Renaud, “La composition”; idem, Nahum, 263–293; K. Seybold, “Vormasoretische Randnotizen in Nahum 1,” ZAW 101 (1989): 71–85; idem, Profane Prophetie: Studien zum Buch Nahum (SBS 135; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989).

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum

275

understood to refer originally to Assyrian referents, Belial becomes a sort of Satanic figure of personified evil in the world, and Nineveh is equated with Babylon as a symbol of general evil and opposition to divine order whose defeat is announced in the final form of the book.10 There are, however, a number of problems with this understanding of the Book of Nahum. A recent study by Becking,11 widely overlooked because it is published in Dutch, demonstrates the possibility of a coherent structure for Nahum based on the identification of two addressees in Nah 1:9–14, one destined for salvation and the other for punishment as indicated by the 2nd masculine and 2nd feminine address forms. Their respecttive fates are taken up in the balance of the book in a manner that demonstrates the two sides of YHWH’s judgment announced in 1:2–8: salvation for Judah and Israel and punishment for Nineveh. This paper will build on Becking’s observations by arguing for a new understanding of the structure and generic character of the book. I will therefore point out the problems inherent in the view that Nahum is the product of early-Persian redaction. It will contend that there is a coherent structure in the book based in the disputation pattern in prophetic speech, and that its purpose is to address both Judah and Assyria in order to argue that the fall of Nineveh contradicts their previously held view of YHWH’s impotence in the face of the Assyrian empire. Rather, the fall of Nineveh is presented as an act of YHWH that demonstrates YHWH’s mastery of world events.

II The problems posed by the view that Nahum presents a Persian period eschatological scenario are as follows: First, it is somewhat surprising to see Nineveh portrayed as a symbol for cosmic evil in the Persian period. Although the city certainly has a sordid reputation in Biblical literature, it is generally Babylon, not Nineveh, that assumes this role (Isaiah 13–14; 47; Zechariah 6), undoubtedly because of Babylon’s role in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the exile of the surviving Jerusalem population. Nineveh is portrayed as an enemy, but the traditions about the Assyrians extant in the early Persian period indicate that they were soundly punished (Isaiah 36–37; 2 Kings 18–19). Even later, the Book of Jonah portrays Nineveh as an evil city that recog10 See especially Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 14–15. Note that Renaud, “La composition,” 203, follows W. Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja (KAT 13; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), 158–162, who sees the Belial figure as an original reference to the Assyrian monarch Sennacherib who invaded Judah in 701 B.C.E. 11 Becking, “Is het boek.”

276

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

nized its character and repented.12 Babylon, on the other hand, was not punished when Cyrus took control of the city in 539 B.C.E. and continued to serve as an administrative center for Achaemenid rule of Judah. Although the city was ravaged by Xerxes about 480–476 B.C.E., it served as Alexander the Great’s headquarters in 323 B.C.E. and did not fade from existence until 363 C.E. Babylon’s continued good fortune, despite its role in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Judah, undoubtedly contributed to its lasting role as the symbol of unrepentant evil as late as the end of the Second Temple period (cf. Revelation 18). Second, although the figure of Belial or Beliar certainly appears as a personified Satan figure in pseudepigraphical and early Christian literature, there is no indication that it filled this role prior to the exile or even in the early-Persian period. A recent study by Emerton, for example, demonstrates that the term does not refer to Sheol and therefore does not represent a previously unknown Satanic figure lurking behind biblical tradition. Instead, it simply refers to “destructiveness” or the like as a general term denoting evil or disorder.13 Another study by Rosenberg indicates that the term is employed in Biblical tradition in the context of the covenant relationship between Israel and YHWH as a reference to behavior that violates the basic behavioral norms of that relationship.14 The emergence of the term as a reference to a cosmic Satan figure takes place only at a much later period. Third, Nah 1:11, the key to understanding the Belial figure in the Book of Nahum, does not necessarily refer to Belial as a personification of evil at all. The verse is frequently understood as a condemnation of Nineveh and the Assyrian king portrayed as a counselor of Belial and translated as “From you has gone forth one who plots evil against YHWH (abbreviation mine), one who is a counselor of Belial.”15 It is clear that the verse is directed to a feminine singular addressee as indicated by the 2fs pronoun suffix of mimmêk, “from you,” at the beginning of the verse. It is not clear, however, that this addressee must be Nineveh as Nah 2:1 employs 2fs 12 For the date of the Book of Jonah, see O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. J. Sturdy; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), 197. Cf. R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. J. Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 227. 13 J. A. Emerton, “Sheol and the Sons of Belial,” VT 37 (1987): 214–218; contra, D. W. Thomas, “Belîyā‘al in the Old Testament,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (ed. J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson; New York: Herder, 1963), 11–19, who derives the term from the Hebrew root bl‘, “to swallow,” which he associates with the image of Sheol or Death swallowing the dead. 14 R. Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial,’” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982), 35–41. 15 K. J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 26; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973), 33.

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum

277

address forms in explicit reference to Judah. The term yo‘eṣ bělîyā‘al appears immediately following the phrase ḥošeb ‘al-yhwh rā‘â. Both phrases employ masculine singular participial forms which convey parallel meanings. Although the singular participles are frequently understood in reference to a specific person, i.e., “one who thinks evil about YHWH, a counselor of Belial,”16 the absence of the definite article indicates that no specific party is presupposed here, only the action that the participles convey. Consequently, it is clear from the syntactical structure of the verse and the parallel meanings of the participial clauses that yo‘eṣ bělîyā‘al is simply an appositional definition of the phrase, ḥošeb ‘al-yhwh rā‘â which should be translated, “thinking evil about YHWH, counseling worthlessness/error.” Likewise, the reference to bělîyā‘al in Nah 2:1 does not necessarily represent a personified Satan figure, despite the attempts by scholars to make it so by emending the reference to ben bělîyā‘al.17 Instead, it can refer to the cessation of “worthlessness” or “error” in Judah. The identification of the feminine singular addressee of Nah 1:11 and the relation of this verse to its context will be discussed below. Finally, the argument that Nah 2:1 is dependent on Isa 52:1, 7 needs to be reconsidered insofar as an important element in the argumentation for this view is the understanding of the term bělîyā‘al. Jeremias, the main proponent of this position, argues that Nah 2:1 is secondary to Isa 52:1, 7 because of its unusual usage of ‘ôd and the infinitive construct yôsîp as well as its use of other words from Nahum in the phrase bělîyā‘al kulloh nikrāt, e.g., bělîyā‘al from 1:11, kālâ from 1:8, 9, and ’akrît from 1:14.18 According to Jeremias, this verse is the key to the interpretation of the Book of Nahum.19 He argues that it was produced as a post-exilic midrash which employed Isa 52:1, 7 in an attempt to apply Nahum’s message of destruction against Nineveh as a covert reference to Babylon. But the argument fails on several grounds. First, the odd usages of yôsîp and ‘ôd testify to the original character of Nah 2:1 insofar as the author would have no occasion to employ awkward usage if such clear models were available in Isa 52:1, 7. Second, the differences in form between the phrase bělîyā‘al kulloh nikrāt and its supposed antecedents from elsewhere in Nahum together with the fact that the alleged borrowing from Nahum is limited to these words indicates that these are only random similarities, not intentional uses of the Nahum tradition. And finally, there was hardly any purpose to disguising a reference to Babylon with the term bělîyā‘al in the 16

Cf. Cathcart, Nahum, 62. F. Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten (HAT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954), 14, 58. 18 Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 13–15. 19 Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 15. 17

278

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

early-Persian period. Babylon had fallen to the Persians and other texts extant in this period, such as Isaiah 13–14; 47; and Zechariah 6, apparently saw no need to disguise their projections of Babylon’s fall. If there is a literary relationship between Nah 2:1 and Isa 52:1, 7, the reference to Assyria in Isa 52:4 indicates that it is more likely that the Isaiah text is dependent on that of Nahum. In sum, these considerations demonstrate the need to reconsider the meaning of the Book of Nahum, particularly with regard to its use of the term bělîyā‘al. This reevaluation will require a form-critical examination of the book in order to establish its structure, genre, setting, and intent.20

III With regard to the structure of the Book of Nahum, the first observation concerns the superscription in Nah 1:1. As Tucker argues, superscriptions are generically and structurally distinct from the following material in that they provide essential information to the reader which identifies the text.21 Nahum 1:1 therefore constitutes the first major structural sub-unit of the book and the body of the book, Nah 1:2–3:19, constitutes the second. A number of generic elements appear within the body of the book, which must be discussed individually in order to establish their relationships to other elements within the structure of the book as a whole. The first is the acrostic hymn in Nah 1:2–8. Despite early attempts to reconstruct a full alphabetic acrostic poem, most scholars currently agree that the acrostic extends only to v. 8 and includes only half of the alphabet from ’ālep to kap.22 In addition to its acrostic character, three other factors establish its demarcation at the end of v. 8.23 First, the theme of destruction 20

For the methodology employed here, see R. Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 435–468. 21 G. M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of the Canon,” in Canon and Authority (ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 56–70. Note that the superscription identifies the book as a maśśā’ or prophetic “pronouncement.” According to R. D. Weis, “A Definition of the Genre Maśśā’ in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph. D. dissertation; Claremont Graduate School, 1986), the prophetic maśśā’ is a specific type of prophetic discourse that is intended to explain how YHWH’s intentions are to be manifested in human affairs. He further maintains that the maśśā’ is not constituted by a well-defined literary structure but employs a variety of literary elements. As the following analysis will demonstrate, the literary character of the Book of Nahum is consistent with this understanding of the prophetic maśśā’. 22 Cf. Renaud, “La composition,” 202; Christensen, “The Acrostic,” 25; De Vries, “The Acrostic,” 479. 23 Cf. Becking, “Is het boek,” 109–110, who employs the following second and third arguments and points to the concentric symmetry of vv. 2–8 as well.

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum

279

permeates the hymn and reaches its climax in v. 8 which emphasizes the word kālâ, “complete destruction.” Second, the reference to ’oyěbâw, “his enemies,” returns to the theme of “his opponents” (ṣārâw) and “his enemies” (’oyěbâw) which appears at the beginning of the hymn in v. 2. Finally, the syntactic break and introduction of the 2nd masculine plural address in v. 9 confirm the demarcation after v. 8. No particular addressee is indicated for the hymn as it is entirely descriptive. Scholars generally concur that it is a theophanic hymn which emphasizes YHWH’s power to destroy enemies.24 The next sub-unit, 1:9–10, is formally demarcated from the preceding hymn by its 2mp verbal address form in v. 9. It is followed by v. 10 which is syntactically linked by its introductory kî. Verse 11, on the other hand, lacks a syntactical link to v. 10 and introduces a 2fs address form, which confirms that the present unit ends with v. 10. Despite their formal differences, there are indications that vv. 9–10 are structurally linked to the hymn in vv. 2–8.25 First, the initial question about YHWH presupposes the preceding material in that the theophanic description of YHWH’s defeating enemies provides the basis for questioning the audience on what it thinks about YHWH. Second, the appearance of kālâ in v. 9 provides a catchword link with kālâ in v. 8, which recapitulates a basic theme of the hymn. Third, destruction in v. 10 cannot be understood apart from the hymn. Both phrases, ‘ad sîrîm sěbukîm, “in thorns they are tangled,” and ûkěsob’ām sěbû’îm, “and like their booze they are drunk/ imbibed,”26 employ metaphorical imagery conveyed by plural passive participle constructions to describe the downfall of an unspecified party. It is only when these verses are read in relation to the description of the defeat of YHWH’s enemies in vv. 2–8 that their intent becomes clear, i.e., to refer to the defeat of YHWH’s enemies. This understanding is reinforced by the initial question, “What do you think about (lit., reckon unto) YHWH?”27 in 24

Cf. Renaud, “La composition,” 200–201. See D. L. Christensen, “The Acrostic of Nahum Once Again,” ZAW 99 (1987): 409–415. 26 For a discussion of the philological difficulties of this verse, see Cathcart, Nahum, 61. In contrast to Cathcart, ûkěsob’ām should be derived from the noun sobe’, “to drink, liquor,” (cf. Hos 4:18; Isa 1:22) and not as a participle from the verb sb’, “to drink, imbibe,” as Cathcart maintains. The passive participle sěbû’îm then makes sense in relation to ûkěsob’ām as “and like their booze, they are drunk.” In this respect, it refers to the demise of YHWH’s enemies who are entangled in thorns and swallowed up like liquor. 27 The phrase mah-těḥaššěbûn ’el yhwh is often translated, “What do you plot against YHWH” (cf. C.-A. Keller, Nahoum, 114, in R. Vuilleumier and C.-A. Keller, Michée – Nahoum – Habacuc – Sophonie (CAT 11b; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1971) due to the piel construction of the verb ḥšb and the belief that this verse accuses its addressee of wrongdoing in conjunction with Nah 1:11 (cf. Hos 7:15). As Renaud points out (“La composition,” 284), such an interpretation is dependent on the context. The following discussion will demonstrate that the intent of v. 9 is not to accuse its addressees of 25

280

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

v. 9 and the following statements which highlight YHWH’s vanquishing foes. From this, it is clear that the theophanic hymn in vv. 2–8 and the question posed to the audience in vv. 9–10 are intended to function together. Verses 2–8 assert YHWH’s power by describing YHWH’s defeat of enemies. Verses 9–10 pose a rhetorical question to the audience on the basis of the preceding description which can only be answered by affirming YHWH’s power. The audience addressed by the 2nd masculine plural question is not yet identified, but this will be clarified in relation to material analyzed below. Verse 11 is clearly demarcated by the 2fs address form at the beginning of the verse.28 Verse 12, on the other hand, is introduced by a messenger formula which indicates that the following material is a prophetic report of a speech by YHWH. As noted above, the problem of identifying the addressee of v. 11 remains. Most scholars maintain that the addressee is Nineveh, based on the 2fs address forms applied to Nineveh in Nah 2:2– 3:19 and the references to “evil thinking about YHWH” and yo‘eṣ bělîyā‘al, “counselor of Belial,” mentioned at the end of the verse.29 But Nah 2:1 employs feminine singular address forms in explicit reference to Judah. Furthermore, Becking’s discussion of 2fs and 2ms address forms in 1:9–14 indicates that two parties are addressed here.30 Verses 12–13 indicate that the feminine singular addressee will be delivered and v. 14 indicates that the masculine singular addressee will be judged. When it is noted that bělîyā‘al is employed in biblical tradition to refer to the disruption of Israel’s/Judah’s covenant with YHWH,31 it becomes clear that Nah 1:11 refers to erroneous thinking about YHWH in the context of the covenant between YHWH and Israel/Judah and that the party addressed here is Judah, as in 1:12 and 2:1. At the same time, v. 11 leaves this situation unresolved, in that it does not suggest that this thinking has changed. Verses 12–14 comprise two prophetic reports of YHWH speeches in vv. 12–13 and v. 14 as indicated by their respective introductory report formulas in v. 12 (YHWH messenger speech report) and in v. 14 (YHWH command report). The two reports are linked syntactically by the conjunctive waw in v. 14.

wrongdoing, but to question their beliefs concerning YHWH’s efficacy. Cf. Rudolph, Nahum, 151, 152, who notes the problem with previous translations and proposes, “Was zweifelt ihr an JHWH?” 28 Cf. Becking, “Is het boek,” 111–113. 29 Cf. Cathcart, Nahum, 62. 30 Becking, “Is het boek.” But note that Becking fails to distinguish the 2mp form těḥaššěbûn from the 2ms forms in v. 14 (pp. 111–112). The significance of this observation will become apparent below. 31 See Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial,’” 37–38.

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum

281

The first person YHWH speech reported in vv. 12–13 employs a 2fs address form to refer to an unnamed addressee, but the reference to YHWH’s relief of the addressee’s oppression indicates that Judah is addressed here. The oppressor is identified only by the 3ms pronoun suffix which appears in motehû, “his yoke.” The first person YHWH command speech reported in v. 14 employs a 2ms address form to sentence an unnamed addressee to death. The syntactical link between v. 14 and vv. 12, 13 and the shift to 2ms address indicates that it is directed to a different party from the addressee in vv. 12–13. Furthermore, the consequent association between these sub-units and the contrast in the fates of their respective addressees indicates that the 2ms address of v. 14 and the 3ms reference to the oppressor’s “yoke” in v. 13 must refer to the same party. Consequently, the addressee of v. 14 is the unnamed oppressor in the present form of this text. The death of this oppressor will resolve Judah’s oppression mentioned in vv. 12–13. It does not, however, resolve the question posed in v. 11, concerning Judah’s low estimation of YHWH’s power. Nah 2:1 does not continue the YHWH speech reports of vv. 12–14, but employs a 2fs address form explicitly directed to Judah, ḥāggî yehûdâ ḥaggayik šallěmî nědārāyik, “celebrate, O Judah, your festivals, fulfill your vows.” Although Nah 2:2 likewise employs a 2fs address form, the upcoming disaster announced to the addressee in conjunction with Jacob’s/ Israel’s return (2:3) indicates that a party other than Judah is addressed in the following material. Despite the absence of a syntactical connection between Nah 2:1 and the preceding material, it is clear that 2:1 is part of a textual sub-unit that includes both Nah 1:11 and 1:12–14 as well. Throughout these verses, the 2fs address form is used consistently in reference to Judah. Furthermore, Nah 2:1 brings the tensions introduced in 1:11 and 1:12–14 to full resolution. Obviously, Judah can rejoice after the announcement of its oppressor’s demise in 1:12–14. But more importantly, Nah 2:1b refers to the final eradication of bělîyā‘al or “worthlessness/error.” When read in relation to 1:11, Nah 2:1 indicates that Judah’s “worthless counsel” or “wrong thinking about YHWH” has now passed. Now that Judah sees its deliverance and the destruction of its oppressors, YHWH’s reputation is vindicated. In this respect, it should be noted that the LXX groups Nah 2:1 with the preceding material and designates it Nah 1:15.32 Nah 2:2 opens with a 2fs address directed to an unnamed party concerning its upcoming demise at the hands of another unnamed party simply designated as mepîṣ, “scatterer,” “a scatterer has come up against you.”33 The 2ms address forms in the latter part of the verse are simply quotations 32 See J. Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae (Göttinger Septuaginta XIII; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 255. 33 On mepîṣ, “scatter,” see Cathcart, Nahum, 80–81.

282

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

of commands commonly given to defending soldiers at the approach of an invader and reinforce the initial address by depicting defensive operations. They therefore do not indicate a change in the addressee. The introductory kî in Nah 2:3 links this verse to 2:2 and indicates that the immediate cause of the threat to the addressee is the restoration of Jacob/Israel. Although the identity of the 2fs addressee in 2:2 is not specified at this point, the following material makes it clear that it is Nineveh. Nahum 2:2–3 introduces a long section, comprising the balance of the book in Nah 2:2–3:19, which takes up the attack against the addressee and its subsequent downfall. Although the addressee is not initially identified in 2:2–33, the association of its demise with the restoration of Jacob/Israel and the consistent use of 2fs forms to address Nineveh throughout the rest of this section (Nah 2:14; 3:5–7, 8–17) demonstrates that the addressee in Nah 2:2 is Nineveh. The 2ms address forms of 3:18–19 are explicitly directed to the Assyrian king and conclude the long address to Nineveh in 2:2–3:17. When viewed in relation to the preceding material, the address to Nineveh and the Assyrian king in 2:2–3:19 clarifies several important points. First, it becomes clear that the theophanic hymn concerning YHWH’s destruction of enemies and the occasion for Judah’s relief from oppression must be the demise of Nineveh. Second, the 2ms address forms employed in reference to the king of Assyria in 3:18–19 and 2ms address form employed in reference to Judah’s oppressor in 1:14 must be read in conjunction with each other, i.e., the Assyrian king, whose death is announced in 1:14, is the oppressor of Judah. Finally, the appearance of addresses to Judah in 1:11–2:1 and Nineveh and the Assyrian king in 2:2–3:19 clarify the referent of the 2mp question in 1:9–10. Both Judah and Nineveh/ Assyrian king are addressed here and questioned as to what they think concerning YHWH now that YHWH’s enemies are subdued. In short, the primary question and address at the beginning of the book in Nah 1:2–10 is directed to both Judah and Nineveh to consider YHWH’s newly demonstrated power.

IV In order to determine the genre, setting, and intent of the Book of Nahum, it will first be necessary, to consider the interrelationship of its major structural elements. The above discussion demonstrates that the body of the Book of Nahum (1:2–3:19) contains three basic sub-units: 1) Nahum 1:2–10, an address to both Judah and Nineveh which poses a rhetorical question concerning their estimation of YHWH’s power following a theophanic hymn testifying to YHWH’s power over enemies;

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum

283

2) Nahum 1:11–2:1, an address to Judah indicating reasons for a change in attitude, i.e., that the end of Assyrian oppression is an act of YHWH and demonstrates YHWH’s power; and 3) Nahum 2:2–3:19, an address to Nineveh and the Assyrian king indicating reasons for a change in attitude, i.e., that Assyria’s downfall is an act of YHWH and demonstrates YHWH’s power. The identification of these three sections is significant in that they point to the general pattern of disputation speech in Nah 2:2–3:19. The initial rhetorical question which challenges the addressees’ beliefs concerning YHWH’s power and the following two sections which attempt to demonstrate YHWH’s power to each of the addressees is characteristic of the general pattern of disputation speeches. According to Graffy’s analysis of the disputation genre, the disputation speech consists of two basic elements: 1) the quotation of the people’s opinion which is to be disputed; and 2) the refutation which corrects the people’s opinion.34 The three sub-units of Nahum identified above do not correspond precisely to this pattern in that 1:2–10 does not quote the addressees’ opinion, but this section certainly presupposes it. Nahum 1:11–2:1 and 2:2–3:19, on the other hand, do correspond to the refutation element of the disputation speech in that they are designed to their respective addressees’ view of YHWH’s powerlessness. In this respect, it should be noted that Nah 1:2–10 also corresponds to the refutation element in that it employs a rhetorical question to challenge the addressees’ opinion, which Graffy identifies as a frequent feature in the refutation section of the disputation speech.35 Consequently, the three elements of Nah 1:2–3:19 do not constitute a prophetic disputation speech per se, but a prophetic refutation speech which is derived from the basic disputation pattern.36 The intent of this speech is obviously to address Judah and Assyria in order to challenge the prevailing view of YHWH’s impotence in light of the fall of Nineveh. It thereby asserts YHWH’s power 34 A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets (AnBib 104: Rome: Biblical Institute Press), 1984, 105. Cf. pp. 107–118 where he discusses the various elements and manifestations of this basic pattern in detail. See also D. F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre,” JSOT 38 (1987): 95–121, who correctly argues against Graffy’s view of the structure of prophetic disputation. Murray demonstrates that the surface structure of the prophetic disputation can vary according to its rhetorical purpose and that the genre is constituted by three elements that appear in its logical deep structure: 1) thesis; 2) counter-thesis; and 3) dispute (p. 99). 35 Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 112. 36 Murray’s pattern of thesis, counter-thesis, and dispute also appears to be presupposed by this text (“The Rhetoric of Disputation,” 99). The acrostic hymn in Nah 1:2–10 asserts the counter-thesis of YHWH’s efficacy to an implied thesis of YHWH’s impotence. Nahum 1:11–2:1 and 2:2–3:19 then constitute the dispute, directed to Judah and Assyria respectively.

284

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

and will as the cause of this historical event. In the view of the Book of Nahum, the fall of Nineveh is an act of YHWH. Finally, a number of settings for the prophetic activity of Nahum have been proposed ranging from the fall of Thebes to the Assyrians in 667 or 663 B.C.E.37 to the aftermath of the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E.38 Although most scholars currently place the prophet Nahum somewhere between these dates, generally near the beginning of Josiah’s reform,39 the identification of the Book of Nahum as a prophetic refutation speech indicates that Nahum’s activity should be viewed specifically in relation to the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E. The refutation pattern identified here presupposes the fall of Nineveh as an established fact. From the perspective of the Book of Nahum, either the city has actually fallen or its fall is a foregone conclusion.40 In either case, the certainty of Nineveh’s fall is essential to the book’s attempt to demonstrate YHWH’s power. Consequently, the refutation speech identified in the body of the Book of Nahum (1:2–3:19) must be dated approximately to 612 B.C.E., either shortly before or shortly after the fall of Nineveh. Finally, these considerations indicate that there is little reason to differentiate between the date of the prophet Nahum and the composition of his book.

V In sum, this study demonstrates that the Book of Nahum has a coherent structure based on the refutation pattern of the disputation speech. The book addresses both Judah and Assyria with the intent of refuting the prevailing belief in the impotence of YHWH by arguing that the fall of Nineveh is in fact an act of YHWH which demonstrates YHWH’s power. Although it is possible that elements of this text, such as the theophanic hymn or the address to Nineveh, were written separately for other settings or purposes, the historical setting of the final form of this text must be placed in conjunction with the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E. Consequently, attempts to explain the difficulties of this book as the product of Persian 37 C.-A. Keller, Nahoum, 102–105; idem, “Die theologische Bewältigung der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit in der Prophetie Nahums,” VT 22 (1972): 399–419. 38 Cf. E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (2 nd–3 rd edition; KAT 12; Leipzig: Deichert, 1930), 354; P. Humbert, “Le problème du livre de Nahoum,” RHPR 12 (1932): 1–15. 39 E. g., Rudolph, Nahum, 143–144; Renaud, Nahum, 264–265. 40 Cf. D. Christensen, “The Acrostic,” 17–30; idem, “Nahum,” HBC, 736. Cf. W. C. Graham, “The Interpretation of Nahum 1:9–2:3,” AJSL 44 (1927–1928): 37–48, and A. Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum (UUÅ 1946/7; Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1947), 149, who argue that Nahum was written in anticipation of the fall of Assyria but date the book to earlier periods.

17. Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum

285

period redaction, which organizes and presents Nahum’s oracles according to a post-exilic eschatological scenario, must be abandoned.41 Appendix Structure Diagram of the Book of Nahum Pronouncement (Maśśā’) of Nineveh: The Book of the Vision of Nahum the Elqoshite I. Superscription II. Maśśā’ proper: prophetic refutation speech concerning Judah’s and Assyria’s perception of YHWH’s impotence A. Address to Judah and Assyria challenging their low estimation of YHWH’s power 1. Acrostic hymn asserting YHWH’s vengeance against enemies 2. Rhetorical question asserting YHWH’s power to punish enemies B. Address to Judah asserting that the end of Assyrian oppression is an act of YHWH 1. Initial statement: wrong thinking about YHWH has proceeded from Judah 2. Prophetic YHWH speech reports concerning the end of Judah’s oppression and the destruction of the Assyrian oppressor a. Speech report concerning Judah’s relief from oppression b. Command report concerning YHWH’s destruction of the Assyrian oppressor 3. Concluding statement: command to Judah to celebrate the cessation of worthlessness C. Address to Nineveh and the Assyrian king asserting that the fall of Nineveh is an act of YHWH 1. Address to Nineveh 2. Address to Assyrian king

1:1 1:2–3:19 1:2–10 1:2–8 1:9–10 1:11–2:1 1:11 1:12–14 1:12–13 1:14 2:1 2:2–3:19 2:2–3:17 3:18–19

41 This is a slightly revised version of a paper read at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Vienna, Austria, August 5–8, 1990. I would like to express my gratitude to Bob Becking, Duane Christensen, and D. F. Murray for pointing me to their respective works in connection with the preparation of this paper. Naturally, they are not to be held responsible for the views expressed here. Thanks are also due to Kent Richards, Program Director of the International SBL Meeting in Vienna who encouraged me to present this paper as part of the special Persian period sessions of the meeting. Finally, I would like to thank the University of Miami Research Council, which provided a 1989 Max Orovitz Summer Stipend in the Humanities to support the research for this paper, and to the Yad Hanadiv/Barecha Foundation, which provided the funds for my appointment as a 1989–1990 Visiting Fellow in Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk I In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Brevard Childs reports that modern biblical scholarship has reached a consensus concerning the structure of the Book of Habakkuk.1 Following the superscription in Hab 1:1, the first major section is Hab 1:1–2:4(5), a unity frequently described as a “dialogue” between the prophet and G-d, which consists of a complaint in 1:2–4; a divine response in 1:5–11; a second complaint in 1:12–17; and a divine answer in 2:1–4. The second major section is Hab 2:(5)6–20, a series of “woe” oracles directed against an unnamed oppressor. The third major section is Hab 3:1–19, a concluding psalm, which many scholars view as an independent composition that was added to Habakkuk 1–2. Despite this consensus, there remain a number of persistent problems in the interpretation of the book. There is widespread disagreement concerning the genre of the work, which is variously described as a liturgical composition,2 a prophetic imitation of a cultic liturgy,3 a report of a visionary 1

Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 448. 2 S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien (6 vols.; Kristiania: Dybwad, 1921–1924), 3:27–29; E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (2nd and 3 rd editions; Leipzig: Deichert, 1930), 381– 382; P. Humbert, Problèmes du livre d’Habacuc (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’université, 1944), 280–289; K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten: Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (8th edition; ATD 25.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 25; E. Nielsen, “The Righteous and the Wicked in Habaqquq,” ST 6 (1953): 54–78; J. H. Eaton, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM, 1961), 81–84; J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 90–110; J. D. W. Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 221– 222. 3 G. Fohrer, “Das ‘Gebet des Propheten Habakuk’ (Hab 3:1–16),” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (ed. A. Caquot, S. Legasse and M. Tardieu; Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 159–167.

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

287

experience,4 and a wisdom text which centers on the question of theodicy.5 Several aspects relevant to understanding the details of the book’s structure remain unsettled, including the meaning and character of Hab 2:4(5); the precise definition of Hab 2:(5)6–20 and its relation to the previous material in 2:1–4(5); and the relation of Habakkuk 3 to Habakkuk 1–2. Finally, the identification of the anonymous referents of the book in relation to its historical background remains problematic, particularly the “wicked” and the “righteous” mentioned throughout the book. Each identification proposed by scholars is accompanied by arguments for textual emendations, transpositions, and literary development which continue to provoke disagreement.6 That each of these problems is ultimately bound to our understanding of the final form of the book, including its structure, genre, and intent, is evident. It is therefore important to note that there are problems with the current consensus concerning the structure of the book. First, the superscriptions in Hab 1:1 and 3:1 suggest not a three-part structure for the book, but a two-part structure in which Hab 1:2–2:20 is identified generically as “the maśśā’ which Habakkuk the prophet saw,” and Hab 3:2–19 is identified as “the těpillâ of Habakkuk the prophet concerning šigyōnôt.” Second, the reporting language of Hab 2:1–4(5) indicates that this text cannot be identified as the divine response to the complaint in Hab 1:12–27, but as the prophet’s report of G-d’s response. Because the prophet speaks in this section, Hab 1:2–2:4 cannot be viewed generically as a dialogue between Habakkuk and G-d. Third, Hab 2:(5)6–20 lacks clear structural markers which precisely define the beginning of the unit and separate it from the preceding material. Finally, a number of studies have pointed to features of Habakkuk 3 which indicate that the psalm is integrally connected to Habakkuk 1–2.7 These arguments indicate difficulties with the current consensus concerning the structure of Habakkuk and that a form-critical reassessment of 4 W. Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 193– 195; J. G. Janzen, “Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk,” CBQ 44 (1982): 394–414; B. Peckham, “The Vision of Habakkuk,” CBQ 48 (1986): 617–636. 5 C.-A. Keller, Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1971), 138–143; idem, “Die Eigenart der Prophetie Habakuks,” ZAW 85 (1973): 156– 167; D. E. Gowan, “Habakkuk and Wisdom,” Perspective 9 (1968): 157–166; idem, The Triumph of Faith in Habakkuk (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976); E. Otto, “Die Theologie des Buches Habakuk,” VT 35 (1985): 274–295; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Habakuk und das Problem des leidenden ‫צדיק‬,” ZAW 98 (1986): 400–415. 6 For a survey of research on the Book of Habakkuk through the mid-1970s, see P. Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk (Cologne and Bonn: Hanstein, 1977). In addition, see my article, “Habakkuk, Book of,” ABD 3:1–6. 7 For a survey of scholarly opinion on this issue, see Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk, 241–519.

288

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

the book, including its structure, genre, and intent, is necessary. It is the contention of this article that such a reassessment may aid in providing a solution to some of the problems in the interpretation of this book. Such a reassessment must begin with the structural observation that, in its present form, the Book of Habakkuk comprises two distinct sections: Habakkuk 1–2, the “Pronouncement” (maśśā’) of Habakkuk, and Habakkuk 3, the “Prayer” (těpillâ) of Habakkuk. These sections are demarcated formally by their respective superscriptions in 1:1 and 3:1, the technical terms in 3:1, 3, 9, 13, and 19 which identify Habakkuk 3 as a psalm, the distinctive mythological background of Habakkuk 3, and their respective generic characters. Each section will be analyzed individually before its relationship to the final structure of the book is considered.

II With respect to Habakkuk 1–2, Hab 1:1 is generically identified as a superscription, whose function is to provide the reader with essential information that identifies or characterizes the material that follows.8 As such, it is structurally distinct from Hab 1:2–2:20 and identifies this material as “the pronouncement which Habakkuk the prophet saw.” The Hebrew term maśśā’, “pronouncement” or “burden,” refers to a type of prophetic oracle, but its precise meaning is problematic. A recent study by R. D. Weis, however, argues convincingly that maśśā’ refers to a specific type of prophetic discourse which is intended to explain how YHWH’s intention is to be manifested in human affairs.9 According to Weis, the genre is not constituted by a well-defined literary structure as examples of maśśā’ôt texts include a variety of literary elements. The maśśā’ôt are based on a revelatory experience, such as a vision, and are spoken in response to particular situations in human events. Weis identifies Habakkuk 1–2 as an example of the maśśā’ genre.10 Although the details of the structure analysis offered below will differ from those of Weis, the identification of Habakkuk 1–2 as a coherent generic entity may aid in resolving some of the text’s interpretative problems. Following the superscription in Hab 1:1, the pronouncement in Hab 1:2–2:20 contains four major sections: 1:2–4, 1:5–11, 1:12–17, 2:1–20. 8

For a discussion of prophetic superscriptions, see G. M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of the Canon,” in Canon and Authority (ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 56–70. 9 “A Definition of the Genre maśśā’ in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph. D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1986). 10 For his discussion of Habakkuk 1–2, see Weis, “A Definition of the Genre maśśā’ in the Hebrew Bible,” 161–165, 250–252, 486–487.

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

289

Each of these sections is demarcated by its syntactical features and the perspective of its verbs and pronouns which indicate the speaker of the section, the party that is addressed, and in some cases the subject of discussion in the passage. The first major section, Hab 1:2–4, is demarcated by its 1st person singular verbs and pronouns, which identify Habakkuk as the speaker, and its 2nd person singular verbs and pronouns, which identify YHWH as the addressee. Generically, this sub-unit is a complaint by the prophet to G-d concerning the breakdown of social order. The prophet demands to know in v. 2 how long (‘ad ānâ) he must plead for help (šiwwa‘tî) and cry out (’ez‘aq) concerning injustice (ḥāmās) before G-d will acknowledge the situation and correct it. A second question addressed by the prophet to G-d appears in v. 3, in which the prophet demands to know why he is forced to look upon the various crimes specified and the general contention (rîb) and strife (mādôn) that they generate. Verse 4a follows up by stating the consequences of this situation, i.e., the weakening of order (tôrâ) and the lack of justice (mišpāṭ). Verse 4b specifies this statement by stating that the unnamed “wicked” (rāšā‘) party is oppressing an unnamed “righteous” (ṣaddîq) party and reiterating that justice (mišpāṭ) is perverted. Apparently, this oppression of the “righteous” by the “wicked” is the basic cause of the breakdown of order and the primary reason for the prophet’s complaint. The language employed here is typical complaint terminology. It can appear in a legal disputational context such as Job 19:1–7, where Job responds to Bildad’s charges that he is guilty by demanding to know how long (‘ad ānâ) Bildad will accuse him (v. 1) and by lamenting the lack of a response to his cries of injustice; “Behold, I cry injustice (’ez‘aq ḥāmās) and I am not answered, I plead for help (’ǎšawwa‘) and there is no justice (mišpāṭ).” Such language also appears in cultic lamentations, such as Ps 18:7, 42, where the verb šiwwa‘ is used to indicate a plea for divine deliverance from enemies. In either case, it is a demand for justice by a party that perceives its situation as unjust and untenable. The second major section of Hab 1:2–2:20, Hab 1:5–11, is demarcated by its 2nd person plural address form, as indicated by the plural imperative verbs, 2nd person plural imperfect verbs, and the 2nd person plural pronoun suffix in v. 5; its 1st person singular participial formation in v. 6 which identifies the speaker as YHWH; and its 3rd person description of the Chaldeans in vv. 6–11. The 2nd person plural address form indicates the addressee is not only the prophet himself, but those whom he represents, presumably the “righteous” mentioned in Hab 1:2–4. The address form, content, and placement of this sub-unit indicate that it is G-d’s response to the preceding complaint. It begins with imperative instructions to the addressees in v. 5 to look among the nations and see the great deed (pō‘al) which YHWH is doing. The term pō‘al is used in a

290

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

number of instances to refer to acts of YHWH in history.11 Verse 6 identifies this act as the establishment of the Chaldeans, i.e., the Neo-Babylonian empire of Nabopolassar and his descendants. Nothing is said concerning the purpose for which the Chaldeans are established, although v. 9 indicates that they come for violence (ḥāmās). Thus, the sub-unit does not indicate that the Chaldeans are to be viewed as the means for correcting the injustice (ḥāmās) announced in the previous complaint; rather, they may be viewed as its cause. This is supported by the balance of the unit in vv. 6αβ–11 which contains YHWH’s 3rd person description of the military might, fearsomeness, and success of the Chaldean army in conquering and dominating other nations. Of special note is the statement in v. 7b, “from it (i.e., the Chaldean nation), its justice (mišpāṭô) and its dominance (ûśě’ētô) go forth.” The Hebrew term śě’ēt, “dominance,” is frequently used to describe the pre-eminent or dominant position of the party under discussion, such as Cain in Gen 4:7, Reuben in Gen 49:3, or YHWH in Job 13:11. When combined with the Hebrew term mišpāṭ, “justice,” and specified by 3rd person singular pronoun suffixes, the phrase mišpāṭô ûśě’ētô refers specifically to the imposition of Babylonian authority on the conquered nations. The formulation of this verse, with the noun mišpāṭ and the verb yēṣē’, indicates that it is to be taken in contrast to v. 4aα of the preceding complaint which is formulated similarly. Thus, the imposition of Babylonian justice or authority is concomitant with the breakdown of justice for the righteous in Hab 1:2–4. Additional support is found in v. 11, which is syntactically connected to YHWH’s speech by the conjunctive ’āz at the beginning of the verse, and which indicates YHWH’s evaluation of the Chaldeans as an apostate and guilty nation that attributes its success to its own strength rather than to G-d. This evaluation is accomplished in part by a word play on the verb ḥālap. The verb means not only “to pass through” as of wind, but also “to transgress, overstep bounds,” as indicated by its use in Isa 24:5 where it refers to covenant violations. It is specified by the verbs wayya‘ǎbōr wě’āšēm, “and it passed by and incurred guilt.” Thus, YHWH’s response to Habakkuk’s complaint presents a negative picture of the Chaldeans. They are established by YHWH, but there is no indication that they are to correct the injustice announced in Hab 1:2–4. Instead, they appear to be the cause of that injustice. The third major sub-unit of Hab 1:2–2:20, Hab 1:12–17, is demarcated by its 2nd person singular verbs and the pronoun ’attâ in vv. 12–14a which govern this text and identify YHWH as its addressee; its 1st person singular pronoun suffixes in v. 12a, which identify Habakkuk as the speaker; its 3rd person singular portrayal of the Chaldeans; and the absence of any syn11

E.g., Deut 32:4; Isa 5:12; Ps 44:2, 10; 77:13; 95:9; Job 36:24.

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

291

tactical connection between vv. 12 and 11 at the beginning of the sub-unit and vv. 1:17 and 2:1 at the end. The content and placement of this sub-unit indicate that it is a second complaint by the prophet to G-d concerning the oppressive nature of the Chaldeans. Habakkuk 1:12–17 begins with a rhetorical question addressed by the prophet to G-d in v. 12a, which establishes YHWH’s antiquity and immortality. In this respect, it should be noted that the statement lō’ nāmût, “we shall not die,” is one of the Tiqqune Sopherim which should actually read lō’ tāmût, “You shall not die.”12 Likewise, the Hebrew term qedem, “antiquity,” is frequently employed in biblical literature to refer to YHWH’s role as creator and master of the world.13 This question therefore establishes the premise for the following material, that YHWH, as creator and master of the world, is capable of intervening either to establish the Chaldeans or to remove them. This is made clear in the two statements that follow in vv. 12b and 13a. Verse 12b states that YHWH has appointed the Chaldeans for “justice/law” (mišpāṭ) and “arbitration” (hôkîaḥ), i.e., they have been established to rule. Verse 13a states that YHWH is incapable of looking upon, i.e., tolerating injustice. This leads to the final section of this sub-unit, vv. 12b–17, which poses the question to YHWH whether he will continue to tolerate the injustice of the Chaldeans. The question is initially posed in v. 13b which focuses on the issue of theodicy: will G-d remain silent in the face of treachery, when one who is evil swallows up one who is more righteous? This question is followed up by a description of the Chaldeans which is syntactically connected to v. 13b by its waw-consecutive verb formation. The description of the Chaldeans as a fisherman capturing fish/humanity in a net is particularly apt since it is similar to the imagery used for YHWH’s creative acts in subduing Leviathan in Job 40:25–41:26. Rather than acknowledging G-d as the source of their success, the Chaldeans look to their own power, worshipping their nets/weapons. The section ends with the prophet reiterating the question to G-d, how long shall the Chaldeans continue to empty their nets without regard for the nations which they have slain?” In sum, Hab 1:12–17 relates the prophet’s dissatisfaction with YHWH’s answer to his initial 12 Contra C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 105–111, who retains the reading of the MT. McCarthy’s decision is based on her view that the Chaldeans function as YHWH’s agent for correcting the wickedness mentioned in Hab 1:2–4. Consequently, she maintains that Hab 1:12 expresses a hope for deliverance (“we shall not die”), in that the Chaldeans are established for justice (v. 12b). As the present analysis demonstrates, however, the purpose of the Chaldeans is not to correct injustice; they are the cause of the injustice which the prophet protests. 13 E.g., Deut 33:27; Isa 45:21; 46:10; Ps 44:2; 74:2, 12; 77:12; 119:152; Prov 8:22–23.

292

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

complaint. If YHWH has established the Chaldeans, they certainly do not recognize YHWH’s sovereignty nor do they recognize a responsibility to rule justly. The final major sub-unit of Hab 1:2–2:20, Hab 2:1–20, is demarcated by its 3rd person verbs in vv. 1–2aα, 5–6a, 18, and 20, which convey the speaker’s reports of YHWH’s speech and the nation’s taunt song together with explications of both, and its 1st person singular verbs and pronoun suffixes in vv. 1–2 which identify Habakkuk as the speaker. The contents of this sub-unit relate directly to the issues raised in Habakkuk’s second complaint (1:12–17) in particular as well as the entire exchange in Hab 1:2–17 in general. Habakkuk 2:1–20 therefore comprises the prophet’s report of G-d’s second response in 2:1–4 together with his explanation of the meaning of G-d’s response in 2:5–20. The basic structure of Hab 2:1–20 is determined by the narrative reporting language of vv. 1 and 2aα. Verse 1 provides the context for the report/ explanation of YHWH’s response in vv. 2–20 and therefore constitutes the first basic structural division of this sub-unit. Verses 2–20, introduced by the response report formula in v. 2aα, constitute the second basic structural unit. In v. 1, the prophet reports that he is at his watch station waiting for YHWH’s response. The precise meaning of the watch station imagery, expressed through the Hebrew nouns mišmeret, “watch station,” and māṣôr, “wall, fortification,” and the piel form of the verb ṣāpâ, “to act as a lookout/watchman,” is not entirely clear. A number of passages in 2 Chronicles (7:6, 8:14, 35:2) identify the mišmeret as the priestly or Levitical temple watches and the appearance of mišmeret and meṣāppeh in Isa 21:1–10 associate such watch station functions with the reception and conveyance of prophetic maśśā’ôt. This suggests that Habakkuk, in his role as conveyor of a prophetic maśśā’, is associated with the Temple, perhaps as a priest or Levite standing his watch (cf. Ezek 3:16–21; 33:1–9). That Habakkuk anticipates an ecstatic prophetic experience is evident from the statement lir’ôt mah-yědabber-bî, “to see what he will speak through me.”14 Finally, v. 1bβ must be taken as a parallel to v. 1bα, as indicated by its use of mâ, “what?,” and its terminology. The Hebrew term tôkaḥat, “rebuke,” is frequently understood as a rebuke or chastisement of the prophet for the sin of challenging the righteousness of G-d, but this is due in part to the LXX’s rendering of the term as ἐπὶ τὸν ἔλεγχόν µου, “on account of my rebuke/disgrace,” and its contrast with the projected “faith” of G-d (ἐκ πίστεώς µου) in LXX Hab 2:4. The present context, however, contains no indication that the prophet expects to be punished. In Job 13:6 and 23:4, 14 Cf. N. G. Cohen, “‘dbr … by’: An ‘Enthusiastic’ Prophetic Formula,” ZAW 99 (1987): 219–232.

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

293

tôkaḥat is used for Job’s legal charges and arguments against G-d. This indicates that in Hab 2:1 tôkaḥat refers to the prophet’s rebuke of G-d in the previous sections. In this instance, the use of the hiphil verb ’āšîb, “I will cause to return,” indicates that Habakkuk expects to provoke a divine response. This is precisely what follows in vv. 2–20, as indicated by the use of the verb ‘ānâ, “to answer,” which is frequently employed in situations of response to legal argument or complaint (cf. Job 9:14, 15, 16; 38:1). Habakkuk’s report and explication of YHWH’s response appears in vv. 2–20. The structure of this section is governed by its 3rd person reporting perspective in v. 2aα and the 3rd person participial formations with their explanatory perspective in vv. 5–6a and 18–20. Consequently, the section comprises two basic parts: the report of YHWH’s response in vv. 2–4 and Habakkuk’s explication of that response in vv. 5–20. Following the response formula in v. 2aα, the response by YHWH which the prophet reports appears in vv. 2aβ–4. It contains two basic sections. The imperative verb kětôb, “write,” defines the first section, vv. 2aβ–3, as a command by YHWH addressed to the prophet to write the vision on tablets. The practice of writing a prophetic vision (ḥāzôn) and a pronouncement (maśśā’) is attested in Isa 29:11–13 and 30:6–8, respectively (cf. Isa 7:1–4, 16–18). The precise meaning of the explanatory material is not completely clear, but it appears that the purpose for writing the vision is so that a runner or messenger may proclaim it at the appointed time. Furthermore, the prophet is reassured that if there seems to be some delay in the fulfillment of the vision, then he should wait, for it will surely come at the appointed time. The second section of YHWH’s response, v. 4, states the basic principle or meaning of the vision: the righteous shall live and the wicked shall fall, i.e., the righteous shall ultimately triumph. This verse, of course, has presented interpreters with many problems which will be discussed in greater detail below. Habakkuk’s explication of YHWH’s response appears in Hab 2:5–20. Although v. 5 is syntactically connected to v. 4 by the conjunctive particle wě’ap kî, “moreover,” there are a number of reasons for maintaining that the prophet speaks in vv. 5–20 and not YHWH. First is the explanatory character of v. 5. Although the precise meaning of v. 5 will be discussed in relation to the meaning of v. 4 below, it can be noted here that v. 5 draws out the meaning of v. 4 by comparing the inflated instability of the “wicked” with the behavior of a drunk who initially appears strong but then passes out with the increased consumption of wine. It is the role of the prophet to explain the meaning of YHWH’s statement. Second, the report of the taunt song, which builds upon the mention of the nations and the imagery of collapse in v. 5, contains a number of 3rd person references to YHWH in vv. 13, 14, and 16. Third, the commentary on the taunt song in vv. 18–20 contains another 3rd person reference to YHWH in v. 20. Unlike the taunt

294

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

song in vv. 6b–17, which is placed in the mouth of the nations, this last statement is clearly from the speaker in these verses who reports the nations’ taunt song in vv. 6–17. This and the interconnectedness of vv. 5, 6–17, and 18–20 indicate that the speaker in vv. 5–20 is not YHWH, but Habakkuk. In this respect, it is important to keep in mind that although vv. 2–4 report a speech by YHWH, Habakkuk is the speaker there as well. The structure of Habakkuk’s explication in vv. 5–20 includes two basic parts. Verse 5 explains the meaning of YHWH’s response. Verses 6–20, which are syntactically independent of v. 5 but depend on v. 5 for the referents of the pronouns in v. 6a, report the taunt song of the nations against the oppressor in vv. 6–17 together with a commentary in vv. 18–20. That vv. 18–20 are not a part of the taunt song, as many scholars maintain, is clear for several reasons. First, vv. 18–20 deviate from the form of the previous woe oracles in vv. 6b–17. Verse 18 refers to the problem of idolatry, but the “woe” statement concerning idolatry appears afterwards in v. 19, not before as in the other “woe” oracles. Many scholars argue that vv. 18 and 19 have been transposed (e.g., Keller),15 or that v. 18 is a secondary addition to the text (e.g., Rudolph),16 but few have considered the possibility that the present order is intentional.17 In fact, vv. 18–20 differ formally from the “woe” oracles in vv. 6b–17 in other ways as well. Verses 18–20 are cast in 3rd person form, whereas the previous “woe” oracles, with the exception of vv. 12–14 which are constructed entirely from variant forms of other prophetic texts (viz., Mic 3:10; Jer 51:58; Isa 11:9b), are cast in 2nd person singular form which addresses the oppressor. The four “woes” also contain a refrain in vv. 8b and 17b, “because of the blood of humankind and violence of the land, the city and all who dwell in it,” which serves as a literary envelope for the song, following the first and final “woes” in the series. Verses 18–20 differ from the preceding “woes” in terms of content as well. Whereas vv. 18–20 focus on idolatry, vv. 6b– 17 focus on crimes of violence and robbery. Verses 18–20 are distinct from the taunt song in vv. 6b–17 in terms of both form and content, but by focusing on the issue of idolatry and employing the “woe” form in v. 19 which appears in the preceding series they point to the root cause of the oppressor’s atrocities: its failure to recognize YHWH as sovereign. This is made clear by the concluding statement in v. 20 which portrays YHWH in the holy Temple, the seat of YHWH’s sovereignty, and demands a respectful silence from all the earth in the face 15

Keller, Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie, 166. Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja, 229–230. 17 Cf. D. R. Bratcher, “The Theological Message of Habakkuk: A Literary-Rhetorical Analysis” (Ph. D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va., 1984), 169– 170, 198–207. 16

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

295

of the divine presence (cf. Zeph 1:7; Zech 2:17; Ps 46:11). In this respect, vv. 18–20 serve as a commentary on the taunt song which identifies the reason for the oppressor’s crimes. Consequently, vv. 6–20 contain the prophet’s introduction in v. 6a and the song itself in vv. 6b–17. The song consists of four “woe” oracles concerning an unnamed oppressor. These deal with plundering (vv. 6b–8), extortion (vv. 9–11), bloodshed (vv. 12– 14), and degradation/rape (vv. 15–17).

III This analysis of the form of Habakkuk 1–2 presents a number of problems which require discussion. The first involves the interrelated issues of the identity of the “righteous” (ṣaddîq) and the “wicked” (rāšā‘) in 1:4, 13, and 2:4 and the role of the Chaldeans mentioned in 1:6. Scholars generally agree that the purpose of the Chaldeans in 1:5–11 is to correct the situation of oppression to which the prophet refers in 1:2–4. Their role is to punish the “wicked.” Consequently, the oppression of the “righteous” by the “wicked” refers either to an external enemy which is threatening righteous Judah or to an inner Judean conflict in which a “wicked” party is opposed to a “righteous” group.18 There is currently no consensus on this issue because of the problems engendered by the proposed identifications. Those who maintain that the wicked party is Chaldea must explain why Chaldea is established to correct oppression which it has caused. Those who argue that the wicked party is another foreign power or an inner Judean group must explain why the concern of the book shifts from condemning the wicked to condemning Chaldea, particularly since Chaldea is identified with the wicked in 1:13. Clearly, the central problem has been to explain why Chaldea, which is established to correct oppression, is then accused as the oppressor. In fact, this problem may be misconstrued. M. D. Johnson notes that 1:5–11 does not portray Chaldea positively, which indicates that the establishment of Chaldea is not the solution to the oppression described in 1:2–4.19 He therefore maintains that 1:5–11 is a heightened form of the complaint in 1:2–4. Instead of attempting to resolve the injustices mentioned in 1:2–4, Hab 1:5–11 indicates that YHWH initiated the situation by bringing the Chaldean oppression. Although the paralysis of Torah in 1:4 likely refers to the general breakdown of social order (cf. 1:12) rather than a specific breakdown of the Josianic reform as Johnson suggests, this view resolves 18 For a survey of scholarly opinion on this issue which lists specific identifications, see my “Habakkuk, Book of.” 19 “The Paralysis of Torah in Habakkuk 1:4,” VT 35 (1985): 257–266, esp. 261.

296

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

the difficulties presented by this text. It also explains the reference to the treachery of the Chaldeans in 1:13 (cf. 2:5) when considered in relation to Judah’s previous alliance with Babylon under Hezekiah and Josiah’s death while attempting to support the Babylonians. The second problem focuses on the meaning of Hab 2:4 and the relation of 2:1–4 to its context. Scholars are virtually unanimous in interpreting 2:1–4 in relation to the dialogue of 1:2–17, arguing that 2:1–4 constitutes YHWH’s response to Habakkuk’s second complaint in 1:12–17. Habakkuk 2:1–4 differs formally from the dialogue in 1:12–17, however, in that it is not a direct speech by YHWH, but Habakkuk’s report of YHWH’s speech. The passage contains the prophet’s description of his wait for the divine response (2:1) and his report of that response (2:2–4). In 2:2αβ–3, he is instructed to write the vision on tablets in order to wait for its fulfillment. The substance of the report then follows in 2:4. Habakkuk 2:1–4 is related to the preceding dialogue in terms of content, but it is generically distinct. Despite general agreement that Hab 2:4 contains the essence of YHWH’s response to Habakkuk, its meaning is still disputed. According to the Revised Standard Version, the verse reads, “Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail (i.e., ‘is puffed up’) but the righteous shall live by his faith (or ‘faithfulness’).” J. A. Emerton has summarized the grammatical and lexical problems of the first half of the verse which confound its interpretation.20 First, the meaning of the verb ‘uppělâ as “is puffed up” appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and lacks support in the versions. Second, the antecedents of the 3rd person singular verbs and pronoun suffixes, i.e., “he” and “him,” are uncertain.21 Third, although the portrayal of a conceited and unjust (puffed up) figure in v. 4a provides an excellent contrast to the righteous (ṣaddîq) of v. 4b, there is no antithesis to the statement that the righteous shall live. One expects a statement that the conceited one shall die or the like in v. 4a. Although scholars have advanced numerous textual emendations and interpretations in their efforts to resolve these problems, the result is an impasse. An examination of the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of this verse in its present literary context may help to resolve this situation. First, ‘uppělâ is a feminine singular pual perfect verb derived from the root ‘pl. The noun ‘ōpel, which is also derived from the root, means “tumor,” “swelling,” or “hill.” Furthermore, the verb appears in the hiphil in Num 14:44 where it means “to act presumptuously, arrogantly, or heedlessly.” The basic concept behind each meaning is that of inflation or swelling, whether it is understood literally or in the abstract sense of arrogance. The 20

“The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk 2:4–5,” JTS NS 28 (1977): 1–18. J. G. Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances,” HTR 73 (1980): 53–78, 62. 21

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

297

variations in the versions represent attempts to interpret a difficult statement that were probably motivated by the problems presented by this verse. Second, the 3rd person singular verbs and pronoun suffixes in v. 4a do not require an antecedent in this verse. A similar case appears in 1:12b where pronouns lacking an immediate antecedent are used to refer to Chaldea. Furthermore, 1:13 associates Chaldea with the wicked in contrast to the righteous, which has obvious implications for understanding the contrast of the arrogant figure of v. 4a with the righteous figure of v. 4b. Third, the vocabulary and syntax of v. 4a support a contrast with v. 4b. The subject of the verb ‘uppělâ, “is puffed up,” is napšô bô, “his soul within him.” Although the Hebrew word nepeš is frequently translated “soul,” this is a later meaning that was applied to the word under the influence of the Greek word ψυχή. The basic meaning of the word in Biblical Hebrew is “throat” or “life.” Furthermore, ‘uppělâ is asyndetically specified by the verb lō’ yāšěrâ, “is not upright.” Although yāšar is frequently used in reference to moral uprightness, its basic meaning is “to be straight, even, tranquil.” It therefore indicates that “his life within him is puffed up” means that “his life within him is not stable or secure.” This becomes significant in relation to v. 4b which states that “the righteous shall live by his faith.” Again, the Hebrew word ’ěmûnâ, frequently translated as “faith,” has been influenced by the Greek word πίστις and the interpretation of this verse in Christian Scriptures.22 Its basic meaning is “reliability” or “steadfastness.” In this respect, v. 4b portrays the stability of the righteous and provides the necessary contrast with one whose life is unstable due to arrogance. In the context of the preceding material, v. 4a refers to the Chaldeans and v. 4b refers to Judah. In sum, the verse promises that the oppression will end with the downfall of Chaldea. This understanding is supported by the material that follows in 2:5–20. Scholars have noted that v. 5 is connected to v. 4 by the particle wě’ap kî, “moreover,” which establishes a qal wāḥōmer or conclusio a minori ad maius relationship between the verses.23 Verse 5 employs the metaphor of “treacherous” wine for the arrogant one of v. 4. The Hebrew word bōgēd, “treacherous,” provides an appropriate contrast with the righteous one who is “steadfast” or “reliable” in v. 4. On the basis of the reading hwn, “wealth,” in 1QpHab 8:3, scholars have questioned the reading hayyayin, “wine,” as inappropriate in this context.24 The explanatory statement, “the 22

Cf. Rom 3:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38–39. Humbert, Problèmes du livre d’Habacuc, 150–151; A. S. van der Woude, “Der Gerechte wird durch seine Treue leben: Erwägungen zu Habakuk 2:4–5,” in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … Dedicata (Wageningen: Veenman, 1966), 367–375, 367. 24 W. H. Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,” JBL 82 (1963): 319– 325, 323–324; Emerton, “The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk 2:4–5,” 8–9. 23

298

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

arrogant man will not endure,” reinforces the image of instability and therefore illustrates the appropriateness of the metaphor to anyone familiar with the effects of excessive wine. The second metaphor is that of the insatiable appetite of death which illustrates the greed of the oppressor in swallowing nations. Verses 6–20 contain the prophet’s report of the taunt song (vv. 6–17) which the victimized nations will sing when the inflated oppressor collapses together with his comments indicating that the reason for the oppressor’s crimes is its idolatry (vv. 18–20), i.e., not recognizing G-d as the source of its power (cf. 1:11, 16). This raises the third major problem presented by Habakkuk 1–2, the identity of the oppressor in the woe oracles of 2:5–20. The localized nature of the crimes specified in these passages suggests to some scholars that they were originally directed against an internal Judean group before later editors reapplied them against Chaldea.25 Those who hold this position claim support from Jer 22:13–23 in which Jeremiah lambastes Jehoiakim for similar crimes. Other scholars maintain that these oracles were originally directed against Chaldea.26 In considering this problem, it is useful to recall R. J. Coggins’s argument that all prophets do not necessarily share a unified viewpoint and that Habakkuk may represent a prophetic tradition quite distinct from that of Jeremiah.27 It is not unusual for prophets to refer to international events in terms of localized crimes.28 Furthermore, various statements in the woe oracles indicate that an international situation is presupposed, including references to peoples and nations (vv. 6a, 8a, 10b, 13b), the earth, humankind, and the sea (vv. 8b, 14, 17b), and the violence of Lebanon (v. 17a). With regard to the last point, Nebuchadnezzar reports taking Lebanon and transporting its wood back to Babylon to build a palace.29 This act corresponds to the concerns raised in Habakkuk’s woe oracles which speak of extortion and plunder of nations (vv. 6b–8), unjust gain used for protecting one’s house (vv. 9–11), bloodshed to build a city (vv. 12–14), and the ravaging of a land (vv. 15–17). Finally, the prophet’s assertion that the reason for the oppressor’s crimes is its idolatry (vv. 18– 20) corresponds to the portrayal of the Chaldeans in 1:11, 16 (cf. 2:13a). In sum, the identification of Habakkuk 1–2 as a “pronouncement” (maśśā’) allows not only for the solution of several outstanding problems on the 25

Jeremias, Kultprophetie, 57–89, 101–103; E. Otto, “Die Stellung der Wehe-Worte in der Verkündigung des Propheten Habakuk,” ZAW 89 (1977): 73–107. 26 Janzen, “Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk,” 406–408; Peckham, “The Vision of Habakkuk,” 619–620. 27 “An Alternative Prophetic Tradition?,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 77–94. 28 E.g., Amos 1:3, 11, 13; Isa 10:14; Nah 3:5–7; etc. 29 J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement (3rd edition; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 307.

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

299

interpretation of this passage, but also demonstrates a consistent concern for contrasting the present circumstances and ultimate fate of “righteous” Judah with those of “wicked” Chaldea. The “Pronouncement” (maśśā’) in Habakkuk 1–2 explains that the appearance of the oppressive Chaldeans is an act of G-d among the nations. The exact purpose of this act is not stated, however, the discourse makes it clear that Chaldea will eventually fall as a result of its excessive greed and oppressive policies. Habakkuk 1–2 therefore reassures its audience that Judah will survive and that justice will ultimately prevail.

IV The second major section of the book, Habakkuk 3, begins with the superscription, “The Prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet concerning šigyōnôt.” The term těpillâ, “prayer,” is a typical title for psalms of lament which petition G-d for deliverance.30 The Hebrew term šigyōnôt likewise refers to lamentation as indicated by its appearance in Psalm 7, a song of lament, and the cognate Akkadian term šegu, “song of lament.”31 These terms correspond to the general situation of distress presupposed throughout the psalm. The present form of the prayer in vv. 2–19a is a petition to YHWH to manifest divine power in the world in order to deliver the land from invaders (vv. 2, 16).32 It is demarcated from the superscription in v. 1 and the instructions to the choirmaster in v. 19b by its 1st person singular perspective (vv. 2, 7, 14, 16, 18–19a). The petitionary character of this psalm is established by its framework which consists of an introduction in v. 2 and a conclusion in vv. 16–19a. The introduction is demarcated by the 1st person verbs in v. 2, which identifies the psalmist as the speaker, and the masculine singular imperative and 2nd person imperfect verbs, together with the 2nd masculine singular pronoun suffixes and the vocative use of YHWH, which identify YHWH as the addressee. The psalmist petitions YHWH to manifest divine acts in the world by referring to YHWH’s reputation for performing great works in v. 2aα (cf. the use of pō‘al in 3:2 and 1:5) prior to requesting YHWH’s action in v. 2aα–β. The piel imperative verb ḥayyēhû, “make him/it live,”33 30

E.g., Ps 17:1; 86:1; 90:1; 102:1; 142:1. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 4:7; contra M.-J. Seux, “Siggayon = sigu?,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 419–438. 32 For a survey of scholarly opinion on the genre of Habakkuk 3, see my “Habakkuk, Book of.” 33 Or, reading with LXX Hab 3:2, ḥawwēhû, “make him/it known”; cf. K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 350; H. Junker, Die Zwölf Kleinen 31

300

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

refers to YHWH’s great deed (pō‘al) mentioned previously. The concluding section (vv. 16–19a) is likewise demarcated by its 1st person singular verbs, pronouns, and pronoun suffixes (in one case, 1st person plural, yěqûdennû, v. 16) which identify the psalmist as the speaker. Verses 16– 19a are not addressed to YHWH, however, as indicated by the 3rd person references to the deity in vv. 18–19a. The addressee remains unspecified. The conclusion expresses the psalmist’s confidence that G-d will answer the petition. Verse 16 refers to the psalmist’s nervous anticipation while waiting for the day of distress against the people who invade us. Verse 17 refers to the present desolate state of the land34 and vv. 18–19a express the psalmist’s confidence in YHWH (cf. Ps 18:34). The framework sections bracket a description of a theophany in vv. 3– 15. Theophany texts recount the manifestation of YHWH and are characterized by a description of the deity’s approach and the accompanying natural upheavals such as wind, fire, storm, and earthquake.35 The formal structure of the theophany report in vv. 3–15 consists of two parts. Verses 3–7 are demarcated by their 3rd person reporting language which describes YHWH’s approach and actions together with the reactions of the natural world. The appearance of the 1st person singular perspective in v. 7 does not disrupt the reporting language. It identifies the psalmist as the speaker and portrays the fear of the Midianites/Cushites as a social/human parallel to the natural upheaval. Verses 3–7 differ from v. 2 in that they give no indication of addressee whereas v. 2 was specifically addressed to YHWH. Verses 8–15 are demarcated by the emergence of a 2nd person singular address style which identifies YHWH as the addressee and appears throughout vv. 8–15. In addition, a 1st person singular pronoun suffix appears in v. 14, which identifies the psalmist as the speaker. These verses are also characterized by their use of mythological motifs, particularly of divine combat against the waters of chaos, to depict YHWH’s victory over the enemy. The theophany sections likewise express the psalmist’s confidence that G-d will deliver the people (v. 13). In this respect, the psalmist demonstrates the steadfast faith of the righteous in 2:4.

Propheten (Bonn: Hanstein, 1938), 54. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, 407, objects that this reading is an attempt to harmonize ḥayyēhû with tôdîa‘. 34 Cf. W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986–1989), 1:278, 406, 427–429, who compares Hab 3:17 to Jer 8:13 and argues that both verses have their setting in a lamentation ritual for a major drought which took place in November-December 601 B.C.E. According to Holladay, this drought was instrumental in convincing Jeremiah that YHWH’s judgment of Judah was inevitable. 35 J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 69–72. Other examples include Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4–5; Amos 1:2; Mic 1:3–4; and Ps 68:8–9.

18. Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk

301

Although authorship of the psalm is disputed, modern scholars have identified a number of reasons for associating Habakkuk 3 with Habakkuk 1–2.36 Both sections share the theme of an enemy invasion of the land and G-d’s deliverance of the people from oppression. They also employ similar language, especially the references to the “wicked” (rāšā‘) in 3:13 and 1:4, 13 as well as YHWH’s great “deed” (pō‘al) in 3:2 and 1:5. Finally, there is a relationship between 3:2, 16–19a, which indicate confidence in YHWH’s deliverance, and 2:1–4 which instructs the prophet to wait for the fulfillment of his vision. From these considerations, it is clear that Habakkuk 3 functions as a corroborating conclusion that responds to the issues raised in Habakkuk 1–2.37 It expresses the psalmist’s belief that the vision in 2:1–4 and YHWH’s righteousness will be realized when the people are delivered from oppression.

V In conclusion, this form-critical reassessment of the structure, genre, and intent of the Book of Habakkuk demonstrates that the book has a coherent structural unity and that its genre is based on the prophetic pronouncement (maśśa’) and a petitionary prayer (tĕpillâ). The intent and setting center around an attempt to explain the rise of the oppressive Neo-Babylonian empire in the late-7th century B.C.E. as an act of YHWH which does not contradict divine righteousness and fidelity to Judah. Habakkuk 1–2 establishes that YHWH has raised the Chaldean empire as part of a divine plan or “deed” (pō‘al), which is not immediately explained. These chapters also make clear that the Chaldeans will be punished for their acts of oppression. Habakkuk 3 verifies that this punishment will take place, demonstrating YHWH’s sovereignty over the world and ultimately, divine righteousness as well. The two parts of the book, the Prophetic Pronouncement in Habakkuk 1–2 and the Prayer in Habakkuk 3, constitute a Prophetic Affirmation of Divine Sovereignty and Justice, the purpose of which is to convince its audience that YHWH is maintaining fidelity in a crisis situation.38 36 Fohrer, “Das ‘Gebet des Propheten Habakuk’ (Hab 3:1–16),” 162–163; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford and New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 421 = Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3rd edition; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 568–569. 37 Fohrer, “Das ‘Gebet des Propheten Habakuk’ (Hab 3:1–16),” 163–164. 38 This article is a revised version of papers read at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston (5–8 December 1987), and the W. F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, Jerusalem (8 January 1988). Thanks are due to the University of Miami Research Council which provided a Max Orovitz Summer Stipend to support this work; the American Council of Learned Societies and the University of

302

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

Appendix Structure Analysis of the Book of Habakkuk Prophetic Affirmation of Divine Sovereignty/Justice I. Pronouncement (maśśā’) of Habakkuk A. Superscription: maśśā’ B. Pronouncement (maśśā’) proper: dialogue report form 1. Habakkuk’s complaint to YHWH: concerning oppression of righteous by wicked 2. YHWH’s response to Habakkuk: YHWH has established Chaldeans 3. Habakkuk’s second complaint to YHWH: concerning evil nature of Chaldeans 4. Habakkuk’s report of YHWH’s second response a. Narrative tag b. Response report proper with explication 1) Response report formula 2) Response by YHWH a) Instruction: wait for vision b) Basic statement of principle of vision: righteous shall live/wicked shall fail 3) Explication by prophet a) Concerning oppressor: will not endure b) Concerning oppressed: report of taunt song against oppressor with prophet’s commentary aa. Report of taunt song i) Introduction ii) Taunt song proper aa) Woe no. 1: concerning plundering bb) Woe no. 2: concerning extortion cc) Woe no. 3: concerning bloodshed dd) Woe no. 4: concerning rape bb. Prophetic summation/commentary II. Prayer/petition by Habakkuk to YHWH A. Superscription: tĕpillâ B. Prayer/petition proper 1. Introduction: petition to manifest divine power 2. Theophany report a. Concerning YHWH’s approach b. Concerning YHWH’s victory 3. Conclusion: expression of confidence by psalmist C. Instruction to the choirmaster

1:1–2:20 1:1 1:2–2:20 1:2–4 1:5–11 1:12–17 2:1–20 2:1 2:2–20 2:2aα 2:2αβ–4 2:2αβ–3 2:4 2:5–20 2:5 2:6–20 2:6–17 2:6a 2:6b–17 2:6b–8 2:9–11 2:12–14 2:15–17 2:18–20 3:1–19 3:1 3:2–19a 3:2 3:3–15 3:3–7 3:8–15 3:16–19a 3:19b

Miami College of Arts and Sciences which provided travel grants to Jerusalem; and Dr Sy Gitin, Director of the Albright Institute, for my appointment as a Post-Doctoral Fellow for the 1987–88 academic year. Thanks are also due to Professors William L. Holladay, Jr, and John A. Emerton for their encouragement and suggestions. Of course, they are not to be held responsible for the views expressed here.

1

2

3

4

5

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah I Scholarly consensus maintains that the Book of Zephaniah is organized according to a tripartite structure that serves as a paradigm for the structure of prophetic books.1 According to this consensus, the three major sections of the book include (1) threats against Jerusalem and Judah (Zeph 1:2– 2:3); (2) threats against the nations (Zeph 2:4–3:8); (3) and promises to both Jerusalem/Judah and the nations (Zeph 3:9–20). On this basis, scholars have drawn several important conclusions concerning the intent and setting of the book.2 The intent of the book is linked to the three basic themes which are derived from its tripartite structure, but it is not limited to this alone. Because the concept of the “day of YHWH” permeates all three sections and because of its world-wide orientation, the book as a whole is understood as portraying the eschatological fulfillment of YHWH’s plans for the world: punishment of Jerusalem/Judah; punishment of the nations; and the redemption of Jerusalem/Judah at the center of a redeemed world. Such a scheme for world-wide redemption is viewed as the product of post-exilic expectation, and therefore the final form of the book is understood to be the product of extensive post-exilic redaction. Whereas the final redacted form of the book is seen to be concerned with worldwide eschatological punishment and redemption, the prophet Zephaniah is viewed as having much more limited concerns in the passages attributed to him: the people’s adherence to the Josianic reform and the meaning of the Scythian invasion.3 1

B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 458; O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of Its Results and Problems (trans. J. Sturdy; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 230. 2 For summaries of the critical discussion of Zephaniah, see Childs, Introduction, 457–462; Kaiser, Introduction, 229–231. 3 Recent studies which employ redaction-critical methodology to stress these differences in perspective between the prophet and the editors who assembled the book include W. Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja (ΚΑΤ 13; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 255–303; G. Langohr, “Le livre de Sophonie et la critique d’authenticité,” ETL 52 (1976):

304

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

There are, however, a number of problems with this consensus and the conclusions that are drawn from it. The first concerns the paradigmatic tripartite structure. Renaud and Rendtorff note that the book does not appear to break down quite so neatly into the categories proposed by proponents of this view.4 The oracle against Jerusalem in Zeph 3:1–8 is particularly problematic in this regard. If it is included with the oracles against the nations in 2:4–15, it conflicts with the pattern of threats against the nations. Likewise, if it is included with the promises that follow in 3:9–20, it conflicts with the pattern of restoration for Jerusalem/Judah and the nations. Most scholars opt to include it with the oracles against the nations, arguing that Jerusalem/Judah has become like the nations because of its sins, but this is hardly a satisfactory explanation. Likewise, the oracles against the nations contain statements concerning the restoration or welfare of Israel and Judah (2:7, 9b) which also conflict with the pattern. Furthermore, it is not certain that such a pattern is paradigmatic for the organization of prophetic books since the pattern is found elsewhere only in Ezekiel and the Septuagint version of Jeremiah. These observations obviously raise questions about the so-called paradigmatic tripartite structure of Zephaniah and indicate that it is perhaps necessary to look for an alternative principle for the structure of the book. Second, there are difficulties with the eschatological understanding of the Book of Zephaniah. The book does have a world-wide perspective (1:18; 2:3, 11; 3:8, 19–20) and employs language which suggests the reversal of creation (1:2–3), but such perspectives and language also appear in noneschatological passages such as Hos 4:1–19 and Jer 4:22–26. Furthermore, although the book is clearly organized around the theme of the “day of YHWH,” there is nothing which requires that this day should be under1–27; idem, “Rédaction et composition du livre de Sophonie,” Mus 89 (1976): 51–73; G. Krinetzki, Zefanjastudien: Motiv- und Traditionskritik + Kompositions- und Redaktionskritik (RST 7; Frankfurt/Main: P. Lang; Bern: H. Lang, 1977); H. Irsigler, G-ttesgericht und J-hwetag: Die Komposition Zef 1,1–2,3 untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (ATSAT 3; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1977); R. Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja (Freiburger theologische Studien 126; Freiburg, Basel and Vienna: Herder, 1984); K. Seybold, Satirische Prophetie: Studien zum Buch Zefanja (SBS 120; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985); B. Renaud, “Le livre de Sophonie: Le jour de YHWH thème structurant de la synthèse rédactionnelle,” RevScRel 60 (1986): 1–33; idem, Michée – Sophonie – Nahum (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1987), 175–259. 4 See Renaud, “Le livre de Sophonie,” 2–3; idem, Sophonie, 177–178; R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 234. Although Renaud is correct to note that thematic criteria on which the tripartite structure is based are inadequate, his own proposal for a tripartite structure (1:2–18; 2:1– 3:8; 3:9–20) also presents problems in that it is based on a perceived doublet in 1:18 and 3:8 and alternative thematic criteria. As the present paper will attempt to demonstrate, formal and syntactical features must be considered in relation to theme.

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

305

stood as an eschatological event. The book lacks any reference to the “day of YHWH” taking place at “the end of days” (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1); and there is certainly none of the mythological portrayal of cosmic holy war that characterizes later apocalyptic works. The book does indicate a plan of YHWH to restructure Jerusalem/Judah’s standing in the world and its relationship to the nations, but there is no reason to view this as an eschatological or post-exilic perspective as opposed to the more immediate concerns of the time of Zephaniah the prophet. Are we to suppose that Zephaniah proclaimed an eschatological ideal of world peace in which the nations look to Jerusalem/Judah to praise YHWH at the time of the impending downfall of the Assyrian empire and Judean independence under Josiah? Or does the prophet view such a restructuring of Jerusalem/Judah’s relationship to the nations from the perspective of Judean national interest? There are indications that the latter is the case. Christensen notes that the nations portrayed in the book are the major adversaries of Judah in Josiah’s time.5 Philistia and Moab-Ammon were areas into which Josiah intended to expand. Egypt, which was ruled by Cush until the mid-seventh century, and Assyria were the major powers of the day which would present obstacles to Judean independence and Josiah’s political ambitions. It should also be noted that the book has major interests in the possession of Philistine and Moabite-Ammonite territory (2:7, 9b), the remnant of Israel (3:12–13), and the return of its captives by the nations (2:7; 3:9–10, 19–20). All of these would be elements of a Judean national restoration under Josiah. Third, recent methodological advances in literary and form-critical analysis have called into question the assumptions and procedures of previous studies. Past studies have focused on individual short speech units and collections of such units as the basis for interpreting the book.6 Such a perspective unduly influences the interpretation of the book as a collection of previously independent speech units, with little concern for how these text units interact to present a coherent literary text. The result has been the consensus discussed above. Even the interpretation of the whole has been influenced by this perspective insofar as the book is seen to be the product of its three collections and their respective themes. Clearly, each of these themes plays a role in the message of the Book of Zephaniah, but it must be questioned whether the announcements of punishment and restoration are ends in and of themselves. What purpose do such announcements serve? Are they merely predictions of what is to come, or do they 5 D. L. Christensen, “Zephaniah 2:4–15: A Theological Basis for Josiah’s Program of Political Expansion,” CBQ 46 (1984): 669–682. Cf. Β. Oded’s discussion in “Judah and the Exile,” in Israelite and Judaean History (ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 458–469. 6 E.g., Krinetzki, Zefanjastudien, 25; Seybold, Satirische Prophetie, 11.

306

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

serve some didactic or persuasive purpose? Recent advances in rhetorical criticism and structural form-criticism, which focus on the structure, coherence, and purpose of larger literary units, can be useful in determining the intent of the Book of Zephaniah.7 The above considerations indicate that a reassessment of the form of the Book of Zephaniah, including its structure, genre, setting, and intent, is in order. By employing the methodology of structural form-criticism to evaluate the literary formation of the book, this paper will attempt to demonstrate that although some later glosses appear in the text, the book as a whole has a coherent structure which derives from the late seventh-century prophet Zephaniah. It will argue that the purpose of the book was to exhort the people of Jerusalem/Judah to support the political-religious reform initiated by King Josiah as a means for restoring Judah’s independence and reclaiming lands lost during the period of Assyrian hegemony.8

II The book begins with the superscription in Zeph 1:1 which employs objective reporting language to identify its contents, the lineage of its author, and its historical context “in the days of Josiah ben Amon, king of Judah.” As Tucker notes, superscriptions are generically and structurally distinct from the material which follows, in that their function is to identify that material.9 Consequently, the superscription in 1:1 is the first major structural unit of the Book of Zephaniah. The body of the book follows in 1:2–3:20. Within the body of the book, the first major structural sub-unit is 1:2–18, which constitutes a “Prophetic Announcement of the Day of YHWH.” Because of the absence of additional superscriptions or other overt structural indicators, the basis for this view is not immediately obvious. Nevertheless, there are a number of grounds for maintaining that 1:2–18 forms a coherent unit, generically and structurally distinct from the material that follows.

7 See R. Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Int 27 (1973): 435– 468; idem, “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker; Atlanta: Scholars Press; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 123–165. 8 For other studies which focus on the structure and final form of the book, see A. S. Kapelrud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah: Morphology and Ideas (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1975); I. J. Ball, Jr., Zephaniah: A Rhetorical Study (Berkeley: BIBAL, 1988); P. R. House, Zephaniah: A Prophetic Drama (JSOTSup 69; Sheffield: Almond, 1988). 9 G. M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of the Canon,” in Canon and Authority (ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 56–70.

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

307

The first concerns the generic character of the language employed in 1:2–18 as opposed to that of 2:1–3. Zephaniah 1:2–18 contains a great deal of 1st person singular address language which is identified by content and context as speeches by YHWH. These appear in l:2–4(5a), 8aß–9, 10aß–11, 12aß–13, and 17. In these speeches, no particular audience is identified, although they speak about those who are marked for punishment in Jerusalem and Judah and refer to “this place,” indicating that the audience is located in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, these YHWH speeches do not directly constitute the generic character of this passage in that they are embedded in the language of the prophet as indicated by the oracular formulas in 1:2b, 3bß; the 3rd person references to YHWH in 1:(5a)5b–6, 7–8aα, 10aα, 12a, 14–16, 17aß, and 18. With the exception of 1:7 which begins with an imperative address, the language employed is 3rd person proclamation language which is designed to announce the speeches by YHWH to the audience. Again, no explicit audience is identified, but the relation of the prophet’s announcements to the YHWH speeches indicates that the announcements concern the wicked of Jerusalem and Judah and appear to identify the audience as the people of Jerusalem and Judah. In this respect, the prophet speaks of the wicked among the people in objective terms, employing 3rd person language such as “those sworn to YHWH and those sworn to their king” (v. 5b)10 or “those who did not seek YHWH or inquire from him” (v. 6b). This indicates two possibilities. Either the prophet is addressing the righteous in Jerusalem and Judah, or by enumerating the consequences that will befall the wicked, the author is employing a rhetorical device that is designed to persuade the audience to distinguish its behavior from the wicked who will be punished and thus identify with the righteous. Consequently, the generic character of 1:2–18 is “Prophetic Announcement of YHWH’s Speeches.” This is in contrast to 2:1–3 which no longer contains YHWH speeches, only direct speech by the prophet to the people. The use of piel imperatives and 2nd piel address forms indicates that Zeph 2:1–3 is no longer prophetic announcement but direct address by the prophet to the people. The second concerns the contents of 1:2–18 as opposed to 2:1–3. Both sections are concerned with the “day of YHWH” but differ with respect to their use of this theme. Zephaniah 1:2–18 announces the “day of YHWH” 10 Although many Greek manuscripts read kata tou melchom, “to Milkom” (cf. Syriac and Ahmimic), indicating their understanding of the passage in relation to the syncretistic activities mentioned in vv. 4b–5a, this emendation is unnecessary (see G. Gerleman, Zephanja: Textkritisch und literarisch untersucht [Lund: Gleerup, 1942], 7). Verse 5bß is a parallel to v. 5bα which mentions those sworn to YHWH. The oath to YHWH and the king would be deliberately associated in the context of the Josianic period with its emphasis on religious reform and national renewal. Note that Exod 22:27 forbids cursing G-d and reviling the ruler (naśî).

308

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

and its consequences for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah.11 It focuses on YHWH’s actions and their effects. Zephaniah 2:1–3, on the other hand, employs the “day of YHWH” to facilitate a direct appeal to the audience to change its behavior and thus avoid the consequences of the “day of YHWH.” Whereas 1:2–18 focuses on the actions of YHWH, 2:1–3 focuses on the actions of the people. The third involves the syntactical relationship between the two passages and their literary contexts. There is absolutely no syntactical connection between 1:2–18 and 2:1–3. Following the 3rd person announcement language of 1:2–18, 2:1–3 begins with piel imperatives addressed directly to the audience. On the other hand, 2:1–3 is syntactically connected to 2:4 by the particle kî.12 This becomes even more significant when the contents of 2:4 are noted in relation to the literary context. Zephaniah 2:4 announces the demise of four Philistine cities immediately before the woe speech beginning in 2:5 which focuses on the “Seacoast District” (ḥebel hayyām) or Philistia as the first of a series of oracles against the nations. The relationship will be examined more closely below, but at this point it is clear that there are grounds for identifying a syntactical connection between 2:1–3 and the following oracles against the nations. Thus, on the basis of genre, content, and syntax, 1:2–18 is a separate textual sub-unit from 2:1–3.13 There are two major textual sub-units in Zeph 1:2–18. Zephaniah 1:2–6 is the “Prophet’s Report of YHWH’s Oracular Speeches concerning the Punishment of Jerusalem and Judah.” Zephaniah 1:7–18 is the “Announcement of the Day of YHWH.” The two sub-units are distinguished by their contents and respective generic characters as well as by the command to be silent before YHWH in 1:7 which marks the transition between the two sections. They are nevertheless related by their common concern with announcing YHWH’s punishment of Jerusalem and Judah. Zephaniah 1:7– 18 explains the significance of the threats previously reported in 1:2–6 by proclaiming the day of YHWH. Zephaniah 1:2–6 contains two oracular speech reports by the prophet in 1:2–3a and 1:3b–6. Each is characterized by 1st person address language, 11

See Rudolph, Zephanja, 264. Although some scholars see this as an emphatic kî that introduces an entirely new section (e.g., L. Sabottka, Zephanja: Versuch einer Neuübersetzung mit philologischem Kommentar [BibOr 25; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972], 70), such a view overlooks its conjunctive force. A number of scholars have noted the causative function of this particle (e.g., Renaud, Sophonie, 222; D. W. Baker, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [TOTC 23b; Leichester and Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988], 104). For further discussion, see below. 13 Note that 1:2–3 and 1:17–18, with their respective emphases on world-wide concerns, form a literary envelope for 1:2–18 (see Renaud, “Le livre de Sophonie,” 6–8; Ball, Zephaniah, 93–94). 12

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

309

which is attributed to YHWH by the oracular report formulas in vv. 2b and 3bß and embedded in the oracular report formulas in vv. 2b and 3bß and embedded in the 3rd person reporting language of the prophet. The first speech report is characterized by a threefold repetition of the verb ’āsēp, “I will sweep away,” which identifies the three statements of the speech. The first, v. 2, employs the infinitive absolute construction ’āsōp ’āsēp in a general statement of YHWH’s plans to punish all the earth (v. 2a), followed by the oracular formula (v. 2b).14 It is therefore the basic statement of the trio. The following statements in vv. 3aα and 3aß specify the categories of creation that will be affected; “humans and animals,” i.e., the land-dwelling creatures in the first instance, and “birds of the heavens and fish of the sea,” i.e., the non-land-dwelling creatures in the second. Verse 3aγ has long been recognized as a textual gloss.15 As indicated by the association between “humanity” and Jerusalem and Judah in 1:3b–6, it is clear that these statements concerning the punishment of creation are intended merely as prelude to the main concern with Jerusalem and Judah.16 The use of the creation motif here indicates the comprehensive nature of the punishment which will affect all creation. The second oracular speech report in 1:3b–6 is constituted by its threefold repetition of 1st person waw-consecutive perfect verbs, each of which introduces one of the three statements that comprise this section, i.e., vv. 3b, 4a, and 4b–6. Again, the first is a basic statement which announces YHWH’s plan to “cut off humankind” (v. 3ba), followed by the oracular report formula (v. 3bß). This is followed by two statements which specify the basic statement of v. 3b. Verse 4a merely states that the intended target is Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Verses 4b–6 further specify the targets as “the remnant of Baal,” “the name of the kěmārîm among the priests,” and “those who worship on the rooftops the host of heaven” (vv. 4b–5a). Two explanatory clauses are attached to vv. 4b–5a which further specify the targets of YHWH’s punishment. Verse 5b explains that those who worship are “those who are sworn to YHWH and those sworn to their king” and v. 6 adds “and those who turn aside from after YHWH and 14 Although the reading of ’āsōp ’āsēp is often challenged because of its grammatical difficulties, the appearance of this expression in Jer 8:13 confirms that the text should stand. It is a combination of the infinitive absolute form of the verb root ’sp, “to gather,” and the 1 st person hiphil imperfect of the verb root swp, “to sweep away” (see Gerleman, Zephanja, 2–3). The combination of terms suggests that it is an idiomatic expression that essentially means, “I will surely eradicate” or the like (Renaud, Sophonie, 194). 15 See Gerleman, Zephanja, 3–5. 16 See C.-A. Keller, Sophonie (CAT 11b; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1971), 187; Langohr, “Le livre de Sophonie,” 4–5, who see 1:2–6 as a single unit. Others, i.e., Irsigler, G-ttesgericht, 100–101; Renaud, Sophonie, 199; idem, “Le livre de Sophonie,” 6–8, see 1:2–3 as later redactional material.

310

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

those who did not seek YHWH and who did not inquire of him.” In their present context, these clauses are syntactically attached to the statement by YHWH in vv. 4b–5a, but their contents, particularly the 3rd person references to YHWH, indicate that they are not a part of the reported YHWH speech. Instead, it is quite clear that they are commentary attached to vv. 4b–5a to explain the meaning of YHWH’s statement. Whether the author of these statements is the prophet or a later glossator is uncertain.17 Nevertheless, they pose the basic problem which has occasioned this announcement of punishment, that the people do not seek YHWH. Furthermore, in their present context of the speech by YHWH, they reinforce the generic character of the passage as a report of YHWH’s speech by the prophet, not simply as a transcript of the speech itself. The “Announcement of the Day of YHWH” in 1:7–18 contains two basic sub-units, 1:7–13 and 1:14–18, characterized by their parallel introductory formulas announcing that “the (great) day of YHWH is near.” Zephaniah 1:7–13 contains the prophet’s report of YHWH’s announcements concerning the significance of the day as a day of sacrifice for YHWH’s designated victims. Zephaniah 1:14–18 contains the prophet’s explanation of the day’s consequences. Together, these sections explain the significance of the preceding announcements of punishment in Zeph 1:2–6. Despite the initial address to the audience in v. 7, no specific audience is explicitly identified in this section. Instead, it presupposes Jerusalem and Judah as the audience, as established in 1:2–6. By referring to the wicked with 3rd person objective language, i.e., “those who have filled the house of their Lord with violence and deceit” (v. 9b) or “neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to save them” (v. 18aα), the prophet intends to convince his audience not to identify with the wicked who are to be punished. In this sense, the ultimate goal of the speech is to facilitate the prophet’s attempt to influence the actions of his audience. Zephaniah 1:7–13 begins with the prophet’s command for silence before YHWH in v. 7. The command includes two explanatory clauses stating that the day of YHWH is near (v. 7bα) and that YHWH has prepared a sacrifice or slaughter to sanctify his intended victims (v. 7bß). Three sections follow, each introduced by a future time formula, in which the prophet reports YHWH’s statements concerning the punishment of his victims on the day of YHWH. Following the formula wěhāyâ běyôm zebaḥ YHWH, “and it shall be on the day of the sacrifice by YHWH” in v. 8aα, the first, vv. 8aß– 9, contains a statement by YHWH consisting of two sentences, each of which is introduced by the verb ûpāqadtî, “and I shall punish.” The first 17 A number of critics view Zeph 1:6 as a redactional gloss based on its “interior” concerns as opposed to the cultic concerns of the preceding material (Renaud, Sophonie, 200; Irsigler, G-ttesgericht, 103; cf. Keller, Sophonie, 189).

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

311

statement is directed against government officials (v. 8aß+b)18 and the second is directed against cultic functionaries (v. 9). The second follows the formula in v. 10aα wěhāyâ bayyôm hahû’ ně’um YHWH, “and the oracle of YHWH shall come to pass on that day.” Again, two statements by YHWH appear. Verse 10aß+b consists of three nominal sentences which describe the commotion in three parts of the city, the Fish Gate, the Mishneh, and the surrounding hills. Verse 11 is a verbal statement that describes the lamenting of the inhabitants of the Maktesh (v. 11a) with explanatory clauses that all the people of Canaan are destroyed and all handling money are cut off (v. 11b).19 The third follows the formula wěhâyâ bā‘ēt hahî’, “and it shall come to pass at that time,” in v. 12aα. It consists of two statements by YHWH employing 1st person verbs to describe how he will search throughout the city (v. 12aß) and punish those who doubt his efficacy (v. 12b). This is followed by two statements in which YHWH describes the effects of this punishment. Verse 13a describes the plundering of their wealth and the demolition of their houses. Verse 13b uses formulaic language to describe the futility of their labors in that they will build houses in which they will not live and plant vineyards whose wine they will not drink. The purpose of this section is to employ YHWH’s statements concerning the projected punishment to impress upon the audience the severity of the day of YHWH against those who are its intended victims. Zephaniah 1:14–18 consists of two basic sub-units. Verses 14–16 contain the prophet’s description of the day of YHWH. Verse 14 contains a twofold statement concerning the nearness of the day (v. 14a) and the bitter sound of the day (v. 14b). Verse 15 employs a series of five paired metaphors to portray the day as one of wrath against the fortified cities and high towers. This sentence contains the basic statement that it is a day of wrath (v. 15a), the five paired metaphors in vv. 15b–16a which appositionally define the day of wrath, and the objects of this wrath in v. 16b. In vv. 17–18, the prophet describes the consequences of the day of YHWH for its victims. He begins by quoting YHWH again in vv. 17–18aα, although the statement, “for they have sinned against YHWH,” often considered a gloss, and the references to YHWH in v. 18ba+ß indicate that this is the prophet’s report and embellishment of YHWH’s speech. The speech begins in v. 17 with a general statement concerning the inability of their wealth to save the victims in v. 18aα. The prophet then concludes in 18 For an understanding of the “sons of the king” as a title for officials and not as a literal designation for the king’s offspring, see G. Brin, “The Title ben (ham-) melek, and Its Parallels: The Significance and Evaluation of an Official Title,” AION 29 (1969): 432–465. 19 Note that “the people of Canaan” is an idiomatic expression for “merchants” (Renaud, Sophonie, 209).

312

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

his own language in v. 18aß+b with a statement concerning the total devastation of the land on the day of YHWH, consisting of a basic statement (v. 18aß) and an explanatory comment (v. 18b). This last statement, with its mention of běyôm ‘ebrat YHWH, “in the day of the wrath of YHWH,” recapitulates the earlier statement in v. 15a that “a day of wrath (‘ebrâ) is that day,” thus tying vv. 14–16 and 17–18 together and summarizing the whole. The second major structural sub-unit of the Book of Zephaniah is 2:1– 3:20. The arguments for the definition of the unit center around the relationship between 2:1–3 and the following material. Although many scholars maintain that 2:1–3 is structurally linked to 1:2–18,20 the following arguments will demonstrate that these verses serve as the introduction and premise for the following material. The first argument involves the syntactical relationship between 2:1–3 and the unit, beginning with 2:4. Although the introductory kî of 2:4 is frequently identified as an emphatic kî which introduces an entirely new section,21 the conjunctive force of this particle should not be overlooked. A primary criterion for identifying kî as emphatic and not causal is the absence of a logical connection to the preceding material.22 But 2:4 announces the impending downfall of four Philistine cities and the material that follows reinforces the point. Certainly 2:4 provides a clear example of impending disaster and as such, provides a basis for the exhortation to seek YHWH in 2:1–3.23 In other words, the disaster which will overtake the Philistine cities in 2:4 is the motivation for the audience to seek YHWH, justice, and poverty in v. 3 and perhaps to be saved. If they do not, the same fate can befall them. Furthermore, despite the absence of an explicit syntactical relationship between 2:4 and 2:5, which begins with the interjection hôy, 2:4 and the material beginning in 2:5 are closely related by their contents which focus on the fate of Philistia. This indicates that 2:4 and the material beginning in 2:5 are related as structural sub-units in their larger literary context and function together as components of the basis for the exhortation address in 2:1–3. The second argument involves the generic character of 2:1–3 in relation to the following material. The dominant perspective of 2:1–3 is 2nd person plural direct address. This is indicated by the plural imperative verbs in vv. 1 and 3, the 2nd person plural pronoun suffixes in v. 2, and the 2mp verb in v. 3. Likewise, the dominant perspective of 2:4–3:20 is that of 2nd person 20

E.g., Irsigler, G-ttesgericht, 167–170. See note 12 above. 22 See B. K. Waltke and M. P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 665 (sec. 39.3.4e). 23 Renaud, Sophonie, 222. 21

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

313

direct address to the audience. This is indicated by several features. Much of this material employs imperative verbs, 2nd person pronoun suffixes, and 2nd person verbs to address the audience directly. This is clear in 2:5, 12; 3:7, 8, 11–13, and 14–20. The number, gender, and referents of these addresses shift throughout the passage so that the addressees include the Philistines (2mp and 2fs pronoun suffixes in 2:5), Cush (2mp pronoun in 2:12), as well as “the daughter of Zion/Jerusalem” (2fs verbs and pronouns in 3:7, 11–13, and 14–19; cf. 3:4). This contrasts with the 2mp language addressed to the audience in 2:1–3 and to the redeemed in vv. 3:8aα, 14aß and 20. Several observations are in order. First, the addresses to the Philistines and Cush quickly shift to 3rd person references, indicating that they are not the primary addressees of this passage. Second, the 2fs addresses to the “daughter of Zion/Jerusalem” shift to 2mp in 3:8, 14, and 19–20. Third, 2:1–3 employs 2mp forms to address those who will potentially be redeemed and 3:20 employs 2mp forms to address those who will realize redemption. These observations suggest that the primary audience throughout the passage is the “daughter of Zion/Jerusalem” and that 2:1–3 and 3:20 form a literary envelope for 2:1–3:20. Within this unit, the shift from 2fs forms to 2mp forms in the address to Zion/Jerusalem indicates the author’s attempt to convince the audience to identify with the righteous and thereby avoid the coming disaster. Consequently, all of 2:1–3:20 is an address to the people of Zion/Jerusalem. The third argument involves the contents of 2:1–3:20. As noted above, the primary interest of 2:1–3 is not with the punishment of the people per se but with convincing them to change their behavior in order to avoid the punishment. In this respect, 2:1–3 looks forward to the people’s well-being after the disaster. Furthermore, the association of 2:4 and the following material with 2:1–3 makes it clear that the punishment of nations is a part of the scenario. The woe speeches in 2:5–15 and 3:1–4 indicate that the nations and Jerusalem respectively are deserving of YHWH’s punishment. Once the punishment is completed, however, 3:5–20 focus on Jerusalem’s restoration at the center of the chastised nations. Furthermore, this restoration will include the return of Israel’s/Judah’s captivity and the remnant of the house of Judah/my people/Israel. This is clear not only from 3:5–20 (i.e., 3:9–13, 19–20), but from the oracles against the nations as well (2:7, 9b). In sum, the contents of the entire unit, 2:1–3:20, are directed toward the realization of Jerusalem’s/Israel’s restoration at the center of the nations following the announced punishment. In this respect, such a restoration is the goal of the punishment. Thus, in terms of syntax, genre, and content, Zeph 2:1–3:20 forms a separate, coherent textual sub-unit in the structure of the Book of Zephaniah. Because its dominant perspective is that of 2nd person address

314

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

to the people of Jerusalem/Judah and because the purpose of the unit is to convince them to alter their behavior and seek YHWH as the means for avoiding the previously announced punishment, the unit may be labeled, “Prophetic Exhortation to Seek YHWH.” Within Zeph 2:1–3:20, the first major sub-unit is 2:1–3. As noted above, its direct address perspective and exhortational intent set it apart structurally from the material which immediately follows. Nevertheless, it provides the premise for the following material and therefore determines the intent of the entire unit. Consequently, 2:1–3 must be considered the “Prophetic Exhortation Address.”24 The following material spells out the significance of this exhortation. Zephaniah 2:1–3 contains two exhortation statements, each of which consists of commands in imperative form and the accompanying motivation statement. The first, 2:1–2, begins with a command addressed to “the disconcerted nation,” i.e., Jerusalem/Judah, to pull together in v. 1. It is followed by a twofold motivating statement that indicates that the command should be followed before YHWH’s punishment of the addressees becomes irreversible (v. 2a+b). The second exhortation statement, 2:3, states the central issue at hand, the need to seek YHWH. The basic command to seek YHWH is addressed to all the poor of the earth who have done his law (v. 3a). It is specified by v. 3b which commands the audience to seek righteousness and poverty (v. 3bα) with the motivation that perhaps they will be hidden on the day of YHWH’s anger (v. 3bß). The balance of the unit, 2:4–3:20, is an address to the people which reinforces the exhortation in 2:1–3 by explaining YHWH’s goals in bringing about the punishment. Although 2:4 and 2:5–7 are both concerned with the Philistines, the absence of a syntactical connection between them and the introductory hôy of 2:5 indicate that they constitute separate sub-units within the larger structure of the passage. Furthermore, the association of 2:5–7 with the oracles against other nations in 2:8–15 and the parallel hôy in 3:1, which introduces a lengthy section concerning Jerusalem, indicate that 2:4 and 2:5–3:20 constitute separate structural units within 2:4–3:20. As such, 2:4 provides the basis for the entire exhortation in that it is an announcement of impending disaster against the Philistine cities. The statements concerning the four Philistine cities are grouped in pairs (vv. 4a and 4b) defined by the connecting waws in each pair, the dual usage tihyeh for Gaza and Ashkelon in v. 4a, and the parallel imperfect verbs for Ashdod and Ekron in v. 4b. 24 For a discussion of the exhortational character of 2:1–3, see A. Vanlier Hunter, Seek the L-rd! A Study of the Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Zephaniah (Baltimore: St. Mary’s Seminary and University, 1982), 259.

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

315

The following material in 2:5–3:20 explains the significance of this impending Philistine disaster. This “Explanatory Address concerning YHWH’s Purpose” consists of two sub-units defined by their parallel use of the introductory hôy and their respective subject matter. The first, 2:5–15, is primarily concerned with the nations, with a secondary focus on the remnant of “the House of Judah/my people.” The second, 3:1–20, is primarily concerned with Jerusalem and Israel with a secondary focus on the nations. When taken together, these sections explain the significance of impending events among the nations, beginning with the Philistines, for Jerusalem and Judah. Zephaniah 2:5–15 contains a series of four prophetic announcements of judgment against Philistia (vv. 5–7), Moab and Ammon (vv. 8–11), Cush (v. 12), and Assyria (vv. 13–15). The purpose of this section is to announce YHWH’s punishment against these nations. It should be noted that this is not a comprehensive list of nations, as indicated by the absence of Babylon, Edom, Aram, and other traditional subjects for the oracles against the nations in prophetic literature. The reason for the selection of these nations will become apparent in relation to the discussion of the historical context of Zephaniah. The announcement of judgment against Philistia in 2:5–7 consists of two basic parts. It begins with the prophet’s introduction in v. 5 with a woe statement directed to the “inhabitants of the sea district and the nation of Keretim” (v. 5a) and his address to “Canaan, the land of the Philistines” that “the word of YHWH is upon you” (v. 5bα). The prophet’s announcement proper then follows in vv. 5bß–7. He quotes a judgment speech by YHWH in vv. 5bß–6, identified by its 1st person address to a 2fs addressee. It consists of a threat to destroy the addressee without inhabitant (v. 5bß) and the statements of consequence (v. 6) that the sea district shall become a grazing area for sheep (v. 6). The prophet concludes with his statement that the remnant of the house of Judah will then take possession of the area (v. 7), consisting of the statement proper (v. 7a+ba) and the reason (v. 7bß), i.e., that YHWH had visited them and returned their captivity. The announcement of judgment against Moab and Ammon consists of two basic parts. The prophetic announcement of judgment appears in vv. 8–9 where the prophet quotes a YHWH judgment speech, as indicated by the oracular formula in v. 9 and the 1st person address language throughout the speech. The speech includes the indictment in v. 8, charging Moab and Ammon with humiliating the people by expanding their borders, and the announcement of punishment in v. 9, including the results for Moab and Ammon (v. 9a) and for the remnant of the people (v. 9b). The prophetic judgment speech is then followed by the prophet’s summary appraisal in 2:10–11, consisting of an introductory statement (v. 10) and a statement of results (v. 11).

316

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

The judgment address to Cush in v. 12 consists of a direct address to Cush in v. 12a and a statement of punishment in v. 12b. The 1st person perspective indicates that this is a speech by YHWH. Only the conjunctive gam links this statement to the preceding context and indicates that it is reported by the prophet. The announcement of judgment against Assur and Nineveh in 2:13–15 consists of two basic parts. In vv. 13–14, the prophet reports YHWH’s actions against the cities (v. 13) and their consequences (v. 14). He concludes with a summary appraisal in v. 15 which includes the summary statement (v. 15a) and the appraisal statement (v. 15b). Zephaniah 3:1–20 begins with a “Prophetic Announcement of Salvation for Jerusalem” in 3:1–13. This sub-unit is characterized by its introductory hôy in 3:1 and its perspective as the prophet’s announcement about Jerusalem. Although the unit contains a lengthy 1st person speech by YHWH in vv. 6–13 which employs a 2fs address form directed to Jerusalem, the dominant perspective of this sub-unit is not that of YHWH’s address to Jerusalem. Instead, the YHWH speech to Jerusalem is encased in a framework of the prophet’s speech which transmits the speech by YHWH. Evidence for the dominant role of the prophet’s speech in this sub-unit is found in vv. 1–5, which employ 3fs language to speak about Jerusalem and 3rd person references to YHWH in vv. 2b and 5. In addition, the oracular formula in v. 8 indicates that the speech by YHWH is being transmitted by the prophet and is therefore structurally incorporated with the prophet’s words in vv. 1–5. In sum, the generic character of vv. 1–13 is that of prophetic announcement about Jerusalem. This is in contrast to 3:14–20 which is a direct address by the prophet to Jerusalem and Israel, as indicated by its 2nd person address form and its 3rd person references to YHWH throughout the sub-unit. Within 3:1–13, the first major sub-unit is 3:1–4, a “Prophetic Woe Speech of Accusation against Jerusalem.” The basic indictment appears in vv. 1–2, consisting of the woe announcement (v. 1) and the basic accusation that Jerusalem did not listen to YHWH (v. 2). The specific details then follow in vv. 3–4 with accusations against the civil officials (v. 3a), the judges (v. 3b), the prophets (v. 4a), and the priests (v. 4b). Although the majority of scholars maintains that 3:5 should be included structurally with 3:1–4,25 there are a number of reasons for concluding that v. 5 serves as the introduction to a “Prophetic Announcement of YHWH’s Speech” in 3:5–13. Whereas vv. 1–4 focus on the guilt of Jerusalem, v. 5 focuses on YHWH’s actions in response to that guilt. The YHWH speech 25 Keller, Sophonie, 205; Rudolph, Zephanja, 287, 289; Kapelrud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah, 35. Others see v. 5 as a gloss due to its psalmic language, e.g., Renaud, Sophonie, 241.

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

317

reported in vv. 6–13 likewise focuses on YHWH’s actions in response to the situation outlined in vv. 1–4. In this respect, it is important to note two points. First, v. 5 emphasizes the righteousness of YHWH’s actions in the midst of Jerusalem (v. 5a) and employs the imagery of light, generally a positive symbol of justice and restoration, to indicate the positive results for the righteous as opposed to the wicked (v. 5b). Verses 6–13 also emphasize these themes in that they announce the restoration of Jerusalem and the remnant of Israel in the midst of the nations. In the perspective of both v. 5 and vv. 6–13, restoration comes after the period of punishment. Second, although vv. 6–13 are primarily a speech by YHWH, the oracular formula in v. 8 indicates the dominant perspective of the prophet’s speech which corresponds to the perspective of v. 5, likewise a speech by the prophet. Verse 5 therefore serves as the prophet’s introduction to the “YHWH Speech Report” in vv. 6–13. Zephaniah 3:5–15 therefore constitutes the “Prophetic Announcement of Consequences” to the accusation speech in vv. 1–4. In this case, however, the consequences for Jerusalem are not negative, but positive. Zephaniah 3:6–13 comprises the “Prophetic Report of YHWH’s Speech to Jerusalem,” which is essentially an oracle of salvation/restoration for Jerusalem. The first sub-unit, vv. 6–7, employs 1st person perfect verbs to describe YHWH’s past actions against the nations and his statement to them concerning their need to fear YHWH in order to preserve their refuge in Jerusalem (vv. 6–7a). Their negative reaction is reported by 3rd person plural perfect verbs in v. 6b. Verses 8–13 then shift to YHWH’s future actions. This unit begins in v. 8 with a basic exhortation to Israel/Jerusalem, as indicated by the plural imperative, to wait for YHWH, together (v. 8a) with two general motivating statements concerning the punishment of nations (v. 8b). YHWH’s actions are specified in vv. 9–13. Verses 9–10 announce YHWH’s action to the nations, calling them to serve him (v. 9), and the reaction, the minḥâ offering by the exiles (v. 10). Verses 11–13, introduced by the bayyôm hahû̕ formula, then elaborate on this scene. Verses 11–12 describe YHWH’s removal of arrogance from Jerusalem (v. 11) and the remaining humble people (v. 12). Verse 13 then describes the righteousness of the remnant of Israel that will dwell there. Following the “Prophetic Announcement of Salvation to Jerusalem” in 3:1–13, Zeph 3:14–20 constitutes a “Prophetic Summons to Rejoice” directed to Jerusalem and Israel. In its present position, it functions as a means for reassuring the audience that the promises mentioned previously will be realized. It begins with the summons proper in vv. 14–15 which includes the summons statement (v. 14) in imperative form addressed to the daughter of Zion, Israel, and the daughter of Jerusalem, and the basis for the summons (v. 15), that YHWH has removed the judgment and now reigns as king of Israel in Jerusalem. This is followed by the “Prophet’s Report of

318

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

Assurance to Jerusalem” in 3:16–20. Verses 16–17 contain anonymous words of assurance reported by the prophet. This section begins with the initial assurance statement introduced by the formula bayyôm hahû’ in v. 16, followed by the basis for the assurance in v. 17 which announces YHWH’s rejoicing over Jerusalem. Verses 18–20 then conclude with the “Prophet’s Report of YHWH’s Assurance Speech.” Although this is presented in 1st person address form as a speech by YHWH, the concluding YHWH speech formula at the end of v. 20 indicates that the prophet is transmitting YHWH’s words and that vv. 18–20 are a part of the unit in vv. 16–20. The speech itself begins with a statement by YHWH concerning his purge of the wicked from Jerusalem in v. 18 followed by his statements concerning his exaltation of Jerusalem in vv. 19–20. As the shift of 2nd person objects indicates, v. 19, with its 2fs objects, is directed to Jerusalem, which will receive the returning exiles, and v. 20 with its 2mp perspective, is directed to Israel, which will return to Jerusalem.

III The preceding discussion has demonstrated that the Book of Zephaniah has a coherent structure and intent. Whereas previous scholarship had concluded that the book comprised a tripartite structure whose primary intent is to announce judgment against Jerusalem/Judah, judgment against the nations, and subsequent restoration, the above discussion demonstrates that this view must be rejected. Not only does the body of the book, Zeph 1:2– 3:20 consist of two major sections, the “Prophetic Announcement of the Day of YHWH” in 1:2–18 and “Prophetic Exhortation to Seek YHWH” in 2:1–3:20, but the intent of the book goes well beyond simple announcements of judgment or restoration. As the examination of the structure, language, and rhetorical strategy of these sections has shown, the intent of both is to work together to convince the audience to alter its behavior in order to avoid the announced punishment and be counted among those who will survive to enjoy the future restoration. In this sense, the “Prophetic Announcement of the Day of YHWH” in 1:2–18 prepares for the “Prophetic Exhortation to Seek YHWH” in 2:1–3:20 and the exhortation presupposes the day of YHWH announcement. Together, both units function as a “Prophetic Exhortation to Seek YHWH.” Zephaniah 2:1–3:20 then constitutes the “Prophetic Exhortation Proper.” This view of the structure and intent of the Book of Zephaniah also has implications for the interpretation of the book in relation to its historical setting. The superscription in 1:1 states that the book contains the words of Zephaniah “in the days of Josiah ben Amon, King of Judah.” In this respect, many scholars agree that Zephaniah’s words presuppose the Josianic

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

319

reform. Many also maintain that Zephaniah’s words have been supplemented by sections which address post-exilic eschatological concerns, especially the restoration of the exiles or the remnant of Judah/Israel to Jerusalem. In this regard, several observations are in order. First, scholars have often pointed to the appearance of “the remnant of the house of Judah” (2:7), “the remnant of my people/remainder of a nation (2:9), “the remnant of Israel” (3:13), and the references to the return of the exiles (3:10, 19–20) as indications of post-exilic concerns for the return of the Babylonian captivity. Such a view overlooks the concern in Josiah’s time for the reunification of Judah and the former northern kingdom of Israel and the return of the captives exiled by the Assyrians. Certainly, Josiah’s destruction of the altar at Bethel and his centralization of worship at the Jerusalem Temple were designed for such reunification and restoration. As G. W. Anderson notes, the concept of remnant here must be understood in its positive, not its negative, sense.26 The announcements concerning a remnant do not indicate the survivors of impending disaster, that is, they do not represent the doom of the people. Instead, they are survivors of past punishment who represent the divine pledge of national restoration. Certainly, such thinking was inherent in the ideology of national restoration under King Josiah. Even the mention of “the remnant of the house of Judah” supports such a view, for it was Judah that represented the hope of restoration for all Israel following the fall of the northern kingdom in 722/721 B.C.E. Second, the book does not presuppose the world-wide perspective that is attributed to post-exilic eschatology. Zephaniah 1:2–3 does employ cosmic reversal of creation language, but such language appears frequently in the Prophets in contexts that cannot be understood in an eschatological sense. They merely refer to the inseparable relationship between human behavior and the welfare of the natural world. Furthermore, the statements concerning YHWH’s fire that will consume all the earth (1:18; 3:8), references to Jerusalem/Israel being appointed for praise in all the earth (3:19, 20), and other references to the inhabitants of the earth (1:18), the gods of the earth (2:11), the nations (2:11; 3:6, 8) and peoples (3:9), etc., must be understood in context. The nations listed, Philistia, Moab and Ammon, Cush, and Assyria, do not constitute a comprehensive list of nations in the world at that time. But, as Christensen has shown, they do represent a comprehensive list of the enemies of King Josiah or nations that might

26 G. W. Anderson, “The Idea of the Remnant in the Book of Zephaniah,” ASTI 11 (1977–1978): 11–14; idem, “Some Observations on the Old Testament Doctrine of the Remnant,” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 23 (1969–1970): 1– 10.

320

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

present obstacles to Judean national interest.27 Assyria, of course, was the former suzerain that Josiah’s policies were designed to shake off. Cush/ Ethiopia ruled Egypt until Psammetichus I sacked the Ethiopian stronghold at Thebes in 664 (cf. Nah 3:8–10). Prior to this, the Ethiopian Pharaoh Tirhakah apparently threatened Philistia and Judah, which prompted the Assyrian king Esarhaddon’s invasion of Egypt.28 Later, Egypt again emerged as a threat to the region and as an ally of Assyria during the reigns of Psammetichus I and Necho II. Philistia and Moab/Ammon apparently represented obstacles to Josiah’s territorial ambitions along the Mediterranean coast and the Galilee. In this respect, it appears to be no accident that Zeph 2:7 and 2:9b call for the “remnant of the house of Judah” and the “remnant of my people” to take possession of these lands.29 The Book of Zephaniah sees Jerusalem/Israel at peace among the nations, but only in the context of the defeat of Josiah’s principal enemies and the return of the exiles. Third, of the disasters outlined in the oracles against the nations, the projected downfall of the Philistine cities in 2:4 is presented as the primary motivation for the exhortation to seek YHWH in 2:1–4. This is somewhat curious until it is noted that ancient historical sources indicate that the Philistine plain was subject to attack in the early years of Josiah’s reign. Often scholars point to a Scythian invasion as the immediate cause for 27

Christensen, “Zephaniah 2:4–15,” 678–681. J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 367. 29 Although the Mesad Ḥashavyahu ostracon written by a Semitic governor to his overlord is frequently cited as evidence for Judean control of the Philistine coast, the issue must remain open due to the presence of a Greek settlement on the site which may indicate Egyptian control (Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 388– 390). There is little evidence to suggest that Judah was a vassal to Egypt at this time, however, as Miller and Hayes argue. The evidence they cite merely indicates the possibility of Egyptian control late in Josiah’s reign or even at his death in 609. While it is likely that Egypt controlled the Via Maris, there is no indication that Egyptian authority extended into the hill country of Judah and Ephraim (on the extent of Egyptian influence in the region during the reign of Josiah, see A. Malamat, “Josiah’s Bid for Armageddon,” JANES 5 [1973]: 267–278). Furthermore, the biblical narratives concerning Josiah’s reign indicate the actions of an independent monarch, not a vassal serving Egyptian interests. Certainly Josiah’s reported interest in celebrating the Passover (2 Kgs 23:21– 23), which emphasizes escape from Egyptian bondage, would be somewhat odd if he understood himself to be an Egyptian vassal. Josiah’s centralization of cultic practice and economic resources (see W. E. Claburn, “The Fiscal Basis of Josiah’s Reforms,” JBL 92 [1973]: 11–22) appears to be designed to consolidate his power in Jerusalem so that he could better resist outside pressure in the aftermath of Assurbanipal’s death. Since the Assyrians were hardly expected to reassert their claims to the area after 627, it seems likely that a potential source of outside pressure might come from Egypt, which was slowly extending its power up the Via Maris in the late seventh century. 28

19. A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah

321

Zephaniah’s announcement of judgment, but as scholarly discussion of the Scythian invasion hypothesis has shown, the extent of Scythian activity in the Israelite-Philistine region is not clear.30 Herodotus reports, however, that the Egyptians were present in Philistia at this time. In one instance, he reports that Psammetichus bribed the Scythians to leave the area after they had plundered the temple of Aphrodite at Ashkelon (Histories 1.105) and in another he reports that Psammetichus conducted a twenty-nine year siege against the city of Ashdod (Histories 2.157). Such threats to Philistia would be understood as inimical to Judah’s newly emerging independence and could easily prompt the warnings of YHWH’s judgment against Judah by Zephaniah. An appeal to return to YHWH in order to avoid a similar fate would provide ideal support for Josiah’s reform and national restoration. Finally, the removal of the idolatrous worship practices mentioned in 1:4–6 fits well with the religious aspects of Josiah’s reform. Here, the “remnant of Baal” (1:4) would be understood as the last vestiges of Baal worship following the collapse of Assyrian authority. Likewise, the statements directed against government officials and cultic functionaries (vv. 8–9) would support a purge of elements who were not loyal to YHWH and the king (v. 5b). In conclusion, this form-critical analysis of the structure, genre, intent, and historical setting of the Book of Zephaniah demonstrates that it is designed as a prophetic exhortation whose purpose is to convince the people to change their behavior and seek YHWH. The purpose of the exhortation appears to be to garner support for King Josiah’s program of religious and national restoration in the late seventh century B.C.E.31

30 For a discussion of the Scythian hypothesis, see H. Cazelles, “Sophonie, Jérémie et les Scythes en Palestine,” RB 74 (1967): 24–44 (English trans.: “Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and the Scythians in Palestine,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies [ed. L. G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1984], 129–149). 31 A shortened version of this paper was read at the Thirteenth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leuven, Belgium, August 27– September 1, 1989, under the title, “Structure and Rhetorical Intent in the Book of Zephaniah.” I would like to thank the University of Miami Research Council which provided funds to support the research for this article in Jerusalem during the summer of 1988. I would also like to thank the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the W. F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, and the École biblique et archéologique française for the use of their library facilities during that time. I would also like to thank my former student, Ms. Luisa Ellenbogen Spector, now a graduate student at Duke University, for her comments on the Book of Zephaniah. Naturally, she is not to be held responsible for the interpretations advanced here.

322

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

Appendix Structural Diagram of the Book of Zephaniah The Book of Zephaniah: Prophetic Exhortation to Seek YHWH (1:1–3:20) I. Superscription II. Prophetic exhortation to seek YHWH A. Prophetic announcement of the day of YHWH 1. Report of YHWH’s oracular speeches a. 1 st speech report: concerning creation 1) Basic statement: YHWH’s punishment of creation 2) 1 st specification: land-dwelling creatures 3) 2 nd specification: sky- and water-dwelling creatures 4) Gloss: concerning wicked b. 2 nd speech report: concerning Jerusalem and Judah 1) Basic statement: YHWH’s punishment of humankind 2) 1 st specification: inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah 3) 2 nd specification: syncretists 2. Announcement of the day of YHWH a. Report of YHWH’s announcement concerning significance of day: day of sacrifice for YHWH’s victims 1) Prophet’s command for silence 2) Report of YHWH’s statements concerning government officials and cultic functionaries 3) Report of YHWH’s statements concerning merchants in the city 4) Report of YHWH’s statements concerning punishment of infidels b. Prophetic explanation of day’s consequences 1) Description of the day of YHWH 2) Consequences of the day of YHWH B. Prophetic exhortation to seek YHWH proper 1. Prophetic exhortation address 2. Exhortation basis a. Exhortation basis proper b. Explanatory address concerning YHWH’s purpose 1) Concerning YHWH’s punishment of nations: woe speech form a) Against Philistia b) Against Moab and Ammon c) Against Cush d) Against Assyria 2) Concerning Jerusalem and Israel a) Announcement of salvation for Jerusalem i. Woe speech against Jerusalem ii. Announcement of positive consequences for Jerusalem a] Concerning righteousness of YHWH’s actions b] Report of YHWH’s speech to Jerusalem: salvation oracle b) Prophetic summons to rejoice: directed to Jerusalem and Israel

1:1 1:2–3:20 1:2–18 1:2–6 1:2–3a 1:2 1:3aα 1:3aß 1:3aγ 1:3b–6 1:3b 1:4a 1:4b–6 1:7–18 1:7–13 1:7 1:8–9 1:10–11 1:12–13 1:14–18 1:14–16 1:17–18 2:1–3:20 2:1–3 2:4–3:20 2:4 2:5–3:20 2:5–15 2:5–7 2:8–11 2:12 2:13–15 3:1–20 3:1–13 3:1–4 3:5–13 3:5 3:6–13 3:14–20

1

2

3

4

5

20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah I The concluding oracle of reassurance to Bat Zion in Zeph 3:14–20 presents interpreters with a variety of problems that have implications for the reading of both the passage itself and the book as a whole. Two issues are particularly important. First, the passage is generally considered to be a late-exilic or post-exilic addition to the book because of its overall theme of restoration, which seems to contrast with the theme of judgment that appears throughout the rest of the book.1 Second, the passage contains a number of very enigmatic readings, such as yaḥǎrîš bě’ahǎbātô, “he will be silent/plow with his love,” in v. 17bα and nûgê mimmô‘ēd, “those who were aggrieved/ thrust out from the festival,” in v. 18aα, which continue to defy interpretation. In an attempt to resolve these difficulties, this paper considers two basic perspectives. The first is the overall structure and generic character of the book and its purported setting in relation to King Josiah’s attempted restoration in the late seventh century B.C.E. The second is an observation made some fifteen years ago by Lawrence Zalcman that the depiction of the Philistine cities in Zeph 2:4 metaphorically employs the language of divorce to express YHWH’s judgment against the Philistines.2 These perspectives contribute to a reevaluation of Zeph 3:14–20 and its function in relation to the rest of the book that leads to two conclusions. First, Zeph 3:14–20 likewise employs the metaphor of a marital relationship to depict YHWH’s restoration of Jerusalem/Bat Zion in contrast to the nations listed in Zeph 2:4–15 and those in Jerusalem/Israel who continue to adhere to foreign gods. Second, the portrayal of Jerusalem’s restoration may be read in relation to a larger rhetorical strategy employed throughout the book to 1

Marco Striek, Das vordeuteronomistische Zephanjabuch (BBET 29; Frankfurt on Main: P. Lang, 1999), 39–45; Rainer Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja (Freiburger Theologische Studien 120; Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 60–67, 98–99; Klaus Seybold, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja (ZBK; Zurich: TVZ, 1991), 114, 115–119; Bernard Renaud, Michée – Sophonie – Nahum (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1987), 253–259; Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja (KAT 13.3; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 297–300; Johannes Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 194. 2 Lawrence Zalcman, “Ambiguity and Assonance in Zephaniah ii 4,” VT 36 (1986): 365–371.

324

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

convince its audience to support King Josiah’s attempted restoration of Israel in the late seventh century B.C.E.

II In a series of publications beginning some twelve years ago, I have challenged the prevailing notion that the structure of the Book of Zephaniah reflects a scenario of eschatological judgment and salvation that includes three basic parts: (1) judgment against Jerusalem/Judah in Zeph 1:1–2:3; (2) judgment against the nations in Zeph 2:4–3:8; and (3) restoration for Israel and the nations in Zeph 3:9–20.3 By observing closely the formal features of the book, particularly its syntactical and semantic features and its forms of address, I have argued instead that the structure of the book represents a prophetic exhortation speech in which the prophet attempts to convince his audience to seek YHWH. Following the superscription in Zeph 1:1, which places the prophet’s address in the reign of King Josiah, Zeph 1:2–3:20 presents the prophet’s exhortation speech per se. It includes two basic parts: (1) a prophetic announcement of the Day of YHWH in Zeph 1:2–18 that is designed to announce YHWH’s coming day of judgment against those in Jerusalem/Judah who continue to reject YHWH by adhering to foreign gods, religious practice, etc., and (2) a prophetic exhortation to seek YHWH per se in Zeph 2:1–3:20 that points to divine judgment against Philistia, Moab and Ammon, Cush, and Assyria, in an effort to convince the audience that YHWH is acting to restore Jerusalem/ Israel now that the time of their suffering has come to an end. Key to this argument is the evaluation of Zeph 2:1–3 as the basic exhortation to seek YHWH and therefore to avoid punishment on the Day of YHWH. The basis for the exhortation appears in Zeph 2:4–3:20, beginning with the prophet’s depiction of YHWH’s judgment against the Philistine cities in Zeph 2:4 and concluding with the prophet’s depiction of YHWH’s restoration of Bat Zion/Jerusalem in Zeph 3:14–20. In contrast to the views of scholars who argue that the Book of Zephaniah portrays YHWH’s irrevocable judgment against a wicked Jerusalem, the exhortational dimensions of these texts ask the audience to make a decision to seek YHWH and thereby to avoid the punishment of the wicked. When viewed in the context of Josiah’s reform, such an exhortation to seek YHWH constitutes an appeal to 3 Marvin A. Sweeney, “A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah,” CBQ 53 (1991): 388–408 = above, pp. 303–322; idem, “Zephaniah: A Paradigm for the Study of the Prophetic Books,” CurBS 7 (1999): 119–145; idem, “Zephaniah,” in idem, The Twelve Prophets (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 2:491–526; idem, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); idem, Zephaniah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah

325

support the king’s program of reform and restoration. Zephaniah 3:14–20 would then portray the time of rejoicing for Jerusalem when the king’s program is realized as a means to persuade the audience to support the reform.

III The rhetorical dimensions of Zeph 3:14–20 become even more clear when one considers the passage in relation to Zalcman’s contention that the depiction of YHWH’s judgment against the Philistine cities in Zeph 2:4 metaphorically employs marital image and language. 4 Within the context of a larger concern with paronomasia and assonance in Zeph 2:4, Zalcman contends that the language employed in the verse conveys “an elaborate sequence of double entendre’s to portray the four Philistine cities as women who are consigned to ‘four of the most bitter fates that a woman can endure: abandonment, spinsterhood, divorce, and barrenness.’”5 Thus Gaza is abandoned (‘ǎzûbâ); Ashkelon is desolation (šěmāmâ), which Zalcman compares to a šōmēmâ, a spinster or a woman deserted by her fiancé; Ashdod will be driven out (yěgārěšûhā) to become a gěrûšâ, a divorced woman; and Ekron will be uprooted (tē‘āqēr) to bccome an ‘ǎqārâ, a barren woman. Zalcman does not apply his observations beyond Zeph 2:4, but the depiction of the Philistine cities as women demands a comparison with the portrayal of Jerusalem as a woman in Zeph 3:14–20, particularly since the larger context of Zephaniah also portrays Jerusalem as a city subject to divine judgment. Scholars have noted the overall portrayal of Jerusalem as a woman, addressed as Bat Zion or Bat Yerushalayim, to whom YHWH metaphorically returns as a warrior who delivers her and rejoices over her. The marital associations of this passage, however, are generally overlooked, in part because of the enigmatic nature of the language employed and in part because Zeph 3:14–20 is read in isolation from the rest of the book. The key statement appears in v. 17, “YHWH, your G-d, is in your midst, a warrior who delivers; he exults over you in rejoicing; he is silent/ plows in his love; he dances over you with singing.” Although the verse clearly depicts a joyous scenario in which a man returns to a woman, the phrase yaḥǎrîš bě’ahǎbātô, “he will be silent/plow in his love,” remains a problem. The basic problem lies in the interpretation of the verb ḥrš which can mean “to be silent, dumb, speechless” or “to engrave, plow, devise.” Most interpreters render the verb according to the first meaning. Ben Zvi, for example, identifies three possibilities for understanding ḥrš in this 4 5

Zalcman, “Ambiguity.” Zalcman, “Ambiguity,” 367.

326

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

sense: (1) the love of G-d is too tender for expression; (2) G-d will be satisfied, that is, at rest or silent; and (3) G-d is silent concerning the sins of the people.6 Although none of these proposals provides a satisfactory explanation for YHWH’s silent love at a time of exultation, scholars have been reluctant to look to the second meaning of the root because of difficulties in relating the meaning “to engrave,” “to plow,” “to devise” to the context of love and celebration. The difficulties with the term are so great that LXX and Peshitta read the verb as ḥdš, “to renew,” so that the phrase reads, “he will renew (you) with his love.”7 Of course, such a reading requires the introduction of “you” as the object of the verb. No object is attested in the Hebrew text, and it should be noted that the Murabba‘at scroll of the Twelve Prophets confirms the reading of the root ḥrš. The metaphorical dimensions of the term ḥrš, however, must be considered. In biblical Hebrew, the term is employed metaphorically for plowing with a number of different meanings. Thus, Hos 10:11 states, “Judah must plow, Jacob must harrow for himself,” in a context in which YHWH calls for Judah and Israel to take action to act righteously rather than contrary to YHWH’s will. The ethical connotations of this usage become clear in Hos 10:13, “you have plowed wickedness, you have reaped injustice.” Likewise, Job 4:8 reads, “As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same.” Psalm 129:3 employs the term as an expression for oppression, “the plowers plowed upon my back, they made furrows long.” Most interesting for the present passage is Samson’s accusation in Judg 14:18 that the Philistines had discovered the meaning of his riddle from his wife, “If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.” Here the term clearly conveys interaction between the Philistine men and his Philistine wife, and even suggests Samson’s belief that something more than mere conversation, perhaps with intimations of a sexual relationship, had passed between them.8 In all cases, the term conveys some form of action other than plowing on the part of its subjects. Given the metaphorical dimensions of the verb ḥrš, especially in relation to the interaction between the Philistine men and Samson’s wife, and the general scenario of rejoicing and the renewal of the relationship between the “warrior” YHWH and the clearly female Bat Zion/Bat Yerushalayim of Zeph 3:14–20, it seems reasonable to conclude that the expression, “he plows in his love” metaphorically expresses the renewal of that relationship. Such a conceptualization would draw upon the wellknown tradition of Israel/Zion as YHWH’s wife to portray YHWH’s return 6 Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (BZAW 198; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1991), 251. 7 LXX, kainiei se tēi agapēsei autou; Peshitta, wyḥdtky bhwbh. 8 Tammi J. Schneider, Judges (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 211.

20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah

327

to his long-forsaken bride (see Hosea 2; Jeremiah 2; Isaiah 49–54; Ezekiel 16).9 It would also contrast markedly to YHWH’s “expulsion” or “divorce” of the Philistine cities noted above in Zeph 2:4.10 Indeed, metaphorical dimensions of sexuality associated with the Hebrew verb, ḥrš, “to plow,” appear in other literatures from the ancient Near East as well. Plowing is a common metaphor for sexual intercourse in the Sumerian love songs of the late third and early second millennia.11 In DI P ii 22–28, the goddess Inanna compares her nakedness to uncultivated land, and asks who shall bring an ox to plow it: My uncultivated land, the one left fallow in the steppe, My field of ducks, where the ducks teem, My high field which is well-watered, My own nakedness, a well-watered, a rising mound – I, the maiden – who will plow it? My nakedness, the wet and well-watered ground – I, the young lady – who will station there an ox?12

The poem provides the answer in lines 29–30: Young lady, may the king plow it for you, May Dumuzi, the king, plow it for you!13 9 For discussion of the various iterations of these images and traditions, see Gerlinde Baumann, Liebe und Gewalt: Die Ehe als Metapher für das Verhältnis JHWH – Israel in den Prophetenbüchern (SBS 185; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000); R. Abma, Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50.1–3 and 54.1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3) (SSN 40; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999); Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea’s Marriage in LiteraryTheoretical Perspective (JSOTSup 212; Gender, Culture, Theory 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Marie-Theres Wacker, Figurationen des Weiblichen im HoseaBuch (HBS 8; Freiburg: Herder, 1996); A. R. Pete Diamond and Kathleen M. O’Connor, “Unfaithful Passions: Coding Women Coding Men in Jeremiah 2–3 (4.2),” in Troubling Jeremiah (ed. A. R. P. Diamond et al.; JSOTSup 260; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 123–145; Patricia Tull Willey, “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter of Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s Community,” SBLSP 1995 (ed. E. Boring; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995): 267–303; Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as YHWH’s Wife (SBLDS 130; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). See also Marvin A. Sweeney, “On ûměśôś in Isaiah 8.6,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image, and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (ed. P. R. Philips and D. J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 144; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 42–54 = idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 36–45, which notes similar images pertaining to rape in Isa 8:6–8 and marriage in Isa 66:10–14, both of which employ forms of the root śwš, “to rejoice,” as in Zeph 3:17. 10 Zalcman, “Ambiguity.” 11 For the following, see Yitzchak Sefati, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature (Bar Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Language and Culture; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1998), 90–92, 232. 12 Adapted from Sefati, Love Songs, 91.

328

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

Other songs portray Inanna calling upon Dumuzi, the male god who represents her lover, not to seek other lovers: Do not dig a canal, your canal I shall be! Do not plow a field, your field I shall be! Farmer, do not search for a wet ground, Your wet ground I shall be! (CBC 8530, i 21–24).14

Plowing also serves as a metaphor for creation in the Babylonian Harab (“Plow”) myth, with intimations of sexual intercourse and childbirth: Harab, in the first beginnings, took Earth to wife, to found a family and exercise lordship his heart urged him: “We will cut furrows in the wasteland of the country!” By plowing with their soilbreaking plough they caused the Sea to be created, the furrows by themselves gave birth to Sumuqan.15

These examples indicate a tendency to employ “plowing” as a metaphor for sexual relations and creation in ancient Mesopotamian mythology. The application of this metaphor to the verb ḥrš in Zeph 3:17 results in an ironic portrayal of YHWH’s relationship with Jerusalem, that is, YHWH the husband who abandoned Bat Zion has now rejected his Philistine lovers to return to his wife. This has important implications for understanding Zeph 3:14–20 in relation to the overall portrayal of Jerusalem’s judgment in Zephaniah. The prophet’s statements here represent an attempt to employ the metaphor of a husband returning to his abandoned wife in order to grapple theologically with the realities of Jerusalem’s and Israel’s subjugation and suffering during the period of Assyrian hegemony over Judah and Israel. Overall, these statements attempt to justify Assyria’s domination of Judah from the latter portion of the eighth century through the mid-seventh century B.C.E. as a deliberate act of YHWH by claiming that YHWH employed the Assyrians as a divine agent to punish Judah and Israel for purported wrongdoing. But with the decline of Assyrian power, the prophet now asserts that the time of punishment is over, Jerusalem and Judah have paid their debts, and the time for restoration is at hand, requiring that the city be purged of any lingering wrongdoers so that Jerusalem/Bat Zion may resume her role at the center of creation.

13

Adapted from Sefati, Love Songs, 91. Adapted from Sefati, Love Songs, 91. For other texts, see Sefati, Love Songs, 92. 15 Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harab Myth (Sources from the Ancient Near East 2.101; Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1984), 7; see also Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 145–146. The text was first published in W. G. Lambert and P. Walcot, “The Theogony of Dunnu,” Kadmos 4 (1965): 64–72. 14

20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah

329

IV YHWH’s statement in Zeph 3:18 provides the basis for this line of interpretation by asserting that those who had suffered punishment were to be considered as a sort of sacrifice or offering that was presumably necessary to purge Jerusalem. Indeed, v. 18 is one of the most difficult statements in the Book of Zephaniah, and it has provoked a wide variety of readings both among the ancient versions of the book and its modern interpreters,16 but a close examination of the forms of expression employed within the verse makes this understanding clear. Problems emerge at the outset of the verse in relation to the expression, nûgê mimmô‘ēd, which is generally understood as a reference to cultic celebration based upon the appearance of the term mô‘ēd, “appointed time, festival.” The term nûgê conveys suffering or oppression as it is a niphal masculine plural construct participle derived from the root ygh, which can mean “to suffer, be aggrieved” (cf. Lam 1:4) or “to be thrust away, expelled” (cf. the hiphil form of this verb in 2 Sam 20:13). Although the appearance of the preposition min, “from,” with mô‘ēd is unusual in a construct relationship, it is possible in Hebrew (cf. Gen 3:22; Isa 28:9; Jer 23:23; Ezek 13:2; Hos 7:5).17 The resulting translation, “those who were aggrieved/ thrust out from the festival,”18 however, seems to make little sense in the present context, especially when read in relation to the following statement, ’āsaptî mimmēk, “I have gathered from you.” Various attempts have been made to follow LXX and Peshitta, which read the phrase in relation to v. 17, but difficulties in reconciling the image of those who suffer with the rejoicing depicted in v. 17 demonstrate the futility of such efforts.19 Consideration of the following material is essential for a proper reading of this verse, particularly the verb hāyû, “they were.” Following the expression, ’āsaptî mimmēk, this verb has caused considerable difficulties since it seems to have been left hanging without an appropriate referent. Consequently, LXX and Targum Jonathan, despite their other differences, agree in reading the verb as the particle hôy, “woe, alas!” which requires the transposition of the letters waw and yod. Of course, such a reading is 16 For an overview of ancient and modern readings of this verse, see esp. Ivan J. Ball, Jr., Zephaniah: A Rhetorical Study (Berkeley: BIBAL, 1988), 187–193. 17 See further GKC 130a; Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, 215. 18 Such a reading is adopted by Targum Jonathan, which reads the verse as an indictment of those who obstructed the proper observance of the festivals of Judaism in the late Second Temple period. For discussion of this reading, see Robert P. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 49–52. 19 Gillis Gerleman, Zephanja: Textkritisch und literarkritisch untersucht (Lund: Gleerup, 1942), 63.

330

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

probably interpretive as the Murabba‘at manuscript appears to confirm the reading of the verb.20 Nevertheless, it should be noted that the expression nûgê mimmô‘ēd provides the only possible subject for the verb hāyû. This would suggest that the basic phrase was meant to read, “those who suffered from the appointed time/festival … were …” Such a reading of course raises questions concerning the role of the phrase, ’āsaptî mimmēk, “I have gathered from you.” The appearances of the verb ’sp in Zeph 1:2, 3; 3:8 suggest it refers to YHWH’s actions to punish, destroy, or remove those who are subject to divine judgment. The second person feminine singular pronoun would have to refer to Jerusalem in keeping with the overall context of Zeph 3:14–20. Such an understanding suggests that the phrase is intended to modify the preceding nûgê mimmô‘ēd, that is, it refers to those who have suffered as those whom YHWH has “gathered from you” or those in Jerusalem whom YHWH has punished. This would normally require a relative pronoun, but the expression gibbôr yôšî‘a, “a warrior who delivers,” in v. 17 above demonstrates that the writer of this passage is capable of dispensing with the relative pronoun. Thus, the phrase would read, “those who suffered from the appointed time/festival which I gathered from you were …” which remains somewhat difficult. Further observations are in order. Although many have understood mo‘ed to refer to a festival,21 the term itself means simply “appointed time,” which can refer to festivals or to other fixed times, such as the time that YHWH will return to Abraham and Sarah (Gen 17:21; 18:14; 21:2), the appointed place of battle between Israel and Ai (Josh 8:14), the time appointed for waiting by Samuel (1 Sam 13:8), the time that the Shunammite woman will bear a son (2 Kgs 4:6, 17), the appointed times of the stork (Jer 8:7), the time that Habakkuk’s vision will be realized (Hab 2:3), and the appointed time of the end (Dan 8:19; 11:27, 29, 35). Clearly, the term refers to appointed times of importance other than festivals. The last two examples are especially pertinent because both appear in reference to times of divine judgment or intervention in human affairs. Such an understanding is particularly important in relation to the phrase, ’āsaptî mimmēk, “I have gathered from you,” which also refers to divine judgment in Zephaniah. This would suggest that both phrases refer to those who suffered judgment from YHWH in the Book of Zephaniah, that is, nûgê mimmô‘ēd refers to those who suffered punishment at YHWH’s appointed time of judgment, and ’āsaptî mimmēk refers to them as those who were gathered by YHWH. 20 Note, however, that there is a gap in the manuscript at this point, leaving only a disputed reading of the final letter waw. See J. T. Milik in P. Benoit et al., Les grottes de Murrabba‘ât (DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 202. 21 Ben Zvi, Zephaniah, 253.

20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah

331

Thus the phrase would read, “those who suffered from the appointed time when I gathered from you were …” The conclusion of the statement remains to be considered. Clearly, the noun maś’ēt, “burden,” stands as the object of the verb hāyû so that those who suffered from the appointed time of YHWH’s punishment are identified as a “burden.” This expression has also prompted difficulties, in part because of the following expression (“upon her a reproach”) and because the exact significance of a burden in the context of a passage that calls for rejoicing is unclear. Derived from the root, nś’, “to rise, lift up,” it is noteworthy that the term is often employed in reference to more specialized meanings, such as a signal (Judg 20:38; Jer 6:1), the uplifting of hands in prayer (Ps 141:2), a portion of a meal carried to the table of a king or other superior (Gen 43:34; 2 Sam 11:8; 19:43; Jer 40:5; Est 2:18), an enforced gift or tax (Amos 5:11), and offerings, taxes, or sacred contributions (2 Chr 24:6, 9; Ezek 20:40). These last several meanings are particularly important for the present context because they indicate the sense of a gift, tax, or offering that was made to YHWH. This would suggest that those who suffered punishment from YHWH in Zeph 3:18 are here conceived as an offering or obligation given to YHWH as part of the process of punishment that would ultimately purge the city. Such a meaning certainly relates to the following phrase, ‘ālêhā ḥerpâ, “upon her a reproach,” which apparently understands those who were punished by YHWH to constitute a reproach upon the city. Nevertheless, the phrase is very problematic because its third person feminine singular reference to the city of Jerusalem disrupts the pattern of second person feminine singular address forms employed for Jerusalem throughout the bulk of Zeph 3:14–20. Two explanations are possible. First, the phrase could be the prophet’s own third person aside, which aids in explaining the significance of the preceding statement by YHWH. In such a case, the form of the statement would correspond to the prophet’s introductory statement in v. 16aβ, which he employs to introduce his own words and those of YHWH, that is, “on that day it will be said to Jerusalem …” Alternatively, the phrase is an early gloss meant to specify the meaning of the term aś’ēt, which can be somewhat enigmatic as an offering to YHWH. The use of the term ḥerpâ, “reproach,” would therefore reinforce the punitive connotations of the expression. It should be noted, however, that the Murabba‘at manuscript includes the expression, ‘lyh ḥrph. The verse would then read, “those who suffered from the appointed time when I gathered from/punished you were a burden/offering, a reproach upon her.” Verse 18 therefore appears to rationalize YHWH’s punishment or purge of Jerusalem and Judah in terms and imagery like that found in Zephaniah 1, that is, those who were punished are considered metaphorically as a sort of offering to YHWH, not unlike those who are to be sacrificed on the Day

332

Part 5: The Book of the Twelve Prophets

of YHWH in Zephaniah 1. Such a statement thereby prepares the audience to accept the punishment already suffered by the nations as an act of divine righteousness that prepares for the restoration or return of those punished and exiled in vv. 19–20. Of course, the assertion that those who were punished are to be considered as a sort of national offering would be rejected in modern theology in the aftermath of the Shoah and other tragedies. Nevertheless, the assertion here must be recognized as an attempt at theodicy, or maintaining the righteousness and efficaciousness of YHWH in the aftermath of a national tragedy in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E.; that is, the writer of Zephaniah chooses not to charge YHWH with wrongdoing as a means to explain Judah’s suffering. Instead, the writer maintains that the nation itself was responsible for its experience, and that YHWH is acting to bring the punishment to an end.

V In conclusion, consideration of Zeph 3:14–20 in relation to the overall structure and generic character of the Book of Zephaniah as a whole and in relation to the marriage metaphor applied to the Philistine cities depicted in Zeph 2:4 demonstrates that the passage constitutes the culmination or rhetorical goal of the prophet’s exhortation to seek YHWH. On the one hand, the portrayal of Jerusalem’s restoration provides incentive for the audiences of the prophet’s exhortation to respond favorably to his call in Zeph 2:1–3 to seek YHWH and thereby to avoid the punishment that YHWH will bring to the wicked on the Day of YHWH. On the other hand, consideration of the metaphorical portrayal of YHWH’s rejection of the Philistine cities supports the contention that Zeph 3:14–20 employs the metaphor of a husband returned to his estranged wife to depict Jerusalem’s projected restoration. It likewise points to an attempt to explain Jerusalem’s and Israel’s suffering in the Assyrian period as a deliberate act of YHWH to punish the city/nation, purportedly for apostasy. Altogether, such an interpretation supports the contention that Zeph 3:14–20 does not constitute a late, redactional insertion, which has little relation to the rest of the book. Rather, it indicates that Zeph 3:14–20 must be read as an essential component of the book that is designed to garner popular support for King Josiah’s attempted restoration of Israel.22 22

This is a slightly revised version of a paper originally read at the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Israel, 12–17 August, 2001. I am indebted to Dr. Wayne Horowitz, Department of Assyriology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for his advice and hospitality. Of course, he is not to be held responsible for the views expressed here.

333

20. Metaphor and Rhetorical Strategy in Zephaniah

Appendix Structural Diagram of the Book of Zephaniah The Book of Zephaniah: Prophetic Exhortation to Seek YHWH (1:1–3:20) I. Superscription: word of YHWH to Zephaniah in the days of Josiah II. Prophetic exhortation to seek YHWH A. Prophetic announcement of the Day of YHWH 1. Report of YHWH’s oracular speeches a. Concerning punishment of creation b. Concerning punishment of Jerusalem and Judah for apostasy 2. Announcement of the Day of YHWH a. Report of YHWH’s announcement concerning significance of the day: day of sacrifice for YHWH’s victims b. Prophetic explanation of the day’s consequences B. Prophetic exhortation to seek YHWH proper 1. Prophetic exhortation address: seek YHWH 2. Basis for exhortation a. Exhortation basis proper: disaster for Philistine cities b. Explanatory elaboration 1) Concerning punishment of nations a) Philistia b) Moab and Ammon c) Cush/Ethiopia d) Assyria 2) Concerning Jerusalem and Israel a) Announcement of salvation for Jerusalem following punishment and cleansing b) Prophetic summons to rejoice directed to Jerusalem and Israel

1:1 1:2–3:20 1:2–18 1:2–6 1:2–3a 1:3b–6 1:7–18 1:7–13 1:14–18 2:1–3:20 2:1–3 2:4–3:20 2:4 2:5–3:20 2:5–15 2:5–7 2:8–11 2:12 2:13–15 3:1–20 3:1–13 3:14–20

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

1

2

21. Sefirah at Qumran: Aspects of the Counting Formulas for the First-Fruits Festivals in the Temple Scroll I One of the more interesting innovations of the Qumran sect came to light with Yagael Yadin’s publication of the editio princeps of 11QTemple1: the regulations concerning observance of the first-fruits festivals. According to the Temple Scroll, not one, but three festivals of first-fruits are to be celebrated: the festival of New Wheat (cols. 18:10–19:9); the festival of New Wine (cols. 19:11–21:10); and the festival of New Oil (cols. 21:12– 23:02). According to Lev 23:15–16, the biblical festival of first-fruits must follow the waving of the Omer by 50 days. Likewise, the Scroll’s New Wheat festival follows the waving of the Omer by 50 days, and the festivals of New Wine and New Oil each follow in sequence at similar intervals of 50 days. Yadin has examined the counting formulas for these festivals in the Scroll, especially the one for New Oil (col. 21:12–14a), and has concluded that the first day of each festival is also counted as the last day of the preceding festival, so that the intervals between them are actually 49 days or seven whole weeks.2 By this reckoning, the first day of each festival is the same day of the week. Furthermore, Yadin has drawn upon a small fragment published in transliteration by Milik,3 which dates the festival of New Oil to the 22nd day of the month, to claim that the festival of New Oil mentioned in the Temple Scroll fell on the 22nd day of the sixth month of the year. By counting back 49 days for each festival, he dated the festival of New Wine to the third day of the fifth month, the festival of New Wheat to the fifteenth day of the third month, and the waving of the Omer to the 26th day of the first month. The dates of the waving of the Omer and the festival of New Wheat correspond to those given in the Book of Jubilees, 1 Y. Yadin, Megillat ham-Miqdash: The Temple Scroll (Hebrew edition; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Shrine of the Book, 1977). 2 Yadin, Megillat, 1:85–86, 95. 3 J. T. Milik, “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits du désert de Juda,” in Volume du Congrès Strasbourg 1956 (VTSup 4; Leiden : Brill, 1957), 17–26 (25).

338

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

both of which are Sundays. This allows Yadin to claim that each first-fruits festival falls on a Sunday (literally, “the day after the Sabbath”) and that the calendar represented in the Temple Scroll is the same as the solar calendar of the Book of Jubilees.4 Baruch Levine offered a different interpretation of the counting formulas for the first-fruits festivals in the Temple Scroll.5 He argued that the phrase šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt in cols. 18:11, 19:12, and 21:13 referred not to “seven whole Sabbaths” but to “seven whole weeks,” as indicated by the occurrence of sib‘â šābû‘ôt in col. 19:12. He further argued that mimmoḥǒrat haššabbāt does not necessarily mean “the day after the Sabbath” (i.e., Sunday) according to a literal interpretation of the phrase, which would support Yadin’s position, but that the phrase can also refer to “the day after Passover” (i.e., the 16th of Nisan) in accordance with Josh 5:11 and traditional Jewish interpretation. According to Levine, mimmoḥǒrat haššabbāt was eliminated by the author of the Temple Scroll in his renditions of Lev 23:15a, possibly to counter any notions that each of the first-fruits festivals and the waving of the Omer should always fall on Sunday, the day after the Sabbath. If this is the case, the position of the advocates of the QumranJubilees calendar would be undermined, since by eliminating mimmoḥǒrat haššabbāt the author of the Scroll dispensed with his most explicit indication that the first-fruits festivals should occur on Sunday in accordance with the Jubilees calendar. Jacob Milgrom responded by claiming that šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt does indeed refer to “seven whole weeks,” but that the explicit reference to Sabbath in the phrase means “seven whole weeks” in which a week ends with the Sabbath. The phrase šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt therefore means literally, “the day after the Sabbath” (Sunday). It was eliminated by the author of the Scroll merely as a stylistic improvement of the text of Lev 23:15–16a.6 Certainly the points of these scholars are well taken, but there are other features of the counting formulas that must be considered if we are to fully understand the present form of the counting formulas in the Temple Scroll. We may begin by citing the counting formula of Lev 23:15–16a and that of the New Wheat festival in 11QT 18:10b–13a: Lev 23:15–16a:

4

Yadin, Megillat, 1:95–96. For a discussion of the workings of the Jubilees and Qumran solar calendar, see the articles by A. Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumran: Ses origines bibliques,” VT 3 (1953): 250–264, and S. Talmon, “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judaean Desert,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 162–199. 5 B. A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 5–23 (7–11). 6 J. Milgrom, “‘Sabbath’ and ‘Temple City’ in the Temple Scroll,” BASOR 232 (1978): 25–27.

21. Sefirah at Qumran

339

Leviticus 23:15–16a ûsěpartem lākem mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt mîyyôm hǎbî’ǎkem ’et-‘ômer hattěnûpâ šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt tihyênâ ‘ad mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt haššĕbî‘ît tispěrû ḥǎmiššîm yôm And you shall count for yourselves, from the day after the Sabbath, from the day when you bring the wave offering sheaf, seven Sabbaths. They shall be complete. Until the day after the seventh Sabbath, you shall count fifty days. 11QTemple 18:10b–13a7 10–11 wěsāpartâ | (lākemmâ) šeba‘ šabbāôt těmîmôt 11–12 mîyôm hǎbi’âkemmâ ’et hā‘ômer | (hattěnûpâ 12 tis)pôrû ‘ad mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt haššĕbî‘ît 12–13 tispôrû | (ḥǎmiššîm) yôm And you shall count for yourselves seven whole Sabbaths: from the day when you bring the wave offering sheaf, you shall count until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall count fifty days.

Perhaps the first thing to notice is Yadin’s restoration of lkmh at the beginning of line 11. The second person plural pronoun does not agree in number with the second person singular verb wěsāpartâ, which introduces the formula in line 10. Yadin claims that wěsāpartâ is an error by the scribe and that the text should read ûsěpartemmâ in accordance with Lev 23:15.8 Yadin may be too quick to see a scribal error here. A better procedure might be to restore lkh (lěkâ), which would agree in number with the verb wěsāpartâ. The resulting text of the first four words of the counting formula would then correspond to the first four words of Lev 25:8, which contains a counting formula for the Jubilee year. The text of Lev 25:8 reads as follows: wěsāpartā lěkā šeba‘ šabbātôt šānîm šeba‘ šānîm šeba‘ pě‘āmîm wěhāyû lěkā yěmê šeba‘ šabbātôt haššānîm tēša‘ wě’arbā‘îm šānâ

It appears that the author of the Scroll used Lev 25:8 to modify the text of Lev 23:15a by interweaving them, but for what purpose? Close examination of Lev 23:15–16a reveals that the biblical text has a syntactical problem. The most logical direct object for the verb ûsěpartem in Lev 23:15 is the phrase šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt. But if šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt is the direct object of ûsěpartem, then the verb tihyênâ is left without a predicate. One might claim that the Septuagint, which eliminates tihyênâ altogether and reads šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt as the direct object of ûsěpartem, represents a Hebrew Vorlage like that available to the author of the Temple Scroll. This option is not likely, however, since the reading is supported by no other version, and the Temple Scroll clearly reads tihyênâ in col. 21:13 and perhaps in col. 19:13, indicating that its Vorlage also included tihyênâ. 7 8

All reconstructions in the citations of the Temple Scroll text are those of Yadin. Yadin, Megillat, 2:57.

340

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

It seems most likely that both the Septuagint and 11QTemple are dealing with a difficult syntactical problem in different ways. The Septuagint merely eliminates the problematic tihyênâ to provide a smooth reading.9 The author of the Temple Scroll, on the other hand, used part of Lev 25:8 to modify his text. This allowed him to eliminate tihyênâ and move šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt immediately after wěsāpartā lěkā to accomplish the same result.10 The text of the Temple Scroll continues with the phrase mîyôm hǎbi’âkemmâ ’et hā‘ômer (hattěnûpâ …). With the exception of the definite article added to ‘ōmer and orthographic variations, this is an exact quote from Lev 23:15a. The Scroll eliminates mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt, however, which precedes in the biblical text. As noted above, Levine suggested that the phrase was eliminated to counter a literal understanding of “the day after the Sabbath.”11 Yet this position is undermined by the occurrence of the phrase “you shall count until the day after the seventh Sabbath” in col. 18:12. Since Yadin has shown by reference to the counting formula for the New Oil festival that the interval between festivals is actually 49 days, i.e., seven weeks, one need only count backwards from “the day after the seventh Sabbath” to discover that the day of the bringing of the Omer is the same day of the week as “the day after the seventh Sabbath.” If the author of the Temple Scroll eliminated the phrase mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt from his text in col. 18:11, shouldn’t he also have eliminated it from his text in col. 18:12? Both Levine and Milgrom have pointed to the potential ambiguity of the phrase mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt as a reason for its elimination. One might also note that in Lev 23:15 mîyyôm hǎbi’ǎkem ’et-‘ômer defines mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt, so that in essence both phrases refer to the same day. It is probable that the author of the Scroll considered the phrase mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt redundant and therefore eliminated it. Any potential ambiguity in the interpretation of this phrase would thereby be solved. The final major deviation of 11QT 18:10b–13a from the text of Lev 23:15–16a involves the addition of an extra tispôrû before ‘ad mimmoḥô9 The Septuagint reading is a grammatical improvement over the Hebrew of the Masoretic text. We can see no reason why someone would add tihyênâ to the Hebrew, since it would create difficulties and add nothing to the meaning of the biblical text. Rather, the Septuagint translators would have eliminated tihyênâ from their Hebrew Vorlage to provide a less problematic reading; cf. factor 4 of the “Factors Involved in Textual Decisions” used by the United Bible Societies’ Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, i.e., 1. Simplification of the text (easier reading) = Factor 4 (United Bible Societies, Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1976], 1:XI). 10 The Masoretes solved the problem by separating těmîmôt from šeba‘ šabbātôt, thereby allowing the former to be the predicate of tihyênâ and the latter to be the direct object of ûsěpartem (cf. I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah [trans. E. J. Revell; Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Studies 5; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980], 222). 11 Levine, “The Temple Scroll,” 10.

21. Sefirah at Qumran

341

rat haššabbāt haššĕbî‘ît in line 12, which specifies the end of the period of counting. According to the masoretic sigla, the Masoretes apparently read the latter phrase as an antecedent to tispěrû ḥǎmiššîm yôm in Lev 23:16a, as did the Septuagint, Targum Neofiti 1,12 and Targum Onqelos.13 However, once the author of the Scroll moved the phrase šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt to its new position and eliminated tihyênâ, the phrase mîyôm hǎbi’ǎkem ’et hā‘ômer, which specifies the beginning of the counting period, was available for other use. It seems that the author of the Scroll chose to combine the two phrases specifying the beginning and the end of the counting period by inserting an additional tispôrû between them. This provides a single coherent statement defining the time period in question, šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt. Furthermore, this statement clearly defines the period as seven weeks, i.e., 49 days, thus confirming Yadin’s hypothesis that the fiftieth day of the counting of one festival is also the first day of the following sequence. A look at the following outlines of Lev 23:15–16a and 11QT 18:10b– 13a should demonstrate that the author of the Temple Scroll improved not only the individual statements of the biblical passage, but the structure of the presentation as well. Leviticus 23:15–16a: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Starting point: “the day after the Sabbath” Starting point: “from the day when you bring …” Time unit to be defined: “seven whole Sabbaths” End point: “until the day after the seventh Sabbath” Total: “fifty days”

11QT 18:10b–13a: 1. Time unit to be defined: “seven whole Sabbaths” 2. Starting and end points of counting: “from the day when you bring the Omer … until the day after the seventh Sabbath” 3. Total: “fifty days”

By restructuring Lev 23:15–16a with the aid of Lev 25:8, the author of the Temple Scroll has (1) rectified a syntactical problem; (2) eliminated a potentially ambiguous, redundant statement; and (3) given a clear, logical presentation of the method of counting for the New Wheat festival.

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codex Neofiti 1983 1, folio 244v; microfilm furnished by the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana to the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center for Preservation and Research (cf. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. Tomo III: Levitico [Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1971], 167). 13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican Hebrew Manuscript 448, folio 187 r; facsimile edition, The Pentateuch with the Masorah Parva and the Masorah Magna with Targum Onkelos; Ms. Vat. Heb. 448, vol. 3, 195a (cf. A. Sperber, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos [vol. 1 of The Bible in Aramaic; Leiden: Brill, 1959], 206). 12

342

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

The counting formula for the New Wine festival is found in 11QT 19:11–13 as follows: 11 11–12 12–13 13 13

(ûsěpar)temmâ lākemmâ mîyôm hǎbi’ǎkemmâ ’et hamminḥâ ḥǎdāšâ lyhw(h | ’et)leḥem habbikûrîm šib‘ â šābû‘ôt těmîmôt šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt | (tihyênâ) ‘ad mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt haššĕbî‘ît tispôrû ḥǎmiššîm yôm And you shall count for yourselves, from the day when you bring the new grain offering to the Lord, i.e., the bread of first-fruits, seven weeks. Seven whole Sabbaths shall there be until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall count fifty days. 14

The structure of this text is basically similar to that of the biblical passage for the preceding festival, Lev 23:15–16a. There are changes, however, but some of them relate specifically to the new context of the New Wine festival.15 For example, the author of the Scroll replaced ’et ‘ômer hattěnûpâ in Lev 23:15 with ’et hamminḥâ ḥǎdāšâ lyhwh, which he borrowed directly from Lev 23:16b. The author of the Scroll made this change so that the counting sequence for the festival might begin with the New Wheat festival instead of with the waving of the Omer as in the biblical prescription. Furthermore, the phrase ’et hamminḥâ ḥǎdāšâ lyhwh is followed in line 12 by ’et leḥem habbikûrîm which is borrowed from Lev 23:20. But this “bread of first-fruits” merely specifies the nature of the “new grain offering.” The Scroll’s counting formula begins with ûsěpartemmâ lākemmâ, which, excepting orthographic variations, corresponds to the phraseology of Lev 23:15a. This is striking, given the change that the author of the Scroll made in 18:10–11 to solve the syntactical problem in the biblical text. The syntactical problem obviously still existed in the biblical text, yet there is no indication that the author of the Scroll used Lev 25:8 to solve the problem as he did in col. 18:10–11. Furthermore, if we accept Yadin’s restoration of line 13, the problematic tihyênâ occurs in the Scroll’s text and has šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt as its predicate.16 Apparently the author of the Scroll used other means to solve the syntactical problem of the verse, rather than solving it by eliminating tihyênâ and using Lev 25:8 to provide šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt as the direct object of ûsěpartemmâ lākemmâ. As Levine has noted, the scribe introduced the term šib‘â šābû‘ôt, which appears in Deut 16:9, into the Temple Scroll text.17 Deuteronomy 16:9 is the only other biblical text that stipulates the counting of time for the festival of first-fruits. 14

Alternatively, “Seven whole Sabbaths shall there be. Until the day after the seventh Sabbath, you shall count fifty days.” 15 Yadin, Megillat, 2:60. 16 Yadin, Megillat, 2:61, 229. 17 Levine, “The Temple Scroll,” 9.

21. Sefirah at Qumran

343

By placing šib‘â šābû‘ôt in the Scroll’s text, the author provided a direct object for ûsěpartemmâ lākemmâ and allowed šib‘â šabbātôt těmîmôt to act as predicate for the verb tihyênâ. This solved the syntactical problem of the biblical passage and allowed the author of the Scroll to retain tihyênâ as well as the basic structure of the biblical passage adapted to its new context. But this time, instead of using terminology from Lev 25:8, which contains a counting formula that worked according to the same principle as that for the first-fruits festival, he used terminology from Deut 16:9, which contains a counting formula specifically for the biblical first-fruits festival. The text containing the counting formula for the New Oil festival appears in 11QT 21:12–14a as follows: 12 12–13 13 13–14

ûsěpar(temm)â (lākemm)â mîyôm hazzeh šib‘â šabû‘ôt šeba‘ pě‘āmîm těš‘â | wě’arbā‘îm yôm šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt tihyênâ ‘ad mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt | haššĕbî‘ît tispôrû ḥǎmiššîm yôm And you shall count for yourselves from this day seven weeks, seven periods of time, forty-nine days. Seven whole Sabbaths shall there be until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall count fifty days.18

As in the counting formula for the New Wine festival, the author of the Scroll followed the same basic structure of Lev 23:15–16a but made some minor changes to adapt the biblical text to the New Oil festival context. In this instance, he eliminated the first mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt as before and replaced mîyyôm hǎbi’âkem ’et ‘ômer hattěnûpâ with mîyôm hazzeh. The phrase mîyôm hazzeh is a necessary change that allows for the New Oil festival context and indicates that the counting should begin with the preceding New Wine festival. However, there was no biblical designation available for the New Wine festival as there was for the New Wheat festival, so the author of the Scroll had to satisfy himself with this abbreviated reference. Again, the Temple Scroll text begins with ûsěpartemmâ lākemmâ as in Lev 23:15 and the counting formula for the New Wine festival. Also, šib‘â šābû‘ôt, the term used in Deut 16:9, serves as direct object for the verb. As in the counting formula for the New Wine festival, the insertion of this term allows šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt to retain its position, as in the biblical text, and also to serve as the predicate for tihyênâ in line 13. The text continues in lines 13–14 exactly as it does in the formula for the New Wine festival and in Lev 23:16a. There are, however, some important additions to the text. Following šib‘â šābû‘ôt in line 12 are two phrases that specify the “seven weeks”: šeba‘ pě‘āmîm, “seven periods of time”; and těš‘â wě’arbā‘îm yôm, “forty18 Alternatively, “Seven whole Sabbaths shall there be. Until the day after the seventh Sabbath, you shall count fifty days.”

344

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

nine days.” As noted before, šib‘â šābû‘ôt appears in Deut 16:9, but from where do the other two phrases come? They certainly do not come from the Deuteronomy passage. Another look at Lev 25:8 provides the answer. The passage reads, “And you shall count for yourself seven Sabbaths of years, seven years, seven times (šeba‘ šānîm šeba‘ pě‘āmîm). And the days of the seven Sabbaths of years shall be for you forty-nine years (tēša‘ wě’arbā‘îm šānâ).” The parallels in terminology are striking: Leviticus 25:8

11QTemple 21:12–13

šeba‘ šānîm šeba‘ pě‘āmîm tēša‘ wě’arbā‘îm šānâ

šib‘â šābû‘ôt šeba‘ pě‘āmîm těš‘â wě’arbā‘îm yôm

Apparently the author of the Scroll borrowed terminology from the Jubilee counting formula in Lev 25:8 and modified it to fit the context of the New Oil festival. Thus the “seven years” of Lev 25:8 became “seven weeks” by substituting terminology from Deut 16:9; šeba‘ pě‘āmîm, “seven times” in Lev 25:8, required no alteration in its text to mean “seven periods of time” in the Scroll; “forty-nine years” in Lev 25:8 became “forty-nine days” to fit the time period of the first-fruits festivals. In this instance, the author of the Scroll used material from Lev 25:8 and Deut 16:9 when writing his text for the counting formula of the New Oil festival. This allowed him to correct the syntactical problems of Lev 23:15–16a mentioned before. It also allowed him to specify that the period of time between the first-fruits festivals is seven full weeks, 49 days, so that the first day of each festival is also the last day of the preceding festival, as Yadin has pointed out.19 Since there was no other instance in Scripture which dealt with a counting formula in general or the first-fruits counting formula in particular, the author of the Scroll returned to the two texts he had already used for modifying the text of Lev 23:15–16a, namely Lev 25:8 and Deut 16:9. In this manner, the author of the Scroll showed a tendency to modify Scripture with the aid of other biblical passages for use in the Temple Scroll.20 In sum, then: Lev 23:15–16a serves as the basis for the texts of the firstfruits festival counting formulas in the Temple Scroll. However, in preparing his versions of the counting formulas, the author of the Scroll made a number of changes in the biblical text of Lev 23:15–16a. There were two reasons for such changes: (1) there were problems in the biblical text of Lev 23:15–16a with respect to syntax and style; and (2) the new context of the New Wine and New Oil festivals required changes in the statements of 19

Yadin, Megillat, 1:95. On the practice of modifying and interpreting Scripture with Scripture at Qumran, see W. H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BA 14 (1951): 54–76; G. Vermes, “Interpretation, History of; B. At Qumran and in the Targums,” IDBSup, 439. 20

21. Sefirah at Qumran

345

the starting point for counting so that the beginning of the two festivals could be reckoned from their respective preceding festivals. The author of the Scroll brought in material from all biblical texts that dealt with either the first-fruits festival counting system itself (Lev 23:15– 16a; Deut 16:9) or a counting system that operated according to the same principle as that of the first-fruits system (i.e., the Jubilee year system, Lev 25:8). We may also note that in those cases where an addition to the text of Lev 23:15–16a was made, it used the language of another portion of Scripture. The elimination of the initial mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt cannot be explained as a means of demonstrating that the author of the Scroll meant to deny that the first-fruits festivals occurred on a Sunday, the day after the Sabbath. If this had been the case, he would also have had to eliminate the phrase “until the day after the seventh Sabbath” (‘ad mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt haššĕbî‘ît), which occurs in all three instances of the counting formulas for the first-fruits festivals in the Temple Scroll. Since the last day of each festival is also the first day of the subsequent festival, the beginning of each festival would also have to be “on the day after the Sabbath.” Rather, the author of the Scroll eliminated the phrase mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt as redundant with the following phrase “from the day …” Furthermore, in each instance where the term šib‘â šābû‘ôt is introduced to the Scroll, it precedes the expression šeba‘ šabbātôt těmîmôt. If šābû‘â was meant to define šabbāt, so that šabbāt would be understood as “week” and not as “Sabbath,” one would expect that the order of these terms would be reversed. Instead, šabbāt specifies šābû‘â so that “week” is understood as a week ending with the Sabbath day. There is no evidence in these texts that the author of the Scroll made his textual alterations to deliberately undermine the legitimacy of the solar calendar represented in the Book of Jubilees. The evidence does indicate, however, that the author of the Scroll presupposed that the waving of the Omer and each of the three first-fruits festivals occurred mimmoḥôrat haššabbāt, “the day after the Sabbath,” i.e., on Sunday.21 © 1983 American Schools of Oriental Research. All rights reserved. Republished here by permission of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

21 I would like to thank William H. Brownlee, Emeritus Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School; James A. Sanders, President of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center for Preservation and Research and Professor of Biblical Studies at Claremont; and Prof. John Strugnell of Harvard University for their advice and encouragement in the preparation of this paper. They are not, of course, to be held responsible for the interpretations advanced here.

1

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek of the Temple Scroll In a recent report of the results of a 1984 Tübingen Oberseminar on the Temple Scroll (11QT), M. Hengel, J. H. Charlesworth, and D. Mendels attempted to date the scroll on the basis of an examination of its section, “On Kingship,” or the Torat ham-Melek, “Torah of the King.” Presupposing the views of several scholars that the Torat ham-Melek is “a kind of reinterpretation, elaboration and compilation of biblical material on kingship,” Hengel et al. maintained that the document presented “an antithesis to some real Jewish king, and its author is willing to correct the defects of kingship which he has observed.”1 They identified this king as Alexander Janneus and, by correlating features of his reign with issues raised in the Torat hamMelek, offered a number of arguments to support this claim. These include his use of mercenary troops, his imperium as the one and only judge, his concubines, his need to defend Judea, his conflicts with Egypt, his acquisition of booty, and his holding the offices of both king and High Priest.2 1 M. Hengel, J. H. Charlesworth, and D. Mendels, “The Polemical Character of ‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11QTemple,” JJS 37 (1986): 28–38. For the editio princeps of the scroll, see Y. Yadin, Megillat ham-Miqdash: The Temple Scroll (Hebrew edition; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society; The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; The Shrine of the Book, 1977); idem, The Temple Scroll (English edition; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society; The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; The Shrine of the Book, 1983). Cf. J. H. Charlesworth, “The Date of the Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” SBLSP 1985 (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 193–204 (201–202). 2 Most scholars follow Yadin who dates the composition of the scroll to the Hasmonean period, at the close of the 2nd century B.C.E. or the beginning of the 1st century (Megillat, 1:265, 295, 297; Temple Scroll, 1:345–346, 386, 389; cf. M. Delcor, “Le statut du roi d’après le Rouleau du Temple,” Henoch 3 [1981]: 47–68 [66]; M. Weinfeld, “‘The Temple Scroll’ or ‘Torah of the King,’” Shnaton 3 [1978]: 214–237 [236] [Hebrew]. A. Caquot (“Le rouleau du Temple de Qoumran,” ETR 53 [1978]: 443–500 [446]) and J. Milgrom (“The Temple Scroll,” BA 41 [1978]: 105–120 [119]) claim that the Torat hamMelek was composed as a reaction to the rule of John Hyrcanus I. B. Z. Wacholder (The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983], 202–212), and now J. Maier (The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary [trans. R. T. White; JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 1–2, 4, 123–124; cf. idem, Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer [UTB 829; Munich and Basel: Reinhardt, 1978], 9–10, 12, 119–120) claim it is pre-Maccabean.

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

347

This analysis raises problems, however, with regard to both the literary character of the Torat ham-Melek and the identification of Alexander Janneus as the king with whom the passage is concerned. The purpose of this paper will be to examine the Torat ham-Melek in light of these problems and offer an alternative to the proposal of Hengel et al. It argues that (1) the Torat ham-Melek, including both the modified text of Deut 17:14–20 in 11QT 56:12–21 and the additional material on kingship in 11QT 57–59, represents the author’s interpretation and exposition of Deut 17:14–20; (2) the Torat ham-Melek addresses real problems of Jewish kingship in an attempt to define proper Jewish kingship, but it does not presuppose a specific Hasmonean king; and (3) the Torat ham-Melek was written in anticipation of the reinstitution of Jewish kingship during the early Hasmonean period: the rule of Jonathan (152–143), Simon (143– 134), or the early years of John Hyrcanus I (134–104).

I The Torat ham-Melek (11QT 56:12–59:21) consists of two distinct sections. Column 56:12–21 contains a modified citation of the text of Deut 17:14– 203 and cols. 57:1–59:21 contain additional material pertaining to kingship.4 Hengel et al. have drawn on both sections in formulating their position, arguing that the author of the Torat ham-Melek reveals his concerns by modifying the text of Deut 17:14–20 and by raising issues in the material on kingship which follows. Although they are correct to focus on the modifications of Deut 17:14–20, their analysis does not account for all modifications of the text. Examination of these modifications may provide further clues concerning the intent of the author of this section. Hengel et al. are also correct to focus on the issues raised in cols. 57– 59. But this raises the problem of the relationship between the material on kingship in cols. 57–59 and the citation of Deut 17:14–20 in col. 56:12–21. Most scholars follow Yadin in viewing cols. 57–59 as a supplement to Deut 17:14–20 which gathers, combines, reinterprets, and elaborates on additional laws pertaining to kingship.5 These views presuppose a general 3

The last word of v. 18 and all of vv. 19–20 are lacking due to damage at the top of col. 57 (Yadin, Megillat, 2:179; Temple Scroll, 2:254–255). 4 The top of col. 60, which contained the conclusion to the Torat ham-Melek, is now missing (Yadin, Megillat, 2:190; Temple Scroll, 2:270). 5 Yadin, Megillat, 1:264–277; 2:177–190; Temple Scroll, 1:344–362; 2:252–270. Cf. Caquot, “Le rouleau,” 490; Delcor, “Le statut,” 51; Maier, Die Tempelrolle, 119; idem, Temple Scroll, 123; and Milgrom, “The Temple Scroll,” 115. A. M. Wilson and L. Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” HTR 75 (1982): 275–288 (287, 288), view it as an “independent unit” or “independent document.”

348

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

thematic relationship between cols. 57–59 and the citation of Deut 17:14– 20. Falk, on the other hand, points to an explicit exegetical or expositional relationship between these sections. He sees cols. 57–59 as a halakhic expansion of Deut 17:14–20, with the biblical citation serving as “a kind of shorthand outline for an oral exposition, which was then fixed as a new literary creation.”6 Specific features of the composition in cols. 57–59 suggest that Falk is correct in that these columns contain indications of expositional connections between the material in cols. 57–59 and the citation of Deut 17:14– 20. In two cases, cols. 57–59 contain statements which allude directly to the text of Deut 17:14–20. Column 57:14 contains the statement, ‫ולוא ירום‬ ‫לבבו מהמה‬, “and he shall not raise his heart above them,” which corresponds to Deut 17:20a, ‫לבלתי רום־לבבו מאחיו‬, “so as not to raise his heart above his brothers.” Column 59:21 contains the statement, ‫רבים על מלכותו‬ ‫הוא ובניו אחריו ויארך ימים‬, “that he may continue many days over his kingdom, he and his sons after him.” This corresponds to Deut 17:20b, which reads, ‫למען יאריך ימים על־ממלכתו הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל‬, “in order that he may continue long over his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel.” These statements appear near the beginning and end of the composition, in effect bracketing the unit. Specific thematic connections also suggest a relationship between cols. 57–59 and the citation of Deut 17:14–20. Columns 57–59 take up issues such as the king’s wife, his share of booty, military matters, and his obedience to Torah, all of which are raised in Deut 17:14–20. On the other hand, issues raised in the citation of Deut 17:14–20 do not appear in cols. 57–59. These include the means for choosing a king, the prohibition of a foreigner as king, and the reference to war against Egypt. These considerations indicate that further investigation of this material is necessary in order to determine why the author comments on some issues raised in Deut 17:14–20 while ignoring others, and how these issues are understood. This will aid in clarifying the nature of the relationship between cols. 57–59 and the citation of Deut 17:14–20. A second set of problems revolves around the identification of Alexander Janneus as the king presupposed by this text. First, their hypothesis does not account for the prohibition of a foreign king as stipulated in Deut 17:15 (11QT 56:15). Janneus was a Jew and this would not have been an issue during his reign. Instead, col. 57 approaches the issue indirectly by focusing on those who surround the king. Thus 11QT 57:1–15 stipulates that the soldiers of the king’s guard be Jewish, and 11QT 57:15–21 requires that the king’s wife be Jewish. Neither of these issues appears to be a problem unique to the reign of Janneus. Hengel 6 Z. Falk, “The Temple Scroll and the Codification of Jewish Law,” The Jewish Law Annual 2 (ed. B. S. Jackson; Leiden: Brill, 1979): 33–44 (42).

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

349

et al. have argued that 11QT 57:1–15 polemicizes against Janneus’ use of foreign mercenary troops,7 but John Hyrcanus was the first to engage in this practice (Josephus, Ant. 13.249). Likewise, Janneus’ wife was Alexandra, a Jewess and the widow of Aristobulus I (Josephus, B.J. 1.85; Ant. 13.320).8 Janneus was known for his concubines (Josephus, Ant. 13.380) but there is no indication that they were not Jewish. Furthermore, the requirements that the king’s guard and the queen be Jewish, appear to be the means to other ends. The purpose of the king’s bodyguard is to protect him from defilement and from foreign nations (11QT 57:7, 10–11) as well as to limit his power to overturn justice (col. 57:13–15). Likewise, the regulations concerning the queen are designed to keep the king from perverting justice and coveting greater wealth (col. 57:19–21). These are general issues concerning kingship. They are not unique to Janneus’ reign. Second, Hengel et al. argue that the prohibition against leading the people to Egypt for war (11QT 56:16; cf. Deut 17:16) is directed against Janneus’ war against Acre-Ptolemais and his conquest of Gaza, which could be considered threats against Egypt.9 Although the attack against AcrePtolemais resulted in an invasion of Palestine by Cleopatra III, neither city was a part of Egyptian territory at the time. Janneus never attacked Egypt.10 Third, Hengel et al. note that the Torat ham-Melek does not associate the king with any priestly functions. They interpret this to mean that it has stripped the king of his priestly functions and view this as a polemic against Janneus, who was criticized for holding the priest.11 Although John Hyrcanus did not claim the title “king,” Josephus reports that he was criticized on similar grounds (Ant. 13.288–292). Furthermore, if Janneus is the king presupposed by the scroll, it is difficult to understand why col. 58:18–21 states that the king is answerable to the High Priest when Janneus was the High Priest.12 Finally, Hengel et al. have argued that the Torat ham-Melek “presents … an antithesis to some real Jewish king.”13 Why a real Jewish king is required here, as opposed to real problems concerning Jewish kingship, is not made clear. The considerations listed above indicate difficulties in viewing Alexander Janneus as the king presupposed by the scroll. Furthermore, the only Hasmonean ruler prior to Janneus to hold the title “king” 7

“The Polemical Character,” 32–33. Cf. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar; 3 vols.; rev. and enlarged edition; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 1:219 n. 2. 9 “The Polemical Character,” 35–36. 10 Cf. Schürer, History, 1:219–228. 11 Hengel et al., “The Polemical Character,” 37. 12 Cf. Maier, Die Tempelrolle, 119; Temple Scroll, 123. 13 “The Polemical Character,” 31. 8

350

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

was Aristobulus, but his reign was so short (104–103) that there is little basis for associating events from his reign with issues raised in the scroll. Finally, paleography indicates that this copy of the scroll was written, but not composed, during the reign of Janneus at the latest.14 It is therefore problematic to identify the concerns raised in the scroll with any specific Jewish king. These considerations indicate that there are problems in understanding the expositional or midrashic character of the Torat ham-Melek and its references to the issues of kingship. It will therefore be necessary to reexamine both the citation of Deut 17:14–20 and the additional material concerning kingship in the Torat ham-Melek, as well as their relationship to each other, in order to determine the intent of its author and the purposes of its composition.

II The additional material in cols. 57–59 is demarcated formally with an introductory formula, ‫וזואת התורה‬, in 57:1 and concluding curses and blessings in col. 59.15 This section, united thematically by its concern with kingship, interrupts the citations from Deuteronomy in 11QT 46–66. Although this section is not a part of the text of Deuteronomy, it is highly dependent on a number of other biblical passages in terms of both subject matter and formulation. There are eight sub-sections in this unit demarcated formally by setumah or petuḥah (except in cases where part of the scroll is missing). Each sub-section takes up a different topic. The first sub-section, 57:1–15, begins with the title for the entire unit of cols. 57–59: ‫וזואת התורה ]אשר יכתבו לו מלפני[ בכונים‬. The formula ‫וזואת התרה‬ appears to refer to the ‫ התורה הזאת‬found in Deut 17:18, 19. As reconstructed by Yadin,16 this statement presupposes the text of Deut 17:18 in col. 56:21. The remainder of the passage contains regulations concerning the military forces and powers of the king, based on various pentateuchal texts concerning Israel’s organization during the Wilderness period. Lines 2–3 state that the age of the soldiers should be between twenty and sixty years. This regulation stems from Num 26:2 which specifies that men aged twenty and upwards are eligible for military service and Lev 27:3 which defines twenty to sixty as the age of cultic majority for men. Furthermore, line 3 states that the soldiers are grouped ‫לדגליהמה‬, “according to their divisions,” the same terminology employed for the encampment of the tribes 14

Cf. Yadin, Megillat, 1:295; Temple Scroll, 1:386. Wilson and Wills, “Literary Sources,” 287. 16 Megillat, 2:179; Temple Scroll, 2:255. 15

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

351

in Numbers 1; 2; and 10.17 Lines 3–5 deal with the commanders of the soldiers, labeling them ‫שרי אלפים ושרי מאיות ושרי המשים ושרי עושרות‬, “commanders of thousands, and commanders of hundreds, and commanders of fifties, and commanders of tens.” This terminology stems from Exod 18:21, 25 (cf. Num 31:14, 48, 52, 54), which relates Moses’ appointment of judges over the people.18 Lines 5–11 take up the royal bodyguard, which consists of 12,000 men, 1,000 from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. This stems from Num 31:3–6, which states that 1,000 men from each of the Twelve Tribes were chosen for the holy war against Midian.19 Lines 8– 9 state that the men of the royal bodyguard should be ‫אנשי אמת יראי אלוהים‬ ‫שונאי בצע וגבורי חיל למלחמה‬, “men of truth, fearers of G-d, haters of bribery and mighty men of war.” Again, Exod 18:21 appears to be the basis of this text.20 The purpose of the royal guard is to keep the king away from any sinful thing (cf. Deut 23:1–15) and to prevent his capture by a foreign nation. Lines 11–15 then describe the king’s advisory council, which consists of 12 princes, 12 priests, and 12 Levites. The concept of 12 princes is derived from Numbers 2 and Numbers 7, which name the princes of each of the Twelve Tribes.21 The principle that priests and Levites should sit together with secular officials appears in Deut 17:8–13, especially v. 9, which states that the people shall come to the priests and Levites and judges in order to have cases of law decided.22 Finally, lines 13–15 state that this council will sit with the king to decide ‫ משפט‬and ‫תורה‬. This limits the king’s power in that he cannot act without their approval. Although the author of the scroll employed a number of biblical passages in constructing this section, the primary impetus for these regulations appears to be in the text of Deut 17:14–20, as understood by the author of the scroll in two cases, concerns expressed in Deut 17:14–20 appear in 57:1–15. As noted above, line 14 refers to Deut 17:20a, which indicates limitation of the king’s power to act independently. Deut 17:14–15 takes up the concerns of “a king like all the nations around me” (11QT 56:13) and the prohibition of a foreign king (11QT 56:15). These themes are expressed in 57:1–15 by stating that the royal guard is to protect the king from falling into the hands of a foreign nation (11QT 57:11; cf. line 7).23 In other cases, the scroll’s modifications of Deut 17:14–20 (11QT 56:12–21) indicate the restriction of the king’s military power expressed in 17

Delcor, “Le statut,” 53. Delcor, “Le statut,” 52. 19 Yadin, Megillat, 2:180; Temple Scroll, 2:256; Delcor, “Le statut,” 54. 20 Yadin, Megillat, 2:181; Temple Scroll, 2:257; Delcor, “Le statut,” 54. 21 Delcor, “Le statut,” 55. 22 Note also Deut 17:11, which assigns interpretation of Torah to the priests using language similar to that of Deut 17:20. 23 Cf. 57:16, which forbids the king’s marriage to a gentile. 18

352

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

11QT 57:1–15. According to the MT, Deut 17:16a refers to trade relations with Egypt (cf. 1 Kgs 10:28–29). But the author of the scroll made two alterations which indicate a military understanding of the passage. The term ‫סוסים‬, “horses,” was changed to ‫סוס‬, “horse,” a reference to cavalry.24 The statement, ‫ולוא ישיב את העם מצרימה‬, “and he shall not return the people to Egypt,” was changed to, ‫ולוא ישיב את העם מצרים למלחמה‬, “and he shall not return the people (to) Egypt for war.”25 A third textual modification demonstrates the author’s understanding that this passage limits the king’s power. Deut 17:18b required that the king write a copy of this Torah for himself before the Levitical priests. The author of the scroll changed ‫וכתב‬, “and he shall write,” to changed ‫וכתבו‬, “and they shall write.” Consequently, the priests write the king’s Torah which further emphasizes control of the king by the priests and Levites.26 The second major sub-section, 11QT 57:15–21, contains regulations concerning the wife of the king. Again, a number of pentateuchal texts have influenced the composition of this passage. Lines 15–17 stipulate that the king may not take a wife from the daughters of the gentiles. Furthermore, he may only marry a woman from his father’s family. Exodus 34:11–17 and Deut 7:1–7 provide a partial basis for this prohibition. Both passages prohibit covenants with the gentiles and reinforce this prohibition by forbidding intermarriage. But they do not explain the requirement that the king’s wife be of his father’s house. Some scholars see an analogy with the High Priest, who must marry a virgin from his own people.27 Yadin also points to the influence of Num 36:6–13, which stipulates that women must marry within their own tribe in order to prevent the transfer of their inheritance to another tribe.28 By restricting the wife of the king to the royal family, the scroll prevents the king from acquiring the inheritance of another family through marriage, limiting his ability to accumulate wealth).29 Lines 17–19 prohibit the king from marrying another woman while his first wife lives. This is based on the author’s understanding of Lev 18:18, which prohibits a man from marrying a woman and her sister.30 The sister is apparently understood as any woman (cf. CDC 4:20–5:2).

24

Delcor, “Le statut,” 49. Delcor’s proposal to consider “Egypt” in an adjectival relation to “the people” cannot be sustained since ‫ מצרים‬lacks a definite article (“Le statut,” 49). 26 It is likely that ‫ והלויים‬appeared at the top of col. 57 (Yadin, Megillat, 2:179; Temple Scroll, 2:254–255). 27 E.g., Yadin, Megillat, 1:272; Temple Scroll, 1:355; Delcor, “Le statut,” 58. 28 Yadin, Megillat, 1:271; Temple Scroll, 1:354. 29 This would be in keeping with the limitation on the king’s wealth in Deut 17:17b, immediately following the prohibition against multiplying wives. 30 Yadin, Megillat, 1:272; Temple Scroll, 1:355–356. 25

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

353

Lines 19–21 provide the rationale for the laws concerning the king’s wife, that he not pervert justice. The word field of these lines also appears in Deut 16:18–22, which deals expressly with perversion of justice. Interestingly, vv. 21–22 also take up idolatry, apparently as a consequence of perversion of justice, and provide the link between the perversion of justice and the issue of the king’s wife. In both Exod 34:11–18 and Deut 7:1–7, the passages which provide the basis for the requirement that the king’s wife not be gentile, idolatry is the consequence of marriage to a gentile woman. Although these regulations presuppose a number of passages from the Pentateuch, their primary basis stems from Deut 17:14–20, especially v. 17a, “and he shall not multiply wives for himself lest his heart turn aside.” This verse deals specifically with issues raised in 11QT 57:15–21, viz., polygamy and apostasy. Furthermore, the author of the scroll modified the citation of Deut 17:17 to emphasize these concerns. The scroll reads ‫ולוא ירבה לו נשים‬ ‫ולוא יסירו לבבו מאחרי‬, “and he shall not multiply wives for himself lest they turn his heart away from me.” The change from ‫ יסור‬to ‫ יסירו‬emphasizes that many wives would be responsible for turning the king’s heart, as in the case of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1–8). The author also added ‫ מאחרי‬to emphasize the concern with apostasy. Significantly, the only other occurrence of this term in Deuteronomy is in Deut 7:1–7, which played a prominent role in the formation of these regulations. By adding this expression from Deut 7:4, the author of the scroll demonstrated his understanding of Deut 17:17a, that marrying gentile women leads to apostasy. But the use of Deut 16:18–22 indicates that in the mind of the author of the scroll, this does not mean only religious apostasy but also perversion of justice. This concern with justice, based on Torah would have been suggested by Deut 17:18– 20, which follows the prohibition against the king’s amassing wives. Finally the emphasis on prohibiting a gentile wife appears to have been suggested by the concern with a foreign king in Deut 17:14–15. The third sub-section in 11QT 58:1–11, stipulates the number of people who accompany the king in battle during a defensive war. No explicit rationale from Scripture is apparent for the specific terms of these regulations.31 This sub-section presupposes the author’s understanding of Deut 17:16a by limiting the military powers of the king.32 The fourth sub-section, 11QT 58:11–15, deals with the distribution of booty from war. The king is entitled to one tenth of the spoil (cf. 1 Sam 31 Perhaps the Pentateuch’s regulations on war in Deuteronomy 20 stand behind this passage. Deut 20:1 reads, “horse, and chariot and a great people,” and 11QT 58:7 reads, “king, and chariot, and horse and a great people.” Cf. Yadin (Temple Scroll, 1:359), who points to the Rabbinic understanding of ‫חמושים‬, “armed for war,” in Exod 13:18 as “one out five” (Mekhilta, Beshallaḥ 75–76). 32 Delcor, “Le statut,” 49.

354

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

8:16–17; m. Sanhedrin 2:4), the priests to 1/1000, and the Levites to 1/100. The remainder of the booty is then divided equally between those who took part in battle and those who remained behind to defend the cities. Yadin’s discussion of this passage demonstrates that the scroll’s version of this law provides a much more equitable distribution of booty than Num 31:25–30.33 The impetus for this regulation appears in Deut 17:14–20, viz., the prohibition of the king’s amassing silver and gold for himself in v. 17b. Except for orthographic variations, the author of the scroll made no modifications in citing the biblical text. Apparently, the meaning of the verse was clear to him as it stood. However, there is a modification of v. 16a in that ‫וכסף וזהב‬, “and silver and gold,” appears after ‫למען הרבות סוס‬, “in order to amass horse (cavalry).” By this means, the author makes the association of military power with the attainment of wealth explicit. Thus, 11QT 58:11–15 is an exposition of the prohibition against the king’s amassing wealth in Deut 17:17b, as understood by the author in the military context of Deut 17:16a. The fifth sub-section, 11QT 58:15–21, includes regulations concerning offensive warfare. The military powers of the king are again restricted in that lines 15–17 allow him to take only one fifth of the people on offensive expeditions. Line 17 deals with the purity of the army in time of war. This concern stems from Deut 23:10–15, which requires the ritual purity of the military camp.34 The issue of priestly control over the king’s actions reappears in lines 18–21. The king must come before the High Priest, who consults the Urim and Thummim before granting him permission to embark upon an offensive expedition. Apparently, the author of the scroll relied on the model of military leadership presented in Num 27:15–23 in constructing this text.35 In Num 27:15–23, Joshua’s military authority depends on the concurrence of the priest, Eleazar, based on his reading of the Urim. Again, this section places limitations on the king’s ability to wage war and thus takes up the military issue raised by the scroll’s version of Deut 17:16a. The issue of priestly control of the king appears to be derived from Deut 17:18–20, as modified by the author of the scroll. The sixth sub-section, 11QT 59:1–13, is the first of three which are concerned with curses and blessings. It takes up curses and blessings for the people in general; lines 1–9 stating curses if the people disobey G-d and lines 9–13 stating blessings if they obey. No single text seems to stand behind this sub-section, although a number of statements from the scroll correspond quite closely to individual biblical texts; e.g., col. 59:2 & Deut 33

Yadin, Megillat, 1:276–277; Temple Scroll, 1:360–361. Cf. ‫ומכל ערוות‬, “and from any indecency," in 11QT 58:17 with ‫ערות דבר‬, “indecent thing,” in Deut 23:15. 35 Maier, Die Tempelrolle, 122; Temple Scroll, 128. 34

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

355

28:37/1 Kgs 9:7; col. 59:3 & Deut 28:48, 57; col. 59:3 & Deut 28:36, 64; col. 59:4 & Jer 25:9; col. 59:13 & Jer 31:33/Ezek 37:28. Although this section includes citations from and allusions to various texts (esp. Deuteronomy 28), the major impetus for its composition appears to be in Deut 17:14–20. 11QT 59:10 includes the statement, ‫ככול דברי התורה‬ ‫הזואת‬, “according to all the words of this Torah” (cf. Deut 28:58). This indicates that the basis for this text is Deut 17:19b, which specifies that the king “observe all the words of this Torah.” The seventh sub-section, 11QT 59:13–15, contains a curse on the king who turns “his heart and his eyes from G-d’s commands. This curse corresponds to 1 Kgs 9:4–5, where Solomon states that fidelity to G-d’s laws will guarantee the continuance of his father’s dynasty.36 Again, this subsection appears to have its basis in Deut 17:18–20, which requires the king to obey G-d’s Torah in order to guarantee his throne. The final sub-section is 11QT 59:16–21, which outlines blessings of the king if he obeys G-d’s law. Various biblical texts were influential in the composition of this section, including Lev 26:3 (col. 59:16–17), 1 Kgs 9:5 (col. 59:17–18), and Deut 28:13 (col. 59:20–21). The basis for this composition, however, lies in Deut 17:14–20. As noted above, 11QT 59:21, “and he shall continue many days over his kingdom, he and his sons after him,” corresponds very closely to Deut 17:20b. This indicates that the author of the scroll composed this passage as an exposition of Deut 17:18– 20 which spells out the benefits for the king if he obeys G-d’s Torah. In sum, the forgoing discussion provides evidence that 11QT 57–59 presents a midrashic exposition of Deut 17:14–20. Relevant biblical passages are employed to elaborate on the issues raised by Deut 17:14–20 as they are understood by the author of the scroll. The author emphasizes texts from the Pentateuch pertaining to Israel’s organization during the Wilderness period, especially concerning holy war, judicial powers, and cultic purity and structure. These texts portrayed Israel as a cultic community, organized around the Tabernacle. Their use in the Torat ham-Melek reinforces the author’s concern with placing the king under the authority of the priests, thus instituting theocratic kingship.

III Discussion may now focus on the text of Deut 17:14–20 as presented in 11QT 56:12–21. This will provide additional means for understanding the

36 Note Solomon’s emphasis on “eyes” and “heart” in 1 Kgs 9:3 and a similar emphasis in 11QT 59:14.

356

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

hermeneutics employed by the author of the scrolls as well as his purposes in composing cols. 57–59. The previous discussion pointed to a number of features in the scroll’s text of Deut 17:14–20 which were influential in the composition of the section on kingship and indicate an expositional or midrashic relationship between this text and cols. 57–59. There are other textual features, however, which are also important for understanding this relationship. In several cases (cols. 56:12, 14, 17), the author of the scroll changed third person references to G-d to first person references, indicating that G-d is speaking in the Temple Scroll text. This indicates the author’s attempt to cast the scroll as a direct speech of G-d to Moses in keeping with his view that this scroll represents the true Torah of G-d spoken at Sinai.37 This also explains the elimination of ‫משנה‬, “copy,” from the text of Deut 17:18 in col. 56:21.38 Because this scroll is the true Torah, it can hardly be called a “copy.” Column 56:14 reads ‫ שם תשים‬in place of ‫שום תשים‬, “you shall surely appoint,” from Deut 17:14. Yadin notes that it is unlikely that the author of the scroll intended ‫ שם‬to be the infinitive absolute ‫ שום‬as the scroll tends to use plene spelling whenever possible.39 Instead, he argues that this is an intentional modification to ‫שם‬, “there.” “There” would refer to the land which G-d is giving to the people, which means that the king must be appointed in the land of Israel itself and not in a foreign country.40 Column 56:15 reads ‫לוא תתן עליכה איש נוכרי‬, “you shall not appoint over yourself a foreign man,” in place of ‫לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי‬, “you shall not be able to appoint over yourself a foreign man,” in Deut 17:15. The scroll uses much stronger language in its statement. Deut 17:15 suggests that the people might be willing to appoint a foreigner if such an act were not prohibited. The scroll changes this to an outright prohibition which gives no indication of the people’s willingness or ability to appoint a foreigner.41 Column 56:20 reads ‫והיה בשבתו על כסא ממלכתו‬, “and when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom …,” whereas Deut 17:18 reads, ‫והיה כשבתו על כסא‬ ‫ממלכתו‬, “and when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom …” The change from the pronoun ‫כ‬, “when,” to ‫ב‬, “when,” results in an identical English translation but entails a slight shift in meaning. The preposition ‫ כ‬implies a 37

Yadin, Megillat, 1:61; Temple Scroll, 1:71–73. Yadin, Megillat, 1:264–265; Temple Scroll, 1:345. 39 Yadin, Megillat, 2:177; Temple Scroll, 2:253. 40 Yadin’s understanding may be questioned in that other appearances of “there” in the scroll are spelled with he-locative, ‫( שמה‬11QT 16:12; 21:4; 37:14; 38:10; 42:16; 45:6; 46:13; 52:20; 53:1, 10; 56:9; 59:3; 60:13, 14; 63:2). Column 32:10 may read ‫שמ‬, but the scroll has suffered damage at this spot (see Yadin, Megillat, 3: plate 47 and 3a: plate 17*; Temple Scroll, 3: plate 47 and 3a:17*). 41 Delcor, “Le statut,” 49. 38

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

357

duration of time when employed in this temporal infinitive construction and may best be translated, “while,” i.e., at some point after he takes the throne, he will write a copy of this Torah, etc. The preposition ‫ב‬, on the other hand, implies no sense of duration in such a construction and refers instead to the time when the action in question commences. Thus, according to the scroll, this Torah will be written at the time when the king begins to sit on the throne, i.e., at the very beginning of his reign. This would explain the statement in 11QT 57:1–2, “This is the Torah [which they shall write for him from that which is before] the priests on the day when they make hi[m king of] the children of Israel.” Whereas Deut 17:18 leaves some ambiguity in the matter, the scroll ensures that the king will be governed by this Torah from the moment he takes office. In addition to the textual modifications, there are also constructions concerning the structure of Deut 17:14–20 as presented in the scroll and the order in which the author presents its themes in cols. 57–59. Although cols. 57–59 constitute a midrashic exposition of Deut 17:14– 20, it is clear that the author of the scroll did not present a verse-by-verse commentary which followed the order of the text. Instead, the author employed Deut 17:18–20 to provide the framework for his exposition of the biblical pericope. This is indicated by several factors: (1) the reference to the Torah which the priests shall write at the beginning of this composition (11QT 57:1), which cites the similar statement in Deut 17:18; (2) the reference to the king’s raising his heart above his council, again near the beginning of the composition (11QT 57:14), which cites the similar statement in Deut 17:20a; (3) the reference to “all the words of this Torah” near the end of the composition (11QT 59:10), which cites Deut 17:19b; (4) the reference to the king’s extending his dynasty’s possession of the throne at the end of the composition (11QT 59:21), which cites Deut 17:20b; and (5) the general theme of priestly limitation of royal power, which appears throughout the composition and is the major concern of Deut 17:18–20. Issues raised in Deut 17:14–17 appear within this general framework in 11QT 57–59. In this respect, it is important to note the scroll’s presentation of these verses in its citation of Deut 17:14–20. Verses 18–20 are set off from the rest of the passage by a petuḥah, indicating a major division in the text (cf. 11QT 56:20 ff.). Apparently, the scribe saw these verses as a separate unit within this passage over against vv. 14–17. Here, it should be noted that whereas vv. 14–17 set forth specific regulations concerning the selection and behavior of the king, vv. 18–20 discuss the means for implementing these regulations, viz., the writing of a Torah. Apparently, the author of the scroll recognized this distinction and chose to use vv. 18–20 as the framework for his discussion of the passage. By beginning with the means for implementing the regulations and emphasizing the power of the priests and

358

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

Levites to control the king’s actions, the author of the scroll set the tone for his discussion (cf. sub-section 1, 11QT 57:1–15). By concluding with similar concerns based on the same verses, the author both sums up and reinforces the major point at issue in his understanding of Deut 17:14–20, the limitations placed on the power of the king (cf. sub-sections 6–8, 11QT 59:1–21). Specific regulations which limit the power of the king appear within this framework. The major emphasis is on restricting the king’s military power, based on the author’s understanding of Deut 17:16a. This issue appears in sub-sections 1 (11QT 57:1–15), 3 (11QT 58:1–11), 4 (11QT 58:11–15), and 5 (11QT 58:15–21). Sub-sections 2 (11QT 57:15–21) and 4 (11QT 58:11– 15) focus on v. 17a, on the king’s wife, and v. 17b, on the king’s wealth, respectively. Finally, allusions to the theme of “foreigners” or “gentiles” from Deut 17:14–15 appear in sub-sections 1 and 2. Thus, the author of the scroll worked a discussion of vv. 17a, 17b, and, to a lesser extent, 14–15 into a framework dominated by a discussion of v. 16a. The dominant role of v. 16a is reflected in the scroll’s presentation of the passage. There is a setumah in 11QT 56:17 between the text of vv. 14–16a and 16b–17, indicating a division between these passages which is of less importance than that between vv. 14–17 and 18–20. The significance of the placement of this setumah should not be underestimated. In the MT there is no setumah between vv. 16a and 16b. Instead, v. 16b is the direct continuation of v. 16a and must be understood in reference to v. 16a. Thus, the statement, “you shall not return this way again,” refers to the return to Egypt mentioned in v. 16a. However, by placing a setumah between vv. 16a and 16b, and by modifying the text of v. 16a to introduce the issue of military power used to acquire wealth, the author of the scroll completely changed the reference of v. 16b. First, v. 16b is now attached directly to v. 17a and v. 17b, providing an introduction for these statements. This means that v. 17a and v. 17b must be understood as consequences to v. 16b. In other words, not amassing royal wives and not amassing royal treasure are means to avoid “returning to this way.” Second, the reference to “this way” in v. 16b can no longer be understood in reference only to a return to Egypt in v. 16a. Instead, it must be understood in relation to the entire text block, Deut 17:14–16a (11QT 56:12–17a), and the issues raised therein. These include the entire concept of kingship, including the need to avoid a foreign king, and the military power of the king, especially its use to acquire wealth. Consequently, the scroll’s statement, “you shall not return this way again,” indicates that neither a foreign king42 nor royal abuse of 42 The references to “gentiles” and “foreigners” (57:7, 11) and to a gentile wife (57:15–16) indicate that the author considered such contact with foreigners or gentiles as a means whereby the king might become a “foreign man.” This indicates that the author

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

359

military power for gain can be tolerated. As presented in the scroll, prohibitions against the king’s amassing wives or wealth are means for avoiding these problems. Several conclusions concerning the author’s understanding of Deut 17:14–20 can be drawn from this evidence. (1) The author sees Deut 17:18–20 as the means for implementing the regulations contained in this text, i.e., the priests will control the process by which the king receives and carries out this Torah. Furthermore, the modified text of vv. 18–20 stipulates that this process will be implemented at the very beginning of his reign so that no time may pass in which the king rules apart from the Torah prescribed here. The regulations concerning the conduct of the king appear in vv. 14–17. (2) The setumah in col. 56:17 indicates that the author sees a difference between the material in vv. 16b–17 and that of vv. 14–16a. The nature of this difference is indicated by the statement, “And I said to you, ‘you will not return this way again.’” This statement presupposes situations that will not be repeated. As indicated by the structure of the text as presented in the scroll, these situations appear in vv. 14–16a. The means for preventing them appear in v. 17, i.e., preventing the king from amassing wives and wealth. (3) The situations that will not be repeated are clearly the problems of kingship which the Torat ham-Melek intends to regulate. As presented in the scroll’s version of vv. 14–16a, these problems are the foreign nature of the king and the king’s amassing excessive military power to increase his own wealth. The change in v. 15 (col. 56:15) from, “You shall not be able to appoint a foreign man over yourself …” to, “You shall not appoint a foreign man over yourself …,” indicates that the problem has arisen before. Obviously, the people were able to appoint a foreigner. The intent of the author of the scroll is to see that it does not happen again. (4) Columns 57–59 were written to address these issues in the author’s understanding of Deut 17:14–20. This provides a forum for him to elaborate on the issues raised in this text and clarify its meaning as he understands it.

IV The previous discussion demonstrates the author’s intent in writing the Torat ham-Melek of the Temple Scroll. This may now serve as the basis for drawing conclusions concerning the historical situation which this text presupposes. It is the contention of this paper that the author of the scroll did not write the Torat ham-Melek as an antithesis to Alexander Janneus or of the scroll understands the prohibition against a foreign king to include a Jewish king who behaves like a gentile.

360

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

to any real Jewish king, as Hengel et al. maintain.43 Instead, the author wrote the Torat ham-Melek in anticipation of the reinstitution of kingship in Judea in the early Hasmonean period. His purpose is to set forth regulations which define what Jewish kingship should be and thus avoid the abuses of gentile kingship (cf. 11QT 56:13). It is unlikely that a real Hasmonean king is presupposed as the antithesis to Jewish kingship. Instead, Antiochus IV provides a much better model for this role. There are a number of reasons for these assertions. As understood and presented by the author of the scroll, Deut 17:14–16a takes up the problems of Jewish kingship like that of the gentiles. The king must not be a foreigner and, if Yadin’s understanding of ‫ שם תשם‬in col. 56:14 is correct, the king must be appointed in the land. The king must not build up his military forces, and he is specifically prohibited from attacking Egypt to build his military power and wealth. Although John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I, and Alexander Janneus focused on building their military strength and wealth, none of them ever attacked Egypt, none were foreigners, and none were appointed outside of the land, Antiochus IV fits all of the criteria of this passage. He was king of Judea by virtue of the Seleucid defeat of the Ptolemies in 198 B.C.E. He was a foreigner, appointed outside of the land. His desecration of the Temple and subsequent defeats by Judah the Maccabee certainly indicated to the Jews that he was not G-d’s choice to be king (cf. Deut 17:15; col 56:14). He was well known for his campaigns against Egypt and his attempts to increase his military power and wealth. In fact, his orders to ransack the city of Jerusalem and establish a garrison there came after his humiliating withdrawal from Egypt as ordered by the Roman Senate (Josephus, Ant. 12.242–247, 252). Furthermore, his appointments of Jason and later Menelaus as High Priest (2 Macc 4:7–10, 23–26) and his plundering the Temple treasury (1 Macc 1:20–28; 2 Macc 5:11–21; Josephus, Ant. 12.246–247, 249–250) were motivated by his need for funds. As noted above, the emendation of Deut 17:15 to ‫לוא תתן‬ ‫ עליכה איש נוכרי‬indicates that the author presupposed that the people had such a king in the past. Apart from these considerations, the author’s concerns are directed toward the future. He focuses on the means of preventing the problems outlined in Deut 17:14–16a by concentrating on vv. 16b–17, which limit the king’s wives and wealth, and vv. 18–20, which focus on priestly supervision of the king’s observance of Torah. In this respect, a number of other features of this composition indicate its historical context. Whereas Deut 17:14–15 states that the king should not be a foreigner, should be chosen by G-d, and should be appointed in the land, the scroll does not take up these issues specifically. Instead, it focuses on protecting 43

“The Polemical Character,” 30–31.

22. Midrashic Perspective in the Torat ham-Melek

361

the king from defilement and capture by gentiles and prohibits him from marrying a gentile woman. The former was certainly a concern of all the Hasmonean rulers, although Jonathan’s capture and execution by Tryphon provides a concrete example of the dangers involved. With regard to gentile wives, 11QT 57:15–21 presents the issue together with the prohibition against amassing wives in accordance with Deut 17:17. According to col. 57:19, the purpose of this limitation on the king’s wives is to prevent the perversion of justice.44 Of the Hasmonean rulers, only Alexander Janneus is known for keeping concubines, and they are mentioned in connection with his crucifying 800 Pharisees (Josephus, Ant. 13.380). The concubines were not the cause of this outrage, however, only its spectators. Furthermore, as indicated by the discussion of col. 57:15–21 above, the author of the scroll focused the dominant concern of this passage on the prohibition against a gentile wife. There is no evidence, however, that any of the Hasmonean queens were gentile. The problem does not appear to have arisen in the Hasmonean monarchy, which makes it unlikely that the author of the scroll had any specific Hasmonean king in mind when writing this section.45 Furthermore, the issue of a gentile wife addresses the problem of a foreign king. The history of the Hasmoneans indicates that the wife of the king was very influential in determining the succession to the throne. Obviously, if the queen was gentile, this could open the way for a gentile ruler. It appears that the author of the scroll is addressing the general problem of avoiding foreign kingship rather than presenting an antithesis to a particular Jewish king. Whereas the scroll’s text of Deut 17:16 prohibits the king from returning the people to Egypt for war, the exposition of this passage in 11QT 57– 59 does not take up the concern with Egypt at all. This problem pertains to the past, in the time of Antiochus IV; it is not a part of the author’s agenda for the present or future. Instead, he focuses on the general themes of military power, specifying the conditions under which the king can wage war, and wealth, specifying the distribution of booty and limiting him to a wife from his own family. This is in accordance with both the textual modifications made in the scroll’s version of Deut 17:16a and Deut 17:17. John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I, and Alexander Janneus all focused on build44

Cf. 2 Macc 4:30–38, which reports that the cities of Tarsus and Mallus revolted against Antiochus IV when they were given to his concubine, Antiochis, as a present. While he was away settling this matter, the High Priest Menelaus was able to orchestrate the murder of Onias, the former High Priest. Because of the public outcry against the crime in Judea, Antiochus was forced to execute Andronicus, the actual killer. Menelaus escaped punishment through bribery (2 Macc 4:43–50). 45 As High Priests, the Hasmonean monarchs were already forbidden from marrying gentile wives (cf. Lev 21:13–15). If one had married a gentile, this would have provoked some comment in ancient sources, but no crisis appears.

362

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

ing their military strength and their wealth. There is no reason to conclude that the author of the scroll had anyone of them specifically in mind in writing these materials. This is simply a general concern of kingship. Finally, the author of the scroll presents a theocratic view of kingship, focusing on the theme of priestly supervision of the king as suggested by the scroll’s reading of Deut 17:18. Particularly interesting is the stipulation that the king must receive the permission of the High Priest before engaging in offensive warfare. All the Hasmonean rulers held the office of High Priest, including Aristobulus I and Alexander Janneus, who also held the office of king. If the author of the scroll had a specific Jewish monarch in mind, it seems quite unlikely that he would make him answerable to himself. Instead, the author presupposes a situation where the office of king and High Priest are separate. Such a situation would be possible only before the Hasmonean High Priests and rulers assumed the title of king, i.e., before the reign of Aristobulus I.46 On the basis of the considerations presented above, it may be concluded that the author of the Torat ham-Melek wrote this composition in anticipation of the reinstitution of kingship in Judea.47 Its purpose was to avoid the problems presented by gentile kingship and to define the character of proper Jewish kingship. The time of composition would be in the early Hasmonean period, when priests were in power but no king had emerged, i.e., during the reigns of Jonathan (152–143 B.C.E.), Simon (143–134), or perhaps the early years of John Hyrcanus (134–104). Although none of these men assumed the title of king, all of them ruled Judea at a time when the country could look forward to the reinstitution of Jewish kingship.48

46 One might maintain that the author wrote the Torat ham-Melek as a polemic against the Hasmonean monarchs who held the office of High Priest. Josephus reports that the claims of both Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.288–292) and Janneus (Ant. 13.372; cf. b. Qiddušin 66a) to the office of High Priest were disputed. If this was the case, it seems likely that the author of the scroll would have explicitly addressed the problem of the king holding the office of High Priest, especially since 11QT 58:15–21 indicates the author’s intention to control the king’s offensive military operations by requiring the approval of the High Priest. 47 Cf. Weinfeld, “Temple Scroll,” who sees the entire Temple Scroll as a Torah for the King. 48 Cf. 1 Macc 14:27–45, which grants Simon and his sons the right to rule forever “until a trustworthy prophet should arise” (v. 41). A “trustworthy prophet” would be expected to announce some form of permanent rule, i.e., dynastic kingship for the Hasmonean House (cf. J. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees [AB 41; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976], 507–508).

1

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature I The Book of Ezekiel has long been recognized in Rabbinic tradition as one of the most problematic of the biblical books. On the one hand, Ezekiel is highly regarded as a halakhic figure on a par with Moses. The prophet’s statement in Ezek 39:15 concerning the need to mark the location of human corpses for later burial and his statement in Ezek 44:9 concerning the prohibition of uncircumcised foreigners from entering the Temple are considered to be normative halakhic rulings on topics not addressed by Moses in the Torah (b. Mo‛ed Qaṭan 5a).1 On the other hand, some of Ezekiel’s teachings flatly contradict Mosaic Torah. His discussion in Ezekiel 18 concerning the moral culpability of an individual generation that commits halakhic transgression and the moral innocence of an individual generation that observes halakhah or that seeks repentance contradicts statements in the Torah, such as Exod 20:5–6 that promises divine punishment for the third or fourth generations of those who transgress divine teaching and mercy to the thousandth generation of those who keep the divine commandments. Likewise, many of the details of Ezekiel’s vision of the restored Temple, such as the portrayal of steps on the south side of the Temple altar in Ezek 43:17, contradicts the prohibition of such steps for the altar in Exod 20:23. Indeed, the plan of the restored Temple as a whole does not match any known portrayals of the Wilderness Tabernacle, the Temple of Solomon, or the Second Temple, which has prompted interpreters such as Rashi and Radaq to conclude that Ezekiel’s Temple must refer to the third Temple of the future that will be established in the world to come.2 1 Michael Fishbane, Haftarot (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002/5762), 356. 2 See Rashi’s (R. Solomon ben Isaac) commentary to Ezek 40:1 where he comments on the phrase, “and he brought me there,” by stating, “unto the besieged city – that is Jerusalem – that year he showed me the structure of the house/Temple of the future to come (Hebrew, habbayit lā‘ātîd lābā’).” The phrase, habbayit lā‘ātîd lābā’, is drawn from Seder Olam Rabbah 26:51–52, which states, “at that hour, the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed to Ezekiel in a vision the pattern of the house/Temple of the future to come”

364

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

The problems with Ezekiel are so great that Talmudic literature records three times the tradition of how R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah burned three hundred barrels of oil working nights to resolve the contradictions between the Book of Ezekiel and the Torah so that Ezekiel might avoid suppression from the biblical canon (b. Šabbat 13b; b. Menaḥot 45a; b. Ḥagigah 13b). Although R. Hananiah’s efforts were clearly successful, insofar as Ezekiel continues to appear among the Prophets of the Bible and among the prophetic texts that are read as part of the annual cycle of Haftarot readings, no trace of R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah’s list of problems or his solutions to them has been preserved in Rabbinic literature. The absence of such discussion prompted Rashi to comment that R. Hananiah’s work was denied to us “because of our sins.”3 Nevertheless, clues concerning R. Hananiah’s concerns appear in relation to the three citations of this tradition.4 The citation in b. Šabbat 13b appears as part of a lengthy Gemara passage that expounds upon a Mishnah concerned with eighteen halakhic rulings enacted by R. Hananiah ben

(see Midrash Seder Olam: A Photostatic Reproduction of Ber Ratner’s Edition of the Text, Notes and Introduction [Brooklyn: Moznaim, 1988, earlier editions, 1897, 1966], 20). Seder Olam Rabbah is a Rabbinic historical work that summarizes the history of the world from creation through the second century C.E. It is attributed to the Tannaitic sage, R. Yosei ben Halafta and his disciples (see C. Milikowsky, “Seder ‘Olam,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion [ed. R. J. Z. Werblowsky and G. Wigoder; Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], 614; Judah M. Rosenthal, “Seder Olam,” EncJud 14:1091–1093). For Radaq’s (R. David Qimḥi), see his commentary to Ezek 40:2 where he comments on the phrase, “and upon it,” by stating, “for the Temple will be built on the mountain as it was (in the past), and the city of Jerusalem shall be close to it to the south, and G-d showed him the structure of the future house/Temple (Hebrew, habbayit hā‘ātîd) just as He showed him its destruction to comfort with this prophecy the house of Israel which went into exile so that they would not lose hope. And again they will return to the land and they will dwell in it in safety, and building of the house/Temple will be better than the previous one.” For the Hebrew text of the commentaries by Rashi and Radaq, see any standard edition of the Mikra’ot Gedolot. The edition employed here is, Nevi’im Aḥronim (Tefutzah [Diaspora]: Merkaz leSifrei Qodesh, n.d.). 3 See Rashi’s comments on Ezek 45:22 concerning R. Hananiah’s conclusions concerning the differences between Ezekiel and the Torah, “and because of our iniquities (Hebrew, ûba‘ǎwônênû) what he learned concerning these offerings is hidden from us.” 4 For useful introductions to Talmudic literature, see H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. M. Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), and Jacob Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994). For the Talmud text, see any standard edition of the Babylonian Talmud. The edition employed here is Talmud Bavli (Jerusalem: El haMeqorot; Tel Aviv: PardesYisrael, n.d.). A useful although archaic translation with notes appears in I. Epstein, General Editor, The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1938).

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature

365

Hezekiah, none of which however are concerned with Ezekiel.5 The citations in b. Menaḥot 45a and b. Ḥagigah 13b offer some clues, however, insofar as the citation in b. Menaḥot appears as part of a discussion of Sukkot offerings at the Temple altar that explicitly takes up offerings prescribed by Ezekiel that differ from those of the Torah. Likewise, the citation in b. Ḥagigah 13b appears together with an extended discussion concerning the mystical or hidden teachings of Judaism, including Ezekiel, that are limited only to those most knowledgeable in Jewish tradition. Traditional interpreters have observed that issues linked to the citations of R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah tradition in b. Menaḥot 45a and b. Ḥagigah 13b, i.e., halakhic matters and mystical matters, must constitute the two basic concerns addressed by R. Hananiah in his efforts to reconcile the contradictions between Ezekiel and the Torah.6 Consequently, this paper examines b. Menaḥot 45a and b. Ḥagigah 13b in an effort to demonstrate how Rabbinic tradition attempted to resolve the problems pertaining to halakhah and mysticism posed by the contradictions between Ezekiel and the Torah. In this manner, the paper is intended to lay some groundwork for understanding the hermeneutical perspectives by which Talmudic tradition read the Book of Ezekiel and ensured that it would be considered as Sacred Scripture in Judaism.

II Talmud Bavli Menaḥot 44b–45b discusses a number of halakhic contradictions within the biblical literature, including contractions between the Book of Ezekiel and the Torah.7 The passage begins with a Mishnah (m. Menaḥot 4:2) that takes up a halakhic contradiction within the Torah. The passage states that the absence of bulls or rams from the whole burnt offerings (presented on the festival of Sukkot) does not invalidate whole burnt offerings presented for other occasions. The whole burnt offerings specified for Sukkot appear in Num

5

See Talmud Bavli. Volume 1: Shabbat (Jerusalem: El haMeqorot; Tel Aviv: PardesYisrael, n.d.). For an English translation of the text, see H. Freedman, The Babylonian Talmud. Volume 2: Tractate Shabbath (2 vols.; London: Soncino, 1938), 1:55. 6 R. Moshe Eisemann, Yechezkel – The Book of Ezekiel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (3 vols.; ArtScroll Tanach Series; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah, 1979–1980), 3:715–716. 7 See Talmud Bavli. Volume 10: Menaḥot (Jerusalem: El haMeqorot; Tel Aviv: PardesYisrael, n.d.). For an English translation of the text, see Eli Cashdan, ed., The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Menaḥot (London: Soncino, 1948), 269–273.

366

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

29:12–39, including a descending number of bulls for each of the seven days of the festival, beginning with thirteen on the first day and ending with seven on the seventh day, accompanied by two rams and fourteen one-year-old lambs for each day. Based upon the statement that the Sukkot offerings are presented “according to law” in Num 29:18, 24, the discussion presumes that the Mishnah does not take up the question of the Sukkot offerings. Instead, it turns to the question of the New Moon and Shavuot offerings. After rejecting the New Moon offerings of Num 28:11 as a possible reference for the omission of animals, the discussion turns to the offerings presented at Shavuot where there is a problem in the Torah prescriptions. According to Num 28:27, the whole burnt offering for Shavuot includes two bulls, one ram, and seven one-year-old lambs, but according to Lev 23:18 the whole burnt offering for the festival includes one bull, two rams, and seven one-year-old lambs. The passage notes the contradiction between the two Torah passages and resolves the issue by concluding that the omission of the second bull prescribed in Num 28:27 does not invalidate the other offerings when Lev 23:18 is followed and the omission of the second ram in Lev 23:18 does not invalidate the other offerings when Num 28:27 is followed. In other words, either Torah passage concerning offerings at Shavuot may be followed without invalidating the offering. The decision thereby represents a compromise in which both Torah passages are effectively deemed correct. The reason for the discrepancy between them anticipates the condition taken up below that one making a Shavuot offering may not be able to afford the entire offering. This principle will be stated in Ezek 46:6–7, which will result in the conclusion that a statement from Ezekiel resolves a halakhic problem in the Torah, thereby indicating Ezekiel’s status as a halakhic authority and the book’s status as Sacred Scripture. The discussion then turns to Ezek 46:6, which specifies that the prince will present a New Moon whole burnt offering including one bull, one, ram, and six lambs. But the prescriptions for the New Moon whole burnt offering in Num 28:11 call for two bulls, one ram, and seven one-year-old lambs. In considering the discrepancies between these two texts, the discussion notes that the prince will provide a meal offering of what he can afford to accompany the seven lambs. Taking this principle into consideration, the Talmud concludes that the discrepancy between Ezekiel and Numbers is intended to indicate that the prince is permitted to offer one less bull and one less lamb if he cannot afford the full offering, but that he is required to make every effort to present the full offering on the New Moon. As in the discussion of the Shavuot offerings above, both Ezek 46:6 and Num 28:11 are deemed to be authoritative, based on a provision for a reduction of the offering when the prince lacks the means to present the entire offering.

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature

367

The next topic is the specification in Ezek 45:18, “on the first day of the first month, you shall take an unblemished bull from the herd, and you shall purge (i.e., offer it as a sin offering (Hebrew, wěḥiṭṭē’tā) the sanctuary.” The discrepancy between Ezekiel and the Torah emerges when the Talmud observes that Num 28:11 calls for two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs to be presented on the New Moon as a whole burnt offering; the Torah says nothing about a Sin/Purgation offering (Hebrew, ḥaṭṭā’t) as required by Ezekiel. Because he is unable to explain this discrepancy, R. Yohanan declares that the explanation will be given by Elijah in the days to come. R. Ashi, however, argues that Ezekiel’s sin offering refers to the special consecration offering (mîlû’îm, cf. biblical millû’îm) for the Temple offered in the time of Ezra and specified by Moses (see Ezra 6:17; 8:35; cf. Exod 29:1, 9b–14, 22–34; Lev 8:2, 10–17, 22–29; 9:1–6).8 A second version of this issue then appears in which R. Judah states that the problem will be resolved by Elijah in the future, but R. Jose states that it refers to the consecration offering of Ezra as prescribed by Moses. The next topic to be considered is whether the people of Israel may eat an animal that died naturally or an animal that was killed by a beast. The occasion for this problem is the statement in Ezek 44:31, “the priests may not eat any corpse or animal killed by beasts, whether bird or animal.” The question is then raised: does Ezekiel mean to say that priests are forbidden to eat such animals, but that the people may eat them? R. Yohanan again indicates that the problem must be resolved by Elijah, but Rabina states that it was necessary for Ezekiel to repeat this prohibition for the priests since Lev 1:15 permits the priests to eat birds offered at the altar whose heads had been nipped off, technically rendering them at corpses. Ezekiel’s statement thereby prevents the priests from concluding that they might eat other animals found dead or killed by an animal. Discussion then turns to Ezek 45:20, which reads, “And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month on account of one who errs and on account of the simple, and you shall make atonement for the Temple.” The statement refers to an atonement offering made on the seventh day of the month, which is otherwise unknown in the Torah or anywhere else in the Bible. To resolve this issue, R. Yohanan proposes that the phrase běšib‘â baḥōdeš, “on the seventh day in the month,” be split in two. In R. Yohanan’s reading, the term, běšib‘â, “in/among seven,” be read as a reference to a sin committed by seven among the tribes of Israel, i.e., a majority of the tribes of Israel. The term, baḥōdeš, “in the month,” is then read as a

8 See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 130–131; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 513–525, 571–577.

368

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

reference to the New Moon to indicate an erroneous ruling, such as permitting the eating of fat from an offering which is forbidden in Lev 7:25. The verse would then read, “and so you shall do when seven sin, (e.g.,) on the New Moon (they permit something illegal), because of committing an error or because of stupidity, and they must make atonement for the Temple.” In effect, R. Yohanan resolves the problem by emending the reading of the text so that the problem disappears. In the aftermath of this particular halakhic issue, b. Menaḥot 45a relates the account of R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah’s efforts to reconcile the differences between Ezekiel and the Torah so that Ezekiel might continue to serve as Sacred Scripture. The final question to be settled in relation to the introductory Mishnah paragraph of this passage pertains once again to Ezek 46:7, which stipulates that the prince “shall provide a meal offering of an ephah for the bull, an ephah for the ram, and as much as he could afford for the lambs, and a hin of oil for each ephah,” as a whole burnt offering for the new moon. R. Simeon observes that the amount of grain offered with the bull cannot be the same as that offered with the ram as Num 15:6 stipulates that three tenths of an ephah accompanies a bull and two tenths of an ephah accompanies a ram. He reasons that the passage is meant to stipulate a principle of equity in the offering of the bulls and the rams, viz., when the prince can afford the two bulls required for the New Moon offering (see above, Num 28:11) but not their drink offerings, he should offer only one bull and its drink offering, and when the prince can afford the rams for the Shavuot offering (see Lev 23:18 noted above) but not their meal offerings, he should offer only one ram with its meal offering. Apart from the initial case, each of the above cases takes up an instance where Ezekiel contradicts the Torah or makes a ruling that does not appear in the Torah. In each instance, the matter is resolved by deft exegesis that ultimately explains the consistency between Ezekiel’s statements and those found in the Torah. When contradictions appear between two Torah passages, neither may be deemed deficient and instead the Rabbis seek a rationale between them in which a principle not explicitly articulated within the Torah text must be discerned as the cause for the discrepancy. In the present case, the principle discerned is found in Ezek 46:7, which means that Ezekiel must be employed to resolve the halakhic problem posed by the discrepancies in the Torah text. Similar reasoning is then applied to Ezekiel in cases when a discrepancy between Ezekiel and the Torah is found. Although we cannot know for a certainty that these instances were taken up by R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah, the citation of the tradition concerning his resolution of the discrepancies between Ezekiel and the Torah in the midst of this discussion suggests that they may well have been among his examples.

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature

369

III Talmud Bavli Ḥagigah 11b–16a contains a lengthy discussion concerning the study and teaching of various texts that are associated with Jewish mysticism.9 The passage begins with a Mishnah paragraph (m. Ḥagigah 2:1) that states that the exposition of three texts, viz., the forbidden relations (Leviticus 18), the work of creation (Genesis 1), and the work of the Chariot (Ezekiel 1) is prohibited unless one is a sage who understands his own knowledge. The association of each of these texts with Jewish mysticism is clear, viz., Leviticus 18 takes up the question of forbidden human sexual relations insofar as human beings have the capacity to create human life, Genesis 1 takes up the process by which G-d created the universe by speech which is then the subject of Sefer Yeṣirah, and Ezekiel 1 recounts Ezekiel’s vision of the divine presence of G-d mounted on the divine throne chariot which is then the subject of the Heikhalot literature. Although many interpreters have taken the warning about speculation concerning what is above, below, before, and after to be a prohibition of the study of Jewish mysticism, the earlier statements concerning the qualifications of one who would expound on these three texts, i.e., that he is a sage who understands his own knowledge, indicates that the passage is concerned with defining the qualifications of one who would study Jewish mysticism and the issues associated with such study. Indeed, the Gemara to this passage includes one version of the narrative concerning the Four who Entered Pardes, which holds R. Akiba, one of the most revered figures in all of Rabbinic tradition who is credited with laying the intellectual foundations for the Talmud and the Midrashic literature, as the model of piety and knowledge for one who would engage in such study. 10 The Gemara passage in b. Ḥagigah 11b–15a takes up a variety of issues pertaining to the concern with the study and exposition of mystical literature articulated in m. Ḥagigah 2:1. The passage in b. Ḥagigah 11b begins with consideration of the conditions under which each of the above-noted biblical passages might be expounded, i.e., by a true sage in Jewish literature and practice. Following an extended discussion of various aspects in the study of Leviticus 18 and Genesis 1 in b. Ḥagigah 11b–13a which cul9

See Talmud Bavli. Volume 4: Ḥagigah (Jerusalem: El haMeqorot; Tel Aviv: PardesYisrael, n.d.). For a useful English translation of this passage, see I. Abrahams, The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Ḥagigah (London: Soncino, 1938), 59–104; for discussion of the so-called “Mystical Collection,” see David J. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (AOS 62; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980). 10 See my study, “Pardes Revisited Once Again: A Reassessment of the Rabbinic Legend concerning the Four who Entered Pardes,” in idem, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 269– 282.

370

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

minates in the consideration of the Araboth, i.e., the highest level of heaven where the divine throne is to be found, discussion turns to the question of the exposition of Ezekiel 1 in b. Ḥagigah 13a–b. The concern with the qualifications of one who would teach Ezekiel 1 is clearly based in the question of a proper exposition of its contents which take up the appearance of the presence of G-d and the knowledge of G-d that follows from such a vision. The first topics include a statement by R. Hiyya that only the headings of each passage may be taught to one who would study this passage, but R. Zera follows with statements that such a limitation should be applied only to the head of a court and to one whose heart is anxious because both of these figures possess the desired qualities, knowledge of Jewish tradition and piety, that would prepare them adequately for such study. But R. Ammi continues with a statement that the mysteries of the Torah may be taught to those who possess five attributes, i.e., the captain of fifty, i.e., a master of Torah; the man of rank, i.e., one who earns favor for an entire generation; the counselor, i.e., one who knows how to reckon time, such as intercalation and the fixing of months; the cunning charmer, i.e., the wise man who makes his teachers wise; and the skillful enchanter, i.e., one who understands one thing from another.11 At every instance, the Talmudic sages attempt to define the qualifications of one who would study this text in relation to intellectual gifts and pious study and practice. The following paragraph recounts R. Yohanan’s invitation to R. Eleazar to teach him the work of the chariot, but R. Eleazar declines stating that he is too young for such study. But when he reached the appropriate age, fifty as understood by some, R. Yohanan had already passed away. When R. Assi offered to teach him the work of the chariot, R. Eleazar stated that if he had been worthy, he would have been taught by R. Yohanan, who was R. Assi’s teacher. In this manner, the Gemara expresses the view that a potential student of this text must possess the requisite intellectual and spiritual qualities to qualify for such study. Lacking them, such study is forbidden by G-d. Discussion then turns to a discussion between R. Joseph, who was studying the work of the chariot, and the elders of Pumbeditha, one of the major Babylonian Rabbinical academies, who were studying the work of creation. When the elders of Pumbeditha asked R. Joseph to teach them the work of the chariot, he first demanded that they teach him the work of creation. But when the time came for R. Joseph to teach the elders the work of the chariot, he observed that they had learned the statement from Cant 4:11, “honey and milk are under your tongue.” Song of Songs is read 11

14a.

For discussion of each of these figures, see the following passages in b. Ḥagigah

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature

371

in Rabbinic Judaism as the quintessential metaphorical portrayal of the relationship between G-d and Israel, and R. Joseph’s reading of Cant 4:11 indicates the sweet teachings of the true character of G-d, such as those found through the study of Ezekiel 1, must be kept under the tongue, i.e., they are forbidden. R. Abbahu adds a reference to Prov 27:26, “the lambs (Hebrew, kěbāśîm) are your clothing,” to infer that what is hidden (Hebrew, kibšōnō) of the world should be under your clothing. R. Abbahu’s statement presupposes a reading of kěbāśîm, “lambs,” as kěbāšîm, “pressed/hidden things,” to indicate that hidden or esoteric teachings must remain hidden, i.e., under your clothing. When the elders of Pumbeditha indicated that they had already studied the work of the chariot as far as the statement, “and he said to me, ‘Ben Adam,’” i.e., Ezek 2:1, R. Joseph replied that they had already studied the entirety of the work of the chariot and that there was therefore no need for his teaching. This discussion throughout presupposes several tenants, a) the work of the chariot extends only to Ezek 2:1 and it therefore comprises Ezek 1:1–28; b) the need to maintain the esoteric character of the account of Ezekiel’s vision; and c) the elders of Pumbeditha were able to grasp the meaning of Ezekiel 1 themselves, which indicates that they were sages who knew their own knowledge as prescribed in the Mishnah paragraph. But this last issue raises a question as to the extent of the work of the chariot. Rabbi states that the work extends only to the second occurrence of “I saw,” viz., Ezek 1:27, which reads fully, “and I saw the likeness of amber (Hebrew, ḥašmal), like the appearance of fire encased round about it, from the appearance of his loins upward, and like the appearance of his loins downward I saw the appearance of fire and it was flaming all about.” In this case, the passage would conclude with v. 26, and vv. 27–28 would not be included. R. Isaac follows by stating that the passage extends as far as the word, ḥašmal, “amber,” which would mean that the passage would conclude with the statement, “and I saw,” at the beginning of v. 27, insofar as ḥašmal was not considered part of the passage. R. Isaac’s conclusion then leads to a statement that only the heads of the chapters, i.e., the initial words of each section, subject, or verse may be transmitted. In this instance, the term, ḥašmal, is clearly at issue. Despite the uncertainties of its meaning, ḥašmal, now employed for “electricity” in modern Hebrew, clearly functions as a term that expresses the fullness of the divine presence.12 The differences between the positions of Rabbi and R. Isaac are reconciled by claiming that one who is a sage who understands his own knowledge may

12 For discussion of the meaning of the term ḥašmal, see HALOT, 362; Reuben Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary (Ramat Gan and Jerusalem: Massada, n.d.), 838.

372

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

include “and I saw” from v. 27 in the passage whereas one who is not a sage may not. This conclusion raises the question as to whether or not the term ḥašmal may be included in the exposition of the text. This question provides the occasion to relate an instance in which a child with exceptional ability expounded upon the meaning of the term ḥašmal, which prompted a fire to come forth to consume him. Such an occurrence, analogous to the experience of Simon bar Yohai and his son after they had spent thirteen years in a cave studying the esoteric meaning of the Torah (b. Šabbat 33b), expresses the power and danger inherent in a term that conveys the divine presence. The child’s fate is initially explained by the fact that he had not yet reached a fitting age for such study and had perished because he was not properly prepared for such an experience. A similar conclusion underlies the narrative concerning the four who would enter Pardes insofar as three were not prepared. Simeon ben Azzai had not fathered children to see to the future of Judaism and therefore died, Simeon ben Zoma had not prepared his mind by completing his studies, and therefore went insane, and Elisha ben Abuya had been studying forbidden Greek literature and thereby lost his faith in Judaism to become Aḥer, i.e., another person. R. Akiba, on the other hand, who embodied each of the three qualities that the others lacked, was able to ascend, i.e., enter Pardes in peace, and descend, i.e., depart from Pardes in peace.13 At this point, R. Judah introduces the narrative concerning R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah’s burning of three hundred barrels of oil working nights in an effort to reconcile the differences between the Book of Ezekiel and the Torah so that the former could be retained as Holy Scripture. The function of this narrative becomes clear when one considers the following remarks concerning the qualifications of one who would expound upon the work of the chariot, the very issue introduced by the introductory mishnah for this Gemara passage. The text turns to a tradition taught by the sages about a child who was reading the Book of Ezekiel at his teacher’s house and perceived the full meaning of the term, ḥašmal. At this point, a fire emerged from ḥašmal and consumed the child, indicating that the term itself is a source of power because of its conveyance of the divine presence. As a result, the effort was made to suppress the Book of Ezekiel because of the potential danger of the work to those would study and expound upon it. R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah states as a result of this experience that if the child was a sage, insofar as he understood the term ḥašmal, then all are sages and therefore qualified to expound upon the Book of Ezekiel. The difference is that the child understood the term and perished as a result of his knowledge for which he was not prepared, but ordinary readers would 13

Sweeney, “Pardes Revisited Once Again.”

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature

373

have no such knowledge and would not perish as a result of their encounter with the term, viz., it is then possible to read the Book of Ezekiel and it need not be suppressed as a work of Holy Scripture. We may recognize R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah’s solution to the problem of reading Ezekiel and understanding its contents, viz., the issue is not reading Ezekiel per se, for despite its difficulties, the halakhic discussion above indicates that it is a true teaching of divine Torah. Rather, the issue pertains to the question of understanding its esoteric teachings concerning the presence of G-d, i.e., is the reader prepared for such understanding? The child was not prepared, but a sage like R. Akiba is. Discussion then turns to the meaning of the term ḥašmal. Rab Judah defines the term as “living creatures speaking fire, i.e., an abbreviation of the phrase, ḥayyôt ’ēš měmalělôt, in which the first or primary letter of each word in Aramaic, viz., ḥ from ḥayyôt, š from ’ēš and m and l from měmalělôt, form the acronym, ḥašmal. A baraita then explains this image: at times they are silent and at times they are speaking, apparently invoking the image of Elijah’s qôl děmāmâ daqqâ, “the sound/voice of thin/absolute silence” (1 Kgs 19:12) to compare the speech of the living creatures from Ezekiel’s vision to that of G-d. It is at this point that the term ḥašmal from Ezekiel’s vision is equated with the voice of G-d, and therein lies the issue of the passage, viz., who is prepared to hear and understand the full dimensions of the voice of G-d. The conclusion is that anyone, like the child, might hear or read it, but one who would expound upon it must be fully prepared as a sage who understands his own knowledge. The balance of the Gemara passage then turns to the exposition of the various elements of the divine vision. It begins with the elements from Ezekiel’s vision, including the descriptions, functions, and meaning of the six wings, four faces, and the straight feet of the living creatures. The passage then turns to the elements of the divine vision in Daniel 7, Isaiah 6, and other works, before returning to the various questions raised by the study of Jewish mysticism. The Gemara passage culminates in the narrative of the four who would enter Pardes, i.e., encounter the presence of G-d through the study of Jewish texts, which in turn defines the qualities necessary for those who would engage in such study.

IV We have traced two threads in the discussion of the problems pertaining to the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic literature, viz., the halakhic problems of the book that are the subject of b. Menaḥot 44b–45b and the issue of the

374

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

study of Jewish mysticism or more specifically the understanding of the divine presence of G-d that is the subject of b. Ḥagigah 11b–16a. As indicated above, the problem of halakhic discrepancies between the Book of Ezekiel and the Torah was resolved by pointing to the need to probe behind the written form of the text in an effort to discern a hidden issue. The discussion began with a discrepancy between the texts of two Torah passages, Num 28:27 and Lev 23:18, which each prescribe different offerings for Shavuot. Whereas Num 28:27 calls for two bulls and one ram together with seven one-year-old lambs, Lev 23:18 calls for one bull and two rams together with seven one-year-old lambs. Both were judged to be correct, although the implications of this decision were not evident until the issue of the prince’s offering at the New Moon. In presenting a whole offering for the New Moon, Ezek 46:6 calls for one bull, one ram, and six lambs, whereas Num 28:11 calls for two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs. The decision concerning the discrepancy rested on the observation that the prince might not be able to afford the entire offering and could therefore be permitted to omit one bull or one lamb due to hardship despite making every effort to present the full offering. The explanation for the remaining discrepancies between Ezekiel and the Torah rests on similar observations of a hidden principle articulated within the text, viz., the otherwise unknown sin offering of Ezek 45:18 must refer to a consecration offering as required in the Torah; the question as to whether the injunction against the priests’ eating an animal torn by beasts in Ezek 44:31 means that the people are permitted to do so is resolved by stating that they cannot; the reference to an otherwise unknown atonement offering made on the seventh day of the month in Ezek 45:20 is resolved by rereading the verse to indicate the need for an atonement offering in case of an error by the people of Israel in general, e.g., in the case of a New Moon offering; and the question pertaining to the prince’s meal offerings in Ezek 46:7 states the principle that he should make full offerings when he can afford them, viz., if he can’t afford the full offering, he should present less than the full amount. In sum, these rulings point to the problem of hard times in which the prince and the community cannot afford a full offering and are therefore excused from presenting them if a diligent effort is made to conform to the full requirement. This principle would then also resolve the discrepancies between Num 28:27 and Lev 23:18 which initiated this particular segment of Gemara, indicating that Ezekiel was necessary to resolve a presumed contradiction in the Torah. Indeed, the identification of a principle inherent but not always explicit in the text is a core premise of Rabbinic oral Torah. As a result of such reasoning, the Book of Ezekiel must be judged to represent a true holy book of Jewish tradition. But the principle of a teaching inherent in the text but not explicit in it also lies at the core of the discussion of those who are prepared to expound

23. Some Issues concerning the Book of Ezekiel in Talmudic Literature

375

on Ezekiel in b. Ḥagigah 11b–16a. As indicated in the discussion above, the concern of the passage turns upon the child who understood the meaning of the term ḥašmal, “amber,” from Ezekiel’s vision, which is understood as a hidden reference to the fullness of the holy divine presence of G-d. The child understood the fullness of the divine presence articulated by this term, but the child was not prepared for such teaching and therefore perished. This example provided the basis for the ruling that the Book of Ezekiel might be read publicly because people in general would not understand the hidden meaning of Ezekiel’s teachings and the book would therefore do no harm. But the passage also points to the problem of one who would understand the teachings of the book and expound upon them. The child was not prepared because he was a sage who did not understand his own knowledge. Indeed, the narrative concerning the Four who Attempted to Enter Pardes defines the terms by which one, like R. Akiba, would be prepared for such study, viz., he should have children to whom to pass on the tradition (and therefore be old enough to have such children), he should be an expert in all facets of Rabbinic learning, and he should be completely faithful to Rabbinic tradition. Insofar as R. Akiba possesses these qualities which his three colleagues did not, R. Akiba becomes the example of one who is qualified to understand and to expound upon the teachings of the Book of Ezekiel as well as the other works mentioned in the Mishnah passage.14 On the basis of this discussion, it emerges that the Rabbinic sages regarded Ezekiel not only as a true book worthy of inclusion in the Jewish Bible, but as a profound book as well that must be probed by a qualified sage in order to uncover its profound teachings concerning the character and teachings of the divine presence of G-d. Ezekiel therefore continues to appear in Jewish tradition, not only as a book of the Bible but also as one of the foundations for the Jewish mystical tradition that probes the intricacies of the relationship between human beings and G-d. We will never know if our two Talmudic texts record the decisions of R. Hananiah ben Hezekiah, but we can at least learn something of Rabbinic reasoning concerning the questions raised by the Book of Ezekiel and its relationship to the Torah.

14

Sweeney, “Pardes Revisited Once Again.”

1

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3: A Gateway for the Palace? I Throughout much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, biblical scholars have focused their efforts on reading biblical texts in relation to the socio-historical contexts in which they were originally produced. Such attempts have yielded considerable results in understanding the outlooks and concerns of biblical texts in relation to the settings which they were designed to address. In the case of the Book of Zechariah, such work points to the priority of Zechariah 1–8 as material that potentially comes from the hand of the priest and prophet, Zechariah ben Iddo, whose visions depict and interpret the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem during the late-sixth century B.C.E.1 It also points to the later character of Zechariah 9–14 as proto-apocalyptic material that potentially comes from later hands concerned with depicting divine intervention in the world following the construction of the new Temple. Although the focus on the purportedly original concerns expressed in biblical literature has advanced considerably scholarly understanding of biblical texts, the conclusion of the twentieth and the outset of the twentyfirst century have seen increasing focus on the reading of biblical texts in later periods.2 Examples of such work include the canonical reading of texts in their final, literary forms – from either a synchronic or a diachronic basis – in an effort to ascertain the impact that this literature might have on later generations of readers.3 My own work on the final form of the Book of Zechariah is designed to pursue such an agenda, but it is limited to the

1 For an introductory discussion of recent research on Haggai and Zechariah and full bibliography, see Mark J. Boda, Haggai and Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey (Tools for Biblical Study; Leiden: Deo, 2003), esp. 3–34. 2 See Marvin A. Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); idem, The Prophetic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). 3 E.g., Edgar W. Conrad, Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism (JSOTSup 376; London: Continuum, 2003).

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

377

Masoretic version of the book.4 Such work plays an important role in ascertaining how the book as a whole might be read or interpreted among later Jewish (and possibly Christian) readers, but it does not fully address the dimensions by which a biblical text might be read in later religious contexts. Apart from scholarly interpretation and exposition, biblical texts tend to be read in translation by the religious communities that look to them for guidance. In the case of ancient Jewish communities, the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Targums were especially important versions. In the case of Christian communities, the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate, among others, were especially important. Although much text critical work focuses on reconstructing the earliest form of the biblical text,5 such work tends to treat the Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, or Latin versions simply as modifications of the purportedly original Hebrew text. In such cases, concern with the original text governs the reading of the versions as a piecemeal expression of individual issues of concern. More recently, interpreters have come to recognize the literary and interpretative dimensions of the textual versions, particularly their constructions of the biblical texts qua texts, as an increasingly important area of interpretation.6 My own work on the textual versions of Zephaniah has attempted to demonstrate how each version might be read as an interpretation of the Book of Zephaniah as a whole, particularly how each version applies and adapts the message of Zephaniah to the concerns of later times, e.g., the rise of the Seleucid or the Hasmonean dynasties, the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish life in exile, the anticipated return of Christ in Christian versions, etc.7 Each version of Zephaniah constitutes a literary rendition of the text with its own literary structure and presentation, theological concerns, and hermeneutical perspectives that can 4 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (2 vols.; Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 2:559–709; cf. Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). 5 E.g., Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001). 6 For examples of such work on the Septuagint, see Arie van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision (VTSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 1998); cf. Kristin De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible (Text-Critical Studies 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). For an example of such work on Targum Jonathan, see Jostein Ådna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; trans. D. Bailey; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 189–224. 7 Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), esp. 1–41.

378

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

tell us much about how Zephaniah was read by later generations in later historical and religious contexts. There is tremendous potential for such work in Zechariah as well. Space precludes a full treatment of the textual versions of Zechariah, but consideration of Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah indicates the potential for such work. Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is already well-known for its interpretative rendition of the Hebrew text of the prophetic books, but work on the interpretative character of Targum Jonathan has tended to focus on treatment of individual readings and the fundamental issues or themes associated with such readings, e.g., the holy presence of G-d, halakhic observance, and the like.8 But the sheer volume of textual variation in Targum Jonathan on Zechariah suggests that the author/translator was interested in more than readings of individual verses. By introducing numerous changes in its reading of Zechariah,9 Targum Jonathan effectively reconstitutes the text of Zechariah to produce a new literary work. Although based on the underlying Hebrew Vorlage of Zechariah, Targum Jonathan on Zechariah essentially produces a new version of Zechariah that addresses the needs and concerns of the Jewish people in relation to the late first-century or early second-century context in which it was produced.10 In order to demonstrate this contention, this paper will focus on Targum Jonathan’s reading of Zechariah 3, which portrays Satan’s challenge to the High Priest Joshua ben Jehozadak. It begins with consideration of the Hebrew version of this text, which portrays Joshua ben Jehozadak’s 8 For discussion of Targum Jonathan, see Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, and Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (The Library of Biblical Studies; New York: KTAV, 1983); see also, Philip Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scripture,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. Mulder; CRINT 2.1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 217–253; Étan Levine, “The Targums: Their Interpretative Character and Their Place in Jewish Text Tradition,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Volume 1.1: Antiquity (ed. M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 323–331. 9 For an introduction, translation, and notes on Targum Jonathan to Zechariah, including discussion of its variations from the Hebrew text, see Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (ArBib 14; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989), 183–226. For a critical edition of Targum Jonathan to Zechariah, see Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Volume III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 477–499. 10 For the dating of Targum Jonathan to the period between the Zealot revolt against Rome in 66–74 C.E. and the Bar Kochba revolt in 132–135 C.E., see Cathcart and Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 16–18, cf. 12–14; cf. Robert P. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1994). N. b., the time period for the composition of the Targum to the Twelve Prophets ranges from the early first century C.E. through the end of the Talmudic period prior to the rise of Islam (Sweeney, Zephaniah, 29–31; Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 9/237–51/279.

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

379

ordination as High Priest for service in the new Jerusalem Temple. It then considers Targum Jonathan’s reading of this chapter, which focuses on past sins of priestly marriage to unsuitable women in an effort to motivate the priesthood for holy service in the heavenly Temple. In this manner, Targum Jonathan on Zechariah 3 lays groundwork for the visionary ascent tradition of Merkavah mysticism in which the mystics, in true priestly fashion, attempt to discern the divine will so that they might instruct the people in divine expectations.

II Zechariah 3 presents the fourth vision in the sequence of Zechariah’s visions concerning the significance of the reconstruction of the Temple.11 In keeping with the formulation of Zechariah’s visions, the angel who speaks with Zechariah throughout the vision sequence shows him a vision of the High Priest, Joshua ben Jehozadak, with the Satan or “Accuser” figure standing to his right. The Satan points to Joshua’s state of ritual impurity, which renders him unable to officiate in the Temple. An English translation of the passage follows: 1) And he showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of YHWH, and the Satan standing by his right to accuse him. 2) And YHWH said to the Satan, “YHWH rebukes you, O Satan, and YHWH rebukes you, the One who chooses Jerusalem. Is this not a brand saved from the fire?” 3) And Joshua was dressed in filthy garments while standing before the angel. 4) And he spoke up and said to those standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from upon him!” And he said to him, “See! I have caused your guilt to pass from upon you, and (I) am dressing you in festal robes. 5) And I said, “Let them place a pure turban upon his head,” and they placed a pure turban upon his head, and they dressed him in garments. And the angel of YHWH was standing by. 6) And the angel of YHWH invested Joshua, saying, 7) “Thus says YHWH ṣěbā’ôt, ‘If in my ways you walk and if my charge you keep, then you will both govern my Temple and supervise my courts. And I will grant you the right of access among those standing here. 8) Hear now, O Joshua, the High Priest, you and your colleagues standing before you, for they are human portents that I am bringing my servant, ṣemaḥ. 9) For behold the stone which I have placed before Joshua. On one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I am engraving its inscription,’ oracle of YHWH ṣěbā’ôt, ‘and I will erase the guilt of that land in one day. 10) On that day,’ oracle of YHWH ṣěbā’ôt, ‘each man will call to his neighbor to (come) under (his) vine and to (come) under (his) fig tree.’” 11

See also my treatment of Zechariah 3 in Twelve Prophets, 2:592–604; cf. Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 370–377. For other key treatments of Zechariah 3, see David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 186–214; Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25B; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 178–227; Robert Hanhart, Sacharja (BKAT 14.7.3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1992), 166–240.

380

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

This narrative presents a vision of Joshua ben Jehozadak’s ordination as High Priest in the Temple of YHWH. Although some interpreters struggle with the role of the Satan figure in this passage,12 it is essential to remember that he has not yet achieved the status of the demonic opponent of YHWH who afflicts the righteous in later tradition and prompts them to abandon G-d. In the present narrative, the Satan figure is nothing more than a heavenly attendant of YHWH, modeled on the royal informers of the Babylonian and Persian courts, who points to Joshua’s ritual impurity, which renders him unfit to serve as priest in the holy Temple. The literary structure of this narrative is designed to portray the process by which Joshua is ordained as High Priest with authority to oversee the Jerusalem Temple.13 Following the initial waw-consecutive statement, wayyar’ēnî ’et yěhôšu‘a …, “and he showed me Joshua …,” the narrative employs a series of participial clauses to portray the major characters of the narrative and to introduce the three major literary components of the narrative. Thus, vv. 1–2 employ the participle ‘ōmēd, “standing,” to describe Joshua the High Priest standing before the angel of YHWH and the Satan standing to his right. Verses 1–2 thereby introduce the action of the narrative by presenting YHWH’s rebuke to the Satan figure at the outset of the ordination process. Although some interpreters see YHWH’s statement as an indication that the primary issue of this text is a confrontation between YHWH and Satan, the narrative does not disclose the true issue at hand until v. 3 when it discloses Joshua’s filthy garments and their replacement with clean or pure garments at the behest of the angel of YHWH. The dressing of the priest in pure ritual garments is the central act of the priestly ordination ceremony in which the priests are ordained for service at YHWH’s altar (see Exodus 29; Leviticus 8). YHWH’s rebuke of the Satan essentially dismisses his charge that Joshua is ritually impure and unfit to serve at the Temple – not because it is not true, but because the status of the priest is about to change as a result of the following acts. YHWH’s rhetorical question draws upon a phrase from Amos 4:11 (see also Isa 7:4) to identify Joshua as “a brand saved from the fire.” Such a statement presupposes the common imagery of a burning stick pulled from a fire and thus saved from consumption in the flame. In the present instance, it presupposes the role of the priest as a representative of his people, who are considered profane before YHWH and thus in need of purification to deliver them from divine wrath. It is the role of the priest to represent the people before YHWH (and YHWH before the people). He 12

For discussion of the Satan figure in this passage, see esp. Hanhart, Sacharja, 180–

184. 13 See Hanhart, Sacharja, 184–189; James C. VanderKam, “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 553–570.

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

381

therefore plays an essential role in ensuring the purity or holiness of the people before YHWH. In order to carry out this role, he must be pure or holy himself. Priestly ordination is intended to ensure his purification so that he may carry out this role on behalf of the people. The second major section of the vision report narrative in Zechariah 3 appears in vv. 3–5bα, which describe the replacement of Joshua’s filthy clothes with clean or pure ritual garments. The passage employs a combination of the particles lābuš, “dressed,” and ‘ōmēd, “standing,” to portray Joshua dressed in filthy garments while standing before the angel of YHWH at the outset of the sub-unit. The narrative action of changing Joshua’s garments then proceeds from this basis. As noted above, the removal of impure garments and their replacement with holy garments, particularly the priest’s tunic and his headpiece, are central acts of the ordination ceremony described in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. The terminology differs in each case. Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 employ the terms kuttōnet, “tunic,” and mě‘îl hā’ēpōd, “robe of the ephod” (Exod 29:5; cf. Lev 8:7), for the priestly garments and hāmiṣnepet, “the headdress” (Exod 29:6; Lev 8:9), for the priestly headgear. By contrast, Zechariah 3 employs the terms maḥǎlāṣôt, “festal garments” (cf. Isa 3:22, where the term refers to lady’s garments), and ṣānîp, “turban” (cf. Isa 62:3, where the term refers to a royal headdress, and Isa 3:23, where it refers to a lady’s headdress) respectively. Zechariah 3 appears to employ general terminology for these garments whereas Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 employ the technical terminology of the Pentateuch’s priestly literature to describe the respective garments. Nevertheless, it is clear that both sets of texts have priestly vestments in mind. The appearance of the first person waw-consecutive verb, wā’ōmar, “and I said,” to introduce the command to place the turban on Joshua’s head, suggests that Zechariah functions as both narrator and participant in the textual presentation of this event. The third and final major section of the vision report in Zechariah 3 employs the participle ‘ōmēd, “standing,” once again to portray the angel of YHWH standing by as the subsequent action proceeds in vv. 5bβ–10. The angel plays a primary role in conveying YHWH’s charge to Joshua which effectively authorizes him to supervise YHWH’s Temple as the High Priest. Verse 6 employs the waw-consecutive verb, wayyā‘ad, literally, “and he witnessed.” The verb ‘wd, “to assure,” often appears in a legal context to refer to legal testimony or witnessing (see Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28), and generally refers to admonishing, warning, enjoining, etc. Here, it functions as an introduction to the angel’s presentation of YHWH’s words, and thereby indicates that the angel enjoins or commissions Joshua to serve by conveying the following statement by YHWH in vv. 7–10. The angel begins YHWH’s statement with the so-called messenger formula, kōh ’āmar yhwh ṣěbā’ôt, “thus says YHWH Ṣěbā’ôt,” to authenticate the

382

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

following words as those of YHWH. YHWH’s statements per se begin with a commissioning statement that outlines the conditions under which Joshua will exercise authority as High Priest, i.e., he must observe YHWH’s expectations. Although the language employed here does not specify what those expectations might be, the use of the term darkay, “my paths,” appears frequently as reference to observing YHWH’s instructions (e.g., Deut 8:6; Josh 22:5; Judg 2:22; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 21:22). The term mišmartî, “my charge,” refers specifically to the duties or charge of the priests in the Temple and at the altar (see Lev 8:35; 22:9; Num 1:53; 3:7; 18:5; Ezek 40:46; 44:15). YHWH’s commission to Joshua include the granting of mahlěkîm, literally, “causing to walk,” among those who stand (before the angel or YHWH). Although mahlěkîm is a somewhat problematic term that normally refers simply to walking (Ezek 42:4) or a journey (Neh 2:6), in the present instance it seems to refer to a special privilege on the part of Joshua as High Priest to walk among or between his colleagues standing here during the course of activities portrayed in Zechariah 3. Leviticus 16 indicates that the High Priest alone has a special role to enter the Holy of Holies once a year at Yom Kippur to present YHWH with a sin offering on behalf of the people (and the priests). The special role indicated by the use of the term mahlěkîm in Zechariah 3 suggests just such a role. This would indicate that mahlěkîm refers to special access, such as that portrayed in Leviticus 16, to Joshua as the High Priest. Verses 8–10 then turn to YHWH’s statement of the significance of Joshua’s appointment as High Priest. This segment of YHWH’s speech begins with a typical call to attention formula, addressed to Joshua and his priestly colleagues that points to YHWH’s future actions once Joshua is ordained. YHWH states that Joshua’s colleagues are ’anšê môpet, “men of portent” or “human portents,” of something yet to come. In this case, the installation of the priesthood points to YHWH’s future act in bringing a figure identified here as ṣemaḥ, “branch,” a term employed in prophetic literature to refer to a future Davidic monarch who will preside over a restored nation of Israel on behalf of YHWH (see Isaiah 11; Jer 23:1–8; 33:14–26). The term apparently derives from the imagery of a stump from which new branches grow in Isaiah 11 to metaphorically portray the rise of a new Davidic monarch in the aftermath of Assyrian invasion and conquest. It also apparently refers to the Davidic figure, Zerubbabel, who accompanied Joshua ben Jehozadak to Jerusalem and played a major role in rebuilding the Temple. Zerubbabel’s name is derived from an Akkadian term, zēr bābili, which means “seed/branch of Babylon.” The references to a future Davidic monarch as ṣemaḥ apparently envision Zerubbabel’s designation as Davidic king once the Temple is rebuilt (see, e.g., Hag 2:20–23; cf. Zech 6:9–15). Once the Temple was rebuilt, Zerubbabel dis-

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

383

appeared from the scene and scholars have been at a loss to explain definitively what happened to him. The stone with seven eyes also serves as a sign of YHWH’s future actions. Although the significance of this term is debated, it apparently refers to the ṣîṣ zāhāb ṭāhôr, “the rosette of pure gold” or “the diadem” that is set upon the turban of the High Priest in Exod 28:36–38. The High Priest’s diadem is inscribed with the words, qōdeš lyhwh, “holy to YHWH,” to signify the Priest’s holy status (see Exod 28:36). The reference to the “seven eyes” would then refer to the seven consonants that comprise this inscription.14 The portrayal of this diadem as “stone” rather than as “gold” apparently draws upon the imagery of the ‘ǎteret, “diadem,” in Isa 28:5–6 which will be placed on the head of the righteous ruler of Israel and Judah. The diadem is described as “the fading flower (ṣîṣ) of its glorious beauty” in Isa 28:1 and later in Isa 28:16 it is identified with the foundation stone in Zion which will see to the city’s deliverance from threat. The imagery employed in Zech 3:8–10 apparently draws on a series of intertextual references to portray the diadem of the High Priest as a symbol of YHWH’s intentions to restore the Davidic monarchy in the aftermath of the restoration of the Temple. The concluding reference to the future when Israelites/ Judeans call for their neighbors to sit with them under their vines and fig trees draws upon the language of Mic 4:4, which employs this image to refer to time of peace that will result from YHWH’s judging the nations that threaten Israel (cf. Isa 2:2–4; 11:1–16; Jer 23:5–6). Altogether, the vision report in Zechariah 3 recounts Zechariah’s experience of a visionary event. It is retrospective in that it presupposes that this experience must have taken place in the past, but it is also prospective in that it points forward to the ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak as High Priest and to the subsequent restoration of the Davidic monarch once the new Temple and its priesthood are consecrated.

III Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah 3 presents a markedly changed text.15 Although it is based upon a Hebrew Vorlage that is virtually identical to the Masoretic text, its many modifications point to a new textual construction that emphasizes the need for Joshua ben Jehozadak to expel 14 Contra my interpretation of this image in relation to the lights of the Temple Menorah (Twelve Prophets, 2:603). 15 See Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 3:480–482, for the critical text of Targum Jonathan for Zechariah 3. For a translation of Targum Zechariah 3 and discussion of its variations from the Hebrew, see Cathcart and Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 190–193.

384

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

wives who were unsuitable for the priests as a prelude to the revelation of the restoration. The Aramaic text may be translated as follows: 1) And he showed me Joshua, the High Priest, before the angel of YHWH, and the Sinner was standing by his right hand to accuse him. 2) And YHWH said to the Sinner, “YHWH rebukes you, O Sinner, and YHWH rebukes you, the One who chooses to cause his Shekhinah to dwell in Jerusalem! Is this not a firebrand saved from the fire place?” 3) And Joshua had sons who had married to themselves wives who were not fit for the priests, and he was standing before the angel. 4) And he answered and said to those who were serving before him, saying, “Speak to him, that he may drive out the wives who are not fit for the priests from his house.” And he said to him, “Behold! For I have removed from you your sins, and I have dressed you in righteous deeds.” 5) And he said, “Place a pure turban upon his head!” And they placed a pure turban upon his head, and they caused him to marry a wife who was fit for the priests. And the angel of YHWH was standing by. 6) And the angel of YHWH invested Joshua, saying, 7) “Thus says YHWH Ṣěbā’ot, ‘If in the paths which are good before me you walk, and if the charge of my Memra’ you execute, then you shall govern those who serve in the house of my Sanctuary, and you shall oversee my Courts. And at the resurrection of the dead, I will resurrect you, and I will grant to you feet walking between these seraphim. 8) Hear now, Joshua, the High Priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you, for they are men (who are) fit to do for them a sign. For I am bringing my Servant, the Messiah, that he may be revealed. 9) For behold, the stone which I placed before Joshua. Upon one stone are seven facets to it. Behold, I reveal its facets,’ says YHWH Ṣěbā’ot, ‘And I will remove the sin of that land in one day.’” 10) “At that time,” says YHWH Ṣěbā’ot, “You shall call, each to his neighbor, to (sit) under the fruit of his vines and to (sit) under the fruit of his fig trees.”

Although Aramaic lacks the waw-consecutive verbal formation that plays such an important role in forming the syntactical structure of biblical Hebrew, the noun clauses in vv. 1, 3, and 5bβ continue to play the same key roles as their Hebrew counterparts in defining the basic literary structure of this text. Following the conjunctive verbal formation, wě’aḥzěyaynî yāt, “and he showed me,” in v. 1, the conjunctive noun phrase, yěhôšû‘a kāhǎnā’ rabā’ qā’êm, “Joshua the High Priest was standing …,” introduces vv. 1–2 as the first major literary sub-unit of this text. The sub-unit continues to portray the ordination ceremony of Joshua ben Jehozadak as in the Hebrew text, but the changes introduced into the reading of this text by the Targumist change the character of the presentation. The first is the identification of the Satan figure, i.e., Hebrew haśśāṭān, as Aramaic ḥaṭā’, “the Sinner,” although the verb employed to portray his denunciation of Joshua continues to be the Aphel infinitive, lě’asṭānā’, “to accuse him,” analogous to the Hebrew, lěśiṭnô. The effect of such a change is to ensure that the evil character of the Satan figure is clear in this text. He is not merely an “opponent” or “denouncer” as the Hebrew term haśśāṭān would suggest, but a sinful figure who prompts sin in others, as indicated by the following portrayal of the priests as having compromised their sanctity by having married women who were not fit to be the wives of priests. The

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

385

second change is the substitution of the phrase dě’itrě’î lě’ašrā’āh šěkînětêh, “who chose to cause his Shekhinah to dwell (in Jerusalem),” in place of the Hebrew, habbōḥēr, “who chooses (Jerusalem).” Such a change serves the characteristic theological agenda of the Targum to protect the sanctity of YHWH by avoiding any suggestion of anthropomorphic action.16 The use of the term Shekhinah (“Presence”) to express the divine presence in the world thereby serves as a metaphorical expression that enables the Targumist to avoid stating that YHWH Oneself actually appears to human beings in Jerusalem or anywhere else on earth. The phrase, “(is this not) a brand saved from the fire place,” is identical to the Aramaic text of Amos 4:11. Although vv. 3–5bα continue to portray the ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak, the Aramaic text changes the terms by which his ordination is carried out. Whereas the Hebrew text of vv. 3–5aα focuses on the change from filthy to pure garments to mark his purification, the Aramaic text substitutes the issue of priestly marriage to women who are unfit wives for priests. Whereas the Hebrew text describes Joshua as hāyâ lābuš běgādîm ṣô’îm, “(and Joshua) was dressed in filthy garments,” the Aramaic text substitutes the phrase, hǎwâ lêh běnîn dinsîbān lěhôn něšîn dělā’ kāšrān likhûnětā’, “(and Joshua) had sons who married to themselves women who were not fit (kosher) for the priests.” This statement presupposes Ezra 10:18, which states that Joshua ben Jehozadak and his brothers had married foreign women.17 Such a marriage is prohibited to priests in ancient Israel and Judah, insofar as a priest is to marry only a virgin from his own people (kî ’îm-bětûlâ mē‘ammāyw) according to Lev 21:14. Cathcart and Gordon argue that the Targumist’s understanding of “filthy garments” as “wives unfit for priests” derives from references in Deut 27:20; Ruth 3:9; and Ezek 16:8 that indicate the custom of claiming a wife by throwing one’s garment over her.18 Of course, such an association provides the justification for introducing the criterion of priestly impropriety at the time of the building of the Second Temple. The Targumist chooses not to charge Joshua ben Jehozadak directly as in Ezra 10:18 – he is after all identified here as the High Priest – rather, the Targumist portrays Joshua’s sons as the ones who are married to unfit women. In this respect, the Targumic text points to an identifiable sin on the part of the priests and calls for Joshua to see to

16 For discussion of the translational characteristics and theological concerns expressed in Targum Jonathan, see Cathcart and Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 1–9; Churgin, Targum Jonathan, 111/339–125/353; Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, 129–227. 17 Cathcart and Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 191. For discussion of the Haggadic background to this modification, see Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets, 108–116. 18 Cathcart and Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 191; cf. Hanhart, Sacharja, 169.

386

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

it that his sons divorce the wives in question so that they might be purified from profane action and therefore consecrated as priests for service in the holy Temple. It is noteworthy that the House of Eli lost its priestly role as a result of the sins of his sons, Hophni and Phineas, who among other things are charged with lying with the women who served at the sanctuary in 1 Sam 2:22. Insofar as Jer 7:12–15 indicates that the sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed as a result of the people’s wickedness, it would seem that the Targumist – writing in the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. – surreptitiously identifies the sins of the priests as a potential cause for the Temple’s destruction in later times. Nevertheless, Targum Jonathan makes it very clear that the issue at hand is purification of the priestly line of Joshua ben Jehozadak, not an attempt to assign blame for the destruction of the Second Temple. Verses 4–5aα portray the commands that Joshua see to the divorce of the unfit wives as part of the process by which he and his family are purified and consecrated for holy service in the Temple. Whereas the Hebrew text portrays the angel’s statement “to those standing before him,” Hebrew, ’el hā‘ōmědîm lěpānāyw, the Aramaic text employs the phrase, lědimšāměšîn qŏdāmôhî, “to those serving before him,” to emphasize an address made to the priests who would be serving in the Temple rather than an unspecified group of bystanders. The command that Joshua drive out of his house the wives who are unfit for priests then becomes an act of purification in which Joshua oversees his sons’ divorce from their unfit wives which in turn prepares his house for holy service in the Temple. In keeping with the Hebrew text, the actions portrayed here are characterized as removing the sins of Joshua, although the Targum’s collective portrayal indicates that the entire House of Joshua ben Jehozadak is involved. Although the Hebrew text indicates the removal of the filthy garments and their replacement with maḥǎlāṣôt, “festal/priestly robes,” the Targum employs the term zākěwān, “righteous deeds, righteousness,” to emphasize the moral dimension symbolized by the change in garments. The Targum further changes the initial wā’ōmar, “and I said,” in v. 5 to wā’ǎmār, “and he said,” to eliminate confusion in the sequence of statements. The Hebrew text is somewhat awkward at this point in suggesting that Zechariah is both narrator and participant in the text, whereas the Targum portrays Zechariah strictly as narrator. The text then proceeds with the command to set a clean turban on Joshua’s head and to make him marry a wife suitable for the priests in place of the Hebrew expression, “and they dressed him in garments.” This becomes the only instance in which the Targum suggests that Joshua had married an unfit woman as his sons had done (cf. Ezra 10:18). The third and final major section of this text in vv. 5bβ–10 again portrays Joshua’s charge as High Priest, but the Aramaic text modifies a number of statements to emphasize its own reading of the passage. Most

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

387

notably, it points to the future resurrection of the dead in the days of the Messiah, the revelation of the Messiah himself, Joshua’s future role among the Seraphim in the heavenly Temple, and the means by which the enigmatic stone mentioned in this passage will reveal this destiny. The passage begins as in the Hebrew with notices that the angel is standing by and that he conveys the statements by YHWH that invest Joshua as High Priest. Modifications in the protasis or the initial conditions laid down for Joshua in v. 7aα include the change from Hebrew, ’im bidrākay tēlēk, “if in my paths you walk,” to Aramaic, ’im bě’ôrḥān dětāqěnān qŏdāmay těhāk, “if in paths which are good/righteous before me you walk,” and the change from Hebrew wě’im ’et-mišmartî tišmōr, “and if my charge you observe,” to Aramaic, wě’im yāt māṭǎrāt mêměrî tîṭār, “and if the charge of my Memra’ you keep.” Both changes protect the holiness of YHWH by eliminating any suggestion of anthropomorphism; the former instance indicates distance from the divine presence by stating that the righteous paths are before YHWH and not paths on which YHWH might literally walk, and the later employs the characteristic expression Memra’ to hypostatize divine presence in the form of YHWH’s speech or expression.19 Modifications also occur in the statement of the apodosis in v. 7aβ–b, which defines Joshua’s role as High Priest in charge of the Temple. A simple modification from Hebrew tādîn ’et-bêtî, “you shall govern my House,” becomes Aramaic, tědîn lědimšāměšîn běbêt maqděšî, “you shall govern those who serve in the house of my Sanctuary.” Such change specifies Joshua’s role in overseeing the priests. A more substantive modification occurs in the final portion of the verse, wěnātattî lěkā mahlěkîm bên hā‘ōmědîm hā’ēlleh, “and I will grant you access among these standing (here),” to Aramaic, ûb’ǎḥāyût mîtayā’ ’ǎḥênāk wě’atên lāk raglîn měhālěkān bên sirpayā’ hā’ilên, “and at the resurrection of the dead, I will grant to you feet walking between these Seraphim.” This is a particularly important modification because it demonstrates that the Targumist does not read this text in relation strictly speaking to the rebuilding of the Second Temple but to the days of the Messiah (see below) when the dead will be resurrected and Joshua will serve in the heavenly Temple. The designation of “those standing” as “Seraphim” draws upon the portrayal of the heavenly retinue in Isaiah’s vision of YHWH (Isaiah 6) and points to the time beyond that of the Second Temple. The Targumist renders the problematic mahlěkîm, “access,” with the more literal raglîn měhālěkān, “feet walking,” to indicate simply Joshua’s presence among the heavenly retinue in the future. The concluding statements concerning the signs of YHWH’s actions in vv. 8–10 likewise modify the Hebrew text to point to the future days of the 19 For discussion of the concept of the Memra’ in Targum Jonathan, see Smolar and Aberbach, Studies, 130–131.

388

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

Messiah. The Targumist modifies the Hebrew statement concerning the role of Joshua’s colleagues as ’anšê môpēt, “men of sign,” to the more complicated Aramaic phrase, gûbrîn kāšěrîn lěmā‘ǎbār lěhôn nisā’, “men fit (kosher) to do for them a miracle.” Whereas the Hebrew phrase indicates that Joshua’s colleagues are signs or testimony that YHWH will act to remove the guilt of the land – they are after all priests, and the atonement for wrongdoing is a major part of their role – the Targum portrays them as fit or worthy of sign, i.e., they do not themselves demonstrate YHWH’s intention to act on behalf of the people; instead they are now fit as a result of their purification to have miracles done by YHWH for them. YHWH’s act becomes far more distant in the Targum. Whereas the Hebrew maintains that YHWH is bringing ‘abdî ṣemaḥ, “my servant, the Branch,” a clear reference to Zerubbabel, the Davidic heir to the throne, who is understood to be the object of Messianic prophecies concerning the coming of the ṣemaḥ or “Branch” figure, the Targum identifies this figure as ‘abdî měšîḥā’ wěyitgělēy, “My servant, the Messiah, who will be revealed.” The Targum therefore shifts the terms of this text from an identifiable, historical, royal figure of the time of the building of the Second Temple to an unspecified future messianic figure to be revealed in days to come. To serve this purpose, the Targum also modifies the references to the stone with seven eyes, apparently the engraved diadem worn on the turban of the High Priest. Whereas the Hebrew text refers to this stone as ’eben ’aḥat šib‘â ‘ênāyim, “one stone (with) seven eyes,” a reference to the seven letters that would constitute the inscription “holy to YHWH” in Hebrew, the Targum renders this expression in Aramaic as ’abnā’ ḥǎdā’ šib‘āh ḥāzyān lah, “one stone which has seven facets.” Although the term ḥāzyān, “facets,” suggests a precious stone with seven reflective surfaces, the understanding of this image cannot be limited simply to the esthetic qualities of precious stones. The term ḥāzyān is based on the root ḥzy, “to envision, perceive,” and it is generally read as a reference to envisioning the divine, clearly based on the Hebrew term “eyes,” i.e., the stone becomes a means to discern divine purpose in the rendition of Targum Jonathan. Indeed, this function is reinforced by the reformulation of the Hebrew phrase, hiněnî měpatēaḥ pittuḥāh, “behold, I am engraving its inscription,” a reference to the inscription on the High Priest’s diadem, to the Aramaic, hā’ǎnā’ gālēy ḥāzaytā’, “behold I am revealing its facets/visions.” Such a rendition of course emphasizes the role of the stone in envisioning the coming days of the Messiah. The final modification of the text from Hebrew, “you shall call, each to his neighbor, to (sit) under a vine and to (sit) under a fig tree,” to “you shall call, each to his colleague, to (sit) under the fruit (pêrê) of his vine and to (sit) under the fruit (pêrê) of his fig tree,” simply fills out an otherwise enigmatic statement, i.e., one sits under fruit, not under the vine and fig tree themselves.

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

389

IV Although Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah 3 is in the first instance an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text, the many substantive changes introduced into the Aramaic text point to a highly interpretative version of Zechariah 3. Interpreters often tend to treat the Targum and other versions of the Hebrew Bible as variations of the basic Hebrew text, but it is important to recognize the extant to which the Targumist has created a new literary text, which is both dependent on the earlier Hebrew version but which also displays its own set of theological concerns and viewpoints. The above analyses of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts raise several important issues. First, the Hebrew text of Zechariah 3 presents a largely retrospective account of the prophet’s visionary experience that looks forward to the ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak, the priestly figure who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel to rebuild the Temple during the early reign of King Darius I of Persia (see Ezra 2–3), as High Priest for service in the newly constructed Temple. The text is retrospective insofar as it presents a vision that Zechariah purportedly experienced at some time in the past. It is prospective in that the vision points forward to an event that will be realized at some point in the future. When its retrospective and prospective aspects are considered together, the Hebrew version of Zechariah 3 must be set in a very limited historical context that spans the period from Joshua ben Jehozadak’s return to Jerusalem in 522 B.C.E. through the completion of the Temple in 515 B.C.E. Zechariah 3 looks forward to the coming of a royal figure named only as ṣemaḥ, “Branch,” a reference to the Davidic figure Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel who returned to Jerusalem at the same time to participate in the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Jerusalem. When read in relation to Zechariah 1–8, Zechariah 9–14 lays out an anticipated scenario of YHWH’s intervention in the world in the aftermath of the restoration of the Temple and the Davidic monarchy to force the recognition of divine power and sovereignty by the nations at large. Although Hag 2:20–23 anticipates Zerubbabel’s role as King under YHWH’s authority, he apparently never ascended the throne for reasons that must remain unknown. Despite the proto-apocalyptic pretensions of Zechariah 9–14 and the book as a whole, Zechariah 3 must continue to be read in relation to a relatively narrow historical framework. Targum Jonathan’s version of Zechariah 3 shares certain characteristics with its Hebrew predecessor, but it also deviates substantially. It is retrospective insofar as it reports Zechariah’s vision in terms similar to those of the Hebrew text. It reinforces its retrospective viewpoint by pointing to the causes of Joshua’s impurity, i.e., the marriages of the priests, including Joshua ben Jehozadak, to foreign women who were not suitable marriage

390

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

partners for the priests (Ezra 10:18). In this respect, the Targumist has played an important interpretative role in specifying what specifically had compromised the priest’s holy status by considering other sources concerned with the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem and drawing conclusions from them. The Targumist takes care to specify that Joshua’s sons are the primary culprits, although v. 5 suggests that Joshua himself had married an unfit wife. Such a presentation changes the terms by which the text presents the ordination of Joshua ben Jehozadak. Any priest would have to be ordained for service at the altar; the absence of a legitimate altar prior to the construction of the Second Temple would preclude such ordination for Joshua until the Temple was built. Prior to ordination, Joshua would have been viewed as unfit to serve at the altar. But Targum Jonathan’s rendition of the vision eschews any notion that this is Joshua’s initial ordination as a priest; indeed, the text already refers to him as “the High Priest,” which suggests some sort of prior ordination or status even though the Temple had not yet been rebuilt. But by specifying that Joshua and his sons were married to unfit women, the Targumist identifies illicit marriage as the primary cause of Joshua’s impurity, addresses the problem, and sees to it that Joshua is rendered fit to serve at the altar during the course of the vision. This is not the ordination of a new priest; it is an ordination that purifies an already established priest. Unlike the basic premise of ordination that one is impure until properly consecrated, it is also an ordination that points to a specific and deliberate sin that would have rendered Joshua unfit for service at the altar. Our Targumist, drawing on Ezra 10:18, implicitly asserts that Joshua had deliberately compromised his holy status and that Joshua had to be purified as a consequence of this act. This raises a further aspect of the retrospective character of the Aramaic text; Targum Jonathan is written in the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E. Whereas the Hebrew version of Zechariah 3 anticipates the inauguration of the new Temple, Targum Jonathan presupposes its demise. By pointing to a deliberate sin on the part of Joshua ben Jehozadak and his priestly line, the Targumist raises Joshua’s conduct as a potential cause for the demise of his own priestly line as well as the demise of the Temple. Although Joshua ben Jehozadak’s descendants served as High Priests in the Temple for several centuries, the line was removed and replaced during the course of the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucid empire.20 The first move was by the Seleucid Antiochus IV who removed the High Priest Onias III (?–175 B.C.E.) and replaced him 20 For discussion of the history of the priesthood during the Second Temple period, see James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004).

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

391

with his brother Jason (175–172 B.C.E.) in order to gain greater access to Temple funds.21 Antiochus later removed Jason and replaced him with Menelaus 172–162 B.C.E.), who was a priest but not of the line of Joshua ben Jehozadak, based on Menelaus’s bribe and offer of more funds. Menelaus’s successor, Alcimus/Yaqim (162 or 160–159 B.C.E.) was also not of the line of Joshua. With the rise of the Hasmonean family to the High Priesthood, beginning with Jonathan in 152 B.C.E., the line of Joshua ben Jehozadak had come to an end. The disruption of the high priestly line preceded the destruction of the Temple itself in 70 C.E. Although the disruption of the high priestly line can hardly be seen as the historical cause of the Temple’s destruction, it forms a component in a sequence of events that saw the decline of the Temple and its ultimate demise. These considerations point to the prospective character of the Aramaic text. Whereas as the Hebrew text of Zechariah 3 has a relatively limited prospective character in relation to the establishment of the Second Temple, the Aramaic text is not so constrained. The fictive setting of the narrative remains in the time of the construction of the Second Temple, but having been written in the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction, it takes much greater liberty in envisioning the future. This is evident first of all in the wording of Joshua’s commission in v. 7 that YHWH will grant him feet to walk between the Seraphim. The commission begins by stating that it will be realized at the time of the resurrection of the dead, so the reader already knows that the Targum envisions a time well beyond the period of the Second Temple. By referring to the Seraphim, the Targumist draws on Isaiah’s vision of YHWH’s retinue in Isaiah 6 to specify that Joshua’s role will be realized well beyond his own lifetime when he serves in the heavenly Temple where the Seraphim are to be found. The orientation to the distant future is further specified by the statement in v. 8 that Joshua’s colleagues are men worthy of a sign or miracle, particularly when that miracle is defined as the future coming of the Messiah; indeed, Targum Jonathan makes sure to alert the reader that the Messiah is yet to be revealed. Such a contention moves well beyond the standard historical interpretations of the ṣemaḥ figure in the Hebrew text; by the time of the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction, it could be safely concluded that Zerubbabel was not the Messiah, even if he was the ṣemaḥ figure. Although many interpreters are content to focus on the messianic element as the key issue in this text,22 the matter does not end there. The role of the High Priest and the Temple are crucial here. Our text presents 21

For the following, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 188–239. In addition to the standard commentaries on Zechariah, see Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College; New York: KTAV, 1974). 22

392

Part 6: Post-Biblical Literature

the High Priest and Temple as portents for the coming of the Messiah and the future redemption of the land of Israel through the agency of the heavenly Temple and Joshua’s future service there among the Seraphim. This points to the turban that is placed on his head during the course of the ordination ceremony and Targum Jonathan’s treatment of the diadem or stone inscribed with the expression, “Holy to YHWH,” that is placed atop the High Priest’s turban. The Hebrew text clearly understands the diadem and its inscription as a sign that the reestablishment of the Temple serves YHWH’s purposes to grant peace to the land of Israel. Targum Jonathan, however, sees in the diadem a means to envision the future manifestation of the heavenly Temple, the Messiah, and the eschatological peace for the land of Israel. As noted in the discussion above, the Targum’s rendition of “the seven eyes” of the stones as “the seven facets” employs the Aramaic term, ḥāzyān, based on the root ḥzy, “to envision, perceive.” The Aramaic term is a standard term for prophecy and visionary experience, and it thereby conveys the notion that the diadem functions as a means to envision the future. Indeed, the Aramaic text in v. 9 makes sure to state that the seven facets of the stone provide the means by which YHWH reveals the future, including the coming of the Messiah and the eschatological peace for the land of Israel. The Targum clearly portrays the Temple and the High Priest as agents of visionary experience and revelation concerning YHWH’s plans for future acts of restoration and blessing. Such an assertion would well express the hopes of the surviving Jewish population of the land in the aftermath of the failed revolt against Rome (and even more so in the aftermath of the failed Bar Kochba revolt of 132–135 C.E.). These aspects are striking, particularly when readers consider the role of the Temple and priesthood in relation to visionary experience. Indeed, Leviticus 16, with its emphasis on the High Priest’s vision of YHWH in the Holy of Holies at Yom Kippur and its concern with the scapegoat ceremony that plays such an important role in the atonement of the people of Israel and its security over the course of the coming year point to the priesthood and Temple as agents of visionary experience, revelation, and future blessing. It is therefore particularly important that scholars are coming to recognize this role as well. One might note recent work that points to the priestly context of apocalyptic literature and thereby challenges assertions that apocalyptic derives primarily from prophecy that is opposed to the priesthood.23 One might also note that apocalyptic literature of the late Second Temple period has much in common with the Merkavah literature of the early Rabbinic period, insofar as both attempt to envision 23 Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); idem, The Apocalyptic Literature (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003).

24. Targum Jonathan’s Reading of Zechariah 3

393

the heavenly world in an effort to discern divine will and purpose. Indeed, the Merkavah literature appears to develop out of earlier apocalyptic texts and concerns. 24 Finally, one might note that the Merkavah literature, e.g., the Heikhalot Rabbati, identifies a priestly figure, Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, purportedly the descendant of the later High Priests, as the visionary mystic or agent of divine revelation and the third gate of the Temple as the locus of such revelation.25 Although Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah 3 is a far cry from the developed visionary experience of the apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period and the Heikhalot literature of the rabbinic period, its construction of the role of the High Priest and the Temple in such experience leaves much to ponder.26 With its portrayal of the High Priest and the Temple as portents of the yet to be realized heavenly Temple, Targum Jonathan’s rendition of Zechariah 3 presents a text that leads its reader to consider issues and images raised in the apocalyptic and Heikhalot texts. Insofar as the Targums were produced for public reading in the synagogue, our text could easily serve as an enticement or gateway to the reading of such purportedly esoteric texts. Further research on this matter has the potential to illumine the interrelationship between the publicly-read Targumic literature and the esoteric Heikhalot texts.

24

Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980), who argues that the Merkavah/Heikhalot literature develops out of earlier apocalyptic literature. 25 Heikhalot Rabbati 16:2. For a critical edition of Heikhalot Rabbati, see Shlomoh Aharon Joseph Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot (2 vols.; 2 nd edition; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Cook, 1951–1954), 1:67–161 (see also Peter Schäfer, ed., Synopse zur HekhalotLiteratur [TSAJ 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981], §§ 81–306). A partial English translation of the Wertheimer edition of the Heikhalot Rabbati appears in David R. Blumenthal, Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader (New York: KTAV, 1978), 53– 91. For discussion of the Heikhalot Rabbati, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 150–173. For the tradition that R. Ishmael ben Elisha was a priest, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1972), 356 n. 3; Rachel Elior, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism (Oxford and Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), 240–246; Gary G. Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (4 vols.; SJLA 19.1–4; Leiden: Brill, 1976–1982), esp. 4:212–218, who expresses great caution in reconstructing the details of R. Ishmael’s life. 26 For recent discussion, see Elior, The Three Temples, who argues that disenfranchised priestly circles were instrumental in developing the Heikhalot literature.

2

1

Source Index Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 25:19–35:29

4, 204, 214, 369 118

Exodus 28:36–38 34:11–17 34:11–18

17:16 17:17 17:18–20 17:18b Isaiah

383 352 353

–, Book of

Leviticus 7:25 16 17–26 18 23:15–16a 23:15–16 23:15a 23:18 25:8 27:3

368 26, 130, 191, 236, 244, 382, 392 27, 192 369 338–340, 342–345 337 338–340, 342 366, 368, 374 339–340, 342–345 350

1 1–4 1–12 1–33 1–39

Numbers 2 7 26:2 28:11 28:27

351 351 350 366–368, 374 366, 374

2:2 2:2–4

352–353 342 358, 360 347–348, 350–351, 353–359 348, 356, 360

5:11–14 6

Deuteronomy 7:1–7 16:9 17:14–16a 17:14–20 17:15

349, 361 353, 361 354–355, 357, 359 352

2:6–21 2:6–22 5–12 5:1–7

6:1–13

9, 13–14, 21–25, 29, 32, 35, 52, 62–67, 69–70, 72, 74–75, 77–78, 82, 92, 94– 99, 101–103, 106, 108–114, 164, 167, 180, 188, 191, 201 83–86, 89, 101, 103 52, 64, 78, 85, 96, 99, 101–102, 115 79, 93, 163, 192 4 4, 7–10, 21–22, 44, 51–52, 55, 58–59, 65, 67–68, 71, 73, 76, 79–81, 84, 89, 92, 97, 99, 111–112, 131, 159, 163, 188, 190, 198, 253, 265– 266, 269 107, 305 29, 66, 107, 111, 243, 383 72–74 70 51–52, 54, 62 66–67, 75, 79, 81, 86, 93, 99 68 8, 12, 103, 106, 190, 192, 373, 387, 391 189

396 7:2–9:6 8:16 8:16–17 8:16–18 8:16–23 8:16–9:6 8:17 8:18–9:6 8:19 8:19–20 8:19–9:6 8:19b 8:20–22 8:20–9:6 8:20a 8:20b 8:20b–22 8:20b–9:6 8:21 8:21–22 8:22 8:22–23 8:23 8:23aβ+b 9:1–6 10:5–34 10:5–12:6 10:20–26 10:27 10:27–11:9 10:28–32 10:33–34 11 11:1–5 11:1–9 11:1–16

11:1–12:5 11:10–16 12:1–6

Source Index 44 37, 41, 45, 47–48, 62, 107 37, 45, 47 36 35 13, 35–36, 45, 47– 48, 62–63, 107 46–47 37, 46–47 36–39, 46–48 40 36–39, 46–47 38, 40 36 38–39, 46–47 42 36, 40 39–40, 42, 44, 46, 47 39, 46 36, 40–42, 47, 63 36, 40, 42 36, 41–42, 107 42 35–36, 42, 48–49, 107 36, 43, 46 44–45, 47, 48, 50, 62, 96, 100, 103, 111 50–51, 54–55, 58–61 52–55, 59, 63 54 52–53, 60, 63 54, 63 59 52–54 13, 22, 50–51, 54, 56, 60, 104, 109– 110, 163, 382 51, 55 53 50–52, 54–58, 62– 63, 66, 96, 100, 102, 104–106, 108, 110– 111, 156–157, 162– 164, 201, 230, 383 13 92 54, 57

13 13–23 13:8 14:1–2 17 17:1–11 17:6 17:6–7 17:12 17:12–14 19:24–25 21:2 24–27 24:1–13 24:13 24:16 24:21–23 24–26 25:4–5 25:10b–12 25:11b–12 26:1–6 26:5 26:7–18 26:7–19 26:17–18 27 27:1 27:1–13 27:2 27:2–5 27:2–5(6) 27:2–6 27:2–13 27:3–5 27:6 27:7 27:7–9 27:7–11 27:7–13 27:8

75, 99, 198 6, 65–67, 76, 96, 111, 197–198 74–76 66 68–69, 83–85, 92 76, 83 53, 66, 67–69, 76, 84, 92 84 69, 76, 83, 92 69, 76, 92 66 66, 69–71, 76 12–13, 64–70, 72, 75–80, 82, 88, 91– 92, 111 68 53, 67–69, 76, 92 66–67, 69–70, 76 70 91 67, 71–72, 76 72 67, 70–73, 76 73–74 67, 70–71, 73, 76 74 75 67, 70, 74–76 13, 66–67, 75–76, 79, 81–86, 88, 92– 93, 99 69, 75, 80–81, 83, 86, 91, 211 67 66, 75, 77, 79, 84– 85, 91–93 66, 79 79 75, 81–82, 85, 86, 88, 90, 93 75, 91–92 86–88, 90 82–84, 87, 93 85, 88 81, 85 85 88 89

397

Source Index 27:8–13 27:9 27:9–11 27:10 27:10–11 27:12–13 28:16 32:1–8 32:1–20 33:1 34–66 36–37 40–48 40–55

40–66 44:28 45:1 45:1–8 49–54 49–55 52:1 52:7 53:10 54 54:17 54:17b 55 55:3 56:1–8 56–59 56–66 60–62 60:3–18 60:21–22 61 61:1–4 61:5–9 61:10–11 62:10–12 63–66 66:1–2 66:7–8

89–90 82–84 83 83–84 80–82, 85–86, 88–91 67, 75–76, 80–83, 86, 88–89, 91 383 111 62, 96, 100 67, 69–71, 76 4, 100 10, 61–62, 195, 275 114–115, 117 4, 9, 14, 21–22, 95, 99, 114–115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131, 153 10, 12, 62, 94, 99, 106, 115, 117 63, 180 63, 117, 138, 180 117 98, 327 114 277–278 274, 277–278 95, 97 97–99 95, 97 97, 99–100, 102 12, 95–96, 99–100, 102–103, 110 63 102–105 102, 105 4, 21–22, 95, 99–102, 104, 106, 110, 112 96, 102–103, 106, 110, 112 107 107–108 95, 108 107 107 107 109 102 63 74

66:18–23 66:18–24

66 112

Jeremiah –, Book of

1–10 1–25 1:1–3 1:4–10 1:11–15 2:1–4:2 7 7–10 7:1

7:2–9:10 9:11–10:25 9:12–10:25 10:5–10 23:1–8

23:9–40 26–52 27–28 30–31 31:27–30 32–33 32:26–44 33:1–18 33:2–18 33:14–26 33:19–22 33:23–26

4, 6, 14, 23–25, 121, 123–124, 135–138, 147, 150–152, 154– 156, 165–168, 178, 180–181 14, 135, 137, 140– 141, 144, 146–153 4 138–139, 144–145, 152, 164 139–141, 144–145, 148–149, 152, 158 8 127 24, 137, 142–145, 149–151, 169, 298 137, 142–145, 150– 151 36, 137–138, 142– 145, 148–149, 195, 259, 270, 272, 293, 352–353 142–143 142–143 149–150 144, 146–147, 153 12, 14, 25, 154–158, 160, 162–165, 168– 169, 173, 178–180, 382 157, 160, 165–166, 180 4, 169 24, 152 25, 121–122, 124, 127–128, 164, 230 27 169–171, 175, 178 170, 172 170 173 12, 155–156, 166, 169, 177–181 170, 174, 178 170–171, 174

398

Source Index 37

Ezekiel –, Book of

1 1–3 1–39 1:1–3:15 1:27 4 6–7 8–11 16 17 18 23 25–32 26–28 26:1 26:1–21 26:1–28:19 26:2–21 26:3–21 26:15–21 27 27:1–36 28:1–10 28:11–19 28:20–23 28:20–26 28:24–26 29:1 29:17 33–39 33:21–39:29 33:23–33 34:1–31 35:1–36:15 36:16–37:14

14, 16, 26–27, 129, 182, 185–188, 195– 205, 207, 215, 217, 219–223, 231–233, 235, 244, 250, 327, 363, 372–375 187, 245, 369–371 8, 210 234, 243–244 189 371 12, 196, 220 194, 232 8, 26, 186, 193, 199, 244, 249 116, 129–130, 199, 226, 327 199, 243 7, 27, 192, 199, 363 194–195 197, 203 14, 197–199, 203– 210, 212, 215–216 203–206, 208, 211, 216 206, 211 203–204, 206, 216 205–206 206 207 212–213 206, 208 206, 208, 213 206, 208, 213 203–204 205–207, 209, 214, 216 204 205, 217 217–218 220 186, 200, 220–223, 228–229, 231, 244 221, 228 222 222 200, 221, 223, 228

37:15–28

38–39 38:1–39:29 40–48

45:18 45:20 46:6–7

12, 14, 130, 132, 186, 198, 200, 219, 221, 223, 225–229, 231, 235, 245 12, 14, 130, 132, 186, 200, 219–223, 226, 228–232, 235, 245 198, 200, 221, 228 222 16, 26, 130, 186– 187, 198–200, 210, 220–221, 228, 232– 235, 237, 239, 241– 247, 249–250 367, 374 367, 374 366

Twelve Prophets –, Book of

4–9, 11, 15, 20–21, 28–30, 125, 180, 189, 251, 258–259, 263–264, 268, 324, 326, 329–330, 332, 377–379, 383–385

Hosea –, Book of 1:2–2:3 2:4–3:5

125 126 126

Amos –, Book of 9:11–15

5, 10, 15, 28, 66, 187–188, 196, 254– 259, 262, 314 15, 230, 253, 255– 260, 262

Micah –, Book of 1:2–16 1:2–7:20 2 2:1–5

5, 15, 29, 66, 187, 243, 263–266, 268– 272, 314 269–271 269–270 15, 263–265, 267, 269, 271 265, 268

399

Source Index 2:1–5:14 2:6–11 2:12–13 3:1–5:14 4:1–5 6:1–16 7:1–20

270, 272 266, 268 15, 162, 263–264, 267–268, 271–272 270 29, 70 270, 272 270, 272

Nahum –, Book of 1:2–8 1:2–10 1:2–3:19 1:9–10 1:9–2:3 1:11 1:11–2:1 1:12–13 1:12–14 2:1 2:2 2:2–3:19 2:3

5, 15, 29, 214, 273– 282, 284–285 273, 278 282 278, 283 279, 282, 285 273 274, 276–277, 279– 281 283 280–281, 285 280–281, 285 274, 276–278, 280– 281 281–283 282–283, 285 282

Habakkuk –, Book of 1–2 1:1 1:2–4 1:2–2:20 1:5–11 1:12–17 2:1–20 2:4(5) 2:5–20 2:(5)6–20 2:18–20 3 3:2–19 3:3–15

5–6, 15, 286–288, 294–295, 298–299, 301–302, 308 6, 286–288, 295, 298–299, 301 286–288 289–291 287–290, 292 289, 295 290–291 292 287 292–293, 297–298, 302 286–287 293–295, 298, 302 7, 287–288, 299, 301 287 300, 302

Zephaniah –, Book of

1 1:1 1:1–2:3 1:2–6 1:2–18 1:2–3:20 1:3b–6 1:6 1:7–13 1:7–18 1:14–18 2:1–3 2:1–3:20 2:4

2:4–3:8 2:5 2:5–15 2:5–3:20 2:8–9 3:1–4 3:1–13 3:1–20 3:6–13 3:9–20 3:14–20 3:16–17 3:17 3:18 3:18–20

5, 12, 15, 29, 56, 128, 188, 196, 267, 286, 303–306, 308, 313–315, 318–326, 328–330, 332–333, 377–378 307–308, 310–311, 319, 331–332 128, 306, 324 324 308–310, 322, 333 304, 306–308, 312, 318, 322, 324, 333 324 308–309, 322, 333 310 310 308 310–311 12, 307–308, 313– 314, 318, 322, 324, 332–333 312–314, 318, 322, 324, 333 56, 303, 305, 308, 312–314, 320, 322– 325, 327, 332–333, 354 303, 324 314–315, 322, 333 315 314–315, 322, 333 315 7, 313, 316, 322 316–317, 322, 333 316 317 303, 324 15, 116, 128–129, 317, 323–326, 328, 330–332 318 318, 325, 327–330 329, 331 318

Haggai 2:20–23

177, 382, 389

400

Source Index

Zechariah –, Book of 1–8 3 3:3–5bα 3:5bβ–10 3:8–10 8:20–23 9–14

Canticles 5, 9, 29, 153, 167, 376–378 376, 379, 389 12–13, 16, 376, 378– 383, 389–391, 393 381, 385 381, 386 382–383, 387 29 29, 376, 389

4:11

370–371

Daniel 7

189, 373

Ezra 2–3 10:18

389 385–386, 390

Textual Versions Masoretic Text (MT) Jeremiah –, Book of 1–10 2–6 4:10 7–10 7:1–2

135–146, 148, 150– 151, 153, 168–169, 175, 178 141, 144, 150 141, 144 145 142–143, 145, 150– 151 145

8:10–12 10:5–10 23:1–8 26 31 33 33:1–26 33:14–26 33:16 36

146 147 178–179 141, 151 136 136, 168–169 169 169, 177–180 179 151

Septuagint (LXX) Jeremiah –, Book of 1–10 1:1–3 1:11–10:25 4:10 7:1–2 8:10–12 10:5–10 31 39–40 39:1

135–137, 140, 150– 153, 156, 180 144, 146–152 152 148–149, 152 145 145, 148 146, 153 146–147, 153 136 175–176, 178 175

39:1–40:13 39:26–44 40 40:1 40:1–13 52

176 175 168–169, 175 174–175, 178–179 175, 178–179 140

Habakkuk 2:4

292

Zephaniah 3:17 3:18

326 329

Peshitta 3:18

Zephaniah 3:17

326

329

401

Source Index

Targum Jonathan Isaiah 8:19–20

Zechariah 40

3 3:4–5a 3:8–10

Zephaniah 3:17

326, 329

12, 378–379, 383, 385, 387, 389–392 386 388

Apocrypha 1 Maccabees 14:27–45

2 Maccabees 362

4:30–38

361

Qumran and Murabba‘at Scrolls CDC 4:20–5:2

352

1QpHab 8:3

297

4QJerb

135, 147

11QTemple –, Book of 18:10b–13a 18:10–19:9 18:12 19:11–13 19:11–21:10 19:13 21:12–13 21:12–14a 21:12–23:02 21:13 46–66 Torat ham-Melek 56:12–17a 56:12–21 56:12–59:21

339–340, 344, 346 338, 340 337 340 342 337 339 344 337, 343 337 339 350 16, 346–347, 349– 350, 355, 359–360, 362 358 347, 351, 355 347

56:13 56:14 56:15 56:16 56:20 57 57–59 57:1–2 57:1–15 57:1–59:21 57:11 57:15–21 58:1–11 58:11–15 58:15–21 59 59:1–13 59:10 59:13–15 59:16–21

351, 360 356 348, 351, 356 349 356 347–349, 352, 361 347, 355, 357 357 348–352, 358 347 351 348, 352–353, 358, 361 353, 358 353–354, 358 354, 358, 362 354–355 354 355, 357 355 355

Murabba‘at Scroll Zephaniah 3:17 3:18

326, 330 331

402

Source Index

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah m. Ḥagigah 2:1

m. Menaḥot 369

4:2

365

Babylonian Talmud 45a

b. Ḥagigah 11b 11b–13a 11b–15a 11b–16a 13a 13a–b 13b

369, 374–375 369 369 369, 374–375 27, 370 370 364–365

b. Mo‘ed Qaṭan 5a

363

b. Šabbat 13b 33b

b. Menaḥot 44b–45b

27, 185, 364–365, 368

27, 185, 364 372

373

Josephus Antiquities –, Books of 12.242–247

216, 224, 349, 360– 362 360

12.252 13.249 13.288–292 13.380

360 349 349, 362 349, 361

2

Author Index Aberbach, M. 378 Abrahams, I.…369 Ackroyd, P. R.…62, 65, 301 Ådna, J.…377 Alcalay, R.…371 Alexander, P.…378 Allen, L. C.…136, 203, 219 Alt, A.…35–36, 44 Altmann, A.…91 Andersen, F. J.…1, 259, 263–264, 268 Anderson, B. W.…51, 167 Anderson, G. W.…319 Baker, D. W.…308 Bakhtin, M. M.…12 Ball, Jr., I. J.…306, 329 Barrick, W. B.…51 Barth, C.…223 Barth, H.…44, 51, 54, 58, 60 Barthélemy, D.…52 Baumann, G.…124, 327 Becker, J.…65 Becking, B.…274–275, 278, 280, 285 Beek, M. A.…266 Benoit, P.…330 Ben Zvi, E.…1, 15, 19, 263–265, 325– 326, 330 Berlin, A.…141 Bertholet, A.…219 Beuken, W. A. M.…94, 99 Bishop, M. M.…186 Blenkinsopp, J.…21–22, 114, 117, 220, 367 Bloch-Smith, E.…38 Block, D. I.…26, 203, 208, 219 Blum, E.…118 Blumenthal, D. R.…393 Boadt, L.…185 Boda, M. J.…16, 376 Bogaert, P.-M.…136, 156 Bolle, K. W.…210

Bonnard, P.-E.…99 Boring, E.…327 Bosshard-Nepustil, E.…21, 29 Bratcher, D. R.…294 Brettler, M.…141 Briant, P.…218 Briggs, C. A.…41 Bright, J.…155 Brin, G.…264 Brown, F.…41 Brownlee, W. H.…297, 344 Broyles, C. C.…101 Brueggemann, W.…64, 186, 204 Callender, D.…14 Campbell, A. F.…20, 118 Caquot, A.…286, 346 Carley, K. W.…219 Carr, D. M.…13, 163 Carroll, R. P.…38, 64, 80, 154, 169 Cashdan, E.…365 Cathcart, K. J.…276–277, 279–281, 378, 383, 385 Cazelles, H.…321 Charlesworth, J. H.…346 Childs, B. S.…5, 22, 51, 64–65, 97, 117, 273, 286, 303 Christensen, D. L.…56, 273–274, 278– 279, 284–285, 305, 319–320 Claburn, W. E.…320 Clements, R. E.…9, 19, 51, 55, 58–59, 61–62, 64–65, 68, 71–73, 75, 79–81, 84, 89, 92, 186, 203, 233 Clifford, R. J.…99 Clines, D. J. A.…101, 327 Coats, G. W.…25, 278, 288, 306 Coggins, R. J.…273–274, 298 Cohen, N. G.…292 Collins, T.…19 Conrad, E. W.…9, 14, 19, 22, 167, 376– 377

404

Author Index

Cook, S. L.…186, 197, 392 Cooke, G. A.…219 Cornill, C. H.…65, 67 Corral, M. A.…203, 216 Cross, F. M.…63 Cryer, F. H.…7, 189, 246 Daiches, S.…82 Dalman, G.…59 Dandamaev, M. A.…112 Darr, K. P.…26, 99, 185–186, 203, 219 Davies, P. R.…101 Delcor, M.…286, 346–347, 351–353, 356 Delsman, W. C.…65 De Troyer, K.…21, 156, 231, 254, 377 De Vries, S. J.…256, 269, 273 Diamond, A. R. P.…164, 231, 327 Donner, H.…59, 223 Dothan, T.…61 Driver, G. R.…35, 43 Driver, S. R.…41 Duguid, I.…26 Duhm, B.…1, 9, 67, 80, 94, 154 Eades, K. L.…20 Eaton, J. H.…286 Edler, R.…304, 323 Eichrodt, W.…81, 219 Eliade, M.…209 Elior, R.…393 Ellens, J. H.…15 Elliger, K.…286 Emerton, J. A.…35, 43, 63, 95, 276, 296–297, 302 Emmerson, G. I.…104 Enns, P.…1 Eshel, H.…43 Evans, C. A.…13, 67, 101 Everson, A. J.…14 Fackenheim, E. L.…20 Falk, Z.…348 Fischer, G.…136, 169 Fishbane, M.…4, 105, 363 Flannery-Dailey, F.…7, 189 Floyd, M. H.…16, 19, 379 Fohrer, G.…67, 73, 79–80, 219, 286, 301 Freedman, D. N.…259, 263–264, 268 Freedman, H.…365

Friebel, K. G.…223 Friedman, R. E.…188, 229 Galambush, J.…129, 197, 327 Gaster, T. H.…274 García Martínez, F.…95, 104 Gerleman, G.…307, 309, 329 Gerstenberger, E.…45 Gesenius, W.…68 Giesebrecht, F.…155 Ginsburg, H. L.…35, 43 Gitin, S.…61 Goldingay, J.…14, 114, 117, 168 Goldman, Y.…6, 25, 136, 155–156, 169, 173, 178 Goldstein, J.…362 Gordon, C.…91 Gordon, R. P.…329, 378, 383, 385 Gowan, D. E.…287 Graffy, A.…38, 222, 283 Graham, W. C.…284 Gray, G. B.…2, 38, 40, 69, 82 Grech, P.…65–66 Green, B.…12 Greenberg, M.…47, 186, 203, 219, 221, 234 Gruenwald, I.…393 Gunkel, H.…1, 157 Gunneweg, A. H. J.…287 Haag, H.…95 Hagstrom, D. G.…264, 268 Haldar, A.…284 Hallo, W. W.…58, 60 Halperin, D. J.…185, 369 Hals, R. M.…199, 203, 219, 233 Handy, L. K.…211 Hanhart, R.…379 Hanson, P. D.…99 Haran, M.…114, 233–234 Harper, W. R.…257 Hausmann, J.…104 Hayes, J. H.…14, 56, 130, 186, 235, 305, 320 Haynes, S. R.…1, 115, 138, 169, 205, 221, 235, 254, 268 Hayward, C. T. R.…224 Heidel, A.…210 Helmer, C. M.…21, 156, 231 Hengel, M.…346–349, 360

Author Index Henry, M.-L.…65, 81 Herrmann, J.…219 Herrmann, S.…154 Heschel, A. J.…167, 185 Hillers, D. R.…243, 264 Hitzig, F.…219 Høgenhaven, J.…35 Hoglund, K. G.…112 Holladay, Jr., W. L.…156, 166, 169, 300, 302 Hölscher, G.…8, 185, 233 Horowitz, W.…328, 332 Horst, F.…277 Humbert, P.…284, 286, 297 Hunter, A. V.…314 Irsigler, H.…304 Irvine, S.…37–38, 45, 53, 59 Izre’el, S.…213 Jackson, B. S.…348 Jacob, E.…75, 81 Jacobs, M. R.…11, 263–264, 268, 270 Jacobs, S. L.…167 Jacobsen, T.…129, 210, 212–213, 328 Jahnow, H.…207 Janowski, B.…377 Janzen, J. G.…135–136, 258, 287, 296, 298 Jastrow, M.…40 Jaubert, A.…338 Jeremias, J.…24, 156, 258, 273–275, 277, 286, 298, 300 Jöcken, P.…287 Johnson, M. D.…68, 295 Jones, D. R.…154 Joyce, P. M.…16, 236 Junker, H.…299 Kaiser, O.…45, 73–74, 79, 81, 84, 92– 93, 192, 276, 303 Kalimi, I.…13 Kampman, A. A.…266 Kapelrud, A. S.…211, 306, 316 Katzenstein, H. J.…203, 216 Kaufmann, Y.…96 Kelle, B. E.…14, 130, 186, 235 Keller, C.-A.…279, 284, 287, 294, 309– 310, 316 Kiesow, K.…117

405

Kilian, R.…35, 50 Kim, H. C. P.…14 Knierim, R.…1, 20, 138, 268, 278, 306 Knight, D. A.…1, 138, 269, 306 Koch, K.…113 Koenig, J.…80 Kohn, R. L.…185 Kovacs, B. W.…321 Kratz, R. G.…111 Krinetzki, G.…304–305 Kutsko, J. F.…27 Laato, A.…220 Labuschagne, C. J.…37 Lambert, W. G.…213, 328 Landy, F.…28 Langohr, G.…303 Lau, W.…105, 113 Leclerc, T. L.…22 Legasse, S.…286 Lemaire, A.…14, 132 Levenson, J. D.…20, 26, 186, 200, 214, 221, 230, 234, 242 Levey, S. H.…391 Levine, B. A.…338, 340, 342 Levine, É.…378 Lewis, T. J.…38–39 L’Heureux, C. E.…51 Linafelt, T.…23 Lindblom, J.…65, 67, 82 Long, B. O.…25, 278, 288, 306 Longman III, T.…1 Lovering, Jr., E. H.…23, 97, 105, 111 Lukonin, V. G.…112 Lundbom, J.…23, 25, 135–136, 169 Machinist, P.…58 Macho, A. D.…341 Macintosh, A. A.…69 Maier, C.…8, 24 Maier, J.…16, 346, 347, 349, 354 Malamat, A.…57, 320 Mandolfo, C.…15, 128 March, W. E.…67, 81 Marti, K.…80, 257, 299 Martin, J. D.…186, 203, 220, 233 Matties, G. H.…27 Mays, J. L.…138, 157, 235, 253, 257, 264–265, 268 McCarthy, C. C.…291

406

Author Index

McClellan, T. L.…218 McKane, W.…147, 154, 169, 263–264, 266, 269 McKeating, H.…185, 219 McKenzie, S. L.…1, 115, 138, 169, 205, 221, 253–254, 268 Meier, S. M.…205–206, 221 Mein, A.…16, 236 Melugin, R. F.…96, 99, 105, 113, 117, 167 Mendels, D.…346 Merendino, R. P.…114 Merrill, A. L.…57, 152, 160, 193 Metzner, G.…263 Meyers, C. L.…379 Meyers, E. M.…379 Milgrom, J.…194, 338, 346, 367 Milik, J. T.…330, 337 Milikowsky, C.…364 Millar, F.…349 Millar, W.…68 Millard, A. R.…213 Miller, J. M.…56, 305, 320 Moller, G. I.…20 Moore, M. B.…14, 130, 235 Mowinckel, S.…65, 155, 286, 299 Muilenberg, J.…10 Mulder, M.…378 Mullen, Jr., E. T.…211 Müller, H.-P.…38–39 Murray, D. F.…38, 283, 285 Na‘aman, N.…56 Nelson, R. D.…20 Neusner, J.…364 Nicholson, E. W.…24, 154 Niditch, S.…6, 234, 254 Nielsen, E.…286 Nielsen, K.…52 Nijland, C.…266 Nogalski, J. D.…28–29 O’Brien, M. A.…118 O’Connor, K. M.…164, 327 O’Connor, M. P.…37, 40, 312, 327 Oded, B.…305 Odell, M. S.…26, 186, 203 Oden, R. A.…210 Olmstead, A. T.…60 Orton, D. E.…15, 22

Otto, E.…287, 298 Otzen, B.…274 Overholt, T. W.…27, 57, 152, 160, 166, 193 Paden, W. E.…210 Page, S.…126 Parpola, S.…214 Patton, C. L.…186, 197 Paul, S. M.…28 Pauritsch, K.…106 Payne, D.…114 Peckham, B.…287 Perdue, L. G.…321 Petersen, D. L.…19, 21, 157, 268, 379 Philips, P. R.…327 Plöger, O.…73, 81 Pohlmann, K.-F.…186, 203, 219 Polley, M. E.…28 Pope, M. H.…211 Porton, G. G.…393 Pritchard, J. B.…10, 260, 298 Procksch, O.…65, 80 Rabin, C.…338 Rad, G. von…20, 186–188, 201 Redditt, P. L.…28, 92 Renaud, B.…25, 264, 273–275, 278–279, 284, 304, 308–312, 316, 323 Rendtorff, R.…22, 65, 101, 118, 225, 276, 304 Richards, K. H.…157, 268, 346 Richter, W.…9 Ricoeur, P.…210 Roberts, J. J. M.…71 Robinson, J. M.…20 Rosenberg, R.…276, 280 Rosenthal, J. M.…364 Rudolph, W.…80, 82, 136, 154–155, 158, 258, 264, 275, 280, 284, 287, 294, 303, 308, 316, 323 Ryckmans, J.…266 Sabottka, L.…308 Sanders, J. A.…13, 25, 63, 345 Sandoval, T. J.…15, 128 Sawyer, J. F. A.…97 Schäfer, P.…393 Schart, A.…28 Schenker, A.…136–137

Author Index Schmid, K.…155 Schneider, T. J.…326 Schniedewind, W.…215 Scholem, G.…393 Schramm, B.…103–104, 113 Schulz, H.…274 Schürer, E.…349 Schwartz, B. J.…13 Schweizer, H.…3, 138 Scott, R. B. Y.…65, 92 Sefati, Y.…129, 327–328 Sekine, S.…106 Sellin, E.… 256–257, 284, 286, 300 Seux, M.-J.…299 Seybold, K.…152, 274, 304, 323 Sharp, C. J.…24 Shaw, C. S.…268 Shead, A. G.…136, 153, 170, 172 Sheppard, G. T.…51, 67 Simon, U.…29 Simpson, W. K.…58 Skinner, J.…154 Smith, M. S.…38, 104, 211, 213 Smith, P. A.…104 Smolar, L.…378 Sommer, B. D.…12, 96, 115, 117, 162 Spencer, J. R.…51 Sperber, A.…40, 378 Stacey, W. D.…223, 225 Staub, J. J.…35 Steck, O. H.…29, 101, 104, 106, 109 Stemberger, G.…364 Sternberg, M.…11 Stinespring, W. F.…13, 67 Stipp, H. J.…155 Stöbe, H. J.…76, 81 Strack, H. L.…364 Striek, M.…323 Strong, J. T.…186 Stuhlmacher, P.…377 Stulman, L.…23, 164, 169 Sun, H. T. C.…20 Sweeney, M. A.…1, 4–13, 19–24, 26, 28–29, 31, 44, 52, 56, 59, 62–65, 67, 75, 77, 85, 91, 94, 96–97, 99, 101– 103, 105, 111–113, 115–116, 118, 120, 122, 125, 127–132, 137–138, 141, 152, 156–157, 159, 163–164, 167–169, 180, 186–191, 193, 198, 200, 204–205, 208, 221, 225, 229–

407 231, 235–236, 244–246, 253–254, 259, 263–269, 287, 295, 299, 324, 327, 369, 372, 375–378, 383

Talmon, S.…338 Tardieu, M.…286 Thiel, W.…24, 154 Thomas, D. W.…276 Thompson, M. E. W.…36 Thorion, Y.…40 Tigay, J. H.…156 Tov, E.…135–136, 156, 377 Trible, P.…10, 254 Tromp, N. J.…42–43 Tucker, G. M.…1, 51, 138, 269, 278, 288, 306 Tull (Willey), P. K.…10–12, 97–98, 115, 117, 162, 254, 327 Vanderkam, J. C.…380, 390 Van der Kooij, A.…5, 377 Van der Woude, A. S.…266 Van Dijk, H. J.…203 Van Henten, J. W.…94 Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M.…14, 104 Van Wolde, E.…3 Vermes, G.…344, 349 Vermeylen, J.…50–51, 55, 58, 60, 62, 65–69, 72–73, 79, 81, 83, 93, 101 Vervenne, M.…14 Vlaardingerbroek, J.…323, 329 Volz, P.…154 Vuilleumier, R.…279 Wacholder, B. Z.…346 Wacker, M.-T.…327 Wagenaar, J. A.…263–264, 266–267 Walcot, P.…328 Waltke, B. K.…37, 40, 312 Watts, J. D. W.…100, 286 Weinfeld, M.…23, 188, 229, 346 Weis, R. D.…6, 13, 31, 163, 278, 288 Weiser, A.…257 Wells, Jr., R. D.…105 Wendel, U.…24, 156 Werblowsky, R. J. Z.…364 Werner, W.…44 Wertheimer, S. A. J.…189, 393 Westermann, C.…7, 99, 117, 265 Wevers, J. W.…219

408

Author Index

Whedbee, J. W.…97 Whitley, C. F.…35 Widengren, G.…214 Wiessner, G.…35 Wigoder, G.…364 Wilcoxen, J. A.…27, 57, 152, 160, 193 Wildberger, H.…36, 44, 50, 54, 56, 58, 64–71, 73–75, 79–82, 85–87, 93, 163 Williamson, C. M.…255 Williamson, H. G. M.…63 Willi-Plein, I.…264, 266 Willis, J. T.…269 Wills, L.…347, 350 Wilson, A. M.…347, 350

Wilson, R. R.…232 Wolff, H. W.…187, 258, 264–266 Wright, D. P.…212 Wright, J. E.…136 Yadin, Y.…16, 172, 337–338, 346 Yeivin, I.…340 Zalcman, L.…323, 325, 327 Ziegler, J.…281 Zimmerli, W.…186, 189, 199, 203–204, 220, 223, 233, 248 Zobel, H.-J.…104