Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology and Reception 9780567667175, 9780567667199, 9780567667182

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

654 Formerly Journal of the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Carolyn J. Sharp, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

STUDIES IN ISAIAH

History, Theology and Reception

Edited by Tommy Wasserman, Greger Andersson and David Willgren

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2017 © Tommy Wasserman, Greger Andersson and David Willgren, 2017 Tommy Wasserman, Greger Andersson and David Willgren have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-5676-6717-5 978-0-5676-6718-2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, volume 654 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

C on t en t s

Preface vii Abbreviations ix Contributors xiii Introduction xv Part I History and Theology The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination H. G. M. Williamson 3 Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah Antti Laato 22 The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch Stefan Green 47 Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah Hallvard Hagelia 67 Antwort Gottes: Isaiah 40–55 and the Transformation of Psalmody David Willgren 96 From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1: A Study in the Longue Durée Ola Wikander 116 Part II Reception Paul, An Isaianic Prophet? Karl Olav Sandnes 139

vi Contents

Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66: Weyiqtiol or Wayyiqtiol in Isaiah 63.1-6 as a Case of Early Jewish Interpretation Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

157

Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa Knut Holter 181 Bibliography 200 Index of References 219 Index of Authors 228 Index of Subjects 232

P refa c e

On April 23–25, 2015, Örebro School of Theology hosted the conference The Words of the Prophets, their meaning and history of reception— with special focus on the book of Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets with generous support from the Swedish Research Council. The conference brought together seventeen scholars from five different countries who offered papers and responses, a selection of which are published in this volume. We would first like to thank our colleague, Dr. Lennart Boström, who orchestrated the conference which proved to be a great success. We also take this opportunity to thank all the participants who gave valuable input, in particular Dr. Bo Krister Ljungberg, Prof. Göran Eidevall, Prof. Fredrik Lindström, and Dr. Blaženka Scheuer, who offered responses to the main papers. For this volume, we have selected a number of excellent contributions by leading scholars from Great Britain, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, which all focus on different aspects of the book of Isaiah, its history, theology, and reception. It is our hope that these studies will shed new light on the book of Isaiah, which is arguably one of the most complex and yet also central books in the Hebrew Bible, as reflected in its rich history of interpretation to this day. Finally, we are very grateful to Miriam Cantwell, Assistant Editor of Bloomsbury T&T Clark, to Duncan Burns who helped us with copy editing and indexing, and to the series editors Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein for accepting the volume in the esteemed Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies and for seeing it through to publication. Tommy Wasserman Greger Andersson David Willgren

A b b rev i at i ons

AB ABD AIL AJSL AOAT AOTC ARAB ArBib ATD ATM ATDan AuOr BASOR BCOTWP BECNT BEvT BHT Bib BibEnc BJS BKAT BOTSA BSOAS BZAW CBQ CBQMS CC CHANE ConBOT DJD EB ECC ECL EdF

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Ancient Israel and Its Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Daniel David Luckenbill. Chicago, 1926–27 The Aramaic Bible Das Alte Testament Deutsch Altes Testament und Moderne Acta Theologica Danica Aula Orientalis Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Encyclopedia Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff Bulletin for Old Testament Studies in Africa Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Continental Commentaries Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Echter Bibel Eerdmans Critical Commentary Early Christianity and Its Literature Erträge der Forschung

x EJL FAT FOTL FRLANT

Abbreviations

Early Judaism and Its Literature Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d. ed. Oxford, 1910 HAR Hebrew Annual Review Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HCOT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HKAT Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus HSHJ Harvard Semitic Monographs HSM Harvard Theological Review HTR International Critical Commentary ICC Interpretation Int IRGLS International Rennert Guest Lecture Series International Voices in Biblical Studies IVBS JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JAJS Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of the American Oriental Society JAOS JBL Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Quarterly Review JQR Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal of Semitic Studies JSS Journal of Theological Studies JTS Kommentar zum Alten Testament KAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament KeHAT The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LHBOTS The Library of New Testament Studies LNTS LSAWS Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic New American Commentary NAC New Century Bible Commentary NCBC Neue Echter Bibel NEchtB New International Commentary on the Old Testament NICOT Novum Testamentum NovT Supplements to Novum Testamentum NovTSup New Testament Studies NTS OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OTE Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library OTL Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. OTP New York, 1983 OtSt Oudtestamentische studiën Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts PHSC PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association

PRSt RB SAA SANT SBL SBLMS SBS SEÅ SHCANE SJOT SNTSMS SRB SSN StBL SVTP TB TSAJ UF VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW

Abbreviations Perspectives in Religious Studies Revue biblique State Archives of Assyria Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Svensk exegetisk årsbok Studies in the History and Culture Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in the Reception History of the Bible Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studies in Biblical Literature Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphica Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xi

C on t ri b u tor s (In order of appearance) H. G. M. Williamson is the Emeritus Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University and a Fellow of the British Academy. He is the author of numerous studies, including Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge University Press, 1977), 1 and 2 Chronicles (Eerdmans, 1982), Ezra, Nehemiah (Word, 1985), The Book Called Isaiah: DeuteroIsaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford University Press, 1994), Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Paternoster, 1998), Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (Mohr, 2004), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–5 (T&T Clark International, 2006), and He Has Shown You What is Good: Old Testament Justice Then and Now (Lutterworth, 2012). Antti Laato is Professor of Old Testament Exegetics with Judaic Studies at Teologicum, Åbo Akademi University. He is Editor in Chief for the series Studies in the Reception History of the Bible (Eisenbrauns) and Studies on the Children of Abraham (Brill). His recent publications include Who is the Servant of the Lord? Jewish and Christian Interpretations on Isaiah 53 from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Eisenbrauns, 2012) and Guide to Biblical Chronology (Sheffield Phoenix, 2015). Stefan Green is a doctoral student in Old Testament Exegetics at Åbo Akademi University. His thesis is a study of Isa. 65–66 and the apocalyptic genre in 1 Enoch. Hallvard Hagelia is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies at Ansgar Teologiske Høskole. He is the author of numerous studies, including Numbering the Stars: A Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15 (Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994), Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh (Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001), The Tel Dan Inscription: A Critical Investigation of Recent Research on Its Palaeography and Philology (Uppsala University Press, 2006), The Dan Debate: The Tel

xiv

Contributors

Dan Inscription in Recent Research (Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), Three Theologies for Today: Helge S. Kvanvig, Walter Brueggemann and Erhard Gerstenberger (Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), and Herrens Utvalgte, Guddommelig utvelgelse som bibelsk tema og aktuelt problem (Portal Akademisk, 2013). David Willgren is Lecturer in Old Testament Exegesis at Norwegian School of Leadership and Theology and Academy of Leadership and Theology. He is editorial secretary of Svensk exegetisk årsbok and the author of, among others, The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies (Mohr Siebeck, 2016) and ‘Ps 72:20 – A Frozen Colophon?’, JBL 135 (2016): 49–60. Ola Wikander is Senior Lecturer in Old Testament Exegesis at Lund University. He has authored numerous articles and books including Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Philological and Comparative Study (Eisenbrauns, 2014) and annotated Swedish translations of the Enuma Elish (Wahlström & Widstrand, 2005) and myths and legends from Ugarit (Wahlström & Widstrand, 2003). Karl Olav Sandnes is Professor of New Testament Theology at Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo. He is the author of Paul – One of the Prophets (Mohr Siebeck 1991), A New Family (Peter Lang, 1994), Belly and Body in the Pauline Epistles (Cambridge, 2002), The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’ (Brill, 2011) and Early Christian Discourses on Jesus’ Prayer at Gethsemane (Brill, 2016). Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer is Reader in Hebrew Bible at the University of Aberdeen. She is the author of numerous articles and several monographs, including Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), For the Comfort of Zion (Brill, 2011), Zechariah and His Visions (T&T Clark International, 2015), and Zechariah’s Vision Report and Its Earliest Interpreters (T&T Clark International, 2016). Knut Holter is Professor of Old Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology, Diaconia and Leadership Studies, VID Specialized University, Stavanger, Norway. His books include Old Testament Research for Africa: A Critical Analysis and Annotated Bibliography of African Old Testament Dissertations, 1967–2000 (Peter Lang, 2002) and Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship in Africa (Acton Publishers, 2008).

I n t rod uct i on

Greger Andersson The book of Isaiah has captured immense interest from exegetical scholars and the research is almost impossible to overview.1 There are literally thousands of books and journal articles that discuss this book or issues relating to it. Moreover, as D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson state in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, the study of Isaiah is currently in a period of great change.2 Given this state of affairs, it may be both surprising and satisfying to note that the essays in this volume, in spite of the fact that they focus on different topics relating to the book of Isaiah, address similar issues and ask closely related questions. The similarities are not the result of a plan or a stated purpose. Yet, the contributors to the volume have in common a focus on the reuse and recontextualization of texts, traditions or myths, whether in historical or contemporary settings. In this connection, they treat issues relating to those phenomena which scholars in different fields of study refer to when using terms like dialogicity, intertextuality, Fortschreibung and reinterpretation – terms that presuppose that every utterance or text stands in a dialogue with other utterances and texts. However, the authors are not concerned with such concepts per se, nor the theories that they are based on. Rather, they take for granted that every text refers to other texts and that every author, editor or interpreter is a reader. The issues they deal with are thus historical, both because they attempt to trace the processes of recontexualization and because they are interested in the historical situations that brought about such processes. They thus examine how the 1.  For a recent survey of contemporary research, see C. B. Hays, ‘The Book of Isaiah in Contemporary Research’, Religion Compass 5, no. 10 (2011): 549–66. 2.  D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., Interpreting Isaiah. Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 15. They assert that the agenda has widened so that research no longer is only author–centered and focused on the three parts of the book. They further point out, which is relevant to this book, that a great deal of work is presently text-centered and concerned with how the book has been ‘shaped and how its component parts relate to one another’ (16).

xvi

Introduction

book of Isaiah reflects preexisting traditions, motifs and mythemes; how different layers in the book, as well as transmitters such as the sopherim, reuse and recontexualize segments from earlier versions or sources; and, finally, how the book or segments of the book, in the process of translation, interpretation and scholarly examinations, have been received in new contexts. The contributors present or examine distinct research questions and they do this with thoroughness and care. Can the hypothesis of a Josianic edition be sustained? Did the sopherim change the tense of certain verbs in order to harmonize those texts with other texts in the book of Isaiah and to make them speak of the future? Does Isa. 65–66 refer to a temple crisis similar to those described in the apocalyptic literature? Is the Zion-theology of Isa. 1–39 invented on the basis of the events of 701 BCE, or was it part of the historical Isaiah’s message? Can we trace the process in which psalms became regarded, not as prayers, but as instructions, in Isa. 40–55? Can the motif of dragon killing in Isa. 27.1 and in the Baal cycle be traced back to Indo-European myths? Is the theme of divine election distributed evenly in all parts of Isaiah and does it function in the same way in these parts? Did the prophets in general, and the latter part of the book of Isaiah in particular, influence the way Paul understood his mission? What can we learn from a study of the contextualization of the book of Isaiah in an African context as it is displayed in Bible translations, common readings, church readings and among academics? The presentation and evaluation of questions relating to historical issues or studies in text reception, reflecting phenomena which I have described above as dialogicity, intertextuality, Fortschreibung and reinterpretation, results in a common emphasis on methodological issues. Although the authors take on different tasks and argue from distinct methodological positions, they carefully define the concepts they refer to and discuss how the issues they study might be addressed in a methodologically sound way. The present volume is divided into two parts, based on the researchers’ focus of interest and approach. In Part I, ‘History and Theology’, H. G. M. Williamson, Anti Laato, Stefan Green and Hallvard Hagelia examine issues relating to the formation and composition of the book of Isaiah. In addition, David Willgren and Ola Wikander examine how Isaiah (or parts of the book) use(s) and recontextualize(s) pre-existing material, such as psalms or the old mytheme of a hero who defeats a snake or a dragon. Part II, ‘Reception’, contains essays by Karl Olav Sandnes, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Knut Holter, and focuses on the interpretation of the book of Isaiah by Paul and the sopherim, as well as in an African context.



Introduction

xvii

In the opening essay of Part I, ‘The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination’, H. G. M. Williamson evaluates Hermann Barth’s influential suggestion that a significant redaction of the first part of the book of Isaiah took place during the reign of Josiah. Based on the methodological assumption that a theory about a redaction demands at least one passage where the conclusion about date and setting is clear, Williamson examines closely Isa. 10.5-34, which he holds to be the foundational passage in Barth’s theory, and argues that since Isa. 10.18 is dependent on Isa. 35.2, the theory cannot be sustained. He then surveys other passages to which adherents of the theory have appealed, and assesses their argumentation critically. Williamson argues that the strongest argument for the theory about a Josianic Edition – that texts about Assyria must refer to the real Assyria, and, hence, that passages that speak of its downfall must be dated in the time of Josiah – is unconvincing. Rather, he holds that in the postexilic period, the fall of Assyria was applied ‘to the wider theological agenda of God’s ultimate care for his people, no matter how much the odds seemed at the time to stand against it’ (p. 19). Ultimately, based on a suggestion that the concept of redaction should be reserved for a substantial reworking, he dismisses the theory of a Josianic redaction. Anti Laato, in his ‘Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah’, addresses the issue of how the Zion theology in the present form of the book of Isaiah relates to the earliest Isaianic material in Isa. 1–35. Referring to what Laato describes as ‘empirical methods’, he suggests that chs. 1–35 have been reinterpreted in light of the events that took place in 701 BCE. Laato finds support for this proposition in Ben Sira, rabbinical sources, the LXX and the structure of Isa. 1–39. Yet, Laato concludes that this suggestion in turn generates questions concerning the origin of the so-called Zion theology in the first part of the book of Isaiah. Was it invented after 701 BCE, or can it be explained as stemming from other sources? Laato’s answer is that it can be traced back to the time of the building of Solomon’s temple and the association of YHWH with a storm god. He asserts that such a theology lived on in the Psalms and was reinforced by the events in 701 BCE. Accordingly, the historical Isaiah, who was inspired by a Zion theology based on the association of YHWH with a storm God and critical to Hezekiah, later came to be interpreted as a prophet who had foreseen the miraculous events of 701 BCE. Moreover, according to Laato, these events came to have a paradigmatic function showing that the great hopes expressed in Isa. 2.2-4 and chs. 40–66 were not utopian.

xviii

Introduction

Stefan Green suggests in ‘The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch’ that Isa. 65–66 could be seen as a bridge between the critique of the cult and the temple in the prophetic books and later apocalyptic literature. To substantiate this claim, Green compares motifs like God’s presence and the temple in the book of Isaiah and in 1 Enoch, arguing that such a comparison uncovers traces of how the shift from the prophetic to the apocalyptic literature could have come about. He then proposes that the situation displayed in Isa. 65–66 was a temple crisis that eventually became regarded as a second distinct crisis out of four temple crises. This, he holds, is supported by a close reading of the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch, since it conveys such a comprehension of the temple crises. Green’s line of reasoning modifies and expands John J. Collins’s notion of three crises. His proposal that there were four temple crises leads to the conclusion that Isa. 65–66 is an important pre-stage of Jewish apocalyptic literature. Hallvard Hagelia examines the theme of divine election in his contribution, ‘Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah’. The essay begins with a survey of the research on the theology of election, and Hagelia asserts that in spite of the constant stream of Isaiah studies, there is yet no general treatment of this theme in the book. When addressing this gap, Hagelia is not focusing on certain terms but rather uses a method according to which he, through a close reading of the book of Isaiah, identifies and discusses passages that relate to the theme under consideration. In order to systematize his findings, he presents them under such headings as: the election of Abraham, David, the ‘Servant’, the people of Israel, the land of Israel, Jerusalem, the ‘remnant’ and non-Israelites. Hagelia states that his survey shows, first, that the theme of election and election theology can be found in all the three main parts of the book of Isaiah. This is then related to a general claim that divine election belongs to the theological framework of the Hebrew Bible. Secondly, he argues that the use of the theme of election varies between the parts of the book. The ‘election theology of Proto-Isaiah mirrors the threat of the Assyrians, whereas Deutero-Isaiah sets the election theology in the frame of the period of the exile, and TritoIsaiah frames it with the period of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem and the Temple’ (p. 95). Finally, Hagelia points out that the theme contributes to the book’s theological and literary coherence. In ‘Antwort Gottes: Isaiah 40–55 and the Transformation of Psalmody’, David Willgren presents and assesses the hypothesis that the impetus for the transition of the reading of the psalms from prayer to instruction is to be found outside the book of Psalms, namely, in the prophetic activity following the exile. Willgren hence puts the suggestion by Gerald H.



Introduction

xix

Wilson and others – that such a transition can be explained by the formation of the book of Psalms, not least the placement of Ps. 1 – in question. Willgren rather suggests that one should investigate carefully the contexts in which the psalms were used, focusing on signs that indicate a change of use. He takes as his point of departure Susan Gillingham’s suggestion that the beginnings of a future-oriented reading of psalms can be observed in Isa. 40–55, and in the observation by scholars like Claus Westermann that Isa. 40–55 uses and transforms old forms, especially those of individual complaint. Willgren’s main object of study is Isa. 55.1-5 and its relation to Ps. 89. By suggesting that Isa. 55 probably related to the Davidic covenant as expressed in Ps. 89, Willgren proposes that although the use made of Ps. 89 appears to have been primarily performative – i.e. it is affirmed as a legitimate complaint – significant steps are taken in the way the covenant is reshaped. Ultimately, a new interpretative framework is established according to which the royal psalms were taken to express a hope of a future restoration. In this way, Willgren concludes that Isa. 55 reveals a new approach to psalmody, an approach where psalms became increasingly used as focal points for the framing of a new hope. Ola Wikander first traces the history of the motif of a god or a hero who slays a serpent or a dragon, and then he poses the methodological question of what it means to date a text in ‘From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isa 27.1: A Study in the Longue Durée’. Regarding the first of these issues, Wikander suggests that while the similarities between the motif in the Hebrew Bible and the Baal cycle can be explained by the fact that both texts have been formed in a common cultural milieu, it in turn appears to have borrowed the motif from the Indo-Europeans. When arguing for this theory, Wikander first has to evaluate whether or not it is most plausible that the motif was formed in a Semitic context, or that its roots stem from an Indo-European context. As he addresses this issue, Wikander uses a method he calls ‘etymological poetics’, in which one traces ‘specific pieces of etymological material to which such motifs could be anchored and which could serve as their carriers over long periods of time’ (p. 121). He concludes that the mytheme has a long pre-history and that it has probably reached a Semitic context via, for example, the Hittites or the Mitannians. Wikander then turns to the issue of what it means to date a text. From the perspective of the longue durée, Wikander suggests that the motif of a God who slays a dragon in Isa. 27.1 has travelled a long way before it ended up in this text. This example, according to Wikander, points to a larger methodological issue and calls into question what can be regarded as a too narrow focus in the traditional dating of texts on the part of exegetes.

xx

Introduction

Karl Olav Sandnes discusses Paul’s use of the book of Isaiah in ‘Paul: An Isaiah-Like Prophet?’. His thesis is that Paul’s self-understanding was informed by the prophets in general, and Isa. 40–66 in particular. According to Sandnes, Paul had to defend and justify his call and commission time and again. Turning to 1 Thess. 2.1-12, he argues that Paul defended himself against accusations of being a false prophet. He refers to E. Elizabeth Johnson’s suggestion that Paul, even though this epistle lacks scriptural citations, is still informed by the Scriptures in his language and in motifs and ideas, not least so when speaking of the ‘word’, a word that comes to Paul as it came to the prophets. Sandnes then turns to the expression ‘in vain’ (κενός in different collocations), which is recurrent in Paul’s letters and proposes that it echoes Isa. 65.23. Consequently, Paul regarded both himself and other apostles as messengers of salvation in line with the last part of the book of Isaiah. Based on these, and other pieces of evidence, Sandnes concludes that Paul already in this early letter assumed that his commission to preach had analogies with the prophets. Turning to Rom. 9–11, Sandnes asserts that Paul’s theologizing about his mission in these chapters is intertwined with Scripture, in particular with Isa. 40–66. Sandnes even suggests that Paul uses so-called prosopological exegesis in which the voices of the apostles are taken to speak in the words of Isaiah. The point is this: ‘Ultimately, it is in Paul’s mission that what Isaiah nominally addressed comes to life’, and ‘[w]hat comes through very clearly here is that Paul saw his mission not only as a fulfillment of certain prophecies, but as a working out of these texts’ (p. 150). Turning to Gal. 1–2, Sandnes holds that in light of a broad reading of passages in which Paul discusses his ministry, Paul’s references to the prophets in these chapters cannot come as a surprise. Accordingly, Paul’s use of the prophets displays how he conceptualized his apostolic vocation. In her essay ‘Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66: Weyiqṭol or Wayyiqṭol in Isaiah 63.1-6 as a Case of Early Jewish Interpretation’, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer argues that the different readings of Isa. 63.1-6 in the Masoretic text and the LXX can be explained by the fact that the sopherim interpreted Isa. 63.1-6 in light of the intertexts in Isa. 34.1-8 and Isa. 59.15b-20, and revocalized it so that it no longer speaks about what God had done but what he will do. Tiemeyer begins her reasoning by pointing out that the Masoretic reading tradition discloses interpretative activity. This, she holds, indicates that the Masoretes inherited and transmitted a reading tradition which was affected by scribal interpretations that had altered the original texts. Turning to Isa. 63.1-6, Tiemeyer notes that the passage does not contain simple yiqṭol forms, only wayyiqṭol and weyiqṭol forms, and proposes that the sopherim rejected the past aspects



Introduction

xxi

of wayyiqṭol forms and transformed them into verbs which convey future discourse. Tiemeyer points out that most scholars translate the passage as displaying God’s past actions in spite of the weyiqṭol forms. Moreover, she argues that the LXX supports a temporal understanding of the weyiqṭol verbs as having a wayyiqṭol form. A close reading of the Vulgate and the Peshitta similarly reveals that they have the temporal structure of the Hebrew consonantal text. According to Tiemeyer, it makes exegetical sense to interpret the text as referring to the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian defeat of Judah and its neighbors. Tiemeyer then addresses the question of why the sopherim should have changed the temporal sense of the verbs in Isa. 63.1-6 and suggests that the reason behind those changes was to harmonize the time aspect of this passage with its intertexts in Isa. 34.1-8 and Isa. 59.15b-20. She then turns to Targum Jonathan which, she notes, appears to take a middle way between the MT and the LXX. A closer look, however, reveals that it is rather influenced by the same kind of interpretation as the MT. This factor is important to Tiemeyer, since it suggests an approximate time frame for the assumed interpretative activity that is in agreement with her proposal about the sopherim. In ‘Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa’, Knut Holter examines how the book of Isaiah is understood and applied by translators, pastors and preachers, and academic scholars in an African context. He starts out with an examination of the translation of the songs of the seraphs in Isa. 6.3 into the Malagasy language, a case that illustrates how the chosen words from the target language become vested with new meaning in the context of a Bible translation. When turning to popular interpretations of the Bible, he discusses two English Bible translations that have been provided with notes from an African perspective: the Roman Catholic The African Bible and The Prayer and Deliverance Bible. The former Study Bible, according to Holter, reflects a Roman Catholic interpretative strategy of inculturation, i.e. a positive attitude towards African traditional religion as well as socio-critical concerns. The Prayer and Deliverance Bible is supplied with 190 pages of study notes and a postscript of 160 pages by Dr. Daniel Olukoya (Nigeria) and is influenced by Pentecostalism and a focus on spiritual warfare and the power of God. As an example, Holter demonstrates how several texts from the book of Isaiah are interpreted as referring to prostitutes and witchcraft. He concludes that these study bibles exemplify a tendency to read the Bible ‘both out of’ and ‘into’ (p. 195) traditional African religious and cultural experiences and concerns. When turning to African Hebrew Bible exegesis, Holter surveys doctoral dissertations, monographs, articles and anthologies about the book of Isaiah. He concludes that some studies focus

xxii

Introduction

on parallels between the book of Isaiah and Africa, whereas others fail to acknowledge the context of the interpreter. Yet, the main approach is to try to combine the two. Last, Holter argues that a contextual approach, in which are included contemporary experiences and concerns and an analysis of popular interpretations, is more or less taken for granted in African Hebrew Bible studies.

Part I H i s tory a n d T h e ology

T he T h eory of a J os i a ni c E di t i on of t he F i rs t P a rt of t h e B ook of I sai ah : A C ri t i ca l E x a m inati on

H. G. M. Williamson 1. The Theory Introduced In 1977 Hermann Barth published his celebrated monograph Die JesajaWorte in der Josiazeit,1 a carefully argued thesis with more than usual detail in which he charted a new course for the composition history of the book.2 Against the composition maximalists on the one hand (including not only extreme conservatives but also such influential writers as G. von Rad and W. Dietrich),3 and those on the other hand who attributed significant quantities of material to the post-exilic period, Barth argued that there was a significant redaction, including the composition of several important extended passages, such as 8.23–9.6, during the reign of Josiah. In particular, it was to this redaction that the prophecies envisaging the fall of Assyria could best be ascribed, in contrast to those who had previously suggested either that these passages belonged to Isaiah’s day as part of his interpretation of the so-called Zion theology or that Isaiah’s own views underwent significant change during the long course of his ministry. For this reason he thus termed the redaction ‘die Assur-Redaktion’.

1.  H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1977). 2.  The theory relates exclusively to the first half of Isaiah only; that is what is meant with all references to Isaiah or to ‘the book’ in what follows unless otherwise explicitly stated. 3.  G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments II: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Kaiser, 1960), 145–75; W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik, BEvT 74 (Munich: Kaiser, 1976).

4

Studies in Isaiah

Barth’s thesis, which has a parallel in the work of J. Vermeylen that was published at around the same time,4 was adopted with some enthusiasm in Britain by Clements.5 While subscribing to the main outlines of the thesis, he modified it in some respects, and it is probably through his work in particular that it came to be well-known in English-speaking scholarship under the alternative label of ‘the Josianic redaction’. Many have subsequently adopted the theory as more or less a given in Isaianic scholarship, but among them a few have also undertaken significant further research and analyses to develop it in one direction or another; I might mention here in particular M. A. Sweeney and M. J. de Jong.6 Needless to say, although I judge that the majority of modern scholars working on Isaiah subscribe to the theory in some form or another, there have also been those who have criticized it. Their voices do not seem to have been heard together, however, so that their criticisms tend to remain isolated. While it is difficult to judge exactly why this should be so, I suspect it is in part because they are seen already to have an axe to grind in this respect on other grounds.7 Their criticisms are thus subsumed into

4.  J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, EB, 2 vols. (Paris: Gabalda, 1977–78). Vermeylen refers to Barth’s unpublished dissertation on which the later monograph is based. Vermeylen is critical that Barth’s theory is too narrow and restricted, however (p. 25). For their place in the history of redaction-critical studies, see P. Höffken, Jesaja: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 29–34. 5.  R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, JSOTSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980); Isaiah 1–39, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980). As a junior colleague of Clements at the time, I well remember how persuasive and illuminating he found Barth’s work. 6.  M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 234–55; M. J. de Jong, Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies, VTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 7.  See, for instance, on the more conservative side A. Laato, Who Is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations (Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 1988); ‘About Zion I will not be silent’: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity, ConBOT 44 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998); on the more radical wing, see U. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 212–19.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

5

discussion of their wider theories, which may themselves be controversial, so that their specific discussion of the theory of a Josianic redaction tends to be overlooked. As I have written elsewhere,8 I am fully committed to the validity of redaction criticism in principle but I have also tried to offer tighter criteria for its implementation than are often found. In particular, a redaction should be distinguished from a series of (even related) glosses, to which it is often mistakenly applied in current scholarship. A redaction involved the rewriting of a complete document, with additions of varying length and sometimes also re-ordering, all according to the particular redactor’s point of view. There can be no doubt that Barth’s theory meets these two demands in full measure. The extent of what he ascribes to this redactor, whether by fresh composition or by expansion of inherited material, may be noted from his own summarizing chart on p. 299 (and note too the italicized material in the translation in the appendix on pp. 311-36): 5.30; a small part of 7.20; 8.9-10; 8.23b–9.6; 10.4b(?), 16-19; 14.5 with one element in vv. 6, 20b-21, 24-27; 17.12-14; 28.23-29; 29.8; 30.27-33; 31.5, 8b-9; 32.1-5, 15-20.9 2. The Theory Examined: Isaiah 10.16-19 In seeking to determine the profile of a redactor more specifically, it is necessary, of course, to have at least one passage where the conclusion about date and setting is clear. Related but less clear-cut passages may then reasonably be associated with it even if the question, say, of date of these other passages cannot be independently verified. In the light of this it always becomes imperative to examine especially closely the first passage advanced in any major redaction-critical study, because much depends on the strength of this initial analysis. If it fails, then very often much of what follows will also ‘go down’ with it.

8.  H. G. M. Williamson, ‘Reflections on Redaction’, in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. J. Middlemas, D. J. A. Clines, and E. K. Holt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 79–91; ‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’, in Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton, ed. K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 26–36. 9.  For a broad survey of earlier research on many of these texts, see R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39, Erträge der Forschung 200 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983), 40–106.

6

Studies in Isaiah

In the case of Barth’s analysis, he begins with Isa. 10.5-34. With many others he accepts that the substance of vv. 5-15 may come from Isaiah himself (later additions such as vv. 10-11 and 12a are excepted, as many others also agree). But he then moves to vv. 16-19, where, again in common with others, he finds evidence of a later addition.10 Unless commentators are committed to maintaining Isaianic authorship, most have dated the passage relatively or even very late; Duhm, in fact, went so far as to suggest the Seleucid period; Kaiser, less specifically, suggests the ‘later post-exilic period’; Wildberger ‘(late) Persian’, and so on.11 Barth, however, suggests a pre-exilic date that is nevertheless later than the time of Isaiah himself, so that this becomes the foundation stone for his whole theory. His main argument (p. 34) was that ‘Assyria’ here can only be the real Assyrian Empire; there is no sense of historical reflection here, and so the passage must date from the Assyrian period. In addition, the reworking here of Assyria-related material in 9.13 and 17.4-6 in application to greater Assyria would hardly be likely centuries later, when the detailed circumstances were no longer understood. Barth therefore claims that the passage must date to the penultimate decade of the seventh century at the latest, a date which he then refines further after other passages are also taken into consideration. Clements followed this closely and added the observation that ‘midrashic’ development of imagery and themes from Isaianic material such as we find here is a marked feature elsewhere of the Josianic redaction. Clements agrees with Barth that ‘the section consists of an extended elaboration of

10.  The reasons for this conclusion cannot be debated here in full, but the chief points are (1) that 10.5-15 (minus later expansions) forms a single and complete literary unit which does not expect any continuation, (2) that vv. 16-19 are not integrated in any way into the fictional speech pattern of vv. 5-15, the Lord (who opened the previous passage in the first person in vv. 5-6) now appearing in the third person, (3) that the introductory ‫ לכן‬seems to turn vv. 5-15 into an invective and threat, even though a ‘threat’ in a woe oracle is extremely rare (only at 5.11-13 in Isaiah; that ‫ לכן‬can introduce an added passage is clear from v. 24 below, to go no further), (4) that the imagery used here does not relate at all with that found earlier, so that the judgment does not match the account of the Assyrian’s sin, as would be expected in a prophetic oracle, and (5) that, as will be shown above, there are extensive examples of dependence in these verses upon other passages elsewhere in Isaiah. 11.  B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 4th ed., HKAT 3/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 101; O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, Kapitel 1–12, 5th ed., ATD 17 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 227; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 2nd ed., BKAT 10/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980), 408.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

7

the imagery of 9:1412 and 17:4-6’, and he wants to add that ‘to this we must certainly add a dependence on the image of light, taken from 9:2’.13 To specify all this further, and to add some points to those of Barth and Clements,14 I agree entirely that at 10.16 ‘he will send…leanness among his stout ones (‫ ’)במשמניו רזון‬is closely paralleled at 17.4, ‘the fat (‫ )משמן‬of his flesh will grow lean (‫’)ירזה‬, though there it is ‘the glory of Jacob’ that is judged whereas here it is that of the Assyrian, as the following line makes clear.15 In 10.17 ‘his thorns and his briers’ (‫ )שיתו ושמירו‬are a familiar pair in Isaiah; see 5.6; 7.23, 24, 25; 9.17 (and later 27.4).16 Everywhere else, however, they appear in the reverse order, and furthermore nowhere else do they have a suffix as they do here; what is more, this is the only occasion on which they are applied to an entity other than Judah; all these factors suggest later dependence here. With further regard to 10.17 it is difficult to escape the impression that the wording is dependent (mutatis mutandis) on 9.17 (‫בער‬, ‫אש‬, ‫שמיר‬, ‫שית‬, ‫ ;אכל‬note also ‫ יער‬from the next verse and that ‫ יום אחד‬also appears in 9.13). There too the judgment is on Israel, but here it is turned against Assyria. All this suggests very strongly that our author is dependent upon the earlier verse, just as in the previous verse we saw that he was (in part) on 17.4, where a similar change of referent occurs. Finally, Clements (p. 114) speculates that the idea that ‘the rest of the trees of his forest will be few in number’ (‫ )ושאר עץ יערו מספר יהיו‬may point to 17.6, ‘gleanings will be left in it (‫ )ונשאר בו‬as when an olive tree is beaten’, but this does not seem as convincing as the other examples cited. Even without that, however, we may accept that the evidence cited so far suggests dependence on genuinely Isaianic material.

12.  Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 113, is here following the English verse enumeration; in the Hebrew text this is 9.13. 13.  Hebrew, 9.1. It should be noted in explanation of this point that elsewhere Clements ascribes 9.1-6 to Isaiah whereas Barth argued that it was itself part of his Assur-Redaktion; he could hardly speak of ‘influence’ from that quarter, therefore. 14.  See on this also Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 259–60; K. Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, JSOTSup 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 194–97. 15.  A full survey of the rare uses of both lexemes and their close linguistic partners elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible serves to show how distinctive our two verses are in their use together. 16.  For discussion, see my commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1, Isaiah 1–5, ICC (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 341.

8

Studies in Isaiah

Perhaps the fullest recent advocate of the theory is de Jong. While his initial analysis of these verses is extremely short, he includes them in his much longer presentation of the theory of a Josianic redaction as a whole.17 Here he sets out several considerations with regard to a large number of passages that unite them in various ways and also seeks to show how they incorporated original oracles of Isaiah into a first major literary stage in the formation of the book. His main general points (pp. 358–60) are that it is plausible that this process should have already started in the pre-exilic period rather than all being relegated (as some scholars have done) to the exilic or even post-exilic periods; that the passages he is discussing fit the circumstances of the late seventh century in that they portray the downfall and destruction of Assyria and the restoration of Judah with a new Davidic king, these being emphatically the work of the Lord; and that the differences between these passages and the original words of Isaiah are such that they cannot come from the same hand (e.g., Assyria as the current superpower versus a focus on its downfall, and originally orally presented oracles versus scribal texts without any oral element). With the group of texts thus identified and isolated, the next major step in his argument is to link them ideologically with the B1 text in the accounts of 701 BCE (here following Clements in particular), after which he continues to show their self-consistent outlook, their redactional character, and their suitability in the traditio-historical background of the seventh century. There can be no doubt that the picture which emerges from Barth, Clements, and de Jong is attractive and intelligible, and of course each passage included has to be examined to see whether it fits the profile. In the present case from which the whole theory started out, however, there remains, in my understanding, a fatal flaw. While as I have shown the scholars mentioned all accept that there is a prominent element of scribal or ‘midrashic’ activity to be seen here in relation to other Isaianic texts, they all fail completely to mention that, included among these, is a use in v. 18 of 35.2. There, in a passage which exults in the transformation of nature as a token of God’s glorious self-manifestation and the restoration of his people’s fortunes, we read that ‘the glory (‫)כבוד‬ of Lebanon shall be given to it (i.e. the Arabah desert), the majesty of Carmel (‫ )הכרמל‬and Sharon. They shall see the glory of the Lord, the majesty of our God.’ In this passage, the use of glory is fully intelligible: probably in dependence upon 40.5 (‘Then the glory of the Lord will be

17.  De Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 131 and 357–94 respectively.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

9

revealed, and all flesh shall see it together’),18 the notion of the glory and the majesty of the fertile land is dependent on (or even a reflection of) the revelation of the glory and majesty of God. In other words, the use of language in the first part of the verse is driven by the second, which delivers the theological climax.19 In v. 18 of ch. 10, however, the use of the word ‘glory’ does not seem to have any such particular motivation. The word occurred previously in v. 16, where it referred to the Assyrian and probably in particular to his military might.20 Here, however, such a sense would not be suitable, so that some alternative stimulus for its use needs to be predicated. The proposal that this relates to ch. 35 is reinforced by the use of ‘his garden land’ (‫)כרמלו‬. In 35.2 this is the place name Carmel, as suggested by its use in juxtaposition with two other place names which equally stand for famously productive regions (Lebanon and Sharon).21 In our verse, however, this word has been used as a common noun, ‘plantation,

18.  See especially O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redak­ tionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja, SBS 121 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985), 14–20. 19.  T. Wagner, Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament, VTSup 151 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 213–16, discusses the use of ‫ כבוד‬in this verse, but without reference to 10.16. He is more concerned with the links between 35.2; 33.9; 40.5, and 60.13. 20.  The initially curious-sounding phrase ‘under his glory’ in this verse no doubt owes its presence here to the occurrence of ‘glory’ also in 17.4, a verse which seems to be the inspiration for an earlier part of the verse as well, and it should probably be related to the use of ‘glory’ seen elsewhere, especially at 8.7, where the link with the Akkadian melemme is apparent. Contra G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 200, the reference will therefore again be to military might rather than clothing; see already R. Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation; with a Preliminary Dissertation, and Notes, 2 vols. (London: Thomas Tegg, 1778), 2:108, who wrote of ‘all that he could boast of as great and strong in his army’, and A. Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia, 5th ed., KeHAT 5 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1890), 109, who writes of ‘seiner imposanten Kriegs­ macht’. The usage is here slightly strained, which may be partly due to the fact that it is later imitation, but T. H. Gaster, ‘Notes on Isaiah’, in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University, ed. A. I. Katsh and L. Nemoy (Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1979), 91–107 (93), long ago saw a possible element of satire as well: ‘instead of his blazing glory there will be a blazing fire’. 21.  Note that this same triplet occurs also in 33.9, where, with Bashan as well, the passage is speaking about how they will become like a desert. It is likely in this case that 35.2 has been influenced by 33.9; see Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr, 16.

10

Studies in Isaiah

garden-land’.22 This change may well have been motivated by an allusion to another appropriate passage, namely God’s ridicule through Isaiah of the boasting of the Assyrian king in 37.21-29. There, one of the things that the king is depicted as bragging about is that he has gone to the far recesses of Lebanon to fell its choicest trees, and he continues, ‘I have entered into its farthest height, the forest of his fruitful land (‫’)יער כרמלו‬ (v. 24). This is very close to our phrase ‘of his forest and of his garden land (‫ ’)יערו וכרמלו‬and accounts especially for the introduction of ‘forest’ vis-à-vis 35.2.23 It also underlines the appropriateness of this kind of imagery here, since it introduces a characteristic type of correspondence between sin and judgment that is much favoured by the prophets.24 Now, if, as I believe, this echo of 35.2 in 10.18 is every bit as strong, if not in fact stronger, than the other echoes which Barth and Clements accept, then a Josianic date for 10.16-19 becomes impossible. The date of ch. 35 is not universally agreed, but it certainly has many close links in thought and language with parts of Isa. 40–55; indeed, v. 10 is more or less identical with 51.11, even if this is only the most striking of very many parallels. For this reason, some older commentators went so far as to suggest that (with or without Isa. 34) the chapter was in fact written by and as part of so-called Deutero-Isaiah.25 Nowadays, however, there is more or less universal agreement that it must have been written considerably later than Isa. 40–55, as Steck’s Bereitete Heimkehr has shown on 22.  This occurs also in a few other places in Isaiah, some of which are generally considered to be very late; 32.15-16 and 29.17 (with three occurrences in the first case and two in the second) must be related to each other, as part of the phraseology is identical (‫)והכרמל ליער יחשב‬, and both speak of miraculous restoration. In 16.10, however, the imagery is used to help depict devastation, but without any other particular connection with our present verse. 23.  Nonetheless, the cluster of allusions in 10.18 to 35.2 shows that the latter is the main inspiration for the author, so that this influence from 37.24 cannot overturn my major conclusion. 24.  See P. D. Miller, Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis, SBLMS 27 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), though he does not cite this particular example. 25.  E.g. H. Graetz, ‘Isaiah xxxiv and xxxv’, JQR 4 (1891–92): 1–8; H. M. Wiener, The Prophets of Israel in History and Criticism (London: Scott, 1923), 138; C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), 279–301; R. B. Y. Scott, ‘The Relation of Isaiah, Chapter 35, to Deutero-Isaiah’, AJSL 52 (1935–36): 178–91; A. T. Olmstead, ‘II Isaiah and Isaiah, Chapter 35’, AJSL 53 (1936–37): 251–53; M. Pope, ‘Isaiah 34 in Relation to Isaiah 35, 40–66’, JBL 71 (1952): 235–43; J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 20 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967), 3–12.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

11

many grounds. To cite only one obvious piece of evidence, the connection of 35.8-10 and 62.10-12 is striking and suggests a date nearer the time of at least part of Trito-Isaiah than of Deutero-Isaiah. I have discussed the date of Isa. 35 elsewhere (in dialogue in particular with Steck),26 and the conclusion there was that it was a significantly late element in Isaiah as a whole. But even those who find this conclusion too pessimistic will scarcely disagree that it cannot be pre-exilic. And since 10.18 is dependent upon it, as I have demonstrated, and not the other way round, this starting point for the unearthing of a Josianic redaction proves mistaken. 3. Other Passages: Isaiah 8.9-10 Now, it is clear that I cannot here go through every passage that Barth, Clements, and de Jong discuss in such detail. I therefore propose to take just the passages from within Isa. 1–12 that Barth ascribes to his AssurRedaktion27 in order to see in a shorter discussion if they can offer this weakened theory any support. If not, then of course it will be incumbent upon me to offer some alternative reflections not just on the literarycritical details, but also on the wider ideological points that the theory was designed to explain in the first place. I start with 8.9-10, which again all three scholars ascribe to the Josianic redaction. These two verses clearly stand out from their immediate context. They are not part of the first-person narrative which we find in vv. 1-4 and 11-15, nor have they been editorially integrated into that narrative in the way that vv. 6-8 have been by the first-person v. 5. In addition, although the reference at the end to Immanuel seems to make this passage parallel in some sense to vv. 5-8, its very positive attitude towards what one must assume is Zion’s security is in sharp contrast with the main part of vv. 5-8. Regardless of date and author, therefore, it clearly needs to be analyzed as an independent unit. Rather as with 10.16-19, there is one particular aspect of this passage which is important for determining its origin and date. Much of the phraseology seems to be directly influenced at the literary level by other related material in Isaiah, especially Isa. 7.28 This is clear with ‫לא יקום‬, ‘it will not 26.  H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 211–21. 27.  I exclude from my analysis his ascription of the words ‫ בעברי נהר‬in 7.20 to his redaction because they clearly cannot contribute anything significant on their own to our discussion. 28.  See also J. Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah, Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 86–90. These connections

12

Studies in Isaiah

stand’ (7.7 and 8.10) and ‫עמנו אל‬, ‘God is with us—Immanuel’ (7.14 and 8.10), and in the light of these clear examples it becomes probable that we should then also include ‫יחת‬, ‘be shattered’ (7.8), with ‫וחתו‬, twice in 8.9,29 and ‫יעץ‬, ‘take counsel together’ (7.5), with ‫ עצו עצה‬in 8.10. In addition to these, we should also note a similar concentration at 14.24-27, though interestingly there is a contrast here. In 14.24-27 it is God who plans to ‘break Assyria in my land’ and ‘as I have purposed (‫)יעצתי‬, so shall it stand (‫( ’)היא תקום‬see too 7.7 already mentioned); furthermore, ‘this is the purpose that is purposed (‫ )העצה היעוצה‬upon the whole earth’, and ‘the Lord of hosts has purposed (‫)יעץ‬, and who shall frustrate it (‫’?)יפר‬, this last word, of course, being that which comes next in 8.10. Thus we find here the complete opposite of 8.9-10: God’s plan, which seems also to be military, is clearly superior to humanity’s and therefore, unlike the latter, it cannot be frustrated. It is difficult to be sure in the case of either 7.5 or 14.24-27 whether Isaiah was the author, but it is probable that they are both earlier than the author of the present passage, so that influence from them both is plausible. The heavy concentration of material from ch. 7 is especially significant.30 Now, in older scholarship, Isa. 7.1-17 was taken as an integral part of the ‘Isaiah Memoir’, so that the dependence of 8.9-10 was not especially significant in terms of the dating of the latter. Two factors have led most recent scholars to query this conclusion, however.31 First, 7.1-17 is a thirdperson narrative about Isaiah (suggestions that the text should be emended are also recognized by J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 208–15, though he also agrees with Barth on the setting of this oracle in the Josianic redaction, a conclusion which my understanding of ch. 7 rules out. 29.  The context of these two passages suggests that in both cases the stronger but rarer sense of ‘be shattered’ is appropriate rather than the commoner ‘be dismayed, terrified’. The connection between our two passages is thus strengthened. 30.  In view of this, suggestions that the last two words of the passage should be regarded as a later gloss seem unnecessary, contra, Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 82; H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, VTSup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 25–27; H.-M. Lutz, Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Völker: Zur Vorgeschichte von Sach. 12, 1-8 und 14, 1-5, WMANT 27 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968), 44–45. In addition, this concentration of allusions rules out the suggestion of G. Brunet, Essai sur l’Isaïe de l’histoire: étude de quelques textes notamment dans Isa. vii, viii & xxii (Paris: Picard, 1975), 30–34, that the passage was an independent fragment which was earlier than Isaiah and that he derived the name Immanuel from it. 31.  I have set these arguments out at much greater length in my Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 73–112.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

13

to make it first person have no evidence to justify them whatsoever), so that it cannot be an original part of the first-person memoir as represented in chs. 6 and 8. Second, there are so many striking parallels with the narrative in Isa. 36–39 that the composition history of the one cannot be separated from that of the other.32 However much we may agree that the narrative in Isa. 7 rests on older tradition, the parallels we have accumulated indicate that 8.9-10 can only be explained on the basis of literary dependence, not an allusion to shared tradition; the inclusion of ‫ יחת‬from 7.8 may be especially telling in this regard, since it occurs in a line which everyone agrees is part of a later explanatory comment rather than part of the original narrative. The precise date of 7.1-17 does not need to be determined here as the conclusion for our present purposes is clear: 8.9-10, which is later than it, cannot possibly be pre-exilic.33 How far into the post-exilic period we should set the date of composition is difficult to say. Given especially the echoes of ch. 7 and the attempt by the passage’s present position to balance the judgment of the immediate Isaianic words with longer-term hope as might be deduced from the book as a whole as well as from such closer contextual hints as 8.1-4 and 17, the presumption must be that the author intended to project the circumscribed promises given in the original historical circumstances on to a universal canvass, thus drawing out the fundamental principles of divine commitment to Zion that he celebrated in the temple cult. To that extent it has some close parallels in Isa. 24–27. This speculation goes beyond the immediate concerns of our present discussion, however, and so need not be pursued here. 4. Three Other Passages On the other passages in Isa. 1–12 that Barth ascribes to his AssurRedaktion I have commented elsewhere and so perhaps do not need to repeat myself here but can simply summarize my conclusions and refer to earlier publications for fuller details. (1) Isaiah 5.30 is a short Fortschreibung in which there is disagreement over the subject of the verb at the start of the verse. With a number of others, Barth thinks that there is an unannounced change of subject so that this indicates a reversal of the Assyrian threat contained in the immediately preceding verses. I have argued in favour of the alternative view, however, which retains the same 32.  See especially E. W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 34–51, for a convenient summary. 33.  There are, of course, some other arguments that support a later date, but these need not be further elaborated here.

14

Studies in Isaiah

subject (as one might expect in the lack of any contrary indication) and so sees in the verse a deepening of the nature of the judgment announced. The most natural explanation for that is an attempt to apply the anticipated judgment to its realization in the Babylonian conquest, meaning that the verse must be exilic at the earliest.34 (2) Isaiah 10.4b is part of a short passage, 10.1-4, which I have argued in detail elsewhere should be ascribed to a late redactor who wanted to draw together the preceding woe cycle in ch. 5 and the outstretched hand refrain poem in ch. 9 (and with one stanza moved subsequently to the end of ch. 5).35 This is supported by several independent lines of argument and leaves no possibility, ex hypothesi, that the repetition of the refrain at the end of the poem could be pre-exilic. (3) Isaiah 8.23b–9.6 is admittedly more controversial, and opinions generally vary very significantly. It is noteworthy that here Barth is not followed by Clements (though he is by de Jong, pp. 136–39), who in his commentary ascribes it to Isaiah himself (with reference to Hezekiah). My own discussion was not concerned much with the question of date (albeit suggesting reasons why a post-exilic date would not be suitable), though I did try to explain vv. 5-6 in particular in a way which showed how closely it fitted with Isaiah’s own cardinal concerns as known to us from elsewhere.36 At the least, therefore, it is difficult to see any reasons why it must be Josianic if there are not good grounds elsewhere for presupposing that Josiah’s reign was an influential period in the development of the book. My conclusion with regard to Isa. 1–12, therefore, is that there are strong reasons for actually denying that the passages which Barth includes in his proposed redaction could possibly be as early as the time of Josiah, and that the only one which could be dated then in fact has no particular reason to lead us to prefer that date to an earlier one.37 34.  See my Isaiah 1–5, 408–10. For a discussion of how this fits into a wider redaction-critical framework, see The Book Called Isaiah, 125–43. 35.  See H. G. M. Williamson, ‘ “An Initial Problem”: The Setting and Purpose of Isaiah 10:1-4’, in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew. Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah, ed. R. J. Bautch and J. T. Hibbard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 11–20. 36.  Williamson, Variations, 30–46. 37.  In his formal response to this study when it was first presented as a paper at the conference in Örebro, Göran Eidevall accepted the argument that there was not a systematic Josianic redaction of Isa. 1–39 but thought nevertheless that a strong case could be made for ascribing 14.24-27 to Josiah’s reign. Without committing myself here to agreement with that opinion, I could theoretically do so without that undermining my main argument. As I have written elsewhere (see above, n. 8 and again



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

15

5. Isaiah 10.33–11.9 In order to conclude this rather negative discussion, I want to bring one example of a passage which Barth did not attribute to his Assur-Redaktion, but which others have done, in particular Vermeylen and Sweeney.38 My point in bringing this example is to illustrate how, once a scholar has got the notion of a particular redaction firmly in mind, it can easily colour his or her reading of texts in a way which to others might seem illegitimate. The importance for exegesis of clarity on this literary-critical question thus becomes apparent. The passage in question is Isa. 11 (or part of it). Barth’s own view is that 10.33–11.5 is part of Isaiah’s own composition and that 11.6-9 was added much later; though I cannot see that he specifies this further, he clearly does not think it is as early as his Assur-Redaktion (pp. 60–63 and 69–76). Our two authors in fact handle this slightly differently. Vermeylen ascribes vv. 1-5 to the time of Josiah on the grounds that (1) they form an explicit antithesis to the fall of Assyria which he finds in 10.33-34, (2) they include several elements in which the new ideal ruler responds directly to the ills of society as described by Isaiah (e.g., he is filled by God with the spirit of wisdom and understanding, whereas in 10.13 these were qualities which the Assyrian king boasted were among his own characteristics; the new king’s concern for justice responds to the lack of justice as lamented by Isaiah in 5.23 and 10.2), (3) the vocabulary of these verses is not typical of Isaiah himself, but neither is there anything decisively post-exilic about it, (4) ideologically, the hopes expressed are not those of later messianism but equally the lack of a requirement of faith distances the verses from Isaiah himself, (5) the language of v. 1 is suggestive of a young king (contrast the usual royal image of a tree), and (6) there are similarities with 9.1-6, which Vermeylen has previously also ascribed to the period of Josiah. Sweeney, by contrast, regards vv. 6-9 (as well as the rest of the chapter) as part of the Josianic redaction. His discussion is set in the context of an argument that Isa. 5–12, which certainly contains earlier material, towards the end of the present discussion), I agree that there may well be isolated short passages added as marginal glosses or comments to an existing text without that amounting to a redaction sensu stricto. 38.  Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 269–76; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 196–212; King Josiah of Judah, 237–44; see too his article ‘Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah’, in A Gift of God 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, 1996), 103–18.

16

Studies in Isaiah

was shaped overall by the concern to show how under Josiah the previous judgment of Israel and more recently of Judah at the hands of the Assyrians would be reversed by God through King Josiah. Within this arrangement, he believes that the Josianic redactor was specifically responsible for composing 7.1-25 and 11.1–12.6. Within that larger argument he finds one argument in favour of his overall hypothesis specifically within 11.6-9 (which is presumably why he does not bracket those verses out in the way Vermeylen does), namely ‘the portrayal of the righteous Davidic monarch in Isa. 11:6-9 as a small child. Josiah, after all, was only eight years old when he assumed the throne in the aftermath of his father Amon’s assassination’.39 It is thus interesting to note that both Vermeylen and Sweeney find support for their theory in references to the supposed youthfulness of the character in question, though they find that in different parts of the passage. It is a matter of simple observation that this thought had not occurred to anyone before the time when the Josianic redaction was first conceived. In my opinion there are sound reasons why this should be the case. First, Sweeney’s point is really an exegetical liberty because it seizes on a single feature in the passage without taking contextual considerations into account. In Isa. 11.6, the first two lines clearly put together an adult hunting animal with a young domestic one: wolf and lamb, leopard and kid. A natural assumption is that the point is to stress the vulnerability of the young animal in question. The theme of youth to encapsulate vulnerability continues into the last clause in the verse by the choice of the expression ‘little young lad’ (‫ )נער קטן‬as the first reference to a human in this part of the passage. Although the age range of ‫ נער‬is undetermined, its focus being rather on social position, the wider context here and the adjective ‘little’ justify the qualification ‘young’. In this there is a contrast with the use of ‫ נער קטן‬at 1 Kgs 3.7, where Solomon is certainly not young.40 Other words for little children follow in v. 8, of course, and there they are apparently even younger than in v. 6. Granted that children were not weaned until an older age than in our own day, a ‫יונק‬, ‘nursing child’,

39.  Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah, 241. 40.  J. Corley’s more general suggestion, ‘Elements of Coronation Ritual in Isaiah 11:1-10’, PIBA 35 (2012): 1–29 (24–25), that the use of the words ‫ נער קטן‬by Solomon at 1 Kgs 3.7 indicates a reference to a newly-enthroned shepherd king is thought-provoking but fails to take into account the parallel references to even younger children in the following verse; his suggestion that these too might refer to the new monarch is less plausible. Any element in a text must be interpreted first in relation to its immediate context.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

17

still cannot have been more than a few years old at most, while the ‫גמול‬, ‘weaned child’, represents the next stage of aging, again presumably before the status of ‫ נער‬of v. 6. In my understanding, vv. 7b-8 should be construed as a tricolon which continues the kind of pairing we saw in v. 6, the last colon therefore reinforcing the second: and a lion will eat straw like cattle; and a nursing babe will frolic on top of a serpent’s hole, and a weaned child will play over a viper’s light-hole.41

Given that the choice of language is thus wholly determined by the imagery of the passage as a whole, suggestions that this is a veiled reference to Josiah seem to me to be wholly misguided; any such suggestion distracts from the whole point of the imagery and overlooks its future utopian orientation. Vermeylen’s case is little better, though it is commendable that he brings other arguments to bear as well. His potentially strongest argument is that 11.1-9 responds to material in early Isaianic oracles, which might suggest that the passage is later than they. However, completely unlike the case of 35.2 and 10.18 which I discussed earlier, I cannot see any indication here that these passages have been misunderstood or reinterpreted according to later ideas. Rather, they generally present the other side of the same coin: if Isaiah has seen justice perverted in his own day, he looks forward to a time when it will be properly administered instead; if the Assyrian king was guilty of hubris in claiming he had his own wisdom and understanding, the hoped for new Judean king would receive them as the result of divine endowment. I cannot see anything here which means that Isaiah could not have entertained such hopes as a balance to his realistic appraisal of the current situation. A further difficulty (though this will not be shared by all other scholars)42 is that I agree with Barth that 10.33-34 41.  I am aware of some serious textual and philological difficulties here but will refrain from discussion of them as they do not affect the point that I am making. 42.  This dilemma is well outlined by G. Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah, ConBOT 56 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 73–74. Others who support Barth’s view in addition to those cited by Eidevall (though they do not all accept the direct join with 11.1 as well) include Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 433–34; J. Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie, ATDan 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 122–23; Y. Gitay, Isaiah and his Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12, SSN 30 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1991), 215–16; G. C. I. Wong, ‘Deliverance or Destruction? Isaiah x 33–34 in the Final Form of Isaiah x–xi’, VT 53 (2003): 544–52.

18

Studies in Isaiah

relates in its original formulation43 to the judgment on Judah, not Assyria, and that it is therefore an integral part of 10.33–11.5, thus undermining Vermeylen’s view that 11.1-5 is a later antithesis to 10.33-34. Vermeylen’s other arguments are not strong, or they depend upon alternative prior conclusions (e.g., the same considerations apply to his use of 9.1-6 here as they did in relation to Barth’s alternative use mentioned above). In this light, his suggestion that the imagery in 11.1 is suggestive of a king who was young in years has to be weighed against the consideration that it derives directly from the destruction of a forest in the preceding two verses. In other words, the colourful language is contextually driven, so making it a serious mistake to imply that it is simultaneously driven by reference to some external reality. 6. Summary My conclusion to this lengthy discussion is obvious. I do not find any of the arguments in favour of a redaction of the earliest part of Isaiah during the reign of Josiah to be convincing, and there are some respects in which its weakness is further highlighted by the misguided exegetical consequences which some scholars who take it as a given go on to propound. In some ways, the strongest argument in favour of the theory arises not from detailed literary-critical analysis of the passages in question but from the general consideration that the references to Assyria should be taken at face value, not interpreted as a cipher for Babylon, Persia, or whatever, and that it was only in Josiah’s reign that the hope could realistically have emerged that Assyria would itself be overthrown in divine judgment.44 Unfortunately, for all its attractiveness, this consideration falls at the first hurdle, for we have seen that precisely 10.16-19, which is one of the

43.  I say ‘in its original formulation’ deliberately. The language used has parallels elsewhere (especially in ch. 2) with criticisms of Judean hubris, and this reading allows for a smooth transition to 11.1, with which it is syntactically bound by the first word in 11.1. At the same time I fully recognize that the oracle has been put into its present position as part of the lengthy redactional compilation which begins at 10.5, so that in its present setting an anti-Assyrian reading can also be justified. Biblical scholars sometimes talk about Janus parallelism; can there also be Janus oracles? 44.  Becker’s critique of the theory, Jesaja, 212–19, rightly concentrates especially on this element in its various dimensions. He finds too many literary unevennesses in the proposed redactional material to ascribe it all to a single unity and he also questions whether the material relating to the conflict with the nations (e.g., in 8.9-10) could conceivably be as early as the time of Josiah.



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

19

clear anti-Assyrian oracles,45 cannot be pre-exilic because of its evident dependence on 35.2. Without elaborating on the question here, the fact is that most, if not all, of these anti-Assyrian passages can be shown to be in Isaianic contexts which are threatening to Judah (as in this example with 10.5-15), so that one can certainly make the case that in the light of fuller historical experience that had been gained by the post-exilic period it was an intelligible exegetical move to apply the eventual fall of Assyria to the wider theological agenda of God’s ultimate care for his people, no matter how much the odds seemed at the time to stand against it. The extent to which this was still understood in political terms or had begun to move more in the direction of either sectarian or even more overtly spiritual directions may be left open for the time being. 7. Outline of an Alternative Redaction-Critical History In terms, finally, of composition more broadly, my views may be summarized relatively concisely. In doing so, I should stress again that isolated or even sometimes related short additions to the text should not automatically be called a ‘redaction’. Glosses and short comments that could be included on an existing manuscript and that were included into 45.  There have been some who have suggested that these verses were originally addressed to Israel or Judah and that they were only subsequently applied to Assyria by their redactional positioning in the present context; see, for instance, K. Budde, ‘Über die Schranken, die Jesajas prophetischer Botschaft zu setzen sind’, ZAW 41 (1923): 154–203 (194); O. Procksch, Jesaia I, KAT 9/1 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1930), 169; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary. Vol. 1, i–xxxix (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1941), 130; J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem Jahwehs Königssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament, SANT 7 (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1963), 263; A. Schoors, Jesaja, De Boeken van het Oude Testament 9A (Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1972), 89. This position is generally held with a view, whether expressed or not, that the passage is early and may have been written by Isaiah, and it is sometimes difficult to avoid the impression that this is the motivation for the theory in the first place. The truth of the matter is that there is no direct evidence for this position whatsoever. Moreover, it seems most unlikely in view of the level of dependence that we have seen on other passages elsewhere in Isaiah, and given that at least one is relatively late (35.2), the theory in fact becomes untenable. We have no reason to suppose that the passage ever stood elsewhere; it is much more likely to have been penned for its present position precisely to spell out the fate which would befall Assyria. If there are echoes of material which elsewhere apply to Israel or Judah, that will again be because of the influence of other passages upon the composition, and it should not be elaborated into a more complicated theory than that.

20

Studies in Isaiah

the main text at a later date are vital clues to the growth of the text but not specifically of its redaction history. I have elsewhere made the case that the original collection of Isaianic material may have been glossed in precisely this way under the immediate impact of the exile and the fall of Jerusalem;46 though often called a redaction, it is my opinion that this is a misnomer. These short additions, whose vital importance for the history of the book is in no way being denied, were simply comments, applications, or brief Fortschreibungen that left the original text intact; it did not need to be completely recopied at this stage, so that alterations of the order of material and the like need not be considered at this stage. Elsewhere I have argued that the first real redaction of the work came at the end of the exilic period, a redaction which reflects imminently anticipated but not yet realized deliverance.47 My own opinion is that this should be explained as part of the process whereby Deutero-Isaiah was written or at least incorporated into the manuscript, and hence was an undertaking which obviously necessitated the recopying of the whole. This gave the opportunity not only for additions of a more substantial kind but also the re-ordering of some of the inherited material (e.g., the last paragraph in ch. 5) and so on. My argument was that this was all the work of DeuteroIsaiah, who was influenced by the earlier material and who wished to incorporate it into his new work which would announce the deliverance which had originally been anticipated by Isaiah himself. I am well aware that this element of the hypothesis is not accepted by many, and this is not the place to defend it anew (even if in modified form). What I should like to indicate here is that even without the precise explanation that I offered it remains the case that a redaction during the historical period primarily covered by chs. 40–55 still seems not just viable but imperative to me. In an unusually closely-argued thesis Stromberg has undertaken what might be called a parallel exercise with regard to so-called Trito-Isaiah and the connections especially of the closing two chapters of the complete book of Isaiah with the preceding material.48 Many of his conclusions seem to me to be well founded, so that I should envisage a second redac­ tion of the whole in that connection which will have brought the book relatively close to its final form. Of course there is scope to discuss about the later addition of major sections such as Isa. 24–27, but that cannot detract from what seem to me like the major gains of recent work. Redaction criticism has acquired rather a bad name in some quarters 46.  Williamson, ‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’. 47.  Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah. 48.  J. Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).



Williamson  The Theory of a Josianic Edition

21

because those who appeal to it are not really doing redaction criticism at all but are finding isolated additions which obviously do not affect the composition history of the whole. If we restrict its use to significant work which entails certainly the copying of the whole text and arguably substantial additions and other alterations, then I believe we can arrive at a scenario that is far less complex than sometimes implied and which at the same time marries composition and interpretation in a satisfying manner. In all this, however, I find neither need nor space for a Josianic redaction to be postulated or included.

U n d er s ta n d i n g Z i on T he ology i n t h e B ook of I sai ah *

Antti Laato 1. Seeking an Interpretive Horizon to the Book of Isaiah The aim of the present study is to deal with the Jerusalem/Zion theology in the earliest Isaianic material and ask how it was transmitted and understood in the present form of the book. I offer first my methodological viewpoints in this section 1, then discuss the present form of the book of Isaiah in section 2, and finally attempt to penetrate to older traditions which the composer of the book of Isaiah has used in sections 3 and 4. When I wrote my dissertation,1 I struggled with the methodological problem of transmission of the biblical texts, a real problem even today! I felt that the methodological apparatus of exegetical research was in many respects handicapped. I had a scholarly intuition that Ivan Engnell certainly had it right that in the present form of the Hebrew Bible many passages may have been formulated relatively late but nonetheless still contain old traditions. Engnell used oral tradition as a methodological tool to understand the formation of the Hebrew Bible, an explanation which I did not find convincing. Today, I think that I can support my early research intuitions with better arguments based on a more comprehensive methodological arsenal. In my 1996 study, History and Ideology, I referred to empirical models2 to understand the dissonance between the present *  This study was written with the generous support of the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland, which granted me a Professor Pool scholarship in 2015. 1.  A. Laato, ‘Who Is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations’ (PhD diss., Åbo Akademi University, 1988). 2.  The empirical model is based on ‘texts whose evolution can be documented by copies from several stages in the course of their development’. For this definition, see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), xi.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

23

form of the Hebrew Bible (written during the time of the exile and in the postexilic period) and the older traditions preserved in it.3 Older traditions may have been edited in new contexts and updated linguistically.4 Empirical models give a good methodological procedure to understand the transmission of the Hebrew Bible. In many cases it is possible to investigate only the last stage of the transmission, as in the case of the book of Isaiah, but for example Chronicles is an exception. Linguistically, the Hebrew Bible is a multilayer collection of texts. Many of them have been written in Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH, from seventh to fifth century BCE) or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH, from the fifth to fourth century BCE), but some contain textual layers written in archaic Hebrew texts. In many cases we may understand that texts written in SBH or LBH are linguistically updated versions of older texts. For example, texts of 1–2 Kings (written in SBH) refer to older royal archives and present exact historical details which can be verified using Assyrian and Egyptian sources. The synchronic chronology of 1–2 Kings is based on older chronological systems which can be constructed and verified with the chronology-related material from Assyrian and Egyptian sources.5 Zion/Jerusalem is mentioned in the book of Isaiah in many different historical periods beginning from the time of Isaiah, who lived during the Assyrian crisis (as indicated in Isa. 6–8, 20, and 36–39), to the time of the Babylonian exile. The exile is implied in Isa. 39 and many references to Zion/Jerusalem in Isa. 40–66 are impossible to understand without assuming that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian army de facto had taken place. In addition, Isa. 56–66 gives us reason to believe that the latest material in the book of Isaiah originates from the time when the temple had already been rebuilt. This being the case, we do not know 3.  A. Laato, History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of the Historical Prophets, ConBOT 41 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996), 62–147. See further J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982); Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism; H. J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives, BZAW 221 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994). 4.  In my dissertation (‘Who Is Immanuel?’, 302) I mentioned this idea by referring to W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946), 240–55, and to M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 161. 5.  For a more detailed argumentation, see my book Guide to Biblical Chronology (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015).

24

Studies in Isaiah

beforehand in which way the textual material related to Jerusalem/Zion in Isa. 1–39 has been reworked by writers and editors responsible for the later parts of the book, i.e. Isa. 40–66.6 In order to understand the Zion theology in Isa. 1–39 scholars have often compared it with other religious traditions, especially in the book of Psalms. However, we must be aware of the fact that the research in Psalms is also in continual progress. For example, E. Rohland and G. von Rad took for granted that the Zion tradition preserved in Pss. 46, 48 and 76 was old and formed a religious-historical background to the idea of the inviolability of Zion in Isa. 1–39.7 However, in subsequent research scholars have presented diametrically opposite ideas about the date of these psalms. The solid bedrock on which scholars built their hypotheses yesterday may end up being washed away tomorrow when new mighty rivers of chaos stream against it. Scholars find themselves sailing in the deep blue sea on the Ark of Noah hoping that this boat one day will rest on the solid bedrock of Ararat. Furthermore, in order to understand Zion theology in the book of Isaiah we must define our reading perspective. Against which historical and religious background should we read the Zion theology in the book of Isaiah? Do we attempt to reconstruct the proclamation of the historical prophet or the way in which the prophetic voice speaking in Second Isaiah understood the textual material in Isa. 1–39? Or do we try to read the book of Isaiah as one coherent literary unit and explain the Zion theology of Isa. 1–39 from this broader perspective? By reading the texts of Isa. 36–39 we can easily conclude that the historical episode accounted in these chapters is related to the time of Hezekiah and Sennacherib. However, Isa. 39 indicates that the exile has already taken place. This being the case, a critical reading of Isa. 36–39 must consider the fact that the chapters have been influenced by exilic religious ideas. What guarantee is there that we – modern readers of the book of Isaiah – will manage to find the right viewpoint to understand the Zion theology in Isa. 1–39? For example, Isa. 8.18 could very well describe 6.  Today scholars are well aware of these links between the first and the second part of the book, indicating that older textual material has been understood in a new way. Concerning examples of these links see especially H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 7.  E. Rohland, ‘Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten’ (PhD diss., Heidelberg, 1956); G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments II: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Kaiser, 1984).



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

25

the prophet’s attitude toward Zion theology: ‘Yahweh Sabaoth dwells on Mount Zion’.8 However, such a theology could be regarded as irrelevant from the perspective of the present form of the book of Isaiah. After the catastrophe of the exile the Judean literate circles apparently avoided mentioning Yahweh’s dwelling in Zion, as can be seen in the Deuteronomistic Shem and the Priestly Kabod theologies.9 And indeed, Isa. 66.1 opposes the idea that human beings could build a temple for Yahweh where he could live: Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

Therefore, Isa. 8.18 should be regarded as a trace of archaic theology formulated in pre-exilic time, and preserved in the present form of the book but interpreted so that Yahweh is not dwelling in Jerusalem, but rather that the city has been taken in his name. In order to find a good starting-point to our analysis we need an early outsider’s look which can give us an idea as to how the book of Isaiah was interpreted. Such an early reception historical horizon to the Zion theology in the book of Isaiah can be found in Sir. 48.17-25:

8.  There are scholars who argue that Isa. 8.18 makes allusions to Isa. 7.11-14 and, therefore, belongs to the later redactional working of Isaiah Memoirs. For this see especially W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik, BEvT 74 (Munich: Kaiser, 1976), 73; J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 233; H. G. M. Williamson, ‘A Sign and a Portent in Isaiah 8.18’, in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon, ed. G. Khan and D. Lipton, VTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 77–86; idem, ‘Isaiah: Prophet of Weal or Woe?’, in Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period, ed. R. P. Gordon and H. Barstad (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 273–300, esp. 288–90. In the first-mentioned article (p. 81) Williamson argues that Isa. 8.18 was edited at the same time that Isa. 7.1-17 was incorporated into its present position. However, Isa. 7.1 shows that the editor of Isa. 7.1-17 was influenced by Deuteronomistic theology, and, assuming that he accepted the Deuteronomistic Shem theology, he hardly would have formulated Isa. 8.18 so that Yahweh himself dwells on Zion. I shall return to this problem of redaction at the end of the present study. 9.  Concerning these theologies, see T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup, 1982).

26

Studies in Isaiah Hezekiah fortified his city, and brought water into the midst of it; he tunnelled the sheer rock with iron and built pools for water. 18 In his days Sennacherib came up, and sent the Rabshakeh; he lifted up his hand against Zion and made great boasts in his arrogance. 19 Then their hearts were shaken and their hands trembled, and they were in anguish, like women in travail. 20 But they called upon the Lord who is merciful, spreading forth their hands toward him; and the Holy One quickly heard them from heaven, and delivered them by the hand of Isaiah. 21 The Lord smote the camp of the Assyrians, and his angel wiped them out. 22 For Hezekiah did what was pleasing to the Lord, and he held strongly to the ways of David his father, which Isaiah the prophet commanded, who was great and faithful in his vision. 23 In his days the sun went backward, and he lengthened the life of the king. 24 By the spirit of might he saw the last things, and comforted those who mourned in Zion. 25 He revealed what was to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things before they came to pass. 17

This passage reveals two important points about how the book of Isaiah was interpreted at the turn of the third and the second centuries BCE. First, Hezekiah’s loyalty (2 Kgs 18.5) is said to have been inspired by the prophecies of Isaiah (Sir. 48.22). This implies that Hezekiah is seen in the book of Isaiah as the loyal king who listened to Isaiah’s words. The writer presumably has an opinion that Isa. 1–35 contains textual material which is related to Hezekiah and the Assyrian crisis recounted in Isa. 36–39. Second, the prophet Isaiah saw ‘the last things’ which concerned the fate of Zion (Sir. 48.24-25). Isaiah’s visions about Zion refer particularly to the prophecies in Isa. 40–66 because the vocabulary in Sir. 48.24-25 is connected with this part of the book of Isaiah (cf., Sir. 48.24 and Isa. 61.2-3; Sir. 48.25: ‘the hidden things before they came to pass’, and Isa. 41.22; 42.9; 43.18-19; 46.10; 48.6). This evidence indicates that the whole book of Isaiah – which at the time of Ben Sira, of course, was attributed to Isaiah – contained two parts. The first part (Isa. 1–39) was mainly connected with the time of Isaiah and the Assyrian crisis in Isa. 36–39, while the last part of the book (Isa. 40–66) was particularly concerned with the (eschatological) future of the Jewish people. 2. Relating Isaiah 36–37 to Isaiah 1–35 Do we have any possibility to argue that Ben Sira’s way of interpreting the book of Isaiah was based on an early interpretation tradition according to which the textual material in Isa. 1–35 was related to the salvation of Jerusalem in Isa. 36–37? According to rabbinical exegesis, the rescue of Jerusalem from the hands of the Assyrian army prompted Isaiah to confer



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

27

royal titles, ‘Immanuel’ (Isa. 7.14; 8.8, 10) and the eight names in Isa. 9.5, on Hezekiah.10 This being the case, Hezekiah is characterized as an ideal king presented in the book of Isaiah. In a recent article on Targum Jonathan I presented a detailed argumentation on the ways in which way the Targum connects several texts in Isa. 1–35 with Sennacherib’s invasion recounted in Isa. 36–37.11 This rabbinical and targumic perspective to the book of Isaiah receives support also from the Septuagint translation of Isa. 7.14 where the prophet tells Ahaz that he will give the name Immanuel to the boy child (LXX translates ‘you will call’). Well-known is also Gerhard von Rad’s opinion that Hezekiah’s ‘Levitical’ sermon to the Judeans in front of the Assyrian threat (2 Chr. 32.7-8) is based on the name Immanuel (Isa. 7.14).12 In my 1998 study, ‘About Zion I will not be silent’, I presented a detailed argumentation of how many texts in Isa. 1–35 can be linked to Isa. 36–39. I divided the texts in Isa. 1–35 into seven subthemes and shall now present a summary of my findings. (1) The criticism of pro-Egyptian policy. In Isa. 36.4-20 Rabshakeh ironically notes that the Egyptian army has been defeated and that its cavalry and horses cannot help Judah. The reference is apparently to Isa. 30.1-5, 15-17; 31.1-3, where the pro-Egyptian policy of Judah has been criticized. The criticism of Egyptian policy is also presented indirectly in 10.  For this see especially T. Kronholm, ‘Der kommende Hiskia: Erwägungen zur zeitgeschichtlichen bzw. messianischen (christologischen) Interpretation der Immanuelweissagung Jes 7,14 im Licht der altjüdischen Haggada’ (unpublished manuscript from 1982) where the rabbinical material was collected and analyzed; and T. Kronholm, ‘Den kommande Hiskia’, SEÅ 54 (1989): 109–17. See also Laato, ‘Who Is Immanuel?’, 313–26; idem, ‘About Zion I will not be silent’: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity, ConBOT 44 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International 1998), 27–38. It is worth noting that Justin Martyr knows of these Jewish interpretations of Isa. 7 and 9 (Dial. 43.8; 67.1; 71.3). For Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Isa. 7.14, see O. Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, NovTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1987); idem, ‘Jewish and Christian Interpretations of Messianic Texts in the Book of Isaiah as Jewish/Christian Dialogue – from Matthew to the Rabbis’, SEÅ 77 (2012): 25–46. 11.  See A. Laato, ‘Hezekiah in the Rewritten Version of the Book of Isaiah, Targum Isaiah’, in Take Another Scroll and Write: Studies in the Interpretive Afterlife of Prophets and Prophecy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, ed. P. Lindqvist and S. Grebenstein, SRB 6 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2016), 111–37. 12.  G. von Rad, ‘Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik’, in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 8/48, 2 vols. (Munich: Kaiser, 1961), 1:248–61.

28

Studies in Isaiah

the doom prophecies against Philistia. In Isa. 14.28-32 the prophet predicts the coming destruction of Philistia. This doom is fulfilled in Isa. 20 when Sargon II destroys Philistia. Philistia cannot put its reliance on Egypt, because Assyria will destroy both Egypt and Philistia. The Philistines lament (Isa. 20.6): ‘See what has happened to those we relied on, those we fled to for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria! How then can we escape?’ However, the fate of Judah is not identical with that of Philistia. While both had to experience that Egypt cannot help them, Zion receives a promise (Isa. 14.32): ‘What answer shall be given to the envoys of that nation? “The Lord has established Zion, and in her his afflicted people will find refuge”.’ The envoys of that nation are the messengers of Assyria who destroy Philistia. According to Isa. 37.9, 14, the messengers of Assyria deliver a letter to Hezekiah, in which Sennacherib warns of his intention to conquer Jerusalem. But as the story continues, the Assyrian army was destroyed in front of Zion, as is indirectly implied in Isa. 14.32. (2) The remnant theology. According to Isa. 37.31-32, the remnant of Judah is saved in Jerusalem. The guarantee for this salvation is expressed with the assertion ‘The zeal of Yahweh Sabaoth will do this’, which is also found in Isa. 9.6 (see theme 7 below). Isaiah 10.5-27 is a literary unit which deals with the hubris of the Assyrian army and its final destruction in the land of Judah (cf., theme 5 below). Isaiah 10.20-23 contains a passage concerning the remnant of Judah which will be saved from the clutches of the Assyrian attack. In a similar way, Isa. 7.22 indicates that in spite of the destruction in the land of Judah at the hands of Assyria (Isa. 7.17-20), the remnant can continue its life by eating honey and milk – the food of Immanuel (Isa. 7.15). A similar scenario of destruction is also presented in Isa. 1.4-9, but even there it is stated that the remnant will find its refuge in Zion. According to Isa. 30.15-17, Judah will experience hard times because of its Egyptian policy until only a remnant will remain ‘like a flagstaff on a mountain top, like a signal on a hill’ (Isa. 30.17) and this imagery is similar to that used in Isa. 1.8-9. In Isa. 30.17-19 the salvation of the remnant is a decisive turning-point in the history of Judah: ‘…Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him! People of Zion, who live in Jerusalem, you will weep no more. How gracious he will be when you cry for help! As soon as he hears, he will answer you.’ Isaiah 4.2 and 28.5 are two parallel texts which indicate that when the remnant has been saved (in Jerusalem) the people of Judah will experience a new beginning. Isaiah 28.5 follows the prophecy of doom made against Ephraim. The destruction of Samaria plays a central role in Isa. 36–37 and it is contrasted to the fate of Jerusalem.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

29

(3) The Assyrian invasion and the Day of Yahweh. In Isa. 37.3 Hezekiah says that the Assyrian invasion in Judah is ‘the day of suffering, of punishment, and of disgrace’. There are two texts in Isa. 1–35 that speak about such a day coming upon Judah and Jerusalem: Isa. 2.6-22 and 22.1-14. According to Isa. 22.12, Yahweh called the people: ‘to weep and mourn, to shave your heads, to put on sackcloth’. In Isa. 37.1-2 Hezekiah and his men put on sackcloth, indicating that the Assyrian threat in Isa. 36–37 was given the right response from the Judean king.13 An interesting literary unit is Isa. 13.1–14.27, which contains a prophecy of doom against Babylonia (13.1–14.23) by referring to the Day of Yahweh, and which ends with the prophecy of doom against Assyria which will be destroyed in the land of Judah. I shall return to this literary unity in Section 3. (4) Hardening and the fate of Zion. The aim of the hardening (Isa. 6.9-10) is to produce a remnant for the people (Isa. 6.11-13). The task is related to Isa. 8.16-18. The prophet sealed his message to his disciples because the people were not willing to hear his proclamation. The hardening motif is then taken up in Isa. 29.9-14, which is edited in Isa. 28–31 where many texts are related to the Assyrian invasion and which also refers to a small remnant which will be saved in Jerusalem. (5) The destruction of the enemy that attacks Zion. The destruction of the Assyrian army in front of Jerusalem is a central theme in Isa. 36–37. There are many texts in Isa. 1–35 which predict the coming invasion against Jerusalem as well as the coming destruction of the enemy (Assyrian) army in Judah (Isa. 7.17-25; 8.5-10; 10.5-19, 24-27; 14.24-27; 17.12-14; 29.1-8; 30.27-33; 31.4-9; and 33). (6) The criticism of human wisdom and the glory of the Torah of Yahweh. Between two doom prophecies against Judah’s pro-Egyptian policy (Isa. 30.1-5 and 30.15-17) there is a literary unit, 30.6-14, which criticizes the people for not listening to the Torah of Yahweh (Isa. 30.9, 12). ‘The Torah’ refers to the prophetic message, but the term is clearly open for multiple interpretations when the book of Isaiah is read as one literary unit. In the Deuteronomistic History the rejection of the Torah of Moses is regarded as a decisive reason for the destruction of Jerusalem in the time of Zedekiah (2 Kgs 21.10-15; 22.14-20; 23.26-27; 24.19), while Hezekiah’s actions according to the Torah (2 Kgs 18.3-5) were rewarded 13.  Isa. 22.1-14 is the prophet’s reaction to the events of 701 BCE. In the present form of the book the text is treated in two ways: (1) it has been reinterpreted as referring to the events of 587/586 BCE; (2) Hezekiah and his men are presented in Isa. 37.1-2 as acting according to the prophet’s exhortation. The aim was to downplay the prophet’s criticism of Hezekiah.

30

Studies in Isaiah

by the destruction of the Assyrian army. Thus ‘the Torah’ in Isa. 30.9, 12 was possible to understand as referring to the Torah of Moses in the present form of the book of Isaiah. (7) The messiah/king. In Isa. 36–37 Hezekiah’s role is idealized, even though the foreign policy of Judah toward Egypt is criticized (Isa. 36.6-9), and Isaiah’s position is emphasized at the expense of Hezekiah (Isa. 37.1-7). The Assyrian army is in the same place (Isa. 36.2) where Isaiah once met Ahaz (Isa. 7.3) and delivered his message about Immanuel, the birth prophecy of Hezekiah. The prophecy in Isa. 8.23b–9.6 is directed against Assyria and is regarded to be fulfilled in Isa. 36–37. Isaiah 9.3-4 predicts that the foreign yoke will be removed from Judah during the reign of the crown prince who was born at the time of the utterance of the prophecy. In addition, it should be noted that the wordbridge between 9.6b and 37.32 suggests that the annihilation of Assyria is an outworking of the zeal of Yahweh Sabaoth. This paradigm has been developed under the influence of Deuteronomistic theology in which Ahaz and Hezekiah are presented as a disloyal and a righteous kings respectively. Isaiah 7.1 connects the meeting between Ahaz and Isaiah to the story in 2 Kgs 16, and Isa. 36–37 and 2 Kgs 18–19 are parallel to each other. The redactional placement of Isa. 32.1-8 immediately after the destruction of the Assyrian army in Isa. 31.8-9 is parallel to the idea presented in Isa. 9.3-4 + 5-6. This analysis shows that Ben Sira has preserved an early Jewish interpretive horizon to Isa. 1–39, which later found its way into rabbinical logia and in the Isaiah Targum. We can also note that some texts in Isa. 1–35 that are connected with Isa. 36–39 also have connections with the latter part of the book, Isa. 40–66.14 The idealized stories about the Assyrian invasion and the annihilation of the enemy army in front of Jerusalem thus form a paradigm in the book of Isaiah, with the purpose of attempting to persuade potential readers that the marvellous fate of Zion is more than merely utopian visions of future. 3. One Step Backward in Transmission I have, up till now, described the ways in which early Isaianic material in Isa. 1–35 has been related to Isa. 36–37, and this evidence gives us reason to propose that in the present form of the book of Isaiah, the following scenario has been presented in late postexilic or early Hellenistic period: Isaiah predicted during the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war that Hezekiah 14.  I refer here especially to Williamson’s The Book Called Isaiah and the literature I discussed in my ‘About Zion I will not be silent’.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

31

would be born – he is identified with Immanuel and the ideal king of Isa. 9. Assyria is coming to invade Judah and carry out the doom of Yahweh on the people. However, Jerusalem/Zion will remain the place of refuge for the remnant of the people. When we begin to focus on different prophetic texts in Isa. 1–35 and present a hypothesis on how the proclamation of the historical prophet may have sounded, it becomes difficult to argue that the scenario I have presented above concerning the Assyrian crisis corresponds to Isaiah’s own intentions. The criticism of the pro-Egyptian policy in Isa. 28–31 can best be explained as originating from the prophet’s critical attitude toward Hezekiah’s attempt to free Judah from the yoke of Assyria. The name ‘Egypt’ appears in 30.2-3, 7; 31.1, 3, and, in addition, 30.15-17 contain reference to the cavalry army and thus provide a close parallel to the content of 31.1-3. The speech of Rabshakeh indicates that Judah had asked for help from Egypt and this help consisted of cavalry (Isa. 36.6, 8-9). Sennacherib himself in his inscriptions states that Egypt assisted the kingdom of Judah at Eltekeh by sending a great cavalry army.15 This being the case, the criticism of Hezekiah’s pro-Egyptian policy and his behaviour of repentance (putting on sackcloth and praying humbly) indicates that we have a tendency to downplay the prophet’s critical attitude toward Hezekiah in Isa. 36–37. Historically, the year 701 BCE was a great catastrophe for Judah. There is no reason to believe that the prophet who criticized the pro-Egyptian policy of Hezekiah would have been satisfied with the almost total annihilation of the land of Judah. There are three texts – Isa. 1.4-9; 22.1-14 and 32.9-14 – that scholars have regarded as corresponding to the prophet’s proclamation after the Assyrian invasion in 701 BCE. These texts give us an uncompromised picture of the prophet’s reactions. The most problematic issue concerning the Zion theology in Isa. 1–39 has been those texts which indicate that the Assyrian or enemy army attacking Zion will be defeated by divine intervention: Isa. 8.5-10; 10.5-19, 24-27; 14.24-27; 17.12-14; 29.1-8; 30.27-33; 31.4-9, and 33. Can these texts contain material from the historical Isaiah? The question is complicated mainly due to the following three reasons. First, the texts in Isa. 1–35 are intimately related to Isa. 36–37 and it is not self-evident 15.  See these inscriptions in A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1, The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012); idem, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2, The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014).

32

Studies in Isaiah

which came first – the chicken (texts in Isa. 1–35) or the egg (Isa. 36–37). Second, these texts are parallel to the so-called Zion theology in the book of Psalms. Among these texts are Pss. 46, 48 and 76, and they emphasize in a similar way that the enemy army attacking against Zion will be defeated by divine intervention. Could these texts form a background to the proclamation of the prophet, so that he had a solid reliance, even though not necessarily a realistic one, that Yahweh would protect Jerusalem against all attacking armies? Third, it is not clear how we should interpret the statement in Isa. 37.36 (2 Kgs 19.35) that an angel defeated the Assyrian army. Could it be possible that this motif refers to a pestilence which forced Sennacherib to end the siege of Jerusalem, which gave Hezekiah the opportunity to send a great tribute to Nineveh later, thus securing his position as the loyal vassal? Let me begin with the last problem. I have argued in an earlier study that we should not take the inscriptions of Sennacherib as a totally reliable description of the historical event in 701 BCE. This can be demonstrated by a comparison of the details of Sennacherib’s campaigns against Elam (and Babylonia) as they are accounted for in the Assyrian royal inscriptions and in the Babylonian Chronicle. While the Babylonian Chronicle details an Assyrian retreat, such an account is totally excluded from Sennacherib’s own inscriptions. My proposal is that Sennacherib was forced to end the siege of Jerusalem because of serious pestilence. He later accepted Hezekiah’s tribute which was sent to Nineveh and thus had no need to organize a new military campaign against him.16 If this is so, 16.  A. Laato, ‘Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib’, VT 45 (1995): 198–226. The question of how Sennacherib’s invasion ended and why the rebellious Hezekiah was not dethroned has been treated in several studies during the last few years. See especially W. R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, SHCANE 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); L. L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOTSup 363 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2004); P. S. Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19, VTSup 125 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); I. Kalimi and S. Richardson, eds., Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 2014). In the last-mentioned volume, F. M. Fales (‘The Road to Judah: 701 B.C.E. in the Context of Sennacherib’s Political-Military Strategy’, 223–48 [237 n. 47]), gives misleading information about my article in VT 1995. He claims that I could not be familiar with the fact that Assyriologists have treated critically Assyrian inscriptions. However, in my article, as well as in my doctoral dissertation (see, e.g., ‘Who Is Immanuel?’, 263 n. 17) referred to within my article, I mention several experts in Assyriology since Olmstead who deal with Assyrian royal inscriptions critically. As presented in my



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

33

then there existed an alternative understanding of the role of Hezekiah in the events of 701 BCE. According to this competing model, Hezekiah did not fail totally, as indicated in Isaiah’s criticism before and after the expedition of Sennacherib. I suggest that the ‘miraculous’ salvation of Jerusalem began an interpretive process in which Hezekiah’s role was idealized and related to Isaiah’s promises. In this interpretive perspective, the criticism of Hezekiah’s pro-Egyptian policy was downplayed (even though not totally eliminated), and the prophet’s critical attitude toward article, I agree with the majority of scholars who regard the year 701 BCE as having been a great catastrophe for Judah, but my explanation that pestilence had finally forced the Assyrian retreat from Jerusalem is of course a controversial proposal because it is difficult to evaluate the historicity behind the angel motif in Isa. 37.36 as well as the mice-army destroying the Assyrian weapons in Herodotus, History 2.141. Having since consulted with this new literature on the topic I agree with Cogan that it is important to base historical evaluation of Sennacherib’s expedition on the Rassam Cylinder (see M. Cogan, ‘Cross-Examining the Assyrian Witnesses to Sennacherib’s Third Campaign: Assessing the Limits of Historical Reconstruction’, in Kalimi and Richardson, eds., Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem, 51–74). I still argue, however, that Sennacherib’s tendency to downplay all (military) setbacks – as is evident from the Babylonian Chronicle – should be considered when 2 Kgs 18–19 // Isa. 36–37 are related to his own version about the events of 701 BCE. I interpret this so that the pestilence forced the Assyrian retreat and Hezekiah had in this way the possibility to remain on the throne by sending a great tribute to Nineveh and swearing loyalty to the Assyrian king. In his article Fales notes that the Assyrian army’s technique to conquer a besieged city was limited and therefore it was possible for Hezekiah to remain in Jerusalem after Sennacherib had subjugated him by destroying large areas in Judah. But Sennacherib managed to conquer Lachish, which according to the opinion of D. Ussishkin (‘Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Archaeological Perspective with an Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem’, in Kalimi and Richardson, eds., Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem, 75–104), was as heavily fortified as Jerusalem. We know that Sennacherib conquered Lachish and this must have taken place in a relatively short period. Ussishkin concludes his article on archaeological evidence by noting that Sennacherib wanted to conquer Lachish but not Jerusalem. It should be noted that we can also interpret the archaeological evidence so that Sennacherib managed to take Lachish but failed in the conquest of Jerusalem. Cf., the openness of Cogan in the aforementioned article when he writes ‘thus a number of alternatives can be considered concerning Sennacherib’s treatment of Jerusalem and Hezekiah’ (69); he then mentions the alternatives presented by H. Tadmor, A. R. Millard and W. R. Gallagher (70). Here we should add W. von Soden, who discusses the plausibility of the pestilence hypothesis; see W. von Soden, ‘Sanherib vor Jerusalem 701 v.Chr.’, in Bibel und Alter Orient: Altorientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden, ed. H.-P. Müller, BZAW 162 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985), 149–57.

34

Studies in Isaiah

the events of 701 BCE was not at all emphasized. But precisely at this point we have a problem: Who did come first, the chicken or the egg? Were all positive texts about the deliverance of Zion from the clutches of an enemy (or Assyrian) army fabricated after 701 BCE, or did the prophet proclaim a message that was reused in the hermeneutical process during which Isaiah’s texts and the historical events of the year 701 were related to each other? I have written a manuscript on the origin of the Zion theology.17 In that work, I argue that Solomon’s temple-building project (which I regard as a historical event) was related to the theological idea that Yahweh is also a Storm God. This religious occupation from the sphere of Baalism was related to the idea that Yahweh needs a divine abode on the top of the mount of Jerusalem. From there he will defeat all enemies (natural powers of chaos and political armies) and so secure his divine abode on Zion. At its preliminary phase, this theology received much inspiration from a Phoenician and Syrian religious and cultural heritage, as the templebuilding project itself was realized by architectural assistance from Phoenicia. The aim of this new theology was to legitimate the political position of the Davidic monarchy (historically this took place mainly with the aid of political agreements through which David and Solomon managed to establish a status quo situation in Canaan when both Egypt and Assyria were politically weak). This theology then lived its own life in the book of Psalms, and the invasion of Sennacherib, which did not lead to the conquest of Jerusalem, gave new impulses to this theology. Psalm 48 illustrates this aspect well, as I will argue in my forthcoming monograph. The first part of the psalm, that is, vv. 2-8, reflect many old mythical motifs related to the Mediterranean context where the Storm God struggles against the power of chaos (cf., the Mount Saphon, the ships of Tarshish, the east wind attacking the sea), and we have reason to believe that this part of Ps. 48 reflects an old form of the Zion theology. However, the latter part of the psalm has been actualized in a later historical period when Jerusalem was the political centre for the cities of Judah only (i.e. the daughters of Judah mentioned in v. 12). It seems reasonable to assume that this actualization was made as a consequence of the events in 701 BCE. Psalm 48.9 illustrates this manifestation of Yahweh’s power in history: ‘As we have heard, so we have seen in the city of Yahweh Sabaoth, in the city of our God: God makes her secure forever’.

17.  The manuscript will be published in LHBOTS series (Bloomsbury T&T Clark).



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

35

In the following I shall proceed to the texts of Isa. 1–35, chapters which ‘predict’ the destruction of the enemy (or Assyrian) army in front of Jerusalem and argue that some of these texts are not directly related to the events of 701 BCE but rather based on the old motif of the manifestation of the Storm God against the powers of chaos, i.e. the enemies of Zion. The clearest example is Isa. 17.12-14: Woe to the rage of many nations (‫– )המון עמים‬ they rage (‫ )יהמיון‬like the raging sea; and to the roar of peoples (‫– )ושאון לאמים‬ they roar like the roaring of strong waters! 13 The peoples roar like the roar of many waters (‫)מים רבים‬, when he rebukes them they flee far away, driven before the wind like chaff in the mountains, like thistles before the storm (‫)לפני־רוח וכגלגל לפני סופה‬. 14 In the evening, behold terror! Before the morning, they are no more! This is the portion of those who plunder us, the lot of those who despoil us. 12

In this text there is no direct reference to Assyria but to the nations, which are compared with chaos waters. The text is a good parallel to Ps. 48.2-8. Even here the enemies of Zion are compared with chaos powers, which Yahweh, the Storm God, will annihilate (other psalm texts are Pss. 29; 46; 65; 68; 77; 83; and 93).18 Linguistically, we can point out several similarities. Psalm 65.8 (‫)משביח שאון ימים שאון גליהם והמון לאמים‬ contains a similar parallelism between ‫( המון‬see also Isa. 29.5, 7) and ‫שאון‬ used for mighty waters and nations. Psalm 46.4, 7 use the same verb, ‫המה‬, when speaking about nations as chaos powers (Ps. 46.4: ‫יהמו יחמרו מימיו‬ ‫ ;ירעשו הרים בגאותו‬Ps. 46.7: ‫)המו גוים מטו ממלכות נתן בקולו תמוג ארץ‬. Psalm 77.20 (‫ )בים דרכך ושביליך במים רבים ועקבותיך לא נדעו‬and Ps. 93.4 (‫מקלות‬ ‫ )מים רבים אדירים משברי־ים אדיר במרום יהוה‬contain the same expression, ‫מים רבים‬, in the context where Yahweh is depicted as the Storm God. Psalm 68 contains a similar idea that nations flee in front of Yahweh who manifests his power (Ps. 68.2: ‫)יקום אלהים יפוצו אויביו וינוסו משנאיו מפניו‬. In Isa. 17.13 and Pss. 48.8; 83.14 (‫ )אלהי שיתמו כגלגל כקש לפני־רוח‬enemies are destroyed by the mighty wind of God. Isaiah 17.13 uses the verb ‫רדף‬

18.  Concerning these psalms and their role in early form of Yahwism, note especially R. Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur altherbräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen, BZAW 387 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008).

36

Studies in Isaiah

and in Ps. 83.16 it has been used in a similar way: ‫כן תרדפם בסערך ובסופתך‬ ‫תבהלם‬. As Isa. 17.14, so also Ps. 46.6 (cf., also Ps. 65.8-9) contains an idea that nations attacking Zion will be defeated when evening turns to morning: 48.6



God is in the city it cannot fall (‫;)אלהים בקרבה בל־תמוט‬ at break of day God comes to its rescue (‫)יעזרה אלהים לפנות בקר‬.

who stilled the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, and the turmoil of the nations. 9 And they who dwell in the ends [of the earth] fear of Your signs; You make the dawn and the sunset shout for joy (‫)מוצאי־בקר וערב תרנין‬. 65.8



Therefore, from the point of tradition history Isa. 17.12-14 can originate from a prophet who was influenced by the traditional Zion theology. The redactional place of this text just after the doom prophecy against Ephraim and Damascus (Isa. 17.1-11) reveals how the editor has followed a typical Deuteronomistic theme where the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem are interrelated and presented as having taken place in the reign of Hezekiah (see 2 Kgs 17–19).19 In the larger redactional context, Isa. 17.12-14 is placed among the prophecies against nations (Isa. 13–23). This collection now begins with the prophecy of doom against Babylonia (Isa. 13.1–14.23). Barth has argued that the dirge against the king of Babylonia in Isa. 14.4-23 contains an older core (Isa. 14.4b, 6-20a) which was originally addressed to the king of Assyria.20 This possibility could explain why Isa. 14.24-27 (containing a statement that Assyria will be destroyed in the land of Judah) is in its present context placed immediately after the doom against Babylonia. It was a summary of what was said in the dirge against the Assyrian king. In the final redaction of the book, this dirge was, through a new introduction in Isa. 14.1-4a, connected with the prophecy of doom against Babylonia (Isa. 13). With this new introduction the focus of the dirge was changed from Assyria to

19.  This redactional tendency in the Deuteronomistic History is the most important argument in my suggested solutions for the synchronisms in 2 Kgs 15–18 which are in tension with each other so that Hezekiah became king only after the fall of Samaria. For these problems, see my Guide to Biblical Chronology, 43–48. 20.  H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation des Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1977), 119–41.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

37

Babylonia. This redactional work has much in common with Isa. 36–37, where two originally separate traditions B1 and B2 were combined so that they corresponded to the historical events when Jerusalem was destroyed as accounted in Jer. 37–39. By combining B1 and B2 the editor managed to create a similar chain of events in Isa. 36–37 as in Jer. 37–39: (1) an enemy came to besiege Jerusalem; (2) the enemy was then forced to end the siege because an army from the direction of Egypt was approaching; (3) after having defeated the army the enemy came back to Jerusalem.21 In the reign of Zedekiah, this chain of events ended in a catastrophe, but not so during the time of Hezekiah. Assyria and Babylonia are interconnected both in Isa. 13–14 as in Isa. 36–37. In the compilation of Isa. 28–31 (or 28–33), there are two texts – Isa. 29.1-8 and 30.27-33 – which can be related to the old imagery of Yahweh as a Storm God. I shall deal more closely with Isa. 29.1-8: Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel,22 the city where David settled! Add year to year and let your cycle of festivals go on. 2 So I will besiege Ariel; she will mourn and lament, she will be to me like an altar hearth. 3 I will encamp against you on all sides; I will encircle you with towers and set up my siege works against you. 4 You will be laid low, you will speak from the ground; your speech will mumble out of the dust. Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth; out of the dust your speech will whisper. 5 But your many enemies will become like fine dust (‫)והיה כאבק דק המון זריך‬, the ruthless hordes like blown chaff (‫)וכמץ עבר המון עריצים‬. 1

21.  See Laato, ‘Who Is Immanuel?’, 293–96; idem, ‘About Zion I will not be silent’, 66–68. Cf., C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–40, BZAW 187 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). Of course, this intention in the final redaction cannot exclude the fact that 2 Kgs 18–20 and Isa. 36–37 are related to the Isaianic material and to the salvation of Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah. For this see especially Evans, Invasion. 22.  I regard the name of Ariel to be a reference to the altar hearth (see Ezek. 43.15-16). The same picture of Jerusalem becoming the altar where Yahweh’s furnace is burning is also used in Isa. 30.33 and 31.9.

38

Studies in Isaiah Suddenly, in an instant, You will be visited by Yahweh Sabaoth with thunder and earthquake and great noise (‫)ברעם וברעש וקול גדול‬ with storm and windstorm and flames of a devouring fire (‫סופה וסערה ולהב‬ ‫)אש אוכלה‬. 7 It will be like a dream, a vision at night the hordes of all the nations that fight against Ariel, that attack her and her fortress and besiege her. 8 It will be as when a hungry person dreams of eating, but awakens hungry still; as when a thirsty person dreams of drinking, but awakens faint and thirsty still. So will it be with the hordes of all the nations that fight against Mount Zion. 6

Some scholars have suggested that Isa. 29.1-7 can be interpreted as a doom prophecy against Jerusalem without any hope of salvation.23 The ‘blown chaff’ in v. 5 can then be interpreted as a metaphor of the enemy troops which appear around Jerusalem. This will be a real nightmare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as stated in v. 7. However, there are several details which make it possibility for us to regard Isa. 29.1-7 as containing also a hope for salvation.24 First, I agree with Wildberger that the expression ‘suddenly, in an instant’ in v. 5 indicates a turning-point in the prophecy. Jerusalem will be visited by Yahweh in a theophany of storm which means that all nations25 attacking against it will be annihilated as a nightly vision disappears. Second, Isa. 17.12-14 provides a parallel to Isa. 29.1-7, which indicate that a positive aspect is also present in the latter prophecy. Third, Ps. 46.6; 65.8-9 and 83.14-16 indicate that the motifs used in Isa. 29.5-7 can also be directed against the enemies of Zion. Fourth, Isa. 10.5-15 gives us a scenario according to which Assyria is sent against Judah but that its hubris will be punished by Yahweh whose dwelling-place is in Jerusalem (cf., Isa. 8.18). In its present context Isa. 10.5-27 forms a redactional unity which emphasizes the destruction of the Assyrian army in Judah. Fifth, the early prose addition in Isa. 29.8 explains the poetic text and gives it an interpretation which contains hope. Sixth, we have two other texts in Isa. 30.27-33 and 31.4-9 which contain an idea that Assyria will be led to Jerusalem where the furnace

23.  See, e.g., W. A. M. Beuken, Isaiah II. Vol. 2, Isaiah Chapters 28–39, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 78–88. 24.  For this see especially H. Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, Continental Commentary Series (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2002), 62–80. 25.  Note that in Isa. 29.1-8 Assyria is mentioned expressis verbis.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

39

of Yahweh is prepared for it, thus indicating that the Ariel-motif contains not only an aspect of doom against Jerusalem but also its enemies. Psalm 83.14-16 provide close linguistic and thematic parallels with Isa. 29.1-8. This implies that the imagery in Isa. 29.5-6 is rooted in old Zion theology where Yahweh, the Storm God, manifests his power through natural phenomena: Make them like thistles, my God (‫)אלהי שיתמו כגלגל‬, like chaff before the wind (‫)כקש לפני־רוח‬. 15 As fire consumes the forest (‫)כאש תבער־יער‬ or a flame sets the mountains ablaze (‫)וכלהבה תלהט הרים‬, 16 so pursue them with your windstorm (‫)כן תרדפם בסערך‬ and terrify them with your storm (‫)ובסופתך תבהלם‬. 14

In its present redactional place, Isa. 29.1-8 (as well as 30.27-33 and 31.4-9) are parts of Isa. 28–31 (or 28–33) which begins with the prophecy of doom against Ephraim and Samaria (Isa. 28.1-4). Immediately after this prophecy of doom there is a redactional addition about the remnant of the people, which will be saved, apparently in Jerusalem, as is then indicated in Isa. 29.1-8; 30.27-33; 31.4-9; and in chs. 33 and 36–37. So the contrast between Ephraim/Samaria and Judah/Jerusalem is put even here in high relief. In the present form of the book of Isaiah, Isa. 6.1–9.6 (the so-called Isaiah Memoirs) form a redactional unity which is framed by woe oracles (A = 5.8-24 and A′ = 10.1-4) and ‘the raised hand of Yahweh’ oracles (B = 5.25-30 and B′ = 9.7-20). This unity contains an interesting passage in which the Assyrian invasion is predicted (Isa. 8.5-10): Yahweh spoke to me again and said: 6 ‘Since this people has rejected the waters of Shiloah flowing slowly (and joyfully)26 [and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah,] 7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them

5

26.  I agree with M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 171–73; G. Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah, ConBOT 56 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 36–37; H. G. M. Williamson, ‘The Waters of Shiloah [Isaiah 8:5-8]’, in Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the late Bronz Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 331–43, that the original reading here has been ‘slowly and causing joy/joyfully’. Later, when the addition was made, ûmāšôš was related to ‘and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah’. For this reinterpretation see also Eidevall’s opinion (Prophecy and Propaganda, 191).

40

Studies in Isaiah the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates – [the king of Assyria with all his pomp.] It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks 8 and it will sweep [even] on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck (‫)עד־צואר יגיע‬. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, Immanuel!’ 9 Raise the war cry, you nations, and be shattered! Listen, all you distant lands. Prepare for battle, and be shattered! Prepare for battle, and be shattered! 10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us.

Isaiah 8.5-8 show in parallel with Isa. 30.27-33 how Assyria is coming to invade in Judah, reaching up to the neck (cf., the expression ‫עד־צואר יגיע‬ with the similar one in Isa. 30.28). This expression indicates that the head of Judah, i.e. Jerusalem, will remain over the waters of chaos. Isaiah 8.5-8 ends with the note that Assyria will invade the land of Immanuel, which is the keyword in Isa. 8.9-10 and, in addition, also in Isa. 7.14. ‘Immanuel’ can easily be related to the cultic assertion used in the Jerusalem Temple to expresses the firm belief that Yahweh is present in Jerusalem and protects it against all its enemies. Such a cultic assertion is referred to in Ps. 46.8, 12 and in Mic. 3.11 (where the prophet criticizes the reliance of Jerusalemites). Worth noting are also the verbs ‫( יצב‬hithpael) and ‫יסד‬ (niphal) in Ps. 2.2 which are used in the meanings of ‘take seat in the council/meeting’ and ‘take counsel together’, and the verb ‫( יעד‬niphal, Ps. 48.5) with the meaning of ‘assemble’. Even though Isa. 8.9-10 is often regarded as a later text, I cannot see any problem in connecting it with the early Zion theology. Assuming that Isaiah had a positive attitude to this Zion theology, Isa. 8.9-10 would explain v. 8 in a convincing way. Assyria can invade Judah, but not Jerusalem because God is with the people living in the city. The redactional placement of Isa. 8.5-10 again comes after a text concerning the destruction of Ephraim (and Aram), i.e., after Isa. 8.1-4 (cf., Isa. 17). In my doctoral dissertation I argued, partly referring to Fullerton’s article,27 that in the final redaction of Isa. 8.5-10 the meaning of ‘this people’ has been changed so that it refers to Ephraim. Thus Isa. 8.5-8 is formulated in the present form of the book of Isaiah so that the

27.  K. Fullerton, ‘The Interpretation of Isaiah 8:5-10’, JBL 43 (1924): 253–89.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

41

people of Ephraim, who rejoice with Rezin and the son of Remaliah, will experience the Assyrian invasion. In this final form, it is possible to read v. 8 as ‘and it will sweep on even into Judah’.28 This being the case, Isa. 8.1-10 evidently attests influence from the Deuteronomistic History, namely it contrasts the fate of Ephraim/Samaria and with that of Judah/ Jerusalem. Deuteronomistic influence is also clearly detectable in Isa. 7. As can be seen in v. 1, the Northern kingdom is referred to as ‘Israel’, while elsewhere in Isa. 7 the term ‘Ephraim’ is used for it. In addition, v. 1 is almost verbatim similar to 2 Kgs 16.5, which indicates that the editor wanted to relate the events in Isa. 7 to the so-called Syro-Ephraimite war. Through this connection to 2 Kgs 16, where Ahaz is described as a godless king, it also becomes clear that the editor emphasized the contrast between Ahaz and Hezekiah. This conclusion is also apparent in Isa. 7.3 where the prophet meets Ahaz in exactly the same place as where the messenger of the Assyrian king will speak to the men of Hezekiah (Isa. 36.2). So the redactor of the present form of Isa. 7 argues that Ahaz’s disbelief (Isa. 7.9) is the reason for the Assyrian king being sent to Judah (Isa. 7.17). 4. A Logical Possible World to Understand Isaiah’s Zion Theology In my methodological study, History and Ideology, I discussed interpretations of the proclamation of the historical prophet and argued against normative interpretations. Every interpretive model is a logical possible world29 which needs many ‘would be’ building blocks relating to: (1) literary and redaction criticism of the prophetic book; (2) the understanding of the phenomenon prophecy; (3) influence of religious and traditionhistorical matters in the prophet’s proclamation; and (4) socio-historical and socio-psychological aspects.30 Let me now present how I prefer to build up an interpretive model to understand Isaiah’s Zion theology. I emphasize the following points:

28.  For another interpretation of ‘this people’ in the present form of the text, see Williamson, ‘The Waters of Shiloah’. 29.  See J. Hintikka, ‘On the Development of the Model-Theoretic Viewpoint in Logical Theory’, Synthese 77 (1988): 1–36. 30.  Laato, History and Ideology.

42

Studies in Isaiah

(1) Prophecy of salvation. We have seen that Assyria-related (or enemy of Zion) texts in Isa. 1–35 are linked with Isa. 36–37. We find ourselves in the middle of a new interesting paradigm according to which the pre-exilic prophet Isaiah should be regarded rather as a prophet of salvation than a proclaimer of doom, analogous to ancient Near Eastern (royal centered) prophecy.31 While I welcome this new approach which indeed gives us tools to analyze joyful prophecies as a part of the proclamation of the historical prophets, we should not overestimate the significance of ancient Near Eastern prophecy in this new paradigm. Ancient Near Eastern prophecies known to us have been preserved in royal archives, which implies that their content must in some respects have been positive toward the royal house. Among the Mari letters there are two examples of a prophecy where a community is criticized for their planning of a building project. Also interesting is the Neo-Assyrian prophecy NAP 3,32 where Ishtar of Arbela rebukes Esarhaddon because her cult has been neglected.33 (2) Isaiah’s criticism of Hezekiah’s pro-Egyptian policy and its consequences. In our analysis we have seen that the events of the year 701 BCE have played an important role in the idealized presentation of Hezekiah in the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kgs 18–19). If the year 701 BCE was a total catastrophe for Judah, how can we explain the transmission process where ‘a bird in a cage’ was identified with the prophet’s ideal king in

31.  For this shift of paradigm, see especially U. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte; R. G. Kratz, ‘Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments’, in Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums ‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads, ed. I. Fischer, K. Schmid, and H. G. M. Williamson, ATM 11 (Berlin: LIT, 2003), 1–22; M. J. de Jong, Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies, VTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); idem, ‘Biblical Prophecy – A Scribal Enterprise: The Old Testament Prophecy of Unconditional Judgment Considered as a Literary Phenomenon’, VT 61 (2011): 39–70. Even R. A. Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition, VTSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), should be included here. Young’s thesis is that Isaiah proclaimed salvation for Zion and regarded Hezekiah as an ideal king, and these traditions were then developed further in Isa. 36–37. 32.  See the NAP texts in S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997). 33.  For this see Laato, History and Ideology, 159–88. See further Williamson, ‘Isaiah: Prophet of Weal or Woe?’



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

43

the besieged Zion whom Yahweh saved from the hands of the Assyrian army? Can we boldly regard the criticism of the pro-Egyptian policy of Judah in 30.1-5, 15(-17) and 31.1-3 as originating from a post-Isaianic time? And have Isa. 1.4-9; 22.1-14 (and 32.9-14) nothing to do with the prophet’s critical message about Hezekiah’s foreign policy and the catastrophe of 701 BCE? Because I regard these texts as corresponding to the prophet’s criticism of Hezekiah, we need an explanation for the strong pro-Hezekiah tendency in Isa. 36–37.34 (3) The ‘miraculous’ salvation of Jerusalem by pestilence. Even though Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria without having received the prophet’s approval of this action and caused a great political catastrophe for Judah, in the subsequent transmission process the pestilence35 forcing an Assyrian retreat was regarded as a strong proof that Hezekiah was the righteous king whom Yahweh saved. This positive picture of Hezekiah led also to the prophet’s critical utterances about him and his policies being softened and downplayed. A historical scenario, in which Hezekiah admitted his part in the catastrophe of the year 701 BCE to Isaiah, is plausible and would make a positive Hezekiah reception easier in the Isaianic circles in subsequent decades. After all, Isaiah was the prophet who strongly supported the Davidic house (cf., Mic. 3.12 and Jer. 26.18-19). (4) Isaiah’s utopia of a pan-Israelite kingdom under the leadership of the Davidic dynasty. If we put Isaiah in the context of his time and regard him as a prophet of salvation we should ask how he thought the Assyrian threat could be stopped. I have discussed elsewhere that during the ninth and eighth centuries BCE pan-Aramean independence movements rose up in opposition against the Assyrian Empire. Many geographical areas mentioned in the Assyrian and Aramean sources (from tenth century to seventh century BCE) have the prefix bīt- and refer to tribes or dynasties that lived or ruled in that area. These areas are often mentioned in the Assyrian sources as places where rebellions arose and where some local ruler was the leader of the rebellion. Merodach-Baladan was one famous royal candidate who received support not only among the Bīt-Yakin but

34.  It is worth noting that Young (Hezekiah in History and Tradition, 46 n. 40, 129, 252–53, 289 n. 17) regards Isa. 30.1-5; 31.1 as corresponding to Isaiah’s warning against Hezekiah’s pro-Egyptian policy and Isa. 22.8-11 as referring to Hezekiah’s building projects. How can this claim be harmonized with his main hypothesis that Isaiah from the beginning had great expectations about Hezekiah? 35.  There is an option to interpret even Isa. 22.2 as referring to pestilence in the city of Jerusalem. See Laato, ‘Assyrian Propaganda’, 225. See also M. Barker, ‘Hezekiah’s Boil’, JSOT 95 (2001): 31–42.

44

Studies in Isaiah

also among other Aramean tribes: Bīt-Amukani, Bīt-Dakkuri, Bīt-Silani and Bīt-Sa’alla (ARAB II, 25-26, 51-52). The same tribes are mentioned in the inscriptions of Sennacherib as supporting Merodach-Baladan (ARAB II, 128-32).36 This parallel material from the history of the Aramean tribes in Syria and Mesopotamia suggests that similar hopes for a single ruler in Israel and Judah could have been connected with independence movements which are attested in Israel and Judah at the end of the eighth century BCE. So Merodach-Baladan, among others, could have served as a prototype for the idea of a new David who would reunite Judah and Israel against Assyria.37 (5) Isaiah proclaimed the prophecy of salvation concerning the dynasty of David in two political crises: the Syro-Ephraimite war and the Assyrian invasion. During the Syro-Ephraimite war Isaiah realized that his hope for immediate reunion of Judah and Ephraim was foundering. The Immanuel prophecy in Isa. 7.14-17 – which is in its present form reworked at least by the addition of ‘the Assyrian king’, perhaps even in some other way – is best to be taken as referring to a Davidic king (cf., Isa. 8.8 where the land of Judah is referred to as the land of Immanuel).38 Isaiah 7.14-17 is thus related to Isa. 8.23b–9.6 which is the announcement of the birth of the royal child predicted in the birth prophecy. The prophet had linked the birth of Immanuel with the destruction of Aram and Ephraim (Isa. 7.16), and when the enemies had been annihilated he announced the birth of 36.  For this see A. Laato, A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations, International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 104–9. 37.  In fact, all four eighth-century prophetic books contain positive announcements on the Davidic dynasty (Isa. 7.14-17; 8.23–9.6; 11.1-9; Hos. 3.5; Amos 9.11-12; Mic. 5.1-7). 38.  Young (Hezekiah in History and Tradition, 191) writes that ‘chronology once again favors the identification of Hezekiah as the throne name for Immanuel, as his recorded age at succession may be called into question’ (see further 181–90). Chronology is not inevitably against this identification (see Laato, ‘Who Is Immanuel?’, 141–44) but certainly cannot be regarded as favoring it. The fact is that the chronology in the present form of 2 Kgs 16–17 does not support the identification. Yet, on the other hand, chronological details in these chapters have their own problems. If we regard these details as problematic, we cannot change them in order that they would support our desired opinions. The situation is different in later editorial reworking, where such a detail may have been dismissed when Hezekiah and Immanuel were identified. See here also H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 112 n. 41.



Laato  Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah

45

Immanuel in Isa. 8.23b–9.6. He comforted the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom that the Davidic house would get a new king in the future, and under the reign of this king the Assyrian power will be destroyed.39 Another royal prophecy is Isa. 10.27-34 + 11.1-9, which is related to the crisis of the Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib.40 It seems to be the case that the prophet expected that Hezekiah would be dethroned (10.33-34), after which the Davidic dynasty nevertheless would get a new beginning from the roots of Isai. The prophecy is analogous to Mic. 5.1-7, where a new beginning of the Davidic house is expressed with the metaphor that the new king will be sought from Bethlehem, the home village of the family of David. In the subsequent transmission process the Immanuel prophecy and Isa. 8.23b–9.6 were related to Hezekiah,41 and Isa. 10.33-34 was connected with the destruction of the Assyrian army in the redactional unity of Isa. 10.5-34. However, Isa. 11.1-9 apparently preserved its ‘messianic’ character in the book of Isaiah, because the metaphor in v. 1 presupposes the fall of the royal house which from the perspective of the book took place in the exile.42 (6) Three texts – 8.5-10*, 17.12-14 and 29.1-7 – do not contain any specific references to Assyria. They all identify the nations attacking against Zion with chaos waters and in the last two of them Yahweh, the Storm God manifests his power as in the early form of the Zion theology. In my view these prophecies represent the best examples in Isa. 1–35 of material that has been transmitted in quite a reliable way (I cannot exclude small linguistic reworkings) and can be related to the proclamation of 39.  I understand Isa. 7.5-6 to indicate that the historical prophet was not critically inclined towards Ephraim but against the political plan of Rezin and the son of Remaliah to eliminate the Davidic king. While many scholars regard ‘Ephraim and the son of Remaliah’ as a later addition, I think this supposition is unnecessary. I interpret the verses in the following way: ‘Because Aram counsels Ephraim and the son of Remaliah to your detriment saying: “Let us mount an attack on Judah, destroy it, force it onto our side and install the son of Tabeal there as king”.’ 40.  For this combination Isa. 10.27-34 + 11.1-9, see Laato, ‘Who Is Immanuel?’, 198-209. 41.  See also Laato, ‘Who Is Immanuel?’; R. E. Clements, ‘The Immanuel Prophecy of Isa. 7:10-17 and Its Messianic Interpretation’, in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 225–40; Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 73–112. It is worth noting that in Isa. 39 the portrayal of Hezekiah is balanced. 42.  Young’s attempt to read Isa. 11.1-9 and the imagery of Isa. 11.1 as referring to Hezekiah is contrived (Hezekiah in History and Tradition, 164–80, 191).

46

Studies in Isaiah

Isaiah. Their redactional placements indicate, however, that they all are related to Isa. 36–37 in the present form of the book. In addition to these texts, I regard Isa. 30.27-33 as corresponding to the proclamation of Isaiah, even though it contains clear traces of reworking and it is difficult to decide how its final form is related to Isaiah’s own words. 5. Conclusions Let me summarize my results. Isaiah was a prophet who put his firm reliance on Yahweh, who had promised to secure his divine abode on Mount Zion and to protect the Davidic dynasty. Isaiah uttered prophecies of salvation when Zion and the dynasty were threatened. In the postIsaianic period, Hezekiah and the ‘miraculous’ salvation of Jerusalem were taken to correspond to Isaiah’s proclamation. Isaiah 36–37 are the result of this hermeneutical process. In the book of Isaiah, the aim of this paradigmatic history was to show that the great vision of Isa. 2.2-4 and its many parallels in Isa. 40–66 describe the future of Zion, which is not merely utopian, because once upon a time Yahweh manifested his power to the humble and righteous king Hezekiah by saving him from the hands of Assyrian army. Behind this paradigm we can hear the voice of the historical prophet Isaiah and his firm reliance on Yahweh’s promises to the Davidic dynasty and his assurance of the inviolability of Zion.

T h e T em p l e of G od and C r i se s i n I s a i a h 65–66 a n d 1 E noch

Stefan Green The presence of God is closely linked with the temple in both the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish tradition. However, scholars have pointed out that the relation between the temple and Jerusalem became a complex issue in the apocalyptic literature.1 The book of Revelation replaces the physical temple with God himself: ‘I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb’ (Rev. 21.22, NRSV). On the other hand, in the eschatology of Sib. Or. 3, the uniqueness of the Jerusalem temple is emphasized, as it will be the centre of all religion: ‘From every land they will bring incense and gifts to the house of the great God. There will be no other house among men, even for future generations to know, except the one which God gave to faithful men to honor…’ (3.77275).2 Enochic literature accommodates an alternating discussion of an 1.  E.g. R. E. Clements, God and Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 123–34; D. L. Petersen, ‘The Temple in Persian Period Prophetic Texts’, in Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period, ed. P. R. Davies, JSOTSup 117 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 126–28; J. J. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period, IRGLS 1 (Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 1998), 3–4. 2.  J. J. Collins, ‘Sibylline Oracles’, OTP 1:379. See also 3.702-703, 573-75, 657-68, 718-19. Jerusalem is mentioned as the ‘city’ a couple of times in 3.668, 734, and as the ‘maiden’ in 3.785 (see R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, SVTP 17 [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 291–92, 345, 346, 353–55). Petersen refers to E. Gaines’s dissertation, where ‘she notes that in the third Sibylline Oracle, “the image of the city itself has been entirely displaced by the temple as the place of divine presence”’ (Petersen, ‘The Temple in Persian Period’, 127). Nickelsburg and Stone do, on the other hand, say that 3.702-30 describes ‘life in Jerusalem around God’s temple and his presence…’ (G. W. E. Nickelsburg and M. E. Stone, Early Judaism: Texts and Documents on Faith and Piety, 2nd ed. [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009], 78). According to my view, Jerusalem is not displaced by the temple in Sib. Or. 3 as they are men­­ tioned together in lines 767–95. Instead, Jerusalem is predicted as the capital for a new kingdom, and its temple will be the centre of all religion in the world.

48

Studies in Isaiah

eschatological temple. For example, the Animal Apocalypse describes the new Jerusalem without a temple, while the Apocalypse of Weeks has an eschatological temple waiting for the righteous (90.29; 91.13). In the Community Rule from Qumran, the council of the community is the temple. The reason for this application is probably the critique of the temple and its priesthood in Jerusalem: ‘then shall the party of the Yahad truly be established, an “eternal planting” ’ [Jub. 16.26], a temple for Israel…’ (1QS 8.5).3 What these examples of texts, all influenced by an apocalyptic world view, have in common is the importance of the presence of God in a new age; the temple’s place is harder to ascertain. The complexity of the approach to the temple and Jerusalem is not limited to the apocalypses in the period following 200 BCE. Diverse perspectives on the place of the temple did not arise suddenly during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but can, in fact, be traced back to the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. In a recent article, John Barton discusses the fact that we have pro-cultic statements in post-exilic prophetic books, and anti-cultic statements in pre-exilic prophetic books.4 His conclusion is that there were different opinions among the Israelite prophets regarding cultic religion and that there was a tension between them, in particular regarding sacrificial observance.5 Jeremiah is one of those pre-exilic prophets who, in his temple sermon, seems to oppose the sacrificial cult.6 However, in my opinion, Jeremiah does not reject the temple entirely (Jer. 7.1-3). Instead, he warns against a misuse of the sanctuary, which is visible in the people’s misplaced trust (7.4), as the temple has been turned into a refuge for robbers (7.11).7 Therefore, Jeremiah starts to imagine a religion without the Ark of the Covenant (3.15-18).8 3.  Cf. CD 4.12–5.9. Translation from M. O. Wise, M. G. Abegg Jr., and E. M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). 4.  J. Barton, ‘The Prophets and the Cult’, in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day, LHBOTS 422 (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 111–13. 5.  Barton here follows Mary Douglas’s point, that ‘ritualistic and anti-ritualistic opinions can occur within the same general religious culture…’ (Barton, ‘The Prophets and the Cult’, 118, 121). 6.  Barton suggests that we might have a case in Jer. 7.22 where the sacrificial activity in itself is the issue (cf. Ps. 50.9-12; Amos 5.25), and ‘The heart of religion consists instead in right social interaction’ (Barton, ‘The Prophets and the Cult’, 121). 7.  For a similar and more developed view, see G. Eidevall, ‘Rejected Sacrifices in the Prophetic Literature: A Rhetorical Perspective’, SEÅ 78 (2013): 31–45. 8.  According to Jer. 3.17, God’s throne will be identified with Jerusalem when the Ark of the Covenant is gone (‫בעת ההיא יקראו לירושלם כסא יהוה ונקוו אליה כל־הגוים‬ ‫)לשם יהוה לירושלם‬, in contrast to Isa. 66.1-4, 6 where the throne is connected with



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

49

In Isa. 66.1-4, 6 this ambivalent view of the temple continues, and thus breaks the pattern typical for post-exilic biblical prophets by outrightly questioning both the temple and the sacrificial observances for the same reasons as in Jer. 7.9 In that way, Isa. 65–66 can function as a bridge that explains certain shifts that already began to appear regarding the attitude to the temple among the pre-exilic prophets. Like Jeremiah, Isa. 66.1-4, 6 is not rejecting the temple per se but claims that it is simply not necessary for the presence of God. The temple is a help in the worship of God, but the author of Isa. 65–66 finds it necessary to question the temple because it was to no avail under circumstances dominated by idolatry, syncretism and socially immoral behaviour. However, unlike in Jeremiah, the temple is mentioned together with Jerusalem in Isa. 66.6, something that marks a difference between the two prophets.10 With the combination in Isa. 66.1-4 and v. 6, its author developed and continued a prophetic tradition from the pre-exilic era towards a Jewish apocalyptic view on the presence of God. The latter was a tradition that was critical and even hostile towards the Second Temple, but nevertheless included the prospect of an eschatological sanctuary – whether cosmic, a building, or merged with a new Jerusalem – to which all people shall gather to worship God.

the temple in v. 1, and the temple is mentioned together with Jerusalem in v. 6a (‫קול‬ ‫)שאון מעיר קול מהיכל‬. In both situations the Ark of the Covenant is gone, and there is a stress that God will still bless his people with his presence. See W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 120–21. 9.  As suggested by P. A. Smith, Isa. 66.1-4 is echoing Jeremiah’s temple sermon. P. A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth, and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66, VTSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 158–59. Cf. J. Ådna, ‘Jesus and the Temple’, in The Historical Jesus, ed. T. Holmén and S. E. Porter, 4 vols., HSHJ (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 3:2669–72. 10.  In Jer. 3.16-17, the emphasis is on Jerusalem, and not on the temple, probably because of the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant, while the author of Isa. 66.1-4, 6 finds reasons to combine the temple and the city. Thus, in Isa. 65–66, the temple is still important for the presence of God, which is implied by the accusations and disappointment in 66.3 and the parallel ‘city’ and ‘temple’ in 66.6a. This would contradict Collins’s suggestion that ‘the Isaianic prophet thought, like the much later prophet of Revelation, that immediate presence of God would render the temple unnecessary’ (Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 8). The author of Isa. 65–66 did not understand the temple as irrelevant for a new age.

50

Studies in Isaiah

I am not suggesting that there is a linear development from Jer. 7 to the Jewish apocalyptic literature via Isa. 65–66, regarding how different groups in the period from 200 BCE viewed the temple in Jerusalem.11 However, in this study I will focus on Isa. 66.1-4, 6 and possible common denominators with 1 Enoch regarding the temple: the crises of the temple, the questioning of the temple, the defilement of the temple and the nature of the temple. The aim of such focus is to illustrate the shift from prophetic literature to an apocalyptic genre, and as will be seen below, such a move is clearly visible in how the texts deal with the presence of God and the temple. Below, I will continue my discussion by analyzing the crisis as a theme, first in Isa. 65–66 and then more generally from the perspective of crises in the history of temples, and propose a temple crisis in Isa. 65–66 in addition to the ones connected to the exile, the Maccabean era and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Then, I will inquire into the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, and after that provide some reflections on the other three common denominators, before I finish with a concluding remark. 1. Isaiah 65–66 and the Crisis of the Temple When Isa. 65–66 is referring to a temple, either directly or implied, it stands in contrast to much of what is going on in that text. In Isa. 65.3a-5, the rebellious are accused of idolatry ‘in the gardens’ (‫בגנות‬, v. 3a) which are specific locations secluded for cultic activities. The gardens are referred to again in 66.17a-b as areas where ‘abominable’ things took place. These gardens stand in contrast to the paradise-like garden in 65.17-25, which the author closely associates with the recreation of a world-temple and a temple-city in vv. 17-18. Another stark contrast to the idolatry ‘in the gardens’, the burning of incense ‘on the mountains’ and the insults ‘on the hills’ in 65.7b, is the mention of God’s mountain in Isa. 65.9a, 11a, and 25b (‫ הרי‬and ‫)הר קדשי‬. In Isa. 65, the holy mountain is a potent symbol for Zion and a reference to the temple mount in Jerusalem, the centre of true worship. In that capacity, it is the symbol of the presence of God and the source of order in the new world.12 It is also 11.  Another example of the trend among the biblical pre-exilic and exilic prophets, which moved the focus from the temple in Jerusalem to God’s heavenly, abode is Ezekiel’s visions. (For a discussion of Ezekiel’s visions of the chariot throne, see M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], 10–13). 12.  The idea of Zion as a mountain at the centre of the earth is also found in Isa. 2.2-4 (Mic. 4.1-2) and Ps. 48.2-4. See also R. J. Clifford, Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, HSM 4 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010], 107–20, 131–60).



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

51

likely that the author imagined ‘my (holy) mountain’ in Isa. 65 as reaching the ‘heavens’ (v. 17), thus functionally describing the true temple and the place from which God will reign over the universe.13 The stark contrasts in Isa. 65–66, the explicit reference to a temple, impure sacrificial rituals, and disappointment and accusations in Isa. 66.1-4, 6, all imply a crisis in the early post-exilic period in connection with the cult.14 The pressure forced a response of resistance that also broke with a temple tradition when the response questioned the house of God. However, this reaction in Isa. 66 is not a sign of a direct rejection of the temple, but rather highlights what a group in the community did not understand about the presence of God. Because of that, they had defiled the cult and Jerusalem with their idolatry and syncretism. I will further substantiate such a scenario by inquiring into five aspects relating to the nature of the temple of God, as found in Isa. 66.1-4, 6. These are: (1) a throne that connects the heavens and earth; (2) a palace for a universal king who 13.  The concepts ‘my mountain’ and ‘my holy mountain’ in Isa. 65–66 receive many of their connotations from the historical and religious background in the ancient Near East. However, the associations between temple and mountain are more common in Ugaritic literature than in Egypt and Mesopotamia because of the plains. See further, regarding the holy mountain in ancient Near East, for example, Clements, God and Temple, 1–16; Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, 9–33; J. M. Lundquist, ‘What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology’, in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 205–20. 14.  Even if Isa. 65–66 has its limitations as a primary source for the historical period under discussion, the text can still serve as an indirect source of information regarding the historical and social situation in post-exilic Yehud. Examples of scholars who have demonstrated this potential with regard to Isa. 65–66 are: P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); J. Blenkinsopp, ‘A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period’, CBQ 52 (1990): 5–20; S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah, HSM 46 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The “Servants of the Lord” in Third Isaiah: Profile of a Pietistic Group in the Persian Epoch’, in ‘The Place Is too Small for Us’: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. R. P. Gordon (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 392–412; B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration, JSOTSup 193 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995); L. Ruszkowski, Volk und Gemeinde im Wandel: Eine Untersuchung zu Jesaja 56–66, FRLANT 191 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); J. L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003); L.-S. Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood, FAT 2/19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).

52

Studies in Isaiah

administers judgment upon the rebellious and salvation for the faithful; (3) an abode for divine transcendence; (4) a place for pure worship; and (5) something utterly holy and not of this world. By extension, the affinity of the humble and contrite with the temple as a house of prayer and worship in v. 66.2b becomes a premonition of a universalistic and eschatological temple in Isa. 66.18-24. These five aspects of the temple of God are emanating from the questioning of an earthly temple in Isa. 66.1. The questioning indicates that the house had become non-functional, and thus an issue or a symbol for a crisis that divided the community according to Isa. 65–66. However, the issue is also very likely an indication of a wider religious and social crisis. The political situation in the Persian Empire was unstable after Emperor Cambyses (530–522 BCE), and the rise of Darius (522–486 BCE) began with suppression of revolts in many regions. No uprising occurred in Yehud, but it was still part of an area that was essential for Darius’s military activity in Egypt, and this must have affected the inhabitants of Yehud.15 A strategy of Darius was the rebuilding of temples throughout the empire, seemingly to gain good will, but the real reason was likely to strengthen his imperial power and the logistics of his army on its way to Egypt.16 This policy meant that Darius mandated the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple for administrative purposes.17 The passage in Isa. 65–66 implies that the author takes a reserved and critical approach to the current political situation. An influence of the imperial rule of the Persian king Darius over Jerusalem can explain the religious pluralism in the community of syncretism.18 The questioning of 15.  Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow, 60–65. 16.  In Portier-Young’s discussion of the imperial oversight of temples, she refers to Goldstone and Haldon, who observe that rulers (Assyrians and Persians) ‘became actively involved in the dominant cults of conquered territories, which were then assimilated into a broader network of divine relationships, participation in which guaranteed both continuing divine support and therefore political and institutional stability’ (A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 85–86). Berquist also says: ‘Like Cyrus before him, Darius used religion and native traditions to construct an image of the Persian emperor as beneficent ruler, causing significant portions of local populations to ally themselves with Persia without military expenditures’ (Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow, 57). 17.  J. Blenkinsopp, ‘Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah’, in Davies, ed., Second Temple Studies 1, 62–63. 18.  See, e.g., Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow, 73–80. Erhard S. Gerstenberger says that ‘within and underneath the “official” competing confessions, there existed a popular belief that fed on all kinds of archaic, contemporary, and cultural



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

53

the temple in Isa. 66.1-2a, therefore, reflects not only an ongoing local fight over cultic worship, but also an official debate regarding Darius’s mandate to rebuild the temple and the Persian influence over Israel’s religious life.19 When these two levels of struggles interconnect in Isa. 65–66, we have a discourse against a dominant group, which has been established by the imperial ruler as an elite in ‘a semi-autonomous templecommunity’.20 Therefore, Isa. 66.1-4, 6 reflects a resistance to a religious and social situation that jeopardized the exclusive faith in YHWH and the temple of God as an undefiled house of prayer.21 The questioning in 66.1, prompted by this crisis, must have been both a harsh critique of the relevance of a centralized temple and priesthood, and a challenge to the Persian influence. YHWH, not Darius, is the creator and king of the universe, and his throne’s footstool is and will be located in Jerusalem. In this sense, the view of the temple of God in Isa. 66.1-4, 6 does not differ much from how Ezekiel is presenting the future eschatological temple of God. It is the conviction in Isa. 65–66, as well as in Ezekiel, that humans cannot recreate the divine – only God can create the true nature of the temple for his people. Hence, the author implies an exhortation to repentance, directed at the rebellious in the community,22 and it would have provoked Darius and his local representatives. 2. Crises in the History of Temples John J. Collins says in a published lecture that ‘much of Jewish apocalyptic literature was inspired by three major crises that befell Jerusalem and its temple’. The first one was the destruction of the city and its temple by sources’ (E. S. Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E, BibEnc 8 [Atlanta: SBL, 2011], 118). Some of these ‘contemporary, and cultural sources’ can very well have their rise in the imperial influence over Yehud as a temple-province. 19.  For a discussion concerning the adoption of popular views and practices, and the official ritual, that likely characterized Israel in the Persian period, see Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period, 116–21. 20.  See Blenkinsopp, ‘Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah’, 51. 21.  The exclusive identification with YHWH among groups of post-exilic Jews was obviously very important for the survival of ‘my people’ (‫ )אמי‬under the Persian rule (cf. Ezra–Nehemiah), despite the policy of decentralization of religion (cf. Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period, 435–42). 22.  That Isa. 65–66 up to 66.2 had the intention to persuade the rebellious in Yehud to repent is also implied by the change of address in Isa. 66.3-4. Here, the divine voice gave up on the rebellious by starting to speak about them in the third person, followed by an address to the faithful in the second person from v. 5.

54

Studies in Isaiah

the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, the second one was the defilement of the Second Temple during the Maccabean era, and the third one was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE.23 Collins explains that during the first crisis, many prophetic themes and motifs developed ‘that appear again in the apocalyptic literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods’.24 His example of Ezekiel’s dream of a new Jerusalem and a new temple ‘that surpassed any historical reality’ illustrates well that observation.25 Proceeding from these observations, I would further argue that parallels between Isa. 65.19b-23; 66.1-4, 6, 20-24 and Ezek. 43.1-12; 47.1-12 could imply that the vision of the temple of God in Isa. 65–66 reflects a separate temple crisis, and hence provides an important pre-stage to Jewish apocalyptic literature. A couple of observations could be brought up in support for such a notion. First, turning to Collins, he suggests that Isa. 66 is ‘atypical of Jewish apocalyptic literature…in questioning the need for a temple’, because the author of Isa. 65–66 was disappointed over the fact that the Second Temple did not turn out as impressive as the first one.26 This interpretation of Isa. 66.1 is not, according to my view, the obvious one. What Collins describes as ‘expressed skepticism and disillusionment’ would be better understood as caused by apostasy and lack of insight into the true nature of the temple of God. In Hag. 2.3, there is a clear reference to disappointment among post-exilic Jews regarding what the Second Temple looked like, a reference that is not in Isa. 66.1-4, 6, although it does not seem to be of primary concern to prophet Haggai. What worries Haggai more in 2.10-14 is spiritual uncleanness among the people that defiles the temple, which is a concern he shares with the prophet in Isa. 66.1-4, 6. So, according to my reading, Isa. 66.1 is rather similar to the way Jewish apocalyptic literature relates to temple crises and what causes them. As in the Jewish apocalyptic literature of the Hellenistic 23.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 4. See also J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed., Biblical Resource Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 69, where he says that ‘The first period [in the Animal Apocalypse, roughly the Babylonian period] culminates in the rebuilding of the temple’. 24.  Collins illustrates this observation by referring to Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of an ideal temple and city, the utopian descriptions of Jerusalem and its sanctuary in Isa. 54.11-12 and 60.13, and Haggai’s prophecy in 2.6-7 (cf. 2.20-23) about the final but still not fulfilled glory of the temple. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 4–8. 25.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 8. 26.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 8.



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

55

and Roman periods, I suggest that Isa. 65–66 reflects a temple-crisis that led its author to resist the spirit of the time. In particular, it is Isa. 66.1-4, 6 that voices a strong resistance to the perceived defilement of the temple. In other words, the questioning of a temple in 66.1 is more an attack on the rebellious group in Isa. 65–66 than disappointment over a rebuilt house of God. Hence, not in contrast to Collins, but as a suggestion, I propose that there were four, not three, major crises in the history of Jewish temples, crises that struck Jerusalem and its temple, and inspired apocalyptic literature. A new crisis, though not as destructive as the first one, took place with the construction of the Second Temple in the early post-exilic period (539–515 BCE). The following observations indicate this: (1) a defilement befell the temple, in addition to the disappointment in Ezra 3.12 over the completed sanctuary; (2) this corruption caused its literature and responses, for example, Isa. 65.1–66.17 and Hag. 2.10-14, and Neh. 13 and Mal. 1.6–2.17 is later reflecting it (cf. Neh. 10.29-40); (3) we can understand the questioning of the temple in Isa. 66.1, in a historical context, as being caused by a religious and social crisis that was wider than a local issue of defilement of the temple. Isaiah 66.1-2a was, among other texts, a resistance against the mandate by King Darius to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and thus ultimately against his influence over the temple as a cultic centre in a Persian province; (4) this crisis, taking place after the destruction of the first temple, is also reflected in later Jewish apocalypses as a new crisis. I will here expand more on the fourth of these observations. The Second Temple crisis would have occurred shortly after the Babylonian exile, and it was never resolved in the mind of the religious groups behind apocalyptic texts from the second century BCE. A brief recapitulation of the third major crisis will help us on our way to see this. The third crisis broke out around 175 BCE, and all kinds of struggles around the office of high priest characterized it. The Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes seized power that year, and a certain Jason, brother of the Zadokite high priest Onias III, offered Antiochus a sum of money to make him high priest instead of his brother. The king could not resist this bribe, especially when Jason promised to speed up the process of Hellenization in Judaea. A few years later (171 BCE) a more eager Hellenizer named Menelaus, who did not belong to the Zadokite line, offered the king a larger sum if he would put him in authority instead of Jason. This power struggle marked the end of the Zadokite line. According to 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Second Temple was defiled in 167 BCE by Antiochus IV himself when he asserted his power by abolishing the constitution of

56

Studies in Isaiah

its cult, banned Jewish practices, replaced them with pagan observances and gave Jerusalem a new constitution as a Hellenistic city. As is well known, those events led up to the Maccabean rising, the purification of the temple, and to the independent period governed by the Hasmonaean dynasty that lasted to 63 BCE.27 In sum, this third crisis defiled the temple and Jerusalem, not least because of the influence of an imperial rule over the religious life in Judah, and gave rise to Jewish apocalyptic literature with eschatological content.28 An example of such a piece of literature is the Animal Apocalypse (henceforth An. Apoc.). The precise date of this work is uncertain, but because of the reference to Judas Maccabeus’s initial victories in 90.12, the original work was probably written some time after the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt (165 BCE) and before the death of Judas (160 BCE). Then a subsequent addition (90.9b-10, 12-16), which probably derives from sometime between 163–160 BCE, updates the apocalypse.29 Looking at this apocalypse, it associates the temple and its cult with crises, reflecting a resistance against the defilement of the temple that makes it comparable to how Isa. 65–66 indicates a temple crisis in the early post-exilic period. In fact, there are indications that the An. Apoc is remembering the second crisis suggested above, to which I now turn my attention.

27.  See 1 Macc. 1–4; 2 Macc. 4–10; cf. J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (London: SCM, 1986), 417–27; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 67–69; C. Seeman, ‘Jewish History from Alexander to Pompey’, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. D. C. Harlow and J. J. Collins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 32–36. 28.  See also M. E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts, repr. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 45. 29.  For more on dates, see P. A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, EJL 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 61–79. Cf. J. C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 161–63; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 70; M. A. Knibb, ‘Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings from Before the Common Era’, in Day, ed., Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 406; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 347–52; D. C. Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: ‘All Nations Shall be Blessed’, SVTP 24 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1. See also G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 360–61; J. T. Milik, with the collaboration of M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 244.



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

57

3. The Animal Apocalypse and the Crisis of the Temple The An. Apoc. (85–90) is the second vision in the Book of Dreams (83–90), and summarizes allegorically the history of humanity from Adam to the end time. It presents people as different species of animals: for example, Israelites as ‘sheep’ and Gentile nations as various wild animals that prey upon the former. The desert camp and Jerusalem are depicted as a ‘house’, and the temple as a ‘tower’. YHWH himself is described as ‘the Lord of the sheep’, but after the account of the two kingdoms and their apostasy, he abandons the sheep and appoints ‘seventy’ angelic patrons to oversee them (89.59-60). These angels are ‘shepherds’, divided into four periods after having been commissioned to pasture Israel according to the will of God.30 Another angel is appointed to function as a scribe that records the seventy’s misdeeds and pleads with God on behalf of the sheep (89.61-64).31 Thus, in the An. Apoc., the reality is described dualistically, consisting of an earthly realm of history and a heavenly sphere of angelic activity. There is also a pattern of sin and punishment throughout the apocalypse;32 and when the day of judgment arrives, the seventy shepherds together with the fallen Watchers (‘the stars’) are condemned for their evilness and thrown into the fire. In the following future ideal era, all the sheep are restored in several stages: they are resurrected to a ‘new house’ in the land, peace is established, and they are made righteous.33 Other signs of the new era are the birth of a white bull, which implies a restoration of the primordial time of creation, and a universalistic perspective when Israel and all nations 30.  The four divisions (89.65–90.19) correspond to the periods of Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid rule (Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, 54–60). The ‘seventy’ also represent appointments of particular periods of time. For conclusive arguments that the ‘shepherds’ are angels, see R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:255. 31.  See also 89.68-71, 76-77; 90.14, 17, 20, 22. The angelic scribe can be identified with the archangel Michael (90.22). See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 85. 32.  This pattern also divides the Animal Apocalypse into three ages, each beginning with a white bull (Adam, Noah, and an unknown eschatological figure). See Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 3–4, 15–18. 33.  These stages in the final era are described by Brand as one of the things that makes the Animal Apocalypse unique. See M. T. Brand, ‘1 Enoch’, in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 2:1359–452 (1360). The dead appear to be raised in 90.33, and the sword is sealed up in v. 34.

58

Studies in Isaiah

will be transformed and united into a single righteous species (85.3; 89.1, 9; 90.37-38). The updated version of the An. Apoc. does not mention Antiochus’s persecution of the Jews and the defilement of the temple. Such a circumvention most likely reflects the negative attitude towards the Second Temple, even after its purification in connection to the Maccabean crisis. In fact, the apocalypse seems to perceive the early post-exilic period as reflecting a new crisis after the first one when Solomon’s temple was destroyed by the Babylonians: ‘And they began again to build as before and they raised up that tower and it was called the high tower. And they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure’ (89.73).34 This depiction of the rebuilding of the Second Temple, and the events that immediately follow it, are included in the second period of the shepherds’ activity that covers the return from exile to Alexander the Great (89.72b–90.1).35 The apocalypse is describing the crisis of the Second Temple as being caused by defilement, but 89.74 also adds to the situation that the blindness among ‘sheep’ from pre-exilic times (v. 54) had continued after the exile, and now included the ‘shepherds’ too. Furthermore, the angelic patrons of their time handed over the people to the Gentiles ‘for greater destruction’ (89.74). Ezra’s reform is not mentioned, and the apostasy is presented as characteristic for the entire Persian period.36 The apocalypse also notes how reclusive the ‘Lord of the sheep’ seems to be, as he remains silent throughout this Second Temple crisis: ‘And the Lord of the sheep remained silent until all the sheep were scattered over the field and were mixed with them, and they [the shepherds] did not save them from the hand of the beasts’ (89.75). 34.  The English translation by G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). 35.  Here, I follow Nickelsburg’s outline of Enoch’s Second Dream Vision, where the activity of the ‘seventy shepherds’ begins in 89.59, and the first period in 89.65 (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 394). 36.  M. Black, The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 273. However, the question is who the three returning sheep are in 89.72b, who began to rebuild the ‘house’ (Jerusalem) and the ‘tower’ (the temple). Among all the theories it is most likely that two of them are Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezra 2.2), but the third one is more difficult to identify. Suggestions are Haggai or Zechariah, Ezra or Nehemiah. Nickelsburg suggest that it is Sheshbazzar (cf. Black, The Book of Enoch, 273, and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 394). 89.72b-75 says nothing about reforms, only that Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt and then defiled, which would exclude Ezra as the third sheep.



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

59

As seen here, the An. Apoc. presents this Second Temple crisis as separate from the first temple crisis in 89.66-67. First, there is a particular focus on details regarding the first temple (‘tower’) in v. 50 that distinguishes it from the rebuilding of the temple in v. 73. The apocalypse is describing the first tower and its table as more impressive than the second tower and its table, and while ‘the Lord of sheep’ is present ‘on’ the first tower in v. 50, he is not present on the second tower in vv. 73-75.37 Second, the rebuilding of the second tower in vv. 73-75 is presented as a restart that failed almost before it was initiated, and resulted in consequences that are not mentioned in connection to the first tower in the previous crisis. Besides the absence of God, the table and its bread are defiled, which is not the case with the table before the first tower. Third, in v. 75 ‘The Lord of the sheep’ remained silent and even more passive because of the Second Temple crisis (cf. v. 58). In vv. 61-64, God commands that an angelic scribe shall record the deeds of the commissioned ‘shepherds’ in a book and regularly read in his presence. In v. 71, after the first crisis, God himself is rereading this book, but that is not repeated after the second crisis in v. 77. In fact, there is no reading of the book at all in the third period (90.2-5), which describes the Wars of Diadokhoi (323–301 BCE); nor in the fourth period (90.6-19), which gives an account of the wars of Judas Maccabeus (166–161 BCE) and the end time before the final judgment.38 However, the book is opened again in this last period before the judgment, and shown (90.17), but still not specifically reread by God. There is certainly a continuity in the An. Apoc. between 89.66-67 (the first crisis in the first period) and 89.74-75 (the second crisis in the second period) regarding the consequences of apostasy, which demonstrates that nothing had changed for the better between the crises.39 However, it is also clear from the above that the apocalypse emphasizes a distinct continuity 37.  For a more in-depth discussion, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 394–95. 38.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 396. 39.  In the An. Apoc., blindness is also continuing from 89.74 (see also v. 54) into the fourth period, where a younger generation begins to see again and starts to call their older generation to repentance, but to deaf ears (90.6-7). Knibb says that ‘The condemnation of the cult in the Second Temple period…forms part of a more widespread pattern of interpretation according to which Judah continued in a state of exile after the return, a state that would only be finally brought to an end with the inauguration of the new age…’ (Knibb, ‘Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings’, 407, cf. 408). Stone also discusses the attitude of the Essenes towards the temple as very negative and ‘regarded themselves as still in exile’ (Stone, Scriptures, Sects, and Visions, 75–76). While I am not disputing these kinds of observations, I argue for a specific continuity between the second and third crises (see below).

60

Studies in Isaiah

between the second crisis during the second period and the fourth period regarding the heavenly activities surrounding ‘the book of the destruction’ (see 90.17). Furthermore, in contrast to the table before the first tower, the second tower is specifically marked as defiled by the polluted bread on the table, and after that no more tables, and no more temples, are mentioned in the apocalypse. Hence, the reaction in the An. Apoc. to the crises is very powerful and negative, perhaps even, as Collins says, ‘hyperbolic’.40 The following, then, all underscore the strength of this negative attitude towards the Second Temple from its beginning: the complete rejection of the Second Temple in the apocalypse, implicitly regarding the third temple crisis as an extension of the second one by bypassing it in silence, references to the end time wrath of God in the fourth period (a period to which the apocalypse in its present form should logically be dated), and the following final judgment where all the problems are corrected, as recounted in 86.1–90.19. Therefore, it is possible to regard the An. Apoc. as part of a tradition that was critical of the Jerusalem temple and its priesthood even before the events it reflects. Collins traces this tradition back to the reaction of the Maccabean crisis in the book of Daniel.41 However, as we have seen, the An. Apoc. fits better with the idea of a second crisis, and its resistance and response could represent a dissent that found inspiration in texts like Isa. 65–66. The fact that the An. Apoc. is concerned with a second crisis in particular and places all hope in a final judgment, a new age and a new Jerusalem for its people, makes it comparable to Isa. 65–66. Besides these expressed hopes for the future in both texts, I would like to propose four other aspects or motifs where there are points of contact between Isa. 65–66 and the An. Apoc. regarding the crises of the temple: (1) Defilement and rejection. The corruption of the cult in Jerusalem is the primary reason behind the second crisis in 89.73, which led to the total rejection of the Second Temple in the An. Apoc. It is also the reason for not bringing up the temple-topic in the fourth period of the apocalypse. Similarly, it might be suggested that Isa. 65–66 reacts to a defilement of the temple as a cult of worship (see Isa. 65.1-7, 11; 66.3, 17). The rejection in Isa. 65–66 is also total when its author is questioning the polluted temple, and the presence of God manifests itself in ways that are not connected to the temple cult. The hope for new heavens and a new earth, as well as a new Jerusalem for its elect people, also indicates this rejection in Isa. 65–66 (cf. also Hag. 2.10-14). 40.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 10. 41.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 10.



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

61

(2) The divine presence in the temple. When Solomon built the first ‘high tower’ in 89.50, it is emphasized that it ‘was high’ and that ‘the Lord of the sheep stood on that tower…’ When the three returning ‘sheep’ started to rebuild the temple in v. 73, that which is not said is what stands out in the text: the finished construction lacks the additional epithet of being high, and there is no presence of God associated with this second ‘high tower’. God’s persistent silence in v. 75 stresses the seriousness of the situation – he is not personal with the people – and this situation of divine inactivity lasts throughout period 3 (90.2-5) until the end time in period 4 (vv. 17-19),42 which is followed by final judgment with fire. In a similar way, the most prominent element regarding the temple in Isa. 65–66 is the questioning of it in 66.1-4. The presence of God is neither in the temple nor with the syncretistic and idolatrous worshipping people, and this situation is not resolved until the latter are annihilated with fire in 66.15-17 (see also v. 24). Isaiah 66.1b is also describing God as normally being on/upon the temple, that is if ‘earth’ in that verse is associated with the earthly temple as his ‘footstool’. Thus, we have an idea in 89.50 regarding the presence of God and the temple that seems to have been influenced by texts like Isa. 6.1; 66.1b and Ezek. 43.7, or at least stands in a similar tradition. (3) The people still in exile. Nothing changed for the better between the second and fourth periods according to the An. Apoc. Signs of crises are, among others, the silence of ‘the Lord of the sheep’, the book of records, and blindness among the people and its leaders. One of the things to be noted about the latter is that blindness is presented as a problem already after the first temple was built in 89.54 (see also v. 33). So, in the apocalypse, the ‘sheep’ were still in exile after the second period. A younger generation (‘lambs’) received their sight back in the fourth period (90.6-7) but were ignored and eventually killed. In 90.26, the blind sheep are finally judged by God. Isaiah 55 reflects high expectations at the return from the exile, but in Isa. 65–66 its author questions the temple and hopes for a future new Jerusalem and a transformed paradise-like land for the elect people. In sum, Isa. 65–66 concludes that the majority of the people are rebellious and still in exile. Isaiah 65–66 does not mention anything about a book of records, nor is the status quo of the people specifically described as blindness.

42.  I am not here entering into a discussion of text-critical issues regarding 90.6-19 because it is beyond the purpose of the present study. For the dating issue, see the discussion above in connection to n. 29.

62

Studies in Isaiah

However, the rebellious are accused of not responding to the call of God in Isa. 65.1-2, 12; 66.4. This unresponsiveness indicates deafness (see 65.12b), and deafness together with blindness is part of the problem among the ‘sheep’ in 90.7. (4) Imperial hegemony. According to 1–2 Maccabees, Antiochus IV plundered the temple and shamed Jerusalem. In Portier-Young’s words, he ‘imposed on Judea a program of decreation and recreation, assigning himself the role of creator and provider, and commanding his subjects to obey his edict and forsake their tradition, identity, and God’.43 However, the An. Apoc. silently passes over Antiochus’s persecution of the Jews and the defilement of their temple in 167 BCE. The apocalypse does not give him a leading role in Israel’s story, and thereby no authority over the destiny of the Jews. As Portier-Young explains it, Antiochus is just one of the ‘beasts’ and ‘birds’ that will flee from the Lord of the sheep.44 Instead, angelic ‘shepherds’ had authority over the Judaeans, even if the former misused that mandate, a fact that emphasized God’s sovereignty in the age of Seleucid domination.45 Portier-Young’s assertion that ‘against the totalizing claims of the empire the apocalyptic writers offered a different totalizing narrative’ is also applicable to Isa. 65–66.46 As in the An. Apoc., there is no mention of a king in the age of Persian dominion. Its author does not give Darius a role in connection with the temple but instead asserts God’s all-vanquishing power.47 In the face of the two crises during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the temple and its priesthood were a political and religious institution, and the visionaries of these texts were both critical of the fact that it did not represent an entirely autonomous temple-community.

43.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 346. 44.  90.18-19. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 350. 45.  Tiller says that ‘certain features of the An. Apoc. encourage us to examine its political setting and stance’, and therefore describes the An. Apoc. as a ‘political history’ that evaluates ‘various contemporary political establishments…’ (Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch, 101). See also Portier-Young’s discussion of the Heliodorus Stele and Seleucid oversight of local sanctuaries, which forms a background to the upcoming Maccabean crisis (Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 79–91). 46.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 350. 47.  See above, section 1, ‘Isaiah 65–66 and the Crisis of the Temple’ and the discussion of the Persian Empire, and below, section 4, ‘Behind the Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and the Animal Apocalypse’.



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

63

4. Behind the Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and the Animal Apocalypse As suggested above, there is a Second Temple crisis reflected in both Isa. 65–66 and the An. Apoc. Hence, they can be studied and understood in tandem, and in doing so, it is also possible to analyze the other three common denominators relating to the cause of the temple crises, referred to above. Consequently, I will here reflect briefly on each one of them. The first thing in Isa. 65–66 that implies a crisis is The Questioning of the Temple. In Isa. 66.1-4, the usefulness of the temple is scrutinized because of syncretistic and idolatrous worship, and the verdict is harsh against the institution and its people. In the Jewish apocalyptic literature, the temple is also often disputed in one way or another. What Collins says about the book of Daniel applies to many of those apocalypses that reject the Second Temple: ‘The profanation of the temple looms large in this apocalypse’.48 The defilement of the temple will be reflected upon more below, but in the An. Apoc. both the first and second ‘tower’ are to no avail. The first and greatest one in 89.50 is abandoned, demolished and burned down together with the ‘house’ after periods of wickedness and brutality (89.50-66). In the next period, the rebuilt second ‘tower’ is criticized for being polluted and then not mentioned further in the apocalypse, as if it were not useful and of any importance (89.72b-73). When God later brings in a new house as a sign of a new age, he erects it without a tower. The new house is also ‘larger and higher than the first one’ and located on the same site as the first one ‘that had been rolled up’ (90.29). From this scene in the An. Apoc., one might infer that the new Jerusalem will have no temple in the eschatological age and that the An. Apoc. therefore represents ‘a minority tradition’.49 However, at the beginning of the An. Apoc. and before the divine judgment with the flood, the Enochic visionary recounts how angels lifted him ‘onto a high place’ from which he was shown ‘a tower high above the earth…’, and when the time had come for the exodus, the visionary witnesses that the Lord of the sheep ‘descended from a lofty chamber at the voice of the sheep’ (87.3; 89.16). This report suggests a heavenly temple or palace; and at the time of the final judgment in 90.20, a throne of God is built ‘in the pleasant land’, which implies that a divine abode is predicted to be constructed in Israel.50

48.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 10. 49.  Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 9. 50.  Cf. 89.40. See also Black, The Book of Enoch, 278; Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch, 368.

64

Studies in Isaiah

In sum, this apocalypse seems to consider an earthly temple superfluous in the new age after the final judgment, but there is no evidence that the text also renders God’s heavenly temple as void. That means that the idea of a temple of God is still relevant for the presence of God on earth, but in the form of a newly built throne and the erection of a new house by God himself. Therefore, the An. Apoc. is comparable to Isa. 66.1-4, 6 because of the heavenly temple and a judgment throne in combination with references to ‘heavens’ and a ‘footstool’ in 84.2. There is no evidence in these texts that such an abode is meant to disappear with a new Jerusalem. Rather, Zion and the temple between heavens and earth will merge in a new way. Geographically they will become the place for God’s footstool, as he sits on his throne among the gathered ‘sheep/cattle’ and the transformed ‘wild beasts’ (cf. Isa. 65.25 with 90.32-38). The next common denominator is the reason for the questioning of the temple: the defilement of the sanctuary. During the time of the Exile, after the first temple crisis, Ezekiel set high standards of purity with his vision of the temple of God in Ezek. 40–48. Clearly, this ambition failed when the new Second Temple was built in 515 BCE,51 and this caused a second crisis. However, this second crisis in the history of the Jewish temple in the early post-exilic period did not result in destruction, but rather concerned defilement. According to Isa. 65–66, it did not only affect the temple but the whole city of Jerusalem. The hope for ‘new heavens and a new earth’, and a new Jerusalem for its elect people, further indicates how seriously this defilement was perceived. In that way, Isa. 65–66 developed themes that very well could have inspired reactions to, and functioned as models for responses to, another situation of defilement that caused the third crisis during the Maccabean period, when Antiochus shamed Jerusalem and its temple. The new defilement gave reasons for once again questioning the legitimacy of the temple and encouraging a hope of a new Zion. As observed, the An. Apoc. never reports any defilement of the temple in connection with the third crisis, nor any purification or rededication as in 1–2 Maccabees (see 1 Macc. 4.16-61; 2 Macc. 10.1-9). Such an omission is, in light of the argument above, best understood as a reaction against the Second Temple, and Isa. 65–66 would have been one of those prophetic texts from the Hebrew Bible that inspired the dream vision in 85–90 not to acknowledge the temple after the third crisis, as well as the idea that the foreign enemies would be defeated and in the end even be converted.

51.  Cf. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 9.



Green The Temple of God and Crises in Isaiah 65–66 and 1 Enoch

65

It can be concluded regarding the issue of defilement that in both Isa. 65–66 and the An. Apoc., the second crisis of the temple did, in the early post-exilic period, cause a continuing response of grief, anger and resistance because of impure rituals, spiritual blindness (idolatry) and oppression. Also noticeable is the silence of God, which is a theme in both texts (even if YHWH raises his voice in Isa. 65–66), but in the An. Apoc., after having retold the Second Temple crisis, the activity of God is concentrated to the eschatological end time and a new beginning (90.638). In a sense, this is also the case in Isa. 65–66, with its eschatological framework. A difference between Isa. 65–66 and the An. Apoc. relates to the question of who is grieving. In the former it is God, while in the latter, it is the visionary. Nevertheless, the wrath clearly belongs to God in both texts. It is likely that Isa. 65–66 had some degree of influence over the author of the An. Apoc. regarding different aspects surrounding the issue of defilement. However, there are also several elements in 1 En. 89.59– 90.42 that are not compatible with Isa. 65–66, albeit with a common approach to a defiled temple. The last common denominator is The Nature of the Temple of God. More specifically, I refer to the five spiritual aspects of the temple in Isa. 66.1-4, 6 listed in Section 1 of this study, under the heading ‘Isaiah 65–66 and the Crisis of the Temple’: 1. In both the Isaianic text and in the An. Apoc., the throne is something that stands functionally between the heavens and earth, from which both a redemptive and battling God acts.52 2. Even if the apocalypse does not mention the temple as a heavenly palace like in Isa. 66.1-4 and 6, the presence of a heavenly throne presents YHWH as a universal king. 3. YHWH is the creator and king that comes down from a transcendent abode in both Isa. 65–66 and the An. Apoc., and it is he who creates the new Jerusalem, not humans. The temple city belongs to God but is made for humans. Consequently, there is an obvious parallel to the creation of a new Jerusalem in Isa. 65.18. 4. Both the temple and Zion are the place for pure worship in Isa. 65–66, and in the An. Apoc. the new ‘house’ becomes the place for pure worship. The rejoicing of ‘the Lord of the sheep’ in 90.33 and 38 could then be an allusion to the rejoicing of YHWH in Isa. 65.19,

52.  See also T. N. D. Mettinger, ‘The Study of the Gottesbild – Problems and Suggestions’, SEÅ 54 (1989): 135–45 (142–43).

66

Studies in Isaiah

after the creation of a new Jerusalem.53 The conversion and transformation of the ‘wild beasts’ in 90.37-38 also find a possible parallel in Isa. 65.25, where the wolf and the lamb will feed as one in the shadows of God’s holy mountain. 5. Taking all these aspects together, it becomes clear that God’s tower and ‘lofty chamber’ of the An. Apoc. are perceived as something very different and utterly holy in comparison with the first and second temples in the apocalypse, and hence very much like the nature of the temple of God in Isa. 65–66. When Isa. 66.1-4, 6 calls attention to the nature of the temple of God from these five aspects of the presence of God, the crisis, the questioning, and the defilement of the temple form the background. In a similar way, they form a background to the stance the visionary is taking in the An. Apoc., although the resistance prompted in the apocalypse with regard to the righteous is portrayed as more active and militant. Nevertheless, both texts express a desire to recreate and establish right worship in contrast to the prevailing one, which is portrayed as severely compromised. 5. Conclusion In sum, the present study has shown that the four aspects of the temple issue – the crises, the questioning, the defilement, and the nature of the temple of God – provide common denominators between Isa. 66.1-4, 6 and the An. Apoc. Hence, they are interesting points of contact between two genres (the prophetic and the apocalyptic), each of them belonging to quite different historical circumstances, namely the Persian and the Hellenistic periods. Of these four aspects, I have discussed in more depth the crises of the temple in the early Second Temple period, and have suggested that the crisis reflected in Isa. 65–66 should be regarded as a second crisis in post-exilic time, after the first one in connection to the Babylonian exile. That would amount to a total of four major crises up to 70 CE, even if they are not equal in their scopes, that befell Jerusalem and its temple, and consequently have inspired Jewish apocalyptic literature.

53.  Other prophetic texts that could be alluded to here are Zeph. 3.17 and Isa. 62.3-5. See Black, The Book of Enoch, 279, but in Isa. 65.19 the great rejoicing of YHWH is connected to a recreated Jerusalem for his people.

D i v i ne E l ect i on i n t h e B ook of I sai ah

Hallvard Hagelia Divine Election is a prominent theme in the Hebrew Bible, so also in the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah is one of the most investigated books of the Hebrew Bible.1 There is a never-ending flow of dissertations, scholarly commentaries, monographs and articles on the book of Isaiah. It is impossible to be fully updated on the multitude of publications, but as far as I can see, the present study, on how divine election is referred to and mirrored in the book of Isaiah, fills a gap in the study of the book of Isaiah.2 1. Research History Numerous studies have been written in recent years, emphasizing different aspects of election theology, of which a few will be shortly presented here to give a background for my own study of divine election in the book of Isaiah. Most important to the present work are the studies of the Jewish scholars David Noack and Joel S. Kaminsky, but a few others will also be mentioned. 1.  My own main contribution to the study of the book of Isaiah is Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh, ConBOT 49 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001). My study of the book of Isaiah motivated some of my friends to present to me a series of studies in the book of Isaiah in a Festschrift in my honour on the occasion of my seventieth birthday: M. Zehnder, ed., New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, PHSC 21 (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014). Neither Coram Deo nor the Festschrift contribute to the election theology in the book of Isaiah or in general. 2.  I operate with a three-part division, Proto-, Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, well aware that the existence of a ‘Trito’-Isaiah is still under heavy discussion. I nevertheless find it convenient to separate chs. 56–66 as a unit on its own, because it mirrors a post-exilic period, even if not arguing for it here.

68

Studies in Isaiah

David Novak writes on the election of Israel as seen from a philosophical angle, presenting the ideas of Baruch Spinoza, Hermann Cohen and Frank Rosenzweig, and including chapters on the rabbinic development of the election doctrine and medieval views of election.3 In Chapter 4 of his 2007 book, The Election of Israel, ‘The Retrieval of the Biblical Doctrine’, Novak writes on ‘Scripture and philosophical analysis’, ‘Creation and election’, ‘Covenantal obligation and freedom’, ‘The life of the covenant’, and ‘The future of the covenant’. Novak has no references to Proto-Isaiah, but refers to four texts in Deutero-Isaiah4 and six texts in Trito-Isaiah.5 His study is not a general study of election in the book of Isaiah. But at the end of his study he uses Trito- and DeuteroIsaiah to underline that:6 (1) Israel is demanded to do righteousness (Isa. 56.1) – Israel has no righteousness in herself, but on Israel God will in the future demonstrate what no eye in the time of the world has ever seen (Isa. 64.3); (2) his proud claim as a Jew is: ‘In one way or another… we have the whole truth…we have already been redeemed, and…we want nothing in the world to contradict that which we are so proud of’, because Israel is appointed to be YHWH’s witness (Isa. 43.10). It would be politically possible for Israel to proselytize, but Israel has abstained from it, because that ‘is a supreme form of human pride, and something which more often than not in human history has gone in tandem with conquest and dominion of others’. Joel S. Kaminsky’s intention is to reclaim the biblical concept of election.7 His particular contribution to the election theology is to differentiate between those he calls ‘the elect’, ‘the non-elect’ and ‘the anti-elect’. Here, Israel is ‘the elect’, the Amalekites are the prime ‘antielect’ and the other nations are the ‘non-elect’. Kaminsky emphasizes that being elect and being YHWH’s favoured people does not imply that they are exempted from ethical and covenantal obligations. Being ‘antielect’ is being exposed to ‫חרם‬, ‘banishment’. Being ‘non-elect’ does not necessarily imply being condemned or banished. A strength with this classification is the differentiation made between the ‘non-elect’ and the 3.  D. Novak, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 4.  Novak, The Election of Israel: Isa. 42.5-6 (pp. 157, 159); 43.10 (p. 161); 45.18 (p. 139); and 54.9-12 (p. 124). 5.  Novak, The Election of Israel: Isa. 56.1 (p. 161); 56.7 (p. 160); 60.1, 3 (p. 160); 64.3 (p. 161); 65.17-18 (p. 156); 66.22 (p. 156). 6.  See D. Novak, Election, 160–62. 7.  J. S. Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob, Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007).



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

69

‘anti-elect’. In his book, Kaminsky follows the election theology through Genesis (Section 1), before in Section 2 studying promise and covenant, election in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the general differences between the ‘anti-elect’ and ‘non-elect’, prophecy and election, election in Psalms and Wisdom literature, before at the end surveying New Testament and Rabbinic views of election. He has sparse references to Apocrypha and nothing to Qumran or the Pseudepigrapha. In Chapter 9, Kaminsky gives attention to ‘major tensions’ within the prophetic corpus: (1) Particular or Universal Election; (2) Election and the Eschaton; (3) The Nations Inside or Alongside Israel; and (4) The Purpose of Election: Instrumental or Intrinsic. As far as the book of Isaiah is concerned, Kaminsky points out the tension between universalistic and particularistic aspects within Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, referring to some scholars seeing a universalist theology, and others seeing a nationalist theology.8 To Kaminsky, there are two problems with using categories like universalism and particularism: the ancient Israelites never used that kind of abstract categories, and it remains unclear to him whether universalism and particularism are at all defensible concepts today. Instead, he adheres to the opinion of Jon D. Levenson, that ‘biblical particularism contains a universal horizon… [that is] rooted in and continues to draw its nourishment from the soil of biblical particularism’.9 Kaminsky’s concluding reflections are that the prophets ‘loudly affirm the notion of Israel’s special election’, despite having differing understandings.10 A few other studies should be mentioned: Seock-Tae Sohn has written a spiritual study of Israel’s election, applied to Christian life.11 Joel N. Lohr writes on the conception of election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian interpretation.12 Joel Baden writes on the promise to the patriarchs.13 Rannfrid I. Thelle writes on approaches to ‘The chosen place’.14 Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky have edited a series 8.  Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob, 142–43. 9.  Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob, 145–46. Cf. J. D. Levenson, ‘The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism’, in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark Brett (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 143–69, cf. 144–45. 10.  Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob, 157–58. 11.  S.-T. Sohn, The Divine Election of Israel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006). 12.  J. N. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation, Sipruth 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009). 13.  J. S. Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 14.  R. I. Thelle, Approaches to the ‘Chosen Place’: Accessing a Biblical Concept (London: T&T Clark International, 2012).

70

Studies in Isaiah

of essays on the election of Israel in a Festschrift to Jon D. Levenson, containing studies of the Hebrew Bible, the reception of the Hebrew Bible as well as theological essays.15 Stephen N. Williams writes on divine election from a systematic theological angle.16 None of these studies concentrates on the book of Isaiah, except for commenting occasionally on individual election texts from Isaiah. 2. Aim, Method, and Disposition With the present work I intend to fill a gap in the study of the book of Isaiah. My method is simple – I follow the text closely, systematizing references to divine election. In a forthcoming book I survey a number of different aspects of divine election in the Hebrew Bible, the intertestamental period (Pseudepigrapha and Qumran) and the New Testament.17 The present study builds on picked out and elaborated paragraphs of the manuscript, and concentrates on divine election itself, rather than taking up questions concerning what election implies for the elected ones. The main Hebrew term for ‘election’ is √ ‫בחר‬.18 Statistically, the term is equally frequent in Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah (in 3.6 % of the verses). Its frequency in Proto-Isaiah is considerably lower, just four verses in 39 chapters (0.5 % of the verses).19 Going to the details, we will see that ‫ בחר‬is used with different subjects and different objects in all three main 15.  G. A. Anderson and J. S. Kaminsky, ed., The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013). 16.  S. N. Williams, The Election of Grace: A Riddle without a Resolution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 17.  The preliminarily title is Israel, the Church and the World, Divine Election as a Biblical Theme and a Current Challenge. It is based on an earlier Norwegian version, Herrens utvalgte, Guddommelig utvelgelse som bibelsk tema og aktuelt problem (Kristiansand: Portal Akademisk, 2013). 18.  The term ‫ בחר‬appears four times as verb in Proto-Isaiah (Isa. 1.29; 7.15-16; 14.1), twelve times in Deutero-Isaiah, nine times as verb (Isa. 40.20; 41.8, 9, 24; 43.10; 44.1-2; 49.7; 50.4) and three times as noun (‫בחיר‬, Isa. 42.1; 43.20; 45.4) – most frequently in chs. 40–48, but twice also in chs. 49–55, and seven times in Trito-Isaiah, four times as verb (‫בחר‬, Isa. 58.5, 6; 66.3-4) and three times as noun (‫בחיר‬, Isa. 65.9, 15, 22). That also other important terms for election occur will be demonstrated in due order. Texts also happen to refer to election without using particular election terminology. 19.  Statistics based on occurrences in verses should be handled carefully. Nevertheless, this observation is probably not insignificant, since it points out a difference



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

71

parts of the book of Isaiah. As far as theological relevance is concerned, Deutero-Isaiah has most relevant cases of ‫בחר‬. But this investigation will go beyond mere terminological documentation and present the most important cases of divine election somehow reflected in the book of Isaiah, such as the election of Abraham, David, the ‘Servant’, the people of Israel, the land of Israel, Jerusalem, the ‘remnant’ and non-Israelites.20 Using this classification is not without its problems, because there will always be borderline cases and crossovers, where particular texts could be classified otherwise. a. Election of Abraham Abraham is not called ‘elected’ or ‘chosen’ (‫ )בחר‬in the Hebrew Bible, except for in Neh. 9.7: You are the LORD, the God who chose (‫ )בחרת‬Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham.

Abraham is not frequently mentioned in the Prophets (see Isa. 29.22; 41.8; 51.2; 63.16; Jer. 33.26; Ezek. 33.24; Mic. 7.20), but his election is implied in Proto- as well as Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah.21 If not explicitly, the prophets by implication call Abraham elected, in particular in late texts, by using other terminology. Isaiah 29.22 is part of the summary of an oracle ‘concerning the house of Jacob’ (Isa. 29.22-24),22 which possibly is a later addition to ch. 29.23 YHWH is called the one ‘who redeemed (‫ )פדה‬Abraham’.24 This is the only case where ‫ פדה‬is used to describe what YHWH did to Abraham, a fact that has caused some debate. Elsewhere this term is used of liberated in the vocabulary of Proto-Isaiah on the one hand and Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah on the other hand. It possibly mirrors that election was a ‘hotter’ theological matter in the sixth century than the eighth century. 20.  For elections of more ephemeral and lesser importance, cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 137–51, where I also treat questions related to the non-elect, whether it was possible to be taken in among the elected or loose election and the problem of divine election contra monotheism (pp. 151–67). 21.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 39–41. 22.  J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 539–40. 23.  J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 409. 24.  On the text-critical problems, cf. the commentaries, e.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 540.

72

Studies in Isaiah

persons, especially of Israel liberated by God from Egypt and Babylon (see Deut. 7.18; 15.15; 21.8; 24.18; 2 Sam. 7.23 [= 1 Chr. 17.21]; Isa. 1.27; 35.10; 50.2; and 51.4). According to Oswalt, an apocryphal legend tells of Abraham being rescued from idolators in Ur.25 In this case ‫ פדה‬refers to how YHWH called Abraham out of Ur.26 As divinely redeemed, Abraham by implication is perceived as elected in Ur. Because YHWH is the redeemer of Abraham, a great change is announced for his descendants, ‘the house of Jacob’. ‘No longer (‫ )לא־עתה‬shall Jacob be ashamed, no longer (‫ )לא־עתה‬shall his face grow pale’. Jacob Israel is taken under particular protection because of the redemption of Abraham. Similarly, in Isa. 41.8-9 (cf. below on Election of the People), YHWH refers to ‘Abraham, my friend (‫ ;)אהבי‬you whom I took (‫ )החזקתיך‬from the ends of the earth, and called (‫ )קראתיך‬from its farthest corners’. The geographical outlook is from Jerusalem. This saying is also an indirect reference to Abraham’s vocation in Ur, described with the verbs ‫חזך‬ (‘take’) and ‫‘( קרא‬call’), actually referring to Jacob Israel, whereas Abraham himself is called ‫( אהב‬participle, ‘friend’, ‘beloved’).27 The different terms used accumulate emphasis on Abraham as divinely elected. In the rather curious Isa. 51.1b-2,28 Israel’s origin from Abraham and Sarah is metaphorically described as from a rock and a quarry, referring to the father and mother of Israel: Look to the rock (‫ )צור‬from which you were hewn, and to the quarry (‫)בור‬29 from which you were dug. 2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when I called (‫ )קראתיו‬him, but I blessed (‫ )אברכהו‬him and made him many. 1b

25.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 540. 26.  Ur is not explicitly mentioned in the text, but the text clearly refers to Gen. 11.31; 12.1 and 15.7, which refer to Abraham’s origin in Ur of the Chaldees. 27.  On the translation of ‫אהב‬, cf. K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 100. 28.  These verses are used as an epigraph by J. D. Levenson in his book Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), iv, but he does not comment on them in his book, except for a footnote on his own translation. 29.  The text-critical questions related to the term ‫ בור‬and the question of its correct translation is not important to my investigation; cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 324.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

73

This is a problematic text:30 Who is speaking, to whom, when, about what?31 Important keys to this text are Deut. 32.18, ‘You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth’, and Ezek. 33.24, ‘Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many; the land is surely given us to possess’. It refers to the people of Israel and the ‘great nation theme’ of Genesis,32 and implies that ‘the God of Israel is simultaneously father and mother’.33 The point of interest for this investigation is that Abraham is called (‫ )קרא‬and blessed (‫ )ברך‬by YHWH. Nothing is explicitly said about election, but this is certainly implied. Isaiah 63.16 is part of a communal lament (Isa. 63.7–64.11) expressing a sense of confusion and disorientation,34 where YHWH as the people’s father is set up against Abraham, who ‘does not know us’: For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our father; our Redeemer from of old is your name.

Israel is YHWH’s people (Isa. 63.8), as if their election is independent of Abraham, whereas their eponymic father had become an alien to them. The real father of the people is not Abraham but YHWH himself (cf. Deut. 32.6).35 This possibly mirrors a tension within the people (Ezra 4.1-4; Zech. 7.4-14), between those returning from exile in Babylon and those

30.  On its literary structure and history of interpretation, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 325–26. 31.  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 344–45, calls it speculative, a kind of ‘revelation speech’, with a wide horizon, alluding to exodus and patriarchal as well as matriarchal traditions, with a vision of the future Zion. He identifies the ‘servant’ (cf. Isa. 50.4-11) as ‘the Servant Moses’. 32.  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 327. 33.  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 346. 34.  J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 263. 35.  J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 612, puts it in an extreme form: ‘This is a profound thought: Israel is not an ethnic, or linguistic, or national entity, but a spiritual one. God is their Father.’ Such a statement will probably be gainsaid by Jewish thinkers, holding that Israel is a genealogical entity, against Christians as a spiritual entity, based on belief in Christ, without any genealogical descent from him.

74

Studies in Isaiah

not exiled.36 Those returned from exile see themselves as directly elected from YHWH as their father, in difference from those who remained in the land. These Abraham cases are of different kinds. In Isa. 29.22 and Isa. 41.8, Abraham is seen as delivered from Ur, called and taken from the ends of the world. In the curious Isa. 51.1b-2 Abraham and Sarah are perceived as the eponymic parents of the people, called and blessed by YHWH. In Isa. 63.16 a fraction of the people argues that ‘Abraham does not know us’, because the people are seemingly split in one part claiming descent from Abraham and another part claiming YHWH as their father. But either way, in all these texts Abraham stands out as a divinely ordered key figure, related to the election of the people. b. Election of David David is indirectly mentioned as elected (‫ )בחר‬in 1 Sam. 16.10, since his brothers were not elected: ‘Samuel said to Jesse, “The LORD has not chosen (‫ )לא־בחר‬any of these” ’.37 Psalm 89.4-5 presents David explicitly as divinely elected.38 In the Prophets David is sparsely mentioned.39 But the book of Isaiah has four direct references to David (Isa. 29.1;40 37.35; 38.5 and 55.3). Whereas Abraham is the father of the elected people, David is the father of the elected kings in the Davidic dynasty, the Davidides. Isaiah’s oracle to King Hezekiah (Isa. 37.22-35) on the occasion of the Assyrian onslaught to Jerusalem ends with a promise based on the importance of David for Jerusalem (Isa. 37.35): ‘For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David (‫’)למען דוד עבדי‬. Here ‘for my own sake’ and ‘for the sake of my servant David’ are paralleled, with YHWH given preference before David. But David is related to YHWH himself as his servant and to Jerusalem as her grounder and guarantor, implying that David is a key historical and theological figure. The same is the case with Isaiah’s oracle to Hezekiah in Isa. 38.5, where David is mentioned as the king’s ancestor, father of the 36.  Cf. J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, WBC 25 (Waco: Word, 1987), 333. 37.  It is added as a confirmation of his election that YHWH’s spirit came over David, after he was anointed by Samuel (1 Sam. 16.12-13). 38.  Ps. 89 is on the whole a strong affirmation of David’s status as divinely elected. 39.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 68–85. Jeremiah has some important references to the David in 23.5 and ch. 33, and Ezekiel refers to another ‘David’ as shepherd over Israel in 34.21-22 and 37.24-25. 40.  Isa. 29.1 is a complaint over Jerusalem as the city where David once camped, and is of less direct importance for my investigation.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

75

Davidides, referring to the divine promise through Nathan the prophet to David, to perpetuate his line on the throne of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7.16; cf. 1 Kgs 11.13, 34; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19; Isa. 55.3). In Isa. 55.3b-4 YHWH promises an eternal covenant (‫ )ברית עולם‬with Israel, represented by David:41 ‘I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. See, I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples.’42 The promise is introduced with three instances of ‫שמע‬, ‘listen’ (cf. Deut. 6.4), followed by ‘incline your ear’ and ‘come to me’ (vv. 2-3a), to emphasize the promise’s importance. The Hebrew phrase ‫חסדי דוד‬, can be translated as subjective genitive: ‘the graces of David’, or objective genitive: ‘the demonstrations of grace to David’. Baltzer allows for both translations and adds that both understandings ‘have therefore been maintained with cogent reasoning in the history of the text’s interpretation’.43 The NRSV translates with objective genitive, which stresses what God has done for David. This translation can convey a messianic understanding but also generally that YHWH’s faithfulness endures, with or independent of David and his dynasty. However it should be understood, David is central in this text in a way that reflects his divine election. This should be read against the background of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Even if there should no longer be a Davidic king on the throne in Jerusalem, YHWH has promised to not forget his promise (2 Sam. 7.1-16), and there will certainly come another Davidide as king over his people.44 Blenkinsopp is of another opinion: ‘This language does not, however, imply a commitment to restoring the Davidic dynasty’.45 But David as an eponymic king of Israel is not dethroned. There is a somewhat divergent emphasis on David in Proto- and Deutero-Isaiah. Even though David is not often mentioned by name 41.  ‘Eternal here is perhaps intended to contrast with the conditional Sinai covenant. The connection with the unconditional Davidic covenant could support that point of view. But perhaps no contrast is intended; perhaps the assertion is simply being made, as in 54.8, that God’s love and commitment are not changeable’ (Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 437). 42.  In Isa. 43.10 the people of Israel are witnesses (cf. ‘Election of the People’ [p. 77, below]). 43.  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 470. 44.  Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 438, argues that Isaiah speaks in terms of the covenant with David, as though he consciously avoids the Mosaic covenant with its unresolved questions, and moves to the Davidic, which, although it had its own questions, nevertheless offered some new options. 45.  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 370.

76

Studies in Isaiah

in the book of Isaiah, the Davidic kingdom and the Davidic kings are addressed as central figures, in particular King Hezekiah, who possibly is the historic figure behind ‘Immanuel’ (Isa. 7.14), the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9.2-7) and ‘the shoot from the stump of Jesse’ (Isa. 11.1). In the narrative of chs. 36–39, the Davidic king, Hezekiah, is even mentioned by name. So also is David himself, as the city of David is ‘defended for the sake of David’ (Isa. 37.25) and David is the king’s eponymic ancestor. In DeuteroIsaiah David is more in the background as a historic figure. Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah seem not to foresee another ‘David’, like Proto-Isaiah does. In particular, Deutero-Isaiah attaches hope to Cyrus of Persia (Isa. 44.28; 45.1) as the redeemer from the Babylonians.46 Is there a latent tension between the roles of David in Isa. 55.3 and of Cyrus in Isa. 44.28 and Isa. 45.1 (cf. ‘Election of Non-Israelites’ [p. 93, below])? c. Election of the ‘Servant’ In Isa. 37.35 David is called YHWH’s ‘servant’. Israel is called ‘elected’ and ‘servant’ in Isa. 41.8; 45.4; 63.1147 and 65.9, 15, 22. In this case, attention is focused on a particular ‘Servant’, different from the people (cf. Isa. 49.3, 6). In Isa. 42.1,48 at the opening of the first ‘Servant song’ (Isa. 42.1-4), YHWH immediately presents the servant as ‘my chosen (‫)בחירי‬, in whom my soul delights (‫’)רצתה נפשי‬. The servant is contrasted to the ‘all’ in Isa. 41.29, who are ‘a delusion’. But YHWH’s spirit is upon the servant (‫)נתתי רוחי עליו‬, and YHWH will let him bring forth justice to the nations. In Isa. 42.6-7, YHWH talks directly to the servant:49 I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, 7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. 6

46.  Marvin A. Sweeney, ‘Eschatology in the Book of Isaiah’, in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew. Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Study of Isaiah, ed. R. J. Bautch and J. T. Hibbard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 179–95 (192–93). 47.  The text is uncertain, cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 254. 48.  These words were also spoken from heaven at Jesus’s baptism (Matt. 3.13-17). 49.  Isa. 42.1-4 and 5-9, where the servant is addressed in respectively the third and second person, function as a joint passage (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 211).



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

77

This is a further confirmation of the servant’s position as ‘called’ (‫)קרא‬, with a certain mission to ‘the people’ as well as to ‘the nations’, with a particular mission to those of the lowest status (cf. Isa. 61.1-4). In Isa. 49.1b, 5a this Servant is called from before birth, in a kind of ‘pre-natal’ election, with a defined mission to his people (Isa. 49.5b). In his own words: ‘I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God has become my strength’ (Isa. 49.5c). Clearly, the Servant is seen as divinely elected. The identity of this ‘servant’ has been the object of much debate. A fearful and disobedient servant is frequently referred to in Isa. 40–48, ‘clearly identified as the nation’.50 But a number of commentators have pointed out that the language, in this case, is that of a presentation, similar to that used of Saul to Samuel (1 Sam. 9.17) and God’s language applied to particular appointees, such as Abraham (Gen. 26.24), Moses (Exod. 14.31) and David (2 Sam. 3.18), and commonly with reference to kings. Kings were in ancient Near East particularly commissioned to establish judicial order in their realms, as this servant is expected to do in the whole world.51 d. Election of the People There are two election traditions of the people of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to a genealogical election through Abraham (Gen. 12.3; 15.5), there is a cultic election connected to Moses (Exod. 19.5-6), which is a main theme in Deuteronomy (e.g., 7.7-8; 10.15, etc.), and throughout the Hebrew Bible.52 The election of the people is expressed in both Protoand Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 14.1-2; 44.1-2), and indirectly in Isa. 63.11-13.53 The editorial comment of Isa. 14.1-2,54 where YHWH elects (‫)בחר‬ Israel, is an interlude between the first and second part of the ‘burden of Babylon’ (Isa. 13.1-22; 14.3-23), and a following up of Isa. 11.11-16. The text is a vision of hope, where ‘Babylon’s hopelessness is contrasted to Israel’s hope’,55 and the overthrow of Babylon will cause deliverance and renewed election of Israel:56

50.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 109. 51.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 109–10. 52.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 105–16. 53.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 109–13. 54.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 281. 55.  Cf. J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24 (Waco: Word, 2005), 255. 56.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 311–12.

78

Studies in Isaiah But the LORD will have compassion (‫ )ירחם‬on Jacob and will again choose (‫ )בחר עוד‬Israel, and will set them (‫ )חניהם‬in their own land; and aliens will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob.

The three verbs used (‫רחם‬, ‫ ריב‬and ‫ )נוח‬refer to three aspects of one and the same historical fact, that the Israelites will ‘again’ (‫ )עוד‬be settled in their own land, leaving their foreign settlements in Babylon, like how they once had left Egypt, with aliens joining them (cf. Exod. 12.38). Thus, the election is framed within the exodus motif (cf. Deut. 4.37; 7.6, 7; Ps. 135.4), referring to YHWH’s re-electing of the people after a period of alienation in Babylon, an idea related to the message of Deutero- or even Trito-Isaiah.57 Exile needs not mean abandonment.58 Contrasting the merciless Elamite aggression against the Babylonians (Isa. 13.17-18), YHWH promises mercy to Jacob, demonstrated by his re-election of his people. This text should probably be dated after 539 BCE, when Cyrus permitted the Israelites’ return to Judea and Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chr. 36.23-24 and Ezra 1.2-4). The election of Israel is a more central theme in Deutero-Isaiah. Here references and allusions to the exodus from Egypt confirm the re-establishing of the elected people in their homeland. This demonstrates the importance of the exodus from Egypt as a metaphor for the return from Babylon, which was the formative event for the very concept of ‘the people of Israel’ (see esp. Isa. 40.3-5; 41.18; 42.15-16; 43.1-7, 16-21; 44.27; 49.8-12, 20-25; 50.2b; 51.9-11; and 52.4, 11-12). In Isa. 41.8-10 the prophet speaks to the people of Israel on behalf of YHWH, promising that like Israel had once been called and taken ‘from the ends of the earth’, YHWH will once more relieve his people, actually from the Babylonian exile: But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen (‫)אשר בחרתיך‬, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; 9 you whom I took (‫ )החזקתיך‬from the ends of the earth, and called (‫ )קראתיך‬from its farthest corners, saying to you, ‘You are my servant (‫)עבדי־אתה‬, I have chosen you and not cast you off (‫;’)בחרתיך ולא מאסתיך‬ 8

57.  Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 312, refers to Delitzsch’s comment, that ‘these few verses contain the message of chs. 40–66 in a nutshell’ (cf. P. K. Tull, Isaiah 1–39, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary [Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010], 276). 58.  That aliens will join Israel and lead them home (cf. Exod. 12.36, 38), before they themselves are made slaves of Israel (Isa. 14.2), which has troubled the commentators. Cf. also Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 313, and Tull, Isaiah 1–39, 277.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

79

do not fear, for I am with you (‫)אל־תירא כי עמך־אני‬, do not be afraid, for I am your God (‫;)אל־תשתע כי־אני אלהיך‬ I will strengthen you (‫)אמצתיך‬, I will help you (‫)אף־עזרתיך‬, I will uphold you (‫ )אף־תמכתיך‬with my victorious right hand.

10

YHWH promises deliverance from enemies, because he will be with his people. YHWH being ‘with’ his people connects to a whole theology of divine ‘with-ness’,59 not least evident in the ‫ עמנו אל‬sign (Isa. 7.14). Twice YHWH confirms that Israel is his ‘servant’, a title describing the people as under special divine protection, for the first time used here of Israel in the book of Isaiah. They are ‘called’ and ‘chosen’ to be YHWH’s ‘servant’ and to worship him60. Calling an individual a ‘servant’ referred originally probably to a king, so, calling the people of Israel a chosen servant is astonishing to Baltzer.61 That the servant has been divinely chosen (‫)אשר בחרתיך‬, is a topic extending ‘in a straight line back through their ancestors to Abraham himself, the prototype of election’.62 Election is emphasized in contrast to its possible opposite, rejection, as YHWH has ‘not cast you off’ (‫)לא מאסתיך‬, ‫ בחר‬and ‫ מאס‬are set up as opposites (cf. Isa. 7.15). This text implicitly repeats the election of Abraham ‘from the ends of the earth’ and ‘from its farthest corners’ (cf. Gen. 15.7), and alludes to the Covenant Code: ‘You are my people and I will be your God’, a powerful acclamation of YHWH’s election of and attachment to his people. In the trial scene in Isa. 43.8-15,63 a lawsuit against foreign gods (cf. Isa. 41.21-29), Israel and the nations are called upon as witnesses to the identity of YHWH in a heavenly court.64 As divinely elected, the people of Israel represent a class on their own as witnesses to the divinity of YHWH. Foreign nations are described as dumb, without the ability to witness, whereas the people of Israel are charged with being both blind and deaf (Isa. 43.13; cf. 6.13). They are, nevertheless, YHWH’s witness, because they are his elected people:65 59.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 91; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 201, 224; and Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 639. 60.  Cf. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 639. 61.  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 126: ‘The appearance of “servant” (‫…)עבד‬exemplifies the ambivalence or polyvalence affecting the interpretation of this key term’. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 224, relates this general comment to Isa. 43.10a. 62.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 90; and Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 639–40. 63.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 224. 64.  Cf. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 162. 65.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–55, 144–45.

80

Studies in Isaiah You are my witnesses (‫)עדי‬, says the LORD, and my servant (‫ )עבדי‬whom I have chosen (‫)אשר בחרתי‬, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he (‫)כי־אני הוא‬. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (Isa. 43.10)

The main emphasis is not on election as such, but on the fact that YHWH’s elected people are the only real witnesses to YHWH’s divinity, ‘the practically untranslatable formula’,66 ‘that I am he’ (‫)כי־אני הוא‬. YHWH is the sole God, the one who has elected his people, the only one able to predict history, the eternal One and no foreign God (cf. Deut. 32.12). The choice of the parallel terms ‘my witnesses’ and ‘my servant’ are important, because they ‘invest each other with meaning’.67 The proclamation of salvation in Isa. 43.16-21 is carried by the memory of the exodus from Egypt; now YHWH promises that something similar is going to happen. The people YHWH had once chosen from Egypt (Exod. 19.5-6) will now be chosen anew from Babylon and promised support on their journey through the dry landscape on their way back to the promised land, like on their journey from Egypt; ‘for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give to my chosen people (‫)עמי בחירי‬, the people whom I formed (‫יצר‬, cf. Gen. 2.7) for myself, so that they might declare my praise’ (Isa. 43.20). Also the salvation oracle in Isa. 44.1-5 refers to Israel as God’s elected people (vv. 1-2): But now hear, O Jacob my servant (‫)עבדי יעקב‬, Israel whom I have chosen (‫!)ישראל בחרתי בו‬ 2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you: Do not fear, O Jacob my servant (‫)אל־תירא עבדי יעקב‬, Jeshurun whom I have chosen (‫)ישרון בחרתי בו‬. 1

The oracle is introduced with YHWH addressing ‘Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen’ (‫ )בחר‬and ‘Jeshurun whom I have chosen’ (‫)בחר‬. The chosen people is addressed as ‘made’ (‫ )עשה‬and ‘formed’ (‫ )יצר‬by YHWH in the womb,68 and admonished by YHWH not to fear (‫)אל־תירא‬, because YHWH will pour out water and his spirit upon her descendants, making the people like a green and flowering meadow along a stream, 66.  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 224. 67.  Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 40–55, 146. 68.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 233.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

81

where the people will designate themselves as belonging to YHWH (‫)ליהוה‬. Here, election theology is coupled with creation theology; Israel has been formed in a womb, like Jacob had been formed in Rebekah’s womb; by implication YHWH is the people’s ‘mother’ (cf. Hos. 11.1).69 At the end of the oracle (Isa. 44.5) testimonies from individual Israelites are cited: This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’s’ (‫)ליהוה אני‬, another will be called by the name of Jacob (‫)וזה יקרא בשם־יעקב‬, yet another will write on the hand, ‘The LORD’s’ (‫)וזה יכתב ידו ליהוה‬, and adopt the name of Israel (‫)בשם ישראל יכנה‬.

It is as if people want a physical lamed-stamp70 attached to themselves, signaling to the public to whom they belong. They know themselves as elected by YHWH and belonging to the people of Israel, and want to demonstrate this belonging for people around them. After the second Servant Song (Isa. 49.1-6), separating the ‘JacobFreedom’ section (chs. 40–48) from the ‘Zion-Restoration’ section (chs. 49–55), comes a short oracle (v. 7), presenting YHWH as Israel’s Redeemer to the servant, who is ‘deeply despised, abhorred by the nations, the slave of rulers’. But now change will come: Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One (‫)גאל ישראל קדושו‬, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nations, the slave of rulers, ‘Kings shall see and stand up, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, because of the LORD, who is faithful (‫)אשר נאמן‬, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you (‫’)קדש ישראל ויבחרך‬.

There is a remarkable contrast in this oracle, between the people of Israel,71 the Servant, as ‘the one deeply despised, abhorred by nations, the 69.  Cf. the mother metaphor in Isa. 49.14-17 and 66.13. 70.  Cf. the lamed (‫ )ל‬stamp found on archaeologically excavated items to identify them as belonging to somebody, the king or named persons. For a presentation, cf. D. L. Smith-Christopher, Micah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: John Knox, 2015), 14–15. ‘The reference is to a tattoo or brand of some kind on the hand or forehead (Ezek. 9.4, cf. Rev. 7.3; 13.16) indicating ownership in the case of slaves, or group identity’ (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 234). 71.  ‘The referent [the servant] is clearly the people as a whole, not an individual’ (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 304).

82

Studies in Isaiah

slave of rulers’, and the reaction of ‘kings’ and ‘princes’, when they see what YHWH does to his Servant: ‘they shall prostrate themselves’ (cf. Isa. 52.13-15). The general historical and theological background for the oracle, as part of Deutero-Isaiah, is liberation of the people from captivity in Babylon, which comes very clearly to the fore in Isa. 48.20-21 and Isa. 52.11-12. Implicitly ‫ בחר‬is here connected to ‫גאל‬, redeeming. Divine election of the people is clearly spoken of. Isaiah 54.1-8 is a text about how the forsaken and barren people (cf. 1 Sam. 2.5; Ps. 113.9) will again be taken into marital relation to YHWH, most directly expressed in vv. 5-7: 5 For your Maker is your husband (‫)עשיך בעליך‬, the LORD of hosts is his name; the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer (‫)גאלך קדוש ישראל‬, the God of the whole earth he is called. 6 For the LORD has called you like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, like the wife of a man’s youth when she is cast off, says your God. 7 For a brief moment I abandoned you (‫)ברגע קטן עזבתיך‬, but with great compassion I will gather you (‫)רחמים גדלים אקבצך‬. 8 In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you (‫)הסתרתי פני רגע ממך‬, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you (‫)בחסד עולם רחמתיך‬, says the LORD, your Redeemer (‫)גאלך‬.

The metaphor of interest here is that of a marriage between YHWH and his people.72 There had been a period of marital crisis, but according to Isa. 50.1 there had been no bill of divorce (‫ספר כריתות‬, cf. Deut. 24.1). Several terms are used to describe YHWH’ refusal of his people, his ‘wife’. But now exile is about to end, and the people are promised that they could return to Jerusalem to ‘remarry’ YHWH. The separation was temporarily, the ‘marital’ election is re-established. In addition to these special cases, the people of Israel are generally the main addressee in the book of Isaiah, sometimes as the object of judg­ment, other times as the object of blessing. No other objects are so clearly described with the term ‫ בחר‬or otherwise as the people of Israel, in particular in Deutero-Isaiah. Deliverance from the Babylonian exile is the historical background for Deutero-Isaiah, possibly also for Isa. 14.1. In Trito-Isaiah the exile is history, and references to the election of the 72.  On the situation of unmarried and childless women in ancient Israel, cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 362.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

83

people becomes less relevant, because with their homecoming their election is confirmed. e. Election of the Land The land is not called ‘elected’ (‫ )בחר‬in the Hebrew Bible, but is repeatedly called ‘promised’, expressed with different words and phrases. It is clearly said which people the descendants of Abraham should defeat (Gen. 15.18-21) and which geographical area they should take possession of, even though its extent differs, ‘from Dan to Beer-sheba’ (Judg. 20.1, etc.) or all the way from Lebanon and River Euphrates to the Brook of Egypt (Josh. 1.4, etc.). The promise of land was initially given to Abraham, but was repeated to his descendants throughout the Genesis.73 In Proto-Isaiah, the land is an area to be defended against Assyrian aggression (chs. 1–12 and 36–39), without particular reflection on it as divinely elected. In Deutero-Isaiah the people head for the promised land, and in Trito-Isaiah they are back in the land, eager to rebuild it. King Cyrus of Persia is the catalyst for their possibility to return home, through his 539 BCE edict (cf. 2 Chr. 36.22-23 and Ezra 1.1-4), which permit the Judeans to return from Babylon to Judah and Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 44.28; 45.1). Babylon was perceived as an ‘Egypt’ for the exiled to leave in another ‘exodus’ to the promised land (cf. Isa. 48.20-21; 52.11-12) and Cyrus was a ‘Moses’ to lead them home, not personally, but by permitting them to return. The importance of the promised land is always implied in the book of Isaiah. f. Election of Jerusalem The election of a special cult place comes in particular up in Deut. 12.4-5,74 with the centralization of the cult to ‘the place that the LORD your God will choose (‫ )כי אם־אל־המקום אשר־יבחר יהוה אלהיכם‬out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his name’.75 This place is never explicitly identified in Deuteronomy, but Solomon in his dedication prayer over the temple identifies Jerusalem as divinely elected (1 Kgs 8.48), the city David had chosen as the capital for his kingdom and the central cult site (2 Sam. 5–6). There is no other site to rival Jerusalem’s status as the central cult site in the history of Israel. 73.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 86–97; and idem, Numbering the Stars: A Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15, ConBOT 39 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994), 172–77. 74.  There are important precursors, for example in the Melchizedek (Gen. 14.18) and Aqedah traditions (Gen. 22.2, cf. 2 Chr. 3.1). 75.  Cf. Thelle, Approaches.

84

Studies in Isaiah

Several texts also in Isaiah focus on Jerusalem, as the all-important place.76 It is the royal residence and the city of the temple at the prophet’s own time in Proto-Isaiah, the city of dreams (cf. Ps. 137.1) to return to for the exiled in Babylon in Deutero-Isaiah, and the ruined city for the people to rebuild in Trito-Isaiah. No city was like Jerusalem. The collage of Zion terms in Isa. 2.1-5 (with parallel in Mic. 4.1-4) calls attention to Jerusalem in cosmic terms.77 Verse 2 reads: In days to come the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it.

Jerusalem is a geographical centre, perceived as built on the highest of all mountains, because it is YHWH earthly abode.78 The metaphors resemble imagery known from Canaanite mythology, where the high god El resided on Mount Saphon in the north (cf. Ps. 48.2-3). It is not called elected (‫)בחר‬, but it is the only place YHWH has for his earthly abode. The imagery continues in Isa. 6.2, where the prophet ‘saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple’. According to Isa. 14.32, YHWH has founded Zion (‫)יהוה יסד ציון‬, and in Isa. 28.16 YHWH says: ‘I am laying in Zion a foundation stone (‫יסד‬ ‫)בציון אבן‬, a tested stone (‫)אבן בחן‬, a precious cornerstone (‫)פנת יקרת‬, a sure foundation (‫’)מוסד מוסד‬. The Apocalypse in chs. 24–27 ends by claiming, ‘And on that day a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship the LORD on the holy mountain (‫בהר‬ ‫ )הקדש‬at Jerusalem’ (Isa. 27.13). In Isa. 33.5, ‘The LORD is exalted, he dwells on high; he filled Zion with justice and righteousness (‫מלא ציון‬ ‫ ’…)משפט וצדקה‬In Isa. 33.20-21, Zion/Jerusalem is the city where Israel celebrate their appointed festivals, the place where ‘the LORD in majesty will be for us (‫’)כי אם־שם אדיר יהוה לנו‬. Nothing is explicitly said about

76.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 97–104. 77.  ‘This kind of exalted “Zionist” mythopoesis…seems to have been crystalized in the prophetic propaganda and cult of Judeo-Babylonian repatriates in the first half-century of Persian rule, though by no means confined to that time’ (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 191). 78.  In Ezek. 38.12 (cf. 5.5) Jerusalem is the navel (‫ )פבשר‬of the earth, or what modern historians of religion would call axis mundi, ‘axis of the world’.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

85

its election, but Jerusalem’s sole exclusivity is clearly implied. No other place on earth competes in stature with Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible. In Isa. 35.10, a ‘bridge’ leading over from Proto- to Deutero-Isaiah (with chs. 36–39 as a parenthesis),79 the people are promised to return from Babylon to Jerusalem: And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

Zion is the address of the people YHWH has ransomed, any other return address would have been impossible. The prologue to Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40.1-11) is a word of comfort to the people on their way from captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem, as expressed in v. 1: Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.

This text has been perceived as the vocation of Deutero-Isaiah. Whether that is correct or not, Jerusalem is the messenger’s addressee, the main figure in the pericope, beside the messenger himself. Similarly in Isa. 41.27: ‘I first have declared it to Zion, and I give to Jerusalem a herald of good tidings’, and Isa. 44.26-28 mentions Jerusalem in particular among the cities of Judah, which will be rebuilt after the people’s return to Judah on Cyrus’ edict (539 BCE). Jerusalem had priority as the temple city with

79.  H. Hagelia, ‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’, SJOT 20 (2006): 38–57; and K. Nielsen: ‘ “Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom Like a Rosy Bower”: N. F. S. Grundtvig and Isaiah 35’, in Zehnder, ed., New Studies in the Book of Isaiah, 193–208. ‘Chapter 35 gives us a completely ahistoric and imaginative projection which…draws on themes and turns of phrases in chs. 40–48 but also on Isa. 1–33’ (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 457).

86

Studies in Isaiah

YHWH’s abode on earth. In Isa. 52.1-280 Jerusalem gets a wake-up call to dress for celebration of its holiness: 1 Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion! Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for the uncircumcised and the unclean shall enter you no more. 2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, O captive Jerusalem; loose the bonds from your neck, O captive daughter Zion!

Zion is a city with ‘strength’ (‫)עז‬, and Jerusalem is ‘the holy city’ (‫)עיר הקדוש‬, which should not be defiled by foreign armies (cf. Ezek. 44.9; Lam. 1.10; Ps. 79.1).81 The city has been humbled by the Babylonians’ destruction, but is now envisioned as liberated. In Isa. 52.9 the comfort of Jerusalem from Isa. 40.1 is repeated, now as a confirmation (cf. Isa. 66.20): Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem.

Also in the core text of Trito-Isaiah (chs. 60–62) the rebuilding of Jerusalem (62.4) is a central theme: You shall no more (‫ )לא עוד‬be termed Forsaken (‫)עזובה‬, and your land shall no more (‫ )לא עוד‬be termed Desolate (‫;)שממה‬ but you shall be called My Delight is in Her (‫)חפצי־בה‬, and your land Married (‫;)בעולה‬ for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married.

In Isaianic nickname tradition (Isa. 7.3, 14; 8.1, 3; 9.6; 10.20-22) the city had for a period been symbolically called ‘Forsaken’ (‫ )עזובה‬and ‘Desolate’ (‫)שממה‬. But now things were changing completely, the city should get new symbolic nicknames, ‘My Delight Is in Her’ (‫ )חפצי־בה‬and 80.  Isa. 52.1-12 is a loosely composed literary unit; cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 340. 81.  For another attitude to foreigners in Jerusalem and the Temple, cf. Isa. 56.3-8.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

87

‘Married’ (‫)בעולה‬. The city and the land YHWH had once divorced should once again become his ‘spouse’ (cf. Isa. 54.1-8). The identification of the speaker in Isa. 62.1 is ‘one of the most contentious questions of Isaiah 62’.82 If we take Ulrich Berges’s position, reading YHWH as the speaking subject, we come close to a divinely exposed election of the city of Jerusalem. For this investigation the identity of Jerusalem as the all-important city in the context is of primary interest. The historical situation mirrored in Isa. 62.6 seems to be the time of Ezra or Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 4), when the walls of the city were rebuilt under threat from the local population. Whether Isa. 62.7 is as concrete as referring to Nehemiah himself, is not clear. But rebuilding the city is the prime task in this text, because Jerusalem was the most important city in Israelite history and its cult place, the divine abode. No site can rival Jerusalem’s stature and importance. In 65.18-19 YHWH is about to ‘create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in my people.’ In Isa. 66.7-14 Jerusalem is described as a mother giving birth to its inhabitants, feeding them ‘from her glorious bosom’ (v. 11). Her breast milk will cause prosperity and wealth brought in from the nations streaming to Jerusalem (v. 12), whereas YHWH himself will care as a mother for Jerusalem (vv. 13-14). In none of these cases is Jerusalem or Zion called ‘elected’ (‫)בחר‬, but by implication it is described as divinely elected. There is no other city in the Hebrew Bible with a status equivalent to Jerusalem. This was the city of divine presence on earth, YHWH’s earthly abode. No other site comes up to Jerusalem or Zion in importance; surely, it was perceived as divinely elected by the prophet or the collector of the prophetic oracles. All direct or indirect references to Jerusalem or Zion in Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah clearly reflect that this is the all-important place. Also, the negative statement in 66.1, that no house can accommodate YHWH, ‘recounts the role of the Temple and the Holy of Holies in particular as YHWH’s throne on earth’.83 In addition to those special cases, Jerusalem and its inhabitants are generally a main focus in the book of Isaiah, either to be judged or to be blessed, addressed either as Jerusalem or as Zion or Daughter Zion. g. Election of the Remnant The terms ‫ שאר‬and ‫‘( שארית‬remnant’), ‫‘( יתר‬leftover’) and ‫פליטה‬ (‘remnant’, ‘survivor’, ‘escaped one’), which refers to the salvation or 82.  Cf. U. Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 428–32. 83.  Sweeney, ‘Eschatology in the Book of Isaiah’, 194.

88

Studies in Isaiah

liberation of a particular remnant, is particularly frequent in the Prophets and the book of Isaiah.84 The idea of a particular remnant gets different expressions in the book of Isaiah. In Isa. 7.3 the prophet has symbolically named his son Shear-Jashub (‫)שאר ישוב‬, ‘a remnant will return’ or ‘convert’.85 In Isa. 1.7-9 YHWH is said to have some surviving leftovers, probably from the assault of King Sennacherib of Assyria in 701 BCE.86 The text differentiates between ‘your country’, which is desolate, and ‘daughter Zion’, which is left within the desolate country. Verse 9 reads: If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors (‫)הותיר לנו שריד כמעט‬, we would have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.

Only ‘daughter Zion is left like a booth (‫ )נותרה בת־ציון כסכה‬in a vineyard’. This is actually no election, but the favorable fate of one escaping war, daughter Zion. Survival is caused by YHWH; there was a divine will behind their survival. We come closer to a pronounced divine election in Isa. 4.3, where those left over in Jerusalem are called ‘holy’ and ‘recorded for life’: Whoever is left in Zion (‫ )הנשאר בציון‬and remains in Jerusalem (‫הנותר‬ ‫ )בירושלם‬will be called holy (‫)קדוש יאמר לו‬, everyone who has been recorded for life (‫ )כל־הכתוב לחיים‬in Jerusalem.

Dating this oracle is not easy, except that the metaphors in Isa. 4.5a associate to the exodus narrative (Exod. 13.21), which indicates a late dating.87 Generally, the oracle describes Jerusalem as deserted, which fits the events of 587 BCE. Elsewhere the ‘remnant’ is associated with those exiled in Babylon, as we will see later. 84.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 116–37; G. H. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1974), Part IV. 85.  The book of Isaiah has a series of such symbolic names, nicknames (Isa. 7.3, 14; 8.3; 9.6; 10.20-22; 62.4, cf. above). 86.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 183. 87.  In 17 cases Jerusalem and Zion are paralleled in the book of Isaiah, ‘and in none of them a pre-exilic provenience seems plausible’ (U. Berges, ‘Zion and the Kingship of YHWH in Isaiah 40–55’, in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah, ed. A. L. H. M. van Wieringen and A. van der Woude [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 95).



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

89

Whereas it is generally recognized that Isa. 6.12, with its allusion to deportation, was added after 587 BCE, Isa. 6.13 is usually seen as the product of a later editor.88 Yet Blenkinsopp admits that Isa. 6.12-13 could as well match Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE.89 The destruction of the people is described in v. 13 as a veritable deforestation: Even if a tenth part remain in it (‫)עוד בה עשריה ושבה‬, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump (‫ )מצבת‬remains standing when it is felled. The holy seed (‫ )זרע קדש‬is its stump (‫)מצבתה‬.

Here are several remnant motifs: ‘a tenth part remain’, a ‘stump remains’, ‘the holy seed is its stump’. The same motif is used in Isa. 10.34–11.1, concerning the destruction caused by the Assyrian forces, also possibly referring to 701 BCE.90 That this remaining stump is called ‘the holy seed’ associates with election theology.91 The nickname Shear-Jashub (Isa. 7.3) recurs as a phrase in 10.20-22 in the context of an oracle promising escape from Assur (cf. 10.24): On that day the remnant of Israel (‫ )שאר ישראל‬and the survivors of the house of Jacob (‫ )פליטת בית־יעקב‬will no more lean on the one who struck them, but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant will return (‫)שאר ישוב‬, the remnant of Jacob (‫)שאר יעקב‬, to the mighty God. 22 For though your people Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return (‫)שאר ישוב בו‬. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. 20

Nothing is said about deportation to Assyria, but the destruction of ‘the house of Jacob’ and ‘the people Israel’ is so devastating that only a ‘remnant’ will be left. If the repeated ‘return’ (‫ )ישוב‬should be taken literally, an exile should be presupposed and possibly with reference to 88.  Cf. J. Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (New York: T&T Clark International, 2011), 18–19; and idem, ‘Isaiah’s Interpretive Revolution: How Isaiah’s Formation Influenced Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation’, in Bautch and Hibbard, eds., The Book of Isaiah, 223–24. 89.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 226. 90.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 260. 91.  This is the only use of the phrase ‘holy seed’, except for Ezra 9.2, which causes Stromberg to date this addition to the post-exilic period (Stromberg, ‘Isaiah’s Interpretive Revolution’, 224).

90

Studies in Isaiah

the exile in Babylon. But the context is an Assyrian onslaught, and ‘the one who struck them’ is best interpreted as Assyria.92 The remnant is not called ‘elected’, but there is a divine will behind his return home, as is also evident in Isa. 11.11, 16, where a previous abduction is assumed: On that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that is left of his people, from Assyria (‫לקנות את־שאר עמו אשר ישאר‬ ‫)מאשור‬, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea… 16 So there shall be a highway from Assyria for the remnant that is left of his people, as there was for Israel (‫)לשאר עמו אשר ישאר מאשור כאשר היתה לישראל‬ when they came up from the land of Egypt. 11

The alliteration on the radicals ‫א‬, ‫ׁש‬, and ‫ ר‬clearly focuses attention on Assyria more than the other nations mentioned in Isa. 11.11, which is confirmed in Isa. 11.16, where the other nations are left out, except that Israel is added, and should probably be incorporated into the alliteration, despite the use of ‫ ׂש‬instead of ‫ ׁש‬in Israel.93 A remnant of Israel will return from Assyria. A return from Assyria is clearly implied and divinely willed, with the reference to a ‘highway from’ (‫ )מסלה מן‬Assyria, a metaphor used by Deutero-Isaiah concerning the Israelites’ return from Babylon (Isa. 40.3; 49.11; cf. 62.10). It is not important here to identify whether the remnant should return from Assyria or Babylon, but to document the idea of a remnant and a return. The oracle in Isa. 14.28-32 is dated to ‘the year that King Ahaz died’ (725 BCE) and concerns the Philistines,94 with a contrast on what would happen to them and to those finding refuge on Zion. The remnant of the Philistines would be killed (‫)שאריתך יהדג‬, whereas because ‘the LORD has founded Zion…the needy among his people will find refuge in her’. There is a similar oracle in Isa. 15.9 against ‘those of Moab who escape’ (‫)פליטה מואב‬, and ‘the remnant of the land’ (‫)שארית אדמה‬, and in Isa. 17.4-6 against ‘Jacob’, the northern kingdom of Israel. Like Damascus (Isa. 17.1-3), Jacob will be razed, and just gleanings will be left of it (v. 6): ‘Gleanings will be left in it (‫)נשאר־בו עוללת‬, as when an olive tree is beaten’. In these cases the remnant metaphor is used negatively concerning those who will not escape. 92.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 257. 93.  This possibly reflects early indifference between ‫ ׂש‬and ‫ׁש‬, as is documented in epigraphic texts. 94.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 291–93.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

91

Isaiah 28 comprises oracles against spiritual and moral degeneration among priests and prophets in Ephraim, charging them with alcoholism (vv. 3 and 7-8), and even demonstrating their drunken drivel (vv. 9-13, not adequately rendered in NRSV).95 But not all people are carried away with this mess (vv. 5-6): In that day the LORD of hosts will be a garland of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people (‫;)לשאר עמו‬ 6 and a spirit of justice to the one who sits in judgment, and strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate (‫משיבי מלחמה‬ ‫)שערה‬. 5

In this case ‘the remnant of his people’ is defined as ‘those who turn back the battle at the gate’. They are not explicitly called elected, but they have divine favor, in contrast to the others. In Isaiah’s oracle against King Sennacherib of Assyria (Isa. 37.22-35), the prophet claims: 31 The surviving remnant of the house of Judah (‫)פליטת בית־יהודה הנשארה‬ shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; 32 for from Jerusalem a remnant shall go out (‫)כי מירושלם תצא שארית‬, and from Mount Zion a band of survivors (‫)ופליטה מהר ציון‬. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

This is said in a historical situation, where King Sennacherib threatened King Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem with invasion. The prophet proclaims that the Assyrian king will not succeed (Isa. 37.33-35), but there will be enough devastation around and in Jerusalem for the prophet to talk about a saved ‘remnant’. Two metaphors are used – that of a tree setting root and growing and that of a remnant. The remnant is the tree growing in and spreading from Jerusalem. The surviving remnant is not literally ‘elected’ (‫)בחר‬, but there is a divine will behind their survival, ‘the zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this’. Deutero-Isaiah’s message concerns and is addressed to those returning from exile in Babylon. The particular ‘remnant’ terminology is not always used, but the idea of divine election is throughout close at hand.

95.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 389. The Norwegian translation (Bibel 2011) renders literally from the Hebrew text: ‘Sav lasav, sav lasav, kav lakav, kav lakav’, to demonstrate how intoxicated priests and prophets were unable to speak properly and understandably.

92

Studies in Isaiah

In Isa. 43.1-7, an editorial construction,96 creation theology and redemption theology are interconnected with the exodus motif (cf. above).97 Just as YHWH followed his people through the Reed Sea and over River Jordan, he will be with them when they return from captivity in Babylon, or wherever, because he has liberated them. This is the remnant of the people turning home from Babylon. This is made explicit in Isa. 46.1-4, an oracle of judgment over Babylon and its gods, Bel and Nebo;98 they will fall but YHWH’s people will be vindicated: Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel (‫)כל־שארית בית ישראל‬, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb; 4 even to your old age I am he (‫)אני הוא‬, even when you turn grey I will carry you. I have made (‫)אני עשיתי‬, and I will bear (‫;)אני אשא‬ I will carry and will save (‫)אני אסבל ואמלט‬. 3

The latter part of this oracle is addressed as a word of comfort to those the Babylonians held as captives, ‘the remnant of the house of Israel’, to whom YHWH had been like a mother, caring for them from birth to old age; the remnant is under divine motherly care. It seems reasonable to view the ‘servant’ in the Servant Songs (Isa. 42.1-4; 49.1-6; 50.4-9; 53.12–53.12) as a personification of Israel.99 In 49.1-6 there are two servants (49.3, 6); one is identified as Israel itself, the other is appointed ‘to raise up the tribes of Jacob (‫)להקים את־שבטי יעקב‬ and to restore the survivors of Israel (‫’)ונצירי ישראל להשיב‬. There are good reasons for following Brueggemann,100 who identifies the second servant in 49.6 as the remnant of Israel, the ‘true Israel’, obedient to YHWH, with a mandate to raise up and restore the people. In Trito-Isaiah YHWH promises (65.9):

96.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 266. 97.  On the debate on the historical background for these verses, cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 267–68. 98.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 267. 99.  Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 304, on Isa. 49.7. 100.  W. Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: John Knox, 2003), 169.



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

93

I will bring for the descendants from Jacob (‫)הוצאתי מיעקב זרע‬, and from Judah inheritors of my mountains (‫;)מיהודה יורש הרי‬ my chosen shall inherit it (‫)וירשוה בחירי‬, and my servants shall settle there (‫)עבדי ישכנו־שמה‬.

The descendants from Jacob and Judah are called inheritors from YHWH’s mountains, the divinely chosen ones, who will settle in their land, which ‘shall become a pasture for flocks’ and ‘a place for herds to lie down’ (Isa. 65.10). Those are the opposite of the ‘rebellious people who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices, a people who provoked’ YHWH (Isa. 65.2-3), who have forsaken YHWH and have forgotten his holy mountain (Isa. 65.11), destined to the sword (Isa. 65.12). There is a clear difference between the remnant and the others, the people is divided. In Isa. 65.9, 15, 22, YHWH repeatedly refers the people as ‘my chosen’ (‫)בחירי‬, regularly paralleled with ‘my servants’ (‫)עבדי‬. The elected ones are chosen to be servant for YHWH. As the elected ones no longer refer to the people as a whole, but to a limited part of it, this is ‘a drastic change in what we might call the doctrine of election’.101 There is actually a divinely elected ‘remnant’, expressed in the imagery of a bunch of good grapes (65.8), where the people is divided between those conducting illegal cult (65.3-4), who ‘chose (‫ )בחר‬what I did not delight in’ (65.12, cf. 66.3-4), and the descendants of Jacob YHWH himself will bring forth (65.9). The idea of a special remnant is a central theme, present in all three main parts of Isaiah, also in the oracles against the nations (chs. 13–23). Mostly the remnant will be saved, but in some cases (in the oracles against the nations) even the remnant will be destroyed.102 The remnant’s fate is always described as willed by YHWH, either to the positive or to the negative. When the remnant’s fate is positive, he is described as elected (‫)בחר‬. h. Election of Non-Israelites Non-Israelites are never called ‘elected’ (‫)בחר‬. But there are several cases where non-Israelites are described as divinely appointed for some special purpose. In the book of Isaiah the primary examples of such ‘elections’ are how YHWH used the Assyrians and King Cyrus of Persia respectively to judge and free his people.103

101.  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 275. 102.  This idea is more frequent in Jeremiah, also with reference to Israel. 103.  Cf. Hagelia, Herrens utvalgte, 146–49.

94

Studies in Isaiah

In Proto-Isaiah the political and military offensives from the Assyrians in the period between mid-730s and the end of the eighth century is a central historical scene. In Isa. 10.6-7 this is interpreted as if YHWH had sent the Assyrians against Jerusalem and Judah ‘as a godless nation’, whereas the Assyrians themselves had solely destructive plans. Therefore YHWH ‘will punish the arrogant boasting of the king of Assyria and his haughty pride’ (Isa. 10.12). The Assyrians had somehow been divinely appointed for a special purpose, but did not understand its limitations; they had overdone their role, and for that reason they have been punished by YHWH.104 King Cyrus of Persia is trusted with bringing the people of Israel back from captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem and Judah, for which he is honored with the titles YHWH’s ‘shepherd’ and ‘anointed’ (Isa. 44.24–45.7). Twice it is underlined by YHWH that ‘you do not know me’, but YHWH would let him know personally (‘I call you by your name’) that he is the only God, that ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other’, ‘For the sake of my servant Jacob (‫)עבדי יעקב‬, and Israel my chosen (‫’)ישראל בחירי‬. YHWH lets him know that even if Cyrus had somehow been appointed servant for YHWH, it is Jacob Israel who is YHWH’s real servant and chosen one. Cyrus is appraised for allowing the people to return from Babylon and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple (cf. 2 Chr. 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-4), and nothing more. But he is never held accountable for any excesses, like the Assyrians. 3. Summary and Conclusion In this survey I have demonstrated that divine election is a central theme in the book of Isaiah. Election is expressed in some particular terms, but very often mirrored otherwise, without using any particular election terminology. Election theology is found throughout the book of Isaiah, in all three main parts of the book, also connected to other central theological themes, as, for example, creation theology. The theme of election is mainly used in the positive, being elected, but also in the negative, not being elected. The election theme covers references to Abraham, David, the promised land, the people itself, Jerusalem, the Remnant and even non-Israelites, who are all somehow divinely elected, or better, appointed. This underlines the theological importance of election in the Hebrew 104.  A close parallel is how YHWH, according to Jeremiah, used the Babylonians to judge Judah and Jerusalem, but in a similar way were held responsible for overdoing their task and was subsequently judged by YHWH (Jer. 25.8-14).



Hagelia Divine Election in the Book of Isaiah

95

Bible in general and also in the book of Isaiah. Divine election belongs to the very theological framework of the Hebrew Bible. The election theme is coloured by the different editorial and historical stages of the book of Isaiah, eighth century (Proto-), sixth century (Deutero-) and fifth century (Trito-Isaiah). Even though dating the different parts of the book of Isaiah is often precarious, there is a clear tendency that the election theology of Proto-Isaiah mirrors the threat of the Assyrians, whereas Deutero-Isaiah sets the election theology in the frame of the period of the exile, and Trito-Isaiah frames it with the period of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem and the temple. This is particularly the case with the promise of land, which is more in the background in TritoIsaiah, when the people is back in the promised land. Looking back, after investigating the different aspects of divine lection, it also appears as a theme contributing to the theological and literary coherence of the book of Isaiah. This has not been particularly expressed through my investigation, but is nevertheless clearly evident. We saw that the election terminology is not equally distributed in ProtoIsaiah compared to Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah. Nevertheless, the election theology itself is clearly present in all main parts of the book of Isaiah.

A nt w or t G ot tes : I s a i a h 40–55 a n d t h e T r ansfor mat i on of P s a l m od y

David Willgren 1. Introduction Tracing the history of use of the psalms is a fascinating endeavor. Written over centuries, they have been performed in a large number of various contexts, and transmitted in collections of different shapes and sizes. Some would eventually end up in what is now known as the Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms, but many were not, as is seen not least throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although quite an expected development, this multivocal and dynamic history of use did, however, take an unexpected turn somewhere along the road. While many psalms seem to have originated in performative settings, the pesharim uncovered in the Judean Desert bear witness to something different. Here, they are regarded as authoritative scripture, interpreted in a clear eschatological light, and commented upon alongside other scripture, most notably the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible.1 They were understood to reveal important insights into contemporary events,2 and, furthermore, David was himself conceptualized as speaking psalms through prophecy (11Q5 27.11). How, then, could such a transformation be accounted for? Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing scholarly discussion on the formation of the ‘book’ of Psalms, and in this line of inquiry, it is often suggested that the very act of compilation has been significant 1.  Such a use is not only found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also broadly attested in, e.g., the New Testament and other texts from the first centuries BCE and the first centuries CE. 2.  G. J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 40–41.



Willgren Antwort Gottes

97

in the transforma­tion sketched above, not seldom related to a proposed prefatorial function of Ps. 1. As one of the earliest contributors to this field, Gerald H. Wilson suggested that by adding Ps. 1 to the collection, ‘Israel’s words of response to her God have now become the Word of God to Israel’.3 Hence, Ps. 1 is understood as a kind of ‘reading instruction’,4 and the effect created by the ‘editorial fixation’ of the psalm was a change in the conception of the collection. The ‘book’ of Psalms was now to be understood as Torah (Ps. 1.2), and read as a whole as an object of meditation and careful study. Although well argued and often repeated, such an explanation is, however, somewhat unsatisfactory. Apart from the difficulties involved with regarding Ps. 1 as a preface in any strict sense,5 the notion that a way of arranging psalms could have such dramatic transformative power seems a bit overstated. Although interpretive contexts are surely altered as texts are juxtaposed, scholars often fail to clarify the suggested connection to editorial intent(s). This is unfortunate, since there is nothing inherent in such a process alone that could explain why a text is suddenly perceived as the ‘Word of God’. Furthermore, it is often assumed that the formation of the ‘book’ of Psalms has been a linear development with each stage overlapping with some part of the current Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms. This is, however, not self-evident, especially in light of the Dead Sea psalms scrolls. Now, if these points are valid, where, then, is one to look? In the present study, I will suggest that it is important to take a closer look at the contexts in which the psalms were used, with a special focus on signs that indicate a change of use. Put differently, I believe that the main impetus for the transformation described above is to be found outside the actual 3.  G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Atlanta: SBL, 1985), 206; cf. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 13; but see already S. Mowinckel, Offersang och Sangoffer: Salmediktningen i Bibelen (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co [W. Nygaard], 1951), 458. 4.  Cf. B. Weber, ‘Psalm 1 and Its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and Towards a Biblical Theology’, OTE 19 (2006): 237–60 (248). 5.  For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see D. Willgren, The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies, FAT 2/88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 136–71, where I, among others, question the identification of ‫( תורה‬v. 2) with the Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms and argue that the two basic functions of a preface – to get the book read, and to get it read properly – are both lacking (cf. G. Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. J. E. Lewin [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 197).

98

Studies in Isaiah

collection(s), and as a case in point, I will proceed from an observation made by Susan Gillingham. In her study of the use of psalmody in Second Temple Judaism, she outlines a movement from liturgy to prophecy in broad strokes and suggests that the beginning of a future-oriented use of psalmody could perhaps be seen in Isa. 40–55.6 Although she does not expand on this in any greater detail, the observation is much to the point, and indicates that the prophetic activity following the exile could have been important for the transformation of psalmody. Hence, this will be the focus of this essay, and I will, after a brief discussion of methodology, focus first on Isa. 55.1-5, a passage where the use of psalms has been argued to be the most apparent, and then broaden the picture by looking more generally at possible interaction with psalms throughout Isa. 40–55. 2. Approaching the Issue Approaching Isa. 40–55, it is first to be noted that these chapters, to a large extent, depend on old forms in the proclamation of a new hope. Ever since Joachim Begrich,7 it has been argued that what scholars have identified as classical form-critical categories were both used and reshaped, and as one of the important influences, scholars often mention the forms of psalms.8 Being prominent in such a line of reasoning, Claus Westermann 6.  S. Gillingham, ‘From Liturgy to Prophecy: The Use of Psalmody in Second Temple Judaism’, CBQ 64 (2002): 470–89 (473). Cf. also S. R. A. Starbuck, ‘Theological Anthropology at a Fulcrum: Isaiah 55:1-5, Psalm 89, and Second Stage Traditio in the Royal Psalms’, in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts, ed. B. Batto and K. L. Roberts (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 247–65, who suggests that Isa. 55.1-5 relates to what he calls a ‘second stage traditio’ of royal psalms, characterized by a transfer of promises from David to the people. 7.  See, e.g., J. Begrich, ‘Das priesterliche Heilsorakel’, ZAW 52 (1934): 81–92. 8.  This is almost universally recognized; see, e.g., J. Muilenburg, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, Interpreter’s Bible 5 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1956); H. L. Ginsberg, ‘The Arm of YHWH in Isaiah 51–63 and the Text of Isa. 53:10-11’, JBL 77 (1958): 152–56 (152); O. Eissfeldt, ‘The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55.1-5’, in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. B. W. Anderson (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 196–207 (196–97); C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969); B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 109; U. Berges, ‘Who Were the Servants? A Comparative Inquiry in the Book of Isaiah and the Psalms’, in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, ed. J. C. de Moor and H. F. van Rooy (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 2; R. E. Clements, ‘Psalm 72 and Isaiah 40–66: A Study in Tradition’, PRSt 28 (2001):



Willgren Antwort Gottes

99

developed these ideas in some detail, perhaps seen best in his classic commentary on Isa. 40–66.9 According to Westermann, ‘almost every page in Deutero-Isaiah reveals affinities between his proclamation and the language of the Psalter’, and the explanation for this would be found in the historical context of the exile.10 One of the most prominent forms was that of complaint, which he argued was used both to shape accusations against YHWH which were then addressed in, for example, a disputation, and as a way of structuring entire passages, leading up to a proclamation of salvation.11 As complaint psalms were essentially related to psalms of praise in Westermann’s view,12 it is not surprising that he noted several ways in which Isa. 40–55 also presupposed and reshaped the latter.13 Understood this way, there was not primarily a dependence on actual psalms, as now found in, for example, the ‘book’ of Psalms, but on forms. The extent of such dependence, as well as the possibility of demarcating various stanzas or strophes relating to certain forms, has, furthermore, been discussed primarily in relation to the issue of the formation of these chapters.14 Now, although the present is informed by these insights, the question to be asked is somewhat more specific: Did the one(s) responsible for Isa. 40–55, by adapting earlier forms, also in some way preserve or reshape the contents of actual psalms? Similar questions have been asked before,15 and several passages have been suggested to reveal some dependence upon psalms now attested in the ‘book’ of Psalms, but in contrast to many of these studies, who focused primarily on the function and use made of the psalms in their (new) contexts, my aim is rather to try to say something about how such a use could reveal something about the 333–41 (333). For an early study inquiring into the relationship between the poems of Isa. 40–55 and certain psalms, see H. Greßmann, ‘Die literarische Analyse Deutero­ jesajas’, ZAW 34 (1914): 254–97. For an overview of other scholars listing parallels between Isa. 40–66 and the ‘book’ of Psalms, see Sommer, Prophet, 110. 9.  Westermann, Isaiah, see esp. 23–27, where the issue is introduced. 10.  Westermann, Isaiah, 23. 11.  See, e.g., Isa. 49.14-26, or Isa. 51.9–52.2, the latter a passage ‘full of phrases, motifs and vocabulary taken from laments’ (Westermann, Isaiah, 24). 12.  See, not least, C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. K. R. Crim and R. N. Soulen (Louisville: John Knox, 1981). 13.  Westermann, Isaiah, 24–26. 14.  For a good overview, see R. Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., StBL 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 378–93. 15.  See, e.g., the studies of Ginsberg, ‘Arm of YHWH’, 152; Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’; and Sommer, Prophet, 109.

100

Studies in Isaiah

perception (and perhaps even a change of perception) of the underlying psalms themselves. Given this approach, some possible pitfalls need to be addressed. First, a similarity between some passage in Isa. 40–55 and a psalm should not automatically be considered as dependence of either text on the other, since it would be quite reasonable to assume that psalms that are now part of the Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms were only a small fraction of the psalms that would have been available at the time. Second, since psalms are poetical compositions that often make use of quite formulaic language, an alleged similarity need not necessarily be interpreted as dependence, but could just as much indicate some shared background, be it literary, conceptual, or the like. Third, even if a connection could be established between some part of Isa. 40–55 and a part of a psalm now included in the ‘book’ of Psalms, it does not automatically imply that the entire psalm was known, since the psalms themselves often bear traces of reworking. However, if Isa. 40–55 alludes specifically to a part of a psalm that reasonably belongs to the very final additions made to it, it would be possible to conclude that the entire psalm was known. Last, similarities need not always be understood in relation to some compositional intentionality. Rather, the analysis needs to be open to the possibility that similar passages might have been harmonized in some way at a later stage. In sum, the task of this study is fairly delicate, but hopefully, some insights can nevertheless be gained as I now turn to Isa. 55.1-5, a passage often argued to show the clearest dependence on (a) psalm(s). 3. The Use of Psalms in Isaiah 55.1-5 Understanding Isa. 40–55 as addressing issues raised by the trauma of exile, one problem in urgent need of theological processing would have been the apparent failure of the Davidic kingship. Jerusalem had been conquered and destroyed, and the survivors of the royal family were imprisoned in a foreign land. Zion seemed no more to be reckoned with as a place from which YHWH’s protection emanated, and consequently, the trust in the Davidic dynasty as a warrant for such protection seemed displaced. How was the Davidic covenant to be understood in these circumstances? And, more specifically, what about those psalms that were associated with either the monarchy in general or the Davidic promises in particular?



Willgren Antwort Gottes

101

a. Isaiah 55.1-5 A passage that is probably to be understood within the context sketched above is Isa. 55.1-5, and as will be seen below, these few verses seem to subvert fundamentally the entire question of the future of the Davidic dynasty:16 ‫ הוי כל־צמא לכו למים‬1a Ho, all who thirst, come to the waters; ‫ ואשר אין־לו כסף לכו שברו ואכלו‬1b and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! ‫ ולכו שברו בלוא־כסף ובלוא מחיר יין‬1c Come, buy wine and milk without money, ‫וחלב‬ at no cost. ‫ למה תשקלו־כסף בלוא־לחם‬2a Why do you spend money for what is not food, ‫ ויגיעכם בלוא לשבעה‬2b and your labor for what does not satisfy? ‫ שמעו שמוע אלי ואכלו־טוב‬2c Listen carefully to me, and eat what is good, ‫ ותתענג בדשן נפשכם‬2d and delight yourselves in rich food. ‫ הטו אזנכם ולכו אלי‬3a Incline your ear and come to me, ‫ שמעו ותחי נפשכם‬3b listen, so that you may live. ‫ ואכרתה לכם ברית עולם‬3c And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, ‫ חסדי דוד הנאמנים‬3d my steadfast, sure love for David. ‫ הן עד לאומים נתתיו‬4a See, I made him a witness to the peoples, ‫ נגיד ומצוה לאמים‬4b a leader and commander of the peoples. ‫ הן גוי לא־תדע תקרא‬5a See, you will summon nations you do not know, ‫ וגוי לא־ידעוך אליך ירוצו‬5b and nations that do not know you will run to you, ‫ למען יהוה אלהיך ולקדוש ישראל‬5c because of YHWH your God, the holy one of Israel, ‫ כי פארך‬5d for he has glorified you. 16.  The demarcation of the passage to these verses followed here is quite common, although J. Goldingay and D. Payne, Isaiah 40–55: A Critical and Exegeti­ cal Commentary, 2 vols., ICC (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 363, also includes Isa. 54.17b. As for its relation to (and function within) Isa. 40–55, it is a matter of debate. It has, e.g., been suggested that it provides a transition to Isa. 56–66 (cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19A [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 368; U. Berges, ‘Where Does Trito-Isaiah Start in the Book of Isaiah?’, in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66, ed. L.-S. Tiemeyer and H. M. Barstad, FRLANT 255 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 63–76, esp. 66–74), or that it perhaps serves as an epilogue to chs. 40–54 (cf. P. Höffken, ‘Eine Bemerkung zu Jes 55,1-5: Zu buchinternen Bezügen des Abschnitts’, ZAW 118 [2006]: 239–49 [239]).

102

Studies in Isaiah

b. Outlining Isaiah 55.1-5 The passage starts in a somewhat surprising way. The expression used to introduce these verses, ‘Ho’ (‫)היו‬, usually indicates a lament (primarily in prophetic literature). But here, its more fundamental function of calling for someone’s attention is probably evoked.17 The conceptual roots of the imagery of vv. 1-3b, an invitation directed to ‘all’ (‫ )כל‬who thirst and hunger, have been debated,18 but the interesting feature to be noted here is that water and food are to be received without charge.19 In fact, one could argue that these verses, in addressing the distress of those in exile, provide comfort by not primarily focusing on a process of deliverance, but on the new life awaiting (v. 3b, characterized by abundant supply of water, wine, milk, fat, etc.; cf. Exod. 3.8; Deut. 31.20 and similar passages).20 Hence, the context depicted seems to relate to a (near) future for those answering the call. What follows next is the only reference to David in Isa. 40–55, and its use here is worth some consideration. In v. 3c, YHWH states that he is making an everlasting covenant (‫ )ברית עולם‬with ‘you’ (‫לכם‬, pl.). The use of the plural is well in line with the plural imperatives of the preceding 17.  So, e.g., G. V. Smith, Isaiah 40–66, NAC 15B (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2009), 495; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah, 367. Marty E. Stevens, ‘Woe or Ho: The Lamentable Translation of ‫ הוי‬in Isaiah 55:1’, in Raising up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson, ed. K. L. Noll and B. Schramm (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 275–82, however, makes an interesting case for keeping its common use, thus translating ‘woe’. 18.  Three main positions have been established. Joachim Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja (Munich: Kaiser, 1963), 59–61, suggested a background in the invitation on the part of Wisdom in Prov. 9.11 (cf. also Sir. 24.19-22), while Westermann, Isaiah, 281–82, argued that the common cry of a water vendor could be a more fitting understanding. J. A. Sanders, ‘Isaiah 55:1-9’, Int 32 (1978): 291–95, argued a third position, as he proposed that a royal banquet could have been an underlying concept (cf. also R. J. Clifford, ‘Isaiah 55: Invitation to a Feast’, in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983], 27-35, who proposes a divine feast). Objections have been raised in relation to all of these three, and some have taken a somewhat complementary position (cf. Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah, 364). See also Stevens, ‘Woe or Ho’, 280, who understands vv. 1-2a as a ‘sarcastic taunt’. 19.  Cf. Smith, Isaiah, 496. 20.  Cf. Westermann, Isaiah, 281–82; B. S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 433; E.-J. Waschke, ‘Die Stellung der Königstexte im Jesajabuch im Vergleich zu den Königspsalmen 2, 72 und 89’, ZAW 110 (1998): 348–64 (361).



Willgren Antwort Gottes

103

verses, and makes clear that the addressees are still the people (cf. also Isa. 54.17b). Consequently, it is with the people that YHWH establishes a covenant, and in v. 3d, this covenant is related to the ‘steadfast, sure love for David’ (‫)חסדי דוד הנאמנים‬.21 Such a notion is, however, surprising, since it seems to contrast with the reality of the exile and the failure of the Davidic dynasty. Put differently, the ‘sure love’ would have seemed not so sure, but the message of this passage seems to be that the promises were in fact still valid. The mercies once shown to David were now to be shown to the whole people, and, hence, what is implied is a transfer of the promises from David to the people.22 In the last two verses, the relating of David to the people continues, as the intention of the transfer is spelled out by a double use of ‘see!’ (‫)הן‬. First, v. 4 describes David as a ‘witness’ (‫)עד‬, ‘leader’ (‫ )נגיד‬and ‘commander’ (‫ )מצוה‬to the people (with the verb in qal perf.), and then, in 21.  There has been some discussion as to whether the expression is to be taken as subjective or objective genitive. A case for the latter is made by H. G. M. Williamson, ‘ “The Sure Mercies of David”: Subjective or Objective Genitive?’, JSS 23 (1978): 31–49, and is followed here, as well as in most commentaries. For a recent argument for the former, see, however, P. J. Gentry, ‘Rethinking the “Sure Mercies of David” in Isaiah 55:3’, WTJ 69 (2007): 279–304. 22.  The idea of such a transfer was first suggested by Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’. See also G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1965), 240; Westermann, Isaiah, 283–84; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 192; H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 117–29; T. Veijola, Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms, Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ 220 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1983), 170; Waschke, ‘Stellung’, 361; Sommer, Prophet, 117–18; Childs, Isaiah, 435; W. D. Tucker Jr., ‘Democratization and the Language of the Poor in Psalms 2–89’, Horizons in Biblical Theology 25 (2003): 161–78 (165–66); Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah, 371; J. Stromberg, ‘The Second Temple and the Isaianic Afterlife of the ‫( חסדי דוד‬Isa 55,3-5)’, ZAW 121 (2009): 242–55 (243–44); and Joseph Blenkinsopp, David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 60. There are, however, scholars opposing such an interpretation. Gentry, for one, suggests that if the genitive is taken as subjective, it could rather refer to a future king who would ‘arise from the Davidic dynasty’ (Gentry, ‘Rethinking’, 292; see also Smith, Isaiah). Although suggestive, it remains to be further substantiated, for example in light of the verb forms in v. 4 (see below). W. C. Kaiser Jr., ‘The Unfailing Kindness Promised to David: Isaiah 55:3’, JSOT 45 (1989): 91–98 (96–97), takes a somewhat different position as he rather speaks of a ‘sharing’ of the promises.

104

Studies in Isaiah

v. 5, similar functions are related to the people, as they are to call nations that they do not know (cf. Ps. 18.44 = 2 Sam. 22.44). The aim seems to be to cast the people in a Davidic (royal) light,23 so that while v. 4 refers to the past (and so relates to v. 3d), v. 5a-b picks up on the new covenant introduced in v. 3c.24 Verse 5c-d then closes the section by providing a fundamental rationale for the covenant: it is taking place because YHWH has glorified his people. Ultimately, then, it seems as if the aim with this new covenant is that the people serve as a witness to the nations,25 and as David is never called a witness elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, this should probably be understood in line with the notion of witness in Isa. 40–55 (cf. esp. Isa. 43.8-13; 44.6-9).26 Proceeding from such a brief overview, some things seem to be presupposed in the passage, and the most apparent is that knowledge of the promise to David, as expressed in, for example, 2 Sam. 7, is taken for granted. Looking specifically at the expression ‫חסדי דוד‬, it is found only in (the later) 2 Chr. 6.42, but the relating of ‫ חסד‬to ‫ דוד‬is also prominent in Ps. 89. In fact, many of the terms featuring in Isa. 55.3 also occur in Ps. 89, and this observation has provided the basis for a discussion of the relationship between these two passages. Early on, Otto Eissfeldt pointed to both lexical and conceptual overlaps between Ps. 89 and Isa. 55.1-5, and noted that many of the shared words did not often occur elsewhere.27 Most significant was the repeated referring in Ps. 89 to the Davidic covenant by the terms ‫( חסד‬vv. 2, 3, 25, 29, 34, 50), ‫( אמונה‬vv. 2, 3, 25, 34, 50), ‫( ברית‬vv. 4, 29, 35, 40), and ‫עולם‬ (vv. 2, 3, 5, 29, 37, 38), since they were also essential to the description of the covenant in Isa. 55.3. Hence, Eissfeldt suggested a quite close connection.28 Furthermore, he proposed recurring allusions to Ps. 89 23.  Childs, Isaiah, 435–36. See also Williamson, Variations, 128–29. 24.  Cf. Westermann, Isaiah, 284–85; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah, 373. It is somewhat puzzling that v. 5a has ‘you’ in the singular. Some have taken this as a clear sign that the collective interpretation is misplaced (e.g. Smith, Isaiah, 504–5), but as argued by Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah, 374, the move between the plural and singular without changing the referent is not unusual. In fact, a collective understanding seems the most likely in light of the use of the plural in v. 5b. 25.  Cf. Stromberg, ‘Afterlife’, 243–44; Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’, 202–3. 26.  Cf. Williamson, Variations, 119. A possible exception could be Ps. 89.38, although the context is not entirely clear. For an overview of the alternatives, see M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 424–27. 27.  Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’. 28.  Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’, 197–98; cf. Kaiser Jr, ‘Unfailing’, 93. There is also a possible similarity between 54.17b and 89.4 (as noted by B. Gosse Antony, ‘Les Promesses Faites à David en Is 55, 3-5 en Relation avec le Psautier et les



Willgren Antwort Gottes

105

throughout Isa. 40–55. This was argued on the basis of verbatim overlaps between, for example, Ps. 89.7 and Isa. 40.18; Ps. 89.10 and Isa. 51.9; and Ps. 89.3 and Isa. 42.1,29 but Eissfeldt also suggested a reshaping of the contents. For example, David was described both as the chosen one (‫)בחיר‬ and the servant (‫ )עבד‬of YHWH in the psalm, whereas these two terms referred to the people in Isa. 40–55.30 Taken together, these observations made Eissfeldt conclude that Ps. 89 was probably known and used in Isa. 55.3-5.31 If correct, this would imply that Isa. 55.1-5 in fact constitutes something of an answer to the complaint in Ps. 89, but before drawing any conclusion, a closer look at the psalm is needed. c. Psalm 89 Ever since Hermann Gunkel, there has been a discussion of the unity of Ps. 89. Based on form-critical analysis, it was suggested that the psalm was originally three separate poems: vv. 2-3, 6-19 formed a ‘hymn of praise’, vv. 4-5, 20-38 formed a ‘prophetic oracle’, and vv. 39-52 formed a complaint.32 This view was to be slightly modified by Timo Veijola, who suggested that the hymn formed an original nucleus that was later expanded by a communal complaint in two slightly differently demarcated steps (first vv. 4-5, 20-46, and then vv. 47-52).33 Parallel to these suggestions were also attempts to demonstrate an original unity of the psalm. James M. Ward, for one, argued early on that a consistent use of key terms was indicative of such unity, and in recent times, an increasing number of scholars have favored such a view.34

développements en Is 56ss’, SJOT 24 [2010]: 253–67 [256–57]). If related to the understanding of the function of this verse by Goldingay and Payne (see above, n. 16), it would indicate that the passage in Isa. 55 begins in a way similar to Ps. 89. 29.  For the whole list, see Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’, 199–200. 30.  Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’, 204; cf. Childs, Isaiah, 437; M. Marttila, Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter, FAT 13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 140 n. 127. 31.  Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’, 207. Cf. also Veijola, Verheißung, 87; Waschke, ‘Stellung’, 361; Marttila, Collective, 140 n. 127; Blenkinsopp, David Remembered, 61; Childs, Isaiah, 435. 32.  For an overview, see J. M. Ward, ‘The Literary Form and Liturgical Back­ ground of Psalm LXXXIX’, VT 11 (1961): 321-39. The doxology in v. 53 is commonly seen as an even later addition to the psalm. 33.  Veijola, Verheißung, 22–118. 34.  Ward, ‘Psalm LXXXIX’. See also R. J. Clifford, Psalms 73–150, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 90–91; M. W. Mitchell, ‘Genre Disputes and Communal Accusatory Laments: Reflections on the Genre of Psalm LXXXIX’, VT 55 (2005):

106

Studies in Isaiah

Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger do, for example, argue for a basic unity of the psalm, except for two smaller additions.35 First, vv. 4-5 and 36-38 were added in light of Pss. 72, 110 and 132 to introduce the Davidic oath more strongly alongside the Davidic covenant, and secondly, vv. 48-49 were added in light of Pss. 88 and 90.36 In light of these arguments, it would be reasonable to assume that vv. 20-46 and 47-52 are closely related, not least since it would have been surprising to have a complaint over the apparent failure of the Davidic dynasty ending without any petition.37 Although Hossfeld and Zenger’s suggested later insertions are possible, they are not entirely necessary. It is, for example, not clear why the use of ‫ שבע‬in vv. 4-5 is to be seen as a clearer emphasis on the oath than, say, the description of its content in vv. 29-30 and, hence, these verses can just as easily be understood in line with the latter parts of the psalm. Turning more specifically to issues of content, the important parts for my purposes are the ones dealing explicitly with the Davidic covenant. In vv. 4-5, 20-38, various aspects of this covenant are rehearsed, and it is understood as of everlasting character (vv. 29-30), initiated by YHWH himself (v. 20). Although disobedient heirs would be punished

511–27; F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalms 3, trans. L. M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 402. For a good overview, see Tate, Psalms, 413–18, but see already N. M. Sarna, ‘Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis’, in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46, who argued that the psalm was a ‘harmonious whole’ (see esp. 30–33). 35.  It is, however, to be noted that Zenger was previously in agreement with Veijola (E. Zenger, ‘Zur Redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen’, in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. E. Zenger and K. Seybold [Freiburg: Herder, 1994], 175–98 [194, with nn. 46, 47]). 36.  F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalms 2, trans. L. M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 403. Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld, ‘Ps 89 und das vierte Psalmenbuch (Ps 90–106)’, in Mein Sohn bist du (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen, ed. H.-J. Klauck and E. Zenger, SBS 192 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 173–83. Although they are possibly correct in regarding vv. 48-49 as a later insertion, it would be equally plausible to understand it in light of, e.g., v. 46, rather than Pss 88 and 90. Worth noting is that they also suggest a possible connection between vv. 27-28 and Ps. 2.7-9 (Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 405, 410). 37.  See already Westermann, Praise and Lament, 165–213, but more specifically C. Rösel, Die Messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zu Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung Psalm 2–89, Calwer Theologische Monographien 19 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999), 136–37.



Willgren Antwort Gottes

107

(vv. 31-33), the promises were not to be revoked (vv. 34-38).38 Ultimately, according to the psalm, nothing could make YHWH remove his steadfast love towards David (v. 34). The intention of this covenant is also mentioned in the psalm, as the Davidide is described as defeating all enemies in the name of YHWH (vv. 22-25) and establishing a great kingdom (v. 26).39 It is also here that the connection to the hymnic part gains rhetorical strength: the everlasting rule of the Davidic king is portrayed as being as firm as the heavenly rule itself.40 So, if this is the conceptualized promise, the reality now threatened its very core. The promise to grant victory to David was put into question in face of a great military defeat (vv. 39-46), but the psalm nevertheless clings to its everlasting aspect, using it as a foundation for addressing a petition to YHWH (vv. 47-52).41 According to the psalm, YHWH had failed to live up to his part of the deal, and this affected not only the Davidic dynasty, but the entire people (v. 51).42 It is interesting that the psalm, in v. 51, takes on a collective force, as it is not the humiliation of the Davidic king that YHWH is called to remember, but that of his servants (‫עבדיך‬, pl.). In fact, such a collective has been hinted at earlier, and would imply that the people were the ones essentially intended to benefit from the covenant, hence also essentially to be affected by the breach of it (cf., e.g., v. 20, which directs the vision towards the ‘faithful ones’, ‫לחסידיך‬, see also vv. 16-18).43 Consequently, v. 50 is to be 38.  See also R. E. Clements, ‘The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition’, in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 39–70 (42). 39.  Cf. J. Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 678. 40.  See J. L. Mays, ‘ “In a Vision”: The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms’, Ex Auditu 7 (1991): 1-8 (6). 41.  Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 689; cf. Clements, ‘Covenant’, 63; Tucker Jr., ‘Democratization’, 172. 42.  Cf. Clements, ‘Covenant’, 64; Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 664. 43.  Cf. Tucker Jr, ‘Democratization’, 171–72, who suggests that the faithful are portrayed as recipients of the promise, since the parallel in 2 Sam. 7.17 has David as the ultimate recipient. If so, it could imply that the anointed one in v. 51 is also to be understood collectively (see also Marttila, Collective, 143). In fact, Marttila argues that such an understanding can be seen within the psalm itself (e.g. by showing that early translations have the chosen one [‫ ]לבחיר‬of Ps. 89.4 in the plural), and interestingly, 4Q98g (4QPsx, a fragment probably dating between 175 and 125 BCE; see, e.g., P. W. Skehan, E. C. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, ‘98g. 4QPsx’, in Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles, ed. E. C. Ulrich et al., DJD 16 [Oxford: Clarendon, 2003],

108

Studies in Isaiah

understood as the voice of the people. As the verse rehearses the initial introduction of the covenant (vv. 4-5),44 it also provides the closest links to Isa. 55.3c-d, together with v. 29:45 Ps. 89.29 Ps. 89.50 Isa. 55.3c-d

‫ לעולם אשמור־לו חסדי ובריתי נאמנת לו‬ ‫ איה חסדיך הראשנים אדני נשבעת לדוד באמונתך‬ ‫ ואכרתה לכם ברית עולם חסדי דוד הנאמנים‬

Ps. 89.29 Ps. 89.50 Isa. 55.3c-d

Forever I will keep my steadfast love for him, and my covenant with him will stand firm; Lord, where is your steadfast love of old, which by your faithfulness you swore to David? And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.

Important to note here is first that while Ps. 89 demands a response, it does not itself provide an answer. Furthermore, the substance of the covenant is often spelled out as promising a son of David on the throne (Ps. 89.30-38; cf. 2 Sam. 7.12-16; Ps. 132.11b-12), but of this, Isa. 55.1-5 says nothing. However, if one understands the petition of Ps. 89 as related to a more fundamental issue of the future of the people and their status in relation to the surrounding foes, Isa. 55.1-5 has more to say, and in so doing, perhaps also implicitly reveals something about its view of the future of kingship. Actually, if understood in such a way, it would be reasonable to posit, with the strand of research going back to Eissfeldt, that Isa. 55 could be seen as an answer, not only to complaints like the one in Ps. 89, but more specifically to the complaint voiced in Ps. 89 itself. However, the plausibility of such a suggestion would ultimately depend on the relative dating of these two texts, and consequently, I now turn briefly to that issue. As with all psalms, the dating issue of Ps. 89 is quite elusive. Nonetheless, discussion has often centered around two principal theories: while a first position has been to regard the psalm as part of some

163–67 [163]) contains a possible collective reinterpretation of (a part of) Ps. 89 (so M. S. Pajunen, ‘4QPsx: A Collective Interpretation of Psalm 89:20-38’, JBL 133, no. 3 [2014]: 479–95). In the words of Pajunen, the fragment transposes the promise of 89.20-31 ‘from applying only to David and his descendants, as is clear from the missing verses dealing with the dynasty, and attaches it to the new chosen of God, namely, the group addressed in vv. 20 and 22’ (Pajunen, ‘4QPsx’, 493). Cf. Starbuck, ‘Theological Anthropology’, 264. 44.  Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 689–90. 45.  See also Childs, Isaiah, 435; Williamson, ‘Mercies’, 42.



Willgren Antwort Gottes

109

pre-exilic, national ritual (argued not least by Scandinavian scholars such as Ivan Engnell, Gösta W. Ahlström, Helmer Ringgren, and Sigmund Mowinckel, but also by, e.g., Hans-Joachim Kraus and Artur Weiser), a second alternative was to understand the psalm as a composite lament over the fall of Judah (so, e.g., Gunkel and Hans Schmidt). In an early assessment of these views, James M. Ward adhered to a liturgical understanding and argued that since most of the terms used to describe the distressful situation are indefinite, and since, for example, ‫‘( ססש‬plunder’ v. 42) is rarely used to connote total desolation, it would be reasonable to understand the psalm as referring to some major military catastrophe, although none in particular.46 Furthermore, Ward noted the lack of allusion to any destruction of the temple, and argued that vv. 47-52 was voiced by the king, hence possibly implying his survival.47 In sum, Ward deemed it unlikely that the psalms would relate to the end of a dynasty, and thus suggested a date prior to 587 BCE, with a terminus post quem after the reign of Solomon and the division of the kingdom.48 Returning to Veijola, he argued that while the part he identified as an original hymn might have been pre-exilic, vv. 4-5, 20-46 had to be dated after DtrN (due to, among other things, the connection made between ‫ברית‬ and the Davidic covenant), but before Isa. 40–55 (on the basis of the use of ‫ בחיר‬and ‫ עבד‬mentioned above). Hence, the final composition would date to somewhere between 550 and 539 BCE.49 As for vv. 47-52, Veijola assigned them to the same period, although somewhat later.50 In recent years, most scholars have dated the psalm to exilic or postexilic times.51 Based on the suggestion by Richard J. Clifford that Ps. 89 is best understood as a corporate remembrance of a foundational event 46.  For this suggestion, as well as an overview over the two main views mentioned above, see Ward, ‘Psalm LXXXIX’. 47.  For this argument, see also, e.g., H. Ringgren, Psaltaren 42–89, Kommentar till Gamla Testamentet (Stockholm: EFS-förlaget, 1994), 474, and H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, trans. Hilton C. Oswald, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 202–3. 48.  Cf. also Sarna, ‘Psalm 89’, esp. 42–45. 49.  Veijola, Verheißung, 75–78, 86–88. 50.  Veijola, Verheißung, 88–91. 51.  See, e.g., Tate, Psalms 51–100, 417; E. S. Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 2 and Lamentations, FOTL 15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 154; N. deClaissé-Walford, R. A. Jacobson, and B. LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 683; W. Brueggemann and W. H. Bellinger Jr., Psalms, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 387.

110

Studies in Isaiah

which would only make sense in a time when the king still was a ‘real figure in Israelite politics’,52 Floyd suggests that the only event that could be described as violating the terms of the covenant would have been the fall of Judah in 587 BCE.53 In a similar vein, others have pointed out that v. 45 likely implies the death of the king,54 and that the use of the third person to speak about the anointed one indicates that there is no need to interpret the last verses as the king speaking.55 If correct, these observations suggest a terminus post quem connected to the events in 587 BCE, although not much can be spelled out with any large degree of certainty. Furthermore, both Tate and Hossfeld suggest that the silence about the temple indicates that it is no longer an issue, thus implying a date after 515 BCE. While suggestive, their proposal is difficult to evaluate.56 In light of these remarks, the elusiveness of the issue is obvious. Many of the suggested dates proceed from quite literal understandings of the many metaphors of the psalm, while others rely too heavily on features that are supposedly absent from it. Nevertheless, I would suggest a very general dating somewhere after 587 BCE and before the composition of Isa. 40–55 emanates as not entirely unthinkable (although one should also bear in mind the complex formation of Isa. 40–55). An indication of such a dating would, for example, be that the renouncing (‫ )נאר‬of the covenant in v. 40, if read in light of vv. 4-5, 29-30, seems to presuppose that the very dynasty was in fact threatened. The Davidic kingship had failed, and the effect this (still) had on the people is the focus of the complaint. If a reasonable observation, the above-suggested relationship between Isa. 55.1-5 and Ps. 89 seems possible.

52.  Clifford, Psalms 73–150, 90; cf. R. J. Clifford, ‘Psalm 89: A Lament Over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure’, HTR 73 (1980): 35–47 (47). 53.  M. H. Floyd, ‘Psalm LXXXIX: A Prophetic Complaint About the Fulfillment of an Oracle’, VT 42 (1992): 442–57 (456). 54.  So, e.g., Mays, ‘Portrayal’, 6. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 406, even sees an allusion to the fate of (the young) Jehoiachin in v. 46. 55.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 404. 56.  Tate, Psalms 51–100, 417; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 406. A different interpretation is suggested by Sarna, ‘Psalm 89’, 43–44, as he argues that the silence about the temple indicates that the real target of the events described in the psalm was the reigning monarch, hence neither Jerusalem, nor its temple. Further clues have also been found in the relation of Ps. 89 to other texts in the Hebrew Bible, such as, e.g., 2 Sam. 7. Yet while overlaps are notable, they do not necessarily imply any direct dependence (cf. Tate, Psalms 51–100, 417).



Willgren Antwort Gottes

111

d. Providing a New Interpretive Framework If the conclusions drawn above are valid, they strengthen the idea that Isa. 55 portrays a transfer of promises from David to the people, but more interestingly, the suggestion that the passage interacts with a psalm of complaint of the people could also indicate something of the perception and use of such (and similar) psalm(s). First, it would be fair to posit that the implied audience probably was familiar with Ps. 89, and that they understood the Davidic covenant very much in line with it. What both Ps. 89 and Isa. 55.1-5 seem to affirm, then, is the validity of the promises to David, although the audience might have started to question them. The steadfast, sure mercies of David were considered as everlasting, and, thus, the use made of the psalm is not polemical, but essentially one of recognition. All the more, since Ps. 89 is chosen as the conversation partner, it would be reasonable to assume that it was seen as a legitimate expression of such a Davidic tradition.57 Consequently, the transfer of the promise from David to the people is best understood as a reaffirmation of it.58

57.  Sommer’s claim that it would imply that Ps. 89 was regarded as ‘sacred’ is, however, unwarranted (Sommer, Prophet, 118). 58.  Cf. Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 692. If proceeding from the suggestion by F.-H. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1–50, NEchtB (Würzburg: Echter, 1993), 15, 49–51, that additions were made to Ps. 89 to create a link back to Ps. 2, it would be tempting to suggest that the allusion to these parts of the psalm in Isa. 55 would indicate an emerging collection of psalms by that time (cf. E. Zenger, ‘ “Es sollen sich niederwerfen vor ihm alle Könige” [Ps 72,11]: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Psalm 72 und zum Programm des messianischen Ps 2-89’, in Zenger and Eckhart, eds., ‘Mein Sohn bist du’ [Ps 2, 7]: Studien zu den Königspsalmen, 66–93 [88–90]), as the idea that Pss. 2–89 once formed an independent collection is widely held (see, e.g., Rösel, Redaktion; K. Koch, ‘Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte’, in Zenger and Seybold, eds., Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, 243–77; Wilson, Editing; P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, STDJ 17 [Leiden: Brill, 1997]). Such a notion should, however, probably be avoided here, as the possible relation between two psalms does not necessarily say anything about a collection of psalms, and even less about the psalms that might have been included in it (for a further discussion of these issues, see Willgren, The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms; idem, ‘Did David Lay Down His Crown? Reframing Issues of Deliberate Juxtaposition and Interpretive Contexts in the “Book” of Psalms with Psalm 147 as a Case in Point’, in Functions of Psalms and Prayers in Late Second Temple Period, ed. M. S. Pajunen and J. Penner, BZAW 486 (Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming).

112

Studies in Isaiah

Second, the very fact that the promises are reshaped indicates a fair amount of freedom, both in relation to the posited established understanding of the Davidic covenant, and to the psalm itself. In fact, if compared to the ‘scriptural’ use of psalms in the Dead Sea pesharim, it appears as if the use with which Isa. 55.1-5 interacts is a performative one. Put differently, the use in Isa. 55 indicates that Ps. 89 was regarded, not primarily as (written) ‘scripture’, but as a concrete example of a well-recognized and widely used prayer. Paradoxically, however, the suggested use of Ps. 89 in Isa. 55 would in fact strengthen its position in the transmission of psalms, and so even provide an explanation to the unexpected transformation of psalmody. As mentioned above, a possible consequence of the aftermath of exile was that psalms that in some way dealt with the Davidic dynasty were at great risk of falling into oblivion. They were potentially regarded as outdated and failed, but through acts of reinterpretation such as the one in Isa. 55, they were given a chance to survive.59 By reinforcing the validity of the promise to David, while at the same time pushing its fulfillment into the future, a new interpretive framework was established where royal psalms were to be regarded as fertile soil for the expressing of a hope in a future restoration. Their function as legitimate expressions of faith was reinforced, and their place in the transmission of psalms secured. According to Isa. 55.1-5, significant aspects of such a future were not primarily the restoration of monarchy. What it claimed as enduring was rather that the whole people shared in the unique relationship with YHWH.60 If so, an answer to the question of kingship is implicitly provided as well. Looking more broadly at Isa. 40–55, the only references made to kings are either to kings of other people (e.g., 41.2; 45.1; 49.7, 23; 52.15), or, more importantly, to YHWH himself (41.21; 43.15; 44.6; 52.7).61 Consequently, in the vision of Isa. 40–55, the people would, in relation to the new life awaiting (see above), have no other king than YHWH. In sum, if Isa. 55.1-5 is in fact relating to (at least a psalm very much like) Ps. 89, it appears that the passage is affirming, not only the tradition present in the psalm, but the very psalm itself, as it was taken seriously enough to provide the basis for the proclamation of hope. In fact, such an interaction with complaint psalms could be further strengthened if related to a more general use of psalms throughout Isa. 40–55, and so, to this issue I now turn.

59.  Cf. already von Rad, Theology, 240; cf. Sommer, Prophet, 119. 60.  Cf. Goldingay, Isaiah 40–55, 373. 61.  See also Eissfeldt, ‘Promises’, 203; Veijola, Verheißung, 170.



Willgren Antwort Gottes

113

4. Psalms Answered Apart from the passage discussed above, there are several other instances throughout Isa. 40–55 where a psalm is possibly alluded to, or even quoted. Starting with the latter, Westermann, for one, argues that Isa. 40.27 contains a quote from the charge brought against the deity in a community complaint: ‘My way is hidden from YHWH, and my right is disregarded by my God’ (‫)נסתרה דרכי מיהוה ומאלהי משפטי יעבור‬.62 Interestingly, this complaint is directly answered by YHWH, first through a rhetorical question in v. 28, and then further in vv. 29-31. Similarly, Isa. 49.14 seems to quote the people’s complaint (‘YHWH has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me’, ‫)עזבני יהוה ואדני שכחני‬, and, again, it is answered by a rhetorical question (v. 15), followed by an expanded response.63 Here, as in Isa. 55, the answers point to a future restoration, and consequently, these passages seems to imply a similar use of psalms, although it is to be noted that neither of these phrases is preserved in any of the psalms now included in the Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms. Moving on, there are also some possible allusions to complaint psalms in several passages throughout Isa. 40–55, allusions where a psalm now included in the Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms could perhaps be detected. There are, for example, striking similarities between the description of Jacob and Israel in Isa. 41.14 and Ps. 22.7.64 While the psalmist describes himself as a reproached ‘worm’ (‫)תולעת‬, Isa. 41 picks up this imagery and transforms it. Israel is no worm, but a sharp threshing sledge, able to crush mountains (v. 15). Benjamin D. Sommer also proposes a possible allusion to Ps. 71 in Isa. 46. If a reasonable connection, the psalm is likely used as a means of proclaiming that YHWH in fact grants the request (cf., e.g., Isa. 46.4 with Ps. 71.18).65 62.  Westermann, Isaiah, 59–60. This is often noted by commentators, and a suggested point of comparison is, e.g., Ps. 44.25 (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 194; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 58). 63.  Possible points of reference could be Pss. 10.11-12; 22.2; 74.19; 77.7-13 (cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 310; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 181). 64.  Cf. also Job 19.9; 25.6. For a discussion of these passages, as well as their connection to Ps. 8, see H. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 226–39; F. Lindström, Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994), 80–81, 379–426. 65.  See Sommer, Prophet, 120–22. He also suggests a connection between Isa. 40.17-23 and Ps. 82.5-8; and Isa. 48.12-21 and Ps. 81.6-17. However, although intriguing, the overlaps are not sufficient, and the demarcation of the passages is quite unnatural. Metaphors found in psalms are also found in several passages of

114

Studies in Isaiah

What these examples seem to show, then, is not so much a literary dependence, but rather a recognition and affirmation of a common use of complaint psalms. As for the citations, they could be understood in various ways, for example as direct quotes from psalms once used, but now lost,66 or perhaps as summaries of fundamental petitions raised in such psalms, but more significantly, it should be noted that the implied use is communal. Despite that the quoted psalms are complaints of the individual, Isa. 40–55 understands the speaker(s) as the people,67 and uses the psalms to address their current situation. Their petitions are confirmed and answered, but, as in Isa. 55.1-5, fulfillment is still to come. Consequently, even if not much can be said about the actual psalms used, the general picture seems to be that complaint psalms constituted a significant part of the psalmody of this time. 5. Conclusions In this study I have argued that important clues to the transformation of psalmody sketched in the introduction – that performed psalms and prayers (‘words to God’) suddenly were perceived as ‘scripture’ (‘words from God’) – are to be found in the use of psalms in Isa. 40–55. As a starting point for such a line of inquiry, I first suggested that Isa. 55.1-5 related to the presupposed notion of the Davidic covenant of Ps. 89, as well as to its complaint, in such a way that the former was transformed (vv. 3b-5). While no Davidic king was restored, Isa. 55 nevertheless asserted continuing validity to the promise, and as its fulfillment was ultimately yet to be seen, the passage could be understood as in fact opening up for a new reading of, not only Ps. 89 in particular, but royal psalms in general. Rather than outdated, they were now possible to read as oriented towards an (immanent) future, and consequently, they no longer spoke about a contemporary king, but a future reality. In this way, they would become important sources for the framing of a new hope, and thus increasingly the focal point of such activities, and while Isa. 40–55

Isa. 40–55, as are similar concepts often attested in both, but many of these are too general to be used to argue for any intentional dependence (see, e.g., Isa. 40.6-8, cf. Pss. 37.2; Isa. 40.11, cf. Ps. 80.2; Pss. 78.52, 71; 90.5-6; 103.15; Isa. 46.9-13, cf. Ps. 22.4; Isa. 49.3, cf. Ps. 2.7). For a discussion of the relation between complaint and the oracles of salvation in Isa. 40–55, see P. D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 141–47. 66.  So, e.g., Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 58. 67.  Cf. Sommer, Prophet, 119.



Willgren Antwort Gottes

115

had no vision of a restored monarchy, its reappropriation of the royal psalms would nevertheless open them for various kinds of messianic expectations. As I have suggested, the effect of such interpretive activities was not only that the promises expressed in these psalms were reaffirmed. The way in which Isa. 55 interacted with Ps. 89 in fact indicated that the psalm itself was reaffirmed. As containers of the enduring promises of God, these psalms were, then, themselves to be considered ‘words of God’, read in light of a growing body of scriptures and eventually preserved in the Masoretic ‘book’ of Psalms. As prophetically future-oriented, they would even be seen as prophetic literature (see, e.g., the constant juxtaposition of psalms with other prophetic texts from the Hebrew Bible in both the Dead Sea pesharim and the New Testament) and contribute to an emerging conceptualization of David as a prophet (see, e.g., 11Q5 27; Mark 12.35-37; Acts 2.29-31). As I have argued above, this picture was further strengthened by the general use of complaint psalms throughout Isa. 40–55, and worth noting is that in contrast to, for example, the Dead Sea pesharim, the way these psalms are quoted could imply that the transmission of psalms had, so far, been driven mainly by their performative use. Now, it should be stressed that I do not suggest that Isa. 40–55 was the only driving force behind such a ‘scripturalization’, nor does my study warrant the notion of a central impetus, but if the argument is correctly framed, it would indicate that interpretive activities such as is found in Isa. 40–55 at least constitutes an important piece of the puzzle. In sum, Isa. 40–55 seems to relate to psalms in two fundamental ways: first, they were used as to provide the basis for a proclamation of hope and comfort; and, second, they served as a means of reinterpretation of the seemingly failed promises to David. In this sense, one could perhaps allude to the famous idea of Gerhard von Rad and suggest that the psalms were not only an Antwort Israels to God’s mighty acts (and failure to act) in history, but that, in Isa. 40–55, psalmody actually provided the basis for the proclamation of an Antwort Gottes.68 As a consequence, one could henceforth also turn to psalms in the search for such answers, and the process of ‘Israel’s words of response to her God’ becoming words of YHWH to Israel had begun.69

68.  G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1975), 355–459. 69.  Cf. Wilson, Editing, 206, quoted in the introduction.

F r om I n d o -E u rop ea n D r agon - S lay i ng to I s a i a h 27 .1: A S t ud y i n t h e L ong ue D ur ée *

Ola Wikander An initial question to ponder: What does it mean to date a text? One of the most famous instances showing the relationship between the common Northwest Semitic cultural milieu and the Hebrew Bible that grew out of it is Isa. 27.1. This verse has even become a ‘poster boy’ of sorts for the comparative study of Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew literature, and it is certainly not difficult to see why. The verse runs: Bayyôm hahûʾ yipqōd YHWH bĕḥarbô haqqāšâ wehaggĕdôlâ wĕhaḥazāqâ ʿal liwyātān nāḥāš bārīaḥ weʿal liwyātān nāḥāš ʿaqallātôn wehārag ʾet-hattannîn ʾašer bayyām On that day, YHWH will punish with his heavy, great and strong sword the Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, yes, the Leviathan, the writhing serpent – he will kill the dragon in the sea.

As noted for a long time and by many scholars, this verse contains etymological and poetic material identical with that found at the beginning of the Ugaritic tablet KTU 1.5, a passage from the Baal Cycle, in which *  This study, as well as the conference presentation on which it is based, forms part of the research project Dragons and Horses – Indo-Europeans and Indo-European in the Old Testament World, which has been funded by the Swedish Research Council (project number 421-2013-1452). The same applies to the upcoming book publication mentioned later. Addendum: It has recently come to my attention that R. D. Miller will soon be publishing a volume entitled The Dragon, the Mountain, and the Nations: An Old Testament Myth, its Origins, and its Afterlives (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016). Due to the date of delivery of the present manuscript, this book has not been available to me, and I have therefore not been able to refer to it.



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

117

Mot (the god of death) is threatening Baal while referring to his earlier, heroic exploits, which were apparently presupposed to be well-known by the audience:1 k tmḫṣ . ltn . bṯn . brḥ tkly . bṯn . ʿqltn . šlyṭ . d. šbʿt . rašm tṯkḥ . ttrp . šmm . As/because you smote Lotan/Litan, the fleeing serpent, killed off the writhing serpent, the ruler with seven heads, the heavens will burn hot and shine/be weakened.2 (KTU 1.5 I 1-4)

The word ʿaqallātôn (‘writhing’, ‘twisting’) in the Hebrew text is a hapax legomenon, and the fact that it is combined with an adjectival form of the root brḥ to describe a terrible serpent called Leviathan/ltn (different variants of the same name) proves beyond doubt that the expression is an ancient poetic formula. Actually, the term bārīaḥ itself in the sense of ‘fleeing’ or ‘swift’ is also uncommon, which adds to the evidence: it is quite unthinkable that the combination of the serpent Leviathan/Litan/ Lotan3 and these two specific words should have arisen by chance both in Ugaritic and Hebrew literature, and so a historical connection must be postulated.4 This is rather well-known in modern exegetical scholarship.

1.  The parallel is noted in many, many places and has become a mainstay of religio-historical exegetical scholarship. For one example, see J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 105–6. Day refers to the use of the ancient material in the Isaiah text as being ‘projected into the future in connection with the Eschaton’. 2.  The Ugaritic text is quoted based on the standard edition KTU3 – M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten/The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, 3rd ed., AOAT 360/1 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013). The translation is the same that I give in O. Wikander, Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Philological and Comparative Study, ConBOT 61 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 52, with certain small changes. See that publication for the argu­ ments underlying the translation. 3.  The most plausible vocalization is probably Litan (Lîtānu in the nominative): see J. A. Emerton, ‘Leviathan and Ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon’, VT 32 (1982): 327–31. 4.  The terms ʿqltn and šlyṭ d šbʿt rašm are also used of the serpent in KTU 1.3 III 41-42, showing again that the phrases are part of a set poetic formula.

118

Studies in Isaiah

However, in the present study, I would like to sketch and suggest a further trajectory of the tradition and, perhaps more importantly for the present purposes, ask what methodological implications such a search can have. 1. Dating the Hebrew and Ugaritic Passages: Borrowing vs. Inheritance Let us start by talking of the relative dating of the two texts mentioned above. The verse from Isaiah includes ancient poetic material also found at Ugarit; the vocabulary used in this textual passage is very old indeed. Yet, it belongs to the part of the book often known as the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’, sometimes regarded as one of the latest parts of the book of Isaiah as a whole. Going back all the way to Bernhard Duhm, it has been argued that Isa. 24–27 is a late, apocalyptic addition to the Isaianic corpus – Duhm himself believed the chapters to be as recent in their origin as the second century BCE.5 This extremely late dating is less mainstream today; however, a post-exilic origin of the ‘Apocalypse’ is often assumed.6 There have certainly been dissenting voices: for example, a recent monograph by William D. Barker dispenses with the idea of an ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’ altogether and also rejects the tendency to give the chapters a late dating. 5.  B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, HKAT 3/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), 149. 6.  As an example, see H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: DeuteroIsaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 183, where it is stated that the origin of Isa. 24–27 lie ‘beyond the time of Deutero-Isaiah’ and that they are more at home in the times of Trito-Isaiah, Joel and Zechariah. A rather moderate view, ‘earlier rather than late, closer to the time of the exile than to the book of Daniel’ can be found in D. G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27, JSOTSup 61 (Sheffield JSOT, 1988), 16. Another via media can be found in G. W. Anderson, ‘Isaiah XXIV–XXVII Reconsidered’, in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962, VTSup 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 118–26 (126), where the chapters are dated to ‘the earlier rather than the later post-exilic period’. A generally post-exilic date, perhaps the fourth century BCE, is opted for in A. S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 144. Christopher B. Hays suggests an earlier date, ‘between the late seventh and late sixth centuries’ based on linguistic criteria – C. B. Hays, ‘The Date and Message of Isaiah 24–27 in the Light of Hebrew Diachrony’, in Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, ed. J. T. Hibbard and H. C. P. Kim, AIL 17 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 7–24 (23). Typically enough, another essay in the very same volume settles for the fifth century BCE and seeks intertextual relationships with Trito-Isaiah: J. T. Hibbard, ‘Isaiah 24–27 and Trito-Isaiah: Exploring Some Connections’, 183–200 (esp. 187). Other suggestions are legion.



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

119

In his book, Barker presents an impressive and almost humorous list of the extremely varied suggestions that have been given for the dating of Isa. 24–27.7 The wide discrepancies between these various suggestions (encompassing the eighth to the second centuries BCE) illustrate how hard it is to fix texts of such unclear historical scope at a specific point in time. The arguments used have sometimes become somewhat circular (at least when one looks at the history of scholarship on this question with a bird’s-eye view): on the one hand, it is often assumed that Isa. 24–27 is apocalyptic or proto-apocalyptic in genre, and that this genre is an intrinsically late one; but on the other hand, the exact definition of apocalyptic tends to vary, muddling the waters.8 I personally have no fixed view on whether or not Isa. 24–27 as a whole is to be regarded as a ‘late’ composition, nor do I intend to answer any such question of dating in the present study: quite the contrary, in fact. What I want to do here is to problematize the very idea of providing a secure date for a textual entity (a single verse, in this case) that includes within it material so ancient as to be in essence impossible to situate temporally (in the context of the Hebrew Bible). I shall argue below that Isa. 27.1 contains a reception of motifs even earlier than the aforementioned Ugaritic attestation – which in itself is something like a millennium (give or take) earlier than the post-exilic date sometimes assumed for the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’. The question then becomes, as stated above: What does it really mean to date a text? What does it mean that the Isaian verse is supposedly ‘late’ when it includes extremely ancient material? The first thing one has to ask oneself when discussing striking parallels such as the one between Isa. 27.1 and the passage from the Baal Cycle is how this type of correspondence really came about. It is definitely not a matter of the author of the Isaiah passage having somehow read the Baal Cycle; it would be very hard indeed to come up with a credible scenario in which this could even be imaginable (Ugarit was, after all, destroyed shortly after 1200 BCE, and there are no signs of its literary culture having survived into the main parts of the Iron Age, let alone in Palestine as opposed to Syria). No, the only plausible way to explain this type of correspondence is to reckon with a type of ‘Bardic Consciousness’, a common repository of poetic material that was floating around, so to speak, in the common Northwest Semitic cultural milieu of which both the Ugaritic writings and 7.  W. D. Barker, Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic: An Exegetical Study in Isaiah 24–27, FAT 2/70 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 4–10 (with further references to various views on both genre and dating). The list of suggested dates is found on p. 5. 8.  The latter point is underscored in Barker, Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic, 6.

120

Studies in Isaiah

the Hebrew Bible provide individual instances. The Hebrew Bible did not ‘borrow’ from Northwest Semitic culture: it is Northwest Semitic culture. A similar yet not identical point is made by B. W. Anderson, who writes that the historical relationship between the Ugaritic and Hebrew texts ‘does not necessarily indicate that the poet had Ugaritic texts at hand’.9 With this I definitely agree, it most certainly does not mean that. Anderson, however, goes on to suggest that there was a direct influence from ‘Ugaritic myth’ on early Hebrew poetry, and that this explains the historical influence (and even that Isa. 27.1 is specifically dependent upon the Ugaritic text). With this I would agree only if one defines ‘Ugaritic myth’ in a very broad way as meaning something like ‘the common Northwest Semitic poetic background of which we have an important instance preserved at Ugarit’. I do not believe that there need have been any actual contact between Ugarit, the city, and its culture and the early Israelites: rather both Ugaritic and Hebrew literature must be viewed as distinct representatives of a common Northwest Semitic cultural-poetic milieu. It may seem nitpicking to insist upon this distinction (shared mytho-poetic inheritance as opposed to borrowing from Ugaritic mythology specifically), but I believe it is important to make this point in order for one not to view Israelite culture as something too aberrant and unique within its context. To be specific: Israelite culture is a part of its Northwest Semitic context, though having its own individuality, just as is Ugaritic culture and literature does. And one does not need to borrow mythological motifs from one’s own culture. A similar (and in my view strictly incorrect) account of the parallel as a type of borrowing can be found in Kaiser’s commentary to Isa. 13–39, where it is said that ‘[t]he Israelites took the myth over from the Canaanites…’10 Again, I would say: they did not need to ‘take the myth over’ from the Canaanites: linguistically and mytho-culturally, they were Canaanites.11 This type of direct inheritance (and its being distinguished from intercultural borrowing) is quite important for the present purposes.12

9.  B. W. Anderson, ‘The Slaying of the Fleeing, Twisted Serpent: Isaiah 27:1 in Context’, in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. L. M. Hopfe (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 3–16 (5). 10.  O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson, ATD 18 (London: SCM, 1974), 221. It should also be noted that Kaiser is of the view that Isa. 24–27 should be regarded as late chapters (see 173–79). 11.  Also, whether ‘Canaanite’ is actually a very good term for the traditions preserved at Ugarit is debatable, to say the least. 12.  I also make this point in Wikander, Drought, 15 (referring specifically to Isa. 27.1 and using some of the same arguments).



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

121

We need not presuppose that the Ugaritic passage as such is the original locus of the poetic material shared with Isa. 27.1; rather, both of them must have inherited the poetic formula from the common Northwest Semitic background from which they sprang. Methodologically, as we know that the Hebrew Bible and the Ugaritic writings are generally very close to each other both in terms of linguistic inheritance and poetic form, there is no need whatsoever to postulate some form of cross-cultural borrowing in this case. We will, however, speak of such processes further on. Thus far, however, mytho-poetic inheritance has more explanatory power as well as being more parsimonious. 2. ‘Etymological Poetics’ as Method, and the Work of Calvert Watkins In my 2014 monograph Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel, I focused on this type of inheritance phenomenon in relationship to the mytho-poetical motifs of using drought as an illustration of the powers of death (personified or not) in Ugaritic and Hebrew literature, and I did this by tracing specific pieces of etymological material to which such motifs could be anchored and which could serve as their carriers over long periods of time. I refer to this methodology as ‘etymological poetics’.13 Even though using this term to refer to it is (as far as I know) my own idea, the approach is not unique. I would especially like to point to the work of Calvert Watkins, whose perhaps most well-known study concerned motifs of dragon-slaying (!) in the Indo-European world, as opposed to the Semitic-speaking one in which exegetes are often most at home. His book How to Kill a Dragon has as one of its central points a quest not only to survey stories in many Indo-European languages about heroes battling dragons or serpent monsters but also to try to reconstruct the source of these stories in a putative Proto-Indo-European myth that would, so to speak, have been inherited down the ages as a linguistically coded motif in the same way that the poetic phrases about the Leviathan apparently were before ending up in the Baal Cycle as well as in the book of Isaiah.14

13.  It should be noted that my use of the term has nothing to do with the ‘etymological poetics’ of Martin Heidegger (I initially used the term without being aware of the Heideggerian sense of it). 14.  C. Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). It should be noted that the idea of a Proto-IndoEuropean dragon/serpent story has won a rather wide acceptance. Watkins was not

122

Studies in Isaiah

What Watkins did, in effect, was to study how such a motif may have been poetically transmitted in various branches of the Indo-European linguistic family, carried through the ages by using specific, poetically charged terminology. He reconstructed a poetic formula of an (often divine) hero slaying a serpent, sometimes using some form of weapon as his tool, and as we shall see later, he plausibly reconstructed a ProtoIndo-European formulation for this formula. Watkins’s work has been both lauded and criticized, the former for its extreme erudition and vast knowledge of the ancient Indo-European literatures, and the latter for the somewhat speculative character of his reconstruction of a one-line-long proto-myth supposedly underlying many Indo-European serpent myths which are, it must be granted, very different in their actual formulations. Although this criticism is not to be ignored, I believe it very hard to overlook the parallels between the various Indo-European stories, and – not least – between the words used to convey them. Another piece of criticism leveled against Watkins has been that of asking how specifically Indo-European the serpent-slaying motif really is. It is, after all, present in many Semitic-speaking cultures of the ancient Near East.15 And this is, in fact, the main underlying point of the present study. Given that I myself have a background both in biblical studies, history of religion and Indo-European studies, it is perhaps not surprising that my current field of research is focused on motifs borrowed from the IndoEuropean cultural sphere into the world of the Hebrew Bible: this project will result in a ‘polyphonic monograph’ tentatively entitled Unburning Fame: Horses, Dragons, Beings of Smoke, and Other Indo-European Motifs in Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. And even less surprising is the fact that one of the possibly Indo-European motifs that I am studying concerns the dragon/serpent-slaying mytheme. This is not just a matter of personal taste. The intuition of Calvert Watkins – that myths of serpent battles constitute one of the most typically ‘Indo-European’ motif spheres of all – has certain consequences for a scholar engaging with the mytho-poetic history of the Hebrew and Ugaritic literatures. There are a number of striking parallels between the serpent-slaying myths alluded to in Northwest Semitic literature and first to argue the point (although his take on is the most thoroughgoing), and one can also find it in general works on Indo-European mythology, such as, e.g., M. L. West, Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 255–62. 15.  The point of the Semitic serpent-slaying stories is made, e.g., in W. B. McCarthy, review of C. Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics, Journal of American Folklore 112 (1999): 220–22 (222).



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

123

the ones appearing in many places in the Indo-European world. Even though I will have to defer a more complete discussion of the matter to my coming book, I will sketch some of these possible relationships here.16 The reader is advised to take this relationship between the publications to heart: the book will include a major chapter on the relationships between Indo-European and Northwest Semitic serpent myths; the present study will merely sketch some of the conclusions arrived at there, and apply those to the specific case of Isa. 27.1. 3. Sources of Indo-European Influences Early Indo-European influence of the Northwest Semitic world may have come from various sources.17 Two of these are especially relevant: the Anatolian Indo-European speaking cultures of Asia Minor (especially 16.  As mentioned, I will be looking at possibilities of transfer of the serpentslaying motif from Indo-European sources into Northwest Semitic. There have, of course, been other suggestions for explaining these connections. Among others, one could mention A. K. Lahiri, Vedic Vṛtra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984), who concentrates on the Enuma Elish and views that tradition as having influenced Vedic mythology rather than the other way around. Another, more far-reaching view of serpent mythology in the ancient Near East can be found in R. D. Miller, ‘Tracking the Dragon across the Ancient Near East’, Archiv Orientální 82 (2014): 225–45, in which a number of the same texts are discussed as in the present article; Miller also believes in a connection between the Indo-European and Northwest Semitic serpentkilling stories, and also brings the Hurrians into the equation. His article constitutes a wider overview of the dragon-slaying tales of the ancient Near East (regardless of linguistic family); he does not concentrate as much on specific pieces of text as I will do below. A wider, and more cosmologically oriented, comparison between the Baal Cycle and the Vedic stories can be found in N. Wyatt, ‘Who Killed the Dragon’, in The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, BibleWorld (London: Equinox, 2005), 18–37 (originally published in AuOr 5 [1987]: 185–98) (29-31). An Indo-Aryan background for Ugaritic battle mythology is also argued in N. Wyatt, ‘The Source of the Ugaritic Myth of the Conflict between Baʿal and Yamm’, UF 20 (1988): 375–86. 17.  By using the phrase ‘early Indo-European influence’, I want to make it clear that I am not referring to the of course massive influx of words and ideas that took place as part of the expansion of the Achaemenids or the spread of Hellenism; I am talking, instead, of influence at the Bronze or Early Iron Age stages, i.e. to a large extent of influence at the level of the shared Northwest Semitic poetic background itself (this is why I do not discuss later Greek or Iranian evidence within the present study, although these are certainly not without interest from a comparative point of view).

124

Studies in Isaiah

Hittites and Luwians) on the one hand, and Indo-Aryan influence (probably mediated through the Mitannians, who – while mainly being ethnically and linguistically Hurrian – had a clear Indo-Aryan influence or stratum in their onomastics and traditions as well). El Amarna onomastics clearly show the presence of both of these Indo-European cultural influences in the greater world of the Hebrew Bible at a point in time roughly comparable to that of the Ugaritic texts, with names showing Indo-Aryan provenance as well as Anatolian ones.18 Thus, we know for a fact that Indo-European cultural influences were present in the Israelite or pre-Israelite milieu and, thus, that mythological input could have been received from those cultural contacts with Indo-European-speaking peoples. So, while the Hebrew Bible did not ‘borrow’ from Northwest Semitic culture, that earlier ProtoNorthwest Semitic culture itself may have borrowed ‘foreign’ motifs from Indo-European-speakers (before subsequently letting these borrowings be inherited by its daughters, such as Ugaritic and Hebrew literature). We shall now look at some parallels both with Indo-Aryan and Anatolian material. 4. The Vedic Serpent Myth: Example Passages As an example of the possibly parallel dragon slaying mythology from Vedic India, we shall begin by looking at a piece of text: Yo hatvāhim ariṇāt sapta sindhūn yo gā udājād apadhā valasya yo aśmanor antar agniṃ jajāna samvṛk samatsu sa janāsa indraḥ. (ṚV II 12.3) He who after slaying the serpent released the seven rivers, he who drove out the cows that were held back by Vala, he who between the two rocks gave birth to fire, victorious one in battles – he, O men, is Indra!

A similar Vedic strophe, which (as Watkins points out19) is the very beginning of a Vedic hymn, is the following:

18.  For a good overview and corpus of the Amarna onomastics (including linguistic analysis of the names and their etymological origin), see R. S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names, American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 9 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993). 19.  Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon, 304.



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

125

Indrasya nu vīryāṇi pra vocam yāni cakāra prathamāni vajrī ahann ahim anv apas tatarda pra vakṣanā abhināt parvatānām. (ṚV I 32.1) Indra’s heroic deeds I shall now proclaim, those pre-eminent ones that he carried out armed with the Vajra: He killed the serpent, he broke through all the way to the waters, he split the center of the mountains.

Just these lines will demonstrate rather clearly why the Vedic and Northwest Semitic dragon-slaying stories have been compared with each other and why a historical relationship appears probable. In both cases, we have tales of a young, stereotypically ‘manly’ storm god, using lightning as his weapon (in Indra’s case, often identified with his so-called Vajra, compare with the lightning-shaped ‘cedar weapon’ used by Baal in the Baal Cycle and depicted on the Baal au foudre stele) defeating a terrible serpent. And just as Baal receives his weapons for destroying the sea god Yamm (an ally of the sea serpent) from the craftsman god Kothar-waHasis, Indra receives his weapons from the Vedic craftsman god Tvaṣtṛ.20 The mythemes are highly similar, and some form of historical connection seems probable. But the quotation also points to important differences between the Vedic and Semitic stories. Indra’s battle with the serpent is part of a struggle towards ‘releasing the rivers’, whereas the waters of the Northwest Semitic stories are definitely antagonistic to the divine heroes. One Vedic verse even refers to Indra as apāṃ netā, ‘the leader of the waters’, a title one would be rather surprised to see applied to YHWH or Baal in their struggles against the Dragon(s). 5. The Question of Primacy The question is, of course, why one would suppose the Indo-European tales of serpent slaying to be primary to the Semitic ones (and not the other way around) – if they are indeed somehow related. The fact that the Indo-European versions are disseminated over a very wide area indeed (perhaps, if one wants to believe Watkins, all the way from Germanicspeaking Northwest Europe to India) is a point in favor of Indo-European 20.  This point is also mentioned in M. S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol 1, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2, VTSup 55 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 113–14 (n. 224), without Smith himself giving much credence to the connection. He also refers to Lahiri, Vedic Vṛtra, among others.

126

Studies in Isaiah

primacy for the mytheme of dragon-slaying. It is quite easy to imagine that such a story or mytheme could have been transmitted along with the Indo-European languages over a vast area, much easier than postulating an originally Semitic (or at least Near Eastern) tale that was taken up by speakers of Indo-European languages and subsequently spread by diffusion over enormous (and linguistically Indo-European) territories. Also, as argued by Watkins, the Indo-European proto-myth appears to have used a specific dragon slaying poetic formula including the Indo-European verbal root *gwhen-, ‘to kill’, and the word *ogwhi-, ‘serpent’, to produce the poetically impressive phrase *egwhent ogwhim, ‘he killed the serpent’, a phrase that may perhaps have been preserved in various ways all the way from Proto-Indo-European itself (this phrase is represented in its Vedic form in ahann ahim above). The poetic phrase would be much harder to explain as a piece of diffusionary borrowing, and it would make no sense whatsoever to presuppose its appearance from an originally non-IndoEuropean source. As pointed out by Watkins, the two words with the Proto-Indo-European phoneme *gwh in it would form a beautiful poetic unit, which would only work as such when reconstructed all the way back to the proto-language itself and is especially powerful due to *gwh being one of the rarest (and thus most distinctive) sounds of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language.21 If this is so, the time-scale would not allow for the possibility of Semitic influence upon the Indo-European story (as Proto-Indo-European appears to have been spoken somewhere in the temporal span of, say, between 4500 and 2500 BCE, probably originally on the Eurasian steppes of southern Russia and the Ukraine). It would, however, make excellent sense to imagine that the (often Semiticspeaking) peoples of the ancient Near East took up this mytheme or story from their Indo-European neighbors, who were demonstrably there at the time (e.g. in the form of Anatolians, Mitannians and Indo-Iranians). Also, in the Semitic stories, the dragon-slaying motif is often inseparably tied up with the motif of the battle against the personified sea, which is not the focus of the Indo-European tales.22 Indeed, in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, the 21.  For the Proto-Indo-European phrase, see Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon, 154, 301–3, 365. The point of the scarcity of Proto-Indo-European *gwh is made on p. 305; one should also note that pp. 301–23 deal in various ways with the inherited results of the formula (which I have written with slightly different orthography than does Watkins himself). 22.  Noga Ayali-Darshan has argued (and I generally agree with her conclusion) the idea of the battle against the sea is basically a Levantine motif (see N. AyaliDarshan, ‘The Dispersion of the Story of the Combat between the Storm-god and the Sea in the Ancient Near East: Sources, Traditions and History’, PhD diss. (Hebrew



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

127

battles against Yamm (the god of the sea) and Mot (the god of death) are the central issues, whereas the dragon is only mentioned in passing. As the Indo-European stories do not focus on a battle against the personified sea (but include serpents, young storm gods and their weapons) it is easy to imagine that this version is the more primary of the two. All this suggests Indo-European-speaking cultures as the original home of the serpent stories. Another point relevant to the question of primacy is the onomastics and epithets of the combatants themselves, as we find them represented in the Ugaritic texts, a point to which I shall return below, after discussing some Hittite evidence. 6. The Hittite Serpent Story As mentioned earlier, there are basically two ways in which putative Indo-European myths of serpent slaying could have reached the Semitic ambit. One of these is the Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni (perhaps with a second Indo-Iranian source in Iran). The other is the Indo-Europeanspeaking cultures of ancient Anatolia, the most important of which were the Hittites and the Luwians. It so happens that a version of the ‘Storm God battling a terrible serpent’ story is preserved from the Hittite capital of Ḫattuša in no fewer than two versions. The most well-known of these begins with the Storm God being defeated by his serpentine adversary, known in Hittite as Illuyanka-: MUŠ

Illuyankaš dTarḫunnan taruḫta23

The Serpent conquered the Storm God.

University, Jerusalem [Hebrew]); her point is summarized in English in E. Greenstein, ‘The Fugitive Hero Narrative Pattern in Mesopotamia’, in Worship, Women and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch, ed. J. J. Collins, T. M. Lemos and S. M. Olyan, BJS 357 (Providence, RI: Brown University, 2015), 17–36 (34). 23.  The text of the Hittite serpent story has been edited in G. M. Beckman, ‘The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka’, JANES 14 (1982): 11–25. My normalizations are generally based on the text in that edition; for the sake of making my argument later somewhat clearer, however, I have transliterated the Sumerogram dIM (‘Storm God’) using its Hittite pronunciation Tarḫunna-. Also, I have followed Alwin Kloekhorst in transcribing forms of the verb meaning ‘to conquer’ as tarḫu- or taruḫ- rather than simply tarḫ-; see A. Kloekhorst, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 835–37 (s.v. tarḫuzi).

128

Studies in Isaiah

The fortunes of the Storm God do, however, change for the better. He gets help from the goddess Inara (similar to how Baal gets the help of Anat in his battle against Mot in the Baal Cycle), which means that he can finally return and destroy his adversary, although in a way which cannot necessarily be called heroic. The relevant passage runs: nu dInara mHūpaš[iyan p]ēḫutit nan mūnnāit dInarašš-a-z unuttat n-ašta MUŠIlluyank[an] ḫantesnaz šarā kallišta kāša-wa EZEN-an iyami nu-wa adanna akuwanna eḫu n-ašta MUŠilluyankaš QADU [DUMUMEŠ-ŠU] šarā uēr nu-za etēr ekue[r] [n]-ašta DUGpalḫan ḫumandan ek[uer n]e-za ninkēr [n]e namma hattešnaš kattand[a] nūmān pānzi mḤūpasiyašš-[a uit] nu MUŠilluyankan išḫimā[nta] kalēliet d Tarḫunnaš uit nu-kan MUŠIlluyankan kuenta DINGIRMEŠ kattišši ešer

And Inara transported Ḫupašiya and hid him. Inara dressed herself, and she called the Serpent up from his hole: ‘See, I am making a feast, come eat and drink!’ And the Serpent came up together with [his children], and they ate and drank. They drank every vessel, and they were satiated. And they could no longer go down into their hole; Ḫupašiya came, and he tied the Serpent up with a cord. The Storm God came, and he killed the Serpent; the gods were with him.24

In this Hittite text, one can once again note the use of the Indo-European verbal root *gwhen- (‘to kill, to slay’), which Watkins reconstructed as having been present in the proto-version of the serpent story (or rather, poetic formula), appearing in its Hittite form kuen-, etymologically the

24.  The translation I give is the same that I provided in an earlier article on the transfer of and references between various ancient Near Eastern serpent battling stories: O. Wikander, ‘Job 3,8 – Cosmological Snake Charming and Leviathanic Panic in an Ancient Near Eastern Setting’, ZAW 122 (2010): 265–71 (269–70). A recent and illuminating study of the Hittite Illuyanka-text is G. Amir, ‘Once Upon a Time in Kiškiluša: The Dragon-Slayer Myth in Central Anatolia’, in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Hermann Gunkel’s Chaoskampf Hypothesis, ed. J. Scurlock and R. H. Beal (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 98–111.



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

129

exact same word appearing in Vedic ahan(n) in the phrase MUŠIlluyankan kuenta (‘he killed the Serpent’, semantically identical to the above-quoted Vedic phrase ahann ahim). It is of course not possible to say exactly what form of the Indo-European serpent-slaying tale may have entered into the Semitic-speaking world. The above examples are simply individual instances. However, these show that there was something to borrow from, and, as we shall see next, there are specific lexical correspondences that increase the likelihood of this having happened. 7. Mythological Onomastics as a Key to Intercultural Borrowing One of the most interesting – and, I would say – rather spectacular correspondences between the Indo-European and Northwest Semitic serpent stories has to do with onomastics. The name of the Hittite Storm God who defeats his serpentine enemy is Tarḫunna-, a name that etymologically means ‘Conqueror’. The importance of this etymology is made clear by the Hittite text itself, which earlier on describes the initial defeat of the Storm God using the words Tarḫunnan taruḫta, ‘he conquered the Conqueror’, using etymological word-play as a part of the telling of the story. As shown by Heiner Eichner, this Hittite title is etymologically identical to the Vedic title tūrvant-, which also means ‘Conqueror’ (my translation) and is applied, not least, to Indra (the Vedic serpent slayer par excellence).25 The same verbal root also occurs in the very salient compound word Vṛtra-tura- (‘Vṛtra-Conqueror’), which is applied to Indra.26 Now, I believe that this etymological naming of the Storm God has been borrowed into the mythological tradition represented at Ugarit as well, in the form of Baal’s ubiquitous title aliyn, ‘the victorious one, the conquering one’. Given the fact that Mot refers to Baal’s battle against the serpent as one of his apparently most well-known accomplishments, 25.  H. Eichner, Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Deklination (printed Teildruck of PhD diss., Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1974), 28. The suggestion was further developed in Kloekhorst, Etymological Dictionary, 838 (s.v. tarḫuzi). 26.  As an additional piece of circumstantial evidence for the importance of the ‘Conqueror’ expressions as poetic and formulaic epithets for the serpent story, one can look at Avestan literature, which is both linguistically and poetically closely related to the Vedic one. Here, we find the expression vərəθra.tauruuå̄ (‘Conqueror of resistance’), the second half of which is etymologically identical with Vṛtra (see N. Sims-Williams, ‘A Bactrian God’, BSOAS 60 [1997]: 336–38 [338]).

130

Studies in Isaiah

it is rather alluring to think that this is the ‘Conquering’ to which Baal’s Ugaritic title primarily refers. Looking at the other ring-side of the battle, I certainly find it quite interesting to note that the Vedic serpent bears a name that literally means something like ‘Coverer’ (from the root vṛ-), while the Northwest Semitic serpent monster is called ‘Encircler’ (from the root lwy). That is, both carry names having to do with hindering, keeping in or restricting access. A quite possible explanation is that both the title of the Ugaritic Storm God and that of the serpent are borrowed (or, rather, of course, calqued) from Indo-European epithets. The heroic storm deities carry names having to do with conquering, and the serpents carry names having to do with restriction. This would suggest a direct historical influence, and this influence is most easily explained as having come from Indo-European sources and into the Semitic ambit. This is suggested not least by the fact that the place in which these titles appear in the clearest way in the Semitic-speaking milieu is Ugarit, which had a demonstrable Hittite influence. Also, the associations of the relevant roots are the clearest in the Indo-European sources, which points to Indo-European being the home, so to speak, of the expression. Note the above-mentioned phrase Tarḫunnan taruḫta (‘he conquered the Conqueror [i.e. the Storm God]’) from the Hittite tale, which expressly associates the title with the serpent battle, and the Vṛtra-tura- (‘Vṛtra-Conqueror’) title applied to Indra. 8. Mythological Reception and the Longue Durée What, then, does all of this mean, as we return to the verse from the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’? The mythological motif that ends up in Isa. 27.1 turns out perhaps to be part of an extraordinarily resilient chain of transmission, going back to the common Northwest Semitic background of which the Ugaritic texts are also an exponent, and – from there – probably to a borrowing from one or possibly two different Indo-European versions of the same story. ‘The Conqueror’ (a title present at Ugarit as well as in Anatolia and Vedic India) kills the Leviathan (whose name appears semantically to parallel that of the Vedic serpent Vṛtra, the ‘Coverer’). This borrowed and transformed ‘etymological poetic’ material was finally separated from its source and used in an eschatological context by the author of Isa. 27.1. The term longue durée, originating in the Annales School of historical study, is actually a term relating to social history. It refers to the study of processes of historical change over long periods of history, as opposed to short-term change or events. Even though the term is perhaps not quite at



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

131

home in the field of exegetical and religio-historical study, I would like to employ it here as a description of what we are doing when studying relationships between textual entities that may have been as far apart as a millennium in their respective genesis. If we accept as probable that the stories of Storm Gods slaying serpents have a background in Proto-IndoEuropean culture – perhaps somewhere in the Eurasian steppes during the calcholithic or early Bronze Age – we are talking about a time span of several thousand years before the story ends up as an aside in the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’. Given the identical use of the extremely uncommon words represented in Hebrew as bārīaḥ and ʿaqallātôn as descriptions of the Leviathan/ Litan/Lotan in Isa. 27.1 and the Ugaritic passage from the Baal Cycle, the dependence of these two texts upon a single poetic tradition can be regarded as assured. But, as I have indicated briefly here, the ‘etymological poetics’ go even further, as Baal is referred to by the same title (‘Conqueror’) as the Hittite Storm God and the Vedic Indra and the name of the serpent (Leviathan/Lotan/Litan) appears to correspond rather well in semantics with the name Vṛtra, indicating that the putative transmission from Indo-European cultures (possibly conflated from both Anatolian and Indo-Iranian sources) was carried through specific words (although, of course, translated into their Semitic counterparts). If this is so, we have moved the genesis of the story very far back indeed. Here, the trajectories can only be sketched, but they show the power of ‘etymological poetic inheritance’ (even when applied to calques and loans) as a viable tool for outlining mytho-poetic transmission. 9. Again: What Does It Mean to Date a Text? Methodological Implications of Poetic Inheritance All of this brings us back to the question asked at the beginning of this study: What does it mean to date a text? The discussion about Isa. 27 has often centered on the dating of the chapter as ‘pre-exilic, exilic or postexilic’ in the inner-Israelite sense. But if we look at the first verse of the chapter as a micro-unit in and of itself, this may, in a sense, become less of a central issue. To be certain, one can discuss when the ancient words were incorporated in a larger textual entity that we today know as a part of the book of Isaiah, but does this mean that we have ‘dated’ it? From a sort of longue durée perspective, the words about a Storm God having destroyed the fleeing/swift and writhing ‘Encircler’ can be dated at least to the Late Bronze Age (Baal Cycle), but, basing oneself on the apparent borrowing from Indo-European sources that seems to underlie that story,

132

Studies in Isaiah

the time-depths become much, much larger. A story existed about a Storm God destroying a serpentine enemy: if we want to believe the (speculative, though highly interesting) ideas of Calvert Watkins, that story may have been told around the camp-fires (so to speak) of Proto-IndoEuropeans on the steppes of Ukraine or southern Russia. Thence, it seems to have traveled with the Indo-European expansions, all over South Asia and Europe, and from its versions among speakers of the Anatolian and Indo-Iranian branches of Indo-European, it may have been borrowed into cultures that spoke Semitic languages, who combined it with the ancient Near Eastern mythological ideas about the terrible Sea. The names of the hero and the villain persisted in a way, inherited down from Proto-IndoEuropean and then translated into Semitic languages, yet still providing a clear etymological/semantic link to serve as a control for modern mythopoetic comparison. The Ugaritians and Israelites were part of the same mythological and literary milieu, and it is only natural that they shared words and ideas, not through borrowing but through shared linguistic and poetic relationships, and interactions sketched as a model here require two forms of transfer: direct ‘etymological poetic’ inheritance (from Proto-Indo-European to the various Indo-European branch languages and from the common Northwest Semitic background to Ugaritic and Hebrew) as well as actual borrowing in the real sense of the world: ‘etymo-poetic’ material jumping, so to speak, over the borders between linguistic families. It is certainly highly interesting that something as typically ‘Old Testament’ as the famous Chaoskampf against the serpent monster may represent not only retentions of ancient material from the Northwest Semitic culture of which the Hebrew Bible is inevitably a part but also a piece of evidence for the relationship between that world and the extra-Semitic milieu in which cross-cultural interchange could take place. The serpent stories were carried between linguistic cultures, and their appearance in Isa. 27.1 provides a late yet clear instance of this ancient cultural cross-fertilization. But how ‘late’? Post-exilic? Hellenistic? Or is the entire idea of a date of composition from the latter part of the history of the Hebrew Bible to be given up? I personally do not really believe it should be; however, as stated earlier on, my point is another one. As regards Isa. 27.1, one can ask oneself a number of different questions when it comes to the superficially simplistic matter of dating: ‘when did the original motif come into being (Proto-Indo-European times, perhaps?)…or ‘when did that motif migrate into the Semitic-speaking ancient Near East?’ (sometime during the Bronze Age?)…or ‘when did the motif acquire its poetic form (in an oral or literary fashion)?’ (Proto-Northwest Semitic times?)…or ‘when



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

133

was that form adapted to a specifically Hebrew idiom and context?’…or, finally, ‘when was the result of that adaptation inserted into the context often known as the Isaiah Apocalypse?’ All of these questions demand different answers, and different methodologies in order to answer them. In any case, neither the religio-historical background of the motif nor its position in the book provide any clear basis for dating, unless one stipulates quite clearly which link in this great chain of transmission that one is actually trying to date.27 In a case such as Isa. 27.1, it is useless to speak of a ‘text’ with a date in any real sense. And this is my main point in writing the present study: that working with mythemes and motifs carried through the longue durée, so to speak, upsets the knee-jerk historicizing tendency of exegetical scholarship. As exegetes, we are trained to look for dateable scraps of historical information in texts in order to situate them in their milieux; irrespective of whether one is a hard-core ‘biblical minimalist’ or is of a more traditional bent, the quest tends to be one for secure dates. Verses such as Isa. 27.1 challenge this methodology, as its age cannot be adequately measured. This is the case even if one takes no Indo-European influences into account: the clear inheritance from the Proto-Northwest Semitic poetic background makes it so. And if one believes, as I do, that the Semitic serpent-slaying tales are influenced by (or even, perhaps, represent transformations of) an originally Indo-European mytheme, then the timedepths become truly staggering, and the labors of the traditional exegete become almost herculean. 10. Serpent Mythology as Traveling ‘Imperishable Fame’ Besides Watkins’s work on trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European formulae for describing the slaying of dragons or serpents from various attested Indo-European literatures, one of the most famous (to be honest, the most famous) reconstructed Proto-Indo-European poetic formula is 27.  One may note with some interest that this difficulty is not always taken up and noticed by scholars comparing biblical and Indo-European motifs. For example, Daniel Ogden writes in his study of dragon myths (when referring to our verse) that the book of Isaiah ‘foretells God’s destruction of Leviathan with his sword’ and that this occurs ‘in the part of the book composed in the late eighth century BC’, a way of arguing that appears simply to identify the whole of Isa. 1–39 with the historical setting of First Isaiah, without further ado. Needless to say, most biblical scholars would have a hard time with so off-hand a dating. The quotation is from D. Ogden, Drakōn: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 14.

134

Studies in Isaiah

that describing heroic fame itself. This is the phrase *n̥dhgwhitom k̑lewos, ‘imperishable fame’, which indirectly identified already in 1853 by Adalbert Kuhn on the basis of the Vedic expression akṣitam…śravas and the Homeric κλέος ἄφθιτον, both of which represent identical etymological material (albeit with different word orders).28 This equation has served (and still does serve) as the same type of ‘poster boy’ for etymological poetic comparison in the Indo-European ambit as the relationship between the Isaian and Ugaritic Leviathan passages do for Northwest Semitic. It is certainly interesting that one of the best inherited poetic formulae in Proto-Indo-European has to do with heroic fame itself, i.e. in a sense with (oral) literature. Watkins made the case that the dragon/serpentslaying motif represents one of the clearest examples of what the ancient Proto-Indo-Europeans could have sung about when they described this ‘imperishable fame’, i.e that serpent-slaying could have been of the most important pieces of ‘imperishable poetic fame’ that Proto-Indo-European society knew. And this story appears probably to have been borrowed into the Semitic-speaking ancient Near East. In his book on the spread of early Indo-European, David W. Anthony argues that, together with the use of the horse, poetic stories of heroism and valor was one of the most important means by which the expanding Indo-European acquired a type of élite hegemony.29 With this perspective in mind, it is certainly interesting and thought-provoking that the most famous Proto-Indo-European story of all appears to have traveled across the barriers to the realm of Semitic-language poetry (as well as the general Semitic word for ‘horse’, the word represented in Hebrew as sûs, probably being an Indo-European loan word30). The ‘imperishable fame’ of early Indo-European seems to have spread beyond its own linguistic family, 28.  Specifically, the negation *n̥- (which gives English ‘un-’, Latin ‘in-/im-’, Sanskrit a- and Greek ἀ-), a verbal adjective/passive participle of the verbal root *dhgwhei- (‘to destroy, to make perish’) and *k̑lewos, a noun from the root *k̑leu(‘to hear’), meaning ‘that which is heard’ > ‘fame’. The identification was originally made in A. Kuhn, ‘Ueber die durch nasale erweiterten nasalstämme’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 2 (1853): 455–71 (467). 29.  D. W. Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007). 30.  The origin of the word has been suggested to be Indo-Aryan (an idea supported, e.g., in M. O’Connor, ‘Semitic *mgn and its Supposed Sanskrit Origin’, JAOS 109 [1989]: 25–32 [30 n. 30], and in T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, trans. J. Nichols, 2 vols., Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 80 [Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995], 809) or, much more plausibly,



Wikander  From Indo-European Dragon-Slaying to Isaiah 27.1

135

ultimately ending up in Isa. 27.1 (and probably being represented even into the New Testament, given the dragon symbolism in the Revelation of John). The material is ancient. Is has traveled through numerous cultures. Tracing this great river of poetic motifs, both through linguistic/poetic inheritance and actual borrowing, is certainly a study of the longue durée, in a sense – a study of that which is seemingly constant within a series of ever-changing mythological and theological contexts. The river has flowed a long way, making the identification of different stages in the transmission of its ideas a perilous task. It is a river that flows along a slow yet steadily meandering, perhaps even serpentine, path, and it is a river that makes us question what it really means to date a text.

Anatolian – specifically Luwian (see, e.g., J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 2nd ed., AOAT 273 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012], 45). In a chapter of my forthcoming book, I also argue the Luwian background, yet with the difference that I do not simply see the word as being derived from the Luwian word for horse (azzu-) as such, but specifically from the nominative plural of that word, *azzunzi.

Part II R ecep t i on

P a ul , A n I s a i a n i c P r ophe t ?

Karl Olav Sandnes It is a fact that Paul frequently makes references to the Scriptures in his epistles, with texts from the book of the prophet Isaiah figuring prominently in this. It suffices here to draw attention to the appendix of Loci citati vel allegati towards the end of Nestle-Aland’s Greek 28th edition. That appendix lists citations and allusions in Paul’s letters.1 Hence, his letters commend themselves for studies on the reception of this prophet. The primary aim of the present study is not to investigate Paul’s use of Scripture per se, but to look into whether his prophet-like apostolate2 was shaped by texts from Isaiah, in addition to what light this might shed on his ministry. 1.  Citations are usually distinguishable due to the fact that Paul introduces them as such. By nature, allusions are more slippery, and it is fully possible that from Paul’s viewpoint some of the samples that scholars consider to be allusions were equivalent to quotations, simply because the ancients did not distinguish sharply between the two; see, e.g., C. D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 4–5. Citations are to be seen within a larger category of intertextuality which also includes allusions, paraphrasing and summaries. According to F. Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus, FRLANT 179 (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 341, ‘so finden bei Paulus insgesamt 56 Jesajaworte Verwendung’. 2.  There is ample evidence that Paul conceived of his apostolate in such terms; see, e.g., K. O. Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding, WUNT 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); A. J. Najda, Der Apostel als Prophet: Zur prophetischen Dimension des paulinischen Apostolats, Europaeische Hochschulschriften 784 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004); T. Nicklas, ‘Paulus – der Apostel als Prophet’, in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, ed. J. Verheyden, K. Zamfir, and T. Nicklas, WUNT 2/286 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 77–104; J. W. Aernie, Is Paul Also Among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians, LNTS 467 (London: T&T Clark International, 2012).

140

Studies in Isaiah

1. From ‘Conversion’ to Call Possibly the oldest testimony available with regard to Paul’s Damascus experience is the rumor rendered in Gal. 1.23: ‘The one who formerly (ποτε) was persecuting us is now (νῦν) proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy’. This rumor has been shaped according to conventions of ‘conversions’, such as the transition from ‘before to now’.3 Such a transition is involved in 1.13-14 as well. The rumor in v. 23 picks up on that passage by using the verbs occurring there (ἐδίωκον and ἐπόρθουν).4 The shaping of the rumor is that of embracing a life that contrasts with life hitherto.5 However, Paul very soon had to defend and justify the change that took place in his life. Subsequent to this, biblically shaped language and motifs then entered. Paul turned to the prophets of old and to Scripture when he reflected on his apostolic vocation and justified it. a. 1 Thessalonians 2.1-12 In 1 Thess. 2.1-12 (vv. 3-8 in particular), Paul defines his ministry for the first time, and the passage demonstrates that Paul already had given some thought to questions pertaining to his apostolic mandate. A particular feature of this passage is the antithetical style marked by contrasts, whereby Paul sets himself against what are the possible invectives:6 For our appeal does not spring from deceit or impure motives or trickery, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the message of the gospel, even so we speak, not to please mortals, 3.  This is the traditional language of conversion; see A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990) 117. With Segal, I find it helpful to distinguish between a ‘slow conversion or gradual conversion’ and a ‘quick’ one. The first applies to Paul. 4.  The majuscule manuscripts F and G have forms of the verb πολεμέω in both v. 13 and v. 23. 5.  Among representative scholars of the so-called Radical New Perspective or Paul Within Judaism, this aspect is consciously overlooked, such as when, e.g., P. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 3–4, says that Paul was ‘called rather than converted… Thus, Paul was not a Christian – a word that was in any case completely unknown to him because it had not yet been invented. He was a Jew who understood himself to be on a mission.’ For a discussion of this, see K. O. Sandnes, ‘ProphetLike Apostle: A Note on the “Radical New Perspective” in Pauline Studies’, Bib 96 (2016): 550–64. 6.  For the antithetic structure, see Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 194–95.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

141

but to please God who tests our hearts. (vv. 3-4) …we never came with words of flattery or with a pretext for greed; nor did we seek praise from mortals, whether from you or from others, though we may have demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children. So deeply did we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves… (vv. 5-8). (NRSV)

Scholars have debated whether this passage is paraenetical or apologetic.7 According to the first opinion, the contrasts are aimed at highlighting the true philosopher as an ideal to be imitated. I have previously argued that this sophist background does not necessarily exclude an apologetic background as well,8 and this view seems to have gained ground in recent research.9 Paul is concerned about defending the integrity and character of his apostolate and mission. Alongside William Horbury,10 I have argued elsewhere that Paul in 1 Thess. 2 defends himself against charges of being a false prophet.11 I admit that this view may be submitted to a critique of being mirror-reading, i.e. jumping easily from the presence of prophetic vocabulary to real charges and opponents lurking in the background.12 Subscribing to this critique, I nonetheless still insist that the style, language and ideas of this passage invoke Scripture and mirror the way prophets of old stood up for their integrity and divinely given mandate.

7.  A lucid presentation of this debate with relevant literature is offered by J. A. D. Weima, ‘An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thessalonians 2.1-12’, JSNT 68 (1997): 73–99. 8.  In Galatians, there is hardly any doubt that Paul’s call in Gal 1.15-16 also serves a paraenetical purpose of imitating him (4.12); for this dual role given to the Damascus event, see Sandnes, ‘Prophet-Like Apostle’, 554–56. 9.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 195–216; see also C. R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, SNTSMS 126 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 91–93; J. A. D. Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 119–38. 10.  W. Horbury, ‘1 Thessalonians ii.3 as Rebutting Charges of False Prophecy’, JTS 33 (1982): 492–508. 11.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 216–23. 12.  Thus, e.g., Weima, ‘Apology’, 95–96.

142

Studies in Isaiah

In the recent volume Paul and Scripture, E. Elizabeth Johnson addresses the issue of Scripture in 1 Thessalonians.13 In spite of the fact that Paul in this epistle never quotes Scripture, Paul is nevertheless engaging broader contexts of the Old Testament through language, motifs and ideas that emerge in this epistle. One such Scripture-based motif is the formative function of Christian proclamation: Paul calls his proclamation ‘the word’, ‘the word of the Lord’, or ‘the word of God’ (1.6, 8; 2.13 [×2]; 4.15, 18), ‘the gospel’ (1.5; 2.2, 8, 9; 3.2, 6), ‘exhortation’ or ‘comfort’ (2.3; cf. 2.12; 3.2; 4.1, 10; 5.11), ‘command’ (4.2, 11) and ‘prophecy’ (5.20).14 Special significance is attached to the ‘gospel’ with which Paul has been entrusted (πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον): The word of the gospel thus is never entirely circumscribed by words uttered by human preachers because it comes from ‘the God who gives you his Holy Spirit’ (4.8). The word that Paul preaches, then, comes to him as the prophets discerned their words of the Lord. It is disclosed as a revelation from God.15

In my view, E. Elizabeth Johnson presents a proper context for understanding how Paul conceived of his apostolic ministry in 1 Thess. 2. His mandate to preach the gospel is stated in antithetical terms, hence bringing out an intended contrast between God’s word and humans’ words. Paul has been entrusted this divine word. He has been sent to do this. His proclamation is God-examined (δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ…οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν)16 speech. Furthermore, Paul was not only commissioned to preach the gospel, his personal fate was drawn into his mandate. The sufferings which his commission brought upon him proved him to be a true messenger. Throughout this chapter, Paul urges a contrast between being entrusted with the gospel and being a people pleaser. This echoes major features of biblical prophecy, and represents an explication of the biblically shaped conflict between true and false prophets.17 Therefore, I do not imply that 13.  E. E. Johnson, ‘Paul’s Reliance on Scripture in 1 Thessalonians’, in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. C. D. Stanley, ECL 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 143–62. 14.  Johnson, ‘Scripture’, 155–56. 15.  Johnson, ‘Scripture’, 156–57. 16.  The verb δοκιμάζω is also applied in 1 Thess. 5.20-21 about prophetic utterances. The testing of prophecies which Paul urges to take place in the congregation did not apply to the gospel with which Paul had been entrusted. 17.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 56–57.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

143

this is sufficient for reconstructing Paul’s potential opponents, though it is sufficient to point out that Paul thought of his apostolic ministry in language and categories taken from Scripture. Against this backdrop, it is worth noticing that Paul in 1 Thess. 2.1 says that ‘our coming to you was not in vain (οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν)’. This motif appears in 3.5 as well, and is a pointer to texts such as Gal. 2.2; 1 Cor. 15.58; Phil. 2.16; 2 Cor. 6.1.18 As for the adjudication of this vocabulary, it is pertinent to observe that in 2 Cor. 6 this phrase is followed by a citation from Isa. 49.8: ‘At an acceptable time I have listened to you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you’, to which Paul adds, ‘See, now is the acceptable time; see now is the day of salvation’ (2 Cor. 6.2). This is suggestive of a close connection between the ‘in vain’ motif and Isaiah. Gordon D. Fee rightly comments on the appearance of the language of ‘not in vain’ in 1 Thess. 2: This is the first of several such moments in Paul’s letters where this language occurs, often with the verb ‘laboring’ or ‘running’ in vain, in which instances he is almost certainly echoing language from the Septuagint of Isaiah 65:23. If so, and there is every good reason to think so, then Paul has from the beginning thought of his missionary activity in terms of this eschatological ‘promise’ from God… Especially so when one observes the eschatological context of the Isaianic oracle – the great vision of ‘the new heavens and new earth’ (Isa. 65:17-25), which in turn is the eschatological response to the oracle in Isa. 49:4, when the Servant feels as though he ‘has labored in vain’ (κενῶς ἐκοπίασα).19

Hence, the gospel entrusted to Paul, and the apostolate that assigned to him this task, involved him with the message of salvation in the last parts of the book of Isaiah. Throughout this passage in 1 Thessalonians, Paul speaks in the plural (‘we’). There is no sharp distinction in Paul’s letters between first person singular and plural. One important observation can be deduced from this fact. Since Paul obviously did not restrict this way of speaking about his apostolic ministry to only himself, it implies that his own apostolate was subordinated to the gospel entrusted to him. In turn, the gospel’s superiority vis-à-vis Paul himself made him a member of eschatological heralds in plural (see below). Albeit not made explicit, 18.  C. J. Bjerkelund, ‘ “Vergeblich” als Missionsergebnis bei Paulus’, in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 175–91. 19.  G. D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 57 (the last part of the citation is taken from his footnote).

144

Studies in Isaiah

what we see emerging in Paul’s first epistle is a pattern. Paul’s commission to preach the gospel has analogies with the prophets, and Isaiah seems to have shaped this understanding in a special way. 2. Scripture-Shaped Ministry Romans 9–11 is helpful in working out how Pauls’ apostolic ministry is involved with Scripture, particularly with the book of Isaiah.20 In fact, these chapters are a scriptural exposé of Paul’s ministry. Surely, this is not what these chapters are about; they do address the question of Israel’s destiny. Even so, this discussion on Paul’s fellow Jews also conveys much about how Paul conceived of his ministry. The relationship between his ministry and the issue at stake comes into view in Rom. 11.13-14: ‘Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry (ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω) in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them’. The relationship between his Gentile mission and the salvation of the Jews is one of strategy, i.e. the Gentile mission and the salvation of the Jews interact and depend on each other. This shows how intertwined the two issues are in these chapters. In fact, Paul’s ministry is portrayed as a blueprint of the theological rationale that makes up Paul’s argument and hope in these chapters, as Rom. 9.17, 22-24 and 10.19 make evident.21 Paul approaches the question of his fellows Jews in a dialogue with Scripture. Whether he deduces his argument from Scripture, or whether he turns to Scripture to find affirmations for experiences made in his mission, can hardly be ascertained. Be that as it may, important to notice is how intimately his theologizing and his mission are intertwined with Scripture. Romans 9–11 prove that it was likewise with his apostolic self-understanding. Judged from these chapters, it is evident that some parts of the book of Isaiah, Isa. 40–66 in particular, played a formative role in the way he viewed the gospel with which he had been entrusted.22 Furthermore, 20.  See J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 341–44, for a helpful list; see also Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 62, for a list of Isaiah texts in the Pauline epistles. 21.  This is worked out by N. A. Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 137–58, especially pp. 140–41. 22.  This has been argued in detail by Wagner, Heralds of the Good News; see also S. Kim, ‘Paul as an Eschatological Herald’, in Paul as a Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner, LNTS 420 (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 9–24.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

145

these prophetic texts appear within a context in which Paul shows his deep concern for his people; a concern that finds many analogies in how the prophets of old turned to God in prayer out of concern for Israel. A prime example of this, of course, is Jeremiah, who constantly intercedes for his fellow Israelites. Moreover, Craig A. Evans has pointed out how Paul in Rom. 9–11 embarks on the role of ‘prophetic criticism’ attested to widely in the Old Testament.23 Distinctive to such criticism is the interpretation and application of Israel’s sacred traditions: ‘Like the “true” prophets of Israel’s biblical past, Paul calls upon the sacred tradition to clarify the meaning of contemporary events and experience’.24 a. Romans 10.15-16 Key notes in Paul’s engaging Scripture are found in Rom. 10.15-16. Here, he cites from Isa. 52.7 and 53.1. The citations are included in a series of rhetorical questions aimed at demonstrating the importance of a proclamation authorized by the Lord. Implied is a list of necessary conditions, which also includes Paul’s prophetic mission, albeit not limited to Paul.25 These verses follow upon the preceding argument that salvation is attainable through faith (Rom. 10.8-13). The Law reaches its goal and climax (τέλος; Rom. 10.4) in Christ; hence, believing the apostolic proclamation which is about Christ, brings changes with regard to the Law. In the words of J. Ross Wagner, ‘ “doing” the law consists of responding to the “message of faith that we preach” ’.26 Proof texts are Isa. 28.16 (ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ) and Joel 3.5 (LXX; πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται). The passage from Joel strengthens the eschatological perspective from which Paul’s logic proceeds. The quotation from Isaiah is adapted to Joel by the addition πᾶς (‘everyone’), thereby also demonstrating that the discussion is arranged within parameters given by Paul’s gospel on the inclusion of the Gentiles. 23.  C. A. Evans, ‘Paul and the Prophets: Prophetic Criticism in the Epistle to the Romans (with special reference to Romans 9–11)’, in Romans and the People of God, Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee, ed. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 115–28. 24.  Evans, ‘Paul and the Prophets’, 123. 25.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 154–65, argues that Paul works himself backwards from ‘faith’ to ‘hearing’ in the rhetorical questions and to διὰ ῥήματος θεοῦ, which is possibly a reference to the authorization; for Paul, this was Christ’s commission to him outside Damascus. 26.  J. Ross Wagner, ‘Isaiah and Romans and Galatians’, in Isaiah in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. S. Moysie and M. J. J. Menken (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 117–32 (123).

146

Studies in Isaiah

Before people can call on the Lord’s name, access, i.e. the hearing, is essential, and proclamation rests upon some authorization. This is the logic within which Paul places his own mission in analogy with Isa. 52.7. In its Old Testament setting, this text describes a messenger bringing good news to Zion; God has come to the rescue of his people:27 πάρειμι ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά ὅτι ἀκουστὴν ποιήσω τὴν σωτηρίαν σου λέγων Σιων βασιλεύσει σου ὁ θεός I am here, like seasons upon the mountains like feet of one bringing glad tidings of a report of peace like one bringing glad tidings of good things because I will make your salvation heard, saying to Zion, ‘Your God shall reign’. (NETS)

In Paul’s condensed rendering of this text, some significant alterations and modifications stand out:28 καθὼς γέγραπται· ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων [τὰ]] ἀγαθά (Rom. 10.15). As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ (NRSV)

As in the Masoretic Hebrew text, Isa. 52.7a is regarded as an independent clause. The presence of God is not pointed out; instead, the Pauline context makes this a statement about the preachers of the gospel. Accordingly, the singular (herald) is turned into a plural (heralds).29 Instead of ‘seasons’, Paul speaks of ‘beautiful’ or ‘lovely’ and makes this an adjective attached to the preachers, or more precisely, their ‘feet’. ‘Upon the mountains’ is omitted, probably due to the fact that this mirrors Jerusalem topography,

27.  The critical edition of Ziegler. 28.  See M. W. Bates, ‘Beyond Stichwort: A Narrative Approach to Isa 52,7 in Romans 10,15 and 11Q Melchizedek (11Q13)’, RB 116 (2009): 387–414; for a detailed presentation of Paul’s amendments of the text, see 408–9. 29.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 166–70, argues that the plural of eschatological heralds can be traced back to the Septuagint.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

147

while Paul’s mission took place elsewhere, and was aimed at the inclusion of Gentiles.30 This is the reason why Paul cites Ps. 18.5 (LXX) in v. 18, where it says that ‘their sound went out to all the earth, and to the ends of the world their utterances’, thus making this text a comment on Isaiah, providing a scriptural support corresponding more precisely to his own mission. These modifications are not accidental, but carve the gospel of Paul and the proclamation of it into Isaiah’s text. Paul himself and other apostles are included ‘within the purview of the Isaianic citation’.31 How the relationship between Paul and the proclaimers of the gospel is to be more precisely understood comes into view in the following v. 16: Ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. Ἠσαΐας γὰρ λέγει· κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; (‘But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” ’), which is a quotation of Isa. 53.1. This text makes sense of the rejection of the gospel by most Jews. The fact that most Jews turned their backs on the gospel is presupposed throughout chs. 9–11, and it forms the starting point for Paul’s theological exposé. This fact is described in 10.16 as a failure in terms of ‘obedience’. This echoes how Paul in Rom. 1.5 and 15.18 presents his apostolic ministry aimed at bringing forth ‘obedience’. Moreover, in Rom. 10.20-21 he cites Isa. 65.1-2 (LXX) as scriptural proof alongside Isa. 53.1. The key verb here is the synonymous ἀπειθεῖν. This verb occurs when Paul summarized his entire argument in Rom. 11.30-32 in terms of disobedience and mercy. That Paul’s terminology in these texts is informed both by his apostolic ministry, as well as from Isaiah, is a reminder of how intimately the two are connected. The quotation from Isa. 53 in Rom. 10.16 is part of a complex network of correspondences that connect the wording of the citations to its context in Rom. 10 and also to Paul’s mission as described in this part of Romans. In the words of J. Ross Wagner, ‘[t]he citation portrays Isaiah and Paul as fellow preachers of the Gospel’.32 Ross Wagner also considers describing the relationship between the prophet and the apostle as a ‘partnership’;

30.  Thus also D. A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 122, and Wagner, Heralds of Good News, 173; M. W. Bates, ‘Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scriptures in the Letters of Paul: A Proposed Diachronic Intertextuality with Romans 10:16 as a Test Case’, in Stanley, ed., Paul and Scripture, 275–91 (276–77). 31.  Bates, ‘Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scripture’, 276. 32.  Wagner, ‘Isaiah in Romans and Galatians’, 124.

148

Studies in Isaiah

hence, it is not sufficient to say that Isaiah announced Paul’s mission beforehand.33 The relationship goes beyond that, and calls for some further thoughts. It seems to me that Matthew W. Bates is right when he says that although Isaiah is nominally speaking, ‘for Paul the characters who are really voicing the words are the apostles themselves’.34 Here, Paul is practicing prosopological exegesis, which means that Paul and other apostles are identified with ‘our’ in Rom. 10.16.35 Prosopoiia (Speech-inCharacter) was a rhetorical exercise of introducing fictitious speeches or ‘making an absent person present’ and attributing to this figure forms and language appropriate to that character (Ps. Cicero, Ad Herennium 4.52.66; Quintillian, Inst. 3.8.49-54; 11.1.39-42).36 Crucial to this exercise is to make a speech that adapts to the character to whom it is attributed. In short, this technique, if applied by Paul here, assumes a similarity between the prophet and the apostle that paves the way for turning the prophetic words into those of the apostle himself. This interpretation is more emphatic and pointed than what has been suggested by Ross Wagner; he considers Paul, other apostles and Isaiah to speak ‘in concert’ here: both prophet and apostle join ‘a larger scriptural chorus singing the epic story of God’s redemption of Jew and Gentile in Christ’.37 The prosopological viewpoint comes to terms with Paul’s way of relating himself and his mission to the biblical text, to find himself mirrored there. It is within the mission of Paul that these prophetic texts manifest themselves most fully. Ultimately, it is in Paul’s mission that what Isaiah nominally addressed comes to life. b. Romans 15.21 The fact that Paul in Rom. 15.21 cites Isa. 52.15 (LXX) suggests a careful reflection on the part of Paul concerning Isaiah’s prophecies and his apostolic ministry: ‘…I do not build on someone else’s foundation, but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and 33.  J. Ross Wagner, ‘The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans’, in Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 193–222 (200–201, 208–9 in particular). 34.  Bates, ‘Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scripture’, 278. 35.  Bates, ‘Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scripture’, 278–83, proves that such readings are found in an early Christian exegesis of this passage. 36.  Paul most likely made use of this technique in Rom. 7.14-25; see S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 16–21, 264–69. 37.  Wagner, Heralds, 352.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

149

those who have never heard of him shall understand” ’. Here again, Paul finds a remarkable coincidence between Isaiah and his own mission. It is a passage about the apostolic proclamation to the Gentiles. A muchdiscussed case of relevance here is the passage in Rom. 15.16, where most exegetes take the genitive in the phrase ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν to be epexegetical or appositive, i.e. that the Gentiles themselves are the offering that Paul will bring to God. This is then analogous with the biblical prophecies of Gentiles bringing gifts to Jerusalem. Now, the Gentiles themselves make up the gifts, in line with the metaphor of Paul acting like a priest in his ministry.38 Richard D. Aus has argued that here Paul is dependent on Isa. 66.20, and that Paul’s planned journey to Spain is to bring representative Gentiles from there to Jerusalem. They will then join the ‘full number of Gentiles’ envisaged in Rom. 11.25. David J. Downs has recently objected to this interpretation, arguing that the phrase in Rom. 15.16 is a subjective genitive, referring to the collection mentioned in Rom. 15.25-32, thereby also rejecting the view that Isa. 66.20 is involved here.39 In my view, the offering of the Gentiles in Rom. 15.16 is hardly identical with the collection of money, albeit the two are connected. If bringing the collection to Jerusalem is what is implied in Rom 15.16, then this collection becomes the very essence of Paul’s apostolic commission. This militates against his emphasis in Rom. 15.17-22, in which the collection is not in sight. Nor is this how Paul thinks in Gal. 2. Indeed, the collection is a sign of unity between Jews and Gentiles, but it is not itself this commission as it turns out to become in Down’s interpretation. Down confuses the fact that Paul in Rom. 15.25 makes a transition to another discourse, namely the collection. Hence, in my view, it is not unlikely that Paul conceived of his apostolic mission in terms taken from Isa. 66.20, although I admit that an explicit citation of such an important text could be expected in case of a dependence, something which does not happen. If this passage was of importance for him, after all, it refers to his ingathering of Gentiles, and not to his

38.  R. D. Aus, ‘Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the “Full Number of the Gentiles” of Romans XI 25’, NovT 21 (1979): 232–72. R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 245–53, ascribes to Isa. 66.19-20 a similar importance, but he disagrees with Aus on his interpretation of the travel to Spain. Isa. 66.19 explicitly speaks about a ministry εἰς τὰ ἔθνη; i.e. to the nations. 39.  D. J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural and Cultic Contexts, WUNT 2/238 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 146–60.

150

Studies in Isaiah

Jerusalem collection. With regard to the suggestion made by Aus, Rom. 15.28 implies, by necessity I would say, that the plan to travel to Spain is to be distinguished from the collection. It is a crux for Aus’s theory that the travel to Spain is to take place after his handing over the gift in Jerusalem. In my view, both Down and Aus, albeit very differently, bring together Rom. 15.16 and the collection to Jerusalem in confusing ways. What remains, then, is the possibility that this is another example that Paul found the book of Isaiah helpful in his reflection on his mission. What comes through very clearly here is that Paul saw his mission not only as a fulfillment of certain prophecies, but as a working out of these texts. The Isaianic prophecies are turned into statements of what Paul is actually doing. Paul therefore moves beyond looking upon the Isaianic texts as announcements beforehand of his mission; they become true in the fact that they describe how Paul’s mission manifested itself. The prosopological interpretation comes to terms with that aspect of the Pauline texts in a way that makes sense, both with regard to Paul’s texts and to ancient rhetorical practices. Paul’s argument is shaped at a deep level by the structures of Isaiah’s prophecies in which God’s coming to rescue his people is pictured so vividly, and also where this time of salvation looks beyond Israel to the nations as well. It is particularly in the last part of this prophetic book (chs. 40–66) that Paul found the deepest roots of his apostolic ministry. Paul’s apostolic identity is wrapped up in the redemptive drama of Isa. 40–66.40 In so doing, his ministry is seen in tandem with a plethora of people engaged in proclaiming this gospel, the heralds of good news. 3. Galatians 1–2 The reason for this detour of Pauline passages, in which Paul’s apostolic mission is drenched in language from the prophets of old, and from Isaiah in particular, has been to pave the way for a renewed look at Galatians, the text where Paul most clearly addresses his call to become an apostle. It is a well-known fact that the points of Gal. 1–2 are embellished with language taken from the prophetic legacy, including Isaiah. In the light of this detour, the appearance of such language and motifs comes as no surprise; it seems to be in accordance with how Paul reflected on his apostolic commission. Consequently, the appearance of such language 40.  This is also emphasized by M. Gignilliat, Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5.14–6.10, LNTS 330 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2007). See also F. Wilk, ‘Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians’, in Moyise and Menken, eds., Isaiah in the New Testament, 133–58.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

151

now comes into a new light. This is not merely scriptural embellishment, but portrays how Paul conceived of his apostolic vocation in light of Isaiah in particular. Paul’s experience outside Damascus (thus according to Acts) is told in his autobiography in Gal. 1.15-16a. Here is found a scriptural language of election, echoing the calling in Jer. 1.5 and Isa. 49.1, or possibly a blending of such texts.41 Being called from the mother’s womb is in itself not distinctive of a prophetic understanding; however, the way this piece of information serves to introduce the commission makes a difference that corresponds to the use of this motif in Jer. 1.5 and Isa. 49.1, 5. Furthermore, this phraseology is found within a passage where all the essential elements in a prophetic call narrative are found: Inauguration: Election: Commission: Addressee:

when God was pleased to reveal his Son to me he set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles

Albeit compressed in form, this passage (1.15-16a), which is a subordinate clause only, nonetheless conveys how Paul viewed his apostleship. Paul reminds his audience of his vision or revelation – a further similarity to prophetic call narratives – with features common to prophetic vocations. How then does Isaiah come into this picture? We have already noticed that the language of being called from the mother’s womb recalls Isa. 49: ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομά μου (v. 1; ‘From my mother’s womb he called my name…’ [NETS]); ὁ πλάσας με ἐκ κοιλίας δοῦλον ἑαυτῷ (v. 5; ‘And now says the Lord, who formed you from the womb to be his slave…’ [NETS]). In the way this motif is not a self-contained piece of information, but serves to introduce more important information, namely the commission, it becomes evident that here it works analogously with prophetic call-texts. Also implied is a visionary experience (cf. 1 Cor. 9.1 and 15.8) in analogy with the inaugural theophanies of the Old Testament, in which the prophets embarked upon their mission. As we will see, cumulatively collected pieces of evidence add to this conclusion. 41.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 62–65; R. E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2, WUNT 2/102 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 111–14; Nicklas, ‘Paulus’, 78–79; Aernie, Paul, 136–37, 159; D. F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter, WUNT 2/190 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 58–59.

152

Studies in Isaiah

Paul says that his call to become an apostle was also an act of ‘God’s grace’ (cf. 1 Cor. 15.10). In my Paul – One of the Prophets? I argued that the forgiveness of his persecutions of the Christ believers was analogous to the prophetic motif of ‘overcoming the insufficiency of the one called’ (cf. 2 Cor. 3.5-6), a typical feature in call narratives of the Old Testament (Exod. 3.11; Isa. 6.5; Jer. 1.6; Ezek. 1.28-32).42 This observation works within a study of how Paul conceived of what happened to him. But I have come to think Roy E. Ciampa is correct in pointing out that ‘the concept of God’s grace is ubiquitous in Paul’s thought, and in Gal. 1.6 Paul says that the Galatians themselves had been called by God’s grace, leaving the certainty of this element as an echo from prophetic call narratives somewhat in doubt’.43 In a study of how this event works rhetorically within the argument of this epistle, I think Ciampa’s observation is well taken. Nevertheless, with regard to how Paul possibly made sense of his biography in light of prophetic analogies, God overcoming Paul’s insufficiency seems to be adequate. Within this context, it is worth considering that Paul’s ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί reflects Isa. 49.3 (ἐν σοὶ δοξασθήσομαι) in a somewhat wider sense.44 The prepositional phrase indicates that the servant is assigned a task, which will bring upon God his true glory. Hence, it is connected to his becoming God’s servant: δοῦλός μου εἶ σύ. It is implied, then, that Paul sees himself in light of this model, and thus becomes a chosen servant whose commission will serve to enhance God’s glory – through the nations. This is precisely what Rom. 15.21 envisaged in Paul’s apostolic ministry as his bringing the nations to God as an offering, which was also expressed in language evocative of Isaiah (see above). This leads us to the verb used to denote Paul’s commission here, namely εὐαγγελίζωμαι. We have observed the significance of this vocabulary as tied up with Isaiah’s heralds of good tidings in Rom. 10.15-16 (see above). Paul formulates his commission in a key term taken from the redemptive work of God, especially in Isa. 40–66, preached by heralds of good news (Isa. 40.9 [×2]; 52.7 [×2]; 60.6; 61.1 [cf. Joel 3.5]).

42.  As for this stable element in call narratives, see Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 64–65; see also S. J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 90–110. 43.  Ciampa, Scripture, 115; see Sandnes, ‘Prophet-Like Apostle’, 554–56, where this question comes into play with regard to how the Damascus event works paradigmatically in this epistle. 44.  Ciampa, Scripture, 115–16, with references.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

153

Paul is commissioned to proclaim this glad tiding ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, i.e. among the nations or Gentiles. The way these two elements are joined strengthens the relationship to Isaiah, in which God’s redemptive work takes place with a view to the Gentiles: Isa. 49.6: τέθεικά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς I have made you a light of nations, that you may be for salvation to the end of the earth. (NETS) Isa. 42.6-7: ἔδωκά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐκ δεσμῶν δεδεμένους καὶ ἐξ οἴκου φυλακῆς καθημένους ἐν σκότει I have given you as a covenant to a race, as a light to nations, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out from bonds those who are bound and from the prison house those who sit in darkness. (NETS)

Worth noticing here is that this passage is mirrored in how the Pauline legacy passed on Paul’s experience and commission at Damascus (Acts 26.17-18): ‘I am sending you to open their [i.e. the Gentiles’] eyes that many may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of their sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’. Furthermore, this Isaianic passage brings together the Gentiles and God’s glory (ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου…; v. 8 ‘I am the Lord God; this is my name; my glory I will not give to another’) in a way that sheds light on Isa. 49.3 mentioned above. It simply adds some probability to the suggestion made above regarding Isa. 49.3 and ἐν ἐμοί in Gal. 1.16. This passage also makes a connection between the ‘light to the Gentiles’ and the muchpresent idea of God creating something new vis-à-vis the old things (see also Isa. 43.18-19). I surmise this is of importance for the theology that Paul formulates in Galatians, which comes to the fore in Gal. 6.15: ‘For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything (καινὴ κτίσις)’. He formulates a theology at the margins of his Jewish traditions, so hence his Damascus event has a dual nature in this letter; it is a call, but it is also in some sense conversion-like.45

45.  For this see my discussion in ‘Prophet-Like Apostle’, 551–54, 556–59, with references; see also C. J. Roetzel, Paul: A Jew on the Margins (Louisville: John Knox, 2003).

154

Studies in Isaiah

Galatians 6.15 brings to mind the passage in 2 Cor. 5.17, which says that anyone who is in Christ ‘is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see everything has become new’ (ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά). This statement points to 2 Cor. 6.2, in which Isa. 49.8 is quoted (see above), and it is dependent upon Isa. 43.18-19 (μὴ μνημονεύετε τὰ πρῶτα καὶ τὰ ἀρχαῖα μὴ συλλογίζεσθε. ἰδοὺ ποιῶ καινά…; cf. 65.17). Especially striking is the contrast urged between τὰ ἀρχαῖα and καινά, which is also emphasized by ἰδού; in addition, it can be noted that creation vocabulary is important in both passages.46 Finally, when Paul addresses what has come to be known as ‘the Apostolic Council’ (Gal. 2.1-10), he again finds the appropriate words in Scripture, more precisely in Isaiah: ‘Then I laid before them…the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had run, in vain’ (ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν…μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον; v. 2). As previously suggested, this is an echo of the passage in Isa. 49.4, κενῶς ἐκοπίασα καὶ εἰς μάταιον καὶ εἰς οὐδὲν ἔδωκα τὴν ἰσχύν μου (‘I have labored vainly, and I have given my strength in vain and for nothing’; NETS) and Isa. 65.23, οἱ δὲ ἐκλεκτοί μου οὐ κοπιάσουσιν εἰς κενὸν (‘And my chosen ones shall not labor in vain’; NETS). Galatians 2 is interesting since it demonstrates that Paul’s use of Isaiah’s language is not limited to his call; instead it reminds us that it is the apostolic commission with the gospel to the Gentiles that triggered his use of the book of Isaiah. The way he describes his call is derived from that commission, and not the other way around. Paul uses a cluster of motifs and ideas when he conveys to the Galatians his being called to preach the Gospel, and all of them – individually, but even more so when taken together – are derived from Isa. 40–66: • • • • •

Paul is chosen from his mother’s womb. He has been set apart to proclaim the glad tidings to the Gentiles. This enhances God’s glory in the end time. Paul is concerned that his mission is ‘not in vain’. Intertwined in his commission is also his development of a theology marked by newness, at the fringes of his given traditions.

46.  See Wilk, Bedeutung, 97–101, 171–73, 276–80, and G. K. Beale, ‘The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7 and Its Bearing upon the Literary Problem of 6.14-71’, NTS 35 (1989): 550–81. Beale also points out that it is probably not by accident that many scholars in 2 Cor. 4–5 see an allusion to the Damascus Road experience (580), thus indicating that this experience to Paul – it may well be in a later light – was wrapped up in God’s plan for bringing the final restoration of Isa. 40–66.



Sandnes  Paul, An Isaianic Prophet?

155

4. Conclusion Paul’s self-concept was firmly rooted in the prophetic legacy of Israel. Paul’s emphasis was not on his connection with any of the prophets of old individually, be they Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah or the Servant, but he found himself to be a part of this corporate prophetic tradition as he understood it in light of Isa. 40–66. Particularly in this part of the book of Isaiah, he found the eschatological redemption that wrapped up his ministry, both in terms of having announced it beforehand and to what the apostle was involved in at the present. Passages or lines taken from Isa. 40–66 pop up when he addresses his call and commission. His apostolic ministry was shaped by this part of the book of Isaiah, which is far more than biblical embellishment. Paul saw himself as called to put into practice what these prophecies announced beforehand. Moreover, through prosopological exegesis, he found his own mission addressed there. Although Paul says that his call set him apart from the gospel, the Isaianic background of his apostolate nonetheless united him with others who also proclaimed the gospel witnessed to in Isa. 40–66. Paul’s self-concept and commission were subordinated to his understanding of the gospel as a fulfillment of Isaianic prophecies. This is crucial to understand his apostolate: [Paul’s] self-understanding was entirely dependent upon the gospel Paul was called to preach. His authority and status were not primarily generated by a higher self-understanding, but by an absolute, binding consciousness of being commissioned with God’s final words of salvation. His apostolic self-understanding was totally dependent upon the message he was commissioned to preach. The very consciousness of preaching the eschatological comfort-gospel seems to have been an important reason for Paul to present his apostolate prophet-like.47

Recent studies into the Isaianic background of how Paul formulates the gospel he was called to preach have confirmed this viewpoint as expressed in my dissertation in the late 1980s. For example, I notice that Jeffrey W. Aernie reaches a similar conclusion in his study: ‘Paul’s relationship with Isaiah, therefore, does not appear to parallel the prophet himself, but the content of his prophetic message’.48 Further, Roy E. Ciampa formulates this insight appropriately when he says that ‘Paul’s application of the language of prophetic calling to his own calling to preach the gospel 47.  Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets?, 243. 48.  Aernie, Is Paul Also Among the Prophets?, 134–35.

156

Studies in Isaiah

reflects his understanding not only of his own status and identity but also of the nature of the gospel message itself’.49 Florian Wilk has pointed out that Isa. 40–66 is involved in four main theological themes of Paul: the gospel (‘Christusbotschaft’); his selfunderstanding; Israel; and the returning Jesus.50 With regard to Paul’s self-understanding, the focus of the present essay, Isa. 42; 49 and 52–53 dominate. Interestingly, this overlaps with the gospel theme that draws on Isa. 52–53, and which in Romans is oriented towards the fate of Israel. The prophecies ascribed to Isaiah keep these themes together, thereby forming the epicenter of Paul’s mission.

49.  R. E. Ciampa, ‘Paul’s Theology of the Gospel’, in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, ed. T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 180–91 (185–86). 50.  Wilk, Bedeutung, 344–49, 364–73.

V ocal i z at i on a n d I n te r pr e tat i on i n I s a i a h 56– 66 :

Weyiqtiol or Wayyiqtiol in Isaiah 63.1-6 as a Case of Early Jewish Interpretation

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 1. Introduction The present investigation explores the temporal structure of Isa. 63.1-6 as indicated by the Masoretic vocalization. In short, it explores the question: Does the written Masorah of Codex Leningrad (L)1 understand the events that are referred to in this passage as having taken place in the past or still due to take place in the future? In this study, I shall argue that: • The temporal structure of this Hebrew text, conveyed in suffixed and prefixed verbal forms, describes divine actions which had taken place in the past, more exactly at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. This original reading, in my view, is reflected in the translation of the LXX.

1.  The term ‘written Masorah’ is the body of information transmitted with the Hebrew consonantal text. In the present study, I shall focus primarily on the vowel signs and the cantillation signs. See further P. H. Kelley, D. S. Mynatt, and T. G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1. It should also be noted that my investigation is based on the particular Masorah of Ms B 19A Codex Leningrad (L). Not all manuscripts present the same information. It is therefore technically wrong to speak of ‘the Masorah’ as if only one standard and exact copy existed. See further the discussion in E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Maciá, ‘Interdisciplinary Perspectives’, in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes, ed. E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Maciá, JAJS 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 17–34 (31, including n. 52).

158

Studies in Isaiah

• The written Masorah of this text testifies to an altered temporal structure. The reading tradition preserved in the Masoretic vocalization is the result of a conscious change to the temporal structure: by vocalizing key verbs as weyiqṭol forms (rather than as wayyiqṭol forms), this Isaianic text was aligned with its intertexts in Isa. 34.1-17 and 59.15b-20. As a result, many of God’s actions came to be situated in the (eschatological) future. The passage under investigation is part of a wider phenomenon, attested predominantly in Isa. 40–66, where the prefixed waw is pointed as a waw conjunctive rather than a waw consecutive.1 2. Masoretic Interpretation The written Masorah of Codex Leningrad belongs to a group of manuscripts that stand in the Tiberian tradition of the scribal work of the family of Aharon ben Asher. The Masoretes of the ninth to tenth century CE had two roles: (1) they preserved what they had inherited from earlier generations, such as the consonantal text, the paragraph divisions, and the oral reading traditions; and (2) they developed new things, such as the vowel signs and the cantillation signs as well as most of the textual notes.2 Having said all this, the present study is more concerned with their predecessors, namely the sopherim (‘scribes’), who were active around the end of the first century CE and the beginning of the second century CE. Unfortunately, we know very little about the identity of these men and their relationship to the later rabbis and even later Masoretes.3 Yet their work, both in terms 1.  See further, e.g., Isa. 42.6; 43.28; 48.3; 51.2; 57.17-18 (GKC §107b, n. 2). I am grateful to Professor H. G. M. Williamson for pointing me in the direction of this reference. I hope to address these other passages in Isa. 40–66 in a future publication. 2.  They did not, however, the oral reading traditions which they recorded. See further G. Khan, A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition, Gorgias Handbooks (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012), 4. 3.  See further the discussion in E. Martín-Contreras, ‘Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission’, in Martín-Contreras and Miralles-Maciá, eds., Text of the Hebrew Bible, 79–90 (79–83). Martín-Contreras surveys the various scholarly theories pertaining to the continuity / discontinuity between the sopherim and the rabbis on the one hand, and the sopherim and the Masoretes on the other. As to their identity, see, for example, the discussion in by Arie van der Kooij in the same volume: ‘Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature’, 63–78. Van der Kooij argues that the sopherim were priests and functioned primarily in the temple where the scrolls were preserved.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

159

of copying and in terms of exegesis, constitutes the traditions which the later Masoretes preserved. At the same time, it is somewhat ironic that while the Masoretes are considered to be the successors of the sopherim, they had opposite aims: the Masoretes were the preservers of tradition par excellence; the sopherim introduced changes to the text.4 The present study is ultimately interested in the reading tradition which is preserved in the vocalization and cantillations of the MT as found in Codex Leningrad, not in the people that were involved in creating and preserving it. This reading tradition, as well as other rabbinic traditions, testifies to interpretative activity. The tradition of qere and kethib, the tradition of the scribal emendations, and the traditions of ‘do not read X, read Y’, suggest, although in different ways, that the extant reading traditions at times read the consonantal text in ways that are contrary to its ‘natural’ reading, i.e. the way in which a reader without access to any vowel points or cantillation marks would read it. In several of these cases, the reading traditions are ‘accurate’ in the sense that they appear to have preserved the intuitive reading and/or a reading which is attested in one of the ancient Versions. In other cases, the reading traditions are ‘inaccurate’ insofar as it is preferable to read the consonantal text in a way that violates the Masoretic pointing. a. Qere / Kethib Notes The qere and kethib notes fall into this category of ‘interpretations’. These notes encourage the readers to read (and thus to understand) the given text in a manner which differs from the natural way of reading the consonantal text.5 There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the Masoretes of the tenth century reformed the reading tradition and introduced exegetical or linguistic innovations of their own. Instead, they kept alive older, variant traditions, some of which may go back to the literary growth of the biblical books themselves.6 The origin of the qere and kethib traditions is uncertain. Morrow argues that the Masoretes, through this system, attempted to preserve alternative readings: while the kethib represents the written traditions of the scribes, the qere represents the tradition of the synagogue. This system served to safeguard that the consonantal text was copied faithfully, up and against the reading tradition of the synagogue.7 From a slightly different 4.  Martín-Contreras and Miralles-Maciá, ‘Interdisciplinary Perspectives’, 30–31. 5.  Cf. the discussion in Khan, Introduction, 45–46. 6.  Khan, Introduction, 47. 7.  W. S. Morrow, ‘Kethib and Qere’, ABD 4:24–30 (27). For a survey of other theories, see Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, Masorah, 42.

160

Studies in Isaiah

perspective, Emmanuel Tov argues that the kethib text represents the copy in the temple, while the qere variation represented a variant (and possibly younger) reading.8 The fact that a variant reading was noted as qere suggests implicitly that the extant consonantal form, as represented by the kethib, was considered to testify to an inferior (although not necessarily erroneous) reading. The consequence of presenting the alternative qere reading implies that the latter is to be preferred.9 Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that somebody during the history of the transmission of the text actually sought to correct it.10 In most cases, the qere reading makes the best exegetical sense, even if the reading suggested by the kethib cannot be ruled out (cf. the famous example in Ps. 100.3, ‫)הוא עשנו (ולא) [ולו] אנחנו‬. In other cases, it is likely that the qere seeks to amend a textual error (e.g., 1 Sam. 4.13; 1 Kgs 22.49; Ezek. 9.5; 25.7).11 In a few instances, however, the qere makes less sense. In particular, the consonantal text of Gen. 8.17 (‫)הוצא‬ is most intuitively read as a transitive hiphil imperative form ‘bring up’, a form which fits in the context (cf. also Gen. 19.12; Lev. 24.14; Judg. 6.30; 19.22). Yet the qere proposes reading it as ‫היְ ֵצא‬, ַ which would then be the only occurrence of such an unusual form.12 In this case, it is unclear why the Masoretic reading tradition shows preference for a less intuitive form.13 b. The Scribal Emendations The tradition of the so-called scribal emendations (‫ )תיקני הספרים‬is a relatively well-known phenomenon. According to the rabbinic tradition, eighteen instances in the extant text of the Hebrew Bible present a textual form that is different from the one being originally written/intended.14 8.  E. Tov, ‘The Ketiv/Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscripts from the Judean Desert’, in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 199–205. 9.  J. Barr, ‘A New Look at Kethibh-Qere’, in Remembering All the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, ed. B. Albrektson et al., OtSt 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 19–37 (22). 10.  Barr, ‘New Look’, 23–24. 11.  Barr, ‘New Look’, 34–35. 12.  The example is listed by Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, Masorah, yet they do not discuss its implications. 13.  Barr, ‘New Look’, 34. 14.  To my knowledge, Carmel McCarthy’s book The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, OBO 36



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

161

The present form of the text is the result of a scribe having deliberately changed the original word, often in order to preserve God’s honour and/or his incorporeity. In two of the eighteen cases (1 Sam. 3.13 and Job 7.20), the proposed original text coincides with the reading of the LXX. Carmel McCarthy argues convincingly that the LXX in both cases probably preserves the original reading. Thus, the tradition of the scribal emendations can in these two instances be upheld.15 In addition to these two cases, it is also likely that the present form of Zech. 2.12 (Eng. 2.8) is the result of scribal tweaking.16 At the same time, according to McCarthy, in the majority of the cases the alleged ‘original’ reading cannot be established as genuine.17 c. Do Not Read X, Read Y In parallel, another tradition exists, namely the exegetical device ‘do not read X but Y’ (]…[ ‫ )אל תקרא […] אלה‬attested in a wide range of rabbinic literature (the tannaitic Midrashim, the Babylonian Talmud, the later exegetical and homiletic Midrashim).18 Following Geoffrey Khan, the motivation behind these suggestions was to offer an interpretation of a given text that differed from the one extant in the Masoretic reading tradition. It is thus more a case of interpretation than of preserving variant reading traditions.19 McCarthy lists ten types of such suggested changes. Sometimes, the Rabbis advocate reading the consonantal Hebrew text with a different set of vowels than the ones attested in the MT; sometimes they advise adding or subtracting a consonant, or the swapping of two consonants, or exchanging one consonant for another; sometimes they propose altering a personal suffix or pronoun, or dividing the extant consonantal text differently with the result of either reading two words as one or reading one word as two. In all cases, these recommended changes alter the meaning of a sentence.20 The reasons behind these changes are not always clear, (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), remains the only thorough study of the matter. As to the number of scribal emendations, see her extensive overview of the various traditions on pp. 25–59. 15.  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 76–81. 16.  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 61–70. See also my article ‘Compelled by Honour – A New Interpretation of Zechariah II 12A (8A)’, VT 54 (2004): 352–72 (356–57). 17.  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 129 (summary). 18.  For a list of examples, see McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 139–40. 19.  Khan, Introduction, 58–59. 20.  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 141–46.

162

Studies in Isaiah

and the types of changes fall into many different categories. They may seek to clarify a legal matter (e.g., Lev. 18.22, in Siphra Lev. 20.13) or to bring out the moral behind a given prescribed conduct (e.g., Deut. 23.14, in Kethubboth 5a-b).21 Based on her comparison between this tradition and the tradition of the scribal emendations, McCarthy concludes that the latter tradition was midrashic in origin and only later was adopted into the Masoretic reading traditions.22 d. Changes to Verb Forms In yet other cases, the Masoretic reading tradition appears to have transformed the original verb form, attested by the consonantal text, into an alternative form which the consonantal text could support but which is not the intuitive reading thereof. Khan demonstrates how the Masoretic vocalization of verbal forms aimed at harmonization. As an example, he cites Prov. 24.17. The consonantal form ‫ ובכשלו‬is best read as a paal infinitive absolute of the root ‫כשל‬. However, given the prevalence of the niphal form of this root in later Biblical Hebrew, together with the fact that the consonantal text could (but need not) be read as a niphal infinitive absolute, the sopherim chose the latter option and vocalized it as a niphal infinitive absolute (‫)ּוב ָּכ ְׁשלֹו‬, ִ i.e. as if there were an initial he.23 In other cases, the Masoretic vocalization seeks to solve a theological difficulty. The consonantal text of the verb ‫ יראה‬in Deut. 16.16 is best read as a transitive paal yiqṭol form with the meaning ‘he will (not) see’ (‫ולא יראה‬ ‫‘ = את פני ה׳ ריקם‬he will not see the Lord’s face empty-handed’). Given the theological problem inherent in ‘seeing God’, however, the Masoretic reading tradition assigned the intransitive niphal (‫ )יֵ ָר ֶאה‬meaning ‘he will appear’ to the verb, a reading that is clearly counter-intuitive given the following accusative marker ‫את‬.24 e. Summary In sum, there is clear evidence that the reading tradition that the Masoretes inherited at times is the result of scribal interpretation whereby the original text has been altered. These alternations were made for a variety of reasons. In several cases, they are theological in nature; in other cases they aim at aligning different texts with each other so that they contain

21.  For an in-depth discussion and more examples, see McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 147–58. 22.  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 166. 23.  Khan, Introduction, 48–49. 24.  Khan, Introduction, 62.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

163

the same verbal form. As the rest of this study hopes to show, the reading tradition of Isa. 63.1-6 is part of yet another group of changes, namely where the reading tradition sought to harmonize the temporal aspects of two different yet similar texts with each other. 3. Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Before doing so, however, we need to address another matter briefly, namely the issue of tense, aspect, and modality. The present investigation recognizes the fact that no theory vis-à-vis this issue can explain fully all examples in the Hebrew Bible.25 I adhere to the comparative-historical approach, as advocated by Anson Rainey and others.26 Moreover, I agree with what is often called relative tense theories, i.e. that the Hebrew verb indicates time relative not to the time of speaking but to the reference point provided by the context.27 Looking at the various prefixed Hebrew verb-forms diachronically, it is well-known that the Hebrew prefixed form yiqṭol has two different origins: yaqṭulu (parallel to the Akkadian form iparras), which expresses a continuing action, and yaqṭul (parallel to the Akkadian form iprus), which expresses an action that has taken place at a single point (mostly in the past). As final vowels gradually disappeared, the two forms came to be identical (yaqṭul) and even later came to develop into yiqṭol.28

25.  See further the discussion and evaluation by G. Hatav, ‘Tense: Biblical Hebrew’, in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. G. Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 3:736–40. For a discussion focused on Isaiah, see U. Schmidt, Zukunftsvorstellungen in Jesaja 49–55: Eine textpragmatische Untersuchung von Kommunikation und Bildwelt, WMANT 138 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2013), 40–49. I am also indebted to Dr Bo-Krister Ljungberg’s comments in response to the present study. 26.  A. F. Rainey, ‘The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite’, Hebrew Studies 27 (1986): 4–19. See also A. Niccacci, ‘On the Hebrew Verbal System’, in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R. D. Bergen, Summer Institute of Linguistics (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 117–37 (128–30). 27.  See, e.g., D. M. Gropp, ‘The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew’, HAR 13 (1991): 45–62. See also the discussion in K. M. Penner, The Verbal System of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Qumran Hebrew Texts, SSN 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 37–48 (38–43). 28.  C. L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, Revised Version (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995), 225.

164

Studies in Isaiah

In pointed Biblical Hebrew, the first form corresponds to the yiqṭol form, while the second form is preserved in the wayyiqṭol form. To cite Joshua Blau, ‘it should have been called “preserving waw”, since after waw the archaic usage of the tenses has been preserved’.29 Moreover, especially in poetic texts, the yiqṭol form preserves its original preterite use, particularly if it is preceded in the same sentence by a qaṭal form.30 More specifically, there is an extensive scholarly discussion pertaining to the exact temporal aspects of the yiqṭol form in poetic texts, of which Isa. 56–66 would be part.31 Francis I. Andersen, for instance, in his commentary to the book of Habakkuk, argues that many yiqṭol forms are best translated as denoting a past action. He cites Hab. 1.2 as an example, and argues that the yiqṭol forms which are preceded by the qaṭal form convey discourse about the past: ‫‘ = שועתי ולא תשמע‬I have called out (for help); and thou didst not listen’.32 This insight is very important yet only tangentially relevant for the present study, for the sole reason that Isa. 63.1-6 does not contain any simple yiqṭol forms, only wayyiqṭol and weyiqṭol forms. It is thus not the case in Isa. 56–66 that a later reader would have overlooked the past temporal aspects of a simple yiqṭol form. Instead, I propose that it is a case where the sopherim have rejected the preserved past aspects of wayyiqṭol forms and transformed them into verbs which convey future discourse.

29.  J. Blau, Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew, LSAWS 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 190. 30.  Seow, Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 190, cites Exod. 15.14 as a typical example of a yiqṭol form in a poetic text which is best translated as conveying a past action: ‫‘ = שמעו עמים ירגזון‬the people heard, they trembled’. See also T. Muraoka and M. Rogland, ‘The Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor Sasson’, VT 48 (1998): 99–104. Muraoka and Rogland suggest that we need to distinguish between three distinct kinds of imperfect forms: freestanding yaqṭul* forms (in poetic texts), waw-yaqṭul* forms, and yaqṭulu* forms (i.e. the so-called long imperfect) (100). 31.  See, for example, the suggestion that the yiqṭol form can be a present progressive tense in T. Notarius, ‘The Archaic System of Verbal Tenses in “Archaic” Biblical Poetry’, in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. C. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit, LSAWS 8 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 193–207 (194–98). For an overview of other usages, see GK §107. 32.  F. I. Andersen, Habakkuk. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 103 (for the translation, see 97).



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

165

Turning to synchronic matters, it is first of all important to highlight the rarity of the weyiqṭol form. It appears seldom in Classical Hebrew prose.33 It is more common in poetry where, as already noted in the introduction, it is particularly prevalent in Isa. 40–55.34 The question here is: Does this form correspond to a specific temporal tense, aspect, or mood in a given sentence? Scholarly views concerning the tense, aspect, and mood of the weyiqṭol belong in one of two categories. First, several scholars maintain that the waw conjunctive in these forms serves merely to connect the verb with the preceding context. No temporal or modal distinction thus exists between a yiqṭol and a weyiqṭol verb. Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, for example, translate the series of yiqṭol and weyiqṭol forms in Job 22.27a (‫ )תעתיד אליו וישמעך‬as ‘You will make your prayer to him, and he will hear you’.35 Likewise, speaking primarily about poetic texts, Gibson highlights the use of the weyiqṭol form as the means of joining together two events on the same time-scale. The statement in Ps. 104.32 provides a good example: ‫המביט לארץ ותרער יגע‬ ‫‘( בהרים ויעשנו‬he who looks at the earth, and it trembles, who touches the mountains, and they smoke’, NIV). Weyiqṭol forms can also denote two events which take place about the same time and that are not felt to be fully consecutive. Isaiah 40.30, for instance, states that ‫ויעפו נערים ויגעו‬ ‫‘( ובחורים כשול יכשלו‬Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall’, NIV). Likewise, Isa. 58.10a presents a series of two (we)yikṭol forms which denote hoped-for future actions: ‫ותפק לרעב נפשך‬ ‫‘( ונפש נענה תשביע‬and if you spend yourselves on behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed’, NIV). Even so, Gibson postulates one exception to this rule, namely where the weyiqṭol form indicates actions in the past. He lists our passage, Isa. 63.3, as an example, as well as the similar Isa. 57.17, in support of his argument. His argument is, however, potentially circular: as the pertinent forms can be revocalized easily into wayyiqṭol forms (see further below), Gibson’s argument loses strength.36 Waltke and O’Connor also fall into this group, as they regard

33.  See further Gropp, ‘Function of the Finite Verb’, 47–48. 34.  Gropp, ‘Function of the Finite Verb’, 48 n. 9. 35.  C. H. J. van der Merwe, J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 171 (§21.4). 36.  J. C. L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar – Syntax, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 104–5.

166

Studies in Isaiah

the weyiqṭol form as ‘an unmarked connector, though it may introduce (for lexical rather than grammatical reasons) a clause that is logically or temporally subordinate to its predecessor’. In support of their claim, they list the aforementioned Job 22.27, as well as 2 Chr. 20.9; Judg. 9.7; and Exod. 23.8.37 Second, other grammarians, referring predominantly to its use in prose, maintain that the weyiqṭol form indicates volition, often to denote purpose. Thus, the yiqṭol and the weyiqṭol forms may convey different moods. To quote Alviero Niccacci, the weyiqṭol form ‘is used to convey a general command…[it] expresses a volitive rather than a simple future’.38 The third person weyiqṭol verb ‫ ויעלו‬in Josh. 4.16b, for example, is best translated as ‘that they should go up’, and the weyiqṭol verb ‫ ויקחו‬in Exod. 25.2a is best rendered as ‘that they should bring’.39 Likewise, the first person weyiqṭol verb ‫ ואכבדה‬in Exod. 14.4b translates into English as ‘so that I may be glorified’, a reading which is also suggested by the final ‫ה‬.40 Peter J. Gentry, likewise speaking about the Hebrew verbal system in prose texts, treats the weyiqṭol form as indicating modality. Using the terms ‘Assertive’ (for assertive and epistemic modality, i.e. when one asserts or claims an event to be real) and ‘Projective’ (for deontic modality, i.e. statements which indicate a wish, command, permission, or obligation), Gentry places both the long and the short weyiqṭol form in the latter Projective category.41 As an example of first person projectives, Gentry understands the long form ‫ ואשתחוה‬in 1 Sam. 15.25 as an imperfective projective, and renders it as ‘so that I may worship’.42 In the ensuing discussion, I shall take both possibilities into account. I shall translate expressions containing the first person weyiqṭol verb as ‘I will do x’ in order to reflect not only its future but also its projective aspects.43

37.  B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 562–63 (§33.4). 38.  See further A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 187. 39.  See further Niccacci, Syntax of the Verb, 90–91. 40.  Niccacci, Syntax of the Verb, 93. 41.  P. J. Gentry, ‘The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew’, Hebrew Studies 39 (1998): 7–39 (21). 42.  Gentry, ‘System of the Finite Verb’, 33. For examples of the third person use of the long and the short weyiqṭol form, see 34–35. 43.  First person will is used for desire or intention, in contrast to shall which is used to denote obligation. See further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

167

4. Isaiah 63.1-6 a. Verses 1-3 The section in Isa. 63.1-6 begins with a description of a man (here assumed to be identified with God) coming from Edom. The temporal structure of the narrative is at first unspecified, given that vv. 1-2 use only active and passive participles and noun clauses.44 Finite verb forms appear only in v. 3. Verse 3a states, in the first person singular, that the man ‘has trodden’ (qaṭal, ‫ ָ)ּד ַר ְכ ִּתי‬the wine press, that he ‘will tread them’ (weyiqṭol, ‫ )וְ ֶא ְד ְר ֵכם‬in his anger, and that he ‘will trample them’ (weyiqṭol, ‫ )וְ ֶא ְר ְמ ֵסם‬in his wrath. As a result, their juice/blood ‘may spatter’ (waw conjunctive + jussive, ‫ )וְ יֵ ז‬on his clothes (v. 3bα). The verse concludes with a statement using what probably is an unusual qaṭal form: God ‘has stained’ all his clothes (‫)אגְ ָא ְל ִּתי‬. ֶ 45 Verse

The MT

v. 3aα

‫ּומ ַע ִּמים‬ ֵ ‫ּפּורה ָּד ַר ְכ ִּתי ְל ַב ִּדי‬ ָ ‫ין־איׁש ִא ִּתי וְ ֶא ְד ְר ֵכם ְּב ַא ִּפי‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬

v. 3aβ

‫וְ ֶא ְר ְמ ֵסם ַּב ֲח ָמ ִתי‬

v. 3bα

‫ל־ּבגָ ַדי‬ ְ ‫וְ יֵ ז נִ ְצ ָחם ַע‬

v. 3bβ

‫ּבּוׁשי ֶאגְ ָא ְל ִּתי‬ ַ ‫ל־מ ְל‬ ַ ‫וְ ָכ‬

Verb form qaṭal + weyiqṭol weyiqṭol waw conjunctive + jussive qaṭal

The Masoretes pointed the waw prefixed to the second and the third verb in v. 3a as a waw conjunctive, yet only a few scholars adhere to this sense.46 Among them, Joseph Blenkinsopp opts for the present tense in his English translation of the statement in v. 3aβ and 3b, arguing that the extant weyiqṭol forms serve to convey a ‘more vivid narrative style’ (‘I tread them down in my anger, I trample them in my fury. Their lifeblood

44.  The opening verb form ‫ בא‬could be understood as either a perfect or a participle. Reading it as a participle is supported by the LXX translation which also reads it as a participle (παραγινόμενος). It is also, albeit in a roundabout way, supported by the paraphrase in Targum Jonathan which attested to a passive participle (‫)דמתבעיט‬. 45.  The final verb ‫ אגאלתי‬appears to be a prefixed and suffixed verbal form of the root ‫ גאל‬II, attested in the hiphil and in the piel as meaning ‘to pollute’, a translation which fits the present context. In line with the opening line of v. 3, the verb ‫ אגאלתי‬is probably best translated as a qaṭal form ‘I stained’. This reading is supported by 1QIsaa, which attests to the reading ‫גאלתי‬. See further D. W. Parry and E. Qimron, eds., The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 101. 46.  See, for instance, H. Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden, FRLANT 211 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 82–83, including n. 371.

168

Studies in Isaiah

spatters my garment, I have stained all my clothing’).47 More tentatively, John Goldingay, while noting that wayyiqṭol forms would have been more expected, nevertheless chooses to translate the statement in vv. 3aβ and 3b (as well as in v. 5, see below) using the present tense.48 The majority of scholars prefer, however, to revocalize the weyiqṭol forms in v. 3 as wayyiqṭol forms in order to adhere to the overall past perspective of the verse.49 This change in vocalization further facilitates the understanding of the short form of ‫ ויז‬which otherwise needs to be treated as a jussive. The LXX of Isa. 63.3 attests to a different time structure.50 Where the MT has the qaṭal form ‫דרכתי‬, the LXX employs a participle καταπεπατημένης (in line with v. 1). The LXX further employs three aorist forms to describe the man’s actions: ‘he trampled’ (κατεπάτησα), ‘he dashed’ (κατέθλασα), and ‘he bought down’ (κατήγαγον). Although clearly a free rendering of the MT, the LXX nevertheless supports the temporal understanding of the two verbs ‫ ואדרכם‬and ‫ וארמסם‬in v. 3 as wayyiqṭol forms that denote past actions. As in Isa. 57.17-18, it seems reasonable to assume that the LXX reflects the original reading of the consonantal texts, i.e. as referring to God’s past actions. It should be noted that the 1QIsaa scroll presents a much shorter reading of Isa. 66.3 which uses only suffixed forms: ‫פורה דרכתי לבדי ומעמי אין איש אתי וכול מלבושי גאלתי‬

Read on its own, this verse clearly supports the temporal structure of the LXX. b. Verses 4-5 As we noted above, v. 3 ends with a statement about the past, expressed by what appears to be an unusual qaṭal form, ‘I stained’ (‫)אגְ ָא ְל ִּתי‬. ֶ The MT continues in v. 4 with another declaration about the past, namely that 47.  J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 245, 246 n. h. 48.  J. Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 355, including nn. 8 and 11. 49.  Cf. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 186 n. c; J. L. Koole, Isaiah III/3, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 338; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCBC (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1975), 254, and S. M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 564. 50.  For the pitfalls of using the LXX in order to reconstruct the original Hebrew text, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 121–48.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

169

God’s day of vengeance and his year of redemption ‘has come’ (‫ּב ָאה‬, ָֽ accentuated as a qaṭal form). In contrast, the same verse in the LXX uses the present tense πάρεστιν, i.e. ‘is come’. The consonantal Hebrew text can accommodate both readings, i.e. ‫ באה‬can be read as either a 3 f.sg. perfect (stress on the penultimate syllable) or a f.sg. participle (stress on the ultimate syllable), merely differing in accentuation. It is impossible to determine which of these two readings is original.51 The MT of v. 5a attests to a series of two weyiqṭol forms, ‫ וְ ַא ִּביט‬and ‫ּתֹומם‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא ְׁש‬, thus changing the temporal aspects of the narrative again to a future perspective.52 As in v. 3, the waw is pointed as a waw conjunctive, which results in a reading ‘I will look’ and ‘I will be appalled’. The corresponding (lack of) action is expressed using participles: ‘there was no helper’ (‫ )וְ ֵאין עֹזֵ ר‬and ‘there was no supporter’ (‫סֹומְך‬ ֵ ‫)וְ ֵאין‬. The question is, however, whether the text really conveys a future sense.53 A scholarly minority opts to continue the present temporal sense (e.g., Blenkinsopp).54 Most scholars, however, simply translate the text as referring to past actions.55 Jan L. Koole, for example, translates v. 5a as ‘And I looked and no one helped, I was appalled, and no one gave support’ without further ado. As in v. 3, the LXX renders these two verbs in the aorist: ‘I looked’ (ἐπέβλεψα) and ‘I perceived’ (προσενόησα). The LXX thus appears to have read the two Hebrew verbs ‫ וְ ַא ִּביט‬and ‫ּתֹומם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ְׁש‬as wayyiqṭol forms.56 It 51.  A perfect form in Isa. 63.4 is supported by Targum Jonathan and the Vulgate. Targum Jonathan uses the form ‫( מטת‬root ‫ )מטי‬which is a 3 f. sg. perfect form (the f. sg. participle form normally ends in a ‫)יה‬. The situation in the Vulgate is slightly more unclear. It attests to the form venit (‘is come’ / ‘has come’). Unfortunately, in this particular case, the present and the perfect forms are indistinguishable. Nevertheless, as the Vulgate of Isa. 63.1-6 as a whole conveys past discourse (see further below), it is reasonable to understand venit here as a perfect. 52.  The consonantal forms of the verbs in 1QIsaa agree with the consonantal form of the MT (‫)ואביט ואין עוזר ואשתוממ ואין תומך ותושע ליא זרועי וחמתיא היא סמכתני‬. See Parry and Qimron, Great Isaiah Scroll, 103. 53.  Koole, Isaiah III, 341. 54.  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 245 (translation). 55.  See, e.g., Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 255, and Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 565. 56.  D. A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66, JSOTSup 318, The Hebrew Bible and Its Versions 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 16, does not note this difference between the MT and the LXX. He translates the Hebrew text of Isa. 63.3 as referring to past divine actions, thus disregarding the MT vocalization. Likewise, he does not translate the Hebrew text of Isa. 63.5a (see below) according to the extant Masoretic vocalization and thus does not note the temporal difference between the MT and the LXX (127).

170

Studies in Isaiah

is likely that the LXX has preserved the temporal aspects of the original Hebrew text, i.e. that God ‘looked’ and ‘was appalled’. As such, v. 5a describes past actions. The result of these actions is stated in v. 5b. Here, the MT and the LXX agree about the past temporal aspects of the narrative. The MT attests to a wayyiqṭol form ‫ּתֹוׁשע‬ ַ ַ‫ו‬, namely that my arm ‘brought [me] salvation’ and the LXX employs the aorist (ἐρρύσατο, ‘it delivered’). Likewise, the final statement clearly refers to the past. The MT states that God’s anger ‘supported’ him (qaṭal, ‫)ס ָמ ָכ ְתנִ י‬ ְ and the aorist form in the LXX (ἐπέστη, ‘it stood up / was at hand’) carries the same temporal sense. Notably, this is the only time in Isa. 63.1-6 that the MT uses a wayyiqṭol form (see further below). In all other cases, it employs weyiqṭol forms (vv. 3, 5a, 6). Verse

The MT

Verb form

v. 5aα

‫וְ ַא ִּביט וְ ֵאין עֹזֵ ר‬

w yiqṭol

v. 5aβ

‫סֹומְך‬ ֵ ‫ּתֹומם וְ ֵאין‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא ְׁש‬

weyiqṭol

v. 5bα

‫ּתֹוׁשע ִלי זְ ר ִֹעי‬ ַ ַ‫ו‬

v. 5bβ

‫וַ ֲח ָמ ִתי ִהיא ְס ָמ ָכ ְתנִ י‬

e

wayyiqṭol qaṭal

c. Verse 6 The temporal aspects in the concluding v. 6 are as ambiguous as those in v. 5a. The Masoretic vocalization conveys verbs expressing God’s three actions as weyiqṭol forms, thus speaking of God’s future intention: ‘I will trample’ (‫)וְ ָאבּוס‬, ‘I will make them drunk’ (‫)וַ ֲא ַׁש ְּכ ֵרם‬, and ‘I will bring down’ (‫אֹוריד‬ ִ ְ‫)ו‬.57 In contrast, the LXX (attesting to a slightly shorter version which also betrays a different theology58) uses the aorist to stress that God’s actions have already taken place: ‘I trampled’ (κατεπάτησα) and ‘I brought down’ (κατήγαγον). As in v. 5a, the Hebrew consonantal text can be aligned with the past sense of the LXX if the three verbs are revocalized as wayyiqṭol forms. Verse

The MT

Verb form

v. 6aα

‫וְ ָאבּוס ַע ִּמים ְּב ַא ִּפי‬

w yiqṭol

v. 6aβ

‫וַ ֲא ַׁש ְּכ ֵרם ַּב ֲח ָמ ִתי‬

weyiqṭol

‫אֹוריד ָל ָא ֶרץ נִ ְצ ָחם‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬

weyiqṭol

v. 6b

e

57.  1QIsaa also attests to prefixed verbal forms (‫ואבוסה עמים באפיא ואשכירםה‬ ‫)בחמתי ואורידה לארצ נצחם‬. See Parry and Qimron, Great Isaiah Scroll, 103. 58.  For other aspects of the translation of Isa. 63.5 in the LXX and how it transforms the theology of the original Hebrew text, see the discussion in Baer, When We All Go Home, 127–32.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

171

As above, while a few exegetes accept the Masoretic pointing,59 most scholars tend to disregard the Masoretic pointing and to translate the string of three Hebrew verbs as if they were wayyiqṭol forms: ‘and I trod’, ‘and I make them drunk’, and ‘I brought down’.60 Again, it is likely that the LXX reflects the temporal aspects of the original Hebrew text. d. Analysis As we have seen, the Masoretic pointing emphasizes that God’s ‘trampling’ (of the nations) (vv. 3b, 6), as well as his ‘searching for support’ (v. 5a), takes place in the future. In contrast, the LXX presents all of God’s actions as having already happened. The time structure found in the LXX gains support from two factors. First, it is in line with the consonantal Hebrew text. Second, it makes exegetical sense to understand Isa. 63.1-6 as a reflection of God’s past actions in connection with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Judah and many of its immediate neighbours by the Neo-Babylonian armies.61 If this assumption is correct, then the Masoretic vocalization of the three verbs in v. 6 constitutes a later, future-oriented reading of Isa. 63.1-6 which betrays the hope that God will act on Israel’s behalf.62 59.  See especially Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 245 (translation), and Goldingay, Isaiah, 355, including n. 16. Both scholars use the English present tense ‘I trample’ etc. in their translations. 60.  For this particular translation, see Koole, Isaiah III, 342. Cf. also Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 255, and Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 565. 61.  The available historical evidence suggests that Edom was destroyed in 551 BCE during the reign of Nabonidus. See further B. Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story, JSOTSup 169 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 96–98, 184–85, and O. Lipschits, ‘Achaemenid Imperial Policy and the Status of Jerusalem’, in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 19–52 (23). Cf. also P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P. T. Daniels (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 45; B. L. Crowell, ‘Nabonidus, as-Silaʿ, and the Beginning of the End of Edom’, BASOR 348 (2007): 75–88, and A. Lemaire, ‘New Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea’, in Lipschits and Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, 413–56 (418). See also idem, ‘Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period’, in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 285–98. Following the consensus view among critical scholars, namely that Isa. 56–66 is the product of the post-monarchic period, Edom’s destruction would from the perspective of the author of Isa. 63.1-6 thus have been a past event. 62.  Cf. GK §107b, n. 2, which states that this is ‘no doubt a dogmatic emendation for ָ‫( ו‬imperf. consec.) in order to represent historical statements as promises’.

172

Studies in Isaiah

It should be acknowledged that a few aspects of Isa. 63.1-6 do suggest that the pericope in Isa. 63.1-6 is a depiction of the future. In particular, much of the immediately preceding material in Isa. 60–62, as well as that in Isa. 34.1-17 (to which we shall return), understands the destruction of the nations as a future event.63 Yet, a future reading of all of Isa. 63.1-6 fails to convince for three reasons: • The persistent use of wayyiqṭol form in the parallel text in Isa. 59.15b-20, hinted at by the preservation of the wayyiqṭol form in v. 5b (see further below).64 • Qaṭal forms are attested throughout the passage (vv. 3, 4b, 5b). They suggest that the described events were understood to have happened already. • The short form ‫ וְ יֵ ז‬in v. 3b makes the most sense as a wayyiqṭol form. The expected weyiqṭol form would have been ‫ויזה‬.65 If we wished to understand the whole of Isa. 63.1-6 as a depiction of the future, we would have to deal with these three issues. The first one, i.e. the wayyiqṭol form in v. 5b, is not a major obstacle as it can easily be revocalized as a weyiqṭol form. It is less straightforward to maintain, vis-à-vis the second issue, that the existing qaṭal forms should be understood as speaking about the future. One possibility would be to see them as examples of the so-called prophetic perfect whereby a qaṭal form is understood to speak about a future action which, from God’s perspective has already been accomplished. The preceding Isa. 60–62 contains ample examples of this, exemplified by the opening statements in Isa. 60.1, 4. As to the third matter, roots with III-he lose their final he on two main occasions, namely, after waw consecutive and in expressing the jussive. By ruling out the first option, the translator has few choices other than to understand the sentence as expressing a wish: ‘may their life-blood spatter’.66 63.  See, e.g., the discussion in Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 249–51. 64.  The temporal perspective changes from past to future in Isa. 59.18-20. This part contains yiqṭol forms (vv. 18, 19) as well as one weqaṭal form (v. 20). It also attests to one weyiqṭol form (v. 19a, ‫)וייראו‬. 65.  Cf. ‫ וְ ְיִבנֶ ה‬in Ps. 69.36 (Eng. 69.37). The only other attested instance of the root ‫ נזה‬in paal with a prefixed waw is in 2 Kgs 9.33 where it is vocalized as a wayyiqṭol form (‫)וַ ּיִ ז‬. 66.  See GK §75k. There are a few other occasions where the jussive form is used instead of the ordinary imperfect form. GKC, §109i-k, explains these instances on rhythmic grounds, seeing that many of them appear in the beginning of a sentence (e.g. Gen. 49.17).



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

173

While this reading is possible, it does not suit the overall context of Isa. 63.3b.67 In sum, although it cannot be ruled out that the text in Isa. 63.1-6 depicts a future scenario, it makes more sense to understand it as a reflection of the destruction of Judah and its neighbours around 586 BCE and later, for which God was understood to have been ultimately responsible. What we can conclude, however, is that the use of qaṭal forms throughout the Hebrew text presents it as discourse about the past (be it only from God’s perspective). This past temporal perspective is supported by the translation in the LXX. e. Isaiah 63.1-6 and Its Intertexts The pericope in Isa. 63.1-6 immediately brings to mind two other pericopae in the book of Isaiah, namely Isa. 34.1-7 and Isa. 59.15b-20. My contention here is that the key to the Masoretic vocalization of Isa. 63.1-6 lies in the intertextual relationship between these two texts.68 The sopherim, who naturally read the whole book of Isaiah (as well as the whole Hebrew Bible) as a single literary entity, sought to harmonize these three sections so that they would share the same temporal structure and thus would speak about the same event. (1) Isaiah 34.1-8. I propose that the warrant for the Masoretic vocalization in Isa. 63.1-6 can be found in its intertextual relationship with Isa. 34.1-17. A few scholars have already hinted at this possibility but none has developed this idea in any further detail.69 Although the two sections 67.  Notably, both Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 245, and Goldingay, Isaiah, 355, render the verb as ‘spatters’ without any comments. 68.  The terms ‘intertextuality’ and ‘intertext’ are here used in a very broad sense to denote the dialogic relationship between two or more texts. The perspective is that of the reader. In the terminology of Julia Kristeva, readers bring with them a set of texts (genotexts) to bear on the new text (phenotext). For a succinct summary of this type of intertextuality, see W. A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel, FAT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 10–12. This reading strategy, i.e. when one passage is read as part of the wider, harmonious whole and where one part sheds light upon another, regardless of their relative chronology, characterizes much of Jewish interaction with the biblical text. See further K. Hedner Zetterholm, Jewish Interpretation of the Bible: Ancient and Modern (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 70–73. 69.  B. S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 517, suggests that the Masoretic vocalization of the series of waws as waw conjunctives reflects their eschatological interpretation of the passage. See also Koole, Isaiah III, 338.

174

Studies in Isaiah

share few exact statements, they are held together by the thematic affinity between Isa. 34.8 and 63.4. Both verses contain the phrase ‫כי יום נקם‬. Furthermore, while Isa. 34.8 uses the expression ‫שנת שלומים‬, Isa. 63.4 employs the phrase ‫שנת גאולי‬. In short, both passages mention the names Edom and Bozrah (34.5-6 / 63.1), both speak of God’s wrath (root ‫)חמה‬ (34.2 / 63.3, 5, 6), and both depict God as a blood-drenched warrior deity.70 The time structure of the pericope in Isa. 34.1-17 has a bearing for our discussion. Verse 2 begins with a description of the past, using qaṭal forms. God was angry with the nations, he has utterly destroyed them, and he has delivered them to the slaughter. The same is true for v. 5a, which uses a qaṭal form to state that God’s sword ‘has drunk its fill’ (‫)רותה‬. Presumably, these statements imply that, from God’s perspective, the destruction has already been accomplished. All the other verbs in vv. 3-7 (and also beyond) describe God’s destruction of the nations as a future event, using yiqṭol forms and weqaṭal forms (e.g., vv. 3-7). The time structure of the text as a whole is thus clearly future-oriented. If we compare the time structure in the MT of Isa. 34.1-8 (the subsection of the text which has most affinity with Isa. 63.1-6) and Isa. 63.1-6, we can make some interesting observations: • Both accounts begin with a qaṭal form (Isa. 34.2; 63.3aα) which describes God’s punitive actions. • Both accounts then attest to yiqṭol forms which convey God’s punitive actions. In the case of Isa. 34.3a, they are simple yiqṭol forms, while in the case of Isa. 63.3a, they are weyiqṭol forms. • Interspersed within the narrative, qaṭal forms appear (Isa. 34.5a; 63.3bβ, 4, 5bβ). • The surrounding narrative continues using verb forms which convey a future sense. While Isa. 34.7 employs weqaṭal forms, Isa. 63.5a, 6 use weyiqṭol forms. As we can see, there is affinity in terms of temporal structure between the two passages. In view of this, I suggest that the sopherim transformed the original wayyiqṭol forms (with the exception of the verb ‫ ותושע‬in v. 5b, see below) in Isa. 63.1-6 into weyiqṭol forms in order to align its temporal perspective with that in the similar Isa. 34.1-17. As a result, both texts came to speak of God’s future destruction of the nations.

70.  See, e.g., the discussion in P. D. Miscall, Isaiah 34–35: A Nightmare/A Dream, JSOTSup 281 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 64–68.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

175

The potentially weak link in this reasoning is the Masoretic accentuation of the verb ‫ ָ ּֽב ָאה‬in Isa. 63.4 as a qaṭal form, while the similar Isa. 34.8 contains noun clauses. Yet, as noted above in the discussion of Isa. 63.4-5, it is notable that the LXX of 63.4 uses the present tense (πάρεστιν), which is closer to the sense of 34.8. Yet, given that the difference between a perfect and a participle is merely a matter of the position of the vowel sign71 (i.e. whether the silluq / sof pasuq is placed under the penultimate or the ultimate syllable) rather than the kind of vowel sign, it is possible that the extant accentuation is the result of a scribal error. The preceding discussion left out the verb ‫ ותושע‬in Isa. 63.5b from the discussion, which alone in all of Isa. 63.1-6 is vocalized as a wayyiqṭol form. This verb, as well as the qaṭal form ‫ סמכתני‬in the same half verse, disturbs the natural flow from v. 5 to v. 6 which all together contains a series of five first person prefixed verb forms (‫וְ ַא ִּביט‬, ‫ּתֹומם‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא ְׁש‬, ‫וְ ָאבּוס‬, ‫וַ ֲא ַׁש ְּכ ֵרם‬, and ‫אֹוריד‬ ִ ְ‫ )ו‬to which a waw is attached. Why did not the sopherim continue to vocalize also the ‫ּתֹוׁשע‬ ַ ַ‫ ו‬as a weyiqṭol form? Again, I maintain that the solution can be found in the intertexts of Isa. 63.1-6, this time in 59.15b-20. It is well-known that there are strong thematic and verbal links between these two passages.72 Reading the final form of the book of Isaiah, the sopherim would have been likely to connect the two Isaianic passages, strategically placed on each side of the longer section in Isa. 60–62, and allowed the interpretation of one to influence the interpretation of the other. I suggest that the sopherim kept the original reading of ‫ּתֹוׁשע‬ ַ ַ‫ ו‬as a wayyiqṭol form in Isa. 63.5b in order to preserve the parallel with 59.16, where all the verbs are vocalized as wayyiqṭol forms (‫וַ ּיַ ְרא‬, ‫ּתֹומם‬ ֵ ‫וַ ּיִ ְׁש‬, ‫ּתֹוׁשע‬ ַ ַ‫)ו‬, with the exception of the last one which here, as in 63.5b, is a qaṭal form (‫)ס ָמ ָכ ְתהּו‬. ְ 73 The sopherim did not go the whole way, however, as they did not try to maintain the past perspective of the wayyiqṭol forms in 59.16a (‫וַ ּיַ ְרא‬, ‫ּתֹומם‬ ֵ ‫)וַ ּיִ ְׁש‬. Instead, they revocalized the whole series of prefixed verbs in the first person as weyiqṭol forms. 5. The Evidence of Targum Jonathan The evidence of Targum Jonathan is pertinent to the present discussion. As we shall see, it presents something which at first appears to be a ‘middle way’ between the MT and the LXX. Yet on further reflection, the 71.  Cf. GK §15k. 72.  The much-debated chronological relationship between these two passages is of no immediate concern in the present context. 73.  My suggestion in part depends on the brief comment by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 246 n. h.

176

Studies in Isaiah

reading of Targum Jonathan testifies to the same interpretative qualities of the reading tradition which is preserved in the MT.74 In fact, as we shall see, Targum Jonathan aligns the material in Isa. 63.1-6 even closer to the temporal aspects of the aforementioned intertexts, thus creating an even more harmonized reading. In Isa. 63.3, Targum Jonathan uses of participles and prefixed forms to convey a future oriented perspective, thus testifying to the relative old age of the reading that is being preserved in the MT: Behold, as grapes trodden (‫ )מתבעיט‬in the press, so shall slaughter increase among the armies of the people, and there will be (‫ )ולא יהי‬no strength for them before me; I will kill them (‫ )ואקטילנון‬in my anger and trample them (‫ )ואדוששינון‬in my wrath; I will break (‫ )ואתבר‬the strength of their strong ones before me, and I will annihilate (‫ )אסלעים‬all their wise ones.75

In its rewriting of the Hebrew text, Targum Jonathan locates the entire v. 3 in the future. In doing so, it alters the extant qaṭal form ‫ דרכתי‬in the MT of v. 3a into a passive verb form ‘as grapes are trodden’. As a result, all of God’s actions are situated in the future. In contrast, in v. 5, Targum Jonathan sides with the temporal perspective of the LXX and, thorough using suffixed form, situates the entire v. 5 in the past, not only the second half as the MT does: It was disclosed before me (‫)וגלי קדמי‬, but there was no man whose deeds were good; it was known before me (‫)וידיע קדמי‬, but there was no person who would arise and beseech concerning them; so I saved them (‫ )ופרקתינון‬by my strong arm, and by the Memra of my pleasure I helped them (‫)סעדתינון‬.76

At the same time, Targum Jonathan reformulates v. 5a so that it does not contain any active verbs denoting divine actions. The two weyiqṭol 74.  The relative chronological of the reading tradition which is preserved in the MT and Targum Jonathan is often difficult to establish. For the formation and dating of the Isaiah Targum, see further P. V. M. Flesher and B. D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011), 169–98. They date the final text of the Isaiah Targum to the fourth century CE (181). 75.  Targum Jonathan, Isa. 63.3: ‫ת׳י הא כבעוט דמתבעיט במעצרא כין יסגי קטול‬ ‫במשרית עממיא ולא יהי להון תקוף קדמי ואקטילנון ברוגזי ואדוששינון בחמתי ואתבר תקוף‬ ‫תקיפיהון קדמי וכל חכימיהון אסלעים‬. English translation by B. D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 11 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 120. 76.  Targum Jonathan, Isa. 63.5: ‫ת׳י וגלי קדמי ולית גבר דליה עובדין טבין וידיע קדמי‬ ‫ולית אנש דיקום ויבעי עליהון ופרקתינון בדרע תקפי ובמימר רעותי סעדתינון‬. English translation by Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 120.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

177

forms ‫ וְ ַא ִּביט‬and ‫ּתֹומם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ְׁש‬in the MT are no longer being presented as God’s future, active actions. Rather, they are rewritten so as to convey information which God has learnt about. Finally, in the case of v. 6, Targum Jonathan supports the temporal perspective of the MT as it, through its use of prefixed forms, locates the entire verse in the realm of the future: I will kill (‫ )ואקטיל‬the peoples in my anger, I will trample them (‫)ואדוׁשׁשינון‬ in my wrath, and I will cast (‫ )וארמי‬to the lower earth those of their mighty men who are killed.77

The evidence of Targum Jonathan is pertinent to the present discussion in that it appears to present a middle way. In some cases it seems to preserve the reading found in LXX; in others it presents a reading that is closer to the tradition of the MT. Several conclusions can be drawn. In Isa. 63.1-6, Targum Jonathan has (1) gone one step further than the MT as it situates all the divine actions in vv. 3 and 6 in the future. The extant suffixed forms in the Hebrew text which denotes God’s past actions have been reformulated so that God is no longer the agent of the verb. It has further (2) rewritten 63.5 in such a way as to not only preserve the past perspective of v. 5b but also to present v. 5a as speaking about the past. As in the case of v. 3, this has been done by turning those verbs which denote God’s active actions into passive statements. As a result of this scribal activity, Isa. 63.1-6 is brought even closer to the intertext in Isa. 34.1-8 so that it is absolutely clear that both texts speak about God’s future punishment of Edom. In parallel, Targum Jonathan has made sure that the past temporal perspective of 63.5 agrees with that in Isa. 59.16. In fact, Targum Jonathan has translated the two verses in such a manner as to minimize the differences between them. Thus, as in Isa. 59.17-18, Targum Jonathan has gone one step further than the MT in its endeavour to align the temporal perspectives of Isa. 63.1-6 with its intertexts in Isa. 34.1-8 and Isa. 59.15b-20. 6. The Evidence of the Vulgate and the Evidence of the Peshitta No textual investigation is complete unless one also explores the evidence of the Vulgate and the Peshitta. As we shall discover, the temporal structure of both translations agree with the Hebrew consonantal text. It 77.  Targum Jonathan, Isa. 63.6: ‫ת׳י ואקטיל עממיא ברוגזי ואדוששינון בחמתי וארמי‬ ‫לארעא ארעיתא קטילי גיבריהון‬. English translation by Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 121.

178

Studies in Isaiah

appears to be the case that the translators read the extant pre-fixed verbal forms as wayyiqṭol forms rather than as weyiqṭol forms, thus positioning Isa. 63.1-6 as discourse about the past. a. The Vulgate The Vulgate of the, for us relevant, section in Isa. 63.3-6 uses suffixed forms to denote God’s actions: 3 Torcular calcavi solus, et de gentibus non est vir mecum; calcavi eos in furore meo, et conculcavi eos in ira mea: et aspersus est sanguis eorum super vestimenta mea, et omnia indumenta mea inquinavi. 4 Dies enim ultionis in corde meo; annus redemptionis meæ venit. 5 Circumspexi, et non erat auxiliator; quæsivi, et non fuit qui adjuvaret: et salvavit mihi brachium meum, et indignatio mea ipsa auxiliata est mihi. 6 Et conculcavi populos in furore meo, et inebriavi eos in indignatione mea, et detraxi in terram virtutem eorum.

I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the Gentiles there is not a man with me: I have trampled on them in my indignation, and have trodden them down in my wrath, and their blood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my apparel. 4 For the day of vengeance is in my heart, the year of my redemption is come. 5 I looked about, and there was none to help: I sought, and there was none to give aid: and my own arm hath saved for me, and my indignation itself hath helped me. 6 And I have trodden down the people in my wrath, and have made them drunk in my indignation, and have brought down their strength to the earth.78 3

The entire pericope speaks of events which have happened in the past, conveyed through perfect verbal forms. This translation is in line with the Hebrew consonantal text and it also concurs with the reading of the LXX. As such, it supports the claim, made in the present study, that the original reading of Isa. 63.1-6 expressed past discourse. b. The Peshitta We encounter a similar situation in the Peshitta. Isaiah 63.3-6 employs suffixed verbal forms to convey the divine actions, thus presenting them as having already taken place in the past:79 78.  The translation is taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible, accessed on-line: http://www.latinvulgate.com. 79.  The translation is taken from The Book of Isaiah According to the Syriac Peshitta Version with English Translation, Eng. trans. by G. Greenberg and D. M.



Tiemeyer  Vocalization and Interpretation in Isaiah 56–66

179

̇ ‫ܡܡܐ ܲܠ‬ ܵ ܲ ‫ ܲܡ‬3 ܿ ‫ ܥܨܪܬ ܐ‬.‫ܝܬ ̄ܗ ܵܘܐ ܲܥܡܝ‬ ܵ̄ ܲ ܿ ̇ ܵ ‫ܢܘܢ‬ ܼ � � � ܹ̈ ‫ܥܨܪܬܐ ܕ ܹܫ ̣ܬ ܲ �ܒܠܚܘ �ܕܝ ܘܐܢܫ ̣ܡܢ ܲ�ܥ‬ � ܸ ̣ ܹ ܸ ̇ ܲ ܲ ̈ ܲ ܿ ܲ ܿ ܿ ̈ ܵ ܵ ̇ ܲ ܲ .‫ܠܦܠ ̣ܬ‬ ݂ ‫ܠܒ ܼܘ �ܫܝ‬ ݂ ‫ܓܙܝ‬ ܸ ‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ܼ ̣ ‫ܒܚ‬ ܸ ‫ܘܕ ܹܫ ̣ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ �ܘ ݂ܢܕܐ ܸܕܡܗܘܢ �ܥܠ‬.‫ܡܬܝ‬ ܹ ‫ܘܟܠܗܘܢ �ܢܚ �ܬܝ �ܦ‬ ̣ ‫ܒܪܘ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫ܪܩܢܝ‬ ܲ ܲ ̇ ܵ ‫ܕܝ‬ ܵ ‫ܕܦܘ‬ ܵ ‫ ܸܡܛܠ‬4 ‫ܥܬܐ‬ .‫ܡܛ ̤ܬ‬ ‫ܘܫܢ̄ ܵܬܐ‬ � .‫ܒܠܒܝ‬ ܼ ̣ ‫ܘܡܐ �ܕ ̣ܬ ܲ �ܒ‬ ܵ ̇ ܲ ܲ ܵ ܲ ̇ ܲ ܲ ̇ ܵ ܲ� ‫ܘܦ‬ ‫ܡܬܐ ̤ܗܝ‬ ‫ܡܥ �ܲܕܪ‬ .‫ܣܡ ݂ܟ ܲ �ܬܢܝ‬ �ܲ ܸ ‫ܪܩܢܝ ܕܪܥܝ‬ � ‫ܘܐܬ �ܕ ̇ܡ ܹܪ ̣ܬ ܘ �ܠܝܬ ܕܣ ̇ ܹܡ ݂ܟ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܚ‬ �ܲ ‫ ܵܚ ܹܪ ̣ܬ ܘ �ܠܝܬ �ܕ‬5 ܸ ̇ ܿ ܿ ܲ ܲ ܵ ̇ ܵ ܵ .‫ܥܘ ̱ܫܢܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܡܡܐ‬ ݂ ‫ܓܙܝ‬ ܸ ‫ܐܢܘܢ‬ ܼ ‫�ܠܐܪܥܐ‬ � ‫ܚܬ ̣ܬ‬ � ‫ܡܬܝ‬ ܼ ܹ̈ ‫ ܕ ܹܫ ̣ܬ ܲ�ܥ‬6 ܹ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܒܚ‬ ܸ ‫ܘܕܘ ܼܝ ̣ܬ‬ ̣ ‫ܒܪܘ‬ I trod the wine-press alone, no-one from the nations was with me. I trampled them in my anger, I trod them in my fury; their blood splashed upon my clothing, I have bespatted all my garments. 4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart, the year of my redemption had come. 5 I looked, but there was none who helped, I wondered but there was none who supported: my arm redeemed me, it was my fury that supported me. 6 I trod the nations in my anger, I laid them low in my fury, their strength I cast down to the ground. 3

This passage from the Peshitta shows that the translators understood the prefixed verbal forms in the consonantal Hebrew text to denote actions which had already taken place. The easiest explanation of this phenomenon is to assume that they read these forms as wayyiqṭol forms, i.e. in a way which disagrees with the Masoretic reading tradition preserved in Codex Leningrad. 7. Conclusion To sum up, this study proposes that the future discourse in Isa. 63.1-6, as conveyed by the Masoretic pointing, is a later textual development. The original Hebrew texts described divine actions which were understood to have taken place already in the past. The reading recorded by the Masoretes, however, reinterprets the temporal structure of this passage in order to align it to the temporal structure of its intertexts. In Isa. 63.3, an original past discourse, found in the LXX and supported by the consonantal Hebrew text, as well as by the translations found in the Vulgate and in the Peshitta, has been altered, and this alteration is preserved to us in the MT vocalization of the weyiqṭol forms. This adjustment served to ensure that the future discourse, attested in the intertext in Isa. 34, was conveyed also by Isa. 63.1-6. In parallel, the Masoretic reading tradition preserved the presumed original wayyiqṭol form ‫ּתֹוׁשע‬ ַ ַ‫ ו‬in Isa. 63.5b in order to uphold the past discourse of the intertext in Isa. 59.16b. Walter, text prepared by G. A. Kiraz and J. Bali, Surath Kthob 1 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012), 307.

180

Studies in Isaiah

This activity can rightly be called interpretation. As such, this study of Isa. 63.1-6 enhances our understanding of the exegetical activity of the people responsible for the Masoretic reading tradition: what type of changes did they make and what was the impetus for making such changes? Furthermore, given the evidence of Targum Jonathan which appears to presuppose the extant Masoretic vocalization, we can put a tentative date to this interpretative activity: the revocalization of the prefixed forms must have taken place rather early, thus suggesting that the sopherim, rather than the Masoretes themselves, were responsible for it.

S om e I nt er p r et i ve E x p eri ence s wi th I sai ah i n A f ri c a

Knut Holter What are the interpretive experiences with Isaiah in Africa? In an attempt at answering the question, I will start with an illustrative example. Rather than making a broad and unavoidably tentative survey, I will start with a textually delimited and contextually defined case – textually delimited in the sense that it refers to a short phrase from a single verse, Isa. 6.3, and contextually defined in the sense that the interpretive context of this short phrase is that of Madagascar. Having illustrated some challenges of this particular case, I will then briefly broaden the perspective, surveying two major interpretive contexts of biblical interpretation in Africa, the popular/church contexts and the professional/academic contexts. I will then return to Isaiah, and discuss some African interpretive experiences with texts from Isaiah, first in popular/church contexts and then in professional/academic contexts. 1. An Introductory Case: Isaiah 6.3 in Madagascar I tend to think that Isa. 6.3 – the song of the seraphs in Isaiah’s vision of God, here for pragmatic reasons only the phrase ‫קדוש קדוש קדוש‬ ‫ – יהוה צבאות‬is the most frequently used Isaiah text in Madagascar and Africa, and for that matter in the rest of the world. The very fact that this particular phrase occurs in the celebration of the Holy Communion both in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and mainstream Protestant churches, and as such is read or sung Sunday after Sunday, should at least make it a good candidate as far as Isaiah and frequency is concerned. Though, this phrase is read or sung, not in its Hebrew version – nor in its Greek versions, for that matter, being that of Septuagint Isaiah or its echo in Rev. 4.8 – rather in a large variety of vernacular languages, preferred both for reading and liturgical purposes. And, it is precisely when the Hebrew or Greek versions

182

Studies in Isaiah

of the text are to be translated that the problems start, the problems of how a theologically pregnant terminology like ‫ קדוש‬and ‫ יהוה צבאות‬is to be translated into a vernacular language in, say, Madagascar. The problem is of course not restricted to Madagascar or Africa, it is indeed present in European interpretive and translative strategies and practices as well. Still, there is a major difference between Madagascar and most of Africa, on the one hand, and Europe, on the other. European Bible translations and interpretive communities have had a very long time, in most cases hundreds of years, of inculturating biblical terminology, whereas many African Bible translations still operate at the interface between Christian and pre- or non-Christian interpretive contexts. Hence, my invitation to go to Madagascar to find a case that can illustrate some African interpretive experiences with Isaiah. Madagascar is chosen because the first translation of the Bible into the Malagasy language, completed in 1835, was the first full Bible translation in Africa after those of the first millennium in the northern parts of the continent. This means that the translation was a pioneer work; the British missionaries who did the translation into Malagasy hardly had any modern, non-Western translations to compare with, and in many ways they had to develop translative strategies from scratch.1 A major translative challenge two hundred years ago in Madagascar – and indeed in many African contexts of today – is what to call the deity of the Christian church and her holy book in languages lacking a common noun like the English ‘god’, with its potential to be capitalized and thereby become the God. The British Bible translators of the 1820s and 30s decided to employ a traditional Malagasy name of a deity – Andriamanitra, a name literally meaning ‘the fragrant king’ – about the Christian or, if there is a difference, biblical God. Another name of a deity – Zanahary, meaning ‘the one who created’, with stronger connotations of creation – could have been chosen, and was actually chosen by French Jesuits in their mid-seventeenth-century Malagasy catechism, the first book to be printed in the Malagasy language.2 Nevertheless, the decision of the British Bible translators to use Andriamanitra has survived until today, and all the five Malagasy Bible translations currently on the market render the Hebrew ‫אלהים‬, from Gen. 1.1 onwards, as Andriamanitra. 1.  The classic study of this first Malagasy translation is L. Munthe, La Bible à Madagascar: Les deux premières traductions du Nouveau Testament malgache, Studies of the Egede Institute 10 (Oslo: Egede Instituttet, 1969). 2.  L. Munthe, La Catechisme Malgasche de 1657: Essai de presentation du premier livre en langue malgasche. Approche théologique, historique, linguistique et conceptuelle (Oslo: Egede Instituttet, 1987), 35–36.



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

183

When Gen. 2 introduces an additional, personal name of the deity, the Tetragrammaton ‫יהוה‬, the British translators simply transliterated it as Iehôvah. This decision has survived in two of the current translations (the translation of 1965 and the revised version of 1965/2013), whereas the three others have a form of Tompo, a term meaning ‘master’, ‘owner’ or ‘sir’,3 hence reflecting a very ancient solution to what to do with the Tetragrammaton (the ecumenical version of 2004, the revised version of 2011, and the Catholic version of 2011). Turning back to our case text, Isa. 6.3, the reference to the deity offers an additional problem to that of the Tetragrammaton, namely that of ‫צבאות‬. As the translation history of Isa. 6.3 demonstrates, already the ancient translators were hesitant about how the reference to ‫יהוה צבאות‬ should be rendered. On the one hand, the Septuagint avoids a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton but chooses to transliterate the ‫צבאות‬, hence rendering the phrase κύριος σαβαωθ, ‘Lord Sabaoth’. On the other hand, the echo of Isa. 6.3 in Rev. 4.8 additionally avoids a transliteration of ‫צבאות‬, rendering the phrase κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ‘Lord God Almighty’. In Madagascar, the 1835 translation rendered the phrase Iehôvah Tompony ny maro, ‘Jehovah Lord of Many’, whereas we today for example can read Andriamanitra, Tompon’izao rehetra izao, ‘God/ Andriamanitra, Lord of Everything’ in the revised version of 2011, and ny Tompon’ny tontolo, ‘Lord of All’, in the Catholic version of 2011. In the current Malagasy liturgies of the Holy Communion, the Roman Catholic one reads ny Tompo Andriamanitry ny hery rehetra, ‘God/Andriamanitra, Lord of All Powers’, whereas the corresponding Lutheran liturgy makes use of the somewhat neglected – at least in Bible translations – name of the creator-god in traditional Malagasy religion, Zanahary, referring to ‫ יהוה צבאות‬as Zanahary Tomponay, ‘God/Zanahary our Lord’. However, our case text includes more than the expression ‫יהוה צבאות‬, it also says that the deity is ‫קדוש‬. Here, the British Bible translators of the 1820s and 30s employed the Malagasy term masina, rendering the song of the seraphs as: masina, masina, masina. And, whereas the reference to ‫ יהוה צבאות‬has been rendered in various ways throughout nearly two centuries of Malagasy Bible translation and liturgical constructions, the rendering of the triple ‫ קדוש‬with a triple masina has been unanimously kept, in all translations and all liturgies. The Malagasy adjective masina, with a meaning potential of ‘powerful, efficient, holy, sacred’,4 is derived from the noun hasina. This noun, traditionally interpreted as the ‘intrinsic 3.  J. Richardson, A New Malagasy–English Dictionary (Antananarivo: The London Missionary Society, 1885), 659. 4.  Richardson, Dictionary, 432.

184

Studies in Isaiah

or supernatural virtue which renders a thing good and efficacious’,5 is a key term in traditional Malagasy religion and culture,6 which sees hasina as ‘the sacred power of the whole of creation: the human beings, animals, plants, stones, the sky, and especially the medicines’.7 Accordingly, when masina, quite convincingly in my opinion, is used to translate the Hebrew ‫קדוש‬, such as in Isa. 6.3, it unavoidably includes traditional Malagasy concepts and in this way invites to a dialogue between the biblical texts and traditional Malagasy religion and culture. Let me sum up so far. Malagasy Bible readers – and participants in the celebration of the Holy Communion – have for nearly two hundred years encountered the holy God of Isa. 6.3 in concepts and terminology that reflect conscious translative strategies vis-à-vis the target side, the Malagasy language. The concepts and terminology that have been used were at least originally dialoguing with traditional Malagasy religion and culture; being the names of God, such as Andriamanitra and Zanahary, or the description of God as masina. Whether there is still a potential for such a dialogue with traditional Malagasy religion and culture depends on the concrete interpretive context. Traditional religion and culture play important roles in some geographical and socio-cultural contexts of contemporary Madagascar and as such may provide central interpretive perspectives.8 Other contexts may have gone through a terminological and conceptual inculturation of Christianity over several generations, with the result that more traditional associations of the terminology in question hardly play any roles any longer. In my presentation of the Malagasy encounter with Isa. 6.3, I have referred to it as a ‘case’. In doing so, I claim that this particular encounter may serve as an illustration of some more general lines in African interpretive experiences with the Old Testament. The Malagasy attempts at finding indigenous concepts and terminology to express the words and concerns of the Isaiah text, and the challenges posed by the fact that these concepts and this terminology are in dialogue with pre- or non-Christian interpretive contexts, is typical, I claim, of African interpretive experiences with the Bible, the Old Testament, and Isaiah. These kinds of 5.  Richardson, Dictionary, 236. 6.  M. Bloch, From Blessing to Violence: History and Ideology in the Circumcision Ritual of the Merina of Madagascar, Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 61 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 69–70. 7.  Ø. Dahl, Meanings in Madagascar: Cases of Intercultural Communication (Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1999), 26. 8.  G. Razafindrakoto, ‘The Old Testament Outside the Realm of the Church: A Case from Madagascar’, OTE 19 (2006): 473–85.



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

185

experiences are of course mainly gained in church contexts of popular piety and theological reflection, but they are to some extent also gained in the academic contexts of the emerging guilds of critical studies of the Old Testament in Africa. Therefore, in the rest of this essay I will first turn the attention to some general lines in the interpretive contexts of Africa’s encounter with the Old Testament, and then illustrate these lines with some examples of popular and professional interpretations of Isaiah. 2. Interpretive Contexts It is common to distinguish between ‘popular’ and ‘professional’ interpretation of the Bible; the former referring to the interpretation of the so-called ordinary readers, that is readers without an academic training in biblical studies, whereas the latter refers to the interpretation of scholars within the academic discipline of critical biblical studies.9 In my view, such a dichotomy between the two is not very accurate, not least because it struggles with where the obvious third voice, that of the public preaching and teaching of the church, is to be located. Still, for pragmatic reasons I will here and now follow the twofold distinction between popular and professional interpretation of the Bible, and see church interpretation as part of the former. The first and obviously most important interpretive context of the Bible in Africa is, then, that of the so-called ordinary readers. During the twentieth century, Africa south of the Sahara experienced a more or less unprecedented religious change, a religious change that eventually has created a strong focus on the Bible in new reading communities. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Africa – including Egypt and Ethiopia, with their traditional Christian presence, and also including the colonial communities in southern and eastern Africa – hosted only ten million church members. From a statistical perspective this meant that only two percent of the global distribution of church members lived in Africa. Today, a century later, we find more than four hundred million church members in Africa, and the African share of the global distribution of church members has throughout the twentieth century increased from two to twenty percent.10 9.  K. Holter, ‘The Institutional Context of Old Testament Scholarship in Africa’, OTE 11 (1998): 452–61. 10.  K. Holter, ‘Geographical and Institutional Aspects of Global Old Testament Studies’, in Global Hermeneutics? Reflections and Consequences, ed. K. Holter and L. C. Jonker, IVBS 1 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 3–14. For updated statistics, cf. the

186

Studies in Isaiah

This is clearly not the right place to go into details about this quite sudden and dramatic example of religious change in Africa. Still, I would like briefly to point out a couple of aspects that have consequences for the interpretation of the Bible in Africa. One is simply the high numbers. In Africa south of the Sahara, two thirds of the population are today members of a Christian church; partly historical (in the Western world) churches, partly so-called African initiated churches, and partly various kinds of Pentecostal churches. An example of the historical churches is the Anglican church family, where the situation today is that every fourth Anglican, globally speaking, is a Nigerian; that is, 20 out of 80 million Anglicans come from a single African country! The African initiated churches, too, are growing rapidly. Since I used the song of the seraphs in Isa. 6 as an introductory case, I am tempted to mention that the Cherubim and Seraphim Churches, a cluster of African initiated churches founded in Nigeria a century ago, today have more than ten million members, and congregations not only in West Africa, but more or less wherever there is a Nigerian migrant community in Europe and the USA.11 Still, the most rapidly growing churches are the Pentecostal ones, often characterized by a focus on faith and prosperity.12 Using a Nigerian case here too, a profiled mega-church like Winners’ Chapel could serve as an illustration; its Canaanland outside Lagos houses not only a church with a seating capacity of 50,000 people and with four services every Sunday, but also a number of other institutions, including two universities. Another aspect of the twentieth-century religious change in sub-Saharan Africa is that the form of Christianity that has emerged is characterized by a strong focus on the Bible. The Bible has been and still is being translated into a large number of African languages, and the translation focus plays central roles in the preservation of local languages and cultures as well as in the ministry of the churches. With the danger of generalizing, I would say that the Bible is very visible in the daily life in most sub-Saharan African cities and villages, with small Bible shops on the street corners, with street preachers explaining biblical texts to their bypassers, and with

recent report from Pew Research Center, The Future of World Religions: Population, Growth Projections, 2010–2050; http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/PF_ 15.04.02_ProjectionsFullReport.pdf (accessed 5 September 2015), 59–69 and 163–65. 11.  For an introduction, cf. J. A. Omoyajowo, Cherubim and Seraphim: The History of an African Independent Church (New York: NOK, 1982). 12.  A recent study of this phenomenon is T. Drønen, Pentecostalism, Globalisation, and Islam in Northern Cameroon: Megachurches in the Making?, Studies of Religion in Africa 41 (Leiden: Brill, 2013).



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

187

cars decorated by stickers with biblical texts.13 African Christianity’s focus on the Bible was noticed already in the 1970s, by the first generation of African biblical scholars, such as John S. Mbiti (Kenya) and Kwesi A. Dickson (Ghana); the former pointing out the role of a biblically founded ‘oral theology’,14 and the latter coining the expression ‘the African predilection for the Old Testament’.15 Another perspective has been offered by Lamin Sanneh (Gambia), who has developed the concept of a theologically grounded ‘translatability’ of Christianity and Bible, a characteristic very much in contrast to Islam and the Quran, he argues.16 More recently, Philip Jenkins (UK/USA), with the eyes of an outsider, has focused on the potential of biblical interpretation in Africa (and other parts of the Global South), an interpretation informed by socio-cultural experiences that are much closer to those of the biblical world than what is expressed by typically Western interpretation.17 Then, however, we are gradually moving in the direction of the other interpretive context of the Bible in Africa, that of the professional readers, the scholars of the academic discipline of critical biblical studies, operating in graduate schools of theology and in university departments of biblical studies or religious studies. Again, this is not the place to go into details, but I would still like to point out a couple of aspects of African biblical – or, due to the present context: Old Testament – studies.18 The first aspect is an attempt at clarifying what I mean with the expression ‘African Old Testament studies’.19 There are obviously geographical components in this expression, similar to for example ‘Swedish Old Testament 13.  Y. Schaaf, On Their Way Rejoicing: The History and Role of the Bible in Africa (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994). 14.  J. S. Mbiti, Bible and Theology in African Christianity (Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1986), 46–66. 15.  K. A. Dickson, ‘The Old Testament and African Theology’, Ghana Bulletin of Theology 4 (1973), 31–41. 16.  L. Sanneh, Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989). 17.  P. Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 18.  For surveys, cf. G. O. West and M. W. Dube, eds., The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends (Leiden: Brill, 2000); and M. Getui, K. Holter, and V. Zinkuratire, eds., Interpreting the Old Testament in Africa: Papers from the International Symposium on Africa and the Old Testament in Nairobi, October 1999, Bible and Theology in Africa 2 (New York: Lang, 2001). 19.  I have discussed this question more deeply in K. Holter, Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship in Africa (Nairobi: Acton, 2008).

188

Studies in Isaiah

studies’. Not surprisingly, it refers to Old Testament studies as we find this tiny segment of academia on the African continent and Madagascar. Sometimes it is also used in a way that includes the African diaspora, not least with regard to North America and the Caribbean.20 Whether the expression also includes methodological and hermeneutical components is more questionable. There is no ‘African School’ of Old Testament studies, mutatis mutandis similar to for example the ‘Uppsala School’. Nevertheless, certain approaches are more frequently found in African than in, for example, Swedish Old Testament studies. Methodologically, the so-called comparative paradigm, using African traditional material to open up Old Testament texts and motifs is very common, and hermeneutically, certain perspectives related to Africa’s colonial experiences are more or less dominating.21 Whether the expression ‘African Old Testament studies’ even includes ethnical components is obviously a political question. The continent hosts an Arab majority in the north (not playing any role as far as Old Testament studies is concerned) and a white minority in the south (traditionally having a strong tradition of Old Testament studies), and in a debate a decade ago about ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ in African Old Testament studies, a wide spectrum of perspectives was voiced. Madipoane Masenya (South Africa) nearly claimed that one has to be black to do African Old Testament studies,22 whereas her colleague Gerrie Snyman (also South Africa) elaborated on the role of white South Africans in a new South Africa.23 A third voice was that of Jesse N. K. Mugambi (Kenya), who – not particularly comforting to Snyman – claimed that white South Africans could be ‘Africanists’ but not ‘African’.24 In other words, the expression ‘African Old Testament 20.  H. R. Page Jr. et al., eds., The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), xxv–xxix. 21.  E. Anum, ‘Comparative Readings of the Bible in Africa’, in West and Dube, eds., The Bible in Africa, 457–73; cf. also K. Holter, Old Testament Research for Africa: A Critical Analysis and Annotated Bibliography of African Old Testament Dissertations, 1967–2000, Bible and Theology in Africa 3 (New York: Lang, 2002), 99–100; and G. O. West, ‘Interrogating the Comparative Paradigm in African Biblical Scholarship’, in African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared Meaning, ed. H. de Wit and G. O. West, Studies of Religion in Africa 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 37–64. 22.  M. Masenya, ‘Is White South African Old Testament Scholarship African?’, BOTSA 12 (2002): 3–8. 23.  G. Snyman, ‘Playing the Role of Perpetrator in the World of Academia in South Africa’, BOTSA 12 (2002): 8–20. 24.  J. N. K. Mugambi, ‘African and Africanist scholarship’, BOTSA 14 (2003): 9–12.



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

189

studies’ hardly has a clear-cut meaning. Still, it can serve as a working expression about the critical discipline of Old Testament studies as we find it in graduate schools of theology and universities throughout the African continent, to some extent expressing certain methodological and hermeneutical concerns. Another aspect of African biblical or Old Testament studies that should be mentioned here is its historical development. Two attempts have been made at establishing a chronology of modern African biblical studies. Justin S. Ukpong (Nigeria) emphasizes hermeneutical concerns, and argues that three distinct phases can be identified: (1) a reactive phase (1930s to 1970s), which sought to legitimize African religion and culture vis-à-vis the Western tradition through comparative studies; (2) a reactive-proactive phase (1970s to 1990s), which more clearly made use of the African context as a resource for biblical interpretation; and (3) a proactive phase (1990s), which made the African context the explicit subject of biblical interpretation.25 Another attempt at establishing a chronology of modern African Old Testament studies is my own, which emphasizes institutional and thematic developments rather than hermeneutical concerns.26 Like Ukpong, I identify three phases, although not exactly the same. (1) The first phase includes the 1960s and ’70s and is characterized with the keywords ‘first steps’, that is the first steps of an Old Testament studies in Africa. This meant some few examples of institutions having African staff members with doctorates in Old Testament studies, one or two conferences addressing the role of the Old Testament in Africa, and a contextual focus allowing for some interaction between Africa and biblical texts. (2) The second phase includes the 1980s and ’90s and is characterized with the keyword ‘breakthrough’, that is the breakthrough of an institutionalized African Old Testament studies. This meant a sudden increase in the number of African staff members with doctorates in Old Testament studies, the establishing of Master’s and PhD programs in biblical studies in a few graduate schools and universities, a few regional or denominational organizations for biblical studies, more conferences and publishing, and the first journal for the study of the Bible in Africa north of South Africa. It also meant a thematic focus on certain African experiences and concerns in dialogue with the biblical texts. (3) The third phase includes the first one or two decades of the twenty-first century and 25.  J. S. Ukpong, ‘Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Modern Africa’, Missionalia 27 (1999): 313–29. 26.  Holter, Contextualized, 83–115.

190

Studies in Isaiah

is characterized with the keyword ‘stabilization’, that is, a time for stabilization of an African Old Testament scholarship that is now firmly established. This means more postgraduate programs, more organizations and conferences, and increased publishing, also of a genre where the demand is insatiable, namely contextually sensitive textbooks. Now, having sketched some aspects of the interpretive context of the Old Testament in Africa, the time is indeed ripe to come to what I have been promising the whole time, namely Isaiah. I will first turn to Isaiah in African popular and church contexts, and then to Isaiah in African professional and academic contexts. 3. Isaiah in African Popular and Church Contexts Let me start by acknowledging that a claim of full representativity would indeed be futile when one approaches the ways Isaiah is read and used in African popular and church contexts; futile, not only with regard to content, but also with regard to methodology. On the one side – the more official side of the church – I could have gone through some sermons, as there are increasing examples of sermon collections and of critical studies of preaching in various African church contexts.27 Or, on the other side – the more popular side – I could have presented some examples from my own search for biblical motives on car stickers, a phenomenon which provides a most visible demonstration of the public role of the Bible. As far as Isaiah is concerned, I have for example a car sticker from Nigeria saying ‘God makes a way for me where there is no way’ (and it is not difficult to find drivers in Lagos who take this literally), with reference to Isa. 63.13. Now, what I will do instead is give some examples of how Isaiah is read by two African study bibles. Both are in English, both actually reuse already existing Western translations, but both then supply these non-African translations with introductions and footnotes expressing

27.  H. Bürkle, ‘Patterns of Sermons from Various Parts of Africa’, in African Initiatives in Religion, ed. D. B. Barret (Nairobi: East African Publishing, 1971), 222–31; E. Forslund, The Word of God in Ethiopian Tongues: Rhetorical Features in the Preaching of the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, Studia Missionalia Uppsaliensia 58 (Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1993); H. B. P. Mijoga, Preaching and the Bible in African Churches (Nairobi: Acton, 2001); H. Austnaberg, Improving Preaching by Listening to Listeners: Sunday Service Preaching in the Malagasy Lutheran Church, Bible and Theology in Africa 15 (New York: Lang, 2012).



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

191

certain African, interpretive perspectives. Admittedly, when I choose to present the readings of Isaiah in these two Bible editions, I have to be cautious of not othering their readers, which easily would become a kind of African orientalism, in the Saidian sense of the term.28 Nevertheless, I tend to think that these two Bible editions may serve as illustrations in our context, partly because of their conscious contextuality, but partly also because of their wide distribution. The first study Bible is The African Bible, a Roman Catholic project of the 1990s, finally published in 1999.29 The work with the Old Testa­ ment was headed by Victor Zinkuratire, at that time Professor of Old Testament at the Catholic University of East Africa, Nairobi. The background of the project was a wish within African Catholic circles to have a Bible translation in English – which is a most important language in Africa – but still with attention to the African context of its readers. Rather than translating the Bible anew, the text of an existing translation was chosen – The New American Bible, an American Catholic Bible translation originally published in the 1970s – and this text was then supplemented with introductions and footnotes supposed to be attentive to African experiences and concerns. The overall interpretive strategy reflected in the introductions and footnotes that were added is that of a pastoral voice, aiming to strengthen the faith of the individual believer and give directions for his and her life in family, church, and society. Still, more socio-critical concerns are also expressed, as well as typically Roman Catholic interpretive strategies of inculturation of faith and biblical interpretation. As far as Isaiah is concerned, there is a three-page introduction, of which more than the half reflects on the ‘Relevance of Isaiah in Africa’. The reflection actually starts with our introductory case text, Isa. 6, saying that: The concept of the all holy and transcendent God that was given to Isaiah in his vision in the temple is found in practically all African traditional religions, and that is why God is usually not approached directly but through the ancestors and other mediators.30

This positive approach to African traditional religion reflects key concerns of Roman Catholic inculturation hermeneutics in the recent 28.  E. W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon, 1978). 29.  The African Bible, ed. V. Zinkuratire and A. Colacrai (Nairobi: Paulines, 1999). 30.  African Bible, 1188.

192

Studies in Isaiah

decades,31 and it is followed up with a positive approach even to what used to be seen as an enemy of the church, namely the so-called witch doctor: Some African Christians consult witch doctors if they do not find satisfactory answers to their questions in their Christian faith. This decision is not due to a lack of belief in the one Supreme God. Rather such behaviour often shows that for Africans the work of a witch doctor does not exclude God’s mediation. […] As long as the witch doctor is not harming but trying to empower, the Christian faith can integrate the practice of healing in its message. Christ himself was a healer; all the Christian sacraments can be seen from the point of view of healing.32

Also Second Isaiah’s teaching is lifted up in the introduction. His universalism is said to be a corrective against ethnic rivalry, and his theology of creation might have a message to readers working for the transformation of the contemporary world for the better: In the prevalent economic, social, political and religious upheavals that many African countries experience it is consoling to know that God’s creative power was not limited to his original act of creation. The same power that created the universe can recreate and transform our contemporary world for the better.33

Finally, Third Isaiah’s message, too, is said to have contemporary relevance. He is said to have spoken to a people that had returned home after exile, with great hopes for a new era, but who had ended up very disappointed. African countries have some of the same experience, it is said, having hoped for freedom and prosperity as a consequence of independence, but then being disappointed by what actually happened. Africans should not lose hope in a better future, it is argued, but this future must include not only material prosperity, but also moral and spiritual values. Leaving the introduction to Isaiah aside and going into the texts and their footnotes, it is easy to see that the concerns of the introduction are followed up. First, in the sense that a pastoral voice can be heard in the footnotes and margin comments. A typical example is the comment to Isa. 41.8-16: 31.  Cf. J. Ogbonnaya, African Catholicism and Hermeneutics of Culture: Essays in the Light of African Synod II (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014). 32.  African Bible, 1188. 33.  African Bible, 1189.



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

193

He does for them what a relative does for a fellow clan member who is in trouble. This comparison is very meaningful to Africans whose clan ties are very strong. When God is one’s fellow clan member there is absolutely nothing to fear.34

Second, the socio-critical concerns of the introduction are also followed up, such as when a warning is made in relation to the judgment of social injustice. Here we note a remark to Isa. 10.1-4: Read in the African context this passage can remind us of the injustice in many African countries. Judges and lawyers are in many cases so corrupt that only those who cannot afford to give a bribe will be condemned. A guilty women may have her case pleaded favourably if she is ready to prostitute herself to the judge or lawyer. In this way many widows, the poor, and orphans are abused in modern Africa.35

Third, typical inculturation hermeneutics is also reflected, again and again. One example is using the reference in Isa. 5.14 to sheol to discuss some African concepts of death and then make an ecological point out of it: Many African sayings depict death or death’s realm as having a big insatiable gullet ready to swallow all the living. But commonly the dead, especially the ancestors, are dwelling below the earth… The living have to remember the ancestors respectfully. We can observe that some places (rivers, fields, forests) are dedicated to the ancestors who are considered as living there. Unless they have been asked for permission, nobody should touch these places. Such conception can inspire Africans to reflect on the problem on ecology and respect towards nature.36

The second study Bible that I would like to use to illustrate African popular and church readings of Isaiah is The Prayer and Deliverance Bible, which was published in Nigeria in 2007.37 The Bible text is (not surprisingly) that of the King James Version, but the editor, Daniel Olukoya, has supplemented this old English text with introductory study notes of 190 pages, and a postscript of 160 pages, including no fewer than 4,557 prayers. Olukoya serves as General Overseer of the Mountain 34.  African Bible, 1257. 35.  African Bible, 1205. 36.  African Bible, 1198. 37.  The Prayer and Deliverance Bible, ed. D. K. Olukoya (Lagos: Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, 2007).

194

Studies in Isaiah

of Fire and Miracles Ministry, in Lagos, Nigeria, which is claimed to be the largest single Christian congregation in Africa, with an attendance of over 100,000 members in single meetings. The theological profile of this church is a Pentecostalism with a strong focus on spiritual warfare, that is, a proclamation of God’s absolute power and authority and a fight against all his enemies. This profile is expressed in Olukoya’s many books and booklets,38 and it also the single most important interpretive strategy in the study notes and prayers accompanying The Prayer and Deliverance Bible. Olukoya’s explicit references to Isaiah texts are found in the introductory study notes, which consist of two main parts. The first part is a kind of systematic exposition of Christian faith and life, and here Isaiah texts are used in two contexts. The first is in a section exposing witchcraft activities, for example in relation to prostitution. Referring to Isa. 49.24-25, he argues that: ‘Witchcraft abounds where there is prostitution. Nobody can be a prostitute without being initiated into witchcraft. It is a pity that some men are foolishly initiated into witchcraft by committing immorality with prostitutes.’39 The second reference – or set of references – to Isaiah here in the first part of the study notes is found in a section describing weapons that can be used against satanic intermediaries. These weapons include ‘the broom of destruction’ (with reference to Isa. 14.23) and ‘the mysteries of the evening tide’ (with reference to Isa. 7.14). Moreover, the weapons also include ‘ravenous birds eating flesh and drinking blood’ (with reference to Isa. 46.11 and 54.16).40 The second context where Olukoya refers to certain Isaiah texts is in the last part of the introductory study notes, where a few verses in each biblical book – in Isaiah five verses – are highlighted. Each of the five verses in Isaiah are given a two-page exposition. The first verse is Isa. 1.2, where the addressees – ‘heaven and earth’ – are linked to spiritual warfare.41 The second is Isa. 15.1, where the nightly destruction of Moab is seen as spiritual powers which carry out their activities in the night, such as marine powers, witchcraft powers, forest demons, and so on.42 Most of the attention is given to marine powers, again with a focus on prostitution, and again with an overall understanding of the phenomenon where it is mainly the female part that is blamed: 38.  Cf., e.g., D. K. Olukoya, Prayer Passport to Crush Oppression (Lagos: Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, 2006). 39.  Prayer and Deliverance Bible, 68. 40.  Prayer and Deliverance Bible, 96–97. 41.  Prayer and Deliverance Bible, 134–35. 42.  Prayer and Deliverance Bible, 136–37.



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

195

They [marine powers] carry out their activities in the night. Many of them are found in the streets at night. They roam the streets as ladies looking for men who will give them a lift. Unfortunately, some foolish men enter their traps, not knowing that they are carrying strange entities to their homes. When a single lady who is below 25 decides to stand alone under a dark bridge at about 1:00 a.m., she cannot be an ordinary person… She must be a creature of the night herself.43

The three remaining Isaiah verses that are highlighted are Isa. 49.22; 61.1, and 64.1, all related to the deliverance of the people of God, with the potential this motif has in a contextual rereading.44 As mentioned above, I do not claim that these glimpses into the comments of two African study bibles are by any means fully representative of how Isaiah is read in popular and church contexts throughout the African continent. Still, I think the two have a potential for illustrating one key characteristic of African biblical – and also Isaiah – interpretation, namely its contextual sensitivity. It is a sensitivity to religion and culture, as the Bible tends to be read both out of and into traditional African religious and cultural experiences and concerns; here in the Isaiah examples we notice the explicit continuity with regard to conceptualizing the holiness and transcendence of God, but also with regard to concepts of death, witchcraft and even spiritual warfare. Also, it is a sensitivity to social structures, as the Bible is related to traditional and contemporary social experiences; here in the Isaiah examples we notice the acknowledgment of traditional values, but also the conscious criticism of societies suffering from injustice and corruption. In sum, these examples from how Isaiah is read in popular and church contexts confirm the more general picture of African biblical interpretation interacting with experiences and concerns close to and crucial to the readers.45 4. Isaiah in African Professional and Academic Contexts After these cases of how Isaiah is read in some popular and church contexts in Africa, we should turn to the other main interpretive context of Isaiah in Africa, that of the professional readers, the African scholars of the academic discipline of critical Old Testament studies, operating 43.  Prayer and Deliverance Bible, 136. 44.  Prayer and Deliverance Bible, 138–44. 45.  H. W. Kinoti and J. M. Waliggo, eds., The Bible in African Christianity (Nairobi: Acton, 1997); G. O. West, The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible, Interventions 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999).

196

Studies in Isaiah

in graduate schools of theology or in university departments of biblical studies or religious studies throughout the continent.46 Let me start with a couple of introductory remarks. First, in the previous section I acknowledged that a claim of representativity would be futile when one approaches the ways Isaiah is read and used in African popular and church contexts. In academic contexts, however, such a claim would make more sense, as the cases obviously are much fewer, and as we actually have some tools at our disposal that can help us to monitor the situation. The bibliographical surveys that were published by Grant LeMarquand and myself a decade or two ago cover the latter half of the twentieth century,47 and as far as the more recent years are concerned, the online search tools have improved considerably. This does not mean that the few examples I will refer to can be said to be representative in a strict meaning of the word; still, they are chosen to illustrate some major trends of Isaiah interpretation in African academia. Second, the genres of African academic studies of Isaiah, as their Western counterparts, can roughly be divided in two; one group consists of doctoral dissertations and monographs, and the other consists of articles in scholarly journals and various kinds of anthologies. I will give some examples from each of the two. The genre of the doctoral dissertation is important, in the sense that it in most cases is the single largest study by the author. Only a few of the dissertations written by African Old Testament scholars are published as monographs, but even the unpublished ones are of importance, as they tend to offer material for further reflection in workshop papers and journal and anthology essays. The first doctoral dissertation by an African scholar on an Isaiah text was Peter Akpunonu’s (Nigeria) study of ‘salvation’ in Isa. 40–55.48 It is a typically exegetical study of the time, analyzing the literary genres of Isa. 40–55 with particular focus on the so-called oracle of salvation, and also providing a semantic investigation of some Hebrew key terms. However, the study shows no interest for the author’s African context, and when he more than thirty years later completed his studies

46.  I have elsewhere analyzed some major thematic and institutional characteristics of African Old Testament scholars; cf. Holter, Old Testament Research for Africa. 47.  G. LeMarquand, ‘A Bibliography of the Bible in Africa’, in West and Dube, eds., The Bible in Africa, 633–800; K. Holter, Tropical Africa and the Old Testament: A Select and Annotated Bibliography, Faculty of Theology: Bibliography Series 6 (Oslo: University of Oslo, 1996). 48.  P. Akpunonu, ‘Salvation in Deutero-Isaiah: A Philological-exegetical Study’ (PhD diss., Pontifical Urban University, Rome, 1971).



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

197

of Isa. 40–55 with two monographs, his approach was still – and in spite of the new interpretive insights of the decades that had passed – that of a traditional historical-critical exegete.49 A younger representative of the same approach is Dora Rudo Mbuwayesango’s (Zimbabwe) dissertation on Isa. 36–39,50 emphasizing, with traditional exegetical tools, a close relationship between chs. 36–39 and the preceding chs. 1–35 in the book of Isaiah. However, different from Akpunonu, she has after the completion of her doctoral dissertation moved in another scholarly direction, and is today a leading scholar within gender studies from the perspective of African Old Testament studies.51 A more recent example is Theophilus U. Ejeh’s (Nigeria) study of the so-called fourth servant song in Isa. 52–53.52 On the one hand, this is a quite traditional exegetical analysis of an already over-analyzed text, but then on the other, he allows his historical and theological reading of the text to be related to the language and worldview of the Igalas of Nigeria. He notices a number of parallels – such as the role of ancestors, the function of sacrifice as well as atonement and vicarious suffering – attempting to build a bridge between the Isaiah text and the particular interpretive context of the Igala. Doing so, Ejeh exemplifies what Ukpong referred to as the reactive-proactive and proactive phases of African biblical interpretation (cf. above), both making use of the African context as a resource for interpretation of the text and making the African context an explicit subject of the interpretation. The interpretive spectrum that is expressed in these three Isaiah studies of the monograph genre is also found in the many examples of journal and anthology essays. On the one hand, there are exegetical studies that do not – at least explicitly – acknowledge the context of the interpreter,53 and

49.  P. Akpunonu, The Vine, Israel and the Church (New York: Lang, 2003); and idem, The Overture of the Book of Conslations (Isaiah 40.1-11) (New York: Lang, 2004). 50.  D. R. Mbuwayesango, ‘The Defense of Zion and the House of David’ (PhD diss., Emory University, Atlanta, 1998). 51.  See, e.g., D. R. Mbuwayesango, ‘How Local Divine Powers Were Suppressed: A Case of Mwari of the Shona’, in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006), 259–68. 52.  T. U. Ejeh, The Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 52.13–53.12: A Historical Critical and Afro-Cultural Hermeneutical Analysis with the Igalas of Nigeria in View (Zurich: LIT, 2012). 53.  Y. K. Yilpet, ‘The Anointing Work of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah 11.1-5, 42.1-7, 61.1-3’, African Journal of Biblical Studies 26 (2008): 112–33.

198

Studies in Isaiah

on the other hand, there are studies focusing on various kinds of assumed parallels between Africa and Isaiah.54 The main approach, though, is a combination of the two, an analysis close to the Isaiah text, making use of historical-critical and/or literary exegetical tools, but at the same time allowing African experiences and concerns to play some role. These roles may either be that of providing comparative material; examples here are the Isaiah commentaries by Victor Zinkuratire (Uganda),55 who emphasizes socio-political parallels, and Edouard Kitoko Nsiku (DR Congo),56 who emphasizes socio-religious parallels. But the role could also be that of making Africa an explicit interpretive subject; an example here is Makhosazana K. Nzimande (South Africa), who has offered an example of a postcolonial hermeneutics that allows current South African challenges of identity formation and gender to interpret Isaiah.57 The interpretive spectrum that is reflected in these academic studies of Isaiah raises the question of what the academic discipline of Old Testament studies is all about. Is it a purely historical discipline, focusing on the text and the world behind the text alone, or should the discipline also include the world in front of the text, that is, the reception history and contemporary uses of the text? The guild of Old Testament studies in Africa, however, hardly ever asks this question; rather, it is more or less taken for granted that the discipline should include contemporary experiences and concerns, analyzing popular and church interpretation of the Bible and allowing for various kinds of Action Research. This does not at all mean that traditional exegetical approaches – being of the historicalcritical or literary genres – are ignored, or one might say abandoned,58 but it does mean a discipline that together with the rest of academia is consciously sensitive to the contemporary challenges and needs of society and fellow human beings.

54.  E. Onwurah, ‘Isaiah 14: Its Bearing on African Life and Thought’, Bible Bhashyam 13 (1987): 29–41. 55.  V. Zinkuratire, ‘Isaiah 1–39’, in Global Bible Commentary, ed. D. Patte (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 186–94. 56.  E. K. Nsiku, ‘Isaiah’, in Africa Bible Commentary, ed. T. Adeyemo et al. (Nairobi: WordAlive, 2006), 809–52. 57.  M. K. Nzimande, ‘Isaiah’, in Page et al., eds., The Africana Bible, 136–46; see also K. Holter, ‘Isaiah and Africa’, in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, ed. M. Zehnder, PHSC 21 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014), 69–90. 58.  K. Holter, ‘The Role of Historical-Critical Methodology in African Old Testament Studies’, OTE 24 (2011): 377–89.



Holter Some Interpretive Experiences with Isaiah in Africa

199

5. Conclusion I started with a case from Madagascar, the song of the seraphs in Isa. 6.3, a song which today is sung by hundreds of millions of Africans, in hundreds of languages, assumedly with contemporary relevance and meaning. Against this background I first surveyed two major interpretive contexts of biblical interpretation in Africa, the popular/church contexts and the professional/academic contexts, and then discussed some examples of interpretive experiences with Isaiah within these two contexts. The very fact that texts like Isa. 6.3 are read and related to the life and faith of contemporary readers reflects what Lamin Sanneh calls the translatability of Bible and Christianity (cf. above). This is an aspect of the Bible which deserves increased attention from all versions of the academic discipline of biblical studies. Admittedly, with regard to the processes of Bible translation and interpretation, the discipline has an obvious responsibility for understanding the languages and cultures of the sender side. Nevertheless, as the African guild of biblical studies so convincingly acknowledges and demonstrates, the discipline can hardly afford to ignore the experiences and concerns of the receiver side. As the question of relevance vis-à-vis contemporary reading communities has often been more or less ignored by traditional Western versions of the discipline, African popular and professional experiences with – for example – Isaiah therefore deserve attention from guild members also outside Africa.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Ackerman, S. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. HSM 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Adeyemo, T., et al., eds. Africa Bible Commentary. Nairobi: WordAlive, 2006. Ådna, J. ‘Jesus and the Temple’. Pages 2669–72 in vol. 3 of The Historical Jesus. Edited by T. Holmén and S. E. Porter. 4 vols. HSHJ. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Aernie, J. W. Is Paul Also Among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians. LNTS 467. London: T&T Clark International, 2012. The African Bible. Edited by V. Zinkuratire and A. Colacrai. Nairobi: Paulines Publications, 1999. Akpunonu, P. The Overture of the Book of Consolations (Isaiah 40.1–11). New York: Peter Lang, 2004. ———‘Salvation in Deutero-Isaiah: A Philological-exegetical Study’. PhD diss. Pontifical Urban University, Rome, 1971. ———The Vine, Israel and the Church. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Albertz, R. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. StBL 3. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Albright, W. F. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1946. Amir, G. ‘Once Upon a Time in Kiškiluša: The Dragon-Slayer Myth in Central Anatolia’. Pages 98–111 in Creation and Chaos: A Reconsideration of Hermann Gunkel’s Chaos­ kampf Hypothesis. Edited by J. Scurlock and R. H. Beal. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Andersen, F. I. Habakkuk. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Anderson, B. W. ‘The Slaying of the Fleeing, Twisted Serpent: Isaiah 27:1 in Context’. Pages 3–16 in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson. Edited by L. M. Hopfe. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Anderson G. A., and J. S. Kaminsky. The Call of Abraham, Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 2013. Anderson, G. W. ‘Isaiah XXIV–XXVII Reconsidered’. Pages 118–26 in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Anthony, D. W. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.



Bibliography

201

Anum, E. ‘Comparative readings of the Bible in Africa’. Pages 457–73 in The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends. Edited by G. O. West and M. W. Dube. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Aus, R. D. ‘Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the “Full Number of the Gentiles” of Romans XI 25’. NovT 21 (1979): 232–72. Austnaberg, H. Improving Preaching by Listening to Listeners: Sunday Service Preaching in the Malagasy Lutheran Church. Bible and Theology in Africa 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2012. Ayali-Darshan, N. ‘The Dispersion of the Story of the Combat between the Storm-god and the Sea in the Ancient Near East: Sources, Traditions and History’. PhD diss. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2012 [Hebrew]. Baer, D. A. When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66. JSOTSup 318. The Hebrew Bible and Its Versions 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Baden, J. S. The Promise to the Patriarchs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Baltzer, K. Deutero-Isaiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Barker, M. ‘Hezekiah’s Boil’. JSOT 95 (2001): 31–42. Barker, W. D. Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic: An Exegetical Study in Isaiah 24–27. FAT 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Barr, J. ‘A New Look at Kethibh-Qere’. Pages 19–37 in Remembering All the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland. Edited by B. Albrektson et al. OtSt 21. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Barret, D. B., ed. African Initiatives in Religion. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1971. Barth, H. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation des Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Barthel, J. Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31. FAT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Barton, J. ‘The Prophets and the Cult’. Pages 111–22 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by J. Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Bates, M. W. ‘Beyond Stichwort: A Narrative Approach to Isa 52,7 in Romans 10,15 and 11Q Melchizedek (11Q13)’. RB 116 (2009): 387–414. ———‘Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scriptures in the Letters of Paul: A Proposed Diachronic Intertextuality with Romans 10:16 as a Test Case’. Pages 275–91 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by C. D. Stanley. ECL 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Bautch R. J., and J. T. Hibbard, eds. The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew: Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and his Study of Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Beale, G. K. ‘The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7 and its Bearing upon the Literary Problem of 6.14–71’. NTS 35 (1989): 550–81. Becker, U. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Beckman, G. M. ‘The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka’. JANES 14 (1982): 11–25. Begrich, J. ‘Das priesterliche Heilsorakel’. ZAW 52 (1934): 81–92. ———Studien zu Deuterojesaja. Munich: Kaiser, 1963.

202

Bibliography

Berges, U. The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. ———‘Where Does Trito-Isaiah Start in the Book of Isaiah?’ Pages 63–76 in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66. Edited by L.-S. Tiemeyer and H. M. Barstad. FRLANT 255. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. ———‘Who Were the Servants? A Comparative Inquiry in the Book of Isaiah and the Psalms’. Pages 1–18 in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets. Edited by J. C. de Moor and H. F. van Rooy. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———‘Zion and the Kingship of YHWH in Isaiah 40–55’. Pages 94–120 in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah. Edited by A. L. H. M. van Wieringen and A. Van der Woude. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Berquist, J. L. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Beuken, W. A. M. Isaiah II. Vol. 2: Isaiah Chapters 28–39. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Bjerkelund, C. J. ‘ “Vergeblich” als Missionsergebnis bei Paulus’. Pages 175–91 in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils Alstrup Dahl. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977. Black, M. The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Blau, J. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew. LSAWS 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Blenkinsopp, J. David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. ———Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003. ———‘A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period’. CBQ 52 (1990): 5–20. ———‘Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah’. Pages 22–53 in Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period. Edited by P. R. Davies. JSOTSup 117. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. ———‘The “Servants of the Lord” in Third Isaiah: Profile of a Pietistic Group in the Persian Epoch’. Pages 392–412 in ‘The Place is too Small for Us’: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship. Edited by R. P. Gordon. SBTS 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Bloch, M. From Blessing to Violence: History and Ideology in the Circumcision Ritual of the Merina of Madagascar. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. The Book of Isaiah According to the Syriac Peshitta Version with English Translation. English Translation by G. Greenberg and D. M. Walter. Text Prepared by G. A. Kiraz and J. Bali. Surath Kthob 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. Brand, M. T. ‘1 Enoch’. Pages 1359–452 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman. 3 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013. Bright, J. A History of Israel. 3rd ed. London: SCM, 1986. Brooke, G. J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.



Bibliography

203

Brueggemann, W. ‘Isaiah 55 and Deuteronomic Theology’. ZAW 80 (1968): 191–203. ———An Introduction to the Old Testament, The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Brueggemann, W., and W. H. Bellinger Jr. Psalms. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Brunet, G. Essai sur l’Isaïe de l’histoire: étude de quelques textes notamment dans Isa. vii, viii & xxii. Paris: Picard, 1975. Budde, K. ‘Über die Schranken, die Jesajas prophetischer Botschaft zu setzen sind’. ZAW 41 (1923): 154–203. Buitenwerf, R. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. SVTP 17. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bürkle, H. ‘Patterns of Sermons from Various Parts of Africa’. Pages 222–31 in African Initiatives in Religion. Edited by D. B. Barrett. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1971. Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P. T. Daniels. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Ciampa, R. E. ‘Paul’s Theology of the Gospel’. Pages 180–91 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner. London: T&T Clark International, 2011. ———The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. WUNT 2/102. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———Isaiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chilton, B. D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. ArBib 11. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Clements, R. E. ‘The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition’. Pages 39–70 in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———God and Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. ———Isaiah 1–39. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. ———Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament. JSOTSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. ———‘The Immanuel Prophecy of Isa. 7:10–17 and Its Messianic Interpretation’. Pages 225–40 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. ———‘Psalm 72 and Isaiah 40–66: A Study in Tradition’. Perspectives in Religious Studies 28 (2001): 333–41. Clifford, R. J. Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. HSM 4. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. ———‘Isaiah 55: Invitation to a Feast’. Pages 27–35 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. ———‘Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure’. HTR 73 (1980): 35–47. ———Psalms 73–150. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003.

204

Bibliography

Crowell, B. L. ‘Nabonidus, as-Silaʿ, and the Beginning of the End of Edom’. BASOR 348 (2007): 75–88. Cogan, M. ‘Cross-Examining the Assyrian Witnesses to Sennacherib’s Third Campaign: Assessing the Limits of Historical Reconstruction’. Pages 51–74 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Edited by I. Kalimi and S. Richardson. CHANE 71. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period. IRGLS 1. Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 1998. ———‘Sibylline Oracles’. Pages 317–472 in vol. 1 of OTP. Conrad, E. W. Reading Isaiah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Corley, J. ‘Elements of Coronation Ritual in Isaiah 11:1–10’. PIBA 35 (2012): 1–29. Dahl, N. A. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Dahl, Ø. Meanings in Madagascar: Cases of Intercultural Communication. Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1999. Day, J. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. DeClaissé-Walford, N. R. A. Jacobson, and B. LaNeel Tanner. The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Dickson, K. A. ‘The Old Testament and African Theology’. Ghana Bulletin of Theology 4 (1973): 31–41. Dicou, B. Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. JSOTSup 169. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten/The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. 3rd ed. AOAT 360/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013. Dietrich, W. Jesaja und die Politik. BEvT 74; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1976. Dillmann, A. Der Prophet Jesaia. 5th ed. KeHAT 5. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1890. Donner, H. Israel unter den Völkern. VTSup 11. Leiden: Brill, 1964. Downs, D. J. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chrono­ logical, Cultural and Cultic Contexts. WUNT 2/238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Drønen, T. Pentecostalism, Globalisation, and Islam in Northern Cameroon: Megachurches in the Making? Studies of Religion in Africa 41. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Duhm, B. Das Buch Jesaia. 4th ed. HKAT 3/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922. Eichner, H. Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Deklination. Printed Teildruck of PhD diss. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1974. Eidevall, G. Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah. ConBOT 56. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Eisenbaum, P. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Eissfeldt, O. ‘The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55.1–5’. Pages 196–207 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Edited by B. W. Anderson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962. Ejeh, T. U. The Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 52.13–53.12: A Historical Critical and Afro-Cultural Hermeneutical Analysis with the Igalas of Nigeria in View. Zurich: LIT, 2012.



Bibliography

205

Emerton, J. A. ‘Leviathan and Ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon’. VT 32 (1982): 327–31. Evans, C. A. ‘Paul and the Prophets: Prophetic Criticism in the Epistle to the Romans (with special reference to Romans 9–11)’. Pages 115–28 in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee. Edited by S.K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Evans, P. S. The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19. VTSup 125. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Fales F. M. ‘The Road to Judah: 701 B.C.E. in the Context of Sennacherib’s PoliticalMilitary Strategy’. Pages 223–48 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Edited by I. Kalimi and S. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Fee, G. D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Flesher, P. V. M., and B. D. Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011. Flint, P. W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Floyd, M. H. ‘Psalm LXXXIX: A Prophetic Complaint About the Fulfillment of an Oracle’. VT 42 (1992): 442–57. Forslund, E. The Word of God in Ethiopian Tongues: Rhetorical Features in the Preaching of the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus. Studia Missionalia Uppsaliensia 58. Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1993. Fullerton, K. ‘The Interpretation of Isaiah 8:5–10’. JBL 43 (1924): 253–89. Gallagher, W. R. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. SHCANE 18. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Gamkrelidze, T. V., and V. Ivanov. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Translated J. Nichols. 2 vols. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995. Gaster, T. H. ‘Notes on Isaiah’. Pages 91–107 in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University. Edited by A. I. Katsh and L. Nemoy. Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1979. Genette, G. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated by J. E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Gentry, P. J. ‘Rethinking the “Sure Mercies of David” in Isaiah 55:3’. WTJ 69 (2007): 279–304. ———‘The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew’. Hebrew Studies 39 (1998): 7–39. Gerstenberger, E. S. Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. BibEnc 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. ———Psalms: Part 2 and Lamentations. FOTL 15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Getui, M., K. Holter, and V. Zinkuratire, eds. Interpreting the Old Testament in Africa: Papers from the International Symposium on Africa and the Old Testament in Nairobi, October 1999. Bible and Theology in Africa 2. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Gibson, J. C. L. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar – Syntax. 4th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Gignilliat, M. Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5.14–6.10. LNTS 330. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007. Gillingham, S. ‘From Liturgy to Prophecy: The Use of Psalmody in Second Temple Judaism’. CBQ 64 (2002): 470–89.

206

Bibliography

Ginsberg, H. L. ‘The Arm of YHWH in Isaiah 51–63 and the Text of Isa 53:10–11’. JBL 77 (1958): 152–56. Gitay, Y. Isaiah and his Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12. SSN 30. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1991. Goldingay, J. Isaiah 56–66: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. ———Psalms 42–89. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Goldingay, J., and D. Payne, Isaiah 40–55. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Gosse Antony, B. ‘Les promesses faites à David en Is 55, 3–5 en relation avec le Psautier et les développements en Is 56ss’. SJOT 24 (2010): 253–67. Grabbe L. L., ed. ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE. JSOTSup 363. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2004. Graetz, H. ‘Isaiah xxxiv and xxxv’. JQR 4 (1891–92): 1–8. Gray, G. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912. Grayson A. K., and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. ———The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Greenstein, E. ‘The Fugitive Hero Narrative Pattern in Mesopotamia’. Pages 17–36 in Worship, Women and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch. Edited by J. J. Collins, T. M. Lemos, and Saul M. Olyan. BJS 357. Providence, RI: Brown University. Greßmann, H. ‘Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas’. ZAW 34 (1914): 254–97. Gropp, D. M. ‘The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew’. HAR 13 (1991): 45–62. Hafemann, S. J. Paul, Moses and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians. WUNT 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Hagelia, H. Coram Deo, Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh. ConBOT 49. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001. ———Herrens utvalgte: Guddommelig utvelgelse som bibelsk tema og aktuelt problem. Kristiansand: Portal Akademisk, 2013. ———‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’. SJOT 20 (2006): 38–57. ———Numbering the Stars: A Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994. Hanson, P. D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Hardmeier, C. Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer. 37–40. BZAW 187. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Hasel, G. H. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1974. Hatav, G. ‘Tense: Biblical Hebrew’. Pages 736–40 in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by G. Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013.



Bibliography

207

Hays, C. B. ‘The Date and Message of Isaiah 24–27 in the Light of Hebrew Diachrony’. Pages 7–24 in Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. Edited by J. T. Hibbard and H. C. P. Kim. AIL 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Herbert, A. S. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Hess, R. S. Amarna Personal Names. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 9. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Hibbard, J. T. ‘Isaiah 24–27 and Trito-Isaiah: Exploring Some Connections’. Pages 183–200 in Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. Edited by J. T. Hibbard and H. C. P. Kim. AIL 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Himmelfarb, M. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hintikka, J. ‘On the Development of the Model-Theoretic Viewpoint in Logical Theory’. Synthese 77 (1988): 1–36. Holladay, W. L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Holter, K. Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship in Africa. Nairobi: Acton, 2008. ———‘Geographical and Institutional Aspects of Global Old Testament Studies’. Pages 3–14 in Global Hermeneutics? Reflections and Consequences. Edited by K. Holter and L. C. Jonker. International Voices in Biblical Studies 1. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. ———‘The Institutional Context of Old Testament Scholarship in Africa’. OTE 11 (1998): 452–61. ———‘Isaiah and Africa’. Pages 69–90 in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia. Edited by M. Zehnder. PHSC 21. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ———Old Testament Research for Africa: A Critical Analysis and Annotated Bibliography of African Old Testament Dissertations, 1967–2000. Bible and Theology in Africa 3. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. ———‘The Role of Historical-Critical Methodology in African Old Testament Studies’. OTE 24 (2011): 377–89. ———Tropical Africa and the Old Testament: A Select and Annotated Bibliography. Faculty of Theology: Bibliography Series 6. Oslo: University of Oslo, 1996. Holter, K., and L. C. Jonker, eds. Global Hermeneutics? Reflections and Consequences. International Voices in Biblical Studies 1. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Horbury, W. ‘1 Thessalonians ii.3 as Rebutting Charges of False Prophecy’. JTS 33 (1982): 492–508. Hossfeld, F.-L. ‘Ps 89 und das vierte Psalmenbuch (Ps 90–106)’. Pages 173–83 in Mein Sohn bist du (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen. Edited by H.-J. Klauck and E. Zenger. SBS 192. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. Hossfeld, F.-L., and E. Zenger. Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1–50. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1993. ———Psalms 2. Translated by L. M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. ———Psalms 3. Translated by L. M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Höffken, P. ‘Eine Bemerkung zu Jes 55,1–5: Zu buchinternen Bezügen des Abschnitts’. ZAW 118 (2006): 239–49. ———Jesaja. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004. Høgenhaven, J. Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie. ATDan 24; Leiden: Brill, 1988.

208

Bibliography

Jenkins, P. The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Johnson, D. G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. JSOTSup 61. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988. Johnson, E. E. ‘Paul’s Reliance on Scripture in 1 Thessalonians’. Pages 143–62 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by C. D. Stanley. ECL 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Jong, M. J. de. ‘Biblical Prophecy – A Scribal Enterprise: The Old Testament Prophecy of Unconditional Judgment Considered as a Literary Phenomenon’. VT 61 (2011): 39–70. ———Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies. VTSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Kaiser, O. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, Kapitel 1–12. 5th ed. ATD 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. ‘The Unfailing Kindness Promised to David: Isaiah 55:3’. JSOT 45 (1989): 91–98. Kalimi I., and S. Richardson, eds. Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Kaminsky, J. S. Yet I Loved Jacob, Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Kelley, P. H., D. S. Mynatt, and T. G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Khan, G. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition. Gorgias Handbooks. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. Kilian, R. Jesaja 1–39. EdF 200. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983. Kim, S. ‘Paul as an Eschatological Herald’. Pages 9–24 in Paul as a Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by T. J. Burke and B. S. Rosner. LNTS 420: T&T Clark International, 2011. Kinoti, H. W., and J. M. Waliggo, eds. The Bible in African Christianity. Nairobi: Acton, 1997. Kissane, E. J. The Book of Isaiah, Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary. Vol. 1, i–xxxix. Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1941. Kloekhorst, A. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Knibb, M. A. ‘Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings from Before the Common Era’. Pages 401–16 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by J. Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Koch, D. A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koch, K. ‘Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte’. Pages 243–77 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Edited by E. Zenger and K. Seybold. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Kooij, A. van der. ‘Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature’. Pages 63–78 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Maciá. JAJS 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Koole, J. L. Isaiah III/3. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Kraus, H.-J. Psalms 60–150. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.



Bibliography

209

Kratz, R. G. ‘Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments’. Pages 1–22 in Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums ‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads. Edited by I. Fischer, K. Schmid, and H. G. M. Williamson. ATM 11. Berlin: LIT, 2003. Kronholm, T. ‘Der kommende Hiskia: Erwägungen zur zeitgeschichtlichen bzw. messianischen (christologischen) Interpretation der Immanuelweissagung Jes 7,14 im Licht der altjüdischen Haggada’. Unpublished manuscript, 1982. Kronholm, T. ‘Den kommande Hiskia’. SEÅ 54 (1989): 109–17. Kuhn, A. ‘Ueber die durch nasale erweiterten nasalstämme’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 2 (1853): 455–71. Laato, A. ‘About Zion I will not be silent’: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity. ConBOT 44. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International 1998. ———‘Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib’. VT 45 (1995): 198–226. ———Guide to Biblical Chronology. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015. ———‘Hezekiah in the Rewritten Version of the Book of Isaiah, Targum Isaiah’. Pages 111–37 in Take Another Scroll and Write: Studies in the Interpretive Afterlife of Prophets and Prophecy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Edited by P. Lindqvist and S. Grebenstein. SRB 6. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2016. ———History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of the Historical Prophets. ConBOT 41. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996. ———A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. ———Who Is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations. Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 1988. Lahiri, A. K. Vedic Vṛtra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984. Lemaire, A. ‘Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period’. Pages 285–98 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. ———‘New Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea’. Pages 413–56 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. LeMarquand, G. ‘A Bibliography of the Bible in Africa’. Pages 633–800 in The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends. Edited by G. O. West and M. W. Dube. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Levenson, J. D. Inheriting Abraham, The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ———‘The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism’. Pages 143–69 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark Brett. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Lindström, F. Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994. Lipschits, O. ‘Achaemenid Imperial Policy and the Status of Jerusalem’. Pages 19–52 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Lohr, J. N. Chosen and Unchosen, Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and JewishChristian Interpretation. Sipruth 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

210

Bibliography

Lowth, R. Isaiah: A New Translation; with a Preliminary Dissertation, and Notes. 2 vols. London: Thomas Tegg, 1778. Lundquist, J. M. ‘What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology’. Pages 205–19 in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall. Edited by H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Lutz, H.-M. Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Völker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sach. 12, 1–8 und 14, 1–5. WMANT 27. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968. Marttila, M. Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter. FAT 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Martín-Contreras, E. ‘Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission’. Pages 79–90 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by E. MartínContreras and L. Miralles-Maciá. JAJS 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Martín-Contreras, E., and L. Miralles-Maciá. ‘Interdisciplinary Perspectives’. Pages 17–34 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to the Masoretes. Edited by E. Martín-Contreras and L. Miralles-Maciá. JAJS 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Masenya, M. ‘Is White South African Old Testament Scholarship African?’. BOTSA 12 (2002): 3–8. Mays, J. L. ‘ “In a Vision”: The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms’. Ex Auditu 7 (1991): 1–8. Mbiti, J. S. Bible and Theology in African Christianity. Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1986. Mbuwayesango, D. R. ‘The Defense of Zion and the House of David’. PhD diss., Emory University, Atlanta, 1998. ———‘How Local Divine Powers Were Suppressed: A Case of Mwari of the Shona’. Pages 259–68 in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader. Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. McCarthy, C. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. McCarthy, W. B. Review of C. Watkins, How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Journal of American Folklore 112 (1999): 220–22. McKenzie, J. L. Second Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 20. Garden City: Doubleday, 1967. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. ———‘The Study of the Gottesbild – Problems and Suggestions’. SEÅ 54 (1989): 135–45. Mijoga, H. B. P. Preaching and the Bible in African Churches. Nairobi: Acton, 2001. Milik, J. T., with the collaboration of M. Black. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Miller, P. D. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis. SBLMS 27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. ———They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Miller, R. D. ‘Tracking the Dragon across the Ancient Near East’. Archiv Orientální 82 (2014): 225–45. Miscall, P. D. Isaiah 34–35: A Nightmare/A Dream. JSOTSup 281. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.



Bibliography

211

Mitchell, M. W. ‘Genre Disputes and Communal Accusatory Laments: Reflections on the Genre of Psalm LXXXIX’. VT 55 (2005): 511–27. Morrow, W. S. ‘Kethib and Qere’. Pages 24–30 in vol. 4 of ABD. Mowinckel, S. Offersang och Sangoffer: Salmediktningen i Bibelen. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co (W. Nygaard), 1980. Mugambi, J. N. K. ‘African and Africanist Scholarship’. BOTS 14 (2003): 9–12. Muilenburg, J. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. Interpreter’s Bible 5. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Müller, R. Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur altherbräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen. BZAW 387. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Munthe, L. La Bible a Madagascar: Les deux premières traductions du Nouveau Testament malgasche. Studies of the Egede Institute 10. Oslo: Egede Instituttet, 1969. ———La Catechisme Malgasche de 1657: Essai de presentation du premier livre en langue malgasche. Approche théologique, historique, linguistique et conceptuelle. Oslo: Egede Instituttet, 1987. Muraoka, T., and M. Rogland. ‘The Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor Sasson’. VT 48 (1998): 99–104. Najda, A. J. Der Apostel als Prophet: Zur prophetischen Dimension des paulinischen Apostolats. Europaeische Hochschulschriften 784. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004. Niccacci, A. ‘On the Hebrew Verbal System’. Pages 117–37 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Summer Institute of Linguistics. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. ———The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. JSOTSup 86. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Nicholl, C. R. From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians. SNTSMS 126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ———Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., and M. E. Stone, Early Judaism: Texts and Documents on Faith and Piety. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., and J. C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Nicklas, T. ‘Paulus – der Apostel als Prophet’. Pages in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Edited by J. Verheyden, K. Zamfir, and T. Nicklas. WUNT 2/286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Nielsen, K. ‘ “Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom Like a Rosy Bower”: N F S Grundtvig and Isaiah 35’. Pages 193–208 in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia. Edited by M. Zehnder. PHSC 21. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ———There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. JSOTSup 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Notarius, T. ‘The Archaic System of Verbal Tenses in “Archaic” Biblical Poetry’. Pages 193–207 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by C. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Novak, D. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

212

Bibliography

Nsiku, E. K. ‘Isaiah’. Pages 809–52 in Africa Bible Commentary. Edited by T. Adeyemo et al. Nairobi: WordAlive, 2006. Nzimande, M. K. ‘Isaiah’. Pages 136–46 in The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora. Edited by H. R. Page Jr., et al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. O’Connor, M. ‘Semitic *mgn and its Supposed Sanskrit Origin’. JAOS 109 (1989): 25–32. Ogbonnaya, J. African Catholicism and Hermeneutics of Culture: Essays in the Light of African Synod II. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Ogden, D. Drakōn: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Olmstead, A. T. ‘II Isaiah and Isaiah, Chapter 35’. AJSL 53 (1936–37): 251–53. Olson, D. C. A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: ‘All Nations Shall be Blessed’. SVTP 24; Leiden: Brill, 2013. Olukoya, D. K. Prayer Passport to Crush Oppression. Lagos: Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, 2006. Omoyajowo, J. A. Cherubim and Seraphim: The History of an African Independent Church. New York: NOK, 1982. Onwurah, E. ‘Isaiah 14: Its Bearing on African Life and Thought’. Bible Bhashyam 13 (1987): 29–41. Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. ———The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Page, H. R. Jr., et al., eds. The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Pajunen, M. S. ‘4QPsx: A Collective Interpretation of Psalm 89:20–38’. JBL 133 (2014): 479–95. Parpola, S. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press 1997. Parry, D. W., and E. Qimron, eds. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Paul, S. M. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Penner, K. M. The Verbal System of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Qumran Hebrew Texts. SSN 64. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Petersen, D. L. ‘The Temple in Persian Period Prophetic Texts’. Pages 125–44 in Second Temple Studies: 1. Persian Period. Edited by P. R. Davies. JSOTSup 117. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Pew Research Center. The Future of World Religions: Population, Growth Projections, 2010–2050. Online: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/PF_15.04.02_Projections FullReport.pdf. Pfeiffer, H. Jahwes Kommen von Süden. FRLANT 211. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Pope, M. ‘Isaiah 34 in Relation to Isaiah 35, 40–66’. JBL 71 (1952): 235–43. Portier-Young, A. Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. The Prayer and Deliverance Bible. Edited by D. K. Olukoya. Lagos: Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, 2007. Procksch, O. Jesaia I. KAT 9/1. Leipzig: Deichert, 1930.



Bibliography

213

Rad, Gerhard von. ‘Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik’. Pages 248–61 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. TB 8/48. Munich: Kaiser, 1961. ———Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1965. Repr. 1975. ———Theologie des Alten Testamentss II: Die Theologie der prophetischen Über­ lieferungen Israels. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1960. Repr. 1984. Rainey, A. F. ‘The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite’. Hebrew Studies 27 (1986): 4–19. Razafindrakoto, G. ‘The Old Testament Outside the Realm of the Church: A Case from Madagascar’. OTE 19 (2006): 473–85. Richardson, J. A New Malagasy–English Dictionary. Antananarivo: The London Missionary Society, 1885. Riesner, R. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy, Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Ringgren, H. Psaltaren 42–89. Kommentar till Gamla Testamentet. Stockholm: EFSförlaget, 1994. Roetzel, C. J. Paul: A Jew on the Margins. Louisville: John Knox, 2003. Rohland, E. ‘Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten’. PhD diss., University of Heidelberg, 1956. Ross Wagner, J. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———‘The Heralds of Isaiah and the Mission of Paul: An Investigation of Paul’s Use of Isaiah 51–55 in Romans’. Pages 193–222 in Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998. ———‘Isaiah and Romans and Galatians’. Pages 117–32 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Ruszkowski, L. Volk und Gemeinde im Wandel: Eine Untersuchung zu Jesaja 56–66. FRLANT 191. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Rösel, C. Die Messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zu Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung Psalm 2–89. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999. Said, E. W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Schoors, A. Jesaja. De Boeken van het Oude Testament 9A. Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1972. Schreiner, J. Sion-Jerusalem Jahwehs Königssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament. SANT 7. Munich: Kösel-Veerlag, 1963. Scott, R. B. Y. ‘The Relation of Isaiah, Chapter 35, to Deutero-Isaiah’. AJSL 52 (1935–36): 178–91. Skarsaune, O. ‘Jewish and Christian Interpretations of Messianic Texts in the Book of Isaiah as Jewish/Christian Dialogue – from Matthew to the Rabbis’. SEÅ 77 (2012): 25–46. ———The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: TextType, Provenance, Theological Profile. NovTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Sanders, J. A. ‘Isaiah 55:1–9’. Int 32 (1978): 291–95. Sandnes, K. O. Paul – One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s SelfUnderstanding. WUNT 2/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. ———‘Prophet-Like Apostle: A Note on the “Radical New Perspective” in Pauline Studies’. Bib 96 (2016): 550–64.

214

Bibliography

Sanneh, L. Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989. Sarna, N. M. ‘Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis’. Pages 29–46 in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Schaaf, Y. On Their Way Rejoicing: The History and Role of the Bible in Africa. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994. Schmidt, U. Zukunftsvorstellungen in Jesaja 49–55: Eine textpragmatische Untersuchung von Kommunikation und Bildwelt. WMANT 138. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2013. Schramm, B. The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration. JSOTSup 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Seeman, C. ‘Jewish History from Alexander to Pompey’. Pages 25–39 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by D. C. Harlow and J. J. Collins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Segal, A. F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990. Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, Revised Version. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995. Sims-Williams, N. ‘A Bactrian God’. BSOAS 60 (1997): 336–38. Skehan, P. W., E. C. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, ‘98g. 4QPsx’. Pages 163–67 in Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by E. C. Ulrich et al. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Smith, G. V. Isaiah 40–66. NAC 15B. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2009. Smith, M. S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 1, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. VTSup 55. Leiden: Brill. Smith, P. A. Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth, and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66. VTSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Smith-Christopher, D. L. Micah, A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015. Snyman, G. ‘Playing the Role of Perpetrator in the World of Academia in South Africa’. BOTSA 12 (2002): 8–20. Soden, W. von. ‘Sanherib vor Jerusalem 701 v.Chr.’. Pages 149–57 in Bibel und Alter Orient: Altorientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden. Edited by H-P. Müller. BZAW 162. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985. Sohn, S.-T. The Divine Election of Israel. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. Sommer, B. D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Spieckermann, H. Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Stanley, C. D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Starbuck, S. R. A. ‘Theological Anthropology at a Fulcrum: Isaiah 55:1–5, Psalm 89, and Second Stage Traditio in the Royal Psalms’. Pages 247–65 in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts. Edited by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Steck, O. H. Bereitete Heimkehr. Jesaja 35 als redakionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja. SBS 121. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985.



Bibliography

215

Stevens, M. E. ‘Woe or Ho: The Lamentable Translation of ‫ הוי‬in Isaiah 55:1’. Pages 275–82 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Edited by K. L. Noll and B. Schramm. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Stone, M. E. Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts. Repr. ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Stowers, S. K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Stromberg, J. An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. New York: T&T Clark International, 2011. ———Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———‘Isaiah’s Interpretive Revolution: How Isaiah’s Formation Influenced Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation’. Pages 214–32 in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew. Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah. Edited by R. J. Baurch and J. T. Hibbard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. ———‘The Second Temple and the Isaianic Afterlife of the ‫( חסדי דוד‬Isa 55,3–5)’. ZAW 121 (2009): 242–55. Sugirtharajah, R. S., ed. The Postcolonial Biblical Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. Sweeney, M. A. ‘Eschatology in the Book of Isaiah’. Pages 179–95 in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew. Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah. Edited by R. J. Bautch and J. T. Hibbard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. ———Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ———‘Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah’. Pages 103–18 in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by R. D. Weis and D. M. Carr. JSOTSup 225. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. ———King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Tate, M. E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Tertel, H. J. Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives. BZAW 221. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Thelle, R. I. Approaches to the ‘Chosen Place’: Accessing a Biblical Concept. London: T&T Clark International, 2012. Tiemeyer, L.-S. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood. FAT 2/19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Tigay, J. H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. ———ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl­ vania Press, 1988. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. EJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tolmie, D. F. Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. WUNT 2/190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Tooman, W. A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel. FAT 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

216

Bibliography

Torrey, C. C. The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Tov, E. ‘The Ketiv/Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscripts from the Judean Desert’. Pages 199–205 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Tropper, J. Ugaritische Grammatik. 2nd ed. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012. Tucker, W. D., Jr. ‘Democratization and the Language of the Poor in Psalms 2–89’. Horizons in Biblical Theology 25 (2003): 161–78. Tull, P. K. Isaiah 1–39. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010. Ukpong, J. S. ‘Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Modern Africa’. Missionalia 27 (1999): 313–29. Ussishkin D. ‘Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Archaeological Perspective with an Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem’. Pages 75–104 in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography. Edited by I. Kalimi and S. Richardson. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 71. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Van der Merwe, C. H. J., J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. Veijola, T. Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ 220. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. Vermeylen, J. Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demimillénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël. EB. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1977–78. Waltke, B. K., and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wagner, T. Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament. VTSup 151. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Ward, J. M. ‘The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX’. VT 11 (1961): 321–39. Waschke, E.-J. ‘Die Stellung der Königstexte im Jesajabuch im Vergleich zu den Königspsalmen 2, 72 und 89’. ZAW 110 (1998): 348–64. Watkins, C. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Watts, J. D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco: Word, 2005. ———Isaiah 34–66. WBC 25. Waco: Word, 2005. Weber, B. ‘Psalm 1 and Its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and towards a Biblical Theology’. OTE 19 (2006): 237–60. Weima, J. A. D. 1–2 Thessalonians. Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. ———‘An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thessalonians 2.1–12’. JSNT 68 (1997): 73–99. Wiener, H. M. The Prophets of Israel in History and Criticism. London: Scott, 1923. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.



Bibliography

217

West, G. O. The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible. Interventions 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. ———‘Interrogating the Comparative Paradigm in African Biblical Scholarship’. Pages 37–64 in African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared Meaning. Edited by H. de Wit and G. O. West. Studies of Religion in Africa 32. Leiden: Brill, 2008. West, G. O., and M. W. Dube, eds. The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2000. West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Westermann, Claus, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. ———Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by K. R. Crim and R. N. Soulen. Louisville: John Knox, 1981. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1975. Wikander, O. Drought, Death, and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Philological and Comparative Study. ConBOT 61. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. ———‘Job 3,8 – Cosmological Snake Charming and Leviathanic Panic in an Ancient Near Eastern Setting’. ZAW 122 (2010): 265–71. ———Unburning Fame: Horses, Dragons, Beings of Smoke and other Indo-European Motifs in Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Forthcoming. Wildberger, H. Jesaja 1–12. 2nd ed. BKAT 10/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980. ———Isaiah 28–39. Continental Commentary Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2002. Wilk, F. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. FRLANT 179. Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. ———‘Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians’. Pages 133–58 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Willgren, D. ‘Did David Lay Down His Crown? Reframing Issues of Deliberate Juxtaposition and Interpretive Contexts in the “Book” of Psalms with Psalm 147 as a Case in Point’. In Functions of Psalms and Prayers in Late Second Temple Period. Edited by M. S. Pajunen and J. Penner. BZAW 486. Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming. ———The Formation of the ’Book’ of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies. FAT 2/88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Williams, S. N. The Election of Grace, A Riddle without a Resolution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. ———A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1, Isaiah 1–5. ICC. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. ———‘‘ ‘An Initial Problem”: The Setting and Purpose of Isaiah 10:1–4’. Pages 11–20 in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew, Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah. Edited by R. J. Bautch and J. T. Hibbard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. ———‘Isaiah: Prophet of Weal or Woe?’ Pages 273–300 in Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Edited by R. P. Gordon and H. Barstad. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

218

Bibliography

———‘Reflections on Redaction’. Pages 79–91 in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by J. Middlemas, D. J. A Clines and E. K. Holt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. ———‘A Sign and a Portent in Isaiah 8.18’. Pages 77–86 in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon. Edited by G. Khan and D. Lipton. VTSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———‘ “The Sure Mercies of David”: Subjective or Objective Genitive?’. JSS 23 (1978): 31–49. ———Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. ———‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’. Pages 26–36 in Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton. Edited by K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ———‘The Waters of Shiloah (Isaiah 8:5–8)’. Pages 331–43 in Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Wilson, G. H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Atlanta: SBL, 1985. Wise, M. O., M. G. Abegg Jr., and E. M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Rev. ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Wit, H. de, and G. O. West, eds. African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared Meaning. Studies of Religion in Africa 32. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wong, G. C. I. ‘Deliverance or Destruction? Isaiah x 33–34 in the Final Form of Isaiah x–xi’. VT 53 (2003): 544–52. Wyatt, N. ‘The Source of the Ugaritic Myth of the Conflict between Baʿal and Yamm’. UF 20 (1988): 375–86. ———‘Who Killed the Dragon’. Pages 18–37 in The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. BibleWorld. London: Equinox, 2005. Yilpet, Y. K. ‘The Anointing Work of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah 11.1–5, 42.1–7, 61.1–3’. African Journal of Biblical Studies 26 (2008): 112–33. Young, R. A. Hezekiah in History and Tradition. VTSup 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Zehnder, M., ed. New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 21. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Zenger, E. ‘ “Es sollen sich niederwerfen vor ihm alle Könige” (Ps 72,11): Redaktions­ geschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Psalm 72 und zum Programm des messianischen Ps 2–89’. Pages 66–93 in ‘Mein Sohn bist du’ (Ps 2, 7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen. Edited by E. Zenger and O. Eckhart. SBS 192. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk, 2002. ———‘Zur Redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen’. Pages 175–98 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Edited by E. Zenger and K. Seybold. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Zetterholm, K. Hedner. Jewish Interpretation of the Bible: Ancient and Modern. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Zinkuratire, V. ‘Isaiah 1–39’. Pages 186–94 in Global Bible Commentary. Edited by D. Patte. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1.1 182 2 183 2.7 80 8.17 160 11.31 72 12.1 72 12.3 77 15.5 77 15.7 72, 79 15.18-21 83 19.12 160 22.2 83 26.24 77 49.17 172 Exodus 3.8 102 3.11 152 12.36 78 12.38 78 13.21 88 14.4 166 14.31 77 15.14 164 19.5-6 77, 80 23.8 166 25.2 166

7.7-8 77 7.7 78 7.18 72 10.15 77 12.4-5 83 15.15 72 16.16 162 21.8 72 23.14 162 24.1 82 24.18 72 31.20 102 32.6 73 32.12 80 32.18 73 Joshua 1.4 83 4.16 166 Judges 6.30 160 9.7 166 19.22 160 20.1 83

Leviticus 18.22 162 24.14 160

1 Samuel 2.5 82 3.13 161 4.13 160 9.17 77 15.25 166 16.10 74 16.12-13 74

Deuteronomy 4.37 78 6.2-3 75 6.4 75 7.6 78

2 Samuel 3.18 77 5–6 83 7 104, 110 7.1-16 75

7.12-16 108 7.16 75 7.17 107 7.23 72 22.44 104 1 Kings 3.7 16 8.48 83 11.13 75 11.34 75 15.4 75 22.49 160 2 Kings 8.19 75 9.33 172 15–18 36 16–17 44 16 41 16.5 41 36 17–19 18–20 37 18–19 30, 33, 42 18.3-5 29 18.5 26 19.35 32 21.10-15 29 22.14-20 29 23.26-27 29 24.19 29 1 Chronicles 17.21 72 2 Chronicles 3.1 83 6.42 104 20.9 166 32.7-8 27

220 2 Chronicles (cont.) 36.22-23 83, 94 36.23-24 78 Ezra 1.1-4 83, 94 1.2-4 78 2.2 58 3.12 55 4.1-4 73 9.2 89 Nehemiah 4 87 9.7 71 10.29-40 55 13 55 66.1-2 55 66.1 55 Job 7.20 161 19.9 113 22.27 165, 166 25.6 113 Psalms 1 97 1.2 97 2–89 111 2 111 2.2 40 2.7-9 106 2.7 114 8 113 10.11-12 113 18.5 lxx 147 18.44 104 22.2 113 22.4 114 29 35 37.2 114 44.25 113 46 32, 35 46.4 35 46.6 36, 38 46.7 35

Index of References 46.8 40 46.12 40 48 32, 34 48.2-8 34, 35 48.2-4 50 48.2-3 84 48.5 40 48.8 35 48.9 34 48.12 34 50.9-12 48 65 35 65.8-9 36, 38 65.8 35, 36 65.9 36 68 35 68.2 35 69.36 172 69.37 Eng. 172 71 113 71.18 113 72 106 74.19 113 76 32 77 35 77.7-13 113 77.20 35 78.52 114 78.71 114 79.1 86 80.2 114 81.6-17 113 82.5-8 113 83 35 83.14-16 38, 39 83.14 35 83.16 36 88 106 89 74, 104, 105, 10812, 114, 115 89.2-3 105 89.2 104 89.3 104, 105 89.4-5 74, 105, 106, 108-10 89.4 104, 107

89.5 104 89.6-19 105 89.7 105 89.10 105 89.16-18 107 89.20-46 105, 106, 109 89.20-38 105, 106 89.20-31 108 89.20 106-108 89.22-25 107 89.22 108 89.25 104 89.26 107 89.27-28 106 89.29-30 106, 110 89.29 104, 108 89.30-38 108 89.31-33 107 89.34-38 107 89.34 104, 107 89.35 104 89.36-38 106 89.37 104 89.38 104 89.39-46 107 89.40 110 89.42 109 89.45 110 89.46 106 89.47-52 105-107, 109 89.48-49 106 89.50 104, 107, 108 89.51 107 89.53 105 90 106 90.5-6 114 93 35 93.4 35 100.3 160 103.15 114 104.32 165 110 106 113.9 82 132 106

132.11-12 108 135.4 78 137.1 84 Proverbs 9.11 102 24.17 162 Isaiah 1–39

14, 24, 26, 30, 31, 133 1–35 26, 27, 2932, 35, 42, 45, 197 85 1–33 1–12 11, 13, 14, 83 1.2 194 1.4-9 28, 31, 43 1.7-9 88 1.8-9 28 1.9 88 1.27 72 1.29 70 2 18 2.1-5 84 2.2-4 46, 50 2.2 84 2.6-22 29 4.2 28 4.3 88 4.5 88 5–12 15 5 14, 20 5.6 7 5.8-24 39 5.14 193 5.23 15 5.25-30 39 5.30 5, 13 6–8 23 6 13, 191 6.1–9.6 39 6.1 61 6.2 84 6.3 181, 183, 184, 199

221

Index of References 6.5 152 6.9-10 29 6.11-13 29 6.12-13 89 6.12 89 6.13 79, 89 7 11, 13, 27, 41 7.1-25 16 7.1-17 12, 13, 25 25, 30, 41 7.1 7.3 30, 41, 86, 88, 89 7.5-6 45 7.5 12 7.7 12 7.8 12, 13 7.10-17 45 7.11-14 25 7.14-17 44 7.14 12, 27, 40, 76, 79, 86, 88, 194 7.15-16 70 7.15 28, 79 7.16 44 7.17-25 29 7.17-20 28 7.17 41 7.20 5, 11 7.23 7, 28 7.24 7 7.25 7 8 13 8.1-10 41 8.1-4 11, 13, 40 8.1 86 8.3 86, 88 29, 31, 39, 8.5-10 40, 45 8.5-8 11, 40 8.5 11 8.6-8 11 8.7 9 8.8 27, 40, 41, 44

5, 11-13, 18, 40 8.9 12 8.10 12, 27 8.11-15 11 8.16-18 29 8.17 13 24, 25, 38 8.18 8.23–9.6 3, 14, 30, 44, 45 14, 27 9 9.1-6 7, 15, 18 9.1 7 9.2-7 76 9.3-4 30 9.5-6 30 9.6 28, 30, 86, 88 9.7-20 39 9.13 6, 7 9.14 7 9.17 7 9.23–9.6 5 10.1-4 14, 39, 193 10.2 15 10.4 5, 14 10.5-34 6, 45 10.5-27 28, 38 10.5-19 29, 31 6, 19, 38 10.5-15 10.5-6 6, 14 10.5 18 10.6-7 94 10.10-11 6 10.11-13 6 10.12 6, 94 10.13 15 10.16-19 5, 6, 10, 11, 18 10.16 7, 9 10.17 7 10.18 8-11, 17 10.20-23 28 10.20-22 86, 88, 89 10.24-27 29, 31 10.24 6, 89 10.27-34 45 8.9-10

222 Isaiah (cont.) 10.33–11.9 15 10.33–11.5 15, 18 10.33-34 15, 18, 45 10.34–11.1 89 11 15 11.1–12.6 16 17, 44, 45 11.1-9 11.1-5 15, 18 15, 18, 45, 11.1 76 11.6-9 15, 16 11.6 16, 17 11.7-8 17 11.8 16 11.11-16 77 11.11 90 11.16 90 13–39 120 36, 93 13–23 13–14 37 13 36 13.1–14.23 29, 36 13.1-22 77 13.17-18 78 14.1-4 36 14.1-2 77 14.1 70, 82 14.2 78 14.3-23 77 14.4-23 36 14.4 36 14.5 5 14.6-20 36 14.6 5 14.20-21 5 14.23 194 14.24-27 5, 12, 14, 29, 31, 36 14.28-32 28, 90 14.32 28, 84 15.1 194 15.9 90 17 40 17.1-11 36 17.1-3 90 17.4-6 6, 7, 90

Index of References 17.4 17.6 17.12-14

7, 9 7, 90 5, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 45 17.13 35 17.14 36 20 23, 28 20.6 28 22.1-14 29, 31, 43 22.2 43 22.8-11 43 22.12 29 24–27 13, 20, 84, 118-20 27 131 27.1 116, 119-21, 123, 13033, 135 27.4 7 27.13 84 28–33 37, 39 28–31 29, 31, 37, 39 28 91 28.1-4 39 28.3 91 28.5-6 91 28.5 28 28.7-8 91 28.9-13 91 28.16 84, 145 28.23-29 5 29 71 29.1-8 29, 31, 3739 29.1-7 38, 45 29.1 74 29.5-6 39 29.5 35, 38 35, 38 29.7 29.8 5, 38 29.9-14 29 29.17 10 29.22-24 71 29.22 71, 74 30.1-5 29, 43

30.1 68 30.2-3 31 30.3 68 30.6-14 29 30.7 31 29, 30 30.9 30.12 29, 30 30.15-17 28, 29, 31, 43 30.17-19 28 30.17 28 30.27-33 5, 29, 31, 37-40, 46 30.28 40 30.33 37 31.1-3 31, 43 31, 43 31.1 31.3 31 31.4-9 29, 31, 38, 39 31.5 5 31.8-9 5, 30 31.9 37 31.33 31 32.1-8 30 32.1-5 5 32.9-14 31, 43 32.15-20 5 32.15-16 10 33 29, 39 33.5 84 33.9 9 33.20-21 84 34 10, 179 34.1-17 158, 172-74 34.1-8 173, 174, 177 34.1-7 173 34.2 174 34.3-7 174 34.3 174 34.5-6 174 34.5 174 34.7 174 34.8 174, 175 35 9-11, 85 8-10, 17, 19 35.2

35.8-10 11 35.10 10, 72, 85 36–39 13, 23, 24, 26, 30, 76, 83, 85, 197 36–37 26-33, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 46 36.2 30, 41 36.4-20 27 36.6-9 30 36.6 31 36.8-9 31 37.1-7 30 37.1-2 29 37.3 29 37.9 28 37.14 28 37.21-29 10 37.22-35 74, 91 37.24 10 37.25 76 37.31-32 28, 91 37.32 30 37.33-35 91 37.35 74, 76 32, 33 37.36 38.5 74 39 23, 24 40–66 23, 24, 26, 30, 46, 78, 99, 144, 150, 152, 154-56, 158 10, 20, 96, 40–55 98-100, 102, 104, 105, 109, 110, 112-15, 165, 196, 197 40–54 101 40–48 70, 77, 81 40.1-11 85 40.1 85, 86 40.3-5 78 40.3 90

Index of References 40.5 8, 9 40.6-8 114 40.9 152 40.11 114 40.17-23 113 40.18 105 40.20 70 40.27 113 40.28 113 40.29-31 113 40.30 165 41 113 41.2 112 41.8-16 192 41.8-10 78 41.8-9 72 41.8 70, 71, 74, 76 41.9 70 41.14 113 41.15 113 41.18 78 41.21-29 79 41.21 112 41.22 26 41.24 70 41.27 85 41.29 76 42 156 42.1-4 76, 92 42.1 70, 76, 105 42.5-9 76 42.5-6 68 42.6-7 76, 153 42.6 158 42.8 153 42.9 26 42.15-16 78 43.1-7 78, 92 43.8-15 79 43.8-13 104 43.10 68, 70, 79, 80 43.13 79 43.15 112 43.16-21 78, 80 43.18-19 26, 153, 154

223 43.20 70, 80 43.28 158 44.1-5 80 44.1-2 70, 77, 80 44.5 81 44.6-9 104 44.6 112 44.24–45.7 94 44.26-28 85 44.27 78 44.28 76, 83 45.1 76, 83, 112 45.4 70, 76 45.18 68 46 24, 113 46.1-4 92 46.3 114 46.4 113 46.9-13 114 46.10 26 46.11 194 48 24 48.3 158 48.6 26 48.12-21 113 48.20-21 82, 83 49–55 70, 81 49 151, 156 49.1-6 81, 92 77, 151 49.1 49.3 76, 92, 152, 153 49.4 143, 154 49.5 77, 151 49.6 76, 92, 153 49.7 70, 81, 92, 112 49.8-12 78 49.8 143, 154 49.11 90 49.14-26 99 49.14-17 81 49.14 113 49.15 113 49.20-25 78 49.22 195 49.23 112

224 Isaiah (cont.) 49.24-25 194 50.1 82 50.2 72, 78 50.4-9 92 50.4 70 51.1-2 72, 74 71, 158 51.2 51.4 72 51.9–52.2 99 51.9-11 78 51.9 105 51.11 10 52–53 156, 197 52.1-12 85 52.1-2 85 52.4 78 52.7 112, 145, 146, 152 52.9 86 52.11-12 78, 82, 83 52.13-15 82 52.15 112 52.15 lxx 148 53 147 53.1 145, 147 53.12–53.12 92 54.1-11 73 54.1-8 82, 86 54.5-7 82 54.8 75 54.9-12 68 54.11-12 54 54.16 194 54.17 101, 103, 104 55–66 67 55 61, 105, 108, 111-15 55.1-5 98, 100102, 104, 105, 108, 110-12, 114 55.1-3 102 55.1-2 102 55.3-5 105, 114 55.3-4 75

Index of References 55.3

74-76, 102104, 108 55.4 103, 104 55.5 104 56–66 23, 101, 157, 164, 171 56.1 68 56.3-8 86 56.7 68 57.17-18 158, 168 57.17 165 58.5 70 58.6 70 59.15-20 158, 172, 173, 175, 177 59.16 175, 177, 179 59.17-18 177 59.18-20 172 59.18 172 59.19 172 59.20 172 60–62 86, 172, 175 60.1 172 60.4 172 60.6 152 60.13 9, 54 61.1-4 77 152, 195 61.1 61.2-3 26 62 87 62.1 87 62.3-5 66 62.4 86, 88 62.6 87 62.7 87 62.10-12 11 62.10 90 63.1-6 157, 163, 164, 167, 169-80 63.1-3 167 63.1-2 167 63.1 168, 174 63.3-6 178

63.3

165, 16774, 176, 177, 179 168, 175 63.4-5 168, 169, 63.4 172, 174, 175 63.5 168-70, 172, 17477, 179 63.6 170, 171, 174, 175, 177 63.7–64.11 73 63.8 73 63.11-13 77 63.11 76 63.13 190 63.16 71, 73, 74 64.1 195 64.3 68 65–66 47, 49-56, 60-66 50, 51 65 65.1–66.17 55 65.1-7 60 65.1-2 lxx 147 65.1-2 62 65.2-3 93 65.3-5 50 65.3-4 93 65.3 50 65.7 50 65.8 93 65.9 50, 70, 76, 92, 93 65.10 93 65.11 50, 60, 93 65.12 62, 93 65.15 70, 76, 93 65.17-25 50, 143 65.17-18 50, 68 65.17 51, 154 65.18-19 87 65.19-23 54 65.19 66 70, 76, 93 65.22

65.23 65.25 66 66.1-4

143, 154 50, 64, 66 51, 54 49-51, 5355, 61, 6366 66.1-2 53 66.1 25, 52, 54, 55, 61, 87 66.2 52, 53 53, 70, 93 66.3-4 66.3 49, 60, 168 66.4 62 66.5 53 66.6 49-51, 5355, 64-66 66.7-14 87 66.11 87 66.12 87 66.13-14 87 66.13 81 66.15-17 61 66.17 50, 60 66.18-24 52 66.19-20 149 66.19 149 66.20-24 54 66.20 86, 149 66.22 68 Jeremiah 1.5 151 1.6 152 3.15-18 48 3.16-17 49 3.17 48 7 49, 50 7.1-3 48 7.4 48 7.11 48 7.22 48 23.5 74 25.8-14 94 26.18-19 43 33 74

225

Index of References 33.26 71 34.21-22 74 37–39 37 37.24-25 74 Lamentations 1.10 86 Ezekiel 1.28-32 152 5.5 84 9.4 81 9.5 160 25.7 160 33.24 71, 73 38.12 84 40–48 64 43.1-12 54 43.7 61 43.15-16 37 44.9 86 47.1-12 54

Zephaniah 3.17 66 Haggai 2.3 54 2.6-7 54 2.10-14 54, 55, 60 2.20-23 54 Zechariah 2.8 Eng. 161 2.12 161 7.4-14 73 Malachi 1.6–2.17

55

Hosea 3.5 44 11.1 81

Apocrypha/DeutroCanonical Books Ecclesiasticus 24.19-22 102 48.17-25 25 48.22 26 48.24-25 26 48.24 26 48.25 26

Joel 3.5 152 3.5 lxx 145

1 Maccabees 1–4 56 4.16-61 64

Amos 5.25 48 9.11-12 44

2 Maccabees 4–10 56 10.1-9 64

Micah 3.11 40 3.12 43 4.1-4 84 4.1-2 50 5.1-7 44, 45 7.20 71

New Testament Matthew 3.13-17 76

Habakkuk 1.2 164

Mark 12.35-37 115 Acts 2.29-31 115 26.17-18 153

226 Romans 1.5 147 7.14-25 148 9–11 144, 145, 147 9.17 144 9.22-24 144 10 147 10.4 145 10.8-13 145 10.15-16 145, 152 10.15 146 10.16 147, 148 10.18 147 10.19 144 10.20-21 147 11.13-14 144 11.25 149 11.30-32 147 15.16 149, 150 15.17-22 149 15.18 147 15.21 148, 152 15.25-32 149 15.25 149 15.28 150 1 Corinthians 9.1 151 15.8 151 15.10 152 15.58 143 2 Corinthians 3.5-6 152 4–5 154 5.17 154 6 143 6.1 143 6.2 143, 154 Galatians 1–2 150 1.6 152 1.13-14 140 1.13 140 1.15-16 141, 151

Index of References 1.16 153 1.23 140 2 149, 154 2.1-10 154 2.2 143, 154 4.12 141 6.15 153, 154 Philippians 2.16 143 1 Thessalonians 1.5 142 1.6 142 1.8 142 2 141-43 2.1-12 140 2.1 143 2.2 142 2.3-8 140 2.3-4 141 2.3 142 2.5-8 141 2.8 142 2.9 142 2.12 142 2.13 142 3.2 142 3.5 143 3.6 142 4.1 142 4.2 142 4.8 142 4.10 142 4.11 142 4.15 142 4.18 142 5.11 142 5.20-21 142 5.20 142 Revelation 4.8 181, 183 7.3 81 13.16 81 21.22 47

Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 83–90 57 84.2 64 85–90 57, 64 85.3 58 86.1–90.19 60 87.3 63 89.1 58 89.9 58 89.16 63 89.33 61 89.40 63 89.50-66 63 89.50 59, 61, 63 89.54 58, 61 89.58 59 89.59–90.42 65 89.59-60 57 89.61-64 57, 59 89.65–90.19 57 89.65 58 89.66-67 59 89.68-71 57 89.71 59 89.72–90.1 58 89.72-75 58 89.72-73 63 89.72 58 89.73-75 59 89.73 58-61 89.74-75 59 89.74 58, 59 89.75 58, 59, 61 89.76-77 57 89.77 59 90.2-5 59, 61 90.6-38 65 90.6-19 59 90.6-7 59, 61 90.7 62 90.9-10 56 90.12-16 56 90.12 56 90.14 57 90.17-19 61 90.17 57, 59, 60

90.18-19 62 90.20 57, 63 90.22 57 90.26 61 90.29 48, 63 90.32-38 64 90.33 57, 65 90.34 57 90.37-38 58, 66 90.38 65 91.13 48 Jubilees 16.26 48 Sibylline Oracles 3 47 3.573-75 47 3.657-68 47 3.668 47 3.702-703 47 3.718-19 47 3.734 47 3.767-95 47 3.772-75 47

227

Index of References Qumran 11Q5 8.5 48 27 115 27.11 96 CD 4.12–5.9

48

Mishnah Ketuvim 5a-b 162 Midrash Sifra Leviticus 20.13 162 Classical Sources Herodotus Histories 2.141 33 Justin Dialogue with Trypho 43.8 27 67.1 27 71.3 27

Ps Cicero Ad Herennium 4.52.66 148 Quintilian Institutio oratio 3.8.49-54 148 11.1.39-42 148 Assyrian and Babylonian Sources ARAB II 25–26 44 II 51–52 44 II 128–32 44 Ugaritic Texts KTU 1.3 III 41-42 1.5 116 1.5 I 1-4 117 Vedic Texts Ṛgveda I 32.1 125 II 12.3 124

117

I n d ex of A ut hor s Abegg Jr, M. G. 48 Ackerman, S. 51 Ådna, J. 49 Aernie, J. W. 139, 151, 155 Akpunonu, P. 196, 197 Albertz, R. 99 Albright, W. F. 23 Amir, G. 128 Andersen, F. I. 164 Anderson, B. W. 120 Anderson, G. A. 70 Anderson, G. W. 118 Anthony, D. W. 134 Anum, E. 188 Aus, R. D. 149 Austnaberg, H. 190 Ayali-Darshan, N. 126, 127 Baden, J. S. 69 Baer, D. A. 169, 170 Baltzer, K. 72, 73, 75, 79 Barker, M. 43 Barker, W. D. 119 Barr, J. 160 Barth, H. 3, 36 Barthel, J. 12, 25, 42 Barton, J. 48 Bates, M. W. 146–48 Beale, G. K. 154 Becker, U. 4, 18, 42 Beckman, G. M. 127 Begrich, J. 98, 102 Bellinger, W. H., Jr 109 Berges, U. 87, 88, 98, 101 Berquist, J. L. 51, 52 Beuken, W. A. M. 38 Bjerkelund, C. J. 143 Black, M. 56, 58, 63, 66 Blau, J. 164 Blenkinsopp, J. 51–53, 71–73, 75–77, 79–82, 84, 85, 88–93, 101, 103, 105, 113, 168, 169, 171–73, 175

Bloch, M. 184 Brand, M. T. 57 Briant, P. 171 Bright, J. 56 Brooke, G. J. 96 Brueggemann, W. 92, 109 Brunet, G. 12 Budde, K. 19 Buitenwerf, R. 47 Bürkle, H. 190 Charles, R. H. 57 Childs, B. S. 97, 102–5, 108, 173 Chilton, B. D. 176, 177 Ciampa, R. E. 151, 152, 156 Clements, R. E. 4, 7, 45, 47, 51, 98, 99, 107 Clifford, R. J. 50, 51, 102, 105, 110 Cogan, M. 33 Colacrai, A. 191–93 Collins, J. J. 47, 49, 54, 56, 60, 63, 64 Conrad, E. W. 13 Cook, E. M. 48 Corley, J. 16 Crawford, T. G. 157, 159, 160 Crowell, B. L. 171 Dahl, N. A. 144 Dahl, Ø. 184 Day, J. 117 DeClaissé-Walford, N. 109 Dickson, K. A. 187 Dicou, B. 171 Dietrich, M. 117 Dietrich, W. 3, 25 Dillmann, A. 9 Donner, H. 12 Downs, D. J. 149 Drønen, T. 186 Dube, M. W. 187 Duhm, B. 6, 12, 118

229

Index of Authors

Eichner, H. 129 Eidevall, G. 17, 39, 48 Eisenbaum, P. 140 Eissfeldt, O. 98, 99, 103–5, 112 Ejeh, T. U. 197 Emerton, J. A. 117 Evans, C. A. 145 Evans, P. S. 32 Fales, F. M. 32 Fee, G. D. 143 Flesher, P. V. M. 176 Flint, P. W. 107, 111 Floyd, M. H. 110 Forslund, E. 190 Fullerton, K. 40 Gallagher, W. R. 32 Gamkrelidze, T. V. 134 Gaster, T. H. 9 Genette, G. 97 Gentry, P. J. 103, 166 Gerstenberger, E. S. 53, 109 Getui, M. 187 Gibson, J. C. L. 165 Gignilliat, M. 150 Gillingham, S. 98 Ginsberg, H. L. 98, 99 Gitay, J. 17 Goldingay, J. 101–4, 107, 108, 111–13, 168, 173 Gosse Antony, B. 104, 105 Grabbe, L. L. 32 Graetz, H. 10 Gray. G. B. 9 Grayson, A. K. 31 Greenberg, G. 178 Greenstein, E. 127 Greßmann, H. 99 Gropp, D. M. 163, 165 Hafemann, S. J. 152 Hagelia, H. 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, 83–85, 88, 93 Hanson, P. D. 51 Hardmeier, C. 37 Hasel, G. H. 88 Hatav, G. 163 Hays, C. B. 118 Herbert, A. S. 118

Hess, R. S. 124 Hibbard, J. T. 118 Himmelfarb, M. 50 Hintikka, J. 41 Höffken, P. 4, 101 Høgenhaven, J. 17 Holladay, W. L. 49 Holter, K. 185, 187–89, 196, 198 Horbury, W. 141 Hossfeld, F.-L. 106, 110, 111 Ivanov, V. 134 Jacobson, R. A. 109 Jenkins, P. 187 Johnson, D. G. 118 Johnson, E. E. 142 Jong, M. J. de 4, 8, 42 Kaiser, O. 6, 120 Kaiser, W. C., Jr 103, 104 Kalimi, I. 32 Kaminsky, J. S. 68–70 Kelley, P. H. 157, 159, 160 Khan, G. 158, 159, 161, 162 Kilian, R. 5 Kim, S. 144 Kinoti, H. W. 195 Kissane, E. J. 19 Kloekhorst, A. 127, 129 Knibb, M. A. 56, 59 Koch, D. A. 147 Koch, K. 111 Kooij, A. van der 158 Koole, J. L. 168, 169, 171 Kratz, R. G. 42 Kraus, H.-J. 109 Kroeze, J. H. 165 Kronholm, T. 27 Kuhn, A. 134 Laato, A. 4, 22, 23, 27, 32, 36, 37, 41–45 Lahiri, A. K. 123, 125 LeMarquand, G. 196 Lemaire, A. 171 Levenson, J. D. 69, 72 Lindström, F. 113 Lipschits, O. 171 Lohr, J. N. 69 Loretz, O. 117

Lowth, R. 9 Lundquist, J. M. 51 Lutz, H.-M. 12 Martín-Contreras, E. 157–59 Marttila, M. 105, 107 Masenya, M. 188 Mays, J. L. 107 Mbiti, J. S. 187 Mbuwayesango, D. R. 197 McCarthy, C. 160–62 McCarthy, W. B. 122 McKenzie, J. L. 10, 168 Mettinger, T. N. D. 25, 65 Mijoga, H. B. P. 190 Milik, J. T. 56 Miller, P. D. 10, 114 Miller, R. D. 116, 123 Miralles-Maciá, L. 157, 159 Miscall, P. D. 174 Mitchell, M. W. 105, 106 Morrow, W. S. 159 Mowinckel, S. 97 Mugambi, J. N. K. 188 Muilenberg, J. 98 Müller, R. 35 Munthe, L. 182 Muraoka, T. 164 Mynatt, D. S. 157, 159, 160 Najda, A. J. 139 Naudé, J. A. 165 Niccacci, A. 163, 166 Nicholl, C. R. 141 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 47, 56–59 Nicklas, T. 139, 151 Nielsen, K. 7, 85 Notarius, T. 164 Novak, D. 68 Novotny, J. 31 Nsiku, E. K. 198 Nzimande, M. K. 198 O’Connor, M. 134, 166 Ogbonnaya, J. 192 Ogden, D. 133 Olmstead, A. T. 10 Olson, D. C. 56 Olukoya, D. K. 193–95 Omoyajowo, J. A. 186

Index of Authors

230

Onwurah, E. 198 Oswalt, J. N. 71–73, 75, 77–80 Page, H. R., Jr 188 Pajunen, M. S. 108 Parpola, S. 42 Parry, D. W. 167, 169 Paul, S. M. 168, 169, 171 Payne, D. 101–4, 113 Penner, K. M. 163 Petersen, D. L. 47 Pfeiffer, H. 167 Pope, M. 10 Portier-Young, A. 52, 62 Procksch, O. 19 Qimron, E. 167, 169 Rad, G. von 3, 24, 27, 103, 112, 115 Rainey, A. F. 163 Razafindrakoto, G. 184 Richardson, J. 183, 184 Richardson, S. 32 Riesner, R. 149 Ringgren, H. 109 Roetzel, C. J. 153 Rogland, M. 164 Rohland, E. 24 Rösel, C. 106, 111 Ruszkowski, L. 51 Said, E. W. 191 Sanders, J. A. 102 Sandnes, K. O. 139–42, 144–46, 151–53, 155 Sanmartín, J. 117 Sanneh, L. 187 Sarna, N. M. 106, 109, 110 Schaaf, Y. 187 Schmidt, U. 163 Schoors, A. 19 Schramm, B. 51 Schreiner, J. 19 Scott, R. B. Y. 10 Seeman, C. 56 Segal, A. F. 140 Seow, C. L. 163, 164 Sims-Williams, N. 129 Skarsaune, O. 27 Skehan, P. W. 107

231

Index of Authors

Smith, G. V. 102, 103 Smith, M. S. 125 Smith, P. A. 49 Smith-Christopher, D. L. 81 Snyman, G. 188 Soden, W. von 33 Sohn, S.-T. 69 Sommer, B. D. 98, 99, 103, 111, 112, 114 Spieckermann, H. 113 Stanley, C. D. 139 Starbuck, S. R. A. 98, 108 Steck, O. H. 9 Stevens, M. E. 102 Stone, M. E. 47, 56, 59 Stowers, S. K. 148 Stromberg, J. 11, 20, 89, 103, 104 Sweeney, M. A. 4, 15, 16, 39, 76, 87 Tanner, B. L. 109 Tate, M. E. 104, 106, 109, 110 Tertel, H. J. 23 Thelle, R. I. 69, 83 Tiemeyer, L.-S. 51, 161 Tigay, J. H. 22 Tiller, P. A. 56, 57, 62, 63 Tolmie, D. F. 151 Tooman, W. A. 173 Torrey, C. C. 10 Tov, E. 160, 168 Tropper, J. 135 Tucker, W. D., Jr 103, 107 Tull, P. K. 78 Ukpong, J. S. 189 Ulrich, E. C. 107 Ussishkin, D. 33 Van der Merwe, C. H. J. 165 VanderKam, J. C. 56, 58 Veijola, T. 103, 105, 109, 112 Vermeylen, J. 4, 7, 15

Wagner, J. 144, 145, 147, 148 Wagner, T. 9 Waliggo, J. M. 195 Walter, D. M. 179 Waltke, B. K. 166 Ward, J. M. 105, 109 Waschke, E.-J. 102, 103, 105 Watkins, C. 121, 124, 126 Watts, J. D. W. 74, 77, 79 Weber, B. 97 Weima, J. A. D. 141 Weinfeld, M. 23 West, G. O. 187, 188, 195 West, M. L. 122 Westermann, C. 98, 99, 102–4, 106, 113 Whybray, R. N. 103, 113, 114, 168, 169, 171 Wiener, H. M. 10 Wikander, O. 117, 120, 128 Wildberger, H. 6, 17, 38 Wilk, F. 139, 150, 154, 156 Willgren, D. 97, 111 Williams, S. N. 70 Williamson, H. G. M. 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 20, 24, 25, 30, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 103, 104, 108, 118 Wilson, G. H. 97, 111, 115 Wise, M. O. 48 Wong, G. C. I. 17 Wyatt, N. 123 Yilpet, Y. K. 197 Young, R. A. 42–45 Zehnder, M. 67 Zenger, E. 106, 110, 111 Zetterholm, K. H. 173 Zinkuratire, V. 187, 191–93, 198

I n d ex of S ub j e cts African interpretive experiences, 181–99 apocalypse(s), 48, 55–66 apocalyptic, genre, 50, 66 literature, 47, 50, 53–56, 63, 64 texts, 55 writers, 62 (world) view, 48, 49 apostle (Paul), 147, 148, 150–52, 155 apostolate, 139, 141, 143, 155 Assyria, 3, 6–8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 25, 28–31, 34–38, 40, 42–45, 84, 88–91, 94 Assyrian aggression, 83 army, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 43, 45, 46 crisis, 23, 26, 31 empire, 6, 43 forces, 89 invasion, 29–31, 39, 41, 44, 45 king, 10, 15, 17, 33, 36, 41, 44, 91 period, 5 power, 45 retreat, 32, 33, 43 onslaught, 74, 90 royal inscriptions, 32 sources, 23, 43 threat, 13, 27, 29, 43 Baalism, 34 Baal, 117, 125, 128, 131 cycle, 116, 119, 121, 123, 125, 126, 128, 131 cantillation, 158, 159, 160

David, 26, 34, 37, 44, 45, 71, 74–76, 77, 83, 94, 98, 101–105, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115 election of, 74–76 Davidic covenant, 75, 100, 104, 106, 109, 111, 112, 114 dynasty, 43–36, 74, 75, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 112 house, 43, 45 king(s), 8, 44, 45, 76, 107, 114 kingdom, 76 kingship, 100, 110 monarch, 16 monarchy, 34 oath, 106 promises, 100 tradition, 111 davidide(s), 74, 75, 107 dragon(s), 116, 121–27, 133–35 election, 151 divine, 67–95 of Abraham, 71–74, 79 of David, 74–76 of the ‘Servant’, 76, 77 of the people, 77–83 of the land, 83 of Jerusalem, 83–87 of the remnant, 87–93 gospel, 140–47, 150, 154–56 hermeneutics, African, 181–99 African Catholic, 191–93 African Pentecostal, 193–95 postcolonial, 198

233

Index of Subjects

Hezekiah, 14, 24, 26–33, 36, 37, 41–46, 74, 76, 91 Hittite, 127–31 Immanuel, 11, 12, 27, 28, 31, 40, 44, 45, 76 Indo-European, 116–35 Jerusalem, 22–26, 28–31, 43, 47–64, 66, 71, 72, 74, 78, 82–88, 91, 94, 95, 100, 110, 146, 149, 150 conquest of, 33, 34 destruction of, 23, 29, 50, 54, 75, 157 election of, 83–87 fall of, 20, 171 fate of, 28 new, 48, 40, 54, 60, 61, 63–66 salvation of, 26, 33, 37, 43, 46 siege of, 32 throne of, 75 Josianic date, 10, 14 edition, 3–21 redactor, 16 redaction, 4–6, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 21 Leviathan, 116, 117, 121, 130, 131, 133, 134 Masorete(s), 157–59, 162, 167, 179, 180 Masoretic accentuation, 175 ‘book’ of Psalms, 96, 97, 99, 100, 113, 115 interpretation, 158, 159 pointing, 159, 171, 179 reading tradition, 160–62, 179, 180 vocalization, 157, 158, 162, 169–71, 173, 180 messiah, 30 messianic, character, 45 expectations, 115 understanding, 75 messianism, 15 performative use, 96, 112, 114, 115, prophet(s), 24, 26–29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40– 46, 49, 54, 71, 74, 75, 78, 84, 87, 99, 91, 115, 139, 141, 147, 148, 155

prophetic, activity, 98 analogies, 152 book(s), 41, 44, 48, 150 call(ing), 151, 152, 155 corpus, 69 criticism, 145 genre, 66 legacy, 150, 155 literature, 50, 96, 102, 115 message, 29, 155 mission, 145 motif, 152 oracle(s), 6, 87, 105 perfect, 172 propaganda, 84 text(s), 31, 64, 66, 115, 147, 148 theme(s), 54 tradition, 49, 155 understanding, 151 utterances, 142 vocabulary, 141 vocations, 151 voice, 24 words, 148 psalms, complaint, 99, 105–15 royal, 98, 112, 114, 115 royal, archives, 23, 42 candidate, 43 child, 44 family, 100 house, 42, 45 images, 15 inscriptions, 32 prophecy, 45 psalms, 146-49, 151-53 residence, 110 titles, 32 scripture, 96, 124, 114, 115, 139–45, 154 scripturalization, 111, 112, 114, 115 Sennacherib, 24, 26, 28, 31–34, 44, 45, 88, 91 serpent, 116, 117, 121–34 sopherim, 158, 159, 162, 164, 173–75, 180



Index of Subjects

temple, 23, 25, 34, 40, 47–66, 83–87, 94, 95, 110, 158, 160, 191 crisis, 47–66 cult, 13 defilement of, 50, 54–56, 58, 60, 62–66 destruction of, 109

234

Zion, 13, 50, 64, 65, 73, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 100, 146 daughter, 87, 88 mount, 25, 38, 46, 91 new, 64 theology, 3, 22–46