The History of Isaiah: The Formation of the Book and its Presentation of the Past 3161560973, 9783161560972, 9783161608056

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by

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

150

The History of Isaiah The Formation of the Book and its Presentation of the Past Edited by Jacob Stromberg and J. Todd Hibbard

Mohr Siebeck

Jacob Stromberg, born 1974; D. Phil. Oxford; since 2011 Lecturer in Old Testament at Duke University. orcid.org/0000-0002-4002-4918 J. Todd Hibbard, born 1968; PhD University of Notre Dame; since 2011 Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Detroit Mercy. orcid.org/0000-0003-1010-9184

ISBN 978-3-16-156097-2 / eISBN 978-3-16-160805-6 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160805-6 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio­ graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by epline in Böblingen using Minion typeface, printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface The book of Isaiah is a product of history. The nature of that history and what it means that Isaiah is a product of it are hardly matters of consensus in the field. This should be expected. History is complex. And it probably confounds, more often than it confirms attempts to understand it completely. Even so, Isaianic scholarship has put its collective finger on the crux of the methodological problem. At the heart of an historical understanding of this prophetic book lies a consideration of the word “history” in two distinct but related applications. First, what historical processes led to the book’s final form? And second, what kind of historical representation does the book offer to the reader? The former question examines how Isaiah became a book. The latter inspects its presentation of history, a complex presentation involving diverse modes of exposition (prophetic forecasting, poetic reflection on the present, and prose accounts of the past). This history engages the Biblical traditions and it involves Israel’s dealings with the great empires of the Ancient Near East, much of which lay in the past from the point of view of the book’s final form. For most scholars, answering either question involves asking the other, the diachrony of the book being related to the presentation of history found therein and vice versa. To understand better the history of Isaiah, this volume of essays devotes itself to these two lines of inquiry and their relationship. To this end, the volume is divided into three parts. The first provides a set of essays devoted to the methodological issues involved in examining the diachrony of the book of Isaiah and its presentation of history. In this section, the aim is to enable reflection upon the analytical procedures presupposed in the diachronic and synchronic studies presented by the second and third parts of the volume. The second part offers a consideration of the history of Isaiah in the light of the Biblical traditions. From an historical perspective, these traditions remain indispensable, even foundational for understanding the history of Isaiah. This is true regarding Isaiah’s textual diachrony as well as its historical representation. Here this relationship is examined in relation to differing stages in the textual formation of Isaiah and the Hebrew Bible. The third part of this volume investigates the history of Isaiah by means of a focus on those empires explicitly mentioned in the book. The rationale guiding the selection of those foreign empires here investigated (Assyria, Babylon, and Persia) derives from the pivotal role played by Israel’s interaction with these nations in the formation of the book in each of its major stages.

VI

Preface

In structuring the volume this way, we hope the reader will perceive the whole and not just the parts. Theory and practice are bound together every bit as much as are the histories of the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Thus, our aim in putting this volume together is to provide the reader with a methodologically informed treatment of this central topic – the history of Isaiah – as it spans the whole book, relates to the traditions of the Bible, and emerges out of the complexities of life in the Ancient Near East. Moreover, our goal in selecting contributors was to provide a representative handling of this complicated topic, one reflecting the differing perspectives at play in the field today. In an undertaking of this scope, it is perhaps inevitable that gaps in coverage will, nonetheless, ­remain. Durham/Detroit, May 2021

Jacob Stromberg and J. Todd Hibbard

Table of Contents Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Part 1 Perspectives on Studying the History of Isaiah Shawn Zelig Aster The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Stephen B. Chapman Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 J. Blake Couey Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Christopher B. Hays Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts: A Quantitative Approach with Special Attention to Isaiah 24–27  . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noam Mizrahi Isaiah between Transmission and Reception: Isaiah 58:13–14 according to 4QIsan (4Q67)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 J. J. M. Roberts Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? A Critical Evaluation of the Theory of a Major Josianic Edition of the Isaianic Tradition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Christopher R. Seitz The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Ronald L. Troxel Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah  . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen A Tale of Two Worlds: A Synchronic Reading of Isaiah 7:1–17 and Its Diachronic Consequences for the Book  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

VIII

Table of Contents

Part 2 The Biblical Traditions and the History of Isaiah Avigail Aravna Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past: A Reexamination of the Relationship between Isaiah 24:6 and Jeremiah 23:10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Ulrich Berges “Sing to the LORD a New Song”: The Tradents of the Book of Isaiah and the Psalter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Anja Klein Praying Exodus: Biblical History in the Prayer of the Servants (Isa 63:7–64:11)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Andreas Schüle Remember Abraham – or not: Ancestral Traditions in the Book of Isaiah  . . 255 Ethan Schwartz Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Jacob Stromberg Hezekiah and the Oracles Against the Nations in Isaiah  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Philip Yoo Torah Yet to Come: Divine Activity in Isaiah 56–66  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Part 3 The Ancient Near East and the History of Isaiah Peter Dubovský Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography: Writing the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Conflict in the Light of the Ashurbanipal-Teumman War  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 Joachim Eck Metamorphoses of a Tyrant: Isaiah 14:4b–21 Read in Its Wider Context  . . 407 Judith Gärtner The Kabod of YHWH: A Key Isaianic Theme from the Assyrian Empire to the Eschaton  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431



Table of Contents

IX

J. Todd Hibbard A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701: Isaiah 30:18–26 as an Update to Isaiah 30:8–17?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Reinhard Müller “Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”: Isaiah 30:27–33 as Inverted Political Prophecy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Kim Lan Nguyen Cyrus: A Righteousness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475 Konrad Schmid Theological Interpretation of Assyrian Propaganda in the Book of Isaiah  . . 493 Daniel J. D. Stulac Go-out from Babylon/There!: A Canonical Approach to Departure in Isaiah 48:20 and 52:11  . . . . . . . . . . . 503 Marvin A. Sweeney Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 H. G. M. Williamson Decoding Isaiah 13  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551 Index of Ancient Sources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 Index of Modern Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

Part 1

Perspectives on Studying the History of Isaiah

The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah Shawn Zelig Aster 1. Literary Criticism of Isaiah 1–39 and Historical Questions That Isa 1–39 address Assyria is hardly a new concept. It is obvious to every reader of the book that the Assyrian threat figures prominently both in the narrative sections in chapters 7, 20, 36–39, and in the prophetic oracles such as those contained in those narrative sections, as well as in 10:5–15, 31:1–9, and many others. Many other polities of the ancient world are mentioned in Isaiah, such as Egypt in chapters 18–19 and 30–31, Babylon in chapters 13–14, and the smaller kingdoms of Syro-Palestine in chapters 15–17 and 23. But the primary opponent of Judah portrayed in Isa 1–39 was Assyria, and the mentions of this empire are prominent reminders that Isaiah is a book situated in history. Nevertheless, a profoundly ahistorical approach to Isaiah permeates some strands of scholarship. Thus, in the initial stages of scholarship, Duhm and Marti focused their historical interest solely on identifying the original components of the book, without closely correlating the stages of literary composition to political or historical events known to us from the cuneiform material.1 Duhm, followed by Marti and by nearly all subsequent scholars, posited a complex and protracted redactional process for the book of Isaiah. He argued that many “collectors” added to a “first kernel” of the book created by Isaiah of Jerusalem.2 Marti assigned somewhat later dates than Duhm to parts of chapters 1–35, placing much of the material in the post-exilic period.3 Written in the late 19th century, their work makes scant use of our knowledge of Assyria, derived from cuneiform materials. Although many of these had been discovered and deciphered by this period,4 the accuracy of the decipherment was still open to question, and the 1 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja übersetzt und erklärt, HKAT 3/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892; 4th edition 1922); Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, KHAT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900). 2  Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 7–12. 3  See especially the chart on p. 18 of the introduction in Marti, Das Buch Jesaja. 4  For example, Samuel Birch, Records of the Past: Being English Translations of Assyrian and Egyptian Monuments (London: Bagster, 1873–1881), 12 volumes.

4

Shawn Zelig Aster

data they contained was not yet ripe for the use of biblical scholars. Partly for this reason, their assignment of passages in Isaiah to particular literary strata was grounded neither in the historical details of which scholars became aware from the Assyrian texts, nor in linguistic comparisons between the language of Isa 1–39 and those of these texts. A more historically-grounded approach was taken by Barth, who profoundly influenced subsequent scholarship.5 Advancing in 1977 the idea of an “Assurredaktion,” Barth tied the posited literary strata of Isa 1–39 to historical events, the details of which were well-known to scholars by Barth’s time, partly due to the many Assyrian royal inscriptions published by that time.6 As is well-known, the primary impetus behind Barth’s theory was the divergent views of Assyria in Isa 1–39: it is difficult to see how the view that YHWH sent Assyria to punish Israel in 7:17 could be uttered by the same author and in the same period as the expectation found in 10:5–19 that Assyria will suffer a divine judgment. Barth proposed assigning different passages to different periods, based on the political realities at different points in history. He assigned the passages viewing Assyria as a divine emissary to the late eighth-century, when Assyrian power was at its height, and assigned those envisioning an Assyrian downfall to the late seventh century. At this period, in the reign of Josiah, passages were re-edited to include predictions of Assyria’s demise. While Barth’s thesis of a large-scale re-editing of Isaiah passages in the reign of Josiah owes a great deal to our understanding of the history of Assyrian power (an understanding reached partly based on the Assyrian texts), Barth does not engage in textual comparisons between Assyrian texts and the language of passages in Isa 1–39. The methodological transition from the redactional criticism of Duhm and Marti to that of Barth, therefore, rests primarily in the latter’s use of historical transitions as a means of dating concepts in Isa 1–39. But although Barth’s work integrates a clearer historical awareness than that of earlier scholars, he does not consider the possibility of a more direct connection between passages in Isa 1–39 and Assyrian materials. His use of Assyrian materials takes an approach similar in some ways to that used by proponents of the theory of structuration, who argue that agents (in this case the authors of Isa 1–39) and social structures, including resources (in this case the Assyrian empire’s political fortunes), inter5 Hermann Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, WMANT 48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977). 6  Publications of primary texts directly relevant to Isaiah include: Daniel David Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, Oriental Institute Publications 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924); idem., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1927); Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5 (Locust Valley: Augustin, 1970). This material was popularized by the monumental collection edited by James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950; 2nd edition, 1955; 3rd edition with supplement, 1969).



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

5

act.7 Agents are bounded by structure and therefore, the authors of Isa 1–39 formulated prophecies of Assyrian downfall when said downfall was relevant to the structures they experienced in history. The weakness of this approach was exposed by many, most prominently in Williamson’s recently-published critique of Barth’s dating. The passages that Barth assigned to the late seventh century, argued Williamson, could more properly be dated to the post-exilic period, when Assyria was but a memory.8 This critique demonstrates the problematic nature of tying texts to historical periods based primarily on general similarities between the historical circumstances envisioned in the texts and the political and social structures of particular periods. A more specific and unique connection between the historical period and the text whose dating is under consideration is required, in order to more confidently tie the text to a particular period. Such a unique connection can be found in specific linguistic similarities between passages in Isa 1–39 and specific Assyrian texts. The clear advantage of linguistic similarities over thematic ones is that the former more convincingly demonstrate that the texts they contain have been composed such that one text influenced another. A  brief discussion of this premise is needed before returning to discuss Isaiah, for the advantage of linguistic similarities over theoretical ones will prove important to our consideration of the importance of Assyriology for the study of Isaiah. This advantage can be illustrated by considering two groups of texts, such that group A  contains texts in different languages expressing similar themes, while group B contains texts in different languages using similar expressions and linguistic structures. Similarities in themes might result from these themes being prevalent in a particular time and place, but because themes are by their nature the product of shared human experience, it is equally probable that the author of one of these texts could have independently come up with the theme found in the other texts. In contrast to themes, expressions and linguistic structures are specific to languages and cultures. Therefore, where a text uses specific linguistic formulations, or specific expressions, which are unusual in the language of the text, but are common in a different language, one can safely deduce a process of borrowing and/or influence on the text under consideration. In a nutshell, if a man is asked his age and replies “I have 40 years,” one can safely assume that the expression derives from French (or another language using this form to express age), just as one can assume that a French text offering to explain the universe 7  Of which the salient work is Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity, 1984). 8  Hugh G. M. Williamson, “The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination,” in Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology, and Reception, ed. Tommy Wasserman, Greger Andersson, and David Willgren, LHBOTS 654 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 3–21.

6

Shawn Zelig Aster

“dans une coquille de noix” is a literal translation of the English expression with which this sentence began.9 Of course, identifying influence on texts is not easily reducible to nutshells (any more than the universe is). The discussion above owes much to the work of my teacher Jeffrey Tigay and his student Meir Malul.10 Both argued that to demonstrate literary dependence, motifs in biblical texts and in cuneiform ones must have unusual elements that are unlikely to have been independently generated in the biblical passage under question. Expressions that are expected or fit well in Akkadian or Sumerian, but which betray linguistic irregularities in the biblical text cannot reasonably be considered to have been developed in the biblical text without regard for the cuneiform one; they show that the biblical text was influenced by an Akkadian or Sumerian text. Carly Crouch, in her work on Deuteronomy, has attacked the question of identifying influence from a different angle.11 Drawing on Linda Hutcheon’s A Theory of Adaptation, she argues that if we are to demonstrate that a biblical text intentionally references a cuneiform text, we must show that the Biblical text overtly signals its references to the older work in such a way as to make the reference clearly perceptible to the intended audience. Crouch introduces into the discussion issues of specificity of reference, and authorial intent, which did not figure prominently in the writings of earlier proponents of comparative study of biblical and Assyrian texts. She notes that “The more complex the relationship between the source and other potential sources, and the more specific the author intends to be in identifying the source, the more specific the signal needs to be …”12 Questions of specificity of source are important in discussing the Assyrian texts on which Isaiah draws, and we will return to these below. But for now, it suffices to note that if we can follow the comparative methodology articulated by Tigay and by Malul, and if we can identify the types of Assyrian texts to which passages in Isaiah refer, we can move a long way past the approaches of Duhm, Marti, and Barth. More specifically, we can move towards better answers to the question which motivated the work of Duhm, Marti, and Barth (and many more): What can we know about the process which produced the current text of Isaiah? 9 Stephen Hawking, L’univers dans une coquille de noix, transl. Christian Cler (Paris: Odille Jacob, 2001). 10 Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg (Bethesda: CDL, 1993), 250–55; Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1990). 11 Carly Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon and the Nature of Subversion, ANEM 8 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). 12  Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians, 24.



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

7

The literary and redactional questions about the text of Isaiah are essentially historical questions, because the processes described take place within a historical context. They can therefore be answered by adducing literary comparisons to texts with firm historical anchors. If we can show clear evidence that Assyrian expressions and motifs, current only during certain historical periods, suffuse certain passages in Isaiah, then we will have gone a long way towards identifying the date of composition of these passages. Certain caveats must first be addressed. The first of these is the possibility that the expressions and motifs which we know from Assyrian texts entered the spoken languages of the Levant, notably Hebrew and Aramaic, during the period in question (the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE). If these expressions and motifs became commonly-used, then the possibility of tying the date of composition to such expressions vanishes. Next is the possibility that very brief citations in Isaiah might contain these expressions, and these very brief citations were then expanded into longer passages by editors who worked long after the connection between the Akkadian sources and the Hebrew expressions was known.13 Both of these caveats can be addressed by noting that the passages in question, in Isa 1–39, do not simply cite these expressions or motifs. Rather, these passages re-work these motifs in subverting Assyrian ideology. They demonstrate an acute awareness of how these expressions and motifs functioned in Assyrian texts and of the connections between these and Assyrian ideology. They then attempt to subvert Assyrian ideology by using expressions found in Assyrian ideology. These points can best be demonstrated by examining a few of the relevant passages in Isaiah. We begin with a brief survey of the comparative study of Isa 1–39 and Assyrian royal inscriptions. We then move to discuss two specific passages in which the use of Assyrian motifs and their subversion demonstrate that passages from Isa 1–39 date to the Assyrian period (corresponding roughly to the century following the rise to power of Tiglath-pileser III in 744 BCE).

2. The Use of the Comparative Method in Studying Isaiah 1–39 The years 1979–1983 saw the publication of two important studies comparing the language of Assyrian royal inscriptions of the eighth and seventh centuries to the language of Isa 1–39. Chaim Cohen’s 1979 paper on the Rabshakeh’s speech in Isa 36:4–10 (parallel to II Kings 18:19–25) demonstrated that the language of this passage “contain(s) Neo-Assyrian reflexes,” and could not have been written 13  I consider these caveats and note sources for them in Shawn Zelig Aster, Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology, ANEM 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 30–35.

8

Shawn Zelig Aster

without authentic knowledge, oral or written, of Neo-Assyrian formulations.14 In particular, he focusses on three expressions in Isa 36:4–6 (cf. II Kings 18:19– 21). The first is ‫המלך הגדול מלך אשור‬. The second is ‫מה הבטחון הזה אשר בטחת‬. And the third is ‫משענת הקנה הרצוץ הזה‬. He shows that these formulations were used in their Assyrian context in reference to the specific issues discussed in the speech. Therefore, it is clear that the biblical author(s) of this text knew the Assyrian material, and that the speech cannot be a “late literary creation based wholly on Biblical parallels.”15 A more comprehensive paper by Peter Machinist appeared four years later.16 Although Machinist sets out to examine what the Assyrian empire looked like to others, especially its contemporaries, most of the article is devoted to examining close parallels between passages in Isaiah and those in Assyrian royal inscriptions.17 These include passages in which Isaiah purports to cite Assyrian diction, as in Isa 37:24 (cf. II Kings 19:23). This passage cites the Assyrian king engaging in a heroic journey to acquire juniper and cedar, tropes well-known from the Assyrian royal inscriptions of the ninth and eighth centuries BCE.18 Using the methodology discussed above for comparative textual study, Machinist shows that “it is reasonable to conclude that he (Isaiah) learned of it (i. e. of the motif of the heroic journey for wood) from Neo-Assyrian channels.”19 Moving beyond passages which purport to cite the words of Assyrian kings, Machinist discusses Isa 1:7–8, which describe the destruction of Judah using expressions that parallel those of Assyrian formulae used in Assyrian texts to describe the destruction and pillaging of conquered territory. While it may be argued that the language of Isa 1:7–8 simply reflects the standard method used by conquerors of enemy territory in ancient times, and is in no way reflective of particular Assyrian formulations, Machinist notes that “the particular con14 Chaim

Cohen, “Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Shaqe,”

IOS 9 (1979): 32–48, here 34. 15 Ibid.

16 Peter Machinist,

“Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS (1983): 719–37. statement of intent appears at p. 719, and the parallels begin at p. 723. For background on Assyrian royal inscriptions, see now Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project (ed., Simo Parpola and Robert McCray Whiting, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 325–39. 18  Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image,” 723. In Reflections of Empire, 263–72, I  discuss this passage at some length, and show that additional motifs, which concatenate in several of Sennacherib’s royal inscriptions, all appear together in this passage. 19  Machinist, “Assyria and its Image,” 724. Material in parentheses are my additions. For a discussion of how Judahites may have learned about these motfs, see my “Transmission of NeoAssyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century BCE,” HUCA 78 (2007): 1–44 and William Morrow, “Tribute from Judah and the Transmission of Assyrian Propaganda,” in “My Spirit at Rest in the North Country” (Zechariah 6.8): Collected Communications to the XXth IOSOT Congress, Helsinki 2010 (ed., Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011), 183–92. 17  The

The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah



9

secution of expressions here … is unique in the biblical corpus.”20 He notes that the following series of phrases (‫ אדמתכם לנגדכם זרים‬,‫ עריכם שרפות אש‬,‫ארצכם שממה‬ ‫ )אכלים אותה‬is unique to this passage and to the standard formulation found in Assyrian royal inscriptions. This commonality strongly suggests that the author of Isa 1:7–8 was familiar with the language of Assyrian royal inscriptions. These examples (and there are several more in Machinist’s article, some of which I discuss below) raise two important questions. First: what is meant by “the standard formulation found in Assyrian royal inscriptions?” The topic of how Assyrian royal inscriptions were composed has been amply addressed elsewhere.21 Here, it suffices to note that the inscriptions, composed to glorify the king in accordance with the ideological diktat that the king was an invincible universal sovereign, contain many stock phrases, which recur in narrating historical events.22 There are standard ways to describe the conquest of a city (as noted above), standard expressions that exonerate the king from blame for failure to conquer a city, and many more.23 This makes it much easier to understand how Judahite authors might have become aware of the phrases used in such inscriptions. They are not necessarily referencing a specific inscription, or even a specific incident described using certain expressions. Rather, they are referencing the ideological construct which is expressed by repeated use of those expressions. This repeated use makes it challenging to date specific passages in Isaiah to the period of specific Assyrian kings based on these expressions, since 20 

Machinist, “Assyria and its Image,” 724. Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography,” see n. 17 above; Bustenay Oded, War, Peace and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1992); F. Mario Fales, “The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The Moral Judgement,” in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn (ed. Hans-J. Nissen and Johannes Renger; Berlin: Reimber, 1987), 425–35; and Mario Liverani, “Thoughts on the Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Kingship,” in A Companion to Assyria, ed. Eckhart Frahm (London: Wiley and Sons, 2017), 534–46. 22  The standard reference work on the ideology of Neo-Assyrian kingship remains Mario Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 297–317. 23  One technique to describe failure to conquer a city is to claim that the Assyrian king cooped up the king of the unconquered city in it “like a bird in a cage.” This phrase is wellknown from Sennacherib’s inscription regarding Jerusalem, but also occurs in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III regarding Damascus. For citation and discussion, see Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2nd corrected ed., 2004), annal 13, line 11′, p. 79 note 11. Further discussion appears in Davide Nadali, “Sieges and Similes of Sieges in the Royal Annals: The Conquest of Damascus by Tiglath-pileser III,” Kaskal 6 (2009): 137–50. Another technique used to mask failure to conquer a city is describing the destruction of trees of the besieged city. Such a technique appears in the inscription of Tiglath-pileser III cited above (discussed p. 79 note 12 by Tadmor) and is discussed by Nili Wazana, “Are Trees of the Field Human?: A Biblical War Law (Deuteronomy 20:19–20) and Neo-Assyrian Propaganda,” Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʾal (ed., Mordechai Cogan and Danʾel K ahn; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008), 274–95. 21 

10

Shawn Zelig Aster

identical expressions often occur in the inscriptions of Assyrian kings of the ninth through seventh centuries.24 The second question raised by these comparisons relates to the channel through which Judahite writers, such as the author(s) of Isaiah, might have known these Assyrian expressions. This question is central to any consideration of how Assyriological materials can illuminate the text of Isaiah, for without such a channel of transmission, the comparisons remain an unsolved enigma. It must be admitted that any attempt to demonstrate such a channel of transmission will necessarily rely on circumstantial evidence. But circumstantial evidence, as Sherlock Holmes is said to have remarked, can at times be very convincing.25 We know very clearly that Judahite ambassadors brought tribute to Assyria on a yearly basis from as early as 734 BCE until Judah ceased to be tributary to Assyria, sometime in the third quarter of the seventh century. This knowledge is based on the standard Assyrian practice to require all vassal states to remit such tribute.26 The visits of these ambassadors are portrayed in many reliefs in Assyrian palaces.27 We know that the foreign dignitaries were honoured at banquets held on the occasion of these visits, and Winter has argued that the design of the palace was partly influenced by its function as a place to receive these dignitaries.28 But to view these visits as purely formal acts of politeness would be unreasonably naïve. The purpose of these visits was to inculcate the dignitaries in Assyrian ideology, to convince them that the Assyrian king was indeed invincible (or functionally so) and that Assyria was, at least for the time being, a universal empire. There is no other reasonable explanation for the care and effort invested by the Assyrian empire in these visits. We know that palace officials guided the emissaries through the palace, explaining the reliefs that were 24  I address this challenge in Reflections of Empire and attempt to date certain expressions based on their tendency to appear only in the reign of certain kings. But such expressions are the exception rather than the rule. 25  “Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau’s example.” Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor,” 1892. 26  For discussion, see my “Transmission of Assyrian Claims of Empire,” 15–20; Morrow, “Tribute from Judah”; and J. Nicholas Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974, 121–30. 27 For examples from the palaces of Assurnasirpal II, Sargon II, and Sennacherib, see respectively Barbara Nevling Porter, “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion: Re-evaluating the Propaganda of Assurnasirpal II,” Eretz-Israel 27 (Tadmor Volume; 2003), *180–91 (Hebrew); Pauline Albenda, The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria: Monumental Wall Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin, from Original Drawings Made at the Time of their Discovery in 1843–1844 by Botta and Flandin, Synthese Series 22 (Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1986), 44–48; John Malcolm Russell, Sennacherib’s “Palace Without Rival” at Nineveh (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991), 224. 28  For evidence of banquets, see Postgate, loc. cit., and for Irene Winter’s discussion, see her “‘Seat of Kingship’/ ‘A Wonder to Behold’: The Palace as Construct in the Ancient Near East,” ArsOr 23 (1993): 27–55.



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

11

installed in the palace for the benefit of these emissaries, some of which were augmented by short cuneiform epigraphs explaining their contents.29 These palace officials clearly communicated with the emissaries, and aimed to convince them to return and to pay tribute. As Postgate noted, in discussing the lavish gifts given to these emissaries, “such gifts would have been a real incentive to the poorer states to be punctual with their tribute, and must have encouraged those who actually made the journey to undertake it again. And of this the Assyrians were well aware.”30 If Assyrian palace personnel did their job well, Judah’s tribute bearers would have returned to Jerusalem as proponents of Assyrian ideology.31 All of the above is quite clear. What remains in the realm of circumstantial evidence (or educated guesswork) is determining the expressions Assyrian officials used in communicating with the emissaries of Judah and other tributary kingdoms. If, as Tadmor has argued, the Assyrian court was the primary audience of the royal inscriptions,32 then it stands to reason that it used the language of the royal inscriptions in communicating with foreign dignitaries. To argue that there existed two entirely-separate series of expressions, one used in the written record (the royal inscriptions) and one in the oral discussions of dignitaries and palace officials ignores the link between the oral and written material: the artistic and pictorial material in the form of palace reliefs and decorations. These artistic materials were the centerpiece of the Assyrian attempts to convey Assyrian ideology to the emissaries, and any examination of the scholarship on Assyrian royal art and the ideology of Assyrian royal inscriptions will note close connections between these. It follows, therefore, that since the ideology of the artistic materials hews closely to the ideology found in the written materials, the oral explanations must also have conveyed a similar ideology. Furthermore, if the palace officials were indeed familiar with the language of the royal inscriptions, then they would certainly have held similar language in conversing with the dignitaries. Once these expressions were familiar to the dignitaries, they would have become familiar to members of the royal court and political elite in their home countries, when the dignitaries returned and reported back to their compatriots. It has long been held that Isaiah was a member of the Jerusalem elite or literati,33 and as such, 29  Russell, Sennacherib’s “Palace Without Rival,” 236–40. See also Nevling Porter, “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion,” 185* (Hebrew). 30  Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, 120. 31  See further discussion in Shawn Zelig Aster, “Treaty and Prophecy: A Survey of Biblical Reactions to Neo-Assyrian Political Thought, in Assyrian Domination of the Southern Levant (ed. Avraham Faust and Shawn Zelig Aster; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 89–118, here 89–97. 32  Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography.” He argues that the mythic Assyrian gods were an additional audience of these inscriptions, a point which can be debated, as he notes. 33  On Isaiah as a member of the elite, see Babylonian Talmud Hagiga 13b. The term literati has been used by Machinist, in lectures and discussions.

12

Shawn Zelig Aster

he would have been familiar with the reports of these dignitaries. The tributebearers, therefore, were the primary channel through which Isaiah became familiar with the expressions we know from the Assyrian royal inscriptions. While there were certainly other channels, including encounters with Assyrian officials stationed in or near Judah, and written correspondence between Assyria and Judah, it appears that the tribute-bearers were the primary channels of such knowledge.34 The answers to these two questions offer the opportunity of placing the author of at least some passages in Isa 1–39 at the center of the historical encounter between Judah and Assyria.

3. A Sustained Polemic Against Assyrian Ideology: Defining the Length of the Passage and Evidence of Consensus But to speak of the author of “passages” raises a third question, to which the scholars discussed below have devoted considerable attention: What is the scope or extent of passages in Isaiah which use language we know from Assyrian royal inscriptions? Do these passages contain small snippets of Assyrian language in a larger text, which may well post-date the Assyrian period and have little to do with Assyria? Or are these passages in which units several verses long (at least) were composed with an awareness of Assyrian ideology, and the language in which it was expressed? The length of the unit is far from a purely technical question. An ongoing divide characterizes much of the scholarship on prophetic literature between those who see the origins of this literature in short sayings, later developed into “kerygmatic units,” and those who see the origins of this literature in longer units which develop themes and ideas.35 While all concede that the question is not one of either/or, and that each of the processes described is relevant for some prophetic texts, the divide cuts to the heart of the debate over the extent to which prophetic texts underwent redaction in ancient times. To emphasize the origins of prophetic literature in short units, consisting of several words transmitted orally, is to emphasize the role of later redactors in shaping the text we have today. In contrast, to emphasize the rhetorical coherence of longer units offers the opportunity to view many of them as originally composed (orally or in writing) in a manner that presented developed arguments. In order to evaluate the importance for Isaiah studies of comparisons to Assyrian texts, it is important to determine whether the original compositional unit consisted of short units of several words (“snippets”) or of a longer developed 34  In “Transmission of Assyrian Claims of Empire,” I listed nine such channels, but I am now convinced that the tribute-bearers were the most significant of these. 35  The term “kerygmatic units” was popularized in this context by Hans Walter Wolff. See H. W. Wolff, Hosea, trans. Gary Stansell, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1974).



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

13

passage. While Machinist’s 1983 article focuses on highlighting parallels based on short comparisons to the Assyrian material, and did not directly address the question of “snippets or passages,” many of the subsequent studies which developed Machinist’s 1983 article argued clearly for the “passages” point of view.36 Their work is extremely important in demonstrating that these borrowings are part of the rhetoric of the passage, and part of an attempt to use Assyrian motifs in undermining Assyrian ideology. If the borrowing takes place on the level of “passages,” then these verses take aim not at isolated Assyrian motifs, but at the unified whole that was Assyrian royal ideology. Here, I focus on two Isaiah passages which have been the topic of such studies. I will show that in each case, the comparison to Assyrian materials shows that the passage as a whole is a detailed and sustained reaction to Assyrian ideology. The borrowing of Assyrian expressions in them cannot be explained on the basis of these expressions having entered Judahite parlance, or of small snippets of Hebrew text around which a passage was later constructed. The different scholarly treatments of these passages emphasize different types of borrowing from Assyrian materials. But despite these different emphases, they concur in seeing these passages not only as containing intentional parallels to Assyrian texts, but as using these parallels to argue against Assyrian royal ideology. This concurrence of views, among scholars who propose somewhat different interpretations of the passages’ imagery, demonstrates that the comparisons adduced are not chimeras. The first passage we will address is Isa 10:5–15, to which Machinist has devoted a recent article, as has Michael Chan.37 This is the famous “O Assyria” oracle describing how Assyria has overstepped its boundaries, and foreseeing a Divine judgment against Assyria. Chan is cautious about asserting that the passage is a compositional whole. He identifies vv. 5–6, 8–11, and 13–14 as literary units within the unit 10:5–15, but identifies the rhetorical goal of the whole passage as undermining Assyrian 36  Besides the scholars cited below, we can note William Gallagher’s important study, which compares some passages in Isaiah (notably 36–37) to Assyrian texts: Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Elnathan Weissert’s study of Isa. 36–37 in “Jesajas Beschreibung der Hybris des assyrisches Königs und seine Auseinandersetzung mit ihr,” in Assur – Gott, Stadt, und Land (ed. Johannes Renger; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 287–310; and Nathan Mastnjak’s use of Assyrian sources in “Judah’s Covenant with Assyria in Isaiah 28, VT 64 (2014): 465–83, among others. 37 Michael Chan, “Rhetorical Reversal and Usurpation: Isaiah 10:5–34 and the Use of Neo-Assyrian Royal Idiom in the Construction of an Anti-Assyrian Theology,” JBL 128 (2009): 717–33; Peter Machinist, “Ah Assyria …. (Isaiah 10:5ff ) Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited,” in Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Honor of Mario Liverani, Sapienza, Universita di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009 (ed. Gilda Bartoloni and Maria Giovanna Biga in collaboration with Armando Bramanti; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 183–218. I address the passage in Reflections of Empire, 173–237. While both Chan and I consider the larger unit 10:5–34, most scholars have defined 10:5–15 as a unit, and it suffices for purposes of this article to examine this eleven-verse unit.

14

Shawn Zelig Aster

imperial ideology, or, in his words, a “rhetorical assault on the bombastic claims of an unnamed king.”38 This rhetorical assault is composed by combining verbal images, each of which undermines an Assyrian motif used to advance Assyrian royal ideology. The first motif (10:5), that of Assyria as both rod of God’s anger and bearer of God’s wrathful weapons, undermines Assyrian claims that the king is both weapon and bearer of the weapons of the god Assur.39 Thus, argues Chan, “the prophetic assault on Assyrian royal practice and ideology” begins from the theological foundations of that ideology, viz., the claim that the king is both allpowerful and representative of Assur.40 Chan further notes that the Assyrian expressions for expansion and domination in 10:8–11 and 13–14 are “pushed aside as petty expressions of presumption” by 10:12, which describes God’s planned destruction of Assyria: ‫) והיה כי יבצע ה’ את כל מעשהו בהר ציון ובירושלם‬12( .‫אפקד על פרי גדל לבב מלך אשור ועל תפארת רום עיניו‬ It shall be, when the Lord will fulfil all his action in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem I will punish the fruit of the arrogance of the King of Assyria, and the supremacy of his haughtiness.

As is well known, Isa 10:10–12 are usually seen as a later intrusion into 10:5–15 for several reasons. First, they mention the defeat of Assyria, which sets them apart from the positive portrayal of Assyria as God’s agent found elsewhere in Isaiah (for example, 7:18–20). This passage is therefore credited to the late seventh-century “Assyrian redaction” by Barth and those who follow him. A related reason is that these verses locate Assyria’s defeat at Jerusalem, which connects them to the Zion theology that is thought to develop in the aftermath of 701. To these can be added their emphasis on idols, which is thought to reflect late seventh century Deuteronomistic thought.41 Machinist, in his article on 10:5–15, notes that this elimination of 10:10–12 from the passage results in a putative original text describing Assyria as God’s agent sent to punish the sinful nation mentioned in 10:6, identified as the northern kingdom of Israel. But, as Machinist argues, this understanding of the redactional processes is extremely problematic. Isa 10:7 already identifies Assyria as a disobedient servant of God, worthy of punishment because of its overwhelming strategy of conquest, elaborated in 10:7–9. Furthermore, consider 10:8: ‫הלא שרי יחדו מלכים‬ 38 

Chan, “Rhetorical Reversal,” 719–20. This is nicely illustrated by Chan with citations from Assyrian sources at pp. 722–25. 40  Chan, “Rhetorical Reversal,” 725. 41 See Wildberger, Kaiser, and Vermeylen, all in Machinist, “Ah, Assyria …,” 190. J. J. M. Roberts (First Isaiah [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015]) sees these verses as having been inserted after the 701 campaign, as part of the development of the Zion theology portraying God as protecting Jerusalem. 39 



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

15

As Machinist noted, this verse contains a word play on the Assyrian words šarru (lit., king, similar in sound to Hebrew ‫ )שרי‬and malku (used in Akkadian to refer to foreign rulers, similar in sound to Hebrew ‫)מלכים‬, so that the verse means “Are not my commanders, all of them, kings?”42 This verse portrays Assyria’s overwhelming strategy of conquest as demonstrating hubris, reviled in 10:5–7. The idea that Assyria must be punished, therefore, is hardly restricted to 10:10–12. And 10:13–15 also clearly indicate that Assyria’s boasts make it worthy of punishment.43 This emphasis on Assyria’s strategy of conquest as leading to its punishment, which permeates 10:7–15, is clearly related to the image of Assyria as God’s rod of anger, in 10:5. Machinist shows that the rod imagery is directly related to the Assyrian coronation ritual, where expansion is a duty of the Assyrian king mandated by the god Assur, and is expressed by means of the grant of a staff, to be used for conquering territory.44 The imagery of 10:13, in which Assyria boasts of re-ordering borders, also expresses this mandate, because the re-ordering of borders was an integral part of Assyrian strategy in controlling conquered territory. Thus, 10:5–15 emerges as a coherent compositional unit, which integrates a series of Assyrian motifs and undermines these in arguing the need for Assyria to be punished by God. In light of this scholarship, I investigated the specific boasts which appear in 10:13–14 and noted that each of these boasts appears in a “letter to the gods” written at the command of Sargon II in 714 BCE, and subsequently proclaimed publicly, to commemorate his eighth campaign against Urartu. Some of the boasts, such as the claims of wisdom and power, are common in both biblical and Akkadian literature. But others, notably the claim to have removed nations’ boundaries, to have acted like a bull in “bringing down” rulers, to have gathered abandoned wealth and the connection between birds flapping wings and silence, appear in the biblical corpus only in this verse, and in the known Assyrian corpus only in that letter.45 Therefore, I argued that the boasts cited in this verse are based on their use in Assyrian royal propaganda of this period, attested by this letter. This does not mean that the author of Isa. 10:13–14 had access to the text of the letter. Rather, the boasts it contains were either reflective of expressions of royal invincibility articulated in the Assyrian court, or became popular in the court in 42  Machinist, “Assyria and its Image,” 734–35, and “Ah Assyria …,” 198–99. Perhaps, in light of Shalom E. Holtz, “The Case for Adversarial ‫יחד‬,”VT 59 (2009), 211–21, we ought to translate “Are not my officers standing opposite (and supervising) local kings?” referring to the practice of Assyrian delegates (qēpu) in the courts of vassal kings suspected of disloyalty. On this practice, see Peter Dubovsky, “King’s Direct Control: Neo-Assyrian Qēpu Officials,” in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 July 2008 (ed., Gernot Wilhelm; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 447–58. 43  Machinist, “Ah Assyria …,” 188–92. 44  Machinist, “Ah Assyria …,” 197. 45  See detailed discussion in Reflections of Empire, 189–206.

16

Shawn Zelig Aster

light of this letter. These claims were probably transmitted to Judahite tributebearers who reported them to the Judahite elite, of which Isaiah was a member. Together with the cities mentioned in 10:9, all of which were defeated and dominated by Sargon II in 720–717 BCE, the claims of empire cited in 10:13–14 allow us to date the composition of Isa 10:5–15, as an organic compositional unit, to the period around 714 BCE. We cannot be more precise in dating the passage, but this method of dating a passage, based on comparisons to firm chronological anchors, provides new and better answers to the questions Duhm, Marti, and Barth raised. It allows us to investigate relationships between passages in Isaiah based on a clear chronological framework, a task I attempted in Reflections of Empire. One further point should be noted, of special interest to those with justified doubts about the reliability of these comparisons. Above, three different scholarly treatments of Isa 10:5–15 have been surveyed. Each emphasizes different comparative aspects. Nevertheless, all three studies cited agree that 10:5–15 re-works and refutes Assyrian claims of empire, by directly referencing these claims. This consensus suggests that comparative study of Isaiah is hardly a speculative discipline.46 To further illustrate the wide consensus of views, despite the many different emphases, we turn now to Isa 19, the chapter whose superscription labels it “the burden of Egypt.” We consider 19:1–5 in order to illustrate how different scholars reach consensus in considering this chapter to contain references to motifs known to us from Assyrian royal inscriptions. Hays pointed to the two Hebrew borrowings from Akkadian terms in these verses. The hapax ‫ אטים‬in 19:3 is derivable from the Akkadian ețemmu, ghost, and in 19:4, ‫וסכרתי‬, whose Akkadian cognate, the verb sekēru, is used for damming up waterways. Hays then demonstrates the double-entendre in Isa 19:4, where ‫ וסכרתי את מצרים ביד אדנים קשה‬can be translated as “I will hand over Egypt into the hand of a harsh overlord,” but more clearly as “I will dam up Egypt by means of a harsh overlord.” This reference to “damming up” reflects actual Assyrian practice of damming up rivers as a means of pressuring an enemy.47 Balogh examined the historical background of the imagery used in this chapter, and noted that the description of “stirring up Egypt against Egypt” in 19:2 fits with the historical reality of Egypt in the late eighth century, but also with the struggles among Kushites, Egyptians, and Assyrians in the seventh century.48 46  This may be a small reminder of the Royal Asiatic Society’s public test in 1857, in which four translators working independently produced similar translations of an Akkadian document, and demonstrated that the language could be deciphered. On this fascinating episode, see Bruce Kucklick, Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life, 1880–1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 40. 47  Christopher B. Hays, “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unit of Isa 19:1–15,” ZAW 120 (2008): 612–16. 48 Csaba Balogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 239.

The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah



17

The imagery of 19:2–3 closely fits with Akkadian descriptions of the impact of an Assyrian invasion. Thus, the panic described in 19:1–2 fits with descriptions in Assyrian royal inscriptions of how the approach of the Assyrian king caused “hearts to palpitate and people to melt in fear.”49 The description in 19:3 of how God will destroy Egypt’s plans corresponds to the specific descriptions of Assurbanipal’s reactions to the plans of Egyptian leaders. The description in 19:4 of “a harsh lord” also corresponds to the representations of Assyrian kings in Assyrian literature.50 On this basis, Balogh assigns the composition of 19:1–15 to the late eighth or early seventh centuries BCE. My own analysis of 19:1–5 also identified Assyrian motifs in this passage, including the image of God riding on a slim cloud in 19:1, which seems to derive from motifs in Assyrian visual art. The image of the swift or light cloud (‫ )עב קל‬corresponds to the Assyrian artistic motifs more precisely than to motifs found in Ugaritic texts, which are commonly cited in scholarship.51 Furthermore, the specific language in 19:4 of ‫ומלך עז ימשל בם‬, “a harsh lord shall rule over them,” is nearly unique in the Hebrew Bible, and corresponds both philologically and lexically to Akkadian descriptions of the Assyrian king in the royal inscriptions.52 As noted above, Balogh sees this passage as likely related to the Egyptian invasions of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, while I argue, based primarily on 19:19, that it relates to the 734 campaign to Philistia of Tiglath-pileser III.53 But, although Balogh and I assign different dates to this passage, we have each identified motifs and linguistic parallels to Assyrian royal inscriptions. The passage is a reaction to an invasion of Egypt, and argues that despite evidence of Assyrian imperial power, and claims of royal invincibility, the real power motivating Assyria is God.

4. Conclusions: Prophetic Literature as Intellectual History In my view, the salient contribution of Assyriology to the study of Isa 1–39 is the opportunity to situate prophetic texts within their historical context, by relying on firm chronological anchors. Moreover, the comparative study of biblical and Assyrian texts allows us to read Isaiah passages as reactions not only to the political events of the Assyrian period, but as a reaction to the intellectual threat that the author of many of these passages perceived in Assyrian claims of universal Assyrian rule and of its invincible kingship. Comparative study offers 49 

Balogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt, 303.

51 

Reflections, of Empire, 114–19.

50 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 In that campaign, Assyrian forces reached the borders of Egypt, deprived certain Egyptian leaders of commercial bases in Philistia, and obtained influence over the nomads who controlled the approaches to Egypt. These activities allowed him to boast of having reached Egypt. Fuller discussion appears in Reflections of Empire, 114–34.

18

Shawn Zelig Aster

the opportunity to cautiously link specific passages in Isa 1–39 to specific claims of empire we know from Assyrian royal inscriptions, and to identify how these claims were rebutted. I have argued, in Reflections of Empire, that we can identify three stages in how the author of much of Isa 1–39 rebuts these claims. Large parts of Isa 6–8 and 19 view God as the motivating force behind Assyria, and highlight divine power without portraying Assyria as God’s enemy. The view of Assyria as a force to be opposed by God emerges clearly in parts of Isa 31 and 10, which developed during the reign of Sargon II, who restored Assyrian power and dismantled the northern kingdom. The expectation of God defeating Assyria is articulated in the narrative in Isa 36–37, much of which dates to soon after the events of 701. In contrast, much of Isa 1–2 accepts the military supremacy of Assyria as a reality which is temporary but whose end is not in sight. These chapters affirm divine supremacy, without giving a date for its practical expression by defeating Assyria. The reaction to Assyrian supremacy, therefore, changes as the political circumstances change, while the theological postulates remain constant. Thus, comparative study offers the opportunity for developing a fuller intellectual history of biblical Israel. For the author of these passages to have perceived Assyrian royal ideology as an ideological threat, he must first have sensed the incompatibility of this ideology with his own theology. In other words, as early as the second half of the late eighth century BCE, Biblical writers saw claims of the universal rule of Assyrian kings not only as a political threat, but as a theological one. This shows that the universality of YHWH, i. e. His supremacy over the world, did not post-date the encounter with Assyrian ideology. Throughout Isa 1–39, a consistent theology is articulated. God is portrayed as a universal ruler, wholly other from human beings, omnipotent and invincible. This consistent theology was irreconcilable with Assyrian claims of empire, and therefore led the authors of these passages to argue that unlike the power of human rulers, whose power can only be expressed by military might, God’s power can be expressed by military might, but exists independent of any military might. The concept of God’s transcendence thus emerges clearly in these passages. Beyond the theological message, the comparative study of Isa 1–39 offers the opportunity for studying local reactions to imperial rule. Assyria propagated its ideology of supremacy in order to induce subservience to Assyria among conquered societies, with the goal of extracting resources from these. In reaction to this ideological domination, Isa 1–39 offers a message of spiritual resistance. Undermining the ideology of Assyria by using the specific language of Assyrian claims of empire, the biblical passages convey the message that regardless of Assyrian political and military power, the ideology of the conqueror must be resisted.54 54 This

theme is broached by Baruch Levine, “Assyrian Ideology and Israelite Mono-



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

19

Bibliography Albenda, Pauline. The Palace of Sargon, King of Assyria: Monumental Wall Reliefs at DurSharrukin, from Original Drawings Made at the Time of their Discovery in 1843–1844 by Botta and Flandin. Synthese Series 22. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1986. Aster, Shawn Zelig. “Transmission of Neo-Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century BCE.” HUCA 78 (2007): 1–44. –. Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology. ANEM 19. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. –. “Treaty and Prophecy: A  Survey of Biblical Reactions to Neo-Assyrian Political Thought.” Pages 89–110 in Assyrian Domination of the Southern Levant. Edited by Avraham Faust and Shawn Zelig Aster. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2018. Balogh, Csaba. The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush. Oudtestamentische Studiën 60. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Birch, Samuel. Records of the Past: Being English Translations of Assyrian and Egyptian Monuments. 12 Volumes. London: Bagster, 1873–1881. Chan, Michael. “Rhetorical Reversal and Usurpation: Isaiah 10:5–34 and the Use of Neo-Assyrian Royal Idiom in the Construction of an Anti-Assyrian Theology.” JBL 128 (2009): 717–33. Cohen, Chaim. “Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Shaqe.” IOS 9 (1979): 32–48. Crouch, Carly. Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon and the Nature of Subversion. ANEM 8. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Dubovsky, Peter. “King’s Direct Control: Neo-Assyrian Qēpu Officials.” Pages 447–58 in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 July 2008. Edited by Gernot Wilhelm. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Duhm, Berhard. Das Buch Jesaja übersetzt und erklärt, HKAT 3/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892; 4th edition 1922. Fales, F. Mario. “The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The Moral Judgement.” Pages 425–35 in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Edited by Hans-J. Nissen and Johannes Renger. Berlin: Reimber, 1987. Gallagher, William. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Giddens, Anthony. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity, 1984. Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5. Locust Valley: Augustin, 1970. Hawking, Stephen. L’univers dans une coquille de noix. Translated by Christian Cler. Paris: Odille Jacob, 2001. Hays, Christopher B. “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unit of Isa 19:1–15.” ZAW 120 (2008): 612–16. Holtz, Shalom E. “The Case for Adversarial ‫יחד‬.” VT 59 (2009), 211–21. Kucklick, Bruce. Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life, 1880–1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). theism,” Iraq 67 (2005): 411–27, who sees Assyrian ideology as having engendered Isaiah’s monotheism. The idea of spiritual resistance to Assyrian ideology is discussed more fully by Machinist, “Ah Assyria …”, 207–11, and in my Reflections of Empire, 38–40 and 312–21.

20

Shawn Zelig Aster

Levine, Baruch. “Assyrian Ideology and Israelite Monotheism.” Iraq 67 (2005): 411–27. Liverani, Mario. “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire.” Pages 297–317 in Power and Propaganda: A  Symposium on Ancient Empires. Edited by Mogens Trolle Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. –. “Thoughts on the Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Kingship.” Pages 534–46 in A Companion to Assyria. Edited by Eckhart Frahm. London: Wiley and Sons, 2017. Luckenbill, Daniel David. Annals of Sennacherib. Oriental Institute Publications 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924. –. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1927. Machinist, Peter. “Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah.” JAOS (1983): 719–37. –. “Ah Assyria …. (Isaiah 10:5ff ) Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited.” Pages 183–218 in Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Honor of Mario Liverani, Sapienza, Universita di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009. Edited by Gilda Bartoloni and Maria Giovanna Biga in collaboration with Armando Bramanti. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016). Malul, Meir. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1990. Marti, Karl. Das Buch Jesaja. KHAT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900. Mastnjak, Nathan. “Judah’s Covenant with Assyria in Isaiah 28.” VT 64 (2014): 465–83. Morrow, William. “Tribute from Judah and the Transmission of Assyrian Propaganda.” Pages 183–92 in “My Spirit at Rest in the North Country” (Zechariah 6.8): Collected Communications to the XXth IOSOT Congress, Helsinki 2010. Edited by Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. Nadali, Davide. “Sieges and Similes of Sieges in the Royal Annals: The Conquest of Damascus by Tiglath-pileser III.” Kaskal 6 (2009): 137–50. Oded, Bustenay. War, Peace and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1992. Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion: Re-evaluating the Propaganda of Assurnasirpal II.” Eretz-Israel 27 (Tadmor Volume; 2003): 180–91 (Hebrew). Postgate, J. Nicholas. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974. Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950; 2nd edition, 1955; 3rd edition with supplement, 1969. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Russell, John Malcolm. Sennacherib’s “Palace Without Rival” at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991. Tadmor, Hayim. “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 325–39 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Edited by Simo Parpola and Robert McCray Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997. –. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. 2nd corrected edition. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2004. Tigay, Jeffrey H. “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing.” Pages 250–55 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg. Bethesda: CDL, 1993.



The Contribution of Assyriology to the Study of Isaiah

21

Wazana, Nili. “Are Trees of the Field Human?: A Biblical War Law (Deuteronomy 20:19– 20) and Neo-Assyrian Propaganda.” Pages 274–95 in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʾal. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Danʾel K ahn. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008. Weissert, Elnathan. “Jesajas Beschreibung der Hybris des assyrisches Königs und seine Auseinandersetzung mit ihr.” Pages 287–310 in Assur – Gott, Stadt, und Land. Edited by Johannes Renger. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination.” Pages 3–21 in Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology, and Reception. Edited by Tommy Wasserman, Greger Andersson, and David Willgren. LHBOTS 654. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Winter, Irene. “‘Seat of Kingship’/ ‘A Wonder to Behold’: The Palace as Construct in the Ancient Near East.” ArsOr 23 (1993): 27–55. Wolff, H. W. Hosea. Translated by Gary Stansell. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1974.

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition Stephen B. Chapman If the nineteenth-century biblical scholar Franz Delitzsch is remembered today for anything beyond a few isolated exegetical readings, it is for his supposed capitulation, near the end of a productive and lengthy career, to the critical view of two Isaiahs. The year before his death (so the story goes), in the fourth edition of his Isaiah commentary,1 Delitzsch abandoned his earlier spirited resistance to the modern proposal of a second Isaiah and reluctantly embraced the growing scholarly consensus that Isa 40–66 could not have been authored by the eight-century prophet, Isaiah of Jerusalem, who was deemed responsible for the first half of the book.2 Delitzsch’s defection is thought to have broken the back of conservative biblical scholarship in Germany, preparing the way for the long-overdue triumph of critical scholarship internationally, as represented by familiar names in the next generation like Bernhard Duhm (1847–1928), S. R. Driver (1846–1914), and Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918).3 This story has a certain truth to it, but Delitzsch’s change of mind was in reality more nuanced, and less dramatic, than academic memory has preserved. 1  For convenience I  will cite the English translation: Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, 2 Vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890). The German fourth edition appeared in 1889. 2  Cf. H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 1: “The clearest indication of this [scholarly consensus] comes from the change of mind by the moderately conservative Delitzsch in the fourth edition of his commentary on Isaiah …” Williamson calls attention to S. R. Driver’s introduction to the English translation as signaling the wider significance of Delitzsch’s shift. 3  For a treatment of Delitzsch as an impediment to critical biblical scholarship, see Rudolf Smend, “A Conservative Approach in Opposition to a Historical-critical Interpretation: E. W. Hengstenberg and Franz Delitzsch,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Volume III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism (The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries), ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 494–520. See especially Smend’s back-handed compliment: “But respect should not be completely denied to men like Hengstenberg and Delitzsch simply because as scholars they were in the long run failures” (495). Smend mentions in passing (508, 512–13) that Hengstenberg and Delitzsch had their disagreements, although he lumps them both together as figures opposed to critical scholarship. But nowhere does he explore fully the important differences between them. Cf. the more balanced discussion of Delitzsch and J. C. K. von Hofmann by John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 104–20, including his contrasting assessment: “Yet simply to see Delitzsch and Hofmann as hindrances to the critical method is not only unfair to them, it does not evaluate them as true representatives of the period in which they worked” (120).

24

Stephen B. Chapman

This essay accordingly advances a double claim: that Delitzsch did not simply surrender to the new critical consensus but worked out his own creative solution to the problem of Isaianic unity; and, that other aspects of Delitzsch’s thought are finally more interesting to twenty-first century eyes, and more valuable to contemporary biblical scholarship, than his view of Isaianic authorship.

1.  Delitzsch’s Life and Context Franz Julius Delitzsch was born in 1813.4 His father was a not very prosperous small goods merchant. Both of his older sisters died in infancy. Franz seems to have been named in honor of Franz Julius Hirsch, one of three godfathers for the boy listed in the baptismal registry of the Leipzig Nikolaikirche. This Hirsch was apparently identical with Levy Hirsch, a Jewish friend of the family. Hirsch lived in the same house as the Delitzsches and would support young Franz financially throughout his schooling. Already during Delitzsch’s lifetime, rumors circulated that he himself was of Jewish descent and even that Hirsch was his biological father – rumors that Delitzsch persistently denied, but which seemed to many to find a degree of confirmation over time in Delitzsch’s uncommon facility with Judaica, his translation of the New Testament into Hebrew, and his life-long passion for Christian missionary work among Jews.5 Late in life Delitzsch also emerged as a leading spokesman against the anti-Semitic views of Catholic theologian August Rohling (1839–1931). Gossip about the family persisted into the life and career of Delitzsch’s son Friedrich (1850–1922), the noted Assyriologist and notorious author of the early twentieth-century “Babel und Bibel” lectures and Die grosse Täuschung.6 Even as late as 1934, a pamphlet was published purporting to investigate the “secret” of Franz Delitzsch’s birth,7 and the notion that he was a convert from Judaism has had a lengthy shelf-life, particularly in English-language scholarship.8 In 4  For additional biographical information, see J. H. Hayes, “Delitzsch, Franz Julius,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 2 Vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 1:265–67; Siegfried Wagner, Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk, Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 80 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1978). 5 See Wagner, Delitzsch, 16–26. 6  See further Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg, “A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s ‘Babel und Bibel’ Lectures,” JBL 121 (2002): 441–57; Mogens Trolle Larsen, “The ‘Babel/Bible Controversy and Its Aftermath,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack M. Sasson, 4 Vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995), 1:95–106; Reinhard G. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit, OBO 113 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994). It is difficult to imagine that this gossip did not play a role in the tragic anti-Semitism of Friedrich Delitzsch. 7 Julius Boehmer, Das Geheimnis um die Geburt von Franz Delitzsch (Kassel: König in Leipzig, 1934). Cf. Gerhard Kittel, Die Judenfrage (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934). 8  As noted in Wagner, Delitzsch, 20, some English-language students reported hearing Delitzsch describe himself as being of Jewish descent. See also Emil G. Kraeling, The Old Tes-



Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition

25

his book-length treatment of Franz Delitzsch’s life and work, Siegfried Wagner concluded that although there is no decisive proof one way or the other, the preponderance of the evidence speaks in favor of Delitzsch’s Jewish descent.9 In a more recent account, Rudolf Smend suggests that perhaps Delitzsch did not know the truth himself.10 Much clearer is how sometime in 1831 or early 1832 Delitzsch had a conversion experience that would shape the remainder of his life. He had already begun his university studies in Leipzig, with a joint focus on philosophy and philology, and by his own account was much taken with German Rationalism. His philological studies centered on Semitics. Julius Fürst (1805–73), the highly regarded Jewish Semitist, was one of his teachers. However, in the fall of 1831 Delitzsch switched from philosophy to theology. One day about this time he felt something like a bolt of lightning strike him as he was walking down the Goethestrasse in Leipzig, a divine encounter that he later likened, not to that of Paul on the Damascus road, but to Thomas in the twentieth chapter of John’s Gospel.11 Delitzsch’s doubts were transformed into certainty. “From then on,” Delitzsch wrote, “I became a theologian.”12 A social context for this experience came from two directions: from some of Delitzsch’s student friends, who had openly sought to convert him from his nominal Christianity and philosophical rationalism to the more robust confessional Lutheranism championed within a contemporary Christian revival movement known as the Erweckungsbewegung or “German Awakening,” and from two Christian missionaries to the Jews who had arrived in Leipzig, and with whom Delitzsch had become closely acquainted. From this point on, Delitzsch would be a staunch Lutheran traditionalist, with a strongly experiential, quasi-pietistic approach to matters of religious belief and practice.13 After a bumpy beginning, Delitzsch’s academic career eventually brought him to teach at Erlangen, home of the “Erlangen School” within nineteenthcentury Neo-Lutheranism. In contrast to the “repristination” approach of contament since the Reformation (London: Lutterworth: 1955), 149, who characterizes Friedrich Delitzsch as “the son of a convert from Judaism, Frank [sic] Delitzsch, who had been one of the foremost Old Testament scholars of his day.” 9  Wagner, Delitzsch, 23. 10 Rudolf Smend, “Franz Delitzsch – Aspekte von Leben und Werk,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, BZAW 400, ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 347–66 (348). 11  In contrast to Paul (then known as Saul), who also experienced a light from heaven on a road (Acts 9:3), “doubting Thomas” (as he is sometimes remembered in the Christian tradition) needed to touch the physical wounds of the resurrected Christ’s body in order to believe. 12  As quoted in Wagner, Delitzsch, 30. 13 Now see Jacob Corzine, Erfahrung im Alten Testament: Untersuchung zur Exegese des Alten Testaments bei Franz Delitzsch, Arbeiten zur Systematischen Theologie 13 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018); Andrew Kloes, The German Awakening: Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–1848 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).

26

Stephen B. Chapman

servative Lutherans like E. W. Hengstenberg (1802–69),14 who sought to return to Lutheran orthodoxy, the Erlangen theologians attempted to forge a more dynamic account of their confessional heritage – even as they remained tightly bound to the traditional Lutheran confessions as authoritative expressions of the meaning of Scripture.15 Erlangen theologians also tended to be more politically liberal than the Hengstenberg wing, as can be seen especially in a figure like J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810–77), who served as a progressive member of the Bavarian parliament in addition to his academic work in Erlangen,16 and was a particularly important intellectual influence on Delitzsch.17 Hofmann pioneered a developmental approach to the Bible which sought to negotiate between traditional Christian theology and German historicism.18 Rather than understanding the Bible as a timeless repository of verbally inspired propositional truths, in line with older dogmatic approaches, Hofmann viewed Scripture as “a divine testimony of the revelatory history of salvation.”19 Scripture is still considered divinely given, but also as consisting of a series of temporal witnesses to acts of God occurring within history and forming a chain of events which united the Old Testament with the New.20 This basic stance enabled Hofmann, who had studied in Berlin with G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) and Leopold van Ranke (1795–1886), to advance a more incremental and organic view of 14  See further Matthias A. Deuschle, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des kirchlichen Konservatismus im Preußen des 19. Jahrhunderts, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 169 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 15 See further Karlmann Beyschlag, Die Erlanger Theologie, Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns 67 (Erlangen: Martin-Luther Verlag, 1993); Lowell C. Green, The Erlangen School: Its History, Teaching, and Practice (Fort Wayne: Lutheran Legacy Press, 2010); Friedrich Winter, Die Erlanger Theologie und die Lutherforschung im 19. Jahrhundert (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995). 16 See Wilfried Behr, Politischer Liberalismus und kirchliches Christentum: Studien zum Zusammenhang von Theologie und Politik bei Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810–1877) (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1995); Roy A. Harrisville, “Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von (1810–1877),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 533–37. 17  Delitzsch had succeeded Hofmann in Rostock prior to his appointment as Hofmann’s faculty colleague in Erlangen. While together in Erlangen, they exchanged letters that were later published. See Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 512–13. Their closeness is underscored by how Rogerson, Criticism, treats them together in his magisterial overview of nineteenthcentury Old Testament scholarship. 18  In English, see especially J. C. K. von Hofmann, Interpreting the Bible (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959). 19 Jan Rohls, “Historical, Cultural and Philosophical Aspects of the Nineteenth Century with Special Regard to Biblical Interpretation,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Volume III: From Modernism to Post Modernism (The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries), ed. Magne Sæbø. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 53. 20  See further Matthew L. Becker, The Self-Giving God and Salvation History: The Trinitarian Theology of Johannes von Hofmann (New York: T&T Clark, 2004); Karl Gerhard Steck, Die Idee des Heilsgeschichte: Hofmann-Schlatter-Cullmann, Theologische Studien 56 (Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1959).



Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition

27

biblical history without sacrificing its theological import. Not every prophetic oracle was christological or even messianic, but all of biblical history was prophetic. Each individual prophet spoke to his own context and also beyond it.21 Every episode of historical revelation participated in a divinely guided trajectory by reinforcing old truths and creating new spiritual possibilities, a process that eventuated for Hofmann in the coming of Christ.22 Delitzsch did not find Hofmann to be very available (or satisfying) as a conversation partner during his time in Erlangen, but his own developing scholarship was clearly molded by Hofmann’s approach to the Bible,23 even as he was troubled by some of Hofmann’s theological positions (especially Hofmann’s unorthodox account of atonement).24 Delitzsch perceived two fundamental problems with Hofmann’s biblical hermeneutics. First, because of his heavy emphasis on the organic continuity of historical revelation, Hofmann appeared to equate revelation with history and then minimize human freedom by viewing history as unfolding independently of any human response25  – especially the human refusal of divine guidance. Delitzsch worried at the same time that there was too much emphasis on divine immanence in Hofmann’s work and not enough attention to divine transcendence, too much reliance on the natural as opposed to the supernatural. While Delitzsch believed just as strongly as Hofmann in an overarching history of salvation (Heilsgeschichte) being evident in the Bible, he was persuaded that only a small group within Israel had succeeded in following the way of salvation, and that God had indeed worked miraculously at points within history in order to bring about the divine will, yet “without any abrogation of human freedom.”26 Second, Delitzsch was unconvinced that Hofmann had done sufficient justice to the historical timeliness of the prophetic word, due to Hofmann’s ultimate stress on the decisive understanding conveyed by the Christ event.27 Rather than viewing prophecy primarily as coded information about events far in the future (as Hengstenberg did),28 Delitzsch wanted to treat prophecy (even more than Hofmann theorized) as a historical experience of lively faith that cor21  See J. C. K. von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung im alten und im neuen Testamente, 2 Vols. (Nördlingen: Beck’schen Buchhandlung, 1841). 22  Rogerson, Criticism, 104–11 (109). 23  Wagner, Delitzsch, 77–83. 24  For a brief overview, see Rogerson, Criticism, 110–11. Hofmann moved away from the notion of atonement as “satisfaction” for sin, and toward the idea of Christ as an example by which humanity might overcome its self-alienation from God. 25  Brevard S. Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 273. 26  As cited in Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 514. 27  Rogerson, Criticism, 116–17. 28  Cf. Henning Graf Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation Volume 4: From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century, trans. Leo G. Perdue (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 291.

28

Stephen B. Chapman

respondingly offered educative parallels for modern believers. Without being cloaked and misunderstood predictions, some (though not all) of Israel’s prophetic oracles did contribute to a developing messianic tradition, which steadily gained an enhanced ideational profile over time, although not in a single line or unbroken progression. Toward the end of his time in Erlangen, Delitzsch produced the first edition of his Isaiah commentary.29 The commentary was part of the well-known multivolume reference work edited by Delitzsch and Carl Friedrich Keil (1807–88), their Commentary on the Old Testament, which remained a standard guide to Old Testament scholarship in conservative circles throughout the twentieth century and is still available for purchase in print and electronic formats.30 The second (1869) and third (1872) editions of Delitzsch’s Isaiah commentary offered no major changes in approach or outcome, exhibiting only a light updating of the annotations.31 However, the fourth “thoroughly revised” edition (1889),32 dedicated to Driver and T. K. Cheyne (1841–1915), did include a new wrestling with critical questions. Moreover, because this edition was separately published in English and not subsequently incorporated into the Keil and Delitzsch set (which continued to reprint the third edition of Delitzsch’s Isaiah commentary), some later readers were unaware of any shift in his approach – or even that it might be a question.33 The German fourth edition was published during the penultimate year of Delitzsch’s life. He had returned to Leipzig in 1867 after not quite two decades in Erlangen, and soon the full force of Wellhausen’s 1878 Prolegomena was being felt.34 Delitzsch was known to be an “adversary” of Wellhausen; he was widely perceived to represent something like the old-fashioned opposition to the new winds gusting and “troubling the church of God.”35 But it was not the historical method that Delitzsch resisted. He had always engaged in historically oriented research. Nor was it exclusively the specifics of Wellhausen’s reconstruction of the Pentateuch which were at the forefront of Delitzsch’s concern. Delitzsch instead wrote that what he fundamentally opposed was Wellhausen’s “differing religious attitude to Holy Scripture and the differing evaluation of the results 29 Friedrich Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über den Prophet Jesaia (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1866) = Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867). 30  Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über das Old Testament (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1861–75) = C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1878–89). 31  Wagner, Delitzsch, 256. 32  Delitzsch, Isaiah, v: “a thorough revisal.” 33 John Rogerson, “Keil, Carl Friedrich (1807–1888), and Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 606–9 (607). 34  Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 519. 35  As Delitzsch himself supposedly put it; cited in Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 519.

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



29

for religious history.”36 As numerous other commentators echoed at the time, it was Wellhausen’s sarcastic, irreverent tone that caused Delitzsch the gravest concern.37 In response to this altered critical environment, Delitzsch published a new version of his commentary on Genesis just prior to the revised fourth edition of the Isaiah commentary,38 and in the final year of his life he produced a summary statement with regard to Old Testament prophecy and the messianic tradition. This book, his Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession,39 and the final Isaiah commentary can therefore be read together as complementary late works detailing Delitzsch’s distinctive approach not only to Old Testament prophecy but to biblical hermeneutics more broadly. Delitzsch himself referred to the Messianic Prophecies volume as an intentional effort to leave behind a “legacy” (Vermächtnis) in “as brief, attractive, and suggestive a form as possible.”40

2.  The Fourth Edition’s History of Reception In a sympathetic German review by Eduard König, one of Delitzsch’s former students, Delitzsch’s final Isaiah commentary is praised as an impressive revision achieved late in life by an “old master.”41 Although much of the review is spent extolling the probity of Delitzsch’s lexical work and his exhaustive handling of ancient sources, König turns at the end to the question of Isaianic authorship. König acknowledges how Delitzsch now openly expresses the view that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah are “nicht absolut und direkt” to be attributed to the eighth-century prophet.42 But König also interprets this position as a logical extension of Delitzsch’s prior work rather than a mere abdication. He reminds his readers that Delitzsch had hinted at this conclusion in recent English translations of his previously published lectures on messianic prophecy and Old Testament Heilsgeschichte,43 as well as in his new commentary on Genesis. Yet in this fourth edition of his Isaiah commentary, Delitzsch “dares” to speak his mind plainly.44 36 

Delitzsch, as cited in Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 520. See Brevard S. Childs, “Wellhausen in English,” Semeia 25 (1983): 83–88, especially 85. 38 Franz Delitzsch, A  New Commentary on Genesis, 2 Vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888–89). 39 Franz Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891). 40  Delitzsch, “Author’s Preface,” Messianic Prophecies. 41 Eduard König, “Zur Jesaja-Auslegung,” Theologisches Literaturblatt 11 (1890): 153–56. 42  König, “Jesaja-Auslegung,” 155. 43 Franz Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies. Lectures by Franz Delitzsch. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880); idem, Old Testament History of Redemption. Lectures by Franz Delitzsch, trans. Samuel Ives Curtis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881). 44  König, “Jesaja-Auslegung,” 156. 37 

30

Stephen B. Chapman

In doing so, König suggests, Delitzsch may have “solved” the conundrum of the latter part of the book by sourcing it to a later prophet who must have belonged to the circle of Isaiah’s disciples, a group that preserved authentic Isaianic memories and ways of speaking. This anonymous prophet was entrusted by God to announce to the exiles the end of their Babylonian captivity, which the eighthcentury prophet himself had only been able to perceive indistinctly on the faraway horizon, like a threatening storm cloud.45 By means of this approach, Delitzsch negotiates the basic problem of the final twenty-seven chapters: namely that they exhibit both differences from and similarities to the book’s first thirty-nine chapters. In this way, Delitzsch can accommodate the results of critical scholarship without weakening the scriptural authority of Isaiah 40–66 or introducing skepticism about the predictive nature of prophecy and the miraculous power of God to shape history. Indeed, what König finds especially appealing is how Delitzsch articulates so keenly his own sense of responsibility as a biblical interpreter, and how he says he “trembles” to say the right thing about the authorship question rather than a wrong one.46 The English translation of Delitzsch’s fourth edition appeared the following year (1890), after Delitzsch’s death, and featured a preface by Driver.47 Driver neatly summarizes Delitzsch’s lifelong mission as wanting “to make the Old Testament better known to Christians, and the New Testament to Jews.”48 After reviewing Delitzsch’s life and his many contributions to the field, Driver offers a few evaluative comments, suggesting that while Delitzsch was not always successful as an abstract thinker, and was sometimes too imaginative in his handling of the biblical material, he was nonetheless an outstanding exegete whose work displays “warm religious feeling” as well as “exact and comprehensive scholarship.”49 In Driver’s judgment, Delitzsch’s exegesis, while always impressive, cannot entirely be trusted because he “sometimes advocated derivations and connections between words, which are dependent upon questionable philological theories.”50 With regard to Delitzsch’s critical scholarship more broadly, Driver concludes that: [he] was open-minded; and with praiseworthy love of truth, when the facts were brought home to him, did not shrink from frankly admitting them, and modifying, as circumstances required, the theories by which he had previously been satisfied.51 45 

König, “Jesaja-Auslegung,” 155–56. König, “Jesaja-Auslegung,” 156. 47  This introduction originally appeared separately as the scholarly obituary “Professor Franz Delitzsch” in The Expository Times 1 (June, 1890): 197–201, and was subsequently added to the English-language commentary as “Introductory Notice,” vii–xv.  I will cite the version appearing in the commentary. 48  Driver, “Notice,” vii. 49  Driver, “Notice,” xiii. 50  Driver, “Notice,” xiv. 51  Driver, “Notice,” xiv. 46 

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



31

Rather than an old master who had continued to develop, as König describes him, Driver presents Delitzsch as an honorable accommodator to newer biblical criticism. Driver notes how Delitzsch’s final treatment of Genesis found him embracing a basically Wellhausian view of the Hexateuch by accepting a Hezekian date for Deuteronomy and agreeing that the priestly legislation was likely even later. Where Delitzsch sought to retain a link to religious tradition was in insisting that, even so, the various Pentateuchal legal codes contained older traditions within them and ultimately had a Mosaic foundation. Driver takes these revised views as evidence of Delitzsch’s fairness as a scholar, and he suggests that they support the “cogency” of the newer critical scholarship. If a traditionalist like Delitzsch must in the end agree, Driver submits, then critical scholarship is not only that much more likely to be correct, it does not need to be viewed, “when properly limited and qualified,” as antithetical to “a firm and sincere belief in the reality of the revelation contained in the Old Testament.”52 In concluding, Driver observes how Delitzsch’s final Isaiah commentary was dedicated to Cheyne and himself (two leading critical scholars), and he insists that the commentary was “accommodated throughout to the view of the origin and structure of the book generally accepted by modern scholars.”53 In this fashion, Driver styles the commentary as a principled concession and enlists Delitzsch in support of his own critical project. Driver’s characterization of Delitzsch’s fourth edition has become the received opinion down to the present day in English-language scholarship, though not without demurrals. E. J. Young maintained that Driver’s portrayal was not “strictly accurate,” since “there is not one chapter in Isaiah 1–39 which Delitzsch refuses to attribute to the son of Amoz.”54 Young further pointed out how even in his fourth edition Delitzsch still concludes that chapters 40–66 are better “regarded as testamentary discourses of the one Isaiah, and the entire prophetic collection as the progressive development of his incomparable charism.”55 Like König, Young understood Delitzsch to be advancing the idea of a later but nonetheless Isaianic author as responsible for the second half of the book. For Young, it was therefore accurate to say that “in a certain sense, Delitzsch believed in a deutero-Isaiah.” Yet Delitzsch’s fundamental stance in this matter was “difficult to determine” with greater specificity.56 As Young also noticed, Delitzsch actually downplays the significance of authorship in the introduction to the first volume of his commentary by averring that he has “never found anything inherently objectionable in the view that prophetic discourses by Isaiah and by other later 52 

Driver, “Notice,” xv. Driver, “Notice,” xv. 54  Edward J. Young, Studies in Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 31. 55  Young, Studies in Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 31. The quotation is from Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:125–26. 56  Young, Studies, 32. 53 

32

Stephen B. Chapman

prophets may have been blended and joined together in it on a definite plan.”57 But Young did not explore the far-reaching implications of this statement, focusing instead on the authorship question as a crucial determination. One reason for the lingering difficulty in assessing Delitzsch’s position on authorship is that Delitzsch hems and haws about it, confessing that the attribution of Isa 40–66 to an Isaianic pupil seems “probable, and almost certain,” and then adding “but indubitably certain it is not, in my opinion, and I shall die without getting over this hesitancy.”58 Delitzsch then enumerates several further problems with the critical view that he has just tentatively embraced, such as the lack of a comparable phenomenon within other prophetic books (although he does acknowledge Zechariah as a possible parallel). Delitzsch even concludes his discussion by asserting that “the influence of criticism on exegesis in the Book of Isaiah amounts to nothing.”59 If critics charge his commentary with being uncritical, he insists, at least they will not be able to accuse it of misrepresenting the book of Isaiah’s contents. Young was therefore right to regard Delitzsch as ultimately unclear and somewhat ambivalent, but Young did not pause to ponder how another dimension to his difficulty was the fact that his interpretive concerns lined up only imperfectly with Delitzsch’s own. Young finally operated with a more limited range of options with regard to the authorship question and its consequences for an account of biblical inspiration than Delitzsch did. In the German context, Driver’s view has been less directly influential, since the German fourth edition lacked his introduction. Some German scholars have nevertheless shared Driver’s impression.60 Yet Rudolf Smend expresses doubt that questions about Delitzsch can be resolved satisfactorily by concluding that he eventually adopted a critical point of view. For Smend, he never fully came around. Smend ultimately depicts Delitzsch as a tragic casualty of the gulf between the Bible and history which opened up in the Enlightenment, widened in the nineteenth century, and received a radical, lapidary formulation in Wellhausen’s work.61 Brevard Childs also doubted that Driver had interpreted Delitzsch’s shift correctly.62 Childs understood why Delitzsch had deemphasized the significance 57 

Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:38. Cited in Young, Studies, 31. Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:39. Also cited in Young, Studies, 31. 59  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:40 (my emphasis). 60  As cited in Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 520, Eduard Meyer referred to Delitzsch’s embrace of Wellhausen’s work “without reserve” and to the subsequent revision of “his whole life’s work” as “a proof of the power of the scholarly conscience.” Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testament, 3rd ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 230, similarly presents Delitzsch as a figure who had opposed historical criticism but toward the end of his life increasingly adopted historical-critical tendencies. 61  Smend, “Conservative Approach,” 520. 62  Childs, Struggle, 274: “Although it is clear that Delitzsch had undergone a change in his perspective from the first edition of 1866, it is far from certain that Driver drew the correct implications from this shift.” 58 

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



33

of the authorship question.63 In Childs’s judgment, Delitzsch was casting about for a way to affirm the unity of Isaiah despite the increasing historical likelihood of dual authorship. Delitzsch did not know how to do so except in the form of a modified theory of authorship, even though he was persuaded that authorship was not the most decisive factor in the book’s interpretation. For this reason, Delitzsch consistently stresses how the latter half of Isaiah represents a “progressive growth” of the “theme, standpoint, style, and ideas” found in the first part of the book.64 As Childs grasped, the book of Isaiah is certainly a combination of various textual materials for Delitzsch but “no play of chance, no work of caprice.”65 The book instead represents a collection of prophetic discourses “blended and joined together on a definite plan.”66 The discourses originating after the time of the eighth-century prophet: are really the homogeneous and simultaneous continuation of Isaian prophecy, the primary stream of which ramifies in them as in the branches of a river, and throughout retains its fertilizing power. These later prophets so closely resembled Isaiah in prophetic vision that posterity might on that account well identify them with him. They belong more or less nearly to those pupils of his to whom he refers, when, in chap. viii. 16, he entreats the Lord, “Seal instruction among my disciples.”67

Here Delitzsch charts an alternative profile of the book’s literary development, using its literary shape as a guide. The fact that Isaiah’s other authors are not named or otherwise revealed indicates something important about how the book was conceived as it was compiled and transmitted. The lack of this authorial information is finally less a problem to be solved than a dispositive feature of the book in its received form. After all, the book explicitly refers to the prophet’s disciples and their ongoing stewardship of the book and its message (e. g., Isa 8:16). Delitzsch offers a historically sound reconstruction, in light of scholarship at the time, but one that strives to retain the complementarity of historical reconstruction and received text, rather than pulling them apart: In view of this fact, the whole book rightly bears the name of Isaiah, inasmuch as he is, directly and indirectly, the author of all these prophetic discourses; his name is the correct common-denominator for this collection of prophecies, which, with all their diversity, yet form a unity; and the second half particularly (chaps. xl.– lxvi.) is the work of a pupil who surpasses the master, though he owes the master everything.68

63 

Childs, Struggle, 275. Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:128. 65  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:132. 66  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:38. 67  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:38. 68  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:38–39. 64 

34

Stephen B. Chapman

With this type of formulation the term “Isaiah” really ceases to refer to a single historical author and becomes something else, a way of speaking about a reliable tradition of transmission and a corresponding literary unity of the received text. As Childs insightfully observed, even confronting this type of concern set Delitzsch apart hermeneutically from scholars like Cheyne and Driver. Because Delitzsch is invested in a larger providential vision of scriptural formation, he can attribute not only Isa 40–66 to a “second” Isaiah but some portions of Isa 1–39 as well, such as Isa 24–27, which he clearly does hold, contra Young, to be secondary.69 Indeed, Delitzsch suggests that Second Isaiah might have authored, in chronological order, Isa 24–27; 23; 21:1–10; 13:2–14:23; and 34–35.70 Delitzsch can even broach the possibility of multiple prophets responsible for the “Deutero-Isaianic passages.”71 Yet although Delitzsch does treat Isa 24–27 as secondary, he nevertheless argues that this group of chapters has been designed as an intentional continuation of and finale to Isa 13–23, gathering “into one grand impressive whole the previously scattered themes.”72 What emerges as a characteristic feature of Delitzsch’s handling of the material is thus a focus on what would today be termed “intertextuality.” Delitzsch traces verbal links between the first and second halves of the book in order to establish “the continuity of the prophetic message in spite of multiple authorship.”73 The deeper point Delitzsch seeks to make is not that the book of Isaiah can be read as a unity thanks merely to a wooden claim of revised historical authorship but because of its verbal interrelationships, literary patterning, and unified message. Conversely, a revised theory of authorship does not place that unified message in any jeopardy. There is a historical and literary design to the whole of Isaiah, and giving expression to that design is a biblical interpreter’s duty (or joy, as Delitzsch himself regularly liked to insist). So was Driver right? Delitzsch could and did accommodate to the emerging critical view of Isaianic authorship even more than many have realized, then and now, precisely because it did not affect the heart of his overall approach. Yet he also did not simply accommodate to critical scholarship, because he continued to chart a very different path from the one that Driver and his critical confrères pursued. Central to Delitzsch’s approach was a lively apprehension of the unity of Isaiah and a commitment to interpreting the book in its received (as opposed to a reconstructed) form.

69 

Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:419–20. Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:133. 71  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:133. 72  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:419. 73  Childs, Struggle, 276. 70 

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



35

3.  Prophetic Psychology and Ecstasy Delitzsch further relativized and reframed straightforward presuppositions about temporal sequence in the Bible’s prophetic books, and he problematized easy assumptions of a direct relationship between a prophetic oracle and its originating historical context. The best way to recognize and understand these aspects of Delitzsch’s thought is to probe more deeply into the supernatural dimension of his work. At a basic level, this supernaturalism represented his traditionalist refusal to keep within a naturalistic range of explanatory possibilities. Delitzsch certainly conceived of prophecy as a genuine communication from God. But his supernaturalism was not of a crude variety either, since he was always concerned to see God at work in and through the events of history and the operations of the natural world. In fact, Delitzsch’s “supernatural” interest typically focused less on the miraculous and more on the ecstatic dimension of prophecy, on what could even be called prophetic “psychology.” In writing about Isa 25–26, Delitzsch thus describes the prophetic speaker as “transported to the end of time,”74 and he means it – but primarily as a statement about what the prophet himself had experienced and believed. Delitzsch wrote an entire book on “biblical psychology,” long considered the strangest but also most creative item in his entire oeuvre.75 Once again the genius of Delitzsch is evident in his ability to rethink the tradition in new ways. Rather than taking up the well-worn topic of scriptural inspiration, Delitzsch seeks to renarrate the experience of revelation from a historical perspective: Since the Holy Scripture regards man not from the physiologic point of view of nature’s laws, but everywhere as in definite ethico-historical relations, we shall adopt the historical mode, and prosecute the history of the soul from its eternal antecedents to its everlasting ultimate destiny.76

Delitzsch proceeds to identify three types of spiritual experience: 1. operations of divine grace which precede self-consciousness; 2. operations of such grace which work on human self-consciousness and the conscious will; and 3. the “experience of heavenly blessedness” or spiritual ecstasy,77 an “experience and perception beyond the reflecting will and discursive thought.”78 Spiritual ecstasy in turn takes three forms: the mystic, the prophetic, and the charismatic, all three of which are evident in the Bible.79 The purpose of mystic ecstasy is basically to strengthen personal faith, according to Delitzsch, while 74 

Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:431. Delitzsch, A  System of Biblical Psychology (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

75 Franz

1890). 76  Delitzsch, Psychology, 19. 77  Delitzsch, Psychology, 417. 78  Delitzsch, Psychology, 418. 79  Delitzsch, Psychology, 418.

36

Stephen B. Chapman

prophetic ecstasy publicly announces what has been experienced and seen, in line with the prophetic vocation.80 Although the phenomenon of prophecy has its own “progressive history,” which even includes its “mode of revelation,” and so prophecy is not always exclusively or even primarily visual in nature, the fundamental prophetic experience is nevertheless prevailingly a visionary one.81 The prophet truly sees something “by means of the spiritual eye of the inward sense,” and yet he sees this “divine thing in its supernatural objectivity from his own imagination and thinking.”82 The prophet’s ecstatic experience reshapes the prophet’s perception of time. Delitzsch concedes that the future remains “an ideal reality” when the prophet “is enabled to see it and to experience it.”83 And yet this reality does become “visible and audible” to the prophet “by the mediation of his psychic-corporeal nature, and according to the measure of his temporal limitations.”84 Thanks to divine agency this “ideal reality” is also an “objective” reality, and the prophet is actually “transported.” But Delitzsch is never willing to sacrifice the human side of prophetic experience, understanding as he did that prophetic oracles are delivered “in a clothing which is borrowed from the individual nature of the prophet.”85 He instead offers an account of prophetic ecstasy as a consequence and expression of divine immanence within the prophetic person and even claims that such divine indwelling is the “fundamental state of the regenerate person generally.”86 At this point in the discussion, Delitzsch’s own history and convictions as an Erweckungstheologe seem especially close the surface.87 Not only is there a “habitual reciprocal immanence of the human and the divine spirit” which extends 80 Within

Delitzsch’s schema, charismatic ecstasy is largely a matter of glossolalia. Delitzsch, Psychology, 420–21. 82  Delitzsch, Psychology, 420–21. 83  Delitzsch, Psychology, 422. 84  Delitzsch, Psychology, 422. 85  Delitzsch, Psychology, 423. Delitzsch is so insistent on upholding both the human and divine aspects of prophecy that he affirms the possibility (Psychology, 431–32), against “our ancient dogmatists,” of “errors” in the prophetic writings: “failures of memory, failures of combination, generally failures above which the most spiritual human activity of all is not absolutely exalted.” Typical of Delitzsch, however, is the way in which this conclusion is not reached by naturalistic reasoning but theological logic: “God could do away with the limits that are incident to the prophetic view of the remote future; that He does not do so, is of His disciplinary wisdom.” To then insist on an error-free text “makes the influence of God, who takes the writer into the service of the revealed history, into a too stiff, uniform, forceful onesidedness, without duly appreciating the co-operative individual manifold free agency of the writer.” For Delitzsch, this admission of human error underscores, rather than jeopardizes, the “infallibility” of the truth contained within Scripture and the faithfulness of the history of redemption which Scripture reports. 86  Delitzsch, Psychology, 423. 87 Indeed, Delitzsch could even write (Psychology, 431) that the way “God breathes thoughts into man” is a “fact of experience, which is not so exclusively pertinent to the future life, that every Christian has not occasionally been able to experience it in himself.” 81 

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



37

beyond “passing acts of ecstasy” in the regenerate person of faith, this lingering and ongoing presence of the divine “severs” a person from worldly events and persons who exist “below this immanence.”88 The unregenerate cannot fully comprehend the experience of the regenerate. Interestingly, Delitzsch uses this understanding of spiritual experience to explain the violent form of ecstasy on display in the accounts of the military heroes in Judges and of Saul in the Samuel narrative. Rather than indicating their spiritual receptivity, the extreme physical impact of such experiences on these figures demonstrates the foreignness of the spiritual to their normal mode of existence.89 True prophets do not force spiritual experience by techniques, suffer the cessation of their normal senses when receiving an oracle, or sustain a feeling of dislocation when prophesying. True prophets “remember what has been given them to see, hear and speak in the ecstasy.”90 The true prophet is “the appointed mediator of the divine thoughts respecting the order of salvation and divine decrees, for his people and for humanity.”91 In this way, the prophet truly does gain a “glimpse into the future.”92 Delitzsch’s description of this prophetic vantage point is highly significant for his exegesis: Things which are widely removed from one another, approach in the perspective: the prophet sees the conclusive future on the brink of the present, without the long ascending and descending road that lies between. By the side of the remote perspective that is rendered possible by the spirit of prophecy, there is always also a close view that is not cancelled by the former; and hope, moreover, does its work of drawing near the remote future into the closest neighbourhood of the gloomy present.93

What the prophet subsequently recounts, and what the prophetic books in the Bible relate, is not in the first instance a direct reflection on contemporaneous historical events, but a spiritually inflected vision of history reflecting a different quality and pattern of time. That is why, to return to Isa 25–26, Delitzsch insists that this material “echoes” as well as “reflects.”94 Here later prophetic material reverberates in an intertextual manner, with additional psalms and songs by the prophet and his followers being based on and extending an earlier vision of the prophet. Yet because this later material enlarges the earlier vision by participating in it and adopting its perspective, the “present” of this later material is also not its own period of time, 88 

Delitzsch, Psychology, 423. Delitzsch, Psychology, 423–24. 90  Delitzsch, Psychology, 424. 91  Delitzsch, Psychology, 425. 92  Delitzsch, Psychology, 430. 93  Delitzsch, Psychology, 430–31. 94  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:431. 89 

38

Stephen B. Chapman

but the “present” of the vision.95 In other words, the prophetic “present” may be more about a future time than the historical moment of the prophet or his followers, and time itself may therefore be said to “echo” in the prophet’s apprehension as well. Once again, it is Delitzsch’s tendency to credit the religious experience of the prophets as genuine religious experience which leads to a different appraisal of prophetic literature. In his estimation, the prophets really did see and experience what they describe, and their words relate first and foremost to their visions rather than to the raw facts of history. In the end, Delitzsch’s interpretative approach does not depend as much on his own acceptance of the supernatural, but on his insistence that the biblical prophets themselves had a supernatural perspective. For Delitzsch, it was necessary to perceive and explore that perspective in order to avoid a rudimentary literalism on the one hand and an anachronistic naturalism on the other. To credit the spiritual experience of the prophets as genuine spiritual experience was in his view to interpret the prophetic literature more historically.

4.  Isaiah 7 Delitzsch’s treatment of Isa 7 provides a good example of how his views functioned in practice. Taking his cue from the historical information provided in the first verse of that chapter, Delitzsch insists that “the following prophecies cannot be understood without reference to the contemporary historical events into which they entered.”96 He pulls together such information as is available to him about the conduct of the Syro-Ephraimite war and the precise location of the “upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field” (NRVS), even as he perceives the intertextual link with the reference to the same Fuller’s Field in Isa 36:2 (and by implication 2 Kgs 18:17). He agrees with those critics who take v. 8b as a later interpolation, arguing that it would be more likely for the original text to have announced something about the near future, perhaps with only a short delay, instead of “this fixing of a considerably distant terminus.”97 In discussing dates and prophetic expectations, Delitzsch is fully prepared to engage in a discussion of Assyrian monuments alongside traditional exegetical arguments.98 Yet he also demonstrates careful attention to the wording of the biblical text. He points out in discussing v. 10 (“Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz”) how in this tradition the prophet is not only conceived as speaking for God – sometimes God is also understood as speaking for the prophet.99 Moreover, De95 

E. g., Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:454. Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:194. 97  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:199. 98  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:201. 99  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:202. 96 



Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition

39

litzsch interprets the father-son pairing of Isaiah and Shear-jashub symbolically as well as historically, as representing the divine grace and divine judgment simultaneously confronting Ahaz.100 For Delitzsch, the key to interpreting the encounter between Isaiah and Ahaz is not just for the interpreter to believe in the possibility of miracles (although it helps), but for the interpreter to recognize that Ahaz himself believes in “the miraculous power of the prophet” and yet nevertheless refuses to submit to and rely on the prophet’s message (v.  12), preferring to pursue his foreign policy undisturbed.101 In treating the famous Immanuel oracle, Delitzsch accepts that bĕtûlâ normally signifies a “virgin maiden” and hāʿalmâ in Isa 7:14 does not refer to a “virgin maiden” but rather a “mature woman who is near marriage,” although he believes that both ʿalmâ and bĕtûlâ can be used of “a female who is betrothed or even married.”102 Moreover, Delitzsch takes the oracle as announcing the birth of the Immanuel figure not way off in the distant future but “in the interval between that present time and the Assyrian oppressions.”103 While the presenting context for the prophet’s oracle is the Syro-Ephraimite threat, and “the birth of the child in the view of the prophet is to take place in the near future,”104 vv. 15–16 go on to describe the Immanuel figure as being weaned, learning to engage in moral reasoning, and eating thickened milk and honey after both Syria and Israel have been destroyed and a new threat to Judah has arisen in Assyria (v. 17). Rather than merely a problem or contradiction, Delitzsch calls the resultant panoptical viewpoint “the combined perspective view of events which lie far apart,” and drawing on the work of Christian August Crusius (1715–1775) identifies it as basic not only to Isaiah’s prophecy but to biblical prophecy in general. Delitzsch explains: The ground of this complex character of [prophecy] is the human limitation attaching to the far look of the prophet, which limitation the Spirit of God allows to exist and makes subservient to Himself … For the things which the prophet sees together are also essentially connected although not in time.105

Delitzsch then posits, as a Christian interpreter, that Isaiah’s presentation of Assyria as the universal empire in Isa 7–12 is in fact “true” because “the four empires from the Babylonian to the Roman are really only the unfolding of the beginning which had its beginning in Assyria.” The Immanuel oracle likewise 100  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:197: “These two are like a blessing and curse in person, offering themselves to the king for him to make his choice.” 101  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:204. 102  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:206–7. He refers to Joel 1:8 and Prov 30:19 as evidence for this conclusion. 103  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:212–13. 104  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:207. 105  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:218.

40

Stephen B. Chapman

turns out to be true, since Jesus was “born in a time in which the Holy Land, deprived of its earlier fulness of blessing, found itself under the supremacy of the universal empire, and in a condition which went back to the unbelief of Ahaz as its ultimate cause.”106 This is typological interpretation, to be sure, but it is a typology of history rather than traditional Christian typology. Indeed, Delitzsch rejects the typology of Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752) and others who also treated the Immanuel oracle as “an event just about to happen” but then merely pointed figurally to a later Christian analogue without any intrinsic connection to the intervening history. Delitzsch’s alternative, reviving the legacy of Campegius Vitringa (1659– 1722),107 is to treat the prophet as conceiving the “stages in the life of the Messiah of the far future to be time-measures of the events of the immediate future.”108 In other words, history itself takes on a christomorphic shape.109 The prophet did not view the advent of the messiah figure only to be “an event of the distant future.” Instead, the prophet is granted a vision in which the different life stages of this messianic figure are conveyed to him simultaneously, even as history itself is telescoped within an overarching theological frame. Delitzsch concludes: “Far sight and near sight are combined with each other in his prophecy; the prophecy is divine within human limits.”110 From a modern perspective, this kind of interpretation may seem like merely an obsolete effort to harmonize tensions within the biblical text and resist an explanatory model that posits redactional layers.111 Even Childs thought that an “appeal to signs of the text’s growth [is] more convincing than … Delitzsch’s attempt at a coherent reading through recourse to a theory of an ‘ideal’ referent.”112 106 

Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:218. Vitringa, see Childs, Struggle, 244–50; idem, “Hermeneutical Reflections on Campegius Vitringa, Eighteenth-Century Interpreter of Isaiah,” in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements, ed. Edward Ball, JSOTSup 300 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 89–98; Charles K. Telfer, “Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659–1722): A Biblical Theologian at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century,” in Biblical Theology: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Carey Walsh and Mark W. Elliot (Eugene: Cascade, 2016), 18–32. 108  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:219. 109  I am grateful to my former student Bryan Gregory for initially calling my attention to this aspect of Delitzsch’s thought. 110  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 1:219. 111 Cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 150, who treats Isa 7 as representing a process of “resignification” of the Immanuel sign – from a promise of protection to Ahaz, to a motivational entreaty to Hezekiah, to a history-based warning for Josiah. What drops out along the way, however, is a strong sense of what the present form of the biblical text signifies in its received shape. The biblical text as such becomes only a collection of perspectives. 112  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 84. In context, he is discussing the interpretation of Isa 9:7(8)–10:4, but Delitzsch operates with the same basic approach in that material as well. 107 On

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



41

Yet Childs also maintained that redactional explorations of the text’s “depth dimension” ultimately need to cast light on the received text “rather than substituting a reordering of it in order to recover an original authorial intent within a reconstructed context.”113 For that reason, Childs could still conclude that in fact “the temporal sequence of the judgment [presented in the text] is immaterial” and “to this extent Delitzsch’s ‘ideal’ referent has a certain warrant.” Referring specifically to Isa 9:7–22, for instance, Childs insisted that “the function of the oracle as a whole … extends the focus of God’s history-creating judgment from the Northern Kingdom to Judah as the recipient of the selfsame anger.”114 So even when redactional methods are accepted and affirmed, to return to the biblical text and pose the question of its composite meaning continues to lead the interpreter in the direction of Delitzsch’s insight. However, Delitzsch was not yet fully prepared to entertain the possibility that the biblical text might have its own intentio operis that exceeded the intention, and even the vision, of the historical prophet.115 Delitzsch therefore found a way to describe and prioritize the received form of the biblical text by approaching it through the historical prophet’s supernatural experience. George Buchanan Gray, in his later ICC commentary, echoes Delitzsch to a degree in his own treatment of the Immanuel sign: The sign lies not, as the traditional Christian and some recent theories assume, in the circumstances of the birth, but in the chain of events now predicted, and their association with the birth and naming of a child, and in the time and order of their occurrence being determined by reference to the child’s growth, as in 8:3 f.116

For Gray, like Delitzsch, this explanation is offered as a historical account of what the prophet Isaiah communicated to Ahaz – but without Delitzsch’s open supernaturalism or his ideal referent. Nevertheless, Gray joins Delitzsch in concluding that the focus of the oracle is on a “chain of events” rather than only the birth and naming of the child. Delitzsch was even more forthcoming about his interpretation of Isa 7 in his Messianic Prophecies. It was “impossible,” he writes, that the Immanuel sign “can first have been realized after seven centuries,” and so he instead treats it as originally relating “a fact of the immediate future.”117 But then Delitzsch reintroduces “the law of perspective shortening to which all prophecy … is subject.”118 113 

Childs, Struggle, 84. Childs, Struggle, 85. 115  For the critical notion of an intentio operis, see Umberto Eco, The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 45; idem, Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003), 71. 116  George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1949), 124. 117  Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 141. 118  Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 141. 114 

42

Stephen B. Chapman

The result is not really a notion of prophecy as having multiple fulfillments, since for Delitzsch a prophecy like the Immanuel oracle reveals multiple stages of fulfillment at once. As in notions of multiple fulfillment, however, Delitzsch operates with a more capacious view of prophecy than one that simply moves between the two poles of prophecy and fulfillment. As with Hofmann, prophecy is more organic in nature for Delitzsch, like history itself: It is a postulate of our consciousness that human history is engaged in a movement toward a definite end. This movement, far from being absolutely in a straight line, takes place under all kind of deviations and retrogressions …119

Not only does this view of prophecy allow for a progressive growth in understanding and subsequent historical development, it does not presume that such growth occurs along an uninterrupted and undeviating path. Similarly, Delitzsch notes in his discussion of Micah 4 that the prophet has arranged his eschatological visions not according to their chronology but “to his connection of thought, which is determined through the ethical purpose.”120 On the one hand, here Delitzsch exhibits a fairly traditional supernatural approach: Micah, the eighth-century prophet truly did have visions regarding the end-times. This is still predictive prophecy or prophecy as foretelling rather than “forth-telling.” On the other hand, Delitzsch credits the prophet with the creative work of authorial organization, and he resists the impulse to view the received form of the book of Micah as a straightforward historical transcript, even if that transcript would tell of the future rather than the present. Delitzsch does insist that there is an “ethical purpose” to the book’s present literary arrangement, that the book has its own focus and intention, and that it does not simply report or reflect history. So with regard to Isaiah, there remains a sense in which Delitzsch can affirm the sentiment found in John’s Gospel, namely that Isaiah beheld Christ (John 12:41), but once again Delitzsch does not adopt this traditional view without qualifying it. There are, he insists, “lights which fall only upon those preprophetic visions [found in the Old Testament] for him who has [already] recognized the incarnation as the end of the ways of God.”121 Prospective and retrospective dimensions are evident in the messianic aspect of the biblical witness. Similarly, there is within biblical prophecy what Delitzsch terms a “farsightedness” and a “near-sightedness.”122 That is to say, the prophets spoke about both contemporary events and the future. Indeed, it might even be most accurate 119 

Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 28. Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 163. 121  Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 189. 122  Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 210. The English translation has “short-sightedness,” but since this expression carries the meaning “lack of perception,” a better translation is “nearsightedness.” 120 

Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition



43

to say that for Delitzsch the nature of prophecy was to witness to the relationship between the present and the future. It also remains theologically crucial for Delitzsch that the biblical prophets did not escape their own temporal contexts, and that they did not chart out the future with complete clarity and certain reliability: “for, if prophecy afforded a chronological knowledge concerning the future, it would render faith, hope and effort lame, and would aid fleshly security.”123 Delitzsch never failed to insist that the development of a historical approach to the Bible was a charism or divine gift.124 The faith experience of the believer in the Old Testament was not different in kind from that of the New Testament believer. They only stood at different points along a common historical trajectory.

5. Conclusion Mark Twain supposedly said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”125 Caught between tradition and modernity, Franz Delitzsch brokered an alliance between the two by developing a view of the Bible as witnessing to a rhyming history, which not only permitted but actually required a historical-critical approach to Scripture. Yet this kind of historical approach could still accommodate traditional religious views of biblical authority, scriptural inspiration, and even the unity of both Testaments within a single Christian Bible. Rather than opposing historical criticism or grudgingly acceding to it, Delitzsch devised his own supple articulation of critical historical thinking and constructed a distinctive conceptual framework for a theology of history. His negotiation with modernity was different from what would become – and remains – the norm today. However, Delitzsch continues to instruct contemporary biblical interpreters in their own assumptions precisely by standing apart from their consensus.

123 

Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 210. Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 4–5. 125  Despite diligent investigation, this precise quote has never been discovered in Twain’s published work. See The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs, ed. Charles Clay Doyle, Wolfgang Mieder and Fred R. Shapiro (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 121. In The Gilded Age: A  Tale of To-Day, co-authored by Twain (Samuel L. Clemens) and Charles Dudley Warner (Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1874), 430, one does find the similar but rather more cumbersome line: “History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combination of the pictured present often seems to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.” 124 

44

Stephen B. Chapman

Bibliography Arnold, Bill T., and David B. Weisberg. “A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s ‘Babel und Bibel’ Lectures.” JBL 121 (2002): 441–57. Becker, Matthew L. The Self-Giving God and Salvation History: The Trinitarian Theology of Johannes von Hofmann. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Behr, Wilfried. Politischer Liberalismus und kirchliches Christentum: Studien zum Zusammenhang von Theologie und Politik bei Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810–1877). Stuttgart: Calwer, 1995. Beyschlag, Karlmann. Die Erlanger Theologie. Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns 67. Erlangen: Martin-Luther Verlag, 1993. Boehmer, Julius. Das Geheimnis um die Geburt von Franz Delitzsch. Kassel: König in Leipzig, 1934. Childs, Brevard S. “Wellhausen in English.” Semeia 25 (1983): 83–88. –. “Hermeneutical Reflections on Campegius Vitringa, Eighteenth-Century Interpreter of Isaiah.” Pages 89–98 in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements. Edited by Edward Ball. JSOTSup 300. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999 –. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Corzine, Jacob. Erfahrung im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zur Exegese des Alten Testaments bei Franz Delitzsch. Arbeiten zur Systematischen Theologie 13. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018. Delitzsch, Franz. Biblischer Commentar über den Prophet Jesaia. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1866. –. Messianic Prophecies. Lectures by Franz Delitzsch. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880. –. Old Testament History of Redemption. Lectures by Franz Delitzsch. Trans. Samuel Ives Curtis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881. –. A New Commentary on Genesis. 2 volumes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888–89. –. A System of Biblical Psychology. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890. –. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. 2 volumes. Clark’s Foreign Library, New Series XLII and XLIV. Trans. from the 4th edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890. –. Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. Deuschle, Matthias A. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des kirchlichen Konservatismus im Preußen des 19. Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 169. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Doyle, Charles Clay, Wolfgang Mieder and Fred R. Shapiro, eds. The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Driver, Samuel R. “Professor Franz Delitzsch.” The Expository Times 1 (June, 1890): 197–201. –. “Introductory Notice.” Pages xii–xv in Delitzsch, Isaiah. Eco, Umberto, The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. –. Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003. Gray, George Buchanan. A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1949.



Delitzsch’s Fourth Edition

45

Green, Lowell C. The Erlangen School: Its History, Teaching, and Practice. Fort Wayne: Lutheran Legacy Press, 2010. Harrisville, Roy A. “Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von (1810–1877).” Pages 533–37 in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007. Hayes, John H. “Delitzsch, Franz Julius.” Pages 1:265–67 in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John H. Hayes. 2 volumes. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von. Weissagung und Erfüllung im alten und im neuen Testamente. 2 volumes. Nördlingen: Beck’schen Buchhandlung, 1841. –. Interpreting the Bible. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959. Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1861–75. Kittel, Gerhard. Die Judenfrage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934. Kloes, Andrew. The German Awakening: Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. König, Eduard. “Zur-Jesaja-Auslegung.” Theologisches Literaturblatt 11 (1890): 153–56. Kraeling, Emil G. The Old Testament since the Reformation. London: Lutterworth, 1955. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. 3rd edition. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. “The ‘Babel/Bible Controversy’ and Its Aftermath.” Pages 1:95– 106 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 4 volumes. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995. Lehmann, Reinhard G. Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit. OBO 113. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994. Reventlow, Henning Graf. History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 4: From the Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century. Trans. Leo G. Purdue. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Rogerson, John. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. –. “Keil, Carl Friedrich (1807–1888), and Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890).” Pages 606–9 in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007. Rohls, Jan. “Historical, Cultural and Philosophical Aspects of the Nineteenth Century with Special Regard to Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 31–63 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Volume III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism (The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries); Part 1, The Nineteenth Century – a Century of Modernism and Historicism. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Smend, Rudolf. “Franz Delitzsch – Aspekte von Leben und Werk.” Pages 347–66 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer. BZAW 400. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. –. “A Conservative Approach in Opposition to a Historical-critical Interpretation: E. W. Hengstenberg and Franz Delitzsch.” Pages 494–520 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Volume III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism (The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries); Part 1, The Nineteenth Century – a Century of Modernism and Historicism. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Steck, Karl Gerhard. Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte: Hofmann-Schlatter-Cullmann. Theologische Studien 56. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1959.

46

Stephen B. Chapman

Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Telfer, Charles K. “Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659–1722): A Biblical Theologian at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century.” Pages 18–32 in Biblical Theology: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by Carey Walsh and Mark W. Elliott. Eugene: Cascade, 2016. Twain (Samuel L. Clemens), Mark, and Charles Dudley Warner. The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day. Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1874. Wagner, Siegfried. Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 80. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1978. Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Winter, Friedrich. Die Erlanger Theologie und die Lutherforschung im 19. Jahrhundert. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Young, Edward J. Studies in Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah* J. Blake Couey In many circles in biblical scholarship, the perception remains that “there is a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26 KJV) between inquiries into the composition of biblical texts and inquiries into their verbal aesthetics. At the risk of oversimplification, one set of approaches seeks to distinguish the compositional layers of a text and reconstruct the developmental stages through which it passed before reaching its present form. The other seeks to account for the artistry of a text’s structural and stylistic features, usually in its present form, typically employing theory and terminology from the broader study of world literature. Such approaches began to proliferate in biblical studies in the 1980s and 1990s, and they often positioned themselves polemically against then conventional historical-critical methods. Although that antagonism may have subsided, the divide largely persists in recent Isaiah studies.1 Questions about the book’s formation remain productive, as new and sophisticated treatments of its composition and redaction history appear apace, informed by the transition from viewing Isaiah as a collection of unrelated parts to understanding it as a meaningfully organized whole.2 At the same time, several aesthetic analyses of Isaiah’s poetry have appeared in the past decade.3 This interest in poetry marks a new direction *  Earlier versions of this essay were presented at the Twin Cities Bible Colloquium in St. Paul, MN, on October 14, 2017, and the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston on November 18, 2017. I am grateful for the feedback that I received in both venues, particularly to Ronald L. Troxel for his formal response at the Twin Cities Colloquium. 1 On the broad division between diachronic and synchronic approaches to Isaiah, see Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 1–2; H. G. M. Williamson, “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. J. C. de Moor, OTS 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 211–26; Williamson, “Recent Issues in the Study of Isaiah,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 23–29. 2  To name just a few recent examples: Matthijs J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the NeoAssyrian Prophecies, VTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Reinhard G. Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II, FAT 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 149–271; Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile; H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2005–2012). 3  J. Blake Couey, Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah: The Most Perfect Model of the Prophetic Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); A. Joseph Everson and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, eds., The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah, AIL 4 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009); Katie

48

J. Blake Couey

in synchronic studies of the book, which had previously focused on issues of content, particularly theological or ideological themes, usually with the aim of proposing a coherent reading of the book’s final form.4 While these more recent poetic studies acknowledge developments in composition and redaction criticism of Isaiah, they mostly work independently of them.5 Not infrequently, these two sets of approaches offer explanations for similar textual features, which partly explains the confusing fact that both may be called “literary criticism.”6 (In this study, I use the term “literary” to refer to the verbal artistry associated with compositions conventionally deemed “literature” on aesthetic grounds.) They account for these features in very different ways, however. In a review of a recent study of the poetry of Isa 40–55, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer contrasts a literary-aesthetic approach, which “looks at the final form of the text and looks for a method that can take its extant literary characteristics into account,” with “traditional literary criticism that sees the changes in mood and tonality as a sign of multiple authors. The question is whether one can combine both approaches, given their opposing presuppositions.”7 That, in essence, is the task I wish to take up in a preliminary fashion. What would composition or redaction criticism of Isaiah look like if it were more thoroughly informed by poetic analysis? To begin to work this out, I first examine recent scholarly literature about scribalism in ancient Israel and Judah, which emphasizes not only the scribal character of biblical prophetic books but also the conventional literary skill of the scribes responsible for these texts. These insights can be corroborated with specific examples from Isaiah, including both large-scale structural devices from late stages of the book’s development and smaller texts that are nearly universally regarded as later additions in their literary setting. The main part of this study considers four examples from Isa 1–33 in which a particular literary device offers some formal coherence across a textual unit, but there remains disM. Heffelfinger, I Am Large, I Contain Multitudes: Lyric Cohesion and Conflict in Second Isaiah, BibInt 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 4 Joseph Blenkinsopp observed in 2000 that “The most recent phase of scholarship on the book has … concentrated much more on the structuring and organization of the material, in its internal interconnections and intertextual links, than on the more traditional subject matter of literary criticism (poetics, imagery, etc.)” (Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 181). This is generally true of prior attempts to undertake synchronic and diachronic analysis in tandem, such as Ulrich F. Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, trans. Millar C. Lind, Hebrew Bible Monographs 46 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), or Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). 5  Couey’s work has been criticized by reviewers for paying inadequate attention to redaction-critical matters (e. g., Jacob Stromberg, review of Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah: The Most Perfect Model of the Prophet Poetry, by J. Blake Couey, Biblica 98 [2017], 290–93). 6  On the different uses of this term, see Jacob Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 55–56. 7 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, review of I Am Large, I Contain Multitudes: Lyric Cohesion and Conflict in Second Isaiah, by Katie M. Heffelfinger, SEA 77 (2012): 302.



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

49

agreement over whether the text is compositionally unified or composite. The discussion of these texts seeks to demonstrate how more sustained attention to questions of poetic style can reframe composition-historical inquiry. Before proceeding, it is important to articulate some assumptions that govern my discussion. First, both diachronic and synchronic reading strategies for Isaiah must acknowledge the book’s overwhelmingly poetic character. With the exceptions of narratives in chapters 6–8, 20, and 36–39, Isaiah consists almost entirely of poems. Indeed, it contains the most poetry of any biblical book outside of Psalms, and nonprophetic poetic books like Psalms or Song of Songs offer analogies for thinking about the form and formation of Isaiah that are at least as useful as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or the Twelve, which contain considerably more prose. My second assumption is that, whatever larger-scale unity it might possess as a whole book, Isaiah remains a collection of smaller poems. Due to the current emphasis on final form, the prevailing tendency in Isaiah studies is to focus on the coherence of larger divisions of the book or to read it as a continuous whole. Without discounting the gains of this approach, it is better suited for epic or narrative poetry, where longer compositions are the norm. In nonnarrative poetry like that of the Hebrew Bible, however, the absence of plot makes it difficult to sustain poems over such length. Short- or medium-length poems are more common, although they may be organized into meaningful longer sequences, like Song of Songs or the Psalms of Ascent (Pss 120–134).8 It makes good sense to view the textualized book of Isaiah as a collection of individual poems and poetic sequences, with a few narrative interludes in the first half. New meaning emerges from the juxtaposition of these components, but they retain a significant measure of integrity. Such an understanding of the “unity” of the book of Isaiah is more consistent with the way that biblical poetry generally works. A final assumption is that internal tensions should not be surprising within the Bible’s nonnarrative, largely paratactic poems.9 Loose thematic connections are the norm, unfolding more by association or accretion than predictable progression, and jarring shifts are not unprecedented. Consider the expressions of confidence in the deity that appear at the ends of most individual laments in the Psalter. In isolation, or in a different biblical book, such a dramatic change in tone might be explained as the result of editorial activity; because it is such a well-established generic feature of these psalms, however, other explanations are typ8  Heffelfinger argues that Isa 40–55 is such a sequence (I Am Large, 29–34, 59–79, 117–74). For Song of Songs, Lamentations, and Pss 120–34 as poetic sequences, see Daniel Grossberg, Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry, SBLMS 39 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1989); on Song, see also F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 215–26. 9  Couey, Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah, 108–11; Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry, 184–89, 199–202.

50

J. Blake Couey

ically proffered. In Isaiah studies, by contrast, perceived thematic incoherence is frequently adduced as a criterion for isolating compositional layers within a text, while, conversely, perceived coherence may be taken as a sign of compositional unity.10 Along with a frequent lack of clarity about what constitutes (in)coherence, the failure of such arguments to acknowledge the characteristic thematic looseness of biblical poetry may call their conclusions into question. None of this is to suggest that perceived discontinuities could never be evidence for a text’s composite character, especially when other linguistic or stylistic features point in that direction. Given current understandings of biblical poetic style, however, redaction is not the only, or always the best, explanation for such discontinuities.

1.  Scribal Composition and Aesthetic Sensibility Increased appreciation for the work of scribes in producing biblical texts offers a framework for considering compositional and aesthetic questions in tandem. Far from being mere copyists or even “editors,” narrowly conceived, ancient Judahite scribes were actively involved in all stages of text production, as argued in several studies over the past two decades.11 Karel van der Toorn has argued that prophetic books are scribal works from beginning to end. Scribes first transcribed oral prophetic speeches, then collected them, and then rearranged, supplemented, and expanded them in successive rewritings of the scroll.12 As a result, the distinction between “authors” and “editors” becomes difficult to maintain. This development signals a much greater respect for the creativity 10  For example, Stromberg argues for the compositional unity of Isa 56:1–8 because the passage contains “many signs indicating coherence and organization” and there is “not sufficient tension … to justify fragmenting it” (Isaiah After Exile, 41, emphasis added). Note also Csaba Balogh’s arguments for the composition of Isa 9:7–20, discussed subsequently in this study. 11  For a review of these works and their application to Isaiah, see Robert R. Wilson, “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God Through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin, LHBOTS 400 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 95–107. 12 Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 110–32, 173–204; see further David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 143–151; Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 144–62; William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 84–89, 158–160; Ronald L. Troxel, Prophetic Literature: From Oracles to Books (New York: Wiley & Sons, 2012), 11–13. While acknowledging the role of scribes, other scholars have questioned the assumption that the early stages of transmission were associated with official institutions: Annette Schellenberg, “A ‘Lying Pen of the Scribes’ (Jer 8:8)? Orality and Writing in the Formation of Prophetic Books,” in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres, ed. Annette Weissenrieder and Robert B. Coote, WUNT 260 (Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 295–302; Wilson, “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 104–5.

Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah



51

of redactors than was true of Isaiah studies in the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, when later stages of the book’s development were viewed at best as an impediment to identifying so-called “genuine” material. Inquiries into the composition history of the book of Isaiah should rather look for the work of scribes – who may variously be called authors, compilers, editors, redactors, tradents, or even poets – in the individual poems in Isaiah, in their ordering and juxtaposition, and in the joins between them. The pervasiveness of scribal activity in the formation of Isaiah suggests that the scribes responsible for the book’s organization were also responsible for its poetic form. This likelihood is bolstered by evidence for the literary sophistication of ancient scribes. In Ps 45:2 (ET 45:1), the speaker equates his verbal creative skill, which involves the composition of “beautiful speech” (dābār ṭôb), to the “pen of an expert scribe” (ʿēṭ sôpēr māḥîr).13 This comparison presupposes that scribally composed, written poetic texts could demonstrate the same level of aesthetic quality as a (putatively) orally composed love song – or, presumably, a prophetic oracle. It emphasizes the craftedness of literary compositions, as evidenced by the use of maʿăśeh (“deed, accomplishment”) to refer to poetry. Although not “authors” in the modern sense of talented individual geniuses who created unique compositions, ancient scribes were well versed in conventional literary forms and strove to deploy them skillfully to demonstrate mastery of their craft.14 According to van der Toorn, Ps 45 further suggests a close association between the authors of Psalms and professional scribes, on the basis of which he argues that many psalms were composed by “liturgists with a scribal background.”15 Scribes with similar training were likely responsible for editing the book of Isaiah, which means that poetic concerns would have played a significant factor in redaction of the book.16 Given that likelihood, it makes sense not to separate those aspects in critical study.

2.  Evidence of Scribal Aesthetic Sensitivity in Isaiah Corroborating this broad evidence for the aesthetic sophistication of ancient scribes, texts from Isaiah demonstrate that its scribal editors were adept at the literary craft. Recent attention to the meaningfulness of the final form of Isaiah has led to the identification of large-scale structural devices running across the 13 

Unless otherwise noted, all translations of biblical texts are my own. Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 39–40, 47; see further Raymond Person, “The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer,” JBL 117 (1998): 601–9. 15  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 117–18. 16  For the common authorship or editorship of Psalms and Isaiah, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Beauty of Holiness: Re-reading Isaiah in the Light of the Psalms (London: T&T Clark, 2018); van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 102. 14 

52

J. Blake Couey

book that are similar to those operating within individual poems. For instance, it is widely accepted that lexical connections and thematic echoes between chapters 1 and 66 frame the book as a whole as an inclusio. The emphasis on the divine word in 40:8 and 55:10–11 has also been taken as an inclusio marking the limits of Second Isaiah,17 and another inclusio has been identified in 57:14 and 62:10, delimiting the center of Third Isaiah.18 Inclusios are, of course, a common structural device in individual poems, as will be discussed further in this study. Indeed, it is familiarity with this convention at the smaller level that attunes a sensitive reader or hearer to its possible occurrence across one of the largest books of the Hebrew Bible, although questions remain about its perceptibility at such expansive levels. It may be that the scribes who produced these inclusios did so primarily to demonstrate their skill at the literary craft.19 Be that as it may, these examples demonstrate that the scribes responsible for later stages of the growth of Isaiah were steeped in the conventions of biblical poetry. If they could craft formal poetic structures on a large scale across the book, then they or their predecessors could surely have designed them on a small scale in individual poems within the book. This can be further established by examining the aesthetic craftedness of specific texts from Isa 1–39 that are widely regarded as later additions to the book. Some such texts are prose but feature literary devices that appear in both biblical prose and poetry. For instance, a wordplay on the roots m-š-l I (“make a riddle, compare”) and m-š-l II (“rule, govern”) connects the poem about a fallen tyrant in 14:4b–21 with its secondary prose introduction in v. 4a.20 The introduction designates the poem as a māšāl, a broad textual designation whose connotations in this context are uncertain. Most commentators argue that it indicates sarcastic intent (compare Deut 28:37; Mic 2:4; Hab 2:6).21 Whatever its meaning here, 17 

But see the objections by Heffelfinger, I Am Large, 136–37. Schuele, “‘Build up, Pass through’  – Isaiah 57:14–62:12 as the Core Composition of Third Isaiah,” in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew: Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah, ed. by Richard J. Bautch and J. Todd Hibbard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 96–97. 19  As a comparative example of such delight in skillfulness, van der Toorn notes the complex acrostic that reveals the name of the scribal author of Babylonian Theodicy (Scribal Culture, 40). This acrostic would likely not be immediately perceptible to an uninitiated reader of this poem. 20  For the secondary nature of 14:3–4a, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 285–86; George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 244–45; Otto K aiser, Isaiah 13–39, trans. Robert A. Wilson, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 24; J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 202; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 47–50; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 202; H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 164–68. Whether 14:1–2 and 3–4a are from the same or separate hands is not important for the argument here. 21  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 285; Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 247. Wildberger agrees that 18 Andreas



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

53

surely its sonic resonances with mōšǝlîm (“rulers”) in the second couplet of the poem (Isa 14:5) played some role in the word choice, as discussed by Robert Alter.22 Catchword connections are a frequent strategy for integrating new material into existing texts in Isaiah. Indeed, Williamson has noted other such connections between vv. 2–4a and vv. 14b–21.23 This particular case, however, demonstrates greater aesthetic sophistication, since it involves not simply verbal repetition but homophonous wordplay. Such wordplays are part and parcel of the scribal craft, demonstrating a mastery of language that demonstrates learnedness and prompts aesthetic pleasure.24 Another wordplay involving the roots m-š-l I and II occurs in Isa 28:14.25 The latter is generally associated with the earliest stages of the book, and it perhaps influenced the scribes responsible for 14:4a. Without speculating unduly about editorial intention, one can only hope there was self-conscious irony behind creating a pun using the Hebrew verb meaning “pun.” A second example comes from Isa 22:24–25. The preceding verses, which themselves may have been added to the poem denouncing the royal official Shebna in vv. 15–19, metaphorically depict the ascent of his successor Eliakim by declaring that YHWH will “drive him as a peg in a secure place.” Verses 24–25 update the poem to reflect his family’s subsequent loss of position due to nepotism.26 The editors make this point with some flair by creatively extending the previous metaphor: “All the weight of his ancestral home” will be hung upon the peg that was Eliakim; as a result, the peg “will shift, be cut down, and fall, and the weight upon it will be destroyed.” The climactic character of this collapse is enhanced by a striking alliterative run, created by a combination of niphal and I-n verbs (neʾĕmān wǝnigdǝʿâ wǝnāpǝlâ wǝnikrat), similar to sequences in poetic passages elsewhere in Isaiah (8:15; 28:13). The irony of this downfall is the term has these connotations, but argues that it designates a short composition and, consequently, “does not adequately describe the poem in vv. 4b–21 as a whole” (Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 50–51). 22 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, rev. ed. (New York: Basic, 2011), 183–84. Note the further resonance with nimšaltā (“you have become like”) in v. 10. 23  Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 167–68. 24 For discussions of scribal paranomasia or wordplay in other contexts, see Jonathan G. Kline, Allusive Soundplay in the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 28 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016); Sheree Lear, Scribal Composition: Malachi as Test Case, FRLANT 270 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 73–120. 25  Couey, Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah, 101–2; J. J. M. Roberts, “Double Entendre in First Isaiah,” CBQ 54 (1992): 43. 26  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 160; Willem A.  M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, trans. Ulrich Berges, HTKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2007), 271–75; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 340; Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 190–91; K aiser, Isaiah 13–39, 149–59; Roberts, First Isaiah, 295; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 393. Some of these scholars limit the addition to v.  25, which would not significantly affect the argument here. For a rare argument for the compositional unity of 22:15–25, see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 296–98.

54

J. Blake Couey

reinforced by a pun on multiple meanings of the word kābôd, which refers to the “honor” that Eliakim’s position brings his family in v. 23 and the “weight” of his family’s corruption in v. 24.27 By reusing words and images from the earlier material, but assigning new meaning to them, the later writers update the prophecy while maintaining its rhetorical coherence. Although 22:24–25 ultimately resists identification as poetic verse, it nonetheless shows evidence of aesthetic acumen on the part of its scribal composers. In other cases, the later scribal authors demonstrate knowledge of specifically poetic conventions. A pair of poetic couplets in Isa 1:27–28 appears to have been added later to the poem in vv. 21–26 as an interpretive comment.28 These verses elaborate the preceding description of Jerusalem’s judgment, reusing key terms such as “justice” and “righteousness.” On the other hand, they stand outside the inclusio in vv. 21a and 26b and introduce new themes, including the contrasting fates of the “penitents” and “sinners.” In addition to the nearly regular syntactic breaks and clear parallelism in both vv. 27–28, the couplet in v. 27 displays verbal gapping, a linguistic phenomenon found almost exclusively in biblical poetry and not prose.29 Zion shall be ransomed through justice, and her penitents through righteousness.

The deletion of the verb tippādeh (“be ransomed”) in the second line, with the accompanying change of subject, creates an ungrammatical clause that can only be understood in relationship to the preceding line. Because the singular subject of the first line is matched by a plural subject in the second line, the audience must not only subconsciously supply the missing verb but also modify its form.30 Although gapping occurs so frequently in biblical poetry as to be relatively unremarkable in its own right, it serves a rhetorical function in this case. The absence of a predicate in the second line allows greater emphasis to fall on the quasiverbal construction šābêhā (literally, “her repenting ones”), thereby high27 

Berges, Book of Isaiah, 160. Most critics date it to a late stage in the book’s development: Uwe Becker, Jesaja, von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 195; Berges, Book of Isaiah, 57–60; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 187; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 36–37; Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 36–37; Otto K aiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden, 2nd ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 41; Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 149–54; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:151–54. Roberts and Wildberger also deem it an addition, but not necessarily late, even considering the possibility that it was added by Isaiah himself (Roberts, First Isaiah, 31; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 61–62). 29  Michael P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 1997), 124. Cynthia Miller uses this verse as a textbook case of verbal ellipsis: “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry (Or, What to Do When Exegesis of What Is There Depends on What Isn’t),” BBR 13 (2003): 252–53. 30  On this phenomenon, see Miller, “Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis,” 253–55, 262. 28 

Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah



55

lighting an important theological concern of the editors. In this way, the scribes show themselves capable of both writing conventional biblical Hebrew poetry and manipulating form to reinforce content. A final example is Isa 2:22. Although many aspects of the composition of Isa 2 remain debated, there is virtual consensus that v. 22 was added late in its development.31 Marked syntactic junctures (the relative pronoun ʾăšer, the clausal particle kî) segment the verse into thirds, resulting in a triplet of roughly equal lines (three stresses, six to eight syllables each): Don’t bother with humans, Whose breath’s in their nostrils, For what use are they?

Although most recent English translations of the Bible format the verse this way (e. g., Alter; CEB, NJPS, NRSV), commentaries are divided over whether it is prose or poetry.32 The most likely reasons for this are the prosaic quality of the nearby v.  20 and the lack of parallelism. Neither reason is decisive. Although both v. 20 and v. 22 are widely considered later additions, they are usually attributed to different hands. And while most triplets in Isaiah display at least partial parallelism, there are other completely enjambed triplets (9:8; 14:32; 16:1, 5a; 22:14; 24:23b). Isa 14:32 is especially similar. It concludes a poem; one of the lines is a question; and another line begins with the clausal particle kî (“for, that”). A triplet of enjambed lines in Ps 133:3b similarly comes at the end of a poem, and its line division is supported by manuscript evidence from Codex Aleppo.33 These examples all provide warrant for taking v. 22 as poetic. In its present form, the verse concludes the poem that begins earlier in the chapter. Thematically, its universal scope and evocative question provide an effective sense of closure, which is reinforced formally by the terminal modification established by triplet. Triplets frequently mark the conclusions of poems in Isaiah (e. g., 14:32; 22:14; 63:6) and elsewhere in the Bible (e. g., Pss 19:15 [ET19:14]; 125:5; 133:3; Song 1:5–8).34 Both the composition and the location of the triplet, consequently, 31 

Becker, Jesaja, 170; Berges, Book of Isaiah, 65; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 196; Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 57; K aiser, Isaiah 1–12, 65; Rudolf Kilian, Jesaja 1–12, NEchtB 17 (Echter: Würzburg, 1986), 330–31; Jacques Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, Etudes bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1977–78), 1:143–44; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 121; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:229. Most commentators cite the absence of the verse from LXX as evidence for its lateness, but note Williamson’s cautions. For the possible originality of v. 22, see Roberts, First Isaiah, 48. 32 Prose: Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 193; Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja 1–23, ZBK (Zurich: Zwinglii Verlag, 1960), 54; Otto Procksch, Jesaja: Übersetzt und erklärt, KAT 9.1 (Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1930), 70; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 99; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:229. Poetry: K aiser, Isaiah 1–12, 58; Kilian, Jesaja 1–12, 33; Roberts, First Isaiah, 37; Konrad Schmid, Jesaja 1–23, ZBK (Zurich: TVZ, 2011), 65. None of these commentators explain their formatting of the text one way or the other. 33  Dobbs-Allsopp, On Biblical Poetry, 342–44. 34  Couey, Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah, 67, 100; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 2:8; so

56

J. Blake Couey

suggest that the scribal editor who composed v. 22 was well-schooled in poetic convention.

3.  Compositional Unity or Composite Artistry? Moving now from the general to the particular, I would like to discuss four cases in which a literary device spans potentially separate compositional units: (1) an inclusio in Isa 3:1 and 15; (2) an extended metaphor in Isa 3:1 and 8; (3) the refrains in Isa 9:7–20; and (4) a wordplay in Isa 19:4–5. In each case, the device creates a strong sense of connectedness among the verses that it spans, but many scholars attribute these verses to multiple hands – although not with the same degree of unanimity as the examples from the previous section. The question I wish to pose is whether the literary unity of these texts is also evidence of their compositional unity, or whether it results from the work of sensitive scribal editors who have rearranged preexisting materials or supplemented them with their own compositions to create new poems. In general, I consider both options plausible, although one or the other may prove more compelling for any given text. To preserve the methodological focus of this essay, I do not offer a definitive answer to this question, but rather consider the factors in arguing for each possibility and explore the implications of both. I also do not always consider likely dates for texts or textual layers, although I  acknowledge selected proposals. Poetic texts from Isa 1–33 are well suited for this discussion because, as some of the oldest texts in the book, they potentially have the most complex composition histories. Different factors obtain for Isa 34–66, including the greater average length of the poems and the prominence of allusions to other parts of the book. Even so, some of the considerations that I raise here for considering aesthetic and compositional questions in tandem should prove helpful for these texts as well. 3.1  Inclusio in Isaiah 3:1, 15 My first example is an inclusio or envelope structure, a common strategy for marking the outer limits of biblical poems (e. g., Pss 8; 103; 118; Song 4:1–7). The ending gesture back to the beginning marks the poem as complete by creating a satisfying sense of closure.35 The repetition of hāʾādôn/ʾădōnāy yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt (“the/my Lord, YHWH of hosts”) in Isa 3:1a and 15b forms such an inclusio. The repetition is not as extensive as in other cases like Pss 8 or 103, also Alter, Art of Biblical Poetry, 40; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOTSup 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 183. 35  Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 285; Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 27, 66–67.



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

57

but inclusios may involve differing amounts of text, and the differences between hāʾādôn and ʾădōnāy fall within the range of variation attested across biblical poetry.36 Moreover, in terms of perceptibility, the relative rarity of the threefold divine title (only 18 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible) suggests that its initial occurrence would capture the reader or hearer’s notice, thereby increasing the likelihood that they would recognize its subsequent repetition. This inclusio is the strongest indicator that Isa 3:1–15 is a single poem, reinforced by its broad thematic focus on the failures of Judahite leadership.37 But to whom should this structure and the ensuing poetic unity be attributed? The occurrence of inclusios across biblical poetry, including many poems widely regarded as compositional unities, makes it imaginable that a single, original scribal poet could be responsible for the device. Elsewhere in Isaiah, most interpreters take the partial inclusio in Isa 1:21–26 as an original feature of that poem.38 Substantial portions of both Isa 1:21–26 and 3:1–15 are frequently dated to the earliest compositional layer of the book, which could further bolster the case that these inclusios are original. Yet even Uwe Becker and Ulrich Berges, who take all of 3:1–15 as postexilic, view the inclusio as part of the poem’s original structure.39 In fact, it is Berges’s primary evidence for identifying the oldest core of the poem as vv. 1–3, 5–7, and 14–15, against a longstanding tendency to posit a separate origin for at least vv. 13–15.40 Affirmation of the compositional originality of the inclusio, then, need not require a particular dating of the earliest form of the poem. Nor does it mean that all of the intervening verses belong to the original composition. There is widespread agreement that v.  1b and vv. 9b–11 are later additions, and many scholars argue for other redactional interventions. On the other hand, three considerations suggest that a later editor may have created the inclusio, which would be consistent with the wider tendency for redactional activity to occur at the beginning and end of textual units.41 First, 36 Daniel Grossberg, “The Disparate Elements of the Inclusio in the Psalms,” HAR 6 (1982): 97–104; Martin Kessler, “Inclusio in the Hebrew Bible,” Semitics 6 (1978): 44–49. 37  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 67–68; Willem A.  M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, trans. Ulrich Berges, HTKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003), 109; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 110. Williamson, by contrast, downplays the force of the inclusio in order to argue that 3:1–15 is only a section within Isa 2–4. Even if 3:1–15 as a whole has only ever existed in its larger literary context, however, it may still be perceivable as a discrete poem within that context. 38 See the review of scholarship in Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 149–50, 154–55. Williamson, however, takes 1:26 as a redactional addition and thus concludes that the earliest material from Isa 1–39 contains no original inclusios (Isaiah 1–27, 1:129–31). 39  Becker, Jesaja, 166; Berges, Book of Isaiah, 68. 40  So, for instance, Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 60; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 199–200; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 110; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe, 1:147–150; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 126–27; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 269. 41  Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 128. Williamson similarly argues that the inclusio in Isa 1:2–20 is redactional in character (Isaiah 1–27, 1:25–26, 110–111).

58

J. Blake Couey

the different forms of ʾādôn – one with the article, the other with the first-person pronominal suffix – may point to different hands. Second, the initial kî in 3:1 is already evidence of editorial activity at the beginning of the poem. It is nearly unprecedented for a biblical poem to begin with kî,42 and it was likely added here to connect 3:1–15 to the preceding poem.43 Finally, the repeated phrases appear in different contexts. In 3:1a, hāʾādôn yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt is part of a larger syntactic construction (hinnēh plus participle) and comprises the subject of the group of lines of which it is part. In 3:15b, by contrast, ʾădōnāy yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt appears in an expansion of a stereotyped formula that frequently marks the middle or end of prophetic speeches (nǝʾūm yhwh, “oracle of YHWH”).44 It is plausible that some version of this formula originally marked the conclusion of a smaller independent unit, perhaps what is now vv. 12/13–15. After joining this unit with other existing and newly composed materials, the editor would have expanded the divine name in v. 15b to match more closely that in v. 1 and create an inclusio.45 In support of this scenario, note the much more frequent occurrence in the Hebrew Bible of nǝʾūm followed directly by the Tetragrammaton (267 times) than by a form of ʾādôn (92 times, 81 of which occur in Ezekiel).46 If this proposal is correct, it suggests that the scribal editor viewed this composite creation as a poem and wished to enhance its perceptibility as such by framing it with a conventional structural device. 3.2  Extended Metaphor in Isaiah 3:1 and 8 The second case comes from the same poem. As I  have argued elsewhere, an extended metaphor appears in Isa 3:1 and 8. Verse 1 announces the imminent removal of Jerusalem and Judah’s “staff and stay” (mašʿēn ûmašʿēnâ), identified 42  Edward L. Greenstein, “The Poem on Wisdom in Job 28 in Its Conceptual and Literary Contexts,” in Job 28: Cognition in Context, ed. Ellen van Wolde, Biblical Interpretation Series 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 265. 43  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 68; Roberts, First Isaiah, 56; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:243. 44  On this formula, see Samuel A. Meir, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible, VT Sup 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 298–314. 45  Several commentators propose that ʾādōnay is in fact a later addition in 3:15 (Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 50; K aiser, Isaiah 1–12, 75, n. 9; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 141). In 1QIsaa, it is missing from the main text but has been restored supralinearly. The entire nǝʾūm formula in 3:15 is missing in LXX, but it has likely been conflated there with the beginning of 3:16: Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses, Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 61 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 194; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:266. 46  It is not clear whether the addition would have consisted of ʾădōnāy alone or ʾădōnāy and ṣǝbāʾôt. While not as frequent as nǝʾūm yhwh alone, nǝʾūm yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt appears throughout the prophetic books, including Isa 14:22, 23; 17:3; and 22:25. Yet one cannot rule out the possibility that the current wording of the formula in v. 15b is original. Exact matches appear in Jer 2:19, 49:5, and 50:31 (compare Amos 3:13), and the similar nǝʾūm haʾădôn yhwh ṣǝbāʾôt – exactly matching the divine name in Isa 3:1 – appears in Isa 1:24 and 19:4 (compare 22:14).



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

59

in the following verses as their political and religious leaders.47 These two nouns occur only here in the Hebrew Bible. Mašʿēn is an alternative spelling of the slightly more common mišʿēn, which occurs in the second half of the verse, widely regarded as a gloss. Its feminine counterpart mašēnâ, which may have been coined for this context,48 creates a gender-contrasting pair that expresses totality. Although the pair is widely understood as a reference to abstract support, the related term mišʿenet designates a staff or crutch in Exod 21:19, 2 Kgs 18:21// Isa 36:6, and Zech 8:4. If the terms in Isa 3:1 are taken in this more concrete sense, then the poem seems to employ an implicit metaphor in which Judah and Jerusalem are a disabled body, and their leaders are its walking stick. In Isa 3:8, then, Jerusalem and Judah do exactly what one would expect after their crutch has been taken away – they “stumble” (kāšǝlâ) and “fall” (nāpal). Underscoring the semantic continuity between vv. 1 and 8, the names Jerusalem and Judah appear in the same order in both verses, and both verses contain a pair of gender contrasting terms (the nouns just discussed in v. 1, the verbs in v. 8).49 For much of the twentieth century, commentators largely attributed vv. 1 and 8 to the same hand.50 That view has shifted over the past three decades, with scholars increasingly arguing that v. 8 is later.51 Recognition of the shared metaphor in vv. 1 and 8 may reopen the case for their original connectedness. By themselves, the lexical connections between the verses are consistent with the kind of catchword associations frequently attributed to later editors. The metaphor, however, is a more elaborate literary device, of a kind that is often taken to suggest compositional unity. If one concludes that vv. 1 and 8 belong to the same compositional layer, then the unusual distance between the inception of the metaphor and its resumption raises the possibility the intervening verses have been expanded by redactional additions – almost certainly v. 1b, perhaps vv. 6–7.52 Even so, the metaphor remains perceptible in the current form of the text. 47  The translation “staff and stay,” reflecting the alliteration of the Hebrew, follows KJV. For a fuller version of this argument, see J. Blake Couey, “The Disabled Body Politic in Isaiah 1:3, 8,” JBL 133 (2014): 101–3. 48  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 98; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:232. 49  Noting that yǝhûda may be feminine (e. g., Lam 1:3) or masculine (e. g., Hos 5:5), Adele Berlin suggests that it has been intentionally construed as masculine in Isa 3:8 to create this correspondence with v. 1 (Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism [Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1985], 41, 44). 50  For instance, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 199–200; Fohrer, Jesaja 1–23, 60–63; Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 60; K aiser, Isaiah 1–12, 68; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 110; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe, 1:144; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 126–27. 51  Becker, Jesaja, 165–69; Berges, Book of Isaiah, 66–67; Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 109, n. 33; Kilian, Jesaja 1–12, 33–35; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:240. Kilian and Williamson propose that v. 8 reflects the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, while most of vv. 1–7 are Isaianic. If the language in v. 8 is metaphorical, however, then it need not be connected specifically with that event, although an exilic or postexilic audience would certainly make that association. For Becker and Berges, all of 3:1–15 is postexilic, so v. 8 does not stand out in that regard. 52 See Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe, 1:145–46.

60

J. Blake Couey

Although I  find this scenario persuasive, it is not impossible that v.  8 is a later addition. If so, the lexical repetition would indicate that v.  8 was added with v.  1 in mind, which in turn suggests that the later scribe recognized the implicit metaphor and creatively elaborated it in an aesthetically sensitive way. As discussed already, the scribal composers of 22:25 similarly worked within the bounds of an existing metaphor in a previous verse, although there the expansion reverses the metaphor’s original thrust in a way that is not the case for 3:1 and 8. If 3:8 is a scribal expansion, it is possible that the pair k-š-l and n-p-l was borrowed from 8:15 or 31:3. Alternatively, Williamson has argued that both 3:8 and 8:15 are exilic expansions that use these verbs to expand metaphors from an older textual core to better apply to the conquest of Jerusalem.53 In any case, arguments that 3:8 is later should acknowledge the likely literary motivations for this expansion as well as the possible historical ones. 3.3  Refrains in Isaiah 9:7–20 While inclusios like the one in Isa 3:1–15 provide some sense of boundary to the poems that they enclose, the repeated refrain in Isa 9:7–10:454 establishes an even stronger sense of literary unity: For all this, his wrath hasn’t turned, And still his hand’s outstretched. (9:11b, 16b, 20b; 10:4b)

The same couplet appears in 5:25, and there is widespread agreement that 5:25–29/30 once belonged with the poem in chapter 9, most likely forming its original conclusion.55 Behind this composition-critical claim lies literary assumptions about the ways that refrains work in poetry, although these assumptions are seldom expressed or examined. At the very least, the argument presumes the compositional unity of 9:7–20 on the basis of the literary unity created by the refrain. Recently, Csaba Balogh has freshly scrutinized this “indisputable axiom.”56 After all, most scholars hold that the hôy-oracle in 10:1–4 was secondarily incorporated into the poem by the addition of the refrain, which raises the possibility that other instances of the refrain are also later.57 Based 53 

Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 2:299–300. of differences in the chapter break between Isa 8–9, this poem begins with Isa 9:8 in most English translations. 55  This was first proposed by Heinrich Ewald in 1867 and is now widely accepted: for instance, Berges, Book of Isaiah, 74–77; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 66–67; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 224–26; Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 1:402–3. For arguments for the compositional independence of the two texts, see Andrew H. Bartelt, The Book Around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 96–114, 131–39; Becker, Jesaja, 145–48; William P. Brown, “The So-Called Refrain in Isaiah 5:25–30 and 9:7–10:4,” CBQ 52 (1990): 432–43. 56  Balogh, “The Problem with Isaiah’s So-Called ‘Refrain Poem’: A New Look at the Compositional History of Isaiah 9.7–20,” JSOT 42 (2018): 363–90. 57  For scholarship on 10:1–4, see Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 2:463–69. 54 Because



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

61

on perceived thematic tensions between 9:7–17 and 18–20, Balogh concludes that these were originally separate texts that were subsequently joined because of references to fire in vv. 17–18. At an even later stage of development, the refrains were added to build anticipation for the judgment against Assyria described in 10:5–15, 24–27.58 Isa 5:25, on the other hand, was likely composed with v. 24 as the conclusion to the series of hôy oracles in 5:8–23.59 Although his conclusions about Isa 9:7–20 differ from those of most interpreters, Balogh reaches them by applying the same kind of compositional analysis to which other Isaianic texts are routinely subjected, looking for thematic incongruities and catchword connections. As he observes, it is surprising that the originality of the refrains other than 10:4b has not been more widely questioned. This willingness to accept the compositional unity of 9:7–20 reflects the highly perceptible effects of the refrain, especially given the general rarity of refrains in biblical poetry. So strong is this binding effect, in fact, that the presence of the same couplet in 5:25 is taken as evidence that it has been relocated from its original poetic home. If one accepts this conclusion, then this case provides evidence for the later editorial disruption of the unity of an original composition, albeit in the service of creating a new poem with its own aesthetic appeal – in which case, one should well question whether any Isaianic poem in its present form displays compositional unity. But, somewhat circularly, one only reaches that conclusion by accepting the compositional unity of 9:7–20 on the basis of the refrain – in which case, why not also accept the compositional unity of poems with more common structural devices like inclusios? Although Balogh makes a strong case for reexamining the composition history of Isa 9:7–20, his arguments against its original unity are based almost entirely on the poem itself. Many of the features that raise his suspicions, however, are present in other biblical poems with refrains. In Pss 42–43, for instance, verbal echoes of the refrain appear in the poem’s stanzas (42:5, 7 [ET 42:4, 6]; 43:4), much as is the case with Isa 5:25a and 9:12. In Ps 57:5–7 (ET 57:4–6), the verses on either side of the refrain are syntactically connected by a shared third-person plural subject that appears nowhere else in the poem, so it is not unprecedented for a refrain to interrupt an otherwise “seamless connection,” as Balogh argues for 9:16–17.60 Finally, in most psalms with refrains, the stanzas contain similar numbers of lines,61 which is true of Isa 9:7–20 as well.62 These 58  Balogh, “Problem with Isaiah’s So-Called ‘Refrain Poem,’” 385–87; compare Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 191. 59  Balogh, “Problem with Isaiah’s So-Called ‘Refrain Poem,’” 366. 60  Balogh, “Problem with Isaiah’s So-Called ‘Refrain Poem,’” 382. 61  Paul R. R aabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains, JSOTSup 104 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 168–75. 62  Williamson, Isaiah 1–27, 2:408–9. He also notes that the putative original conclusion in 5:26–29 and the likely secondary hôy-oracle in 10:1–4 contain a comparable number of lines as the stanzas in 9:7–20 (2:467).

62

J. Blake Couey

points of comparison can be taken as evidence, against Balogh, that Isa 9:7–20 is an original compositional unity after all. On the other hand, support for viewing the refrains as additions comes from the Qumran psalter 11Q5, in which a rewritten version of MT Ps 145 contains the added refrain “Blessed be YHWH and blessed his name / forever and ever” after every couplet.63 This manuscript provides concrete evidence for the very phenomenon that Balogh supposes for Isa 9:7–20. If the Isaianic refrains are likewise a later addition, however, then the scribes who created this new poem did not do so carelessly. The poem as a whole displays awareness of standard conventions for biblical stanzaic poetry, and the refrain itself is skillfully composed. Its noticeably shorter lines establish a sense of closure for each stanza through terminal modification, and the predominance of monosyllabic words creates a striking rhythm that further draws attention to the refrain. That rhythm is only broken by the final, three-syllable word nǝṭûyâ (“outstretched”), which mimetically outstretches the end of the couplet and thus reinforces the content of the line. 3.4  Wordplay in Isaiah 19:4–5 My final example comes from 19:1b–15, a poem understood by most commentators as a composite text held together by its focus on Egypt. Verses 1–4 are often taken as an independent unit focusing on the political upheaval instigated by YHWH in Egypt. Because vv. 5–10 describe an environmental catastrophe in considerable detail, by contrast, many scholars identify them as the work of a later hand.64 Some recent studies have challenged this perception of a strong thematic break between vv. 4 and 5, largely on generic grounds. Other biblical theophanies juxtapose political and social upheaval with ecological devastation, and similar thematic pairings are attested in Assyrian and Egyptian parallels, in particular the Prophecy of Neferti. Based on these parallels, some inter63  See Reinhard G. Kratz, “‘Blessed Be the Lord and Blessed Be His Name Forever’: Psalm 145 in the Hebrew Bible and in the Psalms Scroll 11Q5,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th birthday, ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 235–37. 64  Many scholars argue for vv. 1b–4 + 11–14/15 as the original unit, to which vv. 5–10 were added: Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 166–69; Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 320–23; Procksch, Jesaja, 244; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe, 1:320–23; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 234–37. Others argue for vv. 1b–4 alone as the original unit, to which either vv. 5–14/15 as a whole were added (de Jong, Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 150; Roberts, First Isaiah, 254) or vv. 5–10 and 11–14/15 separately (Paul M. Cook, A Sign and a Wonder: The Redactional Formation of Isaiah 18–20, VTSup 147 [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 81–97; K aiser, Isaiah 13–39, 99). Csaba Balogh raises, but does not commit to, the possibility that vv. 5–10 were taken from an existing text and incorporated into vv. 1–4 and 11–15 at the time of their composition, such that the present poem never existed without its middle section (Balogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush, OtSt 60 [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 273, 278). There remains disagreement about whether v. 15 is original or a later addition.



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

63

preters argue for the compositional unity of Isa 19:1b–14/15.65 At the very least, arguments for the separate origins of vv. 1b–4 and vv. 5–10 should no longer rely so heavily on the perceived thematic shift between these units. Building on this work, Christopher B. Hays has argued for a new understanding of the enigmatic verb sikkartî in v. 4 that would offer an even stronger connection between vv. 4 and 5–10.66 Against the virtual consensus that s-k-r in this verse is a dialectical variant of s-g-r (“hand over, deliver”), he argues that the root retains the meaning it has elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian: “shut, stop up.” At the same time, he argues that double entendre with s-g-r (“hand over”) is likely, especially given the propensity for paronomasia in First Isaiah. (“Damn”/“dam” is Hays’s attempt to capture the effect in English.) In fact, the parallel line in v.  4 initially favors the meaning “hand over”: “I [YHWH] will hand Egypt over into the hand of a harsh overlord / and a mighty king will rule over them” (Hays’s trans.). Following the description of the desiccation of Egypt’s water sources in vv. 5–7, however, the meaning “stop up” in v. 4 becomes more likely in retrospect: “I will dam up Egypt by the hand of a harsh overlord.” The environmental devastation described in the middle section of the poem thus results from the activity of the ruler introduced in the first section, allowing for appropriate poetic exaggeration. Such forced reinterpretation of an initially misunderstood line of poem has been termed “retrospective patterning” by literary critic Barbara Herrnstein Smith, and it is a common poetic device in Isa 1–33.67 This use of wordplay and retrospective patterning is consistent with what one finds in other Isaianic poems that are typically taken as compositional unities, which may suggest that a single scribe composed at least vv. 1b–10, if not all of vv. 1b–14/15. Awareness of native conventions for poetic theophanies, as reflected in other biblical texts, could sufficiently account for the thematic juxtaposition between vv. 1b–4 and vv. 5–10. It is not inconceivable, however, that this scribe was familiar with Egyptian literature like Neferti and modeled the poem after it, especially given the detailed knowledge of Egyptian topography and culture and the high number of Egyptian loanwords in vv. 5–10.68 On the other hand, it is possible to explain the literary features of Isa 19:1b–10 as the result of composite artistry. Later scribal redactors could have expanded an original oracle in 19:1– 4 – preserving the nǝʾūm formula with which it concluded – by composing or 65  Balogh, Stele of YHWH in Egypt, 240–43; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 314; Hilary Marlow, “The Lament over the River Nile  – Isaiah xix 5–10 in Its Wider Context,” VT 57 (2007): 230–34; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 269. 66  Christopher B. Hays, “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unity of Isa 19,1–10,” ZAW 120 (2008): 612–17. 67  Smith, Poetic Closure, 10. For other examples of this technique in Isa 1–33, see Couey, Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah, 63, 93, 172, 183–85. 68  For the possibility that Judahite scribes were trained in foreign languages, including Egyptian, see van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 100. The well-known fact that Prov 22:17– 24:22 is a translation of the Egyptian Instructions of Amenemope points in this direction.

64

J. Blake Couey

moving vv. 5–9 to follow it, recognizing and exploiting the possibility for double entrende with the roots s-g-r and s-k-r. As noted above, Isa 14:4–5 provides evidence that the Isaiah tradents could create new wordplays based on a term in an existing text. Whatever the scribe’s motivations for expanding the original text in this way, one should recognize the activity as a literary activity, the creation of a new poem. The expansion operates consistently with generic conventions, and it creates a sophisticated poetic device that effectively imposes unity on originally disparate materials.

4. Conclusions As this discussion has shown, the recognition of broadly unifying literary features in Isaianic poems is compatible with divergent views about the composition of these poems. Ultimately, other considerations – many at the level of presuppositions – will determine one’s conclusions about such matters. Nevertheless, like any reading of the book, accounts of the formation of Isaiah should recognize the poetic character of the majority of texts in the book and offer explanations for their perceptible poetic features. Interpreters arguing that the literary quality of a given poetic passage results from its original composition should acknowledge the possibility that later scribes could create aesthetically meaningful expansions and demonstrate why that explanation seems less likely in this case. Conversely, interpreters who view a given text as composite should account for its poetic artistry as the work of sensitive scribal interventions, rather than dismissing such analysis as an exclusively synchronic concern. By way of conclusion, let me suggest some implications of this study for thinking about the formation of Isaiah as a collection of poems. First, the possibility should be taken more seriously that some Isaianic poems may be, at least in significant part, compositional unities. This need not mean that they belong to the earliest stages of the book’s development, much less that they preserve the ipsissima verba of Isaiah of Jerusalem or some later prophet. At whatever developmental stage one has in view, the poems in their written form are likely the work of literarily sophisticated scribes. Second, more complex and flexible categories of authorship are needed when talking about the composition of Isaiah. For models, we might look to the field of comparative literature, which has developed robust language for talking about composite authorship in nonWestern cultures where individual genius or ownership is not so highly valued.69 Third, not only is it the case that redactors were also authors – in the case of 69  See, for instance, Christian Schwermann and Raji C. Steineck, eds., That Wonderful Composite Called Author: Authorship in East Asian Literatures, East Asian Comparative Literature and Culture 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). In their introduction, Schwermann and Steineck suggest that multiple functions of authorship should be distinguished when analyzing texts as



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

65

poetic texts, they were also poets. The scribes who put together the book of Isaiah were skilled professionals with substantial competence in the poetic conventions of their literary culture, and we should view their poetic skill as integral to their work. Whether one thinks they are rearranging existing materials or composing lines de novo, they are creating poems. Finally, scholars should be more open to the possibility of aesthetic rationales for editorial activity. Recent studies of the formation of Isaiah appeal almost exclusively to socioreligious, theological, or ideological factors as likely explanations for textual growth and change. Poets never work in a vacuum, of course, but to consider these factors alone unhelpfully privileges semantic meaning over style and form. Perhaps the motivation for a particular redactional addition or editorial rearrangement may simply have been the beauty and pleasure that it created, and continues to create for readers and hearers of Isaiah even today.

Bibliography Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry, rev. ed. New York: Basic, 2011. Balogh, Csaba. The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush. OtSt 60. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “The Problem with Isaiah’s So-Called ‘Refrain Poem’: A New Look at the Compositional History of Isaiah 9.7–20,” JSOT 42 (2018): 363–90. Bartelt, Andrew H. The Book Around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja, von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Berges, Ulrich F. The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form. Translated by Millar C. Lind. Hebrew Bible Monographs 46. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1985. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. Translated by Ulrich Berges. HTKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003. –. Jesaja 13–27. Translated by Ulrich Berges. HTKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2007. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. The Beauty of Holiness: Re-reading Isaiah in the Light of the Psalms. London: T&T Clark, 2018. Brown, William P. “The So-Called Refrain in Isaiah 5:25–30 and 9:7–10:4.” CBQ 52 (1990): 432–43. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah 1–39. NCB Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. authorial products (3–4). This insight complements recent discussions about the multiple roles of ancient scribes in textual production.

66

J. Blake Couey

Cook, Paul M. A Sign and a Wonder: The Redactional Formation of Isaiah 18–20. VTSup 147. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Couey, J. Blake. “The Disabled Body Politic in Isaiah 1:3, 8.” JBL 133 (2014): 101–3. –. Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah: The Most Perfect Model of the Prophetic Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. On Biblical Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Everson, A. Joseph and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, eds. The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah. AIL 4 Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009. Gray, George Buchanan. A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. Greenstein, Edward L. “The Poem on Wisdom in Job 28 in Its Conceptual and Literary Contexts.” Pages 253–80 in Job 28: Cognition in Context. Edited by Ellen van Wolde. Biblical Interpretation Series 64. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Grossberg, Daniel. “The Disparate Elements of the Inclusio in the Psalms.” HAR 6 (1982): 97–104. –. Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry. SBLMS 39. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1989. Fohrer, Georg. Das Buch Jesaja 1–23. ZBK. Zurich: Zwinglii Verlag, 1960. Hays, Christopher B. “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unity of Isa 19,1–10.” ZAW 120 (2008): 612–17. Heffelfinger, Katie M. I Am Large, I Contain Multitudes: Lyric Cohesion and Conflict in Second Isaiah. BibInt 105. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Jong, Matthijs J. de. 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. K aiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by Robert A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. –. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. 2nd ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Kessler, Martin. “Inclusio in the Hebrew Bible.” Semitics 6 (1978): 44–49. Kline, Jonathan G. Allusive Soundplay in the Hebrew Bible. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 28. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Kratz, Reinhard G. Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II. FAT 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “‘Blessed Be the Lord and Blessed Be His Name Forever’: Psalm 145 in the Hebrew Bible and in the Psalms Scroll 11Q5.” Pages 235–37 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lear, Sheree. Scribal Composition: Malachi as Test Case. FRLANT 270. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. Marlow, Hilary. “The Lament over the River Nile – Isaiah xix 5–10 in Its Wider Context.” VT 57 (2007): 230–34. Meir, Samuel A. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. VT Sup 46. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Miller, Cynthia. “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry (Or, What to Do When Exegesis of What Is There Depends on What Isn’t).” BBR 13 (2003): 252–53.



Poetry and Composition in the Book of Isaiah

67

Nissinen, Martti. Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. O’Connor, Michael P. Hebrew Verse Structure. 2nd ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 1997. Person, Raymond. “The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer.” JBL 117 (1998): 601–9. Procksch, Otto. Jesaja: Übersetzt und erklärt. KAT 9.1. Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1930. Raabe, Paul R. Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains. JSOTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Roberts, J. J. M. “Double Entendre in First Isaiah.” CBQ 54 (1992): 39–48. –. First Isaiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Schellenberg, Annette. “A ‘Lying Pen of the Scribes’ (Jer 8:8)? Orality and Writing in the Formation of Prophetic Books.” Pages 295–302 in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres. Edited by Annette Weissenrieder and Robert B. Coote. WUNT 260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Schwermann, Christian and Raji C. Steineck, eds. That Wonderful Composite Called Author: Authorship in East Asian Literatures. East Asian Comparative Literature and Culture 4. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Schmid, Konrad. Jesaja 1–23. ZBK. Zurich: TVZ, 2011. Schuele, Andreas. “‘Build up, Pass through’  – Isaiah 57:14–62:12 as the Core Composition of Third Isaiah.” Pages 83–110 in The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew: Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah. Edited by Richard J. Bautch and J. Todd Hibbard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Stromberg, Jacob. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. –. An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. London: T&T Clark, 2011. –. Review of Reading the Poetry of First Isaiah: The Most Perfect Model of the Prophet Poetry, by J. Blake Couey. Biblica 98 (2017), 290–93. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Review of I Am Large, I Contain Multitudes: Lyric Cohesion and Conflict in Second Isaiah, by Katie M. Heffelfinger. SEA 77 (2012): 302. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Troxel, Ronald L. Prophetic Literature: From Oracles to Books. New York: Wiley & Sons, 2012. Vermeylen, Jacques. Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique. Etudes bibliques. 2 Vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1977–1978. van der Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 61. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Watson, W. G.  E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A  Guide to Its Techniques. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

68

J. Blake Couey

Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. –. “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective.” Pages 211–26 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by J. C. de Moor. OTS 34. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. Isaiah 1–27. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2005–2012. –. “Recent Issues in the Study of Isaiah.” Pages 23–29 in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. Wilson, Robert R. “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 95–107 in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God Through Historically Dissimilar Traditions. Edited by Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin. LHBOTS 400. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts A Quantitative Approach with Special Attention to Isaiah 24–27* Christopher B. Hays Five years ago, I published a “progress report” with some preliminary comments about the linguistic character of Isa 24–27 in light of the study of Hebrew diachrony.1 In the intervening years, while completing a monograph on the context and formation of the same chapters, I had the chance to refine and expand those earlier findings significantly.2 In addition to taking “soundings” from all major sections of Isaiah, the present essay also analyzes Amos, Mic 1–3, Malachi, and Haggai. The findings largely cohere with dominant critical paradigms, but also render up a couple of surprises. It was never expected that linguistic dating alone would determine the date of Isa 24–27. As Tania Notarius has written, texts can be dated linguistically, but they “cannot be dated just linguistically, and additional extra-linguistic data are indispensable for a provisional absolute dating of the literary composition.”3 However, linguistic analysis had the potential to falsify other theories, and in the end it establishes a span of time within which Isa 24–27 can credibly be thought to have been written, functioning as one piece of a puzzle along with data supplied by other methods. An English speaker can, without difficulty, recognize significant differences between Beowulf ’s Old English (ca. eleventh century), Chaucer’s Middle English (fourteenth century) and Shakespeare’s Early Modern English (sixteenth century). Indeed, scholars have identified the eighth-century poem underlying *  This essay is dedicated to my friends and colleagues whose work is foundational for it, especially Aaron Hornkohl, Tania Notarius, William Schniedewind, and Ziony Zevit. 1  Christopher B. Hays, “The Date and Message of Isaiah 24–27 in Light of Hebrew Diachrony,” in Intertextuality and Formation of Isaiah 24–27, Ancient Israel and Its Literature, ed. Todd Hibbard and Paul Kim (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 7–24. Some fragments of that essay have survived into this one, but on the whole it is now to be ignored. The term “linguistic” is used in a relatively broad way throughout this essay, meant to include aspects of the biblical texts that some academic linguists would instead consider “scribal” or “stylistic.” 2  Christopher B. Hays, The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018). The present essay is adapted from chapter 6. 3 Tania Notarius, review of Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A  Critique of the Linguistic Arguments, by Robyn Vern, JSS 60 (2015): 245.

70

Christopher B. Hays

the eleventh-century copies of Beowulf 4 and even distinguished among the earlier and later works within Shakespeare’s oeuvre based on linguistic and stylistic characteristics.5 Likewise, one of the most basic clues to the composition of Isa 24–27 is the language of the pericope itself. Languages change over time, and certain features are characteristic of certain periods; when estimates of the date of Isa 24–27 span half a millennium, it stands to reason that the language of the text should shed some light on the question. Complicating our ability to use linguistic considerations to discern a text’s editorial history is the fact that various dialects, sociolects, and idiolects may all coexist in the same period. An author may archaize for effect; a word may come into use early but explode in popularity only much later; copyists may update some aspects of an earlier text but not others. Furthermore, whereas common language is always changing, analysis of texts in other ancient Semitic languages such as Akkadian shows that literary “dialects” (e. g., Standard Babylonian) survived in a relatively standardized form over longer periods.6 These impediments to easy certainties about the dates of texts have caused some scholars to doubt that linguistic dating can be effective. H. G. M. Williamson, in laying out methods to identify preexilic strata of Isaiah, declines to endorse the use of details of style and language even though he agrees that there were perceptible changes in Biblical Hebrew sometime after the exile.7 The doubts, discussed further below, have generated healthy cautions and refinements to linguistic dating, but the method itself remains useful. 4 Leonard Neidorf, The Transmission of “Beowulf ”: Language, Culture, and Scribal Behavior (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017). I am grateful to Naʾama Pat-El for bringing this work to my attention. 5 Frank Kermode, Shakespeare’s Language (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2000) and Russ McDonald, Shakespeare’s Late Style (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) or, for an analysis every bit as detailed as anything applied to the Bible, Ulrich Busse, Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002). There is some controversy around this method, and opponents of linguistic dating have cited the work of Kormi Anipa, “The Use of Literary Sources in Historical Sociolinguistic Research,” in The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, ed. J. M. Hernández-Campoy and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012), 187, as problematizing the claims. Yet, upon inspection, he is himself cautious but not completely opposed: “In the light of supposed ‘adulteration’ of Shakespeare’s scripts by compositors, copyists, editors, printers, etc., from his own time, one might ask to what extent the data presented in this study reflect Shakespeare’s own language …. [But] if we assume that Shakespeare’s plays are a collective testimony to late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century English (because they equally reflect the language of a few others who might have tampered with his manuscripts), that is not too bad a testimony to go by.” 6  N. J. C. Kouwenberg, “Diachrony in Akkadian and the Dating of Literary Texts,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit, LSAWS 8 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 448. 7  H. G.  M. Williamson, “In Search of the Pre-Exilic Isaiah,” in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, OTS 406 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 199.

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



71

A fresh look at the language of Isa 24–27 is certainly overdue. There has not been a study of it focused primarily on diachrony since G. B. Gray’s 1912 commentary.8 At that time, our knowledge of Semitic languages and understanding of linguistic dating were far less well developed. It is not merely a question of the major discoveries at Ugarit or Qumran; in the past decade or two there has been an outpouring of new scholarship on linguistic dating of texts in the Hebrew Bible. The recent interest has seemingly been sparked by, among other factors, the claims of biblical scholars who propose that nearly the entire Bible was composed in the postexilic period.9 While linguistic dating does not offer the precision of carbon dating or palaeography, it does have potential to be instructive when two interpretive camps are divided by centuries. In the case of Isa 24–27, estimated dates have run from the eighth century BCE to the second.10 Let it be noted at the outset that Isa 24–27 is discussed very little in the literature on linguistic dating, and that this is partly because there is a mismatch between the assumed (late) date of the text and its actual linguistic profile. Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, in their 2008 magnum opus on linguistic dating, observed that “[w]hile Isaiah 24–27 … is often considered a later section in the book of Isaiah, it is not considered to represent LBH.”11 Scholars tend to reserve commentary on data that are hard to explain. Arguments from silence can only be suggestive, but both early and recent treatments of LBH have conspicuously overlooked Isa 24–27. Wilhelm Gesenius’s Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift, while quite aware of the late features within Isa 40–66, noted none in Isa 24–27.12 Avi Hurvitz’s Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew also includes no features found in Isa 24–27.13 A brief review of the history of discussion of Hebrew diachrony sets the stage for a closer look at Isa 24–27. What follows is not intended as an apologia for linguistic dating. There are many gray areas and problems in the way the method is sometimes carried out, but (perhaps surprisingly) its application to Isa 24–27 depends very little on the disputed points. That is because these chapters do 8 

G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX, ICC 23/1 (New York: Scribner’s, 1912), 463–72. 9  Acknowledged at the outset by Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach, SBLANEM 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 1–2. For a critique of this tendency, see Jan Joosten, “The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax,” HS 46 (2005): 327–39. 10  For a conveniently charted overview of scholars’ views, see William D. Barker, Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic, FAT/II 70 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 5. 11 Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London: Equinox, 2008), 1:262 (and repeated on 1:307). 12 Wilhelm Gesenius, Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine philologischhistorische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der hebräischen Sprache (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1815), 26. 13 Avi Hurvitz et al., A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period, VTSup 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

72

Christopher B. Hays

not occupy a linguistic gray area. There is almost nothing in their language that would indicate a late date, as the scholarship tacitly reflects. The percentage of typologically late features in Isa 24–27 is in line with prophetic texts widely held to be preexilic – a result that cannot be attributed to an archaizing author, since no other compositions from significantly into the postexilic period demonstrate comparable success in emulating standard Biblical Hebrew.

1.  A History of the History of Hebrew The recognition of linguistic diversity begins within the Hebrew Bible itself. Two passages are much discussed: 2 Kgs 18 and Neh 13. The author of 2 Kgs 18:26 (paralleled in Isa 36:11) portrayed the ability to understand both Hebrew and Aramaic as a natural skill for Jerusalem officials to have in the preexilic period. Those who come out to hear the Assyrian representatives during Sennacherib’s 701 siege say: “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic (‫)ארמית‬, for we understand it; do not speak Judahite (‫ )יהודית‬with us within the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” This comment presupposes that the languages were not so similar that common people found them mutually intelligible. But it also suggests that for an elite audience that understood some Aramaic, a certain density of Aramaisms within a Hebrew text could have been viewed as an erudite literary device.14 Even more relevant to the question of diachronic linguistic change is Neh 13:23–24, which recounts Nehemiah’s efforts at achieving ethnic and linguistic purity in the postexilic province of Yehud: “In those days also I saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab; and half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and none of them could speak Judahite (‫)יהודית‬, but spoke the language of this or that people (‫כלׁשון ﬠם‬ ‫)וﬠם‬.” The ideological bent of the passage is patent; nevertheless, if it derives from the late fifth century, it provides evidence that in the eyes of elites there was already a degradation of Hebrew language norms among the population at that time. In antiquity, however, few interpreters seem to have remarked on the diachronic or dialectical variety within Biblical Hebrew. Qohelet was understandably one of the first biblical books to have its language attract attention. It is commonly repeated that the twelfth-century Spanish commentator Abraham ibn Ezra hypothesized that its title referred not to “one who assembles,” but to an assembly of Solomon’s followers who put the book together later, out of 14  For a recent discussion of Aramaic influence on preexilic Hebrew, see Yigal Bloch, “Aramaic Influence and Inner Diachronic Development in Hebrew Inscriptions of the Iron Age,” in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses, ed. Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius, LSAWS 12 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 83–112.

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



73

sometimes disparate opinions15 – although in fact he coyly attributed the view to a(n unnamed) previous interpreter.16 In any case, Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin held similar views.17 Eventually, the diachronic study of Hebrew began to take on a recognizably modern form. In 1644, about the same time Galileo Galilei was challenging the idea that Joshua stopped the sun, the Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius noted that many words in Qohelet are not found elsewhere in the Bible except in Daniel and Ezra, and in the targumim.18 Gesenius observed linguistic differences across broader portions of the Hebrew Bible and related these to Aramaic (including Syriac) and Arabic. In his Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift (1815), he listed the main corpus of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) as Esther, Qohelet, Chronicles, Daniel, Jonah, and a few Psalms, and he added that late books with “somewhat purer language” include Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Malachi, Song of Songs, and Job.19 The differences between this list and those of later scholars may reflect methodological differences, particularly with respect to the use of cognate languages. Gesenius’s understanding of Aramaic was strong for his time but necessarily limited by the fact that Akkadian, for example, was unavailable to him.20 His assessments were 15 

Cf., e. g., M. V. Fox, “Qohelet,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation 2.346. comment is found in Ibn Ezra’s comment on Qoh 7:3: “one of the interpreters felt himself constrained to interpret ‫ קהלת‬as ‫ ְק ִה ַּלת יﬠקב‬, ‘assembly of Jacob’ … and he said that his disciples compiled the book, and each one spoke according to his own opinion” (‫והוצרך אחד‬ ‫)מן המפרׁשים לפרׁש מלת קהלת כמו ְק ִה ַּלת יﬠקב ואמר כי תלמידיו חברו הספר וכל אחד אמר כפי מחׁשבתו‬. 17  Luther said that Ecclesiastes “is certainly not written or produced by King Solomon himself with his own hand. Rather, [it was] heard by others from his mouth and [was] thus brought together by the scholars.” He compares this to Proverbs which he says was “pieced together by others, and the teaching and sayings of a few wise men [were] added to it at the end”; see Scott C. Jones, “Solomon’s Table Talk: Martin Luther on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes,” SJOT 28 (2014): 81–90. The same observation was made in passing by Sir William Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy and Literature (Michigan: Harper, 1861), 492–93. 18  “Ego tamen Solomonis esse non puto,” “However, I  do not think it to be Solomon’s”; see H. Grotius, “Ad Ecclesiasten,” in Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, ed. G. J. L. Vogel and J. C. Döderlein (Halle: Johann Jakob Curt, 1775), 1:434. This is noted by C. L. Seow, “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet,” JBL 115 (1996): 643–66 and also by Jones, “Solomon’s Table Talk,” 90. 19  Gesenius, Geschichte; Jan Joosten, “Wilhelm Gesenius and the History of Hebrew in the Biblical Period,” in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: Das “Hebräischdeutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage, ed. Stefan Schorch and ErnstJoachim Waschke, BZAW 427 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 94–106; Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel, JSOTSup 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 27. 20  Steven E. Fassberg, “Gesenius’ Dictionary and the Development of Aramaic Studies,” in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: Das “Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage, ed. Stefan Schorch and Ernst-Joachim Waschke, BZAW 427 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 169–83. 16  The

74

Christopher B. Hays

also colored by broader cultural judgments about various books of the Bible. He saw much of the postexilic literature as “weak and watered-down,” the product of “a debased Jewish taste.”21 One can see here the anti-Semitic tendencies that were later manifested by Julius Wellhausen and others.22 The idea that Biblical Hebrew can be grouped into two periods divided by the Babylonian exile continued to win adherents through the course of the nineteenth century. Franz Delitzsch embraced it in his 1875 commentary on Qohelet, although he credited it to H. G. Bernstein’s 1854 work on the same.23 Delitzsch memorably commented that “if the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.”24 In other words, if one cannot argue that the grammar and lexicon of the book are late, then there had to have been total diversity of language throughout the biblical period. The majority of work in the field long focused on constructing a relatively linear plot for the development of Hebrew. Much work on the development of Hebrew arose out of the conversation about the formation and dating of the Pentateuch and the historical books, since this was related to the hotly contested questions of their date and their significance for historiography. Although the new theories were grounded initially in literary and religio-historical concerns, the dating of Chronicles and the P source was obviously perceived to be connected to their language. With the optimism of the new science of linguistics, scholars began to use observations about Hebrew typology more widely to support their dating theories. For example, Friedrich Giesebrecht argued for a late date for the P source based on lexical patterns.25 S. R. Driver, although generally an advocate for source criticism of the Pentateuch, challenged Giesebrecht on this point in an article entitled “On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist” (1880).26 21  “kraftlos und wässerig … einem gesunkenen jüdischen Geschmacke” (Gesenius, Geschichte, 26). 22 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, Studies of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 20–22, and Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 41–43. 23  Heinrich Gideon Bernstein, Quaestiones Nonnullae Kohelethanae (Vratislaviae: Typis Grassili Barthii et Soc., 1854). A more recent advocate for an early date is Daniel C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1988), but his arguments have not generally found acceptance; see Seow, “Linguistic Evidence” and Francesco Bianchi, “The Language of Qohelet: A Bibliographical Survey,” ZAW 105 (1993): 211. 24 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, trans. M. G. Easton (Leipzig: Dorffling & Franke, 1875; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1877; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 190. 25 Friedrich Giesebrecht, “Zur Hexateuchkritik. Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen Elohisten,” ZAW 2 (1881): 177–276. 26  S. R. Driver, “On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist,” Journal of Philology 11 (1880): 201–36.

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



75

He called Giesebrecht’s methodology faulty for assuming that a word was not in use in the time of the J and E sources just because it is not attested in the biblical texts dated to that early period. He also deemed Giesebrecht’s use of Aramaic naïve about comparative philology because it did not countenance the possibility that so-called loanwords attested later in Aramaic might have had early Hebrew cognates that are simply unknown outside of supposedly late pentateuchal texts. In short, he considered Giesebrecht’s method “untrustworthy”27 and his conclusions “extreme.”28 These methodological cautions remain valid today. By the time of his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1898), Driver made his point in a more positive way. He saw the P source as a complex work. While its final framing was certainly the work of the exile or later, he wrote, “it is very far from being implied that all the institutions of P are the creation of this age.”29 Some elements of the source were surely earlier, in his view. Gray’s 1912 Isaiah commentary thus stood at the end of an initial phase of investigation into diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. In the body of the commentary, he gave the rather strong impression that linguistic data supports a late date for Isa 24–27, with comments such as: “the style and language may not … be late post-exilic, yet they are certainly post-exilic.”30 There are a number of indications of the yet-inchoate shape of the conversation when Gray wrote. For example: [I]t is important to bear in mind certain dissimilarities between Is 24–27 and most late post-exilic writers. The style of Is 24–27 forms no such transition as does Ec. to the New Hebrew or Rabbinic style, nor is it marked (except in corrupt passages) by that uncouthness which characterises Chr., Dan., and Est. Yet even a writer as late as the 2nd cent. B. C. could write with ease and fluency. ‘The language’ of Ben Sirach is classical Hebrew, the syntax displaying no traces of the peculiar New Hebrew constructions, such as occur, for instance, so frequently in Ecclesiastes.31

This of course creates a false impression of the classicism of Ben Sira’s Hebrew, which is demonstrably late, differing significantly from Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH).32 Furthermore, if one turns to Gray’s “Additional Note on the Style and Language of XXIV–XXVII,” one finds him hedging and backtracking about Isa 24–27. For example: 27 

Driver, “On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities,” 231. Driver, “On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities,” 233. 29  S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972), 142. 30  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX, 400. 31  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX, 464. 32  See particularly the contributions by A. Hurvitz in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11–14 December 1995, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde, STDJ 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), and Muraoka and Elwolde, Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997, STDJ 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1999). More recent assessments of the possibility of re-creating SBH long after the exile are discussed below. 28 

76

Christopher B. Hays

[The style of Isa 24–27] is remarkably easy and flowing. It stands throughout on an altogether higher level than that, for instance, of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, or the Hebrew parts of Daniel. And not only in the general character of the style is Is 24–27 distinguished from most late post-exilic works except Sir[ach]. It contains no Greek words such as (though few in number) form such a significant feature of the Book of Daniel; nor … does it contain any Persian words,33 such as appear in Ec., Cant, Est., Dan., Chr., and even, in spite of its generally more classic style, in Sir …. And, further, Is 24–27 may be said to be relatively free from such marked Aramaisms as occur in Jon., Pss 139, 144, Sir., as well as in the late postexilic writings already mentioned.34

Gray even argued against T. K. Cheyne and Rudolph Smend, who depended for their late dating on Isa 24–27’s “artificiality of style.” Gray noted correctly that while differences of style might indicate different authorship, they cannot be a sufficient criterion for dating. Finally, at the tail end of the excursus, Gray listed a few features, primarily lexical, which seemed to him indicators of lateness. These are addressed below. But all in all, he makes it clear that his linguistic analysis is driven by his interpretation of the content (“the ideas”35), and not the other way around. Thus, as Young and Rezetko note, “his arguments have not been carried on in recent discussions of LBH.”36

2.  Modern History: Hebrew in Diachronic Perspective The discovery of Ugaritic gave scholars a better view of early West Semitic language and literature than ever before. The ensuing identification of biblical parallels to Ugaritic led to the identification of certain passages as Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH). Among the best known is Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman’s work on Exod 15.37 Other texts proposed to contain archaic Hebrew included Judg 5, Deut 32, 2 Sam 22 (// Ps 18), Num 23–24, Gen 49, and Ps 68. The identification of some texts in this list as ABH has been forcefully challenged, but ABH remains a useful term for at least a few early poetic compositions.38 With the addition of ABH to SBH and LBH, the tripartite development of BH came to command wide assent. 33 On ‫ רזי‬in Isa 24:16, see the translation note in the Introduction. Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX, 418–19 did not regard ‫ רזי‬as a Persianism, although he deemed the difficulties of the verse unresolved. 34  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX, 464. 35  See esp. Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX, 465. 36  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:35. 37  Later published as F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955): 237–50. 38  David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972); Ian Young, “The Style of the Gezer Calendar and Some ‘Archaic Biblical Hebrew’ Passages,” VT 42 (1992): 362–75; Y. Bloch, “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry: A  Re-Evaluation,” VT 59 (2009): 34–70; Joosten,



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

77

In the same period, the essentials of Wellhausen’s source theory continued to dominate the field, including the idea of an exilic or postexilic P source. Yehezkel Kaufmann and his students, however, began to promulgate the theory of the early (i. e., preexilic) P source. Kaufmann’s theory, however, ran up against the older idea that the language of the P source is late. Under his influence, scholars associated with Hebrew University eventually took up the linguistic issues raised by his theory. E. Y. Kutscher’s influential History of the Hebrew Language helped to popularize the tripartite diachronic division of Biblical Hebrew (Archaic, Classical, Late) and concluded that LBH was a transitional stage between Classical and Mishnaic Hebrew.39 Kutscher remarked, “It is very interesting to see how Chronicles substitutes words that are common in BH for words that had become antiquated or which had meanwhile changed their meanings.”40 Hurvitz developed this observation and went on to make the study of LBH his life’s work. He began with a dissertation on linguistic typology as it related to dating the psalms,41 and his article “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code”42 (1974) argued for the preexilic status of P. I pass over many of the details of this period of the conversation in favor of a focus on methodology. Hurvitz’s method initially relied entirely on lexical features. Robert Polzin challenged Hurvitz on methodology in Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (1976). Polzin argued that “grammar and syntax provide a more reliable basis for chronological analysis than lexicographic features.”43 He assumed that every postexilic author in the Bible tried to mimic an earlier style and idiom, with more or less success. But despite their efforts to archaize, he argued that all of them made “numerous verbal slips,”44 and that those errors were more likely to show up in grammar “Wilhelm Gesenius,” 101–2; Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A  Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Leiden: Brill, 2013); Naʾama P ­ at-El and Aren Wilson-Wright, “Features of Archaic Biblical Hebrew and the Linguistic Dating Debate,” HS 54 (2013) 387–410; Tania Notarius, “The Archaic System of Verbal Tenses in ‘Archaic’ Biblical Poetry” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew; and Bo Isaksson, “Clause Combining in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43): An Example of Archaic Biblical Hebrew Syntax,” in Moshavi and Notarius, Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, 233–70, as well as the entries by Notarius, Paul Korchin, and Ian Young in Pamela Barmash, ed., “Symposium: Does Archaic Biblical Hebrew Exist?” HS 58 (2017): 47–118. 39  E. Y. Kutscher, A  History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) and Kutscher, History, esp. 81–86. 40  Kutscher, History, 82. 41 Avi Hurvitz, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of the Psalms [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1972). 42 Avi Hurvitz, “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code,” RB 81 (1974): 24–56. 43 Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 2. 44  Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 4.

78

Christopher B. Hays

than in terminology. Polzin also restated and updated Driver’s objection to the overidentification of Aramaisms. Not only would Hebrew authors have had contact with Aramaic from at least the eighth century onward, but “Aramaic had in fact much less influence upon the nature of the late language” than other scholars had believed.45 Therefore, “[a]ny attempt to establish the late date of P by the presence of many Aramaisms within it is doomed to failure.”46 In 1982, Hurvitz published A  Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel.47 As the title indicates, he focused on establishing the relationship of P to Ezekiel specifically. His argument ran as follows: Ezekiel shows clear affinities with priestly concerns and language. Because the book can be dated to the exile, and because certain features of its priestly language are more akin to postexilic texts, P must therefore be preexilic if it does not use the same linguistic features as Ezekiel. He responded to Polzin’s assertion that grammar and syntax are better typological indicators than lexicon by including grammatical and syntactical features in addition to lexical items. He also made extensive use of various texts besides P and Ezekiel as controls to establish what is early BH (J, E, Samuel–Kings, preexilic prophets) and what is late (Qumran, Mishnah, other early Jewish texts). Hurvitz also granted that if one could prove Ezekiel to be significantly postexilic, P might be postexilic as well. Indeed, he foresaw more recent arguments that linguistic change did not come to Judah until well after the exile. Hurvitz said he did not want to minimize or dismiss these possible objections, which may make absolute dating on a linguistic basis impossible. But relative dating is another story; he confidently repeated his conclusion from the earlier article that “the Priestly Source is a link in a chain; but it is the first – not the last – in historical order.”48 In his History of the Hebrew Language (1993), Angel Saenz-Badillos incor­ porates much from both Hurvitz and Polzin into his discussion of the characteristics of LBH. He was skeptical of the value of so-called Aramaisms in establishing lateness.49 (Persian and Greek loanwords are important, however, since these belong to a different language family with which Israel had little contact early in its history.) And he arrives at a definition of LBH by comparing both parallel and nonparallel passages of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, viewing these approaches 45  Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 14. He was responding more specifically here to Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik Verglichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur Historischen Syntax des Hebräischen, BZAW 16 (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909). 46  Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 18. It is not surprising that linguists would initially have tried to relate the two since a lot of linguistic data that we now have was missing. A fuller sense of the Semitic language tree makes other conclusions possible. 47 Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, CahRB 20 (Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 18. 48  Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 155. 49  Again, see Bloch, “Aramaic Influence.”

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



79

as complementary.50 Saenz-Badillos concludes that “one of the most noteworthy features of the LBH corpus as a whole is a far-reaching series of changes in the verbal system,”51 an observation confirmed and fleshed out by the studies of Jan Joosten and Mats Eskhult.52 William Schniedewind’s recent Social History of Hebrew has also helped to consolidate this picture of LBH.53 Saenz-Badillos’s study also indicates the reasons for new directions in the study of late Hebrew in that he is sensitive to the differences among writings that are apparently from the same period. For example, he notes that while Ezra and Nehemiah are generally taken as a package with Chronicles, they show “considerable divergence in language and style.”54 Polzin also distinguished among individual books, and even parts of books, but he still felt compelled to place his observation into a chronology, even if it was only a relative chronology. SaenzBadillos did not entirely follow up on the implications of his findings, either; he was content to conclude that “LBH is not to be regarded simply as an intermediate stage with no real character of its own” but warrants study in its own right.55 It was left to others to construct new hypotheses based on diverse data.

3.  Exploding Assumptions: The Qumran Effect One could see the burst of linguistic research occasioned by the finds at Qumran as the impetus for later breakthroughs in the diachronic study of Hebrew in general. Although one thinks of the Qumran discoveries as a mid-twentiethcentury event, synthetic linguistic treatments did not appear until decades later. (Delays in publishing the scrolls of course played a role.)56 It soon became clear that the scrolls had to be grouped in different categories: copies of biblical texts, new compositions imitating biblical styles, and sectarian manuscripts, as well as 4QMMT and the Copper Scroll, which are both somewhat sui generis but sometimes referred to as “Qumran MH.”57 All of these types manifest late linguistic habits, but each is also distinctive. 50 Angel

Saenz-Badillos, A  History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 115 and 115 n. 11. 51  Saenz-Badillos, History, 129. 52  One might note especially Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose, JBS 10 (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), 377–410. See also Mats Eshkult, “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 84–93. 53  William M. Schniedewind, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 139–63. 54  Saenz-Badillos, History, 120. 55  Saenz-Badillos, History, 129. 56  See, however, the articles in Chaim R abin and Yigael Yadin, eds., Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965). 57  The Copper Scroll may have been produced at the Jerusalem Temple instead of Qumran.

80

Christopher B. Hays

One type of change among the Qumran texts is reflected in 1QIsaa, a complete copy of Isaiah in an updated, or so-called vulgar, style. The differences from the Masoretic Text are mostly of a sort that will not confuse someone familiar with SBH, but they are extensive.58 Widespread orthographic tendencies include a very plene spelling of waws (even for short u in some cases), in addition to longer pronominal suffixes (e.g, ‫ ־המה‬for ‫ ־הם‬or ‫ ־כה‬for ‫ )־ך‬and the occasional addition of an aleph (e. g. ‫ כיא‬for ‫כי‬, or ‫ גואים‬for ‫)גוים‬. Some proper names also reflect later pronunciation habits (e. g. ‫ דרמסק‬and ‫)יׁשﬠיה‬. In his extensive study of the Isaiah scroll, Kutscher concluded that these changes are related to shifting habits of speech in the Qumran period, with Aramaic influence on the rise and Rabbinic Hebrew (RH) beginning to take shape.59 While Hurvitz and Polzin were each still working (at least heuristically) with a chronological model, other scholars were beginning to realize that “general Qumran Hebrew” (GQH, or simply QH), as it is found in sectarian documents, problematized linear models. Shelomo Morag, for example, compiled a list of ten salient features of QH in his article “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations.” Of the ten, only one – the form of the relative particle – was in continuity with LBH, and only two – periphrastic verb constructions and pausal forms in nonpausal positions – were in line with Mishnaic Hebrew (MH). The uniqueness of the other seven features established, Morag thought, that QH could not be simply a literary stage between LBH and MH.60 He concluded that it must be a continuation of an earlier dialect that was coexistent with BH. In a follow-up article, Morag tried to buttress his claims with a semantic analysis of certain keywords in the Qumran lexicon.61 By observing their semantic development, he hoped to show that QH was “a living language … an entity in itself,” which plausibly goes back to the dialectical spread of the language in the period of the First Temple.” Elisha Qimron supported Morag’s general argument in an article62 in which he argued more specifically that some of the so-called contextual-pausal verb forms are in fact older than the Tiberian tradition, and that their presence in QH marks it as another of the multiple spoken dialects in the Second Temple period. Elisha Qimron, “Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 BCE–200 CE) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents,” The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Devorah Dimant (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 355–56 objects to the term “Qumran MH.” 58  For a catalogue, see Eugene Ulrich, Peter W. Flint, and Martin G. Abegg, Qumran Cave 1, Vol. II: The Isaiah Scrolls, DJD 32 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 119–93. 59  E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), STDJ 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974). 60 Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38 (1988): 161–62. This opinion is seconded by Qimron, “Observations,” 354. 61 Shelomo Morag, “On Some Concepts in the World of Qumran: Polysemy and Semantic Development,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well, 178–92. 62 Elisha Qimron, “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well, 232–44. See also Qimron, “Observations,” 353.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

81

These claims have not proven fully convincing. Hurvitz objected to the very idea of distinguishing a spoken language in the scrolls: “Any attempt to classify QH specifically as ‘spoken’ is incompatible with the overall linguistic nature of the Hebrew Scrolls … whose linguistic profile similarly manifests a mixture of both ‘written’ and ‘spoken’ elements.”63 Hurvitz’s point is that there is simply not enough data on which to base any discernment of which features reflect speech habits and which do not. Schniedewind argued instead that QH is an “antilanguage” created by scribes as a “vehicle for differentiating the group from other Jewish groups in the late Second Temple period.”64 In other words, QH is an ideologically driven scribal invention. Linguistic ideology and change are reflected in a somewhat different way in the apocryphal psalms from Qumran. On the one hand, their themes and motifs are strongly influenced by the canonical psalms, and indeed many of the psalms in the later part of the Psalter already reflect certain LBH patterns, such as use of the ‫ ׁש‬relative particle. On the other hand, since these noncanonical psalms are not copies of earlier texts but wholesale compositions of a later period, they show differences in syntax and vocabulary. As Polzin wrote, these psalms show “the kind of verbal slip a writer would make who attempted to imitate the classical Hebrew language at a time when classical style and usage had already changed.”65 The markers included Aramaized noun patterns and verb usage, special Qumran phraseology, and even similarities with Rabbinic Hebrew. There is general agreement that the Qumran psalms are not very convincing facsimiles of SBH. Hurvitz wrote that typologically early elements in a late text may only be evidence of archaizing, whereas late elements, “if they are not few or sporadic … effectively date a text.”66 Considerations of language ideology have also affected the study of Rabbinic Hebrew. The Hebrew of the Mishnah was long thought by Christian and Jewish scholars to be a literary language only, invented by the Tannaim in order to facilitate their debate.67 But that opinion has changed. When one looks at MH, one finds a multitude of differences from BH, the effect of which is to make MH read at times like another language entirely. MH shows none of QH’s resistance to popular language. Subjectively, MH often seems more different from BH than 63 Avi Hurvitz, “Was QH a ‘Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well, 114. 64  William M. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 242. 65 Robert Polzin, “Notes on the Dating of the Non-Massoretic Psalms of 11QPsa,” HTR 60 (1967): 475. 66 Avi Hurvitz, “Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal Psalm from Qumran,” RevQ (1965): 231. This comment serves Hurvitz’s broader case that the P source could not have avoided late features so successfully if it really were postexilic. 67  E. Y. Kutscher, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic Hebrew,” EncJud (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 16:1592.

82

Christopher B. Hays

BA is from BH. Some of the differences in MH, such as plene spelling and certain changes in verb tense, may be seen as continuations of the changes that were already happening in QH. Others, such as the independent subject pronoun ‫אנו‬ and relative particle ‫זו‬, are harder to explain on the basis of any prior known form of Hebrew. Based on these unique features, M. H. Segal argued persuasively that MH cannot have been an artificial literary language based on BH but must reflect a spoken language that traces its lineage to an alternate form of Hebrew that coexisted with BH.68 The discovery and publication of the Bar Kokhba letters, written in a sociolect similar to MH, later confirmed Segal’s argument. In sum, the effect of the Qumran scrolls has been to emphasize the effect of ideology in the creation of scribal sociolects. On the one hand, such sociolects intend to archaize, which alerts the interpreter to the possibility of the same tendency on the part of earlier biblical scribes who were trying to preserve SBH. On the other hand, the Qumran scribes did not ever archaize in such a way as to create a fully classical text, so various features signal the tendencies and context of the scribe.69

4.  Dialect and Sociolect in the Persian Period? This brings us to the present conversation, in which the study of Biblical Hebrew has been dominated by diachronic (or typological) methods. It has often been assumed that the textual record reflects regular, diachronic change in the Hebrew language, just as the archaeological record does in the forms of pots.70 That assumption has been challenged by approaches emphasizing simultaneous diversity within the Hebrew language, under the assumption that there were various dialects and sociolects in use in ancient Israel and Judah at the same 68  M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927); Jacobus A. Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Typology and Chronology, ed. Ian Young (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 189–214, and David Talshir, “The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period,” in Young, Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Typology and Chronology, 251–75. 69  Pesher Habakkuk has sometimes been mentioned as an exception. But contrary to the claims of Ian Young, “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Qumran Pesher Habakkuk,” JHS 8 (2008), http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_102.pdf, see Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher Habakkuk” in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. E. Tigchelaar et al., STDJ 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 132–59. 70  F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 233–46. For recent analyses, see Noam Mizrahi, “Linguistic Change Through the Prism of Textual Transmission: The Case of Exodus 12:9,” in Moshavi and Notarius, Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, 27–52; and Aaron Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost: Linguistic Periodization in the Face of Textual and Literary Pluriformity,” in Moshavi and Notarius, Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, 53–80.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

83

time.71 But the synchronic diversity model has also been embraced by historians and other scholars who place nearly all of the literary production of the Hebrew Bible in the postexilic period. Such a theory would be necessary to explain how the Bible’s linguistic diversity derived from a compressed time frame. Unfortunately, the extrabiblical data about Hebrew from the Persian period are not sufficient to settle the question of linguistic diversity empirically, and the preexilic inscriptions are skimpy enough that even that period is not understood as well as it might be. Neither the synchronic nor diachronic claims can be entirely wrong, in that language manifestly changes over time in observable ways, yet different forms of a language manifestly coexist and have done so since antiquity. The question becomes one of degree: to what extent should the linguistic diversity of the Bible be explained by synchronic variety, and to what extent by diachronic change? The leading advocates of synchronic linguistic diversity are Young, Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, whose two-volume Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2008) presents a unified case against diachronic theories and thus against the method of linguistic dating itself. They advance “an argument for a new approach to linguistic variety in BH”72 in which “[b]oth EBH and LBH are styles with roots in preexilic Hebrew, which continue through the postexilic period.”73 The crux of their case is that the linguistic features taken by many previous scholars to be indicators of lateness (or earliness) were invalid as markers, because many of them could be found in both early and late texts. After surveying previous scholarship, they conclude that Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) cannot be placed on even a relative timeline because they were “co-existing styles.”74 In their view, this coexistence could be explained in various ways, especially as dialectical and sociolectical variation, but not as diachronically significant. They do not invalidate the potential of historical linguistics – indeed they claim to embrace the discipline enthusiastically – but they do deny that linguistic dating of biblical texts is possible. Biblical Hebrew “defies a straightforward chronological scheme.”75 The response to Linguistic Dating was swift. It has appeared in various venues, but the volume Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, edited by Cynthia MillerNaudé and Ziony Zevit, was a particularly concentrated gathering of scholars who argue for linguistic dating. One of the most significant contributions was 71  The identification of Israelian Hebrew, a northern dialect, is discussed in chapter 5 of The Origins of Isaiah 24–27; that discussion in turn depends heavily on Scott B. Noegel, “Dialect and Politics in Isaiah 24–27,” AuOr 12 (1994): 177–92. 72 Ian Young, and Robert Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London: Equinox, 2008), 1:4. 73  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:96. 74  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:70, 141. 75  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:159.

84

Christopher B. Hays

by Robert Holmstedt, who demonstrated that the expectations of the authors of Linguistic Dating were incorrect: linguistic change does not occur systematically in real languages; changes occur in the individual grammars of speakers and are only gradually diffused more widely. For example, a speaker and his grandparent may live and use a language concurrently, but they use it in different ways. Therefore, Linguistic Dating was correct that many classical features of BH coexisted with the later features that eventually replaced them, but the distribution of these features was still susceptible to diachronic mapping. Drawing on standard works in historical linguistics that are removed from the ideological debate about Biblical Hebrew, Holmstedt shows that one should expect earlier features to gradually be replaced by later features, with the rise of late features forming an S-curve when graphed over time.76 Such a linguistic model must be adapted to account for certain facts. First, in BH, one is dealing with written texts curated over a long period rather than with spoken language. Second, writing represents language only imperfectly. And, third, attention to the historical and sociological realities of normative scribal schools may in fact allow us to speak about periods of the language rather than only diverse idiolects of specific writers.77 For example, SBH may reflect the norms of the preexilic royal Jerusalem chancellery and may have broken down in the postexilic period because there was no longer the same kind of social structure to support it. Because of social pressures, the written form of languages is less fluid than the spoken form, and this is all the more true in societies where only a minority have access to the technology of writing. Scholars focused on sociolinguistics in ancient Judah can therefore still take periodization quite seriously.78 In spite of his differences with the authors of Linguistic Dating, Zevit rightly credits them for their extensive catalogue of features that have been identified as diachronically significant.79 Their charts include 88 grammatical features and 372 lexical items gathered from twelve books and articles, from Arno Kropat’s 1909 study of the Chronicler’s Hebrew to the 2006 edition of the Joüon-Muraoka grammar. Because the methodology of each previous study varied, the data is incomplete and inconsistent. Zevit suggests mapping all the biblical occurrences of all these features in a systematic way so that they can be analyzed. The present study undertakes that project for Isa 24–27. 76 Robert Holmstedt, “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 101–4; see also Tania Notarius, “Just a Little Bend on the S-Curve: The Rise and Fall of Linguistic Change in Post-Classical Biblical Hebrew,” SJOT 32 (2018): 201–216. 77 William Schniedewind, “Steps and Missteps in the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew,” HS 46 (2005): 381. 78 Frank Polak, “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew,” HS 47 (2006): 115–62. 79 Ziony Zevit, “Not So Random Thoughts Concerning Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew,” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 483.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

85

Some cautions are necessary. The charts of features in Linguistic Dating are blunt instruments, and it would be desirable to have them edited for various reasons: they overlap (some of the same features are covered under both grammar and lexicon), and they occasionally misrepresent the underlying sources.80 They also include features that are not found in BH at all (e. g., features only found in QH or MH). It might be useful to argue against the most extreme late dates for Isa 24–27 to show that it includes forms that might have differed in QH,81 but it would be more useful to generate more detailed charts classifying features as LBH, QH, MH etc., so that terms such as ‫ ַסף‬and ‫ קנה‬are not listed as “Early Biblical Hebrew” when in fact they are simply BH. The very term EBH is problematic, since even postexilic authors strove to emulate it with some degree of success. “Standard Biblical Hebrew” better captures the style’s social function.82

5.  Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Poetry Another challenge in analyzing Isa 24–27 and other prophetic poetry is that most scholarship on diachrony in BH to this point has focused on prose, and poetry has different grammatical and syntactical rules than prose, in some cases. One example is the decline of the direct object marker ‫ את‬in LBH in favor of verbs with an attached pronominal suffix.83 Shalom Paul, in a study of late forms in Isa 40–66, includes the high ratio of pronominally suffixed verbs to occurrences of ‫ את‬as a marker of lateness, but it is not clear how this is relevant because decreased use of prose particles, including ‫את‬, is characteristic of Hebrew poetry in general.84 As a means of studying the phenomenon, I looked at suffixed and 80  For example, Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, identify a “decrease of paragogic āh (‫ )־ָ ה‬on 1st person imperfect and waw-consecutive verbs (i. e. lengthened imperfect, ‘pseudo-cohortative’)” as an LBH feature; see literature cited at Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:168, grammatical feature #32. This is potentially confusing: whereas the so-called long imperfect is rare in Chronicles, it is common at Qumran. I do not mean to suggest that the authors of Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, are unaware of the facts, only that the method of presentation has limited clarity. 81  For example, Isa 24:7 uses ‫ אנח‬in the niphal vs. an hithpael stem in QH; Isa 26:17 uses ‫ הרה‬vs. QH ‫ ;מלאה‬Isa 26:9 uses ‫( קרב‬singular) vs. the QH-attested plural. These features, and their references, are listed as Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, lexical features 25, 189, and 310, respectively. 82  SBH is often used interchangeably with Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), and I see no problem with treating the terms as synonymous, though some would consider Classical Hebrew a broader category. 83 See literature cited at Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:174, grammatical feature #64. 84 Shalom Paul, “Signs of Late Hebrew in Isaiah 40–66,” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 294; cf. C. L. Seow, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995), 157. A reanalysis of the data does not convince me that the particle is significantly more common in Proto-Isaianic poetry than it is in Isa 40–66.

86

Christopher B. Hays

unsuffixed occurrences of ‫ את‬throughout the various strata of Isaiah and the Psalms. If a decline in usage was characteristic of later forms, it should be discernible in later strata of these books, much as the rise of the use of the relative pronoun ‫ ׁש‬for ‫ אׁשר‬is in Psalms (‫ ׁש‬occurs 21 times, all in Pss 122–146). There are, however, no discernible diachronic patterns in the use of the direct object marker ‫ את‬in Psalms or Isaiah. As expected, the occurrences of ‫ את‬are highest in Isa 36–37, prose passages imported from 2 Kings. Other chapters that show middling increases in occurrences of ‫ את‬include Isa 8–9, 19, and 65–66. In the case of late chapters such as Isa 65–66, the rise in use of the direct object marker seems to reflect the breakdown of poetic form in the postexilic period – the poetry in these chapters is simply more prosaic. Furthermore, poetry also uses rare vocabulary more often. For example, noun patterns ending in ‫ ־ּות‬have been classified as an LBH marker,85 and the uncommon term ‫“( ּגֵ אּות‬exaltation”) occurs in 26:10 (versus the more common ‫)ּגַ ֲא ָוה‬. It occurs roughly half a dozen other times in BH, all in poetry; because those include Pss 10:2; 17:10 and Isa 9:7; 12:5, and 28:1, 3, it is in no way a clear marker of lateness. In general, many of the syntactical features identified as LBH in Linguistic Dating simply are not useful for dating Biblical Hebrew poetry. The following portion of the list provides examples: 80. Increase of verb-subject-object word order (VSO) at expense of subject-verb-object word order (SVO) 81. Increase of asyndetic relative clause 82. Decrease of asyndetic juxtaposition 83. Increase of occasional use of brevity which resulted in avoidance of repetition (e. g., ‫… ﬠל‬ ‫ ו‬instead of ‫… ﬠל‬ ‫)וﬠל‬ 84. Increase of incomplete or elliptical sentences, lacking explicit subject or verb 85. Increase of accumulation of virtually synonymous verbs or nouns as in liturgical usage86

These features were all identified in relation to prose, primarily in Chronicles by comparison with Samuel–Kings. Readers of classical Hebrew poetry will immediately recognize that it also breaks these rules: word order is more variable; conjunctions and other particles may or may not be present; and brevity and ellipsis are often used, but virtually synonymous terms also frequently appear. This is not a criticism of the Linguistic Dating catalogue per se, it simply means that it has to be applied knowledgeably.

85 See literature cited at Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:172, grammatical feature #55. 86  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:177–78.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

87

6.  The Diachronic Linguistic Character of Isa 24–27 Because studies of linguistic dating have had little if anything to say about Isa 24–27, that is the question that we take on in what follows.87 In analyzing the language of Isa 24–27, I began with the lists compiled from previous scholarship as a starting point: the complete lists from Linguistic Dating plus the additional features identified in postexilic prophetic books by Paul, Gary Rendsburg, and Seoung-Yun Shin.88 My goal was to inventory as many potential late features as possible, which then needed to be reanalyzed case by case. There is little value in enumerating SBH features, since one can assume that the author was trying to write SBH.89 The only value for dating is to find where a late author used a late feature because language norms had shifted around him. Lexical analysis requires sensitivity to a whole host of contextual data; no computer algorithm that could do this for us has yet been invented. There are numerous methodological pitfalls, examples of which are given here with illustrations from Isa 24–27: – Sample size matters. Six lexical items found in Isa 24–27 increase in frequency in late Hebrew texts, but the sample sizes are so small that they are irrelevant.90 87  This is true even of recent studies that touch on the pericope. E. g., our understanding of Isa 24–27 is not advanced by Dong-Hyuk Kim, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, VTSup 156 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), which includes very little fresh analysis of how specific books and sections of books are to be dated; previous scholarly consensus is simply adopted: “as a prerequisite … we have accepted the classical datings of biblical materials” (153). On the present topic Kim writes: “It is difficult to pinpoint the dates of Zechariah 9–14, Malachi, and Isaiah 24–27, but to many scholars, the contents of these texts seems to guarantee a date after the exile” (77–78). With that, Kim groups Isa 24–27 with Isa 13–14 and 56–66 as “Isa 3” and analyzes them for the frequency of appearances of the so-called early ‫ ־ותם‬ending vs. the socalled late ‫ ־ותים‬ending (103). However, none of these endings occur in Isa 24–27. In the larger picture, Kim’s analysis supports the existence of observable diachronic change within Biblical Hebrew, albeit with certain caveats (e. g., 154). 88  Paul, “Signs”; Gary A. Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew in the Book of Haggai,” in Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, ed. R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El, SAOC 67 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2012), 329–44; Seoung-Yun Shin, “A Lexical Study on the Language of Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi and Its Place in the History of Biblical Hebrew” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2007). 89  So Abba Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1971), 80: “The greater part of the late authors aspired to perpetuate the old biblical tradition, but not all of them met with equal success.” Similarly Williamson, “In Search of the Pre-Exilic Isaiah,” 199: “it is far easier to demonstrate that a text must be late, because it displays late features, than to argue that a text must be early because it does not. Those who are not already persuaded that there is pre-exilic material in Isaiah can always claim that later imitation, or even deliberate archaizing, accounts for the data.” 90  On the relationship between sample size and “confidence interval,” see F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture, BO 41 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 6–9. For another example, the increased use of a personal pronoun as emphatic subject of a finite verb has been hypothesized as a sign of LBH (Young and

88

Christopher B. Hays

For example, the one occurrence of the first common singular pronoun is ‫אני‬ rather than 27:3( ‫)אנכי‬. – Extrabiblical texts matter. The term ‫ ַמ ְסּגֵ ר‬, ‘prison’ in Isa 24:22 also occurs in Isa 42:7 and Ps 142:8, as well as in Mishnaic Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic. An alternate form, ‫ ִמ ְסּגֶ ֶרת‬, appears in Ps 18:46, 2 Sam 22:46, and Mic 7:17, which supplies a possible SBH alternative to an apparently LBH term. But a closer analysis of the term shows that msgr appears in a monarchic-period Judahite seal: lʿzryhw šʿr hmsgr, ‘(Belonging) to Azariah the porter of the prison’.91 Since this must be an official seal, one can conclude that biforms were in use in the preexilic period, and that the distribution in BH is haphazard, which is not terribly surprising for such a small sample. – Textual criticism matters.92 The form ‫ ָצקּון‬in Isa 26:16 has sometimes been understood as an improperly nunated perfect; the paragogic nun should not appear on a perfect verb.93 Thus it could be taken as an example of clumsy archaizing. However, the versions suggest that one should instead read the nominal form ‫ ָצקֹון‬: see 𝔖 wbḥbwšyʾ lḥšw mrdwtk, “and in distress they murmured under your chastisement”; 𝔊 ἐν θλίψει μικρᾷ ἡ παιδεία σου ἡμῖν, “with small affliction your chastening was upon us”; and 𝔙 in tribulatione murmuris doctrina tua eis, “in tribulation of murmuring your instruction was upon them.” This is confirmed by the fact that this would also be the only occurrence of ‫ צוק‬in the qal, which otherwise occurs only in the hiphil and hophal; HALOT brackets the qal stem as doubtful. With the data sifted, it is quite difficult to make a case that the Hebrew of Isa 24–27 is typologically late. Out of the 372 lexical items in Linguistic Dating, I find only two that could possibly argue for a late date. – The possible use of the preposition ‫ ﬠל‬for ‫ אל‬in Isa 24:22, in the phrase ‫ואספו‬ ‫אספה … ﬠל־בור‬, ‘and they shall be gathered together [like the?] gathering of prisoner[s] to the pit’. Although ‫ אסף‬can take ‫ ﬠל‬as its preposition in the sense of ‘gather to’ (2 Sam 17:11; 2 Kgs 22:20), it more commonly takes ‫ אל‬in SBH.94 The construction with ‫ אל‬is very common in burial formulae such as “he was gathered to his people” (‫ ;ויאסף אל־ﬠמיו‬Gen 25:8, etc.), which are relevant here. On the other hand, the verse seems to be textually corrupt, since 1QIsaa Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, grammatical feature #67), and this occurs in Isa 24:14 and 27:12, but no one would attempt to typologize the language on that basis. 91 Nahman Avigad, “Hebrew Seals and Sealings and Their Significance for Biblical Research,” Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 10. I note that the seal in question appears to be unprovenanced, in keeping with the guidance of Christopher Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age, ABS 11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 143. 92  See, again, Mizrahi, “Linguistic Change,” and Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost.” 93  It does so on only two other occasions in BH: Deut 8:3, 16, both with ‫ידﬠ‬, perhaps reflecting reanalysis of the initial yod as an imperfect preformative. 94  I have excluded instances of ‫ אסף ﬠל‬that express ‘gather against’.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

89

and the Septuagint both omit the Masoretic Text’s ‫אסיר‬, and the term ‫ אספה‬is often emended to an infinitive. – The use of ‫אורה‬, ‘light’ in Isa 26:19 (cf. Esth 8:12; Ps 139:12; postbiblical forms in Hebrew and Aramaic), although the meaning of the phrase is contested.95 Meanwhile, at least fifty lexical features of Isa 24–27 map on the SBH side of the chart.96 Such a preponderance is not determinative for dating because, again, we can assume the author was trying to craft SBH, but it does show that the sample size is large enough to generate significant data. Turning to grammar and syntax, there are only two features in Isa 24–27 out of the eighty-eight listed in Linguistic Dating that have potential significance for typological lateness.97 1. The increase in use of the pual verbal pattern mequṭṭāl characteristic of late texts.98 Isa 24–27 has four such forms which are unique in BH or are mostly attested in late texts. Interestingly, they occur in close proximity in two places: ‫ ְמ ֻמ ָחיִ ם‬and ‫ ְמזֻ ָּק ִקים‬in Isa 25:699 and ‫ ְמנֻ ָּפצֹות‬and ‫ ְמ ֻׁש ָּלח‬in Isa 27:9 and 10, respectively.100 Williamson analyzed these unusual forms as soundplay, but it is possible that more than one factor was at work.101 (Like other matters of increasing frequency, these two occurrences are counted as a single feature; see discussion below.) 2. The preference for plural forms of certain nouns,102 namely a. ‫אמנים‬, ‘[a righteous nation that keeps] faithfulness[es]’ in Isa 26:2 (which elsewhere in BH occurs only in Prov 13:17; 14:5; 20:6, but see 1QS 10:25) 95  For discussion, see the translation note in the introduction to Hays, The Origins of ­Isaiah  24–27. 96  The feature numbers from Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:179–214 are 7, 24, 25, 27, 37, 44, 48, 54, 66, 74, 88, 93, 95, 106, 109, 112, 115, 126, 131, 133, 142–44, 152, 155, 161, 167, 172, 179, 189–90, 225, 248, 258, 261, 265, 271, 309–10, 318, 333, 339, 343, 346–47, 349, 351, 361, 367. 97  There are a number of features for which the increase or decrease has been identified as a diachronic (late) marker that occur in Isa 24–27 but not in a significant density. 98 See literature cited at Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:168, grammatical feature #35. 99  ‫ מחה‬is a hapax; ‫ זקק‬appears in same pual participle pattern in Ps 12:7; 1 Chr 28:18; 29:4. 100  ‫ ְמנֻ ָּפצֹות‬is the only pual occurrence of the root in BH. ‫ ׁשלח‬occurs 10 × in pual; the only other pual participle is in Isa 16:2, where it refers to scattered nestlings. The forms in Isa 25:6 are relatively esoteric and do not have obvious so-called early alternatives in BH. By contrast, the forms in Isa 27:9–10 could have been expressed in other ways. 101  H. G. M. Williamson, “Sound, Sense and Language in Isaiah 24–27,” JJS 46 (1995): 5. As Hornkohl, “All Is Not Lost,” 371, noted, “the fact that a given feature is best explained diachronically in one context but alternatively in another is no real argument against the general validity of the standard diachronic method. Even in a single context a confluence of multiple factors is frequently not inconceivable.” 102 See literature cited at Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:169, grammatical feature #42.

90

Christopher B. Hays

b. ‫בינות‬, ‘[not a people of ] understanding[s]’ in Isa 27:11 (a hapax in the plural, but see CD 5:16; 1QHa 10:21, 4QSongs of Sabbath Sacrifice f1 i:6, etc.).103 These specific plural terms have not previously been identified as diachronically significant. Their appearance in QH might suggest that they are late, but QH is heavily influenced by BH in general, so this remains uncertain.104 By contrast, four other grammatical features of Isa 24–27 would map as typologically early, and are noted here for interest only: – The paronomastic (emphatic) use of the infinitive absolute in Isa 24:3, 19, 20. This feature disappears in LBH.105 – LBH shows a tendency to replace qal passive forms with niphals, reflecting the archaism and rarity of the qal passive. Yet there are two or three qal passive forms in Isa 24–27.106 Such forms decrease greatly in books that are generally agreed to be postexilic: there are no qal passive forms other than (common) participles in Haggai, Zechariah, or Malachi.107 – LBH prefers active impersonal constructions to passive ones, yet there are a number of uncommon passive forms in Isa 24–27 that could have been expressed impersonally: ‫( ִהּדּוׁש‬Isa 25:10), ‫יּוׁשר‬ ַ (Isa 26:1), ‫( יֻ ַחן‬Isa 26:10), ‫יְ ֻכ ַּפר‬ (Isa 27:9), and ‫( ְּת ֻל ְּקטּו‬Isa 27:12).108 103  Perhaps this should be repointed ‫ ִּבינּות‬, an abstract form that would have a cognate in Targumic Aramaic. See Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 163. Other plural forms are probably not significant. E. g., the lone occurrence of the plural form ‫ﬠולמים‬ in Isa 26:4 (alongside the singular ‫ ﬠולם‬in Isa 24:5; 25:2) has a number of occurrences in LBH texts (2 Chr 6:2, Dan 9:24; Ps 145:13; Eccl 1:10) but also in seemingly SBH texts (1 Kgs 8:13, Pss 61:5 and 77:6, 8). 104  Here one could again mention ‫ﬠולמים‬, but as discussed above it is not a clear LBH marker. Similarly, ‫( תרות‬Isa 24:5) is probably not a late form given its occurrences in Gen 26:5 (J); Exod 18:16, 20 (E); Lev 26:46 (H?), etc. The point is not to assert firm dates for the aforementioned sources, but rather that the occurrences across various strata suggest that it is not a late coinage unless one adopts a staunchly minimalist view of the whole. Later occurrences include Neh 9:13; Dan 9:10. 105  Even the authors in Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, are forced to admit that “The different rates of usage of ParonIA in core BH and core LBH may be one of the clearest and strongest arguments for diachronic change in BH” (140). 106  ‫( ה ָֹרג‬Isa 27:7), ‫( ֻא ְּספּו‬Isa 24:22; although pointed as pual, it expresses the passive of the qal, not the piel), and possibly ‫ ֻסּגְ ֖רּו‬in this same verse, which is not clearly the passive of the piel. This last case is complicated and depends on the meaning of the root; see Christopher B. Hays, “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unity of Isa 19:1–15,” ZAW 120 (2008): 612–16. 107  There are three nonparticipial passives of ‫ לקח‬in Isa 40–66 (49:24, 25; 52:5) that have been seen as qal passive by some, but they are more often analyzed as pual or hophal (so BDB and HALOT). 108  Sixteen passive verbal forms (2 qal passive, 9 pual; 3 hophal; 2 pulal) out of 231 total. It would take further analysis to determine whether the relative distributions of passive and impersonal are significant.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

91

– A decrease in the occurrence of the paragogic nun on imperfect forms is generally thought to be characteristic of late texts.109 Qimron observed of Qumran Hebrew that “the ancient plural afformative ‫ ־ון‬is practically unused,” and it is usually even removed by scribes in quotations of biblical texts where it appeared.110 The paragogic nun appears twice in nine verses in Isa 26. These are pausal imperfect forms and thus normal in Classical Hebrew: ‫ יֶ ֱחזָ י֑ ּון‬in ֑ ְ‫ י‬in 26:19.111 This would be consistent with an early text. 26:11 and ‫קּומּון‬

7.  When Did Archaizing Cease to Be Successful? Yet what if the relative dearth of LBH features in Isa 24–27 is meaningless? Isn’t it possible that a later author purposely emulated Classical Hebrew? If an author in the fourth century BCE could write in classical style, then this essay is in vain, because Hebrew diachrony cannot shed light on the authorship of Isa 24–27. The question of when Hebrew authors ceased to be able to recreate SBH has consistently been important in research on Hebrew diachrony. Hurvitz has recently reasserted his longstanding conclusion that “[t]here is not even one literary composition dated by consensus to exilic/post-exilic times whose linguistic profile coincides with that of Standard Biblical Hebrew.”112 But Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd are not the only ones who disagree. In a relatively recent book review, Christoph Levin issued a broadside: “The development of the Hebrew language has, generally speaking, no more than marginal importance for the history of Hebrew literature” because “Old Testament Hebrew is characterized by an astonishing uniformity. It is for the most part impossible to distinguish linguistic stages in its historical development … [over] almost a thousand years.”113 Levin holds that LBH did not emerge until two centuries after the exile, which is when he places the composition of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah. It would be surprising if Levin’s claim were correct, not only because diachrony has been widely observed in BH, but also because it would be highly 109 See literature cited at Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:167, grammatical feature #31. 110 Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 45. 111 All three are present in 1QIsaa as well. These verses are not preserved in 1QIsab. Interestingly, the only two paragogic nuns in Amos also occur in close proximity to each other, in Amos 6:3, 12. 112 Avi Hurvitz, “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments,” HS 47 (2006): 207. 113  I am referring to Christoph Levin, review of Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source, by Richard M. Wright, RBL 1 (2006), http://www.bookreviews.org/ pdf/4860_5055.pdf. I  do not cite Levin to disagree with his assessment of the book under review, but as a leading European scholar whose opinions I  take to be both influential and representative.

92

Christopher B. Hays

unusual for a language to remain unchanged. Levin supplies his own counterexample when he calls SBH “the ‘church Latin,’ so to speak, of the theological seminary attached to the Second Temple,” but diachrony can be observed in church Latin as well!114 Claims that SBH continued unchanged well into the Persian period have been based particularly on the idea that postexilic prophetic books such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Isa 40–66 were composed in good SBH.115 Indeed, that claim was until very recently a linchpin in the arguments against linguistic dating, but recent analyses contradict it. In his study of LBH in Isa 40–66, Paul adduces dozens of features of lexicon, syntax, and grammar – many of which have multiple occurrences – showing that Isa 40–66 certainly derived from a period when the language was changing. Even Second Isaiah, which is usually taken to derive from right around the end of the exile, is rife with unusual verb forms that were foreign to SBH but characteristic of Aramaic and Rabbinic Hebrew. Paul identified thirty-two late features in Isa 40–55 alone.116 My own survey, presented in the Appendix, has now added twenty-five more LBH features. In short, the indications are remarkably strong that the author(s) of the postexilic portions of Isaiah were no longer writing SBH. Certain stylistic details distinguish the language of Isa 40–66 from that of earlier strata of the book. For example, ‫חטאת‬, ‘sin’ is used five times in Isa 3–30, all singular (3:9; 6:7; 27:9; 30:1 [2 ×]) and seven times in Isa 40–66, all plural (40:2; 43:24, 25; 44:22; 58:1; 59:2; 59:12). The use of plural nouns, especially for abstract ideas, is characteristic of LBH; the meaning does not differ appreciably. Haggai provides the ground for another important test sounding in early postexilic prophecy. The book’s emphasis on the completion of the temple, which probably took place in 515 BCE, indicates that it derives from the years immediately following the return from exile. A recent dissertation by Shin, written under Hurvitz, concludes that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi “belong to the LBH stratum.”117 Whereas there are many identifiable later features in Zechariah and Malachi, however, Shin identifies only two features with potential diachronic significance in Haggai.118 The first is LBH dating formulae,119 and the 114 

Polak, “Sociolinguistics,” 123–24. Ehrensvärd, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, ed. Ian Young, JSOTSup 369 (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 175–77. 116  Paul, “Signs,” 293–99. This number can be further subdivided into twenty-six in Isa 40–48 and six in 49–55. This essay serves as a corrective to the earlier claims of Mark F. Rooker, “Dating Isaiah 40–66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?” WTJ 58 (1996): 303–12. 117  Shin, “A Lexical Study.” 118 Furthermore, Shin, “Lexical Study,” 141–52, identifies four features in the corpus where Haggai-Malachi-Zechariah use SBH forms rather than possible LBH forms. Two of these four occur in Haggai (and only in Haggai). Haggai uses SBH ‫( יהוׁשﬠ‬1:1; 2:2) instead of LBH ‫יׁשוﬠ‬, and SBH ‫( ִמן … ומﬠלה‬2:15, 18) instead of LBH ‫ ִמן … ולמﬠלה‬. 115 Martin



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

93

second is the hapax legomenon ‫ מלאכות‬for a ‘message’ from the Lord in Hag 1:13. ‫ מלאכות‬may indeed be a late usage under Aramaic influence, because SBH has an ample store of terms for divine messages. This by itself would be thin evidence, but later work has bolstered the case. Paul adds the use of the infinitive absolute as a finite verb (Hag 1:6, 9) and unusual (apparently late) uses of ‫( ﬠור‬1:14) and ‫( ﬠמד‬2:5).120 Frank Polak augments this with an analysis of the use of parallelism in Persian period prophetic poetry, including Haggai, in which he found reduced “technical skill in handling the prosodic characteristics of parallelism.”121 Even more recently, Rendsburg has produced a more extensive survey, adding nine more specific features that indicate lateness,122 as well as statistical analysis based on Polak’s work. The conversation is ongoing but seems thus far to vindicate the views expressed well by Schniedewind, who has called it an oft-repeated misconception … that later writers could accurately imitate earlier linguistic exemplars. To be sure, there are examples of later scribes imitating earlier style, but these imitations are always just that – imitations. Ancient scribes did not have the historical or linguistic tools to imitate earlier text-artifacts with complete precision.123

The same point has been made by Hurvitz, Ronald Hendel, and others.124 Joosten has pointed out that LBH authors often employ “pseudo-classicisms,” that is, they misuse older Hebrew phrases in a way that betrays that their original usage had been forgotten. Thus, “CBH and LBH are not the same language, nor even contiguous chronolects: they are separated by a period of time long enough 119 The formula ‫ב־‬x‫ יום לחדׁש‬is typologically earlier, whereas the formulae ‫ב־‬x‫לחדׁש‬ (Hag 2:1, 20) and ‫ביום‬x‫( לחדׁש‬Hag 1:1, 15) are typologically later. 120  Paul, “Signs,” 294, 297. 121 Frank Polak, “Parallelism and Noun Groups in Prophetic Poetry from the Persian Era,” in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel, ed. E. Ben Zvi et al., PHSC 5 (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009). 122  Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew,” 329–44. The features are: (1) ‫ הן‬as ‘if ’ (Hag 2:12), (2) ‫ ﬠד‬in place of SBH ‫( ﬠוד‬Hag 2:19), (3) the idiom ‫ ׂשים לב ﬠל‬vs. SBH ‫( ׂשים לב ל־‬Hag 1:5, 7), (4) ‫ הרבה‬as a substantive (Hag 1:6, 9), (5) ‫ ֶפ ָחה‬as a term for native governor (Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21), (6) ‫ ﬠמד‬in the sense of ‘abide, endure’ (Hag 2:5), (7) an increase in the use of the phrase ‫( היכל יהוה‬Hag 2:15, 18), (8) the expression ‫( )כה) אמר יהוה צבאות‬7 ×), and (9) the common LBH formula ‫ המלך‬X (Hag 1:1, 15). 123  Schniedewind, “Steps and Missteps,” 382–83. 124  Hurvitz, “Recent Debate,” 207: “[E]ven gifted persons intimately familiar with Standard Biblical Hebrew were unable to entirely isolate themselves from their cultural environment and dissociate their writing habits from the Second Temple linguistic milieu in which they lived.” Jan Joosten, “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudoclassicisms,” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 290: “Even authors who strongly manifest their intention to stick to classical models occasionally go astray. This is not just a matter of including one or two modern expressions, such as the word ‫פשר‬. Even when words and forms were taken straight from earlier texts, the way they were used was not always in accord with classical usage.” See also Ronald Hendel, “Unhistorical Hebrew Linguistics: A Cautionary Tale,” Bible and Interpretation (September 2011): www.bibleinterp. com/opeds/hen358022.shtml#sdfootnote2sym.

94

Christopher B. Hays

to allow for the forgetting.”125 A similar use of pseudo-classicisms by the author of Sirach and Qumran texts shows that “the language system of SBH was already considerably removed from authors of the late Persian period”126 and that the Septuagint translators similarly struggled with SBH.127 All of this indicates that SBH and LBH did not, properly speaking, coexist in the postexilic period, in the sense of being equally valid alternative options for scribes. Rather, biblical authors generally attempted to emulate SBH and had different degrees of success in doing so. If one moves late enough after the exile, producing fresh, credible SBH proved impossible. If the author of Isa 24–27 wrote with classical style – as even Gray thought – there is a limit to how late the text can possibly be.

8.  A Density-Oriented Approach to Linguistic Dating The appropriately skeptical reader will not be satisfied with the preceding discussion of late features in postexilic prophets. For example, Isa 40–66 has a much larger number of late features than Isa 24–27, but they are also spread over a much larger corpus of literature. It has therefore been necessary to develop a method of comparing the density of late features. In order to arrive at comparable figures, I have divided the number of late features by the total number of morphemes to arrive at a percentage of late features.128 This approach takes as a given, in accordance with Holmstedt’s S-curve, that some typologically late features were found in early texts, and vice versa. Furthermore, it does not assume that every feature presently taken to be diachronically significant actually is. It is intended to compensate for messy data. By aggregating the quantifications of many features, it hopes to correct for an overreliance on any specific previous conclusions. Having said that, every effort has been made to clean the data. Some of the features listed in Linguistic Dating’s charts simply should not be there. To take two examples: – lexical feature #18, ‫ ֵא ָלה‬, ‘terebinth’, which occurs in Isa 6:13. This is listed because the Chronicler replaces ‫אׁשל‬, ‘tamarisk’ with ‫ ֵא ָלה‬once (1 Sam 31:31 125 Jan

Joosten, “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew,” ZAW 128 (2016): 28.

126 Jan Joosten, “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran

Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 159; see also Jan Joosten, “Classicism: Biblical Hebrew,” The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 1:454. 127 Jan Joosten, “Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew,” Text 21 (2002): 1–19. 128  The total morpheme count was arrived at using BibleWorks. Prefixed conjunctions, prefixed prepositions and suffixed pronouns were counted as separate morphemes, but occurrences of directional ‫ ה‬were excluded from the counts.

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



95

> 1 Chr 10:12), but most of the occurrences of ‫ אלה‬have nothing to do with LBH

– lexical feature #261, the verb ‫ﬠמד‬, ‘to stand’, which occurs in multiple corpora under evaluation. The verb is common throughout the biblical period, and only certain specialized uses of it that take over functions previously covered by ‫קום‬, ‘arise’ can be considered LBH features.129 I have checked and removed such false positives as thoroughly as possible. The lists of typologically LBH features and their occurrences are compiled in the Appendix. Certain basic methodological issues arise. It has been said that a nakedly quantitative approach is poorly suited to linguistic data130 because not all features are equally significant. For example, if there were merely a couple of Greek loanwords in Isa 24–27, there would be no serious debate about whether it was postexilic, regardless of how infrequent other LBH features were. I have begun to account for this by weighting different features differently. Not every occurrence of every feature is to be counted individually. Features that increase or decrease in LBH are counted only one time, as part of a category, no matter how many times they occur. One example is the increase in the use of personal pronouns as emphatic subjects of finite verbs (Linguistic Dating #67) in Isa 40–66. The feature occurs some forty-eight times in Isa 40–66, but it would skew the numbers badly to count every one. The increased use of this grammatical device is one feature. In a few other cases, possibly late features that are not strictly matters of frequency are also counted only once, as a category. For example, in Haggai each instance of the LBH regnal formula is counted individually, but the formula “thus says the Lord of hosts” is counted only once for all seven occurrences. This weights the regnal formula more heavily because it is highly characteristic of LBH, whereas “thus says the Lord of hosts” occurs fifty-one times throughout Jeremiah, which certainly may be late but is not a core LBH text. In the end, these decisions remain subject to dispute. To quantify the impact of such frequency features more precisely would require somehow weighting each one individually. This does not seem necessary in comparing other passages to Isa 24–27, as will be demonstrated. Since many of the late features in question are common to multiple books, the result is the same either way one sorts it. Either ‘weak’ LBH features should not be counted, in which case Isa 24–27 has no significant LBH features, or weak LBH features are found in all prophetic texts but in greater numbers in later ones. Again, I have taken the latter view. 129  It is pointed out in various places that in LBH, ‫ ﬠמד‬takes on some of the semantic range of ‫קום‬, with the latter nearly disappearing in MH. However, the usage in Isa 3:13 is consistent with the SBH positional meaning (“take a stand”) and not its LBH transitional meaning (“arise”). See Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 94–97. 130 Ziony Zevit, “Symposium Discussion Session: An Edited Transcription,” HS 46 (2005): 371.

96

Christopher B. Hays

An accounting of the late features for each text is given in the Appendix. As Chart 1 below shows, the total in Isa 24–27 comes to five potential LBH features, for a 0.41 percent frequency. The LBH percentages for Second Isaiah (0.86 percent) and Third Isaiah (0.99 percent) were similar, and about 2.25–2.5 times higher. Haggai was higher still: 2.52 percent, the highest of the texts analyzed here.131 As a further data point, I chose to analyze Malachi. Not surprisingly, it too showed a high percentage of LBH: 1.36 percent.

9.  Prophetic Texts Attributed to the Eighth Century Data sets were needed for controls on the early side as well as the late side. How would prophetic texts widely considered early look from the same perspective? Are there any prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible written in pure SBH, having no LBH features? I chose prophetic texts of roughly similar lengths that are often thought to be preexilic: Amos, Isa 3–6, and Mic 1–3. 9.1 Amos Amos presents an impressively classical linguistic profile, as is generally recognized. This is exemplified, for example, by its heavy use of the EBH ‫( אנכי‬10 ×) versus ‫( אני‬1 ×) and its exclusive use of ‫( ממלכה‬6:2; 7:13; 9:8) instead of LBH ‫מלכות‬. The complementary (a. k.a. “paronomastic”) infinitive absolute occurs five times in Amos (3:5; 5:5; 7:11, 17; 9:8); even the usually skeptical Linguistic Dating grants that the decrease in its use in LBH is “one of the clearest and strongest arguments for diachronic change in BH.”132 As with Isa 24–27, the data for Amos requires some sifting. For example, ‫לקׁש‬, ‘aftergrowth’ occurs in BH only in Amos 7:1 (2 ×) and has cognates in later Semitic languages. It might therefore be taken as a sign of lateness, except that it also appears in the late-tenth-century Gezer Calendar. Amos also reinforces the importance of textual criticism because the LBH term ‫בקרים‬, ‘cattle’ in 6:12 (normally a collective singular in SBH) is generally emended to ‫ בקר ים‬on the basis of parallelism: “Do horses run on rocks? / Or does one plow the sea with oxen?” Some other features that look like LBH at first glance turn out to have other explanations as well. Linguistic Dating repeatedly claims that ‫ ספו‬in Amos 3:15 131  Redaction criticism would not fundamentally alter the outcome. E. g., removing Hag 1:1 and 1:15, where late features such as the dating formulae and references to Darius occur most densely, would not bring the numbers into line with more classical Hebrew. 132  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:140. One might also mention the use ‫ קום‬in the hiphil (5 ×: Amos 2:11; 5:2; 6:14; 9:11 [2 ×]) for “raise up, erect” vs. LBH piel (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, lexicon #299).

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



97

is from the otherwise late verb ‫סוף‬, ‘come to an end’,133 but the accent in the Masoretic Text indicates that it is from ‫ספה‬, ‘carry away’, which is not LBH. Another example is Amos 6:8’s ‫מתאב‬, which might appear to be from the LBH verb ‫תאב‬, ‘to long for’ (Linguistic Dating #361). But that is often taken to be a pious emendation to change “I despise [‫ ]מתﬠב‬the pride of Jacob” to “I long for the pride of Jacob.”134 In all, Amos’s LBH percentage is 0.40, just slightly lower than that of Isa 24– 27. Some interesting features that have the appearance of lateness do remain in Amos. These are counted in the percentage, but they bear reflection. The most striking examples are the plene LBH spellings of ‫פלׁשתיים‬, ‘Philistines’ in Amos 9:7 versus SBH ‫ פלׁשתים‬in 1:8, 6:2 and ‫דויד‬, ‘David’ in Amos 6:5; 9:11 (cf. Linguistic Dating #87).135 It would be easy to conclude that the occurrences in Amos 9:7, 11 are redactional because they come from a capstone section of the book often thought to be a late addition. The same spelling of David’s name elsewhere in the book might, however, suggest that one the book’s copyists simply followed different orthographic conventions from most tradents of SBH. It is also possible that one is meant to read ‫ פלׁשתיים‬as ‫פלׁשתי ים‬, ‘Philistines of (the) sea/West’ given that the Philistines were of course associated with the western sea (cf. Exod 23:31; Isa 11:14; Ezek 25:16).136 This would be similar to the aforementioned case of ‫בקרים‬. Another feature of Amos presumed to be typical of LBH are its short-form theophoric names, ‫ ﬠזיה‬and ‫( אמציה‬vs. ‫ ﬠזיהו‬and ‫)אמציהו‬. The fact that “Uzziah” appears in the superscription and “Amaziah” exclusively in the narrative of Amos 7:10–15 again raises the question of redactional versus source material. It goes beyond the scope of the present work to argue that the superscription, the narrative material, and parts of chapter 9 are late, but if they are, the book would be left with only the scantest traces of typologically late linguistic features (under 0.2 percent).137 The other apparently LBH features in Amos are less telling but are listed in the Appendix.138 133 

Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 1:121, 228. It is arguable whether even ‫ סוף‬is well attested enough to be clearly LBH. 134 So HALOT, s. v. ‫תאב‬, II.1672–73. The 𝔐 reading is confirmed by 4QXIIg’s ‫]מ]תאיב‬, however. 135  None of these verses is attested in 4QXIIg. 136  Although the definite article (‫ )פלׁשתי הים‬might be anticipated, in fact construct formations using ‫ ים‬without the article are slightly more common. 137 Five LBH features in 2612 morphemes (0.19 percent). 138  The phrase ‫בית אלהיהם‬, ‘house of their God’ in Amos 2:8 is reminiscent of the LBH ‫( בית האלהים‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, lexicon #49). However, not only does the phraseology differ, but this is not a reference to the Jerusalem Temple, and an anarthrous version of the phrase occurs in Gen 28:17, 22; Josh 9:23; Judg 9:27; 17:5; Pss 42:5; 52:10; 55:15; 84:11; Isa 2:3; Hos 9:8; Mic 4:2; Nah 1:14, etc. Thus, ‫ בית אלהיהם‬is not a clearly LBH formula. The interesting frequency with which Amos uses plural forms of ‫פׁשﬠים‬, ‘transgressions’ and ‫ארמנות‬, ‘fortresses’ might look reminiscent of LBH (cf. Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating,

98

Christopher B. Hays

9.2  Isaiah 3–6 Isa 3–6 also presents a mostly classical linguistic profile, with vanishingly few LBH features attested in most of it. There is, however, one significant exception: the list of items of personal decoration that the Lord is said to take away from the “daughters of Zion” in Isa 3:20–23. There are at least six seemingly late lexical items in the list: ‫פאר‬, ‘turban’; ‫מחלצה‬, ‘festival robe’; ‫מﬠטפת‬, ‘outer garment’; ‫מטפחת‬, ‘shawl’; ‫רדיד‬, ‘shawl, headcloth’; and ‫צניף‬, ‘headband’. (See the Appendix for further discussion.139) There may indeed be more late terms because others in the list are poorly understood hapax legomena. Isa 3:18–23 is widely agreed to be a late expansion on literary grounds,140 and diachronic linguistic analysis further supports that hypothesis. If one removes verses 20–23 as part of the late expansion, one is left with only a handful of putative LBH features in Isa 3–6, none of which is particularly striking. The LBH percentage is only 0.29 percent, slightly lower even than Amos and Isa 24–27.141 9.3  Micah 1–3 Micah 1–3 has often been thought to be the “authentic” core of the book.142 By contrast with these other texts, however, Mic 1–3 contains a percentage of LBH features that seems problematic for the assumption that it is an early text: 1.61 percent, almost double that of Isa 40–66 and quadruple that of Isa 24–27. Some of Mic 1–3’s LBH features, such as the short theophoric form of Hezekiah’s name in Mic 1:1’s superscription, could easily be accounted for as products of late redaction, but that does not reduce the stock much. Unlike Isa 3–6, Micah’s putatively late features are diverse in kind and scattered fairly evenly throughout. One could also argue that a feature such as the choice of plural nouns for singular meanings is not in fact a mark of lateness, or that the choice of hiphils of certain verbal roots was simply characteristic of Micah’s dialect or idiolect. But since these same features would also have to be discounted in other books, the grammar #42) but certainly could be explained in other ways. Heavy use of certain plural nouns also crops up again in Amos (esp. ‫ פׁשﬠים‬and ‫)ארמנות‬. 139  These terms are not universally agreed to be late, since they might not be attested elsewhere in BH simply for reasons related to content rather than linguistic diachrony (Naʾama Pat-El and Aaron Hornkohl, personal communication). Since I have set these verses aside in my analysis of the data, it is not a point of the greatest significance to the larger argument. 140  H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 286, and J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 60. 141  With the inclusion of Isa 3:20–23, there would be 10 LBH features in 1347 morphemes for a 0.74 percent LBH figure. 142  D. R. Hillers, “Micah, Book of,” ABD 4:809, says: “Here and there, later ages have made changes or insertions (e. g., in the ‘Babylon’ of 4:10), but more of the book may be thought to have originated in the 8th century than is commonly believed.”

99

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



relative order of frequency would not change much. In the case of Micah, then, this linguistic data could support the case for a more significant late composition or redaction of the book’s early chapters.143 This would be consistent with recent arguments stating that Micah was not written by a contemporary of Isaiah but “was deliberately stylized as a younger contemporary of Isaiah by the [later] authors and editors of the book.”144 The authors of Linguistic Dating note that “[t]he book’s language, which is EBH [!], has not played a role in the debates [about its redactional layers].”145 Perhaps that ought to change. As Holmstedt has pointed out, we are working toward a “relative chronology of both linguistic features and ancient texts.”146 It is an equation with multiple variables, and each one depends on the other. This is not ideal, but there is no alternative. Chart 1. LBH Features in prophetic books by percentage (see Appendix for enumeration)

Isaiah 3–6, excluding 3:20–23 Amos Micah 1–3 Isaiah 24–27 Isaiah 40–66   Isaiah 40–55   Isaiah 55–66 Malachi Haggai

Morphemes

Hits

Pct. LBH

 1383  2965   808  1205 10350  6311  4039  1249   914

 4 12 13  5 94 54 40 17 23

0.29 % 0.40 % 1.61 % 0.41 % 0.91 % 0.86 % 0.99 % 1.36 % 2.52 %

10. Conclusions Regarding the linguistic dating of Hebrew prophetic texts, much would remain to be done for such a project to feel more complete and cogent. Specifically, it would be desirable to carry out the same type of analysis over the whole prophetic corpus, if not the whole Bible, to see whether it would yield useful results. For the most part, the selective analyses presented here bear out critical assessments of the dates of books rendered on other grounds – but not in every case. Furthermore, the surprises cut both ways: Isa 24–27 does not appear as late as is often thought, and Mic 1–3 does not appear as early as is often thought.

143 

E. g., Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah, FOTL 21B (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 9–11. Burkard M. Zapff, “Why Is Micah Similar to Isaiah?” ZAW 129 (2017): 536–54. 145  Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 2:45 (emphasis added). 146  Holmstedt, “Historical Linguistics,” 119.

144 

100

Christopher B. Hays

One does not find in Isa 24–27 the frequency of typologically LBH forms found in other texts that seem to date from the late sixth century. There is no similarly dated text that shows a comparably successful avoidance of late features. Still less can a Hellenistic date be seriously entertained: That would take us into the period of the Qumran psalms and the Great Isaiah Scroll, and there is no sign that SBH was being effectively emulated any longer.147 William R. Millar observed some time ago that the prosody of Isa 24–27 is generally classical,148 and the same can now be said for its Hebrew. Not only is there is not a single one of the sort of obvious neologisms that characterize the works of the middle-to-late Persian period, the overall percentage of late features in Isa 24–27 is also low. However one counts, the rate of late features per word in Isa 24–27 is less than that of Isa 40–66, Haggai, and Malachi. The comparison at least suggests that Isa 24–27 is typologically prior to those compositions. Its percentage is in line with the number of late features in Isa 3–6 and Amos. The higher number of LBH features in Mic 1–3 shows that while a text thought to be early may have late features (inviting doubts about its earliness), there are no examples of late texts without elevated numbers of LBH features. To repeat Notarius’s dictum, “texts cannot be dated just linguistically.” A synthesis of linguistic data and other historical and literary data is necessary. One notes that the culminating summons of Isa 24–27 is to “come and worship Yhwh on the holy mountain at Jerusalem” (27:13), and Yhwh is said to hold a feast on that mountain (25:6) and protect it (25:10). Although the Jerusalem temple is not explicitly mentioned, it is unlikely that this call to a festival would have been issued in what Jill Middlemas has called the “Templeless Age.”149 It would therefore have come from either the time of the Second Temple (i. e., no earlier than 515) or from that of the First Temple. Indeed, the fact that the city is said to be strongly walled, fortified, and gated (Isa 26:1–2) would make any postexilic date before Nehemiah (probably 445 BCE) hard to explain. One is left, then, with a span of nearly a century and half (586–445) between plausible historical horizons. Because the linguistic data make any postexilic date unlikely, let alone one a century after the return, the scales tip toward the preexilic period. 147 J. Joosten, “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period Qumran and Septuagint,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, Diggers at the Well, 129, has characterized the Qumran scribes’ knowledge of Hebrew as “rather heterogeneous: BH elements transmitted by an authentic tradition, elements that have undergone a semantic development, BH words or expressions that were re-interpreted, features of LBH, items due to Aramaic influence, elements of spoken Hebrew dialects, etc.” 148  William R. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic, HSM 11 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 43, 62–63. 149  To use a phrase from Jill A. Middlemas, The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007).

Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts



101

Appendix: Catalogue of LBH Features in Prophetic Texts 1. Amos LBH markers counted individually 1. short-form theophoric names: – ‫ﬠזיה‬, ‘Uzziah’ in 1:1 (cf. Hos 1:1 and Zech 14:5, but also used in 2 Kgs 15:13) – ‫אמציה‬, ‘Amaziah’ in 7:10, 12, 14 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L137150); no long-form theophorics in Amos 2. plene spelling ‫פלׁשתיים‬, ‘Philistines’ in 9:7 vs. CBH ‫ פלׁשתים‬in 1:8, 6:2 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L278) 3. increase of nouns with afformative ‫־ּות‬: ‫גלות‬, ‘exile’ in 1:6, 9 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G55) 4. plene spelling ‫דויד‬, ‘David’ in 6:5; 9:11 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G87) 5. preference for 3 m. pl. suffix ‫ ־ותיהם‬instead of ‫ ־ותם‬on plural nouns:‎3:10 ‫בארמנותיהם‬ LBH markers counted as categories Preference for plural forms of certain nouns and phrases (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G42): 6. ‫( פׁשﬠים‬10 ×; never singular in Amos) 7. ‫ארמנות‬, ‘fortresses’ (11 of the 26 BH occurrences of the plural are in Amos; never singular)

Doubtful – ‫ בית אלהיהם‬in 2:8 (cf. ‫ ;?בית האלהים‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L49) – ‫ﬠרׂש‬, ‘bed, couch’ (LDBT-L #269): only source for this as LBH is Saenz-Badillos,

History, 123, who calls it a late Aramaism in Song 1:16, but it appears in Pss 6:7; 41:4; Deut 3:11 as well as Amos 6:14; LBH occurrences: Job 7:13; Ps 132:3; Prov 7:16 … IH?; the feature is not clearly LBH

Rejected – anarthrous “LBH” ‫ אלהים‬vs. “EBH” ‫( האלהים‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L19); always anarthrous in Amos, but this is questionable and not relevant to prophets in any case; it is based on an analysis of prose in the Torah and Deuteronomistic History151 – ‫( אצל‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L31) appears in 2:8 but is quite common; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, have misunderstood SaenzBadillos, History, 120, which refers to the use of ‫ אצל‬specifically with the verb ‫יׁשב‬ – Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L144 switch and misreport the LBH and EBH forms: compound expressions such as ‫( בית יׂשראל‬as in 5:1, 25; 6:1, 14; 7:10; 150  Numbers from Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, are list numbers, labeled L for lexical features and G for grammatical features. 151 Y. Lerner, “The Appearances of ʾelōhîm and hāʾelōhîm in the Torah and the Former Prophets,” [in Hebrew] Lešonenu 48–49 (1985): 195–98.

102

Christopher B. Hays

9:9) are CBH (cf. Saenz-Badillos, History, 118) while the Chronicler writes simply

‫יׂשראל‬

– ‫ כי‬as ‘but’ occurs, but this is not LBH (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L149) – ‫ ל‬in place of ‫ אל‬in 1:6, 9 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L163); with the hiphil of ‫סגר‬, ‫ ל‬is attested 3 × also in Ps 78 and is actually more common than ‫( אל‬2 ×) – ‫ ﬠמד‬in 2:15 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L261) is not LBH as such, even if the Chronicler occasionally uses it to replace ‫קום‬

2.  Isaiah 3–6 LBH markers counted individually 1. ‫כל־הכתובה לחיים‬, ‘all who are written down for life’ in 4:3 (cf. Dan 12:1–2) 2. ‫דוח‬, ‘rinse’ in 4:4 (cf. Ezek 40:38; 2 Chr 4:5; MH; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L81)

Preference for plural forms of certain nouns and phrases (e. g. ‫( )ארצות‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G42): 3. ‫דמים‬, ‘blood’ in 4:4 (cf. Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L84) 4. ‫ׁשﬠׁשﬠים‬, ‘delight’ in 5:7 (elsewhere only Ps 119 [5 ×]; Prov 8:30–31; Jer 31:20) LBH markers in the redactional addition 3:18–23: 5. ‫פאר‬, ‘turban’ in 3:20 (elsewhere only Exod 39:28 [P]; Ezek 24:17, 23; 39:28; 44:18; Isa 61:3, 10;152) vs. CBH ‫?מצנפת‬ 6. ‫מחלצה‬, ‘festival robe’ in 3:22 (cf. Zech 3:4) 7. ‫מﬠטפת‬, ‘outer garment’ in 3:22 (cf. Sir 11:4153 ‫)במﬠוטף בגדים‬ 8. ‫מטפחת‬, ‘shawl’ in 3:22 (cf. Ruth 3:15; MH) 9. ‫צניף‬, ‘headband’ in 3:23 (elsewhere only Isa 62:3 [Q]; Zech 3:5; Job 29:14; Sir 11:5; 40:4; 47:6) vs. CBH ‫?מגבﬠה‬ 10. ‫רדיד‬, ‘shawl, headcloth’ in 3:23 (elsewhere only Song 5:7; cf. MH)

Doubtful – preference for hiphil instead of qal forms of certain verbs (“Hiphilisation,” “pseudoHiphil”) (e. g. ‫ )זנח‬possibly in Isa 3:8 (‫ ;)מרה‬5:19 (‫ ;)חוׁש‬6:10 (‫)ׁשﬠﬠ‬, but these forms are somewhat broadly attested in both stems (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G29)

Rejected – ‫אלה‬, ‘terebinth’ in 6:13; replaces ‫ אׁשל‬once (1 Sam 31:31>1 Chr 10:12; Young and

Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L18) but this is not really LBH on the basis of that one change – ‫ﬠמד‬, ‘stand’ in 3:13 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L261) is not LBH as such154 152 

One doubtful attestation in a Neo-Punic inscription (ICO-Spa 1), DNWSI 900. attested in Northwest Semitic, but see s. v. “mtnh,” DNWSI 709: it has been hypo­ thesized that the form μαθηδ in KAI 174:6–7 is a corruption of Semitic ‫מﬠטפת‬. 154  See discussion above for further comment. 153  Not



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

103

3.  Micah 1–3 LBH markers counted individually 1. short ‫ ־יה‬theophorics instead of ‫־יהו‬: ‫חזקיהו‬, ‘Hezekiah’ in 1:1 2. ‫( מצא‬niphal), ‘be found’ as quasi-copula in 1:13 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L207) 3. use of the preposition ‫ ﬠל‬for ‫אל‬: ‫תתני ﬠל‬, ‘you shall give to’ in 1:14 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L255) 4. confusion of III-‫ א‬and III-‫ ה‬verbs/weakening of alephs: ‫( אבי‬from ‫)בוא‬, ‘I will bring’ in 1:15155 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G39) LBH markers counted as categories Preference for hiphil instead of qal forms of certain verbs (“Hiphilisation,” “pseudo-Hiphil”) (e. g., ‫( )זנח‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G29)156 5. ‫מוׁש‬, ‘remove’ in 2:3, 4157 6. ‫הום‬, ‘teem, be noisy(?)’ in 2:12158

Preference for plural forms of certain nouns and phrases (e. g., ‫( )ארצות‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G42) 7. ‫מטﬠים‬, ‘plantings’ in 1:6 (only plural occurrence; singular in Isa 60:21; 61:3; Ezek 17:7;

31:4; 34:29) 8. ‫מכות‬, ‘wound[s]’ in 1:9 (with singular adjective) 9. ‫תﬠנוגים‬, ‘[children of your] delight[s]’ in 1:16; 2:9 (plural only in Eccl 2:8 and Song 7:7; singular in Prov 19:10) 10. ‫כלמות‬, ‘disgrace[s]’ in 2:6 (with singular verb; plural elsewhere only Isa 50:6) 11. ‫דמים‬, ‘blood’ instead of ‫ דם‬Isa 4:4; Mic 3:10 (cf. Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L84)

Increase of feminine nouns with m. pl. ending ‫( ־ים‬e. g. ‫ )ׁשבוﬠים‬and masculine nouns with f. pl. ending ‫( ־ֹות‬e. g., ‫( )מוﬠדות‬Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G62) 12. ‫מׁשכבות‬, ‘beds’ in 2:1 (other plurals in ‫־ות‬: Ps 149:5; Isa 57:2; Hos 7:4) 13. ‫צוארות‬, ‘necks’ in 2:3 (only time in BH vs. 12 × ‫)צוארים‬ Doubtful – ‫ ה‬as relative pronoun instead of ‫ אׁשר‬in 2:7 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating,

G89)159 – ‫לﬠולם‬, ‘forever’ instead of ‫ דור‬in 2:9 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L82)

155  Similar forms of ‫ בוא‬without the aleph are attested in various DSS, including 1QS 1:7; 4QHoroscope (4Q186) f3:1, etc. 156  ‫ פׁשט‬in Mic 2:8; 3:3 also could have been expressed with the qal instead of the hiphil, but the distinction does not have diachronic significance. 157  There is no Hebrew textual support for the suggested emendation to ‫ מׁשיב‬in Mic 2:4. 158  There is no textual support for the emendation to a form of ‫המה‬, e. g. ‫תהמינה‬. 159  See Naʾama Pat-El, “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A  Syntactic Approach,” JSS 54 (2009): 19–50.

104

Christopher B. Hays

– (‫קהל )יהוה‬, ‘assembly of Yhwh’ in 2:5 (probably more Deuteronomistic than LBH; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L301)

Rejected – ‫אלהים‬, ‘God’ with increased frequency of anarthrous form in 3:7 (Young and Rezet-

ko, Linguistic Dating, L19) – ‫בׂשר‬, ‘flesh’ in 3:3 (but not LBH; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L61) – ‫זﬠק‬, ‘cry out’ instead of ‫ צﬠק‬in 3:4 probably as much dialectical as diachronic (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L107) – ‫ׂשלמה‬, ‘clothing, cloak’ in 2:8 (not LBH; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L330)

4.  Isaiah 24–27 LBH markers counted individually 1. ‫אורה‬, ‘light’ (or ‫[ אורה‬II], ‘herbs’?; cf. 2 Kgs 4:39, Ugaritic) in 26:19 (elsewhere only Ps 139:12 and Esth 8:16; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L6) 2. use of the preposition ‫ ﬠל‬for ‫ אל‬in 24:22 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L255) LBH markers counted as categories 3. increase of pual verb pattern mequṭṭāl in 25:6 (2 ×); 27:9, 10 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G35)

Preference for plural forms of certain nouns and phrases (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G42) 4. ‫אמנים‬, ‘[a righteous nation that keeps] faithfulness[es]’ in 26:2 5. ‫בינות‬, ‘[not a people of ] understanding[s]’ in 27:11 Doubtful – See discussion, above

5.  Isaiah 40–66 LBH markers counted individually 1. ‫אתה‬, ‘come’ in 41:5, 23, 25; 44:7; 45:11 as well as Isa 56:9, 12 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L37) 2. 46:8 ‫( אׁשׁש‬cf. RH; Paul, “Signs”) 3. ‫ בחר‬with the meaning ‘test, examine’ in 48:10 (appears elsewhere in BH only in Job 34:4, 33; Sir 4:17; cf. Targums; Paul, “Signs”) 4. ‫( בין‬hiphil), ‘teach’ 40:14 (Paul, “Signs”) 5. ‫בין‬, ‘among’ in 44:4 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L47) 6. ‫ם‬‎ ‫בינכם לבין אלהיכ‬, ‘between you and your God’ in 59:2 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G74) 7. ‫ בית תפלה‬in 56:7 (cf. RH; Paul, “Signs”)



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

105

8. ‫בית קדׁשנו‬, ‘our holy temple’ in 64:10 (Paul, “Signs”; cf. Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L64) 9. ‫ בן בטן‬in 49:15 (LBH equivalent of ‫ ;?פרי בטן‬Paul, “Signs”) 10. ‫גאל‬, ‘defile’ in 59:3; 63:3 (Paul, “Signs,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L62–63) 11. ‫גורל‬, ‘community, group’ in 57:6 (probably wordplay on both meanings [‘lot’]; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L69) 12. ‫גׁשׁש‬, ‘to grope’ in 59:10 (Aramaic/QH equivalent of BH ‫ ;מׁשׁש‬Paul, “Signs”) 13. ‫( הלך‬piel), ‘walk’ in 59:9 (Paul, “Signs,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L93) 14. ‫הן‬, ‘’’ in 49:21; 50:9?; 54:15, 58:4 (see 𝔊) (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L94) 15. ‫זבל קדׁשך‬, ‘your holy heights’ in 63:15 (cf. QH; Paul, “Signs”) 16. ‫ זיקות‬in 50:11 (2 ×) (cf. Sir, QH, RH; Paul, “Signs”) 17. ‫( חסדים‬plural) in 55:3; 63:7 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L123) 18. ‫חפץ‬, ‘matter, affair, thing’ in 58:3 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L125) 19. ‫כאחד‬, ‘together’ in 65:25 (Paul, “Signs,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L146) 20. ‫לאחור‬, ‘future’ in 41:23; 42:23 (Paul, “Signs”) 21. ‫ ללא‬in 65:1 and ‫ בלוא‬in 55:1–2 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L165) 22. ‫למד ב־‬, ‘learned in’ in 40:14 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, 168) 23. ‫לקח‬, ‘buy’ 56:12 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L172) 24. ‫מנה‬, ‘send, appoint’ in 65:12 (should be pointed as piel; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L195) 25. ‫מסמרים‬, ‘nails’ in 41:7 (cf. LBH, QH; Paul, “Signs”) 26. ‫מﬠרב‬, ‘west’ in 43:5; 45:6; 59:19 (Paul, “Signs,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L202) 27. ‫( מצא‬niphal), ‘be found’ as quasi-copula in 51:3; 65:8 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L207) 28. ‫מצץ‬, ‘slurp, lap’ in 66:11 (late biform of ‫ ?מצה‬cf. Targums, RH; Paul, “Signs”) 29. ‫( נטל‬piel) in 63:9 (cf. Aram, but qal is SBH; Paul, “Signs”) 30. ‫ סבל‬in 46:4, 7; 53:4, 11 (cf. Qoh, Ps 144, Lam, QH, RH, Aram., but occurs in Gen 49:15; Paul, “Signs”) 31. ‫סגד‬, ‘bow down’ in 44:15, 17, 19 (Paul, “Signs”) 32. ‫( ﬠור‬hiphil), ‘rouse’ in 41:2, 25; 42:13; 45:13; 50:4 (also Isa 13:17, also plausibly late; Paul, “Signs”) 33. ‫ﬠיר הקדׁש‬, ‘the holy city’ in 48:2; 52:1; 64:9 (Paul, “Signs”) 34. ‫ ﬠם ק ֵֹדׁש‬in 62:12; 63:18 vs. EBH ‫( ﬠם קדוׁש‬Paul, “Signs”) 35. ‫ﬠמד‬, ‘endure’ in 66:22 (Paul, “Signs”) 36. ‫( פחד‬piel), ‘to fear’ in 51:13 (usually qal; only other BH occurrence Prov 28:14; Paul, “Signs”) 37. ‫צאצאים‬, ‘offspring’ in 44:3; 48:19; 61:9; 65:23 (cf. Job, QH, RH; Paul, “Signs”) 38. ‫צב‬, ‘wagon’ in 66:20 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L292) 39. ‫רוח קדׁשו‬, ‘his holy spirit’ in 63:10, 11 (cf. RH, but also Ps 51:13; Paul, “Signs”) 40. ‫( ﬠל ׁשלום‬vs. ‫ )ׁשלום ל‬in 53:5 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L347) 41. ‫( ׁשלם‬with temporal expressions) in 60:20 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L351)

106

Christopher B. Hays

42. ‫( ׁשﬠן ב‬niphal) in 50:10 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L357) 43. ‫ׁשרב‬, ‘heat’ in 49:10 (cf. Sir, RH, Targums; Paul, “Signs”)

LBH markers counted as categories 44. ‫ אמר יהוה צבאות‬in 45:13 (cf. Jer [51 ×], Hag [7 ×], Zech [21 ×] Mal [21 ×], 1 Chr 17:7; Paul, “Signs”) 45. ‫ בהם‬in 40:24; 43:9; 48:14; 64:4; 66:19 (never in Isa 1–39) vs. 6[ 19–1 × 6( ‫ ]× בם‬+ qere 30:32 + 63:10, 19) (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L41) 46. definite article ‫ ה‬as relative pronoun with finite verb in 51:10; 56:3 (Joüon 504) 47. increase of ‫ ל‬+ infinitive construct with indicative/predicative use in 44:14; 51:16 (3 ×)?; 60:11 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G7) 48. increase of infinitive absolute as predicate (finite verb) in 42:20 (2 ×; ‫פקוח‬, qere ‫;)ראות‬ 42:22 (‫ ; ָה ֵפ ַח‬hiphil infinitive absolute sometimes emended to a hophal perfect); 57:17; 59:4 (4 ×) (Paul, “Signs,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G16) 49. increase of passive participle without notion of passivity to denote perfect state (“perfect participle”) 53:3; ‫ידוﬠ חלי‬, knowledgeable about an ailment (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G21) 50. increase of pual verb pattern mequṭṭāl in 42:19; 48:12; 53:4, 5; 58:13 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G35) 51. preference for plural forms of certain nouns and phrases: ‫חטאות‬, ‘sins’ is always plural in Isa 40–66 (40:2; 43:24, 25; 44:22; 58:1; 59:2; 59:12) but always singular in Isa 1–39, including in 27:9 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G42) 52. increase of personal pronoun as emphatic subject of finite verb in 41:13, 14, 16, 17; 42:6; 43:4; 44:9; 45:2, 8, 12, 13 (2 ×), 18; 46:4 (4 ×); 48:6, 15; 49:4, 15, 21, 25 (2 ×); 50:5; 53:4 (2 ×), 11, 12; 54:16; 57:12, 16; 59:16; 63:5, 9, 10 (2 ×); 64:4; 65:13 (3 ×); 65:14, 24 (2 ×); 66:3, 4, 5, 13 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G67) 53. periphrastic constructions: ‫ היה‬followed by participle in 59:2 (Paul, “Signs,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G19)

Rejected – ‫( כול‬qal), ‘measure’ in 40:12 (Paul, “Signs” notes that this is a BH hapax in the qal stem; cf. Targums, RH, RA; but ‫ כול‬is also attested, albeit in uncertain stem, in Gezer

l. 5 and Meṣad Ḥašavyahu 5, 6, 8) – ‫מדה‬, ‘tribute, tax’ in 45:14 (but this relies on rereading ‫אנׁשי מדה‬, ‘men of stature’ as ‫נׂשאי מדה‬, ‘bearing tribute’, an emendation that has no textual support; Paul, “Signs”) – ‫בית יׂשראל‬, ‘house of Israel’ in Isa 5:7; 8:14; 14:2; 46:3; 63:7 (this term had different meanings in different periods and should not be used as a diachronic marker; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L144) – ‫כﬠס‬, ‘to provoke’ in 65:3 (used widely in non-LBH texts; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L154) – ‫ מלפני‬in Isa 41:26; 48:19; 57:16 (there may be a diachronic frequency shift, but not a relevant marker because both ‫ מלפני‬and ‫ מפני‬are attested in 40–66; Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L192) – ‫ﬠולמים‬, ‘[a rock of ] ages’ in 26:4 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G42)



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

107

6. Haggai LBH markers counted individually 1. Persian name ‫דריוׁש‬, ‘Darius’ in 1:1, 15; 2:10 2. ‫הן‬, ‘if ’ in 2:12 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L94, and Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) 3. ‫פחה‬, ‘governor’ in 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L276, and Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) 4. idiom ‫ׂשים לב ﬠל‬, ‘to consider’ vs. CBH ‫ ׂשים לב ל־‬in 1:5, 7 (Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) 5. ‫הרבה‬, ‘much’ as a substantive in 1:6, 9 (Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) 6. ‫( ﬠור‬hiphil), ‘awaken, stir up’ in 1:14 (Paul, “Signs”) 7. ‫ﬠמד‬, ‘endure’ in 2:5 (Paul, “Signs,” and Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) 8. ‫מלאכות‬, ‘message’ in 1:13 (Gen. Rab.; Shin, “Lexical Study”) 9. preference for word order ‫ המלך‬X (e. g., “David the king”) instead of X ‫( המלך‬e. g., “king David”) in 1:1; 1:15 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G45, and Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) 10. use of calendar formulas with word order in which ‫ ביום‬begins or ‫ בו‬ends in 1:1; 1:15 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G79, and Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) LBH markers counted as categories 11. increase of ‫ אין‬+ infinitive construct or ‫ לא‬+ finite verb for negation instead of ‫ לבלתי‬+ finite verb or ‫ לא‬+ ‫ ל‬+ infinitive construct in 1:6 (3 ×) (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G11) 12. increase of infinitive absolute as predicate (finite verb) in 1:6 (4 ×), 1:9 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G16) 13. preference for hiphil instead of qal forms of certain verbs (“Hiphilisation,” “pseudoHiphil”): ‫רﬠׁש‬, ‘cause to shake’ in 2:6, 7, 21 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G29) 14. preference for formula ‫אמר יהוה צבאות‬, ‘says Yhwh of hosts’ (7 ×) in 1:2, 5, 7; 2:6, 7, 9, 11; cf. Isa 45:13; Jer (51 ×), Zech (21 ×) Mal (21 ×), 1 Chr 17:7; Shin, “Lexical Study,” Paul, “Signs,” and Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”

Doubtful – ‫ﬠד‬, ‘still’ in place of CBH ‫ ﬠוד‬in 2:19 (likely to be pointed ‫ﬠֹד‬, but the construction is

not manifestly late in any case; Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”) – increase in the phrase ‫היכל יהוה‬, ‘temple of Yhwh’ in 2:15, 18; phrase is relatively common; Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew”

7. Malachi LBH markers counted individually 1. ‫גאל‬, ‘defile’ 1:7, 12 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L62–63) 2. ‫( דבר‬niphal), ‘speak with one another’ in 3:13, 16 (Shin, “Lexical Study”)

108

Christopher B. Hays

3. ‫( מצא‬niphal), ‘to be found’ as quasi-copula in 2:6 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L207) 4. ‫ספר זכרון‬, ‘annals, book of remembrance’ in 3:16 (cf. Esth 6:1; Ezra 4:15; 6:2; cf. Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L242: ‫)ספר מׁשה‬ 5. ‫הׁשיב לב ﬠל‬, ‘turn the heart to’ (vs. ‫ )אל‬in 3:24 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L255) 6. ‫פחה‬, ‘governor’ in 1:8 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, L276) 7. ‫יהודה וירוׁשלם‬, ‘Judah and Jerusalem’ in 3:4 8. ‫בית האוצר‬, ‘storehouse’ in 3:10 (Shin, “Lexical Study”) 9. ‫… כסף‬ ‫זהב‬, ‘gold … silver’ (word order, vs. older ‫… זהב‬ ‫ )כסף‬in 3:3 (Shin, “Lexical Study,” and Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G46)

LBH markers counted as categories 10. preference for ‫ אז‬+ perfect instead of imperfect for activity in the past in 3:16 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G6) 11. preference for hiphil instead of qal forms of certain verbs (“Hiphilisation,” “pseudoHiphil”) ‫נפח‬, ‘sniff(?)’ in 1:13 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G29) 12. increase of … ‫… בין‬ ‫ ל‬at the expense of ‫… בין‬ ‫ובין‬, ‘between X and Y’ in 3:18 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G74) 13. ‫ ֵמ ַﬠל ל־‬, ‘beyond’ in 1:5 14. increase of pual verb pattern mequṭṭāl ‫מגאל‬, ‘polluted’ in 1:7, 12 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G35) 15. increase of personal pronoun as emphatic subject of finite verb in 1:4 (2 ×); 1:5; 2:8; 2:9; 2:14 (2 ×); 2:17 (Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating, G67)

Bibliography Andersen, F. I., and A. D. Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture. BO 41. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Anipa, Kormi. “The Use of Literary Sources in Historical Sociolinguistic Research.” Pages 170–90 in The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Edited by J. M. HernándezCampoy and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Avigad, Nahman. “Hebrew Seals and Sealings and Their Significance for Biblical Research.” Pages 7–16 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Barker, William D. Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic. FAT/II 70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Barmash, Pamela, ed. “Symposium: Does Archaic Biblical Hebrew Exist?” HS 58 (2017): 47–118. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. FOTL 21B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Bendavid, Abba. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1971. Bernstein, Heinrich Gideon. Quaestiones Nonnullae Kohelethanae. Vratislaviae: Typis Grassili Barthii et Soc., 1854. Bianchi, Francesco. “The Language of Qohelet: A  Bibliographical Survey.” ZAW 105 (1993): 210–23.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

109

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Prophecy and Canon. Studies of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Bloch, Yigal. “Aramaic Influence and Inner Diachronic Development in Hebrew Inscriptions of the Iron Age.” Pages 83–112 in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses. Edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius. LSAWS 12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017. –. “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry: A Re-Evaluation.” VT 59 (2009): 34–70. Busse, Ulrich. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. Cross, F. M. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross, F. M., and D. N. Freedman. “The Song of Miriam.” JNES 14 (1955): 237–50. Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Translated by M. G. Easton. Leipzig: Dorffling & Franke, 1875; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1877. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–1969. Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972. –. “On Some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist.” Journal of Philology 11 (1880): 201–36. Ehrensvärd, Martin. “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts.” Pages 164–88 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. JSOTSup 369. New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Eshkult, Mats. “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 84–93 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fassberg, Steven E. “Gesenius’ Dictionary and the Development of Aramaic Studies.” Pages 169–83 in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: Das “Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage. Edited by Stefan Schorch and Ernst-Joachim Waschke. BZAW 427. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Fox, M. V. “Qohelet.” Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation 2.346–54. Fredericks, Daniel C. Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1988. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: Eine philologischhistorische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1815. Giesebrecht, Friedrich. “ Zur Hexateuchkritik. Der Sprachgebrauch des hexateuchischen Elohisten.” ZAW 2 (1881): 177–276. Gray, G. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX. ICC 23/1. New York: Scribner’s, 1912. Grotius, H. “Ad Ecclesiasten.” Vol. 1 of Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum. Edited by G. J. L. Vogel and J. C. Döderlein. Halle: Johann Jakob Curt, 1775. Hamilton, Sir William. Discussions on Philosophy and Literature. Michigan: Harper, 1861.

110

Christopher B. Hays

Hays, Christopher B. “Damming Egypt/Damning Egypt: The Paronomasia of skr and the Unity of Isa 19:1–15.” ZAW 120 (2008): 612–17. –. “The Date and Message of Isaiah 24–27 in Light of Hebrew Diachrony.” Pages 7–24 in Intertextuality and Formation of Isaiah 24–27. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 17. Edited by J. Todd Hibbard and Paul Kim. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. –. The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Hendel, Ronald. “Unhistorical Hebrew Linguistics: A Cautionary Tale.” Bible and Interpretation. September 2011: www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hen358022.shtml#sd​ foot​ note2​sym. Hillers, D. R. “Micah, Book of,” ABD 4:809. Hoftijzer, Jacob, and Karen Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Holmstedt, Robert. “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 97–124 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Hornkohl, Aaron. “All Is Not Lost: Linguistic Periodization in the Face of Textual and Literary Pluriformity.” Pages 53–80 in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics. Edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius. LSAWS 12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Hurvitz, Avi. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of the Psalms. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1972. –. “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code.” RB 81 (1974): 24–56. –. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CahRB 20. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. –. “Observations on the Language of the Third Apocryphal Psalm from Qumran.” RevQ (1965): 225–32. –. “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments.” HS 47 (2006): 191–210. –. “Was QH a ‘Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments.” Pages 110–14 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Hurvitz, Avi, Leeor Gottlieb, Aaron Hornkohl, and Emmanuel Mastéy. A  Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Isaksson, Bo. “Clause Combining in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43): An Example of Archaic Biblical Hebrew Syntax.” Pages 233–70 in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics. Edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Jones, Scott C. “Solomon’s Table Talk: Martin Luther on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes.” SJOT 28 (2014): 81–90. Joosten, Jan. “Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew.” Text 21 (2002): 1–19. –. “Classicism: Biblical Hebrew.” The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics 1:454.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

111

–. “The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax.” HS 46 (2005): 327–39. –. “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudoclassicisms.” Pages 281–92 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. MillerNaudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. –. “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period Qumran and Septuagint.” Pages 115–30 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew.” ZAW 128 (2016): 16–29. –. “Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 146–59 in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. “Wilhelm Gesenius and the History of Hebrew in the Biblical Period.” Pages 94–106 in Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie: Das “Hebräisch-deutsche Handwörterbuch” von Wilhelm Gesenius als Spiegel und Quelle alttestamentlicher und hebräischer Forschung, 200 Jahre nach seiner ersten Auflage. Edited by Stefan Schorch and Ernst-Joachim Waschke. BZAW 427. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. –. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A  New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. JBS 10. Jerusalem: Simor, 2012. Joüon, Paul. A  Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 Vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Kermode, Frank. Shakespeare’s Language. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2000. Kim, Dong-Hyuk. Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A  Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. VTSup 156. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. “Diachrony in Akkadian and the Dating of Literary Texts.” Pages 433–51 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Kropat, Arno. Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen. BZAW 16. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909. Kutscher, E. Y. “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic Hebrew.” EncJud 16:1592. –. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. –. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Lerner, Y. “The Appearances of ʾelōhîm and hāʾelōhîm in the Torah and the Former Prophets.” [In Hebrew.] Lešonenu 48–49 (1985): 195–98. Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Levin, Christoph. Review of Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source, by Richard M. Wright. RBL 1 (2006). http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/​ 4860_5055.pdf. McDonald, Russ. Shakespeare’s Late Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Middlemas, Jill A. The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile.” Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

112

Christopher B. Hays

Millar, William R. Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic. HSM 11. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Mizrahi, Noam. “Linguistic Change Through the Prism of Textual Transmission: The Case of Exodus 12:9.” Pages 27–52 in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics. Edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius. LSAWS 12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017. Morag, Shelomo. “On Some Concepts in the World of Qumran: Polysemy and Semantic Development.” Pages 178–92 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations.” VT 38 (1988): 148–64. Muraoka, T., and J. F. Elwolde, eds. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11–14 December 1995. STDJ 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –, eds. Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Naudé, Jacobus A. “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion.” Pages 189–214 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Typology and Chronology. Edited by Ian Young. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Neidorf, Leonard. The Transmission of “Beowulf ”: Language, Culture, and Scribal Behavior. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017. Noegel, Scott B. “Dialect and Politics in Isaiah 24–27.” AuOr 12 (1994): 177–92. Notarius, Tania. “The Archaic System of Verbal Tenses in ‘Archaic’ Biblical Poetry.” Pages 193–207 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. –. Review of Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry: A Critique of the Linguistic Arguments, by Robyn Vern. JSS 60 (2015): 245. –. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A  Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Pat-El, Na’ama. “The Development of the Semitic Definite Article: A  Syntactic Approach.” JSS 54 (2009): 19–50. Pat-El, Na’ama, and Aren Wilson-Wright. “Features of Archaic Biblical Hebrew and the Linguistic Dating Debate.” HS 54 (2013) 387–410. Paul, Shalom. “Signs of Late Hebrew in Isaiah 40–66.” Pages 293–300 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Polak, Frank. “Parallelism and Noun Groups in Prophetic Poetry from the Persian Era.” Pages 199–235 in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel. Edited by E. Ben Zvi, Diana Edelman, and Frank Polak. PHSC 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. –. “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew.” HS 47 (2006): 115–62. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. –. “Notes on the Dating of the Non-Massoretic Psalms of 11QPsa.” HTR 60 (1967): 468–76.



Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Prophetic Texts

113

Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. –. “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH.” Pages 232–44 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 BCE–200 CE) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents.” Pages 349–61 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Rabin, Chaim, and Yigael Yadin, eds. Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965. Rendsburg, Gary A. “Late Biblical Hebrew in the Book of Haggai.” Pages 329–44 in Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Edited by R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El. SAOC 67. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2012. –. “The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 132–59 in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, P. van Hecke, Seth Bledsoe, and Pieter B. Hartog. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Rezetko, Robert, and Ian Young. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach. SBLANEM 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Robertson, David A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Rollston, Christopher. Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. ABS 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Rooker, Mark F. “Dating Isaiah 40–66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?” WTJ 58 (1996): 303–12. –. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. JSOTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Saenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Schniedewind, William M. “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage.” JBL 118 (1999): 235–52. –. A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. –. “Steps and Missteps in the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew.” HS 46 (2005): 377–84. Segal, M. H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927. Seow, C. L. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. –. “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet.” JBL 115 (1996): 643–66. Shin, Seoung-Yun. “A Lexical Study on the Language of Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi and Its Place in the History of Biblical Hebrew.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2007. Talshir, David. “The Habitat and History of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period.” Pages 251–75 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Typology and Chronology. Edited by Ian Young. London: T&T Clark, 2003.

114

Christopher B. Hays

Ulrich, Eugene, Peter W. Flint, and Martin G. Abegg. Qumran Cave 1, Vol. II: The Isaiah Scrolls. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010. Williamson, H. G. M. “In Search of the Pre-Exilic Isaiah.” Pages 181–206 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. OTS 406. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. Isaiah 1–5. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. –. “Sound, Sense and Language in Isaiah 24–27.” JJS 46 (1995): 1–9. Young, Ian. “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Qumran Pesher Habakkuk.” JHS 8 (2008): http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_102.pdf. –. “The Style of the Gezer Calendar and Some ‘Archaic Biblical Hebrew’ Passages.” VT 42 (1992): 362–75. Young, Ian, and Robert Rezetko. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 Vols. London: Equinox, 2008. Zapff, Burkard M. “Why Is Micah Similar to Isaiah?” ZAW 129 (2017): 536–54. Zevit, Ziony. “Not So Random Thoughts Concerning Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 455–90 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. –. “Symposium Discussion Session: An Edited Transcription.” HS 46 (2005): 371–76.

Isaiah between Transmission and Reception Isaiah 58:13–14 according to 4QIsan (4Q67)* Noam Mizrahi 1. Introduction The book of Isaiah is known to be one of the three most popular books among the scriptural Dead Sea Scrolls (alongside the books of Deuteronomy and Psalms), as well as one of the most cited books in Second Temple literature and the New Testament.1 The official count of the Isaiah scrolls unearthed in the Judean Desert is twenty-two, including one from Wadi Murabbaʾat and the other twenty-one from Qumran.2 In reality, however, this number appears to be somewhat inflated. Some circumstantial evidence suggests that the scribal transmission of Isaiah in antiquity resulted in bifurcation of the book. The two parts, more or less equal in length, were copied in parallel by different scribes, and sewn together only after the copying of both parts was completed independently. Indeed, most of the Isaiah fragments from Qumran come from either the first or second half of the book, suggesting that at least some of them

*  This study stems from my ongoing work on constructing a digital database of the textual and linguistic variants witnessed by the scriptural scrolls from the Judean Desert, which forms part of the Scripta Qumranica Electronica consortium (https://www.qumranica.org/), generously supported by a grant from the German-Israeli Project Coordination (DIP) of the German Research Foundation (DFG). Earlier versions of this essay were presented at the Annual Haifa Workshop for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls (May 2017) and an SBL session organized by the Formation of Isaiah group (November 2017). I wish to record here my thanks to the conveners for their invitation and to the participants for their helpful comments, especially Itamar Kislev, whose remark in Haifa motivated me to develop § 4. 1  For the reception of Isaiah in Second Temple literature and beyond see, e. g., C. Metzenthin, Jesaja-Auslegung in Qumran, AThANT 98 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2010);­­ S. Moyise and M. J.  J. Menken, eds., Isaiah in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark/ Continuum, 2005); F. Wilk and P. Gemeinhardt, eds., Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates, BETL 280 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016). 2  For an updated survey with previous literature see A. Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, I: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 257–96; R. Fuller, “6.2.1 Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” in Textual History of the Bible, 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets, ed. A. Lange and E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 470–76.

116

Noam Mizrahi

Figure 1. PAM 41.774 (January 1955), Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority

Figure 2. IAA B-362292 (June 2012), Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority



Isaiah between Transmission and Reception

117

could have belonged to composite scrolls, even if they were copied by different hands.3 Another reason to doubt the official count of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls is that some such manuscripts are actually witnessed by a single fragment, which is often quite small in size.4 In such cases, it is difficult to be certain whether such a fragment is the last remain of a manuscript originally containing the entire book of Isaiah, or rather a mere citation of the book integrated into a work of another kind. Obviously, any decision of this sort is bound to remain hypothetical. Nevertheless, in what follows, I would like to propose – with all due caution – that a fragment published as the sole remain of an Isaiah scroll from Qumran actually originates in a work of a different nature.5 The fragment under consideration was published under the designation 4QIsan (4Q67).6 In terms of content, it includes only two verses: Isa 58:13–14. The editors date the fragment to the first half of the first century BCE on paleographic grounds. It is, therefore, slightly later than 1QIsaa, which is dated to the late second century BCE. Comparison of its various images and photographs reveals that it slightly deteriorated along the years; the earliest photograph from 1955 includes a tiny inscribed edge that is no longer visible in the latest, multispectral image taken in 2012. The significance of this piece is discussed below. The text of the fragment is transcribed below, with a comparison of the corresponding text of the MT: MT

‫דֹור־ו ֖דֹור‬ ָ ‫ֹוס ֵ ֥די‬ ְ ‫ﬠֹולם ֽמ‬ ָ֔ ‫ ָּובנ֤ ּו ִמ ְּמ ָ֙ך ָח ְר ֣בֹות‬12 ‫קֹומ֑ם ְוק ָ ֹ֤רא לְ ָ֙ך ּג ֵֹד֣ר ֶּ֔פ ֶרץ ְמׁש ֵֹב֥ב נְ ִת ֖יבֹות‬ ֵ ‫ְּת‬ ‫ָל ָֽׁש ֶבת׃‬ ‫ם־ּת ִ ׁ֤שיב ִמ ַּׁש ָּב ֙ת ַרגְ ֶ֔לָך ֲﬠ ׂ֥שֹות ֲח ָפ ֶ ֖צָך ְּביֹ֣ום‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬13 ‫הו ֙ה‬ ָ ְ‫את ַל ַּׁש ָּ֜בת ֹ֗ﬠנֶ ג ִל ְק ֤דֹוׁש י‬ ָ ‫ָק ְד ִ ׁ֑שי ְו ָק ָ ֨ר‬

4QIsan (4Q67) ]            [◌◌]                [ 1ʹ ]‫ ֯אם [תשי] ֗ב מהשבת ֯רג֗ לך מﬠש[ות חפצך ביום‬2ʹ ]‫ קדשי וקרת לשבת ﬠנג ו֯ [לקדוש יהוה‬3ʹ

3  See especially G. J. Brooke, “The Bisection of Isaiah in the Scrolls from Qumran,” in P. S. Alexander et al., eds., Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume, JSSSup 16; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 73–94. 4  Six manuscripts consist of a single fragment each: 4QIsaj (4Q63), 4QIsan (4Q67), 4QIsao (4Q68), 4QIsaq (4Q69a), 4QIsar (4Q69b), MurIsa (Mur3). In addition, four more manuscripts consist of only two fragments each: 4QIsah (4Q62), 4QIsai (4Q62a), 4QpapIsap (4Q69), 5QIsa (5Q3). Thus almost half of the Isaiah scrolls discovered in the Judean Desert are actually represented by only one or two fragments. 5  A similar proposal was previously made by Lange, Handbuch, 274, though only in passing and somewhat indirectly: “Der geringe und inhaltliche zusammenhängende Textbestand (Sabbatparänese) schließt keinesfalls aus, daß es sich bei 4Q67 um einem Pescher oder eine nichtbiblische Handschrift mit einen längeren Jes-Zitat handelt.” As explained in greater detail below, I am indeed of the opinion that this fragment stems from a ‘non-biblical’ work, though I do not think that it can be identified as belonging to the genre of the pesher. I am unaware of any other attempt to pursue this line of thinking regarding the fragment under consideration. 6  P. W. Skehan and E. Ulrich, “67. 4QIsan,” in Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets, DJD 15 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 133–34, pl. xxiii.

118

Noam Mizrahi

4QIsan (4Q67)

MT

֖‫ְמ ֻכ ָּ֔בד וְ ִכ ַּב ְדּת ֹ֙ו ֵ ֽמ ֲﬠ ׂ֣שֹות ְּד ָר ֶ֔כיָך ִמ ְּמ ֥צֹוא ֶח ְפ ְצָך‬ ‫ְו ַד ֵּב֥ר ָּד ָ ֽבר׃‬ ‫הוה ְו ִה ְר ַּכ ְב ִ ּ֖תיָך ַﬠל־במותי‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫ ָ֗אז ִּת ְת ַﬠּנַ ֙ג ַﬠל־י‬14 ‫( ָּב ֳ֣מ ֵתי) ָא֑ ֶרץ‬ ‫הו֖ה ִּד ֵּֽבר׃‬ ָ ְ‫ָאביָך ִ ּ֛כי ִ ּ֥פי י‬ ִ֔ ‫ְו ַ ֽה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּ֗תיָך ַנ ֲֽח ַל ֙ת ַי ֲֽﬠ ֹ֣קב‬

]‫מﬠ ֯ש[ו] ֯ת ֯ד ֯רכיך מלמצו֯ [א חפצך‬ ֯ ‫ מכבד וכבתה‬4ʹ

֗ ‫ ו] ֗ה‬7‫ אז תתﬠנג ﬠל[ יהוה‬5ʹ ]‫רכבך[ ﬠל במתי ארץ‬ ]‫ [והא] ֯כלתיך נ֗ ֯ח[לת יﬠקב אביך כי פי יהוה דבר‬6ʹ

13 If you refrain from trampling the Sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy

day; if you call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of your ancestor Jacob, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (NRSV).

These two verses comprise an independent passage, which differs thematically from its surroundings.8 The rest of chapter 58 is an admonition that focuses mainly on the issue of fasting, whereas the beginning of chapter 59 blames the people for other sins that pertain to social ethics. The independent status of vv. 13–14 is further indicated by their syntactic interdependence: they join into one long conditional clause, in which v. 13 takes the place of the protasis (marked by the particle ‫“ אם‬if ”), while v. 14 fulfills the role of the apodosis (marked by the particle ‫“ אז‬then”). Together, they deal with the observance of the Sabbath: the protasis details which actions are either forbidden or required on that day, while the apodosis provides the motivation for doing – or not doing – so by promising that keeping to these rules shall be rewarded by inheriting the land and enjoying its agricultural produce.

2.  Textual Analysis Why doubt the ‘biblical’ nature of this fragment? There is no decisive piece of incriminating evidence, but there is an accumulation of circumstantial evidence raising such a suspicion. Materially, the hesitant scribal hand of 4Q67 stands 7  There might be a trace of a supralinear correction of the Tetragrammaton into the substitute ]‫ ֯א[דני‬. 8  This observation is universally acknowledged by all commentators, even though they differ from each other regarding the question whether this independence extends to the compositional or redactional spheres. For instance, C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, OTL (London: SCM, 1969), 340–42, asserts that vv. 13–14 form a literary unit entirely divorced from its context; J. Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 150–203, hesitates whether or not these verses are to be regarded as part of a much longer unit; Ron Du Preez, “Linguistic Links between Verses 12 and 13 of Isaiah 58,” AUSS 30.2 (1992): 115–21, highlights the verbal and thematic links between vv. 12–13, arguing that they testify to the unity of Isa 58 as a whole. See further B. J. Diebner, “Jes 58 und die Grenzen der Literarkritik,” Dielheimer Blätter zur Archäologie und Textüberlieferung der Antike und Spätantike 29 (1998): 139–56.

Isaiah between Transmission and Reception



119

out. The editors note that “the manuscript is inscribed in a bold and inconsistent Hasmonaean hand, with thick, large letters exhibiting some semi-cursive tendencies.”9 This is indeed evident, for instance, when observing that virtually each token of the letters ‫ ש‬and ‫ ת‬differs substantially from the other tokens in terms of size, thickness, angle, and the meeting points of the various strokes. Such a semi-cursive script is more apt for a text scribbled for private use rather than for a formal copy of a scriptural book. The impression of an unstable or even shaky hand is corroborated by the apparent failure to keep the lines straight, even if one takes into consideration the material condition of the parchment, which was somewhat distorted and twisted to left. To this point, one may add that despite the small amount of text contained therein, the fragment contains a scribal intervention (or possibly even two) in the form of supralinear correction (in lines 4 and 5). It is quite unlikely that a scribe of such characteristics produced a whole copy – or even a partial copy – of a long and complicated text such as the book of Isaiah. And even if one grants the possibility that such an undertaking had been done for the sake of gaining scribal experience, one might have hoped that the scribe would develop some proficiency and consistency in drawing his letters by the time he got to chapter 58. It stands to reason, therefore, that our fragment was limited in size in the first place, and possibly contained only few verses, perhaps just the two comprising the passage we have. If so, 4Q67 does not stem from a scriptural scroll, but rather contains a citation of a scriptural passage. This hypothesis is further supported by the surprising number of variant readings witnessed by 4Q67 vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text: nine variants in five short lines, namely an average of about two variants per line.10 Inspection of these variants reveals that some of them reflect linguistic and stylistic phenomena that commonly occur in citations and allusions: 1. Phonetic spellings: ‫( קרת‬line 3), for MT’s plene spelling, with a quiescent aleph;11 ‫( וכבתה‬line 4), which reflects a full assimilation of the radical 9 

DJD 15:133.

10 

See the apparatus criticus in DJD 15:134. the Thursday prayer in the Words of the Luminaries XV 12, 15: ‫כיא נקרא שמכה‬ ‫ﬠלינו‬, “for we are called by your name,” following a standard biblical idiom (e. g., Deut 28:10; Isa 63:19; Jer 14:9); XVI 5–6: ‫כי קרתה לישראל בני בכורי‬, “for You have called Israel ‘my firstborn son’,” alluding to Exod 4:22 (4Q504 1–2 ii 12; iii 3–4). The text is quoted from E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–15), 2:56–57, following the reconstruction of E. G. Chazon, “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and Its Implications: Words of the Luminaries (4QDibHam)” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991), 218–60. The phenomenon occasionally occurs in scriptural scrolls as well (e. g., MT Isa 22:20 ‫ וקראתי‬vs. 1QIsaa XVII 20 ‫)וקרתי‬, but defective spellings of radical aleph are otherwise quite infrequent in Qumran Hebrew; see E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), STDJ 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 160–62; E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 22–23. 11 Cf.

120

Noam Mizrahi

/d/, a voiced dental stop, to the following /t/, i. e., the corresponding voiceless dental stop.12 2. The text was patently adapted to syntactic norms of Second Temple Hebrew, by piling up prepositions as in ‫( מלמצוא‬line 4);13 and the increase of syndetic linking in ‫( ולקדוש יהוה מכבד‬line 3).14 3. Finally, one cannot escape noting the leveling of syntactic incongruence, notably by adding a preposition in ‫( מﬠשות‬line 2);15 the change of the pronominal suffix in ‫( וכבתה‬3fs vs. MT’s 3ms), so that it would accord with the grammatical gender of the Sabbath (fs);16 or the change of person in the verb from MT’s ‫ והרכבתיך‬in the first person to ‫ והרכיבך‬in the third person (line 5), so that it would agree with the reference to God at the beginning of v. 14.17 Admittedly, almost each of these phenomena also occurs in scriptural scrolls from Qumran, and some of the specific cases of grammatical and syntactic leveling are recorded in other textual witnesses of Isaiah, even with respect to these very verses. However, such a high concentration of diverse phenomena – within such a small portion of text – is not at all common in random sampling of any other scriptural scroll from Qumran (with the exception of 1QIsaa, which is indeed a very peculiar manuscript in many other respects as well). By contrast, the accumulation of variants is more comfortably understood if the text is interpreted as a citation from Isa 58, which may well have been done from memory and not necessarily from a written Vorlage. Some indirect confirmation for this hypothesis may be found in that lost inscribed edge that had once stood at the upper left corner of the fragment. In the old PAM photographs, the traces of two letters are visible, but they do not fit the text of v. 12, which one might have expected to fill in this line. Admittedly, the left trace could be pressed to read a medial mem, which would fit the first letter of ‫ ְמׁש ֵֹבב‬. But even if this (dubious) decipherment is accepted, this letter is immediately preceded by another trace of ink, suggesting an additional letter 12  This

assimilation is to be distinguished from the more common phenomenon of devoicing of /d/ in word-final position, for which see Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 517–18. 13  Cf. the citation of Hos 2:11, MT ‫( והצלתי צמרי ופשתי לכסות את ﬠרותה‬NRSV v. 9: “and I will take away my wool and my flax, which were to cover her nakedness”) in 4QpHosa (4Q166) ii 9: ֗ ‫והצלתי צמרי ופושתי מלכסות‬. See E. Qimron, “The Biblical Lexicon in Light of the ]‫את [ﬠרותה‬ Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2.3 (1995): 295–329, at 323–25. 14  So also 1QIsaa and 1QIsab, as well as the Peshitta and the Vulgate. 15  So also 1QIsaa. 16  So also the Peshitta. 17  So also 1QIsaa, the Septuagint, and Targum Jonathan, which all similarly witness the third person for MT ‫והאכלתיך‬. Note that in this respect, 4Q67 and 1QIsab, in which the first verb is in the third person while the second is in the first person, represent an intermediate stage between the MT on the one hand (where both verbs are in the first person) and the aforementioned versions (where both verbs are in the third person).



Isaiah between Transmission and Reception

121

for which there is no parallel in the other versions of the passage. It is easier to assume, therefore, that this line did not contain v. 12 at all, but rather a different text entirely.

3.  Content and Importance Why cite this particular passage? Which of its themes drew the interest of Second Temple scribes and readers? The answer is revealed in a slight yet telling variant in line 2: The MT reads there ‫אם תשיב ִמ ַּׁש ָּבת רגלך‬, and the word “Sabbath” is indefinite, both because it is not previously mentioned in the context, and because the passage does not refer to a specific Sabbath but rather to any Sabbath in general. By contrast, 4Q67 reads ‫מהשבת‬, with a definite article. The Sabbath is thus the topic of the nonbiblical context, which is otherwise now lost to us. Interestingly, the importance of our passage for Second Temple readership is not limited to 4Q67; rather, it is testified by a variety of other sources. Most conspicuously, 1QIsaa singles out this passage by framing it with scribal markers: horizontal lines distinguish it from its surrounding, and an “X” sign was drawn on the margin. Whether these markings were made by the original scribe or later readers is not our concern here; the crucial point is that our passage was highlighted as having special importance even in a scriptural scroll such as 1QIsaa.18

Figure 3. 1QIsaa XLVIII 9–11, Courtesy of the Shrine of the Book, Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem by Ardon Bar Hama

If 4Q67 is not a scriptural scroll but rather what remains of a work citing Isa 58:13–14, which kind of work was it? Unfortunately, the state of preservation of 4Q67 excludes safe identification of its true literary nature. But again, circumstantial evidence may be culled in order to illuminate the broader contexts in which the passage under investigation was meaningful and functional in ancient times. 18  Cf. O. H. Steck, Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsa): Schreibweise als Leseanleitung für ein Prophetenbuch, SBS 173/1–2 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), 1:102, 146–47; 2:73.

122

Noam Mizrahi

4.  Liturgical Context First, Isa 58:13–14 play a role in Jewish liturgical practice. In contemporary prayer books, one finds it integrated into the ritual of the so called Great (or Long) Sanctification (‫ )קידושא רבא‬of Sabbath, which takes place on Saturday morning. The service comprises of the recitation of four biblical passages: Ps 23; Isa 58:13–14; Exod 31:16–17; Exod 20:11b, in this order.19 They are followed by the standard rubrics of rabbinic liturgy: an invocation (‫סברי מרנן‬, “with the permission of the distinguished people present”); an affirmative response (‫ ;)לחיים‬a blessing over the wine (“Blessed are you, God, King of the Universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine”); and finally the public response “Amen”. The ritual highpoint of this service is thus the blessing over the wine, but it is preceded by recitation of several biblical passages. The textual evidence indicates that Isa 58:13–14 was given its current place in the prayer only in the Middle Ages.20 Yet the use of Isa 58:13–14 in the Sabbath service is not necessarily a medieval innovation. Some evidence suggests that it got to its present place after circulating for a while in various other functions within the Sabbath rituals. For instance, the liturgical custom of Aleppo Jews, which is known to reflect many old Palestinian features, embeds the passage (alongside other biblical verses) prior to the recitation of certain psalms on the eve of the Sabbath, i. e., on Friday evening.21 Our oldest prayer book, compiled by the Babylonian sage Amram Gaon in the ninth century BCE, quotes Isa 58:13 when moving from description of the end of synagogue service on Friday evening to the Sabbath dinner held at home with the family, though this source does not explicitly require the liturgical recitation of this passage.22 Isaiah 58:13 19  To be sure, there are several customs concerning the specific selection of verses to be utilized at this point. This is reflected, among other things, in the fact that while our passage is often printed at this place in common editions of the Jewish prayer book, it is not necessarily read out loud in the actual performance of the ritual. Generally speaking, it is more commonly recited among families and congregations that originate in the East (e. g., Yemenites), whereas Ashkenazi and other European communities do not always perform it. 20 N. Wieder, “The Benediction Yein ʿAssis,” [Hebrew,] Sinai 20 (1947): 43–48, reprinted in idem, The Formation of Jewish Liturgy in the East and the West: A Collection of Essays [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1998), 1:234–41, at 238 with n. 19. 21 E. Fleischer, Eretz-Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals As Portrayed in the Geniza Documents [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 202. 22 D. Goldschmidt, ed., Seder Rav Amram Gaon (Jerusalem: Rabbi Kook Institute, 1971), 66: ‫– במקום שקראת‬ ’‫ דכתיב ‘וקראת לשבת ﬠונג‬.‫וכשמסיימין הולכין לבתיהן לקדש במקום סﬠודה‬ ‫ מכאן שנו חכמים שאין קדוש אלא במקום סﬠודה‬.‫ שם תהא ﬠונג‬,‫לשבת‬. For an English translation see Seder R. Amram Gaon, II: The Order of Sabbath Prayer, trans. T. Kronholm (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974), 42–43 (with n. 3): “And when they have closed [their Prayer], they go to their houses to recite Ḳiddush at the place where the meal is eaten, as it is written, And thou shall call the Sabbath a delight; [i. e.] in the place where you ‘call’ the Sabbath, it should be a delight. From this [the scholars taught] that there is no Ḳiddush [to be recited], save at the place where a meal is eaten.”



Isaiah between Transmission and Reception

123

is also alluded to in a liturgical poem (piyyut) for the Sabbath and seventh day of Passover, which was partly recovered in a Genizah fragment. Its exact date is unknown, but it probably precedes the eighth century.23 It appears, therefore, that by the early Middle Ages, and possibly even by late antiquity, the passage of Isa 58:13–14 was sometimes cited as part of the Sabbath prayers, though its specific place and function were still fluctuating. We have no direct evidence for its place in earlier stages of the Sabbath prayers, if such a place was indeed accorded to it. But one wonders whether 4Q67 could be interpreted as a possible witness for a very early stage of this kind. Other liturgical texts found among the Qumran scrolls exhibit intriguing links with later Jewish customs and prayers, including ones that have been rendered obsolete in later periods.24 Moreover, several scrolls containing excerpted scriptural texts, such as 4QDeutj and 4QDeutq, have also been interpreted as serving a liturgical or devotional purpose.25 It is possible, therefore – though by no means obligatory – that 4QIsan is a scroll of a similar nature: an excerpt from a prophetic book that had a liturgical or devotional background. Methodologically, however, this hypothesis is marred by one fact: it rests upon the projection of later usage on earlier, ambiguous data. It is worthwhile, therefore, to examine another potential context for the production and functionality of Isa 58:13–14 within the Second Temple period.26

23  Fleischer, Prayer and Prayer Rituals, 115. Fleisher, however, thinks that the choice of biblical verses alluded to in this poem does not reflect any particular custom but rather the poet’s own selection. 24  See, e. g., Moshe Weinfeld, “Prayer and Liturgical Practice in the Qumran Sect,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. D. Dimant and U. R appaport (Leiden: Brill/ Jerusalem: Magnes & Yad Ben-Zvi, 1992), 241–58, reprinted in M. Weinfeld, Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 53–67; M. Kister, “Liturgical Formulae in the Light of Fragments from the Judaean Desert,” [Hebrew,] Tarbiz 77.3–4 (2009): 331–55. 25  See J. A. Duncan, “Considerations of 4QDtj in Light of the ‘A ll Souls Deuteronomy’ and Cave 4 Phylactery Texts,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. J. C. Trebolle-Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner, STDJ 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:199–215, with pl. 2–7; J. A. Duncan, “Excerpted Texts of Deuteronomy at Qumran,” RdQ 18.1 [69] (1997): 43–62. For a full survey and additional discussion see E. Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran,” RdQ 16.4 [64] (1995): 581–600. 26  E. G. Chazon, “On the Special Character of Sabbath Prayer: New Data from Qumran,” Journal of Jewish Music and Liturgy 15 (1992–93): 1–21, at 6–7 and 17 n. 20, proposed identifying some fragments of 4Q503 as belonging to a Sabbath prayer. This is based, among other things, on the expression ֗‫למ[וﬠד ]מנוח ו֯ ֯ת ֯ﬠנ֯ ו֯ ג‬, “for an appointed [time] of rest and delight” (4Q503 24–25 5), which could be alluding to Isa 58:13–14. If the reading and identification are correct, this finding corroborates the idea that the passage under consideration could have been functional in a liturgical context already during the Second Temple period.

124

Noam Mizrahi

5.  Legal Background While the passage under consideration is relatively peripheral to the main themes of the prophecies contained in Isa 58–59, it gained special importance in the Greco-Roman period. Numerous texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish Hellenistic literature, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, and rabbinic literature all demonstrate that the passage under scrutiny has become a major source for deducing legal (or halakhic) information concerning the proper observance of the Sabbath, even though it originates in prophetic literature and not in the legal sections of the Pentateuch.27 Suffice it to highlight only a few points that are pertinent for our immediate concern. Taken on its own, the passage under investigation does not refer to any type of activity on the Sabbath, but rather narrows its outlook to economic affairs, with special attention paid to commerce. Indeed, the phraseology employed in v. 13 is actually a series of calque translations of Akkadian economic terms: the phrase ‫ ﬠשות חפץ‬is semantically equivalent to Akkadian ṣibûtam epēšu, whose idiomatic sense is “to do business”; ‫ ﬠשות דרך‬translates ḫarānnam epēšu, which idiomatically means “to embark on a business trip”; ‫ מצוא חפץ‬parallels ṣibûtam kašādu, which means “to maintain commercial activity”; and the concluding phrase ‫ ודבר דבר‬is best explained against the background of the Akkadian term dibbātu dabābu, which denotes “commercial negotiation” or “getting a deal”.28 Isa 58:13–14 is thus thematically related to narratives and admonitions that condemn doing business on the Sabbath. One is immediately reminded, of course, of passages such as Nehemiah’s memoirs, which report how Jerusalem had a thriving commercial scene on the Sabbath, until Nehemiah ordered to close the city gates before the Sabbath to prevent merchants from getting inside and conducting their usual business on the holy day (Neh 13:14–22). The thematic resemblance between our passage and Nehemiah’s memoirs is not incidental, for Isa 58:13–14 is part of a longer collection of prophetic units that are commonly thought, by critical scholars and commentators, to have been composed in the Restoration period.29 27  The relevant sources were systematically collected and analyzed by L. Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum, TSAJ 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), where previous studies are also exhaustively surveyed. Some of the sources were reexamined more recently by A. P. Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), but note the severe critique of Y. Furstenberg, “Sabbath Laws in Qumran: Between Biblical Language and Halakhic Traditions,” [Hebrew] Meghillot 13 (2017): 271–81. 28 M. Weinfeld, “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and Its Implications,” Maarav 3.1 (1982): 27–53, at 43–45. Cf. S. M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 493–96. For earlier attempts to wrestle with the interpretation of these idioms see, e. g., H. A. Brongers, “Einige Bemerkungen zu Jes 58.13–14,” ZAW 87.2 (1975): 212–16. 29  This issue is unrelated to the compositional question whether the passage should be ascribed to Deutero- or Trito-Isaiah. See, e. g., L. Ruszkowski, “Der Sabbat bei Tritojesaja,”



Isaiah between Transmission and Reception

125

The general meaning of the prohibitions and permissions listed in Isa 58:13 was well understood in later times, namely in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. However, one particular phrase was deemed ambiguous because of its lack of specificity. I refer to the term ‫ ְו ַד ֵּבר ָּד ָבר‬, which literally means “speaking a speech” or “saying something,” and in this general sense it is employed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e. g., 2 Sam 14:12; Isa 8:10; Jer 29:23). No wonder, then, that ancient readers of Isa 58:13–14 considered its occurrence in the passage as problematic, for it is quite unlikely that the prophet prohibits any kind of speech on the Sabbath. The ancient versions reflect various attempts to cope with this exegetical difficulty. For instance, the Septuagint expands the phrase to λαλήσεις λόγον ἐν ὀργῇ ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, “nor speak a word in anger out of your mouth” (NETS). This rendition evidently attempts to narrow down the type of speech prohibited on the Sabbath, identifying it as a negative kind of speech, that is, angry and wrathful words. The problem becomes crucial when one moves from the theoretical, exegetical question into the practical, legal implications.30 Of the variety of sources pertinent for this issue, two examples should suffice for our immediate concern. (a) The Damascus Document includes a series of Sabbath laws (CDa X ff.), among which we find a complex of commandments whose framing injunctions patently allude to our passage (CDa X 17–19 || 4QDe [4Q270] 6 v 3–4):31 ‫וביום השבת‬ ‫אל ידבר איש דבר נבל ורק‬ ‫אל ישה ברﬠהו כל‬ ‫אל ישפוט ﬠל הון ובצﬠ‬ ‫אל ידבר בדברי המלאכה‬ ‫והﬠבודה לﬠשות למשכים‬

And on the day of the Sabbath, no-one should say a useless or stupid word. He is not to lend anything to his fellow. He is not to take decisions with regard to riches or gain. He is not to speak about matters of work or of the task to be carried out on the following day.

The opening instruction, ‫אל ידבר איש ָּד ָבר נָ ָבל ָו ֵרק‬,32 takes the ambiguous phrase ‫ ְו ַד ֵּבר ָּד ָבר‬as referring to “stupid words.” Similar wording is famously found in a sectarian regulation contained in the Community Rule, which assigns a punin Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Huwyler, H.‑P. Mathys and B. Weber, AOAT 280 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001), 61–73. 30  For the rabbinic and other treatments of this injunction see the references above, n. 27. Cf. Y. D. Gilat, Studies in the Development of the Halakha [Hebrew] (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992), 255–58. For the legal implications of Isa 58:13–14 for the rabbinic Sabbath prayer cf. Chazon, “Special Character,” 15 n. 12. 31  The English translation follows F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1995–96), 2: 569. Cf. L. H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, SJLA 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), esp. 87–91. According to E. Slomovic, “Towards an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RdQ 7.1 [25] (1969): 3–15, at 9–10, the word ‫ דבר‬was given three different meaning by way of ‫גזרה שווה‬, i. e., by applying the use of the term in other contexts (which he identified with Deut 15:2; 17:8; 32:47). Such an interpretation is not impossible, but appears to be somewhat forced. 32  One may also read ‫ ְּד ַבר נֶ ֶבל‬, in which the nomen rectum is a masculine biform of the biblical term ‫נְ ָב ָלה‬.

126

Noam Mizrahi

ishment of three-month removal from the congregation for any member who ‫ידבר בפיהו דבר נבל‬. The concluding instruction, ‫אל ידבר בדברי המלאכה והﬠבודה‬ ‫לﬠשות למשכים‬, “He is not to speak about matters of work or of the task to be carried out on the following day,” is more in line with the original sense of the passage by taking it to refer to a business conversation. (b)  The types of speech prohibited on the Sabbath are discussed in another halakhic work discovered in Qumran (4Q264a || 4Q421).33 This work expands the range of forbidden speech. Not only does it forbid talking about business of any kind (frag. 1, ll. 6–7: [‫]אל ידבר] בכול דבר או ﬠבודה או בהון או במק[ח וממכר‬, “[He shall not speak] about any matters or working or property or buying [and selling]”), but it also prohibits all sorts of secular conversation (ll. 7–8: ‫ואל‬ ‫יד[בר ד]בר כי אם לדברי קודש כחוק‬, “He may only speak words of holy matters as is customary”). On the other hand, it supplies examples of the kind of religious discourse that is permitted, namely uttering blessings and prayers (l. 8: ‫[וי]דבר‬ ‫לברך [את] אל‬, “[and he may s]peak to bless God”; ‫ידבר [דבר] לאכול ולשתות‬, “one may speak [of things] with regard to eating and drinking,” possibly referring to saying grace after meals). This legal work thus reflects a relatively extreme line of exegetical reasoning, which expands the prophetic prohibition from businessoriented speech to any kind of secular discourse. Having this legal background in mind, we may now turn back to 4Q67. Unfortunately, the words ‫ ְו ַד ֵּבר ָּד ָבר‬are not witnessed at all by our partially preserved fragment. But if one attempts to reconstruct the missing text according to the MT, it becomes immediately apparent that line 4 is too short for the complete text of v. 13. More specifically, there is no room for restoring the words ‫ודבר דבר‬, which exceed the length reconstructed for the previous lines. To be sure, this problem can be explained in a number of ways. For instance, these two words might have been written supralinearly or beyond the column. But because of their importance in the legal discourse of the time, it seems unlikely to assume that they were omitted accidentally by the scribe. Rather, I would cautiously propose to consider the possibility – which cannot be definitely proven – that their absence is due to intentional omission. The scribe may have interpreted the phrase ‫ ְו ַד ֵּבר ָּד ָבר‬literally as referring to any kind of speech, judged it to be unrelated to the main concern of the passage as a whole (namely doing business on the Sabbath), and therefore ignored it in his citation. Indeed, other Qumran scrolls testify to exegetically-motivated omissions, including scriptural texts that belong to the legal realm.34 One should add that the hypothesis of such an omission gains an additional dimension if it is joined to the aforementioned hypothesis concerning a liturgical 33 V. Noam

and E. Qimron, “A Qumran Composition of Sabbath Laws and Its Halakah,”

DSD 16.1 (2009): 55–96. 34 

D. A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period, FAT 92 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 160–61.



Isaiah between Transmission and Reception

127

background for 4Q67. After all, the reading aloud of Isa 58:13–14 as part of a Sabbath service would similarly be a kind of speech, which may fall – at least theoretically – under the category of ‫ ָּד ָבר‬in the sense of “any speech.” Thus, the very notion of praying on the Sabbath depends on restrictive interpretation of the phrase ‫ ְו ַד ֵּבר ָּד ָבר‬, and the exegetical problem is avoided altogether if the perplexing phrase is omitted entirely.

6. Conclusion This short study examined a small fragment from Qumran containing Isa 58:13–14. It was originally published as the sole remain of an Isaiah scroll, but it is proposed herein to reclassify it as a ‘nonscriptural’ text that merely cites this passage. Two potential and complementary backgrounds for such a citation were explored. First, the passage may have been part of some kind of a Sabbath liturgy. Second, its content and variant readings may reflect a particular line of exegetical reasoning. Due to the small amount of text preserved, these proposals are bound to remain hypothetical, and other explanations cannot be excluded. Yet even so, this intriguing case nicely demonstrates how the notions of textual transmission and interpretive reception are closely intertwined.

Bibliography Brongers, Hendrik A. “Einige Bemerkungen zu Jes 58.13–14.” ZAW 87.2 (1975): 212–16. Brooke, George J. “The Bisection of Isaiah in the Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 73–94 in Studia Semitica: The Journal of Semitic Studies Jubilee Volume. Edited by P. S. Alexander, G. J. Brooke, A. Christmann, J. F. Healy, P. C. Sadgrove. JSSSup 16. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Chazon, Esther G. “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: Words of the Luminaries (4QDibHam).” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991. –. “On the Special Character of Sabbath Prayer: New Data from Qumran.” Journal of Jewish Music and Liturgy 15 (1992–93): 1–21. Diebner, Bernd J. “Jes 58 und die Grenzen der Literarkritik.” Dielheimer Blätter zur Archäologie und Textüberlieferung der Antike und Spätantike 29 (1998): 139–56. Doering, Lutz. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. TSAJ 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Du Preez, Ron. “Linguistic Links between Verses 12 and 13 of Isaiah 58.” AUSS 30.2 (1992): 115–21. Duncan, Julie A. “Considerations of 4QDtj in Light of the ‘A ll Souls Deuteronomy’ and Cave 4 Phylactery Texts.” Pages 199–215 in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Edited by J. C. Trebolle-Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11.1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. “Excerpted Texts of Deuteronomy at Qumran.” RdQ 18.1 [69] (1997): 43–62.

128

Noam Mizrahi

Fleischer, Ezra. Eretz-Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals as Portrayed in the Geniza Documents. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Fuller, Russell. “6.2.1 Ancient Manuscript Evidence.” Pages 470–76 in Textual History of the Bible, 1B: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets. Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Furstenberg, Yair. “Sabbath Laws in Qumran: Between Biblical Language and Halakhic Traditions.” [In Hebrew.] Meghillot 13 (2017): 271–81. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J.  C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1995–96. Gilat, Isaac D. Studies in the Development of the Halakha. [In Hebrew.] Ramat-Gan: BarIlan University Press, 1992. Goldingay, John. Isaiah 56–66. ICC. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Goldschmidt, Daniel, ed. Seder Rav Amram Gaon. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Rabbi Kook Institute, 1971. Jassen, Alex P. Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Kister, Menahem. “Liturgical Formulae in the Light of Fragments from the Judaean Desert.” [In Hebrew.] Tarbiz 77.3–4 (2009): 331–55. Kronholm, Tryggve. Seder R. Amram Gaon, II: The Order of Sabbath Prayer. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. Kutscher, Eduard Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, I: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Metzenthin, Christian. Jesaja-Auslegung in Qumran. AThANT 98. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2010. Moyise, Steve, and Marten J. J. Menken, eds. Isaiah in the New Testament. London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2005. Noam, Vered, and Elisha Qimron. “A Qumran Composition of Sabbath Laws and Its Halakah.” DSD 16.1 (2009): 55–96. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Qimron, Elisha. “The Biblical Lexicon in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 2.3 (1995): 295–329. –. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010–15. –. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Ruszkowski, Leszek. “Der Sabbat bei Tritojesaja.” Pages 61–73 in Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by B. Huwyler, H.‑P. Mathys, and B. Weber. AOAT 280. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. Schiffman, Lawrence H. The Halakhah at Qumran. SJLA 16. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Skehan, Patrick W., and Eugene Ulrich. “67. 4QIsan.” Pages 133–34 in Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets. Eugene C. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Slomovic, Elieser. “Towards an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scroll.” RdQ 7.1 [25] (1969): 3–15. Steck, Odil H. Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsaa): Schreibweise als Leseanleitung für ein Prophetenbuch. SBS 173/1–2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Teeter, D. Andrew. Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. FAT 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.



Isaiah between Transmission and Reception

129

Tov, Emanuel. “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran.” RdQ 16.4 [64] (1995): 581–600. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and its Implications.” Maarav 3.1 (1982): 27–53. –. Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London: T&T Clark, 2005. –. “Prayer and Liturgical Practice in the Qumran Sect.” Pages 241–58 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill/Jerusalem: Magnes & Yad Ben-Zvi, 1992. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. Translated by D. M.  G. Stalker. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. Wieder, Naphtali. “The Benediction Yein ʿAssis.” [In Hebrew.] Sinai 20 (1947): 43–48. –. The Formation of Jewish Liturgy in the East and the West: A Collection of Essays. [In Hebrew.] Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1998. Wilk, Florian, and Peter Gemeinhardt, eds. Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates. BETL 280. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.

Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? A Critical Evaluation of the Theory of a Major Josianic Edition of the Isaianic Tradition J. J. M. Roberts There are many seams, inconsistencies, and apparent conflicts within Isa 1–39, generally referred to as First Isaiah. Prior to 1977, if a scholar felt that a passage from this corpus did not fit the message of the eighth-century Isaiah of Jerusalem, the general tendency was to relegate the suspect passage to the exilic, postexilic, or even Hellenistic period. That changed in 1977 with the publication of Hermann Barth’s German monograph that was entitled, in rough English translation, The Isaiah Words in the Period of Josiah: Israel and Assyria as the Theme of a Generative New Interpretation of the Isaiah Tradition.1 This groundbreaking work, originally Barth’s 1974 dissertation under Odil Hannes Steck, insisted that a number of passages in Isa 2–32 that mention Assyria really mean Assyria. They are not using the designation as a code word for some other enemy, and hence, they must be dated to the period during which Assyria still existed as a major enemy of Judah. Barth argued the most appropriate period to place these texts would be in the period of the Josianic revival from approximately 627–622 BCE., and before the final destruction of Assyria between 615–609 BCE. The British scholar R. E. Clements, both in his commentary on Isa 1–39 and in his monograph Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem, was an early and enthusiastic promoter of Barth’s views, though with some major corrections.2 Barth’s thesis was in many ways quite radical, since he dismisses all of chapter 1 as a post-Josianic exilic composition.3 Of chapter 2, only the heading in v.  1, and much of vv. 7–17 was attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem and contained in his Josianic redaction.4 In chapter 32 only vv. 9–14 are attributed to Isaiah of Jeru1 Hermann Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977). 2  Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); idem, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, JSOTSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). 3  Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 217–20. 4  Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 222–23.

132

J. J. M. Roberts

salem, and the rest that he keeps is assigned to the Josianic redactor.5 Clements, by contrast, is much more moderate on some points. For example he accepts most of Isa 1:2–26 as genuine material of Isaiah of Jerusalem whether or not this material was included in the Josianic edition or not.6 On other points, however, Clements is even more radical. He dates the oracle against the women in 32:9–14 to the exilic period thus denying it to both Isaiah of Jerusalem and even to the Josianic edition.7 I have problems with this theory, and given its prominence in recent discussions of Isa 1–39, it is worthy of a new critical evaluation. Before proceeding, however, let me express a caveat. Any detailed argument typically begins with a commonly accepted assumption and argues from the agreed upon “fact” and, by gradually aligning other “facts,” reaches a new conclusion. As anyone who has read widely in the secondary literature on the Old Testament knows, however, there is hardly any “fact” or assumption that is not challenged by someone in the field. Given limited space, I am unable to respond to every objection and to every assumption which I make in this essay. One can see my commentary for the detailed discussion of the many points that I will simply pass over in this presentation.8 Since many of Barth’s judgments on what Isaiah of Jerusalem could not have said or written are based on Barth’s assumptions about the historical events of Isaiah’s lifetime, it is useful to give a short summary of what we know about Isaiah’s period. The historical notice in Isa 6:1 dates the following visionary experience to the year in which King Uzziah died. I take this as Isaiah’s inaugural vision as a prophet and for a number of reasons date the year to 738 BCE, soon after Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria conquered the north Syrian city Kullani (biblical Calno [Isa 10:9] or Calneh [Amos 6:2]) effectively crushing Azariah’s southSyrian anti-Assyrian league. Others assume Isaiah was already prophesying and date the beginning of his prophetic career as early as 743 BCE. In either case Isaiah was clearly around during the brief independent reign of Jotham and the longer reign of Ahaz. Isaiah experienced both the beginnings and the conclusion of the Syro-Ephraimitic War of 735–732 BCE, which saw most of the Northern Kingdom incorporated into the Assyrian provincial system and many Israelites displaced as refugees or deported to other parts of the Assyrian empire. He also lived through Samaria’s revolt against Shalmaneser V in 725–722 BCE, which marked the last gasp of the northern state as a vassal kingdom. He was also around in 720 BCE for the revolt of Hamath, Gaza, and Samaria against Sargon II. The revolt was supported by Nubian and Egyptian troops. Sargon’s reliefs show Nubian troops on the walls of one of the besieged Philistine cities, and Sargon refers to a Egyptian-Nubian relief force led by a certain Reʾu, which was 5 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 211–15, 227–36. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 28–37. 7  Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 261–63. 8  J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). 6 



Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? 

133

defeated in the open field and turned back in sight of the besieged city. A few years later in 715 BCE, when Ahaz died and Hezekiah came to the throne, Isaiah was very active for at least three years in trying to prevent Hezekiah from joining the renewed Philistine revolt against Sargon, again undergirded by the promise of Nubian-Egyptian support. Isaiah was also around when Sargon was killed in battle and left unburied on the battlefield in 705 BCE. The prophet was certainly present when Hezekiah revolted against Sennacherib, and Sennacherib marched against the rebellious west in 701 BCE. It is uncertain precisely when Isaiah died, but he may have lived to see Sennacherib’s total destruction of Babylon in 691–689 BCE and the following Assyrian attack on the Arabian strongpoint at Dumah. He may have even outlived Hezekiah to experience the beginning of Manasseh’s reign in 686 BCE. At the minimum, Isaiah’s prophetic ministry lasted from 738–700 BCE, or at least thirty-eight years. It may have lasted as many as fifty years or slightly longer. This long ministry is worth serious thought, for as anyone knows who has preached or lectured for thirty-eight years, much less fifty years, there is an almost unavoidable temptation to reuse only slightly reedited old sermons or old lectures despite significant changes in the culture and historical circumstances that one is addressing. Even the purists who swear they never reuse old sermons or old lectures – and not being a purist, I don’t believe them – can hardly deny that they constantly revisit old themes and motifs, not to mention old illustrations. Given this phenomenon, should one not consider the possibility that some, if not many, of the difficulties in the Isaianic corpus originate not from a later redactor, but from Isaiah himself reusing slightly adapted older oracles in what he considered analogous though quite distinct historical situations? Barth at least briefly considers this possibility though he does nothing with it, but Clements never even seems to note the possibility. Years ago William L. Holladay coined the phrase “self-extended oracle” to refer to Isaiah adapting or extending earlier oracles to give them new meaning in a later historical context.9 For example, Isa 28:1–6 was originally an oracle of judgment against the Northern Kingdom, probably dating from the time of the Syro-Ephraimitic War, and hence an oracle of salvation for Judah, but Isaiah’s later expansion of that oracle by the addition of vv. 7–22, probably from the time of Hezekiah’s revolt against Sennacherib, equates the drunken, foolish nobility of Judah with the earlier drunken rulers of Ephraim, implying now not salvation for Judah, but impending judgment. In fact, many of Isaiah’s oracles from the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic War, where the enemy threatening Judah was the coalition of Phoenicia, Philistia, Israel, and the Arameans of Damascus, appear to have been secondarily reedited, sometimes very lightly, to make them apply 9  William

1978), 59–60.

L. Holladay, Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

134

J. J. M. Roberts

to the later Assyrian threat. This is perhaps most obvious with regard to the symbolic names given to the three children mentioned in Isa 7–8. The first and third child are clearly Isaiah’s children, and while there is debate about the father of the second child, the sequence and the emphasis on symbolic names suggest that this child too must be the son of the prophet. The symbolic name of the third child, Maher-shalal-hush-baz, “Hurry-booty-Hasten-spoil,” is explained in the text where he is named. This is what one should expect. Prophets like Hosea and Isaiah gave shocking, offensive, or unusual symbolic names to their children as performance art, as a way of provoking their audience to ask, “Why did you give your child this strange name? What does it mean?” But the curiosity provoked by such names would quickly fade with the passing of time, becoming just another, if unusual, personal name. The prophet would need to explain the meaning of the name while the audience was still interested. The interpretation of the third name, “for before the child knows how to say Daddy or Mommy, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria,” makes it clear that the name announces a judgment on Aram and Israel, the ringleaders of the attack on Judah, and an implicit oracle of salvation for Judah. It is also clear from the third name and its interpretation that the main threat being addressed in these symbolic names at the time they were given was the threat posed by Aram and Israel, not Assyria, and that the names were given to reassure Ahaz that Yahweh would protect his Davidic king, his royal city Zion, and his kingdom from these impotent interlopers. It is curious, then, that the interpretation of the first name, Shear-jashub, is not given in chapter 7, and while the second name is explained in 8:8b–10, Barth dismisses it as a late composition, perhaps not even present in his Josianic redaction.10 He is apparently oblivious to the strange absence of the original interpretation of the first two names in the genuine Isaianic corpus. But if the original interpretation of the first two names may be assumed to be analogous to the original interpretation of the third name, clear indications of those interpretations are still present in the text. In Isa 10:16–27c, in material that is presently framed as directed against Assyria, there are numerous signs that prior to an anti-Assyrian editing, this material was originally directed against Aram and Israel. Verses 16–19, which Barth dates to the Josianic period,11 have their closest parallels in the oracle against Damascus and Ephraim in 17:1–6, where the decimation of the glory of Jacob is described as his stout flesh growing emaciated (cf. 10:16), and the radical reduction of Jacob is described in agricultural imagery (cf. 10:18–19), in both cases playing on the root shear (17:6; 10:19). In 10:20 there then follows a mention of shear-yisrael upleyṭat bet-jaʿaqob, “the remnant of Israel and the refugees of the house 10  11 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 178–79. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 28–34.

Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? 



135

of Jacob.” In 10:21 the name of the first child shear-jashub, “a remnant will return,” is specified as shear-jaʿaqob, “a remnant of Jacob,” indicating that the remnant is from the Northern Kingdom. Then in 10:22 the name shear-jashub, “a remnant will return,” is repeated again. In the narrow context of 10:20–23, which Barth strangely dates to the postexilic period,12 the name Shear-jashub appears to be interpreted as a warning to the Northern Kingdom. In the future, following the decimating judgment, the remnant of the Northern Kingdom will no longer lean on the one who smote him, that is, the Arameans, but will lean on the Holy One of Israel. A remnant of Jacob, but only a remnant, will return to el gibbor, a striking reference to one of the crown names of the Judean king in 9:5. Then note the north-south contrast in 10:22–24a, “Even if your people, O Israel, are like the sand of the sea, shear jashub bo – only a remnant from it will return – a devastating judgment is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. Indeed, Yahweh of Hosts is bringing a decreed annihilation upon the midst of the whole land. Therefore, thus says Yahweh of Hosts, Do not fear O my people who dwell in Zion ….” Up to this point, all the material in 10:16–24 would fit an oracle originally given early in the Syro-Ephraimitic War threatening the Northern Kingdom (“your people”) with a devastating judgment, from which only a remnant would survive, and reassuring “my people,” the people of Judah and the Judean king Ahaz who dwelt in Zion, that God would save them from the Syro-Ephraimitic threat. That would be essentially the same message found in the third name. It is only the placement of 10:16–19 right after the clear oracle against Assyria in 10:5–15 and the abrupt mention of Assyria as the one whom God’s people, the inhabitants of Zion, need not fear in 10:24b that obscure the original intent of the passage. An original oracle of Isaiah against the Northern Kingdom has been reedited to redirect it against the later Assyrian threat, though many of the details in the original oracle have not been revised or reformulated to smooth out the obvious secondary reuse of this material. A similar situation exists with the second name found repeated at the beginning and end of the oracle found in 8:8b–10: But the spreading of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel (With-Us-IsGod). Unite yourselves, O peoples, and be shattered; and give ear, all distant parts of the earth. Gird yourself and be shattered. Gird yourself and be shattered. Take counsel, but it will be frustrated. Speak a word, but it will not stand, for Immanuel (With-Us-Is-God).

These verses originally promised that God’s protective wings, a reference that plays on the iconography of the protective outspread wings of the gigantic cherubim in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple, would protect Yahweh’s city, his king, and his people from the threat of their Syro-Ephraimitic enemies. The following assertion that the plans of those enemies will come to nought corresponds in principle to the similar assertion in 7:5–8 that Aram and Israel’s 12 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 35–40.

136

J. J. M. Roberts

plans against Jerusalem in the Syro-Ephramitic War will not come to pass. And the reason for that is summed up in the final word, the message contained in the symbolic name Immanuel, for “With-Us-Is-God.” When this symbolic name was actually given to the second child, well before the final outcome of the SyroEphraimitic War was actually known, as the later third name shows, and before Isaiah knew for certain that Ahaz would reject Isaiah’s repeated promises of Yahweh’s deliverance, this oracle could only be read as an oracle of salvation for Ahaz and his Davidic dynasty. It was only later that Isaiah knew for certain that Ahaz had rejected God’s promises and sought protection instead by paying tribute to the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-pileser III. In response to that new information, Isaiah himself probably updated the original oracle by the addition of 8:5–8a, though the addition created some confusion about the original meaning of the oracle, just as in the case of the original explanation of the first name. Whether the later Assyrian editing was already incorporated in the sealed scroll containing the oracles about Isaiah’s children or whether only the original interpretation of these names and the warning found in 8:11–15 were included in that scroll may be debated, but I incline toward the latter position. Another passage which appears to have originally referred to Aram and Israel’s sudden campaign against Jerusalem in the Syro-Ephraimitic War is the passage in Isa 10:27d–34. This passage describes an enemy army which moves south from Samaria toward Jerusalem, then bypasses the border fortifications between Israel and Judah by making a wide swing to the left via the pass at Michmash. It then surprises and terrifies the Judean cities in its path south of the border fortifications by its sudden appearance behind the defenses they trusted to slow its advance. The army then continues on to the very northern outskirts of Jerusalem near the present Mount Scopus, where the leader of this hostile force makes a disparaging or hostile gesture toward Yahweh’s Mount Zion. But at that point Yahweh intervenes to humble the hostile force with a majestic display of power, using the imagery of hacking down a forest, arboral imagery similar to that used in both Isa 17 and Isa 10:16–19. This graphic text is hardly an imaginative portrayal of a nonevent, and it fits perfectly the tactical situation required by Aram and Israel’s plan mentioned in 7:6. They intended to quickly cut off Jerusalem from military reinforcements from its Judean contingents farther south, breach Jerusalem’s walls, and replace Ahaz with a non-Davidic king of their own choosing, probably the son of Ittobaal of Tyre. Given their plans, speed was of the essence, and the bypassing of the border fortifications by the army portrayed in 10:27d–34 fits that agenda perfectly. In contrast, we know of no Assyrian army that took this line of march from Samaria to Jerusalem in any of the campaigns for which we have actual reports. Sennacherib, for example, first moved down the coast through Phoenicia and Philistia to block any possible assistance from Egypt, and then moved up toward Jerusalem from the southwest, systematically reducing the Judean fortresses that protected this approach to Jerusalem. As the

Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? 



137

prophetic text makes clear, the attack on Jerusalem fails because of Yahweh’s protection of his city, and historically the Syro-Ephraimitic attack failed because they had neither the time nor the resources to reduce Jerusalem by siege. They too quickly had to move back north to protect their own territories from an immanent Assyrian onslaught. Nonetheless, assuming that this text originally referred quite specifically to the Syro-Ephraimitic surprise attack on Jerusalem, it is possible that Isaiah, who probably saw the Assyrian threat as analogous in many respects to the earlier threat from Aram and Israel, himself reused the oracle in the Assyrian period as an oracle of deliverance from the overbearing Assyrians after a period of judgment. Many of the details in the original oracle did not fit the new use of the oracle as precisely, but despite these rough edges, the point of the reapplication of this oracle to the new enemy was clear enough. Barth has many keen observations on this passage, but he seems unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that Isaiah himself reused earlier oracles originally promising ultimate deliverance from the Syro-Ephraimitic threat to promise an ultimate deliverance from a later and analogous Assyrian threat. Nonetheless, Barth does date the passage to the time of Isaiah, sometime between 717–711 BCE.13 Barth is also on track in attributing Isa 14:4b+6–20a to Isaiah of Jerusalem as his response to the news of Sargon II’s striking death on the field of battle and lack of proper burial in 705 BCE.14 Clements is far less certain, but neither of them give sufficient attention to the fact that Sargon claimed the title King of Babylon, and in view of his attack to reclaim Babylon, did in fact destroy his own land and kill his own people (Isa 14:20).15 Moreover, Barth’s claim that the redactional unit 14:4b–21 must be dated to the last years before the collapse of the Assyrian empire, i. e., the Josianic period, is totally unnecessary. Isaiah or any other Judean in 705 BCE could express the death wishes for the Assyrian dynasty found in Isa 14:21; they are a cry for judgment on the long-term oppressors of the speaker’s world, not a statement of accomplished historical certainty. It is worth noting what Barth sees as justifying a postexilic date even within material that he largely attributes to Isaiah of Jerusalem. In his very brief discussion of Isa 14:28–32, he highlights v. 30 as an addition that, unlike vv. 29, 31–32, reveals an aggressively hostile attitude toward Philistia that would fit best in the postexilic period.16 This fragmentation of a coherent, if in places difficult, text is unjustified. The historical heading in v. 28 dates this oracle to the year of Ahaz’s death, when Hezekiah would be coming to the throne. According to the synchronism found in 2 Kgs 18:13 outside the unreliable regnal formulae, the accession of Hezekiah and the death of Ahaz would have taken place in 715 BCE. This 13 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 54–76. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 119–40. 15  Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 139–45. 16  Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 14–15. 14 

138

J. J. M. Roberts

was the period when the anti-Assyrian rulers of Ashdod were trying to stir up an area-wide revolt against Sargon of Assyria with the promise of Nubian-Egyptian support. First Azuri, the Philistine ruler of Ashdod, while Ahaz was still alive, sent letters to the surrounding states including Judah urging them to join his revolt against Assyria. Ahaz may have reported this to the Assyrians. At any rate a small Assyrian detachment removed Azuri and replaced him with his pro-Assyrian brother Ahimeti. As soon as the Assyrians withdrew, however, the people of Ashdod ran Ahimeti out of town. They replaced him with Yamani, a commoner who may have been from Cyprus. Yamani, then, resumed Azuri’s policies, writing letters to all the surrounding states encouraging them to join the revolt against Sargon. This specifically included Hezekiah of Judah, since in the meantime Ahaz had died. From Isa 20 we know that Isaiah spent some three years trying, through performance art, symbolic actions, and prophetic proclamation, to dissuade Hezekiah and the Judean court from joining this revolt. He apparently used the recent disaster that befell the Egyptian-Nubian relief force in the Gaza rebellion of 720 BCE as an object lesson warning against those who would put their trust in such allies. The oracle in 14:29 warns the Philistines not to rejoice over the death of Ahaz who had defeated them, because from the root of this serpent would spring an even more dangerous flying seraph. The snake imagery here reflects Judean royal iconography of the period and is not common iconography for Assyrian kings. Verse 30 then offers a contrast between Judah and Philistia. Under Hezekiah the Judeans will find security, but he will kill the Philistines’ root and remnant. Thus Isaiah commands the Philistines in v. 31 to wail for the destruction that is soon coming upon them. The reference in v. 31b to smoke from the north, unlike the earlier references to rod and snakes, envisions an Assyrian campaign against Philistia. But the real point of the oracle is reached in v. 32 when the prophet asks what one shall answer to the envoys of the nations. The reference is to Philistine envoys and perhaps even NubianEgyptian envoys (see Isa 18:1–3) trying to persuade Judah to join their revolt. To them Hezekiah is encouraged to reply “No thanks, for Yahweh has founded Zion, and in it we will find our refuge.” Barth’s odd notion that an aggressively hostile attitude toward the Philistines is unexpected for a prophet before the exile is simply nonsense. Isaiah, even if he did not like Ahaz, was a loyal Judean, and he would have had no kind feelings toward the Philistines because of their opportunistic attacks on both Judah and Israel (Isa 9:11; 2 Chr 28:18). It is also very curious that Barth dismisses Isa 11:11–16 as a late postexilic piece that does not refer to the historical Assyria at all, particularly when this passage plays on the root shear to emphasize Yahweh’s restoring of the remnant of his people who remain from Assyria (shear ammo asher yishshaer meashshur), and when it concentrates so specifically on the reunification of Israel and Judah by ending Ephraim’s jealousy of Judah and Judah’s oppression of Ephraim (v. 13), a reference that only makes sense against the background of

Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? 



139

the Syro-Ephraimitic War and its aftermath. Clements’s odd statement that “the reference to the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah” in v. 12 “regards Israel and Judah as virtually synonymous and evidently makes no distinction between the two kingdoms …” is absolutely false.17 He can say that only because he willfully misunderstands the two subjective genitives in v.  13a by deliberately deleting the clarifying parallel line in v. 13b. The text actually says, “The jealousy that Ephraim feels will turn aside, and the oppressors from Judah will be cut off; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, and Judah will not oppress Ephraim.” Poetic ambiguity in the first line that is clarified by a surprising shift in the second line is a standard feature of Isaianic poetry. Judah’s oppression of Ephraim is a reference to Judean expansion into Israelite territory during the Syro-Ephraimitic War after the Assyrian invasion forced Israel to withdraw from Judah. It is reflected in Hosea’s contemporary complaint that the princes of Judah were like those who remove boundary markers (Hos 5:10). Moreover, to return to Isa 11, the promise of hegemonic rule to the reunited Israel and Judah over the Philistines, Aram (the sons of the east, cf. 9:11), Edom, and Moab seems to presuppose the continued existence of the Davidic monarchy and its expected revitalization by the resolution of the tensions between north and south. My own inclination is to attribute this text to Isaiah of Jerusalem, since with the fall of the north and Sennacherib’s massive deportation of Judeans in 701 BCE there were certainly plenty of exiles from both Israel and Judah in Assyrian territories and elsewhere. One did not need the Babylonian exile to begin talking about a restoration of a remnant from Assyria, or even from a much broader area of the world. But certainly in the period of Josianic reform when Josiah was trying to reincorporate the north under his Davidic rule, one could easily see how such a passage could be used to give expression to the Josianic ideal. Jeremiah’s oracles about the restoration of north Israel and their pilgrimage to Zion (Jer 30–31; particularly 31:7–14) may very well stem from early in his ministry during this period of optimistic excitement about the Josianic reforms. One of the principles that Barth seems to invoke in deciding whether an oracle should be attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem or to the later Josianic redaction of Isaianic motifs seems to be the question whether the prophecy came to pass. Apparently for Barth a “true” prophet could not utter what proved to be a “false” prophecy. This is a strange criterion, however, because even the “true” biblical prophets were, for whatever reason, not always right in their prophetic expectations. The classic example of this is Ezekiel’s confident and repeated proclamation that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre (Ezek 26–28:24), a prediction that even the prophet had to admit did not come to pass (Ezek 29:17–20), since God offers Nebuchadnezzar the riches of Egypt as compensation for his unrewarded labor against Tyre. Whether Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt 17 

Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 126.

140

J. J. M. Roberts

was any more successful is also open to doubt. In short, the fulfillment or lack of fulfillment of a prophet’s purported proclamation of any imminent divine action is no reliable criterion for deciding whether the prophet actually made such a proclamation. Nonetheless, this principle seems to be at work in Barth’s treatment of both Isa 8:23b–9:6 and 14:24–27. Barth assigns the bulk of the enthronement oracle in Isa 8:23b–9:6 to the Josianic redaction because the oracle seems to imply an imminent deliverance of Judah and Israel from Assyrian rule.18 Such a deliverance did not take place in the time of Hezekiah’s kingship, however, so the Judean king to whom such a promise was given could not be Hezekiah. In Josiah’s time, by contrast, such a deliverance from the Assyrian yoke was in fact realized, so the king envisioned in this prophecy, according to Barth, must be Josiah. Here Clements disagrees with Barth and appears to have the better argument.19 He recognizes that this oracle is part of a coronation ritual that takes place at the beginning of a king’s reign and gives optimistic expression to the hopes and expectations associated with a new royal beginning. At the death of Ahaz, when Hezekiah became king, there was at least the hope that under this new king the former northern territories would be restored to Davidic rule and the hated Assyrian yoke would finally be broken, a hope that Isaiah periodically expresses in other passages. Actually, one can push this even farther than Clements does, since he equivocates by suggesting that Isaiah was “simply echoing very deliberately the official traditions of the royal court” rather than expressing his own hopes and imminent expectations. That is not convincing. There was a genuine reason for optimistic expectations in 715 BCE when Hezekiah came to the throne. Five years before, in 720 BCE, just two years after Sargon took the throne of Assyria, Merodach-baladan of Babylon revolted against Assyria, and Sargon did not regain control over Babylon for another eleven years (709 BCE). Moreover, Sargon was threatened by Babylon and Elam to the east and by the Nubian rulers of Egypt who were meddling in Palestinian affairs in the west. In short, when Hezekiah became king it was an ideal historical context for renewed nationalistic expectations of the imminent overthrow of the hated Assyrian yoke. In contrast, when Josiah became king as a young boy in 640 BCE, there was very little reason for such hope. Assyria had won its dangerous civil war with Babylon in 648 BCE and had recently reasserted its complete control over its western provinces and vassal kings. It was not until years later, perhaps as early as 627, but certainly by 622, that Assyrian control of the west was weak enough that Josiah could indulge in a nationalistic revival that attempted to incorporate the former northern territories as well. But this was far too late in his reign for a coronation ritual to give expression to the new hopes to which these devel18  19 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 141–76. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 103–9.

Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? 



141

opments gave rise. Rather they found expression in a religious reform movement that apparently mimicked the earlier one of Hezekiah. In such a context, it was of course likely that people would be inclined to reread the older prophecy of Isaiah in his coronation oracle for Hezekiah as though it really referred to Josiah, but it was hardly composed originally for Josiah. This brings us to Isa 14:24–27, which in my translation reads as follows: Yahweh of Hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely as I have designed, So will it be; As I have planned, So will it come to pass. To break Assyria in my land, And upon my mountains I will trample him. And his yoke will turn aside from upon them, And his burden shall turn aside from on his shoulder.” This is the plan that is planned against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is outstretched against all the nations. For Yahweh of Host has planned, And who can annul? His hand is stretched out, And who can turn it back?

There are no major textual issues in the pericope, and while translations could and do vary in minor ways, these variations hardly affect the general sense of the passage. The question whether this passage may be attributed to the genuine sayings of the late-eighth- early-seventh-century-BCE Isaiah of Jerusalem, or whether it must be delegated to a much later redactor during the hypothesized Josianic redaction of Isaiah championed by Barth and Clements does not hinge on text critical issues or differences in translations. Nonetheless, Clements follows Barth in assigning this text to the postulated Josianic redaction. Barth, of course, does this because the Assyrian was not broken on Yahweh’s mountains in the days of Hezekiah.20 Clements is more nuanced, but still he argues that this is a passage pasted together from Isaianic phrases, but “built up by a form of developmental exegesis into a threat of overthrow of Assyria from Isaiah’s prophecies ….”21 But this prophecy that depicts God’s plan as “to break Assyria in my land and to trample him upon my mountains thus removing the yoke from upon them and removing his burden from upon his shoulder,” hardly fits the historical experience of the Josianic period. At the beginning of Josiah’s reign as a small boy in 640 BCE, the mighty Ashurbanipal had vigorously reasserted his control over the west. There is no evidence that anyone in Judah in 640 BCE thought that the time was ripe to 20  21 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 103–18. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 146.

142

J. J. M. Roberts

overthrow the Assyrian yoke. Moreover, Josiah made no obvious move against his Assyrian overlord until his twelfth year, or 628 BCE (2 Chr 34:3–7), and by that time Assyrian control over its western vassals was tenuous at best. According to Kings, Josiah’s reform movement did not begin until his eighteenth year, or 622 BCE (2 Kgs 22:3–25), and by that time Ashurbanipal was gone, and Assyria was struggling in the east to preserve itself against a resurgent Babylon. There were no longer any significant Assyrian units in Palestine, since any troops Assyria could muster were desperately needed at home. Given this historical situation, why would a Josianic redactor in the late 620s envision Yahweh’s climactic overthrow of the hated Assyrians as taking place in Yahweh’s land and on Yahweh’s mountains? In Isaiah’s time one could well envision a major defeat of a significant Assyrian army in Yahweh’s land, since in his time, both in 712 or 711, and again in 701 BCE, large Assyrian armies were either very near by or actively invading Judah. No such situation existed at the time when Josiah’s religious reforms and political success might have given rise to a Josianic redaction of the earlier Isaianic tradition. That difficulty causes both Clements and Barth to play fast and loose with the actual text. Clements claims that “this expectation of the overthrow of the Assyrians was believed to have been anticipated by the frustration of Sennacherib’s attempt to take Jerusalem in 701.”22 Barth’s argument is even more convoluted and remote from the actual wording of the text. It is far more likely that Isaiah of Jerusalem really did envision and expect Yahweh’s imminent punishment of the Assyrian enemy in the land of Judah, perhaps in the early days after the joyous news of the shocking death of Sargon on the field of battle reached Jerusalem, or perhaps later when Sennacherib’s brutal campaign against Judah and his disparagement of its God convinced Isaiah that Assyrian arrogance would soon provoke Yahweh’s just and annihilating judgment. Either of those occasions in the time of Isaiah would provide a far more likely historical background for this oracle than anything in the Josianic period. Clements, in particular, has difficulty in allowing the historical Isaiah to have both a word of judgment for his people and yet, follow that judgment with a miraculous last minute deliverance from the hated enemy. For him, the historical Isaiah could not hold these conflicting points of view. This leads him to make a troubling comment about two types of faith. He refers to the faith that finds its object in security and deliverance and the faith that recognizes, and can embrace, tragedy and judgment. For those who ultimately see the centre of all biblical history in the death and crucifixion of the one who came as the deliverer of Israel there is no question as to which type of faith can penetrate to a more profound level of human existence.23 22  23 

Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 147. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem, 27.

Isaiah 14:24–27: Genuine Isaianic Expectations or Josianic Redaction? 



143

Glaringly missing in Clements’s ideal faith is any reference to Jesus’s resurrection, much less the resurrection of his followers and the final judgment on evildoers. Perhaps this is just an oversight on Clements’s part, but the gospel is hardly good news if it really ends merely in crucifixion and death. Such an attenuated faith is not the faith of the historic Christian church, as Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Cor 15:12–19. Let me cite just one more example of two verses that both Barth and Clements regard as two separate glosses from the postexilic period.24 Isa 31:6–7 follows immediately after the announcement of Yahweh’s sudden intervention to save Jerusalem in 31:5, after God himself had attacked Mount Zion in 31:4. Barth and Clements are both bothered by the mixture of second- and thirdperson plurals in these verses, but in Hebrew direct address, particularly when a relative clause is introduced, there is syntactical pressure to switch to the third person even though the direct address continues. Delbert Hillers demonstrated this long ago in a brilliant article.25 The two verses are not two independent glosses, but present one coherent thought. They should be translated, “Return, O sons of Israel, to the one from whom you have deeply rebelled. For in that day each of you will reject his idols of silver and his idols of gold which your hands have sinfully made for yourselves.” This appeal to the “sons of Israel,” far from sounding like a postexilic creation, sounds more like an appeal originally addressed to the northerners at the time of the Syro-Ephraimitic War. At that time Isaiah castigated the northerners as idolaters (see 2:8; 17:7–8). But why would Isaiah address the inhabitants or elite of Jerusalem in this fashion? The parallel with Isa 28:1–6 is suggestive. Just as Isaiah extended an early oracle against the drunken rulers of Samaria to suggest that the nobility of Jerusalem was now those drunken fools, so here Isaiah seems to be equating the leaders of Jerusalem with the rebellious and idolatrous Israelites. The use of the verb “to make deep” in this context may refer back to Isaiah’s charge using the same verb in 29:15 that Judah’s royal advisors were trying to keep their plans so deep and secret that even Yahweh could not discern them. Blatant idolatry may not have been a major problem in Judah, but the secret treaty with Nubian Egypt would require an oath in the name of the Egyptian gods (see 28:15), and Isaiah may have had this in mind when he addressed these verses to the ruling class of Jerusalem. As is clear from the preceding discussion, I have serious reservations about a major redaction of Isaiah’s words in the Josianic period that involves the new creation of many sayings that the Josianic redactor falsely attributed to Isaiah. I have no doubt that the Isaianic corpus was preserved, lightly edited, and widely 24 

Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte, 77–91; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 256–59. R. Hillers, “Hôy and Hôy-Oracles: A  Neglected Syntactic Aspect,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Conner (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 185–88. 25 Delbert

144

J. J. M. Roberts

read or cited in the heyday of the Josianic reform, and no doubt many of Isaiah’s prophetic words were probably regarded as fulfilled in the events of Josiah’s day, but that is far different from a significant creation of new sayings to be attributed to Isaiah. Such a creative interaction with the Isaiah tradition does take place at the end of Josiah’s reign during Egyptian rule before the Babylonian conquest of Judah. The so-called Isaiah Apocalypse in Isa 24–27, which interacts with earlier Isaianic oracles like the Song of the Vineyard and offers a new version of it, appears to date to this period, at least in my opinion. One should note that the main enemy in these chapters is Egypt, while Babylon does not appear at all, and the corpus reflects an attitude of tremendous expectations that have been abruptly crushed. Such an attitude would fit perfectly in the period that had just seen the wonderful annihilation of the hated Assyrians, only to be rudely jerked back into despair by the death of Josiah and the imposition of Egyptian hegemony. This new creation, however, looks radically different from the Josianic edition that Barth proposes. The Isaiah Apocalypse actually exists; I doubt that Barth’s generative Josianic redaction does.

Bibliography Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Clements, Ronald E. 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 Press, 1980. Hillers, Delbert R. “Hôy and Hôy-Oracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect.” Pages 185–88 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Conner. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Holladay, William L. Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah Christopher R. Seitz 1.  Isaiah amongst the Prophets and Wise A quick survey of the titles of other essays in this section shows the present topic to be far less precisely defined. Potentially, this could mean a treatment so broad as to leave unclear what one is actually seeking to show. Related to this is the simple question, Does the book of Isaiah, in its present form, have a presentation of history? From at least the time of the nineteenth century, the book of Isaiah has been considered a container of once-upon-a-time oral proclamation whose “presentation of history” would have to be derived from a reconstruction of the original situation in which such speech took form. That is, the literary form was a presentation of nothing – history, ostensive reference, narrative unfolding – taken as a whole and in its sixty-six chapter form. A coherent account of history was nothing the book was undertaking in the form of a “presentation.” This ground is well known but the point needs to be registered at the start. In Duhm’s 1892 appraisal we had original oral speech in the first part of the book (needing to be excavated and re-presented in proper chronological order), a Second Isaiah section (itself not all at one level of authorial conception), Third Isaiah material from a different provenance and time, and multiple redactional overlays in the first part of the book. The legacy of this model exists today even as one may now seek to return to questions of the proper appraisal of the final form as a whole or in its parts.1 Given the latitude implied in the title, several provisional aims may be usefully put forward to guide the direction of this essay: 1. The book of Isaiah will be considered primarily as a whole work, though certain sections may be shown to reveal its stance toward historical events more clearly than others. 2. To raise the question about whether Isaiah has a “presentation” we can identify is in principle no less challenging than to ask what it is we might mean by “history” as such. 1 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, HKAT 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). For the earlier critical commentary, see Christopher Seitz, “Isaiah, Book of (First Isaiah),” ABD 3:472–88.

146

Christopher R. Seitz

3. For prophetic books, history is a dimension impossible to comprehend without some sense of the agency relating it. 4. In the book of Isaiah, agency is not rendered by a single authorial voice, and the presentation of the book will not be grasped by apologetically seeking to find a single Isaiah author – in either a thin historical sense or a post-modern literary sense. 5. History as presented in Isaiah is derivative of a proper grasp of how the book handles prophetic agency. The approach to be adopted here will begin by considering the book of Isaiah in relation to other large-scale prophetic works (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve, and Daniel), so that what we may describe as “a presentation of history” does not become an artificial construct, set up to vie against a previous model where such a quest would have been considered foreign to the book’s own character and form. It is important to compare like with like. These other prophetic witnesses, in their present literary form, may be said to have a presentation of history broadly speaking. In Ezekiel and Jeremiah, for example, we have two witnesses where historical reference is thickly registered in the literary record itself, and in both we have a relatively compressed time frame.2 This makes it possible with these two books to think in fairly straightforward terms about the agent generating the proclamation – however we understand its final coming to literary form – and history broadly speaking. Jeremiah and Ezekiel focus their historical referencing to the period leading up to the deportations to Babylon and shortly thereafter, the first from a Judean and the second from a Babylonian perspective. Agent and historical reference are closely related.3 The Book of the Twelve has a much broader field of historical reference, beginning in the eighth century BCE and extending into the Persian and later period. One can say this even if one does not regard the Book of the Twelve as a book, strictly speaking, but rather as an anthology or loose collection of fully independent writings. The opening verses of Hosea match those of Isaiah, and the latest historical witnesses in the Twelve can be generally compared in time of composition to the latest sections of Isaiah.4 Yet there can be a “presentation 2  See Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986). 3  In my view the response to Jeremiah from an ensuing generation can be seen in the book, but this still remains in close proximity to what we can see as the historical period referenced in the superscription. See Christopher R. Seitz, “The Place of the Reader in Jeremiah,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A  Search for Coherence, ed. M. Kessler (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 67–75. Also, on the “exilic redaction” identifiable in chs. 21–45, see Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 222–92. 4 The two “books” are always next to each other in lists, either as “Isaiah–Twelve” or “Twelve–Isaiah.” See Julio Trebolle-Barrera, “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-Standard and Parabiblical Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 89–106, and esp. 94–95, 98.



The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah

147

of history” in the Twelve only if one judges the term appropriate because the Twelve is functioning as a whole literary achievement and not as an accidental one due to a decision, for some reason, to put these shorter prophetic works in some larger form. On the older view of Isaiah referred to above, the book as a whole was something akin to “twelve independent books” yet lacking defined beginnings and ending and clear attribution to individual prophet witnesses. The multiple prophetic agencies embedded within the sixty-six chapter form were not set forth in such a manner as to lead to an appraisal of the final literary form and a presentation of history or anything else it may be said to be attempting in that form. Since there are twelve identified prophetic agencies in the Book of the Twelve, any account of its presentation of history must keep that dimension to the fore. If there is a coherent presentation of history, it is nevertheless tied up with the character of the book as consisting of twelve literarily defined agents of revelation. I have my own proposal about the character of history in the Twelve.5 Daniel is of course its own special case. It does not describe itself as a prophetic work, but uses instead the language of wisdom. Daniel and his companions are wise. The mode of revelation vouchsafed to them is not the “word of the Lord” but wisdom, dreams, and important to note, explicit reference to known prophetic witness (Jeremiah). Daniel is not prophetic in the same way the term applies to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve except in relationship to prophets already authoritative in some sense. This does not prevent the book of Daniel from having a presentation of history; far from it. Daniel’s historical range, his presentation of history, is wide ranging and more akin to Isaiah and the Twelve than Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It begins in the Babylonian period and extends well into the Greek period, as the second half of Daniel has it. One can say this if one means the agent generating the first and second halves of the book is one and the same, or if, as is more likely, the second half understands itself as a differentiated extension of part one. That the second half is an awkward and artificial appendix to “the real Daniel” of the court tales is an alternative view not held by this treatment, any more than the second half of Isaiah might be thought of along similar lines. We view redactional extension as purposefully integrative and dependent upon and deferential to previous material.6 5  See Christopher R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 155–253; idem, Joel, ITC (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 1–24. Also, idem, “The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve: Neither Redactional Unity Nor Anthology,” in The Book of the Twelve: An Anthology of Prophetic Books or the Result of Complex Redactional Processes?, ed. Heiko Wenzel, Osnabrucker Studien zur Judischen und Christlichen Bibel 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 37–48. 6  See, e. g., the insightful treatment of the relationship between the two parts of Daniel in Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

148

Christopher R. Seitz

Yet it is important to note a different handling of agent and history in Daniel, apart from comments about the difference between prophecy and wisdom made just now. I believe noting this difference is crucial for appreciating the “presentation of history” we may say inhabits the book of Isaiah singularly. Here is also a place where the difference between the two main literary sections of Daniel and Isaiah can best be felt. The literary presentation of the book of Daniel gives the protagonist the capacity to speak directly into contemporaneous settings – forcefully, uncomplicatedly, triumphantly – in a series of encounters. Daniel’s skill is to be able interpret things placed before him in time and space, and to speak directly and convincingly to those about whom this information is given, during the reigns of what the book presents as three successive kings. His contemporaneous activity matches what the book holds to be a demarcated historical range. The second part of the book stays in this same contemporaneous setting but now the protagonist receives dreams and visions that are unrelated to his own historical setting. Most importantly for appreciating Isaiah’s presentation of history is how this is explicitly registered by the literary form of the book of Daniel. Daniel himself confesses perplexity as to what he sees and how it can be relevant to his period. And he is told directly that it is unrelated to his contemporary situation and that of his colleagues and kings. History as presented is out beyond the situation of the agent’s own historical context. It does not pertain to his days but to those who are his subsequent readers. There has been effected a hermeneutical gap by the present literary presentation of the book, and that gap is self-consciously registered, and it in turn becomes hermeneutically decisive. The book understands itself as a book whose audience is not Daniel’s as such. Indeed, this is its genius. And in this the recourse to Jeremiah by Daniel is matched by, anticipates, the recourse to book of Daniel by those outside his explicit contemporaneous setting. The book of Isaiah can of course anticipate an audience for another day, and it does so explicitly (8:16–22; 12:1–6; 25:9; 30:8). The generation the prophet is addressing will not heed his message (6:10; 7:12; 29:9–12). A remnant will be raised up to preserve what he has spoken, so that it can be opened to a different providential purpose for a generation on the other side of God’s historical judgment in time (8:16–22). But the prophet is not speaking forth something that is unintelligible for his own historical place in time. Herein lies the difference with Daniel. The problem is not temporal – i. e., Isaiah is receiving messages and delivering them, but they make no sense for his time. No, they make absolute sense, but in this form they are rejected. They are like so much gibberish (28:9–13). And the prophet is told in advance that this will be so. His message will have the effect of closing ears and dulling comprehension (6:9–13). Taking note of this difference, it remains true as well that Isaiah makes reference to events outside of his own historical situation. Babylon and Media/ Cyrus are genuinely the Babylon and Cyrus that we know (13:1, 17; 14:4; 22:2; 45:1) and not strange ciphers that refer to contemporaneous figures and events.



The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah

149

The Babylon that is raised up and then defeated is the historical Babylon, which in turn is figurally anticipated by the overreaching arm of the Assyrian (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4; also 10:5–19). Chapters 13–14 set forth this figural analogy by placing Babylon alongside Assyria and the theme of the outstretched arm (14:26–27). In chapter 21, the agent of prophetic announcement sounds remarkably close to the figure of Daniel, in the depiction that unfolds there. Elam and Media are summoned to bring Babylon’s evil to an end. A dire vision has been shown to me: The traitor betrays, the looter takes loot. Elam, attack! Media, lay siege! I will bring to an end all the groaning she caused (21:2).

Like Daniel the agent receiving this burden is staggered. At this my body is racked with pain, pangs seize me, like those of a woman in labor; I am staggered by what I hear, I am bewildered by what I see. My heart falters, fear makes me tremble; the twilight I longed for has become a horror to me (21:3–4).

Yet the emphasis is not on incomprehensibility, and no other agency appears, as in Daniel, to explain the vision. It does not require his understanding because it is not for his day. That said, as the text continues, a lookout is posted on a watchtower, and it is he who is made to deliver the announcement that Babylon is fallen. The resemblance to Habakkuk has been noted. Yet in the case of the prophet Habakkuk, the temporal proximity to the raising up and bringing down of Babylon is much closer, and the message of the book trades on this as at the heart of his particular burden.7 I believe the key to this extensional historical realism in Isa 21, with its subtle traversing of centuries of history separating the prophet from the Persian defeat of Babylon, is to be found in the achievement of chapters 13–14, as they develop integral motifs in chapters 5–12 preceding.8 The refrain from Isaiah involving the outstretched arm, collated with Assyria as agent of God’s wrath, makes perfect historical sense in his own contemporaneous time. Assyria is the rod of YHWH’s fury sent realistically against his people, the people the prophet Isaiah confronts with the word given to him by God. But Assyria overreaches and the arm stretched out will bring Assyria’s role to an end. The fivefold refrain 7  See the discussion in Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 162–68. 8 See Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 119–38.

150

Christopher R. Seitz

involving the outstretched arm of God matches the fivefold woe series beginning in chapter 5. In chapter 11, however, we learn that the final destiny of Assyria is destruction due to her arrogating the role of judgment to herself and outstripping the function given her in God’s plan. At this point the series is broken by the oracles against Babylon in chapter 13– 14. Only at the end of chapter 14 do we see the series resumed and completed. The effect of this is to enclose Babylon as a type, to bring her into the same vortex as Assyria, and indeed to treat them, though separated by more than a century of history, as figures of a single judgment in the selfsame plan of God. Plan, hand, banner – all of these instruments of God are capable of more than a single historical referent of purposing and judgment. As Isa 23:13 states it clearly, “Behold the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria.” Of course it was Assyria and Babylon in tandem. The hermeneutical gap marked by Daniel and crucial to its mode of wisdom literary declaration is handled figurally within the timespan surveyed in the prophetic book of Isaiah. In the first part of the book the prophet speaks realistically into the historical situation of Uzziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, and of Assyrian agents dispatched by God for judgment. The position of chapters 36–39 at the close of this section and the opening chapter describing the capital in similar terms (“like a booth in a vineyard”) allow the single agent Isaiah to address a history presented in terms of obedient and disobedient responses to God’s work. Ahaz and Hezekiah are presented as strong alternatives, as has been noted, through the contrasting depictions of chapters 6–8 and 36–37. The prophecies of this section of the book also speak of more distant times, including especially the emergence of Babylon, anticipated by chapter 39, and her final defeat at the hands of the Persians. How this is accomplished takes us into the next section of the book, but we can see that analogies between Assyria and Babylon have been constructed redactionally through the figure of the outstretched hand of the Lord and the juxtaposition accomplished in chapters 13–14 and at other points in the oracles against the nations. What Isaiah declared realistically in his own presentation of history found an echo in centuries ahead of him, and those who have shaped the witness have viewed that as providentially overseen, and so given to Isaiah through figural anticipations.

2.  Former Isaiah and Latter Isaiah The most obvious place where the ambition of the book of Isaiah’s historical reach is best on display is at the border separating chapter 39 and chapter 40.9 Sirach sees the mighty deliverance of Hezekiah and Jerusalem as the consequence 9  For my own evaluation of the issue under discussion to follow, see especially “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47; Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah (Philadelphia: Fortress,



The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah

151

of the former’s firm faith, and his obedience to the word declared by “the great prophet Isaiah”: Hezekiah did what was pleasing to the Lord and firmly followed the example of his ancestor David. This was what was commanded by the great prophet Isaiah, whose visions were trusted.  He made the sun move backward and lengthened the king’s life. He comforted the mourners in Jerusalem. His powerful spirit looked into the future, and he predicted what was to happen before the end of time, hidden things that had not yet occurred. (Sir 48:22–25)

Isaiah’s ability to make time move backwards and forwards is almost a perfect description of what we are observing thus far in the redactional accomplishment of the final form. Sirach, operating on a different plane of course, sees this divine endowment as enabling Isaiah to look far into the future and predict things to come. The reference to hidden things probably comes from the reinforcing depictions of 1–39 and 40–66, whereby in the former the prophet preserves things for the future, given the recalcitrance of his day, while in the latter hidden things are disclosed. Former, latter, and genuinely new form the lexicon of Isa 40–55 (41:22,23; 43:9; 43:18–19; 45:21; 46:9), a vocabulary that takes its bearings from the present juxtaposition of these oracles with those of “former Isaiah” (in whatever form chs. 1–39 existed at the time). Critical in this regard is the vocabulary found in 37:26, which speaks of determination from long ago and the general notion of the plan of God deeply integrated in the proclamation of Isaiah in part one.10 I believe it will be helpful at this point to examine a previous model for understanding history and agency that took seriously the book of Isaiah as a total project. This is the key point. One can deal with the question of history and agency by positing a complex diachronic explanation for both factors. One excavates the book and tries to determine which parts can be assigned to the primary agent and when in time they spoke of historical events via that agent. The same procedure follows on by contemplating ongoing agency in the form of redactional supplementation. There isn’t a literary presentation via an agency that the book of Isaiah itself is setting forth in any meaningful sense. It must be excavated according to the tools of historical-critical determination. But one can also note earlier efforts to wrestle with these dimensions of agency, prophetic prediction intelligible to contemporaries, long range prophecies for a later audience to attend to, and possible secondary prophetic agency speaking to contemporaries and to the distant future – yet at a later period in time. The earlier discussion takes its bearings by considering these matters as intrinsic to the book of Isaiah as a whole book. I have in mind the twelfth-century commentary 1991); “How Is Isaiah Present in the Latter Half of the Book? The Logic of Isaiah 40–55 within the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 115 (1996): 219–40; “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, ed. Leander E. Keck et al., NIB 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001). 10  See my discussion in “Appeal to Former Things,” Zion’s Final Destiny, 199–202.

152

Christopher R. Seitz

of Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) and within it, his own critical references to the work of his revered predecessor, R. Moses Ibn Chiquitilla, whose eleventhcentury commentary on Isaiah is known only through Ibn Ezra’s exchanges. These two evaluations of the book of Isaiah are extremely helpful examples of attention to the literal sense, constantly pressing against traditional views of the day, yet always concerned to evaluate the book of Isaiah as a whole on the terms of its own complex deliverances.11 The two commentators can be usefully distinguished in this way. Ibn Chi­ quitilla believed the predictions of the book were almost entirely short range. If they seemed grand and eschatological (what the tradition in which he stood saw as “messianic,” that is, having to do with the Judaism of his present day and its final denouement under God’s prophetic address), this was the prophet’s use of metaphor and elaboration to make his point. The first part of the book is principally about Sennacherib’s invasion – one sees this historical referentiality in chapter 1 and in chapters 36–39, which book-end the primary material in between. Predictions in chapters 1–39, then, would have been fully intelligible to Isaiah’s audience and in a compressed historical context. Hezekiah is the main figure the book focuses on, the counterpart of Ahaz, the subject of royal promises in chapters 7, 9, 11, 32, and the hero of the narratives of 36–39. As an example of the speculation this could require, Isa 34 is about the destruction of Edom by an Assyria en route to siege Jerusalem.12 He also conjectured there was a restoration to Zion in the days of Hezekiah, which enabled him to account for passages like 11:11–12. At the same time, and less frequently, he did allow for some predictions to refer to a Second Temple restoration at the time of Zerubbabel. The important thing to note here is that he was not bothered at all by the idea that the prophet could speak of events in the future that would have made no sense to contemporaries. It is just that for his purposes Isaiah did not do that very often. As for chapters 40 ff., he understood the servant as Hezekiah, even in 52:13–53:12. In Ibn Chiquitilla we can see a single agency at work across the bulk of the book, with some random exceptions in part one and in the very latest chapters. History is densely brokered by this Isaiah agent through a focus on Hezekiah and Assyria’s march on Jerusalem, which failed and led to a restoration in this same period. Isaiah could refer to historical events associated with the restoration of the Second Temple, and it did not matter that, strictly speaking, the heavy emphasis on contemporary intelligibility and reference was dispensed with on these 11  I am especially indebted to the thorough and insightful reading of Uriel Simon, “Ibn Ezra Between Medievalism and Modernism: The Case of Isaiah XL–LXVI,” VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 257–71. 12  Simon describes these as “wild assumptions about supposed historical events for which there is no evidence outside the prophecy itself, a kind of eventus ex vaticinio,” (“Ibn Ezra between Medievalism and Modernism,” 260).

The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah



153

occasions. He greatly reduced these in the name of honoring what he saw as the largely contemporary historical context of the prophet and his pronouncements. In Ibn Ezra this reduction is adjusted in two ways. The first pertains to the presentation of 1–39. Like his predecessor, Ibn Ezra considered most of the material to be that of the agent Isaiah speaking to historical events at the time of Hezekiah. But there is a greater quantity of material that addresses a future his audience would not have been able to understand, and that is no problem at all. That the transition between these two seemingly incompatible modes of prophetic address is never explained is of no moment. Ibn Ezra’s Isaiah continues to address the distant future that, of course, includes his own day. As Simon carefully notes in his insightful analysis: It thus seems that the application of the majority of the prophecies to the immediate future can, in the mind of medieval commentators, be reconciled quite naturally with the foretelling of quite specific information, which can in our view have no real meaning for the prophet’s audience.13

The prophet himself can be included in that unintelligibility. It is natural for those divinely addressed not to know entirely what is being said to them and to operate with contemporaries all the same. This premodern idea is congenial to both our interpreters but in the case of Ibn Ezra, more so, at least in part one of the book.14 Ibn Ezra also sees in the book’s historical referencing what one can call medium-range predictions, involving Nebuchadnezzar, the Persians, and the restoration to Zion of exiles from Babylon. Short, medium, and long-range all co-exist and emerge from a single agent inspired by God. The second and far more important difference is how Ibn Ezra deals with latter Isaiah chapters. That he has no problem seeing prophesies from the first part of the book as referring to the Babylonian period and the release of deportees by the Persian Empire, even down to details, provides a helpful benchmark. For this is not the way he personally views the material in 40 ff. For the more traditionally minded – this would not include Ibn Chiquitilla’s handling of 40 ff. – Ibn Ezra’s presentation of Isaiah and history in 1–39 offers a conciliating 13 

Simon, “Ibn Ezra between Medievalism and Modernism,” 263. discuss the matter in the very specific case of 41:22–29 (“How Is the Prophet Isaiah Present,” 221). Calvin held that this was a prophecy of the very distant coming of Cyrus which Isaiah uttered in his day. That tracks with the long-range prophecy assumptions under discussion here. The problem I was identifying, however, was how at the same time the prophet could appeal to witnesses given long ago in the same contemporary context of distant predicting. Here is an example where Ibn Ezra in broad terms also senses something in the literal sense of 40–55 that cannot be called long-range prediction, as he held in part one, but rather contemporaneous speech at a very later time than Isaiah. I  do not believe Childs understood the point in his “defense” of Calvin, who was not a canonical reader of Isaiah but worked with different historical bearings and conceptuality (Isaiah, 317). Here the ambition of Ibn Ezra in part two can be grasped for what it is. He himself senses it as we shall see. 14  I

154

Christopher R. Seitz

alternative to his own view when it comes to 40–66. And he says as much. One could hold the view, he avers, that Isaiah is speaking of the distant future just as Ibn Ezra believes he did in part one.15 But he does not personally believe a close reading of these chapters is best served by maintaining a single agent inspired to see into the future in exactly the same manner as Isaiah. And this is because it isn’t the same manner. The agent in chapters 40–55 is being spoken to. Isaiah is not speaking to himself about a death that will occur that will give rise to kings and princes paying tribute to him (49:7), even as Ibn Ezra accepts a certain kind of traditional-literal reading might head in this direction. It is simply too convoluted a reading, he believes, even as he otherwise doesn’t object to details of a distant future being vouchsafed way before the time of their intelligibility. The literal sense is talking about a servant who is the agent himself at a different time than the Assyrian period prophecies given by the agent Isaiah. This is not long- or medium-range prophecy that would not have made sense to Isaiah’s audience, such as we have it elsewhere in chapters 1–39, but contemporary address to a different agent at a different point in time. Ibn Ezra does not rule out future predictions from this second agent himself, once he has established this way of reading part two. Indeed, it is the near fulfillment of the prophecies related to the servant and his contemporaries which, when fulfilled in reality, will serve to encourage a later audience that the longrange prophecies will also come to be fulfilled – those in 1–39 and those which one can identify in this form in 40–66 (most of them in what we would call Third Isaiah). The short-range reliable fulfillments give credence to the medium and longer range ones. So the fact that 40–55 introduces an agent whose vindication is to be assured in what is the short-term period leading up to the sending of Cyrus and the return of the exiles, sits very congenially for Ibn Ezra alongside a portrait of Isaiah himself, whose short-range prophecies involving Hezekiah and Zion would not prevent him being given divine access to longer range prophecies, including ones neither he himself nor his audience could understand. Both Isaiah and his later counterpart share this manner of prophetic activity in respect of history. Given Ibn Ezra’s concern to allow greater scope to the prophet Isaiah’s own long-range prophecies as relevant to his own day, over against Ibn Chiquitillia’s reductions, one senses that the evaluation he gives of 40–55 presented a personal challenge to himself, brought about by his close attention to the peshat, and not otherwise by some form of rationalism. He does not object to the idea of long-range predicting, but he grants it to two agents differently positioned in 15  The text Simon has in view is 49:7, which speaks of kings arising and paying tribute. He thinks a traditional reader could take it that here the prophet Isaiah, long after his death, is being referred to. He just does not think the reading works (“Ibn Ezra between Medievalism and Modernism,” 268).

The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah



155

time. That he can accept this presentation of a Babylonian era agent is bolstered by the notion that the fulfillment of this agent’s prophesies allows the longer range prophecies relevant to Ibn Ezra’s own day, including those at the end of the book, greater cause for trustworthiness. But it is a radical view all the same, measured against the tradition and the rationalist reading of his predecessor. Simon is especially helpful at this point in his essay. Ibn Ezra lived as a Jew in exile in his contemporary European historical setting. It would have been a congenial reading and a divine encouragement to have taken the message of these chapters as long-range prediction calibrated for his day. Instead he operates in a mode for which I would use the language “figural.” The contemporary relevance is not undercut by seeing these chapters through the lens of a quite specific suffering and dying servant of the Lord. The short-range promised vindication of the servant is enacted in the gracious return from exile of the servant’s own contemporary Israel, and the ongoing witness of the “servants” who pay tribute in this final “song.”16 As he was a figure of God’s people, Israel – ”you are my servant, you are Israel” – his life and proclamation were offerings that breathed new life into that same Israel, who would take comfort from the longer range proclamations of final vindication and re-creation with which the book closes.17 Prophecy is not contemporaneous proclamations, middle-range, or distant predictions only, but involves agencies pressed into service which themselves become portends and sureties through time. This is what Ibn Ezra’s close reading disclosed to him as he wrestled with history in the presentation of the book of Isaiah. In my own reading, it is the move to create figural analogies in Isa 1–39 (Assyria and Babylon; Jerusalem’s sparing in the days of Hezekiah as a type of future redemption; the halting of the nations in Isaiah’s day as a type of Zion’s preservation in the future, now with the same nations processing to Zion; Ahaz and Hezekiah as counter-types, and Hezekiah as a type of a king yet to come) that is picked up and developed in the latter Isaiah chapters. The anonymous agent of Isa 40–55 is a figure of obedient Israel, as Isaiah had addressed in the remnant of his own generation, the preservation of whose message would mean its extension in a new form in days to come, the former things giving birth to latter fulfillments and new things created for their own day.

3. Conclusion Ibn Ezra was keen to insist that the various categories of prophecy evidenced in the book of Isaiah  – short-term, mid-range, and eschatological  – served to reinforce each other in a comprehensive account of them in the book as a whole. 16 

Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” ad loc on 52:13–53:12. Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I  Will Be Glorified’ The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah,” CTJ 39 (2004): 117–34. 17  “‘You

156

Christopher R. Seitz

This was his theological interpretation of their significance as distinct historical phenomena. For the modern/late-modern mind this would prove difficult conceptually. What was not available to him was a redactional model which could track how these various levels in the text – which he described as consisting of temporally distinctive ranges – are in fact literarily interlocking, reinforcing, and have developed in conscious elaboration of one another. A canonical hermeneutic sensitive to the historical-redactional dimension can seek to demonstrate this as critical to the interpretation of the book of Isaiah. This has happened as the book pressed for ongoing extension and successive contemporary application over the course of three centuries, via the development of figural analogies of various kinds. Here is where the historical presentation of the book of Isaiah shows itself distinctive over against the compact referential world of Jeremiah and Ezekiel on one side, and the wisdom hermeneutic of time in Daniel on the other. The Book of the Twelve offers the closest analogy, but what it is in twelve literary witnesses, Isaiah is within its own singular portrayal of history and the prophetic agencies brokering it. A proper account of the presentation of history in the book of Isaiah would need to bring into frame the productive character of the past, and why this dimension becomes increasingly called upon in the proclamation of later prophecy. In Isaiah this would include not just the general appeal to former things, but also the specific referencing of Abraham (41:8; 51:2), Sarah (51:2), Eden (51:3; 65:20–24), Noah (54:9), David (55:3), and the rich allusive appeal to Moses as servant-prophet.18 We have focused on the contemporary and future presentation of history and the agency necessary for that to work figurally. Yet at some point even that presentation only makes sense in reference to former things, to which appeal is made in order to understand the present.

Bibliography Baltzer, Klaus, Deutero-Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Duhm, Bernhard, Das Buch Jesaja, HKAT 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). Seitz, Christopher R., Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986). –. “Isaiah, Book of (First Isaiah),” ABD 3:472–88. –. “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229–47. –. Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991). 18  For the final Servant Song as a presentation which coordinates the prophet-servant, Israel, and Moses, see my “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” ad loc. Also for the role of Moses, see Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001).



The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah

157

–. Isaiah 1–39, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 162–68. –. “How Is Isaiah Present in the Latter Half of the Book? The Logic of Isaiah 40–55 within the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 115 (1996): 219–40. –. “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel. NIB 6. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001). –. “The Place of the Reader in Jeremiah,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, ed. M. Kessler (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 67–75. –. “‘You Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I Will Be Glorified’ The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah,” CTJ 39 (2004): 117–34. –. Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). –. Joel, ITC (London: T&T Clark, 2016). –. “The Unique Achievement of the Book of the Twelve: Neither Redactional Unity Nor Anthology,” in The Book of the Twelve: An Anthology of Prophetic Books or the Result of Complex Redactional Processes?, ed. Heiko Wenzel, Osnabrücker Studien zur ­Jüdischen und Christlichen Bibel 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 37–48. Simon, Uriel, “Ibn Ezra Between Medievalism and Modernism: The Case of Isaiah XL– LXVI,” VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 257–71. Trebolle-Barrera, Julio, “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for NonStandard and Parabiblical Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 89–106.

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah Ronald L. Troxel 1. Introduction I welcome an invitation to contribute to discussion of method in diachronic study of Isaiah. Having previously contended that textual criticism is not a step preparatory to exegesis but part of understanding the life of the text,1 I will argue that it can contribute to the diachronic study of composition if its evidence is evaluated as scrupulously as, but also equal to, literary phenomena. A text constitutes an ideationally distinct work, differentiated from others in its diction, array of claims and images, unit demarcations, titles under which it circulates, and quotations in other works.2 Because a text exists in multiple instantiations that differ in features small and large, it can evince editorial development. Even if its instantiations do not rise to the level of distinct editions, they can contain words, phrases, and whole verses that are plusses or minuses in comparison to other instantiations. Given the salutary abandonment of the quest for anything like an Ur-text, textual criticism’s role is no longer to establish the text for exegesis, but to describe how the surviving witnesses constitute its instantiations, as well as what light they shed on composition and transmission of the text. If textual criticism uncovers evidence that particular words or phrases were absent from (or present in) an instantiation of the text, all facets of the argument over the origins of the variants would be relevant to how the text varied. Given the associations of instantiations with various locales, textual criticism does not assume rectilinear transmission. Above all, its mission is not to trace development to a “final form,” since there are no grounds to specify what constitutes “final,” least of all by identifying it with the received form in the canon of a religious community. The measure of diachronic development is not a text’s end point, but the various ways its instantiations attest editorial activity. Given the late date of the extant textual witnesses to works that became part of the Hebrew Bible, textual criticism is not a party to discussions of compositional 1  2 

Ronald L. Troxel, “Writing Commentary on the Life of a Text,” VT 67 (2017): 105–28. See idem, “What Is the ‘Text’ in Textual Criticism?” VT 66 (2016): 603–26.

160

Ronald L. Troxel

development inferred strictly from literary features. While the latter propose reconstructions of how a text came to attain a particular literary shape, textual criticism subjects variants to questions of orthography, paleography, and translation theory, as well as the literary role of variants. While literary observations about the development of the book presume a given text, textual criticism evokes the interpreter’s stake in which instantiation is interpreted. In the practice of textual criticism, confusion of these issues has manifested itself in a tendency to favor the MT, as exampled in Würthwein’s stated preference for MT “whenever it cannot be faulted either linguistically or for its material content.”3 Tov rightly objects that the statistical fact that MT’s readings are more often preferred “should not influence decisions in individual instances, because the exceptions to this situation are not predictable.”4 More provocative, however, is his statement that “It is only natural for 𝔐 to be considered the central text, since it is the best-preserved of the Hebrew Bible.”5 On the one hand, this is true insofar as Leningrad B19A is the earliest complete manuscript of the Bible and, with the Aleppo Codex, is one of the earliest complete attestations of individual books, making MT a natural choice for a base text. On the other hand, the retention of most readings in MT arises from the fact that a text is an ideationally distinct work manifest in different instantiations. The fact that most of its readings agree with other instantiations makes preference for its readings tautologous: the majority of its readings will agree with other instantiations by definition of what a text is. Beyond this, however, MT is frequently favored owing to an implied authority as the traditional text of a religious community.6 Paired with the statistical preponderance of preferable MT readings, this assumption about MT fosters an inertia that can fortify resistance to variants. Even among those who recognize the pitfall of favoring MT, the allure of “what has been seen” is strong. A literary structure in MT that contains a “plus” is too easily defended as “essential to the structure of a unit.” How do you unsee a compelling literary organization? The problem can be illustrated from the most recent and prominent commentaries on Isa 1–39: Wildberger, Beuken, Blenkinsopp, Williamson, and Roberts. Their comments on Isaiah as a literary work contain revealing assessments of text-critical data and diachronic analysis. 3 Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 116, cited by Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 273. 4  Tov, Textual Criticism, 273. 5  Ibid., 160. 6  Thus Fischer maintains Würthwein’s insistence on applying textual criticism only to the “canonical final text … the final form accepted as authoritative about 100 C. E.” (Ernst Würthwein and Alexander A. Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014], 160). Nevertheless, he notes Würthwein’s recognition that “even in the present-day MT there remain passages that were altered or corrupted as early as the 4th century B. C.E.,” from which Fischer perplexingly infers, “This means that no date can be set for the Hebrew text that textual criticism should reconstruct” (167).



Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 

161

2.  The Commentators’ Approaches to Text-Critical Study of the Book Wildberger defines his goal in composing text-critical notes as “to liberate the Masoretic text from obvious corruptions.”7 His restriction of this to “the area of copying mistakes or errors in reading the text” accords with his demarcation of textual criticism from a literary criticism that concerns “additions or even just glosses” as material that “belongs to the history of the text and is by no means to be eliminated on text-critical grounds.”8 Nevertheless, he concedes that a strict division of these issues is not always possible,9 and so they frequently appear interlaced in his textual notes and commentary. For instance, despite his insistence that exegesis is to be based on but “not to lead to an absolutizing of the Masoretic text,”10 his weighing of the absence of an equivalent for ‫ כמﬠט‬in OG, S, and V at 1:9 concludes that the word “definitely fits in our passage here and ought not be removed simply because Gk, Syr, Vulg do not have an equivalent reading.”11 Roberts’s comment on 1:9 reflects a similar bearing: “The versions’ failure to represent ‫ כמﬠט‬with a specific word in their translations is not sufficient textual evidence to delete the word.”12 This accords with Roberts’s evaluation that OG “occasionally offers some help in understanding a Hebrew idiom or in suggesting a possible emendation of a difficult Hebrew text,” but that “critical work on the Hebrew text of Isaiah must depend far more on creative conjectural emendation” than would be the case if more trustworthy witnesses existed.13 He finds the evidence of the DSS equally disappointing, since their “variants are by and large quite minor and hardly differ in kind from the type of variants found in medieval manuscripts.”14 Arguing for a word’s fitness within its context may be a valuable literary judgment, but it is a specious basis for analyzing text-critical evidence, for which only discussions of scribal tendencies and the character of the ancient translations are pertinent. Even then there is a danger of using specious arguments to discount inconvenient text-critical evidence. For example, even though Williamson concedes that ‫ כמﬠט‬is unattested in S, he posits that “the construction in the LXX, at 7 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 503. 8 Ibid. 9  Ibid., 511. 10 Ibid. 11 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 20. ‫ כמﬠט‬appears again in 26:20 (‫)חבי כמﬠט רגﬠ‬, where OG gives ἀποκρύβηθι μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, S ‫ܘܐܬܛܫܐ ܩܠܝܠ ܙܥܘܪ‬, and V abscondere modicum ad momentum. 12  J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 16. 13  Ibid., 7. 14 Ibid.

162

Ronald L. Troxel

least (ὡς … ἂν, twice), is thought by some to indicate a measure of emphasis (‘we would nearly have become’).”15 However, ἂν with the preterit, following a clause with εἰ + preterit, constitutes a contrary-to-fact apodosis,16 while the alignment of ὡς with (‫ כ(סדם‬shows that it betokens comparison.17 There is no semantic residue that suggests ‫ כמﬠט‬lurks in its Vorlage. Williamson’s primary argument for retaining ‫כמﬠט‬, however, is its suitability as “an intensifying conjunction” in the apodosis, as it is following ‫ לולי‬in Ps 94:17 and in Ps 81:15 “after ‫( לו‬the positive counterpart of ‫ ”)לולי‬in Ps 81:14.18 Whether a suitable meaning can be found for ‫ כמﬠט‬is irrelevant for evaluating the lack of an equivalent for it in OG, S, and V. In fact, ‫ כמﬠט‬might have been added precisely for the rhetorical effect Williamson highlights. At issue again seems the question of how you unsee a literary feature that text-critical evidence suggests is secondary. Although Williamson reasonably postpones presenting summary essays about issues in Isaiah to his final volume,19 his comments on the text-critical problems in 2:6–22 provide a useful window into his thinking about textual criticism. Arguing that “confidence in the general shape of the Hebrew text has grown in the light of the discovery of much earlier manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls than were previously available,”20 he proposes to work “from an internal literary analysis of the text” to avoid a priori assumptions that determine the outcome.21 However, without clarification of the phrases “general shape” and “Hebrew text,” it is difficult to surmise which text he thinks has commanded new confidence. If he means that in cases where testimony of 1QIsaa is outweighed by agreements with MT in other DSS manuscripts, this quantitative measure fails to consider that earlier, unique readings become extinct over time, making minority readings all the more significant, unless there are countervailing con15  H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 53. Although he does not name any among the “some” who propose this, he cites van Uchelen (N. A. van Uchelen, “Isaiah 1:9: Text and Context,” 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. Bertil Albrektson, OtSt 21 [Leiden: Brill, 1981], 158) as drawing “a similar conclusion from the use of the pluperfect in V” (Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 53). In the body of his article, van Uchelen notes that OG and V reflect the “irrealis character of Is. 1.9,” while concluding in a footnote that the counsel of “BHK and BHS to emend kmʿṭ after the old versions, therefore, cannot be justified” (van Uchelen, “Isaiah 1:9,” 158 and n. 14). V provides no more confirmation of ‫ כמﬠט‬than OG, since its fuissemus and essemus, following nisi … reliquisset, simply mark the irrealis construction. 16 Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), §§ 2302–304. 17 For OG’s ὡς Γομορρα || ‫לﬠמרה‬, comporting with ὡς Σοδομα || ‫כסדם‬, compare ὡς καλάμη … ὡς σπινθῆρες πυρός || ‫ לנﬠרת … לניצוץ‬in 1:31. 18  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 53, citing van Uchelen, “Isaiah 1:9,” 158. 19  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 1. 20  Ibid., 206. 21  Ibid., 207.



Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 

163

siderations (such as triggers for haplography).22 Without such constraints, “confidence in the general shape of the Hebrew text” resolves into something like “MT is trustworthy unless proof can be offered to the contrary,” which seems the case with his argument for retaining ‫ כמﬠט‬in 1:9 because of its rhetorical function. Blenkinsopp offers no programmatic statement about his employment of textual criticism in his introductory essays, but he does pledge to report 1QIsaa’s “more significant variants, some of them dictated by a distinctive and perhaps sectarian point of view,” while finding that 1QIsab carries “few variants of any great significance” and the other fragments show “little significant divergence from MT.”23 The few readings OG shares with 1QIsaa against MT comport with the translator’s “very free, paraphrastic, and interpretive” style that frequently obscures its Vorlage.24 As for ‫ כמﬠט‬in 1:9, he reports that it is “absent from LXX, Syr., Vulg., leading several commentators either to omit it metri causa or move it to the next stich.”25 However, neither metri causa arguments nor questions of phrasing are linked to the textual evidence, which he never assesses. And his translation shows no effect of these questions.26 Although Beuken, likewise, provides no essay on the role of textual criticism in his commentary, that correlates with his stated desire to prescind from complex scholarly discussions, since “Wer einen Kommentar zur Hand nimmt, hat ein Anrecht auf gediegene Informationen und Meinungen, die sub imbecillitate humana fest stehen.”27 Although he occasionally raises text-critical issues, his aim is to explain why the Masoretic Text reads as it does.28 Accordingly, his note on ‫ כמﬠט‬in 1:9 points the reader first to Wildberger and then to van Uchelen’s discussion of to which stich ‫ כמﬠט‬belongs.29

22  See Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 1, From the Beginning to Jerome, ed. Peter R. Ackroyd and Craig A. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 198; idem, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts,” Textus 4 (1964): 97–98; Emanuel Tov, “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls,” HUCA 53 (1982): 25; idem, Textual Criticism, 175, 179, 187. 23 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 77. 24 Ibid. 25  Ibid., 180. 26  He renders ‫ כמﬠט‬as “a few (survivors),” cast in roman type rather than the italics he uses to mark textual problems (ibid., 177). 27  Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003), 29. 28  See, for instance, his note on 1:12 in ibid., 65–66. 29  Ibid., 65. For van Uchelen, “Isaiah 1:9,” see n. 15, above.

164

Ronald L. Troxel

3.  The Commentators’ Approaches to Diachronic Study of the Book Roberts alerts the reader from the outset that he will spend “relatively little time on the editorial process by which the material of Isa 1–39 reached its present shape,” owing to “deep reservations about many of the underlying assumptions undergirding this quest.”30 He contends that, except for chapter 13 “and some minor expansion at the beginning of chap. 14,” “far more of it can be attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem than is often admitted.”31 Beuken judges that a commentary “ist nicht der geeignete Ort, um sich an der aktuell noch heftig geführten wissenschaftlichen Diskussion über das sukzessive Anwachsen des Jesajabuches mit einer eigenen ausgefeilten Hypothese zu beteiligen.”32 Nevertheless, he occasionally tips his hand, as he does at 2:6–22, where he observes that “das Fehlen von V  9b–10 in 1QIsaa und von V  22 in LXX” attests the passage’s complex editorial history.33 His brief comments on diachronic editorial developments in that passage make it a useful opportunity to review his incorporation of textual criticism in diachronic analysis. Wildberger considers 2:6 “a fragment” pressed into service as introduction to the originally independent units of vv. 7–9a, 12–17, and 19 to form a single unit.34 To these became attached vv. 10 and 11 as “variants of other verses within the text,” while vv. 20–21 were appended to v. 19 as “a later interpretation” and vv. 9b and 22 “are additions which put into words the sentiments of those who read this at a later time.”35 Blenkinsopp describes 2:6–22 as strewn with “editorial debris.”36 He identifies vv. 6–8 and 12–16 as a poem about judgment day, composed of “indictment (6–8) and verdict (12–16),”37 into which v. 10 has been inserted as “a link between the two parts,” while the similar v. 19 was appended as a final admonition to give the poem “a sharper edge.”38 Verses 11 and 17 were supplied as caps to each of the poem’s sections. He identifies v. 8b as a postexilic polemic against idols that replaced a lost hemistich,39 related to which are the polemics against idolatry in vv. 18 and 20. Verse 9b is a late addition that reflects a strain of apocalyptic thought similar to that expressed in the late supplement of v. 22.40 30 

Roberts, First Isaiah, 2. Ibid., 4. 32  Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 29. 33  Ibid., 101. 34  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 103. 35 Ibid. 36  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 194. 37 Ibid. 38  Ibid., 195. 39  Ibid., 193–94. 40  Ibid., 194. 31 

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 



165

Williamson emphasizes that 2:6–22 constitutes “a single whole” resulting from a complex compositional history.41 He finds two originally separate units in the MT’s text – vv. 6–9 and 10–19 – although he regards v. 9 as a redactional link between them.42 Although he acknowledges the problems that engendered Wildberger’s suspicion that v. 6 was a fragment inserted as an introduction to vv. 7–8, he concludes that vv. 6–8a “were connected already in the form of the book which the redactor inherited,” while positing that the redactor inserted ‫“ בית יﬠקב‬to make clear the association with … v. 5.”43 Verses 8b and 18 are also additions by the redactor, meant to “draw particular attention to the folly of idolworship,”44 while ‫ הרמים והנשׂאים‬in v. 13 is a gloss that “disturb[s] the pattern and rhythm of the passage.”45 Finally, “vv. 20–21 and 22 may be confidently regarded as additions to the passage by commentators who already knew the rest of the passage in its present form.”46 These commentators’ differing assessments of textual variants in 2:6–22 renders it a useful test case in how text-critical evidence is handled in assessing diachronic development.

4.  Text-Critical Evidence and Diachronic Development in 2:6–22 The key variants impinging on diachronic development are 2:9b–10 and 2:22. The clause ‫( ואל תשׂא להם‬9b) is unattested in 1QIsaa but present in MT, 4QIsaa, 4QIsab, OG, S, V, and T, although 4QIsaa and 4QIsab read ‫ ולא‬rather than ‫ואל‬. The only other variant to ‫ אל‬in all DSS witnesses to the book of Isaiah appears in 6:9,47 where 1QIsaa reads ‫ ﬠל‬for both instances of ‫אל‬, most likely errors ascribable to “internal dictation,”48 owing to the “weakening of laryngeals and pharyngeals.”49 41 

Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 205. Ibid., 209. 43  Ibid., 211. 44  Ibid., 210. 45  Ibid., 198–99. 46  Ibid., 207. 47  Passages with ‫ אל‬are 6:9; 7:4; 10:24; 14:29; 16:3; 22:4; 28:22; 35:4; 36:11, 14, 15, 16; 37:6, 10; 40:9; 41:10, 13, 14; 43:1, 5, 6, 18; 44:2, 8; 51:7; 52:11; 54:2, 4; 56:3; 58:1; 62:6, 7; 64:8; 65:5, 8. The affected scrolls are 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsaa, 4QIsab, 4QIsac, 4QIsad, 4QIsag, and 4QIsao. OG, S, V, and T use negative particles in each case. 48  For the phenomenon of dictée intérieure as quasi-aural errors in the copyist’s mind, see Martin Worthington, Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 98–100. 49  E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQIsaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 506. 42 

166

Ronald L. Troxel

Williamson ascribes ‫ ולא‬in 4QIsaa and 4QIsab to a scribe’s desire to alleviate “a perceived theological difficulty, namely the issuing of a blunt negative command by the prophet to God.”50 This argument could be reinforced by noting the contrary, increasing eclipse of ‫ אל‬by ‫ לא‬in prohibitions within the Qumran scrolls, even in citations of pentateuchal laws.51 Because prohibitions with ‫לא‬ are frequent in apodictic laws, where the words are “addressed by a superior to an underling,”52 a motivated substitution for the reverse circumstance here is conceivable. Those who find 2:9b’s prohibition indefensible either emend it, as do Duhm (reading ‫[ אם ׂשאת להם‬cf. Gen 4:7]: “und nicht giebt’s Erhebung für sie”53) and Roberts (reading “with the LXX as a statement of fact”54), or delete it, as do Wildberger (calling it “a marginal gloss, which has entered into the text”55), and Blenkinsopp (labeling it “[a] much later addition”56). As for the absence of v. 10 from 1QIsaa,57 Wildberger opines that it “might be an indication that it is a doublet, with v. 19 inserted incorrectly here as a result of a copying error.”58 He also judges that v. 11 “presents us with the same type of variant reading for v. 17, which, intentionally or unintentionally, has been placed in the text here also.”59 Although Blenkinsopp’s note on v. 10 repeats verbatim his report that v. 9b is “missing from 1QIsaa but not from 4QIsaa and 4QIsab,”60 he italicizes only 9b in his translation,61 describing it as a late addition that reflects “a certain strand of apocalyptic thinking.”62 By contrast, he translates v. 10 in roman type and assigns it the role of “a link between the two parts of the poem.”63 His note that v. 9b is “absent from the parallel 5:15” as a reason to omit it makes his retention of v. 10 peculiar,64 since it separates ‫( וישׁח אדם וישׁפל אישׁ‬v. 9a) from ‫ﬠיני גבהות‬ ‫( אדם ׁשפל‬v. 11), phrases that are conjoined in 5:15. 50 

Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 196. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), § 400.13. 52  Ibid., § 400.13a. 53 Bernard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, HKAT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), 19–20. 54  Roberts, First Isaiah, 46. 55  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 100. He notes both its absence from 1QIsaa and that “it is already known in the Gk,” albeit using a first person singular verb. 56  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 194. 57  Verse 10 is attested in MT, 4QIsaa, 4QIsab (the latter two with lacunae), OG, S, V, and T. 58  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 100. 59  Ibid., 103. 60  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 193. 61  Although he also places v. 9a in italics (ibid., 7 and 192), his comments treat it as an integral part of the passage (ibid., 194). 62  Ibid., 194. He implies that v. 22 has a similar origin. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 51 Elisha

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 



167

Williamson regards the many emendations that have been proposed for vv. 9b and 10, as well as treatments of other textual difficulties in this unit, as too disparate to “inspire confidence.”65 He rejects claims that repetitions betray “a now heavily damaged or corrupted version of an originally regular refrain poem” that can be restored by postulating “frequent dislocations of material … loss of text and the rewriting of other parts.”66 Noting that a second-person verb form stands also in v. 6, he urges that “we should first attempt to make sense of both.”67 In doing so, he adopts three emendations to v. 6 (see table 1): Table 1. Emendations to Isa 2:6 (Williamson)

Williamson

MT

‫כי נטשׁתה ﬠמך בית יﬠקב‬ ‫כי מלאו מקסם וﬠננים וכשׁפים‬ ‫וילדי נכרים ישׂפיקו‬

‫כי נטשׁתה ﬠמך בית יﬠקב‬ ‫כי מלאו מקדם וﬠננים כפלשׁתים‬ ‫ובילדי נכרים ישׂפיקו‬

Contending that a corruption of ‫ מקסם‬into ‫“ מקדם‬misled a copyist to expect a parallel in the second half of the line, namely a reference to the Philistines on the basis of the similarity with 9.11 and 11.14,”68 he posits as the original reading ‫‘ וכשׁפים‬and sorceries’, noting that the word follows ‫ ﬠננים‬in Jer 27:9 and parallels ‫ מﬠוננים‬in Mic 5:11.69 He judges the beth in ‫ ובילדי‬a scribal modification in the wake of the corruption of ‫ וכשׁפים‬to ‫כפלשׁתים‬.70 The resultant ‫וﬠננים וכשׁפים וילדי‬ ‫ נכרים‬functions as the compound subject of ‫( ישׂפיקו‬from ‫שׂפק‬II ‘abound’), giving a good parallel to ‫‘ מלאו מקסם‬they are full of divination’.71 Adopting Sweeney’s argument that ‫ בית יﬠקב‬was added by the redactor who composed v. 5 to link 1–4 with 6–22,72 he identifies v. 6 as the prophet’s address to YHWH, with v. 9b reprising that address before v. 10’s shift to the third person.73 Williamson defends his retention of vv. 9b and 10 by observing that “it is difficult to believe that any earlier form of the text went straight from 9a to 11, since it would be (and in 1QIsaa is) so jarringly repetitive.”74 Nevertheless, in commenting on 5:15’s ‫וישׁח אדם וישׁפל אישׁ וﬠיני גבהים תשׁפלנה‬, which he considers (along with v. 16) as “modeled on the second part of ch. 2,” he does not 65 

Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 196. Ibid., 206. 67  Ibid., 197. 68  Ibid., 194. 69  Ibid., 192. 70  Ibid., 194. 71 Ibid. 72 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition, BZAW 171 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 174. Williamson renders ‫ בית יﬠקב‬in his translation as appositional to ‫( ﬠמך‬Isaiah 1–5, 189). 73  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 207. 74  Ibid., 196. 66 

168

Ronald L. Troxel

describe it as repetitive,75 while in a footnote to his philological notes on 2:9 he asserts that the repetition in reading from v. 9a to v. 11 “is far more problematic than in ch. 5.”76 Although it is true that the 2:9a + 11 comprises a couplet followed by a tricolon, under a different aesthetic this “jarring repetition” could be described as an emphatic summation (assuming, for argument’s sake, that v. 11 originally followed v. 9a). In any case, Williamson’s evaluation of the repetition as “jarring” dismisses the evidence of 1QIsaa too easily, but is reminiscent of his claim that ‫ כמﬠט‬in 1:9 has a rhetorical function that shields it from doubts raised by lack of attestation in OG, S, and V. Williamson is not the only commentator to discount the evidence of 1QIsaa. Given Roberts’s admitted disappointment in the evidence from the DSS,77 it is not surprising that he says more about the variant ‫ ולא‬in 4QIsaa and 4QIsab than about vv. 9b–10, for which he reports only that “1QIsaa has a major haplography,” without venturing an explanation about what caused it.78 As Ulrich observes, there is no evident trigger for parablepsis,79 while the lack of a space left in 1QIsaa for words the copyist recognized were missing and the absence of a correction are salient. Beuken’s interest in diachronic development surfaces in his acknowledgment that repetitions in vv. 6–22 form “eine konzentrische Struktur” that, combined with other structures, “lässt bereits vermuten, dass diese Passage einen literarischen Werdegang durchlebt hat.”80 His observation that this perception “wird durch das Fehlen von V 9b–10 in 1QJesa und von V 22 in LXX bekräftigt” reveals diachronic judgments shaped by the text-critical evidence.81 Sweeney proposes that a scribe purposely omitted vv. 9b–10, coordinate with divergences found in 1QIsaa’s text of v. 3 that he judged to reflect beliefs of the Qumran community (table 2):82 Table 2. A Comparison of 1QIsaa 2:3 with MT Isa 2:3

1QIsaa

‫והלכו ﬠמים רבים ואמרו‬ ‫אל בית אלוהי יﬠקוב‬ ‫לכו ונﬠלה‬ ‫וירונו מדרכיו ונאלכה באורחתיו‬ ‫כיא מציון תצא תורה ודבר יהוה מירושלים‬ 75 

MT

‫והלכו ﬠמים רבים ואמרו‬ ‫לכו ונﬠלה אל הר יהוה אל בית אלהי יﬠקב‬ ‫וירנו מדרכיו ונלכה בארחתיו‬ ‫כי מציון תצא תורה ודבר יהוה מירושׁלם‬

Ibid., 366. Ibid., 196 n. 21. 77  Roberts, First Isaiah, 7. 78  Ibid., 38. 79 Eugene Ulrich, “The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light from 1QIsaa on Additions in the MT,” DSD 8 (2001): 291; idem The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 115. 80  Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 101. 81 Ibid. 82  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4, 141. 76 

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 



169

Disregarding orthographic differences, Sweeney describes 1QIsaa as follows: “It eliminates ʾæl har yhwh and changes the third person masculine singular verb weyorenû to the plural weyorûnû.”83 The agency he attributes to the scribe (“It eliminates … and changes”) is key to his argument. Inferring that the plural ‫“ וירונו‬refers to the people or priests of Jacob who will teach YHWH’s ways to the nations,” he identifies this as the reason the scribe omitted vv. 9b–10, since they “imply that Jacob has sinned.”84 Absent that charge, vv. 6–22 are “directed against ʾanāšîm/ʾādām which the Qumran sect would have identified with the nations,” and Jacob is given a mission that will ultimately fail, in concert with “the beliefs of the Qumran sect.”85 The assumption that the scribe of 1QIsaa molded the text to fit the ideology of his community requires review in light of Magness’s cogent argument that the archaeological evidence does not support occupation of Khirbet Qumran prior to the early first century BCE.86 Given the consensus that paleographical evidence dates production of 1QIsaa between 125–100 BCE,87 it would have been among scrolls brought to the site rather than a product of scribes there. Even the scroll’s distinctive orthography more likely reflects its source text than an innovation of its scribe.88 Its numerous variants exhibit the same irregular relationships to other witnesses that those others show among themselves, while attesting the same edition of the book as theirs, even if “𝔐 displays a later stage of textual development than that of 1QIsaa.”89 Thus, its textual character “is not dependent on Qumran factors; it is a general Jewish manuscript.”90 Accordingly, the minus of vv. 9b–10 in 1QIsaa is a textual rather than an exegetical datum. Verse 10 is notably similar to both vv. 19 and 21 (table 3): Table 3. A Comparison of verse 10 with verses 19 and 21

v. 10 > 1QIsaa

‫בוא בצור‬ ‫והטמן בﬠפר‬ ‫מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גאנו‬

(OG + ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν)

v. 19

‫ובאו במﬠרות צרים‬ ‫ובמחלות ﬠפר‬ ‫מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גאונו‬ ‫בקומו לﬠרץ הארץ‬

v. 21

‫לבוא בנקרות הצרים‬ ‫ובסﬠפי הסלﬠים‬ ‫מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גאונו‬ ‫בקומו לﬠרץ הארץ‬

83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid.

86 Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 63–66. 87 Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants, DJD XXXII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 61. 88  Ibid., 89. 89  Ibid., 90. 90  Ulrich, Developmental Composition, 110.

170

Ronald L. Troxel

Other than the shared phrase ‫מפני פחד יהוה ומהדר גא(ו)נו‬, the phrases differ, and Williamson rightly dismisses emendations proposed to harmonize them.91 OG’s ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν, on the other hand, reflects an attempt to harmonize with vv. 19 and 21. Williamson attributes the plus to the translator, allying it with the alteration of ‫ בוא‬and ‫ והטמן‬to the grammatically plural εἰσέλθατε (S, ‫ ;ܥܘܠܘ‬T, ‫ )ייﬠלון‬and καὶ κρύπτεσθε (S, ‫ ;ܘܐܬܛܡܪܘ‬T, ‫)ולאיטמרא‬.92 Although in v. 5 Williamson allowed that +καὶ νῦν, which shows “a fine awareness of the function of this verse in the wider context,” might attest “a Vorlage which included ‫וﬠתה‬,”93 here he faults +καὶ νῦν for “soften[ing] MT’s vividness.”94 It is not clear how he measures “vividness” or how καὶ νῦν “softens” it. In fact, it appears to function as it does in v. 5: providing a transition that better integrates the clause with its context. Whether καὶ νῦν reflects ‫ וﬠתה‬in its Vorlage tells us nothing about the origins of OG’s plus at the verse’s end. An impulse to make its command accord more with vv. 19 and 21 may have prompted a scribe to add ‫בקומו לﬠרץ הארץ‬. The abundant attestation of expansions via borrowed phrases in the proto-SP MSS at Qumran and in the MT of Jeremiah are sufficient to allow that borrowings from similar verses may already have stood in the translator’s Vorlage.95 Although Williamson judges v. 10 essential to avoiding “jarring repetition” if v. 9a connected directly with v. 11,96 vv. 9b–10 are themselves jarring, inasmuch as they “are second-person negative and positive commands,” whereas vv. 9a and 11 posit the humbling of human pride in “similar diction, expressed in the third person.”97 And v. 11 is equally disjunctive since, despite repeating the theme of human abasement from 9a, it focuses on the ‫ ﬠיני גבהות אדם‬and ‫ רום אנשׁים‬as subject to abasement in contrast to the elevation of YHWH alone (‫)לבדו‬, which prepares the way for vv. 12–16. Verse 17 then reprises v. 11’s contrast between the abasement of ‫ גבהות אדם‬and ‫רום אנשׁים‬, and the elevation of YHWH alone. The generic ‫ וישׁח אדם וישׁפל אישׁ‬of v. 9a is not best construed as a distillation of vv. 11 and 17 but as a counterpart to ‫ כי נטשׁתה ﬠמך‬in v. 6. At the same time, v. 9a shifts abruptly from the adumbration of the diviners, wealth, and illicit images that have filled the land in vv. 6–8. Even if one posits that 9a expresses judgment for these misdeeds, there is no clear correlation 91 

Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 196. Ibid., 197. Wildberger (Isaiah 1–12, 100) likewise attributes the plus to the translator, but without explaining his verdict. 93  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 171. 94  Ibid., 197. 95 See Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 143–56; Hermann-Josef Stipp, Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte, OBO 136 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 1994), 106–8, 133–36. 96  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 196. 97  Ulrich, “The Developmental Composition,” 291. 92 

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 



171

between what has filled the land and this abasement, since vv. 6–8 do not accuse anyone of hubris. Moreover, if 9a is understood as an already realized outcome of the land’s pollution, it is distinct from the abasement in the future (‫)ביום ההוא‬ described in vv. 12–17. Verse 9a thus has more problematic relations to the remainder of the context than v. 10 could repair. Additionally, the ‫ אלילים‬mentioned in v. 8a return in v. 18, which forecasts their disappearance. If there is confusing repetition, it is in the descriptions of how the idols disappear and who flees into caves in vv. 19–21. Verse 19 explains their disappearance as a matter of the ‫ אלילים‬seeking shelter from the YHWH’s wrath, while vv. 20–21 attribute their disappearance to humans casting off their images to despicable creatures on their way to entering crevices and clefts of the rocks to escape divine wrath. This compound picture prompts suspicion that v. 19 and vv. 20–21 are alternative portrayals of the actions of the people and their idols. The absence from OG of v. 22’s warning against placing any confidence in mere mortals is difficult to dismiss since, as Ulrich observes, “there is no trigger for parablepsis, whereas the change to second person in the imperative contrasts with the previous two verses and suggest that it too is a later expansion.”98 Beuken asserts that v. 22, absent from OG, “wird aber zu Unrecht als Glosse angesehen, wenig zur Sache beitrage” and judges that it “fügt sich gut in den dialogischen Rahmen ein, der um die zwei Kernstücke ohne Anreded gelegt ist,”99 consisting of the indictment announced in vv. 6aβ–9a and the forecast of judgment via “the day of YHWH” in vv. 12–17.100 Corresponding to vv. 6aα and 9b that address God, vv. 10a and 22 address “das Publikum des Propheten.”101 Although this observation is part of Beuken’s exposition of MT, he acknowledges elsewhere that the verse’s absence in OG attests an earlier form of the text.102 Noting v. 22’s absence in OG, Roberts remarks that “it is generally regarded as a late gloss, though it is preserved in the large Isaiah scroll from Qumran.”103 He devotes the remainder of his comments to the verse’s meaning “if it is original,” concluding that “Isaiah’s real audience is Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” whom he orders “to cease worrying about the machinations of human foes.”104 In his philological notes Williamson concedes that the absence of v. 22 accords with “the view that it is a very late addition to the text,”105 and later 98 

Ibid., 292. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 105. 100  Ibid., 101. 101  Ibid., 105–6. 102  Ibid., 101. 103  Roberts, First Isaiah, 48. 104 Ibid. 105  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 205. 99 

172

Ronald L. Troxel

acknowledges that it, along with vv. 20–21, “may be confidently regarded as additions,” based on literary analysis.106 Curiously, however, he directs the reader to “Ziegler, 47–48, for a discussion of possible reasons” for its omission by OG.107 Consulting those pages, however, one finds that Ziegler concluded that neither 2:22 nor 51:14 (the only other whole verse unattested in OG) stood in the translator’s Vorlage.108 In another apparent attempt to diminish the OG’s evidence, Williamson claims that “even if it was absent from the translator’s Vorlage, it is possible that it had been added considerably earlier in a different textual tradition from that to which he had access.”109 It is difficult to see what is to be gained by positing this, both because it is unverifiable and because it does not eliminate the fact that it was absent from the line of transmission leading to OG’s Vorlage.110 There is every reason to believe that OG attests an instantiation of the text that lacked v. 22. Equally important, OG provides testimony to the further elaboration of v. 10 by attesting that ‫( בקומו לﬠרץ הארץ‬ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) was added to complete the parallel with v. 19. Combined with the absence of vv. 9b–10 from 1QIsaa, we have evidence of scribes introducing modifications to the text within a short span of verses. How might this evidence aid assessing diachronic development in these verses?

5.  A Diachronic Analysis Aided by Textual Criticism It is less likely that ‫ בית יﬠקב‬in 2:6 was added by a redactor to link vv. 1–5 with vv. 6–22 than that ‫( בית ישׂראל‬attested by OG’s τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ) was the original reading for which ‫ בית יﬠקב‬was substituted reflexively, under the influence of ‫ יﬠקב‬in vv. 3 and 5.111 Accepting Williamson’s three emendations to the verse (see Table 1 above), the differences in structure between 6b and 106 

Ibid., 207. Ibid., 205. 108 Joseph Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Münster: Aschendorff, 1934), 47. 109  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 229. 110  The only express argument that OG purposely omitted a rendering of v. 22 was mounted by Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isa 2:22 and 36:7,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderK am, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 377–86. Insertions of καὶ νῦν in vv. 5 and 10 demarcate two units, with v. 10 accenting that “the Lord is going to act, right now, against every one (sic) that is high and arrogant,” making “the call of v. 22, not to rely on man (understood as the powerful and the arrogant), superfluous” (382). Although van der Kooij acknowledges that “the interpretation of the verse is disputed” and expounds his interpretation (378), never does he indicate why he assumes that the translator shared his interpretation of v. 22. And in fact, how can one assay the translator’s understanding of a verse he did not translate? 111  Pace Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 211. 107 

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 



173

7–8a are not severe enough to sustain Wildberger’s wooden stricture against the clauses containing ‫ מלא‬comprising a single unit.112 Williamson rightly objects to Blenkinsopp’s identification of vv. 6–8 and 12–16 as a single poem,113 since his demarcation of the second unit as vv. 12–16 “does not supply an adequate trigger for the universalist expansion of its second part,” which requires “something like v 17 from the start to justify its concentration on humanity in general.”114 In fact, 9a provides the connection between vv. 6b–8a and what follows, in accord with Williamson’s designation of v. 9 as a redactional link to vv. 10–19 (although rejecting his contention that v. 9b was original).115 Williamson claims that v. 10 is integral to a unit whose core (vv. 12–16) is bracketed by vv. 11 and 17, as well as by outer brackets constituted by vv. 10 and 19.116 Indeed, his perception that v. 18 is a redactional link to v. 8b (also an addition) rests partly on his observation that it is not integral to that envelope structure.117 However, his literary analysis relies on v. 10 beginning the unit, despite its absence from 1QIsaa. Although Williamson and Blenkinsopp rightly conclude that the diction of v. 8b betrays it as a postexilic supplement, their consignment of v. 18 to the same postexilic polemic is too glib. There is no reason to suggest that the fate forecast for ‫ האלילים‬in v. 18 could not be the original companion to 9a, since v. 8a laments their ubiquity in the land. Blenkinsopp’s description of their ‘passing’ (‫ )יחלף‬as a vision of “the final purging of the world of idols” exaggerates the sense of v. 18.118 Williamson’s equation of v. 8b with 18 on the grounds that in them the redactor has elevated a critique of “the worthlessness of idols” is inapt.119 Although v. 8b, with its diagnosis of idols as human products, fits that description, v. 18’s declaration of the ‘passing’ of idols, if read as the counterpart to v. 8a, simply coordinates their vanishing with the subversion of human haughtiness. Although Wildberger did not perceive a problem with 8b, he reasonably inferred that v. 8 lost a hemistich that followed the pattern ‫ ואין קצה ל‬in v. 7.120 He rightly recognized v. 9b as secondary, positing that it replaced the original hemistich, likely preserved in v. 18, which “cannot originally have belonged with vv. 19 ff.,” since “if the idols have disappeared altogether, then there is no reason why they would have to be thrown to the shrews and the bats.”121 112 

Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 102. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 194. 114  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 208. 115  Ibid., 209. 116  Ibid., 207, 210. 117  Ibid., 210. 118  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 194. 119  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 210. 120  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 100. 121  Ibid., 103. 113 

174

Ronald L. Troxel

The consensus of all four commentators that vv. 12–17 form an integral unit seems unassailable. Equally, Williamson’s detection that the words ‫הרמים‬ ‫ והנשׂאים‬in v. 13 break the parallel between the previous clause and the one that follows, together with his hypothesis that they were introduced to link v. 12’s adjectives in the grammatical singular with the same adjectives declined in the grammatical plural in v. 13 are convincing.122 Although Wildberger’s description of v. 11 as a misplaced variant of v. 17 (which is also his assessment of v. 10, as a variant of v. 19) seems a lazy explanation,123 Blenkinsopp’s observation that vv. 11 and 17 function as caps for each section of the poem is useful.124 The relationship between vv. 11 and 17 could be described (in agreement with Williamson) as bracketing the poem about the day of YHWH as an assault on everything lofty in the non-human world. The lack of an internal connection to vv. 6–8a marks the poem as an independent unit secondarily joined to what precedes it by means of v. 11 and concluded by the nearly identical v. 17, each of which ends with ‫ביום ההוא‬. Thus we come to the relationship of v. 9a to vv. 11 and 17. If the clause ‫והאלילים‬ ‫( כליל יחלף‬v. 18) constituted the original parallel to ‫ וישׁח אדם וישׁפל אישׁ‬in 9a, then v. 9 can be considered a redactional cap to vv. 6–8a. As already noted, there is no thematic relationship between the abasement of humans and the crimes cited in vv. 6–8a. Wildberger opines that in 9a “Isaiah is quoting a wisdom saying” that he adjusted to the syntax requirements of the context.125 He notes its address of humanity as a whole, over against those spoken of in vv. 6–7, as well as the affinity of its language to wisdom motifs.126 Williamson regards direct borrowing from wisdom traditions as less likely than this being “another example where Isaiah and those who followed him shared some of [wisdom’s] underlying outlook but developed it in their own way because of the distinctive theological emphases of Isaiah himself and of the book as a whole.”127 He regards v. 9 as a redactional link whose language is built from “the refrain-like elements” of vv. 11 and 17, so that “it clearly points forward to the second section” (vv. 10–17),128 which serve as “an extended” commentary on v. 9.129 However, the affinity of v. 9a to vv. 11 and 17 need not mean that it owes its composition to them. Rather, it is possible that vv. 11 and 17 were extrapolated from v. 9a, which already stood (with v. 18) as the cap to vv. 6–7 in the form the redactor inherited. The aphoristic character of v. 9a makes it a useful, if artificial, 122 

Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 198–99. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 103. 124  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 195. 125  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 110–11. 126 Ibid. 127  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 218. 128  Ibid., 209. 129  Ibid., 217. 123 

Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 



175

reprise of the initial ‫כי נטשׁתה ﬠמך‬. Verses 11 and 17, which are structurally identical (‫ שׁפל‬and ‫ שׁח‬exchange clauses, while v. 17 lacks ‫)ﬠיני‬, are modeled on v. 9a, with ‫ ונשׂגב יהוה‬added in both to resonate with the emphasis on YHWH’s action in vv. 12–16. Williamson rightly notes that “verses 6–9 are couched in the past tense … so that the humbling in v. 9 has already taken place,” over against the focus of vv. 12–16 on a future day of YHWH,130 towards which ‫ ביום ההוא‬in both vv. 11 and 17 point.131 The fact that ‫ והאלילים כליל יחלף‬stands as v. 18 in all witnesses means that it was relocated prior to the introduction of vv. 9b and 10, and permits an explanation that it was moved as part of incorporating vv. 12–16. The aphorism about human abasement in v. 9a prompted framing vv. 12–16 as extending to humans, with v. 11 inserted directly after v. 9a, using ‫ שׁפל ושׁח‬in reverse order.132 The addition of ‫ גבהות‬and ‫ רום‬more explicitly attribute the human predicament to a character fault and provide the point of contrast for the anticipated elevation of YHWH, paving the way for vv. 12–16. ‫ ביום ההוא‬in v. 11 seals off vv. 6–11* as a unit, even as it shifts its temporal focus on an already realized denigration of humans. Likewise, the refrain in v. 17 provides a cap to the poem. The insertion of this poem, with its new framing, deliberately postponed the original counterpart to 9a until the end (v. 18), where it links the poem to vv. 6–9a through ‫ והאלילים‬echoing ‫ אלילים‬in v. 8a. Conceivably, this joining of the units was part and parcel of the formation of chapter 2. Neither unit raises suspicion of a connection to 3:1, let alone the verses succeeding it. Verse 19 was added at a later stage to describe how debased humans will respond to YHWH’s presence, a topic separate from the theme of humbling in vv. 11–17. Although ‫ בקומו לﬠרץ הארץ‬has in view the day of YHWH described in vv. 12–16, the use of ‫ ﬠרץ‬to epitomize those actions suggests that it is a subsequent scribe’s characterization of the poem. A later insertion of v. 10 as a reformulated version of v. 19 moves that action earlier in the passage as an exhortation about how to prepare for the shellacking that the earth and its inhabitants are about to endure on the day of YHWH. OG’s +ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν indicates that a later scribe sought to enhance the parallel to v. 19. Verses 20–21 expand on v. 19, first by reprising ‫ האלילים‬of v. 18 and modifying it with the ‫ כסף וזהב‬mentioned in v. 7. While ‫ אשר ﬠשו לו להשתחות‬echoes v. 8b’s ‫למﬠשה ידיו ישתחוו‬, that could indicate either that 8b had already been inserted (and is reprised here) or that the relative clause was added to this verse 130 

Ibid., 209. fact that each verse concludes with ‫ ביום ההוא‬suggests that they did not form brackets around the poem before its insertion into this context but were formulated to bind the two units. 132  Although in 5:15 ‫ וישׁח אדם וישׁפל אישׁ‬is inextricably bound with ‫ וﬠיני גבהים תשׁפלנה‬and the theme of the exaltation of YHWH in v. 16, both verses are likely secondary to the context and modeled on the diction of chapter 2 (see Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 366), so that they have no bearing on the order of composition of vv. 9a, 11, and 17. 131 The

176

Ronald L. Troxel

at the same time as 8b, since it is superfluous to the sentence. Meanwhile, v. 21 repurposes ‫ ובאו‬of v. 19 with ‫‘( לבוא‬so as to enter’) to make discarding idols the necessary first step in seeking shelter from the day of YHWH. Verse 22 was subsequently (viz., after the form of the text witnessed by OG) appended as a sockdolager reflecting on vv. 6–21 as a description of humanity’s inevitable fall before the exalted YHWH.

6. Conclusion Textual criticism and literary criticism are both rhetorical disciplines: each uses suasion to describe the arrangement and history of the text. Text-critical readings, like literary features, hold no meaning in themselves; they must be marshaled into a perceived pattern first based on scribal processes we recognize from elsewhere and then tested by those parallels. Neither offers conclusions more innately trustworthy than the other, but there is no benefit in spurning one for the other. If textual criticism can offer reasoned observations about evidence suggesting late additions, there is no reason to ignore that data and start from scratch to find clues of diachronic development on literary grounds alone. Evaluating such variants by text-critical protocols can help us unsee a familiar text to describe how the text might have taken shape over time.

Bibliography Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Duhm, Bernard. Das Buch Jesaia. Edited by D. W. Nowack. HKAT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. SubBi 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. van der Kooij, Arie. “The Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isa 2:22 and 36:7.” Pages 377–86 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderK am. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQIsaa). Leiden: Brill, 1974. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Smyth, Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956.



Textual Criticism and Diachronic Study of the Book of Isaiah 

177

Stipp, Hermann-Josef. Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches: Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte. OBO 136. Fribourg: Academic Press, 1994. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. BZAW 171. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts.” Textus 4 (1964): 95–132. –. “The Old Testament Text.” Pages 159–99 in The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 1, From the Beginning to Jerome. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Craig A. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Tov, Emanuel. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls.” HUCA 53 (1982): 11–27. –. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Troxel, Ronald L. “What is the ‘Text’ in Textual Criticism?” VT 66 (2016): 603–26. –. “Writing Commentary on the Life of a Text.” VT 67 (2017): 105–28. Uchelen, N. A. van. “Isaiah 1:9: Text and Context.” Pages 155–63 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 Bertil Albrektson. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. –. “The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light from 1QIsaa on Additions in the MT.” DSD 8 (2001): 288–305. Ulrich, Eugene, and Peter W. Flint. Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. DJD XXXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. –. Isaiah 28–39. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp, CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, H. G. M. Isaiah 1–5. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Worthington, Martin. Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. 2nd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Würthwein, Ernst, and Alexander A. Fischer. The Text of the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Ziegler, Joseph. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. Münster: Aschendorff, 1934.

A Tale of Two Worlds? A Synchronic Reading of Isaiah 7:1–17 and Its Diachronic Consequences for the Book Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen Whereas synchronic exegesis focuses on the world in the text, diachronic exegesis is interested in the world outside of the text. Does this mean that exegesis is a tale of two worlds that are independent of each other? How can we establish a link between these two worlds, between what occurs in the text and what occurs outside of the text? In this essay, I would like to reflect on diachrony using the pericope Isa 7:1–17 as an example. First, I would like to express some general thoughts on diachrony. Next, I would like to examine Isa 7:1–17 from a synchronic point of view. Then, this will be followed by an investigation of the diachrony of this pericope. Finally, from the diachrony of our pericope, I would like to make some remarks on the diachrony of the entire book of Isaiah.

1.  Some General Remarks on Diachrony In ancient Canaan, writing was very expensive and time consuming.1 Writing on parchment requires using animal skin. Calfskin was most suitable, but most expensive as well, of course. Making changes in a text, as we, in our computer world, can do anywhere in a text, was not an option. You can make some small additions in the margin or you can add text to a scroll, especially at the beginning or the end. Making changes in a text at many different spots means writing the text anew, as a totally new text. This could have taken place, but in my view, the number of times this was actually done must have been restricted. The words ‘and within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, no more a people’ (‫ )ובעוד ׁשׁשים וחמׁש ׁשנה יחת אפרים מעם‬in Isa 7:8c are considered by various exegetical studies to be a gloss.2 In view of the size of this text, this could 1 K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 16–20. 2 For example, H. Wildberger, Jesaja: Kapitel 1–2, 2nd ed., BKAT 10/1 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1980), 266, 283; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York: Double­day, 2000), 229.

180

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

indeed be possible. Whether these words are really a gloss, however, depends on more aspects. The idea of these words being a gloss assumes that the text itself is older than the gloss. Regarding 7:8c one could say, for instance, that the text of Isa 7:1–17 is more or less contemporary with the so-called Syro-Ephraimite War, whereas the gloss was added later after the defeat of Ephraim had become a historical fact. The obvious aim of diachronic research is establishing whether older “texts” underlie the existing text. These postulated older texts are often indicated as “sources.” I would like to make two remarks on “source.” Firstly, it is important that one realizes that a “source” has a different status than a text. In contrast to the text itself (if so desired, indicated by using the term Endtext), a source is hypothetical. Very often, 7:1–17 is considered to be a part of the so-called Denkschrift. Although the idea of the Denkschrift is widespread (or was widespread?),3 it still remains a hypothesis.4 We do have 7:1–17, but do not have the Denkschrift. This does not mean that a Denkschrift could not be a part of a diachronic reconstruction of the book of Isaiah, but that a Denkschrift is something else than the text in the book of Isaiah that is indicated by using this word. Secondly, one should not confuse “source” with a semantic theme. Particularly in older diachronic studies, a new semantic theme in a text is often understood as indicating a new source, as if a text can only contain one single semantic theme.5 The artificial classification of “prophets of salvation” and “prophets of 3  Although the idea of a Denkschrift (according to K. Budde [Jesaja’s Erleben: Eine gemeinverständliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des Propheten (Kap. 6,1–9,6), Bücherei der christlichen Welt 23 (Gotha: Klotz, 1928)], Isa 6:1–9:6, but according to later exegetical literature sometimes restricted mostly to 6:1–8:16) originally was meant as an indication of an autobiographical memoir written by the historical prophet Isaiah himself or by his contemporary historical disciples, i. e., written in the time of the Syro-Ephraimite War, the indication Denkschrift is also used for a written product from a later time and/or composed from different sources. In modern exegetical literature the expression Immanuelschrift is used, which is much more adequate; see U. Berges and W. Beuken, Das Buch Jesaja: Eine Einführung, UTB 4647 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 18; see also P. K. Tull, Isaiah 1–39, SHBC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010), 157; cf. also A. Schoors, “Historical Information in Isaiah 1–39,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah, ed. M. Vervenne and J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, BETL 132 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 75–93, here 80–82; C. R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1996), 26–28. 4  See also F. Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011), esp. 23–25; T. Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah, FAT 39 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 122; cf. also the critical remark that the diachronic hypothesis of a Denkschrift has greatly confused the interpretative synchronic issues (B. S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 62). 5  See, e. g., O. K aiser, Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 13–39, ATD 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 201, on Isa 28:16b–18a; K. Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie in Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie, WMANT 62 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 137–155, on Isa 60. For my first thoughts on the difference between source and theme, see A. L. H. M. van Wieringen, Analogies in Isaiah, Volume A:



A Tale of Two Worlds?

181

doom” (which, in my view, emanates rather from Christian dogmatics than from the prophetic texts themselves) also blurs the difference between “source” and “semantic theme.”6 Fortunately, modern diachronic monographs rarely study a semantic theme separately from other semantic themes.7 The problem of the difference of “source” and “theme” hardly occurs in the exegesis of Isa 7:1–17. However, the idea that all proper names and indications of years are later additions from a separate historicizing source, can be considered as such.8 My last general remark on diachronic exegetical research is about the methodological order of operation. What we have is the existing text. Therefore, synchrony goes before diachrony.9 Synchrony is however not superior to diachrony, as if the synchronic question in analysing a text is actually more important than the diachronic question. Both questions are equally essential. The point is the order in which these two questions should be asked.10 This hermeneutic understanding of first posing the synchronic question and then the diachronic question is nowadays gaining ground. In German exegesis, this understanding of matters has taken shape in the so-called diachron reflektierte Synchronie.11 Because, on the one hand, a one-to-one relationship between the world of the text and the world outside of the text does not exist, but, on the other hand, exegesis is not a tale of two separated worlds, I  prefer to pose the diachronic question using the textual communication.12 After all, regarding the textual Computerized Analysis of Parallel Texts between Isaiah 56–66 and Isaiah 40–66, Applicatio 10A (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1993), 220. 6  See also Berges and Beuken, Buch Jesaja, 21. 7  An excellent example is Uhlig, Theme of Hardening, esp. 29–45. 8  See, e. g., U. Becker, Jesaja  – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 36, 48, 299. 9  See also M. Theobald, “Der Primat der Synchronie vor der Diachronie als Grundaxiom der Literarkritik,” BZ 22 (1978): 161–86, here 161–62. 10  Within synchronic research the operating order is, first, syntax, then semantics. This order also has consequences for the diachrony. A diachronic reconstruction in which the syntactical transitions are not or not sufficiently included, but which is rather made on the basis of semantic relations, is not convincing. This is the reason that I do not believe that Isa 5:1–10:4 is synchronically one unit in the book of Isaiah, even if 5:8–24 and 9:7–10:4 are diachronically related; pace Becker, Jesaja, 21; W. A.  M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003), 30–36; Berges and Beuken, Buch Jesaja, 59. 11 U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt, HBS 16 (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1998), 535–36; idem, “Synchronie und Diachronie: Zur Methodenvielfalt in der Exegese,” Bibel und Kirche 4 (2007): 249–52, here 251–52. See also B. Biberger, Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14, BBB 161 (Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2010), 20–31, esp. 29–31; Ch. Frevel, “‘Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen’ (Lev 10,20): Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10,” in Gottes Name(n): Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger, ed. I. Müllner et al., HBS 71 (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012), 104–36, here 109–10. 12  By also using the textual communication for the diachrony, I employ the same approach for both the synchronic as well as the diachronic analysis.

182

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

communication one should distinguish between the text-immanent author and reader and the author and reader of flesh and blood.13 Instead of searching for a (direct) identification of the text-immanent author/reader/character with a historical person,14 one should ask about the possible historical conditions that one may assume for a certain textual communication.15 As a consequence, the diachronic development of the book of Isaiah does not necessarily run parallel to the textual chronology of the character Isaiah in the book of Isaiah. Using the setting of the Syro-Ephraimite War, regarding our text of Isa 7:1–17, does not therefore imply that this text belongs to the oldest texts of the historical Isaiah.16

2.  A Synchronic Communication-Oriented Analysis of Isaiah 7:1–17 After these preliminary remarks, let us take a closer look at Isa 7:1–17. In view of what I have explained, we must start with a synchronic communication-oriented analysis. The text of 7:1–17 contains many reader-oriented characteristics. In the introductory formula, the text uses the figure of speech of the prolepsis. The hostile invasion is described, but at the same time verse 1 narrates that the military 13  Although different words are used to indicate what I call the text-immanent author/textimmanent reader, they all have in common that there is no direct identification between the various author-entities/reader-entities. For a short survey of the various terms, see A. L. H. M. van Wieringen, “Two Reading Options in Psalm 114: A  Communication-Oriented Exegesis,” RB 122 (2015): 46–57, here, 46–47. For a description of the textual communication, see A. L.  H. M. van Wieringen, The Reader-Oriented Unity of the Book Isaiah, ACEBTSup 6 (Vught: Skandalon, 2006), 3–7. For the versiones in relation to the Hebrew text, see also J. R. Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book: Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics, FAT 88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 37–45. 14  The problem of identifying characters in Isa 7:1–17 plays an important role in interpreting the ‫( עלמה‬v. 14): neither a historical identification with a young woman at Ahaz’s court (e. g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 291–92) nor with the young wife of the prophet Isaiah (e. g., H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda, VTSup 11 [Leiden: Brill, 1964], 17–18), nor a theological identification with the virgin Mary (cf. M. Rehm, Der königliche Messias im Licht der Immanuel-Weissagungen des Buches Jesajas, ESt NF 1 [Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1968], 110–21) is adequate. 15  van Wieringen, Reader-Oriented Unity, 6–7. 16 For such a “chronological” diachrony, see, e. g., I. W. Slotki, Isaiah: Hebrew Text and English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, SBBS (London: Soncino, 1949), 32; G. F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, AUM 5 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1974), esp. 216–20; S. H. Widyapranawa, The Lord Is Savior: Faith in National Crisis: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 1–39, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 37; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 230; cf. also F. Delitzsch, Isaiah, Commentary on the Old Testament 7 (s. a. [= 1884], repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 55–56.



A Tale of Two Worlds?

183

operation will not succeed: ‘he had not been capable’ (‫)לא יכל‬, using the qatal form which has a past perspective, as is usual in narrative texts. This implies that the text-immanent reader knows the outcome of the narrative already at the beginning. The text-immanent reader does not therefore read a thrilling story about an impending siege of Jerusalem, but this reader knows how it will end and that this ending will be positive. This situation fits the fact that the narration of 7:1–17 does not actually have a beginning or an ending. Due to the first narrative act, indicated by the wayyiqtol form ‫‘ ויגד‬then it was reported’ in verse 2, the narration starts in medias res. The events, which must have taken place before this report could be made to the house of David, are not narrated. The ending of the narration is also open. Likewise, what happens after the continuation of the conversation between the prophet Isaiah and King Ahaz is also not reported. There is no reaction by Ahaz to the prophet’s last reported direct speech, no implementation of the ImmanuEl sign, and no narrative completion regarding Rezin and his cronies. Next, verses 9c–d form an aside with which the text-immanent author directly addresses the text-immanent reader.17 The text-immanent reader is called to have faith – a call that is easy to fulfil when he already knows that all will end well. This direct communication between the text-immanent author and the textimmanent reader coincides with a narrative ellipsis. In verses 3–9b the Lord commissions Isaiah to speak to Ahaz. In verse 10 we are back in the narration after the aside in verses 9c–d, as is indicated by the wayyiqtol form ‫ויוסף‬. Verse 10 tells how the Lord makes the speaking to Ahaz continue. This means that the Lord makes someone speak to Ahaz (the hiphil is used) and that this speaking is the continuation of a speaking that has begun earlier. This implies that, after 17  Because of the fact that an addressee is missing in the direct speech of vv. 7b–9b (after all, the introductory formula of this direct speech in v. 7a does not mention an addressee), v. 9c–d cannot be part of the direct speech in vv. 7b–9b. Because of the fact that the direct speech in the vv. 4b–9b does not contain a second-person plural, but only a second-person singular (the introductory formula in v. 4a mentions the singular addressee in the prepositional phrase ‫אליו‬ ‘to him’, which is Ahaz), v. 9c–d cannot be a part of the direct speech in vv. 4b–9b either. And because the direct speech in vv. 3b–9b does not contain a second-person plural, but only a second-person singular (the introductory formula in v. 3 mentions the singular addressee in the prepositional phrase ‫‘ אל־יׁשעיהו‬to Isaiah’), v. 9c–d cannot be a part of the direct speech in vv. 3b–9b. This implies that v. 9c–d directly belongs to the text-immanent author. Because v. 9c–d does not contain any narrative wayyiqtol form, but only discursive foreground yiqtol forms, this v. 9c–d must form an aside. Cf. A. L. H. M. van Wieringen, The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6–12, BIS 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 60. Only if one interprets the second-person plural as being Isaiah and his son Shear-Yashub, although Shear-Yashub is not mentioned in v. 4a and v. 4b uses an emphatic personal pronoun second-person singular ‫‘ אתה‬you’ for indicating Isaiah, is v. 9c–d part of the direct speech in vv. 4b–9b. Pace Tull, Isaiah, 164, who views Ahaz with his entourage as the plural addressee and thus considers these verses as being a part of the direct speech in vv. 4b–9b; cf. also Delitzsch, Isaiah, 212–213. Pace J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24 (Waco: Word, 1985), 89, who sees an alternation of the heavens and the earth speaking in vv. 8–9.

184

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

the commission in verses 3–9b, Isaiah accordingly indeed spoke to Ahaz and that this speaking must have taken place before verse 10a. As a consequence, the first time Isaiah speaks to Ahaz, in accordance with verses 3–9b, is not explicitly narrated in the text, but implicitly takes place at the moment of the aside. In this way, the communication by the text-immanent author to the text-immanent reader coincides with the communication by the character Isaiah, by order of the character God, to the character Ahaz. Isaiah invites Ahaz to ask for a sign, but he refuses to do so. Thereupon Isaiah proclaims the Immanu-El sign. This sign is given by God ‫‘ לכם‬to you’ (v. 14a), a second-person plural, which is present as the vocative ‫‘ בית דוד‬house of David’ in verse 13. Not before the sign is mentioned in verses 14b–15, does Isaiah again address Ahaz, who is explicitly present as a second-person singular in the separate personal pronoun ‫‘ אתה‬you’ (v. 16e).18 The proper name of the son present in the sign emphasises Ahaz’s position. The proper name ‫ עמנו אל‬uses the figure of speech of inversion. The proper name does not mean “God with us,” but “with us: God.” Because of this a contrast arises: with us is God, but therefore not with someone else – and this someone else appears to be Ahaz. On the one hand, the character Ahaz forms a bad example of faith for the text-immanent reader. That is not the way to have faith; this is the way you will be eliminated. On the other hand, if the first-person plural in the proper name is understood inclusively,19 every possible addressee can be part of this first-person plural and, as a consequence, the text-immanent reader therefore has access to the Immanu-El sign. Based upon the above-mentioned observations we have to conclude that the textual communication in Isa 7:1–17 does not focus on whether Ahaz will have faith in God, but on the faith of the text-immanent reader. The double communication in verses 9c–d focuses on the text-immanent reader, whereas Ahaz is only elliptically present. This makes it clear that Ahaz is the negative example, in contrast to the Immanu-El and that the text-immanent reader (and not Ahaz) has positive access to the sign of the Immanu-El.

3.  A Diachronic Communication-Oriented Analysis of Isaiah 7:1–17 Now I would like to continue with the diachrony of Isa 7:1–17. Which diachronic conclusions can be made about the synchronic textual communication in our text? 18  Cf.

also Y. Gitay, Isaiah and His Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12,

SSN 30 (Assen: van Gorcum, 1991), 145. 19 

For the first-person plural as inclusive or exclusive, see also Th. Lewandowski, Linguistisches Wörterbuch, 6th ed., UTB 1518 (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1994), 790.



A Tale of Two Worlds?

185

Because Ahaz is not the centre of the communication,20 but is illustratively used in the communication to the text-immanent reader and, moreover, is staged from a past perspective, it seems to me impossible that Isa 7:1–17 is contemporary with the time of the Syro-Ephraimite War, which is used as the narrative decor.21 The historical context of the well-known conflict between King Hezekiah, Ahaz’s successor, and Assur, textually the successor of Rezin and his cronies – as the phrase ‫‘ את מלך אׁשור‬the king of Assur’ at the end of v. 17 empathically mentions – matches the textual communication considerably better.22 A division of the text of Isa 7:1–17 into two separate narrations, namely verses 1–9 and 10–17,23 does not do justice to the textual communication, for then the ellipsis containing the communication to the character Ahaz, which takes place at the same time as the aside containing the communication to the text-immanent reader, disappears. The textual communication shows the text of Isa 7:1–17 as einheitlich. 20 Although Becker, Jesaja, 48, correctly does not see Ahaz as the centre of Isa 7:1–17, he unfortunately does not go beyond the observation of the contrast between Ahaz and Hezekiah as being the contrast and the implementation of the Immanu-El. 21  Pace, among others, B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, HKAT 3/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), 49; A. Condamin, Le Livre d’Isaïe, EB (Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1905), 60–61; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 78; Widyapranawa, Isaiah 1–39, 38–43; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 91. Pace M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 149, 159, who, on the one hand sees the Syro-Ephraimite War in the centre of the text and, on the other hand, believes that the text’s intention is to persuade the new King Hezekiah to trust the Lord. 22  See also P. D. Miscall, Isaiah, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 35–36. The distance between the staging of the narration, i. e., the Syro-Ephraimite War, and the text of Isa 7:1–17 itself has been noticed many times. Already T. K. Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah, Vol. 1 (London: Kegan Paul, 1886), 41–42, mentions this distance, although by using totally different words than words expressing textual communication. For the exegetes who are in favour of a dating later than the Syro-Ephraimite War, the distance in time between this war and the text of 7:1–17* varies. Becker, Jesaja, 50, sees a big distance in time: because of the theological parallels with the so-called Deuteronomistic History, Becker considers 7:1–17* as postexilic. Berges and Beuken, Buch Jesaja, 67, do not mention an exact date, but see Isaiah’s followers as the real author; Berges and Beuken seem to consider the distance in time as being small, or at least smaller. In their view, both the first framing of 6:1–8:18* into 5:1–10:4 and the second framing into 1:1–12:6 are partly pre- and partly postexilic. E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 266–67, thinks about a very short period of time after the death of Ahaz, to draw the attention on the most important fact during Ahaz’s reign, namely that Rezin was incapable of conquering Jerusalem. 23  Thus, e. g., K aiser, Jesaja, 63, 70–71; J. Høgenhaven, “Die Symbolische Namen in Jesaja 7 und 8 im Rahmen der sogenannten ‘Denkschrift’ des Propheten,” in The Book of Isaiah: Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XXXVII), ed. J. Vermeylen, BETL 81 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 230–35, here 232. Also pace W. Eichrodt, Der Heilige in Israel: Jesaja 1–12, BAT 17/1 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960), 79–95; Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 75, 78–79; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 145–46, who divide ch. 7 into vv. 1–9 and 10–25. Also pace B. Webb, The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings, The Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 61–64, who divides ch. 7 into vv. 1–12 and 13–25.

186

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

This does not mean that it is impossible that, from a diachronic view, an older story underlies the text of Isa 7:1–17  – one that was rewritten into the text containing the complex textual communication. After all, prophet stories are usually considered to be older than the other genres in the prophetic literature.24 However, a reconstruction of such a story is not able to be made. The fact that it is not clear whether a prophet story or a king story underlies the text also makes such a reconstruction tricky. In contrast to a prophet story, as in Isa 36–37, the character Isaiah is missing in the narrations parallel to 7:1–17 in both 2 Kgs 16:1–20 and 2 Chr 28:1–27. Therefore, I will not exclude the option that a prophet story, i. e., an Isaiah story, about the Syro-Ephraimite War has never existed. I believe it is more appropriate to assume that some king story about events from a later time was rewritten into an Isaiah story about the Syro-Ephraimite War with the intention to formulate the double textual communication and the contrasts made in it.25 The passage in the king story in which Hezekiah controls the necessary drinking-water supply in view of the impending siege (2 Kgs 18:17; cf. 2 Kgs 20:20; Isa 22:9), appears to be the right stepping-stone in creating an Isaiah story with the antihero Ahaz. I would like to return to verse 8c in our text of Isa 7:1–17. Keeping my dating for the entire pericope in mind, one should certainly not exclude the fact that verse 8c is a gloss. Verse 8c interrupts the syntactical structure of verses 8a–b and 9a–b. It is true that it forms the centre of these four clauses, creating a concentric structure, but semantically it is the continuation of verse 9a instead of verse 8b. If this verse is a gloss, it was added not much later to the original text of Isa 7:1–17.26

4.  Diachronic Consequences for the Entire Book of Isaiah In my view, texts related to the Syro-Ephraimite War as such are not present in the book of Isaiah. As a consequence, Isa 7:1–17 cannot be the diachronic motor of the book of Isaiah. Isa 7:1–17 forms a part of chapters 6–12. Because of their reader-oriented characteristics, these chapters (or even some parts of these chapters) are not suitable to be the basic motor of the redaction of the book of Isaiah. These chapters contain both narrative and discursive texts. They also contain many 65.

24 C. Westermann,

Grundformen prophetischer Rede, BEvT 31 (Munich: Kaiser, 1960),

25  Pace van Wieringen, Reader-Oriented Unity, 220, who presupposes an older prophet story à la the Elijah stories in Kings. 26  After all, the succession of Aram by consecutively Assur, Babel, and Persia in the book of Isaiah, which I will describe below, does not influence the text-immanent reader of the gloss, which implies that the gloss must have been written before the Babylonian and Persian succession of Assur.



A Tale of Two Worlds?

187

other reader-oriented transitions. Furthermore, this main unit in the book of Isaiah begins with an “I”-narration. Due to these characteristics, complex communicative patterns arise in Isa 6–12, in which narrator and character coincide (or seem to coincide).27 The above explained text-internal communication for Isa 7:1–17 confirms this complex and past perspective communicative situation. The diachronic motor of the book of Isaiah is chapters 36–37. This text forms a prophet story, being the oldest of all prophetic genres. Isa 36–37 is the only continuous narrative text in the book of Isaiah that shows a classic narrative form: a thrilling beginning which develops into a (double) happy ending. In the narrations in 2 Kgs 19 and 2 Chr 32:1–23 parallel to Isa 36–38, the character Isaiah plays a role as well. A common time of origin in the period of Hezekiah’s revolt against the Assyrian threat is a reasonable assumption. If we compare chapters 36–37 with 7:1–17,28 it is furthermore remarkable that the hostile character Rezin is hardly elaborated upon in comparison with the hostile character Assur. The text of 7:1–17 does not render Rezin’s view directly, in contrast to Assur’s view in 36–37. Assur speaks in chapters 36–37, namely in the direct speeches in 36:4b–10 and 36:12b–20, but the direct speech of Rezin and his men – without mentioning the proper name “Rezin” – is accessible in 7:6 only via the direct speech of the character Isaiah in verses 4b–9b, which is embedded in the direct speech of the Lord in verses 3b–9b. The enemy is almost 27  Although Isa 7:1–17 is not the diachronic motor of the entire book of Isaiah, as I will explain below, this pericope is the motor regarding the diachrony of Isa 6–12. These chapters contain various elaborations upon the Immanu-El. In the final text of Isa 6–12, a kind of a plot has been created concerning the Immanu-El: after his conception, the Immanu-El is elaborated upon in a text about his birth (8:23c–9:6) and, next, in a text about his activities as an adult (10:28–11:16). Isa 8:1–23b, which seems to be a narrative text that, like ch. 6, is an “I”narration, reflects the complex communicative structure which characterizes chs. 6–12. Isa 8:8, containing the name ‘Immanu-El’ (‫)עמנו אל‬, explicitly marks this connection from a semantical point of view. Besides this plot elaboration, the formula ‫ והיה ביום ההוא‬and its variations are used as elaboration formulae, as in 7:18a, 20a, 21a, 23a. Chapter 6 was placed in front of 7:1–17 to introduce the character Isaiah narratively. The final redaction of Isa 6–11, however, is postexilic (see esp. 11:11–16 which contains various themes and expressions similar to the so-called Deutero-Isaiah; cf. also J. Stromberg, “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?” JBL 127 [2008]: 665–69). As the concluding chapter of Isa 6–12, ch. 12 is the diachronically latest text, of which the communicative structure, especially towards the nations, reflects a postexilic period as well (cf. also: A. L. H. M. van Wieringen, “Isaiah 12: A Domain and Communication Analysis,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah, ed. M. Vervenne and J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, BETL 132 [Leuven: Peeters, 1997], 149–72). All this does not mean that some texts, and especially some literary motifs, e. g., the vegetation metaphors, could not derive from earlier periods (cf. K. Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree Metaphor in Isaiah, JSOTSup 65 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989]). 28  Most exegetical studies stress the similarities between chs. 36–37 and 7:1–17, but hardly mention the differences; thus, e. g., H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: DeuteroIsaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press Press, 1994), 191–92.

188

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

out of sight, and in such a way that the text-immanent reader can only reach him in a roundabout way.29 In considering Isa 36–37 as the diachronic motor, a connection to a historical Isaiah still exists. If there would be no relation to a historical prophet Isaiah (or if there would be too much of a time lapse between a historical prophet Isaiah and a first editing of the texts), one would not be able to explain why the book is called Isaiah. This historical Isaiah, or the texts formed before the Babylonian exile related to his name, are therefore powerful enough to keep the postexilic so-called Second Isaiah (roughly chs. 40–66) anonymous. Also, from a historical point of view, the crisis in the time of King Hezekiah can be very reasonably viewed as the diachronic motor of the book of Isaiah. The impact of the confrontation with the super-power Assur must have been much greater than the impact of the Syro-Ephraimite War. A  miniature state, with Jerusalem as its capital, together with some coalition partners, revolts, against the superpower Assur. In reaction, Assur marches towards the West with a huge army and crushes all the coalition partners. Jerusalem is totally isolated. However, chapters 36–37 narrate that, due to God’s intervention, superpower Assur has to retreat without having conquered Jerusalem. The royal inscriptions of the Assyrian king Sennacherib confirm this event.30 These relate how Sennacherib advanced against Jerusalem. According to his own words, he used the military technique of a blockade for Jerusalem, whereas he could seize forty-six fortified places in Judah. Sennacherib mentions that, as a result of his military action, he reduced Hezekiah’s territory and made him pay a heavy tribute. Sennacherib’s story is remarkable. The decision to resort to the military technique of a blockade is only made in case a city is too strong to seize. Apparently, this was the case for Jerusalem. Whereas Sennacherib removes Jerusalem’s coalition partners one by one and replaces them by vassal kings, Hezekiah remains the king of Jerusalem. The tribute is even brought later to Sennacherib in Nineveh. The reason for the abrupt breaking off of Sennacherib’s siege is historically unclear, but from the perspective of Jerusalem, it will be interpreted as the theological trigger for God’s continuous liberating action in favour of Jerusalem. Based upon the experience of the great conflict between Hezekiah and Assur, which, against all expectations, Hezekiah survives, a redactor reworked the older crisis of the Syro-Ephraimite War under Ahaz into being the prelude to the major crisis under Hezekiah. 29 

van Wieringen, Isaiah 6–12, 76. esp. A. van der Kooij, “Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr.,” ZDPV 102 (1986): 93–109, here 97–99; see also W.  von Soden, “Sanherib vor Jerusalem 701 v. Chr.,” in Antike und Universalgeschichte, ed. R. Stiehl and G. A. Lehmann, Fontes et commentationes Supplementbände 1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 43–51, here 46, 49–51; cf. A. Schoors, Die Königreiche Israel und Juda im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Die assyrische Krise, BE 5 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998), 96–97. 30  See

A Tale of Two Worlds?



189

The Isaian hermeneutic of the liberation of Jerusalem – in which the enemy is described as an instrument of punishment from the Lord – but without Jerusalem having been destroyed, has its origin here. In this Isaian hermeneutic, the older crisis is interpreted from the point of view of the new crisis. And therefore, in the book of Isaiah, we see Assur following upon Aram and Babel following upon Assur. In order to achieve this succession of Aram (Rezin), to Assur, to Babel, (to Persia), multi-applicable texts can be found in the book of Isaiah. A  good example is Isa 10:28–32. This text describes the hostile march in the direction of Jerusalem. Because of the fact that Isa 10:5–27 discusses Assur explicitly as being an instrument in the hand of the Lord, it is obvious to consider Assur as being the one who executes this military action. However, Assur is not anywhere mentioned in the text. The march is anonymous and, therefore, can be used for any hostile march against Jerusalem – for instance, the Babylonian one.31 The Babylonian perspective on Assur, too, is present in chapters 36–39. In Isa 39, the Assyrian threat is continued in Babel’s arrival; Babel who is already present in the city which Assur was not capable of seizing, although Babel’s presence does not seem (or not explicitly seem) to be military. Narratively speaking Babel even remains present – after all, the text does not mention that Babel has departed from the city.32 The instrumental enemy Babel eventually leaves the stage. However, in the book of Isaiah, this is hardly developed into a “so Babel, so Persia” (parallel to “so Assur, so Babel” and “so Aram, so Assur”). At the most, Isa 13:17–18 and 43:14 discuss this. In my view, the period shortly after the Babylonian exile must therefore be the second diachronic motor besides the basic diachronic motor of the Assyrian crisis in the time of Hezekiah. This second motor is directed at connecting the Babylonian crisis to the Assyrian crisis. The main techniques33 to reach this goal, are the ellipsis between chapters 39 and 40 concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the following Babylonian exile34 and the continuation of the king-figure in the figure of the Lord’s servant and of the prophet-figure in the figure of the herald(ess) of good tidings.35 31 

van Wieringen, Isaiah 6–12, 85; cf. also Wildberger, Jesaja, 423–432. A. L.  H. M. van Wieringen, “The Diseased King and the Diseased City (Isa 36–39) as Reader-Oriented Link between Isa 1–39 and 40–66,” in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah: The Isaiah Workshop: De Jesaja Werkplaats, ed. A. van Wieringen and A. van der Woude, OTS 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 81–93, here 85–88. 33  For an overview of these techniques, see also A. L. H. M. van Wieringen, “Assur and Babel against Jerusalem: The Reader-Oriented Position of Babel and Assur within the Framework of Isaiah 1–39,” in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’, 49–62, here 49–50. 34  See also Berges, Buch Jesaja, 316; van Wieringen, Reader-Oriented Unity, 53–76. 35 See van Wieringen, “Diseased King,” 88–89. 32 

190

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

Exegetes tend to praise the Persian politics in contrast to the Mesopotamian’s. Large empires are always confronted with the problem of how to keep the conquered nations and peoples under control in order to prevent riots and revolts. Regarding this, Assur’s king Tiglath-Pileser III invented the policy of exile: by disconnecting a people from its homeland, the risk of revolts would be reduced. Due to the fact that this policy was very efficient, it was continued by all Assyrian kings as well as the Babylonian kings. Of course, this policy was cruel for the peoples involved. The Persian kings were faced with the same problem as the Mesopotamian kings had been, but they had a different solution. Instead of exiling peoples, they incorporated the conquered peoples into their own Persian administrative structures. This seems to be gentler towards the conquered peoples, but in fact it was as cruel as the Mesopotamian policy of exile: if a people were to revolt, the revolt had to be defeated by its own people. Incorporating people into the Persian system made them, so to say, collaborators. In my opinion, a positive appreciation of the Persian policy is only plausible for the beginning of the Persian period, when the negative aspects of this new policy had not yet become clear to the conquered peoples. This is in line with the fact that, concerning the succession of Aram by Assur, of Assur by Babel, and of Babel by Persia, the transition from Babel to Persia is not elaborated upon in the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah only contains a positive portrayal of the Persian king Cyrus, even by giving him the title ‫מׁשיח‬ ‘anointed one’ in 45:1.36 In sum, because of the fact that the Isaian hermeneutic with regard to the Medes and Persians is considerably underdeveloped when compared to the hermeneutic dealing with Aram, Assyria, and Babylon just noted, the possibilityconditions of communication between the text-immanent author and text-immanent reader can only exist at the beginning of the Persian period. This implies that the book of Isaiah received its (relatively) final form before the Persian king Darius commanded his army towards Judah (ca. 513 BCE), but, in view of the use of the character Cyrus as God’s instrument, only after King Cambyses took power in August 530 BCE.37 Let us return to our text of Isa 7:1–17 for a last time. Isa 7:1–17 also contains a multiapplicable text. The son with the proper name “Immanu-El” is not identified anywhere in the text. The most explicit clue is the fact that the text uses 36  See also U. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008), 375–76; cf. also R. Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah, LHBOTS 456, (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 15–37. 37  Confer also D. Vanderhooft, “Cyrus II, Liberator or Conqueror?” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 351–72; P. R. Davies, The History of Ancient Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed, Bloomsbury Guides for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 87–89; W. Oswald and M. Tilly, Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfängen bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Geschichte kompakt (Darmstadt: WDG, 2016),77.



A Tale of Two Worlds?

191

the word ‫ עלמה‬for his mother, a word indicating a woman until the birth of her first child. This means that the son, a firstborn, can be seen as a new start.38 Such a new start can be initiated with Hezekiah, the successor of Ahaz. The many textual relations between Isa 7:1–17 and 36–37 point in this direction. However, chapter 39, in which the transition from Assur to Babel takes shape, especially places this identification under severe strain. On the one hand, an identification with Hezekiah does not occur in Isa 7:1– 17, on the other hand, a Babel-perspective is not present in 7:1–17. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that Isa 7:1–17 must have been written after chapters 36–37. This could probably have taken place after Hezekiah’s reign. Of course, it is tempting to consider that this could have occurred during King Josiah’s reign, for he is one of the few kings who is portrayed positively in the Bible, such as in the narration of the renovation of the temple and in the narration of the rediscovery of the ‫‘ ספר התורה‬book of the torah’ (2 Kgs 22:1–23:30; 2 Chr 34–35). However, Josiah is absent in the book of Isaiah, just as all kings after Hezekiah are absent in it.39 Furthermore, the identification of the book discovered during Josiah’s reign with the book of Deuteronomy is far from undisputed. In fact, a synchronic interpretation demonstrates that the discovered book has its own textual function, which might be fruitful for the reading of the book of Isaiah as well.40 In my view, the reign of King Manasseh seems to be more plausible than that of Josiah. The obvious reason is that Manasseh is Hezekiah’s son, whereas Josiah is his great-grandson, which implies that the lapse in time would have been very long. Manasseh was very young when he became king. Hezekiah’s elder sons could have been taken hostage by Assur,41 and Manasseh himself might have been born even after the Assyrian crisis. Just as important was the fact that Manasseh’s reign was a long and stable one, in which writing activities were therefore possible.42 38 The theological idea of newness is characteristic for prophetic literature; see also A. L.  H. M. van Wieringen, “The Theologoumenon ‘New’: Bridging the Old and the New Testament,” in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. S. Moyise et al., NTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 285–301, esp. 289–93. 39  Pace H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977), esp. 250–60, who introduced the idea of an Assur redaction in the time of King Josiah. Actually, according to Barth, Isa 7:1–17 is hardly involved in this Assur-Redaktion. 40  See E. W. Conrad, “Heard but Not Seen: The Representation of ‘Books’ in the Old Testament,” JSOT 54 (1992): 45–59; A. L. H. M. van Wieringen, “Writing and (Not) Reading the Torah (and Contrasting Texts) in the Book of Isaiah,” JSOT 44 (2019), 43–53. 41  At least the Sennacherib Prism mentions Hezekiah’s daughters. 42  Cf. also G. Lehmann, “Survival and Reconstruction of Judah in the Time of Manasseh,” in Disaster and Relief Management – Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung, ed. A. Berlejung, FAT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 289–309; L. K. Handy, “Rehabilitating Manasseh: Remembering King Manasseh in the Persian and Hellenistic period,” in Remembering Biblical

192

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

5. Conclusion In sum, we can conclude that a diachronic exegetical research is very complex but can best be conducted by using the textual communicative setting. For our text of Isa 7:1–17 it has become clear that its genesis was not during the period of King Ahaz during the so-called Syro-Ephraimite War, but that it depends on King Hezekiah during his conflict with Assur in the anti-Assyrian coalition. The text of Isa 7:1–17 was written after the text of chapters 36–37. This could have taken place in the days of King Hezekiah, but the communicative openness of the text concerning the identification of the Immanu-El makes it more plausible that the text was written after Hezekiah’s reign, probably during Manasseh’s.43

Bibliography Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. HBS 16. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. –. “Synchronie und Diachronie: Zur Methodenvielfalt in der Exegese.” Bibel und Kirche 4 (2007): 249–52. –. Jesaja 40–48. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2008. Berges, Ulrich, and Willem Beuken. Das Buch Jesaja: Eine Einführung. UTB 4647. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. Biberger, Bernd. Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14. BBB 161. Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2010. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Budde, Karl. Jesaja’s Erleben: Eine gemeinverständliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des Propheten (Kap. 6,1–9,6). Bücherei der christlichen Welt 23. Gotha: Klotz, 1928. Cheyne, Thomas Kelly. The Prophecies of Isaiah. Vol. 1. London: Kegan Paul, 1886. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah 1–39. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Condamin, Albert. Le Livre d’Isaïe. EB. Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1905. Conrad, Edgar W. “Heard But Not Seen: The Representation of ‘Books’ in the Old Testament.” JSOT 54 (1992): 45–59. Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination, eds. D. V. Edelman and E. Ben Zvi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 221–35. 43  I am greatly indebted to Drs. Maurits J. Sinninghe Damsté (De Gordyk, the Netherlands) for his correction of the English translation of this article.



A Tale of Two Worlds?

193

Davies, Philip R. The History of Ancient Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Guides for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Delitzsch, Franz. Isaiah Commentary on the Old Testament 7. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [= 1884]. Donner, Herbert. Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda. VT.S 11. Leiden: Brill, 1964. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. HKAT 3/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. Eichrodt, Walther. Der Heilige in Israel: Jesaja 1–12. BAT 17/1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960. Frevel, Christian. “‘Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen’ (Lev 10,20): Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10.” Pages 104–36, in Gottes Name(n): Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger. Edited by Ilse Müllner et al. HBS 71. Freiburg: Herder, 2012. Gitay, Yehoshua. Isaiah and his Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12. SSN 30. Assen: van Gorcum, 1991. Handy, Lowell K. “Rehabilitating Manasseh: Remembering King Manasseh in the Persian and Hellenistic Period.” Pages 221–35 in: Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011. Hasel, Gerhard F. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah. AUM 5. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1974. Heskett, Randall. Messianism within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah. LHBOTS 456. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Høgenhaven, Jesper. “Die Symbolische Namen in Jesaja 7 und 8 im Rahmen der sogenannten ‘Denkschrift’ des Propheten.” Pages 230–35, in The Book of Isaiah: Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XXXVII). Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. BEThL 81. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. K aiser, Otto. Der Prophet Jesaja: Kapitel 13–39. ATD 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Koenen, Klaus. Ethik und Eschatologie in Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redactionsgeschichtliche Studie. WMANT 62. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. van der Kooij, Arie. “Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr.,” ZDPV 102 (1986): 93–109. Lehmann, Gunnar. “Survival and Reconstruction of Judah in the Time of Manasseh.” Pages 289–309, in Disaster and Relief Management – Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung. FAT 81. Edited by Angelika Berlejung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Lewandowski, Theodor. Linguistisches Wörterbuch. UTB 1518. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1994. Miscall, Peter D. Isaiah. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Nielsen, Kirsten. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree Metaphor in Isaiah. JSOT.S 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Oswald, Wolfgang, and Michael Tilly. Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfängen bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Geschichte kompakt. Darmstadt: WDG, 2016.

194

Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen

Rehm, Martin. Der königliche Messias im Licht der Immanuel-Weissagungen des Buches Jesajas. ESt NF 1. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1968. Schoors, Anton. “Historical Information in Isaiah 1–39.” Pages 75–93, in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Jacques T. A.G. M. van Ruiten. BEThL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. –. Die Königreiche Israel und Juda im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Die assyrische Krise. BE 5. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1996. Slotki, Israel Wolf. Isaiah: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary. SBBS. London: Soncino, 1949. von Soden, Wolfram. “Sanherib vor Jerusalem 701 v. Chr.” Pages 43–51, in Antike und Universalgeschichte. Edited by Ruth Stiehl and Gustav Adolf Lehmann. Fontes et commentationes Supplementbände 1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. Stromberg, Jacob. “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?,” JBL 127 (2008): 665–69. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Theobald, M. “Der Primat der Synchronie vor der Diachronie als Grundaxiom der Literarkritik,” BZ 22 (1978): 161–86. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard, 2007. Tull, Patricia K. Isaiah 1–39. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010. Uhlig, Torsten. The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah. FAT 39. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Vanderhooft, David S. “Cyrus II, liberator or conqueror?” Pages 351–72, in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Wagner, J. Ross. Reading the Sealed Book: Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics. FAT 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco: Word Books, 1985. Webb, Barry G. The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings. The Bible Speaks Today. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 1996. Westermann, Claus. Grundformen prophetischer Rede. BEvTh 31. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1960. Widyapranawa, S. H. The Lord Is Savior: Faith in National Crisis: A  Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 1–39. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. van Wieringen, Archibald L. H.M. Analogies in Isaiah. Volume A: Computerized Analysis of Parallel Texts between Isaiah 56–66 and Isaiah 40–66. Applicatio 10A. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1993. –. “Isaiah 12: A  Domain and Communication Analysis.” Pages 149–72, in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Jacques T. A.G. M. van Ruiten. BETL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. –. The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6–12. BIS 34. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. The Reader-Oriented Unity of The Book Isaiah. ACEBTSup 6. Vught: Skandalon, 2006.



A Tale of Two Worlds?

195

–. “Assur and Babel against Jerusalem: The Reader-Oriented Position of Babel and Assur within the Framework of Isaiah 1–39” Pages 49–62, in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah: The Isaiah Workshop: De Jesaja Werkplaats. Edited by Archibald van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude. OTS 58. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “The Diseased King and the Diseased City (Isa 36–39) as Reader-Oriented Link Between Isa 1–39 and 40–66.” Pages 81–93, in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah: The Isaiah Workshop: De Jesaja Werkplaats. Edited by Archibald van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude. OTS 58. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “The Theologoumenon ‘New’: Bridging the Old and the New Testament.” in: The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in honour of Maarten J. J. Menken. Edited by Steve Moyise et al. NTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. “Two Reading Options in Psalm 114: A Communication-Oriented Exegesis.” RB 122 (2015): 46–57. –. “Writing and (Not) Reading the Torah (and Contrasting Texts) in the Book of Isaiah.” JSOT (2019): 1–11. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12. BKAT 10/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980. Williamson, Hugh G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press Press, 1994. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Part 2

The Biblical Traditions and the History of Isaiah

Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past A Reexamination of the Relationship between Isaiah 24:6 and Jeremiah 23:10 Avigail Aravna Jer 23:10–11

Is 24:4–6

‫כי מנאפים מלאה הארץ כי מפני אלה אבלה‬ ‫הארץ יבשו נאות מדבר ותהי מרוצתם רﬠה‬ ‫ כי גם נביא גם כהן חנפו גם‬.‫וגבורתם לא כן‬ .‫בביתי מצאתי רﬠתם נאם יהוה‬

‫אבלה נבלה הארץ אמללה נבלה תבל אמללו מרום ﬠם‬ ‫ והארץ חנפה תחת יושביה כי ﬠברו תורת חלפו‬.‫הארץ‬ ‫ ﬠל כן אלה אכלה ארץ ויאשמו‬.‫חק הפרו ברית ﬠולם‬ .‫ישבי בה ﬠל כן חרו ישבי ארץ ונשאר אנוש מזﬠר‬

For the land is full of adulterers, The land mourns because of a curse; The pastures of the wilderness are dried up. For they run to do evil, they strain to do wrong.1 For both prophet and priest are godless; even in my house I find their wickedness – declares the LORD.2

The earth is withered, sear; the world languishes, it is sear; the most exalted people of the earth languish. For the earth was defiled under its inhabitants; Because they transgressed teachings, violated laws, Broke the eternal covenant. That is why a curse consumes the earth, and its inhabitants pay the penalty; that is why earth’s dwellers have dwindled, and but few men are left.

The two passages quoted above have often been associated with one another in biblical scholarship, where multiple sources have suggested that the latter passage is directly referencing the former.3 This assumption is part of a larger discussion in studies of Isa 24–27, which have highlighted their extensive referencing of earlier biblical traditions, with multiple quotations from and allusions to the Pentateuch as well as other prophetic texts.4 Many modern commentators claim 1 

Lit. “Their running is wickedness; their straining is iniquity”. Translations of Biblical texts are adapted from JPS Tanakh. 3 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27: Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 481; Katherine M. Hayes, The Earth Mourns: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 136; Yair Hoffman, Jeremiah, Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 1 chapters 1–25, Mikra Leyisraʾel (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001), 475; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah (1: 1–25), Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 626. 4  Just a limited list of those studies includes John Day, “A Case of Inner Scriptural Interpretation: The Dependence of Isaiah 26:13–27:11 on Hosea 13:4–14:10 (Eng. 9) and its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse,’” JTS 31/2 (1980): 309–19; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27: Toward an Understanding of the Redactional Function of Chapters 24–27 in the Book of Isaiah Author(s),” JBL 107/1 (1988): 39–52; Donald 2 

200

Avigail Aravna

that Jer 23:10–11 is one such early source, citing the similarity between Isa 24:6 and Jer 23:10.5 Indeed, the two verses are extremely similar, since both contain a ָ ) and a third nearly sequence of three words, of which two are identical (‫ ארץ‬,‫ָאלה‬ so (‫ אבלה‬// ‫)אכלה‬. Jer 23:10 ‫אלה אבלה הארץ‬ Isa 24:6 ‫אלה אכלה ארץ‬

In what follows, I challenge this conclusion by complicating both the extent and the manner in which the two passages have been connected. Specifically, I reexamine the purported similarity of two of the three key words – first the ָ . Based on this reexamidyad of ‫אבלה‬/‫ אכלה‬and second the recurring word ‫ָאלה‬ nation, I argue that these texts may be less closely connected than they seem, or alternatively, that they may in fact have influenced one another in the opposite direction.

1.  Step One:

‫ אבלה‬and ‫אכלה‬ – Separate Words for Separate Stories The first step in challenging the supposed similarity between these two texts is reexamining the relationship between ‫ אבלה‬and ‫אכלה‬. Most proponents of the claim that Isa 24:6 is borrowing directly from Jer 23:10 do not linger over the minute difference between the words ‫ אבלה‬and ‫ אכלה‬in the two passages. One reason for this may be the possibility that the changing of the ‫ ב‬to ‫ כ‬was unintentional, and that the two words should have been identical as well. Indeed, inadvertent interchanges due to the graphic similarity between the letters ‫כ‬/‫ב‬, both in the Paleo-Hebrew script and the Jewish script, are well attested.6 C. Polaski, Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Dan G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); J. Todd Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions, FAT 2/16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); J. Todd Hibbard and Hyun Chul Paul Kim eds., Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, AIL 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013). 5 The dating of both the Jeremiah passage and the Isaiah text varies considerably in scholarly discussion. There have been some recent suggestions regarding an early date for the Isaiah 24–27 unit, see for instance, Christopher B. Hays, The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019). However, most scholars agree that, as a whole, the text of Isaiah is later than the text of Jeremiah. For a summary of the dating of this passage see Hoffman, Jeremiah, 463–69. On the dating of Isaiah chaps. 24–27 see Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 445–67. 6 For example, compare the following Chronicles passage with its earlier Kings counterpart: 1 Kgs 22:20 ‫ ויאמר זה בכה וזה אמר בכה‬versus 2 Chr 18:19 ‫זה אמר ככה וזה אמר ככה‬. It should be noted that this interchange may be explained as a change in the preposition ‫כ‬/‫ב‬ rather than a simple graphic one. This same phenomenon also appears in the Qere and Ketib



Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past

201

The assumption that the word ‫ אכלה‬in Isa 24:6 was intended to be ‫ אבלה‬could also be supported by the predominance of ‫( אבל‬the Hebrew root for “drying up,” “wilt,” or for “mourning”) in this chapter. The verb ‫אבל‬, for example, opens both the unit of which Isa 24:6 is a part (Isa 24:4–6) and the one that follows it (Isa 24:7–12).7 Moreover, as Donald Polaski and Katherine Hayes have noted, the root ‫ אב״ל‬with its dual meaning is central to this chapter’s thematic content.8 In this chapter, YHWH’s wrath against the earth is announced (vv. 1–3) and as a result of that the whole earth languishes (‫אמ״ל‬/‫( )אב״ל‬v. 4).9 The languishing of nature on the one hand and the loss of joy on the other (both stemming from this single Hebrew root) are continued themes throughout the following verses, represented by such images as the drying up of the new wine (‫אבל תירוש אמללה‬ ‫ )גפן‬in v. 7, the ceasing of music, (‫ )שבת משוש תופים‬in v. 8, and the stripped olive tree and bare vines (‫ )כנקף זית כﬠוללת אם כלה בציר‬in v. 13.10 Finally, some commentators interested in discerning the stages of growth within Isa 24:1–20 have also pointed out the centrality of ‫ אב״ל‬in determining the chapter’s contents.11 They assume that these verses (7–9) provide a supplement to the unit of vv. 1–6, which is considered the “original poem,” to which three separate additions have been made (vv. 7–9; vv. 10–12; v. 13).12 In the present context they are supposed to portray the way in which this catastrophe would begin to take place. In v. 7 the author links what he says with what was in v. 4, by recapitulating the topic with the same language (‫ אבל‬and ‫)אמלל‬. According to Wildberger, “it was probably those very verbs which suggested to the expander that these sentences should be inserted.”13 The pivotal role of the verb ‫ אבל‬in variants of 2 Kgs 3:24 (‫)ויבו [ויכו] בה והכות את מואב‬. For other examples, including differences in the Qumran Biblical Scrolls, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 12–16. 7  The root ‫ אבל‬occurs in several Semitic languages, though occasionally with different meanings. Here it pairs with ‫יבש‬, clearly signaling drought. Unlike Akk. abālu, “to dry (up)”, this root in Syriac relates to “mourning”, or “sorrowing”, while in Arabic the meaning of “to be dry” is rarer, see A. Baumann “‫”אבל‬, TDOT 1:44–47. 8  Polaski, Authorizing an End, 106–7 and Hayes, The Earth Mourns, 142–47. 9  The second colon of Isa 24:4 expands the scope of the image by describing the world (‫ )תבל‬as languishing and withering. The passage 24:4–6 is understood to be universally reapplying older prophecies to all the inhabitants of the earth. Cf. Hos 4:3. See George. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 411 and also Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, 49, 216. 10  This duality is also manifested in the root ‫ רז״ה‬in v. 16 which combines the meaning of mourning and of drought, cf. Isa 17:4 “to be lean” (‫)ירזה‬. 11  This was claimed by Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 484 and followed by Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 200. 12  Others, such as Joseph Blenkinsopp, disagree with this reading of 1–6 as introductory to 7–9 with 10–12 and 13 as additions, arguing instead for the integrity of the unit as a whole. See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 350–51. 13  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 484.

202

Avigail Aravna

these passages shows how the reading of v. 6 as ‫ אבלה‬might seem plausible as well.14 However, though the surrounding vocabulary supports the possibility that ‫ אכלה‬in Isa 24:6 may have been intended as ‫אבלה‬, a syntactical analysis of such a replacement suggests otherwise. Linguistically, reading the verb in Isa 24:6 as ‫ אבלה‬instead of ‫ אכלה‬results in an impossible sentence. In the sentence ‫ָאלה אכלה‬ ָ ‫ארץ‬, the word ‫ָאלה‬ ָ is the subject, the word ‫ אכלה‬is the predicate (i. e., the verb) and ‫ ארץ‬is the direct object (i. e., the “recipient” of the verb’s action). The word ‫אבלה‬, however, cannot fill the role played by ‫ אכלה‬in this sentence because it is an intransitive verb, which does not take a direct object.15 Furthermore, although the specific combination ‫ אלה אכלה ארץ‬is unique to ָ and ‫ אכלה‬are used elsewhere in similar contexts which this passage,16 both ‫ָאלה‬ make it not at all unlikely that they would be paired here. In this passage, the broader context is that the covenant with the Lord has been breached, and a curse (‫ )אלה‬unleashed which destroys or consumes (‫ )אכלה‬the land. The verb ‫ אכל‬is often used figuratively in expressions in which the meanings “to destroy” and “to consume” can be traced. In Jer 2:30, for instance, it is associated with the destructive power of a sword that devours the prophets (‫)אכלה חרבכם נביאיכם‬,17 and in Deut 32:22 it is linked with the harmful consequences of a fire that consumes the earth and its bounty (‫)ותאכל ארץ ויבלה‬. Moreover, since the breach ָ is associated of covenant is a familiar theme in biblical theology, the word ‫ָאלה‬ on multiple occasions with other verbs that denote destruction. In Dan 9:11 the curse is “poured down” upon those who have sinned against the Lord (‫ותתך‬ ‫)ﬠלינו האלה‬, who carries out his threat to bring about “a great misfortune” (‫רﬠה‬ ‫)גדולה‬.18 In Zech 5:3, the ‫ָאלה‬ ָ is invoked in a manner even more similar to that in Isa 24. Here, the prophet sees a flying scroll, and an angel explains to him that 14  The Syriac version of Isa 24:6 seems to reflect this assumption, since it offers the translation “mourning” (‫)ܒܐܒܐܠ‬. 15  Another possible reading of this passage is to designate ‫ ארץ‬as the subject and ‫ אלה‬to be the object. This syntactical structure appears in a similar passage which depicts the land as devouring its inhabitants (‫ארץ אוכלת יושביה הוא (היא‬. See, e. g. Num 13:32 and cf. Lev 26:38 (‫)ואכלה אתכם ארץ איביכם‬. Both of these readings, however, contain both a subject and a direct object, and are therefore equally predicated on the presence of a transitive verb. 16  So unique that Arnold B. Ehrlich claimed that the combination was “non-Hebraic” ָ ‫ ﬠל כן‬should be altered to read ‫ﬠל כן ֵא ֶּלה אבלה‬. Arnold B. Ehrlich, and argued that ‫ָאלה אכלה‬ Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches, Vol. 4 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912), 84. 17  See also Jer 12:12, Exod 24:17; Deut 4:24. For other examples of fire as a means of punishment by God against his own people (Ezek 15:7; Zeph 1:18; Lam 2:3). See Magnus Ottoson, “‫אכל‬,” TDOT 1:236–41. 18  Similarly, in Deut 29, the ‫“ אלה‬comes down upon” the sinner and the Lord “blots out his name from under heaven” (‫)ורבצה בו כל האלה הכתובה בספר הזה ומחה‬. Since the word ‫ אלה‬is sometimes synonymous with ‫ ברית‬meaning oath, when Israel or other nations breach the covenant with Yahweh, the same word ‫ אלה‬can then refer to the sanctions specified in that covenant, or the consequences of breaching it, taking on the function of a “curse”.

Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past



203

this is the curse that “goes out over the whole land” (‫)האלה היוצאת ﬠל פני כל הארץ‬ in order to enter the houses of sinners and “consume them to the last timber and stone” (‫ובאה אל בית הגנב ואל בית הנשבﬠ בשמי לשקר ולנה בתוך ביתו וכלתו ואת ﬠציו‬ ‫)ואת אבניו‬. Reinforcements such as these for the deliberate presence of ‫ אכלה‬in Isa 24, however, are not in themselves sufficient cause for disassociating the affinity between both passages. Dominic Rudman, for example, has argued that the alteration of ‫ אבלה‬to ‫ אכלה‬in this passage can be read as a conscious exegetical act. Rudman regards the version of Isa 24 (‫ )אכלה‬as the more difficult reading by asserting that Isa 24:6 is a midrash on Jer 23:10, a technique similar to aspects of rabbinic exegesis.19 He attempts to explain the interchange between ‫ב‬/‫כ‬ by comparing it with other cases that demonstrate Isa 24–27’s use of familiar prophecies, such as the allusion in Isa 24:17–18’s “from the sound of the fear shall fall” (‫ )מקול הפחד יפול‬to Jer 48:43–44 “from the fear shall fall” (‫מפני הפחד‬ ‫)יפול‬, and the multiple uses of the ‫מ‬-‫ר‬-‫ ז‬words ‫זרים‬/‫זמיר‬/‫“( זרם‬storm”/ “strangers”/ “song”) in Isa 25:4–5 as an allusion to the ‫( זרם‬storm) in Isa 4:5–6. Rudman concludes that the differences between Isaiah’s passages and other, similar passages from earlier sources should be read as “the work of an author who played word games with these prophecies to derive a new meaning for the text before him.”20 As step one of my process has shown, the use of the two different words ‫אבלה‬ and ‫ אכלה‬in these two passages can be used to argue against their affinity and influence. However, it has also shown that this divergence is not, in itself, a sufficient argument. In step two, I broaden my scope beyond these two words, challenging additional elements of the two passages’ purported similarity. More specifically, I examine multiple versions of Jer 23:10 and ask: was it always as similar to Isa 24 as it now seems?

2.  Step Two: Jer 23 and the Curious Case of the Phrase in v. 10b One possibility worth addressing when considering the question of how the two passages in question may or may not be related is that the part of Jer 23:10 upon which the correlation to Isa 24 relies is in fact a secondary addition to the text, and therefore may not even have been present at the time that Isa 24 was formulated. Jeremiah 23:10 is commonly divided into three parts as follows: ‫ כי מנאפים מלאה הארץ‬10a ‫ כי מפני אלה אבלה הארץ יבשו נאות מדבר‬10b ‫ ותהי מרוצתם רﬠה וגבורתם לא כן‬10c 19 Dominic 20 

Rudman, “Midrash in the Isaiah Apocalypse,” ZAW 112/3 (2000): 404–8. Ibid., 408.

204

Avigail Aravna

Based on style, vocabulary, and content the text of Jer 23:9–15 is considered by most commentators to be quite old.21 However, the possibility that the middle section, 10b, was not part of this original text has been raised by various researchers, such as Wilhelm Rudolph and Gerald Janzen, who claim that 10b should be regarded as an interpretation.22 Others, such as Bernard Duhm and Alexander Rofé,23 have focused on the fact that it may be a later insertion into the text since it is one of nine passages, distributed throughout the prophetic texts, which deal with the motif of the desolation or mourning of the land.24 This motif is distinguished by the recurring use of fixed combinations with the verb ‫אבל‬. In some cases these embedded phrases seem to fit organically within the context in which they have been placed, while in others their presence seems more ‘artificial’ and even inappropriate.25 Jeremiah 23:10b has been cited as an example of the latter.26 Indeed, the idea of v. 10b’s late insertion is further supported by the fact that the passage in question interrupts the “flow” of the text in Jer 23.27 The Jeremiah passage begins (v. 9) with a description of the Prophets (‫ )לנביאים‬of Judah, listing a sequence of godless acts that they have perpetrated. Verse 10 begins with the first of these by noting that adulterers filled the land, then describing a curse (‫)אלה‬, which causes the land to languish and the pastures of the wilderness to run dry. It concludes by returning to the adulterers’ wickedness, noting once again 21  Katherine Hayes and Yair Hoffman, for instance, cite the generality of the descriptions of the calamity and the misbehavior of the false prophets, and the absence of any reference to events in the region after 605 BCE, or to Deuteronomistic marks of redaction on the text. See Hayes, The Earth Mourns, 119; Hoffman, Jeremiah, 467. 22 Wilhelm Rudolph, Liber Jeremiae (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1970), 136; Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 12. 23  Duhm assumes that vv. 10a and 10b were variants, and that v. 10b was a later addition to the text for metrical reasons, Bernard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, KHC (Leipzig: Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1903), 182–83. Alexander Rofé “Text-Criticism Within the Philological-Historical Discipline: The Problem of the Double Text of Jeremiah,” Tarbiz 78, 1 (2008): 5–25. 24  Cf. Jer 4:28; 12:11; 14:2; Isa 3:26; 33:9; Joel 1:10, Naturally, it is not possible to discuss the full scope of each text here. For the concept of the people that mourn, see Isa 19:8. This metaphor is not unique to the prophets; see., e. g. Ps 107:33–35. 25  In some cases they are considered “self-standing units” like in Amos 1:2. Despite using the same phraseology, the occurrence in Amos 1:2 differs in context and function, using the ‫יבש‬/‫ אבל‬terminology to describe the reaction of nature to the roaring of God: “He proclaimed: The LORD roars from Zion, shouts aloud from Jerusalem; and the pastures of the shepherds shall languish, and the summit of Carmel shall wither.” 26  See Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremiah, 2nd ed., HAT 12 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1958), 78, 136 and also William McK ane, Jeremiah 1–25 Vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 569. See also Samuel R. Driver, Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), 135. 27  “Jeremiah 23:9–40 consists of a collection of oracles which scholars in general divide into six poetic and prose sections, namely 23: 9b–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–22, 23–32, and 33–40.” Wilhelm J. Wessels, “Rhetorical Language as a Device for Jeremiah’s Authenticity Claims: His Rivalry with Adversaries in 23:9–15.” Journal for Semitics 26/1 (2017): 164.

Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past



205

that “their course is evil and their power is not right.” There is an argument to be made, therefore, for the possibility that v. 10b, which interrupts the description of the evildoers (in both v. 10a and v. 10c) with a description of punishment, is not part of the original text. This possibility is further supported by the content of the following passages (vv. 11–12). Despite the fact that punishment is introduced in v. 10b, the next two passages do not acknowledge this. Instead, v. 11 continues the description of wrongdoing from v. 10c. Then, when judgment is once again mentioned in v. 12, it is described as imminent, rather than in progress as it was in v. 10b. The problematic nature of this transition from sinners to punishment and back to sinners is reinforced by the ways in which later versions/translations of the text have sought to “iron out” the inconsistency. Medieval rabbinic exegeses, for example, solve the issue by reading the word ‫ אלה‬in v. 10b not as the Lord’s curse but as “a false oath” perpetrated by the sinners.28 As Radak (R. David Kimchi) explains: “Here adulterers fill the land, and also because of these the land mourns – because of false oaths the land has become corrupt. These are the two evils that are among most of the people of the land” (emphasis mine).29 By attributing the word ‫ אלה‬to the sinners rather than the Lord, the exegetes remove the incongruity by reading v. 10b as a further description of the adulterers’ sins rather than as punishment.30 Another approach to removing the incongruity can be found in both the Greek and Syriac versions of the text of Jer 23, both of which read the word ‫אלה‬ not as a noun, but as a demonstrative pronoun. In other words, the translations in both ancient texts suggest that they read the unpunctuated Hebrew text not as ‫ָאלה‬ ָ but as ‫ ֵא ֶּלה‬.31 As a result, in the Syriac text, the word ‫ אלה‬in v. 10b refers to the adulterers introduced in v. 10a, so that v. 10b would be read to mean “because of these (adulterers) the land languishes.”32 In the Greek version, v. 10a is absent, and the word ‫ אלה‬therefore seems to refer instead to “the Lord” and “Lord’s holy words” from v. 9:33 28  29 

See for instance Rashi’s explication of ‫ אלה‬in this passage as “A false oath”.

‫והנה מנאפים מלאה הארץ וﬠוד כי מפני אלה אבלה הארץ ומפני שבוﬠות שקר נשחתה הארץ אלו שתי‬ ‫הרﬠות הם ברוב אנשי הארץ‬, my translation. 30  This interpretation of ‫ אלה‬as the sinners’ false oath is based on the Aramaic Targum of Jeremiah, which translates this passage as ‫מן קדם מומי דשקר חרובת ארﬠא‬. Interestingly, this

Targum uses the exact same terminology in Isa 24:6, which has the result of interpreting the ‫ אלה‬in Isa 24:6 as a “false oath” as well – an interpretation not at all consistent with Isaiah’s context and probably influenced by the similarity of the two passages. Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, The Aramaic Bible Vol. 11 (Edinburgh: T&T.Clark, 1987). 31 Meaning these, τούτων in Greek, and in Syriac ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬. 32  The Peshitta reproduces the MT but worsens the accusation by adding the nomen agentis “robbers” after the adulterers. 33  This association of the Lord’s words with the drying and destruction of the land is echoed in Amos 1:2 (see footnote 25).

206

Avigail Aravna

‫  הייתי כאיש שכור וכגבר ﬠברו יין מפני יהוה ומפני דברי קדשו‬9 ‫ כי מפני אלה אבלה הארץ יבשו נאות מדבר‬10b

In this reconstructed Vorlage, v. 10b is read as a continuing explanation for the speaker’s state of mind, as it is described in v. 9.34 The presence of v. 10b in both the Syriac and the Greek versions indicates that if v. 10b is a secondary insertion, it must have been a relatively early one.35 However, the alternate vocalization implied by these two translations opens up another possibility – namely that, at the time of Isa 24’s formation, it was not as similar to Jer 23 as later readers of the punctuated text believe it to be. Up to this point, I have challenged the idea that Isa 24 is borrowing directly from Jer 23 by introducing the possibility that the two passages were not always as closely associated to one another as we now assume. In addition to reinforcing the distinction between the different words ‫ אכלה‬and ‫אבלה‬, I have also shown that parts of Jer 23 may have originally been entirely absent from the text, or, if present, have been read in a manner that distances the passage thematically from Isa 24. One conclusion we might draw from this is that the two passages did not influence one another at all, but were formulated independently. However, the thematic and interpretive inconsistencies in Jer 23 raise an additional possibility – namely that Jer 23, in its current form, could have been influenced by Isa 24 during the production of the Masoretic Text.

3.  Step Three: Redirecting the Causal Connection The key to this possibility lies in the versatility of the word ‫אלה‬, which, unpunctuated, can be read and understood either as a demonstrative pronoun or as a noun.36 As a result of this versatility, the question of how this word should be read remained potentially open until the moment that the text’s punctuation was inscribed in writing. We might therefore argue that, since the MT postdated the 34  Although

there can be little doubt that the LXX reflects a Hebrew Vorlage, the case in which the adulterers are not mentioned is an inferior reading. In this I follow the conclusion of Rofé, “Text-Criticism Within the Philological-Historical Discipline,” 14. This larger phenomenon was discussed by Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor,  The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases, SBLMS 51 (Missoula: Scholars, 2000). 35  The attempts to assess the origin and the date of these insertions of the metaphor of the land that dries up / mourns have generally been made as part of a larger discussion related to the development of the literary tradition of the nine passages as a group. On the passages in Jeremiah see Paul Volz, Der Prophet Jeremiah, 2nd ed., KAT 10 (Leipzig: Deicherstsche, 1928), 51 n.1, 140–41, 234. Delbert R. Hillers, “The Roads to Zion Mourn,” in Poets Before Homer, ed. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 34–44. 36 As Tov, Textual Criticism, 42, points out, “Since a large number of words could be read in different ways, the vocalization served the practical purpose for indicating precisely the way in which the consonants should be read.” See, e. g., differences in vocalization between MT and LXX: Jer 23:17 (‫ ;)למנאצי דבר ה׳‬Isa 9:7 (‫ ;)דבר‬Isa 24:23 (‫ החמה‬,‫)הלבנה‬.



Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past

207

creation of both Jer 23 and Isa 24, it is possible that the decision to punctuate ‫אלה‬ ָ rather than ‫ ֵא ֶּלה‬may in fact have been due to Isa 24’s influence. in Jer 23 as ‫ָאלה‬ It is worth noting that, despite the incongruities and inconsistencies that we have noted earlier in this article, the (deliberate or inadvertent) punctuation ָ in Jer 23 is thematically understandable. The association of the of ‫ אלה‬as ‫ָאלה‬ adulterers in v. 10b with the notion of a curse, for example, reflects a common enough association of sin (in this case adultery) with punishment. This association goes back to the lists of threats and execrations in Lev 26:14–45 and in Deut 28–29, describing the consequences of deviating from the covenant established between the people and the Lord. The consequences of covenant breaking are also directly associated with the verb ‫ נאף‬in Jer 3:1–10. The adultery in this instance, however, is an allegorical one, in which “Rebel Israel” is described as an adulterous spouse whom God divorces for breaking its vows of fidelity to Him (‫נאפה משבה ישראל‬, v. 8).37 Such a broader reading of the adultery in Jer 23 as a breach of the people’s covenant with the Lord also solidifies this passage’s thematic connection to Isa 24:6. Isa 24:4–6 explicitly associates the breaching of a covenant with an ‫ אלה‬that devastates the earth, noting that its inhabitants “transgressed teachings, violated laws, broke the eternal covenant,” and “that is why a curse consumes the earth.” In the case of Isa 24, the thematic connection to Jer 23 is further reinforced by several strong similarities of language. For example, in both, the root ‫חנ״ף‬ is employed to describe the people’s transgressions (see ‫כי גם נביא גם כהן חנפו‬ in Jer 23:11 and ‫ והארץ חנפה תחת יושביה‬in Isa 24:5). Even more prominent, however, is the repetition in both chapters of a series of words that recur in different permutations, reflecting the recurring theme of a land that “mourns” or “languishes” or “dries up.” As we have already noted above, Jer 23:10b is one of nine passages in which scholars have identified this repetitive phraseology. These include, for instance: Jer 12:4 Jer 23:10 Isa 24:4 Hos 4:3 Am 1:2

‫ﬠד מתי תאבל הארץ וﬠשב כל השדה ייבש מרﬠת יושבי בה ספתה בהמות וﬠוף‬ ‫כי מנאפים מלאה הארץ כי מפני אלה אבלה הארץ יבשו נאות מדבר‬ ‫אבלה נבלה הארץ אמללה נבלה תבל אמללו מרום ﬠם הארץ‬ ‫ﬠל כן תאבל הארץ ואמלל כל יושב בה בחית השדה ובﬠוף השמים וגם דגי הים יאספו‬ 38‫ויאמר ה׳ מציון ישאג ומירושלים יתן קולו ואבלו נאות הרﬠים ויבש ראש הכרמל‬

In light of this recurring phraseology and its similarities, scholars have tried to trace their process of transmission and development by identifying a diachronic relationship of influence between these particular passages.39 37  This judgment is drawing from the imagery of covenant violation such as prescribed in Deut 1–4. See James D. Martin, “The Forensic Background to Jeremiah 3:1,” VT 19 (1969): 82–92. 38  See note 25. 39 See especially the study of Franz D. Hubmann who explores the meaning of the metaphor as it occurs in Jer 12:4 in relation to its appearances in the other eight instances.

208

Avigail Aravna

While the question of how these nine phrases relate to one another is not critical to my argument, the fact of their association – linguistically and thematically – is. As the list above shows, one of the nine is Isa 24:4, which – significantly – almost immediately precedes Isa 24:6 – the phrase whose relation to Jer 23:10 concerns us. This proximity, I suggest, may have fostered an associative connection between these three passages that resulted in the canonization of ָ .40 Jer 23:10b as ‫ָאלה אבלה הארץ‬ When placed one above the other, Isa 24:4 and 24:6 clearly share a number of marked similarities – not only in language but in meter and phonology. Isa 24:4 Av-la nav-la haʾaretz Isa 24:6 A-la ach-la eretz

As the transliteration shows, each contains a cluster of three words, of which the first two are parallel not only in meter (i. e. two syllable words with the stress placed on the second syllable) but also in rhyme. Each line thus consists of two words of two syllables each that, within them, repeat the vowel “a” and conclude with the identical syllable “la.” This parallel is then completed by the repetition of “a/eretz” as the final word in each. As we have noted above, Jer 23:10b is already connected associatively with Isa 24:4 by their shared phraseology. In addition to the presence in both verses of the words ‫ אבלה‬and ‫ארץ‬, the reference to languishing lands, conveyed by the word ‫ נבלה‬in Isa 24:4, is also reflected in Jer 23:10b’s ‫יבשו נאות מדבר‬. The key to the association of all three verses with one another, I argue, is the presence in Jer 23:10b of that versatile word ‫אלה‬. We have seen that, in its local context, the word ‫ אלה‬in Jer 23:10b can (and perhaps even should) be read as ‫ ֵא ֶּלה‬. However, any scribe who associated this passage (consciously or unconsciously) with Isa 24:4 and the almost immediately adjacent Isa 24:6, might well have been drawn to punctuate the word as ‫ָאלה‬ ָ since doing so would cause Jer 23:10b to mimic the same pattern of meter and assonance that exists between the two phrases in Isaiah. Thus “mipnei e-le av-la haaretz” becomes “mipnei a-la av-la haaretz,” corresponding to the pattern described above. Isa 24:4

Av-la nav-la haʾaretz

Isa 24:6 Jer 23:10b

A-la ach-la eretz A-la Av-la haʾaretz

‫אבלה נבלה הארץ אמללה נבלה תבל‬ ‫ﬠל כן אלה אכלה ארץ‬ ‫כי מפני אלה אבלה הארץ יבשו נאות מדבר‬

Franz D. Hubmann, Untersuchungen zu den Konfessionen Jer 11:18–12:6 und Jer 15:10–21, FB 30 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1978), 139–43. 40  A similar connection between breaking a covenant and the languishing of earth appears in Isa 33:8 (‫ אבל אמללה ארץ החפיר לבנון קמל‬,‫)הפר ברית מאס ﬠרים לא חשב אנוש‬.

Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past



209

This combination of the thematic association with the pull of the potential poetic similarity, I argue, suggests that it may in fact have been Isa 24:6 that influenced the later form of Jer 23:10, rather than the other way around.

4.  Step Four: Weighing the Implications Let us assume, then, that this is indeed what happened: Let us assume that later readers, engaged in the work of transcribing and punctuating the MT, were familiar with both of these passages, and with their similarities of language and theme. They therefore, upon reading the unpunctuated ‫כי מפני אלה אבלה הארץ‬ in Jeremiah, associated it with a segment of Isaiah that includes the same phraseology surrounding the root ‫אב״ל‬, in close proximity to the word ‫ אלה‬in the clear context of a curse. This, coupled with the compelling similarities in meter and assonance described above, may well have prompted them to punctuate the ָ instead of ‫ ֵא ֶּלה‬, thereby transforming it from a demonstrative proword as ‫ָאלה‬ noun into a noun and producing a phrase that translates into English as “the land mourns because of a curse.” This explanation, if accepted, carries a number of far-reaching implications. The first of these, as we have seen, is a potential change to the meaning of Jer 23:10, and, by extension, to the passage as a whole. Reading the word ‫ אלה‬as ‫ ֵא ֶּלה‬rather than ‫ָאלה‬ ָ removes the inconsistently positioned element of the curse and produces a version of the passage that “flows” more smoothly from sin to punishment, attributing the sorrows of the land to the actions of the adulterers. Such a sequence would reflect, for example, that of Hos 4:2–3, which begins with a list of sins in v. 2, followed by a description of the languishing land in v. 3: 41‫אָספוּ׃‬ ֽ ֵ ֵ‫י‬

.‫ָאל ׂה ְו ַכ ֵ֔חשׁ ְו ָר ֹ֥צ ַח ְוגָ ֖ ֹנב וְ נָ ֹ֑אף ָפּ ָ ֕רצוּ ְו ָד ִ֥מים ְבּ ָד ִ ֖מים נָ ָגֽﬠוּ‬ ‫ם־דּ ֵג֥י ַהיָּ ֖ם‬ ְ ַ‫ל־יֹושׁב ָ֔בּהּ ְבּ ַחיַּ ֥ת ַה ָשּׂ ֶ ֖דה ְוּבﬠ֣ ֹוף ַה ָשּׁ ָמ֑יִ ם ְוג‬ ֵ֣ ‫ל־כּ֣ן ֶתּ ֱא ַב֣ל ָה ֗אָ ֶרץ ְו ֻא ְמ ַלל ֙ ָכּ‬ ֵ ‫ַﬠ‬

The second implication pertains to our understanding of the relationship between these passages in Jeremiah and Isaiah by introducing the possibility that it was in fact the latter that influenced the former. In doing so, it contradicts the common consensus among scholars that Jeremiah influenced Isaiah. This consensus had been based on the fact that the composition of Jer 23 is generally acknowledged to predate that of Isa 24–27, and on the presence in the latter of references to previous prophecies.42 And yet, the case before us shows that date of composition may not be the only relevant factor worth considering. 41  “[False] swearing, dishonesty, and murder, and theft and adultery are rife; crime follows upon crime! For that, the earth is withered: everything that dwells on it languishes – beasts of the field and birds of the sky – even the fish of the sea perish.” 42  See, for instance, Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 460–67.

210

Avigail Aravna

The final implication of the argument I  have proposed is therefore the inclusion of another element in our consideration of the relationships between biblical texts. Because biblical texts were unpunctuated until several centuries later, their interpretation retained a high degree of dynamism. As a result, many Hebrew words were rendered ambiguous by a lack of punctuation, so that the choice of how to read them remained in the hands of the individual reader. The determination of these dynamic texts’ “definitive” interpretation was therefore not made by their original writers, but rather by the relatively late “readers” who transcribed the punctuated text. The upshot of this is that, when considering the potential influences of one text on another, we must take into account that it is not impossible for an earlier text to be influenced by one that was conceived and written later, since decisions made long after both texts became well known send subtle threads of influence back from later texts into ostensibly earlier ones. Thus, a text like Isa 24, even as it draws upon earlier prophecies for inspiration, can also, if only in this single verse, extend its arm and change the way in which an earlier text will be perceived.

Bibliography Blenkinsopp, Joseph.  Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. ArBib 11. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1987. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah 1–39. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Day, John. “A Case of Inner Scriptural Interpretation: The Dependence of Isaiah 26:13– 27:11 on Hosea 12:4–14:10 and Its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the Isaiah Apocalypse.” JTS 31 (1980): 309–19. Driver, Samuel R. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: A Revised Translation with Introductions and Short Explanations. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. KHC. Leipzig: Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1903. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches, Vol. 4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs., 1908. Gray, George Buchanan. A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1980. Hayes, Katherine M. The Earth Mourns: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic. Academia Biblica 8. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hays, Christopher B. The Origins of Isaiah 24–27: Josiah’s Festival Scroll for the Fall of Assyria. Cambridge University Press, 2019. Hibbard, J. Todd, and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, eds. Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.



Sending Subtle Threads of Influence into the Past

211

–. Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions. FAT II/16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Hillers, Delbert R. “The Roads to Zion Mourn.” Pages 34–44 in Poets Before Homer. Edited by F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Hoffman, Yair. Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary. Mikra Leyisraʾel. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001. Holladay, William L. A  Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Hubmann, Franz D. Untersuchungen zu den Konfessionen Jer 11:18–12:6 und Jer 15:10– 21. FB 30. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1978. Janzen, G. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Johnson, Dan. G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Martin, James D. “The Forensic Background to Jeremiah 3:1.” VT 19 (1969): 82–92. McK ane, William. Jeremiah: 1–25. Vol 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah. Doublets and Recurring Phrases. SBLMS 51. Missoula: Scholars, 2000. Polaski, Donald C. Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. BibInt 50. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Rofé, Alexander. “Text-Criticism within the Philological-Historical Discipline: The Problem of the Double Text of Jeremiah.” Tarbits 78 (2008): 5–25. Rudman, Dominic. “Midrash in the Isaiah Apocalypse.” ZAW 112 (2000): 404–408. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Liber Jeremia. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1970. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27: Toward an Understanding of the Redactional Function of Chapters 24–27 in the Book of Isaiah.” JBL 107 (1988): 39–52. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Volz, Paul. Der Prophet Jeremiah. Leipzig: Deicherstsche, 1928. Wessels, Wilhelm J. “Rhetorical Language as a Device for Jeremiah’s Authenticity Claims: His Rivalry with Adversaries in 23:9–15.” Journal for Semitics 26 (2017): 158–76. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27: A  Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

“Sing to the LORD a New Song.” The Tradents of the Book of Isaiah and the Psalter* Ulrich Berges 1.  Introduction: Developments in Research History One of the most significant reorientations in the Old Testament scholarship of the last thirty years is due to the realization that the books of the Hebrew Bible have not merely come into existence through the writing of oral traditions but are presented as deliberate compositions. This constituted a conclusive departure from an atomizing exegesis, which limited itself to individual pericopes only, ignoring the greater literary context. As recently as 1984, R. Rendtorff commented in reference to his German colleagues: “The issue of the composition of the Book of Isaiah in its present form is not deemed to be part of the generally accepted topics of Old Testament scholarship.”1 After the outstanding studies by E. Zenger on the Psalter,2 this verdict may be set aside; the situation for the book of Isaiah, too, has changed fundamentally.3 The examination of Old Testament texts must take into account both their genesis and literary standing, what may methodologically be referred to as “diachronically reflected synchrony.” The inquiry into the origin of the texts has by no means become obsolete; it is however no longer at the center of exegetical interest. The diachronic analysis is preceded by studies on synchrony with a specific focus on compositional structures which, * This essay was translated by Klaudia Ringelmann (Pretoria, South Africa) from the German article “‘Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied.’ Zu den Trägerkreisen von Jesajabuch und Psalter,” in Trägerkreise in den Psalmen, ed. Johannes Bremer, Frank‑Lothar Hossfeld, and Till M. Steiner, BBB 178 (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2017), 11–33. 1 Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja,” VT 34 (1984): 295 (English translation KR): “Die Frage nach der Komposition des Jesajabuches in seiner jetzt vorliegenden Gestalt gehört nicht zu den allgemein anerkannten Themen der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft.” 2  Cf. Erich Zenger, “Psalmenforschung nach Hermann Gunkel und Sigmund Mowinckel,” in International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament: Congress Volume Oslo 1998, ed. Andre Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 399–435; Erich Zenger, “Von der Psalmenexegese zur Psalterexegese,” BK 56 (2001): 8–15. 3  Cf. Ulrich Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, trans. Millard C. Lind, Hebrew Bible Monographs 46 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012); Ulrich Berges, “Das Jesajabuch als literarische Kathedrale: Ein Rundgang durch die Jahrhunderte,” BK 61 (2006): 190–97; Ulrich Berges, “Synchronie und Diachronie: Zur Methodenvielfalt in der Exegese,” BK 62 (2007): 249–52.

214

Ulrich Berges

in the case of Isaiah and the Psalter, concern entire books or sections thereof. Both corpora are at the same time literary works of art, a complex historical testimony, and the result of the history of a text that was in the making for approximately five hundred years. Connected to the claim of a diachronically reflected synchrony is the realization that biblical books – especially the book of Isaiah and the Psalter – are to be understood as having grown into textual worlds. The only authors who come into question are those of trained literati who, with their “literary cathedrals,” advocate certain ideas in the discourses within postexilic Israel, i. e., in the Yehud of the Persian period. As plausible as the tradent hypothesis may sound, it remains just as difficult to give these tradents a clearly contoured profile. Concerning the book of Isaiah, R. R. Wilson intensifies this issue: “It is still not clear what the authors and editors who shaped Isaiah were doing, how they were doing it, or even why they were doing it.”4 The question of the tradents can only be addressed in a cross-book manner, i. e., with a view to the overlaps and contrasts with contemporaneous or similar writings. Consequently, the literary history of the Old Testament will ultimately be redefined as the theological history of the Hebrew Bible. In my habilitation, which I completed more than 15 years ago, I assumed, as a point of departure, a group for Isa 1–32* which I named “Zion Community” (“Zionsgemeinde”), due to its succinct focus on Mount Zion.5 At the time, and as far as Isa 40–55 was concerned, I  spoke rather vaguely of the “prophetic tradents,”6 without specifying any further characteristics of these authors. This changed when I  submitted a commentary on Isa 40–48 to the HThKAT, in which I assumed the existence of Levitical temple singers as collective authors, who had begun their oratorio of hope in Babylonian exile and continued it after their return to Jerusalem under Darius (from 520 BCE).7 In my habilitation I was still guided by broad research consensus about an anonymous writer in Babylon, “Deutero-Isaiah,” as well as “Trito-Isaiah,” an author of the Persian period.8 For the two final chapters of the book of Isaiah (Isa 65–66) I brought a “redaction of a Servant Community” into position, understanding it to represent the true progeny of Mother Zion and the Servant.9 These attempts at determination were certainly no more than preliminary suggestions, and B. Weber justifiably points out remaining open questions: “He leaves the question as to the connection 4  Robert R. Wilson, “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 97. 5  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 510. 6  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 512. 7  Cf. Ulrich Berges, Jesaja 40–48, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008), 38–43. 8  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 512. 9  Berges, Book of Isaiah, 512–13.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

215

between the temple singers and the Servant Community unexplained.”10 But the Swiss exegete generally supports this direction of search, stating: “The assumption of a common guild or highly interconnected literati as a stronghold of tradition and its transmission, and of text production and redaction is a valid possibility, which may serve to explain the tangible peculiarities and commonalities in the text compositions.”11

B. Weber considers the Asaphites to be the appropriate link, seeing that they had already gained experience in coping with the end of the northern empire by literarily coming to terms with the catastrophe (Pss 74; 77–78; 80; 83 – new application to the events of 586 BCE in Ps 79).12 Further research would be urgently needed here, especially as indications in this direction have existed for decades, including those by G. Wanke on the Korachites: “The mutual literary influence of the eschatological texts and the Korachite Zion psalms, shown here in brief examples, is also proof that both text groups belong to the same time.”13 An important step on this issue was taken by J. Werlitz in his extraordinarily informative habilitation from 1999, in which he comments on the tradents as follows: According to the view developed here, the persons responsible for the composition of Isaiah 40–55 are a group of returning emigrants who are affiliated with the pre-exilic temple singers and – after their return home in the thirties or twenties of the 6th century BCE – probably connected with this group of cultic servants in Jerusalem. These re-migrants see themselves as being charged with a message of consolation for Zion, which, however, seems to have raised objections in Zion itself.14 10 Beat Weber, “‘A saf ’ und ‘Jesaja’: Eine komparatistische Studie zur These von Tempelsängern als für Jesaja 40–66 verantwortlichen Trägerkreis,” OTE 22 (2009): 457 n. 2 (English translation KR): “Wie die Tempelsänger mit der Gemeinde der Knechte in Verbindung zu bringen sind, lässt er unexpliziert.” 11  Weber, “Asaf,” 478 (English translation KR): “Die Annahme einer gemeinsamen Gilde oder stark vernetzter Trägerkreise als Hort von Traditionsüberlieferung, Textproduktion und -redaktion ist eine valable Möglichkeit, die in den Textgestalten greifbaren Eigenheiten wie Gemeinsamkeiten zu erklären.” 12 Cf. Weber, “Asaf,” 458. 13 Gunther Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966), 115 (English translation KR): “Die hier an kurzen Beispielen gezeigte gegenseitige literarische Beeinflussung der eschatologischen Texte und der korachitischen Zionspsalmen ist ebenfalls ein Beweis dafür, dass beide Textgruppen der gleichen Zeit angehören.” 14 Jürgen Werlitz, Redaktion und Komposition: Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40–55, BBB 122 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 321 (English translation KR): “Der hier entwickelten Auffassung nach handelt es sich bei den für die Komposition von Jes 40–55 Verantwortlichen um eine Gruppe von Rückwanderern, die in einer Verbindung mit der vorexilischen Tempelsängerschaft stehen und – nach ihrer Heimkehr in den dreißiger oder zwanziger Jahren des 6. Jh.s v. Chr. – in Jerusalem wohl Anschluß an diese Gruppe der Kultbediensteten gefunden haben. Diese Rückwanderer sehen sich als mit einer Tröstungsbotschaft für Zion beauftragt an, die freilich in Zion selbst auf Einwände gestoßen zu sein scheint.” See more recently also

216

Ulrich Berges

As far as reception and modification are concerned, I myself make the assumption that it was not only the resistance against the consolation of Zion that led to the first edition of Isa 40–54 (“as self-reassurance of a group in post-exilic Jerusalem,” says J. Werlitz),15 but that the returning Levitical singers affiliated themselves to a preexisting Isaiah tradition in Jerusalem, which had been upheld up to the first deportation in 597 BCE.16 On the one hand, they were able to rely on the indisputable authority of Isaiah ben Amoz; on the other hand, the Jerusalem Isaiah tradition was extended into the postexilic period, which placed it on a comparative basis with the paramount roles played by the two great prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel.17 The notion that temple singers were the driving force behind the book of Isaiah is increasingly gaining influence. W. Dietrich, in the revised edition of Smend’s introduction, states: The centering of the Book of Isaiah on Mount Zion and the high poeticity of many of its texts – most notably in the second and third part of the book – suggest a guild of temple singers and temple poets (functioning also as temple prophets?), the members of which initially continued serving in the First Temple, and who were, together with the nobility of Jerusalem, subsequently forcibly taken to Babylon, from where they returned to serve at the Second Temple. This remains speculation – albeit an inviting one that may explain many things in the Book of Isaiah.18

In my opinion, the greatest progress in prophet research over the last twenty years has been the re-dimensioning of the prophetic single author, as well as the intensified attention given to literary tradents. This can reach a stage where – as in my case  – prophetic authors like “Deutero-/Trito-Isaiah” disappear completely.19 Even exegetes who do not take this step no longer rate the individual personality as an irrevocable factor in their theory development: Rainer Albertz, Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Biblische Enzyklopadie 7 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 296–301. 15  Werlitz, Redaktion, 321 (English translation KR). 16  Thus Rüdiger Feuerstein, “Weshalb gibt es ‘Deuterojesaja’?,” in Ich bewirke das Heil und erschaffe das Unheil (Jesaja 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten; Festschrift für Lothar Ruppert zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Friedrich Dietrich and Bernd Willmes, FB 88 (Würzburg: Echter, 1998), 93–134. 17 Cf. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 42; Berges, Jesaja, 45. 18 Walter Dietrich, “Hintere Propheten,” in Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, ed. Walter Dietrich et al., Theologische Wissenschaft 1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014), 305–6 (English translation KR): “Die Zentrierung des Jes-Buches auf den Zion und die hohe Poetizität sehr vieler seiner Texte – speziell auch im zweiten und dritten Buchteil – lässt an eine Gilde von Tempelsängern bzw. -poeten (zugleich auch Tempelpropheten?) denken, deren Mitglieder zuerst noch am Ersten Tempel Dienst taten, dann mit den Vornehmen aus Jerusalem nach Babylon verschleppt wurden und von dort zum Dienst am Zweiten Tempel zurückkehrten. Dies bleibt eine Spekulation – vielleicht aber eine einladende und vieles im Jes-Buch erklärende.” 19 Cf. Ulrich Berges, “Vom Propheten des Buches zu den Tröstern Jerusalems: Eine Auslegung zu Jes 40,1–11,” in Jesus als Bote des Heils: Heilsverkündigung und Heilserfahrung in frühchristlicher Zeit, ed. Linus Hauser, Ferdinand R. Prostmeier and Christa GeorgZöller, SBB 60 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2008), 19–28; Ulrich Berges, “Farewell to



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

217

There are no convincing arguments against the prophet as author, but a leeway of possibilities always remains. This compels us to broaden the cipher ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ and, as a rule, not to insist on a personality that is unknown anyhow, but rather to inquire after a textual world that is consistent in language and thought and, to a certain extent, in quality as well.20

It is the merit of O. H. Steck that he did not evade a further inquiry into the tradents and composers even though he was very aware of the difficulties pertaining to a more specified identification. In a book entitled The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness he writes the following succinct sentences: The question is no less historical regarding how one should imagine the author and the intended readership of the prophetic books in this time. From the outset this question receives an unusual answer. We (still) have no independent perception of the origin of the prophetic books from the framework of the sociology of literature with which we can begin the historical reconstruction of the development of the book. We can only draw conclusions based upon the literary discovery that we have received inside the books themselves. This discovery must bear the burden of proof. However, it appears to us that this finding, as such (!), is conclusive enough for the question concerning who primarily shaped these books for whom …. Without the acceptance of tradent schools and tradent schooling that was occupied with the care of prophetically transmitted material, one cannot account for the eminent knowledge of detail about the text’s flow and the text’s statements that prophetic books present in reference to the whole. Nor can one account for the construction and the reception suited to the intention if one seeks a plausible location without accepting these schools. On the other hand, it is not disturbing that prophetic books could be, and were, received differently by these places of maintenance within tradent circles of priestly or wisdom knowledge of tradition.21

2.  Literary Sociological Backgrounds The literary sociological background against which the writing and composition of the Hebrew Bible grosso modo took place between 800–300 BCE continues to remain largely in the dark. However, at least two factors seem plausible enough to build upon. On the one hand, it is reasonable to assume that literacy in Israel would probably scarcely have been any higher than in its neighboring cultures. Deutero-Isaiah or Prophecy without a Prophet,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. Andre Lemaire, VTSup 133 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 575–95. 20 Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “‘Wach auf, wach auf, Arm des Herrn!’: Jes 51,9–52,12,” in Der Freund des Menschen: Festschrift für Georg Christian Macholz zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres, ed. Arndt Meinhold and Angelika Berlejung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 44 (English translation KR): “Es gibt keine durchschlagenden Argumente gegen den Propheten als Autor, aber immer bleibt ein Spielraum von Möglichkeiten. Das nötigt dazu, die Chiffre ‘Deuterojesaja’ breiter zu fassen und sich in der Regel nicht auf die ohnedies unbekannte Persönlichkeit zu kaprizieren, sondern nach einer in Sprache und Gedanken, in Grenzen auch in der Qualität einheitlichen Textwelt zu fragen.” 21  Odil Hannes Steck, The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness, trans. James D. Nogalski (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000), 14.

218

Ulrich Berges

For example, literacy in Mesopotamia is estimated to have been around 5 percent, in Egypt 7 percent, and in Greece around 10 percent, although the reading and writing ability of simple texts may have been higher. In his monograph Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, K. van der Toorn explains: ‘High literacy’ was confined to a small group. For the majority of the population, word of mouth remained the principal channel of communication …. [T]he evidence suggests that the role of writing in Israel was about the same as elsewhere in the ancient Near East; the literacy rate was presumably similar to that in surrounding civilizations as well.22

It goes without saying that, as far as the question of the tradents and composers of the Hebrew Bible is concerned, the estimated literacy, i. e., the ability to design and creatively develop entire reference systems, is of central importance. The ability to perform this highly qualified work should, with all due caution, be estimated to apply to no more than 5 percent of the total population. In doing so, it seems necessary to place these trained writers within the proximity of postexilic temple services. But what was the size of Jerusalem’s population after the destruction of Babylon until well into the Persian period of restoration? Only in taking this overall number into account do the estimated percentages gain their real significance. According to the analyses of O. Lipschits, the settled area of Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, which amounted to 1000 dunams (= 100 hectares) shortly before the Babylonian invasion, was reduced to 110 dunams (= 11 hectares) after the catastrophe. With a quotient of 25 people per dunam, the population in Jerusalem thus fell from 25,000 to 2,750,23 with no upward demographic curve even after the return of the exiles: The evidence shows that the ‘return to Zion’ did not leave its imprint on the archaeological data, nor is there any demographic testimony of it …. The demographic figures from the Jerusalem region also attest that even at the height of the Persian period, the city’s population was only 3,000, which is about 12 % of the population of the city and its environs on the eve of the destruction. Even if all the residents of the region were among the exiles who made the return to Zion, the returnees only amounted to several thousand.24

Assuming therefore a population of 3,000 people in Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings during the Persian period (however not Benjamin with around 12,500 people), and taking into account a 5 percent literacy rate, one arrives at a circle of about 150 people. For E. Ben Zvi, these figures are still far too high. His estimate for the second half of the Persian era (450–332 BCE) is 1250–1500 inhabitants in Jerusalem, of whom only a handful would have been capable of 22 Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 11. 23  Cf. Oded Lipschits, “Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries B. C.E.,” in Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 363–64. 24  Lipschits, “Demographic Changes,” 365.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

219

the highest form of scribal activity. He further states that the scarce resources of the Yehud province would have made it impossible to finance a larger group of professional scribes.25 Acknowledging the riskiness of comparing such guiding figures with biblical data, some information from postexilic times can nonetheless still be helpful. For example, Ezra 2:40–41 gives the number of returning Levites as 74 and the singers/Asaphites as 128 (in the parallel text of Neh 7:43–44: Levites also as 74 and singers/Asaphites as 148).26 In view of the completely inflated number of priests (about 4,300) the number of Levites and singers gives a much more realistic impression. Ezra’s actions correspond to this, in view of the very small number of Levites willing to return home (Ezra 8:15–20), a number which he was apparently only able to increase by a few men,27 namely 38: “Also from the temple servants, whom David and the officials had given for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty temple servants. All of them were mentioned by name” (Ezra 8:20).28 As D. W. Jamieson-Drake emphasized in his well-known study, a concentration of administrative penmanship on Jerusalem already existed in preexilic times: It could hardly be a coincidence that every site outside Jerusalem containing direct evidence of writing was to some degree administratively dependent on Jerusalem. The conclusion to which this evidence points is that professional administrators were trained in Jerusalem, and only in Jerusalem …. Our evidence shows that even local, nonprofessional examples of writing are limited to sites which show the strongest evidence of professional administrative involvement through one of the several forms of dependence on Jerusalem.29

In addition to the estimated number of professional literati, and the concentration on Jerusalem as the place of literary activity,30 a third component must be 25  Cf. Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of the Hebrew Bible,” in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete, ed. Walter E. Aufrecht, Steven W. Gauley, and Neil A. Mirau, JSOTSup 244 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997), 201–206. 26  Ezra 2:65: “and they had 200 male and female singers”; in Neh 7:67 the number is 245. 27  Cf. Thomas Willi, “Leviten, Priester und Kult in vorhellenistischer Zeit: Die chronistische Optik in ihrem geschichtlichen Kontext,” in Israel und die Völker: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte Israels in der Perserzeit, ed. Michael Pietsch, SBAB 55 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012), 63–64 (English translation KR): “The priest Ezra found idealists from all other spheres among the people who joined his caravan of returnees – but no Levites (Ezra 8:15–20).” [“Der Priester Esra hat aus allen übrigen Kreisen des Volkes Idealisten gefunden, die sich seiner Rückwanderer-Karawane anschlossen – nur keine Leviten (Esr 8,15–20).”] 28  Cf. the number of members at Qumran. According to Hartmut Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch, 9th ed. (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1999), 69: maximum number of active members 60; assembly room standing, praying 200; assembly room sitting, eating 100. 29  David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah, SWBA 9 (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2011), 148. 30  See also, among others, Ehud Ben Zvi, “Observations on Prophetic Characters, Pro-

220

Ulrich Berges

included in the deliberations on tradents and composers of biblical books. This component is based on the assumption that the Old Testament writings are not the result of individual authors, but rather of extremely well-informed groups. E. A. Knauf is quoted in more detail here: The naming of ‘authorities’ in the Talmud and their absence in the Torah is an indication of the difference between Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic Judaism. Traditional literature, and not author literature, are both collections: collections of what is taught and handed down in the name of authorities, not authors. Because it is not the author who matters, but the authority in whose name one thinks and rethinks, the great Prophet Books may contain rather few of the words of the historical Isaiah, Jeremiah or Ezekiel without having thereby been misnamed. The biblical absence of the ‘author’ corresponds to the absence of the book as an artefact, as a product, as a commodity in the biblical world …. Literature remained the intellectual property of the group that owned it and could dispose of it.31

For prophecy, this concretely means: The formative figures of eponymous books such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were not prophetic authors, but rather authorities and founders of theological discourses and discourse communities. These groups with their idealized founding figures were in close contact with one another and had vast ideological overlaps as well as points of contrast. Creating biographies becomes prevalent during Hellenistic-Roman times, making real authors out of the authorities. Thus the book of Chronicles (around 300 BCE) already turns prophets like Isaiah into reliable historians (cf. 2 Chr 32:32). Josephus Flavius (37/38–100 CE) emphasizes the superiority of the biblical authors over Homer, the father of Greek literature, saying that they had written down their knowledge, whereas the latter had not left his poetry in written form. Therefore his poetry had to be reproduced from memory, which is, in his opinion, why so many inconsistencies are to be found (I, 12).32 phetic Texts, Priests of Old, Persian Period Priests and Literati,” in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Alice O. Bellis, JSOTSup 408 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 19–30. 31 Ernst A. Knauf, “Audiatur et altera pars: Zur Logik der Pentateuch-Reaktion,” BK 53 (1998): 121 (English translation KR): “In der namentlichen Angabe von ‘Autoritäten’ im Talmud und in ihrem Fehlen in der Tora drückt sich der Unterschied zwischen hellenistischem und vor-hellenistischem Judentum aus. Traditionsliteratur, und nicht Autoren-Literatur, sind beide: Sammlungen dessen, was im Namen von Autoritäten, nicht Autoren, gelehrt und überliefert wird. Weil es nicht auf den Autor ankommt, sondern auf die Autorität, in deren Namen man denkt und weiterdenkt, können die großen Prophetenbücher recht wenige der Worte des historischen Jesaja, Jeremia, oder Ezechiel enthalten, ohne dadurch falsch betitelt zu sein. Der biblischen Abwesenheit des ‘Autors’ korrespondiert die Abwesenheit des Buches als Artefakt, als Produkt, als Ware in der biblischen Welt […]. Literatur blieb das geistige Eigentum jener Gruppe, die sie besaß und die darüber verfügen konnte.” 32 See Ulrich Berges, “Kollektive Autorschaft im Alten Testament,” in Autorschaft: Ikonen – Stile – Institutionen, ed. Christel Meier and Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf (Berlin: Akademie, 2011), 29–39.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

221

The writer milieu in postexilic Israel (approx. 100 people?) was by no means uniform, but rather pluriform with many variants. These small groups, residing within the cultural elite in what was an economically modest Jerusalem, must have known each other. This is also the opinion of K. Schmid in his history of Old Testament literature: There is no reason to suppose that there was a homogenous milieu of Jerusalem scribes. Although the groups responsible for the origins of the Old Testament books were probably very limited and located mainly in Jerusalem, at least from the Persian period onward, they appear to have represented a relatively broad spectrum of theological ideas. At any rate, the sometimes almost contrary viewpoints of the materials that now stand alongside one another in the biblical books point in that direction.33

A further condition for production and reception needs to be considered before the search for traces of literary interconnections between the book of Isaiah and the Psalter can begin. It is to be assumed, to wit, that over long stretches the Old Testament literature was written by scribes for scribes – whether these worked at the temple or the palace. In other words, the audience was essentially identical with the authors themselves. This seems especially likely because of the extreme degree of intertextuality in the Old Testament literature, which was evidently addressed to a particularly well-educated group of recipients.34

3.  Searching for Literary Traces Connecting the Book of Isaiah and the Psalter It goes without saying that in this context a search for traces connecting the book of Isaiah and the Psalter can only be preliminary. A reappraisal of the literary relations between the book of Isaiah and the Psalter remains a desideratum of research, especially with regard to the tradents and composers of both corpora in postexilic Israel. 3.1  Themes, Motifs, Epithets The above-mentioned assumption that the Old Testament writings were written by a highly trained but small group of literary experts in a very small postexilic Jerusalem and Yehud – in knowledge of and partly also in competition with one another – should be given greater consideration in Old Testament research than has hitherto been the case. If this happens, however, the fact that the concept and theme of “Zion” in the book of Isaiah and in the Psalter forms a constant 33 Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A  Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 35. 34  Schmid, The Old Testament, 38.

222

Ulrich Berges

throughout, but is completely absent in the book of Ezekiel, becomes more important.35 Furthermore, “Zion” is also not to be found in the priestly written tradition, which otherwise exhibits close links with Isa 40–54 (the interplay between the theology of creation and the theology of history, among others). T. Willi elaborates on this finding: One will be less surprised about the absence of ‘Zion’ in Hos, Jonah, Nah, Hab, also in Job, Prov and Ruth, but very much so about the fact that this term and concept play a role neither in Hag nor in Mal, and not in Ezra-Neh (in 1–2 Chr, a mere mention in 1 Chr 11:5 and 2 Chr 5:2). The testimony to the idea of Zion is thus limited to the school of Isaiah, Zech and (Deutero-)Mic, and finally to selected Psalms, i. e. to a surprisingly narrow segment.36

More than forty years ago, W. Zimmerli, in his commentary on Ezekiel, already pointed out that concepts which are constitutive for Isa 40–54 are simply missing in the priestly book of this prophet: Ezekiel lacks all the soft features and warmer tones. There is no talk of mercy, love, loyalty to the covenant, of Yahweh’s righteousness in salvation. All this vocabulary is absent from the book of Ezek. One will search in vain for ‫חסד‬, ‫רחמים‬, ‫אמונה‬, ‫יׁשוﬠה‬, ‫ישׁﬠ‬, ‫ אהבה‬in the book of Ezek.37

The absence of “Zion” in the book of Ezekiel can be explained by the fact that this concept inevitably raises the question of the relationship between the peoples and YHWH, who, as heavenly King, had made His dwelling place in Jerusalem and on Mount Zion. Future visions such as those in Isa 2:2–5 and Mic 4:1–5 of uncircumcised peoples who receive Torah at Mount Zion from YHWH himself, or the announcement in Ps 87 that foreigners would savor their birthright on 35  Cf. Corinna Körting, Zion in den Psalmen, FAT 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 228 (English translation KR): “In some respects, the prophetic scriptures provide the Psalter with the corresponding prerequisites. Here, too, it can be shown in some areas that a theology oriented towards Zion determined the design of the individual texts and the growth of the books.” [“In mancher Hinsicht bieten die prophetischen Schriften dem Psalter entsprechende Voraussetzungen. Auch hier läßt sich in einigen Bereichen nachweisen, daß eine an Zion orientierte Theologie die Gestaltung der Einzeltexte und das Wachstum der Bücher bestimmt hat.”] 36 Thomas Willi, “Das ‫ׁשיר המﬠלות‬: Zion und der Sitz im Leben der ‘Aufstiegslieder’ Psalm 120–134,” in Israel und die Völker, 71–72 (English translation KR): “Über das Fehlen von ‘Zion’ in Hos, Jon, Nah, Hab, auch in Hi, Prov, Ruth, wird man weniger verwundert sein, wohl aber über die Tatsache, dass der Begriff und die Vorstellung weder in Hag noch in Mal, und auch nicht in Esr–Neh (in I–IIChr grade mal IChr 11,5 und IIChr 5,2) eine Rolle spielen. Die Bezeugung der Zionsvorstellung beschränkt sich somit auf die Jesaja-Schule, Sach und (Deutero-) Mi, schließlich auf ausgewählte Psalmen, also auf ein im Ganzen überraschend enges Segment.” 37 Walter Zimmerli, Ezechiel 25–48, BKAT 13/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), 877 (English translation KR): “Es fehlen […] bei Ezechiel alle weichen Züge und wärmeren Töne. Es ist nicht von der Barmherzigkeit, der Liebe, der Bundestreue, der heilschaffenden Gerechtigkeit Jahwes geredet. Dieses ganze Vokabular fehlt dem Buche Ez. ‫יׁשוﬠה‬, ‫ישׁﬠ‬, ‫אהבה‬ ‫חסד‬, ‫רחמים‬, ‫אמונה‬, sucht man im Buche Ez vergeblich.”



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

223

Mount Zion (v. 4) will have constituted an abomination to the priestly authors of the book of Ezekiel. Following on from this, ‫“( ׂשׂשון‬jubilation,” Isa 12:3; 22:13; 35:10; 51:3, 11; 61:3) does not appear at all in Ezekiel and ‫“( ׂשמחה‬joy,” Isa 9:2; 16:10; 22:13; 24:11; 29:19; 30:29; 35:10; 51:3, 11; 55:12; 61:7; 66:5) is only negative in the sense of malicious joy on the part of the detested, related people of Edom (Ezek 35:15; 36:5). Whereas the restoration of sacrificial worship in Jerusalem is one of the central expectations in the priestly book of Ezekiel, the Levitical singers and poets place their hopes on Zion to be the place where “song of praise/ sacrifice of praise” and “play/sound” are at home (Isa 51:3). As is well known, the ‫“( ׁשיר חדׁש‬new song”) is only mentioned in the book of Isaiah (Isa 42:10) and the Psalter (Pss 33:3; 40:4; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1). Of all the prophetic books, it is only the book of Isaiah that is characterized by hymns and songs. It is only there (from Isa 54:17) and in the Psalter (especially in Book IV and V ) that the ‫“( ﬠבדים‬servants”) are distinctly mentioned.38 These two corpora also contain the exclusive motif configuration of “Zion,” “poor” and “servants,” whereby the distress of the servants at the end of the book of Isaiah seems to be higher than in the Psalter. Only in the book of Isaiah and the Psalter do those who are poor and bowed down become visible as a group, who find themselves being under the special promise of the liberating God, and who are to find their resting place on Mount Zion.39 In the book of Isaiah, “rejoicing” (‫)רנה‬, or rather “to rejoice” (‫ )רנן‬is well-nigh the trademark of the redeemed and liberated who are on their way to Mount Zion (Isa 12:6; 42:11; 43:14; 44:23; 48:20; 49:13; 51:11; 52:8, 9; 54:1; 55:12; 65:14). This can only be found in a few passages in the other prophetic books, and, in fact, as echoes on Isa 40–54 (Isa 31:7, 12; 51:48; Zeph 3:14, 17; Zech 2:14). The situation is different in the Psalter where, as one would expect, rejoicing is at home. It is not only to be found (among others Pss 5:12; 20:6; 30:6; 32:11; 33:1; 35:27), but also in the songs of the singers’ guilds (Pss 42:5; 47:2; 81:2; 84:3; 89:13), as well as cumulatively in the YHWH royal psalms (Pss 90:14; 92:5; 95:1; 96:12; 98:4, 8). The motif can also be found in the historical psalms (Pss 105:43; 107:22) and at a prominent position in the Pilgrimage Psalms (Pss 120–134), whose central song sings about the turning point of Zion’s captivity (Ps 126:2, 5). Insofar as the help comes from Mount Zion (Ps 20:6), the righteous can rejoice in God’s righteousness and justice (Pss 32:11; 33:1; 35:27; 118:15). At the 38 Cf. Ulrich Berges, “Die Knechte im Psalter: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Kompositionsgeschichte,” Bib 81 (2000): 153–177; “servants” in Isa 54:17; 56:6; 63:17; 65:8, 9, 13, 14, 15; 66:14; in the Psalter Pss 34:23; 69:37; 79:2, 10; 89:51; 90:13, 16; 102:15, 29; 105:25; 113:1; 123:2; 134:1; 135:14. 39  Cf. Ulrich Berges, “Die Armen im Buch Jesaja: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des AT,” Bib 80 (1999): 153–77; Ulrich Berges and Rudolf Hoppe, Arm und Reich, NEchtB Themen 10 (Würzburg: Echter, 2009), 39–44, 49–56.

224

Ulrich Berges

end of the Psalter this jubilation is placed into the mouth of the ‫“( חסידים‬pious/ Chasidim,” Pss 132:9, 16; 145:10; 149:5). In addition to “rejoicing,” “joy” also characterizes the reaction of the liberated. In the places where both terms occur together, it is always about the improved fate of postexilic Zion/Jerusalem (Isa 35:10; 51:11; 55:12; Zeph 3:17). In the Psalter, it is especially the assuredness of God’s presence in His sanctuary on Mount Zion that evokes the “joy” of the prayers and the praying congregation (Pss 43:4; 45:16; 68:4; 97:11; 100:2). Their distance from the place of joy fills the “Zion musicians”40 with great sorrow, all the more so as the oppressors demand “joy” from them (Ps 137:3). The tongues of the singers should cling to their palates if they forget Zion and do not elevate Jerusalem to their “highest joy” (Ps 137:6). After that, there is no more talk of “joy” in the Psalter. The literal meaning of the phrase “highest joy” in Ps 137:6 (‫ )ﬠל ראׁש ׂשמחתי‬is “above the head of my joy.” It is hardly by chance that no passage in the Old Testament comes closer to this phrase than Isa 51:11 (cf. Isa 35:10). There the liberated people of YHWH will have “everlasting joy upon their heads” as they enter Zion. More evidence for the link between the two textual worlds can be found in the use of the epithet “YHWH Sabaoth” which no longer occurs in the Psalter after Ps 89 and is also missing in the so-called Trito-Isaiah chapters.41 The fifteen instances in the Psalter are distributed over a total of eight psalms (Pss 24; 46; 48; 59; 69; 80; 84; 89), five of which are attributed to the singers’ guilds (Korach 46; 48; 84; Asaph 80; and Ethan 89).42 The use of “YHWH Sabaoth” does not only say something about the deity itself, but also and especially about the users of this epithet. They embed aspects of Zion and royal theology in it: The name Yhwh Sabaoth therefore implies the notion of the heavenly ruler’s presence in his sanctuary on Mount Zion; both the divine king thus designated and the Davidic king hoped for in post-exilic times guarantee protection and security against internal and external enemies.43 40 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008), 689. 41  See also Ulrich Berges and Andrea Spans, “Jhwh Zebaot in Prophetie und Psalmen: Theologiegeschichtliche Überlegungen zur (Nicht-)Verwendung eines Gottesnamens,” in Gottes Name(n): Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger, ed. Ilse Müller, Ludger SchwienhorstSchönberger, and Ruth Scoralick, Herders Biblische Studien 71 (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012), 169–93; by contrast, in Isa 1–39 “YHWH Sabaoth” appears 56 ×; in 40–55 another 6 ×. 42  “If any external influence can be deduced from the use of this epithet, then it will only be prophecy, as the main tradent of this name, that comes into question.” [“Sollte überhaupt eine Beeinflussung von außen aus dem Gebrauch dieses Epithetons zu erschließen sein, dann kommt dafür eigentlich nur die Prophetie, als der Haupttradent dieses Namens, in Frage.”] (Wanke, Zionstheologie, 46; see also 41 [English translation KR]). 43  Berges and Spans, “Jhwh Zebaot,” 181 (English translation KR): “So impliziert der Name Jhwh Zebaot die Vorstellung von der Gegenwart des himmlischen Herrschers in seinem Heiligtum auf dem Zion; sowohl der solchermaßen bezeichnete göttliche König als auch der in nachexilischer Zeit erhoffte davidische König garantieren Schutz und Sicherheit gegenüber inneren und äußeren Feinden.”



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

225

Where there is no Zion theology (as in Ezekiel) or where the hope for royal Davidic restoration is no longer maintained (as in the Psalter Books IV–V and in Trito-Isaiah), the epithet “YHWH Sabaoth” is also no longer found. What especially signals the respective author guilds and distinguishes them from one another are the epithets that are used or avoided. While the authors of Isa 40–54 use “YHWH Sabaoth” six times, predominantly in the coined phrase “YHWH Sabaoth is His name” (Isa 47:4; 48:2; 51:15; 54:5), the tradents of the book of Ezekiel avoid this title completely. But it is used eighty-two times in Jeremiah. Ezekiel 21 conversely presents the epithet “Adonai YHWH” seven times, whereas it occurs only eight times in the entire book of Jeremiah. Presenting a similarly interesting trail is the title “God of Jacob”: it is only encountered in a few passages beyond the Hexateuch (cf. 2 Sam 23:1; Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2; Pss 20:2; 24:6; 94:7; 114:7) and frequently, namely in the psalms of the singers’ guilds (Asaph: Pss 75; 76; 81; Korach: Pss 46; 84). “Jacob” appears eighteen times in the Psalms, half of these (9 times) in the singers’ psalms: In many cases, the word ‘Jacob’ in the Psalms has a meaning similar to the one determined since Deutero-Isaiah, or as it presents in Gen 49, Num 23 and 24. On the one hand, the whole of Israel, and indeed a unified, one might almost say an ‘ideal’ Israel is meant …. On the other, ‘Jacob’ is presented as a term for the Israel that came out of exile and later gathered around Jerusalem as a cultic community ….44

This theological intensification of the term “Jacob” can also be observed in Isa 40–54; only the patriarchal narratives mention it more frequently.45 A further connection between the book of Isaiah and the Psalter exists in the motif of the giving of the Torah from Mount Zion, which, according to S. Gillingham and relating to the Psalter, arises from the sequence of psalms (e. g., Ps 19 as the middle of the entrance liturgy of Pss 15–24; Ps 119 as a preface to the Pilgrimage Psalms, Pss 120–134): “Indeed, as the law and Zion together compensate for the lack of a king, it could be said that the Torah in the Psalter, with the latter’s fivefold division, emanates not from Sinai but from Zion instead.”46 In the corresponding footnote she adds: “The only explicit reference to this idea in 44  Wanke, Zionstheologie, 57 (English translation KR): “In vielen Fällen liegt auch in den Psalmen eine ähnliche Bedeutung des Wortes ‘Jakob’ vor, wie wir sie schon seit Deuterojesaja feststellen können, oder wie sie in Gen 49, Num 23 und 24 vorliegt. Es ist einmal das gesamte Israel, und zwar ein einheitliches, man möchte fast sagen ‘ideales’ Israel gemeint […]. Das andere Mal begegnet ‘Jakob’ als Bezeichnung für das aus dem Exil hervorgegangene Israel, das sich später um Jerusalem als eine Kultgemeinde sammelte […].” 45  See also Meira Polliack, “Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal,” in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, eds. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, JSOTSup 319 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2002), 72–110. 46  Susan E. Gillingham, “The Levitical Singers and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 102.

226

Ulrich Berges

the Hebrew Bible is in Isa 2,3 and Mic 4,2: ‘Out of Zion shall go forth instruction (torah).’”47 In contrast to the Psalter, however, the book of Isaiah considers the consequences of an admission of people from the nations to Mount Zion, i. e., an admission without circumcision (Isa 56:1–8). The similarities and differences between the book of Isaiah and the Psalter, as far as presenting the prospect of a cult worship of YHWH is concerned, have not yet been reviewed. In this regard, too, S. Gillingham’s assessment provokes further thought: The Psalter’s interest in liturgy, in stark contrast with the priestly laws in the Pentateuch, is not so much in what is done by way of ritual and sacrifice as in what is said and sung. But this does not mean, as some have suggested, that the Psalter is an a-cultic book. It is interested in liturgy, but from a different perspective, and this perspective mirrors what we know of the role of the Levites in the post-exilic cult.48

The book of Isaiah, too, should not simply be regarded as being hostile to the cult  – in this respect P. Hanson was far too static.49 It rather formulates conditions and boundaries, both in- and outwardly. 3.2  The Hymnic Responsories in Isaiah 40–54 and in the Psalter The similarities between the book of Isaiah and the Psalter are particularly impressive in the hymnic responsories of Isa 40–54. At least since the dissertation of F. Matheus, the structuring function of these verses forms an opinio communis in research, even though discussions continue about their exact number and differentiation.50 The two commentary volumes in HThKAT on Isa 40–48 and 49–5451 count Isa 42:10–12; 44:23; 48:20–21; 49:13; 52:9, 10 among the hymnal passages, as they each contain imperative requests for praise, information about those called on to praise, and statements initiated with ‫כי‬. Especially if one takes one’s leave of the theory of Deutero-Isaiah as a prophetic single author and turns one’s attention to the hypothesis of singers, these verses shed an illuminating light on the tradents. These verses are not merely ornamental which occasionally loosen up the text a little but rather invite the addressees to accompanying praise within the recitation of these chapters. 47 

Gillingham, “Singers,” 102 n. 28. Gillingham, “Singers,” 113. 49 Cf. Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975); Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, Int (Louisville: John Knox, 1995); opposing view already in Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration, JSOTSup 193 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995). 50 See Frank Matheus, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied: Die Hymnen Deuterojesajas, SBS 141 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), with the “maximalist position” including Isa 42:10–12, 13; 44:23; 45:8; 48:20–21; 49:13; 51:3; 52:7–12; 54:1–3. 51 Cf. Berges, Jesaja 40–48; Ulrich Berges, Jesaja 49–54, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015). 48 



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

227

This hymnal structuring cannot be accidental but is based on a compositional intention similar to that in the Psalter …. If one assumes that Isa 40–54 was written by temple singers, who wrote their oratorio of hope and consolation over a few decades from 550 BCE onwards, first in Babylon, then in Jerusalem, these hymnal passages fit perfectly into the overall picture. The addressees, together with the ends of the earth and the whole of creation, are called upon to praise anew YHWH’s greatness and superiority, with the songs of praise known to them from their cultic tradition.52

It is well known that the issue of the direction of reception  – from Psalter to Isaiah or Isaiah to Psalter – remains controversial. Whatever one decides, such succinct verdicts as that of J. Jeremias that “[t]o me, the conclusion is irrefutable that Ps 98 hails the proclamation of Deutero-Isaiah … as an entrenched fact and calls for a ‘new song’ on the basis thereof ”53 are, in my opinion, no longer valid. It remains conspicuous that, except for Isa 42:10, the “new song” is only encountered in the Psalter (Pss 33:3; 40:4; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1). Is it possible that this single instance in the responsory of Isa 42:10 made such an impact that it was subsequently adopted several times in the psalms? And why should the poets of the Psalms have taken over only the keyword of the “new song” and no other themes from Isa 40–54 like Jacob/Israel as servant with his worldwide mission to the nations (cf. 42:1–9)? Is it really possible to explain the non-adoption of other themes and motifs from Isa 40–54 in the Psalter in such a way that “for the psalms, the time of pain and thus the salvific turning point had passed, so that the theme of ‘comfort’ and ‘liberation’ is (in this immediacy) no longer given”?54 In my opinion, H. Leene’s contrary assessment should continue to be considered: It is difficult to imagine that a psalmist who was inspired by Deutero-Isaiah proceeded so selectively. The opposite is more likely: the composers of Isaiah 40–55 borrowed from an existent hymnic tradition for certain pivotal points of their dramatic composition, or even from these very songs passed on to us in Pss 98 and 96.55 52  Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 63–64 (English translation KR): “Diese hymnische Strukturierung kann nicht zufällig sein, sondern beruht auf einem dem Psalter nahe stehenden Kompositionswillen […]. Geht man von Tempelsängern als Verfasser von Jes 40 ff. aus, die über einige Jahrzehnte ab 550 v. Chr. zuerst in Babel, dann in Jerusalem ihr Oratorium der Hoffnung und des Trostes schrieben, passen diese hymnischen Passagen bestens ins Gesamtbild. Die Adressaten werden zusammen mit den Enden der Erde und der gesamten Schöpfung aufgefordert, durch die ihnen aus der kultischen Tradition bekannten Loblieder JHWHs Größe und Überlegenheit aufs Neue zu preisen.” 53 Jörg Jeremias, Königtum Gottes: Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen, FRLANT 141 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 134 (English translation KR): “Die Folgerung ist mir unabweisbar, daß Ps 98 die Ankündigung DtJes’s […] als eingetretenes Faktum preist und aufgrund dessen zum ‘neuen Lied’ aufruft […].” 54  Weber, “Asaf,” 477 n. 63 (English translation KR): “dass für die Psalmen die Zeit der Schmerzen und damit die Heilswende zurückliegt und damit die Thematik von ‘Trost’ und ‘Befreiung’ nicht mehr (in dieser Unmittelbarkeit) gegeben ist.” 55 Henk Leene, “History and Eschatology in Deutero-Isaiah,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne, BETL 132 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 246.

228

Ulrich Berges

Surprisingly, a very similar assessment by C. Westermann in the 1966 introduction to his commentary on Isa 40–55 received little attention: A leading characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah’s prophecy lies in its affinities with the diction of [the Psalter]. The prophet’s familiarity with the psalms must have been quite exceptional. It is, of course, true that they played a leading part in the exiles’ services of worship, and that everyone, therefore, who joined in these might have been as well versed as he. Remarkably enough, however, there is absolutely no trace of this in Ezekiel; instead, what runs through his proclamation is a wide range of forms taken from the usage of the priesthood (Zimmerli). Perhaps, then, Deutero-Isaiah was in some way connected with the temple singers, who were the people principally in charge of the Psalter and its transmission.56

Almost thirty years later, O. Kaiser pursued a similar direction by stating: “Linguistically and historically, the texts of the Deutero-Isaiah collection are largely obligated towards the traditions of the Jerusalem temple singers.”57 J. Blenkinsopp should also be mentioned here, stating on Isa 42:10–12: The invitation to celebrate Yahveh in song is one of the several passages in chs.  40–55 (with 44:23; 49:13; 54:1) that are modelled on the liturgical hymns of praise …. It is a literary composition that uses material from psalms extolling Yahveh as king and creator.58

And B. Gosse declares in a recent essay: “The presentation of the return from exile in the Book of Isaiah depends on the Psalms of Asaph.”59 3.3  Detailed Observations from Isaiah 49–54 and Their Connections to the Psalter A number of detailed observations will be presented from my commentary on Isa 49–54, which may be of relevance in the issue of the authors and tradents of the book of Isaiah and the Psalter. These and many other connections ought to be identified, compiled and systematically evaluated in monographic studies. Isa 49:1: ‫“( ממﬠי אמי הזכיר ׁשמי‬from the body of my mother he named my name”). Apart from Isa 49:1, the combination of ‫“( מﬠה‬body”) and ‫“( אם‬moth56 Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, trans. David M.  G. Stalker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1996), 8. 57 Otto K aiser, Die prophetischen Werke, Vol. 2 of Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 49: “Sprachlich und formgeschichtlich erweisen sich die Texte der dtjes Sammlung weithin den Traditionen der Jerusalemer Tempelsänger verpflichtet.” 58 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, AB 19A (New York: Yale University Press, 2002), 214–15. Cf. also Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “In Search of the Hidden Structure: YHWH as King in Isaiah 40–55,” SEÅ 51 (1986/87): 151–52; Harold L. Ginsberg, “The Arm of YHWH in Isaiah 51–63 and the Text of Isa 53,10–11,” JBL 77 (1958): 154, deeming Isa 52:10 as being “dependent from Ps 98,1.2.3.” 59 Bernard Gosse, “L’usage des Psaumes d’Asaph dans la présentation du retour de l’exil en Isaïe 40–52,” OTE 23 (2010): 66; see also Bernard Gosse, Isaïe. Le livre de la contestation, Supplément à Transeuphratène 17 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 41–55.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

229

er”) appears only once more in the OT, to wit in the psalm of trust 71:6: “Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you.”60 Isa 49:2: ‫“( ויׂשם פי כחרב חדה‬he made my mouth like a sharp sword”). The only other passage where the “sharp sword” is used in connection with speaking and language is in Ps 57:5. There the supplicant laments that he has to lie down with lions, i. e., with his opponents, whose teeth are spears and arrows and whose tongue is a sharp sword (cf. Pss 55:22; 59:8; 64:4). The prophet not only uses the weapon of the sharp word to proclaim the message of God, it also protects him from enemy attacks. Therefore, to hide in the shadow of his hand does not primarily serve as a surprise effect, used by YHWH to deploy his servant, but as protection against his opponents. While ‫“( צל‬shadow”) as a metaphor for protection and help is broadly applied (e. g., Isa 4:6; 16:3; 25:4–5; 30:2–3; 32:2; Pss 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; 63:8; 91:1), the combination of “shadow” and ‫“( יד‬hand”) appears, apart from Isa 49:2 and its incorporation into Isa 51:16, only in the Pilgrimage Psalm 121:5: “YHWH is your keeper; YHWH is your shade on your right hand. The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night.”61 The servant is not only “like a sharp sword” but has also been fashioned by God into a “pointed arrow” that is concealed in his ‫“( אׁשפה‬quiver”) (in the context of war: Isa 22:6; Job 39:23; Lam 3:13). In Ps 127:5 – once again from the Pilgrimage Psalter – ”the man/hero” (‫ )הגבר‬who has filled his quiver with the sons of his youth is considered to be blessed, as they will not be defeated when they speak with their enemies in the city gate. YHWH as “hero” (Isa 42:13) has only one arrow in his quiver, the servant! Isa 49:5: ‫“( ואלהי היה ﬠזי‬God is my strength”). YHWH’s appreciation of the servant is countered by the latter’s confession: “my God is my strength.” YHWH’s ‫“( ﬠז‬strength”) is especially extolled in the Psalter (Pss 29:1; 62:12; 63:3; 68:29, 35, 36) and forms part of an individual’s profession of trust. In Isa 12:2 it is Zion as a collective entity that rejoicingly proclaims this. The context of the people, which comes into full effect in Isa 49:6b, can already be found in the reference to “YHWH as strength” in Isa 45:24, where it is said that “only in YHWH are righteousness and strength”; it is, to wit, a statement about the God of Israel in the mouth of non-Israelites who turn away from their idols and turn to YHWH. Isa 49:8: ‫“( בﬠת רצון ﬠניתיך‬in a time of favor I have answered you”). That YHWH intervened in a helpful way “in a time of favor” is only documented in 60  English translation by KR from F.‑L. Hossfeld’s German translation of the Hebrew text, in Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Die Psalmen: Psalm 51–100, NEchtB 40 (Würzburg: Echter, 2002), 290. 61 “JHWH ist dein Hüter, JHWH ist dein Schatten über deiner rechten Hand, am Tag schlägt dich die Sonne nicht, und nicht der Mond in der Nacht.” Translation from the Hebrew by E. Zenger in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, 428. English translation KR.

230

Ulrich Berges

Ps 69:13 in a similar way (“But I pray to you, LORD, in the time of your favor”), a psalm that is connected in many ways with Isa 40–54 in general, but with chapters 49–54 in particular (“comforter,” v. 21; “servant,” v. 18; “they persecute him whom YHWH has struck down,” v. 27; “servants,” v. 36; “save Zion and build up the cities of Judah,” v. 36). Thus Ps 69, with its successive extensions, finds itself in the proximity of Levitical groups of singers, who were probably also responsible for the composition and redaction of the book of Isaiah during postexilic times.62 This is supported by the fact that, on the one hand, ‫“( רצון‬favor”) is a cultic term denoting God’s acceptance of offerings that are agreeable to him (e. g., Exod 28:38; Lev 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 20, 21), on the other hand it is at home in the language of the Psalms and indicates his benevolence towards the supplicant (e. g., Pss 5:13; 19:15; 30:6, 8; 40:9). Isa 49:23b: ‫“( לא יבׁשו קוי‬those who wait for me shall not be put to shame”). The personal pronoun in ‫“ קוי‬who wait for me” emphasizes that YHWH is ready to get called upon himself as being the guarantor of those who place their hope in him. In the book of Isaiah, it is first of all the prophet himself who waits for YHWH (Isa 8:17), with the righteous following suit (Isa 25:9; 26:8; 33:2). The group of those who are eagerly awaiting YHWH’s intervention (Isa 40:31) may also include people from distant shores (Isa 51:5; 60:9). The verb ‫“( קוה‬await/ hope”) is particularly at home in the Psalter, where the term increasingly separates the pious from the wicked (Pss 25:5, 21; 27:14; 37:34; 40:2; 52:11; 130:5). In addition to Isa 49:23, there are only two psalm verses in which the negation of ‫בוׁש‬, i. e., not being “put to shame,” stands parallel to the hope placed in YHWH (Pss 25:3; 69:7). Isa 50:10: ‫“( מי בכם ירא יהוה‬who among you is YHWH-fearing”). The fixed expression ‫“( ירא יהוה‬YHWH-fearing”) must surprise, as the only other instance appears in the prophetic books in Mal 3:16, but is, other than there, at home in the Psalter (Pss 15:4; 22:24; 25:12; 27:1; 115:11, 13; 118:4; 128:1, 4; 135:20; furthermore, Prov 14:2). The categorization that is contained in the expression “YHWH-fearing” can also be observed in other formations of concepts such as “YHWH-seeking” (‫מבקׁשי יהוה‬, Isa 51:1) and “pupils of YHWH” (‫למודי יהוה‬, Isa 54:13). Here a group-specific attribution becomes apparent. Isa 50:10b: ‫“( יבטח בׁשם יהוה‬let him trust in the name of YHWH”). No other verb describes the supplicant’s attitude to please God more aptly than “trust” in YHWH, the God of help and salvation (Pss 9:11; 21:8; 26:1; 28:7; 32:10; 37:3). However, while trust in Isa 50:10 is placed directly in YHWH, in the psalms it is directed at his “name” (‫)ׁשם‬. This is only also the case in Ps 33:21, and at the end of this priestly-prophetic psalm63 the definition of the supplicants there, too, is 62  See Alphonso Groenewald, Psalm 69: Its Structure, Redaction and Composition, Altes Testament und Moderne 18 (Münster: LIT, 2003), 70–74. 63  Cf. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Die Psalmen: Psalm 1–50, NEchtB 29 (Würzburg: Echter, 1993), 206.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

231

of those who fear and await YHWH. This fits perfectly with the group of people who are meant and addressed in Isa 50:10. Parallel to “trust” is the “relying” on God (‫ ׁשﬠן‬niphal64). Surprisingly, the verb does not occur in the Psalter, but it is found three times in the first part of the book of Isaiah, and always, to wit, by offering the alternative of relying on YHWH or refusing to accept this support (Isa 10:20; 30:12; 31:1; in the last two instances parallel to ‫“ בטח‬trust”). This suggests that those who supplemented and commented on the Third Servant Song used both psalmic and Isaianic language in their orientation. Isa 51:1: ‫“( מבקׁשי יהוה‬you who seek YHWH”). The expression “YHWHseeking” in this instance does not refer to those who ask God for an oracle or help (cf. Exod 33:7; 2 Chr 20:4) or who seek his face in the sanctuary (2 Sam 21:1; Pss 24:6; 27:8; 105:4 // 1 Chr 16:11; 2 Chr 7:14), but rather to those who are effectively habitually oriented towards YHWH in a devout way (Deut 4:29; Jer 29:13; Zeph 1:6; Ps 105:3–4 // 1 Chr 16:10–11; 2 Chr 20:3–4).65 Regarding the participle form, special reference must be made to the instances from the Psalter (Pss 40:17; 69:7; 70:5; cf. Prov 28:5) in this regard. An even closer connection can be made to Ps 105:3–4 // 1 Chr 16:10–11 seeing that, on the one hand, in 1 Chr 16, the Asaphites are those reciting Ps 105, and on the other, Abraham is named not once but three times (vv. 6, 9, 42),66 in v. 42, to wit, directly after reminiscing about the “rock,” from which YHWH made water to spring forth in the desert (v. 41; cf. Isa 48:21; 51:1). In addition, Ps 105:28 (plague of darkness) may be considered constituting one of the motif backgrounds for Isa 50:3. All this cannot be coincidence, but rather points to tradents in close proximity who, from the salvific-historical flashback to the time of the patriarchs and the exodus, forged fundamental building blocks of their postexilic restoration hopes. Isa 51:3: ‫“( ׂשׂשון וׂשמחה ימצא בה תודה וקול זמרה‬Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of melody”). At the end of this verse, parallel to “song of praise,” there is the construct state ‫“( קול זמרה‬sound of music”), which is otherwise encountered only in Ps 98:5. There are only four certain instances of the noun ‫“( זמרה‬play/sound,” Isa 51:3; Amos 5:23; Pss 81:3; 98:5; uncertain Exod 15:2; Isa 12:2; Ps 118:4), unlike ‫“( מזמור‬song”), which has the same root and occurs 57 times in the Psalter, and only, to wit, in their titles.67 Isa 51:9, 17; 52:1: ‫“( ﬠורי ﬠורי‬awake, awake”); ‫“( התﬠוררי התﬠוררי‬rouse yourself ”). The clarion call for action with the mythopoetic incorporation of chaos and fighting motifs for the renewed safeguarding of YHWH’s reign, culminating 64  In historical-theological application in 2 Chr 13:18; 14:10; 16:7–8 and sapiential application in Job 24:23; Prov 3:5. 65  Cf. Gillis Gerlemann,”‫בקשׁ‬,” THAT 1:335–36. 66  For the remainder of the Psalter only in Ps 47:10. 67  Cf. Christoph Barth,”‫זמר‬,” ThWAT 2:607.

232

Ulrich Berges

in the acclamation of Isa 52:7,68 show a great proximity to the psalms of Korach: ‫“( ﬠור‬awaken” [of YHWH], Ps 44:24); ‫“( ﬠז‬strength,” Pss 46:2; 84:6); ‫“( זרוﬠ‬arm” [of YHWH], Ps 44:4); ‫“( בימי קדם‬days of old,” Ps 44:2); ‫“( רהב‬Rahab,” Ps 87:4); ‫“( תהום‬the deep,” Ps 42:8 [2 ×]); ‫“( מים‬waters” [as chaos element], Ps 46:4). Taking this list into consideration, J. Werlitz concludes: … it is conceivable that the book editors, who seem to fall back on hymnic traditions themselves – especially with their structuring texts – and who, in view of this, are to be associated with the temple singers, have found their way into such circles upon their return to Jerusalem.69

This observation may be further substantiated. In form-critical terms, such calls for action are at home in the laments of the Psalter (cf. Pss 7:7; 35:23; 59:5), especially in the communal laments, in which the national disasters of the Northern or Southern Kingdom were processed (Ps 44:24: “awake”; 74:22: “rise up”; 80:3: “stir up your might”). In all three psalms it is the Asaphites or Korachites who are named as the group of authors of these laments. E. Zenger’s assessment that the authors of Ps 80 are “to be sought in the circles of theologically trained ‘cultic officials’”70 also applies to the authors of the call for action in Isaiah. They are professionally familiar with these liturgical, cultic formulas, and so they draw from this stock of knowledge. Isa 52:7: ‫“( מלך אלהיך‬Your God is/has become king”). The last colon in Isa 52:7 signifies the climax of YHWH’s reign as a direct communication “to Zion” (‫)לציון‬. The introduction of Zion as object with the preposition ‫“( ל‬to”) brings Isa 51:23 to mind, where it was stated that Zion’s enemies had said ‫לנפשׁך‬ (“to you”): “Bow down, that we may pass over.” The city and bride of God will no longer have to endure such humiliation, as the message is: ‫“( מלך אלהיך‬Your God reigns”)! The book of Isaiah mentions this kingdom several times, albeit for the last time (Isa 6:5; 24:23; 33:22; 41:21; 43:15; 44:6). In the Old Testament, being king is one of YHWH’s attributes (e. g., Exod 15:18; Num 23:21; 1 Sam 8:7; 12:12; Ezek 20:33; Mic 4:7), applying especially to Pss 93–100 (93:1; 95:3; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1; also Pss 10:16; 24:8, 10; 29:10; 47:3, 8; 84:4; 89:19; 146:10; 1 Chr 16:31). In contrast to the “YHWH-king-composition,” where “YHWH” precedes the verb ‫מלך‬, which emphasizes the continuous, unchangeable nature of his kingship, the verb comes first in Isa 52:7. If this is the case, there exists an inchoative meaning emphasizing the beginning, analogous to those passages where people attain 68 See

Mettinger, “Search,” 150. Werlitz, Redaktion, 317–318 (English translation KR): “[…] so ist es denkbar, daß die Bucheditoren, die selbst – vor allem mit ihren gliedernden Texten – auf hymnische Traditionen zurückzugreifen scheinen und angesichts dessen mit der Tempelsängerschaft in Verbindung zu bringen ist [sic!], bei ihrer Rückkehr nach Jerusalem Anschluß an solche Kreise gefunden hat [sic!].” 70  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 457 (English translation KR): “im Kreis theologisch geschulter ‘Kultfunktionäre’ zu suchen.” 69 



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

233

regality (2 Sam 15:10; 1 Kgs 1:11, 13; 2 Kgs 9:13).71 One can agree with this interpretation without having to revive the heated discussion of earlier times about YHWH’s “throne accession feast.”72 The proclamation of YHWH’s renewed reign in Isa 52:7 and the entire verse (Isa 52:7–10) exhibit strong references to Ps 98:1–6. As with the manifold connections between Isa 40–54 and the Asaph psalms,73 it can also be assumed in this instance that the prophetic poets, who were presumably in great proximity to Levitical circles, have adopted and modified the familiar paradigm of the YHWH-king-acclamation from the Psalter: The acclamation “your God reigns!” (mālak ʾĕlohāyik) addressed to Jerusalem/Zion is a modified form of the psalmic acclamation YHVH mālak (Pss 93:1; 96:10 = 1 Chr 16:31; 97:1; 99:1) of the Jerusalem liturgy from the time of the Judean monarchy.74

That the YHWH-king-tradition was taken up from the Psalter, and especially from Ps 98, may not least be noted in the fact that the elements in that psalm (“holy arm,” v. 1; “in the sight of the nations,” v. 2; “all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God,” v. 3; “break forth into joyous song,” v. 4) are to be found in reverse order in Isa 52:7–10: “The inversion of the verses is typical in the Bible when a later source is influenced by an earlier one.”75 Isa 54:1: ‫“( רני ﬠקרה לא ילדה פצחי רנה‬Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing”). Apart from Isa 54:1, the two verbs ‫ רנן‬and ‫ פצח‬only appear together in the responsories of Isa 44:23; 49:13; 52:9, as well as in the hymn of the new song in Ps 98:4. In Isa 55:12 the mountains and hills are to burst into song over those who rejoice in their pilgrimage to Zion. In its fundamental meaning, the verb ‫“( רנן‬shout with joy”) designates a vocalization which is mostly joyful (e. g., Isa 12:6; 24:14; 42:11; 65:14; Pss 51:16; 59:17) but can also be lamenting (Lam 2:19; Ps 84:3). Most instances of the verb and noun (‫ )רנה‬are found in both the Psalter and Isa 40–66, which is dominated by the closeness to the cult, something that is particularly evident in the imperative invitations to praise God (besides the above instances, also Jer 31:7; Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14; Pss 33:1; 81:2). In close proximity to Isa 54:1 are the calls for jubilation to Zion in Zeph 3:14 and Zech 2:14. This is yet another indication that the Zion theology of the prophets refers to the language of the Psalms. The proximity to the cult dominates, which is particularly evident in the imperative calls to praise God 71  Cf. Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 49–55, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 235, with reference to Ps 47:9; Isa 24:23; Mic 4:7. 72 See Christina Ehring, Die Rückkehr JHWHs: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Jesaja 40,1–11, Jesaja 52,7–10 und verwandten Texten, WMANT 116 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 77–80. 73 Cf. Weber, “Asaf,” esp. 459–61, 473–77; B. Gosse, “L’usage,” esp. 68–79. 74 Thus Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 342; also H. L. Ginsberg, “Arm of YHWH,” 154; B. Gosse, “L’usage,” 79. 75  Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 390; differing view in Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 689.

234

Ulrich Berges

(apart from the above-mentioned instances, also Jer 31:7; Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14; Pss 33:1; 81:2). The calls for jubilation to Zion in Zeph 3:14 and Zech 2:14 are in close proximity to Isa 54:1. This is a further indication that the prophets’ theology of Zion refers back to the language of the Psalms. In Isa 54:1, Zion is called upon to rejoice as ‫“( ﬠקרה‬the barren one”), which places her in line with Israel’s matriarchs: Sarah (Gen 11:30), Rebekah (Gen 25:21), Rachel (Gen 29:31), Manoah’s wife (Judg 13:2–3), and Hannah (1 Sam 2:5). Just as progeny was finally given to these women after a long period of waiting and of lamentation and humiliation, Zion, too, will rise above the childlessness that resulted from the exilic catastrophe (cf. Isa 49:20–21; Lam 1–2). And, just as those matriarchs bore children that would be of great importance to the people of God – Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samson, Samuel – the children of Zion, too, have special qualities, for they are “taught” (v. 13) and “servants” of YHWH (v. 17b). Is it pure coincidence that, in the final verse of Ps 113, the “hallelujah” of the ‫“( ﬠבדי יהוה‬servants of YHWH,” v. 1), God is praised as the one who lets the “barren woman abide in the house as a joyful mother of children” (v. 9)? In both the Psalter and in prophetic texts, these are the only two instances of the word ‫“( ﬠקרה‬the barren one”)!

4. Conclusion The question concerning the tradents and composers of the book of Isaiah and the Psalter is in line with the necessary further development of the approach of a “diachronically reflected synchrony.” It is no longer sufficient to merely point out literary connections; what is required is a verification of their plausibility in the literary and sociological context of postexilic Jerusalem, against the background, to wit, of increasingly detailed archaeologic-demographic insights of this period, which proved to be so formative in creating the literature of the entire Old Testament. The presented correlations of themes and motifs between the book of Isaiah and the Psalter, as well as the individual observations from Isa 49–54 confirm the assumption that the tradents of both text corpora must have stood in close proximity to one another. The focus on Zion, the emphasis on joy and song due to the renewed reign of YHWH, and the inclusion of the nations in this praise bring to mind Levitical circles of singers.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

235

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer. Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 194–209 in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete. Edited by Walter E. Aufrecht, Steven W. Gauley, and Neil A. Mirau. JSOTSup 244. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997. –. “Observations on Prophetic Characters, Prophetic Texts, Priests of Old, Persian Period Priests and Literati.” Pages 19–30 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Alice O. Bellis. JSOTSup 408. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Berges, Ulrich. “Die Armen im Buch Jesaja: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des AT.” Bib 80 (1999): 153–77. –. “Die Knechte im Psalter: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Kompositionsgeschichte.” Bib 81 (2000): 153–78. –. “Das Jesajabuch als literarische Kathedrale: Ein Rundgang durch die Jahrhunderte.” BK 61 (2006): 190–97. –. “Synchronie und Diachronie: Zur Methodenvielfalt in der Exegese.” BK 62 (2007): 249–52. –. “Vom Propheten des Buches zu den Tröstern Jerusalems: Eine Auslegung zu Jes 40,1– 11.” Pages 19–28 in Jesus als Bote des Heils: Heilsverkündigung und Heilserfahrung in frühchristlicher Zeit. Edited by Linus Hauser, Ferdinand R. Prostmeier, and Christa Georg-Zöller. SBB 60. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2008. –. Jesaja 40–48. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008. –. “Farewell to Deutero-Isaiah or Prophecy without a Prophet.” Pages 575–95 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by Andre Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010. –. “Kollektive Autorschaft im Alten Testament.” Pages 29–39 in Autorschaft: Ikonen  – Stile  – Institutionen. Edited by Christel Meier and Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf. Berlin: Akademie, 2011. –. The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form. Translated by Millard C. Lind. Hebrew Bible Monographs 46. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. –. Jesaja 49–54. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015. Berges, Ulrich, and Rudolf Hoppe. Arm und Reich. NEchtB Themen 10. Würzburg: Echter, 2009. Berges, Ulrich, and Andrea Spans. “Jhwh Zebaot in Prophetie und Psalmen: Theologiegeschichtliche Überlegungen zur (Nicht-)Verwendung eines Gottesnamens.” Pages 169–93 in Gottes Name(n): Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger. Edited by Ilse Müller, Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, and Ruth Scoralick. Herders Biblische Studien 71. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19 A. New York: Yale University Press, 2002. Botterweck, Gerhard J., and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 10 Vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973–2000. Dietrich, Walter. “Hintere Propheten.” Pages 283–480 in Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Edited by Walter Dietrich et al. Theologische Wissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014.

236

Ulrich Berges

Ehring, Christina. Die Rückkehr JHWHs: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Jesaja 40,1–11, Jesaja 52,7–10 und verwandten Texten. WMANT 116. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Feuerstein, Rüdiger. “Weshalb gibt es ‘Deuterojesaja’?” Pages 93–134 in Ich bewirke das Heil und erschaffe das Unheil (Jesaja 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten; Festschrift für Lothar Ruppert zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Friedrich Dietrich and Bernd Willmes. FB 88. Würzburg: Echter, 1998. Gillingham, Susan E. “The Levitical Singers and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 91–123 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Ginsberg, Harold L. “The Arm of YHWH in Isaiah 51–63 and the Text of Isa 53,10–11.” JBL 77 (1958): 152–56. Gosse, Bernard. “L’usage des Psaumes d’Asaph dans la présentation du retour de l’exil en Isaïe 40–52.” OTE 23 (2010): 66–81. –. Isaïe. Le livre de la contestation. Supplément à Transeuphratène 17. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Groenewald, Alphonso. Psalm 69: Its Structure, Redaction and Composition. Altes Testament und Moderne 18. Münster: LIT, 2003. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. –. Isaiah 40–66. Int. Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. “‘Wach auf, wach auf, Arm des Herrn!’: Jes 51,9–52,12.” Pages 33–46 in Der Freund des Menschen: Festschrift für Georg Christian Macholz zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres. Edited by Arndt Meinhold and Angelika Berlejung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Die Psalmen: Psalm 1–50. NEchtB 29. Würzburg: Echter, 1993. –. Die Psalmen: Psalm 51–100. NEchtB 40. Würzburg: Echter, 2002. –. Psalmen 101–150. HThKAT. Freiburg et al., 2008. Jamieson-Drake, David W. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. SWBA 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 Vols. München: Kaiser; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971–1976. Jeremias, Jörg. Königtum Gottes: Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen. FRLANT 141. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. K aiser, Otto. Die prophetischen Werke. Vol. 2 of Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. Knauf, Ernst A. “Audiatur et altera pars: Zur Logik der Pentateuch-Reaktion.” BK 53 (1998): 118–26. Koole, Jan L. Isaiah 49–55. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Körting, Corinna. Zion in den Psalmen. FAT 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Leene, Henk. “History and Eschatology in Deutero-Isaiah.” Pages 221–49 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah. Edited by Jacques van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Lipschits, Oded. “Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries B. C.E.” Pages 323–76 in Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003.



“Sing to the LORD a New Song.”

237

Matheus, Frank. Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied: Die Hymnen Deuterojesajas. SBS 141. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “In Search of the Hidden Structure: YHWH as King in Isaiah 40–55.” SEÅ 51 (1986/87): 148–57. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Polliack, Meira. “Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal.” Pages 72–110 in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman. JSOTSup 319 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2002). Rendtorff, Rolf. “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja.” VT 34 (1984): 295–320. Schmid, Konrad. The Old Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Schramm, Brooks. The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration. JSOTSup 193. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995. Steck, Odil Hannes. The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness. Translated by James D. Nogalski. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000. Stegemann, Hartmut. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch. 9th ed. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1999. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Wanke, Gunther. Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang. BZAW 97. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966. Weber, Beat. “‘A saf ’ und ‘Jesaja’: Eine komparatistische Studie zur These von Tempelsängern als für Jesaja 40–66 verantwortlichen Trägerkreis.” OTE 22 (2009): 456–87. Werlitz, Jürgen. Redaktion und Komposition: Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40–55. BBB 122. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1996. Willi, Thomas. “Leviten, Priester und Kult in vorhellenistischer Zeit: Die chronistische Optik in ihrem geschichtlichen Kontext.” Pages 48–70 in Israel und die Völker: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte Israels in der Perserzeit. Edited by Michael Pietsch. SBAB 55. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012. –. “Das ‫ׁשיר המﬠלות‬: Zion und der Sitz im Leben der ‘Aufstiegslieder’ Psalm 120–134.” Pages 71–81 in Israel und die Völker: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte Israels in der Perserzeit. Edited by Michael Pietsch. SBAB 55. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012. Wilson, Robert R. “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 95–107 in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions. Edited by Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin. LHBOTS 469. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Zenger, Erich. “Psalmenforschung nach Hermann Gunkel und Sigmund Mowinckel.” Pages 399–435 in International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament: Congress Volume Oslo 1998. Edited by Andre Lemaire and Magne Sæbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “Von der Psalmenexegese zur Psalterexegese.” BK 56 (2001): 8–15. Zimmerli, Walter. Ezechiel 25–48. BKAT 13/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969.

Praying Exodus Biblical History in the Prayer of the Servants (Isa 63:7–64:11) Anja Klein In Isa 63:7–64:11, two chapters before the close of the book of Isaiah, stands the so-called prayer of the servants that recalls Yhwh’s deeds in biblical history. Especially the remembrance of the exodus miracles in Isa 63:11–14 is specific, or, to quote Claus Westermann, “Verses 11–14 preserve an odd and unique tradition about the Exodus.”1 This assessment still holds, and while it is obvious that the prayer uses exodus language and exodus motifs, scholarship still disagrees about which events from the biblical past are referred to, and what function the memory of biblical history has in its “prayer” setting in the book. In the following, I will address these questions in four steps. My starting point will be a short analysis of the prayer as a whole, outlining content and argument. Next, the second part asks which exodus event the prayer deals with and how the imagery is embedded into the context of the prophetic book. Third, it has long been seen that the prayer has multiple literary horizons, drawing both on the exodus narrative and texts within the prophetic book itself,2 so that the analysis of these innerbiblical references will help to interpret the depiction of the past in Isa 63–64. The third part addresses the question, what is the significance of the prayer context for the memory of biblical history? The final part draws conclusions and offers a short discussion on the present relevance of the text. I want to demonstrate that the author of the prayer of the servants draws on different literary horizons in order to merge references to the first exodus from 1 Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1969), 389. 2  See on this Johannes Goldenstein, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte: Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch, WMANT 92 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 152–201; Odil H. Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja, BZAW 203 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 237–42; Judith Gärtner, Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches, WMANT 114 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006), 236–62. Differently, Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches, BZAW 225 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 286–87, 314–15, and Irmtraud Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7–64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung, SBB 19 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), assume an originally independent text in Isa 63–64 that does not exhibit many connections with its literary context.

240

Anja Klein

Egypt with references to the second exodus from Babylon. He thus develops the idea of a “third exodus” in postexilic times that actualises the events from the past as a salvation paradigm for the present. Therein, the prayer of the servants can be described as a communicative process between Yhwh and his people, in which the supplicants bring their lament before their God and ask him for his intervention.

1.  The Prayer of the Servants in Isa 63–64 The prayer of the servants in Isa 63:7–64:11 introduces a more solemn note after two chapters of unconditional bliss in Isa 60–62.3 The most frequently identified genre is that of communal lament,4 even though scholars point also to elements of a sermon-prayer in Deuteronomistic style or a historical psalm.5 This genre allocation finds confirmation especially in the main concern of the supplicants, who remind Yhwh of his previous salvation actions in history in order to ask him to rescue them from their present distress. The prayer is introduced in Isa 63:7 with an individual speaker stating his ָ ְ‫) ַח ְס ֵדי י‬. Here, the intention to remember the gracious deeds of Yhwh (‫הוה ַאזְ ִּכיר‬ emphasis is on the continuous divine affection that is a manifestation of Yhwh’s ְ ). Following this introduction, the prayer divides into steadfast love (‫ּוכרֹב ֲח ָס ָדיו‬ two main parts (63:8–14; 63:15–64:11),6 which are related to each other in terms of an opposition of past and present. The review of the past in 63:8–14 can be divided further in two sections. The first section in 63:8–10 describes the “days ָ ‫ ָּכל־יְ ֵמי‬, Isa 63:9) as a paradigm of divine salvation that is contrasted of old” (‫ﬠֹולם‬ 3  In between Isa 60–62 and the prayer 63:7–64:11 stands the inquiry of the bloody warrior coming from Edom in 63:1–6, which can, however, be understood as a supplement to the salvation prophecies in Isa 60–62, supplementing the judgement on the nations (see Goldenstein, Gebet, 178–88). 4 See Fischer, Jahwe, 205–56; Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 286–87; Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 235–36; Michael Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott: Eine Untersuchung der alttestamentlichen Volksklagelieder vor dem Hintergrund der mesopotamischen Literatur, FAT 21 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 261–89; Goldenstein, Gebet, 27–28; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Commentary, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 257–59; Alexa F. Wilke, Die Gebete der Propheten: Anrufungen Gottes im ‘Corpus Propheticum’ der Hebräischen Bibel, BZAW 451 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 119–20; see also Hugh Williamson, “Isaiah 63,7–64,11: Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?” ZAW 102 (1990): 48–58, 58, who argues that the passage originally formed part of an exilic penitential liturgy. 5 See for an overview John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, rev. ed., WBC 25 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 897–900. 6  On the two-part structure of the prayer, see the exemplary analysis of Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 385–398; even if different outlines are proposed, most exegetes acknowledge the main caesura in 63:15, see the overview of structural models in Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 269; further Goldenstein, Gebet, 85; Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 228.



Praying Exodus

241

with the unreasonable behaviour of the people. While Yhwh has pledged himself to his people, whom he declares to be his children (‫ ֵה ָּמה ָּבנִ ים‬, 63:8), and whom he has rescued frequently, the divine children respond to his affection with muttering and rebellion (63:10). Their rejection causes Yhwh to change into their enemy and to fight against his own people (63:10). The second part of the review of history in 63:11–14 focuses on the sea miracle in Egypt. The remembrance is shaped as a sequence of questions about the whereabouts of Yhwh, which demonstrates the main concern of the review: by asking about Yhwh’s salvation actions in the past, the supplicant prepares for the following part, in which the group of speakers make a case for his intervention in their present. Thus, the second discourse in 63:15–64:11 not only assumes a plural group of speakers,7 but it also changes to a direct address of Yhwh. In 63:15–17 the supplicants urge Yhwh to give up his heavenly detachment (‫ ַה ֵּבט ִמ ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ְּור ֵאה‬, Isa 63:15) and to return to the people, who describe themselves as his servants (‫ׁשּוב ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲﬠ ָב ֶדיָך ִׁש ְב ֵטי נַ ֲח ָל ֶתָך‬, Isa 63:17b). They resort to a number of rhetoric questions, self-humiliating statements, and laments with the unvoiced hope to provoke the apparently absent Yhwh to intervene on their behalf – as he did in the past. Especially in the embedded confession of sin in 64:4b–6, the supplicants formulate their comprehension that a return by their own efforts is not an option, so that they are dependent on Yhwh’s decision to return to his servants (‫ׁשּוב ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲﬠ ָב ֶדיָך‬, Isa 63:17).8 The account thus culminates in their plea: “In view of all this, will you restrain yourself, Yhwh? Will you keep silent and afflict us beyond measure?” (64:11). This question obviously strikes off in a new and bold direction,9 as the supplicants seem to suggest that they have stated their case in such a convincing way that Yhwh will have to comply with their plea.

2.  The Exodus Remembrance in Its Literary Horizons The problem of analysing biblical history in Isa 63–64 is that the prayer does not re-narrate biblical history in the same way as, for example, the historical psalms in the book of Psalms.10 Rather, the account remains vague and does not 7  The change in speaker from a singular supplicant in Isa 63:7–15 to a plural group in 63:16–64:11 remains puzzling. As there is no further evidence for literary development along this text division, one should follow Goldenstein’s explanation that this change reflects the merge of the genre of prophetic lament with the communal lament; he thus describes Isa 63–64 as communal lament that is stylised as a collective lament of the prophet (“ein Volksklagelied, das stilisiert ist als die – kollektivierte – Klage des Propheten”; Goldenstein, Gebet, 200–1). Differently, Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 270 assumes a “corporate personality” of the congregation. 8  On this focus on the plea for Yhwh’s return, see Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 233–34. 9  See the statement of John Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 423, on the final verse of the prayer: “The final verb strikes off in a new and bold direction.” 10  See already Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Der Prophet als Klageliedsänger: Zur Funktion des

242

Anja Klein

follow a straightforward historical timeline, which makes it even more difficult to match the prayer details with events in biblical history. As mentioned before, it is clear that the prayer employs exodus language and motifs, but it proves difficult to match the prayer account with specific events in biblical history. In the following, I will survey the depiction of the events in Isa 63–64 in view of its literary horizons. I want to demonstrate that this perspective sheds light on the presentation of the past in the prayer and will enhance our understanding of the text. In the psalm’s introduction Isa 63:7, a first-person speaker announces his ָ ְ‫ַח ְס ֵדי י‬ intention to remember the gracious and praiseworthy deeds of Yhwh (‫הוה‬ ‫)ַאזְ ִּכיר ְּת ִהּלֹת יְ הוָ ה‬, portraying the history between Yhwh and his people as a constant demonstration of Yhwh’s gracious deeds (‫ּוכרֹב ֲח ָס ָדיו‬ ְ ). This specific view on history as a manifestation of divine grace can be traced in two other texts that both fall into the genre of historical psalms: Ps 106 and Neh 9.11 First, Ps 106 comes closest in terminology and content, as the divine grace functions as a leitmotif in the historical account.12 Starting from a cross-generational confession of sin in 106:6, the group of speakers sums up the sins of their fathers in Egypt by describing that they “did not remember the abundance of your (Yhwh’s) graceful deeds” (‫לׂא זָ ְכרּו ֶאת־רֹב ֲח ָס ֶדיָך‬, Ps 106:7). At the end of the psalm’s account, it is the abundance of Yhwh’s grace that moves him to have compassion on his people in exile and diaspora (]‫ ְּכרֹב ( ַח ְסּדֹו) [ ֲח ָס ָדיו‬, Ps 106:45).13 The second text, Neh 9, shows a similar understanding of cross-generational sin. Shaped as a scenic realisation of Ps 106,14 the postexilic congregation confesses their sins ֶ ‫יהם ַו ֲﬠֹונֹות ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ֶ ‫ֹאת‬ ֵ ‫ל־חּט‬ ַ ‫ ַוּיִ ְת ַוּדּו ַﬠ‬, together with the iniquities of their fathers (‫יהם‬ Neh 9:2). The historical account starts from a praise of God, who has bestowed life on earth and who made the covenant with Israel (Neh 9:6–7). However, in the further review of history, it becomes obvious that the fathers in Egypt in Neh 9 are guilty of the same crime as those in Ps 106, since they were quick Psalms Jes 63,7–64,11 in Tritojesja,” ZAW 107 (1995): 31–50, 40: “Zu beachten ist, daß sich hier keine vollständige Heilsgeschichte widerspiegelt. Von den in der Literatur angeführten Parallelen bietet Ps 106 bedeutend mehr und direktere Anknüpfungen an identifizierbare Pentateucherzählungen, Neh 9 geradezu eine literarisch bearbeitete Kurzfassung des gesamten Pentateuch.” See further Goldenstein, Gebet, 83. 11  Psalm 106 and Neh 9 are frequently used as reference for comparison with Isa 63–64, see the exemplary analysis of Fischer, Jahwe, 216–19, 227–30, Williamson, “Exilic Lament,” 56–58; Goldenstein, Gebet, 11. 12  The other leitmotif being the people’s faith (or lack thereof ) in biblical history. See on this Anja Klein, Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments, FAT 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 240–69. 13 While LXX and Jerome read the singular of the ketiv in Ps 106:45, the Targums and the Peshitta together with many Hebrew manuscripts attest to the plural form of the qere, which, however, can be understood as an assimilation with 106:7. Thus, the singular reading of the ketiv is to be preferred, see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008), 120; following also Klein, Geschichte, 195–96. 14 See Klein, Geschichte, 390.



Praying Exodus

243

to forget the miracles of Yhwh (‫לׂא־זָ ְכרּו נִ ְפ ְלא ֶֹתיָך‬, Neh 9:17). And like these, the fathers in Neh 9 are saved only because Yhwh is essentially a God abounding of ֶ ‫ ְו ַר‬, 9:17).15 In view of these parallels, the speaker in Isa 63–64 can grace (‫ב־ח ֶסד‬ be understood as a counterfigure to the biblical fathers in Ps 106 and Neh 9 – different from these, the supplicant in Isaiah acknowledges that he has learnt his lesson from history, and he dutifully remembers Yhwh’s miracles. His is a different response to the biblical past, as the hope for rescue and divine praise has given way to wistful reflection (‫ַאזְ ִּכיר‬, 63:8). With the use of the verbal root ‫זכר‬, the prayer draws on the preceding context in the book, where the sentinels on Jerusalem’s walls in Isa 62:6–7 are called to remind God – with the intention to ָ ְ‫ ַה ַּמזְ ִּכ ִרים ֶאת־י‬, Isa 62:6).16 Furthermore, the act move him to restore the city (‫הוה‬ of remembering (of either the past or the character of Yhwh in general) carries a mostly positive note throughout Second Isaiah (see Isa 44:21; 46:8–9).17 In summary, the introduction of the prayer of the servants introduces the speaker as a counterfigure to the biblical fathers in Ps 106 and Neh 9 – as one who remembers God’s gracious deeds in history, and who takes up the memory work from the literary context. The first part of the historical review in Isa 63:8–10 paints the “days of old” ָ ‫ ָּכל־יְ ֵמי‬, Isa 63:9; see 63:11) as a paradigm of divine salvation and recalls (‫ﬠֹולם‬ several episodes of divine intervention on behalf of the people. However, the rather general description of both Yhwh’s saving deeds and the people’s stubborn reaction makes it difficult to decide who is rescued when and at what point the people rebel against Yhwh. The review starts in 63:8 from an emphatic confession of Yhwh, who declares his people children, “who will not deal falsely” (‫ ַﬠ ִּמי ֵה ָּמה ָּבנִ ים לׂא יְ ַׁש ֵּקרּו‬, Isa 63:8). Being called the children of God is a sure sign of election, and in biblical Israel this adoption is located and endowed in Egypt (Exod 4:22–23; Hos 11:1).18 More significantly, the children also play a role in the book of Isaiah, even though it is a negative screenplay. Here, Yhwh utters a woe oracle against his evil children, who have rebelled against him, even ַ ‫ ָּבנִ ים ּגִ ַּד ְל ִּתי ְו‬, though he nourished them and brought them up (‫רֹומ ְמ ִּתי ְו ֵהם ָּפ ְׁשﬠּו ִבי‬ Isa 1:2).19 This shows that the account in the prayer of the servants draws on a 15  The reading takes as basis the qere, which is also supported by several Hebrew manuscripts and the versions, thus also Hugh G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco: Word, 1985), 303, 305; Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Nehemia, KAT XIX 2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1987), 123. 16 Similarly Goldenstein, Gebet, 36–40, 46; see also Fischer, Jahwe, 78–79. 17  The only exception being Isa 43:18, where the people are instructed not to remember the former things (‫ַאל־ּתזְ ְּכרּו ִראׁשֹנֹות‬ ִ ). 18 See Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 271–73; Goldenstein, Gebet, 47–48; more tentatively Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 901. 19  On the reference to Isa 1, see Goldenstein, Gebet, 49–50, 160, and Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 241–44. Both further connect the links to Isa 1 with Isaiah’s commission to stiffen the heart of the people in Isa 6 (6:10: ‫ב־ה ָﬠם ַהּזֶ ה‬ ָ ‫ ;) ַה ְׁש ֵמן ֵל‬in this light, the people’s acknowledgement of their intrinsic sin in 63:17 is at the same time an accusation of Yhwh, who himself stiffened their

244

Anja Klein

double literary horizon in the prophetic book itself and in the exodus narrative, thus dating back the rebellious streak of the people to the time of their election. This double literary horizon also dominates the further account in the prayer of the servants. Next, the supplicant describes Yhwh as the saviour of the people ַ ‫מֹוׁש‬ ִ ‫ ְל‬, Isa 63:8), who himself has rescued and redeemed them (‫ַאה ָבתֹו‬ ֲ ‫יﬠם ְּב‬ ָ ‫הֹוׁש‬ ִ (‫יﬠ‬ ‫ּוב ֶח ְמלָ תֹו הּוא גְ ָאלָ ם‬ ְ , Isa 63:9). The two Hebrew verbs ‫‘( יׁשﬠ‬to rescue’) and ‫‘( גאל‬to redeem’) firstly recall the exodus narrative, in which they highlight the divine ְ ָ‫ ְוג‬, Exod 6:6) and salvation action in the commissioning of Moses (‫ַאל ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ָ ְ‫ּיֹוׁשﬠ י‬ ַ ‫ ַו‬, Exod 14:30; see Exod 15:13, in the sea miracle (‫הוה ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ָאל ָּת‬ ְ ָ‫) ַﬠם־זּו ּג‬. Furthermore, the historical account in Ps 106 uses the two roots ֵ ְ‫יﬠם ִמּיַ ד ׂשֹונֵ א וַ ּיִ ג‬ ֵ ‫ּיֹוׁש‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ with specific reference to Yhwh’s miracle works in Egypt (‫ָאלם‬ ‫ ִמּיַ ד אֹויֵ ב‬, Ps 106:10). In the further account in this psalm, the biblical fathers are accused of forgetting their saviour Yhwh, who did great things for them in Egypt ָ ‫מֹוׁש‬ ִ ‫ ָׁש ְכחּו ֵאל‬, Ps 106:21; see also 106:13).20 This reproach adds further weight (‫יﬠם‬ to the initial observation that the forgetfulness of the fathers in Ps 106 serves as a dark foil for the supplicant in the prayer of Isa 63–64, who does remember Yhwh as the saviour of his people (Isa 63:8). Turning to the book of Isaiah, the actions of “saving” and “redeeming” count among the key attributes of the God of Israel. However, most of these occurrences refer to the general saving action of Yhwh,21 while only in Isa 48:20 and 51:10 do the words occur in the context of specific exodus imagery to illustrate the second exodus from the exile in Babylon.22 Finally, the notion that Yhwh has carried his people in the past (‫ַויְ נַ ְּׂש ֵאם ָּכל־יְ ֵמי‬ ‫ﬠֹולם‬ ָ , Isa 63:9) connects the prayer with the divine statements in Exod 19:4 and Deut 1:31, where Yhwh describes his salvation work during the exodus from Egypt. Of special significance seems to be the link to Deut 1:31, where the ִ ‫ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ָׂש‬ “carrying” of the people is compared to a father carrying his son (‫א־איׁש‬ ‫ת־ּבנֹו‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬, Deut 1:31).23 However, the idea of carrying the people as an act of caring also appears in the context of the prophetic book, where the prophecies in heart and made it impossible for them to change their ways, see Goldenstein, Gebet, 160–64, and Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 238–44. 20  See further Ps 78:35, where, however, the motif is used in a positive way: “They remembered that God was their rock, the Most High their redeemer (‫צּורם ְו ֵאל ֶﬠ ְליֹון‬ ָ ‫י־אל ׂ ִהים‬ ֱ ‫ַוּיִ זְ ְּכרּו ִּכ‬ ‫)ּג ֲֹא ָלם‬.” 21 See Goldenstein, Gebet, 52, further Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 387: “One cannot help noticing the piling up of words that might describe his acts in grace towards his people.” On the occurrences, see on ‫גאל‬: Isa 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:6, 22, 23; 44:24; 48:20; 49:7, 26; 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 62:12, 63:9, 13, on ‫יׁשﬠ‬: Isa 43:12; 45:17, 22; 49:25; 59:1, 16; 63:1, ַ ‫מֹוׁש‬ ִ : Isa 43:11; 47:15. 5, 9; 64:4, and on ‫יﬠ‬ 22  In Isa 48:20, the exiles are summoned to flee from Babylon, proclaiming that Yhwh has redeemed his servant Jacob (‫הוה ַﬠ ְבּדֹו יַ ֲﬠקֹב‬ ָ ְ‫)ּגָ ַאל י‬, while in 51:10 the deliverance from exile is attributed to Yhwh, who has dried out the waters for his redeemed ones to pass through (‫אּולים‬ ִ ְ‫) ַל ֲﬠבֹר ּג‬. On the exodus imagery in these texts, see Anja Klein, “‘Zieht heraus aus Babel’: Beobachtungen zum Zweiten Exodus im Deuterojesajabuch,” ZThK 112 (2015): 279–99. 23  Goldenberg, Gebet, 60 (“Besonders signifikant ist die Parallele in Deut 1,31, weil das Tragen des Volkes dort mit der ‘fürsorgliche[n] Liebe eines Vaters’ verglichen wird”). This link



Praying Exodus

245

Isa 40:11 and 46:3–4 lay down the providential care of Yhwh that extends over the people’s whole lifespan. In the light of these literary horizons, the beginning of the prayer in Isa 63:7–8 blends a number of statements about Yhwh’s rescue of and care for his people into a statement of faith that summarises his stance towards them during “all days of old” (63:9). The further account in the servants’ prayer shows that the initial trust of Yhwh in his children has been misplaced. Hence, the account in Isa 63:10 describes how the people rebel against God, turning Yhwh into their enemy, who ָ ‫ ַוּיֵ ָה ֵפְך ָל ֶהם ְלאֹויֵ ב הּוא נִ ְל ַח‬ … ‫ ְו ֵה ָּמה ָמרּו‬, Isa 63:10). then fights against them (‫ם־ּבם‬ This description raises the question of whether it refers to a specific point in biblical history when the relationship between God and his people changed for the worse. First, the idea that the people rebelled against their God is a common motif in the biblical narratives and their reception in the historical psalms. Here, the Hebrew verb ‫ מרה‬frequently denotes the people’s rebellion during the desert wanderings (see Exod 15:32; Num 20:10, 24; 27:40; Deut 1:26, 43; Pss 78:8, 17, 40; 105:28; 106:7, 33, 43).24 However, the verb is also used in the programmatic chapter Isa 1, where – in the context of an alternative sermon to the disobedient people – “to rebel” signifies the behaviour that results in immediate ֶ ‫ּומ ִר‬ ְ ‫ם־ּת ָמ ֲאנּו‬ ְ ‫) ְו ִא‬. punishment and death by the sword (Isa 1:20: ‫יתם ֶח ֶרב ְּת ֻא ְּכלּו‬ In this case, it is quite clear that the term denotes a recurring misconduct of the people that is placed at the beginning of the prophetic book to introduce the audience to the didactic alternative of being willing or obstinate, with the obvious consequences. Yet more significant for our question is the notion that Yhwh has turned into the enemy (‫ )אֹיֵ ב‬of his people, a statement that is without parallel in the biblical narratives and the prophet Isaiah. There are actually only two texts in the Hebrew Bible that use the motif with reference to Yhwh, both of which describe the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian Empire in 587 BCE. The first text is a short section in Lamentations that interprets the catastrophe of 587 as a divine judgement in which Yhwh acts “like an enemy” (‫ ְּכאֹויֵ ב‬, Lam 2:4, 5) when he destroys the city and the land. Similarly, in our second text, Jer 30:14, Yhwh describes his judgement on personified Zion with the formulation “I have dealt ִ ‫ ִּכי ַמ ַּכת אֹויֵ ב ִה ִּכ‬, Jer 30:14).25 Thus, the motif you the blow of an enemy” (‫יתיְך‬ that Yhwh behaves as the enemy of his people has its original life setting (Sitz is strengthened further by the observation that the combination of the two Hebrew verbs ‫נׂשא‬ und ‫‘( נטל‬to lift up’) occurs only in Deut 1:31 and Isa 63:9. 24  For specific reference to the desert wanderings of the Pentateuch, note Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 273, and Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 226–27. Yet Gärtner concedes that the account goes beyond a mere account of history, as the days of old are depicted as the times, when the relationship between God and his people was decided, thus merging past and present (“so dass die Zeitebenen von Gestern und Heute in der Perspektive des Gebets verschmel­zen”); Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 227. 25  On the links with Lam 2:4, 5 and Jer 30:14, see also Goldenstein, Gebet, 62.

246

Anja Klein

im Leben) in the reflection on the events of 587 and their aftermath. Finally, the ָ ‫נִ ְל ַח‬, Isa 63:10) has its most idea that Yhwh fights against his own people (‫ם־ּבם‬ important parallel in the oracle of Jer 21:5 (‫ ) ְונִ ְל ַח ְמ ִּתי ֲאנִ י ִא ְּת ֶכם‬that similarly announces the judgement on Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians.26 In summary, the literary horizons of Isa 63:10 provide some evidence to suggest that the misconduct of the people and the subsequent divine judgement do not refer exclusively to Israel’s early history and the exodus. Rather, the literary links demonstrate that the account is transparent for the history between God and his people that led to the catastrophe of 587 BCE and the Babylonian exile.27 This ambiguity can be traced further in the remembrance of divine salvation in 63:11–14. At first glance, the account is firmly located in the biblical past, ָ ‫יְ ֵמ‬, referring to the “days of old” that relate to the figure of Moses (‫י־ﬠֹולם מ ֶֹׁשה‬ Isa 63:11; see also 63:12),28 and thus calling to mind Israel’s past in Egypt.29 Further connections reinforce the memory of the first exodus from Egypt: At the beginning of the section, Isa 63:11 recalls that Yhwh “brought up” his people from the waters (‫) ַה ַּמ ֲﬠ ֵלם ִמּיָ ם‬, which can be understood as a variant of the exodus formula. Moreover, Yhwh is praised for separating the waters before his ֶ ֵ‫ּבֹוק ַﬠ ַמיִ ם ִמ ְּפנ‬ ֵ , Isa 63:12), a formulation with the use of the Hebrew people (‫יהם‬ verb ‫ בקﬠ‬that points clearly to the Priestly version of the sea miracle (see ‫בקﬠ‬ in Exod 14:16, 21; Ps 78:13; Neh 9:11).30 Additional links comprise the leading ְ ‫רֹוﬠ ִּת ְפ‬ ַ ְ‫ז‬, Isa 63:12; see Exod 6:6; 15:16; Ps 77:16; function of Yhwh’s arm (‫ַארּתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֲﬠׂשֹות לֹו ֵׁשם‬, Ps 136:12),31 and the name-building function of the events (‫ﬠֹולם‬ ֶ ‫ ַל ֲﬠׂשֹות ְלָך ֵׁשם ִּת ְפ‬, 63:14; see Exod 15:3, ‫הוה ְׁשמֹו‬ ָ ְ‫ ;י‬Ps 106:8, ‫יﬠם‬ ֵ ‫ּיֹוׁש‬ ִ ‫ַו‬ Isa 63:12/‫ָארת‬ ‫ ; ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְׁשמֹו‬and Neh 9:10, ‫ׂש־לָך ֵׁשם‬ ְ ‫) ַו ַּת ַﬠ‬.32 However, there are a few links that point clearly to a different literary horizon: First of all, the mention of the shepherds in Isa 63:11, who are said to be brought up from the sea with the flock (‫) ַה ַּמ ֲﬠ ֵלם ִמ ָּ֗ים ֵאת ר ֵֹﬠי צֹאנֹו‬, attracts attention. The 26 See

Goldenstein, Gebet, 62, who also points to the connected motif in Isa 5:25. Fischer, Jahwe, 144; Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 268; and Goldenstein, Gebet, 63. 28 The LXX does not attest to the whole phrase ‫ֹׁשה ַﬠּמֹו ַאּיֵ ה‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬in Isa 63:11 (‫י־ﬠֹולם‬ ָ ‫ַוּיִ זְ ּכֹר יְ ֵמ‬ ‫)מ ֶֹׁשה ַﬠּמֹו ַאּיֵ ה ַה ַּמ ֲﬠ ֵלם‬, which might suggest an aberratio oculi from ‫ﬠֹולם‬ ָ to ‫ ; ַה ַּמ ֲﬠ ֵלם‬see Lau, Prophetie, 292; Goldenberg, Gebet, 66–67. Even if one identifies a late gloss instead (see Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 261; also supposed by Wilke, Gebete, 111), it demonstrates the intent to identify the days of old with the time of the exodus. 29  The references to the exodus events are widely acknowledged, but scholars differ in their assessment of the links; while especially early scholarship attempted to match the account in Isa 63:11–14 with specific events in Israel’s pre-history (see e. g. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968], 467–77), more recent scholarship points to allusions and parallel motifs, see e. g. Aejmelaeus, “Prophet,” 40; Goldenstein, Gebet, 82–85. 30  See also Williamson, “Exilic Lament,” 57. 31 See Fischer, Jahwe, 148. 32 Here, Goldenstein, Gebet, 76–77, argues for a specific dependence of Isa 63:12 on the account in Neh 9:10, 11. 27 Similarly,



Praying Exodus

247

shepherds do not have a counterpart in the narrative traditions about the exodus from Egypt, but in Second Isaiah Yhwh addresses the Persian king Cyrus as ֶ ‫ ָהא ֵֹמר ְל‬, Isa 44:28), whom he has entrusted with the “my shepherd” (‫כֹורׁש ר ִֹﬠי‬ restoration of Jerusalem. Furthermore, a number of postexilic oracles of salvation envisage the return from exile and diaspora using the image of flock and shepherd (Jer 23:1–8; Ezek 34:1–31).33 This suggests again that the depiction of the exodus from Egypt has been overwritten with imagery connected to the return from exile – the second exodus. In Isa 63:13, the mention of the divine arm has already been identified as an allusion to the first exodus, but it also has a dominant role in Second Isaiah, where it figures as agent of salvation and is by way of redaction in 51:9–10a connected with the return from the Babylonian exile (51:10b–11).34 In a similar way, while the motif of making a name for Yhwh clearly refers to the first exodus in texts such as Jer 32:20, Dan 9:15, and Neh 9:10, in Isa 55:13 it is used for the restoration of the Babylonian exiles to Zion (‫) ְו ָהיָ ה ַליהוָ ה ְל ֵׁשם‬. In the last two verses of the first part, Isa 63:13–14, the prophetic allusions increase and establish further connections to the second exodus in the book: The motif that the people are led through the depths like a horse in the wilderness (‫יכם ַּב ְּתהֹמֹות ַּכּסּוס ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר‬ ָ ‫מֹול‬ ִ , Isa 63:13) varies the idea in 63:11 that they are brought up from the sea and seems to draw on the account of the divine guidance ֵ ‫ּיֹול‬ ִ ‫) ַו‬.35 However, there is also a in the wilderness in Ps 106:9 (‫יכם ַּב ְּתהֹמֹות ַּכ ִּמ ְד ָּבר‬ parallel in the book itself, when in Isa 51:10b–11 the later redactor uses exodus language to describe God’s preparation for the repatriation of the exiles from Babylon.36 Continuing the previous oracle in 51:9–10a, he draws on the idea that Yhwh will dry out the water of the flood (‫ ֵמי ְּתהֹום‬, Isa 51:10a) and connects this to the homecoming from exile. The appearance of the horses in Isa 63:13 has to remain mysterious; were they clearly labelled as the horses of the enemies, they might have a part in the events, but as they are used as a point of comparison for the safe passage of the people, this is not an option. The horses have been linked with Isa 43:16–17, where the guidance through the sea relates to the end of chariots and horses, but a more convincing thesis is still pending.37 33 Thus Goldenstein, Gebet, 71, assumes that Isa 61:11 points to leaders of the people among those deported to Babylon in 587 BCE; see already Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 293. 34  On this double literary horizon, see Goldenstein, Gebet, 75. On the literary analysis of Isa 51:9–11, see Odil H. Steck, “Zions Tröstung: Beobachtungen und Fragen zu Jesaja 51:1– 11,” in Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja, FAT 4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 73–91, 77–79. The divine arm features further as powerful agent of salvation in Isa 33:2; 40:11; 52:10; 59:16; 62:8 and as instrument of judgement in Isa 30:30; 48:14; 51:5; 63:5. 35 See Goldenstein, Gebet, 77, who assumes a direct literary dependency. 36 Similarly Goldenstein, Gebet, 77. 37 Thus Goldenstein, Gebet, 78. Differently, Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 277, sees a contrived counterimage to the sea miracle in Exod 14 and the Song of the Sea in Exod 15.

248

Anja Klein

We are on safer ground, though, with assessing the comparison that the guidance of the people in Isa 63:13 will result in them not stumbling (‫)לׂא יִ ָּכ ֵׁשלּו‬. While the stumble-free progress is a feature of the divine leadership during the ֵ ‫) ִּב ְׁש ָב ָטיו‬, the prophetic parallel exodus from Egypt according to Ps 105:37 (‫ּכֹוׁשל‬ in Jer 31:9 describes the gathering of golah and diaspora on a levelled path, where they will not stumble (‫)לׂא יִ ָּכ ְׁשלּו‬.38 It adds to the closeness between the two texts that salvation in Jer 31:9 is presented as an act of the heavenly father, thus connecting with the father imagery of the prayer of the servants. Finally, the last verse of this part in Isa 63–64 presents some interesting links: At first ֶ ִ‫הוה ְּתנ‬ ָ ְ‫רּוח י‬ ַ , glance, the motif that Yhwh’s spirit has brought his people to rest (‫יחּנּו‬ Isa 63:14) does not carry a specific exodus connotation – rather, in Deuteronomistic literature the motif refers to the rest of the land.39 However, since the verb ‫ נוח‬in the hiphil binyan is explicitly used with reference to the repatriation of the golah to their land in texts such as Isa 14:3, Jer 27:11, and Ezek 37:14, it can be assumed that the lemma equally carries this connotation in Isa 63:14. Finally, the statement that Yhwh has guided his people (‫ ֵּכן נִ ַהגְ ָּת ַﬠ ְּמָך‬, Isa 64:14) recalls both the return from Egypt in texts such as Ps 78:52 (‫ ) ַויְ נַ ֲהגֵ ם‬and the return from ְ ‫) ִּכ‬. Babylon as demonstrated in Isa 49:10 (‫י־מ ַר ֲח ָמם יְ נַ ֲהגֵ ם‬ To my mind, the evidence shows convincingly that the remembrance of the exodus events in the prayer of the servants demonstrates a merger of different literary horizons, which leads to a blend of the first exodus from Egypt with the second exodus from Babylon. In this way, the remembrance of Yhwh’s gracious deeds in favour of his people becomes the theological foundation for lament and plea in the second part of the prayer.40 What the servants of Yhwh expect from their God is a repetition – or better an actualisation – of Yhwh’s salvation action in the past. In short: they ask for a third exodus, in which Yhwh will rescue them from their present distress. In particular, the prayer refers back to the book’s prologue in Isa 1, as both texts deal with the family line-up of divine father and disobedient children. Thus, the prayer of the servants together with the prologue frames the prophecies in the book, which suggests that at one point, the prayer in Isa 63–64 represented a closure to the prophet Isaiah.41 38 

On this link, see Goldenstein, Gebet, 79. Fischer, Jahwe, 163–64; Goldenstein, Gebet, 80; further Horst D. Preuss, “‫נוח‬,” TDOT IX (1998): 277–86, 280–82. 40 See Goldenstein, Gebet, 85, similarly, Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott, 268. Differently, Wilke, Gebete, 122–23, comes to the conclusion that the remembrance of the salvation of the past in the prayer remains without helpful relation to the present (“ohne hilfreiche Verbindung zur Gegenwart”), which, however, does not fit with our observations. 41 See Steck, Studien, 241; Goldenstein, Gebet, 193–98; Reinhard G. Kratz, “Tritoje­ saja,” in Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II, FAT 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 233–42, 241; Wilke, Gebete, 121. On the further literary development of the book that can be understood as a literary response to the prayer of the servants, see Steck, Studien, 221–25; Goldenstein, Gebet, 201–31; and Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 30–32. 39 See



Praying Exodus

249

3.  The Exodus Remembrance in Prayer The exodus remembrance in Isa 63:7–64:11 attracts specific attention, as the memory work takes place in the literary setting of a prayer.42 There is no comprehensive concept of a prayer in the Hebrew Bible, but one can apply the religious historical definition that a prayer comprises the verbal orientation of a human towards their God.43 Thus, a prayer can be described as an open communicative process, in which a single supplicant or a group of supplicants address(es) their God, from whom they expect an answer. In the case of Isa 63–64, the prayer form is significant in two respects. First, in redaction-historical terms, the prayer can be understood as an example of scripturalised prayer.44 It uses allusion and interpretation to retell the biblical past and to reflect on the theology of the prophetic book. In the book of Isaiah, the God of Israel is presented as a deity who demands justice from his people and who has sentenced them to death and exile in his judgement of 587 BCE. Salvation for the exiles is only available after their debt is paid (Isa 40:2), and throughout Second Isaiah salvation is described lavishly in the colours of Israel’s biblical past.45 In its literary setting as a preliminary closure, the prayer in Isa 63–64 reacts to the delay in salvation and reformulates judgement and salvation prophecies of the book in form of a prayer.46 Thus, the prophetic judgement on Israel is transformed into a confession of sin, in which the people acknowledge their continuous guilt and call for their God to fulfil his former promises. By blending references to the first exodus from Egypt with allusions to the second exodus from Babylonian exile into a paradigm of salvation, the supplicants ask Yhwh for an actualisation of his salvation in the past. The crucial 42  On the wider phenomenon of prayer texts in prophetic books, see the comprehensive study by Alexa F. Wilke, Die Gebete der Propheten (see note 4). 43  See Carl H. R atschow, “Gebet I: Religionsgeschichtlich,” TRE 12 (1984): 31–34, 32 (“Unter Gebet verstehen wir die vornehmlich ‘personhafte’, dialogische Zuwendung eines Menschen zu seinem Gott, um ihm das eigene Dasein in seiner Bedürftigkeit oder Zufriedenheit als den Wirkungsbereich ‘dieses’ Gottes darzustellen”); further, Judith Newman arrives at the definition: “Prayer is address to God that is initiated by humans; it is not conversational in nature; and it includes address to God in the second person, although it can include third person description of God” (Judith Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, SBLEJL 14 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], 6–7). 44 Thus Newman, Praying, 113; see also her summarising remarks on term and concept (Newman, Praying, 201–5); further Goldenstein, Gebet, 197 (“ein Produkt schriftlicher und schriftgelehrter ‘Tradententprophetie’”). 45 See Reinhard G. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Un­ tersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55, FAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 148–216. 46  On the aspect of delay in salvation, see Rodney A. Werline, Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution, SBLEJL 13 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 31–33, who, however, bases this assessment on an overview of the materials in Isa 56–66 as a whole. With a specific focus on Isa 63–64, see Goldenstein, Gebet, 196.

250

Anja Klein

point is that the prayer accepts the prophetic accusations as a fact, so that it is not an option that the people return by their own effort.47 Rather, it is the God of the book himself whom they ask to return to them (Isa 63:17) and who alone will be able to open an escape from their entanglement of sin. In the prayer, Yhwh becomes approachable as the God of the exodus and the God of Isaiah, who has rescued his people in biblical past and from whom the supplicants now hope for deliverance. Secondly, concerning text pragmatics, the prayer in Isa 63–64 evokes a cultic communication situation, which characterises the text as a spiritualised prayer.48 Its author uses the prayer genre as a literary device49 to open a communicative process between the audience and their God. In this process, the reformulation of the prophetic message into a spiritualised prayer affects the self-perception of the reader and contributes to their identity formation.50 While a prophetic oracle represents an address of the audience, the prayer reverses the communication situation into an address of God, which demands the reader to engage. By remembering the exodus deeds of Yhwh, they put themselves into the history between Yhwh and biblical Israel, and they can participate in the preexisting relationship between the God of Israel and his people.51 This participation in the biblical past allows the plea for the future, so that the supplicants in the prayer of the servants can ask for a third exodus to bring them out of their present distress.

4.  Praying for a Third Exodus The argument has shown that the memory of the exodus in the prayer of the servants in Isa 63–64 has to be understood as a plea for a third exodus. The author alludes to specific literary horizons in order to merge both the first and the second exodus into a paradigm of divine salvation. Therein, he is less interested in the exact sequence of events, but rather in the basic message that he 47 See

Wilke, Gebete, 137–39, who, however, highlights that the prayer already denotes a first step towards the renewal of the relationship, as the people remember and address Yhwh. On the question if Yhwh himself has caused the people to be unable to return from their sinfulness, see above note 19; this issue depends on how the possible links to Isa 6 are assessed. 48  While some scholars have tried to discuss possible cultic settings of communal laments (see, e. g., Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Vol. II: From the Exile to the Maccabees, OTL [Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994], 377–79; further Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 300–301; Fischer, Jahwe, 256; Williamson, “Exilic Lament,” 58), we have next to no evidence about cultic practices in postexilic times. This points to a literary setting of Isa 63–64, which is further supported by its scriptural character. 49 See Goldenstein, Gebet, 200, on Isa 63–64: “daß es sich bei dem Gebet im Kontext des Prophetenbuches um ein literarisches Stilmittel handeln könnte.” 50  On this aspect, see also Anja Klein, “Praying Biblical History: The Phenomenon of History in the Psalms,” HeBAI 4 (2015): 400–26, 424–25. 51 Similarly, Wilke, Gebete, 406.

Praying Exodus



251

hopes to actualise, namely Yhwh’s provision for and the guidance of his people. Especially the interpretation of the multiple literary horizons suggests that the prayer reflects a viewpoint well into the postexilic period,52 when the return from Babylonian exile is already counted among the “days of old” (Isa 63:9, 11). There are a number of literary Vorlagen that seem to be more relevant than others, in particular Ps 106, Neh 9, and Isa 1. First, the insight into the intrinsic sinfulness of the people and the possibility to appeal to Yhwh’s grace as the active principle in biblical history connects the prayer with Ps 106 and Neh 9. It can especially be understood as an actualisation of the requests for salvation in Ps 106:47 and Neh 9:32–37. However, not only the tone, but also the concerns have changed. While in Ps 106 the group of speakers ask for gathering and return and hold out the prospect of praise (106:47), Neh 9 is more concerned with the question: why should the present generation live as servants in the promised land (9:36)? In Isa 63–64, however, the present distress is described in more general terms and has become a question of intellectual reflection. In consummating the act of remembrance (63:7), the speaker at the beginning of the prayer demonstrates that the present generation has learned from the biblical past and is engaging in the proper work of memory. Yet what has not changed is the inherent sinfulness of the present generation. The sin of the people in the past serves as a hermeneutical key for the view on biblical history in both Ps 106 and Neh 9 and connects the prayer of the servants also with the programmatic prologue in Isa 1. Together, the prologue in Isa 1 and the prayer in Isa 63–64 form a redactional framework around the book, leading from Yhwh’s woe against his people to the servants’ plea for Yhwh to return to them and to intervene on their behalf. In this redactional perspective, the exodus has proved highly formative of biblical tradition. While the return from exile has been interpreted as a second exodus in Deutero-Isaiah, the prayer of the servants continues this line of interpretation and transforms the motif into a paradigm that can be actualised in the present, fusing the present of both supplicant and reader. Thus, the spiritualised prayer allows for a dialogic communication, in which the God of Israel can be addressed and in which the supplicants develop a perspective of salvation. There arises the question to what extent this line of interpretation might be relevant to the present-day reader. As this goes beyond the exegetical scope of the paper, let me just sketch out three hermeneutical aspects, which assume a religious context. First, by expressing the servants’ lament and their feeling of being abandoned by God, the prayer gives voice to a fundamental experience of human life, to which any reader today can relate. Secondly, in the same way that the ancient writer and reader hoped to actualise the divine salvation for their 52  See

in detail the overview by Goldenstein, Gebet, 232–47, who himself argues for a Hellenistic dating, following the suggestion by Odil H. Steck (see Steck, Studien, 39–40, 238).

252

Anja Klein

present, so can the present reader set their hopes on a renewed divine intervention. God has revealed his character to his people, and he can be addressed on this preceding revelation in biblical history. This leads to my third point: The prayer of the servants opens a dialogue with a deity, who is thought to be capable of intervention and amenable to influence. It is not the people who vow to return, but they address their prayer to their God, whom they trust to listen to their plea and to return to them (Isa 63:17).

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Der Prophet als Klageliedsänger: Zur Funktion des Psalms Jes 63,7–64,11 in Tritojesja.” ZAW 107 (1995): 31–50. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Vol. II: From the Exile to the Maccabees. OTL. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1994. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Commentary. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. 5th ed. (formerly HAT III/1). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Emmendörffer, Michael. Der ferne Gott: Eine Untersuchung der alttestamentlichen Volksklagelieder vor dem Hintergrund der mesopotamischen Literatur. FAT 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Fischer, Irmtraud. Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7–64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung. SBB 19. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Gärtner, Judith. Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditionsund redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches. WMANT 114. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006. Goldenstein, Johannes. Das Gebet der Gottesknechte: Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch. WMANT 92. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001. Goldingay, John. Isaiah 56–66. ICC. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Nehemia. KAT XIX 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1987. Hanson, Paul D. Isaiah 40–66. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 101–150. HThK.AT. Freiburg i.Br: Herder, 2008. Klein, Anja. Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments. FAT 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. “‘Zieht heraus aus Babel’: Beobachtungen zum Zweiten Exodus im Deuterojesajabuch.” ZThK 112 (2015): 279–299. –. “Praying Biblical History: The Phenomenon of History in the Psalms.” HeBAI 4 (2015): 400–426. Kratz, Reinhard G. Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55. FAT 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. –. “Tritojesaja.” Pages 233–242 in Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II. FAT 74. By Reinhard G. Kratz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.



Praying Exodus

253

Lau, Wolfgang. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches. BZAW 225. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1994. Newman, Judith. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Preuss, Horst D. “‫נוח‬.” TDOT IX (1998): 277–86. Ratschow, Carl H. “Gebet I: Religionsgeschichtlich.” TRE 12 (1984): 31–34. Steck, Odil H. Studien zu Tritojesaja. BZAW 203. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1991. –. “Zions Tröstung: Beobachtungen und Fragen zu Jesaja 51:1–11.” Pages 73–91 in Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja. FAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Stromberg, Jacob. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66 (Revised Edition). WBC 25. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Werline, Rodney A. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution. SBLEJL 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1969 (= Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66. ATD 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). Wilke, Alexa F. Die Gebete der Propheten: Anrufungen Gottes im ‘Corpus Propheticum’ der Hebräischen Bibel. BZAW 451. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2014. Williamson, Hugh G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16. Waco: Word Books, 1985. –. “Isaiah 63,7–64,11: Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?” ZAW 102 (1990): 48–58.

Remember Abraham – or not Ancestral Traditions in the Book of Isaiah Andreas Schüle 1. Introduction According to our standard models about the literary history of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the figure of Abraham belongs to some of the oldest textual layers in the Pentateuch with an arguably even older oral tradition in the background. Over a long period of time, these early tales materialized in the form of written narrative cycles about Israel’s ancestors, which then found their way into the pentateuchal compositions as we know them. This would lead one to the assumption that during the monarchic period in Israel and Judah the patriarchs and matriarchs figured largely in the memorymaking of Israelite and Judean religion.1 The confession to YHWH as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the call to “remember Abraham” that permeates the Pentateuch in its final form,2 would have been something like the bedrock of Israelite/Judean religion, in the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE, if not even earlier. This model triggers the implication that the relatively infrequent references to Abraham outside the Pentateuch are either directly dependent upon Genesis or draw on the same oral/written traditions used in Gen 12–25.3 For example, Isaiah commentators tend to presume rather naturally that the references to 1  See, e. g., Ronald Hendel, Remember Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 55: “We may conclude that the biblical traditions of the patriarchs have some ancient memories in them, stretching back to the pre-Israelite times of the second millennium, mingling memories of El and the old Amorite tribal home. … From these roots the stories grew and changed, adapted and embellished by storytellers of each age, until they came to be written in brilliant form by the biblical authors. We can perceive the antiquity of these traditions only occasionally, but the sense of the power and authority of the past pervades the stories.” For Hendel, it is also clear that Isaiah draws on this broad stream of continuous tradition making (37). 2 Cf. the call to “remember Abraham” in Exod 32:13; Lev 26:42, 45; Deut 9:27. Note, however, that more often the exodus from Egypt and the time in the wilderness are what Israel is supposed to remember (Exod 13:3; Deut 5:15; 7:18; 8:2; 9:7; 11:2–7; 15:15; 16:3, 12; 24:9, 18, 22; 25:17). 3  Cf. along this line Meira Polliack, “Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal,” in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. H. Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, LHBOTS 319 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 72–110.

256

Andreas Schüle

Abraham and Sarah in Isa 41:8 and to Abraham alone in 51:2 are tied to the transmission history of Genesis.4 But is this a necessary and even plausible assumption? A similar question arises with regard to Jacob as the other ancestral name that occurs in the book of Isaiah (Isaac and matriarchs apart from Sarah are not mentioned at all). The case is somewhat more difficult with Jacob, of course, since most of the occurrences of this proper name designate a particular ethnic group. Whether or not these occurrences allude, at least to some extent, to narrative traditions about Jacob as an individual protagonist is not as obvious as one might wish. However, especially Isa 48:1 may hold an important clue in this regard. In the following, I would like to suggest that Isaiah’s dependence on Genesis is much less certain than is often assumed. Rather, the way Isaiah talks about Abraham and Jacob deviates at crucial points from the finalized form of Genesis and gives reason to believe that what one reads in Genesis may not have been the model, let alone the canonical account, about the ancestral fathers and mothers.

2. Abraham 2.1  No Covenant with Abraham: The Minority Report of the Pentateuch The elaborate stories about Israel’s ancestors and founding figures of faith in YHWH that dominate the book of Genesis and carry over into the opening chapters of the book of Exodus (Exod 2:24) are not uncontested in the Pentateuch itself. There are well-known examples that contradict the notion that the patriarchs and matriarchs were YHWH-worshipers, at least since the time they had left Ur and Haran. Genesis 31:9 reports that Rachel stole the family idols when she and Jacob secretly left Haran to escape the demands of her father, Laban. Even more dramatically, Jacob instructs the members of his family to abandon their idols (Gen 35:2). This is reported at a relatively late point in the story of Jacob and marks its turning point, leading to the renaming of Jacob to Israel (Gen 35:10). This story does not seem to know anything about Abraham or Isaac at all, since Jacob is depicted as the one who left Mesopotamia to journey to Canaan (Gen 35:9). The knowledge that Israel’s ancestors initially served “other gods” is also present in Josh 24:2–3, although, here, this knowledge seems to be aligned with the story in Gen 11:27–32. Most overtly, it is the book of Deuteronomy that, at crucial junctures, disregards the time of the ancestors and labels them as soteriologically insignificant. 4  Cf. U. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008), 190. Berges notes the seemingly peculiar order that puts Israel/Jacob before Abraham, which he interprets as an intentional effort on the part of the authors to highlight that Abraham is God’s friend/loved one – a designation that even surpasses the title of the “servant of YHWH.”



Remember Abraham – or not

257

It is the exodus and the encounter with YHWH at Mount Horeb that mark the beginning of Israel’s history as God’s people, whereas the early ancestors are merely acknowledged as the ones who received the promise that their descendants would one day own the land of Canaan.5 Probably the most explicit distinction between Israel’s early history and the exodus generation is drawn in Deut 5:2–3: YHWH, our God, made a covenant with us at Horeb.

Not with our fathers did he make this covenant, but with us. We are the ones who are here today, and we are all alive.

Theoretically, this could mean that this passage even draws a distinction between the exodus generation and the ones who are now actually standing at Mount Horeb. This would be the case if Deut 5 followed Num 14:20–23 and presumed that the exodus generation died as God’s punishment and that only their descendants were permitted to arrive at the border of the promised land.6 But that does not seem to be the assumed story in Deut 5.7 It seems fairly clear that the ones who are about to cross over into the land are also the ones that stood at Mount Horeb and listened to God giving the Ten Commandments (cf. Deut 5:4–5). So it is safe to say that the line “Not with our fathers did he make this covenant” is aimed at the ancestral generations, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.8 The reason why they assume a somewhat inferior position in the bigger picture is twofold: they did not have the same revelatory experience as the exodus generation9 and, even more bluntly, because they are dead. As for the book of Deuteronomy in general, Deut 5 regards the experience of hearing God’s commanding voice as the essence of religion and piety, which is something that was not there before Horeb,10 but continues to be there for every new generation in the form of God’s Torah. The ancestral fathers and mothers have no share in this. Interestingly, a very similar argument is made in Isa 63:16, where God is called upon as Israel’s true father, because Abraham and Jacob are long gone. Here, too, the living presence is crucial, not stories from the past. These general remarks may suffice to indicate that the high regard for the ancestral generations in Genesis is far less common, even in the Pentateuch, than 5  It is important to note that, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned (Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:29; 34:4), the notion of a covenant is never included. 6  Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 237. 7  Although Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012), 680, considers the possibility of v.  3 being a redactional insertion in order to draw a distinction between the Horeb and the Nebo generations. 8  Ibid., 680. Otto assumes that, abandoning the significance of the ancestors, the exilic community that stands behind this text separated themselves from preexilic tradition (cf. also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 239). 9  A critique that may have inspired the Horeb-like epiphany to Abraham in Gen 15:7–21. 10 As Otto, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32 states, for the authors of Deut 5:2–3, it is only the Horeb experience that constitutes Israel as a qâhâl.

258

Andreas Schüle

one may be inclined to assume at first sight. It is certainly the canonical weight of Genesis at the beginning of the Pentateuch/Torah that gives the ancestral narratives a certain gravitas. But this may not have been the general perception when these stories were originally composed, as we shall see in greater detail, turning to the prophetic image of the ancestral generations. 2.2  Ezekiel 33:23–25 Let’s start our inquiry not with Isaiah but with Ezekiel. Ezekiel is arguably the Major Prophet with the fewest parallels to the Pentateuch. As a matter of fact, reading Ezekiel on his own, one would hardly be able to tell that, around the same time, the formation of the Pentateuch was probably in full swing. There are only three examples in the entire book of Ezekiel for Israel being called Jacob (Ezek 20:5; 28:25; 39:25). With the exception of Ezek 37:25–26, there is no tangible connection with the pentateuchal traditions. So it does not come as a surprise that the one time that Ezekiel mentions Abraham it happens out of necessity and not because he considers Abraham essential. In this passage, Ezekiel references the faith of those Judeans who had never gone into exile but had remained in the country. The word of YHWH came to me: “Son of man, the ones living in these ruins in the land of Israel are saying, ‘Abraham was only one (man), yet he possessed the land. But we are many! Surely the land has been given to us for a possession.’ Therefore, say to them, ‘This is what YHWH says: You eat the meat with the blood still in it, look up to your idols, and shed blood. Do you really think you own the land?’”

There are several observations that matter for our purpose: 1. There is a clear pejorative tone in the way Ezekiel addresses the Judeans, which of course fits his overall view that only the Golah, the Jews in exile, are the true Israel, whereas everyone else is not. Most notably, the Judeans are blamed for not keeping to a kosher diet, which may indicate that particular dietary laws emerged from or were at least reinforced in an exilic setting. 2. If Ezekiel’s account is roughly accurate, then the character of Abraham was an important point of reference for those nonexiled Judeans.11 They seem to have claimed Abraham as their ancestor who already possessed the land. This they apparently used as an argument against the exiled Judeans who, in their view, had lost the land and, therefore, had dropped out of the Abrahamic hereditary line. The specific phrasing is crucial here. In v.  24 everything is cast in preterit language: ‫מֹור ָ ֽׁשה‬ ָ ‫ת־הָא֑ ֶרץ ַו ֲא ַנ ְ֣חנּו ַר ִּ֔בים ָל֛נּו נִ ְּת ָנ֥ה ָהָא֖ ֶרץ ְל‬ ָ ‫ירׁש ֶא‬ ֖ ַ ִ‫ַאב ָר ָ֔הם ַוּי‬ ְ ‫ֶא ָח ֙ד ָהיָ ֣ה‬ 11 Cf.

Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 684; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 327.



Remember Abraham – or not

259

Abraham is presented as someone who, even though he was only one, owned the land. This gives the native Judeans a basis to argue that, being many, they should be even more entitled to ownership of the land in their own time.12 Insisting on being many may have been intended as a jibe against the Golah as the minority group: how would they, not being many, possibly be in a position to challenge the legitimacy of the Judeans’ claim to being the true heirs of Abraham?13 The Hebrew root yrš plays an important role here. It is also found in connection with Abraham in the Genesis stories (Gen 15:7–8; 22:17; 28:4) – with one important difference, though. In Isaiah, yrš is used in the perfect tense to indicate that Abraham had in fact received the land. In Genesis, on the other hand, yrš is always used in the imperfect or in purpose clauses (with inf. const.). It is Abraham’s descendants who will eventually possess the land, and it is precisely the point in Genesis that Abraham himself never owned the land (with the sole exception of the cave of Machpelah). This raises an important question. Did the Judeans in Ezekiel’s time reinterpret, for their own purposes, the Abraham narratives? In other words, did they, in order to support their own claim to the land, turn promise into a fait accompli? Or did they know the Abraham narratives in a way where Abraham was not the sojourner and traveler, as Genesis has it, but in fact the first owner of the land? Either way, the debate between the Judeans on the one hand and Ezekiel on the other does not make much sense against the backdrop of the Genesis narratives. To put an even finer point on this argument, what if a tradition about Abraham’s family coming from Ur of the Chaldeans via Haran (Gen 11:31–12:1) would have been known in the time of Ezekiel? Clearly, this would have considerably undermined the Judeans’ claim to the land and given the (Babylonian) Golah the upper hand! The fact that Ezekiel does not challenge the Judeans’ reference to Abraham is telling. In order to invalidate the Judeans’ sense of entitlement, he has to resort to a different argumentative strategy: The Judeans may be Abraham’s heirs, but their moral and cultic conduct effectively disqualifies them from being the legitimate owners and true heirs of the land. So if Abraham was in fact a character with whom primarily the nonexiled Judeans self-identified, this would explain to some extent why the Major Prophets 12 Henk Leene, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy. An Intertextual Study, OTS 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 261, points to a similar claim with regard to Ezek 11:15. 13  Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 690, offers an instructive interpretation: “Ezekiel disdained the unrepentant homelanders who arrogated to themselves the title of Abraham’s heirs. Second Isaiah encouraged ‘pursuers of justice, seekers of YHWH’ among the exiles – true heirs of that Abraham who had been singled out by God to charge his household to follow the way of YHWH by doing what is right und just (Gen 18:19). Ezekiel denied the former the right to the land that they claimed as Abrahamites in the flesh; Second Isaiah assured the latter that as Abrahamites in character as well as in the flesh they would be sufficiently numerous to sustain the blessings of restoration.”

260

Andreas Schüle

(with their mostly Golah-oriented theology) were not particularly interested in him. The characteristic topics that mattered to an exilic audience – diaspora existence, the prospect of returning from Babylon to the land of the ancestors – seem to have been absent from the Abraham narratives of the time. This puts us in a position to examine the Abraham passages in the book of Isaiah. 2.3  Isaiah 51:2–3 Look at Abraham, your father, and to Sarah who bore you! For he was but one when I called him, but I blessed him and made him many. For YHWH will comfort Zion. He will comfort all her waste places, and will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of YHWH. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of song.

The content of this prophecy has certain parallels with Ezek 33. First of all, there is the emphasis on Abraham, who is initially only one person when he first ִ֔ ‫י־א ָח֣ד ְק ָר‬ ֶ ‫“( ִּכ‬because he was one when I called him”; received God’s call: ‫אתיו‬ Isa 51:2). The language of oneness provides a link between Ezekiel and Isaiah. But what does Isaiah mean by God “calling” Abraham? One might immediately think of Gen 12:1, but perhaps only at first sight, because Abraham was not, strictly speaking, alone when he left Ur and Haran. The verb ‫ קרא‬can be used in the sense of calling someone out of a certain situation or place (“When Israel was youth, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”), in which case one would, as in Hos 11:1, expect a corresponding preposition (min). In an absolute sense, ‫ קרא‬expresses a sense of recognition and attention. So Isa 52:2 may simply point to the moment when Abraham became God’s chosen one and the father of God’s people, without the idea of migration or sojourning as in Genesis. However, the language of “blessing” and “becoming many” does in fact provide a common theme with Genesis (and also with Ezek 33:23–25).14 Isa 51:3 goes on to picture the scenario in which the call to Abraham occurred. The key here is that Abraham and Sarah are presented as people who live in waste places and who, apparently, are waiting for their dire fortune to be turned. They are depicted in a situation of misery and despair that characterizes Israel prior to their being found by God. This conveys an atmosphere which is different from most of the Genesis stories. There, Abraham is presented as a rich, sometimes even politically influential man, whose only problem is that he does not have an heir. Interestingly, while owning the land is one of the promises given to Abraham, he never complains about not owning the land. As far as Abraham is concerned, being a sojourner is not much of a concern, but the missing heir is. There may be elements of weakness and dependence, as in Gen 12:10–20; but 14  Cf. Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, Deuterojesaja (Jes 49,14–55,13), BK 11/3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 173–74, and Ulrich Berges, Jesaja 49–54, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015), 122.

Remember Abraham – or not



261

even then, Abraham is immediately portrayed as someone who falls on his feet and turns a potentially difficult situation to his advantage. Isaiah’s Abraham, on the other hand, is much more reminiscent of the “perishing Aramean” in Deut 26:5. As a matter of fact, Isaiah seems to presuppose a tradition about Israel’s ancestors that emphasizes the motif of “despair and desert.” This is at least what the addressees of Isa 51 are meant to recognize when they “look” at Abraham and Sarah as their ancestors. Another Deuteronomic text that locates Israel’s origins in desert and waste places is Deut 32:9–10, which, however, makes Jacob the arch-ancestor: “For the allotment of YHWH is his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance. He found him in desert land, in the howling waste of wilderness. He surrounded him, watched him, and provided for him as the apple of his eye.” Deuteronomy 32 goes on to depict how Jacob, under YHWH’s care, blossomed and how the desert turned into a hospitable habitat. It is important to note that, like Isa 51, Deut 32 does not tell a story about migration but about people in their place of origin, whose dire fortunes are being turned. Historically, it is a likely assumption that Isa 51 points to a time prior to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple.15 Note that this is not essentially different from Ezek 33 with the one crucial difference: whereas in Ezek 33 the ones “living in ruins” are the nonexiled Judeans, in Isa 51 this role is taken by the returnees from Babylon as the primary addressees of Second Isaiah’s message of comfort and hope. Whereas Ezekiel presupposes that the Golah was still living in exile, now they had returned, which apparently afforded a more positive appreciation of Abraham as the one who was called by God in a similar situation. Or put differently, now that they had returned to the land, the Golah, too, could take ownership of the Abraham tradition as something that related to the situation in which they found themselves. 2.4  Isaiah 41:8–9 This takes us to the second passage that mentions Abraham in Second Isaiah. Isa 41:8–9 reads as follows: But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, the one I love; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, ‘You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off ’.

Here again one encounters language absent from Genesis. Abraham is called God’s “loved one” (‫)א ֲֹה ִ ֽבי‬. However, the same designation also occurs in 2 Chr 20:7: 15 

Although there is no agreement among scholars regarding the date and textual layering of Isa 51:1–8 (for an overview of the discussion, cf. Hermisson, Deuterojesaja, 164–65).

262

Andreas Schüle

Did you not, you our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel, and give it forever to the descendants of your loved one, Abraham?

Again, one can ask if calling Abraham God’s “loved one” or “friend” (as most translations have it) is meant as a summary of the Genesis accounts; or if there is a tradition about Abraham in the background that is simply not included in the Genesis narratives. The fact that there is no direct connection or literary dependence between Second Isaiah and Chronicles does at least suggest that there was in fact such a “friend of God” tradition to which the two schools had independent access. But be this as it may, Second Isaiah finds two different titles for the two main patriarchs: Abraham is the “loved one,” Jacob/Israel the “servant.” This may be seen as Second Isaiah’s way of connecting these two traditions, and it must remain open whether Isaiah already knew Abraham and Jacob, the “loved one” and the “servant,” as members of the same genealogical lineage. If we sum up so far, the exilic and early postexilic prophets knew Abraham as the first owner of the land. And being Abraham’s heir meant to be entitled to the land in the same way he was. If one had to guess (and obviously it cannot be more than that) then Ezekiel and Isaiah were familiar with Abraham narratives that associated him with places of the Persian province Yehud. It is also a likely assumption that the close ties between Abraham, his heirs, and the land made him a problematic figure for the exilic Golah-oriented prophecy, because having lost the land or living outside the land did not resonate well with this tradition. It seems that Second Isaiah found his own way of adjusting the Abraham tradition to the identity of the Golah group  – at least to some extent. If one understands the two occurrences of Abraham in Isa 41 and Isa 51 as an inner frame to the composition of Isa 40:1–52:15, then there is in fact something like an Isaianic Abraham narrative: Abraham was the first to own the land and passed it on to Jacob and his descendants (note that there is no mention of Isaac in this line), who were scattered among the nations but eventually brought back to the land that once was Abraham’s. This is definitely not more than an outer frame, which connects only marginally with Second Isaiah’s theological core message, which is, of course, redemption, return, and a fresh start in the history of YHWH and the Golah community. But apparently, the Abraham tradition was important enough to be simply ignored. And yet, once one arrives in Third Isaiah, one senses that the liaison between the Abraham tradition and the book of Isaiah didn’t last long. In the penitential prayer, which may be one of the latest pieces in Isaiah, the significance of Abraham seems to have faded away: Truly, you are our father, because Abraham does not know us and Jacob does not recognize us. You, YHWH, are our father. ‘Our redeemer from of old’ is your name. (Isa 63:16)



Remember Abraham – or not

263

To some extent this appears to be the exact opposite of the call to “remember Abraham” that characterizes the final form of the Pentateuch. Such a recollection would not contribute anything to Israel’s sense of identity or satisfy its present need for reconciliation with YHWH. Whatever the past was, it does not bear any significance without a fresh salvific impulse from YHWH in the present.

3.  Jacob in Second Isaiah As Hugh Williamson has observed, the distribution of the name “Jacob” in the book of Isaiah clearly points to chs. 40–48 as the place where Israel’s identity as Jacob appears to be of particular significance.16 This of course immediately raises the question if the usage of the name “Jacob” indicates that Isa 40–48 should be viewed as an originally independent unit that was only secondarily put together with Isa 49–54(55). Williamson cautions against such a conclusion and interprets the three occurrences of “Jacob” in ch. 49 as an intentionally crafted segue to the new theme of Israel/Zion in ch. 54(55).17 While Williamson regards the usage of Jacob/Israel as mostly stereotypical (with the possible exception in Isa 48:1), he surmises that the large number of pertinent references in chs. 40–48 may have to do with the fact that the issue of Israel/Jacob’s identity in the new political world of the Persian empire seems to be a particularly pressing matter in this part of Second Isaiah.18 This raises the question if Second Isaiah used the name with an understanding of Jacob as one of Israel’s eponymous ancestors. 3.1  Isaiah 48:1: Jacob’s New Name In Isa 48:1–12, the prophetic voice addresses a community that apparently refuses to accept the message of salvation and a new beginning that Second Isaiah offers and, by the same token, the demands that Second Isaiah places on the “new Israel” after the Babylonian exile was over. There is a lengthy apology that seeks to justify the prophetic message that Second Isaiah delivers and that deviates from prophetic messages of the past (Isa 48:4–7). Most commentators assume that the prophetic voice addresses the Golah.19 This may be true for vv. 12–21, where Jacob/Israel is depicted as the chosen people who return from Babylon (Isa 48:14–15). Here, one finds the language of salvation that Second Isaiah reserves for the returnees. However, in vv. 1–11 the tone is much harsh16 Hugh Williamson, “Jacob in Isaiah 40–66,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66, ed. L.‑S. Tiemeyer and H. Barstad, FRLANT 225 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 219. 17  Ibid., 225. 18  Ibid., 219–20. 19  For an overview see Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 509–10.

264

Andreas Schüle

er.20 The addressees are people who have yet to be convinced that their piety was misguided and that they owe their survival to God’s willingness to contain his wrath (v. 9). While they know YHWH and even call themselves by the name of the holy city,21 they are deceitful and act treacherously (v. 8). There is a striking contrast between the Golah as the people who have received their punishment (the “twofold portion,” Isa 40:2) but are now redeemed and restored to being God’s nation and this group that apparently has not yet attained the same level of redemption. This makes it a likely assumption that Second Isaiah addresses not the Golah but those Judeans who had remained in the country during the Babylonian regiment and who may not have been eager to fall in line with the Golah’s theopolitical visions. It is this “other” group that Second Isaiah alerts to their identity and the religious commitment that goes along with it: Hear this, house of Jacob, who are called/call themselves by the name of Israel and who have come from the midst of Judah; who swear by the name of YHWH and who rely on the God of Israel, but not in truth and righteousness.

The crucial aspect here is naming.22 The niphal form ‫ נקראים‬can be passive or reflexive. So either the addressees are reminded that, being Jacob, they are also called (or have received the name of ) Israel; or they themselves are the ones who claim this name for themselves. In any case, this is the only and therefore particularly salient piece of textual evidence in Isaiah that shows that Jacob/Israel is not simply a double name. Rather, “Israel” is more of a title than a proper name, and Second Isaiah seeks to remind his addressees that with this title come certain commitments and responsibilities. Note that YHWH is explicitly referred to as the God of Israel by whose name the addressees swear oaths. So they are not accused of worshiping the wrong deity, but their reliance on YHWH is not true and righteous. Put in different words, they have the right God, but they have the wrong theology and, therefore, the wrong piety. Unfortunately, there is no context that would shed further light on the origin of the name/title “Israel,” but it is clear that it carries particular weight (cf. Isa 46:3) and dignity that, according to Second Isaiah, depends on one’s fidelity to YHWH. So could it be that, to be able to make this distinction between “Jacob” and “Israel,” Second Isaiah knew a “naming story” similar to or identical with Gen 35?23 In Gen 35, the renaming of Jacob is connected to a revelatory 20  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 287, states that “it is possible to detect a gradually increasing alienation between prophet and public.” However, he offers no explanation for why such an alienation would suddenly occur and (from v. 12 onward) suddenly disappear again. 21  This indicates that there were people who, apart from being Jacob/Israel, called themselves “Jerusalemites.” While this self-designation is otherwise unknown, it makes sense in the context of Isaiah, where the inhabitants of the city are in fact viewed as Mother Zion’s children (cf. Isa 40:2; 49:15). 22  Also cf. Isa 48:8. 23  This is what Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 512, sees as the most likely interpretation of the wording here.



Remember Abraham – or not

265

experience that effects what one might call a conversion to YHWH (Gen 35:4, 10).24 And they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that were in their hands and the rings that were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak that is in Shechem. …   And God spoke to him: Your name is Jacob. One shall not call your name Jacob anymore; rather, Israel shall be your name. And (so) he named him Israel.

To some extent, what Second Isaiah expects from his addressees seems to be similar to the setting of Gen 35, because this “other group,” too, is expected to leave behind their old religious ways and live up to what it truly means to be “Israel.” As already hinted at above, Gen 35 does not fit neatly in its literary context, because it seems to be almost superfluous. Jacob has already encountered YHWH and made him the recipient of the promises previously given to Abraham and Isaac. However, Gen 35 offers an apparently crucial element that adds a new wrinkle to the unfolding story of Jacob, namely the receiving of a new name.25 Obviously, there is no way of knowing, but it is not altogether unlikely that Gen 35 as a story that to some extent goes against the narrative flow of the Jacob narrative in Genesis was also known outside the pentateuchal traditions. 3.2  Isaiah 42:17: Jacob, “your father” The other important piece of evidence in this regard is that Second Isaiah calls Jacob “father.” As a matter of fact, this title seems to be reserved for Jacob and not for Abraham: Remind me! Let’s debate together! You state your case, so that you may appear right! Your first forefather sinned, and your teachers transgressed against me.

The remarkable phrase here is ‫הראשון אביך‬. While, according to the genealogical scheme in Genesis, this should be Abraham, the notion that this forefather sinned seems to point to Jacob,26 whose overall image in the Prophets is far from spotless (cf. Hos 12:2–5). The least that one can say is that Second Isaiah apparently did not construe the relationship between Abraham and Jacob as grandfather and grandson. It is far more likely, that both were considered forefathers, with Jacob as the actual founding figure.27 24  While Gen 32:23–32, too, offers an etiology of the name “Israel” and does in fact also effect a change of mind in Jacob, the wrestling with the angel is not depicted as a story of conversion as is Gen 35. 25  It is quite possible that Gen 35 offers the original “naming” story and, as such, the model for Gen 17 (P), since the renaming of Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah appears to be an almost artificial (and linguistically cumbersome) attempt. 26  Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 512. 27 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 326: “It is clear from a reading of Isa 40–48 that the

266

Andreas Schüle

The same might be true for Isa 58:14 where, as in Isa 43:17, Jacob (not Abraham) is called “your father”: “Then you will delight in YHWH, and I will let you ride on the hills of the land, and I will provide/nourish you with the heritage of Jacob, your father. Truly, the mouth of YHWH has spoken.” The prophetic voice here speaks to people who, while they live on the ground of the promised land, do not actually benefit from it. Or put differently, they do not have ownership of it in the way Jacob did, but the actual promise is to restate them to this possession, thus making them Jacob’s “heirs.” It is only in its final stages that the book of Isaiah seems to presuppose a genealogical link between Abraham and Jacob, with Abraham perhaps now as the more dominant figure. As already indicated above, if this presupposes a growing together of the Abraham and Jacob traditions in the way Genesis has it, it is all the more important that the Isaianic version of this development has a negative slant: “Truly, you are our father, because Abraham does not know us and Jacob does not recognize us. You, YHWH, are our father. ‘Our redeemer from of old’ is your name” (Isa 63:16). The patriarchs of the old traditions are long gone, which is why Israel cast themselves on the mercy of YHWH as their true und only father. Taken all the evidence together, Jacob is a far more important character than Abraham,28 first of all because he is Israel’s patronym and also because he could be portrayed in a way that made him the character from Israel’s past who turned away from Israel’s “Canaanite” religion to the proper worship of YHWH. While these characteristics are also present in Genesis, they seem to be less significant, especially since Abraham as a diaspora figure sets the tone in the unfolding narrative.

4. Conclusion After this survey of the prophetic and in particular Isaianic references to Abraham and Jacob we can draw some tentative conclusions. First and most importantly, while it is a likely assumption that Genesis and Isaiah knew some of the same stories about Israel’s early ancestors, there was no such thing as a coherent or even canonized set of ancestral narratives. Due to the relatively brief explicit mentions of Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob in Isaiah, it remains uncertain what exactly Isaiah’s image of the patriarchs and matriarchs was. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that Genesis was not the source text. This may in turn indicate that eponymous ancestor of Israel is Jacob, but there are indications of an alternative tradition according to which Abraham was father of the people and Sarah the mother (Isa 29:22; 41:8; Josh 24:3).” 28  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 326.



Remember Abraham – or not

267

the making of the Abraham and Jacob cycles in Genesis was still in progress by the time Second and (to some extent) Third Isaiah took shape. Particularly striking in this regard is that Isaiah does not view Abraham as a person in a diaspora setting, which is a dominant feature of the Genesis account in its final form. The genealogical ties to Babylon and Haran, the wealth he receives from Egypt, his crossing over into non-Israelite territory (such as Gerar, Sodom, and Gomorrah) should be seen as a deliberate attempt by the book of Genesis to associate Abraham with areas where Jews lived (or chose to live) outside the promised land. The “Genesis Abraham” moves in and out of this land and is much more of a diaspora character than he is in Isaiah. In Genesis, Abraham and Jacob carry the promise of owning the land, and the texts make it a point that this already is enough (or at least can be enough) to maintain a Jewish identity. So it is no surprise that Genesis, in its final form and with the story of Joseph as its conclusion, sees some of God’s promises fulfilled on foreign territory: Israel becomes a great nation on foreign ground (Gen 46:3; 47:27). The message is clear, being in the diaspora is not inferior to living in the promised land. This, however, does not seem to be the Abraham whom Ezekiel and Isaiah had in mind. Here, the ancestral parents are not primarily the carriers of a promise. They are much more “domestic” or “native” characters and come into view as the first owners of the land in which they became many. As such, it seems that they played a more important role among the nonexiled Judeans than among the Golah community. This may explain why the exilic and early postexilic texts in the book of Isaiah show a somewhat reserved appreciation of Israel’s early ancestors.

Bibliography Berges, Ulrich. Jesaja 40–48. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008. –. Jesaja 49–54. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21–37. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Hendel, Ronald. Remember Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. Deuterojesaja (Jes 49,14–55,13). BK 11/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Leene, Henk. Newness in Old Testament Prophecy. An Intertextual Study. OTS 64. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32. HThKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2012. Polliack, Meira. “Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal.” Pages 72–110 in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition.

268

Andreas Schüle

Edited by H. Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman. LHBOTS 319. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Williamson, Hugh. “Jacob in Isaiah 40–66.” Pages 219–29 in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66. Edited by L.‑S. Tiemeyer and H. Barstad. FRLANT 225. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.

Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12 Ethan Schwartz 1. Introduction Scholars of prophetic literature have often delighted in subverting the famous Elohistic notice that “never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses (‫)כמׁשה‬, whom YHWH knew face to face” (Deut 34:10).1 A significant number of studies have argued that subsequent prophets in Israel’s history (within the narrative world of the Hebrew Bible, that is) indeed appear – intentionally, through allusion, or emergently, through tradition-historical or generic commonalities – very much “like Moses.”2 Without necessarily going so far as to affirm the Wellhausian axiom of lex post prophetas, one may justifiably conclude that for certain ancient authors, the prophets were not mere pale imitations of the arch-prophetic lawgiver but powerful instantiations of the same elemental prophetic phenomenon. The sequentially early material in the book of Isaiah furnishes a number of fruitful case studies for the exploration of Mosaic features in canonically later prophets. There are at least three sections that bear marked affinities with passages or narrative events associated with Moses in the Pentateuch. First, the prophet’s opening exhortation in Isa 1 bears striking similarities with Deut 32, 1 Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. This particular translation takes Deut 34:10 as a qualitative statement: no subsequent prophet was comparable to (“like”) Moses because he had a uniquely intimate relationship with the deity. Such is the usual understanding of the verse within its canonical context; after all, numerous other prophets did arise in Israel. However, Jeffrey Stackert has shown that in its original context as the conclusion only to E, the verse probably functioned to preclude the existence of subsequent prophets altogether. On this reading, the particle ‫ ְּכ‬is not a preposition (“like Moses”) but a conjunction (“as Moses did”); see idem, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 117–23. 2  See, e. g., Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A  Study in Old Testament Canon Formation, FAT 27 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 111–49; Georg Fischer, “Jeremiah – ‘The Prophet like Moses?’” in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson, VTSup 178 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 45–66; Risa Levitt Kohn, “A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah,” ZAW 114 (2002): 236–54; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: Prophet Like Moses (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015); Henry McKeating, “Ezekiel the ‘Prophet Like Moses?’” JSOT 19 (1994): 97–109; Martin O’K ane, “Isaiah: A Prophet in the Footsteps of Moses,” JSOT 21 (1996): 29–51; and Christopher R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 3–27.

270

Ethan Schwartz

Moses’s parting exhortation. Second, the prophet’s direct encounter with YHWH and subsequent commissioning in Isa 6 has long been appreciated for its form-critical similarities with the combined J and E accounts of Moses’s commissioning in Midian (Exod 3–4). Third and finally, the divine victory and national redemption depicted in Isa 10–12 recalls the celebration of the exodus in the Song at the Sea (Exod 15), including some direct or near-direct citations and paraphrase. Isaiah 1–12 is thematically oriented around the fates of Judah and Israel, giving way in Isa 13 to a distinct section concerning the other nations. As such, these chapters have been recognized as a literary unit since before modernity and continue widely to be so treated by contemporary commentators.3 However, the prominent role of Mosaic imagery in this material – neatly punctuating it at the beginning, middle, and end – has not generally been considered as a salient feature of its structural unity. The goal of the present essay, therefore, is to bring these two widely recognized features of the opening movement of Isaiah into conversation. I  argue that the persistent affinity with prominent Mosaic texts in Isa 1–12 constitutes a structuring principle within the compositional logic of this material. The pentateuchal texts in question broadly outline the arc of Moses’s prophetic career, stretching from the exodus to his final moments. In this way, Isa 1–12 creates a large-scale compositional analogy between Israel’s experiences as overseen by Moses and foreseen by Isaiah. Crucially, however, this analogy is not a parallel; it is an inversion. Franz Delitzsch wrote of Isa 1 and Deut 32, “In every age, … this song has presented to Israel a mirror of its existing condition and future fate. And it was the task of the prophets to hold up this mirror to the people of their own times. This is 3  See, e. g., Peter R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 16–48; Willem A  M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, HthKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003); Christiaan H. W. Brekelmans, “Deuteronomistic Influence in Isaiah 1–12,” in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, ed. Jacques Vermeylen, BETL 81 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 167–76; Wim M. de Bruin, Isaiah 1–12 as Written and Read in Antiquity (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013); Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, HKAT 3.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), 8–10; Yehoshua Gitay, Isaiah and His Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1991); Robert A. Harris, “Structure and Composition in Isaiah 1–12: A Twelfth-Century Northern French Rabbinic Perspective,” in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, ed. Claire Mathews Mcginnis and Patricia K. Tull, SymS 27 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 171–87; Otto K aiser, Isaiah 1–12, 2nd ed., trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1983); Leon J. Liebreich, “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah,” JQR 46 (1956): 263–65; Rodrigo F. de Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12, LHBOTS 516 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010); Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); and Ian D. Wilson, “Isaiah 1–12: Presentation of a (Davidic?) Politics,” in Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof: Poetry, Prophecy, and Justice in Hebrew Scripture; Essays in Honor of Francis Landy on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. Andrew Gow and Peter Sabo (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 50–71.

271

Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12



what Isaiah does.”4 If Isa 1 is a rhetorical mirror, then Isa 1–12 is a compositional mirror. As we move forward from Isa 1 to Isa 12, we actually move backward in Moses’s tenure: we start where Moses ends (Deut 32) and end where Moses begins (the exodus). Between these poles, the throne scene in Isa 6 appears less an Isaianic parallel to Moses’s commissioning than an inversion of the revelatory events at Sinai/Horeb  – passages with which Isa 6 has affinities that have not attracted significant attention.5 The overall structure may be diagrammed as follows: Exodus 15

Exodus 19–20; 24; 33–34

Deuteronomy 32

Revelation

Exhortation

Moses Redemption

Isaiah Isaiah 10–12

Isaiah 6

Isaiah 1

Delitzsch’s famous and insightful remark  – that Moses’s future is Isaiah’s present – may therefore be supplemented: Isaiah’s (and Israel’s) future is Moses’s (and Israel’s) past.6 The eschatological resolution in Isa 10–12 is, in fact, a return to the foundational victory at the sea. Isaiah 1–12 therefore conveys a theology of Israel’s history – not primarily on the semantic level, where Moses is echoed, but rather on the compositional level, where Moses is mirrored. This argument is basically synchronic, addressing an underappreciated feature of how the opening chapters of Isaiah are structured.7 Yet while readers of Isaiah have long accepted that these chapters are a literary unity on this synchronic level, many contemporary commentators have compellingly argued that this unity emerged diachronically: it is, in other words, not authorial but redactional. In this respect, Isa 1–12 represents something of a microcosm of the book as a whole. As H. G. M. Williamson has noted, Isaiah has emerged as an unusually contested site for methodological reflection on the relative merits 4 Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah, trans. James Martin, K&D 7 (1857–1878; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 50. 5  “Sinai” is the Yhwistic designation for the mountain, while “Horeb” is Elohistic (and, later, Deuteronomic). Because I argue that it is the redactionally integrated form of this material that exerts compositional influence on Isa 1–12, I will, for the sake of convenience, henceforth refer to the redacted account simply as “Sinai.” 6  Delitzsch, Isaiah, 50. 7  Cf. Peter R. Ackroyd’s goal in his famous 1978 article on this material: “to observe how, in these twelve chapters as they now stand, there is a presentation of the prophet.” Idem, “Isaiah I–XII,” 44–45.

272

Ethan Schwartz

of synchronic and diachronic reading in biblical studies.8 My case for the synchronic role of Mosaic mirroring in Isa 1–12 therefore offers a fruitful opportunity to explore whether (and, if so, how) such observations may be squared with evidence for diachronic development.9 In the second part of this essay, I argue that they may. Redaction-critical work on the book of Isaiah has shown that all three of the compositional junctures in my synchronic argument reflect traces of editorial activity associated with Third Isaiah.10 Drawing on this, I offer a diachronic account for the development of this synchronic structure: Isa 1–12 was shaped as part of Trito-Isaianic shaping of the whole book, undertaken with knowledge of the redacted Pentateuch.

2.  The Synchronic Dimension: Isaiah’s History as Inverted Mosaic History If we provisionally set aside the inherent diachrony of the concept of “allusion” and treat it simply as synchronic intertextual resonance, we might say that the inversion of Moses’s prophetic career in Isa 1–12 constitutes one large-scale innerbiblical allusion.11 This is comprised of the three more readily recognizable, local allusions in chapters 1, 6, and 10–12. These, however, are in turn allusions only because they are composed of the kind of still smaller-scale resonances – often simply on the lexical level – that constitute the most basic components of allusive signaling. In these ways, Isa 1–12 vividly and elegantly reflects the extent to which all allusion, as numerous scholars have emphasized, is collective and mutually reinforcing.12 For this reason, although many of the individual allusions discussed below will be familiar to readers of Isaiah, it is necessary to give them detailed consideration on the local level if we are to appreciate the global structural inversion 8  H. G. M. Williamson, “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes C. de Moor, OtSt 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 211–26. 9  Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, “The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity. Synchronic and Diachronic Reading,” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (1996; repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 40. 10  Throughout this essay, I use the designation “Third Isaiah” as a personification of the compositional stage of the book represented by chapters 56–66 and the redactional activity associated with them. This is simply for convenience; it should not be taken to imply an assumption either of the authorial unity of these chapters or that there was a single, historical individual who may be equated with “Third Isaiah.” 11  An essential discussion of why allusion is a diachronic category may be found in Benjamin D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 56 (1996): 479–89. 12  On this feature of allusion, see, e. g., Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 246.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

273

for which I  am arguing. This consideration is organized not sequentially but according to the independent strength of each individual case for allusion. Only after treating the more obvious cases at either end of Isa 1–12 do I take up the more ambiguous case in Isa 6, whose allusive relationship with the Sinai events, I  suggest, is partially dependent on those opening and closing passages. This literary interaction points toward my concluding case for how these allusive passages function together as a mirror of Moses within their sequence across Isa 1–12 as a whole. 2.1  Isaiah 1 and the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) The literary connection between Isaiah’s inaugural exhortation and Moses’s closing exhortation is not only the most obvious of those considered here but also one of the most recognizable in the Hebrew Bible altogether. This can already be seen in their respective openings: ‫ שמﬠו שמים והאזיני ארץ כי יהוה דבר‬Hear, O heavens, give ear, O earth – for YHWH has spoken. (Isa 1:2a)

‫ האזינו השמים ואדברה ותשמﬠ הארץ אמרי־פי‬Give ear, O heavens, that I may speak; may the earth hear my own words. (Deut 32:1)

Although ‫“( ׁשמ׳׳ﬠ‬hear”) and ‫“( אז׳׳ן‬give ear”) are not infrequently collocated to mark a call to attention (see, e. g., Gen 4:23), only in these two verses are they used specifically to summon heaven and earth as witnesses.13 In the canonical form of the Bible, therefore, it is difficult not to associate these opening summonses. Tellingly, the midrashic exegetes and, in turn, several medieval Jewish commentators took precisely this shared feature to signal that Isaiah’s and Moses’s exhortations are to be understood in light of one another.14 The density of both lexical and thematic similarities between the two passages only increases as they each progress, as Ronald Bergey and L. G. Rignell have shown in detail.15 In the present context, it will suffice to trace the broad contours. Both present YHWH as a father and Israel as rebellious children, comparable to those paragons of wickedness, Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa 1:2b–4, 9–10; Deut 32:6, 32). Israel’s transgressions are described with hyperbolic reference to the priestly cult: blood, sacrifices, and fat abound – but not to the 13  Ps 50:4 too appears to invoke heaven and earth as witnesses, but without this specific verbal collocation. 14  See, e. g., Sipre Deut. 306:11; Tanḥ. Ha’azinu 2; Rashi, Kimhi, Eliezer of Beaugency, and Kaspi on Isa 1:2, and Bekhor Shor on Deut 32:1. 15 Ronald Bergey, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?” JSOT 28 (2003): 39–42; and L. G. Rignell, “Isaiah Chapter I: Some Exegetical Remarks with Special Reference to the Relationship Between the Text and the Book of Deuteronomy,” ST 11 (1957): 140–58. Rignell’s interest is broader, relating Isa 1 to a host of other Deuteronomic passages. Many of these alleged connections are not convincing.

274

Ethan Schwartz

people’s merit (Isa 1:11–15; Deut 32:13–17). As a result, God withdraws: “I will avert my eyes from you (‫ ”)אﬠלים ﬠיני מכם‬in Isaiah (1:15); “I will hide my face from them (‫ ”)אסתירה פני מהם‬in Deuteronomy (32:20). This leaves Israel alone to face dire consequences, represented by the sword (Isa 1:20; Deut 32:21–25). In the end, however, YHWH will take them back as part of his vindication before his enemies.16 This process is described in long, vivid passages that employ a cluster of shared terms: ‫“( יד‬hand”), ‫“( נח׳׳ם‬comfort,” “console”), ‫“( נק׳׳ם‬avenge”), ‫ׁשו׳׳ב‬ (“return”), and various words for “enemy” (Isa 1:24–31; Deut 32:26–43). Amid these substantive similarities, we may note two lexical connections of a more aesthetic or stylistic feel: shared usage of ‫“( לולי‬were it not”; Isa 1:9; Deut 32:27) and ‫“( איכה‬alas”; Isa 1:21; Deut 32:30). Although these words are relatively uncommon in MT, they are certainly too slight to furnish a compelling case for allusion on their own. However, they become rather conspicuous in light of all the more straightforwardly significant similarities discussed above. In this context, the otherwise unassuming words ‫ לולי‬and ‫ איכה‬come to function something like allusive cement, thickening the connection between the two passages for the scripturally attuned ear. Taken together, these lexical and thematic connections are the building blocks of a remarkable structural parallel between Isaiah’s and Moses’s poems.17 With the exception of Sodom and Gomorrah, the major components track sequentially, as can be seen in the following table: Summons Israel as rebellious children Sodom and Gomorrah Cultic imagery YHWH’s withdrawal Consequences YHWH’s vindication

Isaiah 1

Deuteronomy 32

v. 2a vv. 2b–4 v. 9 vv. 11–14 v. 15 v. 20 vv. 24–31

v. 1 v. 6 v. 32 vv. 13–17 v. 20 vv. 21–25 vv. 26–43

The only major component missing in Deut 32 is Isaiah’s call for changed behavior (Isa 1:16–19). Given the narrative context of Moses’s poem, this omission makes perfect sense. Deuteronomy 32 is, properly speaking, more an admonition than an exhortation – closer in spirit to the deuteronomic covenant curses than 16  In Deut 32, these enemies are the other nations who fail to appreciate their humble status as instruments of YHWH’s power. In Isaiah, by contrast, the enemies are the unrepentant sinners within Israel itself; cf. Bergey, “Song of Moses,” 42. 17  It might be objected that this parallel is form critical rather than allusive, since both Isa 1 and Deut 32 have been generically classified as instantiations of “covenant lawsuit” (‫ ;)ריב‬see, e. g., Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285–95. However, the smaller, lexical connections between the passages are too specific to have resulted from a generic parallel alone. While common basis in the ‫ ריב‬form might well facilitate the association, it is insufficient to account for it fully.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

275

a prophetic call to repentance.18 For Moses, the glory of the exodus and Israel’s obedient recognition of YHWH’s suzerainty are features of the proximate past. What lies before him as he faces his mortality is the howling chasm of a future of relentless covenantal transgression. This foregone conclusion is the whole purpose for the recitation of the song; hence its nigh-fatalistic thrust (see especially Deut 31:29). By contrast, in Isaiah’s day, Israel’s transgression is a present reality, as Delitzsch noted. The redemptive glory of the now-distant past is not, as for Moses, something slipping away but rather something to be regained, an ideal to which to aspire. Accordingly, Isaiah urges repentance. There is, so to speak, nowhere to go but up – which is to say, nowhere to go but back.19 This backward referentiality brings us once again to the opening verses with which we began. Both focus on speech, including use of the root ‫דב׳׳ר‬ (“speak”). There is, however, a crucial difference. Deuteronomy 32 is Moses’s own speech in the present. Having been divinely commanded to compose this song (Deut 31:9), he speaks (‫ )ואדברה‬his own words (‫)אמרי־פי‬, which become synonymous with those of the deity. In Isaiah, by contrast, some temporal and agential distance is asserted by the phrase “for YHWH has spoken” (cf. Isa 1:20).20 Rignell intriguingly suggested that this might function as a loose kind of citation formula, explicitly directing the addressee’s ear toward Moses’s song. These are the words that “YHWH has spoken” to Israel through a prophet in the past – and with which, through a new prophet, he is confronting them again. Now, it might well be the case that this phrase is unable to do the literary work that Rignell ascribes to it. For one, it can plausibly be read as one of the rather straightforward divine imprimaturs that routinely punctuate prophetic utterances.21 Moreover, the perfect aspect of ‫ ִד ֵּבר‬may be understood as declarative rather than past.22 In any case, what Rignell perhaps questionably ascribes to this single phrase is certainly achieved by the dense network of literary connections between Isa 1 and Deut 32 overall. These connections signal a relationship of 18  The poem is explicitly identified as a witness (‫ ;ﬠד‬Deut 31:19) and framed by the legal language of warning (‫ﬠו׳׳ד‬, hiphil; Deut 31:28; 32:46) – although the latter likely referred originally to the tôrâ as a whole; for a clear overview of the compositional issues, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 502–7. 19 Leo Strauss drew incisive attention to the significance of the backward directionality of repentance in Jewish thought (as reflected in the basic sense of ‫)ׁשו׳׳ב‬, citing Isa 1 directly; see idem, “Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Civilization,” in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, ed. Kenneth Hart Green, SUNY Series in the Jewish Writings of Leo Strauss (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), esp. 87–89. 20 Cf. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 12. 21  Cf. phrases such as “declaration of YHWH” (‫ )נאם יהוה‬and “thus says YHWH” (‫כה אמר‬ ‫)יהוה‬, which routinely punctuate prophetic utterances. 22 Cf. GKC § 106i; and Joüon § 112 f. This would yield a translation such as, “For YHWH hereby speaks.”

276

Ethan Schwartz

both coordination and subordination: Isaiah must be understood together with, and following, Moses.23 This serves as a guide to reading not only the remainder of Isa 1 but also the entire mirroring of Moses in the first twelve chapters of the book. It is only then, as we shall see, that the completed arc of Israel’s history may be appreciated. 2.2  Isaiah 10–12 and the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15) The future-as-past to which Isaiah’s opening exhortation points is delivered resoundingly at the opposite end of the first movement of the book. The section spanning from the end of Isa 10 through the brief chapter 12 presents Israel’s redemption from the imperial threat as a new exodus, drawing especially on language and imagery reminiscent of the Song at the Sea. YHWH reassures the people, “Do not fear Assyria, though they beat you with a rod and wield their staff over you as did Egypt (‫( ”)בדרך מצרים‬Isa 10:24). Thus prepared, they may brace for Assyria’s tour of conquest (Isa 10:27–34). This is a perilous inversion of Exod 15:14–16, in which victorious Israel, led by YHWH, inspires dread throughout the region. In both cases – though, again, with opposite valences – the tour leads to YHWH’s holy mountain. The threat that Isaiah depicts is ultimately averted, and Zion will miraculously be the site not of destruction but of renewal, described with botanical imagery: “Then a shoot shall go forth from Jesse’s stump; a branch shall sprout from his roots (‫ויצא חטר מגזﬠ יׁשי ונצר מׁשרׁשיו‬ ‫( ”)יפרה‬Isa 11:1). This recalls the poetic statement that YHWH “plants (‫”)ותטﬠמו‬ (Exod 15:17) Israel on his mountain. Isaiah’s specific, detailed account of the emergence of a divinely inspired Davidic ruler (Isa 11:1–5) gives way to a broader vision of restoration: North and South will be gathered both spatially, back into the land, and nationally, under the shared covenantal mantle of “Israel.”24 The prophet explicitly calls this restoration a second exodus: “It shall be in that day that my Lord will for a second time undertake to redeem (‫ )ויוסיף אדני ׁשנית ידו לקנות‬the remnant of his people” (Isa 11:11a).25 The verb ‫“( קנ׳׳ה‬acquire,” “redeem”) is also prominently 23  Contra Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 18. 24  On this dual restoration, see H. G. M. Williamson, “Isaiah X 11–16 and the Redaction of Isaiah I–XII,” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 355. 25  Williamson has objected to connecting ‫ ׁשנית‬with ‫ לקנות‬as a direct reference to a second exodus. Instead, he prefers to read it as a description of YHWH’s specific action with his hand – to wit, “My Lord will a second time take action with his hand in order to redeem the remnant of his people,” not “My Lord will take action with his hand in order to redeem the remnant of his people a second time.” He raises the possibility that ‫ ׁשנית‬should be emended to ‫“( ׂשאת‬lift up”; cf. τοῦ δεῖξαι in LXX), since ‫ נׂש׳׳א יד‬is a commonly attested idiom. It would also create an attractive link with the dual statements that YHWH “will lift up (‫ )ונׂשא‬a signal to the nations” (Isa 5:25; 11:12). In this case, the verb would be a complementary infinitive with ‫“( יוסיף‬my

Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12



277

employed in the Song at the Sea (Exod 15:15) to describe YHWH’s redemption of Israel, and is so used only one place else (Ps 74:2).26 This is followed by a second tour of conquest (Isa 11:11b–16), now paralleling the Song at the Sea, with Israel as victor. As in the first exodus, this new exodus culminates in YHWH’s performance of a maritime miracle: ‫והחרים יהוה את לׁשון ים־מצרים‬ ‫והניף ידו ﬠל־הנהר בﬠים רוחו‬ ‫והכהו לׁשבﬠה נחלים והדריך‬ ‫בנﬠלים׃ והיתה מסלה לׁשאר ﬠמו‬ ‫אׁשר יׁשאר מאׁשור כאׁשר היתה‬ ‫ליׂשראל ביום ﬠלתו מארץ מצרים׃‬

Then YHWH will sear the tongue of the Egyptian sea; he will raise his hand against the river with his mighty27 wind, striking it into seven streams and clearing a way for passage on foot. There will then be a highway for the remnant of his people, who remain from Assyria, just as there was for Israel when they ascended from the land of Egypt. (Isa 11:15–16)

In addition to another explicit invocation of the original exodus, Isaiah’s emphasis on YHWH’s hand (‫ )יד‬and the creation of a path by which Israel will march to redemption strongly recalls both the Song at the Sea and its Priestly framing in the previous chapter. Indeed, Isaiah declares that Israel will once again celebrate this latter-day exodus with a joyous song (Isa 12). This new Song at the Sea includes an outright citation of its Mosaic forebear: “For my strength and song are Yah, YHWH; he has become my deliverance” (Isa 12:2b; cf. Exod 15:2a).28 It also evocatively paraphrases the Song through two of its most distinctive words, ‫גא׳׳ה‬ (“to be exalted”) and ‫“( זמ׳׳ר‬to sing,” homonymous with ‫זמרה‬, “strength”): “Sing YHWH’s praise, for he has acted exaltedly (‫( ”)זמרו יהוה כי גאות ﬠׂשה‬Isa 12:5a). Lord will again lift up his hand”). Alternatively, Williamson wonders whether ‫ יס׳׳ף יד‬might simply be an idiosyncratic equivalent of ‫נׂש׳׳א יד‬, with ‫ ׁשנית‬then functioning as a somewhat redundant adverb. While he indicates marginal preference for the emendation, he regards either reading as more plausible than connecting ‫ ׁשנית‬directly with YHWH’s redemptive action; see Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (1994; repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 130–32, 250–51; idem, “Isaiah X 11–16,” 343–57. However, even if we accept Williamson’s argument, the vivid exodus imagery in this passage – including several unambiguously direct analogies to the exodus (Isa 10:24, 26; 11:16) – nevertheless gives the strong sense that what is being described here is a second exodus. In its present setting at least, we are therefore probably justified in reading ‫ ׁשנית‬as a kind of Janus-faced adverb, connecting both backward to YHWH’s physical action (‫ )יס׳׳ף יד‬and forward to the redemptive end (‫ )קנ׳׳ה‬to which he takes that action. 26  See also, however, the statement, “[YHWH] brought [Israel] to his holy domain – the mountain that his right hand acquired (‫( ”)ויביאם אל־גבול קדׁשו הר־זה קנתה ימינו‬Ps 78:54), which uses the verb in a similar context and also reflects obvious affinities with the Song at the Sea. Given that ‫ קנ׳׳ה‬can also mean “create” (see, e. g., Gen 14:19), it is interesting that the verb is used with Israel as the object in Exod 15:15, Ps 74:2, and Isa 11:11, all three of which have strong cosmogonic references (as discussed below). 27 Following LXX (βιαίῳ). 28  This line does appear one place else (Ps 118:14). However, because this psalm seems to be a pastiche of sundry hymnic elements, it remains likely that the Song at the Sea is the referent of Isaiah’s allusion.

278

Ethan Schwartz

From these allusions and even direct invocations, it is obvious enough that Isa 10–12 depicts Israel’s restoration from Assyria’s havoc as a new exodus – a return to the ultimate victory over Egypt at the Sea of Reeds. However, this is a misleadingly incomplete account of what this material has exegetically achieved. Isaiah has not simply recapitulated the exodus but explicitly invested it with cosmic reference, transforming it into an eschatological event that implicates all of creation. The elimination of the imperial menace and the restoration of Davidic rule brings about not just Israel’s national establishment but a time when wolves will dwell with lambs, among a host of other unnatural states of repose (Isa 11:6–8). In the first exodus, the waters of the sea covered the Egyptians (‫ ;כס׳׳ה‬Exod 15:5, 10). Now, “knowledge of YHWH shall fill the earth like water covers the sea (‫( ”)כמים לים מכסים‬Isa 11:9b). The new exodus heralds a cosmos fundamentally and permanently transformed. Isaiah’s mirroring of the Song at the Sea takes on special importance within this schema. It is widely recognized that the Song is rooted in the West Semitic cosmogonic tradition of a warrior deity’s battle with the chaotic, malevolent sea.29 In this “historicized” version of the old mythic archetype, Egypt fuses with the sea, assuming its chaotic role. This image is vividly activated in Isaiah’s description of YHWH’s redemptive action against “sea” (‫ )ים‬and “river” (‫)נהר‬, well-known as the twofold title of the chaotic maritime foe in the West Semitic combat myth.30 As a Mesopotamian empire, Assyria is more readily associated with the river, while Egypt, positioned along the Mediterranean, evokes the sea.31 Framed in terms of the old theonymic pair, however, the two are revealed to be one and the same world-historical, anticosmic enemy. The river that YHWH will defeat in the end is none other than the final throes of the sea that he defeated of old; Egypt has reemerged as Assyria, only to meet the same fate – this time, once and for all.32 By sealing this ultimate triumph with an eschatological reprisal of the Song at the Sea, Isa 10–12 transforms the exodus from the high point of an ideal past to the culmination of an ideal future. Over and against the perils of Deut 32 and Isa 1, the first and last word of Israel’s history is the song by which they joyously recognize, “For my strength and song are Yah, YHWH; he has become my de29  See especially Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (1973; repr., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 112–44. 30  See, e. g., KTU 1.2.III.33–34. For other biblical reflexes of this pairing in a mythic or cosmogonic context, see, e. g., Pss 24:1; 66:6; 89:26; and 93:3–4. 31  Of course, owing to the Nile, Egypt may easily be associated with the river as well – although the Nile is more regularly referred to as ‫ יאר‬than ‫נהר‬. 32  Cf. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts (1979; repr., Oxford: Oneworld, 1998), 127–28; and Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 496–97. On the post-cosmogonic survival of chaos and its eschatological implications, see Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (1987; repr., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 3–50.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

279

liverance.” Rabbi Meir famously marshals the Song at the Sea as a pentateuchal prooftext for the rabbinic doctrine of resurrection: it does not, after all, say ‫אז ׁשר‬ (“then they sang”) but rather ‫“( אז יׁשיר‬then they will sing”) – that is, at the hour of resurrection (b. Sanh. 91b). Grammatical playfulness notwithstanding, this talmudic sage was not the first to detect eschatological potential in the Song in particular and the exodus in general. This was activated already in the first literary unit of the book of Isaiah. 2.3  Isaiah 6 and Sinai (Exodus 19–20; 24; 33–34) The Mosaic episode with which Isa 6 is most frequently connected is the redacted account of Moses’s commissioning in Midian (Exod 3–4; J and E). In an influential form-critical study, Norman Habel showed that these passages and several others represent a discernible Gattung, the “call narrative.”33 While this classification of Isa 6 is compelling, it prompts an obvious question that has long vexed interpreters: Why is Isaiah “called” only after five considerable chapters’ worth of oracles?34 It would have been more natural for his commissioning to appear at the beginning of his prophetic activity, as it does for Jeremiah (1), Ezekiel (1–3), and, indeed, Moses himself. This classification of the chapter also disrupts my case for Mosaic mirroring. The polar arrangement of Isa 1 and 10–12 elegantly inverts the pentateuchal ordering of the Song at the Sea and Moses’s farewell song. Within this schema, an allusion to Moses’s prophetic commissioning would figure to come last, not in the middle. I believe that both of these synchronic complications may be addressed with reference to a rabbinic tradition that connects Isa 6 to a different Mosaic event: Sinai. The rabbis selected Isa 6 as the prophetic lectionary (haftarah) for the Torah portion (parashah) containing the Decalogue as depicted in Exodus. There are good literary bases for this connection. Both put emphasis on beholding the deity and his accompanying numina (Isa 6:1; Exod 20:18; 24:9–11, 15–18), especially smoke (Isa 6:4–5; Exod 19:18; 20:18–19), which prompts fear and quaking – including identical forms of the verb ‫“( נו׳׳ﬠ‬tremble”). They also thematize the role of intermediaries and the holiness that attends to YHWH’s proximity. Finally, they share an interest in the people’s obedience, although to opposite ends: the obedience demanded and emphatically affirmed at Sinai (Exod 19:5, 8–9; 20:19; 24:3, 7) is rejected out of hand in Isaiah (6:9– 10). Rooted in these parallels, the rabbinic liturgical coordination of these passages implicitly presents Isaiah’s stand before the divine throne as an antipode to the revelation at Sinai: private rather than public, ineffective rather than 33  Norman C. Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. 34  This already exercised the medieval Jewish commentators; see Harris, “Structure and Composition,” 177–81.

280

Ethan Schwartz

effective.35 Unlike Moses’s commissioning in Midian, Sinai occurs between the Song at the Sea and Moses’s closing song. This construal of Isa 6 therefore preserves the Mosaic mirroring in the first twelve chapters of the book. It will, of course, be objected that this rabbinic tradition is too late to inform our understanding of the book of Isaiah itself in a historically responsible manner. This is certainly true. However, the thematic and literary bases for the liturgical connection go back to some of the most ancient elements of Israel’s religious imagination: West Semitic descriptions of the meteorological accompaniments to theophany, when the warrior deity would emerge from his supernal abode.36 This can be seen when the two passages are compared with a third classic exemplar of such a theophany: ‫בצר־לי אקרא יהוה ואל־אלהי‬ ‫אׁשוﬠ יׁשמﬠ מהיכלו קולי‬ ‫וׁשוﬠתי לפניו תבוא באזניו׃‬ ‫ותגﬠׁש ותרﬠׁש הארץ ומוסדי‬ ‫הרים ירגזו ויתגﬠׁשו כי־חרה‬ ‫לו׃ ﬠלה ﬠׁשן באפו ואׁש־מפיו‬ ‫תאכל גחלים בﬠרו ממנו׃ ויט‬ ‫ׁשמים וירד וﬠרפל תחת רגליו׃‬ ‫וירכב ﬠל־כרוב ויﬠף וידא‬ ‫ﬠל־כנפי־רוח׃ יׁשת חׁשך סתרו‬ ‫סביבתיו סכתו חׁשכת־מים ﬠבי‬ ‫ׁשחקים׃ מנגה נגדו ﬠביו ﬠברו‬ ‫ברד וגחלי־אׁש׃ וירﬠם בׁשמים‬ ‫יהוה וﬠליון יתן קלו ברד‬ ‫וגחלי־אׁש׃‬

In my distress I called on YHWH, cried out to my God; in his temple he heard my voice; my cry to him reached his ears. Then the earth rocked and quaked; the foundations of the mountains shook, rocked by his indignation; smoke went up from his nostrils, from his mouth came devouring fire; live coals blazed forth from him. He bent the sky and came down, thick cloud beneath his feet. He mounted a cherub and flew, gliding on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his screen; dark thunderheads, dense clouds of the sky were his pavilion round about him. Out of the brilliance before him, hail and fiery coals pierced his clouds. Then YHWH thundered from heaven, the Most High gave forth his voice – hail and fiery coals. (Ps 18:7–14; cf. 2 Sam 22:7–14)37

This vivid description would be at home in both Isa 6 and the Sinaitic revelation. More directly, there are also strong affinities between Moses’s and the Israelite leaders’ beholding YHWH as they eat on the mountain of revelation (Exod 24:9–11) and Isaiah’s beholding YHWH in the midst of his heavenly retinue. If we resist the now-commonplace impulse to classify Isa 6 as a call narrative, it becomes apparent that both passages may also justly be understood as instantiations of a broader phenomenology of theophany. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that this shared phenomenology is a natively allusive feature of the canonical placement of Isa 6, positioning a mirrored Sinai in between Isaiah’s versions of Deut 32 and the Song at the Sea. 35  Cf. Michael Fishbane, Haftarot: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 114. 36  See, e. g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 225–26; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 147–69; and Benjamin D. Sommer, Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 30–35. 37 Translation NJPS, adapted.

Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12



281

Once these similarities are appreciated, some subtler possible connections begin to emerge between YHWH’s dire pronouncement of national desolation at the end of the throne vision (Isa 6:11–13) and the transgression involving the molten calf after the initial lawgiving at Sinai.38 After the calf fiasco, Moses has an unprecedented personal encounter with the deity (Exod 33:18–34:8) that leaves him physically transformed (Exod 34:29–35).39 Apparently unconcerned that he might be implicated in his people’s sins, Moses takes advantage of his intimate vantage to petition YHWH to forgive them (Exod 34:9). In her study of the prophetic body, Rhiannon Graybill calls this encounter “a scene of terror as well as transfiguration.”40 The description could well be applied to Isaiah’s throne vision, in which, once again, direct confrontation with the deity (Isa 6:1–5) leads to a tactile experience of bodily change (Isa 6:6–7). However, Isaiah’s status as a mediator differs strikingly. Having no pretense of transcending his people’s sins, Isaiah does not ask even for individual forgiveness, let alone national forgiveness. As Graybill puts it, “Isaiah himself is a Judean, and thus belongs, as well, in the category of those to whom he is sent to prophesy, and who refuse his message. Isaiah is his own obstacle; his body is part of the national and political body that opposes him.”41 Moses’s intercession is successful. Destruction is averted, clearing the way for the covenantal affirmation of the so-called Ritual Decalogue (Exod 34:10–26). YHWH promises to expel (‫ )גר׳׳ׁש‬the Canaanites who dwell (‫ )יׁש׳׳ב‬on the land (‫ )ארץ‬and calls upon Israel to destroy their cultic paraphernalia (Exod 34:11–13). For Isaiah, however, the dynamic unfolds perilously and paradoxically: he alone is granted relief from sin (Isa 6:7b). He has survived; those whom he represents will not be so fortunate – notwithstanding his desperate plea, “Until when (‫ﬠד־‬ ‫( ”?)מתי‬Isa 6:10). In direct counterpoint to the covenantal affirmation secured by Moses, YHWH’s expulsion (‫ )רח׳׳ק‬of those who dwell (‫ )יׁש׳׳ב‬in the land (‫)ארץ‬ is now directed at the covenant people themselves. The encounter closes with a notoriously difficult verse that, in its present context, may plausibly be understood as follows: ‫וﬠוד בה ﬠׂשריה וׁשבה והיתה‬ ‫לבﬠר כאלה וכאלון אׁשר‬ ‫בׁשלכת מצבת בם זרﬠ קדׁש‬ ‫מצבתה׃‬

In it will remain a tenth that will repent, despite having been given over to consumption; like the terebinth or the oak, which, when felled, are left a stump, its stump is the holy seed. (Isa 6:13)42

38  Strictly speaking, the incident of the molten calf, part of E, happened at Horeb, not Sinai. However, it emerges over against its J counterpart as the dominant version of the people’s transgression during the revelation. 39  This causal relationship, however logical, is a redactional achievement. Moses’s direct encounter with the deity is J, while the description of his radiant countenance is P. 40 Rhiannon Graybill, Are We Not Men? Unstable Masculinity in the Hebrew Prophets (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 31. 41  Ibid., 10; cf. Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 43. 42 This rendering requires a tortured if not outright ungrammatical construal of the

282

Ethan Schwartz

Whereas in Moses’s day, YHWH commanded the people to submit the Canaanites’ sacred pillars (‫מצבות‬, from ‫ )נצ׳׳ב‬to complete destruction (Exod 34:13), in Isaiah’s day, YHWH’s complete destruction of his own people will be avoided only by the “stump” (‫מצבת‬, from ‫ )נצ׳׳ב‬constituted by the repentant remnant.43 The devastation attendant to this negated covenantal revelation contains the seeds of the eschatological exodus to come. A famous midrash depicts God physically inverting Sinai over Israel’s heads in a menacing act of covenantal coercion (b. Shab. 88a). The placement of Isa 6 between Isa 1 and 10–12 creates a compositional rather than a literal inversion of the mountain of revelation, but with much the same dramatic peril as in the midrash. Discussing the liturgical coordination of these passages, Michael Fishbane has observed that they stand at opposite historical poles: the past time of covenantal origins and the future time of messianic justice. What Moses inaugurates, the prophet Isaiah may only proclaim: a kingdom of justice under God. In the present, the people bidden to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6) have failed their task and are pronounced “unclean.” Only in the future may they again become a “holy seed,” after their punishment and purgation (Isa 6:5, 11–13).44

If Moses’s Sinai is the high point, then Isaiah’s “Sinai” is the low point: revelation ends not with a reaffirmation of covenant but with a promise of near-total destruction and only a faint glimmer of hope. This is the compositional function of Isa 6 within Isa 1–12, a mirrored Mosaic revelation stationed between two mirrored Mosaic songs.45 2.4  The Emergent Synchronic Picture A Neo-Assyrian prophet speaking on behalf of three deities once reassured Esarhaddon, “The future shall be like the past (urkīūte lū kî pānīūte)!” (SAA 9 1.4, ii 37′).46 One could not ask for a pithier encapsulation of Isa 1–12, which sequentially inverts three key Mosaic episodes in order to present the resolution of Israel’s history as a return to its glorious origins. Moses’s prophetic career takes Israel from the triumph of the exodus, through the covenantal affirmation at the mountain of revelation, to the cusp of a troubled tenure in the land. Isaiah consecutive perfect ‫והיתה‬, but I believe that it is justified by the redactional reshaping of the verse. This is addressed below. 43  On the role of idolatry in Isa 6:13, see G. K. Beale, “Isaiah vi 9–13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry,” VT 41 (1991): 257–78. 44  Fishbane, Haftarot, 114; cf. Habel, “Call Narratives,” 318. 45  On Isa 6 as a compositional fulcrum in Isa 1–12, see Liebreich, “Book of Isaiah,” 263. 46  For normalized transliteration, translation, and light commentary, see Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, WAW 12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 104–106. For discussion, see idem, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 97–98.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

283

folds this narrative arc back upon itself. Although the decay and depravity that Moses foretold will culminate in a systematic negation of Sinai, Israel is nevertheless destined once again – and forever more – to sing of YHWH’s glory in a restored kingdom and a revitalized cosmos.

3.  The Diachronic Dimension: Third Isaiah and the Redaction of Isaiah 1–12 For all that Isa 1–12 may be appreciated as a literary unity, it certainly does not read as an authorial unity. It seems to begin multiple times (Isa 1:1; 2:1; 6:1), it incorporates content known from elsewhere (e. g., Isa 2:2–4 // Mic 4:1–4; Isa 7:1 // 2 Kgs 16:5), and it contains units that display formal independence (e. g., Isa 5:1–7). Such features are telltale signs that Isa 1–12 has undergone substantial redactional development. These signs are not negated even by the artful mirroring of Mosaic episodes that these chapters collectively effect.47 As such, to whatever extent this mirroring is a native (as opposed to merely emergent) compositional feature of Isa 1–12, it must be mapped onto independent evidence for the redaction of this material. Put differently, we must ask whether it is plausible, based on what we know about the redaction of Isa 1–12, that a redactor would have shaped it as a mirror of Moses. The following section aims to show that it is indeed plausible. All three key compositional junctures of the Mosaic inversion reflect varying degrees of editorial intervention by Third Isaiah. Moreover, all of these instances of editorial intervention reflect hermeneutical trajectories that align well with an interest in compositional logic on a larger scale. For the sake of symmetry with my discussion of the synchronic dimension above, I once again treat the opening and closing of the unit before addressing the throne revelation at its center. I conclude with a discussion of possible relationships between Third Isaiah’s large-scale compositional interest in the pentateuchal narrative and the historical situation of this redactional activity. 3.1  Isaiah 1 and the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) Williamson has noted that Isa 1 “may be said to provide in a nutshell the problems posed by the book as a whole” with respect to composition history.48 On 47  For this reason, I do not believe that my argument about the shaping of Isa 1–12 falls prey to John Barton’s famous concept of the “disappearing redactor”; see idem, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 56–58. Interestingly, Barton recommends Isa 1–12 as “preliminary reading” for his chapter on redaction criticism, although he does not ultimately address it. 48  Williamson, “Synchronic and Diachronic,” 214.

284

Ethan Schwartz

the one hand, the chapter is a truly exquisite specimen of poetic prophecy, well deserving in terms of both style and substance to open the Latter Prophets. On the other hand, it has a modular character that has made it a veritable playground for form-critical dissection into various oracular genres. In these ways, the chapter, like the book, is something of an optical illusion, appearing first early, then late, one minute unified, the next disunified – all depending on where one happens to be standing. In a now-classic study, Georg Fohrer proposed a model in which all of these seemingly opposed features might find coherence: Isa 1 is a late florilegium of preexistent deposits of Isaianic material, composed to introduce and to encapsulate the book.49 Many of its individual components might well trace from the era in which Isaiah son of Amoz is said to have lived. The depiction of the dire straits of Jerusalem (Isa 1:5–9), for instance, is usually seen as a roughly contemporary account of Sennacherib’s siege, while the indictment of cultic corruption (Isa 1:10–17) is highly reminiscent of eighth-century exemplars of that genre (e. g., Amos 5:18–27). Considered together as a florilegium, however, the chapter is at considerable remove from the historical Isaiah, if ever one did exist. Its combination of antiquity and lateness, unity and disunity, then, is no optical illusion but a quite real reflection of its composition. For these reasons, Fohrer’s attractive thesis has won wide approval. Regardless of how much relatively early material might be preserved in Isa 1, there is at least one subunit of the chapter that is generally believed to be significantly later: the conclusion (Isa 1:27–31). This is owing to its lexical and thematic affinity with the two Trito-Isaianic chapters at the end of the book (Isa 65–66), which appear to reflect postexilic schismatic tensions leaning well in the direction of apocalyptic and sectarianism.50 The phrases associated with this incipient sectarianism do not otherwise appear in Isa 1–12 (or anywhere else in First Isaiah), which, despite its harsh condemnation of the people (e. g., Isa 6:9– 12), remains broadly concerned with the entire remnant (e. g., Isa 11:11–12).51 Accordingly, Isa 1:27–31 is most naturally seen as a redactional supplement by Third Isaiah. Augmented with these verses, Isa 1 links up with 65–66 to form a balanced frame for the book as a whole.52 49 Georg Fohrer, “Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesajas,” ZAW 74 (1962): 251–68. 50  See, e. g., Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 187–88; and Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 134–86. 51  On the lexical dimension specifically, see Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book, Oxford Theological Monographs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 150–51. 52  A cogent overview of the case for Trito-Isaianic intervention in Isa 1 on the basis of Isa 65–66 may be found in Jacob Stromberg, Introduction to the Study of Isaiah, T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 51–53. For comprehensive treatments, see, e. g., David M. Carr, “Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65–



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

285

One might suppose that this redactional supplementation postdates the compositional process identified by Fohrer. On such a model, Third Isaiah adjusted a fixed opening chapter (consisting of vv. 2–26) in light of his concern with the overall shape of the book. However, the striking structural parallel between Isa 1 and Deut 32 militates against such a reconstruction. The Trito-Isaianic conclusion to Isa 1 is necessary for this parallel, which otherwise would lack an account of YHWH’s glorious vindication before his enemies. This section plays no small role in Moses’s song, accounting for more than one third of its total verses and completing the account of YHWH’s awesome power as manifest in his relationship with Israel. Although Isa 1 is not, of course, an exact structural replica of Deut 32, it is difficult to imagine that an Isaianic author would so faithfully have alluded to Moses’s song in Isa 1:2–26 and then simply omitted its resounding conclusion. For this reason, the entire compositional process of Isa 1 is best understood as part of Third Isaiah’s redactional activity. He gathered preexistent Isaianic fragments, shaping them into an introduction to the book and, thanks to the incorporation of his own material, an anticipation of his conclusion. As he did so, he was not simply balancing older, traditional Isaianic material with his own more recent compositions. Rather, he was triangulating these with yet a third text: Deut 32, which plays an architectonic role in his arrangement of the subunits. The allusion grants compositional coherence to what might otherwise appear as an eclectic oracular anthology.53 3.2  Isaiah 10–12 and the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15) If Third Isaiah’s redactional fingerprints may be found on Isa 1, then the cosmic, eschatological exodus from exile in Isa 10–12 places us squarely in the theological world of Second Isaiah. As Bernhard Anderson wrote in his classic study on the subject, “It was Second Isaiah who, more than any of his prophetic predecessors, perceived the meaning of the Exodus in an eschatological dimension.”54 The exilic prophet depicts the coming departure from Babylon 66): Multiple Modern Possibilities,” in New Visions of Isaiah, eds. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996), 188–218; Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 147–60; Anthony J. Tomasino, “Isaiah 1.1–2.4 and 63–66, and the Composition of the Isaianic Corpus,” JSOT 18 (1993): 81–98; and Williamson, “Synchronic and Diachronic,” 211–26. 53 Cf. Rignell, “Isaiah Chapter 1,” 158. For further evidence of Deut 32 exerting this kind of structural influence on prophetic texts, see Jason Gile, “Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation?” JBL 130 (2011): 87–108; and Thomas A. Keiser, “The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy,” VT 55 (2005): 486–500. 54  Bernhard W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 181; see also idem, “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and Prophetic Tradition,” in Magnalia Dei – The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on

286

Ethan Schwartz

as an event so glorious that YHWH, “who makes a road through the sea, a path through mighty waters” (Isa 43:16), can safely boast, “Do not bother remembering what happened before! Pay no mind to the prior times!” (Isa 43:18). Egypt’s military might is typologized (Isa 43:17), transferred seamlessly to the new national enemy, Babylon (Isa 43:14). In a different passage (Isa 51:9–11), this latter-day exodus is explicitly set within the theomachic and cosmogonic register of the Song at the Sea. As evidence that Second Isaiah’s prophetic transformation of the exodus was a theological innovation, Anderson notes that the exodus was “almost wholly ignored by Isaiah of Jerusalem.”55 The rather conspicuous qualifier “almost” is likely meant to allow for Isa 10–12, which also derives its strong eschatological character from typological application of exodus imagery to a future redemptive event and activation of the cosmogonic background of the most ancient exodus traditions.56 Because these strategies are anomalous in First Isaiah and suspiciously reminiscent of Second Isaiah, Williamson has convincingly argued that the passage was shaped by the later prophet as part of his redaction of ProtoIsaianic texts.57 An eighth- or seventh-century oracle of imperial peril furnished the raw material for Second Isaiah to depict a full-fledged account of the eschatological exodus.58 By coordinating this depiction with other redactional adjustments at Isa 5:25–30, he positioned it as both a conclusion to the story of Israel’s triumph over the Assyrian threat and an anticipation of his own work. In so doing, he also richly compounded the typology: Assyria, already come and gone by his own day, became, like Egypt itself, a cipher for all manifestations of the ongoing, elemental imperial menace – through Babylon to Persia, and, for later readers of the book of Isaiah, still further.59 To the extent, then, that the return from exile in Isa 10–12 is presented as a cosmic recapitulation of the exodus, its eschatological character is soundly the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 339–60. 55  Anderson, “Exodus Typology,” 181. 56  Wildberger in fact argues that Isa 11:11–16 goes theologically further than Second Isaiah: “The motif had already been brought to life again by Deutero-Isaiah, not in the sense of a new exodus from Egypt, but rather as the pattern for Yahweh’s help during the return from Babylon[.] But here, Yahweh’s drying out the sea is not just a pattern; it parallels the help which Yahweh provides those returning from Mesopotamia.” Idem, Isaiah 1–12, 496. 57  Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 125–43; and idem, “Isaiah X 11–16,” 343–57; cf. Anja Klein, “‘Biblicist Additions’ or the Emergence of Scripture in the Growth of the Prophets,” in Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible, ed. Saul M. Olyan and Jacob L. Wright, BJS 361 (Providence: Brown University Press, 2018), 140–41. 58  Cf. D. L. Christensen, “The March of Conquest in Isaiah X 27c–34,” VT 26 (1976): 397–99. 59  Cf. D. Andrew Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-Scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis,’” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, ed. Eric F. Mason et al., JSJSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1:169–99.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

287

credited to Second Isaiah. However, we have seen that this character also derives from the coordination of the passage with Third Isaiah’s inverted Song of Moses in Isa 1, which compositionally (as opposed to just thematically) positions Isa 10–12 as a return to Israel’s glorious past. Second Isaiah obviously cannot be credited with this dimension of Isa 10–12, for it involves a composition that postdates him. At the same time, this does not automatically imply that Third Isaiah was actively interested in coordinating Isa 1 and 10–12 so as to make this new exodus the eschatological resolution of an inverted Mosaic narrative. Such a case necessitates independent evidence of Third Isaiah’s redactional intervention in this material. Jacob Stromberg has compellingly argued for an instance of just such intervention: the notice, “It shall happen in that day that the root of Jesse, who stands as a signal of peoples (‫)ׁשרׁש יׁשי אׁשר ﬠמד לנס ﬠמים‬ – he is the one whom nations shall seek; his resting place shall be glorious” (Isa 11:10). This verse identifies the botanical embodiment of national (and cosmic) renewal in the oracle immediately prior (Isa 11:1–9) with the signal that will herald the new exodus in the oracle immediately afterward (Isa 11:11–16). As such, many have detected in this verse a later redactional bridge between what were originally two unrelated oracles.60 Where Stromberg pushes further is in showing that the integrative hermeneutic underlying this redactional join is conspicuously reflected elsewhere in the book: Isa 56–66, where Third Isaiah alludes to Isa 11:1–9 and 11–16 as one oracle with one topic.61 The link in Isa 11:10 makes Third Isaiah’s understanding of the oracle explicit within the passage itself. As such, he may justifiably be credited as its author. The redactional join in Isa 11:10 confirms that Third Isaiah was invested in connecting his exilic predecessor’s exodus typology with a larger context.62 More specifically, it reflects his interest in further developing the eschatological character of this new exodus, for it is only as a result of Isa 11:10 that the wholesale account of cosmic restoration in the Davidic oracle – wolves dwelling with lambs, and the like – is explicitly presented as the background and consequence of the national restoration depicted in the exodus oracle. These evident exegetical interests accord perfectly with the function of Isa 10–12 as an eschatological counterpoint to the exhortation in the opening chapter. As such, this compositional schema may plausibly be situated within Third Isaiah’s redactional activity. In fact, if, as seems likely, the new exodus was already the conclusion of Second 60  See, e. g., Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 66–67. In MT, the verse is marked off with a parashah petuhah on either end, as if preserving a textual memory of its late insertion. (More likely, this is simply a formal recognition that the verse belongs fully to neither of these two oracles – though this too is noteworthy.) 61  Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 188–91. 62  Ironically, then, although Isa 11:10 is a redactional insertion within material customarily designated as First Isaiah, it actually reflects Third Isaiah’s interpreting Second Isaiah!

288

Ethan Schwartz

Isaiah’s version of the opening section of the book, it might well have been this very placement that served as the impetus for Third Isaiah to see in this material the potential for an eschatological mirroring of Moses.63 3.3  Isaiah 6 and Sinai (Exodus 19–20; 24; 33–34) The canonical placement of Isa 6 is a synchronic problem that naturally demands a diachronic solution. Especially in light of the opening call narratives in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it is unintuitive that so much of Isaiah’s prophetic activity should be reported before the narration of his commissioning.64 It therefore stands to reason that chapter 6 was the beginning of an earlier version of the book.65 On this point, the classic conception of (a precursor to) Isa 6:1–8:18 as an Isaianic memoir (“Denkschrift”) recounting the prophet’s involvement in the Syro-Ephraimite crisis is compelling. Even if such a hypothetical document was ultimately a pseudepigraph with no authorial connection to the “historical Isaiah,” it provides the best literary model for the initial entry of an older form of Isa 6 into the Isaianic textual tradition.66 My synchronic construal of Isa 6 as an inverted Sinai does not contradict this diachronic reconstruction. In fact, it complements it. Odd as the canonical placement of Isa 6 may seem, it is no less historical for its having been preserved as such. The compelling notion of an Isaianic memoir does not change the fact that someone, at some point, felt that Isa 6 made sense in its present location. My synchronic account provides a schema in which the diachronic relocation of a call narrative would have been compositionally coherent. By placing Isa 6 between inversions of Deut 32 and the Song at the Sea, a redactor mobilized its theophanic imagery and transformed it by sequential analogy into a mirrored revelation. In fact, in so doing, he deftly activated the Elohistic association 63  I thank Prof. Williamson for raising this possibility during my presentation of an earlier version of this essay at the 2018 SBL Annual Meeting. Wildberger, by contrast, suggests that Isa 12 represents the last redactional move in Isa 1–12, added to provide a hymnic capstone to the first eleven chapters; see idem, Isaiah 1–12, 502, 508. 64  It is frequently suggested that Isa 6 is the prophet’s commissioning only for the specific mission that unfolds in the subsequent chapters. While this is a plausible way to construe the current placement of the scene, it does not fully dispel the sense that it would fit better at the beginning of Isaiah’s prophetic career as a whole; cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 223. For a contrasting view, see Gitay, Isaiah and His Audience, 120–21. 65  This would perhaps explain why the chapter seems to have exerted such significant influence on subsequent stages of the development of the book; see Thomas Wagner, “More Than a Source? The Impact of Isaiah 6 on the Formation of the Book of Isaiah,” in ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Elizabeth R. Hayes and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 183–95; and Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 30–56. 66  Cf. Matthijs 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), 54–83.

Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12



289

between revelation and Moses’s own call narrative, which took place at the selfsame mountain (Exod 3:1). Although Isa 6 is certainly a call narrative and probably opened an earlier version of the book, this does not mean that a later redactor could not have mobilized it toward other compositional ends. If the transformation of Isa 6 into a narrative analogy to Sinai is significantly dependent upon its sequential relationship to passages credited to Third Isaiah, it obviously follows that this compositional construal of Isa 6 must also be so credited. However, there is also independent evidence that Third Isaiah has paid special editorial attention to this passage. Its conclusion, as we have seen, states that the would-be destruction of the covenant people will be averted by a remnant: “its stump is the holy seed” (‫)זרﬠ קדׁש מצבתה‬. This conspicuous notice has long been suspected of being a later gloss on the ambiguous “stump” (‫)מצבת‬ in the earlier phrase “when felled, are left a stump” (‫)אׁשר בׁשלכת מצבת בם‬. Stromberg has argued that this gloss is best credited to Third Isaiah.67 The term “holy seed” reflects the postexilic social tensions and rhetoric on display in Ezra 9:2, the only other biblical attestation of the term. By means of this gloss, Third Isaiah imbued a sense of hope to what was originally a straightforward oracle of doom. J. A. Emerton has shown that without the reference to the holy seed, the stump appears to be an image of devastation rather than survival, while the verb ‫ ׁשו׳׳ב‬more naturally functions in hendiadys with ‫ והיתה לבﬠר‬to convey inescapable destruction.68 The original oracle would therefore most likely have been understood, “Even should a tenth remain in it, it will yet again (‫ )וׁשבה‬be given over to consumption – like the terebinth or the oak, which, when felled, are left a stump.”69 However, through deft and subversive exegesis, Third Isaiah took advantage of the fact that, as Emerton puts it, “the existence of a stump was compatible with the hope of survival,” even if only in modest, greatly reduced stature. “This was not the intention of the original text … but the figure of speech left open the possibility of a future.”70 Once the remnant is introduced, the verb ‫ ׁשו׳׳ב‬suggests the reason for their improbable survival as a stump: they “will repent (‫)וׁשבה‬, despite having been given over to consumption (‫)והיתה לבﬠר‬.” Against the grain of the original oracle and, indeed, of classical Hebrew grammar, Third Isaiah seems to have recast ‫ וׁשבה‬as a consecutive perfect denoting a discrete, future action and ‫ והיתה‬as a conventional perfect with an adversative conjunction.71 67 

Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 160–74; cf. idem, Study of Isaiah, 18–19. J. A. Emerton, “The Translation and Interpretation of Isaiah vi. 13,” in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal, ed. J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85–118. It should be noted that Emerton does not explicitly identify the glossator with Third Isaiah. 69  This translation is my own, but it is based on Emerton’s argument. 70  Emerton, “Isaiah vi. 13,” 110. 71  Cf., e. g., Rashi on ‫( וׁשבה‬Isa 6:13); and NJPS. Although it is impossible to justify this reading according to the standard rules of the consecutive perfect, Joüon-Muraoka notes, 68 

290

Ethan Schwartz

This subtle but consequential exegetical attention to the “stump” demonstrates Third Isaiah’s interest in positioning Isa 6 as a fulcrum between past transgression and future redemption. As Williamson has noted, the transformed oracle in Isa 6:9–13 has significant affinities with the Trito-Isaianic supplement to the opening chapter of the book: botanical imagery for the people (including the term ‫ )אלה‬and destruction through fire (including the verb ‫)בﬠ׳׳ר‬.72 The recasting of ‫ ׁשו׳׳ב‬as a reference to survival through repentance also recalls the redemption of the “repentant (‫ ”)וׁשביה‬of Zion (Isa 1:27). Moreover, the botanical embodiment of the hope for survival anticipates the eschatological exodus in Isa 10–12, when “a shoot shall go forth from Jesse’s stump” and “a branch shall sprout from his roots” (Isa 11:1) as part of a broader renewal of the cosmos. In these ways, the compositional effects of the Trito-Isaianic intervention in Isa 6:13 parallel those of Isa 6 as a mirrored Sinai between two mirrored Mosaic songs. Therefore, the Sinaitic construal of Isa 6 may justly be credited to Third Isaiah’s compositional activity. 3.4  The Emergent Diachronic Picture Each of the three Mosaic junctures in Isa 1–12 reflects varying degrees of redactional activity by Third Isaiah, ranging from thoroughgoing compositional shaping (Isa 1) to smaller but still significant joins or glosses (Isa 6 and 10–12). In terms of both their structural effects and their hermeneutical strategies, all of these redactional interventions cohere within the Mosaic mirroring that emerges from the synchronic shape of this material. This Mosaic mirroring is therefore best understood as a native feature of Third Isaiah’s compositional logic, guiding his redaction of this material within his overall shaping of the book. It goes without saying that for this to be historically possible, Third Isaiah must have known something closely resembling the redacted Pentateuch. His coordinated allusion to Deut 32, the Sinai narrative, and the Song at the Sea cuts across pentateuchal sources. This cannot be chalked up to broad, form-critical familiarity with the general arc of the pentateuchal narrative, for the allusions are too precise, often down to the lexical level.73 If, therefore, my argument for Third “The later [biblical] books show clear signs of a gradual collapse or deterioration of the classical tense system and an incipient change in the direction of [Mishnaic Hebrew].” Joüon § 119za. A scribe in a linguistic environment in which the perfect was beginning to take on the characteristics of a simple past (cf. Neh 9:7–8, cited in Joüon) might well have been able to construe ‫וׁשבה‬ and ‫ והיתה‬in two different ways as part of an exegetical rereading. This would cohere with the other data pointing to Third Isaiah’s postexilic setting. 72  H. G. M. Williamson, “Isaiah 6:13 and 1:29–31,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah, ed. J. Van Ruiten and M. Vervenne, BETL 132 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 119–28. 73  This is especially clear when it comes to Isa 6, which has lexical overlap with both the Elohistic Horeb revelation and the Deuteronomistic portions of the so-called Ritual Decalogue. If Third Isaiah indeed positioned the passage as an inverted Sinai, this overlap suggests that he knew the Sinai story in its redacted form. For an overview of the case for reading Exod



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

291

Isaiah’s shaping of Isa 1–12 in relation to the Pentateuch is compelling, it implies a terminus post quem for at least the later stages of Third Isaiah’s redactional activity. This would perhaps support those who have, on linguistic and other grounds, located the prophet in the mid-fifth century, roughly contemporaneous with Ezra and the emergence of a redacted Pentateuch.74 However, the relationship between compositional logic and historical period could well be construed in precisely the opposite direction. If Third Isaiah privileged the compositional shape of the Pentateuch, relying on it to give his own work structural coherence, this would mean that his exegetical purview was incipiently canonical – generatively conscious of a commitment to what Stephen B. Chapman has aptly called “a cumulatively expanding, intertextually referential body of normative, communal religious writings.”75 This type of canonical purview is, of course, reflected in a number of other demonstrably late biblical texts (e. g. Neh 9).76 As such, independent evidence that Third Isaiah was active in the mid-fifth century grounds the synchronic shape of Isa 1–12 within established exegetical practices at the time, increasing the likelihood that the compositional logic of Mosaic mirroring is indeed intended as opposed to merely emergent. To put it bluntly: if a writer from Third Isaiah’s period produced a composition that looks like the Pentateuch, he probably intended it to look like the Pentateuch.

4. Conclusion I have argued in this essay that Third Isaiah envisioned Israel’s future as a mirror of its past by shaping Isa 1–12 into a sequential inversion of three architectonic Mosaic episodes: the Song at the Sea, the revelation at Sinai, and Moses’s parting exhortation. In this way, I have striven to locate the synchronic meaning of Isa 1–12 historically, which is to say, within an independently verifiable diachronic schema. The merit of such an effort, I  would suggest, is that it takes the text seriously in all dimensions, neither effacing the reality of its diachronic 34:12–16 (including, most relevantly, the reference to ‫ מצבות‬in v. 13) as a late Deuteronomistic interpolation, see Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 210 n. 104. 74  For an overview, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, rev. and enl. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 216–22. 75  Stephen B. Chapman, “Second Temple Jewish Hermeneutics: How Canon Is Not an Anachronism,” in Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights Over Religious Traditions in Antiquity, ed. Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and David Brakke, Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 11 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012), 293. 76 See, e. g., Thomas Römer, “Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of a Pentateuch? The Case of the ‘Historical Summaries,’ Especially in the Psalms,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 471–88.

292

Ethan Schwartz

development nor ignoring the historicality of its synchronic form.77 After all, if the mirrors of Moses in Isa 1–12 do communicate a message, it concerns precisely the relationship between synchrony and diachrony: out of the chaos and asymmetry of historical movement may yet emerge a marvelous, artful harmony in which time and space are bridged, the end folding back upon the beginning. The postexilic prophet boldly affirmed that this was true of Israel’s history. Today, the question we face is whether it is also true of the book that he left us.

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet.” Pages 16–48 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Anderson, Bernhard W. “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and Prophetic Tradition.” Pages 339–60 in Magnalia Dei – The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976. –. “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah.” Pages 177–95 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Beale, G. K. “Isaiah vi 9–13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolatry,” VT 41 (1991): 257–78. Bergey, Ronald. “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?” JSOT 28 (2003): 39–42. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. HthKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2003. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A  History of Prophecy in Israel. Rev. and enl. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. –. Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Brekelmans, Christiaan H. W. “Deuteronomistic Influence in Isaiah 1–12.” Pages 167–76 in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Carr, David M. “Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65–66): Multiple Modern Possibilities.” Pages 188–218 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy

77  Such is the goal of the “historical synchronic” approach modeled in Odil Hannes Steck, The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness, trans. James D. Nogalski (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), esp. 3–35; cf. D. Andrew Teeter, “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature: Methodological Reflections,” DSD 20 (2013): 349–77. This is a delicate balance indeed. I take quite seriously the stern warning that “when unity-oriented criticism attempts to encompass conclusions involving the history of the texts in their ancient setting, it sows mingled seed based on reasoning of diverse kind, and hence it inevitably produces results that cannot stand,” Benjamin D. Sommer, “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition,” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996), 186.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

293

F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. JSOTSup 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Chapman, Stephen B. “Second Temple Jewish Hermeneutics: How Canon Is Not an Anachronism.” Pages 281–96 in Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights Over Religious Traditions in Antiquity. Edited by Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and David Brakke. Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012. –. The Law and the Prophets: A  Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. FAT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A  Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Christensen, D. L. “The March of Conquest in Isaiah X 27c–34.” VT 26 (1976): 385–99. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard Colleg, 1973. Repr., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. de Bruin, Wim M. Isaiah 1–12 as Written and Read in Antiquity. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013. de Sousa, Rodrigo F. Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12. LHBOTS 516. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Delitzsch, Franz. Isaiah. Translated by James Martin. K&D 7. 1857–1878. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. HKAT 3.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. Emerton, J. A. “The Translation and Interpretation of Isaiah vi. 13.” Pages 85–118 in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal. Edited by J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Fischer, Georg. “Jeremiah  – ‘The Prophet like Moses?’” Pages 45–66 in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. New York: Schocken Books, 1979. Repr., Oxford: Oneworld, 1998. –. Haftarot: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Fohrer, Georg. “Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesajas.” ZAW 74 (1962): 251–68. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil K autzsch. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 Gile, Jason. “Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation?” JBL 130 (2011): 87–108. Gitay, Yehoshua. Isaiah and His Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1991. Graybill, Rhiannon. Are We Not Men? Unstable Masculinity in the Hebrew Prophets. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Habel, Norman C. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Harris, Robert A. “Structure and Composition in Isaiah 1–12: A Twelfth-Century Northern French Rabbinic Perspective.” Pages 171–87 in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The

294

Ethan Schwartz

Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. Edited by Claire Mathews Mcginnis and Patricia K. Tull. SymS 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” JBL 78 (1959): 285–95. Jong, Matthijs J. de. 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. Joüon, Paul. A  Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. K aiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12. 2nd ed. Translated by John Bowden. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1983. Keiser, Thomas A. “The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah’s Prophecy.” VT 55 (2005): 486–500. Klein, Anja. “‘Biblicist Additions’ or the Emergence of Scripture in the Growth of the Prophets.” Pages 125–45 in Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Saul M. Olyan and Jacob L. Wright. BJS 361. Providence: Brown University Press, 2018. Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 (2008): 241–65. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Repr., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Levitt Kohn, Risa. “A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah.” ZAW 114 (2002): 236–54. Liebreich, Leon J. “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah.” JQR 46 (1956): 263–65. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: Prophet Like Moses. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015. McKeating, Henry. “Ezekiel the ‘Prophet Like Moses?’” JSOT 19 (1994): 97–109. Nissinen, Martti. Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. –. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. WAW 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. O’K ane, Martin. “Isaiah: A Prophet in the Footsteps of Moses.” JSOT 21 (1996): 29–51. Rendtorff, Rolf. “The Book of Isaiah: A  Complex Unity. Synchronic and Diachronic Reading.” Pages 32–49 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. JSOTSup 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Rignell, L. G. “Isaiah Chapter I: Some Exegetical Remarks with Special Reference to the Relationship Between the Text and the Book of Deuteronomy.” ST 11 (1957): 140–58. Römer, Thomas. “Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of a Pentateuch? The Case of the ‘Historical Summaries,’ Especially in the Psalms.” Pages 471–88 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah.” ZAW 101 (1989): 3–27. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition.” Pages 156–86 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. JSOTSup 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.



Mirrors of Moses in Isaiah 1–12

295

–. “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.” VT 56 (1996): 479–89. –. Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015. –. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Stackert, Jeffrey. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Steck, Odil Hannes. The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness. Translated by James D. Nogalski. St. Louis: Chalice, 2000. Strauss, Leo. “Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Civilization.” Pages 87–136 in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. SUNY Series in the Jewish Writings of Leo Strauss. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Stromberg, Jacob. Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2011. –. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford Theological Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Teeter, D. Andrew. “Isaiah and the King of As/syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-Scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis.’” Pages 169–200 in vol. 1 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason, Samuel I. Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene Ulrich. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature: Methodological Reflections.” DSD 20 (2013): 349–77. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003. Tomasino, Anthony J. “Isaiah 1.1–2.4 and 63–66, and the Composition of the Isaianic Corpus.” JSOT 18 (1993): 81–98. Wagner, Thomas. “More Than a Source? The Impact of Isaiah 6 on the Formation of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 183–95 in ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Elizabeth R. Hayes and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Williamson, H. G. M. “Isaiah 6:13 and 1:29–31.” Pages 119–28 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah. Edited by J. Van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. –. “Isaiah X 11–16 and the Redaction of Isaiah I–XII.” Pages 343–57 in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. “Synchronic and Diachronic in Isaian Perspective.” Pages 211–26 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OtSt 34. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Wilson, Ian D. “Isaiah 1–12: Presentation of a (Davidic?) Politics.” Pages 50–71 in Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof: Poetry, Prophecy, and Justice in Hebrew Scripture; Essays in Honor of Francis Landy on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Edited by Andrew Gow and Peter Sabo. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah Jacob Stromberg 1. Introduction An historical approach to Isaiah aims to locate its oracles in history. Of course, there are many versions of history, not least, of the history of ancient Israel. One version of its history that has not received the kind of attention which it’s interpretive power merits is that found in the book itself. While the book mainly consists of poetic-oracular material that it traces back to Isaiah himself, it also incorporates several narratives giving expression to the life and times of the prophet, portraying the history within which the prophet represented God to his people and the world, mainly through his words but sometimes also through his actions. These narratives locate the oracles of the book within the history they tell. Here, I will consider these narratives in relation to the oracles against the nations in Isaiah. Central to this narrative thread is the story of Hezekiah, which plays a vital role in the book. Part of this role involves a careful coordination of this narrative with material in chs. 1–12, the first major section of the book. I have discussed this strategy at length elsewhere; and that analysis is presupposed to a certain extent in what follows.1 In this strategy, the story of Hezekiah has been set on analogy to the account of his father Ahaz to enable a comparison between the narratives representing these two kings in the book. When faced with the threat of invasion from the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, Ahaz fails to trust the Lord, whereas Hezekiah succeeds when threatened by the Assyrians; the failure of Ahaz brings a further threat (Assyria), whereas the success of Hezekiah results in deliverance from that threat. But in the end Hezekiah fails like his father Ahaz, bringing a future punishment (Babylon) on his kingdom. In each case, the plot of the narrative turns on the king’s ability, or lack thereof, to activate God’s commitment to David. The rhythm of the whole establishes Hezekiah’s 1 Jacob Stromberg, “Figural History in the Book of Isaiah: the Prospective Significance of Hezekiah’s Deliverance from Assyria and Death,” in Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires, FRLANT, ed. Reinhard Kratz and Joachim Schaper (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 81–102; idem, “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure,” in The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 19–36.

298

Jacob Stromberg

piety during the Assyrian crisis as an example for how that commitment would be activated in the wake of the later Babylonian destruction. In this way, good Hezekiah becomes a paradigmatic figure for the future. Aspects of this strategy are now widely recognized, even if its poetics and full purpose are not.2 Less appreciated is the way that the story of Hezekiah has been coordinated with the second major section of the book, chs. 13–27, usually described as the oracles against the nations (chs. 13–23) followed by a global extension of these (chs. 24–27). With the aim of better understanding the role of the Hezekiah narrative in the book of Isaiah, I will examine the relationship of this story to chs. 13–27. To this end (and as space permits), I  want to consider three passages from the oracles against the nations and their connection to this narrative: Isa 14:24–27, an oracle forecasting the overthrow of Assyria and the removal of its yoke from God’s people; immediately following this, Isa 14:28–32, the oracle against Philistia, contrasting the fates of Philistia and the inhabitants of Zion in the face of Assyrian threat; and the narrative enactment of the oracle against Philistia in Isa 20, which recounts the Assyrian siege of Ashdod and Isaiah’s sign act portending great shame for those who rely on Egypt for deliverance.

2.  Parallel Patterning (Isaiah 1–12 // 13–27) To understand how these passages are functioning vis-à-vis the Hezekiah narrative, I would begin by observing that each text has been fitted into a larger pattern, and that this pattern finds its logic in a comparison with the arrangement of chs. 1–12. These parts of the oracles against the nations have been arranged on analogy to that earlier material. Elsewhere I have attempted a presentation of these parallels that is more comprehensive than what is possible here.3 For the present argument, I have selected some of the examples from that treatment for an analysis that is more in-depth than what was possible there. I list the similarities in order. The first of these involves Isa 5:25–30 and 14:24–27. Both of these passages announce judgment in the form of the divine hand outstretched (‫ )ידו נטויה‬which cannot be turned back (‫)ׁשו״ב‬. In Isa 5:25–30, God’s hand is outstretched against 2  “Poetics is the systematic working or study of literature as such.” Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 2. 3  Stromberg, “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure.” In this essay, I also discuss a structure internal to Isa 13–23 where the oracles are arranged in a pattern of 5 + 5, each marked by ‫מׂשא‬. As I understand it, this structure complements, rather than competes with the patterning of chs. 13–27 on analogy to 1–12, a patterning which I also discuss in that piece. The two structures are concurrent. On the notion of concurrent structure, see Andrew Teeter, “Biblical Symmetry and Its Modern Detractors,” in IOSOT Congress Volume: Aberdeen 2019, ed. C. Maier, G. Macaskill, J. Schaper, VTSup (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).

Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 



299

(‫ )ﬠל‬his people; and it takes the form of attacking nations (‫)גוים‬ – later connected with Assyria as the rod (‫ )ׁשבט‬of God’s wrath (10:5) and the yoke (‫ )ﬠל‬and burden (‫ )סבל‬on the shoulder (‫ )ׁשכם‬of his people (9:3; 10:27).4 In Isa 14:24–27, by contrast, God purposes to break Assyria in his land so as to remove the yoke (‫ )ﬠל‬and burden (‫ )סבל‬from the shoulder (‫ )ׁשכם‬of his people; this is the hand outstretched (‫ )ידו נטויה‬against (‫ )ﬠל‬all the nations (‫ ;)גוים‬and it cannot be turned back (‫)ׁשו״ב‬. Thus, the two passages involve a contrast: in 5:25–30 God’s hand is outstretched against his own people with the nations acting as his instrument of punishment, whereas in 14:24–27 God’s hand is now outstretched against the nations themselves so as to free his people from foreign oppression. Significantly, the present position of both of these passages has been explained variously by appeal to accidental displacement or to deliberate editorial relocation, which I take to be the more probable of the two options given their current position relative to the following textual sequence.5 Both of these passages are then immediately followed by Isaiah the prophet receiving a message of judgment:6 in Isa 6, God commissions the prophet concerning the punishment of his people; and in Isa 14:28–32, an oracle is given to the prophet regarding the judgment of Philistia. Both begin with an identical notice of the death of the Davidic king (‫)בׁשנת מות המלך‬: in 6:1, the king is Uzziah; in 14:28 (possibly modeled on 6:17), the king is Ahaz, the next in line after Uzziah’s son – so that together these titles are given a chronological sequence. In both 4 

This connection is accomplished by various means as will be seen below. a defense of the view that 5:25–30 is a deliberate editorial relocation along with a listing of those who regard it as an accidental displacement, see H. G.M. Williamson, A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. I. Isaiah 1–5, ICC (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2006), 401–10. For a less appreciative evaluation of the editor’s work in this regard, see J. J.M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 85, who (following others) suggests that the insertion of 6:1–9:6 displaced 5:25–30 which originally followed 9:7–20. While Roberts regards its present location as likely purposeful, he nevertheless labels 5:25–30 a “misplaced pericope” and states that “it is highly unlikely that Isaiah himself would have so mutilated his own oracles.” G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 263, cites several older scholars whom he characterizes as viewing this “fragment” (14:24–27) as “a misplaced conclusion” to some part of ch. 10. Gray himself is somewhat critical of this view. Many scholars are now inclined to see the current position of this passage as the result of a deliberate relocation: see, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 289; Otto K aiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (London: SCM, 1973), 48; 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), 143. 6  Cf. Konrad Schmid, Jesaja, Band I: Jes 1–23, Zürcher Bibelkommentare (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2011), 137. 7  Isa 14:28 is widely thought to be patterned on 6:1: see, e. g., Uwe Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 273; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 292; cf. Gray, Isaiah I–XXVII, 266; H. G.M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 162–64. The parallel to ch. 6 involving the flying seraphim suggests that the title 5  With

300

Jacob Stromberg

passages, an encounter with the king occurs involving smoke (‫)ﬠׁשן‬: in 6:4–5, the king is God; in 14:31, the king is Assyrian (see below). Moreover, in each case the encounter also involves a flying Seraph (‫מﬠופף‬/‫[ ׂשרף יﬠופף‬6:1–2; 14:28–32]) – an “exact form of usage” found only one other time in the HB (30:6).8 In Isa 6, judgment is directed against God’s people and is pictured as the felling of a tree that will leave behind a “stump” identified as a holy remnant.9 In Isa 14:28–32, by contrast, judgment is directed against Philistia whose remnant is pictured as a “root” that God will kill. In this way, the shared metaphor (remnant-asvital-part-of-plant) underscores the contrasting outcomes of each judgment: the death of a root versus the survival of a stump (the holy seed). The threat in each of these passages is later connected to Assyria. In each case, the reader discovers this connection in the only narrative material to follow in each section of the book: Isa 7 recounts the Syro-Ephraimite threat to Jerusalem; and Isa 20 recounts the Assyrian attack on Ashdod. The attack on Jerusalem fails, whereas the assault on Ashdod succeeds. In both narratives, the prophet delivers a divine “sign” (‫ )אות‬during the threat levied against the city (7:1–17; 20).10 In both cases, the sign is God’s response to failed leadership: Ahaz fails to believe that God would be faithful to the “house of David” in defending the city; and the Philistines misplaced their trust in Egypt as their defenders. In both cases, the sign portends a dark future: the “house of David” will face a future threat from Assyria; and the Philistines object of trust – Egypt – will fail, leaving them with no help for deliverance from Assyria. The last line of each narrative concludes with the words ‫“( מלך אׁשור‬king of Assyria”), specifying the nature of the threat to come. The sustained nature of these parallels, their precise sequence, and the consistent strategy of contrast underlying them strongly suggest that our passages in the oracles against the nations have been deliberately structured on analogy to these aspects of chs. 1–12 (see figure 1 below). In terms of method, then, we will need to consider our texts and their relationship to the Hezekiah narrative in terms of their development of these earlier chapters of the book, something that will be possible only selectively here. And by way of a preliminary observation for what follows, I  would note that the preceding comparison establishes an in 14:28 (which also offers a close parallel to 6:1) cannot be easily dismissed as a later addition that was out of touch with the content of the oracle itself. 8  H. G.M. Williamson, A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. II. Isaiah 6–12, ICC (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2018), 53. On the parallel between the seraph (14:29) and the smoke (14:31), see note 59 below on the structure of the poem. 9 On ‫ מצבת‬in 6:13, see Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 30. 10  Isa 8, which also includes a snippet of narrative, is likely involved in this comparison as well. In Isa 8:18, Isaiah refers to his sons “which the Lord gave to me as signs and portents (‫)לאתות ולמופתים‬,” a reference clearly related to the “sign” (‫ )אות‬of 7:14. In Isa 20:3, Isaiah’s act is “a sign and a portent (‫)אות ומופת‬.” A fuller analysis of this would require an examination of the relationship between chs. 7 and 8, for which I do not have space here.

Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 



301

Figure 1. Partial Representation of Isa 1–12 // 13–27

←

Isaiah 5:25–30 Therefore the anger (‫ )אף‬of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand (‫ )ויט ידו‬against them and struck them; the mountains quaked, and their corpses were like refuse in the streets. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still (‫)בכל זאת לא ׁשב אפו וﬠוד ידו נטויה‬. He will raise a signal for nations (‫ )גוים‬far away, and whistle for him at the ends of the earth (‫ ;)הארץ‬Here he comes, swiftly, speedily! … He will roar over it on that day, like the roaring of the sea; and if one looks to the land, behold the darkness of distress, and the light grows dark because of its clouds.

Isaiah 14:24–27 The LORD of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass: I will break Assyria (‫ )אׁשור‬in my land, and on my mountains trample him under foot; his yoke shall be removed from them, and his burden from his shoulders (‫וסר מﬠליהם ﬠלו וסבלו מﬠל‬ ‫)ׁשכמו יסור‬. This is the plan that is planned concerning the whole earth (‫ ;)הארץ‬and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations (‫)וזאת היד הנטויה ﬠל כל הגוים‬. For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back (‫?)וידו הנטויה ומי יׁשיבנה‬

↓

For all this his anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still (‫בכל זאת לא‬ ‫)ׁשב אפו וﬠוד ידו נטויה‬. Ah, Assyria (‫)אׁשור‬, the rod of my anger (‫)ׁשבט אפי‬ – the club in their hands is my fury! … On that day his burden will be removed from your shoulder, and his yoke will be destroyed from your neck (‫)יסור סבלו מﬠל ׁשכמך וﬠלו מﬠל צוארך‬. (Is. 10:4–5, 27) Isaiah 6

←

Isaiah 14:28–32

“In the year of king Uzziah’s death” (‫בׁשנת מות‬ ‫)המלך ﬠזיהו‬, Isaiah saw “Seraphim” (‫)ׂשרפים‬, each “flying about” (‫)יﬠופף‬. The temple was filled with “smoke” (‫ ;)ﬠׁשן‬and he was commissioned with a message of judgment against God’s people. But a remnant shall be spared.

“In the year of king Ahaz’s death” (‫בׁשנת‬ ‫)מות המלך אחז‬, Isaiah received an oracle of judgment against the Philistines wherein they would face a worse threat than the one already experienced, a “flying Seraph” (‫ׂשרף‬ ‫)מﬠופף‬, “smoke” (‫ )ﬠׁשן‬from the north. The remnant shall be slain.

↓ (Threat connected to Assyria)

↓ (Threat connected to Assyria)

Isaiah 7 In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack (‫ )למלחמה‬Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack (‫ )להלחם‬against it …. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign (‫)אות‬. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel …. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house … the king of Assyria (‫)מלך אׁשור‬. (Is. 7:1, 14–17)

←

Isaiah 20 In the year that the commander-in-chief, who was sent by Sargon King of Assyria, came to Ashdod, he fought (‫ )וילחם‬against Ashdod and took it …. Then the LORD said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign (‫)אות‬ and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria (‫ )מלך אׁשור‬lead away the Egyptians as captives and the Ethiopians as exiles … And they shall be dismayed and ashamed because of Ethiopia their hope and of Egypt their boast … to whom shall we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria (‫( ?)מלך אׁשור‬Is. 20:1, 3–5)

302

Jacob Stromberg

important contrast: While Philistia faces the same threat as do God’s people in chs. 1–12 (the outstretched hand of the Lord with Assyria as the agent of his destruction11), the outcome in each passage consistently differs. Where God promises to leave a remnant for his people, Philistia will be left with no such remnant.

3.  Isaiah 14:24–27 Returning, then, to our three texts in the oracles against the nations, I  begin with Isa 14:24–27. This passage forecasts the overthrow of Assyria and the consequent removal of its yoke from God’s people. Several features of this passage suggest a relationship to the Hezekiah narrative. The first of these concerns the location where the divine plan comes to fruition. In Isa 14:25, the divine plan was to take place “in my land” and “on my mountains.” There God would break Assyria. These references strongly suggest that the reader will have been expected to connect the fulfillment of this passage to those events recounted in the Hezekiah narrative. In this narrative, God defeats the Assyrians in the land of Judah. As Uwe Becker has stated, Isa “14:25a predicts what takes place in narrative form in 37:33–36”.12 The Angel of the Lord smote 185,000 Assyrians at night; and “when they woke up in the morning, behold they were all dead men. Then Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, set out, went, and returned, and he dwelt in Nineveh” (vv. 36–37). For Becker, the reference to an overthrow of the Assyrians “in my land” as well as the narration of this very event in the Hezekiah story speak strongly against the view of Hermann Barth that Isa 14:24–27 finds its origins in an anti-Assyrian redaction of the Isaianic prophecies in the later period of king Josiah.13 Likewise, Clements, who is otherwise favorably disposed towards the overall theory of 11  Isa 14:27 (“this is the plan planned against all the earth and this is the hand outstretched against all the nations … who can turn it back?”) serves as a fitting conclusion to chs. 13–14 and an apt introduction to the remaining oracles against the nations that follow, including the oracle against Philistia. See Andrew Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-Scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis,’” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, eds. Eric F. Mason et al., JSJSup 153/I (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 169–99, here 195–96. 12  “14,25a kündigt an, was 37,33–36 in erzählender Form ausführt,” Becker, Jesaja, 210. 13  Becker, Jesaja, 210–11, observes that the references to “in my land” and “on my mountains” in 14:25a speak against a dating of the passage to the period of king Josiah, a period to which Hermann Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48, (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 103–19, 249, had assigned the passage. Given this difficulty for Barth’s dating of 14:25a, Becker turns to the close parallel in 37:36 where the Assyrians are struck down in the land. Accepting that neither 14:25a nor 37:36 mirror actual historical circumstances, he proposes that 14:25a was composed after and in the light of ch. 36 f. For Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 118, the aim of God’s plan in Isa 14:24–27 is the “Vernichtung” of



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

303

Barth, objects to such a dating for this passage, following along similar lines as Becker. Responding to Barth’s dating of the passage, Clements says, What is less than convincing about such an interpretation of the origin of the anti-Assyrian saying of Isa 14,24 f. is the complete separation that it implies between such an expectation of the future overthrow, by Yahweh himself, of Assyrian forces on the soil of Judah and the narrative tradition which asserts that such took place in connection with the events of 701 B. C.14

For Becker, the point of this coordination (seen in terms of the book’s “prophetic-theological” intention, rather than its history of composition) was this: “What the narrative of God’s miraculous intervention is able to report had been announced in advance.”15 This, no doubt, is how the book would have us conceive of the relationship between these passages, a datum no less historical than anything that might be said about their date of origin. It is this historical orientation that directs the reader’s attention to the Hezekiah narrative as the fulfillment of Isa 14:25a. This conclusion finds confirmation in the second item linking Isa 14:24–27 to the narrative about Hezekiah. While the location given for the defeat of Assyria (“in my land”) strongly suggests that our passage anticipates that story, our text also recalls a prior literary strategy that it builds on by way of extension: Isa 14:24–27 develops a train of thought – first laid out in 9:3 and 10:24–27 – that is taken up by ch. 37 by way of explicit citation and deliberate allusion. This too, it will be seen, follows along the lines of an argument about prophecy and fulfillment. The analysis required to reach this conclusion will be more involved than the one above. I will discuss the relationship between Isa 9:3 and 10:24–27. Then, we will see that the relationship between these two passages in Assyria. Vernichtung is probably too strong a notion for the text’s “to break (‫ )ׁשב״ר‬Assyria,” as is suggested by the same in 14:29 (to which this passage is undoubtedly related [see below]). 14 Ronald Clements, “Isaiah 14,22–27: A Central Passage Reconsidered,” in The Book of Isaiah, ed. Jacques Vermeylen, BETL 81 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 253–62, here 260. The straightforward connection to the Hezekiah story compels Clements, who (unlike Becker) sees no problem in the reference to “in my land” for dating the passage to the period of Josiah as he thinks it could in that case be seen as “hyperbole”. However, the narrow locality (“in my land”) hardly strikes me as “hyperbole”, in as far as “hyperbole pushes comparison past simple credibility”, is “a figure of speech marked by flagrant exaggeration” (as in Deut. 1:28 [“cities fortified into the heavens”]), and “succeeds by making propositions that are either impossible … or that are linked to a comparative absolute.” Citations are from K. McFadden, “Hyperbole,” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry & Poetics, 4th ed., eds. Roland Greene et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 648. Writing earlier than Becker, Ronald Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 146, argued that the direction of development was the opposite of what Becker proposes, claiming that 14:24–27 gave “rise to the tradition now recorded in 37:36.” 15  “Was die Erzählung von Gottes wunderbarem Eingreifen zu erzählen weiß, ist im voraus angekündigt worden,” Becker, Jesaja, 211. Compare the remark of Schmid, Jes 1–23, 135, “Erwartet wird der Abzug der Assyrer ‘aus meinem Land’ (25), wie er dann erzählend in Jes 37 dargestellt wird.”

304

Jacob Stromberg

their larger context is presupposed by (and therefore developed in) the rhetoric of Isa 14:24–27. Finally, I  will make the point that the literary strategy which will be seen to emerge from the coordination of these texts enables the reader to perceive references back to them from the Hezekiah narrative, which has been carefully coordinated with this sequence. The second item linking this prophecy to the narrative about Hezekiah involves the goal of the divine plan as revealed in Isa 14:24–27. I begin with v. 25, where the purpose of the divine plan is disclosed: The LORD of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass: I will break Assyria in my land, and on my mountains trample him under foot; and his yoke shall be removed from them, and his burden from his shoulders (‫)וסר מﬠליהם ﬠלו וסבלו מﬠל ׁשכמו יסור‬. (Isa 14:24–25)

As has long been noted, this passage bears a striking resemblance to two texts found earlier in the book where the overthrow of the oppressor – in both cases compared to the overthrow of Midian – likewise results in the removal of the burdensome yoke. You have multiplied the rejoicing,16 you have increased the joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as people exult when dividing plunder. For the yoke of their burden (‫)ﬠל סבלו‬, and the bar across their shoulders (‫)מטה ׁשכמו‬, the rod (‫ )ׁשבט‬of their oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian (‫)כיום מדין‬. (Isa 9:2–3) Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: O my people, who live in Zion, do not be afraid of Assyria when he beats you with a rod (‫ )ׁשבט‬and lifts up his staff (‫ )מטהו‬against you as the Egyptians did …. The LORD of hosts will wield a whip (‫ )ׁשט‬against him, as when he struck Midian (‫ )כמכת מדין‬at the rock of Oreb; his staff (‫ )מטהו‬will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. On that day his burden will be removed from your shoulder, and his yoke will be destroyed from your neck (‫יסור סבלו מﬠל ׁשכמך וﬠלו מﬠל‬ ‫)צוארך‬. (Isa 10:24, 25–27)

As a cause for celebration, Isa 9:3 speaks about the overthrow of an unnamed foreign yoke accompanied by the reestablishment of Davidic rule marked by peace. The people will rejoice, “because the yoke of his burden, and the bar across his shoulders, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian (‫)כיום מדין‬. In obvious development of this passage, Isa 10:24–27 exhorts the inhabitants of Zion not to fear Assyria who “smites” them with the “rod” and lifts up the “staff ” against them; for God will soon turn the tables on Assyria, “the Lord of Hosts is raising up against him a whip like the smiting of Midian (‫כמכת‬ ‫ )מדין‬at the rock of Oreb; and “on that day, his burden will be removed from your shoulder, and his yoke from upon your neck” (v. 24–27). The connection is unmistakable. The reference to a Midian-like battle leading to the removal of a foreign yoke and staff suggests that the reader was to understand this assurance 16  Probably

366–67.

read ‫ הגילה‬instead of MT’s ‫הגוי לא‬, on which see Williamson, Isaiah 6–12,



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

305

in 10:24–27 in the light of that earlier statement found in the royal oracle at 9:3. Accordingly, the fulfillment of the royal oracle required the overthrow of the Assyrian yoke mentioned in 10:27. Against the backdrop of this literary strategy (9:3 ← 10:27), the relationship of Isa 14:24–27 to the Hezekiah story comes into fuller view. To begin with, the relationship of Isa 14:24–27 to these passages earlier in the book (9:3; 10:27) has long been recognized and is evident by the obvious parallels between them noted above. Moreover, Isa 14:25 expresses the expectation that Assyria’s yoke will be removed from the people in a form that is peculiar in two respects, each of which suggests the assumption that the reader will have first encountered Isa 9:3; 10:24–27. First, the antecedents for certain pronominal suffixes in 9:3; 10:24–27 are clear, whereas in 14:25b they are lacking entirely. The pronominal suffixes on “his shoulder” in 9:3 and “your shoulder” in 10:27 find ready antecedents in the preceding “the people walking in darkness” and “O my people, who dwell in Zion” respectively. However, no antecedents are given in what precedes 14:25. Here, the reader needs to supply the antecedents for “from them” and “from his shoulder.” As some have noted, the need to do this likely presupposes that the reader will have first encountered 9:3 and/or 10:27, where each context makes the antecedent clear.17 Second, a reference to both Isa 9:3 and 10:27 would help explain the disagreement in number in 14:25b between the plural suffix on “from them” (‫)מﬠליהם‬ and the singular suffix on “from his shoulder” (‫)מﬠל ׁשכמו‬. This disagreement in number exists despite the fact that both suffixes share the same referent, God’s people. Thus, Willem Beuken makes the attractive suggestion that this incongruity points to the fact that 14:25 is a mixed citation:18 the singular suffix on “his shoulder” (‫ )ׁשכמו‬presupposes “his shoulder” (‫ )ׁשכמו‬in 9:3 (over against “your shoulder” [‫ ]ׁשכמך‬in 10:27); and conversely the language of the abolition of the yoke in 14:25 (“to remove” [‫ ]סו״ר‬the yoke) presupposes the same language in 10:27 (over against the different expression of “shattering” [‫ ]חת״ת‬the yoke in 9:3). The evidence of the earliest textual witnesses hardly speaks against the 3ms suffix on ‫ ׁשכמו‬in 14:25.19 Moreover, in favor of a disturbance in number at this 17  Followed by others since, Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, KHC 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900), 129, took this as evidence that it was a citation of 10:27 made in the margin. So too Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 105, Becker, Jesaja, 207, and Jongkyung Lee, A Redactional Study of the Book of Isaiah 13–23, Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 112–13. The close alignment of v. 25b with the whole of 14:24–27 as this passage engages with chs. 1–12 tends to weigh against this view, though it is still possible. 18  Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 102–3. 19  Among the Isaiah scrolls from Qumran, only 1QIsaa has preserved our text. Its reading in v. 25 (‫ )מﬠליכמה … שכמכה‬is likely a harmonization towards the second person suffixes in 10:27 (‫[ מﬠל שכמך … מﬠל צוארך‬1QIsaa; MT]) – though it would be only a partial harmonization as the incongruence in number found in the original reading (‫[ מﬠליהם‬3mp]; ‫[ ׁשכמו‬3ms]) would

306

Jacob Stromberg

point owing to the deliberate referencing of a prior text, I would note that Yaakov Levi and Michael Lyons have independently adduced several examples where citation results in, or even exploits grammatical disturbance of this sort.20 The incongruous suffix on ‫ ׁשכמו‬in 14:25 (// 9:3) shows every sign of being another example of this. It is probable, then, that the author of 14:25 had in mind the close relationship between 9:3 and 10:27, so that this relationship has made its way into the text in the form of the mild disturbance in numerical agreement between the suffixes. In alluding to the overthrow of the foreign yoke as expressed in Isa 9:3 and 10:27, the rhetoric of our passage displays a full, albeit compactly expressed, awareness of the larger context of these two passages. This can be seen in the rhetoric underlying two additional inner-Isaianic allusions in Isa 14:24–27. The rhetoric of this text depends on the reader perceiving a reversal of two important elements imparting structure to material in chs. 1–12: (1) the well know refrain regarding God’s anger and (2) the repeated references to the plans of the nations. A  full treatment of chs. 1–12 here is out of the question. Nevertheless, a brief examination of these two features will illuminate the relationship of our passage to the Hezekiah narrative. Consider first the refrain regarding God’s anger. Beginning in Isa 5, a series of judgements is announced against God’s people, punctuated by the refrain, “despite all this, his anger is not turned back, and his hand is still outstretched” (‫[ בכל זאת לא ׁשב אפו וﬠוד ידו נטויה‬5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4]). The first occurrence of this refrain introduces Isa 5:26–30, the promise that God would summon an invading army to punish his people. No doubt indicating the fulfillment of this oracle, the last occurrence of this refrain introduces Assyria, the rod of God’s anger (‫)ׁשבט אפי‬, as the next punishment in the sequence (10:5). Since the last instance of this refrain introduces Assyria as the instrument of divine anger, it is fitting, as Andrew Teeter has observed, that this refrain is taken up by 14:24–27 in relation to the breaking of Assyria itself, presented as the archetypal oppresthen be retained (‫[ מﬠליכמה‬2mp]; ‫[ שכמכה‬2ms]). For 14:25b, the LXX has it that the removal of the yoke will be “from them” (ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν), which stands close to MT’s ‫( מﬠליהם‬over against 1QIsaa’s ‫)מﬠליכמה‬. In the LXX, the parallel expression is simply “from the shoulders” [ἀπὸ τῶν ὤμων]), probably allowing the pronoun in the first half of the line to gap into the second half (so NETS [“their yoke shall be removed from them, and their renown shall be removed from their shoulders.”]). The LXX’s “their yoke” at this point (instead of “his yoke” in reference to Assyria [as in MT; 1QIsa]) may reflect more of a concern for sense than for wooden grammatical representation of the pronominal suffixes on the part of the translator. 20  According to Yaakov Levi, “Agreement: Biblical Hebrew,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, online ed., ed. Geoffrey Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), http://dx.doi. org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000501, “The desire to cite expressions or idiomatic usage well-known to the reader, especially from the Pentateuch, sometimes overrides the grammatical rules of agreement when these are cited without change.” See also Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 62–4.



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

307

sor.21 In development of God’s plan against Assyria, verse 27 states, “this is the hand that is outstretched against all the nations … and his hand is outstretched and who can turn it back” (‫וזאת היד הנטויה ﬠל כל הגוים … וידו הנטויה ומי יׁשיבנה‬ [v. 27]). Where God’s hand was outstretched against his people with Assyria and the nations as his agents of punishment, it is now outstretched against Assyria and the nations themselves.22 An inversion like this suggests that Isa 14:24–27 was composed as a rhetorical reversal of this repeated refrain which punctuates the oracles in chs. 1–12. This move fits nicely with what was seen at the outset of this essay: Isa 14:24–27 serves as the structural counterpart to Isa 5:25–30. In structural terms, then, the first inversion of the refrain (14:27) complements its first appearance (5:25), while also recalling its last occurrence introducing Assyria as the agent of God’s anger (10:4–5). It cannot be a coincidence that precisely here we have a reference back to the removal of the foreign yoke. Precisely where this refrain has been inverted by Isa 14:24–27, it is accompanied by a reference back to the overthrow of the foreign yoke mentioned in 9:3 and 10:27. This looks deliberate because the refrain and this promise of freedom are strategically related within chs. 1–12. In these chapters, the last occurrence of this refrain introduces Assyria as the rod of God’s anger (‫ )ׁשבט אפי‬and the staff of his wrath (‫ )מטה … זמﬠי‬against his people (10:5), a punishment that would eventually come to an end according to what follows. In Isa 10:24–27, this punishment would end when God’s anger and wrath against his people were finished (‫)וכלה זﬠם ואפי‬, when his staff (‫)מטה‬ and scourge (‫)ׁשט‬23 would turn against Assyria itself. This would happen in a battle like the smiting of Midian; and its purpose would be to remove the Assyrian yoke from upon his people in fulfillment of Isa 9:3. In other words, within chs. 1–12 the refrain regarding God’s anger (first introduced at 5:25) comes to an end with the punishment of Assyria and the removal of its yoke in ch. 10, 21  Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision,” 195–96. Teeter’s formulation deserves to be quoted in full: “In every previous occurrence, the phrase refers to God’s unrelenting judgment upon his own people, the conclusion of which is celebrated in the song of those restored from exile (cf. 11:11–16): ‘Your anger has turned (‫)ישב אפך‬ and you have comforted me’ (12:1). In 14:26–27, the conclusion of the next major unit – which not coincidentally, stands at the head of Isaiah’s oracles against the nations – God’s anger has shifted to the nations, and the destruction of Assyria is subsumed under a larger plot of divine judgment upon ‘all the nations’”, 195–96. Cf. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 114–15. 22  In 5:26, God summoned the ‫ גוים‬as the agents of his outstretched hand; but in 14:27, his hand is outstretched against the ‫גוים‬. The significance of the plural ‫( גוים‬rather than the probably original singular ‫ )גוי‬relates to the inversion of this passage at 11:12, on which see Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 396, 402, who links the first fulfillment of 5:26 with Babylonian invasion. In saying here that Assyria has been made the fulfillment of this passage, I do not rule out Williamson’s connection with Babylon, since in the book the former becomes a paradigm re-inhabited by the latter (see below). 23  ‫ ׁשבט‬// ‫ׁשט‬, on which see the following note.

308

Jacob Stromberg

the relevance of which is directed especially to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.24 Thus, it looks highly strategic that Isa 14:24–27 should combine an allusion to the removal of this yoke with an echo of this wrathful refrain now directed away from the people and towards their oppressors, exemplified by Assyria who will be broken in the land. This combination makes explicit what is only implicit in chs. 1–12: when God removed the Assyrian yoke in the land, his hand and anger will have turned away from his people and towards their oppressor. In this way, the rhetoric of our passage presupposes a reader who will have first perceived the relationship of this refrain to the removal of the yoke within Isa 1–12 itself. A similar strategy of reversal underlies the description of the divine plan in Isa 14:24–27 as it relates to chs. 1–12. As in the case of the refrain regarding the divine wrath, this too relates to the earlier material by way of rhetorical reversal. In chs. 7–8, we are twice told that the plans of the nations will fail. In Isa 7:5–8, the prophet reassures Ahaz that the plan (‫ )יﬠ״ץ‬of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition to go up (‫ )ﬠל״ה‬against Jerusalem would fail: the “evil” (‫ )רﬠה‬they plan “shall not stand or come to pass” (‫ ;)לא תקום ולא תהיה‬and Ephraim “will be shattered (‫”)יחת‬. Following this, Ahaz is given the sign of Immanuel (‫)ﬠמנו אל‬, indicating that Aram and Ephraim would fall to the Assyrians who would rise against Judah as well (7:14–17). As Jörg Barthel has noted, this assurance to Ahaz is taken up by the prophet’s own response to the same threat in the next chapter.25 By divine decree, it is now Assyria who would go up (‫ )ﬠל״ה‬against Judah, filling “your land, O Immanuel (‫( ”)ﬠמנו אל‬8:7–8). To this Assyrian threat, the prophet responds with words that echo his earlier assurance to Ahaz.26 24 In Isa 10:24–27, the inhabitants of Jerusalem receive a symmetrically-patterned assurance: “do not fear” Assyria, who “smites you (‫ )יככה‬with the “rod” (‫ )ׁשבט‬and “lifts his staff against you in the manner of Egypt (‫ ;”)ומטהו יׂשא ﬠליך בדרך מצרים‬soon “wrath and my anger will come to an end” (‫ →[ וכלה זﬠם ואפי‬10:5]); God will raise up a “scourge” (‫“ )ׁשט‬like the smiting of (‫ )כמכת‬Midian” and as for “his staff (‫)מטהו‬,” he “will lift it up in the manner of Egypt (‫ונׂשאו בדרך‬ ‫ ;”)מצרים‬on that day the yoke will be removed. The ‘center’ of the passage refers back to 10:5, introduced by the last occurrence of the refrain (10:4). In this way, the passage as a whole plays on the notion in 10:5 of Assyria as the “staff ” and “rod” in God’s hand to punish his people, a punishment brought to an end by way of reversal in vv. 24–27. 25  According to Jörg Barthel (Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997], 209), Isa 8:9–10 is compositionally dependent on 7:5–7. In other words, Isa 7:5–7 was written first; and Isa 8:9–10 was later written in the light of it. So also Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 265–270. While I am favorably inclined towards this model, my point does not depend on determining the sequence of composition but instead on the sequence of the text as given. 26  I am not arguing that Isa 8:9–10 was written by the prophet, only that it presents itself as representing his response to the prophecy of judgment in Isa 8:7–8. That it is a response to 8:7–8 is made clear by the repetition of ‫( ﬠמנו אל‬8:8, 10). That the response in 8:9–10 is presented as that of the prophet is made clear by what immediately follows it in v. 11 (‫כי כה אמר‬ ‫)יהוה אלי‬. Thus, vv. 11–15 aim to explain why the prophet gave the response in 8:9–10.



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

309

Be evil (‫)רﬠו‬,27 O peoples, and be shattered (‫)וחתו‬, give ear, all you distant places of the land; gird yourselves, and be shattered (‫)וחתו‬, gird yourselves and be shattered (‫;)וחתו‬ Plan a plan, and it will be frustrated (‫)ﬠצו ﬠצה ותפר‬, Speak a word, and it will not stand (‫)ולא יקום‬, for God is with us (‫)ﬠמנו אל‬. (Isa 8:9–10)

In this passage, the words of the prophet clearly recall his assurance to Ahaz in Isa 7:5–8. In both passages, the enemy goes up (‫ )ﬠל״ה‬against Judah; in both, the enemy will be shattered (‫ ;)חת״ת‬in both, the plan (‫ )יﬠ״ץ‬of the enemy, characterized as evil (‫ )רﬠ״ﬠ‬will fail (‫ ותפר … ולא יקום‬// ‫ ;)לא תקום ולא תהיה‬and in both, the threat and assurance are connected to Immanuel (‫)ﬠמנו אל‬.28 Hence, the prophet’s earlier assurance to Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimite threat has become his own response to the Assyrian threat of the future. Faced with the SyroEphraimite threat, Ahaz failed to accept this assurance and its accompanying imperative “fear not” (‫[ אל תירא‬7:4]). By contrast, the prophet – now responding 27  Debate surrounds the correct parsing of this form, on which see Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 259–62, who tentatively favors the root ‫ רﬠה‬here with the meaning “assemble yourselves” rather than ‫ רﬠﬠ‬as above. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 195–96, favors ‫רﬠﬠ‬ on the basis of the parallel with 7:5. If a different solution to the root were adopted (such as Williamson’s proposal), there would then be a wordplay involving ‫ רﬠה‬in 7:5, so that the overall comparison would remain intact. 28  On this last point, it is noteworthy that in 7:1–17 Immanuel first symbolizes an assurance for Judah regarding the threat of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition (v. 16), and then it signifies the Assyrian threat against Judah itself (v. 17), whereas in 8:6–10 the order is reversed. Here, Immanuel first symbolizes the Assyrian threat against Judah (v. 8) and then represents an assurance for it (vv. 9–10). This inversion is reinforced by the fact that 8:9–10 (the assurance in the light of Assyrian invasion) echoes the assurance given Ahaz in 7:5–9, 14. As a complement to this, it is entirely possible that 8:6–8 echoes the threat faced by Ahaz in 7:1, 5, 17. Compare the following: the action of the invading army (‫ ﬠל‬+ ‫[ ﬠל״ה‬7:1; 8:7]); the reason for the invasion (‫[ יﬠן כי‬7:5; 8:6]); and the failure of Ahaz/the people (‫] לא אׁשאל‬7:12[ // ‫[ מאס‬8:6]) which leads to the divine response (‫] ולכן הנה אדני‬7:14[ // ‫לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה הﬠלמה הרה … ﬠמנו אל‬ ‫[ מﬠלה ﬠליהם את מי הנהר … ﬠמנו אל‬8:7–8]), explained as a threat identified as the king of Assyria (‫[ את מלך אׁשור‬7:17; 8:7]) who would first ruin Israel (7:16; 8:6) and then inundate Judah (7:17; 8:8). The double-play on ‫ ﬠלמה‬would involve, in one case, moving the ‫ מ‬to the front to get ‫מﬠלה‬ and, in the other, switching the places of the final ‫ ה‬and ‫ ם‬to get ‫ﬠליהם‬. Indeed, the reader is prepared to perceive the ‫מﬠלה‬-‫ ﬠלמה‬wordplay here by a similar wordplay involving this word in 7 itself (‫ﬠלמה‬-‫[ למﬠלה‬vv. 11, 14]), a wordplay which contributes to a comparative structure in vv. 10–14 of that chapter: ‫לך אות מﬠם יהוה אלהיך … למﬠלה‬ ‫לא … לא‬ ‫הלאות … תלאו‬ ‫לכם אות … הﬠלמה … ﬠמנו אל‬ On uses of paronomasia elsewhere in the Bible and, in particular, on the use of anagramic paronomasia, see Scott B. Noegel, “Paronomasia,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, online ed., ed. Geoffrey Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib. duke.edu/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000601.

310

Jacob Stromberg

to the pronouncement of the coming Assyrian threat – confesses this same assurance. He does so “because” the Lord had disciplined him saying, “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what it fears (‫ … )ואת מוראו לא תיראו‬the Lord of Hosts you shall sanctify, and he shall be your object of fear (‫( ”)מוראכם‬8:11–13). These two assurances from chs. 7–8 find a clear echo in the hopeful words of Isa 14:24–27, which recall the earlier pronouncements by way of rhetorical reversal. The LORD of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass (‫)כאׁשר יﬠצתי היא תקום‬: to break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him under foot; and his yoke shall be removed from them, and his burden from their shoulders. This is the plan that is planned (‫)זאת הﬠצה היﬠוצה‬ concerning the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who will frustrate it (‫ ?)יﬠץ ומי יפר‬His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Isa 14:24–27)

The shared locutions make the echo unmistakable.29 And the rhetorical reversal establishes a complementary contrast, a point made again by Teeter.30 In Isa 7–8, the evil plans of the nations would fail, whereas in Isa 14:24–27 God’s plan against them would succeed. Significantly, the prophet’s own expression of confidence in Isa 8:9–10 that the plans of the nations would fail – expressed with a view towards the coming Assyrian threat  – finds a complement here where God’s plan is to break Assyria, a plan planned against all the nations. In short, like the refrain concerning God’s outstretched hand, the pronouncements regarding the divine plan against Assyria and all the nations in Isa 14:24–27 are framed as a rhetorical reversal of the earlier statements about the plans of Assyria and all the nations in chs. 7–8: the plans of the nations would fail, whereas God’s plan against them would succeed. In lock step with this rhetorical move is the reversal of the refrain: God’s hand was outstretched against his people, whereas it is now against the nations. As with the reversal of the refrain, so here too is there a logic behind the inversion of the plan language in connection with the citation of the overthrow of the foreign yoke from Isa 9:3 and 10:27. And as with the refrain, so here too does this logic relate to the way in which these passages have been coordinated with Isa 5:26–30, the announcement of the foreign invasion. To understand the logic at play here requires an examination of how Isa 5:26–30 relates to its context in that chapter as well as how it has been coordinated with the two royal oracles that follow (Isa 9:1–6; 11). In what follows here, I will not attempt to unravel 29  Compare, for instance, Isa 14:25 (‫ )כאׁשר יﬠצתי היא תקום‬and 14:27 (‫ )יﬠץ ומי יפר‬with 7:5–7 (‫ )יﬠץ … לא תקום ולא תהיה‬and 8:10 (‫)ﬠצו ﬠצה ותפר … ולא יקום‬, as well as 14:26 (‫הﬠצה‬ ‫ )היﬠוצה ﬠל‬with 7:5 (‫)יﬠץ … ﬠליך‬. 30  Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision,” 195.

Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 



311

the diachrony of this set of relations, as this would expand the argument beyond what is necessary for my purposes.31 Regarding the innerworkings of Isa 5, this chapter begins with a song accusing Israel and Judah of injustice, followed by six woe (‫ )הוי‬statements elaborating the sins of the people. Following these woes is a conclusion to the whole announcing that God was angered by this, so that, despite having already sent an earthquake on his people, he would further punish them by sending an invasion (described in 5:26–30). This oracle of invasion matches material from the woes in a manner that can hardly be a mistake. It has almost certainly been coordinated with the two center woes (woes three and four), both of which in the series of six are alone aimed at the evil speech of “those who say” (‫)האמרים‬. Woe Three: Woe … to those who say, “Let his work hurry (‫ )ימהר‬and make haste, so that we may see it; let the plan of the holy one of Israel draw near and come (‫)ותבואה‬, so that we may know it.” (vv. 18–19)

First Line of the Invasion Oracle: He will raise a signal for nations far away, and whistle for him from the ends of the earth; Behold, he comes (‫)יבוא‬, swiftly (‫)מהרה‬, speedily! (v. 26)

Woe Four: Woe to those who say evil is good and good is evil, making darkness into light and light into darkness (‫חׁשך לאור ואור‬ ‫)לחׁשך‬, making bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter (v. 20).

Last Line of the Invasion Oracle: He will roar over it on that day, like the roaring of the sea; and if one looks to the land, behold, the darkness (‫ )חׁשך‬of distress, and the light grows dark (‫ )אור חׁשך‬because of its clouds. (v. 30)

Not only do these parallel items match with the two center woes (which in and of itself is conspicuous), but they match in precisely the first and the last lines of Isa 5:26–30. And in each case, they occur immediately after ‫“( הנה‬behold”), a particle drawing the reader’s attention to the statement that follows, in these cases, the material parallel with the two woes. This combination makes consummate sense, the parts all conspiring in a rhetoric directed against the accused. The evil speech of “those who say” is met by a divine response giving them what they asked for, though with what will have been regarded as a darkly ironic twist from their point of view. The “plan of (‫ )ﬠצת‬the holy one of Israel” and “his work” (‫ )מﬠׂשהו‬spoken of by the evildoers in woe three are translated into the foreign invasion introduced by the first line of the judgment oracle, an invasion whose ability to transform “light” into “darkness” in the last line of the poem echoes the evil speech of woe four. Thus, the invasion foreseen by Isa 5:26–30 – subsequently coordinated with the Assyrian invasion, as we have seen – was nothing less than a chapter in the “plan” (‫ )ﬠצה‬of 31 

Part of this, no doubt, has to do with the composite character of ch. 5, which is recognized by most.

312

Jacob Stromberg

God, i. e., “his work” (‫)מﬠׂשהו‬. This inference is demanded by the coordination of these woes with the oracle of invasion. And this inference is made explicit by Isa 10:12 where God promises to punish the arrogant Assyrian king after he completes “his work” (‫ )מﬠׂשהו‬against Mount Zion, probably a reference back to woe three (5:19). In the shape of the chapters that follow, announcements of this Assyrian invasion (7–8; 10) precede the restoration promised by each of the two royal oracles (9:1–6; 11). This fact suggests that the divine “plan” announced in ch. 5 encompassed judgment by Assyria and restoration from it. This supposition would certainly explain why Isa 14:24–27 identifies the divine “plan” as the removal of the Assyrian yoke spoken of in 9:3 and 10:27, two passages which thematize the transition from that oppression under the Assyrian king to that restoration under the Davidic rule promised in the two royal oracles. This suggestion finds support in the way that Isa 5:26–30 has been related to its context in chs. 1–12, which should come as no surprise in light of the above discussion of the repeated wrathful refrain that introduces this passage in v. 25. Within chs. 1–12, each of these two royal oracles has been coordinated with Isa 5:26–30, suggesting that the Davidic restoration envisioned in each also belonged to that divine “plan” initiated with the announcement of invasion. As Hugh Williamson has shown,32 these two royal oracles have been coordinated with the first and last lines of that judgment announced in Isa 5:26–30. Here, God summons the foreign nation(s) who will march against his people. 32  Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, 116–55. Because of Williamson’s focus on the exilic form of the book, he is interested primarily in 11:11–16 rather than the whole of ch. 11. For instance, he regards, v. 10, as an addition to the chapter made after this material reached its exilic shape. My analysis focuses on the present form of ch. 11. This chapter constitutes a single royal oracle, as evinced by the inner-relatedness of the whole. For example, the royal figure of v. 1 is identified by v. 10 as the sign in v. 12 who was to initiate return and restoration at the hands of the foreign nations. On this, see Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 183–205. Moreover, the whole of the vision in ch. 11 is given a distinctly Solomonic shape by means of the retaking of territory lost at the end of Solomon’s reign (e. g., Edom in v. 14 [// 1 K. 11:14–23]), the reunification of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (v. 13), the king’s endowment with the wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬of God to judge fairly – a wisdom that both here and in the depiction of Solomon enable the ‫נﬠר קטן‬ to lead a peaceable kingdom (11:2–9 [// 1 K. 3:7–5:26; 10]) which in both cases attracts the nations to Jerusalem (11:9–10 [// 1 K. 10]). That the contrast between 5:26 and 11:12 belongs to a larger contrast between 5:26–30 and 11 tends to be supported by other features of these passages. For example, the reference to the Davidic king’s ‫ אזור חלציו‬in 11:5 recalls the same phrase in 5:27, which occurs nowhere else in the HB. In both cases, it belongs to a description of the kingdom under which the people would be made to live, in ch. 11 for the better and in ch. 5 for the worse. In 5:27 it describes the fierce invading army, later linked to the army of the Assyrian king in ch. 10. Indeed, the reign of the Assyrian king in ch. 10 is probably contrasted with the reign of the Davidic king in ch. 11 (compare, e. g., 10:1, 24 // 11:4 [‫ נכ״ה‬+ ‫ ;]ׁשבט‬10:12 // 11:1 [‫ ;]פרי‬10:13 // 11:2 [‫ ;]חכמה‬10:14 // 11:12; 10:20 // 11:11).



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

313

First line of the Invasion Oracle (Isa 5:26–30): He will raise a signal for nations (‫ונׂשא נס‬ ‫ )לגוים‬far away, and whistle for him from the ends of the earth (‫ ;)מקצה הארץ‬Behold, he comes, swiftly, speedily! (Isa 5:26)

Second Royal Oracle: He shall raise a signal to the nations (‫ונׂשא‬ ‫ )נס לגוים‬and gather the dispersed of Israel; and the scattered of Judah he will gather from (‫ )מ‬the four corners of the earth (‫)הארץ‬. (Isa 11:12)

Last Line of the Invasion Oracle (Isa 5:26–30): He will roar over it on that day, like the roaring of the sea; and if one looks to the land (‫)ונבט לארץ‬, behold the darkness of distress (‫)והנה חׁשך צר‬, and the light grows dark because of its clouds (‫)ואור חׁשך בﬠריפיה‬. (Isa 5:30)

First Royal Oracle: One will look to the land (‫)ואל ארץ יביט‬, and behold distress and darkness (‫והנה צרה‬ ‫)וחׁשכה‬, distressing gloom (‫ … )מוﬠף‬The people walking in darkness (‫ )בחׁשך‬have seen a great light (‫ ;)אור‬those living in the land of deep darkness – a light (‫ )אור‬has shone upon them. (Isa 8:22–9:1)

Each of the two royal oracles has been coordinated with the oracle of invasion by reference to either its first or last line, remarkably, exactly the two lines which develop woes three and four as seen above. Moreover, each royal oracle develops Isa 5:26–30 in precisely the same direction. Each inverts the image of judgment in Isa 5:26–30 to indicate restoration. And in each case the point of inversion places special emphasis on the Davidic kingdom as central to the restoration. In Isa 5:26 God lifts a “signal” to summon nation(s) to judge his people, whereas in Isa 11:12 he does this again but now for the restoration of his people. According to Isa 11:10, the “signal” which God would raise for the restoration of his people would be the Davidic king whose renewed kingdom is described in vv. 1–9. The other inversion follows suit. In Isa 5:30 one sees light become darkness, whereas in Isa 8:22–9:1 one sees that darkness become light. According to what follows this in Isa 9:1–6, the light would be the renewed Davidic kingdom. In this way, Isa 1–12 coordinates each of the two royal oracles with the oracle of invasion in Isa 5:26–30, so that this oracle of invasion comes to define the nature and scope of judgment that will precede the restoration announced in Isa 9:1–6 and 11. As we have seen, this oracle (Isa 5:26–30) is introduced by the wrathful refrain (v.  25), whose last occurrence identifies Assyria as the rod of God’s anger against his people (Isa 10:4–5). Thus, this oracle of invasion finds its fulfillment in Assyrian invasion. In this light, and because this oracle of invasion is developed by each royal oracle by way of inversion, the identification of Assyria as God’s agent of judgment serves to define the nature and scope of the judgment preceding the inauguration of that restoration announced in Isa 9:1–6 and 11. Assyrian oppression would fulfill Isa 5:26–30 and therefore precede the restoration announced in Isa 9:1–6 and 11. This is why each of these royal oracles is preceded by an entire section devoted to treating the judgment of the people via Assyria in chs. 7–8 and 10 respectively. In this way, the juxtaposition of this material (chs. 7–8 with 9:1–6, and

314

Jacob Stromberg

ch. 10 with 11) acts as a perfect complement to the coordination of each of these royal oracles with the oracle of invasion (Isa 5:26–30). This oracle of invasion is developed in relation to Assyria by this very material (via the wrathful refrain in Isa 5:25–26; 10:4–5). Indeed, it is only after the fulfillment of those royal hopes in Isa 11, that the hymnist of ch. 12 is able to celebrate the abatement of that divine wrath spoken of by the refrain. In clear reference to the wrathful refrain, the hymn of Isa 12 celebrates the end of God’s previously unrelenting anger first announced in 5:25 (‫)לא ׁשב אפו‬: celebrating the fulfillment of the Davidic hope in ch. 11, the hymnist states, “and you will say on that day, ‘I will praise you, O Lord; though you were angry (‫ )אנפת‬with me, your anger has turned back (‫יׁשב‬ ‫ )אפך‬and you have comforted me’” (12:1).33 All of this suggests that the divine “plan” announced in ch. 5 encompassed judgment by Assyria and restoration from it. More specifically, a single historical sequence is suggested by the divine “plan” (5:18–19), developed by the oracle of invasion (5:26–30), introduced by the wrathful refrain (5:25), incarnated by Assyria (10:4–5), and ended by way of inversion in a restoration under a renewed Davidic kingdom initiated by the darkness turning to light and the lifting of a second signal to the nations (8:22–9:6; 11). This is a deliberate literary sequence designed to impart a lesson regarding the course of God’s action with his people, an historical scheme characterized as the divine “plan” (‫)ﬠצה‬. According to this literary strategy, the scheme was not limited to judgement, but included also restoration. This provides a tidy explanation for part of the name given the royal child in Isa 9:1–6. According to this royal oracle, the darkness is turned to light; the yoke of the oppressor is shattered (8:22–9:1, 3); and a child is born whose name celebrates the “wonderful planner (‫)יוﬠץ‬,” an appellation honoring “the mighty God” (9:5). Thus, the appellation “wonderful planner (‫ ”)יוﬠץ‬celebrates both the divine overthrow of the foreign yoke and the subsequent renewal of the Davidic kingdom, events whose relationship the poem signals by repetition of ‫“( ׁשכם‬shoulder”): the foreign yoke upon the shoulder of the people would be replaced by the government laid on the shoulder of the Davidic king.34 This 33  Compare the formulation in Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision,” 195–96. On ‫ יׁשב‬in relation to the past-time reference of the hymn (e. g., ‫)ויהי לי ליׁשוﬠה‬, see Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 706. 34  See Amos Hakham, ‫לה‬-‫ פרקים א‬:‫( ספר יׁשﬠיהו‬Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1984), 98; Cf. Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 251; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 4th ed., HKAT 3/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 89; Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 395; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 401. This repetition belongs to a larger structuring of the passage in vv. 2–6. ‫ קציר‬+ ‫רב״ה‬ ‫ ׁשכם‬+ ‫כי‬

‫כי‬ ‫ ׁשכם‬+ ‫כי‬ ‫ קץ‬+ ‫רב״ה‬



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

315

brighter future would be realized after that dark invasion first announced in Isa 5:26–30, an invasion announced in response to the evildoers request to see the “plan” (‫ )ﬠצה‬of God (5:19). In this line of development, the “plan of (‫ )ﬠצת‬the holy one of Israel” included both judgment by means of the Assyrian invasion and, after that, restoration with the renewal of the Davidic kingdom and the removal of the foreign yoke, signaled by the birth of a child whose name celebrates the “wonderful planner (‫)יוﬠץ‬.” Indeed, a later chapter in the book dealing with the Assyrian threat to Jerusalem employs many of the verbal items above in a way that suggests just such a reading of these chapters: in Isa 28, judgment and restoration are seen together as belonging to the one “plan/work” of God.35 This line of thought explains why Isa 14:24–27 identifies the aim of God’s plan (‫ )יﬠ״ץ‬in breaking Assyria as the removal of that yoke first mentioned in 9:3 (and developed in 10:27 explicitly in relation to Assyria). In chs. 1–12, the divine “plan” was not limited to judgment via Assyria’s yoke but included restoration from it. This inference is demanded by the literary development of Isa 5:18–19 in subsequent chapters all the way up to ch. 12; and this inference is made explicit in Isa 14:24–27 – precisely the same situation seen above in reference to the inversion of the wrathful refrain. Thus, where the success of the divine plan in Isa 14:24–27 stands in contrast to the failure of the plans of the nations within chs. 1–12, it remains the same here as it is there: in both Isa 1–12 and 14:24–27, the divine plan included the overthrow of the Assyrian yoke for the restoration of God’s people. More could be said on this theme. But for the time being, these remarks will have to suffice to show that Isa 14:24–27 operates with a full awareness of how God made those living in darkness glad (v. 2), a gladness for which three reasons are given each marked by ‫( כי‬vv. 3–5). The last of these three reasons plays on a contrast with the first: the yoke of the foreign ruler is removed from the shoulders (‫ )ׁשכם‬of the people, whereas the government is laid on the shoulders (‫ )ׁשכם‬of the child whose name celebrates “the Mighty God”, thereby ushering in an age of peace under Davidic rule (vv. 3, 5). 35  For example, compare the following: ‫ מﬠׂשהו‬in 28:21 // the same in 5:19; 10:12; ‫הפליא‬ ‫ ﬠצה‬in 28:29 // ‫ פלא יוﬠץ‬in 9:5. In Isa 28, the leaders are castigated for making a covenant with death in the light of the impending divine judgment, described in the language used in ch. 10 (“his work” [‫ ;]מﬠׂשהו‬28:21). After this castigation the prophet delivers encouragement, employing the diction of ch. 9: the farmer does not pulverize the cumin and dill with a threshing sledge, but beats them with a “rod” and a “staff ” (‫ ׁשבט‬,‫ →[ מטה‬9:3; 10:5, 15]) to make something good of them (28:27). This hopeful ending to their ordeal is also “from the Lord of Hosts”, who “has made the plan wonderful (‫)הפליא ﬠצה‬.” This conclusion in Isa 28:29 echoes the name of the royal child (→ ‫[ פלא יוﬠץ‬9:5]) which celebrates the overthrow of the “rod” and the “staff ” of the oppressor and the establishment of the Davidic kingdom thereafter. Though somewhat differently, Isa 25:1 also combines the two in ‫כי ﬠׂשית פלא ﬠצות‬. Since the combination ‫ יﬠ״ץ‬+ ‫פל״א‬ occurs only one other time in the HB outside these Isaianic references (Job 42:3), and in the light of the other points raised here, I find myself in disagreement with Jan Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31 WMANT 130 (Neu­ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011), 418, who, omitting any reference to ‫ פלא‬in relation to 9:5, does not regard the employment of ‫ יﬠ״ץ‬together with ‫ ׁשבט‬and ‫ מטה‬in 28:23–29 as evidence for a deliberate reference back to ch. 9.

316

Jacob Stromberg

these items are related within chs. 1–12. More specifically, as our passage alludes to the overthrow of the foreign yoke in Isa 9:3 and 10:27, it does so with a full awareness of how these passages are related to the two elements discussed here that impart structure to these earlier chapters: the plans of God and men, on the one hand, and the wrathful refrain, on the other, both of which enable the reader to perceive the relationship between the Assyrian invasion and the restoration anticipated thereafter. Working with only a very small part of the picture outlined here, Otto Kaiser was right to conclude that the author of Isa 14:25b presupposed the larger argument of these earlier chapters, though he was probably wrong to see this line as an interpolation.36 According to Kaiser, its author, felt the lack of an explicit statement that the conquest of Assyria would bring the moment of freedom for his own people, as he read in 10.27a. Since the background to 10.27a is 9.3, he seemed to have expected, at the same time as the liberation of his people from the yoke of foreign rule, the beginning of the rule of the king upon the throne of David, whose kingdom and peace will never end (cf. 9.6).37

In the light of the above evidence, it is probable that the reader was to understand Isa 14:25 – the removal of the Assyrian yoke – as a furthering of that argument developed in 9:3 and 10:27 regarding the Assyrian yoke to be removed from the shoulder of the people as preparatory for the renewal of the Davidic kingdom described in chs. 9 and 11. This line of development implies that the fulfillment of the royal oracle in Isa 9:1–6 required the overthrow of the Assyrian yoke mentioned in 10:27 and 14:25, where the overthrow is located explicitly in the land (something that is implicit in the reference to Midian in both 9:3 and 10:27). Because the Hezekiah narrative recounts precisely this – the defeat of the Assyrians in the land – it would follow from all of the above that Hezekiah himself is being presented as the first possible candidate for the fulfillment of these two royal oracles. It is his pious prayer that motivates God to send the Assyrians off. It can hardly be a coincidence, then, that the narrative evokes these two royal oracles at the precise moment God responds to Hezekiah’s prayer by assuring him of renewal after deliverance. In Isa 37:30–32, God responds to the prayer of Hezekiah by giving him a three year sign, signifying that the “house of Judah” will flourish again after God sends the Assyrian king away. This explanation of the sign echoes each of the two royal oracles. 36  This line clearly contributes to 14:24–27 in such a way that displays an awareness of the manner in which the whole passage engages with 9:3 and 10:27 in the context of chs. 1–12 (as is argued here). Moreover, while the lack of antecedents in v. 25b surely points to a dependence on 9:3; 10:27 (as noted above), that fact says nothing as far as I can tell about its originality or lack thereof in the context of vv. 24–27. 37 Otto K aiser, Isaiah 13–39, 49. He is followed by Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 102–3, and Wolfgang Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes, BZAW 173 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), 34–35.



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

A shoot shall come out (‫ )יצא‬from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall fruit forth from his roots (‫)מׁשרׁשיו יפרה‬. (Isa 11:1) His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this (‫קנאת יהוה צבאות‬ ‫)תﬠׂשה זאת‬. (Isa 9:6)

317

The surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root (‫)ׁשרׁש‬ downward, and bear fruit (‫)פרי‬ upward; for from Jerusalem a remnant shall come out (‫)תצא‬, and from Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this (‫קנאת‬ ‫)יהוה צבאות תﬠׂשה זאת‬. (Isa 37:31–32)

An evocation of these royal oracles would be entirely appropriate at this point in the narrative. Isa 37:31–32 comes as a word of assurance to Hezekiah, who prayed after the Assyrian messenger threatened to kill, or capture him, thereby endangering the Davidic kingdom (37:10–13). The wording of this threat deliberately echoes the earlier Assyrian attempt to subvert Hezekiah’s rule over the people by replacing it with that of “the Great King, the king of Assyria” (36:13–20). This double threat to the reign of the Davidic king, Hezekiah, whose kingdom had apparently been destroyed by the Assyrians save Jerusalem alone (36:1), is met by this sign in response to Hezekiah’s prayer. Contrary to what might be thought, however, this three year sign does not apply specifically to the defeat of the Assyrians. Rather, it anticipates the renewal of the Judean (and therefore Davidic) kingdom. A remnant would “come forth from Jerusalem” and it would be of “the house of Judah,” a clear reference to Hezekiah and the men of his administration who in the prior narrative are holed up in the city because of the Assyrians.38 This remnant would once again take “root downward and bear fruit upward.” Of course, none of this would be possible unless God first repelled the Assyrians from the land. Hence, the promise of the sign is followed immediately by just such an assurance: “therefore,” God would send the Assyrian king away; and he would do this “for the sake of David my servant” (vv. 33–35). This last phrase deliberately recalls God’s promise to David, a promise with a clear subtextual presence in each of the two royal oracles.39 Moreover, the significance of this 38  On the close relationship between the Davidic kingdom and Eliakim and Shebnah (two central characters in ch. 36), see Isa 22, which recounts the preparations made in Jerusalem in advance of Sennacherib’s attack. 39 The phrase “on account of David” belongs to a strategy comparing Hezekiah with Solomon, a strategy which cannot be gone into here in great detail. As is widely recognized, the structure of Kings frames the period of the divided kingdom with the story of Solomon on one end and that of Hezekiah on the other. Both stories underscore God’s commitment to David during a time in which the kingdom of his descendants faced divine discipline. The sin of Solomon triggered God to tear the kingdom away from his descendants; but he promised Solomon, first, that it would not happen in his lifetime “for the sake of David your father (‫דוד‬ ‫[ אביך‬1 Kings 11:12])” and, second, that he would leave one tribe for his son “for the sake of

318

Jacob Stromberg

sign specifically for the reign of Hezekiah is assumed by the next chapter, which has been set on analogy to this whole episode including the sign itself.40 This significance is also assumed by the contrast that this sign offers up to the one given Ahaz in ch. 7, where the fate of the “house of David” is at stake precisely in the days of Hezekiah to come.41 Not only would an evocation of these royal oracles be appropriate here, it is altogether expected. Expected, because of what was said above. In context, the fulfillment of each royal oracle is set after the Assyrian threat, a threat announced in chs. 7–8 and 10. Moreover, this context indicates that the Assyrian yoke would be removed in a battle like that lead by Gideon against Midian (9:3; 10:27), implying that the battle would take place in the land as Isa 14:24–27 makes explicit. In this connection, I would note that, where Hezekiah is contrasted with Ahaz, Ahaz seems to be contrasted with Gideon – which may indicate that Hezekiah stands in continuity with Gideon, both repelling a foreign threat from the land.42 David my servant (‫[ למﬠן דוד ﬠבדי‬1 Kings 11:13, 34]).” Likewise, when the sin of the divided kingdom triggered God to send the Assyrians against it, Hezekiah’s piety motivates “the God of your father David (‫[ דוד אביך‬Isa 38:5 = 2 Kings 20:5])” to defend Jerusalem “for the sake of David my servant (‫[ למﬠן דוד ﬠבדי‬Isa 37:35 = 2 Kings 19:34; 20:6]).” The latter phrase occurs nowhere else in the HB apart from these two passages, while the former is found only here and in the Solomon narrative. Thus, the consequences of the sin of the south confront Hezekiah in a manner analogous to those caused by the sin of Solomon: the Assyrian onslaught echoes the splitting of the kingdom. It is significant, then, that the wording of Isa 9:6 (cited at 37:32 in relation to Hezekiah’s kingdom) is close to both the original promise to David (2 Sam 7:13) and its later instantiation with the establishment of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kings 2:12, 46). Likewise, Isa 11 seems to present its king on analogy to Solomon (see note 32 above). All of this would make sense if Hezekiah is being offered to the reader as a potential, even if ultimately unsuccessful fulfillment of these two royal oracles, as argued here. 40  In Isa 38, Hezekiah is given a sign assuring him that God will save him from death, adding fifteen years to his life. See Stromberg, “Figural History,” 89 n. 17, 102 n. 39. 41  Stromberg, “Figural History,” 88–91. 42  On the contrast between Ahaz and Hezekiah, see Stromberg, “Figural History.” Both Gideon and Ahaz face a threat from the outside (Midianites, Syro-Ephraimite coalition). In connection with this, Gideon takes it upon himself to request a sign (‫ )אות‬and asks if he may test (‫ )נס״ה‬the Lord to confirm that God is with (‫ )ﬠם‬him, an assurance given to him by a messenger (angel) of the Lord who tells him “do not fear” (‫ )אל תירא‬assuring him that his presence would not mean death (Judges 6:12–13, 16, 17, 39). When faced with danger, Ahaz also receives a divine messenger (Isaiah) who tells him “do not fear” (‫[ אל תירא‬Isa 7:4]). To confirm this (and in contrast to the self-initiative of Gideon), God tells Ahaz to ask for a sign (‫[ אות‬7:11]). In further contrast with Gideon, Ahaz refuses to ask for it, saying “I will not test (‫ )אנסה‬the Lord” (7:12). In response (and in continuity with Gideon), God gives him a sign (‫ )אות‬anyway, confirming that “God is with (‫ )ﬠם‬us” (7:14). A further point of comparison involves the role of Ephraim (‫ )אפרים‬in the two episodes. Ephraim joins Gideon in battle against his enemies; and Gideon brings peace in a potential conflict with Ephraim (Judges 7:24–8:3). By contrast, Ephraim joins the enemy of Ahaz to enter into conflict with him (Isa 7:1–17). Because the episode of Abimelek is contrasted with that of his father Gideon, I would note the following additional parallel (brought to my attention by Andrew Teeter in personal conversation): in Isa 7, Ahaz “son of Jotham (‫ ”)יותם‬hears of the threat, responding (he and his people) in fear “like the waving of trees (‫ )כנוﬠ ﬠצי‬of the forest before the wind”; the enemy said, “we will king a king (‫”)נמליך מלך‬ in Jerusalem in place of Ahaz (vv. 1–6); in Judges 9, the people “kinged (‫ )וימליכו‬Abimelek king



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

319

In that case, the story of Hezekiah would recall Isa 9:3 and 10:27 all the more. Be that as it may, I  would also observe that Isa 9:3 and 10:27 thematize the transition from Assyrian oppression to restoration in so similar a manner that the Davidic restoration envisioned by the first royal oracle was likely supposed to be read in relation to that envisioned by the second royal oracle. In other words, this parallel suggests that the fulfillment of Isa 9:1–6 will have meant the same for Isa 11. This receives support from a host of further parallels between these passages in their respective contexts.43 And, as we have seen, both royal oracles are coordinated with the same oracle of invasion in Isa 5:26–30, showing that after this invasion each royal oracle would find its fulfillment. Indeed, as we have also seen, this oracle of invasion is coordinated with the Assyrian invasion in ch. 10 by means of the wrathful refrain (5:25–26; 10:4–5), a refrain speaking of divine wrath. As the hymnist of ch. 12 anticipates, the end of this wrath would coincide with the fulfillment of the royal oracle in ch. 11. In short, the context of these two royal oracles coordinates them in such a way that leads one to expect the beginning of the fulfillment of both of them at this precise moment in the narrative: (1) Assyria would be defeated in the land; (2) the fulfillment of Isa 9:1–6 would also mean the fulfillment of Isa 11; (3) the (‫ ”)למלך‬in Shechem, after he killed all his brothers save one (vv. 4–5). The sole survivor, Jotham (‫)יותם‬, then gives a parable of judgment against the Shechemites imagined as trees searching for a king that repeatedly receive the negative reply “shall I go to sway over the trees (‫לנוﬠ ﬠל‬ ‫ ”)הﬠצים‬until they reach the bramble that is Abimelek who agrees to rule over them (vv. 7–15). In the HB, this collocation (‫ נו״ﬠ‬+ ‫ )ﬠץ‬occurs in only these two passages. Moreover, the victory given to Hezekiah seems to echo that given to Gideon. In both cases, the victor goes to the camp (‫ )מחנה‬of the enemy at night; and the enemy, smitten, departs from the land (Judges 7:9–8:21; Isa 37:36–38). In both cases, a decisive defeat is accomplished by the enemy attacking itself with the sword (‫ )חרב‬and by the sending of messengers/an angel (‫מלאך‬/‫ )מלאכים‬to win the battle (Judges 7:22–25; Isa 37:36–38). The frequent use of analogies to Gideon/Abimelek in the monarchic narratives has been partly recognized by others: see, for example, Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass LTD., 1990), 87–98; Yair Zakovitch, ‫( מקראות בארץ המראות‬Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1995), 27–30. 43  In addition to the removal of the foreign yoke and staff as well as the comparison to the battle at Midian (9:3; 10:27), I would note the following additional items: the reference to ‫אל‬ ‫( גבור‬9:5; 10:21); the commissioning of Assyria to “plunder” (‫ בז‬+ ‫[ ׁשלל‬8:1–4; cf. 9:2] // ‫לׁשלל‬ ‫[ ׁשלל ולבז בז‬10:6]); the threat and then punishment of the Assyrian “glory” (‫[ כבוד‬8:7; 10:16]); the consequences of Assyrian invasion as “thorns and thistles” which are then consumed by the fire of the Lord (‫[ ׁשמיר וׁשית‬7:23–25] // ‫[ ׁשיתו וׁשמירו‬10:17]); the assurance given by Isaiah and his son “A-Remnant-Shall-Return” to Ahaz, whose rejection of the assurance leads to an Assyrian threat after which “a remnant shall return” (‫[ ׁשאר יׁשוב‬7:3; 10:21–22 developed in 11:11, 16 by ‫ ׁשאר אׁשר יׁשאר‬with ‫ מסלה‬as at 7:3]); the judgment at the hands of the Assyrians as an “overflowing” river or “overflowing” with righteousness (‫[ ׁשט״ף‬8:8; 10:22]); during the SyroEphraimite crisis, the command not to fear given to Ahaz, whose rejection of the command leads to an Assyrian threat in the face of which the inhabitants are given the same command (‫[ אל תירא‬7:4; 10:24]); the description of a king whose rule is characterized by “counsel” and “might” (‫[ פלא יוﬠץ אל גבור‬9:5] // ‫[ רוח ﬠצה וגבורה‬11:2]), which enables “justice” and “righteousness” (‫ צד״ק‬+ ‫[ ׁשפ״ט‬9:6; 11:3–4]), accompanied by peace in the land (9:5–6; 11:6–9).

320

Jacob Stromberg

divine anger, manifest in foreign invasion (5:25–30) and incarnated in the Assyrian invasion (10:4–5), would come to an end with the restoration envisioned in Isa 11, whose fulfillment will be celebrated in the hymn rejoicing over the abatement of that anger (12:1). Given that Isa 1–12 primes the reader in every way to see the fulfillment of both royal oracles in precisely the kind of circumstances that are recounted just here in the Hezekiah story, the dual allusion in Isa 37:31–32 need not be heavy-handed to effectively evoke this twice expressed hope. Even so, there are several features of Isa 37:31–32 that further enable the perception of this double reference, to say nothing of other possible references to ch. 11 in the Hezekiah narrative.44 To begin, it is noteworthy that the first line of Isa 37:31–32 explaining the sign echoes Isa 11:1, whereas its last line recalls Isa 9:6. This is noteworthy because Isa 11:1 is precisely the first line of the royal oracle in ch. 11, whereas Isa 9:6 is exactly the last line of the oracle there. Thus, Isa 37:31–32 has an allusive shape that mirrors a critical moment in each of these two royal oracles, beginning at the beginning of Isa 11 and ending at the ending of Isa 9:1–6. Why Isa 37:31–32 should adopt this particular allusive shape probably relates to the way each line referenced from these royal oracles relates to its own respective context. Many scholars have noted the citation of Isa 9:6 concluding the explanation of the sign in Isa 37:32: “The zeal of YHWH of Hosts will accomplish this” (‫)קנאת יהוה צבאות תﬠׂשה זאת‬.45 This phrase concludes the royal oracle as a 44  Here the Assyrian official’s criticism of Hezekiah’s trust in Egypt comes to mind: “Do you [1QIsaa & 2 Kings 18:20 (MTIsa “I”)] think that a mere word of the lips is counsel and strength (‫ )ׂשפתים ﬠצה וגבורה‬for war?” (Isa 36:5). Up to this point the official is right, as elsewhere in the book the leaders of Jerusalem are criticized by the prophet for trusting in Egypt for deliverance from Assyria (e. g., 30:1–7 [where the leader’s reliance on Egypt is called an ‫ ﬠצה‬that is ‫ ;]לא רוחי‬31:1–3). By contrast, the deliverance from Assyria in Isa 10 presupposed by Isa 11 leads to the reign of a king endowed with “the spirit of (‫ )רוח‬the Lord,” elaborated as “the spirit of planning and strength (‫)רוח ﬠצה וגבורה‬,” which enables him to reign justly so that he can “kill the wicked with the breath of his lips (‫( ”)ברוח ׁשפתיו‬11:2, 4). Apart from Isa 11 and here in the Hezekiah story, the phrase ‫ ﬠצה וגבורה‬occurs nowhere else in the HB. Indeed, in as far as Hezekiah’s reliance on God for deliverance when he prays at the temple stands in contrast to his prior dependence on Egypt, the Assyrian official’s unwitting reference to 11:2, 4 prepares the way for the possibility that Hezekiah – having exchanged his trust in Egypt for trust in the Lord – would fulfill this royal oracle after the Assyrian’s are sent off. This possibility is suggested by 37:31–32 which is the divine response to his prayer and refers to the transition from destruction to post-Assyrian renewal in 11:1. Since 37:31–32 also cites 9:6, I would add that the phrase ‫ ﬠצה וגבורה‬in 11:2 is often thought to be a deliberate parallel to ‫ פלא יוﬠץ אל גבור‬in 9:5. On this, along with the suggestion that 36:5 represents a later interpretation of this phrase in 11:2, see Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 649. Cf. Robb Andrew Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition, VTSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 191. For Becker, Jesaja, 260, the close connection between the words of the Assyrian official in 36:4–7 and the prophecy of 31:1–3 suggests that the latter was written in light of the former. On the latter passage, the reference to an ‫ ﬠצה‬is probably a development of the same in 29:13–16, in which passage Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 385 n. 46, sees a contrast with 11:2, to which should probably be added 9:5. 45  See, for example, Peter Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function,” in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 105–20, here 118; Konrad



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

321

divine assurance for its fulfillment after the breaking of the yoke of the foreign oppressor – identified by 10:27 and 14:25 as Assyria (// 9:3). In this light, it is an apt conclusion to the assurance given Hezekiah in Isa 37:31–32 that God would renew the Judean kingdom after the Assyrian oppressors were sent packing. Why the explanation of the sign in Isa 37:31–32 should begin with an allusion to Isa 11:1 likely relates to its place in the larger divine response to Hezekiah, the structure of which resolves into two parallel parts (37:22–29, 30–35).46 The first of these parts criticizes the Assyrian king for his hubris while assuring him that his capture of the fortified cities of Judah was part of a divine plan made long ago.47 Immediately following this, the second part begins with the sign of assurance to Hezekiah and concludes with the promise that the king of Assyria will not enter Jerusalem, being sent away. Thus, the whole passage is characterized first by Assyrian hubris and the diminution of Judah followed by a Judean remnant that will “come forth” and again “bear fruit” with the assurance that God will repel the invader from Jerusalem’s gates. This structure bears a striking resemblance to the transition from Assyrian threat in ch. 10 to Davidic restoration in ch. 11. Both the divine response to Hezekiah as well as chs. 10–11 begin with the arrogance of Assyria and the destruction caused by it, which is then followed by the assurance of Davidic renewal. In both cases, the destruction stops short of Jerusalem (10:24–27, 32; 37). In both cases, the transition to renewal finds expression in the same language. In connection with a remnant that “goes forth” (‫)יצ״א‬, the roots ‫פר״ה‬ (“fruit”) and ‫”( ׁשר״ׁש‬root”) occur within the HB only here (Isa 11:1; 37:31–32 [= 2 Kings 19:30–31]) and at 14:29, which is related to the present argument as we shall see below. And as already noted, like the assurance given Hezekiah, the promise of Isa 11:1 speaks of the renewal of the Davidic kingdom after a Schmid, “Herrschererwartungen und -aussagen im Jesajabuch: Überlegungen zu ihrer synchronen Logik und ihren diachronen Transformationen,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy. Festschrift for Henk Leene, eds. F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra, ACEBT 3 (Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker Publishing, 2002), 175–209, here 194; Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 405. 46  Compare the following: the introduction to each half (‫[ זה הדבר אׁשר דבר ﬠליו‬v.  22] // ‫זה‬ ‫[ לך האות‬v. 30]) and the conclusion to each half (‫[ והׁשיבתיך בדרך אׁשר באת בה‬v.  29] // ‫בדרך אׁשר בא‬ ‫[ בה יׁשוב‬v. 34]). Several features in each half offer a consistent contrast with their counterparts in the other: ‫( קדם‬v. 26) and perhaps ‫( קדים‬v. 27 [as in 1QIsaa, instead of MTIsa’s ‫ )]קמה‬// ‫ולא‬ ‫( יקדמנה‬v. 33); ‫( קצרי יד‬v.  27) // ‫( וקצרו‬v. 30); ‫( גגות‬v.  27) // ‫( מגן‬v. 33) and ‫( וגנותי‬v. 35). Both halves emphasize that the events in question are the result of the divine plan, a point underscored by ‫ ﬠׂש״ה‬in vv. 26, 32. Where the items in the first half emphasize the negative outcome in the past for the fortified cities (‫ )ﬠרים‬of Judah (cf. 36:1), their counterparts in the second half underscore the positive outcome for the city (‫ )ﬠיר‬of Jerusalem in the future, a semantic relationship (contrast) that looks deliberate because of its consistency throughout. For example, the plants that wither in the first half stand in contrast to the plants that are fruitful in the second half: both are images of the people, those who dwelt in the fortified cities versus those who dwelt in Jerusalem. 47  Compare Isa 36:1 (‫ )ﬠרי יהודה הבצרות‬with 37:26 (‫)ﬠרים בצרות‬.

322

Jacob Stromberg

destructive threat tied to Assyria. In both cases, this promise of renewal follows the threat of the cutting down of the trees of Lebanon (‫ )לבנון‬along with the heights (‫ )קומה‬and forest (‫)יﬠר‬, a combination found within the HB only here (Isa 10:33–34; 37:24 [= 2 Kings 19:23]) and at 1 Kings 7:2 which may well be related to this.48 In Isa 10:33–34, God cuts down those who are high and haughty,49 whereas in Isa 37:23–24 Sennacherib raises himself on high to cut down, in a reproach to God himself. In both cases, this threat precedes the promise of renewal for the Judean kingdom. In this way, the two-part divine response to Hezekiah in Isa 37:22–35 echoes the transition from Assyrian threat to Judean renewal in chs. 10–11. Thus, an allusion to Isa 11:1 at just this point in the divine response to Hezekiah – namely after the references to the Assyrian threat and the imperiled “heights” of “Lebanon” – provides a point of transition from threat to renewal within Isa 37:22–35 that reflects the precise moment of the same transition within chs. 10–11. It is fitting, then, that the explanation of the sign given Hezekiah should begin with an allusion to this moment of transition found at the beginning of the royal oracle in ch. 11.50 48  1 Kings 7:2 recounts the building of the “house of the cedar of Lebanon” for Solomon, wood that was logged for Solomon by a foreign king, Hiram the king of Tyre (1 Kings 5). It is probable that here the Hezekiah narrative is presenting Sennacherib as an anti-type of Hiram as part of a larger argument which compares Hezekiah with Solomon. Thus, as Hiram helped build Solomon’s kingdom, here Sennacherib would be threatening to tear it down. Note that in the assurance given Hezekiah Sennacherib’s plan to cut down the trees of Lebanon is presented as the words spoken by the messengers of the Assyrian monarch (Isa 37:24 [= 2 Kings 19:23]). In the narratives prior to this assurance, the messengers of Sennacherib deliver speeches aimed at ending the reign of Hezekiah (see above). Thus, a poetic reference to the palace of Hezekiah, a descendant of Solomon, would be entirely appropriate here (Isa 37:24 [= 2 Kings 19:23]). Note also that the specific use of ‫ כרמל‬along with ‫ יﬠר‬in Isa 10:18 bears a striking resemblance to the boast of the invading Assyrian king in the Hezekiah story (37:24), which Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 551, argues may be an indication that the former was written in the light of the latter. Cf. Becker, Jesaja, 208–11. 49  In Isa 10:33–34, the object of the Lord’s judgment appears to be twofold (cf. Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 629–35): (1) the advancing army in vv. 28–32 is met by the Lord in vv. 33–34 who cuts the forest down, in development of the threat against Assyria in vv. 15–19 expressed also in terms of deforestation (see Erhard Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament. Beobachtungen zu Jes 1–11. Teil II,” ZAW 109 [1996]: 12–29, here 19–21; Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 638–39); and (2) the renewal of the Davidic kingdom in 11:1 depicted in the image of regrowth suggests it too has been the object of that same judgment. Significantly, this dual punishment finds a counterpart in at least two other related places: (1) The Hezekiah narrative depicts both Assyria’s devastation of Judah (and hence the Davidic kingdom [36:1; 37:26–27]) and the defeat of Assyria itself (37:7, 36–38) as acts of divine judgment; (2) the global judgment against all that is proud and lofty in ch. 2, alluded to in 10:33–34, is applied elsewhere both to Judah (2:8, 20 // 31:7) and to Assyria (2:11 // 10:12; cf. 37:23–25). On these references, see, for example, Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 523, 639. 50  That Isa 11 is in view here tends to find an additional small support in the reference to the drying up of the waters of Egypt at Isa 37:25. In as far as Sennacherib is portrayed by Isa 37:24 as claiming to do himself that which is an act of God in Isa 10:33–34 – the felling of the trees of Lebanon – it is worth noting that here the Assyrian king also claims to dry up the rivers of



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

323

Some scholars uphold the authenticity of at least the core of these two royal oracles (Isa 9:1–6; 11). In both oracles, but under different historical circumstances, the historical prophet is thought to have directed hopes to the Hezekiah of history for their fulfillment51 – a conclusion that would be significant if correct, but is ultimately unnecessary for my purpose. Here, I only wish to show how the book presents the message of the prophet in these passages in a way that directs the reader’s attention to the Hezekiah of the narrative, where it is recounted that God repelled the Assyrians from the land prior to an anticipated renewal of the Judean kingdom (37:30–32). Whether or not such a renewal actually occurred under the reign of Hezekiah is an important issue. From the point of view of the book, Hezekiah was not the fulfillment of these two royal oracles. This is true, despite the fact that the book coordinates each of these royal oracles with the sign of renewal given to Hezekiah, thereby suggesting that his subsequent reign could have seen their fulfillment. As I have argued elsewhere, this ‘bait and switch’ belongs to a larger literary argument that patterns the positive and negative portrayals of Hezekiah in chs. 36–39 on analogy to the portrait of Ahaz in ch. 7  – and this to make the point that here Hezekiah is not the fulfillment of these two royal oracles, but rather a type of their future fulfillment.52 By means of this strategy, the book envisions the future fulfillment of these two royal oracles sometime after Babylonian captivity: the piety of Hezekiah moved God to honor the Davidic covenant and deliver Jerusalem from the Assyrians; the same piety would move him to such action again during the Babylonian crisis (cf. 55:3). This typological function assigned to the portrait of Hezekiah vis-à-vis these royal oracles complements at a synchronic level the diachronic observations of Williamson. As noted above, Williamson has made an attractive case that each of these royal oracles has been coordinated with Isa 5:26–30. Within Williamson’s larger argument, this coordination was undertaken so as to direct the reader’s attention to chs. 40–55, where precisely these passages within chs. 1–39 are made Egypt (‫)יארי מצור‬, a phrase found within the HB only here (Isa 37:25 [= 2 Kings 19:24]) and at Isa 19:6. The idea also evokes ch. 11 which envisions the restoration on analogy to this aspect of the Exodus (11:15–16). There are noteworthy parallels between the latter half of Isa 11 and Isa 19, which could suggest that both passages were to serve as background to this passage in Isa 37. Compare the following: a divine event involving the drying up of the Egyptian rivers (19:5–6 // 11:15), which is elaborated by a redemptive sequence in which God wields his hand (19:16 // 11:11, 15) and there is a highway involving Egypt and Assyria (19:23 // 11:16). 51  For recent discussions of Isa 9:1–6 in this respect, see Roberts, First Isaiah, 146–52 and Young, Hezekiah, 152–64. Cf. Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 375–87. On Isa 11, see Young, Hezekiah, 177–80, who dates 10:33–11:9 immediately after the Assyrian victory over the Northern Kingdom and links the hopes to Hezekiah, a view tentatively favored by Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 646. For Roberts, First Isaiah, 177–82, the original context of 10:27d–11:9 was the Syro-Ephraimite crisis, though (unlike in his treatment of 9:1–6) he sees the hope attached to a royal ideal rather than Hezekiah in particular. 52  Stromberg, “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure,” 19–36; idem., “Figural History.”

324

Jacob Stromberg

to serve as essential background to the hope given expression by the exilic voice there.53 In this way, the oracular strategy noted by Williamson complements the narrative strategy regarding Hezekiah. Given the significance for a post-Babylonian restoration assigned to these two strategies, it is not likely a coincidence that Isa 14:24–27 now functions as an anti-Assyrian codicil to the oracle against Babylon in chs. 13–14, which envisions just such a restoration for the people. As in the narratives, so too here is Assyria presented as a lesson for Babylon, the past deliverance from the former serving as an example for the future deliverance from the latter: just as God would break (‫ )ׁשב״ר‬Assyria to free his people, so too would he break (‫)ׁשב״ר‬ Babylon for the same reason,54 because what he planned against Assyria was planned against “all the nations” (‫[ כל הגוים‬v. 26]).55 Indeed, the wording here might evoke Isa 14:9–10. In this passage, the monarchic ghosts of “all the kings of the nations” (‫ )כל מלכי גוים‬greet the arrival of the king of Babylon after his descent into Sheol with the words: “you have become like us” (14:9–10). In this way, Isa 13–14 establishes an equivalence between Assyria and Babylon in God’s dealings with his people and the nations, precisely the same equivalence manifest in the narrative strategy comparing Ahaz and Hezekiah in chs. 7 and 36–39 respectively. It is significant, then, that the same equivalence also underlies a comparison between Isa 13–14 and the story of Hezekiah. This comparison establishes a similar equivalence between the Assyrian monarch in the narrative and the Babylonian monarch in chs. 13–14: both arrogantly clear the forests of Lebanon (14:8 // 37:24); both “ascend” on high in an affront to God (14:13–14 // 37:24); both are struck down as a consequence of this (14:12; 37:38); and both are the oppressive power from which God will deliver his people (14:1–4; 37). In short, the same typological equivalence between Assyria and Babylon exists in all three: it is manifest (1) in the oracle against Babylon with its anti-Assyrian codicil; (2) in the narrative analogy comparing Ahaz to Hezekiah wherein the Assyrian threat gives way to the Babylonian one in chs. 7 and 36–39; and (3) in the comparison between the Babylonian monarch in chs. 13–14 and the Assyrian king in chs. 36–37. As manifested in the narratives, this comparative strategy assigns a paradigmatic significance to Hezekiah’s pious response to the Assyrian threat from 53  For example, God lifts a “signal” to rally the nations in judgment on his people in Isa 5:26, whereas in 11:12 God will do this again for their restoration from exile, precisely what one finds announced in chs. 40–55 (49:22). 54  Isa 14:1–5, 25. 55  According to Brevard Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 124, “the passage serves redactionally to unite the destruction of Assyria with its later counterpart Babylon, and to join in the one plan of God the destruction of the arrogant oppressor from both the eighth and sixth centuries.” See also Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/ Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision,” 184–86, 195–96; Lee, Isaiah 13–23, 110–11.



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

325

which he was delivered, underscoring the importance of the monarch’s attitude towards God. Here in the narrative, the attitude and fate of Hezekiah are made to contrast with those of the Assyrian monarch in the sharpest possible terms. The Assyrian messengers (‫ )מלאכים‬go to Hezekiah with words threatening his life, to which he responds by going to the temple (‫ )בית‬of his God, the Lord, to pray (37:9–20). As a result, Hezekiah is saved, so that he continues to rule as the king of Judah. By contrast and in response to Hezekiah’s prayer, the angel (‫ )מלאך‬of the Lord goes out to the king of Assyria and smites his camp, to which he responds by fleeing to Nineveh (37:36–37). There Sennacherib worships in the temple (‫ )בית‬of his god, Nisroch, when he is struck down by his two sons (37:37–38). As a result, Sennacherib is killed, so that his son Esarhaddon rules in his place (37:38). This contrast is carried forward into the following episode where God delivers Hezekiah from death, so that he rejoices in the expectation of a time when he and his sons will join in worship of the Lord at the temple (‫[ בית‬38:19–20]) – a hope expressed here in terms that evoke the prior promise of deliverance from Sennacherib given in response to Hezekiah’s prayer at the temple!56 If all three of the above comparisons were meant to be complementary strategies, then we might expect the fate of Hezekiah – which contrasts with the Assyrian monarch in the narratives – to also contrast with the Babylonian monarch in chs. 13–14. This would explain the present form of the poetry in both the oracle against Babylon and in the Hezekiah narrative. The oracle against Babylon in chs. 13–14 consists of two poems. The first concerns the downfall of the city of Babylon without hope for renewal (ch. 13),57 whereas the second deals with the Babylonian king’s descent into Sheol, from which he will not return (ch. 14). As a perfect inversion of this, the pattern appears again in the Hezekiah narrative, which also includes two poems. The first concerns God’s deliverance of the city of Jerusalem from the Assyrians with hope for renewal (Isa 37:22–35), whereas the second deals with the Davidic king’s ascent from Sheol, from which God had returned him (Isa 38:10–20), a poem absent from the parallel in Kings.58 Thus, the future fate of Babylon and its king are contrasted with the past fate of Jerusalem and its king in the days of Hezekiah, a contrast that would complement the analogy established between Assyria and Babylon by these narratives 56 Compare Isa 37:35 (‫ )וגנותי ﬠל הﬠיר הזאת להוׁשיﬠה‬with this line in 38:20 (‫יהוה‬ ‫)להוׁשיﬠני ונגנותי ננגן כל ימי חיינו ﬠל בית יהוה‬. This is part of a larger analogy wherein the whole

of Isa 38 is compared to ch. 37, on which see Stromberg, “Figural History,” 89 n. 17, 102 n. 39. 57  Compare Isa 13:20–22 with Isa 11:6–9. 58  See especially 38:10, 17–18. Note also the sign assuring Hezekiah of his recovery: the sign is that the shadow will go up the steps (‫ )מﬠלות‬upon which it had “gone down” (‫)יר״ד‬, precisely the language describing Hezekiah’s immanent descent (‫ )יר״ד‬into Sheol and ascent (‫ )ﬠל״ה‬to the temple after his escape from death (38:7–8, 18, 22). The poems contain items suggesting a more detailed contrast between the fate of the king of Babylon and that of Hezekiah (14:14 // 38:15; 14:19 // 38:17–18; 14:21–22 // 38:19).

326

Jacob Stromberg

Figure 2. Isa 14:24–27 as a Part of the Strategy Pointing to Hezekiah 5:18–19 (Woe Three)

5:20 (Woe Four)

Woe … to those who say, “Let his work hurry (‫ )ימהר‬and make haste, so that we may see it; let the plan of (‫ )ﬠצת‬the holy one of Israel draw near and come (‫)ותבואה‬, so that we may know it.”

Woe to those who say evil is good and good is evil, making darkness into light and light into darkness (‫)חׁשך לאור ואור לחׁשך‬, making bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter.

↑

↑

5:25–30 (First Instance of Refrain + Oracle of Invasion) … For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still (‫בכל זאת לא ׁשב‬ ‫)אפו וﬠוד ידו נטויה‬. He will raise a signal for nations (‫ )ונׂשא נס לגוים‬far away, and whistle for him from the ends of the earth (‫ ;)מקצה הארץ‬Behold, he comes (‫)יבוא‬, swiftly (‫)מהרה‬, speedily! … He will roar over it on that day, like the roaring of the sea; and if one looks to the land (‫)ונבט לארץ‬, behold the darkness of distress (‫)והנה חׁשך צר‬, and the light grows dark because of its clouds (‫ואור‬ ‫)חׁשך בﬠריפיה‬.

↑

8:22–9:6 (Royal Oracle One)

←

One will look to the land (‫)ואל ארץ יביט‬, and behold distress and darkness (‫והנה צרה‬ ‫)וחׁשכה‬, distressing gloom (‫ … )מוﬠף‬The people walking in darkness (‫ )בחׁשך‬have seen a great light (‫ … )אור‬a light (‫ )אור‬has shone upon them … For the yoke of their burden, and the bar across their shoulders the rod of their oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian (‫כי את ﬠל סבלו ואת‬ ‫ … )מטה ׁשכמו ׁשבט הנגׂש בו החתת כיום מדין‬For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Planner (‫… )יוﬠץ‬ there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom …. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this (‫קנאת יהוה‬ ‫)צבאות תﬠׂשה זאת‬.

↑ 14:24–27 (Codicil to Babylonian Oracle) … 25 I will break Assyria (‫ )אׁשור‬in my land … his yoke shall be removed from them, and his burden from his shoulders (‫וסר מﬠליהם‬ ‫ … )ﬠלו וסבלו מﬠל ׁשכמו יסור‬this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations (‫… )וזאת היד הנטויה ﬠל כל הגוים‬. His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back (‫וידו‬ ‫?)הנטויה ומי יׁשיבנה‬

↖ ↗

↑

10:4–12:1 (Last Instance of Refrain + Assyria + Royal Oracle Two + Hymn) For all this his anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still (‫בכל זאת לא ׁשב אפו‬ ‫)וﬠוד ידו נטויה‬. Ah, Assyria (‫)אׁשור‬, the rod of my anger (‫ … )ׁשבט אפי‬The LORD of hosts will wield a whip against him, as when he struck Midian (‫ )כמכת מדין‬at the rock of Oreb; … On that day his burden will be removed from your shoulder, and his yoke will be destroyed from your neck (‫… )יסור סבלו מﬠל ׁשכמך וﬠלו מﬠל צוארך‬. A shoot shall come out (‫ )יצא‬from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall fruit forth from his roots (‫מׁשרׁשיו‬ ‫… )יפרה‬. He [God] shall raise a signal to the nations (‫ )ונׂשא נס לגוים‬and gather the dispersed of Israel; and the scattered of Judah he will gather from (‫ )מ‬the four corners of the earth (‫… )הארץ‬ “and you will say on that day, ‘I will praise you, O Lord; … your anger has turned back (‫יׁשב‬ ‫ )אפך‬and you have comforted me’” (Isa 10:4–5, 25–27; 11:1, 12; 12:1).

↑

37:31–32 (Meaning of Sign given Hezekiah) The surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root (‫ )ׁשרׁש‬downward, and bear fruit (‫ )פרי‬upward; for from Jerusalem a remnant shall come out (‫)תצא‬, and from Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this (‫)קנאת יהוה צבאות תﬠׂשה זאת‬.



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

327

and in the oracle against Babylon with its Assyrian codicil in Isa 14:24–27. This correspondence between the strategy of the Hezekiah narrative and the role assigned to Isa 14:24–27 as a codicil to the oracle against Babylon cannot be explored further here. Suffice it to say, it speaks further in favor of a careful attempt at coordinating our passage with the story about Hezekiah in the book. To conclude this admittedly lengthy discussion of our first text, I hope that it will have become clear by now that Isa 14:24–27 has been carefully coordinated with that strategy within chs. 1–12 that points towards the Hezekiah narrative for its fulfillment. Isa 14:24–27 alludes to the overthrow of the foreign yoke as expressed in 9:3 and 10:27, both of which thematize the transition from oppression under Assyria to renewal under a Davidic kingdom. This renewal is described in the two royal oracles Isa 9:1–6 and 11, which are coordinated with the Assyrian invasion and echoed in the assuring sign given Hezekiah. In this way, the fulfillment of Isa 14:24–27 has been coordinated with the events recounted in the Hezekiah narrative both as it looks forward to this story – anticipating the overthrow of the Assyrian yoke in the land – and as it looks back in engagement with the first major section of the book, chs. 1–12. This argument is partially represented in figure 2 above. In addition to this, Isa 14:24–27 is a codicil to the oracle against Babylon, whose function in that context also points towards the Hezekiah narrative. Both by themselves but also in relation to one another, Isa 14:24–27 and the Hezekiah narrative advance a comparative argument wherein the later Babylon is set on analogy to the earlier Assyria.

3.  Isaiah 14:28–32 If Isa 14:24–27 has Hezekiah in view, then it is surely significant that this passage is followed immediately by the notice of the death of Ahaz in the title to the oracle against Philistia (14:28–32). By setting the oracle sometime in the year of the death of Ahaz, the title situates this prophecy in the year that would have marked the beginning of the reign of his son, Hezekiah. The title thereby creates a strong association between the content of the prophecy and the events of Hezekiah’s kingship. This association is strengthened by several further features of the oracle. In this oracle, the fate of the “city” of Philistia at the hands of the one coming “from the north” is contrasted with that of Zion where God’s “afflicted people” will find refuge.59 The latter is precisely the scenario recounted in the Hezekiah 59  As I understand it, the oracle against Philistia is made up of two parallel panels (vv. 29–30 and vv. 31–32). Both begin with (a) a sad imperative (“do not rejoice” [v. 29] // “howl” [v. 31]) delivered to (b) the same addressee (‫[ פלׁשת כלך‬vv. 29, 31]), followed by (c) the threatening reason for the imperative marked by the sequence ‫ מן‬+ ‫ כי‬followed by an antonym of the parallel word in the other panel (vv. 29 [‫]יצא‬, 31 [‫)]בא‬. In both cases, this is then followed by (d) a

328

Jacob Stromberg

narrative – one reason why the dating of the oracle has been situated within the activity of the Assyrian empire in the Levant leading up to Sennacherib’s advance on Jerusalem in 701. In support of an association with this general period, “the rod that smote you” which is now “broken” but soon to be replaced is usually connected with the death of Tiglath-pileser, whose demise is thought to have corresponded with the year of the death of Ahaz,60 and whose son, Sargon,61 besieges the Philistine city Ashdod in ch. 20 – an event that took place during the reign of Hezekiah before the 701 advance on Jerusalem. That the positive statement regarding the future of the poor (‫ דלים ואביונים‬in v. 30 and ‫ ﬠניי ﬠמו‬in v. 32) alongside (e) a statement about the fate of the remnant, made explicit in v. 30 and implied in v. 32. The parallel between these similarly structured panels is reinforced by several possible wordplays. Compare vv. 29b with v. 31b: ‫ כי מצפון ﬠׁשן‬// ‫כי מׁשרׁש נחׁש יצא צפﬠ ופריו ׂשרף מﬠופף‬ ‫בא ואין בודד במוﬠדיו‬. Though less prominent, compare also the odd ‫ והמתי‬in v. 30 with ‫ ומה‬in v. 32. Moreover, the parallel between these panels is reinforced by a similar contrast within each panel. In vv. 29–30, the ‫ ׁשרׁש‬of the Philistine oppressor will be renewed, whereas the ‫ ׁשרׁש‬of the Philistines themselves will be killed; and “the firstborn of the needy will pasture (‫)ורﬠו בכורי‬,” whereas God will kill the remnant of the Philistines “with famine” (‫)ברﬠב‬. In vv. 31–32, the Philistine city is told to howl because (‫ )כי‬of the threat coming from the north, whereas the response to “the messengers of a nation” is that (‫ )כי‬God has founded the city Zion so that the poor of his people will find refuge in it. This structure – especially the parallel between v. 29b and v. 31b that suggests the cloud going forth from the north is directly related to the earlier adder coming forth from the serpent – undermines the claim of Roberts, First Isaiah, 227, that “there is no need to identify the future threat of an enemy army ‘from the north’ with the ‘rod that smote Philistia’ in the past.” Roberts, who acknowledges that the army from the north cannot refer to a Judean campaign but rather recalls the description of the invading army in 5:26b–28, later connected with Assyria, nevertheless understands the renewal of the rod that smote Assyria in relation to the accession of Hezekiah to the throne after the death of Ahaz, the latter being mentioned in the title (14:28). Cf. Becker, Jesaja, 271. 60  See, for example, Shawn Zelig Aster, Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology, ANEM 19 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 140–53; Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 112–13; John H. Hays, and Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and his Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), 236–38; de Jong, Isaiah, 145; Schmid, Jes 1–23, 136; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27: A  Continental Commentary, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 93. While the deaths of Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser align with one another to the year in some systems of chronology, there is debate about the precise year each king died. However, since the title in 14:28 may well be the work of a much later editor, the debate over whether these death years precisely align or not may be moot as far as the association that the author of the title wished to create. For him, the dates may have aligned or may have been close enough for the association to be made effectively for his point. In any case, I argue here that the fulfillment of this oracle is narrated in Isa 20 (as regards Assyrian judgment on Philistia) and 36–37 (as regards safety from Assyria in Jerusalem), so that Sargon who attacks Ashdod in the former narrative emerges as the fulfillment of the worse threat to Philistia predicted by 14:28–32. This leaves his father, Tiglath-pileser, or (perhaps less likely) his brother, Shalmaneser, as the rod that was broken. 61  Sargon II seized control of the Assyrian throne in a violent coup against Shalmaneser V, another son of Tiglath-pileser III, on which see Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC. Volume II (London: Routledge, 1995), 497. According to A. Kirk Grayson, “Sargon,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 5, O-Sh, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 984–85, here 984, “It is reasonably certain that Sargon was a usurper and not in the direct Assyrian royal line.”



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

329

threat comes from Assyria is beyond doubt for most, as the threat is said to come from the north (cf. 10:27). Moreover, the statement “the rod that smote you is broken” (‫ )נׁשבר ׁשבט מכך‬is surely Isaianic idiom for Assyria (10:24 [‫;]בׁשבט יככה‬ cf. 9:3; 10:5). Indeed, this must be a deliberate contrast with the immediately preceding anti-Assyrian codicil. In Isa 14:24–27, God plans to break (‫)ׁשב״ר‬ the Assyrians “in my land” thereby removing their yoke from upon his people. Here in Isa 14:28–32, by contrast, the breaking (‫ )ׁשב״ר‬of the rod will not lead to freedom for the Philistines, but rather to an even worse threat from the same root. This obvious contrast by juxtaposition of the two oracles also points to an association with the period of the reign of Hezekiah, whose narrative suggests the fulfillment of the promise to break the Assyrian yoke “in my land” mentioned in Isa 14:24–27. If this is right, then it is surely significant that Becker has detected in the oracle against Philistia references back to both Isa 9:1–6 and 11.62 In seeing this, Becker is not working within the argument developed here, nor is he entirely alone.63 His proposal is significant because each of these royal oracles has been coordinated with both the passage preceding the oracle against Philistia, namely Isa 14:24–27 and the subsequent Hezekiah narrative, as argued above. You have multiplied the rejoicing, you have increased joy (‫ ;)הׂשמחה‬they rejoice (‫ )ׂשמחו‬before you as with joy (‫ )כׂשמחת‬at the harvest, as people exult when dividing plunder. For (‫ )כי‬the yoke of their burden, and the bar across their shoulders, the rod (‫ )ׁשבט‬of their oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. (Isa 9:2–3); cf. ‫( בׁשבט יככה‬10:24–27); ‫לׁשבר אׁשור‬ (14:25). A shoot shall come out (‫ )יצא‬from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall fruit forth from his roots (‫מׁשרׁשיו‬ ‫ … )יפרה‬The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down (‫ )ירבץ‬with the kid, … The cow and the bear shall graze (‫)תרﬠינה‬, their young shall lie down (‫ )ירבצו‬together … The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s (‫ )צפﬠוני‬den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. On that day the root (‫ )ׁשרׁש‬of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples … (Isa 11:1–10)

Do not rejoice (‫)אל תׂשמחו‬, all you Philistines, that the rod that struck you is broken (‫כי‬ ‫)נׁשבר ׁשבט מכך‬, for from the root (‫ )מׁשרׁש‬of the snake will come forth an adder (‫)יצא צפﬠ‬, and its fruit (‫ )פריו‬will be a flying seraph. The firstborn of the poor will graze (‫)ורﬠו‬, and the needy lie down (‫ )ירבצו‬in safety; but I will make your root (‫ )ׁשרׁשך‬die of famine, and your remnant I will kill. (Isa 14:29–30)

62  According to Becker, Jesaja, 272–74, Isa 14:28–32 had a long history of development. He does not note all of the parallels given here; nor does he assign all of the parallels that he notes to the same compositional layer. 63  For example, see Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 115; K aiser, Isaiah 13–39, 54; Christopher Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993), 136.

330

Jacob Stromberg

Here several features speak in favor of these references being deliberate. In both Isa 9:2–3 and 14:29–30, the abolition of an oppressive rod (‫ )ׁשבט‬is depicted as the reason (‫ )כי‬for rejoicing (‫)ׂשמ״ח‬, which in the latter passage is forbidden by the circumstances to come. As far as I can tell, this combination occurs only these two times in the HB. This connection tends to be strengthened by the fact that just here in the oracle against Philistia the author uses the idiom employed in those two passages that subsequently develop Isa 9:2–3, as discussed above (‫[ בׁשבט יככה‬10:24] // ‫[ ׁשבט מכך‬14:29]; ‫[ ׁשב״ר‬14:25; 14:29]). Thus, the reference in the oracle against Philistia exploits the cumulative effect generated by the repetition of the promise in these three closely related texts, thereby enabling a stronger perception of the reference here (Isa 9:2–3; 10:24–27; 14:25). As for the connection to Isa 11, I repeat my observation from above. In connection with a remnant that “goes forth” (‫)יצ״א‬, the roots ‫“( פר״ה‬fruit”) and ‫”( ׁשר״ׁש‬root”) occur within the HB only at Isa 11:1, 14:29, and 37:31–32 (= 2 Kings 19:30–31). Moreover, Isa 11 and 14:28–32 are the only two passages in the HB mentioning an “adder” (‫צפﬠני‬/‫ )צפﬠ‬in connection with pasturing (‫ )רﬠ״ה‬and laying down (‫)רב״ץ‬. Perhaps more important than the rarity of these lexical combinations is their distribution, which also supports a deliberate attempt to coordinate the oracle against Philistia with these two royal oracles in a particular way. In the case of Isa 11, the Philistine oracle combines a reference to the introduction of the Davidic king (11:1) with an allusion to the effects of his kingdom, namely peace among the animals, possibly a metaphor for the end of international conflict (11:6–9).64 The Philistine oracle employs this combination of references to form a contrast with the earlier passage. In Isa 11, the shoot “comes forth” from the stump of Jesse and bears “fruit” from his “roots,” so that there is peace from the “adder” on God’s holy mountain. By contrast, Isa 14:29–30 speaks of an “adder” that will “come forth” from the “root” of the snake, whose “fruit” would be a flying seraph. In the former, the renewal of the Judean monarchy would bring peace for all Israel, whereas in the latter the renewal of the presumably Assyrian monarchy would mean worse turmoil for Philistia. However, both passages envision security for the inhabitants of Zion, including especially the poor (‫)דל‬ and afflicted (‫ )ﬠני‬whose peace is portrayed in terms of “lying down” and “pasturing.”65 64  A metaphorical understanding of the animals in Isa 11:6–9 may be implied in the reference to this passage in 14:29–30. By way of the other issue, I would note that v. 9 understands the peace among the animals as a consequence of God’s spiritual gifting to the king in v. 2. The shoot from Jesse will be endowed with the “spirit of … the knowledge of the Lord (‫דﬠת … יהוה‬ [v. 2]); and there will be peace among predator and prey, a situation which is summarized in v. 9 in a way that recalls v. 2 (“they shall neither hurt, nor destroy on all my holy mountain; because the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord [‫)”]דﬠה את יהוה‬. 65  Isa 11:4; 14:30, 32. On the reading of 11:4 as ‫ ﬠני‬rather than ‫ ﬠנו‬as in MT, see Williamson, Isaiah 6–12, 621–22. The reading ‫ ﬠני‬in 11:4 tends to be favored by 10:1 where a similar



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

331

Given this reference to Isa 11, the allusion to Isa 9:2–3 has been perfectly placed in the Philistine oracle. Not only has the reader been primed to read Isa 9:1–6 together with 11 by chs. 1–12, as discussed above, but the logic of that relationship is drawn on here. Isa 9:2–3 speaks of the removal of the foreign yoke prior to Davidic renewal; and it is drawn on by 10:24–27, which likewise thematizes the transition from Assyrian oppression in ch. 10 to Davidic renewal in ch. 11. Thus, it appears highly strategic that the oracle against Philistia portrays its own moment of transition in terms of a reference to Isa 9:2–3 (refracted though its subsequent iterations in 10:24–27 and 14:25) and that it represents its own moment of renewal in terms of a reference to Isa 11. In this way, the sequence of these allusions in the oracle against Philistia maps perfectly onto the sequence of their source texts, as well as the logic of that sequence. The effect of both allusions is the same – contrast. Where the breaking of the Assyrian rod would mean better times under a renewed Davidic kingdom in Isa 9:1–6 and 10–11, it leads to worse trouble for Philistia here. Thus, the future envisioned by Isa 14:28–32 for Philistia has been made to contrast sharply with that future foreseen for Israel and Judah by the two royal oracles of chs. 1–12. This contrast complements the juxtaposition of the oracle against Philistia with the passage preceding it. In Isa 14:24–27, the breaking of the Assyrian yoke presupposes the fulfillment of just these two passages (Isa 9:1–6; 11), as argued above.66 As also argued above, these two royal oracles have been coordinated with the Hezekiah narrative as well. In Isa 37:31–32, the explanation of the three year sign given Hezekiah promises a renewal of the house of Judah after the Assyrians are sent away; and it does so in a way that evokes both royal oracles, whose context indicates their fulfillment under precisely those conditions. In this way, post-Assyrian Hezekiah is set up as a possible fulfillment of these oracles in Isa 9:1–6 and 11. It is important, then, that both of these passages should serve as background to understanding the oracle against Philistia in Isa 14:28–32, since this oracle has been placed in the period of Hezekiah’s kingship. All of this tends further to suggest a strong association with the period of Hezekiah, especially the contrast between the fate of a Philistine city and that of Jerusalem at the hands of the Assyrians. Following the clues given the reader so far, I would conclude that the reader is being set up to understand the fulfillment of the oracle against Philistia in light of the narrative material that follows: the “afflicted of his people” who find combination occurs (‫ ﬠניי ﬠמי‬+ ‫)דלים‬, since ch. 11 forms a deliberate contrast with ch. 10 (see note 32). In this respect, note the closeness of 14:32 (‫ )ﬠניי ﬠמו‬with 10:1 (‫)ﬠניי ﬠמי‬. Whether or not the portrait of the animals in 11:6–9 is metaphorical, it is assigned a peaceful significance for the people by v. 9, people who would enjoy the just reign of the king, including the poor and afflicted in v. 4. See footnote 64. 66  According to Becker, Jesaja, 273, “Es ist möglich, daß 14,29.31 in einem Zuge mit der Erweiterung in 14,25b angefügt wurde, die in ähnlicher Weise auf 9,3 zurückgreift.”

332

Jacob Stromberg

refuge in Zion finds fulfillment in the narrative concerning Sennacherib’s attack on Judah where Hezekiah and the people find refuge in Jerusalem; and the “city” of Philistia facing the same foe finds fulfillment in the account of Sargon’s siege of Ashdod.67

4.  Isaiah  20 // 36–39 All of this suggests that we can anticipate a contrast between the narrative of the Assyrian siege of Ashdod in Isa 20 and the account of the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem in Isa 36–39. So, it is to that comparison which I  now turn and conclude. The analogical relationship between the two narratives is clear (see figure 3 below). Both narratives begin with the Assyrians besieging and capturing a foreign city: Ashdod in ch. 20; and the fortified cities of Judah in ch. 37. In both cases, “the king of Assyria” sends (‫ )ׁשל״ח‬one of his officials to the city. In both cases, the response to what happens involves sackcloth (‫)ׂשק‬. In both cases, the citizens are criticized for trusting in “Egypt”. In both cases, this trust leads to the citizens of the captured city being “dismayed and ashamed” (‫)חתו ובׁשו‬, a phrase that occurs nowhere else in the HB.68 And in both cases, those who are witness to these events are given a sign (‫ )אות‬whose duration would be exactly “three years”. In ch. 20, the Philistines are given the sign of the prophet going about naked for “three years” to symbolize the eventual captivity of the very nation (Egypt) in which they had put their trust; an event that would leave them without a savior from the Assyrians. The sign was of a hopeless future. In ch. 37, by contrast, Hezekiah, whose trust in Egypt was ridiculed by the Assyrians, is given the sign of a three year agricultural project assuring him of a fruitful future. A “remnant” (‫ )ׁשארית‬of “the house of Judah” will come forth (‫ )יצ״א‬from Jerusalem to “take root (‫ )ׁשרׁש‬downward and bear fruit (‫ )פרי‬upward” (37:30–32). As noted partially by others, this explanation of the three year sign given Hezekiah probably offers not just a contrast with the three-year sign given to the Philistines but also an echo of that earlier oracle against the Philistines in 14:28–32,69 whose fulfillment in ch. 20 recounts the three year sign of the prophet’s nakedness. For, like the sign given Hezekiah (37:31), so too does the oracle against Philistia speak about the renewal of a “root” (‫ )ׁשרׁש‬that shall bear “fruit” (‫)פרי‬. But – in contrast to the sign given Hezekiah – it is not the root of Philistia which shall be renewed – for God shall kill that “root” (‫ )ׁשרׁש‬and “remnant” (‫)ׁשארית‬. Rather, 67  To enable this comparison, the syntax of 20:1 (‫ )בׁשנת בא תרתן‬may be patterned on that of 14:28 (‫)בׁשנת מות המלך‬. Cf. Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 92. 68  Compare 36:1 with 37:26. 69 For example, K aiser, Isaiah 13–27, 54, thinks the use of “root” in Isa 14:28–32 is dependent on this part of ch. 37 as well as on Isa 11:1, 10.

Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 



333

Figure 3. Ashdod (Isa 20) and Jerusalem (Isa 36–37) at the Hands of the Assyrians. Isaiah 20

←

Isaiah 36–37

In the “year” that the king of Assyria (‫מלך‬ ‫ )אׁשור‬besieges and captures Ashdod, he sends (‫ )ׁשל״ח‬one of his officials. At that time, Isaiah is told to remove sackcloth (‫)ׂשק‬ and go about for three years as a sign (‫)אות‬

In the “year” that the king of Assyria (‫)מלך אׁשור‬ captures the fortified cities of Judah, he sends (‫ )ׁשל״ח‬one of his officials to Jerusalem, who tells its leaders that they were foolish for trusting (‫ )בט״ח‬in Egypt for help. So Hezekiah and his against the Egyptians who would be taken men cover themselves with sackcloth (‫ )ׂשק‬and captive by the Assyrians. Consequently, the seek God’s help. In response, God sends Isaiah Philistines who looked at (‫ )נב״ט‬Egypt as with a twofold message to king Hezekiah: The their hope for help would be dismayed and first half is a rebuke of Sennacherib, explaining that it was part of the divine plan that he should ashamed (‫)וחתו ובׁשו‬. capture the fortified cities of Judah so that their ↑ inhabitants were dismayed and ashamed (‫חתו‬ Isaiah 14:29–30 ← ‫)ובׁשו‬. Sennacherib had errored in ascribing these victories to his own prowess. The other Do not rejoice, all you Philistines, that the half of the message is an assurance to Hezekiah rod that struck you is broken, for from the that includes an agricultural sign (‫ )אות‬lasting root of the snake will come forth (‫כי מׁשרׁש‬ three years. It symbolized the eventual flour‫ )נחׁש יצא‬an adder, and its fruit (‫ )פריו‬will ishing of a Judean remnant from Jerusalem after be a flying seraph. The firstborn of the poor the Assyrian king had been sent away (36:1–9; will graze, and the needy lie down in safety; 37:1–2, 22–35); and its explanation runs as but I will make your root (‫ )ׁשרׁשך‬die of follows: famine, and your remnant (‫ )ׁשאריתך‬I will “The surviving remnant of the house of Judah kill. (Isa 14:29–30) shall again take root (‫ )ׁשרׁש‬downward, and make fruit (‫ )פרי‬upward; for from Jerusalem a remnant shall go out (‫)כי מירוׁשלם תצא ׁשארית‬, and from Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” (Isa 37:31–32)

it is the root of Philistia’s enemy from the north that will be renewed, “from the root (‫ )מׁשרׁש‬of the snake will come forth (‫ )יצא‬an adder” (vv. 29–30). Thus, the sign given Hezekiah contrasts the fate of Jerusalem and its remnant with the fate of the Philistine remnant and its city, while also likening the regenerative power of the remnant of the house of Judah to that of Philistia’s oppressor – both passages, at the same time, drawing on the royal oracles at Isa 9:1–6 and 11 to make their point.70 If this is correct, then the explanation of the sign for Hezekiah does double duty as regards its allusive texture; and it does so in a remarkably concise way. First, it suggests that post-Assyrian Hezekiah could have realized the fulfillment of the royal oracles in Isa 9:1–6 and 11, as argued above. Second, the explanation given Hezekiah implies a contrast with that future envisioned for Philistia by the 70 For a fuller representation of this, compare Isa 37:31–32a (‫ויספה פליטת בית יהודה‬ ‫ )הנׁשארה ׁשרׁש למטה וﬠׂשה פרי למﬠלה כי מירוׁשלם תצא ׁשארית ופליטה מהר ציון‬with Isa 14:29–30, 32 (‫אל תׂשמחי פלׁשת כלך … כי מׁשרׁש נחׁש יצא צפﬠ ופריו ׂשרף מﬠופף … והמתי ברﬠב ׁשרׁשך וׁשאריתך‬ ‫)יהרג … יהוה יסד ציון‬.

334

Jacob Stromberg

oracle against it in Isa 14:28–32, an oracle which itself draws on these two royal oracles to establish a contrast. In this understanding, the explanation of the sign in Isa 37:31–32 engages with this earlier material in a remarkably coherent way, taking into account the context and inter-relatedness of these earlier passages. Indeed, since the sign given Hezekiah comes as God’s response to his prayer at the temple, where the king went earlier in response to the threatening words of the Assyrian messengers (‫[ מלאכים‬37:9]), this whole line of development offers a tidy explanation for an otherwise obscure line in the oracle against Philistia. In Isa 14:32a, the question is posed, “how will one respond to the messengers (‫ )מלאכי‬of a nation.” Following immediately after the announcement of a threat from the north (almost universally connected with Assyria), this question receives the response, “the Lord has founded Zion and in it his afflicted will find refuge” (v. 32b). This answer is meant to contrast sharply with what immediately precedes it, the announcement of the impending fate of the city of Philistia at the hands of this enemy from the north (v. 31).71 The future of this unnamed Philistine city was grim, whereas that of Jerusalem was secure. This assurance of security in Jerusalem was to be the response given to the question “how will one respond to the messengers of a nation?” In other words, this obscure line in Isa 14:32b fits into a larger pattern wherein the oracle against Philistia announces something for the future that maps rather well onto that past narrated in the account of Sargon’s siege of Ashdod in ch. 20 and Sennacherib’s advance on Jerusalem in chs. 36–37. In that passage, Hezekiah, who has taken refuge in the city, responds to the Assyrian messengers by praying to the Lord, the one who founded it.72 This analogical structure comparing Isa 20 with 36–37 urges the reader to contemplate what seems to be the critical difference between the two accounts: why did the future of the Philistines look so different from that of Judah despite 71 

See my analysis of the structure of the oracle against Philistia above at note 59. I  am inclined to agree with Schmid, Jes 1–23, 136, who connects 14:32b with the Assyrian delegation in the Hezekiah narrative, rather than with those who connect it to a Philistine delegation sent to Judah in an effort to form an anti-Assyrian alliance, as argued, for example, by Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 238. According to Sweeney, the oracle was composed as a counsel to Hezekiah against joining such an alliance, since “To oppose Assyria would be to oppose the one power that had secured the Judean dynasty’s – and thus Hezekiah’s – position on the throne. To Isaiah, such a revolt would spell disaster not only for the Philistines, but for Hezekiah and Judah as well.” However, some sort of disaster seems already to be presupposed by v. 32 (cf. v. 30a) where it is “the afflicted of his people” who find refuge in Zion – a situation that finds a ready analogue in the Hezekiah narrative where prior to deliverance a Judean remnant holed up in Jerusalem is/would be reduced by siege conditions to eating its own feces and drinking its own urine (36:12). Surely this state of affairs – to which Sennacherib offers the alternative of each inhabitant having his own fig tree from which to eat and well from which to drink if they would only come out of the city and join him (36:16) – would have been considered afflicted and needy, though the reduced state of Judah faced by this remnant (36:1) may have been enough to warrant such a description. 72  Thus,



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

335

both facing the same enemy? The answer to this question is both clothed and not clothed in sackcloth. In ch. 20, the prophet removes the sackcloth (‫ )ׂשק‬to expose his nakedness as a sign that the Egyptians will be taken away naked by the Assyrians. But it is not the Egyptians who will be “dismayed and ashamed” (‫ )וחתו ובׁשו‬at this. Rather, it is those who “looked upon them” for deliverance.73 In chs. 36–37, by contrast, both Hezekiah and his men put on sackcloth (‫)ׂשק‬. They do so, not in response to the capture of the fortified cities of Judah (whose inhabitants were “dismayed and ashamed” [‫)]וחתו ובׁשו‬, not in response to Sennacherib’s ridicule that they had trusted in Egypt (like the Philistines in ch. 20) – but in response to his blasphemous words that compared the “living God” to the impotent gods of all the other kingdoms who were unable to save their peoples from the Assyrian hand (36:18–37:4). It is precisely this charge against Sennacherib that Hezekiah presents to God in the temple, praying “save us from his hand so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are God” (37:17–20). This prayer prompts the divine assurance of the three year sign whose allusive texture not only evokes the hopes for Davidic renewal after Assyrian domination in Isa 9:1–6 and 11; but it also contrasts with Philistia’s fate, a fate predicted in the oracle against it with imagery borrowed from these royal oracles, a fate fulfilled in the narrative of Isa 20 where the prophet delivers a three year sign symbolizing a hopeless future in connection with the capture of the Philistine city Ashdod.

5. Conclusion By way of conclusion, it seems probable that an attempt has been made to structure chs. 13–27 on analogy to chs. 1–12 – at least as far as the texts above are concerned. In this way, the oracles against the nations present the reader with an argument designed to complement and advance the argument of chs. 1–12. In this light, it seems significant that in each section the argument has been carefully coordinated with the story of Hezekiah by means of a central narrative: the account of Ahaz in ch. 7 and the account of Ashdod in ch. 20. Each episode ends up offering a contrast with Hezekiah’s piety and the consequent deliverance of Jerusalem. What is the larger significance of this relationship between the oracles against the nations and the Hezekiah narrative? There are other texts in the oracles against the nations that have been coordinated with this narrative in the book,74 73 Here I have loosely translated the noun ‫( מבט‬from ‫“ נב״ט‬to look” in H.) to capture their shame in looking upon the nakedness of the Egyptians, symbolically represented by the nakedness of the prophet and representing the shame they will feel for having trusted in an unreliable ally taken captive. 74 See Stromberg, “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure,” 27–30.

336

Jacob Stromberg

though they have not been included here. This study has been selective, which allows for only a few suggestions regarding the broader significance of this relationship. Most obviously, this relationship coordinates the international scope of the oracles against the nations with the national focus of the Hezekiah narrative. The fate of Philistia has been contrasted with that of Judah and Jerusalem at the hands of the same enemy. Since both initially trusted in Egypt for help, this contrast underscores the real source of Judah’s help, the Lord. More specifically, it was the Lord who was willing to honor his commitment to David in response to Hezekiah’s piety. This commitment separates the fate of Jerusalem from that of Philistia. To generalize this particular contrast, one might say that, speaking domestically and internationally, there is no salvation from the Assyrian deluge apart from this divine commitment. This is certainly the point of the Hezekiah narrative itself. Appealing to their global exploits, the king of Assyria asks, “Did any of the gods of the nations save his land from the hand (‫ )מיד‬of the king of Assyria … that the Lord should save Jerusalem from my hand (‫( ”?)מידי‬Isa 37:18–20). And again, “Behold, you have heard what the kings of Assyria did to all the lands (‫ … )כל הארצות‬did any of the gods of the nations save them?” (37:11–12). In a global response to these global claims, Hezekiah prays at the temple, confessing, “You alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth … Surely, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed all the lands (‫ … )כל הארצות‬placing their gods into the fire, because they are not gods, but the work of human hands (‫( ”… )ידי אדם‬37:19). Hezekiah then requests, “save us from his hand (‫ )מידו‬so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are God” (37:17–20). The work of the “hands of man” could not save. Only the Lord could save from the “hand” of the king of Assyria, something he was willing to do “for the sake of David my servant” (Isa 37:35). After the global exploits of the Assyrians who were now confronting Hezekiah and Jerusalem with the same fate endured by all the other nations, the stage was set for a mighty act of God with evangelistic intent. The news of the deliverance of Jerusalem and its king would spread to all the nations. Having suffered defeat at the hands of the Assyrians, these nations, let down by their own gods, would come to know of the one true living God, who delivered Jerusalem and who alone rules over “all the kingdoms of the earth.”75 Through this deliverance, the Davidic king and Jerusalem were to become a conduit for the knowledge of God to the nations. This much was anticipated in the second royal oracle (11:9–10),76 the fulfillment of which initially set its sights on Hezekiah who in the end failed in exactly this regard.77 Given the global scope of this message, I would venture to guess that it 75 

See also Stromberg, “Figural History.” the relationship between the endowment of the king in 11:2 and the effects of his reign in 11:9–10, see note 65 above. 77  On the failure of Hezekiah in the visit of the Babylonian envoy (Isa 39), see Stromberg, “Figural History,” 97–100; cf. idem., “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure,” 24–26. 76  On



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

337

underlies the coordination of this story with the oracles against the nations more broadly. It certainly complements the contrast with the oracle against Philistia in a way that suggests the two were designed to operate in tandem. Beyond this, however, I would also note the repeatability of the divine plan manifest in this narrative. What happens with Assyria here is applicable later to Babylon. This is true also for the oracle against Babylon – now at the head of the oracles against the nations – with its anti-Assyrian codicil. The repeatability of the divine plan manifest in this narrative may ultimately account for that extension of the oracles against the nations which one finds in chs. 24–27. Here, the prophet promises to exult the name of the Lord, “for you have made (‫)ﬠׂשית‬ wonderful plans (‫)פלא ﬠצות‬, faithful things from long ago (‫( ”)מרחוק‬25:1). This included the destruction of the “fortified (‫ )בצורה‬city,” for which reason, “a strong people will honor you; … fierce nations will fear you” (vv. 2–3). After this, there would be a great renewal “on mount Zion and in Jerusalem” where God “will make (‫ ”)וﬠׂשה‬a splendid feast for all the nations with “fine wine”; and he will swallow up that “covering spread over all the nations; he will swallow up death forever” (vv. 6–8, cf. 24:23). Because many scholars recognize in the ‫ פלא ﬠצות‬of Isa 25:1 an echo of the name of the royal child from Isa 9:6 (‫)פלא יוﬠץ‬,78 it may be significant that this whole scenario seems to echo the account of Hezekiah, who was to be a fulfillment of that child. After God scolds the king of Assyria – ”I prepared it long ago (‫ … )למרחוק אותה ﬠׂשיתי‬to cause fortified (‫ )בצרות‬cities to fall into ruined heaps” –, he assures Hezekiah of renewal: the remnant will be like “vineyards” bearing fruit after it comes forth “from Jerusalem” and “from Mount Zion,” “for the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do (‫ )תﬠׂשה‬this” (37:30–32; cf. 9:6). This whole passage bears a striking resemblance to the eschatological vision of Isa 24–27 just noted. Indeed, there is evidence elsewhere in the book that the events of Hezekiah’s day were assigned a typological significance for the future, specifically in relation to the eschatological vision of chs. 65–66, the conclusion of the book.79 This is precisely how Isaiah’s portrayal of Assyria in Hezekiah’s day was received in relation to Isa 24–27 and 65–66 in the later vision of Daniel 11.80 Here, Daniel assumes that the Isaianic portrait of Hezekiah’s days 78 See my discussion above of the interrelation of those passages related to this (5:19; 7:5–8; 8:9–10; 9:6; 11:2; 14:24–27; 28:29). Positing that Isa 25:1b draws on these passages more generally, J. Todd Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions, FAT II 16, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 100, concludes that, “the reference to ‫ פלא ﬠצות‬in 25:1 is part of an intertextual web in Isaiah that portrays YHWH’s ‫ ﬠצות‬as an integral part of the Deity’s acts of salvation on behalf of the community in the international sphere. While the immediate context in 25:1–5 suggests that YHWH’s destruction of an enemy foreign city is the most recent of these plans or deeds, the larger context relates this language to a cosmic and eschatological future which is patterned on YHWH’s past deeds for his people” (italics mine). Cf. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 345; Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 207; Werner, Vorstellung, 140. 79  Stromberg, “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure,” 34. 80 Jacob Stromberg, “A Covenantal Community and a New Creation after the Flood:

338

Jacob Stromberg

pointed towards that eschatological scenario foreseen by both Isa 24–27 and 65–66. The future would be like the past, because the past portends the future.

Bibliography Aster, Shawn Zelig. Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1–39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology. ANEM 19. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Ackroyd, Peter. “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function.” Pages 105–20 in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1987. Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Barthel, Jörg. Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31. FAT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. –. Jesaja 13–27. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Blum, Erhard. “Jesajas prophetisches Testament. Beobachtungen zu Jes 1–11. Teil II.” ZAW 109 (1996): 12–29. Childs, Brevard. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Clements, Ronald. Isaiah 1–39. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. –. “Isaiah 14,22–27: A Central Passage Reconsidered.” Pages 253–62 in The Book of Isaiah. Edited by Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. 4th ed. HKAT 3/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922. Garsiel, Moshe. The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass LTD., 1990. Gray, G. B. A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Grayson, A. Kirk. “Sargon.” Pages 984–85 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 5, O-Sh. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hakham, Amos. ‫לה‬-‫ פרקים א‬:‫ספר ישﬠיהו‬. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1984. Hays, John H., and Stuart A. Irvine. Isaiah, the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and his Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987. Hibbard, J. Todd. Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions. FAT II 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

The Wise in Daniel 11–12 and the Servants of the Lord in Isaiah,” in Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity, ed. Michael A. Lyons and Jacob Stromberg, WUNT II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 65–118.



Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah 

339

Jong, M. J. de. 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. K aiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. London: SCM, 1973 (= Der Prophet Jesaja, Kapitel 13–39. ATD 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973). Kreuch, Jan. Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31. WMANT 130. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC. Volume II. London: Routledge, 1995. Lee, Jongkyung. A Redactional Study of the Book of Isaiah 13–23. Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Levi, Yaakov, “Agreement: Biblical Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Online edition. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013, http:// dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000501. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Marti, Karl. Das Buch Jesaja. KHC 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900. McFadden, K. “Hyperbole.” Page 648 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry & Poetics. 4th ed. Edited by Roland Greene et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Noegel, Scott B. “Paronomasia.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Online edition. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013, http://dx.doi.org.proxy. lib.duke.edu/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000601. Roberts, J. J.M. First Isaiah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Schmid, Konrad. “Herrschererwartungen und -aussagen im Jesajabuch: Überlegungen zu ihrer synchronen Logik und ihren diachronen Transformationen.” Pages 175–209 in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy. Festschrift for Henk Leene. Edited by F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra. ACEBT 3 Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker Publishing, 2002. –. Jesaja, Band I: Jes 1–23. Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2011. Seitz, Christopher. Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stromberg, Jacob. “Figural History in the Book of Isaiah: the Prospective Significance of Hezekiah’s Deliverance from Assyria and Death.” Pages 81–102 in Imperial Visions: the Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires. Edited by Reinhard Kratz and Joachim Schaper. FRLANT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. –. “The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure.” Pages 19–36 in The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. –. “A Covenantal Community and a New Creation after the Flood: The Wise in Daniel 11–12 and the Servants of the Lord in Isaiah.” Pages 65–118 in Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity. Edited by Michael A. Lyons and Jacob Stromberg. WUNT II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. –. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

340

Jacob Stromberg

Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1996. Teeter, Andrew. “Isaiah and the King of As/Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-Scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis.’” Pages 169–99 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. JSJSup 153/I. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “Biblical Symmetry and Its Modern Detractors.” In IOSOT Congress Volume: Aberdeen 2019. Edited by C. Maier, G. Macaskill, J. Schaper. VTSup. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Werner, Wolfgang. Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes. BZAW 173. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A  Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991 (= Jesaja, Kapitel 1–12. 2nd ed. BK. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980). –. Isaiah 13–27: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997 (= Jesaja, Kapitel 13–27. BK. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Williamson, H. G.M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. –. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. I. Isaiah 1–5. ICC. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2006. –. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. II. Isaiah 6–12. ICC. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2018. Young, Robb Andrew. Hezekiah in History and Tradition. VTSup 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Zakovitch, Yair. ‫מקראות בארץ המראות‬. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1995.

Torah Yet to Come Divine Activity in Isaiah 56–66 Philip Y. Yoo 1.  Isaiah and tôrâ In the book called Isaiah,1 the word tôrâ appears in several places: as singular (and anarthrous) ‫( תורה‬Isa 2:3; 8:16, 20; 42:21; 51:4); as plural (and also anarthrous) ‫( תורת‬24:5; 30:9); with an object suffix (referring to Yhvh) ‫( תורתו‬42:4, 24) and ‫( תורתי‬51:7); and as the nomen regens in ‫( תורת אלהינו‬1:10), ‫תורת יהוה‬ ‫( צבאות‬5:24), and ‫( תורת יהוה‬30:9). The paucity of texts that mention tôrâ suggests that the idea of tôrâ plays a relatively minor role throughout Isaianic thought, yet the use and meaning of tôrâ throughout this corpus is an issue that has received some attention in Isaianic scholarship. The word tôrâ conveys many meanings,2 and in Isaiah this word can point to “instruction” from Yhvh (Isa 5:24; 30:9 [NJPS]) or the prophet (Isa 8:16, 20). Noticeable, however, is the conspicuous absence of tôrâ in the last portions of the book, Isa 56–66.3 In light of the appearance of this word elsewhere in the Isaianic corpus, albeit in the small group of texts noted above, why do the last portions of Isaiah lack any reference to tôrâ? As a product of the postexilic period, the absence in Isa 56­–66 of tôrâ is more apparent upon the recognition that other postexilic texts refer to tôrâ, often with the definite article (Ezra 10:3; Neh 8:8; 9:1; 2 Chr 25:4), and this tôrâ (which may be envisioned as the Pentateuch in its final or penultimate form) is oftentimes upheld as something that was consulted, finalized, and authoritative (‫ככתוב בתורה‬, Neh 10:35, 37 [ET 34, 36]). Did then the hand(s) responsible for Isa 56–66 not know of something called tôrâ or did they completely shun this word? As stated, this question presumes that Isa 56–66 is a product of the postexilic period and more or less presupposes older Isaianic materials. Much of the discussion concerning the uniqueness and late provenance of Isa 56–66 can be attributed to the commentary of Bernhard 1  A phrase coined by Hugh Williamson in the title of his The Book Called Isaiah: DeuteroIsaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 2  See, for instance, in F. Garcia López and H.‑J. Farby, “‫ תורה‬tôrâ,” ThWAT 8:597–637. 3 Joachim Schaper, “Torah and Identity in the Persian Period” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 31.

342

Philip Y. Yoo

Duhm.4 While Duhm recognized the presence of smaller units throughout the book of Isaiah, he advanced the separation of Isa 56–66 from chs. 40–55 (Deuterojesaia) as the work of a single hand (Tritojesaia). As a distinct work, Duhm detected in Isa 56–66 a greater focus on legal matters, such as sacrifice and Sabbath as well as the restoration of Zion, which then led to dating these materials to a period before Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem in the mid-fifth century.5 Critics generally agree that the book of Isaiah is a product that not only preserves the ipsissima verba of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah ben Amoz but also the work of later hands in the Babylonian, Persian, and perhaps Hellenistic periods.6 Although it is widely recognized that the process by which the book of Isaiah achieves its final form is a complicated process, described as Fortschreibung, and there remains debate on the viability of a distinct Tritojesaia, the simplicity of Duhm’s hypothesis makes it an attractive starting point by which Isa 56–66 is placed among the last layers of the Isaianic corpus and, in turn, situates this corpus in the postexilic period.7 For some critics, the postexilic origins of the canonical Isaianic text offer insights into the book’s presentation of tôrâ. To a degree, this line of research coincides with the view that the Pentateuch emerges as an authoritative text sometime in the postexilic period.8 The underlying assumption is that the 4 Bernhard

Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia: übersetzt und erklärt, 5th ed., HKAT 3.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892; 1968). 5  Ibid., 14–15, 19, 418–19. 6  See, e. g., the dating of Isa 63:7–64:11 to the dawn of Ptolemaic rule over Jerusalem in 301 BCE in Odil Hannes Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja, BZAW 203 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 235–36. For the purposes of this discussion, I  am satisfied that there is wide agreement on dating Isa 56–66 to the postexilic period at the earliest. 7  Against the identification of Isa 56–66 as Tritojesaia, some critics argue for the unity of chs. 40–66 under a single hand or prophetic tradent; see C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928); Menahem Haran, “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies of Is. XL–LXVI” in Congress Volume: Bonn 1962, ed. Walter Baumgartner, VTSup 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 127–55; Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40– 66: A New Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 5–12; Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 187–95. The literary relationship between chs. 40–55 and 56–66 continues to be debated on many fronts; see, recently, the contributions in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66, eds. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Hans M. Barstad, FRLANT 255 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). For readers who subscribe to the unity of Isa 40–66 and place chs. 56–66 in the latter years of a singular prophetic career, it is my hope that the following discussion provides insights into how an adherent of the Yahvistic cult understood its deity’s ongoing activity in the period following the return from Babylonia. 8  The process by which the Pentateuch achieves its final form out of sources (Urkundenhypothese), fragments (Fragmentenhypothese), or redactions (Ergänzungshypothese) is a matter that lacks scholarly agreement; see the recent and varied contributions in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan Christian Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). Although the solutions are numerous, most critics agree that the Pentateuch achieved its final form in the postexilic period in Achaemenid Yehud or afterwards.

Torah Yet to Come



343

Pentateuch achieved its final form before, and perhaps long before, the book of Isaiah. While it is critically acknowledged that the prophet Isaiah or any of the Isaianic writers before the time of Ezra did not equate tôrâ as anything that closely resembles the Pentateuch, it has been suggested that the canonical Isaiah presumes the Pentateuch and upholds it as “Torah” or more precisely “Mosaic Torah.” Irmtraud Fischer argues that the redactors responsible for the final text of the book of Isaiah place the prophet Isaiah within prophetic succession (cf. Deut 18:15–18) and transform him into an interpreter of Mosaic Torah.9 Gerald Sheppard reads tôrâ as a marker that places the canonical Isaiah as a book of Torah, and this canonical text compliments the Mosaic Torah promulgated by Ezra.10 Marvin Sweeney views the concepts of Isaianic Torah and Mosaic Torah as a means to establish Israel’s internal and external relations; in turn, Isaianic Torah and Mosaic Torah collectively represent Yhvh’s tôrâ, his worldwide sovereignty, and support the Persian-sponsored missions of Ezra and Nehemiah.11 In recent discussion, the extent to which the Pentateuch was used by an imperial authority as a legal mechanism to exert control over Yehud has been contested and altogether questioned.12 Although the literature of the restoration period uses materials preserved in the Pentateuch, much of this literature – including Isa 56–66 – does not consider Torah as something that is foundational, legal or otherwise, for postexilic Yehud.13 A provocative argument, one that subscribes to the Isaianic corpus as the product of a complex literary history, is presented by Ronald Clements who assigns all of the mentions of tôrâ and its surrounding materials in Isa 1–39 to a postexilic “tôrâ-revision” that uses tôrâ not to convey an “instruction” of Yhvh but rather a written Mosaic law book.14 Even if most, if not all, of the references to tôrâ in Isaiah can be placed among the late additions, however envisioned, and informed by the acceptance of the Mosaic Torah as the legal standard in post9 Irmtraud

Fischer, Tora für Israel – Tora für die Völker: Das Konzept des Jesajabuches,

SBS 164 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 57.

10  Gerald T. Sheppard, “The ‘Scope’ of Isaiah as a Book of Jewish and Christian Scriptures” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 257–81, esp. 274–81. 11  Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah” in New Visions of Isaiah, 50–67. For a careful reassessment on the relationship between Isa 56–66 and Ezra-Nehemiah, see Ulrich Berges, “Trito-Isaiah and the Reforms of Ezra/Nehemiah: Consent or Conflict?” Bib 98 (2017): 173–90. 12  See the debate in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SBLSymS 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001). 13  David M. Carr, “The Rise of Torah” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 50–51. This point will be revisited below. 14  Specifically, this Mosaic law book may be either the Pentateuch or the Deuteronomic core. See Ronald E. Clements, “The Meaning of ‫ תורה‬in Isaiah 1–39” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, eds. J. G. McConville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 59–72.

344

Philip Y. Yoo

exilic Yehud, the question still remains: why is the word tôrâ omitted in Isa 56­ –66? There is indeed evidence that Proto-Isaiah [PI] in Isa 1–39 underwent revision, and much of this revision can be attributed to the hands responsible for chs. 56–66.15 The precise stratification of Isa 1–39, however, remains a point of dispute. For the purposes of this discussion, Isa 2:2–4, which contains the pair ‫ דבר־יהוה‬// ‫( תורה‬v. 3), is widely upheld as a late interpolation as it allegedly presumes the reestablishment of Jerusalem as Yhvh’s home, with Torah going forth from Zion.16 While the dating of Isa 2:2–4 remains contested, what is overlooked in these verses is that Yhvh acts as the ultimate arbiter for the nations (v. 4) from Zion, and Yhvh’s tôrâ is not necessarily something from the past but rather ongoing and continuous instruction.17 Questioning the notion of a tôrâ redaction altogether, Jaap Dekker argues that the concept of tôrâ in the book of Isaiah is a relatively minor concern when compared to its concerns for justice (‫ )מׁשפט‬and righteousness (‫ )צדקה‬and, from whatever little can be gleaned, although the book of Isaiah does not appear to identify tôrâ with Mosaic Torah it is unopposed to tôrâ.18 Challenging the view that tôrâ in Isaiah refers to aggregate laws, Joseph Jensen argues that Isaiah uses tôrâ in order to promote the notion that wisdom originates from Yhvh.19 While this view is perhaps an oversimplification of tôrâ in Isaiah, and the importance of wisdom tradition in Isaianic thought is disputable on multiple fronts, the observation that in Isaiah tôrâ (however defined or conceived) originates solely from Yhvh is an important one, and most critics uphold the Isaianic concept of tôrâ as something that emanates from the divine. Critics have long recognized that Isa 56–66 contains materials that presuppose and challenge pentateuchal materials on matters pertaining to the cult. Charting the emergence of “apocalyptic” out of competing ideologies in the postexilic period, Paul Hanson locates Isa 56–66 among the visionary, yet disenfranchised, disciples of Deutero-Isaiah who are in competition with the more powerful Zadokite hierocratic groups and their comfortable control of the offi15 Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah after Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 147–228. 16  On this, the influence of Isa 51:4 upon 2:2–4, and the late sixth-century provenance of Isa 2:2–4, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Postexilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition, BZAW 171 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 164–74; pace Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 150–52; Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 78–80, 242–44. 17  With Deut 17:8–11 as the model, see Baruch J. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4)” in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity, eds. Alberdina Houtman, M. J.  H. M. Poorthuis, Joshua J. Schwartz, JCP 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 11–26. 18 Jaap Dekker, “The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah” in Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015, ed. Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, OtSt 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 118–34. 19 Joseph Jensen, The Use of tôrâ by Isaiah: His Debate with Wisdom Tradition, CBQMS 3 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1973).



Torah Yet to Come

345

cial cult.20 Both the visionary and hierocratic groups understand Yhvh’s activity in different ways. Whereas the latter see themselves as implementing Yhvh’s plan as mandated by the Torah and Ezek 40–48, the former wait for Yhvh’s plan to be realized in the more hopeful future. Although Isa 56–66 lacks concrete historical markers that allow for a precise reconstruction of the postexilic Yahvistic cult, its contents preserve and reveal the ideological views of at the very least one of the many factions in postexilic Yahvism. The contents of Isa 56–66 also reveal, to some degree, the past traditions that were read, understood, and reinterpreted in order to support an idealized view of the reconstructed cult. Although its value as a source for the reconstruction period remains a point of contention, Isa 56–66 conveys how a postexilic tradent, perhaps identified as visionaries or disciples of Deutero-Isaiah or editors of the Isaianic corpus, reflected on the past in order to deny that Yhvh is indeed satisfied with the present situation but instead more invested in the future. As the oracular pronouncements in Isa 56–66 demonstrate, this particular expectation of the deity’s ongoing activity in the earthly realm offers an explanation for the absence of tôrâ in the last portions of Isaiah.

2.  Ongoing Revelation in Isaiah 56–66 Critics who subscribe to a distinct Tritojesaia generally agree that its development can be traced from its nucleus in Isa 60–62 to its final layers in 56:1–8 and chs. 65–66.21 In Isa 60–62 [hereafter, Trito-Isaiah], the depiction of the role of the foreigner in the restoration of Zion is coherent and contains few, if any, 20  Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 32–208. See also Trito-Isaiah’s inclusion among the “Yahweh-alone party” who are in opposition to syncretistic groups in Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 99, 111. Hanson’s proposed dichotomy has been challenged; see, e. g., Isa 56–66 as representative of a class conflict in which priestly and political immigrant groups defeat the native voices in Jon L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995), 73–79, and the argument that Isa 56–66 does not attack the priestly traditions, including the “priestly” Pentateuch but, as a product of the official (Zadokite) priesthood, challenges syncretistic Yahvism in Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration, JSOTSup 193 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 111, 174–82. 21  For a concise survey of the models (Einheitshypothese, Fragmentenhypothese, and various Ergänzungshypothesen) and summaries of the multiple and competing proposals that explain the development of Isa 56–66, see Klaus Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie, WMANT 62 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 1–10, along with Koenen’s own proposed Ergänzungshypothese in pp. 215– 38. Several studies and articles dealing with the composition of Isa 56–66 have been published since; see, e. g., Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches, BZAW 225 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 90–112; Paul A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66 VTSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 22–172; Leszek Ruszkowski, Volk und Gemeinde im Wandel: Eine Untersuchung zu Jesaja 56–66, FRLANT 191 (Göttingen:

346

Philip Y. Yoo

blatant contradictions.22 The role that Trito-Isaiah grants the foreigner reflects not only an acceptance of Deutero-Isaiah’s portrayal of the Persian emperor Cyrus as Yhvh’s elected (Isa 45:1, 13) but also advances the foreigner’s service in Zion’s restoration. The foreigners are no longer Jerusalem’s oppressor (60:12, 14) but now share in the task of rebuilding its walls and sanctuary (vv. 10, 11, 13). Trito-Isaiah also envisions foreigners contributing to the Yahvistic cult with their abundant wealth (v. 5b), with gifts including young camels from Midian and Ephah (‫בכרי מדין וﬠיפה‬, v. 6), gold and incense from Sheba (‫כלם מׁשבא יבאו‬ ‫זהב ולבונה יׂשאו‬, v. 6), flocks from Kedar (‫כל־צאן קדר‬, v. 7), and rams from Nebaioth (‫אילי נביות‬, v. 7) that are now desirable for sacrifice on Yhvh’s altar (‫יﬠלו‬ ‫ﬠל־רצון מזבחי‬,23 v. 7). Due to its apparent and sudden disregard for nations that do not serve Zion, some critics see Isa 60:12 as a gloss.24 There remain reasons to see this verse as original. Among them, Trito-Isaiah does not grant foreigners automatic or unconditional entry into the Yahvistic cult and the concern lies with the foreigner who wishes to convert and partake in Zion’s restoration. Trito-Isaiah also envisions that the foreigner may assist the Israelite who is now granted entry into the sacred precinct: ‫וﬠמדו זרים ורﬠו צאנכם ובני נכר אכריכם וכרמיכם‬ ‫ואתם כהני יהוה תקראו מׁשרתי אלהינו יאמר לכם‬ ‫חיל גוים תאכלו ובכבודם תתימרו‬ zārîm will shepherd your flocks, foreigners will be your ploughmen and vineyard workers. But you will be called the priests of Yhvh, you will be addressed as the attendants of our God. You will consume the wealth of the nations, you will be adorned in their riches.25 (Isa 61:5–6)

As was the case in Isa 60:5–12, Trito-Isaiah grants the foreigner, more precisely a convert, a special place in Zion’s reconstruction. Isaiah 61:5–6 is noteworthy as zārîm (for now left untranslated) is also used to label a class of people who are Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 22–152. For the purposes of this discussion, and to limit the scholarly literature, I am content that Isa 56–66 are generally agreed to derive from a distinct Trito-Isaianic tradent and will discuss below some of the literary critical debates when necessary. 22  Some critics detect slight or significant redactional activity within Isa 60–62. For example, on Isa 62:10(–12) as a late addition, see Karl Pauritsch, Die neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt Ausgestossene und Arme (Jesaia 56–66), AnBib 47 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 221–22; Steck, Studien, 20–27, 143–68, 278–79; Johannes C. de Moor, “Structure and Redaction: Isaiah 60,1–63,6” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. Johannes van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne, BETL 132 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 325–46. Against this view, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 241–45. 23  MT Isa 60:7. ‫ ויﬠלו לרצון ﬠל מזבחי‬in 1QIsaa may be preferred. 24  Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 401; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 360. 25  Unless otherwise stated, all translations are mine.



Torah Yet to Come

347

prohibited from the vicinity of the sacred precincts as expounded in Num 18:1–7 [H].26 In this Priestly text, Yhvh restricts the maintenance of the altar and service of the inner sanctum to Aaron and his sons. Another class, the Levites, is charged with guarding the tent of meeting, yet they are forbidden from entering the inner sanctum. The sacred precincts are strictly restricted to the Aaronides and Levites, as Yhvh warns the Aaronides and Levites against the intrusion of the zār into sacred space. When the Levites serve as a buffer between the stationed tent of meeting and the surrounding Israelite encampment, Yhvh commands: A zār shall not approach you. (Num 18:4)

‫וזר לא־יקרב אליכם‬

The Aaronides receive a similar instruction, this time with a punishment for the outsider turned infiltrator: The zār who approaches will be put to death. (Num 18:7)

‫והזר הקרב יומת‬

As presented in Num 18:4, 7, the zār (also ʾîš zār in Num 17:5 [ET 16:40]) can be understood as a Priestly cultic term that connotes an outsider or a stranger, and points specifically to an Israelite who is unqualified to officiate in the cult.27 In other words, in the Priestly legislation the zār is not a foreigner. The Priestly corpus recognizes three distinct socio-religious classes: the native (‫ )אזרח‬Israelite followed by two classes of non-Israelites: the resident alien (‫ )גר‬and the foreigner (‫)בן־נכר‬. The former is a non-Israelite who has been assimilated and agrees to observe some of the obligations imposed upon the native (‫ )אזרח‬in exchange for a certain degree of protection and privileges.28 The resident alien 26  Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 145–46. The Priestly corpus can be broadly divided into Priestly [P] and Holiness [H] strata, with a relative dating of P before H. On the assignment of Num 18:1–7 to H, see Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans. Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 53–54. Recent scholarship has seen an ascendant view that sees significant portions of Numbers composed in its place and consists of the latest layers in the Pentateuch, which leads to the possibility that Numbers postdates Isa 56–66. On Num 18 as the product of the late-Persian or early-Hellenistic Pentateuch-Redaktor, see Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZABR 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 141–72. I agree that the Pentateuch reaches its final stages in the postexilic period; however, I follow the view that P and H are well situated in the First Temple period and are products of no later than the exilic period and thus predate Trito-Isaiah. 27 Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 183, 187, 243–44; Jacob Milgrom, Numbers = Ba-Midbar: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 342–43. 28 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 229–30, 1055–57.

348

Philip Y. Yoo

is entirely separate from, and not to be confused with, the foreigner.29 In the mind of the Priestly legalists, the foreigner poses a serious challenge to the cult and the solution is to exclude the foreigner from participation in the Yahvistic cult. For instance, a foreigner (‫ )בן־נכר‬may not partake in the pesaḥ (Exod 12:43 [H]) and their offerings are unacceptable to Yhvh (Lev 22:25 [H]).30 Accordingly, the Israelites are divinely instructed to separate (‫ )בד״ל‬from the foreigner (Lev 20:24–26 [H]). Whereas the Priestly writers envision the zār as a non-Aaronide, non-Levite Israelite prohibited from the vicinity of the sacred precinct, in Isa 61:5 TritoIsaiah pairs ‫ זרים‬with ‫ בני נכר‬and recasts the zār, once again a term that signifies an outsider or a stranger, as a foreigner and not Israelite. Trito-Isaiah declares that the zār – here, a foreigner – will assist the Israelite through their service in the fields and allows for materials procured from abroad to be used in the Yahvistic cult. In its appropriation of a Priestly cultic term that signified an outsider, Trito-Isaiah addresses what it perceives to be a legal gap in past legislation. Although the Priestly corpus attempts to cover all foreseeable contingencies and occasionally recognizes that its legislation inadequately addresses a specific situation which then requires an oracular intervention,31 it does not allow for the foreigner to join the Yahvistic cult and does not even appear to anticipate the possibility that a foreigner will desire to do so. In Isa 61:5–6, Trito-Isaiah departs from the Priestly writers and envisions a more inclusive cult, one that grants a place to both Israelites and foreigners. Trito-Isaiah adopts the sense in Exod 19:6, in which Yhvh at Sinai declares that the Israelites will be for him “a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation” (‫)ואתם תהיו־לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש‬, in order to promote its own vision of an egalitarian priesthood among the Israelites.32 The elevation of the Israelite into the sacred precinct results in a vacuum, and TritoIsaiah fills in this vacuum by promoting the foreigner, since the foreigner who desired to assimilate into the Yahvistic cult is now an assistant to the Israelite. Trito-Isaiah appears to welcome the foreigner into its own more inclusive vision of the Yahvistic cult, yet it should be noted that while the foreigners are now closer to the sacred precincts, they remain at the periphery and do not in any way hold a priestly office. 29 Yehezkel K aufmann, ‫ מימי קדם ﬠד סוף בית שני‬:‫תולדות האמונה הישראלית‬, 4 vols. (Tel Aviv: Mosad Byaliḳ, 1937–1956), 1:204–5; Eng., The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and abbreviated by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 206. 30  Note the concern that foreigners will lead the Israelites astray to follow strange deities in Gen 35:4; Deut 31:16; Josh 24:20 [all non-P]. 31  Specifically, Lev 24:10–23; Num 9:1–14; 15:32–36; 27:1–11. On the distinct nature of these prose narratives, what can be labelled as “oracular novella,” as a means to generate and establish law, see Simeon Chavel, Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah, FAT II 71 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). As I remark below, the essence of this legal strategy is more or less reflected in the Trito-Isaianic corpus. 32  Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 146.



Torah Yet to Come

349

As Trito-Isaiah is read, interpreted, and reshaped by subsequent hands, the place of the foreigner in the Yahvistic cult is an issue that raises some consternation: can every foreigner convert and assist in Zion’s reconstruction? Some of the earliest readers develop and expand upon Trito-Isaiah’s ideas as this ongoing process of interpretation is preserved in the materials that surround the TritoIsaianic core, Isa 56–59 and 63–66 [hereafter, TI]. Trito-Isaiah’s enthusiasm for the foreigner is somewhat tempered in 63:1–6, an oracle against a named nation, “Edom.”33 The mention of Edom (v. 1) continues to attract some discussion. Although it has been suggested that “Edom” either recounts Jacob’s sibling rivalry with Esau and represents an adversary that is also kin,34 or is coded language for apostates within the cult,35 or is symbolically an all-encompassing term that groups hostile nations,36 it appears that Isa 63:1–6 has Israel’s ancient rival Edom in mind.37 TI addresses an apparent omission in Isa 60–62 concerning the converted foreigner and, by framing this new regulation as ongoing divine speech (‫אני מדבר בצדקה‬, 63:1), removes the possibility that every foreigner may be willing to join the Yahvistic cult by raising the example of an ancient rival. As TI demonstrates through the example of Edom’s downfall, foreigners who choose to threaten the Yahvistic cult do so at their own peril. In a passage that is generally placed among the final literary layers of TI, Isa 56:1–8 is framed as an oracular declaration (‫כה אמר יהוה‬, vv. 1, 4; ‫נאם אדני‬ ‫יהוה‬, v. 8) that addresses the admissibility of the foreigner by raising the case of two groups who fear expulsion from the temple community: the foreigner (‫ )בן־נכר‬and the castrated male, the eunuch (‫)סריס‬: ‫ואל־יאמר בן־הנכר הנלוה אל־יהוה לאמר‬ ‫הבדל יבדילני יהוה מﬠל ﬠמו‬ ‫ואל־יאמר הסריס הן אני ﬠץ יבׁש‬ Let not the foreigner attached to Yhvh say, “Yhvh will surely separate me from his people.” Let not the eunuch say, “Indeed, I am a withered tree.” (Isa 56:3)

The oracle then further addresses the eunuch: as long as eunuchs observe Sabbath and hold steadfast to Yhvh’s covenant (56:4), Yhvh will grant them an eternal place in the community (v. 5). Moving on to the foreigner, the oracle assures the foreigners who attach themselves to Yhvh through their service, devotion, 33  For Isa 63:1–6 belonging to chs. 60–62, see Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction, 43–44; contra Ruszkowski, Volk und Gemeinde, 48–49. 34  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 518. 35  Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie, 76–87. 36 For this line of argument, see Ruszkowski, Volk und Gemeinde, 50–51; Matthew J. Lynch, “Zion’s Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion Traditions,” CBQ 70 (2008): 256–59. 37  Steck, Studien, 209–11; Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction, 38–41; John Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 360.

350

Philip Y. Yoo

Sabbath observance, and covenantal fidelity (v. 6) that they will have a place on Yhvh’s holy mountain and their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on the altar (‫ﬠולתיהם וזבחיהם לרצון ﬠל מזבחי‬, v. 7). While there is little, if any, indication as to why the eunuch and the foreigner are actually threatened with exclusion from the temple community, TI’s envisioned scenario appears to be a response to pentateuchal materials, specifically the Deuteronomic [D] legal prescriptions in Deut 23:2–9 [ET 1–8].38 Here, a castrated male is prohibited from admittance into the assembly of Yhvh (‫לא־יבא‬ ‫פצוﬠ־דכא וכרות שפכה בקהל יהוה‬, v. 2 [ET 1]) along with named foreigners, namely the Ammonites and Moabites, in perpetuity (vv. 4–7 [ET 3–6]). Although the term ‫ סריס‬does not appear in Deut 23:2, TI draws from this legal prescription as its focus on the eunuch, who is recognized as a foreigner, addresses a unique situation: the admissibility of a foreign male with a physical blemish.39 Through language couched in Priestly parlance, TI provides a new revelation for the eunuch who keeps Sabbath (‫לסריסים אׁשר יׁשמרו את־ׁשבתותי‬, Isa 56:4)40 with the promise of ‫( יד וׁשם‬a “memorial,” v. 5) as a remedy that addresses the lack of protection for a disadvantaged foreigner in the pentateuchal legislation. Herbert Donner suggests that Isa 56:1–8 contains a unique public abrogation of the authoritative Gotteswort in Deut 23:1–6.41 It is unlikely that any of Isa 56:1– 8 has the Torah in mind as TI does not explicitly defer to a legal collection on the matter. Rather, the resonances to pentateuchal law in Isa 56:1–8 suggest that its contents are “presented as new divine teachings, remarkably transforming the ancient pentateuchal revelations and regulations.”42 In essence, Deut 23:8–9 [ET 38  This point may be disputed if Deut 23:2–9 is dated to the postexilic period; on these verses as the product of postexilic Fortschreibung, see Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 2 vols., HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2016), 1:1745–748. In terms of relative dating, I am of the opinion that Deut 23:2–9 precedes Isa 56:1–8. 39  This issue is also addressed in the Priestly legislation, with the disqualification of an Aaronide with crushed testicles (‫ )מרוח אׁשך‬from the priesthood in Lev 21:20 [H]. The foreignness of the eunuch is strongly suggested as ‫ סריס‬is a loanword from Akkadian ša rēšî (“of the head”); see the survey in Jacob L. Wright and Michael J. Chan, “King and Eunuch: Isaiah 56:1–8 in Light of Honorific Royal Burial Practices,” JBL 131 (2012): 103–8. Accordingly, the eunuch may be subsumed under the foreigner, ‫( בני־הנכר‬Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 137). 40 Cf. ‫ ׁשמ״ר‬+ ‫ ׁשבת‬in Exod 31:16; Lev 19:30; 26:2 [all H]. 41 Herbert Donner, “Jesaja LVI 1–7: Ein Abrogationsfall innerhalb des Kanons – Implikationen und Konsequenzenen” in Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 81–95; also in Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 133. Opposing the view that Isa 56:3–5 does not overturn pentateuchal law (notably Deut 23:2) but instead imperial ideology, Wright and Chan contest that the concern lies with the eunuch’s participation in the cult (cf. Deut 23:2) as the eunuch does not enter the temple (“King and Eunuch,” 100–2). There remains, however, the claim that the eunuch will keep Sabbath (Isa 56:3), which is in itself a cultic act. Furthermore, as observed above in Isa 61:5–6, the Trito-Isaianic tradent as a whole allows for a converted foreigner (which includes the eunuch, see n. 39) to participate in cultic service but restricts their entry into the sacred precincts. 42 Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 128.

Torah Yet to Come



351

7–8] opened the door for some foreigners, namely the Edomites and Egyptians, to gain eventual admittance into the Yahvistic cult; however, the letter of this law presents a difficulty that is realized as the temporal gap increases between text and reader. Some of the nations named in Deut 23:2–8 are from a bygone past, and the plain meaning of this regulation does not specifically address other foreign nations; in Trito-Isaiah these nations include Midian, Ephah, Sheba, Kedar, and Nebaioth (Isa 60:6–12). TI revisits the pentateuchal laws, removes any ambiguity from the past revelation, and employs Deuteronomic phraseology ‫ ׁשם יהוה‬and ‫לאהבה את יהוה‬,43 to formulate a new revelation that welcomes a convert from any nation into the community: ‫ובני הנכר הנלוים ﬠל־יהוה לׁשרתו ולאהבה את־ׁשם יהוה‬ And the foreigners who attach themselves to Yhvh, to minister to him and to love Yhvh’s name. (Isa 56:6a)

TI devises this new revelation as it expands upon Trito-Isaiah’s reformulation of the role of the zār from Num 18 and continues to amend the past legislation concerning the division of labor in the sacred precincts: ‫וגם את־אחיך מטה לוי ׁשבט אביך הקרב אתך וילוו ﬠליך ויׁשרתוך ואתה ובניך אתך לפני אהל הﬠדת‬ Bring also your brothers of the tribe of Levi, your ancestral tribe, so that they may attach themselves to you and assist you when you and your sons are before the tent of the covenant. (Num 18:2 [H])

The unique combination of ‫ לו״ה‬and ‫ ׁשר״ת‬suggests that in Isa 56:6 TI revises the past legislation in Num 18:2.44 The appearance of ‫( לו״ה‬N) in Isa 56:6 (also in v. 3) is noteworthy for at least two other reasons. One, ‫ לו״ה‬is also used in Zech 8:23 and Esth 9:27, both postexilic texts, to describe non-Yehudites who join Yhvh and his people. Two, ‫ לו״ה‬in Isa 56:6 suggests that TI not only has in mind, at a minimum, the legislation in Num 18, but also a past prophetic address in Isa 14:1, which is likely from Deutero-Isaiah.45 Isaiah 14:1 presents 43 Moshe

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 333; Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie, 30. 44  Isaiah 56 appears to respond to not only Deut 23 and Num 18 but also Ezek 44; see Joachim Schaper, “Rereading the Law: Inner-Biblical Exegesis of Divine Oracles in Ezekiel 44 and Isaiah 56” in Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstag Gerhard von Rads (1901– 1971), Heidelberg, 18–21 Oktober 2001, ed. Bernard M. Levinson and Eckart Otto, ATM 13 (Münster: Lit, 2004), 125–44; however, in support of the opposite direction of dependency, see Nathan McDonald, Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44, BZAW 476 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 26–34. At the very least, Ezek 44 and Isa 56 reflect competing interpretations of Num 18; see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 142. 45  Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 165–66. Although some critics suggest that Isa 14:1(– 4a) belongs to a very late stage (Schlussredaktion in Steck, Studien, 229), TI is completely unaware of or has little interest in the gēr. The view that Isa 56:1–8 is either influenced by or, conversely, influences pentateuchal texts that allow for the resident alien, the gēr, in the Yahvistic

352

Philip Y. Yoo

the real possibility that the resident alien (gēr), which is mentioned here for the only time in the Isaianic corpus, desires to join Israel (‫)ונלוה הגר ﬠליהם‬.46 TI, however, is either completely unaware of or has little interest in the status of the gēr; instead, in Isa 56:3–8 and elsewhere TI raises the case for the foreigner, the more disadvantaged class of non-Israelites. In Isa 56:6, TI presents a new legislation that is divinely sanctioned and revises the past legislation in Num 18 as it reframes ‫לו״ה‬, reverses the use of ‫( בד״ל‬also in Isa 56:3), employs cultic terms such as ‫ ﬠולה‬and ‫זבח‬, and promotes the observance (‫ )ׁשמ״ר‬of Sabbath (v. 7). This innovation is driven by TI’s conviction that a foreigner is willing to keep the same obligations upheld by the native and the resident alien; and TI regards Sabbath as the ultimate expression of this newfound devotion (cf. Isa 58:13–14). There is, however, nothing in the pentateuchal legal corpora that allows for a foreigner to keep the positive commandments, including Sabbath observance, as these commandments are imposed only upon the Israelites and the assimilated foreigners, the resident aliens. In another postexilic text, Ezra-Nehemiah upholds the view that a foreigner poses a fatal threat to Sabbath observance. Nehemiah reports that Tyrians sold goods in Jerusalem on Sabbath, yet for him the only recourse appears to be shutting the city gates so that foreigners could no longer enter and be a hindrance to Sabbath observance (Neh 13:15–22a). Elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah, the absence of an explicit legal prohibition in the pentateuchal legal corpus leads to an agreement (‫אמנה‬, Neh 10:1 [ET 9:38]) by which the community will not purchase merchandise or grain on Sabbath from “the peoples of the land” (‫ﬠמי הארץ‬, v. 32a [ET 31a]).47 Although the issue of Sabbath observance is not directly addressed, Ezra and the returnees follow a strict interpretation of the relevant pentateuchal legislation and adjudge the foreign women and their children as a serious threat to the survival of the reconstructed Yahvistic cult (Ezra 9–10).48 In contrast to these positions, TI envisions that a foreigner could demonstrate their fidelity to Yhvh through dutifully observing the performative commandments, especially Sabbath. As indicated by the formulaic ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ (Isa 56:1, 4), TI presents this new teaching concerning the foreigner as a divine proclamation. Due to the claim that foreigners will minister (‫ )ׁשר״ת‬to Yhvh in Isa 56:6, some critics argue that TI represents a marginalized, what may even be labelled as unorthodox, view that grants foreigners the right to partake in activities that are no cult (see Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, 180–82) blurs the distinction between the gēr and the foreigner; Isa 56:1–8 has only the foreigner in mind. 46  Compare Exod 12:43–50; Num 9:14; 15:1–31; 19:10; 35:15; Deut 29:10. 47  Nehemiah 10:32a [ET 31a] could be seen as updating the Sabbath prescriptions in Exod 20:8–11 and Deut 5:12–14; see David J. A. Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis,” JSOT 21 (1981): 113–15; Philip Y. Yoo, Ezra and the Second Wilderness, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 76–77. 48  On this point, see the summary in Yoo, Ezra and the Second Wilderness, 198–201.



Torah Yet to Come

353

longer restricted to priests and Levites.49 This view may be bolstered by another likely late TI excerpt, Isa 66:18–21. The divine oracle speaks of an ingathering of nations who will see the Presence (‫וראו את־כבודי‬, v. 18), out of which “survivors” (‫מהם פליטים‬, v. 19) will be sent to the farthest coastlands as witnesses to the Presence among the nations (‫והגידו את־כבודי בגוים‬, v. 19). In the same manner by which the Israelites witnessed the theophany and received the laws at Sinai, and Trito-Isaiah speaks of the foreigners, these converted foreigners will be gathered from distant places to Jerusalem. The exact role of the coverts, however, appears to be obscured in vv. 20–21: ‫והביאו את־כל־אחיכם מכל־הגוים מנחה ליהוה בסוסים וברכב ובצבים ובפרדים ובכרכרות ﬠל הר קדׁשי‬ ‫ירוׁשלם אמר יהוה כאׁשר יביאו בני יׂשראל את־המנחה בכלי טהור בית יהוה וגם־מהם אקח לכהנים‬ ‫ללוים אמר יהוה‬ They shall bring your kin from all the nations as a minḥâ to Yhvh on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules, and on dromedaries upon my holy mountain Jerusalem, says Yhvh, just as the Israelites bring the minḥâ in a pure vessel to the house of Yhvh. And I will even take some of them as priests, as Levites, says Yhvh. (Isa 66:20–21)

TI anticipates that some from the foreign nations (however ‫ פליטים‬is here understood) will have a role in repatriating Yehudites from the diaspora, and it appears that this role is favorably compared to the Israelites dutifully presenting a minḥâ to Yhvh. It should be noted that both LXX and 1QIsaa reflect a difficulty with MT Isa 66:20.50 The preposition in ‫ ﬠל הר קדׁשי ירוׁשלם‬in MT places foreigners within the sacred precincts, and this detail was deemed scandalous by some of the earliest readers. Within this phrase, 1QIsaa substitutes ‫ אל‬for MT’s ‫ ﬠל‬and the LXX translator completely places the foreigners outside Jerusalem: εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν Ιερουσαλημ (“towards the holy city of Jerusalem,” LXX Isa 66:20).51 While it is clear from MT that TI entrusts some of the foreigners with the task of repatriation to Jerusalem, the extent of their service depends on how one understands the antecedent to ‫ וגם־מהם‬in Isa 66:21. On the one hand, if ‫ מהם‬refers to the converted foreigners, then the claim here is that converts can serve in what is now a globalized priesthood, and signifies not only a reconceptualization of the Yahvistic temple personnel at the dawn of a new world order but also departs from Trito-Isaiah as well as Sinaitic revelation.52 If, however 49  Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie, 29. Against this view, see Volker Haarmann, “Their Burnt Offerings and Their Sacrifices Will Be Accepted on My Altar” (Isa 56:7): Gentile YhwhWorshipers and Their Participation in the Cult of Israel” in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jacob Wöhrle, BZABR 16 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 157–71. 50  On other ancient versions, see Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 629. 51  See below on Isa 56:6 for a similar interpretive correction in LXX and 1QIsaa. 52 On both Isa 56:6–7 and 66:21 as alternative visions of the Yehudite priesthood that develop out of Isa 60–62, see Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Postexilic Critique of the Priesthood, FAT II 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 274–86.

354

Philip Y. Yoo

on the other hand, ‫ מהם‬refers to the repatriated kin (‫ כל־אחיכם‬in v. 20),53 then v. 21 does not represent a radical view of the priesthood and continues to restrict their entry into the sacred precincts. I am of the opinion that this reading of ‫ מהם‬is preferred. Drawing once again from Ezra-Nehemiah, specifically the Ezra Memoir [EM], Ezra and the returnees are diligent in their preparations before their migration from Babylonia to Jerusalem. As a ritual procession, the caravan includes both priests and Levites (Ezra 7:7), and the absence of the latter even causes a delay that ceases only after Levites are found to accompany the caravan (8:15).54 Similar to EM, and building upon the motif of the second wilderness in Deutero-Isaiah, TI ritualizes the return of the diaspora as a reenactment of the Israelite migration from Egypt to Canaan,55 and expects ordained priests and Levites to accompany the return of the diaspora from the furthest parts of the world – including Tarshish, Put, Lud, Tubal, Javan (Isa 66:19) – back to Zion. In Isa 66:20, TI breaks new ground and presents a new regulation concerning the minḥâ for the convert and draws a parallel to the Israelite’s minḥâ (cf. Lev 2:1).56 Returning to Isa 56:6, and in particular its use of ‫ׁשר״ת‬, while ‫ ׁשר״ת‬appears to be one of many allusions to past legislation, including Num 18:2, it can also convey the sense of service to an assembly outside of the sacred precincts (cf. Num 16:9). TI envisions a more inclusive priesthood that includes the Israelite commoner and allows for foreign participation in the cult, but it upholds the past legislation that prevents foreigners from entering the sacred precincts.57 In TI’s mind, the foreigner does not serve inside the sacred precincts, but will participate in the cult through their service to the Israelites and by observing the commandments, including Sabbath (v. 23). Finally, Isa 66:1–5 consists of a critique of the temple building program (v. 1)58 and cultic improprieties (vv. 3–4). As was the case in Isa 56:1–8, this critique is once again presented as an oracular declaration, ‫( כה אמר יהוה‬Isa 66:1). Of interest in this declaration is the reference to a group called the ḥărēdîm (‫חרדים‬, 53 

Schramm, Opponents of Third Isaiah, 172–73. On the importance of the Mosaic period for Ezra, see Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974): 173–97. 55  Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 95; Sommer, Prophet Reads Scripture, 133. 56  TI, however, describes the Israelites presenting the minḥâ in a ‫כלי טהור‬, a term unattested in the Priestly legislation for the minḥâ. 57  Placing the final edition of the Trito-Isaianic corpus to the mid-fourth century BCE, see also the case that Trito-Isaiah maintains a clear separation between Judeans and non-Judeans in Christophe Nihan, “Ethnicity and Identity in Isaiah 56–66,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period, 67–104, esp. 90–91. 58  Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York: HarperOne, 1987), 144–45. Setting aside the vexing question on the unity of Isa 66:1–5, some critics argue that Isa 66:1 supports a temple rebuilding program; see Jill Middlemas, “Divine Reversal and the Role of the Temple in Trito-Isaiah” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 422 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 164–87. 54 



Torah Yet to Come

355

vv. 2, 5). ‫ חר״ד‬is not frequent, and critics point to a similar use of ‫ חר״ד‬in EzraNehemiah. In Ezra 9–10 [EM], the report that some of the men in the community have taken foreign daughters as their wives reaches Ezra and an accompanying group, described as “all who trembled (ḥārēd) at the words of the God of Israel” (‫כל חרד בדברי אלהי־יׂשראל‬, Ezra 9:4) and “the ones who tremble (ḥărēdîm) at the commandment of our God” (‫והחרדים במצות אלהינו‬, 10:3). Joseph Blenkinsopp suggests that both TI and EM, through their own perspectives, reveal the protosectarian origins of the ḥărēdîm as an intense and pious prophetic group in the postexilic Yahvistic cult, one that was cast out and marginalized by the priestly aristocracy.59 Critics are correct to note in both TI and EM the depictions of the ḥărēdîm as devotees of Yhvh, yet what is often overlooked is an apparent allusion to the Mosaic period. When the Israelites reach the base of the wilderness mountain, they wait in anticipation of a theophany, and after they witness the pyrotechnic show they tremble in the camp (‫ויחרד כל־הﬠם אׁשר במחנה‬, Exod 19:16b).60 What follows next are Yhvh’s revelations in the form of words (‫כל הדברים האלה‬, Exod 20:1) and continues with ordinances (‫מׁשפטים‬, 21:1), instructions (‫תורות‬, Lev 26:46), and commandments (‫מצות‬, 27:34). In both TI and EM, the ḥărēdîm who respond to the word of Yhvh (‫)דבר־יהוה‬ evoke those who trembled at Sinai moments before Yhvh spoke and revealed his words to the Israelites. Although both TI and EM use the ḥărēdîm to summon the Sinaitic event, there is a significant difference in the manner by which these texts envision the role of the ḥărēdîm. In EM, Ezra never seeks Yhvh; instead, he has direct access to the tôrâ of Yhvh (‫לדרש את־תורת יהוה‬, Ezra 7:10). The laws Yhvh revealed to the Israelites in the wilderness past are preserved in a scroll that Ezra produces in Jerusalem (Neh 8:8). There is no new law and, more crucially, no divine revelation in EM. The contents of this scroll are upheld as authoritative as it is through the mechanism of this scroll by which the words, judgments, instructions, and ordinances of the deity given to the Israelites in the wilderness past are preserved for posterity.61 As the divine oracle is no longer available for consultation, both Ezra and the ḥărēdîm adjudicate the correct interpretation of the contents of this scroll to address a pressing social and, in turn, legal crisis. As it is suggested by their chosen course of action, in a sense the ḥărēdîm in EM are, to borrow a term from constitutional jargon, originalists. In contrast to EM’s portrayal of the ḥărēdîm, TI also acknowledges that Yhvh presented the Israelites with a law code in the distant wilderness past, but it challenges the notion that the 59  See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 199–201. 60  Exodus 19:18 contains another use of ‫ חר״ד‬in the phrase ‫ויחרד כל־ההר מאד‬. While another description of ‫ חר״ד‬strengthens the “trembling” motif at Sinai, here it refers to the mountain and it may be excluded from the current discussion. 61  Accordingly, there is no need for Ezra to reveal the contents of Ezra’s scroll or repeat the laws. For the argument that ‫ מפרׁש‬in Neh 8:8 should be rendered “that was (already) declared,” see my “On Nehemiah 8,8a,” ZAW 127 (2015): 502–7.

356

Philip Y. Yoo

divine oracle is no longer available, and by addressing the place of the foreigner in the community, it presents its new regulations as ongoing divine proclamations that are continuing and forthcoming. As a result, TI depicts the ḥărēdîm as a pious group that continues to anticipate and receive new revelations.

3.  Trito-Isaiah and Competing Views of Divine Activity Whereas EM upholds Jerusalem as the exact locus where past divine instruction is proclaimed, the Trito-Isaianic corpus preserved in Isa 56–66 promotes the view that divine instruction is a process that not only originated in the wilderness past but also is ongoing and imminent at Zion. In light of the use of tôrâ in EzraNehemiah (and other postexilic texts) that points to something that contains the words of the deity from the wilderness past, both Trito-Isaiah and the subsequent hands that shape Isa 56–66 do not use tôrâ, as they unequivocally reject the idea that the lawgiving ceased long before their time. As such, the formulaic ‫ כה אמר יהוה‬is oftentimes employed to present each following proclamation as a new revelation and instruction from the deity. As a product of the postexilic period, the Trito-Isaianic corpus updates past prophetic traditions and demonstrates a familiarity with pentateuchal materials. This is not, however, to say that these Trito-Isaianic hands know something that is “the Torah.” Although the Trito-Isaianic hands inherit a developing corpus that contained the word tôrâ, and at times tôrâ refers to divine instruction (cf. Isa 8:16, 20), their avoidance of tôrâ is explained on the basis that by the time of Trito-Isaiah tôrâ has taken on a new meaning, one that points to the words of the deity now contained – and perhaps codified – into a scroll. In spite of the appearance of tôrâ in past Isaianic prophecies as a perfectly good word to convey Yhvh’s instruction, each one of the Trito-Isaianic hands abstains from using the word tôrâ in any technical sense as each hand anticipates further activity, especially in the form of oracular pronouncements, from Yhvh that addresses the present and future. However, the vision expressed throughout the Trito-Isaianic corpus of a more inclusive Yahvism, which is driven by its own legal understanding that divine revelation is a continuous process with roots in the past, was not accepted among many of its readers. In the same manner by which the Trito-Isaianic hands correct a perceived dubious stand by revising and supplementing its received legislation, some of their earliest readers express difficulties with the admissibility of the foreigner into the cult. TI’s position on the foreigner as attendants and observants of Sabbath was deemed anathema to some of its earliest readers. As the example of Isa 66:20 discussed above illustrates, both LXX and 1QIsaa reflect an ongoing process of interpretation, one that through emendation moves the foreigner further away from the temple complex. Similar interpretative strategies



Torah Yet to Come

357

are also evident in MT Isa 56:6. The appearance of δουλεὺειν in LXX Isa 56:6 for ‫ לׁשרתו‬is slightly peculiar and either reflects a correction to LXX’s Vorlage or, more likely, can be included among the changes introduced by the LXX translator that are driven by a theological reservation on the place of foreigners in the cult.62 Among the variant readings between MT Isa 56:6 and 1QIsaa, the reading in the latter reflects an intentional change on the part of the scribe that reflects a theological dissatisfaction with its source material: MT Isa 56:6

‫ובני הנכר הנלוים ﬠל־יהוה‬ ‫לׁשרתו ולאהבה את־ׁשם יהוה‬ ‫להיות לו לﬠבדים‬ ‫כל־ׁשמר ׁשבת מחללו ומחזיקים בבריתי‬

1QIsaa 56:6 (= col. xlvi:17–19)63

‫ ובני הנכר הנלויים אל יהוה‬17 ‫ להיות לו לﬠבדים ולברך את שמ יהוה‬18 ‫ ומחזיקים בבריתי‬19 ‫ושומרים את השבת מחללה‬

And the foreigners who join themselves And the foreigners who join themselves towards Yhvh, unto Yhvh, to minister to him and to love Yhvh’s name, and to be his servants; to be his servants, and to bless Yhvh’s name; all who keep Sabbath and do not profane and the ones who keep the Sabbath and not it, and hold my covenant. profane it, and hold my covenant.

Compared to MT, the variants in 1QIsaa encapsulate the interpretative difficulties held by the yaḥad with the source text.64 The scribe in 1QIsaa writes ‫אל יהוה‬ for MT ‫ ﬠל־יהוה‬and creates a greater physical distance between the foreigner and Yhvh.65 The scribe also replaces ‫ לׁשרתו ולאהבה‬with ‫ולברך‬, with Yhvh’s name as the object. Lastly, by reworking ‫ כל־ׁשמר‬to ‫וׁשמרים‬, 1QIsaa denies that all who joined Yhvh, presumably the foreigner, will absolutely observe Sabbath and upholds the distinction between the foreigner and the adherent to Israel’s deity. Both the LXX translator, as is apparent in the translation of ‫ תורה‬to νόμος in LXX Isaiah, and the yaḥad presume the existence of an authority that gained acceptance as “the Torah (of Moses).”66 At the very least, the Trito-Isaianic hands respond to pentateuchal materials, and perhaps the Pentateuch in its final stages, but due to the emergence of an authority referred to (hat)tôrâ that points to the 62  See also Dwight W. Van Winkle, “An Inclusive Authoritative Text in Exclusive Communities” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition, 2 vols., ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:423–40, esp. 428–33. 63  Text from The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition, ed. Donald W. Parry and Elisha Qimron, STDJ 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 64 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 242; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 65–66. 65  See above on the substitution of ‫ ﬠל‬in MT Isa 66:20 for ‫ אל‬in 1QIsaa. 66  On the LXX translator’s rendering of νόμος as the “Torah,” which is informed by a concern for the Torah and its rejection by its opponents, see Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 234–46.

358

Philip Y. Yoo

collected words of Israel’s deity from the utopic past, none of the Trito-Isaianic hands label any of the legal innovations as tôrâ. The observation that the Torah was not ubiquitous in postexilic Yahvism is supported by the absence of “the Torah of Moses” in the archives of the Yehudites (‫יהודיא‬, TADAE67 A4.3) at Yeb (Elephantine). Reinhard Kratz argues that although the archives record cultic matters that are dealt with in the Pentateuch, the lack of an explicit appeal to “the Torah of Moses” among the Yehudites at Yeb in their correspondence suggests that “the Torah of Moses” was unknown to Jewish society at both Yeb and in Yehud and Samaria.68 In response, John Collins remarks that the archives from Yeb demonstrate that “it was possible to be ‘Judean’ in the fifth century without reference to the Law of Moses.”69 The mention of Sabbath in the archives (‫ׁשבה‬, TADAE D7.10, 12, 16, 28) suggests that, at least at Yeb, Yehudites could observe Sabbath without recourse to something akin to the Torah or the Torah of Moses. It should also be noted that one could even be “Yehudite” in Yehud without some knowledge of “the Law.” In EM, Ezra is given a mandate to make known the “laws of your god” (‫דתי אלהך‬, Ezra 7:25) in Jerusalem and Yehud, which leads to the impression that some of the Yehudite officials know this law and others do not. These “laws of your god” appear to be something akin to the final or some penultimate form of the Torah, and Ezra’s mission is to make its contents known to those who are not familiar with the “laws of your god.” The scenario that one could be Yehudite or an adherent of the Yahvistic cult without recourse to the Torah or the Torah of Moses is also evident in Isa 56–66. Rather than accept the Torah as authoritative and binding, the Trito-Isaianic tradent draws upon the Isaianic notion of continuous divine revelation (Isa 65:3, cf. ‫ואׂשים דברי בפיך‬, 51:16) and insists that one could – rather, should – be bound to Yhvh’s revelation from not only the Sinaitic past but also at Zion in the present and future time. The Trito-Isaianic acceptance of foreign participation in the cult reflects an expansion, or perhaps better stated as a continuous revision, of the pentateuchal laws. To a degree, the Trito-Isaianic tradent follows a tradition that acknowledges that the lawgiving did not cease at the wilderness mountain. In either the canonical text or among the constituent parts of the Pentateuch, the lawgiving at Sinai continues into the wilderness as the Israelites consult the divine oracle when unanticipated scenarios arise (Num 15:32–36; 27:1–11 [both H]) and/or the Israelites reach Moab where Moses relays the laws to the Israelites (Deut 1:5; 29:1 [D]). The Trito-Isaianic corpus likewise accepts 67  TADAE = Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 4 vols., ed. Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–99). 68  Reinhard G. Kratz, “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 77–103, esp. 82–89. 69  John J. Collins, The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017), 48–52 [at 52].



Torah Yet to Come

359

Sinaitic revelation, yet it denies that this revelation ceased before the Israelites entered Canaan. Furthermore, the Trito-Isaianic hands reject the crystallization of this revelation in a scroll. In lieu of tôrâ, TI employs the formulaic ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ in order to describe new oracular proclamations and presents ongoing divine activity by other means that include Yhvh’s arrival in a torrent (Isa 59:19), or a fire (66:15), or – as a reminder of the Sinaitic event – as the Presence (v. 18). This view of divine activity in the earthly realm leads to the Trito-Isaianic rejection of “the Torah” and, in turn, the word tôrâ. Collectively, Isa 56–66 represents a unique view that tôrâ is incomplete and actually forthcoming from Yhvh, and these new instructions will shape the utopic future, one in which ongoing divine proclamations that originate from Zion will provide the legal standard for a newly-shaped community devoted to Yhvh.

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZABR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Berges, Ulrich. “Trito-Isaiah and the Reforms of Ezra/Nehemiah: Consent or Conflict?” Bib 98 (2017): 173–190. Berquist, Jon L. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. Isaiah 56–66: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Carr, David M. “The Rise of Torah.” Pages 39–56 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Chavel, Simeon. Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah. FAT II 71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah: A  Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Clements, Ronald E. “The Meaning of ‫ תורה‬in Isaiah 1–39.” Pages 59–72 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. G. McConville and Karl Möller. LHBOTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Clines, David J. A. “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis.” JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17. Collins, John J. The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017. Dekker, Jaap. “The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 118–34 in Torah and Tradition: Papers read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015. Edited by Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad. OtSt 70. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

360

Philip Y. Yoo

Donner, Herbert. “Jesaja LVI 1–7: Ein Abrogationsfall innerhalb des Kanons  – Implikationen und Konsequenzenen.” Pages 81–95 in Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 36. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia: übersetzt und erklärt. HKAT 3.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. 5th ed., 1968. Fischer, Irmtraud. Tora für Israel – Tora für die Völker: Das Konzept des Jesajabuches. SBS 164. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. García López, F. and H.‑J. Farby. “‫ תורה‬tôrâ.” Pages 597–637 in vol. 8 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–2016. Gertz, Jan Christian, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, eds. The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Goldingay, John. Isaiah 56–66: A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Haarmann, Volker. “‘Their Burnt Offerings and their Sacrifices will be Accepted on my Altar’ (Isa 56:7): Gentile Yhwh-Worshipers and their Participation in the Cult of Israel.” Pages 157–71 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jacob Wöhrle. BZABR 16. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2011. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. –. “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies of Is. XL– LXVI.” Pages 127–55 in Congress Volume: Bonn 1962. Edited by Walter Baumgartner. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Jensen, Joseph. The Use of tôrâ by Isaiah: His Debate with Wisdom Tradition. CBQMS 3. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1973. K aufmann, Yehezkel. ‫ מימי קדם ﬠד סוף בית שני‬:‫תולדות האמונה הישראלית‬. 4 vols. Tel Aviv: Mosad Byaliḳ, 1937–1956. Eng., The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated by Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995. Reprinted, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Koch, Klaus. “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism.” JSS 19 (1974): 173­–97. Koenen, Klaus. Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie. WMANT 62. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Lau, Wolfgang. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches. BZAW 225. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994.



Torah Yet to Come

361

Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New York: HarperOne, 1987. Lynch, Matthew J. “Zion’s Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion Traditions.” CBQ 70 (2008): 244–63. McDonald, Nathan. Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44. BZAW 476. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Middlemas, Jill. “Divine Reversal and the Role of the Temple in Trito-Isaiah.” Pages 164–87 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. –. Numbers = Ba-Midbar: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Moor, Johannes C. de. “Structure and Redaction: Isaiah 60,1–63,6.” Pages 325–46 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken. Edited by Johannes van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Nihan, Christophe. “Ethnicity and Identity in Isaiah 56–66.” Pages 67–104 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 12–34. 2 vols. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2016. Parry, Donald W. and Elisha Qimron, eds. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A  New Edition. STDJ 32. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66: A  New Commentary. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Pauritsch, Karl. Die neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt Ausgestossene und Arme (Jesaia 56–66). AnBib 47. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–1999. Ruszkowski, Leszek. Volk und Gemeinde im Wandel: Eine Untersuchung zu Jesaja 56–66. FRLANT 191. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schaper, Joachim. “Torah and Identity in the Persian Period.” Pages 27–38 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011. –. “Rereading the Law: Inner-Biblical Exegesis of Divine Oracles in Ezekiel 44 and Isaiah 56.” Pages 125–44 in Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstag Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18–21 Oktober 2001. Edited by Bernard M. Levinson and Eckart Otto. ATM 13. Münster: Lit, 2004. Schramm, Brooks. The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration. JSOTSupp 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4).” Pages 11–26 in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, and Joshua J. Schwartz. JCP 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

362

Philip Y. Yoo

Sheppard, Gerald T. “The ‘Scope’ of Isaiah as a Book of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” Pages 257–81 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. JSOTSupp 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Smith, Paul A. Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66. VTSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Sommer, Benjamin D. A  Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Steck, Odil Hannes. Studien zu Tritojesaja. BZAW 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Stromberg, Jacob. Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah.” Pages 50–67 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. JSOTSupp 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. BZAW 171. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Critique of the Priesthood, FAT II 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia and Hans M. Barstad, eds. Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40–66. FRLANT 255. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Torrey, C. C. The Second Isaiah. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. JSJSupp 124. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Van Winkle, Dwight W. “An Inclusive Authoritative Text in Exclusive Communities.” Pages 1:423–40 in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition. 2 vols. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Watts, James W., ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. SBLSymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Wright, Jacob L. and Michael J. Chan. “King and Eunuch: Isaiah 56:1–8 in Light of Honorific Royal Burial Practices.” JBL 131 (2012): 103–8. Yoo, Philip Y. Ezra and the Second Wilderness. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. –. “On Nehemiah 8,8a.” ZAW 127 (2015): 502–7.

Part 3

The Ancient Near East and the History of Isaiah

Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography Writing the Hezekiah-Sennacherib Conflict in the Light of the Ashurbanipal-Teumman War* Peter Dubovský 1. Introduction Assyria was feared, admired, and hated in ancient and modern times. This contribution focuses on Isa 36–37 and its peculiar presentation of Assyria. I will investigate whether there are Assyrian texts that resemble Isaiah’s version of Sennacherib’s campaign as for style and rhetoric. This research shows that the Isaianic version is similar to Ashurbanipal’s campaign against Elamite king Teumman. This part, being the central part of this article, will focus on extant prisms and reliefs describing Ashurbanipal’s campaign. According to extant documents Teumman’s defeat and his insulting messages sent to Assyria were successfully used for the “indoctrination” of ambassadors paying visit to the Assyrian king. Based on these results, I argue that Isa 36–37 is the reversal of Ashurbanipal-Teumman episode.

2.  Assyria in the Books of Kings and Isaiah Scholars for a long time have been advancing hypotheses on the relations between the Book of Isaiah and 1–2 Kings.1 Besides obvious similarities between 2 Kgs 18–19 and Isa 36–37, there are important differences between both books. One difference concerns the number of reported Assyrian campaigns. The *  The author expresses his deep gratitude to Jonathan Tubb, who allowed him to study the Tīl-Tuba reliefs that are currently inaccessible to the general public and to Gabriela Vlková for her creative and critical comments. 1  Close similarities between 2 Kgs 18­–19 and Isa 36–37 caused scholarly research to focus on establishing relations between these two passages. Some scholars concluded that Isa 36–39 depended on 2 Kgs 18–20. Other scholars, however, reached an opposite conclusion, namely, that chapters 2 Kgs 18–20 were dependent on Isa 36–39. The others suggested that 2 Kgs 18–19 and Isa 36–37 drew on an independent source or on three different traditions. For a review of the opinions, see Willem A. M. Beuken, “The King Diseased and Healed (Isaiah 38), the King Embarrassed and Comforted (Isaiah 39): What Do These Figures Add to the King Beleagured

366

Peter Dubovský

Books of Kings report four Assyrian invasions: 1. Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Northern Syria in 738–737 BCE (2 Kgs 15:19–20); 2. Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria-Palestine in 734–732 BCE (2 Kgs 15:29; 16:5–9); 3. Campaigns conducted by Shalmaneser V and Sargon II between 727–716 BCE during which Samaria became an Assyrian province (2 Kgs 17:3–6); 4. Sennacherib’s campaign against Philistia and Judah in 701 BCE (2 Kgs 18–19), the last Assyrian campaign mentioned in 2 Kings.2 By contrast, the Book of Isaiah mentions directly only Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 BCE (Isa 36–37) and an Assyrian invasion conducted by Sargon II’s high officials (Isa 20:1). Since the latter was not against Israel or Judah, but against Ashdod, it can be concluded that the Book of Isaiah explicitly refers only to one Assyrian campaign against Israel, whereas the Books of Kings refer to four campaigns. Another difference between both books concerns a direct reference to ­A ssyria outside Isa 36–39/2 Kgs 18–20. The term ‫ אׁשור‬occurs in 1–2 Kings twenty-four times referring to the Assyrian royal campaigns between 738 and 716 BCE mentioned above.3 Another two verses (2 Kgs 20:6 and 23:29) also refer to Assyrian campaigns. The former is more generic, the latter refers to the last Assyrian military conflicts in 612–605 BCE. However, Isa 1–35 employs the term ‫ר‬‎ ‫ אׁשו‬twenty-four times. However, none of these occurrences is explicitly linked with an Assyrian campaign.4 This omission becomes more evident when we compare Isa 7 and 2 Kgs 16. Isaiah 7:1 has an almost verbatim parallel in 2 Kgs 16:5. However, the following verses in Isa 7:2–12 omit a reference to ­Tiglath-pileser III’s Assyrian invasion that is explicitly mentioned in 2 Kgs 16:7– 9 (cf. also 2 Kgs 15:29). Finally, whereas in the Books of Kings it is difficult to link other passages with Assyrian invasions except those mentioned above,5 several direct and indirect references to Assyria in Isa 1–35 allow linking the biblical text with a concrete Assyrian enterprise. Thus, J. A. Emerton suggested that Isa 1:4–9 refers to Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah.6 In his study of Isa 19 and Assyrian royal anand Rescued (Isaiah 36–37),” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86 (2010): 379–80; Idem, Jesaja 28–39 (Freiburg: Herder, 2010), 354–58; Hugh G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 189–211. 2  Cf. for example Christian Frevel, Geschichte Israels, Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 213–63. 3  Assyrian campaigns between Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II: 2 Kgs 15:19, 20 (2 ×), 29; 16:7, 8, 9 (2 ×); 17:3, 4 (3 ×), 5, 6 (2 ×), 23, 24, 26, 27; 18:7, 9. To these references we can add 2 Kgs 16:10, 18 that refer to Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign in 734–732 BC. 4  Cf. Isa 7:17, 18, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:5, 12, 24; 11:11, 16; 14:25; 19:23 (4 ×), 24, 25; 20:1, 4, 6; 23:13; 27:13; 30:31; 31:8. Moreover, the term occurs in the story on Hezekiah’s illness (Isa 38:6 corresponding to 2 Kgs 20:6). In the rest of the Book of Isaiah the term occurs only Isa 52:4 as a reference to a past oppression. 5  The only possible link with “Assyria is the description of Jehu’s dynasty that submitted to Assyria (2 Kgs 9–14). 6  John A. Emerton, “The Historical Background of Isaiah 1:4–9,” EI 24 (1993): 34*–40*.

Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography



367

nals, Shawn Zelig Aster concludes that Isa 19 is a re-envisioning of the Assyrian campaign of 734 BCE, part of which was directed against Egypt.7 It is generally recognized that Isa 22:9–11 refers to the fortification of the city that took place during Hezekiah’s period, a fortification aimed at fortifying the city against a possible Assyrian invasion.8 Similar direct or indirect references and allusions to Assyria can be found in other prophets, such as Hosea, Nahum, Ezekiel, Micah, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah.9 But among these prophets the theme of Assyria is most elaborated in First Isaiah. All things considered, the Isaianic scribes, despite their good knowledge of Assyria, its propaganda and its military campaigns, explicitly mentioned only Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 BCE omitting all other campaigns that took place before or after 701 BCE, on the one hand. On the other hand, the Book of Isaiah refers most frequently to Assyria. So why did the Isaianic scribes, who were wellacquainted with the Assyrian world, mention only one Assyrian campaign?

3.  Isaiah’s Version of Sennacherib’s Campaign Comparing Sennacherib’s invasion in 2 Kgs 18–19 and Isa 36–37 with the Assyrian royal annals, it has been noticed that the first part as described in 2 Kgs 18:7, 14–16, but omitted in Isa 36, has some corresponding elements in Sennacherib’s royal annals (see Appendix 2).10 The interpretation of Hezekiah’s rebellion differs in 2 Kings and in Assyrian annals. Whereas Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria is inserted into the context of Hezekiah’s faithfulness to God and his religious reform (2 Kgs 18:1–7), the Assyrian annals depict Hezekiah as an evil and stubborn king. Sennacherib responds to Hezekiah’s rebellion by a military campaign (2 Kgs 18:13; Isa 36:1). Moreover, both the Assyrian and biblical sources (2 Kgs 18:13 and Isa 36:1) agree on the Assyrian invasion of Judah, though some details are different. Finally, anticipating the destruction of Judah, Hezekiah submitted to Sennacherib and asked for the conditions of peace (2 Kgs 18:14–15, omitted in Isa 36). To assure Sennacherib of his submission, Hezekiah paid a huge tribute. While both the Assyrian annals and 2 Kgs 18:14– 15 agree on the tribute, the amount and circumstances of the tribute are different in 2 Kings and the Assyrian annals. 7 

Shawn Zelig Aster, “Isaiah 19: The ‘Burden of Egypt’ and Neo-Assyrian Imperial Policy,”

JAOS 135 (2015): 453.

8 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 333–35. 9  For the list of passages see Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983): 720. 10  Cf. Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39: A  Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 363, 377–86.

368

Peter Dubovský

This comparison shows that the major difference between Isa 36–37 and 2 Kgs 18–19 can be observed in the introductory part, namely 2 Kgs 18:1–16 and Isa 36:1.11 The differences between the introductory verses create a different narrative setting for Sennacherib’s invasion in Isaiah and Kings. 2 Kings 18:1– 16 presents a typical invasion pattern.12 King Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria and Sennacherib responded to Hezekiah’s rebellion with a military campaign. Hezekiah, seeing the destruction of Judah, submitted to Sennacherib, asked for the conditions of peace, and paid a tribute. This three-step pattern (rebellion– punitive campaign–conquest/submission) is a typical ANE invasion pattern that occurs not only in the Bible but also in most ANE royal inscriptions. Of particular interest is a typically Judean way of handling foreign invasions by paying a tribute or bribing another king.13 The examples of such patterns both in Judah and Israel show that once the king accepted the tribute, the king-invader retreated from the land (cf. 2 Kgs 15:19–20). However, Sennacherib did not retreat and on the contrary he sent his messengers urging the Jerusalemites to surrender. The angel’s intervention in 2 Kgs 19:35 reestablished the just order: Sennacherib returned to his country, as he was supposed to do after Hezekiah had paid him a tribute which in fact Sennacherib himself had imposed upon Hezekiah. In sum, the Rab-shaqeh story in the MT of the Books of Kings describes the reasons why Assyria was destroyed: Sennacherib accepted the money but did not retreat. On the contrary, he continued insulting Hezekiah and his God. By appending the Rab-shaqeh episode 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37 after the annalistic account (18:1–16), the final editors created a link between the arrogant behavior of Sennacherib and Ben-Hadad.14 Such arrogant behavior ultimately brought destruction upon the Assyrian troops and Sennacherib. Moreover, the insertion of 2 Kgs 18:9–12 compares the Assyrian invasions against Hoshea (an evil king to be punished for his sins) and Hezekiah (a just king to be protected by God). The omission of 2 Kgs 18:1–12, 14–16 in Isa 36 creates a different narrative setting for Sennacherib’s invasion.15 First, the Book of Isaiah did not give any reason why Assyria invaded Judah, since there is no note about Hezekiah’s 11 

Beuken, Jesaja 28–39, 354–57. Other minor differences are the use of singular and plural. Isa 3:3 has singular since there is only Rab-shaqeh, whereas 2 Kgs 18:18 has plural, since there are three officials. However, in Isa 37:6 the prophet Isaiah speaks about men in the plural who scorned the Lord. This can be understood as a sign that the first part Isa 36:1–3 is adjusted to a new setting, whereas Isa 37:6 reflects the Kings version. 13  Cf. for example 1 Kgs 15:16–21; 2 Kgs 12:18–19; 16:2–8. 14  A similar literary pattern we can find in the description of Ben-Hadad’s invasion of Israel (1 Kgs 20) and in RINAP 4 33. The king of Šubria received three admonishments from Esarhaddon to extradite the runaways. But the Šubrian king refused. Once Esarhaddon in his fierce anger attacked Šubria, the Šubrian king pleaded for mercy but to no avail. His land was ruined. 15  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 378. 12 

Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography



369

rebellion. Assyria simply invaded and destroyed Judah. Second, Hezekiah never submitted to Assyria, nor asked for forgiveness, nor paid a tribute. Thus, the Jerusalemites and their king Hezekiah are depicted as heroes who resisted the overwhelming Assyrian military force. Consequently, the meaning of the Rabshaqeh episode is different. In Isaiah, the Assyrian psychological pressure was aimed at urging Hezekiah to surrender so as to avoid a prolonged siege and the costly attack of a city. This was not the goal of Assyrian psychological pressure in 2 Kgs 18–19, since Hezekiah had already surrendered to Assyria. Similarly, the intervention of the angel destroying the Assyrian army had also a different nuance in the Book of Kings and Isaiah. In the Books of Kings Sennacherib is depicted as the king who did not respect the fundamental rules of war (after receiving the tribute, the invader was to withdraw), whereas in the Book of Isaiah Sennacherib became a prototype of an Assyrian king-invader. Therefore, in the Books of Kings, the angel punished an arrogant and blasphemous Sennacherib for not respecting God and the fundamental rules of war, whereas in the Book of Isaiah the angel saved the city from the clutches of a pretentious and overly self-confident invader.

4.  From History to Rhetoric This comparison has shown that the Books of Kings maintained elements that brought the biblical narrative closer to the Assyrian annals, whereas the Book of Isaiah omitted these elements. Consequently, what was left in Isaiah, namely the Rab-shaqeh episode (Isa 36:2–37:38), is almost word-by-word repeated in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37. However, this episode has no equivalent in Sennacherib’s annals as for the style and the content. Even though it can be demonstrated that Sennacherib had to exercise psychological pressure upon Hezekiah, in particular, in order to free Padi, the pro-Assyrian king of Ekron who was imprisoned in Jerusalem, Sennacherib’s annals do not mention it.16 Instead of harmonizing the Assyrian and biblical descriptions, let us ask a different question: Are there Assyrian inscriptions that would have a similar literary style to that of the Rab-shaqeh episode (Isa 36:2–37:38/2 Kgs 18:17–19:37)? Before presenting the Ashurbanipal-Teumman conflict let us turn our attention to the literary forms of the Assyrian annals. This brief introduction, I believe, can contextualize Isaianic description of Sennacherib’s arrogance. During the period when Judah was an Assyrian vassal, royal scribes did their best to disseminate Assyrian royal propaganda that aimed mainly at glorifying the military achievements and building activities of the kings.17 For this reason, 16 Peter Dubovský, “Assyrians under the Walls of Jerusalem and the Confinement of Padi,”

JNES 75 (2016): 109–26. 17 Mario

Liverani, Assiria: La Preistoria dell’imperialismo (Bari: Laterza, 2017), 27–34.

370

Peter Dubovský

the Assyrian annals often simply listed royal deeds.18 However, when a campaign deserved more attention, the presentation normally followed a three-step pattern. The description normally started with a narrative introduction that presented the situation in third person. It introduced the reason for the Assyrian invasion and often it focused on the evil deeds of the enemies, their disrespecting the treaties, their barbarian behavior, etc. (Step 1). While Step 1 was described in the third person, the next step describing the reaction of the Assyrian king to the challenge presented in the introduction was in the first person singular. The focus was on the king’s bravery and piety, thanks to which the king resolved the problem. At this point the scribes gladly inserted references to divine miraculous interventions, prophecies, visions, prayers, etc. (Step 2). The narrative concluded with a summary of results, in particular focusing on a tribute and booty, a new territorial division, etc. (Step 3). A model situation can be found in Esarhaddon’ invasion of Babylonia (see Appendix 1).19 Isaiah’s version of Sennacherib’s invasion follows this three-step pattern, contrary to that in 2 Kgs 18–19. Sennacherib invaded and insulted Judah (Step 1), king Hezekiah reacted by a prayer and consulting the prophet Isaiah (Step 2), and God responded by defeating the Assyrian troops that followed Sennacherib’s retreat and violent death (Step 3). This simple narrative plot has, however, a specific feature. It has an unusually long preface full of direct speeches (Isa 36:1–37:35) that Sennacherib uttered through his messengers and those of Isaiah and Hezekiah (Step 1 and 2), whereas the actual defeat (Step 3) is reduced to Isa 37:36–38. So our question can be reformulated: Is there an Assyrian writing that has a similar elaboration of this three-step pattern?

5.  Ashurbanipal’s defeat of Elamite king Teumman Sennacherib’s offensive messages, Hezekiah’s prayer, the intervention of the prophet Isaiah and his oracles from the narrative viewpoint represent the core of Isa 36–37. Though similar topoi are not uncommon in Assyrian inscriptions,20 an analysis of the Assyrian inscriptions and reliefs shows that the elements 18 Cf.

RINAP 4 1 iii 39–42, 43–46, 56–58. Obviously there are many exceptions to this fixed pattern. A description of subjugation without previous rebellion occur in the narratives describing the surrender of Bēl-iqīša (RINAP 4 1 iii 71–83; iv 1–16), Uppis (1 iv 32–45), the land of Patušari (1 iv 46–52), the land of Bāza (1 iv 53–77), and other cities (RINAP 3/1 17 iv 18–60). Similarly there are the submissions without a campaign such as Elam (RINAP 4 1 v 26–33) or submission due to a dream (RINAP 5 3 ii 86–91). The rebellion-submission can also be described in a very flowery diplomatic version (RINAP 4 33). 20  Assyrians were very sensitive to arrogant answers and insulting messages that normally triggered the anger of the gods and kings. Thus Esarhaddon became angry because of insulting messages of Baʾalu, king of Tyre, and attack the city (RINAP 4 34:12′–18′). Cf. also the disrespect 19 



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

371

similar to those in Isa 36:2–37:35/2 Kgs 18:17–19:34 are concentrated in the description of Ashurbanipal’s campaign against Elamite king Teumman. This narrative focuses on exchanges of messages between Ashurbanipal and Teumman, Ashurbanipal’s invocation of the gods, the gods’ answers, and Teumman’s persisting in his arrogant behavior. Since the Teumman-Ashurbanipal conflict bears many similarities with the Sennacherib-Hezekiah conflict, I will explore the similarities and differences in the following paragraphs (for the texts see Appendix 3).21 5.1  Historical Background of Teumman-Ashurbanipal War Before analyzing the extant inscriptions describing the conflict between Teumman and Ashurbanipal, let me briefly present the historical background of this military clash.22 The Elamite king Urtaku (675–664 BCE) transgressed a treaty of non-aggression he had concluded with Esarhaddon (674 BCE; RINAP 4 1 v 30–33; cf. also SAA IV 74:2–4) and was enticed by his general to join the anti-Assyrian coalition. Ashurbanipal quickly defeated the rebels (RINAP 5 3 iv 15–67).23 After Urtaku’s death a new Elamite king Teumman (664–653 BC) continued with anti-Assyrian policies.24 He involved Elam in a series of wars that ultimately resulted in the end of the Neo-Elamite II period.25 After becoming the king, Teumman wanted to eliminate the pretenders to the throne. Urtaku’s sons escaped to Assyria to avoid Teumman’s slaughtering of the royal family. Ashurbanipal accepted their gifts and granted them asylum. Teumman was aware that the fugitives and Ashurbanipal were ready to overthrow his kingship. Therefore, to eliminate the fugitives would mean that Teumman would become the only legitimate throne holder. “For this reason Teumman insisted on releasing Urtaku’s sons  – Ummanigaš, Ummanappa, and Tammarītu  – and the sons of of Aḫšēri, king of Mannea (RINAP 5 3 iii 16–20) and Shamʾgammi (RIMB 2 S.0.1002.2 i 19–25). For similar divine interventions, see for example RINAP 1 28:3; 3/1 22 v 74. 21  The exchange of angry messages concerning the extradition of runaways are known topoi in the ANE (cf. Murshili II’s annals; COS II, 87). 22 Pamela Gerardi, “Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns: A Literary and Political Study” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1987), 135–57; Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 275–81; Peter Dubovský, “Elam and Assyria,” in The Elamite World, ed. Javier Álvarez-Mon, Gianpietro Basello, and Yasmina Wicks (New York: Routledge, 2018): 323–39. 23 When this contribution was submitted, the printed version of RINAP 5 was not yet available. Since the preliminary version of RINAP 5 posted on ORACC website represents an improved version of BIWA, I will refer to RINAP 5 as posted on-line, instead of BIWA. 24  Mathew W. Waters, A Survey of Neo-Elamite History, SAAS 12 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), 42–55. 25  Teumman was involved in the anti-Assyrian activities even before he accessed the throne supporting the anti-Assyrian resistance in Babylonia; cf. PNAP 3/II, 1323.

372

Peter Dubovský

Urtaku’s brother – Kudurru and Parrû (cf. RINAP 5 3 iv 68–v 4). Ashurbanipal refused and Teumman responded with a series of angry messages. The tension between Assyria and Elam escalated before 653 BCE. Teumman and Ashurbanipal mobilized their troops. After having received the confirmation from the gods, Ashurbanipal attacked Teumman at Tīl-Tuba, located on the river Ulaya. Assyria defeated Elam; and Teumman was beheaded (RINAP 5 3 iv 80–vi 9). Ashurbanipal’s next campaign was directed against Teumman’s ally Dunanu, chief of the Gambulu tribe. The victorious Assyrian troops returned with immense booty to Nineveh and hung Teumman’s head around Dunanu’s neck. Teumman’s messengers who carried the insolent messages to Ashurbanipal were executed. Ashurbanipal’s victory transformed Elam into a fully-fledged vassal kingdom (RINAP 5 3 iv 10–vii 76). The Assyrians, however, needed a few more campaigns to eliminate the last cells of resistance in Elam. Around 645 BCE the last Elamite king Humban-haltaš III was captured and together with other rebels was brought to Nineveh. Why was this campaign so important? After the conquest of Egypt (RINAP 5 3 i 48–ii 37), Elam remained the last kingdom opposing Assyria. The defeat of Teumman represented a decisive moment of dismantling the Elamite kingdom and conquering the universe. The defeat of the most ferocious Assyrian enemy was celebrated in writing and reliefs. The full version of Teumman’s defeat has been preserved in RINAP 5 3, 4, 6, 7 (Prisms B, D, C, and Kh correspondingly).26 Prism B is dated around 649 BCE27 and together with D, C, Kh presented the most elaborated version of Teumman’s defeat.28

6.  A Comparison of the Rab-shaqeh and Teumman Episodes Prisms B, D, C, Kh and Isa 36–37 follow a three-step linear development of the plot (see Appendix 1). Both Isa 36:1 and RINAP 5 3 iv 80 start with a heading 26  A partially preserved version of the longer narrative are RINAP 5 8 v 1′–12′ (Prism G) corresponds to 3 v 1–15 and SAA III 31 (K 8016); the latter omits some elements mentioned in the longer version. To this list we can add a fragment mentioning Teumman, RINAP 5 18 i 2′ (BM 121080 + BM 121108). 27  John M. Russell, The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 164. 28  A different version is presented in RINAP 5 16:7′–30′ (1866–05–19, 0001). Later versions of Ashurbanipal’s annals give only summaries of Teumman’s defeat. Thus, RINAP 5 9 ii 53–66 (Prism F, dated around 646–645 BC), 5 11 iii 27–43 (Prism A dated around 643 BC), 5 59:5–6 (Nabû Inscription); cf. also Mullissu inscription RINAP 5 60:4–5, 5 63, 5 71:1–2. A late summary inscription RINAP 5 23 does not mention the defeat of Teumman but focuses on the defeat of last Elamite kings that virtually marked the end of the Elamite dynasty. The defeat of Teumman is not mentioned in any Babylonian inscriptions linked to Ashurbanipal (section RIMB 2 B.6.32).



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

373

on military campaign (exposition).29 Contrary to the abbreviated versions,30 the Prisms B, D, C, and Kh (RINAP 5 3, 4, 6, 7 accordingly) have a long presentation of escalating tension before the 653 BCE war. The escalating tension becomes the narrative focus of both episodes31 and moves the reader’s attention towards the enemy’s aggressive messages, their deliverers, and their senders. 6.1  Offensive Messages and Messengers Ashurbanipal’s annals and Isa 36–37 dedicated long paragraphs to messages sent by the enemy king (Teumman and Sennacherib respectively). Prism B reports Teumman’s messages aimed at getting hold of fugitives (see above). The prisms reproduce Teumman’s words: “I (Teumman) will not stop until I go (and) do battle with him (Ashurbanipal)” (RINAP 5 3 v 23).32 Teumman’s speeches are more elaborated in 16:18′–21′: “[T]eumman constantly sent me insults [sa] ying ‘Send me those people!’ and [a seco]nd time, saying ‘I will come and wage war [ag]ainst you!’” A different content of Teumman’s messages can be reconstructed ˹la˺ [a-ṣal-lal] [a-du] É DU-u-ni ina qab-si NINA.KI a-kal-[u-ni …] “I will not [sleep until] I have come and din[ed] in the center of Nineveh!” (SAA III 31:13′–14). Despite the fact that in Isa 36–37 over thirty percent of the narrative occupies Assyrian direct speeches (20 out of 60 verses), the goal of Sennacherib’s messages was less clear since he did not say explicitly what he wanted. The only direct remark is in Isa 36:16: ‫עׂשו־אתי ברכה וצאו אלי‬. The term ‫ ברכה‬can be interpreted as a tribute or a peace treaty,33 but it may describe a gesture of raised hand depicted on the reliefs as a sign of submission (Fig. 1 n. 63, 65). Neither narrator hid their strong negative judgements. Teumman’s messages were labeled me-re-ḫe-e-ti, pl. of mēreḫtu “insolence”.34 Prism B calls the words 29  A similar heading is in Isa 20:1 (cf. also 1 Kgs 14:25; 2 Kgs 17:3; 23:29; 24:1) and in Assyrian annals the expression ina XY ger-ri-ia UGU “on my XYth campaign” marks the beginning of a new campaign (cf. 3 ii 38; iii 5, 16; iv 15). Even though both expressions mark the beginning of a new unit, in the Bible, it introduces a foreign invasion, whereas in the Assyrian annals it marks the beginning of a new Assyrian campaign. 30  The abbreviated versions in RINAP 5 9 and 11 (Prisms F and A) presents the campaign as Ashurbanipal’s fulfillment of divine will, twelve divinities are listed in Prism A and ten in Prism F. But Teumman’s insolent messages are not mentioned. These abbreviated versions refer to RINAP 5 3 v 87–96. 31  Isa 36–37 dedicates only 3 verses out of 60 to the actual battle. Thus, 95 % of the biblical text focuses on the Rab-shaqeh episode. Similarly Prism B has only 26 lines out of 194 dedicated to the actual battle between Ashurbanipal and Teumman. Thus, 87 % of the story is not dedicated to the description of the actual war. 32  ul ú-maš-šar a-di al-la-ku it-ti-šú, lit. “I will not give up, till I go (do battle) with him.” The reconstruction is based on al-la-kam-ma ˹it˺-ti-ka ep-pu-šá mit-ḫu-ṣu-tu (RINAP 5 16:20′–21′; 1866–05–19, 0001). 33 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 11 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 232. 34  According to CAD 10, 21 this noun occurs in the Neo-Assyrian documents, once in

374

Peter Dubovský

of his mouth aggressive: qí-bit pi-i-šu er-ḫu “utterance of his provocative speech” (RINAP 5 3 v 3). Along the same line the biblical scribes used the verb ‫ חרף‬in piel (Isa 37:4, 17, 23, 24) meaning “to taunt,” whereas Hezekiah interprets this verb as a synonym of the verb ‫ יכח‬in hifil (Isa 37:4) meaning “to rebuke, to reproach.” The prophet Isaiah interprets it as a synonym of the verb ‫“ גדף‬to blaspheme” (Isa 37:6, 22). So in both cases the insult was understood not only as an offense to the king, but also to the supreme divinity (Isa 37:17, 22–23; RINAP 5 3 v 4035). The messages in either case were delivered via high officials who reported the king’s will. Teumman sent Nabû-damiq and Umbadarâ, who were LÚ.MAḪ.MEŠ šá KUR.ELAM.MA.KI “the nobles of Elam”.36 Isa 36:2 refers to Rab-shaqeh who was a high Assyrian official.37 In both cases the messages were delivered not only orally, but also in writing. Isaiah 37:14 explicitly mentions the letter sent by Sennacherib. Relief on Slab 6 in Room XXXIII (WA 124802) depicts Nabû-damiq and Umbadarâ holding the tablets with the messages as explained on Epigraph 27av (RINAP 5 35:8 GIŠ.ZU.MEŠ ˹ši˺-pir me-re-eḫ-tú “writing boards/tablets inscribed with insolent messages”). So the dialogue between Ashurbanipal-Teumman and Hezekiah-Sennacherib was mediated by means of high-ranking envoys and confirmed by letters. Both narratives insist that the messengers brought the insulting messages repeatedly. RINAP 5 3 iv 85 reads iš-ta-nap-pa-ra; the verb is in Gtn durative, conveying a repeated action: “He (Teumman) repeatedly sent.” Line 5 3 iv 89 adds that Teumman sent messages monthly (iš-ta-nap-pa-ra ITI-šam).38 Line 5 16:19′ uses the same verb (iš-ta-nap-pa-ra) referring the content of two messages. By the same token, Isa 36–37 report that the Assyrians repeated their message three times in three direct speeches. The second (Isa 36:13–20) and the third speeches (37:10–13) are similar. Most scholars suggest that the latter is a later addition, since it repeats the list of conquered cities and it mentions the Esarhaddon’s annals and the rest of occurrences refer to the Teumman episode (RINAP 5 3 iv 88; v 24; vi 51; vii 44; 4 iv 60′; v 5′; vi 52; vii 49; 6 vii 28′; viii 19″; 7 v 93; vi 16″; vii 20, 36′; 8 viii 24″; 11 iv 14; 16:18′; 18 ii′ 15′; 35:8). 35  Prism B (5 3 v 40) has an unclear phrase specifying Teumman’s sin against šá ana AN.ŠÁR MAN DINGIR.MEŠ AD DÙ-ki iḫ-tu-u bil-tu “who placed a burden on (the god) Aššur, the father who created you”. 36 Version CND 3 has LÚ.EDIN.MEŠ-šú “his desert policemen”. The Neo-Assyrian inscriptions often mentioned different kinds of messengers and envoys travelling between provinces/kingdoms and the Assyrian court. Messengers in the Assyrian empire were usually sent to deliver the tribute and to ask about the well-being of the king (as did Hezekiah; RINAP 3 4:58) or to stipulate a treaty with Assyria (RINAP 4 1 v 31). Cf. also “In the eponymy of Šamaš-bēlauṣur, at the time of Marduk-zākir-šumi, king of Karduniaš (Babylonia), Marduk-bēl-usāte, his brother, rebelled against him (and) they divided up the land evenly. Marduk-zākir-šumi sent his messenger (with a plea) for help to Shalmaneser.” (RIMA 3 102.5 iv 1–2). 37 Raija Mattila, The King’s Magnates: A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, SAAS 11 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), 45–60. 38  Cf. also a reconstruction of Epigraph 12 “the nobles of Teumman [king of Elam], had sent [monthly?] with insolent [messages]”; Russell, Writing on the Wall, 160.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

375

city of Harran conquered by the Babylonians.39 In the light of this study this is not a sufficient argument for such a conclusion. Even though the city of Harran was conquered by the Babylonians, it was one of the major Assyrian strongholds. SAA I 50:4, part of a letter from an Assyrian official, mentions the emblem of the god Sin (moon god) of Harran. So the Assyrian divinities were indeed a part of the cult in Harran. Furthermore, the content of the third speech, though similar, is transmitted via letter that turned Sennacherib’s offense into a legally substantiated crime. It also contains a different rhetoric aimed at the king not at “the people on the walls.”40 These facts caution the reader not to label Isa 37:10– 13/2 Kgs 19:10–13 as a “later addition” too quickly on the one hand. On the other hand, the repeated messages played a crucial role in justifying Teumman’s and Sennacherib’s exemplary punishment. The enemy kings did not commit a mistake, but they were punished because of their assiduousness and persistence in pursuing the wrong path that ultimately brought a disaster upon their heads. 6.2  The Reaction of the Just Kings and the Divine Reply Once the messages were repeatedly dispatched, both episodes focused on the reactions of the kings and divine responses. Isaiah’s Hezekiah, contrary to Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18, is more similar to Ashurbanipal. Both resisted. Ashurbanipal did not give the refugees to Teumman and Hezekiah did not “make blessing” nor “come out” to Sennacherib. Instead of negotiating with enemies, both kings turned to their gods, humbling themselves in front of their divinities. Hezekiah made a ritual gesture: he tore his clothes, dressed in sackcloth, and went up into temple twice (Isa 37:1, 14–20). Ashurbanipal also made a ritual gesture: he stood facing Ištar and knelt down at her feet. This sequence of gestures is depicted on the cultic pedestal of Tukulti-Ninurta I (VA 8146).41 The gestures emphasize the seriousness of the enemy’s threat and the anxiety of the king (“I made an appeal to her divinity, while my tears were flowing” [RINAP 5 3 v 27]). Then both kings turned to gods in prayer.42 The texts reproduce the sophisticated rhetoric of the kings’ prayers voiced in long sentences, full of digressions referring to the past and the present events and charged with divine epithets and appellatives. Both prayers share similar points: an invocation of the divinity by attributing it titles (Isa 37:16; RINAP 5 3 v 28–33), a presentation of the problem 39 Nadav Naʾaman, “New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b–35),” Biblica 81 (2000): 393–402. 40 Peter Dubovský, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19, Biblica et Orientalia 49 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 25–27. 41 Liane Jakob-Rost, Das Vorderasiatische Museum (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1992), Fig. 103 on p. 61. 42  Assyrian scribes made a nice pun through metathesis: šu-ut me-re-eḫ-te an-ni-te šá mteum-man iq-bu-u am-ḫur šá-qu-tú diš-tar.

376

Peter Dubovský

(Isa 37:17–19; RINAP 5 3 v 34–42), and an exhortation to intervene (Isa 37:20; RINAP 5 3 v 43–44).43 The two episodes report the gods’ reply to the kings’ supplication. Because of the different nature of the divine messages, the literary styles are substantially different, but let us point out some important similarities. In order to underline the importance of the divine support, both narratives reported the content of divine messages in direct speeches. Moreover, both divinities replied through a legitimate diviner. Ashurbanipal received the confirming answer through a dream interpreter and Hezekiah through a prophet. As the insulting messages were sent to the kings repeatedly, both kings also received the messages of divine support and assurance multiple times. Hezekiah received several oracles from Isaiah (Isa 37:6–8, 21–29, 30–32, 33–35) and Ištar assured Ashurbanipal through divine signs (RINAP 5 3 v 4–15), an apparition (v 45–47), a dream (v 48–72), and other divine signs (v 88). There are also some basic similarities in the contents of the divine messages. The gods exhorted the two kings, “Don’t be afraid!” (Isa 37:6; RINAP 5 3 v 46). The divine messages assured the kings that the divinities would protect the king and fight for him, foretelling the fall of the enemy. Such divine support became the basis for the punishment of the arrogant enemies. 6.3  Punishment of the Enemies The narratives focus on the contrast Hezekiah-Sennacherib/AshurbanipalTeumman  – one being a pious and holy king, the other being vilified as an incarnation of evil (“the image of gallû-demon; RINAP 5 3 iv 68) who were not able to read the divine signs (5 3 v 4–15).44 As argued above, the enemy kings offended not only the pious kings but also their gods. Since the punishment for offenses to gods was the death penalty, both episodes report the exemplary death of the blasphemers. After the return to Nineveh Sennacherib was killed while worshiping his gods. The Assyrian sources differ in who killed Teumman and how he died. According to Prism B Ashurbanipal killed Teumman on the battlefield (“I cut off the head of Teumman” RINAP 5 3 v 93–94). Epigraph tablet 8 reads that “A wagon (pole?) pierced Teu[mman. king] of Elam.” However, the reconstructed part of Epigraph 10a describes the death in general terms (“his head was cut off ”) and a common soldier dispatched it to Assyria (cf. my reconstruction and translation of RINAP 5 27; Appendix 3). Finally, according to 43  A more detailed study can reveal a more sophisticated structure of both prayers reflecting different religious presuppositions and rituals. Thus Hezekiah turns to his God twice with imperatives and twice referring to past events those of God and those of Assyria. Prism B starts each section with the invocation of the divine attributes and also insists on Ashurbanipal’s pious deeds that urge Ištar to intervene. Hezekiah’s appeal in Isa 37:20b, however, has no parallel in Ashurbanipal’s prayer. 44 Zainab Bahrani, “The King’s Head,” Iraq 66 (2004): 117.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

377

a possible reconstruction of SAA III 31 Teumman was executed in Arbela where Ashurbanipal had his vision: “[They brought (Teumman) himself along with] his whole family in [neck-stocks before] Mullissu and the lady of [Arbela] and put him to the sword (r 8).” In both cases the death of the blasphemer was a fulfillment of either a prophecy or a dream (Isa 37:7; RINAP 5 3 v 51–7245) and both biblical and Assyrian accounts attributed the victory to their gods.46 Finally, both episodes recount that the enemy troops were completely eliminated leaving the reader in the battlefields filled with the dead bodies of enemies. In the Bible an angel intervened and killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers and the text continues ‫ויׁשכימו בבקר והנה כלם פגרים מתים‬, literally, “when they woke up early in the morning, all of them were dead bodies.”47 Prism B employs a powerful metaphor: Ashurbanipal blocked the river with Elamite corpses and filled the plains with dead bodies (RINAP 5 3 v 87).

7.  Psychological Impact of Teumman’s Defeat However appealing this comparison may seem, we can ask how a Judahite scribe could learn about Teumman’s defeat so that he might have used this motif in his composition of Isa 36–37/2 Kgs 18–19. Eckart Frahm, seeing the number and type of cuneiform documents dated to the Bronze Age and the Iron Age Levant, has concluded that during the Neo-Assyrian period Syria-Palestine used Akkadian only rarely and mostly for legal and commercial purposes.48 Consequently, it is difficult to imagine that a Judahite scribe would have read Ashurbanipal’s prisms. It has been extensively argued that vassal kings regularly sent their ambassadors with tribute to Nineveh “asking” about king’s health.49 Scholars concluded that these ambassadors were one of the main sources of information about Assyria besides the stele and other types of Assyrian propaganda.50 While being in Nineveh 45  A similar idea is expressed in the Epigraph 14: “I, Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, I presented the head of Teumman, king of Elam, like an offering in front of the gate inside the city. As it had been said of old by the oracle, “You will cut off the heads of your enemies, you will pour wine over them, […]!”, accordingly the gods Shamash and Adad granted this in my time: […] I cut off the heads of my [enemies], I poured wine [over them, …].” Russell, Writing on the Wall, 161. 46  Abbreviated version RINAP 5 11 iii 27–43 (Prism A  dated around 643 BC) lists more divinities responsible for the fall of Elam. Similarly RINAP 5 16:7′–30′ (1866–05–19, 0001) and 5 63. 47  Later interpretations of the Assyrian retreat from Jerusalem suggest that there was a bubonic or another infectious disease; for a review of these opinions see J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 471–73. 48  His forthcoming article in Stones, Tablets and Scrolls, will be published by Mohr Siebeck. 49  Cf. for example SAA I 110; XI 33; XIX 8; 159 for a review of the argument see Shawn Zelig Aster, “Israelite Embassies in Assyria in the First Half of the Eighth Century,” Bib 97, no. 2 (2016). 50 William Morrow, “Were There Neo-Assyrian Influences in Manasseh’s Temple? Com-

378

Peter Dubovský

and waiting for an audience, the ambassadors walked through the halls decorated with the masterpieces of Assyrian art. Even a few millennia later a visitor at the British museum remains astonished by the details depicting the stages of Teumman’s death, the horrific and chill-inspiring scenes portraying the massacre at Tīl-Tuba, and Ashurbanipal’s dining in his garden with Teumman’s head hanging on a tree. Accompanied by a personal explanation, the Neo-Assyrian reliefs were one of the most accessible sources of information to an illiterate public. Moreover, while taking seriously Frahm’s analysis, we should note that his conclusion does not exclude the possibility that higher echelons in peripheries had a basic knowledge of Akkadian. Let us consider an example. Non-Englishspeaking travelers can hardly read Hopkins’ poetry, yet it does not mean that they cannot understand English captions in a museum. Similarly, not every ambassador was able to read Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, but they were probably able to read basic Akkadian. In other words, the readability of Assyrian texts varied. Those most difficult to read, and consequently reserved for specialists, were the cuneiform tablets with poetic texts, commentaries, omina, rituals, etc. (Fig. 10 left). If a Judahite ambassador did not receive special training, he could hardly read these texts. More accessible texts were those written on the walls. Written in a clear script, the wall inscriptions were easier to be read. Among the annals written on walls, bulls and door silts, we can easily notice a difference between Ashurnaṣirpal’s lengthy and complicated inscriptions (9th c. BCE; Fig. 10 middle) and Sennacherib’s and Ashurbanipal’s short and straightforward epigraphs (7th c. BCE; Fig. 10 right). Epigraphs carved on the reliefs served as captions to focus the visitors’ attention. They were written in a clear script, in a simple and straightforward syntax, and used a limited number of cuneiform signs and words. Most of the signs appearing on the epigraphs occur also in the extant cuneiform documents unearthed in Israel and Judah.51 The scenes carved into slabs and accompanied by short epigraphs made Assyrian achievements accessible to ambassadors visiting Nineveh.52 In sum, contrary to the Assyrian stelas and lengthy annals carved on the walls of palaces, Ashurbanipal made Assyrian propaganda more efficient through short epigraphs and higher quality of artistic execution using the continuous narrative style.53 parative Evidence from Tel-Miqne/Ekron,” CBQ 75 (2013): 186; cf. also Peter Machinist, “The Rab Šaqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other,’” Hebrew studies 41 (2000): 151–68. 51 Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth Sanders, Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2006). 52  The higher accessibility of epigraphic Akkadian to a general public can be seen even now. A normal student after two years of Akkadian can hardly read tablets, but he/she may read epigraphs. 53  Chikako E. Watanabe, “The ‘Continuous Style’ in the Narrative Scheme of Assurbanipal’s Reliefs,” Iraq 66 (2004): 103–5.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

379

The importance of the Assyrian reliefs accompanied by short epigraphs for transmitting the Assyrian ideology can be compared with medieval narrative cycles. Most medieval church attenders could hardly read the gospels in Latin or in the vernacular but they could easily understand Giotto’s narrative cycle in Assisi. A few Latin words inserted into the medieval frescos enabled them to recognize evangelists, prophets, or to capture key phrases that allow the visitor to follow the narrative progression of a given cycle. Therefore, to understand the medieval theology it was not necessary to read Thomas Aquinas in Latin; it was enough to contemplate the beauty and expressive power of the fresco and decipher a few lines in Latin. Similarly, it was not necessary to read Akkadian literary compositions to get hold of the basic Assyrian ideology. It was enough to follow the narrative carved in the reliefs and to decipher a few epigraphs. Keeping in mind Ashurbanipal’s effort to make his propaganda more accessible, let us investigate what Ashurbanipal wanted to transmit about Teumman on the reliefs. 7.1  The Ashurbanipal-Teumman Conflict in the Reliefs J. M. Russell argued that the sculptors depicting the Teumman-Dunanu cycle had at their disposal epigraph tablets serving as a guide for carving the scenes and the epigraphs on the slabs. The epigraph tablets describing what should be on the reliefs help us to get hold of the ideology the Assyrians wanted to transmit.54 Altogether we have ten epigraphs, thirty-four epigraph tablets, and six slabs in Room XXXIII of Southwest palace (Sennacherib’s palace refurbished by Ashurbanipal) in Nineveh. Slabs 1–3 present the battle “scenes” and slabs 4–6 depict the aftermath (see Fig. 1). The Teumman-Dunanu cycle was carved also in Room I of the North Palace,55 and probably also in Room H of the North Palace.56 While prisms dedicated to the battle itself only a few lines, the reliefs of Room XXXIII pompously celebrated the Assyrian victory (Fig. 1). We do not have slabs before slabs 1–3 and so the observer is thrown into the midst of war chaos (Slabs 1–3).57 The scenes are crowded with dead bodies, overthrown chariots, waving swords and charged bows. 54  Russell, Writing on the Wall, 187–91. For the previous edition of the epigraphs see Ernst Weidner, “Assyrische Beschreibungen der Kriegs-Reliefs Aššurbânaplis,” AfO 8 (1933): 175–208. 55  Ashurbanipal lived for a certain period in Sennacherib’s palace (Southwest Palace) and restored it. The restoration is dated around 650 BC. Then he restored the crown prince’s palace known as North Palace; Russell, Writing on the Wall, 154. 56 Julian Reade, “Elam and Elamites in Assyrian Sculpture,” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 9 (1976): 99–102; Oskar K aelin, Ein Assyrisches Bildexperiment nach Ägyptischem Vorbild: Zu Planung und Ausführung der “Schlacht am Ulai,” AOAT 266 (Münster: UgaritVerlag, 1999), 12–78. 57  Bahrani, “The King’s Head,” 116.

380

Peter Dubovský

The jam-packed scenes on Slabs 1–3 show how Teumman’s army gradually lost the ground (Fig. 1 n. 8–11) and the registers start filling with dead bodies (n. 25–29, 32–44). In the chaos of the battle scenes the sculptor focused on Teumman who, seeing the defeat of his army, tried to escape. His chariot was overthrown and Teumman fell down from his chariots (n. 17). The wounded king was helped by his son Tammaritu and escaped to the forest (n. 18). The scene has a strong emotional charge. Tammaritu leads his father by hand. The proud king of Elam, who challenged Ashurbanipal, became weak, was bowed down and wounded. Once besieged, Tammaritu was killed with a mace, a soldier cut off Teumman’s head (n. 21), and his armor was taken as booty (n. 23). From this point forward, the celebration of the victory begins by focusing on Teumman’s head (n. 24, 30, 13). There are long lines of prisoners marching out of Elam having their faces spat on (n. 57), being forced to grind bones, and chained as dogs. These completed the horrific battle scenes (n. 1, 3, 4, 6). Epigraphs on slabs 1–6 in Room XXXIII of the Southwest Palace “helped” the visitor to focus on the most important events that should not have been missed.58 The war slabs (Slabs 1–3) contain four epigraphs (SWB 1–4; Epigraph 10a, 15, 7a, 6). Three epigraphs focused the attention on the destiny of Teumman. They depict Teumman’s panic first (SWB 3; Fig. 2). Wounded Teumman, who was not sane according to the royal inscriptions,59 continued behaving in an insane way, asking to be killed by his son. The next epigraph describes the last moments of Teumman and his son (SWB 4; Fig. 2). The wounded father and the despaired son are placed in the midst of dead Elamites as the last “survivals of the battle. The same idea is conveyed in epigraph SWB 2, which centers on Teumman’s in-law begging to be killed (Fig. 3). In the context of dead bodies and fierce Assyrians, immediate death seemed to be a better option. After the defeat, the head of Teumman started its journey to Assyria in the company of humiliated Elamite prisoners (SWB 1; Fig. 4). The captions and reliefs leave no doubt about the end of a rebellious king and his family. Slabs 4–6 depict the aftermath of the war. While those who uttered insolent messages were brutally punished (SWB 5; Fig. 5), the pro-Assyrian Ummanigaš was installed on the throne (SWB 6; Fig. 6), and the insolent messages were used to spurn Urartian ambassadors to collaborate with Assyria (SWB 7; Fig. 7).

58  The narrative starts with the presentation of the battle line between Teumman’s and Ashurbanipal’s troops, but only the inscription part has been preserved (Epigraph 33; RINAP 5 32). 59  Line 1 of SWB 3 reads ina mi-qit ṭè-e-me “during loss of reason” corresponds to the description of Teumman’s insanity in Prism B (RINAP 5 3 v 5–24).



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

381

7.2  What Could/Should an Ambassador Learn in Nineveh? In the light of Assyrian propaganda inculcated into the ambassadors’ minds visiting Nineveh,60 what were the “truths” that Judahite ambassadors should/ could have learned while waiting for an audience, accompanied by a guide, contemplating reliefs, and deciphering the signs of epigraphs? If we combine the Teumman-Ashurbanipal episode with the reliefs depicting the fall of Lachish,61 we can point out topoi that are echoed in Isa 36–37 reported in the following footnotes.62 Both the Tīl-Tuba and Lachish reliefs center on the king who is the Lord of the universe (Fig. 7, 8)63 even though the king was not directly involved in the battle.64 The chaotic war scenes on Slabs 1–3 of Tīl-Tuba (Fig. 1) are in strong contrast with the peace and order after war (Slabs 4–6; Fig. 1) suggesting that the Assyrian king was dominating the chaos and establishing the order.65 The majesty and glory66 of the Assyrian king, his army and entourage was the center of the Assyrian propaganda. The Assyrian epigraphs, contrary to the long list of titles in the Assyrian annals, gives only two titles for an Assyrian king (king of the world and king of Assyria; MAN ŠÚ, MAN KUR aš-šur).67 Another important message imparted by the epigraphs and reliefs was the sad destiny of the rebellious people and kings depicted in repeated motifs of heads of 60  Assyrian propaganda was disseminated not only through the ambassadors, but also by means of special agents, speeches, letters, stelas, etc. Cf. Antti J. Laato, “Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib,” VT 45 (1995): 198–226; William R. Gallagher, “Assyrian Deportation Propaganda,” SAAB 8 (1994): 57–65. 61  It is reasonable to assume that a Judahite ambassador would see the Lachish reliefs, first, in order to demonstrate the consequences of the Judahite lack of loyalty. Second, both the Lachish and Teumman-Dunanu cycles were in the Southwest Palace in Nineveh, Room XXXVI and XXXIII respectively. 62  The ideology transmitted by Assyria through reliefs is echoed, in particular, in Isa 37:22– 27; besides major commentaries see also Dominic Rudman, “Is the Rabshakeh Also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings XVIII 17–35,” VT 50 (2000): 100–10; Peter Dubovský, “Assyrian Downfall through Isaiah’s Eyes (2 Kings 15–23): The Historiography of Representation,” Bib 89 (2008): 1–16; Michael D. Press, “‘Where Are the Gods of Hamath?’ (2 Kings 18.34 // Isaiah 36.19): The Use of Foreign Deities in the Rabshakeh’s Speech,” JSOT 40 (2015): 201–23. 63  The Lachish reliefs are organized according to two movements: panels 5–11 move the narrative from the left to right and panels 16–13 depict the movement from right to the left. Both narratives meet on panels 11–13 presenting the king with two epigraphs. The king is the center of the world, around him rotates the kingdoms, the enemies are defeated, flayed, killed and bowed down in front of the king. This message is the center of Assyrian speeches rejected in Hezekiah’s prayer and in Isaiah’s prophecy in Isa 36–37. 64  Thus the Assyrian king sent his high officials to negotiate and fight against Jerusalem (cf. Isa 36:2). 65  A similar message on the superiority of the Assyrian army and the new lifestyle was transmitted in two Assyrian speeches (Isa 36:4–10; 13–20). 66  A similar idea is underlined in the Hebrew ‫( בחיל כבד‬Isa 36:2). 67  Similarly, Isa 36:4 attributes two titles to an Assyrian king “the great king, the king of Assyria”, even though the former does not correspond to the title in the epigraphs.

382

Peter Dubovský

beheaded enemies heaped up in front of the king and his entourage, on the one hand (Fig. 8, 9);68 on the other hand, the Assyrian kings showed mercy and favor to those who were loyal to Assyria (Fig. 3, 6).69 Finally, the Assyrian reliefs and epigraphs also transmitted an idea that no local kingdom could resist the overwhelming Assyrian army70 whose main strength was in cavalry71 and in siege machines approaching the city upon a ramp, archers and shield-bearers (Fig. 9; cf. BSP 1; RINAP 5 32).72 The war scenes and ideology so far presented occur on most of the Assyrian reliefs. However, slabs 4 and 6 and the epigraphs of Tīl-Tuba contain a unique aspect of this military encounter: the insulting messages and their deliverers that also were the center of the lengthy introduction in Prism B and Isa 36–37. Epigraph SWB 7 describes what happened with the messages and messengers (RINAP 5 35; Fig. 7). When the ambassadors of the Urartian king Rusa III came to Nineveh, Ashurbanipal made the Elamites Nabû-damiq and Umbadarâ, who brought the insulting messages from Teumman to Ashurbanipal, stand in front of the Urartian ambassadors holding the tablets with Teumman’s insults (RINAP 5 3 iv 88–89). The seriousness of the insulting messages is highlighted by epigraph SWB 5 (RINAP 5 36; Fig. 5) indicating that this blasphemy was severely punished: “I (Ashurbanipal) tore out their (messengers’) tongue(s and) flayed them.”73 The message to be transmitted in the reliefs is drafted on an epigraph tablet: “nobles of Teumman … filled with anger against their lord, I (Ashurbanipal) detained them. They saw … the head of Teumman … [Umbadarâ] tore his beard, [Nabûdamiq] stabbed himself.”74 Later on when Ashurbanipal decorated Room I of his North Palace, the reliefs and epigraph conveyed the same message: Teumman’s 68  Cf. Assyrian propaganda: “the people sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and drink their own urine” (Isa 36:12). 69  Cf. Assyrian propaganda: “See, you have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, destroying them utterly. Shall you be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them, the nations that my predecessors destroyed, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, and the people of Eden who were in Telassar? Where is the king of Hamath, the king of Arpad, the king of the city of Sepharvaim, the king of Hena, or the king of Ivvah?” (Isa 37:11–13) A similar idea is applied to gods: “Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?” (Isa 36:19) Cf. Tiglath-pileser III’s reliefs in H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary, ATH 5 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). Cf. also “Who among all the gods of these countries have saved their countries out of my hand, that the LORD should save Jerusalem out of my hand?” (Isa 36:20) 70  Cf. Assyrian propaganda: “How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants” (Isa 36:9). 71  Cf. Assyrian propaganda: “Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them.” (Isa 36:8) 72  Cf. Isaiah’s prophecy: “He shall not come into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege ramp against it.” (Isa 37:33) 73  Russell, Writing on the Wall, 160, 163, 180. 74  Ibid., 160.

Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography



383

messenger Itunî, who carried insulting messages, committed suicide (NB 1; RINAP 5 29). The impact of Teumman’s defeat was used even later in Neo-Assyrian PSYOPS: when Ashurbanipal asked the elders of Elam to send him Nabû-bel-šumati he reminded the Elamites about the defeat of Teumman.75 The episode did not fall into oblivion even after the fall of Assyria and resonated in Elamite memory for a long time.76 7.3 Implications Elam was a known power for a biblical audience.77 As argued above, the Assyrian victory over Teumman constituted the turning point in Elamite-Assyrian relations. Elam was defeated and despite a few years of fierce resistance it finally fell under Assyrian control. So the battle at Tīl-Tuba represented the beginning of the fall of Elam, the last nucleus of anti-Assyrian resistance. It made the Assyrian king the ruler of the universe. The Assyrians did their best to ensure that an ambassador coming to Assyria for a regular visit would easily learn about this historical achievement. Through the reliefs and epigraphs even a foreigner could learn about the insulting messages and messengers sent by Teumman, about the fierce battle at Tīl-Tuba, about the defeat of the Elamite army, about the decapitation of Teumman and the execution of his courtiers, and finally about the sad end of the ambassadors carrying Teumman’s message. This visual representation could have been easily filled-in with stories taken from the annals. The reliefs became an unequivocal message not only for the enemy king but also for his ambassadors who carried his messages. They could easily finish as Teumman and his envoys. In sum, seeing the importance of Teumman’s defeat and its use for dealing with foreign ambassadors it can be rightly concluded that the Judahite ambassadors coming regularly to Ashurbanipal and inquiring about his health were informed about this important historical event. Looking at the reliefs, deciphering short epigraphs, and maybe accompanied by a guide acquainted with royal annals, Judahite ambassadors had enough information about the battle and its meaning for world politics. They also learned about the insults sent repeatedly by Teumman to Ashurbanipal, and even about the end of the messengers carrying the insulting messages.

75 

Matthew W. Waters, “A Letter from Ashurbanipal to the Elders of Elam (Bm 132980),”

76 

For references see RlA 13, 616.

JCS 54 (2002): 82.

77 Peter Dubovský, “Elam and the Bible,” in The Elamite World, eds. Javier Álvarez-Mon,

Gian Pietro Basello, and Yasmina Wicks (New York: Routledge, 2018): 27–40.

384

Peter Dubovský

8.  Assyria in Isaiah So far, we have reached some important conclusions. The scribes standing behind the Book of Isaiah, despite their acquaintance with Assyria, explicitly mentioned only Sennacherib’s campaign. Its presentation differed from that in Sennacherib’s royal annals. Approaching this difference from a literary genre viewpoint, I  have suggested that the presentation of Assyria in Isa 36–37 is similar to Ashurbanipal’s presentation of Teumman and the defeat of Elam. The Teumman-Ashurbanipal conflict was the only one in the Neo-Assyrian world that highlighted the insulting messages sent by the Elamite king. To complete this picture it is also important to notice the international significance of this campaign. After the conquest of Egypt, Elam was the last kingdom opposing Assyria. Once Elam fell into Assyrian hands, the whole known world was at Ashurbanipal’s feet. This message was transmitted both via written sources and visual media. The impact of Teumman’s defeat was successfully used in Assyrian PSYOPS and resonated in Elam for a few centuries so that even a Judahite ambassador could have learned about it. Leaning upon these conclusions, we can investigate the meaning of Teumman’s defeat for Isa 36–37. 8.1  Reversal Technique: Hezekiah-Ashurbanipal, Sennacherib-Teumman Scholars focusing on the study of Assyrian strata in Isaiah concentrated their efforts on the identification of historical events that stood behind the narratives of the Book of Isaiah. Thus, several studies explored the historical background of the Syro-Ephraimite war, the fall of Samaria, Sargon II’s conquest of Ashqelon, Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, etc. In doing this, these studies have tried to match the passages of Isaiah with historical periods and events. These studies also showed that the Isaianic scribes were well-versed in Assyrian history, its successes, and even its ideology and terminology. Building upon these conclusions, more recent studies have concentrated on Isaiah’s specific use of Assyrian material and the rhetorical and narrative devices that Isaianic scribes used when referring directly or indirectly to Assyria. M. Chan, S. Aster, P. Machinist, and others pointed out a reversal technique in Isa 10 and 19. Thus, P. Machinist concluded that “Isa 10:5–15 picks up the genre and language of the Assyrian royal inscriptional tradition and turns it upside-down. In the process, it also inverts the ideology encoded in and transmitted by the inscriptions.”78 Or in the words of M. Chan, “an Assyrian theme 78 Peter Machinist, “‘A h, Assyria … ’ (Isaiah 10:5 ff.): Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited,” in Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza-Università Di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’antichita, 20–21 April 2009, eds. Gilda Bartoloni, Maria Giovanna Biga, and Armando Bramanti (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 207.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

385

is taken and attributed to the Lord and thus Assyria is put down. The king of Assyria is stripped of his title and becomes a servant of the Lord.”79 In his exploration of Isa 19, S. Aster concluded that “Isa. 19:1 subverts the image of the god Ashur riding on a cloud ahead of his army to describe YHWH doing the same act, causing the same results.”80 Applying this technique to Isa 36–37 and its links with Ashurbanipal’s campaign against Teumman, the following proposal can be advanced.81 Following the principle of the reversal technique Elam became a symbol of Assyria and Sennacherib assumed Teumman’s traits in Isa 36–37. Teumman and Sennacherib sent their insulting messages to Ashurbanipal and Hezekiah respectively. These messages not only humiliated the just kings, but also their gods. In both cases the messages were sent repeatedly. As Elam collapsed because of its arrogance and hubris, so did Assyria. Both blasphemers Sennacherib and Teumman were executed and their troops annihilated. Moreover, the just king Hezekiah becomes similar to Ashurbanipal. Neither complied with enemy’s request, and instead of compromising with the arrogant enemies, they turned to their gods. The narratives report their prayers and the answer of their gods. The divinities promised their chosen kings help and the punishment of the enemies is interpreted as a fulfilment of divine oracles. As Elam represented by Teumman was the kingdom resisting the supremacy of the Assyrian gods, so Assyria represented by Sennacherib was the empire resisting YHWH’s supremacy.82 After the punishment of Elam peace and order was re-established instead of chaos and confusion as depicted on Slabs 1–3, 4–6. Similarly, after the defeat of Sennacherib and Isa 38–39, a new rhetoric starts in Isa 40. Based on these similarities it may be concluded that Judahite scribes reversed the roles: Assyria in Isa 36–37 becomes similar to Elam as represented in Ashurbanipal-Teumman episode. Sennacherib became a reversal of Teumman and Hezekiah becomes a reversal of Ashurbanipal. Not only heroes but also ideologies were turned upside-down: Elamite arrogance is attributed to Assyria and Ashurbanipal’s piety was attributed to Hezekiah. 8.2  The Historiography of Representation Besides the reversal technique that turned Assyrian achievements and ideology upside down, the biblical scribes employed another technique when describing 79 Michael Chan, “Rhetorical Reversal and Usurpation: Isaiah 10:5–34 and the Use of Neo-Assyrian Royal Idiom in the Construction of an Anti-Assyrian Theology,” JBL 128 (2009): 717–33. 80  Aster, “Isaiah 19: The ‘Burden of Egypt’ and Neo-Assyrian Imperial Policy,” 468. 81  This conclusion should not be interpreted as the chronological priority of Isa 36–37 over 2 Kgs 18–19. 82  Shawn Zelig Aster, “The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5–22: The Campaign Motif Reversed,” JAOS 127 (2007): 255–57.

386

Peter Dubovský

Assyria in the Book of Isaiah. According to 2 Kgs 19:35–37/Isa 37:36–38, the angel of the Lord destroyed the Assyrian camp and Sennacherib returned to Nineveh where he was assassinated. After these events, Assyria practically disappears from the narrative landscape of the Books of Isaiah and Kings. Historically speaking it did not disappear. After Sennacherib’s invasion, Assyria prospered. Sennacherib conducted campaigns against Babylonia. His successor Esarhaddon conquered Egypt; and Ashurbanipal, after consolidating his power in Egypt and Babylonia, conquered Elam. Assyria did not disappear from the world map as presented in the Bible; on the contrary, Ashurbanipal turned Assyria into the first empire controlling the entire ANE.83 I have argued that the distortion of historical facts was intentional and this literary technique is known as a historiography of representation.84 This technique is responsible for the distortion of the Assyrian portrait in such a way that it is focused on the religious causes underlying the fall of Assyria described in Isa 36–37/2 Kgs 18–19. What really matters in this historiographic technique is why Assyria collapsed and not when and how it happened, namely, Assyrian hubris. A similar technique was employed in Assyrian annals. Assyrian campaigns were often depicted as the final victory, even though it was not always true. Similarly, according to the annals the defeat of Teumman, the most ferocious Elamite adversary, was the decisive step in Assyria conquering the universe and the Assyrian scribes presented it as the end of Elam. However, after the 653 BCE battle the Assyrians needed almost ten years to defeat Elam. Thus, Teumman’s story telescoped not only the fall of Elam that indeed took place ten years later but also the fall of the entire universe that bowed to Ashurbanipal’s feet. 8.3  A Meaning of Sennacherib’s Campaign in the Book of Isaiah Based on this analysis, I believe that chapters Isa 36–37 are not a useless appendix attached to Isa 1–35, but these two chapters provide an important clue for the interpretation of the Assyria strata in Isaiah.85 This conclusion would further confirm Hugh Williamson’s conclusion that Isa 36–37 “were written by someone who was familiar with the earlier Isaianic tradition.”86 Several scholars have 83 Cf. RINAP 5 23, an inscription dated to the very end of Ashurbanipal’s reign that presents how the entire world was under Ashurbanipal’s control. 84 Peter Dubovský, “Assyrian Downfall through Isaiah’s Eyes,” 1–16. 85  Eidevall for example distinguishes three stages in the formation of the Assyria strata. The first Assyria stratum “Loyalty and Mimicry” does not openly criticize Assyria such as texts Isa 8:1–4; 17:1–9; 28:1–4 (debated 7:1–9). These texts describe the destruction of Damascus and Samaria that took place during Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns in 734–731 BC. The second stage is “From Mimicry to Mockery”; and the third stage is called Propagandist phase; cf. Göran Eidevall, “Propagandistic Constructions of Empires in the Book of Isaiah,” in Divination, Politics, and Ancient near Eastern Empires, ed. Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014): 109–28. 86  Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 193–94.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

387

already noticed close links between Isa 36­–37 and the rest of the first Isaiah and pointed out that these two chapters create an interpretative frame for the Isaianic prophecies concerning Assyria.87 Besides the fulfillment of the Assyria strata in Isa 1–35, these two chapters also create a link with chapters that follow.88 In the light of the analysis offered in this paper, we can add new elements to previous scholarly conclusions. The analysis of the narrative in Isa 36–37 pointed out that this story skillfully used the reversal technique that turned the most important Assyrian victory against Elam upside down. Combining the historiography of representation with the reversal technique Assyria-Elam/ Judah-Assyria we can explain why all Assyrian campaigns were telescoped in the Book of Isaiah into Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah. All Assyrian campaigns against Israel and Judah were telescoped by the Isaianic scribes into Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem.89 As the defeat of Teumman symbolically represented the submission of the entire universe to Assyria, so the defeat of Sennacherib became the proof of YHWH’s supremacy over the world. In sum, Isa 36–37 became the decisive argument that YHWH was the Lord of history.

9. Synthesis The theoretical model standing behind this paper is a cultural memory study as presented by A. Berlejung.90 The goal was not to prove the historicity of Assyrian speeches, but to demonstrate how Assyria was imagined and remembered. This study showed that Judahite ambassadors forced to pay a visit to Assyria learned about the Assyrian victory over its arch-enemy Elam. This victory was used to indoctrinate the ambassadors as documented by reliefs and epigraphs. However, 87  It is beyond the limits of this paper to explore the inter- and inner-textual links within the Book of Isaiah. Let us offer connections that have been already suggested: Isa 2 [Aster, “The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5–22”: 249–78]; Isa 10 [Marvin A. Sweeney, “Sargon’s Threat against Jerusalem in Isaiah 10,27–32,” Bib 75 (1994): 457–70; Willem Beuken, “‘Lebanon with Its Majesty Shall Fall. A  Shoot Shall Come Forth from the Stump of Jesse’ (Isa 10:34–11:1): Interfacing the Story of Assyria and the Image of Israel’s Future in Isaiah 10–11,” in The New Things Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene, ed. Janer W. Dyk (Maastricht: Shaker, 2002): 17–33]; Isa 11 [Danʼel K ahn, “Egypt and Assyria in Isaiah 11:11– 16,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 12 (2016): 9–20]; Isa 27 [J. Todd Hibbard, “Isaiah XXVII 7 and Intertextual Discourse About ‘Striking’ in the Book of Isaiah,” VT 55 (2005): 461–76]; Isa 28 [Nathan Mastnjak, “Judah’s Covenant with Assyria in Isaiah 28,” VT 64 (2014): 465–83; Christopher B. Hays, “The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–22,” VT 60 (2010): 212–40]. 88  Beuken, Jesaja 28–39, 371. 89  Similarly the anti-Assyrian resistance was concentrated into Teumman, the image of demons. 90 Angelika Berlejung, “Erinnerungen an Assyrien in Nahum 2,4–3,19,” in Die Unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien zur Alttestamentlichen Prophetie, ed. Rüdiger Lux and ErnstJoachim Waschke (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006), 323–56.

388

Peter Dubovský

the creativity of the oppressed people should not be underestimated. As demonstrated by several scholars, the Judahite scribes imaginatively used a reversal technique to undermine Assyrian ideology. By doing so, Assyrian ideology was turned upside down. The Judahite scribes reversed the most important Assyrian victory as a “rod” and “club” against Assyria (cf. Isa 10:5). Assyria became Elam, Teumman became Sennacherib, and Ashurbanipal became Hezekiah. The scribes presented Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem as the representation in which all Assyrian campaigns and the resistance of any small kingdom against mighty aggressors were telescoped. This presentation of Assyria was subsequently elaborated and reshaped by biblical redactors and editors. When inserted into the Books of Kings and Isaiah the story assumed a new function given to the story by means of the narrative introductions (2 Kgs 18:1–6; Isa 36:1). While 2 Kgs 18–19 represents the Sennacherib-Hezekiah conflict as the violation of the fundamental war rules similar to Ben-Hadad, Isaiah telescoped in the Sennacherib-Hezekiah war heroic resistance against arrogant invaders. Isaianic scribes editing the final texts of the Book of Isaiah used the Sennacherib-Hezekiah episode as the interpretative key for the Assyria strata in Isa 1–35.91 These new narratives had their “life” independently from the original episode reversing Teumman-Ashurbanipal war. Thus, Persian and Hellenistic biblical scribes (2 Chr 32; 2 Macc 15; Ant. 10) still used Hezekiah-Sennacherib conflict but adapted it to a new situation. As a result, Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and Hezekiah’s resistance became a prototype of the just war.92 This continuous reworking of Assyria did not stop and the Assyrian oppression of Israel became a continuous source of inspiration for the generations to come starting with the Roman aggressors up to the different kinds of oppression experienced nowadays.

91  The discussion of this topic is beyond the goal of this paper (cf. footnote 1), but the author inclines to think that the first revision of the story was in 2 Kings 18–19 that was later adopted by the Isaianic scribes to provide the interpretative tool for chapters Isa 1–35. 92  Daniel C. Timmer, “Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria: Imperialism as a Multifaceted Point of Contact in Nahum,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24 (2014): 357.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

389

Appendix 1 (Three-step literary pattern) RINAP 4 1 ii 40–64

Introduction At that time, Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir, son of Marduk-apla-iddina (II) (Merodachbaladan), governor of the Sealand, who did not keep his treaty nor remember the agreement of Assyria, forgot the good relations of my father. During the disturbance(s) in Assyria, he mustered his army and his camp, besieged Ningal-iddin, the governor of Ur, a servant who was loyal to me, and cut off his escape route. After the gods Aššur, Šamaš, Bēl and Nabû, Ištar of Nineveh, (and) Ištar of Arbela joyously seated me, Esarhaddon, on the throne of my father and handed over to me the lordship of the lands, he was not respectful, did not stop (his evil deeds), and would not leave my servant alone. Moreover, he did not send his messenger before me and did not ask after the well-being of my kingship. Resolution

Conclusion

I heard of his evil deeds (while) in Nineveh; my heart became angry and my liver was inflamed. I sent my officials, the governors on the border of his land, against him. Furthermore, he, Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir, the rebel, the traitor, heard of the approach of my army and fled like a fox to the land Elam. Because of the oath of the great gods which he had transgressed, the gods Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš, Bēl, and Nabû imposed a grievous punishment on him and they killed him with the sword in the midst of the land Elam. Naʾid-Marduk, his brother, saw the deeds that they had done to his brother in Elam, fled from the land Elam, came to Assyria to serve me, and beseeched my lordship. I made the entire Sealand, the domain of his brother, subject to him. (Now) he comes yearly, without ceasing, to Nineveh with his heavy audience gift and kisses my feet.

Similar pattern Sennacherib (RINAP 3/1): – against (1; a shorter version 4:5–20) – against Philistia and Judah (4:32–60) – against Kirūa, the city ruler of Illubru (17 iv 61–91) – against the land of Katmuḫu (17 v 1–22) – against Mušēzib-Marduk of Babylon (22 v 17–vi 35) Esarhaddon (RINAP 4) – against Abdi-milkūti of Sidon (1 ii 65–iii 19) – against Sanda-uari of Kundi and Sissû (1 iii 20–38) – against Uabu who rebelled against pro-Assyrian Iata’, king of Arabs (1 iv 17–31) – general summary including submission of some kings (1 iv 78–v 52) – against Baʾal of Tyre and Egypt (34 6′–r. 19; 54) Ashurbanipal (RINAP 5) – against Taharqa of Egypt (3 i 48–ii 5) – against Tunatamon of Egypt (3 ii 5–37) – against Baʾalu, king of Tyre (3 ii 38–62) – against Aḫšēri, king of Mannea (3 iii 16–79) – against Iautaʾ, king of Qedar (3 vii 77–viii 31) – against Šamaš-šuma-ukīn (11 iii 70–109)

the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them.

14 King

Surrender and payment

Hezekiah of Judah sent to OMITTED the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me; whatever you impose on me I will bear.” The king of Assyria demanded of King Hezekiah of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them.

18:13 In

Assyrian reaction – military invasion

36:1 In

OMITTED

wherever he went, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him. 8 He attacked the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city.

Isaiah

18:7 The

LORD was with him;

Kings

Hezekiah’s rebellion

As for him, Hezekiah, fear of my lordly brilliance overwhelmed him and, after my (departure), he had the auxiliary forces (and) his elite troops whom he had brought inside to strengthen the city Jerusalem, his royal city, and who had provided support, (along with) 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony, large blocks of …, ivory beds, armchairs of ivory, elephant hide(s), elephant ivory, ebony, box-

I surrounded (and) conquered forty-six of his fortified walled cities and small(er) settlements in their environs, which were without number, (50) by having ramps trodden down and battering rams brought up, the assault of foot soldiers, sapping, breaching, and siege engines. I brought out of them 200,150 people, young (and) old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, oxen, and sheep and goats, which were without number, and I counted (them) as booty. (RINAP 3 4:49)

Different variants: (As for) Hezekiah of the land of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke. (RINAP 3/1 22 iii 18–19) “I ruined the wide district of the recalcitrant (and) strong (šep-ṣu mit-ru) Judah (and) I make Hezekiah, its king, bow down at my feet.” (RINAP 3/2 44:20b–22a) “I ruined the wide district of Judah, an obstinate force, (and) I made Hezekiah, its king, bow down at my feet.” (RINAP 3/2 222:20)

Assyrian annals

Appendix 2 (A Comparison of 2 Kgs 18; Isa 36 and Sennacherib’s annals)

390 Peter Dubovský

Rab-shaqeh’s speeches

No equivalent

The king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem, with a great army. […] 4 The Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah: Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you base this confidence of yours? …

36:2

18:17 The

king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. […] 19 The Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah: Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you base this confidence of yours? …

wood, garments with multi-colored trim, linen garments, blue-purple wool, red-purple wool, utensils of bronze, iron, copper, tin, (and) iron, chariots, shields, lances, armor, iron belt-daggers, bows and uṣṣu-arrows, equipment, (and) implements of war, (all of ) which were without number, together with his daughters, his palace women, male singers, (and) female singers brought into Nineveh, my capital city, and he sent a mounted messenger of his to me to deliver (this) payment and to do obeisance. (RINAP 3 4:55)

gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house. 16 At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD, and from the doorposts that King Hezekiah of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

15 Hezekiah

Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

391

392

Peter Dubovský

Appendix 3 (Ashurbanipal-Teumman episode) PRISM B (RINAP 5 3) (iv 68) Afterwards, Teumman, the (very) image of a gallû-demon, sat on the throne of Urtaku. He constantly sought out evil (ways) to kill the children of Urtaku (and) the children of Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš II), the brother of Urtaku. Ummanigaš, Ummanappa, (and) Tammarītu – the sons of Urtaku, the king of the land Elam – Kudurru (and) Parrû – the sons of Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš II), (iv 75) the king who came before Urtaku  – together with sixty members of the royal (family), countless archers, (and) nobles of the land Elam fled to me before Teumman’s slaughtering and grasped the feet of my royal majesty.   (iv 80) On my seventh campaign, I marched against Teumman, the king of the land Elam who had regularly sent his envoys to me concerning Ummanigaš, Ummanappa, (and) Tammarītu – the sons of Urtaku, the king of the land Elam – (and) Kudurru (and) Parrû – the sons of Ummanaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš II), the brother of Urtaku, (former) king of the land Elam – (asking me) to send (back) those people who had fled to me and grasped my feet. I did not grant him their extradition. Concerning the aforementioned, he sent insults monthly by the hands of Umbadarâ and Nabû-damiq. (v 1) Inside the land Elam, he was bragging in the midst of his troops. I trusted in the goddess Ištar, who had encouraged me. I  did not comply with the utterance(s) of his provocative speech (lit. “mouth”). I did not give him those fugitives.   (v 4b) Teumman constantly sought out evil (deeds), (but) the god Sîn (also) sought out inauspicious omens for him. In the month Duʾūzu (IV ), an eclipse (of the moon) lasted longer than the third watch of the night, until daylight, the god Šamaš saw it, and it lasted like this the entire day, (thus signifying) the end of the reign of the king of the land Elam (and) the destruction of his land.   (v 10) “The Fruit” (the god Sîn) revealed to me his decision, which cannot be changed. At that time, a mishap befell him: His lip became paralyzed, his eyes turned back, and a seizure had taken place inside him. He was not ashamed by these measures that (the god) Aššur and the goddess Ištar had taken against him, (and) he mustered his troops.   (v 16) During the month Abu (V ) – the month of the heliacal rising of the Bow Star, the festival of the honored queen, the daughter of the god Enlil (the goddess Ištar) – to revere her great divinity, I resided in the city Arbela, the city that her heart loves, (v 20) (when) they reported to me news concerning an Elamite attack, which he (Teumman) had started against me without divine approval, saying: “Teumman, whose judgement the goddess Ištar had clouded (lit. ‘altered’), spoke as follows, saying: ‘I will not stop until I go (and) do battle with him.’”   (v 24b) On account of these insolent words (v 25) that Teumman had spoken, I made an appeal to the sublime goddess Ištar. I stood before her, knelt down at her feet, (and) made an appeal to her divinity, while my tears were flowing, saying:   (v 28b) “O Divine Lady of the city Arbela! I, Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, the creation of your hands whom (the god) Aššur – the father who had engendered you – requires, whose name he has called to restore sanctuaries, to successfully complete their rituals, to protect their secret(s), (and) to please their hearts: I am assiduous towards your places (of worship). I have come to revere your divinity (and) successfully complete your rituals. However, he, Teumman, the king of the land Elam who does not respect the gods, is fully prepared to fight with my troops.”



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

393

  (v 36) “You, the divine lady of ladies, the goddess of war, the lady of battle, the advisor of the gods – her ancestors – the one who speaks good thing(s) about me before (the god) Aššur – the father who had engendered you – (so that) at the glance of his pure eyes he desired me to be king – with regard to Teumman, the king of the land Elam who placed a burden on (the god) Aššur – the king of the gods, the father who had engendered you – he mustered his troops, prepared for battle, (and) sharpened his weapons in order to march to Assyria.”   (v 43) “You, the heroic one of the gods, drive him away like a … in the thick of battle and (then) raise a storm, an evil wind, against him.”   (v 45b) The goddess Ištar heard my sorrowful plight and said to me “Fear not!” She gave me confidence, (saying): “Because of your entreaties, which you directed towards me, (and because) your eyes were filled with tear(s), I had mercy (on you).”   (v 48b) During the course of the night that I had appealed to her, a dream interpreter lay down and saw a dream. He woke up and (then) reported to me the night vision that the goddess Ištar had shown him, saying:   (v 51b) “The goddess Ištar who resides in the city Arbela entered and she had quivers hanging on the right and left. She was holding a bow at her side (and) she was unsheathing a sharp sword that (was ready) to do battle. You (Ashurbanipal) stood before her (v 55) (and) she was speaking to you like (your own) birth-mother. The goddess Ištar, the sublime one of the gods, called out to you, instructing you, saying: ‘You are looking forward to waging war (and) I myself am about to set out towards my destination (the battlefield).’ You (then) said to her, saying: (v 60) ‘Let me go with you, wherever you go, O Lady of Ladies!’ She replied to you, saying: ‘You will stay in the place where you are (currently) residing. Eat food, drink wine, make music, (and) revere my divinity. In the meantime, I  will go (and) accomplish this task, (thus) I  will let (you) achieve (v 65) your heart’s desire. Your face will not become pale, your feet will not tremble, you will not wipe off your sweat in the thick of battle.’ She took you into her sweet embrace and protected your entire body. Fire flared up in front of her. She went off furiously outside. She directed her attention towards Teumman, the king of the land Elam with whom she was angr[y].”   (v 73) In the month Ulūlu (VI), “the work of the goddesses,” the festival of the exalted (god) Aššur, the month of the god Sîn, the light of heaven and netherworld, I trusted in the decision of (v 75) the bright divine light (Sîn) and the message of the goddess Ištar, my lady, which cannot be changed. I mustered my battle troops, warriors who dart about in the thick of battle by the command of the deities Aššur, Sîn, and Ištar. I set out on the path against Teumman, the king of the land Elam, and took the direct road.   (v 79b) Before me, Teumman, the king of the land Elam, set up camp in the city BītImbî. He heard about the entry of my royal majesty into (the city) Dēr and fear took hold of him. Teumman became frightened, turned around, (and) entered the city Susa. In order to save his (own) life, he distributed silver (and) gold to the people of his land. He redeployed his allies, who march at his side, to his front and amassed (them) before me. He established the Ulāya River as his defensive position and kept (me from) the watering places.   (v 87) By the command of the gods Aššur (and) Marduk, the great gods, my lords, who had encouraged me through auspicious omens, dream(s), egirrû-oracle(s), (and) message(s) from ecstatics, I brought about their defeat inside (the city) Tīl-Tuba. I blocked up the Ulāya River with their corpses (and) filled the plain of the city Susa with their bodies like baltu-plant(s) and ašāgu-plant(s). By the command of the gods Aššur (and) Marduk, the great gods, my lords, in the midst of his troops, I cut off the head of Teumman, the king

394

Peter Dubovský

of the land Elam. The brilliance of (the god) Aššur and the goddess Ištar overwhelmed the land Elam and they (the Elamites) bowed down to my yoke.   (v 97) I placed Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikas II), who had fled to me (and) had grasped my feet, on his (Teumman’s) throne. I  installed Tammarītu, his third brother, as king in the city Ḫidalu. (With) the chariots, wagons, horses, mules, harness-broken (steeds), (and) equipment suited for war (vi 5) that I captured between the city Susa and the Ulāya River with the support of (the god) Aššur (and) the goddess Ištar, the great gods, my lords, by the command of (the god) Aššur and the great gods, my lords, I joyfully came out of the land Elam and salvation was established for my entire army.

PRISM G (RINAP 5 8) (7′) [Afterwards], Teumman, the (very) image of a gallû-demon, sat on the [throne of Urtaku. He constantly sou]ght out ev[i]l (ways) [to] kill the children of Urtaku (and) the children of Um[manaldašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš II). (10′) Um]manigaš, Ummanappa, (and) Tammarīt[u – the son]s of Urtaku, the king of the land Elam – [Kudu]rru (and) Parrû – the sons of Ummanald[ašu (Ḫumban-ḫaltaš II), the king] who came before Urtaku – together with sixty members of [the royal (family)], count[less] archers, (and) nobles of the land Elam, (15′) [who had] fled to me before Teumman’s slaughtering and who had grasped the feet of m[y] royal majesty – [rega]rding these people, (these) fugitives, [T]eumman constantly sent me insults [sa]ying “Send me those people!” and [a seco]nd time, saying “I will come and wage war [ag]ainst you!”

PRISM A (RINAP 5 11) (iii 27) On my fifth campaign, I took the direct road to the land Elam. By the command of the deities Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš, Adad, Bēl (Marduk), Nabû, (iii 30) Ištar of Nineveh, ŠarratKidmuri, Ištar of Arbela, Ninurta, Nergal, (and) Nusku, in the month Ulūlu (VI) – “the work of the goddesses,” the month of the king of the gods, (the god) Aššur, the father of the gods, the god Nunnamnir – like the assault of a fierce storm, (iii 35) I covered the land Elam in its entirety. I cut off the head of Teumman, their presumptuous king who had plotted evil (deeds). I slew his warriors without number. I captured his fighting men alive. (iii 40) I filled the plain of the city Susa with their bodies like baltu-plant(s) and ašāgu-plant(s). I made the Ulāya River flow with their blood; I dyed its water red like a red-dyed wool.   (iii 44) I took Ummanigaš (Ḫumban-nikas II), a son of Urtaku – a (former) king of the land Elam – who had fled to me from Teumman to Assyria (and) had grasped my feet, with me to the land Elam (and) I placed him on Teumman’s throne. I installed Tammarītu, his third brother who had fled to me with him, as king in the city Ḫidalu.   (iii 50) After I  had made the weapons of (the god) Aššur and the goddess Ištar prevail over the land Elam (and) had continually established mighty victories, on my return march, I set out towards Dunānu, a Gambulian who had put his trust in the land Elam. I conquered the city Ša-pî-Bēl, a city upon which the land Gambulu relied. (iii 55) I entered that city (and) slaughtered its people like lambs. (As for) Dunānu (and) Samgunu, the ones who had disturbed the exercise of my kingship, (iii 60) I clamped (their) hands and feet in iron manacles (and) handcuffs (and) iron fetters. (As for) the rest of the sons of Bēl-iqīša, his family, the seed of his father’s house, as many as there were, Nabû-naʾid (and) Bēl-ēṭir, sons of Nabû-šuma-ēreš, the šandabakku (governor of Nippur), and the



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

395

bones of the father who had engendered them (Nabû-šuma-ēreš), (iii 65) I carried (them) off together with auxiliary forces, rebels, the people of the land Gambulu, oxen, sheep and goats, donkeys, horses, (and) mules out of the land Gambulu to Assyria. (As for) Ša-pîBēl, the city upon which he (Dunānu) relied, I destroyed, demolished, (and) dissolved (it) with water.

Epigraphs in the Southwest Palace, Room XXXIII BSP 1; Epigraph 33 (RINAP 5 32) The defeat of the troops of Teumman, the king of [the land Elam], which Ashurbanipal, [great king, strong king], king of the world, king of Assyria, [had brought about] (by inflicting) countless (losses) at (the city) Tīl-Tūba, (and during which) he had cast down the corpses of [his (Teumman’s)] w[arriors].

Epigraph 31 (RINAP 5 31) [Battle line of Ashurbanipal, king of A]ssyria, the one who established the de[feat of the land Elam].

SWB 1; Epigraph 10a (RINAP 5 27) author’s reconstruction and translation SAG.DU mte-um-[man MAN KUR.ELAM.MA.KI] ša ina MURUB₄ tam-˹ḫa˺-[ri ik-ki-su­-ma] a-ḫu-ru-u ERIM.ḪI.A-ia a-na pu-˹us˺-[su-rat] ḫa-de-e ú-šaḫ-ma-ṭu a-na KUR ˹AN˺.[ŠÁR. KI]

The head of Teum[man, the king of the land Elam], which was cut off in the midst of bat[tle] [and] a common soldier of my troops dispatched (it) quickly to As[syria] to (give me) the good ne[ws].

SWB 2; Epigraph 15 (RINAP 5 28) Ur[t]aku, an in-law of Teumman who had been struck by an a[rro]w (but) had not (yet) died, called out to an Assyrian to c[ut of ]f his (Urtaku’s) own head, saying “Come here (and) cut off (my) head. Carry (it) before the king, your lord, and obtain fame.”

SWB 3; Epigraph 7a (RINAP 5 25) Teumman, , during a loss of (all) reason, said to his son: “Shoot the bow!”

SWB 4; Epigraph 6 (RINAP 5 26) Teumman, the king of the land Elam who had been struck during a mighty battle (and) whose hand Tammaritu, his eldest son, had grasped – they fled in order to save his (Teumman’s) life (and) slipped into the forest. With the support of (the god) Aššur and goddess Ištar, I killed them. I cut off their head(s) in front of one another.

SWB 5; Epigraph 28 (RINAP 5 36) (PN₁ and PN₂) uttered grievous blasphemies against (the god) Aššur, the god who created me. I tore out their tongue(s and) flayed them.

396

Peter Dubovský

SWB 6 (RINAP 5 33) The fugitive [U]mmanigaš (Ḫumban-nikas II), a servant who had grasped my feet. When I gave the command (lit. “at the working of my mouth”) in (the midst of ) celebration, a eunuch of mine whom [I had] sent (with him) ushered (him) in[to] the land Madaktu and the city Susa and placed him on the throne of Teu[mman, whom] I [had def ]eated.

SWB 7; Epigraph 27av (RINAP 5 35) I, Ashurbanipal, king of the world, king of Assyria, [who] through the support of (the god) Aššur and the goddess Ištar, my lords, conquered my [enemies] (and) achieved my heart’s desire. Rusa, the king of the land Urarṭu, heard about the mi[gh]t of (the god) Ašš[ur], my [lo]rd, and fear of my royal majesty overwhelmed him and he (then) sent his envoys to me in Arbela, to inquire about my well-being. I made Nabû-damiq (and) Umbadarâ, envoys of the land Elam, stand before them with writing boards (inscribed with) insolent m[es]sages.

SWB 8; Epigraph 17a (RINAP 5 34) The city (lit. “land”) Madaktu

Epigraphs in the North Palace, Room I NB 1; Epigraph 16 (RINAP 5 29) Itunî, a eunuch of Teumman, the king of the land Elam, whom he (Teumman) insolently sent again and again before me, saw my mighty battle array and, with his iron belt-dagger, cut with his own hand (his) bow, the emblem of his strength.

NB 2; Epigraph 28a (RINAP 5 37) The city of Arbela



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

Appendix 4 Reliefs

Fig. 1: Teumman-Dunanu cycle; Slab 1–3, 4–6 (AOAT 266; Übersicht 1, 2).

397

398

Peter Dubovský

Fig. 2: Teumman and his son (SWB 3; RINAP 5 25) and death of Teumman (SWB 4; RINAP 5 26); 19: Bowed and despaired Teumman with his son; 20: Execution of Teumman’s son; 21: Execution of Teumman; 22: Dead Elamites; 23: Teumman’s weapons taken as a booty; 24: Head of Teumman. (The British Museum, photo author)



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

399

Fig. 3: The death of Urtaku, an in-law of Teumman (SWB 2; RINAP 5 28); 17: Teumman fell from his chariot; 18: Wounded Teumman escaped held by Tammaritu; 29: Urtaku begging to be killed 30: Dead Elamites; 38: Dead Elamites; 39: Assyrians shooting Elamites; 40: Assyrians killing Elamites. (The British Museum, photo author)

400

Peter Dubovský

Fig. 4: The head of Teumman (SWB 1, RINAP 5 27); 4: Elamite prisoners humiliated; 13: Teumman’s head. (The British Museum, photo author)



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

401

Fig. 5: The punishment of those who insulted gods (SWB 5; RINAP 5 36); 49 and 56 Elamites flayed. (The British Museum, photo author)

Fig. 6: The installation of faithful Ummanigaš to the throne (SWB 6; RINAP 5 26); 63: Elamites prostrating and kneeling in front of the new king; 64: Ummanigaš presented to the Elamites; 65: Elamites accepting the new king. (The British Museum, photo author)

402

Peter Dubovský

Fig. 7: Rusa’s ambassadors (SWB 7; RINAP 5 35); 60: Observing the tablets brought by Nabû-damiq (and) Umbadarâ and the tablets with Teumman’s insulting messages. (The British Museum, photo author)

Fig. 8: Sennacherib reviewing the booty taken from Lachish (Southwest Palace Nineveh, Room XXXVI): Inscription 1: Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat in a nēmedu-throne and the booty of Lachish passed in review before him; Inscription 2: Tent of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. (The British Museum, photo author)



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

403

Fig. 9: The Assyrian attack of Lachish (Southwest Palace Nineveh, Room XXXVI, panel 7): Assyrian siege engines and ramps, the deportation and impalement of the enemies. (The British Museum, photo author)

Fig. 10: Left: Ritual tablet K 9439; Middle: Ashurnaṣirpal’s Standard Inscription (9th c. BC, Nimrud, Northwest Palace, Room F, Panel 3); Right: Ashurbanipal’s epigraph (7th c. BC, Nineveh, Southwest Palace, Room XXXII, Panel 2). (The British Museum, photo author)

404

Peter Dubovský

Bibliography Anderson, Joel E. “The Rise, Fall, and Renovation of the House of Gesenius: Diachronic Methods, Synchronic Readings, and the Debate over Isaiah 36–39 and 2 Kings 18–20.” Currents in Biblical Research 11 (2013): 147–67. Aster, Shawn Zelig. “Isaiah 19: The ‘Burden of Egypt’ and Neo-Assyrian Imperial Policy.” JAOS 135 (2015): 453–70. –. “The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5–22: The Campaign Motif Reversed.” JAOS 127 (2007): 249–78. –. “Israelite Embassies in Assyria in the First Half of the Eighth Century.” Bib 97 (2016): 175–98. Bahrani, Zainab. “The King’s Head.” Iraq 66 (2004): 115–19. Berlejung, Angelika. “Erinnerungen an Assyrien in Nahum 2,4–3,19.” Pages 323–56 in Die unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Edited by Rüdiger Lux and Ernst-Joachim Waschke. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 28–39. HThKAT 23. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 2010. –. “The King Diseased and Healed (Isaiah 38), the King Embarrassed and Comforted (Isaiah 39): What Do These Figures Add to the King Beleaguered and Rescued (Isaiah 36–37).” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 86 (2010): 379–91. –. “‘Lebanon with Its Majesty Shall Fall. A Shoot Shall Come Forth from the Stump of Jesse’ (Isa 10:34–11:1): Interfacing the Story of Assyria and the Image of Israel’s Future in Isaiah 10–11.” Pages 17–33 in The New Things Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene, edited by Janer W. Dyk. Maastricht: Shaker, 2002. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Chan, Michael. “Rhetorical Reversal and Usurpation: Isaiah 10:5–34 and the Use of Neo-Assyrian Royal Idiom in the Construction of an Anti-Assyrian Theology.” JBL 128 (2009): 717–33. Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. Garden City: Doubleday, 1988. Dubovský, Peter. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19. Biblica et Orientalia 49. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. –. “Assyrian Downfall through Isaiah’s Eyes (2 Kings 15–23): The Historiography of Representation.” Bib 89 (2008): 1–16. –. “Assyrians under the Walls of Jerusalem and the Confinement of Padi.” JNES 75 (2016): 109–26. –. “Elam and Assyria.” Pages 323–39 in The Elamite World, edited by Javier ÁlvarezMon, Gian Pietro Basello, and Yasmina Wicks. New York: Routledge, 2018. –. “Elam and the Bible.” Pages 27–40 in The Elamite World, edited by Javier ÁlvarezMon, Gian Pietro Basello, and Yasmina Wicks. New York: Routledge, 2018. Eidevall, Göran. “Propagandistic Constructions of Empires in the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 109–28 in Divination, Politics, and Ancient near Eastern Empires, edited by Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Emerton, J. A. “The Historical Background of Isaiah 1:4–9.” EI 24 (1993): 34*–40*.



Inverting Assyrian Propaganda in Isaiah’s Historiography

405

Frevel, Christian. Geschichte Israels. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Gallagher, William R. “Assyrian Deportation Propaganda.” SAAB 8 (1994): 57–65. Gerardi, Pamela. “Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns: A  Literary and Political Study.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1987. Hays, Christopher B. “The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–22.” VT 60 (2010): 212–40. Hibbard, J. Todd. “Isaiah Xxvii 7 and Intertextual Discourse About ‘Striking’ in the Book of Isaiah.” VT 55 (2005): 461–76. Horowitz, Wayne, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth Sanders. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006. Jakob-Rost, Liane. Das Vorderasiatische Museum; Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1992. K aelin, Oskar. Ein Assyrisches Bildexperiment nach Ägyptischem Vorbild: Zu Planung und Ausführung der “Schlacht am Ulai”. Vol. 266. AOAT. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1999. K ahn, Danʼel. “Egypt and Assyria in Isaiah 11:11–16.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 12 (2016): 9–20. Laato, Antti J. “Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib.” VT 45 (1995): 198–226. Liverani, Mario. Assiria: La Preistoria dell’imperialismo. Bari: Laterza, 2017. Machinist, Peter. “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah.” JAOS 103.4 (1983): 719–22. –. “The Rab Šaqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other’.” Hebrew studies 41 (2000): 151–68. –. ““Ah, Assyria …” (Isaiah 10:5 ff.): Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited.” Pages 183–217 in Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza – Università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’antichità, 20–21 April 2009, edited by Gilda Bartoloni, Maria Giovanna Biga, and Armando Bramanti. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016. Mastnjak, Nathan. “Judah’s Covenant with Assyria in Isaiah 28.” VT 64 (2014): 465–83. Mattila, Raija. The King’s Magnates: A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. SAAS 11. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000. Morrow, William. “Were There Neo-Assyrian Influences in Manasseh’s Temple? Comparative Evidence from Tel-Miqne/Ekron.” CBQ 75 (2013): 53–73. Naʾaman, N. “New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b–35).” Bib 81 (2000): 393–402. Potts, Daniel T. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge  – New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Press, Michael D. “‘Where Are the Gods of Hamath?’ (2 Kings 18.34 // Isaiah 36.19): The Use of Foreign Deities in the Rabshakeh’s Speech.” JSOT 40 (2015): 201–23. Reade, Julian. “Elam and Elamites in Assyrian Sculpture.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 9 (1976): 97–106. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah: A Commentary. Hermeneia 23. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Rudman, Dominic. “Is the Rabshakeh Also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings Xviii 17–35.” VT 50 (2000): 100–10.

406

Peter Dubovský

Russell, John Malcolm. The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Inscriptions. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Sargon’s Threat against Jerusalem in Isaiah 10,27–32.” Bib 75 (1994): 457–70. Tadmor, Hayim. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser Iii, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. ATh 5. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. Timmer, Daniel C. “Nahum’s Representation of and Response to Neo-Assyria: Imperialism as a Multifaceted Point of Contact in Nahum.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24 (2014): 349–62. Watanabe, Chikako E. “The ‘Continuous Style’ in the Narrative Scheme of Assurbanipal’s Reliefs.” Iraq 66 (2004): 103–14. Waters, Mathew W. A Survey of Neo-Elamite History. SAAS 12. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000. –. “A Letter from Ashurbanipal to the Elders of Elam (BM 132980).” JCS 54 (2002): 79–86. Weidner, Ernst. “Assyrische Beschreibungen der Kriegs-Reliefs Aššurbânaplis.” AfO 8 (1933): 175–208. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 28–39: A  Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, Hugh G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

Metamorphoses of a Tyrant Isaiah 14:4b–21 Read in Its Wider Context* Joachim Eck This article engages in a thorough analysis of the themes and structure of Isa 14:4b–21, sums up the status quaestionis concerning its mythological atmosphere and the tyrant’s identity, and discusses the role of the fallen tyrant in the context of Isa 13–14 from a diachronic perspective. Next, it investigates the function of the taunt against the tyrant of Babylon in its wider context. Of particular interest are intertextual references between Isa 13; 14:1–23 and Isa 1–12. These indicate that the tyrant of Babylon pushes the hubris of the Assyrian king, who claims to have unlimited power on earth (Isa 10), to its extreme by trying to usurp the power in heaven. The arrogance of these tyrannic rulers against YHWH and his kingship has a sad parallel in the society of Judah, where faithless leaders guide God’s people towards a comparable hubris (Isa 1; 3; 5; 10:1–4). The Day of YHWH in Isa 2 and 13 indicates the beginning of his judgement against these enemies, which progresses from Isa 2 through 10 and from 13 through 39. In this context, the inclusio constituted by the two different portraits of Kings of Babylon in Isa 14:1–23 and Isa 39 invites the reader/listener to reconsider the section of Isa 13–39 from a new hermeneutical perspective opened by Isaiah’s prophecy in 39:5–7.

1.  The Taunt of Isa 14:4b–21: Themes and Structure Although Isaiah 14:3–4a prophesies to the house of Jacob (cf. v. 1b) in a direct speech that, one day, they will take up a ‫“ מׁשל‬parable/proverb” against the king of Babylon, the identity of the tyrant who is addressed in the subsequent taunt (14:4b–21) remains unspecific. Concerning the unusual designation of the taunt as a ‫מׁשל‬, Beuken1 argues this seems correct insofar as the contents of the song are largely dominated by three comparisons which set the king of Babylon’s former glory against his current downfall (vv. 4b–6 and 16–17), his own fate *  I would like to express my gratitude to the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), which generously supported my presentation of the present topic at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the SBL. 1  Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 83.

408

Joachim Eck

against that of the other kings (vv. 10–11 and 18–20), and his aspiration towards the heavenly throne against the power of the Most High One (vv. 13–14). The taunt is opened by the particle ‫“ איך‬how” in verse 4b, which is considered a typical beginning of a qinah.2 As the same particle reoccurs in v. 12, the song is formally divided into two parts, the first one ranging from v. 4b to 11 and the second from v. 12 to 21.3 Both parts describe in their first section the fall of the tyrant, but each time in a markedly different way. In Isaiah 14:4b–6, the first account of the tyrant’s end, a prophetic voice proclaims that the excessively oppressive ruler (v. 4b: ‫ )נגׂש‬was cast down by YHWH. The second account (vv. 12– 15) directly addresses him in verses 12–13aα and quotes his own voice in verses 13aβ-14, which mirror his arrogant plans to raise his throne in heaven and take a prominent seat on the mount of the gods’ assembly. In a direct second person reply, verse 15 announces the failure of his hubris and proclaims that he has been brought down to Sheol.4 The two accounts are complementary to each other and form a theologically meaningful contrast. The first description of the tyrant’s fall sets out from a horizontal perspective as it considers what the nations all over the earth (cf. ‫ ﬠמים … גוים‬in v. 6) experienced under the wicked ruler (vv. 4b–6). The horizontal perspective continues in the next subsection of the first part (vv. 7–8), which describes how the whole earth reacts to his defeat (‫ כל־הארץ‬in v. 7), with the nuance that the “cypresses of Lebanon” exulting in v. 8 are located on an elevated place on earth, i. e. on the mountains of Lebanon, before the subsequent passage vv. 9–11 tells about reactions in the very low cosmic region of the netherworld. A vertical perspective complementary to the horizontal one in vv. 4b–6 is introduced in Isaiah 14:12–15 by means of a number of mythical motifs. Verses 12a, 13aα imply a point far up in heaven where the tyrant imagines becoming a divine king (vv. 13aβ-14). From his fancied place above the stars, he falls down to earth (v. 12b) and tumbles further down to the most extreme depths of Sheol (v. 15). By his blind desire to raise his throne above the stars of God/El, and to 2  Cf. e. g. 2 Sam 1:19b, 25–27. For a discussion of the qinah form (German “Leichenklagelied/Leichenlied”) see Hans Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, BKAT 10/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978), 539–41; Christof Hardmeier, “Totenklage (AT),” section 2.2, WiBiLex (cited 13 October 2017), online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/36058. For a critical assessment of the qinah metre and Karl Budde’s corresponding theory, see Klaus Koenen, “Qina-Metrum,” WiBiLex (cited 13 October 2017), online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/ stich​wort/36058. 3  See e. g. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 54–55; William L. Holladay, “Text, Structure, and Irony in the Poem on the Fall of the Tyrant, Isaiah 14,” CBQ 61 (1999): 633–45, here 635. 4  The imperfect form ‫ תורד‬in v. 15 is parallel to the imperfect forms ‫ אﬠלה‬,‫ ארים‬,‫ ואׁשב‬,‫אﬠלה‬ and ‫ אדמה‬in vv. 13aβ-14. While it is grammatically possible for vv. 13aβ-14 to express future intentions (cf. e. g. NRSV), the taunt as a whole proposes these intentions were already being realized as the tyrant was oppressing the whole earth (vv. 4b–6). Moreover, the introduction of the quotation of the tyrant uses a perfect in v. 13aα: ‫“ אמרת‬you had said”. Taken together, these observations indicate a mainly durative meaning of the imperfect forms. The quotation of the tyrant’s intentions refers to activities that have begun earlier and go on at present. Similarly, ‫ תורד‬indicates that the tyrant has gone down to Sheol to stay there permanently.



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

409

rule as Lord of the universe (v. 13), Helel ben Shechar (v.12a: ‫)הילל בן־ׁשחר‬, as the tyrant is called here, aspires to found an anti-throne on the mythical ground of Zaphon which is opposed to YHWH’s throne on the mount of Zion. This brings in aspects of intertextuality to be explored later in this article. The two accounts of the tyrant’s fall show a characteristic difference in the ways they describe the wicked ruler’s crimes and speak about the divine. When the first subsection of the taunt (vv. 4b–6) reports that the fallen tyrant beat the nations without cessation in wrath and anger (v. 6), this implies that he usurped YHWH’s power to beat, which in Isaiah is reserved for God to fight back chaotic powers spreading death and devastation.5 The name of YHWH appears in v. 5,6 which is its only occurrence in the whole song (vv. 4b–21). The context of the divine name in v. 5 is the joyful announcement that Israel’s God has liberated humanity from oppression. This is in line with the paradigm found in the call accounts of Moses in Ex 2:25–4:17 and 6:1–13. Here, the divine name is closely linked with YHWH’s role as a liberator of an oppressed nation (Ex 3:6–20; 6:2b, 5–8). The theological analogy between Israel’s liberation out of the cruel hand of the Egyptian pharaoh in Exodus and the nations’ liberation from the tyrant’s oppression in Isa 14:4b–21 is underlined by the designation of the tyrant as a ‫“ נגׂש‬oppressor”(v. 4b; cf. also v. 2b) since the same participle is used in Ex 3:7; 5:6, 10, 13, 14 as an expression for the Egyptian pharaoh’s taskmasters in charge of oppressing the Hebrew slaves.7 At the same time, this catchword creates a connection with Isa 3:5, 12, where the verb ‫“ נגש‬to oppress” contributes to the general characterization of Judah’s upper class as a society of oppressors who imitate the ways of the Egyptian pharaoh of the Exodus.8 In sum, verses 4b–6 describe YHWH’s superiority over the oppressor who deems himself exempt from the divine ethical rules. As king of kings, Israel’s God breaks the “staff of the wicked” (v. 5: ‫ )ׁשבר יהוה מטה רׁשﬠים‬who perverted the divine world order into a totalitarian system of violence and chaotic fury.9 5  Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 85. See also Charis Fischer, Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja (BBB 136; Berlin: Philo, 2002), 106–9, for further aspects of the tyrant’s attempt to arrogate divine power. 6 Otto K aiser, Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39, ATD 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 29; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 533–34, consider the divine name in v. 5 as a redactional addition. Although this might be true in view of the extended metre of v. 5, it is likely to be an intentional poetic emphasis. In any case, various divine names are used in a meaningful way in vv. 5, 13 and 14 (see analysis below). 7  Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 84. Cirino Versaci, Il delirio dell’onnipotenza. La critica al potere e alla sua storia in Is 14,4b–20: Esegesi e intertestualità della pericope, Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica 57 (Bologna: EDB, 2014), 91–125, considers the lexeme ‫ נגׂש‬as a chiave d’ingresso of 14:4b–20 and also notes the similiarity of the situations in Ex 3; 5 and Isa 14:4b–5 (p. 99). 8  For parallels between the opening of the book of Isaiah and the Exodus story, see Joachim Eck, “Divine Strategies against Abuse of Power in the Opening of the Book of Isaiah and the Exodus Story,” ZAW 130 (2018): 4–25. 9 Cf. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 84. This interpretation reads ‫ מרהבה‬instead of MT ‫ מדהבה‬in v. 4b. Against MT ‫( מדהבה‬whose meaning is not secure, but is perhaps “tribute” on the basis

410

Joachim Eck

Other than the first part of the taunt (Isa 14:4b–11), the second part (Isa 14:12–21) does not mention YHWH as the one who dethroned the tyrant but includes an indirect reference to his rule over history by using the passive form ‫“ תורד אל־ׁשאול‬you are cast down to Sheol” (v. 15), which resumes v. 11aα: ‫“ הורד ׁשאול גאנך‬Your pride has been cast down to Sheol.” This concluding passage of the first part describes the end of the oppressor’s pride in quite ‘earthly’ terms insofar as the sound formerly produced by the regular vibration of the well-tuned strings of the ‫( נבלים‬v. 11aβ), the harps at his royal court, is replaced by less well-tuned and more irregular movements of worms and maggots (v. 11b). Introducing the keyword ‫“ גאונך‬your pride” and the idea of its voidness, verse 11 prepares the second part of the taunt. Isaiah 14:12–15 takes up this theme of arrogant pride and shows the cosmic dimensions of his perverse self-perception and hubris by painting the story already told before (vv. 4b–6) in mythological images. Thus, verses 12–15 illuminate the spiritual background of the tyrant’s brutality described in vv. 4b–6. For this purpose, various elements reminiscent of Ugaritic or other Ancient Near Eastern mythology are woven into the text.10 Accordingly, this second account of the tyrant’s fall does not speak of YHWH but of ‫“ כוכבי־אל‬stars of God/El” as well as ‫“ ﬠליון‬the Most High” in combination with the places ‫“ הר־מוﬠד‬the mount of assembly” and ‫“ ירכתי צפון‬the furthest ends of the North/Zaphon.” Thus, the impression is created that the tyrant looks for absolute power in places where from the point of view of a YHWH-believer there is no such power to be found.11 When Helel plans to ascend to heaven to raise his of Aramaic ‫“ דהב‬gold”, see HAL), 1QIsaa attests the widely accepted reading ‫( מרהבה‬from ‫)רהב‬, which is translated as e. g. “onslaught” (Holladay, “Text, Structure and Irony,” 644), “turmoil” (John B. Geyer, Mythology and Lament. Studies in the Oracles about the Nations, MSSOTS [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004], 21), or “Ansturm” (HAL). Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon. A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (ConBOT 4; Lund: Gleerup, 1970), 29–32, discusses the problem in depth and keeps MT ‫ מדהבה‬as lectio difficilior. For arguments in favour of an emendation, see e. g. John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 314; Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, NAC 15A (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 312; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24 (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 201; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 533, who proposes to read ‫ מרהיב‬as a nomen agentis (cf. LXX, Syr.) and to change ‫ ׁשבת‬into ‫ׁשבתה‬. In view of 1QIsaa and the parallel use of ‫ רהב‬and ‫ נגׂש‬in Isa 3:5, I prefer ‫מרהבה‬. 10 Robert H. O’Connell, “Ironic Reversal through Concentric Structure and Mythic Allusion,” VT 38 (1988): 407–18, here 416–17, rightly assumes that the great number of possible mythological backgrounds proposed for Isa 14:12–14 makes it likely that this text intends “to portray the Mesopotamian tyrant as a mythic usurper”. See also Willem S. Prinsloo, “Isaiah 14:12–15 – Humiliation, Hubris, Humiliation,” ZAW 93 (1981): 432–38, here 436, with reference to Werner H. Schmidt; Karin Schöpflin, “Ein Blick in die Unterwelt (Jesaja 14),” ThZ 58 (2002), 299–314, here 309. For surveys of proposed mythological backgrounds to Isa 14:12–14, see O’Connell, “Ironic Reversal,” 416 note 11; Prinsloo, “Isaiah 14:12–15,” 435–36; Schöpflin, “Ein Blick,” 307–9; Smith, Isaiah 1–39, 314–15; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 551–54. For a discussion of possible Ugaritic backgrounds see Michael S. Heiser, “The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12–15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material”, VT 51 (2001), 354–69. 11 Cf. Holladay, “Text, Structure and Irony,” 641.



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

411

throne above the stars of El/God (v. 13a), or to the top of the clouds (v. 14a), or when he wants to sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon (v. 13b), these plans appear useless for his aim of usurping the power of the Most High (v. 14: ‫ )אדמה לﬠיון‬since YHWH is the Most High and resides elsewhere, on Zion. Earlier in the book, Isaiah 2:2–4 revealed that nations desiring to be instructed in YHWH’s knowledge of justice and righteousness will one day come to Zion and participate in the divine kingship insofar as, accepting YHWH’s just decisions, they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (Isa 2:4: ‫)וכתתו חרבותם לאתים וחניתותיהם למזמרות‬. Against this background, Helel appears as a ruler who lacks fundamental knowledge and insight. Contrary to the concept of a wise participation in divine kingship resulting in eternal peace, the tyrant of Isa 14:4b–21 brings death and destruction over the whole world by violence and war (vv. 4b–6, 8, 16–17, 20aβ). Devoid of wisdom, his attempted ascent to heaven must ultimately result in his fall from the incommensurable heights of his hubris (vv. 12–15). Helel ben Shachar’s downward movement from heavens (v. 12) to Sheol (v. 15) ends at the same point as v. 11 (catchwords: ‫ הורד ׁשאול‬in v. 11/‫ אל־ׁשאול תורד‬in v. 15).12 Each of the two accounts of the tyrant’s end in Isa 14:4b–6 and vv. 12–15 is followed by passages describing reactions to this event. In response to YHWH’s victory over the tyrant (vv. 4b–6), verses 7–8 tell about the joy of the whole earth over his defeat and verses 9–11 report the excited and derisive reactions to the arrival of the redoubtable despot down in Sheol. In response to Helel’s fall described in Isaiah 14:12–15, a group of witnesses on earth who see him express their wondering and glad reactions in vv. 16–17.13 Although some interpreters think Isa 14:16–17 continues the speech of the kings in Sheol reacting to the tyrant’s arrival in vv. 10–11,14 the text is spoken from a perspective that proposes a group of speakers on earth rather than in the netherworld. Their ability to see, stare and ponder over what they see (v. 16a: ‫ יתבוננו‬,‫ יׁשגיחו‬,‫ )ראיך‬requires capacities of perceiving and reasoning about perceptions which are typical of a living human person on earth.15 The speakers in vv. 16–17 are concerned with circumstances which do not belong to the netherworld. They speak about the terror the tyrant’s presence is spreading on earth (v. 16b), as well as the devastation and damage he caused to the whole world (‫)תבל‬, the cities (‫ )ﬠריו‬and the inhabitants he kept as prisoners (v. 17). The use of the two participles ‫מרגיז‬ 12 Peter Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39, NSKAT 18/1 (Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 1993), 134. 13  E. g., Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 94–95; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 556; Geyer, Mythology and Lament, 22; Höffken, Jesaja 1–39, 135–36. 14  Holladay, “Text, Structure and Irony,” 642, with reference to Marti and Gosse; Schöpflin, “Ein Blick,” 306, 309–310; Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 225. 15  Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 94–95; Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 556; K aiser, Jesaja 1–39, 36; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, 323.

412

Joachim Eck

(“making tremble”) and ‫“( מרﬠיׁש‬shaking”) in v. 16b indicates that the rhetorical question refers to a man standing right there where the tyrant’s presence, although he is now a dead body, still causes the earth to tremble and kingdoms to be shaken. The two perfect forms in v. 17, ‫ ׂשם‬and ‫הרס‬, point to the results of the tyrant’s destructive activities which are still present on earth. By contrast, the Rephaim speaking in vv. 10–11 mention conditions and occurrences related to Sheol. They observe the newcomer’s weakness (v. 10b), the end of his pomp in Sheol and the presence of worms and maggots in the netherworld (v. 11). Although vv. 16–17 appear as an immediate reaction to Helel’s fall (v. 15), the contents of this section are even more closely related to vv. 4b–6; 7–8 and 9–11. The group on earth speaking in vv. 16b–17 recapitulate the terror and crimes of the dead tyrant. This corresponds to the theme of the first section of the taunt, Isa 14:4b–6. Both have a focus on the ethical aspects of the fallen ruler’s regime. Verse 4b refers to him as the “oppressor” (‫ )נגׂש‬and “staff of the wicked” (‫מטה‬ ‫ )רׁשﬠים‬and uses two subordinate participial constructions (participles ‫ מכה‬and ‫ )רדה‬to describe how he struck and persecuted the nations. Taking up both style and contents of vv. 4b–6, verses 16b–17 specify what it means that the tyrant recklessly struck down the nations without pause: the whole earth trembled, kingdoms were shaken, the cities were destroyed so that the world turned into a desert, prisoners did not return home. The close connection between vv. 4b–6 and 16–17 is further underlined by the fact that a similar set of vocabulary and themes are also found in Isa 1:5–7. In vv. 5–6 of this passage, the verb ‫ נכה‬and the noun ‫ מכה‬express that the Lord’s sinful people were hit by countless blows so that they are covered all over with wounds. The next verse (7) describes the destruction which came over the land. Its cities (‫ )ﬠרים‬are burnt down, foreigners are “eating up” (‫ )אכלים‬the fertile soil so that the whole country becomes a desert (‫)ׁשממה‬. The similarities with Isa 14:4b–6, 16–17 show that the land of Judah suffered the same kind of destruction and devastation which the tyrant of Isa 14:4b–21 brought over the whole world. Like in Isa 1:5–6, so also in Isa 14:4b–6 the root ‫ נכה‬and the noun ‫( מכה‬v. 6) refer to wounds he caused to other peoples whereas the complimentary aspect of the annihilation of their cultures and lands is included in vv. 16b–17, where those who see the oppressor’s dead body state that he made the earth (‫ )ארץ‬tremble and turned the whole world (‫ )תבל‬into a desert, destroying its cities (‫)ﬠריו‬. The correspondence between the fate of God’s people and their land in Isa 1:5–7 and that of the world’s nations and countries in Isa 14:4b–6, 16–17 creates another aspect of intertextuality I have already discussed elsewhere.16 Isa 1:5–7 raises the questions why God’s people were struck by such disasters and who it was that beat them in such a terrible way. Although the taunt itself (14:4b–21) does not explicitly say that Is16 Joachim Eck, Jesaja 1 – Eine Exegese der Eröffnung des Jesaja-Buches: Die Präsentation Jesajas und JHWHs, Israels und der Tochter Zion, BZAW 473 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 262–73, esp. 272–73.



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

413

rael was one of the victims of the tyrant’s rage, the statement that he devastated the whole world (v. 17a) clearly includes Israel, among others. In addition, the similar vocabulary and motives in Isa 1:5–7 and 14:4b–6, 16–17 make it clear that the destroyer of Judah must have been the same type of aggressive warlord as the tyrant dealt with in 14:4b–21. More details of this story are revealed in Isa 1–12, including further intertextual connections pointing to Isa 13:1–14:23. I will come back to this later in this article. In addition to their joint interest in ethics expressed in references to the tyrant’s wicked deeds, Isa 14:4b–6 and vv. 16b–17 also share the same speech perspective. While the introduction of a group looking at the dead ruler in v. 16a still addresses him directly (‫“ ראיך‬those looking at you …” etc.), the persons belonging to this group then speak about him in third person singular perspective (v. 16b: ‫”הזה האיׁש‬Is this the man …” etc.), as did already the speaker of vv. 4b–6. Since the direct second person address of the tyrant is reintroduced in v. 19 (‫“ ואתה הׁשלכת‬But you are cast out …” etc.), and since vv. 18 and 19–20a belong together for reasons of their contents, which contrast the peaceful resting of the kings of the nations with the dreadful end of the tyrant’s body, the speech of the group talking in v. 16b ends in v. 17, and the voice that already spoke in v. 16a continues the taunt from v. 18 on. Like Isa 14:9–11, 12–15, 16a, the section of vv. 18–20a is directly addressed to the deceased ruler in second person speech. As to its contents, it compares the postmortem status of all the kings of the nations with that of the fallen tyrant. While the first ones lie in glory, each in his house, the tyrant is cast out of his grave and covered only by unclean corpses killed by sword. The honour of burial is denied to him because he is guilty of destroying his own land and slaughtering his own people (v. 20a). Isaiah 14:20b–21 is a section of its own because it no longer concerns the tyrant but his descendants and speaks of both in third person singular perspective (see ‫“ לבניו‬for his sons” in v. 21a). Isaiah 14:18–20a contrasts the dignity of all other deceased kings with the disgrace falling upon the tyrant after his death. Thus, the section takes up the thematic thread of verses 12–15, which are not primarily dealing with the tyrant’s crimes against humanity – these are just briefly mentioned in v. 12bβ – but describe the absolute humiliation of the tyrant’s hubris. He imagined raising his throne, the symbol of his kingship, above the stars of God (v. 13). This arrogance does not only lead to his defeat, loss of life and subsequent descent to Sheol (v. 15), but his royal glory and honour (‫ )כבוד‬are destroyed, too. The lexemes “king” (‫)מלך‬, “glory” (‫ )כבוד‬and, considering its specific context in v. 18, also “house” (‫ )בית‬belong to the same semantic field of kingship as the lexemes “throne” (‫ )כסא‬and “to sit/to throne” (‫ )יׁשב‬in v. 13. In the book of Isaiah, the royal connotations of this vocabulary can be seen in Isa 6:1–5, where it is used in the context of YHWH’s divine kingship. Texts such as Ps 21:6; 1 Kgs 3:13 show that the Israelite concept of kingship is linked with the idea that the glory a king achieves during his lifetime

414

Joachim Eck

is owed to God’s support and salvific intervention. When Isa 14:18 states that all deceased kings keep their glory even in Sheol, it expresses the expectation that the glory a king earned with God’s help during his lifetime does not end with his death but continues to exist while he rests “in his house” (‫)בביתו‬. Instead of being united with his forefathers, the fallen tyrant of Isa 14:4b–21 remains unburied and unclean. He is not arrayed with royal gear but “clothed with bodies slain” (v. 19aβ: ‫)לבוׁש הרגים‬. His corpse is thrown away with those “going down to the stones of the Pit” (v. 19bα: ‫)יורדי אל־אבני־בור‬. Isolated from other deceased kings (v. 20a), disgrace instead of glory is upon him. In addition, the tyrant loses his descendants, who are slaughtered according to the next section, vv. 20b–21. By consequence, no one is left who could continue his kingship. His royal glory, which had been stained by his ethical crimes during his lifetime, irretrievably fades away with his death. In the light of the above considerations, a number of important aspects of the structure of Isa 14:4b–21 can be summed up in the following chart (p. 415). The above observations on the structure of Isa 14:4b–21 are not exhaustive. The remarkable complexity of this poem simultaneously includes concentric elements which were analyzed in other contributions and need not be repeated here.17 The most striking effect of this concentricity is that Helel Ben Shachar’s fall from heaven to Sheol as described in vv. 12–15 and the quotation of his arrogant plans in vv. 13aβ-14 are placed at the centre of the poem.18

2.  The Questions of Mythology in Isa 14:12–15 and the Identity of the Fallen Tyrant In spite of great scholarly efforts, the mythological elements in Isa 14:12–15 could not be correlated with one specific myth.19 The text rather presents an original mixture of various motifs20 which illustrate and highlight the hubris of the tyrant of Babylon.21 Nonetheless, one scene in the Ugaritic cycle of Baal (KTU 1.6:I.53– 65) is generally considered the closest parallel to the tyrant’s plan to raise his 17  E. g. R. Mark Shipp, Of Dead Kings and Dirges. Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21, Academia Biblica 11 (Atlanta: SBL, 2002), 134–40, especially 139–40; O’Connell, “Ironic Reversal,” 407–12. 18  Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 88; Prinsloo, “Isaiah 14:12–15,” 434–35. 19  For surveys of mythological motifs proposed as backgrounds to Isa 14:4b–21 see footnote 10 and Geyer, Mythology and Lament, 23–37. Christopher Hays, Death in Iron Age II and in First Isaiah, FAT 79 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 211–15, 221, argues Isaiah 14 is an Israelite composition integrating widespread mythic tradition but not bound by the narrative structure of prior myths. He correlates the figure of ‫ הלל בן־ׁשחר‬with Sargon II (pp. 215–18) and sees Helel’s story as a subversive and therefore hidden reference to the Neo-Assyrian myth of Enlil/Illil and Anu being cast down into the Abyss (pp. 218–21). 20  Geyer, Mythology and Lament, 37. 21  Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 89; O’Connell, “Ironic Reversal,” 416–417.

Metamorphoses of a Tyrant



Speech ­perspective

Theme

415 Aspects of space

A. Victory over the oppressor of all nations, its impacts on earth and in the netherworld (vv. 4b–11) 3rd person I. First account of the tyrant’s end: singular speech YHWH’s victory over the oppressor of the whole earth (vv. 4b–6) 2nd person speech to the dead tyrant

horizontal perspective looking at events on earth

II. Relief of the whole earth (vv. 7–8) III. Unrest in the netherworld after his arrival (vv. 9–11)

vertical perspective looking from earth into Sheol

B. The tyrant’s end told in vertical perspective and its present and future impacts on earth I. Second account of the tyrant’s demise: his hubris and his fall from the imagined throne above the stars of El/God to Sheol (vv. 12–15) 2nd person speech to the dead tyrant



1. The drop of Helel, Son of Dawn, from heaven to the ground (vv. 12–13aα)

1st person singular ­quotation



2. The tyrant’s hubris as evidenced by his plan to become the ruler of the realm of the gods in heavens and on Zaphon (vv. 13aβ-14)

2nd person speech to the dead tyrant



3. The tyrant’s downcast to Sheol (v. 15)

vertical perspective descending from heavens to earth and Sheol

II. Further consequences of the tyrant’s hubris happening on earth after his fall: loss of honour and offspring (vv. 16–21) 2nd person speech to the dead tyrant



1. Introduction of the speakers, who are eye-witnesses on earth (v. 16a)

3rd person speech



2. Mockery over the tyrant’s weakness by speakers traumatized by his former crimes (vv. 16b–17)

2nd person speech to the dead tyrant



3. Confrontation of the tyrant with contrast between royal glory of other deceased kings and his own disgraceful end (vv. 18–20a)

vertical perspective looking from earth down to graves

4. Definitive extinction of his kingship by execution of his sons in revenge of their fathers’ (MT) guilt (vv. 20b–21)

horizontal perspective looking at events on earth

Imperative speaking about the tyrant in 3rd person

horizontal perspective looking at events on earth

416

Joachim Eck

throne above the stars of God/El.22 In this episode, the old principal god El intends to replace the deceased Baal by ʿAthtar, who was elected for this purpose by other deities. When ʿAthtar tries to sit on Baal’s throne on the heights of the mount Zaphon, he fails because he is not high enough to fill it. Descending from the throne again, he becomes king of the whole earth.23 Although some aspects of ʿAthtar’s fate remind one of Helel ben Shachar, Michael S. Heiser24 carefully pointed out important differences which show that the language and motifs used in Isa 14:12–15 do not match the situation described in ʿAthtar’s attempt at Baal’s throne.25 Nonetheless, he does assume a correlation between Helel and ʿAthtar. Since ʿAthtar is identified with the Day Star, i. e. Venus, in certain South Arabic and Canaanite religious texts, he understands ‫“ בן־ׁשחר‬Son of Dawn” (v. 12) astronomically and not genealogically.26 As the Day Star appears in the sky at the hour of dawn before sunrise, it seems to be born of dawn. Although speculative, this reading might fit what the Israelite author of Isa 14:12–15 wanted to express. Since Helel is the “Son of Dawn” appearing before sunrise, and since dawn owes its light to the more powerful star following it, i. e. the sun, “Son of Dawn” could express that, only for a short while, Helel is the most powerful star in the sky until the full light of the sun comes out.27 This would metaphorically underline his dependence on YHWH, who sets the hour and place of dawn (cf. Job 38:12). Since dawn is short, this interpretation would correspond to Isa 10:25, where the Lord says Assyria’s license to beat Israel will only last for a very little while (‫ﬠוד‬ ‫ )מﬠט מזﬠר‬until the divine anger hits Assyria’s hubris (cf. 10:5–15). Nonetheless, this interpretation remains speculative because of the differences between ʿAthtar’s attempt at Baal’s throne and Helel’s fall.28 Obviously, the author did not want to create a clear-cut reference to one myth but preferred an unspecific mythological atmosphere with multiple reference points.29 The research on the identity of the fallen tyrant resulted in multiple hypotheses covering all important Ancient Near Eastern rulers from the Neo-Assyrian period through Alexander the Great.30 Prominent proposals among NeoAssyrians are Sargon II, who died on battlefield and is the only Assyrian king 22 

Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 89–90. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 90; Heiser, “Mythological Provenance,” 354–55; Korpel and de Moore, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 152. 24  Heiser, “Mythological Provenance.” 25  See especially Heiser, “Mythological Provenance,” 355–60; Hays, Death, 213. 26  Heiser, “Mythological Provenance,” 356. 27 Cf. Fischer, Fremdvölkersprüche, 113. 28  Inter alia, it is unclear why Isa 14:13 uses ‫ (ממﬠל לכוכבי־אל ארים כסאי) אל‬but avoids the name of Baal although, as Heiser, “Mythological Provenance,” 358, points out, Helel’s aspiration to “ascend to the tops of the clouds” (v. 14: ‫ )אﬠלה ﬠל־במתי ﬠב‬reminds one of the mythology of Baal. 29 Cf. Geyer, Mythology and Lament, 37. 30  For overviews with references, see Wildberger, Jesaja 13–27, 543, who favours Nebuchadnezzar; Versaci, Il delirio dell’onnipotenza, 38–39. Jacques Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe 23 



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

417

not to be buried in an official royal sepulchre, Sennacherib and Assurbanipal.31 Among Neo-Babylonian emperors, Nebuchadezzar and Nabonidus were often considered.32 The lack of a consensus invites one to reflect about the rank and value of the question itself. Beyond doubt, knowledge about the historical situation of a text contributes to its understanding as it helps to recognize extratextual circumstances illuminating its meaning. But what about texts that avoid giving any historically specific information? This may itself be motivated by historical circumstances, in particular if critique against authorities is subject to persecution and other repressive action. In such cases, authors of old have used satire and camouflage as stylistic means to bring home their message without exposing themselves to persecution. Since Isaiah 14:4b–21 uses this kind of style, and since the Neo-Assyrian Empire entertained a network of spies,33 the lack of specific historical links could thus be explained.34 But beyond such a possibly hidden critique against contemporary authorities, the central concern of the text is to present an archetypical example of a tyrant. Without this core message, which remains valid beyond the boundaries of time, the text would not have become part of a scroll transmitted over centuries. Van Keulen is right to assume the “tyrant of the poem is not an individual Assyrian monarch, but the Assyrian as a typus.”35

3.  The Role of the Fallen Tyrant in the Literary Context of Isa 13–14, Diachronically Reflected The deeper meaning of the text beyond a specific historical situation can best be explored in the wider literary context into which Isa 14:4b–21 was inserted and which contributes interpretive keys. An element supporting the importance of this is the connection which Isa 14:4a and v. 22a create between the nameless tyrant of the taunt, on the one hand, and the “king of Babylon”/“Babylon”, on à l’apocalyptique. Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, Études Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1978), 293–296, favours Alexander. 31  Some Neo-Assyrian kings assumed the title “King of Babylon”, e. g. Sargon II, who had himself crowned at Babylon after expelling Merodach-Baladan, see Hays, Death, 217–18. But the Book of Isaiah does not use this title for Assyrian kings in chs. 1–12 or 36–37. 32  For discussion, see Percy van Keulen, “On the Identity of the Anonymous Ruler in Isaiah 14:4b–21,” in Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Michaël N. van der Meer et al., VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 109–23, here 115–23. For Assyrians, see also Shipp, Of Dead Kings, 160–162. 33  See e. g. Peter Dubovský, Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies. Reconstruction of the Neo-­ Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19, Biblica et orientalia 49 (Rome: Ponticifo Istituto Biblico, 2006). 34 Miklós Köszeghy, “Hybris und Prophetie: Erwägungen zum Hintergrund von Jesaja XIV 12–15,” VT 44 (1994): 549–54, here 553; Hays, Death, 220–21. 35  Van Keulen, “On the Identity,” 122.

418

Joachim Eck

the other hand. Independent of whether the taunt was originally created to mock a Babylonian ruler or not, the name of Babylon links Isa 14:4b–21 with the preceding chapter 13, which announces a universal day of judgement (vv. 4–5, 9–13) including the destruction of Babylon as its theological centre. The tyrant of Isa 14:4b–21 thus represents the peak of arrogance (‫ גאון‬in v. 11) residing in the cosmic concentration point of arrogance, i. e. Babylon (‫ גאון‬referring to Babylon in 13:19 and to the arrogant ones all over the world in v. 11). Together, the king of Babylon and his city stand for YHWH’s opponents in the whole world. They all perish when Babylon is destroyed. The importance of the connection between chs. 13 and 14 is further emphasized by a number of catchword connections.36 The contrast between YHWH and the tyrant is highlighted by the gathering of divine warriors on a bare mountain in 13:2 (‫ )הר־נׁשפה‬and the tyrant’s plan to put his throne on the mountain of assembly in 14:13 (‫)הר־מוﬠד‬. Whereas the Day of the Lord in 13:9 comes with wrath and fierce anger (‫ )ﬠברה וחרון אף‬to destroy the sinners, the tyrant in 14:6 had no right to hit the peoples in wrath (‫ )בﬠברה‬and ruled the nations in anger (‫)באף‬. When the Lord purifies the earth from sinners in 13:9, the stars of heaven (‫)כוכבי הׁשמים‬, together with sun and moon, contribute to the divine judgement in v. 10 by withholding their light (‫ לא יהלו‬from ‫ הלל‬hi. = to flash). This shows that the stars of heavens follow God’s commands and may indeed be called “the stars of God” as 14:13 does (‫)כוכבי־אל‬. In 13:10, the loyalty of the stars to YHWH prepares what later happens in 14:13 when the tyrant of Babylon expresses his plan to raise his throne above the stars but is cast down to Sheol. The stars obey only YHWH’s command, no one else may occupy the place above them. This connection is reinforced in 13:10 by the use of the verb ‫“ לא יהלו‬they will not flash,” a hiphil imperfect of the same Hebrew root ‫ הלל‬which is evoked by the name ‫ הילל‬in 14:12 and has therefore been translated by expressions such as ἑωσφόρος “the one bringing dawn” (LXX) or lucifer “lightbringer” (V ) since the time of the old versions. As the form ‫הילל‬ in 14:12 is a hapax legomenon and allows no unequivocal grammatical determination,37 the use of ‫ הלל‬hi. (“to flash”) in 13:10 is probably motivated by the interpretation of the name ‫ הילל‬as a form derived from this verb. Considering the other above-described semantic links between Isa 13 and 14:4b–21, 4a, 22, the connections between 13:10 and 14:12–13 including the use of ‫ הלל‬do not appear as a coincidence. It can also be excluded that a later author would have created the unusual name ‫ הילל‬in 14:12 in allusion to 13:10 ‫“ לא יהלו‬they will not flash.” The most obvious interpretation is that 14:12–13 inspired the author of 13:10. This is an argument for the relative chronology of Isa 13* 36  Cf. Bernard Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations, OBO 78 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1988), 145–46. 37  The regular qal participle would be ‫*ה ֵֹלל‬. The other stems would reduce the geminate consonant in their active masculine participles to a single one or/and have a prefix.



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

419

and 14:4b–21. To complete the picture of semantic references between these texts, further observations need to be added. As noted above, the lexeme ‫גאון‬ “pride” occurs in 13:19; 14:11 as well as in 13:11b in a construct chain with ‫“ זדים‬insolent persons.” It is announced that YHWH will end the pride of this group (‫)הׁשבתי‬. The preceding word proclaims YHWH will punish the wicked for their iniquity (v. 11aβ: ‫)וﬠל־רׁשﬠים ﬠונם‬. In Isa 14, the verb ‫ ׁשבת‬is used twice in v. 4b to express the tyrant, an evil person of the kind accused in 13:11, has indeed come to his end. Yet, the difference is that 14:4b speaks of an individual but 13:11 of a collective. In Isa 14:4b–21, a plural corresponding to 13:11aβ occurs for the first time in v. 5 (‫“ מטה רׁשﬠים‬staff of the wicked”), although only as a background to the tyrant, who is the direct object.38 The collective perspective becomes dominant in 14:20b–21, where the damnatio memoriae of the “descendants of evildoers” (v. 20b: ‫ )זרﬠ מרﬠים‬is pronounced. The aspect of iniquity mentioned in 13:11aβ (‫ )ﬠונם‬is present in 14:21, where the tyrant’s sons are executed for the guilt of their fathers (‫)בﬠון אבותם‬. Further shared vocabulary in Isa 13 and 14:4b–21 includes the following: ‫ רגז‬and ‫ רﬠׁש‬in 13:13 (heavens tremble, earth is shaken at YHWH’s wrath) and 14:9, 16 (Sheol trembles at the arrival of the tyrant who made the earth tremble and shook the kingdoms); ‫חרב‬ in 13:15 and 14:19.39 In sum, it can be said that significant parts of the abovedescribed shared vocabulary are concentrated in Isa 13:9–13 (vv. 9, 10, 11, 13) except for the general words ‫ הר‬in 13:2/14:13 and ‫ חרב‬in 13:15/14:19 as well as one occurrence of ‫( גאון‬out of three) in 13:19. In Isa 14, however, the shared vocabulary is spread all over the text (vv. 4a.b, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21). Since the links between Isa 13:9–10 and 14:12–13 were probably created by the author of Isa 13:9–10, it is likely that this author already knew the taunt of Isa 14:4b–21* as a whole. This result basically matches the diachronic analysis of Isa 13 by H. G. M. Williamson in this volume,40 who, building on a thesis by Zapff, considers the sections 13:4–5, 9–13 as a late universalizing supplement closely associated with Isa 24–27 which was added to an older oracle against Babylon in Isa 13:2–3, 6–8, 14–22. For the purpose of binding the oracle against Babylon and the taunt against the fallen tyrant together as to form a unit, the same universalizing redaction also added elements to the taunt.41 A trace of redactional activity is discernible in 14:20b, where an unexpected shift of the speech perspective occurs: verse 38  Burkard M. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches, FB 74 (Würzburg: Echter, 1995), 266–69, argues the idea of a universal judgement against all wicked ones, which is found in the late redactional layer Isa 13:1b, 2–16, 22b (cf. p. 238–39) and 14:20b–21 but not in 14:4b, 6–20a, makes it likely that 14:5 was inserted as a whole by the authors of that same redactional layer. 39 Cf. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 259–61, with reference to Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23. 40  Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Decoding Isaiah 13.” 41  Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 266–69.

420

Joachim Eck

20a still addresses the tyrant in second person singular but verse 20b uses third person speech. The latter verse condemns an “offspring of evildoers” (‫)זרﬠ מרﬠים‬ never to be named again. Continuing the topic, verse 21 speaks of “his sons” (‫ )בניו‬and commands their execution “because of the guilt of their fathers” (‫בﬠון‬ ‫ )אבותם‬to prevent them from taking possession of the earth. It follows from the context between v. 21b and 21a that the “offspring of evildoers” are “his sons” but, at the same time, these sons have a plural of fathers (‫ )אבותם‬laden with guilt,42 and the sons will be punished in their place. The best way of interpreting these oscillations between singular and plural is to assume that the tyrant’s sons are not biological but spiritual sons. At the same time, the expression “guilt of their fathers” seems to take up the characterization of the tyrant as “staff of the wicked” (‫ )מטה רׁשﬠים‬in v. 5, where he functions as head of a multitude of wicked persons. This evil society is seen in v. 21a as a corrupt generation of fathers whose equally corrupt sons are united with the tyrant in their evil minds and therefore deserve death. Since the tyrant was addressed as an individual in vv. 4b–20a, the idea of verses 20b–21 that he is both the worst exponent of a sinful generation of fathers and the spiritual father of their sons introduces a different picture of his person. Therefore, these verses are most likely a secondary addition to vv. 4b–20a. Since Isa 14:20b–21 shares significant vocabulary and concepts with Isa 1:4 (‫זרﬠ מרﬠים‬, which only occurs in these two verses in the OT; ‫בנים‬, ‫)ﬠון‬,43 and since the verb ‫ ׁשחת‬Hi. occurs both in Isa 14:20a and 1:4a, each time in close context with ‫זרﬠ מרﬠים‬, it is probable that there is a direct dependence between 14:20b–21 and 1:4a. The intended message is obviously that the societies of Judah/Israel and Babylon are related to each other insofar as, being equally corrupt, they expect a similar doom. Since ‫ זרﬠ מרﬠים‬is perfectly integrated into the poetic structure and contents of Isa 1:2–4, including a beautiful parallelism with ‫בנים מׁשחיתים‬, whereas Isa 14:20b is separated from v. 20a by a shift in form and contents, it is likely that Isa 14:20b–21 was created on the basis of the vocabulary and concepts found in 1:4a. The choice of 1:4a as an inspiration for 14:20b–21 was motivated by the verb ‫ ׁשחת‬already present in v. 20a.44 The redactor of 14:20b–21 is clearly interested in emphasizing that the tyrant is not an individual but the peak of a pyramid of aggressive anti-divine powers spread all over the earth (cf. v. 20b). Thus, the victory against him bears not merely historical but cosmic and universal weight. This interest in depicting Babylon as the peak of universal wickedness exactly corresponds to the intentions of the redactor who created the universalist layer found by Williamson in Isa 13:4–5, 9–13. Therefore, Zapff was right to conclude that 14:19b–21 42  Since the singular of τοῦ πατρός σου in LXX is clearly a harmonization, the plural of MT and V is to be retained as lectio difficilior. 43  Eck, Jesaja 1, 262–69. Cf. Versaci, Il delirio dell’onnipotenza, 80–82; Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 97. 44  Eck, Jesaja 1, 269–73.

Metamorphoses of a Tyrant



421

is written by the same author as the universalist layer in Isa 13*.45 As the link with Isa 1:4 indicates, the fall of the king of Babylon is not an isolated event in Isaiah but carefully embedded into an intertextual dialogue reaching back to chs. 1–12. The diachronic results of our above analysis can be summed up as follows. Isa 14:20b–21 (maybe but not necessarily also v. 5) was written by the same author as Isa 13:4–5, 9–13, who already knew Isa 1:4; 13:2–3, 6–8, 14–22; 14:4b–20a.

4.  Intertextual Relationships between Isa 1–12 and Isa 13–14 Helel Ben Shachar’s plan to raise his throne in heaven above the stars of God/ El in 14:13–14 constitutes an attempt to found an anti-throne opposed to and above YHWH’s throne. This implies that Isaiah’s throne vision in ch.  6 and Helel’s intended ascent to a throne above heavens in ch. 14 relate to each other as climax and anti-climax.46 While the tyrant terrified the nations by his rule as he spread cruelty and oppression (Isa 14:4b–6, 16–21), YHWH’s rule applies the instruments of wise instructions and just decisions, and will ultimately attract all nations to the Mount of Zion (see Isa 2:2–4). The opposition between YHWH’s throne and the throne of the tyrant is marked by a number of elements parallel in Isa 1–6 and Isa 13–14. Already the two superscriptions in Isa 13:1 and 2:1 use the verb ‫ חזה‬and have the same structure47 so that they propose some kind of analogy between Judah/Jerusalem and Babylon. And indeed, to someone who reads the stories of these kingdoms in parallel, numerous reference points become visible. Both Isa 2:2–4 and 13:2–5 describe an assembly of many nations for the sake of the Lord. Isa 2:2–3 announces that the Mount of Zion, where the Lord resides (v. 2a: ‫)הר בית־יהוה‬, attracts the nations (vv. 2b–3a: ‫כל־הגוים‬ and ‫)ﬠמים רבים‬. In 13:2, a signal is to be raised on a bare mountain (‫)הר־נׁשפה‬ because a people of great number (‫)ﬠם־רב‬, kingdoms (‫ )ממלכות‬and nations (‫)גוים‬ are heard approaching (13:4) upon the Lord’s command (13:3).48 Although the bare mountain of 13:2 has no holy shrine like Zion, those called to assembly are YHWH’s “consecrated ones” (v. 3: ‫ )מקדׁשי‬and thus form a living sanctuary. 45 

Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 274–75. Eck, Jesaja 1, 262–264. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 108, primarily sees an antithesis between the “rod out of Jesse’s stem” in Isa 11:1–9 and the tyrant of 14:4–21 but is hesitant to describe the opposition between YHWH and the tyrant as an anti-typology. Although the tyrant is in a clear contrast to the root of Jesse, there is no reference to a throne in 11:1–9 (only in 9:6 to the throne of David), and the claim to a throne above the stars of God (14:13) can only be understood as an arrogant and fanciful attempt to exceed YHWH’s high and lofty throne described in 6:1. 47  Concerning the typology of prophetic superscriptions see Eck, Jesaja 1, 28–62. 48  See already Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 32; Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 118–19. 46 Cf.

422

Joachim Eck

A striking difference between Isa 2:2–4 and 13:2–5 lies in the purposes for which the stream of nations in Isa 2:3 and the multitude of kingdoms and nations in 13:4 come to the two different mountains. In 2:3–4, the nations wish to learn YHWH’s ways. Other than Israel (see Isa 1), they voluntarily accept to be ruled by him. As this leads to perfect peace, they make tools of peaceful productivity out of their weapons and stop any training for war (v. 4: ‫)מלחמה‬. On the other hand, in 13:2–5, the multitude summoned by YHWH’s command comes to serve him as his host for battle (v. 4: ‫)צבא מלחמה‬. Both in Isa 2:2–4 and 13:2–5 the nations give testimony of YHWH’s universal sovereignty and serve him in a specific way that is related to the kingdoms addressed in the preceding superscriptions. In the oracle against Babylon, YHWH’s consecrated ones are “vessels of his indignation” (13:5 ‫ )כלי זﬠמו‬to execute the universal judgement brought about by the Day of YHWH (13:6, 9). At the center of this judgement is the destruction of Babylon by the Medes (13:17–22). In Isa 2, the nations that stream to Zion do not fight a battle but find ultimate universal peace under the divine kingship. As the exhortation to the house of Jacob in 2:5 shows, they function as a model to Israel, who are in rebellion against their God (Isa 1:2–9). In Isa 2, like in Isa 13, the assembly of the nations is followed by the Day of YHWH. Yet, in Isa 2 this day of judgement is not universal but directed against the hubris of Judah and Jerusalem (2:1, 6). The nations do not participate in the day of judgement, and the actual execution of the judgement is not described in Isa 2:6–22, which is another difference with Isa 13. Isaiah 2:9–22 only tells about the results of the Day of YHWH (see esp. 2:12). The question at which point in the book the execution of the judgment against Judah and Jerusalem begins refers us to Isaiah’s inaugural vision in ch. 6. Here, the prophet is commissioned to make the heart of God’s people fat, their ears heavy and their eyes blind (6:10) until the land is utterly desolate (6:11). This commission implies that he has to proclaim a prophetic message which will prevent Israel from acknowledging their wrongs so that they persist in their attitude of rebellion. This interior aspect of the execution of the Day of YHWH is complemented by its exterior aspect described in those texts in Isa 2–10 which speak of devastations of the lands of both Judah and Israel brought about by interior chaos (e. g. 3:1–15; 9:14–16, 17–20; 10:1–4) and by foreign military powers (e. g. 3:24–26; 5:25–30; 9:8–11). The military impact of the Assyrian power is particularly emphasized in 8:1–4, 5–8 as well as in ch. 10. This last-mentioned chapter depicts Assyria as YHWH’s rod of anger, i. e. his principal instrument for punishing Israel’s haughtiness. As the prophet is sent (cf. ‫ ׁשלח‬in 6:8) to harden the heart of “that people” (‫ )הﬠם הזה‬in Isa 6:8–11, so Isaiah 10:6 announces that Assyria is sent against this “godless nation” (‫בגוי‬ ‫)חנף‬. This means the prophet effects the interior aspect of the judgement while Assyria executes its exterior aspects. The reason why YHWH’s day of judgement strikes Judah and Jerusalem is their arrogance and hubris. Thus, Isaiah 2:11–12 announces the haughty eyes

Metamorphoses of a Tyrant



423

(‫ )ﬠיני גבהות‬and the pride of man (‫ )רום אנׁשים‬will be brought low. At the core of this reproach are not only illegitimate cultic practices as described in Isa 2:6–8 but also and mainly the manifold trespasses against justice and righteousness accused in Isa 1; 3:8–15; 5 and 10:1–2. Since “YHWH of hosts is exalted by justice, and the Holy God is sanctified by righteousness” (Isa 5:16, ‫ויגבה יהוה צבאות‬ ‫)במׁשפט והאל הקדוׁש נקדׁש בצדקה‬, the unjust oppression of the poor by the upper class of the Judean Kingdom is ultimately an assault against YHWH’s holiness. At the same time, it is a denial of YHWH’s divine kingship, of which justice and righteousness are fundamental values (cf. Ps 97:2; Isa 9:6; 32:1).49 This form of rebellion against God is the essence of the hubris of the society of Judah which is being accused in Isa 2:9–22. Since arrogance prevails over obedience in this society, the Day of YHWH must take the face of a judgement and cannot be as joyful an event as the nations’ pilgrimage to the Mount Zion. Isaiah 10:6 expresses why the Assyrian, who is called to execute the judgement by war, is an adequate rod in YHWH’s hand to punish his people: he is sent to “spoil spoil” and to “plunder plundering” (‫)לׁשלל ׁשלל ולבז בז‬. So he is an oppressor sent to oppress the oppressors. That Judah’s political leadership and the Assyrian power are both of the same kind is also expressed by the fact that the “woe” against Assyria in 10:5 is immediately preceded by a last “woe” against Israel (10:1–4). This helps to explain why the last woe oracle in 10:1 is so far away in terms of composition from the woe series in Isa 5. While the social critique of Isa 5 explains Israel’s iniquity that leads to the commission of hardening in Isa 6, the double woe in Isa 10:1 and 10:5 against Israel and Assyria shows that they are alike: they are both oppressors filled with arrogance against YHWH. While Israel’s arrogance lies in rebellion, the Assyrian’s arrogance lies in the denial of his dependence on YHWH. The end of the day of judgement announced in Isa 2 is marked by Isa 10:33b: “and the high of stature shall be hewn down, and the lofty shall be brought low” (ASV). This passage reminds one of the core message of Isa 2:9–22 that YHWH alone will be exalted on his day whereas everything that is proud, high and lofty will be brought low (see Isa 2:11–12).50 At this moment Assyria’s hubris has reached a first peak, as the quotation of the King of Assyria in Isa 10:12–14 illustrates. His fundamental wrong is that he is YHWH’s rod but denies his master and deems himself powerful (10:13–14). Nonetheless, since he is YHWH’s rod to execute the Day against Israel announced in Isa 2, the judgement against the instrument of judgement begins when the one against Israel is completed. Thus, 49 Cf.

Eck, “Divine Strategies,” 11–12. ‫“ ורמי הקומה‬the tallest in height” in 10:33, see ‫ רום‬in 2:11, 12, 13, 14, 17. ‫ הגבהים‬in 10:33 reminds one of ‫ גבה‬in 2:15 and ‫ גבהות‬in 2:11, 17. For ‫“ יׁשפלו‬they will be brought low” see ‫ ׁשפל‬in 2:9, 11, 12, 17. Thus Isa 10:33b is a note that closes the day of judgement against Israel which had begun in Isa 2 by taking up the essence of the Day of YHWH and thus forming an inclusio. 50 For

424

Joachim Eck

the arrogance of the King of Assyria in 10:5–15 refers forward to the universal Day of YHWH announced in Isa 13 to the world of the nations. It can therefore be assumed that the punishment of the King of Assyria belongs to the context of the Day of YHWH announced in Isa 13. This is confirmed by the fact that the prophecy of Assyria’s defeat in Isa 10:24–27 is in some parts literally taken up in Isa 14:24–27 (see esp. 10:27b and 14:25b)51 and thus associated with the events of the Day of YHWH. In addition, the King of Babylon addressed in 14:3–23 also shares a number of characteristics with the King of Assyria presented in Isa 10:5–15.52 The two kings are not identical in their characterization but rather illustrate a development from very bad to the worst. Both are connected by the keywords “rod” and “club” (‫מטה‬/‫)ׁשבט‬, see 10:5–6 and 14:5, as well as “anger” and “wrath” (‫ﬠברה‬/‫)אף‬, see 10:5 and 14:6. In Isa 10:5 YHWH himself introduces Assyria as the rod of his anger (‫ )ׁשבט אפי‬and as a club which develops destructive power because it is driven forward by the divine fury (‫)ומטה־הוא בידם זמﬠי‬. He thus uses Assyria to punish “the people of [his] wrath”, which is a “godless nation” (10.6: ‫)בגוי חנף אׁשלחנו וﬠל־ﬠם ﬠברתי אצונו‬. The King of Assyria, however, deems himself superior to YHWH, whom he considers as less significant than the gods of other nations conquered by Assyria (cf. 10:7–11). Therefore, doom is prophesied against him in Isa 10:5–19. The tyrant of Babylon goes one step further and presents in Isa 14:4b–21 the even more conceited idea that he will conquer for himself the absolutely highest position above all gods. Both great kings argue that no power in heaven and on earth would be able to resist them. At the same time, both are characterized as tyrants who force the nations they conquered into cruel slavery. For the king of Assyria, this is expressed in 10:24, 27, where the two keywords “rod” and “club” (‫מטה‬/‫ )ׁשבט‬reoccur and form a bridge from Isa 10 to 14. These instruments of beating are here no longer wielded by YHWH for the purpose of fighting the perversion of values within the political system of his people but the king of Assyria wields the rod “in the Egyptian way” (10:24: ‫)בדרך מצרים‬, i. e. to oppress, enslave and exploit other nations. This kind of violent imperialism reaches its negative perfection in Isa 14:5, where the king of Babylon is called both the staff of the wicked (‫ )מטה רׁשﬠים‬and the scepter of the rulers (‫)ׁשבט מׁשלים‬. This means he is the peak of injustice but also the strongest among rulers. As such he denies any superior ethical standards of divine origin which would restrain him. This aspect is complemented by the tyrant’s claim to supreme divine power as expressed in 14:12–14. Human hubris here reaches its most extreme form, which results from the continuation of the attitude already expressed by the king of Assyria in Isa 10:7–11, 13–14. When the latter states in Isa 10:14 that he, “like someone 51 Cf. 52 Cf.

Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 101–3. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 55, 84; Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 207–9.



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

425

gathering abandoned eggs … gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved a wing, or opened its mouth, or chirped,” he implicitly declares that there are no limits to his power all over the earth. In referring to himself in 10:13 as being ‫כאביר‬, like a “mighty one” or “bull”, he takes possession of a title which in Isa 1:24 is reserved for YHWH. Such an arrogant emperor cannot be expected to content himself with unlimited power over the whole earth but he will, as the next step, reach out his arm for the power of heaven. And this is indeed what Helel ben Shachar alias the king of Babel does in Isa 14:12–14. So, he takes over the heritage of the king of Assyria from Isa 10. Although the tyrant of Babylon appears as unprecedented, he is not an isolated character. As already discussed above, Isa 14:21 adds to the tyrant a generation of sons, who are to be slaughtered because of the guilt of their fathers. Being the “staff of the wicked” (v. 5 ‫)מטה רׁשﬠים‬, the tyrant here in v. 21 appears as both the most wicked one among a corrupt generation of fathers, and as the father in mind of a generation of lost sons. Both groups can be understood as “seed consisting of evildoers” (‫ )זרﬠ מרﬠים‬brought forth by the tyrant. Thus, the fallen despot was the head of generations and societies which follow multiple ways of injustice and destruction. This idea of a massa damnata is widened by the abovediscussed catchword connection between Isa 14:20 and 1:4, which is constituted by the expression ‫“( זרﬠ מרﬠים‬seed of evildoers”) and the verb ‫ ׁשחת‬Hi. (“to cause ruin”). Not only the tyrant and his evil followers develop destructive activities in the world of the nations (Isa 14:20–21) but also the corrupt Judean society is responsible for the same degree of injustice and violence within the people of God. In sum, Isa 1–12 and 13–14 have multiple intertextual connections which serve to mark the progress from the Day of YHWH against Israel to the universal Day of YHWH against Babylon. While Isaiah’s throne vision confirms against all human arrogance that YHWH’s divine kingship is true and real, the Babylonian tyrant’s fall from his imagined mythical throne reveals that the exteriour glamour of oppressors is doomed to collapse.

5.  Intertextual Relationships between Isa 14 and Isa 36–39 While Isaiah 14:4b–21 characterizes the ruler introduced in v. 4a as the king of Babylon as an anti-divine tyrant, Isaiah 39 presents another and different king of Babylon, Merodach-Baladan. The latter comes to Hezekiah as a friendly and harmless diplomatic visitor. At the end of the scene, however, the prophet Isaiah announces that, one day, all royal treasures in possession of the Davidic kings will be brought to Babylon and some of Hezekiah’s descendants will serve as eunuchs at the court of the Babylonian king (Isa 39:5–7). The content of this prophecy, which is not to be fulfilled by Merodach-Baladan, somehow reminds one of the violence of the Babylonian tyrant described in 14:1–23. Moreover,

426

Joachim Eck

this tyrant is the only other Babylonian king in Isaiah besides Merodach-Baladan. As the annihilation of cities and deportation of war prisoners are crimes explicitly mentioned in Isa 14:17, it seems that the tyrant whose death had motivated the taunt of 14:4b–21 is at the same time the one to be expected in the future according to the prophecy of 39:5–7. Although it is somewhat irritating that the book first reports the death of a person but later on prophesies that this same person will destroy Jerusalem in the future (Isa 39:5–7), the possibility that the Babylonian king of 14:4a is identical with the one presupposed by 39:7 is explicitly confirmed by 14:1–4a. Isaiah 14:1–2 announces that one day, when the Lord will have mercy on Israel, the nations will bring them back to their land. This means a strong enemy must have defeated and exiled them beforehand. In line with this, verse 3 clarifies that the Israelites will sing the taunt in a distant future when the Lord will have given them rest from their sufferings. The moment envisaged here is far away in the future; it is to be expected long after the day of Isaiah’s prophecy reported in 39:5–7. Before the Israelites rejoice over the death of the tyrannic Babylonian king, he will have ruined their land and exiled them as anticipated in 39:5–7. This means the order in which these events are prophesied in Isa 14:1–23 and 39:5–7 is very different from the order in which they will occur in history. A chronological report would begin with Isaiah’s prophecy in 39:5–7, which is fulfilled by the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem by a Babylonian king. This conquest is not narrated in the book but Isaiah 14:1–23 looks back to this event from a much later point of view (cf. 14:3). Towards the end of the exile, the oppressor’s death occurs, which is told in 14:4b–21. After the Babylonian exile (cf. 48:20), the nations who used to be their captors are to bring Israel back to their land (14:2). Then the Israelites who returned would take up the taunt against the fallen king of Babylon. The order of the prophetic texts in Isaiah creates a cyclical time structure. The reader or listener is first confronted with Isa 14:1–23, which prophesies events occurring in the context of the Day of YHWH (Isa 13) in a very distant future. After this look into an eschatological future, Isaiah 14:28 “in the year of the death of king Ahaz …” (cf. Isa 6:1) signals that the subsequent texts are to be seen as in some way related to Hezekiah’s reign. It would be beyond the limits of this article to discuss in what ways and to which degree the pericopes found in Isa 14:28–35:10 are meant to characterize Hezekiah’s reign but it is obvious that chapters 36–39 present the most specific historiographical evaluation of this king and his era. When the reader or listener arrives at this point of the book, the figure of Sennacherib in Isa 36–38 at first glance seems to be the fulfilment of Isa 14:4b–21 insofar as Sennacherib’s hubris matches the characterization of the Babylonian tyrant in this taunt. By making promises (36:16–17) which have long been YHWH’s own promises to his people, he seems to intend to usurp YHWH’s place (cf. 14:12–15). The word of YHWH in 37:21–35, which Isaiah transmits to Hezekiah in response to his prayer, includes a quotation of Sennacherib which



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

427

takes up 14:7–8 in 37:24. Also the use of the root ‫ ﬠלה‬and of ‫ ירכתי‬in 37:24 as well as the idea that Sennacherib ascends to the top of a mountain remind one of 14:13–15.53 Moreover, the verb ‫ׁשחת‬, which is used in 14:20a (“you have destroyed [‫ ]ׁשחת‬your land”), also occurs twice in 36:10, where Sennacherib brags that he destroyed the land on YHWH’s behalf, and once in 37:10, where he boasts that already his fathers had destroyed other nations who could not be saved by their gods. At the same time, Isaiah 36–37 has even stronger connections with Isa 1054 and includes numerous allusions to other texts in Isa 1–35.55 Although the character of Sennacherib thus appears as the incarnation of the tyrant of Isa 14:4b–20, he cannot be the fulfilment of the prophecy of 14:1–4a, according to which the king of Babylon is the worst of the oppressors (v. 2 ‫נגׂשיהם‬, v. 4b ‫)נגׂש‬ of Israel, because Sennacherib’s army is defeated by the angel of the Lord according to 37:36 and he himself is murdered by his sons (37:28) so that Jerusalem and her citizens happily survive the danger. When Isaiah 39:5–7 states that a later Babylonian king will bring about the disaster foreshadowed in Isa 14:1–23, a reader/listener would expect a subsequent report of these dramatic events after Isa 39. But this expectation is disappointed because Isa 40 already looks back to the disaster without describing any details. Someone interested in learning more about the circumstances and reasons of the destruction of the Judean kingdom can do nothing else than return to Isa 13–14 and read once more the prophet’s words, which have proven absolutely reliable in Isa 36–38, as an account of what happened. Such a second reading of the whole section of Isa 13–35 will teach that Hezekiah, in spite of his perfect trust in YHWH in Isa 36–37, 38 and the experience of salvation thanks to his faith in Israel’s God, did not always obey the divine will revealed by Isaiah. Hezekiah’s effusive friendliness to the Babylonian envoys in ch. 39 demonstrates his interest in entering a political alliance with Babylon.56 This is in deep contrast to the prophetic words and signs against political alliances found in Isa 20: 28:14–22; 30:1–7; 31:1–3. While the prophet’s political critique appears to have been successful during the Assyrian crisis told in Isa 36–37, where Hezekiah has no political allies and trusts YHWH alone, this good beginning does not last because Hezekiah returns to the old strategies of political alliances in ch. 39. When Isa 13–39 is read for a second time in awareness of the Babylonian conquest foreshadowed in Isa 39:5–7, the oracles against the nations give evidence of YHWH’s ability to defeat Judah’s enemies in the same way as the Assyrian army. Those words which describe and criticize a blind 53 Cf. Hans Wildberger, Jesaja 28–39, BKAT 10/3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 1431–32. 54 Erasmus Gass, Im Strudel der assyrischen Krise (2. König 18–19). Ein Beispiel biblischer Geschichtsdeutung, BThSt 166 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2016), 202, 206–8; 222. 55  See e. g. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 370–71; 382–83; Wildberger, Jesaja 28–39, 1391–92, 1398–1403, 1423. 56 See Wildberger, Jesaja 28–39, 1472–73, 1476–77.

428

Joachim Eck

optimism among Judeans based on the assumption that Zion would never be taken by enemies (Isa 22; 28:7–14; 29:1–16; 32:9–14) unfold their full meaning only when they are read for a second time after the unexpected salvation of Jerusalem by YHWH reported in Isa 36–37. After the divine protection of Jerusalem against Sennacherib’s army, the absurdity of the attitude of the Judean society against their God which is criticized in Isa 20, 22, portions of 28–32, and 33 becomes clearer than ever. The people of Jerusalem celebrate wild parties, the reason for which is only found in the subsequent chapters 36–37, because they believe in the invincibility of Zion. At the same time, they fail to acknowledge that YHWH is stronger than any human ally so that they prefer an alliance with Babylon to faith in their God. When Isa 36–37 is read for a second time after Isaiah’s prophecy of doom in 39:5–7, this narration is a reminder of what could also have happened to the Babylonian king who destroyed Jerusalem if God’s people had remained faithful to their divine protector. The relationship between Isa 14:1–23 and Isa 39 is one of complementarity and mutual reference. Without Isa 39, Isaiah 14:1–23 would remain a pure announcement of a future event. Without Isa 14:1–23, the Babylonian king announced in Isaiah 39 would remain an empty figure.

Bibliography Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 13–27. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Dubovský, Peter. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies. Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19. Biblica et Orientalia 49. Rome: Ponticifo Istituto Biblico, 2006. Eck, Joachim. Jesaja 1-Eine Exegese der Eröffnung des Jesaja-Buches: Die Präsentation Jesajas und JHWHs, Israels und der Tochter Zion. BZAW 473. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. –. “Divine Strategies against Abuse of Power in the Opening of the Book of Isaiah and the Exodus Story.” ZAW 130 (2018): 4–25. Erlandsson, Seth. The Burden of Babylon. A  Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23. ConBOT 4. Lund: Gleerup, 1970. Fischer, Charis. Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja. BBB 136. Berlin: Philo, 2002. Gass, Erasmus. Im Strudel der assyrischen Krise (2. König 18–19). Ein Beispiel biblischer Geschichtsdeutung. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 166. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2016. Geyer, John B. Mythology and Lament. Studies in the Oracles about the Nations. MSSOTS. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Gosse, Bernard. Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations. OBO 78. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1988. Hardmeier, Christof. “Totenklage (AT).” Das Wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet (cited 13 October 2017), online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/36058.



Metamorphoses of a Tyrant

429

Hays, Christopher. Death in Iron Age II and in First Isaiah. FAT 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Heiser, Michael S. “The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12–15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material.” VT 51 (2001), 354–69. Höffken, Peter. Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39. NSKAT 18/1. Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 1993. Holladay, William L. “Text, Structure, and Irony in the Poem on the Fall of the Tyrant, Isaiah 14.” CBQ 61 (1999): 633–45. K aiser, Otto. Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39. ATD 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Koenen, Klaus. “Qina-Metrum.” Das Wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet (cited 13 October 2017), online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/36058. Köszeghy, Miklós. “Hybris und Prophetie: Erwägungen zum Hintergrund von Jesaja XIV 12–15.” VT 44 (1994): 549–54. O’Connell, Robert H. “Ironic Reversal through Concentric Structure and Mythic Allusion.” VT 38 (1988): 407–18. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Prinsloo, Willem S. “Isaiah 14:12–15  – Humiliation, Hubris, Humiliation.” ZAW 93 (1981): 432–38. Schöpflin, Karin. “Ein Blick in die Unterwelt (Jesaja 14).” ThZ 58 (2002), 299–314. Shipp, R. Mark. Of Dead Kings and Dirges. Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21. AcBib 11. Atlanta: SBL, 2002. Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. NAC 15A. Nashville: B&H, 2007. van Keulen, Percy. “On the Identity of the Anonymous Ruler in Isaiah 14:4b–21.” Pages 109–23 in Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Michaël N. van der Meer et al. NTSup 138. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Vermeylen, Jacques. Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique. Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1978. Versaci, Cirino. Il delirio dell’onnipotenza. La critica al potere e alla sua storia in Is 14,4b 20: Esegesi e intertestualità della pericope. Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica 57. Bologna: EDB, 2014. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco: Word Books, 1985. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja 13–27. BKAT 10.2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. –. Jesaja 28–39. BKAT 10.3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982. Zapff, Burkard M. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie  – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches.Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches. FB 74. Würzburg: Echter, 1995.

The Kabod of YHWH A Key Isaianic Theme from the Assyrian Empire to the Eschaton Judith Gärtner In the final redaction of the Book of Isaiah (Isa 56:1–8; 65:1–66:24),1 the main theologies of Isaiah come together. They enable us to describe retrospectively the composition and redaction of the Book of Isaiah. In the last several years, especially the works of Odil Hannes Steck or Wim Beuken regarding TritoIsaiah have focused on these observations and described the redactional development of the book by starting at its end.2 The composition-critical works of Ulrich Berges confirmed this approach. Beuken did not focus on the Trito-Isaiah chapters Isa 56–66 but on the final form of Isaiah to identify a theological composition of the whole book.3 Regardless of their differences regarding redactionhistorical details within the book of Isaiah, all these works have in common that they no longer view the so-called Trito-Isaiah collection of Isa 56–66 as an independent collection but rather as a Fortschreibung.4 1 R. Kratz, “Die Komposition des hebräischen Jesajabuches,” in Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates, ed. F. Wilk and P. Gemeinhardt, BETL CCLXXX (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 11–27, 24–27 and O. H. Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja, BZAW 203 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991); idem, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege zur Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 229–65. 2  Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja; idem, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis; idem, Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, BThSt 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991); J. Vermeylen, ed., The Book of Isaiah: Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, BEThL 81 (Leuven: Leuven University Press 1989), 121–25; idem, “L’unité du livre d’Isaïe,” in The Book of Isaiah: Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, ed. Idem, BEThL 81 (Leuven: 1989), 11–53; W. A. M. Beuken, “Isaiah chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book,” in Congress Volume, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 43 (Leiden: Brill 1991), 204–21; idem, “The Main Theme in Trito-Isaiah: ‘The Servants of YHWH’,” JSOT 47 (1990), 67–87. This approach was confirmed by the composition-critical works of U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt, HBS 16 (Freiburg: Herder, 1998). 3 U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, who identified a theologically reflected composition of the whole book. See also L. S. Tiemeyer, “Hope and Disappointment: The Judahite Critique of the Exilic Leadership in Isaiah 56–66,” in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History, ed. R. Thelle, T. Stordalen, M. Richardson, VTSup 168 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 57–73, here: 57–60. 4  See T. Hibbard, “From Name to Book: Another Look at the Composition of the Book of

432

Judith Gärtner

Although the question whether Isa 56–66 are solely a Fortschreibung or whether a formerly independent part can be found within Isa 60–62 is part of an ongoing discussion, this does not change the overall impression of these chapters. This is because these Fortschreibungen take up already existing lines of composition and give them a new profile in view of the whole book. The use of the term “kabod” can serve to illustrate this procedure: the term firstly appears in Isa 6 and, from that point on, the conception of Kabod is an important aspect of Isaianic theology (Isa 8; 30; 40; 60).5 Regarding the making of the book of Isaiah this observation shows that the Isaiah tradents used a specific technique in the way they develop terms. In comparison with, for example, the redaction processes in the Book of the Twelve, the tradents of Isaiah seem to work with the same term throughout the whole book. Their aim is to reformulate and thereby update central aspects of their respective idea of God. By emphasizing certain theological aspects, while other aspects recede to the background, this technique of composition shapes the way in which one reads the book as a whole. Drawing on the results mainly of Odil Hannes Steck, I  would like to substantiate this redactional work at the whole book of Isaiah with its techniques of composition, aims and requirements by considering the example of Isa 66:12: For thus said YHWH: “I will extend to her shalom like a stream, The kabod of the nations like an overflowing wadi And you will nurse And you will be carried on hips And fondled on knees.”

‫כי־כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫הנני נטה אליה כנהר ׁשלום‬ ‫וכנחל ׁשוטף כבוד גוים‬ ‫וינקתם‬ ‫ﬠל־צד תנׂשאו‬ ‫וﬠל־ברכים תׁשﬠׁשﬠו‬

1. The Kabod of YHWH in Isa 66 Isa 66:12 is part of the eschatological vision, which unfolds at the end of the book of Isaiah in Isa 65–66. The vision includes the idea of a new creation of heaven and earth in Isa 65 and the eschatological reign of YHWH from Zion in Isa 66. Following the description of the eschatological order of creation in Isaiah with Special Reference to Isaiah 56–66,” in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, ed. E. Mason et al., Vol. 1, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 133–49. 5 F. Hartenstein, “JHWH und der ‘Schreckensglanz’ Assurs (Jes 8,6–8): Traditionsund religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur ‘Denkschrift’ Jes 6–8*,” in Schriftprophetie, ed. J. Krispenz and A. Schart, FS J. Jeremias (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004), 83–102; idem, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition, WMANT 75 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997), in which he analyzes the religion-historical meaning of the concept of kabod. He emphasizes the salvific and punitive aspect of the kabod of YHWH with reference to Assyrian royal ideology. Regarding the semantic analysis of the term kabod, see Thomas Wagner, Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament, VTSup 151 (Leiden: Brill, 2012).



The Kabod of YHWH

433

Isa 65:16b–25, which surpasses the fundamental ideal-typical order of creation from Gen 1, Isa 66 then describes the universal reign of YHWH from Zion. Within the logic of the theology of creation, YHWH’s reign over heaven and earth cannot be limited to Israel as the people of God, but includes the nations, which are described as “all flesh.”6 One can divide the vision into five parts: In the first part, Isa 66:1–4 programmatically proclaim the territory of YHWH’s reign by using the temple-theological metaphor of the enthroned great king and applying it to all of creation.7 By this usage, heaven becomes the throne of YHWH and the earth becomes his footstool (Isa 66:1–2). By this cosmological delimitation of the temple-theological metaphor, creation takes over the function of the temple.8 Following this programmatic description of the territory of YHWH, Isa 66:5– 14 appears as the second part9 and describes the execution of his reign by means of the most important concept within the book of Isaiah, the concept of the divine kabod.10 The following part describes the different aspects connected 6  For the structure, see J. Gärtner, Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches, WMANT 114 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006), 18–43. 7  P. A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–60, VTSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 153–59. 8 W. Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches, BZAW 225 (Berlin/New York: Brill, 1994), 170 f., and J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 291 note a.; M. Albani, “‘Wo sollte ein Haus sein, das ihr mir bauen könntet?’ (Jes 66,1): Schöpfung als Tempel JHWHs?,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. B. Ego et al., WUNT 118 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 37–56, here 54. Ego, 47 f., sees a different concept (to the one presented in Isa 66:1 f.) in Ez 43:7 with a new throne concept. 9 The structure of the text is a controversial question. According to C. Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66, 5th ed., ATD 19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 231–33, the section extends to v. 16; according to K. Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Trito­ jesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie, WMANT 62 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 195–98, and J. Goldenstein, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte: ­Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch, WMANT 92 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 219–21, the section extends to v. 17; according to Steck, Studien, 228, the section includes vv. 5–24 as a final section designed as an answer to the prayer in Isa 63:7 ff. According to K. Pauritsch, Die neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt Ausgestoßene und Arme (Jes 56–66): Die Botschaft des Tritojesaia-Buches literar-, form-, gattungskritisch und redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht, AnBib 47 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 201–4, v. 5 is a section of its own as well as vv. 6–16. According to Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 126–34, v. 14b belongs to a later stage than vv. 7–14, which he ascribes to the first tradents. Similar E. Dim, The Eschatological Implications of Isa 65 and 66 as the Conclusion to the Book of Isaiah, Bible in History 3 (Bern: Lang, 2005), 51 f., who differentiates between vv. 1–6 and vv. 7–14. 10  See the narration of vocation in Isa 6 or the reconstitution of Zion in Isa 60. Regarding the meaning of the divine kabod, see Hartenstein, Unzugänglichkeit, 81–109 and idem, “Schreckensglanz,” 1–10.

434

Judith Gärtner

with the kabod-related action of YHWH (vv. 5, 11, 12). Part of this action is the legal and punitive action against sinners (vv. 5–6), the reconstitution of Zion as the place of the wondrous birth of the children of Zion (vv. 7–9) as well as the detailed description of the joy over the new children of Zion and the care being taken of them (vv. 10–14).11 In this context, Isa 66:12 develops the reconstitution of Zion in its universal importance. Isa 66:12 describes the reign of peace originating from Zion metaphorically as an overflowing wadi and results in a description of the nations as they take care of the newborn children of Zion.12 By this action, the nations acknowledge YHWH as the ruler of the cosmos. The LXX shows this nation-including perspective in v. 14, but there is a significant difference between the MT and the LXX: The LXX translates “servants” (‫ )ﬠבדיו‬with τοῖς σεβομένοις13 and not as is otherwise usual in the Book of Isaiah with δοῦλος, παῖς or ἄγγελος.14 The LXX chooses a phrasing which in the Hellenistic-Roman period described the non-Jewish sympathizers of the Jewish congregations and religion.15 While in the MT of Isa 66:14 the salvation of the righteous within the nation of God manifests on “his servants” (‫ )ﬠבדיו‬and the section closes with the inner-Israelite perspective, the LXX continues the nation-including perspective initiated in v. 12. While the MT of Isa 66:5–14 restricts the salvation of the righteous to the servants of YHWH within the nation of God, the LXX widens this perspective in v. 14 with its different choice of words to include the nations. Isa 66:15–17 as the third part then describes a theophany of judgment, which includes all flesh. Again, the LXX continues the nationwide perspective initiated in v. 14 by adding in v. 16 that the judgment will include the whole earth (πᾶσα ἡ γῆ). This addition gives a universal perspective to “all flesh” not necessarily implied by MT, because here is the judgment and salvation of Israel in mind. At the same time the theophany makes clear that JHWH rules over the whole world.16 11  The word ‫ שׂושׂ‬is nearly only used in Isa 56–66 (Isa 35:1; 61:10; 62:5; 64:4; 65:18,19; 66:10,14). The noun is used in 24:8, 11; 32:13 f.; 60:15; 62:5; 65:18; 66:10. An accumulation of joy terminology can be seen in Isa 65:18 f. and Isa 61:10. ‫ שׂמח‬is only used in Isa 56:7; 65:13; 66:10 and Proto-Isaiah: 9:2,16; 14:8,29; 25:9 and 39:2. Therefore, one can assume that the accumulation of joy terminology in Isa 66:10 and the connection of consolation and mourning topics from Proto-, Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah are connected. 12  Regarding the correlation between the kabod streaming outside from the temple and the reaction of the living beings, see Hartenstein, Unzugänglichkeit, 101. 13 M. Tilly, “Das Heil der Anderen im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum: Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung von Jesaja 66,14b–24,” in Das Heil der Anderen: Problemfeld “Judenmission”, ed. H. Frankemölle and J. Wohlmuth, QD 238 (Freiburg: Herder, 2010), 209–21, here: 216. 14  See instances named by Tilly, “Heil,” 216, notes 36, 37, 38: δοῦλος (Isa 14:2; 42:19; 48:20; 49:3,5,7; 56:6; 63:17; 65:9), παῖς (Isa 20:3; 22:20; 24:2; 36:11; 37:5,35; 41:8 f.; 45:4; 49:6; 50:10) or ἄγγελος (Isa 37:24). 15  Tilly, “Heil,” 216 f. 16  Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 32–34.



The Kabod of YHWH

435

Isa 66:18–21 as the fourth part describes the fate of the nations. Like the eschatological fate of the people of God, the nation’s fate is described in relation to the divine kabod (cf. Isa 66:5, 10, 11), which is experienced by the nations as judgment and glory.17 The section begins in v. 18 with a gathering of the nations meant to result in them seeing the kabod of YHWH. The end of v. 19 makes clear that the gathering of the nations is initially a gathering for judgment:18 In v. 19, YHWH sets a sign among the nations and sends survivors to the distant nations in the periphery because they have not heard his message and have not seen his kabod. The sign set by YHWH and his kabod symbolize in the context of Isa 66:18–21 the divine judgment on the nations. They cause a distinction between the judged ones and the survivors (cf. Isa 45:18–25).19 The work of the survivors, which are sent to the ends of the earth in order to proclaim the kabod of YHWH (cf. Isa 45:18–25)20 results in a pilgrimage of the nations (v. 20), which is connected with the return of the whole diaspora (cf. Isa 49:22–23; 60).21 The nations return the Israelites (“your brothers”) living in the diaspora as a gift for YHWH to Jerusalem.22 The phrase “your brothers” connects v. 20 with v. 5 and thereby adds the diaspora to the nation of God. In addition, vv. 18–20 enhance the idea of the kabod of the nations from v. 12. As in v. 12, the nations represent the horizontal extension of the eschatological reign of YHWH. Unlike in v. 12 the nations have a twofold significance: First, the return of the diaspora by the hand of the nations as a reaction to the kabod of YHWH is connected with their worship and acceptance of YHWH and takes up the Deutero-Isaian theme of the return of the diaspora.23 Second, the nations gain a cultic function at the 17 Regarding the discussion whether Isa 66:18–24 is a redactional Fortschreibung, see Smith, Trito-Isaiah, 167–72 and Steck, Studien, 217–20. Vv. 18–24 is a uniform section according to B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration, JSOT.S 193 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 161 f. 18  Regarding the motif of the gathering of the nations, see Isa 43:9; 45:20; 48:14 from which the call for a gathering of the diaspora directed at the nations has to be differentiated; see Isa 11:12; 43:5–7; 54:7; see O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja, SBS 121 (Stuttgart: Verlag katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985), 59–79. 19 Regarding the term “survivor”, see H.‑J. Hermisson, Deuterojesaja: Jes 45,8–49,13, BKAT XI/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 68. According to Hermisson, instances like Judg 12:4 f.; Ezek 6:9; 7:16; Obad 14 show that “survivors” (‫ )פליטים‬in conjunction with a group of people as a genitive apposition always means the members of this group. 20  The list of nations evokes Ezek 27:10–25 and Ezek 38:1–10 as well as Isa 11:11. While the nations are different, their function is the same: They represent the end of the earth, the periphery. 21  Steck, Studien, 261, note 211. 22  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 315; Pauritsch, Gemeinde, 209; Westermann, Jesaja, 338. Regarding the textual problem, see Koenen, Ethik, 211, note 15. According to Berges, Buch Jesaja, 531 f.; Goldenstein, Gebet, 224 and Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 148, the phrase “and also from them” (‫ )וגם־מהם‬refers to the diaspora. This is contradicted, however, by the fact that the diaspora is addressed in the 2.P.Pl. (your brothers) while the text continues in the 3.P.Pl. 23  Schramm, Opponents, 171 f.

436

Judith Gärtner

eschatological temple by being integrated into the nation of God to such a point that YHWH takes some of them as Levitical priests (‫וגם־מהם‬, καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν Isa 66:21).24 Consequently, the eschatological universal reign of YHWH implies a universal nation of God, consisting of servants and survivors from the nations. The fifth part in v. 22–23 reflects the central concerns of the final redaction (Isa 56:1–8; Isa 65–66): First, the new creation from Isa 65 and second the journey of all flesh, which according to Isa 66:1–21 consists of the faithful from Israel and the nations. The text envisions an eschatological pilgrimage of all flesh, which Sabbath after Sabbath comes to Jerusalem in order to worship. With the topic of the observance of the Sabbath by the eschatological nation of God, a connection is established with the third text of the final redaction in Isa 56:1–8, in which the Sabbath observance of the faithful foreigners and eunuchs is the condition for them being integrated into the nation of God. With these two verses, the eschatological vision of the final redaction ends.25 However, the book of Isaiah does not end with this vision of an eschatological pilgrimage of the nations. At a later stage, someone added the warning word of the burning corpses in v. 24. The use of “rebel, sinner” (τῶν παραβεβηκότων ἐν ἐμοι/‫)הפׁשﬠים בי‬ – a new and rather atypical word for being guilty before God in Isa 65–66 – as well as the atypical descriptions of burning corpses as a word of warning26 both confirm that v. 24 is a later addition, particularly as Isa 66:22–23 ends the final redaction with words of contemplation.27 Isa 66:12 is part of the reconstitution of Zion in Isa 66:5–14. It focuses on the care for the new children of Zion by the kabod of the nations, which flows back to Zion. This introduces the topic of the nations, which starting from vv. 18–23 24  Tilly, “Heil,” 218 f., rightly emphasizes that the LXX presents the offering of the nations in Isa 66:20 f. not as a sacrifical offering (θυσία) but as a gift (δῶρον). According to Tilly, the nations therefore do not gain a continuous access to the temple or to the presence of YHWH like Israel. In this light, the integrative perspective of the Hebrew Vorlage regarding the nations is not continued (see p.219). Tilly, however, does not take into account v.21, which like its Hebrew Vorlage indicates that YHWH will take Levitical priests from the faithful and the nations. 25  Regarding the formation of Isa 65–66, see Steck, Studien, 229–65 as well as Koenen, Ethik, 186 f. In accordance with Steck, Studien, 229–65, Isa 65 f. and Isa 56:1–8 are part of the final redaction of the book of Isaiah, which receives, focuses and mediates central topics of the Isaianic theology; see Gärtner, Jesaja 66, 1–65. 26  Apart from its Isaianic usage, the word ‫ דראון‬is only used in Dan 12:2; see Koenen, Ethik, 208. 27 See Kratz, Die Komposition, 11–13; Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 150; Koenen, Ethik, 208; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja. 4th ed., HK III/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 489, and Beuken, “Closure,” 215. Westermann, Jesaja, 339 f., emphasizes that both v. 23 and v. 24 are part of a later addition, which describes the everlasting existence of the new creation as an everlasting worship and everlasting judgment. However, he overlooks the context of Isa 66: 22–23. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 315–17 reconstructs a new textual order (vv. 22, 24, 23), which is solely based on the assumption that the Book of Isaiah would find a better ending in v. 23 than in v. 24. Like Dim, Implications, 196–98, Steck, Studien, 227 f.260 f. sees the connection between Isa 1 and Isa 66:24 as well as the quotation from Isa 11:12 in Isa 65:25 and ascribes Isa 65 f. due to its overall difficult structure to one author.



437

The Kabod of YHWH

is included in order to describe the fate of the nations at the end of time. With the preceding discussion as background, this essay will now turn its focus to the book of Isaiah and to the question regarding which redactional lines come together in Isa 66:12.

2. The Kabod of the Nations in Isa 66:12b and its Isaianic Context Verse 12 describes the effects of the glorification of Zion by YHWH by using material from the book of Isaiah in a patchwork-like fashion. The verse focuses especially on the good inner and outer order, which manifests itself due to the effects of the kabod of YHWH on Zion. Regarding the good inner order, the verse refers to Isa 48:18;28 regarding the good outer order, it refers to Isa 30:28 and Isa 8:7–8. From a redaction-historical point of view, these back references regarding the outer order are of special interest because in Isa 66:12 they connect the two main collections, the so-called Denkschrift in Isa 6–8 and the Assyrian Cycle in Isa 28–31. 2.1  Like a stream your shalom (Isa 48:18) – Isa 66:12 in the horizon of Deutero-Isaiah Isa 48:18 “If only you had paid attention to My commandments! Then your shalom would have been like a stream, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea. Isa 66:12a Behold, I extend shalom to her like a stream …

Isa 48:18

‫לוא הקׁשבת למצותי‬ ‫ויהי כנהר ׁשלומך‬ ‫וצדקתך כגלי הים‬

Isa 66:12

‫הנני נטה־אליה כנהר ׁשלום‬

Isa 66:12 takes the term ‫ כנהר ׁשלום‬from Isa 48:1829 in order to express the wealth of the coming salvation for Zion by means of the image of a wadi.30 In Isa 48:18 the comparison with ‫ נהר ׁשלום‬describes the possibility for salvation for Israel in the past. The salvation is bound to the observance of the commandments of YHWH (‫)מצות‬. However, Israel was not observant so that the shalom of the people of God did not become like a wadi and its righteousness did not become 28  The phrase ‫ כנהר ׁשלום‬can only be found in Isa 66:12 and Isa 48:18, while “shalom” can also be found in: Isa 9:5,6; 26:3,12; 27:5; 32:17 f.; 33:7; 38:17; 39:8; 41:3; 45:7; 48:22; 52:7; 53:5; 54:10,13; 55:12; 57:2, 19, 21; 59:8; 60:17. 29  Regarding the delimitation of the text, see Hermisson, Deuterojesaja, 284–96. 30 Isa 48:17–19 is a later addition to the prior chapter. Regarding the literary critical analysis of the chapter, see R. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter­suchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55, FAT 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 117–21, and J. v. Oorschot, Von Babel zum Zion: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, BZAW 206 (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1993), 306–8.

438

Judith Gärtner

like the waves of the sea.31 Isa 66:12 now proclaims the salvation but without predicating it on the observance of the commandments of YHWH (‫)מצות‬. They are replaced by the glorification of YHWH on Zion. This manifests itself in the wondrous birth of the children of Zion and results in shalom that is like a stream. By this reference, the perspective of the verse is emphasized: It is about Zion, the inner order of peace, which is established by YHWH. This has natural consequences for the nations. These consequences are described in the following verse. 2.2  Like an Overflowing Wadi (Isa 30:28) – Isa 66:12 in the Horizon of Proto-Isaiah The mention of the nations in the following verse focuses explicitly on the periphery in order to highlight the universal perspective of the reconstitution of Zion. Accordingly, the nations react to the glorification of YHWH on Zion, as it can be seen by the quotation ‫ כנחל ׁשוטף‬from Isa 30:28:32 Isa 30:28 And his breath is like an overflowing wadi, which reaches to the neck,33 to shake nations in a sieve of judgment,34 and to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which leads to ruin. Isa 66:12 and the kabod of the nations like an overflowing wadi

Isa 30:28

‫ורוחו כנחל ׁשוטף‬ ‫ﬠד־צואר יחצה‬ ‫להנפה גוים בנפת ׁשוא‬ ‫ורסן מתﬠה ﬠל לחיי ﬠמים‬

21:66 asI

‫וכנחל ׁשוטף כבוד גוים‬

In the context of the Assyrian Cycle Isa 30:27–33 follows a word of salvation that describes the compassion of YHWH for his nation. To this word of salvation for his people Isaiah 30:27–33 adds with the word of judgment the perspective on 31  If one understands the Imperf.cons. in this way, it rather represents a ‘rügenden Geschichtsrückblick’ than a ‘Mahnung in Wunschform’; see v. Oorschot, Babel, 307. According to Hermisson, Deuterojesaja, 288, it is a lament about prior mistakes and the salvation lost due to this misdemeanor. 32  Regarding the usage of ‫ שׁטף‬in the book of Isaiah: ‫ שׁטף‬can be found nine times in the book of Isaiah, seven times within the Denkschrift or the Assurzyklus, and in the form of a quotation in Isa 66:12. In Isa 10:22 it can be found in the context of the theme of Assyria; only in Deutero-Isaiah (43:2) the term can be found in the context of a detailed statement of salvation and protection by YHWH. 33  In accordance with H. Wildberger, Jesaja: Jes 28–39, BKAT X /3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 1208, ‫ חצה‬has to be understood intrans.-refl.: “divide to the neck”. 34  The phrase “‫… בנפת‬ ‫( ”להנפה‬v. 28), often translated as “to sift the nations with the sieve of judgment” is difficult to understand; see J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung, 2nd ed., WMANT 10 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977), 57, and the slightly different view of H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1977), 93 f.



The Kabod of YHWH

439

the nations.35 This is not the place to describe Isa 30:27–33 and its difficulties in detail.36 Regarding our question about the redactional link to the ending of the book the following focus is of interest: In Isa 30:28 a general judgment of the nations is described, which then becomes a judgment of Assyria (Isa 30:31). Taken from this context Isa 66:12 quotes the phrase ‫“ ׁשוטף נחל‬the overflowing wadi” from v. 28.37 Isa 66:12 describes the kabod of the nations, which flows to Zion after the reconstitution of Jerusalem by the wondrous birth of the children. With that, the nations as representatives of the periphery acknowledge YHWH as the ruler of the cosmos. They pay homage to him by their kabod which flows to Zion and which is compared to an overflowing wadi. This means that in Isa 66:12 we find a correlation between the kabod of YHWH coming from Jerusalem and the kabod of the nations, which flows back to Jerusalem because of the divine kabod. However, just at this place Isa 66:12 quotes Isa 30:28, a text which describes YHWH’s judgment over the nations, especially Assyria. In Isa 30:28 ‫ נחל ׁשוטף‬does not refer to the kabod of the nations, but to the breathing of YHWH, which in its power is like an overflowing wadi that will hit the nations as a judgment. The kabod of the nations stays unconsidered on the textual interface of Isa 30:28. However, by using the phrase “up to the neck” (‫ )ﬠד־צואר‬the same words regarding the overflowing wadi, Isa 30:28 points to the kabod of the king of Assyria in Isa 8:7–8. Therefore, the quotation of ‫נחל‬ ‫ ׁשוטף‬in Isa 66:1238 not only refers to Isa 30:28, but also indirectly to Isa 8:7–8. By means of this technique of composition, the Denkschrift and the Assyrian Cycle are placed into relation to each other. Like Isa 66:12, Isa 30:28 focuses on the whole world of the nations. One now has to consider the question of which connotations are concealed behind the quotation from Isa 30:28 in Isa 66 and which aspects of the Assyria and nation theme are implied due to this quotation in Isa 66:12. 35  For a detailed analysis of Isa 30:27–33, see J. Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31, WMANT 130 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011), 365–75, as well as Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 92–103. 36  In the chronology of Isa 30 the order of the two words of salvation is controversial. Like J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19 (Tübingen: Morh Siebeck, 1997), 259–62 some assume that vv. 18–26 is a later addition due to the topic of divine pity for Israel and the usage of terminology taken from Psalms. Others like Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 231 f.239 f., assume a reversed order and see Isa 30:18–26 as a part of the redaction of the Zion congregation and Isa 30:27–33 as its protoapocalyptic redaction. Others like Becker, Jesaja, 257, leave the order of both Fortschreibungen open. 37  See R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCBC (London: Oliphants, 1975), 285; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 307 f.; Pauritsch, Gemeinde, 205, and Steck, Studien, 258 f., especially note 192. Beuken, “Closure,” 208, is aware of the connection between Isa 30:27 ff. and Isa 66 regarding the theophany in Isa 66:15–16. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 526, on the one hand emphasizes that the metaphor ‫ נחל ׁשוטף‬originates from the Isaiah tradition, but stresses at the same time that Isa 66:12 uses it in a completely new way. 38  Apart from the verb ‫ חצה‬the phrase ‫ ﬠד־צואר‬in Isa 8:7 f. is identical.

440

Judith Gärtner

2.3  ‫ נחל ׁשוטף‬in Isa 30:28 as a Connection between Denkschrift and the Assyrian Cycle39 While ‫ נחל ׁשוטף‬in Isa 30:28 describes the coming of YHWH as an overflowing wadi that reaches up to the neck (‫ )ﬠד־צואר‬and is a judgment over the nations, the kabod of the king of Assyria describes in Isa 8:5–8 the flood of water, which will sweep over Judah and will reach up to its neck (‫)ﬠד־צואר‬. This confronts Judah with the judgment by means of the king of Assyria and his kabod.40 Since this nation despised the gently flowing waters of Siloah41 (v. 6), which refers to the peace offered by YHWH and his presence on Zion (Isa 28:12, 16; 30:15),42 and instead rejoiced over Rezin and the son of Remaliah (the SyrianIsraelite coalition), YHWH will let the Euphrates rise over its banks, mighty and powerful waters, which will overflow Judah. By quoting ‫ ﬠד־צואר‬and ‫ שׁטף‬the role of Assyria as an instrument of YHWH’s judgment in Isa 8:5–8 is acknowledged but reversed. The kabod of the king in Isa 8:7–8 corresponded to the earth-filling kabod of YHWH’s judgment in Isa 6. With respect to Isa 6:3 we find a correlation between the kabod of the king of Assyria, which sweeps like a flood over Judah and the kabod of YHWH from Isa 6:3, whose kabod does not represent his salvific presence in the temple as a robe of light, but as smoke, which is opaque and disconnects the cultic communication.43 By this means Assyria became an instrument of YHWH’s judgment regarding Judah. In Isa 30:28 this connection is reversed. The nations, especially Assyria itself, are now the recipients of the judgment. In this way the announced destruction of Judah by Assyria in Isa 6–8* and Isa 28–31* is revoked. Judah is no longer the recipient of the announced flood, because YHWH’s presence in Judah is gone. In its place stands Assyria. Therefore, the presence of judgment from Isa 6 now is announced over the enemies of Judah and Judah is able to rejoice. The kabod of the nations flowing back to Zion in Isa 66:12 therefore implies a judgment over the nations (Isa 30:27–33). Moreover, behind this judgment of the nations the judgment of Assyria over Judah still shines through (Isa 8:5–8). Therefore, the presence of judgment against Judah from Isa 6 is now directed 39  Some see the inclusion of Isa 30:28 and the allusion to Isa 8:8 in Isa 66:12, but do not take into account the implications. See Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 285, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 307 f., Pauritsch, Gemeinde, 205, and Steck, Studien 258 f., especially note 192. Beuken, “Closure,” 208, sees the connection between Isa 30:27 ff. and Isa 66 regarding the theophany in Isa 66:15–16. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 526. 40  Regarding Isa 8:5–8, see Barthel, Prophetenworte, 198–208 as well as Hartenstein, “Schreckensglanz,” 83–102. 41  See Ps 46:5, regarding the streams that make happy the city of God. 42  For the understanding of the verses, see F. Hartenstein, “Tempelgründung als ‘fremdes Werk’. Beobachtungen zum ‘Ecksteinwort’ Jesaja 28,16–17,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog, FS O. Kaiser, ed. M. Witte, BZAW 345 (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2004), 491–516, 505–8. 43 For the context and religio-historical background of Isa 8:6–8, see Hartenstein, “Schreckensglanz,” 86–102.



441

The Kabod of YHWH

against its enemies and results in the rejoicing of Judah. In Isa 66:12 this process takes another turn due to the kabod of YHWH, which radiates from Jerusalem. This turning point is articulated by referring to Isa 60. 2.4  You Will Be Carried on the Hip and Fondled on the Knees (Isa 60:4 and Isa 49:22) – Isa 66:12 in the Horizon of the So-Called Trito-Isaiah Collection In Isa 60:1f the kabod of YHWH radiated from Zion and reached the earth and nations and replaced the previously prevailing darkness.44 The nations react to the radiating kabod of YHWH from Zion by gathering and coming to Zion. This results in nations and kings coming to Jerusalem.45 A similar statement can be found in Isa 66:12. There, the glorification of YHWH from Zion results in the flowing back of the kabod of the nations to Zion. Therefore, he refers to the idea of a pilgrimage of the nations. At the same time the kabod of the nations results in the care for the new children of Zion. They will be nursed, carried on the hip and bounced on the knees. With this image the verse refers back to ideas connected to the return of the diaspora from Isa 49:22 and Isa 60:4.46 Isa 60:4 They all gather together, they come to you, Your sons will come from afar, and your daughters will be carried in the arms.47 Isa 49:22 And they will bring your sons in their bosom48, and your daugthers will be carried on their shoulders. Isa 66:12b You will be carried on the hip, and fondled on the knees.

Isa 60:4

‫כלם נקבצו באו לך‬ ‫בניך מרחוק יבאו‬ ‫ובנתיך ﬠל צד תאמנה‬

Isa 49:22

‫והביאו בניך בחצן‬ ‫ובנתיך ﬠל־כתף תנׂשאנה‬

Isa 66:12b

‫ﬠל־צד תנׂשאו‬ ‫וﬠל־ברכים תׁשﬠׁשﬠו‬

Despite the similarities between Isa 66:12 and Isa 60:4 – like, for instance, those that have been shown regarding the concept of kabod49 – the role of the nations in Isa 66:12 and in Isa 60 is not quite identical. Unlike in Isa 60:4 the nations in 44 Regarding Isa 60, see A. Spans, Die Stadtfrau Zion im Zentrum der Welt, BBB 175 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 151–98; Steck, Studien, 49–79; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 212–14 and Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 438–42. 45  Steck, Studien, 97–100. 46  Most see that Isa 66:12b falls back on Isa 49:22 and Isa 60:4, but – like with Isa 30:28 and Isa 8:7 f. – do not take into account the consequences. See Pauritsch, Gemeinde, 205; Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 131; Koenen, Ethik, 200 (without seeing the relation to Isa 49:22); see as well Westermann, Jesaja, 334; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 307 and Spans, Stadtfrau, 82–88. 47  Regarding the meaning of ‫אמן‬, see Jepsen, ThWAT, 315. 48  For different types of translations, see H.‑J. Hermisson, Deuterojesaja: Jesaja 49,14– 55,13, BKAT XI/3 (Göttingen: Vadenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 7, 58. 49  Koenen, Ethik, 200.

442

Judith Gärtner

Isa 66:12b do not bring the sons and daughters to Zion. The nations or the theme of diaspora is of no importance. The latter is to be found not until Isa 66:18 ff. The focus in Isa 66:12 lies solely on the care being taken of the children of Zion. The fact that this happens by means of the nations becomes obvious by the context, because it is a consequence of the kabod of the nations. While ‫ ﬠל־צד‬refers back to Isa 60:4,50 the verb ‫ נשׂא‬refers back to Isa 49:22.51 In Isa 49:22 the nations are ordered by YHWH as the ruler of the earth to bring the sons and daughters back to Zion.52 YHWH raises his hand and a signal for the nations,53 which, as the ones that scattered Israel, are now the ones to gather Israel, bringing it back to Jerusalem and serving Jerusalem/Zion as nurses.54 The universal reign of YHWH is reflected in the fact that the nations serve Jerusalem by serving Israel. This aspect of Isa 49:23 can also be found in Isa 60:16 and Isa 66:12,55 where Zion, especially the new children of Zion are nursed by the kabod of the nations (‫ ינק‬Isa 49:23; Isa 60:16) and carried and fondled on knees.56 As was already shown regarding the quotation in Isa 60:4, the aspect of the return of the diaspora is excluded. In the above analysis Isa 66:12 has proven to be a unique text of scribal prophecy. In this verse, the judgment of the nations and the pilgrimage of the nations unfold in the horizon of the whole book of Isaiah. This is achieved by a redactional reformulation and update of the concept of kabod. The origin of the kabod of the nations in Isa 66:12, which is described as an overflowing wadi flowing back to Zion, is the judgment of the nations in Isa 30:27–33 as well as the kabod of the king of Assyria, which before was an instrument of judgment. By this means the instrument of judgment from Isa 8:7–8 is turned into the judged people in Isa 30:28. This is the background of the kabod of the nations flowing back to Zion in Isa 66:12. This implies the idea of the pilgrimage of the nations, as can be seen in the references to Isa 60:4 and Isa 49:22–23. The kabod of the nations, which returns to Zion, nurses the children of Zion. This Zion-focused 50  Regarding the motif of carrying and caring, see S. M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: 2012), 520f, 620 f. and Steck, Studien, 97–100. 51 Regarding Isa 49:22, see Westermann, Jesaja, 177; v. Oorschot, Babel, 141–52; Duhm, Jesaja, 373–77; J. Werlitz, Redaktion und Komposition: Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40–55, BBB 122 (Berlin: Philo, 1999), 293–302. 52 The literary relation between Isa 60:4 and Isa 49:22 is controversial, see Gärtner, Summe, 119–21. 53  Regarding the usage of ‫ נס‬in the book of Isaiah, see Isa 5:26; 11:10,12; 13:2; 18:3; 49:22; 62:10. While in Isa 5:26 and 13:2 the standard is raised for the gathering of the nations for fight, in Isa 11:12; 49:22 the standard is raised over the nations for the gathering of the diaspora. 54  See v. Oorschot, Babel, 151. 55 See Hermisson, Deuterojesaja, 58 f. 56  Several scholars emphasize that the topic of care in Isa 66:12b refers back to Isa 49:23: see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 307; Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 526; S. Sekine, Die Trito­ jesajanische Sammlung (Jes 56–66) redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 175 (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1989), 51.



The Kabod of YHWH

443

perspective is also emphasized by the first reference to Isa 48:18. Its theme is the reign of peace constituted by the divine kabod in Jerusalem and its consequences for the nations. In summary, this shows a line of composition reaching from the Denkschrift in Isa 6–8 to the Assyrian Cycle in Isa 28–31 to Isa 49 and Isa 60 to the last chapter of the book of Isaiah.

3.  The Making of the Book of Isaiah Using the Example of Isa 66:12 In order to evaluate the results illustrated above regarding the question about the techniques of composition, aims and requirements of the redactional work on the book of Isaiah, three aspects are worth highlighting: Firstly, regarding the techniques of composition: While describing the redactional lines drawn through the book of Isaiah, the editorial work with “terms” was especially noteworthy. This work with terms and concepts can be made more specific in two directions: On the one hand, the concept of the term kabod was transformed over and over again, by its way from Isa 8:5–7, Isa 30:27–33, Isa 60 and finally to Isa 66. The concept behind the word was updated repeatedly, in order to emphasize completely different aspects, such as the judgment by Assyria in Isa 8, the divine kabod shining from Zion in Isa 60 and the divine kabod constituting Zion anew in Isa 66. On the other hand, it is still possible to recognize the earlier editorial stages behind the new concepts. This means that in Isa 66:12 earlier aspects of the word kabod are still present and recognizable. Therefore, the final redaction created by its work with the concept forms an editorial line throughout the whole book of Isaiah (Isa 1–66). This observation applies not only to the term kabod, but also to the terms ‫( צדקה‬righteousness) or ‫( ﬠבד‬servant). Secondly, regarding the requirements: The final redactors were able to work with earlier stages of the concept of kabod and continue their own work on this basis. These requirements were proven by the connection between Isa 8:7–9 and Isa 30:27–33 as well as the line of composition between Isa 6 and Isa 60, which is required in Isa 66:12. Thirdly, regarding the aims: In Isa 66:12 crucial aspects of the theology of Isaiah meet and all of them are linked to the concept of kabod. By this concept, different aspects regarding the nations are connected in one theology of history. One consequence is that the nations turn from being instruments of judgment to the ones being judged and finally to the ones which by their own kabod acknowledge YHWH’s glorification of Zion. The redaction-critical process can be described as follows: Isa 30:28 connects the two main collections of Proto-Isaiah, the Denkschrift and the Assyrian Cycle. At the same time, one of the likely oldest connections between Deutero-Isaiah

444

Judith Gärtner

(Isa 49:22–23) and the Trito-Isaiah collection is acknowledged in Isa 60–62*. Both come together in Isa 66:12. Therefore, Isa 66:12 is a unique example of scribal prophecy, which gives witness to the theological work with terms as well as to the creative drive regarding the whole book of the late tradents of Isaiah.

Bibliography Albani, Matthias. “‘Wo sollte ein Haus sein, das ihr mir bauen könntet?’ (Jes 66,1): Schöpfung als Tempel JHWHs?” Pages 37–56 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by. B. Ego et al. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Barthel, Jörg. Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31. FAT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. HBS 16. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. Beuken, Wim. “Isaiah chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book.” Pages 204–21 in Congress Volume. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden, 1991. –. “The main theme in Trito-Isaiah. ‘The Servants of YHWH’.” JSOT 47 (1990): 67–87. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56–66: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Dim, Emmanuel. The Eschatological Implications of Isa 65 and 66 as the Conclusion of the Book of Isaiah. Bible in History 3. Bern: Lang, 2005. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. 4th ed. HK III/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Gärtner, Judith. Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches. WMANT 114. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006. Goldenstein, Johannes. Das Gebet der Gottesknechte Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch. WMANT 92. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition. WMANT 75. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997. –. “JHWH und der ‘Schreckensglanz’ Assurs (Jes 8,6–8): Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur ‘Denkschrift’ Jes 6–8*.” Pages 83–102 in Schriftprophetie. Edited by J. Krispenz and A. Schart. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004. –. “Tempelgründung als ‘fremdes Werk’: Beobachtungen zum ‘Ecksteinwort’ Jesaja 28,16–17,” Pages 491–516 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog, FS O. Kaiser. Edited by M. Witte. BZAW 345. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2004. Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. Deuterojesaja: Jes 45,8–49,13. BKAT XI/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003.



The Kabod of YHWH

445

–. Deuterojesaja: Jes 49,14–55,13. BKAT XI/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Hibbard, J. Todd. “From Name to Book: Another Look at the Composition of the Book of Isaiah with Special Reference to Isaiah 56–66.” Pages 133–49 in Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Vander Kam. Edited by E. Mason. Vol. 1, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. 2nd ed. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Koenen, Klaus. Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie. WMANT 62. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Die Komposition des hebräischen Jesajabuches.” Pages 11–27 in Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates. Edited by F. Wilk and P. Gemeinhardt. BETL CCLXXX. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. –. Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55. FAT 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Kreuch, Jan. Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31. WMANT 130. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011. Lau, Wolfgang. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches. BZAW 225. Berlin/New York: Brill, 1994. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66 Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Pauritsch, Karl. Die neue Gemeinde: Gott sammelt Ausgestoßene und Arme (Jes 56–66): Die Botschaft des Tritojesaia-Buches literar-, form-, gattungskritisch und redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht. AnBib 47. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. Schramm, Brooks. The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration. JSOTS 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Sekine, Seizō. Die Tritojesajanische Sammlung (Jes 56–66) redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BZAW 175. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1989. Smith, Paul A. Rhetoric and Redaktion in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–60. VTSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Spans, Andrea. Die Stadtfrau Zion im Zentrum der Welt. BBB 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Steck, Odil Hannes. Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja. SBS 121. Stuttgart: Verlag katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. –. Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. BThSt 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. –. Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege zur Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. Studien zu Tritojesaja. BZAW 203. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “Hope and Disappointment: The Judahite Critique of the Exilic Leadership in Isaiah 56–66.” Pages 57–73 in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History. Edited by R. Thelle, T. Stordalen, M. Richardson. VTSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tilly, Michael. “Das Heil der Anderen im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum: Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung von Jesaja 66,14b–24.” Pages 209–21 in Das Heil

446

Judith Gärtner

der Anderen: Problemfeld “Judenmission.” Edited by H. Frankemölle and J. Wohlmuth. QD 238. Freiburg: Herder, 2010. van Oorschot, Jürgen. Von Babel zum Zion. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BZAW 206. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1993. Vermeylen, Jacques, ed. The Book of Isaiah: Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. BEThL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. –. “L’unité du livre d’Isaïe.” Pages 11–53 in The Book of Isaiah: Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by Idem. BEThL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Wagner, Thomas. Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Werlitz, Jürgen. Redaktion und Komposition: Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40–55. BBB 122. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Westermann, Claus. Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66. 5th ed. ATD 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Whybray, Roger N. Isaiah 40–66. NCBC. London: Oliphants, 1975. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja: Jes 28–39. Das Buch, der Prophet und seine Botschaft. BKAT X /3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982.

A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701 Isaiah 30:18–26 as an Update to Isaiah 30:8–17? J. Todd Hibbard Critical scholars have long recognized that the book of Isaiah is the result of composite authorship and that it developed over the course of several centuries. In some respects this conclusion was reached even in antiquity, but its modern expression can be traced to the 18th century. Recognizing the complex compositional history of the book has inevitably raised other pressing questions. To start, how did such a process unfold, that is, how did the book develop? This especially prompts literary- and redaction-critical questions that seek to uncover how later authors or tradents went about the work of adding subsequent material as well as shaping and editing inherited material. Dozens of articles and monographs have approached this question. However, nothing like a consensus has emerged.1 Related to the question of how this process unfolded is an even more basic question: Why would later tradents – some much later – continue to add material to this book? It is one thing to recognize that later additions are present, but it is quite another to explain why such additions accrued at all. Several scholars have taken up this question, usually in connection with the previous question, and shed light on literary connections, thematic developments, and structural markers that make Isaiah meaningful.2 This study looks at what is perhaps an early example of why and how a later tradent – perhaps even Isaiah himself – could update an earlier prophetic statement in light of later events or in later contexts. Scholars often proceed as if such processes of updating extend only in much later contexts, often separated by a century or more. While examples of Fortschreibung or relecture that emerge much later certainly do occur, it is also the case that some examples are more proximate to the late eighth or early seventh centuries. Isaiah 30:18–26 might be one such example. If so, it offers a re-reading of an earlier oracle of judgment that 1  The lack of consensus has sometimes prompted critics to question the validity of such approaches. While not all such studies merit the same regard, the lack of consensus seems to me more indicative of the complexities involved in answering the question rather than evidence of their inappropriateness. 2  One thinks of P. Ackroyd’s now well-known articulation of this: “Why is there so substantial a book associated with the prophet Isaiah?” P. Ackroyd, “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 16–48, here 21.

448

J. Todd Hibbard

emphasizes YHWH’s salvation in closely related historical circumstances. Even if one is inclined to date the various parts of Isa 30:8–26 to more historically distant contexts, the hermeneutical strategies that link the two sections are still visible.3 This contribution proceeds in three parts: first, we will consider interpretive issues in 30:8–17; next, we turn to 30:18–26 and its set of issues; finally, we consider how vv. 18–26 take their cue from vv. 8–17 as they create an oracle of hope and deliverance out of an oracle of judgment.

1.  Isaiah 30:8–17 This text is one of a series of oracles from the late eighth century in Isa 28–33 reflective of the crisis precipitated by Hezekiah’s revolt against Assyria and Sennacherib’s response (see also 2 Kgs 18:7–8, 13–19:37; Isa 36:1–37:35).4 While debate still exits surrounding the date of Hezekiah’s reign, the date of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah is firmly established by the Assyrian sources.5 It is possible to reconstruct Judah’s military and political policy in this moment on the basis of Isaiah’s oracles, at least in broad outline.6 Hezekiah’s policy mandated breaking Judah’s obligations to Assyria and, when it became apparent that Assyria planned a military response, he sought assistance from Egypt.7 Isaiah was 3  I have left 30:27–33, that is the final section of this chapter, to the side for purposes of this study. For an exploration of these verses and their role in Isa 30’s development, see Willem A. M. Beuken, “Isaiah 30: A Prophetic Oracle Transmitted in Two Successive Paradigms,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 1, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 369–97. 4  The number of studies examining the issues in this period is voluminous. Among more recent analyses, see William R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, CHANE 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1999); David Ussishkin, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish, and Jerusalem,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman, ed. Yairah Amit et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 339–58; and Nazek Khalid Matty, Sennacherib’s Campaign Against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B. C.: A Historical Reconstruction, BZAW 487 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016). 5  The Assyrian sources all note that the invasion of Judah was part of Sennacherib’s third campaign, in which he marched to Ḫatti land. See, e. g., the Taylor Prism in A. Kirk Grayson and Jamie R. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1, RINAP 3/1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 167–86, esp. 175–77. A recent judicious overview of the critical issues is found in Lester L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Rev. ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 238–44. 6  Though dated, it is still worth consulting Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, SBT (London: SCM, 1967). A  small number of scholars argue that vv. 8–17 originate from an author other than Isaiah in a later context. The most recent and thorough presentation of this idea comes from U. Becker, who ascribes the verses to “die Hand des UngehorsamsRedaktors.” See Uwe Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 245–57, here 256. 7  The Assyrian sources report that Sennacherib engaged the Egyptian forces which had gathered at Eltekeh. He defeated them there and plundered Eltekeh and Timnah (Tamnâ).



A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701

449

staunchly opposed to this course of action. As texts like 30:1–5 and 31:1–3 make clear, he viewed it as a foolhardy course of political and military action as well as a betrayal of Judah’s theological responsibility to trust in YHWH for its success.8 Though the oracles never mention Hezekiah directly, the policies against which Isaiah speaks must surely have been undertaken only at the royal directive.9 Isaiah 30:8–17 follows the explicit condemnation of the attempt to secure Egypt’s assistance recorded in Isa 30:1–7.10 It begins: ‫ﬠתה בוא כתבה ﬠל לוח אתם וﬠל ספר חקה ותהי ליום אחרון לﬠד ﬠד ﬠולם‬ Now go, write it upon a tablet for them and inscribe it on a scroll; a let it be for a later day as a witness in perpetuity.11

The ‫ ﬠתה‬with which v. 8 begins marks it as the starting point of a new section, but one that exhibits a connection with what precedes (see below). Someone is told to go and write “it” on a tablet and/or scroll as a witness12 forever. The verse raises (at least) four interpretive questions. First, who is speaking? Many commentators take the speaking voice to be God’s but in my view the speaker is Isaiah.13 I base this primarily on the analogy with Isa 8:16, where Isaiah instructs someone to preserve his teaching. Second, who is the speaker (in this case, Isaiah) addressing? Since no specific addressee is mentioned it is difficult to know. Again, though, on analogy with 8:16 he may be telling one of his followers to record his message. Third, who is “them” (‫אתם‬, plural suffix) to whom the oracle is directed? Those addressed by the content of the oracle (“them”) receive further clarification in vv. 9–11: the intended audience consists of those who are opposed to Isaiah’s (and other prophets’) message in this moment. It seems he is referring to those who seek Egypt’s assistance in this moment of national crisis. They are identical to the “rebellious children” (‫ )בנים סוררים‬of v. 1. Finally, what Second Kings 19:9 reports that the king who came out to fight against Assyria (and come to Hezekiah’s aid) was the Nubian Tirhakah (Taharqa), but several scholars have noted that he was not king at this time. Rather, it was most likely Shabaka. See Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 351–53. 8  Scholars have long noted the incongruity between the prophetic oracles’s criticism of royal policy (and by extension, Hezekiah) on this matter in Isa 18–19 and 28–31* and the narrative depicting Isaiah’s interaction with Hezekiah in this historical context in Isa 36–39. See, e. g., Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation: A Critical Reading of Isaiah 39:1–8,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context, 107–22, esp. 118–21. 9  From the critique of the king in Isa 32:1–8 (which includes the hopes for a righteous king) we can infer Isaiah’s displeasure with Hezekiah in this moment; see Mark W. Hamilton, “Isaiah 32 as Literature and Political Meditation,” JBL 131/4 (2012): 643–62. 10  Most scholars see two oracles here, vv. 1–5 and vv. 6–7; see Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 121­–22, 133–34. 11  All translations of biblical texts are my own. 12 Reading ‫ ֵﬠד‬for ‫ ; ַﬠד‬see Roberts, Isaiah 1–39, 388. 13 For the conventional view that the speaker is YHWH see, among others, Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 390.

450

J. Todd Hibbard

is the addressee supposed to write?14 In other words, what is Isaiah’s message to this group? The referent of the third feminine suffix on each of the verbs (,‫כתבּה‬ ‫ )חקּה‬is not specified clearly. Sweeney argues that what is in view is the Rahab declaration of v. 7b: “Rahab who does nothing.”15 This is certainly possible, even likely.16 This reference is, in turn, likely what comprises the ‫ תורת יהוה‬in v. 9, a phrase used elsewhere in Isaiah as a synonym for his prophetic teaching (e. g., Isa 5:24; cf. 1:10; 8:16, 20).17 Whether the reference is to v. 7b, v. 9, or some combination of both, the command to inscribe the message appears similar to Isaiah’s earlier command to “bind up the testimony among his disciples” (8:16). Further, vv. 12–14 should be seen as closely connected to the content of the actual oracle or prophetic teaching since the 2nd person address forms (“you”) begin here.18 Whether that oracle ends at v. 14 or v. 17 is difficult to say. Isaiah states that writing this message is “for a later time” (‫)ותהי ליום אחרון‬, suggesting that it will be consulted and interpreted at some point in the future. Thus v. 8 actually invites later reflection and updating on the oracle that follows.19 After noting that “they,” presumably the Judean elites who support consulting Egypt and ignoring Isaiah, are a rebellious and deceitful people, Isaiah charges them with an unwillingness to listen to YHWH’s prophetic instruction. Instead, they insist that intermediaries cease speaking about what is right and replace it with “smooth things” and “deceptions.”20 This is the first of two texts (the other is 30:16–17) in this section in which Isaiah appears to quote his opponents, but the polemical character of the text makes it clear that we are dealing with a case of exaggeration for rhetorical effect. No one requests “deceptions” (‫)מהתלות‬. Nevertheless, their imputed oral speech contrasts with the inscribed prophecy that is recorded as a witness. Verse 11 invokes the image of the path or way to describe the sure journey provided by YHWH’s word. Their insistence that Isaiah remove it from them accentuates their own erring journey in this political crisis. Finally, v. 11 concludes with their insistent demand that Isaiah remove (‫)השביתו‬ the Holy One of Israel from before them, one of Isaiah’s favorite identifiers for 14  Blenkinsopp objects to reading these commands literally and argues, instead, they are a “literary construct;” see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AYBC 19 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 415. 15  The MT here, ‫רהב הם שבת‬, is notoriously difficult to understand. 16  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 400. 17  In reality, it could refer both to v. 7 and to v. 9 since both essentially express the same point of view. 18  I do not find the view that vv. 12–14 represent a separate oracle arising from a different period convincing. The passage relies too heavily on what precedes to be seen as a self-standing oracle. For the alternative view, see Wildberger, Isaiah 28–35, 150–51. 19  It is not too much to think that commands to write a prophetic message which was to be consulted at some point in the future provide the first step in what became the process of canonization. Such commands possess two essential elements of canonization: textualization and the prospect of future consultation. 20  Isaiah 28–31 includes at least four texts with speech attributed to Isaiah’s opponents: 28:15; 29:15–16; and 30:10–11, and 16–17.

A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701



451

YHWH. With this demand they express their desire not to hear Isaiah’s prophetic

message any longer. The second subunit in this section (vv. 12–17) opens with ‫לכן‬, “therefore,” which demonstrates a connection with what precedes. In this case, that is a word from the Holy One of Israel (v. 12), the inclusion of this phrase acting as a direct rejoinder to the audience’s demand in the preceding verse that the prophet stop confronting them with the Holy One of Israel. Additionally, the verse criticizes the audience for rejecting “this word” (‫)הדבר הזה‬, another reference to the inscribed prophetic teaching of YHWH mentioned in vv. 8 and 9. The charge that they have, instead, opted to trust in oppression21 and deceit serves as the prophetic evaluation of their reliance on Egypt. Additionally, the specific language suggests less than favorable economic and military realities involved in the intended arrangement. The metaphor within a metaphor of vv. 13–14 demonstrates how perilous is their reliance: it is analogous to collapsing walls that come crashing down so quickly and with such destructive force that nothing salvageable remains in the rubble. Whether the new incipit of v. 15, once again specifically coming from the Holy One of Israel, intends to introduce a new prophetic oracle or simply serves to launch a continuation and conclusion of the preceding material matters little. The final three verses note that Jerusalem had an opportunity to avoid disaster but they refused. The course of action they should have followed is spelled out in four terms in v. 15b, all of which undermine the Egyptian policy in favor of trusting in Isaiah’s advice. The use of ‫ בטחה‬here recalls ‫ בטח‬in v. 12 to highlight that they trusted in the wrong thing. The prophet’s provocation continues in vv. 16–17 when he mocks their intention to flee on horses and swift steeds. He insists that they will, indeed, flee, just not in the way they envisioned, desperately trying to escape from those in hot pursuit. The fright will be such that at minimal threat they will disperse. The end result will be a people isolated and exposed to danger (v. 17c). The image, reminiscent of Jerusalem exposed like a hut in a cucumber field in 1:8, serves as a fitting conclusion not only to this oracle but to all of Isa 30 through verse 17.

2.  Isaiah 30:18–26 That a new section commences at v. 18 and concludes at v. 26 is recognized by nearly all scholars. The ‫לכן‬, “therefore,” of v. 18 establishes a connection with the previous section (cf. vv. 12 and 13), however, the content fits more comfortably with what follows. Beuken’s interpretation of the word as introducing an 21 

BDB suggests reading ‫ﬠקש‬, “perversion, twisted thing,” for ‫ﬠשק‬, “oppression.” I find no warrant for this. Indeed, the MT makes good sense in the context.

452

J. Todd Hibbard

ellipsis seems correct: “because the proclamation of judgment of v. 17 has come true” the following expression of divine grace will occur.22 YHWH’s intention to be gracious and compassionate to “those who wait for him” is important for two reasons. First, it reveals a different tone from vv. 8–17, especially with respect to YHWH’s attitude toward the community. Second, it establishes that not everyone in the community shared the sentiments of those called out for their unwillingness to listen to the prophetic word (v. 9). The beatitude with which the verse ends (“happy are all those who wait on him [YHWH]”) makes those who wait on YHWH parallel with YHWH waiting to be gracious. The only other use of the verb ‫חכה‬, “to wait” in First Isaiah occurs in 8:17, where Isaiah declares his intention to wait on YHWH who is presently hiding his face (see v. 20). This linkage provides a theological consistency between Isaiah’s message in the Syro-Ephraimite crisis of the 730s and the view expressed here pertaining the Assyrian threat some three decades later. A further similarity exists with Isa 8 in that it too speaks of a prophetic text written for a later day, referred to as ‫( תורה‬see 30:8–9). One plausible explanation of this similarity is that Isaiah offered a similar theological argument in both settings. What is more, the beatitude of v. 18 may reflect Isaiah’s view that history had borne out his view that waiting on YHWH had been the proper course of action in the 730s and now that confidence is reiterated with even more certainty in this later political crisis. Hence, voicing this at the outset of this section provides the basic orientation governing his hopeful view here. His critique of the political plan focused on securing Egypt’s assistance in vv. 8–17 did not prevent him from expressing hope in YHWH’s ultimate preservation of the the community in Jerusalem. At any rate, this verse stands as the basis from which the remainder of the section proceeds. Blenkinsopp views vv. 19–26 as a prose comment on v. 18, a view that has much to commend itself.23 The subsequent verses articulate what it means, in part, to wait for YHWH. Verses 19–22, the continuation of the first subunit of this section, expounds on the implications of YHWH’s gracious and compassionate disposition. Indeed, ‫חנן‬, “to be gracious,” functions as a catchword linking vv. 18 and 19. Residents of Jerusalem will cease weeping and, when they cry out to YHWH, he will answer. As in vv. 8–17, the text displays an interest in the community’s speech. However, unlike the previous section, the tone and content of their speech differs greatly: here they cry out for help (v. 19). Their cry reflects the conditions of the previous section, which v. 20 appears to acknowledge: YHWH will give them “bread of affliction and water of oppression.”24 This poetic imagery refers to the com22 

Beuken, “Isaiah 30,” 377. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 420. 24  The syntax of v. 20aβ is somewhat unusual: ‫לחם צר ומים לחץ‬. BHS suggests emending ‫צר‬ to ‫ מצר‬and ‫ לחץ‬to ‫ מלחץ‬but there is not textual warrant for doing so and, at any rate, it is unnecessary. 1QIsaa does have the more expected plural construct ‫מי לחץ‬. 23 



A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701

453

munity’s calamity in the Assyrian crisis and links this section with the previous section (vv. 8–17). Unlike the previous section in which they were responsible for causing their crisis, the source here shifts to God. The theological effect of this is to assert YHWH’s sovereignty over against Assyria.25 Additionally, the bread and water that accompany adversity and affliction in v. 20 stand in contrast to the bread and water of vv. 23–25 that signal YHWH’s blessing and beneficence on the people (see below). The unidentified “teacher” (‫)מורה‬26 of v. 20b calls for comment. The text reports that he will no longer be hidden (‫)יכנף‬27 but will now be seen. ‫ מורה‬is used only here in Isaiah, but this has not prevented interpreters from speculating about who this figure might be.28 Two major candidates have emerged in the interpretive tradition.29 Some see this as a reference to God, who acts as the community’s teacher.30 Others see this as a reference to a prophetic figure who also fills this role for the community.31 Blenksinopp adopts a modified form of this position by claiming that the figure in question is probably a deceased teacher whose guidance is taken as the divine graciousness.32 The larger context supports the view that the figure is likely a prophetic teacher, but since what the prophet teaches ostensibly comes from YHWH this may be a distinction with little difference. The idea that the community is instructed by a teacher recalls v. 9’s insistence that the prophetic word is ‫ תורת יהוה‬which comes via the pro25  Unlike vv. 8–17, YHWH is the subject of verbs of action in this section. The effect of this is to re-focus attention on YHWH as the central actor in Judah’s fate. 26  MT points the term as a plural, “teachers” but the singular verb (‫ )יכנף‬indicates that the word should be read as a singular. The LXX takes it as a plural but also supplies a different meaning: πλανώντας, “deceivers.” Beuken’s suggestion that the first reference should be understood as a plural (“teachers”) and the second as a singular (“Teacher” = God) creates more problems than it solves; see Beuken, “Isaiah 30,” 379. 27  This is a hapax legomenon, but it is synonymous with the idea expressed in Isa 8:17 where the prophet pledges to wait on YHWH who has “hidden his face” (‫ )המסתיר פניו‬from Jacob. 28  The term is rare in the Hebrew Bible. In Job 36:22 the term refers to God, but in Prov 5:13 it appears to refer to those who provided wisdom and counsel throughout one’s life. See also Gen 12:6; Deut 11:30; and Judg 7:1, all of which identified locations. The notion is taken up and developed most extensively, of course, in the community associated with ‫מורה הצדק‬, “the teacher of righteousness,” who is prominent among several of the sectarian scrolls found in the remains of the caves around Qumran (especially the Damascus Document). 29  For a discussion, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Who is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who Will No Longer Remain Hidden?” in Recognising the Margins: Developments in Biblical and Theological Studies, eds. Werner G. Jeanrond and Andrew D. H. Mayes (Dublin: The Columba Press, 2006), 9–23. 30  E. g., Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 174. 31  E. g., Roberts, Isaiah 1–39, 394 (who recognizes ambiguity in the term but ultimately decides it probably refers to the prophet). 32  Blenkinsopp, “Who is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20,” 15: “[T]hose addressed … are being promised an expression of divine favour in the form of the teaching, guidance and example of a prophetic figure, a leader, now inaccessible in person; perhaps in hiding, perhaps imprisoned, but most likely deceased.”

454

J. Todd Hibbard

phet. The sense here is of a community without prophetic direction but which is now remedied in this revelatory moment. Additionally, v. 20c speaks of a word (‫ )דבר‬that they will hear behind them, suggestive of prophetic instruction meant to guide their conduct (“this is the way, walk in it;” v. 21). The direction provided by the teacher contrasts with that presumed to be available from their idols and images, now defiled and tossed aside (v. 22). Verses 23–26 comprise the second subunit in the section. The imagery shifts to emphasize the fecundity of the land and cosmic effect of YHWH’s beneficence “on that day” (‫ ;ביום ההוא‬v. 23). Indeed, v. 23 presents YHWH giving (‫ )נתן‬rain for the people’s seed, which stands in direct contrast to v. 20 where YHWH gave (‫ )נתן‬bread and water associated with calamity.33 Here, crops grow in abundance and cattle graze in wide pastures and feed on “seasoned fodder” (‫)בליל חמץ‬. Brooks streaming with water will flow on every hill and mountain. The idyllic imagery is interrupted and incongruously replaced with imagery of a day of “great slaughter” and falling towers. This presumably reflects the day on which the community’s enemy is brought to heel. Abundant light, described in poetic excess, signals divine blessing. The day of great slaughter in v. 25 stands in contrast with the day on which YHWH binds up (‫ )חבש‬the wound (‫ )מכה‬of his people in v. 26, echoing Isa 1:6 where the text laments a country characterized by a raw wound (‫ )מכה טריה‬that has not been bound (‫)חבש‬. Much of this language occurs in sections of the book devoted to the crises brought on by Assyrian involvement in Israel’s and Judah’s affairs, a fact that suggests this hopeful future envisions a reversal of fortunes in the light of Assyria’s retreat from the region in 701 BCE.34 In fact, the next section, 30:27–33, includes an explicit statement of this sentiment using the same language: “For Assyria will be terrorized at the sound of YHWH, when he strikes (‫ )יכה‬with his rod” (30:31). Scholars are divided on the date to which vv. 18–26 should be ascribed. Proposals run the gamut from the 8th century to later in the 2nd temple period. For example, Roberts argues that the verses are later than vv. 8–17, but not much.35 Sweeney, on the other hand, associates v. 18 with the 8th century Isaiah and dates vv. 19–26 to the Josianic period. He sees it as part of the Josianic additions to Isaiah that reinterpret and apply the text to the circumstances of Josiah’s reign and reform.36 He sees the concern with idolatry and promise of rain and agricultural abundance and not deviating to the right or the left as well as the alternation between second person plural and singular forms as indications of 33  Beuken, “Isaiah 30,” 376. Beuken also notes the structural importance of the two clauses beginning with ‫נתן‬, but he interprets them as forming “a twofold promise according to the schema ‘solicitous guidance during the wandering’ and ‘a solicitous sojourn in the land.’” I find his interpretation of the first clause difficult to accept. 34  For example, Isaiah often envisions Assyria’s military assault as a striking (‫ )נכה‬or having inflicted wounds (‫)מכה‬. See, e. g., 1:5; 5:25; 9:12; 10:20, 26; 14:6, 29; 37:36, 38. 35  Roberts, First Isaiah, 392. 36  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 394–96.



A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701

455

Deuteronomic concerns and style. Finally, Blenkinsopp also sees vv. 19–26 as a later addition, but he calls it a 2nd temple comment.37 He situates the passages in this period largely based on what he sees as their rhetorical and theological fit with concerns of this later period, though without offering much argumentation for his view. These three proposals are representative of the dating proposals one finds among scholars.38 It is clear that a lack of consensus exists, in part because the language is so non-specific. In my view, the verses are a later addition but need not be seen as significantly later than vv. 8–17. In particular, the address to the people of Jerusalem who are weeping and in need of YHWH’s intervention seems plausible for the period of Sennacherib’s assault on Jerusalem in 701 BCE. Additionally, interpreting Assyria’s aggression as a wound inflicted by the divine blow is consistent with Isaiah’s view of Assyrian aggression elsewhere (e. g., Isa 10:5–6).

3.  Is Isaiah 30:18–26 a Fortschreibung of Isa 30:8–17? Now that each unit has been examined on its own, it remains to determine how vv. 18–26 act as a Fortschreibung or updating of vv. 8–17 motivated by the idea of YHWH’s salvation. Sweeney has argued that the latter section has no explicit connection with the former. It is simply a case of “literary juxtaposition.”39 It is true that there is little explicit linguistic connection between the two. However, as I have noted, v. 18 plays a pivotal role both in the composition of vv. 19–26 and in providing linkage with vv. 8–17. This suggests that there may be more of a connection than is often granted.40 Whether one regards v. 18 as the opening of the subsequent section or the closing of the previous section, it is clear that it stands at a pivotal juncture between the two units. As noted earlier, it changes the tone of the preceding verses from judgment to hope, but in a way that connects with what goes before. Jerusalem’s decision to curry favor with Egypt is calamitous but the community can still expect YHWH’s grace. YHWH’s salvation awaits. The inclusion of v. 18 means that the word of judgment is not final but that the community can expect YHWH’s deliverance, precisely what the remainder of the section spells out. Granting that no strong verbal connection exists between the two sections how, then, do vv. 18–26 still act as an updating of the previous section? Evidence exists to conclude that the later updater took a cue from certain elements of 37  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 420. Similarly, Wildberger situates the passage in the early postexilic period; see Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 172. 38  Proposals that date the passage to the period of Antiochus IV are, in my view, far too late in light of the textual evidence for the book of Isaiah found at Qumran. See, e. g., O. K aiser, Isaiah 13–39, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 301. 39  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 395. 40  Sweeney himself recognizes this; see ibid., 397.

456

J. Todd Hibbard

vv. 8–17 in the composition of this expansion. In the remainder of this study I wish to explicate these in order to understand how this section envisions the process of updating pre-existing oracles in Isaiah. In short, might this be an example of a larger strategy? Three elements in vv. 8–17 provided important pieces of the rationale for incorporating vv. 18–26 here: the reference to a written text for a later time (v. 8); the idea of missed salvation (v. 15); and the role of intermediaries (v. 10). The first element that we must attend to is the command in v. 8 to inscribe the message as a witness for a later time. This is one of three references to a written prophetic message in Isaiah (see also 8:1; 29:11–12), all of which convey some notion that the message’s written quality enables the prophecy to exist for a future purpose. In vv. 8–11, the directive to record the message is connected with the people’s insistence that intermediaries cease providing prophetic instruction that could adequately guide the people. The statement that the message is written for some later time invites later contributors to the book, or even Isaiah himself, to envision the application and construction of that message in a different, later context. This is precisely what we encounter in vv. 18–26. In other words, the later time spoken of in v. 8 is understood by a later author to have arrived, prompting the addition in which the prophet addresses the people.41 As a result, the idea that the prophetic message is for a later time becomes the basis for the prophet’s claim in v. 18b that those who wait for YHWH are happy or blessed. The reference to a later period point to waiting on YHWH. Even if what is recorded in v. 8 is derived from v. 7’s description of Egypt, it is quite clear that subsequent circumstances alter YHWH’s disposition toward the people of Jerusalem. The message of judgment remembered becomes a message of hope and blessing anticipated. Second, the reference to the other intermediaries in 30:10, the ‫ חזים‬and the ‫ראים‬, along with the community’s demand that they cease performing their intermediary function connects with the introduction of the ‫מורה‬, the teacher, in 30:20b. Both play a significant role in communicating YHWH’s directive to the community. The path (‫ )דרך‬that the earlier intermediaries point to and which the community demands that they turn away from (v. 11a) becomes the path on which the teacher commands them to walk (v. 21b). The community’s unwillingness to listen (‫ )שמוﬠ‬in v. 9 gives way to a message in v. 21 that they will hear (‫ )תשמﬠנה‬the teacher’s message coming from behind them. Here, ‫ אחר‬carries the sense of what is past; hence, they will hear a word from their past (perhaps vv. 8–17). What is more, the later author contrasts the people’s disinclination to listen to YHWH’s word (v. 10) with YHWH’s responsiveness to their cry: “when he hears it he will answer you” (v. 19b). 41 

Ibid., 391. There is no reason such a later time must be in the distant future. Rather, the future of the immediate crisis involving Assyria makes good sense.



A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701

457

We might also note a contrast with what is seen in each section. The demand in 30:11b that the intermediaries stop putting the Holy One of Israel in front of them transitions in 30:20b to their eyes seeing their teacher. While the earlier section castigated the people for failing to heed what the “seers” (‫ )ראים‬disclosed to them, in the latter section we read that, in fact, their teacher has hidden himself from them and is only now revealing himself. The hermeneutics of the addition, then, point to a reconceptualization of how the community hears and receives YHWH’s instruction. The people’s earlier reliance on oppression, deceit, and a rejection of the prophetic word is replaced by their hope in YHWH and his prophetic instruction. Third, scholars generally agree that 30:15 constitutes one of if not the earliest uses of the verbal root ‫ ישﬠ‬in Isaiah.42 As discussed earlier, this passage declares that had Jerusalem’s elites followed the prophetic instruction from Isaiah they would have been delivered in their moment of crisis. However, they did not. It seems that the latter tradent who added vv. 18–26 read the reference to a text inscribed for latter days along with this note about salvation or deliverance and crafted a message that explores that idea for a latter time and context. In other words, he asked what salvation from YHWH for the community would, in fact, look like and vv. 18–26 spell that out. These words constitute YHWH’s gracious and merciful salvation for a later audience. Included within this re-application of the idea of salvation is the recognition that, while Israel suffered because of their earlier reliance on Egypt, the later era of salvation will will be a “day of great slaughter when the towers fall” (v. 25) an obscure text pointing to YHWH’s deliverance from military or political foes.43 It is possible that this imagery is meant contrast with the imagery of the falling wall in v. 13. The second half of the latter unit, vv. 23–26, relies on natural imagery suggestive of blessing, prosperity, and abundance. Landscapes with flowing water and animals feeding in abundant meadows create a Kincade-like image of harmony and tranquility. Verse 25 notes that every mountain (‫ )הר‬and hill (‫ )גבﬠה‬will have brooks running with water. This image stands in marked contrast to the image that concludes the previous section in v. 17: the people are diminished and left alone like a staff on top of a mountain (‫ )הר‬or a signal on a hill (‫)גבﬠה‬, metaphors for an isolated and exposed community. Indeed, the quietness and rest that the community should have sought in v. 15 is portrayed in dramatic fashion in vv. 23–25. Finally, the first section imagines a community that experiences complete and utter defeat because they followed poor military and political policy. This 42  See P. E. Bonnard, “‫ישﬠ‬,” TDOT 6:458. Bonnard argues that this is the only use of ‫ישﬠ‬ by the eighth century Isaiah. 43  On this phrase, see Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 180–81, who associates it both with the older “day of YHWH” traditions as well as Isa 2:12–15 (gesturing toward the downfall of towers and arrogance).

458

J. Todd Hibbard

results in a wounded and damaged community. Indeed, this was certainly the case in the aftermath of Hezekiah’s questionable decision to rebel against the Assyrians.44 However, vv. 20 and 26 envision the community’s wound as the result of YHWH’s actions, not Assyria’s. It is YHWH who gives bread of adversity, water of affliction, and wounds his people. Consequently, it is YHWH who takes the lead in healing and binding up the wound of his people (v. 26b). If we date 30:8–17 in connection with the decision by Jerusalem’s leaders to court Egyptian assistance in the midst of Sennacherib’s assault on Judah during his third campaign, then understanding 30:18–26 in relation to Sennacherib’s failure to capture Jerusalem during this crisis makes sense. While it would be foolish to think that a text with such vague referents could be situated into a historical context with certainty, the plausibility of this linkage suggests we might here be witnessing how Isaiah or his close followers updated prophecies in light of subsequent factors.

4. Conclusion This paper has sought to imagine how Isa 30:18–26 functions as a Fortschreibung of Isa 30:8–17, or at least how the latter section takes its cues from the former. Of particular importance is the role of v. 18 in connecting the two sections. The earlier judgment oracle is now followed by a note of YHWH’s gracious salvation that provides hope for the community in important ways. While limited verbal and linguistic connections do exist between the two sections, the strongest evidence for a connection resides in how vv. 18–26 pick up themes and ideas from vv. 8–17 in order to express how it envisions this salvation. As such it stands as, perhaps, one of the earliest examples of how a later tradent – perhaps even Isaiah himself – could develop a hermeneutic of reading earlier prophecies in the composition of subsequent oracles.

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter. “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet.” Pages 16–48 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. Edited by John Emerton. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Baruchi-Unna, Amitai. “‘Your Servant and Son I Am’: Aspects of the Assyrian Imperial Experience of Judah.” Pages 119–38 in The Southern Levant Under Assyrian Domination. Edited by Shawn Zelig Aster and Avraham Faust. University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2018. 44  This point is confirmed both by the biblical text and the Assyrian inscriptions. For example, both note Hezekiah’s large payment to Sennacherib and the loss of a significant number of towns. Even though Jerusalem survived, the cost in human suffering would have been high as well.



A Fortschreibung from the Assyrian Crisis of 701

459

Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Beuken, Willem A. M. “Isaiah 30: A  Prophetic Oracle Transmitted in Two Successive Paradigms.” Pages 369–97 in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. I. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSupp 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Hezekiah and the Babylonian Delegation: A Critical Reading of Isaiah 39:1–8.” Pages 107–22 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context. Edited by Yairah Amit et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. –. Isaiah 1–39. AYBC 19. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. –. “Who is the Teacher in Isaiah 30:20 Who will no Longer Remain Hidden?” Pages 9–23 in Recognising the Margins: Developments in Biblical and Theological Studies: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. Edited by Wener G. Jeanrond and Andrew D. H. Mayes. Dublin: Columba, 2006. Bonnard, P. E. “‫ישﬠ‬.” TDOT 6:456–77. Cathcart, Kevin J. “Isaiah 30:15 ‫ בשובה ונחת‬and Akkadian šubat nēḫti/šubtu nēḫtu, ‘Quiet Abode.” Pages 45–56 in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. VTSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Childs, Brevard. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. –. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. SBT. London: SCM, 1967. Exum, Cheryl J. “Of Broken Pots, Fluttering Birds, and Visions in the Night: Extended Simile and Poetic Technique in Isaiah.” CBQ 43 (1981): 331–52. Gallagher, William R. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. CHANE 18. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Grabbe, Lester L. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Rev. ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Grayson, A. Kirk and Jamie R. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. RINAP 3/1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Hamilton, Mark W. “Isaiah 32 as Literature and Political Meditation.” JBL 131/4 (2012): 663–84. K aiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Laberge, L. “Isa 30,19–26: A Deuteronomic Text?” Eglise et théologie 2 (1971): 335–54. Matty, Nazek Khalid. Sennacherib’s Campaign Against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B. C.: A Historical Reconstruction. BZAW 487. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Ussishkin, David. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish, and Jerusalem.” Pages 339–58 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman. Edited by Yairah Amit et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 28–39. Translated by Thomas A. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Wong, G. C. I. “Faith and Works in Isaiah XXX 15.” VT 47 (1997): 236–46.

“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken” Isaiah 30:27–33 as Inverted Political Prophecy Reinhard Müller 1. Introduction In the so-called Ashur cycle of Proto-Isaiah (Isa 28–31), the name of Ashur occurs prominently in Isa 30:31:

Yea, at the voice of Yhwh Ashur will be terror stricken, when he strikes with a rod.

‫כי מקול יהוה יחת אשור‬ ‫בשבט יכה‬

While the four woe sayings that open Isa 28, 29, 30, and 31 seem to refer to particular political events of the late eighth century in which Ashur played a decisive role,1 the Assyrian empire is – apart from Isa 30:31 and 31:8 – nowhere else mentioned by name in these chapters.2 Egypt, by contrast, is mentioned several times by name in the Ashur cycle (Isa 30:2, 3, 7; 31:1, 3), which originally could have been related to political contacts between Judah and Egypt during Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyrian domination in 705–701 BCE.3 While the name “Ashur” is almost absent from Isa 28–31 (with the exception of 30:31 and 31:8), there are several passages in this section that probably refer to the Assyrian empire of the late eighth century. For example, ch. 28 alludes in all likelihood in more than one passage to the military power of the Assyrian 1 Jan Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31, WMANT 130 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011). Cf. also Uwe Becker, Jesaja  – von der Botschaft zum Buch, FRLANT 178 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 223–68, who, although he does not find any early sayings from the eighth century in Isa 29–31, attributes two core texts of Isa 28 to the earliest Isaianic prophecy of the eighth century. On the other hand, Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Jes 28–31 als Fortschreibung,” in Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II, FAT 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 177–97, suggests reading Isa 28–31 as basically resulting from Fortschreibung of earlier texts – a perspective that could be crucial for understanding Isa 30:27–33 (see below section 4). 2  Cf. outside of Isa 28–31 the attestations of ‫ אשור‬in Isa 7:17–18, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:5, 12, 24; 11:11, 16; 14:25; 19:23–25; 20:1, 4, 6; 23:13; 27:13; 30:31; 31:8; frequently in chs. 36–38; and 52:4. 3  See Reinhard Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht: Jesajas “Verstockungsauftrag” (Jes 6,9–11) und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 124 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2012), 46–62.

462

Reinhard Müller

king, first in an oracle in Isa 28:1–4 that announces the imminent downfall of “Ephraim” by “one who is mighty and strong; / like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest, / like a storm of mighty, overflowing waters” (28:2). This oracle fits best the situation briefly after the anti-Assyrian rebellion of Israel’s last king, Hoshea, and before the final collapse of the Northern Kingdom.4 The mighty one who is “like a storm of mighty, overflowing waters” (‫ )כזרם מים כבירים שטפים‬is probably no one other than the Assyrian king, which correlates with the fact that the Assyrian kings in their inscriptions repeatedly compared their military power with storm and flood.5 Second, Isa 28:15–18 revolves around a saying of the addressees that mentions an “overflowing scourge,” against which the addressees seek protection (28:15): We have cut a covenant with Death, and with Sheol we have made a treaty: An overflowing scourge, when it passes through, it will not come to us!

The conclusion of this word in Isa 28:18 states that this defensive treaty will be in vain: An overflowing scourge, when it passes through, you will be trampled down by it!

The most probable explanation of this peculiar saying is that it refers to Hezekiah’s negotiations with Egypt to form a protective alliance against the expected retaliation by the Assyrians. The motif of the overflowing scourge has distinct parallels in neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions that refer to the whip or scourge of the Assyrian storm god Adad in the context of the military campaigns of the Assyrian king that were always understood as acts of divine judgment against disloyal vassals. Thus, the motif of the overflowing scourge in Isa 28:15–18 probably refers to the destructive force of the Assyrian king and his army, and it may imply that the scourge is wielded not by the Assyrian 4  E. g., Hans Wildberger, Jesaja, vol.  3, BK 10.3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 1982), 1045–46; Matthijs 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), 98; Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja, 90–93; also Becker, Jesaja, 227–28, although he evaluates the references to the “mighty one” in v. 2, which seem to refer to Ashur as Yhwh’s tool of judgment, as secondary. An origin in the eighth century was, however, questioned by Otto K aiser, Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39, ATD 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 189–90, who opted for an origin in the late fourth century and postulated a potential allusion to the temple on Mt. Gerizim. 5 See, e.  g., Friedhelm Hartenstein, “JHWH und der ‘Schreckensglanz’ Assurs (Jesaja 8,6–8): Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur ‘Denkschrift’ Jesaja 6–8*,” in Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011), 1–30, here 16–23.



“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”

463

Adad but by Yhwh who had formerly used the Assyrian power to strike the Samarian kingdom.6 Isaiah 30:27–33 – one of two passages in Isa 28–31 where the name “Ashur” (‫ )אשור‬occurs – seems to be related to this imagery. Particularly noteworthy is the motif of an “overflowing stream” (‫ )נחל שוטף‬in v. 28 “that reaches up to the neck.” The verb ‫“ שטף‬to overflow” is also used most prominently in Isa 28:2 and 28:15, 18. However, compared with these passages the situation portrayed is inverted. According to Isa 30:28, it is Yhwh’s “breath” that “is like an overflowing stream,” and in v. 30 Ashur appears as the object of Yhwh’s anger, in contrast to the “one who is mighty and strong” in Isa 28:2 and to the overflowing scourge in 28:15, 18, both of which can be seen as Yhwh’s weapons. How can this particular inversion of motifs and logic found in Isa 30:27–33 be explained?

2.  Structure and Composition of Isa 30:27–33 Isaiah 30:27–33 is a most complicated text containing several problems that concern its textual transmission, the semantics of certain words and phrases, and its syntactical and stylistic structure. In this context, brief remarks have to suffice. The densest cluster of textual and grammatical problems is found in vv. 32–33. It can be argued that these verses are stylistically separated from the preceding text. While vv. 27–31 basically contain a poetic structure, including several synonymous parallelisms, this does not hold true for the last two verses of ch. 30. To be sure, many exegetes have tried to read also these verses as poetry,7 but no convincing results could be achieved. As noted by Herbert Donner, vv. 32–33 are composed as prose.8 In addition, it seems that vv. 32–33, which are in part difficult to understand,9 try to visualize in odd detail what is stated in the preceding text, particularly in 6 Friedhelm Hartenstein, “Tempelgründung als ‘fremdes Werk’: Beobachtungen zum ‘Ecksteinwort’ Jesaja 28,16–17,” in Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011), 31–61; Reinhard Müller, “Adad’s Overflowing Scourge and the Weather God of Zion: Observations on Motif History in Isa 28:14–18,” in Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, BZAW 461 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 257–77. 7  E. g., Hermann Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 92; W. A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 28–39, trans. A. Spans, HTKAT (Freiburg im Breisbau: Herder, 2010), 155. 8 Herbert Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda, VTSup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 163. See also Wildberger, Jesaja, 1207, who discerned that v. 32 is formulated in prose but tried to discern a poetic structure in v. 33. 9  See esp. Wildberger, Jesaja, 1209–210.

464

Reinhard Müller

v. 31 (“… Ashur will be terror stricken, / when he strikes with a rod”). The textus emendatus of v. 3210 speaks about Yhwh’s “staff of punishment” (‫)מטה מוסרה‬ “that Yhwh lays upon him” (‫)אשר יניח יהוה עליו‬ – which can be interpreted as an attempt at explicating v. 31b. The following motif of timbrels and lyres (‫בתפים‬ ‫ )ובכנרות‬seems to continue the imagery of v. 29. The timbrels, which resume the mention of musical instruments in v. 29, are reminiscent of Miriam’s song at the sea in Exod 15:20. If the old conjecture of reading ‫“ ובמחלות‬and with dancing” instead of ‫“ ובמלחמות‬and in battles”11 is accepted – the similar consonants suggest that the transmitted text goes back to a copying mistake – the connection with Exod 15 is additionally strengthened. Verse 33 with the very peculiar motif of a “burning place” (‫ תפת‬txt. emd.)12 seems related to Yhwh’s “fire” and “furnace” on Zion in Isa 31:8, but in addition it points more specifically to the tophet in Jerusalem that is mentioned in 2 Kgs 23:10 and in the book of Jeremiah.13 In the context of Isa 30, this motif resumes the initial lively description of Yhwh’s burning anger (v. 27); in particular, the motif of Yhwh’s breath (‫ )רוח‬that opens v. 28 is resumed with the synonymous term ‫ נשמת יהוה‬in v. 33, thus creating a kind of inclusio. However, it is questionable whether vv. 32–33 with their strange and allusive imagery were sketched from the outset as a conclusion of the entire passage of vv. 27–33. It is not clear that the imagery in vv. 27–28 was created to lead into the peculiar motifs of vv. 32–33. Rather, vv. 32–33 seem to resume motifs from the preceding text in order to depict something new, namely Yhwh’s decisive fight against Ashur, which takes place, like his victory at the sea, to the sound of music (v. 32), and Ashur’s final fate to be burned in a large tophet fueled by Yhwh’s breath (v. 33) – a somber imagery particularly similar to the Edom apocalypse (cf. Isa 34:9–10). It is difficult to imagine that these verses were an original part of the composition that begins in Isa 30:27. Hans Wildberger’s proposal that v. 32 is a secondary supplement is convincing, but the originality of v. 33 has to be doubted as well. To be sure, both passages do not necessarily stem from the same hand, since there is no close connection between vv. 32 and 33. In addition, the parenthesis in v. 33a (‫]גם הוא למלך הוכן‬14‫“ [ה‬is also he made ready for Melek?”) seems to have been interpolated at a later stage. 10  I. e., ‫מּוסרֹה‬ ָ with some medieval Hebrew manuscripts (e. g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 1209); ָ ‫“ ַמ ֵּטה‬the staff of foundation” (similarly 1QIsaa ‫“ מוסדו‬of his foundation”) is imposMT’s ‫מּוס ָדה‬ sible to understand and probably goes back to a misreading of the letter ‫ר‬. 11  Hugo Gressmann, Der Messias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929), 111 n. 1; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1209. 12 The ‫ ה‬in ‫ ָּת ְפ ֶּתה‬probably goes back to an original he-interrogativum introducing the following parenthesis (Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 163; K aiser, Der Prophet Jesaja, 243 with n. 3); alternatively, it could be interpreted as an original suffix of the third-person singular “his burning place” (Wildberger, Jesaja, 1210). 13  Jer 7:31–32; 19:6, 11–14. 14  See n. 12.

“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”



465

Apart from the difficult vv. 32–33, the structure is somewhat clearer. Verses 27–28 describe the approach of the furious Yhwh which has a devastating effect on the peoples. The imagery is resumed in v. 30, which contains a dense cluster of motifs deeply rooted in the theophany tradition. Verse 31, where the name “Ashur” occurs, is connected with this imagery, both by mention of ‫“ קול יהוה‬the voice of Yhwh” (see ‫“ הוד קולו‬his majestic voice” in v. 30) and by the motif of striking with a rod (‫ )בשבט יכה‬which continues the motif of “the descending blow of his arm” (‫ )נחת זרועו‬in v. 30. Verse 29 interrupts this sequence by addressing a group of people with the second-person plural: ‫“ … השיר יהיה לכם‬The song will be for you …” Such a second-person plural address occurs nowhere else in vv. 27–33; it links the passage with preceding oracles in the chapter (see vv. 12–17, 18, 20, 21, 22). In addition, the imagery of the nightly festival is only loosely connected with the surrounding text, but its tendency accords with the oracles of salvation in vv. 18–26 (cf. particularly the mention of “Zion” in v. 19). Apart from this passage, the expression ‫“ הר יהוה‬the mountain of Yhwh” occurs in Isaiah only in the oracle concerning the nation’s pilgrimage to Zion (Isa 2:3);15 and the term ‫“ צור ישראל‬the rock of Israel” is attested only outside of Isaiah in the so-called last words of David in 2 Sam 23:3.16 Furthermore, like vv. 32–33, this passage reads as rhythmic prose rather than poetry. In sum, it is therefore probable that v. 29 was added later, as proposed by Wildberger.17 The verse interprets the surrounding poetic description as a song for a pilgrimage festival at Mount Zion. This association may have been inspired by the fact that the theophany tradition was rooted in a cultic background, which can be seen in prayers and hymns to the weather god Yhwh, such as Pss 18 and 29.18

3.  Motifs and Meaning of Isa 30:27–31* (27) See,



{the name of }19 Yhwh comes from far away, burning with his anger, ,20

15 Notable parallels outside Isaiah which refer to Yhwh’s mountain as the place of his sanctuary are Ps 24:3 and Zech 8:3. 16  Some exegetes have regarded the text of v. 29 as secondarily expanded either by ‫בהר יהוה‬ “on the mountain of Yhwh” (Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 96) or ‫“ אל צור ישראל‬to the rock of Israel” (Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung, WMANT 10, 2nd ed. [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977], 57); both options seem possible but it is difficult to reconstruct the development conclusively (Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja, 367). 17  Wildberger, Jesaja, 1219–220. 18 Reinhard Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen, BZAW 387 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 29–36 and 115–22. 19  The reference to the name does not entirely fit the following semianthropomorphic depiction of Yhwh and therefore may have been added secondarily; Wildberger, Jesaja,

466

Reinhard Müller

his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is like a devouring fire;

(28) his



breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck – to swing the nations with disastrous swing, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads them astray.

(30) And



Yhwh will cause his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devouring fire, with a cloudburst and tempest and hailstones.

(31) Yea,



Ashur will be terror stricken at the voice of Yhwh, when he strikes with a rod.

The text begins by addressing Yhwh’s (or his name’s)21 approach “from far away” (‫)ממרחק‬. The theophany tradition may provide a general background for this motif,22 but it seems that in the Isaianic context it has a more specific function. Isaiah 5:26 describes prominently how Yhwh “raises a signal ,23 / and whistles for it at the end of the earth.” In the following, the approaching army – which remains anonymous but may nevertheless be identified with the Assyrians24 – is vividly depicted (Isa 5:26–28). It seems probable that the motif of Yhwh’s approach “from far away” in Isa 30:27 alludes to this particular description25 – and at the same time inverts the motif 1207. Alternatively, as considered particularly by Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, HKAT 3.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1902), 195, the expression ‫ שם יהוה‬may be understood as designating Yhwh himself, i. e., meaning “the one whose name is Yhwh”; for parallelizing Yhwh and his name cf. esp. Ps 54:3, 8–9, where the divine name can even be mentioned as the subject of the supplicant’s deliverance (v. 9a: “for he [i. e., Yhwh’s name] has delivered me from every trouble”). Expressions like these could have been the monarchic background of the Deuteronomistic (and probably postmonarchic) concept of hypostasizing the name of Yhwh (Deut 12:5, 11 etc.). However, in the book of Isaiah the term ‫“ שם יהוה‬the name of Yhwh” is notably distributed in the entire book and occurs particularly in Deutero- and Trito-Isaianic passages (Isa 18:7; 24:15; 48:1; 50:10; 56:6; 59:19; 60:9), which supports the assumption that the word ‫ שם‬was in Isa 30:27 secondarily interpolated. De Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 116–17, wants to read ‫“ ָׁשם‬there” instead, which, however, seems difficult to imagine in view of the word order. 20  Thus with Theodotion and Peshitta, possibly to be read as ‫ּׂשאֹה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ָכ ֵבד ַמ‬. MT reads ‫ְוכ ֶֹבד‬ ‫“ ַמ ָּׂשָאה‬and heaviness is the burden.” 21  See n. 19. 22  Wildberger, Jesaja, 1216–217. That the deity approaches from far away may be implied in the ancient theophany texts Pss 18:9–11 and 29:3; furthermore, one may also think of the deity’s approach from the south, attested in Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4; Hab 3:3; and Ps 68:8; however, Isa 30:27 is not specifically related to the idea that the deity approaches from the south. 23  Likely to be read as ‫ =( לגוי ממרחק‬Jer 5:15); BHS. The reading of the MT ‫“ לגוים מרחוק‬for nations from far away” does not fit to the ensuing singular references and probably goes back to a mistaken word division. 24  Wildberger, Jesaja, 223. 25  E. g., Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 101; Jörg Barthel, Prophetenwort und



“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”

467

of an approach from far away; here it is not a foreign army that is commanded by Yhwh to come near from a distant location but it is Yhwh himself who is depicted as approaching from afar. A difficult passage is found in the next colon, namely in the Masoretic phrase ‫וְ כֹבֶ ד ַמ ָּׂשָאה‬, which probably has to be read as ‫“ ְו ָכ ֵבד ַמ ָּׂשאֹה‬and his burden is heavy.”26 Much has been written on the meaning of these words, which remains difficult to ascertain.27 The term ‫“ משאה‬burden” may allude to the very peculiar saying of Isa 30:6–7, which is opened by the words ‫“ משא בהמות נגב‬the burden of the animals of the South.”28 Much clearer is the imagery of the first two cola of v. 28. As mentioned above, the motif of the overflowing stream is closely related to the motif of overflowing (‫ )שטף‬in Isa 28:2 and 28:15–18. Even more important is the clear connection between Isa 30:28 and the crucial passage Isa 8:8, which depicts a rising stream flooding Judah and “reaching up to the neck.” In all likelihood, this particular motif is an echo of Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE,29 and Isa 30:28 inverts this motif in remarkable way; instead of Sennacherib’s army it is now Yhwh’s “breath” (‫“ )רוחו‬that reaches up to the neck.” The original motif of the furious storm god in whose mouth a fire is burning (see Ps 18:9) is thus broken up in order to depict Yhwh’s breath as the overflowing stream. The continuation in the last two cola of Isa 30:28 sets this imagery in a worldwide horizon. Yhwh is going “to swing the nations with disastrous swing, / and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads them astray.” This peculiar formulation envisages a universal act of divine judgment in which Yhwh causes chaos among the peoples. But what is meant with the motif of the “bridle that leads astray”? A somewhat similar image is found in the Isaiah legends where Yhwh announces that he will put a hook and a bridle in Sennacherib’s nose and mouth to bring him back to where he came from (2 Kgs 19:28/Isa 37:29), but it is not clear that Isa 30:28 refers particularly to this passage of the Isaiah legends. The motif of the bridle (‫ )רסן‬in Isa 30:28 may more generally allude to the Assyrian practice of humiliating prisoners and disloyal vassals.30 The peculiar combination of the bridle with the divine act of leading someone astray seems to take up the conspicuous motif of that divine misguidance which is crucial for the book of Isaiah (see esp. Isa 6:9–10). The verb ‫“ תעה‬to go astray” is used twice in the harsh polemic against the drunken priests and prophets in Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 265. 26  See n. 20. 27  See, e. g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 1207–208 and 1218. 28 See Wildberger, Jesaja, 1158; Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 52. 29  Hartenstein, “JHWH und der ‘Schreckensglanz’ Assurs (Jesaja 8,6–8),” 23–25, who considers that the flood imagery in Isa 8:7–8 betrays specific knowledge of Esarhaddon’s interpretation of Sennacherib’s act of destroying Babylon (689 BCE). 30  Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 101–2.

468

Reinhard Müller

Isa 28:7–10 (v. 7a, b),31 and Isa 30:28 inverts this imagery by applying it to the peoples. Verse 30 is more closely connected with the traditional imagery of Yhwh’s epiphany in the thunderstorm. The mention of the divine voice is particularly reminiscent of Ps 29:3–9, and the motifs of “cloudburst, tempest, and hailstones” clearly belong to the imagery of the weather god.32 The peculiar tendency of inverting specific Isaianic passages can also be observed in this context. In Isa 28:2, tempest (‫ )זרם‬and hailstones (‫ )אבן ברד‬are associated with the one “who is mighty and strong,” whom Yhwh sends against the Samarian kingdom. In contrast with this oracle, Yhwh directs the destructive energy of the storm against Ashur, as v. 31 reveals: “Yea, Ashur will be terror stricken at the voice of Yhwh, / when he strikes with a rod.” The second colon is especially ambivalent, and, at first glance, it remains unclear who is the subject of striking, Yhwh or Ashur.33 However, as mentioned before, in light of the motif of Yhwh’s descending arm in v. 30, it is probable that no one other than Yhwh is meant.34 Nevertheless, the Hebrew text leaves both options open. This deliberate ambivalence could allude to other passages which connect the motif of the rod, implicitly or explicitly, with Ashur itself. A text that could particularly stand in the background of Isa 30:31 is Isa 14:29: Do not rejoice, all you Philistines, that the rod that struck you (‫ )שבט מכך‬is broken, for from the root of the snake will come forth an adder, and its fruit will be a flying fiery serpent!

This saying could have referred to the death of an Assyrian king, possibly Tiglath-pileser III, and the ensuing continuation of Assyrian oppression.35 Other passages in Proto-Isaiah develop the motif of the rod further but there are no specific features linking Isa 30:31 with them.36 In the context of Isa 30:27–31 the 31 See

Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 34–41. Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 109–20. 33 Cf. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 197, who therefore suggested that ‫“ בשבט יכה‬when he strikes with a rod” goes back to a gloss related to the beginning of v. 32, which is, however, not necessary to assume. 34  E. g., August Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja, 6th ed. (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1898), 278; Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 39. 35  E. g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 578–79. 36  Cf. esp. Isa 10:5 which explicitly calls Ashur the rod of Yhwh’s anger; the specific theme of Isa 10:5–15 is Ashur’s hubris against Yhwh (see Reinhard Müller, “From Carchemish and Calno [Isa 10:9] to the Book of Isaiah: Paradigmatic Images of Imperial Hubris in Isa 10:5–15,” in Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires, ed. Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Joachim Schaper, FRLANT 277 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020], 61–80) – a topic that plays no discernible role in Isa 30:27–33*. Another conspicuous parallel is the expression ‫“ בשבט יככה‬when (Ashur) beats you with a rod” in Isa 10:24; thus, K aiser, Der Prophet Jesaja, 243, and Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt, HBS 16 (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1998), 239, postulate that Isa 30:31 quotes Isa 10:24 – which would 32 See



“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”

469

motif of the striking rod is again inverted. “Ashur will be terror stricken,” when “he,” namely Yhwh, “strikes with a rod.” This suggests that Yhwh’s rod does not continue to be Ashur but is now someone else, and Ashur itself has become the object of Yhwh’s wrath.

4.  Tentative Historical Considerations and Conclusions In light of the intricate and peculiar connections between this text and other passages in Isaiah, it is difficult to imagine that Isa 30:27–33 or its core were part of the oldest material in Isaiah.37 The text inverts programmatically crucial motifs taken from other Isaianic passages and therefore appears as a typical Fortschreibung within the literary context of the emerging book. Most prominently, the motif of the stream that reaches up to the neck (30:28) is clearly borrowed from Isa 8:8 (cf. also the “mighty and overflowing waters” in 28:2 and the “overflowing scourge” in 28:15, 18), but, by equating this stream with Yhwh’s breath, the original meaning is inverted. The entire passage aims at depicting a divine judgment of Ashur, while earlier texts like 28:1–4* and 28:15–18* seem to have implied that Ashur was Yhwh’s tool or weapon of judgment. It is perhaps no pure coincidence that in this inverted prophecy Ashur is mentioned by name, at one of two places in the cycle of Isa 28–31. The usage of this name differs notably from the expression ‫“ מלך אשור‬the king of Ashur” in 8:4, 7 since it refers to the entire political entity without mentioning its king and, at the same time, personifies this entity in the expression “Ashur will be terror stricken.” As for the historical background of this passage, it is difficult to reach conclusive results. Several alternatives to an Isaianic origin have been proposed. Apart from a general dating to the postexilic period,38 several exegetes relate the text to the Seleucid era.39 In light of the continuous transmission of the book and indicate a rather late origin for Isa 30:27–33*. However, apart from the striking rod both texts share no further motifs, and the particular political implications of Isa 10:24, which may well be related to the Seleucid era (see n. 39), are not apparent in Isa 30:31. 37  Isaianic origin was classically assumed by, e. g., Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja, 277; Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, trans. James Kenney and William Hastie (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890), 36–41; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 194–98; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1214–215. 38  T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah: With an Appendix Containing the Undoubted Portions of the Two Chief Prophetic Writers in a Translation (London: Black, 1985), 199–202; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe I–XXXV, miroir d’un demimillénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, vol. 1 (Paris: Lecoffre, 1977), 417. 39  Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, KHC 10 (Tübingen: J. C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900), 230 (second century BCE); Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 164 (possibly from the Seleucid era); K aiser, Der Prophet Jesaja, 244 (from the Seleucid era); Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 239–40, attributed the passage to a “protoapocalyptic” edition which may have been contemporary to the Seleucid empire.

470

Reinhard Müller

the constant process of Fortschreibung that can be observed in many of its parts, particularly in the “Ashur cycle” of Isa 28–31,40 this historical context is indeed a possibility. In particular, the peculiar imagery of Isa 30:32–33 may point in this direction. The motif of a divine battle against Ashur, mirroring Yhwh’s victory over Egypt at the sea, and the somber description of Ashur’s final annihilation in a great tophet show protoapocalyptic traits,41 and may well have been related to experiences of oppression by Seleucid rule. However, it is far from sure that this applies to the entire passage in its original meaning. As shown above (section 2), vv. 32–33 probably do not form an original part of the passage but were added as an exegetical supplement. Verses 27–31* are presupposed by this supplement and could therefore be of much earlier origin. For example, it is notable that Isa 30:27–31* does not betray knowledge of the motif of Ashur’s hubris – a motif that is crucial in Isa 10:5–1542 and in the Isaiah legends.43 This difference could indicate that Isa 30:27–31* was drafted before Isa 10:5–15* and before the core of the Isaiah legends had originated. Hermann Barth dated the passage to the age of Josiah when the Assyrian empire collapsed in an unexpected and dramatic development.44 While the coherence of the so-called Ashur redaction proposed by Barth can certainly be questioned since the forms and motifs of the passages Barth ascribes to this redaction vary widely,45 an origin of Isa 30:27–33* in light of the impending downfall of Assyria should be considered. The peculiar ambivalence of v.  31 could especially point in this direction: ‫כי מקול יהוה יחת אשור‬ ‫בשבט יכה‬ Yea, at the voice of Yhwh Ashur will be terror stricken, when he strikes with a rod.

To be sure, becoming “terror stricken” was certainly understood as a portent of inescapable doom, but it remains conspicuously unclear whether v. 31 pre40 

See the seminal observations by Kratz, “Jesaja 28–31 als Fortschreibung.” Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 239–40. 42  See n. 36. 43  Cf. esp. Isa 37:22–29. 44  Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 102–3, who, however, refers particularly to v. 29, which he connects with Josiah’s Passover since v. 29 seems to presuppose the centralization of the cult; the latter is certainly correct but, apart from the probably secondary nature of v. 29 (see above section 2), the equation with Josiah’s Passover, the historicity of which cannot be presupposed from the outset, is far from evident. Barth’s model was taken up by Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 394–96; Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 265–66; de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 115, etc.; Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja, 375. The proposal by Gressmann, Der Messias, 112, who thought about the era of Manasseh, did not play a further role in the following discussion. 45  See the reconstruction of the text of this redaction in Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 311–36. 41 

“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”



471

supposes with this expression already the complete end of the entity called Ashur. This contrasts with v. 33 which clearly envisages Ashur’s total and final destruction. It should be noted that the peculiar statement ‫“ יחת אשור‬Ashur will be terror stricken” corresponds negatively to the formulaic phrase ‫“ אל תחת‬Do not be terror stricken,” which probably goes back to the prophetic form of the oracle of salvation, as can be indirectly deduced from some biblical attestations of this formula.46 This correspondence could fit a particular political background, since the menacing announcement that “Ashur will be terror stricken” would complement an oracle of salvation addressed to the kingdom of Judah. Given that the name “Ashur” (‫ )אשור‬in v. 31 may in fact have referred to the late Neo-Assyrian empire, it is conceivable that Isa 30:27–31* was formulated when the Assyrian meltdown had already begun, but before the empire had been completely destroyed. The fact that this poetic description of Yhwh’s approach in the storm is so deeply rooted in the theophany tradition may corroborate this theory since the theophany tradition was originally closely related to the institution of kingship.47 At the same time, Isa 30:27–31* is a thoroughly literary composition – a point made clear by the fact that it inverts several crucial motifs of other, obviously earlier, texts from Proto-Isaiah. To put it negatively: separated from the literary context, the motifs of Isa 30:27–31* would remain enigmatic. This indicates that the passage was composed in the context of the scroll on which earlier material including the passages Isa 5:26 and 8:8 had been collected and were transmitted. The sonorous description of Yhwh’s approach in the storm, culminating in the words “Ashur will be terror stricken at the voice of Yhwh” (v.  31), may even suggest that this poetic piece had been drafted originally as a new conclusion for the scroll. Be that as it may, the passage seems to have been part of the peculiar development of connecting the figure of Isaiah with the triumphalistic tendencies that seem to have had become more and more dominant in the memories of the year 701 BCE, as the Isaiah legends indicate. According to Isa 30:27–31*, the prophetic speaker to whom the texts of the scroll were attributed also announced finally Yhwh’s judgment of Ashur, thus severing Yhwh’s earlier connection with this Mesopotamian empire which had been expressed in texts like Isa 8:3–4 and 8:5–8.48 46 

Cf. esp. Deut 1:21; 31:8; Josh 1:9; 8:1; 10:25; Jer 1:17; Ezek 2:6. Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott, 237–48; Christoph Levin, “Das Königsritual in Israel und Juda,” in Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit, ed. Christoph Levin and Reinhard Müller, ORA 21 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 231–60, here 251–56; Reettakaisa Sofia Salo, Die judäische Königsideologie im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen: Untersuchungen zu den Königspsalmen 2,18, 20, 21, 45 und 72, ORA 25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), here 36–53. 48  On the relationship between these passages, see Konrad Schmid, “Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs,” in Congress Volume Munich 2013, ed. Christl M. Maier, VTSup 163 (Leiden: 47 

472

Reinhard Müller

Bibliography Barth, Hermann. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. WMANT 48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 1977. Barthel, Jörg. Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31. FAT 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. HBS 16. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1998. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 28–39. Translated by A. Spans. HTKAT. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2010. Cheyne, Thomas K., Introduction to the Book of Isaiah: With an Appendix Containing the Undoubted Portions of the Two Chief Prophetic Writers in a Translation. London: Black, 1985. Delitzsch, Franz. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Translated by James Kenney and William Hastie. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890. Dillmann, August. Der Prophet Jesaja. 6th ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1898. Donner, Herbert. Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda. VTSup 11. Leiden: Brill, 1964. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. HKAT 3.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902. Gressmann, Hugo. Der Messias. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. “JHWH und der ‘Schreckensglanz’ Assurs (Jesaja 8,6–8): Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur ‘Denkschrift’ Jesaja 6–8*.” Pages 1–30 in Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011. –. “Tempelgründung als ‘fremdes Werk’: Beobachtungen zum ‘Ecksteinwort’ Jesaja 28,16–17.” Pages 31–61 in Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011. Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. 2nd ed. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Jong, Matthijs J. de. 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. K aiser, Otto. Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39. ATD 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. “Jes 28–31 als Fortschreibung.” Pages 177–97 in Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II. FAT 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Brill, 2014), 426–53, here 439–41; Reinhard Müller, “Vom verschrifteten Orakelspruch zum Prophetenbuch: Schriftliche Überlieferung göttlicher Botschaften im Licht von Jes 8,1.16 und Jes 30,8,” in Metatexte: Erzählungen von schrifttragenden Artefakten in der alttestamentlichen und mittelalterlichen Literatur, ed. Friedrich-Emanuel Focken and Michael R. Ott, Materiale Textkulturen 15 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 99–122, here 110–11, with n. 56.



“Ashur Will Be Terror Stricken”

473

Kreuch, Jan. Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31. WMANT 130. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011. Levin, Christoph. “Das Königsritual in Israel und Juda.” Pages 231–60 in Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit. Edited by Christoph Levin and Reinhard Müller. ORA 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Müller, Reinhard. Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen. BZAW 387. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. –. Ausgebliebene Einsicht: Jesajas “Verstockungsauftrag” (Jes 6,9–11) und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 124. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2012. –. “Adad’s Overflowing Scourge and the Weather God of Zion: Observations on Motif History in Isa 28:14–18.” Pages 257–77 in Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 461. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. –. “Vom verschrifteten Orakelspruch zum Prophetenbuch: Schriftliche Überlieferung göttlicher Botschaften im Licht von Jes 8,1.16 und Jes 30,8.” Pages 99–122 in Metatexte: Erzählungen von schrifttragenden Artefakten in der alttestamentlichen und mittelalterlichen Literatur. Edited by Friedrich-Emanuel Focken and Michael R. Ott. Materiale Textkulturen 15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. –. “From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah: Paradigmatic Images of Imperial Hubris in Isa 10:5–15.” Pages 61–80 in Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires. Edited by Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Joachim Schaper. FRLANT 277. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Schmid, Konrad. “Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs.” Pages 426–53 in Congress Volume Munich 2013. Edited by Christl M. Maier. VTSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Salo, Reettakaisa Sofia. Die judäische Königsideologie im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen: Untersuchungen zu den Königspsalmen 2,18, 20, 21, 45 und 72. ORA 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Vermeylen, Jacques. Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël. Vol 1. Paris: Lecoffre, 1977. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja, vol. 3. BK 10.3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 1982.

Cyrus: A Righteousness Kim Lan Nguyen Cyrus left behind an enigmatic image. The controversy around his image inevitably involves the difficult text of Deutero-Isaiah as well as the contradiction between its portrayal of Cyrus and that of other historical accounts. The textual difficulties, including both variant readings of some crucial statements about Cyrus in Isa 41 and the ambiguous language of the servant poem in Isa 42, have allowed scholars to forge various images of Cyrus based on their understanding of historical realities. Scholarly discussion, in essence, centers on the nature of Cyrus’s relationship with Yahweh, his mission, and the validity of Deutero-Isaiah’s account. While it is impossible to resolve all scholarly differences, I hope a reexamination of the relevant passages in Isa 40–48 will demonstrate that Deutero-Isaiah intentionally portrays Cyrus as “a righteousness,” and that this portrayal is not incompatible with historical realities. I  will substantiate my thesis by addressing the relevant textual variants, the Servant Song, and finally historical contradictions. Isaiah 41 contains two important statements about Cyrus. One is at 41:2a and the other at 41:25a. Unfortunately, the readings from our major witnesses do not unanimously agree. For convenience, the readings from the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and 1QIsaa are reproduced in table 1. As we can see, while it is clear that the MT, LXX, and 1QIsaa share the same consonantal text at 41:2a, the problem lies in the way they divide the clauses. The LXX and 1QIsaa clearly understand ‫ צדק‬as the object of the first verb ‫הﬠיר‬. The accusative δικαιοσύνην in the LXX represents ‫ צדק‬precisely as the object of ‫( הﬠיר‬ἐξήγειρεν). Likewise, in 1QIsaa, the waw prefix in ‫ ויקראהו‬unquestionably separates this verb from the preceding ‫צדק‬. Against the LXX and 1QIsaa, the MT reads it as the subject of the second verb ‫יקראהו‬. The MT accents are unusual since ‫ צדק‬rarely functions as the subject in verbal clauses. In the Hebrew Bible, besides Isa 41:2, ‫ צדק‬occurs in 32 other verbal clauses and functions as the subject in only six as shown in table 2.1 1  Besides Isa 42:1, the word ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬occurs in other places 118 times: Eleven times in nonverbal clauses (Job 6:29; 35:2; Pss 89:15; 97:2; 119:75, 142, 144, 172; Isa 51:5; Jer 23:6; 33:16); once with the verb ‫( היה‬Isa 11:5); twenty-four times with a preposition (Lev 19:15; Pss 7:8, 18; 9:9; 17:15; 18:11; 35:24; 65:6; 72:2; 94:15; 96:13; 98:9; Prov 8:8; 25:5; Eccl 7:15; Isa 11:4; 32:1; 42:6, 21; 45:13; 59:4; Jer 22:13; Ezek 3:20; Hos 2:21[19]); once with ‫( בלא‬Jer 22:13); thirty-nine times in the genitive position of a construct chain (Lev 19:36 [4 ×]; Deut 16:18;

476

Kim Lan Nguyen

Table 1.2 Isaiah 41:2a and 41:25a according to the MT, LXX, and 1QIsaa Isa 41:2 MT

LXX

Isa 41:25

‫ִמי ֵה ִﬠיר ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח ֶצ ֶדק יִ ְק ָר ֵאהּו ְל ַרגְ לֹו‬

‫ח־ׁש ֶמׁש יִ ְק ָרא ִב ְׁש ִמי‬ ֶ ‫ירֹותי ִמ ָּצפֹון ַוּיַ את ִמ ִּמזְ ַר‬ ִ ‫ַה ִﬠ‬

Who aroused from the east/rising? Righteousness calls him to his foot. Note: The Masoretic accentuation is over ‫ִמ ִּמזְ ָרח‬

I have aroused from the north and he came; from the rising of the sun he will call on my name.

τίς ἐξήγειρεν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν δικαιοσύνην, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν κατὰ πόδας αὐτοῦ Who has roused from the east righteousness, called him to his foot?

ἐγὼ δὲ ἤγειρα τὸν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ τὸν ἀφ᾿ ἡλίου ἀνατολῶν, κληθήσονται τῷ ὀνόματί μου I have raised one from the north and one from the rising of the sun, they will be called by my name.

1QIsaa

‫הﬠירות מצפון ויאתיו ממזרח שמש ויקרא בשמו מי הﬠיר ממזרח צדק ויקראהו לרגליו‬ Who has roused from the east a righteousness, and called him to his feet?

I have roused from the north and they came from the rising of the sun, and he called on/is called by his name.

Table 2. Verbal clauses in which ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬functions as the subject Psalm 85:11 Psalm 85:12 Psalm 85:14 Isaiah 1:21 Isaiah 58:8 Isaiah 62:1

‫צדק וׁשלום נׁשקו‬ ‫וצדק מׁשמים נׁשקף‬ ‫צדק לפניו יהלך‬ ‫צדק ילין בה‬ ‫והלך לפניך צדקך‬ ‫ﬠד־יצא כנגה צדקה‬

Righteousness and peace kissed. Righteousness looked down from heavens. Righteousness goes before him. Righteousness lodges in her. Your righteousness will go before you. Until her righteousness goes out like brightness.

It is clear that all those six sentences involve the personification of ‫צדק‬. Isaiah 41:2a is quite different, however. It is apparent that the answer to the question “Who?” raised at the beginning of v. 2 is not ‫צדק‬, but God, as understood by English versions including NASB, NRSV, NKJV, CEB, AMP, and WEB. If ‫ צדק‬is 16:20; 25:15 [2 ×]; 33:19; Job 8:6; 31:6; Pss 4:2, 6; 23:3; 35:27; 45:5; 51:21; 58:2; 118:19; 119:7, 62, 106, 123, 160, 164; Prov 8:16; 16:13; Eccl 3:16; 5:7[8]; Isa 1:26; 16:5; 41:10; 58:2; 61:3; Jer 31:23; 50:7; Ezek 45:10 [3 ×]); seven times after a participle (Pss 9:5; 15:2; Isa 45:19; 51:1, 7; 64:4[5]; Jer 11:20); twenty-six times as accusative of a finite verb (Deut 1:16; 16:20; Job 8:3; 29:14; 36:3; Pss 17:1; 35:28; 37:6; 40:10; 45:8; 48:11; 50:6; 97:6; 119:121, 138; 132:9; Prov 2:9; 8:15; 12:17; 31:9; Isa 26:9, 10; 45:8; 62:2; Hos 10:12; Zeph 2:3); three times as accusative of an infinitive (Ps 52:5; Prov 1:3; Dan 9:24); six times as subject of a finite verb (Pss 85:11, 12, 14; Isa 1:21; 58:8; 62:1). 2 Readings are from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977); Septuaginta, ed. Alfred R ahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979); and Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions, DJD XXXII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010).



Cyrus: A Righteousness

477

the subject of ‫ יקראהו‬then it would also be the implied subject of the following clause ‫יתן לפניו גוים ומלכים‬, which makes little sense in the context. In translating ‫ צדק‬as “in righteousness,” several other translations indicate, in effect, that ‫ צדק‬does not function well as the subject of the second verb.3 The adverbial reading, “in righteousness,” is unconvincing, since the writer could have easily written ‫ בצדק‬as found in Isa 42:6 and 45:13 if that was what he had intended to say. Given the common grammatical function of ‫צדק‬, the MT’s accentuation is best construed as an unfortunate mistake that was preserved meticulously, and the alternate reading from the LXX and 1QIsaa is grammatically preferable. The majority favoring the MT have chosen a less likely reading probably because of their tendency to separate Cyrus and ‫צדק‬, a tendency not in line with the assessment of Deutero-Isaiah, as we shall see later. A few translators prudently follow the LXX and 1QIsaa at 41:2a. The NRSV, JPS, and Shalom Paul read, “Who has roused a victor from the east, summoned him to his service?”4 Nevertheless, their choice of an uncommon translation, “victor” for ‫צדק‬, has also helped obscure Deutero-Isaiah’s portrayal of Cyrus. John McKenzie has a slightly better translation, “Who has raised up a righteous one from the east and calls him to follow?” but he resorts to the same understanding of Cyrus being a military victor only.5 In short, the leading translations have not done justice to the meaning intended by the author who introduces Cyrus as ‫ צדק‬in 41:2a. The textual variant at 41:25a also requires reexamination. Here the MT, LXX, and 1QIsaa differ significantly. The MT reads: ‫הﬠירותי מצפון ויאת ממזרח־ׁשמׁש יקרא בׁשמי‬

Compared to the MT text, the LXX does not reflect the second verb (‫)ויאת‬, includes two 3ms object pronouns (τον), and has a 3mp subject of the third verb instead of 3ms (κληθήσονται). 1QIsaa, on the other hand, has ‫ ויאתיו‬and ‫בׁשמו‬ instead of ‫ ויאת‬and ‫בׁשמי‬, respectively. Although the readings from the LXX and 1QIsaa are not identical, both appear to reflect not a different base text, but an attempt to resolve the directional difficulty (both north and east) inherent in the MT base text with their plural subjects. Since the MT reading poses no textual problem, while the readings from the LXX and 1QIsaa are somewhat problematic, accepting the MT here is the most sensible choice.6 3  NKJV, ASV/NASB. See also R. Reed Lessing, Isaiah 40–55, CC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 187; Christopher R. Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, NIB 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 349. 4  NRSV, JPS. See also John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 76; Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 76; and Walter Brueggemann adopting NRSV, Isaiah 40–66, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 30. 5  John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 26–28. 6  Scholars who adopt or modify part of the reading from 1QIsaa conveniently reject the

478

Kim Lan Nguyen

The MT reading ‫ יקרא בׁשמי‬troubles some scholars, causing them to seek to remove the problem by emending the text, as Brevard Childs observed,7 precisely because of what it connotes. ‘To call upon a name’ (‫ )קרא בׁשם‬in the Hebrew Bible is an idiom that connotes without exception the idea of faith in someone. For instance, Abraham, Elijah and Elisha call on the name of Yahweh (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 1 Kgs 18:24[8]; 2 Kgs 5:11). Isaiah, the Chronicler, and various psalmists say, “Give thanks to Yahweh, call on his name” (Isa 12:4; 1 Chr 16:8; Pss 105:1; 116:13, 17). Joel 3:5[2:32] expresses best the faith implied with the statement, “Everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved” (NRSV). On the contrary, not calling on the name of Yahweh unquestionably connotes a lack of faith in him. For example, Jeremiah implores God, “Pour your wrath on the nations that do not know you, and on the peoples that do not call on your name” (Jer 10:25 NRSV). Citing the words of Isa 41:25a as spoken by God, DeuteroIsaiah conveys the notion that Cyrus would surely place his faith in Yahweh. Such a notion, in the view of some commentators, is unbelievable, and therefore cannot come from the author. Joseph Blenkinsopp, for instance, chooses to follow the reading of LXX and 1QIsaa ‫‘ יִ ָּק ֵרא‬he is summoned’ because he believes the reading ‘he will invoke my name’ (‫ )יקרא בׁשמי‬of the MT is contradicted by ‘you do not know me’ (‫ )לא ידﬠתני‬in 45:5.8 Such reasoning is weak since the imperfective ‫ יקרא‬may represent an act performed by Cyrus at some point in the future,9 while the perfective phrase ‫ לא ידﬠתני‬may represent an act completed at the time of Yahweh’s speech. Unless Yahweh’s speech to Cyrus can be established as happening after Cyrus’s invoking Yahweh’s name, which is unlikely given that in 45:3 Yahweh also says to Cyrus in the imperfect ‘you will know that I am Yahweh’ (‫)תדﬠ כי־אני יהוה‬, there is no compelling reason to think that ‫יקרא בׁשמי‬ in 41:25 contradicts ‫ לא ידﬠתני‬in 45:5. Likewise, Westermann emends the MT plural verb ‫ויאתיו‬, but this plural makes the context and meaning of 1QIsaa uncertain. See Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 115; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 83. The MT is in order, as argued by Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 321. The MT reading is supported further by the Cyrus Cylinder, which has ideological elements similar to Deutero-Isaiah 40–48 as shown below. An Egyptian document similarly mentions Cambyses’s prostration before the goddess Neith; see Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, BJSUCSD 10 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 64. 7  Childs, Isaiah, 321. 8 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 204. The niphal reading of ‫ יקרא‬is accepted by several other scholars, such as Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 38. 9  Leading translations translate ‫( למﬠן תדﬠ‬v. 3) and ‫( ולא ידﬠתני‬v. 4) with a modal “so that you may know/acknowledge” and the present/present perfect “though/even though you have not known/do not know me,” respectively. See Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 221; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 243–44; Childs, Isaiah, 345; John Goldingay and David Payne, Isaiah 40–55, ICC (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 2:23–25; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 86; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 150; also NRSV, NKJV, NASB. McKenzie (Second Isaiah, 73) even uses the past tense to translate the latter “and you did not know me.”

Cyrus: A Righteousness



479

reading with ‘I called him by name’ (‫ )אקרא בׁשמו‬based on the similar idea found in 45:3.10 Westermann’s struggle with the idea of Cyrus honoring Yahweh with worship is further seen in his proposal to omit the clause “that you may know” in 45:3.11 Not only does the MT reading trouble those who emend it, it does so even to those who accept it. Some try earnestly to qualify the meaning of ‫יקרא בׁשמי‬. Among them are Lessing and John Oswalt. Lessing comments: Is 41:25 says that Cyrus, who remains nameless in Isaiah until 44:28; 45:1, will call on Yahweh’s name. Ezra 1:1–4 narrates this confession (see also 2 Chr 36:23). However, an important distinction is in order. Cyrus knows about Yahweh, but he does not personally know or believe in him (Is 45:4).12

This qualification is without basis. Nothing in Deutero-Isaiah warrants such a distinction. If Cyrus only knows about Yahweh as Lessing suggests, then how can one know whether Israel knows Yahweh better? Compared to Cyrus, Israel fares much worse in Isa 40–48. Deutero-Isaiah says nothing negative about Cyrus, yet he reminds Israel again and again of their being deaf and blind (42:18–20), rebellious and stubborn (42:24, 25; 46:12; 48:4, 8), sinful and iniquitous (43:22– 28), and idolatrous, even in the context of salvation and redemption (48:5). Similar to Lessing, Oswalt, while acknowledging that the sense of the verse is clear, expresses his concern nonetheless: “Yet there is no evidence that he ever acknowledged the Lord as his God, which the expression invoke my name or ‘call on the Lord’ normally implies. … Perhaps the author only means that the conqueror will speak in the name of God.”13 He later states concerning 45:3 (“So that you may know that I am the Lord”): Duhm and others have questioned the authenticity of all or part of this verse because there is no reason to think that Cyrus ever converted to the Hebrew faith. But the verse does not predict conversion. It speaks of Cyrus’s knowing who had called him. Thus, just as the Pharaoh came to recognize that the God of Israel is the Lord without ever coming to faith in him, so Cyrus could well acknowledge that he had been commissioned by the God of Israel (as, according to Ezra 1:2–4, he did), without surrendering himself to the exclusive worship of the Lord.14

Given Exodus’s plain description of Pharaoh’s insolence and Deutero-Isaiah’s lofty and unqualified praise of Cyrus, the comparison between Pharaoh and Cyrus is inappropriate, even farfetched, and betrays a desperate attempt to fix a portrayal that may be seen to undermine prophetic inspiration. 10 

Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 82, 87. Ibid., 153, note c. 12  Lessing, Isaiah 40–55, 240. 13  Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 103. The phrase “to speak/proclaim in the name of God” per se can connote either a superficial act, as Oswalt suggests, or a sincere act of a true representative. 14  Ibid., 202. 11 

480

Kim Lan Nguyen

If my reading of 41:2a and 41:25a is correct, then the connection between the two statements about Cyrus turns out to be very significant when we consider the mention of Abraham by name in 41:8. Scholars have noticed that both Abraham and Cyrus come from the east. Goldingay believes that the language of 41:25a – ”to call upon Yahweh’s name” – facilitates the continuation of the paralleling of Abraham and Cyrus since it is a precise expression of Abraham.15 Other elements in Isa 41–48 further support the parallel between Cyrus and Abraham. First, the same verb ‫‘ אהב‬love’ is used to describe the relationship between God and both Cyrus and Abraham in 41:8 and 48:14: But you Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my lover/ friend (‫[ אהבי‬Isa 41:8]). Assemble, all of you, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The Lord loves him (‫;)אהבו‬16 he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. (Isa 48:14, NRSV)

Second, God promises to make both great in Gen 12:2 and Isa 45:1: I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. (Gen 12:2, NRSV) Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him – and the gates shall not be closed. (Isa 45:1, NRSV)

Third, God calls both not only for their own sake, but also for the sake of other peoples according to Gen 12:3 and Isa 45:5–6: I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Gen 12:3, NRSV) I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. I arm you, though you do not know me, so that they may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Isa 45:4–6, NRSV)

The last and most relevant to the matter under discussion is the idea of righteousness associated with both Abraham and Cyrus (Gen 15:6 and Isa 41:2). There have been discussions about the semantic distinction between the masculine form ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬and the feminine form ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬. Although scholars of the 1950s, 1960s, and those who continue to follow them today argue that the two terms do not completely coincide, they nonetheless admit that the two are indeed often 15 

Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:201. Commentators generally agree that Cyrus is the object of God’s love in 48:14. See Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 201; Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah 40–66, 276; Childs, Isaiah, 369; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 293; Lisbeth S. Fried, “Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1,” HTR 95:4 (2002): 373–93, 391; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 2:140–41; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 315. 16 



Cyrus: A Righteousness

481

used synonymously and in many instances interchangeable.17 Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor warn specifically against the gender distinction, saying, “It is best not to rely too heavily on their gender distinctions; both forms mean essentially the same thing.”18 They point further to the work of Mordechai BenAsher, who surveyed 117 non-animate nouns having both masculine and feminine forms and found no positive difference in meaning between the pairs apart from the few cases of collectives.19 Consequently, if there is essentially no gender distinction between ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬and ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬, Deutero-Isaiah’s audience could readily connect Abraham and Cyrus with respect to their righteousness, and I suggest that this is precisely the tipping point that drives the exiles toward an adamant resistance to God’s choice. The resistance sharply rebuked by God in 45:9–10 has certainly caught scholarly attention.20 Yet, the current interpretation of such resistance addresses only a more superficial aspect. It seems correct to say that salvation and ruling from the hand of a foreigner is a distasteful idea to the exiles and that they would prefer a Davidic savior that fits the description of Isa 9 and 11. It is doubtful that it is the case here though, given the Israelites’ perilous situation in Babylon. Deutero-Isaiah describes the exiles as prisoners from the dark dungeon (42:7), people robbed and plundered, trapped in holes, hidden in prison, prey with no one to rescue (42:22). According to historian A. T. Olmstead, Babylon was in such chaos under Nabu-naid that even the Babylonian “natives were ready to welcome any deliverer, foreigner though he might be.”21 A more likely reason for the exiles’ deep resentment is the idea of Cyrus replacing Abraham in the new scheme of things. To have a foreign ruler incorporated into the line of Abraham is one thing; it is quite another for him to replace the Hebrew patriarch. As offspring of Abraham, Israel has the privileged role of a mediator through whom 17  B. Johnson, “‫ ָצ ַדק‬, ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬, ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬, ‫ ַצ ִּדיק‬,” TDOT 12:256. Johnson cites O. Procksch’s work (1950) and A. Jepsen’s work (1965). See also John J. Scullion, “Sedeq–Sedaqah in Isaiah cc. 40–66,” in UF 3 (1971): 335–37. 18  Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, IBHS (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 106. 19  Ibid. In addition, according to Waltke-O’Connor, what Ben-Asher finds concerning the pair ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬-‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬is that ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬is used in a poetic style while ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬in a prosaic style. If Ben-Asher and Waltke-O’Connor are correct in this respect, then Gen 15:6 uses the feminine form ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ because it is a prosaic text while Isa 41:2 uses the masculine form ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬because it is a poetic text. However, this distinction cannot be readily verified. While the fact that both ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬and ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ appear together in Isa 45:8; 58:2 and Hos 10:12 can be attributed to the author’s preference for word variations, determining whether a text is poetic proves much more difficult as we consider how various editions of the MT (BHS and the Keter Jerusalem edition), 1QIsaa, and LXX present their texts. Whereas BHS presents most of Isaiah in poetic format, the other three seem to present the book in the more prosaic format. A prime example can be found at Isa 21. 20  Fried, “Cyrus the Messiah,” 376; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 315; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 201. 21  A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948), 49.

482

Kim Lan Nguyen

God will bless all nations. Now Deutero-Isaiah evidently portrays Cyrus as a second Abraham, with whom God is going to do new things, leaving Israel on the sideline. To be sure, one of the purposes for which God calls Cyrus by name is to save the exiles in Babylon.22 Nonetheless, in chs. 40–48 Israel is no longer an active agent in God’s new plans. While they are witness of the former things (43:9–10; also 48:3–5),23 they are merely recipients of the things to come. While they will declare God’s praise (43:21) and glorify him (44:23) as redeemed people, because of their utter failure in the past,24 the mission to the world is now Cyrus’s responsibility according to Isa 45:5–6, 22.25 I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. I arm you, though you do not know me, so that they may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. … Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. (NRSV) 22 

Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 255–56. Scholars who actually address the meaning of the “former things” and the “new things” differ in their opinions. For instance, Baltzer understands ‫ הראׁשנות‬to mean “earlier happenings,” that which has taken place from the beginning of creation, the first exodus, while the ‫“ חדׁשות‬the new happenings” means a new exodus, a new fulfillment of Scripture; what is new is the proclamation that the Torah can apply to the gentile peoples too (Deutero-Isaiah, 134). Brueggemann believes that the “former things” plausibly refers to the work of judgment that has dominated chs. 1–39 of Isaiah, and the “new things” concern the restoration of Israel after the exile. In that case, the work of the servant, specified in vv. 6–7, is the work of “new things” whereby Israel is brought to a new place, or that “the nations” are brought to a way of life intended by the creator (Isaiah 40–66, 45). Goldingay and Payne think the former are historical events in the community’s distant or recent past such as the coming of Abraham and that of Cyrus, while the latter are events about to take place such as the capture of Babylon and “the freeing of the people” (Isaiah 40–55, 1:231). Lessing opines that the first events in 42:9 refer to Yahweh’s act of creation (40:12–31; 42:5), his call of Abraham (Gen 12:1–3), and his deliverance of Israel out of Egypt (Exod 14), and that these provide the pattern for coming salvific events called “new things” in 42:9 (Isaiah 40–55, 263). Paul understands the former things to refer to God’s deeds in the past and the new things to refer to the prophecies concerning Cyrus, his conquest of Babylon, and the return to Zion (Isaiah 40–66, 17, 309). According to Watts, the new is contrasted with ‫“ ראׁשון‬former” to refer to a different order than has existed in the past; both are related to the “age” in 42:9–14, 46:9, and 61:4–8; in these instances the former age, before the exile, is contrasted with the new age that Yahweh is inaugurating through the empires (Isaiah 34–66, 120). 24 The hypothetical wish introduced by ‫( לּוא‬Waltke-O’Connor, IBHS, 211, 637) in Isa 48:18–19 implies that Israel’s chance is gone: “O that (‫ )לוא‬you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your prosperity would have been like a river, and your success like the waves of the sea; your offspring would have been like the sand, and your descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed from before me.” (NRSV) 25  The three reasons for the calling of Cyrus are well articulated by Paul (Isaiah 40–66, 255–56): First, Cyrus “will realize that it is the ‘God of Israel’ who is responsible for his unbroken chain of conquests (Isa 41:17; 48:1; 42:12) and not Marduk, as recorded in his cylinder;” second, the anointment of Cyrus “is ‘for the sake’ of Israel;” and “the third reason God chose Cyrus is universal: by means of his victories Cyrus will spread God’s renown throughout the world.” 23 



Cyrus: A Righteousness

483

Since the mission to the world is also assigned to the servant in Isa 42:1–8, it is imperative to understand whether he is Cyrus or another entity. Apart from ch. 40, which serves as an introduction to the entire section of chs.  41–48, ch. 42 is the only chapter where Cyrus’s presence is debatable. Scholars have proposed various identifications of the servant in this chapter. Though suggestions abound, the identity espoused by several commentators is Israel. The scholars supporting this position cite no compelling evidence for their decision, however. For instance, Brueggemann, after discussing the state of research on the Servant Songs, simply states, “Here it is enough to assume, as is generally the case, that ‘my servant’ is the people Israel.”26 The problem with this identification is the assumption that we need to find one figure that fits all. The complexity of the Servant Songs is undeniable and the situation is hopeless if we continue looking for a single figure that would make sense of all the songs. I think it would be more prudent to look at the present poem in its context and in its own right. Admittedly, the word “context” at first sight seems to be inconsequential, since scholars who appeal to context can arrive at opposite conclusions. Goldingay and Blenkinsopp provide a good illustration. Rejecting other identifications as interpreted out of context, Goldingay asserts, “We will continue to seek to interpret the material in chs.  40–55 in its context. This context has made explicit who this servant is (see 41:8–9). It is Jacob-Israel.”27 By contrast, Blenkinsopp suggests that the servant is Cyrus, stating, “[T]he subject matter of chs. 40–48 in general, the immediate context (41:25–29), and the language in which the commissioning is described create a strong prima facie case that the original identification of the servant was Cyrus.”28 To be sure, Blenkinsopp does not rule out other possibilities, as he calls for an open mind. Nevertheless, for him the first impression given by the context is that the servant is Cyrus rather than Israel or any other figure. A closer inspection informs us that not all contexts are of equal value. Goldingay appeals to chs. 40–55, which is a larger context, covering all of the Servant Songs. It comes as no surprise that he would see Israel as the best candidate. On the other hand, Blenkinsopp appeals only to chs. 40–48, which makes a crucial difference in this case, since this is the very section that involves Cyrus. While it is good to keep an open mind, the evidence against Israel being the servant of Isa 42:1–8, in the context of chs. 40–48, is too compelling to dismiss. 26  Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 42. Also James Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah,” in Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, NIB 5 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1956), 149–773; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 18; Benjamin D. Sommer, “Isaiah,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 867. 27  Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 1:212. 28  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 211.

484

Kim Lan Nguyen

First, the identification of the servant with Israel speaks against common sense. As modern readers, we understand the Bible at least on the surface level because ancient writers appealed to logic/reasoning similar to ours. Since scholars have increasingly rejected the idea that the Servant Songs are poorly inserted and may be removed without being noticed, we expect the author of Isa 42 to communicate his message in a way commonly understood. Identifying the servant in 42:1–8 with Israel makes the meaning of the passage totally obscured, and that is why some scholars reject it. The servant in vv. 1–8 is supposed to open the eye of the blind and to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, but the servant Israel in vv. 18–25 is blind and hidden in prison, which is an incomprehensible contrast without further explanation. Not only is the identification of the servant in 42:1–8 with Israel nonsensical, it would make this passage a single instance where Israel is portrayed with a positive trait, which is unlikely, since Israel’s past sins are mentioned everywhere else within chs. 40–48. Furthermore, the identification of the servant with Israel misses an important correspondence between Isa 40–48 and the Cyrus Cylinder. Comparing the Cylinder and Isa 40–48, we encounter strikingly similar ideas, as shown in table 3. Table 3. Comparison of Isaiah 40–48 and the Cyrus Cylinder Ideological elements

Cyrus Cylinder29

Deutero-Isaiah

Deity’s anger against his people

The lord of the gods became terribly angry and [he departed] from his region (p 315).

I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage (47:6 NRSV). [passim; implied in ch. 40]

Deity’s mercy on [his] an[ger] [abated] and he had his people mercy (upon them) (p. 315).

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid (40:2 NRSV). [passim]

Deity finding a righteous ruler

He scanned and looked (through) all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler (p. 315).

Yahweh roused a ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬from the east (41:2).

Deity calling ruler’s name

He pronounced the name of Cyrus (315).

I call you by your name (45:4b NRSV).

Deity making the ruler of the world

He … declared him (lit. pronounced [his] name) to be(come) the ruler of all the world (315).

He delivers up nations to him (41:2 NRSV).

29 

“Cyrus (557–529),” trans. F. H. Weissbach, Ebeling, and R. W. Rogers (ANET, 315–16).



Ideological elements

485

Cyrus: A Righteousness

Cyrus Cylinder29

Deutero-Isaiah

Deity looking at ruler with favor

Marduk … beheld with pleasure his (i. e. Cyrus’s) good deeds and his upright mind (315).

The Lord loves him (48:14 NRSV).

Deity sending ruler to Babylon

He made him set out on the road to Babylon (315)

For your sake I will send to Babylon (43:14 NRSV).

Deity helping ruler

going at his side like a real friend (315).

I will go before you and level the mountains (45:2 NRSV).

Deity delivering Babylon to ruler

He delivered into his (i. e. Cyrus’s) hands Nabonidus (315),

he [Cyrus] shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans (48:14 NRSV).

Ruler worshiping Cyrus, the king who worship him Deity (316) Ruler resettling peoples and sanctuaries

I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations (316).

Ruler ruling with And he (Cyrus) did always endeavor justice to treat according to justice the blackheaded. … He did not allow anybody to terrorize (any place) of the [country of Sumer] and Akkad (315).

He will call on my name (41:25). He shall build my city and set my exiles free (45:13 NRSV; also 44:28). [Implied in Cyrus’s treatment of Israelites.] “a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice” (42:1–4 NRSV).

As we can see, apart from the last item, all other elements from the Cyrus Cylinder have clear equivalents in Isa 40–48. The last item on the Cyrus Cylinder further describes Cyrus’s kindness and attention to justice, which mirrors the servant’s quality in Isa 42:1–4.30 To be sure, Cyrus’s special treatment of Israel can be found in the Cyrus passages, yet the best parallel to Cyrus’s attention to justice and sanction of terrorism would be the servant’s establishment of justice and gentle treatment of bruised reeds and dimly burning wicks in Isa 42:1–4. It is difficult to believe that Deutero-Isaiah, who describes Cyrus in similar terms as the Cyrus Cylinder, would fail to mention this. In fact, this tender treatment 30  This quality is deemed the emperor’s true greatness by the historian Mehrdad Kia, The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara: ABC–CLIO, 2016): 1:149. Kia states: “the true greatness of Cyrus lies in his introduction of a new concept of kingship, one that rejected the notion that exercise of power always required the use of violence and coercion.” Even if Cyrus’s benevolence is controversial or selective, from the view of the Judean exiles it is exceptional; see Lindsay Allen, The Persian Empire (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005), 28, 131; Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 47–48.

486

Kim Lan Nguyen

of the powerless is the very aspect that makes Cyrus a pleasing instrument in God’s hand. This is not the first time God employs a foreign ruler to accomplish his various purposes regarding Israel. He has given power to Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians, yet he is never pleased with the way they exercise it.31 Deutero-Isaiah describes Cyrus as doing what God desires without a single qualification in chs. 41–48, on the one hand, and on the other, he devotes all of ch. 47 to deplore Babylon for its pride and ignorance of divine will. God indicts Babylon for mistreating Israel specifically in 47:6, “I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy” (NRSV). If an emperor’s attitude towards the defenseless makes or breaks him in God’s eye, failure to mention Cyrus’s kindness would be untenable. If the context and the correspondence with the Cylinder weaken the argument for Israel, they strengthen the argument for Cyrus instead. We even have two more reasons to think of Cyrus as the servant in 42:1–8. First, with Cyrus referred to as “my servant” in God’s speech, Deutero-Isaiah further enforces the paralleling between Cyrus and Abraham, since God also refers to Abraham as “my servant” in Gen 26:24. In a way, this is only to make explicit the implicit, since Cyrus is already portrayed as a servant of God everywhere in Isa 40–48 even without being called such. Second, we need to remember that in the book of Jeremiah according to the MT, God calls Nebuchadnezzar “my servant” on three occasions (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). If ancient authors or scribes understood Nebuchadnezzar to be God’s servant, there is simply no good reason to withhold such a title from Cyrus. After all, Cyrus has already received the best titles from Deutero-Isaiah: “Yahweh’s shepherd,” “Yahweh’s anointed,” and “man of Yahweh’s counsel” (44:28; 45:1; 46:11).32 According to Deutero-Isaiah, he fulfills Yahweh’s purpose ‫( חפץ‬48:14), just as the servant in ch. 53 does (53:10). Therefore, until we know better, the identification of the servant with Cyrus appears to be the best. If this identification is valid, then Cyrus in Deutero-Isaiah receives more honorary titles and qualifications than any Israelites. Deutero-Isaiah does not need to go to this extent if he merely aims at obtaining favor from the Persian king. All this seems to beg the question whether Deutero-Isaiah was aware of historical reality in his endorsement of Cyrus, a question we need to address next. Several historians are dissatisfied with the image that Cyrus left behind since to them it is biased and inaccurate.33 Allen blames the biblical books of Isaiah 31  Egyptian pharaoh is rebuked in Exodus; Assyria is rebuked in Isa 10:5–7, 12; Babylon is indicted in Isa 47. 32  The title “shepherd” refers to good kings, especially David (2 Sam 5:2; 7:7; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; see also Jer 3:15). According to Paul, “shepherd” is the most prevalent of the royal titles in Mesopotamia (Isaiah 40–66, 249). The title “anointed” is used for many leaders, including David. The title “the man of my/his counsel” particularly reminds of David who is a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam 13:14). 33  Allen, The Persian Empire, 28, 131; Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 47–48; Matt



Cyrus: A Righteousness

487

and Ezra for giving Cyrus “centuries of good press as the guarantor of the Jewish People’s status within the Persian empire.”34 He argues that the Persian religious tolerance was a result of an inclusive imperial ideology, a tactic of domination, and could still work well for some, harshly for others.35 Briant similarly states, “The ‘exceptional’ character of the actions taken by Cyrus on behalf of Jerusalem thus arises only from the narrowly Judeocentric perspective of our sources.”36 These historians have made their point that Cyrus was far from being a saint without a political agenda. Nonetheless, the question remains as to whether Deutero-Isaiah was naïve or provincial as thought of by these historians. Although it is doubtful that any conclusion drawn will satisfy all, some comments are necessary. First, we may anticipate that from the perspective of modern historians, a king like David is far from being politically ideal. David, while portrayed as the benchmark for all kings in the book of Kings, commits all kinds of crime while on the run from Saul. He leads a band of guerillas forcing the rich like Nabal to give them supplies (1 Sam 25). He deceives Achish, the king of Gath, and commits genocide against a number of peoples (1 Sam 27). As king of Israel, his treatment of the Moabites is anything but humane, making them lie on the ground and measuring them with a rope either to kill or spare (2 Sam 8:2). Finally, he commits adultery and murder against his loyal and righteous official Uriah (2 Sam 11). The information concerning David must have been available to the New Testament writers, and yet at least one New Testament author portrays David in endearing terms, “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22). If this is the case, then Deutero-Isaiah is far from speaking from a narrowly Judeocentric perspective. On the contrary, he might have transcended human tendency to expect a perfect king in his evaluation of Cyrus as the best ruler of his time. Indeed, compared to the ways the Assyrians, Babylonians, and later Greeks and Romans treated their subjects, Cyrus’s general policy perhaps deserved the equivalent of a Nobel Peace Prize in antiquity. It is not far from the truth that no political leader is without an agenda. To expect an emperor like Cyrus to be altruistic without being practical and having an agenda is simplistic and naïve. Deutero-Isaiah does not hide the fact that the nations are terrified before Cyrus (Isa 41), and he certainly is not ignorant in attributing to the emperor a divine calling. What Deutero-Isaiah sees, and highlights is the humane aspect of Cyrus’s treatment of most peoples; one of them is Israel.37 Walters, Ancient Persia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 47; Josef Wie­ schöfer, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD, trans. Azizeh Azodi (New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 1996), 45–55. 34  Allen, The Persian Empire, 28. 35  Ibid., 131. 36  Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 48. 37  Thus, the prophet shares the more balanced view of J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York: Schocken, 1983), 42, who acknowledges Cyrus’s clemency without ignoring his

488

Kim Lan Nguyen

Unlike historians, some biblical commentators are not so much concerned with the debate on Cyrus’s clemency as with his religious affiliation. They find it difficult to ignore the traditional belief that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian and the more devastating fact that he claimed in the Cyrus Cylinder to be a worshiper of Marduk. At present, the former is seriously challenged by historians who point to the acute problem of sources. Resonating with other scholars, Briant states, “Our information on Persian religious beliefs and practices at the time of Cyrus and Cambyses is extraordinary thin and contradictory,” and that “we do not know very much of Iranian religion – or religions – in the first half of the sixth century.”38 He further states, The problem is that the Persian evidence for the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses hardly permits access to their beliefs in the Mazdian religion, such as it can be reconstructed from the Gatha. … Beginning with such poor information, it seems quite reckless to try to reconstruct what the religion of Cyrus might have been. …   There is in fact just one aspect of the religion of Cyrus and Cambyses that is documented: the funerary customs. … Note first of all that the style of burial of Cyrus (and his successors) does not conform to the rules of the Avesta. The weeping and wailing that according to Herodotus (III.66) accompanied the death of Cambyses or Persian aristocrats (cf. IX.24) also flies in the face of the traditions called “Zoroastrian.”39

The attempt to identify Cyrus’s religion by contrasting it with Darius’s would also be futile, since “the former never ‘spoke’ and the latter left conflicting messages for his contemporaries and the generations to come.”40 As a matter of fact, the scanty inscriptions found at Cyrus’s palace in Pasargadae say nothing about his beliefs.41 Moreover, according to Briant, the institution of horse sacrifices around his tomb indicates that the privileged cult there was in the honor of Mithra, not Ahura Mazda.42 With respect to the religion of Darius and later Persian kings, Allen points to the following facts: Despite his high profile, Ahuramazda did not have a monopoly on Persian religion, nor even on the royal inscriptions. Darius’ texts also implicate other ‘gods of the royal house’ other deeds. According to W. J. Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 40, Cyrus perhaps was the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance. 38  Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 93. Similarly, Allen states, “Our knowledge of gods involved in royal patronage before the reign of Darius is almost non-existent,” (The Persian Empire, 123). See also G. B. Gray and M. Cary, “The Reign of Darius,” in The Persian Empire and the West, ed. J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, and F. E Adcock, The Cambridge Ancient History 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 205–10. 39  Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 94. As explained by Briant and Gray, the Avesta, the sacred book of the Iranians, put into writing between the seventh and fifth centuries AD, contains the Gatha, songs or hymns of more ancient origin, ca. 1000 BC. It is in the Gatha that Zarathustra and his relationship with Ahura-Mazda is mentioned. 40  Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 94. See also Allen, The Persian Empire, 122–23, and Gray, “The Reign of Darius,” 210. 41  CMa, CMb, and CMc on “Old Persian Texts,” http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#cma. 42  Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 94.



Cyrus: A Righteousness

489

with whom Ahuramazda would protect the country of Parsa. Other unidentified gods are referred to collectively in several other royal inscriptions.   Artaxerxes II went so far as to name two more gods alongside Ahuramazda as his primary divine sponsors: Anahita and Mithras; both were related to Indo-Iranian religious traditions.43

Thus, what we can say about Cyrus and his relationship to Zoroastrianism is speculative at best. More disturbing to biblical scholars is the depiction of Cyrus as a worshiper of Marduk. This makes it impossible for many to believe that he was a worshiper of Yahweh. We need to remember, however, that Cyrus did not write the text of the Cylinder himself, thus we cannot rule out the possibility, even probability, that it did not reflect his true faith.44 Indeed, recently Donald Trump, the president of the United States, gave ample proofs that the speeches written by his speechwriters for political reasons did not reflect his own thoughts and feelings.45 Furthermore, faith is one of the most difficult things to identify, and human perception of faith may be very misleading, especially in complex circumstances. For example, in 2 Kings, the Aramean official Naaman said to Elisha after being cured of his leprosy, “your servant will no longer offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god except the Lord. But may the Lord pardon your servant on one account: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow down in the house of Rimmon, may the Lord pardon your servant on this one account” (2 Kgs 5:17–18 NRSV). Back in his homeland, probably very few people would ever know Naaman’s true faith in Yahweh since he publicly bowed before Rimmon with the king.46 An example in recent times may further illustrate the point. When Barak Obama became the President of the United States, his faith and nationality were subjects of relentless scrutiny.47 Because of the way he dealt with other nations, for in43  Allen, The Persian Empire, 122–23. See also Darius inscriptions DPd (12–24), DSe (49–52), and A2Sa, “Old Persian Texts,” http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#cma. 44  Paul apparently thinks of Deutero-Isaiah as responding to the content of the Cyrus Cylinder (Isaiah 40–66, 255). 45  E. g., Dan Merica, “Trump Says Both Sides to Blame amid Charlottesville Backlash,” http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-charlottesville-delay/index.html; Zeke J. Mil­l er, “‘Racism is Evil.’ Trump Condemns White Supremacists 2 Days after Charlottesville Violence,” http://time.com/4899810/donald-trump-charlottesville/; Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman, “Trump defends Initial Remarks on Charlottesville; Again Blames ‘Both Sides,’” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-press-conferencecharlottesville.html. 46 The New Testament also includes the case of Joseph of Arimathea, a Pharisee who followed Jesus secretly, and perhaps also Nicodemus, another Pharisee (John 19:38–39). 47  E. g., “Barak Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ba​rack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories; Chris Megerian, “What Donald Trump Has Said through the Years about Where President Obama Was Born,” http://www.latimes. com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-birther-timeline-20160916-snap-htmlstory.html; Erasmus, “The Faith of Barack Obama: A  President with a Feel for the Spiritual Who Was Hated by the Pious,” https://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2017/01/faith-barack-obama; “Barak

490

Kim Lan Nguyen

stance making a Korean bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, many suspected that he was born outside the US and a Muslim by faith, even as Obama himself denied it. If a flood of information cannot convince some people about Obama’s faith, how much more difficult it would be to prove Cyrus’s faith without additional evidence. Thus, Cyrus’s true faith is a matter known only by himself, Yahweh, and his prophet Deutero-Isaiah. In the worst scenario, Deutero-Isaiah’s credibility is by no means less than that of the Cyrus Cylinder. In fact, the Cyrus Cylinder stands by itself, but Deutero-Isaiah has support from other biblical accounts, especially Ezra-Nehemiah, who report their experience of the special treatment from Cyrus’s successors. The fact that Ezra, the Chronicler, and Josephus believe that Cyrus knew Yahweh suggests that the text of Deutero-Isaiah might have inspired such belief.48 Deutero-Isaiah does not sound like he merely hopes that Cyrus would believe; he is indeed convinced that the Persian king is the one who will know God and do exactly what God commissions him concerning Israel and the world. Deutero-Isaiah’s daring declaration about Cyrus is a step forward in the theology of First Isaiah concerning true religion. First Isaiah rejects outright rituals without ethics and justice: When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and calling of convocation – I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I  am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I  will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. (Isa 1:12–17, NRSV)

He vehemently denounces religiosity without the heart for God: The Lord said: Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote; so I will again do amazing things with this people, shocking and amazing. The wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the discernment of the discerning shall be hidden. (Isa 29:13–14, NRSV)

It is no wonder that from Deutero-Isaiah’s perspective, Cyrus’s actions prove that he is the man of God’s delight. Deutero-Isaiah sees in Cyrus the beginning of an epoch in which the vision of First Isaiah concerning the world comes true, a day when all peoples represented by Israel, Egypt, and Assyria, would become equally precious in God’s sight as expressed in 19:23–25: Obama Religion Conspiracy Theories,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_reli​ gion_​conspiracy_theories. 48  Ezra 1:1–8; 2 Chr. 36:22–23; Josephus, Ant. 11.1.1–3.



Cyrus: A Righteousness

491

On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. On that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage.” (Isa 19:23–25, NRSV)

In Deutero-Isaiah’s view, the vision of First Isaiah is becoming a reality with Cyrus being equal to Abraham when God considers Cyrus a righteousness just as he once did Abraham.

Bibliography Allen, Lindsay. The Persian Empire. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005. Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah. Hermeneia. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, ed. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Breuer, Mordechai, ed. Crown of Jerusalem: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 2003. Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 40–66. Westminster Bible Companion 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. New York: Schocken Books, 1983. Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977. Fried, Lisbeth S. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. BJSUCSD 10. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. –. “Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1.” HTR 95:4 (2002): 373–93. Goldingay, John, and David Payne. Isaiah 40–55. ICC. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Gray, G. B. “The Reign of Darius.” Pages 173–228 in The Persian Empire and the West. Edited by J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, and F. E Adcock. Vol. 4 of CAH. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Erasmus. “The Faith of Barack Obama: A President with a Feel for the Spiritual Who Was Hated by the Pious.” https://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2017/01/faithbarack-obama. Kia, Mehrdad. The Persian Empire: A  Historical Encyclopedia. 2 vols. Santa Barbara: ABC–CLIO, 2016. Lessing, R. Reed. Isaiah 40–55. CC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2011. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. AB 20. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.

492

Kim Lan Nguyen

Megerian, Chris. “What Donald Trump Has Said through the Years about Where President Obama Was Born.” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-birthertimeline-20160916-snap-htmlstory.html. Merica, Dan. “Trump says both sides to blame amid Charlottesville Backlash.” http:// www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-charlottesville -delay/index.html. Miller, Zeke J. “‘Racism is Evil.’ Trump Condemns White Supremacists 2 Days after Charlottesville Violence.” http://time.com /4899810/donald-trump-charlottesville/. Muilenburg, James. “The Book of Isaiah.” Pages 149–773 in Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Vol. 5 of The Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Scullion, John J. “Sedeq-Sedaqah in Isaiah cc. 40–66.” Pages 335–48 in UF 3. Edited by Kurt Bergerhof et al. Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1971. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Book of Isaiah 40–66.” Pages 309–552 in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel. Vol. 6 of NIB. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Shear, Michael D., and Maggie Haberman. “Trump defends Initial Remarks on Charlottesville; Again Blames ‘Both Sides.’” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/ us/politics/trump-press-conference-charlottesville.html. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Isaiah.” Pages 780–916 in The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Talbott, W. J. Which Rights Should be Universal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Ulrich, Eugene, and Peter W. Flint. Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions, DJD XXXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010. Walters, Matt. Ancient Persia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. WBC 25. Waco: Word, 1987. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. OTL 19. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Wikipedia. “Barak Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories.” https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Barack_Obama_ citizenship_ conspiracy_ theories. –. “Barak Obama Religion Conspiracy Theories.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_ Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories. Wieschöfer, Josef. Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD. Translated by Azizeh Azodi. New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 1996.

Theological Interpretation of Assyrian Propaganda in the Book of Isaiah Konrad Schmid Discussions of Assyrian influence on the book of Isaiah1 are ultimately indebted to the approach of the history of religions school, which originated in the late nineteenth century in Göttingen with scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, Wilhelm Bousset, Hugo Gressmann, Bernhard Weiss, and others.2 This group was fascinated by the archaeological finds in Egypt and Mesopotamia and concluded that the Bible had to be interpreted in light of its corresponding religious-historical context. This naturally caused significant turmoil in both academia and the church. Some feared the uniqueness of the Bible might be in danger, and there were times when adherents of the history of religions school overstated their point. A good example is the so-called Babel-Bibel-Streit, which arose after a lecture on Jan. 13, 1902, by the Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch on the topic “Babel and the Bible” in the presence of the Emperor Wilhelm II.3 Delitzsch suggested that the Bible is not a text sui generis, but basically a copy of its Mesopotamian literary precursors. There is no doubt that Delitzsch exaggerated his point, especially in his subsequent work and publications, and he was rightly criticized for falling into a kind of pan-Babylonism. His approach even provoked public mockery: his enthusiasm for Babylonia made its way into one of the most prominent satire magazines of the time, the Simplicissimus.4 It is fair to say that current biblical scholarship entertains a quite balanced approach to evaluating ancient Near Eastern sources with regard to its subject. It is commonly accepted that it is not only possible, but even necessary to take these texts into account if they provide analogies or parallels to biblical materials. 1  See particularly Matthijs 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 Propecies, VTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). On the history of research in this respect, see Konrad Schmid, “Jesaja als altorientalisches Buch: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte,” HeBAI 6 (2017): 7–25. 2  See Gerd Lüdemann and Alf Özen, “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,” TRE 28 (1997): 618–24. 3 See Reinhard G. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit, OBO 133 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). 4  Cf. Thomas Theodor Heine (1867–1948), Simplicissimus 7/52, March 24 (1903): 409.

494

Konrad Schmid

A particular boost in that regard has been provided by scholarship on the book of Deuteronomy, especially by Moshe Weinfeld, Bernard M. Levinson, Hans Ulrich Steymans, Eckart Otto, and others.5 They demonstrate how Deuteronomy is shaped after the model of Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties while simultaneously altering that model in a subversive manner. As for the book of Isaiah, already Bernhard Duhm’s seminal commentary from 1892 prominently includes the comparative perspective among the main tasks of his analysis of the book.6 According to him, the three main objectives of his commentary were: 1. ascertaining the text; 2. exploring what the authors actually say and intended to say; and 3. a “conscious cultural- and religio-historical critique of the book in order to protect it from the raids of dogmaticians of all colors.”7 How to interpret such cross-cultural and cross-religious connections is, of course, open to debate. First, one needs to assess the quality of a parallel. Is a parallel to be understood in terms of a literal adoption or a tradition-historical borrowing? Or are similarities due to various groups’ similar reactions to similar historical experiences? All of these are possible, and conclusions should be drawn on a case by case basis. Second, and this is even more important, one must ask: What is the significance of such thematic connections in terms of content? When discussing the book of Isaiah and its Neo-Assyrian affiliations in particular, a very basic observation regarding genre is in order: There are basically two possible approaches for assessing Assyrian influences on the book of Isaiah. One possibility is to consider the records of Neo-Assyrian prophecy made available by Manfred Weippert, Simo Parpola, Martti Nissinen and others,8 which 5  Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy,” Bib 46 (1965): 417–27; Hans-Ulrich Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel, OBO 145 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995); idem, “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat,” Verbum et Ecclesia 34 (2013): 1–13; Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford, 1997); Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien, BZAW 284 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999); Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert, “Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy,” JAJ 3 (2012): 123–40; differently Carly L. Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion, ANEM 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014). 6 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, HKAT III/11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). On Duhm, see Henning Graf Reventlow, “Die Prophetie im Ur­teil Bernhard Duhms,” ZTK 85 (1988): 259–74; Rudolf Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler aus drei Jahrhunderten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 114–28. 7  Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, IV. Original text: “1. die Sicherung des Textes, 2. Herauszustellen, ‘was die Autoren eigentlich sagen und sagen wollen’ und 3. das Achten auf ‘bewusste kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Kritik’, damit das Jesajabuch vor ‘Razzien der Dogmatiker aller Farben’ gefeiht sei.” 8 Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997); Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, WAW 12 (Atlanta: Society



Theological Interpretation of Assyrian Propaganda in the Book of Isaiah 

495

especially Matthijs de Jong’s dissertation has evaluated.9 The other possibility is to survey the wider Neo-Assyrian text corpus beyond the genre of prophetic literature. What kind of contacts can one detect between these texts and the book of Isaiah? Both approaches are legitimate. However, in my view the second one is more promising because the book of Isaiah’s interaction with Neo-Assyrian sources focused more on Neo-Assyrian ideology than on Neo-Assyrian prophecy. The relevance of Neo-Assyrian prophecy pertains mostly to aspects of possible forms of prophetic messages in the ancient Near East – how these messages were written down, organized, structured, and used as written texts. With regard to theological content, they are of rather minor importance due to the often unremarkable message of Neo-Assyrian prophets. In most cases, they simply function to support and legitimate royal policies. In addition, these Neo-Assyrian prophecies were probably unknown in Judah. The decidedly richer material outside the specifically prophetic texts from Assyria are much more important for understanding the book of Isaiah than the Neo-Assyrian prophecies. In the aftermath of Peter Machinist’s seminal 1983 essay, this kind of inquiry into Neo-Assyrian motifs in the book of Isaiah belongs to the indispensable repertoire of Isaiah scholarship.10 Machinist primarily demonstrates the close proximity of certain texts of Isaiah to Assyrian propaganda. Recent scholarship has pressed the question a bit further, attempting to understand the nature of this process of reception in more detail. Good examples of such an investigation appear in the works of Friedhelm Hartenstein and Reinhard Müller.11 Their insights concern the specific interpretation and of Biblical Literature, 2003); Manfred Weippert, “Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Al­ten Orients,” in Ad bene et fideliter semin­an­dum: Festschrift für Karlheiz Del­­ler, ed. Gerlinde Mauer and Ursula Magen, AOAT 220 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neu­kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 287–319; idem, Weippert, “Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals,” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideolo­gi­cal and Hi­sto­rical Analysis, ed. Frederick M. Fales, OAC 17 (Rome: Istituo per l’Oriente, 1981), 71–115; idem, “Die Bildsprache der neuassyrischen Prophetie,” in Bei­träge zur prophe­tischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien, ed. Helga Weippert et al., OBO 64 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göt­tin­gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 55–93 (these articles are reprinted in Manfred Weippert, Götterwort in Menschenmund: Studien zur Prophetie in Assyrien, Israel und Juda, FRLANT 252 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014]). Martti Nissinen, “Die Relevanz der neuassyrischen Prophetie für die alttestamentliche For­schung,” in Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof, ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, AOAT 232 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neu­kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 217–58; idem, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources, SAA 7 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998); idem, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Jonathan Stoekl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison, CHANE 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 9  See n. 1. 10 Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983): 719–37. 11 Friedhelm Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der

496

Konrad Schmid

transformation of the content of the Neo-Assyrian propaganda borrowed by the Isaiah tradition, which is a significant step beyond the traditional evaluation of Assyrian material in the book of Isaiah. In what follows, this approach shall be presented through examples from the core of the Isaiah tradition in Isa 6–8. One very significant piece by Hartenstein discusses Isa 8:5–8 from this perspective.12 This textual unit addresses judgment on Judah following the announcement of judgment upon Damascus and Samaria in 8:1–4:13 And YHWH spoke to me again as follows: Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah, and rejoice14 with Rezin and the son of Remaliah; therefore, my Lord is bringing up against them the powerful and mighty waters of the river, the king of Assyria, and all his glory (‫;)את־מלך אׁשור ואת־כל־כבודו‬ and it will rise above all its channels and it will go up over all its banks; it will pass on into Judah flooding and overflowing, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings (‫ )מטות כנפיו‬will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

This text is replete with allusions to Neo-Assyrian rhetoric and ideology. First, the text uses the metaphor of a flood to illustrate the devastating power of Assyria. Assyria is the strong and mighty waters of the river, i. e., the Euphrates that the Lord is bringing upon Jerusalem. Verse 7 immediately explains the meaning of this metaphor: the king of Assyria. This water imagery is well known from Assyrian royal inscriptions. Esarhaddon, for example, describes his military campaign as follows: Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition, WMANT  75 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 1997); idem, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011); Reinhard Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht: Jesajas ‘Verstockungsauftrag’ (Jes 6,9–11) und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 124 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012). 12  See on this in more detail Konrad Schmid, “The Origins of the Book of Isaiah,” in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy, ed. J. Baden et al., JSJSup 175 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 1166–185. 13  Nonetheless, it is not altogether clear to what 8:5–8 should be related. Menahem Haran, “Isaiah as a Prophet to Samaria and His Memoirs,” in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms, ed. Katherine Dell et al., VTSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 95–103, 100, paraphrases the text as follows: “In the second stanza (5–10) God further says to Isaiah that, since ‘this people,’ which is Ephraim, ‘has spurned the gently flowing waters of Siloam’ that symbolize the Davidic dynasty, and rejoices with the son of Remaliah, God will bring on Ephraim ‘the mighty, massive waters of the Euphrates, the king of Assyria,’ that shall ‘flow over all its channels, and overflow and pass [even] through Judah reaching up to the neck’ – reach only – and ‘his outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land,’ but nothing is said of destroying Judah.” 14  See the textual discussion in J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 132.



Theological Interpretation of Assyrian Propaganda in the Book of Isaiah 

497

“Like a raging eagle, with outspread wings, I went like the flood (abūbāniš) in front of my army.”15

This passage is also relevant for the second metaphorical element of Isa 8:5–8 borrowed from Assyrian rhetoric, the outspread wings of an eagle. For the translation and interpretation of Isa 8:8 these “outspread wings” (‫ )מטות כנפיו‬have long presented a problem: how does this fit with the imagery of the flood? Some Bibles and commentaries therefore decided to translate (‫ )מטות כנפיו‬as “outer margins” – linking them to the flood that will cover the breadth of the land. However, the Neo-Assyrian parallel of the Esarhaddon text shows that the images of the eagle and the flood go very well with one another and seem to have been adopted here. The king of Assyria can appear as a flood and as an eagle at the same time. But how should one interpret this reception of Assyrian motifs? Notably, Isa 8:5–7 does not change the Assyrian rhetoric in the book of Isaiah. When talking of the king of Assyria and his power, the book of Isaiah consciously adapts the Assyrian ideology. The king of Assyria indeed comes up against Judah as a flood and as an eagle. The implicit theological argument behind that usage is as follows: God himself summons the Assyrian king and brings him and his army against Israel and Judah. And because the Assyrian king is sent by God himself, his propaganda is acceptable even from a Judean point of view. A specific, even dramatic theological argument is provided by the wording “the king of Assyria, and all his glory (‫ ”)את־מלך אׁשור ואת־כל־כבודו‬used in 8:7. This expression looks like a gloss, and it even might be one because it goes beyond the flood image and explains what the flood denotes: the king of Assyria. Nevertheless, whether a gloss or not, the interpretation applied by the expression to the context is obviously correct.16 The important element is the mention of the king’s “glory” (‫)כבוד‬. The king of Assyria’s “glory” is important because it steers the perspective back to Isa 6:3, where the term “glory” also appears (in addition to “fill” and “this people”). In Isa 6:3, the entire world is filled with the “glory” of God or, to be more precise: the whole world is identified as God’s glory. In Isa 8:7 the “glory” of the king of Assyria impresses Judah;‫ כבוד‬functions here as the Hebrew equivalent for the Akkadian term melammu, “radiance.” “Instead of Yhwh’s ‘glory,’ Assyria’s ‘radiance’ appears – God himself having given it space.”17 15  Nin. E II, 6–10, Rylke Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, König von Assyrien, AfO 9 (Osnabrück: Biblio Verl, 1967): 65. 16 The LXX has καὶ before the expression καὶ τὸ πολύ τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἀσσυρίων καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ and thus connects this expression more smoothly into its context. 17  Hartenstein, Archiv, 11. Cf. H. G. M. Williamson, “‘From One Degree of Glory to Another’: Themes and Theology in Isaiah,” in In Search of True Wisdom, ed. Edward Ball, JSOTSup 300 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 174–95; idem, Holy, Holy, Holy: The Story of a Liturgical Formula, Julius-Wellhausen-Vorlesung 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 32 n. 40.

498

Konrad Schmid

Isa 6:3: And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is YHWH Sabaoth; the fullness of the whole earth is his glory (‫)כבודו‬.”

Isa 8:7: Therefore, my Lord is bringing up against them the powerful and mighty waters of the river, the king of Assyria, and all his glory (‫)כבודו‬.

To highlight this as clearly as possible: The correspondence between Isa 6:3 and 8:7 argues that God’s cosmic and universal glory temporarily recedes with regard to Judah in favor of the glory of the king of Assyria. In terms of its logical structure, this statement is not completely unprecedented in the theological evaluation of political events in the Levant. In the Mesha Stela, the king of Moab states: Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab over many days because Chemosh was angry with his land.

The theological reason for Moab’s oppression is similar to the argumentation in Isa 6–8: Chemosh is angry with his own land of Moab, and only for this reason is Israel, guided by its own god Yahweh, able to oppress Moab severely.18 A remarkable difference takes place, however, in Isa 6:3 and 8:7. These verses do not operate within the concept of Yhwh’s anger, but with his glory, which he temporarily withdraws. “Anger” is, so to speak, a divine emotion. God’s “glory,” however, is the substance of God’s earthly presence itself. God changes the overall nature of his presence to the cosmos: his yielding to the Assyrians is a cosmic phenomenon. Another element stemming from Assyrian propaganda appears in Isa 6:11, as Reinhard Müller has shown: ‫ואמר ﬠד־מתי אדני ויאמר ﬠד אׁשר אם־ׁשאו ﬠרים מאין יוׁשב ובתים מאין אדם והאדמה תׁשאה ׁשממה׃‬ And I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is utterly desolate.”

Scholars have often claimed that 6:11 postdates the catastrophe of 587 BCE because of the emphasis on the motif of the “devastated land.” However, as Müller has convincingly argued, this motif fits very well into the Neo-Assyrian rhetoric used in vassal treaties from the seventh century, which also announce the devastation of the land for not complying with a treaty. Isaiah 6:11 may even be aware of such punishments by the Neo-Assyrian army of disloyal vassals, such as Matʾiel from Arpad in 740 BCE. What kind of prophetic hermeneutics are behind these receptions and adaptations of Neo-Assyrian propaganda in the book of Isaiah? What can one learn about the self-understanding of the prophetic 18  See Reinhard G. Kratz, “Chemosh’s Wrath and Yahweh’s No: Ideas of Divine Wrath in Moab and Israel,” in Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann, FAT II/33 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 92–121.



Theological Interpretation of Assyrian Propaganda in the Book of Isaiah 

499

authors of the book of Isaiah from their adaptations of Neo-Assyrian material, in which they – to put it bluntly – accept and integrate the enemy’s propaganda into their own theological argumentation? Two points shall be discussed here, though others can probably be made as well. One concerns the pragmatics of Isa 6–8, the other the theology of this crosscultural reception. First, for the pragmatics of Isa 6–8, it is crucial to see that neither Isa 6 nor Isa 8 are meant to be proclaimed to those it actually concerns, that is the Jerusalemites or Judah. Isaiah 6 and 8 are divine messages addressed and revealed solely and exclusively to the prophet Isaiah.19 But of course, God’s message for Isaiah is now made available to the readers of his book. How is this astonishing feature of Isa 6 and 8 to be interpreted? Why does the book not claim that Isaiah should forward this message to his people? That is generally the basic task of a prophet: they are messengers. The answer seems to be the following: These texts in Isa 6 and 8 do not serve the purpose of informing the public; they serve as theological legitimation of the prophet’s message of doom for the reader. This clearly is also the rationale behind the famous divine command to Isaiah in Isa 6:9–10 to prevent the people from understanding his message. Such a command apparently presupposes the failure of his prophetic activity and reflects upon it. Isaiah 6 and 8 inform the reader of two things with regard to Isaiah: Isaiah’s prophecy against Judah was not his own invention, and the failure of this prophecy was part of the plan from the very beginning. And this leads to the second point. The implicit theological arguments presented above apparently serve the same task of legitimizing the prophet, particularly in the eyes of the reader of his book. They provide a theological argument for why God, whose glory is all over the cosmos, can allow the success of Assyria’s military campaigns and its plans to destroy Judah. According to Isa 6 and 8, Assyria is a divine tool.20 Of course, this idea is not limited to Isa 6 and 8 but also appears elsewhere in the book of Isaiah, most prominently, for instance in Isa 10:21 ‫הוי אׁשור ׁשבט אפי ומטה־הוא בידם זﬠמי׃‬ ‫בגוי חנף אׁשלחנו וﬠל־ﬠם ﬠברתי אצונו לׁשלל ׁשלל ולבז בז ולׂשימו מרמס כחמר חוצות׃‬ 19  Cf. Odil Hannes Steck, “Beiträge zum Verstehen von Jes 7,10–14 und 8,4,” in Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament, TB 70 (Munich: Kaiser, 1982), 187–203, esp. 200 n. 50. 20  See Konrad Schmid, “Zeit und Geschichte als Determinanten biblischer Theologie: Untersuchungen zum Wandel des Geschichtsverständnisses im Alten Testament,” in Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament, FAT 77 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 299–321. 21  See on this Peter Machinist, “‘A h Assyria …’ (Isaiah 10:5ff ): Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited,” in Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza-Università die Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 183–217, for the ambiguities in 10:5–6 see 188–90.

500

Konrad Schmid

Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger, the club in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him to plunder (its) plunder and to take (its) booty, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. (Isa 10:5–6)

It is easy to see that Isa 10 seems to be earlier than Isa 6–8, as Isa 6–8 synthesizes the concept of Isa 10 in a more fundamental way by integrating it into the interplay between God’s and Assyria’s ‫כבוד‬. Note further that Isa 10 still calls upon the concept of God’s anger, so its argument is considerably more traditional than Isa 6–8, quite similar to the Mesha Stela. Furthermore, Isa 10 probably provides the source for ‫ מהר ׁשלל חׁש בז‬in Isa 8:1, which also suggests the historical priority of Isa 10 over Isa 6–8. The notion of God’s glory belongs to the core elements of the traditional Jerusalemite theology of the first temple, as many texts especially from the Psalms suggest. Isaiah 6 and 8 activate this concept by means of an intercultural and interreligious argument: God’s glory is of cosmic dimension and prevalent. But there are also competing glories in the world, such as the one of the king of Assyria. These competing glories, however, can only be effective and successful, if God provides space for them. Isaiah 6 and 8 thus attempt to reconcile the theological notion of God’s universal glory with the empirical notion of the king of Assyria’s glory in a way allowing God to limit his glory. If the observation is correct that Isa 6 and 8 draw upon the notion of God’s anger in Isa 10, then one can recognize the theological development from Isa 10 to Isa 6 and Isa 8 as a systematization and rationalization of how to understand God and his actions in the world. Isaiah 6 and 8 balance their notion of God between the historical experience of Assyria’s military success and the acknowledgment of the theological legitimacy of Assyria’s power. By adopting the Assyrian concept of melammu as the counterpart of the meaning of ‫ כבוד‬in Hebrew,22 Isa 6 and 8 take a decisive step towards that inclusive notion of monotheism that has become so important in the history of biblical literature.

Bibliography Borger, Rylke. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, König von Assyrien. AfO 9. Osnabrück: Biblio Verl, 1967. Crouch, Carly L. Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion. ANEM 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

22 See

Thomas Wagner, Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kabôd im Alten Testament, VTSup 151 (Leiden: Brill, 2011).



Theological Interpretation of Assyrian Propaganda in the Book of Isaiah 

501

de Jong, Matthijs J. Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A  Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Propecies. VTSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. HKAT III/11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. Haran, Menahem. “Isaiah as a Prophet to Samaria and His Memoirs.” Pages 95–103 in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms. Edited by Katherine Dell et al. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. –. Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition. WMANT 75. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Heine, Thomas Theodor. Simplicissimus 7/52, March 24 (1903): 409. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Chemosh’s Wrath and Yahweh’s No: Ideas of Divine Wrath in Moab and Israel.” Pages 92–121 in Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann. FAT II/33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Lehmann, Reinhard G. Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit. OBO 133. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Levinson, Bernard M. and Jeffrey Stackert. “Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy.” JAJ 3 (2012): 123–40. –. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Lüdemann, Gerd and Alf Özen. “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule.” TRE 28 (1997): 618–24. Machinist, Peter. “‘A h Assyria …’ (Isaiah 10:5ff ): Isaiah’s Assyrian Polemic Revisited.” Pages 183–217 in Not Only History: Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza-Università die Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009. Edited by Gilda Bartolini and Maria Giovanna Biga. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016. –. “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah.” JAOS 103 (1983): 719–37. Müller, Reinhard. Ausgebliebene Einsicht: Jesajas ‘Verstockungsauftrag’ (Jes 6,9–11 und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 124. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012. Nissinen, Martti. “Die Relevanz der neuassyrischen Prophetie für die alttestamentliche For­schung.” Pages 217–58 in Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof. Edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. AOAT 232. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neu­kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. –. Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. –. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. WAW 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. –. References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. SAA 7. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998. Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien. BZAW 284. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.

502

Konrad Schmid

Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Reventlow, Henning Graf. “Die Prophetie im Ur­teil Bernhard Duhms.” ZTK 85 (1988): 259–74. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Schmid, Konrad. “Jesaja als altorientalisches Buch: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte.” HeBAI 6 (2017): 7–25. –. “The Origins of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 1166–185 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Edited by J. Baden et al. JSJSup 175. Leiden: Brill, 2017. –. “Zeit und Geschichte als Determinanten biblischer Theologie: Untersuchungen zum Wandel des Geschichtsverständnisses im Alten Testament.” Pages 299–301 in Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament. FAT 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Smend, Rudolf. Deutsche Alttestamentler aus drei Jahrhunderten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Steck, Odil Hannes. “Beiträge zum Verstehen von Jes 7,10–14 und 8,4.” Pages 187–203 in Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament. TB 70. Munich: Kaiser, 1982. Steymans, Hans-Ulrich. “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat.” Verbum et Ecclesia 34 (2013): 1–13. –. Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel. OBO 145. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Stökl, Jonathan. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison. CHANE 56. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Wagner, Thomas. Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kabôd im Alten Testament. VTSup 151. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Bib 46 (1965): 417–27. Weippert, Manfred. “Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Al­ten Orients.” Pages 287–319 in Ad bene et fideliter semin­an­dum: Festschrift für Karlheiz Del­­ler. Edited by Gerlinde Mauer and Ursula Magen. AOAT 220. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neu­kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. –. “Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals.” Pages 71–115 in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideolo­gi­cal and Hi­sto­rical Analysis. Edited by Frederick M. Fales. OAC 17. Rome: Istituo per l’Oriente, 1981. –. “Die Bildsprache der neuassyrischen Prophetie.” Pages 55–93 in Bei­träge zur prophe­ tischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien. Edited by Helga Weippert et al. OBO 64. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göt­tin­gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. –. Götterwort in Menschenmund: Studien zur Prophetie in Assyrien, Israel und Juda. FRLANT 252. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Williamson, H. G. M. “‘From One Degree of Glory to Another’: Themes and Theology in Isaiah.” Pages 174–95 in In Search of True Wisdom. Edited by Edward Ball. JSOTSup 300. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. –. Holy, Holy, Holy: The Story of a Liturgical Formula. Julius-Wellhausen-Vorlesung 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.

“Go-out from Babylon/There!” A Canonical Approach to “Departure” in Isaiah 48:20 and 52:11 Daniel J. D. Stulac The commands to “go-out from Babylon” (48:20a) and to “go-out from there” (52:11a) are crucial to both the diachronic and synchronic study of Isaiah. For example, historical investigations of Isa 40–55 have relied on these two verses as clear indicators of the historical prophet’s sixth-century-BCE sociopolitical context. Noticing the shift in emphasis from exilic return in chapters 40–48 to Zion’s restoration in chapters 49–55, readers have particularly debated whether the phrase “from there” (‫ ) ִמ ָּׁשם‬in 52:11a should be understood to reflect the prophet’s new geographical situation in Jerusalem. Working from this foundation, most literary and theological investigations into these two verses have stressed their structural role as a conclusion to Isa 40–48 and 49–52, respectively. A similar vision of departure appears to cap off so-called Deutero-Isaiah in 55:12–13, and thus reinforces the idea that liberation from captivity in Babylon and the subsequent restoration of (historical) Jerusalem should be regarded as these sixteen chapters’ main point. With gratitude toward such research, but with important distinctions from it, this essay demonstrates how a canonical approach to biblical interpretation generates a more precise description of Isaiah’s rhetoric of departure as it functions within the larger book. It attempts to understand both verses in light of numerous lexical and conceptual correspondences between Isaianic passages such as 2:2–5, 30:18–22, 37:30–32, 42:1–4, 48:17–22, 49:8–10, 51:3–8, 52:9–12, 55:10–13, and 66:18–24.1 When 48:20a and 52:11a are read within this intratextual matrix, it becomes clear that historical departure from Babylon – no doubt the primary catalyst for the two imperatives’ origination – has been refashioned as a template for torah obedience in the reader’s ongoing present. In its present form, the book suggests that disciples of Isaiah might conceptualize their allegiance to Yhwh’s “out-going,” efficacious word (55:11a) as a figural “going-out from Babylon” that can be rehearsed in eras beyond the late sixth century BCE. 1  This list is not exhaustive. Moreover, the delimitation of the passages identified here, such 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 (rather than, e. g., 48:1–22 or 52:1–12), is mainly a consideration of space and language relevant to the present topic. This essay does not attempt to distinguish the precise boundaries of any freestanding oracle as it might have been delivered by a historical prophet.

504

Daniel J. D. Stulac

1.  Reading Isaiah Canonically The question of method in contemporary biblical studies is acute, particularly because scholarship so often seems to proceed without first addressing a deceptively simple question: What exactly is the Bible? A  jumbled anthology of recorded speech? A coherent, theological historiography? An ancient liturgy? The word of God? How the scholar chooses to answer this question out of the gate bears enormously on the conclusions he or she will reach at the finish line. The analysis undertaken in this essay begins with the observation that the Bible underwent an extensive editing process, performed by extremely attentive readers whose religious and cultural identity was bound up with the character of the text over time. In other words, the Bible is a “text-in-tradition.” It is neither an artifact preserved in hypostasis since its conception, nor is it a timeless oracle devoid of historical context. Indeed, the Bible is a pluriform scripture that stands in a mutually generative relationship with the communities that have produced and preserved it since ancient times.2 Despite the axiom to read the Bible as if it were “any other book,” modern scholarship ironically suggests that the Bible is quite unlike most other books after all.3 For this reason, canonical criticism as described by B. Childs combines elements of textual, historical, source, redaction, literary, and theological criticism, with the hope of illuminating the Bible as it is, in time and across time. In fact, canonical criticism is not just another critical formula, but is instead better understood as a multimethodological “approach,” a sort of intellectual posture for biblical study on the whole.4

2 W. Graham defines “scripture” as a “generic concept used in the modern West … to designate texts that are revered as especially sacred and authoritative in all of the largest and many smaller religious traditions.” Later in the same article he observes that “from the historian’s perspective, the sacrality or holiness of a book is not an a priori attribute but one that is realized historically in the life of communities who respond to it as something sacred or holy. A text becomes ‘scripture’ in living, subjective relationship to persons and to historical tradition. No text, written, oral, or both is sacred or authoritative in isolation from a community.” William A. Graham, “Scripture,” ER 12.8194–95. See also Stephen B. Chapman, “Collections, Canons, and Communities,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ed. Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A. Sweeney (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 28–36; Wilfred C. Smith, What Is Scripture? A  Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 3  This phrase is usually attributed to B. Jowett (see Benjamin Jowett, “On the Interpretation of Scripture,” in Essays and Reviews, 10th ed. [London: Longman et al, 1862], 399–527). As W. Moberly points out, however, Jowett “did not see this [principle] as reductive of the dignity and significance of the Bible. Quite the contrary: ‘When interpreted like any other book, by the same rules of evidence and the same canons of criticism, the Bible will still remain unlike any other book’.” R. W. L. Moberly, “‘Interpret the Bible Like Any Other Book’? Requiem for an Axiom,” JTI 4.1 (2010): 91–92 (citing Jowett’s essay in the volume listed here, 455). 4  Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 69–83.



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

505

Childs’s legacy on this point is both controversial and frequently misunderstood. S. Chapman, a student of Childs, brings some clarity to the discussion when he explains: What Childs was after was not the abolition of historical criticism, but a new kind of historical criticism, in which the unfair (and unhistorical!) prejudices of its past employment could be corrected and its blind spots opened up to scholarly examination. At the root of the matter for Childs was the genre question: what exactly are we reading? His categories of ‘scripture’ and ‘canon’ represented an effort to construe the nature of the biblical literature and its historical development more accurately, as well as a realization that to do so carries with it a number of methodological implications going to the heart of the field.5

In other words, Childs’s attention to the text’s final form was not born from a New Critical or postmodern attempt to read the Bible as an ahistorical springboard for theological reflection.6 Rather, Childs realized that when prophetic speech has been uttered, recorded, edited, and rewritten over several centuries, “original” historical contexts are simply not determinative of its meaning and scope.7 Childs accurately comprehended that the Bible’s unique history of composition, particularly its formulation as a scripture serviceable to the needs of a religious community in whose tradition both Jews and Christians now stand, necessitates a mode of inquiry that reckons honestly with these compositional realities. As pertains directly to the book of Isaiah, one of the more controversial of Childs’s claims is the idea that chapters 40–55 underwent a process of “dehistorization.” He writes: [There] is much evidence to suggest that the present context [of Isaiah 40–55], while secondary, is a highly reflective, intentional setting which was considered so important that the original 6th century context was almost totally obliterated by those who transmitted the material. What is left of the original historical context is, at best, scattered vestiges, which accounts for the fact that the repeated attempts to interpret these chapters on the basis of a critical historical reconstruction have proven so unsatisfactory and hypothetical. Even though the message of Second Isaiah was once addressed to real people in a particular historical situation, the canonical shape of these chapters has drained them of their historical particularity and has subordinated the original message to a new role within the canon.8 5  Stephen B. Chapman, “Brevard Childs as a Historical Critic: Divine Concession and the Unity of the Canon,” in The Bible as Christian Scripture: The Work of Brevard S. Childs, ed. Christopher R. Seitz and Kent Harold Richards, SBL Biblical Scholarship in North America 25 (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 65. 6  See James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 75–104; John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 77–103. Childs’s distinction from postmodern readings is perhaps best understood in light of his response to W. Brueggemann: Brevard S. Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 291–98. 7 See Brevard S. Childs, “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” Int 32.1 (1978): 46–55. 8  Brevard S. Childs, “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old Tes-

506

Daniel J. D. Stulac

Childs understands Isa 40–55 to contain material first uttered in relation to specific, sixth-century-BCE events. In contrast to many other modern scholars, however, he asserts that these chapters have been “drained of their historical particularity” in such a way that their language has been made responsible primarily to its canonical situation (its Sitz im Buch) rather than the events that first prompted that language.9 This observation drives Childs’s interest in intratextuality both as a form of historical, textual composition and as a mode of interpretation appropriate to the Bible’s literary nature. Indeed, as M. Fishbane has observed, “intertextuality is the core of the canonical imagination.”10 So too for Childs, Isaiah is a theologically motivated intratext that everywhere refers primarily to itself, not the sixth-century backdrop to which most exegesis reflexively defaults. Suffice to say that many biblical historians do not ascribe to Childs’s views. For example, in his Anchor Bible commentary, J. Blenkinsopp raises two objections: [Childs] must postulate that 40­–55 contained more precise historical data before being attached to 1–39 and that these historical particulars were removed, a completely arbitrary assumption. And … [Childs] must also minimize or disregard the historical references, either direct or indirect, that these chapters do in fact contain.11

This argument appears to misunderstand the methodological significance of Childs’s insight. First, Childs is not required to postulate that any historical data were “removed” from Isa 40­–55; he is merely claiming that in its canonical form, these chapters do not self-present as anything except the word of Isaiah son of Amoz (1:1), who is both a character and an authorial voice within the book. Second, Childs is equally not required to “minimize” the historical references that can be found in Isa 40–55. Virtually no competent Isaiah scholars – Childs included  – disregard this material’s probable point of origin in the sixth century BCE. Rather, Childs argues that precise knowledge of these origins is tament,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, ed. John A. Emerton et al., VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 66–80. 9  See also Ehud Ben Zvi, “De-Historicizing and Historicizing Tendencies in the Twelve Prophetic Books: A Case Study of the Heuristic Value of a Historically Anchored Systemic Approach to the Corpus of Prophetic Literature,” in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes, ed. Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 37–56; Roy F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55, BZAW 141 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976); Martti Nissinen, “Reflections on the ‘Historical-Critical’ Method: Historical Criticism and Critical Historicism,” in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen, ed. Joel M. LeMon and Kent H. Richards, SBL Resources for Biblical Study 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 493–96; Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 1–47. 10  Michael A. Fishbane, “Types of Biblical Intertextuality,” in Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998, ed. A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 39. 11 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 49.

“Go-out from Babylon/There!”



507

not essential for grasping its literary and rhetorical function. Again, the issue is generic: just what exactly are we reading? If the book of Isaiah is an artifact, then Blenkinsopp’s exegetical approach is justified. But if it is something else, something whose “date” is a spectrum of authorial activity rather than a pin dot, then historical-critical exegesis as normally construed in the modern era appears to be mired in the pursuit of hypothetical prototexts. From a canonical perspective, the most relevant questions pertain not to Isaiah’s supposed historical referents, but to its internal matrix of words and concepts. Rather than pursuing the sociopolitical background that might have contextualized one fleeting phase of the text’s construction, we might ask more profitably: What sort of narrative context does Isaiah’s implied author assume that his or her readers must have in order to make sense of the book’s message on its own terms? This context appears in chapters 6–8, 20, and 36–39, a string of texts linked through clear lexical and conceptual correspondences, such as the repetition of exact phrasing in 7:3 and 36:2. If we take seriously these passages as providing the narrative skeleton around which the canonical book is built, then the historical frame in which the entire “vision of Isaiah” (i. e., chs. 1–66) asks to be understood is that of the four Davidic kings listed in 1:1.12 More specifically, the text’s self-presentation effectively embeds Isa 40–66 within the rescue of Jerusalem in chapters 36–37, the near death and recovery of Hezekiah in chapter 38, and Hezekiah’s provocative statement regarding “peace and security in my days” in 39:8 – totally irrespective of these chapters’ time(s) of origin. Such a literary “fiction” will cause no end of consternation for modern readers, but such problems are appropriately regarded as ours rather than Isaiah’s. Indeed it should surprise no one that the premodern Bible regularly defies the epistemological categories of the twenty-first-century historian. Of special importance to this narrative skeleton is the prophecy offered to Hezekiah regarding Jerusalem’s rescue from Sennacherib, as related in 37:30–32: 30a 30b 30c 30d

And this is for you the sign (‫) ָהאֹות‬: Eat this year whatever-germinates, and in the second year whatever-follows-that;13 but in the third year, sow and harvest,

12 

See Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen, The Reader-Oriented Unity of the Book Isaiah,

ACEBT 6 (Amsterdam: Skandalon, 2006).

13 The forms ‫יח‬ ַ ‫‘ ָס ִפ‬whatever-germinates’ and ‫‘ ָׁש ִחיס‬whatever-follows-that’ (a hapax legomenon) appearing in 37:30b–c have been translated in a variety of ways. Wildberger, for example, has “the latter growth” and “the wild growth,” respectively (Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 409). Blenkinsopp translates “aftergrowth” and “what grows naturally” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 467), while Childs reads “what grows of itself ” and “what springs from that” (Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 270). In both cases, the terms appear to refer to vegetation (particularly grain) that grows up on its own, without being purposefully

508 30e 31a 31b 32a 32b 32c

Daniel J. D. Stulac

and plant vineyards and eat their fruit.14 And the survivor of the house of Judah who remains will again take-root below and make fruit above. For from Jerusalem the remnant will go-out (‫ירוּשׁ ִַלם ֵתּ ֵצא ְשׁ ֵא ִרית‬ ָ ‫) ִכּי ִמ‬ and the survivor from Mount Zion. The zeal of Yhwh of Armies will do15 this.

As Blenkinsopp observes, this oracle of deliverance is oddly construed as a “sign” since it cannot work within the timeframe of a literal, historical siege. After all, one cannot rest assured that the siege will fail by engaging in agricultural activities that become possible only in the aftermath of that failure! As a result, he describes the language of 37:30 as providing a “general sense of reassurance.”16 However, a better solution recognizes that the text is not constrained by the temporal categories that Blenkinsopp presumes to be operative, precisely because the text is not an artifactual record of prophetic speech, but rather it is a theologically motivated rendering of prophetic speech designed to function as a scripture for ongoing generations of readers. The “sign” of deliverance in Isaiah, the sign that “will not be cut-off ” (55:13d), functions as a multidimensional bookmark that, crucially, involves a paradigmatic “going-out” (root ‫ )יצא‬in both 37:32a and 55:12a (cf. 7:3, 14; 66:19a, 24a). A canonical approach to the book of Isaiah suggests that it is within this historically constructed tapestry of language that the prophet’s rhetoric of departure will be best understood.

2.  Isaiah 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 as Related Departure Texts Isaiah 48:20a and 52:11a contribute to larger passages (48:17–22 and 52:9–12) that share a number of corresponding terms and concepts, and which play an important role in chapters 40–55 and the larger book. Analysis will therefore proceed in concentric stages. First, each passage will be analyzed on its own and sown – ”volunteers,” as such sprouts might be called by farmers and gardeners today. See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, BDB, 695, 705; DCH 6:180, 8:322; HALOT 2:764, 4:1460. 14  Scholars sometimes emend the verbs translated here as “sow,” “harvest,” “plant,” and “eat,” all of which appear as imperatives (following the qere for the form ‫ול‬ ֻ ‫) ְו ִא ְכ‬, to infinitives absolute. This change is thought necessary since, in Wildberger’s estimation, “imperative forms would intimate that the people were, so to speak, producing their own sign” (Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 414; see also John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, rev. ed., WBC 25 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005], 567, 569). That the people are commanded to participate actively in the sign of their own salvation does not strike the present interpreter as problematic. 15  When used as a main verb (as opposed to an auxiliary verb), this essay’s translations “do” and “make” (e. g., 37:31b) both reflect the root ‫ﬠׂשה‬. 16  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 477. Similarly, M. Luther suggests a “miracle” here to make up for the apparent historical discontinuity between the sign and the recovery from Assyrian assault (Martin Luther, Lectures on Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, vol. 16 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan [St. Louis: Concordia, 1969], 325).

“Go-out from Babylon/There!”



509

in relation to the other. Second, 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 will be read as part of a larger body of prophetic passages running from Isa 40 to 55, especially those that use language pertaining to departure. Finally, the rhetoric of departure in Isa 40–55 will be viewed in light of key texts appearing in Isa 1–39 and 56–66. This procedure will show that the prophetic call to “go-out from Babylon” has been refashioned in the book of Isaiah as a template for torah obedience. As a result, reader-disciples of Isaiah may plausibly imagine their adherence to Yhwh’s word as a type of figural “going-out from Babylon” in eras stretching beyond the sixth century BCE. The call to depart Babylon in 48:20 is characterized by a series of six commands (go-out, flee, report, make-heard, cause-to-goout, say). These imperatives communicate the larger passage’s persuasive goal: to engender obedience to the prophetic word.17 48:17–22 reads: 17a 17b 17c 18a 18b 18c 19a 19b 19c 20a 20b 20c 20d 21a 21b 21c 22

Thus says Yhwh your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am Yhwh your God who-trains you to profit, who-guides you18 in the road you should walk. If only you had paid-attention to my commands, then like a river would have been your peace and your righteousness like the rollers of the sea, and like the sand would have been your seed and what-goes-out (‫ ) ְו ֶצ ֱא ָצ ֵאי‬from your belly like its granules;19 not cut off and not destroyed would be their name from before me.” Go-out from Babylon (‫ !) ְצאוּ ִמ ָבּ ֶבל‬Flee from the Chaldeans! With a voice of exclamation, report; make-this-heard! Cause-it-to-go-out to the end of the land (‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ד־ק ֵצה ָה‬ ְ ‫יאוּה ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫הֹוצ‬ ִ ): say, “Yhwh has redeemed his servant Jacob!” They did not thirst in the barrens where he caused-them-to-walk: water from the rock he caused-to-flow for them; he split the rock and water gushed-out. “There is no peace,” says Yhwh, “for the wicked.”

Rich with metaphor and laden with parenetic stress, this passage depicts Yhwh as a teacher and guide through the stock biblical metaphor of walking (root ;‫הלך‬ 48:17c) along a road as an expression of obedient trust. By way of three waterbased images – a river, waves, and the seashore (48:18) – Yhwh then laments the implied audience’s lack of offspring (‫ ; ְו ֶצ ֱא ָצ ֵאי‬48:19b), which resulted from its failure to heed his commands (48:18a). Such language expresses a clear focus on the principle of attention to Yhwh’s word. In this context appear the subsequent six imperatives. Leaving Babylon and the Chaldeans behind, the audience is commanded to announce its “redemption” (root ‫ ;גאל‬48:20d; cf. 48:17a) with “exclamation” (root ‫ ;רנן‬48:20b) and to “cause-it-to-go-out to the end of the ֶ ‫ד־ק ֵצה ָה‬ ְ ‫יאוּה ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫הֹוצ‬ ִ ; 48:20c). Though in the past the audience did not land” (‫אָרץ‬ 17 

Childs, Isaiah, 374. ‫‘ ַמ ְד ִר ֲיכָך‬who-guides you’ shares the root ‫ דרך‬with ‫‘ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך‬in the road’. 19  ‫ ֵמ ֶﬠיָך‬ ‘your belly’ shares the root ‫ מﬠה‬with ‫‘ ִּכ ְמ ֺﬠ ָתיו‬like its granules’. 18 

510

Daniel J. D. Stulac

obey Yhwh’s word and so lost access to the patriarchal promises, it can implicitly recover those promises in the present by “going-out” from Babylon and also by similarly “causing-to-go-out” a public declaration of Yhwh’s redemption. 48:21 then frames the audience’s potential obedience as a type of Egyptian exodus, with special emphasis on the Israelites’ lack of thirst in the “barrens” (root ‫ )חרב‬where Yhwh caused them to “walk” (48:21a; cf. 48:17c). Additional water imagery appearing in 48:21b–c helps to reinforce the hope that what was lost in the past (i. e. peace like a river, offspring like the seashore; 48:18–19) can be recovered through rehearsal of mytho-historical obedience in the present. The concluding line in 48:22, which repeats the key word “peace” (cf. 48:18b), drives home the thrust of the passage as a whole: obedience is required if one wishes to avoid the fate of the wicked. Most scholars recognize a familial bond between 48:17–22 and 52:9–12. The two texts share several lexical and conceptual correspondences, and so mutually reinforce their respective emphases on obedience to the command to “go-out.” 52:9–12 reads: 9a 9b 9c 9d 10a 10b 10c 10d 11a 11b 11c 11d 12a 12b 12c 12d

Burst, exclaim together, barrens of Jerusalem! For Yhwh has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem! Yhwh has exposed his holy arm to the eyes of all nations; and all the extremities of the land have seen the salvation of our God. Turn-away! Turn-away! Go-out from there (‫!)סוּרוּ סוּרוּ ְצאוּ ִמ ָשּׁם‬ Touch no unclean-thing! Go-out from its midst and purify-yourselves (‫תֹּוכהּ ִה ָבּרוּ‬ ָ ‫) ְצאוּ ִמ‬, you-who-lift the vessels of Yhwh! But not in haste20 will you go-out (‫) ִכּי ל ׂא ְב ִח ָפּזֹון ֵתּ ֵצאוּ‬, nor in flight will you walk; for walking before you is Yhwh, and at your rear is the God of Israel.

This passage functions as the culmination of a block of prophetic poetry that begins in 51:1 and which is structured by imperative pairs in 51:9 (be-roused, be-roused), 51:17 (rouse-yourself, rouse-yourself ), and 52:1 (be-roused, be roused; be-clothed, be-clothed). The two imperatives in 52:9a – though not repetitive like these others – are a frequent Isaianic combination (cf. 14:7, 44:23, 49:13, 54:1, 55:12), while 52:11a (turn-away, turn-away) provides a concluding imperative pair to match the list above. Prophetic injunction, in other words, characterizes both 52:9–12 and the larger unit in view. Here, “barrens” (root 20  As

many scholars point out, the rare term ‫‘ ְב ִח ָּפזֹון‬in haste’ figures prominently in the exodus narrative. See Exod 12:11 and Deut 16:3.



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

511

‫ ;חרב‬52:9b; cf. 48:21a) are commanded to “exclaim” (root ‫ ;רנן‬52:9a; cf. 48:20b) because Yhwh has “redeemed” (root ‫ ;גאל‬52:9d; cf. 48:17a, 20d) Jerusalem – three terms that factor prominently in 48:17–22. So too, Yhwh has made known his redemption to the “extremities of the land” (52:10c; cf. 48:20c). 52:11 then issues six imperatives (turn-away, turn-away, go-out, touch, go-out, purify) to match the series in 48:20. The audience is told to “go-out from there” in 52:11a and to “go-out from its midst” in 52:11c. A third use of the root ‫ יצא‬in 52:12a matches the threefold use of the same in 48:19b, 20a, and 20c. More exodus imagery appears in 52:12 through rare terminology such as “in haste” (‫ ) ְב ִח ָּפזֹון‬and the notion of Yhwh leading a journey while providing protection from behind. The text also emphasizes “walking” (root ‫ ;הלך‬52:12b–c), which corresponds to 48:17c and 48:21a, as well as the audience’s separation (“Touch no uncleanthing! Go-out from its midst and purify-yourselves …”; 52:11b–c) from its prior context. Such language enjoys a clear resonance with 48:22, whose addition to chapter 48 functions to remind the reader that Yhwh’s redemption necessarily involves moral distinction. When 52:9–12 is read in light of these lexical and conceptual correspondences with 48:17–22, it becomes quite clear that both passages promote obedience as central to Yhwh’s redeeming acts – namely obedient participation in acts of going-out “from Babylon” and “from there.”

3.  Departure Texts in Isaiah 40–55 Most modern commentaries regard the nonspecificity of the command to go-out from “there” in 52:11a (rather than “Babylon” as in 48:20a) as merely an accident of ancient discourse. Without fanfare, for example, Blenkinsopp writes, “The call to leave Babylon (52:11–12) parallels 48:20–22.”21 M. Thompson even follows the REB by inserting the place name into his translation of 52:11, since the historical referent seems to him indisputable.22 Not all scholars are convinced, however. Childs reminds us that in 52:11 “there is no mention of Babylon, and 21  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 343. Other examples abound: Richtsje Abma, “Travelling from Babylon to Zion: Location and Its Function in Isaiah 49–55,” JSOT 22.74 (1997): 3–28; Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 140; John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 458; John Goldingay and David Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, 2 vols., ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 269; Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 150; John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 20 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 128; Shalom Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 393–95; Marvin Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, FOTL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 190, 203, 205; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 776; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1975), 168. 22  Michael E. W. Thompson, Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, EC (Peterborough, UK: Epworth, 2001), 99.

512

Daniel J. D. Stulac

the focus is very different from that of 48:20.”23 Instead of geographical departure as depicted in 48:20, he argues, the emphasis of 52:11 lies with carrying Yhwh’s vessels.24 U. Berges makes a similar observation: “It is no accident that ‘Babylon’ and ‘Chaldea’ remain unnamed in 52.11, in contrast to 48.20; rather it is a clear indication that this command to depart is not directed to the Babylonian exilic community, but to all diaspora Jews, who should make their way back to Jerusalem from wherever they are (‘from there’).”25 Whether Berges is correct that such circumstances occasioned 52:11 is a matter for another essay; it is enough that both Childs and Berges, unlike the majority of scholars, see rhetorical potential in the nonspecificity of the language found therein. The command to “go-out from there” relates to  – but also differs from  – the command to “go-out from Babylon,” and that difference has been left intact for the reader’s benefit. When 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 are read alongside other texts appearing in Isa 40–55 that make use of corresponding language, the rhetorical value of the latter’s geographical nonspecificity begins to clarify. In particular, passages such as 42:1–4, 49:8–10, 51:3–8, and 55:10–13 demonstrate that “going-out” is activity typologically consistent with the servant’s mission (42:1d, 3c, and 49:9a), Yhwh’s “out-going” torah (51:4c), and ultimately, Yhwh’s “out-going” efficacious word (55:11a). Isaiah 42:1–4 is commonly regarded as part of the first Servant Song and can be read as a response to the questions raised in Isa 40–41.26 Most importantly, the promulgation or bringing forth of justice characterizes the servant’s27 mission. The text reads: 1a “Behold, my servant whom I support, 1b my chosen-one whom my person favored: 23 

Childs, Isaiah, 406. Ibid., 407. 25 Ulrich Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, trans. Millard C. Lind, Hebrew Bible Monographs 46 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 354. 26  Childs follows W. Beuken in observing that Isa 40–41 has introduced the problem of Israel’s right having been disregarded. He writes: “In chapter 42 this question is addressed, but in a totally unexpected fashion. Through means of his servant … God will bring forth justice … to the nations (v. 1). The servant will not fail until this justice has been established (v. 3). As Beuken has forcefully argued … chapter 41 remains unintelligible apart from chapter 42, and, conversely, the servant figure of chapter 42 is fully enigmatic apart from the larger context of chapter 41.” Childs, Isaiah, 324. See also Christopher R. Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, NIB 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 362–63. 27  This essay assumes that the servant in Isaiah is a multidimensional character whose fluid identity cannot be pinned exclusively to Cyrus, Israel, or the prophet Isaiah. Hanson observes: “The Servant, freed from the constraints of the positivistic quest, takes shape in the imagination as a catalyst for reflection on the nature of the response demanded of those who have received a call from God” (Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 41). See also Childs, Isaiah, 324; Peter Wilcox and David Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah,” JSOT 42 (1988): 79–102. 24 



1c 1d 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c

“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

513

I gave my spirit to him; justice for the nations he causes-to-go-out (‫יֹוציא‬ ִ ‫) ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַלגֹּויִ ם‬. He does not cry-out28 and he does not lift and he does not cause-to-be-heard in the street his voice. A damaged reed he does not break, and a failing wick he does not extinguish; with-regard-to truth he causes-to-go-out justice (‫יֹוציא ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ִ ‫) ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬. He does not fail and he is not damaged,29 until he puts into the earth justice – and his torah the islands are expecting.”

Twofold use of the root ‫ יצא‬suggests a connection between this passage and 48:17–22 and 52:9–12, even if, when used in the hiphil and in conjunction with “justice,” the verb implies administration rather than emigration.30 Two additional intratextual observations are also relevant at this point. First, the servant is “favored” (root ‫ )רצה‬by Yhwh (42:1b). This term appears elsewhere in Isa 40–55 only in 40:2 and 49:8, suggesting that 42:1–4 should be read in coordination with the “time of favor” described in 49:8–10, a passage related to the second Servant Song in 49:1–6 and which similarly includes an imperative to “go-out” in 49:9a. Second, the “nations” (42:1d) and the “islands” (or ָ ‫ּול‬ ְ ; root ‫)ירה‬.31 “coastlands”; 42:4c) wait expectantly for the servant’s torah (‫תֹורתֹו‬ This key term appears again in 51:4c–d, likewise in combination with “justice” (51:4d; cf. 42:1d, 4b), “going-out” (51:4c; cf. 42:1d, 3c), and the idea of a “light” to the peoples/nations (51:4d; cf. 42:6, 49:6). Taken in sum, these interwoven threads strongly imply that the servant’s “out-going” mission in 42:1–4 engenders additional, related acts of “going-out” that are similarly directed toward the global reception of instruction. Isaiah 49:8–10 takes up the idea of “favor” from 40:2 and 42:1, linking it with communication (49:8b), salvation (49:8c), help (49:8c), and most importantly, 28  ‫‘ יִ ְצ ַﬠק‬cry-out’ expresses the root ‫צﬠק‬, which is closely related to ‫‘ זﬠק‬cry’; cf. 30:19c. 1QIsaa has ‫יזﬠק‬. 29  Here the MT reads ‫‘ יָ רּוץ‬he runs’ (root ‫ ;)רוץ‬BHS repoints this form to ‫‘ יֵ רֹוץ‬he is damaged’ (root ‫)רצץ‬, which appears to be a better choice in light of the use of ‫ רצץ‬in 42:3a, in parallel with the root ‫‘ כהה‬fail’ (42:3b; 42:4a), and also in view of the LXX’s θραυσθήσεται ‘is crushed’. See Goldingay and Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1, 221; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 186; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 648. 30 See Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55, 156–57; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 185. 31  Isaiah scholars usually translate the nominal form of the root ‫ ירה‬as “instruction” or “teaching” rather than “torah” (to avoid suggesting that the term indicates the first five books of the Bible). This choice, however, does not adequately reckon with Isaiah as a “text-in-tradition” whose authorship is a redactional spectrum. From a canonical perspective, Isaiah’s prophetic “teaching” and the written “torah” are categories that interpenetrate one another. For examples of the normal historical-critical perspective, see Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 660; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 73. Contrast Childs, Isaiah, 30; R. E. Clements, “The Meaning of ‫ תורה‬in Isaiah 1–39,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J. G. McConville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 59–72.

514

Daniel J. D. Stulac

with a commission to apply the servant’s “out-going” promulgation of justice toward the release of prisoners (49:8e–9b). The text reads: 8a 8b 8c 8d 8e 8f 8g 9a 9b 9c 9d 10a 10b 10c 10d

Thus says Yhwh: “In a time of favor I will answer you, and in a day of salvation, I will help you. And I will form you32 and I will set you to be a covenant people, in-order-to raise-up the land and to cause-inheritance of the desolate inheritances, saying to the prisoners, ‘Go-out!’ (‫סוּרים ֵצאוּ‬ ִ ‫) ֵלאמֹר ַל ֲא‬, and to those-who-are in darkness, ‘Be revealed!’ Upon roads they will graze, and on all the bleak-summits will be their grazing-space. They will not hunger and they will not thirst, and mirage33 and sun will not strike them; for the one-who-has-compassion on them will usher them, and to springs of water he will lead them.

This text resonates with the first Servant Song through the shared idea that Yhwh makes the text’s implied audience a “light to the peoples/nations” (49:6d; cf. 42:6d, 51:4d). Specifically, Yhwh makes that audience a “covenant people” (49:8e; cf. 42:6d) whose task expands upon the servant’s “out-going” mission as described in 42:1d and 3c. In 42:7, for example, the covenant people are directed “to open the eyes of the blind” and “to cause-to-go-out (root ‫ )יצא‬the prisoner (root ‫ )אסר‬from lock-up” and “from the house of detention those who-sit in darkness (root ‫)חׁשך‬.” Likewise in 49:9a–b, that same covenant people is commissioned to say to the “prisoners” (root ‫)אסר‬, “Go-out! (root ‫)יצא‬,” releasing them from the “darkness” (root ‫)חׁשך‬. The servant’s and the implied audience’s task are cut from the same “out-going” cloth. The reader’s interpretation of 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 will be unavoidably affected as a result of these intratextual observations. 49:9c–10d portrays the release from prison already described in 42:7 as a “road” (49:9c; cf. 48:17c) through the wilderness (49:9d; cf. “barrens,” 48:21a, 52:9b) with emphasis on the provision of food (49:9c–d) and water (49:10d; cf. 48:18, 21). So too, as described above, 48:21 and 52:12 employ exodus imagery to characterize the departure both “from Babylon” and “from there.” Departure, the reader realizes, is an act that involves geography, but is not limited to geography. Isaiah’s rich 32  The form ‫‘ ְו ֶא ָּצ ְרָך‬and I will form you’ (root ‫ )יצר‬may also be translated “and I will guard/ watch you” (root ‫)נצר‬. Following the LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta, Paul vocalizes this form and the next (‫‘ ְו ֶא ֶּתנְ ָך‬and I will set you’) as waw-consecutives, yielding the past tense: “I created you and appointed you a covenant people” (Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 329). 33  The term ‫ ָׁש ָרב‬is translated as a “mirage” (i. e., heat appearing as water) on the basis of 35:7 (its only other appearance in the Bible), where it parallels ‫‘ ְו ִצ ָּמאֹון‬hamada/parched-ground’ and contrasts with pools appearing in the desert. See DCH 8:559; HALOT 4:1651; Goldingay and Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2, 175–76.



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

515

matrix of lexical and conceptual correspondences reveals that the command to “go-out” in 48:20a and 52:11a puts the one who obeys on paradigm with the servant, associating him or her with the servant’s mission to bring forth justice and light to the nations. Given these considerations, the reader will naturally want to understand more precisely the means by which such illumination is achieved. To this end, 51:3–8 expands on the idea of obedience to (and rejection of !) torah as suggested in 42:4c. The text reads: 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e 6a 6b 6c 6d 6e

For Yhwh comforts Zion, he comforts all her barrens; and he has put her desert to be like Eden, and her Aravah like the garden of Yhwh; gladness and rejoicing will be found in her, thanks and the voice of a psalm. “Pay-attention to me, my people, and my country, to me listen; indeed the torah from me goes-out (‫תֹורה ֵמ ִא ִתּי ֵת ֵצא‬ ָ ‫) ִכּי‬, and my justice as a light to the peoples I effect-immediately.34 My righteousness is close-by, my salvation goes-out (‫)יָ ָצא יִ ְשׁ ִﬠי‬, and my arms judge the peoples; in me the islands hope, and my arm they are expecting. Lift to the sky your eyes, and look to the land beneath, for the sky like smoke will vanish, and the land like a garment will disintegrate, and its inhabitants – like so35 – will they die.

34  Interpretation of 51:4d presents a challenge. Scholars have argued that the final word in the colon, ‫יﬠ‬ ַ ִ‫ַארּג‬ ְ ‘I will effect-immediately’ (see HALOT 3:1188–89), should be translated as the first word of 51:5a. Among others, Blenkinsopp adopts this position on the grounds that the MT’s versification seems to upset “exceptionally regular 3:3 meter” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 324). This choice alone, however, does not solve the passage’s metrical difficulties, since moving ‫יﬠ‬ ַ ִ‫ַארּג‬ ְ to 51:5a in order to achieve balance between 51:4d and 51:5a leaves 51:5b as a new outlier (‫)יָ ָצא יִ ְשׁ ִﬠי‬, whose two beats no longer match the modified rendering of 51:5a. Blenkinsopp solves this problem by adding “like light” to 51:5b (following the LXX; see also McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 118; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, OTL [London: SCM, 1969], 232). Instead, the most sensible solution is to translate according to the MT’s traditional versification and to let any differences with the LXX stand (see Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 363). Clines, Goldingay and Payne, and Watts also suggest that the root ‫ רגﬠ‬in this case (qualified by “as a light”) can be translated “cause to flash” (from the Arabic cognate), but such usage would be unique to biblical literature. See DCH 7:417; Goldingay and Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2, 228; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 751. 35  The form ‫מֹו־כן‬ ֵ ‫‘ ְּכ‬like so’ is frequently translated as “like gnats.” See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 324–25; BDB, 487–88; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 119; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 751, 753; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 233.

516

Daniel J. D. Stulac

6f But my salvation for perpetuity will be, 6g and my righteousness will not be shattered.36 7a Hear me, those-who-know righteousness, 7b people with my torah in their hearts; 7c do not fear the reproach of men, 7d and because of their insults do not be shattered. 8a For like a garment, a moth eats them, 8b and like fleece, a larva eats them; 8c but my righteousness unto perpetuity will be, 8d and my salvation for generations-to-come.”

Like 48:17–22 and 52:9–12, this passage connects Zion’s redemption to water through the greening-up and reclamation of desert waste-spaces (51:3; see root ‫‘ חרב‬barren’ in 48:21a, 51:3b, 52:9b; cf. 58:11–12). Immediately preceding this image, the text sounds three imperatives: “hear” (51:1a), “look” (51:1c) and “look” (51:2a). In 51:4a–b, Yhwh takes up the same imperative diction with a call to “pay-attention” (51:4a; cf. 48:18a) and to “listen” (51:4b). All such language pertains to perception. In no uncertain terms, the implied audience must apply its faculties of discernment – ears, eyes, and mind – to Yhwh’s garden-restoring “comfort” as described in 51:3a–b (cf. 40:1a; 52:9c). Yhwh then describes that comfort as the “going-out” of his “torah” and the administration of his “justice” as a “light to the peoples” (51:4c–d); indeed Yhwh’s “salvation” also “goes-out” to “judge the peoples,” while the “islands” hope for and “expect” his powerful arm (51:5b–e). In other words, terminology appearing also in chapters 42 and 49 thoroughly saturates 51:4–5. Yhwh’s torah is the servant’s paradigmatic, “outgoing” light. Yhwh is not satisfied, however, merely to suggest that a positive response to his torah is desirable. Rather, 51:6–8 moves in a decidedly dualistic direction, separating the righteous from the wicked. 51:6a–e enjoins the audience to witness the disintegration of sky and earth and the death of its inhabitants; Yhwh’s “salvation” (51:6f; cf. 51:5b, 51:8d) and “righteousness” (51:6g; cf. 48:18c, 51:5a, 51:8c), by contrast, endure for perpetuity. 51:7 makes the text’s purpose as plain as possible. Following yet another imperative to “hear” (51:7a; cf. 51:1a), Yhwh identifies “those-who-know righteousness” (51:7a; cf. 51:5a, 6g, 8c) as a “people with my torah in their hearts” (51:7b), and then commands this group not to be “shattered” (51:7d; cf. 51:6g) when they are rejected and insulted by others (a characteristic of the servant especially in 50:4–11 and 52:13–53:12). 36  As Watts points out, the form ‫‘ ֵת ָחת‬shattered’ is usually understood to express the root ‫חתת‬. Alternatively, however, the form can be understood to express the root ‫נחת‬, meaning

“go down,” which Watts (following G. R. Driver) interprets as metaphorical for a setting sun (Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 753). In the same vein, Blenkinsopp translates “eclipse” (LXX ἐκλίπῃ; see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 324). While plausible, such proposals tend to distract from the lexical correspondence between 51:6g (‫ ) ֵת ָחת‬and 51:7d (‫) ֵּת ָחּתּו‬, which the present translation seeks to preserve.



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

517

The obedient/righteous group, in other words, is lexically mapped onto Yhwh’s “out-going” torah in 51:4c, while the disobedient/wicked group associates with cosmic disintegration through their consumption by larvae (51:8a–b; cf. 51:6d–e). Yhwh’s torah is a light that exposes the “darkness” (42:7c, 49:9b) for what it is (cf. 48:22, 52:11). When 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 are read in view of the nations’ hope for the “out-going” torah as described in 51:4–5, the two passages’ similar series of six imperatives and threefold use of ‫ יצא‬continues to attract and focus the reader’s interest. Not only does the command to “go-out” place the audience within the scope of the servant’s “out-going” mission to bring justice to the nations, now that command carries added depth and substance through the notion of torah obedience. 55:10–13 supports this inference: 10a “For as go-down the showers 10b and the snow from the sky 10c and to there do not return, 10d but rather saturate the land 10e and cause-it-to-give-birth and cause-it-to-sprout, 10f and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11a so is my word that goes-out from my mouth (‫) ֵכּן יִ ְהיֶ ה ְד ָב ִרי ֲא ֶשׁר יֵ ֵצא ִמ ִפּי‬. 11b It will not return to me empty, 11c but does what I desire 11d and succeeds in-the-purpose-for-which I send it. 12a Indeed in joy you will go-out (‫) ְב ִשׂ ְמ ָחה ֵת ֵצאוּ‬ 12b and in peace you will be conducted; 12c the mountains and the hills will burst before you into exclamation, 12d and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. 13a Instead of the thornbush37 will go-up the cypress, 13b instead of briars38 will go-up the myrtle; 13c and this will be for Yhwh’s name, 13d a perpetual sign that will not be cut-off.”

This image of precipitation and revegetation contributes to a dazzlingly complex web of other Isaianic passages. Three observations, however, especially pertain to the present discussion. First, the restoration portrayed in 55:10–13 appears subsequent to an imperative to “seek Yhwh while he may be found” (55:6a). The chapter draws a clear distinction between the “reckonings” of the “evil man” 37  ‫‘ ַהּנַ ֲﬠצּוץ‬thornbush’ is rare, found elsewhere only in 7:19. Like ‫‘ ַה ִּס ְר ַּפד‬briars’ with which it stands in parallel, not enough information is available to assign this term to a specific species. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 162; DCH 5:707, HALOT 2:706. 38  ‫‘ ַה ִּס ְר ַּפד‬briars’ is a hapax legomenon whose precise definition is unknown. In parallel with ‫‘ ַהּנַ ֲﬠצּוץ‬thornbush’ and in contrast to ‫‘ ֲה ַדס‬myrtle’, it almost certainly refers to some type of thorny weed (often translated “nettle”). See Borowski, Agriculture, 162; DCH 6:201; HALOT 2:770; Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 162.

518

Daniel J. D. Stulac

(55:7b) and the incomprehensibly superior “reckonings” of Yhwh (55:8a, 9c). It also stresses that the “wicked” person should abandon his “road” (55:7a) in pursuit of forgiveness (55:7c–d), again in contrast to the “roads” of Yhwh (55:8b, 9b). Such language urges adherence to Yhwh’s loftier plan. Through the stock concept of a “road” (‫) ֶּד ֶרְך‬, it additionally associates that adherence with the image of “walking” departure along “roads” in 48:17c, 21a and 52:12b–c, in contrast to the fate of the “wicked” (48:22) but on track with those “who-know righteousness” (51:7a) and who hold Yhwh’s torah in their hearts (51:7b; cf. 42:4c). Second, Yhwh’s word, which “goes-out from my mouth” (55:11a), mimics the outward movement of water from the sky, resulting in food (55:10; cf. 48:9c–10d). Notably, the torah is the only other thing to “go-out” from Yhwh in Isa 40–55 (51:4c). Third and most importantly, the text’s implied audience hears that it too will “go-out” in joy (55:12a) and in “peace” (55:12b; cf. 48:18b, 22). Redemption is participation in the “out-going” word of God. Fortunately, Yhwh effects that redemption for the sake of his own name (55:13c; cf. 48:19c), and thus makes his people’s redemption an enduring “sign that will not be cut-off ” (55:13d; cf. 48:19c, 51:8c–d). In sum, 55:10–13 confirms for the reader that “departure from Babylon” is a figural act of torah obedience in step with the servant’s mission and with Yhwh’s “out-going” efficacious word. Thus, in agreement with Berges and Childs, this essay concludes that the nonspecific adverb “there” in 52:11a is rhetorically meaningful. It provides a bridge from the memory of two historical exoduses in 48:20–21 to the ongoing departure in 55:12–13 that persists throughout the generations as a “perpetual sign” (55:13d; cf. 37:30a). The torah shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

4.  Departure Texts in Isaiah 1–39 and 56–66 When the rhetoric of departure in 48:17–22 and 52:9–12 is examined in light of the book of Isaiah as a whole, the reader soon experiences an “overwhelming flood” (see 8:7–8; 10:22; 28:2, 15, 17, 18; 30:28; 43:2; 66:12) of lexical correspondences. The discussion below restricts itself to two such streams that contribute important data to this essay’s main point. First, “going-out” figures prominently in Isa 36–37, a narrative whose quasi-apocalyptic tenor resonates with other texts (e. g., 26:21, 66:24) that emphasize a differentiation between the righteous and the wicked.39 Second, Isaiah associates “going-out” with road39  See 65:1–16, especially use of the root ‫ יצא‬in 65:9a: 8a Thus says Yhwh: 8b “As juice is found in the cluster, 8c and someone says, ‘Do not ruin it, 8d for blessing is in it,’



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

519

walking and torah obedience in 30:18–22 and 2:2–5, two passages that likewise demonstrate the book’s overall interest in distinguishing the restoration community for generations to come. As discussed above, 37:30–32 anticipates the “going-out” of the “remnant” (root ‫ )ׁשאר‬from Jerusalem in the triumphant aftermath of the Assyrian assault (37:32a–b). This exodus is part of the “sign” that the prophet Isaiah offers Hezekiah in 37:30a and which, in conjunction with the “out-going” movement of the implied audience as a “sign” in 55:13d, provides narrative context for the prophetic oracles presented in Isa 40–66. The scenario described in chapters 36–37 is nothing if not extreme. Sennacherib poses an existential threat to Zion – or so the Rab Shakeh claims through descriptions of Sennacherib’s other vanquished foes (36:18–20, 37:11–13). He appeals to the Jerusalemites’ common sense to avoid siege-induced famine, whereby they would be forced to eat their own feces and drink their own urine ְ ) to me” (36:16). This course of (36:12), and then orders them to “go-out (‫ּוצאּו‬ action would theoretically result in abundant food and water (36:16; contrast 48:21, 49:9c–10d, 51:3a–d, 55:10–13), but also in the irretrievable loss of land when the surrendering Jerusalemites are deported and resettled elsewhere (36:17). Hezekiah does not capitulate to the Rab Shakeh’s demand. Instead, he asks the prophet Isaiah to pray for the city’s “remnant” (37:4).40 The “sign” of 37:30–32 makes good sense in this context, communicating three essential aspects of the book’s perspective on salvation: Yhwh’s provision of food (37:30), the replanting of people in the land (37:31), and the people’s “out-going” movement in response to Yhwh’s zeal (37:32). A redeemed people “goes-out” in victory (37:32), not surrender (36:16). Alongside salvation, Isa 36–37 also emphasizes a clear separation of the righteous from the wicked. In 37:36, the angel of Yhwh “goes-out” (‫ ) ַוּיֵ ֵצא‬and strikes 185,000 of the Assyrians surrounding Jerusalem, a scene of mind-boggling carnage and overpowering stench. The contrasting fates of those who “go-out” from the city with the “torah in their hearts” (51:7b) and those who suffer decomposition by larvae (51:8a–b) could not be sharper. This distinction is impressed upon the reader at multiple other points within the book, notably in association with the root ‫יצא‬. For example, 26:21 reads: 8e 8f 9a 9b 9c 9d

so I will do on-behalf-of my servants, not to ruin them all. And I will cause-to-go-out from Jacob seed )‫אתי ִמיַּ ֲﬠקֹב זֶ ַרﬠ‬ ִ ‫הֹוצ‬ ֵ ‫( ְו‬, and from Judah, one-who-possesses my mountains; my chosen-ones will possess it, and my servants will dwell there.” 40  Hezekiah’s pious response in ch. 37 contrasts directly with that of Ahaz in 7:1–17, who is similarly confronted with an existential threat by an invading army. In that prior context, Isaiah and his son “Remnant-will-return” are commanded to “go-out” to meet Ahaz (‫ֵצא־נָ א ִל ְק ַראת‬ ‫אָחז‬ ָ ) at the “conduit of the upper pool at the highway by the washer’s field” (7:3; cf. 36:2).

520 21a 21b 21c 21d

Daniel J. D. Stulac

For behold, Yhwh goes-out from his place (‫י־הנֵּ ה יְ הוָ ה י ֵֹצא ִמ ְמּקֹומֹו‬ ִ ‫) ִכּ‬, to visit the iniquity of the inhabitants of the land upon them; and the land will reveal its blood, and it will no longer cover over its killed.

This verse shares an obvious resonance with 37:36 through the idea of dead bodies exposed to the elements. A  comparable image also closes the book in 66:24:41 24a 24b 24c 24d 24e

“And they will go-out and see (‫)וְ יָ ְצאוּ וְ ָראוּ‬ the corpses of the men who wronged me; indeed their worm will not die, and their fire will not be extinguished, and they will be a horror to all flesh.”

Here, those whose “seed” (root ‫ ;זרﬠ‬cf. 65:9a) and name Yhwh causes to endure (66:22d) – that is, the “remnant” that “goes-out” from the city (37:32a) – participate in Yhwh’s “out-going” movement as described in 26:21, and so bear witness to the consumption of Yhwh’s enemies (51:8a–b). In Isaiah’s unapologetic frame of reference, “there is no peace for the wicked” (48:22), while obedient departure from “Babylon” puts the one who obeys on track toward perpetual worship on Yhwh’s holy mountain (65:17–25, 66:18–23). The discussion above proposes that such departure should be understood as a figural form of torah obedience. This conclusion is strengthened through various lexical and conceptual correspondences that 48:17–22, 49:9–10, 51:4, 52:11–12, and 55:12–13 share with 30:18–22 and 2:2–5, especially as these pertain to pilgrimage. For example, 30:18–22 encourages walking-as-obedience in contrast to the people’s prior rejection of torah described in 30:8–16. The passage reads: 18a 18b 18c 18d 19a 19b 19c 19d 20a

And therefore Yhwh waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he goes-high to-have-compassion on you; for a God of justice is Yhwh – happy are all who-wait for him. For a people in Zion, inhabiting42 Jerusalem – you will surely weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the voice of your cry; when he hears it, he answers you. For the Lord gave to you

41  Christian readers going back at least as far as Tertullian have seen an important thematic connection between 26:19a (“your dead will live”) and 66:24a (“they will go-out”), where “going-out” is understood as resurrection, sharply contrasted against the dead bodies depicted in 66:24b–e. See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.567, 5:218–19, 6:270, 7:440, 7:519, 7:522. 42  The form ‫ יֵ ֵׁשב‬is read as a masculine singular participle, which makes better sense of the consonantal text. See John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, rev. ed., WBC 24 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 468; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 167.



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

521

20b bread of distress and waters of deprivation,43 20c but no longer concealed will your Teacher be, 20d and your eyes will see your Teacher. 21a And your ears will hear a word from behind you saying, 21b “This is the road; walk in it,” 21c whether you go-right44 or go-left. 22a Then you will treat-as-unclean your images overlaid with silver, 22b and your ephods covered with gold; 22c you will scatter them like menstrual-cloth; 22d “Go-out!”45 you shall say of it (‫ֹאמר לֹו‬ ַ ‫) ֵצא תּ‬.

The first two verses in this unit describe the inhabitation of Zion in 30:19a (cf. 65:17–25) as a state of hopeful expectation (30:18d; cf. 42:4c, 51:5d–e) and divine communication (30:19d; cf. 49:8b, 65:24). 30:20, however, recalls that such a happy state of affairs has not always obtained. In the past, “the Lord gave to you bread of distress (root ‫ ;צרר‬cf. 29:3) and waters of deprivation” (contrast 28:25–26, 37:30–31, 48:21, 49:9c–10d, 51:3, 55:10); but now, “your teacher (root ‫ )ירה‬will no longer be concealed.” The text then promises that the teacher will direct the audience to “walk” upon a “road” (30:21b; cf. 35:5–10; 48:17, 21; 49:9–10; 52:12; 55:7–9, 12–13) without turning to the right or left. The reader infers that this metaphor signals torah obedience in light of the preceding unit (30:8–16), which specifically critiques an “unwillingness to hear the torah of Yhwh” (30:9; cf. 1:10, 1:19–20, 28:12, 30:15). Moreover, the “unwillingness” (root ‫ )אבה‬described in 30:9, 15 and 28:12 connects directly to chapter 8 (e. g., cf. 8:15, 28:13), a text that characterizes the prophet Isaiah’s and his disciples’ separation from their surrounding culture through a resolute commitment to torah (8:16, 20). Such context helps to clarify why the passage seems to skip abruptly from pilgrimage in 30:21 to an image of purification in 30:22. If road walking is a figural form of torah obedience, and torah obedience characterizes the prophet’s distinct trajectory of expectation and “hope” (8:17; cf. 42:4c, 51:5d–e), then it makes good sense to follow up a road-walking metaphor with an appeal for the implied audience’s total repudiation of its “Babylonian” idols (cf. 2:7, 46:1–7). “Go-out” (30:22d), indeed! 43  Sometimes translated “oppression,” ‫‘ ָל ַחץ‬deprivation’ denotes “scanty” (DCH 4:539) or “minimal survival rations” (HALOT 2:527). Cf. 1 Kgs 22:27. 44  ‫‘ ַת ֲא ִמינּו‬go-right’ is usually understood as ‫ימינּו‬ ִ ‫ ֵת‬, in parallel with ‫‘ ַת ְׂש ְמ ִאילּו‬go-left’. See J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 393; Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 467; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 168. 45  Reading “dung,” Wildberger does not interpret the form ‫ ֵצא‬as an imperative of ‫יצא‬, since he does not see who or what is supposed to “go-out” (Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 168). In agreement with Wildberger, Watts reads “filth” (Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 467). If ‫ ָד ָוה‬is understood to be menstrual cloth, however, this is precisely what would act as the subject of the imperative “go-out.” See Roberts, First Isaiah, 392. The form exhibits parasonance with ‫‘ צָֹאה‬filth/ excrement’; cf. 4:4, 28:8.

522

Daniel J. D. Stulac

The last text requiring attention is 2:2–5. Like 30:20–22, this well-known passage portrays instruction as road walking, and moreover, depicts the torah as moving “out” to meet the nations that seek instruction through pilgrimage toward Yhwh’s mountain. 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e 4f 5a 5b

And it will be in the latter days that established will be the mountain of the house of Yhwh as the head of the mountains, and it will be lifted from the hills,46 and to it will “river” all the nations. And many peoples will walk,47 and will say, “Walk, let us go-up to the mountain of Yhwh, to the house of the God of Jacob, so that he will teach us from his roads, so that we will walk in his ways.” For from Zion goes-out torah (‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫) ִכּי ִמ ִצּיֹּון ֵתּ ֵצא‬, and the word of Yhwh from Jerusalem. And he will judge between the nations, and arbitrate for many peoples. And they will pound their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-knives; nation will not lift a sword against nation, and they will train no longer for war. O house of Jacob, walk, let us walk, in the light of Yhwh!

Isaiah’s famous vision of a postwar planet soars with idealism. The nations “river” (root ‫ ;נהר‬2:2e)48 toward Yhwh’s mountain to “train” (root ‫ ;למד‬2:4f; cf. 8:16, 48:17b) for peace (cf. 48:18b, 66:12b), encouraging each other to “walk” to Yhwh’s temple (2:3a, 3b) “so that he will teach (‫ )ירה‬us from his roads, so that we 46  The preposition ‫ ִמן‬in the form ‫ ִמּגְ ָבﬠֹות‬may be read as a comparative, yielding “and it will be loftier than the hills.” See H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27: Volume 1, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 3 vols., ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 166. 47  Here, in 2:3b, and also in 2:5b, the root ‫‘ הלך‬walk’ is frequently translated as “come.” While “come” is more natural to English idiom, the present translation uses “walk” for all cases of the root ‫ הלך‬so as to highlight the term’s repetition as well as its association with the root ‫דרך‬ ‘road’. 48  In contrast to many other scholars, B. Schwartz argues that “river” or “stream” is a misinterpretation of the root ‫ נהר‬in 2:2e, preferring “shine” instead. Thus for Schwartz, the image presented in 2:2 is not one of a global pilgrimage moving toward Yhwh’s mountain, but rather widespread observation of Yhwh’s mountain from afar. He aims to provide a corrective to those (especially Christian) readings that have perhaps too zealously found in 2:2–5 a description of gentile conversion. While the translation offered above maintains “river/stream” as a proper translation of the root ‫ נהר‬in this context, Schwartz’s suggestion highlights the passage’s conceptual connection with illumination, which is fully consistent with the topic of Yhwh’s “out-going” torah. See Baruch J. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4),” in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity, ed. A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, and J. Schwartz, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 14–15.



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

523

will walk in his ways” (2:3d–e). Such language presumes the conceptual overlap between walking and obedience discussed above. Most telling, however, is the fact that as “all the nations” (2:2e; cf. 42:1, 51:4, 66:18–24) stream Zionward, Yhwh’s torah “goes-out” to meet them: “and the word of Yhwh [goes forth] from Jerusalem” (2:3f–g; cf. 55:11a). In other words, the procession undertaken by the nations – pilgrimage in pursuit of Yhwh’s instruction – mirrors the action of the “out-going” torah to which they submit. Such mirroring is, in fact, intrinsic to the prophetic injunction that closes the unit in 2:5. “Walking” is obedience, while Yhwh’s torah is the light that illumines the path and which paradigmatically emanates from Zion. Isaiah’s prophetic “remnant” is therefore a people whose behavior characteristically embodies Yhwh’s word through similar acts of “out-going” departure (cf. 37:32). “Walk – let’s walk! – in the light of Yhwh!” (2:5b). This essay models a canonical approach to the rhetoric of departure in Isaiah, showing how such an approach leads to a more precise description of that rhetoric’s function within the larger book. Canonical reading is not an ahistorical “method” for biblical study, but rather it is an intellectual posture for biblical study on the whole, one that involves a historical judgment about the nature of the Bible’s composition. A canonical approach understands our object of study to be a self-referential intratext written up to serve as a scripture for ongoing generations of readers, and in whose tradition Jews and Christians now stand. Working forward from this theoretical foundation, the discussion above begins by focusing on two important imperatives – the injunctions to “go-out from Babylon” (48:20a) and to “go-out from there” (52:11a)  – and then proceeds outward in concentric stages. Analysis of the two verses in their immediate context reveals a web of correspondences that centers on the command to depart. When this command is interpreted alongside other passages appearing in Isa 40–55 that make use of similar language, it becomes clear that “goingout” constitutes activity typologically consistent with the servant’s mission to bring forth light to the nations. Furthermore, intratextual evidence strongly suggests that that light is torah; “going-out from Babylon” is therefore figural language for torah obedience, on paradigm with Yhwh’s “out-going” word. When read in association with key texts appearing in Isa 1–39 and 56–66, the language of departure in Isa 40–55 distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked in the book’s widest frame of reference. Consequently, the reader is urged to join a torah-obedient pilgrimage of peace toward Zion (2:2–5), before moving out again into the world to seek Israel’s lost remnant among the nations (66:18–24). Christians will naturally seek to understand Isaiah’s language of departure as it functions within the bitestamental Christian canon rather than within the Old Testament alone. To this end, the exegesis performed above helps to illumine an important reason why early Christians joyfully identified Jesus Christ as the

524

Daniel J. D. Stulac

fulfillment rather than the abolition of the Law and Prophets (Matt 5:17).49 If through his death and resurrection the suffering servant (52:13–53:12) effectively completes the figural injunction to leave “Babylon” (52:11–12) on behalf of the restoration community, then such obedience must be credited to him alone, while any corresponding pattern of behavior his disciples exhibit in response is reduced (elevated?) to a free act of gratitude. Read again in light of Yhwh’s cruciform grace, Isaiah’s imperative diction transforms into exhortation and encouragement for the church.50 O house of Jacob, “Go-out from there!”

Bibliography Abma, Richtsje. “Travelling from Babylon to Zion: Location and Its Function in Isaiah 49–55.” JSOT 22.74 (1997): 3–28. Barr, James. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “De-Historicizing and Historicizing Tendencies in the Twelve Prophetic Books: A Case Study of the Heuristic Value of a Historically Anchored Systemic Approach to the Corpus of Prophetic Literature.” Pages 37–56 in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Megan Bishop Moore. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Berges, Ulrich. The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form. Translated by Millard C. Lind. Hebrew Bible Monographs 46. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 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, 2002. Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987. 49 

Luther struggles with this concept when interpreting Isaianic passages in which the torah goes-out from Yhwh (2:3, 51:4). He suggests that “God will cause a law to go forth from Him, that is, the sending forth of the Gospel after the old law has been abolished” (Martin Luther, Lectures on Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, vol. 17 of Luther’s Works, ed. Hilton C. Oswald [St. Louis: Concordia, 1972], 198–99). Calvin also describes Isaiah’s out-going torah in terms of gospel, but in contrast to Luther, more precisely identifies “abolition” as the abolition of bondage to Law rather than the abolition of the Law itself, thus making more space available for the notion that Jesus Christ fulfills rather than replaces Old Testament prophecy (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, trans. William Pringle, vol. 1, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948], 96). 50  Cyprian of Alexandria notably reads 52:11–12 as figural language that promotes the separation of Christians from the non-Christian cultures alongside which they live: “[The] believer ought not to live like the Gentile” (Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:544). Similarly, Luther writes of 52:11a: “Therefore he says Depart, that is, from the world” (Lectures on Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, 212).



“Go-out from Babylon/There!”

525

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 40–66. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Translated by William Pringle. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Chapman, Stephen B. “Brevard Childs as a Historical Critic: Divine Concession and the Unity of the Canon.” Pages 63–83 in The Bible as Christian Scripture: The Work of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by Christopher R. Seitz and Kent Harold Richards. SBL Biblical Scholarship in North America 25. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. –. “Collections, Canons, and Communities.” Pages 28–54 in The Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Edited by Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A. Sweeney. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Childs, Brevard S. “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature.” Int 32.1 (1978): 46–55. –. “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament.” Pages 66–80 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. Edited by John A. Emerton et al. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. –. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. –. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Clements, Ronald E. “The Meaning of‫ תורה‬in Isaiah 1–39.” Pages 59–72 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. G. McConville and Karl Möller. LHBOTS 461. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2016. Fishbane, Michael A. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” Pages 39–44 in Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Goldingay, John. The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A  Literary-Theological Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Goldingay, John, and David Payne. A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. 2 vols. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Graham, William A. “Scripture.” Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. 12:8194–205. Hanson, Paul D. Isaiah 40–66. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Jowett, Benjamin. “On the Interpretation of Scripture.” Pages 399–527 in Essays and Reviews. 10th ed. London: Longman et al, 1862. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. Vol. 16 of Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia, 1969. –. Lectures on Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. Vol. 17 of Luther’s Works. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. St. Louis: Concordia, 1972. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 20. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968. Melugin, Roy F. The Formation of Isaiah 40–55. BZAW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.

526

Daniel J. D. Stulac

Moberly, R. W. L. “‘Interpret the Bible Like Any Other Book’? Requiem for an Axiom.” JTI 4.1 (2010): 91–110. Nissinen, Martti. “Reflections on the ‘Historical-Critical’ Method: Historical Criticism and Critical Historicism.” Pages 479–504 in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. Edited by Joel M. LeMon and Kent H. Richards. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 56. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Paul, Shalom. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978–1981. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Schmid, Konrad. The Old Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Torah from Zion: Isaiah’s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4).” Pages 11–26 in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited by A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, and J. Schwartz. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Book of Isaiah 40–66.” Pages 309–552 in Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel. Vol. 6 NIB. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 40–66. FOTL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Thompson, Michael E. W. Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough, UK: Epworth, 2001. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Rev. ed. WBC 24. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005. –. Isaiah 34–66. Rev. ed. WBC 25. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A  Commentary. Translated by D. M.  G. Stalker. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1975. van Wieringen, Archibald L. H.  M. The Reader-Oriented Unity of the Book Isaiah. ACEBT 6. Amsterdam: Skandalon, 2006. Wilcox, Peter, and David Paton-Williams. “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah.” JSOT 42 (1988): 79–102. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 28–39. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27: Volume 1, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5. 3 vols. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Zohary, Michael. Plants of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text Marvin A. Sweeney 1. Introduction My previous research on the formation of the book of Isaiah, published in my 1996 and 2016 FOTL volumes on Isa 1–39 and Isa 40–66, argues that the final form of the book is a Persian period redactional composition.1 The final form of Isaiah is formulated as the vision of Isaiah ben Amoz, which presents the prophet’s exhortation to Jerusalem and Judah to adhere to YHWH. It appears in two major parts, viz., Isa 1–33, which takes up YHWH’s plans for worldwide sovereignty at Zion, and Isa 34–66, which takes up the realization of YHWH’s plans for worldwide sovereignty at Zion. The book was formed in four stages, including the eighth-century BCE oracles of Isaiah ben Amoz; the seventh-century edition of the book that was composed to support King Josiah’s program of religious reform and national restoration; the late sixth-century edition of the book that focused on the restoration of Jerusalem and Judah under King Cyrus of Persia; and the final, fifth-fourth-century edition of the book that was designed to support the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra under Persian rule. Based upon this prior work, the present paper examines three major aspects of the book. The first is the redactional formation of the oracles concerning the nations in the first portion of the book, including the anti-Assyrian oracle sequence in Isa 10:5–12:6, the oracle concerning Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:27, and the sequence of nations in Isa 13–23 and 24–27. The second is the rethinking of the Davidic covenant in Isa 40–55 by declaring King Cyrus of Persia to be YHWH’s messiah and the whole of Israel as the heir to the Davidic promise. The third is the affinities of Isa 56–66 with the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra. Of particular importance is the question, who is a Jew? – especially in light of the fact that many Jewish women would have been raped during the Assyrian conquest of Israel and the Babylonian conquest of Judah, resulting in pregnancies 1 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), esp. 31–62; idem, Isaiah 40–66, FOTL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), esp. 1–40. See also Marvin A. Sweeney, “Isaiah (Book and Person): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 13:297–305. Cf. H. G.  M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); idem, Isaiah 1–5, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006).

528

Marvin A. Sweeney

that produced a class of descendants with mixed identity. Discussion of this aspect of the book examines how the book of Isaiah presents this issue throughout the final form of the book.

2.  The Redactional Formation of the Oracles against the Nations Within the first part of the book, Isa 5–12 constitutes prophetic instruction concerning the significance of Assyrian judgment against Jacob/Israel – namely restoration of Davidic rule.2 This section is largely the product of the seventhcentury edition of the book that employed a number of eighth-century oracles by Isaiah ben Amoz himself. But as the book expands through its various redactions, it ultimately functions as an element of the final fifth-fourth century form of the book. Within this section is the prophet’s oracle against the Assyrian king in Isa 10:5–34, condemning him for arrogance in making threats against Jerusalem that go beyond his mandate from YHWH. In its present position, it precedes the oracle in Isa 11:1–16 concerning the emergence of the wise and pious Davidic monarch who grows from the stump and shoot of Jesse to reunite Israel and Judah and swoop down upon their enemies, forcing the return of exiles from Egypt and Assyria. In an earlier form of the book, this oracle may well have been the first in a sequence of oracles concerning the nations. Certainly, the brief oracular statement concerning YHWH’s defeat of Assyria in the land of Israel in Isa 14:24–27 suggests that this text may have stood as an original conclusion to Isa 10:1–34 and that Isa 10:1–34 and 14:24–27 may then have opened a sequence of oracles concerning the nations in an eighth-century edition of the oracles of Isaiah ben Amoz.3 But when we turn to the oracles concerning the nations in Isa 13–23 in the present form of the book, we see that the sequence begins with the oracle against Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:23, and that the oracular segment concerning Assyria in Isa 14:24–27 enables the reader to see that Assyria serves as an example in the final form of the book of what would happen to Babylon as the primary oppressor of Jerusalem and Judah.4 We may further note that the oracle against Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:23 has its own redactional history; indeed, it is the first of two oracles concerning Babylon, the second of which appears in Isa 21 under the rubric “wilderness of the sea” (Isa 21:1). Within Isa 13:1–14:23, the seg2  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 112–211. For recent treatment of this material, see also Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, HThKAT (Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder, 2003), 130–337; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 205–70. 3  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 209–10, 223. 4  Ibid., 212–353. See also, Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2007); Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 274–379.



Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text

529

ment concerned with the descent of the Babylonian king to Sheol (Isa 14:3–23) appears to have been written originally to portray the death of the Assyrian monarch Sargon II, who was killed in battle in Tabal/Tubal in south central Asia Minor in 705 BCE.5 The Assyrian defeat in this battle was so complete that Sargon’s body was never recovered from the battlefield, a fact that is mentioned in Isa 14:19 and thereby secures the identification of the monarch in question as Sargon II. Indeed, Sargon II is the original subject of Isaiah’s oracle in Isa 10:5–34, which originally portrays Sargon’s threats against Jerusalem in 720 BCE when he marched south from northern Israel through Jerusalem and Judah to head off any potential thoughts of resistance as he hastened to meet the approach of the Egyptian army by way of Philistia. The oracle against Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:23/27 is a redactional assemblage that includes a sixth-century oracle concerning Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:2; an oracle concerning the downfall of the Babylonian king in Isa 14:3–23 that was originally composed in reference to the death of the Assyrian monarch Sargon II in 705 BCE, and a segment in Isa 14:24–27 concerning the downfall of Assyria that originally concluded an anti-Assyrian sequence of oracles but now stands as the conclusion to the Babylonian oracle that points out how Babylonia will suffer divine punishment just as Assyria did. The placement of the Babylonian oracle at the head of the sequence of the oracles concerning the nations in Isa 13–23/27 has particular significance for the Persian period reading of the book of Isaiah.6 Babylon was the major enemy defeated by the Persians in the late sixth century BCE, enabling Persia to take control of western Asia. Indeed, the sequence of nations named in Isa 13–23 constitutes a catalog of nations that fell to the rule of Persia following the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, including Babylon in Isa 13:14:27, Philistia in Isa 14:28– 32, Moab in Isa 15:1–16:14, Damascus (and Israel) in Isa 17:1–18:7, Egypt in Isa 19:1–20:6, the wilderness of the sea (Babylon) in Isa 21:1–10, Dumah in Isa 21:11–12, Arabia in Isa 21:13–17, the valley of vision (Jerusalem) in Isa 22:1–25, and Tyre in Isa 23:1–18. The concluding segment in Isa 24–27 sums up the oracles concerning the nations as a demonstration of YHWH’s new world order to be identified with the rise of the Persian Empire throughout the rest of the book. Altogether in the final form of the book of Isaiah, the nations listed in the oracles concerning the nations in Isa 13–27 signify the identification of YHWH’s sovereignty over the nations listed therein as an expression of YHWH’s worldwide sovereignty from Zion that is identified with the rise of the Persian Empire and – as we will see – the rise of King Cyrus of Persia as YHWH’s messiah and temple builder. 5  See esp. S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A  Study of Isaiah 13,2–14,23 (Lund: Gleerup, 1970). 6  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 212–17.

530

Marvin A. Sweeney

3.  Rethinking the Davidic Covenant Isaiah ben Amoz is well-known for his identification of the Davidic/Zion tradition in ancient Jerusalem and Judah, which posits that YHWH will offer eternal protection to Jerusalem and secure the dynasty of King David forever.7 Indeed, Isaiah’s best known oracles – the royal oracle concerning the prince of peace in Isa 9:1–6, the royal oracle concerning the emergence of the wise and righteous king from the stump of Jesse in Isa 11:1–16, and the announcement of the royal savior in Isa 32:1–20 – point to the identification of the eighth- and seventh-century editions of the book of Isaiah with the Davidic tradition.8 Likewise, the narratives in Isa 36–39 concerning YHWH’s deliverance of Jerusalem and King Hezekiah from Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 BCE reinforce the commitment of the book to the Davidic/Zion tradition of YHWH’s eternal covenant with the house of David and the city of Jerusalem.9 Such an understanding of Isaiah’s identification with the Davidic/Zion tradition stands when one reads only Isa 1–39 diachronically, as if it was a discrete book separate from Isa 40–66. But scholars have long noted that Isa 1–39 was edited to form a literary component of Isa 1–66 as a whole.10 When one reads Isa 1–66 synchronically as a literary whole, a very different picture of the book’s understanding of the Davidic/Zion tradition emerges. The eternal commitment of YHWH to Jerusalem as Zion stands when one considers the work of Deuteroand Trito-Isaiah in relation to Proto-Isaiah, but the understanding of YHWH’s eternal commitment to the house of David changes markedly. Such a change is motivated by the historical reality of Jerusalem and Judah in the Persian period, viz., Jerusalem was rebuilt and restored under Persian rule beginning with Cyrus’s 539 BCE decree that Jews could return to the city to rebuild the temple and to reestablish Jewish life in Jerusalem and Judah. But no serious move was made to restore the royal house of David. Although Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah, returned to Jerusalem as the Persian appointed governor of the city to oversee the reconstruction of the temple, allegations in Haggai and possibly Zechariah concerning Zerubbabel’s restoration as the new Davidic monarch under YHWH and the overthrow of Persian rule would have contributed to his absence when the newly rebuilt temple was dedicated (Ezra 6).11 We do not know what happened to Zerubbabel, but it appears 7  See Gerhard von R ad, Old Testament Theology. Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 147–75. 8  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 57–60. 9  Ibid., 454–511; c. f., R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). 10  For discussion of current research on the book of Isaiah, see Sweeney, “Isaiah,” EBR 13:297–305; Jacob Stromberg, Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (London: T&T Clark, 2011). 11 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 128–31; for my comments concerning the disappearance of Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel in Zech 6:1–15,



Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text

531

likely that Persians removed him from power. No descendant of the house of David was ever appointed as the Persian governor of Jerusalem again. The issue of YHWH’s eternal promise to the royal house of David comes to the forefront in the writings of the anonymous prophet, Deutero-Isaiah, who was active during the late sixth century when the Persian Empire took control of Babylonia and its holdings in western Asia. Deutero-Isaiah’s oracles in Isa 40–55 point to the downfall of Babylon as Persia rises to power.12 Indeed, Isa 44:28 and 45:1 explicitly name King Cyrus of Persia as YHWH’s anointed monarch and temple builder; no mention is made of a Davidic monarch at this time. Isaiah 55, originally written as the conclusion to Deutero-Isaiah’s oracles in the sixth-century edition of the book but now functioning as the introduction to the Trito-Isaian section in Isa 56–66 in the final form of the book, articulates the change in YHWH’s eternal promise to the house of David.13 YHWH’s eternal covenant will stand, but it does not stand with the house of David; King Cyrus of Persia has replaced the Davidic monarch as YHWH’s chosen messiah and temple builder. Instead, Isa 55 makes it clear that YHWH’s eternal covenant with David is now applied to the people of Israel at large. And as one reads through the Trito-Isaian oracles in Isa 56–66, which were apparently written during the Persian period following the reign of King Cyrus, YHWH emerges as the true monarch of Jerusalem and Judah in Isa 66 when he proclaims, “The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isa 66:1).14 Just as the Persians never appointed a Davidic descendant to the governorship of Judah following the appointment of Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, so YHWH never recognizes a Davidic monarch on the throne following the downfall of Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim and Zedekiah ben Josiah as the last Davidic monarchs of Judah. When read according to its final literary form, the book of Isaiah dispenses with Davidic kingship in favor of an eternal covenant with the people of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, and it affirms Persian rule as the will of YHWH necessary to demonstrate YHWH’s sovereignty over the entire world from Zion.

4.  Relationship to the Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah When we consider the final form of the book of Isaiah, we must consider that this edition of the book was produced during the late fifth or early fourth century BCE in relation to the periods of reform instigated by Nehemiah and Ezra. It is see Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam 1 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000), 623–34. 12  Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 41–248. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002); Ulrich Berges, Jesaja 40–48, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008); idem, Jesaja 49–54, HThKAT (Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2015). 13  Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 235–48; cf. Berges, Jesaja 49–54, 218, 285–92. 14  Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 248–385.

532

Marvin A. Sweeney

possible that minor editing of the book occurred after this time, but the basic form of the book emerges during this time. Many scholars posit that Trito-Isaiah  – and therefore the final form of the book – is written in opposition to the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra, particularly their policy of dissolving marriages between Jewish men and Gentile women and then expelling the Gentile women from the Jewish community. Isaiah 56–66, particularly Isa 56:1–8, which calls for the inclusion of foreigners and eunuchs who observe the covenant, and Isa 66:18–21, which is often mistakenly read as calling for YHWH’s selection of priests and Levites from among the Gentiles who return to Jerusalem and Judah with exiled Jews, may be indications of opposition in the work of Trito-Isaiah to Nehemiah and Ezra’s efforts.15 The book of Ruth, which portrays the conversion of a Moabite woman to Judaism, is also cited for opposition to Nehemiah and Ezra’s policy.16 But such views appear to misunderstand the questions of marriage represented in the book of EzraNehemiah. Several observations are pertinent. First, Isa 66:18–21 does not call for YHWH’s selection of priests and Levites from among the Gentiles.17 Although the passage is potentially ambiguous, the statement “and also from them I will take for priests for Levites says YHWH” in Isa 66:21 can only presuppose Jews who are returned to Jerusalem by Gentiles, as stated in Isa 66:20, “and they (the nations) shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as a gift offering on horses, chariots, drays, mules, dromedaries upon my holy mountain, Jerusalem, says YHWH, just as the sons of Israel will bring the gift offering in pure vessels to the house of YHWH.” Second, Isa 56:1–8 specifies that foreigners and eunuchs who observe the covenant, beginning with the observance of the Shabbat as well as the rest of the requirements of the covenant, will be considered a part of the Jewish people and will be admitted to the temple. Such a statement presupposes a conceptualization of some sort of conversion to Judaism, although neither Isaiah nor the rest of the Bible is entirely clear as to what such conversion might entail. Ruth’s statements might provide a model for an early declaration of conversion to Judaism, and Trito-Isaiah’s statements concerning the observance of Shabbat and the rest of the covenant might provide a model of practice. Certainly, Nehemiah and Ezra, who frequently cite Deuteronomic law as portrayed in Ezra-Nehemiah, would be aware of the possibility of foreign conversion to Judaism as signaled by Deut 21:10–12, which specifies a procedure for a foreign woman to marry an Israelite man in the aftermath of war and thereby to become part of the people of 15  Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 248–57. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 51–54, 129–43, 290–317. 16  For discussion of the decline of this view, see Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 28–29. 17  Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 357–85; Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 161–70; contra Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 314–15.

Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text



533

Israel. Indeed, we must observe that the foreign women that presented problems for Nehemiah and Ezra as described in Neh 13:23–28 continued to speak their native languages and were viewed as instigators for their husbands to commit sins like those Solomon committed for his foreign wives. Such a portrayal makes it clear that such foreign women had not fully integrated themselves into the Jewish community and therefore constituted a threat to Jewish adherence to YHWH as envisioned by the Deuteronomic instruction prohibiting marriage to foreigners (Deut 7:1–6; cf. Exod 34:10–16). In view of these considerations, we must recognize that Nehemiah and Ezra would not have considered foreign any women (or men) who had converted to Judaism by whatever means had been recognized at the time. Insofar as TritoIsaiah and Ruth envision the possibility of conversion to Judaism by foreigners, they were not written in opposition to the marriage policies of Nehemiah and Ezra, which called for the expulsion of foreign women who had not integrated into the Jewish people; rather, Trito-Isaiah and Ruth were written to affirm conversion to Judaism by foreigners, and thereby these writings would have been viewed as consistent in principle with the policies of Nehemiah and Ezra. Indeed, as Klaus Koch demonstrated in his 1974 essay, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” Ezra modeled himself and his return to Jerusalem as a fulfillment of the book of Isaiah.18

4.  Foreigners and the Covenant The preceding considerations raise the question of whether Trito-Isaiah – and therefore the final form of the whole book of Isaiah  – has a different agenda with regard to foreigners than opposition to the expulsion of foreign women who did not integrate into the Jewish community. Evidence within the book of Isaiah suggests a concern with persons who were born foreign and who sought to join the Jewish people and with those born to Jewish women who did not have a clearly identifiable Jewish father, whether they were born as a result of the marriage of the mother to a foreigner or as a result of the rape of the mother by a foreigner. Also included would be the eunuchs, Jewish men who were deliberately castrated in exile for foreign government service, such as Daniel and his friends. Although the question of Jewish identity was finally settled in the rabbinic period by the recognition of one born to a Jewish mother as a Jew, the issue already appears in the Persian period as represented in Isaiah.19 18 Klaus

Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974): 173–97. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law,” AJSRev 10 (1985): 19–53; cf. Lawrence Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic Perspectives on the JewishChristian Schism (New York: KTAV, 1985). 19 

534

Marvin A. Sweeney

Both Israel and Judah were invaded and conquered by foreign powers during the monarchic period, Israel by the Assyrian Empire in 722–721 BCE and Judah by the Babylonian Empire in 587–586 BCE. In such cases of conquest, the women of the conquered nation were frequently raped by invading soldiers and women who were exiled to foreign lands suffer the same experience. Children born as a result of such treatment lacked clear means of identity and were frequently viewed with suspicion, both by the community of the raped woman and by the community of the perpetrator of the rape. The final form of the book of Isaiah appears to take up concern with the fate of Jewish women in a time of war and the children who would have been born to them as a result of rape or intermarriage. The imagery of women permeates the book of Isaiah throughout all four of its postulated editions. Such imagery includes women per se and personifications of Jerusalem and Judah as bat Zion, the bride of YHWH, and the like. Although Katheryn Pfisterer Darr surveys many of these portrayals in her very useful study, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God, my own survey takes up a more dysfunctional understanding of the role of family and women in the book.20 The first clear instance appears in Isa 3:16–4:1, which condemns the women of Jerusalem for their pride and attention to fashion.21 Although the condemnation raises moral questions concerning blaming the victim for her victimization, the concluding element of the oracle in Isa 3:25–4:1 demands special attention due to its portrayal of seven women who take hold of one man in the aftermath of the slaughter of most of the men. The women’s purpose was to remove their disgrace, often understood as disgrace due to lack of a husband, but readers must consider that many of these women would have been raped by invading soldiers. Although this oracle likely originates with Isaiah ben Amoz, a fifth-century oracle in Isa 4:2–5 that looks forward to the restoration of Jerusalem follows, insofar as it envisions the process of restoration to include the purification of the city from the filth of the woman, generally understood as their menstrual blood. Such a charge would hardly constitute the whole basis for purifying Jerusalem and its restored temple, and so we must consider that filth and blood may include other considerations as well, such as rape and the pollution that would entail. A second example appears in Isa 8:5–8, part of the oracle sequence that follows the account of Isaiah’s condemnation of King Ahaz for his failure to trust in YHWH (Isa 7:1–25).22 Isaiah 8:5–8 depicts YHWH’s decision to bring the Assyrian king to punish the land of Judah for its failure. The depiction portrays the Assyrian king metaphorically as the mighty, massive waters of the Euphrates River, 20  Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). 21  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 105–12. 22  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 165–75.

Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text



535

who will counteract the sustaining waters of Siloam by flooding the land with water as the king spreads his wings over the entire land. As Ruth 3:9 indicates, the metaphor of man spreading his wings over a woman – that is, the wings or edges of his garment – refers to a sexual act.23 In its imagery of the Assyrian king who spreads his wings over the land of Judah and floods it with the waters of the Euphrates, Isa 8:5–8 refers to an act of sex – or more properly, an act of rape – in relation to Judah. A third set of examples appears in the segment of the book concerned with the oracles concerning the nations, including the oracles themselves (Isa 13–23) and the prophecy of salvation for Jerusalem/Zion (Isa 24–27) that concludes the oracles. The imagery of childbirth and rape appears at two key places. The first is in the oracle concerning Babylon in Isa 13:1–14:23/27, a text written for the late-sixth-century edition of the book.24 In portraying YHWH’s judgment against Babylon on the day of YHWH, Isa 13:8 declares that Babylon will be overcome by terror and seized by pangs and labor pains like a woman going into childbirth. Later Isa 13:16 declares that the babies of the men of Babylon will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, their homes plundered, and their wives raped, apparently in return for what they did to Jerusalem. In the announcement of the restoration of Zion in Isa 24–27, also part of the sixth-century edition of the book, Isa 26:16–19 describes the suffering of the people of Jerusalem and Judah “like a pregnant woman approaching childbirth, writhing, she screams in her labor pains” (26:17).25 Such an image takes on even more significance when we consider that the women would have become pregnant as a result of rape by invading soldiers. When we turn to Deutero-Isaiah, particularly in the segment devoted to YHWH’s restoration of Zion in Isa 49–54, we often delight in the imagery of bat Zion or bat Jerusalem as the restored bride of YHWH. The writings of DeuteroIsaiah are also part of the sixth-century edition of the book, and we must note the evidence that YHWH’s bride was not left to sit quietly while waiting for her wayward husband to return. Rather, she was subject to rape and abuse during her husband’s absence. Isaiah 49 emphasizes that her children will return to her, but Isa 49:17 emphasizes, “those who ravaged and ruined you shall depart from you,” indicating not simply deliverance from oppressors, but in the case of a woman, deliverance from those who would have raped her in her husband’s absence.26 Isaiah 52:1 calls upon Zion to clothe herself in splendor, but it also adds that “the uncircumcised and unclean will not again enter her,” another statement concerning her rape, now that YHWH is returning to her. In Isa 54, YHWH swears that he was gone for only a little while, but now he will take back 23 

Nielsen, Ruth, 71–79. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 218–39. 25  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 337–44. 26  Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 168–206. 24 

536

Marvin A. Sweeney

bat Zion as wife and all will be well now that her husband and children return.27 But the reader must ask, what happened to her during the time when YHWH was gone? And who are the children returning to her now that she is to be restored? These considerations raise questions concerning the identity of foreigners who are to be included in the covenant according to Isa 56:1–8. Are they purely foreigners who wish to join Israel for one reason or another? Are they the children of intermarriage during the period of the Babylonian exile as Jews married Gentiles, thereby leaving the identity of their children in question? Were they the children of rape, whether during the invasion of the land itself or during the time of the exile when Jews would have been viewed as vulnerable and accessible foreigners in a strange land? It would seem that all three instances must be considered. The solution to this question of identity is offered by Trito-Isaiah and thus the entire book of Isaiah during the Persian period, both for those considered somehow foreign and those who were turned into eunuchs for Babylonian service: if they observe the covenant, beginning with the Shabbat, they are Jews.

Bibliography Berges, Ulrich. Jesaja 40–48. HThKAT; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008. –. Jesaja 49–54. HThKAT; Freiburg et al., Herder, 2015. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. HThKAT; Freiburg et al.; Herder, 2003. –. Jesaja 13–27. HTHKAT; Freiburg et al.; Herder, 2007. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002. –. Isaiah 56–66. AB 19B; New York: Doubleday, 2003. –. Ezra-Nehemiah. OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Clements, R. E. Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law,” AJSRev 10 (1985): 19–53. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of G-d. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Erlandsson, S. The Burden of Babylon: A  Study of Isaiah 13,2–14,23. Lund: Gleerup, 1970. Koch, Klaus. “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974): 173–97. Nielsen, Kirsten. Ruth: A Commentary. OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Volume II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Schiffman, Lawrence. Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian Schism. New York: KTAV, 1985. Schramm, Brooks. The Opponents of Third Isaiah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. 27 

Sweeney, Isaiah 40–66, 218–31.



Reading the Final Form of Isaiah as a Persian Period Text

537

Stromberg, Jacob. Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2011. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Isaiah (Book and Person): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, eds. Christine Helmer et al. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2016, 13:297–305. –. Isaiah 40–66. FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. –. The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2000. –. Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Williamson, H. G. M. Isaiah 1–5. ICC; London: T & T Clark, 2006. –. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Decoding Isaiah 13 H. G. M. Williamson My starting point for this paper is to accept the general view that in Isa 13–14 two poems relating to Babylon have been incorporated into the book we now have by being given a new heading in 13:1. They have been joined together by the opening verses of ch. 14 and rounded off with the summarizing reference to Babylon in 14:22–23. Given that the older form of heading for the book of Isaiah survives at 14:28 to introduce the earlier collection of oracles against the nations, it seems clear that the bulk of chs. 13–14 were therefore introduced into their present position some time later than the work of the prophet himself. Their position as a new start to the oracles against nations and the subject matter of the poems make probable a date sometime before the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It follows from this that 13:2–22 may be analysed as a poem in its own right. My purpose, therefore, is to unravel the history of composition of ch. 13. Some of what follows will be familiar to readers with detailed knowledge of scholarship on Isaiah. Nevertheless, I hope to build on the work of my predecessors in one respect and then to use that to get a better understanding of the presentation of Babylon here in relation to its role in the wider book as a whole. The general shape of the poem is clear: a vivid anticipatory description of the day of the Lord reaches its goal and climax in the final stanza (vv. 17–22) where the Medes are identified as God’s specific agents (v. 17) and Babylon is named as their target (v. 19). It will be completely overthrown and never again inhabited, just as is repeated in the final conclusion of the passage in 14:22–23. On this general basis, some commentators have defended the view that the whole of the poem in 13:2–22 was composed as it stands for its present context;1 Wildberger, 1  This, of course, was the standard older critical view; see for instance, Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 4th ed., HKAT 3/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 112–16, and Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, KHAT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900), 117–22. G. Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 237–38, found some suspicious unevenness in composition but refrained from a detailed composition history; in his view the problems arose by later additions rather than by the incorporation of earlier material. Among those who have taken this same view in more recent times, see, for instance, the commentaries of Otto K aiser, Isaiah 13–39: A  Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (London: SCM, 1973), 9 (with some hesitation); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 276–77; J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary, Her-

540

H. G. M. Williamson

for instance, defends this conclusion on the ground that the implied question raised by vv. 2–5 is answered by v. 17, just as that raised by vv. 7–16 is answered by v.  19.2 If allowance is made for the fact that we should not look for mathematically logical or conceptual unity in a poem that uses such evocative and emotionally charged phraseology, that position is certainly not to be dismissed out of hand. Despite this, there is one striking feature of the poem which seems to align it more probably with the pattern of two (or more) stages of composition with which we are familiar elsewhere in Isaiah. The bulk of the poem (vv. 2–16) describes the imminent arrival of the day of the Lord in terms which are universal.3 (I shall refine this rather general appraisal later on.) Without listing all the details, it is sufficient here to note that, for instance, the army which God is mustering comprises kingdoms and nations from earth’s remotest ends (vv. 4–5) and that the object of their onslaught seems equally to be directed against the whole world (vv. 5, 9, 11). Only with v. 17, which has its own standard introductory form (‫)הנני מעיר‬, is this historicized by reference to the Medes in their assault on Babylon, referred to by name in this poem only at v. 19. This disjuncture between the universal tone of the first part of the poem and its separate application to an historically specific context which makes the poem fit the introduction in v. 1 has generally been thought to be strongly suggestive of an earlier poem being reused for its new present context.4 This conclusion does not in any way discredit the meneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 194; and also the monographs of Jacques 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, 1977–1978), 286–87; Jesper Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie, ATDan 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 140–41; Gören Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah, ConBOT 56 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 107–13. 2 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 13–14. 3  This is one of the problems with the proposal of Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary, 1: i–xxxix (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1941), 153–56 (anticipated in some respects by H. Grimme, “Ein übersehenes Orakel gegen Assur (Isaias 13),” ThQ 85 [1903]: 1–11, and by John P. Peters, “Notes on Isaiah,” JBL 38 [1919]: 77–93 [77–85]) that vv. 2–13 were directed against Israel alone, and that vv. 14–22 were originally directed against Assyria, later changed to Babylon; his defence of Isaianic authorship along this line, therefore, though moderately influential in some of its arguments (not least on Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23, ConBOT 4 [Lund: Gleerup, 1970]), does not seem persuasive. We may note here too the extreme position of Jonathan Goldstein, Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient World, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 83–91, that the whole of 13:2–14:27 was originally an Isaianic poem against Assyria, glossed later only very lightly to direct it rather against Babylon. He includes some breathtaking conjectural emendations in support, e. g., for ‫ נׁשפה‬in v. 2, read ‫ננוה‬, and for ‫ מדי‬in v. 17 read ‫!גוי‬ 4  For a clear exposition of this relatively common opinion, see Knut Jeppesen, “The Maśśaʾ Bābel in Isaiah 13–14,” PIBA 9 (1985): 63–80. Paul R. R aabe, “The Particularizing of Universal Judgment in Prophetic Discourse,” CBQ 64 (2002): 652–74, has challenged this conclusion by drawing attention to the fact that it is relatively frequent in the prophets for a description



Decoding Isaiah 13

541

legitimacy of a synchronic reading of the passage as a whole; after all, that is what our editor has deliberately bequeathed to us. It does, however, also open the door to consideration of the longer history that may lie behind the text we have received.5 There are two basic approaches to this question. The first is that there was a preexisting poem with universal scope (vv. 2–16) which was then applied by the main redactor of the passage specifically to Babylon in vv. 17–22. Analysis of the preexisting poem varies from one commentator to another. Some defend its unity6 while others find a longer history of composition – the most extreme, perhaps, being the proposal of Clements that it developed in five stages over time: vv. 2–3 and 4–5, which may be only fragments of originally longer prophecies, are positive towards Babylon. The first might come from Isaiah himself, and the second to the time when Babylon was replacing Assyria as the dominant world power. The third prophecy (vv. 6–8) reflects the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 BCE, and the fifth (vv. 17–22) comes from the end of the exilic period. Only the fourth, therefore (vv. 9–16), stands out of chronological order, being a later eschatological reflection on the day of the Lord.7 While this somewhat speculative proposal has rightly not found favour, it reflects the wish of some commentators to find an early origin for at least parts of vv. 2–16. However that be done, the outcome remains that our chapter’s main redactor added vv. 1 and 17–22 to an earlier poem which he inherited. The alternative approach sees things completely the other way round. While it had sometimes been adumbrated previously,8 it has become more popular of universal judgment to be “particularized,” so that we should not use this phenomenon to challenge literary unity. The nineteen passages he discusses, however, vary considerably from one another, the present passage being more extreme than most. While his observations are thus helpful in terms of exegesis of the final form of the text, I do not believe they can all equally be brought to bear against the validity of a diachronic explanation in some cases. 5  At this point I  therefore part company with David Reimer, who comments that “this blend is skilful, … in that two strands have been brought together so completely that they cannot be separated out with confidence”; see The Oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: A Horror among the Nations (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993), 274. 6  See most recently Judith Gärtner, “Die Völker und der Tag-JHWHs im Horizont des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches,” in The Book of the Twelve Prophets: Minor Prophets, Major Theologies, ed. H.‑J. Fabry, BETL 295 (Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 131–56, here 147–49, in close dependence on Jörg Jeremias, “Der ‘Tag Jahwes’ in Jes 13 und Joel 2,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid, BZAW 300 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 129–38; see too A. K. Müller, Gottes Zukunft: Die Möglichkeit der Rettung am Tag JHWHs nach dem Joelbuch, WMANT 119 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 69–77. 7  See Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980), 132. 8  See very briefly Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, 128; Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 319–20; Rudolf Kilian, Jesaja II: 13–39, Die Neue Echter Bibel 32 (Würzburg: Echter, 1994), 100–1; John Barton, Isaiah 1–39, OTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 85.

542

H. G. M. Williamson

following its fullest exposition by Zapff.9 On this view, an original anti-Babylon oracle in vv. 17–22 was later given a universal application by the addition of vv. 2–16. Given that elsewhere too there are examples of a day of the Lord passage being developed in a universalizing direction (e. g., the use of the day of the Lord in Joel 1–2 followed by 3–4, and similarly in the change introduced at Obad 1510), there seems to be an inherent attraction about this alternative approach. I should like to offer some further refinements to Zapff ’s work in support of it. First, there is a problem with Zapff ’s proposal as it stands, though he does not refer to it, so far as I can see. In v. 17, which opens the oracle as he understands it, the word ‫עליהם‬, “against them,” has no antecedent.11 It might refer to the “Babylon” of the heading, but this does not seem very likely. Interestingly, there is a similar use of ‫ עליהם‬in 14:22, which is also from our redactor, but the reference to Babylon by name in the following clause makes this slightly less difficult. It would be easier if there were at least something before 13:17 to which the preposition and suffix could refer. Second, there seem to me to be grounds for challenging the original unity of vv. 2–16. The most obvious duplication is that the day of the Lord is introduced twice, in vv. 6 and 9.12 Beyond that, though this has not been proposed previously as far as I can determine, vv. 2–3 and 4­–5 seem to sit uneasily alongside one another. In the former, God addresses a plural audience and speaks in the first-person singular (v. 3). In vv. 4–5, by contrast, God is referred to in the third person and the standpoint shifts to those whom the army is approaching. It is therefore possible that we have two introductions to the oracle about the mustering of the army. Finally, Bosshard-Nepustil13 has noted that there is a sharp 9  Burkard M. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches, FB 74 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1995), 220–­39. See subsequently, for instance, Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit, OBO 154 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 68–72; Ulrich Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, trans. Millard C. Lind, Hebrew Bible Monographs 46 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 139–40; Konrad Schmid, Jesaja, I: Jesaja 1–23, ZBK 19.1 (Zurich: TVZ, 2011), 131. 10  On both see John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). 11  This has been noted, albeit with varying consequences, by Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39, 72, and Jeremias, “Tag Jahwes,” 133, closely followed by Gärtner, “Die Völker und der Tag-JHWHs,” 147–48. 12  The two versions of this announcement have a parallel structure and, perhaps, intensifying emotional impact, as acutely noted by Jeremias, “Tag Jahwes,” 133–34: introduction to the day (vv. 6 and 9) + ‫ כי‬clause (vv. 6 and 10) + ‫ על־כן‬clause (vv. 7 and 13). This does not, however, settle either the way the question whether they are an original unity (as Jeremias claims) or whether at a later stage the second deliberately echoed and intensified the first. 13  Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39, 70–71 (p. 71 n. 4), followed by



Decoding Isaiah 13

543

difference between 9–13 and 14–­16 in terms of the effects of the day of the Lord: the former is cosmic, the latter terrestrial; the former is selective in that it regards the day as punishment for the wicked and the proud (who v. 12 admittedly implies are the vast majority),14 whereas the latter is all-embracing in terms of application and furthermore speaks only of their flight in terror, without any reference to judgment or punishment;15 the former is marked off by a strong inclusio16 (i. e., 9a and 13b both describe the day of the Lord [joined in construct in 9a, distributed over the two halves of the line in 13b] as characterized by ‫עברה‬ Anja Klein, “Babylon Revisited: A New Look at Isa 13 and Its Literary Horizon,” in Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz and Joachim Schaper, FRLANT 277 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 141–54 (144). It should be noted that Bosshard-Nepustil’s own final analysis effects something of a median position between the two that I have summarized above: he thinks the earliest layer in the chapter comprised vv. 2–8 + 14–16, that vv. 1 and 17–22 were then added to it, and finally that vv. 9–13 were added subsequently. One of the reasons he drives a wedge between 17–22 and the immediately preceding verses is that he perceives a repetition of v. 16 in v. 18. This seems to me mistaken. Two of the words he lists are in the first clause, which on text-critical grounds that cannot be set out fully here was almost certainly not part of the text at all; anyway, one of the two words (‫ )נערים‬does not appear in v. 16, and it does not strengthen the case that he sets ‫עלל‬ alongside it. He also lists ‫ פרי בטן‬and ‫בנים‬, but these both appear in v. 18 alone and so cannot count as evidence at all. Thus ‫ עין‬is the only word that the two verses share – hardly enough on which to build an argument. 14  The parallelism in v. 9b, however, shows that this is not incompatible with a universalistic understanding of “the earth” in this section, contra Charis Fischer, Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja: Studien zur Eigenart und Intention in Am 1,3–2,3.4f und Jes 13,1–16,14, BBB 136 (Berlin: Philo, 2002), 73. This is the starting point for her analysis (pp. 69–99) which leads her to propose that there are three layers in this chapter, namely (in chronological order) (i) vv. 2–5, 7–8, 14–16 (“Das Gericht über die Völker”), (ii) vv. 1a, 17, 18b–22 (“Das Gericht über Babel,” so giving historical application to the previously rather unspecific first layer), and (iii) vv. 6, 9–13 (“Der Tag Jahwes”). While there are some obvious points of comparison with alternative proposals (including my own), she seems to ignore the probability that we have parallel and hence separate introductions to the theme of the day of the Lord in vv. 6 and 9 as well as the difficulties explored above about treating vv. 2–5 as an original unity. Her argument that layers (i) and (iii) are distinguished by the fact that in the former God acts through his agents whereas in the latter he acts directly himself looks initially stronger, but in fact it is hardly true of 6–8. The nearest those verses come to supporting Fischer’s case are the words “it will come like destruction from the Almighty” in v. 6b, but there we find only a simile, descriptive of the day of the Lord (and one whose expression is clearly driven by the demands of wordplay), not an actual description of God as actant, so that it remains unclear whether Fischer’s distinction can fully support her proposed literary division at this point. 15  This tension was noted already by Bernard Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations, OBO 78 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 153, and by Peter Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 1–39, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar – Altes Testament 18/1 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993), 130–31, albeit without any literary-critical consequences being drawn. 16  This was recognized already, and indeed strengthened, by the LXX; see Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, “LXX Isaiah and the Use of Rhetorical Figures,” in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, ed. Arie van der Kooij and Michaël van der Meer, CBET 55 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 173–88 (177–79).

544

H. G. M. Williamson

and ‫)חרון אף‬, the latter follows on very smoothly from v. 8 (note especially the use of the ‫ איׁש אל‬idiom in both verses [repeated, in fact, in 14b].) I therefore propose that we entertain as a working hypothesis that we have two broadly parallel passages in vv. 2–16, namely 2–3 + 6–8 + 14–16 and 4–5 + 9–13. Two further features then emerge which lend support to the hypothesis. First, the universalizing features are all restricted entirely to the second group of verses. So far as that feature of the passage is concerned, I can see nothing in 2–3, 6–8, and 14–16 that has ever been claimed to be part of this universalizing tendency. Second, the first group of verses has interesting verbal links with chs. 40–55, as do vv. 17–22, which are not shared by the second group of verses.17 We may note as especially interesting examples of this: (1) the use of an introductory plural imperative in v. 2 in a way which immediately causes us to ask who exactly is being addressed (with commentators supplying varying answers); (2) the use in the same verse of ‫הרימו קול‬, just as in 40:9 (and note the quite distinctive use of ‫ קול‬in v. 4); (3) the use of the verb ‫ העיר‬in v. 17 for the raising up of a divine agent, just as at 41:2, 25, and 45:13;18 (4) the use of shared terminology to describe Babylon in v. 19 and Isa 47.19 In addition, the verses in question have close 17  It is worth mentioning that there are also several close links with the book of Joel. Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15 are so close as to justify the conclusion that there is an actual citation here one way or the other. I share the majority view here that Joel is dependent on Isaiah, as I argued long ago in “Joel,” ISBE 2:1076–80; for a more recent discussion, see, e. g., Barton, Joel and Obadiah, 22–27. Siegfried Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, BEATAJ 16 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 137–40, argues that Joel depended on Isaiah here but that Joel also consciously worked in material from Ezek 30 elsewhere in the chapter. For a contrary opinion, see Reinhard Scholl, Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat: stilistisch-kompositorische Untersuchungen zu Jesaja 24–27, BZAW 274 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 205–6. Elsewhere in the chapter there are a number of phraseological similarities (see Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, 131–53 for the fullest discussion), though it is often not clear whether that justifies us in speaking of direct citation or of common use of familiar language in “day of the Lord” passages as known also from elsewhere, such as Zeph 1:14–16, Obad 15, and Ezek 30:3–4 (e. g., Isa 13:9 and Joel 2:1); cf. Hubert Irsigler, Gottesgericht und Jahwetag: Die Komposition Zef 1,1–2,3, untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches, ATSAT 3 (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1977), 323–36. There is no reason that I can see why any of this should raise a question against the composition history presented above. 18 Compare Bernd Obermayer, Göttliche Gewalt im Buch Jesaja: Untersuchung zur Semantik und literarischen Funktion eines theologisch herausfordernden Aspekts im Gottesbild, BBB 170 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 237–58. 19 Robert Martin-Achard, “Esaïe 47 et la tradition prophétique sur Babylone,” in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday 6 September 1980, ed. John A. Emerton, BZAW 150 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 83–105 (98–99), has warned against pressing the similarities with Isa 47 too far. His main points derive from those parts of the chapter which I regard as later additions to the layer currently under discussion, so that his observations in regard to my argument at this point are less strong than at first appears. Nevertheless, there are some other significant differences, which there is no reason to underplay; strong points of contact do not imply full identity. For some related observations, see Ulrich Berges, “How Babylon Became Merciless: A Subversive Rereading of Isaiah 47.6,” in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Jill Middlemas, David J. A. Clines,



Decoding Isaiah 13

545

links with other parts of Isaiah in terms of leading themes and vocabulary (e. g., raising a signal and waving the hand in v. 2, and the themes of anger and of pride in v. 3). In the light of these considerations, I propose that we extend the basic layer of the chapter in vv. 17–22 as identified by Zapff by adding vv. 2–3, 6–8, and 14–16 to it. Those who suffer at the approach of the day of the Lord in vv. 6–8 + 14–16 then make a good antecedent for ‫ עליהם‬in v. 17. Furthermore the whole of the now-extended form of the original layer of the chapter fits very well with the form of the book as shaped (in my opinion) in the late exilic period, just like (parts at least) of chs. 40–55. The question then arises as to why this poem should later have been expanded by the verses which in a more concentrated form bring a universal – even a cosmic – dimension to the whole day of the Lord scenario. The answer lies, I believe, in observing the close link with the outlook of chs. 24–27 (and 24 in particular).20 If true, this means that this material will have been added so as to introduce the collection of oracles against the nations in a way that closely parallels the larger universal application of them in the so-called Isaiah Apocalypse. At this stage it may suffice to draw attention, on the one hand, to the shared use of such major themes as the wholesale destruction of the earth for its wickedness by divine agents and the decimation of its population (13:12; 24:621). On the other hand, we should also note specific points of contact: (1) ‫ תבל‬as a qualifier for ‫ ארץ‬in 13:11; 24:4; 26:9, 18; 27:6; (2) the shaking (‫ )רעׁש‬of the world by violent earthquake in 13:13 and 24:18; (3) the genuinely cosmic scope of the description (i. e., reference to the sun and moon) in 13:10, 13, and 24:21–23;22 (4) the application to the whole of humanity of the vocabulary for wickedness, sin, and guilt in 13:9, 11; 24:5–6; 26:10; (5) the description of divine action as “punishment” (‫)פקד על‬ and Else K. Holt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 145–58; he even calls 13:18 the author’s “reference text.” 20  This has been noted by some others as a possibility, but with only little or no substantiation from textual evidence; see, for instance, Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 133; Schmid, Jesaja 1–23, 129; Ulrike Sals, Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon”: Studien zur Intertextualität der Babylon-Texte in der Bibel, FAT II/6 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 218; Randall Heskett, Reading the Book of Isaiah: Destruction and Lament in the Holy Cities (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 53. For somewhat fuller studies, see Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 354–55; Berges, The Book of Isaiah, 127–28, 136–37, and Scholl, Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat, 199–203. 21  Note the use of the relatively uncommon word ‫ אנוׁש‬in each verse, though this is also found in 13:7, which belongs to the earlier version in my analysis. 22  The force of this particular feature will be strengthened by the observation of John J. Collins that descriptions of cosmic destruction are extremely rare elsewhere (though he does not apply this in our particular case because of his different, and I believe mistaken, narrowing of the application in 13:10–13); see “The Beginning of the End of the World in the Hebrew Bible,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook, LHBOTS 512 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 137–55.

546

H. G. M. Williamson

in 13:11 and 24:21; (6) the use of ‫ עריץ‬in 13:11 and three times in 25:3–5;23 (7) and the use of ‫ ַׁש ָּמה‬‎‎to describe the resultant desolation (13:9; 24:12). While of course one or other of these elements may be put down to coincidence, their accumulation is impressive. We may agree with Scholl’s conclusion that “Stil, Wortgebrauch und theologisches Denken stimmen zwischen Jes 13*/(14*) und Jes 24–27 in erstaunlichem Maße überein.”24 Applying this conclusion to our composition-historical analysis, it needs to be pointed out that, so far as Isa 13 is concerned, the closest parallels in both thought and diction occur exclusively in what I  have argued is the smaller amount of later amplification of the chapter (i. e., vv. 4–5 + 9–13) than previous studies have recognized. The material which I have now ascribed to the original layer does not feature at all in the preceding comparison. This distinction, coupled with the closer points of comparison of the earlier layer with Isa 40­–55, helps confirm this fresh analysis, while at the same time answering the main problems which Zapff ’s pioneering analysis has raised. It also helps explain how the later redactor who included chs. 24–27 (or somebody else who was working along the same lines) gave shape to his extended section of Isa 13–27 by way of a comparable universalizing of the oracles against specific nations that he was thus enclosing with fresh introduction and conclusion. I conclude, therefore, that the history of composition of Isa 13 helps us to understand how a description of the overthrow of the historical Babylon came over time to be interpreted as paradigmatic of God’s wider, universal purposes for the world, and to introduce the way in which the enigmatic “city” of chs. 24–27 can equally be regarded as a paradigmatic Vanity Fair rather than the subject of any more specific restricted historical identification. In this late form of the book, Babylon is no longer just the historical city but stands as a representative of arrogant human institutions which set themselves as equal to, if not superior to, God himself. They may have their day in the sun, but their long-term fate is sealed. By way of a final comment, we should note the hermeneutical significance of this redacted text now coming as the first point at which we encounter Babylon in the book, and indeed as the first of the oracles against the nations. The original layer of the chapter, which was surely placed in its present location at more or less the same time as the bulk of chs. 40–55, took its stance as a prophecy of the fall of Babylon from which, as may be seen in 40­–48, the exiles might be delivered and freed. As time went on, however, it became clear that this prophecy was indeed fulfilled in general terms but not in the specific way that was first envisaged. Working very much in the spirit of the author of chs. 24–27, who opened the way to a universal application of the preceding oracles against the nations, a redactor 23 Compare David S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets, HSM 59 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 125. 24  Scholl, Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat, 207.



Decoding Isaiah 13

547

gave a similar twist to our chapter by his additions which were of modest extent but of radical reapplication. Once put in place, this redaction had a forward effect on the way that references to Babylon later in the book might also be read. As so often, a diachronic analysis leads to a fuller appreciation of the final form of the text. The redaction-critical argument allows us to say theologically that the universal understanding of God’s work in the world derives from reflection on the specific national oracle, not vice versa, as has so often been thought. The satire against Babylon and her idols, the prospect of deliverance, and the urgent command to flee in chs. 40–55 may now be treated paradigmatically by any who find themselves oppressed by the circumstances of their present condition in “exile” from God and his concern. The promise is not just to a single generation but may be reapplied with appropriate recontextualization “to children’s children” “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 103:17).

Bibliography Barton, John. Isaiah 1–39. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. –. Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders Biblische Studien 16. Freiburg: Herder, 1998 (ET, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, trans. Millard C. Lind. Hebrew Bible Monographs 46. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012). –. “How Babylon Became Merciless: A Subversive Rereading of Isaiah 47.6.” Pages 145–58 in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Jill Middlemas, David J. A. Clines, and Else K. Holt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Bergler, Siegfried. Joel als Schriftinterpret. BEATAJ 16. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Clements, Ronald E. Isaiah 1–39. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980. Collins, John J. “The Beginning of the End of the World in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 137–55 in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson. Edited by John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook. LHBOTS 512. London: T & T Clark, 2009. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. HKAT 3/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892 (4th ed., 1922). Eidevall, Gören. Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah. ConBOT 56. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

548

H. G. M. Williamson

Eissfeldt, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964 (ET, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965). Erlandsson, Seth. The Burden of Babylon: A  Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23. ConBOT 4. Lund: Gleerup, 1970. Fischer, Charis. Die Fremdvölkersprüche bei Amos und Jesaja: Studien zur Eigenart und Intention in Am 1,3–2,3.4f und Jes 13,1–16,14. BBB 136. Berlin: Philo, 2002. Gärtner, Judith. “Die Völker und der Tag-JHWHs im Horizont des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches.” Pages 131–56 in The Book of the Twelve Prophets: Minor Prophets, Major Theologies. Edited by H.‑J. Fabry. BETL 295. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Goldstein, Jonathan. Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient World. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Gosse, Bernard. Isaïe 13,1–14,23 dans la tradition littéraire du livre d’Isaïe et dans la tradition des oracles contre les nations. OBO 78. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Gray, G. Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912. Grimme, H. “Ein übersehenes Orakel gegen Assur (Isaias 13).” ThQ 85 (1903): 1–11. Heskett, Randall. Reading the Book of Isaiah: Destruction and Lament in the Holy Cities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Höffken, Peter. Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 1–39. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar  – Altes Testament 18/1. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993. Høgenhaven, Jesper. Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie. ATDan 24. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Irsigler, Hubert. Gottesgericht und Jahwetag: Die Komposition Zef 1,1–2,3, untersucht auf der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches. ATSAT 3. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1977. Jeppesen, Knut. “The Maśśaʾ Bābel in Isaiah 13–14.” PIBA 9 (1985): 63–80. Jeremias, Jörg. “Der ‘Tag Jahwes’ in Jes 13 und Joel 2.” Pages 129–38 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. K aiser, Otto. Der Prophet Jesaja, Kapitel 13–39. ATD 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973 (ET, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson. OTL. London: SCM, 1973). Kilian, Rudolf. Jesaja II: 13–39. Die Neue Echter Bibel 32. Würzburg: Echter, 1994. Kissane, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah, Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary, 1: i–xxxix. Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1941. Klein, Anja. “Babylon Revisited: A New Look at Isa 13 and Its Literary Horizon.” Pages 141–54 in Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Joachim Schaper. FRLANT 277. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Marti, Karl. Das Buch Jesaja. KHAT 10. Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900. Martin-Achard, Robert. “Esaïe 47 et la tradition prophétique sur Babylone.” Pages 83–105 in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday 6 September 1980. Edited by John A. Emerton. BZAW 150. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Müller, Anna Karena. Gottes Zukunft: Die Möglichkeit der Rettung am Tag JHWHs nach dem Joelbuch. WMANT 119. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008.



Decoding Isaiah 13

549

Obermayer, Bernd. Göttliche Gewalt im Buch Jesaja: Untersuchung zur Semantik und literarischen Funktion eines theologisch herausfordernden Aspekts im Gottesbild. BBB 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Peters, John P. “Notes on Isaiah.” JBL 38 (1919): 77–93. Raabe, Paul R. “The Particularizing of Universal Judgment in Prophetic Discourse.” CBQ 64 (2002): 652–74. Reimer, David. The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: A  Horror Among the Nations. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Sals, Ulrike. Die Biographie der “Hure Babylon”: Studien zur Intertextualität der BabylonTexte in der Bibel. FAT II/6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Schmid, Konrad. Jesaja, I: Jesaja 1–23. ZBK 19.1. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2011. Scholl, Reinhard. Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat: stilistisch-kompositorische Untersuchungen zu Jesaja 24–27. BZAW 274. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1–39. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1993. Vanderhooft, David S. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. HSM 59. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Vermeylen, Jacques. Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël, 2 vols. EB. Paris: Gabalda, 1977–1978. Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der. “LXX Isaiah and the Use of Rhetorical Figures.” Pages 173–88 in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives. Edited by Arie van der Kooij and Michaël van der Meer. CBET 55. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja, 2. Teilband: Jesaja 13–27. BKAT X /2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978 (ET, Isaiah 13–27: A  Continental Commentary, trans. Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Joel.” ISBE 2:1076–80. Zapff, Burkard M. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie  – Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches. FB 74. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1995.

Contributors Avigail Aravna PhD Candidate, The Department of Biblical Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Shawn Zelig Aster Associate Professor, Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University Ulrich Berges Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the Catholic Theological Faculty, The University of Bonn; Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa Stephen B. Chapman Associate Professor of Old Testament, Duke University J. Blake Couey Associate Professor of Religion, Gustavus Adolphus College Peter Dubovský Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome Joachim Eck Akademischer Rat  am Lehrstuhl für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft an der KU Eichstätt-Ingolstadt; Postdoctoral Fellow, École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem Judith Gärtner Professor of Old Testament, Universität Rostock Christopher B. Hays D. Wilson Moore Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary; Research Associate of the University of Pretoria, South Africa J. Todd Hibbard Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Detroit Mercy Anja Klein Senior Lecturer in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh

552

Contributors

Noam Mizrahi Associate Professor, Department of Biblical Studies, Tel Aviv University Reinhard Müller Professor of Old Testament, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Kim Lan Nguyen Associate Professor of Old Testament, Cornerstone University J. J. M. Roberts William Henry Green Professor of Old Testament Literature Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary Andreas Schüle Professor of Theology and Old Testament Exegesis, Universität Leipzig; Extraordinary Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Stellenbosch Konrad Schmid Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism, The University of Zurich Ethan Schwartz Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible, Villanova University Christopher R. Seitz Senior Research Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto Jacob Stromberg Lecturer in Old Testament, Duke University Daniel J. D. Stulac Visiting Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Duke Divinity School Marvin A. Sweeney Professor of Hebrew Bible, Claremont School of Theology at Willamette University Ronald L. Troxel Professor Emeritus, Hebrew Bible, University of Wisconsin-Madison Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen Professor of Old Testament, Tilburg School of Catholic Theology, Tilburg University H. G. M. Williamson Regius Professor of Hebrew Emeritus, University of Oxford Philip Yoo Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies, University of British Columbia

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 433 4:7 166 4:23 273 11:27–32 256 11:30 234 11:31–12:1 259 12–25 255 12:1 260 12:1–3 482 12:2 480 12:3 480 12:6 453 12:8 478 12:10–20 260 13:4 478 14:19 277 15:6 480–481 15:7–8 259 15:7–21 257 17 265 18:19 259 21:33 478 22:17 259 25:8 88 25:21 234 26:5 90 26:24 486 28:4 259 28:17 97 28:22 97 29:31 234 31:9 256 32:23–32 265 35 264–265 35:2 256 35:4 265, 348 35:9 256 35:10 256, 265 46:3 267

47:27 267 49 76, 225 49:15 105 Exodus 2:24 256 2:25–4:17 409 3 409 3–4 270, 279 3:1 289 3:6–20 409 3:7 409 4:22 119 4:22–23 243 5 409 5:6 409 5:10 409 5:13–14 409 6:1–13 409 6:2 409 6:5–9 409 6:6 244, 246 12:11 510 12:43 348 12:43–50 352 13:3 255 14 247, 482 14:16 246 14:21 246 14:30 244 15 76, 247, 270–271, 276, 285, 464 15:2 231, 277 15:3 246 15:5 278 15:10 278 15:13 244 15:14–16 276 15:15 277 15:16 246

554 15:17 276 15:18 232 15:20 464 15:32 245 18:16 90 18:20 90 19–20 271, 279, 288 19:4 244 19:5 279 19:6 282, 348, 355 19:8–9 279 19:18 279, 355 20:1 355 20:8–11 352 20:11 122 20:18–19 279 20:19 279 21:1 355 21:19 59 23:31 97 24 271, 279, 288 24:3 279 24:7 279 24:9–11 280 24:17 202 24:9–11 279 24:15–18 279 28:38 230 31:16 350 31:16–17 122 32:13 255 33–34 271, 279, 288 33:7 231 33:18–34:8 281 34:9 281 34:10–16 533 34:10–26 281 34:11–13 281 34:13 282 34:29–35 281 39:28 102 Leviticus 1:3 230 2:1 354 19:5 230 19:15 475 19:30 350 19:36 475

Index of Ancient Sources

20:24–26 348 21:20 350 22:19 230 22:20 230 22:21 230 22:25 348 24:10–23 348 26:2 350 26:14–45 207 26:38 202 26:42 255 26:45 255 26:46 90, 355 27:34 355 Numbers 9:1–14 348 13:32 202 14:20–23 257 15:1–31 352 15:32–36 348, 358 16:9 354 16:40 347 17:5 347 18 347, 351–352 18:1–7 347 18:2 351, 354 18:4 347 18:7 347 19:10 352 19:14 352 20:10 245 20:24 245 23–24 76, 225 23:21 232 27:1–11 348, 358 27:40 245 35:15 352 Deuteronomy 1–4 207 1:5 358 1:8 257 1:16 476 1:21 471 1:26 245 1:28 303 1:31 244–245 1:43 245



3:11 101 4:24 202 4:29 231 5 257 5:2–3 257 5:4–5 257 5:12–14 352 5:15 255 5:10 257 7:1–6 533 7:18 255 8:2 255 8:3 88 8:16 88 9:5 257 9:7 255 9:27 255, 257 11:2–7 255 11:30 453 12:5 466 12:11 466 15:2 125 15:15 255 16:3 255, 510 16:12 255 16:18 475 16:20 476 17:8 125 17:8–11 344 18:15–18 343 21:10–12 532 23 351 23:1–6 350 23:2 350 23:2–8 351 23:2–9 350 23:4–7 350 23:8–9 350 24:9 255 24:18 255 25:15 476 25:17 255 26:5 261 28–29 207 28:10 119 28:37 52 29 202 29:1 358

Hebrew Bible

555

29:10 352 29:12 257 30:29 257 31:8 471 31:9 275 31:16 348 31:19 275 31:28 275 31:29 275 32 76, 261, 269–271, 274–275, 278, 280, 285, 288, 290 32:1 273–274 32:6 273–274 32:9–10 261 32:13–17 274 32:20 274 32:21–25 274 32:22 202 32:26–43 274 32:27 274 32:30 274 32:32 273–274 32:46 275 32:47 125 33:2 466 33:19 476 34:4 257 34:10 269 Joshua 1:9 471 8:1 471 9:23 97 10:25 471 24:2–3 256 24:3 266 24:20 348 Judges 5 76 5:4 466 6:12–13 318 6:16 318 6:17 318 6:39 318 7:1 453 7:9–8:21 319 7:22–25 319

556 7:24–8:3 318 9 318 9:4–5 319 9:7–15 319 9:27 97 12:4 435 13:2–3 234 17:5 97 1 Samuel 2:5 234 8:7 232 12:12 232 13:14 486 25 487 27 487 31:31 94–95, 102 2 Samuel 1:19 408 1:25–27 408 5:2 486 7:7 486 7:13 318 8:2 487 11 487 14:12 125 15:10 233 17:11 88 21:1 231 22 76 22:7–14 280 22:46 88 23:1 225 23:3 465 1 Kings 1:11 233 2:12 318 2:46 318 3:7–5:26 312 3:13 413 5 322 7:2 322 8:13 90 10 312 11:12 317 11:13 318

Index of Ancient Sources

11:14–23 312 11:34 318 15:16–21 368 18:24 478 20 368 22:20 200 22:27 521 2 Kings 3:24 201 4:39 104 5:11 478 5:17–18 489 9–14 366 9:13 233 12:18–19 368 14:25 373 15:13 101 15:19 366 15:19–20 366, 368 15:20 366 15:29 366 16 366 16:1–20 186 16:2–8 368 16:5 283, 366 16:5–9 366 16:7–9 366 16:10 366 16:18 366 17:3 366, 373 17:3–6 366 17:23 366 17:24 366 17:26 366 17:27 366 18 72, 390 18–19 365–370, 377, 385, 388 18–20 365–366 18:1–6 388 18:1–7 367 18:1–12 368 18:1–16 368 18:7 366 18:7–8 390, 448 18:9 366 18:9–12 368 18:13 137, 367, 390



Hebrew Bible

18:13–19:37 448 18:14–15 367, 390–391 18:14–16 367–368 18:17 38, 186, 391 18:17–19:34 371 18:17–19:37 368–369 18:18 368 18:19–21 8 18:19–25 7 18:20 320 18:21 59 18:26 72 19 187 19:9 449 19:10–13 375 19:23 8, 322 19:24 323 19:28 467 19:30–31 322, 330 19:34 318 19:35 368 19:35–37 386 20:5 318 20:6 318, 366 22:1–23:30 191 22:3–25 142 22:20 88, 186 23:10 464 23:29 366, 373 24:1 373 Isaiah 1

52, 152, 243, 248, 251, 271–272, 275, 279, 282, 285, 287, 290, 407, 422–423 1–2 18 1–6 201, 421 1–12 270–273, 282–284, 290–291, 297–298, 300–302, 305–308, 312–313, 315–316, 320, 327, 331, 335, 407, 413, 417, 421, 425 1–32 214 1–33 48, 56, 63, 527 1–35 3, 366, 386–387, 427 1–39 3–5, 7–8, 12, 17–18, 31, 34, 52, 57, 106, 131–132, 151–155, 160, 164, 224, 323,

557

343–344, 482, 506, 509, 523, 527, 530 1–66 443, 507, 530 1:1 283, 506–507 1:1–12:6 185 1:2 243, 273–274 1:2–4 273–274, 420 1:2–9 422 1:2–20 57 1:2–26 131, 285 1:4 420–421, 425 1:4–9 365 1:5 454 1:5–7 412–413 1:5–9 284 1:6 454 1:7–8 8–9 1:8 451 1:9 161, 163, 168, 274 1:10 341, 450, 521 1:10–17 284 1:11–14 274 1:11–15 274 1:12 163 1:12–17 490 1:15 274 1:16–19 274 1:19–20 521 1:20 245, 274–275 1:21 274, 476 1:21–26 54, 57 1:24 58, 425 1:24–31 274 1:26 57, 476 1:27 290 1:27–28 54 1:27–31 284 1:31 162 2 387, 407, 422–423 2–4 57 2–10 422 2–32 131 2:1 131, 283, 421–422 2:1–4 167 2:1–5 172 2:2 522–523 2:2–3 421 2:2–4 283, 344, 411, 421–422

558 2:2–5 2:3

Index of Ancient Sources

222, 503, 519–520, 522–523 97, 168, 172, 225–226, 341, 344, 422, 465, 522–524 2:3–4 422 2:4 411, 522 2:5 170, 172, 422, 522–523 2:6 164–165, 167, 172, 422 2:6–7 174 2:6–8 170–174, 423 2:6–9 165, 171, 175 2:6–21 176 2:6–22 162, 164–165, 167–169, 172, 422 2:7 521 2:7–8 173 2:7–9 164–165 2:7–17 131 2:8 55, 143, 173, 176, 186, 322 2:9 166, 168, 170–171, 173–175, 186, 423 2:9–10 164–165, 167–170, 172 2:9–14 131 2:9–22 422–423 2:10 166, 169, 172–173 2:10–19 165, 173 2:11 166, 168, 170, 174–175, 322, 423 2:11–12 422–423 2:11–17 175 2:12 174, 422–423 2:12–15 457 2:12–16 170, 173, 175 2:12–17 164, 171, 174 2:13 174, 423 2:14 423 2:15 423 2:17 174–175, 423 2:18 173–175 2:19 164, 166, 169–173, 175–176 2:20 55, 322 2:20–21 164, 171–172, 175 2:21 169–170, 176 2:22 55, 164–165, 171–172, 176 3 407 3–6 96, 98–99 3–30 91 3:1 56–60, 175 3:1–15 57–60, 422

3:3 368 3:5 409 3:8 56, 58–60, 102 3:8–15 423 3:9 92 3:9–11 57 3:12 409 3:13 95, 102 3:15 56, 58 3:16 58 3:16–4:1 534 3:18–23 98, 102 3:20 102 3:20–23 98 3:22 102 3:23 102 3:24–26 422 3:25–4:1 534 3:26 204 4:2–5 534 4:3 102 4:4 102–103 4:6 229 5 150, 306, 311–312, 314, 407, 423 5–12 149, 528 5:1–7 283 5:1–10:4 181 5:7 102, 106 5:8–23 61 5:8–24 181 5:15 166–167 5:16 423 5:18–19 311, 314–315, 326 5:19 102, 312, 315, 337 5:20 311, 326 5:24 341, 450 5:25 60–61, 149, 246, 276, 301, 306–307, 312–314, 454 5:25–26 314, 319 5:25–30 60, 286, 298–299, 307, 320, 326, 422 5:26 307, 311–313, 324, 442, 471 5:26–28 466 5:26–29 61 5:26–30 306, 310–315, 319, 323 5:27 312 5:30 311, 313



6

Hebrew Bible

243, 271–273, 280, 282, 288–290, 299–301, 421–422, 432–433, 440, 443, 499 6–8 18, 49, 150, 437, 440, 443, 496, 498–500, 507 6–12 186–187 6:1 132, 279, 283, 299, 421, 426 6:1–2 300 6:1–5 281, 413 6:1–8:18 288 6:1–9:6 180, 299 6:3 300, 440, 497–498 6:4–5 279, 300 6:5 232, 282 6:6–7 281 6:7 92, 281 6:8–11 422 6:9 165 6:9–10 279, 467, 499 6:9–12 284 6:9–13 148, 290 6:10 102, 148, 243, 281, 422 6:11 422, 498 6:11–13 281–282 6:13 94, 281–282, 289–290 7 3, 38, 40–41, 134, 152, 300–301, 318, 322, 324, 335, 365 7–8 134, 308, 310, 312–313, 318 7–9 201 7–12 39 7:1 283, 301, 309, 365 7:1–6 318 7:1–7 519 7:1–9 185, 386 7:1–12 185 7:1–17 179–187, 190–192, 300, 309, 318 7:1–25 534 7:2 183 7:2–12 365 7:3 319, 507–508, 519 7:3–9 181, 183 7:4 165, 173, 309, 318–319 7:5 309–310 7:5–7 308, 310 7:5–8 135, 308–309, 337 7:5–9 309

559

7:6 136 7:7–9 183 7:8 179 7:9 183–184 7:10 183 7:10–17 185 7:11 318 7:12 39, 148, 309, 318 7:13–25 185 7:14 39, 300, 309, 318, 508 7:14–15 181 7:14–17 301, 308 7:15–16 39 7:16 181, 309 7:17 4, 39, 309, 365 7:17–18 461 7:18 365 7:18–20 14 7:19 517 7:20 365, 461 7:23–25 319 8 300, 432, 443, 452, 499, 521 8–9 60, 86 8:1 456, 500 8:1–4 319, 386, 422, 496 8:1–23 187 8:3 41 8:3–4 471 8:4 365, 461, 469 8:5–7 443, 497 8:5–8 136, 422, 440, 471, 496–497, 534–535 8:6 309, 440 8:6–10 309 8:7 309, 319, 365, 439, 461, 469, 496–498 8:7–8 308–309, 437, 439–440, 442, 467, 518 8:7–9 443 8:8 308–309, 319, 440, 469, 471, 497 8:8–10 134–135 8:9–10 308–310, 337 8:10 125, 308 8:11–13 310 8:11–15 136, 308 8:14 106 8:15 53, 60, 521

560 8:16

Index of Ancient Sources

33, 341, 356, 449–450, 521–522 8:16–22 148 8:17 230, 452, 521 8:18 300 8:20 341, 356, 521 8:22–9:1 313–314 8:22–9:6 326 8:23–9:6 140, 314 9 152, 315–316, 481 9:1–6 310, 312–314, 316, 319–320, 323, 327, 329, 331, 333, 335, 530 9:2 223, 314–315, 319, 434 9:2–3 304, 329–331 9:3 298, 303–307, 310, 312, 314–316, 318–319, 321, 327, 329 9:3–5 315 9:5 135, 314–315, 319–320, 437 9:5–6 319 9:6 316–320, 337, 423, 437 9:7 86, 206 9:7–17 61 9:7–20 56, 61–62, 299 9:7–22 41 9:7–10:4 40, 60, 181 9:8 55, 60 9:8–11 422 9:11 60, 138–139, 167, 306, 310, 312–313, 323, 329, 331, 333, 335 9:12 61, 149, 454 9:14–16 422 9:16 60, 306, 434 9:16–17 61 9:17 149 9:17–20 422 9:18–20 61 9:20 60, 306 9:21 149 10 18, 276, 312–315, 318–321, 331, 384, 387, 407, 422, 425, 427, 499–500 10–11 322 10–12 201, 270, 272, 278–279, 282, 285–287 10–14 424

10:1 312, 330–331, 423 10:1–2 423 10:1–4 60, 407, 422–423 10:1–34 528 10:4 60, 149, 306 10:4–5 301, 307, 313–314, 319–322, 326 10:4–12:1 326 10:5 14–15, 299, 306, 308, 315, 329, 365, 423–424, 461, 468 10:5–6 13, 424, 455, 500 10:5–7 15, 486 10:5–15 3, 13–16, 61, 135, 384, 424, 468, 470 10:5–19 149 10:5–27 189 10:5–34 13, 528–529 10:5–12:6 527 10:6 319, 422–424 10:7 14 10:7–9 14 10:7–11 424 10:7–15 15 10:8 14 10:8–11 13–14 10:9 16, 132 10:10–12 14–15 10:12 14, 312, 315, 322, 365, 461, 487 10:12–14 423 10:13 15, 312, 425 10:13–14 13–16, 423–424 10:13–15 15 10:14 424 10:15 315 10:15–19 4, 322, 422 10:16 134, 319 10:16–19 134, 136 10:16–24 135 10:16–27 134 10:17 319 10:18 322 10:18–19 134–135 10:19 134 10:20 134, 231, 312, 454 10:20–23 135 10:21 135, 319 10:21–22 319



Hebrew Bible

10:22 135, 319, 438, 518 10:22–24 135 10:24 165, 276–277, 304, 312, 319, 329–330, 365, 424, 461, 468–469 10:24–27 61, 304–305, 308, 316, 321, 329–331, 424 10:25 316, 416 10:25–27 304, 326 10:26 277, 454 10:27 298, 301, 305–307, 310, 312, 315–316, 318–319, 321, 327, 329, 424 10:27–34 136, 276 10:27–11:9 323 10:28–32 189, 322 10:28–11:16 187 10:32 321 10:33 423 10:33–34 322 10:33–11:9 323 10:37 321 11 139, 150, 152, 312, 314, 316, 318–323, 327, 330–331, 387, 481 11:1 276, 290, 312, 317, 320–322, 326, 330, 332 11:1–5 276 11:1–9 287, 313, 421 11:1–10 329 11:1–16 528, 530 11:2 312, 319–320, 336–337 11:2–9 312 11:3–4 319 11:4 312, 320, 330, 475 11:5 475 11:6–8 278 11:6–9 319, 325, 330–331 11:9 278, 330 11:9–10 312, 336 11:10 287, 312–313, 332, 442 11:11 276–277, 312, 319, 323, 365, 435, 461 11:11–12 152, 284 11:11–16 138, 187, 277, 286–287, 307, 312 11:12 276, 307, 312–313, 324, 326, 435–436, 442

561

11:13 312 11:14 97, 167, 312 11:15 323 11:15–16 277, 323 11:16 277, 319, 323, 365, 461 12 276–277, 314–315, 319 12:1 307, 314, 320, 326 12:1–6 148 12:2 229, 231, 277 12:3 223 12:4 478 12:5 86, 277 12:6 223, 233 13 201, 270, 325, 407, 418–419, 421–422, 424, 426, 539, 546 13–14 3, 87, 149–150, 164, 302, 324–325, 407, 421, 425, 427, 539 13–23 34, 298, 527–529, 535 13–27 298, 301, 335, 529, 546 13–35 427 13–39 407, 427 13:1 148, 419, 421, 539–540, 543 13:1–14:2 529 13:1–14:23 413, 528–529, 535 13:2 418–419, 421, 442 13:2–3 419, 421, 541–542, 544–545 13:2–5 421–422, 540, 543 13:2–8 543 13:2–16 419, 540–542, 544 13:2–22 539 13:2–14:23 34 13:2–14:27 540 13:3 542, 545 13:4 421–422, 544 13:4–5 419–421, 540–542, 544, 546 13:5 422, 540 13:6 422, 542, 544 13:6–8 419, 421, 541, 544–545 13:7 542, 545 13:7–8 543 13:7–16 540 13:8 535, 544 13:9 418, 422, 540, 542–546 13:9–10 419 13:9–13 419–421, 543–544, 546 13:9–16 541 13:10 418, 545

562

Index of Ancient Sources

13:10–13 545 13:11 419, 540, 545–546 13:12 543, 545 13:13 419, 542–543, 545 13:14 544 13:14–16 543–545 13:14–22 419, 421 13:15 419 13:16 535, 543 13:17 105, 148, 539–540, 542, 544–545 13:17–18 189 13:17–22 422, 539, 541–545 13:18 543 13:18–22 543 13:19 418–419, 539–540, 544 13:20–22 325 13:22 419 14 150, 325, 414, 418–419, 539, 546 14:1 351 14:1–2 52, 426 14:1–4 324, 351, 426–427 14:1–5 324 14:1–23 407, 425–428 14:2 106, 409, 426, 434 14:2–4 53 14:2–23 424 14:3 248, 426 14:3–4 407 14:3–23 529 14:4 137, 148, 407–409, 412, 417, 419, 425–426 14:4–5 63, 409, 418 14:4–6 407–413, 415, 421 14:4–11 410, 415 14:4–20 420–421, 427 14:4–21 52–53, 137, 407, 409, 411–414, 417–419, 421, 424–426 14:5 53, 409, 420–421, 424–425 14:5–6 412 14:6 409, 424, 454 14:6–20 137 14:7 510 14:7–8 408, 411–412, 415, 427 14:8 324, 411, 434 14:9 419

14:9–10 324 14:9–11 408, 412–413, 415 14:9–13 418 14:10 412 14:10–11 408, 411–412 14:11 410–412, 418–419 14:12 324, 408–409, 411, 413, 416, 418 14:12–13 415, 418–419 14:12–14 410, 424–425 14:12–15 408, 410–411, 413–416, 426 14:12–21 410 14:13 411, 413, 416, 418–419, 421 14:13–14 324, 408–409, 414–415, 421 14:13–15 427 14:14 325, 411 14:15 408, 410–413, 415 14:16 411–413, 415, 419 14:16–17 407, 411–413, 415 14:16–21 415, 421 14:17 411–413, 426 14:18 413–414 14:18–20 408, 413, 415 14:19 325, 413–414, 419, 423 14:19–20 413 14:19–21 420 14:20 137, 411, 413–414, 419–420, 425, 427 14:20–21 413–415, 419–421, 425 14:21 137, 413, 419–420, 425 14:21–22 325 14:22 58, 417, 542 14:22–23 539 14:23 58 14:24 303 14:24–25 304 14:24–27 140–141, 298–299, 301–304, 306–308, 310, 312, 315, 318, 324, 326–327, 329, 331, 337, 424, 528–529 14:25 302–306, 310, 316, 321, 324, 329–331, 365, 424, 461 14:26 310, 324 14:26–27 149, 307 14:27 302, 307, 310, 529, 535 14:28 299–300, 328, 332, 426, 539 14:28–32 137, 298–301, 327–332, 334, 529



Hebrew Bible

14:28–35:10 426 14:29 138, 165, 300, 303, 321, 328, 330, 434, 454, 468 14:29–30 327–330, 333 14:30 138, 328, 330, 332 14:31 138, 300, 334 14:31–31 327–328 14:32 55, 138, 328, 330–331, 334 14:37 324 15–17 3 15:1–16:14 529 16:1 55 16:2 89 16:3 165, 229 16:5 55, 476 16:10 223 17 136 17:1–6 134 17:1–9 386 17:1–18:7 529 17:3 58 17:4 201 17:6 134 17:7–8 143 18–19 3, 449 18:1–3 138 18:3 442 18:7 466 19 16, 18, 86, 323, 365, 384–385 19:1 17, 384–385 19:1–2 17 19:1–5 16–17, 62–63 19:1–10 63 19:1–15 17, 63 19:1–20:6 529 19:2 16 19:2–3 17 19:3 16–17 19:3–4 65 19:4 16–17, 58 19:4–5 56 19:5–6 323 19:5–9 63 19:5–10 62–63 19:6 323 19:8 204 19:16 323 19:19 17

563

19:23 323, 365 19:23–25 461, 490–491 19:24 365 19:25 365 20 3, 49, 138, 298, 300–301, 328, 332–335, 427–428, 507 20:1 301, 332, 365, 373, 461 20:3 300, 434 20:3–5 301 20:4 365, 461 20:6 365, 461 21 149, 481 21:1 528 21:1–10 34, 529 21:2 149 21:3–4 149 21:11–12 529 21:13–17 529 22 317, 428 22:1–25 529 22:2 148 22:4 165 22:6 229 22:9 186 22:9–11 367 22:13 223 22:14 55, 58 22:20 119, 434 22:23 54 22:24 54 22:24–25 53–54 22:25 58, 60 23 3, 34 23:1–18 529 23:13 150, 365, 461 24 202–203, 206–207, 210, 545 24–27 34, 69–72, 75–76, 84–85, 87–91, 94–100, 144, 199– 200, 203, 209, 298, 337–338, 419, 527, 529, 535, 545–546 24:1–3 201 24:1–20 201 24:2 434 24:3 90 24:4 201, 207–208, 545 24:4–5 203 24:4–6 199, 201, 207 24:5 90, 207, 341

564

Index of Ancient Sources

24:5–6 203, 545 24:6 200–203, 205, 207–209, 545 24:7 85, 201 24:7–9 201 24:7–12 201 24:8 201, 434 24:10–12 201 24:11 223, 434 24:12 546 24:13 201 24:14 88, 233 24:15 466 24:16 76 24:17–18 203 24:18 545 24:19 90 24:20 90 24:21 546 24:21–23 545 24:22 88, 90, 104 24:23 55, 206, 232–233, 337 25–26 35–37 25:1 315, 337 25:1–5 337 25:2 90 25:2–3 337 25:3–5 546 25:4–5 229 25:6 89, 100, 104 25:6–8 337 25:9 148, 230 25:10 90, 100 26 91 26:1 90, 519 26:1–2 100 26:2 89, 104 26:3 437 26:4 90, 106 26:8 230 26:9 85, 476, 545 26:10 86, 476, 545 26:11 91 26:12 437 26:16–19 535 26:17 85, 535 26:18 545 26:19 89, 91, 104, 520 26:20 161

26:21 518–520 27 387, 529 27:5 437 27:6 545 27:7 90 27:9 89–90, 92, 104, 106 27:10 89, 104 27:11 90, 104 27:12 88, 90 27:13 100, 365, 461 28 315, 461 28–31 437, 440, 443, 449–450, 461, 463, 469–470 28–32 428 28–33 448 28:1 86 28:1–4 386, 462, 469 28:1–6 133 28:2 462–463, 467–469, 518 28:3 86 28:7–10 468 28:7–12 133 28:7–14 428 28:9–13 148 28:12 440, 521 28:13 53, 521 28:14 53 28:14–22 427 28:15 143, 450, 462–463, 469, 518 28:15–18 462, 467, 469 28:16 440 28:16–18 180 28:17 518 28:18 463, 469, 518 28:21 315 28:22 165 28:23–29 315 28:25–26 521 28:27 315 28:29 315, 337 28:30 468 28:31 468 29 461 29:1–16 428 29:3 521 29:9–12 148 29:11–12 456 29:13–14 490



Hebrew Bible

29:13–16 320 29:15 143 29:15–16 450 29:19 223 29:22 266 30 432, 451, 461, 463 30–31 3 30:1 91, 449 30:1–5 449 30:1–7 320, 427, 449 30:2 461 30:2–3 229 30:3 461 30:6 300 30:6–7 467 30:7 450, 456, 41 30:8 148, 449, 451, 456 30:8–9 452 30:8–16 520–521 30:8–17 448–449, 452–458 30:8–26 448, 456 30:9 341, 450–452, 521 30:9–11 449 30:10 456 30:10–11 450 30:11 450, 456–457 30:12 231, 451 30:12–14 450 30:12–17 451, 465 30:13–14 451 30:14 450 30:15 440, 451, 456–457, 521 30:16–17 450–451 30:17 450–452, 457 30:18 452, 455–456, 458, 465, 521 30:18–22 503, 519–521 30:18–26 439, 447–448, 450, 455–457, 465 30:19 456, 465, 513, 521 30:19–22 456 30:19–26 452, 454–455, 458 30:20 452–454, 456–458, 465, 521 30:20–22 522 30:21 454, 456, 465, 521 30:22 454, 465, 521 30:23–25 453, 457 30:23–26 454, 457 30:25 454, 457

565

30:26 451, 454, 458 30:27 439–440, 464, 466 30:27–28 464–465 30:27–31 463, 465–466, 468–471 30:27–33 438–440, 442–443, 448, 454, 462–463, 465, 469 30:28 437–440, 442–443, 463, 467–469, 518 30:29 223, 464–465 30:30 247, 465 30:31 365, 439, 454, 461–461, 464–465, 468, 470–471 30:32 106, 464 30:32–33 463–465, 470 30:33 464, 471 31 18, 461 31:1 231, 461 31:1–3 320, 427, 449 31:1–9 3 31:1–15 57 31:3 60, 461 31:4 167 31:5 167 31:6–7 143 31:7 223, 322 31:8 365, 461 31:12 223 32 152 32:1 423, 475 32:1–20 530 32:2 229 32:9–14 132, 428 32:13 434 32:17 437 33 428 33:2 230, 247 33:7 437 33:8 208 33:9 203 33:22 232 34–35 34 34–66 56, 527 34:4–6 8 34:9–10 464 35:1 434 35:4 165 35:5–10 521 35:7 514

566

Index of Ancient Sources

35:10 223–224 36 317, 367–368 36–37 18, 86, 150, 186–188, 191–192, 324, 328, 333–335, 365–368, 370, 373–374, 377, 381, 384–387, 417, 427–428, 507, 518–519 36–38 426–427, 461 36–39 3, 49, 150, 152, 189, 322, 324, 332, 365, 426, 449, 507, 530 36:1 317, 321–322, 332, 334, 367–368, 372, 390 36:1–3 368 36:1–9 333 36:1–37:35 448 36:2 38, 374, 381, 391, 507, 519 36:2–37:38 369 36:4–7 320 36:4–10 7, 187, 381 36:5 320 36:6 59 36:8 38, 382 36:9 382 36:10 427 36:11 72, 165, 434 36:12 334, 382, 519 36:12–20 187 36:13–20 317, 374, 381 36:14 165 36:16 165, 334, 373, 519 36:16–17 426 36:17 519 36:18–20 519 36:18–37:4 335 36:19 382 36:20 382 37 303, 323, 325, 332 37:1–2 333 37:4 374, 519 37:5 434 37:6 165, 368, 374, 376 37:6–8 376 37:7 322, 377 37:9 334 37:9–10 325 37:10 165, 427 37:10–13 317, 374–375 37:11–12 336

37:11–13 382, 519 37:14 374 37:16 375 37:17 374 37:17–19 376 37:17–20 335–336 37:18–20 336 37:19 336 37:20 376 37:21–29 376 37:21–35 426 37:22 374 37:22–29 321 37:22–35 322, 325, 333 37:23 374 37:23–24 322 37:23–25 322 37:24 8, 322, 324, 374, 427, 434 37:25 323 37:26 151, 321, 332 37:26–27 322 37:28 427 37:29 467 37:29–30 333 37:30 508, 518–519 37:30–31 521 37:30–32 316, 322, 332, 337, 376, 503, 507–508, 519 37:30–35 321 37:31–32 317, 320–321, 326, 330–331, 333–334 37:32 318, 320, 508, 519–520, 523 37:33 382 37:33–35 317, 376 37:33–36 302 37:35 318, 325, 336, 434 37:36 303, 427, 454, 519 37:36–37 302, 325 37:36–38 319, 322, 370, 386 37:37 302 37:37–38 325 37:38 324–325, 454 38 318, 325, 427, 507 38–39 385 38:5 318 38:6 365 38:7–8 325 38:10 325



Hebrew Bible

38:10–20 325 38:15 325 38:17 437 38:17–18 325 38:19–20 325 38:20 325 38:22 325 39 150, 189, 191, 336, 425, 427–428 39:2 434 39:5–7 407, 425–428 39:8 437, 507 40 150, 189, 385, 427, 432, 484 40–41 512 40–48 92, 214, 475, 478–479, 482–486, 503, 546 40–54 216, 222–223, 225–227, 230, 233 40–55 47–49, 91, 99, 151, 154–155, 214–215, 224, 227–228, 323–324, 342, 483, 503, 505–506, 508–509, 511–513, 518, 523, 527, 531, 544–546 40–66 23, 30–32, 34, 71, 85, 90–91, 94–95, 99–100, 106, 151, 154, 188, 233, 507, 519, 527, 530 40:1 516 40:1–52:15 262 40:2 92, 106, 249, 264, 484, 513 40:8 52 40:9 165, 544 40:11 245, 247 40:12 106 40:14 104–105 40:24 106 40:31 230 41 262, 475, 487 41–48 480, 483, 486 41:2 105, 475–477, 480–481, 484, 544 41:3 437 41:5 104 41:7 105 41:8 156, 256, 266, 434, 480 41:8–9 261, 483 41:10 165, 476 41:13 106, 165 41:14 106, 165, 244

567

41:16 106 41:17 106, 482 41:21 232 41:22 151 41:22–29 153 41:23 104–105, 151 41:25 104–105, 475–480, 485, 544 41:25–29 483 41:26 106 42 475, 483–484, 512, 516 42:1 475, 513–514, 523 42:1–3 512 42:1–4 485, 503, 512–513 42:1–8 483–484, 486 42:1–9 227 42:3 512–514 42:4 341, 513, 515, 518, 521 42:6 106, 475, 477, 513–514 42:7 88, 481, 514, 517 42:9 482 42:9–14 482 42:10 223, 227 42:10–12 226, 228 42:11 223, 233 42:12 482 42:13 105, 226, 229 42:17 265 42:18–20 479 42:18–25 484 42:19 106, 434 42:20 106 42:21 341, 475 42:22 106, 481 42:23 105 42:24 341, 479 42:25 479 43:1 165, 244 43:4 106 43:5 105, 165 43:5–7 435 43:6 165 43:9 106, 151, 435 43:9–10 482 43:11 244 43:12 244 43:14 189, 223, 244, 286, 485 43:15 232 43:16 286

568

Index of Ancient Sources

43:16–17 247 43:17 266, 286 43:18 165, 243, 286 43:18–19 151 43:21 482 43:22–28 479 43:24 92, 106 43:25 92, 106 44:2 265 44:3 105 44:4 104 44:6 232, 244 44:7 104 44:8 165 44:9 106 44:14 106 44:15 105 44:17 105 44:19 105 44:21 243 44:22 92, 106, 244 44:23 223, 226, 228, 233, 244, 481, 510 44:24 244 44:28 247, 479, 485–486, 531 45:1 148, 189, 346, 479–480, 486, 531 45:2 106, 485 45:3 478–479 45:4 434, 479, 484 45:4–6 480 45:5 478 45:5–6 480, 482 45:6 105 45:7 437 45:8 106, 226, 476, 481 45:9–10 481 45:11 104 45:12 106 45:13 105–107, 346, 475, 477, 485, 544 45:14 106 45:17 244 45:18 106 45:18–25 435 45:20 435 45:21 151 45:22 244, 482

45:24 229 46:1–7 521 46:3 106, 264 46:3–4 245 46:4 105–106 46:7 105 46:8 104 46:8–9 243 46:9 151, 482 46:11 486 46:12 479 47 486, 544 47:4 225 47:6 486 47:15 244 48:1 256, 466, 482 48:1–12 263 48:1–22 503 48:2 105, 225 48:3–5 482 48:4 479 48:4–7 263 48:5 479 48:6 106 48:8 264, 479 48:9 264 48:9–10 518 48:10 104 48:12 106 48:12–21 263 48:14 106, 247, 435, 480, 485–486 48:14–15 263 48:15 106 48:17 509–511, 514, 518, 521–522 48:17–19 437 48:17–22 503, 508–514, 516–518, 520 48:18 437, 443, 509–510, 514, 516, 518, 522 48:18–19 482, 510 48:19 105–106, 509, 511, 518 48:20 223, 244, 423, 434, 503, 508–509, 511–512, 515, 523 48:20–21 226, 518 48:20–22 511 48:21 510–511, 514, 516, 518–519, 521 48:22 437, 511, 517–518, 520 49 263, 443, 516, 535



Hebrew Bible

49:52 503 49–54 226, 228, 234, 535 49–55 92, 263, 503 49:1 228 49:2 229 49:3 434 49:4 106 49:5 229, 434 49:6 229, 434, 513–514 49:7 154, 244, 434 49:8 229, 513–514, 521 49:8–9 514 49:8–10 503, 512–513 49:9 512–514, 517, 49:9–10 514, 519–521 49:10 106, 248, 514 49:13 223, 226, 228, 233, 510 49:15 105–106, 264 49:17 535 49:20–21 234 49:21 105–106, 231 49:22 324, 441–442 49:22–23 435, 442, 444 49:23 230, 442 49:24–25 90 49:25 106, 244 49:26 244 50:3 231 50:4 105 50:5 106 50:6 103 50:9 105 50:10 106, 230–231, 434, 466 50:11 105 51 261–262 51:1 230–231, 510, 516 51:1–8 261 51:2 156, 256, 260, 516 51:2–3 260 51:3 105, 156, 223, 226, 231, 260, 516, 519, 521 51:3–8 503, 512, 515–516 51:4 341, 344, 512–518, 520, 523–524 51:4–5 516–517 51:5 230, 247, 475, 515–516, 521 51:6 516–517 51:6–8 516

569

51:7 165, 341, 516, 518–519 51:8 516–520 51:9 231, 510 51:9–10 247 51:9–11 286 51:10 106, 244, 247 51:10–11 247 51:11 223–224 51:13 105 51:14 172 51:15 225 51:16 106, 229, 358 51:17 231, 510 51:23 232 51:48 223 52:1 105, 231, 510, 535 52:1–12 503 52:3 244 52:4 462 52:5 90 52:7 232–233, 437 52:7–10 233 52:7–12 226 52:8 223 52:9 223, 226, 233, 244, 510–511, 516 52:9–12 503, 508–514, 516–518 52:10 226, 228, 247, 511 52:11 165, 503, 508, 510–512, 515, 517–518, 523 52:11–12 511, 520, 523 52:12 511, 514, 518, 521 52:13–53:12 152, 155, 524 53:1 106 53:4 105–106 53:5 105–106, 437 53:10 486 53:11 105–106 53:12 106 54 535 54:1 223, 228, 233–234, 510 54:1–3 226 54:2 165 54:4 165 54:5 225, 244 54:7 435 54:8 244 54:9 156

570

Index of Ancient Sources

54:10 437 54:13 437 54:15 105 54:16 106 54:17 223 55 531 55:1–2 105 55:3 105, 156, 323 55:6 517 55:7 518 55:7–9 521 55:8 518 55:9 518 55:10 518, 521 55:10–11 52 55:10–13 503, 512, 517–519 55:11 503, 512, 518, 523 55:12 223–224, 233, 437, 508, 510, 518 55:12–13 503, 518, 520–521 55:13 247, 508, 518–519 56 351 56–59 349 56–66 87, 249, 272, 287, 341–346, 356, 358–359, 431–432, 434, 509, 523, 527, 531–532 56:1 349, 352 56:1–8 50, 226, 345, 349–352, 354, 431, 436, 532, 536 56:3 106, 165, 349, 351–352 56:3–5 350 56:3–8 352 56:4 349–350, 352 56:5 349–350 56:6 223, 350–354, 357, 434, 466 56:7 104, 350, 352, 434 56:8 349 56:9 104 56:12 104–105 56:32 352 57:2 103, 437 57:6 105 57:12 106 57:14 52 57:16 106 57:17 106 57:19 437 57:21 437

58 118–120 58–59 124 58:1 92, 106, 165 58:2 476, 481 58:3 105 58:4 105 58:8 476 58:11–12 516 58:13 106, 122, 125 58:13–14 117–118, 121–124, 127, 352 58:14 266 59 118 59:1 244 59:2 92, 104, 106 59:3 105 59:4 107, 475 59:8 437 59:9 105 59:10 105 59:12 92, 106 59:16 106, 244, 247 59:19 105, 359, 466 59:20 244 60 180, 432–433, 435, 441, 443 60–62 240, 345, 349, 353, 432, 444 60:1 441 60:4 441–442 60:5 346 60:5–12 346 60:6 346 60:6–12 351 60:7 346 60:9 230, 466 60:10 346 60:11 106, 346 60:12 346 60:13 346 60:14 346 60:15 434 60:16 244, 442 60:17 437 60:20 105 60:21 103 61:3 102–103, 223, 476 61:4–8 482 61:5 348 61:5–6 346, 348, 350 61:7 223



Hebrew Bible

61:9 105 61:10 102, 434 61:11 247 62:1 475 62:2 476 62:3 102 62:5 434 62:6 165, 243 62:6–7 243 62:7 165 62:8 247 62:10 52, 442 62:10–12 346 62:12 105, 244 63–64 239–244, 248–251 63–66 349 63:1 244, 349 63:1–6 240, 349 63:3 105 63:5 106, 244 63:7 105–106, 240, 242, 251, 433 63:7–8 245 63:7–15 241 63:7–64:11 239–240, 249 63:8 241, 243–244 63:8–10 240, 243 63:8–14 240 63:9 105–106, 240, 243–245 63:10 105–106, 241, 245–246 63:11 105, 243, 246–247 63:11–14 239, 241, 246 63:12 246 63:13 244, 247–248 63:13–14 247 64:14 246, 248 63:15 105, 241 63:15–17 241 63:15–64:11 240–241 63:16 257, 262, 266 63:16–64:11 241 63:17 223, 241, 243, 250, 252, 434 63:18 105 63:19 106, 119 64:4 106, 244, 434 64:4–6 241 64:8 165 64:9 105 64:10 105

571

64:11 241 65 432, 436 65–66 86, 214, 284, 337–338, 345, 432, 436 65:1 105 65:1–16 518–519 65:1–66:24 431 65:3 106, 358 65:5 165, 435 65:8 105, 165, 223 65:9 223, 434, 520 65:12 105, 435 65:13 106, 223, 434 65:14 106, 223, 233 65:15 223 65:16–25 433 65:17–25 520–521 65:18 434 66:18–20 435 66:18–24 435 65:19 434 65:20–24 156 65:23 105 65:24 106, 521 65:25 105, 436 66 52, 432–433, 439–440, 443, 531 66:1 531 66:1–2 433 66:1–4 433 66:1–5 354 66:1–21 436 66:2 355 66:3 106 66:4 106 66:5 106, 223, 355, 433–435 66:5–6 434 66:5–14 433–434, 436 66:5–24 433 66:6–16 433 66:7–9 434 66:7–14 433 66:10 434–435 66:10–14 434 66:11 105, 433, 435 66:12 432–434, 436–444, 518, 522 66:13 106 66:14 434

572

Index of Ancient Sources

66:15 358 66:15–16 439–440 66:15–17 434 66:16 434 66:17 432 66:18 353, 435, 442 66:18–21 353, 435, 532 66:18–23 436, 520 66:18–24 523 66:19 106, 353–354, 435, 508 66:20 105, 353–354, 356–357, 435, 532 66:20–21 353 66:21 353–354, 436, 532 66:22 105, 520 66:22–23 436 66:24 436, 508, 518, 520 Jeremiah 1:17 471 2:19 58 2:30 202 3:1–10 207 3:15 486 4:28 204 5:15 466 7:31–32 464 10:25 478 11:20 476 12:4 207 12:11 204 12:12 202 14:2 204 14:9 119 19:6 464 19:11–14 464 21:5 246 22:13 475 23 204–207, 209 23:1–8 247 23:6 475 23:9 204–206 23:9–12 204 23:9–15 203–204 23:9–40 204 23:10 200, 203–209 23:10–11 199–200 23:11 205, 207

23:11–12 205 23:12 205 23:13–15 204 23:16–17 204 23:17 206 23:18–22 204 23:23–32 204 23:33–40 204 25:9 486 27:6 486 27:9 167 27:11 248 29:13 231 29:23 125 30–31 139 30:14 245 31:7 233–234 31:9 248 31:7–14 139 31:20 102 31:23 476 32:20 247 33:16 475 43:10 486 49:5 58 50:7 476 50:31 58 Ezekiel 3:20 475 6:9 435 7:16 439 11:15 259 15:7 202 17:7 103 20:5 258 20:33 232 21 225 24:17 102 24:23 102 25:16 97 26–28:24 139 27:10–25 435 28:25 258 29:17–20 139 30 544 30:3–4 544 31:4 103



33 260–261 33:23–25 258, 260 34:23 486 34:29 103 35:15 223 36:5 223 37:14 248 37:24 486 37:25–26 258 38:1–10 435 39:25 258 39:28 102 40–48 345 40:38 102 44 351 44:18 102 45:10 476 Hosea 1:1 101 2:11 120 2:21 475 4:2–3 209 4:3 201, 207, 209 5:5 59 5:10 139 7:4 103 9:8 97 10:12 476, 481 11:1 243, 260 12:2–5 265 Joel 1–2 542 1:8 39 1:10 204 1:15 544 2:1 544 3–4 542 3:5 478 Amos 1:1 101 1:2 204–205, 207 1:8 97, 101 2:8 97, 101 2:11 96 2:15 102

Hebrew Bible

3:5 96 3:10 101 3:13 58 3:15 96 5:1 101 5:2 96 5:5 96 5:18–27 284 5:23 231 5:25 101 6:1 101 6:2 96–97, 101, 132 6:3 91 6:5 97, 101 6:8 97 6:12 91, 96 6:14 96, 101 7:1 96 7:10 101 7:10–15 97 7:11 96 7:12 101 7:13 96 7:14 101 7:17 96 9 97 9:7 97, 101 9:8 96 9:9 102 9:11 96–97, 101 Obadiah 14 435 15 542, 544 Micah 1–3 69, 96, 98–100 1:1 98, 103 1:6 103 1:9 103 1:14 103 1:15 103 1:16 103 2:1 103 2:3 103 2:4 52, 103 2:5 104 2:6 103

573

574 2:7 103 2:8 103–104 2:9 103 2:12 103 3:3 103 3:7 104 3:10 93, 103 4:1–4 283 4:1–5 222 4:2 97, 225–226 4:7 232–233 5:11 167 7:17 88 Nahum 1:14 97 Habakkuk 2:6 52 3:3 466 Zephaniah 1:6 231 1:14–16 544 1:18 202 2:3 476 3:14 223, 233–234 3:17 223–224 Haggai 1:1 92–93, 96, 107 1:2 107 1:5 93, 107 1:6 93, 107 1:7 93, 107 1:9 93, 107 1:13 93, 107 1:14 93, 107 1:15 93, 96 2:1 93 2:2 92–93, 107 2:5 93, 107 2:6 107 2:7 107 2:9 107 2:10 107 2:11 107 2:12 93, 107

Index of Ancient Sources

2:15 92–93, 107 2:18 92–93, 107 2:19 93, 107 2:20 93 2:21 93, 107 Zechariah 2:14 223, 233–234 3:4 102 5:3 202 8:3 465 8:4 59 8:23 351 14:5 101 Malachi 1:4 108 1:5 108 1:7 107–108 1:8 108 1:12 107–108 1:13 108 2:6 108 2:8 108 2:9 108 2:14 108 2:17 108 3:3 108 3:4 108 3:10 108 3:13 107 3:16 107–108, 230 3:18 108 3:24 108 4 42 Psalms 4:2 476 4:6 476 5:12 223 5:13 230 6:7 10 7:7 232 7:8 475 7:18 475 8 56 9:9 475 9:11 230



10:2 86 10:16 232 12:7 89 15–24 225 15:4 230 17:1 476 17:8 229 17:10 86 17:15 475 18 76, 465 18:9 467 18:8–11 466 18:11 475 18:46 88 19 225 19:15 55, 230 20:2 225 20:6 223 21:6 413 21:8 230 22:24 230 23 122 23:3 476 24 224 24:1 278 24:3 465 24:6 225, 231 24:8 232 24:10 232 25:3 230 25:5 230 25:12 230 25:21 230 26:1 230 27:1 230 27:8 231 27:14 230 28:7 230 29:1 229 29:3 466 29:3–9 468 29:10 232 30:6 223, 230 30:8 230 32:10 230 32:11 223 33:1 223, 233–234 33:3 223, 227

Hebrew Bible

33:21 230 34:23 223 35:23 232 35:24 475 35:27 223, 476 35:28 476 36:8 229 37:6 476 37:3 230 37:34 230 40:2 230 40:4 223, 227 40:9 223 40:10 476 40:17 231 41:4 101 42–43 61 42:5 61, 97, 223 42:7 61 42:8 232 43:4 61, 224 44:2 232 44:4 231 44:24 232 45 51 45:2 51 45:5 476 45:8 476 45:16 224 46 224–225 46:2 232 46:4 232 46:5 440 47:2 223 47:3 232 47:8 232 47:9 233 47:10 231 48 224 48:11 476 50:4 273 50:6 476 51:13 105 51:16 233 51:21 476 52:5 476 52:10 97 52:11 230

575

576 54:3 466 54:8–9 466 55:15 97 55:22 229 57:2 229 57:5–7 61 57:5 229 58:2 476 59 224 59:5 232 59:8 229 59:17 233 61:5 90 62:12 229 63:3 229 63:8 229 64:4 229 65:6 475 66:6 278 68:4 224 68:8 466 68:29 229 68:35 229 68:36 229 69 224, 230 69:7 230–231 69:13 230 69:37 223 70:5 231 72:2 475 74 215 74:2 277 74:22 232 75 225 76 225 77–78 215 77:6 90 77:8 90 77:16 246 78 102 78:8 234 78:17 234 78:40 234 78:13 246 78:35 244 78:52 248 78:54 277 79 215

Index of Ancient Sources

79:2 223 79:10 223 80 215, 224, 232 81 225 81:2 223, 233–234 81:3 231 81:14 162 81:15 162 83 215 84 224–225 84:3 223, 233 84:4 232 84:6 232 84:11 97 85:11 476 85:12 476 85:14 476 87 222 87:4 232 89 224, 465 89:13 223 89:15 475 89:19 232 89:26 278 89:51 223 90:13 223 90:14 223 90:16 223 91:1 229 92:5 223 93:100 232 93:1 232–233 93:3–4 278 94:7 225 94:8 223 94:15 475 94:17 162 95:1 223 95:3 232 96 227 96:1 223, 227 96:10 232–233 96:12 223 96:13 475 97:1 232 97:2 423, 475 97:6 475 97:11 224



98 227, 233 98:1 223 98:1–6 233 98:4 223, 233 98:5 231 98:9 475 99:1 232 100:2 224 102:15 223 102:29 223 103 56 103:17 547 105 231 105:1 478 105:3–4 231 105:4 231 105:25 223 105:28 231, 245 105:37 248 105:43 223 106 242–244, 251 106:6 242 106:7 242, 245 106:8 246 106:9 247 106:10 244 106:13 244 106:21 244 106:33 245 106:43 245 106:45 242 106:47 251 107:22 223 107:33–35 204 113 234 113:1 223 114:7 225 115:11 230 115:13 230 116:13 478 116:17 478 118 56 118:4 230–231 118:14 277 118:15 223 119 102, 225 119:7 476 119:19 476

Hebrew Bible

119:62 476 119:75 475 119:121 476 119:123 476 119:138 476 119:142 475 119:144 475 119:160 476 119:164 476 119:172 475 120–134 49, 223, 225 121:5 229 122–146 86 123:2 223 125:5 55 126:2 223 126:5 223 127:5 229 128:1 230 128:4 230 130:5 230 132:3 101 132:9 224, 476 132:16 224 133:3 55 134:1 223 135:14 223 135:20 230 136:12 246 137:3 224 137:6 224 139 76 139:12 89, 104 142:8 88 144 76, 105 144:9 223, 227 145 62 145:10 224 145:13 90 146:10 232 149:1 223, 227 149:5 103, 224 Job 6:29 475 7:13 101 8:3 476 8:6 476

577

578 24:23 231 29:14 102, 476 31:6 476 34:4 104 34:33 104 35:2 475 36:3 476 36:22 453 38:12 416 39:23 229 42:3 315 Proverbs 1:3 476 2:9 476 3:5 231 5:13 453 7:16 101 8:8 475 8:15 476 8:16 476 8:30–31 102 12:17 476 13:17 89 14:2 230 14:5 89 16:13 476 19:10 103 20:6 89 22:17–24:22 63 25:5 475 28:5 231 30:19 39 31:9 476 Ruth 3:9 535 3:15 102 Song of Songs 1:5–8 55 1:16 101 4:1–7 56 5:7 102 7:7 103 Qohelet 1:10 90

Index of Ancient Sources

2:8 103 3:16 476 5:7 476 7:3 73 7:15 475 Lamentations 1–2 234 1:3 59 2:3 202 2:4 245 2:5 245 2:19 233 3:13 229 Esther 6:1 108 8:12 89 8:16 104 9:27 351 Daniel 9:11 202 9:15 247 9:24 90, 476 11 337 12:1–2 102 12:2 436 Ezra 1:1–4 479 1:1–8 490 1:2–4 479 2:40–41 219 2:65 219 4:15 108 6 530 6:2 108 7:7 354 7:10 355 7:25 358 8:15 354 8:15–20 219 8:20 219 9–10 352, 355 9:2 289 9:4 355 10:3 341

Qumran Material



Nehemiah 7:67 219 7:43–44 219 8:8 341, 355 9 242–243, 251, 291 9:1 341 9:2 242 9:6–7 242 9:7–8 290 9:10 246–247 9:11 246 9:13 90 9:17 243 9:32:37 251 10:1 342 10:32 352 10:35 341 10:37 341 13 72 13:14–22 124 13:15–22 352 13:23–24 72 13:23–28 533 1 Chronicles 10:12 95, 102 11:5 222 16 231 16:8 478

16:10–11 231 16:11 231 16:31 232–233 17:7 106–107 28:18 89 29:4 89 2 Chronicles 4:5 102 5:2 222 6:2 90 7:14 231 13:18 231 14:10 231 16:7–8 231 18:19 200 20:3–4 231 20:4 231 20:7 261–262 25:4 341 28:1–27 186 28:18 138 32:1–23 187 32:32 220 34–35 191 34:3–7 142 36:22–23 490 36:23 479

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Sirach (Ben Sira) 4:17 104 11:4 102 11:5 102

40:4 102 47:6 102 48:22–25 151

Qumran Material CD (Cairo Damascus Document) 5:16 89 10:17–19 125

1QS (Community Rule) 1:7 103 10:25 89

1QIsaa (Isaiaha) 56:6 357

1QHa (Thanksgiving Scroll) 10:21 90

579

580

Index of Ancient Sources

4QIsaa (Isaiaha) 17:20 119

F3:1 103 4Q270 (4QDe) 6:3–4 125

4Q67 (4QIsan) 1′–3′ 117 3′ 118 4′ 118 4′–6′ 118 4′ 118 5′ 118

4Q503 (4QpapPrQuot) 24–25 5 123 4Q504 (Words of the Luminaries) 15:12 119 15:15 119

4Q166 (4QpHosa) 2:9 120

4QSongs of Sabbath Sacrifice F1 i:6 90

4Q186 (4Q Horoscope)

Assyrian and Babylonian Texts RIMA 3 102.5 iv 1–2

374

RIMB 2 B.6.32 372 2 S.0.1002.2 I 19–25 371 RINAP 1 28 3 3 4:49 3 4:55 3 4:58 3/1 4:5–20 3/1 4:32–60 3/1 17 iv 18–60 3/1 17 iv 61–91 3/1 17 v 1–22 3/1 22 iii 18–19 3/1 22 v 17–vi 35 3/1 22 v 74 3/2 222:20 4 1 ii 40–64 4 1 ii 65–iii 19 4 1 iii 20–38 4 1 iii 39–42 4 1 iii 43–46 4 1 iii 56–58 4 1 iii 71–83

371 390 390–391 374 389 389 370 389 389 390 389 371 390 389 389 389 370 370 370 370

4 1 iv 1–16 4 1 iv 17–31 4 1 iv 32–45 4 1 iv 46–52 4 1 iv 53–77 4 1 iv 78–v 52 4 1 v 26–33 4 1 v 30–33 4 1 v 31 4 1 v 33 4 34:6′–r. 19 4 34:12′–18′ 5 3 5 3 i 48–ii 5 5 3 i 48–ii 37 5 3 ii 5–37 5 3 ii 38 5 3 ii 38–62 5 3 ii 86–91 5 3 iii 5 5 3 iii 16–20 5 3 iii 16–79 5 3 iv 10–vii 76 5 3 iv 15 5 3 iv 15–67 5 3 iv 68 5 3 iv 68–v 4 5 3 iv 80

370 389 370 370 370 389 370 371 374 368, 370 389 370 392–394 389 372 389 373 389 370 373 371 389 372 373 371 376 372 372

5 3 iv 80–vi 9 5 3 iv 85 5 3 iv 88 5 3 iv 88–89 5 3 iv 89 5 3 v 1–15 5 3 v 3 5 3 v 4 5 3 v 4–15 5 3 v 5–24 5 3 v 10 5 3 v 16 5 3 v 20 5 3 v 23 5 3 v 24 5 3 v 27 5 3 v 28–33 5 3 v 34–42 5 3 v 40 5 3 v 43–44 5 3 v 45–47 5 3 v 46 5 3 v 48–72 5 3 v 51–72 5 3 v 87 5 3 v 87–96 5 3 v 88 5 3 v 93–94 5 3 vi 51 5 3 vii 44 5 3 vii 77–viii 31 5 4 iv 60′ 5 4 v 5′ 5 4 vi 52 5 4 vii 49 5 6 vii 28′ 5 6 viii 19′′ 5 7 v 93 5 7 vi 16′′ 5 7 vii 20 5 7 vii 36′ 58 5 8 v 1′–12′

581

Assyrian and Babylonian Texts



372 374 374 382 374 372 374 392 376 380 392 392 392 373 374 275 374 376 374 376 376 376 376 377 377 373 376 376 374 374 389 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 394 372

5 8 viii 24′′ 59 5 9 ii 53–66 5 11 5 11 5 11 iii 27–43 5 11 iii 70–109 5 11 iv 14 5 16:7′–30′ 5 16:18′ 5 16:18′–21′ 5 16:20′–21 5 18 I 2′ 5 18 ii′ 15′ 5 23 5 25 5 26 5 27 5 28 5 29 5 31 5 32 5 33 5 34 5 35 5 35:8 5 36 5 37 5 59:5–6 5 60:4–5 5 63 5 71:1–2

374 373 372 394–395 373 372, 377 389 374 372, 377 374 373 373 372 374 372, 386 395 395, 398–399, 401 376, 395, 400 395 382, 396 395 380, 382, 395 396 396 382, 396, 402 374 382, 305, 401 396 372 372 372, 377 372

SAA 1 50:4 1 110 3 31 3 31:13′–14 4 74:2–4 9 1.4, ii 37′ 11 33 19 8 19 159

375 377 372, 377 373 371 282 377 377 37

582

Index of Ancient Sources

Ugaritic Texts Ugaritic Texts KTU 1.2.III.33–34 278

KTU 1.6:I.53–65

Philo and Josephus Josephus Antiquities 11.1.1–3 490

New Testament Matthew 5:17 524 Luke 16:26 47 John 12:41 42

Acts 9:3 25 13:22 487 1 Corinthians 15:12–19 143

Inscriptions KAI 174:6–7 102 200:5, 6, 8 106 Gezer Calender l.5 106

TADAE A4.3 358 D7.10 358 D7.12 358 D7.16 358 D7.28 358

Rabbinic Texts Babylonian Talmud

Midrash

Sanhedrein 91b 279

Sipre Deuteronomy 306:11 273

Shabbat 88a 282

Tanh Haʾazinu 2 273 Bekhor Shor Deut 32:1 273

414

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Martin G. 80 Abma, Richtsje 511 Achenbach, Reinhard 347 Ackroyd, Peter R. 270, 320, 447, 541 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 241–242, 246 Albani, Matthias 433 Albenda, Pauline 10 Albertz, Rainer 216, 250, 353 Allen, Lindsay 485–489 Alter, Robert 53, 56 Anderson, Bernhard W. 285–286 Anderson, Bradford A. 269 Anderson, F. I. 87 Anipa, Kormi 70 Arnold, Bill T. 24 Aster, Shawn Zelig 7–8, 10–13, 17, 19, 328, 365–367, 377, 385, 387 Avigad, Nahman 88 Bahrani, Zainab 376, 379 Balogh, Csaba 16–17, 50, 60–63 Baltzer, Klaus 156, 478, 482 Barker, William D. 71 Barr, James 505 Bartelt, Andrew H. 60 Barth, Christoph 231 Barth, Hermann 4, 131, 134–135, 137, 140–141, 143, 191, 302–303, 305, 307, 438–439, 463, 465–467, 470 Barthel, Jörg 308–309, 320, 439–440, 446–447, 470 Barton, John 283, 505, 541–542, 544 Baumann, A. 201 Beale, G. K. 282 Becker, Matthew L. 26 Becker, Uwe 54–55, 57, 59–60, 181, 185, 299, 302–303, 305, 320, 322, 328–329, 331, 439, 448, 461–462 Behr, Wilfried 26 Ben Zvi, Ehud 99, 219–220, 506 Bendavid, Abba 87

Berges, Ulrich F. 48, 54–55, 57–60, 180–181, 185, 189–190, 213–214, 216–217, 220, 223–224, 226–227, 256, 260, 263, 265, 343, 431, 435, 439–441, 468, 470, 512, 531, 542, 544–545 Berlejung, Angelika 387 Bergey, Ronald 273–274 Bergler, Siegfried 544 Bernstein, Heinrich G. 74 Berquist, Jon L. 345 Beuken, Willem A. M. 53, 57, 59, 163– 164, 168, 171, 180–181, 185, 270, 305, 314, 316, 328–329, 337, 365–366, 368, 387, 407–409, 411, 414, 416, 420, 424, 427, 431, 436, 439–440, 448, 452–454, 463, 528 Beyschlag, Karlmann 26 Bianchi, Francesco 74 Biberger, Bernd 181 Birch, Samuel 3 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 48, 51–55, 57, 59, 63, 74, 163–164, 166, 173–174, 179, 182, 185, 201, 228, 233, 240, 258, 264–266, 280, 284, 288, 291, 299, 350, 355, 367, 433, 435–436, 440–442, 449–450, 452–453, 455, 478, 480, 483, 506–508, 511, 515–516, 528, 530–532, 539 Bloch, Yigal 72, 76, 78 Blum, Erhard 322 Boehmer, Julius 24 Bonnard, P. E. 457 Borger, Rylke 497 Borowski, Oded 517 Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich 542–543 Brekelmans, Christian H. W. 270 Briant, Pierre 485–488 Briggs, Charles A. 508 Brongers, Hendrik A. 124 Brooke, George J. 115 Brown, Francis 508 Brown, William P. 60

584

Index of Modern Authors

Brueggemann, Walter 477–478, 484–483, 505, 511 Budde, K. 180, 408 Busse, Ulrich 70 Calvin, John 524 Carr, David M. 50, 284–285, 343 Cary, M. 488 Chan, Michael J. 13–14, 350, 385 Chapman, Stephen B. 269, 291, 504–505 Chavel, Simeon 348 Chazon, Esther G. 119, 123, 125 Cheyne, Thomas K. 185, 469 Childs, Brevard 27, 29, 32–34, 40–41, 147, 153, 180, 276, 324, 349, 448, 478, 480, 504–507, 509, 512–513 Chilton, Bruce D. 205 Christensen, D. L. 286 Clements, Ronald E. 53–54, 58, 60, 62, 131–132, 137, 139–143, 185, 201, 303, 337, 343, 513, 530, 541 Clines, David J. A. 352 Cogan, Mordechai 373 Cohen, Chaim 8 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 533 Collins, John J. 358, 545 Condamin, Albert 185 Conrad, Edgar W. 191 Cook, J. M. 487 Cook, Paul M. 62 Corzine, Jacob 25 Couey, J. Blake 47, 49, 53, 55, 59, 63 Cross, Frank Moore 76, 82, 278, 280 Crouch, Carly 6, 494 Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer 534 Davies, Philip R. 190 Day, John 199 de Bruin, Wim M. 270 de Jong, Matthijs 47, 62, 288, 299, 328, 462, 466, 470, 493 de Moor, Johannes C. 346, 416 de Sousa, Rodrigo F. 270 Dekker, Jaap 344 Delitzsch, Franz 23, 28–29, 32–43, 74, 182–183, 271, 469 Deuschle, Matthias A. 26 Diebner, Bernd J. 118

Dietrich, Walter 216 Dillman, August 468–469 Dim, Emmanuel 433, 436 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 49, 55 Doering, Lutz 124 Donaldson, James 520, 524 Donner, Herbert 182, 350, 463–464, 469 Doyle, Arthur Conan 10 Doyle, Charles Clay 43 Driver, Samuel R. 30–31, 74–75, 201 Du Preez, Ron 118 Dubovsky, Peter 15, 369, 371, 375, 381, 383, 386, 417 Duhm, Bernhard 3, 145, 166, 185, 204, 246, 270, 314, 342, 346, 436, 442, 466, 468–469, 494, 539 Duncan, Julie A. 123 Eck, Joachim 409, 412, 420–421, 423 Eco, Umberto 41 Ehrensvärd, Martin 92 Ehring, Christina 233 Ehrlich, Arnold B. 202 Eichrodt, Walther 185 Eidevall, Göran 386, 540 Elwolde, J. F. 75 Emerton, J. A. 289, 366 Emmendörffer, Michael 240–241, 243, 245–248 Erlandsson, Seth 410, 529, 540 Eshkult, Mats 79 Everson, A Joseph 47 Fales, F. Mario 9 Farby, H.‑J. 341 Fassberg, Steven E. 73 Feuerstein, Rüdiger 216 Fischer, Alexander A. 160 Fischer, Charis 409, 543 Fischer, Georg 269 Fischer, Irmtraud 239–240, 242–243, 246, 248, 250, 343, 416 Fishbane, Michael 278, 280, 282, 350–351, 506 Fleischer, Ezra 122–123 Flint, Peter W. 80, 169, 476 Fohrer, Georg 55, 59, 284 Forbes, A. D. 87



Index of Modern Authors

Fox, M. V. 73 Fredericks, M. G. 74 Freedman, David Noel 76 Frevel, Christian 181, 366 Fried, Lisbeth S. 478, 480–481 Fuller, Russell 115 Furstenberg, Yair 124 Gallagher, William 13, 381, 448 Garcia López, F. 341 García Martínez, Florentino 125 Garsiel, Moshe 319 Gärtner, Judith 239–241, 243, 245, 433–434, 436, 541–542 Gass, Erasmus 427 Gemeinhardt, P. 115 Gerardi, Pamela 371 Gerlemann, Gillis 231 Gesenius, Wilhelm 71, 73–74 Geyer, John B. 410–411, 414, 416 Giddens, Anthony 5 Gilat, Isaac D. 125 Gile, Jason 285 Gillingham, Susan E. 225–226 Ginsberg, Harold L. 228, 233 Gitay, Yehoshua 184, 270, 288 Goldenstein, Johannes 239–251, 433, 435 Goldingay, John 118, 241, 349, 478, 480, 482–483, 511, 513–515 Goldschmidt, Daniel 122 Goldstein, Jonathan 540 Gosse, Bernard 228, 233, 411, 418–419, 421, 424, 543 Grabbe, Lester L. 448 Graham, William A. 504 Gray, George B. 41, 52, 54–55, 57, 59, 62, 71, 75–76, 201, 299, 488, 539 Graybill, Rhiannon 281 Grayson, Albert Kirk 4, 328, 448 Green, Lowell C. 26 Greenberg, Moshe 258–259 Greenstein, Edward L. 58 Gregory, Bryan 40 Gressman, Hugo 464, 470 Grimme, H. 540 Groenewald, Alphonso 230 Grossberg, Daniel 49, 57 Grotius, Hugo 73

585

Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. 243 Haarmann, Volker 353 Habel, Norman C. 279, 282 Haberman, Maggie 489 Hakham, Amos 314 Hamilton, Mark W. 449 Hamilton, William 73 Handy, Lowell K. 191–192 Hanson, Paul D. 226, 240, 284, 345, 354, 511–512 Haran, Menahem 347, 496 Hardmeier, Christof 408 Harris, Robert A. 270, 279 Harrisville, Roy A. 26 Hartenstein, Friedhelm 180, 432–434, 440, 462–463, 467, 495–497 Hasel, Gerhard F. 182 Hawking, Stephen 6 Hayes, J. H. 24 Hayes, Katherine M. 199, 201, 204 Hays, Christopher B. 16, 63, 69, 89–90, 200, 387, 414, 416–417 Hays, John H. 328 Heffelfinger, Katie M. 47–49 Heiser, Michael S. 410, 416 Heine, Thomas Theodor 493 Hendel, Ronald 93, 255 Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen 217, 260–261, 435, 437–438, 441–442 Heskett, R andall 190, 545 Hibbard, J. Todd 200–201, 337, 387, 431–432 Hillers, Delbert R. 98, 143, 206 Höffken, Peter 411, 543 Hoffman, Yair 199–200, 204 Høgenhaven, Jesper 185, 540 Holladay, William L. 133, 199, 408, 410–411 Holmstedt, Robert 84, 99 Holtz, Shalom 15 Hoppe, Rudolf 223 Hornkohl, Aaron 82, 88–89 Horowitz, Wayne 378 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 224, 229–230, 232–233, 242 Hubmann, Franz D. 207–208 Huffmon, Herbert B. 274

586

Index of Modern Authors

Hurvitz, Avi 71, 75, 77–78, 81, 91, 93, 95 Irsigler, Hubert 544 Irvine, Stuart A. 328 Isaksson, Bo 77 Jakob-Rost, Liane 375 Jamieson-Drake, David W. 219 Jassen, Alex P. 124 Jastrow, Marcus 90 Jensen, Joseph 344 Jeppesen, Knut 540 Jepsen, A. 441, 481 Jeremias, Jörg 227, 438, 465, 541–542 Johnson, B. 481 Johnson, Dan G. 200 Jones, Scott C. 73 Joosten, Jan 71, 73, 76–77, 79, 93–94, 100 Joüon, Paul 275, 290 Jowett, Benjamin 504 Kahn, Danʾel 387 Kaiser, Otto 14, 52–55, 58–59, 62, 180, 185, 228, 270, 299, 316, 329, 332, 409, 411, 455, 462, 464, 468–469, 539 Kaelin, Oskar 379 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 348 Keil, Friedrich 28 Kermode, Frank 70 Kessler, Martin 57 Kia, Mehrdad 485 Kilian, Rudolf 55, 59, 541 Kim, Dong, Hyuk 87 Kim, Hyun Chul Paul 47, 200 Kissane, Edward J. 540 Kister, Menachem 123 Kittel, Gerhard 24 Klein, Anja 242, 244, 246, 250, 286, 543 Kline, Jonathan G. 53 Knauf, Ernst A. 220 Knohl, Israel 347 Koch, Klaus 354, 533 Koenen, Klaus 180, 345, 349, 351, 353, 408, 433, 435–436, 441 König, Eduard 29–30 Koole, Jan L. 233 Körting, Corinna 222 Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 70

Kraeling, Emil G. 25 Kratz, Reinhard G. 47, 62, 248–249, 358, 431, 436–437, 461, 470, 498 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 32 Kreuch, Jan 315, 439, 461–462, 465, 470 Kucklick, Bruce 16 Kuhrt, Amélie 328 Kutscher, E. Y. 77, 80–81, 119–120, 165 Laato, Antti J. 381 Lange, Armin 115, 117 Larsen, Mogens Trolle 24 Lau, Wolfgang 239–240, 246–247, 345, 433, 435–436, 441 Lear, Sheree 53 Lee, Jongkyung 305, 234 Leene, Henk 227, 259 Lehmann, Gunnar 191 Lehmann, Reinhard G. 24, 493 Leonard, Jeffrey M. 272 Lerner, Y. 100 Lessing, R. Reed 477, 479, 482 Levenson, Jon D. 74, 278, 354 Levi, Yaakov 306 Levin, Christoph 91, 471 Levine, Baruch 18–19 Levinson, Bernard M. 494 Levitt Kohn, Risa 269 Lewandowski, Theodor 184 Liebreich, Leon J. 270, 282 Lipschits, Oded 218 Liverani, Mario 4, 369 Luckenbill, Daniel David 4 Lüdemann, Gerd 493 Lundbom, Jack R. 269 Luther, Martin 508, 524 Lynch, Matthew J. 349 Lyons, Michael A. 306 Machinist, Peter 8–9, 11, 13–15, 19, 367, 378, 384, 495, 499 Magness, Jodi 169 Malul, Meir 6 Marlow, Hilary 63 Martin, James D. 207 Martin-Achard, Robert 544 Mastnjak, Nathan 13, 387 Marti, Karl 3, 305, 469, 539, 541



Index of Modern Authors

Matheus, Frank 226 Mattila, Raija 374 Matty, Nazek Khalid 448 McDonald, Nathan 351 McDonald, Russ 70 McKeating, Henry 269 McKenzie, John L. 477–478, 511, 515 Meir, Samuel A. 58 Melugin, Roy F. 506 Menken, Marten J. J. 115 Merica, Dan 489 Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. 228, 232 Metzenthin, Christian 115 Middlemas, Jill A. 100, 354 Mieder, Wolfgang 43 Milgrom, Jacob 347 Millar, William R. 100 Miller, Cynthia 54 Miller, Zeke J. 489 Miscall, Peter D. 185 Mizrahi, Noam 82, 88 Moberly, R. W. L. 504 Morag, Shelomo 80 Morrow, William 8, 10, 377–378 Moyise, Steve 115 Müller, Anna K. 541 Müller, Reinhard 461, 463, 465, 467–468, 471–472, 496 Muraoka, T. 75, 289–290 Naʾaman, Nadav 375 Nadali, Davide 9 Naudé, Jacobus A. 82 Neidorf, Leonard 70 Newman, Judith 249 Nielsen, Kirsten 187, 532, 535 Nihan, Christophe 354 Nissinen, Martti 50, 282, 494–495, 506 Noam, Vered 126 Noegel Scott B. 83, 309 Notarius, Tania 69, 77, 84 Novotny, Jamie R. 448 O’Connell, Robert H. 410, 414 O’Connor, Michael 54, 481–482 O’Kane, Martin 269 Obermayer, Bernd 544 Olmstead, A. T. 481

587

Oorschot, J. v. 437–438, 443 Oshima, Takayoshi 378 Oswald, Wolfgang 190 Oswalt, John N. 410–411, 477–479 Otto, Eckart 257, 350, 494 Özen, Alf 493 Parke-Taylor, Geoffrey H. 206 Parpola, Simo 494 Pat-El, Naʾama 77, 103 Paton-Williams, David 512 Paul, Shalom 85, 87, 92–93, 104–105, 124, 233, 342, 353, 357, 442, 477–478, 482–483, 486, 489, 511, 513–515 Pauritsch, Karl 346, 433, 435, 439–441 Payne, David 478, 480, 482–483, 511, 513–515 Person, Raymond 51 Peters, John P. 540 Polak, Frank 84, 92–93 Polaski, Donald C. 199–201 Polliack, Meira 225, 255 Polzin, Robert 77–78, 81 Porten, Bezalel 358 Porter, Barbara Nevling 10–11 Potts, Daniel T. 371 Press, Michael D. 381 Prinsloo, Willem S. 410, 414 Pritchard, James B. 4 Procksch, Otto 55, 62 Qimron, Elisha 80, 91, 119–120, 126, 166 Raabe, Paul R. 61, 540 Rabin, Chaim 79 Ratschow, Carl H. 249 Reade, Julian 379 Redford, Donald B. 449 Rehm, Martin 182 Reimer, David 541 Rendsburg, Gary A. 82, 87, 93, 107 Rendtorff, Rolf 213, 272 Reventlow, Henning Graf 27, 494 Rezetko, Robert 71, 76, 83, 85–91, 96–99, 101–108 Rignell, L. G. 273, 285 Ringelmann, Klaudia 213 Roberts, Alexander 520, 524

588

Index of Modern Authors

Roberts, J. J. M. 14, 52–55, 58, 62, 98, 132, 161, 164, 166, 168, 171, 299, 323, 328, 377, 449, 453–454, 496, 521, 539–540 Robertson, David A. 76 Rofé, Alexander 204, 206 Rogers, R. W. 484 Rogerson, John 23, 26–28 Rohls, Jan 26 Rollston, Christopher 88 Römer, Thomas 291 Rooker, Mark F. 73, 92 Rudman, Dominic 203, 381 Rudolph, Wilhelm 204 Russell, John Malcolm 10–11, 372, 374, 377, 379, 382 Ruszkowski, Leszek 124–125, 345–346, 349 Saenz-Badillos, Angel 79, 101–102 Salo, Reettakaisa Sofia 471 Sanders, Seth 378 Schaper, Joachim 341, 351 Schellenberg, Annette 50 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 125, 533 Schmid, Konrad 221, 299, 303, 320–321, 328, 334, 471–472, 493, 496, 499, 506, 542, 545 Schniedewind, William M. 50, 79, 81, 84, 91, 93 Scholl, Reinhard 544–546 Schoors, A. 180, 188 Schöpflin, Karin 410–411 Schramm, Brooks 226, 345, 354, 435, 532 Schuele, Andreas 52 Schwartz, Baruch J. 344, 522 Schwermann, Christian 64 Scullion, John J. 481 Seitz, Christopher 145–147, 149–151, 153, 155–156, 180, 185, 269, 329, 477, 512, 545 Segal, M. H. 82 Sekine, Seizō 442 Seow, C. L. 73–74, 85 Shapiro, Fred R. 43 Shear, Michael D. 489 Sheppard, Gerald T. 343 Shin, Seoung-Yun 87, 92, 107–108 Shipp, Mark 414, 417

Simon, Uriel 152–154 Skehan, Patrick W. 117 Slomovic, Elieser 125 Slotsi, Israel W. 182 Smend, Rudolph 23, 25–28, 32, 494 Smith, Barbara Herrnstein 56, 63 Smith, Gary V. 410, 435 Smith, Morton 345, 352 Smith, Paul A. 345, 349, 433 Smith, Wilfred C. 504 Smyth, Herbert W. 162 Sommer, Benjamin D. 272, 280, 291–292, 342, 344, 347–348, 354, 483 Spans, Andrea 224, 441 Stackert, Jeffrey 269, 494 Steck, Karl Gerhard 26 Steck, Odil H. 121, 217, 239, 247–248, 251, 292, 342, 346, 349, 351, 431, 433, 435–436, 439–440–442, 499 Stegemann, Hartmut 219 Steineck, Raji C. 64 Sternberg, Meir 298 Steymans, Hans-Ulruch 494 Stipp, Hermann-Josef 170 Stoekl, Jonathan 495 Strauss, Leo 275 Stromberg, Jacob 47–48, 50, 54, 57, 187, 248, 284–285, 287, 297–298, 312, 318, 323, 325, 335–338, 344, 530 Sweeney, Marvin A. 40, 48, 52–53, 57, 59, 61, 63, 167–168, 185, 199, 272, 285, 334, 343–344, 387, 411, 449–450, 454–456, 470, 511, 527–532, 534–536 Tadmor, Hayim 8–11, 373, 382 Talbott, W. J. 488 Talmon, Shemaryahu 163 Talshir, David 82 Teeter, D. Andrew 126, 286, 292, 298, 302, 307, 310, 314, 324 Telfer, Charles K. 40 Theobald, M. 181 Thompson, Michael E. W. 511 Tigchelaar, Eibert, J. C. 125 Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia 48, 353, 431 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 6, 275 Tilly, Michael 190, 434, 436 Timmer, Daniel C. 388



Index of Modern Authors

Tomasino, Anthony J. 285 Torrey, C. C. 342 Tov, Emanuel 123, 160, 163, 201, 206, 357 Trebolle-Barrera, Julio 146 Troxel, Ronald L. 50, 159, 357 Tull, Patricia K. 180, 183 Twain, Mark 43 Uhlig, Torsten 180–181 Ulrich, Eugene 80, 117, 168–171, 476 Ussishkin, David 448 van der Kooij, Arie 172, 188 van der Toorn, Karel 50–53, 57, 63, 179, 218 van der Vorm-Croughs, M. 58, 543 van Keulen, Percy 417 van Uchelen N. A. 162–163 van Wieringen, A. L. H. M. 180–183, 186–189, 191, 507 van Winkle, Dwight W. 357 Vanderhooft, David 190, 546 Vermeylen, Jacques 55, 57, 59, 62, 416–417, 431, 469, 540, 545 Versaci, Cirino 409, 416, 420 Volz, Paul 206 Von Rad, Gerhard 530 von Soden, Wolfram 188 von Hofmann, J. C. K. 26–27 Warner, Charles Dudley 43 Wagner, J. R. 182 Wagner, Siegfried 24–28 Wagner, Thomas 288, 432, 500 Walters, Matt 486–487 Waltke, Bruce 481–482 Wanke, Gunther 215, 224–225 Watanabe, Chikako E. 378 Waters, Mathew W. 371, 383 Watson, W. G. E. 56 Watts, John D. W. 183, 240, 243, 343, 410, 478, 482, 508, 511, 513, 515–516, 520–521 Wazana, Nili 9 Webb, Barry G. 185 Weber, Beat 215, 227, 233 Weidner, Ernst 379 Weinfeld, Moshe 123–124, 257, 351, 494

589

Weippert, Manfred 495 Weisberg, David B. 24 Weissbach, F. H. 484 Weissert, Elnathan 13 Werline, Rodney A. 249 Werlitz, Jürgen 215–216, 232, 442 Werner, Wolfgang 316, 337 Wessels, Wilhelm J. 204 Westermann, Claus 118, 186, 228, 239– 240, 244, 250, 346, 350, 433, 435–436, 441–442, 478–481, 515 Whybray, Roger N. 439–440, 511, 513 Widyapranawa, S. H. 182, 185 Wieder, Naphtali 122 Wieschöfer, Josef 487 Wilcox, Peter 512 Wildberger, Hans 52–55, 57–60, 62, 161, 164, 166, 170, 173–174, 179, 182, 189, 199–201, 209, 270, 275, 278, 286, 288, 314, 328, 332, 367–368, 408–411, 416, 427, 438, 449–450, 453, 455, 457, 462–463–468, 507–508, 520–521, 540 Wilk, Florian 115 Wilke, Alexa F. 240, 246, 248–250 Willi, Thomas 219, 222 Williamson, H. G. M. 5, 23, 47, 52–55, 57–61, 70, 87, 98, 162, 165–175, 187, 240, 242–243, 246, 263–264, 272, 276–277, 281, 283, 287–288, 290, 299–300, 307–308, 312, 314, 320, 322–323, 330, 341, 344, 351, 386, 419, 497, 522, 527, 544 Wilson, Ian D. 270 Wilson, Robert R. 50, 214 Wilson-Wright, Aren 77 Winter, Friedrich 26 Winter, Irene 10 Wolff, Hans Walter 12 Worthington, Martin 165 Wright, Jacob L. 350 Würthwein, Ernst 160 Yadin, Yigael 79 Yoo, Philip Y. 352, 355 Young, Edward J. 31–32, 185 Young, Ian 71, 76–77, 82–83, 85–91, 96–99, 101–108 Young, Robb Andrew 320, 323

590

Index of Modern Authors

Zahn, Molly M. 170 Zakovitch, Yair 319 Zapff, Burkard M. 99, 419, 421, 542 Zenger, Erich 213, 224, 229–230, 232–233, 242

Zevit, Ziony 84, 95 Ziegler, Joseph 172 Zimmerli, Walter 222