God, His Servant, and the Nations in Isaiah 42:1-9: Biblical Theological Reflections after Brevard S. Childs and Hans H|bner (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161536366, 3161536363

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

73

Frederik Poulsen

God, His Servant, and the Nations in Isaiah 42:1–9 Biblical Theological Reflections after Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner

Mohr Siebeck

Frederik Poulsen, born 1984; 2010 Master of Theology, University of Copenhagen; 2014 PhD in Theology, University of Copenhagen; currently External Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Copenhagen.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153637-3 ISBN 978-3-16-153636-6 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To my grandfather John Strange

 

Preface This book is a slightly revised version of my PhD thesis which was written during my three-year stipend at the Department of Biblical Studies at the Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen. The thesis was defended in June 2014. I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the assessment committee Hermann Spieckermann, Göran Eidevall, and Mogens Müller for a fair and thought-provoking discussion during the defense and to the series editors of FAT for accepting this work for publication. I would like to thank my supervisors Jesper Høgenhaven for his encouraging guidance and interest in my project and Søren Holst who, in the final stage of the project, gave me a fresh boost of inspiration and useful criticism. I would also like to thank my fellow doctoral students and colleagues at the Faculty for their kindness and support. Special thanks go to Rasmus H.C. Dreyer for many stimulating and enjoyable conversations. During the project I have benefited from the English-German-Nordic network for young Old Testament scholars, OTSEM. A beneficial research stay at Oriel College, Oxford, offered me an inspiring environment for study and I am grateful to John Barton, Robert Morgan, and Hugh Williamson for interesting talks. I am particular grateful to Philip Sumpter for the time and energy he has invested in reading and criticizing my work. Thanks also go to Jim West and Heike Omerzu for linguistic corrections and to the people at Mohr Siebeck for much help in the process. Through it all, my wife Maren has been a loving and supportive companion and an indispensable conversation partner. She and our sons Johan and Samuel continue to be a source of great joy to me. The book is dedicated to my grandfather John Strange on the occasion of his 80th birthday. As an archeologist, biblical scholar, and minister in the Lutheran church he has struggled to approach the Bible critically and faithfully. The book does not provide a final answer to his life-long struggle, but hopefully a step further towards constructive reflection and clarification. Frederik Poulsen October 2014

 

Contents Preface ...................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations ........................................................................................... XIV

Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 A. Biblical Theology and the Format of the Book ......................................... 2 B. The Old Testament in Biblical Theology: the Childs-Hübner Debate ....... 4 C. Isaiah 42:1–9 as a Case Study ................................................................. 6 D. The Structure of the Book ........................................................................ 7

Part I. The Old Testament in Biblical Theology Chapter 1. Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner ...... 11 A. Main Ideas and Major Works .................................................................. 12 B. Common Presuppositions ........................................................................ 15 C. The Biblical Theologies of Childs and Hübner ........................................ 19

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority................................... 21 A. The Formation of Canon ......................................................................... 21 I. The Hebrew Canon at the Rise of Christianity ..................................... 22 II. The Formation of the Christian Old Testament .................................... 25 III. The Versions of the Old Testament and Biblical Theology .................. 31 IV. Summing Up: the Formation of Canon................................................. 35

X

Contents

B. The Authority of Canon ........................................................................... 35 I. Childs: Canon as the Context for Hearing the Bible ............................. 36 II. Hübner: Canon as the Spoken Word of God ........................................ 39 III. Canon as the Written or Spoken Word of God? ................................... 43 IV. Summing Up: the Authority of Canon .................................................. 44

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach ................. 46 A. The Concept of Biblical Theology ........................................................... 46 I. The Nature and Substance of the Discipline “Biblical Theology” ........ 46 II. The Relationship of the Two Testaments of the Bible .......................... 51 III. The Significance of the New Testament Reception of the Old ............. 61 IV. Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments .......... 63 V. Summing Up: the Concept of Biblical Theology .................................. 65 B. The Approach to Biblical Theology ......................................................... 66 I. Childs: a Multilevel Reading of Scripture ............................................ 66 II. Hübner: Reading with the Eyes of the New Testament Authors ........... 71 C. Interim Conclusion ................................................................................. 72

Part II. Biblical Theological Reflections on Isaiah 42:1–9 Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible ................................ 77 A. Isaiah and the Servant Passages: Introductory Remarks ......................... 77 I. The Unity of Isaiah .............................................................................. 77 II. Isaiah’s Servant Passages ..................................................................... 80 III. Methodological Issues and Critical Editions ........................................ 83 B. Isaiah 42:1–9: Text, Form, Structure, and Context ................................. 85 I. Text and Translation ............................................................................ 85 II. Form and Structure .............................................................................. 87 III. The Literary Context of 41:1–42:12 ..................................................... 89

Contents

XI

C. The Servant and His Task ....................................................................... 94 I. Isaiah 42:1 ........................................................................................... 96 II. Isaiah 42:2–3 ..................................................................................... 101 III. Isaiah 42:4 ......................................................................................... 105 IV. Isaiah 42:5 ......................................................................................... 107 V. Isaiah 42:6–7...................................................................................... 108 VI. Isaiah 42:8–9 ..................................................................................... 112 VII. Summing Up: the Servant and His Task ............................................ 114 D. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible ................................. 117

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint .................................... 118 A. LXX Isaiah: Introductory Remarks ........................................................ 118 I. Profile of LXX Isaiah: Translator and Translation Strategies ............. 119 II. Methodological Issues and Critical Editions ...................................... 123 B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions of Isaiah 42:1–9 ............... 125 I. Isaiah 42:1 ......................................................................................... 125 II. Isaiah 42:2 ......................................................................................... 130 III. Isaiah 42:3 ......................................................................................... 132 IV. Isaiah 42:4 ......................................................................................... 133 V. Isaiah 42:5 ......................................................................................... 140 VI. Isaiah 42:6 ......................................................................................... 142 VII. Isaiah 42:7 ......................................................................................... 145 VIII. Isaiah 42:8 ......................................................................................... 146 IX. Isaiah 42:9 ......................................................................................... 148 X. Summing Up: a Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions ............... 149 C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12........................................ 150 I. LXX Isaiah 41:1–7............................................................................. 150 II. LXX Isaiah 41:8–16........................................................................... 152 III. LXX Isaiah 41:17–20 ......................................................................... 152 IV. LXX Isaiah 41:21–29 ......................................................................... 153 V. LXX Isaiah 42:10–12 ......................................................................... 157 VI. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 within LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12 .............. 158 D. Interpretative Implications ................................................................... 159 E. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint ...................................... 162

XII

Contents

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament .......................... 163 A. Isaiah in the New Testament: Introductory Remarks ............................. 163 I. Isaiah’s Servant Passages in the New Testament ................................ 165 II. Methodological Issues and Critical Editions ...................................... 166 B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament .............................. 168 I. Isaiah 42:1–4 in Matthew 12:15–21 ................................................... 168 II. The Textual Form of Isaiah 42:1–4 .................................................... 170 1. Matthew 12:18 (Isaiah 42:1) ......................................................... 171 2. Matthew 12:19 (Isaiah 42:2) ......................................................... 173 3. Matthew 12:20 (Isaiah 42:3–4a) .................................................... 174 4. Matthew 12:21 (Isaiah 42:4b) ....................................................... 175 5. Summing Up: the Textual Form of Isaiah 42:1–4 .......................... 176 III. The Context in Matthew 12 ................................................................ 176 IV. Interpretative Implications ................................................................. 179 C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament .................................. 181 I. The Baptism, Transfiguration, and Passion Narratives (Isaiah 42:1) .. 182 II. Light, Sight, and Darkness (Isaiah 42:6b–7) ...................................... 185 III. Creation and Providence (Isaiah 42:5, 9) ........................................... 189 IV. Interpretative Implications ................................................................. 190 D. Key Terms and Concepts ...................................................................... 191 E. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament ............................... 193

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations .............................. 194 A. The Servant and His Task According to the Biblical Versions ............... 194 B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts .................................... 197 I. The Nations in Isaiah ......................................................................... 198 II. The Nations in Matthew and Luke-Acts ............................................. 205 III. Summing Up: the Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts ........... 210 C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah ................................................ 211 I. The “Former Things” of Isaiah 1–39 .................................................. 212 II. The “New Things” of Isaiah 40–48(66) ............................................. 213 III. The First Major Transition within the Servant-Concept (48:16b) ....... 216

Contents

XIII

IV. The Second Major Transition within the Servant-Concept (54:17b) ... 219 V. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah ...................... 221 D. One Task – Many Servants ................................................................... 222 E. Summing Up: God, His Servant, and the Nations .................................. 226

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 227 Bibliography.............................................................................................. 231 Index of References ................................................................................... 249 Author Index ............................................................................................. 261 Subject Index............................................................................................. 265

Abbreviations BHS LXX LXX.D MT NA Syr Tg Vg

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th edition, 1997) Septuagint Septuaginta Deutsch (2009) Masoretic Text Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition, 2001) Peshitta Targum Vulgate

Introduction A central issue for Christian biblical theology is the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. At first sight, the question concerns how to relate the two discrete parts of the Bible, that is, one part consisting of originally Jewish scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic and one part consisting of early Christian scriptures written in Greek. Yet a fascinating but also challenging feature is the great density of intertextual connections between the testaments. Hardly any book is as self-referential as the Bible. From a historical point of view, most of the New Testament writings emerged in constant interaction with what we now call the Old Testament, citing and commenting on larger passages and picking up themes and motifs. A closer glance at the citations from the Old Testament in the New indicates that the New Testament authors primarily used the Greek Septuagint (or some form of it), even in those cases where this version differs significantly from its Hebrew equivalent. A well-known example is Matthew 1:23 in which the notion of a “virgin” rather than a “young woman” derives from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14. Questions immediately emerge regarding the relationship between the form of the quotations and the original Hebrew text and regarding the distinctive interpretations of Old Testament passages in the New. No serious interpreter of the Bible can avoid reflecting on these issues. The textual form of the Old Testament citations leads to a much more fundamental question: what version of the Old Testament is proper for modern biblical theology? The Hebrew Bible which is treasured by the Jews and has served as the normative Old Testament for the Protestant churches since its “rediscovery” by the reformers in the 16th Century? Or rather the Septuagint which constituted the Bible of the New Testament authors and served as the textual basis for the church fathers’ formulation of Christian doctrine? The New Testament’s use of the Old leads to another fundamental question: to what degree can the Old Testament be read as Christian scripture apart from the New Testament’s reception of it? Does the Old Testament continue to witness in its own right? Or is only the Old Testament as received in the New appropriate for Christian biblical theology? This book handles these questions through a systematic investigation of the role of the Old Testament in the Biblical Theologies of Brevard S. Childs

2

Introduction

and Hans Hübner and through an exegetical analysis of Isaiah 42:1–9 within its larger biblical context.

A. Biblical Theology and the Format of the Book A. Biblical Theology and the Format of the Book

The field of biblical theology is broad and notoriously difficult to define.1 This brief overview serves to position this book among the current activities within the discipline.2 At one end of the spectrum we find systematic Biblical Theologies, which reflect on hermeneutical and methodological issues and/or attempt to present a coherent picture of the theology of the Bible. Examples of methodological investigations include James K. Mead’s Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes (2007), Niels Peter Lemche’s The Old Testament between Theology and History (2008), Mark Elliott’s The Heart of Biblical Theology (2012), and Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett’s Understanding Biblical Theology (2012), all of which critically review recent approaches and discuss principal issues, but seldom if at all touch upon the biblical texts.3 A promising attempt to present the theology of the Christian Bible is the book by the Göttinger professors Reinhard Feldmeier and Hermann Spieckermann on the doctrine of God: Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre (2011). 4 The ambitious layout of the book covering the whole Bible is warranted by the authors who, as specialists in the Old and New Testaments respectively, are well-informed by scholarship within their individual fields. Rather than splitting the structure of the book into discrete sections on each testament, eighteen chapters on separate aspects of God’s being and doing present a cohesive reading of the Bible.5 However, a weak1 I employ the term “biblical theology” for the discipline in general and the term “Biblical Theology” for specific books or attempts to do biblical theology; cf. Hagelia, Three Old Testament Theologies, xi, note 1. 2 For an overview of recent trends, see e.g. Barton, (Pan-)Biblical Theology; Collins, Between Apologetics and Criticism; Elliott, Heart of Biblical Theology; Reality of Biblical Theology. 3 See Elliott, Heart of Biblical Theology; Klink & Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology; Lemche, The Old Testament; Mead, Biblical Theology. 4 See the English translation, Feldmeier & Spieckermann, God of the Living. 5 Their view on the question of canon is rather unusual; cf. Feldmeier & Spieckermann, God of the Living, 10, note 18: “For the conception of a biblical doctrine of God, the canons of the churches in the East and West are fundamental. Foundation on a specific canon is not necessary for the biblical doctrine of God since the shaping of the project undertaken seeks to state precisely the content that the canon attempts to ensure through the selection of Scriptures: the transmission of the understanding of God responsibly in relation both to the ancient witnesses and contemporary addressees, transmission that should be achieved

A. Biblical Theology and the Format of the Book

3

ness of this work which it shares with other thematically ordered Biblical Theologies is the constant danger of cutting across the literary contexts of the single passages from the Bible. In a word, there is a danger of damaging the integrity of the individual biblical text and thus its theological purpose. At another end of the spectrum we find contributions which present a theological reading of specific passages from the Bible. Over the last ten years or so, the movement “theological interpretation” has fostered two commentary series, a journal, and a number of anthologies and dictionaries.6 As an apparent reaction against the historical criticism of the 20th Century, it takes its stance primarily within the history of ecclesial interpretation and explores, often guided by the church fathers, the theological content of the biblical writings. A weakness of many of these contributions is their almost absurd specialization on individual passages or distinct centuries, even decades, within the history of interpretation, which means that they fail to think of the Bible as a whole. A variant of this trend is found in the attempts to read discrete passages or books of the Old Testament as Christian scripture. Students of the British scholar Walter Moberly in particular have produced a number of dissertations with the rubric “X as Christian scripture.”7 As an alternative, the present book attempts to combine systematic considerations with exegetical analysis. The two issues that this book addresses – the differing versions of the Old Testament and the significance of the New Testament’s reception of the Old – are studied both in theory and in practice. Part I offers some principal considerations regarding the role and function of the Old Testament in biblical theology that should guide, or at least accompany, the interpretation of any given text.8 Part II approaches the two issues in practice by exploring the interpretative implications that the attention to the Septuagint and the New Testament has for the reading of a selected text from Isaiah.

in accordance with the intention of those witnesses, but which also requires interpreters to mediate it.” 6 E.g. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (2005–), The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (2005–), Journal of Theological Interpretation (2007–), Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible (2005), Studies in Theological Interpretation (2006–). 7 See e.g. Earl, Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture; Woods, Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture. 8 Cf. Childs, Isaiah xii: “Usually books on biblical theology have been relegated to a special subdiscipline, and thought to relate only to larger hermeneutical and theological concerns without any close relation to exegesis. Those engaged in biblical theology are often dismissed as ‘theologians,’ and not biblical interpreters. For my part, I have always considered biblical theology to be only an ancillary discipline that better serves in equipping the exegete for the real task of interpreting the biblical text itself.”

4

Introduction

B. The Old Testament in Biblical Theology: the Childs-Hübner Debate B. The Old Testament in Biblical Theology

A fruitful entry into the question of the role of the Old Testament in biblical theology is a close study of Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner and their major contributions to the field: Childs’ Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1992) and Hübner’s Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1–3 (1990–1995). These works have often been linked as two of three major attempts in the 1990’s to present a Theology covering the whole Christian Bible.9 Nevertheless, any thorough comparison between the two has not yet been achieved. Comparing the positions of Childs and Hübner is not groundless, because they explicitly comment upon each other’s works. Both of them contributed to the issue of Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie on the problem of the biblical canon(s) and to the anthology Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente.10 In the prolegomena of his Biblische Theologie, Hübner offers an excursus of seven pages on Childs, referring to Childs’ approach as a “Gegenposition” to his own, and offers a few more pages in the concluding epilegomena. 11 In his Biblical Theology, Childs makes a brief reference to Hübner and presents a more elaborated refutation of Hübner’s approach in a separate article in Theologische Zeitschrift. 12 Finally, in 2003, Hübner reassumed the discussion, designating Childs as “der wichtigste Gesprächpartner” concerning the assessment of the New Testament’s reception of the Old.13 More importantly, concerning the role of the Old Testament in biblical theology, they seem to embody two opposite positions. On the one hand, Childs insists on treating the Old Testament as a discrete witness in its own right retaining its historical, literary, and theological integrity and using the scope and text of the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, Hübner argues that it is primarily the Septuagint version of the Old Testament as it has been received and interpreted by the New Testament authors that is valid for Christian theology. Although their main works on biblical theology are more than 20 years old now and much has happened within the field since then, their 9 The third one is Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1–2 (1992–1999). Cf. e.g. Hasel, Recent Models; Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology, 120–125; Söding, Entwürfe Biblischer Theologie, 41–104; Stuhlmacher, How To Do, 74– 82. 10 See Baldermann & others, Zum Problem; Dohmen & Söding, Eine Bibel. 11 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 70–76 (“Exkurs: Brevard S. Childs’ Konzeption von canonical approach”); Biblische Theologie 3, 278–281. Despite his sincere attention to the work of Childs, Hübner nevertheless refers to him as “D.S. Childs” in the concluding bibliography of volume 1! 12 Childs, Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel; Biblical Theology, 77. 13 Hübner, Kanon, 30.

B. The Old Testament in Biblical Theology

5

contradictory positions appear to be so fundamental in nature that they invite closer study. The purpose of studying Childs and Hübner here is not to evaluate and test their approaches to the Old Testament as such, but rather to describe and compare their principal arguments with regard to the main issues of this book. The scholarly literature on Childs is rather considerable and new books come out every year.14 According to Christopher Seitz – his student and colleague – there is a small “cottage industry” in evaluating the contribution of Childs.15 Among the early reviews which were written before the appearance of Childs’ Biblical Theology, James Barr’s rather negative assessment in Holy Scripture (1983) stands out.16 Many later examinations and reconstructions of Childs’ position seem to have simply reproduced Barr’s caricature, including John Barton’s Reading the Old Testament (1984), Mark Brett’s Biblical Criticism in Crisis? (1991), and Paul Noble’s The Canonical Approach (1995, written 1991/2).17 The reception of Childs has been more positive in Germanspeaking scholarship as his contributions to German anthologies show (see above).18 Scholars such as Rolf Rendtorff and Georg Steins19 have been inspired by Childs’ thesis and Manfred Oeming who seems rather critical towards Childs20 has translated Biblical Theology into German in cooperation with his wife (Die Theologie der einen Bibel, 1994–1996). The recent literature, which has been written after Childs’ death in 2007, includes at least four monographs.21 Daniel Driver’s Brevard Childs, Biblical Theologian (2010) offers a fine introduction to the scholarly context and reception of Childs’ work. Despite the abundance of critical and informative observations, a clear presentation of Childs’ thesis never appears. Chen Xun’s Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context (2010) presents a chronological examination of Childs’ most important books and articles, but suffers from the lack of a critical approach to the material. Philip Sumpter’s The Substance of Psalm 24 (2011) offers a much more critical and provocative 14

Unfortunately, I received a copy of the recent collection of essays on the work of Childs, The Bible as Christian Scripture (2013), too late to include it in my analysis; see Seitz & Richards, Christian Scripture. 15 Seitz, Theological Interpretation, 61. 16 Barr, Holy Scripture. 17 See Barton, Reading; Brett, Biblical Criticism; Noble, Canonical Approach; cf. Driver, Brevard Childs, 41–56. Barton, however, does provide a more fair presentation 20 years later, see Canonical Approaches. 18 See Driver, Brevard Childs, 60–76. 19 See e.g. Rendtorff, Theologie 1–2; Steins, Bindung; cf. Barthel, Die kanonhermeneutische Debatte. 20 See Oeming, Das Alte Testament. 21 See Chen, Theological Exegesis; Driver, Brevard Childs; Shepherd, Theological Interpretation; Sumpter, Substance.

6

Introduction

inquiry of the inner coherence of Childs’ approach. An application of his approach is exemplified in a careful reading of Psalm 24. Finally, Charles Sherperd’s Theological Exegesis and Isaiah 53 (2012) studies the hermeneutical approach of Childs (along with those of B. Duhm and A. Motyer) and explores the manner in which it pertains to Isaiah 53 within a Christian framework. The scholarly literature on Hübner is more limited in quantity compared to that on Childs. Although his position frequently shows up in the sketches of previous literature introducing recent Biblical and New Testament Theologies, the review of it is mostly brief with only one or two critical remarks.22 In addition to book reviews there are a handful of longer examinations of Hübner’s program,23 in particular of his concept of revelation.24 Among the few who constructively have embraced Hübner’s work is the Danish scholar Mogens Müller, who actually appears to have read him carefully.25 The modest reception of Hübner may derive from the fact that he wrote almost entirely in German. His monograph Das Gesetz bei Paulus has been translated into English (Law in Paul’s Thought, 1984) and Italian (La legge in Paolo, 1995) and his Biblical Theology likewise into Italian (Teologia biblica del Nuovo Testamento, 1997–2000). Yet in addition to some smaller encyclopedia contributions, only two articles on the New Testament’s reception of the Old have appeared in English.26

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 as a Case Study C. Isaiah 42:1–9 as a Case Study

A key concern of this book is to investigate the issues regarding the differing versions of the Old Testament and the significance of the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old in practice. This is done in order to explore the interpretative implications of paying full attention to the Septuagint and the New Testament in the study of a specific Old Testament text. For this endeavor, I have chosen Isaiah 42:1–9. There has been a growth in attention to LXX Isaiah in recent years and, needless to say, the hermeneutical significance of Isaiah for understanding the New Testament is indisputable. From the outset, Isaiah 42:1–9 appears to be a perfect starting point for 22

See e.g. Barr, Concept, 182; Beale, Biblical Theology, 10; Crüsemann, Wahrheitsraum, 83–85; Hahn, Theologie des Neuen Testaments I, 15–16; Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 18; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 38; Morgan, New Testament Theology, 188–189; Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1,1, 47–48. 23 See Balla, Challenges, 238–245; Winkel Holm, Teologisk problem, 105–116. 24 Pfleiderer, Ausbruchsversuche, 172–176. 25 See e.g. Müller, Christus als Schlüssel. Recently, however, Müller has revised his support of Hübner’s thesis, see Septuagintas betydning, 228–229. 26 See Hübner, New Testament Interpretation; OT Quotations.

D. The Structure of the Book

7

biblical theological reflection. It is a challenging but theologically central text. The Hebrew version as such is ambiguous regarding the nature of the servant figure being portrayed, his identity, and his task. The Septuagint version reveals several variants. The figure is explicitly identified with Jacob/Israel and key statements are rendered differently. In the New Testament, vv. 1–4 are cited in Matthew 12:18–21 as a reflection of Jesus’ public ministry. The textual form, however, fits neither the MT nor the LXX and some of the variants may stem from Matthew’s own exegetical activity to shape the portrait to fit his overall theological concern. Being the first of the so-called “Servant Songs,” Isaiah 42:1–9 has received massive scholarly attention and the literature is vast. However, discussions of relevant scholarship and methodology will occur in the introductory sections of chapters 4–6.

D. The Structure of the Book D. The Structure of the Book

This book consists of two parts. Part I investigates the role of the Old Testament in the Biblical Theologies of Childs and Hübner. 27 The approach is descriptive and systematic and the aim is to present their positions as faithfully as possible. Chapter 1 sketches their main ideas and major works, lists a series of common presuppositions, and outlines the structure and content of their Biblical Theologies. Chapter 2 examines the different ways in which they picture the formation of the Christian Bible and how they view the authority of canon. Chapter 3 explores their definitions of the discipline of biblical theology and how they propose to interpret Old Testament texts within a larger biblical theological context. The main argument of Part I is that Childs’ and Hübner’s differing approaches to biblical theology are determined by their different perceptions of the formation of canon and by their opposite views on the authority of canon. Part II investigates the issues regarding the alternative versions of the Old Testament and the New Testament’s use of the Old in practice by studying Isaiah 42:1–9. The approach is analytical and constructive. Chapter 4 looks at Isaiah 42:1–9 according to its Hebrew version. It analyses the text, form, structure, and literary context of the passage before turning to a classical verse-by-verse examination. Special attention is given to the servant figure and his task. Chapter 5 compares the Hebrew version of the passage with that of the Septuagint in order to illuminate the theological nature of the Greek version and examines the implications of including this version in the inter27 An early version was presented at the EABS/OTW/SOTS/SBL Meeting in Amsterdam in July 2012 and will appear in a collection of conference papers, see Poulsen, Role of the Old Testament.

8

Introduction

pretation of the passage. Chapter 6 studies the reception of Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament in terms of citations, allusions, and theological themes and sketches the interpretative implications of this reception. Chapter 7 offers a presentation of the servant and his task according to the distinctive versions before placing the Isaianic passage within its larger biblical context. This is done by a closer glance at the view of the nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts and at the function of the passage within Isaiah as a whole. A final section reflects on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments regarding Isaiah 42:1–9. The conclusion draws the observations together.

Part I

The Old Testament in Biblical Theology

 

Chapter 1

Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner This chapter introduces some main lines of thought in the work of Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner. What apparently unites these two scholars is their ability to exceed the traditional boundaries of biblical exegesis to grasp the “bigger picture.” Besides being recognized as Old and New Testament specialists, respectively, they share the concern of approaching the Bible as a theological book. By this common concern, they often move into the field of theological hermeneutics, church history, and systematics. In a word, they are biblical theologians.1 Nevertheless, the intention is not to present any exhaustive biographies, which, at least in the case of Childs, has been done very well already.2 What seems to be of initial importance, however, is Childs’ formative research stay in Basel and Heidelberg from 1950–1954 studying under giants like Walther Eichrodt, Walter Baumgartner, and Karl Barth. Daniel Driver rightly asserts that Childs’ work emerges out of this German context (which also explains the rather positive reception of Childs in German-speaking scholarship). 3 Because of this early Continental influence on Childs’ thought, Childs and Hübner share some essential presuppositions. The following presentation is divided into three areas. First, it will sketch their main ideas and major works. Then, it will offer a list of common presuppositions. Finally, it will briefly outline the structure and content of their Biblical Theologies.

1

Hübner was professor of biblical theology and Childs refers to himself as “biblical theologian” at least once; cf. Driver, Brevard Childs, 6. 2 For recent biographies on Childs, including developments in his academic career, see Chen, Theological Exegesis, 17–55; Driver, Brevard Childs, 5, 12–13, 37–38; Gignilliat, Old Testament Criticism, 145–168; Harrisville & Sundberg, The Bible, 309–310. For a biography on Hübner, I am not aware of any larger account besides Grünschloß, Wilk & Schaller, Nachruf, and Schnelle & Söding, Paulinische Christologie, 5–6. For complete bibliographies of the two, see, for Childs, Driver, Brevard Childs, 293–299; and see, for Hübner (until 2005), Hübner, Hermeneutik, 294–300; Wahrheit, 184–188. 3 Driver, Brevard Childs, 37–41. Cf. John Barton’s recent claim that the underlying impulse of the canonical approach comes from German-speaking theology, in particular from Karl Barth; see Barton, (Pan-)Biblical Theology, 247.

12

Chapter 1. Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner

A. Main Ideas and Major Works A. Main Ideas and Major Works

Brevard S. Childs (1923–2007) was professor of Old Testament at Yale University for more than forty years. His life project was to stress the significance of canon for the study of the Bible. 4 To him, biblical interpretation should not only explain what the texts meant, but also consider what they mean today as canon of the church; 5 these dimensions belong inextricably together. Rather than being isolated as a religio-historical discipline, biblical exegesis must engage in theological concerns and cooperate closely with church history and systematics. Although often misunderstood, the endeavor to integrate academic exegesis within this larger theological context is the main aim of Childs’ “canonical approach.” 6 To Childs, modern criticism’s view on the biblical texts as merely “inert sherds” and religio-historical sources for examining some people’s long-gone religion results in theological barrenness. A canonical approach must overcome this impasse by viewing, or actually hearing, the Bible, not (only) as a collection of ancient historical documents, but as God’s living voice speaking directly to its modern readers. As canon, the Bible ought to be read as a vehicle of divine revelation. This endeavor undergirds Childs’ dislike of the term “canonical criticism.” In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, for instance, the goal is not to offer another historical-critical tool or method alongside form criticism or redaction criticism. Rather, the goal is to establish “a stance from which the Bible can be read as sacred scripture.”7 In short, the issue is not method, but the perspective from which the interpreter approaches the texts. Childs’ call is to view the biblical texts, not as historical documents trapped in the past, but as still-speaking testimonies to the living God. This demands a new approach rather than a new method or a new criticism. Nevertheless, opponents have often criticized Childs for the lack of a clear and coherent method.8

4 Cf. my Danish introduction to Childs’ work and program; see Poulsen, Brevard S. Childs. 5 Cf. Krister Stendahl’s well-known distinction; see chapter 3. 6 Cf. Seitz, Character, 85: “A canonical approach is an effort to read texts in a fresh way, to engage in questions of historical, theological, practical, and conceptual significance, and to keep the lines of communication between the testaments, between the Bible and theology, and between them both and the church, open and responsive.” 7 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 82, my emphasis. Cf. Sumpter, Substance, 41: “Canonical interpretation is not a method … it is a stance vis-à-vis Israel’s witness, which is a stance vis-à-vis the reality of God.” 8 Cf. Driver, Brevard Childs, 56. Driver defends Childs by stating that “lacking a formal methodology is not the same as lacking a coherent and workable approach. Nor does it automatically entail a lack of hermeneutical sophistication.”

A. Main Ideas and Major Works

13

Choosing the word “canon” as a label for the approach is no coincidence. Childs does not, however, accept the narrow, yet common, definition of canon as simply a closed list of books.9 To him, canon is not merely a list but a “cipher” which refers to theological features in the process of text formation, the treasuring of texts as scripture, and a rule of faith, that is, a critical norm for transmitting and interpreting the texts. In short, canon concerns the quality of the theological testimonies.10 Canon is an area in which one can hold different theological matters in tension. By applying this term, Childs also tries to recover the Patristic understanding of the unity of scripture and its witness to the one salvific history centered on Christ (cf. Irenaeus).11 Canon as a rule of faith provides a framework for Christian interpretation, rather than a specific method (see chapters 2 and 3). This recovering of traditional Christian understanding implies reconnecting the modern study of the Bible with the old one, that is, getting modern biblical studies into a “family resemblance” of traditional Christian exegesis again.12 This explains Childs’ sincere attention to pre-Enlightenment exegesis and his reemployment of traditional theological language, terms, and concerns. With the expression of Christopher Seitz, in Childs’ desire for comprehensiveness, the many different facets and concerns of biblical studies are pressed into “a single field of play.”13 The abundance of articles, bible commentaries, studies in Wirkungsgeschichte, biblical introductions, and Biblical Theologies demonstrates this desire or struggle to understand “the form and function of the Christian Bible, Old Testament and New, as one witness to the church across its total life.”14 Of special importance are the article “Interpretation in Faith” (1964) and the book Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) in which Childs presents an early outline of his program. His introductions to both the Old and New Testaments (1979, 1984) develop the concept of “canonical shaping” and stress the importance of seeing the biblical texts as scripture. From the mid-1980’s, Childs’ endeavor to read the Old Testament as Christian scripture is made 9

E.g. Eugene Ulrich, who defines canon as “the definitive, closed list of books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture;” see Ulrich, Notion and Definition, 34. 10 These factors or aspects of Childs’ employment of the term have been singled out and even presented in bulleted summaries; see Barr, Holy Scripture, 75–77; Kvanvig, Historisk Bibel, 135; Steins, Bindung, 13. Although this procedure may seem illuminating, it actually runs against Childs’ concept of a single “cipher;” see Driver, Brevard Childs, 145. 11 Childs was influenced in particular by Bengt Hägglund’s article “Die Bedeutung der ‘regula fidei’ als Grundlage theologischer Aussagen” (1958) and by Isaac L. Seeligmann’s article “Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese” (1953) from which he adopts the concept of “canon consciousness;” see Driver, Brevard Childs, 175, 250–252; Sumpter, Substance, 8–9. 12 Cf. Barton, Canonical Approaches, 47. 13 Seitz, Character, 31. 14 Driver, Brevard Childs, 3.

14

Chapter 1. Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner

clear with the appearance of his Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (1985) and in particular of his Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1992). Relevant to this book, Childs has written important books on Isaiah, including his form-critical study of Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (1967), his theological commentary on Isaiah (2001), and, finally, his The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (2004) which explores the theological reception of Isaiah in the history of the church. Hans Hübner (1930–2013) served from 1982 until his retirement in 1995 as professor of New Testament and biblical theology at the Georg-AugustUniversity of Göttingen. Like Childs, he has covered a broad spectrum of issues, centering on exegetical, theologiegeschichtliche, philosophical, and hermeneutical problems. Amongst a number of New Testament themes, the interpretation of Paul certainly constitutes a “Schwerpunkt.” 15 In addition, Hübner has worked intensely with the Septuagint and the apocryphal writings, especially Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. Concerning hermeneutical questions, he has explored and applied the existentialist interpretative method of Rudolf Bultmann and, besides this hermeneutic, described the philosophical hermeneutics of famous German thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Gogarten, and Martin Heidegger. Among Hübner’s obvious sources of inspiration are also Hans-Georg Gadamer and Karl Rahner. In his early career, Hübner worked with classical Lutheran themes such as justification and the law as his Münster dissertation Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in Luthers Römerbriefvorlesung (1965), 16 his Habilitationsschrift Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (1973), and his monograph Das Gesetz bei Paulus (1978) show. During this period, his interest in biblical theology and the New Testament’s use of the Old was strengthened, as can be seen in his article “Biblische Theologie und Theologie des Neuen Testaments” (1981) and his monograph Gottes Ich und Israel. Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11 (1984). In his Evangelische Fundamentaltheologie (2005) he moves from biblical theology into hermeneutics.17 After writing his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1990–1995), Hübner has, along with Antje and Michael Labahn, edited the project Vetus Testamentum in Novo, which lists in synoptic columns all Old Testament citations within the New. Volume 2 Corpus Paulinum and volume 1,2 Evangelium Johannis appeared in 1997 and 2003. According to the website of the 15

Schnelle & Söding, Paulinische Christologie, 6. The reading of Luther actually made Hübner convert from Catholicism to Prostestantism; cf. the preface of his dissertation: “der Verfasser [wurde] über dieser Arbeit an Luther selbst lutherisch;” see Hübner, Rechtfertigung und Heilung, 7. 17 In a European context, the proper term “fundamental theology” (German: “Fundamentaltheologie) refers to the principal questions concerning the nature, purpose, and method of theology as a scholarly discipline. 16

B. Common Presuppositions

15

project, the last two volumes should have appeared in 2004 and 2007, but apparently never did.18 Of relevance to the present inquiry is Hübner’s deep engagement with biblical theology. He was one of the pioneers in the rediscovery of the Septuagint and has, as chapter 2 will show, strongly advocated the use of the Greek Old Testament over the Hebrew in modern biblical theology. Most famous, however, is his hermeneutical distinction between “Vetus Testamentum per se” and “Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum.” Since the New Testament authors read their one-testament Bible in light of their faith in the risen Christ, we today – living after the Enlightenment – must distinguish hermeneutically between the Old Testament as such, that is, its literal sense, and the Old Testament as received in the New. This distinction has evoked much criticism (see chapter 3).

B. Common Presuppositions B. Common Presuppositions

Childs and Hübner share several essential presuppositions. Many of them relate to the fact that they, instead of being merely biblical scholars, are Christian theologians. As was observed, their fields of interest cover not only biblical studies as such but also larger hermeneutical and theological issues. As illustrations of common presuppositions, I will list five (more may be added), which focus on confession, faith, canon, theology, and history. First, both of them are confessional theologians and ordained ministers deeply concerned with issues such as faith and revelation and seeing the Bible as the foundation for Christian theology. Apparently, however, they represent two different branches within 20th Century Protestantism, embodying a Lutheran and a Reformed position emerging from within the dialectical movement. Whereas Hübner is influenced by Bultmann and through him, Luther and Lutheran theology, Childs is influenced by Barth, Calvin and Reformed theology.19 Hübner designates his own work as that of an Evangelical Lutheran theologian and is strongly guided by Bultmann’s existentialist approach. This is apparent, for instance, in his view of faith as a special understanding of existence, in his depreciation of tradition, and in his claim of a profound contrast between law and gospel and between Israel and the church. Barth’s influence on Childs’ approach is undeniable and, according to Charles Scalise, “is in large measure an extension of the theological herme18

See http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/55875.html (visited November 2012). Robert Morgan makes a similar observation in an illuminating comparison of Childs and E. Käsemann, Hübner’s antecedent: “Käsemann represents the Bultmann school (and behind him M. Luther), whereas Childs is influenced by K. Barth (and behind him J. Calvin);” see Morgan, Christian Identity, 160. 19

16

Chapter 1. Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner

neutics of Karl Barth.”20 Typical Barthian themes are in particular visible in Childs’ emphasis on the Bible as witness to divine revelation, in his opposition to existentialist hermeneutics, and in his rejection of anthropocentric theology.21 Both Childs and Hübner have taken part in the ecumenical dialogues between the various Christian denominations and between the church and the synagogue that were common throughout the 1980’s. Despite Childs’ Protestant commitment, many Catholic theologians have found his approach inspiring.22 Second, both of them stress the role of faith. No interpretation is neutral, and when they approach the biblical texts they do so by means of faith. Childs recalls the classical statement of “faith seeking knowledge” and Hübner asserts that “der glaubende Christ ist der denkende Theologe.” In a word, faith, confession, and theology belong together. Crucially, however, they do not seem to share the same concept of faith.23 On the one hand, Childs demands a framework of faith for proper reading and expects the Holy Spirit to make understanding of God possible. For Childs, faith is faith in something, a divine subject matter, expressed by the rule of faith, which guides our reading. On the other hand, Hübner sees faith as the necessary “preunderstanding” to grasp the revelation of God and thereby reproduces a Bultmannian view of faith as an existential and determined act of will. Third, both of them acknowledge the canon of the church. None of them accepts the narrow definition of canon as a closed list of books. As chapter 2 will show, Childs sees canon as a theological context for hearing the Bible as the word of God. Again, canon is a vehicle of God’s continuing address. Although Hübner stresses the kerygma or the spoken word of God as that which is truly canonical, he still regards the canonicity of the New Testament writings as a basic condition for Christian theology. Fourth, both of them emphasize the theological aspect of biblical exegesis and agree that the exegete stands in service of the church. Childs constantly refers to “theology” or “theological” and calls for a “fruitful cooperation” between biblical theology and systematics. 24 What separates the two disci20

Scalise, Canonical Hermeneutics, 197; cf. Chen, Theological Exegesis, xiii: “the fundamental elements of Childs’s theological thinking are rooted in the Reformed theological tradition and in modern theological neo-orthodoxy and its most prominent theologian, Karl Barth.” 21 On Childs’ relation to Barth, see e.g. Chen, Theological Exegesis, 225–236; Driver, Brevard Childs, 89–93; Scalise, Canonical Hermeneutics; Sumpter, Substance, 21–33. 22 E.g. Artur Sanecki and Georg Steins; cf. also Chen, Theological Exegesis, 239–244, who mentions Pope Benedict XVI’s embracement of the canonical approach. 23 I am grateful to Philip Sumpter for pointing this out. 24 See e.g. James Barr’s rather amusing, yet frivolous, criticism of Childs in which Childs’ work is despised as “a biblical apologetic for a Barthian dogmatic stance,” “a dogmatic theology with biblical proof,” and “a personal religious confession.” “There are

B. Common Presuppositions

17

plines is merely a division of labor (Bible vs. creeds and history of dogma), because both should move in the direction of faith seeking knowledge; their exact relation, however, remains complex. 25 Nevertheless, the key point is that biblical interpretation should never stay isolated. Rather, as was previously pointed out, the interpreter must pay serious attention to church history and dogmatics as well. To Hübner, due to the Wirkungsgeschichte of the biblical texts in the history of church and dogma, biblical exegesis should come nearer to systematic theology. As we will see, his Biblische Theologie abundantly incorporates systematic considerations and actually ends in the field of Fundamentaltheologie. Fifth, despite their theological concerns, both of them appreciate and practice the historical study of the Bible: history and theology is a false dichotomy. Central to Hübner is that God has revealed himself in history – “der Ewige Gott ist in seinem Wort-Sein Geschichte geworden” (cf. John 1:14) – as expressed in the Old and New Testaments. Because of this and because the biblical testimonies have emerged over time, one cannot reject the historicalcritical method. 26 And, as we will see, despite his acknowledgment of the canonicity of the New Testament, Hübner approaches the writings through a typical religio-historical evolution model instead of investigating them according to their final form. Although often accused of the opposite, Childs does not ignore historical questions. His approach is neither anti-historical nor a-historical. 27 For instance, the aim of his introduction to the Old Testament is not to reject but to rethink the relation between historical-critical study of the Bible and its theological use within the community of faith.28 The critical study needs reorien-

indeed three heroes of the work: Luther, Calvin and Barth, in ascending order;” see Barr, Concept, 401–438; cf. Poulsen, Brevard S. Childs, 229. 25 See Childs, Witness, 60: “the relationship between exegesis and theology is a far more complex and subtle one which is basically dialectical in nature. One comes to exegesis already with certain theological assumptions and the task of good exegesis is to penetrate so deeply into the biblical text that even these assumptions are called into question, are tested and revised by the subject matter itself. The implication is also that proper exegesis does not confine itself to registering only the verbal sense of the text, but presses forward through the text to the subject matter (res) to which it points. … the crucial issue turns on the quality of both the exegetical analysis and the theological reflection in relation both to the text and the subject matter.” 26 Hübner, Was, 213: “Wer für die Untersuchung der Heiligen Schrift die Anwendung dieser historisch-kritischen Methodik ablehnt, leugnet die Geschichtlichkeit göttlicher Offenbarung! Er leugnet Gott als den, der sich in der Geschichte Israels und in seinem Sohne Jesus Christus geoffenbart hat!” 27 Cf. Chen, Theological Exegesis, 166. 28 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 15.

18

Chapter 1. Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner

tation. 29 The Bible is the living and dynamic vehicle of God, not an inert sherd of the past; it is witness, not source. Therefore, Childs’ well-known criticism of historical-critical scholarship in general concerns the stance of approaching the texts rather than methodological techniques.30 Attention to the final form of the text does not exclude questions about how and by what factors this form was shaped through time – its canonical-historical portrayal one could say. Interestingly, form criticism seems to provide a link between Childs and Hübner. With Gunkel as an important antecedent, Childs started his career as a form critic.31 Likewise, Hübner, by the influence of Bultmann, adopts certain presuppositions from form criticism. Childs and Hübner, however, draw different conclusions from this common source of inspiration. Whereas Childs adopts the idea of the integral relation between form and function of texts, scripture and community, Hübner stresses the pre-literary oral context

29

Seitz, Theological Interpretation, 64: “What the canonical approach has done is to use the findings of historical-critical methods and then ask historical questions about what has in fact been discovered in light of the text’s final presentation. … The canonical approach returns to the text, and now asks why an aspect of historical reference which causes friction has been allowed to stand, in the light of some other theological issue which is the true concern of the final form of the text.” See also Barton, Nature, 178. 30 Childs, Biblical Theology, 100: “The contrast lies in viewing history from Israel’s confessional stance, from within the community of faith, rather than from a neutral, phenomenological reconstruction.” Cf. Struggle, 321: “To understand the Bible as scripture means to reflect on the witnesses of the text transmitted through the testimony of the prophets and apostles. It involves an understanding of biblical history as the activity of God testified to in scripture. In contrast, a history-of-religions approach attempts to reconstruct a history according to the widely accepted categories of the Enlightenment, as a scientifically objective analysis according to the rules of critical research prescribed by common human experience. … Yet the complexity is manifest in that the two are to be neither fused nor separated from each other. There is a subtle interrelationship that must be maintained;” emphasis original. In his latest account, Childs lists similarities and dissimilarities between traditional historical criticism and his own confessional approach. The features of continuity include common historical and philological concerns such as text criticism, the growth of texts, and the Bible’s history of reception. The features of discontinuity include the question of truth, the content of scripture, and the question of referentiality. Most importantly, the canonical approach privileges certain texts as the vehicle of divine truth (that is the essence of canon), asserts a Christological content of scripture, and views the texts as pointers, not solely to a historical past but to the reality of God; see Church’s Guide, 13–17. 31 See Driver, Brevard Childs, 105–136. Philip Sumpter has convincingly demonstrated how classical form-critical terms can illuminate Childs’ thesis. To Childs, several divergent forms of the biblical traditions share the overarching function of witnessing within the context of a continuing, yet changing, community of faith to the content of these traditions, namely the reality of God; cf. Sumpter, Substance, 18–19.

C. The Biblical Theologies of Childs and Hübner

19

as the most appropriate context for determining the meaning of the New Testament kerygma.

C. The Biblical Theologies of Childs and Hübner C. The Biblical Theologies of Childs and Hübner

Childs’ Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible appeared in 1992. As the title already indicates, his attempt involves both testaments of the Christian Bible and the approach is theological reflection. In the preface, the constructive task is very clear. The primary aim is to bridge the gap – or the “iron curtain” – which separates Bible from theology.32 In other words, the need is to return to a preGabler position and rejoin the historical and theological elements, without at the same time ignoring the emphasis of the Enlightenment that the Bible consists of a manifold of discrete and even diverse voices. The structure of the book reflects this double task. After a 100 page prolegomena and discussion of methodology examining current and classic Christian models of biblical theology and presenting the main lines of this new approach, parts 3 and 4, as part of the descriptive task, trace the growth of the Old and New Testament traditions. In particular, Childs considers the degree to which the Old Testament traditions continue into the New. Although Childs claims to be working “within the tradition” and to be focusing on “Israel’s own testimony to God’s redemptive activity,” James Barr and Manfred Oeming have argued that in doing so Childs has actually abandoned the essential features of his own canonical approach. 33 First, attention is given not only to the final form of the text, but also to the various stages within its formation. Second, the structure of the investigation reflects the different types of tradition rather than the canonical order of books.34 Whereas the latter criticism seems to be right but less essential, the former is more doubtful. Although his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture emphasizes the final form – or stage – in contrast to redaction criticism which smashes the text to atoms, Childs still seeks to relate the canonical form to its complex history of formation.35

32

Childs, Biblical Theology, xvi: “Clearly if there is to be any future for Biblical Theology, the pressing need for the next generation is to build strong links between the disciplines of Bible and theology.” 33 Barr, Concept, 422–424; Oeming, Das Alte Testament, 268. 34 In the analysis of the New Testament traditions in particular, the alleged historical process of growth determines the presentation: the church’s earliest proclamation is followed by Paul, the Gospels, the Acts, and the post-Pauline age; see Childs, Biblical Theology, 209–322. 35 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 71–83.

20

Chapter 1. Introducing Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner

The major part 6 presents the constructive task of the enterprise, that is, the theological reflection on both testaments. This reflection covers several chapters which as topoi or loci follow a Christian framework:36 first, the identity of God, the creation, and the covenant, then, Christ and the reconciliation through him, and finally, faith, eschatology, and ethics. As an illustration, a chapter typically consists of a presentation of the Old and New Testament witnesses, a reflection on their similarities and dissimilarities followed by a theological reflection including the history of interpretation and contemporary issues. The undergirding assumption of this procedure is that both testaments, albeit in different ways, at different times, and to different peoples, bear testimony to the same divine reality, namely Jesus Christ (see chapter 3). Hübner’s three-volume Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments appeared in 1990–1995. It explores and interprets how the individual authors of the New Testament theologically adopted the Old Testament.37 Despite this historical and descriptive focus, the attempt also includes a subsequent theological assessment of this adoption which may have implications for a normative use of the Old Testament today. For instance, if only a small part of the Old Testament is relevant for the entire New Testament, is it, then, still possible to work with the two testaments as a unified whole? As an essential feature, Hübner employs the hermeneutical distinction between the Old Testament as such and as received by the New Testament authors. In addition, the approach to the New Testament texts is profoundly colored by Bultmann’s existentialist interpretation. Volume 1, which is the Prolegomena, discusses the canonical question, the old and new covenants, the concept of revelation, and the one God of both testaments. Volumes 2 and 3, or the Mesolegomena, then, investigate how each author of the New Testament employs the Old Testament in his theological argumentation. As a Lutheran theologian, Hübner pays most attention to Paul before turning to Hebrews, the Synoptic Gospels, John, and Revelation. As was indicated, Hübner does not, however, study the canonical form of the New Testament writings but depends on religio-historical reconstructions to trace the historical development of each author’s thought. In general, the analysis concentrates on the “theological” sections of the writings, leaving out, for instance, the discourses of paraenesis and ethics. Finally, the Epilegomena on “der Zeit-Raum der Gnade” provides some highly systematic reflections on time, space, and grace.

36

Or as John Barton sarcastically states, “a Reformed textbook on Christian doctrine;” see Barton, Nature, 166. 37 The main elements of his approach were presented already in 1981; see Hübner, Biblische Theologie.

Chapter 2

Canon: Formation and Authority Childs and Hübner share a common concern for the canon of the church. Hübner takes the New Testament as a given literary, historical, and theological entity and thereby acknowledges its canonicity as a basic condition for Christian theology. Childs, too, stresses the canon of the church as the only proper environment for doing biblical theology. Crucially, besides this theological dimension of canon, they pay attention to the historical dimension as well (again, these dimensions belong closely together). At this point, however, they reveal significant differences. This chapter investigates the different ways in which Childs and Hübner perceive the formation of the Christian Bible and in particular the Christian Old Testament, and how these divergent perceptions determine their opposite views on the authority of canon. Of special importance are their opinions about what version of the Old Testament one should favor for modern biblical theology. As we will see, Hübner considers only the Old Testament as received in the New to be truly Christian, whereas Childs stresses that the entire Old Testament is required for a proper Christian theology.

A. The Formation of Canon A. The Formation of Canon

Although Childs and Hübner share an emphasis on the historical aspect of canon, their Biblical Theologies are almost solely engaged with the canonical history of the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible. 1 Nevertheless, their divergent perceptions of this formation are of great importance, because, as Childs rightly asserts, the perception of the formation of the Bible has an

1

Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 37: “Symptomatisch für die gegenwärtige Kanondiskussion ist, daß in ihr nicht, wie die Übersicht ‘Zum Problem des Biblischen Kanons’ erwarten läßt, Probleme des alt- und neutestamentlichen Kanons behandelt werden, sondern fast durchgängig nur die des alttestamentlichen.” Childs, however, presents a New Testament canon history in his introduction; see Childs, New Testament as Canon. For an account of recent theories on the formation of the Hebrew canon, see e.g. Steins, Zwei Konzepte.

22

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

impact on how one understands the task of biblical theology.2 This section will examine how Childs and Hübner picture the development of the Christian Old Testament and its consequences for modern biblical theology. I. The Hebrew Canon at the Rise of Christianity Childs’ and Hübner’s treatments of the form of the Hebrew canon are influenced by their starting points.3 Childs limits his focus to the closing of the Hebrew canon and looks at its scope and textual form at the rise of Christianity. Likewise, Hübner, from his overall interest in how the New Testament authors use the Old Testament, views the question of canon from a New Testament viewpoint. Childs and Hübner together notice not only the complexity of the question about the formation of the Hebrew canon but also the lack of solid historical evidence for determining the process behind it. Accordingly, the lack of sources results in only hypothetical reconstructions. Both of them examine the few literary sources available, in particular Jesus ben Sira and Josephus’ reference in Contra Apionem to 22 books in a tripartite division which reflects the rabbinic opinion around 100 CE. Although they disparage the significance of the alleged synod in Jamnia towards the end of the 1st Century CE,4 they still agree that, based on the direct literary evidence, the Hebrew canon was closed at least by 100 CE. With regard to the period before that moment, the discussion becomes controversial. Was the Hebrew canon still open at the time of Jesus? In Hübner’s opinion, the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE largely caused the 2 Childs, Biblische Theologie, 15: “Tatsächlich beeinflußt die jeweilige Vorstellung von der Entstehung der christlichen Bibel in hohem Maß das Verständnis von der Aufgabe einer Biblischen Theologie.” However, one may argue to the contrary that their different assessments of the formation of the Old Testament are determined by their opposite concepts of biblical theology; cf. Merk, Theologie, 140: “Mit Recht betont Hübner, daß nach seiner Konzeption eine ‘Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments’ nur vom Neuen Testament her entfaltet werden kann. Diese innere Leitlinie bestimmt sein Kanonverständnis, und diese ist ebenso bestimmend für die eigentliche Relevanz der bis in inneralttestamentliche Bezüge hinein vielfach aufgedeckten Dialektik von Kontinuität und Diskontinuität.” 3 The sections on this issue – “The Problem of the Christian Bible” in Childs, Biblical Theology, 55–69 and “Zur Kanonfrage” in Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 37–76 – are revisions of their earlier contributions to JBTh 3; see Childs, Biblische Theologie; Hübner, Vetus Testamentum. In the case of Childs, Daniel Driver has also noted the number of near-verbatim parallels; see Driver, Brevard Childs, 193. 4 Both draw on J.P. Lewis’ article “What do we mean by Jabneh?” (1964); cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 46–48; Childs, Biblical Theology, 56: “These discussions were at best scholastic debates which lacked the great significance attributed to them by Christian interpreters.”

A. The Formation of Canon

23

closing of the canon.5 He therefore concludes: “Die Kanonfrage ist vor 70 n. Chr. offen – nicht nur in Bezug auf den Umfang der heiligen Schriften, sondern vor allem in bezug auf das Wesen des Kanonischen.”6 Hübner’s position here covers what Childs considers to be the commonly held view (“die gewöhnlich vertretene Auffassung”). 7 According to this view, the Hebrew canon was still open at the rise of Christianity. Numerous Jewish writings of different degrees of authority circulated at that time, and the narrow rabbinic canon was closed at the end of the 1st Century CE as a response to the emergence of the Christian church and its larger canon containing the Apocrypha. According to this position, the openness of the Hebrew canon throughout the 1st Century is furthermore supported by the flexible use of the Old Testament by the New Testament authors.8 Against this common position, Childs presents indirect evidence to support his own view of a more stable Hebrew canon already in the 1st Century BCE. His following four arguments use material from which Hübner draws other, often conflicting, conclusions: First, Childs asserts that Josephus in his Contra Apionem renders an older and long held Pharisaic tradition on scripture, which he learned as a young man as a member of the Pharisaic party. Accordingly, Josephus reflects a tradition from around 50 CE rather than from the period after 70 CE. Contra the commonly held view, Josephus supports a much earlier date for the closure of the Hebrew canon. Hübner, too, notices Josephus’ association with the Pharisees, but only to make plausible the notion that his 22 books refer to the rabbinic canon.9 Second, contra the alleged fluidity of the canon because of the loose reference to the “Writings” as the third part of the Hebrew canon, Childs proposes that the concept of this third part has emerged as a subsequent division within the collection of the Prophets. In addition, the unaltered number of 22 (varying) books in the following centuries (90–400 CE) supports a stabile Jewish canon from an even earlier period. In opposition, Hübner maintains that the uncertainty of the scope of the Writings might reflect the limited authority ascribed to this part before the end of the 1st Century CE;10 instead, he speaks of “abgestufte(r) ‘Kanonizität’” – a concept which Childs does not discuss. 5

Cf. Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 152. See also Biblische Theologie 1, 63: “Was Gunther Wanke für die Zeit nach der ersten Katastrophe, also nach 587 v. Chr. herausstellt, nämlich die Erfahrung der identitätsbewahrenden Funktion der Überlieferung, die den Anlaß zur Kanonisierung bot, gilt nun in noch stärkerem Ausmaß für die Zeit nach der zweiten, noch schlimmeren Katastrophe;” emphasis original. 6 Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 153; emphasis original. 7 Childs, Biblische Theologie, 16. 8 See e.g. Sundberg, Early Church. 9 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 49. 10 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 50–51; Vetus Testamentum, 152–153.

24

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

Third, according to Childs, the lack of citations from the Apocrypha in Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament as well as in Jesus ben Sira and other Jewish writings from the same period support a fixed Pharisaic canon. Furthermore, Origen and Athanasius confirm that the canon at Alexandria consisted of 22 books following Jewish tradition. Also referring to the work of ben Sira and Philo, Hübner, however, concludes that their use of scripture underlines the dominance of the Pentateuch and thereby confirms the degrees of authority within the growing concept of canon.11 Fourth, drawing upon material from Qumran, Childs asserts that the Masoretic text had assumed a high level of stabilization by 70 CE. Moreover, in the 1st Century BCE, Greek Bible translations, including Daniel, Ruth, and Lamentations, were revised according to the proto-Masoretic text. These corrections suggest that the Hebrew text and books had already received some sort of canonical status. Hübner, on the contrary, stresses that the Qumran discoveries reveal a different understanding of scripture, which makes the question of canon in ancient Judaism even more complex.12 Childs concludes that the evidence is very strong that at least within the circles of rabbinic Judaism a concept of an established Hebrew canon with a relatively fixed scope of writings and an increasingly stabilized authoritative text had emerged by the first century BC.13

Despite his well-presented arguments, the designation of indirect evidence as very strong sounds peculiar.14 Hübner’s conclusion is more modest: “Wahrscheinlich war in dieser Zeit [that is, before 70 CE] auch in pharisäischen Kreisen das Bild weitaus bunter, als es für uns rekonstruierbar ist.”15 In general, he emphasizes the dominance of the Pentateuch and the graded authority of the non-Mosaic books until the end of the 1st Century CE. In sum, Childs and Hübner agree that the Hebrew canon was closed at least by 100 CE. Yet Childs’ indirect evidence undergirds his assertion that the scope and precise form of the Hebrew scriptures were relatively fixed at the 11

E.g. in Philo’s Greek writings, only 41 of 1161 citations from the Bible are found outside the Pentateuch; see Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 56. 12 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 52–53; Vetus Testamentum, 152. Childs also senses the diversity between the Qumran community and the Pharisees; see Childs, Biblical Theology, 61. 13 Childs, Biblical Theology, 60; see also Biblische Theologie, 18. 14 N.P. Lemche’s description of it as “a parody of a history of the canon” is rather unfair; cf. Lemche, The Old Testament, 331; see also Krauter, Programm, 35: “problematisch ist aber, daß seine [Childs’] etwas bemühte Umdatierung wie ein Versuch wirkt, um jeden Preis auch eine historische Rechtfertigung für seine Ansicht zu konstruieren.” However, I am not convinced that Childs after 1992 gave up discussing these historical issues, because he “could not tackle these problems satisfactorily” as Chen states; see Chen, Theological Exegesis, 57. 15 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 53–54.

A. The Formation of Canon

25

inception of Christianity. Hübner, on the contrary, argues that the canon was still open at the time of the first Christians and that the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans and the rise of Christianity forced the surviving Pharisaic community to close its canon with only some of the Jewish scriptures circulating at that time. II. The Formation of the Christian Old Testament Childs’ and Hübner’s opposite views on the closure of the Hebrew Bible have an impact on how they perceive the formation of the Christian Old Testament. This issue involves important questions. For instance, what scope and form did the first Christians use? And how did the wider scope of the Greek and Latin versions of the Old Testament develop? At first, Childs and Hübner reject the theory of an Alexandrian canon. Scholars have traditionally applied this theory to explain the wider selection of books in the Greek Old Testament than in the Pharisaic canon. Allegedly, the Christian church under the influence of the Greek-speaking world adopted a broader canon already existing among the Jews in Alexandria. Yet, drawing upon A.C. Sundberg’s thesis of the open Palestinian canon and the deep diversity among the Palestinian Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, apocalyptic groups, and Qumranites), Hübner designates the question of an Alexandrian canon as wrong or at least inadequate: “Die Frage nach einem Nebeneinander von palästinisch-hebräischem und alexandrinisch-griechischem Kanon simplifiziert die Komplexheit des damaligen religiösen Judentums.”16 Childs, too, refers to Sundberg’s work to stress that the great diversity of Jewish religious writings cannot be resolved by this geographical distinction. Nevertheless, according to Childs, Sundberg has failed to reckon with the element of stability and restrictiveness clearly manifested in one branch of Judaism, namely Pharisaic Judaism, whose canon was essentially established before the rise of Christianity and independently of this later challenge.17

Therefore, he rejects Sundberg’s (and Hübner’s) thesis that the church itself established the scope of its Old Testament from the diversity of the available writings, to which rabbinic Judaism reacted by narrowing its selection of scripture. Childs’ assertion of a stable Pharisaic canon at the rise of Christianity is important, because he claims that Jesus and the first Christians identified with these scriptures of Pharisaic Judaism: The early controversies with the Jews reflected in the New Testament turned on the proper interpretation of the sacred scriptures (hē graphē) which Christians assumed in common with the synagogue.18 16 17

Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 153–154. Childs, Biblical Theology, 61.

26

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

Childs sees a further confirmation in the New Testament, where none of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books are cited as scripture. 19 Also 1 Clement’s and Justin Martyr’s use of the Old Testament confirms the assumption of a common scripture between the synagogue and the church. In short, the early Christians took over the scope of the Pharisaic canon. Childs thereby emphasizes that, from the very beginning, the synagogue and the church shared the same closed canon of Hebrew scriptures – a common ground which, however, soon began to erode. Contra Childs’ assertion, Hübner maintains that the church did not take over a fixed body of scripture, because such a thing did not yet exist. The canon was still fluid. Against the importance of the Hebrew text, Hübner furthermore argues that the majority of Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Just as was the case for most of the Jewish Diaspora, the majority of Palestinian Jews also considered their scriptures to be written in a foreign language. In their worship they often rendered the Hebrew through a translation into Aramaic in the spoken Targums. Nevertheless, it is the importance of the Greek Septuagint which is of most significance in Hübner’s argumentation. According to Hübner, the Jewish Diaspora constituted the great majority of ancient Judaism.20 Most of the Diaspora Jews lived in Greek-speaking regions and used the Greek versions as their Bible. Therefore, in ancient Judaism, the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible was quantitatively predominant. This predominance did not only point to the practical use of scripture but also its authority. Not surprisingly, Childs denies this assertion.21 For Hübner, the importance of the Septuagint for the New Testament reception of the Old cannot be overestimated: the New Testament authors lived and breathed from the Septuagint. Insofar as they mostly use citations from the Septuagint, the predominance of the Septuagint in contemporary Judaism corresponds to the use of it within the New Testament. Because of this, Hüb18

Childs, Biblical Theology, 62; see also Biblical Theology, 58: “The debate between Jesus and the Jews concerning the interpretation of their scriptures assumed a body of writings which was held in common by both parties.” 19 Hübner admits that as a rule there are no citations from these writings which are introduced by formula quotationis. Nevertheless, apocryphical writings such as Wisdom of Solomon and Baruch, for instance, had a great impact on the theological argumentation of Paul; see Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 148–149. 20 Although the numbers are inexact, Hübner states the population of Palestinian Judaism at between 0.7 and 2.5 millions and that of the Jewish Diaspora at between 2 and 7 millions. 21 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 98–99: “From the Jewish perspective the Greek Bible never had an independent integrity which could contest the Hebrew. Thus the Greek was continually brought into conformity with the Hebrew and never the reverse;” cf. the fourth argument for an early closure of the Pharisaic canon (see above).

A. The Formation of Canon

27

ner concludes that the Old Testament was theologically relevant in its Greek translation. The predominance of the Septuagint in the New Testament implies also a theological predominance of the Greek text over the Hebrew. In contrast, Childs claims that the early Christians’ use of the Septuagint does not provide any theological warrant for an exclusive authority of that version within modern Christianity (see below).22 Furthermore, Hübner emphasizes that the Septuagint is not merely a translation of the Hebrew text into Greek. Along with the translation into Greek and the adding of Jewish religious writings originally in Greek, a “Hellenization” of the Hebrew Bible took place.23 The Septuagint expresses the spiritual mind of Hellenistic Judaism including a strong universalism. Through the rendering into Greek, the Hebrew Bible became “denationalized” and represented in the synagogue a “religion of words” instead of temple, sacrifices, and priesthood (cf. G. Bertram). 24 Crucially, the Christian mission in the Mediterranean world used this Greek text: “Wie die LXX die universalen Aspekte der Biblia Hebraica verstärkte, so förderte dieser LXXUniversalismus die Heidenmission der Christen.”25 Childs does not deny the significance of the Septuagint in the history of the church. On the contrary, it is crucial to understand what happened when the church adopted the Septuagint. As we have seen, Childs argues that Jesus and the early Christians used an already fixed Pharisaic canon. Nevertheless, soon after the inception of the church a different attitude towards this Jewish heritage emerged within the church. In terms of material change, Jesus Christ was assigned primary authority and from then on the Jewish scriptures were read and interpreted as a witness to him.26 In terms of formal change, “the Christian church’s adoption of the LXX in the place of the original Hebrew had immediate and profound implications respecting the canon.”27 This adoption quickly expanded the scope of the Pharisaic canon. Despite the fact that

22

Childs, Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel, 389. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 61. 24 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 62. Against Hübner’s rather naïve position, Wagner, Septuagint, 22 states: “It is dangerously reductionistic thinking to imagine that the early church faced a clear and decisive choice between the supposed universalism of a Hellenistic-Jewish ‘Septuagint piety’ and the alleged narrow particularism of a (Pharisaic-rabbinic) Judaism rooted in the Hebrew Bible.” 25 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 65; see also Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 2, 290– 291. 26 Cf. Childs, Biblical Theology, 64: “Although the church adopted from the synagogue a concept of scripture as an authoritative collection of sacred writings, its basic stance toward its canon was shaped by its christology.” 27 Childs, Biblical Theology, 62. 23

28

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

a knowledge of the restricted scope of the Jewish canon was present and even authoritative within certain Christian circles, very shortly a wide diversity of opinion regarding the scope of the Old Testament was reflected in Christianity.28

Concerning the scope and form, as Childs shows, two opposite attitudes towards the Jewish canon soon appeared within the church. As is well known, these attitudes still divide the Christian communities today. Some identify the Christian Old Testament with the narrow scope and textual form of the synagogue’s Hebrew Bible, while others defend the wider canon of the Greek Septuagint. Historically, Jerome and the Protestant churches have supported the former position; Augustine and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches the latter position.29 Consequently, the exact scope and form of the Christian Old Testament remain in flux. Childs describes this situation as “the church’s ongoing search for the Christian Bible.”30 Beneath the two opposite attitudes defended through time, he senses a complexity of at least two theological issues. First, the anxiety for truth and the distinction between pure witness and later corruptions have supported the preservation of the Hebrew text and scope as the true word of God to Israel which, moreover, ensures an unbroken theological continuity between Israel and the church as the one people of God. Second, catholicity and the broader use of the Septuagint within the early Christian congregations have as an expression of the unbroken historical continuity of sacred tradition supported the treasuring of the Greek text and scope. To Childs, both positions on text and scope should be respected. The search for the Christian Bible includes a dialectic movement between word and tradition: The church struggles with the task of continually discerning the truth of God being revealed in scripture and at the same time she stands within a fully human, ecclesiastical tradition which remains the tradent of the Word.31

This complementary dialectic may even draw the Protestant and Catholic positions together, since word and tradition belong indissolubly together. 32 Indeed, moving from the outer parameters of tradition to the inner parameters of word, Childs’ own attempt endeavors “to search for both the truth and the catholicity of the biblical witness” within the narrow and wider forms of

28

Childs, Biblical Theology, 62. See further in Müller, First Bible, 78–94. 30 Childs, Biblical Theology, 67; emphasis original. 31 Childs, Biblical Theology, 67; cf. Biblische Theologie, 27. See also Wagner, Septuagint, 23. 32 Cf. Childs, On Reclaiming, 10: “Scripture does not bring forth a witness to itself, but points to God’s Word calling the church into existence. Yet the community of faith actively received, shaped, and transmitted the Scriptures and the church provides the context for its correct interpretation of faith and practice.” 29

A. The Formation of Canon

29

canon.33 As J. Ross Wagner concludes, this search should in principle pay full attention to the Septuagint as part of the complete canon of the Christian church.34 In sum, canon as context for Christian theology is essential, but its scope, that is, its inner and outer boundaries, remains object of critical theological inquiry. As is well known, the order of books reflected in the modern versions of the Christian Old Testament diverges from the tripartite division of Torah, Prophets, and Writings in the modern Jewish Bible. To Childs, however, the theological importance of this difference should not be overestimated because the exact order of books in the two collections was not fixed until the invention of the printing press. Nevertheless, Childs believes that the quadripartite division of Law, History, Wisdom, and Prophets in the Christian Old Testament was not made up by the church. On the contrary, the Christian church did not create its own order de novo, but rather selected from available options an order which best reflected its new, evangelical understanding of the Hebrew scriptures.35

This order was very likely adopted from some pre-Christian versions of the Septuagint. But again, the intentionality behind these changes should not be overestimated. Furthermore, Childs views the lack of Christian editorial activity on the Old Testament as a clear sign that the collection of Hebrew scriptures was received as a closed entity: There was no attempt made to Christianize the Old Testament through redactional changes, for example, by bracketing the Old Testament books with parts of the Gospels, or by add-

33

Childs, Biblical Theology, 67. Wagner finds a close correspondence in Childs’ view on New Testament textual criticism: “Here, ‘the search for the best canonical text within the circle established by the church’s tradition takes place within the context of the multiple textual options which have actually been used in the church.’ New Testament textual criticism is thus ‘a continuing search in discerning the best received text which moves from the outer parameters of the common church tradition found in the textus receptus to the inner judgment respecting its purity;’” see Wagner, Septuagint, 24; cf. Childs, New Testament as Canon, 529. See also Sumpter, Substance, 70: “Childs understands the narrower canon to be a sphere in which one may be confident that this is the place where our theology may be critiqued by the norm of the Word. Yet text and referent are distinct and Scripture as critical norm is insufficient in practice to identify the fullness of the latter, hence the need for the catholicity of church tradition, with its affirmation of a broader yet more ambiguous canon and creeds, which function to guide our grasp of the substance of the Word.” 34 Wagner, Septuagint, 24. 35 Childs, Biblical Theology, 75; see also Witness, 58: “the ordering of the books according to the LXX traditions became normative for Christians as revealing more clearly the continuity of the Old and the New within the one divine economy.”

30

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

ing Christian commentary, features which are present in both the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature.36

In general, the church took over the Hebrew scriptures without changing their shape. Next to this closed entity, a new one soon began to emerge. Concerning the Christian Bible as a whole, Childs underlines the fact that this lack of redaction implies that the church fused two discrete entities, albeit with a high level of inner cross-referencing, into one book. This fusion – or “juxtaposition” 37 – appeared not only to express a historical continuity between Israel and the church but also to affirm a theological continuity: “The church not only joined its new writings to the Jewish scriptures, but laid claim on the Old Testament as a witness to Jesus Christ.”38 The Christians took over the scripture of the synagogue as a witness to Jesus Christ, linked it with the gospel, and thereby created the church’s Bible.39 However, the juxtaposition of the two discrete testaments as one book still allowed for rich theological diversity. The testaments were juxtaposed, not brought into alignment. For instance, in the early church, the relation of the two parts of the Bible was never theologically spelled out in a detailed formulation. Nevertheless, several theological moves were made to express the relationship: the oneness of God, the oneness of salvation-history, and oneness of the people of God, or the scheme of prophecy-fulfillment, of lawgospel, and of letter-spirit. None of them, however, was made absolute. The dialectic relationship of the two testaments remained, and still remains, a complex one. This observation has a decided impact on Childs’ approach to biblical theology (see chapter 3). In sum, Childs and Hübner agree that the theory of a wider canon in Alexandria is inconvincing for explaining the development of the larger Christian Old Testament. Instead, Childs asserts that the first Christians, including Jesus, took over the scope of the already closed Hebrew Bible. Eventually, another attitude towards the Jewish heritage emerged adopting the wider scope and different order of books witnessed in some Septuagint versions. Although the scope of the Old Testament today remains in flux, there was originally one common canon among the Christians, which they shared with the synagogue. Hübner, on the contrary, suggests diversity from the beginning. Christianity and rabbinic Judaism formed two different canons from the numerous Jewish writings circulating in the 1st Century CE. 36

Childs, Biblical Theology, 75. Because the concept of canonical shaping elaborated in his introductions to the two testaments does not fit the nature of the Christian Bible as a whole, Childs employs the concept of juxtaposition to describe the nature of the two discrete entities, the Old and New Testaments; cf. Biblical Theology, 73–77. 38 Childs, Biblical Theology, 74. 39 Childs, Biblische Theologie, 21. 37

A. The Formation of Canon

31

III. The Versions of the Old Testament and Biblical Theology These different views on the formation of the Christian Old Testament have influenced the version of the Old Testament that Childs and Hübner favor for modern biblical theology. Childs, although speaking of an ongoing “search,” still prefers the use of the narrow canon in Hebrew, whereas Hübner prefers the use of the wider canon in Greek. In addition to the quantitative argument previously examined, Hübner presents three further arguments in favor of the Septuagint. Hübner’s first, and most important, argument presupposes that the Hebrew Bible in terms of redaction criticism reflects an exilic-postexilic Judean perspective. This perspective implies that a particular, and perhaps even random, epoch in the history of Israel was made theologically absolute. From the standard of this particular epoch, the preceding centuries of the history of Israel have been revised and judged, whereby time-conditioned historical and theological beliefs were absolutized: “Das historisch Punktuelle wird zum Allumgreifenden deklariert.”40 Because of this, Hübner stresses that the maintenance of this absolutized Judean perspective within the framework of Christian theology is both historically and theologically unacceptable. For instance, concerning the Messiah, the Hebrew Bible describes an earthly king of the house of David in Jerusalem, which stands in profound contrast to the Christology of the New Testament.41 Therefore, one needs to acknowledge the historical relativity of the exilic-postexilic redaction of the Old Testament books and traditions. When this relativity has been acknowledged, one must accept that the later modifications of the Old Testament traditions in the Greek translations and rewritings may assume the same theological authority. The Septuagint represents not only the missing link in the historical process (the Hebrew Bible – Hellenism [the Septuagint] – the New Testament) but also a tendency towards denationalizing the Hebrew Bible and, therefore, “eine geistige Bewegung nach vorne.” 42 Because this Greek-Hellenistic spirit has largely influenced Western culture, we today should use the Old Testament in its veritas Graece rather than in its veritas Hebraica. Hübner’s criticism goes to the very heart of Childs’ canonical approach. According to the main idea in Childs’ introductions, a canon consciousness lies deep within the formation of the biblical literature.43 The literature was shaped and rendered to maintain its normative status for subsequent generations within the community of faith. Through this transmission, canon con40 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 59; emphasis original. See also Textus Receptus, 242–243. 41 See further in Hübner, Messias Israels. 42 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 58; emphasis original. 43 Childs, Biblical Theology, 70–71.

32

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

sciousness has governed the growth of both testaments and guaranteed continuity in the historical process.44 Although many different groups have passed on the material through its various stages (oral, literary, and redactional), canon consciousness has transmitted the material towards a theological end expressed in the final form. Only the final form of the text renders the full meaning of the biblical text and is the sole witness to the complete revelatory history.45 In striking contrast to Hübner, Childs does not consider the final redactors to force their own “foreign” and time-related perspective on the transmitted material, but rather to complete and confirm a process of continuity. 46 As Philip Sumpter has demonstrated, Childs regards the theocentric claim that Israel’s different traditions always faced the same divine reality as an essential and unifying factor in the trajectory of the biblical material.47 When passing the material on, the editors’ care for the truth of the witness involved a Sachkritik in which the texts were shaped in such a manner as to witness as adequately as possible to the reality only partially testified to in the past. That is why the final form is so important.48 The canonical final form simply contains and expresses the best witness to God. In the end, Childs claims that God himself through his living Spirit is the major force at work in the canonical process of shaping the biblical literature. Here, Childs seems to employ the Reformed concept of God’s providence.49 44 Cf. Childs, New Testament as Canon, 21: “Canon consciousness thus arose at the inception of the Christian church and lies deep within the New Testament literature itself. There is an organic continuity in the historical process of the development of an established canon of sacred writings from the earliest stages of the New Testament to the final canonical stabilization of its scope.” 45 Cf. Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 76: “It is only in the final form of the biblical text in which the normative history has reached an end that the full effect of this revelatory history can be perceived.” 46 Cf. Seitz, Theological Interpretation, 76: “The final editors do not have any moral superiority … The final form of the text is a canonical-historical portrayal, and the final editors have never ceased hearing the Word of God as a word spoken through history.” 47 Sumpter, Substance, 33–53. 48 Cf. Sumpter, Substance, 50: “When Childs does decide to take Israel’s tradition as Scripture seriously, it is because the scriptural nature of the tradition was considered by the tradition to be an integral part of the form itself, the medium by which the kerygmatic function was accomplished. … Childs argues that the ‘fuller form’ [Sumpter’s phrase] should be the object of interpretation, not because this is the form that the church has always lived from, but because the logic of the inner-dynamic of the tradition-historical process itself;” emphasis original. 49 By providence I mean the idea that God himself has ensured that the best text has been rendered through time. Against this concept, M. Oeming critically states: “Daß bei Childs der ganze Kanon als das durch die Tradition geläuterte, eine, gleich gültige Wort Gottes in der einen, einheitlichen Glaubensgemeinschaft dasteht, welches als Norm für die zukünftigen Generationen offensteht, mutet eher als ein Stück Barthscher Dogmatik an,

A. The Formation of Canon

33

In 1979 Childs clearly states that the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, not the translations into Greek, is “the vehicle both for recovering and for understanding the canonical text of the Old Testament.”50 The Greek translations did not have separate integrity, but were constantly dependent on the Hebrew Bible in terms of both textual form and authoritative status. Even though the Hellenistic Greek translations have mainly shaped the New Testament, most Christians in the early church still acknowledged the authority of the Hebrew version. However, as Wagner shows, Childs’ later concept of the “search” for the Christian Bible should fully include the Septuagint for determining the final form of the canonical Christian text.51 Yet, after writing his Biblical Theology, Childs highlights the right decision, wenn die Herausgeber der Biblia Hebraica … sich entschlossen, den besten erreichbaren Text aus masoretischer Tradition zu publizieren, statt eine eklektische Rekonstruktion im Stil von Nestles Novum Testamentum Graece zu versuchen.52

Although acknowledging the importance of the Septuagint, Childs still seems to view the Masoretic text as the starting point of interpretation.53 Hübner’s second argument arises from his perception of the formation process of the Hebrew canon. If the Pharisaic canon was not closed until after the fall of the Second Temple and its closure concerned the restoration and redefinition of Judaism against the emerging Christianity, why, then, should this Jewish decision influenced by anti-Christian concerns be binding for the Christian church?54 As was noticed, Childs believes that the Hebrew canon was largely closed before the rise of Christianity and, therefore, anti-Christian impulses could denn als ein irgend haltbares historisches Urteil;” see Oeming, Das Alte Testament, 212. Childs’ entire program, however, is precisely an attempt to overcome this – in his eyes – false dichotomy between history and theology. Ignoring any talk of the living word or the Spirit, as Oeming does, will, according to Childs, render one incapable of grasping the true force being at work in the traditio-historical process. I am grateful to Philip Sumpter for pointing this out. 50 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 97; emphasis original. 51 Wagner, Septuagint, 25 and further: “The search for the Christian Bible therefore must seek to discern whether the form preserved in the Septuagint or the form preserved in the Masoretic Text, or perhaps both, represents ‘Israel’s witness to God and his Messiah.’” 52 Childs, Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel, 390. 53 Against Provan, Canons to the Left, 11–16, as pointed out by Christopher Seitz; see Seitz, Goodly Fellowship, 47–48; cf. Driver, Brevard Childs, 193, note 133, who also notes that Wagner’s article “lays more emphasis on the Septuagint than Childs does.” 54 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 63: “Mit welchem theologischen Recht soll aber diese rabbinisch-pharisäische Entscheidung aus einer Zeit, in der in der Paulusschule schon einige deuteropaulinische Schriften verfaßt, in der möglicherweise schon alle synoptischen Evangelien geschrieben waren – mit welchem Recht also sollte diese jüdische Entscheidung ausgerechnet für die christliche Kirche bindend sein?” emphasis original.

34

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

not have affected the closure.55 Indeed, the Jews have been the true tradents of the canonical tradition and neglecting this heritage runs the risk of distorting the theological relation between Israel and the church. Although Childs personally prefers a Christian use of the narrow canon in Hebrew, he still understands the claims of those like Hübner who support a larger canon including the Greek Apocrypha. The formulation of the ongoing search contends that this diversity should be respected. Hübner’s third argument is an ecumenical one. The theological revaluation of the Septuagint and its larger scope may form a platform for a renewed discussion between Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians to overcome the inherited controversies about the canon from the 16th Century.56 Childs also speaks about dialog, although between Christians and Jews. The common canon of Hebrew scriptures provides a fundamental basis for any serious relationship and expresses the “unbroken continuity” between the two communities of faith (nevertheless, Childs still sees a basic discontinuity between a Christian and a Jewish approach to the same bulk of scriptures).57 In the end, Childs’ prioritizing of the text and scope of the Hebrew canon rests on a strong concern to maintain a common bond between church and synagogue.58 Talk about the “search” for the Christian Bible, however, also indicates ecumenical concerns towards the different Christian communities. In sum, Hübner and Childs strongly disagree on which version of the Old Testament should be used within Christian theology. Whereas Hübner considers the national-Judean perspective of the Hebrew Bible to be historically and theologically unacceptable and superseded by the Hellenistic Septuagint, Childs sees the final form of the Hebrew Bible as the most truthful vehicle of the canonical text (although it may be supplemented by the Septuagint). Hüb55

Cf. Seitz, Theological Interpretation, 94: “Childs’s appeal to the MT is not based upon an overweening concern for one Hebrew text with fixed boundaries and special internal order and a historically monolithic transmission prior to the New … Rather, what is at stake is the canonical authority of the Hebrew Scriptures as foundational and antecedent to Christian claims, claims that have to do with accordance and fulfillment and not with firsttime establishment.” 56 Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 161–162. 57 In Nature, 116–117, Childs unfolds the “unbroken continuity” between Jewish and Christian faiths which includes receiving scripture in unredacted form, using the oral tradition of the Jewish synagogue, and identifying with the faith of Abraham. Concerning the elements of discontinuity, Childs states, on the formal side, the adopting of the Septuagint form, order, and scope, and, on the material side, the use of additional traditions (Mishnah, the New Testament) as hermeneutical guides for reading the Jewish Bible/Old Testament; see chapter 3. 58 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 72, 663–667; see also Bedeutung des Jüdischen Kanons, 281: “Ich sehe einen der Hauptgründe für den christlichen Gebrauch des hebräischen Texts statt der griechischen Textform in dem theologischen Anliegen, dieses gemeinsame Band zwischen Juden und Christen zu erhalten.”

B. The Authority of Canon

35

ner refuses to use a canon which was developed against the emerging church, whereas Childs maintains that the canon of the synagogue was closed before the inception of Christianity. In terms of interreligious concerns, Hübner stresses an ecumenical dialog between Protestants and Catholics on the grounds of the Septuagint, whereas Childs (also) stresses the common bond between Christianity and Judaism established by a common canon of scripture. IV. Summing Up: the Formation of Canon In his article in Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, Childs presents two major problems concerning the Christian Bible, which remain unsolved today. The first problem concerns the exact scope and form of the Christian Bible, especially of the Old Testament; the second concerns the theological relationship to the Jewish heritage.59 As was stated at the beginning of the section, the attitude towards these problems deeply affects how one defines the task of biblical theology. As we have seen, Childs and Hübner respond to these challenges very differently. In terms of form and scope, Childs argues that the narrow Hebrew canon was closed before the rise of Christianity and acknowledged as such by Jesus and the first Christians. Treasuring the Hebrew text and scope over the Greek, Childs, then, stresses the “unbroken continuity” between synagogue and church because of this common canon of scripture. Hübner, on the contrary, argues that the Jewish and Christian canons developed simultaneously. From the abundant amount of Jewish sacred writings, the rabbis of the synagogue selected a smaller number of books in opposition to the broader selection supported by the church. Defending the Septuagint text and scope over the Hebrew, Hübner accordingly emphasizes the discontinuity between modern Judaism and modern Christianity with regard to the formal aspect of scripture. In chapter 3 we will discover how these opposite attitudes affect the approach to biblical theology.

B. The Authority of Canon B. The Authority of Canon

We now turn to the question of the authority of canon. What theological implications does canon have for modern biblical theology? As noted in the previous chapter, neither Childs nor Hübner accepts the narrow, albeit frequently used, definition of canon as a closed list of books. Instead, Childs presents a far broader definition of the term which does justice to its theolog-

59

Childs, Biblische Theologie, 20–21.

36

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

ical dimension as well; he speaks of a context of hearing the word of God.60 Hübner, likewise, sees canon, not only as something formal, but as the proclaimed word of God. Although the two unquestionably share the emphasis on the theological dimension of canon, their concepts seem, however, rather different. For this reason, we will investigate their views separately before comparing them. I. Childs: Canon as the Context for Hearing the Bible In Childs’ view on the authority of canon, the community of faith plays a significant role. In his introductions, Childs argues that the biblical literature has constantly been shaped through an interaction between the developing corpus of literature and the community which preserved and treasured it.61 A canonical consciousness, including the community’s acknowledgment of a rule of faith for proper interpretation, has deeply influenced the process of transmission.62 This understanding of canon encompasses “the reception and acknowledgment of certain religious traditions as authoritative writings within a faith community.”63 Although this concept of canonical shaping is linked in particular with the tradition-historical process behind each of the two testaments, the element of acknowledgment is also central to the Christian Bible as a whole. The church did not make its Bible canonical, but rather acknowledged its divine authority.64 In Biblical Theology in Crisis, Childs stresses that “the Bible does not function as Scripture apart from the community of believers.”65 The Bible’s canonical status is not an objectively demonstrable claim, but, on the contrary, a statement of Christian belief. This belief thereby acknowledges the nor60

Cf. Childs, Church’s Guide, 4, note 4. See Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 58–59: “The authoritative Word gave the community its form and content in obedience to the divine imperative, yet conversely the reception of the authoritative tradition by its hearers gave shape to the same writings through a historical and theological process of selecting, collecting and ordering.” 62 Cf. Childs’ answer to David Bartlett: “By canonical shape I mean the attempt to discern those theological forces which were exerted in the shaping of the Scriptures in order to provide guidelines by which to aid its present and future readers toward its ‘proper’ interpretation, that is to say, one which is faithful to its true subject matter (res);” see Driver, Brevard Childs, 285 for this reference. 63 Childs, Biblical Theology, 70; see also Biblische Theologie, 13–14. 64 Cf. Childs, Crisis, 105: “the concept of canon was an attempt to acknowledge the divine authority of its [the church’s] writings and collections. The church as a fully human institution bore witness to the effect that certain writings had had on its faith and life. In speaking of canon the church testified that the authority of its Scriptures stemmed from God, not from human sanction. Canonicity as the ‘the rule of faith’ was a confession of the divine origin of the gospel that had called the church into being;” emphasis original. 65 Childs, Crisis, 131. 61

B. The Authority of Canon

37

mative quality of the biblical tradition. Furthermore, only faith can claim that the Old and New Testament together constitute the one Bible of the church, which implies that “the acknowledgment of a canon is a confession that both testaments are testifying to the same God at work.”66 Understanding scripture as a vehicle of divine reality and scripture’s uniqueness as witness to this reality remains a statement of faith.67 To Childs, canon is the context through which the Holy Spirit works and thereby the vehicle for God’s special communicating himself to his church and the world. Canon is not merely a list of books, but – more importantly – the proper context for hearing the biblical texts. This context is the community of faith. The function of canon is the special relation that the church has to its writings designating them sacred scripture (inherited from the synagogue).68 In sum, the Bible’s true meaning is anchored in the texts’ function within the concrete community of faith. In Biblical Theology, Childs spells out this theological function of canon. Again, this function rests on its affirmation that the authoritative norm lies in the literature itself as it has been treasured, transmitted and transformed … The term canon points to the received, collected, and interpreted material of the church and thus establishes the theological context in which the tradition continues to function authoritatively for today.69

Rather than being a frozen deposit of tradition or doctrine, canon offers a theological context within which the will of God can be grasped. 70 Canon today functions as a context, an arena, or an area in which the Bible can be received as the word of God.71 In other words, Childs describes canon – not statically as a list – but rather dynamically in terms of spatial metaphors. Despite his Protestant persuasion, Childs recognizes the Catholic emphasis on

66

Childs, Crisis, 112; my emphasis. Childs, Crisis, 104. 68 See further in Childs, Scripture of the Church, 711–713. 69 Childs, Biblical Theology, 71; see also Biblical Theology, 72: “the biblical text and its theological function as authoritative form belong inextricable together.” 70 See Childs, Biblical Theology, 724: “Canon functions to sketch the range of authoritative writings. It establishes parameters of the apostolic witness within which area there is freedom and flexibility. It does not restrict the witness to one single propositional formulation.” 71 Childs, Biblical Theology, 721–722: “The term canon as used throughout this volume functions as a theological cipher to designate those peculiar features constitutive of the church’s special relationship to its scripture. It entails charting the area in which God’s word is heard, establishing the context for its proper hearing in prayer and worship, and, above all, evoking the anticipation promised by Christ to his church of a divine illumination by the Holy Spirit;” see also Crisis, 101–102. 67

38

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

tradition and the church’s worship as the proper context of hearing the biblical message.72 Within this canonical context, a basic Christian confession holds that all scriptures bear testimony to the one scope which is Jesus Christ. 73 To Childs, scripture certainly entails one single, unified voice of divine reality, yet witnessed through multiple discrete witnesses.74 As was previously pointed out, Childs asserts that the church preserved two discrete testaments as witnesses to the same subject matter, Jesus Christ: “The peculiar nature of the Christian canon derives from the joining of the Old Testament witness in its own integrity with the New Testament witness in its own integrity.”75 The integrity of the Old Testament has not been destroyed and it therefore continues in its own right to speak as Christian scripture. As is the case in Karl Barth’s theology, the Old Testament is given unquestioned canonical status. Although Childs, following the Reformers, considers the biblical text itself to render the proper scopus of scripture, he stresses that the text itself is not the generative force of truth: “Rather, through the Spirit the reality to which the text points, namely to Jesus Christ, is made active in constantly fresh forms of application.”76 Despite this treasuring of scripture in its written canonical form as the only complete witness, Philip Sumpter has mounted the case that, to Childs, God’s revelation was at first mediated through historical, flesh-and-blood prophets and apostles.77 Originally, “human agents” have, as expressed in the biblical traditions, mediated God’s will; eventually, their oral and written witnesses have been shaped and refined into the final textual form. In other words, the textuality of the biblical traditions depends on the living witness of these men and women, no matter what form this witness takes. As Sumpter states, “Scripture preserves the testimony of the prophets and apostles, it does not 72

Childs, Biblical Theology, 66–67: “The Roman Catholic insistence upon the decisive role of tradition in shaping the Christian Bible correctly recognized the role of the church’s actual use of its scripture both in proclamation and liturgy. The church’s practice of worship provided the context in which the biblical message was received, treasured, and transmitted.” 73 Childs, Biblical Theology, 725; cf. Barton, Unity and Diversity, 61: “the unity of the Bible is not a matter of empirical observation, … but a theologoumenon deriving from a doctrine of Scripture.” 74 Childs even refers to this claim as an “apparent paradox;” see Nature, 121–122: “On the one hand, the canonical form of the Christian Bible with its two testaments provides the grounds for respecting the two discrete voices according to the literal, or plain, sense of the text. On the other hand, the Christian Church has always affirmed that Scripture offers a unified witness bearing testimony to the one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divine reality undergirding the entire biblical canon.” 75 Childs, Biblical Theology, 91. 76 Childs, Biblical Theology, 724. 77 Sumpter, Substance, 8, 32, 37.

B. The Authority of Canon

39

replace it with its own, secondary, self-referential form of discourse.”78 This observation corresponds with the Patristic influence on Childs’ use of the term canon. The real ‘canon’ or ‘rule’ was the eternal, unchanging, and salvific reality that Scripture and creed witness to, i.e. their ‘content.’ God himself is the measure or ‘rule’ of truth … and its human witnesses are ‘canonical’ only by virtue of their capacity to mediate that reality.79

Therefore, “canonical” refers to a “quality of the text” and is thereby synonymous with “kerygmatic.” Again, “regardless of the actual form … ‘canon’ refers to the function of a body of tradition to authoritatively communicate the salvific reality of God to a future generation of faith.”80 Nevertheless, due to the Sachkritik embedded in the canonical shaping process, Childs stills treasures the final form over early forms, because only the final form testifies most adequately to the ontological reality of God. The final form as expressed in scripture is the sole witness to the complete revelatory history. In sum, Childs sees canon as a theological context for hearing the Bible as the word of God. Within the community of faith, canon points to the received literature of the Bible and, furthermore, affirms that the authoritative norm lies within this literature itself. Canon is thereby the dynamic vehicle by which God through his Holy Spirit continues to address and instruct his people. As scripture of the church, the integrity of the Old Testament has been preserved (cf. Barth). This implies that the Old Testament continues to bear witness to the divine reality in its own right. II. Hübner: Canon as the Spoken Word of God In addition to his Biblische Theologie, Hübner devotes a small article from 2003 to the question of the theological dimension of canon.81 Like Childs, Hübner emphasizes the role of the faith community. Without the community, a canon of scriptures would never have appeared. Theologically, the concept of canon extends from the community’s living and existential encounter with the authority of its biblical writings.82 Canon as a measuring rod implies that the literature or written documents recognized as “canonical” exert a binding function. Canon is something “firm” (“etwas Festes”). With regard to the 78

Sumpter, Substance, 8; emphasis original. Sumpter, Substance, 9; emphasis original. 80 Sumpter, Substance, 15; emphasis original. 81 See Hübner, Kanon. 82 Hübner, Kanon, 19: “Aber eine theologische Theorie des Kanons ist zumeist aus dem lebendigen Umgang mit der Autorität biblischer Schriften und somit aus einer existentiellen Begegnung mit ihnen erwachsen; eine solche Theorie ist also zumeist auch Reflexion aus dem lebendigen Glauben über den Glauben.” 79

40

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

Bible, its authority stems from God, or, to be more precise, the authority of canon participates in the authority of God.83 A crucial question for Hübner, then, is in what way the authority of God relates to written texts. Addressing the question from the perspective of the New Testament authors, Hübner underlines that these authors did not consider themselves to be biblical authors. Rather, they were interpreters and commentators of scripture. Anachronistically speaking, they were Old Testament scholars (“Alttestamentler”). Their one-testament Bible (the formal principle) was read and interpreted in light of the gospel of Christ (the material principle). This means that the first Christians had at least two different structures of authority: the written scripture and the proclaimed kerygma. 84 Nevertheless, despite their use of scripture, they did not base their authority on something written. Their authority stemmed solely from the message they proclaimed, from the gospel of the risen Christ.85 As an illustration, Paul as an agent of God spoke and dictated letters with apostolic authority under inspiration of the Spirit of God and Christ (cf. 1 Cor 5:3–5). Inspired by the Spirit, Paul spoke out the verdict of God with divine authority. In this particular case, inspiration has to do with what the Spirit of God and Christ imposes Paul to utter. To Hübner, the Spirit affects the spoken word which, secondarily, is settled as a written word: Es ist also das gesprochene Wort des Apostels, das das Wort Gottes geschichtliche Wirklichkeit werden läßt. Das geschriebene Wort ist aber somit, was seine Macht, seine Dynamik angeht, der Würde des gesprochenen Wortes teilhaft.86

To support the alleged centrality of the spoken word, Hübner examines two key texts in the New Testament: Rom 1:16–17 and the Prologue of John. In Rom 1:16–17 about the power and righteousness of God (or, in his paraphrase, the powerful and justifying God), God is present in the proclamation of the gospel: “Im Wort des Evangeliums ist der sich aus-sprechende Gott als der den Menschen an-sprechende Gott gegenwärtig.”87 Likewise in the Prologue of John, the divine and eternal Logos becomes the Logos man. God enters time and history as a personal word addressed to humans.

83

Hübner, Kanon, 22. Nevertheless, soon the early Christians sought to prove that the death and resurrection of Jesus was promised in the Jewish scriptures. To them, scripture as the written word of God and the gospel as the spoken word of God were identical in terms of content; see Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 38–39. 85 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 38: “Die Verkündigungsautorität der Kirche gründet also im Ostergeschehen. Ostern konstituiert die Kirche und gibt ihr die Autorität des verbum Dei.” 86 Hübner, Kanon, 23. 87 Hübner, Kanon, 24; emphasis original. 84

B. The Authority of Canon

41

If canon stands for what is “firm” and theologically norm-setting, what, then, is “canonical” according to Paul and John? At first, it is not scripture (their one-testament Bible) or something written, but God himself speaking in Christ. The primary canon is God as present in the gospel (Rom 1) and as incarnated Logos (John 1). For the believers, the divine Logos and the divine gospel themselves serve as the binding norm: Der Logos ist der christologische Kanon. Das Evangelium ist der kerygmatische Kanon, wobei theologisch der Logos und das Evangelium die eine göttliche Wirklichkeit im WortEreignis ausmachen.88

According to both Paul and John, the spoken canon ranks above the written canon. The church lives by the living word of God, not by its scripture: “Kerygmatisch ist also der in seinem Ursprungssinn verstandene Kanon des Christen der in seinem Worte sich aussprechende Gott.”89 Canon is God revealing himself through his word which is Christ, and is thereby constituted by the proclamation of Christ (cf. Luther’s “what promotes Christ”). In short, Hübner’s theological concept of canon concerns God: “Was Kanon in unserer Thematik meint, wird erst von Gott selbst aus deutlich.” 90 Canon as God himself revealed in his word provides the ultimate basis of human existence (“existentielle Halt”). Only the one who has grasped the word in faith has really understood that this word is canon for him. The priority of the spoken word over the written also concerns the authority of our canonical New Testament. Hübner states: Die Schrift (des Neuen Testaments) ist gegenüber diesem verbum Dei praedicatum sekundär, weil sie ihre abgeleitete Autorität insofern vom gepredigten Wort, das seinerseits die Kirche Jesu Christi konstituiert, erhält, als sie nun dieses gepredigte Wort aufbewahrt.91

Yet, an unavoidable paradox remains, because we today only have access to this spoken word through its written form.92 Even though the written canon

88

Hübner, Kanon, 25; emphasis original. Hübner, Kanon, 25–26; emphasis original. 90 Hübner, Kanon, 36. 91 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 39–40 and further: “Der Grad, in dem die verkündigende Kirche – nochmals: in actu praedicationis! – an der Autorität des verbum Dei partizipiert, ist qualitativ höher als der Grad, in dem das schriftlich fixierte Wort der Schrift an der Autorität des verkündigten Wortes partizipiert;” see also Kanon, 20: “Ist doch alle kirchliche Autorität in der soteriologischen Predigt vom gekreuzigten und auferweckten Christus fundiert.” 92 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 42 likewise stresses “daß wir von der mündlichen Verkündigung vor ihrer schriftlichen Fixierung in der Heiligen Schrift nur durch eben diese schriftliche Fixierung wissen. Was die erste mündliche Predigt der Kirche war, können wir einzig und allein aus der Schrift des Neuen Testaments erschließen.” 89

42

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

(or, more precisely, the spoken canon written down93) has been indispensable for the existence of the church, it is – and this is essential to Hübner – nothing more than the historical consequence of the primary canon, that is, God as present in his proclaimed word.94 To Hübner, the writings of the New Testament are canonical, insofar as they contain and render the original spoken gospel. 95 This claim results in different foundations for the authority of each of the two testaments: Die Autorität des Kanons des Neuen Testaments beruht nämlich auf der Autorität des in ihm aufbewahrten Wortes der kirchlichen Evangeliumsverkündigung, die Autorität des Kanons des Alten Testaments für die Kirche aber auf der Autorität, die er bereits für Israel hat.96

Yet, because the New Testament authors did not regard their writings as equal to their one-testament Bible, they did not know of any Old Testament.97 Nevertheless, their approach transformed the Jewish Bible. Just as the Septuagint testifies to a transformed perspective of translation towards the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament authors’ use of the Old witnesses a qualitatively different perspective of reading, namely from Christ: “Es ist die messianische Erfüllung in Jesus von Nazareth, von der her das Alte Testament gelesen und ausgelegt wird, von der her die Heilige Schrift Israels zum Alten Testament wurde.”98 The Christ event, not the Old Testament anticipations, defines the Messiah concept. As a result of this new perspective, the scripture of Israel, both in Hebrew and Greek, has become a new theological entity and received a new theological quality.99 For this reason, we today must distinguish her93 For instance, Hübner suggests that the letter to the Romans even as letter, was intended for public reading as an oral proclamation of the gospel. The letter, which originally was meant to render the spoken word, eventually became the written canon of the church. Even though Paul did not regard his own writings as canonical, they became part of the canonical New Testament. 94 Hübner, Kanon, 37; see also Warum, 20. 95 Cf. Hübner, Warum, 17: “Die neutestamentlichen Schriften partizipieren gerade als verobjektivierte Schrift an der Autorität des neuen Offenbarungsaktes Gottes. Und weil sie dies tun, deshalb und nur deshalb konnte die Kirche die Schriften des Neuen Testaments zur Würde eines neuen Teils der Einen Heiligen Schrift erheben, konnte sie die Schriften der neutestamentlichen Autoren zum Neuen Testament ‘machen’;” emphasis original. 96 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 68. 97 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 43: “Vom Alten Testament kann man eigentlich erst sprechen, seit es in der christlichen Kirche formell ein Neues Testament gibt. Von diesem Augenblick an ist es theologisch legitim, ja sogar theologisch geboten, die Schrift Israels als das Alte Testament zu nennen.” 98 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 65; emphasis original. 99 See Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 66: “Nicht die ominöse Südperspektive der Endredaktion der Biblia Hebraica kann jetzt noch theologisch erheblich sein. Denn diese Perspektive ist nun von der neutestamentlichen endgültig eingeholt, ist über die Maßen relativiert – ein theologischer Sachverhalt, der uns der LXX theologische Priorität für eine

B. The Authority of Canon

43

meneutically between Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. The former concerns only the historical Israel and the Jews as its modern heirs, whereas only the latter is valid within Christian theology (see chapter 3). As is the case in Bultmann’s theology, the Old Testament is given a limited place in Christian faith, insofar as its status as source of revelation apart from the New is almost entirely rejected. In sum, from the perspective of the New Testament authors, Hübner stresses the importance of the spoken kerygma over scripture. This order of priority also encompasses our canonical New Testament today. The New Testament is only canonical in its rendering of the original spoken word of God. The proclaimed word of God, not the written word of scripture, constitutes the church. Only the Old Testament as received by the New Testament authors is authoritative for modern Christians. III. Canon as the Written or Spoken Word of God? Having examined Childs and Hübner separately, we may list some important similarities and dissimilarities between the two. First, both stress the role of the community of believers. However, Childs understands canon as serving a special function within this community, that is, setting the context for mediating God’s continuing guidance and instruction, whereas Hübner understands canon as God himself providing the ultimate basis of human existence. Even so, they are actually quite close in seeing God himself or the divine salvific reality as the true rule (canon) or measure of the biblical testimony. Second, and because of this, Childs and Hübner are quite close in determining what makes the Bible or at least the New Testament “canonical.” Both speak of “human agents” as servants of God’s Spirit – Childs of prophets and apostles, Hübner, for instance, of Paul. The difference, however, lies in what they consider to be rendered through scripture. To Hübner, the New Testament is canonical insofar as it contains and renders the original spoken gospel. By means of form criticism, it would seem, the interpreter must get back to the earliest and most pristine form of the preached word, that is, the kerygma of the risen Christ. To Childs, the biblical literature is canonical insofar as it mediates the reality of the gospel. Due to the Sachkritik involved in the canonical process, only the final and written form of both testaments provides the most adequate testimony to this reality. In short, Hübner sees only the spoken, or preached, form of the word as truly canonical (“Ich kann mich einfach nicht mit der thetischen Vorgabe des schriftlichen Corpus als

neutestamentliche Theologie beizumessen erlaubt. Aber auch die LXX bleibt im Neuen Testament nicht, was sie zuvor war. Auch sie geht durch einen theologischen Umschmelzungsprozeß hindurch. Auch die Septuaginta ist weder quantitativ noch theologisch qualitativ identisch mit der Septuaginta in Novo Testamento recepta;” emphasis original.

44

Chapter 2. Canon: Formation and Authority

Kanon zurechtfinden”100), whereas to Childs the written final form carries the most weight.101 Their opposite views affect their assessments of the Old Testament as Christian scripture. Childs argues that, through a Christian confession, the Old Testament witnesses to the divine reality in its own right, whereas Hübner considers only the Old Testament as read in light of the kerygma, that is, Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum, to be truly Christian. This basic difference may emerge from their confessional backgrounds. As a Presbyterian, Childs presumes the unity of divine revelation, whereas Hübner as a Lutheran distinguishes sharply between law and gospel, scripture and proclamation.102 Third, despite their Protestant commitments, Childs and Hübner attempt to overcome the classic conflict between word and tradition, or between Protestant and Catholic theology. Childs’ concept of the ongoing search for the Christian Bible involves a decisive dialectic between word and tradition which includes the recognition of tradition (worship, liturgy) as the context of receiving the biblical message. Hübner points out that the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura is misleading, because before Paul there was no scripture! To be sure, the proclaimed kerygma existed before its written form. As an alternative, Hübner proposes to replace the classic antithesis of “sola scriptura” and “scripture and tradition” with “Schrift gewordene Tradition.”103 IV. Summing Up: the Authority of Canon Childs defines scripture as canon, that is, a written word or a book to which the church has a special relationship. Because the ultimate canon (or rule) is the reality of God, scripture is canonical to the degree that it mediates this reality. Due to the logic of the canonical process, only the final and written form of the biblical testimonies witness completely to God’s revelation to his church. In contrast to this, Hübner defines canon as the spoken word and proclaimed gospel of Christ. Only the spoken word of God has authority and the New Testament writings are canonical only insofar as they render the original spoken message. To Childs, through a confession, the Christian can100

Hübner, Kanon, 32; emphasis original. Cf. Hübner’s rather imprecise summary of Childs’ position: “Gott hat sozusagen das Buch der Bibel mit seiner Autorität gegeben;” see Hübner, Kanon, 31; emphasis original. 102 Cf. Morgan’s conclusion: “The difference of emphasis is between those who like J. Calvin and Barth are concerned for the scopus of scripture as a whole, and those who like M. Luther and Käsemann are willing with Luther to ‘urge Christ against scripture’. The latter suspect the former of biblicism, the former the latter of subjectivism – both with some justification;” cf. Morgan, Christian Identity, 180. Hübner also indicates this basic difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology; see Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 102. 103 See Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 41–43; Warum, 18–24. 101

B. The Authority of Canon

45

on encompasses the entire Old Testament as a discrete witness to Christ in its own right, whereas to Hübner, only the Old Testament as received in the New should be binding for Christians today. As we will see in the next chapter, these diverging views on the authority of canon determine how Childs and Hübner approach biblical theology.

Chapter 3

Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach Childs’ and Hübner’s rather different views on the formation of the Christian Old Testament and the authority of canon inevitably have an impact on the way they understand and approach biblical theology. This chapter explores how Childs and Hübner define the discipline “biblical theology” and how they regard the relation between the Bible’s two testaments. Of special importance is to what extent the New Testament’s use of the Old offers a sound category for biblical theology. Additionally, the chapter examines how Childs and Hübner propose that we read and interpret Old Testament texts within a larger biblical theological framework.

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

Although Childs and Hübner apparently share the definition of “biblical theology” as the reflection on the relationship of the Bible’s two testaments, their attempts to reflect on this theme are rather different. As we will see, their differing biblical theological attempts are to a high degree determined by their opposite views on the formation and authority of canon. I. The Nature and Substance of the Discipline “Biblical Theology” In modern time, the discussion of the discipline “biblical theology” depends on the agenda presented by J.P. Gabler in his inaugural lecture in 1787.1 As is well known, Gabler differentiated between dogmatic theology and biblical theology of which the latter as a historical-critical enterprise should investigate the biblical authors and their theologies. Subsequently, the differentiation between historical and theological aspects of the discipline has dominated the field. For instance, as a representative of the history-of-religion school, William Wrede aggressively criticized the synthesis of a “New Testament theology” and replaced it by “the history of the early Christian religion and theology.”2 In short, the descriptive, historical approach and the constructive, 1

See e.g. Perdue, Old Testament Theology, 55–59. See Morgan, New Testament Theology, 139; cf. the summary in Childs, Biblical Theology, 6: “On the one hand, Gabler’s case for the independence of Biblical Theology from 2

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

47

theological approach are two poles in the ongoing discussion of definition; or, to push it to extremes, the ongoing conflict between history-of-religion and theology. This two-pole spectrum undergirds many of the best-known definitions. Already Wrede anticipated the differentiation between a theology contained in the Bible (“eine Theologie, welche die Bibel hat”) and a theology with biblical character (“eine Theologie, welche biblischen Charakter hat, aus der Bibel geschöpft ist”).3 In his 1962 article on biblical theology, Krister Stendahl likewise distinguished between what the Bible meant and what the Bible means; only the former, he argued, concerns biblical theologians. 4 Finally, following Wrede, Gerhard Ebeling prominently differentiated between a theology contained within the Bible (“die in der Bibel enthaltene Theologie”) and a theology which accords with the Bible (“die der Bibel gemäße, die schriftgemäße Theologie”). 5 Concerning the task of the discipline, Ebeling offered the following description: In der ‘Biblischen Theologie’ hat der speziell der Erforschung des Zusammenhangs von Altem Testament und Neuem Testament sich widmende Theologe Rechenschaft zu geben über sein Verständnis der Bibel im ganzen, d.h. vor allem über die theologischen Probleme, die dadurch entstehen, daß die Mannigfaltigkeit des biblischen Zeugnisses auf ihren Zusammenhang hin befragt wird.6

Childs, in contrast to the history-of-religion school, emphasizes the constructive task of biblical theology (cf. chapter 1). However, this emphasis does not mean that historical concerns must be discarded. The primary aim is, as discussed above, to bridge the gap which separates the Bible from theology. As Daniel Driver states: Biblical theology itself … is for Childs fundamentally a bridge-building exercise, an arena for theological reflection on the entire Christian Biblical in which biblical scholarship and dogmatic theology meet to illuminate the object they share.7

In response to Ebeling’s attempt to redefine the discipline, Childs sets out to study the Bible as a whole and explore the inner unity of its manifold testi-

dogmatic constraints appeared to many to be fully justified. On the other hand, the pursuit of Biblical Theology as a historical discipline had resulted in the dissolution of the very discipline itself.” 3 See Wrede’s famous article “Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie” (1897); cf. the reprint in Strecker, Das Problem, 81–154, especially 153. See also Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 23–24. 4 Stendahl, Biblical Theology, 419. 5 Ebeling, Was heißt, 69; cf. Childs, Biblical Theology, 1; Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 24. 6 Ebeling, Was heißt, 88; see the English translation in Childs, Biblical Theology, 7. 7 Driver, Brevard Childs, 7.

48

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

mony.8 Because Ebeling never pursued this task, Childs opens his project by outlining four characteristics of his attempt based on Ebeling’s redefinition: First, a new attempt needs to return to a pre-Gabler position and once again allow the historical and theological aspects of biblical theology to interact. In a word, one needs to rejoin scripture and theology. Furthermore, Childs defines the task of biblical theology “as a modern theologian’s reflection on various aspects of the Bible.” This one sentence grasps the nature of his own attempt.9 Second, after the Enlightenment, a new attempt must hear the discrete voice of each of the two testaments and recognize the diversity of witnesses contained within the Bible. Third, a new attempt which deals with issues such as “the Bible as a whole” and “the inner unity” finds its proper context simply in the canonical scriptures of the church.10 Fourth, a new attempt must read the Bible as a witness or a testimony which points beyond itself to a divine reality. Recognizing the Bible as a vehicle of God’s will, rather than a cultural product, underlines the confessional nature of such an attempt. In sum, these four characteristics contrast with a purely descriptive approach with its historicist idea of an objectively distanced interpreter. To Childs, the descriptive and constructive tasks must be held together. What concerns Hübner is how to do biblical theology as a New Testament scholar. In his early 1981 outline, he follows Ebeling’s former definition of “a theology contained within the Bible” or, in Hübner’s attempt, theologies contained within the Bible. The primary aim is to explore how the discrete theologies of the New Testament use the Old Testament; or, to put it differently, how do the New Testament authors theologically employ the Old Testament? 11 For instance, how does Mark interpret his one-testament Bible within his theological framework? One may call this approach descriptive. Yet Hübner himself emphasizes that his attempt is open towards theological 8

For the following, see Childs, Biblical Theology, 7–9; cf. Poulsen, Brevard S. Childs,

220. 9

As is well known, Barr was very sceptical about Childs’ attempt. His scepticism may stem from an alternative definition of “biblical theology,” namely as “theology as it existed or was thought or believed within the time, languages and cultures of the Bible itself” (cf. Ebeling’s former definition). To Barr, the enterprise of writing a Biblical Theology covering the whole Bible – what Germans would call “eine Biblische Theologie” – should be termed “a pan-biblical theology;” see Barr, Concept, 4, 14; see also Driver, Brevard Childs, 84, 100; Poulsen, Brevard S. Childs, 229. 10 Cf. Childs, Crisis, 99: “the canon of the Christian church is the most appropriate context from which to do Biblical Theology.” 11 Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 75: “Wir fragen, in welchem Sinne die im Neuen Testament enhaltene Theologie bzw. die im Neuen Testament enthaltenen Theologien das Alte Testament thematisieren. Wir können diese Frage auch so artikulieren: Wie gehen die Autoren des Neuen Testaments mit dem Alten Testament theologisch um? Der Ton liegt in dieser Frage, wie die bisherigen Ausführungen nahelegen dürften, auf dem Wort ‘theologisch’;” emphasis original.

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

49

reflection, because no one can make descriptive analysis without being guided by one’s theological presuppositions. To Hübner, the handling of the Old Testament is indisputably one of the major concerns of the New Testament: “der theologische Umgang mit dem Alten Testament [gehört] zum Kern des theologischen Bemühens im Neuen Testament.”12 This observation may subsequently lead to a Biblical Theology that involves the theologies of both the Old and New Testament and considers the theological unity of the two. Interestingly, Hübner presents his own attempt while waiting for a Gesamtentwurf which will manage to deal with the Christian Bible as a whole; in a word, he was waiting for Childs.13 For Childs, biblical theology encompasses both the Old and New Testaments as equal and complementary witnesses to Christ. In his Biblical Theology, he summarizes the primary task as follows: “a major task of Biblical Theology is to reflect on the whole Christian Bible with its two very different voices, both of which the church confesses bear witness to Jesus Christ.”14 It is interesting to notice that Childs’ concept is profoundly based on his view on the formation and authority of canon: the biblical theologian must work within the framework provided by the church’s basic confession towards its scriptures. Fully explicitly, this way of doing biblical theology has a strong christological accent; its content is Jesus Christ. To put it differently, “at the center of Childs’ approach … is a startlingly specific confession of the lordship of Jesus Christ.”15 Childs employs the classic formulation of “faith seeking understanding” to stress that the Bible must be acknowledged as the living voice of Christ which continues to confront the modern reader. The modern interpreter who confesses Christ must struggle to grasp “the nature and will of the One who has already been revealed as Lord.”16 In this struggle, the Holy Spirit interacts as the divine force making understanding of God possible: “The true expositor of the Christian scriptures is the one who awaits in anticipation toward becoming the interpreted rather than the interpreter. The very divine reality which the interpreter strives to grasp, is the very One who grasps the interpreter.”17 In sum, the interaction between reader and Christ through scripture by the Spirit is central to Childs’ attempt.18 12

Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 85. According to Driver, W. Eichrodt, G. von Rad, H.J. Kraus, and H.G. Reventlow all anticipated a real “Biblical Theology” to be written. After the appearance of Childs’ book, R. Rendtorff stated in his contribution to Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente: “Es gibt bisher nur eine einzige wirklich ausgearbeitete ‘Biblische Theologie’, nämlich die 1992 erschienene von Brevard Childs;” see Driver, Brevard Childs, 82. 14 Childs, Biblical Theology, 78. See also Seitz, Character, 96–97. 15 Driver, Brevard Childs, 9. 16 Childs, Biblical Theology, 86. 17 Childs, Biblical Theology, 86–87. Cf. Church’s Guide, 81: “The appeal to the role of the Holy Spirit in addressing a divine message for continuing instruction for the ever13

50

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

Hübner also describes the basic task of “biblical theology” as “die Reflexion des Verhältnisses der beiden biblischen Testamente zueinander.”19 Like Childs, he sees the discipline as an endeavor to grasp the Old and the New Testament as a theological unity.20 However, that the Old and New Testaments essentially belong together is grounded in the New Testament authors’ decisive use of the Old. 21 If one removed the Old Testament citations and allusions, the theological profile and argumentation of most of the New Testament writings would collapse like a house of cards. Because of this use, “dann dürfte die Aufarbeitung des theologischen Umgangs der neutestamentlichen Autoren mit dem Alten Testament die primäre und fundierende Aufgabe einer Biblischen Theologie sein.”22 In other words, “das Neue Testament [ist] das Befragte, das Alte Testament das Erfragte.”23 As a clarification, such an approach, which works inside the structures and theologies of the New Testaments books, should be called biblical theology of the New Testament. One may question whether this attempt is pan-biblical at all. Hübner, however, adds that his project focuses not only on citations and allusions but also on general Old Testament concepts, themes, and images within the New. Nevertheless, several scholars have noticed that Hübner’s descriptive approach leaves out major parts of the Old Testament. Acknowledging this criticism, Hübner asserts that this is because of the basic theological statements of the New Testament and not a question of methodology. In addition, “auch die Konstatierung dieser Negativa, dieser Ausblendung alttestamentlicher Gehalte gehört zur Antwort auf die Frage nach dem theologischen Ver-

changing conditions of the world is not a hermeneutical method, but a confession of the Christian reader toward a participation in the life of the Spirit in accordance with Scripture.” 18 See also Childs, Struggle, 296: “when the early church spoke of coercion or pressure exerted by the biblical text on the reader, it was a formulation grounded on the conviction that the written Word possessed a voice constantly empowered by God’s Spirit.” See further in Sumpter, Substance, 58–64. 19 Hübner, Warum, 10. Cf. Childs, Biblical Theology, 55: “Biblical Theology is by definition theological reflection on both the Old and New Testaments.” 20 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 14: “Biblische Theologie ist also heute ein neues Postulat, nämlich das Postulat einer Theologie, deren Gegenstand die ganze Bibel ist, also das Postulat einer Theologie, die das Alte Testament und das Neue Testament als theologische Einheit zu begreifen sucht;” emphasis original. 21 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 28: “Dann aber gehört die Argumentation mit dem Alten Testament zum Wesen der theologischen Reflexion der meisten neutestamentlichen Autoren, dann also gehören Altes und Neues Testament essential zusammen;” emphasis original. 22 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 28; emphasis original. 23 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 37; emphasis original.

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

51

hältnis beider Testamente!”24 If the investigation reveals that only a part of the Old Testament is theologically relevant for the entire New Testament, is it, then, still possible to approach the testaments as a unity? If this is so, Childs’ gesamtbiblische attempt is inadequate. 25 Furthermore, no neutral descriptive analysis is possible: the interpreter, from his theological perspective today, must also theologically assess the New Testament interpretations of the Old and thereby present a theology valid for modern Christians.26 At least at the outset, Hübner’s program has constructive ambitions.27 In sum, both Childs and Hübner define “biblical theology” as the reflection on the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. To Childs, this reflection must combine historical and theological concerns and thereby link the descriptive and constructive tasks of the discipline. Hübner’s proposal is more descriptive, although a theological assessment subsequently should evaluate the results of the historical analysis. Childs covers both testaments as equal witnesses to Christ, whereas Hübner restricts his attempt to include only the use of the Old Testament within the New. II. The Relationship of the Two Testaments of the Bible Based on the common definition of biblical theology as the reflection on the relationship of the Bible’s two testaments, we now turn to the ways in which Childs and Hübner understand this relationship. How do these discrete testaments correlate? What, if any, guarantees their inner unity? 24

Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 28; emphasis original. Peter Balla, however, rightly states that “the fact that the New Testament authors did not use the whole of the Old Testament may not necessarily be used as an argument to state what the New Testament authors did not want to use;” see Balla, Challenges, 242; emphasis original. 25 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 18: “Fallen … durch die theologische Größe des Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum ganze Komplexe des Alten Testaments dahin, so ist allen Ernstes zu fragen, ob dann noch eine Biblische Theologie im Sinne einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie möglich ist.” 26 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 32: “Die im Neuen Testament enthaltenen theologischen Interpretationen des Alten Testaments bedürfen der schriftgemäßen theologischen Interpretation durch den, der sie heute aus der theologischen Perspektive seiner eigenen Zeit und mit Hilfe des ihm zur Verfügung stehenden methodischen und theologischen Instrumentariums seiner Zeit verantwortlich ausführt.” See also Warum, 28: “die Untersuchung von Altem Testament und rezipiertem Alten Testament ist doch zunächst einmal eine deskriptive Unterscheidung, die aber dann unbedingt der theologischen Interpretation bedarf;” emphasis original. 27 One may indeed question whether Hübner fulfills this ambition at all. The epilegomena of his Biblische Theologie does not as announced in the prolegomena provide any serious theological assessment of the New Testament reception of the Old. Instead, the epilegomena simply repeats the basic question of the prolegomena: “Wie steht Gottes Wirken am Volke Israel zu seinem Wirken im Christusgeschehen?;” see Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 284; cf. Winkel Holm, Teologisk problem, 107, note 298.

52

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

To Hübner, the relationship between the two testaments consists of both continuity and discontinuity involving both historical and theological issues. The historical one, however, is certainly complex, because historically the New Testament has emerged in relation to the Old from which it adopts language, metaphors, and theological statements. To Hübner, this circumstance must affect our reflection today. The examination of the historical relationship must bear in mind that the New Testament authors were determined to a very high degree by the world of the Old Testament; in short, “sie leben aus dem Alten Testament.”28 Nevertheless, Hübner stresses that the New Testament authors never viewed themselves as biblical authors. From the perspective of the New Testament authors, the relationship of the two testaments is rather the relationship of Bible and non-Bible (“Bibel und Nichtbibel”).29 This formulation draws deeply on Hübner’s perception of the formation and authority of canon. In the light of the authority structures of early Christianity, Hübner claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ as the new word of God has relativized the scriptures of Israel. 30 God’s incarnation in Christ as his final word has superseded the formerly spoken words. Therefore, the old words (of the Old Testament) must be understood in light of this new word. For instance, God himself has become a spoken word in the human being Jesus of Nazareth who as the revelation of God supersedes the Old Testament prophets. This implies that the Old Testament is read from a christological stance and that the gospel of Christ as the spoken word of God has primary authority (cf. chapter 2). In opposition, Childs argues that our context is essentially different from that of the early church.31 Our Bible consists of two normative testaments as equal testimonies; to be sure, the Old Testament ought to be read in its own right. This emphasis emerges from Childs’ view on the formation of the canon in which the church fused two discrete literary entities into one book. Hübner, however, does not understand “testament” to refer to a literary entity but rather to events and conditions: it is a “Geschehens- oder Zustandsbe-

28

Hübner, Warum, 12. Cf. Hübner, Warum, 14: “Es wäre eine höchst gravierende Verzerrung der Sachlage, wollte man das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament zueinander bereits von der Ursprungssituation der neutestamentlichen Schriften her genuin als das Verhältnis der beiden Teile der Einen Heiligen Schrift begreifen;” emphasis original. 30 Hübner, Warum, 15–16: “Als Gott der Geschichte kann er ein neues Wort sagen, das sein zuvor gesagtes nicht durchstreicht, es aber in neuer geschichtlicher Situation ‘aufhebt’ … Kraft des geschichtlichen Gefüges von altem und neuem Wort Gottes relativiert das neue Wort Gottes das alte Wort Gottes; denn Gott selbst stellt sein altes Wort in Beziehung, also in Relation, zu seinem neuen;” emphasis original. 31 Childs, Biblische Theologie, 23; Biblical Theology, 78. 29

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

53

griff.”32 For instance, following Paul in 2 Cor 3, Hübner asserts that the covenants refer to two different and contrasting realities.33 Furthermore, he highlights the great divergence and discontinuity between the Old Testament anticipations of a new covenant and the concept within the New Testament.34 Hübner strongly emphasizes the diversity between the old and the new diatheke (expressed in Bultmannian terms as “die radikale Antithetik von alter Unheils-‘Ordnung’ und neuer Heilsordnung”). This contrast also implies that the Sinai covenant does not provide the basis for the new and final covenant in Jesus Christ. In addition to this, understanding “testament” as a spiritual reality implies ecclesiological matters. The relationship between the testaments is primarily the relationship between the old and new people of God, that is, between synagogue and church.35 Nevertheless, although the relationship of two literary corpora, from the perspective of the New Testament authors, is non-existent, an important task remains for systematic theology to consider the theological relationship between the Old and New Testament.36 In other words, if we as Christians treasure the New Testament as the primary source for the new diatheke, we cannot but reject central Old Testament statements as abrogated. Yet, to Hübner, Christian theologians must still pay attention to the Old Testament as the holy scripture of Israel.37 These scriptures account for how God of all humanity appointed Israel as his people. Through its entire history, the church has claimed that the God of Israel is 32

Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 77; see especially the section “Der Alte und Neue ‘Bund’” in Biblische Theologie 1, 77–100. 33 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 96: “Das Verhältnis von Alter und Neuer Diatheke ist auch nicht das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament in dem Sinne, wie wir heute in der Regel diese Begriffe als die beiden Teile der Heiligen Schrift verwenden. Das Verhältnis von Alter und Neuer Diatheke ist vielmehr das Verhältnis zweier Wirklichkeiten, die zunächst einmal in totalem Gegensatz zueinander stehen, nämlich im Gegensatz Tod – Leben. Und fundamentaler kann ein Gegensatz nicht verstanden werden.” However, 2 Cor 3:14 does mention the reading of the old covenant! 34 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 90: “Sowohl bei Deutero-Jeremia als auch bei Ezechiel geht es allein um Israel. Was das Neue der Neuen Diatheke des Neuen Testaments ausmacht, so sind die prophetischen Ansagen der Neuen Diatheke davon noch weit entfernt;” my emphasis. 35 Hübner, Warum, 38; cf. Was, 221–222: “Die Kirche ist dabei der unbedingte theologische Ausgangspunkt, die Synagoge der in chronologischer Hinsicht historische. … Biblische Theologie bedenkt Israel als das von Gott initiierte und darin geschichtliche Woher der Kirche. Biblische Theologie bedenkt aber die Kirche in ihrer geistlichen Realität, die im Heilsgeschehen von Karfreitag und Ostern gegründet ist;” emphasis original. 36 Cf. Hübner, Warum, 26: “Nach der Entstehung des Neuen Testaments ist das Verhältnis der Kirche zum Alten Testament notwendig ein anderes als zur Zeit vor oder während seiner Entstehung. Denn erst jetzt stellt sich die Frage, wie zwei kanonische Schriften die eine kanonische Heilige Schrift der Kirche konstituieren;” emphasis original. 37 Hübner, Was, 216.

54

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

also the Father of Jesus Christ. It remains a basic assumption that the history of Israel is the historical locus in which God revealed himself. Christian theology, therefore, must reflect on the relation between God’s revelations within the history of Israel and God’s final revelation in Jesus Christ.38 But – and this is essential to Hübner – the Christian interpreter must respect that God’s self-revelation to Israel concerns this and only this people. For instance, Amos spoke to the northern kingdom of Israel, not the Christians in France, Italy, or Germany! In terms of its literal sense, the Hebrew Bible (and the Septuagint) belongs solely to the people of Israel and their modern heirs. Hübner strongly emphasizes the non-Christian character of the Hebrew Bible: “Wer Israels Heilige Schrift als solche für sich in Anspruch nimmt, hat die Eigenaussage dieses Buches verfälscht und … Israel dadurch seiner Bibel beraubt.”39 To understand this strong assertion, we must look more closely at the basic distinction between Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. Fundamentally, this distinction emerges from the hermeneutical insight that every rendering of tradition is interpreted tradition: Jede Rezeption von notwendig bereits interpretierter Tradition wird im Augenblick der Rezeption notwendig interpretierte Rezeption, weil jeder Rezipient die ihm überkommene Tradition in seinem je eigenen – geschichtlich bedingten – Verstehenshorizont geistig verarbeitet.40

For this reason, we must distinguish between Literalsinn und Rezeptionssinn. When the New Testament authors read their one-testament Bible, they did so from a new and qualitatively different perspective, namely from Christ as the risen Lord. The term “Vetus Testamentum per se” refers to the original, literal, and – what we might call – “uninterpreted” voice of Israel’s scriptures, whereas the term “Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum” refers to Israel’s

38

Hübner, Was, 217: “Christliche Theologie sieht sich somit vor die Aufgabe gestellt, das Zueinander von Gottes Offenbarungen innerhalb der Geschichte Israels und Gottes einmaliger Offenbarung in Jesus Christus zu reflektieren.” 39 Hübner, Was, 217; emphasis original; and further: “Die Heilige Schrift Israels ist nicht eo ipso das Alte Testament der Christen. Und wer heute auf den Kunstgriff verfällt, statt vom Alten Testament lieber von der Biblia Hebraica oder vom Ersten Testament zu sprechen, um dadurch den Juden entgegenzukommen und so einen Akt christlichen Antijudaismus zu vermeiden, der ignoriert das Faktum, daß bereits seit den ersten christlichen Predigten und seit der Existenz des Neuen Testaments die Heilige Schrift Israels durch eine christliche Hermeneutik eine völlig andere Aussagerichtung erhalten hat. Diese Hermeneutik setzt vor die Schrift das christologische Vorzeichen und verwandelt somit Israels Heilige Schrift in das Alte Testament;” emphasis original; cf. Biblische Theologie 1, 43, note 95. 40 Hübner, Was, 215; see also Biblische Theologie 3, 244.

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

55

scriptures as received and interpreted from this different stance.41 In the end, the distinction between these two entities is mainly a hermeneutical one and does not necessarily imply substantive differences.42 In each case, one must test whether this formal difference also includes such a substantive difference. As illustration of major substantial discrepancies, Hübner mentions Rom 9:25–26 and Gal 3:10.43 In Rom 9:25–26, Paul’s rendering of Hos 2:23[25]; 1:10 expresses his own interpretation rather than the original intention of the Hebrew text. Likewise, in Gal 3:10, Paul quotes LXX Deut 27:26 directly against its own intention. To Hübner, these examples show an almost absolute discrepancy between Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. However, the main issue is not whether the New Testament authors when citing consciously changed the intention of their Vorlage, but that they in fact did.44 Nevertheless, many scholars have argued that Hübner’s distinction is artificial and foreign to the New Testament authors and their contemporaries. 45 As Childs states, “Die frühe Christenheit sah keine Polarität zwischen einer rekonstruierten ursprünglichen Intention eines Textes und einer nachfolgenden Applikation.”46 Such a distinction is not only historically and hermeneutically unreliable but theologically unacceptable. Facing this criticism, Hübner admits that his distinction is foreign to the New Testament authors, even though they did create it by interpreting their onetestament Bible in the light of Christ.47 But that is not the point: “Es geht um unsere hermeneutische Reflexion … Wir sind es doch, die die genannte Differenz erkennen, nicht aber die neutestamentlichen Autoren.” 48 That we – 41

Hübner admits that this terminology is anachronistic. Instead of the former, he proposes to use Biblia populi Israel (cf. Hübner, Kanon, 21), or Sacra Scriptura Israelis per se (cf. Hübner, Textus Receptus, 238, note 7). Morgan is even more clear in his formulation of the latter as “in Evangelio, in Christianismo receptum;” see Morgan, Christian Identity, 184. 42 Hübner, Was, 219: “Gerade in programmatischen neutestamentlichen Aussagen läßt sich immer wieder (nicht immer!) eine weitgehende inhaltliche Übereinstimmung von Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum receptum aufweisen.” 43 See e.g. Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 148; Was, 218. 44 Hübner, Was, 218–219. 45 See e.g. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1, 37: “Mit der Unterscheidung von Vetus Testamentum per se und Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum wird eine Differenzierung praktiziert, die den neutestamentlichen Autoren noch ebenso fremd war wie ihren jüdischen Adressaten und Kontrahenten.” 46 Childs, Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel, 386. 47 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 280: “Für diese Autoren war die Identität vom christlichen Sinn und Literalsinn der Schrift theologisches Postulat … Doch gerade diese Identität wurde durch die historisch-kritische Methode als Illusion beseitigt;” emphasis original. 48 Hübner, Eine moderne Variante, 290–291. See also Biblische Theologie 3, 280.

56

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

living after the Enlightenment – can recognize a difference must have influence on modern reflection.49 If one accepts this basic distinction, the historical and, in particular, theological differences between those two entities require exploration. By testing overlaps and differentiations, we may determine the validity of the Old Testament or, to put it differently, clarify “was im Bereich der christlichen Kirche Anspruch auf Gültigkeit hat.”50 To Hübner, a Biblical Theology including the Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum is indeed legitimate, because the New Testament authors received the Old Testament from their faith in Christ. This stands as a historical fact. Only Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum is acceptable within a Christian framework.51 Nevertheless, three questions remain. First, in Hübner’s work, the literal and received senses seem to be “fixed” entities. Yet how does one construe the original, literal sense or the sense as received within 1st Century Christianity? Do not our historical-critical reconstructions of the original context and authorial intention – as sound as they may be – always involve tendentious and subjective judgment (as Childs constantly claims)? Due to the logic in Hübner’s “interpreted tradition”-argument, our Verstehenshorizont for reconstructing the past will continuously change which means that no “fixed” meaning is ever possible. Second, are modern Jews really the true heirs of the literal sense of the Hebrew Bible? As Childs points out, modern Jews also read their scriptures in light of their rich religious tradition, codified in Midrash and Talmud, whereas modern Christians read the same scriptures in light of Jesus Christ as witnessed in the New Testament.52 No uninterpreted voice exists, not even within Judaism. However, Hübner admits: “Daß natürlich auch bei der jüdi49

See Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 280: “Was wir heute aufgrund unserer durch die Aufklärung unwiderruflich gegebenen Verpflichtung zur Eruierung des originalen Literalsinns als Differenz zwischen diesem Literalsinn und dem neutestamentlichchristologischen Sinn herausarbeiten, was also wir heute als das zuweilen gravierende Auseinanderklaffen beider Schriftsinne beurteilen müssen und in der Regel auch faktisch tun, das bedarf heute der hermeneutischen Reflexion;” emphasis original. 50 Cf. Gunneweg, Vom Verstehen, 185; emphasis original; cf. Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 160. 51 Hübner suggests that the distinction between the Jewish Vetus Testamentum and the Christian Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum will offer “einen befreienden Beitrag zum theologischen Gespräch mit dem Judentum” (Biblische Theologie 1, 69), because this distinction solves the tension between conflicting Jewish and Christian interpretations. To Childs, this suggestion is nothing but an illusion. The heart of the matter is exactly that the same biblical text is heard as authoritative scripture by two different communities of faith; see Bedeutung des Jüdischen Kanons, 281. 52 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 666. Recently, Marvin A. Sweeney has argued that within Judaism Tanak is always read in the context of the entire Jewish tradition; see Sweeney, Tanak, 25–28; cf. Poulsen, Review of Sweeney.

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

57

schen Exegese Ursprungssinn und Rezeptionssinn zu unterscheiden sind, versteht sich von selbst. Niemals gibt es völlige Identität beider Sinne.” 53 Every rendering of tradition involves interpretation. Nevertheless, Hübner considers the Jewish interpretations to be closer to the Ursprungssinn than the Christian ones. Third, and most crucially, does Hübner’s thesis not run into an obvious paradox? On the one hand, modern Christians must use the Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum because it was only through the interpretation in Christ that the Jewish scriptures were transformed into a Christian entity. On the other hand, we today – after the Enlightenment – cannot accept or apply this Christian interpretation.54 Hübner does not claim that this New Testament interpretatio christiana should be theologically binding today; we cannot repeat the hermeneutics of Paul.55 Hermeneutically, our relation to the Old Testament is thus different from that of the New Testament authors. They approached their one-testament Bible directly. Due to our Christian Vorverständnis, we will always read the Old Testament through the New Testament readings. Our relation to the Old Testament is never immediate but it always depends on the Christian belief gained from hearing their message in the New Testament.56 Yet, by taking their interpretations as a fixed and given entity, Hübner runs against his own concept that “every rendering of tradition is interpreted tradition.” Childs is aware that the appreciation of the literal sense of the Old Testament leads to a serious dilemma (in contrast to post-Enlightenment criticism, he does not, however, identify the literal sense with the original, historical sense as Hübner does).57 On the one hand, we must hear the Old Testament 53

Hübner, Textus Receptus, 237, note 5. Cf. Biblische Theologie 3, 244. Cf. Winkel Holm, Teologisk problem, 111–114. 55 Here Childs fully agrees. We do not share the apostles’ unmediated access to God, but rather depend on their written witness, that is, our scripture. In a word, “we are neither prophets nor Apostles;” see Childs, Biblical Theology, 381 56 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 2, 18–19: “genau hier ist der Punkt, an dem wir, mögen wir auch noch so sehr mit dem Alten Testament vertraut sein, nicht mehr in dieser Weise an der Unmittelbarkeit partizipieren können. Gerade da, wo Christen das Alte Testament bestens kennen, da lesen und verstehen sie es vom christlichen Vorverständnis her, also als den ersten Teil der Gesamtbibel, die ihren stärksten Akzent auf dem Neuen Testament hat;” emphasis original. 57 See especially Childs, Sensus Literalis. To Childs, the meaning of the biblical text is far from determined by a rationalistic historical reconstruction. Rather, the text’s meaning is closely connected with the community of faith as expressed in the final form. In short, “the literal sense of the text is the plain sense witnessed to by the community of faith” (cf. Sensus Literalis, 92). The literal sense has two dimensions: first, a dimension of grammar and philology (verbum) controlling the meaning of the text; second, a dimension of content (res) as expressed in the community’s ruled interpretations. Because of these complementary dimensions, a proper reading balances between the language of the texts and their 54

58

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

witness on its own terms. On the other hand, the New Testament proclaims that something absolutely new has appeared with the Christian gospel. Like Hübner, Childs notices that “the New Testament bears its totally new witness in terms of the old, and thereby transforms the Old Testament.”58 Although Childs does not refer to Hübner, he expresses the same concept of a transformed Old Testament by means of New Testament hermeneutics which often conflicts with its literal sense. To Childs, the real problem arises when the New Testament’s use of the Old irreconcilably conflicts with the Old Testament’s own voice.59 It is a major thesis of Biblical Theology that this tension may be resolved by distinguishing carefully between the biblical witness and the subject to which it points, its subject matter, substance, or res. Even though the biblical testimonies are very different and even conflicting, they all point to the same divine reality: The two testaments do not relate to each other simply on the level of their role as witnesses. To remain on the textual level is to miss the key which unites dissident voices into a harmonious whole. Rather Biblical Theology attempts to hear the different voices in relation to the divine reality to which they point in such diverse ways.60

As Mark Elliott has pointed out, in Childs’ view, “the Bible leads not to doctrine but directly to the living God.”61 Both testaments bear testimony to the same Lord, Jesus Christ, but in different ways, at different times, and to different peoples. This is a movement from the level of textual witness to that of divine reality. Childs even argues that we should reverse this movement and theological content; cf. Childs, Christ the Lord, 12: “salvific meaning is not esoteric or hidden, but plain and forthright. Careful attention must be paid to its syntax and style. Yet the literal sense is to be balanced by a ruled reading – a reading informed by its subject matter and its confessional content.” Within the Christian community, the literal sense is a pointer – not to some historical event – but to Christ. See further in Biblical Theology, 724–725. For Childs’ view on the literal sense, see Chen, Theological Exegesis, 120–128; Driver, Brevard Childs, 154–155. 58 Childs, Biblical Theology, 78, 93: “the most striking feature of the New Testament is that it bears its witness to the radically new in terms of the old. The gospel of Jesus Christ is understood by means of a transformed Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament began from their experience with Jesus Christ from whom they received a radically new understanding of the Jewish scriptures. Then on the basis of this transformed Old Testament, the New Testament writers interpreted the theological significance of Jesus Christ to the Christian church by means of the Old.” 59 Childs, Biblical Theology, 80. 60 Childs, Biblical Theology, 85. For an analysis of this theocentric assumption undergirding Childs’ entire approach, see Sumpter, Substance. 61 Elliott, Reality of Biblical Theology, 67. See also Sumpter, Substance, 65: “the true context of both Scripture and community is their Sitz im Leben Gottes, both economically in terms of his plan of salvation and immanently in terms of God’s own eternal innerdialogue;” emphasis original.

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

59

go from the divine reality back into the Bible. When the original integrity of both testaments has been respected, a crucial task remains to hear the Bible in the light of God’s full reality. In other words, “there is a legitimate place for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both testaments.” 62 This interpretative move certainly involves a Sachkritik in which the texts are approached in light of their true content (their Sache), namely the reality of Christ. This reality of Christ should measure both testaments, and not the New Testament interpretations over against the Old (cf. Hübner). The relation of the two testaments is primarily a theological one, or even ontological one, grounded in the unity of God. Central to Childs is the dialectic between the two testaments: “the Old is understood by its relation to the New, but the New is incomprehensible apart from the Old.”63 Based on his view on the formation of canon, Childs claims that the structure of the Bible with its two discrete testaments witnessing the one will of God requires “kunstvolle Dialektik” in doing biblical theology.64 Neither unbroken continuity nor radical discontinuity expresses the issue at stake. Biblical theology does not only move dialectically between the two testaments, but also between text and reality, that is, between fragmentary witness and fully-explored divine reality. 65 Against Hübner, Childs argues that the true identity of Jesus Christ cannot be grasped by only hearing the New Testament.66 To Childs, Hübner’s hermeneutical distinction and rejection of Vetus Testamentum per se as Christian scripture destroys this crucial dialectical movement. The tensions within the Bible are not solved by distinguishing between literal and received senses, but rather by distinguishing between witness and res. Childs claims that biblical theology “also wrestles theologically with the relation between the reality testified to in the Bible and that living reality known and experienced as the exalted Christ through the 62

Childs, Biblical Theology, 87. Childs, Biblical Theology, 77; cf. Augustine’s famous statement: et in vetere [testamento] novum latet, et in novo vetus patet. Hübner senses this dialectical relationship too; cf. Hübner, Kanon, 29: “das Neue Testament [fungiert] als theologisches Kriterium des Alten, andererseits aber [sind] theologische Grundaussagen des Neuen Testaments im Alten fundiert;” emphasis original. 64 Childs, Biblische Theologie, 22: “Bereits die Struktur der christlichen Bibel, die aus zwei verschiedenen Testamenten besteht, aber einen göttlichen Willen bezeugt, deutet auf die kunstvolle Dialektik, die einer Biblischen Theologie abverlangt wird;” emphasis original. 65 Childs, Biblical Theology, 85: “The dialogical move of biblical theological reflection which is being suggested is from the partial grasp of fragmentary reality found in both testaments to the full reality which the Christian church confesses to have found in Jesus Christ, in the combined witness of the two testaments.” See also Beziehung, 33. 66 Childs, Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel, 388. 63

60

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

Holy Spirit within the present community of faith.”67 In a word, Childs’ attempt involves both “an interactive dialectic” between the testaments and “an interactive dialogue” between the community of faith and its canon of scripture.68 In contrast to Childs’ claim of the one God undergirding the entire Bible, Hübner concludes, through a religio-historical investigation of the traditions of Israel, that the pre-Israelite YHWH is not identical with YHWH of Israel.69 In short, “die redaktionelle Endgestaltung des Alten Testaments im Sinne des Monotheismus bringt eine theologische Anschauung, die für die ursprünglichen alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen nicht zutrifft.” 70 The concept of monotheism is rather late; the Old Testament mainly presents a concept of monolatry. This claim along with the Hellenistic influence on the concept of God in the New Testament implies that monotheism by no means holds the two testaments together with regard to the identity of God.71 To Childs, even if this analysis is correct, the claim is still made on the level of witness. As an alternative, Hübner points to an analogy of structure (Deus pro nobis) to link the two testaments: “Wie Jahwäh der Gott für Israel ist, … so ist der Vater Jesu Christi der Gott für die an ihn Glaubenden.”72 The Old Testament monolatrism and the New Testament monotheism meet in the human relation to God in faith. Does this mean that the Old Testament faith and the New Testament faith are the same?73 Is it a faith in the same God? Is the God revealing himself in both testaments actually one God? Has the God of Israel become the universal God of Christ? Hübner’s answer is brief: “Das Neue Testament sagt genau dies.” 74 Nevertheless, he stresses that this statement emerges from the perspective of Christ applied to the Old Testament writings

67

Childs, Biblical Theology, 86. Cf. Perdue, Old Testament Theology, 113. 69 See especially the section “Der eine Gott und die beiden Testamente” in Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 240–257. 70 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 243, 244: “Was ist denn nun das theologisch Bedeutsame des Alten Testaments, der ursprüngliche religionsgeschichtliche Sachverhalt, die diesen Sachverhalt darstellenden Traditionen oder das, was der jeweilige Endredaktor – über eine ganze Reihe von modifizierende Zwischenredaktionen – theologisch daraus gemacht hat?” 71 Despite this historical knowledge, we should still regard the Old Testament as a witness to a monotheistic God; see Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 251. 72 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 254. 73 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 255: “Die Frage ist also, ob der Glaube Israels an Jahwäh als seinen Gott und der Glaube des Christen an den Vater Jesu Christi als den der ganzen Menschheit Versöhnung schenkende Gott im tiefsten ein und derselbe Glaube ist, weil der Gott, der sich Israel geoffenbart hat, mit dem Gott der in Christus offenbar geworden ist, identisch ist.” 74 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 255. 68

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

61

by the New Testament authors. Only Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum supports such an assertion.75 In sum, both Childs and Hübner find that the relationship of the two testaments consists of a mixture of continuity and discontinuity. In particular, both sense the tension or conflict between the literal sense of the Old Testament (although defining it differently) and its transformation within the New. Their solutions, however, are rather different. Hübner solves the tension by distinguishing profoundly between the two, of which only the latter – Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum – is valid for Christians. Childs, on the other hand, solves the tension by distinguishing between the biblical witnesses and the subject matter to which they point. Although there are harsh tensions among the biblical texts, they all point to the same divine reality. Subsequently, Childs claims that the unity of the two testaments is a theological one grounded in the eternal God. In contrast to Childs’ theocentric claim, Hübner finds the link of the two in the human relation to (a) God, that is, faith as an existential act (Israel’s faith in YHWH, Christians’ faith in the triune God). III. The Significance of the New Testament Reception of the Old Another issue which appears to separate Childs and Hübner is their different evaluations of the New Testament reception of the Old. For instance, to what extent should the use of the Old Testament within the New determine our concept of biblical theology? The matter is interesting, because a tension exists within the writings of Childs. In Biblical Theology in Crisis, Childs presents among others one approach that concentrates on “specific Old Testament passages which are quoted within the New Testament.”76 To him, the advantage of this approach is that the Old Testament text being quoted offers a warrant and a category for biblical theology and, due to the New Testament’s use, works within more than one context. Childs also lists two serious objections: first, the limitation to only a portion of the Old Testament used within the New (cf. the criticism of Hübner); second, the heterogeneous mixture of New Testament interpretations. Concerning the first problem, Childs claims that citations and allusions often include not only the single Old Testament verse referred to but also the larger context in which the verse stands. In addition, larger blocks of Old Testament material are taken into a new framework, for example, through midrashic interpretation. In short, in 1970, Childs argues that “the common New Testa75

As is the case with Bultmann, Hübner has often been accused of being a “neoMarcionite.” Yet Hübner does not accept Marcion’s separation of the god of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament and is, unlike Marcion, willing to ascribe the Old Testament some validity, although with certain qualifications, that is, as interpreted in the New (cf. Gunneweg above). 76 See the section “Categories for Biblical Theology” in Childs, Crisis, 114–118.

62

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

ment practice of composing a catena of citations gives evidence of being a condensed way of including that entire background of Scripture which is presupposed in joining of particular texts.”77 Hübner devotes seven pages to an excursus on Childs; this is, however, before the appearance of Childs’ Biblical Theology.78 In the excursus, Hübner notices that their approaches have common features focusing on the New Testament’s use of the Old. Nevertheless, to Hübner, “Die eigentliche Differenz liegt in der Bewertung der Rezeption.”79 Hübner disagrees that the New Testament authors when quoting an Old Testament verse also adapted to its larger context. If the New Testament authors really wanted to include the entire background of scripture, then there would be a tendentious identity between Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum and Vetus Testamentum per se. To Hübner, Childs’ intention is to stress “ein Maximum an Kontinuität vom Alten Testament zum Neuen.”80 As we have seen, Hübner finds a pivotal discontinuity in the christological stance from which the first Christians read their one-testament Bible. His key argument is that Childs, by not paying attention to this hermeneutical distinction, wrongly presupposes a dogmatically a priori Old Testament. Such a reference to an a priori canon as the context for biblical theology does not solve the canon question at all. In the end, one must recognize that the Old Testament has only become part of the Christian Bible through the christological perspective of the New Testament and thereby constitutes a new and qualitatively different entity. Again, biblical theology can, if it wants to remain Christian, only be a biblical theology of the New Testament. In his Biblical Theology, Childs explicitly revises his 1970 proposal: the Old Testament influence on the shaping of the New Testament writings does not belong to the level of biblical theology. Instead this issue is part of the composition history of the New Testament. This implies “that the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, either by direct citation or allusion, cannot provide a central category for Biblical Theology because this crossreferencing operates on a different level.”81 In short, the New Testament citations of the Old Testament are both historically and theologically inadequate for reflection on both testaments. Drawing on the insights gained from examining the formation of the canon, Childs now emphasizes that, although the two testaments have been fused into one book, they have retained their individual integrity. For Childs, this 77

Childs, Crisis, 116. See the section “Exkurs: Brevard S. Childs’ Konzeption vom canonical approach” in Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 70–76. 79 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 71; my emphasis. 80 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 1, 72; emphasis original. 81 Childs, Biblical Theology, 76. 78

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

63

preservation of integrity has profound implications: “The Old Testament bears its true witness as the Old which remains distinct from the New. It is promise, not fulfilment. Yet its voice continues to sound and it has not been stilled by the fulfilment of the promise.”82 This continuing canonical integrity of the Old Testament means that, as scripture of the church, the vertical, existential dimension of the Old Testament is preserved. The Old Testament continues to bear its own witness as Christian scripture. From this perspective, Childs rejects any attempts to identify the task of biblical theology with the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old. The meaning of the Old Testament witness is not restricted to its appropriation by the first Christians. Furthermore, Childs asserts that modern Christians do not share the context of the early church. The Bible of the first Christians contained only one testament, our Bible today contains two discrete testaments. This obvious difference separates the discipline of biblical theology from that of New Testament theology. IV. Peter Stuhlmacher’s Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments Before summing up, we will briefly bring Peter Stuhlmacher into the discussion. His two-volume Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments appeared in 1992 and 1999, the same decade as Childs’ and Hübner’s. 83 Stuhlmacher presents a Biblical Theology of the New Testament open towards the Old, but unlike Hübner, he goes from the Old Testament to the New in terms of tradition history instead of from the New back into the Old in terms of reception history. To put it differently, to Stuhlmacher, the Old Testament was not taken over by the New Testament authors. Rather, the Old Testament traditions as such pointed forward towards fulfillment in the New. His attempt emerges out of the Tübingen School of biblical theology, which – including the work of Hartmut Gese – stresses the basic continuity of the biblical traditions.84 To Stuhlmacher, the foundation of biblical theology rests upon the following formula (not entirely different from Childs’ concept of a rule of faith): Die Biblische Theologie des (Alten und) Neuen Testaments wird konstituiert durch das kerygmatische Zeugnis von dem einen Gott, der die Welt geschaffen, Israel zu seinem

82

Childs, Biblical Theology, 77. For short reviews of Stuhlmacher’s project, see Balla, Challenges, 246–249; Räisänen, Beyond, 120–122; Söding, Entwürfe; Winkel Holm, Teologisk problem, 93–97. 84 Cf. Gese’s dictum: “das Alte Testament entsteht durch das Neue Testament; das Neue Testament bildet den Abschluß eines Traditionsprozesses, der wesentlich eine Einheit, ein Kontinuum ist;” see Gese, Erwägungen, 14. 83

64

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

Eigentumsvolk erwählt und in der Sendung Jesu als Christus für das Heil von Juden und Heiden genug getan hat.85

This apostolic kerygma must determine the task of a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. To Stuhlmacher, the reconstruction of this witness includes not only Old Testament citations and allusion in the New, but also overlaps between the two testaments in terms of language and conceptual world. Unlike Hübner, the reconstruction of the historical Jesus and his sending is essential. Like Childs and Hübner, Stuhlmacher accepts the church’s canon as the textual material for writing a Biblical Theology while, however, employing the scope, form, and order of the Septuagint. This employment supports his assertion of the strong traditio-historical continuity from the Semitic world of the Hebrews into Hellenistic Judaism and further into early Christianity. 86 Nevertheless, the New Testament must still be understood in relation to both the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old.87 As was previously indicated, Stuhlmacher belongs to the most serious critics of Hübner’s hermeneutical distinction, which he characterizes as “kanongeschichtlich und hermeneutisch gleich problematisch.” 88 To repeat, Hübner replies that this distinction was indeed alien to the New Testament authors, but not to us! Stuhlmacher’s criticism in volume 2 of his Biblische Theologie concerns Hübner’s lack of interest in the traditio-historical aspects of the New Testament writings and the deficiencies of the existentialist interpretation.89 Against Childs, Stuhlmacher argues that his perception of the formation of the canon is insufficient. He judges Childs’ assertion on the early closure of the Old Testament and, accordingly, of the two testaments as discrete entities as an inadmissible abstraction.90 Furthermore, by ignoring the crucial role of

85

Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1, 38; emphasis original. Cf. How To Do, 81: “The theological center of this canon is the witness to God’s act of salvation for Jews and Gentiles in and through Christ. This witness has Old and New Testaments roots, but it is an inseparable, unified whole, because the one God, who created the world and chose Israel to be his own people, achieved once and for all in his begotten Son, Jesus Christ, salvation for the world;” emphasis original. 86 Cf. Stuhlmacher, How To Do, 5: “If … one also pays due attention to history of the Septuagint, then it becomes absolutely necessary to speak of only one complex canonical process from which the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and the New Testament all emerged;” emphasis original. 87 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 2, 304. 88 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1, 37. 89 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 2, 337–341; cf. How To Do, 76–79. 90 See Stuhlmacher, How To Do, 6–7, 74–76; cf. Biblische Theologie 2, 343: “Die Stilisierung der Kanongeschichte durch Childs entspricht zwar seinem reformiert-

A. The Concept of Biblical Theology

65

the Septuagint and thereby the importance of the intertestamental period, Childs’ picture of the formation of the Christian Bible is no less artificial than Hübner’s hermeneutical differentiation. To Stuhlmacher, the two-part Christian Bible came into being, not by means of a juxtaposition of two discrete entities, but by means of a complex traditio-historical process. 91 Against Stuhlmacher (and Gese), Childs asserts that the assumption of a single traditio-historical trajectory encompassing both testaments threatens the dialectic moving from the New back to the Old. In the Tübingen emphasis on the horizontal streams of tradition, the Old Testament loses its vertical, existential dimension of witnessing in its own right. Interestingly, Stuhlmacher launches a similar criticism against Hübner, namely that he hardly considers “the Old Testament to be anything other than merely a (religio-)historical preliminary stage to the New, the significance and worth of which will only be decided on the basis of the New Testament revelation.”92 V. Summing Up: the Concept of Biblical Theology Childs’ and Hübner’s concepts of biblical theology are to a very high degree determined by their different perceptions of the formation of the canon and by their opposite views on the authority of canon. For Childs, the church fused two discrete entities into one book confessing that both parts witness equally, albeit in different ways, to the same Lord, Jesus Christ. This confession defines the context of Childs’ attempt which involves a “kunstvolle Dialektik” moving between the testaments and between their testimonies and the subject matter to which they point. The Old Testament witnesses in its own right and its testimony should be measured, not by the New Testament’s interpretation of it, but by its Sache. In contrast, Hübner’s focus on the New Testament authors and the distinction between Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum make him reject the Old Testament in itself as Christian scripture. Again, only the Old Testament as adopted or measured by the New should be part of Christian theology. Childs’ and Hübner’s disagreement derives from their different views of the authority of canon. On the one hand, Childs’ treasuring of the formal unity of the two testaments and the claim of the one divine reality undergirding all parts of the Bible hinder any formal reduction of the Old Testament (as is implicit in Hübner’s hermeneutical distinction). On the other hand, Hübner’s treasuring of the spoken word, eventually written down and contheologischen Erkenntnisinteresse, aber dieser respektable Umstand bietet keinen zureichenden Grund, die komplexen kanongeschichtlichen Zusammenhänge auszublenden.” 91 Childs claims the exact opposite that because the New Testament is a discrete entity juxtaposed to the Old, “it is inaccurate to speak of a unified traditio-historical trajectory which links the two testaments in unbroken continuity;” see Biblical Theology, 76. 92 Stuhlmacher, How To Do, 79.

66

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

tained within the New Testament, as the primary foundation of the new diatheke implies a rejection of central Old Testament statements as abrogated. Against Hübner’s thesis, Childs argues that it confuses biblical theology with the New Testament use of the Old; they simply do not work on the same level. Against Childs, Hübner states “es [kann] keinesfalls das Ziel einer Biblischen Theologie sein, eine für die beide Testamente einheitliche Theologie zu entwerfen. Eine solche Theologie wäre aus historischen, literarischen und theologischen Gründen ein wirklichkeitsfernes Phantom.”93

B. The Approach to Biblical Theology B. The Approach to Biblical Theology

In light of the examination of Childs’ and Hübner’s different concepts of biblical theology, we will now investigate how they suggest approaching the biblical texts. I. Childs: a Multilevel Reading of Scripture An essential feature of Childs’ thought is that the biblical texts function in different and even differing contexts. Moving between these contexts undergirds the theological reflections in part 6 of his Biblical Theology. As an illustration, a chapter typically concentrates on a systematic theme (e.g. creation, covenant, or faith) and works its way through the Old and New Testament witnesses, their similarities and dissimilarities, and their life in the history of interpretation and present time. The key concern is to listen to the whole Bible as an abiding witness to Christ. A dominant question is how to read the Old Testament as Christian scripture. As an answer, Childs offers a three-stage reading model. Already in his early article “Interpretation in Faith” (1964), Childs argues that a theological understanding of the Bible is only possible if the interpreter enters into “the hermeneutical circle of genuine exegesis.”94 Drawing heavily on this hermeneutical concept, he presents a three-stage model in reading scripture confronting it in all its dimensions and taking seriously the different contexts in which the biblical texts function. The interpreter, he suggests, must move dialectically, first, from the single Old Testament text to its ca93

Hübner, Was, 220. Childs, Interpretation, 438. His main concern in this article is to show that the genuine theological task of biblical exegesis must begin from within an explicit framework of faith. In other words, a proper theological exegesis is based on the explicit acknowledgment that the entire Bible with its two discrete testaments bear testimony to the one divine purpose. It seems that, through most of his career, Childs attempted to work this program out. Many of his later works go back to this concern and to his three-stage reading model and often appear as rewritings of this very article; cf. Chen, Theological Exegesis, 27. 94

B. The Approach to Biblical Theology

67

nonical whole and back again, second, between the two testaments, and, third, between the biblical witness and the divine reality to which it points.95 Childs elaborates this three-stage model in a small paragraph in his Biblical Theology and in three minor articles which have many parallel expressions.96 Especially in the articles, Childs refines his idea of a multilevel reading of scripture according to differing contexts. Against the accusation of reviving an arbitrary medieval method, he presents “a single method of interpretation which takes seriously both the different dimensions constituting the text as well as distinct contexts in which the text functions.”97 Central is the unity of the one interpretation. The aim is “to illuminate the full range of the sense of the text while holding together witness and subject matter in a unity commensurate with its canonical function.”98 However, in this single method, there is no fixed temporal order: the interpreter already comes to the biblical text with some theological assumptions, which are then altered in the encounter with the text and its subject matter. 99 Yet for pedagogical reasons, Childs outlines three avenues or points of entry into the matter (or circle): The first avenue concerns the Old Testament according to its own voice in its historical, literary, and canonical context. The focus remains on the literal or plain sense of the text. Treating the texts as discrete witnesses and respecting their different genres should avoid the danger of violating the Old Testa-

95

Childs, Interpretation, 437–444. See the section “Reading Scriptures in the Light of the Full Divine Reality” in Childs, Biblical Theology, 379–383; Nature, 122–125; Toward, 22–25; Witness, 61–63; cf. Driver, Brevard Childs, 239. Like Driver, I will quote them interchangeably. See similar examinations of this model in Driver, Brevard Childs, 239–241; Gignilliat, Karl Barth, 146–147; Sumpter, Substance, 68–69. 97 Childs, Witness, 61. He, however, states that traditional medieval exegesis did see the richness and diversity of scripture as a divine vehicle functioning in different contexts. In addition, the whole idea of moving beyond the carnate form of the word to a deeper sense may be called a figural reading or indeed an allegorical reading. For Childs’ definition of “allegory,” see e.g. Critique, 182–183: “allegory – I am using the term in its broadest sense – finds meaning by moving to another level beyond the textual. It seeks to discern meaning by relating it referentially to a substance (res), a rule of faith, or a hidden eschatological event;” cf. Driver, Brevard Childs, 233. 98 Childs, Toward, 22. 99 Without mentioning it, Childs once again seems to refer to the concept of the hermeneutic circle; cf. Childs, Interpretation, 443: “The exegete who seeks to hear the witness does not stand, uncommitted, at a neutral point. Within the framework of faith or, rather, sharing himself in the reality of God’s redemptive activity, he seeks to understand the Old Testament witness to the selfsame reality;” cf. Biblical Theology, 381: “it is constitutive of true interpretation to move within a circle which encompasses both the movement from text to reality as well as from reality to the text.” See also Witness, 60. Cf. Sumpter, Faithful Exegete, 101. 96

68

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

ment’s own voice by reading the person of Jesus Christ or the second person of the Trinity into the literal sense (as W. Vischer did).100 Nevertheless, even when restricting oneself to the Hebrew Bible according to its canonical shape, the serious interpreter is still constrained to relate the text’s verbal sense to the theological reality which confronted historic Israel in evoking this witness.101

The second avenue concerns the entire Christian Bible. By recognizing the Old and New Testament as a whole, this approach looks for structural or typological similarities and dissimilarities between both parts of the one book102 and thereby extends the literal reading.103 Comparing these two parts in terms of content includes not only a conceptual level but also a theological one, for “a theological relationship is pursued both on the level of the textual witness and on that of the discrete matter (res) of the two collections.”104 As an example, Childs refers to von Rad’s commentary on Genesis 23: just as the burial plot that Abraham purchased from the Hittites for Sarah is seen as a foretaste of the promised land, so the bread and wine in the Eucharist in the New Testament is seen as a concrete foretaste of the promise of eternal life.105 The third avenue concerns the Christian claim that the whole Bible bears witness to the same God and therefore, despite its separate testaments, comprises a theological unity. Based on a close reading of each discrete testament, Childs proposes a critical and theological reflection on the full reality of the subject matter of scripture, namely God himself. This reflection, however, is neither a homiletical move nor a subjective construal of a biblical theology. Rather, facing the subject matter of the text compels the reader to understand the biblical witness in the light of the full knowledge of this di100 Childs senses a consensus within the guild of biblical scholars “not to ‘Christianize’ the Old Testament by reading back into the Old Testament text later religious concerns, but to do justice to the discrete voice of the Old Testament according to its true historical context;” see Childs, Witness, 58. 101 Childs, Witness, 61. Cf. Sumpter, Substance, 69: “it is the nature of the text to talk about and respond to God.” 102 In Interpretation, 441, Childs speaks of an analogical relationship between the actions of God in both testaments. 103 See also Childs, Beziehung, 31–32: “Diese Methode stimmt grundsätzlich mit der Aufklärung in ihrer Betonung der Eigenständigkeit des Alten Testaments überein. ... Das Alte Testament muß in seinem ureigenen Anspruch verstanden werden, da es eine eigene jüdische Stimme hat, die durch das Kommen Jesu Christi nie verändert wurde. ... Der kritische Punkt bei einem kanonischen Zugang liegt nun darin, wahrzunehmen, daß das Konzept der Eigenständigkeit des Alten Testamentes sich aufgrund des neuen Kontextes innerhalb der umfangreicheren christlichen Bibel dramatisch wandelte. Die Einzelstimme des Alten Testaments kann also durchaus noch gehört werden, aber im Zusammenspiel mit der des Neuen.” 104 Childs, Witness, 62. 105 Childs, Nature, 123.

B. The Approach to Biblical Theology

69

vine reality gained from studying both testaments. Furthermore, drawing upon D. Yeago, Childs stresses that this is exactly how Christian interpreters through time have understood the theological task of exegesis, namely as a response to the pressure or coercion of the biblical text itself.106 As was previously pointed out, the direction of reading is reversed and now moves from the reality itself back to the biblical texts for further elucidation: “The central point to emphasize is that the biblical text exerts theological pressure on the reader which demands that the reality which undergirds the two voices not be held apart and left fragmented, but critically reunited.”107 As an illustration of this coercion, Childs contends that the concept of the trinity did not arise as an alien Hellenistic component, but rather as the systematic outcome of a close attention to the biblical testimonies to the identity of God. This concept, however, now determines how we approach the biblical text and provides a “ruled” reading.108 Childs rhetorically asks: “If we now understand the triunity of God must not the grasp of this reality affect how we interpret both testaments?”109 The same issue concerns the Old Testament as a witness to Christ, because “in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the history of Israel, the texts of both testaments in their fragmentary testimony to God’s utterly mysterious purpose of new creation and redemption take on fresh life.”110 As an example, Childs mentions Isaiah 53 as morphologically fitting with the passion of Jesus Christ. Without doubt, the third avenue is the most controversial one. Does not the appeal to Christ as the subject matter of the biblical text destroy the integrity of the Old Testament? For instance, how can we, on the one hand, read the book of Isaiah according to Israel’s own voice, and, on the other hand, interpret the same book as a witness to Jesus Christ?111 To Childs, this struggle is mandatory for any Christian reader: “Because Scripture performs different functions according to distinct contexts, a multi-level reading is required even 106

Childs, Toward, 17. Concerning the Reformers’ use of the Bible as a critical impulse against the human traditions of Rome, “the coercion of Scripture also functions critically in relation to Christian dogmatics to fragment and shatter traditional dogmatic structures.” 107 Childs, Witness, 62. 108 Cf. Seitz, Theological Interpretation, 88: “A ‘rule of faith’ is required to help us understand another, allied, theological pressure, at the heart of the act of Christian interpretation: the two testaments are related on analogy with the basic Christian confession that the Creator God is the Father of Jesus Christ and his son shares the eternal glory and life of the Father who sent him (Phil. 2:9–11). Yahweh is this triune God and we know it from the first witness itself, when its literal sense yields this up in the light of the second witness.” 109 Childs, Biblical Theology, 379. 110 Childs, Witness, 62. 111 Cf. Childs, Witness, 64: “For the Christian church the continuing paradox of faith lies in its encounter through the Jewish Scriptures with the selfsame divine presence which it confesses to have found in the face of Jesus Christ.”

70

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

to begin to grapple with the full range of Scripture’s role as the intentional medium of continuing divine revelation.”112 Childs develops his concept of differing contexts further. 113 In the first context, we read the Hebrew scriptures according to their plain sense. In the case of Isaiah’s oracles, this literal and historical reading is exegetically crucial, “especially in revealing how fragmentary, mysterious and obscure was the nature of God’s messianic promise to Israel.”114 However, for a Christian reader, the Old Testament as scripture is also a continuing vehicle of God’s manifestation. Therefore, in the second context, the prophecies infused by God’s Spirit with the full divine reality take on fresh meaning115 which transcends the original context of the prophecies. 116 Philip Sumpter has noticed that this language of “infusion” actually covers the entire canonical process. Canon formation and canon interpretation, tradent and modern exegete, are two sides of the same coin: “Throughout the complex process that gave us the ‘final form,’ it is the self-same God who both evoked the witnesses and continuously infused them, enabling them to become transparencies for future Spirit-filled interpreters of the reality they strive to point to.”117 This new voice of the biblical text evokes response of praise and thanksgiving: “the same words of Scripture now perform a different role in instructing the church toward an obedient and joyful life.”118 The second context is the Christian community of faith and demands interpretation in faith.119 Canon does not merely render a decision on the scope of literature, but more importantly provides the proper framework for understanding the multiple witnesses. Reading the Old Testament as a witness to Christ involves “a textoriented hearing … which allows biblical texts to resonate from the force of divine reality gained through an encounter with the entire Christian Bible.” In the end, Childs’ approach differs markedly from the modern critical definition of biblical exegesis. According to Childs’ own summary of his ap112

Childs, Witness, 63. See e.g. Childs, Witness, 63. 114 Childs, Witness, 63. 115 Cf. Childs, Biblical Theology, 382: “If the church confesses that the spirit of God opens up the text to a perception of its true reality, it also follows that the Spirit also works in applying the reality of God in its fullness to an understanding of the text. The two movements cannot be separated.” 116 Childs, Toward, 25: “[however,] to project this depth of meaning and experience back into the past as if this interpretation must be coextensive with its original textual sense is not only a basic confusion of genre, but it falsely dehistoricizes the canonical witness of the two discrete portions of the Christian Bible.” 117 Sumpter, Economy and Ontology, 6–7. 118 Childs, Witness, 63. 119 The phrase “interpretation in faith” does not, however, mean a subjective, privatistic faith. To Childs, the phrase refers to “the confession of the Christian Church with affirms both Old and New Testaments as Scripture;” see Childs, Assyrian Crisis, 126, note 8. 113

B. The Approach to Biblical Theology

71

proach, “its genre is confession not apologetics, its function is worship not disputation, its content is eschatology not time-conditioned history, and its truth is self-affirming not analytical demonstration.”120 Driver has observed that in these modes “the recurrent metaphor of scriptural witnesses as voices in a choir, or as notes in the score of a symphony which is replayed in different theaters (cathedrals?), most fully applies.”121 II. Hübner: Reading with the Eyes of the New Testament Authors Unlike Childs’ three-stage model, Hübner does not present any clear reading strategy. Because of this, we will base the following sketch of Hübner’s approach on his own application throughout his Biblische Theologie, in particular in volumes 2 and 3.122 In the opening of volume 2, Hübner once again clarifies the main task of his approach: “Es ist also zu prüfen, wie und in welchem Ausmaß die Argumentation des jeweiligen Autors mit Hilfe der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen Bausteine für die theologische Argumentation der betreffenden neutestamentlichen Schriften bereitstellt.” 123 Or, to put it differently, the modern interpreter must work within the New Testament as a given entity and within this corpus determine how and to what extent a given author uses the Old Testament. For instance, how does Paul utilize his one-testament Bible in his theological thinking? This procedure, however, does not imply that we should adopt or repeat Paul’s hermeneutics. We can nevertheless still make the intellectual attempt of reading the Old Testament texts with the eyes of Paul.124 In short, Hübner’s approach involves a reading of the Old Testament with the eyes of the New Testament authors. Although the corpus of the New Testament determines the textual boundaries of this enterprise, Hübner does not follow the canonical arrangement of books. Instead, he begins with Paul and pursues the chronological scheme of the Pauline letters to explore “das theologische Werden der paulinischen Theologie.” This includes a special attention to rhetorical analysis. Hübner examines most of the New Testament writings passage by passage, even verse by verse, to detect and list all use of Old Testament material and attitudes towards Old Testament themes. In each case, he determines whether the New Testament use contrasts to or correlates 120

Childs, Witness 63; my emphasis. Driver, Brevard Childs, 241. See Childs’ St. Andrews paper on allegory (2000): “Scripture, as it were, provides a keyboard for each new hearer to play and to receive new variations on the one unified story of God in Christ to be rendered in liturgy, private devotions, music, and art;” my emphasis; cf. Brevard Childs, 233–234. 122 See the summary in Hübner, New Testament Interpretation, 339–371. 123 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 2, 14. 124 Hübner, Vetus Testamentum, 159. 121

72

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

with the literal sense of the Old Testament. For instance, in his examination of Galatians, Hübner observes that the Old Testament citations are constitutive for the letter’s theological argumentation; that Paul employs the Old Testament terminology of justice; and that Paul reads Isaiah 53 from a christological perspective, and therefore his reading of the text is far removed from its Literalsinn. Analyzing Romans 9–11, Hübner concludes that if one wishes to understand Paul’s rendering of Isaiah, one needs to read LXX Isaiah with the eyes of Paul.125 After examining Paul, Hübner continues with the other letters and Hebrews, the latter of which he considers to be a biblical theological reflection on scripture. Actually, one may view Paul, 1 Peter, and Hebrews as “Theologien des Alten Testaments unter christologischen Vorzeichen.” 126 The Old Testament, however, is not a central theme in all writings, for instance, in the Pastoral letters. Hübner also describes the theology of the Synoptic Gospels as biblical theology: the Old Testament citations provide both structure and basis for the theological statements of the Gospels. In Mark, for instance, the strong Old Testament allusions to Christ as Son of God (1:11 – 9:7 – 15:39) frame the entire narrative. Mark’s universalism, however, enforces abandonment of temple, cult, and eating regulations. In John, too, the Old Testament citations are constitutive for the theological assertions. Finally, although the author of Revelation never employs formal quotations, Old Testament metaphors and imaginations play a decisive role: “Johannes [lebte] in der Bilderwelt des Alten Testaments.”127 In sum, Hübner works inside the structures of the New Testament writings dealing with both diachronic and synchronic aspects of the text. Because his attention concerns the New Testament authors’ theological employment of their one-testament Bible, he focuses only on the final form of the Old Testament text (Hebrew/Greek). Following Hübner’s approach, the interpreter must, from passage to passage, detect the use of Old Testament material (citations, allusions, concepts, metaphors, terminology) and attitudes towards Old Testament themes (law, cultic regulations, Sabbath). To be brief, the interpreter must read the Old Testament texts with the eyes of the New Testament authors.

C. Interim Conclusion C. Interim Conclusion

Regarding the main issues of this book, that is, the differing versions of the Old Testament and the significance of the New Testament’s reception of the 125

Hübner, Biblische Theologie 2, 320. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 64. 127 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 207; emphasis original. 126

C. Interim Conclusion

73

Old, the systematic investigation of the positions of Childs and Hübner has brought forth several observations. A major point of disagreement between the two is the extent to which the New Testament’s use of the Old should guide, or even control, our approach to the Old Testament. Whereas Childs presupposes that the distinctive New Testament interpretations of the Old have not ruled out the possibility of hearing the voice of the Old Testament in its own right, Hübner presupposes that our understanding of the Old Testament should be determined by that of the New Testament authors. Childs’ preference for the Hebrew Bible emerges from his claim that its scope and textual form were fixed at the inception of Christianity. The Jews are the true tradents of the canonical tradition and the Hebrew Bible continues to provide a common bond between synagogue and church. By the juxtaposition of two discrete testaments, the integrity of the Old Testament has been preserved and it continues to bear witness to Christ in its own right. Its meaning is therefore not restricted to the manner in which the New Testament authors understood it. Their Bible contained one testament, our Bible contains two. The relationship of the two testaments is primarily ontological as they bear testimony to the same God. Tensions between the two are resolved by distinguishing between the separate witnesses of the testaments and the common subject matter to which they witness. Hübner’s preference for the Septuagint emerges from his claim that the canon was still open at the time of the first Christians. For contemporary Judaism, the Septuagint was quantitatively predominant in terms of use and authoritative status. The Septuagint represents a “Hellenization” of the Hebrew Bible, including a strong universalistic perspective. However, truly authoritative for the New Testament authors was the originally spoken kerygma by which they read their one-testament Bible. This implies that only the Old Testament as measured by the interpretations of the New Testament authors should be valid for us. Tensions within the Bible are resolved by distinguishing hermeneutically between the Old Testament as such and as received in the New of which only the latter is appropriate for Christian biblical theology. As was indicated in chapter 1, the divergent positions of Childs and Hübner represent different branches within 20th Century Protestantism. Childs, following Barth, claims that the Old and New Testaments are equally Christian scripture and basically one in their testimony to God’s revelation.128 Both testaments look to Christ and refer to him. The relationship between the testaments is thus one of continuity as they equally bear witness to God’s divine and sovereign plan. Hübner, following Bultmann, claims that the New Testament is the essential Bible and that the Old Testament merely serves as its

128

See Baker, Two Testaments, 97–98, 100–106.

74

Chapter 3. Biblical Theology: Concept and Approach

non-Christian presupposition.129 The Old Testament is only accorded a limited place in Christian faith and its validity depends on the New Testament. Only as seen from the gospel of Christ can the Old Testament function as revelation for the Christian. As with Bultmann, Hübner too sees the testaments as primarily revealing different and contrasting realities (disaster and death in the Old and salvation and life in the New). The relationship between the testaments is thus one of contrast, expressed in the antithesis between law and gospel and between Israel and the church. Whereas Childs favors the Hebrew Bible in order to express the unbroken continuity between synagogue and church, Hübner favors the Septuagint which implies discontinuity between rabbinic Judaism and Christian tradition. The differences between Childs and Hübner point to a larger tension within Protestant theology regarding the Old Testament. Although Luther hardly would agree with Bultmann and Hübner in their radical view on the canonical status of the Old Testament, there are certain tendencies in his own approach that lead in this direction (it is hardly a coincidence that the early 20th Century skepticism about the Old Testament as Christian scripture was voiced by Lutheran theologians such as Friedrich Delitzsch, Adolf von Harnack, and Emanuel Hirsch). Whereas Luther was concerned mainly about justification by faith in Christ and thus to find Christ in the Old Testament, Calvin had a broader perspective centering on the glory of God which enabled him to embrace the biblical texts without focusing exclusively on Christ. Concerning the law, for instance, Luther considered the law of Moses to bind only the Jews, whereas Calvin was more willing to let this law function as a guide to the Christian life (the so-called “third use of the law”). In the end, the positions of Childs and Hübner may reflect a classical schism between a Reformed position (Calvin, Barth), which stresses the unity of divine revelation and the formal scope of scripture, and a Lutheran position (Luther, Bultmann) which distinguishes sharply between law and gospel and is willing to urge Christ against scripture. Further study, however, is needed to confirm this claim.

129

See Baker, Two Testaments, 63–85.

Part II

Biblical Theological Reflections on Isaiah 42:1–9

 

Chapter 4

Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible A key concern of the thesis is to explore the practical implications of paying attention to the differing versions of the Old Testament and the New Testament’s reception of it in the exegesis of an Old Testament passage. This chapter initiates this endeavor by looking at Isa 42:1–9 as such, that is, as it occurs in the Hebrew Bible. First, the chapter offers some introductory remarks on the book of Isaiah and on methodological issues. Then, it deals with exegetical issues concerning text, form, structure, and literary context of the passage. Finally, it presents a classical verse-by-verse examination of the passage, focusing in particular on the servant and his task.

A. Isaiah and the Servant Passages: Introductory Remarks A. Isaiah and the Servant Passages

Before turning to Isa 42:1–9, we will address two issues of a general nature – the unity of Isaiah and the servant passages – which are followed by some methodological considerations. I. The Unity of Isaiah According to Berges, the view on the book of Isaiah within its history of interpretation can roughly be summarized as follows: “vom Buch des Propheten Jesaja zu drei Büchern, zum Buch, das seinen Namen trägt.”1 Until the Enlightenment, the book was – with a few notable exceptions – thought to contain the visions that Isaiah of Jerusalem received in the 8th Century BCE.2 During the 18th Century CE, scholars such as J.C. Döderlein and J.G. Eichhorn, however, assigned Isa 40–66 not to the eighth-century prophet Isaiah 1

Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 28. For an overview of past and recent studies of Isaiah, see e.g. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 25–43; Childs, Isaiah, 1–5, 289–291; Old Testament as Scripture, 316–325; Hermisson, Neue Literatur; Stromberg, Introduction; Stuhlmueller, Major Transitions; Tiemeyer, Comfort, 14–51; Williamson, Isaiah, 366–371; Recent Issues, 21–39. 2 An important exception is the Jewish interpreter Abraham Ibn Ezra, who in his commentary on Isaiah from 1145 questioned whether the 8th Century prophet also spoke the words of consolation in Isa 40–66; see Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 30.

78

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

but to an anonymous sixth-century author. In 1892, Bernhard Duhm made his famous revision of this thesis by distinguishing Isa 40–55 from Isa 56–66. He asserted that the former part presupposes a setting in the Babylonian exile, whereas the latter part presupposes the later situation of a restored Jerusalem in the post-exilic period. Throughout the 20th Century, Duhm’s thesis has had an astonishing impact on the scholarly approach to Isaiah. As an important consequence of it, Isa 40–55 has often been treated in isolation from the rest of book.3 Nevertheless, within the last few decades a “rediscovery” of the book’s essential unity has taken place. In terms of redaction criticism, it has been acknowledged that the various sections of the book did not emerge in isolation from one another, eventually becoming fused into one book. Rather, the various sections of the present book were part of a dynamic process of growth in which earlier material was reinterpreted and reshaped by the later.4 In terms of literary and rhetorical criticism, it has been demonstrated that Isa 40–55 constitutes a coherent and unified whole.5 Rather than a fragmented collection of independent pieces, as was revealed by form-critical analysis, different speech forms have been carefully reshaped and fused into larger rhetorical units. The present rhetorical arrangement of Isa 40–55 has been interpreted as basically “kerygmatic,” 6 as a “letter” sent from Babylon to Jerusalem to inform it that its inhabitants are about to witness YHWH’s return to the city,7 or as a series of “speeches” which announces a fresh exodus

3 Besides commentaries focusing on those chapters alone, this is apparent in general introductions to the Old Testament prophets in which Isa 1–39 (or parts of it) is treated among the 8th Century prophets such as Hosea, Amos, and Micah, whereas Isa 40–55(66) is treated as a product of an anonymous prophet among the 6th Century prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel; see e.g. Blenkinsopp, History; Lundbom, Hebrew Prophets. 4 Williamson, Isaiah, 370; see also Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 329: “In the light of the present shape of the book of Isaiah the question must be seriously raised if the material of Second Isaiah in fact ever circulated in Israel apart from its being connected to an earlier form of First Isaiah.” Especially German scholarship has been devoted to a sophisticated application of redaction criticism to Isa 40–55 assuming that these chapters developed in several phases and independently of Isa 1–39; see e.g. Berges, Buch Jesaja; Hermisson, Einheit; Kratz, Kyros; Merendino, Der Erste; Oorschot, Babel; Steck, Gottesknecht; Werlitz, Redaktion; cf. the helpful resume in Albertz, Exile, 376–433; Hermisson, Neue Literatur, 239–257; Stromberg, Introduction, 27–40; Tiemeyer, Comfort, 32– 43. According to Tiemeyer, however, “the lack of agreement between the different suggested schemes is a real argument against all of them. Likewise, the subjective element in the criteria for dividing a text into smaller components lessens their persuasive power” (42). 5 See e.g. Clifford, Fair Spoken; Melugin, Formation; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66. 6 Melugin, Formation, 175–178. 7 Spykerboer, Structure, 185–190.

A. Isaiah and the Servant Passages

79

and conquest to the exilic community in Babylon. 8 In addition to literary criticism, there has been growing attention to Isa 40–55 as a “dramatic text,” either as a literary, reading drama, or – rather daringly – as an actually performed play.9 Flemish and Dutch scholars in particular (e.g. Beuken, Leene, van der Woude) have developed this approach in which it is assumed that the events as presented throughout the chapters stand in relation to each other and form a “dramatic progression.”10 Seitz has expanded this idea to encompass Isaiah as a whole as “the drama of God and Zion,” which unfolds “as we walk through the chapters, all sixty-six, of the Book of Isaiah.”11 Berges has likewise argued that “the book of Isaiah is a ‘Drama of Zion’ in which the readers or hearers witness the transformation of Jerusalem from a place of judgement into a place of eschatological salvation for both the people of God and the nations.”12 Finally, in terms of genuine canonical concerns, Childs has stressed the importance of recognizing that Isa 40–55 has been detached from its original historical context and placed into “a highly reflective, theological context” in Isaiah as a whole.13 Following the oracles of Isa 1–39, the message of Isa 40– 55 now relates to the salvific plan of God, not limited to a particular historical situation – whatever that might be14 – but is oriented towards eschatological salvation: “in the context of sin and judgment, these chapters testify to Isra-

8

Clifford, Fair Spoken, 4–5. Cf. e.g. Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja, 50, who assumes that Isa 40–55 is a play that was written in Jerusalem in the first half of the 5th Century BCE and was to be performed in Babylon and the wider Diaspora in order to promote pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 10 Cf. the review in Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 64–73; Hermisson, Neue Literatur, 257–269; Tiemeyer, Comfort, 47–50. 11 Seitz, Making Sense, 122. 12 Berges, Isaiah, 24. 13 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 325: “What is left of the original context is, at best, scattered vestiges which explain why the attempt to reconstruct it as a basis for exegesis has proven so unsatisfactory and hypothetical. Even though the message was once addressed to real people in a particular historical situation … the canonical editors of this tradition employed the material in such a way as to eliminate almost entirely those concrete features and to subordinate the original message to a new role within the canon.” 14 Traditionally, scholars have assumed that Isaiah 40–55 for the most part was written in Babylon and addressed the needs of the exilic community living there by announcing the end of exile and the return to Jerusalem. Duhm, Jesaia, 14, however, assumed Phoenicia; cf. Isa 49:12. Recently, scholars have questioned this traditional view by arguing that Isa 40–55 does not address the exiles in Babylon but rather the people in Jerusalem. Rather than a new exodus, these chapters are concerned with YHWH’s return to Zion, the return of the whole of the Diaspora, and the battle against Judah’s enemies as part of the restoration and glorification of a future Jerusalem; see Barstad, A Way; Babylonian Captivity; Lund, Way Metaphors; Tiemeyer, Comfort; cf. my reviews in Poulsen, Eksodusbegivenheden, 93–96; New Ways. 9

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

80

el’s real future.”15 Childs has furthermore noticed that, unlike Amos or Jeremiah, Isa 40–55 does not reveal a clear historical context when removed from its present setting within Isaiah. There is no superscription, no indication of date, and no clear historical situation. A small hint is offered by the references to the Persian king Cyrus (44:28; 45:1). Yet the historical events associated with him remain minimal, so that rather than providing an adequate historical portrait, Cyrus has become “a theological projection, an instrument in the hand of God.”16 In its final form, Isaiah offers a coherent witness to God’s reality and purpose with Israel. 17 Accordingly, the relationship between the major parts of the book is best seen within a typological framework, that is, between the “former things” of Isa 1–39 and the “new things” of Isa 40–55(66). On literary grounds, it is nevertheless still fair to treat Isa 40–55 as an independent section within the book’s overall statement. Although these chapters are clearly framed by a prologue and an epilogue (40:1–11; 55:6–13), they ought to be further divided into two major blocks: 40–48 and 49–55.18 In Isa 40–48, the people of YHWH are addressed as “Jacob” and “Israel,” there are several references to Cyrus and to the fall of Babylon, and the theological themes include proof-from-prophecy and polemic against idols and idolatry. In Isa 49–55, the people of YHWH are addressed as “Zion” and “Jerusalem,” there are no references to Cyrus or Babylon, and the central theme is the restoration and repopulation of Zion rather than the redemption of Israel. Within the overall structure, Isa 49:1–6(13) functions as a passage of transition between the two blocks. This basic division should have an influence on the approach to the question of the “Servant Songs.” II. Isaiah’s Servant Passages There are a number of passages within Isaiah, which are often referred to as “servant passages,” including 42:1–9. Although their exact number is contested, a maximalist proposal lists 41:8–16; 42:1–9; 42:18–25; 43:1–7; 43:8– 13; 44:1–5; 44:21–22; 48:14–16; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 51:4–8; 51:9–16; 52:13– 53:12; and perhaps 61:1–3.19 Of these passages, four – Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12 – have been singled out as the so-called “Servant Songs.” As is well-known, the discovery of these “songs” also goes back to Duhm, who in the last decades of the 19th Century isolated them as separate 15

Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 326. Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 326. 17 Cf. Childs, Isaiah, 4. 18 E.g. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 60–61; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 28. See also the table in Stuhlmueller, Major Transitions, 6–7. 19 Cf. Laato, Servant of YHWH, 2; Mettinger, A Farewell, 10; North, Suffering Servant, 135–138. 16

A. Isaiah and the Servant Passages

81

units.20 The literature on the subject is vast and the theme has been reviewed so often that it seems unnecessary to repeat it here.21 It seems sufficient to make a few comments. The anonymous and enigmatic figure of the four “Servant Songs” is by no means a new problem for interpreters of the Bible. Already ancient interpreters saw them portraying different figures (see chapters 5 and 6). Through time, the anonymity of the servant figure has provoked a number of interpretations, moving between collective (Israel or a righteous part of Israel) and individual references (a historical person, a future Messiah, the prophet himself).22 The new element in Duhm’s approach to the problem was the assumption that the “Servant Songs” reflect a distinctive literary and historical background different from that of most of the remaining passages in Isa 40–55. First, Duhm noticed that although the terminology and theological ideas in the “Servant Songs” are close to Isa 40–55, there are some differences in terms of style and language: “Der Verf. dieser stillen, tiefen, wenig blendenden Gedichte … [kann] schon von Temperaments wegen nicht mit dem rauschenden beweglichen Dtjes. [Deutero-Isaiah] identisch sein.”23 Second, Duhm claimed that the relationship between the “Servant Songs” and their literary context is so vague, that if they were removed, they would leave no gap. However, he admitted that this could be said of other passages as well. Third – and this is his primary argument – Duhm observed a profound difference in terms of content: Ihr [the ‘Servant Songs’’] Hauptgedanke, die Idee des Gottesknechtes, ist auch dem Dtjes. [Deutero-Isaiah] nicht fremd, wird aber von ihm ganz anders behandelt. Bei ihm ist Israel, so wie es ist, der Knecht Jahwes, von Jahwe erwählt, geschützt und für eine herrliche Zukunft bestimmt, aber gegenwärtig blind und taub, gefangen und geplündert, ein Wurm, verachtet von den Heiden, voller Sünden. Dagegen ist der Held dieser Dichtungen dem Volk gegenübergestellt, ist unschuldig, Jahwes Jünger und vom ihm tagtäglich erleuchtet, berufen zur Mission am Volk und an den Heiden und seinem Berufe in aller Stille nachgehend.24

Whereas the author of Isa 40–55 consistently portrays the servant of YHWH as a passive collective, that is, the people of Israel, the author of the “Servant Songs” portrays the servant as an active individual in contrast to the people. According to Duhm, this individual figure was a historical person in the first half of the 5th Century BCE within the post-exilic Jewish community, 20 His theory was initially presented in Die Theologie der Propheten (1875) and more elaborated in his famous commentary Das Buch Jesaia (1892); see Duhm, Jesaia, 19; Theologie, 288–289. 21 See e.g. Haag, Gottesknecht; Hermisson, Neue Literature, 414–430; North, Suffering Servant; Rowley, Servant, 1–60. 22 See the review in Haag, Gottesknecht, 34–167; North, Suffering Servant, 6–116. 23 Duhm, Jesaia, 311. 24 Duhm, Jesaia, 311; my emphasis.

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

82

“ein Thoralehrer und Seelsorger.”25 Duhm imagined that the songs about this personality originally existed as an independent collection before they were somewhat haphazardly added to the scroll containing the words of Isa 40–55: a scribe added them at such places where there was sufficient space – on the edge or between two paragraphs – without paying any attention to the context in Isa 40–55!26 Undergirding Duhm’s approach is without doubt the common hermeneutical assumption of historical criticism that the true meaning of a biblical text is determined by its original author’s intention and by its pristine historical setting. When Duhm isolated the ‘Servant Songs’ from their present literary context and placed them within a different historical milieu or stage of development, he provoked a new wave of interpretations attempting to identify this alleged historical figure (e.g. Eleazar, Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin).27 Serious criticism has been launched against Duhm’s thesis, accusing him of being “responsible for destroying the unity of ch. 42 with his misleading conception of a series of “Servant Songs”.”28 First, it has been demonstrated that the language and style of these passages do not stand out from the remaining chapters in Isa 40–55.29 Second, it has been demonstrated that the passages are essentially embedded in the present structure of Isa 40–55. 30 Although Isa 40–45, for instance, appears as a mosaic of dramatic scenes that seem separable and could easily be removed, they are all “part of a closely woven texture of interlocking scenes.”31 Third, it has been argued, especially by defenders of a collective interpretation, that Duhm failed to see that the same figure – Israel – is portrayed as having different characters: Israel of the present (deaf and blind) and Israel of the future (faithful servant). Duhm ap-

25

Duhm, Jesaia, 19. Duhm, Jesaia, 311. 27 See North, Suffering Servant, 48–57. 28 Smart, Second Isaiah, 80. Among the early critics of Duhm’s thesis were K. Budde, E. König, and C.C. Torrey. Within the past decades, the criticism of Duhm is especially associated with H. Barstad and T.N.D. Mettinger, cf. their negative assessment in Barstad, Future, 270: “The ‘servant songs’, in the Duhmian sense of the expression, have no future. The sooner one starts realizing this, the better. The scholarly myth of the ‘servant songs’ is long, long overdue for demolition;” and Mettinger, A Farewell, 45: “The task of scholarship is now to draw the final consequence and excise Duhm’s theory from the arsenal of acceptable exegetical tools and instead relegate it to the curio shelf for obsolete hypothesis.” 29 E.g. North, Suffering Servant, 161–178. 30 E.g. Mettinger, A Farewell, 23–28. 31 Smart, Second Isaiah, 81. 26

A. Isaiah and the Servant Passages

83

parently “has no room in his interpretation for the prophet’s eschatology. Everything must be historical.”32 Whereas Duhm’s own identification of the figure appears as profoundly wrong, he is nevertheless right in observing the very different character of the servant in the “Servant Songs” compared to that of the remaining servant passages in Isa 40–55. There are apparent tensions. To remove the “Songs” from their present context was certainly not a successful solution. On the other hand, reading them as integrated parts of their present context has often forced interpreters, especially of the collective theory, to make an awkward distinction between two kinds of Israel: an ideal remnant of faithful Israelites vis-à-vis a disobedient majority. By doing so, the “Servant Songs” are still set in a category apart from other passages in which the servant is clearly Israel (see below). Another unfortunate consequence of Duhm’s thesis is that the “Servant Songs” have been thought to portray the same figure and therefore ought to be interpreted in light of each other. In an important article, P. Wilcox and D. Paton-Williams have argued that each passage should be interpreted separately and in close relation to their context.33 Concerning the figure of Isa 42:1–4, they state that “there is a difference between the character of the servant within the first Servant Song and the character of servant Israel in chs. 40– 48; but there is no difference of identity.” 34 Accordingly, the obstacles to identifying the servant consistently with Israel appear first at Isa 49, where the servant is addressed as Israel (49:3) and has a task towards Israel (49:5). Drawing upon the claim that Isa 40–55 should be divided into two, they contend that the servant in Isa 40–48 is Israel, however unable to fulfill its task, whereas the servant in Isa 49–55 is the prophet having a double mission both to Israel and to the nations. Wilcox and Paton-Williams’ thesis is further warranted by the observation that the portrayals of the servant as an individual become more detailed as we move on from the first to the last three of the “Songs.”35 We will return to this theme in chapter 7. III. Methodological Issues and Critical Editions In line with the recent tendencies within critical scholarship, it seems adequate to approach Isaiah as a coherent theological unity rather than merely a collection of oracles, placed arbitrarily along each other without any concern 32

Smart, Second Isaiah, 81; cf. Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 335: “The polarity remains … between a promised new Israel of the future and a suffering and atoning figure of the past.” 33 Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs. 34 Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 88; emphasis original. 35 Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 85; cf. Jeppesen, My Servant, 122; North, Suffering Servant, 180–181.

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

84

for expressing a consistent message. This view on the nature of Isaiah must have an impact on the approach to the “Servant Songs.” Rather than interpreting them as an isolated entity secondarily inserted into the material and accordingly reflecting the intention of some alleged redaction – which in addition makes it difficult, if not impossible, to answer questions regarding who they address and who they refer to – we should interpret the “Servant Songs” within their present literary framework. Tensions between them and their context should thus be taken seriously as a significant element in the overall message. Not surprisingly, Childs goes for this interpretative option, as he states: “regardless of their [the ‘Songs’’] compositional history … these passages are to be understood within their present literary context of chapters 40–55.”36 If we acknowledge a progressive argument or overall line of thought in Isaiah as a whole, the single passages – in our case 42:1–9 – have a certain role or function within the book. Ideally, therefore, one cannot deal with a particular passage or theme without paying serious attention to its placement or treatment within Isaiah as such. Conversely, the entire book has an informative value for understanding the single passages, for instance, the identity and task of the servant in 42:1–9.37 The following analysis deals with 42:1–9 as a discrete entity within its immediate literary context of 41:1–42:12. Its specific function within Isaiah’s overall narrative, including its relation to the other servant passages, will be discussed in the concluding chapter 7. Because the main aim of this book is to investigate Isa 42:1–9 within the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and the New Testament, there is a particular focus on linguistic issues to prepare the meticulous comparisons of the different versions in chapters 5 and 6. A helpful source here is J. Goldingay and D. Payne’s commentary, which gives prominence to textual and philological matters. 38 The examination will refer to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th edition, 1997), although a series of textual notes lists the alternative readings in the Qumran material. The translation, which accompanies the presentation of the MT, is taken from the NRSV (1989). This standard translation is used throughout as a basis, although I occasionally depart from it to offer a more literal rendering of the Hebrew.

36

Childs, Isaiah, 323. Cf. Kennedy, Source, 182. 38 See Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55. 37

B. Text, Form, Structure, and Context

85

B. Isaiah 42:1–9: Text, Form, Structure, and Context B. Text, Form, Structure, and Context

This section deals with exegetical issues concerning Isa 42:1–9. First, a presentation of the Hebrew text and a modern English translation is offered. This is followed by an analysis of the form and structure of the unit and its placement within Isa 41:1–42:12. The next section will present a verse-byverse examination of the passage, which focuses in particular on the identity and task of the figure portrayed. I. Text and Translation According to H. Gzella’s article on text-critical matters in Isaiah, the Hebrew textual tradition of Isa 40–55 is “exceptionally good.”39 The reliability of MT Isaiah is largely supported by our best ancient textual witness in Hebrew: the great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) and other fragments from Qumran. This is also true for Isa 42:1–9, because the differences between the MT and Qumran versions are few and often of minor significance:40 MT

‫־בּוֹ‬2‫ ַעבְדִּ י ֶא ְת ָמְך‬1‫הֵן‬ ‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ְבּח‬ ‫שׁי‬ ִ ‫ָרצְתָ ה נַ ְפ‬ ‫נָתַ ִתּי רוּחִי ָעלָיו‬ ‫ לַגּוֹי ִם יוֹצִיא׃‬3‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ 5 ‫שּׂא‬ ָ ִ ‫ וְֹלא י‬4‫ֹלא י ִ ְצעַק‬ ‫שׁ ִמי ַע בַּחוּץ קוֹלוֹ׃‬ ְ ַ ‫וְֹלא־י‬ ‫שׁבּוֹר‬ ְ ִ ‫ָקנֶה ָרצוּץ ֹלא י‬ 6 ‫שׁתָּ ה ֵכהָה ֹלא י ְ ַכ ֶבּנָּה‬ ְ ‫וּ ִפ‬ ‫שׁפָּט׃‬ ְ ‫ יוֹצִיא ִמ‬7‫ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬ 9 ‫ י ִ ְכהֶה וְֹלא י ָרוּץ‬8‫ֹלא‬ ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ִמ‬ ֶ ‫שׂים בּ‬ ִ ָ ‫עַד־י‬ 10 ‫ְתוֹרתוֹ ִאיּ ִים יְיַחֵילוּ׃‬ ָ ‫וּל‬ 11 ‫כּ ֹה־אָמַר ָה ֵאל י ְהוָה‬ ‫שּׁ ַמי ִם וְנוֹטֵיהֶם‬ ָ ‫בּוֹרא ַה‬ ֵ ‫ָאָרץ ְו ֶצ ֱא ָצ ֶאי ָה‬ ֶ ‫ר ֹ ַקע ה‬ ‫שׁ ָמה ָלעָם ָעלֶי ָה‬ ָ ְ‫נ ֹתֵ ן נ‬ 39

NRSV 1 Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 He will not cry or lift up [his voice], or make his voice heard in the street; 3 a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. 4 He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching. 5 Thus says God, YHWH, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it

Gzella, New Ways, 389. Isa 42:1–9 occurs in full length in 1QIsaa, but is lacking in 1QIsab. Around 20 words are preserved in 4QIsab and part of vv. 4–9 in 4QIsah. For text-critical surveys of Isa 42:1– 9, see e.g. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 208–209; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 198–199, 222– 223; Gzella, New Ways; Maillet, Servant Songs, 43–47; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 647–648. 40

86

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

‫וְרוּ ַח לַה ֹ ְלכִים בָּהּ׃‬ ‫ֲאנִי י ְהוָה ְק ָראתִ יָך ְבצֶדֶ ק‬ ‫ ְבּי ָדֶ ָך‬12‫וְאַ ְחז ֵק‬ ‫ְו ֶאצּ ְָרָך ְו ֶא ֶתּנְָך‬ ‫ לְאוֹר גּוֹי ִם׃‬14‫ִלב ְִרית עָם‬ ‫ִלפְק ֹ ַח עֵינַי ִם ִעוְרוֹת‬ ‫ְלהוֹצִיא ִמ ַמּ ְסגֵּר ַאסִּיר‬ ‫שְׁך׃‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁבֵי ח‬ ְ ֹ ‫ִמבֵּית ֶכּלֶא י‬ ‫שׁ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ֲאנִי י ְהוָה הוּא‬ ‫וּכְבוֹדִ י לְאַחֵר ֹלא־ ֶא ֵתּן‬ ‫וּתְ ִהלָּתִ י ַל ְפּסִילִים׃‬ ‫ה ִָראשׁ ֹנוֹת ִהנֵּה־בָאוּ‬ ‫ ֲאנִי ַמגִּיד‬15‫ַוחֲדָ שׁוֹת‬ ‫ְבּט ֶֶרם ִתּ ְצ ַמ ְחנָה‬ ‫שׁ ִמיע ֶא ְתכֶם׃‬ ְ ‫ַא‬

and spirit to those who walk in it: 6 I am YHWH, I have called you in righteousness, I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you13 as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, 7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. 8 I am YHWH, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols. 9 See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; Before they spring forth, I tell you of them.

1

1QIsaa has ‫הנה‬. 1QIsaa has a cohortative or lengthened imperfect (‫)אתמוכה‬. 3 1QIsaa reads “and … his justice” (‫)ומשפטו‬. 4 1QIsaa reads the synonymous ‫ יזעק‬for ‫יצעק‬. 5 The direct object of the verb is most probably “his voice” (‫ )קולו‬in the following clause. 6 1QIsaa has ‫ יכבה‬without suffix, which is supported by other ancient versions. 7 There is no external support for emending ‫ ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬to ‫“( ָל ֻאמּוֹת‬to the peoples”), as has been proposed e.g. by Giesebrecht and Cheyne; cf. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 198; Gzella, New Ways, 390. 8 1QIsaa and 4QIsab read “and … not” (‫)ולוא‬. 9 Many scholars argue that a Niphal (‫ י ֵרוֹץ‬for ‫ )י ָרוּץ‬should be read in order to clarify the meaning (cf. NRSV). This emendation is supported by one important Hebrew manuscript and by the passive form in the LXX, “he will not be overwhelmed” (θραυσθήσεται). The rabbinic interpreters Rashi and Kimhi assume this as well. The emendation, however, may be unnecessary if the Qal form includes intransitive actions; cf. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 198–199; Gzella, New Ways, 397; Marcus, Plain Meaning, 253. 10 1QIsaa reads “and they will cause the coastlands to possess his teachings” ( ‫ולתורתיו איים‬ ‫)ינחילו‬. 11 1QIsaa reads “the God of the gods” (‫)האל האלהים‬. 12 1QIsaa reads ‫ואחזיקה‬. 13 Cf. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 209; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 226–229. NRSV has perfect tenses, reading consecutive forms (‫) ָו‬: “I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you…” (cf. Syr and Vg; see Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 222). 14 4QIsah reads “as an eternal covenant” (‫) ִלב ְִרית עוֹלָם‬. 15 1QIsaa adds the article ‫ ה‬to parallel ‫ ;ה ִָראשׁ ֹנוֹת‬4QIsab corresponds to the MT. 2

The ancient non-Hebrew versions of Isa 42:1–9 can be grouped into two: the Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate correspond very closely to the MT and

B. Text, Form, Structure, and Context

87

can be regarded as fairly literal translations,41 the Greek LXX and the Aramaic Targumim, on the other hand, appear to be more “creative” versions, showing tendencies towards actualizing and contextual exegesis.42 II. Form and Structure It is rather certain that a new unit begins in 42:1. The question is where it comes to an end. On the one hand, a shift occurs in v. 5, marked by a messenger-formula, which indicates the beginning of a new subsection. In vv. 1– 4, YHWH speaks of his servant, whereas in vv. 5–9, he addresses the servant directly. This demarcation is furthermore supported by the Qumran and Masoretic textual traditions. In 1QIsaa and the Leningrad Codex (cf. BHS), the scribes have apparently understood vv. 1–4 as an independent paragraph, insofar as the end of 41:29 and 42:4 is left blank (petucha) and vv. 1 and 5 introduce new lines.43 On the other hand, the terms ‫ הֵן‬and ‫ ִהנֵּה‬in vv. 1 and 9 and the explicit first-person speaker in vv. 1 and 8–9 suggest a chiastic pat-

41

Minor variants in Peshitta include the reading of “flickering lamp” for “dimly burning wick” in v. 3, perfect forms of the verbs in v. 7, a reversal of the two sentences in v. 9a (“The new things I make known; the former things – See!”), and a variant “I will proclaim them” in v. 9b. Minor variants in Vulgate include the adding of “in him” (in illo) in v. 1 to clarify the statement and the passive form “nor shall his voice be heard” (nec audietur … vox eius; cf. LXX) for “or make his voice heard” in v. 2. V. 2 furthermore reads “nor have respect to person” (neque accipiet personam) for “nor lift up,” assuming the word “face” (‫ ; ָפּנ ִים‬cf. Deut 10:17). V. 4 reads “he shall not be sad, nor troublesome” (non erit tristis neque turbulentus), replacing the verbs in MT by two adjectives with a slightly different meaning. As was mentioned, the latter three verbs in v. 7 are translated in the perfect tense (adprehendi, servavi, dedi), assuming consecutive forms (cf. Syr). 42 Gzella, New Ways, 423. For the LXX version, see the verse-by-verse comparison in chapter 5. A brief comparison of MT Isa 42:1–9 and the Targum versions indicate a series of variants. Some witnesses in the Targum textual tradition add “Messiah” (‫ )משיהא‬to “my servant” in v. 1. The verse furthermore reads “whom I will bring near” (‫ )אקרבניה‬for “whom I uphold,” “my word/decision” (‫ )מימרי‬for “my soul” (cf. 49:5), “my holy spirit” (‫ )רוח קודשׁי‬for “my spirit,” “my judgment” (‫ )דיני‬for MT’s ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫( ִמ‬cf. 42:3, 4), and “he shall reveal” (‫ )יגלי‬for “he shall bring forth.” In v. 3 the Targum adds “the humble” (‫ )ענותניא‬and “the poor” (‫ )חשׁיכיא‬to explain the ambiguous “bruised reed” and “dimly burning wick.” V. 5 reads “the God of eternity, YHWH” (‫ )אלה עלמא יוי‬for “God, YHWH,” and v. 6 reads “in truth” (‫ ;בקשׁוט‬cf. 42:3) for “in righteousness.” In v. 7, the Targum explicitly interprets the blind and the prisoners by adding “the eyes of the house of Israel, who are blind to the law” (‫ ;עיני בית ישׂראל דאנון כסמן מן אוריתא‬cf. “torah” in 42:4), “their captivity among the nations” (‫)גלוותהון מביני עממיא‬, and “from the servitude of the kingdoms” (‫)משׁעבוד מלכותא‬. V. 8 has “my glory in which I am revealed to you” (‫ )יקרי דאתגליתי עליכון‬for “glory,” “to another people” (‫ )לעם אחרן‬for “to no other,” and “worshippers of images” (‫ )פלחי צלמיא‬for “idols;” see Chilton, Glory of Israel; Gzella, New Ways, 413–419. 43 Gzella, New Ways, 391.

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

88

tern and both sections share a series of words and motifs.44 In terms of content, both sections account for the vocation and installation of YHWH’s servant. Form critics, including older commentators, are mostly agreed on dividing the unit into at least two independent literary units (vv. 1–4, 5–9).45 The form (Gattung) of the former unit is determined as a presentation, designation, installation, or commission oracle of a king or a prophet, whereas the latter appears as a mixture of several genres (hymn, commission, installation report, dispute).46 Already in the 1970’s, however, Melugin mounted the case that vv. 1–4 and vv. 5–9 are based on traditional forms of speech; yet at the same time, by means of the creativity of the prophet, the forms have been shaped and reinterpreted to fit their present rhetorical context.47 As such they appear as imitations, free citations, or reminiscences of older material. While recognizing these diachronic observations, recent commentators largely assume that the passage constitutes a unity, yet divided into two minor sub-units.48 As Blenkinsopp states, “the two statements (vv. 1–4, 5–9) belong together even if the second was added later, an opinion often expressed but impossible to prove.”49

44

E.g. ‫( נתן‬vv. 1b, 5b, 6b, 8b), ‫( רוּ ַח‬vv. 1b, 5b), ‫( גּוֹי ִם‬vv. 1b, 6b), ‫( יצא‬vv. 1b, 3b, 7b), and ‫( ֶא ֶרץ‬vv. 4a, 5a); cf. Snyman, Structural, 253; Werlitz, Knecht, 34, note 16. 45 E.g. Bentzen, Jesaja II, 25; Childs, Isaiah, 316; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 198, 222; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 36, 39; North, Isaiah 40–55, 60, 63; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 92, 97; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 70, 73. Childs, however, states that “each passage [i.e. vv. 1–4; 5–9] appears to have its own discrete integrity. Yet in the larger context of Second Isaiah, the two passages clearly supplement each other” (326). 46 Childs, Isaiah, 316; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 199–200, 223–229; Kaiser, Knecht, 15– 18; Melugin, Formation, 66–67; Merendino, Der Erste, 250–254; Westermann, Isaiah 40– 66, 98. 47 Melugin, Formation, 69, 98. Cf. Childs, Isaiah, 316: “Often the genres of Second Isaiah have been radically transformed within its literary composition and have acquired a new function, largely shaped by the prophet’s own creative intention.” 48 E.g. Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja, 169; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 208; Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 41; Goldingay, Message, 149; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 208; Motyer, Prophecy, 318; Oswalt, Isaiah, 107; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 184; Snyman, Structural, 252–253; cf. Kaiser, Knecht, 44. 49 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 209. Among the several redaction-critical theories regarding the shaping of the material, some state that vv. 5–9 were added to vv. 1–4 to provide a certain interpretation of the servant figure (e.g. Israel; cf. Werlitz, Knecht, 34–36; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 101; or Cyrus; cf. Kratz, Kyros, 141); others state that vv. 1–4 and vv. 5–7 are later insertions in 42:21–29 and 42:8–9 (e.g. Buhl, Jesaja, 530; Duhm, Jesaia, 311); others state that only vv. 1–4 are a later interpolation (“Einschub”) in the original Cyrus song of 41:21–29 and 42:5–9 (e.g. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 231; Mowinckel, Komposition, 245).

B. Text, Form, Structure, and Context

89

In the following, I will treat Isa 42:1–9 as one coherent unity consisting of two minor parts:50 Vv. 1–4: YHWH’s presentation of the servant and his task 1a Description: Servant, chosen, source of delight, spirit-filled 1b Task: To bring forth ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬to the nations 2–3a Description: Does not cry out, does not destroy the weak 3b Task: To bring forth ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬faithfully 4a Description: Not weak, not defeated 4b Task: To establish ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in the earth, torah to the coastlands Vv. 5–9: YHWH’s address to the servant 5 YHWH as sovereign creator 6a YHWH’s self-presentation: ‫ֲאנִי י ְהוָה‬ 6b Description: Called by YHWH as covenant and light 7 Task: To open blind eyes, bring out prisoners 8a YHWH’s self-presentation: ‫ֲאנִי י ְהוָה‬ 8b–9 YHWH as lord of history Vv. 1–4 describe YHWH’s designation of his servant. Two themes are intertwined: the description of the servant (vv. 1a, 2–3a, 4a) and the presentation of his task (vv. 1b, 3b, 4b). Skillfully construed, vv. 1–4 consist of seven positive and seven negative statements.51 All the negative statements describe the servant and his behavior (vv. 2–3a, 4a), whereas three of the positive statements present his task (vv. 1b, 3b, 4b). Vv. 5–9 form a chiasm. The description of the servant (v. 6b) and the presentation of his task (v. 7) constitute the center, which is framed by the self-presentation (vv. 6a, 8a) and portrayal of YHWH (vv. 5, 8b–9) as sovereign creator and lord of history. III. The Literary Context of 41:1–42:12 It is almost universally held that 41:1 marks the beginning of a new unit, following the description of YHWH’s ability and willingness to save his people in 40:12–31. There is a shift of form, addressee, subject, and tone.52 The debate, however, remains where this new unit comes to an end. Laato, 50

For different opinions on the structure of the passage, see e.g. Kim, Ambiguity, 56– 57; Motyer, Prophecy, 319; Snyman, Structural, 256. According to Steck, Aspekte, 373– 375, vv. 1–4 – along with the remaining “Servant Songs” – have a tripartite structure, which consists of the description of the task (v. 1), the manner in which the task is carried out (vv. 2–3a), and the result of the task (vv. 3b-4); cf. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 199–200. 51 Cf. Kim, Ambiguity, 69–70. 52 Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 135. Motyer, Prophecy, 308, 314, however, has two major blocks: 40:1–41:20 (“the consolation of Zion”) and 41:21–42:17 (“the consolation of Gentiles”).

90

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

for instance, follows the medieval chapter division by viewing Isa 41 as one unit with its center (vv. 8–20) framed by passages referring to Cyrus (vv. 1–7, 21–29).53 Others take 41:1–20 as an independent unit, insofar as the imperatives in 41:21 indicate a shift of addressee. The unit introduced in 41:21, then, continues into Isa 42 and terminates either at v. 9, 12, 13, 17, or 25.54 Drawing upon recent commentaries, I will take for granted that 41:1–42:12 constitutes a coherent whole. 55 The literary unit opens with a call to trial (41:1) and ends with a call to praise (42:10–12), moving from the silence of the coastlands to the universal worship of YHWH. Concluding larger blocks by an eschatological hymn is a familiar rhetorical device within these chapters of Isaiah (e.g. 44:23; 49:13; 55:12–13).56 It remains unclear where the concluding hymn, which begins to sound in 42:10, ends. 57 In my view, it comes to an end in 42:12, insofar as the third-person presentation of YHWH in 42:13 introduces the direct divine speech of vv. 14–17.58 The exact demarcation of the hymn, however, does not have an impact on the overall structure of the larger unit which, although not entirely symmetrical, can be divided into two blocks of parallel sequences: Trial scenes: YHWH and his servant: Salvation and praise:

41:1–7 41:8–16 41:17–20

41:21–29 42:1–9 42:10–12

41:1–7 parallels 41:21–29 about YHWH’s trial against the nations and their gods, 41:8–16 parallels 42:1–9 about YHWH and his servant, and 41:17–20 parallels 42:10–12 in closing the parallel sequences. The parallelism between the two blocks suggests that the servant figure of Isa 42:1–9 has something to do with that of Isa 41:8–16. The overall topic of 41:1–42:12 is the sovereignty of YHWH in history. The unit itself is strongly theocentric. YHWH is the speaker most of the time 53 Laato, Servant of YHWH, 175; cf. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 28; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 33. 54 E.g. Bentzen, Jesaja II, 25; Kim, Ambiguity, 57; Motyer, Prophecy, 314; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 643. 55 Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja, 9–10; Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 168–170; Childs, Isaiah, 316– 317; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 135–136; Melugin, Formation, 93. For redaction-critical reviews of its history of formation, see e.g. Albertz, Exile, 394–395; Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 170–171, 211–213; Hermisson, Einheit, 311; Kratz, Cyrus, 217. Kratz, for instance, distinguishes between six different redactions, all of which have shaped the present form of 41:1–42:12. 56 Cf. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 19–20. 57 Berges has 42:12; Baltzer, Childs, and Melugin have 42:13; Goldingay & Payne have 42:17. 58 Accordingly, I would end v. 13 with a colon and introduce v. 14 with a quotation mark: “YHWH goes forth like a soldier … he shows himself mighty against his foes: ‘For a long time…’”

B. Text, Form, Structure, and Context

91

and the content of his speech concerns his divine uniqueness. Two major themes are intertwined: the proof-from-prophecy as a crucial criterion for determining true divinity and YHWH’s actions towards and through his servant. The trial scenes, in which the ability to predict and control history is to be tested, serve to demonstrate YHWH’s power vis-à-vis the impotent gods of the nations (41:1–7, 21–29). Childs, however, has rightly pointed out that the trials have a fictive form. There are never two voices arguing, but only one, that is, YHWH’s monologue. The conclusion is thus given from the outset: “the gods are not proven wrong, but rather to be a delusion. They are nothing, lacking all substance.”59 YHWH alone is the true God, the absolute creator (cf. 40:12–31) and lord of history. YHWH, however, is not only able to rule the course of history, he is also willing to execute his plan for and through his servant (41:8–16; 42:1–9). The nothingness of the foreign gods corresponds to YHWH’s vigorous actions in behalf of and by means of his servant. Both themes can thus be seen as two sides of the same coin, demonstrating YHWH’s supremacy and calling forth recognition of his sovereign rule (41:17–20; 42:10–12).60 41:1–7 accounts for YHWH’s raising of an unnamed conqueror and the nations’ reaction towards him. In v. 1, YHWH summons the distant coastlands (‫ ) ִאיּ ִים‬and peoples (‫ ) ֻא ִמּים‬for a trial. The main question is set forth in vv. 2–4: who is responsible for this conqueror? The style is confrontational: who (‫) ִמי‬ did this? Is it YHWH or the gods of the nations? Vv. 2–3 describe the victor and his appearance.61 He has been raised from the east and has experienced easy victories. He tramples foreign kings under foot and makes them like dust with his sword and bow. Among modern scholars, there is almost a consensus that this victor refers to the Persian king Cyrus (cf. v. 25; 45:13), although he is not presented by name until 44:28; 45:1.62

59

Childs, Isaiah, 321. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 168. 61 The grammar of v. 2a, however, is difficult. NRSV takes ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬to be the object of the verb “to raise” (‫ עור‬in Hiphil; cf. 1QIsaa, LXX, Tg, Syr; Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 173; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 158–159). This reading runs against the meter in the MT (3+3), wherefore many scholars assume an implicit object and read the latter part of v. 2a as a relative clause; e.g. Childs, Isaiah, 311: “Who stirred up one from the east, whom victory meets at every step;” and Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 142: “Who aroused from the east one whom right calls to its heel?”, both having ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬as subject of ‫ ;י ִ ְק ָר ֵאהוּ‬cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 195; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 62. 62 Childs, Isaiah, 318. Other proposals include Israel (cf. 41:8–9, 11, 15; see Smart, Second Isaiah, 67–69; Snaith, Isaiah 40–66, 163–164; Servant, 192–193) and Abraham (cf. 41:8–9; 51:2). Some Targum versions explicitly identify the conqueror of 41:2 by adding “Abraham;” this interpretation is followed by medieval (Rashi, Calvin, and Luther) as well as a few modern (Torrey, Kissane) commentators; cf. the review in Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 179–180. 60

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

92

Despite the aggressive tone of the passage, the questions are purely rhetorical and point to YHWH’s intervention. The divine “I” (‫ ) ֲאנִי‬in v. 4 underlines YHWH’s intense engagement (cf. 41:13, 17; 42:6, 8) as he alone stands behind the course of history. By claiming his power over Cyrus in the trial (‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ) ַל ִמּ‬against the nations, YHWH affirms that he controls “the path of justice” (‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ;א ַֹרח ִמ‬40:14) and that he does not ignore the right (‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ; ִמ‬40:27) of his people Israel (see below).63 YHWH’s sovereignty over all history is furthermore claimed by the statement that he has called forth agents and events “from the beginning” (‫ ; ֵמר ֹאשׁ‬v. 4; cf. v. 25). Facing the terrifying victor, the coastlands and remote areas of the world respond by producing idols as a means of protection (cf. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). The tone is highly ironical. 41:1–7 as a whole portrays a deep contrast between “the enormous history creating dynamic of the God of Israel” and “the powerless, static folly of the foreign nations whose hope is completely without substance.”64 41:8–16 presents YHWH’s direct address to his servant Israel. YHWH’s renewed support and care for his people as its creator and redeemer in vv. 8– 10 repeat the theme unfolded in the preceding chapter, especially 40:27–31.65 Israel is God’s servant, chosen, called, and upheld. The point is profoundly theological: Israel is the creation and property of YHWH. The description of YHWH’s relation to Israel forms a subtle contrast to the idol production in 41:5–7.66 The three terms (‫עזר‬, ‫אמר‬, ‫)חזק‬, which are used to describe the nations’ activities, now designates YHWH’s actions towards his servant Israel in vv. 9–10: “you whom I took (‫ ) ֶה ֱחז ַ ְקתִּ יָך‬from the ends of the earth … saying (‫ )אֹמַר‬to you, ‘You are my servant’ … I will help you (‫ ”!) ֲעז ְַרתִּ יָך‬Whereas the nations are afraid of the conqueror (v. 5), Israel is three times admonished not to be afraid (vv. 10a, 13b, 14a). The themes of the enemies’ defeat (cf. v. 2) and YHWH’s salvation of Israel recur in vv. 11–13. There are no clear references to Cyrus or any other earthly figure; YHWH himself appears to fight for his people. The divine assurance of protection receives further strength in vv. 14–16. Rather paradoxically, the weak little worm – Israel – that normally is the victim of a threshing sledge, here itself becomes the instrument of destruction. 67 The threshing imagery indicates a removal of barriers and obstacles that prohibit the realization of the divine plan (cf. 40:3–4; 49:11). The blooming of the wilderness in vv. 17–20 demonstrates YHWH’s creative power (cf. vv. 1–7) in order to call forth knowledge and recognition. The 63

Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 178–179. Childs, Isaiah, 318. 65 Childs, Isaiah, 319. 66 Melugin, Formation, 96. 67 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 197. 64

B. Text, Form, Structure, and Context

93

concern is not fear (cf. vv. 8–16) but proper understanding of YHWH’s redemptive act towards Israel in terms of spiritual restoration. The use of ‫ברא‬ (“to create”) in v. 20 points forward to the portrayal of YHWH in 42:5. 41:21–29 contains another trial scene, which consists of two parallel subunits: vv. 21–24 and 25–29. Peoples attend court (vv. 21–22a, 25), something is tested (vv. 22b-23, 26–27), and the assessment sounds (vv. 24, 28–29). In vv. 21–22a, YHWH readdresses the coastlands and the foreign peoples (‫קרב‬ and ‫ נגשׁ‬in Hiphil; cf. v. 1). They shall set forth their case and deliver their proofs, that is, bring their idols (cf. vv. 5–7). The key topic in vv. 22b-23 is the foreign gods’ ability to control future events, including their ability to predict those events before they occur. This is the definition of true divinity (cf. v. 23a). The idols remain silent and inactive, wherefore YHWH’s assessment is inevitable: “you, indeed, are nothing” (‫)הֵן־ ַאתֶּ ם מֵאַי ִן‬. Those who choose them are condemned as an abomination. Vv. 25–26 present YHWH’s own proof: he has raised an unnamed conqueror, presumably Cyrus (cf. v. 2–3; 45:13).68 His appearance is victorious as he tramples on rulers. None of the foreign gods has apparently foreseen the occurrence of these events. By contrast, YHWH predicted them (cf. Isa 13) and he is the first to announce future salvation for his people, as v. 27a indicates.69 A future-oriented perspective is clearly at stake in v. 27b as YHWH will give (‫ ) ֶא ֵתּן‬a messenger of good tidings (‫ ) ְמ ַבשֵּׂר‬to Jerusalem. Apart from the prologue (40:9), Zion/Jerusalem first becomes a distinctive theme in 49– 55.70 The reference in v. 27 could anticipate the message of peace delivered 68 The phrase “he will call on my [YHWH’s] name” (‫שׁ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ )י ִ ְק ָרא ִב‬is puzzling insofar as Cyrus is never said to know YHWH (cf. 45:5). Some read Niphal (‫)י ִ ָקּ ֵרא‬: “he was called/summoned by my name” (cf. the footnote in BHS; NRSV; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40– 55, 204), while others also emend “my name” to “his name” (‫)בשׁמוֹ‬: “he was called by his name” (cf. 1QIsaa; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 171) or with YHWH as subject: “he [YHWH] has called his [Cyrus’] name” (cf. 45:3–4). Childs, Isaiah, 321 maintains the phrase in the MT: “For the prophet, everything that Cyrus did was in obedience to God’s authority, even if concealed (44:28; 45:4). The statement is to be understood theologically as part of the overarching divine guidance of this pagan ruler.” Cf. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 210. 69 V. 27a is rather obscure, which has evoked a series of suggestions for emending the text; see Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 174–175; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 203–206. The MT literally reads “first to Zion – behold, behold them” (‫)ראשׁוֹן ְלצִיּוֹן ִהנֵּה ִהנָּם‬. ִ Read straightforwardly, YHWH is the first (cf. 41:4) to announce to Zion that someone (the returning exiles, the Persian army, a messenger?) arrives. Or perhaps the message “behold, behold them” is that of the messenger in the latter half of the verse. 70 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 222 regards v. 27 as a later addition: “Durch die Einfügung von V 27 ist der Weissagungsbeweis erweitert, denn nicht nur mit dem Siegeszug des Persers haben die Götter der Völker nichts zu tun, sondern auch nicht mit der Heilsperspektive für Zion/Jerusalem, die unter Darius I. aktuell wird;” cf. Albertz, Exile, 406; Kratz, Kyros, 41. If v. 27 is removed, there is a perfectly balanced parallel between vv. 21– 24 and vv. 25–29, both units containing 14 colas.

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

94

to Zion in 52:7–10. Significantly, the reference could also point forward to the figure of Isa 42:1–9 (see below). YHWH’s overall assessment resounds in vv. 28–29. No one has answered him. The idols and those who produce them are nothing. As a climax to this scene, YHWH presents his servant. The connections between Isa 41:21–29 and 42:1–9 are remarkable: the prominent use of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in 42:1–4 continues the legal language of the preceding passage and there are many shared terms and linguistic features.71 The larger unit closes with an eschatological hymn in 42:10–12. The new things that are about to spring forth (cf. 42:9) call forth a new song, which responds to the preceding context by its repetition of language.72 The worldwide praise to YHWH corresponds to the worldwide mission of the servant. The praise is evoked among humans inhabiting the coastlands, desert, and mountains – those who benefit from the teaching that the servant brings – rather than elements of nature (cf. 44:23; 55:12).73 The people of YHWH are not singled out, which underlines the universal tone. In sum, the literary context reveals a genuine theocentric concern. The focus of Isa 41 is not on the unnamed conqueror or Israel in themselves, but rather on YHWH’s absoluteness and his actions through Cyrus and towards his people. The same is true for 42:1–9, which apparently is more about YHWH and his purpose with the servant than about the servant himself.74

C. The Servant and His Task C. The Servant and His Task

Form-critical analysis suggests that 42:1–9 depicts some sort of installation or commissioning of a figure who is presented as YHWH’s servant. Nevertheless, the nature and identity of this servant are by no means clear. Some elements indicate a royal figure,75 whereas other elements indicate a prophet or a preacher.76 Several terms and features can be applied to both and are appar71

These include: “to choose, chosen” (‫ ;בחר‬41:24; 42:1); “to give” (‫ ;נתן‬41:27; 42:1, 5, 6, 8); “spirit” (‫ ;רוּ ַח‬41:29; 42:1, 5); “to proclaim, announce” (‫ שׁמע‬in Hiphil; 41:24, 26; 42:2, 9); “to call” (‫ ;קרא‬41:25; 42:6); “name” (‫שׁם‬ ֵ ; 41:25; 42:8); “first” (‫;ראשׁוֹן‬ ִ 41:22, 27; 42:9); “to declare” (‫ נגד‬in Hiphil; 41:22, 23, 26; 42:9); and both units mention graven images (41:29; 42:8); cf. Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 184. 72 Melugin, Formation, 101. 73 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 240. 74 Snyman, Structural, 259; cf. Goldingay, Message, 167: “As vv. 1–4 focus not on the servant but on the issuing of mišpāṭ on Yhwh’s behalf, so vv. 5–9 focus not on the person called but on Yhwh and Yhwh’s activity.” 75 Kaiser, Knecht, 39; Laato, Servant of YHWH, 77–78; Williamson, Variations, 132– 135. 76 North, Isaiah 40–55, 62: “On the whole, the Servant looks more like a prophet than a king;” cf. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 201; Merendino, Der Erste, 231.

C. The Servant and His Task

95

ently blended.77 Some of the terms could also be applied to a faithful community. The ambivalent identity of the figure has called forth a series of scholarly interpretations. Facing the vagueness of the servant, some scholars have downplayed the importance of determining his identity.78 First, it is argued that the ambiguous and veiled language is intentional. Much was meant to remain concealed even from the original audience. Second, it is argued that the key concern of the passage is to describe the task of the servant – to bring forth justice, open blind eyes, and release captives – and to affirm that it will be realized. It is his role rather than his identity that matters. Third, it is argued that it is “in violation of the poetic tenor of the material to try to pin down the meaning of the Servant to one individual, one class, or, for that matter, one time.”79 Although these objections serve as a serious reminder of the limitations of the task at hand, it remains of significance to consider the identity of the servant. As will become apparent, many issues in the passage depend on how we see him, including the nature and focus of his task and the audience being addressed. Nevertheless, the intention here is not to present one definitive interpretation. It seems more adequate to examine critically how the terms and motifs of the passage can be interpreted, depending on whom we figure the servant to be. 80 Possible identifications of the figure include Cyrus, 81 a

77

Cf. Smart, Second Isaiah, 82: “The prophet spoke for God, and the king ruled for God, but in such figures of the past as Abraham, Moses, and Samuel, there is a mingling of the prophetic and royal functions. They both speak for God and rule for him;” Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 97: “two lines of mediation [king and prophet] which had parted company during the course of Israel’s history are reunited in the servant.” 78 See e.g. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 41; Kim, Ambiguity, 59–60; Melugin, Formation, 67– 68; Schweizer, Prädikationen; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 93; Williamson, Variations, 135. 79 Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 41. 80 The examination draws upon the following works: Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja, 169–186; Begrich, Studien, 137–138, 161–165; Bentzen, Jesaja II, 32–36; Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 223–239; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 208–212; Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 41–45; Buhl, Jesaja, 528–536; Childs, Isaiah, 323–327; Clifford, Fair Spoken, 84–93; Duhm, Jesaia, 311–315; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 198–240; Goldingay, Message, 149–168; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 208–232; Grimm & Dittert, Deuterojesaja, 133–148; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 40–48; Kaiser, Knecht, 15–44; Kennedy, Source, 189–196; Kim, Ambiguity, 55–101; Laato, Servant of YHWH, 74–87; Lindblom, Servant Songs, 14–24; Merendino, Der Erste, 210–255; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 36–41; Melugin, Formation, 64–69; Motyer, Prophecy, 318–322; North, Isaiah 40–55, 60–65; Suffering Servant, 131–135, 139–142; Oswalt, Isaiah, 107–120; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 184–191; Smart, Second Isaiah, 78–88; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 643–661; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 92–101; Whybray, Isaiah 40– 66, 70–76; Williamson, Variations, 130–146. 81 Cf. e.g. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 210; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 660.

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

96

Davidic Messiah,82 the prophet himself,83 and the people Israel,84 which all to a smaller or higher degree are warranted by the literary context in Isaiah.85 I. Isaiah 42:1 V. 1 opens with the particle ‫“( הֵן‬see, behold, or here/this is”), which marks the beginning of a new unit. It can also introduce an explanation or conclusion of something that precedes, indicating that a new point is about to be stated. If this is so, the presentation of the servant should be read in light of the trial scene of 41:21–29, including YHWH’s final assessment that the foreign gods are only nothing. The use of ‫ הֵן‬here and in 41:24, 29 suggests not only continuation, but also contrast: the foreign idol-gods and their work are nothing (41:24) and those producing idols are a delusion (41:29), but the servant of YHWH is really something! The function of ‫ הֵן‬is demonstrative. It signalizes YHWH’s turning towards his servant through a public act. YHWH is the speaker. The divine appointing and equipping of the servant happen in presence of an audience which can see, hear, and witness it. The identification of this audience depends on the identification of the servant figure. If the servant is identified as Cyrus or the Messiah, the audience can be understood as Israel or “the congregation” who will benefit of his appearance. 86 If the servant is identified as the prophet himself, the audience can be understood as a celestial sphere or court (cf. 40:6–8; 6:1–13).87 If the servant is identified as Israel, the audience can be understood as the earthly assembly of foreign nations and their fictive gods summoned to trial (cf. 41:1–7, 21–29).88 Even if the scene is not about an actual calling, but rather confirms the calling at a later date, as Elliger asserts, this does not rule out any of the proposed identities, insofar as the prophet 82

Cf. e.g. Oswalt, Isaiah, 107–120. Cf. e.g. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 200; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 71, however, only concerning the figure of vv. 1–4. According to both, vv. 5–9 portray Cyrus. 84 Cf. e.g. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 225; Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 42; Clifford, Fair Spoken, 92; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 212; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 18, 184; Smart, Second Isaiah, 79. 85 Some scholars have recently revived E. Sellin’s old proposal of identifying the servant with Moses or a second Moses figure (which he later discarded); see especially Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja, 44–47, 172–173; Hugenberger, Second Moses, 119–138. Their argument is mainly based upon the claim that the context is full of allusions to and motifs from to the Pentateuch (e.g. exodus, wilderness wandering, and torah) that suggest a reinterpreted figure of Moses. Within Isaiah, however, Moses is only mentioned in Isa 63:11–12. It seems more plausible to assume that characteristics associated with Moses have been applied to the servant figure rather than the servant is Moses as such (cf. Smart above). 86 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 211. 87 Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 200; North, Isaiah 40–55, 60; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 71. 88 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 225–226; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 209. 83

C. The Servant and His Task

97

was presented in 40:6–8 and 41:27, Cyrus in 41:2–4, 25, Messiah in 11:1–5, and Israel in 41:8–10. The term ‫“( ֶעבֶד‬servant”) which is theologically loaded points to the nature of the relationship (“Schutz- und Patronatsverhältnis”) rather than to a specific role or office within Israel’s social and religious life, although it sometimes denotes the servant of a king. In 2 Kings 22:12, a king’s servant (‫ ) ֶעבֶד ַה ֶמּלֶך‬is listed along with a priest and a scribe. Isa 37:5 likewise mentions servants of king Hezekiah (‫) ַעבְדֵ י ַה ֶמּלֶך‬, carrying a message to the prophet Isaiah. The servant of Isa 42:1 could thus be regarded as an official messenger of YHWH, King of Jacob (41:21).89 The term, however, is very widely attested in the Old Testament and its use is too large to determine anything certain about the figure here. Within Isaiah alone, it occurs 40 times and designates named and unnamed figures, including Isaiah (20:3), Eliakim son of Hilkiah (22:20), David (37:35), Israel/Jacob, 90 an anonymous servant, 91 and servants. 92 A brief outlook to other Old Testament books affirms the multiple options. YHWH often calls prominent figures “my servant:” Abraham (Gen 26:24), Moses (Num 12:7–8; Jos 1:2; Mal 4:4), David (1 Sam 27:12; 2 Sam 3:18; Ps 89:3, 20), Job (1:8; 2:3; 42:7, 8), Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10), Zerubbabel (Hagg 2:23), and the messianic Branch (Zech 3:8). The list of parallels warrants the proposed identifications of the servant figure in 42:1 insofar as the literary context in Isaiah supports an identification of the servant with Israel (41:8, 9), with the prophet (20:3), or a Davidic Messiah (37:35; cf. Isa 7; 9; 11). 93 Cyrus is never explicitly portrayed as YHWH’s servant; yet the references to Nebuchadrezzar in Jeremiah indicate that foreign rulers can be assigned this title as well. Within Isa 40–48, however, the servant is, with the possible exception of 44:26, always Jacob/Israel.94 The servant does not stand alone. YHWH supports or better upholds him (‫ ) ֶא ְת ָמְך־בּוֹ‬as Aaron and Hur held up (‫ )תָּ מְכוּ ְבי ָדָ יו‬the hands of Moses during the battle against Amalek (Ex 17:12). The image could also indicate a weak and suffering person, not capable of standing on his own (cf. Ps 41:13; 63:9). In Isaiah, the verb ‫ תמך‬occurs only in two other instances. In 33:15, it is used about accepting (“grasping”) bribes, whereas in 41:10, it is used about the servant Israel. The connection to this and other passages about Israel is fur89

Cf. Kennedy, Source, 185. Isa 41:8, 9; 42:19, 19; 43:10; 44:1, 2, 21, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3. The name “Israel” or “Jacob,” however, does not explicitly occur in 42:19, 19; 43:10. 91 Isa 42:1; 44:26; 49:5, 6, 7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:11. In 24:2, the term denotes a “slave” opposite “master.” 92 Isa 14:2; 36:9, 11; 37:5, 24; 54:17; 56:6; 63:17; 65:8, 9, 13, 13, 13, 14, 15; 66:14. 93 Notice that the prince and shepherd in Ezekiel’s visions, whom God will set up over his people, is called “my servant David” (34:23–24; 37:24; cf. Jer 23:5–6; 33:21–22, 26). 94 Cf. Wilcox & Paton-Willliams, Servant Songs, 83. 90

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

98

thermore strengthened by the designation of the servant as YHWH’s “chosen” (‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫) ְבּח‬. YHWH has chosen Israel/Jacob (41:8–9; 43:10, 20; 44:1–2; 45:4) and Israel is twice called “my chosen” (‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ ; ְבּח‬43:20; 45:4). God’s choice of the servant offers an ironic twist in light of 41:24: he who chooses idol-gods is an abomination, yet YHWH himself chooses his servant. In the chosen servant, YHWH’s soul – or better the divine “I myself” – has delight or is pleased. The other Isaianic occurrence of the verb ‫( רצה‬40:2), although in Niphal, implies the payment or acceptance of penalty (or offerings; cf. the use in Priestly material).95 Another plausible translation, then, is “whom my soul has accepted.” It is also interesting that in other texts ‫רצה‬ appears as an antonym of ‫“( מאס‬to spurn”).96 In 41:9 about Israel, the parallelism of “I have chosen you” (‫ ) ְבּח ְַרתִּ יָך‬and “I have not cast you off” (‫)ֹלא ְמאַסְתִּ יָך‬ provides further evidence for regarding 42:1 as a restatement of 41:8–10.97 On the other hand, the combination of ‫ בחר‬and ‫ רצה‬occurs in 1 Chr 28:4 too about king David.98 Moreover, in other texts the Davidic king is portrayed as both servant and chosen.99 YHWH’s bestowal of his spirit upon the servant offers another ironic twist in light of the preceding passage. In 41:29, the idol-images are described as “empty wind” (‫ ;)רוּ ַח וָת ֹהוּ‬yet the wind or spirit of YHWH is of a different nature. It is life-giving (cf. v. 5; 44:3), but here it rather concerns divine authority or power as a gifted charisma (cf. 48:16; 59:21; 61:1). The motif is common in the Old Testament and is applied to leaders, judges, kings, and prophets: for instance, the seventy elders in terms of a prophetic spirit (Num 11:25, 29), Gideon in terms of military leadership (Judg 6:34), and peoples in terms of a new, “prophetic” relationship to God (Joel 3:1–2). The motif has royal connotations. During his anointment, David receives the spirit of YHWH (1 Sam 16:13) and in the vision of the Davidic Messiah, the spirit of YHWH will rest on him with wisdom and vigor (Isa 11:2). Finally, in Isa 61:1, the servant claims that “the spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because YHWH has anointed me.” The bestowal here serves as a decisive precondition to fulfilling the task, inasmuch as the verse continues “to bring good news (‫ ) ְל ַבשֵּׂר‬to the oppressed…” This is likely the case in 42:1 as well: the servant is upheld, chosen, and spirit-filled in order to complete his task of bringing forth justice to the nations. It is not clear exactly what ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬refers to, although it is commonly translated by “justice” (see below). A brief survey of Old Testament parallels 95

See Lev 1:3; 7:18; 19:7; 22:25, 27; cf. 26:34, 41, 43. E.g. Am 5:21, 22; Prov 3:11, 12 (cf. Jer 14:10, 12, 19). 97 Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 212. 98 1 Chr 28:4: “Yet YHWH God of Israel chose (‫ )יּ ִ ְבחַר‬me … he took delight (‫)רצָה‬ ָ in making me king over all Israel.” 99 See 1 Kings 11:34; Ps 78:70; 89:4; Hagg 2:23. 96

C. The Servant and His Task

99

suggests that the task of bringing forth justice is a royal role. In other words, ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬is the king’s responsibility. The king is supposed to reign and judge in righteousness and justice (2 Sam 8:15; Isa 32:1; Ps 72:1–4). The ideal Davidic king will execute justice in the land (Jer 23:5; cf. Isa 9:6). The actions of the spirit-filled Messiah in Isa 11:1–5 could be reflected in Isa 42:1–4’s main concern of bringing forth justice (cf. v. 1b, 3b, 4b). Nevertheless, the servant is not clearly said to rule over the nations. It is rather peculiar that ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬here is the object of the verb ‫ יצא‬in Hiphil (“to bring out, forth”), which is well-known for denoting the action of bringing Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus Narrative. In Isaiah, the term occurs ten times in Hiphil, designating the bringing forth/out of stars (40:26), prisoners (42:7), a blind people (43:8), chariots (43:17), weapons (54:16), earth-shoots (61:11), and descendant of Jacob (65:9). One instance, however, indicates that the action has to do with proclamation of words. In 48:20, “to bring forth” parallels “to declare” (‫ נגד‬in Hiphil) and “to proclaim” (‫ שׁמע‬in Hiphil).100 On the other hand, the application of ‫ יצא‬in Hiphil instead of a verb clearly assuming oral proclamation suggests that “der Aspekt der verbalen Verkündigung nicht im Vordergrund steht.”101 Similar expressions are used about YHWH bringing forth Israel’s vindication while judging Babylon in Jer 50–51 (‫ ;הוֹצִיא י ְהוָה ֶאת־ ִצ ְדק ֹתֵ ינוּ‬51:10) and the psalmist’s vindication as the noonday (‫שׁ ָפּטֶָך ַכּ ָצּה ֳָרי ִם‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬... ‫ ;הוֹצִיא‬Ps 36:6). What is ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in Isa 42:1–4? Although the passage itself is an important means by which to determine its exact meaning, the frequent recurrence of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬within Isaiah nevertheless invites interrelationship. In Isaiah alone, the term occurs 42 times. Of these, five explicitly denotes preparation or realization of a trial or “judgment” scene.102 About three out of four – 30 instances – however, suggests a positive meaning of “justice.”103 Importantly, in half of these instances, ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬occurs along with ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬or ‫“( צְדָ ָקה‬right, righteousness”).104 The positive connotations of the term are furthermore apparent in the five-time-repetition of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in 59:8–15: two times it parallels ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ (“righteousness;” 59:9, 14), one time ‫שׁלוֹם‬ ָ ‫“( ֶד ֶרְך‬way of peace;” 59:8), one time ‫“( י ְשׁוּעָה‬salvation;” 59:11), and one time ‫“( ֱא ֶמת‬truth;” 59:15). Within the immediate literary context, the term concerns something between YHWH and his people (40:14; 27) or refers to a suit against the nations (41:1).105 In light

100

See also Isa 48:3 (Qal); Jer 15:19; Job 8:10; 15:13; Prov 10:18; Qoh 5:1; Neh 6:19. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 229; my emphasis. 102 Isa 3:14; 34:5; 41:1; 50:8; 54:17. 103 Isa 1:17, 21, 27; 5:7, 16, 9:6; 10:2; 16:5; 26:8, 9; 28:17, 26; 30:18; 32:1, 7, 16; 33:5; 40:14, 27; 49:4; 51:4; 56:1; 58:2, 2; 59:8, 9, 11, 14, 15; 61:8. 104 Isa 1:21, 27; 5:7, 16; 9:6; 16:5; 26:9; 28:17; 32:1; 16; 33:5; 56:1; 58:2; 59:9, 14. 105 Cf. Beuken, First Servant Song, 14. 101

100

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

of the context, the ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬that the servant brings in 42:1–4 is YHWH’s response to Israel’s complain in 40:27.106 The scholarly interpretations of the content of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in vv. 1–4 generally move between abstract and concrete definitions.107 To the first group of definitions belong proposals of a general nature: justice, truth, revelation, true religion, righteousness, divine rule and will, or YHWH’s sovereign and just purpose with Israel. Duhm interprets it as “die Rechtsverfassung und Rechtsübung des Gottesvolkes,” Childs interprets it as “God’s order,” and Blenkinsopp interprets it as “social order based upon justice.”108 In favor of reading ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬as a reference to ethics or a special way of behaving, that is, an ordinance, is the fact that the plural form of the term (‫שׁ ָפּטִים‬ ְ ‫ ) ִמ‬often is used about legal statutes (cf. e.g. Ex 21:1; Deut 12:1). The linking of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬and ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ in 42:4 offers further support for this interpretation, understanding torah as written law rather than general instruction (cf. Num 15:16; Hab 1:4).109 The reading of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬as “social justice” or “ordinance” is indeed legitimate; its weakness, however, is that it seems to treat vv. 1–4 as a self-contained passage independent of its immediate context. The second group of definitions reads ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in light of the foregoing trial scene as a concrete outcome or legal decision (“judgment at law” or “verdict”). According to Berges, “das ‘Recht’, das der Knecht den Nationen herausbringt, ist der Rechtentscheid im Streit JHWHs mit den Göttern der Völker.”110 Its content largely concerns the sovereignty of YHWH as creator and master of history and the nothingness of the foreign gods. The servant’s task is thus to see that this decision – YHWH alone is God – is brought forth to ְ ‫ ִמ‬as a reference “to concrete actions of how he the nations.111 Laato sees ‫שׁפָּט‬ [YHWH] will redeem his people from exile,” reflecting YHWH’s decision to ְ ‫ ִמ‬as YHWH’s retriburestore Israel.112 Snaith is rather alone interpreting ‫שׁפָּט‬

106

Beuken, First Servant Song, 23–24. See Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 214–216; Jeremias, Ersten Gottesknechtslied, 32–33. Marcus, Plain Meaning, 250–251 downplays the possibility of determining the exact meaning of the reference: “If he [the prophet] were asked whether ‫ משׁפט‬here means ‘justice’ or ‘just government’ or rather something like ‘salvation,’ I think he might reply, reflectively, that ‘justice’ means the suppression of immorality and idolatry, and so salvation for mankind.” 108 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 210; Childs, Isaiah, 325; Duhm, Jesaia, 312; cf. North, Isaiah 40–55, 61: “JUDGMENT is used in a wide sense of the sum-total of the ordinances of the religion of Yahweh, similarly to II Kings 17.26f., where the word (mishpāt) is rendered ‘manner’, and Jer. 5.4f. It is almost equivalent to ‘the true religion’.” 109 Cf. Baltzer, Deutero-Jesaja, 178. 110 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 229; cf. Begrich, Studien, 138; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 206– 207; Motyer, Propecy, 319; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 95. 111 Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 216; Motyer, Prophecy, 319. 112 Laato, Servant of YHWH, 75–77. 107

C. The Servant and His Task

101

tion against the nations and torah as a verdict of condemnation which the coastlands await only in dread.113 Another way of approaching the issue contends that the meaning of the term changes throughout the passage. Jeremias has argued that the triple use of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in vv. 1–4 entails three different meanings: it refers to the royal rule of YHWH’s servant (v. 1), the prophetic proclamation of mercy to Israel (v. 3), and the will of God, which the servant as a new Moses will issue to the nations (v. 4).114 Similarly, Beuken has asserted that bringing forth justice in vv. 1 and 3 and establishing justice in v. 4 (see below) do not concern the same thing: whereas the former envisages ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬as “a situation, an event to be realized, a process and its execution resulting in relations of righteousness,” the latter sees ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬as “an ordinance, a law to be proclaimed, the juridical statute of the new situation of justice.”115 The vast number of scholarly proposals reveals how vague and ambiguous the reference is. For the moment, it is probably best to conclude that the term has positive connotations and indicates a decisive and critical message or change of condition. The servant will bring this forth “to the nations.” Although the preposition ‫ ְל‬could be understood negatively – against the nations as victims of the servant’s promulgation of justice (cf. the negative portrait of nations in 40:15, 17; 41:2–3, 25; 45:1) – it is more likely to see them as the beneficiaries as most scholars do (cf. 2 Sam 8:15; Ps 146:7). It is not clear whether the servant is cast as a peripatetic missionary or as a ruler proclaiming edicts or a decision. In light of Isa 2:2–4, he could be seen as bringing forth justice from Zion rather than walking around among the nations (see below). II. Isaiah 42:2–3 V. 2 describes the manner in which the servant will carry out his task. His appearance is characterized by quietness and unaggressive behavior. He will not cry out nor shout in public. Coming from v. 1, it is actually surprising to find this quiescent and gentle portrait, because it apparently stands in tension with the dynamic mission of bringing forth justice. As Berges states, “die göttliche Zurüstung und die enorme Weite des Auftrages stehen in einer geheimnisvollen Spannung zur unscheinbaren Art und Weise, wie der Knecht seinen Dienst vollzieht.” 116 If one recognizes the royal undertones of the presentation in v. 1, the description in v. 2 furthermore forms a contrast to a common custom in the Ancient Near East that a new king would re-enact the laws and have them publicly declared.117 According to Laato, the silence of 113

Snaith, Isaiah 40–66, 164–165; Servant, 193 (see below). Jeremias, Ersten Gottesknechtlied, 39. 115 Beuken, First Servant Song, 7. 116 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 230. 117 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 96. 114

102

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

the servant indicates humility as a characteristic of the ideal king (cf. Zech 9:9–10).118 What is the nature of the “cry”? Rather than merely denoting a loud utterance, the term ‫ צעק‬frequently occurs in the context of crying out in pain and grief. Of the four other occurrences in Isaiah, peoples cry because of oppressors (19:20), because of destruction and divine rejection (33:7), because of troubles (46:7), and because of pain (65:4). Moreover, Marcus’ careful analysis has demonstrated that in practically all of the Old Testament occurrences of the verb in Qal and its related noun the meaning is “to cry out in distress” or “to cry for help or for relief from oppression” (see e.g. Ex 22:22; 2 Kings 6:26).119 This meaning of ‫ צעק‬is also supported by the fact that in 13 of the 17 instances in which the expression “to lift up the voice” (‫ )נשׂא קוֹל‬occurs it is followed by the verb “to weep” (‫)בכה‬. In Isa 24:14 and 52:8, however, the expression is followed by an urge “to exult” (‫)רנן‬. Nevertheless, it seems plausible to understand the cry here as a cry of anguish. The point, then, is that the servant does not cry out for help, because he is upheld by YHWH. The silence of the servant is therefore not a denial of his ability to bring forth justice authoritatively. His silence is not a sign of weakness; rather he acts with quiet impressiveness and without appeal for help. The attempts to view the non-appearance of the servant’s voice either as an act of reprieve in the court – the death sentence does not sound in public120 – or as indicating the change of message – from harsh judgment of the pre-exilic prophets to tender salvation121 – are provocative but unnecessary. The description of the servant continues in v. 3.122 The first half of this verse has often been considered to be the crux of the passage and in addition to the commentaries a handful of specialized studies has emerged. 123 The term ‫ ָקנֶה‬can hardly refer to anything else but “reed” (cf. Isa 19:6; 35:7) and along with ‫“( רצץ‬to break, bruise”) it symbolizes something that seems strong but actually is weak and causes injuries. Egypt is called “a bruised reed” (‫ ) ַה ָקּנֶה ה ָָרצוּץ‬in Isa 36:6 denoting its unreliable support (cf. Ezek 29:6–7). The term ‫רצץ‬, however, is also used about the poor and oppressed who deserve freedom (Isa 58:6; cf. Deut 28:33; Am 4:1). The verb ‫“( שׁבר‬to break”) is a very strong one, used in Isaiah for the breaking doors of bronze into pieces (45:2). The term ‫שׁ ָתּה‬ ְ ‫ ִפּ‬is a piece of flax (cf. Ex 9:31) that was used as wick in an oil lamp. That the wick is “dimly burning” (‫ )כהה‬means that it is flickering, lacking oil and about to extinguish. In Isaiah, the term also refers to a “faint 118

Laato, Servant of YHWH, 81–83. Marcus, Plain Meaning, 251–253. 120 Begrich, Studien, 163. 121 Duhm, Jesaia, 312; Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 210. 122 Cf. an early version of my comments on this verse, see Poulsen, Røret og vægen. 123 E.g. Kim, Intertextual Reading; Koenig, L’allusion; Marcus, Plain Meaning. 119

C. The Servant and His Task

103

spirit” (‫ ;רוּ ַח ֵכּהָה‬cf. 61:3). The verb ‫“( כבה‬to quench”) often occurs in the context of extinguishing a fire (e.g. Isa 34:10; 66:24). Interestingly, in 43:17, the Egyptian army is quenched like a wick, that is, defeated. In sum, the reed and the wick apparently represent figures of peoples who are fragile and suffering. Nevertheless, interpreters have attempted to read the metaphors literally. Begrich claims that they reflect a legal background.124 Accordingly, it was a custom in court to break the cane and quench the lamp of the one who was found guilty to illustrate that his case was lost. The fact that this does not happen suggests an act of reprieve (cf. his interpretation of v. 2). Unfortunately, we have no evidence for such legal practices. And even if this was the case, the metaphors employed here would only be a faint echo of this practice.125 Another provocative yet strained interpretation is offered by Koenig. The reed is a scribe’s pen and the wick is the lamp by which the scribe works during the night. Unlike the pre-exilic prophets, the servant does not promote his message by speaking out in public (cf. v. 2), but by writing! The servant thus represents the exilic collector and editor of Israel’s ancient traditions.126 Day and night he continues his effort of writing down and meditating upon the word of God (cf. Jos 1:8; Ps 1:2). The term ‫ ָקנֶה‬, however, is never used about such a pen. And why is it bruised? Does he use it too energetically?127 It is still more plausible to read the reed and the wick as general metaphors or symbols for someone fragile. But whom do they refer to? Some have argued that they refer to the servant himself by regarding the verbs (‫שׁבּוֹר‬ ְ ִ ‫ י‬and ‫ )י ְ ַכ ֶבּנָּה‬either as intransitive (“He is a bruised reed, but he will not break; he is a dimly burning wick, but he will not quench”) or as impersonal uses of the third person singular (“He is a bruised reed, but no one will break it; he is a dimly burning wick, but no one will quench it”).128 This interpretation fits the idea of the weak and suffering servant (cf. a possible implication of divine upholding in v. 1 and as a flash-forward to Isa 53). An emphasis on the weakness of the servant is also possible by taking the servant to be the subject of transitive verbs: he is so weak that he is not capable of breaking even the most fragile reed and quenching even the dimly burning wick.129 If the servant is considered to be weak, the stronger is the contrast between v. 3a and v. 3b: despite his weakness, he will succeed in bringing forth justice.

124

Begrich, Studien, 137, 163. Cf. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 96. 126 Koenig, L’allusion, 171–172. 127 Cf. the criticism by Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 212. 128 See e.g. Marcus, Plain Meaning, 257–258; Snaith, Servant, 193; Stoebe, Überlegungen, 112. 129 Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 186. 125

104

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

If one does not consider the servant to be weak – this would be strange in light of the receiving of divine authority in v. 1 – the image rather concerns the servant’s endeavor to take care of the weak and fragile as ancient versions and traditional expositions often suggest (some Targum versions explain the reed and the wick as “the humble” and “the poor”). The reed and the wick can thus represent not only Israel, who has been oppressed by foreign powers, but also foreigners themselves.130 If the servant is being cast as a royal conqueror, the reed and the wick could refer to Egypt and perhaps also Babylon (cf. Isa 36:6; 43:17) which he – despite his divinely authorized power – will not crush. Grimm and Dittert regard the servant as an antitype of Gideon, who unlike him does not cry out to assemble an army (v. 2; cf. Judg 6:33–35): “er ist der radikale Kriegsdienstverweigerer, die personifizierte Kritik jedes Krieges.”131 His non-militaristic strategy is justice, not victory.132 The interpretation of this verse again depends on who we consider the servant to be. If the servant is identified as Israel, it is probably best to view the metaphors as a general reference to weakness and suffering. If the servant is identified as the prophet, the Davidic Messiah, or Cyrus, it is more likely that the metaphors refer to Israel alone or Israel along with the foreign nations. The images of vv. 2–3a, however, hardly fit the vigorous appearance of Cyrus in 41:2–3, 25, 133 although our passage could be referring to Cyrus’ peaceful conquest of Babylon according to Ancient Near Eastern inscriptions or “to the way Cyrus was expected to treat the broken, defeated, and battered Judeans.”134 V. 3b repeats the task of bringing forth justice, although the word order is different. Some emend ‫ ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬to ‫“( ָל ֻאמּוֹת‬to the peoples”) to strengthen the parallelism between v. 3b and 1b and to avoid giving any explanation for the baffling expression stated in the MT. The Masoretic vocalization, however, is supported by all ancient versions and so we should stick with it. The verse thus stresses that the servant will complete his task successfully. Within the entire Old Testament, the expression ‫ ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬occurs only here and has received a series of different translations, including “faithfully,” “for the sake of faithfulness,” “truly,” “as truth,” “for truth,” “in truth,” “effectively,” “undoubtedly,” and “indeed.”

130 Kim, Intertextual Reading, 119–120 refers to a double entendre: “When the audiences hear the words, ‘reed’ and ‘wick’, they hear of not only the Judeans (that is themselves) but also Egypt and Babylon.” 131 Grimm & Dittert, Deuterojesaja, 137. 132 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 231. 133 Childs, Isaiah, 325; cf. Goldingay, Message, 152: “the servant is the antitype of Cyrus.” See also Irsigler, Ein Weg, 15–21. 134 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 211; cf. Kim, Intertextual Reading, 121–122.

C. The Servant and His Task

105

III. Isaiah 42:4 In the portrait of the servant in v. 4a, verbs of the preceding verse recur in reversed order, forming a chiastic structure (‫ י ָרוּץ‬- ‫ ֵכהָה – י ִ ְכהֶה‬- ‫)רצוּץ‬ ָ around the central motif of bringing forth justice. V. 4a describes the commitment and efficiency of the servant: literally, he will not burn dim nor break (or be broken, assuming Niphal). “Der nicht auslöscht, wird nicht ausgelöscht und der nicht zerbricht, wird nicht zerbrochen.”135 The play on allusions rules out the argument that we should read ‫“( רוץ‬to run;” cf. 40:31) for ‫“( רצץ‬to break”). According to Westermann, the verse could indicate that the task involves suffering (see above for the possible interpretation of vv. 1–3).136 The servant will keep on struggling – whatever it takes – until he has established justice in the earth as the coastlands wait for his torah. No obstacle shall be allowed to stand in his way as he fulfills his mission. The term ‫עַד‬ thus refers to the completion of the task (cf. Isa 62:1, 7) and should not be misunderstood as if the servant in the moment when he has accomplished his mission is extinguished and crushed. The latter part of the verse reveals a chiastic structure in which “establishes” mirrors “wait,” “earth” mirrors “coastlands,” and “justice” mirrors “torah,” constituting its center. “In the earth” (‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ )בּ‬could also be translated as “in the land,” suggesting either the land of Israel or Babylon.137 Yet in light of “nations” (‫ )גּוֹי ִם‬in v. 1 and “coastlands” (‫ ) ִאיּ ִים‬in v. 4, which elsewhere in Isaiah designates countries further away than near (cf. 41:1, 5; 42:10, 12), we should translate “earth” as a whole (cf. vv. 5; 10). The “coastlands” represent the foreign nations rather than the people of YHWH that have been scattered.138 Taken together as a metonym, “earth” and “coastlands” thus represent the entire world. There might be a semantic difference between bringing forth and establishing justice (see Beuken above). Goldingay and Payne assert that “whereas ‘issuing’, literally ‘causing to go forth’, draws attention to the origin of something, ‘putting’ draws attention to its destination. The servant makes sure that a decision arrives as well as leaves.”139 However, the general range of mean135

Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 232. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 96; cf. Berges, Jesaja 40–48; 231; Kim, Intertextual Reading, 123. 137 Cf. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 660, who regards the servant as Cyrus, understands ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬as the land that encompasses Palestine-Syria and the coastlands as “the immediate neighbors of Jerusalem who will be most affected by YHWH’s decision to restore the city.” McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 22 regards the coastlands as “the coastal region of Syria and Phoenicia.” 138 Cf. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66: 43: “Jewish people scattered around the Mediterranean basin who wait for Jewish rehabilitation;” emphasis original. 139 Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 221. 136

106

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

ings of the verb ‫ שׁים‬includes giving praise (42:12), parallel to “declare” (‫נגד‬ in Hiphil), which would downplay the difference between bringing forth and establishing. It also denotes placing a cedar or a way in the wilderness (41:19; 43:19). In 28:17, YHWH will make justice the measuring-line for his judging intervention. Outside Isaiah, the motif of establishing justice seems to involve the concept of something firm, perhaps even something written, that is, laws (Ex 15:25; 21:1; Josh 24:25; 1 Sam 30:25; cf. Ps 78:5) and in some instances it is the task of the king (cf. v. 1).140 Moreover, the parallelism of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬and ‫תּוֹרתוֹ‬ ָ supports the claim that ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in the passage as a whole concerns an ordinance or social rule. As was indicated, interpreters who prefer this understanding have a tendency towards interpreting “his torah” in v. 4 as (written Mosaic) law rather than general teaching or guidance.141 Others who understand ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬as a concrete decision or message regard torah as a prophetic message or teaching of salvation addressed to Israel and/or the nations.142 “His torah” straightforwardly refers to the torah that the servant carries out on behalf of YHWH. Within the Old Testament as a whole, the primary meaning of ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ is “instruction” or “teaching,” whereas the more narrow sense of “law” stems from this. The term occurs 12 times in Isaiah. It stands parallel to YHWH’s word or speech (1:10; 2:3; 5:24) or to the prophet’s testimony (8:16, 20). The plural form of torah parallels statutes and the everlasting covenant (24:5) and ways (42:24). As here, it stands parallel to “justice” (‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ; ִמ‬cf. 51:4) and having the torah in one’s heart means to know righteousness (51:7). It is a recurrent motif that Israel is accused of rejecting YHWH’s torah (e.g. 1:10; 5:24; 24:5; 30:9; 42:21). The significant analogies in 2:2–4 and 51:4–7 invite interrelationship. In the former passage, nations come up to Zion to learn about YHWH’s ways and “torah goes forth” (‫תוֹרה‬ ָ ‫)תֵּ צֵא‬. In the latter passage, “teaching will go out” (‫ תֵ צֵא‬... ‫)תוֹרה‬ ָ from YHWH and the coastlands will eagerly await or hope (‫ יחל‬in Hiphil as here) for his intervention.143 In light of this, the servant’s task in 42:4 is to extend and spread the torah of Isa 2:2–4 140 According to Akkadian evidence, “establishing justice” appears “in contexts of acts of social justice ordered by the king following his inauguration and sporadically thereafter;” see Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 187. 141 E.g. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 21; Duhm, Jesaia, 313; cf. Grimm & Dittert, Deuterojesaja, 139: “Der ‘mišpāṭ’ des königlichen Knechts erscheint nun durch den Parallelismus ‘mišpāṭ/tôrâ’ V.4b/c mit der Mose-Josua-Torah, wahrscheinlich des Umfangs von 5.Mose 12–26, identifiziert.” 142 E.g. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 217–218; cf. Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 233: “Nichtigkeit der Götter und Einzigkeit JHWHs gehören untrennbar zusammen und sind der Inhalt der durch den Knecht zu vermittelnden Weisung.” 143 Pace Snaith, Isaiah 40–66, 164–165, 191–192; Servant, 193–194, who contends that the meaning is “to wait in dread” for YHWH’s judgment. The term ‫יחל‬, however, never has these negative connotations; cf. van Winkle, Relationship, 447–448.

C. The Servant and His Task

107

to the nations, because they really hope for it (51:5). It remains unclear whether this mission implies distinctive missionary activity. Perhaps the servant himself shall go out to the coastlands as torah goes out from Zion (see chapter 7). IV. Isaiah 42:5 The messenger formula marks the beginning of a new subunit. It also functions as a bridge between YHWH’s description of his servant in vv. 1–4 and his direct address to him in vv. 5–9, tying the two sections together, especially if ‫ כּ ֹה־אָמַר‬is rendered as “thus he said.” The introductory formula may historically reflect a king’s briefing of his subordinate (cf. Isa 36:4, 14).144 It is common in these chapters of Isaiah (e.g. 43:1, 14, 16; 44:2, 24; 45:18), whereas the divine title “the God YHWH” (‫ ) ָה ֵאל י ְהוָה‬occurs only in Ps 85:5 but here. This distinctive title expresses sovereignty and mightiness and is used to emphasize that it is really the God who is speaking (cf. 1QIsaa: “the God of the gods;” ‫)האל האלהים‬. On linguistic grounds, the verse distinguishes itself from the rest of the passage by several participle forms which express the ongoing divine act of creating and upholding the world (“Jahwes fortlaufendes Schöpferhandeln”). 145 The series of participles furthermore suggests that the verse explores the form of a hymn of praise, in this case a kind of divine self-praise (“Selbstlob”). YHWH’s creative activity involves a threefold concern: heavens, earth, and humanity. The theme points backward to the portrait of God as creator and lord of history in 40:12–31 (cf. 41:20), in particular vv. 18–26; the creation of humanity is new. The theme also point forwards to YHWH’s declaration to create new things (42:9; 43:19). The imagery of v. 5 echoes that of the creation narratives in Gen 1–2 (e.g. 1:1; 2:7) and Ps 104. The verb ‫“( נטה‬to stretch out” or “pitch [a tent];” Gen 12:8) occurs elsewhere in Isaiah in connection with the creation of heavens (e.g. 40:22; 44:24; 45:12) and the verb ‫“( רקע‬to spread out”) literally means “to hammer out” as in the production of idols (40:19). The motif of YHWH’s life-giving “breath” (‫שׁ ָמה‬ ָ ְ‫ )נ‬or “spirit” (‫ )רוּ ַח‬is wellknown (see Gen 2; Ps 104; Ezek 37). Within the literary context of our passage, there seems to be a play on the term ‫ רוּ ַח‬as it designates the nothingness of idols (41:29), the divine authority that embraces the servant (42:1), and the creative and life-giving action of YHWH (42:5). By means of the spirit, the images of God as creator and as intervener in history through his servant are

144

Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 223. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 231. Cf. Motyer, Prophecy, 321: “The four participles, created, stretched, spread and gives, describe the fourfold, unchanging relationship between the Lord and the created order. He exercises an ongoing creative activity;” emphasis original. 145

108

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

intertwined (see below).146 The term ‫“( עַם‬people”) could refer to Israel, insofar as the people of YHWH are recipient of his ‫ רוּ ַח‬in 44:3. As it occurs parallel to “those who walk in it [the earth]” (‫)ה ֹ ְלכִים בָּהּ‬, it is more plausible that ‫עַם‬ here refers to humanity as a whole (cf. 40:7). V. Isaiah 42:6–7 The portrait of the sovereign creator is followed by YHWH’s powerful selfidentification: “I am YHWH” (‫ ;) ֲאנִי י ְהוָה‬cf. Ex 6:2. The divine “I” is explicitly manifested by the term ‫ ֲאנִי‬, which along with v. 8a form a bracket around the address in vv. 6–7: YHWH’s authority stands behind the statements. The phrase also points backward to Isa 41 (vv. 4, 13, 17) and forward to the Cyrus passage of 45:1–8 in which it occurs several times. The juxtaposition of the themes of creation in v. 5 and of history in vv. 1–4 and 6–9 is significant: YHWH, who sovereignly creates and sustains the entire cosmos, has chosen and called his servant to fulfill a task. To be brief, YHWH’s “activity in nature and in history forms a seamless robe.”147 The focus is again on the servant figure by means of four second person singular suffixes (‫)־ָך‬, although he remains unidentified. V. 6a offers a description of YHWH’s relation to the servant, whereas vv. 6b–7 unfold his task. YHWH’s relation to his servant is described by four verbs: he has called (‫ )קרא‬him in righteousness, he will take (‫ )חזק‬him by his hand, he will keep (‫ )נצר‬him, and he will give (‫ )נתן‬him as a certain tool. According to the Masoretic vocalization, the former verb is in the perfect tense, whereas the latter three are in the imperfect tense. Other ancient versions, including the LXX, have different tenses (see chapter 5).148 It remains uncertain whether the third verb ‫ ֶאצּ ְָרָך‬should be derived from ‫“( יצר‬to form, shape”)149 or ‫“( נצר‬to keep, preserve”).150 In favor of the former is that Israel – with whom the servant could be identified – elsewhere has been formed by YHWH (e.g. 43:1, 44:2, 21). It naturally follows after the creation theme in v. 5 and forms a parallel 146

According to Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 235, ‫ רוּ ַח‬expresses “die besondere Verbundenheit mit dem Schöpfer, die den Menschen vor allen anderen Lebewesen auszeichnet. Diese allgemeine Geistbegabung der Menschen ist die Voraussetzung dafür, dass die besondere Geistbegabung des Knechtes mit seinem Auftrag, den Nationen das Recht hinauszuführen (V 1), bei diesen Aufnahme finden kann.” 147 Goldingay, Message, 161. 148 Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 232–233 and Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 189 read past tenses. According to Elliger, the verse concerns a past event, which continues to affect the present. According to Paul, “the servant was designed for this special task from the moment of his creation.” North, Suffering Servant, 131 maintains the vocalization. 149 Cf. Duhm, Jesaia, 314; Elliger, Deuterojeaja, 233; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 189; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 97. 150 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 209; Childs, Isaiah, 314; Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 227.

C. The Servant and His Task

109

to ‫ נתן ְל‬in the sense of making someone into something. The motif of the servant having been formed by YHWH would furthermore provide an ironic comment on the production of idols in Isa 40–41. In favor of the latter are some of the ancient translations. The LXX has ἐνισχύσω (“I will strengthen”) and Vulgate has “servavi” (“I preserved”). The safeguarding of the servant furthermore logically follows his calling. The verb ‫“( נתן‬to give, render”) has a very broad semantic range, as its innumerable attestations in biblical Hebrew demonstrate. Here it should be translated by “turn into” or perhaps even “appoint,” insofar as the servant is being appointed to a specific task. The servant is presented as a means or tool through which God will act. The verbs applied in v. 6a resume motifs from other passages in Isaiah, which could help identify the servant. Israel has been called by YHWH (41:9 [‫ ;] ְק ָרא ִתיָך‬43:1, 7; 48:12; 54:6), has been taken by the hand (41:9–10, 13), and has been formed by YHWH (if one chooses that verb). Cyrus as well has been called by YHWH (41:2, 25; 45:3–4; 46:11; 48:15) and has been taken by the hand (45:1). He has been aroused “in righteousness” (‫ ; ְבצֶדֶ ק‬45:13; cf. 41:2; 45:8) and his task is to release the exiled (45:13; cf. 42:7?).151 The combination of ‫ ֶאצּ ְָרָך‬and ‫ ֶאתֶּ נְָך‬could indicate an allusion to Jer 1:5, in which YHWH has formed (‫ָורָך‬ ְ ‫ ) ֶאצּ‬and appointed (‫ )נְתַ ִתּיָך‬Jeremiah to be a prophet to the nations. The consonants ‫ נצר‬occurs in Isa 11:1, where the Messiah is described as a “shoot” (‫ )נֶצֶר‬who will reign with righteousness (‫ ; ֶצ ֶדק‬11:4–5; 16:5; 32:1). Despite these provocative references, the identity of the servant remains concealed, open to more readings. The question of identity is by no means irrelevant when it comes to explaining the puzzling expression “a covenant to people(s)” (‫ ;בּ ְִרית עָם‬cf. 49:8). Generally, there seem to be three approaches to the problem.152 The first approach attempts to avoid the awkward expression by reading something else. It has been proposed to read ‫“( בּ ְִרכַּת‬blessing”), ‫“( נֵר‬light”), or ‫“( פְּדוּת‬redemption;” cf. 50:2) for ‫בּ ְִרית‬.153 The latter proposal, preferred by Duhm, fits the motif of v. 7 of bringing out prisoners. Others have suggested deriving ‫בּ ְִרית‬ from a different root, including the Akkadian barārû (“to shine”), thus “splendor of the people(s),” or the similar term in Hebrew ‫“( ברר‬to clear, to emancipate” [‫ בּ ִֹרית‬means “soap”]), thus “brightness/emancipation of the people.” These emendations offer good parallels to “a light to the nations.”154

151

According to Laato, Servant of YHWH, 84, the shared linguistic features in the Cyrus and servant passages derive from a common source of Akkadian royal ideology and cannot be used to argue that the servant in 42:1–9 is Cyrus. 152 See Hillers, Běrît ‘ām; Lauha, Bund; North, Suffering Servant, 132–133; Schwarz, Bund; Smith, Běrît ‘am; Stamm, Berît ‘am; van Winkle, Relationship, 454–456. 153 Duhm, Jesaia, 314; Schwarz, Bund, 280. 154 Hillers, Běrît ‘ām, 180–182.

110

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

Finally, 4QIsah reads “an eternal covenant” (‫ ;בּ ְִרית עוֹלָם‬cf. 55:3; 61:8), which could derive from the phonetic resemblance between ‫ עָם‬and ‫עוֹלָם‬. The second approach regards the expression as a reversed construction and in practice reads “a covenant people” (‫)עָם בּ ְִרית‬.155 This reading appears likely if the servant is identified with Israel. The grammatical construction is possible, but it offers no good parallel to “a light to the nations.” The third approach attempts to read the expression as it stands. The interpretation thus depends on the definitions of ‫ בּ ְִרית‬and ‫עָם‬. First, does ‫בּ ְִרית‬ mean “covenant” as it usually does, or is its meaning rather “obligation” or “commitment” (i.e. “[YHWH’s] obligation on the people”)?156 If covenant is meant, the servant is seen as the medium through whom ‫ עָם‬will come into a covenant relation with YHWH. The servant not only mediates the covenant, but also embodies it as Abraham will be the embodiment of YHWH’s blessing (Gen 12:1–3) or as “Jesus will be resurrection and life rather than merely bringing it.”157 If obligation is meant, the servant is rather seen as a guaranty for divine salvation of ‫‘“ ;עָם‬Bund’ meint hier nicht die von JHWH auferlegte Verpflichtung, sondern die göttliche Selbstverpflichtung und Zusage.”158 Second, does ‫ עָם‬refer specifically to Israel159 or to humanity in general?160 On the one hand, references to Israel as YHWH’s ‫ עָם‬occur frequently within Isa 40–55; only the occurrences in 40:7 and 42:5 imply mankind.161 Moreover, covenantal relations to YHWH would normally be associated with God’s chosen people (e.g. Abraham in Gen 15; 17 or Moses in Ex 2; 24). The servant could thus be Cyrus, Messiah, or the prophet having the task of restoring Israel’s ancient bonds with YHWH. An addition to being “a light to the nations” the servant would have a further two-fold task: a national one concerning the people and a universal one concerning the nations (cf. Isa 49:5–6). On 155

Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 189. See the principal discussion in Kutch, Verheissung; Weinfeld, Berît. The term ‫בּ ְִרית‬ occurs 12 times in Isaiah. It refers to a covenant with death (28:15, 18), an everlasting covenant (24:5; 55:3; 61:8), and a covenant of peace (54:10). Those who want to be YHWH’s servants shall hold fast his covenant along with keeping the sabbath (56:4, 6). YHWH’s covenant with his people implies steadfast divine presence (59:21). 157 Goldingay, Message, 164; emphasis original. Cf. Childs, Isaiah, 326: “the one commissioned … embodies a covenantal relationship with the nations.” 158 Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 237; cf. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 234–235. 159 E.g. Bentzen, Jesaja II, 35; Berges, Jesaja 40–48, 237; Duhm, Jesaia, 314; Kaiser, Knecht, 35; Laato, Servant of YHWH, 86–87; Lauha, Bund, 259; Snaith, Servant, 194; Stamm, Berît ‘am, 524. 160 E.g. Childs, Isaiah, 326; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 46; Hillers, Běrît ‘ām, 181; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 39; Melugin, Formation, 100; Merendino, Der Erste, 245; Smart, Second Isaiah, 85; Smith, Běrît ‘ām, 43; van Winkle, Relationship, 456; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 100; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 75. 161 E.g. Isa 40:1; 42:22; 43:8, 20–21; 44:7; 47:6; 49:13; 51:4, 7, 16, 22; 52:4–5; 53:8; see Lauha, Bund, 259. 156

C. The Servant and His Task

111

the other hand, ‫ עָם‬in the sense of humanity or mankind is in accordance with its use in v. 5 and mirrors the succeeding ‫“( גּוֹי ִם‬nations”) perfectly. ‫ גּוֹי ִם‬normally parallels ‫ ; ַע ִמּים‬yet in three instances, it parallels ‫ עָם‬and all of them clearly refer to foreign people(s) (Ps 18:44 [cf. 2 Sam 22:44]; Isa 13:4; 25:3).162 In light of the rainbow-covenant in Gen 9, the idea of a covenant with humanity is possible (cf. Isa 54:10?), but the idea suffers from the lack of good parallels in the Old Testament. If the servant is considered to be Israel, the reference to humanity is preferable. Due to the logic of parallelism, ‫ בּ ְִרית עָם‬means something similar to ‫אוֹר גּוֹי ִם‬ (“a light to nations”). The latter expression is somewhat easier to decode. “Light” is a profoundly positive word and suggests illumination, salvation, and blessing.163 As a light, the servant will become a role model or mediator for the nations through whom they will experience light and guidance (cf. “a signal to the peoples” (‫ )נֵס ַע ִמּים‬in 11:10). Some commentators downplay the universal significance of this image, for instance, by interpreting the light as a sign to gather Israelites dwelling among nations.164 It remains unclear whether the servant in this role is being cast as a missionary (cf. v. 4 above), although this definitely is the main understanding behind the New Testament’s use of the metaphor (see chapter 6). By associating YHWH’s ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬and ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ directly with ‫“( אוֹר ַע ִמּים‬a light to peoples”), Isa 51:4 offers an important warrant for reading the metaphor of light in 42:6 as a parallelism to the servant’s task in 42:1–4. This approach receives further support in v. 7 by the verb “to bring out” (‫ יצא‬in Hiphil), which is used in vv. 1 and 3 with ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬. Being a light and bringing out prisoners reflect the task of bringing forth justice. The task of vv. 1b, 3b, and 4b thus mirrors that of vv. 6b–7. As an implication of Lindblom’s general assertion, these task descriptions “stand to each other as an allegory to its interpretation.” 165 This phenomenon seems to be even clearer in some Targum versions, in which the task of opening eyes involves “the house of Israel, who are blind to the torah” (cf. v. 4!). The relationship between v. 6b and v. 7 can also be described in terms of a parallelism, insofar as the content of v. 7 unfolds the meaning of being a covenant and light in v. 6b.166 Translating the two infinitives in v. 7 as ger162

The combination of singular and plural is common in parallelism; cf. v. 7 which combines the singular “prisoner” (‫ ) ַאסִּיר‬and the plural “those who are in darkness” ( ‫שׁבֵי‬ ְ ֹ‫י‬ ‫שְׁך‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)ח‬. 163 E.g. Isa 2:5; 9:1; 30:26; 51:4; 58:8; 60:1–3, 19–20. 164 E.g. Snaith, Isaiah 40–66, 156–157; cf. Orlinsky, Servant, 117: “Israel will dazzle the nations with her God-given triumph and restoration.” 165 Lindblom, Servant Songs, 23; emphasis original; cf. Childs, Isaiah, 326; Snyman, Structural, 255. 166 Kim, Ambiguity, 89–91 regards vv. 6b-7 as a chiasm: “a covenant of the people” mirrors “to bring out prisoners” and “a light of nations” mirrors “to open eyes that are

112

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

unds, that is, by opening (‫ ) ִלפְק ֹ ַח‬and by bringing out (‫)לְהוֹצִיא‬, would tie them more closely to the actions of the preceding verse.167 YHWH himself could be the subject of the verbs, but in continuation of making the servant to a specific tool, it could also be the servant that – on the behalf of YHWH – shall open eyes and bring prisoners out. What is the nature of the blindness and imprisonment? Blindness can refer to a physical disability or to a symbolic matter, that is, as a metaphor for either imprisonment (cf. the parallelism; see also Ps 146:7–8) or for spiritual ignorance and suffering. The blindness of Israel is a recurrent feature in Isaiah (e.g. Isa 6:9–10; 29:10; 42:16, 18–20; 43:8), but it does not necessarily refer to Israel here (certainly not if Israel is the servant, which has been sent to blind nations). Similarly, imprisonment and darkness can refer literally to physical captivity or metaphorically to mental confusion and hardship. Read figuratively, blindness and imprisonment represent “the condition of men who are without God.” 168 Darkness elsewhere signifies chaos and hostility (5:30). Israel is in darkness, that is, unable to fulfill its ministry (42:18–20), and daughter Chaldea, that is, Babylon as YHWH’s main opponent, is commanded to go into darkness (47:5). V. 7 apparently portrays the same act in different ways, insofar as release from prison and darkness imply that people can see again.169 All three phrases point to the same subject matter: redemption from the miserable condition of people(s). If the servant is identified as Israel, the referent is presumably to suffering in general; Israel as divine designated light will mediate salvation to the world at large, bringing enlightenment and liberation to others.170 If the servant is identified as Cyrus (cf. 45:1– 13), the Messiah (cf. 8:23–9:6), or the prophet (cf. 49:1–13), the task rather concerns Israel and/or the nations. VI. Isaiah 42:8–9 Vv. 8–9 conclude the passage. V. 8a repeats the introductory phrase of v. 6a (‫) ֲאנִי י ְהוָה‬, forming a bracket with it, and the theme of vv. 8b–9 – YHWH’s sovereignty in history – points backward to the portrayal of the sovereign creator in v. 5 (cf. 40:12–26). Within the broader literary context, vv. 8–9 take up images and issues of the trial scenes in 41:1–7, 21–29. The distinctive

blind.” Isa 49:1–13 supports this claim, insofar as “a light to nations” in 49:6 means salvation to the end of the earth and “a covenant of the people” in 49:8–9 means establishing the land and freeing prisoners. 167 Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 229. 168 Smart, Second Isaiah, 87; cf. Oswalt, Isaiah, 118: “the darkened dungeon here is not a figure for exile; rather, it is the darkness and bondage of sin;” emphasis original. 169 Goldingay & Payne, Isaiah 40–55, I, 229. 170 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66.

C. The Servant and His Task

113

emphasis on God’s name occurs many times in Isaiah.171 Rather than merely being a rhetorical verbiage, “that is my name” (‫שׁ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ )הוּא‬underlines the divine reality: “Ich bin Jahwe, das bin ich wirklich und wesenhaft.”172 The motif of the nothingness of idols recurs in v. 8b by YHWH’s assertion that he will not share his glory and praise with another (pagan god) (cf. Ex 20:3; 34:14). He alone should be recognized as true God and intervener in history. Perhaps the sentence can be understood as YHWH will give his glory to no other than his servant; cf. 1–7. This reading stresses the significance of the servant as the tool through which YHWH exercises his sovereignty. Due to the parallelism of the verse, however, the indefinite “to another” (‫)לְאַחֵר‬ mirrors “to idols.” The plural form of term (‫ ) ְפּסִילִים‬is unique in Isaiah; in Jer 50:38, Babylon is called “a land of images” (‫) ֶא ֶרץ ְפּסִילִים‬. Nevertheless, the reference here concerns idols or images of every nature, Israelite, Babylonian, or a third. The combination of YHWH’s glory, honor, or “presence” (‫ ;כּבוֹד‬cf. 35:5; 40:5; 48:11; 60:1–2) and his praise or renown (‫ ;תְּ ִהלָּה‬cf. v. 10; 43:21) point forward to the concluding hymn’s assertion of a worldwide praise of YHWH (42:12). V. 9’s description of YHWH as the one who predicts and fulfills recalls the basic issue of the trials against the foreign nations and their idols: YHWH alone is the master of history (41:1–7, 21–29; cf. 44:7; 45:21; 46:10; 48:3). The word ‫“( ִהנֵּה‬see”) and ‫ הֵן‬in v. 1 frame the passage; yet it may also indicate the subtle twist that those who formerly were blind (cf. v. 7) are now able to see the result of past events. The theme of former and new is common in Isaiah (e.g. 41:22; 43:9, 18–19; 46:9; 48:3).173 The interpretation of the “new things” (‫ )חֲדָ שׁוֹת‬here depends on what the “former” (‫ )ה ִָראשׁ ֹנוֹת‬are considered to be. If the former things represent all events from creation until the present time, the new things could refer to YHWH’s ongoing creative activity (cf. 42:5). If the former things represent YHWH’s distant choice of Abraham/Israel (41:8–10), the new things could refer to an actualization of this choice (cf. 42:1, 6?). If the former things represent the fall of Jerusalem and/or captivity in Babylon and elsewhere, the new things could refer to the intervention of Cyrus and release from imprisonment (cf. 42:1–7?).174 If the former things represent Cyrus’ recent conquests (41:2–4, 25), the new things could refer to the recently presented task of the servant (cf. 42:1–7).175 Read within a canonical perspective, the “former things” points backward to the prophecies of Isa 1–39 (e.g. Isa 13 about the defeat of Babylon).176 171

E.g. 43:7; 47:4; 48:2, 9; 50:10; 51:15; 52:5, 6; 54:5. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 237. 173 For an analysis of the motif in Isa 43:14–21, see Poulsen, Eksodusbegivenheden. 174 E.g. Bentzen, Jesaja II, 34; Kaiser, Knecht, 43; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 191. 175 E.g. Bruggemann, Isaiah 40–66, 45; Motyer, Prophecy, 322. 176 Childs, Isaiah, 322; Old Testament as Scripture, 329. 172

114

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

Nevertheless, the point is that YHWH will announce their content before they actually occur in order to prove his divine uniqueness (cf. 48:6). The new things are said to “sprout” or “spring forth” (‫)צמח‬, which is a recurrent term in Isaiah, occasionally designating an upcoming event (43:19). Salvation, righteousness, healing, and praise are said to spring forth (45:8; 58:8; 61:11), which gives a hint of the nature of the new things. It may also be of importance that the noun ‫“( ֶצ ַמח‬branch”) frequently features as a metaphor for the promised Davidic ruler.177 That YHWH declares (‫ נגד‬in Hiphil) them is an ironical usage in light of the inability of the idols to declare anything (41:22, 23, 26). Following the servant’s appearance the coastlands will declare YHWH’s praise (42:10). A peculiar link exists between the servant who will not make his voice heard (‫שׁ ִמי ַע‬ ְ ַ ‫ ;י‬v. 2) and God who tells things openly (‫שׁ ִמיע‬ ְ ‫) ַא‬. The addressee – “you” (‫ – ) ֶא ְתכֶם‬is in the plural form and is therefore not the same as the addressee in vv. 6–7. It is uncertain to whom it refers. As in v. 1, there are more options, including Israel, supra-mundane beings, or the foreign nations. This again depends on who we consider the servant to be. In light of 41:21–29, the main theme of which is taken up in vv. 8–9, the audience could be the foreign nations or those who will benefit from the servant’s mission. Or the shift of addressee could serve as a rhetorical device, pointing forward to the plural witnesses that will testify to the things about to spring forth (43:10; 44:8).178 VI. Summing Up: the Servant and His Task The analysis has confirmed the ambiguous nature of the servant and his task. Initial matters remain unclear. Is the servant presented as a king or a prophet? To which audience does YHWH present him? Many terms and expressions are vague and elusive. What is the nature of the ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬which the servant will bring forth to the nations and how does it relate to the torah? Is the servant a king who proclaims edicts or establishes true religion or is he rather a wandering missionary who preaches salvation to the whole world? Is his silence a sign of weakness or of strength? What is the right interpretation of the “reed” and the “wick”? What does the puzzling phrase ‫ בּ ְִרית עָם‬mean? What is the nature of blindness and imprisonment? The multiplicity and ambiguity of these references leave the passage open to several interpretations, depending on whom we cast the servant to be. And vice-versa, “these multiple layers and complexities are the very reasons for the subtlety and hiddenness of who the servant is.”179 Nevertheless, whoever the servant is thought to be, his task is primarily that of a mediator between YHWH and the nations. 177

See Isa 4:2(?); Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12; cf. Ezek 29:21; Ps 132:17. Childs, Isaiah, 326. 179 Kim, Ambiguity, 75. 178

C. The Servant and His Task

115

The analysis has demonstrated that 42:1–9 exposes a series of significant intertextual connections within Isaiah as a whole. These include the theme of torah (e.g. 2:2–4; 51:4–8) and the theme of blindness (e.g. 6:9–10; 35:5; 42:18–25). Some relations exist to the messianic oracles of Isa 1–39 (7; 9; 11; in particular 11:1–5) and to passages portraying Israel (41:8–16), Cyrus (45:1–13), and the servant/prophet (49:1–13; 61:1–3). As has become apparent, the shared features have often been used to identify the figure of Isa 42:1–9:180 In favor of Cyrus are the allusions to him in 41:2–3, 25. Unlike Nebuchadrezzar in Jeremiah, he is never called YHWH’s servant. Nevertheless, YHWH refers to him as “my shepherd” (‫ ;רֹעִי‬44:28) and he is presented as “his anointed” (‫שׁיחוֹ‬ ִ ‫ ; ְמ‬45:1), both of which indicate a close relationship. As the servant of Isa 42:1–9, Cyrus is consistently presented as the instrument through whom YHWH’s plan will be carried out. The passages about Cyrus resume a series of words and motifs from 42:1–9, including divine commissioning (41:2, 25; 45:3–4; 46:11; 48:15) and the motif of having been taken by the hand (45:1) and appointed in righteousness (41:2; 45:8, 13). In favor of a Davidic Messiah are the connections to the Messianic oracles of Isa 1–39.181 Especially 8:23–9:6 and 11:1–5 reveal a bulk of shared terms and motifs, including the anointment with YHWH’s spirit (11:2; cf. 61:1; 1 Sam 16:13), the just and righteous rule (9:6; 11:2–5; cf. 16:5; 32:1), and the light-darkness theme (9:1).182 The David-theme is furthermore apparent in Isa 55:1–5, in which David is presented as an ideal witness to the peoples. Finally, David is called “my servant” in 37:35 (cf. the messianic Branch in Zech 3:8). In favor of the prophet is the reference to a messenger (‫ ) ְמ ַבשֵּׂר‬in 41:27 (cf. 40:6–8, 9–11; Isa 6?). YHWH announces his appearance and presents him in 42:1–9. There are significant intertextual links between 42:1–9 and 49:1–13, including the motif of divine calling and protection (49:1, 8), the presence of coastlands (49:1), the task of promulgating salvation and freeing prisoners (49:6, 9), the expressions “a covenant to the people” and “a light to nations” (49:6, 8), and both passages reveal a similar structure.183 The description of the servant in 42:6b–7 could play on the description of the prophet Jeremiah 180

Cf. Goldingay, Message, 150–152; Kim, Ambiguity, 75–88. See Schultz, The King, 154–159. 182 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 335, however, asserts that “there has been no attempt made within the chapters of Second Isaiah to identify the servant with any figure in First Isaiah … nowhere do the editors seek to identify the servant with the royal eschatological figure of First Isaiah … The imagery of the two portrayals is completely different and there is no redactional effort whatever to unite them.” See further in chapter 7. 183 42:1–4 parallels 49:1–6 by the initial presentation of the servant and his task, 42:5–9 parallels 49:7–12 by the unfolding of his task, and 42:10–12 parallels 49:13 by the concluding hymn; cf. Childs, Isaiah, 382. 181

116

Chapter 4. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible

as “a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). Further links can be detected to Isa 50:4–11 and its portrayal of a disciple and preacher of the divine word and to the servant passage of 61:1–3 in which the servant has the task of bringing good news, proclaiming release to captives, and comforting those who grieve. Finally, the prophet Isaiah is called “my servant” in 20:3. In favor of Israel is the larger literary context. Apart from Isa 42:1 and 44:26, the term ‫ ֶעבֶד‬in Isa 40–48 is always equated with Jacob/Israel. This is especially true for Isa 41:1–42:12 in which Jacob/Israel clearly is presented as YHWH’s servant and recipient of his call and support (41:8–10). YHWH is the King of Jacob (41:21). The symmetrical nature of the major blocks (41:1–20; 41:21–42:12) shows that 41:8–16 parallels 42:1–9. It is thus easy for readers coming from Isa 41 to interpret 42:1–9 in light of 41:8–16. As Childs puts it, “for anyone who takes the larger literary context seriously, there can be no avoiding the obvious implication that in some way Israel is the servant who is named in 42:1. No one else is named.”184 Two arguments have often been voiced against the collective interpretation. 185 First, it is claimed that outside the “Servant Songs,” the servant is always passive. Yet within the literary framework of Isa 42:1–9, Jacob/Israel is thought to have an active role insofar as YHWH’s people are turned into a threshing-sledge to remove obstacles (41:15–16). Second, it is claimed that the servant of 42:1–9 clearly is portrayed as an individual vis-à-vis the otherwise collective Israel (cf. Duhm above). It is certain that the characterization in 42:1–9 draws upon individualistic features, but this does not prove the figure to be an individual. The portrait of Jacob-Israel in 41:8–16 is also marked by such features. In fact, individualization of a group appears to be a rather common phenomenon in the Old Testament, for instance, in Isaiah’s portrayal of Israel (Isa 1:5–6), Babylon (Isa 47), and Zion (Isa 54), or in Ezekiel’s descriptions of Oholah and Oholibah (Ezek 16; 23). It is indeed plausible to interpret the figure in 42:1–9 as Israel. The character of the figure, however, is so different from that of servant Israel in the remaining passages of Isa 40–48 that scholars have been forced to distinguish between two kinds of Israel. According to North, these interpretations involve something other than Israel in its entirety: an ideal, pious, or righteous minority of true Israel or an order of prophets or priests vis-à-vis the unfaithful, empirical Israel.186 More recent contributions include Mettinger’s assertion of “an exilic minority,” 187 Laato’s thesis of an “ideal (prophetic) Israel” who embodies the role of Messiah in order to lead the people to a right relation-

184

Childs, Isaiah, 325; emphasis original. See e.g. Goldingay, Message, 152–154; North, Suffering Servant, 202–207. 186 North, Suffering Servant, 3, 31–39, 62–64. 187 Mettinger, A Farewell, 43. 185

D. Summing Up

117

ship with YHWH, 188 and Berges’ idea of “a servant-community.” 189 These proposals, at least in the case of Isa 42:1–9, remain doubtful and strained. Hardly anything in the text or in its literary context indicates such a “righteous remnant” or “elite.”190 As has been mentioned, scholars who establish such an artificial distinction within Israel set 42:1–9 in a category apart from the other servant passages in Isa 40–48, something they accuse supporters of the individual theory of doing. As Wilcox & Paton-Williams have argued, it is more productive to see a difference in terms of character rather than in terms of identity. Israel is Israel. What we encounter, however, is still presented as a kind of ideal figure. Not an ideal Israel, which is distinct from the empirical Israel (e.g. 42:18– 25); rather “the empirical Israel regarded from an ideal point of view.”191 In other words, “Israel is called to be the embodiment of the servant symbol.”192 To my mind, this approach is provocative, but needs further clarification. As Childs states: “the mystery of Israel as the servant remains yet unresolved up to this point in the book, and the interpreter is compelled to await further illumination in the succeeding chapters.”193 We will return to this theme in chapter 7.

D. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Hebrew Bible D. Summing Up

Despite the numerous identifications which have been offered, the servant figure of Isa 42:1–9 remains anonymous. We do not hear who he is and he continues to be open to more than one referent. In a similar manner several terms and phrases are elusive and the exact content and scope of his task remain unclear. A closer glance at the Septuagint version of the passage and the New Testament’s reception of it may help us to interpret the figure and his task. 188

Laato, Servant of YHWH, 87. Berges, Literary Construction, 35: “it is the group of the authors and composers of the second half of the book (Is 40–55.56–66) who saw themselves more and more in the line of the prophet Isaiah and his disciples and created for the sake of their own identity the literary figure of the servant.” 190 Cf. Jeppesen, My Servant, 121: “The servant is not split up in different parts, he is self-contained, and needs no mediator to achieve salvation from God;” Williamson, Variations, 142: “He is ‘ideal’, not in the sense that he exists as a small and perfect group which may be contrasted with the remains of the (far from ideal) people, but in the sense of an ideal held out before them as vision and aspiration.” 191 Peake, Servant of Yahweh, 67; cf. Goldingay, Message, 153; North, Suffering Servant, 116. 192 Goldingay, Message, 153. 193 Childs, Isaiah, 326–327. 189

Chapter 5

Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint The first of the two main issues that this book addresses concerns the differing versions of the Old Testament. As was stated, Hübner and others have argued that the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible should be favored for modern biblical theology. This chapter explores the practical implications of paying full attention to the Greek version by studying Isa 42:1–9. First, the chapter offers some introductory remarks on LXX Isaiah and its translator and on methodological issues. Then, it compares the Hebrew and Greek versions of Isa 42:1–9 to determine the theological nature of the Greek before examining the passage’s literary context within LXX Isa 41:1–42:12. Finally, it sketches some implications of the Greek version for interpreting the passage.

A. LXX Isaiah: Introductory Remarks A. LXX Isaiah

Over the last few decades a remarkable shift has taken place within the study of the LXX. Rather than being solely valued as a text-critical witness to its Hebrew Vorlage, the LXX today is investigated as a translation and early piece of biblical interpretation in its own right.1 Already in the 1940’s the seminal contribution of Isaac Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah devoted a chapter to LXX Isaiah “as a document of Jewish Alexandrian theology.”2 By introducing the idea of “actualizing interpretation,” Seeligmann pictured the translator as a creative interpreter who produced a “free” translation of the Hebrew original. There seem to be three general approaches to the LXX.3 Taking LXX Isaiah as an example, the first approach focuses on the possible Vorlage behind the Greek version in order to explore text-critical matters in the Hebrew Bi-

1

For recent studies on LXX Isaiah in its own right, see especially the manifold work of A. van der Kooij and Baer, When We All; Ekblad, Servant Poems; Maillet, Servant Songs; Ngunga, Messianism; de Sousa, Eschatology; Troxel, LXX-Isaiah; cf. Childs, Struggle, 1– 4. 2 Seeligmann, Version, 95–121. 3 Porter & Pearson, Through Greek Eyes, 533.

A. LXX Isaiah

119

ble.4 The second approach studies the translation in itself within the context of the Jewish community in 2nd Century Hellenistic Egypt. The third approach investigates the translation within its history of transmission and Jewish-Christian reception. Although the present chapter offers a meticulous comparison of the MT and LXX versions, the aim is not to shed light upon text-critical issues. The comparison is made to illuminate the distinctive theological nature of LXX Isaiah. The results of the present investigation will form the basis for studying the reception of Isa 42:1–9 in the New Testament (see chapter 6). I. Profile of LXX Isaiah: Translator and Translation Strategies Before paying attention to LXX Isa 42:1–9, we will briefly sketch a profile of its translator and his translation strategies. Unfortunately, due to the lack of external evidence, the only means of access to the translator is through the translation itself. 5 Although no consensus seems to have been reached, the majority of scholars contend that LXX Isaiah is the work of one translator.6 However, he may have relied on earlier traditions of reading, interpreting, and translating Isaiah.7 Nevertheless, the present form of LXX Isaiah displays a uniform product with a distinctive semantic and theological profile. The translator was presumably a scribe immersed in the biblical writings and trained in the exegetical practices of ancient Judaism. It is common to date the translation somewhere near the middle of 2nd Century, probably around 140 BCE.8 Insofar as some verses show a specific con4 The value of the Greek version for the reconstruction of the Hebrew text has recently been questioned: “Isaiah in the LXX is actually intended to be an interpretation of MT, which makes it rather difficult to use it as a means in order to reconstruct the original Hebrew text;” cf. Gzella, New Ways, 401. 5 For a general overview, see van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 22–73; NETS, 823–825; LXX.D, 1230; LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2484–2488. 6 Cf. Fischer, Schrift, 4–5; Seeligmann, Version, 39–42; Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 31– 46, mainly against the proposal of G.B. Gray and F. Baumgärtel that Isa 1–39 and 40–66 were translated by two different translators; cf. the conclusion by van der Kooij that LXX Isaiah is the work of one translator; see van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 32; LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2484; Ngunga, Messianism, 22. 7 It remains debated whether the translator of Isaiah used LXX Pentateuch as a sort of dictionary. A. Ngunga assumes a relationship between LXX Pentateuch and LXX Isaiah, whereas E.R. Ekblad, although identifying intertextual connections to LXX Pentateuch, does not assume that the translator of Isaiah knew the work of other translators; see Ekblad, Servant Poems, 30; Ngunga, Messianism, 29. 8 Baer, When We All, 19, 26, note 10; Maillet, Servant Songs, 20–21. It is likely that LXX Isa 14 alludes to the death of Antioch IV (164 BCE) and that LXX Isa 23 alludes to the defeat of Carthage (146 BCE). Furthermore, in the prologue of Sirach, the Greek translator informs readers that when he arrived in Egypt (132 BCE), the translation of the Prophets was completed. Finally, van der Kooij argues that the Parthian conquest of Baby-

120

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

cern for the Egyptian Jews (10:24; 11:16; 19:18–19), it is common to assume Egypt as the geographical location where the translation was completed. As already Ziegler argued, many words and technical terms reflect the Hellenistic-Egyptian milieu.9 Many scholars suggest Alexandria and regard the translator as a member of the Jewish community there.10 In contrast to this, van der Kooij has mounted the case that the translator lived in Leontopolis, located close to the Nile delta.11 The translator belonged to the house of Onias IV – a descendant of the high priest in Jerusalem – who fled to Egypt in 168 BCE and established a temple in Leontopolis. Accordingly, Isa 19:18–19 can be interpreted as a defense of its temple.12 If so, the translator was possibly also a priest.13 Concerning his language skills, scholars generally assess the Koine Greek of the translator to be quite good. On the other hand, it is contested how good he mastered Hebrew. Seeligmann, for instance, designates his skills in this language as “a product of theoretical study rather than living experience.”14 Evaluating his linguistic competence is a difficult matter. In some instances it appears that the translator failed to understand the Hebrew text. In other instances it seems that he deliberately varied his vocabulary and altered the syntax to serve his overall interpretation of the book. Maybe the translator consciously employed contemporary Jewish scribal practices, including association of consonants, which we today judge as a lack of grammatical skills. Sometimes the renderings into Greek follow the original slavishly literally. Sometimes they are surprisingly free, either due to linguistic challenges in translating from Hebrew to Greek, or due to a specific interpretation, which changes the meaning of a word or passage.15 Recently, M. Silva – a modern translator of LXX Isaiah – has labeled the approach of the Greek translator as

lon in the 140’s made a decisive impression on the translator as reflected in Isa 21:1–9; see van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 71–73. 9 Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 175–212. 10 Recently Ngunga, Messianism, 22; Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 35. 11 Van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 61; Septuagint of Isaiah. 12 Rendering the phrase “City of Destruction” (‫ )עִיר ַהה ֶֶרס‬in Isa 19:18 by “City of Righteousness” (πόλις ασεδεκ) and placing it in Egypt; see LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2554. Interestingly, Josephus reports that Onias IV referred to Isa 19:19 to justify the temple at Leontopolis (Ant. 13.68). Cf. van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 54–55: “es liegt … nahe, die Bezeichnung πόλις ασεδεκ in LXX Jes 19,18 als Legitimation von Leontopolis als Stadt eines jüdischen Tempels zu verstehen.” See the review of scholarly contributions in Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 167–172. 13 Notice the addition of “o priests” (ἱερεῖς) in LXX Isa 40:2. 14 Seeligmann, Version, 49. 15 For a discussion concerning the definitions of “literal” and “free” renderings, see Ngunga, Messianism, 23–28.

A. LXX Isaiah

121

“inconsistent” and recommended avoiding any generalizations about his technique.16 R. Troxel has recently presented a valuable evaluation of the translator’s work. His conclusion contends that the translator in general was loyal toward his Vorlage. 17 This being the case, the translator still sought to render the sense of Isaiah’s message as clearly as possible in Greek. Troxel states: If translation involves a continuum from precise reflection of the source language, on the one end, to concern for fluency and linguistic appropriateness in the target language, the translator stands closer to the latter end of the continuum than most other Septuagintal translators.18

The aim of writing adequate Greek explains some of the decisions the translator made that strike us as odd. In sum, we should picture a translator that aimed at making Isaiah intelligible to his Greek audience, rather than simply representing its sentences.19 Assessing the many differences between the MT and LXX versions remains a complex affair, because at least three kinds of conditions have shaped the Greek translation. First, differences can be explained by a different or illegible Vorlage, a different interpretation of the consonant text (in contrast to the vocalization in the MT), or consonants open to more than one interpretation. 20 Second, differences can be explained by the aim of providing a sound translation in Koine Greek, which includes the variety of lexical choices and different phrase- or sentence-structure for reasons of style. Third, differences can be explained by the translator’s tendency towards a free, paraphrasing, and interpretative translation, including “actualizing” expositions (“Erfüllungsinterpretationen”) and intertextual harmonization in light of other passages inside and outside Isaiah. 21 The second and third points make it complicated to explain differences between two versions in terms of a different Vorlage. 22 The majority of scholars in fact assume that the Vorlage of LXX Isaiah was similar to a very high degree with the MT and that the diver16

NETS, 823–824. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 287. 18 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 287. 19 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 288; cf. Ngunga, Messianism, 49, who views the translator of LXX Isaiah as “an author who brought into being a text which is a document that not only conveys a meaning, but is also meant to be read in a certain way with reference to his ‘freedom’ in translation manoeuvres.” 20 Cf. van der Kooij, Isaiah in the Septuagint, 519: “the ancients might have read and understood a given Hebrew text in a way different from the Masoretic interpretation or from our philological understanding!” 21 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 291. 22 Van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 65: “Unterschiede zwischen LXX Jes und MT Jes [können] immer auch Resultate einer solchen Aktualisierung sein und [lassen] deshalb ohne weiteres andere Lesungen in der Vorlage erschliessen.” 17

122

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

gences stem from the translator’s approach.23 If so, the “free” renderings are not accidental but deliberate, either in order to produce an adequate rendering in Greek or in order to convey the translator’s exegesis of the text. In a word, the translator “knew what he was doing.” 24 It remains debated, however, to what extent the translator liberally injected his own ideas into the material.25 Troxel argues that the translator was, above all, a translator and downplays the role of a contemporizing method,26 whereas van der Kooij, in line with Seeligmann, stresses that the free rendering reflects an actualizing interpretation of the Isaianic prophecies.27 23 In his text-critical study of Isa 42:1–4, Gzella concludes that the LXX does not seem to hint at a Vorlage recensionally different from the MT; see Gzella, New Ways, 423; cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 30; van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 65. The history of scholarship supports this assumption. R. Ottley argued that the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Isaiah was very similar to the MT. He explained the differences as stemming either from an illegible Vorlage or from the translator’s lack of knowledge of Hebrew; cf. Ottley, Isaiah I, 51. J. Fischer likewise regarded the Vorlage as largely identical with our version of the MT. However, like Troxel, he argued that the translator’s aim was not to offer “eine genaue, wortwörtliche Ü[bersetzun]g …, sondern sein Streben ist vorzüglich darauf gerichtet, den Sinn zum Ausdruck zu bringen;” cf. Fischer, Schrift, 8–9. J. Ziegler highlighted the distinct nature of Isaiah within the LXX due to the individual personality of the translator. He claimed that “um das Verhältnis der Js-LXX zum MT recht zu würdigen, muss zunächst die ganze Persönlichkeit des Übersetzers vor uns erstehen;” cf. Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 7. As Ottley, Fischer, and Ziegler, Seeligmann assumed that the translator had a Vorlage that was largery similar to the MT. Regarding the “free” rendering of the Hebrew text, Seeligmann proposed three main reasons for it: the aim of writing good Greek, the lack of knowledge of Hebrew language and style, and the tendency towards a distinctive interpretation of the text; cf. Seeligmann, Version, 56. In contrast to these scholars, A. Scholz contended that LXX Isaiah is a literal translation of a Vorlage distinct from the MT; cf. Scholz, Uebersetzung, 11: “Der Verfasser folgt im Wesentlichen seinem Originale von Wort zu Wort.” See further in the review in van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen, 23–29; LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2485–2488. 24 Ngunga, Messianism, 208. 25 An analogical matter to the discussion of the LXX between literal translation and free interpretation is the question of whether the LXX contains a theology of its own, including tendencies towards strengthening messianic readings of the texts. According to Ngunga’s recent review, scholars who claim that there is a gradual emergence of the messianic belief in the LXX often also contend that the LXX can have a theology of its own (G. Bertram, J. Cook, M. Rösel, and J. Schaper). Against this view, other scholars refuse to speak of a distinct Septuagintal theology or ideology (M.A. Knibb, J. Lust, K.H. Jobes, and M. Silva); see also Müller, Theology. 26 Cf. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 291: “[The translator] was concerned to convey the sense of Isaiah to his readers, even if that sense was derived from within a larger notion of literary context than is permitted a modern translator. … he seems to have employed no method, but used whatever devices were at his disposal to deliver a translation that would make the book’s sprawling networks of meaning intelligible to his Greek-reading coreligionists.” 27 Van der Kooij, Isaiah in the Septuagint, 513.

A. LXX Isaiah

123

In sum, recent trends in studying LXX Isaiah continue the line set out by Seeligmann.28 The Vorlage of LXX Isaiah is thought largely to correspond to the MT, but the many differences between the two versions suggest that LXX Isaiah should be studied in its own right. Accordingly, several differences may stem from the translator’s contextual exegesis. As such, the LXX can be regarded as an early interpretation of Isaiah. II. Methodological Issues and Critical Editions Drawing upon the initial observations, we should picture the translator as one who knew the content of Isaiah well. As Ziegler states, “Der Js-Übersetzer scheint überhaupt sein Buch sehr gut dem Inhalte nach im Gedächtnis gehabt zu haben; denn es begegnen viele Wiedergaben, die sich nur auf Grund der Exegese nach sinnverwandten Stellen erklären lassen.” 29 The translator approached each passage and sometimes each word with an expectation of inner coherence within the book. Due to this expectation, it is likely that specific readings in the Greek cohere with each other and shed light upon each other. This implies that a comparison of the MT and LXX versions cannot stay on the level of word-to-word relations. It is also important to include the larger context of LXX Isaiah – what is known as a contextual approach.30 In our case, examining Isa 42:1–9 verse by verse demands attention to parallel words and phrases within the book as a whole. The entire passage must also be studied closely within its immediate literary context in 41:1–42:12 to determine whether the translation of 42:1–9 reflects an intentional tendency within the broader framework. Because the overall aim of this book is to provide a biblical theological interpretation of Isa 42:1–9, attention will be on the text itself rather than the 2nd Century translator and his translation technique, although these matters belong together. The major task consists in understanding the content of the Greek version and assessing what implications the version might have for biblical theology. Importantly, besides alterations in the Greek reflecting conscious contextual moves, the translator may unconsciously have estab28

Cf. the summary in LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2488. Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 135; cf. Zillessen, Bemerkungen, 240: “die Bereicherungen und Abweichungen des G[riechischen Textes] [beruhen] lediglich auf Beeinflussung durch Parallelstellen, dass also in diesen Fällen G kaum zur Correctur des hebräischen Textes herangezogen werden darf.” 30 Cf. van der Kooij, Isaiah in the Septuagint, 519–520. Van der Kooij proposes a fivestep-approach, including the level of the text of the LXX version, the level of word-toword relations between the Hebrew and Greek, the level of grammar and semantics, the level of the passage’s context within the LXX as a whole, and the level of actualization; see van der Kooij, Accident or Method, 368–369; cf. Porter & Pearson, Through Greek Eyes, 533, note 3. 29

124

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

lished or distorted intertextual links within the book. The present investigation will attempt to include all parallels that are detectable on linguistic grounds, for instance, due to similar terms. Intertextual connections to verses and passages outside LXX Isaiah will only occasionally be included. The examination will refer to A. Rahlfs’ critical edition of the LXX, which recently has been revised by R. Hanhart: Septuaginta (editio altera, 2006). Rahlfs’ reconstruction is very similar to that of J. Ziegler in the Göttingen edition.31 It is important to remember that both editions offer a “synthetisch rekonstruierten Mischtext” that never existed or was used before the critical reconstructions (unlike BHS which is based upon one manuscript).32 Nevertheless, the difficulties and complexities involved in the internal transmission of the LXX make it almost impossible to get back to the original Alexandrian text as these critical editions attempt to.33 The translations that accompany the presentations of the MT and LXX below are taken from the NRSV (1989) and the NETS (2007).34 In contrast to earlier translations (e.g. Brenton and Ottley), which were based on the text edition of Codex Vaticanus or Alexandrinus, the recent English and German translations, New English Translation of the Septuagint and Septuaginta Deutsch (2009), are based on the critical edition of Ziegler.

31

Cf. NETS, 823. Besides the Greek manuscripts and Patristic citations for reconstructing the text, Ziegler also includes the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations as well as the Jewish revisions in his massive apparatus. 32 Tilly, Einführung, 15–17. 33 Rahlfs’ edition is based primarily on three manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (S or ‫)א‬, and Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 4th and 5th Centuries CE, of which the latter is the best witness to Isaiah, although it shows signs of Hexaplaric influence. Within the transmission process, the original Alexandrian text has passed through Jewish revision (especially Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, known as “the Three”), Christian harmonization with the New Testament, and Origen’s “restoration” in his Hexapla. The present task is actually to undo Origen’s recensions to discover the old text, although this is difficult, because no Greek manuscripts predate the Hexapla. In the case of Isa 42:1–4, the remains of “the Three” are only of fragmentary nature, whereas many variants in the internal transmission derive from harmonization of the passage with the quotation of it in Matt 12:18–21. Despite the possibility of later Jewish and Christian corrections, I will assume that the LXX is primarily a translation by Jews for Jews; cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 31–32. For an introduction to text-critical matters, see Gzella, New Ways; Jobes & Silva, Invitation, 29–68; Tilly, Einführung, 81–99; Ziegler, Isaias, 7– 119. 34 It should be noted that the NETS – or at least the first draft of it – has emerged in close contact with the NRSV. NRSV renderings have been preserved whenever they appear as reasonable representations of the Greek to support the synoptic study between the two.

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

125

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions of Isaiah 42:1–9 B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

Since 1999, at least four scholars have compared Isa 42:1–9 (or parts of it) in the MT and LXX versions: E.R. Ekblad has focused on the theology of the LXX, H. Gzella on text-critical issues, P. Maillet on the portrayal of God, and A. Ngunga on messianism.35 Common to them is a synchronic approach to the material with attention to intertextual connections. Some have noticed that in several ways the passage is “markedly different” from the MT and that there is “a significant degree of divergence” between the Hebrew and Greek versions.36 All of them use the differences as a basis for determining the special character of LXX Isaiah.37 In line with these studies, I will compare the two versions in order to illuminate the distinctive theological nature of the Greek version. Especially the thorough investigation by Ekblad is an important resource for my analysis. I. Isaiah 42:1 MT

‫הֵן ַעבְדִּ י ֶאתְ ָמְך־בּוֹ‬ ‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ְבּח‬ ‫שׁי‬ ִ ‫ָרצְתָ ה נַ ְפ‬ ‫נָתַ ִתּי רוּחִי ָעלָיו‬ ‫שׁפָּט לַגּוֹי ִם יוֹצִיא׃‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬

LXX Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ· Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου· ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐξοίσει.

Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.

Iakob is my servant; I will lay hold of him; Israel is my chosen; my soul has accepted him; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth judgment to the nations.

Two serious variations between the MT and LXX versions are immediately to be noticed. First, the introductory “here” or “behold” (‫ )הֵן‬which signifies the public presentation of the servant is lacking in the LXX. This omission furthermore distorts the stylistic frame of the passage as found in the MT (‫ הֵן‬in v. 1 and ‫ ִהנֵּה‬in v. 9). Second, in the LXX the unidentified servant of the MT is explicitly identified as “Jacob” and “Israel” by means of the additions of

35

Ekblad, Servant Poems; Gzella, New Ways; Maillet, Servant Songs; Ngunga, Messianism. 36 Gzella, New Ways, 398; Ngunga, Messianism, 163. 37 Cf. Seeligmann, Version, 4.

126

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

these specific names.38 Rather than simply being explanatory glosses, these additions reflect a conscious interpretative move in order to clarify the enigmatic identity of the servant.39 The Hebrew word for servant (‫ ) ֶעבֶד‬is rendered with παῖς. Even though one would probably have expected δοῦλος (“slave”), this translation is not alien to LXX Isaiah. 40 In the LXX as a whole, the phrase παῖς μου occurs 11 times. 41 Of those instances, eight, primarily within Isa 40–55, refer to the people/the servant figure,42 and three refer to individuals, who are faithful to God (Caleb in Num 14:24; Moses in Josh 1:7; and the prophet Isaiah in Isa 20:4). The translator’s choice of παῖς along with the adding of Jacob and Israel links this verse to other passages in which Jacob/Israel is addressed as παῖς (e.g. 41:8–9; 44:1–2).43 Importantly, παῖς has a broader semantic range than δοῦλος, insofar as it covers both “child” and “person of servile status.”44 38

N.L. Tidweel stands rather alone by claiming that “Jacob” and “Israel” were present in the original Hebrew version, but were removed by a scribal error. H.M. Orlinsky claims that “Jacob” and “Israel” constitute secondary glosses already in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. Both claims, however, remain impossible to prove; see Orlinsky, Servant, 84–85; Tidwell, My Servant, 90–91. 39 As was mentioned, some witnesses in the Targum textual tradition add “Messiah” (‫ )משיחא‬to “my servant.” This indicates that “the identification of the enigmatic Servant was a firmly established exegetical practice and that the Septuagint and Targum in this point shared, in principle, a common methodological background but achieved different individual results because they drew their answers to the question of the Servant’s identity from different parts of the context;” cf. Gzella, New Ways, 417. Elliger, Deuterojesaja, 204 frankly assesses the addition in the LXX as a “Fehlinterpretation.” 40 The 40 occurrences of ‫ ֶעבֶד‬in MT Isaiah are translated in seven different ways within LXX Isaiah. 20 times it is translated as παῖς of which three refer to servants in general (24:2; 36:11; 37:5), three refer to Isaiah, Eliakim, or David (20:3; 22:20; 37:35), ten refer to Jacob or Israel (41:8, 9; 42:1, 19; 43:10; 44:1, 2, 21, 21; 45:4), and four refer to the servant figure, whose identity is contested (44:26; 49:6; 50:10; 52:13). Nine times it is translated as δοῦλος of which two refer to slaves in general (14:2; 49:7), four refer to Jacob, Israel, or the servant figure (42:19; 48:20; 49:3, 5), and three refer to the slaves of God (56:6; 63:17; 65:9). It is furthermore translated either by οἰκέτης (36:9) and ἄγγελος (37:24) or through a participle form of δουλεύω (53:11; 65:8, 13, 13, 13, 14, 15), of θεραπεύω (54:17), and of σέβω (66:14). 41 The phrase τοῦ παιδός μου occurs three times, referring to Abraham (Gen 18:17), Job (Job 1:8), and Jacob (Isa 45:4). 42 LXX Isa 41:8–9; 42:1; 44:1–2; 44:21; 52:13; Jer 26:28. 43 Ottley, Isaiah II, 306; van der Kooij, Servant, 383–384: “The Greek text is easily understood as an interpretation of the verse in the light of other passages where ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ are called the servant of God.” 44 Muraoka, Lexicon, 519–520 sums up that “its primary meaning seems to be a person of minor status whether in terms of descent [son or daughter], age [child] or social status [servant].” Cf. LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2615: “Dieser Begriff bietet eine Bandbreite in der Bedeutung, von ‘junger Mann, der im Hause mitarbeitet’ oder auch ‘Sklave’ bis hin zu ‘Kind’.”

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

127

Despite the semantic ambiguity, it is common for modern translations to render the term in this verse as “servant.”45 Nevertheless, Maillet leaves it untranslated to preserve the ambiguity. According to him, the best equivalent in English would be “my boy” referring to one’s son or employee/servant.46 Stressing the aspect of sonship, Maillet observes that God addresses his people Jacob/Israel as “my son” or “my child” in verses such as Ex 4:22; Isa 1:2; and Hos 11:1.47 Following Dafni, he asserts that παῖς in relation to a divinity may involve the notion of sonship. Within the pagan world, for instance, the half-god Hercules, son of Zeus, is known as παῖς Διός (“son of God”).48 As Dafni claims: “Daher wäre die Bemerkung kaum unzutreffend, dass der LXX-Übersetzer aufgrund der bestehenden, unübersehbaren, syntaktischsemantischen Analogie zwischen παῖς Διός und παῖς μου – also παῖς Κυρίου – eher an die Aussage ‘Du bist mein Sohn’ gedacht habe.”49 Reading 42:1 in the light of LXX Ps 2:7 and 88[89]:27, she furthermore suggests to read παῖς as “Gottessohn.”50 It remains uncertain whether Jacob/Israel in Isa 42:1 is addressed as son, servant, or perhaps both.51 It is significant to notice that the use of παῖς has had an impact on the reception of this passage in the New Testament (cf. chapter 6). The term also establishes a point of contact with the messianic passages in Isa 7; 9 and 11, which employ a synonymous term for child (παιδίον; 7:16; 9:6[5]; 11:8), and to the servant passages in Isa 50:4–11 and 52:13–53:12, which treat the themes of instruction (παιδεία; 50:4–5)52 and of the servant as παιδίον (53:2). The translation of ‫“( תמך‬to uphold, support”) with ἀντιλαμβάνω (“to lay hold of, grasp”) highlights the connection between the promise of future help in 42:1 and the support announced in 41:9 to Jacob/Israel, whom God took hold of (ἀντιλαμβάνω) from the ends of the earth (MT has a Hiphil of ‫)חזק‬.53 45

“Knecht,” cf. LXX.D; “servant,” cf. NETS; Ekblad, Servant Poems; Ngunga, Messianism. Aquila and Symmachus have ὁ δοῦλος μου, bringing it into line with the MT; Theodotion has παῖς. 46 Maillet, Servant Songs, 71, note h; cf. Gzella, New Ways, 398. 47 Maillet, Servant Songs, 77–78. In the case of Hos 11:1, however, the intertextual link between this verse and Isa 42:1 is stronger in the Hebrew version than in the Greek. 48 Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 193. 49 Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 193. 50 Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 194. Accordingly, the “Servant Songs” “[müssen] nach der LXX in Gottessohnlieder umbenannt werden;” emphasis original. 51 Cf. Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 193: “Wenn ein Knecht im Griechischen mit παῖς angeredet wird, dann gilt dies als Zeichen dafür, dass sein Herr so liebevoll für ihn sorgt, wie er für seinen eigenen Sohn sorgen würde.” 52 LXX Isa 50:4–5: “The Lord gives me the tongue of instruction (γλῶσσα παιδείας) … And the instruction of the Lord (ἡ παιδεία κυρίου) opens my ears…” 53 ἀντιλαμβάνω occurs nine times in LXX Isaiah, translating six different Hebrew words (see 9:7[6]; 26:3; 41:9; 42:1; 49:26; 51:18; 59:16; 63:5; 64:7[6]); see further in

128

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

Crucially, 9:6–7[5–6] also employ this Greek word to express the child’s upholding (MT: ‫ )סעד‬of his kingdom with judgment and righteousness. As Ekblad states, “by matching ἀντιλαμβάνω with ‫ ָתּ ַמְך‬, the Greek translator … may have sought to create a clearer association with the Lord’s action through the child figure of 9:6–7 and the child/servant of 42:1 than exists in the MT.” 54 The association with the individual messianic figure of Isa 9 seems nearly paradoxically, because the figure of Isa 42 is straightforwardly identified with the collective Jacob/Israel (see below). Israel is presented as chosen, where ἐκλεκτός translates ‫ ָבּחִיר‬as it often does (e.g. 43:20; 45:4).55 It is significant that LXX Isaiah uses this adjective in some instances, where MT does not. Among those are 28:16 and 49:2 of importance. In 28:16, the foundation stone of Zion is referred to as “a precious, choice stone” (λίθον πολυτελής ἐκλεκτός) connecting this stone to the servant passage.56 And in 49:2, God makes his servant like “a chosen arrow” (βέλος ἐκλεκτὸν).57 The use of προσδέχομαι (“to receive favorably”) in 42:1 likewise establishes a link between our passage and 45:4, where God will receive Cyrus (MT has “I surname you;” Piel of ‫)כנה‬. Nevertheless, the LXX is in general close to the MT in its proclamation that God has accepted Jacob/Israel passionately. The latter part of v. 1 follows the MT word for word. Yet in the description of the servant’s task, some minor differences emerge. In both versions, the main task of the servant is to bring forth judgment/justice to the nations. As is common within LXX Isaiah, ‫ גוֹי‬is matched by ἔθνος. However, by translating the verb ‫ יצא‬in Hiphil (“to bring forth/out”) with ἐκφέρω (“to carry out, bring out”), the translator has in fact narrowed the range of possible meanings. Although ἐκφέρω is probably the best equivalent for the Hiphil aspect of the Hebrew term, choosing this Greek word silences some important allusions that exist in the MT. ἐκφέρω occurs only four times within LXX Isaiah: two times in this passage (42:1, 3), one time about God, who brings out his cosmic ornamentation by numbers (40:26), and one time about the smith, who produces a vessel for work (54:16). In contrast, ‫ יצא‬in Hiphil occurs ten times

Ekblad, Servant Poems, 62–63. In 49:26, God is portrayed as the one “who assists the strength of Jacob” (ἀντιλαμβανόμενος ἰσχύος Ιακωβ). 54 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 63. 55 See also 65:9, 15, 22[23]. 56 Also the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Isa 54 involves some “chosen” stones (λίθον ἐκλεκτός) in v. 12; cf. 2 Esd [Ezra] 5:8; Jer 38[31]:39. 57 The MT has “polished arrow” (‫)חֵץ בָּרוּר‬. The Hebrew ‫בָּרוּר‬, however, can have the meaning of “chosen” (cf. 1 Chr 7:20; 9:22). Nevertheless, Ekblad suggests that “it is likely that the translator mistook or consciously interpreted this qal passive particle of ‫ בָּרוּר‬as ‫ … בָּחוּר‬Exegetically, this connects the description of the servant in 49:2 with other mentions of the servant;” see Ekblad, Servant Poems, 95; van der Kooij, Servant, 386.

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

129

in MT Isaiah.58 Apart from the four that match the occurrences of ἐκφέρω in LXX Isaiah, it designates the bringing out – the exodus – of prisoners (42:7), the blind people of YHWH (43:8), (Egyptian) soldiers for battle (43:17), and the descendants of Jacob and Israel (65:9).59 The LXX translates the Hiphil of ‫ יצא‬in these verses with ἐξάγω (cf. below). The parallelism between bringing out judgment/justice (42:1, 3) and bringing out prisoners or the chosen people/Israel is thus absent in the LXX. Furthermore, the use of ‫ יצא‬in the MT version connects the passage under examination with several important verses within Isaiah: the torah that goes forth out of Zion (2:3), the shoot that comes out from the stock of Jesse (11:1), and the imperatives to “go out” (48:20; 49:7; 52:11; 55:12); the LXX employs ἐξέρχομαι in these instances. It is also significant that the choice of ἐκφέρω destroys the possible allusions to the Exodus Narrative (cf. Ex 3:10; 6:6; etc.; the LXX matches ‫ יצא‬here with ἐξάγω). Finally, as Maillet has observed, the term ἐκφέρω does not contain the allusions to warfare that the term ‫ יצא‬has (cf. Deut 20:1; Am 5:3; the LXX has ἐξέρχομαι and ἐκπορεύομαι respectively).60 The linking of ἐκφέρω and κρίσις in vv. 1 and 3 is unique within the LXX.61 This implies that the meaning of the phrase must be determined from the literary context of the passage. As was the case with ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬, the ambiguous nature of κρίσις makes it difficult to determine its exact meaning.62 The term occurs 47 times in LXX Isaiah, of which two third of the instances translate ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬. 63 It relates to the outcome of a trial scene (41:21; 53:8; 54:17) and sometimes involves recompense or destruction (1:24; 34:5, 8, 8). However, the dominant character of it in LXX Isaiah relates to justice or right (cf. the 58

MT Isa 40:26; 42:1, 3, 7; 43:8, 17; 48:20; 54:16; 61:11; 65:9; cf. chapter 4. In the two final ΜΤ occurrences, ‫ יצא‬in Hiphil designates the bringing forth of good news (48:20; matched by ἀπαγγἐλλω in the LXX) and the earth, which brings forth its shoots (61:11; matched by αὔξἀνω). 60 Maillet, Servant Songs, 80. 61 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 64. However, a close parallel is – as in the MT – LXX Jer 28[51]:10: “The Lord has brought forth his judgment; come, and let us declare in Sion the works of the Lord, our God” (ἐξήνεγκεν κύριος τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ· δεῦτε καὶ ἀναγγείλωμεν εἰς Σιων τὰ ἔργα κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν). 62 Muraoka, Lexicon, 414 lists several different aspects of the word, including acting as judge, a sentence, a decision, an act of uprightness, moral and ethical integrity, and a court preceding. Because a similar ambiguity applies to ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬, Maillet’s claim that κρίσις means both mercy and judgment, whereas ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬only means “vindicating the oppressed” is too simplistic; cf. Maillet, Servant Songs, 80. 63 My investigation reveals that 31 times κρίσις corresponds to ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫( ִמ‬1:17, 21, 3:14; 4:4; 5:7; 26:8; 28:6, 6, 17; 32:1, 7; 33:5; 34:5; 40:14, 27; 41:1; 42:1, 3, 4; 49:4; 51:4; 53:8; 54:17; 56:1; 58:2, 2; 59:8, 9, 11, 14, 15); seven times it corresponds to ‫( ִריב‬1:23; 3:13; 34:8; 41:21; 49:25; 58:4; 63:1); two times it corresponds to ‫( ִדּין‬3:13; 10:2), to ‫( ֶצ ֶדק‬11:4; 51:7), and to ‫( נ ָ ָקם‬34:8; 35:4); finally, three times the Hebrew equivalent is uncertain (1:24; 33:15; 59:4). 59

130

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

MT). 64 Furthermore, it parallels νόμος (51:4, 7) and righteousness (1:21; 33:5; 51:4; 59:9; 63:1). Ekblad reads our passage in light of Isa 35 in order to shed light upon the more positive meaning of κρίσις. 65 In Isa 35:4–6, the κρίσις (MT has ‫ )נָ ָקם‬that God repays will cause the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to leap. This outcome is similar to the task of the servant that is presented in 42:6–7. As in the MT, the task of bringing forth κρίσις can be understood as a parallelism to the task of being a covenant to a race and a light to the nations (v. 6) and of opening the eyes of the blind and bringing out those who are bound (v. 7). The judgment/justice is bound to the existence and mission of the servant.66 He will bring it forth to the nations (v. 1), bring it forth for truth (v. 3), and establish it on the earth (v. 4). II. Isaiah 42:2 MT

‫ֹלא י ִ ְצעַק וְֹלא י ִשָּׂא‬ ‫שׁ ִמי ַע בַּחוּץ קוֹלוֹ׃‬ ְ ַ ‫וְֹלא־י‬

LXX οὐ κεκράξεται οὐδὲ ἀνήσει, οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἔξω ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ.

He will not cry or lift up [his voice], or make his voice heard in the street;

He will not cry out or send forth [his voice], nor will his voice be heard outside;

The LXX follows the MT rather closely, although some subtle differences throughout the verse may be of importance. Initially, the Hebrew ‫“( צעק‬to cry”) is rendered with κράζω (“to shout”) as in 19:20 and 65:14. Along with MT Isa 33:7 and 46:7 these verses express a tone of crisis, in which someone cries for help or cries out in despair. Three of the six other appearances of κράζω in LXX Isaiah occur in connection with the act of crying out in pain and sorrow.67 The LXX thus strengthens the aspect of crying out in distress that is already indicated in the MT. Nevertheless, this should not be overestimated, because κράζω also designates the cry of the seraphs in the temple (6:3) and the cry of the lion over its prey (31:4). The parallel ‫“( נשׂא‬to take up, raise, carry”) is rendered with the verb ἀνίημι (“to let loose, free”), which occurs 13 times in LXX Isaiah. The Greek word translates several Hebrew words. Besides this instance, however, it translates ‫ נשׂא‬only in three other occasions.68 It is surprising that the LXX seems to slightly alter the meaning in all of them. In 1:14, the MT has “I am weary of bearing them [the feasts]” (‫)נִ ְל ֵאיתִ י נְשׂ ֹא‬, whereas the LXX reads “I will no longer forgive your sins” (οὐκέτι ἀνήσω τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν). Appar64

LXX Isa 1:17, 23; 5:7; 10:2; 11:4; 28:17; 32:1; 35:4; 40:27; 56:1; 59:11, 14. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 64–65. 66 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 66; Ngunga, Messianism, 165–166. 67 See LXX Isa 14:31; 15:4; 26:17, which translate either ‫“( זעק‬to cry out”) or ‫“( ילל‬to howl, wail, lament”). 68 See LXX Isa 1:14; 2:9; 46:4. 65

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

131

ently, the translator has understood ‫ נשׂא‬as “to forgive” and added “your sins” to clarify the meaning (cf. Josh 24:19).69 In 2:9, the MT’s imperative form “do not forgive them” (‫שּׂא ָלהֶם‬ ָ ִ‫)אַל־תּ‬70 is altered into “I will not forgive them” (καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀνήσω αὐτούς). And in 46:4, MT has “and I will bear” (‫) ַו ֲאנִי ֶאשָּׂא‬, whereas the LXX reads “I will set [you] free (or forgive you)” (καὶ ἐγὼ ἀνήσω) and thereby neglects the subtle word play in the Hebrew passage.71 In short, in these three cases, the LXX stresses the matter of forgiveness. If we turn to the other nine occurrences of ἀνίημι in LXX Isaiah, the motif of “abandonment” is dominant in at least four of them.72 “To abandon” or “to forsake” is a legitimate translation of the Greek verb.73 An alternative reading of 42:2 would thus suggest “he will not forgive” if meant negatively, or “he will not abandon” if meant positively. Nevertheless, the common interpretation, which takes “the voice” to be the implicit object of the verb, should probably be maintained. It is the voice that is not being sent forth.74 It is important, however, to sense the theological connotations that this word carries throughout the LXX Isaiah. In all the cases where ἀνίημι should be translated as “abandon” or “forsake,” God is solely the subject of the action. In the latter half of the verse, a subtle difference exists between the MT’s “[he will not] make his voice heard in the street” and the LXX’s “his voice [will not] be heard outside.” Apparently, the translator has understood the imperfect Hiphil (‫שׁ ִמי ַע‬ ְ ַ ‫ )י‬to be a future passive Niphal (‫שּׁ ַמע‬ ָ ִ ‫)י‬.75 If the voice is understood as a prophetic act of proclamation rather than a voice of lament (see chapter 4), the Greek rendering emphasizes that the people outside are

69

LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2508. Within the Hebrew version, this verse is considered to be a later addition because it is absent from the parallel phrase in 5:15 and from 1QIsaa 2:9; see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 194. 71 In MT Isa 46:1–7, different forms of ‫ נשׂא‬occur in vv. 1, 3, 4, and 7. Whereas the idols are carried by their worshippers, YHWH carries his people. 72 Cf. Isa 2:6: “for he has abandoned his people, the house of Israel” (ἀνῆκεν γὰρ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ); 3:8: “because Jerusalem has been abandoned” (ὅτι ἀνεῖται Ιερουσαλημ); 5:6: “and I will abandon my vineyard” (καὶ ἀνήσω τὸν ἀμπελῶνά μου); and 27:10: “the inhabited fold will be left deserted” (τὸ κατοικούμενον ποίμνιον ἀνειμένον ἔσται). Cf. also Deut 31:8: “the Lord … will not forsake you or abandon you” (κύριος … οὐκ ἀνήσει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ σε). 73 Muraoka, Lexicon, 53. 74 To this use of the verb, see also Isa 25:11: “and he will send forth his hands” (καὶ ἀνήσει τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ). 75 Cf. Seeligmann, Version, 56. According to Ekblad, Servant Poems, 65, the translator has either failed to see the yod, lacked a simple semantic equivalent in Greek to render the Hebrew Hiphil form, had a different Vorlage, or changed the form due to his theological perspective. 70

132

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

unable to hear the voice, because the servant does not cry out.76 God’s judgment/justice in the LXX is thus not tied to words or proclamation, but rather to the servant mission of bringing forth judgment/justice to nations.77 III. Isaiah 42:3 MT

‫שׁבּוֹר‬ ְ ִ ‫ָקנֶה ָרצוּץ ֹלא י‬ ‫שׁתָּ ה ֵכהָה ֹלא י ְ ַכ ֶבּנָּה‬ ְ ‫וּ ִפ‬ ‫שׁפָּט׃‬ ְ ‫ֶל ֱא ֶמת יוֹצִיא ִמ‬

LXX κάλαμον τεθλασμένον οὐ συντρίψει καὶ λίνον καπνιζόμενον οὐ σβέσει, ἀλλὰ εἰς ἀλήθειαν ἐξοίσει κρίσιν.

a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.

a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking wick he will not quench, but he will bring forth judgment for truth.

The LXX follows the MT word by word in the description of the non-violent appearance of the servant. “A bruised reed” (κάλαμος τεθλασμένος) and “a smoking wick” (λίνον καπνιζόμενον) reflect the closest Greek semantic equivalents available to the Hebrew expressions.78 As in the MT, these expressions establish connections to some verses clearly referring to Egypt. In the oracle against Egypt, the words κάλαμος and λίνον refer to the landscape and industry along the canals (19:6, 9). In Sennacherib’s siege against Jerusalem, the parallel expression “this broken reed-rod” (ἡ ῥάβδος ἡ καλαμίνη ἡ τεθλασμένη αὕτη) designates Egypt and its Pharaoh (36:6). And in the allusion to the Egyptian Exodus, the soldiers are quenched “like a wick that is quenched” (ὡς λίνον ἐσβεσμένον; 43:17). These verses suggest that “the reed” and “the wick” refer to Egypt. 79 Given an Egyptian location of the translation, Maillet states that this reference may “add contemporary political relevance to what is being asserted.”80 However, the use of καπνίζω also links 42:3 to the attacking kings from Assyria and Israel in 7:4 (cf. “two logs of smoking [καπνίζω] firebrands”) – a link that does not exist within the MT (MT has ‫)עשׁן‬. The Greek συντρίβω (“to shatter, break into pieces”) matches the Hebrew ‫“( שׁבר‬to break”) quite well as in several other cases. 81 The translator also 76

According to Ekblad, Servant Poems, 65–66, “the MT stresses the servant’s free decision to use means that conceal his message, or make it harder to hear, while the LXX does not make the servant Jacob/Israel responsible for people not hearing.” 77 See Grelot, Poèmes du Serviteur, 88; cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 66. 78 Cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 66. 79 Some textual witnesses within the internal tradition of the LXX add “the weakness of Jews” (τὴν [τῶν] Ιουδαίων ἀσθένειαν) to clarify the identity of the reed. This addition, however, is clearly a later Christian interpretation; cf. Gzella, New Ways, 405. 80 Cf. Maillet, Servant Songs, 81. 81 See Isa 1:28; 8:15; 14:5, 12, 29; 21:9; 28:13; 38:13; 45:2; 61:1.

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

133

employs this term in 42:13 (see below). Importantly, this word in LXX Isaiah almost always refers to God’s judging act.82 In contrast to God’s powerful, yet destructive judgment, the judgment that the servant promotes does not imply crushing. This contrast is stressed even further by the insertion of ἀλλά. The servant is not violent but brings judgment for truth. As was the case with the MT’s ‫ ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬, the phrase εἰς ἀλήθειαν has no equivalent within the LXX as a whole, wherefore its precise meaning is difficult to determine. In LXX Isaiah, ἀλήθεια occurs 12 times, of which seven translate ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬.83 In several verses, ἀλήθεια stands right next to δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”), which might connect 42:3 to 42:6.84 Whereas it is the Lord, who otherwise declares truth (45:19), this task is in 42:3 assigned to the servant.85 Truth appears to be established as the outcome of the judgment that the servant will bring forth. 86 Furthermore, it is surprising to observe that ἀλήθεια connects the passage under examination with some of the messianic passages. The royal prince in Isa 11 shall be bound “with truth” (ἀληθείᾳ; MT has ‫ ) ֱאמוּנָה‬around the sides (11:5). And the future ruler (“one”) will sit on the restored throne “with truth” (μετὰ ἀληθείας) in the tent of David (16:5). Again, it is striking that the figure of 42:1–9, who is explicitly identified as a collective, is associated with the individual messianic figures of Isa 1–39. As Ngunga states, if the LXX-Isa 42:1–4 were to be read in conjunction with all of the … messianic texts (LXX-Isa 11:1–5; 16:5; 19:20) with which it is associated via the translator’s use of ἀλήθεια and κρίσις, then it is striking to see that the expected individual messianic figure depicted in all those messianic texts is read into LXX-Isa 42:1–4 in spite of its reference to a collective interpretation (i.e. Jacob/Israel) of the Lord’s Servant.87

We will return to this issue below. IV. Isaiah 42:4 MT

‫ֹלא י ִ ְכהֶה וְֹלא י ָרוּץ‬ 82 83

LXX ἀναλάμψει καὶ οὐ θραυσθήσεται,

Ekblad, Servant Poems, 66. See Isa 10:20; 16:5; 38:3; 42:3; 48:1; 59:14, 15. In addition, ἀληθής translates ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬in

43:9. 84

Isa 11:5; 26:2, 10; 45:19; 48:1; 59:14. Notice also that δικαιοσύνη translates ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬in 38:19; 39:8. 85 In 48:1, however, Jacob/Israel is accused for calling the Lord to mind “not with truth” (οὐ μετὰ ἀληθείας; cf. the lack of truth in 59:14, 15). In 10:20, the saved remnant of Jacob/Israel will trust in God “in truth” (τῇ ἀληθείᾳ). And in Isa 26, a people that keeps truth and lays hold of truth is urged to enter the strong city (vv. 2–3), whereas the impious one will not perform truth (v. 10). 86 Ngunga, Messianism, 166. 87 Ngunga, Messianism, 166.

134

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ִמ‬ ֶ ‫שׂים בּ‬ ִ ָ ‫עַד־י‬ ‫ְתוֹרתוֹ ִאיּ ִים יְיַחֵילוּ׃‬ ָ ‫וּל‬

ἕως ἂν θῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κρίσιν· καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.

He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching.

He will blaze up and not be overwhelmed until he has established judgment on the earth, and nations will hope in his name.

In contrast to MT’s negative statement ‫“( ֹלא י ִ ְכהֶה‬he will not grow faint”), the LXX creates a positive expression by employing ἀναλάμπω (“to shine brightly”). The alteration, however, distorts the stylistic pattern of the seven positive and seven negative statements in MT Isa 42:1–4 (see chapter 4). The Greek word is uncommon within the LXX, with only four occurrences besides this one.88 As Ekblad argues, it is probably the best semantic equivalent available to match the rather obscure Hebrew phrase (within MT Isaiah, ‫כהה‬ occurs only three times and only one time outside this passage [61:3]).89 The basic meaning of ἀναλάμπω (“to shine brightly, to blaze up”) strengthens the connection to 42:6, in which the servant is portrayed as “a light to nations.” The translator very likely chose ἀναλάμπω deliberately in order to establish an allusion to the light-darkness-imagery of Isa 9. Just as light will shine (λάμψει) on those who live in the shadow of death (9:2[1]), the servant figure of Isa 42 will shine up (ἀναλάμψει) for the foreign nations. The intertextual link between our passage and the messianic oracle of Isa 9 is striking. In addition, the term may connect Isa 42 to Isa 4, where “God will gloriously shine on (ἐπιλάμψει) the earth with counsel” (4:2). The LXX’s future passive of θραὐω reflects the Niphal of ‫רצץ‬, which means “to crush.”90 Besides this occurrence of θραὐω, the term appears four times in LXX Isaiah: in the refrain in Isa 2, where God “rises to crush the earth” (ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν; Isa 2:10, 19, 21) and in 58:6’s “let the oppressed go free” (ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους), which is alluded to in Luke 4:18. In MT 42:3–4, there is a creative word play between the two verses, 88

In Job 11:15, the face of the one, who has made his heart pure, will shine like pure water. In Am 5:6, the house of Joseph may flame up like fire in order to fulfill YHWH’s judgment. In 2 Mac 1:22, a great fire is kindled for sacrifice. Closer to Isa 42:4 is Wis 3:7 on the fate of the righteous. Wis 3:7–8 reads: “And in the time of their visitation they will shine out, and as sparks through the stubble, they will run about. They will judge nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will be king over them for ever” (καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν ἀναλάμψουσιν καὶ ὡς σπινθῆρες ἐν καλάμῃ διαδραμοῦνται κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη καὶ κρατήσουσιν λαῶν καὶ βασιλεύσει αὐτῶν κύριος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας). Apparently, the righteous in Wis 3 will shine out/blaze up (ἀναλάμπω) in order to judge (!) the nations (ἔθνη). 89 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 68. 90 Curiously, Wis 3:7 actually parallels “to blaze up” (ἀναλάμπω) with “to run through/about” (διατρέχω), which could reflect ‫“( רוץ‬run”) as an alternative reading of MT Isa 42:4a suggests.

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

135

insofar as ‫ כהה‬and ‫ רצץ‬occur in both. The servant that does not crush the bruised and the broken one will not himself be broken or beaten. Surprisingly, the LXX ignores this word play by using four different terms.91 The Greek ἕως with ἂν and the aorist subjunctive match the Hebrew ‫עַד‬, which refers to the completion of the task at hand. Maillet argues that whereas the servant in the MT will neither grow faint nor be crushed until he has established ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in the earth, the LXX is less definite, insofar as the sentence hardly predicts the fate of the servant. As he states, “if the παῖς is ‘broken down,’ it will not be before judgment is established upon the earth. That assertion is not the same as a prediction that the παῖς will be broken down.”92 However, it remains doubtful if such a clear line can be drawn between the Hebrew and Greek expressions. The sentence guarantees that the servant will continue to struggle until he has established judgment upon earth.93 The final colon of v. 4 contains a striking divergence between the MT and the LXX versions. Whereas the MT has “the coastlands wait for his torah,” the LXX has “nations will hope in his name.”94 We will look at the verb first, because the translator’s choice here may explain his choice of the other words. The verb ‫“( יחל‬to wait”) is matched by ἐλπίζω (“to hope;” as in 51:5), which occurs 11 times in LXX Isaiah, where it translates five different Hebrew terms.95 This is significant, because the Greek translation on linguistic grounds establishes several connections within Isaiah that are not explicitly present in the MT. Among these are 11:10; 18:7; 26:8; and 51:5 of most importance. In 11:10, “the nations shall hope in him” (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν), that is, the messianic figure. In 18:7, “a nation having hope” (ἔθνος ἐλπίζον) will bring gifts to the Lord on Zion. In 26:8, “we have hoped in your name and in the remembrance” (ἠλπίσαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ μνείᾳ). Finally, in 51:5, the LXX reveals a substantive variation compared to the MT. The MT reads about YHWH’s arms: “my arms will rule the peoples” (‫שׁפּ ֹטוּ‬ ְ ִ ‫)ז ְרֹעַי ַע ִמּים י‬. In contrast, the LXX reads: “the nations will hope in my arm” (εἰς τὸν βραχίονά μου ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν). In the same verse, the 91

Ottley, Isaiah II, 307. Maillet, Servant Songs, 83. 93 Cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 68: “As the Jewish community in Alexandria (or wherever the community read the LXX of Isaiah) surveyed its immediate situation and past history it found consolation in Isaiah’s first servant poem. If the servant was indeed the people of Israel, as the Greek translators of Isaiah understood, the Jewish community could be assured by 42:3 [sic] that as long as judgment/right is not established in the whole earth they would not be destroyed. The very existence of Israel then was a sign to the nations that their salvation was still a possibility.” 94 Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion have νόμος (“law”) and νῆσοι (“islands”). 95 “To seek” (‫ ;דרשׁ‬11:10), “to wait” (‫ ;קוה‬25:9; 26:8), “to trust” (‫ ;בטח‬26:4; 30:12), “to hope for” (‫ ;שׂבר‬38:18), and “to wait for, hope in” (‫ ;יחל‬42:4; 51:5). There is not a clear Hebrew equivalent in 18:7 and 29:8 and the meaning of the verse has been altered in 51:5. 92

136

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

LXX (along with the MT) continues: “the islands will … hope in my arm” (νῆσοι … εἰς τὸν βραχίονά μου ἐλπιοῦσιν || ‫ ֶאל־ז ְרֹעִי יְיַחֵלוּן‬... ‫) ִאיּ ִים‬. In other words, the LXX’s rendering of ‫ יחל‬into ἐλπίζω provides a linguistic warrant for interpreting 42:4 in the light of the above-mentioned passages. This implies that the name as the object of the nations’ desire stands parallel to the messianic figure in Isa 11 and to the arm of the Lord in Isa 51. These connections established by the translator likely explains why ‫ִאיּ ִים‬ (“the coastlands”) in 42:4 has been replaced by ἔθνη (“the nations”).96 This is also the case in 41:5 (see below). In addition, the choice of ἔθνη brings v. 4 in alignment with 42:1, 6. In fact “nations” may have been chosen to strengthen a concentric structure of vv. 1 and 4.97 As proposed by Dafni, reading “nations” instead of “coastlands” may have wide-ranging eschatological implications.98 Finally, concerning the substitution of name (ὄνομα) for torah (‫)תּוֹרה‬, ָ several explanations have been offered: 1. A different Vorlage. Recently, Dafni has suggested that the LXX in this verse had a different Vorlage than the MT.99 This is also indicated by Ziegler: “Es liegt jedoch näher, daß hier LXX bereits in ihrer Vorlage die Varianten ‫שׁמוֹ‬ ְ ‫ ִל‬und ‫ גּוֹי ִם‬las.”100 Unfortunately, this explanation has no support in the manuscript tradition. 2. Corruptions in the transmission process. More than a century ago, Ottley mentioned the option that “ὀνόματι is … corrupted from νόμῳ.”101 Whereas the similarity between ὀνομα and νόμος seems apparent, the similarity between τῷ νόμῳ αὐτοῦ and τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ is more difficult to accept, wherefore Maillet sees corruptions in the oral transmission as a more plau-

96

νῆσος occurs 14 times in LXX Isaiah: 12 correspond to “coastland(s)/island(s)” (‫; ִאי‬ 20:6; 23:2, 6; 24:15; 41:1; 42:10, 12, 15; 49:1; 51:5; 60:9; 66:19), one corresponds to “people” (‫ ;עַם‬49:22), and one has no Hebrew equivalent (45:16). In the remaining occurrences of ‫ אי‬meaning “island,” the Hebrew term is as here rendered by ἔθνος (41:5; 42:4) or the Greek equivalent is absent (11:11; 40:15; 59:18). Significantly, LXX Isaiah seems to omit negative statements about the islands (40:15; 59:18) and, in contrast, invite the islands to participate in God’s salvation (45:16; 49:22). 97 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 59. 98 Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 191: “Die ‘Inseln’ (‫ )איים‬können in diesem Kontext als Bezeichnung von Menschengruppen, die abgesondert sind, angesehen werden, während die ‘Völker/Nationen’ (ἔθνη) als kommunale Größen gedacht sind, die nach Gott suchen und in einer eschatologisch gefärbten Zukunft Weihgeschenke und Huldigungsgaben nach Jerusalem und zum Berg Zion tragen werden, vgl. Jes 18:7.” 99 Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 191. 100 Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 141. 101 Ottley, Isaiah II, 307; cf. Ware, Mission, 103–104, note 27; Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 141: “ὀνόματι könnte innergriech. Verderbnis aus νόμῳ sein.”

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

137

sible explanation. 102 Accordingly, when pronounced these two readings can easily be confused. This is of course theoretically possible, but not very likely. 3. Reflects a Christian reading. A variant of the second option suggests that the substitution or corruption is the result of a reworking of the text by Christian scribes, who deliberately have rephrased LXX 42:4 to agree with the quotation of it in Matt 12:21. 103 Having accepted this idea, Ziegler emends “name” to “law” in his critical edition of LXX Isaiah.104 4. Legitimate intertextual move. Ottley offers another option that the alteration is a paraphrase in the light of passages such as LXX Isa 26:8; 63:16, 19. 105 As was noticed, Isa 26:8 reads “we have hoped in your name” (ἠλπίσαμεν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου). Because the translator – due to his choice of ἐλπίζω – already links 42:4 to this verse (and several others), a conscious intertextual exegetical move is a convincing explanation for the substitution of name for torah. Although recognizing the substitution as a Christian reworking (cf. Ziegler), Koenig states that this move is indeed legitimate and in line with contemporary Jewish hermeneutics.106 According to him, the parallelism between name and law existed before LXX Isaiah and Christian readings (cf. 1QIsaa 26:8).107 As a matter of fact, the Christian correction in light of Matthew reflects a contemporary hermeneutical practice that allowed the substitution of name for torah and vice versa.108 5. To avoid misunderstandings. A final explanation is offered by Ekblad against the background of the translator’s identification of the servant as Jacob/Israel in 42:1: “Perhaps to avoid the possible misunderstanding of the Lord’s law being identified as that of the servant Jacob/Israel (that is, that the nations wait on servant Israel’s law) the LXX renders ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ as 102

Maillet, Servant Songs, 84–85: “I take the difference between the MT and the LXX to be most easily explained as an error in transmission, with the copyist mistaking what the reader dictated (or even possibly what he himself read aloud).” 103 Van der Kooij, Servant, 389, note 9. 104 Ziegler, Isaias, 277. Cf. Koenig, L’herméneutique, 232–233, note 40: “Cette solution a pour elle la plus grande probabilité.” 105 Ottley, Isaias II, 307. 106 Koenig, L’herméneutique, 232–233. 107 To strengthen his argument, Koenig draws attention to the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran. Whereas MT Isa 26:8 reads “YHWH, we await you; for your name and for your renown is the soul’s desire” (‫שׁ ְמָך ֽוּ ְלזִכ ְְרָך ַתּ ֲאוַת־נָפֶשׁ‬ ִ ‫)י ְהוָה ִקוִּינוָּך ְל‬, 1QIsaa 26:8 reads: “YHWH, we await your name, for your torah is the soul’s desire” (‫)יהוה קוינו לשמך ולתורתך תאות־נפש‬. The witness from Qumran reveals two important things. First, it is God’s name rather than God himself that his people await. Second, the name stands parallel to torah. 108 In the textual tradition of the LXX, there is further evidence for a substitution of God’s name for νόμος: Ex 16:4; 2 Chr 6:16; Ps 59[58]:12; 119[118]:195; 130[129]:5; Isa 42:24; cf. Gzella, New Ways, 406.

138

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

ὀνόματι.”109 Whereas torah in MT Isaiah almost always refers to YHWH’s torah (except for 8:16, 20), “name” in LXX Isaiah is more ambiguous and can refer to God,110 to Jacob/Israel (43:1; 48:1), and to the servant (49:1). The five options examined above can be divided into three groups. The first group (1) sees the substitution of name for torah as a faithful rendering of the originally (but lost) Hebrew version, which deviated from the MT. The second group (2 and 3) sees the substitution as an “error” within the transmission process, either accidentally or deliberately. The third group (4 and 5) sees the substitution as a conscious interpretative move made by the translator in order to harmonize the verse with parallel passages and/or avoid misunderstandings. Roughly speaking, there are two ways of dealing with this problem. We can either emend the text to read “law” instead of “name” (cf. LXX.D, Ziegler, van der Kooij) or stick to “the name” as basis for interpreting the passage (cf. NETS, Ottley, Rahlfs-Hanhart, Ekblad, Dafni, Maillet, Ngunga). Because the emendation has no warrant in the manuscript tradition, and because the arguments in favor of the translator’s contextual exegesis are persuasive, I will maintain “name” in my interpretation of the passage. Maintaining name instead of law has two initial implications. First, the appearance of torah in the MT has often been used to explain or shed light upon the kind of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬that is being brought forth to the nations in vv. 1, 3, and 4. Accordingly, in the MT, the nations and coastlands will receive teaching or have to change their behavior in light of the torah. The LXX, however, does not indicate this requirement by its rendering of name.111 Second, it is not clear in whose name the nations will hope: the name of the Lord or the name of his servant Jacob/Israel. That it is the name of the Lord seems reasonable, because his name is often an object of hope (Isa 26:8; 50:10).112 However, within the context of 42:4, the personal pronoun presumably refers to Jacob/Israel, who will establish judgment upon earth. Nevertheless, Maillet suggests that v. 4b bears witness to the sudden shift of personal pronouns common in the psalmodic literature.113 If so, we should recognize that “his name” refers to the name of the Lord. On the other hand, if the name refers to that of Jacob/Israel, it would imply that there is a kind of identification of the name of the Lord and that of his servant. Maillet observes that this identification, although uncommon, parallels the statement in Jer 14:9b that 109

Ekblad, Servant Poems, 70. LXX Isa 12:5; 19:18; 33:21; 41:25; 42:8; 47:4; 48:2, 9, 11; 50:10; 51:15; 52:5. 111 Maillet, Servant Songs, 86. 112 Notice the use of the verb πείθω (“to hope”) and the light metaphor in Isa 50:10: “Those who walk in darkness – they have no light; trust in the name of the Lord and lean upon God” (οἱ πορευόμενοι ἐν σκότει οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς φῶς πεποίθατε ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου καὶ ἀντιστηρίσασθε ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ). 113 Maillet, Servant Songs, 86 mentions LXX Ps 90:1–2 as an example of this shift: “He will say to the Lord, ‘My supporter you are and my refuge; my God, I will hope in him.’” 110

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

139

the name of the Lord has been called upon his people.114 The association of the Lord’s name with Israel in 63:16, 19 also indicates a possible identification between the two. As was mentioned above, the name can refer to both God and his people/servant in LXX Isaiah.115 As Ekblad states, the ‘his’ of ‘his name’ [in 42:4] refers to Jacob/Israel, even though in 42:8 ‘my name’ is clearly the name of the Lord God (42:6, 8). This fact, along with our earlier observation that ὄνομα (‘name’) almost always refers to the Lord, permits us to read this text with a double meaning. The nations wait upon the name of Jacob/Israel, their mediators and guarantee.116

By choosing “name” in v. 4, the translator indicates a close relationship or perhaps even identification between the servant as mediator and God as the one, who is being mediated (see below). The use of ὄνομα in 42:4 provides another link to the royal child of Isa 9, whose name is called Messenger of the Great Council (9:6[5]: καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος; cf. 7:14). The LXX once again indicates that the figure of Isa 42 ought to be read in light of the messianic oracles of Isa 1–39. This is interesting, because Ngunga recently has reintroduced the idea that “your name” and “your torah” in 1QIsaa 26:8 (see note above) can be interpreted as messianic titles, insofar as the Messiah in other 1QIsaa-passages is portrayed as the personified qualities of God.117 In a word, the community at Qumran understood “the name” to be a messianic title. The LXX might reveal a similar tendency towards a messianic belief in “the name.” As Ngunga concludes, “it is not in ‘his Torah’, but rather in ‘his name’ (as a concept that expresses an important messianic belief that developed among the Jewish community in Alexandria) that the nations will hope.”118 Although Ngunga’s emphasis on the messianic elements is perhaps

114 LXX Jer 14:9b: “And you are among us, O Lord, and your name has been called upon us; do not forget us;” cf. MT Jer 14:9b: “Yet you, o YHWH, are in the midst of us, and we are called by your name; do not forsake us!” 115 We may add that the phrase ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι besides Isa 42:1 occurs 34 times within the LXX referring to both the name of God (22 times: Gen 12:8; 33:19; Deut 10:8; 17:12; 18:5, 19, 20, 22; 21:5; 1 Chr 23:13; 2 Chr 14:10; 1 Esd 6:1; Isa 26:8; 50:10; Jer 11:21; 14:14, 15; 20:9; 23:25; 33[26]:16; 36[29]:9; Dan 9:6), the name of Jacob/Israel (two times: both in Isa 44:5), and the name of individual figures (ten times: Gen 4:17; 48:6; Deut 3:14; 1 Sam 25:5; 1 Kings 16:24; 20:8; 1 Esd 5:38; Ezra 2:61; 1 Mac 14:43; Ezek 16:15). Significantly, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι in reference to God’s name occurs in important passages such as the call of Abram (Gen 12), Moses’ intercession on Sinai (Ex 33), and as a formula repeated several times in Deuteronomy. 116 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 70. 117 This idea was presented by J.V. Chamberlain in 1955; see the review of it in Ngunga, Messianism, 170–171, 175. 118 Ngunga, Messianism, 212.

140

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

too strained, it is striking that the collective servant Jacob/Israel in Isa 42 is colored by features of an individual figure. In sum, the LXX’s “nations will hope in his name” over against the MT’s “the coastlands wait for his torah” appears to broaden the horizon. The verb ἐλπίζω and ὄνομα explicitly connect our passages to some of the messianic passages (Isa 7; 9; 11). The name also indicates a kind of identification between God and his servant. V. Isaiah 42:5 MT

‫כֹּֽה־אָ ַמר ָה ֵאל י ְהוָה‬ ‫שּׁ ַמי ִם וְנוֹטֵיהֶם‬ ָ ‫בּוֹרא ַה‬ ֵ ‫ָאָרץ ְו ֶצ ֱא ָצ ֶאי ָה‬ ֶ ‫ר ֹ ַקע ה‬ ‫שׁ ָמה ָלעָם ָעלֶי ָה‬ ָ ְ‫נ ֹתֵ ן נ‬ ‫וְרוּ ַח לַה ֹ ְלכִים בָּהּ׃‬

LXX οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ πήξας αὐτόν, ὁ στερεώσας τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ διδοὺς πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ πνεῦμα τοῖς πατοῦσιν αὐτήν·

Thus says God, YHWH, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Thus says the Lord God, who created heaven and established it, who bolstered the earth and the things that are in it, and who gave breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who tread on it:

The LXX follows the MT closely, even though it reveals some smaller differences. In the introductory speech formula, the LXX translates ‫ ָה ֵאל‬with ὁ θεὸς119 and ‫ י ְהוָה‬with κύριος, as it is common within the LXX as a whole. In the LXX version, however, their order has been switched around, which brings 42:5 in alignment with other verses within Isa 40–55, which contain a speech formula (43:1, 14; 44:2; 45:1, 11; 51:22). As in the MT, the LXX asserts that the creator of heaven and earth is the same God as the one who chose the servant to fulfill his task (42:1–4). As in the MT, the LXX alludes to the creation narratives of Genesis by its employment of the theme of creation (ποιέω, ὁ οὐρανός, ἡ γῆ). As is to be expected, the term ‫“( ברא‬to create) is rendered by ποιέω (“to make;” cf. 43:1; 45:7, 7; 45:18, 18).120 However, whereas ‫ ברא‬in MT Isaiah designates God’s absolute act of creation, which happens without analogy (only God is subject 119

However, LXX Isa 36:12 translates ‫ ָה ֵאל‬with κύριος. Nevertheless, of the 21 occurrences of ‫ ברא‬in MT Isaiah, it is actually only six that are translated by ποιέω. Besides these occurrences, ‫ ברא‬is translated by or interpreted as καταδείκνυμι (40:26, 28; 41:20; 43:15), κατασκευάζω (43:7), and κτίζω (45:8; 54:16, 16). In the rest of the instances, the translator appears to have omitted or radically changed the verb (4:5; 45:12; 48:7; 57:19; 65:17; 65:18, 18). 120

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

141

of ‫)ברא‬, ποιέω has a much broader range of meaning, as it designates all sorts of making. Within 41:1–42:12, for instance, ποιέω occurs seven times, 121 translating among others ‫“( עשׂה‬to make”) and ‫“( שׂים‬to set”). The matching of ‫“( נטה‬to stretch out”) by πήγνυμι (“to pitch”) narrows the range of meanings and allusions within Isaiah. Whereas the Hebrew term occurs 27 times in MT Isaiah, πήγνυμι occurs only three times (38:12; 42:5; 54:2) in the Greek version. In the two other instances, the term refers to the pitching of a tent. As a tent, God has pitched the heaven and positioned it firmly. Interestingly, in the four other verses in MT Isaiah that proclaim that God has stretched out the heavens, ‫ נטה‬is rendered by four different terms in Greek: ἵστημι (“to set up”) in 40:22, ἐκτείνω (“to stretch out”) in 44:24, στερεόω (“to make firm”) in 45:12, and ποιέω (“to make”) in 51:13. The term ‫“( רקע‬to hammer out, overlay”) is translated by στερεόω (“to make firm”). The Hebrew term, which occurs three times in MT Isaiah (40:19; 42:5; 44:24), indicates a craftsman at work, insofar as ‫ רקע‬occurs in connection with the production of idols (40:19; LXX has περιχρυσόω). The LXX apparently downplays this aspect of the action by choosing the impersonal στερεόω, which throughout LXX Isaiah only refers to the Lord bolstering the heaven or the earth (42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:6). 122 Finally, ‫ְו ֶצ ֱא ָצ ֶאי ָה‬ (“and what comes from it”) is rendered by καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ (“the things that are in it”), which is more all-encompassing than the Hebrew phrase. As Ekblad suggests, the translator’s choice presumably reflects an attempt to include all things upon the earth in the polemic against the earthly counsels and idols that are given god-like status by their worshippers (cf. 41:21–29; see below).123 The universal aspect of God’s creative act is emphasized by the divine breath/spirit that is being given to all humanity. The use of πνοή (“breath”) alludes to the breath of God that gives life to man in Gen 2:7. Yet whereas ‫שׁ ָמה‬ ָ ְ‫“( נ‬breath”) in MT Isaiah can refer to the destructive (30:33) and lifegiving (42:5) nature of YHWH’s breath and to the mortality of human life (2:22; 57:16), πνοή carries only positive connotations in LXX Isaiah. The Lord revives the breath of Hezekiah (38:16) and breath is part of his creative

121

LXX Isa 41:4, 15, 18, 20, 23, 29; 42:5. Maillet has mounted the case that the translator here deliberately attempted to avoid anthropomorphic imagery in his portrayal of God. In light of MT Isa 40:19, Maillet states about the portrayal in MT Isaiah: “YHWH is depicted – quite anthropomorphically – as stretching out the sky as if it were a tent and then hammering out the earth and the things growing out of the earth, like a smith pounding out objects from metal or a sculptor pounding away with hammer and chisel;” cf. Maillet, Servant Songs, 69. Accordingly, the image of God in the LXX is more universal. This is doubtful, however, since, as we have seen, πήγνυμι in LXX Isaiah only appears in connection with pitching a tent. 123 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 71. 122

142

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

act (42:5; 57:16).124 In sum, “42:5 reminds the reader that all the earth, the heavens, all things and all people are made and receive their life from the same Lord who calls the servant Jacob/Israel to a special mission.”125 VI. Isaiah 42:6 MT

‫ֲאנִי י ְהוָה ְק ָראתִ יָך ְבצֶדֶ ק‬ ‫וְאַ ְחז ֵק ְבּי ָדֶ ָך‬ ‫ְו ֶאצּ ְָרָך ְו ֶא ֶתּנְָך‬ ‫ִלב ְִרית עָם לְאוֹר גּוֹי ִם׃‬

LXX ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐκάλεσά σε ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ κρατήσω τῆς χειρός σου καὶ ἐνισχύσω σε καὶ ἔδωκά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους, εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν

I am YHWH, I have called you in righteousness, I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you126 as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations,

I, the Lord God, have called you in righteousness, and I will take hold of your hand and strengthen you; I have given you as a covenant to a race, as a light to nations,

The LXX follows the MT almost word by word, apart from a minor addition. Nevertheless, by adding ὁ θεός to κύριος, the LXX links God’s address to his servant Jacob/Israel in this verse directly with the introductory description of the creator and master of life in v. 5. The verse points forward to the reoccurrence of the phrase in v. 8 about the divine glory. Within the larger context, the triple expression of κύριος ὁ θεός in LXX Isa 42:5–8 connects the passage with 41:17, 21 and 42:13 (see below). A glance at the four verbs in this verse reveals some subtle differences. In all but one, the Greek terms match the Hebrew terms quite well. As we have seen, it is unclear whether ‫ ֶאצּ ְָרָך‬should be derived from ‫“( יצר‬to form, shape”) or ‫“( נצר‬to keep, preserve”). The LXX has ἐνισχύω (“to strengthen”), which only partly covers the semantic field of the latter root. More importantly, the translator’s choice of ἐνισχύω may derive from the use in LXX Isa 41:10, where God has strengthened (ἐνισχύσας; MT has Piel of ‫ )אמץ‬his servant

124

Significantly, the LXX omits the verse of Isa 2:22 and substitutes “anger” (ὁ θυμός) for “breath” in 30:33. The Hebrew and Greek versions of 57:16 diverge profoundly. Whereas the MT reads “For I will not continually accuse, nor will I always be angry; for then the spirits would grow faint before me, even the souls that I have made” ( ‫כִּי ֹלא לְע ֹולָם‬ ‫שׂי ִתי‬ ִ ‫שׁמ ֹות ֲאנ ִי ָע‬ ָ ְ‫)אָריב וְֹלא ָלנֶצַח ֶא ְקּצ ֹוף כִּי־רוּ ַח ִמ ְלּ ָפנ ַי יַעֲט ֹוף וּנ‬, ִ the LXX reads “I will not punish you forever, nor will I always be angry with you, for a spirit shall go forth from me, and I have made every breath” (Οὐκ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκδικήσω ὑμᾶς οὐδὲ διὰ παντὸς ὀργισθήσομαι ὑμῖν· πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ ἐποίησα). 125 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 71. 126 See chapter 4.

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

143

Jacob/Israel.127 Just as God had formerly called and strengthened Jacob/Israel (cf. 41:8–10), so he will do again. An important difference relates to the tenses of the verbs used in the two versions. In the MT, the first verb is in the perfect tense and the three latter are in the imperfect tense. In contrast, the four verbs in the LXX form an inclusio: ἐκάλεσά (“I have called”) and ἔδωκά (“I have given”) in the aorist frame κρατήσω (“I will take hold of”) and ἐνισχύσω (“I will strengthen”) in the future. The concentric structure provided by the verbs indicates that God’s future support of his servant is warranted by the call and task given in the past. Here, it is significant to notice that the aorist ἔδωκά σε points backward to ἔδωκά in v. 1. God’s bestowal of his spirit upon the servant parallels his giving of the servant as a covenant and a light. The spirit, which should be interpreted as a gifted charisma, enables the servant to fulfill his task. By the double ἔδωκά in vv. 1 and 6, the divine spirit and the divinely appointed mission are more closely connected than in the MT.128 As expected, the LXX Isaiah matches ‫“( בּ ְִרית‬covenant”) with διαθήκη.129 More surprisingly, ‫“( עַם‬people”) in this verse is rendered into γένος (“race”). Whereas one would have anticipated ἔθνος (cf. 2:3; 43:21; 56:7) or perhaps λαός (cf. 42:5), the translator has chosen the term “race,” which has a broader semantic field. 130 In LXX Genesis, for instance, γένος refers to “kind” or “species” (Gen 1:11, 12, 21; 8:19). On the other hand, of the four occurrences of γένος in LXX Isaiah, two appear in connection with the servant as a covenant (42:6; 49:6 131 ) and two explicitly refer to the people of God (22:4; 43:20).132 In other parts of the LXX, γένος often designates the race of Israel.133 It is thus legitimate to understand the term here as a reference to Israel. 134 However, we must remember that also the Hebrew ‫ עַם‬is ambiguous, insofar as it can designate the people of YHWH (cf. 1:3; 40:1) and humanity as such (cf. 40:7; 42:5). Although γένος likely refers to Israel, it is important 127

Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 153. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 73. 129 The 12 occurences of ‫ בּ ְִרית‬in MT Isaiah are matched by διαθήκη; see 24:5; 28:15, 18; 33:8; 42:6; 49:8; 54:10; 55:3; 56:4, 6; 59:21; 61:8. LXX Isaiah also has διαθήκη in 49:6 in the repetition of διαθήκη γένους (cf. Rahlfs-Hanhart; the phrase is omitted by Ziegler; NETS; LXX.D). 130 Cf. Seeligmann, Version, 29. 131 This reading follows Rahlfs-Hanhart; Ziegler omits the phrase (cf. NETS and LXX.D). 132 In the ravine of Zion, God says: “do not prevail in comforting me for the ruin of the daughter of my race” (22:4; MT has ‫)בַּת־ ַע ִמּי‬, and in the depiction of the New Exodus, God has provided water in the wilderness “to give drink to my chosen race” (43:20; MT has ‫) ַע ִמּי‬. 133 See e.g. Ex 1:9; Ps 7:8; Jer 38:1. 134 Some witnesses in the textual tradition add μου (“my”) to γένος in 42:6. 128

144

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

to recognize that the choice of this specific term has broadened up the possibilities of meanings. Since the LXX renders the similar phrase ‫ בּ ְִרית עָם‬in MT Isa 49:8 as “a covenant to nations” (διαθήκη ἐθνῶν), the tendency towards a universal interpretation of the expression has very likely been inherited within LXX Isaiah itself.135 Nevertheless, an identification of γένος with Israel would imply that the LXX apparently contains a clash between the servant as Jacob/Israel in v. 1 and the servant as a covenant to Israel in v. 6. Although indicated by commentators, such a clash does not exist explicitly in the MT, because the servant figure is left unidentified. As Maillet states, “v. 6 presents a surprising twist … for readers and hearers of the LXX version of the First Servant Song, who have hitherto been given no indication that Israel/Jacob in this pericope means anything other than the entire nation.”136 As with the alleged clash in the MT, interpreters of the LXX have been forced to distinguish between two kinds of Israel: the people as a whole and a particular group within the people (see below). Finally, ‫“( אוֹר גּוֹי ִם‬a light to nations”) is faithfully translated by εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν as in 49:6. In contrast to the MT, however, the LXX more explicitly links 42:6 and 49:6 to 51:4, where the Lord’s judgment (ἡ κρίσις) will go out as “a light to nations” (φῶς ἐθνῶν; the MT has ‫)א ֹור ַע ִמּים‬. We have already noticed that the LXX stresses the links between the servant figure of 42 and the royal child of Isa 9. The light imagery of 42:6 highlights the connection even further, insofar as light will shine on the people in darkness in 9:2[1]. As in the MT, the theme of light is dominant in LXX Isaiah. Whereas Jacob/Israel is regarded as bearer of light to the nations (cf. 42:6; 49:6), light is at the same time something external to Jacob/Israel, which expresses God’s creative power (42:16; 45:7). 137 God’s presence in Zion is described by means of light (4:5) and the people are urged to walk in his light (2:5). Light is associated with God’s ordinances (26:9), 138 his judgment (51:4), and his righteousness (62:1). Light has to do with teaching and learning, that is, enlightenment. Interestingly, God shows his servant light (53:11; lacks in the 135

Cf. LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2629: “Damit ist die Tendenz zu einem universalen Verständnis erkennbar, die inklusiv und nicht exklusiv ist.” 136 Maillet, Servant Songs, 89. 137 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 74. 138 The Hebrew and Greek versions, however, diverge radically in this verse. LXX Isa 26:9 reads: “In the night my spirit rises early toward you, O God, because your ordinances are a light upon the earth. Learn righteousness, you who dwell on the earth” (ἐκ νυκτὸς ὀρθρίζει τὸ πνεῦμά μου πρὸς σέ, ὁ θεός, διότι φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. δικαιοσύνην μάθετε, οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), whereas MT Isa 26:9 reads: “My spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness” ( ‫שׁבֵי‬ ְ ֹ ‫ָאָרץ ֶצ ֶדק ָל ְמדוּ י‬ ֶ ‫שׁ ָפּטֶיָך ל‬ ְ ‫שׁר ִמ‬ ֶ ‫שׁח ֲֶר ָךּ כִּי ַכּ ֲא‬ ַ ‫אַף־רוּחִי ְב ִק ְרבִּי ֲא‬ ‫) ֵתבֵל‬.

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

145

MT!) and the light of God’s people and Zion breaks forth (58:8, 10; 60:1–3). God himself is light for his people (60:19). As was the case with the name in 42:4, the metaphor of light enables a relationship or maybe even identification between God and his mediator and thereby reveals another mysterious element of this passage (see below).139 VII. Isaiah 42:7 MT

‫ִלפְק ֹ ַח עֵינַי ִם ִעוְרוֹת‬ ‫לְהוֹצִיא ִמ ַמּ ְסגֵּר ַאסִּיר‬ ‫שְׁך׃‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁבֵי ח‬ ְ ֹ ‫ִמבֵּית ֶכּלֶא י‬

LXX ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν, ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐκ δεσμῶν δεδεμένους καὶ ἐξ οἴκου φυλακῆς καθημένους ἐν σκότει. –

to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out from bonds whose who are bound and from the prison house those who sit in darkness.

Apart from the adding of καὶ in the last colon, the LXX follows the MT word for word. Nevertheless, several semantic nuances emerge in the verse’s description of the mission of the servant as God’s mediator. The translator’s choice of ἀνοίγω (“to open”) offers a broader range of connections inasmuch as the Hebrew equivalent ‫“( פקח‬to open”) only occurs four times within MT Isaiah, whereas ἀνοίγω occurs 17 times within LXX Isaiah, translating four different Hebrew verbs. 140 While ‫ פקח‬only refers to the opening of blind eyes/deaf ears (35:5; 42:7; 42:20) or a letter (37:14), ἀνοίγω refers to the opening of gates/windows, eyes/ears/mouth, a letter, and rivers.141 The latter reference in particular about the Lord who will open rivers on the mountains (41:20) provides a warrant for interpreting the opening of blind eyes in the light of God’s providing of fertility to the dry areas. What the servant does to blind people is what God does to the infertile landscape. The infinitive of ἐξάγω (“to lead out, bring out”) for Hiphil of ‫“( יצא‬to bring out”), however, distorts many intertextual connections that are present in MT Isaiah, including the link to the judgment that is being brought forth to nations in 42:1, 3. On the other hand, it is significant that – apart from the servant here in 42:7 – the Lord is always the subject of ἐξάγω in LXX Isai139

Cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 75: “This identification between the Lord and his servant Jacob/Israel, together with the careful maintenance of their differentiation from each other, is a mystery that is present in this first ‘servant poem’.” 140 These are ‫“( פקח‬to open”), ‫“( פתח‬to open”), Hiphil of ‫“( רחב‬to make wide, open wide”), and ‫“( קרע‬to tear wide open”). 141 Gates/windows: 13:2; 24:18; 26:2; 45:1, 3; 60:11; 63:19; eyes/ears/mouth: 35:5; 42:7; 42:20; 48:8; 50:5; 53:7, 7; 57:4; letter: 37:14; rivers: 41:18.

146

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

ah. 142 He brings out his blind people (43:8), the foreign soldiers for battle (43:17), water in the wilderness (48:21), and the descendants of Jacob and Israel (65:9). Along with the themes of name and light, the use of ἐξάγω appears to strengthen the mysterious relationship between God and his servant. Furthermore, as Maillet has observed, the verse may also reinforce the distinction between Jacob/Israel as παῖς (v. 1) and Jacob/Israel as γένος (v. 6).143 Within LXX Isaiah as a whole, τυφλός (“blind”) usually refers to the people of God 144 and δεσμός (“bond”), when signifying captivity, refers to Israel (49:9) or Jerusalem/Zion (52:2). 145 Jacob/Israel will lead out Jacob/Israel, who has been taken captive, and open their blind eyes. In contrast to the MT, LXX Isa 42:19 has servant in the plural: “who is blind but my servants? … Even God’s slaves have become blind.” 146 As Ekblad suggests, “this may well represent the LXX’s editorial touch to distinguish a particular servant (42:1) from the collective people.”147 In contrast to the MT, the LXX repeats the servant’s task of opening the eyes of the blind in Isa 61:1 (cf. Luke 4:18!).148 The LXX’s rendering of ‫“( ִמ ַמּ ְסגֵּר ַאסִּיר‬the prisoner[s] from the dungeon”) with ἐκ δεσμῶν δεδεμένους (“from bonds whose who are bound”) enables a broader field of associations. Rather than just signifying the state of being a prisoner, the Greek terms have more wide-ranging meanings, including bonds and chains. As in the MT, the LXX’s καθημένους ἐν σκότει (“those who sit in darkness”) contains a clear allusion to the light-darkness theme of Isa 9:2[1]. VIII. Isaiah 42:8 MT

‫שׁ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ֲאנִי י ְהוָה הוּא‬ ‫וּכְבוֹדִ י לְאַחֵר ֹלא־ ֶא ֵתּן‬ ‫וּתְ ִהלָּתִ י ַל ְפּסִילִים׃‬

LXX ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός, τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα· τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω οὐδὲ τὰς ἀρετάς μου τοῖς γλυπτοῖς.

I am YHWH, that is my name; 142

I am the Lord God, that is my name;

Ekblad, Servant Poems, 76–77. Maillet, Servant Songs, 89. 144 LXX Isa 6:8–10; 29:18; 35:5; 42:16, 18, 19; 43:8; 61:1. 145 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 76–77. 146 MT Isa 42:19 reads: “Who is blind but my servant? … or blind like the servant of YHWH.” 147 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 76. 148 LXX Isa 61:1 states that the servant has been sent “to proclaim release to captives and recovery of sight to the blind” (κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν), whereas the MT reads “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners” (‫סוּרים ְפּ ַקח־קוֹ ַח‬ ִ ‫שׁבוּי ִם ְדּרוֹר ְו ַל ֲא‬ ְ ‫) ִל ְקר ֹא ִל‬. Cf. LXX.D. Erläuterungen II, 2683: “Während der MT im syn. Parallelismus zweimal von der Befreiung der Gefangenen spricht, führt die LXX das Thema ‘Blindenheilung’ ein.” 143

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions My glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

147

my glory I will not give to another, nor my excellences to the graven images.

The LXX is close to the MT, apart from a minor addition. As in 42:6, the Greek version adds ὁ θεός to κύριος, which brings the divine titles in alignment with vv. 5 and 6 within our passage and 41:17, 21 and 42:13 within its broader context. Due to the substitution of “name” for torah in 42:4, the LXX creates a vital link within the passage as a whole. In v. 4, the nations will hope in the servant’s/God’s name. In v. 8, God reveals himself, stating that κύριος ὁ θεός is his name. He refuses to give his glory/excellences to others. A similar phrase is present in Isa 48:11 (τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω || ‫)כְבוֹדִ י לְאַחֵר ֹלא־ ֶא ֵתּן‬, and in the LXX version of it, the phrase stands parallel to the name of God, which is being profaned (ὅτι τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα βεβηλοῦται).149 As is common within the LXX, YHWH’s glory (‫ )כָּבוֹד‬has been translated by δόξα. Nevertheless, in Isaiah, δόξα occurs almost twice as frequently as ‫כָּבוֹד‬, 150 whereby the translator has established more intertextual links than exist in the Hebrew version. In the LXX, for instance, the glory is more explicitly associated with the house of God: the temple becomes full of divine glory (6:1; MT has ‫“[ שׁוּל‬robe”]) and the glory rather than the beautiful house (‫ְאַרתֵּ נוּ‬ ְ ‫ )בֵּית תִ פ‬has been burned by fire (64:11[10]). The Lord is praised as being the psalmist’s glory (12:2; cf. 45:24; MT has ‫“[ ע ֹז‬strength, might”]). And in oracles about individual figures, the Messiah shall not judge on the basis of repute (11:3; οὐ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν κρινεῖ) and the servant Eliakim receives the glory of David to rule rather than the key of the house of David (22:22; ‫) ַמפְתֵּ ַח בֵּית־דָּ וִד‬. The Hebrew ‫“( תְּ ִהלָּה‬praise”) is rendered by the ambiguous term ἀρετή in the plural (cf. 42:12; 43:21; 63:7). Within the LXX as a whole, ἀρετή can mean laudatory praise, excellent feature and property, or even virtue (Wis 4:1).151 Rather than simply praise, the term here should be interpreted more in terms of performances that stimulate praise. 152 It is these performances or excellent qualities that God refuses to share with the graven images. According to Maillet, the choice of ἀρετή indicates a subtle change in the depiction of God: “Whereas the MT depicts God as one who does not share his praise

149 MT 48:11 lacks “the name” and reads “for why should it” (‫)כִּי ֵאיְך יֵחָל‬. According to LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2659, the “name” in the LXX version has been added in light of 42:8. 150 ‫ כָּבוֹד‬occurs 38 times, whereas δόξα occurs 68 times, translating for instance ‫ָה ָדר‬ (“honor, splendor”), ‫“( ִתּ ְפ ֶא ֶרת‬beauty”), ‫“( ע ֹז‬strength, might”), and ‫“( גָּאוֹן‬exaltation”). 151 Muraoka, Lexicon, 90. 152 Cf. Ottley, Isaiah II, 307, who argues that the term is used much in the sense of praiseworthy deeds (cf. laudes in Latin).

148

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

with idols, the LXX portrays God in more rational terms, namely, as one who does not share divine attributes that merit praise.”153 The term γλυπτός (“graven image”) occurs six times in LXX Isaiah and is used for ‫“( ָפּסִיל‬idol”) here and in 10:10.154 In contrast to the MT, the LXX makes a clear link to 42:17, where God rebukes the people that hope/trust in graven images (οἱ πεποιθότες ἐπὶ τοῖς γλυπτοῖς). The grammatical structure of this sentence recalls that of 50:10, where those who walk in darkness are urged to hope in the name of the Lord (πεποίθατε ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου). Reading 42:8 in light of 42:17 and 50:10 thus underlines the contrast between the graven images and the name of God (and perhaps even also of his servant; cf. 42:4). IX. Isaiah 42:9 MT

‫ה ִָראשׁ ֹנוֹת ִהנֵּה־בָאוּ‬ ‫ַוחֲדָ שׁוֹת ֲאנִי ַמגִּיד‬ ‫ְבּט ֶֶרם ִתּ ְצ ַמ ְחנָה‬ ‫שׁ ִמיע ֶא ְתכֶם׃‬ ְ ‫ַא‬

LXX τὰ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἰδοὺ ἥκασιν, καὶ καινὰ ἃ ἐγὼ ἀναγγελῶ, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἀνατεῖλαι ἐδηλώθη ὑμῖν.

See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them.

As for the things that were from the beginning, see, they have come; also new things, which I myself declare, and before they sprang forth, they were made plain to you.

The former half of the verse is almost identical in the two versions, apart from the rendering of ‫“( ה ִָראשׁ ֹנוֹת‬the former [things]”) with τὰ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (“[the things] that were from the beginning”) and the insertion of the relative pronoun ἃ.155 As expected, the Hiphil of ‫“( נגד‬to declare”) has been rendered with ἀναγγέλλω (“to announce, report;” cf. e.g. 41:22, 23, 26; 42:12). In the latter half of the verse, a pivotal divergence appears. Whereas the MT reads “before they spring forth, I tell you of them,” the LXX reads “and before they sprang forth, they were made plain to you,” which alters the tense of the sentence from the imperfect to the aorist. The Qal imperfect of ‫“( צמח‬to sprout, spring up”) is matched by an aorist infinitive of ἀνατέλλω (“to spring up, rise”)156 and the first person Hiphil imperfect of ‫“( שׁמע‬to tell”) is matched 153

Maillet, Servant Songs, 93. In 42:17; 44:17; 48:5, it translates ‫“( ֶפּסֶל‬carved image, idol”) and in 46:1, it translates ‫“( ָעצָב‬idol”). 155 However, according to LXX.D, καινὰ can be translated either as “und das Neue, das ich verkünden werde” or “und neu ist, was ich verkünden werde.” 156 Some witnesses within the internal transmission of LXX have πρὸ τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι (“before announcing”), but this reading likely represents an early corruption or harmoniza154

B. A Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions

149

by the third person aorist passive of δηλόω (“to make known, disclose”). The employment of ἀνατέλλω establishes more intertextual connections within the book than the MT does (see especially 44:26; 45:8, 8; 60:1).157 Although the Hiphil of ‫ שׁמע‬lacks a simple semantic equivalent in Greek and thus is often rendered inexactly,158 the choice of δηλόω is significant. The term appears only here in LXX Isaiah. Within the entire LXX, it occurs 37 times, mostly in 2 Maccabees and Daniel. It signifies teaching and explanation159 or interpretation and exposition of dreams (cf. Daniel). Importantly, the term relates to the manifestation of God’s name (Ex 3:6) or his hand (Jer 16:2) and in 2 Sam 3:21, it parallels ἀποκαλύπτω (“to reveal, disclose”). The latter instances strongly suggest that δηλόω in 42:9 refers to an act of revelation. However, the passive form of δηλόω has two interpretative implications. First, in the MT version of the passage, there is a peculiar link between the servant who does not make his voice heard in the street (‫שׁ ִמי ַע‬ ְ ַ ‫ ;י‬v. 2) and God who speaks openly (‫שׁ ִמיע‬ ְ ‫ ; ַא‬v. 9). By choosing δηλόω, the LXX neglects this link. Second, the passive form of the verb weakens the image of God as the omniscient foreteller of events. While the MT clearly states that God himself will tell about the coming events, the LXX by using of the passive form completely alters the construction and the meaning of the verse.160 In the Greek version, it is not clear by whom the former events have been revealed. They may have been revealed by God, of course, insofar as the grammatical form can be considered a passivum divinum (though it is hardly employed to avoid using the name of God!). X. Summing Up: a Comparison of the MT and LXX Versions The two versions are in several ways markedly different. Although the translator often has remained faithful towards his Vorlage, his lexical choices indicate a series of important variations. In some cases he has limited the number of intertextual references within Isaiah (ἐκφέρω, ἐξάγω, ἀρετή, δηλόω); in other cases he has increased the number (κρίσις, ποιέω, ἀνοίγω, δεσμός, δόξα, ἀνατέλλω). At least in one case he has employed a term which

tion of it with the preceding verb. In addition, “die besten Zeugen der alexandrinischen Gruppe” read ἀνατεῖλαι; cf. Ziegler, Isaias, 99. 157 However, the LXX renders Isa 4:2 differently from the MT, distorting the link to a possible messianic interpretation; MT has “On that day the branch (‫ ) ֶצ ַמח‬of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious,” whereas LXX has “But on that day God will gloriously shine.” Nevertheless, by choosing ἀνατέλλω, the LXX still links the term to a possible messianic use in a series of messianic passages outside Isaiah (e.g. Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12 employing ἀνατολή for ‫ ;) ֶצ ַמח‬cf. de Sousa, Eschatology, 52–54. 158 Ottley, Isaiah II, 308. 159 E.g. Ex 33:12; Deut 33:10; Jos 4:7; 1 Es 3:15; Tob 10:8. 160 Seeligmann, Version, 55.

150

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

carries solid theological connotations (ἀνίημι). Concerning the servant figure, the Greek version seems almost paradoxical. On the one hand, the translator has identified the enigmatic servant figure as a collective (Jacob/Israel) and shaped his rendering of v. 1 in light of especially 41:8–10 (παῖς, ἀντιλαμβάνω). On the other hand, the translator has established several links between Isa 42 and the messianic oracles in Isa 1–39. The translator’s substitution of name for torah indicates a mysterious relationship between God and his servant. We will return to this in the assessment of the interpretative implications.

C. LXX Isaiah 42:1–9 within LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12 C. LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12 Before turning to the implications of the LXX version for interpreting 42:1–9, we will examine the passage’s context within LXX Isa 41:1–42:12. The examination will reveal in what manner the translator’s awareness of the overall context has influenced his translation of 42:1–9 and vice versa. In general, the LXX appears to strengthen the internal coherence of the framework, for instance, by its lexical choices. Nevertheless, we will only focus on those aspects of the text that relate directly to 42:1–9. Representations of larger verses or passages will occur when deemed relevant. I. LXX Isaiah 41:1–7 NRSV

NETS

41:1 Listen to me in silence, O coastlands; let the peoples renew their strength; let them approach, then let them speak; let us together draw near for judgment. 2 Who has roused a victor from the east, summoned him to his service? He delivers up nations to him, and tramples kings under foot; he makes them like dust with his sword, like driven stubble with his bow. (…) 4 Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, YHWH, am first, … 5 The coastlands have seen and are afraid...

Be dedicated to me, O islands, for the rulers (ἄρχοντες) will change strength; let them approach and speak together; then let them declare judgment (κρίσιν). Who has roused righteousness from the east, called it to its feet and it will go? He will place it before nations and astonish kings, and he will place their daggers in the earth, and their bows like brushwood that is driven out. (…) Who has wrought and done these things? The one calling her (αὐτὴν) from the beginning of generations has called her (αὐτὴν). I, God, am first, … The nations saw and became afraid…

Several decisive divergences exist between the Hebrew and Greek versions, especially in vv. 1–4, which in the LXX differs profoundly to the MT. A series of terms is rendered differently in a manner that one would expect. The

C. LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12

151

Hiphil of ‫“( חרשׁ‬to be silent”) is translated as ἐγκαινίζω (“to renew, dedicate, hold a feast”), which ascribes an active rather than a passive role to the islands.161 The “peoples” (‫ ) ֻא ִמּים‬in the parallel phrase have been replaced by “rulers” (ἄρχοντες; cf. 34:1; 43:4, 9), who as the islands are assigned a more positive role. Whereas the MT understands them to be adversaries in a trial (“let us together draw near for judgment [‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫)”] ַל ִמּ‬, the LXX understands them to be messengers who, as the servant, will declare judgment (κρίσις). In v. 4, θεός instead of κύριος corresponds to ‫ י ְהוָה‬and in v. 5, the “nations” (ἔθνη) correspond to “the coastlands” (‫ ; ִאיּ ִים‬cf. 42:4!). Furthermore, v. 5’s use of ἐγγίζω (“to draw near”) and ἅμα (“together”) to describe the reaction of the ends of the earth connects the verse closely to the islands and rulers of v. 1, who are summoned to draw near and speak together. According to Ekblad, the linguistic correlation supports a reading in which “islands, princes, nations and ends of the earth are all related as synonyms or at least as belonging to the same semantic field.”162 The positive view on the rulers in v. 1 is confirmed by the translation of vv. 2–4. Rather than being a powerful and successful victor, 163 God has roused righteousness itself (δικαιοσύνη; cf. the two occurrences of αὐτὴν in v. 4). It is not a violent victor who tramples kings under foot and annihilates them but God, who astonishes and disarms the nations and their kings by the proceeding of his righteousness. While the victor in the MT makes the nations like dust with his sword and bow, God in the LXX buries the daggers and bows of the foreign kings. In the LXX, God’s way will pass through in peace (ἐν εἰρήνη; cf. v. 3). In v. 4, God has not called generations from the beginning (MT) but righteousness from the beginning of generations (LXX; cf. ἐκάλεσεν αὐτήν in vv. 2 and 4).164 The calling of righteousness furthermore points forward to the servant, who has been called in righteousness (42:6). The LXX’s rendering of 41:1–7 has two major implications for the interpretation of 42:1–9. First, in contrast to the MT, it reveals a more positive attitude towards the islands/nations and their rulers/kings. This is evident due to the image of peace in vv. 2–3. The different groups of foreigners belong to the same semantic field (cf. Ekblad). Second, the plausible allusions to Cyrus in the MT have been completely eliminated.165 Rather than a human conquer161

The translator has perhaps mistakenly read ‫“( חדשׁ‬to renew”) instead of ‫ ;חרשׁ‬cf. Ottley, Isaiah II, 301; LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2648. 162 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 36. 163 See chapter 4 for the scholarly interpretations of this verse. 164 Cf. Ottley, Isaiah II, 302: “αὐτήν must refer as before to δικαιοσύνην, and ἐκάλεσεν αὐτήν may have simply been repeated from ver. 2.” 165 LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2614: “Die Beziehung auf Kyros ist nicht erkennbar und sollte für die LXX auch nicht nachträglich eingetragen werden;” cf. Ottley, Isaiah II, 302: “it would be easy to miss here the heralding of the human conqueror and deliverer.”

152

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

or, God has roused and called righteousness in vv. 2 and 4. The image of a victorious warrior has been replaced by that of a divine peacemaker. The distortion of the references to Cyrus or another individual figure thus supports the translator’s identification of the servant in 42:1–9 with the collective Jacob/Israel. II. LXX Isaiah 41:8–16 8 But you, Israel, my servant (‫) ַע ְב ִדּי‬, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; 9 you whom I took (‫ ) ֶה ֱחז ַ ְק ִתּיָך‬from the ends of the earth, and called from the farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant (‫) ַעבְדִּ י‬, I have chosen you and not cast you off”; 10 do not be afraid…

But you, Israel, my servant (παῖς μου) Iakob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraam, whom I have loved, you whom I took hold of (ἀντελαβόμην) from the ends of the earth, and I called you from its mountain peaks, and I said to you, “You are my servant (παῖς μου); I have chosen you and not forsaken you”; do not fear…

Within LXX Isa 41:8–16, the first sub-unit in vv. 8–10 relates directly to the servant figure of 42:1–9. As we have seen, the portrait of the servant in 42 has been harmonized to agree with the portrait in 41:8–10. This intertextual move includes the translation of ‫ ֶעבֶד‬with παῖς and the identification of the servant in 42:1 with Jacob and Israel. The LXX also emphasizes the connection between the passages by its use of ἀντιλαμβάνω in 41:9 and 42:1, whereas the MT has Hiphil of ‫ חזק‬in 41:9 and ‫ תמך‬in 42:1. As in the MT, the servant Jacob/Israel parallels the offspring of Abraham, who in LXX Genesis also appears as God’s παῖς (Gen 18:3, 18). Rather than just being a friend, Abraham is loved by God (cf. the insertion in 51:2). In sum, vv. 8–16 along with vv. 1–7 support the collective interpretation of the servant figure of 42.166 In contrast to the positive view on the nations and their kings in vv. 2–4, vv. 11–12 assert that the adversaries of Israel shall perish. However, it is significant that the LXX does not mention islands/nations or rulers/kings.167 As in the MT, the enemies in vv. 11–12 remain unidentified and it is the mountains and hills that will become threshed in vv. 15–16. III. LXX Isaiah 41:17–20 This minor unit confirms the thesis that the translator’s lexical choices are often determined by the broader literary context. In v. 17, for instance, ὁ θεός 166

LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2614; cf. Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 189: “Wer den zweiten Teil des Jesajabuches nach der LXX für sich liest, gewinnt allmählich den Eindruck, dass die ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder nicht ohne Jes 41:1–4.8–16 zu verstehen sind. Denn dort wird die Erwählung und die Aufgabe des ‘Ebed-Jahwe als kollektive Größe d.h. als Sinnbild für das Volk Israel sprachlich und gedanklich begründet.” 167 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 37.

C. LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12

153

has been added to κύριος to bring it into alignment with other verses within the context (cf. 41:21; 42:5, 6, 8, 13). Furthermore, God promises not to forsake (ἐγκαταλείπω) the poor and needy as he did not forsake (ἐγκαταλείπω) his servant in 41:9 (MT has ‫ מאס‬and ‫ עזב‬respectively). The structure of v. 20’s “the hand of the Lord has done all these things” (χεὶρ κυρίου ἐποίησεν ταῦτα πάντα) points backward to v. 4, offering an answer to its rhetorical question: “who has … done these things” (τίς … ἐποίησεν ταῦτα). Of most importance for the interpretation of 42:1–9 is the use of ἀνοίγω (“to open”) in the description of God’s opening of rivers in v. 18, which parallels the servant’s task of opening the eyes of the blind in 42:7. On the other hand, the link between v. 20 and the portrayal of the creator God in 42:5 by means of ‫ ברא‬has been distorted by the choice of καταδείκνυμι. IV. LXX Isaiah 41:21–29 This section is important because it immediately precedes and colors the reading of 42:1–9. Ekblad has provided pioneering work on 41:21–29, offering 20 pages of meticulous analysis of the nine verses in the MT and the LXX.168 Many observations in the following survey draw upon his work. As Ekblad has noticed, there are major differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the passage. As in 41:1–4, the rendering of the Hebrew Vorlage is remarkably free. The Greek translation appears to be the result of a distinct exegesis of the whole passage. Initially, the rendering of the two introductory verses demonstrates this thesis: 21 Set forth your case, says YHWH; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen.

Your judgment (κρίσις) draws near, says the Lord God; your counsels (βουλαὶ) have drawn near, says the King of Iakob. Let them draw near and declare to you (pl.) the things that will happen.

As in the MT, God readdresses the islands, nations, and ends of the earth in v. 21–22 (cf. vv. 1–7). This is even clearer in the LXX by its use of ἐγγίζω (“to draw near”), which connects vv. 1 and 5 with vv. 21 and 22. As was noticed, the LXX reveals a peaceful rather than violent attitude towards the nations in vv. 1–7 and, moreover, Israel’s adversaries, who will perish in vv. 11–12, remain unidentified. 41:1–20 as a whole foreshadows a judgment favorable to both Israel and the nations. Ekblad has convincingly demonstrated that the LXX translator, in contrast to the MT, deliberately has attempted to distinguish between two separate groups in 41:21–29: the nations/islands and their rulers/kings vis-à-vis the 168

Ekblad, Servant Poems, 37–55.

154

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

counselors and idols. In this manner, the Greek version maintains a positive view of the foreign nations, which unfortunately have been led astray by their terrible idols. In v. 21a, the nations are not urged to set forth their case (cf. the MT) but, on the contrary, God 169 proclaims that their judgment draws near, just as their rulers were admonished to declare judgment in v. 1. The MT’s ‫“( ִריב‬case, dispute”) is rendered by κρίσις, which points forward to the κρίσις that the servant brings (42:1–4). As we have seen, this judgment involves justice and right rather than destruction. Moreover, the LXX renders the plural of ‫“( ֲע ֻצ ָמה‬defense, proof”) with βουλαί (“counsels”).170 According to Ekblad, one can translate the Greek term with “counselors,” insofar as βουλαί here denote the personified givers of counsel rather than the abstract advice or counsels as such (cf. Isa 55:7–8).171 In a word, by neglecting the parallelism in the MT between case and proofs the LXX establishes an antithesis between the potentially positive κρίσις of the nations and their negative βουλαί. The tenses of the verbs in vv. 21–22a likewise indicate a separation between the two groups. It is significant that the triple repetition of ἐγγίζω in vv. 21–22 corresponds to two different Hebrew terms (‫ קרב‬and ‫)נגשׁ‬. Yet, whereas the nations’ judgment draws near (ἐγγίζει), their counselors have drawn near (ἤγγισαν). Interestingly, the second person plural imperative in the MT (“set forth”) is matched by a third person singular present indicative (“draws near”) in v. 21a and the second person plural Hiphil jussive in the MT (“bring”) is matched by a third person plural aorist indicative in v. 21b (“have drawn near”). V. 22a reinforces the distinction between the nations who are being addressed and their counselors. In this verse, the nations are admonished to let their counselors draw near and declare (ἐγγισάτωσαν, ἀναγγειλάτωσαν) to them (cf. “you” [ὑμιν] instead of “we” [‫ )]לָנוּ‬the things that will happen. Finally, the distinction is undergirded by the literary structure of the passage. Having addressed the nations in vv. 21–22a, God turns to the counselors in vv. 22b-26 and demands them to “tell us” the things that are to come. This “us” refers to the entire audience of the trial scene, that is, God, Israel, and the nations. The address contains some remarkable variations compared to the MT: 24 You, indeed, are nothing and your work is nothing at all;

169

Because whence are you and whence is your work? From the earth.

Notice the addition of ὁ θεός in v. 21; cf. 41:17; 42:5, 6, 8. Perhaps the translator has read ‫“( עֵצוֹת‬counsels, decisions”); cf. Ottley, Isaiah II, 304; LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2649. 171 Ekblad, Servant Poems, 40; cf. de Sousa, Eschatology, 54–56, who also contends that the term can mean “plans” or “counselors.” 170

C. LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12 whoever chooses you is an abomination. 25 I stirred up one from the north, and he has come, from the rising of the sun he shall call on my name.172 He shall trample/come on rulers as on mortar, as the potter treads clay.

155

They have chosen you as an abomination. But I stirred up (the) one who is from the north and (the) one who is from the risen sun; they shall be called by my name. Let rulers (ἄρχοντες) come, and like potter’s clay – even as a potter treading clay – so shall you be trodden down.

41:24a in the LXX stresses the nothingness of the idols by adding “from the earth” (ἐκ γῆς). The addition may reflect an interpretation of the verse in light of Isa 19:3, where God asserts about the Egyptians: “I will shatter their counsel, and they will consult their gods and their images and those who speak out of the earth and the ventriloquists;” moreover, the addition emphasizes the contrast between God who creates and makes earth as nothing (40:23) and the idols who are from the earth.173 V. 24b continues the distinction between the nations and their advisers. Whereas the MT reads “whoever chooses you is an abomination” (‫)תּ ֹו ֵעבָה י ִ ְבחַר ָבּכֶם‬, the LXX reads “they have chosen you as an abomination” (βδέλυγμα ἐξελέξαντο ὑμᾶς). The idols, not their worshippers, are a disgrace. V. 25 shows a decisive divergence between the two versions. As in vv. 2– 3, the MT portrays YHWH’s raising of a conqueror – presumably Cyrus – who will trample on foreign rulers. In contrast, the LXX reveals three major variations. First, while the MT indicates one conqueror, the LXX indicates at least two, namely one who is from the north and one who is from the risen sun (τὸν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου ἀνατολῶν). Second, instead of the conqueror’s trampling on rulers (‫) ְסגָנִים‬, the rulers (ἄρχοντες; cf. 41:1!) are summoned to come. Third, the idols – “you,” who have been addressed in vv. 22b-24 – rather than the rulers are the object of divine destruction. The idols will be trodden down as clay. As in vv. 1–7, the LXX’s rendering of v. 25 has two interpretative implications. First, the LXX maintains a positive view on the nations and their rulers in opposition to their counselors and idols, who will suffer defeat. Second, the LXX downplays the plausible allusions to Cyrus and thereby strengthens the identification of the servant in 42:1 with the collective Jacob/Israel. Among the variations in v. 26, the match of ‫[“( צַדִּ יק‬he is] right”) with ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν (“that they are true”) connects the verse to 42:3. Whereas the capability of the idols is questioned, the servant will bring forth judgment for truth (εἰς ἀλήθειαν).174 A major difference appears in v. 27: 172

Cf. BHS; NRSV has “he was summoned by name;” see chapter 4. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 44. 174 Cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 48. 173

156

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

27 First to Zion – Behold, behold them175 and I give to Jerusalem a herald of good tidings.

I will give dominion to Sion (ἀρχὴν Σιων δώσω), and I will comfort Ierousalem on the way.

Whereas the MT portrays the message/messenger that God has first declared and will give to Zion/Jerusalem, the LXX proclaims that God will give dominion to Zion and comfort Jerusalem on the way (cf. 10:32; 40:1–11; 51:3, 11).176 Rather than giving dominion to the nations or its victorious rulers, God will give it to his people of Zion. The motif of God’s comfort plays an important role in LXX Isaiah (cf. the use of παρακαλέω in 51:3; 66:13). The insertion of γάρ in v. 28 clarifies the reason behind God’s intervention toward Zion. No one else was there: 28 But when I look there is no one; among these there is no counselor. Who, when I ask, gives an answer. 29 No, they are all a delusion; their works are nothing; their images are empty wind. 42:1 Here is my servant…

For from among the nations, behold, no one, and from among their idols, there was none who declared. And if I should ask them, Whence are you? They will not answer me, for they are the ones who make you [] and those who lead you astray are vain. Iakob is my servant …

V. 28a in the LXX repeats the basic differentiation between the nations and their counselors by splitting “among these” (‫ ) ֵמ ֵאלֶּה‬into two: “among the nations” (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν) and “among their idols” (ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων αὐτῶν). As with the counselors in vv. 22, 23, and 26, the idols are unable to declare (ἀναγγέλλω), whereas God declares the new things to come (42:9). V. 29 in the LXX is indeed enigmatic.177 Most likely a sudden change of addressee takes place due to the function of the verse as a bridge between 41:21–29 and 42:1–9.178 If this is so, the verse presumably reads: “for they 175

See chapter 4 for the scholarly interpretations of this verse. The “rule” (ἀρχὴν) corresponds to “first” (‫)ראשׁוֹן‬ ִ and “I will give” (δώσω) to “I give” (‫ ) ֶא ֵתּן‬in the latter part of the verse. “I will comfort” (παρακαλέσω) either reflects “herald of good tidings” (‫שּׂר‬ ֵ ‫ ) ְמ ַב‬or the translator read “behold, behold them” (‫ ) ִהנּ ֵה ִהנָּם‬as “to comfort” (‫)נחם‬. “On the way” (εἰς ὁδόν) is presumably a free insertion by the translator in light of the way imagery of Isaiah; see further in Ekblad, Servant Poems, 50–51; LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2649; Ottley, Isaiah II, 305. 177 Cf. Ekblad, Servant Poems, 53–54. 178 Ottley, Isaiah II, 305 states that the verse is at least incomplete in the LXX. LXX.D follows Ziegler’s emendations by translating the verse into “Denn ein Nichts sind die, die an euch handeln, und vergeblich (handeln die), die euch formen.” LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2651 designates the meaning of Rahlfs’ rendering as “nicht ganz klar.” 176

C. LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12

157

[the nations] are the ones who make you [the idols; addressed in vv. 22a-26], and those [the idols] who lead you [the nations; addressed in vv. 21–22a] astray are vain.” The “you” in the latter colon of the verse may also include Jacob/Israel as part of the larger audience of the trial scene (cf. v. 22b). If we accept this interpretation, the verse actually provides a good foreword to 42:1–9 by indicating that God’s presentation of his servant is addressed to everyone, including the island/nations, their rulers, and Jacob/Israel. V. LXX Isaiah 42:10–12 42:10 Sing to YHWH a new song, his praise from the end of the earth (…) 12 Let them give glory to YHWH and declare his praise in the coastlands. [13 YHWH goes forth like a soldier, like a warrior he stirs up fury; …]

Sing to the Lord a new song, you, his dominion! Glorify his name from the end of the earth (…) They will give (δώσουσιν) glory to God; they will declare his excellences in the islands. [The Lord God of the powers will go forth and crush (συντρίψει) the war; …]

The final hymn in 42:10–12 reveals a set of smaller variations. The divine title ‫ י ְהוָה‬is rendered by κύριος in v. 10, but by τῷ θεῷ in v. 12. In both versions, the peoples on the sea and the islands are urged to proclaim God’s praise. Nevertheless, the LXX adds ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ to the first line of v. 10. The phrase can be translated in at least three ways. First, it can be translated as “you, his dominion” (Brenton; NETS), referring to the addressee, that is, Zion (cf. 41:27). Second, it can be translated as “his is the dominion” (Ottley; LXX.D), referring to the power of God. Third, it can be translated as “the beginning of it,” referring to the opening of the hymn.179 The first interpretation seems most likely, because it creates a good parallel to the end of the earth, moving from the people of God to the whole world. More significantly, the LXX matches ‫“( תְּ ִהלָּתוֹ‬his praise”) with δοξάζετε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (“glorify his name”). In contrast to the MT, which links v. 10 to v. 8 (and v. 12) by means of ‫תְּ ִהלָּתוֹ‬, the LXX establishes this link by means of the verb δοξάζω and the repetition of ὄνομα. The adding of ὄνομα (cf. 12:5) highlights the name-theology, which is stronger in the LXX by virtue of its substitution of name for torah in 42:4. The Greek version furthermore strengthens the relation to 42:1–9, insofar as v. 12 reads “they will give glory to God” (δώσουσιν τῷ θεῷ δόξαν) in light of v. 8’s “my glory I will not give to another” (τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω), while the MT has ‫ נתן‬in v. 8 and ‫ שׂים‬in v. 12. Finally, the LXX links v. 12 to v. 8 by its use of ἀρετὰς for ‫ ְתּ ִהלָּתוֹ‬. 179

Cf. Ottley, Isaiah II, 308, who also mentions the option that the LXX mistakenly read ‫“( תחלתו‬his beginning”) for ‫“( תהלתו‬his praises”). If so, the Greek version nevertheless reveals a duplicate reading of the Hebrew term, because ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ is followed by δοξάζετε τὸ ὄωομα αὐτοῦ, which apparently translates the same word.

158

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

Before summing up, we will briefly look at 42:13a, which differs remarkably in the two versions. Apparently, the LXX fuses YHWH and “like a soldier” (‫ ) ַכּגִּבּוֹר‬into “the Lord God of the powers” (κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων), which reminds one of the title of God in the Psalms (κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων || ‫)י ְהוָה ְצבָאוֹת‬.180 It is even more surprisingly that the LXX renders “like a warrior” (‫ ) ְכּ ִאישׁ ִמ ְלחָמוֹת‬with “and [he will] crush the war” (καὶ συντρίψει πόλεμον). This rendering parallels Ex 15:3, where the phrase “YHWH is warrior” (‫ )י ְהוָה ִאישׁ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬is rendered by “the Lord, when he shatters wars” (κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους). The scenario of peacemaking is also present in Hos 2:18[20], where God will break war from the land (πόλεμον συντρίψω ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς). In the light of 41:1–42:12, v. 13a has two interpretative implications. First, war itself rather than human enemies are the object of divine destruction (cf. 41:2–4). The Greek version intensifies the message of international peace (cf. Isa 2:2–4). Second, by using the term συντρίβω, the translator links v. 13 to 42:3. As Maillet has argued, the Greek version appears to emphasize the nonviolent appearance of Jacob/Israel in v. 3 by portraying God as an enemy of war in v. 13 and thus harmonizes the discrepancy between v. 3 and v. 13 in the MT.181 Despite this alteration, the destructive nature of God is apparent in other parts of LXX Isaiah (e.g. 1:28; 10:33; 14:5). VI. Summing Up: LXX Isaiah 42:1–9 within LXX Isaiah 41:1–42:12 The examination of the literary context of LXX Isa 42:1–9 reveals four significant matters. First, LXX Isa 41:1–42:12 displays a rather positive attitude towards the nations/islands and their rulers by its rewriting of the trampling of nations and rulers in 41:1–4, 25 and by its careful differentiation between nations/islands/rulers and their counselors/idols in 41:21–29. Second, the collective nature of the servant Jacob/Israel in 41:8–10 is more important in the LXX than in the MT, because the servant figure of 42:1–9 in the LXX has been deliberately harmonized in light of these verses. Third, along with the identification of the servant in 42:1 as a collective, the LXX has eliminated the possible allusions to Cyrus in 41:2–4, 25. In a significant manner, this exegetical move eschews the option of interpreting the identity of the servant in 42 in light of these allusions. Fourth, the glorification of God’s name in the final hymn highlights the name-theology that is more explicitly present in the LXX by its substitution of name for law in 42:4.

180 LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2650; see also Koenig, L’herméneutique, 59–63; van der Kooij, Theologie, 12; Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 124–125. 181 Maillet, Servant Songs, 81.

D. Interpretative Implications

159

D. Interpretative Implications D. Interpretative Implications

Detecting the variants in the Greek version as we have just done is one thing. Assessing the implications of them for interpreting the passage is quite another. I will briefly sketch some initial implications concerning the applied terms, the identity of the servant and his role as God’s mediator, the view on the nations, and the importance of the name-theology. One implication has to do with the translator’s lexical choices. As we have seen, several of his choices increase the number of intertextual connections, while others limit the number. Some terms color the portrait of the servant in a slightly different manner than in the MT. The term παῖς in v. 1 has a broad semantic range, designating both “child” and “servant.” By introducing the aspect of sonship the relationship between God and his παῖς can be interpreted as being closer in the LXX than in the MT. Rather than merely acting on God’s behalf, the servant belongs to him by bonds of intimacy; perhaps παῖς should be read as “son of God.” 182 The servant “blazes up” (ἀναλάμπω) in v. 4, which emphasizes the important light metaphor. The choice of ἐλπίζω in the same verse provides a warrant for interpreting the nations’ hope in the servant’s name in light of the messianic figure in Isa 11 and the arm of the Lord in Isa 51. However, by substituting ὄνομα for torah, the LXX does not present a parallelism between justice/judgment and teaching/law as the MT does. Furthermore, the name indicates identification between God and his servant (see below). Although γένος in v. 6 likely refers to the nation Israel, the term still broadens up the possibilities of meanings and allusions. Finally, the use of δηλόω in v. 9 highlights the concept of revelation. Another implication concerns the identity of the servant. On the surface, the text clearly favors a collective interpretation of the servant figure. The servant is called Jacob and Israel in v. 1 due to the harmonization of this verse in light of 41:8–10. By distorting the possible allusions to Cyrus in 41:2–4, 25, the LXX has successfully eschewed the option of interpreting the servant in 42:1–9 as Cyrus. However, a close reading has revealed that the LXX subtly associates the servant figure of 42 with that of the messianic oracles of Isa 1–39. The intertextual connections between 42:1–9 and the preceding messianic passages are more obvious in the LXX than in the MT.183 Many words and themes from the messianic oracle of Isa 9 reappear in Isa 42 and its immediate literary context: παιδίον (9:6[5]) points forward to παῖς (42:1); ὄνομα (9:6[5]) points forward to ὀνόματι (42:4); κρίματι (9:7[6]) 182 Dafni, ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder, 199: “‘Ebed-Jahwe ist nicht ein Knecht, der in Unfreiheit und Unterdrückung die Last des Volkes tragen würde, sondern der erwartete Sohn des Herrn, der Gottessohn …, auf dem die Aufgabe liegt, sich für das Heil des Volkes und der Völker aufzuopfern.” 183 Ngunga, Messianism, 175.

160

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

points forward to κρίσις (42:1, 3, 4); ἀντιλαμβάνω and (ἀνα)λάμπω connect 9:2, 7[1, 6] and 42:1, 4; and μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος (9:6[5]) points forward to βουλαί (41:21). The last reference is interesting, because the royal child/servant as Messenger of Great Counsel shall bring peace to the rulers (ἄρχοντες; cf. 41:1!). The child/servant as messenger is sharply contrasted to the impotent counselors of the nations. When the servant in Isa 42 is interpreted in light of Isa 9, he appears as the only true messenger of justice compared to the futile counselors/idols of the nations. The collective identification and individual portrayal of the servant figure are inextricably interwoven in LXX Isaiah. Although the servant figure is explicitly identified as Jacob and Israel, some interpretative problems remain because the names of “Jacob” and “Israel” do not necessarily refer to the whole people. As we have seen, interpreters have often distinguished between two kinds of Israel: an “ideal” group vis-àvis the nation as such (cf. chapter 4). Some evidence in LXX 42:1–9 supports this distinction. In v. 6, the servant shall serve as a covenant to a race (γένος), which from its use in Isaiah likely refers to the nation of Israel. LXX Isaiah apparently presents a clash between Jacob/Israel as παῖς fulfilling the task of being a covenant and Jacob/Israel as γένος (or does γένος represent humanity?).184 In v. 7, Jacob/Israel shall lead out the people who have been taken captive and open their blind eyes. As in the MT, the LXX portrays the servant as the mediator of God. The servant is regarded as a channel through whom God establishes his judgment/justice on earth. The relationship between God and his servant is closer in the Greek version than in the Hebrew. In some instances, the Greek version even indicates a kind of identification between the two. The servant is called God’s παῖς, which suggests an intimate relation as between father and son. The servant is subject of verbs of which God otherwise is the subject in LXX Isaiah (ἀνίημι, ἐξάγω). The use of the light metaphor highlights the close bond, insofar as God is the source of light and the servant is promoting that light to the nations. By substituting “name” for torah, the LXX emphasizes 184

Van der Kooij has argued that the servant in LXX Isa 42:1–9 and 49:1–6 should be understood as a particular group within the Jewish people. According to 49:5, the servant states that “I will be gathered” (συναχθήσομαι), wherefore the servant must be interpreted as a group, since it only makes sense of a group to say, that one shall “be gathered” (van der Kooij, Servant, 388). Rather than the entire people of Israel, the servant refers to a particular group within Israel. Van der Kooij furthermore claims that this group is the Jewish people in Egypt (10:24; 11:16, 19; 19:18–19, 24–25; cf. Grelot, Poèmes du Serviteur, 92: “les Juifs d’Égypte”). Assuming Leontopolis as the geographical location of the translation, he regards “my people in Egypt” as a reference to the priestly group of Onias, to which the translator of Isaiah allegedly belonged (van der Kooij, Servant, 396). Accordingly, this group understood themselves as the servant of the Lord. Van der Kooij’s proposal is difficult to prove and I remain sceptical of the idea of splitting up Israel into two.

D. Interpretative Implications

161

the mysterious identification between the two, because the name can refer to God and to his servant. The nations’ hope concerns both God and the mediator, who represents him. As in the MT, the servant’s task is directed towards foreign nations. The servant will bring justice/judgment forth to the nations and establish it on the earth. Rather than the isolated coastlands, a broader category of nations will hope in the servant’s/God’s name in v. 4. By choosing ἔθνη for ‫ ִאיּ ִים‬along with ἐλπίζω, the Greek version has provided a warrant for interpreting 42:4 in light of other important verses in LXX Isaiah (11:10; 18:7; 51:5). 11:10 in particular reflects an eschatological hope in the messianic figure. The immediate literary context of 42:1–9 indicates a more positive view on the foreign nations and their rulers than is the case in the MT. The nations and their kings are not trampled upon but rather witness the manifestation of divine peace. The LXX carefully differentiates between nations/islands/rulers and their counselors/idols. The idols, not their worshippers, are an abomination. Read within this context, the servant will bring justice rather destructive judgment to the nations. The nations should hope in the name of God’s servant Jacob/Israel, not in their futile idols. In sheer contrast to the MT, LXX 41:1–42:12 reveals a markedly positive attitude towards the nations. Nevertheless, the broader context still offers a negative assessment. In LXX Isa 40:15–17, all the nations (ἔθνη) have been accounted as a drop from a jar – they are nothing! In 40:23, God has appointed their rulers (ἄρχοντες) to rule for naught. A final implication has to do with the prominence of name-theology. In LXX Isaiah, the nations hope in the name rather than torah and the divine name is the object of praise (12:5; 42:10). These observations support the overall impression that the LXX gives greater significance to a nametheology than the MT does.185 Of importance is of course the commandment that one shall not take the name of the Lord in vain (Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11). Yet a glance at Ex 34:14 reveals a subtle difference. Whereas the MT reads “for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (‫שׁמוֹ ֵאל ַקנָּא הוּא‬ ְ ‫)כִּי י ְהוָה ַקנָּא‬, the LXX reads “for the Lord God, a jealous name, is a jealous God” (γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ζηλωτὸν ὄνομα θεὸς ζηλωτής ἐστιν). Rather than having a name, God is a name! LXX Lev 24:16 furthermore reflects the sensibility for God’s name, because death penalty is proscribed not for blaspheming, but for naming the name of the Lord (ὀνομάζων δὲ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου).

185

Maillet, Servant Songs, 87; Müller, Theology.

162

Chapter 5. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint

E. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 in the Septuagint E. Summing Up

In several ways the Septuagint version of Isa 42:1–9 is remarkably different compared to the Hebrew version. This is also true for the larger literary context in 41:1–42:12. In addition to the explicit identification of the servant figure with Jacob/Israel some key terms and statements have been rendered differently. Surprisingly, although identifying the figure with Israel, the Greek translator has established a series of links between our passage and the messianic oracles of Isa 1–39. The rendering of the larger literary context accords with that of Isa 42:1–9: there is a more positive attitude towards the foreign nations, the allusions to Cyrus have been eliminated, and the nametheology has been highlighted.

Chapter 6

Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament The second of the two main issues that this book addresses concerns the significance of the New Testament’s reception of the Old. As was observed, it remains debated to what extent the New Testament interpretations shall guide a modern Christian approach to the Old Testament. This chapter explores the practical implications of paying full attention to the New Testament interpretations of the Old by studying Isa 42:1–9. First, the chapter offers some introductory remarks on Isaiah and the servant passages in the New Testament and on methodological issues. Then, it investigates the reception of Isa 42:1–9 in the New Testament in terms of citations, allusions, and key concepts and its implications for interpreting the Isaianic passage.

A. Isaiah in the New Testament: Introductory Remarks A. Isaiah in the New Testament

With the exception of the Psalms, Isaiah is by far the most quoted and alluded to Old Testament book in the New Testament.1 The references include around 100 citations and 500 allusions or more, depending on how one defines them (see below), and are present in almost all of the New Testament books, with the exception of the Pastoral Epistles and 2 and 3 John. The prophet’s name “Isaiah” alone occurs more than 20 times. Yet although the New Testament authors apparently regarded the book of this prophet as a unified whole – wherefore it is anachronistic to speak of the New Testament’s use of “Second Isaiah” or the “Servant Songs” – it is striking that well over two thirds of the Isaiah citations in the Gospels, Paul, and Revelation derive from Isa 40–61.2 Isaiah’s hermeneutical significance for understanding the New Testament is indisputable. Whether or not one recognizes the attempts to demonstrate an Isaianic “narrative,” “grid,” or “cognitive map” underlying, for instance, the Gospels’ portrait of Jesus,3 Isaiah nevertheless provides several key concepts 1

For general introductions to Isaiah in the New Testament, see Beale & Carson, Commentary; Evans, Function of Isaiah; Moyise & Menken, Isaiah in the New Testament; Sawyer, Fifth Gospel, 21–41; Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament. 2 Sawyer, Fifth Gospel, 25. 3 Blenkinsopp, Opening, 136–137; Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament, 232–233: “Isaiah’s narrative of God’s dealings with his people provides a, perhaps even the, dominant

164

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

in the formulation of early Christian tradition. Initially, it is remarkable that the New Testament term for “good news” or “gospel” (εὐαγγελίζω, εὐαγγέλιον) probably has Isaianic origin (‫ ;בשׂר‬cf. 40:9; 41:27; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1).4 The metaphor of “the way” in Isa 40:3 forms a programmatic statement in the introductory presentation of John the Baptist (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4–6) and displays the christological concerns, for instance, of Mark. As Watts asserts, “Mark implicitly identifies Jesus with neither a prophet nor a messianic figure but Yahweh’s own personal presence, come to effect Israel’s eschatological new-exodus deliverance.”5 Other Isaianic features include the stubbornness of the audience (Matt 13:14–15; Mark 4:12; John 12:40; Acts 28:26–27; cf. Isa 6:9–10), the firmness of the divine word (1 Pet 1:24– 25; cf. Isa 40:6–8), the theme that all shall be taught by God (John 6:45; cf. Isa 54:13), and the phrase “a house of prayer for all nations” (Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46; cf. Isa 56:6–7). Isaiah is prominent in the Synoptic Gospels’ interpretation of Jesus.6 John also employs many Isaianic symbols and metaphors (vine, living water, good shepherd, light, glory, and the “I am”-statements) although he seldom cites Isaiah directly.7 The same goes for Revelation. Following J. Sawyer’s observation, it is interesting to note that the earliest Christians used Isaiah to authorize Gentile mission (e.g. Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12), whereas successive interpreters attempted to root the personal details of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in Isaiah.8 As we will see, Luke-Acts in particular – although this two-volume work probably belongs to the youngest literature of the New Testament – refers to Isaiah in missionary concerns.9 The prophet is of special importance in the letters of Paul.10 Many have argued that Paul presents his apostolic identity and mission in light of Isa 49:1–13.11 The theme of the conceptual framework by which Jesus and his later interpreters conceived their selfidentity.” 4 Childs, Struggle, 5–6. 5 Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament, 216. 6 See Menken, Matthew’s Bible; Watts, New Exodus. 7 Cf. Williams, Isaiah in John’s Gospel, 101. See also Freed, Old Testament Quotations. 8 Sawyer, Fifth Gospel, 32. 9 See Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah; Meek, Gentile Mission; Pao, Isaianic New Exodus. 10 See Gignilliat, Isaiah’s Servants; Wagner, Heralds; Wilk, Bedeutung; cf. Wagner, Isaiah in Romans and Galatians, 118: “Isaiah’s oracles help to shape Paul’s conception of his message and mission.” 11 See e.g. Wilk, Bedeutung, 292–297, who argues that Gal 1:15–16 alludes to Isa 49:1, 5–6. Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 2, 61–62: “Paulus artikuliert also sein neues, nun apostolisches Selbstverständnis mit Worten der Schrift. Es sind Worte des großen Propheten Jesaja, auf die er anspielt … und die er auf sich appliziert. War dieser schon aufgrund seiner Berufung das Licht der Heiden, so erst recht Paulus (a minori ad maius)! Das Amt des Propheten ist durch das Amt des Apostels abgelöst. Paulus ist mehr als Jesaja … Und

A. Isaiah in the New Testament

165

new creation in 2 Cor 6:16–17 likely alludes to Isaiah (Isa 42:9; 43:18–19; 48:3, 6–7) and Rom 9–11 on Israel and God’s righteousness exhibits a dense use of explicit Old Testament citations, in particular from Isaiah (1:9; 6:10; 8:14; 10:22–23; 28:16; 29:10; 40:13; 52:7; 53:1; 59:20–21; 65:1–2). A density of references to Isaiah is also apparent in 1 Peter.12 I. Isaiah’s Servant Passages in the New Testament Past research has often claimed that Jesus himself understood his mission and death in light of Isa 52:13–53:12, including the atonement that the suffering nature of his death would cause.13 A growing skepticism towards saying anything certain about the historical Jesus and in particular his self-consciousness has challenged this claim. Nevertheless, that Jesus is identified with the servant of Isaiah by the New Testament authors seems beyond doubt. The main problem rather concerns the range of this identification and the point at which it entered into Christian tradition: did it emerge from Jesus’ own teaching or from the first Christians’ attempt to explain the significance of his death.14 J. Jeremias and M. Hooker famously represent two contrasting views. On the one hand, J. Jeremias claims that the christological interpretation of Isaiah’s servant figure goes back to the historical Jesus himself and was preserved by the very first Christians through a series of distinctive formulas.15 On the other hand, Hooker has pointed out that the evidence for the traditional view is rather fragile. Having examined the New Testament material, she concludes that “the early Church did not attach any great significance to the Servant passages, or regard them as the key to their understanding of the Atonement.”16 Accordingly, 1 Peter is the earliest definite testimony to the full identification of Jesus with the servant in all its christological significance. Following Hooker, D. Juel has noticed that the key term παῖς occurs infrequently and that the title “Servant of God” may refer to various biblical figures rather than merely one (see below). He likewise rejects the idea of a pre-Christian doctrine of a suffering Messiah derived from Isa 40–55 and

er ist mehr als dieser, weil seine Botschaft, das Evangelium, das Gekommensein Christi als das Heil der Welt aussagt. Was Jesaja als zukünftiges Heil ansagte (Jes 53!), verkündet Paulus in apostolischer Zusage als geschehenes Heil, als Heilswirklichkeit;” emphasis original. 12 See 1:24–25 (Isa 40:6–8); 2:6–8 (Isa 28:16; 8:14); 2:9 (Isa 43:20b–21; cf. Isa 42:6); 2:22–25 (Isa 53); 3:14–15 (Isa 8:12–13); 4:14 (Isa 11:2). 13 See the review in Evans, From Gospel to Gospel, 652–653. 14 Cf. the basic question in Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 1. 15 Zimmerli & Jeremias, παῖς θεοῦ, 698–713; cf. Evans, Function of Isaiah, 667–674. 16 Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 133.

166

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

applied to Jesus either by himself or by the first believers.17 In a word, there is no basis for speaking of a New Testament “paidology.” A brief survey of the New Testament citations from passages in Isaiah, which later interpreters often have applied to Jesus (Isa 7; 9; 11; 42; 49; 50; 53; 61), reveals that there are surprisingly few of them.18 For instance, Isa 8:23–9:6, which has been foundational in Christian reception, is only cited once (Matt 4:15–16). In Matthew, events in Jesus’ life and ministry are presented as reflections of Isaiah: his birth reflects the Immanuel oracle (Matt 1:23; Isa 7:14); his settling in Capernaum reflects the geographical perspective of Isa 8–9 (Matt 4:15–16; Isa 8:23–9:1); his healing activities reflect the servant carrying infirmities and diseases (Matt 8:17; Isa 53:4); and his ministry reflects the servant of Isa 42 (Matt 12:18–21; Isa 42:1–4). Luke 4:18–19 defines Jesus’ ministry in terms of Isa 61:1–2, and Luke 22:37 (and perhaps also Mark 15:28) interprets the crucifixion of Jesus among criminals as the fulfillment of Isa 53:12. Acts contains two important quotations: Philip’s interpretation of Isa 53:7–8 as a reference to Jesus (Acts 8:26–39) and Paul and Barnabas’ claim that their mission to the Gentiles was commanded by the Lord (Acts 13:47; Isa 49:6). Paul cites Isa 53:1 in Rom 10:16 (cf. John 12:38) and Isa 52:15 in Rom 15:21; yet these instances concern the motifs of rejection or mission. In 1 Peter, several phrases from Isa 53 are combined to present Jesus as an example of suffering (1 Pet 2:22–25; Isa 53:4–6, 9, 12). 19 Similarly in Revelation, characteristics of the servant are applied to the righteous community: there is no lie in the mouth of the 144,000 (Rev 14:5; Isa 53:9). It is striking that so little of the Isaianic servant passages are quoted in the New Testament. Our primary text, for instance, is only cited in Matt 12:18– 21. Another, yet more disputable influence, are allusions or indirect references to Isaiah, although they are harder to detect and recognize. II. Methodological Issues and Critical Editions A pivotal methodological problem in analyzing the New Testament’s use of the Old has to do with recognizing quotations, allusions, and Old Testament influence. What are quotations? How do they differ from allusions? And how does one detect them? No univocal definition seems to have emerged. A common way of approaching the problem, as suggested by Watts, is to place quotations and allusions along a continuum, where a quotation has greater 17

Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 127; cf. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 56. Following NA; cf. Poulsen, Herrens tjener, 733. 19 Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament, 230: “Just as in Isaiah the servant gave rise to many similar servants who as God’s redeemed people would enjoy David’s promised mercies, so in 1 Peter, where Jesus combines both servant and messianic roles, his people likewise share both in his servant sufferings and his messianic anointing of the Spirit.” 18

A. Isaiah in the New Testament

167

linguistic congruence with the source text than an allusion, which relates to it more in thematic and conceptual terms. 20 Accordingly, one should perhaps distinguish between quotations, quotation-like allusions, and allusions. G. Beale has recently offered some valuable definitions. 21 According to him, “a quotation is a direct citation of an OT passage that is easily recognizable by its clear and unique verbal parallelism.”22 Many of these quotations are marked by a formula – “it is written” – which clearly states that the words being cited come from scripture.23 Other quotations are unmarked, but contain such a long and almost verbatim rendering of an Old Testament passage that undoubtedly a quotation is being made. Whereas most scholars practically agree on the extent of Old Testament quotations, the debate continues about an adequate definition of allusions. According to Beale, “an ‘allusion’ may simply be defined as a brief expression consciously intended by an author to be dependent on an OT passage. In contrast to a quotation of the OT, which is a direct reference, allusions are indirect references.”24 Importantly, this definition entails that an allusion does not simply consist of a reproduction of a series of, for instance, three words from the Old Testament, but can also consist of a theme, an idea, or a biblical figure. As we will see below, several New Testament references apparently allude to a cluster or conflation of Isaianic texts, images, and metaphors rather than to distinctive passages. Admittedly, however, there is a strong element of interpretation at stake in detecting allusions, which causes different degrees of probability concerning their presence.25 A weakness of Beale’s definition of allusions, however, is the assertion that they must have been consciously intended by the author. Without entering too deeply into this genuine hermeneutical issue, we should briefly consider whether allusions are always the result of authorial intent. When does an allusion exist? When the author intended one or when readers – ancient and modern – recognize one? In practice, it is often impossible to demonstrate whether an allusion or a literary parallel is a coincidence or not. As was the case for the translator of LXX Isaiah, the New Testament authors have often consciously – yet sometimes unconsciously – created inner-biblical allu-

20

Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament, 214. See Beale, Handbook, 29–40. 22 Beale, Handbook, 29. 23 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 2, 15–16. 24 Beale, Handbook, 31. 25 Beale, Handbook, 32. See also R. Hays’ series of criteria for recognizing allusions or echoes as he calls them (availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, satisfaction); Hays, Echoes, 29–32. 21

168

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

sions.26 Rather than solely relying on the (inaccessible) mind of the historical authors, we should therefore remain open to approaching the texts synchronically and thereby attempt to register plausible inner-biblical links between Isa 42:1–9 and the New Testament based on linguistic parallels. As was observed in the examination of LXX Isaiah, the freedom of the citations and the fluidity and variety of the biblical texts during this historical period make it often difficult to draw definite conclusions. Did the New Testament authors in some instances use a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text to which we have no access today? Did they cite from memory? Did they rely on anthologies of samples from scripture rather than complete books? And to what extent did they change the textual form of the Old Testament to fit an overall theological purpose? The examination will refer to Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition, 2001) and the translations are usually taken from the NRSV. Valuable resources for detecting citations and allusions are the list “loci citati vel allegati” in NA and the huge commentary on the New Testament use of the Old, edited by G. Beale and D.A. Carson.27

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

There is only one definite quotation from Isa 42:1–9 in the New Testament as a whole. It occurs in Matt 12:18–21. Matthew in general contains many quotations from the Old Testament and treats central Old Testament themes such as the law of Moses.28 The following examination will first look at the nature of the quotation before turning to its textual form and literary context within Matthew. Finally, some interpretative implications will be offered. I. Isaiah 42:1–4 in Matthew 12:15–21 The citation of Isa 42:1–4 in Matt 12:15–21 belongs to a group of ten “fulfillment quotations,” which constitute a distinctive characteristic of Matthew’s Gospel. 29 First, in contrast to other citations in Matthew, which he 26

Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 2, 18: “Inwieweit sich allerdings der neutestamentliche Autor im Einzelfall bewußt ist, daß er auf eine oder vielleicht sogar mehrere Stellen des Alten Testaments anspielt, ist oft nicht mehr nachweisbar.” 27 NA, 772–808; Beale & Carson, Commentary. 28 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 110–115; Müller, Mosaic Law. 29 The ten quotations relate to and unfold different episodes within the life of Jesus: his birth (1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23), his ministry and healing activities (4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17– 21; 13:35), his entry into Jerusalem (21:4–5), and his death (27:9–10). For a general treatment of their form and function, see Beaton, Isaiah in Matthew; Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 96–110; Menken, Matthew’s Bible.

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

169

inherited from Mark (and Q?), the textual form of the fulfillment quotations differs from that of the LXX and is in some cases closer to the Hebrew (see below). Second, rather than witnessing a simplistic proof-texting, the fulfillment quotations indicate a creative and complex use of the Old Testament.30 With some slight variations, all of them are introduced by a similar formula, which functions as an editorial comment. In our case, the words from Isa 42:1–4 are preceded by the statement that “this was to fulfill what had been declared through Isaiah the prophet, who said” (ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος). Within Matt 12:15–21, the formula forms a bridge, insofar as ἵνα (“this”) points backward to the summary of Jesus’ withdrawal and healing of the crowds in vv. 15–16 and λέγοντος (“who said”) points forward to the actual quotation in vv. 18–21. Matthew apparently regards the words of Isaiah as a reflection of this specific episode in Jesus’ ministry; or, to be more precise, the words of the prophet are said to be fulfilled in the events that are portrayed immediately before the citation.31 Central to the introductory verse is the term πληρόω (“to fulfill”). Examining the occurrences of this term in Matthew (3:15; 5:17; 13:48; 23:32), Müller concludes that it has to do with “unfolding” or “realization.” As he states, “what these fulfilment-quotations therefore suggest is that only when these things [concerning Jesus] happened was the true content of the text revealed.” 32 The words of Isaiah do not function merely as a proof, but, by contrast, the actions of Jesus disclose their true, yet until now concealed message. As Müller sums up, “quotation from Scripture in Matthew appears not primarily as a prediction, which can now be declared fulfilled … [rather,] the Jesus-events interpret Scripture in such a way as to give it a new meaning.”33 Müller’s observation is important, because it highlights the significance of the relation between the quotation and its surrounding context. They are inextricable intertwined. We should therefore not only expect that the context fits the quotation, but also that the quotation could have been brought into alignment with its immediate context. As Menken has noticed in other fulfillment quotations, “the evangelist quotes just what he needs.”34 We will first look closer at the textual form of Isa 42:1–4 in Matthew, before turning to its con30 It has even been suggested that the entire Gospel of Matthew was composed around ten Isaianic citations; see Patrick, Matthew’s Pesher Gospel. 31 Menken, Matthean Context, 52. 32 Müller, Matthew and Luke-Acts, 319. Müller mentions a possible parallel to this phenomenon in the pesher-literature from Qumran, especially the Habakkuk-Commentary; cf. Stendahl’s well-known picture of the school of Matthew as a pesher-producing community (see below). 33 Müller, Matthew and Luke-Acts, 320–321, 324. In Luke, however, “the single Bible text and its total testimony functions … as a prediction, which has been fulfilled.” 34 Menken, Matthean Context, 54. This is clearly the case, for instance, in Matt 4:15–16 (Isa 8:23–9:1) and Matt 21:5 (Zech 9:9).

170

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

text in Matt 12. Finally, we will consider some interpretative implications of Matthew’s version. II. The Textual Form of Isaiah 42:1–4 Matthew’s textual form of Isa 42:1–4 is unique. It neither fits the MT, the LXX, nor any other ancient text version known to us. Many words, especially the verbs, are rendered differently than in the LXX and v. 4a has been omitted. As Seeligmann has asserted, “only the finish suddenly corresponds to the Septuagint.”35 Examining the textual form, however, is a complex matter – a puzzle.36 The possibilities are numerous. Did Matthew provide a fresh translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic text? Did he rely on Jewish or early Christian traditions prior to him? Did he rework the version of the LXX or any other early Greek revision of this circulating at that time and reflected, for instance, in the later revisions of “the Three” (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion)? Or did he rather combine various textual traditions? As was the case for LXX Isaiah, some variants in Matthew’s version may derive from text-critical matters (a different Vorlage or alternative translations), whereas other variants may derive from the evangelist’s linguistic, contextual, and theological concerns. The question remains how to balance those two. Within past research, Menken has argued that Matthew used “a preMatthean revised LXX text” and, apart from a few adjustments, remained loyal towards it.37 At the other end of the spectrum is Stendahl’s famous thesis that a school – a group of scribes or scholars – created a text form from different textual versions that suited the overall message of Matthew best.38 In line with this, Beaton has claimed that Matthew knew different versions, but

35

Seeligmann, Version, 24, note 22. For studies of the textual form besides commentaries, see Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 123–141; Grindel, Matthew; Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 110–116; Lybæk, New and Old, 93–97; Menken, Textual Form; New, Old Testament Quotations, 105–108; Novakovic, Messiah, 137–142; Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 107–115. 37 Menken, Textual Form, 88. Cf. Lybæk, Old and New, 97; New, Old Testament Quotations, 106. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 192 considers only v. 21 to be a redactional reworking of Matthew. The adjustments in vv. 18–20 rather reflect a christological interpretation prior to Matthew. 38 Cf. Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 200–201: “all of Matthew’s formula quotations give evidence of features of text interpretation of an actualizing nature, often closely associated with the context of the gospel.” This idea has been followed, for instance, by Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 172 who refers to Matthew’s approach as “synagogical targumizing.” Recently, Novakovic, Messiah, 142 argues that the unique text-form is Matthew’s own work “to conform the scriptural text to the career of Jesus.” 36

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

171

made many genuine adjustments to suit his theological agenda.39 It is thus too simplistic to regard Matthew’s version merely as the evangelist’s own translation from the Hebrew.40 Whether Matthew inherited the textual form or made the adjustments himself, he nevertheless chose to render the form we now find in his Gospel. As was the case in the examination of LXX Isaiah, the primary goal here is not merely text-critical issues. Rather, the task is to register differences between the biblical versions and to consider what impact they might have for a biblical theological interpretation of the passage. 1. Matthew 12:18 (Isaiah 42:1) ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα,

Here is my servant, whom I have chosen,

ὁ ἀγαπητός μου

my beloved,

εἰς ὃν41 εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου·

with whom my soul is well pleased.

θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν,

I will put my Spirit upon him,

καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ.

and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

MT

‫הֵן ַעבְדִּ י ֶאתְ ָמְך־בּוֹ‬ ‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ְבּח‬ ‫שׁי‬ ִ ‫ָרצְתָ ה נַ ְפ‬ ‫נָתַ ִתּי רוּחִי ָעלָיו‬ ‫שׁפָּט לַגּוֹי ִם יוֹצִיא׃‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬

LXX Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ· Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου· ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐξοίσει.

The verse in Matthew appears as a strange mixture of the MT and LXX versions with sign of genuine adjustments.42 In the first colon, Matthew follows the LXX’s rendering of παῖς rather than δοῦλος, but omits the explicit identification of the servant figure with Jacob/Israel (if he knew of it) and, in line with the MT, introduces the verse by ἰδοὺ (cf. ‫)הֵן‬.43 Of the seven occurrences 39

Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 141: “Matthew’s unique text-form, it seems, demonstrates his use of either the Hebrew, or more likely a Greek (or Aramaic) text conformed to the Hebrew, which he then altered in the light of his own concerns.” 40 As proposed by Blomberg, Matthew, 43; Davies & Allison, Matthew II, 323. 41 As an alternative to εἰς ὃν, some textual witnesses read either ἐν ᾧ or simply ὃν. The stated reading is preferable, because it parallels the first cola ὃν ᾑρέτισα; cf. Menken, Textual Form, 67–68. 42 Lybæk, New and Old, 93 argues that Matthew combines Isa 11:1–10; 41:8–9 and 42:1–4. 43 Matthew is in fact close to Theodotion, who reads ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου. Aquila and Symmachus have ἰδοὺ [ὁ] δοῦλος μου. Matthew, however, is not necessarily dependent on an Ur-Theodotionic text; cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 111–112.

172

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

of παῖς in Matthew apart from this one, three refer to children in general (2:16; 17:18; 21:15) and four refer to a servant or slave (8:6, 8, 13; 14:2). Within the New Testament, παῖς is used for Jesus only here and in four other instances (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). Jesus, however, is never called δοῦλος (see below). Matthew’s rendering of ὃν ᾑρέτισα (“whom I have chosen”) is significant for at least two reasons. First, in contrast to the imperfect/future tense of the verb in the MT and the LXX, ᾑρέτισα is in the aorist. Instead of pointing forward to a future event, Matthew affirms what has already happened, presumably in the baptism of Jesus (cf. 3:17).44 Second, he employs a different verb: αἱρετίζω (“to choose, adopt”) for ‫“( תמך‬to uphold, support”) or ἀντιλαμβάνω (“to lay hold of, grasp”). Although the occurrence of this verb is unique within the New Testament, it is important to notice that, within the LXX, αἱρετίζω frequently translates ‫“( בחר‬to choose”). 45 This could imply that the verb ᾑρέτισα does not correspond to ‫ ֶאתְ ָמְך‬or ἀντιλήμψομαι, but rather unfolds the sense of the succeeding ‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ ְבּח‬or ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου: God has not (only) sustained his servant; he has elected him for a special task.46 If this is so, ὁ ἀγαπητός μου is not supposed to translate ‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ ְבּח‬, but should be regarded as Matthew’s genuine addition. Rather than following a tradition prior to him of reading ὁ ἀγαπητός in Isa 42:1a, Matthew deliberately added the title to harmonize the scene in Matt 12 with those of baptism and transfiguration, which already in their Markan versions read ὁ ἀγαπητός (cf. Mark 1:11; 9:7). This genuine shaping is furthermore supported by the fact that Matthew in his own version brought the heavenly voices in these scenes into alignment (cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5). Whether Mark originally referred to Isa 42:1 will be discussed below. Matthew’s plausible harmonization of 12:18 with the baptism and transfiguration narratives offers a good explanation for the phrase εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν (“with whom … is well pleased”) in the place of ‫ ָרצְתָ ה‬and προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν (cf. ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα; Matt 3:17; 17:5).47 As the LXX reveals, εὐδοκέω frequently matches ‫ רצה‬and is a common term in the New

44 Cf. Menken, Textual Form, 73: “the election of the servant has to precede his presentation.” 45 The term occurs 29 times in the LXX, of which 12 translate ‫בחר‬: Judg(A) 5:8; 1 Chr 28:4, 6, 10; 29:1; 2 Chr 29:11; LXX Ps 24:12; 118:30, 173; Hagg 2:23; Zech 1:17; 2:16; Ezek 20:5. In 1 Chr 28:6 and Mal 3:17, the specific sense seems to be “to adopt.” 46 Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 127; cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 112: “Mt brings in ‫ בחרתי בו‬not in place of ‫ אתמך בו‬so much as by omission of the latter in anticipation of ‫ – בחירי‬to make room for ὁ ἀγαπητός μου from the voice at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration.” 47 Matthew is again close to the Greek revisions, insofar as Symmachus and Theodotion read ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου.

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

173

Testament.48 Compared to προσδέχομαι, εὐδοκέω more strongly indicates the aspect of intimacy or love. The latter half of the verse is closer to the LXX than the first half, although there are three divergences of varying significance. First, Matthew adds καὶ between the two cola.49 Second, in contrast to the LXX’s aorist of δίδωμι (“to give”), Matthew has a future tense of τίθημι (“to put, lay”). The semantic fields of these terms, however, are very broad and may overlap.50 Third, Matthew substitutes ‫ יוֹצִיא‬or ἐξοίσει (“to bring forth”) with a future tense of ἀπαγγέλλω (“to announce, proclaim”).51 Matthew’s choice of this term may emphasize that the action at stake has to do with verbal proclamation rather than an unspecific act of “bringing forth.”52 Concerning the future tenses of the verbs, Matthew’s messianic interpretation of the text may be the reason, because the aorist of the LXX suggests “accomplished fulfilment.”53 2. Matthew 12:19 (Isaiah 42:2) οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει,

He will not wrangle or cry aloud,

οὐδὲ ἀκούσει τις ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ.

nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.

MT

‫ֹלא י ִ ְצעַק וְֹלא יִשָּׂא‬ ‫שׁ ִמי ַע בַּחוּץ קוֹלוֹ׃‬ ְ ַ ‫וְֹלא־י‬

LXX οὐ κεκράξεται οὐδὲ ἀνήσει, οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἔξω ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ.

Matthew’s representation again reveals some subtle divergences from the MT and LXX versions. In the first colon, he employs different verbs compared to the LXX, which only partly match the Hebrew equivalents. The basic meaning of ἐρίζω seems to be “to wrangle” or “to strive.” In the New Testament, however, this is the only occurrence of the term, wherefore its exact meaning can only be determined by its literary context. The parallel term κραυγάζω (“to cry, utter a harsh sound”) indicates that ἐρίζω more specifically signifies 48 The term occurs 60 times in the LXX, although not in Isaiah, and 21 in the New Testament. 49 1QIsaa introduces this colon with the conjunction ‫“( ו‬and”) – a reading that may be reflected in Matthew’s version. 50 Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 113; Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 111 have noticed a parallel in Targum Jonathan (‫)אתין‬, which could also explain the word choice and tense in Matthew. 51 Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 113; Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 111 have likewise noticed that Targum Jonathan (‫ )יגלי‬indicates the sense of promulgation. 52 In LXX Isa 48:20, the term ἀπαγγέλλω translates the Hiphil of ‫ יצא‬in the sense of proclaiming or making a verbal announcement. Matthew might have translated according to sense; cf. Grindel, Matthew, 110. 53 Cf. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 132–133; New, Old Testament Quotations, 107.

174

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

quarrel or verbal wrangling.54 Matthew’s version thus highlights the humbleness of the servant and may reflect Jesus’ reaction towards the crowds in 12:16 (see below). In the latter colon, Matthew’s “[no one will] hear his voice” seems closer to the LXX’s “his voice [will not] be heard” than to the MT’s “[he will not] make his voice heard,” because both the LXX and Matthew neglect the causative form of the Hebrew.55 Matthew’s plural form ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις (“in the streets”) compared to the MT’s singular form ‫“( בַּחוּץ‬in the street”) and the LXX’s more general ἔξω (“outside”) is of minor, if any, importance. 3. Matthew 12:20 (Isaiah 42:3–4a) κάλαμον συντετριμμένον οὐ κατεάξει

He will not break a bruised reed

καὶ λίνον τυφόμενον οὐ σβέσει,

or quench a smoldering wick

ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν.

until he brings justice to victory.

MT

‫שׁבּוֹר‬ ְ ִ ‫ָקנֶה ָרצוּץ ֹלא י‬ ‫שׁתָּ ה ֵכהָה ֹלא י ְ ַכ ֶבּנָּה‬ ְ ‫וּ ִפ‬ ‫שׁפָּט׃‬ ְ ‫ֶל ֱא ֶמת יוֹצִיא ִמ‬ ‫ֹלא י ִ ְכהֶה וְֹלא י ָרוּץ‬ ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ִמ‬ ֶ ‫שׂים בּ‬ ִ ָ ‫עַד־י‬

LXX κάλαμον τεθλασμένον οὐ συντρίψει καὶ λίνον καπνιζόμενον οὐ σβέσει, ἀλλὰ εἰς ἀλήθειαν ἐξοίσει κρίσιν. ἀναλάμψει καὶ οὐ θραυσθήσεται, ἕως ἂν θῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κρίσιν·

Matthew’s rendering of Isa 42:3a seems to follow the LXX with minor adjustments. Rather surprisingly Matthew has inserted the stronger term συντρίβω as a substitution for θλᾶω and thereby created space for a new and likewise strong term: κατάγνυμι (“to break”).56 This may have happened for rhetorical purposes, namely “to reinforce the image by depicting the present condition of the reed in the strongest possible terms: it has been shattered, only its fibres still keep it together.”57 Matthew’s choice of τύφω (“to smolder”) for καπνίζω (“to smoke”) is of less importance.

54 Cf. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 135; Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 115. In the LXX, the term ἐρίζω occurs six times, where it designates the act of provoking or making trouble (Gen 26:35; 1 Sam 12:14–15; 2 Kings 14:10; Sir 8:2; 11:9). 55 The imperfect Hiphil (‫שׁ ִמי ַע‬ ְ ַ ‫ )י‬may have been written plene (‫ )ישׁמע‬and thus understood as a Niphal by the LXX translator and as a Qal by Matthew or a tradition prior to him. Menken, however, suggests that ἀκούσει was chosen deliberately in order to have three successive verbal forms with the same ending (ἐρίσει, κραυγάσει, ἀκούσει); see Menken, Textual Form, 76–77. 56 Notice that κατάγνυμι in the crucifixion scene designates the breaking of the legs of the crucified men; cf. John 19:31–33. 57 Cf. Menken, Textual Form, 77–78.

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

175

The largest variant appears in Matthew’s version of Isa 42:3b–4a. Three lines have become one; or, to be more precise, either two lines have been omitted and a single reworked line has been maintained; or one line has been omitted and two have been fused into one.58 The latter is probably the best explanation, which suggests that ἕως ἂν derives from v. 4a, ἐκβάλῃ replaces ‫ יוֹצִיא‬or ἐξοίσει in v. 3b, and εἰς νῖκος substitutes ‫ ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬or εἰς ἀλήθειαν in v. 3b, retaining the sentence structure of v. 4a. The choice of ἐκβαλλω (“to drive out, lead on”) instead of ἐκφέρω or perhaps ἀπαγγέλλω (cf. Matt 12:18) reflects an attempt either to strengthen the tone of the phrase or to fit the phrase to its immediate literary context.59 The presence of εἰς νῖκος is often explained as reflecting ‫לנצח‬, insofar as ‫ נצח‬in Aramaic means “to be victorious” (cf. possible parallels in Hab 1:4 and 1QHa 12:25).60 If one, however, finds this explanation less convincing, the version perhaps reflects Matthew’s own exegetical activity.61 If so, εἰς νῖκος along with the forceful ἐκβαλλω should be interpreted as foreshadowing the climax of the Gospel: the death and resurrection of Jesus.62 This would also explain Matthew’s deliberate omission of Isa 42:4a’s “he will not grow faint or be crushed/overwhelmed,” because this usage is incompatible with the passion of Christ.63 Absent in Matthew’s version are thus the references to the servant’s shining as a light (cf. LXX), his faithful service, and the earth as location of his ministry. 4. Matthew 12:21 (Isaiah 42:4b) καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν. MT

‫ְתוֹרתוֹ ִאיּ ִים יְיַחֵילוּ׃‬ ָ ‫וּל‬

And in his name the Gentiles will hope.

LXX καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.

Apart from the omission of ἐπὶ, which improves the Greek, Matthew’s version is identical with that of the LXX. Nevertheless, we should recall the claim that the LXX has been rephrased in light of Matt 12:21 and therefore 58

Some interpreters, including Jerome, have explained the omission or lacuna as haplography, where the translator, reviser, or scribe has jumped from ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬/κρίσιν in v. 3b to ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬/κρίσιν v. 4b. 59 The term ἐκβαλλω occurs seven times in the following pericope (cf. Matt 12:24, 26, 27, 27, 28, 35, 35). 60 Grindel, Matthew, 113–115; Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 114–115; Menken, Textual Form, 79; Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 113–114. 61 See the critical review in Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 136–137. 62 Notice that the phrase εἰς νῖκος apart from this instance only occurs in Paul’s enthusiastic assertion: “Death has been swallowed up in victory” (κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος), in 1 Cor 15 (citing Isa 25:8). 63 Cf. Lybæk, New and Old, 96; Menken, Matthean Context, 65; Textual Form, 68.

176

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

does not reflect the original Greek version.64 If so, Matthew is probably responsible for the alternative reading. As argued in chapter 5, however, I do not find this explanation convincing. 65 Matthew inherited the reading from the LXX, not the other way around.66 5. Summing Up: the Textual Form of Isaiah 42:1–4 The version of Isa 42:1–4 in Matthew appears as a revision of the LXX.67 The use of παῖς in v. 18a and the representations of Isaiah in vv. 18b, 19b, 20a, and 21 suggest that the evangelist primarily used the LXX, but changed it either to improve the Greek, to create more powerful expressions, or to harmonize the Isaianic citation with other verses within his Gospel. Nevertheless, the use of ἰδού, the omission of Jacob/Israel, and the fact that in some instances Matthew offers a translation that corresponds closer to the MT than to the LXX indicates that he at least knew of the Hebrew version or the revisions bringing the LXX into agreement with the Hebrew.68 Before turning to the interpretative implications of Matthew’s version, we will look at the manner in which the quotation relates to its context. II. The Context in Matthew 12 Matt 11–12 contain a cluster of texts that portray the image of Jesus as the Messiah. Roughly speaking, Matt 11 renders Jesus’ speech to the crowds about his messianic task, whereas Matt 12 accounts for the peoples’ reaction towards this task.69 Matt 12:15–21, which constitutes the narrow context of our quotation, is framed by Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees about the Sabbath (12:1–14) and about exorcism (12:22–32). V. 14 sets the stage for the unit by depicting the decision of the Pharisees to destroy Jesus (cf. 27:1, 7; 28:12). Being aware of their plot against him, Jesus withdraws from the 64 Koenig, L’herméneutique, 232–233, note 40; van der Kooij, Servant, 389, note 9; Ziegler, Isaias; cf. LXX.D. See also New, Old Testament Quotations, 106–107. 65 Cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 115; Menken, Textual Form, 84: “If the evangelist had found either ‫ תורה‬or νόμος in his biblical text, he would have had no reason to change it.” 66 Cf. Novakovic, Messiah, 142; Stendahl, School of Matthew, 115: “Matthew has accepted the LXX’s interpretation as being the one most suited to his requirements and most significant to the position of the church, that is to say, the prophecy’s fulfilment.” As was observed, the translation in LXX reflects other verses within Isaiah (11:10; 18:7; 26:8; 51:5); Paul cites Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12 in a series of Old Testament quotations inviting to praise. 67 Cf. the conclusion in Menken, Textual Form, 81, who, however, ascribes only a few changes to the hand of Matthew (ἀγαπητός, perhaps ἀπαγγέλλω and ἐκβάλλω) and thus regards him as neither translator nor reviser. 68 Cf. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 141. 69 Müller, Matthæusevangeliet, 275.

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

177

public scene (v. 15a). The crowds follow him and he cures all of them (v. 15b). Jesus, however, forbids anyone to make his identity known (v. 16). The standard formula in v. 17 then bridges the brief narrative setting and the words of Isaiah in vv. 18–21. Tracing links between the quotation and its literary context seems to move between two extremes. Some scholars downplay the intertextual connections: the quotation hardly owes anything to its context; if any, the themes of healing (vv. 15b; 20) and perhaps of silence (vv. 16; 19a).70 The question, however, remains as to why Matthew chose to include such a large sample from Isaiah if he only alludes to a few lines. Other scholars overplay the level of intertextuality by relating the citation to almost anything in the chapter. Neyrey, for instance, detects no less than eight themes that relate Isa 42 to Matt 12 and the surrounding chapters. 71 In line with this, Patrick contends that Matt 11:2–12:45 is “an accomplished pesher on the theme of a Gentilefocused Servant anointed by the Spirit whose identity is concealed, drawn from Isa. 41:25–42:25.”72 The weaknesses of these views are the risk of construing “forced links” between quotation and context and the assumption of an unusually broad function of the formula quotation compared to the other ones in Matthew.73 Menken and Beaton have presented more adequate explanations that relate the words of Isaiah to Matt 12:14–21 and to some key verses within the Gospel as a whole, however without forcing these links. They serve as valuable sources for the following observations.74 The presentation of Jesus’ true identity as the Son of God in v. 18a (cf. 3:17; 17:5) parallels the command not to make him known in v. 16. It is important to notice that following the transfiguration scene Jesus also commands his disciples “not to make him known” (17:9). As a central concern, his identity must remain a secret until his death and resurrection – the pivotal event which implies that justice will be proclaimed to the Gentiles. The context of Jesus’ identity and healing ministry colors the words from Isaiah, insofar as his divine identity indicates that παῖς should be interpreted as “son”75 rather than “servant.”76 As Novakovic has asserted, “Isa 42:1 appears at the beginning of the citation because it has the task of qualifying the term ὁ 70

See e.g. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 84; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 151. Neyrey, Thematic Use. Among these themes are God’s commissioning of Jesus (v. 18a; cf. 12:8, 28, 40; 11:27), the Gentiles’ belief in Jesus (v. 18b; cf. 12:41–42, 46–50), and judgment upon unbelievers (v. 20b; cf. 12:31–32, 33–37, 41–42; 11:20–24; 13:39–43, 47–40); cf. the review and criticism in Menken, Matthean Context, 56. 72 Patrick, Matthew’s Pesher Gospel, 69. 73 Menken, Matthean Context, 56. 74 Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ; Messiah and Justice; Menken, Matthean Context. 75 Matthew frequently refers to Jesus as the “Son of God” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ): 2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16; 21:37–38; 22:2; 24:36; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54; 28:19. 76 Menken, Matthean Context, 59–60. 71

178

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

παῖς μου by giving it an unmistakable messianic connotation.”77 Jesus’ possession of the divine spirit in v. 18b also points backward to his birth, baptism, and temptation, in which the spirit is present (1:18, 20; 3:16; 4:1). In the passage following the citation, Jesus casts out demons by the authority of the divine spirit (12:22–32). Beaton regards the theme of κρίσις in vv. 18 and 20 as the primary link between the citation and its context.78 As was observed in chapters 4 and 5, it remains debated whether ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in the MT and κρίσις in the LXX should be translated as “judgment” or as “justice,” although the majority of occurrences indicate positive connotations. Although the term often designates “eschatological judgment” in Matthew (cf. 11:20–24; 12:41–42; 25:31–46), Beaton argues in favor of justice, for it is in accordance with the “increasingly hopeful, positive tone of the text,” and offers an important parallel to 23:23 (“justice and mercy and faith”).79 Accordingly, within its present context, the servant figure’s promotion of justice to the nations and to the weak and poor offers an important counter-image to the evil and “unjust” Pharisees, who condemn the disciples for eating grain (12:1–8) and the crippled man for being healed on the Sabbath (12:9–13). Over against the burden of the Pharisees’ narrow Halakhic interpretation of the torah, Jesus is presented as God’s Messiah and the correct interpreter of the torah, that is, the one who provides justice to the oppressed and down-trodden.80 The silence of the servant figure in v. 19a parallels Jesus’ withdrawal from the public scene in v. 15. Yet his refusal to quarrel concerns only the plot to destroy him, because already the next scene depicts Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees (12:22–37, 38–45).81 The failure to hear the servant’s voice in v. 19b could furthermore point to the Pharisees’ inability to listen and respond positively to Jesus in v. 14. The servant’s care for the reed and the wick in v. 20a parallels Jesus’ healing of the crowds in v. 15,82 although the reed and wick remain open imag77

Novakovic, Messiah, 146. Cf. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 165: “Matthew’s primary theological interest in the citation revolves around the establishment of justice for a universal people of God.” 79 Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 143–145; Messiah and Justice, 15; cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 106; Menken, Matthean Context, 60–61. 80 Beaton, Messiah and Justice, 22. 81 Cf. Schnackenburg, Siehe da, 204: “Jesus zeigt sich als Herr über Krankheiten und böse Geister und weicht doch von den menschlichen Feinden zurück.” 82 As was noticed, the Targum interprets the reed and the wick as “the humble” and “the poor;” cf. Gzella, New Ways, 405, 418–419. It may point to “sinners” in general; cf. Schnackenburg, Siehe da, 219. Strained, however, appears the assertion that the reed refers to John the Baptist, who had been stronger than a “reed shaken by the wind” (Matt 11:7) and that John as prisoner has become a “bruised reed” that Jesus is careful not to break; cf. Patrick, Matthew’s Pesher Gospel, 68. 78

B. Citations from Isaiah 42:1–9

179

es. 83 Jesus’ earthly healing activity will not reach its fulfillment until he brings justice to victory in 20b. Within the Gospel as a whole, this phrase likely points forward to the death and resurrection of Jesus (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19; 26:56), where Jesus fulfills the will of his father (3:15; 26:39, 42). Bringing justice to victory thereby parallels the Pharisees’ plan to have him killed in v. 14. The term ἐκβαλλω (“to drive out”) provides a link to the following passage, in which Jesus casts out demons (cf. 12:22–32). Finally, the Gentiles’ hope in his name 84 in v. 21 points to Jesus’ final commissioning at the end of the Gospel, where the Gentiles’ hope in his name will come true when the disciples baptize them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19).85 V. 21 illustrates the universal perspective of the servant’s task (cf. 5:13–16; 28:18–20) and stresses the important name-theology of the LXX version. In sum, the brief examination has affirmed that the entire citation, rather than merely a few lines, has been skillfully integrated into its present context. The omission of Isa 42:4a along with the apparent links to the preceding narrative strongly indicates that Matthew has shaped the words of Isaiah to fit the context and theological message of his Gospel. In short, it is “the product of much care and reflection.”86 III. Interpretative Implications Concluding the investigation of Matt 12:15–21, I will sketch three major implications of Matthew’s version for a biblical theological interpretation of the passage. These implications concern the identity of the servant, the nature of his task, and the importance of his name. Although Matthew leaves the servant figure unidentified (cf. the MT), the context nevertheless clearly indicates that he understands the Isaianic passage in messianic terms and identifies its figure with Jesus: “Er liest Jes 42 christologisch.”87 This identification undergirds the alterations of Isaiah’s text that are made in light of the baptism and transfiguration scenes (ὁ ἀγαπητός, εὐδοκέω). The filial relationship, which was manifested in the baptism, is confirmed in Matt 12. Matthew’s lexical choices illustrate the intimate rela83

Cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 195: “The text gives the readers the freedom to apply themselves the images of the reed and the wick in light of Matthew’s story of Jesus.” 84 Although there are no apparent parallels to ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, Neyrey has noticed the dense use of Christological titles and identifications in the narrative, including “Son of Man” (12:8, 32, 40), “Son of David” (12:23), “Servant/Son” (12:18), the greater one – “greater than the temple” (12:6), than Jonah (12:41), than Solomon (12:42); cf. Neyrey, Thematic Use 465. 85 Cf. Menken, Matthean Context, 63. 86 Davies & Allison, Matthew II, 328. 87 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 106; emphasis original.

180

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

tion between God and Jesus: αἱρετίζω (“to choose”) in the place of ‫ תמך‬or ἀντιλαμβάνω (“to uphold, or to lay hold of, grasp”) highlights the special appointment of the chosen servant, and the notion of love and pleasure in the succeeding line highlight the closeness of this relationship (cf. 11:27).88 Significantly, ὁ παῖς μου now parallels the messianic title ὁ ἀγαπητός μου (“my beloved”), which colors the meaning of the former term: Jesus is son rather than servant. As Beaton asserts, “in Matthew’s new construction, ‘the servant’, who is divinely chosen, now parallels ‘the Beloved’, the source of divine pleasure, and thus incorporates the overtones of ‘sonship’ within the context.”89 The aorist form of αἱρετίζω implies that Jesus has already been chosen by God, whereas the imminent empowerment of the spirit occurs with regard to the specific task that Jesus shall fulfill. Whereas vv. 18 and 20b–21 depict Jesus as the royal and powerful Messiah that will bring forth justice to victory, vv. 19–20a depict him as humble and nonaggressive, taking care of the weak and poor. Beaton has pointed out that these contrasting images suggest tensions in Matthew’s Christology: the introduction of the title ‘Beloved’ incorporates into the citation the element of sonship, indicative of a high christology … Yet at the same time the text presents a humble, compassionate servant, who cares for those already damaged (the crushed reed and smouldering wick), offering encouragement and care.90

Matthew’s portrait stresses the prophetic nature of the task at hand. This is illustrated by the choice of ἀπαγγέλλω, which unambiguously has to do with the announcement or proclamation of words. Apparently, the servant is cast as both royal messiah and prophet, proclaiming justice to the world and defending the humble and poor. The verbal aspect of his task in v. 18, however, stands in tension with his silence in v. 19. A similar tension concerns his nonviolent appearance in v. 19 and his vigorous promotion of future victory (ἐκβαλλω, εἰς νῖκος) in v. 20.91 As was indicated, κρίσις ought to be translated by justice rather than judgment, which adds an ethical and political component to Matthew’s Christology: Jesus’ message of justice contrasts with the Pharisees’ strict interpretation of the torah and thereby challenges the failure of their leadership. 92 Along with this “earthly” dimension of the mission, Jesus’ fulfillment of the task also points to a future event, that is, his death 88

France, Gospel of Matthew, 471–472. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 127. 90 Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 189; cf. Schnackenburg, Siehe da, 222: “So sind Hoheitsaussagen mit Niedrigkeitsaussagen verbunden. Dass Matthäus den einst in Herrlichkeit kommenden und die Vollmacht über Himmel und Erde ausübenden Christus der Kirche vor Augen rücken will, ist nicht zu bestreiten; aber in seinem irdischen Wirken tritt er doch als der Krankenheiler hervor, der sich der Not des Volkes erbarmt.” 91 Schnackenburg, Siehe da, 219. 92 Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 191. 89

C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9

181

and resurrection as the realization of justice. Proclaiming divine justice to the nations also points forward to the mission that the risen Christ demands his disciples to fulfill (cf. 28:19–20). The universal perspective of the task involving the nations in vv. 18 and 21 is not uncommon to Matthew (cf. 2:1–3; 4:15–16; 8:5–13; see chapter 7). The aspects of identity and mission come together in the importance of the name, insofar as Matt 12:21 contains christological (hope in his name) and universal (inclusion of the nations) elements. The term ὄνομα signalizes a pivotal motif in Matthew.93 Jesus promises to be near where two or three are gathered in his name (18:20) and whoever welcomes a child in his name welcomes him (18:5). His name is associated with power (7:22; 24:5); yet it is also the reason for hatred and division (10:22; 19:29; 24:9). Jesus’ name itself has a significant meaning, as 1:21 informs us: “you are to name him Jesus (καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν), for he will save his people from their sins.” Likewise, the association of his name with Emmanuel (“God with us”) reflects the salvific nature of his name. In that name the Gentiles will hope. The importance of the name is finally illustrated by Jesus’ commissioning of his disciple to baptize all nations in the name of the triune God (28:19). In sum, Matt 12:15–21 bears witness to a creative and complex use of Isaiah in which quotation and its literary context have been inextricably intertwined. The servant is identified as a royal messianic figure and applied to Jesus, whose task consists of promoting justice to a world-wide audience. In that manner, the quotation itself can be seen as a kind of micro-cosmos of the larger story of Jesus: a story of humility and mercy.94

C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9

The allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9 can be grouped into three. The first group consists of allusions to the description of the servant in v. 1. These are found primarily in the baptism, transfiguration, and passion narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. The second group consists of allusions to the servant’s task in vv. 6b–7, including the light metaphor, recovery of sight, and release of captives. These are found primarily in Luke-Acts and John. The third group consists of allusions to God as creator and foreteller of events in vv. 5 and 9. These occur only sporadically. Despite the large dependence on Isaiah, Paul seldom, if at all, alludes to Isaiah 42:1–9.

93 94

Cf. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 153–155. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 195–196; Lybæk, New and Old, 98–99.

182

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

I. The Baptism, Transfiguration, and Passion Narratives (Isaiah 42:1) Allusions to the description of the servant in Isa 42:1 occur in the baptism narrative (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) or in a similar context (John 1:34), in the transfiguration narrative (Matt 17:5; Luke 9:35; 2 Pet 1:17), and in the passion narrative (Luke 23:35): Matt 12:18

ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου … ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου

Matt 3:17

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα

Mark 1:11

σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα

Luke 3:22

σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα95

John 1:34

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτός τοῦ θεοῦ96

Matt 17:5

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ

Mark 9:7

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ

Luke 9:35

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος,97 αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε

2 Pet 1:17

ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα

Luke 23:35

εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐκλεκτός

The first witness we have is Mark’s account of the baptism of Jesus (1:9–11), in which the divine voice from heaven alludes to Isa 42:1: “You are my son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased.”98 The quotation represents a creative combination of a near-exact citation of LXX Ps 2:7 (“You are my son”)

95

Some textual witnesses bring the phrase in accordance with LXX Ps 2:7 (υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε); preferred e.g. by Grundmann, Evangelium nach Lukas, 106–107. This, however, is not the best-attested reading; cf. Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 485. 96 NA has ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. The alternative reading, which I choose, is supported by some textual witnesses e.g. Codex Sinaiticus (cf. footnote in NA). See Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 130, note 30; cf. Brown, John I-XII, 57, who admits the weaker textual evidence, but builds his argument on a theological tendency: “it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one’, while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible.” 97 I follow the reading of NA, although some witnesses in the textual tradition read ἀγαπητός. The present reading presumably reflects Luke’s original adjustment of Mark (and Matthew?); see Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 803; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 354. 98 This common thesis, however, has been contested by Morna Hooker, who claims that there is little to indicate that Mark had Isa 42:1 in mind. Mark might have been familiar with Isa 42; yet “whether or not he (or anyone before him) thought this particular verse relevant is not clear, and certainly he was not quoting from it;” cf. Hooker, Isaiah in Mark’s Gospel, 46; emphasis original; cf. Jesus and the Servant, 68–73.

C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9

183

and a reference to Isa 42:1 (“with you I am well pleased”).99 As was noticed, the phrase ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα is closer to the MT (or Greek revisions of it) than the LXX, insofar as εὐδοκέω frequently translates ‫רצה‬. The additional word ὁ ἀγαπητός (“the beloved”) echoes either Genesis, where Isaac is called “the beloved” (Gen 22:2, 12, 16),100 or some verses in Isaiah, in which the servant Israel is loved by God (Isa 41:8–9; 44:2);101 or perhaps Mark knew a version of Ps 2:7 or Isa 42:1 in which the word “beloved” was used.102 Mark’s reference to Isa 42:1 is supported by other allusions to Isaianic material in the baptism narrative.103 The motif of heavens being torn apart alludes to Isa 63:19, in which God is begged to “tear open the heavens and come down.”104 The endowment of the spirit is a central Isaianic theme (cf. Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and the phrase “I have put my spirit upon him” (42:1b) apparently lies behind the descending spirit in Mark 1:10. The aorist form of εὐδοκέω in Mark 1:11 indicates that Mark refers “to a past divine choice of Jesus that is now being ratified at the baptism.”105 The references to Ps 2 and Isa 42 thus reflect God’s recognition of Jesus as both his son and Messiah and – by the empowerment of the divine spirit – as his chosen agent for a special task. Importantly, Mark (and perhaps traditions prior to him) interpreted the figure of Isa 42:1–9 messianically and thereby as a witness to Jesus. Because Mark omits ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα in the transfiguration narrative (9:7), his version, unlike those of Matthew and Luke, does not contain any allusion to Isa 42. 99

J. Jeremias has argued that the entire citation comes from Isa 42:1. He claims that “das υἱός μου der Tauf- und Verklärungsstimme auf παῖς μου (so LXX Js 42,1) zurückgehe. Mk 1,11 Par; 9,7 Par wäre dann nicht ein Mischzitat aus Ps 2,7 und Js 42,1, sondern ursprünglich wäre nur Js 42,1 (HT) zitiert, und das doppeldeutige παῖς μου (1. mein Knecht, 2. mein Kind) wäre auf hellenistischen Gebiet, wo man die Bezeichnung Jesu als παῖς früh gemieden hat …, noch vor Mk zu υἱός μου verdeutlicht worden.” Accordingly, in its pristine Palestinian setting, ‫ ֶעבֶד‬or παῖς was understood as “servant;” this portrayal of Jesus was not suitable for a Hellenistic audience, wherefore υἱός was substituted for παῖς; cf. Zimmerli & Jeremias, παῖς μου, 699, 701; emphasis original. The lack of clear evidence, however, makes it impossible to validate such a view; cf. the criticism in Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 79–80; Watts, New Exodus, 110. 100 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 165–166. 101 Collins, Mark, 150. 102 The Targum of Ps 2:7 reads “beloved” (‫ ;)חביב‬cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 30. Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 144 refers to the version in Mark as “a Christian hymnic translation coined ad hoc.” 103 See Watts, New Exodus, 102–108. 104 Mark, however, has “to tore apart” (σχίζω; cf. ‫)?קרע‬, whereas the LXX along with Matthew and Luke read “to open” (ἀνοίγω). In any case, Mark alludes to the MT rather than to the LXX (“If you should open heaven, trembling from you would size the mountains…”). 105 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 163.

184

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

In Matthew’s version of the baptism scene (3:17), the second-person form (σὺ εἶ, ἐν σοὶ) has been altered into a third-person form (οὗτός ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ), which, however, does not distort the reference to Isa 42:1. In fact it rather brings the heavenly voice closer to the MT and LXX versions. As was mentioned, Matthew harmonizes God’s direct address here with that of the transfiguration scene, which implies that also the latter scene alludes to Isaiah in order to confirm the divine identity of Jesus. 106 Again, this creative hand supports the impression that Matthew has shaped the voice of Matt 12:18 to accord with 3:17 and 17:5. The additional ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (“listen to him”), which stems from Mark, echoes Moses’ words about the appearance of a prophet, to whom the people shall listen (cf. Deut 18:15). This allusion undergirds the image of an individual servant figure (cf. Acts 3:20–22). The version of 2 Pet 1:17 comes closest to Matthew either deriving from his Gospel or relying on a tradition common to both; or perhaps it reflects an independent tradition.107 Luke’s form of the baptismal voice (3:22) is adopted from Mark. Like Mark, Luke omits ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα in his transfiguration account (9:35); yet his distinct ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (“my chosen”) in the place of ὁ ἀγαπητός (“the beloved”) indicates influence from LXX Isa 42:1 (ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου). Wolter, however, questions a deliberate allusion to Isaiah.108 If we assume that Luke intended to allude to Isaiah, it remains a mystery why he did not maintain the rendering in the LXX. Among the Gospels’ passion narratives, Luke is the only one who portrays the crucified Jesus as “the chosen” (ὁ ἐκλεκτός; 23:35).109 The title here is probably added in light of 9:35, wherefore it only indirectly alludes to Isaiah. 110 Nevertheless, Grundmann, for instance, contends that the title here derives from Isa 42:1.111

106

France, Gospel of Matthew, 650. See the extensive review in Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 205–210, who argues in favor of an independent tradition. 108 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 354: “Dass Lukas mit der Formulierung an Jes 42,1 … anknüpft, wie oft angenommen wird …, ist eher zweifelhaft, den in der SeptuagintaFassung dieser Texte ist immer nur von der Erwählung Israels die Rede.” 109 The term ὁ ἐκλεκτός occurs 22 times in the New Testament: seven times in singular about Jesus (Luke 23:35), Rufus (Rom 16:13), the precious cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4, 6; cf. LXX Isa 28:16), the chosen people (1 Pet 2:9; cf. LXX Isa 43:21), and a lady and a sister (2 John 1:1, 13); and 15 times in plural, mainly about the chosen ones in time of judgment (e.g. Matt 22:14; 24:22, 24, 31). 110 According to Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 803, the title “the chosen one” represents a common Palestinian Jewish title testified to in an Aramaic text from Qumran. This, however, does not rule out the possibility that the occurrences in Luke 9:35 and 23:35 allude to a servant passage in Isaiah. 111 Grundmann, Evangelium nach Lukas, 433; cf. Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah, 129; Pao & Schnabel, Luke, 397. 107

C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9

185

Coming from Luke, the alternative reading of ὁ ἐκλεκτός τοῦ θεοῦ (“God’s chosen”) in John 1:34 appears reasonable, especially because John the Baptist’s acknowledgement of Jesus’ identity as the Lamb of God (1:29, 36; cf. Isa 53:7?) and as his chosen one occurs “as a direct result of seeing the Spirit descend and remain on him (1:32–33).”112 II. Light, Sight, and Darkness (Isaiah 42:6b–7) Several verses in the New Testament allude to the task of the servant as presented in Isa 42:6b–7. These allusions include the “light to the nations”theme (‫ || אוֹר גּוֹי ִם‬φῶς ἐθνῶν), recovery of sight, and release of captives. Importantly, however, the phrase “a light to the nations” also occurs in Isa 49:6, wherefore in some cases it is difficult to determine whether a particular New Testament passage alludes to Isa 42 or Isa 49.113 Yet, as was mentioned, allusions do not only concern individual texts but also figures and broader themes. We will therefore be alert to possible references to the Isaianic imagery of light, sight, and darkness. Light and sight play a significant role in Luke-Acts. In the infancy narrative, Jesus is both source and promoter of light. In Zechariah’s hymn Benedictus (Luke 1:67–80), John the Baptist will prepare the way for the “dawn from on the high,” who will “give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις; v. 79). Although this sentence is closer to Isa 9:1 (cf. Matt 4:15–16), some elements also link it to Isa 42:7 (καθημένους ἐν σκότει [“who sit in darkness”]). In the hymn Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29–32), Simeon praises God after seeing the Lord’s Messiah, “for my eyes have seen your salvation” (ὅτι εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου τὸ σωτήριόν σου; v. 30). The infant Jesus is furthermore portrayed as “a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν καὶ δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ; v. 32). In short, salvation, light, and glory refer to Jesus.114 The significance of sight and vision is illustrated by the quotations from Isaiah in Luke 3:4–6 (Isa 40:3–5) and Luke 4:18–19 (Isa 61:1–2a; 58:6). Unlike his antecedents (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3), Luke adds Isa 40:4–5 to his quotation, including its final statement that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ). In the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus presents his mission in the words of Isaiah. The proclamation of “recovery of sight to the blind” (τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν) forms the center of this

112

Cf. Williams, Isaiah in John’s Gospel, 105. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 84 remains skeptical of particular allusions to Isaiah: “the metaphor of light and the attitude of universalism are by no means confined to Deutero-Isaiah in the Old Testament.” 114 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 422. 113

186

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

large quotation.115 The realization of his mission is reflected in Luke 7:22 (cf. Matt 11:5) as readers are informed that “the blind receive their sight” (τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν) and furthermore in the narratives of Jesus as enabler of vision in 18:18–19:10.116 As in Isaiah, blindness is not merely physical suffering, it is also a metaphor for lack of understanding. In the final chapter of Luke, the eyes of the two from Emmaus are restrained, until Jesus breaks the bread: “then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight” (αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν· καὶ αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν; 24:31). As Hamm points out, it takes the Easter understanding – the recognition of Jesus as the risen one and as the Christ of scripture – to fully open blind eyes.117 The light metaphor retains its importance throughout Acts, where the mission to the nations involves “the ends of the earth” (1:8). This formulation alludes to the description of the servant’s mission in Isa 49:6.118 The phrase “a light to the nations” occurs in Acts 13:47 – again reflecting Isa 49:6 – and is used to criticize inward-looking mission. As the climax of his second speech in Antioch of Pisidia (13:44–52), Paul asserts that due to the Jews’ rejection of the gospel he and Barnabas will now turn to the Gentiles, for the Lord has commanded them, saying: “I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (τέθεικά σε εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς; v. 47).119 It is interesting to notice that Paul and Barnabas consider themselves to be in the place the servant; they, not Jesus, must fulfill his mission.120 This motif is elaborated in the account of Paul before Agrippa in Acts 26. According to Paul’s retelling of his conversion, Jesus sends him to the Jews and Gentiles “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light” (ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν, τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς; v. 18; cf. Isa 42:7: ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς). As the appointed witnesses of Jesus, Paul and 115 This reading is only possible on basis of the LXX, which – in light of Isa 42:7 – substitutes “recovery of sight to the blind” for “release to the prisoners” (cf. the MT); see chapter 5. 116 See Hamm, Sight to the Blind, 462–465. 117 Hamm, Sight to the Blind, 475–476. 118 Pao, Isaianic New Exodus, 92; Seccombe, Luke and Isaiah, 258. 119 The author of Luke-Acts has omitted “as a covenant to a race” (εἰς διαθήκην γένους) either deliberately due to his missionary concerns or because it lacked in his Vorlage (cf. the MT; see chapter 5); see the review in Meek, Gentile Mission, 25–27; Pao, Isaianic New Exodus, 97. 120 Meek, Gentile Mission, 46–49; Pao, Isaianic New Exodus, 100–101; Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament, 222: “[Paul] identifies their role with that of the Isaianic servant, whom Luke earlier declared to be Jesus (Luke 2:32). This is in keeping with Isaiah, where the servant’s task included restoring other Israelites to their servant call. Restored by the Lord Jesus, Paul and Barnabas continue Jesus’ and reconstituted Israel’s servant mission to be a light to the nations.”

C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9

187

the other disciples must continue his work. 121 They share in the servant’s mission. Although Paul continues the mission, he never becomes the servant, but remains a servant (ὑπηρέτης; v. 16) of God’s servant (παῖς). 122 Again, Jesus is the source and promoter of light as v. 23 informs us: “by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Not until Jesus is risen and proclaimed through his church will the full potential of Isaiah’s “a light to the nations” be realized.123 Similarly, 1 Pet 2:9 states that “the chosen race” (γένος ἐκλεκτόν; cf. Isa 42:1, 6; 43:20b–21) shall proclaim “the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (τὰς ἀρετὰς … τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς). The motif of the rejection of the gospel in 13:44–52 recurs in the final chapter of Acts. In 28:25–28, the Jews are accused of having shut their eyes (cf. Isa 6:9–10), wherefore “this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles.” The negative result of outward-looking mission to the nations can thus be seen as the condemnation of those who stubbornly remain blind, rejecting the message of Christ.124 In John the allusions to Isaiah refer to a configuration of Isaianic imagery rather than to clearly discernible verses.125 This also goes for the image of light. This theme is prominent in the prologue of the Gospel, in which “light shines in the darkness” (1:5) and John the Baptist testifies to the true light that is coming into the world (1:7–9; cf. 12:35, 46). Closer to Isa 42:6b–7 is John 8:12, where Jesus declares: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” “The light of the world” (τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου) is of course not “a light to the nations” (φῶς ἐθνῶν), but some resonance is detectable. A similar tone sounds in Matt 5:14–16, where Jesus addresses his disciples: “You are the light of the world” (ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου). As in Acts 13, it is worth noticing that the disciple rather than Jesus must serve as a light. The metaphors of blindness and sight occur in John 9 about the man born blind. As in Isa 42:7, the term ἀνοίγω (“to open”) designates Jesus’ opening of the man’s eyes (cf. 9:10, 14, 17, 21, 26, 30, 32).126 The event evokes discussion and hostility. Defending Jesus against accusations of having a demon, 121

Seccombe, Luke and Isaiah, 259. Seccombe, Luke and Isaiah, 259. 123 Hamm, Sight to the Blind, 461. 124 Sawyer, Fifth Gospel, 35. 125 Williams, Isaiah in John’s Gospel, 101. 126 The term ἀνοίγω occurs 77 times in the New Testament. It designates among others the opening of the heavens (Matt 3:16; Luke 3:21; 10:11), of ears (Mark 7:35), of eyes (Matt 9:30; 20:33; John 9; 10:21; 11:37; Acts 9:8, 40; 26:18), and of a scroll (Rev 5). In addition, God has opened a door of faith for the Gentiles (Acts 14:27). 122

188

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

some people rhetorically ask: “Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (μὴ δαιμόνιον δύναται τυφλῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνοῖξαι; 10:21). The latter half of this sentence actually parallels Isa 42:7a (ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν); yet a conscious allusion seems difficult to prove. Nevertheless, it is striking that the narrative about the blind man who receives sight is juxtaposed with the narrative about Jesus calling Lazarus from the dark grave and releasing him from his bonds (11:43–44; cf. Isa 42:7b?). Finally, an application of the servant’s task to a collective is implicit in Paul’s reference in Rom 2:19 (cf. Matt 5:14–16; Acts 13:47; 26:18). Among other deeds, the ideal Jew is portrayed as one who “is a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness” (ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν, φῶς τῶν ἐν σκότει). Apart from the quotation of Isa 61:1 in Luke 4:18, it is difficult to register any clear allusions to the latter part of the servant’s task, that is, the release of captives. The best allusion is probably 1 Pet 3:19, in which Christ goes and proclaims “to the spirits in prison” (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν). In LXX Isa 42:7b, the key verb is ἐξάγω (“to bring out”), which occurs 12 times in the New Testament.127 Along with the term φυλακή (“prison”), this term establishes a subtle, yet hardly deliberate, parallel to the episode in Acts 5:17–26 (cf. 16:23–27). In 5:19, the apostles have been arrested, “but during the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors, brought them out…” (ἄγγελος δὲ κυρίου διὰ νυκτὸς ἀνοίξας τὰς θύρας τῆς φυλακῆς ἐξαγαγών). Admittedly, this parallel is strained. The term δεσμός (“bond”), which LXX Isaiah uses to translate ‫“( ַמ ְסגֵּר‬dungeon”), often refers to prison chains (Acts 16:26; 20:23; Phil 1). Yet in two cases, it refers to the healing activities of Jesus. In Mark 7:35, Jesus cures a deaf and dumb man so that “[the bond of] his tongue was released” (ἐλύθη ὁ δεσμὸς τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ). In Luke 13:16, a woman with a “crippled” spirit – bound by Satan 128 – is set free “from this bondage” (ἀπὸ τοῦ δεσμοῦ τούτου). These instances provide a warrant for interpreting the bondage figuratively.129

127

The term ἐξάγω designates the bringing out of prison (Acts 5:19; 12:17; 16:37, 39) or of Egypt (Acts 7:36, 40; 13:17; 21:38; Heb 8:19). Jesus is led out to crucifixion (Mark 15:20), and he leads his disciples out to bless them (Luke 24:50). Finally, Jesus is portrayed as the good shepherd, who “calls his own sheep by name and leads them out” (John 10:3). 128 Notice the use of δέω (“to bind, tie”), which also designates the arrest of Jesus (Matt 27:2; Mark 15:1; John 18:12). As was mentioned, Lazarus’ hands and feet are bound with strips of cloth (John 11:44). Finally, Satan will be bound for a thousand years (Rev 20:2). 129 Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 1014. Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 484 is more reluctant.

C. Allusions to Isaiah 42:1–9

189

III. Creation and Providence (Isaiah 42:5, 9) A few verses in the New Testament allude to the themes of creation and providence in Isa 42:5, 9. In his Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22–31), Paul explains “the unknown god” of the Athenians as the creator of the world who has raised a man from the dead to judge the world in righteousness. A series of words and phrases in 17:24–25 play on LXX Isa 42:5: LXX Isa 42:5 οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ πήξας αὐτόν, ὁ στερεώσας τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ διδοὺς πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς

Acts 17:24–25 ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος … αὐτὸς διδοὺς πᾶσι ζωὴν καὶ πνοὴν καὶ τὰ πάντα

Thus says the Lord God, who created heaven and established it, who bolstered the earth and the things that are in it, and who gave breath to the people upon it

The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth … he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things

Especially the introductory phrase ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας (“God who made”) and διδοὺς πνοὴν (“who gave breath”) illustrate the connections between the two passages. The former phrase is unique within the New Testament and occurs only four times in the LXX (Job 35:10; Isa 42:5; 43:1; 44:2). The term πνοή in the latter phrase occurs only here and in Acts 2:2 (the “wind” at Pentecost); more importantly, the combination of δίδωμι and πνοή occurs only in LXX Isa 42:5. It is furthermore interesting that the descriptions of God in Acts 17 are presented along with polemics against idolatry, which indicates that the author of Luke-Acts was aware of the context of this verse within Isaiah (cf. Isa 40:18–20; 41:1–7, 21–29; 44:9–20).130 In any case, Acts 17 illustrates the close connection between the God of creation and Jesus as his agent sent to fulfill his judgment of the world. It is difficult to demonstrate any direct allusions to Isa 42:9. A key sentence, however, is the one about the new things that God will declare (καινὰ ἃ ἐγὼ ἀναγγελῶ). In John 4:25–26, the Samaritan woman asserts that the Messiah is coming and that when he comes “he will proclaim all things to us” (ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα). Responding to her, Jesus affirms that he is the one. Of significance is also Jesus’ promise to his disciples of the “spirit of truth” who will “declare to you the things that are to come” (τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν; cf. John 16:13–15). Finally, in 1 Pet 1:12, it has been revealed to the prophets of the past (οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη; cf. Isa 42:9: ἐδηλώθη ὑμῖν?) that they should serve the future believers in regard to “the things that have now been announced to you (αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν) through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” Despite the frailty of 130

See Pao, Isaianic New Exodus, 193–197.

190

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

these references, John 16 and 1 Pet 1 illuminate the role of the divine spirit in God’s continuous address to his community. The theme of “new things” is central in the New Testament.131 The term καινός occurs in famous passages about the old and new wineskins,132 about the old and new covenants, 133 and about the eschatological Jerusalem. 134 Closer to Isa 42:9 are three passages about the new creation, even if they primarily allude to Isa 43:18–19a. 135 Regarding the new identity of Christians, 2 Cor 5:17 states: “so if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις· τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά). Similarly in Gal 6:15, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, but “a new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις) does. Finally, in Rev 21:5, the one sitting on the throne proclaims: “see, I am making all things new” (ἰδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα). Nevertheless, the explicit discontinuity in these verses between old and new is foreign to Isa 42:9 (yet not to Isa 43:18–19a). A final observation concerns the terms ἀνατέλλω (“to rise, spring up”) and δηλόω (“to reveal, explain”) in Isa 42:9b. Of the nine occurrences of the former term, most of them has to do with the rise of light or celestial bodies (cf. Matt 4:16; 2 Pet 1:19). Interestingly, in the account of the resurrection of Jesus, the women go to the tomb, “when the sun had risen” (ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου; Mark 16:2). Of the seven occurrences of the latter term, at least 1 Cor 3:13 indicates a scene of divine revelation; cf. “for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire” (ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα δηλώσει, ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλύπτεται). Nevertheless, none of the New Testament passages, which employ these terms, alludes to Isa 42:9. IV. Interpretative Implications The New Testament authors have consistently interpreted the description of the servant in Isa 42:1 christologically, insofar as all detectable allusions to this verse are applied to Jesus in the portrayal of his baptism, transfiguration, and passion. Jesus is cast in the role of the servant: he has been chosen by God, who is pleased with him. God is the creator and Jesus is his agent (cf. 131

See Harrisville, Concept of Newness; van Wieringen, Theologoumenon “New,” 294–300. 132 Matt 9:14–17; Mark 2:18–22; Luke 5:33–39. 133 1 Cor 11:23–25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8–13; 9:15–18; cf. Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22– 25; Luke 22:15–20. 134 Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 3:12; 21:1–2. 135 Isa 43:18–19a: “Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of the old. Look, I am doing new things that will now spring forth, and do you not know them?” (Μὴ μνημονεύετε τὰ πρῶτα καὶ τὰ ἀρχαῖα μὴ συλλογίζεσθε. ἰδοὺ ποιῶ καινὰ ἃ νῦν ἀνατελεῖ, καὶ γνώσεσθε αὐτά); perhaps also Isa 48:3, 6–7; cf. Wilk, Bedeutung, 276–280.

D. Key Terms and Concepts

191

Acts 17). The important light metaphor is also applied to Jesus as the source and promoter of light and sight. It is nevertheless interesting that in some instances the light metaphor also describes a collective, that is, the disciples of Christ or the church (Matt 5:14–16; Acts 13:47; 26:18; Rom 2:19). They shall continue the mission set out by Jesus. The application of the task to a collective is of significance, because it shows that the collective interpretation of the servant figure of Isa 42:1–9 has not been fully ruled out by the New Testament use. We will return to this in chapter 7.

D. Key Terms and Concepts D. Key Terms and Concepts

Hübner’s approach to the New Testament use of the Old does not only include quotations and allusions, but also Old Testament key terms, concepts, and themes. Isa 42:1–9 certainly contains dense theological terms and imagery such as judgment/justice, truth, covenant, light, and glory. Key words by nature occur often, which is why it is impossible to determine to what specific text or cluster of texts they refer. Many of the references are of a general nature and can hardly be attributed to Isa 42:1–9 alone. It lies outside the scope of this book to present any exhaustive accounts for these terms and themes, to which our primary text can be seen as an important witness. It is nevertheless adequate to offer some indications of the way such an endeavor would move by focusing on a series of key words. Within the New Testament as a whole, παῖς occurs 24 times, where it mainly refers to children or servants in a general sense.136 Nine occurrences, however, identify παῖς as either Israel (Luke 1:54), David (Luke 1:69; Acts 4:25), or Jesus (Matt 12:18; Luke 2:43; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). As we have seen, Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as παῖς suggests divine “sonship.” In Luke, the term designates Jesus as a twelve-year-old boy in the temple in Jerusalem, and in Acts, it designates God’s glorification and raising of Jesus (3:13, 26), opposition against him (4:27), and healing in his name (4:30). In these latter passages, it is difficult to decide which sense is best. In Acts 4, the title with reference to David immediately precedes the references to Jesus. The references in Wisdom of Salomon may be of importance, insofar as “the

136

“Child/children:” Matt 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 8:51, 54; 9:42; Acts 20:12; “servant/servants:” Matt 8:6, 8, 13; 14:2; Luke 7:7; 12:45; 15:26; John 4:51. For purposes of comparison, παιδίον occurs 52 times, often in parables and in the infancy narratives of Jesus (nine times in Matt 2; seven times in Luke 1–2), and δοῦλος occurs 126 times, frequently denoting “slave of Christ” (e.g. Rom 1:1); yet, as was noted, Jesus is never called δοῦλος; in Phil 2:5–11, Jesus takes the form of a slave (μορφή δούλου) rather than being one.

192

Chapter 6. Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament

righteous man” calls himself παῖς θεοῦ (2:13), God is his father (2:16), and he is a divine son (2:18). Despite the possibility that these witnesses reflect older traditions (the songs of Mary and Zechariah in Luke 1–2; Peter’s sermon in Acts 3; Christian prayer in Acts 4), it is contested whether the first Christians actually identified Jesus with the Isaianic servant figure or used the term in a general way. To repeat the classical positions, J. Jeremias confidently asserts that “die christologische Deutung des deuterojesajanischen Gottesknechtes gehört den ersten Anfangszeiten der christlichen Gemeinde an und ist sehr früh formelhaft fixiert worden,” 137 whereas Hooker claims that the first Christians used the title with a general reference to “outstanding men” of the Old Testament.138 God’s outpouring of his spirit upon his agent is a well-known theme in the Old Testament (e.g. Num 11:29; 1 Sam 11:6; Isa 42:1). Among the 379 occurrences of πνεῦμα in the New Testament, some definitively represent this concept. Apart from Matt 12:18, this is apparent in the baptism of Jesus (e.g. Matt 3:17) and in Luke’s presentation of his task (Luke 4:18; cf. Isa 61:1). The outpouring of the divine spirit likewise appears in the Pentecost narrative (Acts 2:17–21; cf. Joel 3:1–5). In the Epistles, the motif of God’s dwelling or resting upon the Christians often shows up (e.g. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:16; 1 Pet 4:14; 1 John 4:13). As in the LXX, κρίσις remains ambiguous, insofar as it designates both judgment (e.g. Matt 12:41–42; 2 Pet 2:9) and justice (e.g. Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42). Of its 47 occurrences in the New Testament, 11 are to be found in the Gospel of John. Interestingly, in John 3:19, God’s judgment implies that light has come into the world. Jesus will fulfill the judgment of his father (5:22– 30; 8:16). The term ἀλήθεια is likewise a favored word of the Johannine literature (45 out of 109 instances) and in the Pauline Epistles (47 instances); it only shows up seven times in the Synoptic Gospels. We have already observed the pivotal role of ὄνομα in Matthew. As in the Old Testament, the New Testament bears witness to the holiness of God’s name (e.g. Luke 1:49; 11:2) and its efficacy in regard to miracles (e.g. Mark 9:39; Luke 9:49) and authority (e.g. Mark 13:6). Regarding the mission of the church, speaking or teaching in the name of Christ is a common motif (Acts 4:17, 18; 5:28, 40). In his name, forgiveness of sins shall be proclaimed to all nations (Luke 24:47). Life and vitality resonate with it. Peoples ought to be baptized in the name of Christ (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38) and in his name, peoples will have life (John 20:31) and justification (1 Cor 6:11). The term διαθήκη appears in connection with the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; cf. 2 Cor 3:6), but 137 138

Zimmerli & Jeremias, παῖς θεοῦ, 706. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 107–110, 127.

E. Summing Up

193

it also designates the covenant of the ancestors, especially Abraham (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8; cf. 2 Cor 3:14; Gal 3:24). More than half of the occurrences is found in Hebrews (17 of 33). Some of these may illuminate the enigmatic “a covenant to the people” (‫ || ְבּ ִרית עָם‬διαθήκη γένους), insofar as three verses state that Jesus is the mediator of a new and better covenant (διαθήκης μεσίτης; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; cf. 7:22). Although Jesus himself is not declared to be the covenant, he still functions as its mediator, which may lie behind the expression in Isaiah. The term φῶς forms a central element in the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of John and in the missionary concerns of Luke-Acts. God is frequently depicted by means of light metaphors (1 Tim 6:16; Jam 1:17; 1 John 1:5). The Christian existence is furthermore described as a transition from darkness into light (Acts 26:18; Col 1:12–14; 1 Pet 2:9). Related to the imagery of light is the term δόξα. Glory is not only associated with God (John 11:4, 40; Rom 1:23), but also with Jesus (John 1:14; Heb 1:3). In the Gospel of John, the exaltation of Christ is glorification of him and God (e.g. 13:31–32). True honor comes from God (5:44; 12:43) and God will glorify Christ (8:54; 17:1). The unique relationship between God and Jesus implies that the glory which God has said should not be given to another (cf. Isa 42:8!), “is neither lessened nor compromised by honor being given to the Son” (cf. 5:23).139 In Revelation, the Lamb that was slaughtered receives glory (Rev 5:12; cf. 4:11).

E. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament E. Summing Up

The reception of Isaiah 42:1–9 in the New Testament is surprisingly ambiguous. The sole definite citation occurs in Matt 12:18–21 as a reflection of Jesus’ public ministry. The textual form of Isa 42:1–4, however, fits neither the MT nor the LXX and some of the variants may derive from Matthew’s attempt to bring the citation into alignment with the overall theological purpose of his Gospel. The allusions to 42:1 in the Gospels are likewise applied to Jesus. Yet the servant’s task of being a light to the nations in 42:6 is applied to Jesus and to a collective, that is, his disciples, Paul, and Barnabas. This implies that both the individual and collective interpretations of the servant figure are warranted by the New Testament reception.

139

Körstenberger, John, 442.

Chapter 7

God, His Servant, and the Nations This final chapter interprets Isa 42:1–9 within its larger context in the Bible. First, it draws together the observations of the preceding three chapters and presents a portrait of the servant and his task according to the biblical versions of the passage. Second, it investigates the destiny of the nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts in order to illuminate the intermediating function of the servant. Third, it explores the function of the passage within the overall structure of Isaiah and its relation to the other servant passages. Finally, it reflects on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments regarding Isa 42:1–9. The reader might feel that I am giving precedence to Childs’ approach over Hübner’s in this chapter. This is not entirely false. However, the reason for it is certainly practical. Since one of the aims of this chapter is to understand the function of Isa 42:1–9 within its larger canonical context in Isaiah, Childs’ approach seems easier to adopt and apply (see especially Section C). Nevertheless, I will return to Hübner in the final reflection on the relationships of the two testaments. In the overall conclusion of the book, I will present my assessment of their approaches.

A. The Servant and His Task According to the Biblical Versions A. The Servant and His Task

The close attention to the biblical versions of Isa 42:1–9 has brought forth several observations about the servant and his task. In the MT, the servant is anonymous. Nevertheless, the shared features between this passage and others from Isaiah have been used to identify the figure either as Cyrus, a Davidic Messiah, the prophet, or the nation of Israel. The latter proposal is warranted by the literary context of 41:1–42:12, in which 41:8–16 parallels 42:1– 9, and by the fact that the servant elsewhere in Isa 40–48 (except for 44:26) is called Jacob/Israel. In the LXX the servant is explicitly identified as Jacob/Israel and the portrait of him has been slightly altered in light of 41:8–10. The wider context in the LXX undergirds this identification, insofar as the translator has eliminated the possible allusions to Cyrus (41:2–3, 25). At the same time, the translator has harmonized the presentation of the servant with

A. The Servant and His Task

195

the messianic oracles of Isa 1–39. In the citation of Isa 42:1–4 in Matt 12:18– 21, the servant is again left unidentified. Yet the larger context of the citation suggests that the passage from Isaiah has been read messianically and that the actions of Jesus are thought to reflect those of the servant (cf. the allusions to 42:1 in the baptism, transfiguration, and passion narratives). It is also of importance that Matthew has shaped the words of Isaiah to accord with the context and overall message of his Gospel. The portrait of the servant remains ambiguous. In the MT, he appears as a blend of royal and prophetic elements: he is YHWH’s servant who has been anointed for a special task. The servant title refers to the nature of the relation between God and his agent rather than to a specific office as the wide attestation of its use in biblical Hebrew shows. Being YHWH’s servant equipped with his spirit means that one has received divine authority and support. In the LXX and Matthew, the term ‫“( ֶעבֶד‬servant”) is rendered with παῖς (“child, servant”), introducing more explicitly the notion of sonship. Rather than merely serving as his tool, the servant is related to God by bonds of intimacy. In Matthew, the filial relationship is emphasized even further by the verb αἱρετίζω (“to choose, adopt”) in the aorist by which God affirms his choice of Jesus manifested in the baptism, by the insertion of the messianic title ὁ ἀγαπητός μου (“my beloved”), and by the use of εὐδοκέω (“to take delight”) for προσδέχομαι (“to receive favorably”). It is debated whether the silence of the servant in v. 2 is a sign of weakness or strength. The term ‫“( צעק‬to cry”) frequently designates the act of crying out in distress and grief. The LXX supports this sense by its rendering of κράζω (“to shout”) which likewise often occurs in the context of crying out in pain. Matthew introduces the aspect of quarrel or verbal wrangling by the verbs ἐρίζω (“to wrangle”) and κραυγάζω (“utter a harsh sound”), presumably in light of Jesus’ withdrawal from the public scene. In any case, the silence is an expression of strength, insofar as the servant does not appeal for help or does not loose his self-control. The “reed” and the “wick” in v. 3a for which the servant cares likely represent general metaphors for weak and fragile people. The LXX and Matthew do not provide evidence for interpreting the reed and the wick as the servant himself. If the reed and the wick stand for imperial powers such as Egypt, the LXX may add contemporary political relevance to the statement. In Matthew, the reed and the wick apparently parallel the crowds which Jesus heals, yet they nevertheless remain open metaphors. In the MT the commitment of the servant to his task in v. 4a can be seen in that he will not burn nor break (or be broken, assuming Niphal; cf. the LXX’s future passive of θραὐω) until he has completed his task. Surprisingly, the LXX has turned the former statement into a positive one: “he will blaze up” (ἀναλάμψει). The meaning of ἀναλάμπω (“to shine brightly, to blaze up”) emphasizes the metaphor of light as it points backward to the messianic fig-

196

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

ure of Isa 8:23–9:1 and forward to the central task of being “a light to the nations.” Matthew omits the colon, probably because it is incompatible with Jesus’ suffering and death. The relation between YHWH and the servant in v. 6a is described by four verbs. In the MT the former verb is in the perfect and the latter three are in the imperfect: YHWH has chosen the servant in righteousness and will take him by his hand, keep (or create) him, and give him as a tool. In the LXX the tenses of the four verbs form an inclusion: the past calling of the servant and the task given to him frame the future support. By choosing ἐνισχύω (“to strengthen”) for ‫“( יצר‬to form, shape”) or ‫“( נצר‬to keep, preserve”), the Greek translator has established another link to LXX Isa 41:8–10: as God has formerly strengthened his servant Israel, so he will do again. The central task of the servant in vv. 1–4 concerns the promotion of justice to the nations. The servant shall “bring [it] forth” (‫ יצא‬in Hiphil), which, along with its Greek equivalent ἐκφέρω, does not by necessity involve oral proclamation. By contrast, Matthew has ἀπαγγέλλω (“to announce, proclaim”) which points to the verbal aspect of the task. Subsequently, the servant is said to “establish” (‫ שׂים‬or τίθημι) justice in the earth, something omitted by Matthew because he has fused two lines into one. On the other hand, Matthew has strengthened the nature of the task by employing the verb ἐκβαλλω (“to drive out, lead on”). The servant will complete his mission as the expression ‫“( ֶל ֱא ֶמת‬faithfully” or “in truth”) indicates. The LXX emphasizes the aspect of truth by translating the Hebrew phrase into εἰς ἀλήθειαν (“for truth”). Matthew reads εἰς νῖκος (“to victory”) which points forward to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the culmination of his Gospel. The ambiguous nature of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬has received a series of scholarly interpretations, moving from general (a social rule) to concrete (a verdict at law) definitions. Whatever the exact content may be, the larger context of Isaiah suggests that the term has positive connotations, frequently paralleling “righteousness.” The same is true for the LXX, in which the Hebrew word is usually translated by κρίσις, as is the case here. In Matthew, κρίσις sometimes designates eschatological judgment, whereas in other cases it carries a more positive tone. Within the context of the Gospel, the servant’s promulgation of justice stands in contrast to the teaching of the Pharisees. According to all versions, the ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬or κρίσις that the servant represents seems to involve a critical message or a decisive change of condition. Nevertheless, the distinct versions of v. 4b add different nuances to the task. In the MT the parallelism of ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬and torah suggests that the task implies the extension of an ethical ordinance or – more broadly – of teaching and divine guidance. Remarkably, the LXX has substituted “name” (ὄνομα) for torah, presumably as a result of contextual exegesis. Rather than divine law or teaching, the nations hope in the name of the servant (or of the Lord?), that is, the servant himself as the mediator of God. In addition, the alternative

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

197

rendering of v. 4b including ἔθνη for ‫ ִאיּ ִים‬and ἐλπίζω for ‫ יחל‬provides several links to other passages in LXX Isaiah (9:6[5]; 11:10; 18:7; 26:8; 51:5). Finally, the insertion of “name” accords with the general tendency within LXX Isaiah to give greater prominence to the name-theology. In Matthew who has taken over the reading of v. 4b from the LXX, the name of the servant in which the Gentiles hope points forward to Jesus’ final commissioning of his disciples to baptize in the name of the triune God. Throughout the Gospel as a whole, the name of Jesus carries great significance as an indicator of divine presence, authority, and salvation. The task of promoting justice forms a parallel to that of being a covenant and a light and of opening eyes and releasing prisoners. In vv. 6b–7, the servant is given as “a covenant to the people.” It is debated whether ‫“( עָם‬people”) refers to Israel or to peoples in general. The LXX has γένος (“race”), pointing either to Israel as elsewhere in LXX Isaiah or to humankind, that is, humanity. The similar phrase in Isa 49:8 is rendered as “a covenant to nations” (διαθήκη ἐθνῶν), suggesting that a universal understanding of the phrase is present already inside LXX Isaiah. The servant is also given as “a light to the nations” which means that he will serve as the medium through which the nations will experience light and guidance. This happens by means of the recovery of sight and release from (spiritual) captivity. The LXX’s choice of ἀνοίγω (“to open”) for ‫“( פקח‬to open”) establishes more intertextual connections within Isaiah as a whole, for instance, by linking the opening of eyes to God’s provision of fertility to the dry areas. In the New Testament reception, the task of being a light to the world is applied to Jesus and to his disciples in their mission towards the nations. In contrast to the futile counselors and idols, the servant is presented as the true mediator between God and the nations: he will bring forth justice to them and they await or hope for his teaching or name. Interestingly, in contrast to the MT, the literary context in LXX Isaiah reveals a rather positive attitude towards the nations and their rulers as they will witness the establishing of divine peace. Nevertheless, in all versions of Isa 42:1–9, it remains unclear whether the servant’s mediation of God’s will include distinctive missionary activity. This is the topic of the next section.

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

It is uncertain whether the intermediary function of the servant towards the nations involves an inward or outward movement. Are the nations seen as coming and seeking the servant, or is the servant seen as going out to the nations? Especially the statement in v. 4b that the coastlands wait for his torah could indicate that they await his arrival at the remote regions. The role as “a light to the nations,” however, can apply to both: either as a lighthouse

198

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

drawing nations to itself, or as a torch moving out to the world. In classical missiological terms, the question remains whether the movement is centripetal, that is, nations moving toward the servant as a stationary witness, or centrifugal, that is, the servant moving out as a mobile witness. The analysis will look at the view of the nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts, especially the passages which depict the inclusion of foreigners into the salvific realm of God. This is done to shed further light on the mediating role of the servant in Isa 42:1–9. I. The Nations in Isaiah The nations constitute an important theme in Isaiah.1 The frame of the final form of the book indicates a universal perspective (2:2–4; 66:18–24). There are, however, serious tensions between “positive” and “negative” passages concerning the fate and destiny of the nations within the book as a whole.2 The nations serve a handful of different functions. They appear as enemies (Isa 5), as untrustworthy allies (Isa 7–10; 28–33), and as the object of divine judgment, prominently expressed in the long series of oracles against the foreign nations (Isa 13–23; 24–27; 34). Especially in Isa 40–55, the view on the nations is multivalent. They are both adversaries of Israel (e.g. 41:1–7, 11–13; 51:22–23) and its subordinates (e.g. 45:14; 49:7, 22–23; 54:4–5). The nations are expected to see the actions of YHWH and respond to them in praise (e.g. 40:5; 42:10–12). And, as we will see, a series of passages illustrates that the nations will enjoy the benefits of divine salvation (42:1–9; 45:22–25; 49:1–6; 51:4–6; 55:3–5). Scholars are divided as to whether Isa 40–55 in general exposes a universalistic or nationalistic attitude towards the nations. 3 On the one hand, the traditional view holds that Isa 40–55 reveals a profoundly universalistic con-

1

For general introductions to Isaiah and the nations, see Davies, Destiny; Martens, Impulses; Oswalt, Nations; Schultz, Universalism; Ware, Mission, 57–91. 2 Davies, Destiny, 95. At least six distinct perspectives have been identified; cf. Schultz, Universalism, 123: “the nations as agents of God’s judgment, as objects of divine wrath and judgment, as recipients of unmediated divine blessing and election, as witnesses to God’s salvific and punitive actions, as facilitators and servants following Israel’s postexilic restoration to Jerusalem, and as participants in the salvation and worship of the one true God mediated through and alongside Israel.” 3 According to Childs, Isaiah, 392–393 (commenting on Isa 49:14–26), this is a misleading polarity: “If the prophet is addressing the scope of God’s salvific will toward his creation, the free inclusion of the nations is an integral part of the prophet’s message. However, if the issue turns on rival claims of power and authority exercised by the mighty and powerful rulers of the world, then the harshest possible rejection of their pretensions is made. Yahweh alone is Lord and Redeemer, who tolerates no rival either on heaven or earth.”

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

199

cern for the salvation of the nations.4 On the other hand, there is a continual challenge to this view which contends that Isa 40–55 reflects “an essentially nationalistic prophet.”5 According to this interpretation, the primary focus of these chapters is the redemption of Israel and its exaltation at the head of the nations. The nations are thus hardly seen to serve a role other than that of subservience. This apparent tension between universalistic and nationalistic views has called forth a number of scholarly solutions which draw on redaction criticism to eliminate or radically rework either the nationalistic or universalistic passages.6 Another dubious move is to redefine the meaning of the central terms, for instance, by regarding “the nations,” “the coastlands,” and “the ends of the earth” as geographical realms where the scattered Israelites of the Diaspora dwell.7 Two alternative approaches to the problem have been offered by van Winkle and Schultz. Van Winkle combines the concept of the nations’ salvation with that of their submission to Israel as God’s agent of salvation. Accordingly, the salvation of the nations does not preclude their submission to Israel. The prophet … expects that Israel will be exalted, and that she will become Yahweh’s agent who will rule the nations in such a way that justice is established and mercy shown. This rule is both that for which the nations wait expectantly and that to which they must submit.8

Considering the role of agency, one must admit that 42:1–9 and 55:3–5 strongly support the idea that YHWH’s salvation is mediated to the nations only by means of his chosen instrument (see below). Acknowledging the apparent tensions between nationalistic and universalistic emphases, Schultz nevertheless concludes that in Isaiah as a whole “a consistent pattern emerges that Israel’s punishment and exile as well as its restoration and salvation as God’s elect people both involve and ultimately transform the nations.”9 In other words, the universal offer of salvation to the nations only unfolds gradually within the overall composition and is not present in every section of the book. 10 Like van Winkle, Schultz argues that 4

See e.g. North, Isaiah 40–55; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66. See especially Snaith, Isaiah 40–66, 154–165 (“The Nationalist”); Servant. 6 For a review of the classical scholarly positions, see Grisanti, Nations; Schultz, Universalism, 124–126; van Winkle, Relationship, 446–447; Watts, Echoes, 482–483. 7 See Croatto, Salvific Oracles; cf. Hollenberg, Nationalism. A clear weakness of Croatto’s analysis is that it only includes Isa 2:2–5; 41:8–9; 43:5–6; 45:20–22; 49:22–26; 60–62; 66:18–21. It only treats 49:1–13 very briefly (18 lines) and does not refer to 42:1–9; 51:4– 6; 56:1–8 at all. 8 Van Winkle, Relationship, 457; cf. Watts, Echoes, 506: “salvation … was to be found in Yahweh alone and thus mediated through submission to his chosen and now restored agent, Israel, as his people enjoy the blessings promised to David.” 9 Schultz, Universalism, 142–143. 10 Schultz, Universalism, 127. 5

200

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

Israel as YHWH’s elected people is the primary, however not exclusive, means by which to extend salvation to the world. Although recognizing the various views on the nations in Isaiah, the following analysis will focus on those passages which as 42:1–9 expose a positive attitude towards foreigners, including their participation in the worship of YHWH and their reception of divine blessing. The survey is based upon the MT, but will occasionally refer to the variants in the LXX. Yet an exhaustive analysis of Isaiah and the nations according to both the Hebrew and Greek versions lies outside the scope of the present study.11 According to Ware, the Greek translator consistently provides a close rendering of the Hebrew text in the passages which show an interest in the conversion of the nations. This could indicate that “the translator found such passages congenial.”12 However, our own findings regarding Isa 41:1–42:12 have demonstrated the complexity at stake in approaching the relationship between the Hebrew and Greek versions. Ware’s overall assumption should therefore be treated with great caution. The first passage of relevance is Isa 2:2–4. The perspective here is thoroughly eschatological (“in days to come;” ‫ )בְּאַח ֲִרית ַהיּ ָ ִמים‬and the scope is universal. “All the nations” (‫ )כָּל־הַגּוֹי ִם‬and “many peoples” (‫ ) ַע ִמּים ַרבִּים‬will stream to YHWH’s mountain raised above the hills, to the house of Jacob’s God, to glorify Zion. Divine teaching and guidance form the center of the passage: torah and the word of YHWH will go forth from Zion. It will become a place of worldwide worship and peace. No one learns war anymore. YHWH shall judge (‫ )שׁפט‬between the nations and the many peoples. Common features between this passage and Isa 42:1–9 are a series of key terms and the idea that the nations are longing for the torah and divine guidance. Among the prominent differences are the ideas that the nations according to 2:2–4 stream to Zion rather than to remain at their remote places and that YHWH himself serves as judge (cf. Ps 47; 96; 98) without any indications of a human agent (cf. 42:1–9). Isa 2:2–4 is followed by an exhortation to the house of Jacob to walk in the “light of YHWH” (‫ )אוֹר י ְהוָה‬which provides a parallel to the motif of light in 42:7. The next passage is Isa 11:1–16. Following the marvelous portrait of the new Davidic ruler and his righteous messianic reign in vv. 1–9, the perspective in vv. 10–12 is expanded to embrace the foreign nations. The scope is again clearly universal and eschatological (“on that day;” ‫)בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא‬. The future ruler – or perhaps the remnant of Israel as the new messianic society13 11 See Ware, Mission, 94–101. For a useful list of specialized studies of the LXX and the nations in Isaiah (until 2005), see Ware, Mission, 97–98, note 11. 12 Ware, Mission, 97. 13 Childs, Isaiah, 105–106. Whereas the “shoot” in 11:1 designates the Davidic Messiah, the “root of Jesse” in 11:10 constitutes a reinterpretation: “the root of Jesse, which

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

201

– who reigns on the holy mountain (cf. 2:2–4) will stand as a “signal to the peoples” (‫)נֵס ַע ִמּים‬. He will be sought by the “nations” (‫ )גּוֹי ִם‬who apparently seek and consult him as a source of guidance for their own benefit.14 The LXX offers a variant reading according to which the messianic figure is “one who stands up to rule the nations” (ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν; cf. 9:6[7]) and the relationship between him and the nations has been intensified, insofar as the nations shall “hope” (ἐλπιοῦσιν) in him (cf. LXX Isa 42:4; see chapter 5). In v. 12, YHWH will furthermore raise “a signal to the peoples” (‫)נֵס לַגּוֹי ִם‬ to gather them along with the scattered Israelites. As in 42:1–9, the object of the nations’ desire – whether mediated through an individual (Messiah) or a collective (Israel) – appears to be guidance (cf. torah in 42:4). Especially the expressions “a signal to the peoples” and “a light to the nations” offer an important point of contact between 11:10–12 and 42:1–9. As in 2:2–4, however, the nations in 11:10–12 are not thought to remain in their respective places. Among the oracles of worldwide judgment in Isa 13–27, a series of smaller passages render a rather positive view on the nations: the foreigners assist the Israelites in their return (14:1–2) 15 and they recognize YHWH’s rule by bringing him gifts and paying him tribute (18:7; 23:15b–18). 19:18–25 illustrates the manner in which worship of YHWH will spread in Egypt. The perspective is again eschatological (“in that day;” ‫ )בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא‬and universalistic. Five cities in Egypt, even the city of the Egyptian sun god, will speak “the language of Canaan” and worship YHWH. He will answer their cry for deliverance and reveal himself to them. A highway will be established to make the assembling of nations possible (cf. 2:2–4; 11:10). Rather surprisingly, YHWH’s blessing is explicitly extended to include Assyria and Egypt, that is, the arch-enemies of Israel.16 A possible link between 19:18–25 and 42:1–9 is provided by YHWH’s response to the Egyptian’s cry for help by the sending owes its life to the new life from the shoot, now represents the remnant of Israel, the new messianic society, which participates in the new age of salvation and peace.” The effects of this interpretation of v. 10 are that both Messiah and his society are thought to be sought by the nations (cf. 2:2–4; 4:2–6) and that the descriptions of the messianic rule in vv. 1–9 and of the restoration of the remnant of Israel in vv. 11–16 are being closer related. 14 Schultz, Universalism, 132–133. 15 The LXX has ὁ γιώρας (“resident alien”) for ‫“( ַהגֵּר‬alien, stranger”) in v. 1 and a substantial difference appears in v. 2 where the “nations” (ἔθνη) rather than “the house of Israel” (‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ ‫“ )בֵּית־י‬will obtain an inheritance” (κατακληρονομήσουσιν) and will be multiplied on the land of God for male and female slaves. 16 LXX Isa 19:18–25 reveals many divergences compared to the MT, including the final statement: “Blessed be my people that are in Egypt and among the Assyrians, even Israel my heritage” (εὐλογημένος ὁ λαός μου ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ὁ ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ ἡ κληρονομία μου Ισραηλ) in contrast to MT’s “Blessed by Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage” (‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ ‫שׂה י ָ ַדי ַאשּׁוּר ְונַ ֲח ָל ִתי י‬ ֵ ‫ ;)בָּרוְּך ַע ִמּי ִמצ ְַרי ִם וּ ַמ ֲע‬see further in Ngunga, Messianism, 127–145; van der Kooij, Isaiah 19:16–25.

202

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

of a “savior” (‫שׁי ַע‬ ִ ‫ ;מוֹ‬the LXX has ἄνθρωπος [“man”]) to defend and deliver them (19:20). Likewise, in the following passage, the fearful cry of escape of the “inhabitants of this coastland” (‫שׁב ָה ִאי ַהזּ ֶה‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ;י‬20:6) points forward to the distant nations who are helpless before YHWH’s sovereignty (41:5) and await the torah that his servant brings (42:4).17 The great banquet in 25:6–8 also occurs within an eschatological context (cf. ‫ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא‬in 24:21 and 25:9). “All peoples” (‫)כּ ֹל־ ָה ַע ִמּים‬, presumably the survivors of the great destruction, are invited to participate in the celebration of the new order of YHWH’s rule on his mountain (cf. 2:2–4; 11:10). YHWH will destroy the mourning shroud which has covered “all peoples” (‫)כּ ֹל־ ָה ַע ִמּים‬ and “all nations” (‫ )כּ ֹל־הָגּוֹי ִם‬and he will put an end to sorrow and death.18 The focus, however, is also on “his people” (‫ )עַמּוֹ‬whose disgrace will be taken away. Any clear links to 42:1–9 apart from the positive tone are difficult to detect. Nevertheless, the hope of a radical new world order – the abolition of sorrow and death – indeed points forward to the final portrait of YHWH’s making of new heavens and a new earth (Isa 65–66). Isa 45:22–25 describes the worldwide recognition of YHWH and his purpose to save both Israel and the nations. A universal invitation sounds to “all the ends of the earth” (‫ֵי־אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ )כָּל־אַ ְפס‬to turn to YHWH. The worldwide return to him is in the end assured by the divine word itself which states that the whole world (“every knee,” “every tongue”) shall be gathered in the worship of YHWH, because only in him are righteousness and strength.19 This universalistic perspective signalizes a change within divine economy: “The old division between Israel and the nations has been forced to give way before the salvation that God has both promised and achieved. A new world order of righteousness has emerged. The old is passing; the new age is dawning.”20 It is thereby indicated that the people of God – “the offspring of Israel” – are no longer defined in terms of ethnic, national, or geographic affiliation, but in terms of having faith in God as one’s righteousness and strength. Isa 49:1–6 explicitly continues the tone and content of Isa 42:1–9 by addressing the “coastlands” (‫ ) ִאיּ ִים‬and the “peoples from far away” (‫) ֻא ִמּים ֵמ ָרחוֹק‬. 17

In the LXX, “those who dwell in this island” (οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ταύτῃ) in v. 6 are apparently identified with Egypt (or Alexandria; cf. note in LXX.D) who in v. 5 is set in contrast to Ethiopia: “And the Egyptians, having been defeated, shall be ashamed because of the Ethiopians, in whom the Egyptians had trusted, for they were their glory” (καὶ αἰσχυνθήσονται ἡττηθέντες οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι ἐπὶ τοῖς Αἰθίοψιν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἦσαν πεποιθότες οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι ἦσαν γὰρ αὐτοῖς δόξα). 18 The LXX version of this passage is markedly different. The nations are cast as plunderers and death eventually swallows them up; see LXX.D Erläuterungen II, 2568. 19 Paul cites Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:10–11, stating that every knee shall bend at the name of Jesus and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. 20 Childs, Isaiah, 355–356.

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

203

An essential part of the mission of this prophetic servant-figure (see further below) is to spread YHWH’s salvation to a worldwide audience. Rather than solely being responsible for the restoration of Israel, the servant shall serve as “a light to the nations” so that divine salvation may reach to the “end of the earth” (‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ ; ְקצֵה ה‬cf. 45:22).21 51:4–6 reaffirms YHWH’s salvific purpose for all nations. Addressing his people, YHWH states that torah goes out from him (cf. 2:2–4) and that divine justice (“my justice;” ‫שׁ ָפּטִי‬ ְ ‫ ) ִמ‬will function as “a light to the peoples” ( ‫אוֹר‬ ‫)ע ִמּים‬. YHWH’s deliverance nears and his arms will rule (‫ )שׁפט‬the peoples (‫)ע ִמּים‬.22 Yet the foreign nations look forward to this intervention, insofar as the “coastlands” (‫ ) ִאיּ ִים‬eagerly wait (‫ )קוה‬for him and hope (‫ )יחל‬for his arm. The nations welcome YHWH’s rule which brings them salvation and it is thereby significant that the expressions torah, ‫שׁ ָפּ ִט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬and ‫ אוֹר‬have clear positive connotations from their point of view.23 In the light of the coming worldjudgment, YHWH’s salvation will continue forever. As was previously noticed, 42:1–9 and 51:4–6 share a number of key terms. In contrast to 42:1–9, however, 51:4–6 envisages that YHWH himself will intervene and bring forth justice, unless the “arm” is seen as an agent independent of him. 55:1–5 likewise addresses the people of YHWH (notice the plural form of the verbs in vv. 2–3) who are invited to come and receive life and divine guidance. They are now to listen in order to enter into an everlasting covenant with YHWH. What is remarkable here is that YHWH’s enduring covenant with David is now explicitly transferred to a collective entity.24 The role of the king as the mediator of divine blessing is transposed to a collective. Accordingly, David’s true role as a “witness to the peoples” (‫ )עֵד ְלאוּ ִמּים‬to YHWH’s actions (cf. Ps 89:6–7) is now transferred to the people who will bear witness to YHWH’s sovereignty among the nations. 25 Especially v. 5 signalizes this universal tone. YHWH’s faithful people will call nations that they do not know and the nations will come to them (cf. 2:2–4; 11:10). It is interesting that a shared feature between 42:1–9 and 55:1–5 is the idea that an earthly agent stands in a mediating position between YHWH and the nations 21

In the LXX, these two tasks are closer associated. It is a “great thing” to be called servant to gather the dispersion of Israel and to be salvation for the world. Notice also that “a covenant to the people” (‫ ) ְבּ ִרית עָם‬in 49:8 is rendered as “a covenant to nations” (διαθήκη ἐθνῶν), emphasizing the universal perspective; see Ekblad, Servant Poems, 81– 124; Ware, Mission, 104–105. 22 As was observed in chapter 5, the LXX here reads “the nations will hope in my arm” (εἰς τὸν βραχίονά μου ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν) in contrast to the MT’s “my arms will rule the peoples” (‫שׁפּ ֹטוּ‬ ְ ִ ‫)ז ְרֹעַי ַע ִמּים י‬. 23 Van Winkle, Relationship, 448. 24 See the extensive elaboration of this interpretation in Williamson, Variations, 116– 129. 25 Childs, Isaiah, 435.

204

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

(see below). The role as a mediator becomes even more apparent in LXX Isa 55:5, in which “the nations … shall flee to you for refuge” (λαοί … ἐπὶ σὲ καταφεύξονται). In other instances the term καταφεύγω (“flee”) translates the act of joining oneself to YHWH (cf. LXX Zech 2:15; Jer 2:15) which could indicate the motif of the nations’ active conversion to YHWH.26 56:1–8 continues the theme of salvation expanded to all who seek YHWH. This passage has been referred to as “the most dramatic universalistic text” in Isaiah. 27 Divine blessing now includes “the foreigner joined to YHWH” (‫)בֶּן־ ַהנֵּכָר ַהנִּ ְלוָה ֶאל־י ְהוָה‬. As in 45:22–25, individual conversion to YHWH and the keeping of his demands (Sabbath and covenant) rather than ethnicity serve as the proper precondition for entering his temple. 28 Foreigners will belong with the servants of YHWH (LXX adds δούλας [“female slaves”]) and they will be brought to YHWH’s mountain (cf. 2:2–4; 11:10) on which his house shall be known as “a house of prayer for all peoples” ( ... ‫בֵּית־תְּ ִפלָּה‬ ‫) ְלכָל־ ָה ַע ִמּים‬.29 The final verse emphasizes the universal perspective: as YHWH gathered the scattered Israelites, he will now gather and add still others to their number. The nations play a dominant role in Isa 60–62 as they contribute to the glorification of Zion. Zion will receive light and glory from YHWH and the nations will stream to the city to see its light and vindication (60:1–3, 19–20; 62:1–2). Throughout these chapters, however, the nations appear largely as subservient to Zion (cf. e.g. 14:1–2; 49:22–23). They shall carry wealth to Zion to glorify the restored city and accompany the scattered Israelites returning from the Diaspora. The nations’ kings will be subjected to the inhabitants of Zion and those who refuse to serve will perish. Finally, the inhabitants are admonished to lift up “an ensign over the peoples” (‫ ;נֵס עַל־ ָה ַע ִמּים‬62:10; cf. 49:22) to await the coming of the salvation of Zion. The gathering of the nations resonates with 2:2–4 and 11:10, especially regarding the concept of a

26

Cf. Ware, Mission, 99–100. The term occurs in LXX Isa 54:15 which is completely different compared to its Hebrew equivalent. God speaks about restored Zion: “See, guests shall approach you through me and flee to you for refuge” (ἰδοὺ προσήλυτοι προσελεύσονταί σοι δι᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ σὲ καταφεύξονται); cf. the MT’s “If anyone stirs up strife, it is not from me; whoever stirs up strife with you shall fall because of you” ( ‫הֵן גּוֹר‬ ‫)יָגִוּר ֶאפֶס ֵמאוֹ ִתי ִמי־גָר ִא ָתְּך ָע ַלי ְִך י ִפּוֹל‬. 27 Schultz, Universalism, 140. 28 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 314; cf. Williamson, Variations, 197: “It is thus difficult to see any distinction in this writer’s thought between the status of faithful Israelites and faithful foreigners; the terms of membership of the new community have been completely recast.” 29 The phrase occurs in Mark 11:17 where Jesus refers to the ideal role of the temple as “a house of prayer for all nations.” Matthew and Luke, however, omit “for all nations” (cf. Matt 21:13; Luke 19:46).

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

205

sign to the nations. The motif of light likewise resonates with the messianic figure in 8:23–9:1 and the servant figure in 42:1–9 and 49:1–6.30 66:18–24, which along with 56:1–8 frames Isa 56–66, ends in a similar tone.31 The passage is again highly eschatological and, according to Childs, offers “a succinct summary of eschatological themes that occur throughout the entire book of Isaiah.”32 YHWH will gather “all the nations and tongues” (‫ )כָּל־הַגּוֹי ִם ְו ַהלְּשׁ ֹנוֹת‬and they shall come and see his glory (cf. 2:2–4; 60:1–3). He will set a sign (‫ )אוֹת‬among them (cf. 11:10; 62:10). Survivors will be sent as a witness to the “coastlands far away” (‫ ) ָה ִאיּ ִים ה ְָרח ֹ ִקים‬who have not heard about YHWH’s fame (or name!)33 and glory and they will proclaim it, that is, do missionary work, “among the nations” (‫)בַּגּוֹי ִם‬. This activity will provoke a return of the Diaspora to YHWH’s mountain and representatives of the foreigners will serve in the temple as priests and Levites (cf. 56:6–7). “All flesh” will come to worship before YHWH. Even into the eschaton, however, the division between the faithful and the wicked is maintained, as the final verse informs us (see below). Nevertheless, 66:18–24 as a whole clearly suggests the inclusion of foreigners into God’s salvific reign. That the passage follows immediately after the definitive judgment of “all flesh” (66:15–17) furthermore implies that “all those who survive are, ipso facto, righteous or faithful, so that there is no longer any point in drawing a distinction between the faithful and the apostates within each single community.”34 Isa 42:1–9 and 66:18– 24 share a bulk of terms (e.g. nations, coastlands, glory) and the notion of someone who is sent out to proclaim YHWH’s glory offers an important parallel to the concept of agency (cf. 49:1–6; 55:1–5). II. The Nations in Matthew and Luke-Acts Not surprisingly, the mission among the nations constitutes an influential theme in the New Testament. Recurrent issues concern the redefinition of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles (e.g. Gal 3:26–29) and the ingathering of the nations into the kingdom of Christ. According to the Gospels’ portraits, Jesus himself challenged and exceeded the traditional boundaries within ancient Judaism and as a wandering missionary spread the gospel to distant regions, providing an example to his followers. Concerning the view on the nations in general, a case similar to that of Isaiah seems to be at stake, because both positive and negative statements can be detected. 30

Clements, A Light, 193–197. See the analysis of LXX Isa 66 in Baer, When We All, 231–276, who argues that the rendering in the LXX reflects a nationalistic perspective of the Diaspora. 32 Childs, Isaiah, 542. 33 Whereas the MT reads ‫שׁ ְמעִי‬ ִ (“my fame”), the LXX reads μου τὸ ὄνομα (“my name”) and thereby offers another witness to the increasing importance of God’s name in the LXX. 34 Williamson, Variations, 200; emphasis original. 31

206

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

Juxtaposed with the long list of positive statements are references of a more hostile nature. In the Synoptic Gospels, for instance, Jesus will be handed over to the nations (Matt 20:19; Mark 10:33; Luke 18:32; cf. Acts 21:11), the Gentiles are presented as an example of wrong behavior (Matt 6:32; Luke 12:30), the authority of the disciples of Jesus is set in contrast to that of the rulers of the Gentiles (Matt 20:25; Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25), and the disciples will encounter hatred by all nations because of Jesus’ name (Matt 24:9). Jesus will judge all the nations when they are gathered before his throne (Matt 25:32) and the nations will rebel against God (Luke 21:24; Acts 4:25–27; cf. Ps 2). Especially in Revelation, the nations are seen as enemies of God (e.g. 11:2; 19:15); yet in the concluding vision, the nations will walk by the light of the New Jerusalem and the tree of life will serve as “the healing of the nations” (Rev 21–22). As in the examination of Isaiah, the brief survey here will look primarily at those passages which portray the nations in a positive light. The focus is on Matthew and Luke-Acts which, as we have seen, are the main witnesses to the reception of Isa 42:1–9 in the New Testament. In Matthew we have already seen that the citation from Isa 42:1–4 in Matt 12:18–21 adumbrates the final commissioning of the disciples to go out and “make disciples of all nations” (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) in 28:18–20.35 This concluding passage represents the culmination of Matthew’s portrait of the nations and of Gentile mission. The risen Christ who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (cf. Phil 2:10; Col 1:15–17) sends his disciples on a mission to the nations: universal mission thus arises from universal authority. 36 Christ is not only lord of his church, but indeed of the entire world. Whereas the earthly Jesus restricted the mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:5–6, 23; 15:24), the risen Christ now extends the perspective to embrace those outside Israel as well. The commissioning contains a double task: baptism in the name of the triune God and teaching of Christ’s commands (cf. torah in MT Isa 42:4?). As was observed, Jesus designates his followers as “a light of the world” already in 5:14–16 and the subsequent notion of a city build on a hill may draw on Isaianic imagery (cf. Isa 2:2–4; 60:1–3). Their light shall shine upon others, so that they may see their good 35

For recent studies of Matthew and the nations, see Carter, Gentiles; Olmstead, Parables, 71–97; Smillie, Dogs. 36 Olmstead, Parables, 72. This is also apparent in the addition to the Gospel of Mark. Jesus who has been raised from the dead commands his disciples to go “into all the world” (εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα) and proclaim the gospel “to the whole creation” (πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει; 16:15). The final verse states that they went out and proclaimed the gospel everywhere “while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it” (16:20). In other words, because Jesus who now sits at the right hand of God receives universal power, the proclamation of the gospel is expanded to all creation. Jesus, however, will remain present and confirm the mission handed over to his disciples.

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

207

works and give glory to God.37 In both cases the disciples are seen as the means by which to expand God’s salvation to a worldwide audience. The overall framework of Matthew suggests a transmission from a particular Jewish perspective to a universal one. In 1:21, Jesus receives his name, because he will save his people, that is, Israel, from their sins. The association with Emmanuel (“God with us”) likewise points to a national concern (cf. 10:5). However, according to Hübner, the theological intention of Matthew is that “der Messias nicht Messias Israels bleibt” and that “das Volk Gottes nicht das Volk Israels bleibt.”38 In 28:18–20, the significance of salvation in the name of God is expanded to include the peoples. A characteristic feature in Matthew is “die Umwertung aller Werte” which implies that judgment is pronounced on Israel and blessing is extended to the nations: “Weil Israel sein Heil verspielt hat, erlangen heidnische Völker das Heil.”39 This movement or revaluation has ecclesiological consequences as well: “Das Volk Jahwähs, der ‫ ְקהַל י ְהוָה‬, wird zur ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ.”40 Furthermore, Olmstead has demonstrated that the themes of the nations and of Gentile mission form a sub-plot in Matthew, insofar as a series of references throughout the Gospel exposes a rather favorable characterization of the Gentiles.41 Jesus is called “son of Abraham” (1:1) and is thereby associated with the divine promise that the nations of the world will find blessing through the descendants of Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1–3).42 According to 4:15– 16, Jesus begins his public mission in Capernaum which is seen to reflect the words of Isa 8:23–9:1 about “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν) where he likewise ends his mission (cf. 28:16–20) and the reference to a light dawned for those who sit “in the region (of death)” (ἐν χώρᾳ) could likely include the Gentiles.43 We encounter three positive portraits of Gentile characters who represent those from among the nations who participate in God’s salvation: the foreign Magi come to bow down before Jesus (2:1–12), the centurion’s cry for help reveals a faith not found in Israel (8:5–13), and great 37

The role as a light or witness to the world has a possible parallel in the main concern of 1 Peter. Despite the experience of persecution, the community is admonished to live as the servants of God (θεοῦ δοῦλοι) and to honor the earthly institutions; cf. 1 Pet 2:12: “Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles (ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς; cf. Isa 10:3).” 38 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 102. 39 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 103. 40 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 103. 41 Olmstead, Parables, 73–88. 42 Cf. Carter, Gentiles, 263: “Linking Jesus with Abraham from the outset establishes Jesus as an agent of the divine purposes not just to convert individual Gentiles, but to bless all the nations of the world.” 43 Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 105.

208

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

is likewise the faith of the Canaanite woman (15:21–28). A clear element in the apocalyptic vision of Matt 24 is that the gospel of the kingdom which Jesus has preached shall be proclaimed “throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations” (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; v. 14; cf. 26:13).44 Finally, the confession of the gentile centurion and his unit points forward to the inclusion of Gentiles (27:54; cf. Mark 15:39). References to the nations’ inclusion in God’s salvific plan frame the Gospel of Luke.45 In the prologue in Luke 1–2, Simeon confesses that he has seen God’s salvation which has been prepared “in the presence of all peoples” (κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν) and that this salvation is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν) and for glory of his people Israel (2:29–32). John the Baptist proclaims, with the words from Isaiah, that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ; 3:6; cf. Isa 40:5) and, unlike Matthew, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam which signalizes a universal perspective (3:38). The appearance of Jesus in the synagogue of Nazareth (4:16–30) introduces the recurrent theme of the Jews’ rejection of him and the mention of the actions of Elijah and Elisha among foreigners (vv. 25–27) alludes to the future inclusion of the Gentiles.46 At the very end of the Gospel, the risen Jesus instructs his disciples on Easter Sunday to carry his message to the nations. According to the scriptures in Luke’s reception, Christ is not only to suffer and to rise from the dead, but “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations (εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), beginning from Jerusalem” (24:46–47). It is important to notice that Luke apparently traces the warrant for the mission among the Gentiles back to the Old Testament itself. It is furthermore interesting that the missionary task of the disciples, unlike in Matthew, is formulated in terms of testimony: “you are witnesses of these things” (ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες τούτων; 24:48). 47 As we have seen, the role of the people of YHWH as a witness to his salvific actions is a central feature in Isaiah (55:3– 5; cf. 43:8–13; 44:6–8; see below). The duty to give witness to the risen Christ along with the promised spirit points forward to the events in Acts. The opening chapter of Acts picks up the thread of Luke. According to 1:8, Jesus (re)addresses his disciples, promising them the divine spirit and sending them out as his “witnesses” (μάρτυρες) in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and

44

Cf. Mark 13:10: “And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations (εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη).” 45 For studies of Luke-Acts and the nations, see e.g. Meek, Gentile Mission; Pao, Isaianic New Exodus; Wilson, Gentile Mission. 46 Wilson, Gentile Mission, 40–41. 47 Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 243.

B. The Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts

209

“to the ends of the earth” (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς; cf. Isa 49:6). 48 From the outset, the Pentecost event in Acts 2 addresses the pious Jews from all peoples (cf. v. 5). Nevertheless, some hints of a universalistic concern are detectable, including the list of geographical places and the quotation of Joel 3:1–5 with its final statement that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”49 Interestingly, Luke omits the references to Zion and Jerusalem in Joel to emphasize the universal perspective. The disciples continue by means of the Holy Spirit to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ (2:32; 3:15; 5:32). The transmission of perspective from Jews to proselytes/Gentiles is further elaborated in the accounts of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) and of the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10). The latter episode clearly shows that God offers salvation to the Gentiles as well. Peter presents himself as a witness to Christ (10:39, 41) and opens his sermon with the statement that “God shows no partiality, but in every nation (ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει) anyone fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:34–35). The Holy Spirit descends on all who hear the word and Jews accompanying Peter are astonished that “the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles (ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη)” (10:44–45). The following chapter confirms that Gentiles accept the word of God (11:1) and the vision of Peter concerning clean and unclean food annuls by divine authority the distinction between Jew and Gentile (11:5–11; cf. Acts 15).50 Paul plays a crucial role in the overall narrative of Acts. According to the initial account of his call in Acts 9, God has chosen Paul as his instrument (σκεῦος) to bring his name “before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel” (ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ; v. 15).51 As the 48 According to Pao, Isaianic New Exodus, 229, this statement by Jesus offers a fresh answer to his disciples’ question in 1:6 about whether it is the time for the restoration of the kingdom of Israel and implicitly the return of the exiles. As Jesus’ response reveals, “the centripetal return of exiles toward Zion is replaced by the centrifugal diffusion of the word to the world of the Gentiles.” 49 See Pao, Isaianic New Exodus, 230–233. Others, including Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 132, argue that the focus remains on the Diaspora Jews until Acts 10 which initiates the mission among Gentiles. 50 Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie 3, 133: “die partielle, aber immerhin substantielle Aufhebung des am Sinai gegebenen Gesetzes an Israel [geschieht] um der Heidenmission willen;” emphasis original. 51 In his letters, Paul clearly presents himself as one who shall proclaim Christ to the nations (Gal 1:15–16; 2:8–9; cf. Rom 15:16). This commissioning, however, does not only concern himself, but also the Christian community at large as the introductory verses of Romans indicate: through Christ “we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name” (Rom 1:5). Central to Paul is the idea that God’s promise to Abraham of blessing to all nations is made possible through Christ (Rom 4; Gal 3). In him, “the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles” (Gal 3:14). Indeed, salvation has come to Gentiles (Rom 11:11–13) and invokes

210

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

servant of Isa 42:1–9, Paul will serve as God’s agent or instrument to promote God’s name to a larger audience. Paul is also portrayed as God’s “witness to all the world” (μάρτυς … πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους) who will testify what he has experienced (22:15; cf. 26:16). Paul and Barnabas furthermore understand themselves as embodying the call of the servant in Isaiah to be “a light for the Gentiles.” Facing the rejection of the Jews, they will turn to the Gentiles who will praise the word of God (13:46–48; cf. 18:6; 22:21; see chapter 6). This move is successful and Paul and Barnabas can subsequently state that God has opened a door of faith for the Gentiles (14:27). The account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 likewise reveals the success of the Gentile mission. Paul and Barnabas as the agents of God tell about their conversion of Gentiles and about the signs and wonders God has made “through them” (δι’ αὐτῶν; v. 12). In Acts 21, Paul accounts for what God has done among the Gentiles “through his ministry” (διὰ τῆς διακονίας αὐτοῦ; v. 19): Gentiles have become believers. The transfer from Jews to Gentiles is made abundantly clear in the concluding section of Acts: “this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles (τοῖς ἔθνεσιν)” (28:28). In contrast to the Jews who refuse to understand and believe (cf. Isa 6:9–10), the Gentiles will indeed listen. III. Summing Up: the Nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts It is of initial importance that many of the passages in Isaiah which portray the nations in a positive light occur within an explicitly eschatological context (2:2–4; 11:10–12; 19:18–25; 25:6–8; 66:18–24). The expectations of the ingathering of the nations are future-oriented as they look forward to YHWH’s last and decisive intervention by which he will realize his ultimate purpose. It is furthermore striking that in some cases it is YHWH himself who will intervene to establish his reign over the nations (2:2–4; 25:6–8; 45:22–25; 51:4–6). Nevertheless, along with the recurrent image of YHWH as the sole intervener, other passages depict a human agent who mediates between God and the nations, including Messiah/a messianic remnant (11:10), an unknown savior (19:20), the servant figure(s) (42:1–9; 49:1–6), and the faithful witnesses (55:1–5; 66:18–24). A prominent feature of the new rule is the concept of divine guidance which the nations will seek or await (2:3; 11:10; 42:4; 51:4–6; 55:1–5; 56:7– 8). Although the nations occasionally appear as the servants of Israel (14:1–2; 49:22–23; 60–62), many passages suggest that their place within YHWH’s plan is not limited to this function. They will fully take part in the future salvation. Common to most of the passages is that the nations are expected to universal praise (Rom 15:9–12; cf. Isa 42:10–12!). Rom 15:9–12 constitutes a mosaic of Old Testament citations (Deut 32:43; 2 Sam 22:50; Ps 18:50; 117:1; Isa 11:10).

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

211

stream to a center of divine blessing and learning rather than to stay in their remote places. Only 66:18–24 speaks openly about some individuals who as missionaries move out into the world to proclaim the glory of YHWH. However, even the aim of this activity is to initiate the return of the Diaspora to Zion. Isaiah as a whole exposes mainly a centripetal perspective which focuses on the future ingathering of the nations as part of the restoration of Zion and the establishing of YHWH’s eschatological rule. Matthew and Luke-Acts, on the other hand, reveal a centrifugal perspective. Although the call for outward-moving mission is unclear in Matt 5:14– 16, it is certainly the case in the final commissioning of the disciples in Matt 28:18–20. They shall go to the nations and make disciples. In the final chapter of Luke, the mission among all nations is thought to be demanded by scripture itself. The missionary task is presented in terms of testimony. The apostles, Paul, and Barnabas shall give witness to the risen Christ and in this manner spread the gospel to the world. The role of agency is signalized by a handful of terms: Paul has been chosen as God’s instrument (σκεῦος) and God works “through his ministry” (διὰ τῆς διακονίας αὐτοῦ) to the world. Whereas Isaiah provides only meager intertextual parallels for interpreting the servant figure of Isa 42:1–9 as a wandering missionary, Matthew and Luke-Acts offer clear evidence for an outward-looking missionary activity. This is apparently the manner in which they understood and interpreted the words of Isaiah. The strong emphasis on testimony in some Isaianic passages and in Luke-Acts may shed light upon the nature of being “a light to the nations.” Being a light means to be a witness to divine intervention, that is, to YHWH’s eschatological reign or – in the New Testament reception – to the risen Christ.

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

As was stated in chapter 4, one cannot sufficiently interpret a passage from Isaiah without paying careful attention to its placement and function within the book as a whole. What follows here is an attempt to place Isa 42:1–9 within the overall structure of Isaiah, including its relation to the other servant passages. This is done to further illuminate the nature and function of the servant and his task. The sketch draws mainly upon Childs’ interpretation of Isaiah as presented in his commentary. A key element in his approach to the “Servant Songs” is the assumption that they may portray different figures and that they should not (only) be interpreted in light of each other, but rather in light of the larger

212

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

transitions within the book.52 Childs’ initial perception of Isa 42:1–9 that in some way Israel is the servant is affirmed later on in his commentary. Accordingly, to understand the servant as the nation or chosen people in Isa 42:1–9 is – in the light of the preceding identification of Israel as the servant – “the most natural reading.” 53 Nevertheless, as we will see, a significant feature of the servant-concept in Isaiah is that the task basically remains the same, however being reapplied to new figures. The sketch is based alone upon the MT. Providing a holistic reading of LXX Isaiah, including similarities and dissimilarities between the Hebrew and Greek versions, goes far beyond the scope of the present study.54 I. The “Former Things” of Isaiah 1–39 In the context of the whole book, Childs detects a typological framework between the “former things” of Isa 1–39 and the “new things” of Isa 40–66 (cf. chapter 4). Isa 1–12 commences the book with its complex mixture of harsh oracles of judgment and comforting oracles of salvation. Central to these chapters are Israel’s rebellion against YHWH and the announcement of its destruction (e.g. 1:2–31; 2:6–4:1; 5:1–30). The theme of hardening (6:9– 10) which is illustrated by the failure of the people to see, listen, and comprehend occurs for the first time as a mysterious element in YHWH’s plan. Yet juxtaposed with these themes are passages which describe YHWH’s eschatological rule (2:2–4; 4:2–6) and the emerging hope of renewed life for a remnant of righteous (7:14; 8:23–9:6; 11:1–16). Especially Isa 11 appears to unite the various themes revealed in the preceding chapters to present a coherent reading of the entire Isaianic message, while at the same time expanding the messianic vision to include the foreign nations (11:10) as well as creation itself (11:6–9).55 Finally, Isa 12 ends the larger movement of Isa 1– 11 with its sound of praise and points forward to the message of consolation in Isa 40–66. The key function of the oracles against the nations in Isa 13–23 is to witness the ultimate victory of YHWH’s rule. The defeat of Babylon in Isa 13– 14, for instance, serves to illustrate the coming victory of his sovereign rule. At the same time, the proclamation of the fall of Babylon points forward to its fulfillment as it is taken up in the presentation of Cyrus’ victories (e.g. 52 A similar approach to the servant-concept is taken in Beuken, Main Theme; Jeppesen, My Servant, 118–129; Seitz, Servant Songs, 122–134; Sumpter, Substance, 176–182; Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs; Williamson, Variations, of which especially the work of Beuken has been a major source of inspiration for Childs’ interpretation. 53 Childs, Isaiah, 384. 54 For an examination of the theology of the “Servant Songs” in LXX Isaiah, see Ekblad, Servant Poems, 267–290. 55 Childs, Isaiah, 102–104.

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

213

41:25). Juxtaposed within these chapters are passages which render a more positive view on the nations (14:1–2; 18:7; 19:18–25; 23:15b–18). Isa 24–27 expands the judgment against the nations to include the whole cosmos. Yet once again the harsh words of judgment are accompanied by gentle words of future restoration in 25:6–8. Important themes of Isa 1–12 recur in Isa 28–33. YHWH’s judgment directed against arrogant Israel and its leaders (Isa 28–31) is followed by a marvelous vision of peace and coming salvation (Isa 32–33) which in its portrayal of the royal figure establishes connections to the messianic oracles of Isa 9 and 11. Isa 34–35 forms a bridge within the structure of the book as a whole. Isa 34 with its proclamation of the defeat of Edom resumes the theme of judgment (cf. Isa 1–33), whereas Isa 35 with its proclamation of return and restoration points forward to a new beginning after destruction and exile (cf. Isa 36–39; 40–66). As Childs argues, Isa 35 has been placed before the historical episodes of the Assyrian and Babylonian assaults in Isa 36–39 in order to project the divine plan beyond a certain historical period to witness “the final eschatological exaltation of Zion and the entrance into the ultimate joy of the kingdom of God.”56 The subtle allusion to the Babylonian invasion in Isa 39 which occurs after the Assyrian threat and the illness of Hezekiah in Isa 36– 38 provides the context for interpreting “the good news” of divine dispensation and restoration which begin to sound in the following chapter. II. The “New Things” of Isaiah 40–48(66) Isa 40–66 continues within the scene set out by Isa 1–39. The canonical function of the prologue in 40:1–11 is to establish a theological relation between these major parts of the book: “The radical new word of chapter 40 has been announced through a fresh understanding of the earlier Isaianic corpus.”57 Isa 40 takes up the theme of Isa 6 as “a reapplication of Isaiah’s call.” The initial mission of Isaiah of announcing divine judgment and destruction has been completed by the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem (adumbrated in 6:11–13; 39). Nevertheless, “the message of the prologue is that, although the prophetic judgment has been fulfilled, Isaiah’s word of future salvation is now about to be accomplished in the new things.”58 Isa 40 initiates a new era, not of judgment, but of consolation and joy. The prologue thereby presents itself as a realization of the hope for a day of deliverance that sounded already in Isa 12; the iniquity of Israel (cf. 1:4: a “people laden with iniquity” [‫)]עַם ֶכּבֶד עָוֹן‬ has been forgiven (40:2). The themes of transformation and restoration in Isa 35 resound and the revelation of divine presence which in Isa 6 was limited to 56

Childs, Isaiah, 256. Childs, Isaiah, 302. 58 Childs, Isaiah, 296–297. 57

214

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

the prophet Isaiah is now open to all (40:3–5, 9–10). All this is warranted by the steadfastness and faithfulness of God’s word (40:8). Zion is urged to proclaim the joyful advent of YHWH with his reward and recompense (40:9– 11) rather than vengeance and requital (35:4). Isa 40–48 which in general depicts the fate of servant Jacob-Israel reflects this crucial turn in divine economy. A series of literary units unfolds and elaborates God’s plan of transforming the sufferings and complaints of the “old” time into praise and joy of the “new.” Isa 40:12–31 contends that God – by means of his creative power and redemptive concerns – is not only able but indeed willing to save those who have faith in him. The nations remain nothing compared to YHWH. He is entirely incomparable as the polemic against idolatry emphasizes (40:19–20). He controls the cosmos and the course of history, even the celestial bodies respond to his will. Why, then, does Israel complain that its right (‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ) ִמ‬has been disregarded by God (40:27)? Due to the rhetorical arrangement of the passage, Israel’s accusations are already from the preceding statements deemed groundless in the light of YHWH’s redemptive purpose. Indeed, “Israel’s unbelief has not been disregarded, but absorbed within the reality of the everlasting God.” 59 The subsequent questions to Israel – “Have you not known? Have you not heard?” – reflect the majestic presentation of YHWH as creator and redeemer. YHWH’s reality is everywhere present and known. One only needs to listen and look. As in Isa 41, the dispute here is only a rhetorical device, insofar as the sovereign and just plan of God is presupposed and never seriously questioned. 41:1–42:12 focuses on YHWH’s divine uniqueness and sovereignty in history which eventually will become the object of universal worship (cf. chapter 4). It is within the larger context of the book, that is, the movement from the “former things” to the “new things,” that Israel as YHWH’s servant (41:8–16; 42:1–9) and Cyrus (41:2–3, 25) are being introduced as certain means by which YHWH will complete his salvific plan.60 YHWH’s further response to the initial complaint in 40:27 consists of his assurance that he has chosen Israel as his servant (41:8–10). YHWH does not ignore Israel’s right; he has intervened to save his people. And Israel is now commissioned to expand this salvation to include the nations as well (42:1–4, 6–7). The announcement of YHWH’s renewed intervention and guidance in 42:13–17 precedes two larger units (42:18–43:21; 43:22–44:23) which reveal a symmetrical pattern in their proclamation of Israel’s return to YHWH. 42:18–25 and 43:22–28 offer a further response by YHWH to Israel’s initial complaint of being disregarded (40:27). YHWH did not ignore Israel; past judgment and exile were rather the just result of divine will. Israel sinned and 59 60

Childs, Isaiah, 308. Childs, Isaiah, 327.

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

215

caused its own destruction and abandonment. Despite captivity and suffering, however, Israel remained hardened and blind to “the time to come” (cf. 6:9– 10): “The exile did not awaken Israel’s conscience or prepare the ground for a return. Rather a new word, solely from God’s side, wrought the change, opening the way to the future.”61 That Israel’s sinful past is now coming to an end and will be replaced by the promise of salvation is forcefully marked by the expressions “but now” (‫ ) ְועַתָּ ה‬and “fear not” (‫ירא‬ ָ ִ‫ )אַל־תּ‬in 43:1 and 44:1–2: “Only in the light of the full judgmental dimension of the former does the full force of the extended grace emerge in the latter.”62 YHWH enters as Israel’s creator and redeemer (43:1–7; 44:1–5) and Israel will return to him. As his servant Israel will serve as the primary witness to his salvific intervention (43:8–13; 44:6–8). Both literary units conclude in the tone of praise (43:21; 44:23; cf. 42:10–12). 44:24–45:25 announces the sending of Cyrus to redeem Israel by defeating its main oppressor. Following the allusions to him (41:2–3, 25), Cyrus is finally presented by name (44:28; 45:1). Yet Cyrus remains YHWH’s instrument; his success does not stem from himself, but rather from YHWH’s creative power. The appearance of Cyrus is not only part of YHWH’s larger plan of recreation and restoration (44:26b–28), but also the fulfillment of previous promises which were rendered through earlier prophets (44:26a: “his messengers;” cf. Isa 13–14).63 Cyrus’ mission will bring forth the worldwide recognition of YHWH’s sovereignty (45:6; 22–25). A new beginning is set by the fall of Babylon and the humiliation of its ruler in Isa 46–47. Interestingly, the focus of Isa 46 is actually more on the house of Jacob’s response to the events (vv. 3–13) than to the fall itself (vv. 1–2), looking forward to Israel’s failed reaction as the major theme of Isa 48. 48:1 signalizes an abrupt shift from the theme of promised deliverance in the preceding chapters to the theme of Israel’s disobedient response. The style is confrontational. Israel invokes YHWH, but “not in truth or right.” In contrast to 41:1–7 and 41:21–29, the pattern of proof-from-prophecy in 48:14–16a is used not to demonstrate the nothingness of the idols, but to accuse Israel of its unbelief. Despite YHWH’s announcement of the “new things,” that is, deliverance, return, and restoration, Israel maintains its unwillingness to respond properly in obedience and to take part in the promised salvation. Israel has failed as YHWH’s servant by refusing its task as a promoter of justice (42:1–9) and as a witness to the redemptive events which 61

Childs, Isaiah, 334. Childs, Isaiah, 334. 63 Childs, Isaiah, 353. Accordingly, the parallelism between “his servant” (‫ ) ַעבְדּוֹ‬and “his messengers” (‫ ) ַמלְאָכָיו‬in 44:26 indicates that neither the prophet himself, nor Israel, nor the individual servant figure of Isa 49–53 is intended to be the servant here. BHS proposes to emend “his servant” (‫ ) ַע בְדּוֹ‬to “his servants” (‫) ֲע ָב ָדיו‬. 62

216

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

have taken place in full publicity (43:8–13; 44:6–8): “Babylon has fallen, Israel freed, but God’s people still do not grasp their true deliverance.”64 In a word, Israel persists in its failure to comprehend the sovereignty of God and his redemption of the world as revealed by Cyrus’ achievements. The mission of Cyrus, however, is now completed and he disappears from the stage, never to return. Instead a new servant-figure enters the scene in v. 16b. III. The First Major Transition within the Servant-Concept (48:16b) 48:16b marks the first of two crucial transitions within the servant-concept in Isa 40–55. A first-person prophetic voice emerges: “And now the Lord YHWH has sent me and his spirit” (‫שׁ ָל ַחנִי וְרוּחוֹ‬ ְ ‫) ְועַתָּ ה ֲאדֹנָי י ְהוִה‬, clearly taking up the motif of 42:1 of being sent by YHWH and equipped with his divine spirit. Isa 48, however, provides no further indications of the figure’s mission or identity; he remains anonymous. Yet the first-person voice and the phrases “but now” (‫ ) ְועַתָּ ה‬and “the Lord YHWH” (‫ ) ֲאדֹנָי י ְהוִה‬certainly anticipate the voice of 49:1–6 and 50:4–9.65 Within the present arrangement of Isa 48, it is reasonable to interpret YHWH’s speech of renewed spiritual and moral guidance in vv. 17–19 as being conveyed by this new figure, who thereby performs a prophetic role.66 If the oracle in fact is addressed to the servant figure himself,67 the promise of innumerable seed (‫ )ז ֶַרע‬would point forward to the prominent motif in 53:10 (see below). The first-person voice of 48:16b recurs in the servant passage of 49:1–6.68 42:1–9 and 49:1–13 share a bulk of features and the latter is likely “an intentional literary continuation” of the former (cf. chapter 4).69 Considering the larger movement within Isa 40–55, however, much has taken place between those passages. Israel’s has been called as “a light to the nations,” Cyrus has performed his task, and Babylon has fallen. Yet Israel did not return to YHWH. It remains blind. In a word, “the nation Israel … has not performed

64

Childs, Isaiah, 375. Cf. Seitz, Servant Songs, 125–126. 66 Childs, Isaiah, 378. Seitz, Servant Songs, 126 and Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 91–92 argue that the prophetic figure emerging in 48:16b is the prophet who throughout Isa 40–48 had been called to encourage Israel and now finally steps forward. Williamson, Variations, 152 refuses to decide whether the servant of 49:1–6 is an individual or a group. 67 Jeppesen, My Servant, 121. 68 Notice that the transmission of the servant figure occurs along the line of the two major parts of Isa 40–55, that is, 40–48 and 49–55 (cf. chapter 4) and that the seven references to “servant” in Isa 49–53 all occur in Duhm’s “Servant Songs” or in the interpretative additions to the “Songs” (49:3, 5, 6, 7; 50:10; 52:13; 53:12); cf. Wilcox & PatonWilliams, Servant Songs, 84–85. 69 Childs, Isaiah, 382. 65

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

217

its chosen role.”70 Because of the nation’s failure, YHWH sends a new individual personality to take up the mission once given to Israel of addressing the coastlands and the peoples (49:1a; cf. 41:1; 42:4). The presentation of the figure in 49:1–6 is in general that of a prophet. Like Jeremiah, he has been called before he was born, named in his mother’s womb, and his mouth is like a sharp sword (v. 1b–2). A curious phenomenon occurs in 49:3. YHWH addresses the prophet as his servant, as Israel (‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ ‫) ַע ְב ִדּי־ ָאתָּ ה י‬.71 Rather than being rendered as a vocative (“O Israel”) or in apposition, the term here appears as a predicative: “you are my servant; [you are now] Israel.”72 The prophet is designated as Israel: “In place of the corporate nation Israel, which up to this point has always borne the title, ‘my servant’ (41:9; 42:1, 19; 44:1; 45:4), a single figure now carries the title and even office.” 73 This new identity accordingly explains why the portrayals of the servant figure become more individualized from Isa 49 and onward.74 Unlike the nation Israel (40:27), the servant insists on YHWH’s righteousness: “surely my cause/right/justice is with YHWH” (‫שׁ ָפּטִי ֶאת־י ְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ ;אָכֵן ִמ‬49:4).75 Furthermore, the mission of servant has now been enlarged. In 42:1–9 it only concerned the nations (reading ‫ עָם‬as humanity in 42:6); yet in 49:5–6 the mission concerns both Israel (to bring Jacob back and restore its tribes) and the nations (to bring salvation to the end of the earth). The fulfillment of this task will involve resistance and suffering and eventual70

Childs, Isaiah, 385. As was mentioned in chapter 4, this verse has been used to support the collective interpretation of the figure and has along with the servant’s task in v. 5 towards Israel been used to distinguish between two kinds of Israel (e.g. Laato, Servant of YHWH, 108). Others have simply removed it as a gloss reflecting a later redaction’s attempt to identify the servant with Israel (e.g. Duhm, Jesaia, 368; Orlinsky, Servant, 81–89; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 209). Such an emendation, however, has hardly any text-critical support; see the main arguments in Lohfink, Israel; Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 89–91. 72 Cf. Childs, Isaiah, 384, who apparently draws upon Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 92–93. They, however, owe this suggestion to H.G.M. Williamson; cf. his paraphrase of 49:3 in Variations, 151: “He [God] said to me, ‘I now designate you as my servant; I now designate you ‘Israel’, in who I will be glorified.’” 73 Childs, Isaiah, 384; cf. 385: “the old crux of having corporate Israel, the servant, sent to restore Israel the nation receives a fresh interpretation in light of the predicative rendering of the servant Israel in 49:3.” 74 Cf. North, Suffering Servant, 180–181. 75 This resolute remark is preceded by a complaint that the servant has labored in vain and spent his strength for nothing (49:4a). It remains uncertain exactly what this comment refers to. Childs, Isaiah, 384 argues that the complaint is made in response to the apparently failed attempt to provoke an exodus from Babylon to Zion (cf. 48:20–21); Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 92 argue that it is made in response to the failed attempt in Isa 40–48 to encourage the nation Israel to fulfill its call; and Seitz, Servant Songs, 129– 130 argues that it is made in response to Israel’s failed attempt since the days of Abraham to be “a light to the nations” – a complaint, however, quickly to be set aside. 71

218

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

ly death (49:4; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12). According to Childs, this individual figure continues the role and mission originally given to the nation of Israel, however without replacing corporate Israel;76 he is rather to be viewed as a faithful embodiment of the nation Israel … the servant always remains Israel, but Israel is now understood within the dynamic movement of the prophetic history as embodied in a suffering, individual figure who has been divinely commissioned to the selfsame task of the deliverance of the chosen people and the nations at large.77

In short, the task of the nation Israel has been transferred, not away from Israel, but to one who will “incarnate” Israel.78 “When seen in the larger context of the narrative movement within chapters 40–55, there is a clear transfer from Israel, the servant nation, to Israel, the suffering individual who now embodies the nation’s true mission.”79 The subsequent unit in 49:14–50:11 illustrates how the servant’s response in suffering obedience stands in serious contrast to the voice of Zion which repeats the complaint of having been forgotten and questions the ability of YHWH to redeem (49:14, 24; 50:2; cf. 40:27). The voice of the faithful servant resounds in 50:4–9. In contrast to the deafness of disobedient Israel, YHWH has provided him with eloquence and opened his ears so that he can receive instruction and support (cf. 48:17; 49:2). As in 49:4, he is facing resistance and hostility from his opponents which now turn into physical violence, suffering, and humiliation. Yet the servant’s truthful witness to God creates a decisive divide between believers and opponents, that is, between those individuals who embrace the message that he brings and respond to him and those who continue to resist the offer of redemption and taunt him (50:10–11; cf. Isa 56–66). 80 In other words, 50:10–11 presents the call to realize one’s true identity in the encounter with the servant. 81 51:1–52:12 accordingly addresses those faithful within the nation of Israel who have responded to the servant; those who “pursue righteousness” and “seek YHWH” (51:1). 51:4–6 repeats the nature of YHWH’s salvation as it was 76

Cf. Wilcox & Paton-Williams, Servant Songs, 92: “What has been Israel’s mission is now given to the prophet. These verses [Isa 49:1–6] describe the re-commissioning of the prophet, to do what Israel was called to do. … by re-defining his [the prophet’s] mission to include the nations, and by his designations as ‘servant of the LORD’, the prophet has become [the true] Israel.” 77 Childs, Isaiah, 385, 387. 78 Childs, Isaiah, 394. 79 Childs, Isaiah, 395. 80 Cf. Watts, Echoes, 507: “The radical shift in Isaiah 40–55, if one exists at all, concerns not so much the destiny of the nations but instead the destiny of Israel. No longer can Israel assume that Yahweh’s coming to save means salvation for all Israel. And it is this pivotal perspective, a shift from seeing the nation in toto as servant to a remnant of servants within the nation, around which Isaiah 56–66 turns.” 81 Cf. Sumpter, Substance, 180.

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

219

described in 42:1–9. Nevertheless, “the sharp line once separating Israel from the nations has been overcome, and the new people of God emerges as encompassing all those responding in faith to God.”82 52:13–53:12 contains the final statements about the suffering servant, his humiliation, and exaltation. 83 “See, my servant” (‫ ) ִהנֵּה … ַע ְב ִדּי‬in 52:13 is clearly a reminiscence of 42:1. Yet due to the subsequent transmission of the office to the prophetic figure (48:16b; 49:3), the servant is now presented as a suffering individual (49:4; 50:4–9) who divides Israel into two groups (50:10–11). The figure – “he” – remains unidentified. He astonishes nations and kings (52:14–15a). According to Childs, a new group enters in 52:15b, those who are responsible for the “we”-statements in 53:1–6(11). This group – “we” – consists of those who follow and sympathize with the servant and confess that they have finally grasped his role in their salvation; finally, they see, listen, and comprehend “the will of God through their experience with his suffering servant.” 84 Isa 53 makes clear that this faithful group within Israel shall witness what they experience and now grasp and that the suffering and death of the servant was an expression of the divine will, as YHWH himself was active in his affliction (vv. 4, 6, 10): “What occurred was not some unfortunate tragedy of human history but actually formed the center of the divine plan for the redemption of his people and indeed of the world.”85 The innocent servant gives his life to reconcile YHWH and his people and will eventually experience exaltation and reversal of fortune: “He shall see [his] offspring” (‫ ;י ְִר ֶאה ז ֶַרע‬53:10). IV. The Second Major Transition within the Servant-Concept (54:17b) The notion of “offspring” points forward to the second crucial transition within the servant-concept. 86 54:17b, which concludes a minor passage on the righteousness and peace of restored Jerusalem, states: “This is the heritage of the servants of YHWH” (‫)ז ֹאת נַ ֲחלַת ַעבְדֵ י י ְהוָה‬. The verse serves as an important bridge between Isa 49–53 and 56–66. It builds on the promise of Isa 53 that the suffering servant will experience prosperity. Those who have responded 82

Childs, Isaiah, 402. See Høgenhaven, Hvem lider tjeneren for. For an analysis of Childs’ interpretation of Isa 53, see Shepherd, Theological Interpretation, 130–152. 84 Childs, Isaiah, 413; cf. Seitz, Servant Songs, 131: “The servants, the ‘we’ who speak forth from within Israel, pass on a singular report of the profound insight granted them into the life, the mission, the final mistreatment and death, and the vindication of the servant. This suffering and death, they insist, is the means whereby Israel’s servant destiny was most in evidence, most startlingly efficacious in the removal of their sins, and most dramatically the means whereby the nations would come to the light of God’s truth in witnessing the servant’s work and the confession of that work by the servants.” 85 Childs, Isaiah, 415. 86 Beuken, Main Theme, 67–68. 83

220

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

faithfully to his voice (50:10) and confessed to have been redeemed through him (53:1–6) are now “the bearers of the faith in the next generation.”87 The role of being YHWH’s servant is thereby transferred from the obedient individual to a collective who, as a faithful remnant, follows in his foot steps.88 The verse thus forms a natural link to the theme of the servants of YHWH in Isa 56–66. At the same time, the concept of a righteous collective resonates with the promise of a faithful remnant in Isa 1–12. The call in 55:1–5 is then apparently addressed to these “servants of YHWH.” The everlasting covenant which YHWH made with David is now transferred to the servants to serve as witnesses to God (cf. 43:8–13; 44:6–8): “They are to call nations, not previously known, who will respond to this invitation, not because of Israel’s power or intrinsic worth, but because of the glory of God that they now reflect.”89 Significantly, the servants will continue the task directed towards the nations that was originally given to Israel (42:1– 4, 6–7) but eventually transferred to a suffering individual (49:5–6). 56:1–8 continues the theme set out in 54:17b. The focus is to maintain justice in order to await future salvation (v. 1; cf. 51:4–6). As adumbrated in 45:22–25, the proper precondition for belonging to the “servants of YHWH” is no longer defined in terms of ethnicity, but rather in terms of faithful behavior, that is, to keep the Sabbath and hold fast the covenant (v. 6): “the ‘servants’ can include foreigners and outcasts who line themselves with the law of God over against the rebels and sinners within and without Israel who continue to resist his will.”90 Obedience rather than circumcision is demanded to be accepted as servants and to access the “house of prayer for all peoples.” 56:9–59:21 elaborates upon the basic division or polarity within Israel between the righteous and the wicked. Whereas salvation will come to “the servants of YHWH” who are entitled to inherit the land, the wicked will have no peace. 60:1–62:12 portrays the restoration and exaltation of Zion. Of special importance is the “self-presentation” of a servant-like figure in 61:1–11. Following Beuken, Childs assumes that the speaker here embodies the promised offspring of the suffering servant who can be both an individual and a 87

Childs, Isaiah, 430. Cf. Jeppesen, My Servant, 126: “The change from singular to plural turns out to be the way in which the splitting up of the people is accomplished.” 89 Childs, Isaiah, 436. What we encounter is a subtle incorporation of the promise of the Davidic remnant (e.g. 11:1–16) into the vision of YHWH’s salvation that begins to sound in Isa 40. This integration or fusing is completed in Isa 56–66; cf. Childs, Isaiah, 448: “Second Isaiah turned his attention to the role of the servant, through whose suffering and death faithful Israel experienced atonement and confessed to have understood the true nature of divine forgiveness and salvation (chapter 53). An important role of Third Isaiah was in linking the faithful remnant of First Isaiah with the obedient ‘servants’ who followed in the steps of Second Isaiah’s ‘suffering servant.’” 90 Childs, Isaiah, 458. 88

C. Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah

221

collective (cf. 53:10; 54:17b; 56:6). 91 The notion of “spirit” (‫ )רוּ ַח‬and the motif of anointment in 61:1a echo 42:1. The following description of the task in 61:1b–3 repeats central elements of 42:1–9, including the care of the “faint” (v. 3) and release of prisoners (v. 7; cf. 49:9).92 Again, the mission once given to the nation Israel and subsequently transmitted to an individual figure is now being reapplied to a representative of the “servants.” The successive generations of believers will also receive the power of the spirit and continue the task of promoting consolation, enlightenment, and freedom to the oppressed. The final note in 62:12 about “the Holy People” and “the Redeemed of YHWH” points forward to 63:17–18 which identifies the holy people with the “servants.” The servants of YHWH form a major theme in 65:1–66:24. 65:8–16 in which the term “servants” occurs seven times93 unfolds the polarity between the two groups that runs like a red thread through Isa 56–66, that is, those who seek (‫ )דרשׁ‬YHWH in v. 10 and those who forsake (‫ )עזב‬him in v. 11.94 The sharp divide between the faithful servants and the wicked is expressed by means of a juxtaposition of blessing and curse: food and drinks vis-à-vis hunger and thirst, joy and gladness vis-à-vis shame and pain (vv. 13–14). YHWH’s servants will receive a new name (cf. 56:5; 62:2), whereas the name of the wicked will be used as a curse. The servant-theme reappears in 66:7– 14 in which the servants of YHWH as the recipients of divine blessing once again are juxtaposed with the enemies (v. 14). 66:18–24 closes the book with the inclusion of foreigners into the realm of God. Nevertheless, according to the final chapter of Isaiah, evil exists even in the eschaton and there are those who continue to refuse the offer of salvation and thus remain outside the realm of divine salvation. In the end, the relation between the new and old ages, that is, between divine judgment and salvation, is ontological rather than chronological.95 In every age, God’s servants will be under attack from enemies of his will. V. Summing Up: Isaiah 42:1–9 within the Book of Isaiah Within the overall structure of Isaiah, the servant figure of Isa 42:1–9 expresses one of the means by which YHWH will transform the fear of the old era to the praise of the new. Israel is called to be his servant and to mediate his justice to the world. What we thus encounter is a divine vision of the 91

Childs, Isaiah, 503; cf. Beuken, Main Theme, 71–74; Servant and Herald, 415–424. In general, however, the figure of Isa 61 is a composite character picking up and combining several elements from the preceding chapters, for instance, the role of the herald and comforter (cf. 40:2, 9; 41:27; 52:7–10). 93 Isa 65:8, 9, 13, 13, 13, 14, 15. 94 See Beuken, Main Theme, 76–81. 95 Childs, Isaiah, 546. 92

222

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

Israel who YHWH wants his people to be: chosen, spirit-filled, and a source of delight, faithfully bringing forth justice and teaching to the nations and as a light extending divine enlightenment and redemption to all in darkness. In brief, it is Israel regarded from “an ideal point of view,” that is, God’s view. Nevertheless, Israel fails to be as God demands and refuses its task both as the promoter of justice and as the witness to YHWH’s salvific actions. Yet YHWH’s purpose regarding the nations is too important. The task is therefore given to another figure. Embodying the true mission of Israel, the prophetic servant-figure through whom God’s will is disclosed becomes a center of reconciliation and an example for imitation. A faithful response to him and his teaching thus becomes the precondition for being God’s servant. Significantly, the ethnic distinction between Israel and the nations has been theologically relativized.96 Those who follow the servant shall continue his mission by witnessing before the unfaithful Israel and the nations. They will now serve as “a light to the nations.” In sum, the servant-concept undergoes two major transitions: from the nation Israel to an obedient individual (48:16b) and from the obedient individual to a faithful group of followers, that is, “servants” (54:17b). What is remarkable to notice is that the task regarding the nations basically remains the same whether it is applied to the nation of Israel (42:1–9), a prophetic individual (49:1–6), or a faithful group of servants (55:3–5; 61:1–3).

D. One Task – Many Servants D. One Task – Many Servants

An important result of the analysis of Isa 42:1–9 within Isaiah as a whole is the observation that the central task of the servant is being reapplied to new figures. This observation concurs with what we have detected in the New Testament reception of the passage (cf. chapter 6). On the one hand, Jesus is clearly seen to embody the task of the servant as justice-bringer and as a light to the nations: he is the source and promoter of light and sight. On the other hand, the ideal Jew is presented as one who guides the blind and as a light to those in darkness. More striking is the application of the task to the disciples of Christ. Restored by Christ as their source of light, as his followers they will take up his mission to be a light to the world. Hugh Williamson has offered a helpful model for understanding the reapplication of the servant role in the variety of different contexts.97 According to him, the role as the mediator of divine blessing was initially that of the Davidic king:

96 97

Childs, Isaiah, 546. Williamson, Variations, 122–129; cf. Hayes, Conceptualizing.

D. One Task – Many Servants

223

God | King ||| People It is the king’s task to execute justice in the land (Ps 72:1–4; Isa 11:1–5; cf. chapter 4). His faithfulness to God in performing this task is the key to the fortune of his people. Similarly, the people must obey him to experience prosperity. The relationship involves a two-way motion of faithful obedience from bottom to top and of divine blessing from top to bottom.98 In Isa 42:1–9, the servant has taken over the position of the Davidic king (which might explain his royal guise) 99 and the nations have replaced the people as the recipients of God’s salvation: God | Servant ||| Nations The servant now stands in the intermediate position between God and the nations. However, the nature of the relationship and the fundamental task remain the same. The servant shall continue the task of bringing forth ‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ and has now become the sign or light which the nations will seek (cf. 11:10) or which will be brought to them. It is thus crucial that the servant is obedient towards God, if the nations are to share in his salvation. According to the overall structure in Isaiah, however, Israel, whom God initially called to fulfill the task, fails. Because God’s salvific plan is of primary importance, he is prepared, as we have seen, “to change the person of the mediator if his initial choice proved not to be up to the job.”100 In other words, regardless of who embodies the call of the servant, “God’s ultimate purpose with regard to the nations remains constant.”101 98

Williamson, Variations, 123. Cf. Schultz, The King, 159: “the ‘Servant’ of Isaiah 40ff. can be understood as a complementary portrait of Yahweh’s agent, which corresponds to the King of Isaiah 1– 39.” This is even more apparent in Isa 55:3–5 where the covenantal promises to David have been transferred to a collective of servants (see above). See also the thesis in Laato, Servant of YHWH, 243–245 that in Isa 40–55 the pre-exilic expectations of the Davidic Messiah have been reinterpreted to fit the actions of Cyrus and a group of loyal Israelites. 100 Williamson, Variations, 150. 101 Williamson, Variations, 154. 99

224

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

The transmission of the servant-function in Isaiah and its reception in the New Testament show that under changing circumstances the identity of the servant who is called to fulfill the never-changing task is reshaped and modified to fit new challenges: God | Servant ||| Nations

God | Servants ||| Nations

God | Christ ||| Nations

God | Disciples ||| Nations

This leads us to the concluding reflection on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments regarding Isa 42:1–9. A traditional dogmatic approach to the Old Testament would probably read our passage as predictive prophecy, that is, the portrait of the Isaianic servant points forward to its fulfilment in Jesus Christ. Some will perhaps even contend that the passage “refers exclusively, in a one-to-one equivalence, to Jesus, so that once he has fulfilled it, it has nothing more to say to us.”102 A danger of this approach, however, is the tendency to fix the relationship between the testaments by means of a scheme of prophecy-fulfilment which in an unfortunate way narrows the scope of interpretations. As Childs has observed, despite the numerous moves which throughout the history of the church have been made to express the relationship between the testaments, none of them has been made absolute. The relationship remains a complex one. Accordingly, a much more productive approach to the Isaianic servant-portrait is to say that Jesus embodies it, but does not thereby exhaust it. Jesus fulfills the role of the servant, but at the same time it remains open to be fulfilled by others who follow him, that is, his “servants,” ancient and modern. I will argue that the relationship between the testaments in our case can be seen as dialectical, as typological, and as one of continuity. Following Childs’ emphasis on the dialectic nature of the relationship, Matthew’s quotation of the first four verses is dialectic in movement. On the one hand, the quotation bears witness to a christological interpretation of the Old Testament promise in which the words from Isaiah are thought to gain their true meaning from the appearance of Christ as healer and justice-bringer. On the other hand, the Isaianic servant-portrait has shaped the Christology of Matthew as Isaiah presents the interpretative framework in the light of which the salvific significance of Christ has been understood: “it is Isaiah’s portrayal that interprets Jesus’ healing as bringing justice to victory and giving the Gentiles a hope.”103 102 103

Williamson, Variations, 143. Childs, Isaiah, 327.

D. One Task – Many Servants

225

According to Childs’ approach, however, this does not mean that the servant in Isaiah is Jesus.104 To read back the identity of Jesus into Isa 42:1–9 is to blur Isaiah’s own witness by forcing a later interpretation on the material; it is to confuse biblical theology and New Testament theology. The relation is rather theological, that is, the servant in Isaiah and Jesus in Matthew encounter and bear testimony to the same divine reality. In other words, a figural association exists between the servant of 42:1–9 and Jesus as they express the one divine means for including the nations into the salvific reign of God. According to Hübner’s approach, we should use the Old Testament as it has been interpreted in the New. Whereas the servant in Isaiah is anonymous or is identified with Israel (cf. the LXX), the servant in Matthew is identified with Jesus. In other words, a substantial discrepancy exists between Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the New Testament’s use of Isa 42:1–9 is equivocal, insofar as the apostles, Paul, and Barnabas are thought to continue the mission once embodied and fulfilled by Jesus. There is no single reading of the passage in the New Testament but rather a manifold of different interpretations. In our case, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments is not quite as contradictory as Hübner seems to suppose. The equivocal nature of the New Testament reception of our passage points to an analogical relationship between the two testaments. Rather than merely a pattern of prophecy-fulfillment, the relation between the Isaianic servant-concept and the New Testament’s use of it reveals a pattern of typology. The overall line of thought in Isaiah states that by the failure of God’s people to fulfil its role as his servant, the task is given to an obedient individual whose faithful followers continue the mission. A similar narrative is reflected in the story of Christ. By the failure of his people to do what God demands, Jesus is sent in their place to bring light into the world and his disciples will continue his mission to bring salvation to all. An analogy can thus be drawn between the redemptive activity of the Isaianic servant in Isa 53 and the passion and death of Christ as both of them “bear testimony to the common subject matter within the one divine economy.” 105 In that manner, it seems right to claim that the Isaianic narrative of God’s dealings with his people forms a dominant “grid” for the New Testament authors’ interpretation of the Christ event.106 104 Cf. Hayes, Conceptualizing, 148: the passages “are not necessarily linked by the ontological identity of the servant in Isaiah and the ontological identity of Jesus in the book of Matthew: rather, the author of Matthew is using the Isaiah passage to make a point about the identity of Jesus;” emphasis original. 105 Cf. Childs, Isaiah, 423. 106 Watts, Isaiah in the New Testament, 232–233; cf. Childs, Isaiah, 547: “The same pattern by which the prophetic editors shaped their message continued to operate for the New Testament’s community of faith.”

226

Chapter 7. God, His Servant, and the Nations

Finally, the relationship between the two testaments regarding Isa 42:1–9 is one of continuity. Throughout Isaiah and the New Testament, the task of God’s servant towards the nations remains the same. Despite the multitude of servant-identities and despite the apparent change from inward- to outwardlooking activity, the task of being God’s light and witness to the world is retained. God’s purpose is consistent. In short, there is one task, yet many servants. What we thus encounter in the servant-portrait of Isa 42:1–9 is a kind of “fundamental revelation” of whom God wants us to be: mediators of his justice and light. The words from Isaiah continue to present to us a vision for faithful living. As long as evil and injustice rule our world, God’s call will sound to us to extend his justice to the ends of the earth.

E. Summing Up: God, His Servant, and the Nations E. Summing Up

Common to all biblical versions of Isa 42:1–9 is the servant’s role as a mediator between God and the nations. A closer glance at the destiny of the nations in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke-Acts has revealed the differing views on the intermediary function of the servant. In Isaiah there is only meager evidence for picturing the servant as a wandering missionary, whereas in Matthew and Luke-Acts there is abundant evidence for outward-looking mission. A closer glance at the placement and function of Isa 42:1–9 within Isaiah as a whole has revealed that initially Israel is called to be YHWH’s servant. Yet Israel fails to fulfil its role which is thus given to another figure. The task regarding the nations basically remains the same, however being transferred to an obedient individual and subsequently to a faithful collective of “servants.” The concluding reflection on the relationship between the Old and New Testament regarding Isa 42:1–9 has demonstrated that the relationship is dialectical, typological, and one of continuity.

Conclusion Studying the relationship of the Old and New Testaments is a complex affair. As was initially stated, the matter is complicated by the great density of intertextual connections between the testaments, as the New Testament writings frequently comment upon verses and passages from the Old. As we have seen, the matter is further complicated by the variety of ways in which the New Testament authors interpreted the Old and by the variety of textual variants which they apparently drew upon. As Part I demonstrated, a major point of disagreement between Brevard S. Childs and Hans Hübner is to what extent the New Testament readings of the Old should determine a modern Christian approach to the Old Testament. To Childs, the meaning of the Old Testament is not confined to the way in which the first Christians interpreted it. Their use of primarily the Greek Septuagint does not offer a theological warrant for taking that version to be normative for modern Christians. The Hebrew Bible as it has been treasured by its Jewish tradents is the proper canonical text for modern interpretation and a Christian appreciation of this version ensures a common bond between synagogue and church. Furthermore, the distinctive interpretations by the New Testament authors do not rule out the possibility of hearing the Old Testament in its own right. Rather, one should listen to the Old Testament’s discrete voice as part of a multi-level approach to the biblical text. To Hübner, the New Testament authors’ kerygma-inspired interpretations of the Old offer a decisive criterion for Christian theology. As they, we should use the Septuagint for doing biblical theology. By testing overlaps and differentiations between the Old Testament as such and as received in the New, one can determine the abiding authority of the Old. Accordingly, any Christian interpreter who lays claim on the scripture of Israel as such distorts its original voice. Only the Old Testament as measured by the interpretations of the New Testament authors should be valid to us. As was suggested, the positions of Childs and Hübner may reflect a classical schism within Protestant theology between a Reformed position (Calvin, Barth), which stresses the unity of scripture, and a Lutheran position (Luther, Bultmann) which distinguishes between law and gospel. An overall strength of Childs’ approach is his strong emphasis on the theological nature of the Bible. Rather than merely being a collection of ancient

228

Conclusion

historical documents, the entire Bible continues to serve as a vehicle of divine revelation and should be studied as such. Biblical exegesis should not stay isolated, but must engage in theological concerns and cooperate closely with church history and systematics. This concern is shared by Hübner who productively enters into discussion with contemporary philosophy and hermeneutics. Another strength of Childs’ approach is his overall view of what the Old Testament is. Rather than being a Jewish collection of scriptures eventually being “stolen” by the church, Childs convincingly argues that two different communities of faith read the same scriptures in light of two religious traditions, one codified in Midrash and Talmud, and one codified in the New Testament and Christian tradition. The tension between conflicting Jewish and Christian interpretations is accordingly not solved by using different versions (the Hebrew or Greek text) or as Hübner proposes by distinguishing between a Jewish Vetus Testamentum and a Christian Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. A final strength of Childs’ approach is his appreciation of tradition. Despite his Protestant persuasion, he recognizes the traditionally Catholic emphasis on the church and its creed and worship as the proper context for hearing the Bible. In other words, we need to recognize the significance of liturgy and the worshipping community for grasping the true sense of what the Bible attempts to communicate. An overall strength of Hübner’s approach is his view of the New Testament authors as being profoundly dependent upon the Old Testament. The New Testament writings have been shaped by constant interaction with the scriptures of Israel and should as such be understood as a theological continuation of the Old Testament witnesses to God. Hübner’s approach to the New Testament’s reception of the Old is not as narrow as scholars tend to present it. To Hübner, not only Old Testament citations and allusions are of importance, but also language, world view, and larger theological themes such as the law and the temple. In addition, Hübner clearly points to a fundamental problem for modern biblical theology: how should we approach the obvious tension between the literal sense of an Old Testament passage and the meaning that this passage has received in the New Testament? His own solution is to distinguish hermeneutically between Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum, of which only the latter has authority for modern Christians. This solution, however, is not satisfactory because the canonical authority of the Old Testament is determined solely by means of how it was received in the New. Childs’ solution distinguishes between the biblical witnesses and the subject matter to which they point. Despite harsh tensions among the distinctive witnesses, they all point to the same God. This solution, however,

Conclusion

229

is only satisfactory for those who, from the outset, confess the one eternal God behind all scriptures. In Part II, an attempt was made to study these matters in practice by detecting the interpretative implications of paying full attention to the Septuagint and the New Testament in the interpretation of Isaiah 42:1–9. In this endeavor, Childs’ approach was easier to adopt and apply because it focuses on the reading of specific Old Testament texts with attention to the different contexts in which the biblical texts function (the canonical book, the Bible as a whole, in light of its subject matter). By focusing on a single Old Testament text as I have done, Hübner’s approach of reading with the eyes of the New Testament authors was more difficult to apply because it focuses on the New Testament author, for instance Paul or Matthew, and works within the structures offered by a New Testament book. The New Testament reception of Isaiah 42:1–9 is the closest I got to applying Hübner’s approach. A closer glance at the rendering of Isaiah 42:1–9 and its literary context in the Septuagint has revealed that the Greek version contains significant variants compared to its Hebrew equivalent. Rather than a literal translation of the Hebrew Vorlage, we encounter a piece of early biblical interpretation. This observation makes the choice between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments even more fundamental, insofar as the choice is not merely between a source text and a translation of it, but indeed between two independent versions. In addition, an important implication of this is that the value of the Septuagint as a textual witness for determining the original Hebrew text of the MT is challenged. This point has been vocalized before, for instance, in the case of the book of Jeremiah. Nevertheless, the present analysis has demonstrated that this is also the case in passages where one perhaps would not expect it. A closer glance at Isaiah 42:1–9 its New Testament reception has revealed a variety of diverse interpretations. Rather than one exclusive reading, the New Testament writings bear testimony to a complex and creative use of the words from Isaiah. The passage has been applied not only to Jesus as a reflection of his ministry as the Son of God, but also to his disciples as they continue the mission initiated by him. As was demonstrated, the fluctuation between individual and collective servant-identities accords with the interpretation of the servant figure within the book of Isaiah itself. An important implication of this is that more caution must be exercised when evaluating the ambiguous reception of the Old Testament in the New. A closer glance at Isaiah 42:1–9 within its larger biblical context has challenged the traditional way of fixing the relationship between the testaments into a scheme of prophecy-fulfillment. Rather, the relationship remains open to more interpretations. In our case, the relationship is dialectical as the words from Isaiah, on the one hand, have shaped the New Testament and, on the other hand, receives new meaning in light of it. The relationship is also typo-

230

Conclusion

logical as Isaiah and the New Testament present similar narratives of God’s dealing with his people. Finally, the relationship is one of continuity as the task of God’s servant towards the nations basically remains the same.

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer: Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. D. Green (trans.). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Assel, Heinrich, Stefan Beyerle & Christfried Böttrich (eds.): Beyond Biblical Theologies. WUNT 295; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Baer, David: When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66. JSOTSup 318; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Baker, David L.: The Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Third Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press & Nottingham: Apollos, 2010. Baldermann, Ingo & others: Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons. JBTh 3; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Balla, Peter: Challenges to New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Justify the Enterprise. WUNT, II, 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Ballhorn, Egbert & Georg Steins (eds.): Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung. Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2007. Baltzer, Klaus: Deutero-Jesaja. KAT X,2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999. Barr, James: Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. –: The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. London: SCM Press, 1999. Barstad, Hans M.: A Way in the Wilderness: The “Second Exodus” in the Message of Second Isaiah. JSSM 12; Manchester: University of Manchester, 1989. –: “The Future of the ‘Servant Songs’: Some Reflections on the Relationship of Biblical Scholarship to its own Tradition.” In S.E. Balentine & J. Barton (eds.): Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994: 261–270. –: The Babylonian Captivity in the Book of Isaiah: “Exilic” Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40–55. Oslo: Novus forlag, 1997. Barthel, Jörg: “Die kanonhermeneutische Debatte seit Gerhard von Rad. Anmerkungen zu neueren Entwürfen.” In B. Janowski (ed.): Kanonhermeneutik. Vom Lesen und Verstehen der christlichen Bibel. ThI 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007: 1–26. Bartholdy, Henrik: Håndbog i gammeltestamentlig tekstkritik. Det Danske Bibelselskab, 2003. Barton, John: Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton Longman and Todd, 1984. –: “The Canonical Meaning of the Book of the Twelve” [1996]. In J. Barton: The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate, 2007: 19–29.

232

Bibliography

–: “Canon and Old Testament Interpretation” [1999]. In J. Barton: The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate, 2007: 31–42. –: “Canonical Approaches Ancient and Modern” [2002]. In J. Barton: The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate, 2007: 43–51. –: “Unity and Diversity in the Biblical Canon” [2003]. In J. Barton: The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate, 2007: 53–66. –: The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. –: “(Pan-)Biblical Theology in the German- and English-speaking Worlds: A Comparison.” In H. Assel, S. Beyerle & Chr. Böttrich (eds.): Beyond Biblical Theologies. WUNT 295; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012: 243–259. Bauckham, Richard J.: Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50; Waco: Word Books, 1983. Beale, Gregory K.: A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. –: Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. –: & Donald Arthur Carson (eds.): Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic & Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. Beaton, Richard: “Messiah and Justice: A Key to Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 42.1–4.” JSNT 75 (1999): 5–23. –: Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. SNTSMS 123; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. –: “Isaiah in Matthew’s Gospel.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 63–78. Begrich, Joachim: Studien zur Deuterojesaja. ThB 20; München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1969. Bentzen, Aage: Jesaja. Bind II: Jes. 40–66. København: G.E.C. Gads Forlag, 1943. Berges, Ulrich: Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt. HBS 16; Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1999. –: Jesaja 40–48. HThKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2008. –: “The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40–55: A discussion about individual and collective identities.” SJOT 24 (2010): 28–38. –: Isaiah: The Prophet and his Book. Ph. Sumpter (trans.). Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012. Beuken, Willem A.M.: “Mišpāṭ: The First Servant Song and its Context.” VT 22 (1972): 1–30. –: “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55.” In J. Vermeylen (ed.): The Book of Isaiah. Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les Oracles et Leurs Relectures Unité et Complexité de l’Ouvrage. BETL 81; Leuven: Leuven University Press & Uitgeverij Peeters, 1989: 411–442. –: “The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah: ‘The Servants of YHWH’.” JSOT 47 (1990): 67–87. Bird, Michael F.: “‘A Light to the Nations’ (Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6): Intertextuality and Mission Theology in the Early Church.” RTR 65 (2006): 122–131. Blenkinsopp, Joseph: A History of Prophecy in Israel. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983. –: Isaiah 1–39. AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000. –: Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002.

Bibliography

233

–: Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Blomberg, Craig L.: “Matthew.” In G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson (eds.): Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic & Nottingham: Apollos, 2007: 1–109. Brenton, Lancelot C.L. (ed.): The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. London & New York, 1870. Brett, Mark G.: Canonical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Brown, Raymond E.: The Gospel According to John. I-XII. AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966. Brueggemann, Walter: Isaiah 40–66. WeBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Buhl, Frants: Jesaja. 2. udgave; København & Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel & Nordisk Forlag, 1912. Carter, Warren: “Matthew and the Gentiles: Individual Conversion and/or Systemic Transformation.” JSNT 26 (2004): 259–282. Chen, Xun: Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context: Brevard Springs Childs’s Methodology of Biblical Theology. SiBL 137; New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Childs, Brevard S.: “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary.” Int 18 (1964): 432–449. –: Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. SiBT, 2, 3; London: SCM Press, 1967. –: Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970. –: “The Old Testament as Scripture of the Church.” CTM 43 (1972): 709–722. –: “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem.” In H. Donner & others (eds.): Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstags. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977: 80–93. –: “Symposium on Biblical Criticism.” TT 33 (1977): 358–359. –: Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. –: “Some Reflections on the Search for a Biblical Theology.” HBT 4 (1982): 1–12. –: The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM Press, 1984. –: Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. –: “Die Bedeutung des Jüdischen Kanons in der Alttestamentlichen Theologie.” In M. Klopfenstein & others (eds.): Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch – Texte der Berner Symposions vom 6–12 Januar 1985. JC 11; Frankfurt am Main & New York: Peter Lang, 1987: 269–281. –: “Biblische Theologie und christlicher Kanon.” In I. Baldermann and others: Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons. JBTh 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988: 13–27. –: “Die Bedeutung der hebräischen Bibel für die biblische Theologie.” TZ 48 (1992): 382–390. –: Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. –: “Die Beziehung von Altem und Neuem Testament aus kanonischer Sicht.” In Chr. Dohmen & Th. Söding (eds.): Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente. Positionen Biblischer Theologie. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1995: 29–33. –: “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology.” In C.E. Braaten & R.W. Jenson (eds.): Reclaiming the Bible for the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995: 1–17.

234

Bibliography

–: “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” In J. Ådna & others (eds.): Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche. Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997: 57–64. –: “Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis.” PE 6 (1997): 16–26. –: “Jesus Christ the Lord and the Scriptures of the Church.” In E. Radner & G. Sumner (eds.): The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age. Harrisburg, Pa.: Morehouse Publishers, 1998: 1–12. –: “The Nature of the Christian Bible: One Book, Two Testaments.” In E. Radner & G. Sumner (eds.): The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age. Harrisburg, Pa.: Morehouse Publishers, 1998: 115–125. –: Isaiah: A Commentary. OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. –: “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation.” ZAW 115 (2003): 173– 184. –: The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. –: “The Canon in Recent Biblical Studies: Reflections on an Era.” PE 14, (2005): 26–45. –: The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Chilton, Bruce D.: The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience in the Isaiah Targum. JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Clements, Ronald E.: “A Light to the Nations: A Central Theme in the Book of Isaiah” [1996]. In R.E. Clements: Jerusalem and the Nations: Studies in the Book of Isaiah. HBM 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011. Clifford, Richard J.: Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah. TI; Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1984. Collins, Adela Yarbro: Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Collins, John J.: “Biblical Theology Between Apologetics and Criticism.” In H. Assel, S. Beyerle & Chr. Böttrich (eds.): Beyond Biblical Theologies. WUNT 295; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012: 223–241. Croatto, J. Severino: “The ‘Nations’ in the Salvific Oracles of Isaiah.” VT 55 (2005): 143–161. Crüsemann, Frank: Das Alte Testament als Wahrheitsraum des Neuen. Die neue Sicht der christlichen Bibel. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011. Dafni, Evangelia G.: “Die sogenannten ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder in der Septuaginta.” In M.K.H. Peters (ed.): XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leiden, 2004. SBLSCS 54; Leiden: Brill, 2006: 187–200. Davies, Graham: “The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah.” In J. Vermeylen (ed.): The Book of Isaiah. Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les Oracles et Leurs Relectures Unité et Complexité de l’Ouvrage. BETL 81; Leuven: Leuven University Press & Uitgeverij Peeters, 1989: 93–120. Davies, W.D. & Dale C. Allison, Jr.: The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume II: Matthew 8–18. ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1990. De Sousa, Rodrigo F.: Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12. LHBOTS 516; New York & London: T&T Clark, 2010. Dohmen, Christoph & Manfred Oeming: Biblischer Kanon, warum und wozu? Eine Kanontheologie. QD 137; Freiburg: Herder, 1992. –: & Thomas Söding (eds.): Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente. Positionen Biblischer Theologie. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1995.

Bibliography

235

Driver, Daniel R.: Brevard Childs, Biblical Theologian: For the Church’s One Bible. FAT, II, 46; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Duhm, Bernhard: Die Theologie der Propheten. Bonn: Verlag von Adolph Marcus, 1875. –: Das Buch Jesaja. 5. Auflage; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Earl, Douglas S.: Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture. JTISup 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Ebeling, Gerhard: “Was heißt ‘Biblische Theologie’?” [1955]. In G. Ebeling: Wort und Glaube. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1962: 69–89. Ekblad, Eugene Robert: Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study. CBET 23; Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Elliger, Karl: Deuterojesaja. 1. Teilband: Jesaja 40,1–45,7. BK XI, 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Elliott, Mark W.: The Reality of Biblical Theology. RD 39; Bern: Peter Lang, 2007. –: The Heart of Biblical Theology: Providence Experienced. Surrey: Ashgate Pub. Ltd., 2012. Evans, Craig A.: “From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament.” In C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds.): Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Volume 2. VTSup 70,2; Leiden: Brill, 1997: 651–691. Feldmeier, Reinhard & Hermann Spieckermann: God of the Living: A Biblical Theology. M.E. Biddle (trans.). Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011. Fischer, Johann: In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? Eine text-kritische Studie. BZAW 56; Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1930. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX. AYB 28; New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006. –: The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV. AYB 28A; New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006. France, R.T.: The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Freed, Edwin D.: Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. NTSup 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965. Gese, Hartmut: “Erwägungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie” [1970]. In H. Gese: Vom Sinai zum Zion. Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. BEvTh 78; München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974: 11–30. Gignilliat, Mark S.: Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40– 66 in 2 Corinthians 5:14–6:10. LNTS 330; London: T&T Clark, 2007. –: Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel: Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah. BSS; Surrey: Ashgate Pub. Ltd., 2009. –: A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Goldingay, John: The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary. London & New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. –: & David Payne: Isaiah 40–55. Volumes I-II. ICC; London & New York: T&T Clark International, 2006. Greenberg, Gillian & Donald M. Walter (trans.): The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Isaiah. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012. Grelot, Pierre: Les Poèmes du Serviteur. De la lecture critique á l’herméneutique. LD 103; Paris: Cerf, 1981. Grimm, Werner & Kurt Dittert: Deuterojesaja. Deuteung – Wirkung – Gegenwart. CB; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1990. Grindel, John: “Matthew 12,18–21.” CBQ 29 (1967): 110–115.

236

Bibliography

Grisanti, Michael A.: “Israel’s Mission to the Nations in Isaiah 40–55: An Update.” TMSJ 9 (1998): 39–61. Grundmann, Walter: Das Evangelium nach Lukas. THNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1978. Grünschloß, Andreas, Florian Wilk & Berndt Schaller: “Nachruf auf Prof. Dr. Hans Hübner.” Online: http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/90488.html (visited February 2014). Gundry, Robert Horton: The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. NTSup 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975. Gunneweg, Antonius H.J.: Vom Verstehen des Alten Testaments. Eine Hermeneutik. GAT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Gzella, Holger: “New Ways in Textual Criticism: Isa 42,1–4 as a Paradigm Case.” ETL 81 (2005): 387–423. Haag, Herbert: Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja. EdF 223; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985. Hagelia, Hallvard: Three Old Testament Theologies for Today: Helge S. Kvanvig, Walter Brueggemann and Erhard Gerstenberger. HBM 44; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012. Hahn, Ferdinand: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band I: Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band II: Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Hamm, Dennis: “Sight to the Blind: Vision as Metaphor in Luke.” Bib 67 (1986): 457– 477. Hanson, Paul D.: Isaiah 40–66. Int; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Harrisville, Roy A.: “The Concept of Newness in the New Testament.” JBL 74 (1955): 69– 79. –: & Walter Sundberg: The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hasel, Gerhard F.: “Recent Models of Biblical Theology: Three Major Perspectives.” AUS 33 (1995): 55–75. Hayes, Elizabeth R.: “The One Who Brings Justice: Conceptualizing the Role of ‘the Servant’ in Isaiah 42:1–4 and Matthew 12:15–21.” In I. Provan & M.J. Boda (eds.): Let us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. VTSup 153; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2012: 143–151. Hays, Richard B.: Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1989. Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen: “Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas: Probleme der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes 40–55.” In J. Vermeylen (ed.): The Book of Isaiah. Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les Oracles et Leurs Relectures Unité et Complexité de l’Ouvrage. BETL 81; Leuven: Leuven University Press & Uitgeverij Peeters, 1989: 287–312. –: “Neue Literatur zu Deuterojesaja.” TRu 65 (2000): 267–84, 379–430. Hillers, Delbert R.: “Běrît ‘ām: ‘Emancipation of the People’.” JBL 97 (1978): 175–182. Hollenberg, D.E.: “Nationalism and ‘the Nations’ in Isaiah xl-lv.” VT 19 (1969): 23–36. Hooker, Morna D.: Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959. –: “Isaiah in Mark’s Gospel.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 35–49.

Bibliography

237

Hübner, Hans: Rechtfertigung und Heilung in Luthers Römerbriefvorlesung. Ein systematischer Entwurf. GL 7; Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1965. –: “Biblische Theologie und Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Eine programmatische Skizze” [1981]. In H. Hübner: Biblische Theologie als Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995: 69–86. –: “Der ‘Messias Israels’ und der Christus des Neuen Testaments” [1981]. In H. Hübner: Biblische Theologie als Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995: 87–109. –: “Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum. Die Frage nach dem Kanon des Alten Testaments aus neutestamentlicher Sicht.” In I. Baldermann & others: Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons. JBTh 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988: 147–162. –: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1. Prolegomena. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. –: “New Testament, OT Quotations in the.” In D.N. Freedman (ed.): The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney & Auckland: Doubleday, 1992: 1096–1104. –: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 2. Die Theologie des Paulus und ihre neutestamentliche Wirkungsgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. –: “Eine moderne Variante der mittelalterlichen Lehre vom vierfachen Schriftsinn: Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum” [1994]. In H. Hübner: Biblische Theologie als Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995: 286–293. –: “Offenbarungen und Offenbarung. Philosophische und theologische Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament.” In S. Pedersen (ed.): New Directions in Biblical Theology. Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994: 10–23. –: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 3. Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung. Epilegomena. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. –: Biblische Theologie als Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. –: “Eine hermeneutisch unverzichtbare Unterscheidung: Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum in Novo receptum.” In T. Fornberg & D. Hellholm (eds.): Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm & Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995: 901–910. –: “Was ist Biblische Theologie?” In Chr. Dohmen & Th. Söding (eds.): Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente. Positionen Biblischer Theologie. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1995: 209–223. –: “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament.” In M. Sæbø (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Volume I, Part 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996: 332–372. –: “Ein neuer textus receptus und sein Problem. Synchronie als Abwertung der Geschichte?” In C. Landmesser, H.-J. Eckstein & H. Lichtenberger (eds.): Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. BZNW 86; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997: 235–247. –: Vetus Testamentum in Novo II. Corpus Paulinum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.

238

Bibliography

–: “Das Alte Testament als Dokument der Religionsgeschichte?” In B. Köhler (ed.): Religion und Wahrheit. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Festschrift für Gernot Wießner zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1998: 237–246. –: “Warum Biblische Theologie?” In H. Hübner & B. Jaspert (eds.): Biblische Theologie. Entwürfe der Gegenwart. BThSt 38; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999: 9–39. –: Vetus Testamentum in Novo I.2. Evangelium Johannis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. –: “Kanon – Geschichte – Gott” [2003]. In H. Hübner: Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit. Exegese auf dem Weg zur Fundamentaltheologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2005: 18–37. –: Evangelische Fundamentaltheologie. Theologie der Bibel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. –: Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit. Exegese auf dem Weg zur Fundamentaltheologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Hugenberger, G. P.: “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure.” In P.E. Satterthwaite, R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds.): The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. THS; Carlisle: The Paternoster Press & Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1995: 105–140. Høgenhaven, Jesper: “Hvem lider tjeneren for?” In B. Ejrnæs & L. Fatum (eds.): Lidelsens former og figurer. FBE 12; København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2002: 18– 32. Irsigler, Hubert: Ein Weg aus der Gewalt? Gottesknecht kontra Kyros im Deuterojesajabuch, BzF 28; Stuttgart, Berlin & Köln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1998. Jeppesen, Knud: “From “You, My Servant” to “the Hand of the Lord is with My Servant”: A Discussion of Is 40–66.” SJOT 1 (1990): 113–129. Jeremias, Jörg: “‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in ersten Gottesknechtlied (Jes. xlii 1–4).” VT 22 (1972): 31–42. Jobes, Karen H. & Moisés Silva: Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic & Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. Juel, Donald: “The Image of the Servant-Christ in the New Testament.” SJT 21 (1979): 7–22. –: Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1998. Kaiser, Otto: Der Königliche Knecht. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche-exegetische Studie über die Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder bei Deuterojesaja. FRLANT 70; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Kennedy, James M.: “Consider the Source: A Reading of the Servant’s Identity and Task in Isaiah 42:1–9.” In J.A. Everson & H.C.P. Kim (eds.): The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah. SBLAIIL 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009: 181–196. Kim, Hyun Chul Paul: “An Intertextual Reading of ‘A Crushed Reed’ and ‘A Dim Wick’ in Isaiah 42.3.” JSOT 83 (1999): 113–124. –: Ambiguity, Tension, and Multiplicity in Deutero-Isaiah. SiBL 52; New York & others: Peter Lang, 2003. Klink, Edward W., III & Darian R. Lockett: Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Koenig, Jean: “L’allusion inexpliquée au Roseau et à la mèche (Isaïe xlii 3).” VT 18 (1968): 159–172. –: L’Herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe. VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982.

Bibliography

239

–: Oracles et liturgies de l’exil babylonien. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1988. Koet, Bart J.: “Isaiah in Luke-Acts.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 79–100. Körstenberger, Andreas J: “John.” In G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson (eds.): Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic & Nottingham: Apollos, 2007: 415–512. Kratz, Reinhard G.: Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55. FAT 1; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991. Kraus, Wolfgang & Martin Karrer (eds.): Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Krauter, Stefan: “Brevard S. Childs’ Programm einer Biblischen Theologie. Eine Untersuchung seiner systematisch-theologischen und methodologischen Fundamente.” ZThK 96 (1999): 22–48. Kutsch, Ernst: Verheissung und Gesetz. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament. BZAW; 131; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. Kvanvig, Helge S.: Historisk Bibel og bibelsk historie. Det gamle testamentes teologi som historie og fortelling. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget AS, 1999. Laato, Antti: The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in 40–55. CB 35; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992. Ladd, George Eldon: A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Edition. Edited by D.A. Hagner. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 1993. Lauha, Aarre: “‘Der Bund des Volkes’: Ein Aspekt der deuterojesajanischen Missionstheologie.” In H. Donner & others (eds.): Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstags. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977: 257–261. Lemche, Niels Peter: The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Lindars, B.: New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM Press, 1961. Lindblad, Ulrika: “A Note on the Nameless Servant in Isaiah xlii 1–4.” VT 43 (1993): 115–119. Lindblom, Joh.: The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah: A New Attempt to Solve an Old Problem. LUÅ 47,5; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1951. Lohfink, Norbert: “‘Israel’ in Jes 49,3.” In J. Schreiner (ed.): Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch II. Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten. Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler. FzB 2; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972: 217–229. Lund, Øystein: Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40–55. FAT II, 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Lundbom, Jack R.: The Hebrew Prophets: An Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Luz, Ulrich: Matthew 8–20. J.E. Crouch (trans.). Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Lybæk, Lena: New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes. FRLANT 198; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Maillet, Paul: The Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah in the MT and the LXX: A Comparison of Their Portrayals of God. Unpublished dissertation, 2010. Online:

240

Bibliography

http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/9210/Maillet_cua_0043A_10099displ ay.pdf?sequence=1 (visited July 2013). Mallen, Peter: The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. LNTS 367; London: T&T Clark, 2008. Marcus, Joel: Mark 1–8. AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000. Marcus, Ralph: “The ‘Plain Meaning’ of Isaiah 42.1–4.” HTR 30 (1937): 249–259. Marshall, I. Howard: New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004. Martens, Elmer A.: “Impulses to Mission in Isaiah: An Intertextual Exploration.” BBR 17 (2007): 215–239. McKenzie, John L.: Second Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 20; New York: Doubleday, 1968. Mead, James K.: Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Meek, James A.: Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose. LNTS 385; London: T&T Clark, 2008. Melugin, Roy F.: The Formation of Isaiah 40–55. BZAW 141; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1976. Menken, Maarten J.J.: Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press & Peeters Leuven, 2004. –: “The Quotation from Isaiah 42,1–4 in Matthew 12,18–21: Its Relation with the Matthean Context” [1998]. In M.J.J. Menken: Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press & Peeters Leuven, 2004: 51–65. –: “The Quotation from Isaiah 42,1–4 in Matthew 12,18–21: Its Textual Form” [1999]. In M.J.J. Menken: Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press & Peeters Leuven, 2004: 67–88. Merendino, Rosario Pius: Der Erste und der Letzte. Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40–48. VTSup 31; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981. Merk, Otto: “Theologie des Neuen Testaments und Biblische Theologie.” In F.W. Horn (ed.): Bilanz und Perspektiven gegenwärtiger Auslegung des Neuen Testaments. Symposion zum 65. Geburtstag von Georg Strecker. BZNW 75; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995: 112–143. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D.: A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom. SM 1982–1983, 3; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983. Morgan, Robert: “The New Testament Canon of Scripture and Christian Identity.” In J. Barton & M. Wolter (eds.): Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons/The Unity of Scripture and the Diversity of the Canon. BZNW 118, Berlin: Gruyter, 2003: 151–193. –: “New Testament Theology in the Twentieth Century.” In L.G. Perdue, R. Morgan & B.D. Sommer: Biblical Theology: Introducing the Conversation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009: 137–208. Motyer, J. Alec: The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993. Mowinckel, Sigmund: “Zur Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches.” ZAW 49 (1931): 87–112, 242–260. Moyise, Steve: “Isaiah in 1 Peter.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 175–188.

Bibliography

241

–: & Maarten J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Müller, Mogens: “The Gospel of St. Matthew and the Mosaic Law: A Chapter of a Biblical Theology.” ST 46 (1992): 109–120. –: The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint. JSOTSup 206, CIS 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –: “Christus als Schlüssel der biblischen Hermeneutik des Paulus.” In U. Schnelle & Th. Söding (eds.): Paulinische Christologie. Exegetische Beiträge. Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000: 121–139. –: Kommentar til Matthæusevangeliet. DKNT 3; Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2000. –: “The Reception of the Old Testament in Matthew and Luke-Acts: From Interpretation to Proof from Scripture.” NT 43 (2001): 315–330. –: “Septuagintas betydning som en hellenistisk udgave af Det Gamle Testamente.” DTT 74 (2011): 217–231. –: “Theology in the LXX?” In T.M. Law & A. Salvesen (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Muraoka, Takamitsu: A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. New, David S.: Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Document Hypothesis. SBLSCS 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Neyrey, Jerome H.: “The Thematic Use of Isaiah 42,1–4 in Matthew 12.” Bib 63 (1982): 457–473. Ngunga, Abi T.: Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis. FRLANT 245; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Noble, Paul R.: The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs. BIS 16; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. North, Christopher R.: Isaiah 40–55: Introduction and Commentary. TBC; London: SCM Press, 1952. –: The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: A Historical and Critical Study. 2nd edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. Novakovic, Lidija: Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT, II, 170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Oeming, Manfred: Das Alte Testament als Teil des christlichen Kanons? Studien zu gesamtbiblischen Theologien der Gegenwart. Zürich: Pano Verlag, 2001. Olmstead, Wesley G.: Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables: The Nation, the Nations and the Reader in Matthew 21:28–22:14. SNTSMS 127; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Oorschot, Jürgen van: Von Babel zum Zion. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BZAW 206; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Orlinsky, Harry M.: “The So-called ‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah.” In H.M. Orlinsky & N.H. Snaith: Studies in the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah. VTSup 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977: 1–133. Oswalt, John N.: The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –: “The Nations in Isaiah: Friend or Foe; Servant or Partner.” BBR 16 (2006): 41–51. Ottley, Richard R.: The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus): I. Introduction and Translation with a Parallel Version from the Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904.

242

Bibliography

–: The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus): II. Text and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906. Pao, David W.: Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT, II, 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –: & Eckhard J. Schnabel: “Luke.” In G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson (eds.): Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic & Nottingham: Apollos, 2007: 251–414. Patrick, James E.: “Matthew’s Pesher Gospel Structured around Ten Messianic Citations of Isaiah.” JTS 51 (2010): 43–81. Paul, Shalom M.: Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. ECC; Grand Rapids & Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012. Pauli, C.W.H. (trans.): The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah. London: London Society’s House, 1871. Peake, Arthur Samuel: The Servant of Yahweh. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931. Pedersen, Sigfred: “Bibelsk teologi: Et spørgsmål om Guds-forståelsen.” PB 87 (1997): 394–404. Perdue, Leo G.: “Old Testament Theology Since Barth’s Epistle to the Romans.” In L.G. Perdue, R. Morgan & B.D. Sommer: Biblical Theology: Introducing the Conversation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009: 55–136. Pfleiderer, Georg: “Ausbruchsversuche aus der Moderne. Zur Problematik der kerygmatischen Programmatik Biblischer Theologie.” In H. Assel, S. Beyerle & Chr. Böttrich (eds.): Beyond Biblical Theologies. WUNT 295; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012: 155–181. Pietersma, Albert & Benjamin G. Wright (eds.): A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Porter, Stanley E. & Brook W.R. Pearson: “Isaiah through Greek Eyes: The Septuagint of Isaiah.” In C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds.): Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Volume 2. VTSup 70,2; Leiden: Brill, 1997: 531–546. Poulsen, Frederik: “Brevard S. Childs: Kanon, metode og teologi. – En introduktion.” DTT 73 (2010): 213–230. –: “Eksodusbegivenheden i Deuterojesaja: Genskrivning eller overskrivning?” In M. Müller & J. Høgenhaven (eds.): Bibelske genskrivninger. FBE 17; København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2012: 89–109. –: “Herrens tjener i 2. række.” PB 35 (2012): 731–737. –: “Review of Marvin A. Sweeney: Tanak. A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012).” BTB 43 (2013): 221–222. –: “Røret og vægen. Et halvvers hos Esajas.” Arken 156 (2013): 29–31. –: Representing Zion: Judgement and Salvation in the Old Testament. CIS; London & New York: Routledge, 2014. –: “New Ways for Interpreting Isaiah 40–55.” In A.K. Gudme & I. Hjelm (eds.): Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity. CP 7; London & New York: Routledge, forthcoming. –: “The Role of the Old Testament in Pan-Biblical Theology: the Childs-Hübner Debate.” In G. Steins, Ph.E. Sumpter & J. Taschner (eds.): Relationships Between the Two Parts of the Christian Bible: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies. OSJCB 3; Göttingen: V&R unipress, forthcoming.

Bibliography

243

Provan, Iain: “Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, his Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology.” SJT 50 (1997): 1–38. Räisänen, Heikki: Beyond New Testament Theology. London: SCM Press, 2000. Rahlfs, Alfred & Robert Hanhart (eds.): Septuaginta. Editio altera. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rendtorff, Rolf: Theologie des Alten Testaments. Ein Kanonischer Entwurf. Band 1: Kanonische Grundlegung. Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1999. –: Theologie des Alten Testaments. Ein Kanonischer Entwurf. Band 2: Thematische Entfaltung. Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2001. Rowley, H.H.: The Servant of the Lord and other Essays on the Old Testament. 2nd edition, revised; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Sanecki, Artur: Approccio canonico: tra storia e teologia, alla ricerca di un nuovo paradigma post-critico. L’analisi della metodologia canonica di B.S. Childs dal punto di vista cattolico. TGST 104; Rome: Gregorian University Press, 2004. Sawyer, John F.A.: The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Scalise, Charles J.: Canonical Hermeneutics: The Theological Basis and Implications of the Thought of Brevard S Childs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1987. –: “Canonical Hermeneutics: Childs and Barth.” SJT 47 (1994): 61–88. Schnackenburg, Rudolf: “‘Siehe da mein Knecht, den ich erwählt habe . . .’ (Mt 12,18). Zur Heiltätigkeit Jesu im Matthäusevangelium.” In L. Oberlinner & P. Fiedler (eds.): Salz der Erde – Licht der Welt. Exegetischen Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Festschrift für Anton Vögtle zum 80. Geburtstag. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1991: 203–222. Schnelle, Udo & Thomas Söding (eds.): Paulinische Christologie. Exegetische Beiträge. Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Scholz, Anton: Die Alexandrinische Uebersetzung des Buches Jesaias. Würzburg: Leo Woerl, 1880. Schultz, Richard L.: “The King in the Book of Isaiah.” In P.E. Satterthwaite, R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds.): The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. THS; Carlisle: The Paternoster Press & Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1995: 141–165. –: “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah.” In D.G. Firth & H.G.M. Williamson (eds.): Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Nottingham: Apollos & Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009: 122–144. Schwarz, Günther: “‘… zum Bund des Volkes’?” ZAW 82 (1970): 279–281. Schweizer, Harald: “Prädikationen und Leerstellen im 1. Gottesknechtslied (Jes 42,1-4).” BZ 26 (1982): 251–258. Seccombe, David: “Luke and Isaiah.” NTS 27 (1981): 252–259. Seeligmann, Isaac Leo: The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1948. Seitz, Christopher R.: “Isaiah 1–66: Making Sense of the Whole.” In C.R. Seitz (ed.): Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1988: 105–126. –: “‘You are my Servant, You are the Israel in whom I will be gloried’: The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah.” CTJ 39 (2004): 117–134. –: Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004.

244

Bibliography

–: “The Canonical Approach and Theological Interpretation.” In C. Bartholomew & others (eds.): Canon and Biblical Interpretation. SHS 7; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. –: The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets: The Achievement of Association in Canon Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. –: The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. –: & Kent Harold Richards (eds.): The Bible as Christian Scripture: The Work of Brevard S. Childs. SBLBSNA 25; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band II. Psalmen bis Daniel. M. Karrer & W. Kraus (eds.). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Shepherd, Charles E.: Theological Interpretation and Isaiah 53: A Study of Bernhard Duhm, Brevard Childs, and Alec Motyer. Unpublished doctoral thesis, 2012. Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5935/1/Final_PhD_Submission.pdf?DDD32+ (visited January 2014). Smart, James D.: History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40–66. London: Epworth Press, 1967. Smillie, Gene R.: “‘Even the Dogs’: Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew.” JETS 45 (2002): 73–97. Smith, Mark S. “Běrît ‘am / běrît ‘ôlām: a New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6.” JBL 100 (1981): 241–243. Snaith, Norman H.: “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah.” In H.H. Rowley (ed.): Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1950: 187–200. –: “Isaiah 40–66: A Study of the Teaching of the Second Isaiah and Its Consequences.” In H.M. Orlinsky & N.H. Snaith: Studies in the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah. VTSup 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977: 135–264. Snyman, S.D. (Fanie): “A Structural-Historical Exegesis of Isaiah 42:1–9.” In D.G. Firth & H.G.M. Williamson (eds.): Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Nottingham: Apollos & Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009: 250–260. Söding, Thomas: “Entwürfe Biblischer Theologie in der Gegenwart – Eine neutestamentliche Standortbestimmung.” In H. Hübner & B. Jaspert (eds.): Biblische Theologie. Entwürfe der Gegenwart. BThSt 38; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999: 41– 104. Sommer, Benjamin D.: “Dialogical Biblical Theology: A Jewish Approach to Reading Scripture Theologically.” In L.G. Perdue, R. Morgan & B.D. Sommer: Biblical Theology: Introducing the Conversation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009: 1–53. Spykerboer, Hendrik Carel: The Structure and Composition of Deutero-Isaiah with Special Reference to the Polemics Against Idolatry. Meppel: Krips Repro, 1976. Stamm, Johann Jakob: “Berît ‘am bei Deuterojesaja.” In H.W. Wolff (ed.): Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971: 510–524. Steck, Odil Hannes: “Aspekte des Gottesknechts in Deuterojesajas ‘Ebed-Jahwe-Liedern’.” ZAW 96 (1984): 372–390. –: Gottesknecht und Zion. Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja. FAT 4; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992. Steins, Georg: Die „Bindung Isaaks“ im Kanon (Gen 22). Grundlagen und Programm einer Kanonisch-Intertextuellen Lektüre. HBS 20; Freiburg: Herder, 1999.

Bibliography

245

–: & J. Taschner (eds.), Kanonisierung – die Hebräische Bibel im Werden. BThSt 110; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2010. –: “Zwei Konzepte – ein Kanon. Neue Theorien zur Entstehung und Eigenart der Hebräischen Bibel.” In G. Steins & J. Taschner (eds.): Kanonisierung – die Hebräische Bibel im Werden. BThSt 110; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2010: 8–45. Stendahl, Krister: “Biblical Theology, Contemporary.” In G.A. Buttrick (ed.): The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962: 418–432. –: The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. Stoebe, Hans Joachim: “Überlegungen zu Jesaja 40,1–11 zugleich der Versuch eines Beitrages zur Gottesknechtfrage.” ThZ 40 (1984): 104–113. Strecker, Georg (ed.): Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. WdF 367; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975. Stromberg, Jacob: An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. London & New York: T&T Clark International, 2011. Stuhlmacher, Peter: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. –: How To Do Biblical Theology. PTMS 38; Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1995. –: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 2: Von der Paulusschule bis zur Johannesoffenbarung. Der Kanon und seine Auslegung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Stuhlmueller, Carroll: “Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship.” CBQ 42 (1980): 1–29. Sumpter, Philip E.: “Brevard Childs as Critical and Faithful Exegete.” PTR 38 (2008): 95– 116. –: The Substance of Psalm 24: An Attempt to Read Scripture after Brevard S. Childs. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Gloucestershire, 2011. Forthcoming: LHBOTS 600; London & New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. –: “Economy and Ontology: The Canonical Approach of Brevard S. Childs.” In G. Steins, Ph.E. Sumpter & J. Taschner (eds.): Relationships Between the Two Parts of the Christian Bible: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies. OSJCB 3; Göttingen: V&R unipress, forthcoming. Sundberg, Albert Carl: The Old Testament of the Early Church. HTS 20; Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1964. Sweeney, Marvin A.: Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Tharekadavil, Antony: Servant of Yahweh in Second Isaiah: Isaianic Servant Passages in Their Literary and Historical Context. EUS, Series XXIII Theology, vol. 848; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007. Tidwell, N.L.: “My Servant Jacob, Is. xlii 1: A Suggestion.” In G.W. Anderson & others (eds.): Studies on Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers. VTSup 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974: 84–91. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia: For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55. VTSup 139; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2011. Tilly, Michael: Einführung in die Septuaginta. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2005. Troxel, Ronald L.: LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. JSJSup 124; Leiden: Brill, 2008.

246

Bibliography

Ulrich, Eugene: “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” In L.M. McDonald & J.A. Sanders (eds.): The Canon Debate. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002: 21–35. Van der Kooij, Arie: Die Alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. OBO 35; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. –: “Accident or Method? On ‘Analogical’ Interpretation in the Old Greek of Isaiah and in 1QIsa.” BO 43 (1986): 366–376. –: “The Old Greek of Isaiah 19:16–25: Translation and Interpretation.” In C. Cox (ed.): VI Congress for the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987: 127–166. –: “Isaiah in the Septuagint.” In C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds.): Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Volume 2. VTSup 70,2; Leiden: Brill, 1997: 513–529. –: “‘The Servant of the Lord’: A Particular Group of Jews in Egypt According to the Old Greek of Isaiah. Some Comments on LXX Isa 49:1–6 and Related Passages.” In J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds.): Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken. BETL 132; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997: 383–396. –: “Zur Theologie des Jesajabuches in der Septuaginta.” In H.G. Reventlow (ed.): Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik. VWGT 11; Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997: 9–25. –: “Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Septuagint and in Other Ancient Versions.” In C.M. McGinnis & P.K. Tull (eds.): “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. SBLSS 27; Leiden: Brill, 2006: 49–68. –: “The Septuagint of Isaiah.” In J. Cook & A. van der Kooij (eds.): Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version. CBET 68; Leuven: Peeters, 2012: 63–85. Van Wieringen, Archibald L.H.M.: “The Theologoumenon ‘New’: Bridging the Old and the New Testament.” In B.J. Koet, S. Moyise & J. Verheyden (eds.): The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken. NTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2013: 285–301. Van Winkle, D.W.: “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh and to Israel in Isaiah xllv.” VT 35 (1985): 446–458. Wagner, J. Ross: Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. –: “The Septuagint and the ‘Search for the Christian Bible’.” In M. Bockmuehl & A.J. Torrance (eds.): Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008: 17–28. –: “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 117–132. Ware, James P.: The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism. NTSup 120; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005. Watts, John D.W: Isaiah 34–66 (Revised Edition). WBC 25; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005. Watts, Rikki E.: Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. WUNT, II, 88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. –: “Echoes from the Past: Israel’s Ancient Traditions and the Destiny of the Nations in Isaiah 40–55.” JSOT 28 (2004): 481–508. –: “Isaiah in the New Testament.” In D.G. Firth & H.G.M. Williamson (eds.): Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Downers Grove: IVP Press, 2009: 213–233. Weinfeld, Moshe: “Berît – Covenant vs Obligation.” Bib 56 (1975): 120–128.

Bibliography

247

Werlitz, Jürgen: “Vom Knecht der Lieder zum Knecht des Buches. Ein Versuch über die Ergänzungen zu den Gottesknechtstexten des Deuterojesajabuches.” ZAW 109 (1997): 30–43. –: Redaktion und Komposition. Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40–55. BBB 122; Berlin: Philo, 1999. Westermann, Claus: Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. D.M.G. Stalker (trans.). London: SCM Press, 1969. Whybray, R.N.: Isaiah 40–66. NCB; London: Oliphants, 1975. Wilckens, Ulrich: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Geschichte der urchristlichen Theologie. Teilband 1: Geschichte des Wirkens Jesu in Galiläa. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Wilcox, Peter & David Paton-Williams: “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah.” JSOT 42 (1988): 79–102. Wilk, Florian: Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. FRLANT 179; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –: “Isaiah in 1 and 2 Corinthians.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 133–158. Williams, Catrin H.: “Isaiah in John’s Gospel.” In S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds.): Isaiah in the New Testament. London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007: 101–116. Williamson, Hugh G.M.: Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. The Didsbury Lectures 1997; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998. –: “Recent Issues in the Study of Isaiah.” In D.G. Firth & H.G.M. Williamson (eds.): Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Nottingham: Apollos & Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009: 21–39. –: “Isaiah: Book of.” In M.J. Boda & J.G. McConville (eds.): Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press & Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2012: 364–378. Wilson, Stephen G.: The Gentiles and Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Winkel Holm, Katrine: Det Gamle Testamente som teologisk problem. ToT 12; København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2000. Wolter, Michael: Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Woods, Julia: Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture. PTMS 144; Eugene, Oregon: Pickwich Publications, 2011. Ziegler, Joseph: Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. AA XII, 3; Münster: Verlag der aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934. –: Septuaginta Isaias. SVTG 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939. Zillessen, A.: “Bemerkungen zur alexandrinischen Übersetzung des Jesaja (c. 40–66).” ZAW 22 (1902): 238–263. Zimmerli, Walther & Joachim Jeremias: “παῖς θεοῦ.” In G. Friedrich (ed.): Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 5. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1954: 653–713.

 

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 1–2 1:1 1:11 1:12 1:21 2 2:7 8:19 9 12:1–3 12:8 15 17 18:13 18:18 22:2 22:12 22:16 23 26:24 Exodus 2 3:6 3:10 4:22 6:2 6:6 9:31 15:3 15:25 17:12 20:3 20:7 21:1 22:22

107 107 143 143 143 107 107, 141 143 111 110, 207 107 110 110 152 152 183 183 183 68 97

110 149 129 127 108 129 102 158 106 97 113 161 100, 106 102

24 34:14

110 113, 161

Leviticus 24:16

161

Numeri 11:25 11:29 12:7–8 14:24 15:16

98 98, 192 97 126 100

Deuteronomy 5:7 12:1 18:5 20:1 27:26 28:33

161 100 184 129 55 102

Joshua 1:2 1:7 1:8 24:19 24:25

97 126 103 131 106

Judges 6:33–35 6:34

104 98

1 Samuel 11:6 16:3 27:12 30:25

192 98, 115 97 106

250

Index of References 1–39

2 Samuel 3:18 3:21 8:15 22:44

97 149 99, 101 111

2 Kings 6:26 22:12

102 97

1 Chronicles 28:4

98

Job 1:8 2:3 35:10 42:7 42:8

97 97 189 97 97

Psalms 1:2 2 2:7 18:44 24 36:6 41:13 47 69:9 72:1–4 78:5 85:5 89:3 89:6–7 89:20 89:27 96 98 104 132:17 146:7 146:7–8

103 206 127, 182–183 111 6 99 97 200 97 99, 223 106 107 97 203 97 127 200 200 107 114 101 112

Isaiah 1–12 1–33

212–213, 220 213

1:2 1:2–31 1:3 1:4 1:5–6 1:9 1:10 1:14 1:21 1:24 1:28 2 2:2–4

2:3 2:5 2:6–4:1 2:9 2:10 2:19 2:21 2:22 4 4:2 4:2–6 4:5 5 5:1–30 5:24 5:30 6 6:1 6:1–13 6:3 6:9–10 6:10 6:11–13 7 7–10 7:4 7:14 7:16 8:14 8:16

79–80, 113, 115, 133, 139, 150, 159, 162, 195, 212–213 127 212 143 213 116 165 106 130 130 129 158 134 101, 106, 115, 158, 198, 200–206, 210, 212 106, 129, 143, 210 144 212 131 134 134 134 141 134 114, 134 212 144 198 212 106 112 115, 213 147 96 130 112, 115, 164, 187, 210, 212, 215 165 213 97, 115, 140 198 132 1, 139, 166, 212 127 165 106, 138

Index of References 8:20 8:23–9:1 8:23–9:6 9

9:1 9:5 9:5–6 9:6 10:10 10:22–23 10:24 10:32 10:33 11 11:1 11:1–5 11:1–9 11:1–16 11:2 11:2–5 11:3 11:4–5 11:5 11:6–9 11:8 11:10

11:10–12 11:16 12 12:2 12:5 13 13–14 13–23 13–27 13:4 14:1–2 14:5 16:5 18:7

106, 138 166, 196, 205, 207 112, 115, 166, 212 97, 115, 128, 134, 140, 144, 159–160, 213 115, 134, 144, 146, 160, 185 127, 139, 159–160, 197 128 115, 159–160, 201 148 165 120 156 158 97, 115, 133, 136, 140, 159, 212–213 109, 129 97, 99, 115, 133, 223 200 200–201, 212 98, 115, 183 115 147 109 133 212 127 111, 135, 161, 164, 197, 201–205, 210, 212, 223 200–201, 210 120 212–213 147 157, 161 93, 113 212, 215 198, 212 201 111 201, 204, 210, 213 158 109, 115, 133 135, 161, 197, 201, 213

19:3 19:6 19:9 19:18–19 19:18–25 19:20 20:3 20:6 22:4 22:20 22:22 23:15–18 24–27 24:5 24:14 24:21 25:3 25:6–8 25:9 26:8 26:9 28–31 28–33 28:16 28:17 29:10 30:9 30:33 31:4 32–33 32:1 33:5 33:7 33:15 34 34–35 34:1 34:5 34:8 34:10 35 35:4 35:4–6 35:5 35:7 36–39 36:4 36:6

251 155 102, 132 132 120 201–202, 210, 213 102, 130, 133, 202, 210 97, 115, 126 202 143 97 147 201, 213 198, 213 106 102 202 111 202, 210, 213 202 135, 137–138, 194 144 213 198, 213 128, 165 106 112, 165 106 141 130 213 99, 109, 115 130 102, 130 97 198, 213 213 151 129 129 103 130, 213 214 130 113, 115, 145 102 213 107 102, 104, 132

252 36:14 37:5 37:14 37:35 38:12 38:16 39 40 40–41 40–48 40–55

40–61 40–66 40:1–11 40:1 40:2 40:3 40:3–4 40:3–5 40:4–5 40:5 40:6–8 40:7 40:8 40:9 40:9–11 40:12–26 40:12–31 40:13 40:14 40:15 40:15–17 40:17 40:18–20 40:18–26 40:19 40:19–20 40:22 40:23 40:26 40:27 40:27–31 40:31 41

Index of References 107 97 145 97, 115 141 141 213 213–214 107 80, 83, 97, 116–117, 194, 214 78–85, 110, 126, 140, 165, 198–199, 216, 218 163 77, 213 80, 156, 213 143 98, 213 164 92 185, 214 185 113, 198, 208 96–97, 115, 164 108, 110, 143 214 93, 164 115, 214 112 89, 91, 107, 214 165 92, 99 101 161 101 189 107 107, 140 92, 214 107, 140 155, 161 99, 128 92, 99–100, 214, 217–218 92 105 89, 94, 214

41:1

41:1–4 41:1–7

41:1–20 41:1–42:12

41:2 41:2–3

41:2–4 41:3 41:4 41:5 41:5–7 41:8 41:8–9 41:8–10

41:8–16 41:9 41:9–10 41:10 41:11 41:11–12 41:11–13 41:13 41:14–16 41:15 41:15–16 41:17 41:17–20 41:18 41:19 41:20

89, 90–91, 93, 99, 105, 151, 153, 155, 160, 217 150, 153, 158 90–92, 96, 112–113, 150–153, 155, 189, 198, 215 90, 116, 153 84–85, 89–90, 116, 118, 123, 141, 150, 158, 161–162, 194, 200, 214 91–92, 109, 115, 151 91, 93, 101, 104, 115, 151, 155, 194, 214–215 91, 97, 113, 151– 152, 158–159 151 91–93, 108, 151, 153 92, 105, 136, 151, 153, 202 92–93 97 91, 98, 126, 183 92, 97–98, 113, 116, 143, 150, 152, 158– 159, 194, 196, 214 80, 90–92, 115–116, 152, 194, 214 97–98, 109, 127, 152–153, 217 92, 109 97, 141 91 152–153 92, 198 92, 108–109 92 91 116, 152 92, 108, 141, 147, 152 90–92, 152–153 153 106 93, 107, 145, 153

Index of References 41:21

41:21–22 41:21–24 41:21–29

41:21–42:12 41:22 41:23 41:24 41:25

41:25–26 41:25–29 41:25–42:25 41:26 41:27 41:28 41:28–29 41:29 42

42:1

42:1–3 42:1–4

42:1–7 42:1–9

90, 97, 116, 129, 141, 147, 153–154, 160 153–154 93 90–91, 93–94, 96, 113–114, 141, 153– 158, 189, 215 116 113–114, 148, 153– 154, 156 114, 148, 156 96, 98, 155 91–92, 97, 101, 109, 113, 115, 155, 158– 159, 194, 213–215 93 93 177 114, 148, 155–156 93, 97, 104, 115, 155, 157, 164 156 94 87, 96, 98, 107, 156 90, 128, 134, 139– 140, 144, 150, 152, 159–160, 185 87, 96–98, 101, 103–105, 107, 111, 113, 115, 125–130, 136, 138, 143, 145– 146, 150, 152, 155, 158–160, 171–173, 177, 181–185, 187, 190, 192–193, 195, 216–217, 219, 221 105 7, 83, 87–89, 94, 99, 100–101, 107, 111, 133–134, 140, 154, 166, 168–171, 176, 193, 195–196, 206, 214, 220 113 2, 6–8, 77, 84–86, 89–91, 94, 115–119, 123, 125, 133, 150– 153, 156–163, 168,

42:2

42:2–3 42:3

42:3–4 42:4

42:5

42:5–8 42:5–9 42:6

42:6–7

42:6–9 42:7

42:8 42:8–9 42:9

42:10 42:10–12

253 181, 183, 191, 194– 203, 205–206, 210– 212, 214–215, 217, 219, 221–228 101, 103–104, 114, 128, 130–132, 149, 152, 173–174, 195 101–104 101–104, 111, 128– 130, 132–133, 138, 145, 158, 160, 195 134, 174–176 87, 100–101, 105– 107, 111, 130, 133– 140, 145, 147–148, 151, 152, 155, 157– 161, 175–176, 179, 195–196, 201–202, 206, 210, 217 87, 93, 98, 105, 107–108, 110, 112– 113, 140–143, 147, 153, 181, 189–190 142 87–89, 107 92, 111, 113, 130, 133–134, 136, 139, 142–147, 153, 159– 160, 187, 193, 196, 217 108–112, 114, 130, 181, 185–188, 197, 214, 220 108 99, 111, 129–130, 145–146, 153, 160, 185–186, 200 92, 139, 142, 146– 148, 153, 157, 193 87, 112–114 87, 90, 94, 107, 113, 125, 148–149, 156, 159, 165, 181, 189– 190 90, 105, 113–114, 157, 161 90–91, 94, 157–158, 198, 215

254 42:12 42:13 42:13–17 42:14–17 42:16 42:17 42:18–20 42:18–25 42:18–43:21 42:19 42:20 42:21 42:24 42:25 43:1 43:1–7 43:4 43:7 43:8 43:8–13 43:9 43:10 43:14 43:16 43:17 43:18–19 43:19 43:20 43:20–21 43:21 43:22–28 43:22–44:23 44:1 44:1–2 44:1–5 44:2 44:3 44:6–8 44:7 44:8 44:9–20 44:21 44:21–22 44:23

Index of References 90, 105–106, 113, 147–148, 157 90, 133, 142, 147, 153, 158 214 90 112, 144 90, 148 112 80, 115, 117, 214 214 146, 217 145 106 106 90 107–109, 138, 140, 189, 215 80, 215 151 109 99, 112, 129, 146 80, 208, 215–216, 220 113, 151 98, 114 106, 140 107 99, 103–104, 129, 132, 146 113, 165, 190 106–107, 114 98, 128, 143 187 113, 143, 147, 215 214 214 217 98, 126, 215 80, 215 107–108, 140, 189 98, 108 208, 215–216, 220 113 114 92, 189 108 80 90, 94, 215

44:24 44:24–45:25 44:26 44:26–28 44:28 45:1 45:1–8 45:1–13 45:2 45:3–4 45:4 45:5 45:6 45:7 45:8 45:11 45:12 45:13 45:14 45:18 45:19 45:21 45:22 45:22–25 45:24 46 46–47 46:1–2 46:3–11 46:4 46:7 46:9 46:10 46:11 47 47:5 48 48:1 48:3 48:6 48:6–7 48:11 48:12 48:13 48:14–16 48:15

107, 140 215 97, 116, 149, 194, 215 215 80, 91, 93, 115, 215 80, 91, 101, 109, 155, 140, 215 108 112, 115 102 93, 109, 115 93, 98, 128, 217 93 215 140, 144 109, 114–115, 149 140 107, 141 91, 93, 109, 115 198 107, 140 133 113 203–204 198, 202, 204, 210, 215, 220 147 215 215 215 215 131 102, 130 113 113 109, 115 116 112 215–216 138, 215 113, 165 114 165 113, 147 109 141 80, 215 109, 115

Index of References 48:16 48:17 48:17–19 48:20 48:21 49 49–53 49–55 49:1 49:1–2 49:1–6

49:1–12 49:1–13 49:2 49:3 49:4 49:5 49:5–6 49:6 49:7 49:8 49:9 49:11 49:12 49:13 49:14 49:14–50:11 49:22–23 49:24 50:2 50:4–5 50:4–9 50:4–11 50:10 50:10–11 51 51:1 51:1–52:12 51:2 51:3 51:4 51:4–6 51:4–7 51:4–8 51:5

98, 216, 219, 222 218 216 99, 129 146 83, 185 219 80, 83, 93 115, 138, 217 217 80, 198, 202–203, 205, 210, 216–217, 222 80 112, 115, 164, 216 218 83, 217, 219 217–219 83 110, 217, 220 115, 143–144, 166, 185–186, 209 129, 198 109, 115, 144, 197 115, 146, 221 92 79 90 218 218 198, 204, 210 218 109, 218 127 216, 218–219 80, 116, 127, 218 138, 148, 220 218–219 136, 159 218 218 91, 152 156 106, 111, 130, 144 198, 203, 210, 218, 220 106 80, 115 107, 135, 197

51:6 51:7 51:9–16 51:11 51:13 51:22 51:22–23 52:2 52:7 52:7–10 52:8 52:11 52:13 52:13–53:12 52:14–15 52:15 53 53:1 53:1–6 53:2 53:4 53:4–6 53:6 53:7 53:7–8 53:8 53:9 53:10 53:11 53:12 54 54:2 54:4–5 54:6 54:10 54:13 54:16 54:17 55:1–5 55:2–3 55:3 55:3–5 55:5 55:6–13 55:7–8 55:12

255 141 130 80 156 141 140 198 146 164–165 93 102 129 219 80, 127, 165, 218– 219 219 166, 219 6, 72, 103, 166, 219, 225 165, 166 219–220 127 166, 219 166 219 185 166 129 166 216, 219, 221 144 166 116 141 198 109 111 164 99, 128 129, 219–222 115, 203–205, 210, 220 203 110 198–199, 208, 222 203–204 80 154 94, 129

256 55:12–13 56–66 56:1–8 56:1 56:5 56:6 56:6–7 56:7 56:7–8 56:9–59:21 57:16 58:6 58:8 58:10 59:8 59:8–15 59:9 59:11 59:14 59:15 59:20–21 59:21 60–62 60:1 60:1–2 60:1–3 60:1–62:12 60:6 60:19 60:19–20 61:1 61:1–2 61:1–3 61:1–11 61:3 61:7 61:8 61:11 62:1 62:1–2 62:2 62:7 62:10 62:12 63:1 63:7 63:11–12

Index of References 90 78, 205, 218–221 204–205, 220 220 221 220–221 164, 205 143 210 220 141–142 102, 134, 185 145 145 99, 114 99 99, 130 99 99 99 165 98 204–205, 210 149 113 145, 204–206 220 164 145 204 98, 115, 146, 164, 183, 188, 192, 221 166, 185 80, 115–116, 221– 222 220 103, 134, 221 221 110 99, 114 105, 144 204 221 105 204–205 221 130 147 96

63:16 63:17–18 63:19 64:10 65–66 65:1–2 65:4 65:8–16 65:9 65:10 65:11 65:13–14 65:14 66:7–14 66:13 66:14 66:15–17 66:18–24 66:24

137, 139 221 137, 139, 183 147 202, 221 165 102 221 99, 129, 146 221 221 221 130 221 156 221 205 198, 205, 210–211, 221 103

Jeremiah 1:5 2:15 14:9 16:2 23:5 23:5–6 25:9 27:6 33:15 33:21–22 33:26 43:10 50–51 50:38 51:10

107, 116 204 138 149 99, 114 97 97 97 114 97 97 97 99 113 99

Ezekiel 16 23 29:6–7 29:21 34:23–24 37 37:24

116 116 102 114 97 107 97

Hosea 2:20

158

257

Index of References 11:1

127

Joel 3:1–2 3:1–5

98 192, 209

Amos 4:1 5:3

102 129

Habakkuk 1:4

100, 175

Haggai 2:23

97

Zechariah 2:15 3:8 6:12 9:9–10

204 97, 114 114 102

Malachi 4:4

97

The Wisdom of Solomon 2:13 192 2:16 192 2:18 192 4:1 147

Qumran 1QHa 12:25

1QIsaa 26:8

175

137

New Testament Matthew 1:1 1:18 1:20 1:21 1:23 2:1–3 2:1–12 2:16 3:3 3:15 3:16 3:17 4:1 4:15–16 4:16 5:13–16 5:14–16 5:17 6:32 7:22

207 178 178 181, 207 1, 166 181 207 172 164, 185 169, 179 178 172, 182, 184, 192 178 166, 181, 185, 206 190 179 187–188, 191, 206, 211 169 206 181

8:5–13 8:6 8:8 8:13 8:17 10:5 10:5–6 10:22 10:23 11 11–12 11:2–12:45 11:5 11:20–24 11:27 12 12:1–8 12:1–14 12:9–13 12:14 12:15 12:15–16

181, 207 172 172 172 166 207 206 181 206 176 176 177 186 178 180 176–179 178 176 178 176, 178 177–178 169

258 12:15–21 12:16 12:17 12:18

12:18–21 12:19 12:20 12:21 12:22–32 12:22–37 12:38–45 12:41–42 13:14–15 13:48 14:2 15:21–28 15:24 16:21 17:5 17:9 17:18 17:22–23 18:5 18:20 19:29 20:18–19 20:19 20:25 21:13 21:15 23:23 23:32 24 24:5 24:9 24:14 25:31–46 25:32 26:13 26:28 26:39 26:42 26:56 27:1

Index of References 168–170, 176, 179, 181 177 177 171–173, 175, 177– 178, 180–182, 184, 191–192 7, 166, 168–169, 177, 193, 195, 206 173–174, 178, 180 174–175, 178–180 137, 139, 175–176, 179–181 176, 178–179 178 178 178, 192 164 169 172 208 206 179 172, 177, 182, 184 177 172 179 181 181 181 179 206 206 164 172 178, 192 169 208 181 181, 206 208 178 206 208 193 179 179 179 176

27:7 27:54 28:12 28:16–20 28:18–20 28:19 28:19–20

176 208 176 207 179, 206–207, 211 179, 181, 192 181

Mark 1:3 1:9–11 1:10 1:11 4:12 7:35 9:7 9:39 10:33 10:43 11:17 13:6 14:24 15:28 15:39 16:2

164, 185 181 182 72, 172, 181–182 164 188 72, 172, 182–183 192 206 206 164 192 193 166 72, 208 190

Luke 1–2 1:49 1:54 1:67–80 1:69 1:72 1:79 2:29–32 2:30 2:32 2:43 3:4–6 3:6 3:22 3:38 4:16–30 4:18 4:18–19 4:25–27 7:22 9:35 9:49

208 192 191 185 191 193 185 185, 208 185 185 191 164, 185 208 182, 184 208 208 134, 146, 188, 192 166, 185 208 186 182, 184 192

259

Index of References 11:2 11:42 12:30 13:16 18:18–19:10 18:32 19:46 21:24 22:20 22:25 22:37 23:35 24 24:31 24:46–47 24:47 24:48

192 192 206 188 186 206 164 206 193 206 164 182, 184 186, 208 186 208 192 208

John 1:1–18 1:5 1:7–9 1:14 1:29 1:32–33 1:34 1:36 3:19 4:25–26 5:22–30 5:23 5:44 6:45 8:12 8:16 8:54 9:10 9:14 9:17 9:21 9:26 9:30 9:32 10:21 11:4 11:40 11:43–44 12:35 12:38

40 187 187 17, 193 185 185 182, 185 185 192 189 192 193 193 164 187 192 193 187 187 187 187 187 187 187 188 193 193 188 187 166

12:40 12:43 12:46 13:31–32 16:13–15 17:1 20:31

164 193 187 193 189 193 192

Acts 1:8 2 2:2 2:5 2:17–21 2:32 2:38 3:13 3:15 3:20–22 3:25 3:26 4:17 4:18 4:25 4:25–27 4:27 4:30 5:17–26 5:19 5:28 5:32 5:40 7:8 8:26–39 9:15 10:34–35 10:39 10:41 10:44–45 11:1 11:5–11 13:44–52 13:46–48 13:47 14:27 15 15:12 16:23–27 16:26

186, 208 209 189 209 192 209 192 172, 191 209 184 193 172, 191 192 192 191 206 172, 191 172, 191 188 188 192 209 192 193 166 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 186–187 210 166, 186, 188, 191 210 209–210 210 188 188

260

Index of References

17 17:22–31 17:24–25 18:6 20:23 21:11 21:19 22:15 22:21 25:32 26:16 26:18 26:23 28:25–28 28:26–27 28:28

189, 191 189 189 210 188 206 210 210 210 206 187, 210 186, 188, 191, 193 187 187 164 210

Romans 1:16–17 1:23 2:19 8:9 9–11 9:25–26 10:16 15:12 15:21

40 193 188, 191 192 72, 165 55 166 164 166

1 Corinthians 3:13 3:16 5:3–5 6:11 11:25

190 192 40 192 193

2 Corinthians 3 3:6 3:14 5:17 6:16–17

53 193 193 190 165

Galatians 1:15–16 3:10 3:24 3:26–29 6:15

164 55 193 205 190

Philippians 1 2:9–11 2:10

188 69 206

Colossians 1:12–14 1:15–17

193 206

1 Timothy 6:16

193

Hebrews 1:3 7:22 8:6 9:15 12:24

193 193 193 193 193

James 1:17

193

1 Peter 1:12 1:24–25 2:9 2:22–25 3:19 4:14

189 164 187, 193 166 188 192

2 Peter 1:17 1:19 2:9

182, 184 190 192

1 John 1:5 4:13

193 192

Revelation 4:11 5:12 11:2 14:5 19:5 21–22 21:5

193 193 206 166 206 206 190

Author Index   Albertz, Rainer 78, 90, 93 Allison, Dale C. 171, 179 Baer, David 118–119, 205  Baker, David L. 73–74 Baldermann, Ingo 4 Balla, Peter 6, 51, 63 Baltzer, Klaus 79, 88, 90, 95–96, 100 Barr, James 5–6, 13, 16, 19, 48 Barstad, Hans 79, 82 Barthel, Jörg 5 Barton, John 2, 5, 11, 13, 18, 20, 38 Bauckham, Richard J. 184 Beale, Gregory K. 6, 163, 167–168 Beaton, Richard 168, 170–178, 180–182 Begrich, Joachim 95, 100, 102–103 Bentzen, Aage 88, 90, 95, 110, 113 Berges, Ulrich 77–79, 86, 90–96, 99–101, 104–106, 108, 110, 117 Beuken, Willem A.M. 79, 99, 100–101, 105, 212, 219–221 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 78, 80, 85, 88, 91, 93, 95–96, 100, 104, 106, 108, 131, 163 Blomberg, Craig L. 171 Brenton, Lancelot C.L. 124, 157 Brett, Mark G. 5 Brown, Raymond E. 182 Brueggemann, Walter 88, 90, 95–96, 105 Buhl, Frants 88, 95 Carter, Warren 206–207 Chen, Xun 5, 11, 16–17, 24, 58, 66 Childs, Brevard S. 1, 3–7, 11–19, 21–39, 43–44, 46–52, 55–71, 73–74, 77–80, 83–84, 88, 90–93, 95, 100, 104, 108, 110–111, 113–118, 164, 194, 198, 200, 202–203, 205, 211–222, 224–225 Chilton, Bruce D. 87 Clements, Ronald E. 205

Clifford, Richard J. 78–79, 95–96 Collins, John J. 2 Collins, Adela Yarbro 183 Croatto, J. Severino 199 Crüsemann, Frank 6 Dafni, Evangelia G. 127, 136, 138, 152, 159 Davies, Graham 171, 179 Davies, W.D. 198 De Sousa, Rodrigo F. 118, 149, 154 Dittert, Kurt 95, 104, 106 Dohmen, Christoph 4 Driver, Daniel R. 5, 11–13, 16, 18, 22, 33, 36, 47–49, 58, 67, 71 Duhm, Bernhard 6, 78–83, 88, 95, 100, 102, 106, 108–110, 116, 216–217 Earl, Douglas S. 3 Ebeling, Gerhard 47–48 Ekblad, Eugene Robert 118–119, 122, 124–125, 127–139, 141–146, 151–156, 203, 212 Elliger, Karl 85–86, 88–89, 93–96, 100, 102–103, 106–108, 110, 113, 126 Elliott, Mark W. 2, 58 Evans, Craig A. 163, 165 Feldmeier, Reinhard 2 Fischer, Johann 119, 122 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 182, 184–185, 188, 208 France, R.T. 54, 180, 184 Freed, Edwin D. 164 Gese, Hartmut 63, 65 Gignilliat, Mark S. 11, 67, 164

262

Author Index

Goldingay, John 84, 86, 88–91, 93–96, 98, 100, 104–105, 107–108, 110, 112, 115–117 Grelot, Pierre 132, 160 Grimm, Werner 95, 104, 106 Grindel, John 170, 173, 175 Grisanti, Michael A. 199 Grundmann, Walter 182, 184 Grünschloß, Andreas 11 Gundry, Robert Horton 170–176, 183 Gunneweg, Antonius H.J. 56, 61 Gzella, Holger 85–87, 119, 122, 124–127, 132, 137, 178 Haag, Herbert 81 Hagelia, Hallvard 2 Hahn, Ferdinand 6 Hamm, Dennis 186–187 Hanhart, Robert 124, 138, 143, 156 Hanson, Paul D. 90, 95, 110 Harrisville, Roy A. 11, 190 Hasel, Gerhard F. 4 Hayes, Elizabeth R. 222, 225 Hays, Richard B. 167 Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen 77–79, 81, 90 Hillers, Delbert R. 109–110 Hollenberg, D.E. 199 Hooker, Morna D. 165–166, 177, 182, 185, 192 Hübner, Hans 2, 4, 6–7, 11, 14–27, 30–35, 39–44, 46–57, 59–66, 71–74, 118, 164, 167–168, 178–179, 191, 194, 207, 209, 225 Hugenberger, G.P. 96 Høgenhaven, Jesper 219 Irsigler, Herbert 104 Jeppesen, Knud 83, 117, 212, 216, 220 Jeremias, Jörg 100–101, 165, 183, 192 Jobes, Karen H. 122, 124 Juel, Donald 165–166, 183 Kaiser, Otto 88, 94–95, 110, 113 Kennedy, James M. 84, 95, 97 Kim, Hyun Chul Paul 89–90, 95, 102, 104–105, 111, 114–115 Klink, Edward W. 2 Koenig, Jean 102–103, 137, 158, 176

Körstenberger, Andreas J. 193 Kratz, Reinhard G. 78, 88, 90, 93 Krauter, Stefan 24 Kvanvig, Helge S. 13 Laato, Antti 80, 89–90, 94–95, 100–102, 109–110, 116–117, 217, 223 Ladd, Geirge Eldon 6 Lauha, Aarre 109–110 Lemche, Niels Peter 2, 24 Lindars, B. 177 Lindblom, Joh. 95, 111 Lockett, Darian R. 2 Lohfink, Norbert 217 Lund, Øystein 79 Lundbom, Jack R. 78 Luz, Ulrich 170, 179, 181 Lybæk, Lena 170–171, 175, 181 Maillet, Paul 85, 118–119, 125, 127, 129, 132, 135–138, 141, 144, 146–148, 158, 161 Mallen, Peter 164, 184 Marcus, Joel 183 Marcus, Ralph 86, 100, 102–103 Marshall, I. Howard 6 Martens, Elmer A. 198 McKenzie, John L. 88, 95, 105, 110 Mead, James K. 2 Meek, James A. 164, 186, 208 Melugin, Roy F. 78, 88, 90, 92, 94–95, 110 Menken, Maarten J.J. 163–164, 168–172, 174–179 Merendino, Rosario Pius 78, 88, 94–95, 110 Merk, Otto 22 Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. 80, 82, 116 Morgan, Robert 6, 15, 44, 46, 55 Motyer, J. Alec 6, 88–90, 95, 100, 107, 113 Mowinckel, Sigmund 88 Moyise, Steve 163 Müller, Mogens 6, 28, 122, 161, 168–169, 176 Muraoka, Takamitsu 126, 129, 131, 147 Neyrey, Jerome H. 177, 179 New, David S. 170, 173, 176

Author Index Ngunga, Abi T. 118–122, 125, 127, 130, 133, 138–139, 159, 201 Noble, Paul R. 5 North, Christopher R. 80–83, 88, 94–96, 100, 108–109, 116–117, 199, 217 Novakovic, Lidija 170, 176–178 Oeming, Manfred 5, 19, 32–33 Olmstead, Wesley G. 206–207 Oorschot, Jürgen van 78 Orlinsky, Harry M. 111, 126–217 Oswalt, John N. 88, 95–96, 112, 198 Ottley, Richard R. 122, 124, 126, 135–138, 147, 149, 151, 154, 156–157 Pao, David W. 164, 184, 186, 189, 208– 209 Paton-Williams, David 83, 97, 117, 212, 216–218 Patrick, James E. 169, 177–178 Paul, Shalom M. 88, 91, 94–96, 103, 106, 108, 110, 113, 176 Payne, David 84, 86, 88–91, 93, 95–96, 98, 100, 105, 107–108, 112 Peake, Arthur Samuel 117 Pearson, Brook W.R. 118, 123 Perdue, Leo G. 46, 60 Pfleiderer, Georg 6 Porter, Stanley E. 118, 123 Poulsen, Frederik 7, 12, 17, 48, 56, 79, 102, 113, 166 Provan, Ian 33 Rahlfs, Alfred 124, 138, 143, 156 Rendtorff, Rolf 5, 49 Rowley, H.H. 81 Räisänen, Heikki 4, 63 Sanecki, Artur 16 Sawyer, John F.A. 163–164, 187 Scalise, Charles J. 15–16 Schaller, Berndt 11 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 178, 180 Schnelle, Udo 11, 14 Scholz, Anton 122 Schultz, Richard L. 115, 198–199, 201, 204, 223 Schwarz, Günther 109 Schweizer, Harald 95

263

Seccombe, David 186–187 Seeligmann, Isaac Leo 13, 118–120, 122– 123, 125, 131, 143, 149, 170 Seitz, Christopher R. 5, 12–13, 18, 32–34, 49, 69, 79, 212, 216–217, 219 Shepherd, Charles E. 5, 219 Silva, Moisés 122, 124 Smart, James D. 82–83, 91, 95–96, 110, 112 Smillie, Gene R. 206 Smith, Mark S. 109–110 Snaith, Norman H. 91, 100–101, 103, 106, 110–111, 199 Snyman, S.D. (Fanie) 88–89, 94, 111 Spieckermann, Hermann 2 Spykerboer, Hendrik Carel 78 Stamm, Johann Jakob 109–110 Steck, Odil Hannes 78, 89 Steins, Georg 5, 13, 16, 21 Stendahl, Krister 12, 47, 169–170, 173, 175–176, 183 Stoebe, Hans Joachim103 Strecker, Georg 47 Stromberg, Jacob 77–78 Stuhlmacher, Peter 4, 27, 55, 63–65 Stuhlmueller, Carroll 77, 80 Sumpter, Philip E. 5, 12–13, 16, 18, 29, 32–33, 38–39, 50, 58, 67–68, 70, 212, 218 Sundberg, Albert Carl 23, 25  Sundberg, Walter 11  Sweeney, Marvin A. 56 Söding, Thomas 4, 11, 14, 63 Tidwell, N.L. 126 Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia 77–79 Tilly, Michael 124 Troxel, Ronald L. 118, 120–122 Ulrich, Eugene 13 Van der Kooij, Arie 118–123, 126, 128, 137–138, 158, 160, 176, 201 Van Wieringen, Archibald L.H.M. 190 Van Winkle, D.W. 106, 109–110, 199, 203 Wagner, J. Ross 27–29, 33, 164 Ware, James P. 136, 198, 200, 203–204 Watts, John D.W. 85, 90, 95, 105

264

Author Index

Watts, Rikki E. 163–164, 166–167, 183, 186, 199, 218, 225 Weinfeld, Moshe 110 Werlitz, Jürgen 78, 88 Westermann, Claus 78, 80, 88, 90–91, 95, 100–101, 103, 105, 108, 110, 112, 199, 204, 217 Whybray, R.N. 88, 95–96, 110 Wilckens, Ulrich 6 Wilcox, Peter 83, 97, 117, 212, 216–218 Wilk, Florian 11, 164, 190 Williams, Catrin H. 83, 117, 164, 185, 187, 212, 216–218

Williamson, Hugh G.M. 77–78, 94–95, 117, 203–205, 212, 216–217, 222–224 Wilson, Stephen G. 208 Winkel Holm, Katrine 6, 51, 57, 63 Wolter, Michael 182, 184, 188 Woods, Julia 3 Ziegler, Joseph 119–120, 122–124, 136– 138, 143, 149, 156, 158, 176 Zillessen, A. 123 Zimmerli, Walther 165, 183, 192

Subject Index a covenant to the people(s) 109–111, 143– 144, 197 a light to the nations 111–112, 144–145, 185–188, 196–197, 216–217 Abraham 68, 91, 95, 97, 110, 113, 126, 152, 193, 207, 209, 217 Abraham Ibn Ezra 77 Acts 19, 166, 186, 208 Adam 208 Agrippa 186 Alexandria 24–25, 30, 120, 135, 139, 202 Amos 54, 78, 80 Assyria, Assyrians 132, 201, 213 Athanasius, 24 Augustine 28, 59 Babylon, Babylonians 78–80, 99, 104– 105, 112–113, 116, 212–213, 215–217 baptism narrative 172, 178–184, 190, 192, 195 Barnabas 166, 186, 193, 210–211, 225 Barth, Karl 11, 15–17, 38–39, 44, 67, 73– 74 Baumgartner, Walter 11 Bible – as a theological book 11 – as a vehicle of divine revelation 11–12, 16, 33, 37–39, 43–44, 49, 58–59, 70 – critical editions of the 83–84, 123–124, 166–168 – relationship of its two testaments 51– 63, 222–226 biblical theology – approach to 66–72 – as a discipline 14, 16–17, 46–51, 62–63 – concept of 46–66 blind, blindness 81–82, 86–87, 89, 95, 99, 111–115, 129–130, 145–146, 153, 160, 185–188, 215–216, 222

Bultmann, Rudolf 14–16, 18, 20, 43, 53, 61, 73–74 Calvin, Jean 15, 17, 44, 74, 91 canon – Alexandrian 25, 30 – authority of 35–45 – definition of 13, 16, 35–37, 39–40 – formation of 21–35 – order of books 29 – scope of 22, 25–29 – textual form of 22, 24–29, 33 canonical approach 12–13, 31–32 captives, captivity 87, 95, 112–113, 116, 146, 181, 185, 188, 197, 215 see also prison, prisoners Catholic theology 14, 16, 28, 34, 37–38, 44 Childs, Brevard – life and work 12–14 – theological presuppositions 15–19 Christology 27, 31, 180, 224 1 Clement 26 coastlands, 85–86, 89–94, 101, 105–106, 114–115, 134–136, 138, 140, 150–151, 157, 161, 197, 199, 202–203, 205, 217 see also islands, nations, peoples counselors 154–156, 158, 160–161, 197 see also idolatry, idols creation narratives 107, 140 Cyrus 80, 88, 90–97, 104–105, 108–110, 112–113, 115, 128, 151, 155, 158–159, 162, 194, 212, 214–216, 223 Daniel 24, 149 darkness 86, 111–112, 115, 134, 138, 144– 146, 148, 185–188, 193, 222 David, 31, 36, 97–98, 115, 126, 133, 147, 166, 179, 191, 199, 203, 220, 223

266

Subject Index

Davidic Messiah 96–98, 104, 115, 194, 200, 223 see also Messiah Delitzsch, Friedrich 77 Döderlein, J.C. 77 Duhm, Bernhard 78–83, 116, 216 – criticism against 82–83 Easter 186, 208 Ebeling, Gerhard 47–48 Ecumenical concerns 34 Edom 213 Egypt, Egyptians 99, 102–104, 119–120, 129, 132, 155, 160, 188, 195, 201–202 Eichhorn, J.G. 77 Eichrodt, Walther 11 Elijah 208 Elisha 208 Emmanuel 181, 207 Emmaus 186 Enlightenment 13, 15, 18–19, 48, 56–57, 77 exile 78–79, 100, 112, 199, 213–214 existentialist approach 14–15, 20, 64 exodus, new exodus 78–79, 96, 129, 143, 164, 217 Exodus Narrative 99, 129, 132 Ezekiel 78, 97, 116 foreign gods 90–91, 93, 96, 98, 100, 107, 155 see also idolatry, idols form criticism 18, 43, 87–88 former things 80, 86–87, 113, 148, 190, 212, 214 see also new things fulfillment quotations 168–170 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 14 Genesis 140, 143, 152, 183 glory 86–87, 113, 142, 147, 157, 164, 185, 191, 193, 202, 204–205, 207–208, 211, 220 God – as creator 89, 91–92, 100, 107–108, 112, 140, 142, 153, 181, 189, 191, 214–215 – as master of history and life 89, 91, 100, 107, 113, 142 – as peacemaker 152, 158 – as redeemer 92, 198, 214–215 – plan of 91–92, 208, 212–215

– sovereignty of 89–92, 100, 107–108, 112–113, 202–203, 214–216 – Spirit of 30–31, 85–89, 98–99, 140– 144, 178–180, 183, 188–192, 195, 208– 209, 216, 221–222 – uniqueness of 90, 114, 214 – will of 101, 179, 197, 214, 219, 222 Gogarten, Friedrich 14 Gospels, 19, 29, 72, 163, 184, 193, 205 see also Synoptic Gospels hardening, theme of 212 healing 114, 166, 168–169, 177–178, 188, 191, 206, 224 Hebrews 20, 71, 193 Heidegger, Martin 14 Hellenism, Hellenization 27, 31, 33–34, 60, 64, 69, 73, 119–120, 183 hermeneutics 11, 14 Hezekiah, 97, 141, 213 Hirsch, Emanuel 74 historical criticism 12, 17 Hübner, Hans – life and work 14–15 – theological presuppositions 15–19 idolatry, idols 80, 86–87, 92–94, 96, 98, 100, 107, 109, 113–114, 131, 141, 147– 148, 154–158, 160–161, 189, 197, 214– 215 see also counselors, foreign gods Irenaeus 13 Isaiah – as a prophet 77, 97, 116–117, 126, 214 – book of 77–80, 118–123, 163–165 – in the New Testament 163–165 – in the Septuagint 118–123 – structure of 211–222 – unity of 77–80, 83–84 Isaiah 42:1–9 – in New Testament allusions 181–191, 194–197 – in New Testament citations 168–181, 194–197 – in New Testament key terms 191–193 – in the MT 94–117, 194–197 – in the Septuagint 125–150, 194–197 – literary context of 89–94, 150–158 – literary form of 87–88 – structure of 89

Subject Index – textual issues of 85–87 islands 135–136, 150–153, 157–158, 161 see also coastlands, nations, peoples Jacob 80, 97–99, 116, 125–129, 132–133, 137–140, 142–146, 150, 152–153, 155, 157–162, 171, 176, 194, 200, 214–215, 217 Jeremiah 78, 80, 97, 109, 115, 217 Jerome 28, 175 Jerusalem 31, 77–80, 93, 105, 113, 120, 128, 131–132, 136, 146, 156, 168, 190–191, 198, 206, 208, 210, 213, 219 Jesus ben Sira 22, 24 Joel 209 John 20, 41, 72, 164, 181, 187–188, 193 2 John 163 3 John 163 John the Baptist 164, 178, 185, 187, 208 Josephus 22–24, 120 Judah 79 Judea 208 judgment 99–102, 106, 125, 128–135, 138, 144–145, 150–155, 159–161, 177–180, 184, 189–192, 196–198, 201–207, 212– 214, 221 justice 85–86, 92, 95, 98–106, 111, 125, 128–134, 154, 159–161, 171, 174, 177– 181, 191–192, 196–199, 203, 215, 217, 220–224 Justin Martyr 26 kerygma, kerygmatic 16, 19, 32, 39–40, 43–44, 64, 73, 78 Lamentations 24 Leontopolis 120, 160 light metaphor 111, 138, 145, 159–160, 181, 185–186, 191, 193, 195 literal and received senses 54–58, 67–68, 71–72 Logos 40–41 Luke 183–186, 191–192, 204, 208–209 Luke-Acts 8, 164, 169, 181, 185–186, 189, 193–194, 197–198, 205–206, 208, 210– 211 Luther, Martin 14–15, 17, 41, 44, 74, 91 Lutheran theology 14–15, 20, 44, 74

267

2 Maccabees 149 Mark 48, 72, 164, 169, 172, 182–184, 206 Masoretic text 24, 33 Matthew 7–8, 137, 166, 168–184, 191– 193, 195–197, 206–208, 224–225 Matthew 12:18–21 – fulfillment quotations 168–170 – interpretative implications 179–181 – literary context 176–179 – textual form 170–176 Messiah 31, 33, 42, 81, 87, 96, 99, 109– 110, 112, 116, 126, 139, 147, 165, 170, 176–178, 180, 183, 185, 189, 201, 210 see also Davidic Messiah messianic Branch 97, 115 metaphor, metaphors 37, 52, 71–72, 103– 104, 111–112, 114, 145, 164, 167, 185–187, 191, 195 Midrash 56 ministry 112, 166, 168–169, 175, 177, 193, 210–211 Moses 74, 95–97, 101, 110, 126, 139, 168, 184 multilevel reading of Scripture 66–71 name – for torah (Isa 42:4) 136–140, 175–176 – of God 113, 146–149, 157–158, 160– 161, 192, 205–206 – of Isaiah 163 – of Jesus 179, 181, 191–192, 206–209 – of the servant 160–161 name-theology 157–159, 161–162, 179, 197 nations 89–92, 96–101, 104–106, 109– 116, 134–140, 144–145, 150–164, 185– 187, 197–211, 214, 217–226 see also coastlands, islands, peoples – in Isaiah 198–205 – in Matthew 206–208 – in Luke-Acts 208–210 Nazareth 185, 208 Nebuchadrezzar 97, 115 new things 80, 86–87, 94, 107, 113–114, 148, 156, 189–190, 212–215 see also former things Nietzsche, Friedrich 14 Origen 24, 124

268

Subject Index

passion narrative 69, 175, 181–182, 184, 195 Pastoral Epistles 72, 163 Paul 14, 19–20, 26, 40–44, 53, 55, 57, 71– 72, 163–164, 166, 175–176, 181, 186, 188–189, 193, 202, 209–211, 225 Pauline Epistles 71, 192 peace 93, 99, 110, 151, 158, 160–161, 197, 200–201, 213, 219–220 Pentecost 189, 192, 209 peoples 86, 91, 93, 98, 102–104, 111, 115, 134–135, 150–151, 157, 176, 192, 197, 200–204, 207–209, 217, 220 see also coastlands, islands, nations Peshitta 86–87 Peter 192, 209 1 Peter 72, 165–166, 207 Pharisees – as historical figures 23–25 – as literary figures 176, 178–180, 196 Philo 24 praise 86, 90, 94, 106–107, 113–114, 147, 157, 161, 176, 198, 210, 212, 214–215, 221 prison, prisioners 86–87, 89, 99, 111–115, 129, 145–146, 178, 186, 197, 221 see also captives, captivity Protestant theology 1, 15–16, 28, 34, 37, 44, 73–74 providence 32, 189 Psalms 138, 158, 163 Qumran 24, 84–85, 87, 137, 139, 169, 184 Rahner, Karl 14 redemption 69, 80, 109, 112, 199, 216, 218–219, 222 Reformed theology 15–16, 20, 32, 44, 74 Reformers 38, 69 relationships of the two testaments see also Bible – antithesis 44, 74 – dialectic 17, 28, 30, 44, 59–60, 65–66, 224 – law and gospel 15, 44, 74 – prophecy-fulfillment 30, 224 resurrection 40, 69, 110, 164, 175, 177, 179, 181, 190, 196, 209 revelation see also Bible

– as a motif in Isaiah 100, 149, 213 – as a motif in the New Testament 185, 190, 208 – concept of 6, 15–16,20, 38, 44, 52–54, 73–74 Revelation 20, 72, 163–164, 166, 193, 206 righteousness 40, 86–87, 99, 100–101, 106, 108–109, 114–115, 128, 130, 133, 142, 144, 150–152, 165, 189, 196, 202, 217–219 rule of faith, ruled reading 13, 16, 36, 57, 63, 67, 69 Ruth 24 Sabbath 72, 176, 178, 204, 220 Sachkritik 32, 39, 43, 59 salvation 30, 58, 64, 74, 79, 90, 92–93, 99–100, 102, 106, 110–112, 114–115, 117, 135–136, 185–187, 197–204, 207– 223 Samaria 208 Scripture see also Bible – Pharisaic tradition of 23–27 – unity of 13, 50 Second Temple 22, 25, 33 servant figure – as a mediator 111, 139, 145, 159–161, 203–204, 222–226 – as a son 97, 126–127, 159–160, 182– 183, 191–192 – collective interpretations 81–83, 116– 117, 220–223 – individual interpretations 81–83, 116– 117, 215–222 Servant Songs 80–84, 116–117, 165–166, 216–222 sight 146, 181, 185–188, 191, 197, 222 Simeon 185, 208 Stuhlmacher, Peter 63–65 suffering 83, 97, 103–105, 112, 165–166, 186, 196, 215, 217–220 Sundberg, Albert Carl 23, 25 Synoptic Gospels 20, 72, 164, 181, 192, 206 see also Gospels Talmud 56 Targum 26, 87, 91, 104, 111, 126, 173, 178, 183

Subject Index theological significance of the Septuagint 26–28, 31 torah 87, 89, 96, 100–101, 105–106, 111, 114–115, 129, 135–140, 147, 150, 157–161, 178, 180, 196–197, 200–203, 206 transfiguration narrative 172, 177, 179, 181–184, 190, 195 trial 90–93, 96, 99–100, 112, 129, 151, 154, 157 truth – as a motif in Isaiah 99–100, 104, 130, 132–133, 155, 196, 215 – as a motif in the New Testament 189 – theological concept of 18, 28, 32, 34, 38–39, 71

269

Vetus Testamentum per se et in Novo receptum 15, 43–44, 51, 54–57, 61–62, 65 von Harnack, Adolf 74 von Rad, Gerhard 49, 68 Vulgate 86–87, 109 Wisdom of Solomon 14, 26, 192 word and tradition 44 Yeago, David 69 Zechariah 185, 192 Zerubbabel 82, 97