New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia 9781463203566, 146320356X

Citation preview

New Studies in the Book of Isaiah

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 21

This series contains volumes dealing with the study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. The series includes monographs, edited collections, and the printed version of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, which is also available online.

New Studies in the Book of Isaiah

Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia

Edited by

Markus Zehnder

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܗ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0356-6

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Preface ....................................................................................................... xi A Personal Tribute to Hallvard Hagelia................................................ 1 Bjørn Øyvind Fjeld A Select Bibliography of Hallvard Hagelia .................................. 7 Academic Publications.............................................................. 7 Popular Works ......................................................................... 11 From Gesenius to Childs: Reading the Book of Isaiah with Two Giants ..................................................................................... 13 LarsOlov Eriksson Introduction ................................................................................... 13 I. Gesenius and His Commentary on the Book of Isaiah ....... 14 II. Childs and His Commentary on the Book of Isaiah .......... 16 III. Some Examples from the Two Commentaries ................. 18 Isaiah 1:1 ................................................................................... 18 Isaiah 6:1–3 ............................................................................... 19 Isaiah 7:14 ................................................................................. 21 Isaiah 24–27.............................................................................. 22 Isaiah 40–55(66)....................................................................... 25 Isaiah 52:13–53:12 ................................................................... 26 IV. Some Summarizing Observations and Remarks ............... 28 Bibliography ................................................................................... 30 Spirit, Creation and Redemption in Isaiah ......................................... 31 David G. Firth Introduction ................................................................................... 31 I. Yhwh: Authoritative over Creation ........................................ 33 II. Eschatological Restoration of Creation ................................ 37 III. Israel’s Redemption ................................................................ 41 v

vi

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH IV. A ‘Messianic’ Figure in Redemption.................................... 44 V. Conclusion................................................................................. 48 Bibliography ................................................................................... 48

What Kind of God Is Portrayed in Isaiah 5:1–7? ............................. 53 Terence E. Fretheim Introduction ................................................................................... 53 I. God as Lover and Judge ........................................................... 57 II. God Expects and Is Disappointed ........................................ 60 III. God’s Why?-Language........................................................... 63 Bibliography ................................................................................... 66 Isaiah and Africa ..................................................................................... 69 Knut Holter Introduction ................................................................................... 69 I. Prelude: ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ as Constructs in a New Interpretive Context ............................................................. 71 II. Finding Africa in Isaiah ........................................................... 74 III. Finding Isaiah in Africa ......................................................... 80 IV. Postlude: Biblical Scholars Speaking in Other Tongues .................................................................................. 88 Bibliography ................................................................................... 88 The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) and Material Philology: Preliminary Observations and A Proposal ................................ 91 Årstein Justnes Introduction ................................................................................... 91 I. Material Philology ...................................................................... 95 II. Short Presentation of 1QIsaa ................................................. 97 III. Material Philology: Implications for the Study of 1QIsaa ...................................................................................101 IV. Preliminary Observations ....................................................102 1QIsaa as a literary product per se .........................................102 Between corrections, intersections, and alterations .........103 Scribal activity, clusters of manuscripts .............................105 Literary environment ............................................................105 Preservation, material, and status........................................106 Real readers, lived religion ...................................................107 V. Summary ..................................................................................108

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

VI. A Proposal .............................................................................108 VII. Outlook.................................................................................109 Bibliography .................................................................................110 Did Isaiah Really See God? The Ancient Discussion About Isaiah 6:1 .......................................................................................115 Magnar Kartveit Introduction .................................................................................115 I. ‘Seeing God’ in the Hebrew Bible.........................................116 II. ‘Seeing God’ in the Septuagint .............................................120 III. ‘Seeing God’ in Ancient Judaism .......................................124 IV. ‘Seeing God’ in the Ascension of Isaiah ................................127 V. Conclusion...............................................................................135 Bibliography .................................................................................135 Zion, Eden and Temple in the Book of Isaiah ................................137 Jens Bruun Kofoed Introduction .................................................................................137 I. The Primeval Hill.....................................................................139 II. The Cosmic Mountain...........................................................140 III. New Creation ........................................................................151 IV. Conclusion .............................................................................154 Bibliography .................................................................................154 ‘Do Not Fear, for I Am with You’: The Use of Isaiah 41:10 in Times of Incurable Illness ..........................................................157 Marta Høyland Lavik Introduction .................................................................................158 I. Hebrew Text .............................................................................159 Historical setting and genre of Isa 41:8–13 .......................160 Poetic structures: verbs and pronominal suffixes ............162 II. Back to the Contemporary Context ....................................166 Interaction between ancient and contemporary contexts ..........................................................................168 Why an existential reading of Isa 41:10? ............................171 III. Analytical and Existential Readings of Biblical Texts .....172 Ethical accountability and responsibility of analytical readings ..........................................................................173 Devastating effects of existential readings? .......................175

viii

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH IV. Conclusion .............................................................................177 Bibliography .................................................................................178

Where are the Gods of … ? Where are the Kings of … ? Place Names as a Clue to the Dating of Passages in the Books of Isaiah and Second Kings .......................................................183 Alan Millard Introduction .................................................................................183 I. The Place-Names Mentioned in the Assyrian Messages to Hezekiah..........................................................................184 II. The Oracle against Assyria in Isaiah 10 ..............................187 III. The Value of Place Names for Dating the Biblical Passages ................................................................................187 Bibliography .................................................................................190 ‘Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom like a Rosy Bower’: N. F. S Grundtvig and Isaiah 35 .............................................................193 Kirsten Nielsen Introduction .................................................................................194 I. Intertextuality ...........................................................................194 II. Isaiah 35 in the Old Testament............................................195 III. N. F. S. Grundtvig’s Hymn: Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom (Blomstre som en rosengård).....................197 IV. The Wild Animals in Isaiah 35—Literal or Figurative? ..202 V. Isaiah 35 as a Bridge ..............................................................203 VI. The Wild Animals as Israel’s Enemies ..............................204 VII. The Image of the Wild Animals as a Bridge ...................205 VIII. Conclusion: Redactional Context and Use of Imagery.................................................................................207 Bibliography .................................................................................207 ‘For I am about to Create New Heavens and a New Earth’: Prophecy and Torah in Isaiah 65:17–25 ..................................209 Karl William Weyde Introduction .................................................................................210 I. Isa 65:17–25 and Isa 11:6–9 ...................................................211 II. ‘… but the Serpent—its Food Shall be Dust’: A Puzzling Statement and its Significance ..........................216 III. New Heavens and a New Earth.........................................219

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

IV. Isa 65:17–25 as Prophetic Torah........................................222 V. Summary ..................................................................................227 Bibliography .................................................................................228 The Enigmatic Figure of the ‘Servant of the Lord’: Observations on the Relationship Between the ‘Servant of the Lord’ in Isaiah 40–55 and Other Salvific Figures in the Hebrew Bible .........................................................................231 Markus Zehnder Introduction .................................................................................232 I. Connections between the ‘Servant of the Lord’ and the Figure of a Davidic Messiah .............................................237 II. The Special Role of Isaiah 61:1–3 .......................................252 III. Connections with the Danielic Son of Man .....................254 IV. Connections with the Figure of Cyrus ..............................255 V. Connections with the Figure of Jeremiah and Other Prophets ...............................................................................257 VI. Connections with the Priestly Order .................................260 VII. Connections with the Figure of Moses ...........................262 VIII. Texts Referring to a Servant in Isaiah 40–55 Outside the ‘Servant Songs’ ..............................................268 IX. Texts Referring to a Servant in Isaiah 1–39 and 56–66..274 X. Conclusions .............................................................................277 Bibliography .................................................................................280 List of Contributors .............................................................................283

x

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

PREFACE HARALD NYGAARD (DIRECTOR) ØYVIND SKJEGSTAD (ACADEMIC DEAN) ANNE HAUGLAND BALSNES (DEAN OF RESEARCH) MARKUS ZEHNDER (PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL STUDIES)1 This Festschrift is offered to Hallvard Hagelia on the occasion of his seventieth birthday and his retirement as Professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar College and Theological Seminary in Kristiansand. The initiative for this Festschrift was taken by Ansgarskolen’s director together with the steering committee of the Department of Theology, in gratitude for Hallvard Hagelia’s decades-long faithful engagement as a teacher for many generations of students at Ansgarskolen and in recognition of his promotion of the academic study of the Hebrew Bible. Hallvard Hagelia has written extensively on several topics within the field of Old Testament studies, but clearly the Book of Isaiah is one of the most important among them. This is the reason why the Book of Isaiah was chosen as the overarching subject of this Festschrift. Such a choice does of course have a certain disadvantage by limiting the number of potential contributors; on the other hand, this disadvantage is more than outweighed by the potential a more focused collection has to be used as a tool in research and in the broader scholarly debate. The contributions collected in this Festschrift cover a wide range of various issues related to the Book of Isaiah, from historical and linguistic questions to a number of theological topics, 1

Markus Zehnder is also the editor of the present volume.

xi

xii

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

such as God’s self-limitation motivated in his love; the connection of spiritual and political elements in the concept of salvation; the function of the Spirit in God’s redemptive work; the shaping of a new world of peace through God’s intervention; the identity of Deutero-Isaiah’s ‘Servant of the Lord’, to name just some. Questions of the Book of Isaiah’s interpretation and reception in various post-modern settings, including in post-colonial Africa, are also dealt with, as well as its use in the context of pastoral care. In addition, the reader is introduced to two of the most influential commentators of the Book of Isaiah in the past 150 years, Wilhelm Gesenius and Brevard Childs. The studies collected in this volume represent a broad diversity not only in topics, but also in approaches and theological background of the contributors (both denominationally and culturally). Traditional and more recently developed methods in various branches of the social sciences inform the articles. It is our hope that this book will both be a valuable gift for the honoree and a source of inspiration and incentive to further studies for a broader public interested in the Book of Isaiah, a book whose treasures will not be exhausted as long as biblical studies continue on this side of eternity.

A PERSONAL TRIBUTE TO HALLVARD HAGELIA BJØRN ØYVIND FJELD ANSGAR COLLEGE AND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY It is a privilege and a joy to pay tribute and express gratitude to Hallvard Hagelia on the occasion of his 70 th anniversary (29 June 2014). For more than twenty years Hallvard has been a dear colleague at Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole and through almost five decades he has been a close friend. We met for the first time at Ansgarskolen at Vettakollen in Oslo. After completing two years as a student at the emerging Ansgar Teologiske Seminar, Hallvard moved to Stockholm and Lidingö in 1964, the same year in which I came to Ansgarskolen. In spite of the geographical distance, frequent contact took place between us and our friendship developed. After two years of pastoral and theological training, Hallvard graduated at the Theological Seminary of the Mission Covenant Church of Sweden in Lidingö. During the stay in Lidingö, Hallvard and Kirsten (born Sirnes, from Haugesund, Norway) met. They got married in 1966, the same year that Hallvard was ordained as pastor in the Mission Covenant Church of Norway (Misjonsforbundet). Hallvard Hagelia is primarily an Old Testament scholar, well at home in the Hebrew language and in the culture, history and religion of Israel and other parts of the ancient Near East. As a young man, however, Hallvard focused on becoming a pastor and conveyer of the gospel by preaching and teaching. In line with the revivalist traditions of those days, Hallvard acted as an evangelist at school rallies; he played guitar, sung and preached. It soon became obvious, however, both to himself and to others, that his gifts lay more in the realm of teaching and research than evangelism. 1

2

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Hallvard Hagelia was born on a small farm and grew up in a village named Gjerstad in Southern Norway. His aunt, Magnhild Hagelia, was a well-known Norwegian politician. Except for her influence, his upbringing gave him no academic or scholarly incentives. He had to leave his home and move to Åmli statsrealskole to complete his primary school training (equivalent with the first years of high school). However, later during his education at Ansgarskolen in Oslo and in Lidingö in Sweden, his interest for academic studies was ignited. He pursued this interest with an admirable determination which has been a characteristic feature of his ministerial efforts and scholarly endeavors throughout his whole life. Lack of academic background in his own family, absence of financial support and only weak support from his denomination and from Ansgarskolen, proved to be no serious hindrances for Hallvard’s academic ambition. Early on he set his goals, goals which he has faithfully pursued decade after decade. A few years after his ordination as a pastor and the wedding, the new family was doubled. Marianne and Nina were born, while Hallvard was serving as a pastor, one year in Kongsberg, and five years in Arendal in Southern Norway. For shorter periods Hallvard also served as a pastor in Askim and later in Nesodden. During the years in Arendal, Hallvard began to take advantage of the early morning hours as a perfect time to study. This habit has since been another of his distinctive features: early in the morning, Hallvard always has been the first to appear in the offices of Ansgarskolen. While still in Arendal, Hallvard completed the final years of high school and began as a part-time student at the University of Oslo to deepen his knowledge in the classical languages. Hallvard’s commitment to pursue theological studies was further enhanced when he moved to Oslo in 1973 and became leader of Ansgar Brevskole (“correspondence school”). During the years in Oslo we were colleagues at Ansgarskolen and developed a deeper personal friendship. In 1975 Hallvard became candidatus teologiae at MF Norwegian School of Theology in Oslo (Det Teologiske Menighetsfakultetet). In 1983 he completed an intermediate exam in Hebrew at the University of Oslo. After a few years both of us left Ansgarskolen for ministerial duties in different local churches. I moved to Mjøndalen (1976) and Hallvard moved to Haugesund (1978).

A PERSONAL TRIBUTE

3

During his ministry in Haugesund, Hallvard was passionately engaged in church planting. Together with friends and local church leaders, Hallvard was the driving force behind the planting of a local church in a newly established suburban area in the northern part of Haugesund. He became the first pastor of the new church. Hallvard was also an important facilitator of church planting nationwide both inside and outside his own denomination. From 1986–1990 he also was a member of the Executive Committee of the European Church Growth Association. His first two books, published in 1980 (Ord som vokser [“words which grow”]) and 1982 (Liv og vekst [“life and growth”]), discussed and justified church planting. His ministry in Haugesund proved him to be a doer, not only a hearer, a church planter both in words and deeds. Hallvard was called back to Ansgarskolen as a teacher in theology in 1980, a position he has held for more than thirty years. During these three decades Hallvard fully concentrated his energy on the development of his academic career. The building of his personal competence during this period parallelled the institutional development of Ansgarskolen from a Bible Seminary to an accredited University College, and parts of the two are directly intertwined. In 1988 Ansgarskolen moved from Vettakollen in Oslo to Haanes in Kristiansand, and Hallvard, together with most of the faculty, also moved to Kristiansand and the new school facilities. In the coming decades, the institution continued to develop the physical facilities as well as its academic competence, establishing itself as an institution of higher education. In 1997 Ansgarskolen attained for the first time national accreditation for its basic program in theology. During these years Hallvard did his doctoral studies. He earned his PhD (Teol.Dr.) at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, in 1994. His doctoral dissertation “Numbering the Stars, A Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15” was published in Stockholm in the same year. His position at Ansgarskolen was promoted from lecturer to associate professor. Many among his friends and colleagues at Ansgarskolen admired Hallvard’s steadfast determination to complete his dissertation, which was by no means an easy task, since he had little financial support and only two limited scholarships to pursue his doctoral studies. Hallvard was an academic “icebreaker” in our ecclesial environment. He was the first doctor of theology at Ansgarskolen as well as in his denomination. His doctoral work was

4

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

important for the institution and its academic development. Hallvard has been an inspiration and a model for many of his younger colleagues at Ansgarskolen. Later on regular scholarships have been available for doctoral students. After his dissertation Hallvard continued his studies and was able to publish a row of scholarly articles and books. Also Ansgarskolen grew and developed during the same years both in terms of number of students and in terms of programs. In 2007 Hallvard was promoted as professor in Old Testament by a national scholarly committee and officially appointed professor at Ansgarskolen by the school board in the same year. At that time Ansgarskolen was offering several accredited programs both on the bachelor and the master level. In 2011 Ansgarskolen received a national accreditation as an academic institution, equivalent to a University College. Together with a growing number of professors hired from outside, Hallvard has considerably contributed to this academic achievement. Teaching has been Hallvard’s main responsibility during his career as lecturer and professor at Ansgarskolen. He conveys his knowledge in an excellent way and the students greatly appreciate his lectures. His subject areas cover: Introduction to the Old Testament, The History of Israel, Religions in the Ancient Near East, exegesis of texts from the Books of Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah, Theology of the Old Testament, Homiletic Exegesis of texts from both Testaments, History of the New Testament World, exegesis of texts from the Gospels of Matthew and John, the Acts of Apostles, and from the letters to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians, as well as texts from the Pastoral Letters, the letters to the Hebrews and James, Theology of the New Testament, The Jewish Roots of Christianity, The History of the Jewish Religion, The Phenomenology of Religion, Church History and Church Growth. During the many years of his academic carrier Hallvard has also been a part-time teacher at the Stockholm School of Theology and guest lecturer at Norsk Lærerakademi (NLA) in Bergen and at Agder University in Kristiansand. During the past decades, Hallvard has published several books and articles. I would like to mention three larger contributions: In Coram Deo (2001), Hallvard engages in a thorough investigation of the spirituality of the Book of Isaiah; in Three Old Testament Theologies

A PERSONAL TRIBUTE

5

of Today (2012), he analyzes the theologies of Kvanvig, Brueggemann and Gerstenberger and evaluates ways of writing OT theologies in a postmodern context. Thirdly, Hallvard has done important research on the Tel Dan inscription and contributed substantially to its understanding (see his books published in 2006 and 2009 and several articles on the same theme). Together with Markus Zehnder, his colleague in the field of Old Testament at Ansgarskolen, he also hosted an international conference for biblical studies in Kristiansand in 2012. The theme of the conference was Encountering Violence in the Bible. Around twenty international scholars participated at the meeting and the papers presented there were published in 2013. The plan is to organize similar international conferences at Ansgarskolen every third year. For a selected list of Hallvard Hagelia’s scholarly production, I refer to the bibliography at the end of this chapter. During his time as a full-time teacher at Ansgarskolen, Hallvard has also continued his ministry as a preacher and teacher in local churches and elsewhere. He has been a frequent columnist in several newspapers, in particular in Fædrelandsvennen, the leading regional newspaper in Kristiansand, as well as in different national newspapers and magazines. His interest covers a broad spectrum of themes, from politics, culture, history, to bible-related issues, theology and daily devotions. His contributions have been appreciated by a broad audience of people, believers as well as nonbelievers. Many of Hallvard’s popular articles are devoted to an academically informed defense of the Christian faith and his own theological positions. He has also challenged many of his Christian friends by proposing interpretations of the Bible and the Christian faith that are slightly different from those held in traditional Norwegian independent churches, such as the view on the prophetic word in relation to the modern state of Israel. One of Hallvard’s major long-term interests has been Bible distribution and Bible translation. He served as a member of the national Board of Scripture Union 1988–1996, some years also as a leader of its Council. From 1995 until 2011 he was an active member of the translation committee (oversettelsesutvalget) of the Norwegian Bible Society. The dedicated work of this committee came to its happy conclusion with the publication of two highly acclaimed translations of the Bible in the two variants of the Norwegian language (Bokmål and Nynorsk) in October 2011.

6

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Hallvard has also been a member of several interdenominational committees, representing Misjonsforbundet in Norsk Fellesråd av Evangeliske Trossamfunn (during the 1980s) in Norsk Teologisk Samtaleforum, a Committee of The Christian Council of Norway (Norges kristne råd) 1994–2006, and as member of the delegation of Misjonsforbundet in the bilateral ecumenical talks with the Church of Norway (1997–2000). Hallvard’s broad academic network and horizon is reflected in his membership in a number of scientific societies: The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), Uppsala Exegetiska Sällskap (UES), Norsk Gammeltestamentlige Selskap (NGTS), Collegium Judaicum, Society of Old Testament Studies (SOTS, UK), Tyndale Fellowship (UK), European Association of Biblical Studies (EABS) and Agder Academy for Sciences and Letters (Vitenskapsakademiet i Agder). Hallvard has regularly participated in the meetings of these societies and contributed with papers of his own. His engagement in church related issues has brought him to many international conferences. He has lectured within the International Federation of Free Evangelical Churches (IFFEC), taken part in international Bible conferences, several Lausanne conferences and attended both evangelical and ecumenical conferences. In addition, both Hallvard and his wife Kirsten like to travel and are particularly interested in religious and cultural sites when visiting new places. There is another side of Hallvard that bears mentioning: He is a very practical and down-to-earth man, with a strong affection for the countryside where he was born. A cottage near his original home town is dear to Hallvard and his family. Wood chopping is one of his favorite spare time activities. He also likes hiking in the woods and mountains. Further characteristic features of Hallvard, which his colleagues greatly appreciate, are his warm sense of humor and his willingness to share many interesting and entertaining stories. One of his more recent favorites: He had thoroughly prepared himself to deliver a paper at the 2011 SBL International Meeting in London. His presentation was set right before the lunch break. He had just begun his speech when the fire alarm went off and everybody had to leave the building. It turned out later that no fire had broken out, but after lunch, the program continued as scheduled with a new set of lectures, and so Hallvard was never able to present his paper in full.

A PERSONAL TRIBUTE

7

I will close my personal tribute to my dear colleague and friend by pointing to Hallvard’s warm and burning heart for sharing the good news about the undeserved grace and free salvation which is offered to all men through Jesus Christ. When Hallvard is explaining and sharing the word of God, on the pulpit, in the classroom or in an informal group meeting, we sense his deep dedication to the ministry which the Lord called him for more than fifty years ago. While preaching and teaching he opens our minds and ignites our hearts. Hallvard embodies the rare combination of being a scholar and academic, a dedicated preacher and a practical church planter. On behalf of his colleagues and many friends, I extend a warm thanks to Hallvard for his lifelong ministry. I congratulate him on the 70th birthday and pray that God’s blessing will dwell upon him for many years ahead.

A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HALLVARD HAGELIA Academic Publications Monographs Herrens utvalgte. Guddommelig utvelgelse som bibelsk tema og aktuelt problem (Kristiansand, 2013). Three Old Testament Theologies for Today: Helge S. Kvanvig, Walter Brueggemann and Erhard Gerstenberger (Sheffield, 2012). The Dan Debate: The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research (Sheffield, 2009). The Tel Dan Inscription: A Critical Investigation of Recent Research on its Palaeography and Philology (Uppsala, 2006). Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh (Stockholm, 2001). Numbering the Stars: Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15 (Stockholm, 1994). Co-edited Books Å. Justnes, H. Hagelia and T. Vegge (eds), Ny bibel, nye perspektiver. Grunntekster, oversettelse og teologi (Kristiansand, 2013). H. M. Tønnessen Schuff, R. Salvesen and H. Hagelia (eds), Forankring og fornyelse: festskrift for Ansgarskolen 1913–2013 (Kristiansand, 2013).

8

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

M. Zehnder and H. Hagelia (eds), Encountering Violence in the Bible (Sheffield, 2013). Articles ‘Det gamle testamente: mangfold eller enhet?’, in R. Salvesen, H. M Tønnessen Schuff and H. Hagelia (eds), Forankring og fornyelse: festskrift for Ansgarskolen 1913–2013 (Kristiansand, 2013), pp. 41–57. ‘Er det mulig å oversette Bibelen?’, in R. Nossum (ed.), Agder vitenskapsakademi. Årbok 2012 (Kristiansand, 2013), pp. 45–54. ‘“… every careless word you utter …”. Is Matthew 12:36 a Derivative of the Second Commandment of the Decalogue?’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 78 (2013), pp. 147–160. ‘Hva er Det gamle testamentets grunntekst?’, in Å. Justnes, H. Hagelia and T. Vegge (eds), Ny bibel, nye perspektiver. Grunntekster, oversettelse og teologi (Kristiansand, 2013), pp. 91– 107. ‘Violence, Judgment and Ethics in the Book of Amos’, in M. Zehnder and H. Hagelia (eds), Encountering Violence in the Bible (Sheffield, 2013), pp. 128–147. ‘What is the Problem with the Tel Dan Inscription?’, in R. G. Lehmann et al. (eds), “Schrift und Sprache”. Papers Read at the 10th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), Mainz, 28–20 October 2011 (Kamen, 2013), pp. 109–123. ‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 20 (2006), pp. 38–57. ‘A Crescendo of Universalism: An Exegesis of Isa 19:16–25’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 70 (2005), pp. 73–88. ‘Philological Issues in the Tel Dan Inscription. I’, in L. Edzard and J. Retsö (eds), Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I (Wiesbaden, 2005), pp. 232–253. ‘How Important Is the Tel Dan Stele, Except for its Relation to the Bible?’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 69 (2004), pp. 155–166. ‘Tel Dan-innskriften’, Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 75 (2004), pp. 5– 19. ‘The First Dissertation on the Tel Dan Inscription’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18 (2004), pp. 135–146. ‘Meal on Mount Zion: Does Isa 25:6–8 Describe a Covenant Meal?’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 68 (2003), pp. 73–95.

A PERSONAL TRIBUTE

9

‘How Important is the Tel Dan Inscription, Except for Its Relation to the Bible?’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 68 (2003), pp. 155–166. ‘Debatten om Siloa-innskriften’, Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 75 (2002), pp. 261–280. Reviews J. Day (ed.): Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Review of Biblical Literature 03/2011. M. J. de Jong: Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies. Review of Biblical Literature 02/2011. L.-S. Tiemeyer: For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. A. Kuckhoff: Psalm 6 und die Bitten im Psalter: Ein paradigmatisches Bitt- und Klagegebet im Horizont des Gesamtpsalters. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. K. A. Reynolds: Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. K. Seybold: Poetik der prophetischen Literatur im Alten Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. B. Biberger: Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunftskonzeptionen in Ez 38-39, Joel 1-4 und Sach 12-14. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. H. Migsch: Studien zum Jeremiabuch und andere Beiträge zum Alten Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. S. A. Hunt (ed.): Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2011. J. S. Kaminsky: Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Review of Biblical Literature 08/2010. R. E. van Harn and B. A. Strawn (eds): Psalms for Preaching and Worship: A Lectionary Commentary. Review of Biblical Literature 08/2010. J. R. Levinson: Filled with the Spirit. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2010. A. Graupner and M. Wolter (eds): Moses in Biblical and ExtraBiblical Traditions. Review of Biblical Literature 09/2009.

10

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

P. A. Brown and B. W. Smith (eds): A Reader’s Bible. Review of Biblical Literature 05/2009. T. Fretheim: Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith: Studies in Personalities of the Old Testament. Review of Biblical Literature 04/2009. M. E. Mills: Alterity, Pain, and Suffering in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Review of Biblical Literature 11/2008. J. E. Cook: Hear o Heavens and Listen o Earth: An Introduction to the Prophets. Review of Biblical Literature 03/2007. D. Bostok: A Portrayal of Trust, the Theme of Faith in the Hezekiel Narratives. Review of Biblical Literature 02/2007. P. F. Esler: Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context. Review of Biblical Literature 06/2006. J. Barton and J. Bowden: The Original Story: God, Israel, and the World. Review of Biblical Literature 04/2006. R. A. Jacobson: ‘Many Are Saying’: The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2006. J. B. Kofoed: Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2006. B. Becking: Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2006. P. Pitkänen: Central Sanctuary and the Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple. Review of Biblical Literature 6/2004. R. G. Haney: Text and Concept Analysis in Royal Psalms. Review of Biblical Literature 09/2003. D. C. Polaski: Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. Review of Biblical Literature 06/2003. W. Holladay: Unbound by Time: Isaiah Still Speaks. Review of Biblical Literature 06/2003. J. L. Thompson: Writing the Wrongs: Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation. Review of Biblical Literature 09/2002. R. Thomsen: Det persiske verdensrige. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 1996. J. Høgenhaven: Den gamle pagt. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 1991.

A PERSONAL TRIBUTE

11

Popular Works Hallvard Hagelia has written a large amount of booklets and articles for the following publications: Misjonsbladet, Bibelnøkkelen, Agderposten, Haugesunds Avis, Vårt Land and Fædrelandsvennen. In the regional newspaper Fædrelandsvennen almost 1000 articles written by him were published in the period 1995–2013. The following is a very short list of some of the major popular publications. ‘Fadervår - en mønsterbønn?’, in Tid for bønn (Vinterbro, 1997), pp. 19–24. ‘Bibelen som Guds ord’, in Tro & Liv 53, nr. 2/3 (1994), pp. 15– 22. Kvinnen i Bibelen, Sirkel, Ansgarskolen 1/85. Bibelsk og praktisk basis for menighetsplanting, Sirkel, Ansgarskolen 2/85. ‘Det nye Misjonsforbundet’, in I. Diesen (ed.), Veien Videre, Det Norske Misjonsforbund 1884–1984 (Oslo, 1984), pp. 295–350. Liv og Vekst, lærebok i kirkevekstarbeide (Oslo, 1982). Ord som vokser, Essay-prekener om evangelisering og kirkevekst (Oslo, 1980).

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS: READING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH WITH TWO GIANTS LARSOLOV ERIKSSON JOHANNELUND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY / UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA ABSTRACT In this article the two influential commentaries on the Book of Isaiah by Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842) and Brevard Childs (1923–2007) are briefly studied. After a short presentation of the two authors, a general characterization of the commentaries is given together with some examples of how they comment on a select number of central passages from the Book of Isaiah. At the end some observations are made related to the question of what a biblical commentary is. It is noted that the genre is still waiting to be more closely defined.

INTRODUCTION The Book of Isaiah has always caught the interest of exegetes, and the amount of commentaries on the book is large. In this article1

It is with great pleasure that I dedicate this article to my friend Hallvard Hagelia on the occasion of his 70th birthday. We first met as doctoral students in Uppsala to study under professor Helmer Ringgren 1

13

14

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

my intention is to briefly study two influential commentaries spanning a period of almost two hundred years: those by Wilhelm Gesenius and Brevard Childs. After a short presentation of the two authors and a general characterization of their commentaries, I will give a few examples of their way of commenting some central passages in the Book of Isaiah, in order to see what they do when they comment the text of the Book of Isaiah.

I. GESENIUS AND HIS COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ISAIAH Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842) is perhaps best known for his grammatical and lexical works concerning the Hebrew language.2 The influence of Gesenius can still be observed more than two hundred years after the publication of the first editions of his Hebräisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch über die Schriften des Alten Testaments (1810–1812) and Hebräisches Elementarbuch (1813–1814). The grammatical part of the latter book became the most widely used scholarly grammar for at least a century, and even today it is referred to with respect. After having published his great grammatical and lexical works, Gesenius began working on his commentary on the Book of Isaiah.3 When it comes to exegetical works, this is his magnum opus. It consists of three volumes including a translation of the Hebrew text. Gesenius’ intention is to write a complete philological, historical and dogmatic exposition of the Book of

and came to know each other during numerous meetings in the Old Testament seminar led by professor Ringgren. 2 For a short presentation of Wilhelm Gesenius and his influence on Old Testament scholarship, see Smend, ‘Wilhelm Gesenius’. 3 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia I–III. The numbering of the volumes is somewhat inconsistent. Volume I contains the translation of the Book of Isaiah into German; volume II—in two parts—is the commentary on Isa 1–39 (1–12 and 13–39), including a full introduction to the whole book; and volume III is the commentary on Isa 40–66.

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

15

Isaiah.4 The translation is important for Gesenius, since he does not know of any translation of the Book of Isaiah founded on— according to him—reliable philological study and hermeneutical thinking.5 Gesenius is well aware of the fact that the commentary on Isaiah is his first attempt to write a biblical commentary, and he writes extensively in the preface about what he wants to do and how he will go about to do it.6 He first notes the high quality of the language in the Book of Isaiah; together with the Book of Job and Proverbs the Hebrew language of the Book of Isaiah is the richest and most beautiful in the Old Testament. In his translation, Gesenius makes use of older lexical works, early translations and rabbinical expositions. When it comes to—in Gesenius’ time— newer works, he notes the diversity of opinion regarding the classification of some parts of the book and the authenticity of some of the oracles. In a final section he discusses questions of historicity. He declares that he finds nothing supernatural in prophecy, at the same time as he also protests against the view that prophetical oracles about the future in reality are concealed historical accounts.7 After the preface in volume II, follows a rather long introduction in which Gesenius writes about the life, character and writings of the prophet called Isaiah as well as the history of interpretation from the Septuagint up to Gesenius’ own time. 8 He discusses the structure of the Book of Isaiah and concludes that the book consists of several more or less independent sections stemming from different times, and that the book as a whole should be attributed to at least two different authors. In reality this makes the Book of Isaiah an anthology.9 In his own words: ‘… einer vollständigen philologisch-historischdogmatischen Erklärung dieses in aller Rücksicht so ausgezeichneten biblischen Schriftstellers’ (Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia I, p. iii). 5 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia I, p. iv. 6 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. v–xiv. 7 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. xiv–xvi. 8 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 1–142. 9 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 16–17. 4

16

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

Throughout his commentary Gesenius makes abundant use of his knowledge of different languages. He cites passages in Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac and several other languages. His references to other contemporary authors, however, are sparse.

II. CHILDS AND HIS COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ISAIAH Brevard S. Childs (1923–2007) is best known as a biblical theologian and an advocate of what is called a ‘canonical approach’ within biblical scholarship.10 But he was also an exegete in the strict sense of the word and a writer of two large and influential Old Testament commentaries, one on the Book of Exodus11 and the other on the Book of Isaiah.12 Childs’ commentary on the Book of Exodus belongs to the earlier part of his career, while his commentary on the Book of Isaiah is a late work in his scholarly production. In the preface to his commentary on the Book of Isaiah, Childs declares that his reasons for writing a commentary on this particular book arise from several concerns. First, he sees a need for ‘a fresh interpretative model that does not get lost in methodological debates’.13 Second, he wants to treat the book as a whole; and third, he intends to use his experience from working with biblical theology—which he considers ‘an ancillary discipline’—in his task as a biblical interpreter. 14 He states that he has worked with the Book of Isaiah for more than fifty years, and he has seen the use of different methods come and go, including what is called a ‘canonical approach’, a term he himself does not want to use because of all the confusion it has brought about. 15

For a recent monograph about Childs and his achievements as biblical theologian see Driver, Brevard Childs. 11 Childs, Exodus. 12 Childs, Isaiah. 13 Childs, Isaiah, p. xi. 14 Childs, Isaiah, pp. xi–xii. 15 Childs, Isaiah, p. xii. 10

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

17

Like Gesenius, Childs makes his own translation of the Hebrew text of the Book of Isaiah. But unlike Gesenius, he does not cite Hebrew very often, and when he does he uses transliterations. His introduction to the book is short, 16 his references to other works on the Book of Isaiah are numerous, and he follows the now traditional division of the book in three parts. His focus is redaction-critical, and he is concerned with the unity of the book as it now stands. Despite his documented interest in biblical theology, Childs wants to work as an exegete when he writes his commentary. In his own words: ‘My concern is to develop my interpretation of the book in an exegetical form rather than as a theological or hermeneutical tractate.’17 Every commentator of a biblical text is dependent on earlier commentators and expositors. This is true also of Childs, something he openly points to himself. His understanding of the Book of Isaiah is his own, but he makes use of insights from several other scholars. When it comes to the unity of the book, which is one of his main concerns, he dissociates himself from the view that this has to do with single authorship. But he regards the entire book as a unified entity, and he maintains that the canonical text is authoritative, not the supposed different layers in the text or the process behind the final text.18 Childs makes abundant use of intertextuality in his interpretation of the Book of Isaiah. He does not think too highly of most postmodern analyses, since they do not acknowledge that there is a reality behind the text of which the text is merely a vehicle. His resistance to postmodern exegesis is based on his theological standpoint. 19 Finally, Childs also shortly mentions the role and importance of the New Testament in his commentary. Although the main task is to hear the theological voice of the Old Testament, Childs—as a Christian interpreter—also wants to be attentive to the New Testament development and interpretation of

Childs, Isaiah, pp. 1–5. Childs, Isaiah, p. 3. 18 Childs, Isaiah, pp. 3–4. 19 Childs, Isaiah, p. 4. 16 17

18

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

passages from the Book of Isaiah, and he is also open to learn from subsequent readings of the text.20

III. SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE TWO COMMENTARIES 1. Isaiah 1:1 In the scholarly discussion Isa 1:1 has attracted a lot of interest over the years. Two questions seem to have been in focus: the scope of the superscription and the intent of the redactor(s) being expressed in this verse. In modern commentaries there is a clear tendency to see the verse as a title to the entire book, 21 while in older commentaries it was often regarded as a superscription only to the first twelve chapters, even if, in its present placement, it stands as a title to the book as a whole.22 According to Gesenius, this verse is actually a superscription to Isa 1–12 only.23 In the Hebrew text the word ‘vision’ is in the singular, but it should be understood in a collective sense, since this is what the redactor/collector probably intended. The mention of both Judah and Jerusalem is in a way redundant, since Jerusalem is included in Judah. It is, however, a common expression. Finally Gesenius says that the literary style of the introductory verse is reminiscent of that in the historical books of the Old Testament. Contrary to Gesenius, Childs notes that the verse should be understood as a superscription to the entire Book of Isaiah.24 It informs the reader about the author, the nature of the message, the addressees and the time frame of the prophet’s teaching. Although much scholarly discussion has circled around the question of the scope of the superscription and what the original redactor’s intent was, Childs wants to focus on the question of the function of the verse in the final form of the Book of Isaiah. As it now stands, it is Childs, Isaiah, pp. 4–5. See for example Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, p. 175; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 71–72. 22 See for example Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, p. 23; Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, p. 8. 23 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 20, 145. 24 Childs, Isaiah, pp. 11–12. 20 21

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

19

undoubtedly an introduction to the entire book. According to Childs, it has a hermeneutical function, not least when it comes to the understanding of chapters 40–66. The reader is challenged to reflect on the fact that the historical scope of the introduction ends with King Hezekiah, at the same time as much of what is said in the later parts of the book evidently concerns later periods. Commenting on the word ‘vision’, Childs only notes that it is used in a ‘weak’ sense, similar to that found in Ob 1 and Nah 1:1. 2. Isaiah 6:1–3 The position of chapter 6 in the Book of Isaiah is a classical crux interpretum in the exegetical literature, and much energy has been spent on the question of its literary context. Another question often discussed concerns the genre of the chapter.25 When Gesenius treats this chapter as a whole,26 he starts— after having presented a structure of the passage—by noting that this is the only case in the Book of Isaiah where an oracle is presented in the form of a vision, and that the prophet probably chose this genre for the most important of his revelations. Isaiah 6 relates the calling of the prophet, but an intriguing question is whether it is based on an actual experience or whether we are dealing with a literary fiction. But regardless of how it is understood, it is an expression of a strong personal struggle. Gesenius also sees similarities between the prophet Isaiah and the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the way in which their callings are described. According to Gesenius, the chapter originally was placed at the beginning of the Book of Isaiah, but during the editing process of the book it came to be placed after chapter 5.27 In his introduction to the commentary, Gesenius discusses at some length the order and historical context of the different parts of Isaiah 1– 12. He ends up suggesting that chapter 6 came first, later expanded by chapters 2–5 and at an even later stage by chapter 1. He has a For a bibliography see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, p. 142. Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 252–254. 27 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 18–20. 25 26

20

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

similar discussion regarding the chapters following chapter 6, and he comes to the conclusion that chapters 11–12 do not stem from the prophet Isaiah, even if they were added to the book early in the editorial process. In his detailed commentary on the passage, Gesenius pays special attention to the words and expressions used.28 He places the scene of Isaiah 6 in heaven, where the Lord is seated on his throne with angels around him, and he stresses that the seraphim are not above but around God. He notes that the language and imagery reflect an oriental setting. The robe, for example, is reminiscent of the clothes worn by the rich aristocracy—both men and women— in the ancient Near East. Coming to the trishagion in v. 3, Gesenius makes special mention of the common interpretation among the church fathers that it reflects the trinity. After a translation, some text critical notes and a select bibliography on the passage, Childs first sketches some of the critical problems of the chapter before presenting his own exposition.29 He treats shortly questions of literary context, genre and etiology and retrospective readings in the critical debate. At this stage of his presentation, Childs does not draw conclusions from his overview of the scholarly debate, even if he at times enters into discussion with other commentators. For example, he states that the common distinction between call and commission in the discussion about genre ‘does not address adequately the theological dimension of the text’,30 and the passage therefore needs to be treated in a different way from what is usually done. With regard to retrospective readings of Isaiah 6, Childs admits that there might very well be elements of such a phenomenon as retrojection, but at the same time this should not be interpreted in too simplistic a way. Following this overview of the critical debate, Childs goes on to his own exposition, 31 in which he tries to distinguish between what he calls ‘theologically legitimate and nonlegitimate uses of

Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 254–266. Childs, Isaiah, pp. 49–54. 30 Childs, Isaiah, p. 53. 31 Childs, Isaiah, pp. 54–60. 28 29

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

21

critical categories’ within the Book of Isaiah.32 The historical setting of Isaiah’s vision is not only a matter of chronological information, it is a way of marking a major turning point in the history of Israel and God’s dealing with his people. A new and different dimension of history is, according to Childs, introduced with Isaiah 6. The vision of Isaiah is a vision of God’s outer manifestation. It takes the prophet—and the reader of the text—from the temple in Jerusalem to heaven. The imagery of the scene reminds partly of what can be found in other ancient Near Eastern texts, even if these parallels hardly help in understanding the passage in the Book of Isaiah. What’s important in the vision is the content of the seraphim’s hymn. They praise the holiness of God, that is the essence of God’s nature in contrast to human nature. And this is done in the year of King Uzziah’s death, which indicates that human kings die but the reign of God is eternal. In conclusion, Childs observes again the special place of Isaiah 6 in its literary context within the book. The content of the chapter points both backward and forward. At the end of his exposition, Childs also draws the line from Isaiah 6 to the New Testament and gives special weight to two observations: the importance of the passage for the understanding of Jesus’ ministry as a whole, and the connection between Isaiah 6 and John 12. However, referring approvingly to Calvin, Childs is eager not to make a simplified statement about the Trinity from these passages. 3. Isaiah 7:14 In a similar way as the 6th chapter of the Book of Isaiah, chapter 7 has also attracted a lot of interest from interpreters over the centuries. The main focus has often been on the understanding of the Hebrew word for ‘maiden’ (‘almah) in v. 14. Today there seems to be almost universal agreement about the meaning of the Hebrew word,33 but there is no similar agreement about the identification of the young woman in question.

32 33

Childs, Isaiah, p. 54. Most interpreters today argue against the translation ‘virgin’.

22

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

Gesenius uses all his knowledge in different ancient languages when he comments on Isaiah 7. He states that the Hebrew word used for ‘maiden’ does not indicate a virgin but a person in her teens who is sexually mature.34 There is, according to Gesenius, another word for ‘virgin’ in Hebrew, and he doubts that the Hebrew language should have two synonyms for the same thing.35 Discussing the identity of the young woman, Gesenius follows Ibn Ezra and others who identify the maiden with the wife of the prophet.36 Childs takes—as usual—a different approach from Gesenius when he comments on Isaiah 7.37 He first investigates the function of the entire chapter in the context of Isaiah 1–12. After that he briefly says something about the structure of the passage before looking at the internal coherence of the chapter, finding that there are many voices present in the text. His goal therefore is to understand the richness of the passage in relation to the final form of the text. Coming to the interpretation of v. 14, Childs also discusses the meaning of the word ‘almah. In his opinion the translation ‘virgin’ is misleading, because it is too narrow, while the translation ‘young woman’ is misleading as well, because it is too broad. Since the identity of the maiden in the text is kept a secret, the intention most probably is that it should remain a secret. It is, with Childs’ own words, ‘idle to speculate on these matters’.38 4. Isaiah 24–27 After having taken a closer look at Gesenius’ and Childs’ commentaries concerning some shorter passages, I now turn to a longer passage in the Book of Isaiah, chapters 24–27, to see how the two authors treat these chapters as a whole. In the scholarly discussion these chapters belong to the most hotly debated as far as their relationship to the Book of Isaiah as a whole, their lack of Gesenius uses the term ‘mannbar’ (Der Prophet Jesaia II, p. 297). Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 299–300. 36 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, p. 301. 37 Childs, Isaiah, pp. 60–69. 38 Childs, Isaiah, p. 66. 34 35

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

23

structure and their dating are concerned.39 Much of the current debate goes back to Bernhard Duhm and his opinion that these chapters are not original in the book, not coherent in structure, and therefore have little to do with the Book of Isaiah as a whole. 40 Gesenius—writing of course long before Duhm—first remarks that the chapters make up a separate section, stemming from the same time and probably written by a single author during the exile.41 He then adduces arguments for his position based on the contents of the chapters in question. Judah and Jerusalem are in ruins, the Israelites are dispersed, Babylon is about to fall, and there is hope that the people shall be able to return from exile and rebuild their country in the near future. Babylon is not explicitly mentioned in the section, but it is clear from several allusions that it is intended. Gesenius also clearly states that this section of the book cannot have its origin with the prophet Isaiah of the 8th century. His arguments for this view are based on historical data, linguistic evidence and the chronological evaluation of religious and dogmatic ideas, especially the idea of the resurrection from the dead as indicated in Isa 26:14 and 19. According to Gesenius, all these arguments taken together make it impossible to attribute these chapters to Isaiah. Moving to the exposition of Isa 26:19,42 Gesenius stresses the fact that this verse definitely talks about a resurrection of the body. The wish for a bodily resurrection turns in this passage into a clear hope. ‘Your dead’ is another way of saying ‘your pious’ or ‘your righteous’, which refers to the Israelites. The idea of a resurrection originally came from Zoroastrianism, which the exiled encountered during the exile, and later developed into the messianic ideas known from later Judaism. Here in the Book of Isaiah the resurrection is limited to the pious, or the Jews. Later in Jewish history, resurrection will be something which is applied to everyone. In his examination of Isaiah 24–27, Gesenius makes

For a bibliography see Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 324–325. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, p. 172. 41 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 756–760. 42 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia II, pp. 802–808. 39 40

24

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

frequent references to early biblical translations, for example the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac translation and several others. Childs devotes about three pages to an introduction to Isaiah 24–27.43 In this introduction he takes as a starting point the analysis found in Duhm’s later exegetical works. Childs first argues against the view that Isaiah 24–27 have no real literary context in the Book of Isaiah, and that the chapters could be attributed to a very specific historical situation. Referring to later scholarly works, Childs tries to understand the chapters as a sequel to Isaiah 13–23 with its connection to the theme of the Day of the Lord and God’s judgement of the nations. Israel, he says, is reestablished on the ruins of the nations. A question which has attracted a lot of scholarly attention concerns the genre ‘apocalypticism’ applied to these chapters. According to Childs, this designation is misleading. There is a focus on the eschatological judgement of God in Isaiah 24–27, but simply calling it ‘apocalyptic’ does not help in understanding its message. In these chapters material from the entire Book of Isaiah is reused in order to portray God’s final purpose in his dealings with his people. Childs concludes his introduction to this section by saying that few parts of the Book of Isaiah illustrate as clearly as this the need and importance of interpreting the Old Testament as canon. Childs’ exposition of Isa 26:19 is short. 44 He designates the verse as a Heilsorakel, an oracle which transcends all other promises in Second Isaiah. In its context, the promise of this verse is that the Lord will give new life to the believing community of Israel. In a new era, new rules apply. This newness transcends and overcomes pain and suffering and even death. Therefore, Childs concludes, it is not by chance that both Judaism and Christianity have incorporated belief in the resurrection of the dead in their creeds.

43 44

Childs, Isaiah, pp. 172–174. Childs, Isaiah, pp. 191–192.

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

25

5. Isaiah 40–55(66) Ever since Duhm’s epoch-making commentary on the Book of Isaiah,45 it has been common in the exegetical world to divide the book into three parts. This is still the main rule, even if newer trends that emphasize the unity of the Book of Isaiah also make themselves heard.46 At the time of Gesenius the rule among critical scholars was to divide the book into two parts, chapters 1–39 and 40–66. Gesenius follows the rule of his time and regards chapters 40– 66 as a separate unit within the Book of Isaiah.47 Despite the fact that the chapters do not stem from the prophet Isaiah, they are among the most important in the book, according to Gesenius. He contends that they were probably written at the end of the exile and are examples of a religious development which reaches its peak in the New Testament. The author is of course unknown, and the whole section can be seen as a prophetic letter to the exiles.48 In introducing the section, Gesenius deals with questions such as the identity of the servant, the historical setting, and linguistic and philological peculiarities of this chapter.49 He regards the ‘you’ at the beginning of Isaiah 40 as a collective designation for a group of prophets. These prophets are—together with Israel and the anonymous prophet responsible for the section—the ‘servant(s) of the Lord’. The reason why chapters 40–66 are included in the Book of Isaiah is to invest them with a higher degree of legitimacy. Childs proposes a delimitation of these chapters that differs from the one suggested by Gesenius.50 Childs sees Isaiah 40–55 as a separate section within the Book of Isaiah. Referring to standard introductions he can keep himself rather short when writing about Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia. For a recent presentation of the question see Berges, ‘Farewell to Deutero-Isaiah’. See also the standard introductions to the Old Testament and/or the Book of Isaiah. 47 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia III, pp. 1–3. 48 In Gesenius’ own words: ‘ein prophetisches Sendschreiben an die Exulanten’ (Der Prophet Jesaia III, p. 3). 49 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia III, pp. 10–35. 50 Childs, Isaiah, pp. 289–291. 45 46

26

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

this. Instead he points out that, beginning in the 1970s, important changes appear in the way Isaiah 40–55 is approached. His conclusion is that there are still many unresolved problems related to Second Isaiah and no real consensus in the scholarly community. Compared to Gesenius, Childs makes a different emphasis when commenting on the beginning of Isaiah 40.51 He mentions that the prologue opens with a calling on ‘divine attendants’, but he does not identify them more closely. Instead he focuses on the fact that in this passage God confirms his relationship with Israel, and that there are several intertextual references to earlier parts of the Book of Isaiah, which illustrate the reinterpretative character of Second Isaiah. 6. Isaiah 52:13–53:12 Isaiah 53 is perhaps the most—or at least one of the most— contested passages in the Old Testament. In the New Testament it is the chapter most often alluded to and cited from, and the history of interpretation shows that this interest has continued through the ages, especially in the Christian church. Gesenius treats Isaiah 53 at quite some length.52 In his introduction to the passage,53 he discusses three alternatives as far as the general understanding and identity of the ‘Servant of the Lord’ are concerned. A messianic interpretation of the passage has long been common in Christian circles, and the New Testament understands the passage in that sense. An identification of the Servant with the Jewish people has been common among Jewish commentators, but it is not clear from the text whether the Servant can be interpreted collectively. The third alternative is to identify the Servant with an anonymous suffering individual, and here the suggestions about whom that might be are numerous. Gesenius mentions for example King Uzziah, King Hezekiah, King Josiah and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Childs, Isaiah, pp. 297–298. Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia III, pp. 158–195. 53 Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia III, pp. 158–172. 51 52

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

27

Going into more detail, Gesenius comments on some of the words used to describe the suffering Servant. For example, he states that the expression ‘our diseases’ in Isa 53:4 refers to the illness ‘we’ were guilty of because of ‘our’ sin, and the words ‘we are healed’ in v. 5 correspondingly has to do with forgiveness. 54 In this context he also discusses early versions of the Bible and the way they translate the Hebrew text. One example he mentions is the word leprosus in the Vulgate for ‘illness’ in v. 4. The content of v. 10—especially ‘you make his life an offering for sin’—is, according to Gesenius, most naturally understood in a substitutional sense.55 He even suggests that the apostolic idea of Christ’s death as atonement is based on this specific passage in the Book of Isaiah. In his exposition of this passage, Childs follows the common outline of his commentary, but he adds an extra paragraph on Isaiah 53 in a canonical context.56 Referring to recent studies and commentaries on Second Isaiah, Childs underlines the necessity to understand a biblical passage within its present literary context in the Bible. This does not mean that diachronic dimensions are altogether left aside, but a synchronic approach is definitely preferred. In the history of interpretation much energy has been spent on analyzing the literary genre of Isaiah 53, often comparing the passage with other texts. Childs’ conclusion, however, is that the passage is unique in the Old Testament. In his exposition proper, Childs comments on several of the words used in the passage and even discusses different textual problems and suggestions made by other commentators. More often than otherwise, Childs cites the biblical text in his exposition. In his commentary on v. 4, he refers to the modern discussion of the term ‘vicarious suffering’. Without giving a specific answer to the question of how exactly to understand the passage, and complicating the question by presenting different suggestions, Childs ends up in challenging the reader to decide himself or

Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia III, pp. 179–180. Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia III, p. 191. 56 Childs, Isaiah, pp. 407–423. 54 55

28

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

herself what the most reasonable interpretation is.57 In an additional paragraph, Childs treats two specific questions in relation to Isaiah 53: first, the relationship between the passage and the New Testament; second, the suffering Servant and Christian theology.58 Pondering different ways of understanding the relationship between Isaiah 53 and the New Testament, Childs warns against reading into a text—Old or New Testament— interpretations or assumptions of dependency formed by later ideas or theories. When Childs finally treats the suffering Servant in Christian theology, he says that a simplistic interpretation of the Servant either as Jesus Christ or as a metaphor for the suffering people of God is of little value. He summarizes: ‘The suffering servant retains its theological significance within the Christian canon because it is inextricably linked in substance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is and always has been the ground of God’s salvation of Israel and the world.’59

IV. SOME SUMMARIZING OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS After this short presentation of Gesenius’ and Childs’ commentaries on the Book of Isaiah, it is time to make some general observations and draw some conclusions. I will first make some comments on the similarities and differences between the two commentaries. Second, I will make a few general remarks regarding the genre ‘biblical commentary’. Both Gesenius and Childs clearly state what the aims of their commentaries are. Gesenius wants to write a complete philological, historical and dogmatic exposition of the Book of Isaiah. The framework of his project is marked by the following features: He works in the beginning of the historical-critical era of Old Testament scholarship; he has a broad knowledge of Semitic and other languages; he writes his commentary on the Book of Isaiah as his first purely exegetical work; and he works within a Christian context. Childs, writing much later, takes a more theological Childs, Isaiah, pp. 414–416. Childs, Isaiah, pp. 420–423. 59 Childs, Isaiah, p. 423. 57 58

FROM GESENIUS TO CHILDS

29

approach. As opposed to Gesenius, he can make use of almost two hundred years of commentary-writing dominated by the historicalcritical method, and he can use his knowledge from many years of working with biblical theology at the end of the dominance of historical-critical approaches. Like Gesenius, he works within a Christian context, and he is strongly interested in questions of intertextuality and canon. Due to the differences in approach, Gesenius’ commentary is much more occupied with questions of language and philology, while Childs pays much more attention to hermeneutical questions.60 Both authors discuss the redaction of the Book of Isaiah. Both authors also treat the question of the relationship between the Old and the New Testament, although they do not do it in the same way. History takes a more prominent place in Gesenius’ commentary, while the history of interpretation is much more present in the work of Childs. Generally speaking, the two commentaries on the Book of Isaiah by Wilhelm Gesenius and Brevard Childs are excellent works in the field of Isaianic studies. It is not by coincidence that they have been and still are influential. Even today there is much to learn from Gesenius’ thorough linguistic analysis, and Childs’ theological and exegetical approach makes his commentary a must for every student of the Book of Isaiah. The two works treated in this article both represent the genre ‘biblical commentary’, a genre still waiting to be clearly defined.61 The books illustrate the well-known fact that one biblical commentary can be very different from another, even if they are all called ‘commentaries’. Gesenius’ and Childs’ books do, however, confirm some basic facts about what commentary-writing is: It is presenting a text about another text; it is a methodologically But note that Gesenius also mentions hermeneutics as one of his interests (see Der Prophet Jesaia I, p. iv). 61 For an overview see Eriksson, Hur hittar jag en bra bibelkommentar? (in Swedish only). See also Wabel and Weichenhan’s Kommentare, in which, however, no attempt is made to define the genre. It is rather an annotated collection of examples of works published under the name of ‘commentary’. 60

30

LARSOLOV ERIKSSON

conceived work; it is an attempt to convey the message of the text to a new set of readers in a new historical context; and all this is done on the basis of earlier readings of the same text. The two commentaries also confirm the importance of a conscious choice of approach. Gesenius and Childs both clearly state what they want to do, and they do it. They generally do not do the same thing, but they know what they are doing, and that contributes substantially to forming the specific character of their respective works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2000). U. Berges, ‘Farewell to Deutero-Isaiah or Prophecy without a Prophet’, in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (Leiden, 2010), pp. 575–595. B. S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (London, 1974). ———, Isaiah (Louisville, 2001). D. R. Driver, Brevard Childs, Biblical Theologian: For the Church’s One Bible (Tübingen, 2010). B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 4th edn (Göttingen, 1922). L. Eriksson, Hur hittar jag en bra bibelkommentar?, Ingång 7/1–2, 2001. W. Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia: Übersetzt und mit einem vollständigen philologisch-kritischen und historischen Commentar begleitet I–III (Leipzig, 1820–1821). E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah: Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary I–II (Dublin, 1941–1943). R. Smend, ‘Wilhelm Gesenius’, in R. Smend, From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in three Centuries, translated by M. Kohl (Tübingen, 2007), pp. 57–75. M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Grand Rapids / Cambridge, 1996). T. Wabel and M. Weichenhan (eds), Kommentare: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf eine wissenschaftliche Praxis (Frankfurt a. M., 2011).

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION IN ISAIAH DAVID G. FIRTH ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, NOTTINGHAM ABSTRACT Although the importance of the link between the themes of creation and redemption in Isaiah is well recognised, the link with the Spirit has not been widely explored. Adopting a primarily synchronic reading of the book as a whole, this paper examines this theme under four headings, (1) Yhwh as Authoritative over Creation, (2) the Eschatological Restoration of Creation, (3) Israel’s redemption and (4) a ‘Messianic’ Figure in Redemption. It is argued that the relationship between these three themes is emphasised across all elements of the book, so that this becomes one of its unifying features, providing a paradigm for those who live Coram Deo.

INTRODUCTION Like Ezekiel, Isaiah can be considered a prophet of the Spirit. Indeed, these two prophetic texts provide the vast majority of references to the Spirit of God in the latter prophets. 1 Of course, On my count, there are twenty-one passages in Isaiah in which a reference to God’s Spirit is possible, out of a total of fifty-one occurrences of ‫ רוח‬in the book; a further sixteen possible references can be found in Ezekiel, out of fifty-two occurrences of ‫ רוח‬in that book. 1

31

32

DAVID G. FIRTH

the ways in which the prophets play with the various senses of ‫רוח‬ means it is not always possible to limit the reference of a given text to just one of the ways it can be translated into English.2 As such, there will always be some disagreement about exactly which occurrences of ‫ רוח‬should be understood as referring to God’s Spirit. Nevertheless, the Book of Isaiah provides a rich resource for appreciating how the Old Testament understands the Spirit of God. But the range of texts in Isaiah that refer to God’s Spirit makes it impossible for us to consider them all in this paper. Rather, we shall take a narrower focus, looking at those references to God’s Spirit which are linked to the themes of creation and redemption. By considering the texts which bring these themes together we may also begin to explore the relevance of Isaiah’s understanding of God’s Spirit to contemporary ethics, especially how this relates to environmental issues today. However, the primary purpose of this paper is to establish some of the exegetical foundations for such reflection rather than focusing primarily on the ethical issues themselves. Considering the themes of creation and redemption together in Isaiah has a well-established pedigree. Although he focused only on Isaiah 40–55, Stuhlmueller’s conclusion that one cannot study the theme of creation without also considering the theme of redemption, and indeed that redemption is the dominant theme, 3 has implications for the whole of Isaiah. Admittedly, there are differences in emphasis across the different sections of the book, but creation motifs regularly appear along with redemptive ones. Likewise, although treatment of God’s Spirit is not uniform across the different strata of the book, there is a consistent emphasis on

There are only nine possible references in the rest of the prophets out of thirty-three occurrences of ‫רוח‬, all of them in the Book of the Twelve, as Jeremiah does not refer to God’s Spirit. 2 See also Goldingay, ‘The Breath of Yahweh Scorching, Confounding, Anointing: The Message Of Isaiah 40–42’, p. 4. 3 Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, p. vii.

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

33

the eschatological role of the Spirit. 4 In that redemption and the restoration of creation are also eschatological themes across the book, it is appropriate to ask how these elements relate to one another across the book. A synchronic reading, such as will be offered here, cannot ignore the diachronic dimensions of the book, but rather asks how these motifs work in relation to one another in the finished text.5 As such, we shall consider texts from across the whole of Isaiah, but consider them under four principal headings: (1) Yhwh as Authoritative over Creation, (2) the Eschatological Restoration of Creation, (3) Israel’s redemption and (4) a ‘Messianic’ Figure in Redemption. In the first two of these groups, the texts are drawn only from one part of Isaiah, though in the third and fourth they can be drawn from the three main divisions typically observed in the book. However, uncertainty about how to understand ‫ רוח‬at various points limits the extent to which we draw on some of these texts.

I. YHWH: AUTHORITATIVE OVER CREATION Creation, and Yhwh’s authority over it, is a key motif across Isaiah. Thus, in Isa 2:5–22 Yhwh is exalted above all, whether human power, idols or various aspects of creation. This authority culminates in the promise of the new heavens and new earth in Isa 65:17–25, but is also particularly evident throughout Isaiah 40–55. Ma examines the motif across the principal strata (pre-exilic, exilic, post-exilic), but argues that as the traditions emerge they also ‘gain eschatological significance’ (Until the Spirit Comes, p. 203). 5 This approach thus differs from that of Conrad (Reading Isaiah, pp. 3–33) in that although it recognises the role of readers in constructing meaning through the text, it accepts that readers are capable of recognising the depth dimension of the text. However, with Conrad, it is interested in understanding the text as text and not only in terms of the historical communities that lie behind it. This approach is consistent with that of Hagelia, Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh. See also the comment of Stromberg, ‘A holistic reading seeks to understand the textual part in the light of the whole, and the whole in the light of its parts’ (An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah, p. 77). 4

34

DAVID G. FIRTH

To give only one example, in Isa 40:12–31 Yhwh’s authority over creation points to his incomparability so that nations, idols, princes and all creation cannot be compared to him. However, although language of God’s ‫ רוח‬is commonly linked with creation motifs in Isaiah, a direct link between the ‫ רוח‬and Yhwh’s authority over creation occurs only in two places in Isaiah 40—verses 7 and 13. Nevertheless, the placement of these two verses at such a significant point in the Book of Isaiah makes them worthy of further consideration. This is especially so when we recognise, with most commentators, that Isaiah 40 is made up of two stanzas, a prologue (verses 1–11) and then an assurance of Yhwh’s power (verses 12–31).6 These two passages together assure the exilic community that their penalty has been paid and that Yhwh has the power to deliver them. Thus, the introductory sections of this part of Isaiah place references to God’s ‫ רוח‬in pivotal places, and though the reference in Isa 40:7 is not normally translated as ‘Spirit’ we will see that this is an instance where reference to the ‫ רוח‬is effectively another way of referring to the work of Yhwh.7 The reference in Isa 40:7 occurs at a pivotal point in the passage. The whole of Isaiah 40:1–11 contains four strophes, each See Childs, Isaiah, pp. 293–311 and Park, God is King, pp. 143–146. Although the place of Isa 40:9–11 within this pericope is debated, the general division holds true. Indeed, Goldingay and Payne (Isaiah 40–55, vol. 1, p. 60) claim that without verses 9–11, Isa 40:1–8 would be ‘limp’. Baltzer (Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 47–48) argues that verses 9–12 introduces a new section that runs to verse 20, but although his observation about speakers is valid he does not give sufficient weight to the repetition of Jerusalem so that the fourth strophe primarily closes the opening stanza of Isaiah 40, though this would not prevent it from having a Janus-like link to what follows. But that the primary function of verses 9–11 is to close the opening stanza (verses 1–11) seems evident from the links Stuhlmueller (Creative redemption, pp. 73–89) is able to make with the Babylonian Akitu. 7 See Averbeck, ‘Breath, Wind, spirit and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament’, pp. 34–35, and the comment of du Plooy, ‘In sekere gevalle is “U Gees” ‘n poëtiese manier om van die Here (U) te praat’ (Die Teologiese Gebruik van ‫ רוח יהוה‬in die Ou Testament, p. 290). 6

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

35

marked by references to the importance of speech. 8 Attention to this element and the changes in address leads to a division of the passage into verses 1–2, 3–5, 6–8 and 9–11.9 Within this prologue, the opening strophe has announced the comfort which is for Jerusalem, while the second strophe summons those addressed to prepare Yhwh’s way. Against the glory of Yhwh, the third strophe then considers human frailty in contrast to Yhwh’s word while the fourth strophe requires Jerusalem to be the bearer of good news to the other cities of Judah. The third strophe within this stanza is thus the point at which the limitations of humans are shown in contrast to Yhwh’s word. We face an immediate problem, though, when we note that v. 7 is absent from the Septuagint,10 and so frequently excised as a gloss. But as Williamson has argued, the transition to v. 8 is too abrupt without v. 7,11 suggesting that in this instance the shorter Septuagint text is a haplography. Accepting the originality of the verse, we then have verses 6–7 containing a dialogue between two speakers, one of whom asks what should be called and a response that compares humanity to grass which withers when Yhwh’s ‫רוח‬ passes over it. Only once this limitation of humanity is established can the reassurance of the enduring nature of God’s word be given in v. 8, and it is this which leads into the fourth strophe’s role for the messengers. But what is the ‫ רוח‬here? Since the metaphor here compares humans to grass, an obvious option is to understand it as the scirocco, the hot wind that leads the grass to wither. So, we might translate this as ‘a wind from Yhwh’. But since this is something Note the recurrence of ‫ קול‬through the passage, with the word occurring in the opening statement of each of the second, third and fourth strophes, each related in some way to the imperative ‫ דברו‬in v. 2, itself a response to the double imperative ‫ נחמו נחמו‬in v. 1. In addition, the verb ‫ קרא‬occurs in the first three strophes, with proclamation then to be activated in the fourth. 9 See also Eddinger, ‘An analysis of Isaiah 40:1-11’, pp. 119–122. 10 Note also the inclusion of verses 7b–8a in a second hand in 1QIsaa. 11 See Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, pp. 255–256. 8

36

DAVID G. FIRTH

that comes from Yhwh, most English versions opt for ‘breath’,12 thus linking the ‫ רוח‬directly to Yhwh. This is indeed appropriate, but with Baltzer13 it is better to see this as a reference to Yhwh’s Spirit, though without losing the sense of ‘wind / breath’, since it is Yhwh’s own power that threatens creation. Genesis 1 may have set humans as the pinnacle of creation, but they and all creation are powerless before him. Humans may experience this through a hot summer wind, but this is still a manifestation of Yhwh’s Spirit. This reference then prepares us for the prominent role given to God’s ‫ רוח‬in the second stanza. This stanza contains five strophes, verses 12–17, 18–20, 21–24, 25–26 and 27–31. The first four are introduced by an opening question, each of which is concerned with Yhwh’s authority which is finally answered by the final strophe which, although it too includes questions, is marked off by initially rejecting Israel’s assertion about its way being hidden from Yhwh.14 More particularly, reference to the ‫ רוח‬is found in v. 13 within a series of rhetorical questions in verses 12–14, all of which are intended to show Yhwh’s incomparability. Where Marduk had needed guidance as creator in Babylonian mythology, Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬had needed no such guidance.15 This background may also point to an awareness of Gen 1:2, though a more immediate parallel might be Ps 33:6, which also points to the ‫ רוח‬as Yhwh’s means of creation.16 But more particularly here, the verb ‫ תכן‬is used to assert that no one regulates Yhwh’s Spirit. That no one has guided Yhwh here links to the claim of v. 28 that there is no limit to his understanding. It is precisely because Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬is free from all control that it can be asserted that there are no limits to Yhwh’s understanding, though of course the whole stanza is full of language that points to Yhwh’s knowledge.17 For example RSV. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 57. 14 Hence, Westermann (Isaiah 40–66, p. 48) classifies this whole stanza as a ‘disputation’. 15 See Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 53–54. LXX here renders ‫ רוח‬as νοῦς, leading to Paul’s use of this verse in Rom 11:34. 16 Similarly, Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 303. 17 See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 191. 12 13

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

37

Since the rhetorical questions of verses 12 and 14 refer directly to Yhwh, the move to Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬in v. 13 is striking. As with v. 7, ‫ רוח‬is here used as a means of referring to how Yhwh works whilst at the same time being in some sense equivalent to Yhwh, and is therefore more than just Yhwh’s power to work miracles.18 Rather, the direct association with Yhwh when combined with wisdom language points to the ‫ רוח‬standing for Yhwh’s wisdom and intelligence, though it here includes Yhwh’s power to implement this in creation. 19 Hence, both references in this chapter point to Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬as a means by which Yhwh is authoritative over all aspects of creation, both in its initiation and also in Yhwh’s continued involvement with it. Together, these references establish the ‫ רוח‬as a source of hope for those who read the Book of Isaiah.

II. ESCHATOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF CREATION Creation in Isaiah is not only subject to Yhwh’s authority, it is also something that Yhwh will ultimately restore. Again, this motif occurs across the different portions of the book, though in this case a number of key texts in Isaiah 1–39 are often dated fairly late. However, we should note the example of the restored relationships among animals in Isa 11:6 and 65:25, with the latter text also seemingly alluding back to the Zion hymn of Isa 2:2–4. Animals are also involved in Yhwh’s restoration of the wilderness so Israel can pass through it in Isa 43:18–20. Such restoration is normally seen in the framework of Yhwh’s redemption of Israel, but in two key passages, Isa 32:15–20 and 34:8–17 it is creation alone that is the subject of Yhwh’s purposes, though in each case Israel’s redemption is implicit. In both these texts the animals are also prominent, and in both there is again reference to God’s Spirit. Isaiah 32 stands out from the chapters around it. Each chapter from Isa 28:1 onward has commenced with a ‘woe oracle’, a pattern that is resumed in Isa 33:1. Each of the woe oracles commencing at Isa 28:1, 29:1, 30:1 and 31:1 is addressed in some 18 19

Against Westermann, Isaiah 40–55, p. 50. Similarly, Ma, Until the Spirit Comes, pp. 73–74.

38

DAVID G. FIRTH

way to the powerful in Israel who are in various ways resistant to Yhwh’s governance. That is, politics are never far away from these oracles.20 Although the addressee of the woe oracle in Isa 33:1 is harder to discern, the fact that it takes up the language of the preceding chapters 21 indicates that it too has similar political concerns. The presence of so much political language indicates that Isaiah 32 should also be read politically, as recently argued by Hamilton.22 Such an approach makes sense of the fact that the chapter opens with discussion of a king who shall reign ‫ לצדק‬and rulers who will rule ‫למׁשפט‬. Justice and righteousness are key themes in Isaiah, so theoretically this passage could have originated in the time of Isaiah.23 But though most scholars date it much later, Leclerc is probably right to insist that the interpretation should not be dependent upon a particular historical situation. 24 This is particularly so if we understand the verbs of v. 1 as jussives, ‘Behold, a king should reign for righteousness…’.25 Interpreted in this way, the text lays out the possibility of justice and righteousness before all kings without necessarily understanding it as a critique of any one king. The opening section can then climax with the wisdom-like statement of v. 8 which effectively encourages all rulers to shape their rule in terms of the pattern described. A sharp break then occurs at v. 9 as the prophet addresses wealthy women until v. 14.26 Although they are not specifically said On the relationship between Isaiah and politics, see Reimer, ‘Isaiah and Politics’, pp. 89–103. 21 See Goldingay, Isaiah, pp. 184–186. This is contrary to the view of Blenkinsopp who claims that chapter 33 ‘has no obvious link with what precedes or follows’ (Isaiah 1–39, p. 436). 22 Hamilton, ‘Isaiah 32 as Literature and Political Meditation’, pp. 663–684. 23 So Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, pp. 352–354, and, tentatively, Tate, ‘King and Messiah in Isaiah of Jerusalem’, pp.420–421. 24 See Leclerc, Yahweh is Exalted in Justice, p. 82. 25 Similarly, Tate, ‘King and Messiah’, p. 421. 26 With Tucker (‘Isaiah’, p. 264) and Brueggemann (Isaiah 1–39, p. 253) I read this chapter as a redactional unity. Although the material in it 20

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

39

to be wealthy, that they are at ease indicates their wealth, as also does their association with fields and vineyards which are to lose their crops. The outcome of their complacency is a loss of the land’s agricultural productivity as agricultural land, city and palace are all deserted, becoming a home for animals. The contrast to this is introduced suddenly in v. 15: ‫עד יערה עלינו רוח ממרום‬. What follows in the passage is then effectively a reversal of the damage to creation which was incurred as a result of the wealthy women’s complacency. Instead of the loss of productivity within creation, the land now becomes abundantly fruitful. Where human habitation had previously been lost, it was now something that could be lived in security, though it is notable that this is also matched with a beatitude (‫ )אׁשרי‬on those who sow beside the waters and allow the ox and donkey free range.27 That this happens as a result of the outpouring of the Spirit is crucial for this passage. But how is ‫ רוח‬to be understood here? Although Tucker feels that capitalising the translation (‘Spirit’ rather than ‘spirit’) introduces an ‘unjustified theological interpretation’, he does agree that the term is used here to refer to God’s power which is at work.28 But that ‫ רוח‬here stands in place of God seems clear even though God is not mentioned in the passage. This is because ‫‘( יערה‬is poured out’) is best read as a probably arose at different times, it is still intended to be read as a unity. Ma (Until the Spirit Comes, p. 79) points to a number of words that occur across both verses 9–14 and 15–20. In addition to those he notes, one can add that references to the city occur in both verses 14 and 19, though the sense of v.19 is unclear. 27 On any reading, v. 19 poses a problem for interpreters since it sounds like a judgement statement, whereas the rest of verses 15–20 offer hope. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39, pp. 588–589) suggests it is a destruction of Israelite pride that must accomplish her restoration. On balance, this is preferable to readings which delete the verse or regard it as completely misplaced since it is hard to explain what might have led to it appearing in this context were it not always part of this section. 28 Tucker, ‘Isaiah’, p. 266. NIV’s ‘Spirit’ is probably defensible, but HCSB’s ‘the Spirit from Heaven’ does introduce themes that go beyond the text itself.

40

DAVID G. FIRTH

divine passive. As such, the restoration of creation, including both justice and security for humans and the renewal of creation as a whole, is the result of the pouring out of God’s Spirit. It is God’s Spirit that brings about this level of justice and harmony, something human kings have so far failed to produce. However, by presenting it in this way this divinely initiated pattern becomes something to which kings are effectively encouraged to aspire. The eschatological role of the Spirit is thus both a hope for the future and also an encouragement to those in power to work towards that which is consistent with the Spirit. A somewhat different reference to the Spirit occurs in Isa 34:16–17. Isaiah 34 as a whole is a carefully composed poem 29 that announces Yhwh’s judgement on the nations that have opposed him, with Edom particularly singled out in Isa 34:5–17. Edom may be mentioned here because she is not included in the earlier oracles against the nations. The chapter focuses on Yhwh’s judgement, in particular showing that Yhwh’s vengeance against Edom results in a loss of human habitat, though it does become a home for wild animals. This stands in marked contrast to the restoration of habitat for Zion described in Isa 35:1–10, suggesting that there may be an intentional contrast that is drawn.30 But here we have spreading desertification, a loss of human habitat31 and it is this that marks out Yhwh’s judgement. But here still the animals are gathered because they have been gathered by Yhwh’s Spirit (Isa 34:16), consistent with Yhwh’s decree. Here, ‫ רוח‬clearly stands for Yhwh himself, again pointing to the ‫ רוח‬as the means by which Yhwh’s authority over creation is demonstrated. In this instance, although the creation becomes uninhabitable for humans, it is 29

See Muilenberg, ‘The Literary Character of Isaiah 34’, pp. 339–

365. Pope (‘Isaiah 34 in relation to Isaiah 35, 40-66’, pp. 235–243) argues for common authorship of chapters 34 and 35 on the basis of repeated vocabulary and style. This is possible, but we can also read these chapters as a diptych on the basis of the redaction of the text; so, Childs, Isaiah, p. 253. 31 See Marlow, ‘Justice for Whom? Social and Environmental Ethics and the Hebrew Prophets’, pp. 112–113. 30

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

41

particularly suited to the desert creatures Yhwh brings here. So, although in this instance one aspect of creation is restricted, it is still the ‫ רוח‬by which Yhwh exercises authority over creation.

III. ISRAEL’S REDEMPTION Creation’s restoration and Yhwh’s authority over it are important themes across Isaiah, but they are also closely linked to Yhwh’s restoration of Israel. The form that this restoration will take varies depending on the literary stratum we are examining. However, although creation and redemption language often occur, association with Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬is not explicit. At some points, there may be some hints of this, such as in Isa 4:4 where the land’s beauty is linked to Yhwh’s restoration of Zion, where the city is cleansed with a ‘spirit of judgement and a spirit of burning’. Taken on its own, and as evidence of Yhwh’s work, one might take the spirit of judgment (‫ )רוח מׁשפט‬as equivalent to Yhwh, but when in parallel with the spirit of burning (‫ )רוח בער‬it seems better to see these as parallel phrases which describe the means by which Yhwh will cleanse Jerusalem for her glorious future, though this is perhaps a text where a level of ambiguity remains.32 Something similar can be observed in the case of Isa 59:19, 21 where the work of the ‫ רוח‬is understood in creational terms within Yhwh’s redemptive work, but where the identity of the ‫ רוח‬remains ambiguous in Isa 59:19. By contrast, creational themes are absent in Isa 59:21 where it seems clearer that the ‫ רוח‬should be understood as the divine Spirit.33

Motyer (Isaiah, p. 66) argues that we should read this as a statement about Yhwh’s Spirit. We could perhaps strengthen Motyer’s case by noting that Isa 4:2–6 essentially parallels Isa 2:2–4, so that ‫ רוח‬and ‫ תורה‬balance each other in Yhwh’s redemptive purposes. Nevertheless, in this instance ‫ רוח‬seems to refer to something distinct that Yhwh uses rather than an extension of Yhwh’s own person. On the significance of the structure of chapters 2–4, see Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 43–44. 33 There is also a close association between Yhwh and redemption in Isa 28:6, but although some creational themes are present in Isa 28:1–6 they are muted, so the text is not considered here. 32

42

DAVID G. FIRTH

A clearer example of the interplay between creation, redemption and Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬can be seen in Isa 44:3. This saying, in which Yhwh promises to pour out water onto a thirsty land and his ‫ רוח‬on Israel’s seed and so bless Israel’s offspring, occurs within a salvation oracle in Isa 44:1–5. There is here a clear link between the Spirit and water as the verb ‫‘( יצק‬pour out’) is used in both cases, so that creation’s renewal becomes the paradigm for the work of the Spirit among Israel’s descendants. Describing Israel’s descendants as ‫ זרע‬further reinforces this motif, so that just as water makes the land productive, so also Yhwh’s Spirit enables Yhwh’s blessing on his people. This salvation oracle needs to be seen in the context of Isa 43:22–28. Although there appears to be clear form-critical differences in that this passage is a court scene34 whereas Isa 44:1–5 is a salvation oracle (albeit with an unusual use of the ‘fear not’ motif), there are important associations developed. Motyer finds a chiasm linking Isa 43:25–44:5,35 but the level of connection between his elements lacks specificity. Nevertheless, his basic instinct is sound in seeing the message of salvation in Isa 44:1–5 as addressing the problems faced by Israel in the preceding passage. Admittedly, the interpretation of Isa 43:22–28 is difficult because it is difficult to see why exilic Israel should be upbraided for failing to bring sacrifices given the lack of a temple. Perhaps, though, we should see the issue of sacrifice as typical of the history of Israel’s unfaithfulness, with the exilic community simply following the pattern of the earlier generations.36 It is against this background that the ‘servant’ language is reintroduced for Israel in Isa 44:1, in Though as Balzer (Deutero-Isaiah, p. 161) notes, Isa 43:8–15 is also a court scene, the themes of which are developed in Isa 43:16–21. It is notable that there are also parallels in Isa 43:19–20 with Isa 44:3, especially the provision of water in the wilderness, though the terminology is different from Isa 44:3–5. 35 See Motyer, Isaiah, p. 340. 36 Moreover, as Seitz (‘Isaiah 40–66’, p. 379) notes, this passage also draws heavily on Isa 1:11–15, whilst Isa 43:26 echoes Isa 1:18. In this way, the text connects its various strata, providing its own interpretative context. 34

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

43

an address which emphasises Yhwh’s election of them. Israel stands in a history of sin, as well as being now in exile, but even so Yhwh will provide redemption where Israel will know that they belong to Yhwh. Rather than continuing to be in rebellion against him, they will flourish in a context of knowing they are Yhwh’s people. Redemption language is thus important here, but it is closely tied to the language of creation and the Spirit. What is particularly striking is that where creation language has not been employed in the complaint of Isa 43:22–28, it is particularly prominent in the salvation oracle of Isa 44:1–5, though it is also linked to the language of election. This latter element is apparent in the unique use of three patriarchal terms (Jacob, Israel and Jeshurun). Although the paralleling of Jacob and Israel is common in Isaiah 40–55, ‘Jeshurun’ occurs nowhere else in Isaiah.37 The association with Deuteronomy 32–33 this triggers points to the importance of the covenant relationship between Israel and Yhwh, an association that also highlights the fact that Yhwh’s blessing has a significant impact upon creation (see Deut 28:3–12). Covenant, and its close theological cousin election, is also reinforced by Yhwh describing Israel as ‘my servant’, a people he has ‘chosen’, whilst the people themselves also recognise their part as they assert that they belong to Yhwh (Isa 44:5).38 Creational themes are also reinforced in Yhwh’s self-description as Israel’s maker (‫ )עׂשה‬who had formed (‫ )יצר‬them from the womb. It is thus as the one who elected and created Israel that Yhwh speaks, offering reassurance because Jacob is indeed his servant. The form this reassurance takes is to point to the restoration of creation through the gift of water, something that is paralleled by the pouring out of Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬upon Israel’s descendants. In that This unusual designation for Israel occurs elsewhere only in Deut 32:13; 33:5, 26. The exact meaning of the name is uncertain (though seemingly derived from the root ‫)יׁשר‬, but its importance here lies more in the rhetorical effect of this archaic title and the way it simultaneously points to Deuteronomy 32–33 as the interpretative context for this oracle. Similarly, Goldingay, Isaiah, p. 257. 38 See also Hagelia, Coram Deo, p. 366. 37

44

DAVID G. FIRTH

the parallelism of the two halves of Isa 44:3 is largely synonymous, we see that there is an equation drawn between the pouring out of Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬and the blessing of Israel’s descendants, with the result that their own future prosperity can also be described in the language of creation (see Isa 44:4). That the work of the ‫ רוח‬here is Yhwh’s own work suggests that we are right to understand it here as Yhwh’s Spirit, and to note that once again the Spirit’s work is closely related to the renewal of creation within the context of the redemption Yhwh brings. Israel’s complaint had not noted the need of creation, but in responding to them, Yhwh highlights the need of creation’s redemption, and ties this to the work of his Spirit. To a ‘humiliated and decimated people’39 Yhwh announces a transformation that goes beyond their recognised need, renewing creation and elect people through the work of his Spirit.

IV. A ‘MESSIANIC’ FIGURE IN REDEMPTION The association between creation, redemption and the Spirit that we have identified in Isaiah comes to particular prominence in those texts which speak of a ‘Messianic’ figure and his relationship to these themes. Identifying texts in the prophets as ‘messianic’ is fraught with difficulty, but we can regard as messianic those texts which express hope for Israel through a royal (or royal-like) figure (who might also display priestly and prophetic functions) who brings redemption.40 This does not fully resolve the question of exactly which texts in Isaiah might be deemed as ‘messianic’;41 but for our purposes it is enough to identify Isa 11:1–9, 42:1–9 and 61:1–3 as key texts. Within the overall structure of the Book of Isaiah these texts are unified by their reference to empowerment by Yhwh’s Spirit and creational themes in the redemption they bring. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption, p. 126. See D. G. Firth, ‘Messiah’, pp. 538. 41 On the different ways of configuring this, see Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. Williamson particularly points to the importance of justice and righteousness in identifying such texts (p. 203), but is conscious of the fact that each selection of messianic texts from Isaiah will omit some that others might consider messianic. 39 40

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

45

Although the dating of these texts is disputed, especially in the case of Isa 11:1–9, it seems that we are intended in the finished book to read them sequentially, and in any case it is not impossible that Isa 11:1–9 is an eighth-century text.42 The figure described in Isa 11:1–9 is clearly Davidic, though the oracle refers back to Jesse rather than David. The image of the shoot growing from the stump of Jesse (Isa 11:1) stands in contrast to the tall tree of either Assyria or the elite in Judah that Yhwh has just felled (Isa 10:33–34). Against this background, the prophet announces a king whose life and practice will stand in contrast to the oppressive forces which have shaped Judah’s life in recent years. That this comes from the ‘stump of Jesse’ perhaps suggests that we have a new David in mind rather than just the historical kings who reigned in Jerusalem, and thus contributes to the messianic thrust of the text. 43 The balance of the passage divides evenly into three principal sections, each of which is important for our concerns. First, in v. 2 the redeemer’s endowment with the Spirit is outlined before the character of his rule is described in verses 3–5, and finally the effect of his rule is presented in verses 6–9. The language of Spirit-endowment is crucial to the passage as it establishes the key themes of the whole passage. In a context where Yhwh is raising a new David it is appropriate that reference is made to Yhwh’s Spirit. It was Yhwh’s Spirit that came upon David at his anointing (1 Sam 16:13), and by that same Spirit that he spoke his ‘last words’ (2 Sam 23:2). David’s reign was thus bookended by his experience of Yhwh’s Spirit, though his reign was also deeply flawed. Since then, his descendants had generally failed to live out Yhwh’s ideals of kingship, though Isa 8:23–9:6 [ET 9:1–7] had already expressed the hope of a truly just king.44 So, See Tate, ‘King and Messiah in Isaiah of Jerusalem’, pp. 419–420; Williamson, Variations, pp. 53–56. See Leclerc (Yahweh is Exalted in Justice, pp. 67–68) for the various options, but it seems best to see the image of the ‘stump’ as descriptive of Judah’s condition as a result of the SyroEphraimite war. 43 See Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 278–279. 44 See Wegner, ‘What’s New in Isaiah 9:1-7?’, p. 245. 42

46

DAVID G. FIRTH

when Isaiah speaks of Yhwh’s Spirit being upon this new king it is necessary to define what this means. It is not simply empowerment, but character that is given to the king,45 so that the power that is given by Yhwh’s Spirit is directed by the three paired descriptions of the Spirit that follow. It is as a result of this endowment by the Spirit that the king is able to delight in Yhwh and execute justice for the land, justice that reflects Yhwh’s own character in relation to the people.46 But what is striking is that the effect of this is not simply harmony within Judah, but that harmony is restored also across creation so that all animate life lives together in peace. Redemption thus reaches to the whole of creation, but does so as an expression of the work of Yhwh’s Spirit on his king. Where the figure empowered by the Spirit in Isaiah 11 is clearly a king, in Isa 42:1–9 we have the first reference to the Servant of Yhwh.47 Although the four so-called ‘Servant Songs’ are often treated as almost separable items, recent exegesis has emphasised their integration into Isaiah 40–55. In the case of this first song, there is a particularly close link to the closing verses of chapter 41, with the opening ‫ הן‬calling for attention as a contrast to the missing counsellors of Isa 41:28–29 as the Servant will fulfil this function.48 That is, what the counsellors could not do, Yhwh will do through his Servant. In particular, the Servant brings forth Yhwh’s ‫מׁשפט‬.49 There is also debate about the extent of the It is notable that there is no association between the Spirit and character formation in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets. See Firth, ‘The Spirit and Leadership’, p. 280. 46 As Brueggemann (Isaiah 1–39, p. 101) notes, this concern for community should also prevent Christian messianic readings from creating a privatised Jesus, separate from his commitment to justice. 47 Israel has already been called ‫ עבד‬in Isa 41:8–9, so that however we understand the figure in Isa 42:1–9 the ‘servant’ language is not unique to the so-called Servant Songs. Nevertheless, the specific focus on the Servant here does highlight this passage. 48 See Smillie, ‘Isaiah 42:1-4 in its Rhetorical Context’, pp. 52–54. 49 Jeremias observes, ‘das ist sein zentrales Amt’ (‘Mišpāt im ersten Gottesknechtslied’, p. 31). 45

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

47

passage, especially because of the change from first to third person at v. 5, but it seems best to follow Snyman50 and treat the pericope as covering Isa 42:1–9. For our purposes, it is important to note the central role played by Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬in this passage and its relationship to creation. The counsellors previously criticised, in reality idols, are said to be ‫רוח ותהו‬, that is ‘wind and nothing’ (Isa 41:29). By contrast, Yhwh has placed his ‫ רוח‬in his Servant so he can bring justice to the nations. In this way the Servant takes on royal attributes, since kings were meant to bring justice, and of course in Isa 11:1–9 it is the king who is empowered by the Spirit who brings justice. But within this passage ‫ רוח‬is also ‘breath’ in the sense of that which animates all life (Isa 42:5), though again this is the gift of Yhwh. But this wider reference also points to the close relationship between Spirit, redemption and creation found in this passage, redemption which moves beyond Israel to the ‘islands’ as Yhwh’s justice is established. In this case, it is because Yhwh is creator that he can use his Servant to bring forth his justice while also ensuring that the Servant does not claim glory that is rightly Yhwh’s alone. Whereas in Isa 11:1–9 it is the work of the Spirit-enabled king to bring about justice which ultimately transforms creation, here it is because Yhwh is creator that the Spirit-enabled Servant can bring justice to that creation. Although these represent differences in emphasis, there is a clear relationship between these concepts. Finally, we have the unnamed figure who speaks in Isa 61:1–3. Although not evidently the same as the Servant, this figure is at least ‘servant-like’.51 It is widely recognised that the language here is linked to that of Jubilee52 in its concern for the poor, though reference to Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬is distinctive of this passage. Here, though, it is the presence of the ‫ רוח‬that enables this figure, so that this Snyman, ‘A Structural-Historical Exegesis of Isaiah 42:1–9’, pp. 252–253. 51 Accordingly, the view of Stromberg (‘An inner-Isaianic Reading of Isaiah 61:1–3’, p. 262) that this passage draws on a range of texts in Isaiah 40–55 is upheld. 52 Note especially ‫ דרור‬which occurs only here and in Leviticus 25, Jer 34:15–17 and Ezek 46:17. 50

48

DAVID G. FIRTH

figure echoes both the Servant and the king, though this speaker also seems to claim those parts of Cyrus’ role not yet fulfilled as the passage continues into the rest of the chapter. 53 These links are important because although this text does not make a specific link between the work of Yhwh’s ‫ רוח‬and creation, the associations created by the text to both its immediate context in Isaiah 60–62 and its wider associations with the Book of Isaiah mean that the creational context remains as an important aspect of this redemptive work, so that the redeemed community can be pictured as enjoying the fruit of a restored creation, both in terms of its productivity (Isa 62:8–9) and also the security of restored relationships (Isa 60:18). Thus, each text pointing to this redeemer figure highlights the relationship between this figure, creation and the Spirit in Yhwh’s eschatological purposes.

V. CONCLUSION A survey of key texts, such as undertaken here, means that a great deal more can (and perhaps should) be said about each of the passages considered. In addition, a number of texts that might have been relevant have been omitted for reasons of space, and some of these lack an explicit linking of these themes. Nevertheless, our goal was not a detailed treatment of each passage but rather to demonstrate that across the whole of Isaiah there is a consistent concern with the relationship between Yhwh’s Spirit, redemption and creation. In each of the four areas considered, we have seen that this pattern emerges, so that even though the Book of Isaiah draws on materials reflecting different periods and with distinct emphases, this represents one of its unifying motifs. For the Book of Isaiah, these elements are not to be separated, pointing to Yhwh’s work, both in the present and eschatologically, whilst also presenting a paradigm for those who live coram Deo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY R. Averbeck, ‘Breath, Wind, spirit and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament’, in D. G. Firth and P. D. Wegner (eds), Presence, 53

See Williamson, Variations, p. 176.

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

49

Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (Nottingham, 2011), pp. 25–37. B. A. Asen, ‘The Garlands of Ephraim: Isaiah 28:1–6 and the Marzēah’, JSOT 71 (1996), pp. 73–87. K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (Minneapolis, 2001). J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2000). ———, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2002). ———, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2003). W. Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville, 1998). ———, Isaiah 40–66 (Louisville, 1998). B. S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville, 2001). E. W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (Minneapolis, 1990). R. J. du Plooy, Die Teologiese Gebruik van ‫ רוח יהוה‬in die Ou Testament (unpubl. diss., North-West University, 2004). T. W. Eddinger, ‘An Analysis of Isaiah 40:1–11’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999), pp. 119–135. D. G. Firth, ‘The Spirit and Leadership: Testimony, Empowerment and Purpose’, in D. G. Firth and P. D. Wegner (eds), Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (Nottingham, 2011), pp. 259–280. ———, ‘Messiah’, in M. J. Boda and J. G. McConville (eds), Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets (Downers Grove, 2012), pp. 537–544. J. Goldingay, ‘The Breath of Yahweh Scorching, Confounding, Anointing: The Message Of Isaiah 40–42’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1997), pp. 3–34. ———, Isaiah (Peabody, 2001). J. Goldingay and D. Payne, Isaiah 40–55 (2 vols; London, 2006). B. C. Gregory, ‘The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah: Isaiah 61:1–3 in Light of Second Temple Hermeneutics’, Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2008), pp. 475–496. H. Hagelia, Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh (Stockholm, 2001). M. W. Hamilton, ‘Isaiah 32 as Literature and Political Meditation’, Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012), pp. 663–684. J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah: The Eighth Century Prophet (Nashville, 1987).

50

DAVID G. FIRTH

W. Hildebrandt, An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody, 1995). J. Jeremias, ‘Mišpāt im ersten Gottesknechtslied (Jes 42:1–4)’, Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972), pp. 31–42. O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (London, 1974). T. L. Leclerc, Yahweh is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah (Minneapolis, 2001). M. J. Lynch, ‘Zion’s Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion Traditions’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008), pp. 244–263. W. Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah (Sheffield, 1999). H. Marlow, ‘Justice for Whom? Social and Environmental Ethics and the Hebrew Prophets’, in K. Dell (ed.), Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue (Edinburgh, 2010), pp. 103–121. ———, ‘The Spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah 11:1—9’, in D. G. Firth and P. D. Wegner (eds), Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (Nottingham, 2011), pp. 220–232. J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Leicester, 1993). J. Muilenberg, ‘The Literary Character of Isaiah 34’, Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940), pp. 339–365. P. Niskanen, ‘Yhwh as Father, Redeemer, and Potter in Isaiah 63:7–64:11’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006), pp. 397–407. J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39 (Grand Rapids, 1986). ———, ‘God’s Determination to Redeem his People (Isaiah 9:1–7, 11:1–11, 26:1–9, 35:1–10)’, Review and Expositor 88 (1991), pp. 153–165. J. K. Park, God is King: Exploring the Use and Function of Divine Kingship Metaphor for Biblical Interpretation and Specifically for Isaiah 40:1–11 (unpubl. diss., University of Pretoria, 2007). M. H. Pope, ‘Isaiah 34 in relation to Isaiah 35, 40–66’, Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952), pp. 235–243. D. J. Reimer, ‘Isaiah and Politics’, in D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Nottingham, 2009), pp. 89–103. C. R. Seitz, ‘Isaiah 40–66’, in L. E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6 (Nashville, 2001), pp. 307–552.

SPIRIT, CREATION AND REDEMPTION

51

A. Shifman, ‘“A Scent” of the Spirit: Exegesis of an Enigmatic Verse (Isaiah 11:3)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012), pp. 241–249. G. R. Smilllie, ‘Isaiah 42:1–4 in its Rhetorical Context’, Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (2005), pp. 50–65. S. D. Snyman, ‘A Structural-Historical Exegesis of Isaiah 42:1–9’, in D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Nottingham, 2009), pp. 250–260. J. Stromberg, J. ‘The “Root of Jesse” in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?’, Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008), pp. 655–669. ———, J. ‘An Inner-Isaianic Reading of Isaiah 61:1–3’, in D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Nottingham, 2009), pp. 261–272. ———, J. An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (London, 2011). C. Stuhlmueller, C. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (Rome, 1970). M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Grand Rapids, 1996). M. E. Tate, ‘King and Messiah in Isaiah of Jerusalem’, Review and Expositor 65 (1968), pp. 409–421. G. M. Tucker, ‘Isaiah 1–39’, in L. E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6 (Nashville, 2001), pp. 25–306. P. D. Wegner, ‘What’s New in Isaiah 9:1–7?’, in D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (Nottingham, 2009), pp. 237–249. C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (London, 1969). R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (London, 1975). H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford, 1994). ———, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle, 1998).

WHAT KIND OF GOD IS PORTRAYED IN ISAIAH 5:1–7? TERENCE E. FRETHEIM LUTHER SEMINARY ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA ABSTRACT Difficult theological issues that Isaiah 5:1–7 raises about the character of God need closer attention. I draw out several images of God that are presented in this text and reflect on them theologically: God as lover and judge; God as one who expects and is disappointed; and God’s use of ‘Why?’-language. For God to admit to failed expectations and a lack of success in his relationship with Israel is a striking divine admission. What kind of God is this?

INTRODUCTION The more I study Isaiah 5:1–7, the more complex it seems to become.1 Translation issues are numerous, literary issues abound; varying scholarly studies of these matters are common and they have multiplied the angles of vision on this text over the years. 2 At the same time, difficult issues that this text raises about God have not been studied to any great extent. What kind of God does this text present to its readers? That is my concern in this study. I begin

A word of thanks to Hallvard Hagelia for his collegiality and scholarship. 2 For a recent listing of studies, see accompanying bibliography. 1

53

54

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM

with some summary introductory statements and move to three major issues in pursuit of this conversation. Regarding historical context, I assume Isaianic authorship and date the text shortly after the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyrian armies (722 BCE), with a threat to the southern kingdom in view. Regarding literary context, the text is preceded by an important word about redemption through the fires of judgment (Isa 4:2–6) and is followed by a succession of ‘woe’ oracles (Isa 5:8–23) and judgment oracles (Isa 5:24–25); this section concludes with an oracle regarding the agents of God’s judgment (Isa 5:26– 30). More specifically, in Isa 5:1–7, the identities of the singer (the ‘my’ of 5:1 and 5:9), the ‘beloved’ one, and the vineyard, while not initially made explicit, are soon recognized (probably by 5:3) as the prophet, God, and people of God respectively. If the prophet was speaking publicly, he would of course be immediately identified as the singer. That Isaiah sings this song on behalf of God (‘my beloved’) would have been typical for prophetic words and hence no mystery to hearer or reader. Isaiah has probably heard this word of God from within the deliberations of the divine council (as in Isa 5:9; see ‘us’ in Isa 6:8; Jer 23:18–22). The identification of the vineyard is initially more difficult. The emphasis in Isa 5:1–2 is placed on the value, potential, and stability of the vineyard. The plantings were of high quality, the land was fertile and carefully prepared, and the watchtower and winepress were of such a nature that the vineyard was expected to last for a long time. These divine moves, however, imply that the vineyard was not planted in a world that was free from potential harm. God’s concern for the people’s security did not include creating risk-free zones for them. The owner worked very hard on the vineyard’s behalf. The future looked bright! But not without risk. After singing Isa 5:1–2, Isaiah uses God’s own words in Isa 5:3–6 (the words of the prophet and God are here woven into each other).3 In view of unspecified developments (not directly stated 3

.

See the discussion in Fretheim, The Suffering of God, pp. 156–158.

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

55

until Isa 5:7), God now forthrightly engages the people regarding what in fact has happened (Isa 5:3)—imagine a gathered congregation. Listeners would now recognize that, given the call to pass judgment, the vineyard must be conceived in personal terms. And, given the history of the use of ‘vineyard’ as a metaphor for Israel as a people, they would also recognize that they themselves are somehow caught up in the story, even if they are not certain where it will finally lead. Apparently, God hopes that the people being addressed will seek to discern how they are involved in the story and ‘judge’, that is, make a judgment regarding the nature of their life and how it befits their relationship to God. God thereby does not simply make pronouncements of judgment, but gives the people room to respond, and their response in turn will make a difference with respect to their future. Given the fact that specific answers to the questions in Isa 5:4 (see below for detail) are not explicitly stated in the text, and given the negative verdict immediately announced in Isa 5:5–6, it seems to be assumed that the people, when they are informed, will recognize that the judgment is deserved. Or, perhaps, they will stubbornly refuse to draw the appropriate response to the questions asked, and the verdict of vv. 5–6 must proceed. God responds to God’s own questions (Isa 5:5–6) with language that those familiar with viticulture in that time and place would recognize. The vine is useless if it does not produce and it can only be destroyed (see Ezek 15:1–8). This is what typically happens to unproductive vineyards! This kind of ‘fate’ would have been obvious to readers in that culture. The protective shields for the vineyard would be removed and all the forces that make for death and destruction (including marauders and weeds, referencing foreign armies in view of Isa 5:26–30) would overrun the place, making it a waste (see Jer 4:23–26). The text concludes in Isa 5:7 with the specific identification of the vineyard and the issue being addressed (which continues in Isa 5:8–30). Only in Isa 5:7 is the identity of the vineyard made absolutely clear and only then would the people be certain that the song is in fact a harsh indictment of them for their failed relationship with God (notice that Isa 5:8 begins with ‘Ah, you’). The ‘wild grapes’ that Israel produced are now specified. God expected justice, especially on behalf of the disadvantaged

56

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM

members of society. Instead, there has been bloodshed—abusive social policies and practices that bleed the poor to a certain death. God expected righteousness, but instead received the people’s neglect of God’s word in their faith and life. Perhaps the audience would recognize that the ‘cry’ of woe echoes their own history of being abused and oppressed (see the ‘cry’ in Ex 3:7–9). The prophet, in effect, becomes a public accuser and judge of the people/vineyard on behalf of his beloved, God. At the same time, for Isaiah to repeatedly name God as ‘my beloved’ (Isa 5:1) would be to identify himself as representative of the people of Israel (see Jer 12:7) and bring himself within that word of judgment (as would be the case with any good preacher!). Regarding genre, no scholarly consensus exists, but ‘juridical parable’, with allegorical aspects (Isa 5:7), is a common suggestion.4 This parable is similar to Nathan’s story of the ewe lamb in 2 Sam 12:1–6. Nathan sets David up with a case that apparently calls for his judgment on another individual, but ends with a sharp word of judgment on David himself: ‘You are the man!’ So also in this Isaiah passage, the Israelite audience would at some point clearly hear: ‘You are the people!’ How soon in the course of this prophetic speaking they would have come to that full realization is debated. They may not initially have identified themselves as the vineyard. But the direct address in Isa 5:3, with its ‘me’/‘my’ and language of judgment, would have brought some clarity to the listeners. In view of such language, the use of the ‘vineyard’ metaphor would have been linked to a common metaphor to designate the ‘inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah’ (see Isa 3:14; 27:2–6; Jer 12:10; Ezek 19:10–14; Ps 80:8–13). Indeed, the imagery of a ‘vineyard’ as an image for a bride in a relationship of intimacy with her beloved may have quickly come to mind as catching them up in this story (see below). This strategic use of the song is not to entrap hearers, but to get them, like David, to recognize what they have done and to See Yee, ‘A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1-7’; Sweeney, Isaiah 1– 39. On NRSV ‘love-song’, see discussion below. 4

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

57

pronounce a verdict upon themselves that would be fair and just. The reader must keep in mind the imagery of both viticulture and marriage in working through this text. I move to reflections on several images of God that are presented in this text. They have considerable importance for discerning the character of the God of Isaiah—indeed, the God of Israel.

I. GOD AS LOVER AND JUDGE Many interpreters have had difficulty with the ‘love-song’ language sometimes used in the translation of this text (Isa 5:1; for example NRSV) or consider this language appropriate only for Isa 5:1–2.5 This reticence is associated with differing reasons: (1) The extent to which the language of indictment and judgment is used in what follows; (2) the intimacy inherent in the love-song imagery. Some would say that, if ‘love-song’ or the like is considered acceptable, it should then be understood that this sort of language is deeply ironic. That is, the text sets up readers to hear words of love, but it quickly proceeds to speak sharp words of indictment and judgment. I suggest a somewhat different direction for reflection on these themes. The entire pericope is a genuine love song in terms of its basic content; moreover, the song is not ironic. This claim can be made in view of common Old Testament sayings about God that closely weave together divine love and judgment (for example, Ex 34:6–7). That is, the God of the tradition is one who always loves God’s people even in and through times of great judgment (see also Jer 31:3, ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love’). Love is not a surface or occasional characteristic of God; love is basic to the identity of this God and that divine character is manifest in and through all the anger and judgment that follows. Wrathful judgment is a contingent divine response to developments within the relationship of constant love. God remains the beloved of

See Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39: In Isa 5:3–4, the poetry ‘ceases to be a love song’ and that causes the poetry to ‘change genres’ (p. 47). 5

58

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM

Israel throughout the story and judgment is a strong sign of such love. Indeed, it is only because God loves that God chooses to judge, to mediate the consequences of sin—in order to bring about the best possible future for those whom God loves (certainly a key factor in having Isa 4:2–6 introduce the song!). The God for whom these words are sung is a lover and, even in and through the worst that this lover may experience, does not cease to be a lover. To repeat: through thick and thin, through times of bliss and disharmony, in the midst of the best and the worst, that love of God for the people of God persists. Isaiah’s repeated use of uncompromising love language in Isa 5:1 has made some commentators uncomfortable and that has led at times to the ‘softening’ of the love theme. Perhaps this hesitance is due to the presence of the book immediately preceding Isaiah. The Song of Solomon is replete with love language linked with vineyard language, commonly associated with a bride in a relationship of intimacy with her beloved (Song 2:15; 8:11–12; see also 1:6, 14). The connections of the vineyard in Isaiah 5 with the bride in Song of Solomon are evident in other details: her neck is like a watchtower (Song 4:4; 7:4), her breasts are like clusters of grapes (Song 7:7–8) and her kisses sweeter than wine (Song 7:9). For some interpreters, this understanding certainly cannot inform the metaphor used in Isaiah 5! But is that too ‘prudish’ an understanding? The Song of Solomon had ended with the lover singing: ‘My vineyard, my very own, is for myself …’ (Song 8:12), to which comes the response: ‘Make haste my beloved and be like a gazelle or a young stag upon the mountains of spices’ (Song 8:14). And Isaiah 5 begins: ‘Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard.’ This link between the beloved (God) and the vineyard (Israel) brings the imagery of intimacy for the GodIsrael relationship into the picture. Given remembrances of the Song of Solomon, the reader can hardly wait to read Isaiah 5! The love of which the Song sings is ‘strong as death, passion fierce as the grave … many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it’ (Song 8:6–7). Nor can Israel’s sin quench God’s love for these people! The future of Israel had just been promised in Isa 4:2–6. That future entails the action of God in washing away the filth of Zion

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

59

and cleansing the bloodstains of Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and burning. At the same time, this fire is a refining fire, not an annihilating fire, and, finally, the vineyard will yield its best. ‘On that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and glory of the survivors of Israel’ (Isa 4:2). These reflections might profitably be related to a somewhat neglected word about God in Isa 5:7—‘his pleasant planting’ (NRSV) or ‘the garden of his delight’ (NIV; see God’s word in Jer 31:20, ‘the child I delight in’). It is notable that in the immediate aftermath of the sharp word of God’s judgment (Isa 5:5–6) and accompanying the strong indictment language in Isa 5:7 is a word about God’s ‘delight’ in this vineyard. The text does not claim that this vineyard used to be God’s delight in the past; the vineyard is still named God’s ‘delight’ in the very midst of indictment and judgment. H. G. M. Williamson’s language, while undeveloped, captures an important dimension of this larger theme: ‘There is a tender intimacy here which serves only to heighten the sense of disappointment experienced by God.’ 6 The language about God’s happiness and delight in this text is more strongly represented in the Old Testament than commonly recognized.7 More generally, such texts raise issues regarding divine emotion and divine affectability. Israel’s God is not dispassionate about these developments with God’s people. Indeed, God is in anguish over present and future possibilities for Israel. God does not remain coolly unaffected in the face of Israel’s rejection; when intimate relationships between God and people break up, the fallout catches up all parties to the relationship. God is genuinely moved by what happens to God’s people in God’s world. This word of God is thus spoken through the prophet not with the icy indifference of a judge, but with the mixed sorrow and anger of a lover who has been deeply wounded. It is precisely Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, p. 343. For a study of divine happiness/delight, see the list of texts in Fretheim, ‘God. Creation, and the Pursuit of Happiness’, pp. 33–37. See also the listing of texts associated with God’s happiness in Chan, ‘A Biblical Lexicon of Happiness’, pp. 350–352. 6 7

60

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM

because this song is a song of a lover that it is so filled with lament and poignancy and anger.

II. GOD EXPECTS AND IS DISAPPOINTED The language of divine ‘expectation’ is prominent in Isa 5:1–7, indeed has a central place. God is explicitly the subject of the verb qawah (‘expect’) in only three texts in the Hebrew Bible, all of them in this pericope.8 First, note Isa 5:7: God ‘expected justice, but saw bloodshed; [expected] righteousness, but heard a cry’. Once this point in the song has been reached, and God is unequivocally understood to be the owner of the vineyard and the one who is ‘expecting’, then the reader can more clearly see that God has also been the subject of the verb in 5:2, 4: —God ‘expected it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes’; —‘When I [God] expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?’ The meaning of the verb qawah is relatively straightforward. The definition given by H. G. M. Williamson is typical: ‘The verb always means to wait hopefully or expectantly for something (e.g., 8:17).’ 9 At the same time, even with God as the subject of the verb, he continues: ‘the owner’s expectations were frustrated’. One of the few scholars to lift up the issues regarding the expecting God of this text is Claus Westermann, though he does not develop the matter: Hope indicates a need. It is expressed when the object of hope is still waiting … .in the same way, one can speak of a futile concentration on something, i.e., God’s disappointed ‘hope,’ as in the daring language of Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard: ‘And he hoped that it (the vineyard) would produce grapes’ (Isa 5:2,4,7). The object is God’s disappointment in Israel, his vineyard. The entire prophetic message is full of these

8

Brueggemann calls it ‘the governing verb’ in this text (Isaiah 1–39,

p. 47). 9

Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, p. 338.

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

61

disappointments for God, who placed high expectations on his people.10

To think of God having a ‘need’ is striking indeed! To speak of God ‘waiting’ and being disappointed begs for further theological reflection. For Gerhard von Rad, this ‘divine disappointment … is shown with particular clarity in Is. v.1–7’; God’s ‘painstaking work in his vineyard … proved completely fruitless’.11 Gary Williams and others speak of ‘divine frustration’ and God’s ‘frustrated expectations’.12 This is helpful language for God, but it is often followed with little reflection on what such language entails for understanding the character of God. What kind of God is this who can be repeatedly frustrated, even in the wake of the best divine efforts?13

Westermann, qawah, p. 1128. Texts where the subject of qawah is a human being lift up the basic point being made. For example, Job 30:26 (‘he hoped for good, but evil came’); Isa 59:11 (‘he hoped for justice; but there was none’); see also Jer 8:15; 14:19. See also the discussion in TDOT, qawah. In Isa 5:7, hope in human comforters (Ps 69:20) is ‘fulfilled as little as is Yahweh’s own hope in Israel’s “justice and righteousness”’ (p. 569). 11 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, p. 151. This Isaiah text witnesses to God as ‘the unsuccessful lover’ (p. 375; see also p. 178). See also Wildberger: ‘deep, deep disappointment’ (Isaiah 1–12, p. 187); and Brueggemann: ‘the vineyard owner is disappointed, for all that resulted from the lavish care are pitiful, unwanted wild grapes’ (Isaiah 1–39, p. 47). 12 See Williams, “Frustrated Expectations in Isaiah V 1–7’. See also Tull, Isaiah 1–39, p. 121; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, p. 124. 13 See Fretheim, Suffering of God, pp. 45–59. This text speaks clearly against a notion of absolute divine foreknowledge. One may still speak of divine omniscience, if it is defined as knowing all there is to know. God here anticipates a future for Israel that is not yet available for certain knowledge. Only with such an understanding can one speak of divine disappointment and frustration at the way things turn out (see Isa 1:1–2). 10

62

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM

One might claim that this is simply metaphorical language, but that angle of vision entails a shortsighted view of metaphor. 14 What does it mean for God to ‘expect’ something from the vineyard? What does it mean for God to ‘hope for’ something? Why would God ever need to ‘hope’ with respect to the shape of the future? In view of traditional understandings of God’s knowledge of the future, is it proper to speak of God hoping or expecting? Would not God know precisely what was going to happen in the future? And, then: What does it mean for God’s hopes to be frustrated, for those hopes to be dashed? What kind of God is that? To say the least, this language is difficult to understand with God as the subject. For this song of love to speak three times of God’s expectations / hopes with respect to this relationship with Israel catches the reader’s attention. God has taken great pains in planting this vineyard, giving it the best possible care, providing well for its security. The beloved / lover fully expects that a great harvest will be forthcoming, that the grapes will yield wine to fill the prepared vat. This divine expectation carries the sense of eager waiting and anticipation. Not least because this vineyard is the product of God’s ‘best efforts’! From God’s perspective, the future looks very bright indeed. Even more, from God’s own perspective (Isa 5:4), there was nothing more that God could have done (an important point about divine power!) to assure that the vineyard would bear good fruit. Yet, in spite of these persistent divine efforts, things go wrong! God’s positive expectations are not realized. That God expected something to happen, and it didn’t happen, is not very flattering language to use for God. God so relates to God’s vineyard that human words and deeds can negatively impact God’s hopes for God’s vineyard.

For a discussion of this issue, see Fretheim, Suffering of God, pp. 56–58; see also pp. 5–12 for a discussion of metaphor. See next section for a discussion of God’s ‘Why?’-language. 14

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

63

III. GOD’S WHY?-LANGUAGE God’s language of hope and expectation is accompanied by divine questioning language (Isa 5:4).15 God raises two questions with listeners/readers: a ‘what?’ question and a ‘why?’ question. These are genuine questions, not rhetorical questions or simply accusatory questions, for they immediately follow upon God’s direct address to the people in Isa 5:3 that engages the people and explicitly calls for their response: ‘Judge between me and my vineyard.’ The answer to the ‘what?’ question (‘What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done in it?’; see also Hos 6:4) seems to be obvious, given the care shown by the vintner in Isa 5:2: Nothing! Yet, it may well be that some in the audience would have had a response such as this: ‘There is indeed something more that you could have done! You could have managed or controlled the vineyard in such a way that it would not have produced such rotten fruit!’ The problem, then, lies with God, at least in part, for allowing such ‘freedom’ on the part of the vineyard! That this kind of answer from the audience is not explicitly anticipated suggests an assumption like this: God chooses not to control the vineyard in such a way. This point suggests a more general claim about God that is simply assumed by the text: God chooses to act in ways that are not controlling of the creature. God has exhausted all the possibilities for vineyard management that would be true to the relationship of integrity that God has established with the vineyard. For God to be more ‘controlling’ would be to violate the God-vineyard relationship. God’s ‘why?’ question is more difficult (‘When I expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?’). It is God who asks the ‘why?’ question: Given all that God had expected for the vineyard, why this result? Why would God ever (need to) ask a ‘why?’ question?16 In an earlier reflection, I suggested that this language ‘seems to imply a genuine loss on God’s part as to what might explain the faithlessness of the people … God knows all there is to See also the divine ‘why?’ in Isa 50:2; Jer 2:29–31; 8:5, 19; 30:6. See the reference to my work in fn. 13 and 14. 16 See texts in fn. 15 which also speak of the divine ‘why’. 15

64

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM

know about what has prompted the people to take this direction with their lives; it still makes no sense. Thus, it would appear that there simply is no explanation available, nor will there ever be, even for God.’17 A couple of further reflections seem in order. This ‘why?’ question raises at least two issues, one about the vineyard, the other about the vintner. The question assumes that the problem lies with the vineyard and, in addition, it seems to invite reflections on the nature of the vineyard. What was wrong with the vineyard that it produced such fruit? The vineyard did not do what it could have done, what it had the power to do! It yielded18 bad grapes, and God makes it clear that that was not a predetermined result, for in God’s own assessment of the situation, God ‘expected’ otherwise. At the same time, the situation raises issues about the vintner; what God expected did not take place. Did God do enough for the vineyard? The audience is invited to make this judgment. Even more, it is striking that the assumption of God’s own question is that God could not have done anything more to deliver on God’s own expectation. This seems to reflect an act of divine self-limitation for the sake of a genuine relationship with the vineyard. God had done all he could do relative to the future of the vineyard and still remain faithful to the relationship! This point says something about the kind of God with whom the vineyard has to do. Among other things, this was a God whose will could be successfully resisted. Such questions, finally, constitute a divine lament that accompanies the following judgment (see Isa 1:1–2): ‘I expected my beloved to yield grapes—why, oh why did it yield wild grapes?’ Tell me what more I could have done on behalf of my vineyard. In the face of my strong love, in the midst of my meticulous care, why? But what, then, do we make of God as the subject of the verbs of destruction in Isa 5:5–6? These verses make it sound as if God is fully in control of the situation and could do anything that Fretheim, Suffering of God, pp. 56–57. The verb is ‘asah (‘done’); it is repeated four times in Isa 5:4, seven times in Isa 5:1–7. Why the repetition? 17 18

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

65

God wanted to do. This seems not to be the case, however, given God’s faithfulness to the relationship. First of all, God works in and through historical agents who will ‘devour’ and ‘trample down’, persons who will waste the land and take control of it (Isa 7:23–25 returns to this imagery). And agents that God uses can exceed the divine mandate (see Jer 42:10; Zech 1:15). These judgments of God are woven repeatedly into the verses that follow (see Isa 5:9–10, 13–17, 24), with human agents especially evident in Isa 5:25–30. Second, the natural imagery that is used suggests that God mediates the natural effects of Israel’s wickedness. The consequences are intrinsic to the deed, not newly introduced by God. At the same time, this divine action does not mean that God is no longer the beloved / lover of Israel and uncaring of what finally happens to the vineyard. In view of the restoration oracle in Isa 4:2–6, this judgment is not viewed as final, but as a necessary refining fire through which Israel must pass on the way into a positive future. I close with the language of Abraham Heschel and Hans Wildberger, both of whom prove to be very helpful in lifting up key questions about the kind of God with whom we have to do in this text. Heschel notes: The prophet’s sympathy is for God whose care for the vineyard had been of no avail. God’s sorrow rather than the people’s tragedy is the theme of this song … The song contains a gentle allusion to the grief and the disappointment of God. He feels hurt at the thought of abandoning the vineyard He had rejoiced in, and in which He had placed so much hope and care.19

And Wildberger states: Yahweh is no ‘impetuous lover’ who tries to overpower the beloved like a whirlwind, but rather one who patiently surrounds her with care and continuously tries to show new evidence of his affection. It is an image which, in the end, gives clear insight into Yahweh’s relationship with his people, as well 19

Heschel, The Prophets, p. 85.

66

TERENCE E. FRETHEIM as what God himself is really like. At the same time, it points out the completely preposterous nature of Israel’s relationship with God; they were unthankful toward their Lord, and most clearly that resulted in the deep, deep disappointment of the God who had loved them and given himself so completely in his care for them. Yahweh suffers immensely because his gracious reaching out to his people had not met with the type of response which he had anticipated. Therefore, Isaiah is not too audacious when he uses the parable of the disappointed, unsuccessful lover, Yahweh.20

BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2000). W. Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville, 1998). M. Chan, ‘A Biblical Lexicon of Happiness’, in B. Strawn (ed.), The Bible and the Pursuit of Happiness (Oxford, 2012). B. S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville, 2001). T. Fretheim, ‘God, Creation, and the Pursuit of Happiness’, in B. Strawn (ed.), The Bible and the Pursuit of Happiness (Oxford, 2012). ———, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia, 1984). J. Goldingay, Isaiah (Peabody, 2001). O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary , 2nd edn (Philadelphia, 1983). C. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville, 1993). M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Grand Rapids, 1996). P. Tull, Isaiah 1–39 (Macon, 2010). G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II (New York, 1965). C. Westermann, ‘qawah’, in E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (translated by M. Biddle; Peabody, 1997), vol. 3, p. 1128. H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis, 1991). 20

Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, p. 187.

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

67

G. Williams, ‘Frustrated Expectations in Isaiah V 1–7: A Literary Interpretation’, Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985), pp. 459–465. H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London, 2006). J. Willis, ‘The Genre of Isaiah 5:1–7’, Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977), pp. 337–362. G. Yee, ‘A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1–7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981), pp. 30– 40.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA KNUT HOLTER MHS SCHOOL OF MISSION AND THEOLOGY, STAVANGER ABSTRACT This article analyses the relationship between two ideological constructs, ‘Isaiah’ (the biblical book) and ‘Africa’ (the continent). First, searching for ‘Africa in Isaiah’, the potential of a contextually sensitive interpretation of Isaiah texts relating to geographical and/or ethnic entities that refer to what we today understand as Africa is discussed. And second, searching for ‘Isaiah in Africa’, some examples of contemporary African interpretations of Isaiah are discussed. In conclusion it is argued that the African experiences of contextual readings of Isaiah may provide models of understanding that are useful for Western readers of Isaiah too.

INTRODUCTION There is hardly any book in the Old Testament—perhaps with the exception of Psalms—that attracts more attention than Isaiah, in church as well as in academia. Its popularity in church reflects the massive reception of texts from Isaiah in the New Testament, reading Jesus in light of this Old Testament book and making it a kind of ‘fifth gospel’.1 An example of this central role of Isaiah in 1

Sawyer, Fifth Gospel.

69

70

KNUT HOLTER

the sermons, hymns, and liturgies of the church is the lectionary in the Church of Norway, where Isaiah has 43 texts compared to for example 12 from Genesis and 23 from the Book of the Twelve. However, the popularity of Isaiah transcends the texts of the New Testament and the sermons of the church. Academic guilds, too, reading the biblical books from critical, historical, literary and not least theological perspectives, show particular attention to Isaiah. In fact, there is hardly any book in the Old Testament, at least amongst the prophetic books, that occurs more frequently in the curricula of academic Old Testament studies and in the articles and books of the critical guilds, than the Book of Isaiah. The popularity of Isaiah in academic Old Testament studies is obviously related to the institutional and ideological location of most guild members, finding and defining themselves at the interface between the spiritual concerns of the church and the critical concerns of academia. As critical scholars, we aim at serving and challenging our various communities—in casu our churches— with the tools provided to us by academia. It is therefore hardly a coincidence that the colleague and guild member to whom this essay is dedicated—Professor Hallvard Hagelia—devotes his major semantic investigation of Isaiah to the study of spirituality and words on piety, and even entitles the book with a key expression from classical Christian theology: Coram Deo.2 The interaction between the interpretive contexts of church and academia is here quite clear; having a background as a pastor in the Mission Covenant Church of Norway, Hagelia is well acquainted with historical as well as modern Norwegian equivalents to the kind of spirituality and piety he finds in the texts of Isaiah. The following reflections will attempt to illustrate and elaborate on this interaction between church and academia, using African—rather than Norwegian—experiences and concerns with Isaiah as a case. The choice of African experiences and concerns as an interpretive entry is an attempt at paying tribute to Hallvard Hagelia’s institutional context. The seminary in which he has served as a professor as well as the church in which he has served as a pastor have a long history of focusing on Africa. Some 2

Hagelia, Coram Deo.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

71

reflections on Africa and biblical interpretation therefore seem appropriate. This essay is organized in four parts. First, a brief prelude on ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ as historical and ideological constructs in a new interpretive context will set the tone. Then, two sections on Isaiah and Africa, the first looking for ‘Africa in Isaiah’, and the other vice versa, looking for ‘Isaiah in Africa’. Finally, a few words as a postlude, drawing some general lines, will conclude the essay.

I. PRELUDE: ‘ISAIAH’ AND ‘AFRICA’ AS CONSTRUCTS IN A NEW INTERPRETIVE CONTEXT Before we start relating ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ to each other, there are a couple of more principal points that deserve some attention. The first point concerns the fact that the two entities that are to be related—‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’—are historical and ideological constructs. Within biblical studies it is common knowledge that ‘Isaiah’, that is, the text we today refer to as the Book of Isaiah, is the result of a long history of textual development. Its history may have started with a prophet Isaiah in eight century BCE Jerusalem, and then have come to an end four centuries or so later. In spite of more than two centuries of critical investigation of the Book of Isaiah, we can hardly say that we know the details of how the book came into being. Still, what is clear is that the book as a whole is characterized by certain theological perspectives, which are read in relation to the dramatically changing historical circumstances that Jerusalem and Judah went through in the mid-first millennium BCE. This makes the book an historical and ideological construct reflecting what historians refer to as Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian times. ‘Africa’, too, is an historical and ideological construct. Historically, the term ‘Africa’ was first used by the Romans as the name of their province around Carthage, and it was later extended to include the continent as a whole. Ideologically, the concept of ‘Africa’ has been filled by impulses from within (not least in the recent 50 years of liberation and independence) as well as from the outside (not least because of the continent’s dramatic history of interaction with Europe). The acknowledgement that both ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ are historical and ideological constructs is of importance when we—as in the present study—deliberately aim to relate the two. Doing so,

72

KNUT HOLTER

we will face a situation where the concept of the text (‘Isaiah’) actually is older than the concept of the context (‘Africa’). The idea that people living for example in Somalia, due to a political (historical and ideological) construct referred to as ‘Africa’, have closer ties to for example West Africans living in Nigeria or Senegal than to their geographical neighbors, the Yemenites, presupposes cartographic and political concepts that are of a later date than that of the construction of ‘Isaiah’. Accordingly, our search below for ‘Africa in Isaiah’ will face some anachronistic challenges. The second principal point that deserves some attention concerns the fact that our search for the relationship between ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ reflects a typically late twentieth and early twenty-first century interpretive context. ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ have indeed been there (or here) for centuries, but a critical study of the relationship between the two presupposes an interpretive context that is open for asking this kind of questions, a context that has probably not been found until the last few decades. Let me point out a couple of aspects of this new interpretive context. One is the late twentieth century establishing of an independent African biblical scholarship. Twentieth century Africa was characterized by quite an unprecedented church growth; at the end of the century two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa were members of a Christian church. This church growth created a need for theological training, and the latter half of the century saw a rapid growth of institutions meeting this need; in most cases institutions of the bible school type, but increasingly also seminaries and university departments of theology and/or religious studies, aiming to uphold certain academic standards. As far as biblical scholarship is concerned, the 1980s and 90s represent a breakthrough of an independent guild, both institutionally and hermeneutically: Institutionally, in the sense that these decades saw a sudden increase in the number of academic institutions offering advanced degrees and having staff members with doctorates, but also the first conferences and the first organizations for biblical or Old Testament scholarship in Africa. Hermeneutically, as well, in the sense that these decades witnessed an increasing will to let

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

73

African experiences and concerns serve as explicit interpretive subjects in the work with the biblical texts.3 Another aspect of the new interpretive context of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries that allows for a critical study of the relationship between ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ is found in certain hermeneutical concerns of our own times, not least concerns that are influenced by postcolonial theory. As pointed out by Edward W. Said a generation ago (1978), the colonial and imperial ambitions of the West in the previous centuries were justified through cultural misrepresentations of the ‘Orient’. Not very surprisingly, Said was able to notice that early biblical scholarship was part of this,4 and in the following decades the variety of roles that biblical scholarship has played in traditional Western colonial discourses has received increasing attention, by guild members such as for example Fernando D. Segovia and Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah.5 In their writings they have shown that the contextual biases of what has been seen as the scholarly approach to the Bible—that is historical-critical scholarship—make it impossible for us to escape the impression that its way of interpreting the Bible is after all an exponent of a typically Western epistemology and hermeneutics. These two aspects of the new interpretive contexts were necessary for being able to ask questions such as the one concerning the relationship between ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’. Traditional Western biblical scholarship had—due to its universalizing tendencies—not seen any reason for reading for example Isaiah from (for example) an African perspective. However, the emergence of an independent biblical scholarship in Africa, consciously reading the Bible in relation to African experiences and concerns, would obviously include also the texts and Book of Isaiah in its contextual approach. This does not mean that the methodological tools and hermeneutical concepts of traditional and Western historical-critical approaches cannot be Holter, Old Testament Research, pp. 61–112. Said, Orientalism, pp. 51, 76–77. 5 Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies, and Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism. 3 4

74

KNUT HOLTER

used, but it means that they will have to be used consciously and critically.6 In a sum, we acknowledge that both ‘Isaiah’ and ‘Africa’ are historical and ideological constructs, and that the quest for the relationship between the two reflects a typically late twentieth and early twenty-first century interpretive context. Let us now start looking for the relationship between the two, first ‘finding Africa in Isaiah’, that is, the portrayal of ‘Africa’ in the Book of Isaiah, and then ‘finding Isaiah in Africa’, that is, the African portrayal of the texts of Isaiah.

II. FINDING AFRICA IN ISAIAH As noticed above, ‘Africa’ did not exist at the time of the origin of ‘Isaiah’, either in the time of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem or in the time of the subsequent prophets or editors writing in his name. When we want to search for ‘Africa in Isaiah’, we must go into the final (fifth or fourth centuries BCE) version of the Book of Isaiah, and look for geographical and/or ethnic entities that—mutatis mutandis—refer to what we today relate to Africa. We then find that the relevant texts fall in three groups: first, references to Egypt, that is Israel’s and Judah’s mighty neighbor in the south; then, references to Cush, that is Egypt’s neighbor and sometimes competitor southwards along the Nile; and finally, references to a few other and less prominent nations and/or geographical entities. First, references to Egypt: Roughly speaking, there is a double portrayal of Egypt in the Old Testament. On the one hand, Israel remembers that she has experienced oppression in Egypt (for example a ‘land of slavery’ in Exodus 13:3, and an ‘iron-smelting furnace’ in Deuteronomy 4:20). On the other hand she also remembers having found asylum there in crises of famine and political trouble (Egypt is for example like ‘the Garden of the Lord’ in Genesis 13:10, and its ‘pots of meat’ are remembered in Exodus 16:2). This double portrayal is echoed—but also elaborated—in Isaiah’s 44 references to Egypt: 7:18; 10:24.26; 11:15; 19:1[4x], 6

Holter, ‘Role of historical-critical methodology’.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

75

2[3x], 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21[twice], 22, 23[4x], 24, 25; 20:3, 4[twice], 5, 7; 23:5; 27:12; 30:2[twice], 3; 31:1, 3; 36:6, 9; 43:3; 45:14; 52:4. The sojourn in and exodus from Egypt may be referred to, though not very frequently (see 10:24; 52:4). Also connotations to Egypt’s wealth are attested (43:3; 45:14). However, the most important motif as far as Egypt is concerned in the Book of Isaiah is a warning against making political and military alliances (Isa 31:1):7 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots, and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, and seek help from the Lord.

Half of the 44 references to Egypt in Isaiah are found in chapter 19. It starts with a long judgment in verses 1–17; see especially Isa 19:2, 5: I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian— brother will fight against brother, neighbor against neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. … The waters of the river will dry up, and the river bed will be parched and dry.

But then, Isaiah 19 also includes a vision of worship of the Lord in Egypt (verses 18–25), including the erection of an altar to the Lord ‘in the heart of Egypt’ (verse 19), and Israel along with Egypt and Assyria as a blessing on earth (Isa 19:24–25): In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt an Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, 7

Bible quotations are taken from the NIV.

76

KNUT HOLTER ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.’

Second, references to Cush: The Old Testament is aware of a nation by the name of Cush, located along the Nile, south of Egypt. References to Cush are found in Egyptian and other ancient Near Eastern textual sources, too, and our knowledge about Cush is also increasing as a result of recent archaeological excavations. Cush experienced its historical and political climax with the twentyfifth, so-called Cushite dynasty on the throne of Egypt from the mid-eighth to the mid-seventh century. It is therefore to be expected that echoes of this major historical and political experience of the ancient Near East / North-East Africa are found in the 50–60 references to Cush in the Old Testament. Most of the Old Testament was written during the two or three centuries after the Cushite dynasty in Egypt, and rumors about this nation that managed to conquer Egypt were indeed alive. The Old Testament portrayal of Cush can be summarized in a fourfold perspective.8 Geographically, Cush is thought of as being far away. It is the huge land south of Egypt (Ezek 29:10), representing the far south in the Old Testament map of the world (Zeph 2:4–15, v. 12), even being the border of the mighty Persian empire, which stretched from India to Cush (Esth 1:1). Anthropologically, Cush is connected with black and tall peoples, and a proverb asks rhetorically: ‘Can the Cushite change his skin or the leopard its spots?’ (Jer 13:23). Politically, Cush is known for its military abilities; because of them, it can be of assistance to Judah (2 Kings 19; 2 Sam 18:21–32). Economically, Cush is connected with wealth; the merchandise of Cush is well known (Dan 11:43). The eight references to Cush in Isaiah—11:11; 18:1; 20:3, 4, 5; 37:9; 43:3; 45:14—fit quite well into this fourfold perspective of the Old Testament, and the Isaiah references demonstrate how Cush is used in rhetorical strategies vis-à-vis Israel and Judah. Geographically and anthropologically, Cush is connected with people living far away and with a black skin color. Isaiah 18 is the 8

Holter, ‘Old Testament “Cush”’.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

77

key text here. The reference to Cush is used to create a context for pronouncing a judgment over the Judeans.9 Isa 18:1–2 states: Woe to the land of whirring wings along the rivers of Cush, which sends envoys by sea in papyrus boats over the water. Go, swift messengers, to a people tall and smooth-skinned, to a people feared and wide, an aggressive nation of strange speech, whose land is divided by rivers.

Politically, Cush is known for its military abilities (Isa 20:3–5), and it is used to warn the Judeans against political alliances; see Isa 20:5: Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt

will be afraid and put to shame. Economically, Cush is connected with wealth (Isa 43:3 and 45:14), and this association is used to demonstrate the price the Lord has had to pay for liberating the Judeans from the Babylonian captivity. Isa 43:3 notes: For I am the Lord, your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Saviour; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.

Third, there are a few Isaianic references to geographical entities that probably or possibly can be located in Africa: Probably, such as with Patros (in Upper Egypt) in Isa 11:11, possibly, such as with Seba (Meroe, according to Josephus) in Isa 43:3; but also mere guesses, such as with Ophir in Isa 13:12 (linked to various eastern African locations in the history of Old Testament interpretation). In sum, a search for ‘Africa in Isaiah’—that is Isaiah references to geographical and/or ethnic entities that are located in what we today refer to as Africa—proves able to come up with a rich and varied textual material. It would, however, probably not be 9

Lavik, A People Tall and Smooth-Skinned.

78

KNUT HOLTER

an exaggeration to say that the traditional interpretive communities of the Bible—that is, Western church and academia—may find such a search somewhat odd. They have of course read the Isaiah texts referred to above, but their interpretive perspective has hardly been adequate to explore the potential these texts might have when they are read from a more or less explicitly African perspective. Nevertheless, exactly the potential these texts might have when they are read from an African perspective has been the interpretive perspective of many African readers of Isaiah. For centuries these texts have been read by various African church families, and in more recent years also by some exponents of the African guilds of critical biblical studies. For understandable—if not necessarily obvious—reasons, the Orthodox churches in Egypt and Ethiopia have a long history of reading Old Testament texts about Egypt and Cush in a way in which they identify themselves with ‘their’ texts and motifs. The Coptic—that is ‘Egyptian’—Orthodox Church has a tradition of focusing on certain aspects of the biblical material on Egypt. Negatively, texts expressing judgment over pharaonic religion and politics are used in relation to later, oppressing experiences of the Copts. Positively, some texts are used to build the Coptic selfunderstanding. The most important example is the New Testament narrative about the Holy Family finding refuge in Egypt, with Mt 2:15 quoting Hos 11:1, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’. Subsequently, this narrative has also enabled the Coptic Orthodox Church to develop a broad tradition about the itinerary of the Holy Family. Regarding the Isaianic material on Egypt, the reference to an altar to the Lord ‘in the heart of Egypt’ (Isa 19:19) plays a prominent role, being interpreted as a prophecy about the Coptic Orthodox Church. But also the prophetic blessing a few verses later in the same chapter—‘Blessed be Egypt, my people’ (Isa 19:25)—is important, quoted very frequently. Likewise, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church shows a strong focus on the biblical material on ‘Ethiopia’, which is the Septuagint rendering of Cush, followed by a large number of other ancient and more recent translations.10 Generally speaking, the Ethiopian 10

Holter, ‘Old Testament “Cush”’.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

79

tradition demonstrates a peculiar closeness to Old Testament texts and traditions, such as with regard to church architecture (churches being constructed according to the temple in Jerusalem), liturgy, and dietary prescriptions and regulations of ritual cleanness. The underlying rationale for this closeness to the Old Testament is found in the national legend Kebra Nagast (‘Glory of the Kings’), which links the establishing of the Ethiopian nation and (until the revolution in 1974/75) royal dynasty to the Old Testament narrative about King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. From the Isaiah material on Cush/Ethiopia, the Ethiopian tradition values texts referring to Ethiopia and her faith in the God of Israel, such as Isa 18:7, but also a text like Isaiah 53, which according to Acts 8:32–33 was read by one of the first Christians from Ethiopia.11 In recent years, these biblical references to Egypt and Cush— that is, to ‘Africa’—have received attention from a new interpretive community, the guild of African biblical scholars. The guild will be presented more closely in the next section, but already here a few representatives should be mentioned, as they have approached these ‘African’ texts from consciously African perspectives.12 Already in the early 1970s, Engelbert Mveng (Cameroon) pointed out texts assumed to be referring to Africa, arguing that they express associations of cultural richness, merchandise, and military abilities; examples in Isaiah are 43:3–4 and 45:14.13 Mveng had a broad textual base, but most of those who followed in his footsteps have limited their investigations to the Cush texts. An exception is Tewoldemedhin Habtu (Eritrea), who has analyzed the Egypt texts.14 One example of African scholars who focus on the Old Testament portrayal of Cush is Sidbe Sempore (Burkina Faso), who argues that the Cush texts show how the God of Israel includes Africans in his history of salvation right from the beginning.15 Another example—and the clearly most influential one, due to his broad publishing—is David T. Adamo (Nigeria), Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible. Holter, Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship, pp. 70–78. 13 Mveng, ‘La Bible’. 14 Habtu, ‘Images of Egypt’. 15 Sempore, ‘Le noir’. 11 12

80

KNUT HOLTER

who has analyzed the historical and contemporary function of the Cush texts. With regards to the Isaianic material on Cush, he emphasizes the historicity of Isa 18:1–7 and 20:1–6,16 and this serves as background for his claim that Africans made significant contributions to the religious life and civilization of Israel and the ancient Near East.17 A third example is Philip Lokel (Uganda), who uses the Old Testament concept of Cush to discuss the role of biblical studies in African theology. In his reading of the Isaianic material he discusses the problem that the portrayal of Cush has some negative undertones, such as Isa 20:3–5 which refers to the ‘Cushite exiles’, and Isa 45:14 which depicts them as ‘coming in chains’. But he also points to the military strength of Tirhakah, the Cushite, in Isa 37:1–13.18 In conclusion, a search for ‘Africa in Isaiah’ does indeed reveal texts referring to geographical and/or ethnic entities that today would be related to Africa. These texts offer a variety of pictures of ‘Africa’, pictures that emphasize aspects of wealth and strength. Not surprisingly, various African interpretive communities, in church as well as academia, have found these texts to have constructive potentials for the development of contemporary African identities.

III. FINDING ISAIAH IN AFRICA Turning from ‘Africa in Isaiah’ to ‘Isaiah in Africa’, the chronology suddenly becomes much easier, at least when we exclude first millennium CE North Africa from our search and delimit ourselves to the interpretation of Isaiah that is found in the contemporary guilds of African biblical scholarship. The oldest theological institutions in Africa—apart from a few Orthodox seminaries in Egypt and Ethiopia—date back to the nineteenth century. Still, it was not until the latter half of the twentieth century that some of the theological institutions could be considered academic, in the sense that they approach their object Adamo, Africa and Africans, pp. 100–112. Adamo, Africa and Africans, p. 179. 18 Lokel, ‘Previously unstoried lives’. 16 17

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

81

of study from critical and consciously African perspectives. The 1980s can probably be said to represent a breakthrough of an independent African biblical scholarship, at least from an institutional perspective, as this decade saw the first organizations for biblical scholars, the first conferences for biblical scholarship, the first journals for biblical studies and a sudden increase of the number of scholars with Master’s and Ph.D. degrees in biblical studies.19 The academic profile of this emerging guild of biblical and Old Testament studies can roughly be divided in two.20 On the one hand, there are exegetical studies, where the major approach is informed by an historical-critical or literary methodology that facilitates historical and/or literary interpretations of various Old Testament texts or topics. These studies may include some use of African comparative material; however, their major methodological characteristic is that they approach the Old Testament texts from historical-critical and/or literary perspectives. As far as Isaiah is concerned, a handful of Ph.D. theses have addressed various topics and parts of the book. An early example is Peter D. Akpunonu’s (Nigeria) literary analysis of the theme of salvation in Second Isaiah,21 more recently developed into a couple of exegetical monographs.22 Another example is Dora M. Mbuwayesango’s (Zimbabwe) analysis of Isaiah 36–39 in relation to chapters 1–35 in the same book.23 On the other hand, there are comparative studies, where the major approach is based on a comparative methodology that facilitates a parallel interpretation of certain Old Testament texts or motifs and supposed African parallels, letting the two illuminate one another in various ways. These studies, of course, are not only comparative; they are indeed also exegetical, in the sense that they analyze certain Old Testament texts or motifs. However, their major methodological characteristic is that they approach the Old Holter, Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship, pp. 99–110. Holter, Old Testament Research, pp. 87–111. 21 Akpunonu, ‘Salvation’. 22 Akpunonu, Vine, and Overture. 23 Mbuwayesango, ‘Defense of Zion’. 19 20

82

KNUT HOLTER

Testament texts from African comparative perspectives. 24 Justin S. Ukpong (Nigeria) sees a development in the hermeneutical perspectives of this comparative focus, from an early reactive phase, legitimizing traditional African religion and culture through comparative biblical studies (1930s to 1970s), via a reactiveproactive phase, more clearly making use of African interpretive resources (1970s to 1990s), to a proactive phase, making the African context the explicit interpretive subject (1990s).25 As far as Isaiah is concerned, a number of essays from the 1980s and onwards compared texts and motifs from this book to assumed African parallels,26 but also Ph.D. theses have approached Isaiah from this perspective. An illustrative example of the latter is Theophilus U. Ejeh’s (Nigeria) recent analysis of Isa 52:13–53:12.27 Ejeh offers a quite traditional exegetical study of this Fourth Servant Song, but he also reads it in relation to the worldview and language of the Igalas of Nigeria, noticing a number of interesting parallels—for example concerning ancestors, sacrifice, atonement and vicarious suffering—though still being within what Ukpong would refer to as the reactive-proactive phase (in Ukpong’s view a characteristic of the 1970s to 1990s). I will use three quite recent works on Isaiah—all reading the book from explicit African perspectives—for illustrating my search for ‘Isaiah in Africa’. In spite of differences as far as genre and critical profile are concerned, the three have in common that they are meant as quite general introductions to this particular prophetic book, and that they occur in literary contexts covering the Bible as a whole. The first, chronologically speaking, is the African Bible, published in 1999.28 The interpretive community that had the idea of this version of the Bible—some Roman Catholic biblical scholars, clergy and publishers—had observed that although Anum, ‘Comparative readings’, and Holter, Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship, pp. 88–100. 25 Ukpong, ‘Developments’. 26 Onwurah, ‘Isaiah 14’, and Akao, ‘Word’. 27 Ejeh, Servant of Yahweh. 28 Zinkuratire, African Bible. 24

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

83

English is, numerically speaking, one of the main languages in Africa, the English Bible versions that are used in Africa are imported from Britain and the USA, and therefore to some extent reflect Western interpretive contexts. In response to this situation, they wanted to publish an English version of the Bible that somehow reflects African experiences and concerns. Victor Zinkuratire (Uganda), Professor (now emeritus) of Old Testament at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa (Nairobi, Kenya), was appointed editor, and together with a team of biblical scholars from all over Anglophone Africa, he developed this English—but African—version of the Bible. The translation itself was that of an already existing English version (the New American Bible), but Zinkuratire and his team wanted to color this text with African colors, by adding introductions and explanatory footnotes that are aimed at enabling African readers to see the relevance of the texts in Africa today. First, in a three pages introduction to Isaiah, a section on the ‘Relevance of Isaiah in Africa’ gets most of the attention, noticing a few theological characteristics of Isaiah that are said to have a particular meaning in Africa.29 One of them is the book’s focus on the holiness and transcendence of God, said to have counterparts in practically all African religions. Another is Second Isaiah’s view that God’s creative power is not limited to his original act of creation but rather can recreate and transform our contemporary world for the better. A third is Second Isaiah’s universalism, said to have a message vis-à-vis ethnic rivalry. A fourth is Third Isaiah’s message to the disappointed returnees after the Babylonian exile, said to have relevance for an African context where many, after a few years of post-liberation optimism, have experienced a number of disappointing setbacks. Second, as far as the footnotes throughout the Isaiah chapters are concerned, some demonstrate an explicitly African orientation. Some political aspects of the Cushites are mentioned in relation to Isa 18:1–7, and Cyrus’ (supposed) focus on justice is mentioned in relation to Isa 41:2 and 44:28. Also, some cases of cultural parallels are mentioned; positively in relation to Isa 7:3 and 62:4, where the 29

Zinkuratire, African Bible, pp. 1188–1189.

84

KNUT HOLTER

footnotes say that Africans, too, give names loaded with meaning to their children, and negatively in relation to Isa 47:9, where it is said that sorcery is ‘still’ practiced in Africa. In addition to such explicit references to the African interpretive context, there are also a large number of implicit references, such as when a footnote on the ‘arrogant women’ in Isa 3:16–4:1 reads a typical Roman Catholic understanding of polygamy into the description of the seven women taking hold of one man in 4:1; the seven try to marry ‘even’ polygamously. The second contribution covering the whole Bible is the Africa Bible Commentary, a nearly 1600 pages one-volume commentary edited by Tokunboh Adeyemo (Nigeria) and published in 2006. Adeyemo has included no less than 70 scholars in this massive project, scholars who come from all over the continent. Theologically speaking, many of them would probably be considered ‘evangelical’, but not in too narrow a sense, as the book also includes articles by critical scholars like Kwame Bediako (Ghana) and Isabel Apawo Phiri (Malawi). The Isaiah part of the ABC is written by Edouard Kitoko Nsiku, a United Bible Societies translation consultant from DR Congo. Africa is very much present in his interpretation; nearly every page allows the Isaiah text to interact with African perspectives, and a few examples must suffice to illustrate Nsiku’s strategy vis-à-vis African experiences and concerns. One example is the commentary on Isa 3:16–4:1, the judgment of the arrogant daughters of Zion. Here Nsiku is lamenting that African women, too, wear excessive amounts of expensive jewelry and paint their nails without paying attention to inner values. Such behavior, it is argued, is an assault on traditional African culture, in which women contribute to the moral foundations of the community. 30 Another example is the commentary on Isa 30:1–31:9, the denunciation of any alliance with Egypt. Here it is argued that Africans, too, have to learn to trust God as our father, and not turn to Europe and America as soon as political or religious crises occur.31 A third example concerns the topic of ancestors. Nsiku offers a rather 30 31

Nsiku, ‘Isaiah’, p. 812. Nsiku, ‘Isaiah’, p. 830.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

85

reductionist concept of ancestors, arguing that just as Abraham in Isa 41:8 is remembered by Israel, Africans remember their ancestors and their wise conduct and see them as models for later generations.32 A fourth example demonstrates that Nsiku can also be critical of his own tradition: In his interpretation of Isa 52:1–12, the purification of Jerusalem, he admits that while many African churches preach salvation in Jesus Christ loudly and clearly, they are often silent about themes that affect society, such as peace between different social or ethnic groups and principles such as justice.33 The third and—in the present context—last contribution is The Africana Bible, a multi-authored volume reflecting on the Hebrew Bible (including the Deuterocanonical and Pseudepigraphic Writings) from perspectives of ‘Africa and the African Diaspora’. It is not a commentary, as the ABC; rather, it is a collection of essays reflecting on certain aspects of each book in the Hebrew Bible with African (including the North American diaspora’s) experiences and concerns in mind. The volume is edited by Hugh R. Page Jr. (USA) and was published in 2010, and the authors are African and African American biblical scholars. The Isaiah article is written by Makhosazana K. Nzimande, a South African biblical scholar who aims to present a postcolonial imbokodo reading of the Book of Isaiah in South Africa. Her context is post-apartheid South Africa, which in spite of the liberation in 1994 faces a broad spectrum of societal challenges. From a postcolonial perspective Nzimande makes use of the term imbokodo—a Zulu word for ‘grinding stone’—to ‘… symbolize the relentless sociopolitical, sociocritical, and sociocultural struggles of South African women against colonial and apartheid injustices’.34 Three tenets of a postcolonial imbokodo hermeneutics are highlighted. The first tenet is the relation of the Book of Isaiah to the question of historical restitution. The patriarchal tradition that forms part of the South African interpretive context means that black women are historically silenced, misrepresented, and Nsiku, ‘Isaiah’, p. 837. Nsiku, ‘Isaiah’, p. 844. 34 Nzimande, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 144–145. 32 33

86

KNUT HOLTER

negatively depicted. The prism of imbokodo hermeneutics seeks to redress this historical imbalance, and Isaiah offers a model for this cause: the Judean struggle under the Babylonian empire is analogous to black people’s struggle in post-apartheid South Africa. Still, Isaiah exhibits a condescending attitude towards women—a key example is found in Isa 3:16–17—with the result that the prophet’s voice fuses with the colonizer’s voice, depicting black women as oversexed. Accordingly, women readers must exercise caution when appropriating such texts.35 The second tenet, according to Nzimande, is the relation of the Book of Isaiah to African identity politics. Colonization and apartheid created ethnic, cultural and political polarization of black South Africans, and black women’s consciousness was arrested by the introduction of alien codes of behavior, culture and aesthetics. Postcolonial imbokodo hermeneutics seeks to decolonize colonially imposed stereotypical images of blackness, and Isaiah’s contribution in this regard is the notion of exilic identity. Like the exiles in Isaiah, who were tempted to embrace Babylonian religion and culture, black South Africans, too, are called to withdraw their allegiance from an illegitimate and dysfunctional empire. 36 Finally, the third tenet, in Nzimande’s reading of the Book of Isaiah, is the relation of Isaiah to black women’s struggle for socioeconomic survival. In spite of—or rather, because of—the globalization we experience today, Western capitalism is still promoted, and the result is that the majority of black South Africans are prevented from benefitting from the economic growth in the country. Europe and America have emerged as a Babylonian empire of our time, and Isaiah’s anti-Babylonian political stance— such as for example Isaiah 47—is therefore deeply needed in levelling a theological critique against the suffering it inflicts on South African blacks. In a situation defined by neocolonialism and globalization, black South Africans are the ‘Suffering Servants’, who constantly seek to remove the Babylonian hegemonic yoke, waiting for a Cyrus to rescue them from the stranglehold of globalization and neocolonialism. In the meantime, while 35 36

Nzimande, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 138–139. Nzimande, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 139–141.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

87

experiencing that liberation is not as blissful as anticipated prior to 1994, black South Africans identify with the ‘postexilic exile’ of the deported Jews in Third Isaiah.37 In conclusion, a search for ‘Isaiah in Africa’ demonstrates the existence of a broad spectrum of interpretive strategies within African academia. There are, of course, a large number of voices approaching the book from literary and/or traditional historical perspectives with their focus on text and historical context. However, there are also many voices—and some examples have been presented above—that turn the attention to contemporary African readers. Their approaches, though, vary a lot, from a superficial application of the text ‘in relation to Africa’, to a more critical use of African experiences and concerns as interpretive subjects ‘in relation to Isaiah’. As a mere coincidence (or not necessarily so, Nzimande would probably argue, with reference to the patriarchal structures of the ancient text as well as today’s African interpretive contexts), all the three sets of comments to Isaiah that were presented above, relate the ‘scandalous women’ in Isa 3:16–4:1 to the African interpretive context. Their uses of this text may therefore serve to illustrate the variation with which a text may be approached contextually. On the one hand, both Zinkuratire in the African Bible and Nsiku in the African Bible Commentary use this text as an opportunity to lift up certain ideas about the ideal woman; the former in indignation of the daughters of Zion, who ‘even’ want to marry polygamously, the latter in indignation of today’s daughters of Africa, who ‘paint their nails and wear wigs’ rather than paying attention to their inner values. On the other hand, Nzimande uses this same text as an opportunity to expose the biases of both the ancient text and the contemporary context of its African readers, noticing the danger of such texts and the necessity of using such texts with suspicion and caution.

37

Nzimande, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 141–144.

88

KNUT HOLTER

IV. POSTLUDE: BIBLICAL SCHOLARS SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES One of the most fascinating characteristics of academic biblical studies in the recent two or three decades is the development of new guilds outside Europe and the European diasporas. The field of biblical studies is gradually being liberated from its North Atlantic captivity, as new colleagues, ‘speaking in other tongues’, bring new sets of contextually based experiences and concerns into close contact with the Hebrew and Greek texts.38 As I have tried to show above, Isaiah and Africa may here serve as examples. The insistence of the African guild members on the potential of reading, say, the Isaiah texts in relation to contemporary cultural and societal challenges, may provide the kind of interpretive models we need in the Western guilds too.

BIBLIOGRAPHY D. T. Adamo, Africa and Africans in the Old Testament (San Francisco, 1998). T. Adeyemo (ed.), Africa Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, 2006). J. O. Akao, ‘Word—A Potent Extension of Personality in the Old Testament and African Belief System’, Bangalore Theological Forum 25 (1993), pp. 49–63. P. D. Akpunonu, Salvation in Deutero-Isaiah: A Philological-Exegetical Study (unpubl. diss., Pontifical Urban University, Rome, 1971). ———, The Vine, Israel and the Church (New York, 2003). ———, The Overture of the Book of Consolations (Isaiah 40:1–11) (New York, 2004). E. Anum, ‘Comparative Readings of the Bible in Africa’, in G. O. West and M. W. Dube (eds), The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends (Leiden, 2000), pp. 457–473. T. U. Ejeh, The Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 52:13–53:12: A Historical Critical and Afro-Cultural Hermeneutical Analysis with the Igalas of Nigeria in View (Zürich, 2012). T. Habtu, ‘The images of Egypt in the Old Testament: Reflections on African Hermeneutics’, in M. N. Getui et al. (eds), 38

Segovia, ‘And They Began to Speak in Other Tongues’.

ISAIAH AND AFRICA

89

Interpreting the Old Testament in Africa: Papers from the International Symposium on Africa and the Old Testament in Nairobi, October 1999 (New York, 2000), pp. 55–64. H. Hagelia, Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh (Stockholm, 2001). K. Holter, Tropical Africa and the Old Testament: A Select and Annotated Bibliography (Oslo, 1996). ———, ‘Should Old Testament “Cush” be rendered “Africa”?’, The Bible Translator 48 (1997), pp. 331–336. ———, Old Testament Research for Africa: A Critical Analysis and Annotated Bibliography of African Old Testament Dissertations, 1967–2000 (New York, 2002). ———, Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship in Africa (Nairobi, 2008). ———, ‘The Role of Historical-Critical Methodology in African Old Testament Studies’, Old Testament Essays 24 (2011), pp. 377–389. M. H. Lavik, A People Tall and Smooth-Skinned: The Rhetoric of Isaiah 18 (Leiden, 2007). P. Lokel, ‘Previously Unstoried Lives: The Case of Old Testament Cush and its Relevance to Africa’, Old Testament Essays 19 (2006), pp. 525–537. D. R. Mbuwayesango, The Defense of Zion and the House of David: Isaiah 36–39 in the Context of Isaiah 1–39 (umpubl. diss., Emory University, 1998). E. Mveng, ‘La Bible et l’Afrique noire’, in E. Mveng and R. J. Z. Werblowsky (eds), The Jerusalem Congress on Black Africa and the Bible (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 23–39. E. K. Nsiku, ‘Isaiah’, in T. Adeyemo (ed.), Africa Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, 2006), pp. 809–852. M. K. Nzimande, ‘Isaiah’, in H. R. Page Jr. (ed.), The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora (Minneapolis, 2010), pp. 136–146. E. Onwurah, ‘Isaiah 14: Its Bearing on African Life and Thought’, Bible Bhashyam 13 (1987), pp. 29–41. H. R. Page Jr. (ed.), The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora (Minneapolis, 2010). E. W. Said, Orientalism (London, 2003; orig. publ. 1978). J. F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (Cambridge, 1996).

90

KNUT HOLTER

F. F. Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins (Maryknoll, 2000). ———, ‘And They Began to Speak in Other Tongues: Competing Modes of Discourse in Contemporary Biblical Criticism’, in F. F. Segovia and M. A. Tolbert (eds), Reading from this Place: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States (Minneapolis, 1995), pp. 1–32. S. Sempore, ‘Le noir et le salut dans la Bible’, P. Adeso et al. (eds), Universalisme et mission dans la Bible. Actes du cinquième congrès des biblistes africains (Nairobi, 1993), pp. 17–29. R. S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford, 2002). J. S. Ukpong, ‘Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Modern Africa’, Missionalia 27 (1999), pp. 313–329. E. Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (Oxford, 1968). V. Zinkuratire (ed.), The African Bible (Nairobi, 1999).

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa) AND MATERIAL PHILOLOGY: PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS AND A PROPOSAL ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES UNIVERSITY OF AGDER ABSTRACT The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) has been studied more than any other Qumran scroll. Despite being praised for its material appearance, 1QIsaa has often been mocked with regards to its text-critical value. In this article I will approach the manuscript from a new/material philology perspective and try to study it ‘in situ’—materially and socio-historically.1

INTRODUCTION The Great Isaiah Scroll was one of the first texts to be found at Qumran and the first to be published.2 1QIsaa is the most famous and most studied of all the Qumran texts. It is often used to illustrate the ‘discovery’ of the Qumran documents as a whole, both in films, textbooks and works of reference, and has to a large I thank Kristin Heskje, who has assisted me in the work on this article, and my colleagues Kipp Davis, Morten Klepp Beckmann, Tor Vegge and Torleif Elgvin for substantial response on an earlier draft. 2 Burrows, with Trever and Brownlee (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery (1950). 1

91

92

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

extent defined common views of what a Dead Sea scroll is.3 In 2010 the official critical edition of the manuscript appeared in two volumes, written by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint.4 In this impressive work virtually every trace of ink in 1QIsaa is registered and analysed.5 See also Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, pp. 44–45: ‘The two Isaiah scrolls from cave 1 were among the first to be published, 1QIsaa as early as 1950, and 1QIsab in 1954 and 1955, and as a rule their content and description greatly influenced scholarship. For a long period these scrolls alone represented for scholarship the Dead Sea scrolls, and many generalizations regarding biblical scrolls or the Qumran scrolls as a whole were made on the basis of their form and contents. Thus it became a commonplace to say that while the biblical texts from Qumran often differed much from MT [Masoretic Text] in small details, they contributed little to our knowledge of the biblical text, since the readings of these scrolls were considered to be more or less identical with the MT (1QIsab) or were often described as secondary when compared with MT (1QIsaa). While these statements on the intrinsic value of the texts are correct, neither of these texts is representative of the Qumran scrolls, and therefore no generalizations should be made. In fact, none of the scrolls found at Qumran is representative of the ensemble of the Qumran texts.’ 4 Ulrich and Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. For a thorough review, see Tigchelaar, ‘Review’, pp. 1–17. 1QIsaa has been published no less than three times before: (1) Burrows, with Trever and Brownlee (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery (1950); (2) Cross et al., eds, Scrolls from Qumrân Cave 1: The Great Isaiah Scroll, the Order of the Community, the Pesher to Habakkuk, from photographs by John C. Trever (1972); and (3) Parry and Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition (1999). 5 Cf. Tov (‘The Text of Isaiah’, pp. 45–47): ‘Even today … 1QIsaa stands out as the scroll about which more aspects have been researched and hence are known better than the other Qumran biblical texts … The most extensive linguistic treatment of any of the Qumran texts has been devoted to this scroll. Likewise, the most extensive study to date on scribal habits is devoted to this and several other texts from cave 1. The only biblical text from Qumran on which a “literary analysis” was composed is the Isaiah scroll. More than seventy-five scholarly articles have been written on various aspects of this scroll. Its readings are listed 3

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

93

Despite being praised for its material appearance, 1QIsaa has often been mocked with regards to its text-critical value. In the early fifties Harold M. Orlinsky famously described it as a vulgar text, 6 secondary to MT, and with worthless readings.7 Over the 65 years since the text was found, there has been a tendency to approach 1QIsaa as a ‘biblical’ text of Isaiah.8 Often 1QIsaa has as variants deviating from the MT in the third apparatus of the seventh edition of BH [Biblica Hebraica] and in the HUB [Hebrew University Bible]. Since it was a novelty to be able to compare the medieval MT with an ancient manuscript dating from the turn of the eras, virtually every aspect of the scroll was studied in monographic articles. This pertains to the special orthographical and morphological features of the scroll, its scribal phenomena, marginal notations, deviations from MT, relation to the ancient versions and medieval Hebrew manuscripts, typological similarity to the SP [Samaritan Pentateuch] and the Severus Scrolls, the relation to the textual tradition of Kings in the parallel sections of Isaiah and 2 Kings, paleography, writing by two different scribes, system of text division into different units, and its exegetical elements.’ For bibliographical information linked to these various aspects, see Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, pp. 45–47. 6 Kutscher (Language, pp. 77–89) also characterized it as ‘vulgar’. 7 Orlinsky, ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, IV’, p. 340. Cf. Darrell D. Hannah’s comments on the Wirkungsgeschiche of this article (‘Isaiah within Judaism of the Second Temple Period’, p. 10): ‘Orlinsky’s argument carried the day and had the effect of regulating 1QIsa a to the nether world of textual studies.’ Orlinsky’s numerous studies were a reaction to the first optimism that followed in the wake of the finding; see for instance Orlinsky, ‘Studies in the St. Mark's Isaiah Scroll III’, p. 151: ‘[I]t is only natural that the amateur and sometimes even the scholar became so excited by the discovery reported in April, 1948, of the Isaiah and other scrolls in the Ain Feshka cave, that they almost automatically began to describe some of the innumerable variations in the Isaiah Scroll from the Masoretic text as “interesting,” “remarkable,” and even “original” … Since MT no longer has news value, whereas 1 QIs most decidedly rated front-page treatment, the quite new and intriguing readings in the latter pushed the corresponding readings in MT into the background.’ 8 Cross, Library, pp. 130–131.

94

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

been studied as a witness to the ‘original’ work9 and evaluated according to its correspondences with the (presumably more objective) MT10 or its value for historical-critical exegetical

Fitzmyer states: ‘Apart from … 13 variant readings, the text of 1QIsaa is textually insignificant’ (Responses, p. 20). See also Cross, Library, p. 131: ‘While it conserved thousands of variant readings, few of its readings were significant, and even fewer superior to the traditional readings.’ Flint, on the other hand, observes: ‘While the text of this document is mostly in agreement with the received Masoretic Text … it contains many variant readings that are of great interest to scholars’ (‘The Isaiah Scrolls’, p. 483). 10 Often the MT has been treated as the (more or less) original, and 1QIsaa as a later text. In other words, the medieval text is considered as an older text than the one from antiquity. See for instance Kutscher’s point of departure (Language, pp. 2–3): ‘The orthography, pronunciation, morphology, vocabulary, syntax, and even the proper nouns must all be carefully studied. A comprehensive and thorough examination of all these details will, I am convinced, prove that the 1QIsaa reflects a later textual type than the Masoretic Text … it is possible to postulate that 1QIsaa (or its predecessors) is descended from a text identical (or at least very similar) to that of the Masoretic Text, but by no means can we assume the converse—i.e. that the Masoretic Text is descended from a text of the type of I Isaa.’ See, however, Ulrich, ‘Sharper Focus’, pp. 3–4: ‘From the outset, these two scrolls [1QIsaa and b] offered one of the principal things to learn from the biblical scrolls, but virtually no one actually saw and clearly understood what the evidence was teaching us. The fact is that our traditional Hebrew Bible, the rabbinic recension that we call the MT, is a collection of texts from late antiquity, reworked through the early Middle Ages, of which our oldest complete manuscript dates from 1009. Meanwhile, the Isaiah scrolls, antedating that manuscript by a millennium, demonstrated that in the late Second Temple period there were two alternate forms of the text for that central prophetic book. We could not see that clearly because of our preformed academic categories and religious mentalities. Since we “knew” what the biblical text was supposed to look like, what we saw was that 1QIsab confirmed that the MT “faithfully preserved the original text” (and we were quite relieved); 1QIsaa, on the other hand, was accused of being a “vulgar” or even a 9

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

95

purposes.11 Accordingly, the actual manuscript has often been put in the shadow of an ideal text. In a recent article entitled ‘Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66’, Drew Longacre stresses the need for a greater sensitivity to the physical dynamics of the manuscripts from Qumran: Philological approaches alone, without due consideration of material contexts, are insufficient and can in fact be misleading … High quality photographs like those on the Israel Museum website will be integral to future research on the physical aspects of scrolls that might easily be missed in studying transcriptions of texts or even isolated photographic plates.12

In line with this, I want to suggest that 1QIsaa might be an interesting case for so-called material [or: new] philology, a branch of editorial theory that has developed in medieval studies since the early 1990s.13

I. MATERIAL PHILOLOGY The Norwegian scholar Liv Ingeborg Lied introduces material philology as follows: New [/material] philology basically suggests that copies of texts do not produce variants: they are variance. Hence, each copy is regarded a literary product per se. From the perspective of new philology, literary works do not exist independently of their material embodiment. Rather, the physical form of the text is an integral part of its meaning. In the study of a given literary text it is important to look at the material context (e.g., the entire codex), surrounding texts, as well as features of form “worthless” manuscript because it diverged so widely from the textus receptus.’ 11 Orlinsky, ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll’, pp. 149–166, and Kutscher, Language, pp. 2–3. 12 Longacre, ‘Developmental Stage’, pp. 49–50. 13 Lied, ‘Textual Transmission’, p. 3.

96

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES and layout of the text—also when the text in focus is a copy of an earlier text witness. A main principle of new philology is that physical objects like codices and manuscripts come into being at particular times and places and for particular purposes, and that we cannot interpret the texts without taking into consideration how these contexts are part of their meaning. Moreover, as these physical objects continue to circulate and exist over time, the new contexts the manuscripts enter into will also leave their traces on them. These traces are regarded as interesting in their own right. In other words, new philology suggests that texts should be studied in situ— linguistically, materially and socio-historically.14

Despite the controversial nature of some of these statements, I will only make a few brief comments here. At least in isolation, the programmatic statement that ‘literary works do not exist independently of their material embodiment’, presupposes a somewhat restricted understanding of what a literary work is. Moreover, the ideal to regard ‘each copy … a literary product per se’ seems to need calibration. For instance, many Hebrew medieval ‘biblical’ manuscripts are very similar, and have perhaps first and foremost interest as copies of older texts.15

Lied, ‘Nachleben and Textual Identity’, pp. 408–409. Lied builds on influential studies like Cerquiglini’s Élogue de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie (1989), Nichols’ ‘Philology in a Manuscript Culture’ (1990), Busby’s, Codex and Context: Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript (2002) and Driscoll’s ‘The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New’ (2010). See also one of Nichols’ summary statements in his introduction to Speculum 65 (‘Philology’, p. 9): ‘What is “new” in the philology common to … the contributions may be found in their insistence that the language of texts be studied not simply as discursive phenomena but in the interaction of text language with the manuscript matrix and of both language and manuscript with the social context and networks they inscribe.’ 15 Cf. also recently Nichols, ‘New Challenges’, p. 10: ‘[I]f every version of a work has a potential story to tell about its production and reception, one needs to have access to as many of the manuscripts as 14

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

97

There is indeed a long way from medieval studies to Qumran studies. Even though there are many parallel phenomena (variations, notes, intersections, and so on), the material is different in many regards. Most Qumran texts are so fragmentary that their primary value for textual scholars consists in serving as fragments that can be linked to more complete compositions. Furthermore, some of the things that are new in new/material philology are commonplace in Qumran studies. Qumran studies have always been material, in most aspects. Qumran scholars work with manuscripts and fragments, primarily studied ‘in situ’, and know a great deal about scribal practices. Traditionally there has been no division of labour between those who edit texts and those who interpret them. So-called ‘biblical scrolls’ have, however, been among the exceptions. Generally, there has been a clear tendency in Qumran studies to treat ‘biblical’ material differently than other material—as ‘biblical’, ‘scriptural’ and to some extent ‘canonical’ works. Symptomatically, there exist four critical editions to the Great Isaiah Scroll, but no commentary. ‘Biblical’ manuscripts from Qumran have played a secondary role as literary works in their own right. They have mainly been treated as textual witnesses, with little value in themselves. The manuscripts have seldom or never been interpreted in their own material and socio-historical context; only in an ideal, ‘scriptural’ context. All this illustrates the potential fruitfulness of introducing material philology in Qumran studies, especially in the study of ‘biblical’ manuscripts. Before I explore the implications of material philology for the study of 1QIsaa, let me give a brief presentation of the manuscript:

II. SHORT PRESENTATION OF 1QISAa According to the Bedouins, 1QIsaa was found in one of the cylindrical jars together with 1QS (the Rule of Discipline) and 1QpHab (the pesher of Habakkuk). This jar was the only one of the eight found in Cave 1 containing scrolls. All the others were empty. possible to be able to determine what that story is, and ultimately to tell it.’

98

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

1QIsaa is the oldest preserved manuscript of Isaiah16 and the only ‘biblical’ text among the Qumran scrolls that has been preserved almost in its entirety.17 The C14 dating gives a range from 335 to 122 BCE.18 It is an impressive manuscript both with regard to appearance and size. 1QIsaa consists of 17 sheets of sheepskin sewn together, and is 7,34 meters long and 26 cm high.19 It contains 54 columns of varying width, with an average of 30 lines per column, and has large top and bottom margins (2.0–2.8 and 2.5–3.3).20 Up to col. 28 one can see folding lines on the sheets. It seems that they have been folded in four parts. The manuscript has beautifully preserved Hebrew writing inscribed on the coarse parchment. The writing is dated on palaeographical grounds to ca. 100 BC or somewhat earlier.21 Emanuel Tov characterises 1QIsaa as a text (the oldest?) written in the Qumran scribal practice.22 The orthography is full, with a substantial amount of plene spellings23—more so in the second The Qumran caves have yielded twenty-one copies of the book of Isaiah. For a short overview see Flint, ‘The Isaiah Scrolls’, pp. 481–490. 17 Tov, Scribal Practices, p. 5. 18 Jull et al., ‘Radiocarbon Dating’, pp. 11–19. 19 Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, p. 44: ‘The large Isaiah scroll is the longest preserved biblical scroll among the scroll specimens (7.34 m), surpassed only by a nonbiblical composition, 11QTa (8.148 m; reconstructed total length 8.75 m).’ 20 Tov, Scribal Practices, p. 102. 21 Albright was the first to suggest this dating (Ulrich and Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 2, p. 9). Fitzmyer (Responses, p. 20) gives 125–100 BC; Cross, Library of Qumran, p. 174, has 150–125 BC; so also Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, p. 44. The text is written in a characteristic Hasmonaean formal hand. 22 Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, p. 54; see also his comments on pp. 5455: ‘The idiosyncrasies in orthography, morphology, and scribal habits of 1QIsaa and 4QIsac set them apart from the other Isaiah texts, but not from other Qumran texts … These two texts reflect a similar orthographical and linguistic system, but they differ in details.’ 23 Kutscher (Language, pp. 5–8) used the plene orthography as an argument for the scroll’s late date and low status: ‘The Scroll’s 16

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

99

part of the scroll (from cols. 28) than in the first part. There are a high number of scribal corrections, performed by a series of subsequent hands, and a whole range of different scribal signs (some of them not understandable). Over the years, the scribe of 1QIsaa has suffered harsh criticism. Emanuel Tov states: The copyist of 1QIsaa produced a carelessly and irregularly written copy that was full of errors. Many of these errors were corrected, and, in fact, of all the Qumran texts, this one contains the largest proportion of corrections, viz. an average of one scribal intervention to every four lines of text.24

Both physical and linguistic traits point in the direction of bifurcation. There is a break, about three lines, after ‘col. 27’ (corresponding to the end of ch. 33 in modern editions),

orthography is obviously plene in respect to “‫ ”ו‬and to a certain extent “‫”י‬. This use of plene spelling is itself an indication of the Scroll’s relatively late date … We may conclude that when there are two versions of the same text—one written in the scriptio plena and one in the scriptio defectiva—we are prima facie to assume that the one with the defectiva spelling is earlier unless there is reason to suspect a conscious use of the plene forms. There are no such grounds in our case … our text cannot possibly be the result of the transposition of a scriptio plena text into one written defective which forces us to postulate that it is an evolved text—whether directly or indirectly—of one written defective i.e. of one of the type of the Masoretic text … The Scroll’s use of scriptio plena is easily accounted for by the hypothesis that its purpose was to fascilitate reading by the un-lettered masses.’ 24 Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, p. 50. Kutscher thought the Aramaic influence on the language of 1QIsa a (see for instance Abegg, ‘Linguistic Profile’, p. 41) was due to the scribe: ‘Our scribe, whose mother tongue seems to have been Aramaic, and who was undoubtedly familiar with the Aramaic literature of his day, now and again inadvertently grafted Aramaic forms upon the Hebrew text’ (Language, p. 24). Cross (Ancient Library, pp. 174–177) believed that the scroll was written by two scribes from two different scrolls; see the part on bifurcation below.

100

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

accompanied also by a change in orthography and morphology. Martin G. Abegg describes the situation in the following way: The scroll evidences a bifurcation between columns XXVII and XXVIII that corresponds with the end of Isaiah chapter 33.24. The physical evidence for this is threefold. First, and most obvious, is the three-line lacuna at the bottom of column XXVII. Second, the sheet of leather on which columns XXVI–XXVII are written is significantly narrower than any other in the scroll, except for the last, that containing columns LIII–LIV. Third, columns XXVII–XXVIII are noticeably narrower than most others in the scroll. In short, the evidence suggests that the scribe of 1QIsaa took considerable pains to end chapter 33 at the bottom of column XXVII … the linguistic features provide clear evidence of bifurcation. A notable increase in orthographic and morphological variation begins at col. XXVIII and continues to the end of the scroll … In essence, the scroll displays in the second half a higher percentage of spellings and forms which are common in the nonbiblical manuscripts from Qumran. Why this is—perhaps the scribe (or his source text) used one manuscript for copying the first half and a different one for the second half—we may never fully know.25 Abegg, ‘Linguistic Profile,’ p. 25. Tov thinks that the two different segments were written by two different scribes: ‘Scribe B started with col. XXVIII, at the beginning of a new sheet. Although also in other Qumran scrolls two or more hands are visible … in no other source is the text so neatly divided as in 1QIsaa’ (‘The Text of Isaiah’, p. 49). Recently, Longacre (‘Developmental Stage’, pp. 17–50) has argued that chapters 34–66 were copied from an exemplar with a damaged bottom edge: ‘Upon reaching the defective edge in each column of his exemplar, the scribe dealt with any lacunose or illegible text in one of two ways before continuing with the unaffected text at the top of the subsequent exemplar column. Sometimes he left blank spaces in his new copy to be filled in with the correct text from other manuscripts at a later time. At other times he attempted full or partial reconstructions of the 25

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

101

The scroll bears traces of much use over a long period of time. At numerous places it has been torn apart, but has been carefully fixed (resown, rewritten and so on). 1QIsaa is the largest and best preserved of all the Qumran ‘biblical’ texts. Abegg notes that 1QIsaa—with its 22,696 words!— ‘accounts for more than 24% of the entire biblical corpus’26 found at Qumran. The manuscript covers all the 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah that we know from modern editions, save for a few words broken off the bottom of a few columns.

III. MATERIAL PHILOLOGY: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF 1QISAa The implications of material philology for the study of 1QIsa a are substantial: We are not aiming for an ideal, abstract, immaterial, text of Isaiah, and are accordingly no longer treating 1QIsa a primarily as a copy or a witness, but as a text valuable in its own right.27 It is interpreted as it is, not (primarily) as pointer to another time, ‘but as a cultural product that was produced at a particular time and place and for a particular purpose’.28 A material philology perspective on 1QIsa a has implications for the way we label and characterise the manuscript. It is not characterised (or analysed) anachronistically (as ‘biblical’ or ‘scriptural’)29 or judged diachronically (as good or bad, significant or insignificant; as a copy of or a witness to an [ideal] text, or in relation to MT and LXX, for instance as ‘non-aligned’, freehand).30 It is characterised anew, and given a description calibrated

text based on whatever text remained legible in the damaged exemplar, memory, and contextual clues’ (from the abstract p. 17). 26 Abegg, ‘Linguistic Profile,’ p. 25. 27 Building substantially on Lied, ‘In Praise of the Clutter’. 28 Lied, ‘Textual Transmission’, p. 4. 29 I am, however, not arguing against using this terminology at a surface level. But these categories are not helpful on an analytical level. 30 One of the main reasons for the negative judgement of the Great Isaiah Scroll was that scholars tended to judge it as a Scriptural scroll, i.e., as a biblical writing in the strict sense. To a large extent 1QIsa a has been

102

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

according to its function in the context and culture of which it is a part. Accordingly, a discussion about the text’s status is not linked to a canonical discussion or the question of its scriptural status. There has indeed been a tendency in some of the research on 1QIsaa to isolate the literary work from its material embodiment. Furthermore, the socio-historical context has sometimes been used seemingly in an attempt to disqualify the manuscript rather than to understand it.31

IV. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 1. 1QIsaa as a literary product per se Arie van der Kooij’s short comparison of the so-called LXX version of Isaiah and 1QIsaa in his 1992 study ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah: Some General Comments’ ends with the following tentative conclusion:32 My tentative conclusion is, that they, as scribes and scholars, have made the effort to create new texts with a meaning of their own, presumably with the ultimate purpose not only to modernize the text linguistically, but also to actualize the prophecies of Isaiah … if we are on the right track, it would mean that both texts reflect some literary activity of scribes resulting in updated texts of Isaiah, kinds of new editions of the book. It would also mean that the significance of their relationship lies not so much in their being the earliest witnesses to the text of Isaiah, but more in particular in their being kindred pieces of Jewish literature from the Hellenistic era.

judged from its text-critical value, i.e. from how it will function in a modern edition. 31 According to Kutscher (Language, pp. 77–89), 1QIsaa was a personal copy used for study, home reading, perhaps in the synagogue, while MT reflected the standard text used in Palestine. He thus gives MT maximum impact, and 1QIsaa minimum impact. 32 Van der Kooij, ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah’, pp. 208–209.

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

103

Van der Kooij implicitly encourages the scholar to approach 1QIsaa as a deliberate composition, and to read it in its contemporary historical and cultural context. In harmony with this, the scribe is to be regarded as more than a copyist: [T]he authors are not to be regarded simply as dragomantranslators or copyists, but more likely as scribes and scholars. Or to put it in terms of antiquity; they are to be seen as ‘oratores,’ rather than ‘interprètes.’33

2. Between corrections, intersections, and alterations On the background of the perspective of material philology, one question seems especially pertinent: If 1QIsa a is not approached as a witness, how are we to interpret the so-called ‘corrections’? From this perspective, scribal activity is regarded as interesting in its own right, and variations, corrections, or mistakes are not considered a problem as much as a resource. 34 Despite this, all the mistakes, misunderstandings, and even sloppiness that can be found in 1QIsaa need of course to be characterised accordingly. However, not all that may look like corrections is necessarily to be regarded as corrections. Jonathan D. H. Norton’s reflections on the alteration of 1QIsaa are noteworthy:

Van der Kooij, ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah’, p. 207. See Lied, ‘Textual Transmission’, p. 4: ‘New Philology looks differently at manuscript variants. Indeed, the term “variant” is exchanged for the term “variance”. Manuscript variance is regarded as one of the key characteristics of a manuscript culture, and instead of trying to eliminate it, variance is studied and explored in its own right as a typical trait of medieval literary production. Rather than seeing circulation and copying as the more or less faithful rendering of the assumed archetype, as a form of “referential memesis”, changes to texts (although to a varying degree in different literatures) are regarded as more or less the norm. These changes may of course be simple mistakes and scribal errors, but they may also be willful changes made in order to improve the text or to make it applicable to a new context. Variance, thus, which would otherwise be disregarded as “disturbance”, is appreciated as creative and on-going text production.’ 33 34

104

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES The alteration of the text of one copy on the basis of another by means of marginal and interlinear insertions indicates such awareness, at least at the moment of comparison between copies. Tov and others designate these alterations as ‘corrections’, attributing to scribes a notion of a pristine, ‘correct’ text-form. This conception restricts textual variation to ‘standard’ and ‘aberrant’ text-forms, ascribing a false sense of uniformity to the literature. The term ‘alteration’ better acknowledges that some readings are scribal or exegetical, rather than corrective. Some scribal markings in 1QIsa and cancellation dots found in a number of the Qumran scrolls indicate the scribe’s awareness of variant readings in other manuscripts.35

The insertions and annotations in 1QIsaa are richer than to be globally characterised as corrections. Often interpreted as corruptions, or as a sign of 1QIsaa’s low status and vulgar character, these phenomena need to be interpreted in their own right, as conscious scribal activity.36 1QIsaa reflects the reshaping, changing, and alteration of ‘the work of Isaiah’. Even at this late stage the wording of Isaiah was still under discussion and debate, in what—at least in this manuscript—seems to be an ongoing, creative adjustment of the text.37 The larger question about what ‘correction’ and interlinear and marginal notes tell us about a manuscript’s status, needs to be left for another occasion.

Norton, Contours in the Text, pp. 110–111. Lied states: ‘In addition, the notes and comments offer us the opportunity to study historical lived religion. They show a rich variety of recorded religious experience—which is not limited to an interpretation of textual contents. They allow us to follow real readers’ (‘In Praise of the Clutter’). 37 See Lied, ‘Textual Transmission’, pp. 6–7. 35 36

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

105

3. Scribal activity, clusters of manuscripts 1QIsaa opens a window to at least one scribal milieu. We meet both the scribe who produced the text as well as later scribes ‘belonging to’ the so-called ‘Qumran scribal school’. Tov observes: Unusual marginal signs occurring in various places in the scroll, not all of them understandable, are in three cases almost identical with signs in 1QS. They were probably produced by the same scribe, that is, the person who inserted the corrections in the Isaiah scroll and wrote the text of 1QS (as well as 1QSa, 1QSb, and 4QSamc ) … In 1QIsaa they may refer to the sectarian reading of certain passages, or to matters of sectarian interest.38

Both the text written by the original scribe and the later marginal signs bear traces of different scribes’ encounters with the ‘Book of Isaiah’.39 Furthermore, the parallel signs in 1QIsaa and 1QS are faint reflections of a contemporary, first century BCE literary environment.40 This leads up to the next point. 4. Literary environment From the perspective of material philology, 1QIsa a is not to be interpreted in dialogue with an isolated canonical literary environment, but in its contemporary literary environment. Let me illustrate the implications of this with a brief example: Scholars have long been aware of the so-called contemporary ‘exegetical’ developments and elaborations (actualisations, fulfilmentinterpretation and so on) in 1QIsaa.41 The scroll may also reflect Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, pp. 50. See also van der Kooij, ‘IQlsaa Col. VIII, 4–11 (Isa 8, 11–18): A Contextual Approach of its Variants’, pp. 569–581, and his shorter discussion of the same passage in ‘On the Relationship’, pp. 206–207. 40 Epigrapher Michael Langlois dates the handwriting of 1QSa (and 1QSb) to the second quarter of the first century BCE (oral communication). 41 In his landmark article from 1962 on 1QIsa a, Talmon (‘DSIa as a Witness’, p. 63) argued that the text bears witness to an ancient exegesis of the Book of Isaiah. Talmon’s approach was original in its time as he 38 39

106

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

messianic readings. One interesting case is Isa 52:14 where 1QIsaa reads mšḥty, instead of MT’s mšḥt (‘marred’). Fritsch translates this ‘verse’ as follows: ‘As many were astonished at you; so I anointed his appearance above any man, and his form above any of the sons of man.’42 This ambiguous reading, regarded as secondary by most scholars, has no doubt a greater exegetical potential when interpreted in a contemporary literary environment than in a historical-critical analysis of the text. The example illustrates how this change of socio-literary context to a greater extent allows 1QIsaa to be a Qumran text—a text for its own time, coloured by its own time—and not only a ‘biblical’ text.43 5. Preservation, material, and status According to Hartmut Stegemann, the manuscripts hidden in Cave 1 were considered especially important by the Essenes, and handled with great care.44 They were ‘master manuscripts’, used as models for other copies.45 Be this as it may, the material appearance of a manuscript may teach us more about how it was judged and valued at the time it was written by the people who produced and used it. The way it was prepared, written and desisted from setting MT ‘as a yardstick to measure the textual tradition’ of 1QIsaa. On elaborations in MT, see Ulrich, ‘Developmental Composition’, pp. 288–305. 42 Fritsch, Qumran Community, p. 120; he says that ‘the textual tradition of 1QIsa from Qumrān reflects a Messianic interpretation of the Servant in Is. 52:13-53:12’. He builds heavily upon Brownlee, ‘The Servant of the Lord in the Qumrân Scrolls’, Pt. I, and others. 43 For other potentially ‘messianic’ and ‘theological’ readings, see Chamberlain, ‘The Functions of God as Messianic Titles in the Complete Qumran Isaiah Scroll’, and Rubinstein, ‘The Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll’ respectively, and the critical remarks by Tov, ‘The Text of Isaiah’, pp. 48–49. 44 García Martínez speaks of this as ‘Hartmut Stegemann´s Theory of Master Manuscripts’ (‘Reconsidering the Cave 1’, p. 3). 45 Stegemann, Die Essener, pp. 89–90. For a short critique of Stegemann’s view, see García Martínez, ‘Reconsidering the Cave 1’, pp. 3– 7.

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

107

preserved bears witness to its function and status. The appearance of a scroll is a message in itself. The preservation of 1QIsaa and 1QIsab illustrates well how material appearance and content cannot easily be isolated from each other: … 1QIsaa had been carefully wrapped in linen and sealed inside a protective pottery jar, ensuring its excellent preservation. 1QIsab had not been so protected and is thus fragmentary. Why carefully preserve a ‘vulgar’ or ‘worthless’ scroll in contrast to a ‘perfect’ or ‘authentic’ scroll if those really were the views of the community that possessed them?46

In one way or another, 1QIsaa must have been an important scroll. At the same time, the case of 1QIsaa illustrates well how complex the question of status is and how closely linked it is to sociohistorical factors.47 Material philology may thus serve as a welcome corrective to the recent focus on authoritative texts in Qumran studies. 6. Real readers, lived religion On the sheets of the scroll some of its readers have left their traces over the years. The wear and tear may teach us something about

Ulrich, ‘Sharper Focus’, pp. 3–4. Tov states: ‘1QIsaa was preserved in its entirety because it was well kept in a jar. It is not known whether this system of storage reflects the Qumran community’s special esteem for this particular copy of Isaiah’ (‘The Text of Isaiah’, p. 44). 47 See Popović’s reflections on texts’ ‘authoritativeness’: ‘There is the question of which specific texts were authoritative and in which respect: for example, regarding halakah or because they address the present and the future. Other aspects relate to how the number of manuscripts found at Qumran is indicative of a text’s authoritativeness, or whether specific scribal practices reflect different levels of authority. Why were some texts more authoritative than others? For whom and in what contexts were texts authoritative? And what are our criteria for determining the extent to which a text was authoritative? In short, what do we mean by “authoritative”?’ (‘Introducing’, p. 1). 46

108

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

the scroll’s (changing) function and use, and may even reflect which passages were the most ‘popular’.

V. SUMMARY All these preliminary observations illustrate how the text of the manuscript itself is richer than the text in modern editions. When we import the text of 1QIsaa into a modern critical edition, we create a new material context and a new literary environment for the text. We lose contact with the text as a Qumran text and are drawn towards the oldest text and the context of the first ideal texts of Isaiah. Material philology may contribute to bringing the text back to Qumran.

VI. A PROPOSAL Eibert Tigchelaar’s thorough review of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert [DJD] 32 ends with the following words: ‘Overall, this volume is a worthy conclusion to the DJD series. But it also points forward, to the future, demonstrating how much we need a more ambitious book, a comprehensive edition with commentary.’ 48 Tigchelaar does, however, not say explicitly how he envisages such a commentary. Perhaps the time has come to write a commentary on 1QIsa a that deals with the preserved text, in its own right, interpreted in its historical and cultural context? The timing for such a project could hardly be more ideal with DJD 32 now published, and every material factor extremely well documented. I am thinking of a commentary that takes seriously the ‘variant’ and ‘vulgar’ readings, the ‘linguistic anomalities’, 49 the ‘liberties’ of the scribe, the ‘reworkings’, the ‘exegetical’ features, the ‘contextual harmonizations’, the ‘fullfilment interpretation’, and interpret them in their own right. An approach that honors and Tigchelaar, ‘Review’, p. 17. As Tigchelaar notes (p. 7), the word ‘commentary’ in the title of DJD 32 is misleading. 49 Kutscher, Language, 3: ‘… the linguistic anomalies of I Isaa reflect the Hebrew and Aramaic currently spoken in Palestine towards the end of the Second Commonwealth.’ 48

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

109

analyses material factors like spacing, the (unusual) marginal signs, paragraphs, sense divisions and so on, and gives priority to the manuscript over the ‘ideal’ or ‘biblical’ texts read in a canonical textual environment. These factors draw the scholar towards the scroll’s contemporary context, and accordingly also to a contemporary literary environment, that is, the context of the Qumran ‘library’.50 Such an approach may give new answers to the old question of what 1QIsaa’s function and purpose were, and will definitely also raise new ones.

VII. OUTLOOK Material philology urges the Qumran scholar to take the step even further towards materiality, but the fragmentary nature of the Qumran manuscripts clearly limits the theory’s applicability.51 More generally, the perspective may contribute to push the discussion of so-called ‘biblical’ texts in a new direction. Even though material philology was introduced in polemics against (outdated?) textual criticism,52 it may contribute to reshape the discipline of textual Also the context of Cave 1 should be taken into account. For a short introduction, see García Martínez, ‘Reconsidering’, pp. 1–13. 51 On some of the practical problems of putting the theory into practice, see Nichols, ‘New Challenges’, pp. 10–11. 52 Lied notes: ‘New Philology developed as a reaction among medievalists to more traditional philological models of text and text production, like Textual Criticism. These scholars reacted to the fact that the medieval manuscripts they studied were often not considered as literature in their own right, but only as faint copies—as in-authentic, and as disturbance to the ancient originals; and they reacted to the fact that the published editions of a given text tended to look very different from the manuscripts they were working on’ (‘Textual Transmission’, p. 3). See also Lied, ‘Media Culture’, pp. 2–3: ‘… the methodological debates of medievalists tend to be reactions to established editorial paradigms and to value judgments in the Academy. They react to the fact that medieval literature has often not been appreciated as literature in its own right. Medieval literature has been understood as “copies,” as faint and imperfect witnesses to the assumed ancient originals. In this sense, what makes up medieval literature has been seen as “inauthentic”, and “in the 50

110

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

criticism towards a greater degree of sophistication, focusing more on full manuscripts than on singular readings, paying more attention to the ancient artefacts than to ideal texts. Material philology may teach us to appreciate more the richness of the manuscript evidence, and once again call us to eliminate the futile enterprise of ever uncovering an ‘Urtext’.53

BIBLIOGRAPHY M. G. Abegg, Jr., ‘Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls’, in E. Ulrich and P. W. Flint (eds), with a contribution by M. G. Abegg, Jr., Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (Oxford, 2010), pp. 25–41. G. J. Brooke, ‘Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible, and Pesher’, Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010), pp. 332–357. ———, ‘The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism’, in J. G. Campbell et al., New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September (London/New York, 2005), pp. 26–42. M. Burrows, with J. C. Trever and W. H. Brownlee (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Volume 1: The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary (New Haven, 1950). B. Cerquiglini, Élogue de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie (Paris, 1989), p. 111. J. V. Chamberlain, ‘The Functions of God as Messianic Titles in the Complete Qumran Isaiah Scroll’, Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955), pp. 366–372. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library at Qumran, 3rdrd edn (Sheffield, 1995). way”, or “messing things up” for any real encounter with older times and their texts.’ 53 See for instance George J. Brooke’s two fine contributions: ‘Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible, and Pesher’ (2010) and ‘The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism’ (2005).

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

111

F. M. Cross et al. (eds), Scrolls from Qumrân Cave 1: The Great Isaiah Scroll, the Order of the Community, the Pesher to Habakkuk, from Photographs by John C. Trever (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 13–123. J. A. Fitzmyer, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Mahwah, 1992). P. W. Flint, ‘The Isaiah Scrolls from the Judean Desert’, in C. C. Boyles and C. A. Evans (eds), Volume 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (Leiden/New York/Köln, 1997), pp. 481–490. C. T. Fritsch, The Qumrān Community: Its History and Scroll (New York, 1972). F. García Martínez, ‘Reconsidering the Cave 1 Texts Sixty Years After Their Discovery: An Overview’, in D. K. Falk et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana (Leiden, 2007), pp. 1–13. D. D. Hannah, ‘Isaiah within Judaim of the Second Temple Period’, in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (London, 2005), pp. 7–34. A. J. T. Jull et al., ‘Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert’, Radiocarbon 37 (1995), pp. 11–19. E. Y. Kutcher, The Language and Linguistic Background of Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa) (Leiden, 1974; revised edition by E. Qimron, Leiden, 1979). L. I. Lied, ‘In Praise of the Clutter: Bible as Notepad’, http://livlied.blogspot.no/2013/11/in-praise-of-clutter-bibleas-notepad.html?spref=fb (accessed 12.11.2013). ———, ‘Media Culture, New Philology, and the Pseudepigrapha: A Note on Method’, SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago 2012, Pseudepigrapha Section, the Media Culture-Session (Chicago, 19.11.2012). ———, ‘Nachleben and Textual Identity: Variants and Variance in the Reception History of 2 Baruch’, in M. Henze and G. Boccaccini (eds), Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstructions after the Fall (Leiden, 2013), pp. 403–428. ———, ‘Text – work – manuscript: what is “an Old Testament Pseudepigraphon”?’, http://livlied.blogspot.no/2013/11/myresponse-to-old-testament.html (accessed 28.11.2013)

112

ÅRSTEIN JUSTNES

———, ‘Textual Transmission and Liturgical Transformation of 2 Baruch in Syriac Monasticism’, paper presented at the conference The Rest is Commentary: New Work on Ancient Jewish Texts (Yale University, 28.11.2013). D. Longacre, ‘Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34– 66’, Dead Sea Discoveries 20/1 (2013), pp. 17–50. S. G. Nichols, ‘Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture’, Speculum 65/1 (1990), pp. 1–10. ———, ‘New Challenges for New Medievalism’, forthcoming in J. Küpper et al. (eds), Philology, History, Theory: Rethinking the New Medievalism (Baltimore, 2014), pp. 1–45. J. D. H. Norton, Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus (Auckland, 2011). H. M. Orlinsky, ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll’, Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950), pp. 149–166. ———, ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll III’, Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1950–51), pp. 151–154. ———, ‘Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, IV’, The Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1953), pp. 329–340. D. W. Parry and E. Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition (Leiden, 1999). M. Popović, ‘Introducing Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism’, in M. Popović (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Leiden, 2010), pp. 1–17. A. Rubinstein, ‘The Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll’, Journal of Semitic Studies 6 (1955), pp. 187– 200. H. Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch (Freiburg, 1994). S. Talmon, ‘DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah’, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 1 (1962), pp. 62–72. E. J. C. Tigchelaar, ‘Review of E. Ulrich and P.W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 32; Oxford, 2010)’, Review of Biblical Literature 12 (2011), pp. 1– 17 [http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId= 7919&CodePage=7919,7241,3954,1151,8128]. E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden/Boston, 2004).

THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL (1QISAa)

113

———, ‘The Text of Isaiah at Qumran’, in E. Tov (ed.), Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (Tübingen, 2008), pp. 42–56. E. Ulrich, ‘Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls’ (2004), Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004), pp. 1–24. ———, ‘The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light from 1QIsaa on Additions in the MT’, Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001), pp. 288–305. ———, ‘The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus’, in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel 2001 (Basel, 2001), pp. 85–108. E. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, with a contribution by M.G. Abegg, Jr., Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXII [DJD 32] (Oxford, 2010). A. van der Kooij, ‘IQlsaa Col. VIII, 4–11 (Isa 8, 11–18): A Contextual Approach of its Variants’, Revue de Qumran 13 (1988), pp. 569–581. ———, ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah: Some General Comments’, in G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars, Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Paper Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1992), pp. 195– 213.

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD? THE ANCIENT DISCUSSION ABOUT ISAIAH 6:1 MAGNAR KARTVEIT MHS SCHOOL OF MISSION AND THEOLOGY, STAVANGER ABSTRACT This article investigates the discussions around the notion of ‘seeing God’ in Isa 6:1. After an overview of the different attitudes to the possibility of seeing God in the Hebrew Bible, the author looks at relevant texts in the Septuagint and the Targums. In somewhat more detail, the treatment of this topic in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Yebamot 49b) and in the Ascension of Isaiah are discussed. As a result of the investigation two attitudes are visible in the material. According to one way of thinking, it is philosophically impossible to see God; according to another, divine revelation is in fact possible. The texts struggle with the fine balance between these two views.

INTRODUCTION Hallvard Hagelia has devoted much energy to the interpretation of the book of Isaiah, and it is an honour and a pleasure to contribute to the present volume by focussing on one text in particular, Isaiah 6, and especially on the discussion it created for interpreters already in antiquity. The call narrative of the prophet Isaiah straightforwardly states that ‘[i]n the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled 115

116

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

the temple’ (Isa 6:1).1 This statement is interesting in view of another statement in the Hebrew Bible: God tells Moses that ‘no one shall see me and live’ (Ex 33:20). How, then, are we to understand this obvious tension? The relation between the differing informations on seeing God was a concern to the ancient translators of the Bible, to the Rabbis, and to the author of the pseudepigraphic book Ascension of Isaiah. Already inside the Hebrew Bible itself this was an issue. Let us turn to this question first.

I. ‘SEEING GOD’ IN THE HEBREW BIBLE The impossibility to see God and survive is clearly stated in the case of Moses, and this view surfaces in other texts as well. Still, the Bible says that Moses saw God, as it says Isaiah did, and it affirms that other human beings did as well. The most relevant texts are the following. Moses was able to see God on several occasions. Already in connection with the revelation at Sinai, it is said that he, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up and saw (‫ )ראה‬the God of Israel; and they beheld (‫ )חזה‬God, and they ate and drank (Ex 24:10–11). In connection with the episode when Miriam and Aaron became jealous of Moses because of his marriage to the Cushite woman, the Lord states that Moses was a prophet of a higher degree than the others, because ‘With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the Lord (‫יַביט‬ ִּ ‫’)ּות ֻמנַ ת יְהוָ ה‬ ְ (Num 12:8). In the eulogy on Moses after his death, it is stated, ‘Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew (‫ )ידע‬face to face’ (Deut 34:10). According to the traditional view, Ex 24:9–11 and Num 12:7 belong to the Yahwist (Eissfeldt: Laienquelle) and Deut 34:10 constitutes an addition to the book of Deuteronomy. 2 In opposition to these texts stands the story in Exodus 33, where Moses is denied a direct vision of God. In a critical moment after the episode of the golden calf, Moses asks God to show (‫ראה‬, Unless otherwise stated, all Bible translations are taken from the NRSV. 2 See Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse. 1

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

117

hiphil) his glory (‫( )כבוד‬Ex 33:18), but the request is rejected, because ‘you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me (‫ )ראה‬and live’ (Ex 33:20). Moses is told to stand in a cleft in the rock while the Lord passes by, and ‘then I will take away my hand, and you shall see (‫ )ראה‬my back; but my face shall not be seen (‫ראה‬, niphal)’ (Ex 33:23). Ex 33:12–23 is traditionally considered an addition to the Yahwist. In line with the principle that no one shall see God and live, in Exodus 19 the people of Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai is warned not to break through to the Lord to look (‫ ;)ראה‬otherwise, they may perish (Ex 19:21; J). After the proclamation of the Decalogue, the Israelites entreat Moses to intercede for them, for if God only as much as speaks to them, they will die (Ex 20:19; E). Similarly, in the first theophany at Sinai, Exodus 3, it is said that Moses ‘hid his face, for he was afraid to look (‫ )הביט‬at God’ (Ex 3:6; E). The Book of Judges presents us with two stories about seeing God, and their plots are similar: the angel of God appears to humans with a message, an offering is then presented, heavenly fire consumes the offering and the angel disappears. Afterwards, the human agents complain that they are going to die for having seen (‫ )ראה‬the angel of God, but, in the case of Gideon, the Lord says ‘do not fear, you shall not die’ (Judg 6:23), and in the case of Manoah and his wife, she states that they had already been dead if the Lord had wanted to kill them (Judg 13:22). The complaint that a vision of God is lethal corresponds to the principle formulated in Ex 33:20, but interestingly, in one of these cases the tension between such a vision and continued life is resolved by a divine assurance, and in the other case the wife of Manoah delivers a proof from experience which also resolves the tension. Both visions were unexpected, and from one point of view it would have been grossly unfair if the surprise visitations had led to death. In Judges 6 Gideon is called to lead Israel against Midian, and it would have been counterproductive if he had died because he received the calling in a vision. The upshot in Judges 13 is the birth of Samson to a woman who previously could not have children. Again, the story would have ended before it had started if she and her husband had died because of the annunciation of Samson’s birth. Of course, it might seem dangerous to challenge God by referring to experience—he might have changed the

118

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

effects of the vision, and called on a different couple to receive a new leader of Israel. Both stories reflect a tension in the narrative: on the one hand, an important announcement in the history of Israel has to be made, and this calls for genuine divine revelation; on the other hand, it is presupposed that such revelation moves on a thin edge to death. The principle found in the context of the story of the golden calf provides the paradigm: divine intervention and revelation is possible in dramatic situations, but not at the cost of a fundamental theological recognition of the nature of the divine, as the following texts demonstrate. 1 Kings 19 describes how Elijah travels to Horeb/Sinai to reaffirm his calling, and in a story similar to Moses’ encounter in Ex 33:12–23, he experiences that the Lord will pass by; and first a great wind, then an earthquake, and finally a fire occur, but the Lord is not in any of them. Then a ‘still, small voice’ (KJV) / a ‘sound of sheer silence’ (NRSV) arrives, and when Elijah hears it, he wraps his face in his mantle and waits at the entrance of the cave, v. 13. It is not stated that God was in the sound of silence, but he speaks after all these natural phenomena have come and gone and when only the voice/sound (‫ )קול‬is left. In the end, Moses could see the back of God, (Ex 33:23), while Elijah could communicate with God on the basis of the voice/sound. The Book of Deuteronomy delivers the theological reason for the impossibility to see God: he has no ‘form’ (‫)תמונה‬, and only a voice was heard at Sinai (Deut 4:12, 15). In the context of Deuteronomy 4, this is the reason for not making any reproduction (‫ )תבנית‬of animals, birds, creeping animals and fish, nor to worship the sun, the moon, and the stars and all the host of heaven (Deut 4:17–19), but it is also a warning against making ‘an idol … in the form of any figure (‫—)פסל תמונת כל סמל‬the likeness (‫ )תבנית‬of male or female’ (v. 16). This injunction against idols or images is based on a principle that looks like a development of the rule in Ex 33:20. Whereas the rule given to Moses in Exodus 33 focuses on the dangerous side of seeing God, the ruling given by Moses in Deuteronomy 4 follows a philosophical line of thinking. Both the principle of fearing God for the dangers involved, and the principle of the uncorporeal nature of God, belong in the repertoire of theologoumena relevant for the assessment of encounters with the divine.

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

119

Accordingly, in the Pentateuch, two attitudes to seeing God are visible, one where humans can see God, and one where this is dangerous, or theoretically impossible. Traditional Literargeschichte would, for other reasons also, assign these differing attitudes to different strata or complexes of tradition (as indicated above), and it is evident that some development in the thinking has taken place. This is acknowledged also by scholars who cherish theories on the emergence of the Pentateuch different from the source theory. A possible inference would be to see the texts that describe people who see God as older than the philosophical statements emphasizing the incorporeity of the divine, with the E-texts on fearing God somewhere in between. These latter texts, but also others, react to visions of the divine by stressing the divinity’s dangerous side: fearing God is also about being afraid of him to the point where one avoids a direct vision. The principle of the impossibility for seeing God is reflected in Judges and 1 Kings. Into the context of this material, we have to locate the narratives about prophets. Some of the prophets are presented as persons who saw (‫ )ראה‬God. This pertains to Micaiah ben Yimla (1 Kings 22:19), to Amos (Am 9:1), and to Isaiah (Isa 6:1). Jeremiah receives only the word of God, physically delivered by the hand of God touching his mouth, and what he sees is not God, but a branch of an almond tree and a boiling pot (Jer 1:11, 13). The tendency to portray the reception of God’s word without really seeing him is conspicuously evident in the calling narrative of Ezekiel. Already in the opening sentence, after the dating and information concerning the location of the incident, it is stated that ‘the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God ( ‫וָ ֶא ְר ֶאה ַמ ְראֹות‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִּ ‫’)א‬ ֱ (Ezek 1:1). After a new opening in v. 2, v. 3 states that the word of the Lord (‫ )דבר יהוה‬did come (‫)הי ֺה ָהיָ ה‬ ָ to Ezekiel, and that the hand of the Lord was on him there. After the description of the four living creatures, the wheels and the dome above them (verses 4–25) follows a ‘description’ of God that carefully avoids anything reminiscent of a direct vision of him (verses 26–28). It crystallizes in the carefully chosen phrases of v. 26: ‘this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord ( ‫הּוא ַמ ְר ֵאה ְדמּות‬ ‫’)כבֹוד־יְהוָ ה‬. ְ Ezekiel did not see God, nor directly God’s ‘glory’, but he saw a vision, a vision of what resembled the ‘glory’ of God. It is as if reverence for God, the notion of the dangerous God, and the philosophical reasoning on the impossibility to see him, together

120

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

form the background for a narrative where God’s word is indeed transmitted (‫)הי ֺה ָהיָה‬, ָ but seeing him is indeed avoided. Thus the same double attitude to seeing God as exists in the Pentateuch and the earlier prophets is found in the later prophets as well. In some cases it is simply stated that they saw God; in the case of Ezekiel, however, this option is emphatically ruled out.

II. ‘SEEING GOD’ IN THE SEPTUAGINT Turning now to the Septuagint, we can observe the same tendencies that we noted for the Hebrew text: on the one hand a literal rendering of cases where human beings can see God, and on the other hand in some cases a modification of the text in line with the rule formulated in Ex 33:20. The general impression is that the Pentateuch was translated in adherence to the MT’s wording. In a number of cases the Greek text, in exact reflection of the Hebrew, says that God appeared or would appear to human beings; see Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 22:14; 26:2, 24; 35:1, 9; 48:3; Ex 3:16; 4:1, 5; 6:3; Lev 9:4; 16:2; Num 14:14. A different tendency is, however, also evident. This is especially the case in the book of Exodus. Already the translation of Ex 33:20 shows a small addition: ‘for a person shall never see my face (MT: me) and live’. This translation follows up the first part of the verse: ‘you shall not be able to see my face’, but, strictly speaking, it is an addition to the Hebrew. In v. 23, the translator offers ‘my face will not appear to you’ for MT’s ‘my face shall not be seen’, which is to remove even the possibility of seeing God’s face. Following this principle, the Septuagint makes adjustments in a number of instances:3 Ex 3:6: MT: Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. LXX: Moyses turned his face away, for he was afraid to look down before God. 3

See Perkins, ‘Seeing God’, pp. 47–49.

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

121

The Septuagint here makes several adjustments to avoid the impression that there was a chance to see God: Moses turns his face away, he does not even look down on the ground before God, and certainly not at him.4 Ex 24:10–11: MT: they saw the God of Israel … also they beheld God. LXX: they saw the place, there where the God of Israel stood … and they appeared in the place of God.

The introduction of ‘the place’ may be natural in light of the sentences standing in between these quotations: ‘Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness’ (MT), which is rendered by the Greek translator as ‘that which was beneath his feet, like something made from lapis lazuli brick and like the appearance of the firmament of heaven in purity’. Even if the translator was led by context, his rendering is a way to avoid the notion that humans saw God. Also, the shift from ‘they beheld’ to ‘they appeared’ is significant. Larry J. Perkins mentions three cases where MT speaks about ‘meeting’ (‫ )יעד‬God and where the translator might be suspected to have read ‫ידע‬, ‘know’, instead: Ex 25:22; 29:42; 30:36. In addition, in Ex 29:43, where MT speaks of God meeting the Israelites in the tent of meeting, the verb ‘meet’ is rendered by τάξομαι, ‘I will prescribe’, namely laws for the Israelites in the tent of meeting. 5 A natural assumption would be that the translator had a different Vorlage in these cases, but it is equally probable that he purposely made a shift in the meaning of the sentences to avert any misunderstanding of the ‘meeting’ between God and humans. ‘The translator … sought to follow the principle (33.20) that “no one shall see me [God] and live,” at the same time dealing with segments in the narrative of Exodus that affirmed that some in Israel did see God and continued to live.’6

See Wevers, Notes, p. 28. See Perkins. ‘Seeing God’, p. 49. 6 Perkins, ‘Seeing God’, p. 48. 4 5

122

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

Robert Hayward and Jan Joosten have called attention to some texts in the Pentateuch where the translator may have introduced the idea of seeing God into texts where the Hebrew did not convey this meaning. 7 This can be observed in Gen 16:13; 22:14; 31:13; Ex 25:8; Deut 33:16. See the following two examples: Gen 31:13: MT: I am the God of Bethel. LXX: I am the God who appeared to you in the place of God. Ex 25:8: MT: They will make me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them. LXX: You shall make a holy precinct for me, and I shall appear among you.

Joosten has also suggested two further cases with the same shift in meaning in the Septuagint, namely Ex 33:13 and Num 6:25. He suggests that the Greek text in such cases was intent to ‘democratize’ the possibility of seeing God, in an Egyptian milieu where the notion of seeing God was common, but in fact restricted to kings and high priests. In the Israelite sanctuary, on the contrary, all worshippers would see God. 8 The overall purpose of the translator of such texts may have been to align the experience of the Israelite worshippers to that of the patriarchs and Moses (Hayward), or to counter elitist religion in Egypt (Joosten). The two texts adduced by Joosten are, however, most easily understood in a different way. In the Aaronite blessing, the Hebrew wording ‘The Lord make his face to shine upon you’ is rendered καὶ ἐπιφάναι Κύριος τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σὲ, translated by Joosten as ‘May the Lord make his face manifest over you’. He thus sees the phrasing as expressing a theophany, as in 3 Macc 6:18. This remains, however, only a possibility, and the most See Hayward, ‘Understanding of the Temple Service’; Joosten, ‘To See God’. 8 Joosten, ‘To See God’, pp. 293–294. 7

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

123

probable understanding is that the translator wanted to stay close to MT. Joosten’s translation of LXX may support his conclusion, but may be slightly biased. Ex 33:13 contains an awkward text: ‫אתי ֵֵ֜חן‬ ִּ ‫וְ ַע ָָּ֡תה ִּאם־נָ ֩א ָמ ָָ֨צ‬ ֵ֖‫א־חן ְב ֵע ֶינֶ֑יָך ְּור ֵֵ֕אה ִּ ַ֥כי ַע ְמָך‬ ֵ֖ ֵ ‫ת־ד ָר ֶֶ֔כָך וְ ֵא ָ ָ֣ד ֲע ֶָ֔ך ְל ַ ַ֥מ ַען ֶא ְמ ָצ‬ ְ ‫הֹוד ֵ ֵ֤ענִּ י נָ ֙א ֶא‬ ִּ ‫ְב ֵע ֶ֗ ֶיניָך‬ ‫הגַ֥ ֹוי ַה ֶזֶּֽה׃‬,ַ ‘Now, if I have found favor in your sight, make known to me your ways, so that I may know you, in order that I might find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people’ (my translation). The double expression of the wish to find God’s favour is strange, but it is obviously also found in the Septuagint: εἰ οὖν εὕρηκα χάριν ἐναντίον σου, ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν· γνωστῶς ἴδω σε, ὅπως ἂν ὦ εὑρηκὼς χάριν ἐναντίον σου, καὶ ἵνα γνῶ ὅτι λαός σου τὸ ἔθνος τὸ μέγα τοῦτο, ‘If then I have found favor before you, disclose yourself to me. Let me see you recognizably in order that I might find favor before you and in order that I might know that this nation is your people’ (my translation). 9 The discussion on the Septuagint’s translation has focused on the lack of an equivalent for ‘ways’, and this may go back to a different Vorlage. The Greek translation ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν is also found in v. 18, and here it corresponds to ‫ת־כב ֶֹדָך‬ ְ ‫ה ְר ֵאנִּ י נָ א ֶא‬,ַ ‘show me your glory’, which is quite different from the Hebrew of v. 13. A different original Hebrew text has been proposed for v. 13, perhaps one that corresponds to the Vorlage of the Vulgate in v. 18, ‘show me your face’. Joosten mentions Ps 103:7, ‘He made known his ways to Moses’, which he thinks reflects and supports Ex 33:13 MT. The opposite influence is, however, not excluded, and the Hebrew of Ex 33:13 may have been ‫הֹוד ֵענִּ י נָ א וְ ֵא ָ ָ֣ד ֲעָך‬, ִּ translated as ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν· γνωστῶς ἴδω σε, and later the ‘ways’ were introduced into the Hebrew of Ex 33:13 on the basis of Ps 103:7. If so, such a Vorlage of the Septuagint and the Septuagint itself both express the wish to see God clearly, which is then denied in v. 20. In any case, Ex 33:13, 18 both are expressions of Moses’ wish to know or see God, and this is then emphatically denied in v. 20: καὶ εἶπεν Οὐ δυνήσῃ ἰδεῖν μου τὸ πρόσωπον, οὐ γὰρ μὴ ἴδῃ ἄνθρωπος I have problems in following the translation provided by Joosten: ‘Reveal yourself to me so that I may evidently know you’ (‘To See God’, p. 293); ἴδω is generally taken to be aorist of ὁράω, ‘see’. 9

124

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

τὸ πρόσωπόν μου καὶ ζήσεται, ‘And he said, “you shall not be able to see my face. For a person shall never see my face and live”.’10 In the MT Moses’ questions in verses 13 and 18 and the divine answer in v. 20 correspond to each other (MT: v. 13: ‘make to know’, ‘know’, v. 18: ‘make to see/show’, v. 20: ‘see’); in the Septuagint they also correspond to each other (v. 13: ‘disclose’, ‘see’, v. 18: ‘disclose’, v. 20: ‘see’). The translation may therefore be an example of a case in which the immediate context led to the choice of words. Further, and this is the important point here: Even if Moses in the Septuagint introduced the notion of seeing God into his questions, the divine answer is negative, and this divine word would then be the theological answer addressed to an Egyptian audience: human beings cannot see God. As far as the prophets are concerned, we gain the impression that the translators saw no need to tone down the nature of the prophetic visions. According to the Septuagint, Isaiah states ‘I saw the Lord,’ εἶδον τὸν κύριον (Isa 6:1), and the same is stated in the case of Amos (Am 9:1) and of Micaiah ben Yimlah (1 Kings 22:19). As noted, the visions of Ezekiel were already in the Hebrew text described in such a way that the reader should understand that they were far removed from direct contact with the divine. This is reflected in the LXX without further modification. Ezek 1:1 is translated as ‘I saw divine appearances (ὁράσεις)’; the summary statement in Ezek 1:28b is rendered with αὕτη ἡ ὅρασις ὁμοιώματος δόξης κυρίου, ‘this was the appearance of a likeness of the glory of the Lord’.11 In Ezek 1:3, the emphatic statement in the Hebrew that the prophet really received the word of the Lord is not repeated in the Greek: καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιεζεκιηλ, ‘and a word of the Lord came to Iezekiel’, which intimates not more than a standard prophetic reception of the word.

III. ‘SEEING GOD’ IN ANCIENT JUDAISM After this general overview of the texts in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, it is time to follow the material into later times. 10 11

New English Translation of the Septuagint. New English Translation of the Septuagint.

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

125

First, there are cases in MT where an original expression for seeing God has been vocalized in a way that changes the notion of seeing God into the notion of presenting oneself to God. One may discuss the dating of this vocalization, but I think it necessary to ascribe it to Judaism, early or late. The second verb in the sentence ‘when you go up to see (qal) the face of YHWH your God three times a year’ (Ex 34:24, and some more instances) is in MT vocalized as ‘to appear/present yourself (niphal)’. The consonants in ‫ ֵל ָראֹות‬and the following object phrase show that it was meant to be a qal infinitive construct, but the vowels found in the MT indicate niphal, even though a ‫ ה‬is missing in the set of consonants. From the original meaning that pilgrims could expect to see the face of God, the sentence has been changed to the effect that the pilgrims heading for the temple should not expect to see God, but were merely expected to arrive there and participate in the annual festivals. God would see them, and not vice versa. In the Targums, there is a general tendency to avoid the notion of a direct vision of God. In Gen 12:7 the Hebrew text states that ‘The Lord appeared to Abram’; Targum Onkelos, however, is more circumspect, saying that ‘The Lord was revealed to Abram’, and Targum Neofiti avoids the whole notion of divine appearance by rendering the respective phrase with ‘The word of the Lord was revealed to Abram’. In the case of the Targumic version of Am 9:1 the prophet is quoted as saying, ‘I saw the glory of the Lord; it ascended by the cherub and rested on the altar’; similarly, in 1 Kings 22:19 Micaiah ben Yimla is quoted as saying, ‘I saw the glory of the Lord residing upon his throne’; and in Isa 6:1 the prophet is quoted as saying, ‘I saw the glory of the Lord resting upon a throne … and the temple was filled by the brilliance of his glory’. These three cases are typical of a tendency to replace the MT’s mentioning of seeing God with a statement about seeing his glory or receiving his word. On this background it is no surprise to find that the later rabbis had a problem with the more direct statement of the Hebrew of Isa 6:1, when read together with Ex 33:20. In the Talmud, these deliberations are reflected in b. Yebamot 49b, which addresses the relation of Isaiah to Moses. Said R. Simeon B. Azzai etc. [A tanna] recited: Simeon b. Azzai said, ‘I found a roll of genealogical records in Jerusalem and

126

MAGNAR KARTVEIT therein was written “So-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from a forbidden union with] [sic] a married woman” and therein was also written “The teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity but thoroughly sifted.” And in it was also written, “Manasseh slew Isaiah”.’ Raba said: He brought him to trial and then slew him. He said to him: Your teacher Moses said, ‘For men shall not see Me and live’ and you said, ‘I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up.’ Your teacher Moses said, ‘For what [great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them], as the Lord our God is whensoever we call upon him,’ and you said, ‘Seek ye the Lord when he may be found.’ Your teacher Moses said, ‘The number of thy days I will fulfil’ but you said, ‘And I will add unto your days fifteen years.’ ‘I know,’ thought Isaiah, ‘that whatever I may tell him he will not accept; and should I reply at all, I would only cause him to be a wilful [homicide].’ He thereupon pronounced [the Divine] Name and was swallowed up by a cedar. The cedar, however, was brought and sawn asunder. When the saw reached his mouth he died. [And this was his penalty] for having said, ‘And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.’12

The rabbis noted three cases of a discrepancy between Moses and Isaiah, and one of them was the question of seeing God. The text in b. Yebamot 49b provides a detailed discussion of the three points where Isaiah and the Torah contradict each other: Ex 33:20 versus Isa 6:1; Deut 4:7 versus Isa 55:6; and Ex 23:26a versus Isa 38:5b (= 2 Kings 20:6a). In each case one explanation is given—in the last even two—to the effect that Isaiah no longer should be in conflict with his Rabbi (in the translation above: ‘teacher’) Moses. The theological interest revealed by the Talmud tells us that the project was to save the integrity of the two parts of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah and the Prophets. There is a ‘canon-saving’ effort behind these discussions. In the case of the relation between Ex 33:20 and Isa 6:1, the solution presented in b. Yebamot 49b is the following:

12

Slotki, Yebamot, p. 324.

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

127

[Do not] the contradictions between the Scriptural texts, however, still remain?—‘I saw the Lord’, [is to be understood] in accordance with what was taught: All the prophets looked into a dim glass, but Moses looked through a clear glass.13

In this way, the authority of the Rabbi, Moses, against the prophet is secured, and the canon of the prophets is subordinated to that of the Torah. Against the wording of the Hebrew text, the rabbis stated that no prophet saw God directly, only through a dim glass.

IV. ‘SEEING GOD’ IN THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH The problem of seeing God resurfaces in another ancient text, the Ascension of Isaiah. The literary history of this text is quite complex, and this is not the place to enter into the larger discussion. However, as I think the oldest part of this Christian text is Jewish, some basic phenomena need to be addressed. First, the complete text of the Ascension of Isaiah has been preserved in four Ethiopic manuscripts dating from the 14 th to the 18th century CE. Two Coptic versions are available in manuscripts with fragments of chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and they are supposed to date to the fourth century. A Greek manuscript containing 2:4–4:4 stems from the fourth or fifth century and is generally supposed to bear witness to the original language of the complete text of Ascension of Isaiah.14 Then there are two Latin versions, one of which comes from the fifth or sixth century, covering 2:14–3:13 and 7:1–19, labelled Lat1. No two manuscripts agree on the text, but there is enough agreement between these manuscripts to convince scholars that they form one group, the Ethiopic-Coptic-Greek-Lat1 group, which one might abbreviate as the Ethiopic group. Secondly, there is second Latin manuscript, called Lat2, which was written some time before 1522; it only contains chapters 6–11, in a shorter version than the manuscripts of the Ethiopic group. A similar version of chapters 6–11 is also available in Slavonic or Palaeobulgaric; the manuscripts testifying to it represent a 13 14

Slotki, Yebamot, p. 324. Published in Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst papyri.

128

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

translation dating from the tenth or eleventh century. Together these manuscripts form the Slavonic-Lat2 group, abbreviated as the Latin2-group.15 Thirdly, the story in the Ascension of Isaiah has been recast completely in a work called ‘The Greek Legend’, which we know from two manuscripts, one from the eleventh century and one from the twelfth century. In this version, the contents of chapters 6–11 precede the story of chapters 1–5. There is no equivalent to 3:13–5:1 and 11:2–22 in ‘The Greek Legend’.16 At present, one may see three different attitudes in the study of the Ascension of Isaiah. One is represented by Anna Maria Schwemer and Jonathan Knight, according to whom the work is a unity, produced by one person or one group in one operation. 17 The second is represented by Enrico Norelli, who holds that there were two authors behind the work, both coming from the same milieu, and representing the same Christian prophetic and apocalyptic interests. According to him, chapters 6–11 were produced first, and after they had been rejected by the ecclesiastical establishment, a second author produced chapters 1–5 in defence of the first work. The third tendency is found in Darrell D. Hannah’s scholarship, where we find different written sources used by one author in the production of the booklet.18 None of these three approaches seems adequate. My own approach is more in line with the older analysis, based upon the manuscript situation and the extent of the Christian material. Only the results of my analysis can be presented here. 19 It is likely that chapters 6–11 existed independently before they were incorporated into the Ascension of Isaiah. The arguments for this are the following: The Latin2-group contains only chapters The study of Ascensio Isaiae has been much facilitated through the edition of the different versions, supplied with an introduction, a synopsis and an extensive commentary, by Norelli (see bibliography). 16 See von Gebhart, ‘Die Ascensio Isaiae als Heiligenlegende’. 17 See Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum; Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah. 18 See Hannah, ‘Isaiah’s Vision’. 19 For a more extended discussion see Kartveit, Origin, pp. 317–329. 15

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

129

6–11 and ‘The Greek Legend’ presents chapters 6–11 before chapters 1–5. Further, the Latin2-group has an introduction and an ending, and it largely presents a shorter version of the text. The introduction (6:1) is: ‘The vision that the (holy) prophet Isaiah, the son of Amos, saw’, and the ending (11:40) is: ‘But he ceased to speak and went away from king Hezekiah’ (Latin) or ‘And he ceased to speak and went away from king Hezekiah. But unto him, our God, be glory, now and always and forever and ever. Amen’ (Slavonic). This version of chapters 6–11 was a Christian product. One cannot assume that the version we have before us in the Latin2-group is identical with the original, independently existing text in chapters 6–11, but the correspondence with the Ethiopic group in chapters 6–11 is high enough to convince us that the changes due to transmission and revision cannot be very substantial. As far as chapters 1–5 are concerned, the secondary character of 3:13–4:22 is indicated by the double occurrence of the formula ‘Beliar was angry with Isaiah because of this vision /these visions’ in 3:12 and 5:1a. It is likely that 3:13–4:22 is an insertion, circumscribed by this introductory and concluding formula. We may therefore reduce the oldest part of the Ascension of Isaiah to 1:1–3:12; 5:2–16. The date of the Ascension of Isaiah has proven difficult to agree upon, but the late first century CE seems probable for the first five chapters, except for the later addition in 3:13–5:1a. Justin Martyr and Tertullian knew the tradition that Isaiah was sawn in half, and Heb 11:37 may testify to the same tradition. The second part of the book (chapters 6–11*) is later, but the second century is not an unlikely date.20 In the oldest part of Ascension of Isaiah, we read about a prophet who comes from Samaria (3:1; see also 2:12; 3:3). He operates in Jerusalem (3:1), as he has escaped the deportation in the northern kingdom under Shalmaneser, and fled to Jerusalem. There he spreads his false prophecies, ‘and there were many from Jerusalem who joined with him’ (3:1). This prophet, by the name of

20

See Knibb, ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, pp. 149–150.

130

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

Belkira or Melchira, brings accusations against Isaiah and other prophets in front of King Manasseh in the following way (3:6–10): And Melcheira accused Isaiah and the prophets, saying, ‘Isaiah and the prophets who are with Isaiah prophesy against Jerusalem and [th]e cities in Judah [and] Be[nj]amin, that th[ey] w[il]l go into cap[ti]vi[ty, and] in iron chains, [and you, O King], that you will go away [in iron chains]. But they prophesy falsely and they hate Israel and Judah and Benjamin and their word is evil against Judah and Israel. And Isaiah has himself said to them, ‘I see more than Moses the prophet.’ For Moses said, ‘Man cannot see God and live.’ But Isaiah has said, ‘I have seen [God], a[nd] behold, I live’. [Re]alize therefore, O ki[n]g, that he is a lia[r]. He has called J[e]rusalem Sodo[m]a a[nd] de[clar]ed [the] leader[s of Judah] and Israel [to be the people of Go]morrah’. [Th]us he brought many accusations [against Isaiah] and the prophets before Manasse.21

Isaiah is asked to withdraw his alleged teaching, but refuses and Manasseh has him killed (5:1b–11). Ascension of Isaiah 3:6–10 is paralleled by some texts in the Talmud, all of them dealing with tensions perceived within the Hebrew Bible. The closest parallel is b. Yebamot 49b, quoted above. It is important to note in the present context that such variance inside Scripture is recorded and discussed in the Talmud. On the basis of this fact alone we are able to state that the story in the Ascension of Isaiah is possible inside a Jewish milieu. The recording in the Talmud of discrepancies between the Torah and Isaiah or Ezekiel makes it likely that the nucleus of the story in Ascension of Isaiah 3:6–10; 5:1b–11 is of Jewish origin. This assumption is confirmed by the anachronistic dating of Isaiah to the reign of Manasseh found both in the Ascension of Isaiah and in b. Yebamot 49b; this must be due to the common origin of the story. There are other elements common to the Ascension of Isaiah and b. Yebamot 49b. First of all, they are both building on biblical Translated on the basis of the Greek text in Grenfell and Hunt, Amherst Papyri. The Ethiopic version is slightly different; see Knibb, ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, pp. 159–160. 21

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

131

material. Two of the main characters, Isaiah and Manasseh, are known from the Hebrew Bible, and the words spoken by the persons are quotations from the Hebrew Bible. Some of the quotations are identical in the two texts. The problem of inconsistencies between Torah and Prophets is also common to both the Ascension of Isaiah and b. Yebamot 49b. The conflict between king and prophet—a well-known issue in the Hebrew Bible (see for example Isaiah 7 and Jeremiah 37; 38)—is also common to both. Jeremiah and perhaps Isaiah 53 may have given rise to the notion of prophets as martyrs. Thus, the Ascension of Isaiah and b. Yebamot 49b share a stock of motifs stemming from the Hebrew Bible. From common roots the two texts developed in different directions. The Talmudic text, b. Yebamot 49b, focuses on the theological differences between Moses and Isaiah, by offering three cases of inconsistencies between the Mosaic Law and Isaianic texts. In the Ascension of Isaiah there is one main case in point, but then there are also other accusations, that focus upon other aspects of the prophetic preaching. Another important difference consists in the fact that b. Yebamot 49b tells of a trial: Manasseh brings Isaiah to trial before he decides to kill him. In spite of this element of judicial legality, Manasseh is not completely vindicated since he has Isaiah killed without urging him to explain himself. Only after the prophet’s death are explanations given for the discrepancies; thus Manasseh remains in a somewhat ambiguous light. Another point in b. Yebamot 49b is that Isaiah is pious in that he does not defend himself. He abstains from self-defence so that Manasseh does not commit a wilful act of homicide. Isaiah also pronounces the divine name and is swallowed up by a tree. This is his last resort, and God saves him; but the evil king finds him and kills him. Isaiah dies when the saw reaches his mouth. There is some justification in his dying, because he was a person with unclean lips. Or else he dies for having accused his own people of having a bad character. In b. Yebamot 49b Isaiah comes out fairly well, and Manasseh fairly badly. It is also conspicuous what is not found in b. Yebamot 49b but extant in the Ascension of Isaiah.

132

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

First of all, it is the figure of the accusing prophet. In b. Yebamot 49b the king himself is both accuser and judge. In the Ascension of Isaiah, however, the prophet Malcheira is the accuser and king Manasseh is only the judge.22 By introducing another prophet, the Ascension of Isaiah makes use of the old motif of a conflict between prophets, so well known from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Zechariah and others. The use of this motif is clear because the Ascension of Isaiah uses the term ‘prophet’ to designate Moses, whereas b. Yebamot 49b entitles him ‘Rabbi’ (or ‘teacher’ in the translation cited above). The Ascension of Isaiah confronts Isaiah with the real prophet, Moses; the Talmudic text sets him against his teacher, the Rabbi, Moses. In the Talmud the conflict is set within the hierarchical relation between Teacher/Rabbi and prophet, whereas the Ascension of Isaiah depicts a situation of inner-prophetic strife. The villain of the story in the Ascension of Isaiah is the Samarian prophet Belkira/Melcheira. There were three problems with Isaiah in b. Yebamot 49b, and Melcheira levels three allegations against Isaiah in the Ascension of Isaiah. First, Melcheira gives a rough summary of Old Testament prophetic sermons concerning Jerusalem, the cities of Judah and Benjamin, ‘that th[ey] w[il]l go into cap[ti]vi[ty, and] in iron chains, [and you, O King], that you will go away [in iron chains’ (Ascension of Isaiah 3:6). He also recalls that Isaiah ‘has called J[e]rusalem Sodo[m]a a[nd] de[clar]ed [the] leader[s of Judah] and Israel [to be the people of Go]morrah’ (Ascension of Isaiah 3:10). This description of Isaiah’s message is focused on the judgment, without mentioning the reason behind it, namely the verdict on the sins of the people. If Melcheira refers to specific prophecies, we might think of Isa 1:10; 5:13; 6:12; Amos 7:11, 17 and perhaps also 2 Chr 33:11 (as far as the oracle against the king is concerned). This description of Isaiah’s message is meant to substantiate the claim that the prophets are ill-willed against their addressees. The prophets ‘hate Israel and Judah and The conversion of Manasseh that is related in 2 Chronicles 33 and the pious attitude ascribed to him in the Prayer of Manasseh are very different from the portrayal of this king in the Ascension of Isaiah and in b. Yebamot 49b. 22

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

133

Benjamin and their word is evil against Judah and Israel’ (Ascension of Isaiah 3:7). Even if all prophets are accused in Melchira’s evaluation rendered in Ascension of Isaiah 3:7, the particular prophet he is aiming at is Isaiah: ‘[Re]alize therefore, O ki[n]g, that he (Isaiah) is a lia[r]’ (Ascension of Isaiah 3:10). Designating Isaiah as a liar constitutes the second accusation. Manasseh was not taken into captivity according to the Book of Kings, though he was taken prisoner according to 2 Chronicles 33. If one follows the description of Manasseh’s life provided by the Book of Kings, there was a lack of correspondence between prophecy as described in Ascension of Isaiah 3:6 and later history, but this is not expounded in the allegation. On the basis of the Book of Kings, then, Isaiah is a liar, and according to Deut 18:21–22 a prophet proves to be a false prophet if his sayings do not come true. Ascension of Isaiah 3:7, 10 posits that Isaiah is a false prophet, and there could be biblical texts that would substantiate the claim. This is the tenor of the accusation: These are false prophets who hate their audience and speak evil words. The appeal to the king comes right after what might be called the third and central accusation against Isaiah. Melcheira asserts that Isaiah has said, ‘I see more than Moses the prophet’, and, ‘I have seen [God], a[n]d, behold, I live!’ (Ascension of Isaiah 3:8–9). What makes these statements into a forceful accusation is the Mosaic rule in Ex 33:20 understood as being opposed to Isa 6:1. We note that b. Yebamot 49b and Ascension of Isaiah 3:8–9 both use the MT in the case of Ex 33:20b, and not the expanded version of the LXX. Moses is quoted according to the MT. But when it comes to quoting Isaiah, they are very different. The Talmudic text, b. Yebamot 49b, again cites the MT of Isa 6:1: ‘I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up.’ The Ascension of Isaiah, on the other hand, has a free rendering, ‘I have seen [God], a[nd] behold, I live’, and this is preceded by the assertion, ‘I see more than Moses the prophet’—a sentence that has no clear precedent in the Hebrew Bible. The former sentence reads as a direct polemic against Ex 33:20b, and the second seems to ascribe Isaiah a higher status than Moses. The false prophet makes his ‘citations’ from Isaiah into a more direct contradiction of Moses than what is the case in b. Yebamot 49b. Moses is quoted correctly by Melcheira, but Isaiah is not.

134

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

Here, we must say that Melcheira betrays a certain Tendenz. His aim is not to produce exact quotations for the sake of theological discussion of the differences between Moses and Isaiah, but to create an Isaiah who directly contradicts Moses. The problem of ‘seeing God’ and the discrepancy between Moses and Isaiah at this point may lie behind the Septuagint’s rendering of Ex 33:20b with the addition of ‘my face’: ‘No one can see my face and live.’ According to the Septuagint, Isaiah was perhaps not violating the Torah. The theological interest revealed by the Talmud to save the integrity of the two parts of the Hebrew Bible, the Law of Moses and the Prophets, is not shared by the Ascension of Isaiah. For the author of this work, it is more important to portray the false prophet, Melcheira, in as negative a light as possible, and the heightened conflict between Moses and Isaiah was only a weapon in Melcheira’s mouth for reaching this goal. It seems that the Ascension of Isaiah here uses the literary technique of caricature. A caricature of a position will exaggerate it, perhaps to the point where it is diametrically opposed to the position favoured by the author of the polemical text. The text uses caricature for polemical purposes. The polemics in this text is also visible in the way names are distorted and made into words of abuse. Points of view are distorted as well, exaggerated and made into nasty pictures. The distorted quotations in the mouth of Isaiah illustrate this: Moses is quoted correctly, Isaiah is not. The oldest part of Ascension of Isaiah portrays an Isaiah who is a caricature of the biblical Isaiah, and this caricature is purportedly the creation of the Northern prophet Melcheira. Melcheira probably represents Samaritan attitudes to the biblical prophets, because the result reached by this literary method is extended to a wider circle: the Ascension of Isaiah is not only interested in the conflict between one prophet against one false prophet, but in the prophets and the company of false prophets. That is why Melcheira directs his accusations both against Isaiah and the prophets in general (Ascension of Isaiah 3:6). The oldest part of the book reflects the discussion on the prophets in Samaritan circles of the time, but in the Jewish rendering of these discussions (as contained in Ascension of Isaiah 3:6–10), the Samaritan picture is distorted into a caricature. Assuming that the oldest part of the Ascension of Isaiah builds on Jewish material, we can see that the theological problem created

DID ISAIAH REALLY SEE GOD?

135

by Isaiah’s vision was alive in Judaism around the turn of the eras. It is reflected both in the Talmud and in the Ascension of Isaiah, where we are given a glimpse into the discussions at that time. The oldest part of the Ascension of Isaiah underwent a reworking to make it Christian, and by the addition of chapters 6–11 it became a defense for Christian prophecy in the early church. Isaiah was unjustly accused by Malcheira and killed by the wicked King Manasseh, so he could easily become the role model of an early martyr who testified to the coming of Christ.

V. CONCLUSION The question of seeing God was discussed in antiquity from the time of the formation of the Hebrew Bible on. It did not come to rest with the translations that modified or corrected the notion that human beings actually saw God. The reason for this was, of course, that the original text still existed, and continued to pose a problem to those who could read both original text and translation. It did not disappear with new texts dealing with the issue, such as b. Yebamot 49b and the Ascension of Isaiah, as theologians would continue to ponder on the problems involved. The basic theologoumena had to be preserved, that divine revelation is possible, and that beholding the divine is dangerous or even impossible, or both. In the balance between these ideas new theological concepts and formulations had to be forged—as is still the case today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY O. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse (Leipzig, 1922). O. von Gebhart, ‘Die Ascensio Isaiae als Heiligenlegende’, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 21 (1878), pp. 330–353. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Amherst papyri: Part I, The Ascension of Isaiah, and Other Theological Fragments (London, 1900; reprinted Milano, 1975). D. D. Hannah, ‘Isaiah’s Vision in the Ascension of Isaiah and the Early Church’, Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1999), pp. 80– 101. C. T. R. Hayward, ‘Understanding of the Temple Service in the Septuagint Pentateuch’, in J. Day (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (London / New York, 2005), pp. 385–400.

136

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

J. Joosten, ‘To See God: Conflicting Exegetical Tendencies in the Septuagint’, in M. Karrer and W. Kraus (eds), Die Septuaginta— Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (Tübingen, 2008), pp. 287—299; reprinted in J. Joosten, Collected Studies on the Septuagint (Tübingen, 2012), pp. 157–170. M. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (Leiden, 2009). M. Knibb, ‘Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; New York et al., 1983), vol. 2, pp. 149–150. J. Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Context and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah (Sheffield, 1995). E. Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae: Textus (Turnhout, 1995). ———, Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius (Turnhout, 1995). L. J. Perkins, ‘Exodus: To the Reader: 4. “Seeing God”’, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New York and Oxford, 2007), pp. 47–49. A. M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum (Tübingen, 1995). I. W. Slotki, Yebamot, Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (vol. 1 of The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim in Four Volumes; London, 1936; reprinted 1984), p. 324. J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Atlanta GA, 1990).

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH JENS BRUUN KOFOED FJELLHAUG INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ABSTRACT The purpose of the present article is to demonstrate that we find the same interrelatedness of creation, garden, temple and the sacred or cosmic mountain in the Old Testament as we find it in comparative texts from the ancient Near East. It is argued that a number of texts in the Book of Isaiah are best understood against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern paradise myths and the concept of a cosmic mountain as the world center, and that it is by keeping one eye on the comparative material and the other on the Isaianic texts that we understand the depth of both the positive imagery and the negative polemics contained in them.

INTRODUCTION Recent research on the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East1 has demonstrated that the sources, with few variations, display a remarkably uniform cosmology from the third to the first

Egypt is not, strictly speaking, a part of the Near East, but for the sake of convenience the present study follows the convention of including it in the expression ‘ancient Near East’. 1

137

138

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

millennium BCE.2 Nicholas Wyatt is representative when he argues that two models seem to be at work in the Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, Egyptian and biblical sources, and that the idea of the center is crucial for both models: We have two models at work for space: a vertical one, which sees the gods as dwelling above, with man on the earth, and the dead beneath the earth. The mythical expression for this is most commonly the sacred mountain, often if not invariably construed as an omphalos, the point of intersection between the three realms. And also a horizontal one, which sees ‘reality’ as the central point of a plateau, which diminishes in significance and value the further removed from the centre, until it becomes the amorphous and featureless desert, bounded by the cosmic ocean (sea, river and abyss are all terms applied to it), beyond which lies the realm of the dead and chaos.3

The intersection point between the horizontal and vertical axes was of utmost importance as a place where there was direct access to the heavenly sphere and the underworld (the vertical axis), and where the presence of the god(s) was the strongest and most important (the horizontal axis). The crossing point was usually associated with the primeval hill, that is, the place where the first piece of land appeared at the time of creation. Temples taken to be built on the primeval hill at the intersection point between the world axes were generally understood to be a microcosm of the created cosmos, and their primary function was to ritually maintain the world order that was established during the first creation. Both the temple’s architecture and interior and the layout of the temple complex contributed to this ‘maintenance’. The temple complex for instance usually had gardens symbolizing the abundant fertility and luxuriant vegetation characterizing the first creation. It also See for example Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament and Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible; Wyatt, Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East and The Mythic Mind; Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. 3 Wyatt, The Mythic Mind, pp. 40–41. 2

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

139

included sacred lakes representing the life-giving freshwater that rose from the ground and watered the first land.4

I. THE PRIMEVAL HILL At first sight Genesis 2 describes the world center in terms of a garden and not a temple, as in the cosmologies of Enuma Eliš or The Baal Cycle, but scholars have long noted that the account in Genesis 2–3 is replete with temple language.5 The same verb used to describe the ‘walking around’ [‫ ] ִּמ ְת ַה ֵלְך‬of God in Gen 3:8 denotes the presence of God in the tabernacle: ‘I will walk [‫ ]וְ ִּה ְת ַה ַל ְכ ִּתי‬among you’ (Lev 26:12),6 ‘the Lord your God travels [‫]מ ְת ַה ֵלְך‬ ִּ along with your camp’ (Deut 23:15 [ET 14]), ‘wherever I have moved about [‫]ה ְת ַה ַל ְכ ִּת‬ ִּ among all the people of Israel’ (2 Sam 7:7). The same verbs used in Gen 2:15 to describe the tasks given to man, namely ‘to till it and keep it [the garden]’ (‫ּול ָׁש ְמ ָרּה‬ ְ ‫)ל ָע ְב ָדּה‬ ְ appear in texts describing the Levites’ service in the sanctuary: ‘They shall perform [‫ ]וְ ָׁש ְמרּו‬duties for him [Aaron] and for the whole congregation in front of the tent of meeting, doing service [‫]ל ֲעבֹד‬ ַ at the tabernacle; they shall be in charge [‫ ]וְ ָׁש ְמרּו‬of all the furnishings of the tent of meeting, and attend [‫]ל ֲעבֹד‬ ַ to the duties for the Israelites as they do service at the tabernacle’ (Num 3:7–8; see also Num 8:25–26; 18:5–6; 1 Chr 23:32; Ezek 44:14). Just as the Levites performed duties and did service at the tabernacle, Adam / man was to ‘perform duties’ in the garden. That there is such a connection between the priestly functions in the sanctuary and Adam’s ‘priestly’ function in the garden of Genesis 2 is no modern discovery, as it is attested in the Aramaic Targums of Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti. The former writes in relation to Gen 2:15 that ‘the Lord God took the man from the mountain of worship, where he had been created, and made him For a representative case study referring to Edfu see Finnestad, Image of the World and Symbol of the Creator. 5 See Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission; Kline, Kingdom Prologue; Parry, ‘Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary’; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden; Walton, ‘Eden, Garden of’; Wenham, Genesis 1–15. 6 Unless otherwise stated all Biblical quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version. 4

140

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

dwell in the garden of Eden, to do service in the law, and to keep its commandments’. And with reference to Gen 2:7 the same Targum notes that ‘the Lord God created man in two formations, and took dust from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him red, black, and white’. The Targums are notoriously problematic to date, and although three manuscripts have been found at Qumran containing Aramaic translations of passages from Leviticus and Job, it is impossible to determine with certainty whether the abovementioned comments on Genesis 2 are early or late. While the translations of the passages from Leviticus and Job found at Qumran are relatively early, other passages— potentially including Genesis 2—may have been written as late as the end of the first millennium CE. Regardless of the precise dating of these passages, however, the Targums demonstrate that early Jewish commentators did notice these linguistic parallels between Genesis 2 and the descriptions of the Levites’ ministry at the tabernacle. An association of the garden in Genesis 2 with the sanctuary can be substantiated by the midrashic observation that Adam was created in the place where the temple was later founded (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 11–12; Genesis Rabbah 14:8). The Book of Jubilees from the second century BCE also describes the garden as a sanctuary (3:12; 4:26; 8:19).

II. THE COSMIC MOUNTAIN The garden in Eden is, furthermore, also associated with the notion of the cosmic mountain. This is especially true of the description of the garden in Gen 2:10–14 with the hint that a river flew out of Eden and divided into ‫אׁשים‬ ִּ ‫‘ ְל ַא ְר ָב ָעה ָר‬four branches’ (v. 10). Firstly, the number four is used in the Old Testament (and in other texts from the ancient Near East) as a symbol of spatial and geographic completeness. Examples can be found in Isa 11:12 where it is proclaimed that the Lord ‘will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth [‫’] ָה ָא ֶרץ ַכנְ פֹות ֵמ ַא ְר ַבע‬, or in Jer 49:36 where the Lord sends ‘the four winds [‫]א ְר ַבע רּוחֹות‬ ַ from the four quarters of heaven’ against Elam. The role of the river that flowed out of Eden was not only to water the garden, therefore, but to bring its lifegiving water to the entire earth. Secondly, while it is quite straightforward to identify the third and fourth branch mentioned,

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

141

namely the Tigris and the Euphrates, with well-known rivers in Mesopotamia, commentators have struggled to locate the Pishon and Gihon branches, since no such rivers are known to have existed in the vicinity of the Tigris and Euphrates. In a review of the research history on the identification of these branches Stordalen mentions that the best identification currently available is that Pishon refers to the Persian Gulf, while the Gihon refers to the Nile and, homonymously, to the Gihon spring in the Kidron Valley outside ancient Jerusalem (1 Kings 1:33, 38, 45).7 This doesn’t make sense geographically speaking, of course, and although it cannot be excluded that the Pishon and Gihon branches refer to no longer existing rivers within the region of the Tigris and Euphrates,8 it is much more likely that we are dealing with a cosmography, that is, a blending of physical topography and cosmic geography. Such an understanding, which goes back to the heydays of pan-Babylonism with Sigmund Mowinckel as one of its proponents, can be corroborated by the iconographic and textual material from the ancient Orient, where the motif of four streams issuing from the subterranean sweet water ocean and running in four directions is well-known. Along with the mentioning of Gihon, which is only known as a physical topos outside ancient Jerusalem, it appears that Genesis 2 uses physical topoi to describe a cosmic geography. This understanding is supported by the postbiblical geographical literature, which, according to Stordalen, is best described as ‘cognitive mapping’:

See Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, pp. 274–286, 357–372. Using satellite photos, Dora Jane Hamblin and James A. Sauer have identified as Pishon an ancient dried-up riverbed running northeast from the Hijaz mountains near Medina through Saudi Arabia to the Persian Gulf near the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates. The river is assumed to have dried up between 3500 and 2000 BCE, and the dried-up riverbed is today called Wadi al-Batin. In support of this identification its proponents mention that the Hijaz mountains are known as ‘Cradle of Gold’ (Mahd edh-Dhahab) with the richest gold mines in the region around Medina. See Hamblin, ‘Garden of Eden Located?’, and Sauer, ‘The River Runs Dry’. 7 8

142

JENS BRUUN KOFOED This entire impression coincides with a view of post-biblical geographical literature as an exercise in cognitive mapping. The Book of Jubilees chapters 8–10 attempts to apply the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) unto a standard world map of its day. Measured with modern standards the relative locations in the presentation are in part severely disproportionate, ruled by ideology. Similar schemes occur in 1 Enoch, Josephus and the pseudepigraphic Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. All this may be compared to a Babylonian world map (BM 92687) dating from some time before 500 BCE, perhaps the early seventh century … The map presents a mixture of topography and cosmology. I label this ‘cosmography’. Reading Gen 2:10–14 as an attempt at cosmography, one must allow for ideological description, topographic inconsistency and most certainly for differences between ancient and modern topographic apprehension.9

The same approach is taken by John Walton, who, in the IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament, writes that [W]e have to be careful about the extent to which we read our scientific knowledge into the text. In the ancient world, they had words that we translate ‘sources,’ ‘springs’ and ‘headwaters,’ but they believed that the true source of all fresh water was the Apsû, the subterranean waters on which they believed the earth floated. The Israelites were not ignorant of these ideas, nor had they been disabused of them (cf. Ps 24:2). Yet we must be clear: the Apsû waters have some basis in reality. They are not entirely a mythical construct, though there is a mythic dimension connected to them. At the same time, it should be realized that the geography used here is not a topographical geography, but a cosmic geography. (Concepts such as the tropic of Capricorn are parts of our cosmic geography. It is real, but not in the same topographical category as the Thames.) Though the four rivers were real bodies of water, their description here concerns their cosmic role. The river of Eden was the place of God’s abode and was

9

Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, pp. 272–273.

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

143

the source of life-giving water that flowed through the rivers, benefiting all the earth.10

Stordalen’s own interpretation of the cosmography in Gen 2:10–14 is that Eden ‘is a country outside the terrestrial disc. The river emerging in Eden first waters the garden, then forms the cosmic ocean round the earth, and subsequently forms four rivers extending blessing from the corners of the earth to its central region. This places the Eden Garden outside the regular world, probably at the far shore of the cosmic ocean. That coincides with mythic literature presenting gardens as cosmic border areas between the human and the divine world.’11 Stordalen furthermore notes that ‘[c]ontrary to conventional view, the above reading does not indicate that four rivers issue from the centre of the world and run towards the four corners. On the contrary, they run from the four cosmic corners towards the terrestrial centre. That terrestrial centre would be the region between Lower Babylonia, the Nile Delta and the Gulf of Suez. This is the area steadily in focus in biblical literature, with Sinai and Zion fairly well in the centre. This centre is, however, not identical with Eden.’12 The ‘mythic literature’ referred to by Stordalen are Sumerian and Akkadian texts mentioning Dilmun as both a physical, geographical location in modern Bahrain or the northeastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula and as a faraway place in Mesopotamian cosmic geography. In Sumerian literature, Dilmun is ‘the place where the sun rises’ and ‘the land of the living’.13 In the Enki and Ninhursag epic, Dilmun is the site where creation took place. In the Sumerian and Akkadian flood accounts it is the place where the flood heroes Ziusudra, Atrahasis, and Utnapishtim are given eternal life. Stordalen’s locating of Eden outside the terrestrial disc also finds support in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle which places the high god El’s dwelling in the far north at the sources of the two rivers and at the spring of the two deeps (CTA 2, iii, 4; see also CTA 3 iv, 14–15, 4, iv, 21– Walton, ‘Eden’, pp. 203–204. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, p. 298. 12 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, pp. 285–286. 13 See Kramer, Dilmun. 10 11

144

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

22). John Day, among others, argues for a conceptual parallel between the biblical Eden and El’s dwelling place in the cosmic borderland between the heavenly and earthly sphere.14 When Stordalen mentions ‘the conventional view’ he refers to the more widespread association of the garden in Genesis 2 with Zion as the primeval hill and center of the world. It is important to emphasize, however, that what Stordalen rejects is not the association of Genesis 2 with the idea of Zion as the cosmic mountain and the temple as axis mundi, but the conventional understanding of the direction of the four rivers and thus the location of Eden. But even if the cosmographical Eden is to be located outside the terrestrial disc, Stordalen stresses in a ‘symbolic overview’ that a number of texts demonstrate that ‘the principal place metaphorically identified as Eden would be Zion and the Temple’.15 Texts like Isa 51:3, Ezek 28:13; 36:35; 47:1–12; Zech14:8–11; Joel 4:18; and Eccl 2:1–11 all picture the temple on Zion as the source from which the paradisical life and vitality of Eden springs and from which it is distributed to the rest of the world. This understanding is made explicit in the Babylonian Talmud where it is stated that ‘[t]he land of Israel is watered by the Holy One Himself and the rest of the world by the means of a messenger. The land of Israel drinks the mass of the rain, and the rest of the world what is left. The land of Israel drinks first, thereafter the rest of the world.’16 Whereas Stordalen points to the Mesopotamian paradise myths as the primary interpretative frame for Genesis 2, others have pointed to the idea of the cosmic mountain and the temple as the navel of the world as the interpretative point of departure. This is especially true of Jon Levenson who builds his own interpretation on Mircea Eliade’s phenomenological work on ‘the symbolism of the center’ 17 and on Richard J. Clifford’s comparative studies on the idea of the

See Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, pp. 29–30. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, p. 406 (my italics). 16 B. Taanit 10a. 17 Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, and The Myth of the Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History; see also Hankiss, Fears and Symbols: An Introduction to the Study of Western Civilization. 14 15

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

145

cosmic mountain.18 In Sinai and Zion, Levenson focuses on ‘the principal attributes’ identified by Eliade as characteristic of the notion of the cosmic mountain as axis mundi, namely its position as the temporal and spatial world axis, its function as a bridge between the sacred and the profane, its non-linear concept of time (Eliade’s illud tempus), its centralizing importance for peoples and countries around it and the sacral function of time and place on the mountain. Levenson concludes, [W]e have seen that Mount Zion registers in the Hebrew Bible and even more so in rabbinic literature, Talmud and midrash, many of the qualities found in cosmic mountains almost everywhere. It is the center (or navel) of the world, the junction of heaven, earth, and the underworld, and the point at which communication between at least the first two passes. On Mount Zion itself is a paradise in which the primal reality of creation survives intact, untarnished by the passing of time and unaffected by the threats of an aggressive chaos.19

One of the foundational biblical texts for this understanding is Isa 14:13 where it is said about ‫ן־ׁש ַחר‬ ָ ‫ה ֵילל ֶב‬,ֵ ‘the Day Star, son of Dawn’: You said in your heart: ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon/in the far north [‫] ְביַ ְר ְכ ֵתי ָצפֹון‬. I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’

It has been suggested20 that the best translation of the expression ‫ ְביַ ְר ְכ ֵתי ָצפֹון‬is ‘the faraway place’ or ‘the inaccessible Zaphon’ with Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain; but see already Wensinck, The Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth (1916). 19 Levenson, Sinai and Zion, p. 135. 20 Morgenstern, ‘Psalm 48’; Robinson, ‘Zion and Saphon in Psalm XLVIII 3’; Barker, The Gate of Heaven, p. 63. 18

146

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

reference to Baal’s cosmic mountain, since the same expression in Ps 48:2–3 [ET 1–2] is used to locate ‫ר־צֹּיֹון‬ ִּ ‫‘ ַה‬mountain of Zion’: Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God. His holy mountain, beautiful in elevation is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion in the far north [‫] ְביַ ְר ְכ ֵ ַ֥תי ָצ ֶּֽפֹון‬, the city of the great king.

That we are dealing with a cosmic topography where physical topoi are mixed with elements from cosmic geography is evident, since nowhere in Israel would it make sense to refer to Zion as being located in the far north. The same applies to the description of the mountain of the Lord in Isa 2:2 as ‘the highest of the mountains’ and ‘raised above the hills’. And again we find the idea expressed in later tradition where the Mishnah radicalizes it by referring to Jerusalem as the highest point on earth (Nashim 69). Instead of understanding these descriptions as actual, geographical references, it is obvious that we are dealing with a polemical use of a wellknown Canaanite tradition about God's mountain Zafon, stressing that the true mountain of God is Zion and not Zaphon, and that it is the Lord, therefore, and not Baal, who is ‫‘ ֶמ ֶלְך ָרב‬the great king’. Support for this interpretative framework for Genesis 2 may also be found in Ezekiel’s vision of the ideal temple, where water flows from the temple and ‘everything will live where the river goes’. Ezek 47:1, 8–12 states: Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple; there, water was flowing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east); and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar … He said to me, ‘This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah; and when it enters the sea, the sea of stagnant waters, the water will become fresh. Wherever the river goes every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish, once these waters reach there. It will become fresh; and everything will live where the river goes. People will stand fishing beside the sea from En-gedi to En-eglaim; it will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of a great many

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

147

kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. On the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.’

Zechariah in a similar manner proclaims that on the Lord’s day ‘living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter’ (Zech 14:8; see also Zech 13:1 and Joel 4:18). Referring to ‫יתך‬ ֶ ‫‘ ֵב‬your house’, that is, the temple, Ps 36:8–10 [ET 7–9] states that ‘[a]ll people may take refuge in the shadow of your wings. They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.’ In the Book of Psalms those who have their delight in the Lord are ‘like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither. In all that they do, they prosper’ (Ps 1:3), whereas in Jeremiah those who trust in the Lord in a similar manner are likened to ‘a tree planted by water, sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes, and its leaves shall stay green; in the year of drought it is not anxious, and it does not cease to bear fruit’ (Jer 17:7–8). While the life-giving water in Psalm 1 ‘flows’ from the ‘law of the Lord’, Jeremiah connects the water with the temple: ‘O glorious throne, exalted from the beginning, shrine of our sanctuary [‫’!]מקֹום ִּמ ְק ָד ֵׁשנּו‬ ְ (Jer 17:12). Margaret Barker points out that since both Ezekiel’s and Zechariah’s visions are associated with the Feast of Tabernacles (Ezek 40:1; Zech 14:19), it is probably in this context we should understand the words of Jesus in John 7:37–38, where it says: ‘On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there [the temple], he cried out: “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living

148

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

water’”.’21 Barker also points to the fact that when John remarks that Jesus ‘said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive’, he makes a connection between water and the Spirit/Wisdom of God which was grounded in canonical texts (Gen 1:2; 2:7; Prov 8:22–31; Joel 2:23–3:1; Wis 7:27; Sir 24) and well-known at the time of Jesus.22 In Revelation we find the same association of the Feast of Tabernacles with temple and living water. In Rev 7:9 John sees ‘a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands’, and though the Feast of Tabernacles is not mentioned directly, it was so intimately associated with palm branches that the connection is obvious. This is clear from Lev 23:40 and from 2 Macc 10:6–9 where it is described how the Jews, after cleansing the temple from Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration, celebrated a feast for eight days ‘in the manner of the festival of booths … carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm’. Regardless of the association with the Feast of Tabernacles, the celebration in Revelation 7 is clearly connected with both the temple and with abundant water since it is said about the ‘great multitude’ that ‘they are before the throne of God, and worship him day and night within his temple, and the one who is seated on the throne will shelter them. They will hunger no more, and thirst no more; the sun will not strike them, nor any scorching heat; for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of the water of life, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes’ (Rev 7:15–17). A spring of water which finds its ultimate and eschatological expression in the description of the newly created heaven and earth and God’s cosmic temple in Revelation 21–22, where John with clear reference to the abovequoted words of Jesus hears the one ‘who was seated on the throne’ linking ‘Urzeit und Endzeit’ together by saying, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life’ 21 22

See Barker, The Gate of Heaven, pp. 87–88. See Barker, The Gate of Heaven, pp. 88–89.

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

149

(Rev 21:6). Such an understanding of these New Testament texts also finds support in Jewish tradition. Eric Voegelin mentions a text from the Talmud that describes how, in the libation ritual of the month Tishri when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated, water was drawn out of the shetin, that is, the channels that diverted the water away from the navel stone on the Temple Mount in order to ritually open the gates of the sweet water ocean and provide rain.23 Relevant to this discussion is also that ‘Eden, the garden of God’ stands in parallel to ‘the holy mountain of God [ ‫ְב ַהר ק ֶֹדׁש‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִּ ‫’]א‬ ֱ in Ezek 28:13–14. Jon D. Levenson elaborates on this parallelism by pointing to the fact that the lament of the Lord ‫ַעל־‬ ‫‘ ֶמ ֶלְך צֹור‬over the king of Tyre’ contains a description of ‘Eden, the garden of God’ which is surprisingly similar to the garden in Genesis 2 that Adam / man was set in to cultivate and guard: ‘The similarity between Zion as the garden of God and Eden in the same role appears very clearly in the description of the Garden of Eden … V 12 speaks of precious stones in the vicinity of Eden, just as do Ezek 28:4–5 and 13–14 in connection with Eden or the mountain of God. More fundamentally, Eden is the place from which the primordial river appears, dividing into four great branches. Since the rivers flow downstream, it must be the case that the Garden of Eden is here conceived as elevated, certainly at least a high plateau.’24 And with reference to the comparative material (not least the Canaanite tradition concerning the temple of Baal and the cosmic mountain Zaphon) Levenson notes that ‘[t]he equation of Temple mount and paradise, then, did not begin with Ezekiel. The two have common roots in the mytho-poetic mind of the ancient Near East. After all, like the Temple, paradise is a place in which God/the gods are forever present in an intensely palpable sense, a place therefore of beatific existence, of perfection.’ 25 In a more thematically oriented analysis, Margaret Barker argues for the same understanding of the relationship between Eden and the Temple of Zion: See Voegelin, Order and History, p. 56. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, p. 129. 25 Levenson, Sinai and Zion, pp. 130–131. 23 24

150

JENS BRUUN KOFOED The hekal was decorated with golden trees and flowers; it was jewelled like Ezekiel’s garden of God, and when the Paradise theme occurs in the Old Testament, it must not be separated from the temple with which it was synonymous. Nor must there be a crude, historical understanding of the Eden myth. The prophets looked forward to a time when the End would be like the Beginning, and everything would be restored to its original state, but this was not so much their view of linear history as an expression of their belief that the material creation was perpetually out of harmony with the divine original, and that it was constantly necessary to re-establish the correspondence … Eden was often linked with Jerusalem as the ideal it would one day attain … There are numerous indications that the temple represented Eden, both in the descriptions of the first temple, and in the way that later writers describe heaven both as Eden and as the temple.26

That this understanding of the temple was not exclusively based on the mytho-poetic mind of the ancient Near East, but also on physical reality is emphasized by an eyewitness report in the Letter of Aristeas, which describes how the altar in the Second Temple was placed on top of an underground source: The Temple faces the east and its back is toward the west. The whole of the floor is paved with stones and slopes down to the appointed places that water may be conveyed to wash away the blood from the sacrifices, for many thousand beasts are sacrificed there on the feast days. And there is an inexhaustible supply of water, because an abundant natural spring gushes up from within the temple area. There are moreover wonderful and indescribable cisterns underground, as they pointed out to me, at a distance of five furlongs all round the site of the temple, and each of them has countless pipes so that the different streams converge together. And all these were fastened with lead at the bottom and at the sidewalls, and over them a great quantity of plaster had been spread, and every part of the work had been most carefully carried out. There are 26

Barker, The Gate of Heaven, p. 68.

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

151

many openings for water at the base of the altar which are invisible to all except to those who are engaged in the ministration, so that all the blood of the sacrifices which is collected in great quantities is washed away in the twinkling of an eye. Such is my opinion with regard to the character of the reservoirs and I will now show you how it was confirmed. They led me more than four furlongs outside the city and bade me peer down towards a certain spot and listen to the noise that was made by the meeting of the waters, so that the great size of the reservoirs became manifest to me, as has already been pointed out.27

Despite the differences in the interpretations of Stordalen, Levenson, Walton and Barker, they all agree that we need to understand the garden story in Genesis 2 as a cosmography that uses actual geographical topoi to construct a cosmic geography in which the entire world is supplied with life-giving water from the rivers of Eden, and that a number of texts from the Old Testament metaphorically identify Mount Zion and the temple with Eden.

III. NEW CREATION In the description of the blessings in store for God’s people in Isa 51:3, God promises to make ‘her [Zion’s] wilderness like Eden and her desert like the garden of the LORD’, and whereas it could be argued that ‘her’ [Zion] in Isa 51:3 refers to Israel, the same promise is made with reference to ‘my holy mountain’ in Isa 11:9 and 65:25. The same texts, furthermore, illustrate very well that Mount Zion and the temple is understood to represent or Letter of Aristeas, lines 88–91, quoted from Charles, The Letter of Aristeas (online version, no pages). Since the only water source near the Temple Mount is the Gihon spring outside the temple mount, the ‘abundant natural spring’ mentioned by Aristeas (and Tacitus, Histories V, 12) must refer to the aqueduct constructed by the Hasmonean kings in the first century BCE to lead water from the Judean hills around Hebron and Bethlehem to Jerusalem. Due to the difference in altitude between the Judean hills and the Temple Mount, the aqueduct made it possible to have running water in the temple complex itself. 27

152

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

symbolize a paradise ‘in which the primal reality of creation survives intact, untarnished by the passing of time and unaffected by the threats of an aggressive chaos’ as Levenson puts it.28 The description in Isa 11:1–9 of a coming peaceful kingdom where ‘[t]he wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them’ (Isa 11:6) is a reversal of the animals’ postflood ‘fear and dread’ of man to the primal reality of creation, that is, the Edenic harmony between man and beast (Gen 1:29–30; 2:19–20). The same is true of Isa 65:17–25, where even ageing seems to be ‘untarnished by the passing of time’ in the ‘Dilmunic’ description of God’s glorious new creation: ‘No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed … like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be’ (Isa 65:20, 22c). To this may be added that the result in Isaiah 27 of the Lord’s punishment of Leviathan ‘on that day’ is worship on Mount Zion ‘unaffected by the threats of an aggressive chaos’:29 ‘[T]hose who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship the LORD on the holy mountain at Jerusalem’ (Isa 27:13). In Isaiah 24–25 the Lord’s impending judgment on earth is described as the ultimate partykiller—‘[t]he wine dries up, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh’ (Isa 24:7)—whereas God’s deliverance of the righteous from oppression entails his reign on Mount Zion (Isa 24:23) and culminates in a great banquet: ‘On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich foods, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear’ (Isa 25:6). Isa 33:20–21 contains a similar description of Mount Zion: ‘Look on Zion, the city of our appointed festivals! Your eyes will see Jerusalem, a quiet habitation, an immovable tent, whose stakes will never be pulled up, and none of whose ropes will be broken. But there the LORD in majesty will be for us a place of broad rivers and streams.’ 28 29

Levenson, Sinai and Zion, p. 185. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, p. 185.

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

153

As far as the concept of the cosmic mountain is concerned, a number of Isaianic texts contribute to the understanding of Zion as the world center. Regarding the horizontal axis, we have already noted that, in Isa 11:12, Zion is the implied center to which the Lord will ‘assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth’. And though Zion is not explicitly mentioned in Isaiah 11, the same centripetal movement and centralizing importance for peoples and countries around it is described in other texts with clear reference to Zion (Isa 16:1; 18:7; 25:6; 27:13; 56:7; 66:20). When the Lord in Isa 28:16 promises to lay ‘in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation’, it is tempting to understand it as an ὀμφαλός ‘navel-stone’, marking the center of the world. As for the vertical axis, a number of texts demonstrate awareness of the concept of the cosmic mount Zaphon in Ugaritic mythology. In the taunt against the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, the king is credited with saying in his hybris: ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High’ (Isa 14:13–14). The allusions to the Ugaritic supreme deity El as ‘the rider of clouds’ and ‘the Most High’ and to his dwelling on mount Zaphon are unmistakable, and the same concept is applied to the future house of God on Zion in Isa 2:2–4: In days to come the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares,

154

JENS BRUUN KOFOED and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

The centripetal movement and the ‘centralizing power’ of ‘the mountain of the Lord’s house’ are evident in the going up of many peoples to the mountain of the Lord, just as this mountain’s function as a ‘bridge between the sacred and profane’ is clearly expressed. Mount Zion is described as the qualitatively ‘highest of the mountains’, and the word of the Lord goes forth ‘out of Zion’. In Isa 66:5–6 the word of God is similarly described as ‘a voice from the temple’. The result of the word going forth ‘out of Zion’ in Isaiah 2 is, furthermore, the re-creation of the ‘primal reality of creation’ not only on Zion but spreading out from Zion to the ‘nations’ and ‘many peoples’ (v. 4). The singling out of Zion as the qualitively highest mountain is also stressed in Isaiah 60, where the Lord declares: ‘All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you … and I will beautify my beautiful house’ (v. 7); ‘[t]he glory of Lebanon shall come to you … to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious’ (v. 13).

IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is clear that a number of Isaianic texts on Zion are best understood against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern paradise myths and the concept of a cosmic mountain as the world center. It is by keeping one eye on the comparative material and the other on the Isaianic texts that we understand the depth of both the positive imagery and the negative polemics. Ultimately, there is only one ‘Zaphon’ and ‘Dilmun’ in the created order: Zion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven. History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London, 1991). G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, 2004). R. H. Charles, The Letter of Aristeas (Oxford, 1913; online, available at http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm). R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (Washington, 1994).

ZION, EDEN AND TEMPLE

155

———. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, 1972). J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (London, 2000). M. Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion (San Diego / New York / London, 1961). ———. The Myth of the Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History (New York, 1974). R. B. Finnestad, Image of the World and Symbol of the Creator: On the Cosmological and Iconological Values of the Temple of Edfu (Wiesbaden, 1985). D. J. Hamblin, ‘Garden of Eden Located?’, Smithsonian 18/2 (1987), pp. 127–135. E. Hankiss, Fears and Symbols: An Introduction to the Study of Western Civilization (Budapest, 2001). M. G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, 2006). N. S. Kramer, ‘Dilmun, The Land of the Living’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 96 (1944), pp. 18–28. J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion. An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York, 1985). J. Morgenstern, ‘Psalm 48,’ Hebrew Union College Aannual 16 (1941), pp. 1–95. D. W. Parry, ‘Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,’ in D. W. Parry (ed.), Temples of the Ancient World. Ritual and Symbolism (Salt Lake City / Provo, 1994), pp. 126–151. A. Robinson, ‘Zion and Saphon in Psalm XLVIII 3’, Vetus Testamentum 24/1 (1974), pp. 118–123. J. A. Sauer, ‘The River Runs Dry—Biblical Story Preserves Historical Memory’, Biblical Archaeology Review 22/4 (1996), pp. 52–54, 57, 64. T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden. Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven, 2000). E. Voegelin, Order and History. Volume One. Israel and Revelation (Baton Rouge, 1956). J. H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, 2006). ———. ‘Eden, Garden of,’ in T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker (eds), IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, 2003), pp. 202–207.

156

JENS BRUUN KOFOED

G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Waco, 1987). A. J. Wensinck, The Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth (Amsterdam, 1916). N. Wyatt, The Mythic Mind. Essays on Cosmology and religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (London, 2005). ———. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East (Sheffield, 2001).

‘DO NOT FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’: THE USE OF ISAIAH 41:10 IN TIMES OF INCURABLE ILLNESS1 MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK STAVANGER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL / MHS SCHOOL OF MISSION AND THEOLOGY, STAVANGER / UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH ABSTRACT This article attempts at contributing to the knowledge of how analytical and existential readings of biblical texts can interact and shed light on one another. In Isaiah 40–55 there is a prophetic voice that―in order to comfort the people of God―speaks to the contemporary in exile by letting present and past contexts interact. This article asks whether or not ancient biblical texts play a role for people living with incurable cancer in a Norwegian setting today. Empirical approaches to the Bible are rare in European contexts, and still in their infancy. Although the interviewees referred to here are exegetically ‘un-trained’, they are existentially trialed and are instantaneously I would like to take the opportunity to thank you, Hallvard, for interesting conversations over the years during our many meetings in the Norwegian Bible Society as members of the translation committee. Through sharing a love for the Book of Isaiah I congratulate you on your 70th birthday by bringing forward insights from so-called ‘ordinary’ readers of Isa 41:10. 1

157

158

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK acquainted with issues dealt with in Isa 41:10. The way Isa 41:10 is structured invites the individual member of God’s people at all times to receive protection and care when one finds oneself in a critical situation. The existential attitude the interviewees show is not something they invent or force on the texts, but rather something the text itself demands alongside the analytical attitude the text demands from the scholar.

INTRODUCTION Rita loves her work and life. She is married, has two small children—and is diagnosed with incurable cancer. This situation immediately altered Rita’s relationship to the Bible: […] all my strength comes from the Bible. […] From day one I turned to the Bible […]. Then [before the illness] the Bible was on a shelf somewhere. I was not acquainted with the word of God in any way.2 (Rita, 23 November 2010, Stavanger University Hospital)

She talks about the Bible in metaphorical terms: ‘It was my weapon straight away.’3 Rita is one out of fourteen people I have interviewed about the significance (if any) of the Bible when life is shortened by an incurable cancer disease.4 The interviews were […] all styrken min kjem frå Bibelen. […] Frå dag éin så tok eg tak i Bibelen. Då [før sjukdomen] var Bibelen på ei hylle ein eller annan stad, eg var ikkje blitt kjend med Guds ord på nokon måte. 3 Den var mitt våpen med ein gong. 4 The research is carried out in accordance with the professional standards of The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH), see http://www.etikkom.no. The ethical principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki are also followed (http://www.wma.net). Before the research started, ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethical Committee (http://helseforskning.etikkom.no). The interviewees were promised anonymity and confidentiality in all aspects of the research and were informed that they could withdraw from the project at any time 2

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

159

conducted between May and December 2010 among four women and ten men aged between 32 and 78. The criteria of inclusion were a Christian view of life and a condition of receiving palliative care at Stavanger University Hospital, Norway. Each interview lasted one hour. My aim was to grasp the interviewees’ reflections about the following questions: Is the Bible significant when living with an incurable cancer diagnosis? What biblical texts (if any) are experienced as significant in such a situation, and why? This qualitative research aims at contributing to the reception history of the Bible. In the history of research, the worlds behind and within the biblical text have been thoroughly investigated, but what about the worlds in front of the world’s most read book? When I planned the project I assumed I would hear about the Book of Job and texts about illness, death and lament.5 However, none of the interviewees emphasized such texts and rather talked about passages of comfort, hope and future. A representative text mentioned by several interviewees is Isa 41:10. What is it about Isa 41:10 that makes it highly significant when one is incurably ill?

I. HEBREW TEXT Isa 41:10 belongs within Isaiah 40–55, the part of the Book of Isaiah generally attributed to the exile in Babylon in the sixth century BCE. Isa 41:10 is found within a passage traditionally delimited as Isa 41:8–13.6 Isaiah 41 is a text of comfort, addressed to the exiles questioning the work of God (see Isa 40:27). Isa 41:8– 13 is constructed as a poetic assurance that God has elected Abraham and his offspring, and functions as an encouragement to without any risks. Each interviewee gave their written consent to participate, and I obtained permission from each participant to publish the analyses of the interview material. All quotes are translated into English with the original in footnotes. 5 This illustrates my own presuppositions, pre-judgements, preunderstandings and prejudices and shows the need to learn from the interviewees. 6 The delimitation is currently debated; see Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 95 for references. Many include verses 14–16 in this text, see for instance Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 198.

160

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

Israel, the servant. Although v. 8 has a collective focus, the promises are articulated with the addressee ‘you’ in singular. Verse 10 is no exception: ‫ַאל־תירא כי עמָך־אני‬ ‫אל־תׁשתע כי־אני אלהיָך‬ ‫אמצתיָך אף־עזרתיָך אף־תמכתיָך בימין צדקי׃‬ Do not fear, for I am with you, do not be afraid,7 for I am your God; I do strengthen you, and I do help you, too, I do hold you with my righteous right hand.8

1. Historical setting and genre of Isa 41:8–13 Exilic life within the Book of Isaiah is described as being ‘robbed and plundered’, ‘trapped in holes and hidden in prisons’ (Isa 42:22). It is a situation of lament and fear: ‘You fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor’ (Isa 51:13). But what genre does Isa 41:10 belong to? In 1914 the German Old Testament form critical scholar Hugo Gressmann found the phrase ‘do not fear’ at several places in Isaiah 40–55 (Isa 41:10, 13, 14; 43:1, 5; 44:2; 54:4). He named it ‘a revelation formula’, suggesting its Sitz im Leben in the ‘priestly oracle of salvation’.9 In the 1930s another German Old Testament form critical scholar, Joachim Begrich, demonstrated that the priestly oracle of salvation is a central genre in Isaiah 40–55, being related to a cultic institution in Israel.10 Underpinning Begrich’s suggestion was the problem which puzzled form critics at the time: The etymology of this verb is disputed. It most likely derives from the root ‫ׁשתע‬, ‘be afraid, anxious, dismayed’ (see Isa 41:23), rather than the root ‫ׁשעה‬, ‘look around’; see Fuhs, ‘‫’ירא‬, p. 294, and Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, p. 86, who render the verb ‘dismayed’, and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40– 55, p. 198, who renders ‫‘ ׁשתע‬perplexed’. 8 The translation of Isa 41:10 is my own. Other translations in this article are taken from the New Revised Standard Version. 9 See Gressmann, ‘Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas’, pp. 254– 297. 10 See Begrich, ‘Das priesterliche Heilsorakel’, pp. 81–92. 7

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

161

How should the characteristic and apparently unmotivated shift in atmosphere from lament to praise in individual psalms of lament be understood (see for instance Psalms 6; 28; 31; 56)? Begrich suggests that after the words of lament and before the words of praise the priest came forward and delivered a liturgical assurance of God’s protection and care. Begrich takes this insight into his study of Isaiah 40–55 and holds that the pre-exilic priestly oracle of salvation is deliberately re-applied in a new and collective situation of lament: the exile in Babylon. The understanding of Isa 41:8–13 as a salvation oracle was adopted by other scholars for several decades,11 but also other solutions were suggested within the form critical scheme. For instance, Edgar Conrad rejects the concept of salvation oracle and argues that the assurance ‘do not fear’ in Isa 41:8–13 belongs to the conventional form of the war oracles: address, assurance, basis of assurance, orders, basis of assurance.12 From the 1970s onward various literary oriented approaches have been widely applied in analyses of Isaiah 40–55. Although many of these contributions do not count as form critical, they build on the insights gained from form criticism at the same time as bringing in more holistic and multidimensional approaches in the search for both unity and diversity in the Book of Isaiah.13

11 12

See especially Schoors, I am God Your Saviour, pp. 46–58. See Conrad, ‘The Community as King in Second Isaiah’, pp. 104–

105. See for instance the few selected works which include a study of Isa 41:10: Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion, pp. 98–120; Holter, Second Isaiah’s Idol-fabrication Passages, pp. 91–126; Korpel and de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 199; Scheuer, The Return of YHWH, pp. 132, 136; Everson and Kim, The Desert Will Bloom; Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion, pp. 132–134, 219–220. Although pointing at many sophisticated similarities between the various chapters in Isaiah 40–55, Korpel and de Moor stress that such findings should be balanced by pointing out the differences for instance between chapter 40 and 55 in the Book of Isaiah (p. 659). 13

162

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

2. Poetic structures: verbs and pronominal suffixes In Isa 41:8–13 one can identify meter, verb tenses, tricolon, parallelism, chiasm, word-repetitions and alliteration, to mention a few literary devices that are used in this passage.14 In Isa 41:10 the central structural feature is parallelism. In this parallelism there is an accumulation of verbs and pronominal suffixes which function to bring the ‘I’ and ‘you’ of the text together. Verse 10a consists of two verse-lines which form a synonymous parallelism. The central point in this parallelism is the verb ‫ירא‬, ‘to fear’, or rather the negation of it, ‫אל־תירא‬, ‘do not fear’. The root ‫ ירא‬with its derivatives is found 435 times in the MT of the Hebrew Bible.15 The verb occurs 333 times. Like in Isa 41:10, most of these instances are in the qal. The formula ‘do not fear’ occurs in contexts of everyday matters, holy war, theophanies and in so-called oracles of salvation.16 In approximately eighty percent of the instances, the object of fear is God.17 The subject of ‫ ירא‬may be an individual (for example Gen 26:7; Neh 6:13), a group (for example Gen 43:18; 2 Sam 3:11) or Israel as a whole (for example Ex 14:10; 2 Kings 25:26; Jer 41:18). In Isa 41:10, the verb appears in parallel with another verb with a similar meaning: ‫ׁשתע‬, ‘to be afraid’, ‘anxious’, ‘perplexed’, ‘dismayed’. The phrase ‘do not fear / do not be afraid’ does not occur in Isaiah 56–66. It does, however, appear many times in Isaiah 40–55 (see Isa 40:9; 41:10, 13, 14; 43:1, 5; 44:2, 8; 51:7; 54:4). Similar prophetic utterances are known from the ancient Near East, and the main point seems to be to drive out fear.18 What or whom should ‘you’ not fear? The object of fear is not stated explicitly in Isa 41:10 and must be deduced from the literary context. The reason why ‘you’ should not fear is stated in a causal subordinate clause introduced by ‫כי‬: ‘I am with you’ and ‘I am your For an investigation of these devices, see Boadt, ‘Isaiah 41:8-13’, pp. 20–34, and Korpel and de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry, pp. 69–118. 15 See Fuhs, ‘‫’ירא‬, p. 292. 16 For biblical references, see Fuhs, ‘‫’ירא‬, pp. 304–306. 17 See Fuhs, ‘‫’ירא‬, pp. 293–295. 18 See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 200. 14

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

163

God’. These two clauses have long extra-biblical and biblical traditions.19 They summarize what God has done throughout Israel’s history and function to exalt God’s being God for Israel. The formula in v. 10a is placed in God’s mouth. It is therefore less likely that the ‘you’ in this case is commanded not to fear God. Although the formula’s Sitz im Leben is not agreed upon, when read together with verses 11–12, the formula in v. 10a functions to link the state of terror with the state of salvation, to link what form critics have come to call the salvation oracle with the oracle of war. Underlying this is a situation of lament for the people. The command ‘do not fear’ is not merely an exhortation not to be afraid, but rather a banishing of the fear.20 In v. 10b the three verbs refer to protection and perhaps also transformation: ‘to strengthen’, ‘to help’, ‘to hold’. First, the verb ‫אמץ‬, ‘to be strong’, occurs in Isa 41:10 in piel which gives the meaning ‘to strengthen’, or ‘to make firm’. According to Schreiner, ‘[t]his root is used primarily in connection with war and speaking. Successful defense and deliverance depend upon whether man has strength and can preserve it (Amos 2:14).’21 Strength is usually viewed as a quality of a person, but can also be used about a tree (Isa 44:14) and the temple (2 Chr 24:13). According to Schreiner, the verb can be found in the royal ideology as a claim and an expression of confidence that YHWH will strengthen the chosen one (Ps 18:17; 89:21–22). This idea is then reapplied in new contexts, such as the exile where the prophet proclaims the same divine promise to God’s servant (Isa 41:10).22 In Isa 40:26 the strength is connected to God as the creator, whereas Isa 35:3 applies the verb along the lines of the formula of encouragement (Ps 27:14). In Isa 41:10 creation ideology and traces of the so-called encouragement formula directed at the oppressed melt together with royal traditions (Ps 18:18) and election theology (Isa 41:8–9). The strength of God will protect the servant from the oppressive For references, see Elliger, Deuterojesaja, p. 140, and Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 72. 20 See Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 71. 21 Schreiner, ‘‫’אמץ‬, p. 324. 22 See Schreiner, ‘‫’אמץ‬, p. 325. 19

164

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

enemies (Isa 41:11–12).23 This stands in sharp contrast to the fear of the nations expressed in verses 5–7. Second, in the MT of the Hebrew Bible the verb ‫עזר‬, ‘help’, occurs 56 times in the qal (as in the present verse), four times in the niphal, and once in the hiphil. Most frequently, the subject of the verb is God with the believer or the people of God as the direct object.24 The verb occurs seven times within Isaiah 40–55 with God as subject (Isa 41:10, 13, 14; 44:2; 49:8; 50:7, 9) and once with idol makers as subject (Isa 41:6). Within the divine sphere, other subjects than God are the gods of other nations (Deut 32:38; 2 Chr 28:23), the regulations of God (Ps 119:145) or the angel Michael (Dan 10:13). Within the secular sphere the subject of the verb can be a warrior (1 Kings 20:16; Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6, 33), Egypt (Isa 30:7) or the makers of idols (Ezra 10:15). Isa 41:10 speaks of God as a helper and this helper terminology underlines God’s special relationship to Israel.25 Third, the verb ‫תמך‬, ‘to hold’ or ‘grasp’, occurs 21 times in the MT of the Hebrew Bible. Except for one occurrence (Prov 5:22, niphal, ‘to be held fast’), the verb is found only in the qal. The verb is rare in narrative contexts, and it is most commonly used in wisdom literature.26 The verb is used with either concrete or abstract objects.27 The most commonly applied concrete object is the hand (Gen 48:17; Ex 17:12; Prov 31:19). In Isa 41:10 God holds ‘you’ with his righteous right hand. It is only here, together with Isa 42:1 and in the Psalms that the verb occurs with God as the subject. In Ps 41:4, 11 and 13 the psalmist affirms that the prayers from the sickbed have been heard. In Ps 63:9 the psalmist envisions YHWH’s protection of him in the sanctuary (v. 3) and declares in trust that he has been upheld by YHWH’s right hand. See Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading, p. 91. See Lipiński, ‘‫’עזר‬, p. 13. 25 So Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 201. 26 The four occurrences in the Psalms (15:5; 17:5; 41:13; 63:9) and two of the three occurrences in the Book of Isaiah (41:10; 42:1) suggest cultic overtones; see Ruppert, ‘‫’תמך‬, p. 695. 27 For references to a more abstract usage, see Ruppert, ‘‫’תמך‬, pp. 696–697. 23 24

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

165

Both Isa 41:10 and 42:1 belong to a context of trust. The intervention from God on Israel’s behalf has the following theological meaning: ‘Since Yahweh has grasped Israel with his victorious right hand and now holds Israel firmly, Israel shares in Yahweh’s ineluctable triumph.’28 The help God has given the people throughout their history is here symbolized through ‘God’s righteous right hand’.29 ‘Right hand’ is a common metaphor for great power,30 and ‫ צדק‬connotes more than ethical behaviour―it is used for ‘right’ action in all circumstances: ‘Thus God’s great power (“right hand”) will do the right thing for his suffering people and deliver them.’31 Summing up: By addressing the exiles as Israel, Jacob and the offspring of Abraham, history and continuity are brought into a situation of brokenness and discontinuity. It is not clear whether ‘election’ in this passage points to the past or the present as ‘[…] the language does not point necessarily or exclusively to a Babylonian location’.32 The verbs in v. 10b (‘to strengthen’, ‘to help’, ‘to hold’) function to contrast the verbs ‘to fear’ and ‘to be afraid’ in v. 10a and aim at infusing courage in ‘you’. Although describing different ways in which God intervenes, these three verbs operate as synonyms in this text. 33 They are all in the perfect which indicates that the assurance of salvation is ‘effective the moment the comfort is given’.34 This is not an early version of positive thinking where negative thoughts are to be cast off. This assurance is grounded in the old message of the God who presents Ruppert, ‘‫’תמך‬, p. 698. This is the only place in the Old Testament where this combination is found; see Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 98. 30 According to Baltzer, in the civilizations surrounding the Israelites, ‘to take by the hand was a technical term for the deity’s installation of a king. […] The “lord” himself installs the servant’ (DeuteroIsaiah, p. 97). 31 Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, p. 92. 32 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, p. 201. 33 See Ruppert, ‘‫’תמך‬, p. 695. 34 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 73, and Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, p. 164. 28 29

166

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

himself as ‘I am’ and who says the same words in critical situations throughout the history of Israel (see Ex 14:13–14; Deut 31:8; Isa 7:14).35 The way the verbs and pronominal suffixes operate in Isa 41:8–13 underlines that God’s relationship with Israel is warm and personal. It is based on love and a shared history.36 By reestablishing lines with the past, the dispersed can sense the importance of still living within the tradition.37

II. BACK TO THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT38 Although the interviewees are informed about the lethal character of their illness, they engage in life in various ways. Some work full time or part time. All are part of social networks. Nevertheless, there is a shadow in their mind reminding them that life is shortened by this illness. Which (if any) biblical texts are significant in such a situation? The answers from Georg, Kristin and Elisabeth are representative: Yes, the Bible is crucial to me now. Absolutely essential. It has been pivotal earlier too, but not in the same way […]. What is written there is the word of God, it is a living word, it is crucial to me.39 (Georg, 4 November 2010, in his home)

So Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, p. 91. See Skjoldal, The Election of the People of God, p. 37. 37 So Kim, The Spider-Poet, p. 167. 38 When the term ‘context’ is applied in the present article, it refers to the situation, time, place and setting in which the text is read. In other words, ‘context’ is understood as both then and now. In traditional historical critical exegesis, however, ‘context’ has mainly been defined as ‘then’―both with regard to the writer’s context, the text’s context and the reader’s context. In this article the contemporary context of the interviewee is ‘embraced’, to use West’s terminology in ‘Contextual Bible Study in South Africa’ (p. 595). 39 Ja, altså, Bibelen er avgjerande for meg no. Heilt avgjerande. Det har han vore før òg, men liksom ikkje på same måten […]. Det som står der, det er Guds ord, det er eit levande ord, det er avgjerande for meg. 35 36

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

167

I would say comforting words, if I may call them that―very comforting words.40 (Kristin, 1 December 2010, Stavanger University Hospital) I prefer such words of comfort […]. Not words of lament.41 (Elisabeth, 5 November 2010, Stavanger University Hospital)

To Elisabeth one of the most important verses she has received on cards from friends and family after she learned she was incurably ill is Isa 41:10.42 She quotes the whole verse by heart and concludes: This was good to receive, yes.43 (Elisabeth, 5 November 2010, Stavanger University Hospital)

After Georg was informed that he had incurable cancer he received the text of Isa 41:10 in an SMS. He experiences that this particular verse has a power to make a difference: I get very happy. Really happy. And being happy eases my life condition, you know.44 (Georg, 4 November 2010, in his home)

Isa 41:10 is experienced as bringing comfort and hope into a situation of lament―where there is no medical hope. The interviewees encounter the biblical texts full of expectation, and for Georg Isa 41:10 is significant not only in the moment he receives it. Its empowering and transforming effects last:

Eg vil seia trøystande ord, om eg kan kalla dei det―svært trøystande ord. 41 Eg vil helst ha slike trøysteord […]. Ikkje klageord. 42 Examples of other texts experienced as significant for the interviewees are Num 6:24–26; Deut 33:25; Josh 1:9; Psalm 23; Isa 53:4–5; Jer 29:11–14; Job 35:14; John 3:16; Rom 8:32; Phil 4:4–9. 43 Det var godt å få, ja. 44 Eg blir jo veldig glad. Utruleg glad. Og det å bli glad det lettar livssituasjonen, veit du. 40

168

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK [It] sustains me for a long time!45 (Georg, 4 November 2010, in his home)

For the interviewees, trust in God is based on the experience of God at work in the broader history and in their own personal history. What makes Isa 41:10 significant for people who are incurably ill with cancer? First of all, when people face death, existential issues often come to the foreground. The lack of explicit geographical and historical descriptions in Isa 41:10 creates a text which is not limited to a specific place and time. This, together with the text’s many pronominal suffixes, opens up for applying Isa 41:10 to one’s own circumstances, and for reading one’s own situation into the text. In addition, the text’s accumulation of positive verbs with God as the subject enables the reader to relate directly to God and feel cared for. This text invites for an existential reading. But what about the worlds behind and within Isa 41:10? Are the interviewees not interested in the historical background of the text, or the structural features of the text? In order to answer this I will make a small detour. 1. Interaction between ancient and contemporary contexts According to Harvard professor emeritus of Hebrew Literature, James L. Kugel, people who are critically ill find themselves in a specific state of mind. He recalls own experiences once he listened to the hymn Amazing Grace when he went through chemotherapy for a serious cancer diagnosis: Suddenly, everything is reduced to essences, polar opposites: lost/found, blind/see. For some reason, this very much resonated with my own state of mind at the time. I suppose this is the case with many people who are seriously ill. […] the concrete here-and-now becomes their whole existence. […] outside reality is going on like some bizarre movie.46

45 46

[Eg] kan leva lenge på det! Kugel, In the Valley of the Shadow, pp. 89–90.

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

169

Kugel shares the feeling of being wiped out and having a small state of mind and how it opens up to what is ‘behind the curtain’, to what he calls ‘the stark world’: … being drawn back into smallness allows a window to open into the stark world. In that place of darkness and great light, of absolutes and essences that are far removed from the stippled, reddish, purplish hurts of this existence, divine justice shines through.47

Although Kugel has spent his whole professional life analyzing biblical texts, becoming a cancer patient left with little hope to survive made him―in my view―an existential reader. The following exemplifies this. While he was treated with chemotherapy, he kept on teaching one day a week. He recalls his colleagues saying nothing to him when they passed him in the hall. Kugel lets the psalmist express how he felt it: My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction, and my neighbours stand far off.48

Kugel identifies with how the psalmist might have felt―although this is not stated explicitly in the verse. He lets this verse describe how his own colleagues kept away from him when he was under treatment. Kugel is of course well aware of the fact that the verse is written in a totally different time and setting; yet the feeling of being avoided in hard times is the point of resemblance between Kugel’s and the psalmist’s situation, and he lets this verse describe his own situation. The same is true of his reading of Psalm 102:25– 28: ‘O my God,’ I say, ‘do not take me away at the mid-point of my life, you whose years endure throughout all generations.’ Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like

47 48

Kugel, In the Valley of the Shadow, p. 141. Ps 38:12 [ET 11]; see Kugel, In the Valley of the Shadow, p. 19.

170

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK clothing, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end.

After providing the reader with some background information about the psalm, he strongly identifies with the ‘I’-voice in Psalm 102―a person who does not want to die prematurely. When Kugel reads these lines, he imagines that the person who wrote them was ‘[…] very sick, perhaps in the last stages of some form of cancer’.49 Thus Kugel does not only identify with the person in the psalm; he identifies the psalmist as being diagnosed with cancer. In other words, he does not mind the gap in time and setting but reads the text straight into his own situation and brings his own experiences of being a cancer patient into the reading of the psalm. By doing so he lets the two contexts―the ancient and the contemporary―interact with one another. Exactly the same applies to my interviewees. The situation of living on the verge of death creates a state of mind where analytical issues of a given text belong to the background and existential issues to the foreground. Although not primarily tuned in on the world behind the text, the interviewees seem to intuitively understand Isa 41:10 as a combination of a ‘war oracle’ and an ‘oracle of salvation’ uttered as an answer to a situation of lament. Just as the divine assurance in Isa 41:10 functions as an answer to the lament of the exiles, ‘My way is hidden […] and my right is disregarded by my God’ (Isa 40:27), so the formulas ‘do not fear’ and ‘I am with you’ found in that verse are received by the interviewees as welcoming words addressing their present life situation. But do the interviewees find themselves in a context of war? Warfare terminology has been and is still much applied to cancer both from the side of the physician and the patient, but also in descriptions of the nature and the treatment of the illness. Radiotherapy for instance uses the language from aerial warfare, whereas chemotherapy has to do with chemical warfare.50 One can often read the following language of defeat in obituaries: ‘NN lost the fight against the cancer’. For the interviewees, the enemy is the cancer, and in such a situation of 49 50

Kugel, In the Valley of the Shadow, p. 5. See Sontag, Illness as Metaphor, p. 66.

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

171

constant battle they are amenable to the words of salvation in Isa 41:10. 2. Why an existential reading of Isa 41:10? Four reasons seem to be central when it comes to the question why the interviewees read this text existentially: First, the state of mind of the interviewee resonates with the state of mind of the ‘you’ of the text. The text communicates that the ‘you’ is afraid, week, in need of help and put down. When life itself is threatened by a lethal disease, one can easily imagine how one’s state of mind can resonate with this. The ancient audience was familiar with brokenness and discontinuity. Similarly, contemporary readers experience how a severe illness literally tears them down, sets them aside and makes them strangers in their own community. Both ancient and contemporary readers find themselves in a situation of existential crisis: What one had is lost, and therefore one is forced to construct and reinterpret one’s life story in a completely new setting. Second, the text’s use of pronominal suffixes invites the reader to pursue an existential reading. In every line the ‘I’ and ‘you’ meet. The gap in time is bridged through this extensive use of pronominal suffixes. The relationship between ‘I’ and ‘you’ is close and intimate: ‘I am with you.’ This is underlined by the way Isa 41:8–13 connects servanthood and election (see v. 8). God’s people are assured about their significant role and place in God’s history. For ancient as well as contemporary readers, Isa 41:10 thus functions to forge links between past and present, to provide comfort in a difficult situation and to provide reorientation for those who find themselves displaced. As the language of election in Isa 41:8–13 does not necessarily or exclusively point to a Babylonian location, readers at all times can include themselves as belonging to the people of God. Third, the verbs used in this verse are all defining more closely in what ways the ‘I’ is with the ‘you’. The ‘I’ strengthens, helps and holds the ‘you’ with his ‘righteous right hand’. For Liv, such a text

172

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

as Isa 41:10 creates a feeling of reassurance in her and makes hard days bearable: I get help and strength [from God] to endure the illness.51 (Elisabeth, 6 October 2010, Stavanger University Hospital)

Fourth, by applying the well-known Old Testament metaphor of the righteous right hand the text further underlines the closeness between the ‘I’ and the ‘you’, and the battle the ‘you’ lives in. Just as it is ‘[…] God directly who contends with Israel’s enemies,’52 the interviewees experience God acting on behalf of them in their fight for life. Whether or not Georg, Elisabeth and the others are familiar with exegetical insights into the Hebrew expression ‘righteous right hand’, they can easily grasp the powerful image. They experience being protected and taken care of by the righteous hand of God. Such an individual use of the formula and a reapplication of it are not unfamiliar within the Old Testament itself: … because of the fate which had overtaken the scattered remnant of Israel, the only thing left for them was to lift up their hands in supplication to God and wait for a word of grace and consolation―precisely like an individual Israelite (such as Hannah in 1 Sam 1) coming into the presence of God with his personal trouble and asking the granting of his prayer.53

III. ANALYTICAL AND EXISTENTIAL READINGS OF BIBLICAL TEXTS According to the philosopher Paul Ricoeur, literary texts demand at least two reading attitudes: (i) the analytical attitude of the scholar who brings the knowledge, expertise and analytical skills to the text, and (ii) the existential attitude of the reader who brings his/her

Eg får hjelp og styrke [frå Gud] til å klara sjukdomen. Childs, Isaiah, p. 319. 53 Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 68. 51 52

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

173

own situation to the text. 54 In the academic reading of biblical texts the actualization of the text is something that—at best—is added to the complex historical and/or literary analysis of a given text. However, when so-called ‘ordinary’ readers encounter the ancient texts from their actual life situation, the hermeneutical circle is deepened—the text changes from a historical object to a personal subject the reader can relate directly to. Empirical approaches to the Bible are rare in Western contexts and still in their infancy.55 In the present article, in the process of gaining a ‘thick’ understanding of Isa 41:10, the actualization is not something that is added to the interpretation; rather it is an essential dimension of the interpretation. I agree with de Wit who states: The event-nature of reading also implies that appropriating or actualizing must not be regarded, as in classical hermeneutics, as a third—separated or added, and because of that metaphoric—phase, of the understanding process, but as an essential dimension of understanding. Therefore, ordinary readers are not a category to be disregarded; they should be fully involved in the interpretation of biblical texts.56

1. Ethical accountability and responsibility of analytical readings As a biblical scholar I like to think that my training ensures an analytical reading of biblical texts. However, what may look like purely analytical is always intertwined to some extent with personal and private interests. Taking into consideration Hans-Georg Gadamer’s notion that all interpretation is contextual, also biblical exegetes must be critical towards their own prejudices, preunderstandings, presuppositions and pre-judgements. In this broad sense of the word context, all exegetes—either consciously or unconsciously—engage with contextuality. In the present study, it is for instance necessary to understand the contemporary context See Ricoeur, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un texte?’, pp. 181–200 (‘What is a Text’, pp. 105–124). 55 See Village, The Bible and Lay people, p. 3. 56 De Wit, ‘Through the Eyes of Another’, p. 9. 54

174

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

of the interviewees in order to grasp their application of the biblical text. Many of us like to think that our choice of theories and methods are built on objective reasons. Nevertheless, in statements of personal acknowledgement, when authors often reveal what motivated their research, the specific concerns and interests are not addressed as pre-understandings or prejudices, but labeled as ‘hermeneutical concerns and interests’.57 Although critical methods embody distinct pre-understandings, concerns and interests, this dimension is often not dealt with in scholarly works. As theories and methods are contextually conditioned, they are never simply ‘applied’.58 What critical methods do provide us with, however, is an allowance to ‘overcome personal and idiosyncratic preconceptions’.59 According to Schüssler Fiorenza’s address at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1987, biblical scholars are aware that there is no such thing as an innocent and presupposition-less interpretation of the Bible.60 She holds that an ethically accountable and responsible reading of the Bible is one which promotes human dignity and the well-being of all.61 Therefore, in order to be ethically accountable and responsible in pursuing exegesis, my own implicitly ‘interested’ reading must be acknowledged, and my trained reading of the Bible needs to be connected with the explicitly ‘interested’ readings of nonacademics.62 It is my scholarly duty not to try to pass on to the interviewees some sort of ‘better’ interpretation than the one they are sharing with me, rooted in their own experience; rather, ‘critical biblical studies consists of the comparative analysis of existing interpretations—including those of biblical scholars and those of See Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, p. 56. Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, p. 58. 59 Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, p. 57. 60 See Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Ethics of Interpretation’, pp. 3–17. 61 See Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Ethics of Interpretation’, p. 17. 62 See Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, p. 73; Riches, ‘Intercultural Hermeneutics’, pp. 460–476; Kessler, ‘From Bipolar to Multipolar Understanding’, p. 452–459. 57 58

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

175

ordinary readers (who often need to be prompted to voice their interpretations)’.63 2. Devastating effects of existential readings? In this article, analytical and existential ways of encountering the biblical text are seen neither as conflicting nor as standing in an hierarchical relationship, rather as complementary and standing in a dialectical relationship. The overall aim is to see if existential and analytical readings can mutually deepen the understanding of the text. As Old Testament scholars we might shake our heads when so-called ‘ordinary’ people read biblical texts straight into their contexts—as if the texts were written to them. Such an ‘instrumental’ use of biblical text is not seen as appropriate:64 Why do we feel it is urgent and important for us to provide critical interpretations of biblical texts—so much that we devote our lives to the task? … because we are convinced that ‘uncritical’ interpretations of the Bible have devastating effects.

Various worlds are involved when a text is read: the world behind the text, the world within the text, and the world in front of the text. How the reader affects the process of understanding is crucial since ‘to understand is to understand oneself in front of the text’.65 My colleague Knut Holter asks in an article published in 2011: ‘What on earth should Isaiah 41:8–13 be used for?’66 Although he concludes that the question is wrong—Bible interpreters do not wonder what this or that text should be used for—there is of course a simple answer to this question. Our text from Isaiah 41 can be used in the present time as it was used in ancient times: to bring comfort and consolation to those in danger and despair. Although the interviewees are exegetically ‘un-trained’, they are existentially trialed and therefore deeply acquainted with issues dealt with in the text. The scholar’s duty is to let the ‘then’ and the Patte, ‘Reading with Gratitude’, p. 377 (his italics). Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, p. 75. 65 Ricoeur, From Text to Action, p. 88 (his italics). 66 Holter, ‘Hva i all verden skal vi bruke Jesaja 41, 8–13 til?’, pp.171– 63 64

181.

176

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

‘now’ meet and interact with one another. 67 Although there is always more to be done, it can be said that investigations dealing with challenges concerning author and text are relatively widespread in Old Testament scholarship at the moment. The same cannot be said about our knowledge about the reader of these ancient texts. The existential application of Isa 41:10 which is documented here is an attempt at taking the reader of the text seriously.68 The monopoly of historical critical approaches is broken, and the biblical texts’ ‘extraordinary afterlife … can now be studied with the same degree of scientific rigour and sensitivity as the original Hebrew’.69 In the Old Testament itself motifs and texts are reapplied in new times and new contexts. When the ancient biblical texts are inserted into contemporary people’s lives there is a never ending hermeneutical circulation going on between text and context. This circulation is a dynamic relationship where the self is ‘[…] nourished, recognised, consoled, and reaffirmed by the text’.70 In cases where the analytical exegesis concentrates on past suffering, the existential approach concentrates on present suffering. An existential reading relates a text directly with the reader’s experiences and contextual challenges. At first glance this seems to be miles away from how the first readers of this text See Holter, ‘Hva i all verden skal vi bruke Jesaja 41, 8–13 til?’, p. 180. See also Myhre who shows how biblical texts can function as interpretative, stabilizing, normalizing and meaningful sources for the individual in critical periods of life (‘Hva betyr Bibelens språk?’, pp. 7–12). 68 Within biblical studies, the attention to the reader is seen in a variety of reader-response approaches to the biblical text. Common for all these approaches is the notion that ‘meaning is a function of the interaction between reader and text. In this respect postmodernism represents a return to a pre-critical age, when, for example the Church Fathers were well aware that texts have more than one meaning, and believed that the literal meaning may often be less important, for the Church, than a spiritual, moral, or allegorical interpretation’ (Sawyer, The Oxford Handbook, p. 61). 69 Sawyer, The Oxford Handbook, p. 62. See also de Wit, ‘Through the Eyes of Another’, pp. 5–6. 70 De Wit, ‘Exegesis and Contextuality’, pp. 5–6. 67

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

177

might have understood it. But is this true? Most likely, the exiles of the sixth century linked their own contextual challenges to the words of Isa 41:10. Isaiah 40–55 as a whole addresses the life conditions of God’s people, both in the political and the existential spheres. Isaiah 40–55 reveals how older traditions are not just repeated, but are used as interpretative tools to make sense of contemporary challenges. Thus, Isaiah 40–55 not only lets the ‘then’ and the ‘now’ meet; these chapters also provide a pattern of how an audience’s experiences can be included when the broader story about God’s relationship with his people is told.71

IV. CONCLUSION Rita’s emphasis on the Bible as her ultimate source of strength in a situation of frailty is representative of all the fourteen interviewees. For her and the others, the Bible is significant. The existential attitude the interviewees show is not something they invent or force on the texts, but rather, as Ricoeur puts it, something the text itself demands (alongside the analytical attitude the text demands from the scholar). In Isaiah 40–55 there is a prophetic voice which—in order to comfort the people of God—speaks to the contemporary addressees by letting present and past contexts interact with one another. When biblical texts are read by those who experience a vulnerable condition of life marked by incurable cancer, the following dimensions are essential: (i) The Bible in general is viewed as an existential, life-giving and empowering resource. Correspondingly, the biblical texts are approached full of expectation as the quest for life is urgent. (ii) Biblical texts about comfort, hope and future are chosen at the expense of texts about illness, death and lament. (iii) Linguistic features such as pronominal suffixes and positive verbs enable and encourage the reader to identify with the ‘I’ and ‘you’ in the text and to replace the historical context with the current one.

71

249 .

For a similar view see Holter, ‘Trøst, ja, trøst mitt folk!’, pp. 242–

178

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

Getting an understanding of what really matters for people in various life circumstances invites to a reflection upon what makes one’s own analytical reading an adequate reading of a given biblical text. Isa 41:10 invites the individual member of God’s people to receive protection and care when one finds oneself in a difficult situation. For the particular readers referred to here, this message is experienced not only as an encouragement to live on, but just as much as an encouragement when facing death. The effect of such an existential reading of Isa 41:10 is constructive and comforting rather than destructive and devastating.

BIBLIOGRAPHY K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, translated by M. Kohl (Minneapolis, 2001), pp. 95, 97–98. J. Begrich, ‘Das priesterliche Heilsorakel’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 52 (1934), pp. 81–92. J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2000), pp. 198–201. L. Boadt, ‘Isaiah 41:8–13; Notes on Poetic Structure and Style’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973), pp. 20–34. B. S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville, 2001), p. 319. R. J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah (New York, 1984), p. 91. E. W. Conrad, ‘The Community as King in Second Isaiah’, in J. T. Butler, E. W. Conrad and B. C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Berhard W. Anderson (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 99–111 (104–105). K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978), vol. XI/1, pp. 139–141. H. F. Fuhs, ‘‫’ירא‬, in G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1990), vol. VI, pp. 290–315. Y. Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 40–48 (Bonn, 1981), pp. 98–120. J. Goldingay, and D. Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (London / New York, 2006), vol. I, pp. 164–165. H. Gressmann, ‘Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 (1914), pp. 254–297.

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

179

K. Holter, ‘Hva i all verden skal vi bruke Jesaja 41,8–13 til? Noen refleksjoner om bibeltolkning og bibelbruk’, in K. Holter and J. Ådna (eds), Jerusalem, Samaria og jordens ender. Bibeltolkninger tilegnet Magnar Kartveit, 65 år, 7. oktober 2011 (Trondheim, 2011), pp. 171–181. ———, Second Isaiah’s Idol-Fabrication Passages (Frankfurt a. M., 1995), pp. 91–126. ———, ‘Trøst, ja, trøst mitt folk! Jesaja 40–55 og sjelesorgen’, Tidsskrift for sjelesorg 4 (1998), pp. 241–249 (242–249). R. Kessler, ‘From Bipolar to Multipolar Understanding. Hermeneutical Consequences of Intercultural Bible Reading’, in H. de Wit et al. (eds), Through the Eyes of Another. Intercultural Reading of the Bible (Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 460–476. H. C. P. Kim, ‘The Spider-Poet: Signs and Symbols in Isaiah 41’, in A. J. Everson and H. C. P. Kim (eds), The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah (Atlanta, 2009), pp. 159–180. M. C. A. Korpel and J. C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55 (Leiden, 1998), pp. 69–118, 659. J. L. Kugel, In the Valley of the Shadow: On the Foundations of Religious Belief (and Their Connection to a Certain, Fleeting State of Mind) (New York, 2011), pp. 5, 19, 89–90, 141. E. Lipiński, ‘‫’עזר‬, in G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 2001), vol. XI, pp. 12–17. K. Myhre, ‘Hva betyr Bibelens språk for den gamles trosliv?’, Tidsskrift for sjelesorg 1 (1995), pp. 6–12 (7–12). J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (Grand Rapids, 1998), pp. 86–92. D. Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation. A Reevaluation (Louisville, 1995), pp. 56–57, 59, 73, 75. ———, ‘Reading with Gratitude: The Mysteries of “Reading Communities Reading Scripture”’, in G. A. Philips and N. Wilkinson Duran (eds), Reading Communities Reading Scripture. Essays in Honor of Daniel Patte (Harrisburg, 2002), pp. 361–382. J. Riches, ‘Intercultural Hermeneutics’, in H. de Wit et al. (eds), Through the Eyes of Another. Intercultural Reading of the Bible (Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 460–476. P. Ricoeur, From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II, translated by K. Blamey and J. B. Thompson (Evanston, 1991), p. 88.

180

MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK

———, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un texte? Expliquer et comprendre’, in R. Bibner (ed.), Hermeneutik und Dialektik: Aufsätze (Tübingen, 1970), vol. II, pp. 181–200. ———, ‘What is a Text? Explanation and Understanding’, in J. M. Edie (ed.), From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II (Evanston, 1991), pp. 105–124. L. Ruppert, ‘‫’תמך‬, in G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 2006), vol. XV, pp. 694–699. J. F. A. Sawyer, ‘Isaiah’, in M. Lieb, E. Mason and J. Roberts (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible (Oxford, 2011), pp. 52–63. B. Scheuer, The Return of YHWH: The Tension between Deliverance and Repentance in Isaiah 40–55 (Berlin, 2008), pp. 132, 136. A. Schoors, I am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. XL–LV (Leiden, 1973), pp. 46–58. J. Schreiner, ‘‫’אמץ‬, in G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974), vol. I, pp. 323–327. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Ethics of Interpretation: De-Centering Biblical Scholarship’, Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988), pp. 3–17. N. O. Skjoldal, The Election of the People of God: A Rhetorical Analysis of Isaiah 41:1–44:23 (unpubl. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995), p. 37. S. Sontag, Illness as Metaphor and Aids and its Metaphors (London, 2002), p. 66. L.-S. Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55 (Leiden, 2011), pp. 132–134, 219–220. A. Village, The Bible and Lay people: An Empirical Approach to Ordinary Hermeneutics (Aldershot, 2007), p. 3. G. O. West, ‘Contextual Bible Study in South Africa: A Resource for Reclaiming and Regaining Land, Dignity and Identity’, in G. O. West and M. W. Dube (eds), The Bible in Africa. Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends (Leiden, 2001), pp. 595–610. C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66. A Commentary (London, 1990), pp. 68, 71–73. H. de Wit, ‘Exegesis and Contextuality: Happy Marriage, Divorce or Living (Apart) Together?’, in H. de Wit and Gerald O.

‘DO NO FEAR, FOR I AM WITH YOU’

181

West (eds), African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue. In Quest for a Shared Meaning (Pietermaritzburg, 2009), pp. 3–30. ———, ‘Through the Eyes of Another. Objectives and Backgrounds’, in H. de Wit et al. (eds), Through the Eyes of Another. Intercultural Reading of the Bible (Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 3–53.

WHERE ARE THE GODS OF … ? WHERE ARE THE KINGS OF … ? PLACE NAMES AS A CLUE TO THE DATING OF PASSAGES IN THE BOOKS OF ISAIAH AND SECOND KINGS ALAN MILLARD UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL ABSTRACT The Assyrian messages to Hezekiah, the oracle in Isaiah 10 and the list of deportees from and to Samaria contain place names which may all reasonably be associated with the campaigns of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon. They are more likely to represent contemporary reports than inventions of later centuries.1

INTRODUCTION Modern readers of Isaiah and other biblical prophets can pass over place names in them with little attention. Aid from an atlas may give them some reality, but they may mean little more. Clearly they These notes are offered in appreciation of Hallvard Hagelia who, living far beyond the geographical horizons of the biblical writers, has forwarded Old Testament studies in his homeland and aided English speaking students with his studies of prophecy and the ‘House of David’ inscription from Tel Dan. 1

183

184

ALAN MILLARD

had some significance when they were listed, appropriate to their contexts, rather than being random selections.

I. THE PLACE-NAMES MENTIONED IN THE ASSYRIAN MESSAGES TO HEZEKIAH Sennacherib’s Rab-shakeh said to Hezekiah’s officials, ‘Have the gods of any nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand?’ (Isa 36:18–19 [= 2 Kings 18:33–34]). When the Rab-shakeh tried to intimidate the officials and the people on the wall of Jerusalem by reciting the names of places which had fallen to Assyria—Hamath, Arpad, Samaria and Sepharvaim—he intended to impress on them the might of his king and his gods and the powerlessness of their gods. While Hezekiah’s officers may have recognized the places as kingdoms not remote from Judah, would the people on the wall have known any more than that they were places Assyria had conquered, apart from Samaria? Later Sennacherib sent messengers to say to Hezekiah king of Judah, ‘Did the gods of the nations that were destroyed by my predecessors deliver them—the gods of Gozan, Harran, Rezeph and the people of Eden who were in Tel Assar? Where is the king of Hamath or the king of Arpad? Where are the kings of La‘ir, Sepharvaim, Hena‘ and ‘Ivvah?’ (Isa 37:12–13 [= 2 Kings 19:12– 13]). This message to Hezekiah has a longer list than the Rabshakeh’s. It obviously relates to the aftermath of the fall of Samaria recounted in 2 Kings 17. ‘The king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported Israel to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes’ (17:6; see also 18:12). These places are Halah (ḫalaḫḫu), a province north-east of Nineveh, Gozan, modern Tell Halaf, on the upper reaches of the Habur, with the areas of western Iran which Sargon annexed to his realm.2 2

See Diakonoff, ‘The Cities of the Medes’.

WHERE ARE THE GODS OF…?

185

The places whose gods failed, according to Sennacherib, Gozan, Harran, Rezeph and Tel Assar, had been under Assyrian control for decades and, so far as is known, had not rebelled in his reign or his father’s. That need not mean the reference is to long past events when those places first fell under Assyria’s rule, rather the king is alluding to his ability to deport Israelites to those towns, because they were part of the Assyrian provincial system; they had lost their independence. Of the places whose kings had disappeared— Hamath, Arpad, La‘ir (cuneiform Laḫiru), Sepharvaim, Hena‘ and ‘Ivvah—the first three had rebelled against Assyria and been reduced to provincial status by Sargon, Hamath and Arpad in Syria, La‘ir in eastern Babylonia. The identification of the latter three remains uncertain. Ran Zadok proposed that Sepharvaim was Sipirani, a place in the region of Nippur belonging to the Chaldean Bit Awukāni tribe.3 It is almost certainly the same as šaparrê, one of 39 ‘fortified cities’ of Bit Awukāni Sennacherib ‘surrounded, conquered and plundered’ during his first campaign against Merodach-baladan in 704–702 BCE,4 but Sargon may well have captured it when he fought the same rebel a few years earlier. ‘Ivvah, or ‘Avva, Zadok proposed, may be ḫa-ú-a-e in Bit Dakkuri, south of Nippur,5 or, as G. R. Driver observed, perhaps a-ma-a named with a-ma-te in Sargon’s ‘Annals’,6 the two places both lying on the Uqnu river in eastern Babylonia. (Intervocalic w may appear as /m/ in cuneiform, for example, Bit Awukāni is written amukāni in cuneiform but ’wkn in Aramaic script.7) Hena‘ has yet to be located. While the identification of the last three places is open to question, it is likely some Judeans would have known their names through contact with their northern neighbours.

Zadok, ‘Geographical and Onomastic Notes’, pp. 115–117. First Campaign Cylinder, 45; Grayson and Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, p. 35 (there read Ša-barê). 5 Zadok, ‘Geographical and Onomastic Notes’, p. 120. 6 Driver, ‘Geographical Problems’. 7 Lidzbarski, Altaramäische Urkunden aus Assur; Gibson, Textbook vol. 2. Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 102–110. 3 4

186

ALAN MILLARD

Those neighbours included settlers the Assyrians brought to Samaria after its fall: ‘people from Babylon, Cuthah, ‘Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim’ with the gods they worshipped (2 Kings 17:24; see also 17:30–31). They apparently came from places conquered by Sargon when he defeated Merodach-baladan in 710–109 BCE. Hamath in this list may be the a-ma-ti noted above beside a-ma-a, or the a-ma-tu beside ḫa-ú-a-e which Sennacherib (re)conquered in his first campaign,8 rather than the well-known city on the Orontes which would be out of place beside the other names. The objection is raised that because Sargon ‘pursued a policy of conciliation toward Babylon, serving as king of Assyria and Babylonia at one and the same time, he can hardly be the one who exiled Babylonians to distant Israel’; rather—so the assumption goes—his successors were the ones who exiled Babylonians to Israel. In this case the verses refer to ‘several waves of settlement without chronological distinction’. 9 Such a view does not allow for Sargon’s removal of hostile citizens of Babylon after others opened the gates to him in 709, or the possibility that he sent Babylonians to Samaria at the start of his reign, an action the damaged report of his first year in the ‘Annals’ may state. Sargon himself tells of settling defeated Arabs in Samaria,10 while saying nothing about the peoples the Hebrew writers recorded—and they ignored the Arabs! In neither case need the texts be treated as comprehensive; ancient authors only presented elements relevant to their purposes. (A clear example is the series of reliefs carved for Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh to celebrate the capture of Lachish. Only the epigraph above the seated king identifies the scene. From the king’s ‘Annals’ and other inscriptions nothing would be known of his success at Lachish.)

First Campaign Cylinder, 36; Grayson and Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, p. 35. 9 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 209, repeated by Cogan , ‘SukkothBenoth’, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons, p. 821. 10 Khorsabad Cylinder 20; translations in Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria 2, §118; Younger in Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture 2, p. 298 (2.118H). 8

WHERE ARE THE GODS OF…?

187

II. THE ORACLE AGAINST ASSYRIA IN ISAIAH 10 The oracle against Assyria in Isaiah 10 appears to echo the Rabshakeh’s speech with the additions of Carchemish and Damascus. ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says. ‘Has not Kalno fared like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad and Samaria like Damascus?’ (Isa 10:8–9). Hamath and Arpad had joined Damascus, Samaria and other places in the major revolt against Sennacherib’s father, Sargon, in 720 BCE, which had been vigorously suppressed. Sargon reduced Carchemish to provincial status after 717 following its king’s alliance with an enemy of Assyria.11 Kalno, in cuneiform Kunulua or Kullani, now Tell Tayinat in the ‘Amuq plain, was conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 738, but, although not mentioned by name, may have joined its neighbours in the rebellion of 720. Having overcome all of these places, the Assyrians had evidently incorporated them into their provincial system during the twenty years before Sennacherib’s third, western, campaign in 701, but others in the Levant retained some independence as tributary kingdoms with their own rulers, their cessation of tribute payments and intrigues with each other and with Egypt being the cause of his invasion.

III. THE VALUE OF PLACE NAMES FOR DATING THE BIBLICAL PASSAGES The Assyrian’s messages list places conquered while dignifying neither their kings nor their gods by name because they had proved themselves powerless. The Hebrew record of the peoples settled in Samaria, on the other hand, gives their names and the names of their gods: ‘The men from Babylon made Succoth-benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima, and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim’ (2 Kings 17:30–31). As some of the place names are hard to locate, so some of the deities For these places and their histories, see Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, pp. 76, 363, 390, 401. 11

188

ALAN MILLARD

are hard to identify. Nergal is widely attested in cuneiform sources as the patron of Cutha, north-east of Babylon; Nibhaz and Tartak have been equated with two Elamite deities in the Babylonian Godlist, an appropriate association given the siting of the places in eastern Babylonia.12 The case of the god of Hamath, ’ashima’, rests on the identity of his town. If it is Hamath on the Orontes, then ’ashima’ may be a form of Shem, ‘name’ as preserved in proper names in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine such as ’EshemBethel,13 but if this Hamath is the one in eastern Babylonia noted above, its deity may be identified with ’šym’, a god of Taima who occurs in two Achaemenid period Aramaic inscriptions found at Taima.14 Although Taima is nowhere near Mesopotamia, Arabs are known to have settled in southern Babylonia by the end of the eighth century BCE,15 so they may have taken that god with them. Sargon also told of settling various Arab desert tribes in Samaria (see fn. 9). The deities of Sepharvaim are otherwise unknown; attempts to interpret them remain speculative, a verdict that applies equally to the deity of the Babylonian exiles, Succoth-benoth.16 Sennacherib’s messages to Jerusalem had to be meaningful to their audiences, to the officials, to the citizens and to king Hezekiah. References to Assyrian victories several generations earlier would be irrelevant, probably unknown in Judah, events in Sargon’s reign could still be recalled. The conquest of Calno might have reminded a few of Amos’ reference to a conquest of Calneh (or Calno) and Hamath (see Am 6:2). Accepting the context of the verse as the reign of Jeroboam II (ca. 791–750 BCE), it can be seen to reflect events in the reign of Adad-nirari III (ca. 810–783 BCE). He fought and defeated Arpad Millard, ‘Nibhaz’, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons, p. 623; Cogan, ‘Tartak,’ ibid., pp. 836–837. 13 Porten, Archives from Elephantine., p. 332. 14 Cogan, ‘Ashima’, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 105–106. 15 Eph‘al, ‘“Arabs” in Babylonia in the 8th Century B. C.’, pp. 108– 115. Note that the letters ABL 88 and 547 quoted on p. 113 are re-edited in Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, nos. 84 and 82. 16 Millard, ‘Adrammelech, Anammelech’, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 10–11, 34–35; Cogan, ‘Sukkoth-Benoth’, ibid., pp. 821–822. 12

WHERE ARE THE GODS OF…?

189

with its eight unnamed allies in 805, then, perhaps in 796, adjudicated a boundary dispute between ‘Atarsumki, king of Arpad, and Zakkur, king of Hamath, in favour of Arpad. We might surmise that ‘Atarsumki had accepted vassal status from Adadnirari, concluding with him a treaty such as his son Mati‘-el concluded with Adad-nirari’s son Ashur-nirari V (754–745 BCE). Calno may be represented by the ‘king of ‘Amq’ who was allied with Arpad against Hamath according to the Zakkur Stele. The details of the peoples and their gods deported to Samaria agree with information about the campaigns of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II, allowing for the names yet to be identified. The further deportations under Esarhaddon and under Ashurbanipal involved different peoples, under the latter Ezra names ‘Persians, men of Uruk, Babylonians, men of Susa, that is Elamites’, whom he would have captured following his campaigns against his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylon with his Elamite allies (Ezra 4:2, 10). ‘Gozan, Harran, Rezeph and the people of Eden who were in Tel Assar’ in Sennacherib’s letter, can be related to the area where Israelites were settled according to 2 Kings 17 ‘in Gozan on the Habor River’, for Harran, Rezeph and Beth ‘Eden all lay in that region. The gods of those places had proved ineffectual, allowing the Assyrians to replace their people with Israelites. Again, exact correspondence or completeness is not to be expected. For the Hebrew historian, relating the names of the deportees’ gods was a way to demonstrate their inability to protect their devotees wherever they were, in their old homes, or their new. The correlations between events in the last decades of the eighth century BCE reported in Assyrian inscriptions and in the biblical passages are sufficiently strong to suggest when the Hebrew writers composed Isaiah and 2 Kings they had access to contemporary accounts. To return to the initial question, therefore, some of the citizens on the walls of Jerusalem would surely have recognized the names the Rab-shakeh recited, for refugees escaping Samaria or travelling traders would talk about Assyria’s quite recent conquests to the north. Had a post-exilic writer concocted that passage or the oracle in Isaiah 10, even drawing on earlier chronicles, the result would be as unintelligible to his readers as the names are to most today! If Hebrew writers had concocted the texts centuries later, it may be doubted that they could have

190

ALAN MILLARD

produced so accurate a picture.17 The conclusion to be drawn, therefore is that where an Assyrian record has a name or names that these biblical pericopes do not, or the biblical texts have a name or names that the Assyrian record does not, one may safely be used as a supplement to the other, so expanding knowledge of the history of Assyria and the history of Israel

BIBLIOGRAPHY M. Cogan, ‘Sukkoth-Benoth’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons, p. 821. ———, ‘Ashima’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 105–106. ———, ‘Tartak’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 836–837. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (New York, 1988), p. 209. I. M. Diakonoff, ‘The Cities of the Medes’, in M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al (eds), Ah, Assyria … Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 13–20 (16–18). G. R. Driver, ‘Geographical Problems,’ Eretz Israel 5 (1958), pp. 18*–20* I. Ephal, ‘“Arabs” in Babylonia in the 8th Century B. C.’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974), pp. 108–115. J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (3 vols; Oxford, 1971–1982), vol. 2, Aramaic Inscriptions, pp. 102–110. A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1 (Winona Lake, 2012), p. 35. J. D. Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (Berlin, 2000), pp. 76, 363, 390, 401. M. Lidzbarski, Altaramäische Urkunden aus Assur (1921), pp. 5–15. D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria 2 (2 vols; Chicago, 1927), vol. 2, §118.

For examples of Hellenistic period works that contain historical errors, see Millard, ‘Judith, Tobit, Ahiqar and History’. 17

WHERE ARE THE GODS OF…?

191

A. Millard, ‘Judith, Tobit, Ahiqar and History’, in P. J. Harland and C. T. R. Hayward (eds), New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston (Leiden, 1999), pp. 195–203. ———, ‘Adrammelech, Anammelech’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 10–11, 34–35. ———, ‘Nibhaz’, in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons, p. 623. S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, Letters from Assyria and the West (Helsinki, 1987), nos. 84 and 82. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley, 1968), p. 332. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. van der Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd edn (Leiden, 1999). K. L. Younger, The Cylinder Inscription, in W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger (eds), The Context of Scripture (3 vols; Leiden, 1997– 2002), vol. 2, p. 298 (2.118H). R. Zadok, ‘Geographical and Onomastic Notes’, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 8 (1976), pp. 113–26 (115–117).

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM LIKE A ROSY BOWER’: N. F. S. GRUNDTVIG AND ISAIAH 35 KIRSTEN NIELSEN UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS ABSTRACT In his article ‘The holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’, Hallvard Hagelia has demonstrated the intertextual connections between Isaiah 35 and the rest of the book. These connections also include the animal motive, even if it plays only a minor role in Isaiah 35, according to Hagelia. In my article, I have analysed how the Danish poet N. F. S. Grundtvig reworks Isaiah 35 in his hymn ‘Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom like a Rosy Bower’, and how he reinterprets the wild animals as the Enemy (the Devil). In my view, the animals in Isaiah 35 have the same function; they are metaphors for Israel’s enemies (cf. Isaiah 34 and 36–39). The animal motive is therefore part of the bridge made by Isaiah 35. My analysis thereby strengthens Hagelia’s arguments for seeing Isaiah 35 as a bridge in the Book of Isaiah.1

This article is translated into English by Edward Broadbridge. Most biblical quotations are from NIV, but in instances where the authorised Danish biblical text markedly differs from the NIV he has provided his own translation, based on the Danish text. 1

193

194

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

INTRODUCTION In 2006 Hallvard Hagelia published the article, ‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’.2 In this he demonstrates his sense of the use of both metaphors and the intertextual connections between Isaiah 35 and the rest of the Book of Isaiah. In many ways Hallvard Hagelia and I share common interests and research fields. We have both worked on the Book of Isaiah, and we are both interested in the use of metaphors and the phenomenon of intertextuality. It therefore seems quite natural that this festschrift article should deal precisely with Isaiah 35. And since it represents a greeting on a festive occasion, I have also chosen to include the hymn that is sung in most Danish churches at the festive arrival of Advent in the church calendar: N. F. S. Grundtvig’s reworking of Isaiah 35, ‘Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom’ (Blomstre som en rosengård).

I. INTERTEXTUALITY In his article on Isaiah 35 Hagelia presents various forms of intertextuality and includes mention of my distinction between three forms of intertextuality: ‘Kirsten Nielsen singles out three phases in intertextual reading, called for short (1) “the author’s intentions”, (2) editorial and (3) reader oriented intertextuality (p. 18)’.3 Hagelia points out that his own study will concentrate on phase 2, namely ‘the editorial work traceable in the formation of the biblical books’. And he adds, ‘The third phase is outside of our scope here’ (p. 39). The third phase I operate with in my categorizing has to do with the reader’s inclusion of intertexts that are dated later than the text under analysis. Every interpretation contains intertexts, and no text can be read in isolation, for it is inevitably part of a network of texts. So in any historical-critical interpretation the scholar always tries to make clear whether the text contains markers pointing to Hagelia, ‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’. 3 The reference to p. 18 is to Kirsten Nielsen, ‘Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible’, pp. 17–31. 2

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’

195

such relevant intertexts, that is, intertexts that the original writer or the redactor (sometimes a difficult distinction to make!) has expected his reader to include in order fully to understand the text. These markers can be more or less direct quotations of older texts; or they can be distinctive expressions or images that help readers to a better understanding. In addition, readers include—more or less consciously—not just these later texts but also their own experiences in their interpretation. When the New Testament authors set out to formulate the message concerning Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and saviour of the world, they repeatedly drew on the Old Testament as their intertext. Occasionally, they clearly signalled that the prophet’s words had been fulfilled, as in the references to the prophet Isaiah in Matthew’s gospel (see for instance Mt 3:3; 8:17; 12:17). The authors’ own experiences of Jesus as the promised Messiah became the key to their (re)interpretation of central parts of the Old Testament. In similar fashion a Christian hymn-writer can interpret a text in the Old Testament on the basis of the New Testament’s proclamation of Jesus as Messiah. We shall return to an example of this in the work of the Danish hymn-writer N. F. S. Grundtvig (1783–1872).

II. ISAIAH 35 IN THE OLD TESTAMENT In his article on Isaiah 35 Hagelia focuses on the level of redaction and the intertextual connections within the Book of Isaiah. As the title of his article suggests, one of the important conclusions of his study is that Isaiah 35 serves as a bridge between the preceding and the succeeding chapters, with many intertextual links. Over the years various scholars have underlined the chapter’s central role in the construction of the whole book. 4 In content the chapter is See the exposition in B. S. Childs, Isaiah, p. 253, where Childs has the following description of the chapter’s function: ‘Although chapters 34 and 35 appear once to have had independent compositional histories, they now function redactionally as a diptych to form an editorial bridge combining the first part of Isaiah with the second. The two major themes 4

196

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

closer to chapters 40–66 than to chapters 1–34; but as Hagelia’s analysis shows, there are also many important intertextual connections to the first part of the Book of Isaiah, such as the motif of the eyes and ears in v. 5, which functions as an inversion of the message of callousness in Isa 6:9–10. Another motif that Hagelia discusses is that of the beasts in verses 7b and 9. For him it does not play any significant part, but he nevertheless gives a careful account of the intertextual connections, even though only in a footnote: ‘Jackals, referred to in verse 7b, are also found in 34,13, but there the vagrant jackals are a metaphor of the judgement against the uninhabitable Edom, while in 35,7b the territory described is promised to be transformed into a resting area with green meadows. Animals of prey are mentioned in 11,6–9 as grass eaters, while they in 35,7 are supposedly absent, cf. the absence of lions and other animals of prey (verse 9). Both in chapters 11 and 35 they are of no risk.’5 Hagelia goes on to point out that whereas the absence of the lions and other beasts of prey in v. 9 make the highway a safe place to be, there is no mention of a highway in Isa 11:6–9, where the beasts moreover are not at all dangerous. They are again plant-eaters, as in the Garden of Eden.6 In addition, Hagelia specifies that the water in the desert means ‘water for wild animals in the desert (verse 6b)’, referring to Isa 41:18–19; 43:20 and 44:3. He points out that in 43:20 there is a more direct reference to the animals than in 35:6a, where the leaping deer is a metaphor for the healed man. Isa 41:18–19 and 44:3 describe the importance of desert vegetation, but no animals are mentioned here.7 Reading Hagelia’s article one gets the impression that the animals play a very small part in Isaiah 35, and that the few intertextual connections to the animal motif in the rest of the Book

of the chapters, namely, the divine judgement of the nations and the return of the redeemed to Zion, point both backward to the earlier Isaianic prophecies as well as forward to the ensuing chapters’. 5 Hagelia, ‘The Holy Road’, p. 47 fn. 24. 6 See Hagelia, ‘The Holy Road’, pp. 47–48 fn. 28. 7 See Hagelia, ‘The Holy Road’, p. 52.

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’

197

of Isaiah are not much of a help in the interpretation of Isaiah 35 as a bridging chapter. From Hagelia’s analysis we turn to the Danish hymn-writer, N. F. S. Grundtvig, to see how his reworking of Isaiah 35 relates to the animal motif.8

III. N. F. S. GRUNDTVIG’S HYMN: THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM (BLOMSTRE SOM EN ROSENGÅRD) Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig (1783–1872) is one of Denmark’s best-known hymn-writers. In the Danish Hymnbook (2002) out of a total of 791 hymns there are no fewer than 163 original hymns by Grundtvig and 90 translations or reworkings of other hymns. ‘Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom’ is one of his many reworkings of an Old Testament text, appearing in the Danish Hymnbook as no. 78.9 Grundtvig wrote the hymn in 1837, noting that it is written ‘According to the prophet Isaiah 35’.10 In its original version from 1837 the hymn had 15 verses, but these have been cut to 7 in the authorised version of 2002. And even though Grundtvig himself notes that it is Isaiah 35 he has worked on, the reference in the Danish hymnbook is only to Isa 35:1–6. In the following discussion we shall concentrate on the shorter version, which Edward Broadbridge has translated as follows.11

Cf. Nielsen, ‘Synet på døden’, pp. 7–23. Den Danske Salmebog (The Danish Hymnbook) was authorised by Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II on 29 July 2002. 10 See the original version in Grundtvigs Sang-Værk, Første Bind, nr. 132, p. 300. 11 Edward Broadbridge’s English translation of Grundtvig’s hymn appears as no. 11 in Hymns in English. A Selection of Hymns from The Danish Hymnbook. 8 9

198

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

Mel.: J. P. E. Hartmann 1861

Tune: J. P. E. Hartmann 1861

1 »Blomstre som en rosengård

Then the wilderness shall bloom

skal de øde vange,

like a rosy bower!

blomstre i et gyldenår

Fragrant airs the year perfume

under fuglesange!

with their healing power!

Mødes skal i stråledans

Birds shall sing and water flow,

Libanons og Karmels glans,

Lebanon and Carmel glow,

Sarons yndigheder.

Sharon’s twofold glory.

2 Ryste mer ej noget knæ,

Weary hands in joy shall rise,

ingens hænder synke,

trembling knees grow steady,

skyde hvert udgået træ,

trees long dead with leaf surprise,

glatte sig hver rynke,

every eye be ready,

rejse sig det faldne mod,

courage shall be reinforced,

rinde let uroligt blod,

restless blood more calmly course,

frygt og sorg forsvinde!

fear and sorrow vanish!

3 Herren kommer, Gud med os!

See, He comes, Immanuel!

Troen på ham bier.

Faith has found God’s favour.

Byde vil han Fjenden trods

Satan’s power He shall expel,

som sit folks befrier.

as his people’s Saviour.

Alt betales på ét bræt:

He all debt aside has brushed,

Fjenden sker sin fulde ret,

see, His Enemy is crushed!

folket dobbelt nåde.

Double grace His people gain.

4 Skæres for den sorte stær

Sight is given to the blind:

skal da øjne mange,

see, His touch amazes.

døve øren fjern og nær

Ears by deafness once confined

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’ høre frydesange!

now hear joyous praises!

Som en hind da springer halt,

Like a hart the lame shall bound,

stammer, som for målløs gjaldt,

they who stammered all confound,

løfter klart sin stemme.«

raising clear their voices.

5 Så i Herrens helligdom

Thus Isaiah prophesied

grant Esajas spå’de,

in divine elation.

tiden randt, og dagen kom

Ages passed, the day arrived

med Guds lys og nåde,

bright with God’s salvation:

med den Guds og Davids søn,

David’s son, who for our sake,

som gør end, i lys og løn,

seen and unseen, here will make

Paradis af ørke.

Paradise of desert.

6 Ære med vor høje drot,

Praises to our high king swell,

med hans Ånd tillige!

praises to His Spirit!

Sammen de gør alting godt

They as one do all things well,

i vort Himmerige;

heaven we inherit.

døve, selv på gravens bred,

Even those who give no ear

øren får at høre med,

standing at the grave shall hear,

stummes læber sjunge.

lips once dump are shouting.

7 Højt bebude gyldenår

New year song, our hearts

glade nytårssange:

consume!

»Blomstre som en rosengård

May our gladness flower!

skal de øde vange.

Then the wilderness shall bloom

Mødes skal i stråledans

like a rosy bower!

Libanons og Karmels glans

Birds shall sing and water flow,

Sarons yndigheder.«

Lebanon and Carmel glow, Sharon’s twofold glory!

199

200

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

In the first four stanzas Grundtvig stays relatively close to the Old Testament text in his depiction of how the wilderness will bloom. The three localities, Lebanon, Carmel and Sharon, are mentioned, and God’s intervention is the cause of the great change. The motif of the weak who become strong, the blind and deaf who gain their sight and hearing, the lame who will leap like deer, and the dumb who will gain the power of speech are all included. In stanza 5, however, there is an innovation. Grundtvig shows how the ancient Isaiah prophecy has been fulfilled in the Son of David, Jesus Christ, who will create a paradise out of the desert. In stanza 6 Grundtvig praises this Son of David and repeats the motif of the deaf and the dumb. The hymn closes with an underlining that it is a ‘new year’ song that is to be sung, the content of which is precisely the words from stanza 1 about the wilderness that will bloom and the joy that will befall Lebanon, Carmel and Sharon. Grundtvig’s reworking appears to deal with only the first six verses of Isaiah 35. The motif of the ‘holy road’ (see the title of Hagelia’s essay) that the redeemed are to follow on their return to Zion is not included, nor does Grundtvig mention any wild animals. The reason for the first omission must be that the decisive change for the exiles in the Old Testament is that they return from Babylon, whereas in a Christian perspective it is the coming of Jesus that creates a new world. The return from Babylon is therefore replaced with a praise of God’s saving act through Jesus. Then what about the wild animals? Why does Grundtvig not mention them? Could the reason lie in the fact that for a Danish congregation the threat of wild animals is not especially relevant? The Danish countryside is home to neither jackals, lions, nor any other wild beasts that can threaten the wayfarer. However, if we settle for this explanation, we overlook the fact that just as Grundtvig is reinterpreting the home-coming from Babylon on the basis of his Christian convictions, so is he also reinterpreting the role of the animals—and from a Christian perspective. In the Old Testament the wilderness and the wild animals can represent the forces of chaos. When the kingdom of peace comes, the wild animals will therefore no longer be a threat, for they will live together with human beings in peace (see Isa 11:6–9). According to the prophet Ezekiel, God will contract a peace covenant with his people and simply kill off the wild animals, so

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’

201

that the people ‘may live in the wilderness and sleep in the forests in safety’ (Ezek 34:25; see also Job 5:22–23). In Grundtvig’s reinterpretation, it is still the forces of chaos that need to be defeated, but twice in stanza 3 he now calls these forces the ‘enemy’. In The Danish Hymnbook, against current orthography, this is printed as ‘Fjenden’ (the Enemy), with the definite article and the capitalised ‘F’ signifying a particular enemy, namely ‘the Devil’. In good agreement with this Edward Broadbridge chooses to call the enemy by name, ‘Satan’, and then refers to him as ‘His (God’s) Enemy’.12 Somewhat unusually Grundtvig gives his hymn a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament prophecy. In his Old Testament hymns he is normally very reticent to include Christ ‘before Christ’, so to speak. Thus in the poem ‘Human Being First and Christian Next’,13 Grundtvig also points out that ‘Abraham was God’s good friend, / and yet in no way Christian’. Neither Adam, Enoch, Noah nor David were Christians, as we hear in stanza 6. Grundtvig continues: If Christians lived before Christ came, all Christendom is false. That is not hard to grasp!

The reason why Grundtvig nevertheless gives a Christian interpretation to ‘Then the Wilderness Shall Bloom’ is precisely because he is dealing here with a prophecy that he understands as a prediction of Christ’s coming! Only in this way can he speak of Christ ‘before Christ’.14

In Grundtvig’s time and until 1948 all Danish substantives were capitalised (as they still are in modern German). The editors of The Danish Hymnbook have sought to aid the modern reader by making it clear that the word refers to the ‘the Devil/Satan’, but neither of these appellations appears in Grundtvig’s hymn. 13 Grundtvig, Værker i Udvalg, numbers 241, 448–450. 14 On Grundtvig’s reticence to ‘christianise’ the Old Testament in his reworkings see Nielsen, ‘Synet på døden’, pp. 18–19. 12

202

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

IV. THE WILD ANIMALS IN ISAIAH 35—LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE? In Grundtvig’s Christian reworking of Isaiah 35, the animals are replaced with the Devil himself as God’s great opponent. This observation makes it pertinent to ask whether the animals in Isaiah 35 might in fact be representative of something greater, or whether it is only Grundtvig who thinks this way. In his commentary on Isa 35:7, Hans Wildberger15 shows that in several passages in the Old Testament jackals are linked to depictions of the wilderness (for instance Isa 13:22; Jer 9:10; 10:22; 49:33; 51:37; Lam 4:3). Wildberger notes that the jackal is a typical desert animal and is therefore mentioned when the day of salvation is described. In his commentary on Isa 35:9, he says that the wild animals have been an ever-present threat to Israel (see Ex 23:29; Deut 7:22), and are referred to as instruments in God’s hand when he wishes to punish his people (see Lev 26:22; Deut 32:24; Ezek 5:17; 14:15). Wildberger also draws attention to the cessation of this threat in the day of salvation, for then there will be peace between humans and animals (see Isa 11:6–8; Ezek 34:25; Hos 2:20). Wildberger thus sees the wild animals in Isaiah 35 as a real and genuine danger in the past, though in his opinion the risk of being attacked by a lion was minimal.16 Wildberger’s analysis of Isaiah 35 takes the wild animals literally; but in the section ‘Ziel’ of his commentary he nevertheless raises the question as to whether we should understand the message of hope in the chapter literally/materially or figuratively/spiritually (‘wörtlich-materiell’ or ‘übertragen-geistig’). In this context he discusses whether the dangerous animals are merely physical entities or whether we are dealing more generally with the powers that threaten those who seek God?17

Wildberger, Jesaja, p. 1363. See Wildberger, Jesaja, pp. 1364-1365. 17 ‘Sind die gefährlichen Tiere wirklich nur Tiere, oder sind es vielleicht Mächte, die den Menschen, der Gott sucht, gefährden?’ (Wildberger, Jesaja, p. 1367). 15 16

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’

203

Wildberger further notes that the text does not mention who the earthly powers are from whom those ransomed by the Lord are delivered. This means that any interpretation will depend on the context against which the passage is read. The text is an open one, and even though Wildberger thinks that the content of the message of hope in the Old Testament context should be understood literally/materially (‘wörtlich-materiell’), the text itself has had a Wirkungsgeschichte. A text such as Isaiah 35, he writes, can therefore be reinterpreted time and again, and there is nothing to stop it being interpreted in a more spiritual direction. In his conclusion, however, Wildberger underlines that we must insist that Israel’s hope includes fertility, indeed the exuberance of nature, as well as safety from enemies, security, and an enjoyment of the good things that make life pleasant.18 Even though he adheres to a literal understanding of hope for the future, he also allows for the Wirkungsgeschichte of which Grundtvig’s hymn is an obvious example.

V. ISAIAH 35 AS A BRIDGE We shall stay with the wild animals a little longer, but only to examine their role in the ‘bridge’ that Isaiah 35 constitutes. Wildberger sees the placing of chapter 35 straight after the content of chapter 34 as a deliberate redactional move: Isaiah 35 is to serve as a counterpoint to Isaiah 34. The redactor places the message of salvation to Israel as a contrast to the sentence pronounced against the neighbouring Edomites. It is not enough to speak of victory over the enemy; the restoration and renewal of Israel must also be part of the counter-image.19 This means that Wildberger places the ‘Indem das Alte Testament selbst die traditionellen Motive der Heilshoffnung Israels, wie sich das gerade bei diesem Abschnitt gezeigt hat, in großer Freiheit immer wieder neu interpretiert, ist einer verinnerlichten, geistig/geistlichen Schau kein Damm entgegengestellt. Aber es ist festzuhalten, daß die Hoffnung Israels Fruchtbarkeit, ja Üppigkeit der Natur, Ungefährdetheit durch Feinde, Geborgenheit und Freude an Gütern, die das Leben angenehm machen, beeinhaltet’ (Wildberger, Jesaja, p. 1367). 19 See Wildberger, Jesaja, pp. 1367–1368. 18

204

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

theme of victory over the enemies solely in chapter 34. In my opinion, however, the motif is continued into chapter 35—in the form of the wild animals that no longer threaten the homecoming from Babylon. The wild animals serve to link the two chapters closer together, but they are also able to create an onward link to Isaiah 36–39. The theme of the wild animals thus supports Hagelia’s argument that chapter 35 is a bridging chapter in the Book of Isaiah. This presupposes one thing only, namely the possibility at the redactional level of interpreting the wild animals in Isa 35:9 as images of Israel’s political enemies.

VI. THE WILD ANIMALS AS ISRAEL’S ENEMIES In both Isaiah 34 and 35 wild animals are mentioned as subject to God’s will: God will punish the Edomites but also ‘the wild oxen will fall with them, the bull calves and the great bulls’ (Isa 34:7). And once the punishment has been inflicted, the land will lay waste without human beings. Instead, the jackdaw and the heron, the owl and the raven will possess it (Isa 34:11). Jackals and ostriches will meet with hyenas, the dart-snake will nest there and lay eggs, and the falcons will gather together (Isa 34:13–15; see also the depiction of the wilderness in Isa 13:20–22). The counterpoint to this is the portrayal of the new day of salvation in Isaiah 35, when the wild animals shall no longer be in the wilderness and the redeemed shall walk freely (Isa 35:9). Different animals are named in the description of the wilderness, such as the scavenging birds in chapter 34. Now that the Edomites have been killed, the birds can fall upon their corpses. 20 In Isaiah 35 we are dealing with wild beasts that will no longer threaten to kill the living wayfarers. The question is, are these beasts conceived only literally? Enemies are often described in animal imagery in the Old Testament. In a psalm of lament such as Psalm 22, the psalmist describes himself as a tiny worm (Ps 22:7) and his enemies as wild animals threatening to kill him (Ps 22:13–14): See also the theme of scavenging birds in Deut 28:26; 1 Sam 17:44–46; Prov 30:17. 20

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’

205

Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me.

Enemies can also be depicted as wild dogs, as in Ps 22:17 (see also Ps 22:21–22), and not least it is the lion that is employed, the strongest of all wild animals. Only God himself can save the victim from the clutches of the lion (Ps 7:2–3). Mercilessly the lion tears apart its prey with its sharp teeth (Ps 57:5), and thus the psalmist must pray that God will draw the teeth out of his enemies: ‘Lord, tear out the fangs of those lions!’ (Ps 58:7). Also Israel’s national enemies are depicted as wild animals. In Jer 50:17 Israel is likened to ‘a scattered flock that lions have chased away’. Then comes the interpretation of the image: ‘The first to devour them was the King of Assyria, and now Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon has crushed their bones’ (see also the depiction of Nebuchadnezzar as a hungry wild beast in Jer 51:34). The King of Egypt is portrayed as ‘lion of the nations’ (Ezek 32:2), and in Isa 5:29 the ‘distant nations’ roar like lionesses: ‘they growl as they seize their prey and carry it off with no one to rescue’ (see also Jer 2:15; 4:7). The Edomites have been enemies of Israel; therefore, according to Isa 34:7, they must be eradicated together with the wild oxen, the bull calves and the great bulls. In chapter 35 this motif is reused. The wild beasts shall no longer threaten Israel on its ‘Holy Road’. Whether or not this path is conceived as a literal procession home from Babylon or as an image of the people’s return to their own God, the supposition of the new age is that the people can live in peace. This can be interpreted literally as peace from the wild beasts; but from the redactor’s positioning of the chapter as a bridge to the major section on the King of Assyria’s attack on Judah, it makes equally good sense to understand the demise of the wild animals as referring to the demise of the enemies of Israel.

VII. THE IMAGE OF THE WILD ANIMALS AS A BRIDGE If the absence of the wild animals in Isaiah 35 is interpreted as the defeat of Israel’s enemies, the image can point back not only to chapter 34, where the Edomites are destroyed, but also forward to

206

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

Isaiah 36–39. This section deals with the political circumstances related to Sennacherib’s attack of Judah: The King of Assyria attacks Judah but must give up the attempt to conquer Jerusalem; Judah’s God intervenes and sends his angel into the Assyrian camp; 185′000 men are killed, forcing the King of Assyria to break up the siege and return home to Nineveh (Isa 37:36–37). The prophet Isaiah had already prophesied this judgement (Isa 37:29): Because you rage against me and because your roar has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.

The image employed describes how God will treat the King of Assyria as a refractory animal who must be humbled by being dragged away with a ring in its nose and a bit in its mouth. In this context Wildberger refers to the description in Ezek 19:4 where the King of Israel is portrayed in the image of a lion cub being dragged by hooks to captivity in Egypt, or Ezek 38:4, where the same fate befalls the chief prince Gog (see also 2 Chr 33:11, where King Manasseh is led away with hooks to Babylon). 21 Just as God once removed the animal of prey Sennacherib, so will he ensure that his people walk on the Holy Road without meeting lions or other wild beasts, that is, political enemies. And it is here that the image points forward to the description of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the coming exile (see Isaiah 39), the conclusion of which is the crucial precondition for the subsequent chapters. In Isa 40 the motif of the Lord’s path through the wilderness is reintroduced. This time the exiles are returning home to Zion, and the journey is one great triumphal procession, with the bare land becoming fertile, just as the prophet had predicted in chapter 35 (Isa 41:18–20; see also Isa 42:15; 48:21; 49:9–13). Even the wild animals will honour God (Isa 43:20); indeed, the whole of nature breaks out in cries of jubilation (Isa 44:23; 55:12–13).

21

See Wildberger, Jesaja, p. 1434.

‘THEN THE WILDERNESS SHALL BLOOM’

207

Seen in this context it makes good sense to understand the wild animals in Isa 35:9 as an image of the enemies that have threatened Israel, be they Edomites, Assyrians, or Babylonians. These can all be portrayed as dangerous wild beasts, but when God intervenes and leads his people home from captivity, the wild beasts/enemies of the people will no longer threaten Israel.

VIII. CONCLUSION: REDACTIONAL CONTEXT AND USE OF IMAGERY Hallvard Hagelia has called his article ‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’. I am in absolute agreement that chapter 35 has this bridge-building function and that the motif of the ‘holy road’ is crucial in this context. What I hope to have added in my greeting on this birthday celebration is yet another feature that can show how at a redactional level a cohesion is created when the wild beasts are interpreted as an image of Israel’s political enemies. Hans Wildberger had already hinted at the possibility of such an interpretation, and it is precisely the figurative interpretation of the animals that opens the way for the reapplication of the text in different situations. With his reworking of Isaiah 35, Grundtvig provides a clear example of how such an interpretation may look like when the perspective is moved from the political situation in ancient Israel to the Christian celebration of the arrival of Advent.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Den Danske Salmebog (København, 2002). Grundtvigs Sang-Værk, Første Bind (København, 1944). Hymns in English. A Selection of Hymns from The Danish Hymnbook (København, 2009). B. S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville, 2001). N. F. S. Grundtvig, Værker i Udvalg, udgivet ved Georg Christensen og Hal Koch, Niende Bind (København, 1946). H. Hagelia, ‘The Holy Road as a Bridge: The Role of Chapter 35 in the Book of Isaiah’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 20/1 (2006), pp. 38–57. K. Nielsen, ‘Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible’, in A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø (eds), Congress Volume, Oslo 1998 (Leiden, 2000), pp. 17–31.

208

KIRSTEN NIELSEN

———, ‘Synet på døden i Grundtvigs gendigtninger af gammeltestamentlige tekster’, Hymnologi. Nordisk tidsskrift udgivet af Salmehistorisk Selskab og Nordhymn 42, (2013), pp. 7–23. H. Wildberger, Jesaja. 3. Teilband. Kapitel 28–39 (Neukirchen, 1982).

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH’: PROPHECY AND TORAH IN ISAIAH 65:17–25 KARL WILLIAM WEYDE MF NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, OSLO ABSTRACT This article contends that the passage in Isa 65:17–25 provides an example of prophetic torah, the arguments being that it interprets select motifs of the message in Isa 11:6–9 on the basis of legal material in the Pentateuch and ends with the formula ‫אמר יהוה‬, which indicates that an earlier divine word is cited. Isa 65:17–25 alludes to material in Genesis 1–3, including Gen 1:1 and 3:14, and in the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy. The statement that the serpent shall eat dust (Isa 65:25) indicates that the order of this world shall remain unchanged in the new heavens and on the new earth that YHWH is about to create (v. 17). The new creation described as a world of peace, joy, welfare, long life and harmony between the animal world and the servants of YHWH, shall become apparent in YHWH’s restoration of Jerusalem/Zion. The message in this passage may have served as a program for the restoration of the

209

210

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE Jewish community, which is related in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.1

INTRODUCTION In recent research on the Book of Isaiah, scholars seem to agree that chapters 65–66 and chapter 1 envelop the entire Book of Isaiah with a literary frame. The argument for this view is that the last two chapters have an abundance of terminology and topics in common with the first chapter. This similarity is a result of the final redaction of the book. Moreover, there are many links between chapters 65 and 66, which manifest themselves in a large number of terms and phrases common in both. With regard to Isaiah 65, it is also beyond doubt that the message in this chapter is meant to serve as YHWH’s answer to the communal lament in Isa 63:7– 64:11.2 A closer look at Isa 65:17–25 shows that this passage has some features that are not found in the literary context, such as the statement that YHWH is about to create new heavens and a new earth (v. 17).3 In fact, such a message does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and underscores the contention that it provides a link to the opening verse of the creation story in Gen 1:1.4 The new heavens and new earth are described in the following references to Jerusalem, saying that YHWH is about to create her as a city of joy and Zion as a mountain of peace; this new ‘creation’ shall be It is a pleasure to contribute this article in the honour of Hallvard Hagelia on the occasion of his 70th birthday. In his monograph on spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, Hagelia also comments on Isa 65:17–25; see Hagelia, Coram Deo, p. 346. 2 Of recent studies discussing the relationship between Isaiah 65–66 and Isaiah 1, as well as Isaiah 65 in relation to Isa 63:7–64:11, see Steck, ‘Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde’, pp. 349–354; Sweeney, ‘Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66’, pp. 458–464; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 589–591, 609–610; Berges, The Book of Isaiah, pp. 466–471. 3 In this article, Bible quotations in English follow the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Anglicized Edition (Oxford, 1995). 4 For example Steck, ‘Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde’, pp. 357–360; Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, pp. 196–199. 1

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

211

characterized by peace and harmony and the description is concluded by the formula ‫ אמר יהוה‬in Isa 65:25b. The passage has several features in common with the assumed parallel in Isa 11:6–9, but there are also differences: In addition to the reference to new heavens and a new earth the most obvious change is the description of the serpent in Isa 65:25 compared with what is said about the asp and the adder in Isa 11:8. What is the significance of these characteristics of the message in Isa 65:17–25 and how was it possible to describe the renewal of Jerusalem and Zion in terms of YHWH’s creation of new heavens and a new earth? Needless to say, these questions have long attracted attention among scholars. However, looking at some recent studies one is somewhat surprised to find that there is no agreement on the answers. In this article, we shall resume some of the debated issues and suggest solutions to them. It may appear wise to begin with a closer examination of Isa 65:17–25 compared with its assumed parallel in Isa 11:6–9.

I. ISA 65:17–25 AND ISA 11:6–95 Scholars have long since commented on the fact that the common Hebrew word for ‘together’ (‫)יהדו‬, which occurs twice in Isa 11:6– 7, is expressed by ‫ כאהד‬in Isa 65:25, and that this term elsewhere is only found in the latest literature of the Hebrew Bible (see 2 Chr 5:13; Ezra 2:64 [= Neh 7:66]; 3:9; 6:20; Eccl 11:6, 22). This was one of S. R. Driver’s arguments for suggesting the dependence of Isa 65:25 on Isa 11:6–9, and recently J. Stromberg adopted his view.6 Two other differences point in the same direction of dependence. First, the placement of the word ‘together’ in Isa 11:7, which seems A detailed comparison of these two passages is presented by Schultz, The Search for Quotation, pp. 240–256. See also Steck, ‘“… ein kleiner Knabe kann sie leiten”: Beobachtungen zum Tierfrieden in Jesaja 11,6–8 und 65,25’, pp. 104–113. For the purpose of our study we shall only resume some of the issues discussed by them. 6 Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 240, referring to the 19th century scholars T. K. Cheyne and A. Dillmann, who had made similar observations on the language; Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, pp. 102–103. 5

212

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

to be ambiguous: does it modify the first or the second clause? Isa 65:25 is clear on this point, since ‘together’ modifies ‘they shall feed’, which is the equivalent of the first clause in Isa 11:7. Thus, Isa 65:25 clarifies the difficulty in 11:7. Second, a different word for lamb is chosen by each passage: Isa 11:6 has the common term ‫כבש‬, whereas Isa 65:25 uses ‫טלה‬, which may suggest an influence of Isa 40:11 (pl. ‫)טלאים‬, a word which elsewhere occurs only in 1 Sam 7:9. These observations make it likely that the author of Isa 65:25 applied the statement about the lamb in Isa 11:6 by preferring the rare term for lamb in Isa 40:11.7 The issue of the use of different words for snake in Isa 11:8 and Isa 65:25 respectively, and the related question whether this difference provides still another argument for the question of dependence, shall be discussed in another context below. The most convincing argument for the chronological priority of Isa 11:6–9 is the formula ‫אמר יהוה‬, which concludes the prediction in Isa 65:25b saying that ‘they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain’. The identical clause occurs in Isa 11:9a as well, without being followed by any formula marking divine speech. It is somewhat surprising to find that several recent studies hardly have any comments on this difference, other than simply observing that the formula occurs in the later text. One exception, however, is J. Stromberg, who correctly observes that this occurrence agrees with the broader distribution of such divine discourse markers in Isaiah 11 and 65–66, since they are absent in the former and abound in the latter. He refers to S. A. Meier, who contends that literature from the Exile onwards shows an ‘aggressive concern to mark divine speech’, 8 a tendency not present in pre-exilic literature, and on this principle Stromberg states that the presence of the formula ‫ אמר יהוה‬suggests that Isa 65:25 is the later of the two passages; ‘one would not expect 11:6–9 to omit this phrase if it were citing 65:25, since it would therefore be postexilic’, and he continues, ‘it is easier to see how citing an earlier prophet compelled a later author to reassert the divine authority of Also Stromberg (Isaiah After Exile, pp. 103, 105) makes use of these two arguments. 8 Meier, Speaking of Speaking, p. 324. 7

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

213

that text by adding this phrase’.9 One may agree with this view, and it should be emphasized that both earlier and later prophetic words, especially from post-exilic times, when quoting or referring to older words of YHWH often introduce divine discourse markers in order to give their message divine authority. Such markers are a prominent feature of prophetic traditions from post-exilic times, which scholars regard as ‘written prophecy’ (‘Schriftprophetie’) and exegesis of older divine words. The abundance of formulas marking divine speech in the post-exilic Book of Malachi provides a good example of such use.10 In the light of this evidence, one may suggest that the author of Isa 65:17–25 applies and adapts older words of YHWH, among others from Isa 11:6–9, and gives his exegesis of them divine authority by adding the formula ‫אמר יהוה‬. Another striking difference between the two passages is the strong connection between Isa 65:17–25 and texts in the Pentateuch. Scholars have long since observed this feature of the passage, among others O. H. Steck11 and most recently K. Schmid and J. Stromberg. The last-mentioned emphasizes that these links to the Pentateuch would explain why the word for snake changes from ‫ צפעוני‬and ‫ פתן‬in Isa 11:8 to ‫ נחש‬in Isa 65:25, the term which also occurs in Gen 3:1–14.12 Schmid for his part contends that Isa 65:17–25 clearly alludes to Genesis 1–3, since Isa 65:17, 25 resume statements in Gen 1:1 and 3:14 respectively. Moreover, he shows that two characteristic features of the Isaiah passage compared with the Genesis traditions are that the good order will endure, which differs from the depravity of the first creation (see Gen 6:11–12), and that blessing will be bestowed upon every creature, which differs from the first creation story, in which blessing is limited to animals in the waters, to birds and to human beings (see Gen 1:22,

Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, p. 104. Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 4–6. 11 Steck, ‘Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde’, pp. 357–362. For allusions to specific and identifiable Pentateuchal texts in Isaiah chapters 40–66 (all of which are regarded by B. D. Sommer as Deutero-Isaianic), see Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 132–151. 12 Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, pp. 104–105. 9

10

214

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

28).13 These radical ‘improvements’ of the orders of the first creation explain why the phrases new heavens and new earth characterize the description in Isa 65:17–25.14 Earlier, R. L. Schultz, among others, had observed other links between Isaiah 65 and Genesis 1–3.15 Moreover, it seems to be beyond doubt that certain verses in Isa 65:17–25 allude to the futility curses in Deut 28:30, 39–41, which according to the Isaiah passage are to be annulled: YHWH’s people will inhabit the houses they have built and eat the fruits of the vineyards they have planted (Isa 65:21–22 annulling Deut 28:30, 39–40), and they as well as their descendants shall be blessed by YHWH (Isa 65:20, 23 annulling Deut 28:41). Schmid correctly remarks that Isa 65:17–25 by means of these links alludes to one of the concluding chapters of the Torah; the Isaiah passage is thus ‘kanonsbewusst’ in that it picks up statements from the beginning and the end of the Torah and formulates new perspectives that are equivalent to the Torah: the possible negative consequences of the old creation shall be annulled; the good order of the creation cannot be perverted any more. 16 Other scholars see in the Isaiah passage allusions to the curses and blessings in both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28,17 alternatively (only) to Lev 26:16, 20.18 Looking at the literary context of Isa 65:17–25 we also find other links with the curses and blessings in Deuteronomy: In Isa 65:16, the statement saying that whoever blesses and takes an oath, shall do it by the God of faithfulness, probably alludes to the stipulation

Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, pp. 196–199. 14 Similarly Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, pp. 94–96; Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, p. 197. 15 Schultz, The Search for Quotation, p. 254. 16 Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, p. 198. Stordalen (Echoes of Eden, p. 440) suggests that the motif of an extended human life span in Isa 65:20 may provide another link to the Eden narrative in Genesis 2–3. 17 For instance Berges, The Book of Isaiah, p. 476. 18 For instance Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66, p. 139. 13

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

215

in Deut 29:18 [ET 19].19 In addition, one should mention that in the Book of Isaiah outside Isa 65:17–25, especially in Isaiah 40–66, it is possible to identify several links with Deuteronomy and other books in the Pentateuch, as M. Fishbane and B. D. Sommer have shown.20 These examples support the correctness of the frequently made observation that texts in the so-called Trito-Isaiah have many allusions to material in the Pentateuch. The observations adduced above found arguments for claiming the dependence of Isa 65:17–25 on Isa 11:6–9. They also revealed some characteristic features of the former passage compared with the latter, especially the many allusions to Pentateuchal texts in Isa 65:17–25 and its literary context. There are, however, also other striking differences that can offer more information on the features of Isa 65:17–25 and these differences should not be neglected. First, the description of the serpent including the terminology in Isa 65:25 differs substantially from that in Isa 11:8. Although researchers long since have seen this difference, they have not reached an agreement on how to explain it. Nor is there a scholarly consensus concerning the meaning of the statement about the serpent in Isa 65:25: Does it convey a positive or a negative message? Second, more often than not scholars do not comment on the question why Isa 65:17–25 made use of and modified the older passage in Isa 11:6–9. This silence is surprising, since it neglects a basic question in any discussion of inner-biblical exegesis, and also is in danger of overlooking the function of such interpretation. There are therefore good reasons to take a closer look at these issues, which may shed light on another important aspect as well: the historical setting of the message in Isa 65:17–25. Is it possible to say anything about it? As may be expected, opinions differ on this matter as well and it is to be hoped that we can say more about it after having discussed the other issues mentioned above. It may appear fruitful to start with the exegetical crux of the prediction of the serpent in Isa 65:25, since a solution So Berges, The Book of Isaiah, pp. 472–473. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 478–479; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 132–151. 19 20

216

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

to it can perhaps contribute to our understanding of other characteristics of 65:17–25, above all the links with material in the Pentateuch and the question why the author made use of Isa 11:6– 9 at all.

II. ‘… BUT THE SERPENT—ITS FOOD SHALL BE DUST’: A PUZZLING STATEMENT AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE What does it mean that the serpent’s food shall be dust (Isa 65:25)? In recent research, as mentioned above, different interpretations of this statement have come up which have in common that they presuppose that it refers to Gen 3:14 and should be interpreted in the light of the message of the literary context in Isa 65:17–25; but the interpreters disagree on its meaning. For instance, J. Blenkinsopp contends that Isa 65:17–25 is not apocalyptic but has in view a restoration, a return to the first creation (as described in Gen 1:29–30), to origins, to the lost world of innocence that came to an end with the great deluge, except that the serpent is still doomed. The reference to the serpent does not intend to say that snakes are to become just ordinary, harmless animals.21 Rather, it expresses the view that snakes, having been cursed from the very beginning, are the one exception to the ideal scene of harmony in the animal world described in Isa 65:25: ‘The snake is therefore excluded from this transformation of the natural world, this return to the first creation, in which humans and animals are to live in harmony and none will kill for food (Gen 1:29–30).’22 It seems that the NRSV shares this interpretation by introducing the statement about the serpent in contrast to the preceding description of harmony among other animals (v. 25a): ‘but the serpent—its food shall be dust!’ O. H. Steck, however, holds another view remarking that Isa 65:25 only says that the serpent shall eat dust, which implies that also the serpent, in the time of salvation, shall be a peaceful animal; the passage, in Steck’s view, cancels the

21 22

This was the interpretation of Volz, Jesaja II, p. 287. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, p. 290.

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

217

announcement in Lev 26:22, which says that ‘the wild animals shall destroy you’.23 Evaluating these different interpretations, one should not overlook that Isa 65:25 has no reference to the enmity between the serpent and the woman, which is a central issue in Gen 3:15. This absence raises a question: Does the Isaiah passage presuppose that this hostile relationship is still valid, thus regarding it as unnecessary to mention it? One argument in favour of this view could be the fact that Isa 65:25 only selects some elements from its presumed source in Isa 11:6–9. For instance, only two out of the six pairings of unlike animals in Isa 11:6–9 occur in Isa 65:25, and also the reference to the infant playing over the hole of the asp (Isa 11:8) is omitted.24 This feature may suggest that the creatures mentioned in Isa 65:25 have a representative function; they stand for all the created animals. By analogy, one could argue that also the reference to the serpent eating dust omits the enmity mentioned in Gen 3:15, but it is presupposed and will thus remain; the serpent is therefore an exception to the harmony that will prevail among other animals. This argument would support Blenkinsopp’s view. On the other hand, after the reference to the serpent, the statement in Isa 65:25b continues to describe a situation of harmony: ‘They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain.’ Thus, it seems that this verse portrays a state of peaceful existence and agreement on Mount Zion without any exceptions, and the omission of the enmity between snake and woman probably means that this enmity shall no longer exist; also the serpent shall be peaceful and cause no harm. This argument supports Steck’s interpretation, which also seems more likely in the light of what is conveyed in v. 25b. Recently, U. F. Berges has Steck, ‘“… ein kleiner Knabe kann sie leiten”: Beobachtungen zum Tierfrieden in Jesaja 11,6–8 und 65,25’, p. 109: ‘In der Heilszeit wird die Schlange dann wirklich nur Staub fressen, also friedlich sein’; see also p. 112. Stordalen (Echoes of Eden, p. 440) suggests that the motif of animal peace in Isa 65:25 may provide a link to the Eden narrative in Genesis 2– 3. 24 This is correctly observed by (among others) Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, p. 290. 23

218

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

presented a similar view contending that ‘even the poisonous snake of 11.8 will be “defanged” through recourse to Gen. 3.14: it will have dust for food!’25 Also this interpretation, however, needs to be slightly modified, because it seems to overlook an important aspect of the curse in Gen 3:14: The serpent’s going on his belly and eating dust materializes one of the curses that were posed upon the serpent after it had tricked the woman. When Isa 65:25 says that these conditions shall remain unchanged, it implies that this part of the curse is still valid, and this implication may support Blenkinsopp’s contention that, in Isa 65:25, the serpent is still doomed, although the enmity between the serpent and the woman is annulled.26 This interpretation of Isa 65:25 offers another prospect: Predicting that the serpent shall (still) eat dust on the new earth, the statement seems to imply that the fixed order of this world shall remain. At stake is not a replacement of the cosmos, but the rehabilitation and everlasting peace of Zion and Jerusalem (Isa 65:18–19, 25), and for this purpose the tradition of the Eden narrative served as a paradigm.27 The harmony described in Isa 65:17–25 is limited to Zion-Jerusalem, and this is in line with Isa 11:1–10 describing how the coming Davidic scion will judge the poor with righteousness and kill the wicked—obviously on this earth and in Jerusalem (v. 10). The fact that there is no mention of new heavens and a new earth in Isa 11:1–10 supports the view that the passage has this geographical orientation. In the broader literary context of Isa 65:17–25, however, the rehabilitation of Zion-Jerusalem is only the first step in an even more comprehensive process of renewal; the next stage will be the inclusion of the nations described in Isa 66:18–24.28 Berges, The Book of Isaiah, p. 478 fn. 456. See also Stordalen (Echoes of Eden, p. 440) who argues that the focal point of the word about the serpent in Isa 65:25 is not about harmony but about the serpent ‘eating dust’. 27 Paul, Isaiah 40–66, p. 45. 28 See Sweeney, ‘Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66’, p. 468; he correctly observes that Isa 66:5–24 differs from Isa 65:1–66:4 in that ‘it tends to develop motifs at length rather than simply to cite or to allude to 25 26

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

219

III. NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH Our exegesis of the statement about the serpent in Isa 65:25 thus leads to similar conclusions as those K. Schmid recently arrived at, but on a somewhat different basis: The idea of new heavens and a new earth in Isaiah 65–66 is not to be understood as part of a ‘Zwei-Äonen-Lehre’, which emerged only much later. In Isa 65:17–25, there is no mention of a cosmic change; heaven and earth remain unchanged as cosmic structures. At stake is the renewal of the order of the ‘old’ creation. One may also speak about a ‘renewed’ creation (‘“erneuerte” Schöpfung’), where the good order of the ‘first’ creation remains; but, as mentioned above, this renewed creation shall be completely characterized by blessing, without any limits to the blessing as was the case in the creation account in Gen 1:22, 28.29 Schmid’s contention that ‘Selbst die Schlange wird nicht mehr vom Fluch getroffen sein’30 is correct in so far as the renewal shall annul the enmity between the serpent and the woman. But one should add that the ‘life conditions’ of the serpent will not be changed; it shall continue to go on its belly and eat dust, just as the structures of cosmos, heaven and earth, shall remain unchanged. Isa 65:17–25 is not about a new cosmos, but about a new social and religious order:31 No more shall the sound of weeping be heard in YHWH’s people, or the cry of distress (v. 19); whereas previously YHWH answered the people’s cry for help (Isa 58:9), YHWH’s intervention in the future, in response to their pleading, will be intensified to the extent that the divine answer will even precede the human call (Isa 65:24). The plagues of infant mortality and short life will be banished from Jerusalem (Isa 65:20, 23), and like the days of a tree shall the days of YHWH’s people be and they shall long enjoy the an earlier textual tradition. Furthermore, in citing earlier texts and motifs, it builds on statements from Isa 65:1–66:4.’ 29 Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, pp. 196–197. Schmid contends that the idea of the two ages should be explained against the background of the destruction of the Second Temple, with explicit attestations only as late as in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. 30 Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, p. 197. 31 Berges, The Book of Isaiah, pp. 475–476.

220

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

work of their hands (v. 22). There is, however, still a long way from these promises to the hope in a final destruction of death, as it is expressed in Isa 25:8: ‘He [YHWH] will swallow up death for ever.’32 The idea of new heavens and a new earth in Isa 65:17–25 is still not apocalyptic, but it prepares the ground for apocalypticism.33 Thus, the predicted restoration of Zion-Jerusalem shall not annul the fixed order of this world. In other words, this restoration, which shall be characterized by joy, peace and harmony, materializes what it means that YHWH is about to create new heavens and a new earth. Having reached this conclusion it may be fruitful to compare Isa 65:17–25 with Jer 31:31–34. In this passage, YHWH promises that he will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah, a covenant which will not be like the covenant that he made with their ancestors, because the law will be written in their hearts. This rather radical change of the covenant, which in fact annuls the covenant of Mount Sinai, shall materialize in this world, since YHWH also assures that the fixed order of the universe will remain unchanged (Jer 31:35–37).34 The similarly radical changes described in Isa 65:17–25 as YHWH’s creation of new heavens and a new earth seem to reflect a similar way of thinking, since they convey the view that the restoration of Zion-Jerusalem and the renewal of the relationship between her inhabitants and YHWH shall take place in this world; there is no reference to a change of the cosmic order. One can easily imagine that the author of the Isaianic passage was aware of the message of the passage in Jeremiah 31: also the latter occurs in a literary frame in which the restoration of Jerusalem is in focus (see Jer 31:38–40), and the author of Isa 65:17–25 also seems to be influenced by the Jeremiah traditions, as This is correctly emphasized by Berges, The Book of Isaiah, p. 476. Compare the view in Dan 12:2, which is more in line with Isa 25:8. 33 This view is in agreement with Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, p. 193. 34 See Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, p. 197 fn. 47; he points to the analogous discussion of the topic ‘covenant’ in Jer 31:31–34 by Gross, ‘Erneuerter oder Neuer Bund?’, pp. 41–66. 32

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

221

can be seen in v. 19, ‘I will rejoice in Jerusalem and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress.’ Both YHWH’s promise to Rachel in the Book of Jeremiah, ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping …’ (Jer 31:15–17) and the reversal of the announcement of judgement, ‘And I will bring to an end the sound of myrth and gladness … in the streets of Jerusalem …’ (Jer 7:34; see also Jer 16:9; 25:10) reverberate in Isa 65:19.35 The above interpretation of Isa 65:17–25 shows that the statement about the serpent in v. 25 contributes to the description of the rehabilitation of Zion-Jerusalem and its inhabitants, which shall take place in this world. These observations also enable us to comment on a different solution to the serpent problem, which J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten presented in 1992. Also he suggests that the reference to the serpent alludes to Gen 3:14. However, in search of the meaning of this allusion van Ruiten connects Isa 65:25 with other OT texts where the phrase ‘licking dust’ (the verb ‫לחך‬, piel) refers to an attitude of humility and servility of rulers and nations, of a hostile group (see Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17; Ps 72:9). He contends that this meaning fits very well with the context of Isa 65:25. However, the reference to the serpent eating dust is not quite comparable to the occurrences of ‘licking dust’, to which van Ruiten refers and where the humiliation of the enemy / of foreign nations is explicitly at stake. Isa 65:25 does not apply the verb ‘lick’ or speak of ‘licking dust’, which elsewhere in the OT has negative connotations and implies the idea of humiliation. The Isaiah text simply refers to dust as the food of the serpent, and there is no reason to apply a metaphorical meaning, such as humiliation, to this terminology. Nor is it necessary to assume that the statements in Isa 65:25 about the wolf feeding together with the lamb and the lion eating straw like the ox refer to curses that shall be imposed on these animals and refer, metaphorically speaking, to the humiliation of foreigners or foreign nations. 36 Rather, a more likely Paul, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 603–604. See also Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, pp. 99–101. 36 Van Ruiten, ‘The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah 11,6-9’, pp. 39–41. 35

222

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

interpretation is the one for which we argued above: The image contained in Isa 65:25 symbolizes the harmony that will prevail on Zion and in Jerusalem. This view can perhaps also find support in the Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninhursag, which seems to provide a number of parallels to the motifs of the biblical Eden narrative and to which S. M. Paul refers in his discussion of Isa 11:6–9 and Isa 65:25 in his recently published commentary on Isaiah 40–66. The myth begins with an eulogy on Dilmun, described as both a land (or landscape) and a city, which is pure, clean and bright, and in which there is probably neither sickness nor death; there is also a state of harmony in the animal world, where there are no predators: ‘The lion kills not; the wolf snatches not the lamb, unknown is the kiddevouring wild dog, unknown is the grain-devouring …’ (lines 15– 18). Dilmun, therefore, may perhaps be characterized as a divine paradise under command by the water-god Enki.37 In this myth, Paul finds the idea of national redemption and peace expressed by the above-mentioned harmony, and he contends that against this background it is clear that the irenic scenario of predator and prey living in peaceful coexistence in Isa 65:25 describes the harmony that ‘shall prevail throughout Mount Zion’ or perhaps more generally throughout ‘Jerusalem and the entire land of Israel’.38

IV. ISA 65:17–25 AS PROPHETIC TORAH Alluding to the serpent eating dust in Gen 3:14, the statement in Isa 65:25a provides a link to the Pentateuch. As mentioned above, this is not the only example of such a link in Isaiah 65:17–25 (and elsewhere in Trito-Isaiah) and when comparing Isa 65:25 with Isa 11:6–9, one may agree with J. Stromberg who contends that the In the main plot of this myth, Enki and the goddess Ninhursag, ‘the mother of the land’, are the main gods of the pantheon; see Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 37–38. On various interpretations of this myth in recent research see Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, pp. 144–146. 38 Paul, Isaiah 40–66, p. 607. Also Steck (‘“… ein kleiner Knabe kann sie leiten”: Beobachtungen zum Tierfrieden in Jesaja 11,6–8 und 65,25’, p. 113) suggests that Isa 65:25 was influenced by the myth in question. 37

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

223

former text reflects the work of a later author filtering the latter text through a Pentateuchal lens.39 This insight may offer some interesting prospects: Why was the application of Isa 11:6–9 in Isa 65:17–25 linked with Pentateuchal material? Stromberg and other scholars do not discuss the matter, but it is important to do so, in order to find the intention of the author’s exegesis. A simple answer would be that Isa 65:17–25 reflects an increasing interest in the Torah compared with its source text in Isa 11:6–9. But again the question arises: Why does Isa 65:17–25 lay such emphasis on the Torah? In search of an answer it may appear fruitful to recall some observations on the term ‫ תורה‬in the Book of Isaiah made by M. A. Sweeney in 1996, which seem to have been somewhat neglected by later researchers: Examining the twelve occurrences of ‫ תורה‬in this book, which occur in texts from several different historical settings and seem to represent different understandings of the term (Isa 1:10; 2:3; 5:24; 8:16, 20; 24:5; 30:9; 42:4, 21, 24; 51:4, 7), he concludes that ‘the sum total of these occurrences identifies ‫תורה‬ as the teaching of YHWH, expressed by the prophet, which stands as the norm for proper conduct by both Israel and the nations and … as the norm for order in the created world. It is likewise identified as something that is not properly understood in the time of the prophet, but the full significance of which will be apparent at a future time in which YHWH’s world-wide sovereignty is recognized. As such, ‫ תורה‬signifies YHWH’s revelation to both Israel and the world at large.’ 40 In this regard, Sweeney continues, the symbolism of the revelation of YHWH’s Torah to the nations and the house of Jacob, which is described in Isa 2:2–5, becomes especially important in that it establishes an analogy of the revelation of the Torah to Israel (and to the nations, represented by Egypt and the Pharaoh), which is related in the Sinai pericope of the Pentateuch. ‘Just as the revelation of Torah at Mount Sinai provides guidance or instruction in the norms of proper behavior for the people of Israel, so the revelation of Torah at Mount Zion

39 40

Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, p. 105. Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, p. 63.

224

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

provides guidance or instruction in the norms of proper behavior for the nations as well as for the people of Israel.’41 Sweeney also contends that the invitation to the house of Jacob to come to Zion to learn YHWH’s Torah would support Ezra’s understanding of the need to reconstitute the Jewish community in Jerusalem on the basis of the instructions of the Law of Moses. In Sweeney’s argument this contention is linked with the view that the Book of Isaiah achieved its full and final form during the fifth century BCE, in conjunction with the reform program of Ezra and Nehemiah, which can be seen in Isaiah 56; 60–62. These chapters presuppose that the temple has already been rebuilt, but that the full manifestation of YHWH’ rule has not yet occurred (Isa 65–66), a state of affairs that corresponds to the situation of the late-fifth century BCE when Ezra and Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem to begin their reform work: ‘Insofar as the book of Isaiah is designed to re-establish ideal Jewish life in Zion based on the Torah (cf. Isa. 2.2–4), it shares the same goal as Ezra’s reform.’42 One may agree or disagree with Sweeney on when the Book of Isaiah achieved its final form, including chapters 65–66.43 It is beyond doubt, however, that these two chapters and Ezra’s reforms share some features, which also Sweeney mentions, such as using the term ‫‘( חרד‬one who trembles’) to describe those who adhere YHWH’s covenant (Isa 66:2, 5; Ezra 9:4; 10:3); they also emphasize the importance of observing the Sabbath as a cornerstone of the covenant, and of obeying the Torah, and they support the centrality of the temple (see Isa 56:6; 58:13–14; Neh Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, p. 64. Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, p. 57. See Nehemiah 8–10; Ezra 7–10. 43 For a considerably later date, see for example Steck, ‘Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde’, pp. 360–365 (early Hellenistic times); Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus’, p. 193 (3 rd century BCE). Both scholars base their views on the fact that Isa 65:17– 25 refers to texts at the beginning and the end of the Pentateuch; Schmid also contends that the passage reflects the collapse of the political stability of the Persian Empire. 41 42

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

225

9:14; 10:31; 13:15–22).44 Moreover, Ezra speaks of those who trembled at the words of God as a ‘remnant’ (Ezra 9:8, 15), which provides another link to the Book of Isaiah (see Isa 4:2; 10:20; 37:31–32). Finally, in the Book of Ezra, as both Sweeney and other scholars have pointed out, Ezra’s return to Jerusalem is presented as a second Exodus in keeping with the new Exodus from Babylon proclaimed in the Book of Isaiah (see Isa 35:8–10; 40:1–11; 62:10– 12). Ezra’s reform constitutes a second restoration of the temple community during the Persian period in analogy to the first establishment of the temple community under the reign of King Solomon in the early times of the monarchy (1 Kings 8).45 Thus, the understanding of ‫ תורה‬in the final form of the Book of Isaiah is presented in relation to a new Exodus of the exiled Jews to Zion brought about by YHWH, which results in the establishment of YHWH’s world-wide sovereignty. Both Mosaic Torah and the Book of Isaiah, although having some characteristics of their own, define Israel as a holy community and could therefore serve Ezra’s reforms. In its final form, the Book of Isaiah, as Sweeney argues, may have been designed to support the reforms of Ezra based on the Torah in the late fifth century BCE.46 Sharing many of Sweeney’s views we shall add that in Isaiah 65–66 those who are presented as trembling at YHWH’s words (66:2, 5) are obviously to be identified with those who are called YHWH’s servants and YHWH’s chosen (Isa 65:8, 9, 13–15), who are contrasted with those who forsake YHWH and do what is evil in his eyes (Isa 65:12–15). The former shall be YHWH’s people of the restored Jerusalem on the new earth (Isa 65:17–25); they shall also be called YHWH’s chosen, YHWH’s offspring (= seed) blessed by YHWH—and their descendants are included in this scenario (see Isa 65:22–23). Thus, Isaiah 65–66 describe the future of the chosen, who are the offspring of the people of YHWH and tremble at his words, and it is likely—or at least possible—that they Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, p. 58. See for example Japhet, ‘Periodization between History and Ideology’, pp. 75–89; Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, p. 58. 46 Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, pp. 57, 64–66. 44 45

226

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

are to be identified with those who are characterized by some of the same terms in Ezra, those who tremble at the commandment of YHWH and are willing to conduct their lives according to the law (Ezra 10:3; see also 9:14). Against this background one can easily understand why not only Isa 65:25 but also other verses in Isa 65:17–25 display so many links with texts in the Pentateuch.47 When the author used and transformed the message of Isa 11:6–9 in Isa 65:17–25, he also annulled those curses in the Torah that disturbed peace and a life in harmony (Gen 3:15; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28); they should no longer threaten members of the restored Jerusalem community who observe the law. Such a message explains why Isa 65:17 says that YHWH is about to create new heavens and a new earth: blessing shall be bestowed on every creature and the good order of the world shall endure. This radical change can be qualified as YHWH’s creation of new heavens and a new earth. The passage in Isa 65:17–25 describes the future of ZionJerusalem by interpreting select motifs of the message in Isa 11:6–9 on the basis of legal material in the Pentateuch. The interpretation ends with the formula ‫אמר יהוה‬, which gives the message in Isa 65:17–25 divine authority. The passage thus seems to provide an example of prophetic torah.48 The author’s intention was to provide a program for the restored community—the holy seed—in the rebuilt temple in post-exilic times, perhaps the Persian period. The message conveyed in Isa 65:17–25 is that YHWH’s people, who in v. 22 as well as in the literary context is identified as YHWH’s servants and YHWH’s chosen, shall also be an offspring blessed by YHWH (v. 23). The passage depicts a community living in harmony and peace, presupposing that its members are observing the law, and are therefore being blessed. This description may go well together with the hopes for the post-exilic community that are expressed elsewhere, among others in Hag 2:9, 19; Zech 1:14–17; 3:9–10; 8:3, 8, 11–15, all of which foresee a restored covenant based on the Torah between YHWH and his people. See the reference to Stromberg (Isaiah After Exile, p. 105) above, who emphasizes this connection, but only with regard to Isa 65:25. 48 See the title of Sweeney’s article mentioned in footnote 40 above. 47

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

227

In the light of this evidence it is not impossible that the prophetic predictions in Isa 65:17–25 were written to give support to Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s reforms in the fifth century BCE, in which knowledge of and obedience to the Torah were central issues (see Ezra 9–10; Nehemiah 8; 10). The author of the message in Isa 65:17–25 intended to strengthen and encourage the holy seed in Jerusalem to re-establish ideal Jewish life founded on the Torah. A similar prophetic torah occurs in Mal 3:13–21 as well, where it is foretold what will happen to YHWH’s servants, those who observe the law, and to the wicked, those who do not serve YHWH, on the day when YHWH acts: On that day, only the servants of YHWH shall be YHWH’s special possession (v. 17), whereas the evildoers shall be annihilated (verses 19–21). The message of this passage may also reflect the situation in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. 49

V. SUMMARY In agreement with most scholars, this article contends that the passage in Isa 65:17–25 is dependent on and interprets select elements of Isa 11:6–9, the most decisive argument for this being the use of the formula ‫ אמר יהוה‬in Isa 65:25b, which indicates that an earlier divine word is cited. Also the terminology of the former passage points in the same direction of dependence; moreover, Isa 65:25 clarifies an ambiguity in Isa 11:7. A significant difference is that Isa 65:17–25 clearly alludes to material in Genesis 1–3 as well as to the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy. Thus, the Isaiah passage picks up elements from the beginning and the end of the Pentateuch, the most remarkable references being those to Gen 1:1 and 3:14. We have discussed the significance of these characteristics, especially what it means that the food of the serpent shall be dust (Isa 65:25), a statement which has no parallel in Isaiah 11. It has been argued that the reference to the serpent eating dust indicates that the order of this world shall remain unchanged in the new heavens and on the new earth that YHWH is about to create (Isa 65:17). The new creation shall become apparent in YHWH’s restoration of Jerusalem and Zion, and materialize in a 49

See Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase, pp. 198–204.

228

KARL WILLIAM WEYDE

comprehensive blessing characterized by peace, joy, welfare, long life and harmony between the animal world and the servants of YHWH. Because this prediction applies select topics from Isa 11:6–9 and interprets them on the basis of material in the Pentateuch, the passage in Isa 65:17–25 may be called a prophetic torah, in line with many other passages in the Book of Isaiah. The prophetic torah in Isa 65:17–25 may have served as a program for the restoration of the Jewish community in post-exilic times, which is related in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

BIBLIOGRAPHY U. Berges, The Book of Isaiah. Its Composition and Final Form, translated by M. C. Lind (Sheffield, 2012). J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 2003). ———, Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids / Cambridge, 2009). S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament , 8th edn (Edinburgh, 1909). M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1991). W. Gross, ‘Erneuerter oder Neuer Bund? Wortlaut und Aussageintention in Jer 31,31–34’, in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds), Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (Tübingen, 1996), pp. 41–66. H. Hagelia, Coram Deo: Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh (Stockholm, 2001). S. Japhet, ‘Periodization between History and Ideology: The NeoBabylonian Period in Biblical Historiography’, in O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the NeoBabylonian Period (Winona Lake, 2003), pp. 75–89. W. Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches (BZAW 225, Berlin/New York, 1994). S. A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (Leiden, 1992). S. M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids / Cambridge, 2012). J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd edn (Princeton, 1955).

‘FOR I AM ABOUT TO CREATE’

229

J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, ‘The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah 11,6–9’, in F. Garcia Martinez (ed.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Festschrift A. S. van der Woude (Leiden, 1992), pp. 31–42. K. Schmid, ‘Neue Schöpfung als Überbietung des neuen Exodus: Die tritojesanische Aktualisierung der deuterojesajanischen Theologie und der Tora’, in K. Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament (Tübingen, 2011), pp. 185–205. R. L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (Sheffield, 1999). B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, 1998). O. H. Steck, ‘“… ein kleiner Knabe kann sie leiten”: Beobachtungen zum Tierfrieden in Jesaja 11,6–8 und 65,25’, in J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zobel (eds), Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift für Horst Dietrich Preuss zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart / Berlin / Köln, 1992), pp. 104–113. ———, ‘Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde. Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Gen 1–3 in Jes 65,16b–25’, in J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (Leuven, 1997), pp. 349–365. T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven, 2000). J. Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile. The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book (Oxford, 2011). M. A. Sweeney, ‘The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah’, in R. F. Melugin and M. A. Sweeney (eds), New Visions of Isaiah (Sheffield, 1996), pp. 50–67. ———, ‘Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66’, in C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Volume One (Leiden, 1997), pp. 455–474. P. Volz, Jesaja II. Zweite Hälfte: Kapitel 40–66 (Leipzig, 1932). K. W. Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi (Berlin /New York, 2000).

THE ENIGMATIC FIGURE OF THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’ OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’ IN ISAIAH 40–55 AND OTHER SALVIFIC FIGURES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE MARKUS ZEHNDER ANSGAR COLLEGE AND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY / EVANGELICAL-THEOLOGICAL FACULTY LEUVEN / UNIVERSITY OF BASEL ABSTRACT This study looks at the connections between the Isaianic ‘Servant of the Lord’ as described in the so-called Servant songs and other salvific figures in the Hebrew Bible. It turns out that there is a web of close connections, especially with the Davidic Messiah and (the prophet like) Moses, and also with Jeremiah. The complexity of this web speaks against attempts to identify the Isaianic Servant too narrowly with only one of the other biblical figures that are traditionally seen as potential candidates for such an identification. The close relationship between the traditions of the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah (as well as the Son of Man) help to understand why all these traditions could be combined and linked to one person in

231

232

MARKUS ZEHNDER some texts of the Second Temple literature, not the least in the New Testament.1

INTRODUCTION The identity of the ‘Servant of the Lord’ has been a matter of debate throughout the history of interpretation. 2 Related to this It is a pleasure to offer this essay in gratitude to Hallvard Hagelia on occasion of his 70th birthday. Ever since my arrival at Ansgarskolen in the winter 2006/07 he has been a most welcoming and friendly colleague engaged in the common project of deepening the understanding of the Bible and trying to help students understand biblical texts in their original context. Our collaboration has become even more intense with the launch of the Norwegian Summer Academy for Biblical Studies in 2011. I also want to thank his wife, Kirsten Hagelia, for her kind hospitality shown during this period. A special word of thanks goes to my colleague in the Department of Old Testament at the ETF Leuven, Dr. Creighton Marlowe, for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Of course, all remaining errors are my own. 2 See for example Lindsey, The Servant Songs, pp. 9–17; North, The Suffering Servant; Ruppert, ‘Der leidende Gottesknecht’, p. 571; Watts, Isaiah, pp. 116–118; Zehnder, Umgang, pp. 536–538. The most important identifications are: the people of Israel; a pious group within Israel; the Israelites in exile; a symbol of Israel depicted in individualistic traits; the prophetic order; the prophet himself (‘Isaiah’ or ‘Deutero-Isaiah’); (a new) Jeremiah; a new Moses; Zerubbabel; Cyrus (and his successors on the Persian throne); the Messiah; an ideal unspecified figure with multiple possible referents; or in fact a combination of several of the above and other suggestions. Clines, in his analysis of the fourth Servant song, claims that the identity of the Servant is intentionally veiled and open to multiple interpretations (see I, pp. 59–61), and that it is really a poetic parable of servanthood that transcends any specific historic delimitation (I, p. 65). In a similar vein, Williams speaks of a ‘fluid, flexible, shifting, intentionally ambiguous concept’ that can be found in the Servant songs (‘The Poems’, p. 83). For an extended bibliographical overview of investigations both concerning the identity of the Servant of the Lord and the interpretation 1

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

233

question, there is also a debate about the delimitation of the texts that can be used to describe the Isaianic figure of the Servant of the Lord.3 It is not the aim of this study to attempt to give a comprehensive and definitive answer to the question of the identity of the Servant of the Lord. The aim is much more modest: A number of observations on the relationship between the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 40–55 and other important salvific figures in the Hebrew Bible will be adduced that may—hopefully—contribute to finding an answer to the broader question of the identity and role of this enigmatic figure in the ongoing research. The question of the relationship with the figure of a ‘Davidic Messiah’ will be given particular attention, because in both cases a futurist or eschatological dimension is often considered part of the possible referential horizon.4 The observations gathered in this study will need to be restricted to the most salient features connecting the Servant of the Lord with other biblical traditions of various salvific figures due to space limitations.5 The relations will be investigated from a of the Servant songs in general, covering the period up to 1982, see Haag, Der Gottesknecht. 3 See for example Gerleman, ‘Der Gottesknecht’; Watts, Isaiah, p. 117. 4 Parallels with other biblical figures who show only minor common traits with the Servant of the Lord, such as Abraham or Ezekiel, will not be mentioned because of limitations of space. As far as the relations with a ‘Davidic Messiah’ are concerned, only connections with a Son of David, a future Davidic king or the Davidic king as described in the Book of Psalms in ways that likely transcend mere reference to David as a historical figure are considered. 5 In the context of the present study, it will not be possible to discuss textcritical problems or problems of translation (that are especially frequent in Isa 52:13–53:12) in any detail either. Also possible relations to extra–biblical texts that might be relevant in exploring the background of (parts of) the biblical description of the Servant of the Lord or contribute to the understanding of this figure by indicating parallel traits cannot be dealt with in this study. Questions concerning the relationship between

234

MARKUS ZEHNDER

canonical perspective that reads the texts more or less with the eyes of a person living at the turn of the Common Era. 6 Nevertheless, some remarks concerning general questions pertaining to the debate on the identity of the Servant of the Lord are pertinent: There are both collective and individualistic interpretations of the Servant of the Lord. They do not need, however, to be understood as mutually exclusive. The examples of both individualistic traits and a collective interpreation of the ‘one like a Son of Man’ in Daniel 7 may serve as one example that demonstrates this point. 7 More generally, we can observe that ‘the boundary between the individual and the collective appears fluid; the exemplary individual embodies the community, as conversely

the four postulated Servant songs themselves will not be addressed in any detail either. As a starting point, they will be treated as one coherent group; however, it will be observed whether a clear unevenness in connections with other salvific figures might point to the necessity to question the assumption that the songs form a (loosly) unified whole. 6 Which means that questions of historical development that one might try to trace in the textual material at hand are not investigated. 7 See for example Bittner’s understanding of the Son of Man (‘God’, p. 354). There are several authors who break (in different ways) with interpretatory patterns that are based on a dichotomy of collective and individualistic interpretations of the Servant of the Lord; see for example Bentzen, King, p. 65; Blocher, The Songs, pp. 41–42; Clines, I; Gignilliat, ‘Who is Isaiah’s Servant’, p. 125; Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, pp. 81, 121, 145; Hermisson, ‘Israel’; Hermisson, ‘The Fourth Servant Song’, pp. 17–18, 40–41, 45–46; Hermisson, ‘Voreiliger Abschied’, pp. 212, 218; Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’; Kapelrud, God, pp. 127–128, 133–136; Maller, ‘Isaiah’s Suffering Servant’; Lessing, ‘Isaiah’s Servants’, pp. 131, 133; Murphy, ‘Second Isaias’, p. 268. See also Zehnder, Umgang, pp. 536– 538. Hermisson points out that the combination of individualistic and collective identification may also be related to the difference between an original meaning and a later ‘Endgestalt’ of the texts (‘Voreiliger Abschied’, p. 212).

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

235

the community can be represented in an ideal individual figure’.8 In this sense, observations on the relation between texts referring to the Servant of the Lord and other biblical texts are not predetermined by a predelection for one or the other type of identification, or a combination of them. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the question whether prophetic or royal or other traits dominate the picture of the Servant of the Lord.9 It is, however, inevitable that some decisions be made before starting our investigation. In collecting our observations on the relationship between the Servant of the Lord and other salvific figures, we take the widely accepted corpus of texts called the ‘Servant songs’ as a starting point:10 Isa 42:1–4, 5–7 (8–9?); 49:1–6 (7–9a?); 50:4–9 (10–11?); 52:13–53:12. It is also assumed that the figure spoken of in these texts is one and the same in all of them.11 Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, p. 145. Concerning the discussion whether royal or prophetic traits are more central see for example Bentzen, King, pp. 48–72; Coppens, ‘La mission’, pp. 356–357, 369 (he opposes royal and mosaic-prophetic traits); Hermisson, ‘The Fourth Servant Song’, pp. 44–45. 10 Bernhard Duhm, the ‘father’ of the concept of an independent collection of Servant songs, at the end of the 19 th century proposed the following delimitation: Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12. According to Lindsey, the four songs can be identified with the following passages: Isa 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–11: 52:13–53:12 (see The Servant Songs, p. vii, passim). Blocher (Songs, p. 21) has the following delimitation, distinguishing between the songs proper and connecting verses in brackets: 42:1–9 (5–9); 49:1–13 (7–13); 50:4–11 (10–11); 52:13–53:12. For still other proposals see Kapelrud, God, p. 124. In all likelihood, Isa 51:16 also refers to the Servant of the Lord, as the shared image of the shadow of God’s hand covering or hiding the Servant (see Isa 49:2) shows. Taking this corpus of texts as a starting point does by no means imply that the songs need to be (or can be) interpreted in isolation from their literary context. 11 Not all exegetes agree on this point. As an example, we may mention Cullen Story who differentiates between the servant in the first Servant song, the servant in songs two and three, and the servant in song 8 9

236

MARKUS ZEHNDER

These decisions, however, need to be open for modification or correction since it is a matter of debate to what degree these four passages are interrelated with one another by referring to the same figure on the one hand, and detachable12 to some degree from the broader literary context in which they are embedded, on the other.13 There are, nevertheless, three reasons why this decision seems to be defensible: four; the first one is identified with Israel, the second one with Second Isaiah, and the third one with the Messiah (see Story, ‘Another Look’, p. 105). A similar position is taken by Lessing: The servant of the first song is Israel; the servant in songs two through four is an individual, Christ (see ‘Isaiah’s Servants’, pp. 131–133). Goldingay assumes that the servant in the second and third songs—and to some degree in the fourth as well—is identical with the prophet, as opposed to the first passage (and to some degree to the last as well) where the servant is understood as an unspecified ideal figure with multiple possible referents (see Goldingay, The Message, pp. 163, 367–368, 375–377, 401–411, 476–477, 480, 493, 511, 513). According to Watts, the servant of the first song is Cyrus; the servant of Isa 49:5–6; 52:13 and 53:11 is Darius; the suffering servant of Isa 50:4–9 and 51:1–11 is Zerubbabel (see Watts, Isaiah 34–66, pp. 117, 119, 190, 201, 206, 227–228). A relatively widespread view is that the first three songs refer to the prophet, while the fourth song is a kind of lamentation on this prophet’s violent death by a later disciple (see for example Volz, ‘Jesaja 53’, pp. 180–190). 12 This notion does not deny that it is important at some point in the explanation of these texts to take into consideration their literary context (see for example Lindsey, The Servant Songs, p. 3). The strongest opposition against the concept of the Servant songs as a separate and unified block has been voiced by Mettinger (A Farewell); the concept is also critically evaluated by Goldingay, The Message, pp. 149–150. In any event, it is undeniable that there are very strong links both of a linguistical, stylistic and thematic character between the Servant songs and their literary context in Isaiah 40–55 (for a short overview of these links see Kapelrud, God, pp. 124–125; North, The Suffering Servant, pp. 156–191); as Kapelrud puts it: ‘They have a special place in the text and a peculiar tone, but in their own way they are part of the whole’ (God, p. 137). 13 For a strong defence of the traditional delimitation of the four Servant songs see, e.g., Hermisson, ‘Voreiliger Abschied’.

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

237

a) Even if it is not compelleing, one can hardly claim that it is a priori counterintuitive to understand the four Servant songs as being to some degree interrelated with one another by referring to a figure that can be understood as being identical in all four passages. Some common traits connecting these passages are—more or less—evident. There are also clear prima facie differences between the figure presented in the Servant songs and the ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) spoken of in other texts in Isaiah 40–55. Among others, we note that only the four passages of the Servant songs—at least on one level—are open for or even call for an individualistic interpretation of the figure of the ‫עבד‬. b) It is not possible for practical reasons to investigate the question of the special compositional status of the Servant songs in the context of the present study. c) It may be assumed that the observations made in the present investigation are not distorted by the assumption of a connection between the four Servant songs that are delimitated in the way mentioned above; rather, they may help us understand whether such an assumption is well-founded, and they are open to potential further development and modification, especially by the integration of additional passages from Isaiah 40–55 that also refer to an ‫עבד‬ (‘servant’) of YHWH. This will be done towards the end of the present study, and such an extension should be a sufficient warrant against the dangers of too narrow a focus on the Servant songs.

I. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’ AND THE FIGURE OF A DAVIDIC MESSIAH a) General Remarks There is no doubt that the Isaianic Servant of the Lord was identified with the ‘Messiah’ in many texts written in the Second Temple period. Probably this is the case already in Sir 48:10 where the Servant of Isa 49:6 is connected with Mal 3:24.14 It is also likely that the Servant of Isaiah 53 was interpreted in messianic terms in 14

See for example Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, p. 83.

238

MARKUS ZEHNDER

the Septuagint rendering of this chapter. 15 Furthermore, one may point to the Parables of Enoch (for example 1 En 48:4–6; 53:6; 62:5–7),16 the interpretation of the servant of Isaiah 53 in 1QIsaa,17 probably also in 4Q540–541,18 to Targum Jonathan (for example Isa 42:1; 43:10; 52:13) and to the New Testament (for example Luke 2:29–32).19 On the other hand, the question of a connection between Servant of the Lord and Messiah is complicated by the fact that there is no fixed doctrine of ‘the Messiah’, either in the Hebrew Bible or in Second Temple Judaism.20 Among other points, it is important to note that the term ‘messianic’ cannot be reduced to a figure that is exclusively marked by royal traits; prophetic and priestly traits may also be involved in the picture. Even if the concept of ‘the Messiah’ is studied somewhat more narrowly in terms of a ‘Davidic Messiah’, it needs to be pointed out that there is no consensus as to how the figure of such a Davidic Messiah can be properly defined and which texts had to be counted within this tradition. 21 There is even no consensus as to whether a kind of messianic expectation in the traditional sense of the term, that is, the hope for an eschatological salvific figure of See Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, p. 136. See for example Kvanvig, ‘The Son of Man’, pp. 187–188; North, The Suffering Servant, pp. 7–8; similarly Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, pp. 99–100. 17 See Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, pp. 75, 101–105. 18 Though in this case it is more a priestly Messiah (see Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, pp. 106–118). For the messianic interpretation of the figure of the Servant in some Qumranic texts see also Bruce, ‘The Background’, p. 61. 19 For more details see North, The Suffering Servant, pp. 11–12, 16–17. Perhaps Test. Benjamin 3:8 also speaks of the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as a messianic figure (Messiah ben Joseph; see Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, pp. 138–139). 20 See for instance Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, p. 103. 21 I hope to deal with this question in more detail in a further article investigating the question of the relationship of the two figures on a broader level. 15 16

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

239

Davidic descent, can be found in the Hebrew Bible at all. Among those who reckon with such a kind of messianic expectation, there is a debate about the question how this expectation is related to Old Testament concepts of kingship on the one hand and eschatology on the other, in addition to the question of what texts may be considered as being relevant for the understanding of the contours of such an expectation.22 These questions cannot be discussed in detail here. What can be observed is that there are in fact depictions of the eschatological period in the Hebrew Bible that do not mention a messianic figure, but instead focus on YHWH as the sole salvific agent. 23 On the other hand, there are a number of texts that can hardly be interpreted in any other way than as pointing to a future messianic figure without indulging in unconvincing exegetical acrobatics. As an example, Mic 5:1–4a (ET verses 2–5a) can be mentioned: But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. Therefore, He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel. And He will arise and shepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will remain, Because at that time He will be great To the ends of the earth.

As Waschke notes: ‘Es besteht weder ein Konsens darüber, wie der alttestamentliche Messianismus zu definieren ist, noch lässt sich eine Einigung in der Frage erzielen, welche Texte im Alten Testament als messianisch anzusehen sind’ (Der Gesalbte, p. 157); see also Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic? ‘, p. 72. 23 See for example Isa 2:1–4; 35; Zech 2:10–13; Psalm 47. 22

240

MARKUS ZEHNDER And this One will be our peace.24

In this enigmatic text hope for a future turn of the tides is connected with the expectation of an individual, future salvific figure that is distinguished from YHWH; at the same time, the mention of Bethlehem points to the Davidic tradition. Therefore, it seems reasonable to designate the future redeemer as a Davidic messianic figure.25 Texts that are traditionally counted as belonging to the tradition of a Davidic Messiah are the following: Isa 7:10–17; 9:1–6; 11,1–9; Jer 23:4–6; 30:9, 21–22; 33:14–17; Ezek 17:22–24; 34:23–24; 37:15–28; Hos 3:4–5; Am 9:11–15; Mic 5:1– 4a; Hag 2:21–23; Zech 3:8–10; 6:9–15; 9:9–10; 12:10–11; 13:7; perhaps also Dan 9:25–26.26 A common feature of these texts is that normally they do not speak explicitly of a ‘Messiah’. Nevertheless, there is no clear reason to doubt their ‘messianic’ nature, since all these texts—in different ways—refer to the Davidic kingship on the one hand, and since the concept of an ‘anointed one’ / ‘Messiah’ is in particular ways linked to the Davidic kingship in the Former Prophets and in several psalms on the other hand, as can be seen, for example, in the story of David’s anointment in 1 Samuel 16 and 2 Samuel 5. Apart from the prophetic texts listed above, it is above all a number of psalms in which the tradition of a Davidic Messiah is

All translations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New American Standard Bible. 25 Similarly also Wolff, Frieden, p. 48: ‘Denn zunächst gehört zur Messiasgestalt im strengen Sinn ein Dreifaches: 1. dass sie eine Königsgestalt ist; 2. dass sie Heil bringt; 3. dass mit ihr die Endzeit anbricht, kurz, unter dem Messias verstehen wir den eschatologischen Heilskönig.’ 26 It is disputed whether the mention of an ‘anointed one’ in Dan 9:26 really refers to the tradition of a Davidic Messiah; see for example Roberts, ‘The Old Testament’s Contribution’, pp. 40–41. 24

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

241

expressed, especially Psalms 2; 45; 72; 80:16–18; 89; 110 und 132.27 As opposed to the prophetic texts, the term ‘Messiah’ (‘anointed one’) is regularly used here.28 It is probable, though not undisputed, that these psalms, as expressions of a kind of ‘royal ideology’ connected with a depiction of the ideal king, have a primary present tense reference, but are open for a future fuller meaning—a meaning that is attached to them clearly in the Second Temple period. A number of additional psalms that refer in some way or another to David, like Psams 18, 21–22 and 69, were at some point also understood as pointing to a future messianic figure.29 Many scholars understand the dynastic promise related to David as found in 2 Samuel 7 (especially v. 16), Psalm 89 and Psalm 132 as the kernel of the messianic expectation. 30 While there is a certain concensus about this, opinions differ widely on the question what circumstances gave rise to a futurist messianic expectation, and how the time horizon in which the future Davidic ruler will appear has to be defined. With regard to the question of what triggered a futurist expectation, the three most important proposals can be identified as follows: 1. An eschatological messianic hope is part and parcel of the core theological outlook of the Hebrew Bible, including the Pentateuch, and forms the primary layer of meaning in the passages within the

For a considerably larger list of ‘messianic psalms’ see Kaiser, The Messiah, pp. 92–135. According to him, also Psalms 8, 16, 22, 40, 68, 69, 102, 109 and 118 have to counted as ‘messianic’. 28 Not in Psalm 80. 29 See for example Blocher, Songs, p. 71. The inclusion of such psalms can be based, for instance, on a ‘typological-prophetic’ understanding of such texts, developed from a New Testament perspective (for details see for example Bock, ‘Scripture’, pp. 272–273). The characteristic trait of this understanding is that the messianic pattern is not anticipated before the later fulfillment (in the person of Jesus, as it is assumed by Bock and of course in traditional Christian theology). For a similar view see Lindsey, The Servant Songs, pp. 32–33 (he uses the terms ‘typically messianic’ and ‘typico-prophetically messianic prophecies’. 30 See Waschke, Der Gesalbte, pp. 52–74. 27

242

MARKUS ZEHNDER

prophetic books traditionally interpreted as ‘messianic’. An example for this view is Walter Kaiser.31 2. The futurist orientation is a consequence of the disappointment with the performance of the present Davidic ruler that does not fit the expectations concerning the salvific character of the (ideal) king’s rule. An example for this view is Henri Cazelles.32 3. The futurist orientation is related to the disappearance of the Davidic throne from the actual political landscape as it presented itself in exilic and postexilic times. An example for this view is Ernst-Joachim Waschke.33 According to my evaluation, it is not possible to globally dismiss any one of these three assumptions in principle. Concerning the question of the temporal determination of the futurist horizon in which the Messiah’s appearance is expected, the proposals vary between a ‘Naherwartung’, relating to a possible successor to the throne after the currently ruling Davidic king or after the termination of the exilic interregnum, and an ‘eschatological expectation’ in the strict sense of the word, relating to the appearance of a new Davidic ruler in a more distant future. It is not possible to discuss this question in the present context; but it is probably fair to say that a pragmatic solution should be sought in which each text is investigated invidually. As in the case of the question of the reasons for a futurist orientation, one has to reckon with the possibility that it is not an either-or, but (at least in the case of some texts) a both-and explanation that fits the data best. In any event, it is plausible to assume that the relecture of texts that in their primary layer of meaning may not be classified as

See Kaiser, The Messiah, passim. See Cazelles, Alttestamentliche Christologie, especially pp. 75–107. Thus also, among others, Gese, Zur biblischen Theologie, p. 133. 33 See Waschke, Der Gesalbte, pp. 74–99. See also Kilian, Jesaja 1–39, pp. 25–26 (referring to Isaiah 7, 9 and 11). 31 32

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

243

‘messianic’ in the stricter futurist sense, plays an important role in the configuration of messianic hopes.34 b) Specific Connections between the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah35 1. The first point to mention is that the very term ‫עבד‬, ‘servant’, is used not only for the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42–53, but also for the Davidic Messiah, as in Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Hag 2:23; Zech 3:8. Of course there is no exclusive connection established by the common use of this term in both traditions, since the term is applied also to other figures; nevertheless, it cannot be dismissed as a primary connecting factor. The same is true for many of the following points, especially 2, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 18. It is the combination of all these connecting elements, together with a number of additional ones, that makes them relevant for the investigation of the relationship between the two traditions.36 2. The Servant of the Lord is said to be ‘elected’ by YHWH (‫;בחר‬ Isa 49:7). The same is true in the case of the Davidic Messiah, as Ps 89:20 makes clear (see also Hag 2:23). 3. Both the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah are called ‘shoot’; see Isa 53:2 (‫ )יונק‬for the Servant of the Lord, and Isa 11:1 (‫ ;)נצר ;חטר‬Jer 23:5 (‫ ;)צמח‬Zech 3:8 and 6:12 (‫ ;)צמח‬Ps 132:17 (‫קרן‬ with a verbal form of ‫ )צמח‬for the Davidic Messiah. While there is no direct lexical correspondence between the noun ‫ יונק‬of the Servant of the Lord tradition with the nouns used in the case of the See also Roberts, ‘The Old Testament’s Contribution’, p. 51; cf. also France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 85–86, 165. 35 Both in this and the following paragraphs, connections will only be mentioned and not explored in any detail. All the texts pertaining to a specific line of connection (Davidic Messiah, Son of Man, Moses and so on) will be dealt with summarily. The focus is only on parallels, not on differences. Differences may exist alongside the parallel features, but they do not detract from the heuristic value of the latter. 36 The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the observations adduced below on the relationship between the Servant of the Lord and other salvific figures. 34

244

MARKUS ZEHNDER

tradition of a Davidic Messiah, there is nevertheless a clear lexical bridge: The Davidic Messiah is called ‫‘( עבדי צמח‬my servant shoot’) in Zech 3:8 and ‫‘( צמח צדיק‬just shoot’) in Jer 23:5; these two titles together correspond closely with ‫‘( צדיק עבדי‬my just servant’) in Isa 53:11, complementing the thematic bridge given with ‫ יונק‬and its counterparts on the terminological level.37 4. It is possible that Isa 53:5 presupposes a metaphorical understanding of the Servant of the Lord as a shepherd. 38 If this is correct, there is an additional link to the Davidic Messiah who is repeatedly depicted in the role of a shephard; see especially Ezek 34:23 (see also Mi 5:3 and Zech 13:7). 5. Both the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah are designated as ‘just’ (‫ ;)צדיק‬see Isa 53:11 for the Servant of the Lord and Jer 23:5; Zech 9:9–10 for the Davidic Messiah.39 6. The Davidic Messiah is designated as ‘humble’ (‫ )עני‬in Zech 9:9; this is closely related to the designation of the Servant of the Lord as ‘humiliated / afflicted’ (‫ )מענה‬in Isa 53:4.40 7. In Isa 49:2a the Servant of the Lord says about himself: ‫פי ְכ ֶ ָ֣ח ֶרב ַח ָ ֶ֔דה‬ ֙ ִּ ‫וַ ֹּיָ ֵֶׂ֤שם‬ And He [i.e., YHWH] has made My mouth like a sharp sword.

This is reminiscent of the description of the Davidic Messiah in Isa 11:4b: ‫יָמית ָר ָ ֶּֽׁשע׃‬ ַ֥ ִּ ‫ּוב ַ֥ר ַּוח ְׂש ָפ ָ ֵ֖תיו‬ ְ ‫ׁש ֶבט ֶ֔ ִּפיו‬ ָ֣ ֵ ‫ה־א ֶר ֙ץ ְב‬ ֶ֙ ‫וְ ִּ ֶּֽה ָכ‬ And He [the Messiah] will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.

See Rosenberg, ‘The Slain Messiah’, p. 260. Thus for example Bentzen, King, p. 60. 39 For a detailed explanation of the attribute ‫ צדיק‬see Goldingay, The Message, pp. 514–515. 40 For a detailed explanation of the designation ‫ מענה‬see Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 409. 37 38

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

245

8. Both figures are said to be ‘wise’ or ‘successful’ (‫שכל‬, hiphil); see Isa 52:13 for the Servant of the Lord and Jer 23:5 for the Davidic Messiah.41 In both cases this wisdom is connected with the implementation of justice (Jer 23:5: ‫ ;משפט וצדקה‬Isa 53:11: ‫צדק‬, hiphil). 9. In Isa 49:6 the function of the Servant of the Lord is described as being a light (‫ )אור‬for the peoples.42 This finds a counterpart in Isa 9:1 where it is said in connection with the arising of the Davidic Messiah that the inhabitants of the land will see a great light (‫)אור‬. 10. Both in the case of the Servant of the Lord and of the Davidic Messiah the feature of a permanent endowing with the spirit of the Lord is mentioned. See Isa 42:1b for the Servant of the Lord, and Isa 11:2 for the Davidic Messiah.43

‫יֹוציא׃‬ ֶּֽ ִּ ‫רּוח֙י ָע ֶ֔ ָליו ִּמ ְׁש ָ ֵ֖פט לַ גֹויִּ ַ֥ם‬ ִּ ‫נָ ַ ֵ֤ת ִּתי‬ I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.

‫בּורה ַ֥ר ַּוח ַ ֵ֖ד ַעת‬ ֶ֔ ָ ְ‫ּוב ֶ֗ ָינה ֵ֤ר ַּוח ֵע ָצ ֙ה ּוג‬ ִּ ‫יְהוֶ֑ה ֧ר ַּוח ָח ְכ ָ ָ֣מה‬ ָ ‫וְ נָ ָ ַ֥חה ָע ָ ֵ֖ליו ָ֣ר ַּוח‬ ‫יְהוֶּֽה׃‬ ָ ‫וְ יִּ ְר ַ ַ֥את‬ And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

11. There is a connection in both cases between the investment with the spirit of the Lord and the administration of ‘justice’ (‫ ;)משפט‬see Isa 42:1 (‫ )משפט‬for the Servant of the Lord and Isa

Probably both notions are present; see Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 394–395; Clines, I, p. 14; Hengel, ‘The Effective History’, p. 97; Lindsey, The Servant Songs, p. 102. 42 For an explanation of the formula see Zehnder, Umgang, pp. 536– 537; see also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 311. 43 For Isa 42:1b see Goldingay, The Message, pp. 154–155. 41

246

MARKUS ZEHNDER

11:2–5 (with verbal forms of ‫ שפט‬in vv. 3–4) for the Davidic Messiah.44 12. In the case of both the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah, there is a close connection to the concept of ‫ברית‬, ‘covenant’. Both figures play a crucial role in the (re)establishment of the covenant relationship between the Lord and his people. For the Servant of the Lord, see Isa 42:6 and 49:8;45 for the Davidic Messiah, see especially Jer 33:21 (and also the somewhat looser connection between the Messiah and ‘covenant’ in Ezek 32:24–26). As in other cases, not the least in the application of the term ‫עבד‬ (‘servant’), the shared connection with the concept of ‫ ברית‬is of course not an exclusive communality between the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah; but as noted above, this does not mean that this link does not add to the web of connections between the two figures. 13. Both the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah are ascribed a ministry that is marked by (the preaching of) salvation, though this is expressed differently on the lexcial level. The Servant of the Lord is said to bring forth justice (‫ ;יוציא משפט‬Isa 42:1, 3) or to establish justice (‫ ;ישים משפט‬Isa 42:4), or to be instrumental in the implementation of the Lord’s salvation (‫ ;ישועה‬Isa 49:6; see also v. 8).46 In the context of the tradition of a Davidic Messiah, on the other hand, Zech 9:10 uses the expression ‫דבר שלום‬. 14. More specifically, the ministry of both salvific figures is described in terms of the gathering and restoration of the people of

The connection between Isa 42:1–4 and Isa 11:1–5 is also noted for example by Goldingay (see The Message, pp. 154–155). 45 For the expression ‫ ברית עם‬in Isa 42:6 and 49:8 see Zehnder, Umgang, pp. 536–537; see also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 131–132. 46 For an explanation of the relevant passages in Isaiah 42 see for exmaple Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 124–133; Goldingay, The Message, pp. 149–168. 44

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

247

God. As far as the Servant of the Lord is concerned, we may point to Isa 49:5–6:47 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’

On the side of the tradition of a Davidic Messiah, texts such as Isa 11:11–12 and Mic 5:2 ascribe to the Lord a work of restoration of Israel in conjunction with the raising of the Messiah. Ezek 37:21– 22, 24 is particularly clear: And say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations, and they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms. … And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them”.’48

There is, however, an important difference that has to be noted: While in the case of the Servant of the Lord it is he himself who is This is also stressed by Oswalt, ‘Isaiah 52:13–53:12’, p. 88; see also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 308–311. 48 For additional attestations of these motifs within the tradition of a Davidic Messiah see Isa 11:11–12; Jer 23:3, 7–8; 33:12–13; Ezek 34:11–31; Am 9:11–15; Mic 5:2. 47

248

MARKUS ZEHNDER

ascribed the restitutionary work, this is not so in the case of the Davidic Messiah: In his case, it is God who is the agent; but the work is done in connection with the raising of the Messiah. 15. The Servant of the Lord’s ministry is a world-wide one, as can be seen in Isa 42:1, 4, 6; 49:1, 6–7; 52:15. This finds its counterpart in the world-wide range of the dominion of the Davidic Messiah and of the blessing that is the consequence of his rule; see especially Isa 11:4, 10; 55,4–5; Mic 5:3; Zech 9:10; Ps 2:8; 72:8–11; 89:25; 110:1–2, 6.49 The connection in this area may even be closer in that some verses in the fourth Servant song speak of an exalted position of the Servant of the Lord, and thereby seem to envision a kind of world-wide rule that can be compared with the one ascribed to the Davidic Messiah; see Isa 52:13–15 and 53:12: Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men. Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand. … Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

16. According to both Isa 49:7 and 52:15, princes will give reverence to the Servant of the Lord. Isa 49:7 says:50 For a similar observation see Blocher, Songs, p. 75. Compare the explanation given to this verse in Goldingay, The Message, p. 375. 49 50

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

249

Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and its Holy One, To the despised One, To the One abhorred by the nation, To the Servant of rulers, ‘Kings shall see and arise, Princes shall also bow down (‫ ;)וישתחוו‬Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You.’

The motif of the reverence shown by foreign kings and princes to the Davidic king / Messiah can be found in Pss 2:12; 45:12; 72:10– 11. It is noteworthy that the same verb ‘bow down’, (‫חוה‬, hishtaf.), is used in both traditions to express the reverence given to the two salvific figures (see Isa 49:7 and Ps 72:11). 17. Isa 53:12 notes that YHWH will allot his Servant a portion with the great, and that the Servant will divide (‫חלק‬, piel) the booty (‫ )שלל‬with the strong.51 The same combination of ‫ חלק‬and ‫ שלל‬is found only six more times in the Hebrew Bible; notably, one of these instances is Isa 9:2, a verse that forms part of one of the core messianic texts in Isaiah. 18. Suffering is another motif that is common both to the Servant of the Lord and the tradition of a Davidic Messiah. On the side of the Servant of the Lord, it is Isa 49:7; 50:6 and especially 52:14; 53:3–12 that can be pointed to. On the side of the tradition of a Davidic Messiah, it is Zech 12:10–11; 13:7;52 Ps 89:39–46 and Dan 9:25–26 that are indicative of this motif.53 In this context one could also point to passages in the Books of Samuel in which David is depicted as a suffering and humbled king, as well as to For a thorough explanation of this verse see Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 425–429. 52 Hengel assumes that Isaiah 53 had a strong influence on Zech 12:10–14 and 13:7; for details see ‘The Effective History’, pp. 86–89. 53 See Rosenberg, ‘The Slain Messiah’, p. 260; Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic’, p. 93. The textual basis on the side of the Davidic Messiah becomes even larger when one includes texts that can be understood as pointing to the Messiah in terms of a ‘typologicalprophetic’ reading of certain Old Testament texts; Psalms 18 (= 2 Sam 22) and 21–22, probably also Ps 80:16–18 (ET 15–17; as ‫בן־אדם‬, he is identified with Israel in their tribulation prior to his exaltation), would be primary candidates for inclusion in the list. 51

250

MARKUS ZEHNDER

superscriptions of psalms that refer to David’s flight before Saul and Absalom. It is worth noting that the suffering takes on the specific form of being ‘pierced’ both with the Servant of the Lord (see Isa 53:5, 10: ‫ )דכא‬and the Davidic Messiah (see Zech 12:10: ‫)דקר‬, and ‘smitten’ (Isa 53:4: ‫נכה‬, hophal; Zech 13:7: ‫נכה‬, hiphil). 19. Both the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah combine royal and priestly elements. For the royal features of the Servant, the preceding observations in this chapter relating him with the Davidic Messiah can be adduced, as well as observations on the connections with Cyrus listed below; for his priestly features, see the respective paragraph below. In the case of the Davidic Messiah, the priestly features can be seen in Ps 110 and especially in Zechariah 3–4, as well as in Zech 6:9–14.54 20. Passages belonging both to the tradition of the Servant of the Lord and to the tradition of a Davidic Messiah are connected with the motif of YHWH as creator; see Isa 42:5 on the side of the Isaianic Servant, and Ps 89:10–13 on the side of the Davidic Messiah (as well as Jer 33:20, 22, 25). 21. The Servant of the Lord is not only described in terms of an individual, but also in some ways identified with Israel as a collective entity, as Isa 49:3 probably suggests.55 A similar combination of individual and collective reference is found with the Davidic Messiah. In Isa 55:3–5, the treaty (‫ )ברית‬of grace which God has entered with David is extended to the addressees, that is,

See for example Blocher, Songs, pp. 76–77. If ‘Israel’ is not to be dismissed as a glosse (as proposed, among others, by Duhm). For arguments in favour of such a view see especially Westermann, Jesaja, p. 169. The collective reference by no means needs to be understood as erasing a simultaneous individual reference, since ‘Israel’ can also be undersood in terms of an honorific name (see Isa 44:5 for an instance in the context of the verse). The most likely way to understand the collective reference is in terms of the relationship of head and body: ‘A community has a real unity which is expressed in its head … The head sums up or represents the whole’ (Blocher, Songs, p. 41). 54 55

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

251

to the people of Israel at large.56 As the messianic king (and in fact, the king as such) represents his people, so does the Servant represent a people composed of ‘many’. c) Some Concluding Observations The high number of important links between the two traditions relating to the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah shows the close connection between the two, and raises the question whether they can be understood as ultimately referring to the same figure, seen from different perspectives. At least, it paves the way for such an identification as we find it later in texts of the Second Temple period and in the New Testament, in the latter corpus with respect to the person of Jesus. This is all the more true since the differences between the two figures—as opposed, for example, to the case of the relationship between the Servant of the Lord and Cyrus—on the whole do not seem to be of a conflicting, but rather of a complementary nature. Moreover, the nature of this complementarity is of a kind that does not exclude the realization of the different expectations in one person. 57 As will be seen in the following sections, there are not only connections between the traditions of the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah, but also with other biblical figures. This does not, however, diminish the weight of the messianic connections, especially since they are more numerous than other connections. Two observations concerning the textual spread of connecting traits can be made: On the side of the Servant songs, Isa 50:4–9 stands out as the one passage that has least connections with the tradition of a Davidic Messiah, with only one attestation. This means that the (possible) connection of this passage with the other Servant songs needs to be established on other grounds. On the other side of the equation, one may observe that Isaiah 11 remarkably often exhibits particular connections with the Servant songs. This may point to a special position that this text has within For a detailed explanation of Isa 55:5 see Zehnder, Umgang, pp. 539–540. 57 This point would need further elaboration, which cannot be done in the present context. 56

252

MARKUS ZEHNDER

the group of messianic prophecies. It also raises the question as to how strong the division is between Isaiah 1–39 and 40–55. Alternatively, it could also be argued that Isaiah 11 exerted a particular influence on the author of the Servant songs.

II. THE SPECIAL ROLE OF ISAIAH 61:1–3 Special mention has to be made of Isa 61:1–3, whose relationship with the tradition of a Davidic Messiah is somewhat ambiguous. Most modern commentators do not include this passage in the list of texts that belong to the tradition of a Davidic Messiah; however, there are exceptions to the rule.58 The passage envisions an act of anointment, expressed with the verb ‫‘( משח‬anoint’, v. 1), which already creates a link with the tradition of a Davidic Messiah. The anointment, however, is not with oil, as one would expect in the case of a reference to the anointment of the king. Instead, the entity applied is the spirit of the Lord, which results in the permant endowment of the person in question with this spirit (‫רוח אדני יהוה עלי‬, ‘the Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me’, v. 1). Since according to Isa 11:2 the dwelling of the spirit on the coming Son of David is one of the main characteristics of this figure, expressed with the same construction ‫‘( רוח‬spirit’) + ‫‘( על‬on’), there is again a close link between Isa 61:1–3 and the tradition of a Davidic Messiah. This link is even more obvious because the combination of ‫‘( רוח‬spirit’) and ‫משח‬ (‘anoint’) is found also in 1 Sam 16:13 with respect to David, and nowhere else. The fact that the designation ‫‘( אדני יהוה‬the Lord GOD’) appears seven times in the first person address of David to YHWH in his response to the oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam 7:18–29 binds Isa 61:1–3 and the tradition of a Davidic Messiah even more strongly together; the only difference in this case is that YHWH appears in the third person in Isa 61:1–3 and in the second person in 2 Sam 7:18–29. In addition, one can observe that the Isaianic

It is included in the list of messianic texts for example by France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 132–135, and Kaiser, The Messiah, pp. 183– 184. 58

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

253

passage describes an encompassing ministry of salvation, which is also typical of the Davidic Messiah. Taken all these observations together, there are good reasons to classify Isa 61:1–3 as a text that is very closely related to the tradition of the Davidic Messiah. On the other hand, there is also a clear linguistic connection between Isa 61:1–3 and the Servant of the Lord. The combination of ‫‘( רוח‬spirit’) and ‫‘( על‬on’), as attested in Isa 61:1, is also found in Isa 42:1. In addition, the sentence structure with ‫‘( אדני יהוה‬the Lord GOD’) in the position of subject who is said to have given something to or done something to the unnamed person speaking in the first person singular, occurs both in Isa 61:1 and four times in Isa 50:4–9. Moreover, the motif of setting free those being bound, expressed in Isa 61:1b in the phrase ‫בּויִּם ְד ֶ֔רֹור‬ ֙ ‫לק ֵ֤ר ֹא ִּל ְׁש‬ ְ ‫ח־ק ַֹוח‬ ֶּֽ ‫סּורים ְפ ַק‬ ֵ֖ ִּ ‫‘( וְ ַל ֲא‬to proclaim liberty to captives, and freedom to prisoners’), finds its close thematical counterpart in Isa 42:7: ‫הֹוציא ִּמ ַמ ְסגֵ ֙ר ַא ִֶּ֔סיר ִּמ ֵ ַ֥בית ֶכ ֵֶ֖לא ַֹ֥י ְׁש ֵבי‬ ֵ֤ ִּ ‫ינַ֣יִּם ִּעוְ ֶ֑רֹות ְל‬ ָ֣ ַ ‫ִּל ְפ ֵ֖קֹ ַח ֵע‬ ‫ֶּֽחֹ ֶׁשְך‬ to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the dungeon, And those who dwell in darkness from the prison.

What we have here, then, is an additional, strong indirect link between the Servant of the Lord and the tradition of the Davidic Messiah. This strengthens the already tight connections between the two figures. It is important to note that Isa 61:1 is connected both with the tradition of the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah in Acts 3 and 4.59 The fact that Isa 50:4–9 is part of the connection between the Servant songs and Isa 61:1–3 supports the view that Isa 50:4–9 does in fact belong to the group of Servant songs. The close connection between Isa 61:1–3 and the Servant songs60 also raises

59 60

p. 363).

See Lohmeyer, Gottesknecht, p. 15. Which is also observed, among others, by Coppens (‘La mission’,

254

MARKUS ZEHNDER

the question as to how rigid is the line of division between Isaiah 40–55 and the subsequent chapters of the book.

III. CONNECTIONS WITH THE DANIELIC SON OF MAN Two of the elements that connect the Servant of the Lord with the Davidic Messiah also connect the Isaianic Servant with the Danielic Son of Man: 1. The first element to mention is the world–wide scope of the ministry / dominion; with regard to the Son of Man see Dan 7:14: And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

2. The second element consists in the collective interpretation of both figures; with regard to the Son of Man, see Dan 7:18, 22, 27. There are two conclusions that may be drawn from this observation: The connections between the Servant of the Lord and the Son of Man are considerably weaker than those with the Davidic Messiah. Nevertheless, the fact that there are common links between both the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man with the Servant of the Lord suggests a special and close relationship between the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man, especially if such a relationship can be established on other grounds as well.61 It is important to note that the Son of Man is said to be ‘a light to the nations’ in 1 En 48:4, a clear hint at Isa 49:6. There are further allusions pointing to an identification of the Isaianic Servant and the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. 62 At the same time, the Servant / Son of Man is identified with the Messiah Which is indeed the case. A special study by the present writer investigating this relationship is in preparation. 62 One of them is the repeated use of the designations ‘the Chosen One’ and ‘the Righteous One’ for the Son of Man. For more details see Bruce, ‘The Background’, pp. 67–68; VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’. 61

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

255

in 1 En 48:10, and described as preexistent in 1 En 48:2–3, 6, referring to the Wisdom of Proverbs 8.63

IV. CONNECTIONS WITH THE FIGURE OF CYRUS a) Specific Connections between the Servant of the Lord and Cyrus 1. Royal predicates are used both for Cyrus and the Servant of the Lord.64 Both are described as having a ministry that is related to many nations and that affects many kings; see Isa 45:1; Ezra 1:2; 2 Chr 36:23 as far as Cyrus is concerned, and Isa 42:1, 4, 6; 49:1, 6–7; 52:15 as far as the Servant is concerned. 2. Israel is the beneficiary of the liberating work of both the Servant of the Lord and Cyrus; for the Servant see Isa 42:7 and 49:5–6, for Cyrus see Isa 45:4, 13.65 3. More specifically, we note that the root ‫‘( חפץ‬delight’) is found with respect to Cyrus in Isa 44:28, in the nominal realization, and with respect to the Servant of the Lord in Isa 53:10, in both the verbal and the nominal realizations.66 4. Both in the case of Cyrus (see Isa 45:1) and the Servant of the Lord (see Isa 42:6), the verb ‫( חזק‬hiphil, ‘make strong’) is used, with YHWH as subject and Cyrus and the Servant of the Lord as receivers of God’s strengthening action. 5. The juxtaposition of ‫‘( קרא‬call’) and ‫‘( צדק‬righteousness’) is found both in the case of Cyrus (Isa 41:2; see also Isa 45:13, where ‫ קרא‬is replaced by ‫עור‬, hiphil, ‘arouse’) and the Servant of the Lord For more details see Kvanvig, ‘The Son of Man’, p. 202. The presupposition is that the verses in Isaiah 44–45 pertaining to Cyrus bear witness to oracles spoken before Cyrus was taking action in the way these oracles describe. At all events, Isa 44:26 seems to suggest such an understanding. 65 Thus also Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 116. 66 For a brief explanation of the use of the root ‫ חפץ‬in Isa 53:10 see Goldingay, The Message, pp. 509–510. 63 64

256

MARKUS ZEHNDER

(Isa 42:6) in the description of YHWH’s call of the respective servant.67 6. As in the case of the Davidic Messiah, there is a link between the Servant of the Lord and Cyrus via the motif of the shepherd, if really Isa 53:5 presupposes a metaphorical understanding of the Servant of the Lord along these lines. Cyrus is called the Lord’s shepherd explicitly in Isa 44:28. 7. There are predictions concerning the careers of both figures prior to their birth; for the Servant of the Lord see especially Isa 42:9 and 49:1, for Cyrus see Isa 44:26–45:7.68 8. There is an additional indirect link between Cyrus and the Servant of the Lord: Not only the Servant of the Lord, but also Cyrus is connected with the tradition of a Davidic Messiah, because he is not only designated as the Lord’s ‘shepherd’ in Isa 44:28, but also as his ‫‘( משיח‬Messiah’ / ‘anointed one’) in Isa 45:1. b) Some Concluding Observations While this list demonstrates that there are a number of links between the Servant of the Lord and Cyrus, and while many of their tasks can be seen as complementary, there are also aspects of their respective commissions that seem to be of a more conflicting nature. Among others, one may point to the opposition of a merely political commission in the case of Cyrus, restricted to the near future, and the commission of the Servant of the Lord that is much broader in scope and includes both a spiritual dimension and a long-term perspective. Also, the aspect of a vicarious suffering does not seem to be compatible with YHWH’s plans for Cyrus. Therefore, as opposed both to the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man, the figure of Cyrus does not seem to offer itself for identification with the Servant of the Lord.69 Thus also Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 116. This is also observed by Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, pp. 115–116. 69 Hermisson assumes that the relationship between the two figures can be described in the following way: At the time of the writing of these texts (6th century BCE), the royal Davidic office was vacant; the prophet 67 68

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

257

V CONNECTIONS WITH THE FIGURE OF JEREMIAH AND OTHER PROPHETS a) Connections with Prophets in General 1. Prophets as a group receive the title ‫עבד‬, ‘servant’, as can be seen in 1 Kings 18:36; 2 Kings 17:23; Jer 7:25; Am 3:7. A similar use can be found also in Isa (43:10 and) 44:26. 2. Isa 50:4 describes the discipling process of the Servant of the Lord very much along the lines of a prophetic revelation.70 3. There is a general focus on the commission to deliver the word of God to those not receiving auditions or visions as the prophets do.71 As the prophets in general, the Servant of the Lord acts as YHWH’s mouthpiece. 4. The Servant’s and the prophets’ message is directed both to Israel and the nations. The combination of a divine commission that targets both Israel and the nations is typcial of all the major prophets and some of the minor ones as well. 5. Both the Servant’s and the prophets’ task consists in making known God’s instruction / truth / judgment (see the repeated use of ‫ תורה‬and ‫משפט‬, and, less central in the case of the Servant, ‫אמת‬ and ‫)צדק‬. 6. The ministry of the Servant of the Lord is related to the concept of ‫‘( ברית‬covenant’), see Isa 42:6 and 49:8. This is also true for many of the prophets, especially Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea and Micah.

divided it up and assigned it to different officials, among them the Servant of the Lord and Cyrus (see ‘Voreiliger Abschied’, p. 215). This also explains why there is, according to this view, ‘eine begrenzte Parallelität zwischen Kyros und dem Gottesknecht’ (Hermisson, ‘Voreiliger Abschied’, p. 215). 70 See Lindsey, The Servant Songs, p. 85. 71 Thus also Blocher, Songs, p. 38.

258

MARKUS ZEHNDER

7. As is the case with many of the prophets, the Servant of the Lord’s ministry consists in part in standing in the gap for his people, see especially Isa 53:12.72 The intercessary role entails suffering, clearly in the case of the Servant, but also in the case of many prophets, especially—but not exclusively—Jeremiah.73 For references to other prophets’ intercessary work see 1 Sam 12:23; Jer 7:16; 27:18.74 b) Specific Connections with Jeremiah 1. The second Servant song (Isa 49:1–6) exhibits a certain affinity with the literary genre of the prophetic call narrative, especially with the call of Jeremiah.75 2. More specifically, both the Servant of the Lord and Jeremiah are said to be elected by YHWH for their ministry within the womb of the mother before their birth. Jer 1:5 reads: ‫ּוב ֶ ֶ֛ט ֶרם ֵת ֵצַ֥א ֵמ ֶ ֵ֖ר ֶחם‬ ְ ‫טן ַיְד ְע ִֶּ֔תיָך‬ ֙ ֶ ‫ּצֹורָך( ] ֶא ָּצ ְרָךֵ֤ [ ַב ֶ֙ב‬ ְ ‫ְב ֶ֙ט ֶרם ) ֶא‬ ‫ִּה ְק ַד ְׁש ִּ ֶ֑תיָך נָ ִּ ַ֥ביא ַלגֹויִּ ֵ֖ם נְ ַת ִּ ֶּֽתיָך׃‬ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

The closest parallel to this can be found in Isa 49:1:76 ‫ִּׁש ְמ ֵ֤עּו ִּאֹּיִּ ֙ים ֵא ֶ֔ ַלי וְ ַה ְק ִּ ַׁ֥שיבּו ְל ֻא ִּ ֵ֖מים ֵמ ָר ֶ֑חֹוק יְהוָ ֙ה ִּמ ֶב ֶָ֣טן ְק ָר ֶָ֔אנִּ י‬ ‫ִּמ ְמ ֵ ַ֥עי ִּא ִּ ֵ֖מי ִּהזְ ִּ ַ֥כיר ְׁש ִּ ֶּֽמי׃‬ Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. For a thorough explanation of this verse see again Baltzer, DeuteroIsaiah, pp. 425–429. 73 See also Hermisson, ‘The Fourth Servant Song’, pp. 20–21, 44. 74 This is also observed by Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 112. 75 See Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, p. 137; see also Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, p. 128; Lindsey, The Servant Songs, p. 61. 76 For an explanation of this verse see Goldingay, The Message, pp. 365–367. 72

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

259

3. Both verses just cited not only share the theme of an election within the womb of the mother, but also the hint to a world-wide scope of the ministry of the elected person. Also Isa 42:6b (‫גֹוים‬ ֶּֽ ִּ ‫ )וְ ֶא ֶתנְ ָךֶ֛ ִּל ְב ִּ ַ֥רית ָ ֵ֖עם ְל ַ֥אֹור‬has close connections with the last phrase of Jer 1:5; in both cases, we find the verb ‫‘( נתן‬give’) with YHWH as subject in the first person sg. and a second person sg. suffix that refers to the prophet / Servant, together with a description of the ministry that points to the ‘peoples’ (‫)גוים‬. The combination of a ministry to both Israel and the nations is also found in Isa 49:5–6 as far as the Servant is concerned, and in Jer 1:10, 15, 18 as far as Jeremiah is concerned. 4. The lament concerning the lack of success in the performance of the ministry found in Isa 49:4 is closely paralleled in Jeremiah, especially in Jer 15:16–18; 17:14–18; 20:7–18.77 5. Isa 53:7–8 is very close to Jer 11:19.78 Isa 53:7–8 reads: He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?

To this compare Jer 11:19: But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, ‘Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, And let us cut him off from the land of the living, That his name be remembered no more.’

77

So also Goldingay, The Message, p. 370; Lindsey, The Servant Songs,

p. 67. 78

This is also observed, among others, by Blocher (see Songs, p. 68).

260

MARKUS ZEHNDER

There are two particular motifs that are identical in both texts: the person being spoken about is likened to a lamb being led to the slaughter (Isa 53:7: ‫יּובל‬ ֶָ֔ ‫;כ ֶש ֙ה ַל ֶ ָ֣ט ַבח‬ ַ Jer 11:19: ‫יּובל‬ ָ֣ ַ ‫ְכ ֶ ַ֥כ ֶבׂש ַאלֵ֖ ּוף‬ ‫;)ל ְט ֶ֑ב ַֹוח‬ ִּ and attempts are mentioned to cut him off from the land of the living (Isa 53:8: ‫ ;נִּ גְ זַ ֙ר ֵמ ֶ ָ֣א ֶרץ ַח ִֶֹּּ֔יים‬Jer 11:19: ‫וְ נִּ ְכ ְר ֶ֙ת ּ֙נּו ֵמ ֶ ָ֣א ֶרץ‬ ‫)ח ִֶֹּּ֔יים‬. ַ c) Some Concluding Remarks The connections between the Servant of the Lord and prophetic figures of the Hebrew Bible, especially Jeremiah, are distributed rather evenly over all the four Servant songs. This speaks both to the importance of the prophetic aspect of the Servant’s ministry and to the view that all four Servant songs in fact form one group of songs speaking of the same figure.

VI. CONNECTIONS WITH THE PRIESTLY ORDER 1. There is a connection through the common use of the term ‫עבד‬, ‘servant’: Probably Ps 134:1–2 can be understood as demonstrating that priests can be called ‫עבדי יהוה‬, ‘servants of the Lord’. See also Zech 3:8, where the High Priest Joshua is said to prefigure ‘my Servant the Branch’. 2. Aaron is said to be ‘chosen’ (‫ )בחר‬by YHWH in Ps 105:26. The same root is used with respect to the Servant of the Lord in Isa 42:1 and 49:7. 3. ‫‘( תורה‬instruction’) and ‫‘( משפט‬judgment’), two important elements in the description of the ministry of the Servant of the Lord, are also part of the priests’ responsibilities; see Deut 17:11 and Mal 2:6–8 for ‫ תורה‬and Deut 17:9–11; 2 Kings 17:27; 2 Chr 19:8 for ‫משפט‬. 4. According to the traditional view, the Servant of the Lord as described in the fourth Servant song is engaged in some kind of atoning activity that is labelled ‫‘( אשם‬guilt offering’) in Isa 53:10

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

261

and that is somehow, in its substitutionay dimension, related to the Day of Atonement.79 5. The Servant of the Lord’s death80 that effects atonement in Isa 53:10–12 may also be understood as being reminiscent of the symbolic expiatory consequence of the death of the High Priest in Num 35:25, 28, 32 and Josh 20:6.81 6. The Servant of the Lord is said to be the subject of an activity described as ‫( נזה‬hiphil, ‘sprinkle’) in Isa 52:15.82 This is a technical term in the Pentateuch for the sprinkling of water, oil or blood as a cleansing or purifying ceremony, with the (High) Priest as subject; see Lev 4:6; 16:14, 19; Num 19:18, 21.83 7. In Isa 53:4–6 Israel’s guilt appears to devolve on the Servant of the Lord in a manner which is similar to the experience of the priests when they eat the sin and guilt offerings of the people (see Lev 10:17; Zechariah 3).

This traditional—and still widely held—understanding of the role of the Servant in the fourth Servant song is rejected, among others, by Goldingay (see The Message, pp. 486–487, 493, 501–503, 509–513); also Hermisson (‘The Fourth Servant Song’, p. 37) is critical as far as the traditional view of the ‘guilt offering’ of Isa 53:10 is concerned. 80 If this is really what is spoken about; see for example Clines, I, pp. 27–29. 81 See Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 118. 82 See for instance Lindsey, The Servant Songs, pp. 107–109. Compare the remarks made by Baltzer (Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 399–400), and especeially Goldingay, The Message, pp. 492–495. 83 It is, however, a matter of debate whether ‘sprinkle’ is what is really meant in Isa 52:15; see for example Hermisson, ‘The Fourth Servant Song’, p. 29. 79

262

MARKUS ZEHNDER

VII. CONNECTIONS WITH THE FIGURE OF MOSES a) Specific Connections between the Servant of the Lord and Moses There are close links between the figures of the Servant of the Lord and of Moses.84 ‘Moses’ can refer both to the figure of the period of the exodus from Egypt as described in the Pentateuch as well as to the expected future Moses-like figure that is spoken about in Deut 18:15, 18 and 34:10. 1. The first element to be mentioned is the shared application of the designation ‫‘( עבד‬servant’). This title is used in the Hebrew Bible with a particular weight—besides David—on Moses. Out of the 23 times the compound ‫‘( עבד יהוה‬servant of the Lord’) is used, it refers to Moses 18 times. In addition, Moses is called ‫עבד אלהים‬ (‘servant of God’) four times. 2. Also the term ‘my chosen’ (‫ )בחירי‬or ‘his chosen’ (‫ )בחירו‬is used in both traditions, as can be seen from Isa 42:1 (‫ ;בחירי‬Servant of the Lord) and Ps 106:23 (‫ ;בחירו‬Moses). In both traditions also the verb ‫ בחר‬is used; see Isa 49:7 for the Servant of the Lord and Numbers 16–17 for Moses. 3. The Servant of the Lord’s objection to this call and sense of futility in Isa 49:4, as well as his unpromising origin in Isa 53:1–2, have a plausible antecedent in the complaint of the self-doubting Moses in Ex 3:11.85 4. According to Isa 49:2 and 50:4, YHWH himself equips his Servant with a mouth and a tongue that are fit for the task; this echoes the divine response to Moses in Ex 4:11–12. 5. In Num 12:3 the humbleness of Moses is stressed (‫ענו מאד‬, ‘very meek’); this fits very well the general description of the Servant of the Lord, even if there is no direct link on the lexical level.

See especially Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, pp. 119–138; see also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, passim. 85 Thus also Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 133. 84

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

263

6. The motif of shining is shared by both traditions, though in different ways. As far as Moses is concerned, we note that Ex 34:29–35 speaks about the shining of his face after the meeting with YHWH. In the case of the Servant of the Lord, the motif appers in the expression ‫‘( אור גוים‬light to the nations’), as attested in Isa 42:7 and 49:6. 7. A further link is established by the shared motif of the permanent gift of the spirit of the Lord. This is mentioned in Isa 42:1 with respect to the Servant of the Lord, as seen above. For Moses, the relevant passage is Num 11:17, 25. 8. The administration of ‫‘( משפט‬justice’) and ‫‘( תורה‬instruction’) both terms sometimes in close connection, is characteristic of the description of the ministry both of Moses and the Servant of the Lord, with a scope even beyond the limits of Israel.86 The latter point is expressed in Deut 4:8 (and also with the application of [various parts of] the ‘law’ to different types of foreigners)87 as far as Moses in concerned, and in Isa 42:4 as far as the Servant of the Lord is concerned.88 9. A close relation to the concept of ‫ברית‬, ‘covenant’, connects the Servant of the Lord not only with the Davidic Messiah and some of the prophets, but also with the figure of Moses. To obey Moses was to obey the covenant (see Ex 20:19; see also Ex 16:8; 17:2). Faith in Moses was commensurate with faith in the Lord of the covenant (see Ex 14:31; 19:9). The covenant between YHWH and his people was made in a specific way with Moses as the representative of the people (see Ex 34:27).89 10. Both Moses and the Servant of the Lord are connected to an exodus: Moses to the exodus from Egypt, the Servant to a new exodus (primarily from Babylonia). Moses is the key figure of the exodus narrative, and the passages describing the Servant of the Pace Kapelrud, God, p. 133. One can point for example to laws pertaining to sojourners. For a comprehensive treatment of the topic see Zehnder, Umgang, pp. 311–384. 88 See also Coppens, ‘La mission’, p. 349. 89 See especially Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 134. 86 87

264

MARKUS ZEHNDER

Lord are embedded in a literary context that is marked by the motif of the second exodus.90 The new exodus can be described as ‘the controlling and sustained theme’ of Isaiah 40–55.91 The importance of the exodus theme in Isaiah 40–55—the part of the Book of Isaiah in which the Servant songs are embedded—is underlined by a long list of references to related themes, such as redemption, theophany and procession to God’s holy mountain, which ‘are perhaps best understood as elaborations of the second exodus theme’.92 Also the many references to the first exodus in Isaiah 40– 55 stress the importance of the exodus theme for the understanding of the Servant songs, indirectly hinting at the Servant’s role as a new Moses (see Isa 41:4, 9; 44:2, 7–8; 46:3–4; 48:8; 52:4).93 11. One of the main tasks of the Servant of the Lord consists in the restoration of the people to God; see Isa 42:6 and 49:5–6. The same theme is found in Moses’ career, especially after the incident of the golden calf. 12. In the case of both the Servant of the Lord and Moses, there are incidental hints at a priestly side of their ministry. Moses acts as a priest in Leviticus 8 by offering sacrifices during the inauguration ceremonies of Aaron. One of the verbs used in this particular context is ‫( נזה‬hiphil), with Moses as subject. The same verb is used with the Servant as subject in Isa 52:15.

For a comprehensive treatment of this topic see especially Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch. 91 Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 122. 92 Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 123. He adds that ‘a host of ancillary details connected with the original exodus are reapplied, with appropriate escalation, to the second exodus’ (‘The Servant’, p. 124). 93 The Servant’s role as a new Moses in a new exodus is also mentioned, among others, by Bentzen (King, pp. 52, 58, 65–67, 70) and Williams (‘The Poems’, p. 76; see also p. 81). 90

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

265

13. The Servant of the Lord is ascribed a wide-ranging healing ministry in Isa 53:5.94 Healing is also mentioned, though more punctually, with respect to Moses’ ministry; see Num 12:13; 21:9. 14. Primarily according to the fourth Servant song, the Servant of the Lord has an encompassing ministry of intercession. The same is said of Moses as well; see the general remarks in Jer 15:1; Ps 99:6; 106:23. More particularly, Moses is shown as interceding on behalf of Israel in Ex 32:11–14; Num 11:2; 12:11; 14:5; 16:4; 20:6; 21:7; Deut 9:18–29; for his intercession on behalf of the Egyptians see Ex 8:8–9, 29–30; 9:33; 10:18. 15. With both figures, the intercession may even turn into a substitutionary engagement: Both the Servant of the Lord and Moses are willing to bear God’s wrath against his people instead of the people itself. For Moses see especially Exod 32:32; see also Deut 1:37; 3:26; 4:21. For the Servant see Isa 53:4–6, 11–12.95 In this respect, there is a clear intensification: Moses is willing to bear God’s anger against the disobedient people, but he is not allowed to do so (Exod 32:30–35), whereas the Servant of the Lord in fact takes upon himself the way of substitutionary suffering until the fatal end.96 16. Both Moses and the Servant of the Lord are not merely described in terms of individuals, but also have a collective role as representatives and models of the people of God; see Exod 20:19 and especially 34:27 for Moses, and Isa 49:3 for the Servant of the Lord. It can be argued that ‘the relationship between Moses and See Lindsey, The Servant Songs, pp. 117–124. See also, among others, Bentzen, King, p. 66; Lindsey, The Servant Songs, pp. 117–138. This point is only valid if a traditional Christian interpretation of ‘substitution’ and a corresponding understanding of both Isaianic texts (and Ex 32:32) is followed. None of this can be taken for granted without further explanation, but this is not the place to elaborate on these questions. 96 One may also point to Deut 1:37: YHWH is angry with Moses on the Israelites’ account, and that is the reason for him not being allowed to enter the land (see Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 138). 94 95

266

MARKUS ZEHNDER

Israel is analogous to the relationship between the servant and Israel … The servant is the representative of and model for his people’,97 as is Moses. 17. Another important link is the shared topic of lack of success, as seen in the rejection by their own people. 98 For the Servant of the Lord see Isa 49:4; 50:6; 53:3–9; for Moses see Ex 2:14; 4:1; 14:11– 12; 15:24; 16:2–12; 17:2–4; Num 12:1–2; 14:2, 10; 16:2–3; 16:41– 42; 20:2–3; 21:5; 26:9. 18. As the grave of the Servant of the Lord is hidden somewhere with the ‘wicked men’ (Isa 53:9),99 so is the grave of Moses hidden in the land of Moab (Deut 34:6).100 19. Finally, on a more general level, one may point to the combination of royal, priestly and prophetic traits that characterizes the complex picture of both Moses and the Servant of the Lord. As far as the Servant of the Lord is concerned, the preceding chapters bear abundant witness to both royal,101 prophetic and priestly traits. As far as the figure of Moses is concerned, the following observations can be adduced:102 With respect to the royal traits of Moses, it will be enough to consider his position as a leader during the exodus up to the period before the entry into the promised land. Perhaps he is even called ‫‘( מלך‬king’) in Deut 33:5 (though the term more likely refers to Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 131. Thus also for example Ruppert, ‘Der leidende Gottesknecht’, p. 573; see also Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 135. 99 See Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 417–418; Goldingay, The Message, pp. 508–509. 100 This connection is also noted by Baltzer (see Deutero-Isaiah, p. 418). 101 In the context of Davidic messianic expectations; additional royal traits not related to messianic ideas in the stricter sense of the expression could easily be added. The points of contact with Cyrus are also indicative of the royal traits of the Servant of the Lord. 102 The list is not meant to be exhaustive. 97 98

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

267

YHWH). According to Ex 18:13, Moses ‘judges’ (‫ )שפט‬the people, which describes his ruling function. As for his priestly traits, Moses is described as acting as a priest in Leviticus 8 by offering sacrifices during the inauguration ceremionies of Aaron. As far as the role as a prophet is concerned, one may point to the fact that Moses is explicitly called ‘prophet’ (‫ )נביא‬in Deut 18:15–20 and 34:10. b) Some Concluding Remarks The connections between the Servant of the Lord and the figure of Moses are almost as strong as those between the Servant and the Davidic Messiah. This raises the question as to whether the Isaianic Servant can be identified with the Davidic Messiah and at the same time be interpreted in terms of the new Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. The connecting traits are related to all four Servant songs; however, the third song is again, as in the case of the connections between the Servant of the Lord and the Davidic Messiah, least represented in the list of shared elements. It has to be noted that among the other biblical figures mentioned above that show relations with the Servant of the Lord, the Son of Man also shows traits that connect him with Moses. In Dan 7:13 the Son of Man is introduced as the one appearing with the clouds of heaven coming directly before the Ancient of Days, who in turn is surrounded by a river of fire. This compares with Moses in several respects. In Exodus 19, he appears before YHWH who descends on Mount Sinai with fire and covers it with a cloud of smoke. According to Exod 24:18, Moses ascends to the cloud that covers Mount Sinai and comes up into the presence of YHWH. And according to Exod 33:8–11, Moses speaks with YHWH face to face in the tent of meeting at the entrance of which stands the pillar of cloud whenever YHWH speaks with Moses. In Peter’s sermon narrated in Acts 3, Jesus is identified both as ‘servant’ (verses 13 and 26), ‘Christ’ (v. 18) and prophet like Moses (v. 22).

268

MARKUS ZEHNDER

VIII. TEXTS REFERRING TO A SERVANT IN ISAIAH 40–55 OUTSIDE THE ‘SERVANT SONGS’ The noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) is attested 13 times in Isaiah 40–55 outside the Servant songs, in all but one case (Isa 54:17) in the singular. The following observations can be made that are relevant for the present investigation: 1. The first reference to an ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) is found in Isa 41:8–9. The verses are part of a passage that, according to the Masoretic interpretation, covers vv. 8–13.103 The servant is identified with ‘Israel’, which is set in parallel with ‘Jacob’, in v. 8. There are very strong parallels in Isa 41:8–9 with texts referring to the Servant of the Lord in the Servant songs. The use of the verbs ‫‘( בחר‬choose’), ‫( חזק‬hiphil, ‘make strong’) and ‫קרא‬ (‘call’) clearly connect these two verses with the Servant songs; see Isa 42:6; 49:1, 7. Another lexical connection is established by the common use of the noun ‫‘( צדק‬righteousness’) in Isa 41:10 and 42:6. Furthermore, the verb ‫‘( עזר‬help’) is used to describe YHWH’s support of the servant both in vv. 10 and 13, as much as in the Servant songs (see Isa 49:8; 50:7, 9). However, there are clear differences between Isa 41:8–13 and the Servant songs: The servant in Isa 41:8–13, Israel, is helped by God and basically encouraged not to fear (vv. 10, 13, 14), while the Servant of the Lord is not merely a recipient of God’s support, but himself an active instrument of preaching.104 In addition, there is no clear justification for an interpretation of the servant in Isa Thus also Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, p. 51. Baltzer also follows this division, but points to alternative views suggested by other commentators (see Deutero-Isaiah, p. 95). 104 See Hermisson, ‘Voreiliger Abschied’, p. 217. He notes: ‘Da wird dann schlagartig deutlich, dass Israel z.B. erwählter Knecht ist und von Jahwes heilvoller rechter Hand gehalten, um seine Hilfe zu erfahren (41,8–13), während der Knecht von 42,1–4 erwählt ist und bei der Hand genommen, weil er einen Auftrag auszuführen hat’ (‘Voreiliger Abschied’, p.218); and further remarks: ‘Es geht also um die schlagwortartig so genannte aktive Rolle des prophetischen Knechts und die passive Rolle des Knechts Israel’ (‘Voreiliger Abschied’, p. 218). 103

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

269

41:8–13 as an individual, as opposed to the Servant of the Lord. 105 Isa 41:14–20 can be read as an interpreting continuation of the preceding passage, confirming its collective outlook. 106 We also note that relations to the Davidic tradition are only tangential (for example, the use of the noun ‫ימין‬, ‘right hand’, in v. 10), as opposed to the situation in the Servant songs. Lastly, the point that YHWH has not ‘spurned’ (‫ )מאס‬his servant makes sense only with respect to the people at large, not an ideal servant as described in the Servant songs. 2. The next attestation of the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) can be found in Isa 42:19, a verse that, according to the Masoretic interpretation, belongs to a passage that covers verses 18–25. As in the case before, there is no hint that anything else than a collective interpretation can be given to the servant mentioned here.107 The passage opens with the use of grammatically plural forms; this is carried through in verses 20 and 24, and v. 23 also refers to a plural by the use of ‫‘( בכם‬among you’). The description of the servant with singular uses of ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) in v. 19 and the singular formulations in v. 25 can be explained as purposeful counterimages to the obedient Servant of the Lord. While the Servant of the Lord understands YHWH’s plans and listens to his voice (Isa 50:4–5), the servant in Isa 42:19 is blind and deaf; while the Servant of the Lord’s suffering in Isaiah 53 does not point to any failures on the side of the Servant and serves a meaningful end, this is not the case with the suffering of the servant in Isa 42:25. Even beyond this verse, the whole sequence of Isa 42:23–25 is—via negationis—closely related to Isa 52:13–53:12. In sum, Isa 42:18–25 contains a wholly negative depiction of the servant of the Lord. This servant is not a means to promote understanding of YHWH and faith in him, but is in dire need to be given these things. We

Similarly Hermisson, ‘Israel, p. 4. The servant is identified with the people of Israel also by Goldingay (see The Message, pp. 66, 98). 107 So also Goldingay, The Message, p. 180; Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, p. 70. 105 106

270

MARKUS ZEHNDER

also note that there are again no direct relations to the Davidic tradition.108 3. The next attestation of the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) is found in Isa 43:10. This verse forms part of a passage that covers Isa 43:1–10 if Petuha and Setuma are taken as criteria for its delimiation; however, BHS marks Isa 43:8–13 as a continuous oracle.109 The latter delimitation is supported, among other reasons, by the repetition of the term ‘witnesses’ in verses 10 and 12 to describe the role of the addressees. Isaiah 43 starts with singular formulations in verses 1–5, but changes to plural in verses 6–7. In v. 8, the entity spoken of is identified as a ‘people’, a people that is said to be blind and deaf. This connects the referent with Isa 42:19. In v. 1, the referent is identified as ‘Israel’, as we find it in Isa 41:8. There are several further connections with the first passage mentioned in this section, Isa 41:8–13: Both servants are basically passive recipients of God’s gracious acts; twice (Isa 43:1, 5), the addressee is admonished not to be afraid, as in Isa 41:10, 13, 14; the servant is ‘called’ (‫ )קרא‬by YHWH (Isa 43:1; see the parallel in Isa 41:9), an element that also connects this passage with the Servant of the Lord (see Isa 42:6; 49:1); the same is true for the notion of ‘choosing’ (‫ ;בחר‬Isa 43:10; see the parallel in Isa 41:8–9); see Isa 49:7. This line of connection with the Servant songs is further established by the shared use of the motif of YHWH’s ‘forming’ of the servant (‫ ;יצר‬see Isa 43:1 and 49:5) and to a lesser degree by the shared motif of YHWH’s ‘redeeming’ (‫)גאל‬, with respect to the servant in Isa 43:1 and with respect to Israel, not the Servant, in Isa 49:7.

Pace Gerleman, ‘Der Gottesknecht’, p. 57 (who sees here a positive description of David’s willingness to endure suffering, as an example for the Judaeans in Exile). 109 The division found in Baltzer is 43:8–15 (see Deutero-Isaiah, p. 161); Höffken treats 43:8–15 as one passage, with a subdivision in verses 8–13 and 14–15 (see Das Buch Jesaja, p. 73); Goldingay proposes to delimit the passage to 43:8–13 (see The Message, p. 197). 108

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

271

Isa 43:10 poses a special problem: Are the addressees designated as ‫‘( אתם‬you’) and ‘witnesses’ identical with the servant mentioned afterwards or not? Likely the two are in fact identical.110 Be this as it may, the connections with the first passage allow an identification of an implicit ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) in Isa 43:1–9 with the one mentioned in Isa 41:8–13. Should the witnesses not be identical with the servant, it would be possible to identify the servant spoken of in Isa 43:10 with the prophet. 111 4. The next passage in which the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) appears is Isa 44:1–5, with two attestations in verses 1–2. There are many links to the Servant songs. The first one is the use of the verb ‫בחר‬ (‘choose’) with respect to the servant’s election in verses 1 and 2, parallel to Isa 49:7, as well as to two passages mentioned earlier in this section. Second, the use of the verb ‫‘( יצר‬form’) in v. 2 to express the servant’s forming by YHWH links the present passage with the preceding one (mentioned under 3.), as well as with Isa 49:5. The relationship with Isa 49:5 is especially close since ‫יצר‬ appears in both cases in syntactical juxtaposition with the preposition ‫ מן‬and the noun ‫‘( בטן‬womb’). The use of the verb ‫עזר‬ (‘help’) establishes another bridge both with the first passage of this section (Isa 41:8–13) and with the second and third of the Servant songs. The admonition not to fear links the present passage with two of the preceding ones. In spite of the connections with the Servant songs, the passivity of the servant spoken of in the present passage and the lack of relations to the Davidic tradition, as well as the explicit identification with Jacob, Israel and Jeshurun make a purely collective identification with Israel and a non-identification with the Servant of the Lord more probable.112 The hint to the forming

Thus for example Goldingay, The Message, pp. 199–200; Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, p. 74. 111 This is done by Hermisson, ‘Israel’, pp. 4–7. 112 Thus also Goldingay, The Message, pp. 98, 227–228; Hermisson, ‘Israel’, p. 4; Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 80–81. 110

272

MARKUS ZEHNDER

in the womb does not contradict this, but can be understood as a case of an individualizing portrayal of a collective entity.113 5. The next passage containing an attestation of the noun ‫עבד‬ (‘servant’) is Isa 44:21–23 (see v. 21).114 Again, the verb ‫‘( יצר‬form’) is used to describe the servant’s forming by YHWH, linking the passage both to some of the preceding passages mentioned in this section and to Isa 49:5. The direct identification with Jacob and Israel leads to the same evaluation of the question of the servant’s identity as in the preceding case. 115 It is also clear that the servant spoken of here is no active instrument of God’s salvific actions, but the passive recipient of redemption. 6. The continuation of the passage just mentioned, Isa 44:21–23, covering verses 24–28 in the same chapter, again has one attestation of the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’, in v. 26). The present passage is connected with Isa 43:1–10 (and Isa 49:7) by the use of the verb ‫‘( גאל‬redeem’) and by the motif of the formation in the womb with Isa 44:2 and Isa 49:5. However, it is unclear whom the phrase ‘your redeemer, the one who formed you in the womb’ is referring to as being made and saved by YHWH.116 What is said of the servant (or the servants)117 in Isa 44:26 is that YHWH confirms his word. So the servant here must be a prophetic figure, 118 or in Thus also Goldingay, The Message, p. 228. This division is also found in Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 205; Höffken, on the other hand, distinguishes vv. 21–22 from v. 23 (see Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 86–87). 115 Thus also Goldingay, The Message, pp. 98, 246–247; Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, p. 86. 116 Baltzer assumes that ‘everyone who is listening’ is in view, in fact the creation as a whole (Deutero-Isaiah, p. 212). According to Hermisson, on the other hand, the formulations in Isa 44:24 probably refer to the prophet (see ‘Israel’, p. 8). If this is correct, the prophet is conceived of in ways similar to the Servant of the Lord, which in turn shows that the latter has prophetic traits. 117 Thus LXXA and the Targum. 118 Höffken thinks of the prophets of Israel in general (see Das Buch Jesaja, p. 92); Hermisson assumes that a particular prophetic figure is in 113 114

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

273

fact ‘anyone … through whom Yhwh speaks and/or acts’.119 Should the plural reading be followed, then Isa 44:26 explicitly shows that there is a plurality of such servants. 7. The next attestation of the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) is found in the passage Isa 45:1–7, in v. 4. Verse 1 uses elements known from the Davidic tradition, especially ‘anointed’ and taken by the ‘right hand’. The phrase ‫‘( ואקרא לך בשמך‬I have called you by [your] name’) links Isa 45:3–4 with Isa 43:1; in Isa 45:3–4, it refers to the naming of Cyrus, in Isa 43:1 to the naming of Israel. The servant in Isa 45:4 is identified with Jacob and set in parallel with ‘Israel my chosen one’. The servant is not ascribed any active role, but is the passive recipient of God’s salvific acts that in this passage are described as being implemented by Cyrus as an instrument of God. As in the majority of the cases investigated in this section, ‫עבד‬ (‘servant’) most likely refers to the people of Israel.120 8. The last attestation of the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) in its singular form is found in Isa 48:20, in the context of a passage that covers Isa 48:17–22.121 The servant is again identified as Jacob, and the context makes it clear that the reference is to the people of Israel.122 There is no connection to the Servant of the Lord that would suggest an identification with this Servant understood as an individual being involved actively in the redemption of God’s people. 9. Finally, there is also a plural attestation of ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) in Isaiah 40–55, in Isa 54:17. There is no description of an active role view, probably Deutero-Isaiah (see ‘Israel’, p. 8). According to Baltzer, the figure has to be interpreted as one heavenly representative of the prophetic order in general (see Deutero-Isaiah, p. 216). 119 Goldingay, The Message, p. 237. 120 Thus also Goldingay, The Message, pp. 98, 266; Hermisson, ‘Israel’, p. 4; Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 90, 94. 121 Both Baltzer and Höffken divide the passage in 48:17–19 and 48:20–22 (see Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, pp. 297–301: Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, pp. 123–126). 122 Thus also Goldingay, The Message, p. 98; Hermisson, ‘Israel’, p. 4; Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja, p. 126.

274

MARKUS ZEHNDER

of these servants. Their identity as Israel (or a specific part of the people at large) is not in doubt; however, there is no hint at a deficit in their character as in many of the singular attestations in Isaiah 40–55 outside of the Servant songs. The use of the term ‫עבד‬ in the present verse points to its use in Isaiah 56–66.123 The observations concerning the use of the noun ‘servant’ (‫עבד‬, in its singular attestations) in Isaiah 40–55 outside of the Servant songs can be summarized as follows: With the exception of Isa 44:26 (and perhaps 43:10), where the term likely refers to a / the prophet, the servant spoken of in these chapters can be identified as the people of Israel which is in need of God’s redemption and which is not, as opposed to the Servant of the Lord, envisioned as an active means of God’s redemptive acts. However, several motifs link these passages to the Servant songs, suggesting a direct relation between these passages and the Servant songs in which the Servant of the Lord takes on the role of the instrument of God that will bring about the redemption of the servant Israel. Among the shared motifs are the protection of YHWH for his servant and the forming (in the womb) of the servant by YHWH; but the motifs are used in different ways in both contexts. In addition, there are motifs that clearly distinguish the servant from the Servant, such as the call not to fear or the predication as blind and deaf.

IX. TEXTS REFERRING TO A SERVANT IN ISAIAH 1–39 AND 56–66 The noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) is attested 19 times in Isaiah 1–39 and 56–66 (Isa 14:2; 20:3; 22:20; 24:2; 36:9, 11; 37:5, 24, 35; 56:6; 63:17; 65:8–9, 13–15; 66:14). Compare Goldingay, The Message, p. 544. He states that ‘[t]he servants remain unidentified’; however, the children of the woman addressed in the preceding verses of the chapter are mentioned as the most likely candidates. According to Lessing, the servants spoken of here are the people of Israel that has been restored through the righteous Servant and is now defined by YHWH’s righteousness (see ‘Isaiah’s Servants’, p. 132). 123

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

275

On the whole, connections with the use of ‫ עבד‬in Isaiah 40– 55 in general and in the Servant songs in particular are relatively scant. As far as Isaiah 1–39 is concerned, the following picture emerges: A singular use of the term is attested only in Isa 20:3; 22:20; 24:2 and 37:35. Of these attestations, the one in Isa 24:2 has no bearing on our investigation, since it uses the noun ‫ עבד‬in a generic manner to descibe the reversal of fortunes in the situation of God’s judgment with servants becoming like masters. The case of Isa 37:35 is also of limited interest, since it only presents another example of David being called YHWH’s ‘servant’. Somewhat more relevant are the cases of Isa 20:3 and 22:20. In Isa 20:3 it is the prophet Isaiah who is called YHWH’s ‫עבד‬, and in Isa 22:20 Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah. The first case could be interpreted as supporting the view that the Servant of the Lord could be the prophet himself, that is, ‘Isaiah’ or ‘Deutero-Isaiah’. This interpretation is even further strengthened by the fact that the prophet in Isa 20:3 is described in a role that involves his personal humiliation. However, the fact that the servant is explicitly identified with the prophet Isaiah in Isa 20:3 raises the question as to why such an explicit identification is missing in the case of the Servant of YHWH, if indeed it was again the prophet who was meant. As far as Isa 22:20 is concerned, the syntactic combination of ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) with the verb ‫‘( קרא‬call’) with YHWH in the role of subject connects the verse with Isa 41:9 and 45:5. The verb ‫קרא‬ is also used in Isa 42:6, with regard to the calling of the Servant of the Lord. But again, these parallels offer no direct help neither to better understand the Servant of the Lord’s ministry nor to identify him, since there is no reason why the Servant of the Lord should be identified with Eliakim and since the explicit identification speaks against an identical identification in the case of the Servant songs where it is omitted. On the other hand, the parallels do caution against an all too strict division between Isaiah 1–39 and Isaiah 40–55.

276

MARKUS ZEHNDER

In all the remaining cases, ‫ עבד‬is used in the plural with reference to servants of earthly kings or (in Isa 14:2)124 to foreigners who will serve the Israelites in a subordinated position. Matters look somehow differently in Isaiah 56–66: In all instances, the noun ‫‘( עבד‬servant’) is used in the plural. In one case (Isa 56:6), ‫ עבד‬refers to foreigners who decide to become servants of YHWH, which has some resemblances with Isa 14:2. There is a lexical connection with the Servant songs insofar as the verb ‫( חזק‬hiphil, ‘make strong’) and the noun ‫ברית‬ (‘covenant’) are used. This builds a bridge between Isaiah 40–55 in general and the Servant of the Lord in particular with Isaiah 56–66; however, there are no reasons that would suggest a transfer of identification from Isa 56:6 to the Servant of the Lord in the Servant songs. In all remaining cases, ‫ עבד‬refers to the people of God, Israel, or the pious among them. A lexical link with the Servant of the Lord in Isa 42:1 and the servant spoken of in Isa 45:5—as well as ‘David my servant’ in Ps 89:4—is established by the connection of the respective servants with the adjective ‫בחיר‬ (‘chosen’) in Isa 65:9, 15. In principle, an identification between the servants spoken of in Isaiah 63, 65 and 66 with the servant in Isaiah 40–55 (outside the Servant songs) seems to be possible, if the latter (as proposed here) is understood collectively (with the exception of Isa 43:10 and 44:26). This, as well as the additional lexical bridge established by ‫בחיר‬, warns against the assumption of a rigid division between Isaiah 40–55 and Isaiah 56–66. On the other hand, there is a clear change in the use of the noun ‫עבד‬: While—with the exception of Isa 54:17—‫ עבד‬is always used in singular in Isaiah 40–55, it is always used in plural in Isaiah 56–66. This is hardly a coincidence and probably hints at a new perspective taken on in Isaiah 56–66. This also makes a transfer of the referent found in Isaiah 63, 65 and 66 to the Servant of the Lord, and probably also to the other attestations of ‘servant’ in Isaiah 40–55, rather unlikely. In the case of the Servant of the Lord, the difference to the servants of Isaiah 63, 65, and 66 is also clear with respect to their roles: As opposed to the Servant of the Lord, there is no active ministerial role that is commissioned to the 124

For details see Zehnder, ‘Jesaja 14,1f.’.

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

277

servants in Isaiah 63, 65 and 66; rather, they are the recipients of God’s gracious acts. The clear differences between the servants in these chapters as compared to the Servant in the Servant songs supports an individualistic interpretation of the latter figure. As opposed to the servant Israel in Isaiah 40–55 outside the Servant songs, the servants in Isaiah 63, 65 and 66 are depicted in a more positive light. From a macro-structural perspective, this change in the view of the servants may well have something to do with the positive results of the Servant of the Lord’s ministry.125

X. CONCLUSIONS The observations made in the previous chapters have shown that it is possible to interpret the Servant songs as a connected group of texts that speak of one and the same figure with predominantly individualistic traits, the Servant of the Lord. The third song is less tightly connected to the web of relations that link the Isaianic Servant with other salvific figures; however, this is only a matter of degree, and there are enough reasons lying beyond the scope of the present study that speak in favour of a classification of Isa 50:4–9 (or 50:4–11) as the third Servant song. Our investigation has further shown that there is a close connection between the Servant songs and the broader literary context in which they are embedded, Isaiah 40–55. Even if the songs may be separated to some degree from their literary context, they very clearly cannot be detached or isolated from it. On the other hand, it has also become clear that the Servant of the Servant songs is likely not identical with the servant Israel in the passages outside the songs in Isaiah 40–55; however, the two servants are modelled with a view to one another. The relationship between the Servant songs and Isaiah 1–39 is much looser than in the case of Isaiah 40–55, with the exception of Isaiah 11. This chapter may well have functioned as a pre-text for the Servant songs.

A similar thought is found in Lessing, ‘Isaiah’s Servants’, pp. 132–133 (with regards to the servants mentioned in Isa 54:17). 125

278

MARKUS ZEHNDER

The relationship between the Servant songs and Isaiah 56–66 is also noticeably weaker than in the case of Isaiah 40–55. There may, however, be a—somewhat hypothetical—theological link connecting the two sections of the Book of Isaiah related to the Servant: the servant Israel of Isaiah 40–48 who is in need of God’s help becomes the truefast group of servants of Isaiah 56–66, thanks to the beneficial impact of (the message of) the Servant of the Lord. At all events, Isa 61:1–3 connects the Servant songs with Isaiah 56–66 by introducing a Servant-like figure into the third section of the Book of Isaiah. As far as the identity of the Servant of the Lord is concerned, the following observations can be made: As mentioned above, the Servant is not identical with the people of Israel as described in the literary context of the Servant songs in Isaiah 40–55. This does not exclude a collective interpretation of the figure; but such an interpretation is only an additional layer that supplements a predominantly individualistic picture. Regarding the relationship with individual figures, the most important finding is that there is no exclusive relationship, but a complex web of connections with a plurality of salvific figures mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. 126 At the same time, there is no reason to assume that the Servant songs do not belong together because they exhibit a certain unevenness of their connections with traditions concerning other salvific figures. It can also be seen that there are two salvific figures with whom the Isaianic Servant is most tightly connected; these are the Davidic Messiah and (the prophet like) Moses. The connections seem strong enough to allow for a description of the Servant both as a messianic figure and at the same time as a figure that matches A similar conclusion is found in Wolff, ‘Wer ist der Gottesknecht’, p. 341: ‘Kurzum: keiner der Versuche, den Knecht mit einer geschichtlichen Gestalt ihm Sehfeld des sechsten Jahrhunderts vor Christus gleichzusetzen, hat sich durchzusetzen vermocht. Alle bieten einige, manche sogar recht viele, einleuchtende Anhaltspunkte. Keine aber vermag alle Aussagen historisch zu verifizieren.’ See also Hugenberger, ‘The Servant’, p. 117. 126

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

279

expectations of a future prophet like Moses.127 Both the slightly higher number of connections with the Davidic Messiah and that fact that the Servant of the Lord exhibits several traits that seem to be indicative of a ‘divine status’128 underline the messianic aspect of the figure. It is important to note that the Servant of the Lord is closely related to both the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man. This helps explain why the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man could be identified with each other in certain strands of the Second Temple literature, including the New Testament. Moreover, the fact that both the Servant of the Lord and the Son of Man are closely connected with the figure of Moses, and that both, in turn, are closely related to the Davidic Messiah, strengthens the net of relationships between these three salvific figures (Davidic Messiah, Son of Man, Servant of the Lord) and makes the identification with one and the same person, as we find it in the New Testament with respect to Jesus, understandable from the perspective of a canonical reading of the Hebrew Bible. The connecting of the different traditions of Davidic Messiah, Son of Man, Servant of the Lord and prophet like Moses as we find it in the Second Temple period, especially in the New Testament, is obviously not the result of exegetical randomness of theologians who were prone to developing new concepts without foundations in the Scriptures; rather, by combining these traditions lines were drawn out that are found already in the Hebrew Bible itself. Compare the evaluation of Bentzen who calls the Servant ‘a prophet … described in terms of royal ideology’ (King, p. 50). According to him, this combination can be understood by assuming that ‘both king and prophet … are aspects of the comprehensive idea of a “primordial Ancestor”, or “Patriarch”’ (King, p. 50). The Servant can be identified with the ‘First Man’ or ‘the Patriarch of the Human Race’ (King, p. 64). 128 To mention just one: The Servant of the Lord is called ‘high and lifted up’ (‫ )ירום ונשא‬in Isa 52:13. Almost the same phrase (‫ )רם ונשא‬is found in Isa 6:1 and 57:15 with respect to YHWH himself, and nowhere else as a direct description of an individual in the Hebrew Bible. A separate investigation of this topic is in prepration. The ‘divine status’ also connects the Servant of the Lord with the Son of Man. 127

280

MARKUS ZEHNDER

BIBLIOGRAPHY K. Baltzer, Deutero–Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, translated by M. Kohl (Minneapolis, 2001). A. Bentzen, King and Messiah, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1970), pp. 48–72. W. Bittner, ‘Gott—Menschensohn—Davidssohn’, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 32 (1985), pp. 343–372 (354). H. Blocher, Songs of the Servant: Isaiah’s Good News (London, 1975). D. L. Bock, ‘Scripture Citing Scripture’, in D. L. Bock and B. M. Fanning (eds), Interpreting the New Testament Text (Wheaton, 2006), pp. 255–276. F. F. Bruce, ‘The Background to the Son of Man Sayings’, in H. H. Rowdon (ed.), Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (Leicester, 1982), pp. 50–70. H. Cazelles, Alttestamentliche Christologie (Einsiedeln, 1983). D. J. A. Clines, I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 (Sheffield, 1976). J. Coppens, ‘La mission du Serviteur de Yahvé et son statut eschatologique’, Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 48 (1972), pp. 343–371. R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London, 1971), pp. 83–171. M. Gignilliat, ‘Who Is Isaiah’s Servant? Narrative Identity and Theological Potentiality’, Scottish Journal of Theology 61 (2008), pp. 125–136. G. Gerleman, ‘Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja’, in G. Gerleman, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Heidelberg, 1980), pp. 38–60. H. Gese, Zur biblischen Theologie (Tübingen, 1983), p. 133. J. E. Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55 (London, 2005). H. Haag, Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja (Darmstadt, 1985). M. Hengel, ‘The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre–Christian Period’, in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, translated by D. P. Bailey (Grand Rapids, 2004), pp. 75–146. H.-J. Hermisson, ‘Israel und der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 79 (1982), pp. 1–24. ———, ‘The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah’, in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), The Suffering

THE ‘SERVANT OF THE LORD’

281

Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, translated by D. P. Bailey (Grand Rapids, 2004), pp. 16–47. ———, ‘Voreiliger Abschied von den Gottesknechtsliedern’, Theologische Rundschau 49 (1984), pp. 209–222. P. Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja Kapitel 40–66 (Stuttgart, 1998). G. P. Hugenberger, ‘The Servant of the Lord in the “Servant Songs” of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure’, in P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham (eds), The Lord’s Anointed (Grand Rapids, 1995), pp. 105–140. A. S. Kapelrud, God and his Friends in the Old Testament (Oslo, 1979), pp. 124–137. K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch (Fribourg / Göttingen, 1979). R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39 (Darmstadt, 1983), pp. 25–26. H. S. Kvanvig, ‘The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch’, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids / Cambridge, 2007), pp. 179– 215. R. R. Lessing, ‘Isaiah’s Servants in Chapters 40–55: Clearing up the Confusion’, Concordia Journal 37 (2011), pp. 130–134. F. D. Lindsey, The Servant Songs: A Study in Isaiah (Chicago, 1985). E. Lohmeyer, Gottesknecht und Davidsohn, 2nd edn (Göttingen, 1953). A. S. Maller, ‘Isaiah’s Suffering Servant: A New View’, Jewish Bible Quarterly 37 (2009), pp. 243–249. T. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom (Lund, 1983). R. T. Murphy, ‘Second Isaias: The Servant of the Lord’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947), pp. 262–274. C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study, 2nd edn (London, 1956). J. N. Oswalt, ‘Isaiah 52:13–53:12—Servant of All’, Calvin Theological Journal 40 (2005), pp. 85–94. J. J. M. Roberts, ‘The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judiasm and Christianity (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 39–51. R. A. Rosenberg, ‘The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987), pp. 259– 261.

282

MARKUS ZEHNDER

R. D. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, in H. H. Rowden (ed.), Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (Leicester, 1982), pp. 71–96. L. Ruppert, ‘Der leidende Gottesknecht’, Concilium 12 (1976), pp. 571–575. C. Story, ‘Another Look at the Fourth Servant Song of Second Isaiah’, Horizons in Biblical Theology 31 (2009), pp. 100–110. J. C. VanderKam, ‘Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and the Son of Man in 1 Enonch 37–71’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 169–191. P. Volz, ‘Jesaja 53’, in K. Marti (ed.), Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Karl Budde zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 13. April 1920 überreicht von Freunden und Schülern (Giessen, 1920), pp. 180–190. E.-J. Waschke, Der Gesalbte (Berlin / New York, 2001). J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66 (Waco, 1987). C. Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja, 5th edn (Göttingen, 1986). R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (Grand Rapids, 1981). P. H. Williams Jr., ‘The Poems about Incomparable Yahweh’s Servant in Isaiah 40–55’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 11 (1968), pp. 73–87. H. W. Wolff, Frieden ohne Ende: Jesaja 7,1–17 und 9,1–6 ausgelegt (Neukirchen, 1962), p. 48. ———, ‘Wer ist der Gottesknecht in Jesaja 53?’ Evangelische Theologie 22 (1962), pp. 338–342. M. Zehnder, ‘Jesaja 14,1f.: Widersprüchliche Erwartungen zur Stellung der Nicht-Israeliten in der Zukunft?’, in B. Huwyler et al. (eds), Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag (Münster, 2001), pp. 3-29. ———, Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien (Stuttgart, 2005), pp. 311–384, 536–540.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS LarsOlov Eriksson is Professor of Exegetical Theology at Johannelund Theological Seminary (Sweden) and Associate Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the University of Uppsala (Sweden). Among his current research interests are the genre of Bible commentary, preaching the Psalms, and Old Testament Theology. His main publications are Come, Children, Listen to Me: Psalm 34 in the Hebrew Bible and in Early Christian Writings (1991) and De glömda böckerna: en guide till Apokryferna (1999). He is the chief editor of the Swedish commentary series Kommentar till Nya testamentet and has edited and contributed to several Old Testament textbooks in Swedish. David G. Firth is Lecturer in Old Testament and Director of Research at St John’s College Nottingham (UK); he is also the chair of the Old Testament Study Group of Tyndale Fellowship and General Editor of Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. His current research is focused on the Books of Joshua, Samuel and Psalms with a particular focus on how their poetics inform their theology, and also the theme of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament. Among his major publications are Hear, O Lord: A Spirituality of the Psalms (2005), God Present but Unseen: The Message of Esther (2010) and 1 & 2 Samuel: A Kingdom Comes (2013). Terence E. Fretheim is Elva B. Lovell Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota (USA). He has his PhD in Old Testament from Princeton Theological Seminary; he has also been research fellow at the Universities of Heidelberg, Oxford, Cambridge, and Chicago and held many teaching positions throughout his career. He is especially interested in theological issues that the biblical texts raise. Among his many major publications are The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (1984), God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of 283

284

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Creation (2005), Exodus: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (2010), Creation Untamed: The Bible, God, and Natural Disasters (2010) and Reading Hosea-Micah: A Literary and Theological Commentary (2013). Knut Holter is Professor of Old Testament at the MHS School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger (Norway); he is also Extraordinary Professor at the University of Stellenbosch (South Africa). His main research interest is African interpretive strategies vis-à-vis the Bible, and his books include Yahweh in Africa: Essays on Africa and the Old Testament (2000), Old Testament Research for Africa: A Critical Analysis and Annotated Bibliography of African Old Testament Dissertations, 1967–2000 (2002) and Contextualized Old Testament Scholarship in Africa (2008). Årstein Justnes is Associate Professor in Biblical Studies at University of Agder. His research focuses primarily on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and mindfulness. Currently he is coordinating the research project ‘Biblical’ Texts Older than the Bible (2012–2016), funded by the Norwegian Research Council. His publications include The Time of Salvation: An Analysis of 4QApocryphon of Daniel ar (4Q246), 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521 2), and 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a) (2009) and Dødehavsrullene: Deres innhold, historie og betydning (2009). Magnar Kartveit is Professor of Old Testament at the MHS School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger (Norway); he is also President of the Société d’Etudes Samaritaines. In recent years he has specialized in Samaritan studies; his interests also include the study of the Hebrew language, among others the understanding of the construct state. His main publications are Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (1989), The Origin of the Samaritans (2009) and Rejoice, Dear Zion! Hebrew Construct Phrases with ‘Daughter’ and ‘Virgin’ as Nomen Regens (2013). Jens Bruun Kofoed is Professor of Old Testament at Copenhagen Lutheran School of Theology (Denmark) and Fjellhaug International University College, Oslo (Norway). He is also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society’s Old Testament Narrative Books Literature Steering Committee, editor-in-Chief for Scandinavian Evangelical e-Journal and co-editor for Hiphil Novum. His research in recent years has centered on ancient historiography,

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

285

cultural memory, and creation theology in the Bible and the ancient Near East. His publications include the monograph Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text (2005) and his recent essay ‘The Old Testament as Cultural Memory’ (published in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith, 2012). A monograph in Danish on the Biblical creation account and the comparative material will be published in 2014 by Museum Tusculanum Press. Marta Høyland Lavik is a Postdoc Fellow of Old Testament at the MHS School of Mission and Theology (Stavanger, Norway) and Stavanger University Hospital, and an appointed Research Fellow at the Faculty of Theology, University of Stellenbosch (South Africa). Her research interests are exegetical (A People Tall and Smooth-Skinned: The Rhetoric of Isaiah 18, 2007), hermeneutical (articles on African and African-American readings of the so-called Kush texts in the OT) and receptional /contemporary. In her interdisciplinary postdoc project on the significance of the Bible for people living with incurable cancer, Hebrew texts are analyzed in light of and in response to existential readings from cancer patients. Alan Millard is Emeritus Rankin Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool. He has worked on archaeological excavations in Syria, Jordan and Iraq and was a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1983–1984. His research and publications concern the ancient languages and history of the Near East, with an emphasis on the biblical world. His books include Atra-hasis. The Babylonian Story of the Flood, with W. G. Lambert (1969), La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyroaraméenne, with A. Abou Assaf and P. Bordreuil (1982), Discoveries from Bible Times (1997) and Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (2000). Kirsten Nielsen is Professor Emeritus at the University of Aarhus (Denmark). Besides her PhD earned at the University of Aarhus she also holds a Dr. theol. h.c. from MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo (2008). Among her current research interests are the place of animals in biblical theology and the use of the Bible in modern Danish hymnwriting. Her publications include Ruth (1997), Satan: The Prodigal Son? (1998), Der flammer en ild. Gudsbilleder i nyere danske salmer (2007) and Gud, mennesker og dyr i Bibelen (2013).

286

NEW STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Karl William Weyde is Professor of Old Testament at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Oslo (Norway). He has previously studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and been a research scholar at the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities. His current major research projects deal with the function of the biblical festivals in Old Testament historiography and with the relationship between prophecy and law in the Persian period. His main publications are Prophecy and Teaching (2000) and The Appointed Festivals of YHWH (2004). Markus Zehnder is Professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar College and Theological Seminary, Kristiansand (Norway), Professor and Head of the Department of Old Testament at the Evangelical-Theological Faculty Leuven (Belgium), and Titularprofessor of Old Testament at the University of Basel (Switzerland); he has also been a research fellow at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. His main research interests are in the fields of biblical law and biblical Hebrew. His major publications are Wegmetaphorik im Alten Testament (1999), Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien (2005) and Encountering Violence in the Bible (2013).