Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 3161490592, 9783161578434, 9783161490590

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) • Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

19

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood

Mohr Siebeck

born 1 9 6 9 ; BA and MA in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; 2002 Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible at the University of Oxford; Lecturer in Hebrew Bible at the University of Aberdeen, UK. LENA-SOFIA H E M E Y E R ,

ISBN 3-16-149059-2 978-3-16-157843-4 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 ISBN-13 978-3-16-149059-0 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2006 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany.

Preface This book began as a doctoral thesis, written at Oxford University under the supervision of Prof. H.G.M. Williamson at the Oriental Institute. I have subsequently completely revised my thesis and added substantial amounts of material. Hence, the present work is in many respects a very different work than my original thesis. Neither a doctoral thesis nor a book is written in a vacuum. Therefore, there are many people who have participated in the creation of this work and whose help I have treasured. My greatest thanks go to my former doctoral supervisor Prof. H.G.M. Williamson who guided the thesis from which this book has sprung, from its very small beginning to its complete form. His comments and help, both with the research and with the writing of the final form of the thesis, have been an invaluable source of support and knowledge. I am also indebted to my present colleague Dr Joachim Schaper who read through the final draft of the book and who drew my attention to several articles related to my research. In order to write a doctoral thesis, economic support is very important. I wish to thank the Theology Faculty at Oxford University and St Hugh's College that together gave me a complete scholarship during my years in Oxford. Money, however, is not everything in life. It is also significant to be able to study in a friendly and comfortable environment. For that, the librarians in the Theology Faculty library, in the Oriental Institute and in the Lower Camera provided much help and, especially in the first case, also laughter. Thanks also go to the librarians at George Fox Evangelical Seminary, Portland, Oregon, who, while I was transforming my thesis into a book, never tired of ordering yet another inter-library loan. Gratitude also goes to Dr Ina Dottinger, an invaluable friend who taught me how to construct a convincing argument. Likewise, I wish to thank Mr Jonathan Norgate who proof-read the final version and helped erasing as many oddities in my treatment of the English language as he could find. I would also like to express my gratitude to the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alien Testament, Prof. Bernd Janowski, Prof. Mark S. Smith and Prof. Hermann Spieckermann, for accepting this work for

VI

Preface

publication. Furthermore, I am indebted to Ms Tanja Mix at Mohr Siebeck for quickly and patiently answering all my questions concerning issues of text formatting. Finally, a congenial home environment is priceless. My husband Andreas, who by now knows much more about post-exilic prophecy than he previously thought was necessary for a fulfilling life, both encouraged me in my work and cooked wonderful meals to sustain me. This book is dedicated to him.

Aberdeen, Scotland, July 2006 Lena-Sofía Tiemeyer

Table of Contents Preface

V

Table of Contents

VII

Abbreviations

XV

Introduction

1

Chapter 1: History of Research

5

1. Introduction: a divided Judah 2. Isaiah 56-66 2.1. A division between the returned exiles and the Samarians 2.2. A division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees 2.3. A division between the prophets' followers and the priests 2.4. A division between parties 2.4.1. Critique of Hanson's theory

5 6 6 6 8 9 10

3. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 4. Proposal

13 15

Chapter 2: Defining the Borders of the Passages Dealing with the Priesthood

16

1. Introduction 2. Malachi 2.1 Malachi 1:6-2:9 2.2 Malachi 2:10-16 2.2.1. References to the altar, the temple and its personnel 2.2.2. Inter-textual links to Malachi 1:6-2:9

16 17 18 18 19 21

2.2.3. Priestly terminology 2.2.4. Links with other texts where the priests might be addressed 2.2.5. Conclusion 2.3. A priestly audience throughout Malachi 2:17-3:4 2.3.1. The redaction history of Malachi 2:17-3:4

22 22 23 23 23

Vili

Contents

2.3.2. Malachi 3 : 1 - References to the temple 2.3.3. Malachi 3:2—4 - Cleaning of the priesthood 2.3.4. Similarities with other that probably address the priests 2.4. Malachi 3:6ff. 2.5. Conclusion 3. Haggai 3.1. Lack of continuity between Haggai 2:14 and 15 3.2. The redactional character of Haggai 2:18 4. Zechariah 1 - 8 4.1. The secondary character of Zechariah 3:8b and 10 4.2. The integral character of Zechariah 3:6-7 4.3. Zechariah 7:1-8:24 5. Isaiah 56-66 5.1. Isaiah 56:9-59:21 5.1.1. Isaiah 56:9-57:21 - One continuous literary composition 5.1.2. No division between Isaiah 56:9-57:13 and 57:14-21 5.1.3. No division between Isaiah 57:2 and 3 5.1.4. The integral character of Isaiah 57:5 5.1.5. The textual unity of Isaiah 57:14-21 5.1.6. The original character of Isaiah 57:20-21 5.1.7. Conclusion 5.2. Isaiah 58-59 5.2.1. The literary unity of Isaiah 58:1^4 5.2.2. The literary unity of Isaiah 58 and 59

25 25 25 26 27 27 27 29 30 30 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 41 42 43 43 45

5.2.3. The literary unity of all of Isaiah 56:9-59:21 5.2.4. Conclusion 5.3. Isaiah 65:1-66:17 5.3.1. The literary unity of Isaiah 66:1-6 5.3.1.1. Claim: Isaiah 66:1-2 and 3-4 stem from two different authors 5.3.1.2. Claim: Isaiah 66:5 is an isolated element

46 47 48 48 48 51

5.3.1.3. Claim: Isaiah 66:5-6 is redactional 5.3.1.4. Response: The extended textual unity of Isaiah 66:1-6 5.3.2. The textual unity of Isaiah 65:1-66:17 5.3.2.1. The textual unity of Isaiah 65 5.3.2.2. Isaiah 66:lff. is the original continuation of Isaiah 65 5.3.2.3. Isaiah 65:1-66:17 is one extended literary unity 5.3.3. The relationship between Isaiah 56:9-59:21 and Isaiah 65:1-66:17 5.4. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 5.4.1. The literary unity of Isaiah 63:7-64:11 5.4.2. The Sitz-im-Leben of Isaiah 63:7-64:11 5.4.3. The relationship between Isaiah 63:7-64:11 and Isaiah 65:1-66:17 5.4.3.1. Two independent texts or one text written to respond to the other?

51 52 53 53 54 55 56 57 57 58 60 60

Contents

IX

5.4.3.2. A positive or a negative response? 5.4.3.2.1. The lamenting people are among the pious 5.4.3.2.2. The lamenting people are among the sinners 5.4.3.3. The place of Isaiah 63:7-64:11 in the book of Isaiah 5.4.3.4. Conclusion 5.5. Isaiah 60-62 5.5.1. The unity of Isaiah 60-62 5.5.2. Isaiah 60:7 5.5.3. Isaiah 60:10 5.5.4. Isaiah 61:5-6 5.5.5. Conclusion 5.6. Isaiah 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 6. Conclusion

63 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 68 69 70 70 72

Chapter 3: Dating of the Relevant Texts

73

1. Introduction 2. Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6

73 74

2.1. Isaiah 60-62 2.2. Isaiah 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 2.2.1. Isaiah 66:1, 6 - The reference to the temple 2.2.2. Isaiah 58 - Ruins, fasting and social injustice 2.3. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 2.4. Isaiah 56:1-8 and Isaiah 66:18-24 3. Haggai and Zechariah 1 - 8 4. Malachi 5. Conclusion

74 75 76 78 78 79 80 82 84

Chapter 4: God's Injustice and the Priests' Claim to Righteousness

86

1. Introduction and historical background 86 2. Isaiah 57:12 - The priests' professed righteousness 87 3. Isaiah 58: l - 3 a - Further claims to be righteousness 89 3.1. The identity of the people asking the Lord 90 3.2. The significance of a waw 91 3.3. Isaiah 58:2b-3a - The disparate understandings of the prophet and the priests....93 3.4. Understanding Zechariah 7:4-7 in the context of Isaiah 58 94 3.4.1. The identity of the target audience 94 3.4.2. The interpretation of Zechariah 7:4-7 3.4.3. Interpreting Zechariah 7:4-7 through Isaiah 58 4. Isaiah 65:5 - The priests' professed holiness 4.1. Identity of the target audience of Isaiah 65:5 4.2. Interpretation of Isaiah 65:5

95 96 97 97 98

X

Contents

4.3. Conclusion 5. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 - The priests' lament 5.1. Isaiah 63:11, 15, 19b-64:2, 6, and 11 - God's absence 5.2. Isaiah 63:17, 19b; 64:4-5 - God's unjust treatment of Judah 5.2.1. Exegetical considerations of Isaiah 64:4 5.2.1.1. The expression œtff-riN r m s 5.2.1.2. The syntactic relation between nssp nnx-in and ¡rami 5.2.1.3. The expression »Will Dm and the exegesis Isaiah 64:5 5.2.2. Exegetical considerations of Isaiah 64:5 5.3. Conclusion 6. Malachi 6.1. Malachi 1:6-12 - Disdain for God and His altar 6.2. Malachi 2:13-14 - Wailing and weeping because of God's rejection 6.3. Malachi 2 : 1 7 - Questioning the divine justice 6.4. Summary 7. Conclusion

99 100 100 102 103 103 104 106 108 108 109 109 110 Ill 112 112

Chapter 5: The Priests' Lack of Knowledge and their Failure to Teach... 113 1. Introduction 2. The command given to the priests to provide instruction 3. Pre-exilic critique of the priests' teaching 3.1. Hosea 4:6 and Jeremiah 2:8 - Lack of knowledge and teaching ability 3.2. Micah 3:11 and Jeremiah 5:31 - Wrong teaching 3.3. Summary 4. Isaiah 56:9-12 - The priests' failure to understand 4.1. The identification of the leaders 4.2. Exegesis and comparison of Isaiah 56:9-12

113 114 115 116 119 122 122 123 126

5. Malachi 2:1-9 - The ideal and the real priest 5.1. Malachi 2:1-9 - The identity of Levi and God's covenant with him 5.2. The idyllic priestly teaching 5.3. Malachi 2:8-9 - The priests' failure to live up to the expectations 6. Conclusion

127 127 131 132 135

Chapter 6: Social Injustice

137

1. Introduction 2. Pre-exilic criticism - Amos 2:8 3. Isaiah 58:3-5 - Business on a day of rest 4. Zechariah 5:1-4 - A flying scroll

137 137 139 143

5. Malachi 3:5 - Perjury and oppression 6. Nehemiah 5 - The social injustice committed by the post-exilic leadership 7. Conclusion

146 147 148

Contents

XI

Chapter 7: Unorthodox Rites

149

1. Introduction 2. Pre-exilic critique - Hosea 4:10-14 3. Isaiah 57:6-8 - Orthodoxy and unorthodoxy 3.1. Isaiah 57:6 - Ancestral worship and temple sacrifices 3.2. Isaiah 57:7-8 - Unorthodox rites in God's temple 3.2.1. Identification of the mountain in 57:7 3.2.2. The activities carried out upon the "high and lofty mountain" 3.3. Conclusion 4. Isaiah 65:3—4 - Illicit sacrifices and forbidden food 4.1. Isaiah 65:3 - Sacrificing in gardens (nma D'naT) 4.2. Isaiah 65:3 - Illegitimate sacrifices of incense (•13317n-1?V •nopD) 4.3. Isaiah 65:4 - Sitting among graves (Dnnpn D'awn) 4.4. Isaiah 65:4 - Sleeping in guarded places (ir"7' o m x a )

149 150 150 151 153 153 157 159 160 161 161 162 162

4.5. Isaiah 65:4 - Eating of pork (1'rnn u r a D^DKD) 4.6. Conclusion 5. Isaiah 66:3 - Syncretism and critique of sacrificial cult 5.1 Syntactical issues 5.1.1. A comparative reading 5.1.1.1. The place of sacrificing is not the right one 5.1.1.2. The temple worship has no independent value 5.1.1.3. The legitimate worship of YHWH is an idolatrous act 5.1.2. A subject-predicate reading

163 164 164 165 165 166 167 168 168

5.2. The priestly identity of the people in Isaiah 66:3 5.3. The interpretation of the rituals 5.3.1. WK-nan 5.3.2. a"73 rnr 5.3.3. -vrn-m 5.3.4. lis -pan 5.3.5. nson nn'sipizm D r r o m u n a nan-ai 5.3.6. Conclusion

169 171 172 173 174 175 176 176

6. Conclusion

177

Chapter 8: Priestly Intermarriages

178

1. Introduction 2. Intermarriages in the Old Testament 3. Ezra-Nehemiah - The crisis of the priestly intermarriages 3.1. The lists in Ezra 10:18-22 and in Nehemiah 10:1-8 3.2. Ezra 9:1-15 - Intermarriages and idolatry/unorthodoxy 3.2.1. Who were these priests and whom did they marry? 3.2.1.1. The insiders' name

178 179 180 181 183 184 185

XII

4. 5. 6. 7.

Contents

3.2.2. The ancient nations 3.2.3. How is the expression Bnpn Sir i n j m m to be understood? 3.3. Nehemiah 6 and 13 - Intermarriages cause disloyalty 3.3.1. Nehemiah 6 3.3.2. Nehemiah 13 3.4. Conclusion Malachi 2:10-16 - Intermarriage or unorthodoxy The relation between Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi Post-Biblical connections Conclusion

185 187 189 190 191 193 193 195 196 198

Chapter 9: Foreign Alliances

199

1. Introduction 2. The understanding of the verb 'HWl

199 199

3. The understanding of the word I^D 3.1. The envoys to Sheol 4. Conclusion

201 202 205

Chapter 10: The Priests' Cultic Neglect

207

1. Introduction 2. Texts relating to the pre-exilic period 2.1. 1 Samuel 2:12-17 2.2. Hosea4:8 2.3. Hosea 8:11-13 2.4. Conclusion

207 207 208 209 209 210

3. Malachi 3.1. Malachi 1:6-7, 12 - The priests' attitude 3.2. Malachi 1:8, 13ab-14a - Faulty animals 4. Malachi 1:13 and Isaiah 61:8 5. Conclusion

211 211 212 215 217

Chapter 11: The Priests' Impurity

218

1. Introduction 2. Pre-exilic criticism - Zephaniah 3:4 3. Haggai 2:10-14 3.1. Sitz-im-Leben - The reason for the inquiry 3.1.1. The absence of Joshua 3.2. The inquiry - Holy versus impure 3.2.1. The priestly duty of separating between purity and impurity 3.2.2. Secondary touch

218 218 220 221 223 223 223 224

3.3 The message of Haggai 2:14

226

Contents

XIII

3.3.1. The identity of nm-Dïn and nrn 'lin 3.3.2. The reason for the impurity of the Judahites in Haggai 2:14 3.3.2.1. Failure to live a moral life 3.3.2.2. Failure to build the temple 3.3.2.3. Failure of the people and their leaders to keep pure 3.4. The relation between Haggai 2:10-14 and Isaiah 56-66 3.5. Conclusion 4. Zechariah 5. Malachi 5.1. Cursing their blessing 5.2. Rebuking the seed 5.3. Spreading filth 5.4. Conclusion 6. Conclusion

226 228 228 230 232 237 238 239 241 242 243 246 247 247

Chapter 12: The dream of a Cleansed Priesthood

248

1. Introduction 2. A cleansed priesthood - Zechariah 2.1. The celebration of the Day of Atonement 2.2. Tasks and Privileges 2.3. Zechariah 6:9-15 - The newly cleansed priests' additional tasks 3. A cleansed priesthood - Malachi 3.1. Who will do the cleansing? 3.2. The method of cleansing 3.3. The result of the cleansing 3.4. Conclusion 4. The alternative vision - Malachi 1:10-11 5. Conclusion

248 248 249 251 255 256 257 258 258 259 259 263

Chapter 13: The Vision of the Priests' Destruction

264

1. Introduction 2. Isaiah 66:1-2 - Rejection of the temple builders 3. Isaiah 66:5 - The identity of the "brothers" 3.1. Syntactical concerns 3.2. Information about the "brothers" based on Isaiah 66:5 3.3. The identification of the "brothers" with the priesthood in Jerusalem 4. Isaiah 66:6 - The judgement in the temple 5. Isaiah 66:1-6 and the prophecies of Haggai 6. Conclusion

264 264 267 267 268 270 271 271 272

XIV

Contents

Chapter 14 - The Original Vision and its Modification

274

1. Introduction 2. The definition and understanding of the key words 2.1. Isaiah 60-62 2.2. Isaiah 56:1-8 2.3. Isaiah 56:1-8 and Isaiah 60-62 - An inter-textual comparison 2.3.1. The expression "D: p 2.3.2. The expressions 'nnm pm-1?!? l1?»1 and Tnta-1?!; pm1? nrrnnn a r m ^ y 2.3.3. The root m® 2.3.4. The root r^i? 2.3.5. The interpretation of Isaiah 56:1-8 as a corrective of Isaiah 60-62 3. Isaiah 66:2-21 - The vision of the future priesthood 3.1. Isaiah 66:20-21 and the rest of Isaiah 56-66 3.1.1. Isaiah 66:20 and Isaiah 60:7 - An inter-textual comparison 3.1.2. Isaiah 66:20 and Isaiah 65:1-66:17 4. Three revolutionary views of the priesthood 4.1. Isaiah 61:6 - The democratization of the priesthood for all Judahites 4.2. Isaiah 5 6 : 1 - 8 - The participation of proselytes in the priesthood 4.3. Isaiah 66:21 - The globalization of the priesthood

274 274 275 276 279 279 280 280 280 281 281 282 282 283 284 284 285 285

5. Conclusion

286

Concluding Remarks

287

Bibliography

291

Source Index

301

Author Index

315

Subject Index

317

Abbreviations AASF AB ABD AJSL AnBib AnOr AR ATD AUS

Annales Academip. Scientiarum Fenmc|j. Ser. B The Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta Biblica Analecta orientalia Archiv für Religionswissenschaft Das Alte Testament Deutsch American University Studies

BASOR BBC BibLeb BKAT BM BN BSt BTB BWANT BWAT BZAW

Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Studies Broadman Bible Commentary Bibel und Leben Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Beth Miqra Biblische Notizen Biblische Studien Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAT CB CBC CBQ

Commentaire de l'ancient testament Century Bible The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DDD

Dictionary of Deities and Demons

EBib ExpTim

Etudes bibliques Expository Times

FAT FOTL FRANT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion des Alten und Neuen Testament

GHAT

Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

HAT HCOT

Handbuch zum Alten Testament Historical Commentary on the OT

XVI

Abbreviations

HSAT HSM HUCA

Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments Harvard Semitic Monograph Hebrew Union College Annual

IB IDB ICC IEJ JQR

The Interpreter's Bible Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible The International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal

JA OS JBL JBLMS JNES JSOT JSOTS JSS JTSvs

Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Near East Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies new series

KAT KeHbAT KHAT KKANT

Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments

LAI

Library of Ancient Israel

NCBC NIB NICOT

New Century Bible Commentary New Interpreter's Bible The New International Commentary on the Old Testament

OBO OTG OTL OTM

Orbis Biblicus et Orentalis Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oxford Tehological Monographs

RTR RQ

Reformed Theological Revue de Qumran

SB SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBT SJLA SOFS S SN STDJ

Sources bibliques Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Symbolae Osloenses Fase, supplet Studia Semitica Nederlandica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

Review

XVII

Abbreviations TA TAPS TBC TOTC TB TBC

Tel Aviv Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new series Torch Bible Commentaries Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Tyndale Bulletin Tyndale Biblical Commentary

UCOP UF UUÂ

University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ugarit-Forschungen Uppsala Universitets Ârsskrift

VAKMF VT VTSup

Veröffentlichungen der Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC WeBC WMANT WUNT

Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Bible Companion Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZAW ZBK

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Züricher Bibelkommentare

Wissenschaft

Introduction

Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage At some stage in the late sixth or early fifth century BC, a prophet named Malachi criticized the Jerusalem priesthood. He proclaimed that the priests, rather than giving God the respect He deserved, were deriding Him by their unworthy sacrifices (l:6ff.). Besides this, their teaching was not guiding the people to worship God but instead was causing them to stumble (2:5-8). As a result of this, God promised to come to His temple and purify the priests (called "the sons of Levi") in order to enable them once again to bring sacrifices to Him (3:Iff.). He would testify in court against the sorcerers, the adulterers and the perjurers who did not fear Him and against those who cheated their workers and who mistreated those least protected in society. Malachi's severe accusations against the priesthood in Jerusalem might appear to lack background, yet during the period described in the book of Malach it is obvious that the priests were already well versed in their disregard for God. This situation thus prompts the question, when did it all start? When did the priests begin to show God disrespect? When did their teaching begin to cause the people to stumble? Moreover, is there a precedent to their purification which in the past enabled them to renew their sacrificial service to God? As this study will show, the sentiments expressed by Malachi were not novel: they had been voiced before by the authors of Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Isaiah 56-66. In fact, as shall become apparent throughout this study, a position critical of the priesthood is a characteristic shared by all post-exilic prophecy. Thus, we should not regard these accusations as unique to the post-exilic period but rather as an integral part of the whole prophetic tradition. As I shall demonstrate in this book, nearly all types of criticism may be found in the whole of the preexilic prophetic material, although not to the same extent as that found in the period of the present study. With its origin firmly anchored in pre-exilic Israel and Judah, the prophetic critique of the priesthood reached its peak in the post-exilic period. The prophets and the priests together formed the religious leadership. Sometimes, the concerns for Israel's cult placed the priests and the prophets side by side. In fact, there are cases recorded where the identity of the prophet and the priest coincide: the exilic Ezekiel is the

2

Introduction

most well-known example of a prophet of priestly descent, but there are strong reasons to suspect that Jeremiah, Zechariah and Malachi also belong in this category. At other times, their different understanding of God and His cult made them each other's opponents. The Biblical texts tell us that, throughout the recorded history of Israel and Judah, the prophets and the priests sometimes disagreed about the way in which God should be worshipped. In this dispute, the opinions of the prophets are transmitted to us more fully: as recorded in the prophetic books and also in the Deuteronomistic history, the prophets are reported to have cried out against what they perceived to be the priests' failings. The increase in prophetic criticism of the priestly parties is likely to have been triggered by the historical circumstances of early post-exilic Judah, and we must therefore seek to comprehend it against this particular background. The early post-exilic period was in many respects a time of soul-searching for the people of Judah. The majestic promises of Isa 4055, of a mighty return from exile, accompanied by lavish blessings upon Judah, were not yet fulfilled. It was a delay which caused the people of the period to look for an explanation. The prophetic literature left to us from this era bears witness to the various attempts to find such reasons for the setback. Did God tarry because the people of Judah had sinned? Did the Judahites' attitude towards God constitute an obstacle to the execution of God's plans? In the present work, I will demonstrate that the shared factor of most of the explanations posited is the idea of a culpable priesthood. The reasons given are varied, ranging from the priests' performance of their ritual duties to their attitudes and personal behaviour. Among other things, the priests are accused of failing to function well as leaders and of having neglected their obligation to teach the people about God's law. The prophets deemed the priests' performance of the sacrifice to be unsatisfactory and they regarded the priests' worship of God as unorthodox. The priests are accused of being haughty, taking pride in their own righteousness, and of committing acts of social injustice. Finally, their intermarriages with the surrounding people were frowned upon. When reading these accusations, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with subjective views of the situation. In practical terms, this means that while the result of our inquiry will tell us a lot about how the priests were perceived by the prophetic writers, we shall learn significantly less about the actual behaviour of the priests in this era. In other words, given the polemic nature of the speeches of the authors of Isa 56-66, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, we should hesitate at drawing definite conclusions about the historical situation in post-exilic Judah. In addition, we have to consider the theological aspects of the situation. The Biblical text represents almost exclusively the prophets' attempts to explain the

Introduction

3

absence of God's blessings in Judah, and remains mainly silent about the priests' viewpoint. In view of this unequal representation, there is a real possibility that the priests endorsed alternative interpretations of the situation, and advocated different solutions concerning how best to ensure God's blessings. Furthermore, it would be incorrect to see the prophetic critique of the priesthood as a sign that the priests and the prophets were incompatible with each other, or that the prophets sought to discredit and discard the temple cult. 1 Rather, what we have often are attempts at reform: the prophets desired to bring the priesthood closer to what the prophets perceived to be the ideal; priests that excelled in teaching, that provided social justice, that worshipped YHWH alone and whose performance of the cult satisfied the most rigorous cultic demands. The explicit aim of this study is to explore the criticism of the priests found in the post-exilic prophetic corpus, here limited to Isaiah 56-66; Haggai, Zechariah 1 - 8 and Malachi. 2 From time to time, I shall also look at the contemporary Ezra-Nehemiah when it has bearing on the issues discussed. These texts attest to a comparable critical disposition towards the priesthood and voice some of the same sentiments. As we shall see, each prophet speaks with his own distinct voice and focuses on distinct aspects of the priests' manners of conduct. At the same time, some concerns of the clergy's behaviour were shared by them all. The book is structured as follows. There are two main parts. In the first part, consisting of chapters 1-3, I discuss general aspects relating to the question at hand: the first chapter gives an overview of past research, and the following two chapters deal with matters of literary and rhetorical criticism. Their dual purpose is to determine the outer limits of the relevant textual units where the priests form the main target audience and to date 1 In this regard, I agree with Z. Zevit, "The Prophet versus Priest Antagonism Hypothesis: Its History and Origin", The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets, and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (eds. L.L. Grabbe and A.O. Bellis, JSOTS 408, London, New York, 2004), pp. 189-217, who argues that the earlier viewpoint of placing the prophets and the priests in opposing camps receives little support from the Biblical texts. At the same time, Zevit's claim that there is only "prophet-priest cooperation" in the post-exilic period cannot be accepted, as it derives from too brief a reading of Hag 2:10-14; Zech 3; 6:9-15 and 7:4 (pp. 207-8), passages that will be discussed in detail further below. Furthermore, Zevit's investigation suffers from the fact that he only looks at passages where the Hebrew word ]ro occurs, thus omitting the evidence from Isa 56-66. 2 While it is likely that other prophetic books also come from this period, e.g. the books of Joel and Zechariah 9 - 1 4 , I have chosen not to include this material in the present discussion due to their uncertain dating and their lack of explicit references to a critical disposition towards the priesthood.

4

Introduction

these units. These two chapters serve as a reference point for the rest of the book, and should be consulted accordingly. The second part opens with chapter 4, which explores the priests' point of view. The remaining chapters (5-14) discuss the various types of prophetic critique of the priesthood. They are structured so that the different accusations against the priesthood appear type by type, beginning with a brief analysis of the preexilic examples followed by a more detailed discussion of the post-exilic examples. Rather than discussing each individual author and his various critiques towards the priests separately, similar kinds of criticism will be discussed and evaluated together. When the same type of criticism is found in more than one place in the writings of a particular author, these instances will be discussed together. This structure serves to show that the sentiments expressed against the priesthood do not reflect the individual opinion of merely one particular writer but instead mirror the shared position held by most of the prophetic voices of that time. In addition, they also stand firmly in the tradition of their pre-exilic predecessors. In this way, I aim to show that a critical disposition towards the priesthood is not a marginal phenomenon, limited to scattered remarks here and there, but rather represents a consistent trend, attested throughout the post-exilic prophetic corpus and with its roots in pre-exilic prophecy.

Chapter One

History of Research: A Divided Society 1. Introduction The goal of the present study is to demonstrate how the different groups of people castigated by the post-exilic prophetic writers can all be identified with the priesthood. Most prophetic texts stemming from the post-exilic period bear witness to a divided society, in which the prophets pitched themselves against opposing groups of people. The prophets claimed that their own way of worshipping God was the only way and they condemned their opponents' practices. In some of these texts, such as Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, there are mere traces of such criticism. In others, most notably Isaiah 56-66 and Malachi, the references to the conflict are more blatant. A key problem is the identification of this other group. Who were the people that the prophets railed against and criticized so severely? In some cases, notably in the book of Malachi, the prophets' opponents are clearly identified as the priesthood. In other cases, an identification of the prophets' opponents is less than straightforward. As a result of this uncertainty, the quest for the identity/identities of these people has been the topic of several studies, but while various suggestions have been presented, a definitive interpretation has yet to be found. In this chapter, I shall provide a brief outline of the past research of the issue and conclude with my own proposition that, contrary to the commonly held opinion, the authors of Isaiah 56-66, Haggai, Zechariah 1 - 8 and Malachi all opposed the same group of people, i.e. the priests. In view of the particular difficulty of identifying the opponents within the different sections of Isaiah 56-66, the larger part of this chapter will be devoted to past interpretations of the conflict found in the Isaianic material. Following on from this, I shall provide an overview of the ways in which scholars have understood this material to relate to Haggai, Zechariah 1 - 8 and Malachi.

6

Chapter I: History of research: a divided society

2. Isaiah 56-66 The identification of the unnamed enemy in Isa 56-66 has been the focal point of more than one study and remains a hotly debated issue. Since it is also an important aspect of the present work, it is appropriate to begin this overview by outlining the different theories concerning the schism in Isa 56 66, and the ensuing identification of the prophet's opponents. The following discussion is arranged both topically and chronologically, beginning with the earlier scholarly attempt to identify the prophets' opponent, and proceeding to more recent proposals. As shall become apparent, some identifications achieved popularity at different times, but have now mostly been abandoned on the basis of advances made in the understanding of post-exilic Judah. Others, especially those presented in Rofe's and Hanson's works, while being rejected by several scholars, deserve to be re-examined and reassessed. 2.1. A division between the returned exiles and the Samarians Several scholars identify the prophetic protagonist with the returning exiles and their antagonists with either the Samarians or the people who had remained in Judah during the exile.1 This view is based primarily on Ezra 4:1-5, a text that tells of the exilic leadership's rejection of the Samarians' request to participate in the rebuilding of the temple; a rejection which led to the Samarians opposing bitterly those in exile. The more contemporary Haggai and Zech 1-8, however, bear little evidence for a division along such lines. Thus, it is probable that the attitudes displayed in Ezra 4, written a long period after the events themselves, reflect the issues facing the writers rather than those of the time described. Furthermore, there are no identifiable allusions to the Samarians within Isa 56-66. For these reasons, this interpretation is not widely accepted today. 2 2.2. A division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees Mantel and Beckwith)

(Holtmann,

Others interpret Isa 56-66 as an early witness to the later split between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, written from a proto-Pharisean point of view. 1 E.g., B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen, 1922), p. 423, K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (KHAT, Tübingen, 1900), p. 367. 2 See also P.A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah, The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56-66 (VTSup 62, Leiden, 1996), p. 190, who provides a concise summary of some of the reasons put forward for arguing that the tension between the exiles and the people who had remained in the land was not as strong as previously supposed.

2. Isaiah 56-66

7

Holtzmann, for example, traces the origin of the division between the Sadducees and the Pharisees to Malachi. Dating Malachi to the time of the first Diadochert, he identifies the Pharisees with the 'n •'NT ("those who fear YHWH") in Malachi and suggests that the meeting of the 'n 'NT described in Mai 3:16 is a reference to the Great assembly. 3 Favouring a slightly earlier dating, Mantel and Beckwith link the controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees to the time of Ezra. 4 In Mantel's view, Ezra's standpoint was at complete variance with those of the high priest. Mantel notes that the latter is not listed as present during the reading of the Torah in Neh 8, and further regards him as responsible for the denial of the tithes to the Levites (Neh 13:10). In addition, the fact that the high priest did not sign the document cited in Neh 10, in contrast to "our priests" ("ir^rD), points in Mantel's opinion to two groups of priests. 5 Compared with the group around Ezra and Nehemiah who stressed personal piety rather than cultic behaviour and who claimed that the Torah was a universal obligation for every Israelite, together with the belief that it had a deeper meaning than the literal one, the high priest represented a more traditional and literalist group, which regarded the sacrificial cult to be their supreme duty. As such, Mantel argues that Ezra and Nehemiah stood in the tradition of the prophet who condemned the priests' teaching (cf. Ezek 22:26; Mai 2:8). 6 Mantel concludes that the high priest and his priestly followers developed into the Sadducees while their opponents became the Pharisees. 7 Along similar lines, Beckwith claims that the Pharisees are the heirs of Ezra in their manner of biblical exegesis and in their stand against assimilation with the people around them. Due to the exogamous marriages of the high priestly families in the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:18-19; Neh 13:4— 9, 28-29) and the negligence of the priesthood (Mai 1:6-14; 2:1-9), Beckwith argues that the teaching of the law begun by Ezra threatened to come to an end after the death of Nehemiah. This priestly apostasy caused the lay elders, being followers of Ezra, to supplant the priests as the upholders of the Law. The priesthood subsequently drew further away from the path of Ezra, a development culminating around 330 BC when Manasseh, the brother of the high priest Jaddua, married a Samarian

3 O. Holtzmann, "Der Prophet Maleachi und der Ursprung des Pharisäerbundes", AR 29 (1931), pp. 14-15,21. 4 H. Mantel, "The Dichotomy of Judaism during the Second Temple", HUCA 44 (1973), p. 57. 5 Mantel, "Dichotomy", pp. 64, 74. 6 Mantel, "Dichotomy", pp. 78-81. 7 Mantel, "Dichotomy", p. 84.

8

Chapter 1: History of research: a divided society

princess. 8 In conclusion, Beckwith argues that while the high priestly family at the time of Ezra should not be identified with the not yet existing Sadducees, they were already a force opposing the Pharisaic movement. 9 2.3. A division between the prophets 'followers and the priests (Smart, Rofe and Blenkinsopp) The theories of Holtzmann, Mantel and Beckwith have not been widely accepted, yet this neglect is not altogether justified. The biblical material in Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah, supported by Mai 1:6-2:9, does allude to a tension between the two main characters and the Judahite priesthood. The intermarriages of the latter, together with their general attitude of negligence and perhaps even idolatry, caused other people in Judah to oppose their leadership. There is evidence, therefore, of a rift between the priests on the one side and Ezra and Nehemiah on the other. Even so, it is doubtful if the later split between the Sadducees and the Pharisees can be traced to this time. Hence, a modified picture of the division between the priests and the people criticizing them is needed. Moreover, there are hints within Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah, especially in Neh 5, that a division between the people and the leaders of the community existed before this time. This gives rise to the question of whether the origin of this rift can be sought even earlier than 450 BC. This question is partly dealt with by Smart and Rofe who trace the origin of the later split between the Sadducees and the Pharisees to Isa 56-66 and especially to 66:1-6. In Smart's view, the author of Isa 66:1-6, together with his followers, underwent persecution at the hands of the Judahite authorities, thus attesting to a rift between conservative forces who favoured organized religion and a "deeply spiritual group [...] passionately devoted to the prophetic ideals". 10 Similarly, Rofe argues that Isa 66:3-4 targets the priesthood. 11 According to him, Isa 56-66, Malachi and Ezra-Nehemiah all testify to an opposition to the aristocracy and the priestly supremacy in Jerusalem. While this polemic has a social background (cf. Isa 58 and Neh 5), "at the heart of the matter lies a religious antagonism as the priestly 8 R.T. Beckwith, "The Pre-History and Relationships of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes: A Tentative Reconstruction", RQ 41 (1982), pp. 17-24. See also Josephus, Antiquities, 11, 8, 2:306-9. 9 Beckwith, "Pre-History", pp. 25, 32. 10 J.D. Smart, "A New Interpretation of Isaiah lxvi 1-6", ExpTim 46 (1934-35), pp. 423-24. 11 A. Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed by TritoIsaiah", Biblical and Related Studies Presented To Samuel Iwry (eds. A. Kort and S. Morschauer, Winona Lake, 1985), pp. 205-17.

2. Isaiah 56-66

9

aristocratic party is repeatedly charged with its idolatrous practices (Isa 66:3; cf. 65:3-5) and intermarriage (Mai 2:10-12; Ezra 9, 10; Neh 13:2328)". 12 Likewise, Blenkinsopp, searching for the identity of the opponents in Isa 56-66, focuses on Isa 66:5. Acknowledging that "the brothers" in Isa 66:5 include the temple authority, identical to the priests referred to in 66:3-4 and addressed in 57:1-10; 65:1-16 and 66:17, 13 he concludes that "the conditions favoring the emergence of sectarianism were present from the beginning of the Second Commonwealth". 1 4 As noted, Smart's theory concentrates primarily on Isa 66:1-6, while R o f e ' s and Blenkinsopp's interpretations include other parts of Isa 56-66. This raises the question of whether there are allusions to a critical disposition towards the priests throughout Isa 56-66 rather than in very limited sections only. Furthermore, in view of the textual history of Isa 5 6 66, it must be asked if there are differences between the different authors of Isa 56-66 and/or if an inner development of the critique can be traced. 2.4. A division between parties (Ploger and Hanson) Ploger may be cited as one of the first scholars who held the two-parties thesis, i.e. that the groups of people were representative of different interpretations of the nature and status of "Israel". He suggests that a conflict between the theocratic establishment and an apocalyptic movement is traceable in Isa 24-27, and in parts of Joel, Daniel and Zech 9 - 1 4 . He further argues that the members of this last group, while probably being part of the theocracy, regarded the re-establishment of a YHWH-istic society under Ezra and Nehemiah, limited to Judah and Benjamin, as a compromise lacking eschatological hope. According to Ploger, their hope of a complete restoration, based on the prophetic promises, caused disagreements with the theocratic leaders, a conflict which much later culminated in the schism between the Sadducees and the Hasidim during the Maccabean revolt. 15 Tracing this conflict further back to the late sixth century BC, Hanson proposes that Isa 56-66 is an attack on the leading exilic priestly party and 12

A. Rofe, "The Onset of Sects in Postexilic Judaism: Neglected Evidence from the Septuagint, Trito-Isaiah, Ben Sira, and Malachi", The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (ed. J. Neusner, Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 41-42. 13 J. Blenkinsopp, "A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period", CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 9-11. 14 Blenkinsopp, "Jewish Sect", p. 20. See also his book Sage, Priest, Prophet. Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, Kentucky, 1995), p. 92, in which he identifies the priests as the prime target of the prophetic criticism in Isa 56-66. 15 O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT, Neukirchen, 1959), 129-42.

10

Chapter 1: History of research: a divided

society

their programme of restoration by the heirs of Deutero-Isaiah.16 Hanson argues that the origin of this conflict goes back to 586 BC when the destruction of Jerusalem left society in confusion. The former hegemony of the Zadokite-dominated priestly party over the temple crumbled and left a power vacuum which caused tension between the different factions of society. The heirs of the ruling classes reacted by seeking the preservation of the former social structure, thus enabling them to remain in power, while the poorer classes sought change and revolution. The latter, labelled "visionaries" by Hanson were people who had remained in Judah. They took the message of Isa 40-55 to heart and placed their hope in God's direct intervention through the course of history.17 These visionaries joined forces with the Levites whose power was curtailed by the exilic Zadokite priesthood.18 These Zadokites belonged to the upper stratum of the preexilic society. They had been exiled to Babylon where they kept their social position, planning a restoration which would enable them to continue in power. At the time when the exiles were allowed to return to Judah, these priests wielded leadership positions in the exilic community. Furthermore, they were empowered by the Persian Empire to realize their restoration programme and to rebuild the temple. Hanson interprets the list in Ezra 2 // Neh 7 which records 4289 returning priests compared with 74 Levites as symptomatic, indicating that the Babylonian Levites saw no future in returning to Judah where they would have had no part in the leadership of the restored cult.19 2.4.1. Critique of Hanson's theory (Schramm,

Williamson)

Hanson's theory, in particular, has been criticised by several scholars.20 Schramm offers one of the more severe attacks, questioning Hanson's identification of the two groups found in Isa 56-66. First, since no-one denies that the authors responsible for Isa 56-66 were strongly influenced by Isa 40-55 (DI), and that they developed its views to fit their own contemporary conditions, Schramm points out that these later authors would have been unlikely to oppose the return of the exiles which DI had

16

P.D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 71-76. Hanson, Dawn, pp. 212, 217-18. 18 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 220-21. In support of a Levitical movement opposing the priests, Hanson quotes, among other places, Ex. 32:26-9 where the Levites are singled out as the faithful ones, in contrast to the idolatry of Aaron (p. 223). 19 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 225-27. 20 E.g., R.P. Carroll, "Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apocalyptic?", JSOT 14 (1979), pp. 3 - 3 5 . 17

2. Isaiah

56-66

11

encouraged with such fervour.21 In response to this, however, Hanson's notion that the authors of Isa 56-66 criticized the priesthood does not in itself contradict the hope of the return of the exiles. In fact, Hanson's stress on the exilic origin of the priesthood is exaggerated. Supported by the material in Zech 7:1-3, the scholars North22 and later Blenkinsopp23 propose that Bethel had a functioning sanctuary in the early post-exilic period. Given this view, it is plausible that some priests in Judah around 520 BC were native Judahites. Therefore, Hanson's identification of the apostates in Isa 56-66 with the priests can stand, although needs to be modified to include priests of non-exilic origin. Secondly, Schramm views Isa 56-66 as an integral part of the larger book of Isaiah. Therefore, he questions the likelihood that the writings of an out-of-power disenfranchised group would have been incorporated in the book of Isaiah. In his view, the unified book of Isaiah is one of the major achievements of post-exilic Judaism. As such, he suggests that the returned exiles, having already compiled the Torah, were the people most accomplished to carry out this task.24 Schramm's claim that Isa 56-66 was composed by returned exiles cannot, however, be substantiated. Contrary to his assumption that "it is also clear that Isaiah 40-55 is literature of the Babylonian n1?!!, by the Babylonian n^U, and for the Babylonian n^n" 25 , it should be pointed out that this view is not shared by all critical scholars. In fact, while it is true that most scholars regard the author of Isa 40-55 as living in Babylon, this is often merely a repetition of received opinion rather than an opinion based upon independent research. Thus, Barstad's proposal that Isa 40-55 is a Judahite composition26 must be further investigated before a Judahite setting of that material can be discarded. It follows that a possible Judahite setting of Isa 40-55 weakens the assumption that Isa 56-66 was written by the returned exiles. Furthermore, there is no consensus especially concerning the exilic origin of

21

B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah. Reconstruction of the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTS 193, Sheffield, 1995), pp. 108-9, following H.G.M. Williamson, "The Concept of Israel in Transition", The World of Ancient Israel (ed. R.E. Clements, Cambridge, 1989), pp. 151-52, and "Isaiah 63,7-64,11. Exilic Lament or PostExilic Protest?", ZA W 102 (1990), p. 54. 22 F.S. North, "Aaron's Rise in Prestige", ZAW 66 (1954), pp. 191-99. 23 J. Blenkinsopp, "The Judean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction", CBQ 60 (1998), pp. 25-43. 24 Schramm, Opponents, pp. 109-10. 25 Scramm, Opponents, p. 108. Cf. pp. 179-81. 26 See H.M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land (SOFS 28, Oslo, 1996), and H.M. Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah. "Exilic" Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40-55 (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Oslo, 1997).

12

Chapter 1: History of research: a divided society

Deuteronomy. 27 In view of this, there is no reason to object to a native Judahite authorship of Isa 56-66. Despite this negative assessment of Schramm's first and second point, his third point is to be commended. Schramm questions the alliance between the Levites and the visionary group, a proposal based, not on textual support 28 , but on a sociological theory which claims that disenfranchised groups are naturally drawn together. This critique is correct, since there is no mention of the Levites in Isa 56-66. Hence, Hanson's suggested alliance between the Levites and the author of Isa 56 66 must remain conjectural. Schramm's fourth objection to Hanson is also noteworthy. Schramm objects to Hanson's identification of the apostates in Isa 56-66 with the priesthood. Given Schramm's assumption that the exilic priests were responsible for the compilation of the Torah, he rejects the notion that the same priest would have been involved in the kind idolatrous activities as those described in Isa 56-66. Hanson's solution to this apparent contradiction is to regard the accusations as symbolical but this, according to Schramm, is not a satisfactory answer. Instead, he claims that Hanson's interpretation is influenced by his identifying those attacked with the exilic leadership, rather than being the result of independent critical judgement. Furthermore, while accusatory speech can often be exaggerated, it must contain a kernel of truth in order for it to have significance for the target audience. Thus, the people accused in Isa 56-66 must have practised at least some of the activities described. 29 Schramm concludes that the object of the polemic in Isa 56-66 is the syncretistic cult of YHWH. In this dispute, the disciples of the author of Isa 40-55 and the Zadokite priests were allies. In fact, Schramm states that the authors of Isa 56-66 were from among the returned exiles i.e. from among those very people whom Hanson claims Isa 56-66 was written against. 30 In response, Schramm's objection to Hanson's symbolic interpretation can be substantiated. While some accusations are by their very nature symbolical (Isa 59:4-8), others refer most likely to actual religious practices. Even so, this in itself does not annul Hanson's identification of the apostates as the priests. On the basis of pre-exilic prophetic critique of the priests, combined with that found in Ezekiel and Malachi, it is not unwarranted to argue that the priests in Judah around 520 BC were involved in unorthodox worship of YHWH and in idolatry. 27 See the overview of past scholarship favouring a late monarchic Judahite dating in A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCBC, London, 1979), pp. 81-103 28 Schramm, Opponents, p. 92, note 3. 29 Schramm, Opponents, pp. 110-11. 30 Schramm, Opponents, pp. I l l , 177-82.

3. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8

13

Apart from Schramm, other scholars also criticize Hanson's theory. For example, Williamson points out the unlikelihood that the term D'Tin, used only in Isa 66:5 and Ezra 9:4, would refer to two opposite groups: the visionaries and the followers of Ezra, the latter naturally belonging to Hanson's hierocratic party.31 Yet Blenkinsopp shows that there is no inherent difficulty in assigning the authorship of Isa 56-66 to those who held a contrasting position to the priests and at the same time arguing that they were the forerunners of Ezra and his followers. In Isa 66:5, the r n n opposed the priests who were involved in idolatrous matters (66:3-4). Similarly, the group around Ezra called ^N-W-T^N n m n Tin "70 (Ezra 9:4) and irn^N iranii nmnn (10:3) criticized the intermarriages of the priesthood (Ezra 9:1; 10:5, 18-22; Neh 13:28), a matter intrinsically connected with idolatry: "the danger of syncretism clearly underlies the measures taken with respect to exogamous marriages".32 To sum up, there is a need for a thorough revision of Hanson's proposal that those criticised are to be identified as the priesthood. While parts of his theory must remain speculative or even unlikely, other areas have been rejected unjustifiably and must therefore be re-assessed.

3. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 How does the text of Isa 56-66 compare with other prophetic material from the same time period? The main critique of the priesthood can be found in Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17, to be dated around 520 BC (see below, chapter 3). How, then, does it relate to the roughly contemporary Haggai and Zechariah 1-8? At first glance, there seems to be a contradiction between these two texts and that of Isa 56-66, in that the former portray a mainly united community. Yet some passages, notably Hag 2:10-14; Zech 3:1-10; 6:9-15; 7:1-5, do betray a tension. This tension has been understood in different ways, often along similar lines to the division in Isa 56-66 listed above. Beginning with Hag 2:14, this passage is often interpreted as indicating a division between the returned exiles and the Samarians.33 Nonetheless, as both Koch and May convincingly argue, the key-expressions nrn-Dvn ("this people") and 1'an run ("this nation") refer to the people in Judah rather than to the

31

Williamson, "Israel in Transition", p. 152. Blenkinsopp, "Jewish Sect", p. 17. 33 J.W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner (BWAT 3, Leipzig, 1908), pp. 7-9, 11, followed by several scholars. 32

14

Chapter 1: History of research: a divided society

Samarians.34 Therefore, a division along these lines is doubtful and an alternative interpretation must be sought. In the case of the Zecharian material, there is a Rabbinic tradition that sees Zech 3 as an early example of Pharisaic opposition to the high priestly family. Assuming that Joshua the high priest was a contemporary of Ezra, a portion of the people in Judah regarded Ezra alone as worthy of being high priest, due to the intermarrying of Joshua's sons. Hence, the followers of Ezra opposed the followers of Joshua, forming two religious parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees.35 Along different lines, Zeitlin suggests that the people around Joshua sought to establish a new community on a religious basis while the followers of Zerubbabel favoured a civil authority, led by the Davidic heir. In support of his theory, Zeitlin interprets Zech 4:6 as an indication that Zerubbabel initially contemplated using force against his opponents. The prophesied peace between the two of them (Zech 6:13) was never fulfilled. Instead, after Zerubbabel's disappearance, the followers of Joshua were victorious. As a result, Joshua and his descendants remained high priests and became the sole leaders of the post-exilic community.36 Zeitlin identifies these early followers of Zerubbabel as the Pharisees and those of Joshua as the Sadducees.37 The latter monopolized the temple service and the sacrificial cult, while the Pharisees sought, by help of reform, to enable every man to participate in the temple service.38 Both these interpretations prompt many questions. Zeitlin's theory must remain conjectural because of the lack of textual support for a division between Joshua and Zerubbabel, and the Rabbinical tradition cannot be maintained due to its faulty chronology. Nevertheless, the last of these interpretations draws attention to the possibility that the people behind "the satan" (lOtZTl) in Zech 3 may have been a group of pious people who opposed Joshua's right to the high priestly office. As such, it raises the question of whether there may have been a link between the people opposing the priesthood in Isa 56-66 and those opposing the high priest in Zech 3.

34

K. Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", ZAW 79 (1967), pp. 52-66, and H.G. May, "'This people' and 'this nation' in Haggai," VT 18 (1968), pp. 190-97. 35 V. Aptowitzer, Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit im Rabbinischen und Pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum (VAKMF 5, Vienna, 1927), pp. xxiv-xxv. In support of this theory, Aptowitzer lists Ezra 8:33 which tells how Ezra, rather than involving the high priest, handed over the precious items brought from Babylon to other priests. 36 S. Zeitlin, "The Pharisees. A Historical Study", JQR n.s. 52 (1961-62), pp. 105-6. 37 S. Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judean State. A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth. Vol. 1 332-37 B.C.E. (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 176. 38 Zeitlin, Rise and Fall, pp. 178-79.

4. Proposal

15

Although Isaiah 56-66, Haggai and Zechariah 1 - 8 all bear witness to a tension in the Judahite society, they have nevertheless often been understood as representing two opposite points of view. Notably, Hanson argues that Haggai's oracles were propaganda for the official restoration of the temple, while the author of Isa 56-66 represented an opposing voice. 39 "The exalted position attributed to the temple in [Haggai's] prophecy [...] made Haggai's message completely compatible with the interests of the hierocratic leaders". 40 Furthermore, Zechariah used the form of visions for his message "in a conscious attempt to redirect the enthusiasm aroused by the apocalyptic vision away from the disenfranchised protesters and towards the official temple program". 41 It follows that the oracles of the authors of Isa 56-66 on the one hand, and those of Haggai and Zechariah on the other, are seemingly incompatible. Yet this may not necessarily be so. Instead, we need to ask whether it is possible that they speak about the same conflict, sharing the same basic outlook, but portraying it from different angles.

4. Proposal On the basis of Rofe's and Hanson's work in particular, the identification of the antagonists as the priesthood in Isa 56-66 is likely. Yet, in view of the severe criticism, especially of Hanson's theory, there is need for reassessment and modification. Moreover, the identification of the prophet's opponents with the clergy must be placed in the wider context of post-exilic prophecy in general. Hanson regarded the sentiments found in Isa 56-66 as standing in opposition to those expressed by Haggai and Zechariah. In contrast, the present work shall demonstrate that the authors of Isa 56-66 stand together with Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi in the same prophetic tradition. Moreover, their sentiments towards the priesthood are shared by the authors of Ezra and Nehemiah. Hence, rather than being isolated phenomena, the material in Haggai and Zechariah, together with Isa 56-66 and also the later Malachi, jointly build one synthesis explaining the division of the post-exilic Judahite society.

39 40 41

Hanson, Dawn, pp. 245-49, 261. Hanson, Dawn, p. 249. Hanson, Dawn, pp. 252-53.

Chapter Two

Defining the Extent of the Passages dealing with the Priesthood 1. Introduction There are a number of individual verses in which the priests are easily recognized as the chief recipients of the prophetic critique. These particular verses, however, are surrounded by oracular material that does not specify its intended target audience. We can assume, however, that unless another group of people is introduced, the prophet's target group remains the same throughout a given oracle. Thus, if we can determine the extent to which a particular oracle contains verses that explicitly target the priests, we can also identify the anonymous target audience of the rest of the oracle as the priests. The result is that several verses that do not explicitly name the priests as the target audience can nevertheless be shown to be directed at them. The way of identifying the priests with the addressees of a particular oracle varies from book to book due to the content and structure of each individual book. The material is discussed according to its level of difficulty, starting with the fairly straightforward case of Malachi, proceeding with Haggai and Zechariah, and ending with the complex example of Isa 56-66. Beginning with Malachi as the clearest example, Mai 1:6 states explicitly that the following oracle (Mai 1:6-2:9) is directed at the priests. The target audience of the other oracles is less clearly marked, but owing to their general content, I shall suggest that the priests also form the target audience in Mai 2:10-16; 2:17-3:5. In the next case of Haggai, my interest is limited to Hag 2:10-14 and the featured discussion between the prophet and the priests. My identification of a critical disposition against the priesthood and subsequent exegesis of the passage are dependant partly on the content of verse 14 in particular, and partly on the content of the oracle as a whole. I shall conclude that Hag 2:10-14 forms an independent oracle. In the same way, in the case of Zechariah, the text-historical issues related to Zech 3 and 7:1-5 have a bearing on my present study and thus need clarification. I

2. Malachi

17

shall argue that Zech 3:8b and 10 were added later to the original vision report, and that Zech 7:1-3 is distinct from the following Zech 7:4-6. In contrast to this, since my interpretations of the material in Zech 5:1-4 and 6:9-15 are independent of any text-historical considerations, depending solely on the exegesis of single verses rather than on the larger textual unit, these sections need not be addressed here. Similarly, given the narrative rather than the oracular style of the material in Ezra-Nehemiah, the reader is seldom in doubt when the given author addresses the priests and therefore there is no need to discuss the textual history of the relevant passages. The situation is more complicated in Isa 56-66. We will leave to the following chapters the more detailed discussions of the individual verses that suggest a priestly target audience, but the aim here will be to determine the outer limits of the textual units relevant to this study. I shall conclude that 56:9-59:21 is one textual unit that can be subdivided into three shorter units: 56:9-57:21; 58:1-14 and 59:1-21. 65:1-66:17, written by the same author and capable of being subdivided into 65:1-66:6 and 66:7-17. The originally independent lament recorded in 63:7-64:11 is likewise a literary unit, incorporated into Isa 56-66 and furnished with a negative response by the author of 65:1-66:17. Lastly, I consider 60:163:6 as a unit forming a continuous oracle and 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 to be a later addition serving as a framework around Isa 56-66 as a whole.

2. Malachi Beginning with the book of Malachi, there are oracles that are clearly marked as directed towards the priests (Mai 1:6-2:9), and oracles where the target audience is not so clearly indicated (Mai 2:10-16 and 2:17-3:5). Therefore, I will only briefly discuss the first section, and instead focus on the latter two. As will become evident, there are good reasons, largely owing to the content of the oracles, for also viewing Mai 2:10-16 and Mai 2:17-3:5 as targeting the Judahite priesthood.1

1 It should be noted that several scholars doubt the originality of either part of or all of Mai. 1:11-12; 2:7; 2:11-12; 2:15-16 and 3:22-24. In response to this, J.M. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBLDS 121, 1990), pp. 55-57, 81-82, shows convincingly that there are no compelling reasons not to regard these passages as original to the book. She also provides a comprehensive list of the different scholars who advocate excising the different passages.

18

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

2.1. Malachi 1:6-2:9 The priests form the main target audience, as indicated by the vocative •^ron ("the priests") in both 1:6 and 2:1. Despite this, there are a few indications that some verses in 1:6-14 have a larger audience in mind.2 For example, 1:7-8 may indirectly address the people in general: while the priests were responsible for accepting the animals brought to them, having the final say, the people were also culpable by choosing second-rate animals and bringing them to the temple.3 Mai 1:14 also seems to involve more than the priests, given its focus on the ownership of livestock.4 These references to people outside the priesthood have led some scholars to view them as later additions.5 This extended focus, however, is no reason to remove the verse. Rather, as Glazier-McDonalds points out, the priests are implicated by the simple fact that the people commit such misdeeds and they do nothing to curtail this activity.6 In conclusion, the priests take the brunt of the prophetic criticism, although there are some indications that a wider audience is intended. 2.2. Malachi 2:10-16 Next, who are the target audience of the oracle in Mai 2:10-16? The main question for us here is whether Mai 2:10-16 is a direct continuation of the preceding oracle and as such is directed mainly at the priesthood7 or whether a wider scope, encompassing other people as well, is envisioned by the prophet.8 In the following discussion, I shall demonstrate that Mai 2:10-16 targets primarily the priesthood even though some verses aim at a wider audience.

2 There is also a debate concerning the target audience of the latter section 2:1-9. For example, while P.A. Verhoef, The Books ofHaggai and Malachi (NICOT, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987), p. 237, limits its target audience to the priests, others, such as P.L. Redditt, "The Book of Malachi in Its Social Setting", CBQ 56 (1994), p. 247, argues that the intended audience in 2:8 is the people in general who, like the priests, have gone astray. 3 Verhoef, Haggai, p. 214. 4 E.g., D.R. Jones, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (TBC, London, 1962), p. 188, R.L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32, Waco, TX, 1984), p. 310. 5 E.g., T. Chary, Aggee-Zacharie, Malachi (SB 5, Paris, 1969), pp. 247-48. 6 B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, the Divine Messenger (SBLDS 98, Atlanta, 1987), p. 63. 7 E.g., G.S. Ogden, "The Use of Figurative Language in Malachi 2:10-16", Issues in Bible Translation (United Bible Societies Monograph Series 3, ed. P. Stine, London, 1988), p. 265, J.G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TOTC, Leicester, 1972), p. 239 (indirectly). 8 E.g., R. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC, Cambridge, 1977), p. 149, Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 83.

19

2. Malachi

As in Mai 1:6-2:9, there are aspects of Mai 2:10-16 that point to a target audience that encompass more than just the priests. Firstly, both people and priests were concerned with the sacrificial cult, even though access to the altar was a priestly prerogative. Therefore, it can be argued that both groups took part in this general outpouring of grief (v. 13).9 Secondly, the audience is twice referred to as "Judah" in verse 11. Partly as a result of these observations, more than one scholar has made a distinction between the verses that target the priests alone and those that target Judah as a whole. Redditt, for example, notes that Mai 1:6-2:9 and 2:11, 13-16 accuse the priesthood alone, and for this reason he suggests that 2:13-16 is the original conclusion of 1:6-2:9. These two parts would then have been separated by a redactor seeking to create a literary unit on the theme of faithlessness (vv. 10-16). In support of his claim, Redditt regards the word mttf ("secondly" - see further below) in 2:13 as a link to 1 : 7 - the priests first polluted God's alter (v. 7) and secondly wept over it owing to God's refusal to accept their offering (v. 13).10 Along similar lines, Bosshard and Kratz argue that Mai 2:10-12 is a later addition, added in order to widen the target audience of the older oracle in 2:13-16 which originally addressed only the priests.11 In the following discussion, we shall see that Mai 2:10-16 as a whole targets the priesthood, even though some verses, like the situation noted above in Mai 1:6-2:9, targets also others besides the priests. Sadducees, they were already a force opposing the Pharisaic movement.12 2.2.1. References

to the altar, the temple and its

personnel

Let us begin with the references to the priesthood in Mai 2:11-13. We shall look at four aspects and discover that these verses are best understood as a description of the extent to which the priests were trying to worship God. First, the author accuses Judah of defiling nnx itiw 'n unp (Mai 2:11). There are two ways of interpreting the expression 'n unp - as a reference either to the temple in particular or God's holiness in general.13 This expression occurs elsewhere only in Lev 19:8 where it refers to God's holiness, a holiness that is desecrated when someone eats of a three day 9

Verhoef, Haggai, p. 272. Redditt, "Malachi in Its Social Setting", p. 241, 244^46, 249, and Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCBC, Grand Rapids, 1995), pp. 169-170, 172. See also R.L. Smith, Micah, p. 320. " E. Bosshard and R.G. Kratz, "Maleachi im Zwólfprophetenbuch", BN 52 (1990), p. 45. Other editorial additions are, according to them, Mai. 1:14a and 3:22-24. 12 Beckwith, "Pre-History", pp. 25, 32. 13 Cf. Smith, Micah, p. 319, note ll.a. 10

20

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

old sacrifice because it was sanctified to God ('n Bnp-nx-'O w ira v ^ x i Vjn). We might then infer that a similar meaning should be sought here. However, the immediate context in Mai 2:11 points in the opposite direction: the nominal expression 'n tiHp is the object of the following relative clause "which [God] loves", and it is more likely that God loves His temple rather than His own holiness. In addition, the shorter expression E>7pn often refers elsewhere to the temple (e.g., Exod 28:29, 35; Lev 10:18; 16:2, 20 and 23). Thus, it is preferable to understand 'n ©ip here in Mai 2:11 as a reference to the temple. Secondly, Mai 2:12 refers explicitly to people officiating in the sacrificial cult, i.e. the priests. This verse states that the guilty persons mentioned in the preceding verse 11, i.e. those who are guilty of defiling 'n CHp, together with those who idj ^N-ro *7573 (see further below), and "those who bring sacrifices to the Lord of Hosts" (rnxnx 'n1? nm» tt^m) shall be excommunicated. Thus, at least part of this group of people must be priests.14 The use of the words win and nma further reinforce this impression, as they both echo Mai 1:11, which mentions the sacrifices of the nations in order to stress the Judahite priests' negligence (below). Thirdly, the reference to the altar in verse 13 suggests a priestly target audience. This verse describes how those criticized are covering the altar with tears, crying and wailing (13a), because15 "there is no turning to the altar and taking/receiving favour from our hands" (13b). Much of the speech identifies the crying and lamenting people as the priests, while God is the most likely candidate for the one who is "not turning" and "not taking favours". Given that the verb nam mOD is plural masculine, Redditt points out that these actions are committed by priests: they were the only people in a position to approach the altar.16 Hence, the verse claims that despite the priests' tears and lamenting, God is rejecting their sacrifices (cf. 1:10).17

14

Cf. C. von Orelli, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (KKANT, München, 1908), p. 229. The expression nmnn-^N JlUD 11!? rxn is unusual. The preposition -n is best understood as "because". See further J.M.P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (ICC, Edinburgh, 1912), p. 59, A.E. Hill, Malachi (AB 25D, New York, 1998), p. 238. 16 Redditt, Haggai, pp. 169-170, 172. For an alternative view, see e.g. T.T. Perowne, The Books of Haggai and Zechariah (CB, Cambridge, 1908), pp. 14, 26, following, among others, Radak, Rabbinic Bible, who suggests that the tears on the altar are those of the weeping women who have been divorced by their husbands. 17 Cf. W. Rudolph, "Zu Mal 2:10-16", ZAW83 (1981), p. 88. 15

2. Malachi

21

Finally, the word ("a second time'V'secondly") 18 opening verse 13 suggests a priestly target audience. The question arises as to when and what the "first time" is. Scholars have made various suggestions, for example that "the first evil" was marrying outside the community which renders the subsequent divorces "the second." 19 However, this suggestion is unsupported by the text. A further suggestion is that "the first thing" was the priests' pollution of the altar (1:7), making "the second thing" the weeping as a response to God's refusal to accept their offering. 20 If we accept the textual unity of Mai 2:10-16, however, the most natural reading is that "the first time" alludes to the idea of sacrifices in the immediately preceding 12b. In other words, rather than talking about any misdemeanour, mitf, translated as "secondly", indicates the extent to which the persons referred to are trying to worship God: not only this (sacrifices, v. 12) but also this (weeping, v. 13). 2.2.2. Inter-textual links to Malachi

1:6-2:9

In addition to the hints at a priestly setting found within the oracle of Mai 2:10-16, further support for a priestly target audience for this oracle can be found in its inter-textual links to the preceding oracle in Mai 1:6-2:9, the audience of which being unequivocally the priests. Notably, the expression lrnnx rr-a V7if? links 2:10 with the preceding vtin a ^ n a nnxi in 1:12, the idea of "seed" (snt) connects 2:15 with the preceding 2:3 (see further below), and the motif of God rejecting sacrifices is present both in Mai 1:12 and in 2:13. Given this general similarity in concepts and vocabulary, it is likely that also the audience remains similar.21

18

The primary meaning of this word is "a second time", but it can also mean "again," referring to a similar, but not identical act, or another point in a series. See BDB, p. 1041. Most scholars render the clause as "and this again you do (e.g., J.M.P. Smith, Malachi, p. 51, J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [TOTC, Leicester, 1972], p. 239, and R.L. Smith, Micah, p. 319). Note, however, that D.L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi (OTL, London, 1995), p. 201, argues that 13a is an editorial addition, trying to combine the originally separate oracles 2:10-12 with 2:13—15a [sic!] 19 Perowne, Malachi, p. 25. 20 Redditt, "Malachi in Its Social Setting", p. 246. 21 An additional connecting factor between Mai 1:6-2:9 and the following 2:10-16 is the idea of a covenant. It occurs in the expression irrnN nnn in 2:10 (cf. Deut 4:31) and in "innn in 2:14. In 1:6-2:9, we meet the phrase 'l1? r v n in 2:5ff. This, however, may not necessarily be a sign of a common audience but rather indicates that the book of Malachi as a whole contains covenant language. For an extensive overview of the different aspect of covenant language, see S. McKenzie and H. Wallace, "Covenant Themes in Malachi", CBQ 45 (1983), pp. 549-63.

22

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

2.2.3. Priestly terminology There are also traces of priestly terminology in Mai 2:10-16. The verb ^n 1 ?, meaning "pollute, defile, profane" (v. 11), is a clear example of ritual vocabulary, used extensively in Leviticus and Ezekiel. The particular subject of y?n here in verse 11 is Judah as a whole.22 Moreover, the word ttnp (v. 12), although not confined to priestly sources, is a cultic term, as is the word nmn (vv. 12, 13), and the reference to God's altar ('n mm - v. 13) presupposes a ritual setting. Taken together, the language reveals a certain cultic flavour and, as such, hints at a clerical target audience. 2.2.4. Links with other texts where the priests might be addressed Lastly, there are texts that resemble Mai 2:10-16 and where a priestly target audience is suspected, and this resemblance may be yet another factor that supports a priestly audience of Mai 2:10-16. There is, of course, the danger of circular argumentation by claiming that one uncertain text supports another uncertain text. Therefore, I shall merely point out the existing connection between the texts and let the identification of the speakers/audience remain conjectural. Nonetheless, the accumulated evidence is, in fact, one argument among many in favour of an identical and, thus, of a priestly audience of these texts. The strongest of these conceptual links exists between Mai 2:10-16; Isa 58:2-3 and 63:7-64:11. • First, the question "do we not all have one father" (Mai 2:10, 15) is reminiscent of Isa 63:16 and 64:8 where God's fatherhood is addressed.23 • Secondly, the idea of a God who rejects sacrifices despite the weeping and groaning near the altar (Mai 2:13-14, above) is reminiscent of Isa 58:2-3 and 64:4-6. Isa 58:2-3 tells that the people addressed are striving to perform the cult to satisfaction whilst God remains remote due to their sins. Similarly, the speakers in Isa 64:4-6 lament God's 22 Even so, there is a curious change of gender mid-sentence: while the verb T m is f.sg., the following verbs V7n, are m.sg. It may be that the metaphorical language and the marriage metaphor of the latter part of the verse required a masculine subject. 23 Concerning the identification of the father in Mai 2:10, 15, scholars are far from united. The most common identification is either with Abraham, see e.g. Baldwin, Haggai, p. 237, Jones, Haggai, pp. 193-94, McKenzie and Wallace, "Covenant Themes", p. 552, or with YHWH, see e.g. R.L. Smith, Micah, p. 321. In contrast, G. Wallis, "Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis", Das feme und nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost (ed. F. Maass, BZAW 105, Berlin, 1967), pp. 233-34, combines the claim in 1:2-5 concerning the brotherhood of Esau and Jacob with that of united fatherhood in 2:10, and suggests that Malachi is addressing a section of the Judahite society which favoured a connection with Edom.

2. Malachi

23

absence and His refusal to communicate, and they regard this divine absence as the reason for their own misdemeanour. This idea of perceived righteousness in the face of God's silence is further expressed in Mai 2:17 and in 3:14 where God is accused of treating justice unfairly. As I shall show further below, the words in Isa 58:2-3 and 63:7-64:11 are most likely to be attributed to the priests. As such, these Isaianic texts suggest a similar identification of the target audience of Mai 2:10-16. 2.2.5. Conclusion To conclude, both the references to the altar and the temple, together with the textual links between Mai 2:10-16, and the other texts in Malachi where the priests are addressed (Mai 1:6-2:9; Isa 58:2-3 and 63:7-64:11), make the priests the most likely candidates for the main target audience of the oracle in Mai 2:10-16. 2.3. A priestly audience throughout Malachi 2:17-3:4 As with Mai 2:10-16, there are good reasons to suspect that the priests form the target audience of the oracle in Mai 2:17-3:5. Again, the text itself does not indicate a change of audience, in contrast to Mai 1:6 which states explicitly that the following oracle is directed to a specific group of people. In fact, a reference to a new audience comes only in 3:6 where those addressed are called \D ("sons of Jacob"). As we shall see, the references to the temple and the cleansing of the priesthood, together with a general similarity to other texts where the priests are aimed at, suggest a priestly target audience of Mai 2:17-3:5. 24 2.3.1. The redaction history of Malachi 2:17-3:4 Before we discuss the references which suggest a priestly identity of the oracle in Mai 2:17-3:5, we need, however, to clarify its textual history.25 The key issue is whether 2:17-3:1a and 3:5 form an earlier stratum, to which 3:lb-4 was added later, or whether 2:17-3:5 is an original unity. 24 This idea has already been advocated by a small number of earlier scholars, e.g., Redditt, Haggai, p. 177, McKenzie and Wallace, "Covenant Themes", p. 554, and Wallis, "Wesen und Struktur", pp. 232-33, although they limit the priestly audience to 3:1-4. Note further that a priestly target audience of this material presupposes the identification of the references to either "Levi" or "the sons of Levi" in the book of Malachi with the priests rather than with the Levites (see further discussion in chapter 5). 25 It is clear that verse 17 belongs with the following oracle, indicated both by the D in the Hebrew text after verse 16 and by the occurrence of the question: [...] nan nmaxi, showing that a new section is commencing (cf. Mai 1:2; 1:6).

24

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

This is important for the present study since the priests are mainly referred to in 3:lb-4. Thus, many of the scholars26 who interpret verses l b - 4 as a later addition also separate between a priestly target audience of lb—4 and a wider audience of the earlier 2:17-3: la and 3:5.27 In response, even if we assume a different origin of 2:17-3: la and 5 or the one hand, and 3: lb-4 on the other, there is no reason to assume a change of audience in 2:17. As noted earlier, a new audience is introduced only in 3:6. Hence, regardless of the textual history of 2:17-3:5, if the priests are targeted in 2:10-16, there is no obvious reason why they should not continue to be so in 2:17ff. The problem comes, in fact, not on a textual but rather on an exegetical level: by assuming an extended unity of Mai 2:17-3:5, combined with the claim that the priests are addressed throughout the oracle, the result is that the priests are accused of being sorcerers, adulterers, perjurers and oppressors of the poor (v. 5). This, however, is not the only time that a post-exilic prophet accuses the priests of such activities. On the contrary, as we shall explore in more detail in the remainder of the chapters, these accusation reverberate throughout the post-exilic prophetic material: • There are relatively few links between Mai 3:5 and the rest of the book of Malachi. Even so, Mai 3:5 shares elements with 2:10-16 in that the prophet accuses both groups of people of some form of non-YHWHistic worship. Mai 10:10-16 accuses the people of having allied themselves with other gods (2:11) even though at the same time they weep at the altar of YHWH (2:13-14); and similarly, Mai 3:5 accuses the people of sorcery. In a way, both groups have split their allegiance between two parties and are thus defrauding their surroundings.28 The similarity between the two sections suggests that the prophet targeted the same group of people. • Instead, other post-exilic prophetic texts that target the priesthood form the bulk of the comparative material: 1. The issue of perjurers (ipti?1? wvnm) is reminiscent of Zech 5:4,29 and of Zech 8:16—17.30 2. The accusation of social injustice in Mai 3:5 brings not only Isa 58 and Zech 7:9-10 to mind, but also Neh 5.

26 E.g., Mason, Haggai, p. 152, B.V. Malchov, "The Messenger of the Covenant in Mai 3:1", JBL 103 (1984), p. 252, Redditt, Haggai, p. 175, and Petersen, Malachi, p. 209. 27 E.g., Redditt, Haggai, p. 175. Cf. Perowne, Malachi, p. 30. 28 Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 162-64. 29 Furthermore, the expression Tlisas 'n mx dd^x miWNI 131© (v. 7) is reminiscent of Zech 1:3. See Perowne, Malachi, p. 33. 30 Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 163.

2. Malachi

25

3. The critique of the illicit cults has several parallels in Isa 56-66, the most noteworthy being 57:3-6 and 65:3-4. With this in mind, we can safely say that there are no exegetical reasons for excluding Mai 3:5 from being an integral part of Mai 2:17-3:5 and thus targeting the priesthood. 2.3.2. Malachi 3:1 — References to the temple Let us now turn to the more specific elements in Mai 2:17-3:5 that suggest a priestly target audience. The temple features prominently in Mai 2:173:5, as the place to which God is sending His messenger ("to'n - Mai 3:1). This prominence is suggestive of its centrality to the messenger's task, thus placing the priests at the forefront of the critique: the priests are the religious leadership and hence, theirs is the greater responsibility, and accordingly, their domain is the first to be judged. 31 This idea is reminiscent of Isa 66:6 C?DTt) where again a priestly identification of the target audience is likely (cf. below).32 2.3.3. Malachi 3:2—4 — Cleansing of the priesthood The main issue in Mai 2:17-3:5 is the cleansing of the priests, here called "sons of Levi" (Mai 3:3-4). The author regards these people as impure, a state incurred either because of sin or because of contact with impurity. If follows naturally to identify these people with the priests who are criticized for their misdemeanours in the preceding material. The alternative, i.e. to identify these "sons of Levi" with the Levi mentioned in Mai 2:4-6, is less likely since he is described as perfect and hence not in need of any cleansing. In view of this, it is preferable to identify the target audience of Mai 2:17-3:5 with the contemporary priests.33 2.3.4. Similarities with other texts that probably address the priests Mai 2:17-3:5 also displays similarities with other texts where the priests are either the explicit target (Mai 1:10; 2:5-6) or the likely target (Isa 58:2-4). • First, there is a textual link between Mai 2:17ba and 1:10 through the shared use of the verb fDn = "to delight". The people addressed in 2:17ba declare that God delights in those who do evil in His eyes, a saying that is best understood as a deliberate contrast to 1:10 where the

31 32 33

Cf. Jones, Haggai, p. 198. See also Hag 1:8; Zech 6:12, 13; 8:3, 9; Ezra 3:10; 4:1, Ezek 9:16; 43:1-5. Cf. Redditt, Haggai, p. 177, McKenzie and Wallace, "Covenant Themes", p. 554.

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

26

•

•

same verb is used ironically in the rhetorical question of whether God delights in the priests who offer second-rate offerings. 34 Secondly, the expression n n m p tnuoi D^IV ("like the days of old and like the years past") in 3:4 is reminiscent of Mai 2:5-6 with regard to the way in which the priests of the past are compared with the present ones. 35 Thirdly, there are significant similarities between Mai 2:17-3:4 and Isa 58:2-4. As noted already, a comparison with a text where a priestly audience is plausible but nowhere explicitly stated runs the risk of circular reasoning, and I shall again limit my discussion merely to pointing out the parallels. To begin with, Mai 2:17 and Isa 58:2-3 share the theme of accused people declaring their ignorance of having sinned. In addition, the vocabulary in Mai 3:2 where the audience is "seeking" (D'wpa») and "desiring" (D'ssn) [God's] coming is reminiscent of Isa 58:2 where the people are "asking for" (MfjiW) and "desiring" (/pxsrp) God. Lastly, Mai 3:5 and Isa 58:3-4 mention social crimes and oppression of the poor.

To conclude, although these similarities do not prove that the priests form the audience of Mai 2:17-3:5, they point in their direction. 2.4. Malachi 3:6ff. In contrast to the preceding material, the latter sections of Malachi, commencing in 3:6, most probably address the whole people of Judah. 36 This is implied by, among other things, the appellation 3ps,-,32 in verse 6 and the reference to ancestors in verse 7 (D3TQX ^nV). Having said this, however, two factors suggest that the priests are included in the criticism: 1. The priests and the Levites are incorporated in the criticism with regard to their tithing. As Petersen points out, Malachi uses two words for tithing, the word "icwon (Mai 3:8) indicating the regular tenth, and the word nannn, i.e. the tenth of the tenth, indicating the Levitical tithing (Lev 18:26-29). As such, not only the people but also the priests and the Levites are criticized for failing to give to God His share. 37 2. The accusations against the people with regard to their dishonesty and their fraudulent practices in the offering of sacrifices (Mai 3:6-12) are parallel to the accusations against the priests in 1:6-2:9. As the misdemeanours of the general population follow those of their leaders, we can see how the prophet holds the leaders at least partly responsible 34 35 36 37

Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 128. Perowne, Malachi, p. 30. E.g., Redditt, Haggai, p. 178. Petersen, Malachi, pp. 215-16.

3. Haggai

27

for the sins of their flock. The priests' attitude has influenced the people.38 Thus, since the priests were responsible for teaching the people, and also had the authority to refuse any sacrifice brought to the temple, the priests ought to have corrected the people. In a sense, Mai 1:6-2:9 and 3:6-12 are companion pieces, focusing on the negligence of the cult from two different angles: that of the priests in the first and that of the people in general in the second. For example, the idea of a curse in 3:9 DDK H1KQ3) links back to 2:2 where the priests are cursed. Thus, the punishment of the priests parallels that of the people,39 as such implying that the two sides are interconnected: the priests carried the ultimate responsibility and are therefore addressed first and with the most severity. Yet even so, parts of the criticism voiced in 1:6-2:9 is aimed at a wider audience. Similarly, while the people take the brunt of the critique in 3:6-12, the priests cannot be excluded.40 2.5.

Conclusion

To conclude, we have seen that the bulk of the oracles in the book of Malachi (Mai 1:6-3:5) target the priests. These oracles are surrounded by other oracles that address more general issues shared by the people as a whole (Mai 1:1-5; 3:6ff.). This arrangement, with the critique of the priests at the centre and the critique of the people at the periphery, provides the clue to the interpretation of the book: the priests are its focal point and their behaviour is responsible for the conduct of the people.

3. Haggai Shifting the focus from Malachi to the earlier Haggai, our present inquiry touches only one section: Hag 2:10-14. Since my exegesis of this material depends in part on it forming a separate textual unit, detached from the following 2:15-19, we need to address two issues: the lack of continuity between verses 14 and 15, and the redactional character of verse 18. 3.1. Lack of continuity between Haggai 2:14 and 15

There are good reasons to regard Hag 2:10-14 as a self-contained oracle: 38

See further Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 174. Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 191. 40 There are verses in which, notably, the language has a priestly flavour. The expression lmntpn m a i s is a typical priestly term, used in Zech 3:7 as one of Joshua's requirements. Here, the speakers question the usefulness of fulfilling this ordinance. 39

28

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

1. A change of audience between verses 14 and 15: while the following section 2:15-19 presupposes a general Judahite audience, the preceding material envisions a different or more limited one. 2. A change of topic between verses 14 and 15: while verses 10-14 deal with matters of purity and impurity, the following verses 15-19 deal with the building of the temple. 3. A switch from indirect (2:14) to direct address Sl-in'lff rmsn, 2:15): while not decisive by itself, it is nevertheless likely to indicate a break or at least a change in location or audience.41 4. Elements suggesting that verses 15-19 form an independent textual unit: the vocabulary of 19b ("pnx nm avn-p) is reminiscent of that of verse 15 (rfrj/ai run nvn-in), something that is likely to indicate the outer limits of the oracles. Nonetheless, a few scholars argue in favour of a longer textual unity of 2:10-19. Koch, for example, based on form-critical grounds, suggests that 2:10-19 is a prophecy of salvation, a type of literature including three elements:42 1. A description of the past situation. 2. A claim that God will act in the present. 3. A description of the changed future. Koch locates these three elements in the oracles in Hag 1:1-8 and 2:1-7, and as he also finds them in 2:10-19, he suggests that this material also forms one extended oracle.43 Koch's form-critical interpretation has, however, not been generally accepted, given the rather vague identification of these three elements with material throughout Hag 2:10-19, 44 although a small number of exegetes follow his interpretation.45 41 Cf. W.A.M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN, Assen, 1967), pp. 68-69. 42 Koch names these three elements Datum und Wortempfangsnotiz, Hinweis auf die Lage, and Ankündigung des Heils. 43 Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", pp. 56-60. 44 See, e.g., S. Amsler, Aggee, Zacharie 1-8 (CAT, Neuchätel-Paris, 1981), p. 36, who discusses Koch's proposal. 45 Koch's view is supported by, among others, Baldwin, Haggai p. 49. She regards Hag 2:10-19 as one continuous text, arguing that if we separate 2:10-14 from its context, we are left with neither explanation nor application of its message. Based on this, she assumes that the audience remains the same throughout the text. Thus, the promise of 2:15-19 to the builders of the temple makes it clear that the preceding verses also refer to the Judahites. See also D.R. Hildebrand, "Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in Haggai II 10-19", VT 39 (1989), pp. 159-60, M.H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, 2 (FOTL 22, eds. R.P. Knierim, G.M. Tucker and M.A. Sweeney, Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK, 2000), pp. 288-89, 293-94, Verhoef, Haggai, pp. 112-14, and J. Kessler, The Book of Haggai. Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91,

3. Haggai

29

3.2. The redactional character of Haggai 2:18 In addition to Koch's form-critical observations, it may be argued that the shared date in verses 10 and 18 (the 24th day of the 9th month) suggests a longer textual unity. However, there are three strong reasons for suspecting verse 18 to be a later addition. First, the editorial character of verse 18 is supported by its content. We know from 1:15 that the people began building the temple on the 24th day of the 6th month, and we are then informed in 2:18b that the foundation of the temple was laid on the 24th day of the 9 th month. This brings with it two problems: 1. While it is possible to regard the earlier date in 1:15 as the beginning of the preparatory work while the actual foundation was laid three months later, such an interpretation is strained. 2. While the 24th day in the 9th month is apt for Hag 2:10-14, it is unsuitable for 2:15-19 because of the content of the latter. The description of the situation in Judah, as found in verses 15-19, resembles that of the situation prior to the laying of the foundation of the temple (1:6-11). Because of this similarity, the author is likely to refer to the same situation. The best solution is to regard the date in 2:18b is an editorial note, added in an attempt to give 2:15-19 a date corresponding to the one in 2:10 while, in fact, the situation described in these verses corresponds to that which occurred prior to the commencement of the building project. Secondly, the editorial character of verse 18 is supported by textual considerations. Not only is the twofold mention of run DTH-in (18a) and • r a [...] (18b) awkward, but verse 18 repeats large parts of verse 15: 'n pn-Vk px-m® dim n*7i?ni run nvn-m aim'? KJ-in^g nroi 2:15 to'p 'n ^yn ic'-nam nrn-p1? ^ v i b nsxisi nns?s ovan.^saA nTn.Dvrfcia coin1? w-ia'g 2:18 •333*7

There is actually very little original material in verse 18, with the exception of the expression ID'-HPX, which also corresponds, though not verbally, with px-1?^ ps-mw man in verse 15.46 Leiden, 2002), pp. 201-2. Additional support for Koch's proposal may be found in the fact that the word nnsi ("now") opens verse 15 and thus serves as a link to the preceding material (cf. Hag 1:5; 2:4). In response, while I do not question that the original place of 2:15-19 is after 2:14, it does not follow that the two oracles form one extended unit. In fact, nrivi can begin a new oracle (e.g., Isa 43:1; 44:1). 46 Cf. K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHAT, Tübingen, 1904), p. 389, who claims that 18b, with the exception of the last two words, is not original, and Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner, p. 58, who takes the whole of 18b as a gloss.

30

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

Thirdly, the editorial character of verse 18 is suggested by the shared agricultural content of verses 17 and 19, interrupted by verse 18. In conclusion, Hag 2:15-19 as a whole is a backward glance referring to the time before the laying of the foundation stone on the 24th day of the 6th month (Hag 1:15). It echoes the plight described in 1:6-11, and verse 18 in particular refers to the events on that very day (1:12-14). As such, 2:18 is best regarded as a later addition, added in an attempt to connect the oracle in 2:15-19 with the preceding one in 2:10-14 which took place three months later (the 24 th day of the 9th month). For our purposes, this means that Hag 2:10-14 is a self-contained oracle, and that the following material in 2:15-19 has no bearing on its immediate interpretation.

4. Zechariah 1-8 Leaving Haggai and turning to Zechariah 1-8, there are five texts which pertain to our inquiry into the prophetic critique of the priesthood (Zech 3; 5:1-4; 6:9-15; 7:1-3; 7:4—6). Even so, since my proposed exegesis depends on matters of textual unity in only three of these instances (Zech 3; 7:1-3 and 7:4—6), I shall limit the present discussion to these three cases.47 Beginning with Zech 3, I shall argue in favour of maintaining the integral character of verses 6-7, but of treating verses 8b and 10 as editorial additions.48 Turning to Zech 7-8, I shall suggest that 8:18ff. is the original continuation of 7:1-3, whereas the material lying in between, whilst probably stemming from the same hand, is a later addition, placed in the current context owing to its related content matter (fasting). 4.1. The secondary character of Zechariah 3:8b and 10 Beginning with Zech 3, there are good reasons for regarding verses 8b and 10 as a later interpolation to the original vision in 1-8a, 9.49 This view 47 For a discussion of the different text-historical theories concerning Zech 6:9-15, see T. Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja. Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung (FAT, Tübingen, 2003), pp. 236-39. In the case of Zech 5:1-4, no scholar has to my knowledge questioned the original unity of these four verses. 48 With regard to Zech 3 as a whole, I view it as integral to the vision account but this is of no immediate relevance to the present discussion. 49 E.g., L.G. Rignell, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (Lund, 1950), pp. 142-43, A. Petitjean, Les oracles du Proto-Zacharie. Un programme de restauration pour la communauté juive après l'éxil (Paris, Louvain, 1969), pp. l ô l f f , Chary, Aggée, p. 81.

4. Zechariah 1-8

31

depends largely on the clause n»x ^rm-riN iCiB ^nn "O ("behold I am bringing my servant the branch") in 8b, in particular upon the identification of the "branch" (nm). There are two main contenders either Zerubbabel or a future saviour - and both options are problematic: 1. An identification of the "branch" with Zerubbabel is difficult because of the participle icaa ("bringing"), indicating that in relation to the other events described in Zech 3, the coming of the "branch" is a future event. Thus, if we identify Zerubbabel with the "branch", we end up with a situation where Joshua, but not yet Zerubbabel, would be present in Judah. 50 As there is little reason to doubt that the two leaders arrived together in Judah (Ezra 2:2 // Neh 7:7), and that they were both present in Judah before the work on the temple was begun in 520 BC (Ezra 3:2ff, and probably also Zech 4:14), 51 such a situation is unlikely, and accordingly, the identification of the "branch" with Zerubbabel is improbable. 52 In order to keep the identification with Zerubbabel, it may be possible to argue that what is envisioned here is Zerubbabel's coming into more power/status than he had previously enjoyed; 53 but such an interpretation rests on shaky ground since the phrase X'na ^ n ("behold, I am bringing") seems to involve more than a social ascent. 2. An identification of the "branch" as a symbol expressing messianic expectations is equally problematic. Haggai identifies the "branch" with Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23), and Zech 4:6b-10a emphasizes that Zerubbabel is the one upon whom Zechariah's hopes are set.54 Furthermore, Zech 6:12-13 states that the "branch" will build the temple, something which fits the already present Zerubbabel better than

50 Cf. Amsler, Aggee, p. 84, who claims that Zech 3:8-10 was composed at the very beginning of Zechariah's ministry while Joshua could still be a sign of the coming of the branch (= Zerubbabel), and the hope of Zerubbabel becoming king was still alive. See also Rignell, Nachtgesichte, p. 137, Mason, Haggai, p. 52. This approach has been aptly criticized by W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel. Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTS 304, Sheffield, 2000), pp. 1 4 4 ^ 5 . 51 Cf. W. Rudolph, Haggai - Sacharja 1-8 - Sacharja 9-14 - Maleachi (KAT, Gütersloh, 1976), p. 100. 52 Marti, Dodekapropheton, p. 411, H.G. Mitchell, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah (ICC, Edinburgh, 1912), p. 156. 53 Cf. E.W. Conrad, Zechariah (Sheffield, 1999), p. 95, who suggests that in the book of Haggai, Zerubbabel's "was a political rather than physical presence among the remnant who returned". 54 Contra R.J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (OTG, Sheffield, 1987), pp. 4 4 46, who argues that Joshua, rather than Zerubbabel, is the particular subject of Zechariah, and to be identified with the branch in Zech 3:8.

32

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

a future messianic figure.55 Hence, it is difficult to identify the "branch" with Zerubbabel and, at the same time, maintain the integral character of 3:8b.56 Hence, if we maintain that Zerubbabel is the most likely candidate for the "branch", given the other occurrences of the same term, and yet at the same time reject the possibility that Joshua was present in Judah before Zerubbabel, it follows that 8b must be later than the other references to Zerubbabel or to the "branch" in Zech 1-6. Accordingly, I suggest that Zech 3:8b was added at a later time when Zerubbabel was no longer an important presence in Judah. At that time, the expression "branch" had ceased to refer to him as a person, and instead had come to carry messianic connotations, expressing the people's hope of the coming of a future saviour. As we shall explore further in chapter 12, the addition of 8b changes the overall content of the vision. 57 There are also reasons to treat 3:10 as a later addition. Even though its imagery of peaceful relaxation under the vine and the fig tree would be a fitting ending to the removal of the sin of the land in verse 9, its eschatological flavour makes more likely the idea that it, together with 8b, belongs in a later added textual stratum. Concerning verse 8a, several scholars detect a change of both location (the heavenly council versus the temple) and characters (Joshua versus Joshua's priestly colleagues), beginning in 8a, which is taken to indicate a

55 Zech 6:13 speaks about two men. Concerning its interpretation, I follow D.L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL, Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 273 (translation), 276-78, who identifies the branch with Zerubbabel while Joshua is the second person. He understands the expression wm-bv 1HD rrni ("beside his throne there will be a priest"), as referring to Joshua. Furthermore, the following statement Drntff f a rrnn Q71£> ri2£V1 indicates that two people rather than one are referred to. 56 It should be mentioned that the issue of 3:8b is connected with the question of the originality of the whole of Zech 3, in that scholars in favour of an integral character of Zech 3 often argue that Zech 3 and 4, because of the references to Joshua and Zerubbabel found in both visions, together form the kernel of the vision cycle (see e.g. Mitchell, Haggai, p. 147, P.R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration [OTL, London, 1968], p. 183). Thus, by removing the allusion to Zerubbabel (the "branch" in 8b) from Zech 3, only Zech 4 contains a reference to both leaders, and the symmetry is gone. For this reason, P.L. Redditt, "Zerubbabel, Joshua and the Night Visions of Zechariah", CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 249-59, proposes a two-step development of Zech 3: verses 1-7, 9 were first added to the cycle of visions, to be enlarged later by verses 8 and 10. 57 See, in addition, Rudolph, Haggai, p. 102. Verse 9 spoke originally of the Day of Atonement but, with the addition of 8b, the removal of the sin of the land is given an eschatological character and turns the verse into a description of the general removal of all sin in the day when the Messiah comes.

4. Zechariah 1-8

33

break in the literary flow. 58 There are, however, convincing arguments in favour of continuity: • Concerning the apparent change of location, I follow Perowne's suggestion that the expression "HS1? D'SK^n ("those sitting before you") should be understood less as an indication of the geographical placement of the other priests and more as an indication of their subordinate rank.59 Hence, they are not necessarily physically present in the vision. • Concerning the introduction of new characters, Rose has shown convincingly that the inclusion of the other priests is in itself not convincing evidence for the secondary character of verse 8a: given that the high priest is the head of a larger body of people, it is not surprising that his colleagues are included at one point.60 As with 8a, there are strong reasons for regarding verse 9 as integral to the vision report. As noted by Sellin, this verse would be incomprehensible without the background of the removal of Joshua's sin in 3:3-5, and is therefore unlikely to have existed independently of 3:1-7. 61 To conclude, it is unlikely that all of verses 8-10 form a separate oracle. At the same time, the reference to the future arrival of the "branch" in 8b and the eschatological imagery of verse 10 fit oddly with the surrounding material and are therefore best regarded as later additions. 4.2. The integral character of Zechariah 3:6-7 In contrast to Zech 3:8b, 10, there is little reason to doubt the integral character of verses 6-7. Beuken in particular, among critical scholars, has argued in favour of their editorial origin, suggesting that these two verses stem from a time when the Davidic heir had lost his importance and when the high priest had assumed near royal authority. Hence, by portraying Joshua with authority, a later author sought to contrast the picture, prevalent elsewhere in Zech 1-8, of a superior Zerubbabel.62 Beuken's basic assumption is, however, difficult to accept for the following reasons: 1. The portrayal of Joshua in verses 6-7 is not altogether positive, as the angel of the Lord admonishes ("71H, v. 6) him. As such, it is difficult to see verses 6-7 as an attempt to replace Zerubabbel's charges.

58

E.g., Amsler, Aggee, p. 83, Rudolph, Haggai, p. 99. Perowne, Haggai, p. 82. Cf. C. and E. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25B, Garden City, 1987), pp. 198-99. 60 Rose, Zemah, p. 150. 61 D.E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT, Leipzig, 1930), pp. 493-94. 62 Beuken, Haggai, pp. 294-85, 297-88. Beuken gives additional reasons for a secondary origin of 3:6-7 on pp. 290-91, 295-96, 299-300. 59

34

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

2. There is no contradiction between Zerubbabel's tasks and privileges described elsewhere in Zech 1-6 and those assigned to Joshua in 3:7, as the latter are mainly centred on the temple.63 3. Joshua shares the centre of Zech 1-8 with Zerubbabel, as can be seen primarily in the image in Zech 4:14 of the two "sons of oil", an image which suggests dual leadership. Hence, the focus on Joshua here in Zech 3 does not impinge upon Zerubbabel's authority.64 In conclusion, it is preferable to view verses 6-7 as integral to Zech 3. 4.3. Zechariah

7:1-8:24

Turning next to Zech 7-8, the text-historical relationship between 7:1-3 and 7:4-6 has a bearing on the present study in that both sections deal with priests. There are two reasons for separating between 7:1-3 and 7:4-6: 1. The issue offasting is treated differently in the two sections. Chapter 7 begins with a scene where several men travel to Bethel to inquire of its priests about the annual fasts.65 Verse 3 ends with a question whether or not to continue the fasts in the fifth month, and the answer is given in Zech 8:18-19: not only that fast day but also those in the fourth, the seventh and the tenth months shall be turned into occasions of rejoicing. The intermediate section in 7:4-8:17 also deals with fasting but from a more general perspective without reference to the particular days of fasting mentioned in verse 3. There is also a lack of correspondence between verses 1-3 and 4—6: the positive attitude towards fasting in 7:1-3 and 8:18-19 jars with the more negative tones of verses 4-5, and the issues of eating and drinking present in verse 6 are never touched upon in the preceding verses 1-3. 66 2. The priests differ in the two sections. While Zech 7:1-3 refer to priests (and prophets) in the "house of the Lord" ('n rra) in Bethel, the following verses 4-6 address "all the people of the land" ( p x n ns?-1?:)) and the priests, expressions that suggest not only a broader audience but also a broader geographical range.67 63

Cf. Beuken, Haggai, pp. 291-93. C. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT 117, Göttingen, 1977), p. 224 65 The interpretation of Zech 7:1 is a notorious crux interpretum. For the interpretation of Bethel as the destination and the possibility that there was a religious centre in that location, see Blenkinsopp, "Judean Priesthood", pp. 30-34. 66 K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, II (ATD, Göttingen, 1959), p. 133. 67 This is true even if one does not accept the references to Bethel in Zech 7:2 as a place name. The priests in verse 2 are still limited to those serving in the temple, while 64

5. Isaiah 56-66

35

In view of these factors, most scholars view 8:18ff. as the original continuation of 7:3 and treat the intervening material as a later added general reflection about the question raised in 7:3, followed by a series of connected warnings and oracles.68 To conclude, much evidence stands in favour of a separation between, on the one hand, the situation in Zech 7:1-3 and 8:18-24 and, on the other hand, the intermediate material in 7:4-8:17. It follows that the priests in "the house of God" (7:2) are not necessarily to be identified with the priests of verse 5. Even so, the possibility does not need to be excluded. In my view, rather than seeing these two textual strands as two separate traditions, I suggest that the situation in verses 1-3 triggered a related oracle to a widened audience. In this way, the priests in 7:1-3 do not constitute the whole of the target audience of 7:4—8:17 but neither are they excluded from it. Instead, the reference to the priests in 7:5 does, in all likelihood, include the priests mentioned in 7:3. This means that no original connection exists between the priests in Bethel in 7:1-3 and the following criticism of the priests in 7:4-7, and accordingly, the earlier 7:1-3 should be interpreted independently of the following material. In contrast, the surrounding 7:1-3 and 8:18-19 are likely to have influenced the content of the later 7:4-8:17, in its being composed to fit in between 7:1-3 and 8:18—19.69

5. Isaiah 56-66 Isaiah 56-66 is the fourth and the last collection of prophetic material to be discussed. It is also the most complex collection:70 There is no consensus concerning the number of textual sources still in existence and how many layers of redaction the text has undergone. It is also unclear how to differentiate between these different sources and how to understand their the reference to "all the people of the land" (v. 4) suggests a similarly wide range also for the priests. 68 Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 206-8. See also Mitchell, Haggai, pp. 195, 215, Baldwin, Haggai, pp. 140, 143, E. Lipinski, "Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie", VT 20 (1970), pp. 41-42, and Redditt, Haggai, pp. 79-80, to name but a few. For a contrary opinion, see Petersen, Haggai, pp. 284-85, who points out that Zechariah was most likely of priestly descent himself (cf. Zech 1:1). By further assuming that Zechariah is one of the prophets in verse 3, Petersen suggests that the message in verse 4 serves as a response to both the people in the delegation and the priests in the house of God (7:4). 69 The mention of the particular fasts in the fifth and the seventh month (7:5) points in that direction. 70 Smith, Rhetoric, provides in-depth study on the matter, and gives an excellent overview of the different theories which abound.

36

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

chronological relationship to each other. Lastly, there is no certainty about how best to divide the text into smaller units. This means that any serious study of the text of Isa 56-66 must be based on sound knowledge concerning its development and the particular length of the different textual units. In this section, I shall suggest that Isa 56-66 should be subdivided into the following parts: 1. Isa 60-62 and 63:1-6 preserve the oldest material. 2. One author added Isa 56:9 71 -59:21 and 65:1-66:17. This material can be subdivided into four smaller units (56:9-57:21, 58; 59; and 65:166:17), the first and the last addressing mainly the Judahite leadership while the second and the third address a broader spectrum, containing both the leaders and the ordinary people. In addition, this author incorporated the originally independent lament of 63:7-64:11 into his material and provides it with a negative response (65:1-66:17). 3. Isa 56:1-8 was added to form the beginning of Isa 56:9-66:17 as a whole. 4. The final verses 66:18-24 were affixed, not only to form a framework to fit together with 56:1-8 around Isa 56-66, but also to serve as a conclusion to the book of Isaiah as a whole. In terms of style, I view the interchange between oracles of salvation and the oracles of condemnation as typical of the author's narrative technique. Therefore, there are no grounds for assigning separate authorship to these different types of oracles. Moreover, the interchange of oracles of condemnation and of salvation does not warrant a change of target audience. On the contrary, adjacent oracles are likely to maintain the same target audience unless otherwise specified. In other words, the oracles of salvation and the oracles of condemnation do not necessarily address two separate groups of people but may equally well tell those deserving of condemnation of the possibility of repenting and thus receiving God's salvation. 5.1. Isaiah

56:9-57:21

There are three major scholarly opinions concerning the literary treatment of Isa 56:9-57:21: 1. All of 56:9-57:21 forms one literary composition. 71

I regard Isa 56:9 as the beginning of a new unit. It should be noted, however, that the MT has a space after 56:9, thus interpreting verse 9 together with the preceding material. This division is adhered to by E. König, Das Buch Jesaja (Gütersloh, 1926), p. 492, who interprets 56:9 in a positive sense: together with the exiles and proselytes, the animals are invited to come to Jerusalem.

5. Isaiah 56-66

37

2. The The a. b.

text is divided into two major blocks: 56:9-57:13 and 57:14-21. literary unity of Isa 57:14-21 is maintained. The original literary unit of 56:9-57:13 is defended. The final form of Isa 56:9-57:13 is defended. The present text is the result of a later redactor who either fused together originally independent oracles or built a framework around one oracle. c. 56:9-57:13 is formed by several independent units. 3. The literary unity of 57:14-21 is rejected.

In this section, I shall argue that 56:9-57:21 is one literary composition which can be subdivided into three subsections 56:9-57:2, 57:3-13 and 57:14-20. The first two address the leadership, while the third, introduced by an imperative directed to these same leaders, continues to be addressed to the leaders while focusing on the whole population. 5.1.1. Isaiah 56:9—57:21 — One continuous literary composition There are good reasons for seeing Isa 56:9-57:21 as one continuous composition, and this view has recently72 been defended by Polan, Steck and Smith against the various claims to divide the text into smaller units. Polan's rhetorical analysis suggests an extended literary unit, showing that Isa 56:9-57:21 divides easily into three sub-sections (56:9-57:2; 57:3-13 and 57:14-21) with numerous links, both textual and semantic, between them.73 Building on Polan's work, Steck's research shows that Isa 56:9-57:21 is part of a larger composition including also 58:1-59:21. These two units are parallel but address different audiences, the former speaking only to the leaders and the latter addressing all of Judah. Thus, 57:1-2 and 3-13 are the continuation of the preceding 56:9-12 and, accordingly, the leadership remains their target. Steck's understanding of 57:14 is significant. He sees the imperatives in this verse as directed towards the leaders of the Judahite society, thus forming a natural link with 56:9-12 (see further below). In contrast with this, the following 57:15ff., while still addressing the leaders, speaks of issues that concern the whole population.74 Most recently, Smith defends the unity of 56:9-57:21, arguing from three different angles - lexicon, structure and content. With regard to 72

Among earlier scholars, see especially C.C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah (New York, 1928), pp. 429-36. 73 G.J. Polan, In the Ways of Justice, A Rhetorical Analysis of Isaiah 56-59 (AUS, Series VII Theology and Religion 13, New York, 1986), pp. 91-172, (with a brief conclusion on pp. 171-72). 74 O.H. Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203, Berlin/ New York, 1991), pp. 16986.

38

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

lexicon, for example, Smith adds to Polan's research by showing how yet more words or expressions are repeated throughout the text, e.g. "|"I7 (56:11; 57:10 and 57:17-18) or the longer i n HJD (56:11; 57:14).75 Furthermore, with regard to structure, Smith demonstrates that the antitheses between the faithful and the wicked in 56:9-57:21 binds the material together.76 Polan's and Smith's rhetorical analysis of Isa 56:9-57:21 is persuasive, even though some of the cited examples are probably due to coincidence rather than forming conscious links between the different parts of the oracle. Similarly, Steck's reading of the text is convincing and can be supported by the content of the text: by understanding 57:14 as a continuation of the preceding material, the leaders are commanded to put right their previous errors by removing the obstacle C7iBoa) which had caused the people to stumble. Therefore, I suggest viewing Isa 56:9-57:21 as one literary composition. 5.1.2. No division between Isaiah 56:9-57:13

and

57:14-21

Not all scholars, however, regard Isa 56:9-57:21 as a literary unity. Instead, many distinguish between 56:9-57:13 and 57:14-21, 77 often citing the following reasons in support: 1. While Isa 57:14-21 shows an affinity with the language and message of Isa 40-55 and Isa 60-62, the preceding 56:9-57:13 shows no such influence. 2. There is a lack of correlation between the condemnation displayed in 56:9-57:13 and the following words of healing and comfort in 57:1421.

3. Isa 57:14-19, understood as a promise of salvation to the whole people, differs from the preceding verses which differentiate between the pious and the wicked.

75

Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 69-71 Smith, Rhetoric, p. 69. This argument is dependent on Hanson's insight that the change between judgement and salvation oracles, rather than being a reason to divide the text, is a characteristic element of the style of Isaiah 56-66 (Dawn of Apocalyptic, pp. 106-7). 77 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 423ff., T.K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London, 1895), pp. 315ff., J. Muilenburg, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66 (IB, Nashville, 1956), pp. 659-61, 670, W.A.M. Beuken, "Isa. 56:9-57:13 - An Example of the Isaianic Legacy of Trito-Isaiah", Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Jörgen C.H. Lebram (eds. J.W. van Henten, H.J. de Jonge, PT. Van Rooden and J.W. Wesselius, Leiden, 1986), pp. 49-50, and J.D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah. A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 4066 (London, 1967), p. 238. 76

J. Isaiah 56-66

39

In response, the text of Isa 57:14-21 undoubtedly shows familiarity with Isa 40-55, and its author may have echoed consciously the style of the earlier text in selected places, yet this in itself is no reason to separate 56:9-57:13 and 14-21. The fact that only the latter verses show similarity with the style of Isa 40-55 may stem from the difference in content between the two sections. Thus, while the words of compassion uttered in 57:14-21 are reminiscent of the sayings of comfort in Isa 40-55, sharing the same topic, the accusations in 56:9-57:13 lack any direct correlative in Isa 40-55 due to the unique situation addressed. With regard to the perceived lack of references in 57:14-21 to the behaviour described in 56:9-57:13, we can see that verses 17-18 show an awareness of previous sins, as the verses state clearly that the actions of the people receiving this answer are not as faultless as desired. Finally, reading Isa 57:14-19 as a promise of salvation to the whole people is an interpretation rather than a fact. In its present context, 57:1421 speaks of the future blessings which will come to the present wicked ones if they change their ways. Verse 18, for example, tells that even though God has seen the [sinful] ways of the people, He is prepared to offer salvation to those willing to humble themselves in remorse for their former sins (cf. Isa 58:6-12; 59:9-21). In conclusion, there is little reason to separate Isa 56:9-57:13 and 57:14-21. 5.1.3. No division between Isaiah 57:2 and 3

Scholars not only distinguish between Isa 56:9-57:13 and 57:14-21, but also divide 56:9-57:13 into smaller sections. Scholars commonly maintain that 56:9-57:2 and 57:3-13 were originally two separate oracles,78 while others regard 57:3-13 as a later addition which never existed independently.79 In addition, 57:1-2 and 13b are also often regarded as redactional.80 Thus, point at stake is whether or not there is an original 78

K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (KHAT, Tübingen, 1900), p. 366, J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Chapters XL-LXVI (CB, Cambridge, 1898, revised 1917), p. 167, K. Pauritsch, Die neue Gemeinde. Gott sammelt Ausgestossene und Arme (Jesaia 56-66) (AnBib 47, Rome, 1971), pp. 52-53, 62-63, Hanson, Dawn, pp. 186-87. 79 E.g., Hanson, Dawn, pp. 186-89, Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 52-53, 62-63. 80 C. Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 40-66 (ATD, Göttingen, 1966), pp. 24142, 255, 257, 259, for example, considers Isa 56:9-57:13 to be a patchwork of originally independent pre-exilic oracles (56:9-12; 57:3-6; 57:7-13a) placed within a post-exilic framework (57:1-2 and 13b), the purpose of which being to adapt the older oracles to post-exilic circumstances. Cf. S. Sekine, Die tritojesajanische Sammlung (Jes 56-66) redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht (BZAW 175, Berlin, 1989), pp. 105-11. For similar theories, see R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCBC, Grand Rapids, 1975), p. 200, and K. Koenen, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (WMANT 62, Tübingen, 1990), p. 58. Similarly, J.

40

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

connection between 57:2 and 57:3. An original connection would support the same target audience throughout the oracle of 56:9-57:21 and vice versa. There is no denying that 57:1-2 and 13b form a framework around the latter part of the oracle. This is, however, by itself not a sign of secondary authorship but may instead have been a tool used by the original author to hold the different parts of the oracle together. 81 Furthermore, the initial waw in anxi (57:3) indicates both a connection as well as a contrast with the preceding material: as it stands, nriNI provides a sharp difference between the behaviour of the pious (vv. 1-2) and those addressed in the following verses 3ff. Making a division between verses 2 and 3 would leave nnxi without a clear point of reference. In conclusion, it is not necessary to divide between Isa 57:2 and 3 and we may therefore assume that the prophet addresses the same group of people throughout Isa 56:957:21. 5.1.4. The integral character of Isaiah 57:5 Instead of dividing between 57:2 and 3, a small number of scholars divide the text into two (pre-exilic) oracles 56:9-57:5 and 57:6-13, owing to the change between a m.pl. (57:3-5a) and a f.sg. (6-13) address. They further suggest that 56:9-12 and 57:3-5 speak to the leaders (pi.) while 57:1-2 and 6ff. are directed towards the population as a whole (sg.).82 Such a division, however, is unwarranted. While it is correct in assigning verse 5 to the preceding material because it begins with a participle (cramn) and is thus dependent on the subject in verse 4,83 positing a division between verses 5 and 6 is foreign to the content of the two verses. Due primarily to the similarity of the content of verses 5-6 which, together with 57:7-8, contain references to places where illicit worship takes place, it is likelier that verse 6 is the natural continuation of verse 5 than the beginning of a new sub-unit. Furthermore, Koenen's proposition may solve the change in address: while 57:3 addresses the

Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe â l'apocalyptique (EBib, Paris, 1978), pp. 458-64, 504-5, 511, 514, suggests that Isa 56:9-12; 57:6—13a; 57:14-15aa and 17-19 were composed before the end of the 6th century, with 57:1-2, 3—4 and 13b being early post-exilic editorial additions. 81 See for example Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 53. Hanson, Dawn, p. 187, who regard Isa 57:1-2 and all of 13 as the necessary contrast between the righteous and the wicked. Hanson argues further that the root ^n: in 13b is a conscious echo of 57:6. 82 P. Volz, Jesaja, II (KAT, Leipzig, 1932), pp. 208-11, followed by Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 106-8. 83 Isa 65:2-3 contains a similar syntactical structure where the participle EPOliDOn in verse 3 hints at the participle aoVnn in verse 2.

5. Isaiah 56-66

41

(metaphoric) sons (m.pl.), the following verses speak to the (equally 84 metaphoric) mother (f.sg.), both belonging to the same community. Lastly, it has also been argued that 57:5 or at least 5b is redactional, made to fit both the preceding and the following text.85 Despite the stereotypical language of 5a, however, 5b contains several unique expressions which testify to its originality. Furthermore, the activities under the trees are contrasted with those under the stones. Therefore, I suggest that 57:5 is the work of either the original author or a very skilful redactor.86 To sum up, the evidence suggests that 57:5 is an integral part of Isa 56:9-57:21. 5.1.5. The textual unity of Isaiah 57:14-21 Turning now to Isa 57:14-21, this text is generally regarded as a continuous textual unit. Challenging this status quo, however, Sekine suggests that the changes between the singular and the plural designations throughout the text testify to the secondary character of 15bb, 18bb-19a, 19ba and 20-21. Sekine proposes, for example, that "he" in 57:17-19 relates to ¡07 and n n - h w in 15ba, and is to be identified with inii in 57:14. In contrast, crtnx in 18bb refers to the plural crtstP m i and

31? in

87

15bb. Sekine's proposal is difficult to accept for two reasons. First, it is difficult to imagine the purpose of these supposedly added plural forms. Secondly, a mixture of singular and plural forms can easily be explained as a sign of style or poetic licence. Isa 57:14, for example, has two singular words (nn-^D© ,i07) and two plural ones (¡riotl 3*7 ,n,17SB' mi), thus forming a varied yet parallel literary construction. Thus Sekine's suggested division of the material must remain conjectural. 5.1.6. The integral character of Isaiah 57:20-21 Isa 57:20-21 are generally considered editorial. Even Hanson, who might be expected to regard them as integral to the oracle in the light of his 84 Koenen, Ethik, p. 41. In addition, Koenen, Ethik, pp. 37-38, suggests three other reasons in favour of maintaining the textual unity of Isa 57:3-13a: 1. The sexual imagery is consistent throughout 57:3-13a. 2. The use of the expressions and 'JR K^n / nnx K^n in verses 4 and 11 supports the presence of an inner framework, holding the material together. The occurrence of the root 7n] in both verses 5 and 6 strengthens the unity of the material 85 Volz, Jesaja, p. 211. 86 Cf. J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament (London, 1984), p. 58, who highlights the fact that the perfect redactor removes, by his own perfection, all evidence of his own existence. 87 Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 112-20.

42

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

theory of judgement-salvation oracles, admits to their secondary character. 88 It is indeed true that verses 20-21 have a different character compared with the preceding material and it is possible that they form a later addition, supplemented by a person who sought to emphasize the fate of the people addressed earlier in 57:3-13a. Alternatively, these verses may be yet another example of the frequent changes between the wicked and the pious, especially if we understand 57:15-19 as a speech to the pious alone. I therefore accept hesitantly the integral character of verses 20-21. 5.1.7.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Isa 56:9-57:21 is best viewed as one literary composition. On the one hand, the similarities in vocabulary as well as in the literary structure of the text support unity. On the other hand, the arguments in favour of a composite text fail to convince. While they highlight contrasting views of the different parts of the material, it is nevertheless preferable to reach a satisfactory understanding of the text as a whole. In the exegetical discussions in the subsequent chapters, I shall therefore treat Isa 56:9-57:21 in the following way: Isa 56:9-57:21 can be divided into three separate yet linked subsections: 56:9-57:2, 57:3-13 and 57:14-21. Isa 57:3 connects with the preceding verse 2 by the initial waw in anifl. Furthermore, 57:14 is the natural bridge between the second and the third sub-unit by still being directed to the leadership. Moreover, I maintain that the continuous switch between the blessed and the accused throughout the oracle is a literary device rather than a sign of composite authorship. This division, together with the actual content of the material which will be addressed in the following chapters, contributes to our understanding of the target audience of each oracle. In this respect, I follow mainly Steck's suggestion (above, 5.1.1.) that the leadership is the chief target. Isa 56:912 and 57:3-13 refer to the leadership in Judah 89 while 57:1-2 speak of a

88

Hanson, Dawn, pp. 106-8, 119 Cf. Th.J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39, Atlanta, 1989), p. 157. It should be noted that my interpretation deviates from that of many scholars, e.g., F. Delitzsch, Das Buch Jesaia (Leipzig, 1889), p. 550, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 664, who argue that nnxi in Isa 57:3 indicates a new audience: while in the preceding verses the leadership were targeted, in 57:3-13 the prophet aims at the whole people, or at least the majority thereof (cf. Marti, Jesaja, pp. 366-67, who claims that the audience consists of the Samarians and those in Judah who had mixed with them). Other scholars, while acknowledging the extended textual unity, nevertheless argue that a broadening of the critique begins in Isa 57:3-13. While the scope of Isa 56:9-57:2 is limited to the leaders, it is widened in the following verses to include others. For example, Hanson, 89

5. Isaiah

56-66

43

group o f people within Judah, represented by the prophet himself. Isa 57:14 is directed to the leaders but concerns the welfare o f the whole people, and the final verses ( 5 7 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) speak about the double fate o f the leadership and the people taken together: those who repent will receive salvation while those who do not will be deprived o f peace. 5.2. Isaiah

58-59

As with Isa 5 6 - 5 7 , the unity o f the following two chapters is under dispute. In this context, we shall concentrate on three issues: the literary unity o f the sub-section Isa 5 8 : 1 - 4 ; a section o f particular relevance for the present study (chapters 4 and 6); the literary unity o f all o f Isa 5 8 - 5 9 ; and finally the literary unity o f the entire Isa 5 6 : 9 - 5 9 : 2 1 . 5.2.1 The literary unity of Isaiah

58:1-4

The inner unity o f the subsection Isa 5 8 : 1 - 4 is often debated, due in part to the less than smooth transfer between verse 1 and 2, and in part to the slight difference in content between verses 2 and 3. In addition, the integral character o f 5 8 : 3 b - 4 has been contested, owing to the perceived difference in defining a true fast between these verses and the following verse 5. Beginning with the transition between verses 1 and 2, after the command to proclaim the sins of the people in verse 1 ( rm^l t w s ^üvb 7D,n • n x a n nplP), one might expect to find the content o f this proclamation. Instead, we find a description of a group o f people seeking God. It is not until Isa 59:2, 12 that the proclamation o f sin comes, as indicated by the author's reusing the words 3WS and nxon. This phenomenon was noted early 90 and has given rise to the view that verse 1 is editorial, functioning as a headline for the following oracle. 91 In this context, Kosmala's interpretation carries weight. He regards the phrase yiv N1? vr^N astral nwy npix-npx 1,i;o in 2baa as non-original, and finds support for his view in a structural comparison o f 58:1 and 2: 1. Verse 2 is disproportionally longer than verse 1. 2. 2baa transforms the original poetic structure into prose.

Dawn, p. 189, argues that while the Zadokite leaders are directly addressed in the first section, their cult is attacked in the latter verses 9 0 J. Fischer, Das Buch Isaias II. Kapitel 40-66 (HSAT, Bonn, 1939), pp. 1 6 5 - 6 6 . 91 Sekine, Sammlung, p. 124, who suggests the reason that a redactor added this verse was in order to combine the faulty fasting described in 3ff. with the issue o f general sin. Cf. Koenen, Ethik, p. 91.

44

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

3. 2a and 2bab-bb contain verbs in the imperative, while 2baa contains verbs in the perfect. Kosmala argues further that the removal of 2baa creates a suitable continuation of verse 1: after the call to repentance, the people are encouraged to seek God daily, (understanding ilKm1 and yixsrp as jussives). In this way, what remains of verse 2 becomes a "sermon", fulfilling the preacher's commission in verse 1. With regard to the initial waw in 58:2, Kosmala sees it as yet another later addition, due both to the difficulty in explaining its function and the fact that neither the LXX nor the Vulgate testifies to an equivalence.92 Kosmala's suggestion certainly creates a smooth reading but does so by way of textual emendations. We need therefore to find an alternative way of relating to the text of Isa 58:1-2 that does not depend on reading it, either in part or in whole, as redactional. As I have suggested elsewhere, 58:1 is linked with both the preceding and the following material by what can be called the watchman theme, introduced in Isa 56:10 and present throughout Isa 56-59. In these verses, the prophet calls the leaders to reassume their role as watchman and to lead their people in justice and righteousness.93 Given this, I suggest that the association with the leadership and their failure to fulfil their function as leaders in 58:1 led the author of Isa 58-59 off at a tangent: influenced by the critique of the leadership found elsewhere in Isa 56-66, the author continued in 58:2ff. to criticize the Judahite leaders in general, focusing on their lack of justice and ill-treatment of the poor, to return to the topic at hand - the watchman's call to repentance - only in 59:1-2. 94 We find a similar literary convention in Zech 7-8 (above): even though 8:18-19 is the natural continuation of 7:1-3, the idea of fasting is continued in the material in between (7:4-6), although in a different fashion. It is also possible that Zech 4 presents a related example, given that the continuation of 4:6aa comes first in 10b and that the intermediate material is only loosely connected to the surrounding text. Next, with regard to the transition between verses 2 and 3, there is a minor difference in content between the two verses which has caused some scholars to argue also in favour of the secondary character of 58:2:95 while 92

H. Kosmala, "Form and Structure of Isaiah 58", Studies, Essays and Reviews, Vol. 1 (Leiden, 1978), pp. 137-39. 93 L.-S. Tiemeyer, "The Watchman Metaphor in Isaiah lvi-lxvi", VT 55(2005), pp. 390-91. 94 There are other connections between 59:1-2 and the preceding 58:2ff., seen primarily by the author's use of the theme of lack of communication between God and His people throughout the material (58:2, 9; 59:2). 95 E.g., Sekine, Sammlung, p. 124, argues that 2bb is a later addition. He finds support for its secondary character in the H.L. combination p7ï 'QBWa (2bb). Having argued that

5. Isaiah 56-66

45

58:2 speaks in general terms about the lack of justice and righteousness, 58:3ff. focus on the particular issue of fasting. Again, however, it is possible to view this perceived discrepancy differently by regarding verse 2 as a summary of the following verses. As such, there is no reason to view verse 2 as a secondary addition but rather to regard it as a sub-heading provided by the author of the oracle as a whole.96 Lastly, some critical scholars question the integral character of Isa 58:3b—4 because of their perceived difference in outlook regarding true fasting.97 There are, however, four compelling reasons for their originality in the present context, as shown by Smith: 1. The promise in 58:9b refers back to 3a and 4b.98 2. 58:3b-4 and 6-14 are held together by their mutual interest in social issues, the former rejecting the present fasting and the latter presenting an ideal fast. 3. 58:3b-4 is not incompatible with 58:5-12 since the issues discussed, i.e. that of fasting and of social justice, are complementary rather than contradictory aspects of the worship of YHWH. 4. The lexicon of 5 8 : 3 b - 4 ( p a n , m i n n , •D'pip) is linked with that of 5 8 : 1 - 2 (lixsrp, m a , t?ip).99

In conclusion, there is little reason to question the internal unity of Isa 58:1-4. Moreover, this passage forms a sub-section of the larger Isa 58:1— 12 (13-14). 5.2.2. The literary unity of Isaiah 58 and 59

Leaving the particular sub-section of Isa 58:1-4 behind, and looking instead at the wider picture, the textual evidence suggests that Isa 58 and 59 are two sub-units that together form one larger, continuous literary

58:3 does not follow smoothly after 2a-ba, Sekine suggests that a redactor utilized the words QSE723 and p i s in 2ba to create a new hybrid expression pis 'USWB in order to facilitate a smoother transfer between verses 2 and 3. Somewhat differently, Koenen argues in Ethik, p. 93 (see also pp. 94-96), noting the more general tone in verse 2 in comparison with verses 3ff., that it forms a (second) editorial headline. According to him, this can be seen by the fact that the words TlplX and OSBO are consciously echoing nxun and ÏWD in 58:1 with the purpose of linking verses 1 and 3ff. together. 96 Cf. Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 103—4, who refutes Koenen's theory. 97 E.g., Westermann, Jesaja, p. 265, Whybray, Isaiah, pp. 211-12, and Vermeylen, Prophète, p. 466. 98 Note that Whybray, Isaiah, p. 212, considers 58:6-9a redactional, something which would render Smith's argument worthless. 99 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 103-4, 108.

46

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

unit.100 Notably, Smith's textual analysis highlights a number of factors supporting the unity of Isa 58-59, among others: 1. The words v m and np\r (58:1b; 59:20) create an inclusio. 2 . Recurring words (TIN, NRRRU, Piel inf. abs. of " Q L , the root Y P N , etc.) mark Isa 58-59 as one distinctive poem. 3. Body imagery in connection with sinful activities characterizes the content of both chapters. 4. The words pis and 0Dtt> function as keywords throughout the text.101 5. The play on the theme of turning/departing, using the roots no, mw/mw and mo. 6. The play on the contrast between -nN/"|tsnn and rftSN/nnnx. In addition to these textual factors, the absence of a complaint in the beginning of chapter 59 suggests that the complaint in 58:3 remains the opening of the oracle.102 Similarly, the charges in chapter 58 function as the necessary prelude to the following lament and subsequent promise of salvation in chapter 59, or, in Schramm's words, Isa 58 describes the way to attain salvation and Isa 59 explains why the people have not yet attained it.103 5.2.3. The literary unity of all of Isaiah 56:9—59:21

Having determined the literary unity of Isa 56:9-57:21, and suggested that Isa 58 and 59 are literary companion pieces, the question arises as to whether it is possible to extend the literary unity to include all of 56:959:21. This idea was first suggested by Polan who argues that Isa 59 brings the whole of Isa 56-59 to a sense of completion.104 His conclusion depends largely, however, upon his view that chapter 59 echoes the vocabulary and themes of 56:1-8. Since it is likelier that 56:1-8, together with 66:18-24, were added much later by another author (below), I suggest the opposite, i.e. that the author of Isa 56:1-8 consciously utilized the vocabulary of Isa 59 in order to create a suitable beginning. Building on Polan's work, Steck makes a convincing case for Isa 56:959:21 originally being an independent collection, with the two larger subsections 56:9-57:21 and 58-59 together forming one literary sequence. 100 This unity was noted early. See, e.g., G.H.A. Ewald, The Prophets of the Old Testament, IV (Edinburgh, 1880), pp. 325-31, who sees these two chapters as a single prophecy of five strophes. 101 Smith argues that these two words refer back to Isa 56:1, a view I do not share (see dating of Isa 56:1-8 in chapter 6). 102 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 99-101. 103 Schramm, Opponents, p. 138. 104 Polan, Ways, pp. 318-19.

5. Isaiah 56-66

47

Steck lists a number of structural parallels in support, among them how both 56:9 and 58:1 use imperatives in their initial speeches, with the subsequent text continuing in 3m.pl. He also lists parallels with regard to the content of the two sub-sections, notably how both 56:10-11; 57:14 and 58:1 contain elements related to the watchman metaphor.105 One potential problem in regarding Isa 56:9-59:21 as an original literary unit is the obvious similarity between Isa 59:15b-20 and 63:1-6. These two texts, owing to their similarity, function as a framework around the earlier 60-62. 106 In assuming that 59:15b-20 is an integral part of 56:9-59:21, we must explain how this longer text is related to the material in Isa 63:1-6. There are two main possibilities: 1. By assuming that 63:1-6 is the later text, it can be either the work of the author of 56:9-59:21, added later in order to provide a suitable frame around 60-62, or the work of a later redactor who, for the same reason, created a companion piece to the earlier 59:15b-20. 2. Alternatively, by dating 63:1-6 earlier than its counter-piece 56:9 59:21, the later author of 56:9-59:21 intended 59:15b-21 as a conscious allusion to 63:1-6. 107 It is difficult to determine which of the two texts is the oldest.108 Even so, I regard tentatively 63:1-6 as the earlier, owing to Whybray's argument that the content of 59:16/63:5 fits better in the context of Isa 63:1-6 than in that of 59:15b-20: in the former, God Himself is the speaker, pictured as a warrior fighting foreign peoples, while the latter depicts the internal struggle in Judah.109 Thus, the evidence suggests that the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 reused the imagery of Isa 63:1-6 with the purpose of creating a framework around the centrepiece 60-62, and also of connecting his own oracles with the earlier literary stratum of Isa 60-62 (and 63:1-6). 5.2.4.

Conclusion

To conclude, in view of both Polan's and Steck's insights, Isa 56:9-59:21 is best divided into two major poems, 56:9-57:21 and 58:1-59:21, which 105

Steck, Studien, pp. 169, 177-78. For a discussion of the similarities between these two texts, see the lists of common vocabulary in the two passages in H. Odeberg, Trito-Isaiah (UUÄ 1, Uppsala, 1931), pp. 210-15, 274-76. See also the discussions in C. R. Mathews, Defending Zion (BZAW 236, Berlin, 1995), p. 80, and F. Holmgren, "Yahweh the Avenger, Isaiah 63:16", Rhetorical Criticism. Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (eds. J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler, Pittsburgh, 1974), p. 147, note 26. 107 Cf. Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 38-44, 123-24, who assigns shared authorship of all of Is. 60:1-63:6. 108 For different view points, see Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 44^47, Volz, Jesaja, p. 263. Cf. Koenen, Ethik, pp. 82-83. 109 Whybray, Isaiah, p. 226. 106

48

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

together form a loosely connected sequence with variations on several themes. One common thread is the critique of the leadership and the upper classes in Judah, expressed in different ways: while 56:9-57:21 focuses upon the religious life in Judah and targets the religious leadership, the two latter chapters attack the social mistreatment of the poor by the more wealthy Judahites. 5.3. Isaiah 65:1-66:17 Isa 65:1-66:17 is the focal point of this section. I shall address three aspects of this text, starting with the textual unity of 66:1-6, since this text has particular bearing on the present study, followed by a discussion of the extended unity of 65:1-66:17 and ending with a brief overview of the arguments favouring the shared authorship of 65:1-66:17 and 56:9-59:21. 5.3.1. The literary unity of Isaiah 66:1—6 Isa 66:1-6 plays a major part in the present study, and my exegesis of this passage depends in part on its literary unity: if these verses form one oracle, then the identity of the two groups of people referred to in this passage is likely to remain constant throughout. There is no consensus concerning the textual division of Isa 66. Instead, a bewildering number of theories have been proposed, the majority of which have a division between verses 4 and 5, while yet other scholars separate 66:2 and 3.110 I shall first address the claims that 66:1-2 and 3-4 stem from different authors and that 66:1-4 is separate from the following verses 5-6, and then discuss the arguments suggesting an extended unity of 66:1-6.

5.3.1.1. Claim: Isaiah 66:1-2 and 3-4 stem from two different authors Several scholars, whilst regarding 66:1-4 as one continuous oracle, nevertheless claim that verses 1-2 bear no relevance to the following two verses. Instead, 66:1-2 is to be considered a haphazard collection of different psalm-words, without a connection to any actual historical 110

There are also other suggestions. Notably, a small number of scholars, e.g. Cheyne, Introduction, pp. 375-76, maintain that verse 5 is the continuation of verse 4 while verse 6 begins the following unit, Fischer, Isaias, pp. 207-13, treats 66:1-7 as one poem, and Volz, Jesaja, p. 291, regards verses 3-6 and 17 as a unity. These suggestions, however, fail to convince. Distinguishing between verses 5 and 6 would leave "God's enemies" in verse 6 without identification, as they are not naturally connected with anything in the following text. Equally doubtful is the suggestion to divide between verses 7 and 8, since throughout verses 7-9 the metaphor of birth is found which should not be split up.

5. Isaiah 56-66

49

setting. In other words, no connection exists between the words about the temple (vv. 1-2) and the subsequent condemnation of the cult (vv. 3-4)."' Given that the cult took place in the temple, however, this claim is difficult to accept. 112 Other scholars chronologically separate 66:1-2 and 3-4, based on the view that only the latter verses reflect the (later) inner-Judahite division.113 This separation, however, is unconvincing, given that the former two verses also refer to such a division: while verse 1 is critical of its audience, verse 2 speaks to the pious. Similarly, verses 5 - 6 contrast the apostates (v:rx ,nrnx) with the pious (nm-1?« m i n n ) . Thus, there are insufficient reasons for dividing verses 2 and 3. Moreover, there is no inherent difficulty in identifying the two groups referred to in verses 1-2 with those mentioned in verses 3-4. Accepting that both verses 1-2 and verses 3 - 4 speak of a polarized society, Koenen nonetheless treats Isa 66:1-4 as an editorial unity, arguing that verses 3-4 are the products of a redactor who sought to link the division in the Judahite society between the pious and the idolaters (Isa 65) with the division between "those who tremble before God's word" and those in favour of the temple building (66:1-2). 114 Koenen cites, among other things, the following reasons in support of this view: 1. Koenen sees a difference between 66:1-2, which states that God does not care about the temple, and 66:3—4 which attacks syncretism within the cult. 115 • It is preferable to view verses 1-2 and 3 - 4 as two couplets forming one unity, both being examples of disobedience to God. As Sekine points out, the person who criticizes the temple in 66:1-2 is a likely candidate also to criticize its cult.116 Furthermore, as I shall argue in greater detail further below, Isa 66:1-2 is not so much a rejection of the building of the temple as much as a focus on the worshipper's humility (v. 2b), in contrast to disobedience (4bb).117 2. Koenen notes the similarity of 66:3-4 with 56:11; 57:3—13a; 57:17; 65:1-7, passages which he assigns to the redactor, and argues that this resemblance points to the redactional character of 66:3-4 as well. 118 In 111

Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 243, 327-28. Cf. Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 198-201. 113 E.g., Volz, Jesaja, pp. 288-89, 291, 196-97, Vermeylen, Prophete, pp. 499-501. 114 Koenen, Ethik, pp. 159, 168-83,183-214 (especially pp. 183, 192): Trito-Isaiahschool (65:16b-24; 66:1-2, 7-9, 10-14a), Redactor (65:1-7, 8-16a; 66:3-4, 5-6, 14b17, 18-22), and Secondary addition (66:23-24). 115 Koenen, Ethik, pp. 187-190. 116 Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 54-55. 117 Cf. Smith, Rhetoric, p. 154 (below). 118 Koenen, Ethik, p. 193. 112

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

50

contrast, Koenen places 58:3-12 and 66:1-2 in the earliest layer of Isa 56-66. 119 • Since Koenen's argument depends completely on his suggested redactional programme of Isa 56-66 as a whole, his argument fails if his programme is not accepted. Hence, given the convincing arguments in favour of common authorship of 65:1-66:17 and 56:9-59:21 (see below), Koenen's argument cannot stand. I agree with Koenen that 58:3-12 and 66:1-2 were written by the same person. Even so, there is an additional link between 58:3—4 and the expression wx mn in 66:3aa in their focus on social justice, thus connecting Isa 58 with all of 66:14. Furthermore, the similarity between 66:3-4 and 56:11; 57:3-13a; 57:17 and 65:1-7 only demands a separation of 66:3-4 from 66:1-2 if one accept their redactional character. 3. Koenen sees the change in address between the second person in verses 1 - 2 and third person in verses 3-4 as yet another sign of separate authorship. 120 • By taking all of 66:1-17 into account, however, we find that the address changes continuously. While it is possible to view every change as an indicator of a new oracle, these changes are better understood as a matter of style, characteristic of the author. Notably, God speaks in the first person throughout chapter 65 and in 66:1-4, while He is referred to in third person in 66:5-6 ('n ^ip ,'n-nm ivniff etc.). Even so, the change is only partial. The words "'»tt' ivn1? ("for the sake of My name") in verse 5 indicate that God remains the speaker but that He refers to Himself as YHWH, 121 and verse 9 attests to the first singular (T^ix T3B7N ^Kn). Additionally, those criticized are first referred to in the second plural (vv. 1-2), by the help of participles (v. 3a) and the third plural (vv. 3b-6). In contrast to Koenen's suggestion, Smith gives four convincing reasons in favour of the unity of 66:1-4: 1. 66:1-4 are built into the framework of 65:1-2, 12, 24 and 66:4, all which contain the theme of God calling. 2. Verse 4b forms a clear antithesis with verse 2bb, with regard to those who do the things that God does not desire versus those who tremble at His word. 3. Verses 2 and 3 lack opening or closing formulae to indicate a break in the text.

119 120 121

Koenen, Ethik, pp. 244-45, 256. Koenen, Ethik, p. 192. Note that the lsg possessive suffix of 'a® is found also in TJ, S, V while the LXX

writes ö v o n a Kupiou.

5. Isaiah 56-66

51

4. It is a stylistic characteristic of these four verses to repeat terms both in and between verses: e.g. verse 1 contains the word twice, verse 2 features and n^N and verses 3-4 both use the word m.' 22 To conclude, the arguments in favour of the unity of 66:1 —4 are more convincing than those supporting a division between 66:1-2 and 3-4. 5.3.1.2. Claim: Isaiah 66:5 is an isolated element Several scholars who support the unity of Isa 66:1-4 nevertheless separate between verses 4 and 5, often regarding verse 5 as an independent unit,123 while treating verse 6 as part of the longer passage 66:6-11. 124 It is, however, doubtful that verse 5 ever existed as an independent oracle. Unless we regard Isa 66: Iff. as a collection of unconnected elements,125 we have to seek to explain why a verse exists in a particular context. Accordingly, we ought to look for an interpretation which can explain each verse in its given context. 5.3.1.3. Claim: Isaiah 66:5-6 is redactional Not only are verses 3-4 suspected of being later additions, but also are verses 5-6 and 17. Notably, Sekine suggests that these verses were added by the later author responsible for Isa 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 in order to change the perspective of the original texts. Given the positive treatment of foreigners in 56:1-8 and 66:18-24, Sekine suggests that 66:5-6 also mirror the same positive attitude. Thus, he interprets verses 5-6 as the critique of a situation where native Israelites reject proselytes, labelling the proselytes as Tim-^K D'nn in an intentional ironical pun on the same term in Ezra 9:4 and 10:3.126 Furthermore, the insertion of verses 5-6 into the present context serves to rectify the future depicted by 66:1-4, 7-14a where the judgment of the nations (vrPN, 14b) is portrayed as a prerequisite for Israel's salvation. Furthermore, the addition of 66:17 transforms the differentiation between Zion and the nations of 66:1-16 into a 122

Smith, Rhetoric, p. 154. E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 483-85, Marti, Jesaja, p. 409, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 329, and Whybray, Isaiah, pp. 282-83. See also Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 201-2, 2 1 1 12, who regards Isa 66:5 as an independent unit dealing with a split in the Judahite society, its Sitz-im-Leben being an occasion of public lament. In his view, its independent character is stressed by the initial imperative, breaking effectively with the preceding material and pointing forward to the following material. Note also Smith, Rhetoric, p. 131, who divides between verses 4 and 5 partly due to the new formula of address in 66:5 123

('n--m is m). 124

Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 202. Cf. Whybray, Isaiah, p. 279. 126 Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 56-61. 125

52

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

differentiation between those within Judah who "tremble before the word of God" (v. 2) and those who are engaged in syncretistic practises (v. 3).127 Sekine's identification of the people "who tremble at God's word" rests, however, on shaky ground. There are no textual links between the proselytes in Isa 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 and the group referred to in 66:2, 5, apart from the word nnati> ("joy" - 56:7; 66:5). Moreover, based on the likelihood that verses 1-2 are best dated around 520 BC (see chapter 3), it is probable that the author of Ezra 9:4 and 10:3 was influenced by our material rather than vice versa. In conclusion, Sekine's interpretation must remain conjectural and the literary unity of Isa 66:1-4 be maintained. 5.3.1.4. Response:

The extended textual unity of Isaiah

66:1-6

Lastly, there are reasons to extend the literary unity beyond Isa 66:1-4 to encompass also verses 5-6. Most importantly, Webster128 detects the following a-b-c-c'-b'-a' pattern in 66:1-6 which suggests it is one extended, and carefully thought-out, literary composition: v. 1 v. 2 v. 3

'nrrua mpa ,iT2 '-im-1?» n m nxsn DWS3 [...] nnn-m

V. 6 v. 5 v. 4

^STia [...] Tin mi-Vs? amnn n m 'nson-x1? -ramm [...] i r m 'jx-rn

In two cases, (vv. 2, 5 and 3, 4), the parallelism is both conceptual and semantic, while in one case (vv. 1, 6), it is only conceptual: the idea of the temple is present in both verse 1 and verse 6, although without lexical overlap. Thus, with these parallels in mind, removing verses 5-6 would unbalance the text. In addition to the rhetorical factors, the content of 66:1-6 forms a logical unity. As Smart highlights, the reference to those who refuse to respond to God's commands (v. 4) is naturally followed by a message to those who do respond (v. 5).129 In view of this, the content of verse 5 connects with the preceding material. The two groups of people are first introduced in verses 1-2. The apostates are mentioned subsequently in verses 3-4, as people who do not heed God's call, while the pious, referred 127

Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 61-64. E.C. Webster, "A Rhetorical Study of Isaiah 66", JSOT 34 (1986), pp. 93-108. He is followed by W.A.M. Beuken, "Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple? An Intertexual Inquiry into Isa. 66.1-6", Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma, Kamplen, 1989), pp. 53-66, esp. p. 60. More recently, J. Goldenstein, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte. Jesaja 63,7 - 64,11 im Jesajabuch (WBANT 92, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2001), pp. 216ff., B.S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL, Louisville, Kentucky, 2001), pp. 539-41, and J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66 (AB 19B, New York, 2003), pp. 290-301, relate to Isa 66:1-6 as a literary unity. 129 Smart, History and Theology, p. 288. 128

5. Isaiah 56-66

53

to as those who tremble at God's words, are described in verse 5. Lastly, verse 6 concludes the section by promising future rectification to those pious. In the light of these considerations, I conclude that Isa 66:1-6 is a carefully thought-out literary composition, forming a sub-unit within the larger context of Isa 65:1-66:17. 5.3.2. The textual unity of Isaiah 65:1-66:17 The next issue to be determined is the length of the larger unit. Similarly to the situation in Isa 56:9-59:21, a consensus is lacking regarding the literary unity of 65:l-66:14/16/17/24. 130 While some scholars divide these two chapters into several independent oracles,131 others distinguish between different textual layers, thus separating oracles of salvation and oracles of judgment, 132 the former uttered before any division of the Judahite society had taken place while the latter, stemming from a later date, address the apostates in the divided community.133 As discussed above, however, such a division is doubtful in view of Hanson's theory that the shift between salvation and judgment words is a consistent characteristic of Isa 5 6-66. 134 Hence, it is preferable to view the two different kinds of oracles as contemporary with one another but addressing different sectors of the society: the oracles of salvation speak only the prophet's followers while those of judgement target his opponents. In this section, we shall briefly address three aspects of the literary unity of Isa 65-66 that are of particular significance for the present study: the textual unity of Isa 65; the continuity between chapters 65 and 66: Iff.; and the textual unity of all of Isa 65:1-66:17. 5.3.2.1. The textual unity of Isaiah 65 Beginning with the case of Isa 65, there are convincing arguments in favour of its inner unity, as suggested by Hanson:

130 The beginning of the last oracle in Isaiah is a matter under dispute. Each scholar defines the end of the oracle differently, which, when quoted in the following material, should be understood as referring to that exegete only. See also further, chapter 7. 131 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 474-90, Marti, Jesaja , pp. 400-14. 132 Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 237-46, Vermeylen, Prophète, pp. 492-503, Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 43-65, 165-78, Koenen, Ethik, pp. 159, 168-83, 183-214. 133 E.g., Sekine, who argues that Isa 65:16b-23, 25; 66:7-16 speak to the whole community, while Koenen argues that Isa 65:16b-24 and 66:1-2, 7-14a address an early undivided society. 134 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 161-63. See also pp. 134-35 where Hanson convincingly defends the inner unity of Isa 65.

54

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

1. 65:1-2 and 10 form an inclusio, bound together by the motif of "seeking". 2. 65:10, 11 connect the first and the second sections of the text by the contrast between those who seek God and those who have abandoned Him, and by the shared motif of God's mountain (65:9, 11). 3. The theme of "calling" is attested throughout the chapter (65:1-2, 10, 12 and 24).135 4. God is consistently speaking in lsg. 136 Thus, it is unwarranted to divide Isa 65 into smaller units. 5.3.2.2. Isaiah 66: I f f . is the original continuation

of Isaiah 65

There are good reasons to assume that the textual unit extends beyond chapter 65. Notably, Smith argues in favour of an extended unit in 65:1— 66:17, to be divided into two sub-sections (65:1-66:4 and 66:5-17), 137 giving five reasons why Isa 66:1-4 is the original continuation of Isa 65: 1. 66:4 fits well into the framework of 65:1-2, 12, 24.138 2. The stylistic trait of "lists" found in 65:3-5, 13-14 and 19-23 is attested in 66:3. 3. The theme of "heaven and earth" connects 65:17 with 66:1. 4. Contrasting contexts of salvation and judgment use shared kinds of vocabulary: a. 65:25 contains lirr vb ("they shall not do evil") while the description of the people in 66:4 uses the expression inn wwi ("and they did evil"). b. 65:21-22 promise the pious that they can build houses (DTQ 1331), in contrast to 66:1 which refers to the building of God's house ( ' V - m n -ie>x mn).

c. The pious are blessed by God (nnn 'n 'DTD mr) in 65:23 while the person in 66:3 blesses an idol (px "pna).139 5. A loose ring structure between 65:1-7 and 66:3 exists, owing to the references to illicit cultic practices in both texts.140 135 It should be noted that the similarity between verses 1 and 24 caused Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 173, to view these two verses as an editorial framework around 6 5 : 2 23. Thus, the same feature can be used to prove two opposite cases: either the original author used it as a literary tool to indicate the unity of the material or a later redactor added it to support his understanding of the extent of the literary unit in front of him. 136 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 134-35. 137 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 129-31. 138 This was noted already by Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 624. For shared vocabulary between Isa 66:4 and the other verses, see, e.g., the phrase linn Tixsn-K1? "IffiiOl (66:4) which echoes the similar expression a m m 'nssn-sV "itz/tai in Isa 65:12. 139 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 154-55. 140 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 129-31.

55

5. Isaiah 56-66

Taking one step further, Steck argues for the longer textual unity of all of Isa 65-66. According to him, this extended textual unit forms a double answer to the lament in 63:7-64:11, where 65:1-7, 8-25 and 66:1-4 address the sinners and 66:5-24 the pious (cf. further below).141 Smith's suggestion that 66:1-4 is part of the longer textual unit begun in 65 is compelling. Even so, as I argued above, there are good reasons to extend the literary unit further to include the whole of 66:1-6. With regard to Steck's proposition, I agree that 65:Iff. form a mixed response to the preceding lament (see chapter 4), but, as I shall discuss further below, it is unlikely that 66:18-24 is included in this answer. Other scholars are more hesitant towards seeing Isa 66:Iff. as the intended continuation of chapter 65. Notably, Beuken suggests that 66:1 is a redactional addition to chapter 65, the purpose of which is to serve as its mirror image: • In Isa 65:11, God promises judgment for those who abandon Him ('an? 'n), while in 66:2, God promises to care for the contrite in spirit ( D,3K nrr-1?!? ™ mi-nan ^y-bii). • Isa 65:25 and 66:1 are "related contrapunctally": the servants will live in peace on God's holy mountain (65:25) while God's presence in His temple will begin His retribution of the wicked (66:1, 4, 6). Beuken's reason for regarding this connection as redactional is the perceived absence in Isa 65 of a direct address to the faithful and of the certainty of the coming judgment. Furthermore, Beuken states that 66:1-6 sound like the answer to a complaint of the oppressed "for whom ch. 65 was a very distant vision".142 Beuken's suggestion fails to convince, however. While a contrast between 65:25 and 66:1 can be detected, it is difficult to regard 66:2 as a response to 65:11 since the two verses have no shared vocabulary. Furthermore, there is little support for assuming that 66:1-6 was added by a redactor as a result of his feelings towards the unfinished state of chapter 65. Instead, it is more plausible that 66:1-6 was originally intended as the continuation of 65. 5.3.2.3. Isaiah 65:1-66:17

as one extended literary

unity

There is also support for an even longer literary context including all of Isa 65:1-66:17. Hanson, for example, on the basis of his recognition of the rapid change between judgment and salvation oracles as a characteristic of the writing found in chapters 58-59 and 65, argues persuasively that this 141 142

Steck, Studien, pp. 221-25. Beuken, "Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple?", p. 64.

56

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

very feature is present also in 66:1-16, a section which he views as a textual unity. In other words, the switch between words of judgment (1-4, 5b-6, 14bb-16) and words of salvation (5a [directed to the recipients of salvation], 7-14a) should be viewed as a sign of unity rather than of discord.143 In view of these arguments, an extended literary composition convinces. Lastly, Isa 66:17 remains to be discussed. Many scholars treat this verse as an independent unit without connection either to the verses preceding or those following. Owing to its seemingly unattached character, one proposed solution has been to move it to another context.144 Alternatively, it has been treated as an isolated fragment,145 or a redactional link serving to facilitate the transition between verses 16 and 18.146 Yet other scholars see it as a redactional attempt to reinterpret the preceding material.147 More recent scholars, however, question an independent or redactional character of verse 17.148 Notably, Smith argues that it plays a "vital role in the outline of the major poem in chapters 65-66, and thus in the structure of these two chapters." Hence, verse 17 concludes the preceding oracle, its allusions to 65:3-5 marking intentionally the outer borders around the oracle, and the final 'n DXJ in 66:17b brings the whole oracle to a conclusion.149 Thus, while it cannot be proven that verse 17 was the original final verse of 65:1-66:16. Nonetheless, the link between verse 17 and the previous 65:3-5 suggests that either the original author or a later redactor regarded the material in between as a single extended composition. 5.3.3. The relationship

between Isaiah 56:9-59:21

and

65:1-66:17

Finally, we need to determine the relationship between Isa 65:1-66:17 and the other material in Isa 56-66. In this respect, Smith makes a strong case for one author being responsible for 56:1-59:21 and 65:1-66:17, providing a large number of reasons supporting common authorship. There are, for 143 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 162-63. See also Muilenburg, Isaiah, pp. 757-60. In contrast to them, W.A.M. Beuken, "Isaiah Chapters LXV-LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah", Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 43, Leiden, 1991), pp. 204-21, extends the unity only to 66:14. 144 E.g., Volz, Jesaja, p. 291, who, due to its similarity with 66:3-4, inserts it after 66:4. See also Westermann, Jesaja, p. 335, who sees it as an expansion of Is. 65:3b-5 and 7. 145 Whybray, Isaiah p. 288. 146 Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 769. 147 E.g., Sekine, Sammlung, p. 55 (see above), Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 205, Koenen, Ethik, p. 196, and Vermeylen, Prophete, pp. 500, 514. 148 Schramm, Opponents, p. 171. 149 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 130-31.

5. Isaiah 56-66

57

example, strong similarities, both lexical and thematic, between 56:959:21 and 65:1-66:17, which speak in favour of shared authorship. For instance, the theme of God's calling (65:1-2, 12, 24 and 66:4), a joining factor in 65:1-66:17 (cf. above), is attested also in 58:9; 59:1 (cf. also 64:7). Additionally, there is a certain similarity between 66:3 ( nrrxipm nxsn a m i ) and 58:2 (llX£>rr ' a n nsni), and the use of the root Em in 65:1 brings 58:2 to mind.150 Thus, in view of Smith's arguments, I accept his view with the exception of Smith's inclusion of 56:1-8 (see below), which, by his own admission, might have been added at a later stage. Given the likelihood that one author penned all of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17, it is also plausible that the people addressed and the issues in these two texts are similar. With particular regard to the prophet's target audience, I suggest that the persons addressed throughout this material remain the same, although the particular group in focus varies from subsection to sub-section: Isa 56:9-57:21 concentrates on the leadership in Judah, while chapters 58-59 aim at a larger group of influential Judahites. Similarly, some verses in 65:1-66:17 refer only to the leadership, while others address the population as a whole. 5.4. Isaiah

63:7-64:11

Isa 63:7-64:11 consists of a lament. In this section, I shall address four main questions: 1. Is the lament a literary unity or not? 2. What is the Sitz-im-Leben of the lament? 3. What is the relationship between the lament and the surrounding Isaianic material? a. Is Isa 65:1-66:17 written with the preceding lament in mind or is the juxtaposition of the two texts fused together secondary? b. Does 65:1-66:17 respond positively or negatively to the preceding lament? 4. What is the place of 63:7-64:11 in the book of Isaiah as a whole? 5.4.1. The literary unity of Isaiah 63:7—64:11

Even though the majority of critical scholars regard 63:7-64:11 as a literary unit,151 a small number of scholars argue in favour of textual layers (e.g., Pauritsch, Sekine and Veijola). Pauritsch divides the text into four different textual strata based on the unique vocabulary and themes of 150

Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 173-86. It has been defended recently by I. Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7-64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung (SBB 19, Stuttgart, 1989), 73-75. See also Goldenstein, Gebet der Gottesknechte, pp. 10-16. 151

58

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

each,152 while Sekine, building on Pauritsch's work, suggests that Pauritsch's proposed first and third layers form one larger textual stratum.153 Coming from a different perspective, Veijola regards 63:7-14 as the original part of the prayer, an independent Geschichtspsalm, which at a later stage was supplemented by 63:15-64:4a (Bitte), a confession (64:4b-6), an exclamation of the surety of the coming salvation (64:7, Bekenntnis der Zuversicht), and lastly a second Bitte (64:8-11). 154 In response to Veijola, it is doubtful whether one should assign separate dates to different parts of an oracle merely because of their content: a longer prayer naturally contains a variety of components, each highlighting a different aspect of concern. In the case of Pauritsch's and Sekine's suggested redactional history of Isa 63:7-64:11, there are few, if any, contradictions in the text which necessitate a division into separate literary strands for reaching a coherent picture. Furthermore, the fact that both Pauritsch and Sekine detect uniting themes within each of the layers such as distinct vocabulary and repetition of morphological and syntactical constructions does not present reasons to divide the text into different units but rather points to a well thought out structure of the poem as a whole. In view of this, I shall presuppose the unity of Isa 63:7-64:11 in all subsequent discussions. 5.4.2. The Sitz-im-Leben of Isaiah 63:7-64:11 Did Isa 63:7-64:11 originate in response to a particular event or is it best understood as a liturgical lament, performed on a regular basis? Most scholars tend towards the latter opinion, regarding 63:7—64:11 as a liturgical lament, uttered on specific occasions.155 This claim is supported by the many parallels with the psalms of lament preserved in the Psalter: • Ps 44:8-9, 17-18 proclaim the faithfulness of the speakers (// Isa 64:45) • Ps 89:26 declares God's fatherhood (// Isa 63:16) • Ps 89:46 questions how long the Lord will hide himself (// Isa 64:6).

152

Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 151-59, 170-71: 1. 63:llb-14a, 15-19a 2. 64:4b-8 3. 63:19b-64:4a, 9-11 4. 63:7-1 la, 14b 153 Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 151-64. 154 y Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise. Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms (STt. Sarja B 220, Helsinki, 1982), pp. 126-27. 155 E.g., Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 729.

5. Isaiah 56-66

59

•

Pss 77:15-20; 106:7ff. contain accounts of God's deeds in history (// Isa 63:8-14). 156 In view of this, even though there are few precise parallel, a liturgical use of the lament in Isa 63:7-64:11 seems likely. A much smaller number of exegetes regard Isa 63:7-64:11 as the unique response to a particular event. The latter view depends mainly on the expression UT'D1 xh ^iOttH TOT k1? nn-ON ("Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us") in 63:16, understood as an allusion to a split in the Judahite society. Notably, Browne proposes that the lament was composed by a Samarian prophet expressing his disappointment at being excluded from the building of the temple by the returned exiles. He understands "Abraham" and "Jacob" as references to the patriarchs in their function as representatives of the Israelite race (cf. Mic 7:20), whose descendants now reject the Samarians. In his view, the expression XlpJ-K1? •rp^y law ("they were not called by your name") in 19a is a reference to the Samarians who are now like heathens, and the plural expressions ("your holy cities", 64:9) and in^m ^ntz? ("the tribes of your inheritance", 63:17) refer to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and to the northern cities Bethel and Samaria.157 Following in the same tradition, Hanson sees Isa 63:7-64:11 as the response of the Levites and the native Judahite population towards the exilic/Zadokite take-over of the temple under the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel. In his view, "Abraham" and "Israel" (63:16) symbolize the central Judahite community led by the exilic leaders and legitimized by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.158 Browne's theory is by now almost forgotten. Its strength is that is seeks to understand the many difficult statements within Isa 63:7-64:11. Its weakness is that it depends too much on the conflict between the people who remained in the land and those who returned from the exile as described in Ezra 4:1-5, a conflict that is not attested by the more contemporary Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 and may therefore be a later issue, projected onto the earlier period by the author of Ezra 1-6. In 156 Volz, Jesaja, p. 269 (Pss 89:2; 145:7; 51:2 and 106:45). See also Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 306-7 (Lamentations, Pss 44 and 89), Vermeylen, Prophète, p. 491 (Pss 44; 74; 79 and 89), Odeberg, Trito-Isaiah, pp. 18-19 (Pss 44; 66; 68; 78; 89; 105; 106 and 107), and Williamson, "Isaiah 63,7-64,11", p. 56 (Ps 106). 157 L.E. Browne, Early Judaism (Cambridge, 1929), pp. 70-86. Cf. Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 164, and J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC, Waco, Texas, 1987), pp. 33334, the latter dating this material to the 5th century BC, and arguing that the speakers are the people of the land who were excluded from cooperation and marriage with the people of "Israel". 158 Hanson, Dawn, p. 93.

60

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

contrast to Browne's interpretation, many scholars are aware of and often criticize Hanson's theory. Concerning Hanson's understanding of the names "Abraham" and "Israel", for example, Williamson stresses the unlikelihood that a group of Levites would have given up the name "Israel" to their opponents (63:16). Rather, we would have expected them to keep this name for themselves, thus defining themselves as "the true Israel" rather than their opponents.159 Hence, it is unlikely that the references to Abraham and Israel in 63:16 bear witness to a division in the Judahite society. As such, Isa 63:16 contributes little to our understanding of the Sitz-im-Leben of Isa 63:7-64:11. Taking both these approaches into account, there is little evidence that a specific event, apart from the past destruction of Jerusalem, and the general unsatisfactory situation in Judah in the subsequent years, triggered this lament. In view of this lack of supporting evidence, together with our scant knowledge of the time in Judah during the exile, it is less conjectural and thus preferable to regard this lament as uttered regularly over a number of years in times of particular hardship. It follows that it is unlikely that the lament recorded in Isa 63:7-64:11 was purpose-written for Isa 56-66. Instead, it is likelier that the lament was an originally independent lament that at one point was incorporated into the Isaianic text. 5.4.3. The relationship between Isaiah 63:7-64:11 and Isaiah 65:1—66:17 Even though Isa 63:7-64:11 was originally an independent lament, however, it is now incorporated into Isa 56-66, presumably in order to fill a function. The question is: what function? In other words, what is its relationship with the surrounding material? 5.4.3.1. Two independent texts or one text written to respond to the other? To begin with, it is, of course, possible that the lament does not interact with the surrounding material. Thus, several scholars view Isa 63:7-64:11 as an independent piece of literature which should be interpreted separately from the following material.160 This view is based primarily on two assumptions: • First, there is a perceived discrepancy between those lamenting on the one hand, and those committing the idolatrous acts described in the following material on the other: how can the people who in 64:8 159

Williamson, "Isaiah 63,7-64,11", pp. 53-54. E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, p. 474, J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Chapters XL-LXVI (CB, Cambridge, 1898, revised 1917), p. 230, Volz, Jesaja, p. 281, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 266. 160

J. Isaiah 56-66

61

exclaim that they are all God's people be included among those who participate in rites such as the ones described in 65:3ff? 161 This, however, is not a problem. As we shall see, especially in chapter 4, many who considered themselves righteous were accused of wrongdoings they were unaware of having committed. • Secondly, it is commonly assumed that the lament in 63:7-64:11 merits a positive response. If a lament could be responded to only positively, the content of 65:1— 66:17 would certainly be incongruous. Allowing, however, for the possibility that a lament can receive a negative answer, this discrepancy disappears. In fact, looking closely at 65:1-66:17, we find that the response is mixed, dividing the people into two groups: the sinners and God's chosen. Hence, the possibility that the people responsible for the lament should be counted mainly among the former rather than among the latter cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, nothing prevents us from looking for a connection between the lament and the following material. On the contrary, as we shall see shortly, the textual links between the lament and 65:1-66:17 warrant the conclusion that the juxtaposition of the two texts creates a larger whole. If there is a relationship between the lament and the following material, the question remains as to whether that connection is primary or secondary, i.e. whether 65:1-66:17 was composed especially to fit 63:764:11, or whether 63:7-64:11 and 65:1-66:17 are two independent texts, placed in conjunction with each other in order to create the impression of lament and response. While some scholars suggest the latter option, 162 there is more support for the former. In this regard, Steck lists an impressive number of lexical, stylistic and structural links between the two texts, among others: 1. 65:8-10 is the answer to the plea in 63:17b, indicated by the use of the expression l^n1? (63:17b; 65:8). The response focuses on the promise of heirs and possession of land. 2. 65:1-7 is the corrective response to the complaint in 63:15-17a. The lamenting people blame God for the lack of communication, when in fact they themselves are responsible. This link is strengthened by the word IT? (63:17a; 65:2). 3. 63:18 is linked with 65:11-12, the latter passage making clear that the sinners are the actual desecraters of the temple. The root ttHp is the connecting element (63:18; 65:11).

161

Ski nner, Isaiah, p. 230. E.g., Hanson, Dawn, p. 134, who argues that Isa 65 was fused secondarily with 63:7-64:11 into one literary composition. 162

62

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

4. 65:13-16 answers 63:19a, speaking about God's lordship over sinners and the pious. The lexical link is the verb X"ip> (63:19a; 65:15). 5. 63:19b—64:3 is linked with 65:17—18a with its future vision of a theophany. The word tratff is used in 63:19b and 65:17, combined with the root nwi? (64:2, 3) which is taken up semantically in the root X~a in the answer (65:7). 6. There is a reversal of anger to joy in 64:4 with 65:18b-19, supported by the lexical connection of the root ttntP (64:4; 65:18; cf. 66:10). 7. The motif of death which awaits the pious in 64:5-7 is reversed in 65:20-23. 8. The promise of the ideal creation, as described in 65:24, may be understood as the fulfilment of the plea in 64:8. 9. 66:1-4 is the corrective answer to the question raised in 64:10 concerning the temple. 10. 66:5-6 alludes to the 'enemy' theme in 63:19b-64:2. The enemies' end, called for in the plea, is carried out in the response; and their coming judgement is further explored in 66:14b-24. Fire imagery plays an important role in both passages (64:1; 66:15, 24). 11. 66:7-11 may correspond to 64:3-6 in that Jerusalem will give birth to the new people of God. 12. The lack of God's care lamented in 64:7 is answered in 66:12-13 with the promise that God will care for His people like a mother. 13. God's anger, which is experienced by the lamenting people (64:8), is divided between the pious and the apostates in 66:14.163 In view of Steck's arguments, showing the considerable amount of coherence between the lament and its response, it is unlikely that 65:166:17 was composed independently of the lament in 63:7-64:11. In spite of this, Steck's interpretation has been challenged. Recently, Goldenstein claims that the dual aspect of the answer is not fully explained by Steck's interpretation. Instead, he proposes a step-by-step development where the original positive response, directed to the whole people (65:1-7, 16b-25), is subsequently enlarged to allow for a differentiation between the sinners and the chosen ones (65:8-16a; 66:1-6). In an even later addition, the chosen ones are identified with the children of Zion (66:7-15, 17).164 Goldenstein's proposition is, however, doubtful in view of our earlier conclusion that 65:1-66:17 is a literary unity. In addition, the passages 163 Steck, Studien, pp. 221-24. A middle position is held by Koenen, Ethik, pp. 159, 168, 183 (summaries), pp. 252-56 (translation), who regards 63:7-64:11 as an older text which was inserted into the present context by a redactor who also created the response, mixing his own material (Isa 65:1-7, 8-16a) with an older text (65:16b-24). 164 Goldenstein, Gebet der Gottesknechte, pp. 207-28.

5. Isaiah 56-66

63

which, according to Goldenstein, presuppose an undivided people may in fact refer to the pious only, as was argued in the case of Isa 57:14-20 (above). Thus, the evidence suggests that Isa 65:1-66:17 was composed with the preceding lament in mind. 5.4.3.2. A positive or a negative response? Having concluded that Isa 65:1-66:17 forms the purpose-written response to the lament in 63:7-64:11, the next question concerns the nature of this response: are the people speaking in 63:7-64:11 given a positive or a negative response, or, phrased differently, did the author of 65:1-66:17 regard the people responsible for the lament in 63:7-64:11 to come chiefly from among the chosen ones or to belong with the sinners? 5.4.3.2.1. The lamenting people are among the pious Most scholars identify the people responsible for the lament with the chosen ones.165 This identification depends partly on the assumption that God is expected always to respond to the needs of His people if they turn to Him. The idea that Isa 65:1-66:17 forms a negative response to the preceding lament is therefore problematic, particularly if we take into account the claim of the response itself (65:24) that God listens even before His people call. The people speaking in 63:7-64:11 are crying out to God, in contrast to the people described in 65:1 who do not seek Him.166 Furthermore, God is often described as averting a just punishment because of repentance (e.g., Jonah 3-4). In fact, the only way to regard Isa 65:166:17 as a negative response is by assuming that, from the point of view of the author of Isa 65:1-66:17, either the confession was not followed by repentance, or it was not a true confession. As shall become apparent later (chapter 4), the latter seems to be the case: while the sincerity of the lamenting people is not in doubt, they place the blame for their current situation on God, and there are few if any hints of an actual sin confessed. In addition, the lament itself may also testify to cultic activities which in general were unacceptable to orthodox worshippers of YHWH. The mention of Abraham and Israel in 63:16, for example, can easily be a reference to ancestral worship, based on a comparison with 65:4 (D'-Dpn crown),167 and further supported by Isa 57:6 ("IP^n Vm-Vm) which probably alludes to a cult of the dead (see chapter 165

E.g., Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 750, W.A.M. Beuken, "The Main Theme of TritoIsaiah 'The Servants of YHWH'", JSOTA1 (1990), pp. 75-77. 166 Repointing Kip to an active participle - see further chapter 7. 167 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, p. 469, Cheyne, Introduction, pp. 352-53, Skinner, Isaiah, p. 224.

64

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

7). Thus, the people lamenting seem to have had no awareness that such worship was understood by others to be abhorrent in the eyes of God. Hence, according to the author of the response in 65:1-66:17, as long as such activities were carried out, no true repentance could exist. A comparison with Isa 59:1-2 may also contribute to our understanding of this apparent contradiction between a negative response and God's desire to respond. These two verses focus on God's willingness to communicate and His people's lack of response. There, the sins of the people are described as actively separating the people and God. I suggest that the same reason is envisioned to exist also in Isa 65:1-2: the sins highlighted in 63:16 serve to explain God's lack of response to those lamenting in 63:7-64:11. 5.4.3.2.2.

The lamenting people are among the sinners

An alternative view has gained ground within recent scholarship with the argument that Isa 65:1-66:17 is the negative response to the lamenting people. Earlier, only Kissane advocated this interpretative line, regarding 65:1-7 as the negative answer to the preceding lament: before He intervenes, God will initially ( i w x i ) deal out the punishment. Afterwards, God will spare a remnant of the people, i.e. those who have truly repented, and they will be called His chosen ones. Thus, the terms , T m and in 65:8ff. indicate repenting apostates, in contrast to those who, despite the punishment, did not repent.168 More recently, Koenen has questioned the assumption that a lament must be answered by an oracle of salvation. Noting the many echoes of 63:7-64:11 in chapter 65, he suggests that they should be interpreted as contrasting elements. As an example, he points out that the root HE>n ("to be silent") is found both in the exclamation in 64:11 and in the answer in 65:6. As such, the complaint concerning God's silence in 64:11 ( ncwn 1333?m) is answered with a rejection: "No, I shall not remain silent ( X1? nwrm) but I shall punish those who commit iniquities".169 Similarly, Schramm states that "the primary function of 65:1-25 is to attack the fundamental presupposition of the speaker of the lament, the assertion that u'jd "i»y [...] ("we are all Your people"). To this assertion 65:1-25 responds by saying, 'No, you are not!'" Thus, for Schramm, the message of the later

168

E.J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, 2 (Dublin, 1943), pp. 289, 304. Cf. Steck, Studien, p. 221, who views Isa 65-66 as an answer which seeks to put straight, to correct and to widen the perspective of the preceding lament. It clarifies that salvation is not for the whole people but merely for the much smaller circle of the pious. 169 Koenen, Ethik, pp. 159-68.

5. Isaiah 56-66

65

text is critical of the claims made in the preceding lament. The people's assumption is wrong: they are no longer God's servants.170 In conclusion, the arguments in favour of regarding Isa 65:1-66:17 as a negative response to the preceding lament have much to commend them; while the supposition that God must respond positively to a lament has little support. 5.4.3.3. The place of Isaiah 63:7-64:11 in the book of Isaiah Having concluded that Isa 65:1-66:17 responds negatively to the lpl. lament in 63:7-64:11, we need to consider the reasons for the actual inclusion of the lament in Isaiah given that most of the people responsible for it are regarded as sinners by the later author of Isa 65:1-66:17. That is to say, why did an author incorporate into his own text sayings of people with whom he disagreed? The book of Job is germane to this point. The speeches of Job's friends are recorded in the first person, even though it is unlikely that their opinions represent that of the book as a whole. I suggest therefore that the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 habitually used sayings attributed to the target community as a stylistic tool. We have several examples of this habit: he cites their drinking song (56:12), their complaint concerning the lack of response to their fasting (58:3), a prayer of repentance, possibly to be assigned to the same group of people (59:9-15), their claim to holiness (65:5), and lastly, their taunt of the group around the prophet (66:5). Outside the book of Isaiah, the dialogue between the prophet and the priests in the book of Malachi can likewise be understood as an example where a prophet cites his opponents' words. Hence, even though 63:7-64:11 is undoubtedly a much longer section, I suggest that the author of the later response included a liturgical lament, part of the normative cult, in order to establish his point: this is what my opponents say and this is how I respond to it. 5.4.3.4. Conclusion To conclude, the evidence suggests that Isa 63:7-64:11 was originally an independent lament that at one point became incorporated by the later author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and furnished with a negative response (65:1— 66:17). This later author disagreed with the sentiments expressed in the lament, but used it as a platform for his own message of condemnation for the majority of his contemporaries.

170

Schramm, Opponents, pp. 154-55. Cf. Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 132, 140.

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

66 5.5. Isaiah

60-62

In the present section, I shall begin with a brief overview of the arguments in favour of the internal unity of Isa 60-62. Next, I shall demonstrate that the verses of particular significance to the present work (60:7, 10; 61:5-6, see chapter 14; 61:8, see chapter 10171) are all to be considered original rather than later editorial additions or glossae. Since most scholars accept the originality of these verses, my discussion will involve only those exegetes who either question this originality or defend it against a contrary claim. 5.5.1. The unity of Isaiah 60-62 Beginning with the question of the unity or the diversity of Isa 60-62, there has been a gradual shift in the focus of scholarly research. One of the major concerns among early scholars was the chronological and literary sequence of the three chapters,172 while more recent scholarship has focused on the inner unity of the separate chapters.173 With regard to the literary unity or disunity of Isa 60-62 in its entirety, Pauritsch174 and Vermeylen 175 devise redactional schemes to account for the, in their view, multi-layered final product,176 whereas Smith traces the use of themes and key-words throughout all three chapters, seeking to prove their textual unity. Smith's results are compelling, as he finds six aspects common to all three177 chapters:

171 Koenen, Ethik, pp. 115-18, questions the originality of all of 61:7-9, but reaches no certain conclusion. Until more convincing arguments in favour of a redactional character of 61:8 appear, I will surmise that it is original in its present context. 172 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 419, 454, Cheyne, Introduction, pp. 337, 341, Marti, Jesaja, p. 385, Volz, Jesaja, p. 239. This concern has more recently been addressed by Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 221-22 who argues for an original sequence of Isa 61:1-9 (Isa 60:10 being a later gloss), 11; 62:1-9; 60:1-22, with Isa 62:10 functioning as a link between 61:11 and 60:1. This original order was later distorted by a redactor. This scheme has, however, been criticized by Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 80-84, 10, who points out that Pauritsch's scheme merely moves the responsibility from the author to an assumed redactor. Instead, he regards the current verse order as chronological, where Isa 61:1-3, rather than being the beginning of the prophet's message, is an authorization of his calling. In the present work, the present order of Isa 60, 61 and 62 is assumed to be original. 173 Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 697, Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 283-84, 293, 297, Hanson, Dawn, pp. 59-60. 174 Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 105-6. 175 Vermeylen, Prophète, pp. 471-89, 503-17. 176 Cf. Whybray, Isaiah, pp. 239, 246, who regards the present form of Isa 60-62 as the result of a gradual redactional process. 177 Note that Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 38-44, includes Isa 63:1-6 in this textual corpus.

5. Isaiah

56-66

67

The message is salvation for Jerusalem and her people. The material is repeatedly addressed to Jerusalem herself. An envisioned division within the people is not found. Salvation is unconditional. Several characteristic themes bind the material together. A number of characteristic lexical elements and imagery are present in Isa 60-62 while absent from the rest of Isa 56-66 and vice versa. In view of these shared points, it is likely that Isa 60-62 is a textual unit, written by one author.178

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5.5.2. Isaiah

60:7

Turning now to the more specific cases, Isa 60:7b is important for the present study because of its reference to sacrifices. Some scholars doubt its originality. Koenen, for example, assigns 60:7a to Trito-Isaiah (TI) 179 while viewing 7b as a redactional addition. In his view, in 7a indicates that Jerusalem was the original destination of the gift, rendering the idea of the temple in 7b out of place. Furthermore, as he regards 66:1-2 to be critical of the temple, and to be the work of TI, he rules out common authorship of 66:1-2 and 60:7b. Koenen thus concludes that 7b is one of several smaller additions, written by a redactor who was positive about the cult (and also responsible for 56:3-8). Finally, due to the parallelism between 6b and 7b, Koenen suggests that the former is also redactional.180 Koenen's suggestion is, however, doubtful for the following reasons: 1. While it is true that 7a refers to Jerusalem and 7b to the temple, it is unnecessary to make a sharp distinction between these two entities. In fact, they may function as poetic parallels. 2. If we were to accept the secondary character of 7b, we would lack any indication of why the animals in 7a were brought to Jerusalem. While the camels in verse 6 are valuable as the means of transport to bring silver and gold to Jerusalem, the primary importance of rams is that they are sacrificial animals. Therefore, a reference to the sacrificial cult (in the temple) is to be expected. 3. The combination of temple worship and the arrival of treasures from the nations is attested elsewhere in 61:6. Thus, there is no reason to contest the occurrence of both themes together in verse 7. 4. In view of the parallelism of 6b and 7b, it is likely that both clauses stem from the same author. Since there is no reason to view 6b as 178

Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 37-38. The name Trito-Isaiah is only used in references to works of other scholars and it always denotes that scholar's own definition. For a summary of the different views with regard to the existence or non-existence of a Trito-Isaiah, see Koenen, Ethik, pp. 1 - 7 . 180 Koenen, Ethik, pp. 146-47. 179

68

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

secondary, apart from the alleged redactional character of the parallel 7b, it makes more sense to interpret the doubtful 7b in the light of 6b, rather than vice versa. As such, both clauses are most likely to be original. In conclusion, 60:7b is integral to the text of Isa 60-62. 5.5.3. Isaiah 60:10 Next, Isa 60:10 is important for the present study in that it provides information on the author's view of foreigners and, as such, contributes to a correct understanding of 60:7 and 61:5-6. Steck proposes a secondary origin of this verse. He regards 60:10-11 as a mid-fifth century addition to the text of Isa 56-66, thereby rejecting the interpretation which sees these verses pertaining to the fate of the strangers bringing the treasures following their arrival in Jerusalem (60:5-9). He gives the following arguments for the external character of these two verses: 1. Isa 60 portrays Jerusalem as a glorified city, and as such is in no need of fortification (cf. Zech 2:8-9). Hence, the building of city walls (v. 10) is irrelevant.181 2. Isa 60:10-11 can only be linked with verse 9 if we assume that the foreigners have already arrived in Jerusalem. Therefore, since verse 11 bears witness that they are still bringing treasures and thus are yet to arrive, a direct link between verses 9 and 10-11 is unlikely.182 3. There is a structural similarity between verses 13 and 6-9: the first part of each verse enumerates the coming gifts while the second part contains a reference either to the temple or another aspect of worship of YHWH. Therefore, verse 13 is the natural continuation of verse 9, supported by the reference to Lebanese cedars which were traditionally transported by ship (1 Kgs 5:22-23 [Eng. 8-9]; 2 Chr 2:15 [Eng. 16]). Thus, the idea of sea transport links verse 13 with the reference to ships in verse 9 and shows that these two verses originally belonged together.183 Steck's observations are correct. However, I cannot accept his view. His conclusion is based on, what is for him, the contradictory content of verses 9 and 10-11, and as such is not convincing for the simple reason that the author of Isa 60-62 wrote poetry rather than a chronologically correct outline of the transport of treasures and foreign kings to Jerusalem from abroad. A similar problem occurs with Steck's observation concerning verse 13. He is right in noting that verse 13 is a suitable continuation of 181 182 183

Steck, Studien, pp. 66-67. Steck, Studien, p. 67. Steck, Studien, pp. 67-68.

5. Isaiah 56-66

69

verse 9. More than that, verses 10-11 (together with verse 12) would have fitted better following verse 14, which also speaks about the coming of foreigners to Jerusalem, rather than preceding it. Thus, if we accept the redactional character of 60:10-11, we should be able to give a reason why any redactor would place his addition before verse 13 and thus break up the sequence of verses 9 and 13, rather than afterwards and next to verse 14. In view of this, there is no conclusive evidence which supports the external character of 60:10-11. 5.5.4. Isaiah 61:5-6 Next, several scholars question the integral character of Isa 61:5-6/7a, verses important for the present study owing to their references to the priesthood. Volz, for example, lists three reasons for their secondary •

•

184

origin: 1. Verses 5-6 have a different metric structure from the surrounding verses. • But by looking even closer, we also find that verse 5 has a different metric structure from verse 6. Furthermore, the following 61:7ff. lack a unified rhythm, which could be labelled "the norm" for the poem. In view of this, the argument looses its significance. 2. The second person speech in 60:5-7a differs from the surrounding third person speech. Volz interprets the second person address in 7a as an attempt to harmonize with verses 5-6, similarly to Mss (M[k30, 72]) which have CD1? in 7b, and to M(k30) which has t m i i O . • It should be noted that Isa 61:7aa also uses the second person (•Dritt'3) while 7ab uses the third person (Dpbn). To excise verses 5-6 would thus leave 7aa in limbo and is therefore an unlikely proposition. Furthermore, the suggestion that the second person address in 7aa is an attempt at harmonization lacks textual support, in particular since the Mss cited by him confirm the second person address of the verse rather than an original third person. 3. Isa 60:5-7a have a strong sense of particularism. 185 • While it is true that the strangers in 61:5-6 receive a very different treatment than in verses such as 60:2, 60:10 (as seen above) agrees with 61:5-6 as it depicts foreigners engaged in physical labour on behalf of Jerusalem. 186 184

Volz, Jesaja, pp. 253-54. While he argues that Isa 61:5-6 are later additions, he suggests that 7a was originally inserted between 3a and 3b. See also Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 75-76, Koenen, Ethik, pp. 112-15. 185 £ £ T o r r e y ; isaiah^ pp. 453 ; 454 ; Westermann, Jesaja, p. 294. 186 Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 38-39.

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

70

Thus, as Volz's arguments fail to convince, it is preferable to view 61:5-6 as original to the text. 5.5.5.

Conclusion

To conclude, there are good reasons for viewing the whole of Isa 60-62 as a continuous literary unity. Furthermore, the three texts of special importance for the present study, namely Isa 60:7 and 10 and 61:5-6, are all integral to the original text. 5.6. Isaiah

56:1-8

and

66:18-24

Lastly, I shall end with a short overview of the most common scholarly views concerning the redactional history of Isa 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 and its relation to Isa 60-62. In the current context, my main objective is to demonstrate that these two passages are composed by authors different to those who composed Isa 60-62 and that their respective dates of composition post-date that text. As a result, we may assume that the authors of 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 were familiar with the earlier text and that any textual influence went from 60-62 to 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 and not vice versa. In this regard, I follow the claim of the majority of critical 1 Q7' 1 QQ scholars that 66:18-24 is a later addition to the Isaianic material. Furthermore, I agree that these verses, together with Isa 56:1-8, form a framework around Isa 56:9-66:17. 189 In this last regard, Sekine provides eight examples of vocabulary and content common to both passages that emphasize convincingly the link between them: 1. The root n p is found in both 56:8 and 66:18. 2. Universalism is a theme present in both texts. 3. The Hiphil of «13 together with "«Hp in is found both in 56:7 and 66:20.

4. The expression 'n rP3 in 66:20 can be compared with Ti^sn n'3 and rpa rftsn in 56:7. 5. The idea of bringing sacrifices is present in both 56:7 and 66:20. 6. The idea of inr and is attested throughout 56:3-7 and 66:22. 7. The importance of the Sabbath is stressed in 56:2, 4, 6 and 66:23. 187 I am aware that several scholars, among others Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 335-36, divide Isa 66:18-24 into two major literary strands, dependent on the more universalistic tendencies of verses 18-19, 21, in comparison with verses 20, 22-24 which focus more upon Judah. For a refutation of this view, see the discussion in Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 167— 71. 188 E.g., McKenzie, Isaiah, p. 208, Hanson, Dawn, pp. 388-89. 189 E.g., Westermann, Jesaja, p. 244 (Isaiah, p. 305), Koenen, Ethik, pp. 32, 212-14,

222.

5. Isaiah 56-66

71

8. The word is characteristic of the style of both texts (56:2, 6, 7; 66:18, 20, 23, 24).190 It must, however, be noted that a small number of scholars, here represented by Polan, consider Isa 56:1-8 to be an integral part of the extended unity of 56:1-59:21. Polan suggests that there is a "distant parallelism"191 between 56:1b and 59:20a, supported partly by the use of the words TOW and Kin1? in the first verse and Km and hwa in the last. Assuming that the two roots vw and *7iu express the same basic thought, thereby forming a word-pair (cf. Isa 49:26; 60:16; 63:9), Polan argues that the author of Isa 56:1-59:21 sought to emphasize the promise that the coming of God's salvation is imminent. Furthermore, he puts forward the idea that there are key-words throughout Isa 56:1-59:20 which support the textual unity of Isa 56:l-59:20. 192 In contrast to this, Polan's "distant parallelism" between Isa 56:1 and 59:20 fails to be convincing. While it is true that the roots "7*0 and are semantically close and often occur in parallel clauses, it is exaggerated to regard the use of them, one in each of two separate verses, as a sign of an outer framework. Apart from these two words, the only other shared vocabulary between the two verses in question is the root K"Q, a root which is too common to support the claim of a conscious recurrence. Furthermore, with regard to Polan's claim of key-words existing throughout Isa 56:1-59:20, it is obvious from his own table193 that while eight words are listed as used consistently in 56:9-59:20, only three of them are also attested in 56:1-8. Therefore, Polan's claim that Isa 56:1-8 belongs together with the following material is doubtful. To conclude, Isa 66:18-24 is likely to be a carefully constructed parallel to Isa 56:1-8. There is, however, a basic difference between the two texts: while 56:1-8 speaks about issues concerning the author's contemporary time, 66:18-24 is a purely future-oriented vision.194 Hence, it may be more feasible to regard 56:1-8 as the introduction to Isa 56-66 while 66:18-24 functions as the end not only of Isa 56-66 but of the book of Isaiah as a whole.195

190

Sekine, Sammlung, p. 57. For a definition of the term, Polan quotes M. Dahood and T. Penar, "UgariticHebrew Parallel Pairs", Ras Shamra Parallels, 1 (ed. L.R. Fischer, AnOr 49, Rome, 1972), pp. 80-81. 192 Polan, Ways, pp. 19-22, 28-34. 193 Polan, Way, p. 29. 194 G.I. Davies, "The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah", The Book of Isaiah (ed. J. Vermeylen, Leuven, 1989), p. 117. 195 Cf. Beuken, "Isaiah Chapters LXV-LXVI", pp. 204-21. 191

72

Chapter 2: Defining the extent of the passages

6. Conclusion In this chapter, I have sought to outline the extent of the post-exilic prophetic oracles where the priests are part of the target audience. Beginning with the book of Malachi, I propose that the prophet addresses the priests throughout Mai 1:6-3:5. Even though some of these verses probably envision a broader audience including the people of Judah as a whole, the priests constitute the main target audience. With regard to the book of Haggai, the priests are addressed directly in Hag 2:11-13 and may therefore be regarded as the target audience throughout the textual unit of 2:10-14. With regard to Zech 1-8, I suggest that 3:l-8a, 9 constitute the original layer of Zechariah's fourth vision, with verses 8b and 10 forming later additions. Furthermore, the oracular material in chs 7-8 can be divided into two layers, the earlier one consisting of 7:1-3 and 8:18-23, and the later one of 7:4-8:17. The priests are the chief target of parts of both (7:1-3, 4-5). Moving to the more complex situation of Isa 56-66, I consider the two extended sections of 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 to have been written by the same author. As we shall see throughout the rest of this book, these two sections contain the substance of the prophetic critique. In addition, this author is responsible for incorporating the originally independent lament in 63:7-64:11 into the Isaianic corpus where it enters into a dialogue with the following 65:1-66:17. I hold that the oracle in 65:166:17 was written for the particular purpose of furnishing the lament with a negative response. With regard to Isa 60-62, I treat it as a literary unit, and I consider the verses of particular interest for the present study, i.e. 60:7, 10; 61:5-6, to be integral to the material. With regard to 56:1-8 and 66:18-24, I view these texts as later additions to the Isaianic material, the former serving as the beginning of Isa 56-66, and the latter serving as the end of the entire book of Isaiah. Having determined where the priests are criticized, the next question is when. In the following chapter, I shall attempt to date the material in Isaiah 56-66, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Malachi.

Chapter Three

Dating of the Relevant Texts 1. Introduction In the previous chapter, we defined the particular length of the textual units in which the priests are criticized. Here, we shall endeavour to determine the date of those same texts. The present study does not need to make central the exact dating of the different material in order to demonstrate its purpose of showing that criticism of the priesthood was not a phenomenon limited to a few marginal texts but a theme shared by most post-exilic prophecy. However, in order to appreciate the time span and the pervasiveness of the criticism, the dating of the texts which pertain to the present study must be addressed, albeit briefly. The material is discussed chronologically, beginning with the oldest (Isa 56-66) and continuing with Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. The most complex dating scheme is suggested for the material in Isa 5666: 1. Isa 60-62 and possibly also 63:1-6 belong to the oldest stratum, dating from shortly after 539 BC. 2. The material in Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 stems from around 520 BC. 3. The originally independent lament preserved in Isa 63:7-64:11 is older than the surrounding material, originating either from the exilic or the earliest of the post-exilic eras. 4. Isa 56:1-8 and 66:18-24, added to the corpus of Isa 56-66 in order to function as a framework, can be dated roughly to the fifth century BC. The situation is less complicated in the case of Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Malachi. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 are dated to 520-518 BC, in adherence with the dates found in the texts themselves. Finally, Malachi was probably written between 520 BC and 450 BC, given the indications of a rebuilt temple, combined with allusions to a situation where the issue of intermarriages between Judahite men and foreign woman had not yet been resolved.

74

Chapter 3: Dating

2. Isaiah 56-66 Let us begin with Isa 56-66, which contains possibly the oldest material. Its dating is much disputed.1 For example, Koole suggests that Isa 56-66 was written as early as the exilic period,2 while a larger group of scholars, among them Hanson and Smith, date the larger part of Isa 56-66 between 539-520 BC.3 Others, such as Rofe and Blenkinsopp, assume a date contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah,4 while a few exegetes advocate an even later dating for most of the material.5 In contrast to these scholars, others picture a step-by-step development spanning centuries where the text is composed of differently dated redactional layers.6 In view of the bewildering number of existing theories, the hope of reaching a final decision is small. Nonetheless, given the available data, I support, with some reservations, Smith's two stage development of Isa 56-66, differentiating between 60-62 (and 63:1-6) on the one hand and 56:(1)959:21 and 65:1-66:17 on the other.7 Isa 60-62 is dated to the earliest part of the post-exilic period, shortly after 539 BC. Following this, Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17, considered the work of one author, stem from about 520 BC. This author also incorporated the originally independent prayer found in Isa 63:7-64:11 at about the same time. The prayer itself is likely to be older, stemming from either the exilic or the earliest of the post-exilic era. Lastly, 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 are added to the corpus of Isa 56-66 in order to function as a framework. Isa 56:1-8 is the earlier of the two, serving as the beginning of Isa 56-66, while Isa 66:18-24 is not only the end of Isa 56-66 but also of the whole Isaianic textual corpus. All in all, the bulk of the material in Isa 5666 is here deemed to stem from the 6th century BC, with the surrounding framework written at a later date, probably in the following 5th century BC. 2.1. Isaiah

60-62

There is little doubt that Isa 60-62 features among the earliest material in Isa 56-66, for three main reasons: 1

For a useful discussion and evaluation of the different views, see Schramm, Opponents, pp. 11—40. 2 J. L. Koole, Isaiah. Part 3, Volume 1: Isaiah 40-48 (HCOT, Kampen, the Netherlands, 1997), pp. 23-28. 3 Hanson, Dawn, Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 187-88. 4 Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", pp. 113, 115, Blenkinsopp, "Jewish Sect", p. 7, note 8, following Duhm's fifth century BC dating. 5 E.g., Steck, Studien, pp. 14^15. 6 E.g., Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 236—46, Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 219-26, Vermeylen, Prophete, pp. 503-17. 7 Smith, Rhetoric.

2. Isaiah 56-66

75

First, an early post-exilic dating is supported by the affinity in style between Isa 40-55 and 60-62. This similarity supports either common authorship8 or two persons sharing the same outlook and prophetic tradition.9 Thus, based on the accepted exilic dating of the former chapters among critical scholars, a dating of 60-62 not too far removed from the exile seems likely. Secondly, a comparatively early dating of Isa 60-62 compared with the rest of Isa 56-66 is suggested by its lack of allusions to a division in the Judahite society, evident throughout the rest of Isa 56-66. Instead, Isa 6062 continues in the same spirit as Isa 40-55 to promise salvation to Jerusalem as a whole. Assuming that the division in Judah is a later development, chapters 60-62 must then pre-date the surrounding material in Isa 56-66. Thirdly, a small number of exegetical issues, in particular the reference to the coming of timber (Isa 60:13), probably indicate that the rebuilding is still in the future. 10 Taken together, a pre-520-dating of Isa 60-62 is convincing. The majority of critical scholars treat Isa 60-62 as a literary unit and hence advocate one date for the composition as a whole.11 Those who do not do this nevertheless date the majority of the verses which are of special concern in the present context (Isa 60:7, 10; 61:5-6, 8) either to the exile or the early Persian period.12 Thus, to sum up, the bulk of Isa 60-62, including all the verses that are of special interest for this work, belongs in the earliest textual stratum of Isa 56-66. 2.2. Isaiah 56:9-59:21

and

65:1-66:17

The dating of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 is closely related to each scholar's view of the redactional history of the material and it is therefore 8

E.g., N.H. Snaith, Isaiah 40-66. A Study of the Teaching of the Second Isaiah and Its Consequences (VTSup 14, Leiden, 1967), pp. 139, 141-45, Smart, History and Theology, pp. 30-31, and B.D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture. Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford, California, 1998), pp. 192-95. 9 E.g., Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 697, J.L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB 20, Garden City, 1968), p. 177. Both conclude that despite the similarities with the style and content of Isa 40-55, Isa 60-62 was written in Judah in a post-exilic setting. 10 Westermann, Jesaja, p. 237. 11 E.g., Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 698, Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 236-37, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 230, and Koenen, Ethik, pp. 156 (summary), 215-16, 256. 12 E.g., Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 105-6, places all these verses in what he labels the original layer (60:1-22; 61:1-9). One notable exception is Vermeylen, Prophète, pp. 471-89, 503-17, who dates 60:7 to the sixth century, 61:8 to early post-exilic times and 61:5-6 to a later period

Chapter 3: Dating

76

impossible to separate the two issues. 13 As was concluded in the previous chapter, it is likely that Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 were written by the same author. Accordingly, a close dating of both sections is advocated. Three 14 main periods are often put forward: around 520 BC, contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah;15 around 450 BC, contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah; 16 and the early Hellenistic period. 17 Either of the first two can be supported, yet several factors, both exegetical and literary, point to the earlier one. 18 In contrast, the latter dating must remain conjectural in view of the much earlier dating of the other material in the book of Isaiah. 2.2.1. Isaiah 66:1, 6 - The references to the temple Isa 66:1-6 is a key section of this study, given our focus on the criticism of the priesthood. Therefore, it is suitable to devote some time to the reference to the temple 19 in this passage. For the purpose of dating, the main issue is to determine whether the temple was already standing at the 13

I shall here refrain from addressing those scholars who regard either parts of or all of this section as pre-exilic. It should be noted that several earlier scholars argued that Isa 56:9-57:13 is pre-exilic, e.g., Ewald, Prophets, pp. 321-22, Volz, Jesaja, p. 200, one reason being the idea that the atrocities depicted in Isa 56:9-57:13 cannot describe the people in post-exilic Judah (Volz, Jesaja, p. 208). This position is refuted by K. Elliger, Die Einheit des Tritojesaia (Jesaia 56-66) (BWANT 3/9, Stuttgart, 1928), p. 81, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 660, Smart, History and Theology, pp. 238—40, and Whybray, Isaiah, pp. 199, 202. Other scholars, e.g. Westermann, Jesaja, p. 241, Vermeylen, Prophète, pp. 459-60, 503, 514, claim that a post-exilic redactor created an editorial framework (57:1-2 (3—4) and 13b) in which he placed pre-exilic oracles, but Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 660, has shown the unlikelihood of this. 14 There are also other suggestions, e.g., Elliger, Einheit, pp. 81-85, who argues in favour of a dating of Isa 56:9-57:13 to around 500 BC. 15 See e.g., Snaith, Isaiah, pp. 230-31, Smart, History and Theology, pp. 238-40, Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 66, Watts, Isaiah, pp. 257 (comment on Isa 56:9) and 262. 16 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, p. 423, Marti, Jesaja, p. 365, Cheyne, Introduction, p. 317. 17 Steck, Studien, pp. 30-34, 192. Steck suggests that Isa 56:9-59:21, together with Isa 63:1-6, came into existence as part of the general redaction of the book of Isaiah in the last decade of the fourth century BC. 18 For example, Muilenburg, Isaiah, pp. 677, 686, determines the literary style of all of Isa 56-66 to somewhere between that of Isa 40-55 and that of Zechariah and Malachi. This was already pointed out by Duhm, Jesaia, p. 436. 19 It should be noted that several scholars understand the references to the temple in 66:1-2 to refer to other temples. Notably F. Hitzig, Der Prophet Jesaja (Heidelberg, 1833), pp. 635-36, and A. Knobel, Der Prophet Jesaja (KeHbAT, Leipzig, 1854), pp. 510-11, argue that verses 1-2 referred to a (hypothetical) temple in Babylon. Others, e.g., Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 481-82, Cheyne, Introduction, pp. 383-85, Marti, Jesaja, pp. 406-7, Skinner, Isaiah, pp. 245-46, understand them to refer to Samarian attempt to build a temple in Samaria. Given the lack of supporting evidence for these suggestions, I interpret Isa 66:1-6 to speak of Zerubbabel's temple.

2. Isaiah 56-66

11

time of writing. While the first of these two instances seems to indicate that the temple was yet to be built, or, as the verb "build" (mn, v. 1) suggests, was in the planning stages, the second gives the impression that it was already standing (v. 6). How can these seemingly contradictory statements be reconciled with one another? One possible interpretation is suggested by Beuken who argues that verse 6, rather than indicating the existence of the temple, speaks of the future judgment to come: "At the time of the judgment, the temple will again serve as YHWH's house".20 Beuken's idea is an attractive solution. I would like, however, to consider the problem from a different angle by looking at four biblical passages which mention the cult in Jerusalem after the destruction of the temple in 586 BC: 1. Jer 41:5 tells of sacrifices being carried out at the former site of the temple in Jerusalem following its destruction. 2. Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the new temple soon after 539 BC (Ezra 5:16). 3. A functioning altar was built prior to the dedication of the temple (Ezra 3:1-6). 4. Isa 66:3 refers to sacrificial activities which presumably took place in the vicinity of the temple. In different ways, these four texts point to the temple having been a partly functioning institution during the exile and in the early post-exilic times, despite its ruined state. Jer 41:5; Ezra 3:1-6 and Isa 66:3 refer to sacrifices being offered before the dedication of the temple, and Ezra 5:16 informs us that from the very earliest post-exilic time something existed which was referred to as "the temple", even though it was probably no more than old ruins and maybe a new foundation. Indirectly, Hag 2:12-13 may also indicate indirectly that some ritual activity was carried out in Jerusalem.21 In view of this, I suggest that when the author of Isa 65:166:17 refers to the temple, as he does here in 66:6, he refers to the place of the temple where the cult was carried out, rather than the dedicated building.22 In contrast to this, verse 1 speaks about building the temple, thus referring to the actual physical building. Therefore, only 66:1-2 can be seen as an indication of the dating of the section, while verse 6 is less chronologically bound.

20

Beuken, "Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple?", p. 61. Floyd, Minor Prophets, p. 290. 22 Cf. Smart, History and Theology, p. 289, who states that verse 6 speaks about "the site where the altar of sacrifice stands and where the work has begun upon the building of the Temple". 21

78

Chapter 3: Dating

An alternative way of dating 66:Iff. is suggested by Rofe, comparing, among other things, the critique of the priesthood found in 66:3, with that in Nehemiah (Neh 13:4-8, 28) and Malachi (Mai 2:1-9). Partly due to the similarity of these verses, he dates Isa 66:3 to the first half of the fifth century BC, prior to the arrival in Judah of Ezra and Nehemiah.23 In response to this, as I shall argue throughout this book, the biblical text indicates that the critique against the priesthood existed throughout the post-exilic period. As such, this criticism is an integral part not only of the later Malachi and Ezra-Nehemiah but also Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, i.e. in texts from around 520 BC. Therefore, while I accept Rofe's claim that the criticism in 66:3 is aimed at the priesthood (see further below), I nevertheless maintain that this verse refers to religious rites carried out during the 6th century BC. In conclusion, rather than referring to the actual building, Isa 66:6 concerns the geographical place of the temple where the altar was standing and where sacrifices took place. As such, the content of both 66:1 and 66:6 point to a date before the dedication of the temple. 2.2.2. Isaiah 58 — Ruins, fasting and social

injustice

Several other exegetical factors, found primarily in Isa 58, also favour the earlier dating. Most prominent among them is the ambiguous statement in Isa 58:12 expressing the hoped for rebuilding of ruins which can be understood either as an indication of the situation in Jerusalem prior to the rebuilding of the temple24 or as a reference to the broken city walls in the time of Nehemiah. 25 Nevertheless, references to destruction elsewhere in Isa 56-66 indicate the catastrophe in 586 BC (63:18; 64:9-10 - see below). In addition, there are significant similarities in the respective message of Isa 56:1-59:21; 65:1-66:17; Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, especially connected to the areas of fasting (Isa 58:2-3; Zech 7:1-5), of critique of the leadership (Isa 58:3-4; Mai 2:1-8; Neh 6:10-13), and of agricultural conditions (Hag 1:6-11; 2:16-19; Neh 5:1-13) etc. In fact, many of these parallels will be explored throughout this study. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether these passages allow us to outline a chronological development between them. 2.3. Isaiah

63:7-64:11

Much can and has been said about the dating of the lament in Isa 63:764:11. Yet, as noted in the previous chapter, this is an originally 23 24 25

Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", pp. 113, 115. E.g., Whybray, Isaiah, p. 212. E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, p. 439.

2. Isaiah 56-66

79

independent lament which was incorporated by the author of Isa 56:959:21 and 65:1-66:17 for the purpose of providing it with a negative response (65:1-66:17). In doing so, he identified the view points of his own contemporary opponents with those expressed in the lament. Given this, the precise dating of the original composition is not immediately relevant for the present study. Nonetheless, its dating is significant insofar as it must predate the following material in 65:1-66:17, something which nearly all scholars agree with. This holds true for those, including myself, who see the references to destruction in 64:9-10 and 63:18 to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, 26 and those who view it as a much later composition from the Hellenistic period.27 2.4. Isaiah 56:1-8 and

66:18-24

Similarly to Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17, Isa 56:1-8 probably relates, at least partly, to the current situation in Judah. Thus, references in this passage to the temple may cast light on the time of composition. For example, the expressions vraimi vrM ("in My house and on My walls", v. 5), 'unp in ("My holy mountain", v. 7) and TiVsn frm ("My house of prayers", v. 7) are likely to refer to the (rebuilt) temple and walls, supported as they are by the statement about sacrifices being offered ('nntn-^y im^ nrrmn arm^y = "their offerings and their sacrifices [shall come up] with acceptance on my altar). Therefore, I follow the opinion of most scholars who conclude that 515 BC is the earliest dating of Isa 56:17(8).28 This conclusion is, however, not accepted by all. Some exegetes regard Isa 56:1-8 as a future vision, understanding 56:5, 7 as a description of an envisioned future; as a result, they propose an earlier dating.29 While this is clearly a possibility, it nonetheless seems more likely that a statement such as ¡ram- 1 ^ Nip1 riVon-m Trn -o ("because My house shall be called a house of prayer to all nations") indicates that the temple is already in existence. It is a future prophecy about the temple, but as such, rather than foretelling its future existence, it predicts its future

26 E.g., Volz, Jesaja, p. 268, Muilenburg, Isaiah, pp. 729-30, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 240, Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 169, and Williamson, "Isaiah 63,7-64,11", pp. 48-58. Those exegetes who argue for only one author of Isa 56-66 are not likely to date Isa 63:7-64:11 to the exilic times since much of the material in Isa 56-66 presupposes a post-exilic setting. Among them, both Elliger, Einheit, pp. 94-99, and Skinner, Isaiah, pp. 218-220 give the material as early a post-exilic date as possible, assuming that 63:18 and 64:9-10 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. 27 E.g., Steck, Studien, pp. 35—40, Goldenstein, Gebet des Gottesknechte, pp. 236-47. 28 Cf. Whybray, Isaiah, p. 196. 29 E.g., Fischer, Isaias, p. 151, Smith, Rhetoric, p. 60.

80

Chapter 3: Dating

use. In contrast to the time of writing, the already built temple will, in the future, be a house of prayer for all people: it is not now, but then it will be. Apart from references to the temple, another important aspect of Isa 56:1-8 is its friendly view of proselytes and eunuchs. This has caused several scholars to regard it as a reaction to the separatist policy adopted by Ezra and Nehemiah towards foreigners. Accordingly, Isa 56:1-8 is often dated to the time of Ezra or Nehemiah.30 Alternatively, Pauritsch suggests that the question of participation in the temple cult was most relevant directly after the building of the temple. Therefore, he advocates a dating shortly after 515 BC.31 Taking these factors into account, I conclude that while a pre-520 BC dating cannot be excluded, a later dating is more likely. For the particular purpose of this book, we can safely make the assumption that the author of Isa 56:1-8 was familiar with the material in Isa 60-62 and, as such, was able to draw on its imagery. In the case of Isa 66:18-24,1 accept the claim of the majority of critical scholars that 66:18-24 32 is the last addition to the Isaianic material,33 serving together with Isa 56:1-8 as a framework around Isa 56:9-66:17. 34 Moreover, it is the later of the two: as outlined in chapter 2, Sekine convincingly shows how Isa 66:18-24 forms a carefully constructed parallel to Isa 56:1-8.

3. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 The dates of the different oracles in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 are given in the texts themselves and there are not any compelling reasons to doubt the validity of these dates. In fact, even though the chronological references may have been added at a later date, the fact remains that the central message in these two books concerns the situation in Judah between 520515 BC. The texts of particular concern in the present study are Hag 2:10-14, Zech 3 and 7:1-5. According to the internal chronology of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, these three texts can all be dated to within the short time30

E.g., Cheyne, Introduction, p. 311, Hanson, Dawn, p. 389, Watts, Isaiah, p. 249. Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 46-47, followed by Sekine, Sammlung, p. 42. 32 I am aware that several scholars, among them Westermann, Jesaja, pp. 335-36, divide Isa 66:18-24 into two major literary strands, dependent on the more universalistic tendencies of verses 18-19, 21, in comparison with verses 20, 22-24 which focus more upon Judah. For a refutation of this view, see the discussion in Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 16771. 33 E.g., McKenzie, Isaiah, p. 208, Hanson, Dawn, pp. 388-89. 34 E.g., Westermann, Jesaja, p. 244, Koenen, Ethik, pp. 32, 212-14, 222. 31

3. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8

81

span of two years. The oracle in Hag 2:10-14 was delivered on the 24th day of the 9th month of Darius' 2nd year of reign (2:10); and Zechariah sees his visions later on in the same year, the 24th day of the 11th month (Zech 1:7). Lastly, the oracular material recorded in Zech 7-8 happened two years later, in Darius' 4th year of reign, the 4th day of the 9th month (7:1). The dates of Hag 2:10-14 and Zech 7:1-5 are not seriously contested. The same cannot, however, be said of Zech 3. Many scholars treat Zech 3 as an external part of the vision cycle due to its unique character.35 Yet an almost equal number of scholars argue in favour of its integral character.36 Among those scholars who see Zech 3 as originally independent, Redditt's suggestion is noteworthy. Observing that Zech 3:1-10, 4:6b-10a and 6:9-15 are the only texts which contain references to Zerubbabel and Joshua, Redditt argues that they are all later additions to the nightly visions, dating from around 520 BC: "Their purpose was to transform those visions from a document addressed to Babylonian Jews summoning them to Judah into a politico-theological treatise for Judah and Jerusalem for the year 520 BC".37 According to Redditt, the purpose of this secondary material was to picture the restoration as the joint effort of the people and their traditional leaders i.e. the priest and the royal heir.38 Despite its attractiveness at an exegetical level, Redditt's view is somewhat problematic at a chronological level. The whole of Zech 1:76:15 is, as mentioned above, dated to 519 BC, when, according to the frameworks of both Haggai and Ezra 1-6, both leaders were present in Judah. Therefore, Redditt's interpretation is possible only if we date the vision cycle to an earlier period before the arrival of Joshua and Zerubbabel, i.e. earlier than 520 BC. It follows that, without explicitly stating it,39 Redditt must view the dates in the book of Zechariah as later editorial notes, added to give the illusion of a date later than the actual one. He fails, however, to give any explicit reason as to why this should be so. 35 E.g., A. Jepsen, "Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch III", ZA IV 61 (1945/48), pp. 96-98. See also Elliger, Kleine Propheten, pp. 103, 120, Chary, Aggee, p. 73, P.D. Hanson, "In Defiance of Death: Zechariah's Symbolic Universe" Love & Death in the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (eds. J.H. Marks and R.M. Good, Guilford, Connecticut, 1987), p. 174, Redditt, Haggai, pp. 62, 66. 36 E.g., Beuken, Haggai, p. 282, Mitchell, Haggai, p. 147, Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, p. 183, Meyers, Haggai, pp. liii-lvii, 179, Smith, Micah, p. 199, Rudolph, Haggai, p. 94, Baldwin, Haggai, pp. 112-13. 37 Redditt, "Zerubbabel, Joshua", p. 250. 38 Redditt, "Zerubbabel, Joshua ", pp. 255-58. 39 In his commentary on Zechariah, Redditt argues that the dating in Zech 1:1 and 7 are redactional, added in order to give the impression that the visions "carried forward the programme announced in Hag 2:10-19, 20-23" (Redditt, Haggai, pp. 49, 51-52).

82

Chapter 3: Dating

In view of this, there are not sufficient grounds to question the chronology given by the text and to date the vision cycle before 520 BC. As a result, we may further conclude that both Joshua and Zerubbabel were present in Jerusalem during Zechariah's ministry, and hence, that the portrayal of their joint leadership was an inherent feature of the earliest layers of the text. In contrast to Redditt's proposal of an earlier dating of Zech 3, Jeremias suggests a later one. He claims that the authority given to Joshua in 3:7 was not possible while Zerubbabel was still in Judah. Instead, as portrayed in Zech 4:14, the power was shared between them. Due to this, Jeremias argues that Zech 3:1-7 was probably written after Zerubbabel's (assumed) disappearance.40 In response to this, it is true that 3:7 gives Joshua responsibilities which in pre-exilic times were royal prerogatives. Even so, it is plausible that under the Persian administration the power was divided between the nns, responsible for secular matters, and the high priests, wielding authority over the religious domain. Assuming that Zech 3 mirrors reality to a certain extent, I find no contradiction between Zech 3:7 and 4:14. To sum up, it is possible but by no means necessary, given the lack of conclusive date, to suggest that Zech 3 originated independently of the rest of the vision cycle. Moreover, as illustrated above, even if we argue in favour of the independent origin of Zech 3, this in itself does not speak in favour of a date too far away from the one given in Zech 1:7. Given that the main character is the high priest Joshua, who undoubtedly lived in Judah around 520 BC, the date would not vary drastically.

4. Malachi In contrast to the material in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, the book of Malachi contains no dating formulae. Thus, the situation is in some ways similar to that of Isa 56-66 in that, for the purpose of dating the book, we depend upon references to historically datable events such as the temple and upon literary comparisons with other post-exilic books of more certain date. The earliest date is, to my knowledge, proposed by Welch who treats Malachi as contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah around 520 BC.41 He argues that the references to the temple in the book (Mai 1:10; 3:1 etc.) do not necessarily imply that the temple was rebuilt. On the contrary, the recognition that there existed an altar before the rebuilding of the temple 40 41

Jeremias, Nachtgesichte, pp. 222-23. A.C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh, 1935), pp. 113-25.

4. Malachi

83

which enabled the people to sacrifice shows that the temple was not a prerequisite of Malachi's interest in correct offerings. Also, he draws attention to the fact that the Israelites at the time of Gedaliah (Jer 41:5) brought gifts to the temple only a few months after the sack of Jerusalem.42 Furthermore, Welch rejects a connection between Mai 2:10-16 and Ezra 9-10, based on his view that the former does not deal with mixed marriages but rather with the worship of foreign deities. Accordingly, there is no need to see these two texts as contemporary with one another.43 O'Brien suggests an equally early dating but looks at the issue from a different perspective. Given that Edom must have been destroyed sometime between 605 and 650 BC, she points out that in order to explain the expressed hope of its rebuilding (Mai 1:4), a date shortly after its destruction, around 515 BC or earlier, is likely.44 At the other end of the scale, scholars like Torrey and Matthews date Malachi to the first half of the fourth century BC based on the apocalyptic content of Mai 3:1-2 and 19-24 (Eng. 4:1-6) 45 Most scholars, however, see Malachi as contemporary with Ezra or Nehemiah in the middle of the fifth century BC, 46 either prophesying just before Ezra's arrival or slightly later, at the time of Nehemiah's office in Jerusalem or shortly afterwards. In favour of the former, GlazierMcDonald argues that Malachi should be dated to a time closely preceding the arrival of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to her, Nehemiah brought an end to the governors' practice of accepting gifts from the people (Neh 5:14, 18, cf. Mai 1:8). Similarly, Ezra brought an end to the problem of mixed marriages (Ezra 9-10, cf. Mai 2:10-16). Hence, the book of Malachi which deals with these two problems must precede Ezra's and Nehemiah's arrival.47 In favour of the latter, Perowne gives three reasons: 1. The intermarrying between the high priestly family and that of Sanballat (Neh 13:29) can be connected with Malachi's critique of the priesthood in general. 2. More particularly, the intermarrying of the Judahite population (Neh 13:23-27) can be linked with Malachi's lament over the divorced Judahite wives (Mai 2:10-16).

42

Welch, Post-Exilic, pp. 118-19. Welch, Post-Exilic, pp. 119-21. 44 O'Brien, Priest and Levite, pp. 113-33. 45 C.C. Torrey, "The Prophecy of Malachi", JBL 17 (1898), pp. 13-14, followed by I.G. Matthews, "Malachi", An American Commentary (Philadelphia, 1935), pp. ix-x. 46 With regard to the dating of Ezra and Nehemiah, I date both to the reign of Artaxerxes I. Accordingly, Ezra precedes Nehemiah. 47 Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 15-16. See also Baldwin, Haggai, p. 213. 43

84

Chapter 3: Dating

3. The situation of the Levites is the topic of both Neh 13:10-12 and Mai 3:8-12. While the former speaks about the negligence with regard to the Levites' rightful portion of grain and oil, the latter complains about the lack of tithe given to the temple.48 To sum up, it is possible to argue convincingly in favour of any of the suggested dates, with the probable exception of Torrey's proposal. Nevertheless, the dating of Malachi to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah has the greatest support from the biblical material itself, since it takes into account the existence of the temple, the issue of social injustice and mixed marriages, found in both textual corpora. Even so, the evidence does not allow us to determine whether Malachi preceded or followed the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah.

5. Conclusion To conclude, the most complex dating scheme is suggested for the material in Isa 56-66: Isa 60-62 and possibly also 63:1-6 (though not relevant to the present inquiry) belong to the oldest stratum. The date suggested for this material is the earliest of the post-exilic period, shortly after 539 BC. Following this, the material in Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 stems from around 520 BC. This author also incorporated the originally independent lament preserved in Isa 63:7-64:11. The lament itself is probably older, originating from either the exilic or the earliest of the post-exilic era. Lastly, Isa 56:1-8 and 66:18-24 were added to the corpus of Isa 56-66 to function as a framework. Isa 56:1-8 is the earlier of the two, serving as the beginning of Isa 56-66, while Isa 66:18-24 is not only the end of Isa 5666 but also of the whole Isaianic corpus. The situation is less complicated in the case of Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Malachi. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 are dated to 520-518 BC, in adherence to the dates found in the texts themselves. Finally, Malachi was probably written between 520 BC and 450 BC, given the indications of a rebuilt temple, combined with allusions to a situation where the issue of intermarriages between Judahite men and foreign woman were yet not resolved.

48

Perowne, Malachi, pp. 10-11. See also G.P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup, Leiden, 1994), pp. 15-16, who supports his claim with six points.

5. Conclusion

85

In the next chapter, we shall begin looking at the prophetic criticism of the priesthood. The most suitable place to begin is with the priests' own evaluation of the situation, as cited by the prophets.

Chapter Four

God's Injustice and the Priests' Claim to Righteousness 1. Introduction and historical background The post-exilic material testifies to a conflict between two groups of people. The prophets form one group and, as we shall see throughout this study, the priests form the other. In the prophetic literature of the postexilic period, the priests of the day are accused by the prophets of a number of misdemeanours, accusations that we shall explore throughout the remainder of this book. Before going into the actual criticism of the priests, however, I would like to show the priests' side. Therefore, in this first exegetical chapter, we shall take a step aside and look at the priests' own evaluation of the situation. The priests' own words are, however, difficult to access. We do not have them in an unfiltered format but rather as scattered quotes in the prophetic literature. Thus, we are left with words that are attributed to the priests by the prophetic writers. Nonetheless, we shall proceed by looking at these scattered quotes, hoping thereby also to gain a glimpse into the minds of the priests themselves. In doing so, we see a picture of a priesthood that perceives itself as righteous and doing what God requires of it. Hence, it is left bewildered by the prophetic criticism of its actions. This sense of bewilderment is most marked in the book of Malachi, where the prophetic allegations repeatedly caused the priests to express their ignorance of having committed the misdemeanours of which they are accused. A similar tendency is also found, although to a lesser degree, in Isaiah 56-66. The outline of the present chapter is chronological. I begin with the material stemming from the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 (57:12; 58:2-3; 65:5). In conjunction with the discussion of Isa 58:2-3, I shall also address the comparative material from Zech 7:4—6. Proceeding to the lament, I shall discuss the sentiments expressed in 64:4-6 and their implications for the understanding of the prophet's opponents. Finally, I shall end by exploring the material in Malachi. I am using two different methods in dealing with this evidence. In the case of Malachi, the priests are often the explicitly stated subject of the cited

2. Isaiah 57:12 - The priests 'professed

righteousness

87

sayings. Hence, we can presume a priestly subject as the basis for our interpretation of these sayings. In contrast, the cited sayings in Isa 56-66 are anonymous. Since the identity of the different characters in a given text forms an integral part of the interpretation of the same text, we need to apply a method that combines interpretation and exegesis: if we know who the speakers are, we know what they say. Hence, every interpretation is a two-step procedure. In each case, we have to first identify the speakers with the priests, and only thereafter, on the basis of this identification, can we offer an interpretation. Therefore, the Isaianic examples will commence with a detailed discussion of the arguments demonstrating the priestly identity of the prophet's target audience.1 Since this argumentation runs the risk of being circular, care will be taken in all cases not to present arguments where these two steps depend on one another. The historical background of the clash between the two groups is not difficult to imagine. The fulfilment of the glorious prophecies of Isaiah 40-55 was delayed and the inhabitants of Judah were becoming more and more despondent. The prophets, the ones responsible for communicating God's will to the people and for representing the people before God, were seeking to understand the lack of divine blessing around them. While each individual prophet suggested a unique solution, an element shared by most of the post-exilic prophets was to place the bulk of the responsibility upon the priests: due to the priests' failure to fulfil their obligations towards both God and towards the people, the prophets exclaimed, the situation in Judah was not improving. On the contrary, God was bringing punishment rather then blessing upon them all. According to the prophetic writings, the priests did not remain silent in the face of these accusations. Instead they either defended themselves by pointing to their own exemplary living or placed the ultimate responsibility for the given situation on God. Often the priests are cited as declaring either their own righteousness and/or their innocence. Furthermore, if indeed they had sinned, they would only have done so unconsciously.

2. Isaiah 57:12 - The priests' professed righteousness A significant aspect of the defence attributed to the priests against the prophetic accusations in Isaiah 56-66 is their claims of righteousness. Furthermore, the prophetic writers themselves make additional references to the priests' righteousness. In this section, I shall first demonstrate how 1

For a more general discussion, see chapter 2.

88

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

these claims support the identification of the people referred to as the priesthood. Second, I shall investigate what these claims tell us about the different and often contrasting points of view of the prophets and the priests. Two kinds of material are attributed to the priests in Isa 56-66. First, the author of 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 incorporates sayings which he ascribes to the priests (57:12; 58:12; 65:5). Secondly, by juxtaposing the originally independent lament in Isa 63:7-64:11 with his composition and furnishing it with a negative answer (65:1-66:17), the lament is transformed: from initially having been spoken by all the people of Judah, the lament is now presented as the sayings of the prophet's opponents, i.e. the priests. We shall note that the factor common to these cases is the priests' claims of innocence and/or of righteousness in the face of the prophetic accusations. In addition, we shall detect the tendency of the people cited, most prominently attested to in the lament in 63:7-64:11, to attempt to shift the blame from themselves to God. The priests' 2 professed righteousness, and the response contradicting this profession is the theme of Isa 57:12 ( ifti Twa-mo (xnmm) "inpix t i n ^k "li^jn1): God alone, rather than the priests, determines what righteousness is and who is righteous. We shall begin by determining the syntax of the verse and continue with its exegetical implications for our study as a whole. The main syntactical issue is whether the two nouns inp-ra and -paw» in the first clause together form the object of the verb tin, leaving the verb -pV'yr in the second clause without a stated subject, or whether the first noun "inpix is the object of the first verb while the second noun -puwa is the subject of the following verb "iiVm1. According to the first option, the first clause is translated as the verb "and I shall tell your righteousness and your deeds". 3 The following clause is then made into a complete sentence by moving the noun Txnp from verse 13 to the end of verse 12 to serve as the subject of the preceding nVi -p'ryr, resulting in the second clause being translated as "your idols shall not help you". 2 In chapter 2 , 1 identified the main target audience of the longer Isa 56:9-57:21 as the priestly leadership. In view of this, the accused people, referred to in f.sg. throughout 57:3-13 and often related to as a woman, are here assumed to be identified with the Judahite clergy. In view of this identification, the direct quote in Isa 57:12 can therefore be attributed to the priests. 3 E.g., the New JPS translation, and the NAB. For an in-depth discussion in favour of this translation, see J.L. Koole, Isaiah Vol. Ill: Isaiah Chapters 56-66 (HCOT; Leuven, 2001), pp. 49, 82-84.

3. Isaiah 58:1-3 - Further claims to

righteousness

89

In my view, however, the second option, supported not only by the Masoretic accents, but also by the Peshitta and the Vulgate, is superior.4 According to this reading, inpix is the direct object of the verb tun in 12a while "ptz/vn-niO forms the subject of the following clause. While it is unusual that the particle m denotes the subject rather than the direct object, eleven attested examples in biblical Hebrew support this practice, cf. Isa 57:15b (nn-'jBBi ici-ruo).5 Moreover, in the case of the waw preceding the in 12b, there is textual support for its secondary character, and thus for separating between inpis and Tron-nx. Additionally, the Hebrew manuscripts extant and used by several Mediaeval exegetes seem to omit this waw.6 In view of all this, I suggest the following translation of verse 12: "I shall inform (about) your righteousness, and your deeds will not avail you". Starting from this translation, the exegetical implications for the interpretation of verse 12 and for this study as a whole are significant. We find that this verse emphasizes the lack of a correlation between the priests' expressed righteousness and the prophetic evaluation of their behaviour. It is a prophetic taunt aimed at their self-righteousness, stating that God alone is able to estimate their righteousness: "/ will tell your righteousness" ("jnpix TUK ^K).7 Thus, the text speaks about the contrasting understanding of the situation of the two opposing groups. The priests regard themselves as righteous despite, or possibly due to, their behaviour described in the preceding verses. In contrast, the prophet declares that the presumed righteousness of the priests is but nought in the eyes of God.8 As we shall see throughout this chapter, this dichotomy between the respective understandings of the prophet and the priests parallels other places in Isa 56-66 as well as that which is attested in the book of Malachi.

3. Isaiah 58:1-3 - Further claims to righteousness Isaiah 58:l-3a attests to a situation similar to the preceding Isa 57:12. Again, we can detect two conflicting interpretations of the behaviour of the 4 Among critical scholars, this reading is supported by, among others, Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 555, and Volz, Jesaja, p. 212, note h. 5 GK §117k. 6 See the interpretations of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rabbi Joseph ben Karah and Rabbi Joseph Kaspi, Rabbinic Bible, Isa 57:12. 7 E.g., Radak, Rabbinic Bible, Duhm, Jesaia, p. 430, Marti, Jesaja, p. 369, Skinner, Isaiah, p. 176, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 669, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 259, Smart, History and Theology, p. 243, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 207. 8 Cf. Hanson, Dawn, p. 201, who writes that "what the priestly party considers righteousness, the prophetic group claims is defilement to Yahweh".

90

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

target audience, one that they themselves express and one that the prophet expresses. This section falls into four subgroups: 1. The determining of the identity of the people referred to in verse 2 and cited in 3 a. 2. An examination of the relationship between these people and those addressed in 58:1. 3. A discussion of the discrepancy between the prophet's estimate of the situation and the contrasting picture given by those whom he cites. 4. An investigation of the relationship of this text with other similar texts, primarily with Zech 7:4-7. 3.1. The identity of the people asking the Lord

Two factors suggest that the priests form a substantial part of the target audience of the longer section of Isa 58:1-12 (13-14): First, the target audience can be identified by their actions. They are described as seeking the Lord daily, desiring to know His ways, asking about the laws of righteousness, and wanting to draw near to God (v. 2). As Hanson points out, these descriptions best fit a person whose profession involves daily interaction with God.9 Thus, unless these claims are merely poetic expressions of true devotion, an unlikely supposition, we must conclude that the prophet speaks of people with a religious profession. Secondly, the target audience can be identified by the specific vocabulary used to describe their actions. In particular, the expression urn 'n and the root mp in 58:2 support a priestly identification of the people involved. It is possible that 'n (im is a technical term for a ritual similar to or identical with Urim and Thummim, as suggested by Hanson, although this cannot be determined beyond doubt. In Numb 27:21, the root is used in connection with questions of Urim and Thummim. Even so, the verb cm is often used in inquiries from the leadership (Ezek 14:3, 4, 7; 20:3, 31). Thus, there is textual evidence for its use in situations where leaders sought advice from prophets. In contrast, the root mp is clearly part of the priestly terminology and thus suggests a cultic context (see also further below).10 Besides, as I shall demonstrate below (Isa 56:10-11), the root VT is often used to denote priestly knowledge in particular. Hence, the possibility that such a meaning is present here as well (irarr •on rum) 9

Hanson, Dawn, p. 109. Hanson, Dawn, p. 109. He gives the examples Numb 17:5 (Eng. 16:40) ( W'X rnp'-fO mop TDpn1? [...] -IT) and Ezek 44:15-16 ( n y [•••] a^nani), together with Lev 9:7, 8; 16:1; 21:17-18; 22:3 which also speak about priestly services. Contrary to this, Numb 17:28 (Eng. 17:13) and 18:3 use the verb m p in a negative sense, i.e. people who are not descendants of Aaron cannot Tip something holy. For a similar opinion, see J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66 (AB 19B, New York, 2003), p. 177. 10

3. Isaiah 58:1-3 - Further claims to righteousness

91

should not be discarded. Thus, given these two factors, we can safely identify the target audience of Isa 58:l-3a as the religious leadership. A potential problem regarding my identification of the people in verse 2 with the religious leadership is the appearance of the expression 'vo ("like a people") in the same verse which ostensibly points to a wider audience. However, to be likened to a nation is not the same as being one (cf. the expression ^nvn Nip-x1? 'u in Isa 65:1, below). Hence, vud in 58:2 does not necessarily address all of Judah. Furthermore, as we shall discuss in more detail in chapter 6, the accusations in 58:3b-4, referring to people with workers (•D'oxy) under them, imply that a more narrowly defined audience, restricted to the upper layers of the society, is intended. To sum up, the actions ascribed to the people in verse 2 and the priestly terminology in the same verse together suggest that the religious leadership, including the priests, is the particular target of Isa 58:l-3a. In regard to this, the expression i-IJO serves as a comparative element "like a people" rather than indicating a wider target audience. 3.2. The significance of a waw If the people in Isa 58:2 can be identified with the religious leadership, who then are the people labelled "my people" ( t o ) in 58:1 and referred to in the third person ("their sin" - avwo and "their iniquity" - (anson)? Are these one and the same group of people or are we dealing with two different groups? In order to answer this question, we have to investigate the meaning and syntactic position of the waw commencing verse 2 (TIKI). A prefixed waw can be translated in two ways: either as "and" or as "but". If we treated 58:2 as the direct continuation of verse 1, the natural assumption would be that the subject remains the same, i.e. that the subject of the verbs INMT and iisorr (v. 2) is TO (V. 1). The commencing waw in 58:2 (Trmi) would then be understood as providing a contrast, translated as "but": "[...] tell My people [about] their sin and the house of Jacob [about] their iniquity. But they (the people) have sought me daily [...]". This translation is advocated by several scholars who understand the contrast to be between the proclaimed sin and the seemingly pious behaviour of the people addressed. 11 This reading, however, makes little sense. Following the command to tell the people of their sins, we would expect a description of their failings. Instead, we hear about people seeking God's will. Thus, we find that a close reading of the text reveals that verse 2 does not follow

11 Duhm, Jesaia, p. 435, Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 121-22, G. Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja, 3 (ZBK, Zürich, 1964), pp. 205-6. Volz, Jesaja, p. 221, seeking a wider meaning of this waw, understands it as "admittedly".

92

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

smoothly after verse 1. As such, it is unlikely to contain the direct continuation of the train of thoughts expressed in the preceding verse. In view of this discrepancy, I propose that verse 1 be regarded as an introduction to the section as a whole, in which a person is commanded to declare the sins of the people. The persons responsible for the spiritual guidance of the people, i.e. the religious leadership, are, however, otherwise occupied: they are seeking the Lord daily and being vigilant concerning their own fasts rather than caring about the dangers threatening their flock (v. 2). Thus, the very people who are commanded to cry out in 58:1 are the subject in 58:2.12 If we accept this identification of those called to cry out in verse 1 with the leadership in verse 2, we have to explain the change in the form of address between 58:1 (2sg.) and 2 (3pl.). In this respect, Isa 59:4-5 brings light to the situation where the same phenomenon is attested. In 4a, the author claims that nobody (l1« - 3sg.) laments the lack of a watchman, while in the following text, the author uses absolute infinitives (4b) and 3pl. (5ff.) to refer to the same people. Hence, there is no stylistic difficulty in identifying the person commanded to call out in 58:1 with the persons described in the following 58:2. Having determined the identity of the people in 58:1-2, the question remains of how to translate the waw in verse 2. Given the contrast between verse 1 and verse 2, a translation "but" is required. This contrast, however, does not serve to differentiate between the prophet's perception of the people as sinners (v. 1) and their own understanding of themselves as righteous (v. 2). Instead, the waw denotes the discrepancy between what the leaders are entrusted to do, i.e. proclaiming the sins of the people (v. 1), and what they are actually doing, i.e. focusing exclusively on their cultic activities (v. 2). A similar dichotomy is described later on in verses 4-10: their cultic behaviour is criticized and once again contrasted with the actions that they should be taking instead. To sum up, I suggest that verse 1 serves as a heading for the rest of the chapter. This means that the group labelled iay in verse 1, identified with the people of Judah, is distinct from the people addressed in the continuing verses 2ff., identified with the religious leadership. Further, the waw commencing verse 2 should be translated as "but". As such, it provides a contrast between the command to the leaders to proclaim to the people their sins, and their actual behaviour: solely focusing on fulfilling their ritual duties.

12

For a more detailed exposition of the leaders' task to be watchman and thus to call out and warn their flock, see Tiemeyer, "Watchman Metaphor", pp. 378-400.

3. Isaiah 58:1-3 - Further claims to righteousness

3.3. Isaiah 2b-3a - The disparate and the priests

understandings

93

of the prophet

After having determined that Isa 58:2 refers to people belonging to the upper layers of the Judahite society of which the priests formed an important part, this concluding section will focus on the selfunderstanding of these people and how this understanding differs from that of the prophet. As mentioned previously, the prophet's target audience is likened to "a people who act righteously" (nira npix--iwx 1-U3, 58:2). In view of this, several scholars argue that this expression of a desire to serve God should not to be taken seriously because it merely shows their dishonesty and selfdelusion (vv. 2-3). 13 In my view, however, this judgement is incorrect. They are, as far as they are aware, seeking to do what is right. Their perception is in fact corroborated by the prophet's description of them: the prophet describes the priests as actually seeking God and desiring knowledge about His ways etc. (2a). Further, he likens them to people who practice righteousness and do not abandon God's regulations (2b). Thus, the prophet's criticism of their behaviour does not concern their ritual behaviour - in this respect, they are performing excellently. Instead, I suggest that the emphasis of the prophetic critique concerns the priests' expectations: the priests expect God to acknowledge their endeavour and to reward them accordingly. According to the priests' understanding of the covenant with God, fulfilling the ritual obligations should yield results (v. 3a).14 In addition, the prophet also criticizes the priests for the failings with regard to social justice (58:3b—4, see chapter 6). God demands both ritual and social justice. Failings in one area are not compensated by zeal in the other. Thus, the divine refusal to acknowledge their endeavours stems from their failing in their duties towards the people of Judah. To conclude, this section bears witness to the priests' performance of their duties and their attempt to do what is right in their dealings with God. Thus, from the perspective of the priests and the other Judahite leaders, they are fulfilling their duties, and are accordingly justified in their lament. The prophet's understanding of the situation differs. While he acknowledges the priests' endeavours in the ritual realm, his critique aims

13

E.g., W. Bruggemann, Isaiah 40-66 (WeBC, Louisville, Kentucky, 1998), pp. 186 88, who mocks the people's "feel-good worship". This harsh judgement is correctly criticized by Schramm, Opponents, p. 134. Cf. Whybray, Isaiah, p. 212, Smith, Rhetoric, p. 107. 14 Cf. Koole, Isaiah, III/III, pp. 127-28, who states that "on the basis of their supposed righteousness the people desire the approach of the god who should have recognized this obligation".

94

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

to correct their view of themselves, and to make them see their failings in other areas. 3.4. Understanding Zechariah 7:4-7 in the context of Isaiah 58 There are several similarities between Isa 58 and Zech 7:4-7: 15 both texts address a group of people in which the priests form a significant part, and both texts voice concerns about fasting and social justice. In view of these affinities and, more significantly, the fact that the interpretation of one text has a bearing on the interpretation of the other, I have chosen to discuss the criticism against the priesthood found in Zech 7:4-7 in the present context. Similarly to Isa 56-66, the identity of the key characters and the interpretation of the text are inter-connected. Hence, this section begins by determining the identity of the people targeted in Zech 7:4-7 and continues by discussing the interpretation of the same material. On the basis of this interpretation, we shall end by comparing the message of Zech 7:4-7 with Isa 58. 3.4.1. The identity of the target audience The priests (cnron) and all the people of the land (pxn DU-^D) are the target audience of the oracle in 7:4ff. as explicitly stated in verse 5. While some scholars argue that this statement indicates that the problem with fasting was shared by both high and low, i.e. by the people and their leaders,16 one does more justice to the text by taking the two designations at face value: if the author had intended a wider audience, he would have chosen a more inclusive term (cf. Neh 5:7 etc.). Thus, I suggest that the priests, in their position as religious leaders, were singled out as guilty: fasting was after all part of their field of expertise and they were accordingly responsible for the different fasts in the land. Who are these priests that are being criticized in Zech 7:4-7? It has been argued, especially because of the likely connection between the priests mentioned in the preceding verses 1-3 and a possible sanctuary in Bethel (see chapter 2), that the priests here are not representative of the priesthood in general but are limited to a group of schismatic priests 15 We have already discussed the textual history of Zech 7 - 8 in chapter 2 and there concluded that Zech 7:1-3; 8:18-19 constitutes the original oracle, to which the material about how to fast (7:4-8:17) was subsequently added. In view of this, my exegesis presupposes a distinction between the issue of the manner of fasting addressed in Zech 4:4-7 and the issue concerning the continuance of fasting in certain months raised in Zech 7:1-3 and 8:18-19. Further, given that evidence of a critical disposition towards the priests is limited to 7:4-7, the following discussion concerns this section only. 16 E.g., Meyers, Haggai, p. 387.

3. Isaiah 58:1-3 - Further claims to righteousness

95

residing in Bethel. 17 This claim, however, fails to convince for several reasons. First, presupposing that there existed a sanctuary in Bethel, 18 there is no evidence that these priests held less than orthodox views. Secondly, in view of the text-historical considerations discussed earlier, the connection between the priests in Bethel (vv. 1-3) and those criticized in the following verses 4-8 is at best secondary. Thirdly, the prophet addresses "the people of the land", i.e. a wider audience than just the population of one place. Fourthly, there are no allusions to any unorthodoxy in the critique against the priests in Zech 7-8. Instead, the focus of the criticism is centred on the priests' selfish attitude to fasting: they are not doing it for God but rather for themselves. In the light of this, we may conclude that the priests criticized in this material are, from all we can know, part of the Judahite priesthood in general rather than from a schismatic smaller group. 3.4.2. The interpretation

ofZechariah

7:4-7

In Zech 7:5-6, the priests and the people are asked whether they in the past fasted (v. 5) and whether they now eat and drink (v. 6) for God or for selfish reasons. What needs elucidating is the kind of critique that is implied here. In most cases, a fast is carried out for the sake of the one fasting or for another human being, as an intercessory measure, pleading with God to intervene in a given situation.19 Alternatively, one fasts in response to loss. Again, however, this fast is ultimately for the benefit of oneself rather than for God. The hoped-for gain is that God would respond and turn lament into blessing. In view of this, Zechariah's criticism that the people fasted for their own sake appears unjustified: how does one fast for God? In the case of eating, the situation is similar: human beings eat for their own sake rather than for God. We may consider God when we eat but the purpose is the nourishment of our bodies.20

17

This interpretation is suggested but then refuted by Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 206-9. Instead, he suggests that the priests in both Zech 7:1-3 and 4-5 are those in Jerusalem. Note, however, that Ackroyd understands "Bethel" to be part of the longer name "Bethel-sharezer", a view not shared by the present author. 18 Blenkinsopp, "Judean Priesthood", pp. 30-34. 19 For example, Esther asks the Jewish population in Susah to fast for her sake ( 1D1S •hy - Esth 4:16). Similarly, David fasted for his son's life (2 Sam 12:16). 20 Petersen, Haggai, p. 286, note 7. For a contrary opinion, see Redditt who suggests that the prophet refers to the feasting of the three pilgrimage festivals (Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkoth). The prophet accuses the people and the priests for observing them without proper consideration for God. There is, however, no foundation for this interpretation in the text itself.

96

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

To solve this problem, several scholars understand the prophetic criticism to concern the self-pity of the people and the priests,21 but this interpretation receives little support from the text. In my view, the solution lies in the juxtaposition of the following oracle (vv. 8-14). In this loosely attached oracle, we find an abbreviated form of pre-exilic prophetic teaching, serving to remind Zechariah's audience of the sins which caused the exile to happen. Further, more indirectly, the priests and the people are encouraged to execute true judgment, show mercy and compassion, not to oppress the needy in the society and not do evil towards their brothers. The juxtaposition of the two oracles is intentional, directing the reader towards a certain interpretation of the former: the issue in Zech 7:4-6 is not the manner in which the priests and the people fast—they are free to fast and they do this in a commendable fashion. Instead, it is the combination of fasting to the exclusion of other concerns that irks the prophets. The prophetic accusation that they fast for their own sake should be understood to mean that their fast overshadows their concern for others. They are so focused on their own needs that they forget those of the people around them. 3.4.3. Interpreting Zechariah 7:4-7 through Isaiah 58 This proposed interpretation receives further support by the similar criticism attested in Isa 58, a text the central message of which is that fasting without social justice is insufficient. The two texts share many significant elements, something which in turn suggests a shared interpretation. First, in both texts, the authors voice the concerns of fasting and social justice and these sentiments are in both texts directed to a group of people in which the priests form a significant part. For example, the idea that the people are fasting for their own rather than for God's sake is found in both Isa 58:3-4 and Zech 7:5-6. Secondly, the emphasis of social justice, found in Isa 58:6-7 and 10, recurs in Zech 7:9-10. Thirdly, both texts contain the assurance of divine response, if justice is carried out: God promises to respond when they call out in Isa 58:9, and God declares His unwillingness to respond when they call out, due to their injustice, in Zech 7:13. To conclude, the critical disposition towards the priests as attested in Isa 58:1-4 and Zech 7:4-7 concerns the same area. Both texts declare that the 21 For example, Mitchell, Haggai, p. 200, states that the people pitied themselves but had yet to learn how to fear the Lord. Their laments showed no signs of betterment, "being an expression, not of godly sorrow for past offences, but of selfish regret for the loss of their country and their liberty". Similarly, Baldwin, Haggai, p. 144, claims that the people here are accused of self-interest when fasting, amounting to no more than selfpity.

4. Isaiah 65:5 - The priests 'professed holiness

97

priests' fasting per se is not wrong. On the contrary, the priests are correct in viewing their fasting as an act of righteousness. Nonetheless, their fasting, when done exclusively without being accompanied by acts of social justice, is insufficient.

4. Isaiah 65:5 - The priests' professed holiness The idea that the prophet's opponents considered themselves righteous as expressed in Isa 5 7 : 1 2 and 58:2 is continued in Isa 6 5 : 1 - 6 6 : 1 7 , albeit with a slightly different nuance. Rather than speaking of their righteousness (npix) as they do in Isa 5 7 : 1 2 and 58:2, they are cited in Isa 65:5 as speaking of their own holiness. This section falls into two main parts: we shall first establish the identity of the target audience and, based on this identification, we shall propose our interpretation. 4.1. The identity of the target audience of Isaiah 65:5 The people who performed the rites described in Isa 6 5 : 3 - 4 are cited as uttering the phrase Tnunp -o ^-mn-bx T*7N m p in verse 5. This person can be identified with a priest for several reasons.22 First, it is syntactically preferable to maintain the pointing of the unusual form -pnsnp, thereby reading it as a Paal form rather than emending it to a Piel form, and to translate it intransitively as "to be holy", understanding the attached suffix as a comparative, i.e. "holier than you". Secondly, the word unp is elsewhere in biblical Hebrew used to indicate the holiness of YHWH so the same is assumed here. Hence, the speakers are quoted as regarding themselves holier than the surrounding people. Thirdly, this holiness should not be considered as the result of the activities in verses 3-4 but rather to denote the identity of the speakers, holiness being their normative state. The category of people most suitable for this kind of label is the priesthood. Fourthly, from a morphological angle, the root ra ("approach") together with the expressions •p1?« ^ip ("draw near") and -pmsnp, all occurring in 65:5, are "three of the cardinal technical terms in the priestly language", to cite Hanson.23 While ira and mp occur in several contexts other than priestly, they carry priestly connotations in many texts and the root wip is by its very meaning a cultic term. Taken separately, we 22 I have elsewhere argued that the speaker should be identified as a priest, and give therefore only a brief summery of my arguments. See L.-S. Tiemeyer, "The Haughtiness of the Priesthood (65,5)", Biblica 85 (2004), pp. 237-44. 23 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 147—49. His view is adopted by E. Achtemeier, The Community and the Message of Isaiah 56-66. A Theological Commentary (Augsburg, 1982), pp. 123-24, and Koole, Isaiah, III/III, pp. 417-18.

98

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

would not have satisfactory evidence for a clerical context, but taken together, it is likely that we are dealing with priestly language. The main problem with a priestly identification of the speaker in verse 5 is the determinations ds/'u in verses 1-3. 24 These appellations purportedly denote the whole people, rather than a limited fraction thereof. The key to the problem lies in the absence of a definite article or a possessive pronoun. The people referred to are called •'awn sip-x1? 'u and mio ny, i.e. a nation who do not call upon God's name25 and a rebellious people, rather than "the nation" and "the people". Thus, there is no reason why they should constitute the whole nation. Instead, a smaller group of people may be intended, labelled "rebellious people". Similarly, the expression 'ua hot np7X--iWN in 58:2 refers only to those speaking in 58:3 rather than to the whole people (in contrast to the references to TO and spy rra in 58:1, which, due to the possessive pronoun and the specific npy rrn, refer to the whole nation). In the case of ovn in 65:3, I suggest that in the light of the specification by the following plural participles, ns?n should be understood as "the persons" rather than "the (national) people". 4.2. Interpretation

of Isaiah 65:5

Having established the grammatical reading of the expression i^k aip -pnwip 'a 'a-ttun-Vx as well as the identity of the person uttering it, its interpretation is yet to be determined. These two requests have often been understood in one of two ways: 1. The speaker is warning the people for the sake of the latter: if the people came in contact with something holy, they would bring upon themselves God's fatal anger (cf. 2 Sam 6:7).26 2. The speaker expressed concern about his own holiness, fearing that if a common person touched him, he himself would become polluted.27 There is no textual basis for the latter suggestion, the concern always being on the people around them. Even the Piel form of the root wip in Ezek 44:19 focuses on the people-, the priests changed clothes before leaving the temple for the benefit of the people outside (nmiaa avn-nxTO7p,-N1?'i),rather than for their own sake (cf. Ezek 42:14). Numb 18:2ff., speaking about Levitical service, similarly emphasizes God's dangerous holiness: if a Levite touched any of the holy vessels or the altar, both the Levites and the priests would die (v. 3). Further, the Levites alone were allowed to touch 24

Smith, Rhetoric, p. 137. Emending the attested Inner Passive Paal to a Paal active participle (above). 26 E.g., Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 616. 27 This is the understanding of the Vulgate. See also Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 748, who argues that the speakers have become holy as a result of the rites described in verses 3—4, and fear that contact with others would render them profane. 25

4. Isaiah 65:5 - The priests 'professed, holiness

99

the priests. No stranger (IT) was allowed in their presence (v. 4), lest he die (nor 3ipn urn, v. 7). Thus, the idea that the priests feared pollution of their own holiness is unlikely. All the same, I neither condone a Piel reading of the root unp, nor do I think that the first suggestion, i.e. the contagiousness of holiness, is the main issue here. The preceding short imperative commands "'a-Bun-'jx" (do not approach me") and "T^N mp" (draw near to yourself') speak against this, as they do not seem to mirror any actual concern for the speakers but rather to form brusque reprimands. Rather, the solution appears to lie in the comparative sense of "prwrp. The text implies that the priest's saying in Isa 65:5 addresses the prophet. As such, it corresponds to the prophet's own claim that only he and his followers are the true servants of God (65:9) and that they alone will inherit His holy mountain (57:13), i.e. the temple. Contradicting this claim, what the priest is telling the prophet is to "draw near" to himself (T7N mp), in this way indicating that the only place where the latter can draw near is to himself, in contrast to the priests whose task is to "draw near" to God's altar. Furthermore, instead of approaching the altar, the prophet is not even allowed to approach the priests (^i-mn-bx). Finally, in response to a hypothetical claim of equal or even surpassing holiness, the priest answers Tniz^p, i-e. "I am holier than you". In this manner, this declaration of their own holiness in Isa 65:5 is yet another expression of their disdain for their opponents and their own sense of superiority and self-righteousness. As such, Isa 65:5 is reminiscent of Isa 58:l-3a. The people in neither text are described as showing neglect of the cult. On the contrary, it is precisely their cultic activities which anger God.28 4.3.

Conclusion

To conclude, the person speaking in Isa 65:5 is likely to be a priest owing to the priestly vocabulary of the longer expression •o -a-ann-Vx ybx mp i w r p , and, more particularly, the Paal form of the verb "iviEnp and its comparative sense "holier than you". This identification results in an interpretation where the priests declare their holiness, a statement that reflects their sense of faultlessness and of doing what God requires of them.

28 Cf. Hanson, Dawn, p. 146, who writes that the description of Isa 65:1-7 "gives a shocking description of the self-righteous majority [...] It is a group very active in sacred activities, but they are activities which infuriate rather than please Yahweh"

100

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

5. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 - The priests' lament We meet a similar attitude to Isa 65:5 in the lament in Isa 63:7-64:11. The speakers express their own sense of worth and, at the same time, blame God for the current situation. This attitude is displayed in two ways: complaints against God's absence and complaints about His unjust treatment of the people of Judah. In the following discussion, we shall begin by addressing God's perceived absence, attested in Isa 63:11, 15, 19b-64:2, 6, and 11, and continue with God's perceived unjust treatment, attested in Isa 63:17, 19b, and 64:4-5. The evidence from Isa 63:7-64:11 has to be treated with care. As I argued in chapter 2, this is most likely an originally independent late exilic or early post-exilic lament which has been incorporated by the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 and furbished with a negative response. Hence, there is no inherent connection between the people lamenting in 63:7-64:11 and the prophet's opponents in Isa 65:1-66:17. Yet a connection exists in that the prophet, by choosing this particular lament, identified the sentiments uttered by the lamenting people with those of his opponents. In this way, we can learn, albeit only secondarily, about the ideas of the latter. The affinity between the opinions found in the lament and the attitudes expressed by the priests in Isa 57:12; 58:2 and 65:5 points in the same direction: the author identified the lamenting people's reproachful rather than penitential tone and their blaming of God for their current situation, with that of his own contemporary opponents. 5.1. Isaiah 63:11, 15, 19b-64:2,

6 and 11 - God's

absence

Accusations of divine absence are the theme of several verses in Isa 63:764:11, accusations which tell us much about the feelings towards God of those originally responsible for the lament and subsequently, the feelings that the prophetic author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 attributed to his (mainly priestly) opponents. • First, the statement "where is He who placed in his midst His Holy Spirit" (ump nn-nx mpn own rrx) in Isa 63:1 lbb testifies to the feelings among the lamenting people that God, who used to be present, is currently absent. • Similarly, verse 15 laments the absence of God's jealous love and mighty deeds, "the yearning of His heart" ("pyn linn) and His compassion. • The plea is substantiated anew in the following verse where the speakers remind God of His fatherhood, history having shown that "You are our father, our redeemer, from everlasting is Your name" (nntf in® nVwn UVKJ irn« 'n). Based on God's past acts of salvation, the

5. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 - The priests ' lament

•

101

lamenting people express their hope that God will again fulfil His traditional role and show them mercy, pleading with God to manifest a theophany (63:19b-64:2). Finally, both 64:6 and 11 focus on God's absence: the former verse is a description of the current situation where nobody is calling upon God because He has hidden Himself, and the latter is an open entreaty to God to break His silence. Isa 64:6 is of special importance, as it indicates that the speakers do not consider themselves the only guilty ones.29 Instead, they blame God for the "Godless" situation in their society. No one calls upon the name of the Lord because He has hidden himself (i:aa T3S mnon-,:>). Thus, in their view, God has neglected His duty towards His people.30

This idea of an absent God is attested elsewhere in Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 and can be understood either negatively (57:17; 59:11) or positively (65:6), or in both ways (57: ll): 3 1 1. Negatively: God has been silent to Israel's plea for help, refusing to help His people in their plight. God's silence is thus part of the punishment. 2. Positively: God has chosen to be silent instead of punishing Israel. Consequently, God's silence expresses His patience and grace. I suggest that this already existing ambiguity within the text of Isa 56:959:21 and 65:1-66:17 is the key to this author's use of the claims of divine abandonment in Isa 63:7-64:11. In view of his response in Isa 65:6, the prophetic author implies that God's silence should have been interpreted positively, but the people represented by the lament misunderstood it as a negative response. In other words, instead of causing repentance, the people used it as a pretext for going astray. God's silence became a reason for forgetting Him, regardless of whether the lack of communication was punishment for their past sins or mercy in view of their present ones. From the perspective of the people lamenting, however, God's silence pre-dates their neglect and thus serves as its cause. As such, they argue that their neglect of God can be justified, as it is the result of His abandonment of them. To sum up, the lament in its current place depicts successfully the dichotomy, with regard to God's apparent absence, between the prophet's 29 In Isa 64:6b (UN®1 n r a 13TO1), the speakers acknowledge that they are not completely blameless. 30 Cf. Volz, Jesaja, p. 273. 31 Isa 57:11 is understood negatively by, among others, Elliger, Einheit, p. 77, and positively by, among others, Volz, Jesaja, p. 215, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 259, and Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 59.

102

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

view of the situation and the contradictory view attributed to his opponent. Furthermore, in choosing this particular lament, the prophetic author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 illustrates how these sentiments, which may originally have been justified, 32 are no longer an excuse for disregarding God. His present opponents, unlike their exilic predecessors, are not justified in their complaints against God and can no longer hold on to claims of righteousness. 5.2. Isaiah 63:17, 19b, 64:4-5 — God's unjust treatment of Judah In addition to the statements of God's absence and the subsequent justification of the people's neglect of God, three other statements in the lament in Isa 63:7-64:11 imply that the people lamenting hold God responsible for their current plight (63:17, 19b; 64:4-5): 1. Isa 63:17 ascribes the cause of the sin to God, in this way making God the one ultimately responsible for the situation.33 He is the one who made the people's hearts hard which caused them to sin which in turn justified God in bringing the enemies who destroyed the temple ( nn1? inx-pa m1? rrwpn t d i i s 'n i:i?nri = "why do you let us err from your ways, oh Lord, [why] do you harden our hearts so that we do not fear You").34 2. Isa 63:19a contains a tone of complaint against God. The two statementsan nVira-x1? nbirn ipti (= "we have become [...] over whom (•a) You no longer rule")35 and orr1?» law Nipa-tO ("they were never called by Your name") speak about a past situation where the people were ruled by God and were called after His name. As such, they attest to a contrary situation: at present, the very opposite is perceived to be true. 3. The third and strongest expression of the feeling that God is the one ultimately responsible for the situation in Judah is found in Isa 64:4-5. Owing primarily to the complex syntax of the verse, these verses have not always been understood in this way. In the following discussion, I 32 In its present context, i.e. as incorporated by the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 6 5 : 1 66:17, the lament serves the purposes of the later author. It is furbished with a negative response in 65:1-66:17 which indicates that the later author disagrees with the sentiments expressed in the lament. Treated as an exilic independent text, the interpretation would naturally differ. 33 Cf. Goldenstein, Gebet der Gottesknechte, pp. 95-100. 34 Interestingly, Volz, Jesaja, pp. 267, 273-74, who sees this as part of the punishment: "die schwerste Strafe der Sünde ist die Sünde selbst". The same sentiment was expressed earlier by Maimonides in his D'^Ol1? D'fHE) miati> "IDD (Maimonides, Introduction to Avot), English translation by N. Lebowitz, Studies in Shemot. Part 1 and 2 (Jerusalem 1976), pp. 154-55. 35 For the use of third person, see GK § 155m.

5. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 - The priests ' lament

103

shall therefore demonstrate that 64:4a is a reproach where the lamenting people claim that God hurts (runs) those who joyfully do right, while 4b describes the people's sins (xomi) as the result of God's anger (nssp). Along similar lines, the lamenting people complain that their righteousness is treated by God as an impure rag in verse 5. 5.2.1. Exegetical

considerations

of Isaiah 64:4

Three issues need addressing in order to reach a satisfactory interpretation of Isa 64:4-6: the interpretation of the expression w©-nx nsis; the syntactic relation between the words noxp nnx-in and the following Norm; and the interpretation of the expression »»in o^iy am, all of them in verse 4. 5.2.1.1. The expression

UW-nx nSM

Beginning with the understanding of the expression m?-m nviD, three matters in verse 4 are often questioned: First, concerning the meaning of the verb SHO, even though this verb normally means "to meet, encounter," and has negative connotations, giving the translation "yet you have struck him who gladly does justice" of the phrase as a whole, this meaning is seldom accepted.36 Instead, other solutions are sought - either attempting to find a unique positive meaning of nyjD,37 emending the text,38 - but these attempts lack textual support. Secondly concerning the mood of the sentence, the attested indicative is seldom accepted. Instead, many scholars add the word (x)m before runs, meaning "would that you had met".39 They assume that this xi1? was lost by haplography, taking into account that the preceding line ends with lb. This addition would make 64:4b a parallel with 63:19b (m-p o^w risnp-xi1?). There is, however, no support in the ancient versions for a subjunctive mood. Thirdly, in the MT, concerning the syntax of the clause, the participle w-nx is the designated direct object of rms. Yet again, this reading is not generally accepted. In fact, general confusion reigns. • Among the versions, the Peshitta (xmp'-n nasn I'Via xaoun rux susi) reads the Hebrew nx as "with" and the following noun as an abstract 36

The translation of JPS is an exception. E.g., the Peshitta that assigns positive connotations to it (NDDirn sisi). Cf. Ibn Ezra, Rabbinic Bible (Q'P'isn DVD ^npn n"n - riSJD). In BDB, p. 803a, the instance in Isa 64:4 alone is rendered "meet with kindness". Among modern scholars, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 246, understands »53 as "accept, welcome". 38 E.g., Volz, Jesaja, pp. 266-67, note z, who suggests mpD = "you have visited", comparable with Jer 15:15 and 27:22 39 This reading was first suggested by H. Gratz, Emendationes in Plerosque Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Testamenti Libros (Breslau, 1892), p. 36a. 37

104

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

substantive (raom = "gladness, delight"), seeing wiw-nx as an attribute of God. Presupposing that the Vorlage of the Peshitta corresponds to the MT, however, this reading of the Hebrew text is unnatural. While it is possible to understand the Hebrew ns = "with", the verb bid normally takes the preposition -a to indicate "with". • The Vulgate also deviates from the MT, using the dative present participle (occurristi laetanti et facienti iustitiam) to render the Hebrew m)-m. • Lastly, the LXX simplifies the syntax and translates all of 4aa as ouvavnioe-uai yap tolg t t o i o O o l v t o 6 l k o c i o v = "It (what is mentioned in the preceding verse) will happen to them who do righteousness". Among modern scholars, most delete -1 W2/,40 or else emend the text.41 Lastly, the majority of English translations retain the MT, but it is not uncommon to render wty adverbially, an understanding that seems to be the most satisfactory given the Hebrew text. For example, RSV translates "him that joyfully works righteousness" and NEB suggests "him who rejoices to do what is right". Evaluating these options, two plausible ways of interpreting the expression ©w-nx nsna become apparent. One is to follow the reading of the Peshitta: "You have met with gladness those who do justice". Nonetheless, not only does this interpretation presuppose a hitherto unattested positive meaning of the verb »id, it also makes little sense in the present context which laments God's absence (64:6, 11). Neither does it fit its immediate continuation in 64:4 which speaks about God's anger. In fact, an opposite translation would be more logical. The more attractive alternative is to understand the verb iisia as "to encounter with hostility", resulting in the translation, "You have stricken the one who rejoices in doing what is right". This translation has the benefits firstly of maintaining the negative aspect of yiD, since it takes into account the accusative marker nx, and secondly, as a declaration of injustice, it fits well in the larger context of the lament, especially with the following 64:5. In this sense, the lamenting people express their disappointment with God: they strove to do His will gladly but He repaid them by striking them. 5.2.1.2. The syntactic relation between nssp nns-]n and. Nürni The second difficulty concerns the syntactic relation between the words -in nosp nnx and the following N o r m . Translating these words in the simplest 40 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, p. 471, Volz, Jesaja, p. 267, note z, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 310, note 7. 41 E.g., A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, 4 (Leipzig, 1912), p. 225, who emends to 3®.

5. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 - The priests'

lament

105

fashion we read, "You were angry at us and we sinned", i.e. God's anger (perfect) preceded the people's sinning (imperfect). Yet scholars more commonly regard the syntactical relation between these two expressions as cause and result in the reverse order, i.e. "You are angry because we have sinned".42 What is the correct reading? The expression Norm nDXp nns-in is constructed as a qatal, followed by a waw consecutive + yiqtol. The construction waw consecutive + yiqtol mostly indicates the chronological and sometimes logical sequence of something which has gone before, but there are cases where it has an explanatory or interpretative function. In such passages, the event or fact expressed by the waw consecutive + yiqtol may be identical with the preceding event, or synchronous with it, or even anterior to it (e.g., Judg 16:10 [Q'DID ^N -mm n nVnn] where the form in question sums up the result of the preceding narrative).43 In these examples, the construction waw consecutive + yiqtol introduces the result of an action rather than its reason. In view of these syntactical considerations, the interpretation "you were angry because we have sinned" is syntactically doubtful. Instead, the exact opposite is more likely: as the waw consecutive + yiqtol introduces the result of an action, God's anger has led to the sin: "you were angry and therefore (as a consequence) we sinned".44 This understanding has advantages beyond the sphere of grammar. The idea that God is blamed for the people's sins fits well with the complaint in Isa 63:17 and 19. Furthermore, it agrees with the sentiments expressed in the following 64:5 where those lamenting claim that it is "our virtues" (-Va 42

E.g., Radaq, Rabbinic Bible ("ps1? laxoniff main lrbs? i s i p n"nTO), Rashi, KJV, P.E. Bonnard, Le second Isaïe, son disciple et leurs éditeurs Isaïe 40-66 (EBib, Paris, 1972), p. 442. 43 See further J.C.L. Gibson, Davidson 's Introductory Hebrew Grammar - Syntax (Edinburgh, 1994), pp. 95-96. He also cites Judg 3:30 Cf. Gen 2:1 (-"7D1 fiNni D'awn I^Tl nxax); 23:19-20 (nbsaan m » rnva-1?« uircx m » ns nnnax nap p - n n x i [...] m m nj>n nn-'ia nra nap-mra 1 ? annax1? la-nwx rraani); Josh 5:9 ( na^sn crnxa nsnn-nx 'nfti avn run nvn iv W71 sinn mpan a® xnp'ï) and Judg 8:28 ( ns®1? IDD1 X^I ^ ¡ n w ^a ^s1? v m »»'I p x n ppgm owsn). 44 Volz, Jesaja, pp. 273-74. See also S.H. Blank, '"And All Our Virtues' - An Interpretation of Is 64 4b-5a", JBL 71 (1952), pp. 149-54, who compares the use of the waw consecutive in Is. 64:4 with that in Gen 1:3 (niN-vn mx 'H' niiK1!) and 39:2 1 (rrtïn 2IÜ1 IDV-nx 'n Tl !), and F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem in Alten Testament (BZAW 74, Berlin, 1955), pp. 74-75. Z. Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew (SBLMS 50, Atlanta, 1998), pp. 69-70, opposes this interpretation, arguing instead that in Isa 64:4 (similarly to Exod 4:31; 16:20; Lev 1:15 and 9:22) the second clause logically precedes the first one. Nonetheless, as Zevit himself admits, when a writer presents the events out of order, he assumes that "the reader/listener would be able to discern the proper [word] order". Hence, in such cases, it is the context which must determine what is the cause and what the result.

106

Chapter 4: The priests ' claim to righteousness

lrnpix) and not "our sins" which are likened to stained clothes. Such statements are not normally part of a confession. Hence, the suggestion that xom in 64:4 does not mean "we have sinned" but rather "we bear the blame" (cf. Gen 43:9; Exod 9:27) made by Blank is attractive. Thus, instead of confessing his sin, the people lamenting accuse God of unjustly punishing His people (cf. Job 27:6).45 In conclusion, I suggest the following translation of 64:4ba, "Behold, because You were angry, we are guilty"; a statement that indicates that from the perspective of those lamenting, they sinned because God was angry. 5.2.1.3. The expression vwm dVu? ana and the exegesis of Isaiah 64:4 The third and most extreme difficulty concerns the interpretation of the expression swm c^iy on:]. As the text stands, there are two main critical issues. First, it is unclear to what the preposition am refers, 46 and second, the syntactical relationship not only within the longer expression obw cm yitmi but also with the preceding words is very uncertain. Literally, they read "in them always and we were saved".47 No satisfactory solution has until now been proposed. Hence, a textual emendation seems to be the best option. Beginning with the word ywm, the reading of the LXX is probably the best option. In this translation, verse 4 ends with the clause 6ia xouxo euXavii0r||aev = "because of this we have erred". It is difficult to reconstruct the Hebrew Vorlage which would have resulted in this translation but the suggestion that it might render the Hebrew ywoj an,l?y carries some weight: an original ywo: could easily have been transmitted wrongly as ytzmi, given the high degree of shared consonants 48 In support of this reading, the Greek verb irAavow = "lead astray", although it normally translates the Hebrew root nyn (e.g., Isa 63:17), renders the Hebrew D'ytfiD (ol TTeTrXavniievoi) in Isa 46:8. Furthermore, such a reading would be suitable

45 Blank, "And All Our Virtues", pp. 149-54. Recently, this understanding of Isa 64:4 has also been advocated by Goldenstein, Gebet der Gottesknechte, pp. 117-18, and Childs, Isaiah, pp. 521, 525-26. 46 In its present form, the preposition am can refer either to the subject of the verb 1TDP = "it is because of them (i.e. those who remember You in Your ways)", or to "l'on = "it is always in them (i.e. your ways)". The latter interpretation is supported by the Peshitta and advocated by a few critical scholars, e.g., Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4, p. 226, and Koole, Isaiah, III/III, pp. 393-94. 47 Cf. D. Barthélémy, Critique textuelle de l'ancien testament, 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO 50/2, Gôttingen, 1986), p. 450, who is one of the few scholars who retain the MT and who suggests two possible ways of understanding the Hebrew text. 48 R. Lowth, Isaiah (London, 1778), pp. 271-72.

J. Isaiah 63:7-64:11 - The priests' lament

107

in view of the immediate context as well as of the content of the following 64:6. The preceding two words chw onn are also best emended. 49 The most convincing suggestion is senai nabsna ("when you hide yourself we acted wickedly"), treating "is^sna as an Infinitive Construct Hiphil of the root Q^u.50 This reading has the benefit of retaining many letters of the MT and the final construction of waw consecutive + yiqtol is identical to the preceding clause. Moreover, it fits thematically in the context in that it contributes to the theme of the verse as a whole in its view of God as the ultimately responsible person for the sins of the people, and it also shares the idea of the God who hides from His people with 64:6. Looking at the whole phrase, n^iy onn was probably originally nabyna and tout was row. Together, this creates the reading vwdji la'wna "and when You hid, (as a result - waw consecutive + yiqtol) we erred", a reading which fits well not only with the rest of the verse but also with the lament as a whole. To sum up our discussion of Isa 64:4, my translation of the verse as a whole therefore reads as following: "You have stricken the one who rejoices in doing what is right, these people who remember You in Your ways. You have been angry and therefore we have sinned; when You hid Yourself, we erred". This translation of Isa 64:4 contributes to the picture of a dichotomy between the prophetic writers and their target audience with respect to their respective perception of the situation around them. As my translation indicates, the lamenting people do not consider themselves sinful. On the contrary, they describe their joy in doing justice and in remembering God's ways. Given this exemplary behaviour, the speakers do not understand God: they claim that not only is God (unjustly) attacking them, He is also hiding from them. These sentiments have several elements in common with the attitude displayed in Isa 58:2-3. In both texts, people are cited who claim that while they seek to do justice, they perceive God to be punishing them.

49 For example, Lowth, Isaiah, p. 272, suggests lr^smn which was then altered to nri'Visaa to later become tfra Dm, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 310, note 8, ends to linym Vl?D]l = "because of our unfaithfulness we transgressed", and Elliger, Einheit, p. 29, suggests nW"U1 "p1? Dm = "and your heart became hot and we were guilty". For an extreme view, see also the emendation suggested by Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 471-72. 50 Volz, Jesaja, p. 267, note aa. This emendation is also followed by BHS.

108

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

5.2.2. Exegetical considerations of Isaiah 64:5 Like Isa 64:4 in the new translation, 64:5 also displays a gap between how those lamenting view themselves and how God and His prophets view them, in the area of ritual purity and with regard to righteousness. On the one hand, the people lament that God regards them as impure (i^D shod Tim = "and we have all become like an impure person"). This statement is reminiscent of the concern for purity in Hag 2:10-14 (below, chapter 11) via their shared use of the word sao ("impure") and the image of clothes; and this similarity can shed light on the interpretation of Isa 64:5. Hag 2:10-14 portrays a discrepancy in perception between the priests and the prophet Haggai in the area of purity and impurity. While the former consider themselves to be pure, worthy to draw near to the altar to offer up the sacrifices of atonement, Haggai declares the opposite. I suggest that a related situation is portrayed in the present context, although viewed from the opposite side: in 64:5, we hear the voice of the prophet's opponents and their claim that they have been treated by God like impure persons. On the other hand, the people further lament that "their righteousness has become like an impure rag (lmpix-Vs D'ls i;qdi).51 This reference to righteousness in 64:5 brings to mind the way in which righteousness is discussed in Isa 57:12. From the perspective of the lamenting people, they are righteous but God has failed to take their righteousness into account. In contrast, the prophetic author of Isa 57:12 speaks from the opposite perspective and states that God alone is able to estimate their righteousness. To conclude, from the perspective of the people, they themselves and all their endeavours are being regarded by God as impure matters. Thus, similarly to the statement in Isa 64:4, what is expressed in 64:5 is not a confession of sins but a declaration of innocence and purity on the part of the speakers before an unjust God. 5.3. Conclusion In considering Isa 63:17, 19 and 64:4-5, the lament in 63:7-64:11 reflects the sense of desperation concerning the current situation in Judah, a situation for which God is assigned the greater part of the responsibility. In using this lament to represent his opponents, the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 gives them a voice. This serves two purposes. First, he 51 CPIS? = (root lis?) = "reckon time", Aram, tiliv = "time" i.e. menstruation. Cf. McKenzie, Isaiah, p. 191, who points out that the image of Q'lS 113 represents ritual uncleanness in the sense in which a woman was unclean during her period (Lev 15:1924).

6. Malachi

109

successfully highlights the gap between their perception of the situation and that of God's perception. Secondly, especially in his subsequent response to the lament (65:1-66:17), he states clearly that their opinions, whilst possibly justifiable in the original (exilic) context, are not acceptable in the present context.

6. Malachi The description of the dichotomy that we have noticed between the priests' and prophets' understanding of the situation around them is deepened in the book of Malachi. Throughout the greater part of the book, the prophet censures the priests' behaviour, accusations to which the priests respond with either ignorance or complete denial. In some of these cases, the priests are further cited as arguing with God about the justice of His claim. This discussion will focus on the sayings by the priests in the order of Mai 1:6-12; 2:13-14 and 2:17. 6.1. Malachi 1:6-12 - Disdain for God and His altar

The first prophetic accusation against the priests in Mai 1:6-12 charges the priests with having despised God, made evident through their acts of bringing sacrifices of unclean animals to the altar (vv. 7-8, 12). As a result, God prefers the sacrifices of others (v. II). 52 This accusation is met with outright claims of ignorance (vv. 6-7). A closer look at the prophetic accusations in these verses reveals a somewhat circular discussion between the prophet and the priests, conveyed through the use of the two roots "render unclean" ("7x1) and "despise" (tin): (v. 6ba) Prophet: the priests have despised God's name. (v. 6bb) Priests: how have we despised God's name? (v. 7aa) Prophet: by bringing unclean sacrifices to God's alter, (v. 7ab) Priests: with what have we made you53 unclean? 52

With regard to this verse, I follow the interpretation of R.H. Peiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1941), p. 613, who suggests that the prophet is speaking metaphorically or using hyperbole: even pagan worship is better that the present worship in the temple. See also Matthews, "Haggai, Malachi", p. 378. 53 There is a discrepancy between the prophet's charge that the priests have despised the altar and the priests' denial of having made "you", i.e. God, unclean ("p^Xl). The LXX (r|A.ioyiioanev auiouc) and TJ (1171X1D prra) both suggest the Vorlage lni^KJ but while this would be a more consistent reading, it is probably an attempt to harmonize the text. It is also difficult to explain TnViU as a scribal error derived from the orthographically different irm^iU. Hence, the supremacy of the MT is here maintained (cf. K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets [The Aramaic Bible 14, Edinburgh, 1989], p. 230, note 20). In my view, this discrepancy shows an

110

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to righteousness

(v. 7b) Prophet: when you say that the altar is despised. (v. 12) Prophet: you profane him when you say that the altar is unclean.

As can be seen, the idea of "despising" occurs throughout verses 6-7, both in Malachi's accusation and in the priests' response. Similarly, the idea of "rendering unclean" appears twice, both in the prophetic accusation and in the ensuing priestly question, and it is echoed later in verse 12. The collective impression of these statements is confusing. Ostensibly, both prophet and priests agree that the altar is unclean. Are they actually voicing the same sentiments, and if so, how should we then interpret the prophetic critique found in this passage? I suggest that this passage displays yet again the dichotomy between the priests' and the prophet's conflicting understanding of the same situation. Further, yet again, in a manner reminiscent of Isa 64:4 (above), the key issue seem to be the order of the events, i.e. whether the divine refusal precedes the priests' doubting attitude or vice versa: In verse 10, God claims that He will not accept the priests' offering. According to the case presented by the prophetic writer, God's refusal is depicted as the direct result of the priests' neglect and disdain in the preceding verses 7-8. The different events described, however, could be understood equally possible in the opposite fashion: God's rejection of the priests' offerings (v. 10) and the subsequent declaration that the offerings of foreigners would be preferable (v. 11) could be the cause which made the priests declare the altar to be despised (v. 7) and the worthlessness of the whole sacrificial rites (v. 12b). 6.2. Malachi 2:13-14 - Wailing and weeping because of God's rejection The same gap in perception in Mai 1:6-12 is also attested to in Mai 2:13— 14: the prophet sees the priests' behaviour as the cause of God's refusal to respond to their sacrifices, while the priests see God's refusal as the cause of their own behaviour. In verse 13, the priests are described in dramatic terms as asking God for mercy, "covering the altar of the Lord, crying and wailing" ( nmi moD 'Da 'n nam-nx). Why do they do this? The answer depends on our understanding of the cause and effect of the passage. In other words, does the following statement (odth i m nnpVi nman-1?« nuD ris? rra, 13b) denote the protasis, i.e. the cause of this wailing, or the apodosis, i.e. its result?

insight on behalf of the priests where the altar in the temple is understood to be the direct link to God. In other words, the altar had no independent significance but functioned exclusively as a means of communicating with God. Whatever was done to the altar concerned God directly.

6. Malachi

111

The r«a followed by an infinitive is only attested to in Mai 2:13. For this unique use, BDB assigned the translation "so that there is no" for this one case, thus suggesting that 13b should be understood as the result of the priests' weeping.54 In my view, however, BDB's rendering of rxa as "for lack o f ' , or "without" in most of the remaining cases is suitable for Mai 2:13 as well.55 In these cases, yxn introduces the cause (protasis): the fish becomes foul, because there is no/for lack of water (Isa 50:2, cf. Jer 7:32; 19:11). Applying this translation of rxa in 13b, the half reads "because there is no further turning to the sacrifices and [no further] taking of pleasure in [the gifts of] your hands". Accepting this translation, superior from a syntactical point of view, it becomes evident that the priests in Mai 2:13 are cited as saying that their behaviour is caused by God's refusal to see to their sacrifices, and their weeping and wailing are attempts to alert God's attention. With this as background, the question na "why" in the following verse 14 is all the more poignant. The priests show anew their ignorance of the culpability of their current plight. To sum up, I suggest that Mai 2:13 indicates that, from the priests' perspective, they are fulfilling their religious duties despite God's continuous absence, and again that this perspective is not shared by the prophetic writer. 6.3. Malachi 2:17 - Questioning the divine justice The priests' exclamations of a lack of understanding and their questioning of the divine justice in Mai 2:17 are the strongest examples in the book of Malachi of the priests' expressed lack of understanding when faced with their situation and the prophet's accusations. Malachi accuses the priests of having tired God, and the priests' response is yet again one of surprise: "with what did we tire" (usiin nan). In reply, Malachi states that they have claimed that God delights in those who do evil in His eyes (jon Kin cmi 'n Tua tiu sn xm-bi = "all who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord and in them He delights"), and that His justice is absent (ooran TiVx rrx = "where is the God of justice"), claims that have tired God. The form of the claims attributed to the priests border on theodicy, something that has been noted by several scholars.56 For example, the interrogative adverb rrx often introduces the psalmist's inquiry searching for the seemingly absent God (Pss 42:4, 11; 89:50), as such testifying to the deep doubts on behalf of the speaker (cf. Isa 63:11, 15 above). Yet 54

BDB, p. 35a. BDB, p. 35a. 56 E.g., R.L. Smith, Micah, p. 327, R.C. Dentan, Malachi (IB, Vol. 6, Nashville, 1950), pp. 1136-37, Petersen, Malachi, p. 208. 55

112

Chapter 4: The priests' claim to

righteousness

again, as in the preceding 2:13-14, there is a gap between the priests' perception of the situation and that of the prophet. The priests declare that God's absence pre-dates their complaints: they lament because God is absent. In contrast to that, Malachi is claiming the opposite: their lament has tired God (and caused him to withdraw). 6.4. Summary The author of the book of Malachi attributes sentiments to the priests all of which express the priests' bewilderment in the current situation. The prophet throws accusations against them, accusations of acts that they are unaware of having committed or have committed as a direct result of the absent deity. In response, the prophet declares that their perception of their situation is false. The priests have done all that they are accused of and their accusations towards God are unjustified. Their actions have had a bearing on God's subsequent response, not vice versa.

7. Conclusion To sum up, post-exilic prophetic texts testify to a deep dichotomy in the way in which the priests and the prophets viewed themselves in their contemporary situation. The prophets, in their attempt to comprehend the situation, placed the blame on the people and their leadership. Promised blessings were not being materialized and the prophets assumed that the fault lay with the priestly leadership. In contrast, the priests considered themselves to be righteous and holy and regarded their ritual endeavours to be the correct way of approaching God. This rendered the prophetic accusations against them inexplicable. Moreover, it also rendered the continuous absence of God's promised blessings questionable: God was not fulfilling His part of the relationship between Himself and His people. In this chapter, we have caught a glimpse, filtered through the prophetic writing, of the priests' opinion and discovered how their point of view differs from that of the prophets. Recognizing this dichotomy and keeping in mind that the prophetic accusations against the priests are just that— accusations rather than an unbiased account of the historical events in the post-exilic period—we shall now turn to the prophetic criticism of the priesthood. In the next chapter, we shall explore the particular criticism with regard to the priests' failure to fulfil their teaching obligations.

Chapter Five

The Priests' Lack of Knowledge and their Failure to Teach 1. Introduction Throughout both the pre-exilic and the post-exilic periods, prophetic writers accused the priests of failing to fulfil their teaching obligations. In this respect, the prophets stand within a larger tradition spanning the whole of the Old Testament which specifies that the teaching of the people about God's law and how to follow it correctly was a priestly obligation. In this chapter, I shall explore the post-exilic prophetic charges against the priests regarding their teaching obligations. For this, I shall divide the material into two parts. I shall begin by highlighting the background of these charges, first by providing a overview of the various texts that attest to the priests' teaching duties, and second, by discussing briefly the instances in pre-exilic prophetic literature (Jer 2:8; 5:31; Hos 4:6; Mic 3 :11) where the priests are accused of failing in this area. Based on this discussion, I shall devote the second part of this chapter to the post-exilic textual evidence (Isa 56:9-12; Mai 2:6-9), focusing largely on the use of the Hebrew root J7T ("to know") in its various conjugations. I shall demonstrate how this root holds the different texts together: it is found in nearly all passages that display a critical disposition towards the priests with regard to their teaching. The unity displayed through the use of the root vr has the additional advantage that it can help identify the target audience with the priests in the one passage where the audience is not explicitly stated (Isa 56:9-12). In addition, I shall also demonstrate how some of these texts (Mai 2:6-9; Zech 3; 7:1-5) testify to a polarization between the existing faulty priesthood and a vision of an ideal priesthood in the future. The result of this investigation is two-fold. First, the teaching aspect is shown to have been considered an integral part of the priestly office. 1 1 For a brief discussion of the possible reality behind these commands, see E.S. Gerstenberger, Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD, 6, Gottingen, 1993), p. 114. He personally is hesitant to give the pre-exilic priests any catechetical task, and argues that the idea of the priests' pedagogical functions is post-exilic at the earliest.

114

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

Secondly, the fact that criticism of the priesthood is found throughout both the pre-exilic and post-exilic material bears witness to its continuity: the post-exilic criticism of the priesthood with regard to their teaching is not an isolated phenomenon but stands in the wider tradition of the Old Testament as a whole.

2. The command given to the priests to provide instruction Mention of the priests' teaching obligations is found in various biblical material. I shall look at this material in the order of the priestly material, Deuteronomy, the prophetic literature and finally the historical texts of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. In the priestly material, the command to the priests to teach is found foremost in Lev 10:10-11, two verses that assign two tasks to the Aaronite priests: to distinguish between pure and impure ( foi v?nn rm iznpn rn Vannai iinon raon) (see also chapter 11) and to teach the Mosaic Law to the people of Israel (rwa-Ta •n,17K 'n i m i r a trpnn-^D nu Vsiw m-nx min"?1]). This command is surrounded by material that display a critical disposition towards the behaviour of some priests (10:1-5, 16-20). In this way, a contrast is created: the intermediate verses establish the behavioural norms for priests, i.e. to teach and to differentiate between pure and impure matters, while the surrounding verses warn against deviating behaviour. 2 The idea that the house of Levi is given teaching obligations is also found in the book of Deuteronomy. In the context of Moses' blessing, the tribe of Levi is praised for its loyal fulfilment of their teaching obligations, having taught God's precepts to Jacob and His instruction (min) to Israel (^¡nw1? innm spy1? -pDDtra n v ) (Deut 33:10). The command to the priest to teach is found also in prophetic material. Notably, Ezek 44:23 combines the two tasks mentioned in Lev 10:10-11 into one: "and they shall teach (root h t ) My people (to distinguish) between holy and profane and they shall inform them (to distinguish) between impure and pure". 3 Further, from a negative point of view, Ezek 7:26 declares that at one aspect of the coming destruction will be the priests' loss of their ability to instruct (psa inxn mini). From a more positive angle, Jer 18:18 tell how the people of Judah (v. 11) are discarding Jeremiah's own teaching in favour of that of other people, including the priests who can still provide instruction (iron mm laxn-N1? 'o). In view of

2

Gerstenberger, Leviticus, pp. 111-12. Regardless of the final dating of P and D, I hold it likely that Ezek 44:23 was familiar with the corresponding material in Lev 10:10-11 etc. 3

3. Pre-exilic critique of the priests ' teaching

115

this, the writings of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel testify to the idea that the priests were responsible for the instruction of the people. Finally, the idea of priestly teaching obligations is attested to in the later Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. Ezra 7:10 states that Ezra the priest "prepared his heart to seek God's instruction and to do and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel" (in1?1?! iTOLTn 'n min-nx urn1? ma1? rnn toty ^ ODcm p>n 1?iatz;,n), and the subsequent verse 25 reports that Ezra is commanded to arrange matters so that all of Israel "would know the laws of your God" (in1?« vn un1). Likewise, Neh 8:1-8, 11 states how the priest Ezra, together with the Levites, read and interpreted the law book ("732? dwi ¡npaa i n 1 ! , 8:8). Similarly, the Chronicler expounds on the priestly responsibility to teach. 4 For example, 2 Chr 17:7-9 tells how a number of individuals, among others eight named Levites and two named priests are sent out "to teach in Judah's cities" (mirr nun laV?). Similarly, although from a negative angle, 2 Chr 15:3 describes how Israel was once without the true God, without priests who taught them and without any law ( xV? rrnn xV7i mm inn nm tiVx). To fail instructing the people is to fail one's calling (cf. M i c 3 : l l ) . 5 Thus, we can see that the Old Testament authors, in texts ranging from legal material via prophetic oracles to historical accounts, agree that priests should teach. Teaching is obviously a crucial part of being a priest.

3. Pre-exilic critique of the priests' teaching Given that teaching was considered an integral part of the priestly office, the prophetic critique of this area is all the more poignant. In the pre-exilic text, we can identify four different texts containing a critical disposition to the priests with regard to their failure to teach. Two of these passages (Mic 3:11; Jer 5:31) have long been recognized as such, the other two (Hos 4:6; 4 When dealing with Chronicles, the question is always whether a given text reflects the pre-exilic times it portrays or the post-exilic environment of the editors. The latter approach is taken here. See H.V. van Rooy, "Prophet and Society in the Persian Period according to Chronicles", Second Temple Studies 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period (eds. T.C. Eskenazi and K.H. Richards, JSOTS 175, Sheffield, 1994), pp. 163179. 5 Interestingly, there are hints of a critical disposition towards the priests with regard to their role as teachers in Ezra-Nehemiah. While this material offers no direct criticism, its silence concerning certain aspects is telling. As just mentioned, Ezra 7:10, 25; Neh 8:1-8, 11 testify to the priestly role of providing instruction. They also, however, all give the impression that Ezra alone among the priests is providing this instruction. The Levites, rather than the other priests, assist him (Neh 8:9). Thus, the narrator implies that Ezra alone fulfils the clergy's teaching duties while the others fail.

116

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

Jer 2:8) will be seen to contain criticism of this type. The critique found in these texts can be subdivided into two types. 1. There are texts where we can find the motif that the priests lack knowledge and hence are unable to teach (Hos 4:6 and Jer 2:8). 2. Other texts focus on the charge that the priests' teaching is incorrect: Mic 3 : l l 6 accuses the priests of charging for the teaching, thus being susceptible to providing rulings that would favour those who pay the most. Along similar lines, Jer 5:31 states that the prophets are prophesying lies and the priests are teaching according to their own ideas, all to the people's delight. 3.1. Hosea 4:6 and Jeremiah 2:8 - Lack of knowledge

and teaching

ability

We shall begin with the lack of knowledge and the resulting inability to teach. Jer 2:8 has been acknowledged by some scholars to refer to the priestly teaching obligations. I shall show that Hos 4:6 does this also. In the case of Hos 4:6, this interpretation depends on two textual matters: first, that the priests are the intended target audience of the oracle in 4:4-9, and second, that there is no need to separate between the singular references to "a priest" and the plural references to "priests" in these verses. In the case of Jer 2:8, my proposed interpretation is partly based on my identification of the first two designations with the priests. We will start with the textual issues in Hos 4:4-9 before we address the interpretation of Hos 4:6. There are two relevant textual issues, both connected with the identity of its target audience. First, it is unclear where exactly the priests form the target audience of the prophetic oracle, due to the textual difficulties of 4b. The priests are first mentioned in 4b. Prior to this, "all the people in the land" have been the explicit audience (v. 1). Does this signal a change of audience? The MT reads iro •'Tinn -|nm, meaning literally "with your people like those contending with a priest" (cf. JPS), a reading which makes little sense in the context. It is therefore preferable to emend the text. Among the several suggestions, the best solution is probably to extract the a, thus creating a reading pD •an "inyi = "but with you is my lawsuit, oh priest" (cf. NAB).7 6 While the development of the text of Micah is shrouded in obscurity, most twentieth century scholars regard Mic 3 to be an authentic pre-exilic oracle. See, e.g., Th. Lescow, "Redaktonsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micah 1-5", ZAW 84 (1972), pp. 4 7 - 5 0 . In view of this, I shall treat this text as pre-exilic and thus as a possible source of inspiration for the later post-exilic prophetic authors of the books bearing the names Isaiah, Zechariah and Malachi. 7 H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton, 1. Hosea (BKAT XIV/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965), p. 88. For an alternative, see N. Lohfink, "Zu Text und Form von Os 4:4-6", Biblica 42

3. Pre-exilic critique of the priests ' teaching

117

In its favour is the similar phrase in 4:1 "because the Lord has a lawsuit with the inhabitants of the land" (jixn ^vv-nv 'n1? m '3), attesting not only the preposition ay = "with" but also the word m . As a result of this emendation, verse 4 indicates a change of audience.8 This priest remains the principal target audience throughout verses 4-14, sometimes joined by the people in general (vv. 7-8, 10a, 13-14) and sometimes forming the only target (vv. 4-6, 10-12). 9 Secondly, it is unclear whether this reference to "a priest" refers collectively to the clergy as a whole or whether it indicates a particular individual. Notably, there are variations within the address: while verses 4-6 attest to the singular "priest", the following verses 7-9 use "priests" in the plural. Some scholars argue that this change testifies to a change in address. Wolff in particular argues that the references to the priest's mother in the following verse 5 and to his sons in verse 6 suggest that the prophet had a particular priest in mind, identified by Wolff with Amaziah, the high priest of Bethel (cf. Amos 7:10). Accordingly, Wolff distinguishes between verses 4-6 that address Amaziah and the following material that includes other priests.10 In my view, however, the changes from singular to plural seem to be an example of stylistic variation rather than an indicator of a changed audience, given the continuation of the general theme of the clergy's transgressions throughout the passage. Moreover, the singular reference to a prophet in verse 5 is likely not to refer to a particular prophet but rather to a more general group. Therefore, it is preferable to regard the whole priesthood as the target audience throughout verses 4-9. Having determined that the priesthood as a whole form the target audience of Hos 4:4-9, we can now turn to the area of exegesis. Of these verses, verse 6 has direct bearing on the present topic: the priests' failure to teach.11

(1961), p. 332, who repoints "pin to read "but with you", and regards the following letter 3 as the result of dittography, giving the hitherto unattested word Tin. See also F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hosea (AB 24, New York, 1980), pp. 347-50. They provide a detailed discussion of the different possible translations of the MT. 8 Wolff, Hosea, pp. 81, 90. 9 This division is based on the address found in the text. Following Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, pp. 342-44, the singular address is taken to refer to the priest(s) while the plural ones, both masculine and feminine, are taken to refer to a wider audience. For the text-critical issues in verses 11-12, see further below. 10 Wolff, Hosea, pp. 95, 99. See also Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, pp. 342-44, who label the priest in Hos 4 "chief priest". 11 For a discussion of some of the other verses, notably verses 8 and 10ff., see chapter 10.

118

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

The preceding verse 5 describes the fall of the priest and the prophet. This verse states that the priests' rejection of knowledge (riin) is causing the people to go astray: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (nsnn ,!73Z3). Because you have rejected the knowledge (nosa nsnn), I will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I shall also forget your children".

Does this verse refer to the priests' teaching obligation? I suggest that it does. There is an (obvious) connection between knowledge and teaching, a connection which is emphasized by the prophet through his use of the root s r . By repeating this root, the prophet stresses the connection between the lack of knowledge in the land (fKia ¡rn1?« run rx, v. 1) and the priests' rejection of knowledge (noxa rnnn, v. 6). The people failed to obey God's instruction (Deut 32:47) due to the priests' rejection of God's knowledge and to their subsequent failure to teach.12 As a result, God will forget His people. The theme of repercussions caused by lack of knowledge occurs later in the same context. According to Hos 4:14, the licentious behaviour of the people of Israel (14a) is connected with their lack of discernment (-N1? nyi tn1?'' 1222) (14b). In other words, lack of instruction results in lack of knowledge which in turn has catastrophic results: the people do not know how to behave and are thus bound to be ruined. Moving on to Jer 2:8, the chief accusation here, similarly to the charge in Hos 4:6, is the priests' failing to know (root in1) God. This verse contains a fourfold accusation against different groups of leaders: the priests do not ask for the presence of God ('n H'X n»K mb cnnnn), the teachers of the Torah do not know God fayr k*? mmn 'wsm), the shepherds sin against God (•o • , inm) and the prophets prophecy in the name of Baal and follow worthless gods (lanbn irav-nh nnsi bv22 isaa ¡riorum). Our present interest concerns the first two categories. First, we need to define whom these labels denote: do both groups denote priests or only the first one? Scholars are divided; some regard them as two separate groups, the first designating priests and the second wisdom teachers,13 while others consider them as one and the same, including both priests and Levites.14 In my view, the evidence points in the latter direction, given that the concept of Torah is elsewhere connected with the priests (e.g., Jer 18:18 - mm pan). It can be argued that other places (notably Jer 8:8) suggest the existence of a group of scribes (nnso), distinct from the priests, whose task 12

Cf. Wolff, Hosea, pp. 97-98. M. Weinfeld, "V? nxinai pinn no'snV, BM 8 (1964), pp. 58-63. 14 J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21, New York, 1965), p. 15.

13

3. Pre-exilic critique of the priests ' teaching

119

was to teach God's instruction (nnn).' 5 A closer look at Jer 8:8, however, reveals that its main concern is the writing down of instruction rather than teaching it. Therefore, this verse does not contribute significantly to our understanding of Jer 2:8. In view of this, I suggest identifying the group named mwn 'cran with the priests, due to the elsewhere attested priestly occupation with the law. If we accept this identification, we find that the priests are accused of not asking for God, and of not knowing Him (^IST N1?).16 As knowledge of God is the fundamental prerequisite for correct teaching, this priestly failure depicts a situation where correct teaching cannot be found. To sum up, we have now seen that two pre-exilic texts contain the motif of lack of knowledge on behalf of the priests. Hos 4:6 attests to a situation where a prophetic writer blamed the priests for the failure of the people to obey God's instruction. The central aspect of the prophetic criticism is the priests' failure to teach (root m1) the people and their own rejection of God's knowledge (root vv). Similarly, Jer 2:8 attests to the same theme, accusing the priests of failing in the area of knowledge and, indirectly, of teaching. As I shall demonstrate throughout the remainder of this chapter, this criticism recurs and is expanded upon in the post-exilic prophetic writing, in particular in Mai 2:8-9. 17 3.2. Micah 3:11 and Jeremiah 5:31 — Wrong teaching

Let us now turn to the second group of pre-exilic texts. In contrast to Hos 4:6 and Jer 2:8, in Mic 3:11 and Jer 5:31 the priests are the explicitly denoted target audience. The main issue is exegetical: how shall we understand the accusations against them? I shall argue that the prime issue in both texts concerns the priests' failure to produce unbiased teaching, a failure that ultimately leads the people astray and results in God's punishment.

15

W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1 (Hermeneia, Philadelphia, 1986), pp. 88-89. The same idea is expressed in 1 Sam 2:12 (cf. chapter 10), where part of the failure of Eli's two sons Hophni and Phineas is their failure to know God. They are described as "worthless fellows" (Vs^n m ) who "do not know the Lord" ('n-rw ll?T X1?). Again, the author uses the root ST to describe this lack of knowledge. In this case, the lack of knowledge refers to the two priests' failure to maintain their relationship with God. See further P.K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel (AB 8, Garden City, 1980), p. 82. 17 Cf. Petersen, Haggai, p. 192. Cf. O'Brien, Priest and Levite, p. 42. 16

120

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

Beginning with Mic 3:11, this verse is part of a longer oracle (3:1-12) 18 which targets the secular and the religious leadership of Jerusalem. Following a long list of gruesome crimes, all attributed to the secular and religious leadership in Jerusalem, the focus turns in verse 11 to economic crime. Different types of leaders are accused of mercenary practices, performing their respective offices for money: the secular leaders for taking bribes when executing justice, the prophets for selling oracles, 19 and the priests for charging for their services ( n v Tnan mnm). It is the last accusation against the priests that is of special interest to us here. What is the main point of the accusation? In view of the other accusations against the secular leaders and the prophets, the issue here does not seem to be the practice of charging for instruction—after all, even religious personnel need an income—but for taking bribes. The result of this is easy to conceive: the priests would produce rulings based not upon justice but favouring the person who paid the most. 20 Thus, if the priests' verdict could be bought for mere human interest, it would not be trustworthy and hence, would not provide the people with the necessary divine guidance. As described in verse 12, the result of this lack of guidance is the destruction of Jerusalem, and, similarly to Hos 4:4-9, the leaders are made to carry the weight of responsibility (dsV?» = "for their sake") for this destruction. Of special interest in this verse is the particular prediction im is 1 man1? iron ("the temple mound shall become high places of [the] forest") in 12bb. The expression rrnn in is traditionally the name of the temple mount. That the proud temple should be turned into high places (man)21 is a compelling picture. While some scholars deny any cultic sense to the latter

18 For the sub-division of the text, see Lescow, "Micha 1-5", p. 49, D.R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia, Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 47-48, and F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Micah (AB 24E, New York, 2000), p. 389. 19 This attack on the prophets refers back to the accusations in verse 5 where the prophets are charged with giving positive oracles in exchange for food and negative ones as a result insufficient payment. 20 Cf. J. Weingreen, "The Title Moreh Sedek", JSS 6 (1961), pp. 170-71, who translates "her priests give judicial directives for a price". He argues that "the crime for which the priests were indicted was that of the perversion of justice or of the rules of religious conduct and not of accepting money for instruction". See also W. McKane, The Book of Micah (Edinburgh, 1998), p. 113, who writes that "the priests give favourable rulings when there is a sufficient financial incentive [... they] are not just stipendiary or mercenary; they are corrupt, shoddy mountebanks." See further Andersen and Freedman, Micah, p. 384, and H.W. Wolff, Mit Micha reden: Prophetie einst und jetzt (1978, Miinchen), p. 89. 21 The LXX attests the reading ctXooQ opu^ou = "a forest grove". The singular form might indicate a singular Hebrew Vorlage ncn.

3. Pre-exilic critique of the priests ' teaching

121

word,22 the choice of the word man is in my view suggestive: owing to the failure of the religious leadership, the people have not followed God's instruction as He desired and as such, the centre of worship is destroyed. Not only that, the faulty teaching has served to turn them away from the worship of God. This provokes a vivid picture: I suggest that the choice of the word man indicates that the urban temple is destroyed and with it the cult of YHWH, and the only thing left is the worship of other deities on the high places in the forest. This envisioned destruction, however, according to the book of Micah, is not the end of all teaching: Mic 4:2 declares that "out of Zion shall go forth instruction, the Lord's word from Jerusalem. The shared use of the root h t = "to instruct" (mm, 4:2, and nv, 3:11) suggests that the passage is bound together with Mic 3:11. Thus, we can see that these two verses together form a contrasting picture: the present failure of the prophets and the priests to deliver true instruction (Mic 3:11), is sharply contrasted with the ideal portrayed in Mic 4:2. Therefore, Mic 3:11 bears witness to a critical disposition towards the priests and their failure to teach the people correctly. This failing is one of the chief causes of the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. It is further contrasted with the ideal picture in which Jerusalem is the centre of knowledge and from where instruction will go forth. The critique of the priests with regard to their biased teaching is found also in Jer 5:31. My interpretation is based on a close reading of Jer 5:31 with particular regard to its syntax. Two grammatical issues need consideration: the translation of the verb rrn and the syntactical understanding of the expression Dirr-by. In this verse, the prophets are charged with prophesying falsely ( nptz/n-iNm) and the priests are described as •m , - l ?y m ' . The meaning of the last clause is debatable. Most scholars derive the word 17T from the root mi = "rule" and translate the whole clause as "the priests rule on their own hands", a translation understood to mean that the priests ruled according to the prophets' directives.23 This interpretation, however, is problematic on several accounts. First, there is no evidence elsewhere that the priests took the cues from the prophets. Secondly, the possessive pronoun on on1!1 is more likely to refer to the same subject as the verb, i.e. the priests. In view of these difficulties, there is need for a different interpretation.

22

E.g., Smith, Micah, p. 34, given the parallel non-cultic word f t f = "rain". E.g., J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20 (AB 21A, New York, 1999), pp. 406, 410, who argues that such an "unholy alliance" between priests and prophets are found elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 6:13-15 [=8:10b-12]; 14:18; 23:11; 26:8-11). 23

122

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

One possibility is to derive the verb t t p from a root other than m~i = "rule". This has been suggested by Holladay who derives n~p from the root m i II = "scrape", known from Judg 14:9 where Samson scrapes honey out of the lion's carcass. Accordingly, he interprets Jer 5:31 to mean that the priests reject their own consecration, the word a m ' referring to their own hands.24 However, while Holladay's interpretation is attractive, it is difficult to see how a root meaning "to scrape out" came to mean "to reject". Hence, this interpretation is not ideal, and it is preferable to maintain the traditional reading of "rule". The alternative possibility is to regard Dm1-1?» as a reference to the priests' own hands. This is syntactically preferable and was indeed advocated by Holladay (cf. above). As a result, we reach the translation "the priests rule according to their (own) hands". As suggested by the immediate context of this verse, I take this to mean that they rule according to their own ideas rather than God's: just as the prophets prophesy lies, i.e. their own rather than God's words (31aa), so the priests rule according to their own, rather than God's, ideas (3 lab). 3.3.

Summary

We have discussed the pre-exilic evidence of a critical disposition of the priesthood with regard to their teaching. In two texts (Hos 4:6; Jer 2:8), we can detect criticism of the priest's lack of knowledge, a lack which results in improper teaching and causes the people to go astray. In the other two texts (Mic 3:11; Jer 5:31), the criticism focuses more on the existing but faulty teaching. The priests accept bribes in order to provide a ruling that is favourable for the one paying. The end result of this is similar to what is depicted in the first two texts: due to biased teaching, the people go astray.

4. Isaiah 56:9-12 - The Priests' failure to understand Leaving the pre-exilic material behind, this following section will deal with the post-exilic evidence from Isaiah 56-66. The priests' teaching obligations are not explicitly expounded upon in the book of Isaiah, but I shall demonstrate that there exist traces of this type of criticism in 56:912, with an emphasis on the general lack of knowledge displayed by the religious leadership, among them the priests. This interpretation depends on the identification of the target audience with the religious leadership. I shall follow this identification by a discussion of the message of the 24

W.L. Holladay, "'The Priest Scrape Out on their Hands,' Jeremiah V 31", VT 15 (1965), pp. 111-13.

4. Isaiah 56:9-12 - The Priests 'failure io understand

123

passage and by a comparison with other passages with a similar theme (Hag 2:10-14 and Zech 7:4-7). 4.1. The identification

of the leaders

The identification of the target audience of Isa 56:9-12 with the religious leadership is likely for three reasons: the particular terms used for the leaders; the frequent use of the root BT; and the reference to drinking. There are three terms used in Isa 56:9-12 to denote the leaders. The term used in verse 10 is IDS (qere VEX = his watchmen), a term that indicates a prophetic audience. A nss can denote a watchman proper (e.g. 2 Sam 18:25-27), but used metaphorically the term more often denotes especially prophets.25 In view of this, it is likely that the author of Isa 56:9-12 criticized his fellow prophets. The following two designations crin "dreamers" 26 and D'sn = "shepherds" (¡Tin) are more general in character and therefore give us no indication as to which type of leaders it envisions. To define the identity of the target audience of Isa 56:9-12 more narrowly, we now turn to the prophet's descriptions of the leaders as "they do not know when they have enough" (nynw i n ' K1?) and "they do not understand" (rnn w t Kb). As we have already seen, the root VT is often used to indicate in particular priestly duties/failures: Jer 2:8 stresses the priestly responsibility to know Crar), and the two words y r and mm are parallel in Hos 4:6. In addition, as we shall see further below, Mai 2:7a uses the root VT in connection with the priests ( mini m n - N N W jro TIDW-^D in-Da w p : r ) . Finally, as noted by Pauritsch, the root w is used similarly in 2 Kgs 17:26-28 where it signifies (lack of) knowledge of God's law, and the priests' subsequent failure to teach (nT): r w n 'n^x oswn-nx t r y r nrK iwkd [...] p x n 'nbs uswa-Jix i s t n1? [...] 17:26 p u n ti^N oswD-nx nrn [...] tmruna i n s nn® [...] 17:27 'n-riK -pK arm m m t t i [...] 17:28

Consequently, he proposes that this use of the root s r is characteristic of the priestly tradition, and that it is likely that the expression itfT-N1? in Isa

25

See Jer 6:17; Ezek 3:17; 33:7 and possibly also Hos 9:8; Isa 52:8 and Jer 6:17. The word D'tn is normally derived from the H.L. root nin = "dream, rave" in accordance with the Arabic cognate = "talk deliriously". See BDB, p. 223. Cf. R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes (Leiden, Paris, 1927 - second edition), p. 752b, who gives this root the meaning "gronder, murmurer entre ses dents". Alternatively, a few mss attest the orthographically similar reading trtn = "seer", supported by the Vulgate (videntes vana, a plural active participle of the verb video = "to see") and by the Peshitta (fin). In the present context in Isa 56:10, these D'tn are described as sleeping and lovers of slumber. Given this, the meaning "dream, rave", derived from D'tn, is more suitable than "see" (D'tn). 26

124

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

56:11 alludes to the priests' false knowledge. 27 This conclusion is, in my view, also supported by the evidence from Jeremiah, Hosea and Malachi. Thus, Mai 2:8 connects the idea of knowledge in 2:7 with teaching: the priests' teaching, i.e. the result of their false knowledge, caused many to go astray (rmna t r m amtton). Furthermore, the similarity of the accusations in Jer 2:8 and Mai 2:7-9 with that of Isa 56:9-12 suggests that the same group of people was accused. Thus, given a priestly target in the former two suggests a similar target in the latter. The invitation to a drinking party in Isa 56:12 may also contain clues about the leaders' identity. I propose that the similarities between Isa 56:12 and other texts involving prophetic accusations of drunkenness (Isa 28:7-9; Hos 4:11-12) suggest a similar target audience. Isa 28:7-9 attests to the idea of drunken prophets and priests and their subsequent failure to teach properly. The text describes how the religious leaders' drunkenness has brought disrepute to their teaching of knowledge and their understanding, and the writer asks ironically who the people are whom they can teach (nam® '»-nm run r n r 'a-ns). There are significant similarities between this passage and that of Isa 56:9-12: the idea that priests' "teaching knowledge" and "understanding" occurs in both, and the occurrence of the two expressions run m v and VT is shared by both. In my opinion, this similarity suggests a sign that the later author of Isa 56:9-12 consciously alluded to the earlier Isa 28:7-9. As such, it further suggests continuity between the two texts: by alluding to Isa 28, the later author indicates that the problem and the key culprits are the same. In addition to Isa 28:7 9, I propose that Hos 4:11-12 also makes a connection between drunkenness and faulty teaching, this time singling out the priests: ^•np 1 wi-pm l"! nuT 4:11 arm ?« nnm u n rann o'3i:i nn '3 i ? t v V?p>ni Vnw isva 'as 4:12 1

1

This interpretation depends on the syntactical relationship between the word n"? ("heart") at the end of verse 11 and the word '»i? ("My people") at the beginning of verse 12. There are two textual traditions: • According to the MT, there is no connection between these two words. Instead, it renders the word n1? as the object of the verb "to take" (rip1), with the preceding words "harlotry", "wine" and "must" as the subject ("harlotry and wine and must take [the] heart"). • In contrast, the LXX brings 31? and i as together (KapSia laou (iou = "the heart of my people"), making this combined expression the singular subject of the verb "to take, receive, accept" (Kap5ia laofi 27

Pauritsch, Neue Gemeitide, pp. 55-56.

4. Isaiah 56:9-12 - The Priests 'failure to understand

125

Hou, corresponding to the Hebrew np1) while the three vices are the object of the verb ("the heart of my people has taken harlotry and wine and must"). In my view, the key to the problem is the change between singular and plural in Hos 4:12. In this verse, there is a singular person (i^pai b w i^yn nsnn o,:-aT mi o V? r r ) who is causing people (plural) to sin ( nnno i:n nrrnbN). Given this, it is natural to interpret the m.sg. verb np1 in Hos 4:11 in a similar fashion. Hence, I propose that we should follow the division of the text as suggested by the LXX while keeping the syntactical understanding of the MT. This results in the following translation of verses 11-12: "he takes (the) heart of My people [by] harlotry, wine and must, he consults his tree and his rod tells him, through a spirit of harlotry he leads astray, and they fornicate from under their God". 28 According to this new translation, there is a clear connection in these two verses between the priest's drunkenness and his subsequent failure to guide the people: rather than asking God for guidance, the priest asks other deities, and as a result of this, he leads God's people astray. Not only that, he captures the hearts of his flock via alcohol, making them susceptible to false teachings.29 In addition, there is also a connection, although loose, between the priests' teaching and drinking of alcohol. Shortly before the command to the priests to teach (v. 11), there is another command to the sons of Aaron not to drink any alcoholic drinks when entering the tent of meeting. To sum up, in addition to Isa 56:9-12, several other prophetic texts make a connection between the priests' drunkenness and their failure to teach the people (Isa 28:7-9; Hos 4:11-12). This accumulated evidence suggests an identification of the priests as the target audience in Isa 56:912: the priests are accused in other texts of their failure to stay sober and the resulting failure to teach. Hence, when an anonymous group of leaders are accused of just this, a priestly identity comes to mind. To conclude this section, it is doubtful whether one can determine definitely the identity of the leaders in Isa 56:9-12. Even so, I suggest that the appellation nsx, the use of the root sIT, and the inner-Isaianic allusion to drunken priests and prophets, all support the identification of the leaders in these verses with the religious leadership, in particularly with the priests.

28

For a similar translation, see Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, pp. 364-65. Cf. Wolff, Hosea, pp. 104-5, who states that alcohol robs from the people their rational ability and hands them over to deception. Note, however, that for Wolff, the result of this loss of ability to think clearly is idolatry. 29

126

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

4.2. Exegesis and comparisons of Isaiah 56:9-12 We shall now continue with the particular message of Isa 56:9-12 and its relationship to other post-exilic texts. First, the leaders are charged with failing their duties as watchmen. They are likened to blind watchmen and mute dogs. The task of the watchman (nos) is to see the coming danger and to warn the people in advance and enable them to escape. Accordingly, a blind watchman is worthless. Similarly, the task of a dog is to bark and so warn its owners of Kb stress the leaders' danger. Thus, the expressions nm» and nm1? uselessness. The "watchman" metaphor has religious overtones. The oncoming danger is God's judgement which is sent as punishment for the people's sins. Thus, the leaders' failure belongs in the sphere of religion, having failed to reproach people for their behaviour against God. Secondly, the leaders are considered to be greedy. In Isa 56:11 "the dogs" are described as fierce of appetite and unable to be satisfied. The following expression mxpa iim1? wx us nmf? d'^d expands further on this greed, accusing the leaders (D*7D) of going their own way and seeking their own advantage.30 Thus, the leaders are regarded as being selfish, caring more for their own gain than that of their flock (cf. Neh 5:7ff.; 6:10-14; Mai 1:12). Thirdly and fourthly, the leaders are accused of being drunk and of not knowing. Thus, they fail to lead the people in accordance with God's instruction, a situation aptly expressed later in Isa 59:10: "We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope like those without eyes, we stumble at noonday as at twilight; among the healthy ones, we are as dead men".

The last critique of the leaders' failure to know (vr) in 56:10-11 can be compared with several other post-exilic texts. Foremost, Hag 2:10-14 (cf. chapter 11) provides an interesting comparison where the questions (vv. 12-13) can be understood as an example of the priests' lack of instruction in general: the impurity of the people (2:14) is partly the result of the lack of priestly instruction. Along similar lines, the questions asked of the priests and the people in Zech 7:4-7 serve to highlight their failing instruction (cf. chapter 4). The priests' instruction has not caused the people to fast correctly, and God's words as announced by the prophets of old have been forgotten. In this sense, the texts in Haggai and Zechariah describe the beginning of the downfall of the priests which later, at the time of Malachi, was to reach such depths, while the situation depicted in Isa 56:9-12 can fit in any place in between.

30 1 follow the New JPS translation of m p n 1SX31? B'S = "every last one seeks his own advantage" which understands inspQ to refer to w x rather than to IVSD1?.

5. Malachi 2:1-9 - The ideal and the real priest

127

5. Malachi 2:1-9 - The ideal and the real priest The last part of this chapter is devoted to the material in Mai 2:1-9, a book that contains the strongest example of post-exilic criticism of the priests' teaching. In this material, the prophet highlights the shortcomings of the priests around him with regard to their teaching abilities by way of comparison: the failings of the current priests fall far short of what is expected of them, as exemplified by the behaviour of the ideal priest. This section falls into three parts. To begin with, we need to address two issues that are important for the interpretation of the section as a whole, namely the identity of Levi and the characteristics of God's covenant with him. After that, we shall address the issue of the ideal priests, a person characterized by his superb ability to teach (2:6-7). Finally, we shall discuss the critique of the actual clergy with regard to their lack of the same ability (2:8-9). 5.1. Malachi 2:1-9 - The identity of Levi and God's covenant with him

The context of the description of the ideal priests and his ideal teaching abilities is the covenant between God and Levi (Mai 2:4-5). 31 We shall start by determining the identity of Levi. It is unclear whether this label denotes a particular person or serves as a collective term. It is also unclear whether this name refers to the priests and/or to the Levites. Hence, I shall briefly evaluate the different options, concluding that this covenant is with all the priests. Throughout the passage of Mai 2:1-9, three different terms are used: "Levi" (vv. 4-6), "the Levi" (v. 9) and "priest" (v. 7). In view of this, we have to determine whether the author uses these three terms indiscriminately to denote one and the same category of clerical personnel or whether he distinguishes between them. These verses can be understood as a comparison between the ideal priest, personified as Levi, and the contemporary priests. Hence, no distinction should be made between the Levites and the Aaronites here.32 This interpretation is the most likely one, as demonstrated by O'Brien's careful study. By looking at the different labels assigned by the prophet to people with clerical connection, and investigating the exact treatment that each group receives from Malachi, O'Brien detects an overall coherence which leads her to conclude that the prophet addresses one group only, i.e. 31

The origin and frame of reference of this "covenant with Levi" has been much debated. For a detailed evaluation of the different ways of interpreting this expression, see Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 77-80, including note 159. 32 E.g., G.J. Botterweck, "Ideal und Wirklichkeit der Jerusalemer Priester. Auslegung von Mai 1,6-10; 2,1-9", BibLeb 1 (1960), pp. 108-9.

128

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

the priests. Thus, the term Levi serves to polarize the behaviour of the contemporary priests with that of the ideal priest.33 Furthermore, the use of the Hiphil of wi: in Mai 3:3, a word that denotes the priests' drawing near to the altar and their bringing of the sacrifices (e.g. Exod 19:22; Lev 8:14; Ezek 44:13), points in the same direction, as shown by Schaper.34 Many scholars have, however, often understood these verses in other ways: 1. Several scholars propose a chronological comparison, and compare the contemporary priests with their superior predecessors, labelled Levi.35 This interpretation, however, fails to convince for the single reasons that there are virtually no references to past blameless priests in the entire Old Testament, beginning with Aaron himself (e.g., Exod 32:21). 2. Yet other scholars see this passage as referring to the rift between the Aaronite priests and the Levites. The term "Levi" here would designate the Levites and their exemplary behaviour, in contrast to the blameworthy priests.36 This interpretation, however, is unlikely in view of O'Brien's and Schaper's recent research (cf. above). 3. Finally, some scholars interpret the variation of terminology as a source critical question. Thus, based on the assumption that D makes no distinction between priests and Levites whereas P does, the lack of distinction between these two groups would suggest that the author of Malachi had no knowledge of P.37 This view can, however, be rejected on several grounds. First, Deuteronomy does distinguish between the

33

O'Brien, Priest and Levite, especially pp. 27-48. J. Schaper, "Priests in the Book of Malachi and their Opponents", The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets, and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (eds. L.L. Grabbe and A.O. Bellis, JSOTS 408, London, New York, 2004), pp. 180-81. For additional arguments supporting the claim that the book of Malachi does not differentiate between separate classes or groups within the priesthood, see also pp. 182-85. 35 Torrey, "Malachi", p. 3. See also Smith, Micah, p. 312, Redditt, Haggai, p. 164, Perowne, Malachi, pp. 13, 23 (indirectly). More recently, see McKenzie and Wallace, "Covenant Themes", pp. 554-55. Notably, Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 70, combines the first and the second option, claiming that verses 6-8 "contrast the past, faultless service of the priests (2:6) and the priests as he should be (2:7) with the present manifestations of priestly decadence (2:8). 36 E.g., Mason, Haggai, pp. 147-48, Petersen, Malachi, p. 191, P. D. Hanson, The People Called. The Growth of Community in the Bible (San Francisco, 1986), pp. 28283. 37 See especially Peiffer, Introduction, p. 263. For the dependence of Malachi upon D, see W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms", RTR 35 (1976), p. 46. Cf. B. Vawter, "Levitical Messianism and the New Testament", The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (ed. J.L. McKenzie, New York, 1962), p. 85. 34

5. Malachi 2:1-9 - The ideal and the real priest

129

priests and the Levites.38 Secondly, the author of Malachi clearly interacted with both P and D.39 Thirdly, the separation between priests and Levites was likely to have been an established fact at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, not too long after the earliest dating of the book of Malachi. Hence, it is unlikely that it was not so at the time of Malachi 4 0 To conclude, the name "Levi" in Mai 2:4-5 is best understood as another name for the priests. It is primarily used to denote the clergy in an abstract sense—an ideal picture of how the clergy should be—rather than in a more concrete sense that takes into account the failings of the actual priests contemporary with Malachi. Having determined that Levi indicates the priests, we can now continue to discuss the covenant between the priests and God (Mai 2:4-5) that forms the context of the critique of the priesthood with regard to their teaching duties. 41 This covenant is described as one of mutual responsibility between the two parties: if Levi, i.e. the priests, fears God and obeys His commandment, then God will grant him life and peace. 42 In my view, the wordplay between sua and ^Ni"! (root NT) in verse 5 and the word nmn (root mn) in verse 6 contributes further to this understanding: the task of the priests is to fear the Lord and to teach His words. The concept of God's covenant with Levi recurs in verses 8-9 but this time negatively: because of the present priests' failure to keep to God's way in their own lives, together with their failure to instruct the rest of the people in a manner pleasing to God, they have broken the covenant between Levi and God. 38 See S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (1902, Edinburgh), p. 219, A. Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35, Rome, 1969), pp. 127-32, and Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 75-77. 39 O'Brien, Priest and Levite, pp. 85-110. 40 Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 76-77. Her own suggestion, partly based on the work of Cody's (Old Testament Priesthood, pp. 165-66, 171-74) and Pedersen's idea (J. Pedersen, Israel Its Life and Culture, 3 [London, 1973], pp. 181-89) that all priests in the post-exilic era, both the Aaronites and the Zadokites claimed Levitical descent, the terms "priest" and "Levite" became virtually interchangeable. 41 The origin and frame of reference of this "covenant with Levi" has been much debated. For a detailed evaluation of the different ways of interpreting this expression, see Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 77-80, including note 159. 42 This translation follows the Masoretic accents. 5a is rendered as "My covenant was with him one of life and peace. God will give them (i.e. the life and peace) to him (i.e. Levi) in fear (NH0), and he (Levi) will fear Me". Verse 5b adds to the obligation of Levi, referring to God in third person: "and he shall be terrified before His name ( nru 'OW '3301 Sin)", deriving Jim from the root ruin - H.L. in Niphal.

130

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

Despite their failings and having broken the covenant, do these priests have a future part in this covenant? To answer this question, we need to look closely at verse 4, particularly with regard to the word nvn1?. Beginning earlier, the characteristics of the covenant are outlined in Mai 2:1-3: God is giving the priests a commandment (mm - v. 1), but if they do not obey it, they will be the target of a curse (vv. 2-3, cf. chapter 11). The word nix» recurs in verse 4 but this time it indicates the precondition for the continuation of God's covenant with Levi ('i^-ns ' m a nm1?). This reading is based on the derivation of nm1? from the root rrn meaning "to continue, to be maintained", and is supported by all the ancient versions.43 According to this reading, the purpose of the condemnation described in verses 2-3 is not to sever the relationship between God and the priests, but instead to cause the priests to repent and reform. Most scholars, however, have not accepted this reading, owing mainly to their preconceptions that negative connotations in 4b would be more fitting in the context. In order to achieve this, some scholars accordingly emend nvn1? to nvna, as derived from the Niphal of rrn = "come to an end" (only attested in Dan 2:1; 8:27), an emendation that gives the reading "My covenant with Levi has fallen to the ground".44 This understanding of nvnn as a Niphal is, however, doubtful. Other scholars have suggested even more drastic emendations in order to bring about a negative sense. Sellin, for example, emends the text to nnn1? = "to break, shatter" in accordance with Isa 9:3, and argues that this supposed original reading was later changed by scribes who could not accept a text which predicted the end of the covenant with the Levites.45 The text itself does not need a negative sense to be understandable: in fact, Mai 3:1-4 in particular speaks against a negative sense (cf. further below). In these verses, God is described as having further plans for the clergy in order to reinstate them into their former positions. In view of this, I prefer interpreting 2:4b as an invitation to repentance: despite the severe critique levelled against the priests in Mai 2:1-3, God will uphold His covenant with Levi.

43

Following the suggestion of S.R. Driver, The Minor Prophets II (CB, Edinburgh, 1906), p. 309. This reading is followed by the majority of modern scholars, e.g. Baldwin, Haggai, pp. 233-34, Smith, Micah, p. 317, Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 69. Maintains the positive connotations, Rudolph, Haggai, p. 260, followed by Petersen, Haggai, p. 176, note 1, emends the text to nvn1? = "to live". 44 E.g., K. Budde, "Zum Text der drei letzten kleinen Propheten", ZAW 26 (1906), p. 22, T.H. Robinson and F. Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (HAT, Tübingen), p. 266. This reading is also adopted by the NEB and the JB. See also BDB, p. 227b. 2. 45 Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, p. 599.

5. Malachi 2:1-9 - The ideal and the real priest

131

To conclude, the framework for the criticism of the priests' failure to teach belongs within the context of the covenant between God and the priests. This covenant is conditional, depending on the priests' obedience to God. At present, the priests have broken the covenant, as the result of their failure to teach the people. Despite this, the text hints at the possibility that God will uphold His side of the agreement, hoping that the priests will repent of their failings. 5.2. The idyllic priestly

teaching

With the understanding of the designation Levi settled, we turn now to the exegesis of verses 6-7 where the clerical teaching role is emphasized. Verse 6 depicts Levi as the ideal teacher: true instruction is in his mouth (irrsa nrpn nm mm) and wickedness is not found on his lips ( Nxai-x1? rfim vnowa). He walks after God in peace and uprightness (TIN -fn n r s m mban) and he turns many away from guilt (iwa :rwn crmi).46 Among these descriptions, the last two expressions are of particular significance as they refer to the priests' part in bringing the people to God. They describe a linear development: first, the ideal priest "walked after God", an expression often used to describe a person's relationship with God, and secondly, as a result of his own relationship with God, he was able to "turn many away from guilt".47 Verse 7 continues the description of the ideal priest, now labelled "priest" (pa), and his teaching function. Echoing the words "lips" (DTID©), "instruction" (mm), and "mouth" (iD) from verse 6, the verse describes a true priest as one whose lips keep knowledge ( TDW© m n - i - i w p a ) and instruction is sought from his mouth (irrDa w p T mini). The descriptions in both verse 6 and 7 contribute to our understanding of how Malachi envisioned the perfect priest. He is above everything else a teacher, a person who is living a life in complete accordance with God's will and in harmony with his own teaching: he lives as he teaches and when these things are combined they are redemptive for the rest of the people.

46

Mason, Haggai, p. 147, points out that this description and that of Joshua's recall the earlier Zech 3:7 (see chapter 12). This link is in my view intentional: in Zech 3:7, Joshua is commanded to "walk in My way" (l^Jl ^ n a ) and to "keep the keeping" (-nx "iQtPn 'mawa). This command is consciously alluded to in Mai 2:6 where the author reuses the verb "pn and offers a word-play on the two words IW'S and 'mnwo. 47 The last statement may also have an additional meaning, indicating the priestly task of atoning for the people's guilt: in their cultic function to offer up atoning sacrifices, they rendered the people free of guilt, thus "turning many away from guilt" (cf. chapter 12 in connection with Zech 3).

132

Chapter 5: The priests 'failure to teach

This ideal priest is given yet another quality in Mai 2:7: that of being an intermediary par excellence between God and the people.48 This is the only verse in the Bible where "i^n = "messenger" refers unequivocally to a priest (cf. Mai 1:1; 3:1). Elsewhere, this term denotes either angelic beings (e.g. Gen 19:1; 21:17) or prophets (Hag 1:13). This elevated picture of the priest can be compared with Zech 3 which assigns some of the traditional obligations or privileges of the prophets to the high priests: notably, the high priest Joshua is given access (¡r^na) to those at the heavenly court (v. 7, cf. chapter 12), whereas earlier, only prophets were considered to have this privilege (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6). Taking Mai 2:7 and Zech 3:7 together, it is evident that the post-exilic prophetic authors had a very elevated opinion of the ideal priesthood, although, at the same time, both texts were not too pleased with the actual priesthood in their midst. 5.3. Malachi 2:8-9 - The priests 'failure to live up to the expectations The displeasure with the actual priesthood comes soon enough: verses 8-9 portray vividly that against this professed ideal picture of the priest stands the stark reality. As seen throughout this study, most of the post-exilic texts lament the failure of the contemporary priests to live up to the prophets' requirements. This is also true here: according to verse 8, the contemporary priests have broken away/deviated from the covenant with Levi ('i^n rp-a Dnrro), disobeyed God (-pin-p amo nnxi) and caused many to stumble through their instruction (mina a m nr^tran).49 This criticism is damning: not only have they failed to teach the people of God's instruction but what they have taught has been counter-productive, causing the people to turn away from God rather than bringing them closer to Him (cf. Hos 4:6). Mai 2:9, bringing the oracle to a close, adds an additional dimension to the priests' failure to provide instruction: mim cris d ' k w j i 'sn-ns nnnts cor«. I shall suggest that this clause criticizes the priests for not fulfilling their

48

Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 71. The idea of "stumbling" or being a "stumbling block" is attested to throughout the Old Testament, always using the root *7WD. It can indicate stumbling, either literally but more often metaphorically. In several places, God is reported as placing a "stumbling block" before someone (Jer 6:21; Ezek 3:20-21; 33:12). In the particular context of prophetic criticism of the priesthood, this metaphor is found in Hos 5:5 where the priest, alongside the prophet, is predicted to stumble (cf. above). In contrast, here in Mai 2:8, the priest is the one causing others to stumble. Lastly, the author of Isa 57:14 asks the leaders, including the clergy, to remove the obstacles fjiipaa) in the way of God's people. Their presence is causing the people to stumble (Isa 59:10, cf. also verse 14). 49

5. Malachi 2:1-9 - The ideal and the real priest

133

teaching obligations, thus hindering others from partaking in God's instruction. My interpretation depends on two grammatical considerations: 1. The understanding of the expression CP:D Is it positive or negative? 2. The understanding of the negative particle cnrx. Does it influence both or only the first of the two clauses?50 The two issues are interconnected and hence both need to be discussed before reaching a final verdict concerning the translation of the expression as a whole. Beginning with the first issue, the expression D^D KS/: is attested to three times in the book of Malachi, with slight syntactic variations: here ( -n ens) and in 1:8 ("pis s r n ) and 1:9 (ens nsn twn). The question is whether all three should be translated the same way, despite their differences with regard to the accompanying preposition. Gruber has investigated this expression in great detail. The following outline follows his findings:51 1. There are a few cases of D'JD XW: having a reflexive meaning, "to lift up one's own face". These examples have a positive meaning, possibly the idiomatic meaning "to smile", "to show one's pleasure and affection" (Numb 6:26 [T^N V» 'n x r ] and Deut 28:50 [ipi1? D'M NW-X1? [...] m]). 2. In the rest of the examples, the subject of the verb is distinct from the object suffix of the word "face". In other words, someone lifts up the face of someone else. Most of these cases have positive connotation, carrying the meaning "to show someone favour" (e.g., Gen 32:21; Job 42:8b). There are, however, also several instances where this idiom has the negative connotation "to show partiality, display favouritism" (e.g., Ps 82:2; Prov 18:5). There is furthermore evidence that this practice was considered inherently corrupt: for example, in Deut 10:17, the expression EPJD NW-N 1 ? H P S and INU> np1 = "and who does not take bribes" are parallel (see also Isa 9:14). In view of these findings, many scholars, including Gruber himself, regard the expression rmna D'» ¡TNtzm in Mai 2:9 to have negative connotations, . . . . . 52 translating it as "because you show partiality injudicial decisions".

50

GK §152z. states that it is possible for QDi'K to serve both clauses, despite the waw preceding the second clause. 51 M. Gruber, "The Many Faces of Hebrew D'33 NW3 >Lift up the FaceTEo[ioc; o 8ucov |_ioi |xooxov o airoKT€VVG>v Kuva 6e avafylpwv aeinfiaXiv (¿j alpa ikiov 6i6ou!?-n mm .'id1? lnnpn1? nipn Dniff1© 'n and Ibn Ezra, Rabbinic Bible (Hebrew): B'K rD1 nu/n Dm® nam.

5. Isaiah 66:3 - Syncretism and critique of the sacrificial cult

167

stanza because of the place of their performance. 62 The same act would have been legitimate, had they only taken place in the Jerusalem temple. This interpretation is, however, no longer satisfactory: thanks to the work of several scholars,63 few exegetes doubt today that the temple referred to in 66:1-2 is the one in Jerusalem. 5.1.1.2. The temple worship has no independent

value

Most of those scholars who regard Isa 66:1-4(6) as a textual unity and, at the same time, interpret 66:1-2 as wholesale rejection of the temple cult (cf. chapter 13) presume that the people performing sacrifices in the temple are, by definition, in the wrong.64 Also other scholars, although less inclined to see verses 1-2 as a complete rejection of the temple, nevertheless argue that for the author of Isa 66:1-6, the cult had no independent merit, receiving value only if accompanied with "true" piety.65 Smart, for example, connects 66:1—4 with Isa 58:1—5, and interprets the text to mean that only those who feed the hungry etc. would be pleasing to God, in contrast to those who "perform impressive ceremonies, or observe days of fasting, or build a Temple".66 There is some truth to Smart's interpretation: Isa 58 stresses the combined virtue of social justice and fasting, although it does not attest to any insincerity on the part of the people fasting (see chapters 4 and 6). In contrast, it is more difficult to find support for a wholesale rejection of the temple cult, given passages such as 57:13 and 65:11 that attest to a positive image of God's holy mountain or passages such as 56:1-8 and 58:13-14 that portray the cult favourably (cf. chapter 6). Furthermore, there is very 62 E.g., Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 481-82, Cheyne, Introduction, pp. 383-85, Marti, Jesaja, pp. 406-7, J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chapters XL-LXVI (CB, Cambridge, 1898, revised 1917), pp. 245-46 63 See, e.g., Smart, "Isaiah lxvi. 1-6", p. 420, Muilenburg, Isaiah, pp. 758-60, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 279, and Koenen, Ethik, pp. 184-85. The latter argues aptly that if 66:1 referred to another temple in contrast to the legitimate one in Jerusalem, the author would most likely have written "In Jerusalem ist mein Thron, auf dem Zion der Schemel meiner Füße", in order to make his point clear. 64 See especially Sekine, Sammlung, pp. 54-55, and Hanson, Dawn, pp. 179-80. The latter paraphrases "sacrifice of an ox in this cult is no better than murder etc.", i.e. understanding the second part of each accusation as a symbolic rather than actual act, the practice of the temple cult is being seen as no better than pagan rituals. Accordingly, the people serving in the temple were not syncretists. Its cult, however, was likened to pagan rituals by the visionaries. See also C. von Orelli, Der Prophet Jesaja (KKANT, München, 1904), p. 223, and J.N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66 (NICOT, Cambridge, UK, 1998), pp. 668-69 65 E.g., McKenzie, Isaiah, pp. 203-4. 66 Smart, History and Theology, pp. 281, 286-87. Cf. Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 626, and Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, pp. 200-1.

168

Chapter 7: Unorthodox rites

little textual support, taking prophetic hyperbole into account, for the rather vicious comparison of the worship at the Jerusalem temple with illegitimate rites because of the mind-set of the people. 5.1.1.3. The legitimate worship ofYHWH is an idolatrous act Lastly, we should consider the interpretation, suggested by Torrey, that the prophet regarded the legitimate worship of YHWH as an idolatrous or violent act, in that while it must be rejected, it nevertheless points in the right direction. Torrey argues that the people carrying out the legitimate rituals were, at the same time, worshipping other deities. As a result of this, in God's eyes it was "as though they were performing the most abominable rites".67 In my view, Torrey's symbolical interpretation of the second statements weakens his claim that the people criticized are worshipping other deities. By reading the second clause in each couplet as a comparative "as-clause, we are left with only information about the legitimate cult. Even so, by taking the descriptions in the second clauses at face value, indicating actual activities taking place, a picture emerges where certain people are involved in both the legitimate cult and in other, less acceptable, activities. 5.1.2. A subject-predicate reading This combination of orthodox and unorthodox worship ofYHWH leads us to the alternative interpretation, that of a subject-predicate reading of Isa 66:3. In view of the exegetical difficulties with the comparable reading discussed above, many modern scholars look for an alternative syntactical understanding. They regard the syntactical relationship between the two statements in each couplet as one of subject and predicate, and read the MT as if each couplet commenced with o. 68 Such a subject-predicate reading gives the translation "the one who does X (also) does Y". Thus, the people referred to are actually committing all eight actions rather than only the first one in each couplet. In other words, both the legitimate and the illegitimate activities are carried out by the same persons. On an 67

Torrey, Isaiah, p. 472. E.g., Skinner, Isaiah, p. 246, Marti, Jesaja, p. 408, Volz, Jesaja, pp. 290 (translation), 291-92, Muilenburg, Isaiah, pp. 761-62, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 328, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 281, Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", pp. 208-9, Beuken, "Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple?", pp. 57-58, Blenkinsopp, "A Jewish Sect", p. 10, note 19, Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 156-60, and Koole, Isaiah, pp. 477-78. To accommodate this interpretation, Rofe suggests re-vocalizing the word nsa in the first couplet with a segol instead of the attested sere, changing it from the construct state "striker of a man" to the absolute state "one who strikes a man" (note 17). This, however, is not strictly necessary since a complete analogy between the four couplets is not a prerequisite. 68

5. Isaiah 66:3 - Syncretism and critique of the sacrificial cult

169

interpretative level, this reading points to syncretism rather than a complete rejection of the temple cult. A variation of this reading is to assume a temporal contrast between the first and the second clause. Thus, Sasson translates "the one who slaughtered an ox (would now) slay a man etc."69 This is a possible reading but, given that Sasson omits to explain who these people might be and for what reason they changed their manner of worshipping God, this reading contributes little to the understanding of the verse and, accordingly, we may retain the simpler interpretation. To sum up, in view of the difficulties listed above, a subject-predicate understanding of the MT is exegetically superior. Given this, how can we explain the reading attested to in lQIsa and the ancient versions? From a grammatical point of view, the addition of a comparative -3 facilitates the reading, something that may explain the addition. Furthermore, it is in my opinion possible that the Qumran scribes, influenced by their own critical attitude towards the contemporary Jerusalem cult, favoured an understanding of the MT as a wholesale rejection of the normative cult. Thus, when dealing with an ambiguous text, they chose a reading which bore out their own opinion. 5.2. The priestly

identity of the people in Isaiah

66:3

Having settled the translation of Isa 66:3, it still remains to identity its target audience.70 Among those scholars who regard the people in this verse as Judahites, few label them more specifically. Some merely state that we are dealing with two groups of people within Judah,71 while others regard 66:3-4 as an example of pro-Babylonian literature, accusing the native Judahites of mixed worship.72

69 J.M. Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3 4a", VT 26 (1976), pp. 199-200. By assuming the presence of either "JX or Dl, Sasson argues that the second clause forms a temporal contrast to the first one, citing GK §160b which deals with intensive or concessive clauses (e.g., Isa 49:15). 70 Given my view that Isa 66:1-2 refers to the temple in Jerusalem, to be discussed further in chapter 13, I omit the scholars who identify the people performing the rites mentioned in 66:3 with the Samarians (e.g., Duhm, Jesaja, p. 482, Cheyne, Introduction, pp. 367, 383-85, Skinner, Isaiah, p. 246, Marti, Jesaja, pp. 408-9) or with exiles in the Diaspora (Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 625), who identified them as the people in Babylon prepared to return). 71 E.g., Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 760, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 280. 72 Snaith, Isaiah 40-66, pp. 241-42.

170

Chapter 7: Unorthodox rites

The exception is Rofe, followed by Blenkinsopp, 73 who demonstrates that the rituals that are mentioned in the first statement of each couplet are priestly prerogatives, connected with the temple service. Thus, the Jerusalem priests are the people most suitable to have carried out these rites. 74 In the case of the first two statements rron nan // nwn imif, both indicating ritual slaughter which was permissible to all (Lev 1:3-11; 2:113), Rofe points out that after the restoration there was a rising tendency to insert restrictions. At first, slaughter was limited to the Levites (Ezek 44:10-11; Ezra 6:20; 2 Chr 30:16-17) and later restricted to the priesthood alone (2 Chr 29:23-24, in comparison with Lev 4:15). In contrast, many examples from the Talmud refute the idea that slaughtering was a task limited to the priests. According to Rofe, this points to a situation where, alongside the practice of the temple priesthood to monopolize the slaughtering, the Pharisaic law emphasized that any person of Israel was entitled to slaughter. Rofe shows further that the following two rites were always limited to the priesthood in the temple. The nrua nVya could only be performed by a priest since this offering was made on the altar, and Tata run1? was reserved for the priests (Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 24:7). He concludes that two out of three actions were exclusively performed by the priesthood and the third was appropriated over the course of time. 75 In connection with this, Rofe asks why, if these statements indeed refer to the priesthood, the prophet did not say so directly. He suggests three possible reasons: 1. One reason might be the proclivity of biblical language for synonymy, bringing about the creation of synonyms for the names of professions by the use of the participle, for example limn = "ploughman" (Amos 9:13; Isa 28:24). Rofe points out that Hebrew sometimes omits the actual word indicating the profession and instead merely refers to the person "who is doing something", e.g. instead of Y?a, the verbal constructions -a "7B?ia and sod bv a©1 (Jer 22:30) or mb? lain [...] nan1 (Amos 1:5, 8) are used. 2. This manner of expression is found also in Jer 33:18 (-PDpai nbw r\bva D'a'a-'ja mi nwin nma), although cnVn crna is explicitly stated in the verse and in Jer 48:35 (vn^s1? -pupai naa n"7va) where the participles refer to those functioning in the (Moabite) cult. 73 Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", p. 209, builds partly on the discoveries by Geiger, Urschrift, p. 56, who was the first to identify the people accused in Isa 66:1-5 with those who served as priests in the temple. Blenkinsopp, "Jewish Sects", pp. 10, 17, has lately supported Rofe's insight by arguing that the Jerusalemite priesthood were involved in diverse "aberrant cultic acts", and "addicted to syncretistic cult". 74 Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1—4", p. 209. It should be noted that Rofe dates the material to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah rather than to 520 BC. 75 Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", pp. 209-212.

5. Isaiah 66:3 - Syncretism and critique of the sacrificial cult

171

3. Taking into consideration that some priestly families were ousted from the cult (cf. 1 Kgs 26:2-27), Rofe argues that it was an advantage of the diction not to indicate priests in general, but only those who served actively in the temple.76 Rofe concludes that Isa 66:3 is an oracle against the Jerusalem priesthood. Rofe's conclusion has been criticized by Smith. Based on his assumption that Isa 66:3 refers to the same activities as 65:1-7, Smith argues that the latter verses make clear that the poet's criticisms go beyond the priesthood's participation in syncretistic rituals.77 In my view, however, there is no necessary contradiction between 65:1-7 and 66:3, parts of 65:1-7 being in fact addressed to the priests (above). To sum up, I agree with Rofe's identification of the people criticized in 66:3 with the Jerusalem priesthood: in view of a Jerusalem setting, it is preferable to understand the legitimate rites described in 66:3 as depicting rites taking place in the precinct of the altar or the Jerusalem temple. Furthermore, accepting a subject-predicate reading, I maintain that these four couplets refer to people who combined the legitimate sacrificial rites with acts of violence and/or cultic activities that the author of Isa 56:959:21 and 65:1-66:17 condemned. 5.3. The interpretation

of the rituals

In view of the subject-predicate reading of the accusations in Isa 66:3 and the resulting interpretation, that the priests combined legitimate sacrificial rites with other, less acceptable, acts, we need to devote some time to the correct understanding of these latter acts.78 What exactly did the prophet accuse the priests of doing?

76

Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", p. 211. Smith, Rhetoric, p. 158. 78 Contrary to this, when following the comparative reading of the Versions, the precise meaning of each clause is rendered unimportant, since they are mentioned merely as a comparison with the legitimate rites. See, e.g., Hanson, Dawn, p. 180, who states that "the practises of the temple party are no less abominable than the most shocking of pagan rites". Along similar lines, Koenen, Ethik, p. 192, suggests a symbolical reading of verse 3. He argues that by using expressions such as Hundewurger etc., the author strove to create a feeling of disgust in his hearers. As such, 3a would be polemic rather than objective criticism. Koenen's interpretation does not, however, convince. On the contrary, as in the case of Isa 65:3-4 with which 66:3 shows a certain affinity, there is no reason to doubt the actual occurrence of the rites described in Isa 66:3. 77

172 5.3.1.

Chapter 7: Unorthodox rites wx-rna

Scholarly interpretations of the expression wx-roa have ranged from hitting a person,79 to murder80 and human sacrifice. Most commonly, since the vocabulary of the other three statements is mostly understood to indicate ritual rather than criminal actions, wx-nDa is understood as a reference to human sacrifices (cf. Isa 57:5; Jer 7:31; 19:2-6; Ezek 23:39).81 Despite this, an interpretation along these lines is not supported by the textual evidence. As Koenen points out, the word ra ("man") is not suitable for human sacrifice, bearing in mind that most of the commentators claim that we are dealing with child sacrifice. Thus, despite the textual evidence for child sacrifice at this time in Isa 57:5, the vocabulary used there (trfrn 'en©) does not correspond to r s ma attested here, thus rendering a connection doubtful.82 Instead, the textual evidence suggests a secular crime. First, the exact expression r s roa is only attested to elsewhere in Exod 21:12, where it occurs in a legal context. Secondly, the Hiphil of the root HDJ never elsewhere indicates ritual killings. It may indicate a non-fatal blow (cf. Isa 50:6; 53:4; 58:4), or describe a deadly stroke (nav ma nai wx na», Exod 21:12; 21:20 etc.), but is in the latter cases almost always followed by the root ma to specify the result of the blow. God is the attested subject of this verb in cases when it symbolizes the administration of judgment/ chastisement upon a person/nation (Isa 57:17; 60:10). Thus, with the support of the use of the root nra within the Isaianic corpus, I suggest that IP'S nDa here refers to a profane action, parallel to those in Isa 58:3-4 where the priests and the people are accused of oppression of the poor (above, chapter 6).83

79

Rashi, Rabbinic Bible (Hebrew), Isa 66:3. E.g., Smart, History and Theology, p. 287, Hanson, Dawn, pp. 179-180, Koenen, Ethik, pp. 190-91. 81 E.g., Volz, Jesaja, p. 291, Marti, Jesaja, p. 408, Skinner, Isaiah, p. 247, Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3-4a", p. 201, Von Orelli, Jesaja, p. 223, R. de Vaux, "Les sacrifices de porcs en Palestine et dans l'Ancien Orient", Von Ugarit nach Qumran (BZAW 77, 1958), p. 263, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 762, and Whybray, Isaiah, p. 281. Cf. Heider, Cult of Molech, pp. 377-83, who connects child sacrifice with the cult of Molech (Isa 57:5, 9). Interestingly, the root Dn©, used in 57:5, occurs in the first clause (il» amffl) rather than in the second (WN 713D). Note, however, that I maintain that Isa 57:9 is an allusion to foreign alliances (chapter 9). 82 Koenen, Ethik, pp. 190-91. 83 Smith, Rhetoric, p. 157. Cf. Rofé, "Isaiah 66: H " , p. 211. 80

J. Isaiah 66:3 - Syncretism and critique of the sacrificial cult

5.3.2.

173

3*73

The phrase 3*73 ^iu is a Hapax Legomena. The verb qiv = "to break the neck (of an animal)" appears in Exod 13:13; 34:20 (the firstborn of donkeys); Deut 21:4, 6 (a heifer not used for labour) and Hos 10:2 (figurative of breaking down altars), but these examples provide no clue to the interpretation of Isa 66:3. Hence, it is uncertain whether 3^3 tiv refers to sacrifices of dogs or to cruelty to animals. The former interpretation is based mainly on our knowledge of sacrifices of dogs in the Ancient Near East. Several exegetes, especially those who interpret wx-roa as human sacrifice, suggest that the eating of dogs was a ritual practice among the Semites. 84 Sasson, 85 for example, highlights the possible similarities between Isa 66:3-4a and a text from Mari (ARM 11.37) which attests to dog sacrifices among the Haneans and among the Hurrians with the purpose of establishing a covenant. He further connects Isa 63:3-4a with a Hittite 86 text which refers not only to sacrifices of dogs but also of pigs and humans. 87 As Sasson is aware, the drawbacks for this comparison are the great time difference between these extra-biblical texts and post-exilic Judah, combined with the geographical and cultural distance between Semitic Judah and Anatolia, the home of the non-Semitic Hurrians and Hittites. Even so, it is not the first time a Hittite parallel with biblical material has been suggested. 88 Other possible parallels have also been examined. Stager, while discussing the buried dogs at Ashkelon, denies any link between Isa 66:3 and these dogs, despite the chronological proximity. In his view, the buried dogs were not killed for ritual purposes but rather formed part of a healing cult, devoted to Gula. As such, the dogs would have participated in certain healing rituals. Lacking signs of a violent death, Stager concludes that these dogs died a natural death.89 All in all, it must be stated that very little supports the occurrence of ritual slaughter of dogs in Judah in the post-exilic period. This has been noted by Koenen who instead suggests that the reference here in 66:3 is an example of slander. That is, that the one who sacrifices a sheep is libelled 84 First suggested by Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 221-22, 243, and followed by, e.g., Marti, Jesaja, p. 408, Von Orelli, Jesaja, p. 223, Volz, Jesaja, p. 291, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 762, and Whybray, Isaiah, p. 281. 85 Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3-4a", pp. 202-7. 86 It is accepted that a number of Hurrian elements exist in Hittite culture. 87 H.M. Kümmel, Ersatzrituale für den Hethitischen König (SBT 3, Wiesbaden, 1967), p. 151. 88 Cf. especially E.A. Speiser, "Hurrians", IDB 2, pp. 664-66. See also the bibliography quoted by Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3-4a", p. 206. 89 L.E. Stager, Ashkelon Discovered. From Canaanites and Philistines to Romans and Moslems (BAS, Washington DC, 1991), pp. 26, 32-36.

174

Chapter 7: Unorthodox rites

as a strangler of dogs.90 Nonetheless, his interpretation does not persuade, given the lack of textual evidence supporting the idea that the expression 3*73 iiv was in any way slanderous. Furthermore, in order for 3*73 «ps to be libellous, it must correspond to some actual practice. In conclusion, there is some evidence, though scanty, for the sacrificing of dogs in the Ancient Near East, although not from Judah itself. Nevertheless, it may be preferable to see 3"?3 "fia as an expression of cruelty. Those accused did not only hit other people but extended their cruel behaviour to dogs. As such, we are dealing with yet another profane act. 5.3.3.

Tin-m

The interpretation of the third action is made difficult owing to the absence of a verb in the expression -pin m. Hence, we shall begin by determining the syntax of this statement before turning to matters of exegesis. Scholars have suggested three ways of understanding the expression m Tin syntactically: 1. Some scholars view the absence of a verb as a textual error, and hence supply a suitable verb such as iou = "pour out",91 or nbvn.92 2. Other scholars create a verb out of the existing consonants, such as emending m to inn, reading Tin inn = "he who desires a swine".93 3. Lastly, it is possible to assume that rhvn in the first clause functions as the verb also in the second clause, thus stating that pig's blood is sacrificed together with a grain offering (nnaa).94 In response to these three possibilities, the fact that the other wordcouplets all have two different verbs, a verb other than nVvn relating to m Tin seems preferable. Therefore, I find the idea of nbyn serving double duty unlikely. Furthermore, in view of the symmetry of the passage, a participle and a noun would fit better than the attested two nouns Tin m. Therefore, I suggest that the MT contains a scribal error. In view of the fact that the only other examples where pork is condemned are connected with its consumption (Lev 11:7-8; Deut 14:8; Isa 65:4; 66:17), I regard as compelling the proposition that the original text of Isa 66:3 contained a participle connected with eating. Thus, Volz's emendation is in my view, 90

Koenen, Ethik, p. 191. Marti, Jesaja, p. 408, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 762. 92 Duhm, Jesaia, p. 483. 93 Volz, Jesaja, p. 290, note a. This reading is followed by de Vaux, "Les sacrifices de pores", p. 263, note 97. Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3—4a", p. 202, criticizes this emendation, claiming that such a usage of inn is awkward. 94 V: quasi qui sanguinem suillum offerat, S: KTim Km "px NTino mp»"I, Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3-4a", p. 202. 91

5. Isaiah 66:3 ~ Syncretism and critique of the sacrificial cult

175

though not ideal, the most plausible one, given that the verb inn = "to desire" can indicate a desire to eat pork. Having established that what is condemned here is the eating of pork, the question remains as to the context in which this consumption took place. On the one hand, de Vaux concludes, on the basis of the established custom of eating pork in the Ancient Near East, that sacrifices of pigs were limited to types of mystery religions: the pig was widely regarded as a demonic animal, being sacrificed only to gods of the underworld. Furthermore, given that pigs were not part of the regular sacrificial cult but offered only in secret rites, de Vaux suggests regarding Isa 65:4-5 and 66:17 as examples of "un culte mystérique".95 On the other hand, Koenen again denies any cultic implication of this statement, claiming that there is no evidence for "Schweineopfer" in post-exilic Judah.96 In response to de Vaux and Koenen, as already touched upon, Isa 66:3 does not necessarily speak about sacrifices, since the comparable biblical material speaks about eating pork. Furthermore, unless we assume that the verb rùm in the preceding clause serves double duty (rejected above), the actions in the two clauses do not need to be synonymous. In fact, Koenen himself argues implicitly that the two expressions in the first word couple (WN-NNA -iwn umw) are not parallel, by claiming that WN-HDS indicates murder: presumably, iwn om© does not refer to slaughter but to killing for sacrificial purposes. Hence, given the lack of compelling evidence for regarding the misdemeanour in question as connected with the sacrificial cult, I suggest that while the first expression in the third couplet refers to the sacrifice of the nraa, the second expression may refer to any action involving pork that is unacceptable to the prophet. To sum up, I tentatively translate the expression Tin-[inn] nrna nVra as "one who offers a grain-offering, [desires] swine". If this reading is correct, the people being criticized broke the prohibition on eating pork, laid down not only in the Torah, but also in Isa 65:4 and 66:17. However, even though the ban on eating pork probably had a ritual origin (cf. 65:4 above), it cannot be proven that this consumption took place in any ritual setting. 5.3.4.

lis

ii3a

In contrast to the preceding three expressions, the fourth expression "ima Tin indicates idolatry for three reasons. First, the word I'm = "wickedness" is elsewhere often used to denote idols (Isa 41:29; 1 Sam 15:23; Hos 4:15; 95 96

De Vaux, "Les sacrifices de porcs", pp. 250-65. Koenen, Ethik, p. 191.

Chapter 7: Unorthodox rites

176

5:8),97 and thus it is likely that it is used in a similar manner here in Isa 66:3. Secondly, Isa 65:11 contains reference to the worship of foreign deities in Judah, such as "Gad" and "Meni".98 Thirdly, the Piel of TO is probably synonymous with "worship"99 or denotes "the use of magic words in homage [...] to the god".100 As Sasson points out, Isa 66:3 is the only attested example of TO being used for a deity other than YHWH.101 In view of this, I suggest that the use of the root inn is intentional, since it stresses that the person accused blesses (inn) idols rather than God, the latter being the task which he should have performed as a priest. 5.3.5. nxon O©M nrrxiprai arro-nn nro nan-ai The accusation in verse 3b follows well after the last one in 3a because of its shared focus on religious rather than profane crimes. In view of its general language, I suggest that this clause functions as a summary of the preceding words. In this half verse, the target audience are accused of following their own way rather than God's. The word Hp'^ = "detestable things" is often used to indicate actual foreign deities (1 Kgs 11:5, 7), or idols (Jer 4:1; Ezek 20:7, 8 etc.), or alternatively, to describe the Israelites' idolatry (Hos 9:11). 5.3.6.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the prophet accuses the priests of a motley collection of crimes in Isa 66:3. Even so, there is no need to interpret these accusations metaphorically, since all the accusations could quite easily have taken place in post-exilic Judah. Thus, I suggest that the prophet accuses the priests of being involved in things ranging from brutality to apostasy. The prophet begins with two accusations of unjustified cruelty towards earthly beings. The first accusation EX HDQ means "hitting a man" and as such is a profane crime. In the case of the second accusation, the existence of dog sacrifices in Ancient Near Eastern material allows us to speculate about the occurrence of such a practice also in Judah. Yet, it is maybe more likely that the author regarded any unwarranted act of cruelty as abominable. In contrast, the latter two accusations focus more on the priests' relationship with the divine, i.e. their disobedience to God's commandments and their lack of fidelity to God alone. Consumption of pork is condemned for cultic

97

See BDB, p. 20a, 2. Cf. Duhm, Jesaia, p. 483. S. Ribichini, "Gad", DDD, pp. 339-41. See also Rofe, "Isaiah 66:1-4", p. 211, and S.D. Sperling, "Meni", DDD, pp. 566-68. 99 Whybray, Isaiah, p. 282. 100 Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 762. 101 Sasson, "Isaiah lxvi 3-4a", p. 202. 98

6. Conclusion

111

reasons in both the Torah and in Isa 65:4 and 66:17, and worship of idols naturally belongs in the cultic sphere.

6. Conclusion In this chapter, we have seen how the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1— 66:17 accuses the priests of unorthodox worship of YHWH and/or worship of deities other than the God of Israel. In this respect, he stands in continuity with pre-exilic prophetic texts expressing similar concerns, Hos 4:14 being a clear example of this. Common to the prophet's accusation is the combination of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. Beginning in Isa 57:6, the references to the normative cult of YHWH in 6ba, together with the allusion to unorthodox necromantic practices in 6a, bear witness to a situation where the orthodox sacrificial cult was carried out alongside more dubious practices. A similar situation is envisioned in the following verses 7-8: a combination of orthodox worship of YHWH in the Jerusalem temple and of unorthodox rites of either YHWH or other deities. The key element is the identification of the "high and lofty mountain" in verse 7 with the Temple Mount. The same criticism is found also in Isa 65:3-4 that describes a situation where certain religious rituals, normally legitimate, are condemned by the author due either to the recipients of the worship or to the place where the worship took place, or even to the worshippers' mindset. The criticism reaches its peak in Isa 66:3 where the author accuses the priests, the ones carrying out the sacrifices in the temple, of worshipping other deities alongside their worship of YHWH and of committing acts of violence. The issue of the priesthood's perceived idolatry and unorthodox worship is continued, although from a different angle, in the next chapter that deals with the priestly intermarriages. As I shall argue, marrying outside the immediate faith community can be both the cause and the result of idolatry/unorthodoxy.

Chapter Eight

The Priests' Intermarriages 1. Introduction Having determined that the prophets accused the priests of unorthodoxy in the previous chapter, I shall devote this next chapter to a related issue that of priestly intermarriage - and suggest that the two issues are interrelated: the priests' intermarriages were considered to be one reason for their unorthodoxy.1 Intermarriages, priestly or otherwise, seem to have been primarily a post-exilic concern. Intermarriages are described as having taken place earlier, but they do not attract the same attention as those occurring in the post-exilic period. These latter cases of intermarriage are described primarily in Ezra-Nehemiah but are also hinted at in Malachi. This present chapter begins with a brief definition of intermarriage in general and an overview of the attested cases in the Old Testament. With this background, we shall move on to the specific cases of priestly intermarriages, as attested to in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 9:12-13; 10:18-22; Neh 6:17-19; 13:4-8, 28). We shall discuss the various lists of names found in this material and explore what they can tell us about the priests who have intermarried: their identity, their reaction to Ezra's and Nehemiah's marriage reforms and their involvement in the general Judahite society. We shall thereafter investigate the narrative sections of Ezra-Nehemiah with a similar aim. In the following two sections, we shall look more at the repercussions of the priestly intermarriages for the society of Judah, both in the realm of politics (Neh 6, 13) and in the realm of orthodoxy (Mai 2:10-16), and, on the basis of the results, I shall then offer a comparison of the prophetic criticism as found in Malachi with the more implicit one found in Ezra-Nehemiah. Lastly, we shall end this chapter

1 Having said that, it has become clear through recent research that the prohibition on intermarriage was motivated not only by religious but other factors as well, in particular economic ones. For a discussion of this topic, see, e.g., H.C. Washington, "The Strange Woman ( m s s / m r nti-'K) of Proverbs 1-9 and Post-Exilic Judean Society", Second Temple Studies 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period (eds. T.C. Eskenazi and K.H. Richards, JSOTSup. 175, Sheffield, 1994), pp. 217-42.

2. Intermarriages

in the Old Testament

179

with a brief discussion of the post-biblical treatment of the priestly intermarriages (Targum Jonathan and Josephus).

2. Intermarriages in the Old Testament Intermarriage as defined by the Old Testament is a marriage between an Israelite man and a non-Israelite woman. The opposite case, i.e. between an Israelite woman and a non-Israelite man, is seldom more than a theoretical possibility (e.g., Ezra 9:12). In the rare cases when it does occur, e.g. the marriage between Esther and Xerxes, the biblical authors do not define it as intermarriage. A possible exception could be the marriage between Jacob's daughter Dinah to the Canaanite man Shechem which ends with Dina's brothers killing Shechem. This killing, however, is likely not to be the result of the intermarriage per se, but of Shechem's rape of Dinah. The recorded cases of Israelite men marrying women from outside the community form a motley picture. The following texts document a positive attitude towards foreign woman: • Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian woman (Gen 41:45). • Moses married an Egyptian (Cushite) woman (Numb 12:1), a marriage, however, of which Moses' siblings disapproved. • Mahlon, Shilion and later also Boaz married Ruth and Orpha, two Moabite women (Ruth). • Legal texts claim the right for Israelite men to marry female prisoners of war (Deut 21:10ff.) Nonetheless, the majority of biblical texts condemn intermarriage, for the reason that intermarriage may cause the Israelites to worship gods other than YHWH: • The portrayal of the patriarchs and matriarchs disapproves of intermarriages, or at least marriage with the Canaanites: Isaac's bride is not Canaanite (Gen 24:3), Rebecca dislikes Esaus' Hittite wives (Gen 27:46ff.), and Isaac instructed Jacob to travel to Rebecca's parental home to find a wife from among her relatives (Gen 27:46ff.). 2 • The Israelites are warned not to enter into covenants with any of the "inhabitants of the land" (pxn nwv), but instead to destroy their idols (Exod 34:15-16 // Deut 7:1-6). If the Israelites were nevertheless to marry them, they run the risk of adopting the idolatrous ways of the

2

This text is also of interest because it equates Hittite women with Canaanite ones.

180

Chapter 8: The Priest's

Intermarriages

latter.3 Along similar lines, Deut 20:10-18 lists groups of people that the Israelites are commanded to kill, lest the Israelites be taught to worship the other peoples' gods. • Samson's parents opposed their son's desired marriage to a Philistine woman and suggested a woman of their own people (Judg 14:1-3). • The authors of the Deuteronomistic history frown upon the marriages between the Israelite and Judahite kings with foreign woman (Solomon and his wives, Ahab and Jezebel), and stress the link between intermarriage and idolatry (1 Kgs 11:1—8; 16:31). • Ezra 9-10 and Neh 9-10, 13 portray a situation where a substantial part of the community had married people outside that community. In these two texts, Ezra and Nehemiah take a strict stand against this practice and attempt to enforce divorces. In the following section, we shall look more closely at the situation and explore its contribution to our understanding of the prophetic criticism of the priesthood in the postexilic period. Intermarriages are viewed in a similarly negative fashion in later Jewish literature. Mixed marriages are considered unacceptable in, for example, Jubilees 20:4; 22:20; 25:1-10; 30:17 and the Testament of Levi 9:10. Furthermore, there are reinterpretations of some of the biblical texts mentioned earlier that do not condemn intermarriage: in the pseudoepigraphical narrative about Joseph and Asenath, for example, Asenath's Egyptian origin is obliterated by her conversion to belief in YHWH, thus transforming Joseph's intermarriage into a marriage between two Jews4.

3. Ezra-Nehemiah - The crisis of the priestly intermarriages The issue of intermarriages takes up the larger part of Ezra 9-10 and Neh 9-10, 13. In the present study, we shall limit the scope to the sections dealing with those of the priests. We shall begin by investigating the two lists enumerating people of priestly descent who had intermarried (Ezra 10:18-22; Neh 10:1-8). Thereafter, we shall examine selected passages which suggest that marriages between the families of the Judahite priestly 3 The two narratives differ in that respect: while intermarriage is not forbidden in the version in Exodus, the parallel narrative in Deut 7:1-6 states explicitly that the Israelites were not to marry the inhabitants of the land. 4 The story "Joseph and Asenath" was composed between the 1st century B.C and the 2nd century A.D. For further discussion, see V. Aptowitzer, "Asenath, the Wife of Joseph", HUCA 1 (1924), pp. 239-306. Concerning the issue of Asenath's conversion and its relevance for the status of proselytes, see the discussion and accompanied bibliography in E.M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield, 2000), pp. 28-38, 48-63

3. Ezra-Nehemiah

- The crisis of the priestly

intermarriages

181

leadership and those of the non-Israelite secular leadership were taking place (Neh 6:18; 12:47; 13:28 - marriage connections to the Ammonite Tobiah and the Horonite Sanballat). We shall see that the priestly intermarriages were criticized because of their religious and political consequences: the priests opened themselves up to unorthodox/idolatrous practices, and their ties to families outside the immediate Judahite community weakened their loyalty towards their own people. 3.1.

The list in Ezra

10:18-22

and in Nehemiah

10:1-8

There are two lists of names of people of priestly descent having intermarried: Ezra 10:18-22 and Neh 10:1-8. By comparing these lists with the other records in Ezra and Nehemiah, the following picture emerges: 1. All the family names in the list in Ezra 10:18-22 agree with the four main priestly family groups attested to in the list in Ezra 2 // Neh 7. Hence, the reader receives the impression that the priestly intermarriages were not a phenomenon confined to a small group of priests but rather one that spread to include all the major priestly families in Judah present at the time. Furthermore, the priests who had intermarried were not limited to those priests who had stayed in Judah during the exile. On the contrary, the agreement between the list of returning exiles and that of priests divorcing their foreign wives emphasises the very opposite. In fact, Ezra 9:4 makes clear that the returning exiles are the ones who have committed the intermarriages, and Ezra 10:7 limits Ezra's audience to the exiles only 'in). 2. A comparison between the two lists shows that as far as the records are concerned, we are dealing with two different groups of people who divorced their foreign wives at different times: a. The two names Pashhur and Harim appear in both lists but as they are listed as family names in the list in Ezra and as personal names in the one in Nehemiah, we need not infer that the same individual is referred to. b. No name from the list in Ezra 10:18-22 appears in the list in Neh 10:1-8, with the one exception of the name Shemaiah (Ezra 10:21; Neh 10:8). An identification of the two individuals bearing the same name is, however, doubtful: in the list in Ezra, the person is listed as part of the family of Harim, while no such information is available in the list in Nehemiah. In view of this, we can conclude that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah describe the priestly intermarriages as a practice having occurred over a period of time rather than as one single and distinct event. Furthermore, given the need for two consecutive confrontations, one

182

Chapter 8: The Priest's Intermarriages

between the priests and Ezra and another between the priests and Nehemiah, it is clear that not all priests agreed with the first reformer 5 and divorced their foreign wives. 3. The list in Neh 10:1-8 differs from the list in Ezra 10:18-22 with regard to how well-known the names are: a. Apart from Shemaiah, very few of the personal names in the list in Ezra appear elsewhere in the biblical material, with three exceptions. The name Maaseiah seems to have been a very popular priestly name. It is given as the name for three individuals in this list (Ezra 10:18, 21, 22) and later in Neh 12:41 among those who officiated at the dedication of the walls. Additionally, a person named Elioenai appears later in the same context (Neh 12:41). Lastly, someone called Nethanel is named in Neh 12:21 as the representative of the people related to Jedaiah, in a list recording those priests and Levites who had returned together with Joshua and Zerubbabel. In view of the lack of patronyms, together with the chronological spread (520 BC to 450 BC), it is not possible to draw any conclusion concerning these individuals, of whether or not they refer to the same person. In fact, in view of the incomplete evidence, a negative answer is likely. b. By contrast, the names listed in Neh 10:1-8 are nearly all known from other documents in Ezra and Nehemiah. Again, while we only have the first names of the priests, the chronological proximity of the divorces taking place in Neh 10:1-8, together with the other events during Nehemiah's terms as governor of Judah, suggest that we are dealing with the same persons. i. Several of the names of the people worked with Nehemiah on the rebuilding of the city walls (12:1-7) are identical with those divorcing their foreign wives: Meremoth (3:4, 21; 10:5), Baruch (3:20; 10:6) ii. Others are listed as having both divorced their wives and participated in the dedication ceremony of the walls (12:2743): Jeremiah (10:2; 12:33), Azariah (10:2; 12:33), Meshullam (10:7; 12:33) iii. Yet others are listed to have voluntarily settled in Jerusalem (11:10-14): Seraiah (10:2; 11:11) iv. A person named Meshullam listed in Neh 12:12-21 (10:7) as representative of the different priestly families during the priestly reign of Joiakim (preceding Eliashib, Neh 12:10), corresponds with a Meshullam in Neh 10:1-8 (12:13) 5 In the debate whether Ezra preceded Nehemiah or vice versa, I follow the Biblical chronology which places Ezra before Nehemiah.

3. Ezra-Nehemiah

- The crisis of the priestly

intermarriages

183

v.

Other names correspond with the name of the family representative: Jeremiah (10:2; 12:12), Amariah (10:3; 12:13), Shebaniah (10:4; 12:14), Ginnethon (10:6; 12:16) vi. A person named Daniel, of the family of Ithamar, left with Ezra for Jerusalem (Ezra 8:2; Neh 10:6) It is clear that we cannot base any wide-ranging conclusion on the fact that the same name is attested to in more than one place in the textual corpus of Nehemiah. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that so many of the names attested to in the list in Neh 10:1-8 are also assigned to other individuals or families in the wider context of the book of Nehemiah. Hence, although some names must have been very common and shared by several individuals (e.g., Shemaiah or Meshullam), the fact that names ran in the family is suggestive of a situation where several of the priests who performed their priestly duties and/or participated in the building of the city walls were married to women outside the immediate community. Hence, the text of Ezra and Nehemiah creates the impression that rather than being a small group on the fringes of the society, the priests who had intermarried formed an active part of the Judahite society, and were involved in many of the undertakings of the people of the time. 4. The people named in Neh 10:1-8 did not constitute all the priests who had intermarried. As we learn from Neh 10:28, the rest of the people, i.e. those who were not high up enough in society to have signed the document, followed suit and divorced their foreign wives. This group contained a number of cultic personnel: priests, Levites, door keepers, singers, temple servants. 3.2. Ezra 9:1-15 - Intermarriages

and

idolatry/unorthodoxy

Leaving the lists behind and moving on to the more narrative material, Ezra 9:1-15 is relevant to our topic of the critique of the priesthood in the post-exilic era. Beginning with 9:1-4, this section states how some officials (an©, lit. "princes") inform Ezra that neither the people nor the priests and the Levites have kept themselves separated from (V773I-K1?) the peoples of the nations (msisn ^ava) and from the abominations (•rrrayira) of eight nationalities listed by name. By marrying women from these nations, the Judahites are accused of having "mixed the holy seed among the peoples of the nations" (rmnxn '»in iznpn ¡nr irranm). The main responsibility for this deed is placed on the leaders (anwn) and the commanders (n'Jion), who are described as having initiated this custom (n:nz;*n run "75Jon nrrn). In this section, we shall focus on three issues: who were the people who had intermarried and with whom had they married; what does the

184

Chapter 8: The Priest's

Intermarriages

expression "holy seed" mean; and lastly, what is the significance of the reference to the eight nations? 3.2.1. Who were these priests and whom did they

marry?

First, we need to determine the identity of the priests who intermarried and the identity of the women that had married. There has to be a division between people on the outside of a given community and people on the inside in order for intermarriages to take place. Yet, the border between these two groups may be a matter of dispute, and a given marriage might be categorized differently by two different people. It follows that Ezra's and later also Nehemiah's definition of intermarriage might not correspond to that of the priests.6 In view of this, our first task is to determine how the author of the Ezra Memoir, here identified with Ezra (Ezra 7-10), defined the outsiders' identity. Since the passages in Ezra 9:4 and 10:7 (above) distinguish between those of exilic and those of non-exilic origin, it seems likely that the author equated the returned exiles with the insiders. Thus, we should probably understand the concept of intermarriage, as reported in Ezra-Nehemiah, as a union between one person of exilic and another person of Judahite origin. Yet, when did these exiles that later intermarried arrive in Judah? In this respect, Ezra 10:44 contributes to our understanding, as it states that some of the intermarriages had resulted in children of mixed descent: their fathers belonged to the community while their mothers came from elsewhere. According to Ezra 7-10, the break-up of these marriages took place soon after Ezra's stay in Judah. It follows that in order for children to have been born, the people involved must have lived in Judah prior to Ezra's arrival. One can of course argue that Ezra 10:44 assumes a gap of time between the coming of Ezra and his group and the discovery of the mixed marriages, but this is unlikely for two reasons. First, such a reading presupposes that Ezra was slack in his office, an assumption not supported by the text. Secondly, it is reasonable to assume that the dating in 10:9 (the 9th month) refers to the same year as the previous date in 7:8, i.e. the 7th year of Artaxerxes, thus leaving insufficient time for children to be born. 6

Cf. the case of Sanballat and Tobiah. Despite being described as foreigners, both men have a connection to the cult of YHWH. According to the Elephantine papyri, Sanballat gave two of his sons YHWH-istic names (Delaiah and Shelemiah), thus indicating that he practiced some form of worship of YHWH (B. Porter, "Request for Letter of Recommendation (first draft)", Context of Scripture, 3 [ed. W.W. Hallo, Brill, Leiden, 2002], p. 130). Similarly, Tobiah, called "the Ammonite", has a YHWH-istic name, something which indicates that his parents worshipped the God of Israel (H.H. Rowley, "Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple", Men of God [London and Edinburgh, 1963], p. 247).

3. Ezra-Nehemiah

To sum up, we can who are later asked Nonetheless, they had arrival in order to have 3.2.1.1. The insiders'

- The crisis of the priestly

intermarriages

185

assume that the priests who had intermarried and to divorce their wives were of exilic origin. lived a significant time in Judah prior to Ezra's children.

name

This notion of insiders and outsiders is not exclusive to Ezra and Nehemiah. In particular, the authors of Isa 56-66 and Malachi divided the community, although along different lines, between the prophet and his followers on the one hand, and the Judahite clergy on the other. Nevertheless, we shall see that the faithful used related terminology to define themselves in all three textual corpora: 1. Ezra 9:4 calls those who sided with Ezra in the matter of intermarriages and who favoured divorces ^xny-'n^s n x n Tin (= "all who tremble for the words of the God of Israel"). It is not to be excluded that some of the people in this group had themselves taken foreign wives, having been made aware of the wrongness of intermarriage only as the result of Ezra's words. In this manner, this phrase does not indicate those who had never intermarried but rather those who considered it to be against God's law to have done so. A group of people with the same name appears also in Ezra 10:3. There, those who had intermarried are cited as agreeing to divorce their foreign wives in accordance with the advices of Ezra and nnVx rnxaa crnnn (= "those who tremble for commandment of our God"). 2. Related expressions are found in other post-exilic material. Notably, the prophetic author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 uses the expression nm-Vy Tin / nrr-Vx n'Tinn ("the one/those who tremble before My/His word") to describe his own followers (Isa 66:2 and 5, cf. chapter 13). 3. A related expression is used by Malachi, who describes the group of people who sided with the prophet in the division of the Judahite society in terms of'n ^ t ("those who fear the Lord", Mai 3:16).7 Given the similar expressions used by the different post-exilic biblical authors to denote those they considered to be faithful to YHWH, we can conclude that there are links between the post-exilic prophets and their followers and the people siding with Ezra and Nehemiah. 3.2.2. The ancient

nations

Secondly, we need to determine the significance of the list of ancient nations in Ezra 9:1 and Neh 13:1. The list in Ezra 9:1 forbids the men of 7

Cf. Hanson, People Called, pp. 283-85, who connects these texts with each other.

Chapter 8: The Priest's

186

Intermarriages

Judah to marry w o m e n from e i g h t p e o p l e groups. T h i s list shares a n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t s w i t h the lists in E x o d 3 4 : 1 1 ; D e u t 7 : 1 - 4 ; and D e u t 2 0 : 1 7 . Furthermore, the shorter list in N e h 13:1 alludes to D e u t 2 3 : 4 . In addition, a similar list o c c u r s in 1 K g s 11:1—2 listing the n a t i o n a l i t i e s o f S o l o m o n ' s f o r e i g n w i v e s . 8 A b r i e f c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e s e lists creates the f o l l o w i n g picture: Exod 34:11

Deut 7:1

Deut 20:17

Canaan Hittite Peruzite Jebusite Amorite

Canaan Hittite Peruzite Jebusite Amorite

Canaan Hittite Peruzite Jebusite Amorite

Hivites

Gerusite Hivites

Hivites

Ezra 9:1

Deut 23:4

Neh 13:1

Canaan Hittite Peruzite Jebusite Amorite Egypt

Amon Moab

1 Kgs 11:1-2

Hittite

Edom

Amon Moab

Amon Moab

10

Amon Moab Sidon

A s w e c a n s e e , E z r a 9:1 i s a c o m p i l a t i o n o f the lists i n E z e k 3 4 : 1 1 , D e u t 7 : 1 - 4 and D e u t 2 0 : 1 7 o n the o n e hand, and the list i n D e u t 2 3 : 4 o n the other, and shares several e l e m e n t s o f 1 K g s 1 1 : 1 - 2 . In contrast, N e h 13:1 agrees c o m p l e t e l y w i t h D e u t 2 3 : 4 . In addition to t h e s e purely textual c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , w e h a v e to account for t w o historical factors: 1. Ezra 9:1 and i n N e h 13:1 m e n t i o n nations that, rather than b e i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h Ezra, r e f l e c t the situation p r e s u p p o s e d i n E x o d u s and D e u t e r o n o m y . 2. Ezra 9:1 d e p i c t s a situation that d i f f e r s f r o m that in Ezra 4:2. 8 J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL, Philadelphia, 1988), p. 175, wonders whether this list does in fact reflect the situation at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. 9 The parallel text in 1 Esdras 8:66/69 reads (ISoujiaiiov = Edomites). The fact that the Edomites still existed at the time of Ezra favours this reading. Nonetheless, given that this verse is a conscious allusion to the Pentateuchal texts, there is no reason to emend the MT. See D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCBC, Grand Rapids, MI., 1984), p. 119. 10 Given the orthographic similarity between the two Hebrew words OTN and mN, it is possible that all texts stem from the same textual tradition. Cf. preceding footnote. 11 M.A. Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah (Interpretation, Louisville, 1992), p. 51, argues that the reference to Egypt is the narrator's way of alluding to the Exodus. In this way, the narrative seeks to re-establish in Ezra's days the conquest of Canaan in the days of old. As such, Ezra's ban on intermarriage leads to a "new Israel". See also D. Bossman, "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined", Biblical Theology Bulletin 9 (1979), pp. 32-38, who argues that the aim of Ezra's reform was to separate Israel from the impurity of the land and set her apart as a cultic community.

3. Ezra-Nehemiah - The crisis of the priestly

intermarriages

187

In view of this, we can conclude that Ezra 9:1 and Neh 13:1 are reinterpretations of the older Pentateuchal texts, mirroring an attempt to apply older texts to the current situation. In this way, the people from communities other than the returning exiles are equated with the nations of old with which Israel should not mingle.12 In this way, it is best to view Ezra 9:1 as a midrash based on Deut 7:1-3 and 23:4, as suggested by Milgrom. Notably, the earlier material does nowhere state that all intermarriages were forbidden or that they were considered to be cultic sin against God. What Ezra does then is, first, to expand the prohibition of intermarriages with certain people to include all and, second, to fuse this material on the prohibition of intermarriages with the idea that Israel is "a holy people" (e.g., Deut 7:6; 14:2). As a result, the originally civil offence of intermarriage becomes a cultic offence because it violates Israel's holiness. As such, it demands a reparation offering (Ezra 10:19)13 An investigation of the inter-texual reference to the Pentateuchal texts points to a connection between intermarriage and idolatry. Fear of idolatry is the main reason why the Israelites should not mingle with these nations in Exod 34:10-17; Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:17-18 and 1 Kgs 11:4.14 The reason given in Deut 23:4-7 is similar: the reason is connected with the Ammonites' and the Moabites' hiring of Balaam to curse the people of Israel, as such belonging in the sphere of the cult. To conclude, it would be wrong to interpret the reference to the seven foreign nations in Ezra 9 to mean that the people of exilic descent married people from these particular nations. Instead, it is in my view the author's way of alluding to the dangers of intermarriage, stating that the present generation should refrain from marrying outside the community for the same reason as their forefathers: the danger of idolatry and unorthodoxy. 3.2.3.

How is the expression

'¿Hpn m r i m ' j n m to be

understood?

Lastly, we have to determine the interpretation of the expression snr "imvnm unpn, unique to Ezra 9:2. In its context, it clearly has negative connotations. Through intermarriage, the holy seed has been mixed with that of the people of the land (pxn DS) and this causes Ezra great grief. The idea of "mixed seed" is most likely to have been taken from Lev 19:19,

12

H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC, Waco, Texas, 1985), p. 130. A similar re-use of earlier sources is attested also in Ezra's prayer, especially in verses 10-12. No single passage is cited but quotes from different verses (Deut 7:1-3; 11:8; 23:6; 2 Kgs 21:16 and Isa 1:19) form a blend (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 137) 13 J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (SJLA 18, Leiden, Brill, 1976), pp. 71-73. 14 The consequence of Solomon's marriages to foreign women was Solomon's increased worship of their deities.

188

Chapter 8: The Priest's

Intermarriages

which forbids mixing different animals, crop or material with each other, even though the root my is not used in that context. Breaking the expression cnpn snr imynm into smaller components in order to understand it better, the Hithpael imynm, derived from the root my = "take on pledge, give in pledge, exchange", is attested to only six times in the Bible. In four of those cases, BDB suggests the particular meaning "to have fellowship with": here in Ezra 9:2; Ps 106:35; Prov 20:19 and 24:21. 15 Of these, Ps 106:35 contributes most to our understanding of Ezra 9:2. It speaks about the failure of the children of Israel to kill all the peoples in the land at the time of the conquest of Canaan. Instead, they "had fellowship with" them, an action likely to include marrying them. In addition, Ps 106:35 shows affinity with Deut 7:4 and 20:17 (below) which speak about both the failure of the Israelites to banish the peoples who lived in Canaan at the time of the conquest and their subsequent idolatry. Thus, an earlier attestation of the term mynn is used in a context where intermarriage is connected with idolatry. The expression snpn yii = "holy seed" is even rarer. It occurs only twice in biblical Hebrew, here and in Isa 6:13. In the latter place, it refers to the stump which will be left after the destruction of the remaining tenth of the inhabitants of the land. In other words, it indicates a remnant, 16 the survivor of a series of destructions due to the disobedience of the people (Isa 6:9-10). The way the expression enpn mi is used in Isaiah is comparable to our context in Ezra 9:2: 17 the returning exiles regarded themselves as a remnant, the only surviving branch of the people of Israel and the sole carriers of the seed of Abraham. In fact, the idea that the seed of Abraham were to inherit the land of Israel found in Gen 15:18 ('nm ly-iT1? nsrn pxn-nx) may have influenced the use of the word "seed" in the present context: the returning exiles were the only heirs of that seed and accordingly the only rightful settlers of Judah. Does the expression tznpn snr imynm indicate that the prohibition on intermarriage is a racial issue? Williamson thinks so. In his opinion, the use of the term "seed" in particular suggests that the community of returned exiles regarded themselves as racially distinct from their neighbours. In Gen 12:3 the descendants of Abraham are given the promise 15

BDB, p. 786. The idea that the returning exiles are a remnant is also found in Ezra's prayer in 9:8. Furthermore, verses 13 and 15 of the same chapter contain the expression no'Vs (remnant), defined as those whom God had enabled to survive His punishment of the preexilic Israelite community, and the context makes clear that this ncl7D is to be identified with the exiles (rniin). 17 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 132 proposes that the original place for the expression UHpn mr is here in Ezra and it was later added to Isa 6:13 as a gloss. 16

3. Ezra-Nehemiah

- The crisis of the priestly

intermarriages

189

that through them God will bless all the nations, i.e. all the Gentiles. Here in Ezra 9:2, the idea of [Abraham's] seed is used to separate racially between the descendants of Abraham and the other peoples.1 In my view, however, a religiously motivated ban on intermarriages is more likely. As Glazier-McDonald has shown, the ban on intermarriage elsewhere in the Bible, especially in Gen 24:7 and Deut 7:Iff., is a religious rather than a racial issue. When an Israelite man married a Canaanite woman, he automatically rejected God's promise to give all the land of the Canaanites to his people. This idea is further supported by the message of Mai 2:10-16 (see further below) which concerns primarily religious purity. To marry a foreign woman meant incorporating foreign elements into the cult of YHWH. Accordingly, the results of intermarriages are in the cultic sphere: the sacrifices will be rejected (2:13).19 Glazier-McDonald's conclusion receives further support by the continuation of Ezra 9:2. After Ezra's initial shocked reaction to the intermarriages (Ezra 9:3-4), at the time of the evening sacrifice, he utters a 70

prayer (9:5-15). In verses 10-12, Ezra declares the impurities (nrrmsnn) of the people living in Judah to be the reason for being against intermarriages. The choice of the noun nnuin is, in my opinion, significant owing to its strong connotations of idolatry (cf. Deut 13:15; 17:4; Isa 41:24; Jer 2:7; Ezek 16:50; 18:12) as well as the implication of idolatry caused by intermarriage (Mai 2:11). In addition, we can also detect links between intermarriages and idolatry in Neh 13:26: Nehemiah cites Solomon as an example of where foreign wives lead to sins. While these sins are not explicitly stated, it is clear that idolatry is implied. To conclude, I suggest that the prohibition on "mixing the holy seed" was most likely a religiously rather than a racially motivated ban, unorthodoxy being perceived as intimately connected with marital bonds with people outside the immediate community. 3.3. Nehemiah 6 and 13 - Intermarriages cause disloyalty Until now, we have discussed the religious consequences of marrying outside the community. Yet, without making a sharp distinction, there is also another dimension to intermarriage: that of the political affiliations. Political marriages were a well-known phenomenon in the biblical world 18

Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 132. Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 87-88, 115-120. 20 From a text-historical view, there is little reason to doubt its original setting in the Ezra Memoir. Its content shows that it was composed in accordance with the extended context of Ezra 9 - 1 0 . See, e.g., W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20, Tübingen, 1949), pp. 9 0 - 9 1 , Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 128. 19

190

Chapter 8: The Priest's Intermarriages

(e.g. 1 Kgs 11:19-20), often made with the purposes of cementing alliances with other political powers. In this way, those having intermarried were bound to people outside their own immediate community, splitting their loyalty. This aspect of the priestly intermarriages is criticized in Neh 6 and 13 and might also be alluded to in Ezra 10:6. 3.3.1. Nehemiah 6

The idea of political repercussions of the intermarriages of the Judahite clergy is attested to primarily in Neh 6. This chapter describes how influential Judahites plotted with the leaders Tobiah, the Ammonite and Sanballat, the Horonite to sabotage Nehemiah's work. Nehemiah21 suggests that his fellow Judahites' marital ties with people from outside the community are one reason for their betrayal of his own cause (vv. 17-19). These marital ties are specified in verse 18: Shecaniah, son of Arah is Tobiah's father-in-law, and Tobiah's son Jonathan is Meshullam's son-inlaw. Who are Shecaniah and Meshullam? 1. The name Shecaniah occurs in Neh 3:29 where it denotes the father of Shemaiah, the keeper of the gate, and in 12:3 where a Shecaniah is listed among the priests who arrived with Joshua and Zerubabbel. There is, of course, nothing that impels us to connect the man bearing this name in Neh 6:18 with those in the other places. In fact, it is chronologically unlikely that the Shecaniah who arrived in Judah in 520 BC had a daughter young enough to marry Tobiah around 450 BC. What is important is that the name Shecaniah is a priestly name (12:3) and connected with the cult (3:29). Given this, it is likely that the Shecaniah mentioned in Neh 6:18 was of priestly descent. 2. The name Meshullam is more commonly attested to than Shecaniah, occurring elsewhere in a total of four different places (Ezra 8:16; Neh 3:4, 30; 10:8; 11:11): a. In Ezra 8:16, a "leader" (D'WI) named Meshullam is being commissioned by Ezra to journey to Iddo in Casiphia in order to increase the number of Levites willing to immigrate to Judah. b. In Neh 3:4, 30, a person named Meshullam, son of Berechiah, son of Meshezabel, appears alongside a Zakok, son of Baana. The name Zadok is a typical priestly name (cf. Neh 11:11), while Berechiah is a Levitical name (1 Chr 9:16; 15:23). This Meshullam was a contemporary of Nehemiah, involved in the restoration of the city walls and working on the section of the wall

21

The author of the Nehemiah memoir is here identified with the character of Nehemiah.

3. Ezra-Nehemiah - The crisis of the priestly

intermarriages

191

near "his temple chamber" (irow3, cf. row1? in Ezra 10:6; Neh 13:4). c. A Meshullam is listed among the priests in Neh 10:8 who had intermarried, again a contemporary to Nehemiah. d. Lastly, there is a Meshullam, son of Zadok, listed among the priests in Neh 11:11, but he cannot be identified with anyone at the time of Nehemiah due to chronological reasons. Given the priestly character of the name, we can again conclude that the Meshullam in Neh 6, even if not identified with the one recorded to have intermarried in Neh 10:8,22 nevertheless was of priestly descent. Accordingly, his daughter's marriage to Tobiah's son is probably yet another example of a priestly intermarriage, only this time between a female member of a priestly family with a male outsider. To conclude, I suggest that Neh 6 testifies to a situation in which two people of priestly descent married outside their community. Furthermore, these priestly intermarriages had an effect on the political climate in Judah. Influenced by their marriage ties, the priests Shecaniah and Meshullam sought to mediate between Tobiah and Nehemiah: "They spoke well of them before me, and they related my words to him" ( ^d1? onax vn vnmo dj iV nwxia vn '"mi), with the result that Nehemiah received intimidating letters from Tobiah (v. 19). The difference in wording between "speaking well" (D'-ias rn rnmo) and "relating my words" (crx'sia vn '-an) hints at the side on which these priests were. Their intermarriages had thus placed them closer to their foreign in-laws than to Nehemiah.23 3.3.2. Nehemiah

13

A similar link between intermarriages and politics can be found in Neh 13. In verses 4-9, Nehemiah laments once more the political results of the marriages outside the community. The priest Eliashib has given the Ammonite Tobiah a (storage) room (nDB7) in the courts of the temple (cf. 22 Most scholars, e.g., Rudolph, Esra, p. 139, Williamson, Ezra, p. 261, F.C. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT, Grand Rapids, MI., 1983), pp. 208-9, and Clines, Ezra, p. 177, identify this Meshullam with the one in Neh 3:4, 30 who there is described as a supporter of Nehemiah's building project. This change of attitude towards Nehemiah is explained differently. For example, Williamson comments that some people were likely to view the situation in a less straightforward manner than Nehemiah: "some may have been happy to see the city repaired without committing themselves [...] to the more separatist policy of which Nehemiah regarded the wall as a major symbol", while Fensham claims that Tobiah "misused his friendship with certain Jews to influence Nehemiah into capitulation". 23 Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 261, who interprets this as an indication that their intent was not genuine.

192

Chapter 8: The Priest's Intermarriages

Ezra 10:5-6). 24 The reason for this act towards Tobiah is unspecified but the general context implies marital ties: as noted in Neh 6:18 (above), Tobiah had marriage connections with two priestly families. 25 This alliance between the secular foreign leader and this priestly family must have had clear economic benefits: a storage room in the temple precinct would serve to store and subsequently sell goods needed for the temple service. Furthermore, given the power resting with the priesthood, a private place in the central sanctuary suggests influence in the religious affairs. Nehemiah makes no secret of his feelings about this: he denotes this mixture of clergy and foreign power as "evil" (ti^^k r\m nsna), and subsequently tells how he, in anger, emptied the place of all of Tobiah's belongings and had it cleansed (vv. 7-9). Nehemiah's wrath against intermarriages continues throughout the whole chapter. In vv. 23-27, Nehemiah tells of his treatment of those who had intermarried. Here, however, similarly to Ezra 10, the religious reasons are more emphasized than the political ones: as Solomon sinned due to his many foreign wives, so Nehemiah predicts that the people of Judah will sin due to their intermarriages (v. 26). Finally, Nehemiah rages against a grandson of the high priest Eliashib who had married into the family of the Horonite Sanballat (vv. 28-30). The gravity of this situation is clear: any male member of the high priestly family could become high priest. Accordingly, if one of the members of the high priestly family marries outside the community, the high priestly integrity and fidelity to the cult of YHWH could be seriously undermined. 26 The following verses 29-30 further stress the religious consequences of this marriage. Nehemiah laments the defilement of the clergy (runan ^xi) and of the covenant with the priests and the Levites (cn^m mron nna), and emphasizes the subsequent need for cleansing. In this, Nehemiah's sentiments towards the priesthood are strongly reminiscent of those of Malachi: 27 the idea of 24 If is not clear whether the Eliashib here is to be identified with the high priest by the same name in Neh 3:1 (cf. also Neh 12:10-11). For example, H.G.M. Williamson, "The Historical Value of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities xi.297-301", JTS ns 28 (1977), p. 63, note 3, argues that the description of Eliashib in Neh 13:4 as "Eliashib, the priest, 1 who was appointed over the chamber of the house of our God" ( rOT ?:) 11/1] iron itw'jn liT^N-ira) was a means to distinguish him from the high priest with the same name. Given the fact that naiff1? indicates "store room in Ezra 8:8:29; Neh 10:38, 39, Williamson states that "We would not expect the high priest to function as a caretaker". Hence, there is no certainty that the reference in either place is to the high priestly family. 25 Clines, Ezra, p. 239. 26 Cf. Fensham, Ezra, p. 267. 27 Several scholars note these strong links between Neh 13:29-30 and Mai 1:6-2:9 and suggest that the problems facing Nehemiah were the same as those facing Malachi. See, e.g., J.M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB 14, New York, 1965), p. 77, Clines, Ezra, pp. 248-49, Petersen, Malachi, p. 193, Blenkinsoppp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 365-66. See also

4. Malachi 2:10-16-Intermarriage

or unorthodoxy?

193

priestly defilement brings Mai 1:7, 12 to mind (chapter 10), and the concept of a covenant with the clergy evokes Mai 2:4-5 (chapter 5). 3.4.

Conclusion

To conclude the section on Ezra and Nehemiah, we have discovered that these two books testify to a critical disposition towards the priesthood with regard to their intermarriages. The reasons for this disposition are twofold. First, intermarriages are considered to lead to idolatry and, as such, to endanger the priests' purity and faithfulness to the cult of YHWH. Secondly, intermarriage causes the people involved to have conflicting loyalties: towards their own community and towards the community of their spouse. As such, the priests who had intermarried could not be relied upon to support staunchly the endeavours of their own community.

4. Malachi 2:10-16 - Intermarriage or unorthodoxy? As mentioned already, there are strong similarities between the outlook of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah on the one hand, and the book of Malachi on the other. As Ezra 9-10, the book of Malachi criticizes the priestly intermarriages because of their religious consequences. The criticism is centred on Mai 2:10-16. As already demonstrated, the priests are the most likely target audience of this oracle (chapter 2). The question here concerns its interpretation. Mai 2:10-16 can be interpreted in one of two ways: either depicting actual marriages between men and woman, or describing metaphorically the bond between God and His people Israel (cf. the so-called marriage metaphor in Hos 1-3; Jer 2-3 and Ezek 16, 23). The focal point of the controversy over the interpretation of Mai 2:1016 is the identity of the id] ?N-ra (= "daughter of a foreign god"). Is this woman a goddess and/or a symbol of Judah's divine spouse in the symbolic marriage between a deity and its worshippers28 or does she represent the foreign, but human, wives of some Judahite men?29 1. On the one hand, Mai 2:10-16 as a whole has clear cultic overtones (especially 2:13). Furthermore, as must be admitted, the phrase below for a more detailed discussion of the relationship between Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi. 28 E.g., G.W. Ahlström, Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (Leiden, 1971), p. 49. He compares this expression with that of n^N '33. More recently, see O'Brien, Priest and Levites, pp. 121-23. 29 Cf. T.T. Perowne, Malachi (CB, Cambridge, 1910), p. 25, Smith, Micah, p. 319, note l i b , and Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant.

194

Chapter 8: The Priest's

Intermarriages

"daughter of a foreign god" would be a fairly round-about way of referring to actual non-Judahite women.30 Also, given Malachi's focus on the cult, the idea of literal marriages here in 2:10-16 is seemingly incompatible with the rest of his message. Hence, an accusation of apostasy to an alien cult might be regarded as more fitting. 2. On the other hand, the Bible attests to the practice of describing a worshipper of a deity as his/her son or daughter [e.g., Deut 32:19 ( x t i rami van osna 'n), Numb 21:29], Thus there is no inherent problem for the expression "daughter of a foreign god" to denote a female worshipper of a foreign deity. Besides, even thought the relationship between God and His people can be described as a marriage, God always represents the husband. Therefore, before accepting a cultic interpretation of Mai 2:10-16, we have to evaluate whether a contrary use of the metaphor where the deity is represented as the wife is likely.31 In view of these ostensibly contradictory ideas in Mai 2:10-16, several scholars separate the text into two different textual strands. Accordingly, part of the oracle is understood to address marriage/divorce and the other part to refer to idolatrous activities. Petersen, for example, argues that the original oracle 2:10-15a addressed improper religious alliances, while a later scribe added 15b-16 for the purpose of changing the discussion to marriage and divorce.32 In my view, it is possible to combine the two interpretations. Mai 2:1016 undoubtedly speaks of actual marriages,33 but we would do injustice to the text to disregard its metaphorical dimensions. At first glance, they are seemingly mutually exclusive. On a closer look, however, they do in fact 30

Ahlstrôm, Joel and the Temple Cult, p. 49. He argues that if foreign women were meant, the author would have said so more clearly, using the normal term I1H3] D'lM. 31 Petersen, Malachi, pp. 194, note b, 203, emending the text 3ns HPS in verse 12 to 2Î1N mwx = "who loves Asherah", argues that in view of this symbolism, it is wholly appropriate for God to take the female counterpart in the marriage to Israel. See also B. Glazier-McDonald, "Intermarriage, Divorce and the bat-ël nêkâr: Insights into Mai 2:016", JBL 106 (1987), p. 609, who argues that the fact that God is designated as the wife (rather than, as is more commonly attested in the Bible, the husband) in the described metaphoric marriage is triggered by the parallel between YHWH and Asherah in Mai 2:11. 32 Petersen, Malachi, p. 204. 33 The Hebrew text of Mai 2:10-16 is extremely difficult and it is beyond the scope of the present study to go into detail of the different exegetical issues. For an in-depth study of the passage as a whole, see Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant. He provides a useful summary of the différent scholarly opinion on pp. 27—47, and argues convincingly throughout the rest of his book in favour of treating Mai 2:10-16 as a reference to actual marriages. For a detailed and innovative exegetical study, see also Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 87-88, 118-120.

5. The relation between Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi

195

refer to the same issue, although from two different perspectives. As we have seen in the discussion above, the main reason why biblical authors frowned upon intermarriages was because of the religious consequences of such marriages, leading as they often did to apostasy and unorthodoxy.34 In this regard, I follow Glazier-McDonald who asks whether it is "not possible to state that intermarriages which were prevalent at the time, led to an increase in syncretism?" She concludes that "the daughter of a foreign god" was both a goddess and a foreign woman, and those married to her were "lured to her cult and her gods". To marry a person who worshipped another deity was considered rejecting God's excusive claim on Judah.35 To conclude, neither the interpretation that Mai 10:10-16 speaks exclusively about earthly marriages nor the alternative interpretation where the text is understood to speak solely about Judah's apostasy does justice to the text. Instead, it is the interrelations between intermarriage and apostasy that give the text its complete meaning: intermarriages lead to unorthodoxy.

5. The relation between Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi The insight of an interrelation between intermarriage and apostasy has ramifications beyond the scope of the book of Malachi. We have found that Malachi, Ezra and Nehemiah stand united in their critique of priestly intermarriage. How, then, do they relate to each other with regard to divorce? • If, on the one hand, divorce per se is the main thrust of Malachi's criticism, and if this issue relates to the problem at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah,36 then these texts contradict each other. • If, on the other hand, religious unorthodoxy is the key issue in Mai 2:10-16, or if Malachi speaks of a different issue than Ezra and Nehemiah do,37 then there is no disagreement between the texts. In view of our discussion above, the focal point of Mai 2:10-16 is likely to be religious unorthodoxy. Thus, the matter at stake in both textual corpora 34

See further Glazier-McDonald, "Intermarriage, Divorce", pp. 603-11. Glazier-McDonald, "Intermarriage, Divorce", pp. 609-11. See also GlazierMcDonald, Divine Messenger, pp. 87 88, 118-120, and Redditt, Haggai, p. 171. 36 Regarding my dating of Malachi prior to Ezra and Nehemiah, see chapter 3. 37 The person being divorced differs in the two cases. In Ezra-Nehemiah, the divorcee is the foreign wife, while in Malachi, she is the Judahite one. Cf. O'Brien, Priest and Levites, pp. 121-23, who rejects a possible link between Mai 2:10-16 and the divorces in Ezra and Nehemiah. 35

196

Chapter 8: The Priest's

Intermarriages

is the link between intermarriage and unorthodoxy/apostasy, where the intermarriages are seen as both the point of origin of apostasy and its product: those who do not adhere to religious orthodoxy do not regard marriage with women from outside the Judahite community as prohibited. Moreover, the offspring of such unions are more likely to follow their mothers' religion than to become faithful followers of YHWH. Despite these similarities, the scope of the criticism differs in the two textual corpora. While the priests are the foremost target throughout the book of Malachi, the concerns of Ezra-Nehemiah are for the community in Judah as a whole. As a result, the particular intermarriages of the clergy are seldom the focal point in Ezra and Nehemiah, even though they are singled out as particularly blameworthy in Neh 6 and 13 (above). Furthermore, the link between the priests' intermarriages and the resulting unorthodoxy/apostasy is emphasized in both texts, something that connects Malachi's message with the criticism of priests' unorthodox worship in Isa 57 and 65-66 (chapter 7).

6. Post-Biblical connections Lastly, several post-biblical texts have commented on the matter of the priestly intermarriages. Here, our focus is limited to the textual traditions of the Targums and of Josephus. Two biblical texts are to be commented on, namely Zech 3 and Neh 13. Beginning with Zech 3, it should be stated in advance that there are no references to clerical marriages in the MT of Zech 3. Nonetheless, Targum Jonathan connects the cleansing of Joshua the high priest in Zech 3 with the sin of intermarriage. The key expression is D'ss m n ("dirty clothes") which occurs in Zech 3:4.38 Interestingly, in early exegesis such as the TJ (xrmro1? ptto NVT rw: iin1? raon paa rr1? nn utz/im)39 and in many traditional 38 The adjective rTNX has been translated in many different ways. For example, J. Calvin, Commentaries of the Twelve Minor Prophets. Vol. 5 Zechariah and Malachi (Transl. J. Owen, The Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, 1849), pp. 86-87, rendered the word as "shabby", claiming that Joshua's clothes were shabby and without adornment, in contrast with pagan priests who were dressed to impress. Alternatively, F. Horst and Robinson, Kleine Propheten, p. 221, followed by Amsler, Aggee, p. 81, and Redditt, Haggai, p. 64, among others, regarded rrsx to indicate mourning. Most commonly, this adjective has been translated as "impure": e.g., Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, p. 107, A. Jepsen, "Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch III", ZA W 61 (1945/48), p. 496, and H.G. Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD, Göttingen, 1993), p. 53. 39 TJ curiously adds the clause «minn? K l M l Wirr« TiinOKl, equating Joshua's new clothes with him marrying a suitable wife, but there is no textual support for this

6. Post-Biblical connections

197

commentaries, 40 Joshua's dirty clothes are often linked with his sons' marriages to foreign women (Ezra 9:2; 10:18-19). This interpretation, however, is difficult to maintain.41 One reason is the time difference of approximately 70 years between the events reported in Ezra 9-10 and the cleansing of Joshua in Zech 3: it is unlikely that Joshua's sons were married to foreign women around 520 BC and were still alive to divorce them in 450 BC. Hence, we can conclude that the Targum and those commentators depending on that reading let the events described in Ezra 910, where people from priestly families were marrying outside the Judahite community, influence their understanding of the earlier composed narrative in Zech 3.42 The significance of this interpretation lies in the fact that the cleansing of Joshua in Zech 3 was very early on understood to be linked with explicit sins committed by the priests, and, moreover, that these sins were understood to be connected with intermarriage and unorthodoxy. Turning to Neh 13, the situation is similar. The evidence from Josephus is unlikely to have bearing on the interpretation of the biblical text, yet it testifies to a later reality where priestly intermarriages were the norm. Josephus tells (Antiquities, 11.7.2) of how a brother of Jaddua named Manasseh married Nikaso, the daughter of Sanballat. The elders of Jerusalem commanded Manasseh to divorce his wife and, upon his refusal, he was driven away from the temple. This incident is reminiscent of the scene in Neh 13:28 where an unnamed young man, the son of the (high priest) Jehoiada, married an equally anonymous daughter of Sanballat. It is uncertain, however, that Josephus is speaking about the same character. First, according to Neh 12:11, Jehoiada had a grandson named Jaddua, but no son with that name is recorded. Secondly, Josephus dates the affair to the time of Darius III (335-330 BC) and Alexander the Great (Antiquities, 11.8.2, 4), something which indicates that his understanding of the chronology of the Persian kings is confused. 43 Thirdly, on the basis of the evidence form Elephanite, it is likely that there existed more than one governor named Sanballat. The letter in which "Sanballat, governor of

interpretation. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, p. 191, note 4, suggest that the custom of claiming a wife by casting a garment on her (cf. Deut 27:20; Ruth 3:9 and Ezek 16:8) may be an explicit link between clothes and marriage. 40 E.g., Rashi and Radak, Rabbinic Bible, Zech 3:3. 41 E.g., von Orelli, Kleine Propheten, p. 188, Mitchell, Haggai, p. 52, Jepsen, "Kleine Beiträge", p. 107. 42 L.-S. Tiemeyer, "The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3)" in The Book of Zechariah and its Influence (ed. C.M. Tuckett, Ashgate: Aldershot, England, 2003), pp. 7-8. 43 For a more detailed discussion, see Williamson, "Historical Value", pp. 62-63.

198

Chapter 8: The Priest's

Intermarriages

Samaria" is mentioned is dated to the 17th year of Darius II (ca. 407 BC).44 Given this, it is again likely that Josephus confused the identically named governors. In view of this, I conclude with Williamson that it is probably better to view Josephus' account as a garbled version of Neh 13:28 than as an historical source which might shed light on the biblical text.45 As such, however, it is not without significance: not only does it indicate that the sharp division between the different leaders of Judah continued beyond the fifth century BC, 46 it also testifies to the commonness of the priestly intermarriages. As such, this is yet another example of an author who viewed the priesthood of the post-exilic period through a critical lens.

7. Conclusion In this chapter, we have looked at the priestly marriages to people outside the immediate Judahite community. Ezra and Nehemiah saw these intermarriages as a threat primarily to the religious integrity of the people of Judah, since intermarriages frequently led to unorthodoxy. Similarly, the author of Mai 10:10-16 criticised the priesthood for their intermarriages, anew stressing the cultic impact: by marrying outside your faith, you risk loosing your faith. In addition, the book of Nehemiah attests to another aspect of the critique of the priestly intermarriages, that of the political consequences of intermarriage: by forming marital ties with people from outside the immediate community, your loyalty to your own community is weakened. This latter idea is continued in the next chapter where we shall explore the criticism of the priests' political ties outside the community, as found in Isa 56:9-59:29 and 65:1-66:17.

44

For a detailed discussion of the papyri, see F.M. Cross, "The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri", BA 26 (1963), pp. 110-21, and "Papyri of the Fourth century B.C. from Daliyeh: A Preliminary Report on Their Discobery and Significance", New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (eds. D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield, Garden City, 1969), pp. 41-62. Cross has also composed a suggested reconstruction of the high priests and the governors of the post-exilic period in "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration", JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18. 45 H.G.M. Williamson, "Sanballat", ABD, 5 (1992), pp. 974-75. 46 Williamson, "Historical Value", p. 66.

Chapter Nine

Foreign Alliances 1. Introduction In the previous chapter, we noted how the priestly intermarriages resulted in political ties to people outside the immediate community and how this was one reason why their intermarriages were frowned upon (Neh 6; 13). In this chapter, I shall demonstrate that one post-exilic prophetic writer extended this critique to include the leadership's, including the priests1, political alliances with foreign nations, regardless of marital ties. This criticism is found in Isa 57:9-10, steeped in metaphorical language of marriage and sexual encounters. Therefore, the main task in this chapter is to reveal the historical reality underlying these metaphors. There are two main interpretations: Isa 57:9-10 indicates either the religious or the political activities of the target audience. Having said this, there is a natural connection between these two interpretations: throughout the Bible, marriage and/or sexual contact is used as a metaphor for both religious affiliations (Hos 1-3) and political ties to foreign nations (Ezek 16; 23). Moreover, religious and political convictions are often interconnected with intermarriages: as I shall argue, the risk of apostasy increases with increased contact, political and marital, with people outside the immediate community.

2. The understanding of the verb "Hwn The interpretation of Isa 57:9-10 depends mainly on two exegetical issues: the understanding of the words ni^n and "i^n (v. 9). We shall begin by determining whether the word ,_iwn means "to travel", "to make beautiful", "to multiply" or "to moisten". According to the Masoretic vocalization, the verb derives from the root TUP I = "to travel". This etymology is supported not only by the lexical 1

In view of the textual unity of Isa 56:9-57:21, the priests remain the main target audience throughout. This identity is further supported by my exegesis of 57:5-8 (above, chapter 7).

200

Chapter 9: Foreign alliances

parallel Tfrtwn in the following clause but also by the allusion to travel in verse 10 (n»r ~p~n 313).2 There are, however, other possible ways of understanding the verb 1nt>n. A point in case are the versions which provide a multifarious witness: The Peshitta (xmraa mbab TinnnwNi), the Vulgate (Et ornasti te regi unguento) and Symmachus (koc! €Koonii9r|(; tc3 PaoLlei kv kkocLw) all attest to the reading "you made yourself beautiful for the king with oil". These translations suggest a Vorlage different from that of the MT, in all likelihood 'Don. Given that there is little orthographic similarity between n r a in the MT and 'Don, it is uncertain if one reading evolved from the other through a scribal mistake. Instead, it seems more likely that they are either two separate textual traditions or one is a commentary on the other. 1. Yet a different reading is attested by the LXX. In this translation, nwn is rendered as koc! euXiiOuvai; = "multiply". Similarly, the LXX of Ezek 27:25 has t u Trlii9ei4>op MT's inn®. On this basis, Wernberg-Moller proposes a Hebrew root m©, cognate to the Arabic = "become many (in number or quantity)" as a possible Vorlage of the LXX,4 and he translates Isa 57:9 "you lavish oil on Melek". 5 To accommodate this interpretation, it is necessary to change the pointing of the MT which, as it stands, indicates a medial waw. More significantly, Day points out correctly that by taking the whole verse into account (kocI enlr|Guvaq tf)v tiopveiav oou net' ooitgov = "and you have multiplied your whoredom with them"), the many differences between the LXX and the MT make hazardous the attempt to establish a corresponding Hebrew Vorlage. Instead, Day suggests regarding the LXX as an interpretation rather than a translation of the Hebrew text.6 Likewise, it is probably best to regard the TJ in a similar fashion, i.e. as a too free translation to give any real indication as to its underlying Hebrew Vorlage. Alternatively, several scholars reject the Masoretic vocalization which indicates the root TO and explore the possibility of deriving it from other roots:

2 Cf. J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (UCOP 41, Cambridge, 1989), p. 51, followed by Schmidt, Beneficent Dead, p. 259, note 537, who both understand = "to travel". 3 This reading is advocated by, e.g., Cheyne, Introduction, p. 320, Marti, Jesaja, p. 368. Cf. Volz, Jesaja, p. 212, note e, who emends to nSOTl. 4 E.W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (Cambridge, 1863), p. 335. 5 P. Wernberg-Moller, "Two Notes", VT 8 (1958), pp. 307-8. 6 Day, Molech, p. 52.

3. The understanding of the word ~fm

201

1. A number of scholars derive nwn from a Hebrew root n® or mu>, an assumed cognate of the Arabic j j j or J> = "to moisten".7 Positively, this derivation would explain the use of the preposition -3 indicating that with which the king is anointed (pun = "with oil"). Negatively, it would result in the -b nwrn), indicating the direct object, a rare phenomenon in biblical Hebrew. On the basis of this derivation, scholars reach the translation "You have anointed the king with oil".8 There is, however, a long step from "moisten" to "anoint". While the translation "anoint" fits the attested p r a , the Arabic cognate verb is never, as far as I am aware, attested with this meaning,9 even though it cannot be excluded that the Semitic root in question would have this semantic range. 2. Finally, the traditional treatment of nwn has been to compare it with n-niwi in 1 Sam 9:7 = "gift, i.e. something being brought".10 Yet, this etymology is wholly inferred from its context in 1 Sam 9:7 rather than based on cognate Semitic languages, and remains at best uncertain. In the light of these observations, the varied attempts to derive the verb from a root other than n© fail to convince. Therefore, we do best by maintaining the meaning "to travel" as attested by the MT.

3. The understanding of the word "f?a The second key issue in the understanding of Isa 57:9 concerns the translation and identification of the word i^n in this verse. 1. The word is pointed in the MT as "king", a term that normally indicates an earthly monarch. This reading is seemingly problematic, given the lack of an indigenous king in Judah at this time. However, it is possible that the text refers to a foreign monarch, the most plausible candidate then being the Persian emperor. As a result, the critique belongs in the political realm, with Isa 57:9 criticizing the Judahite leadership's dependence on the imperial power. Along these lines, Hanson suggests that the prophet opposed the collaboration of the priestly party with the Persian monarch, rightly pointing out that the 7

J. Reider, "Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon", ZA W 53 (1935), pp. 276-77, followed by G.R. Driver, "Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets", Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Presented to T.H. Robinson (ed. H.H. Rowley, Edinburgh, 1950), pp. 58-59, and Driver, "Isaianic Problems", pp. 54-55. 8 For a bibliography of the different interpretations, see Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree, pp. 107-8, especially footnote 17. 9 Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 336. 10 E.g., Ibn Ezra, Rabbinic Bible, who understands this verse to refer to gifts given to Assyria and Egypt. See also Barthélémy, Critique, 2, p. 413, Torrey, Isaiah, p. 434.

202

Chapter 9: Foreign alliances

temple was built mainly with funds from the imperial treasury (see Ezra 1:2; 6:3-10) u 2. A few scholars maintain the reading of "king" but argue that rather than referring to an earthly king, the prophet refers here to "the king of the gods", i.e. Baal/Bel, 12 or to a "dead king". 13 It follows that the interpretation of the whole passage has cultic rather than political connotations, implying either idolatry or necromancy. 3. Alternatively, a number of exegetes repoint i^a to "Molech", the name of a West-Semitic deity,14 supported mainly by the reference to child sacrifice in Isa 57:5,15 together with the general link between the imagery of playing the harlot, found in the preceding Isa 57:7-8 and the cult of Molech. 16 According to this interpretation, Isa 57:9-10 accuses the target audience of worshipping deities other than YHWH. 4. Lately, i1?» has been interpreted to be a certain type of offering, i.e. a ww/i-sacrifice, 17 again pointing in the direction of religious polemic. Before making a decision, I shall explore the different options in the light of the evidence from the rest of Isa 59:9-10. 3.1. The envoys to Sheol The decisive factor for determining how the word •frn should be interpreted is the understanding of the imagery in verse 9b. We shall first look at the evidence favouring a political context and then move to that suggesting a cultic context. Three aspects of 9b point to an earthly king: the mention of envoys being sent; the mention of oil; and the mention of lands far away. Beginning with the imagery in 9ba of "sending envoys" ("pis Tiwm), leaders of states commonly send envoys. Thus, the imagery fits well the

" Hanson, Dawn, pp. 193, note v, 200. 12 Knobel, Jesaja, p. 465. 13 Lewis, Cults, pp. 150-51, understands this as a reference to a cult of the dead. Support for his view can be found in Isa 57:6 (above). 14 E.g., Fischer, Isaias, p. 157, Skinner, Isaiah, p. 174, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 667, Smart, History and Theology, p. 242, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 205, Heider, Cult of Molech, pp. 379-83, Childs, Isaiah, p. 467, Koole, Isaiah, III/III, pp. 73-74. Several earlier scholars, e.g., Duhm, Jesaia, p. 429, Marti, Jesaja, p. 369, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 258, also assumed the existence of a parallel form Melech, indicating the same deity. 15 Day, Molech, pp. 50-51. 16 Schmidt, Beneficent Dead, p. 258, draws attention to Lev 20:5 ( rrai7 inns tntn-VD •ay mpa "I^nn nnx), where the devotees of the cult of Molech are "whoring". 17 Ackerman, Under every Green Tree, pp. 107-8, 117-36, who sees it as a reference to child sacrifice. She also gives a comprehensive overview of past scholarship in the area.

3. The understanding of the word ~f~!B

203

idea of an earthly king.18 On a more literary level, the expression n^wm i n s attested to in Isa 57:9 bears an affinity to the expressions nbtirn and nVw in1?» used respectively in Ezek 23:16, 40: • The oracles in Isa 57:8-10 and Ezek 23 share the use of sexual language to criticize idolatry (cf. chapter 7). In view of this linguistic affinity and its shared interpretation, it is natural to assume that other shared elements also imply related interpretations. Hence, given that Ezek 23:16, 40 uses the metaphor of envoys being sent to symbolize political alliances, the use of a similar metaphor in Isa 57:9 suggests a similar interpretation. • Moreover, there is an additional, although indirect, similarity between the two passages in the case of the relationship between Israel and the foreign nations. In Ezek 23, the two sisters' prostitution symbolizes their unfaithfulness to God: they have made alliances with the nations (their clients) rather than trusting in God's (their husband's) protection. This relationship between God and His people is expanded upon in the parallel Ezek 16:31-34. These four verses contain the idea that Jerusalem, pictured as a whore, deviates from the practice of other prostitutes in that she is paying rather than earning for the services she provides, a behaviour which symbolizes Jerusalem's abnormal eagerness to find political allies. I suggest that the idea of abnormal eagerness has a parallel in Isa 57:10, a verse that emphasizes Judah's ceaseless strivings. In the light of these arguments, the imagery of "sending envoys" suits a setting where the prophet targets Judah's relationship with an earthly king.19 Likewise, the parallel imagery in Ezek 16; 23 and Isa 57 suggests parallel interpretations. Thus, given that the interpretation of the former belongs in the political sphere, the same is likely to be the case for the latter as well. Moreover, the references in Isa 57:9-10 to journeys to far-away countries, expressed by the two expressions pma-is i n s n^wm ("you sent envoys far away", v. 9) and p n rm ("in the length of your way", v. 10), point in the direction of an earthly king and political interpretation, as does the mention of oil in Isa 57:9a. Having above discarded the interpretation of nem to mean "anoint", oil is best understood as a commodity used for foreign export (cf. Hos 12:12bb).20 18

Hanson, Dawn, p. 193, note v. Cf. Torrey, Isaiah, p. 431. This interpretation further agrees with the evidence in the rest of the book of Isaiah. The word TX = "envoy, messenger" is used, among other places, in Isa 18:2 and speaks about political alliances. In the corpus of Isa 56-66, it may be attested to in 59:19 and 63:9 but none of these instances shed any light on 57:9. 20 Ibn Ezra, Rabbinic Bible (Hebrew), Isa 57:9. 19

204

Chapter 9: Foreign

alliances

Finally, I suggest that additional support for a political interpretation of Isa 5 7 : 9 - 1 0 may be found in the reference to wild beasts mentioned earlier in the same extended oracle in 56:9. This verse contains the image of wild animals invited to devour. The picture of wild beasts, exemplified by Ezek 34:5 (nrxiDni mwn n^n-1?^ rfrnx1? nj"nm nyi nrxiorn) and Jer 12:9b ( ID1? N^DN 1 ? R N N M E N I V N - ^ D IDDN), generally serves as a metaphor for an invasion by foreign nations. 21 It is therefore possible that from the point o f view of the current author, the dependency of the temple cult upon Persia was equal to an attack of a foreign nation. Hence, he interpreted foreign influence over the Israelite religion as compromising its performance. Several scholars raise objections to a political interpretation of Isa 5 7 : 9 10. Notably, Schramm argues that any prophet who stands in the tradition of Isa 4 0 - 5 5 and its favourable view of Cyrus would have viewed political ties with Persia in a positive light. 22 In response to this, we must consider the time gap of about 20 years between the time of Deutero-Isaiah and that of the author of Isa 56:9-59:21. At the time of the latter composition (for dating, see chapter 3), we have a different political situation and a different emperor ruling. Furthermore, the Judahites might have realized that the change of overlord, Babylonian or Persian, did not improve their own situation drastically. In addition, Deutero-Isaiah regarded Cyrus as a tool, his function being to bring back the exiles. Apart from that, we know very little about that prophet's view of the emerging Persian Empire. In view of this, even one of Deutero-Isaiah's own disciples may have opposed too close a bond with the central power. Moving to the evidence favouring a cultic interpretation, the benefit of the understanding of as a religious rather than a political entity lies in the interpretation o f the reference to Sheol in 9bb: • I f i^n signifies a deity, then the reference to Sheol can be understood at face value as a reference to the netherworld: Molech, in his capacity as an underworld deity, is a suitable parallel to Sheol, the netherworld.23 • If, however, f7n signifies an earthly king, and the reference to envoys in 57:9ba is taken to refer to diplomatic activity between Judah and the Persian government, then the parallel reference to Sheol in 9bb can only be understood symbolically to "emphasize the extremes to which the whore Israel is willing to go to please the foreign sovereign", 24 an interpretation that, admittedly, is less natural. Cf. McKenzie, Isaiah, p. 154. Schramm, Opponents, p. 109. 2 3 Smith, Rhetoric, p. 86. Cf. Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 668. 2 4 Hanson, Dawn, pp. 193, note v, 200. Cf. Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 554. Others see it as an expression of distance (e.g., Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4, p. 204). See also Torrey, Isaiah, 21

22

4. Conclusion

205

The accompanying interpretations of the other elements in Isa 57:9-10, such as seeing the "envoys" in 9b as either messengers sent to distant shrines with offerings, 25 or the child victims of the sacrificial cult of Molech, mentioned in 57:5,26 are notably less convincing. While prophetic polemical speeches against political alliances are ample, neither sacrificed children nor worshippers of far away shrines are depicted elsewhere in the Bible as envoys27 Likewise, the understanding of the reference to the long and weary way (nsr ~pn 3m) in verse 10 as an expression of religious observances28 cannot be supported by other biblical texts. To conclude, taking all these factors into account, Isa 57:9 is best understood as an allusion to foreign alliances. Hence, I suggest that 57:910 is an expression of the prophetic critique of the relationship of the leading party to their Persian overlords.29

4. Conclusion In conclusion, we have seen that there are strong arguments, both grammatical and contextual, for deriving nwn from the root ~iw = "travel". Furthermore, the traditional interpretation of the word i1?» = "king", whom, for lack of other options, I identify with the Persian emperor, is the most convincing. Thus, the author of Isa 57:9-10 accuses the audience of travelling to foreign countries and of strengthening its ties with the Persian monarch. As often is the case in pre-exilic prophecies, the present author may have interpreted a positive attitude towards a foreign power as lack of trust in YHWH. We know that the temple and its cult were largely sponsored by the empire (Ezra 1:2-11; 6:3ff.) with smaller contributions from the exilic community (Zech 6:10-11). It is possible that this financial support was accompanied with restrictions or directions on how the temple cult was to be performed which the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 may have understood as compromising the true cult of YHWH. This political interpretation further supports the view that all of Isa 56:9-57:21 is directed towards the leadership, including the priests. As the p. 431, who considers this expression "one of the poet's characteristic 'asides'", and Volz, Jesaja, p. 215, following Von Orelli, Jesaja, p. 201, who understands Sheol as a picture of servility. 25 Skinner, Isaiah, p. 175, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 668. 26 Heider, Cult of Molech, pp. 378-81. See especially note 758. 27 Cf. König, Jesaja, p. 495. 28 E.g., Skinner, Isaiah, p. 175, who interprets this expression as "thy multifarious religious observances". 29 E.g., Delitzsch, Jesaia, pp. 554-55, Von Orelli, Jesaja, p. 201, König, Jesaja, p. 495, Torrey, Isaiah, pp. 431-32, Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4, p. 204, Volz, Jesaja, p. 214.

206

Chapter 9: Foreign

alliances

pre-exilic prophecies against foreign alliances focused on the king and the aristocracy, so this is an oracle directed to the local leaders in Judah. Only people in positions of leadership had the authority to deal in diplomatic relations. The next area to be criticized by the prophets is the deficient cult of YHWH. Beginning in the next chapter, the prophets accuse the priests of a variety of negligent and improper behaviour towards YHWH in their performance of their cultic responsibilities.

Chapter Ten

The Priests' Cultic Neglect 1. Introduction In this and the next two chapters, we shall look at the more cultic aspects of the prophetic critique of the priesthood. The idea of a deficient cult is common to all three chapters. In the previous chapters, we have seen how the post-exilic prophets criticized the priests for a variety of misdemeanours, ranging from failure to teach, to social injustice and unorthodoxy. In this chapter, the criticism hits closer to home: the priests are accused of failing in their main responsibility: the cult. They are accused of negligence towards the cult and of improper behaviour towards YHWH. As I have done previously, I shall begin with a brief discussion of preexilic material, in this case material that attests to a critical disposition with regard to the priests' cultic performance (1 Sam 2:12-17; Hos 4:8; 8:11-13). This serves to show that the post-exilic criticism of the same type is not an isolated phenomenon but belongs in a longer tradition. The bulk of this chapter is devoted to the prophetic disapproval of the present performance of the cult as found in Mai 1:6-14.1 shall outline the different misdemeanours of which the priests are accused—their attitude and their sacrifices of faulty or stolen animals, and determine in each case the reasons for the prophetic disapproval. Lastly, I shall conclude by offering a new interpretation of Isa 61:8, based on my reading of Mai 1:13.

2. Texts dealing with the pre-exilic period Three texts that either stem from the pre-exilic period (Hos 4:8; 8:11-13) or relate to events having taken place at that time (1 Sam 2:12-17) deal with priestly failure with regard to their cultic performance. A factor common to all three texts is the idea of priestly greed and the ensuing disrespect of God and His cult. I shall address the texts as they appear according to the biblical chronology, beginning with 1 Sam 2:12-17 and continuing with the two texts from Amos.

208

Chapter 10: The priests' cultic neglect

2.1. 1 Samuel 2:12-17 Criticism of the priests with regard to their cultic responsibilities is attested to in the narrative in 1 Sam 2:12-17. The key theme of this text is the priests' disrespect of the cult of YHWH as a result of their greed. As such, it anticipates many of the same issues seen in the later Mai 1:6-14. 1 Sam 2:12-17 tells of the end of a priestly family of Eli, ascribing its fall to Eli's two sons, Hophni and Phineas, and their mistreatment of the sacrifices brought to the sanctuary in Shilo. The narrative outlines first the correct procedure of handling the meat offering (vv. 13-14),1 and then depicts the present, less-than-ideal situation (vv. 15-16), caused by the priests' greed and irreverent treatment of the sacrifices. Their task as priests was to present the blood of a sacrificial animal and to burn the fat or, in the case of a burnt-offering, the whole animal, on the altar. Thus, by removing the meat from the sacrificial fire before the fat was consumed by the fire, Hophni and Phineas rob God of his due (Lev 3:16-17; 17:6; Numb 18:17), in that way displaying both their own gluttony and their consequent disregard of God and His cult. In short, the two priests are described as preoccupied with the maintenance of their privileges as priests rather than focusing on what is pleasing to God.2 The criticism of Eli's sons' cultic disrespect continues in verses 22-25, although more indirectly. Eli's sons are here accused of showing their disrespect by sleeping with the women who attend the religious gatherings (v. 22).3 Given that the women are described as part of the religious personnel of the sanctuary, their crime was not only against the women but also against God, and, as such, all the more culpable in the eyes of the narrator. Finally, the divine displeasure is verbalized, declaring that Eli's sons have valued their own comfort and honour much more than they have valued God's (vv. 28-29). God, however, does not tolerate such a slight: in view of their behaviour, God revokes His earlier promise of eternal service and utters their destruction (vv. 30-31).

1 The priestly legislation in Lev 7:28-36 states that the priests were entitled to the right thigh and the breast of each sacrificial animal, while Deut 18:3 regulates that the priests could take the shoulder, jowls and stomach. The procedure recorded here in 1 Samuel of sticking a fork into the pot and taking a random piece either deviates from the known legislations or reflects an earlier custom before the legislation was known. 2 See further H.W. Hertzberg, Die Samuelbucher (ATD 10, Gottingen, 1960), p. 24. 3 This clause is lacking from Codex Vaticanus and 4QSam". It might therefore represent a later textual tradition, formed along the lines of Exod 38:8. See McCarter, I Samuel, p. 81.

2. Texts dealing with the pre-exilic period

209

2.2. Hosea 4:8 Moving to the prophetic corpus, a charge similar to the one in 1 Sam 2:1217 is found in Hos 4:8. This verse is part of the longer oracle in Hos 4:419 that accuses the priests of a variety of crimes, ranging from failure to teach (4:6, see chapter 5) to idolatry (4:10-15, see chapter 7). Hos 4:8a reads V7DN1 'as nxon, literally meaning "they ate the guilt of My people", and 8b reads lira: ixw mw-Vxi = "and to their sin they lift the throats/beings". As we shall see, these two statements are best understood as an accusation against the priests for consuming the people's offerings, owing to the following factors: • First, some scholars have argued convincingly that the two words n«on in 8a and the parallel mis in 8b are technical terms for different sacrifices: nxon for the guilt offering (cf. Lev 6:17-23; 10:19) and, by analogy, miy for the sin offering, although this is unattested elsewhere as having the same meaning.4 As a result, all of Hos 4:8 addresses the issue of priestly abuse with regard to the offerings. The priests infringed upon God's rights by taking more of the sacrifices than that which they were entitled to.5 • Secondly, the interpretation receives support from the occurrence of the phrase ws: ixw ("they lifted [their] throat") in 8b, a vivid picture of gluttony, and attested to elsewhere as indicting greed or strong desire (e.g. Deut 24:15; Pss 24:4; 25:1 etc.).6 To conclude, we have seen that Hos 4:8 stands in the same tradition as 1 Sam 2:12-17, criticizing the priests for letting their greed lead them to rob God of His due, and in this way showing their disrespect for Him. As a final word, May's ingenious interpretation must be mentioned. He suggests that since the priests make a living from the sacrifices, they benefit materially from the people's sins: the more they sin, the more they sacrifice and the more the priests get to eat. They have turned the cult to their own benefit. 7 2.3. Hosea 8:11-13 Similarly to Hos 4:8, Hos 8:11-13 speaks about a situation of neglect of the cult of YHWH. We shall discuss the accusations one by one and 4

Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, p. 358. Note, however, that Wolff, Hosea, p. 100, questions whether the word nxon had received its secondary meaning "guilt offering" at the time of Hosea. 5 Petersen, Malachi, p. 180. 6 Petersen, Malachi, p. 180. 7 J.L. Mays, Hosea (OTL, London, 1969), p. 70. For the same line of exegesis, see also Wolff, Hosea, p. 101.

210

Chapter 10: The priests' cultic neglect

conclude after each accusation that the priests, called Ephraim, are their likeliest target. Beginning with verse 11, the prophet states pithily that Ephraim have used the altars that were built in order to deal with sin (surf? nnnta) as places to sin (xDn1? mmra) (v. 11). There are several ways in which to understand this accusation. It can refer to a situation where the sacrifices offered upon it had become an end in themselves,8 or where the type of sacrifice is abhorrent to God.9 Concerning the identity of Ephraim, I suggest that the theme of altars hints at a clerical target audience. The criticism continues in verse 12 with a focus on Ephraim's neglect of God and His instruction (vnw). In this verse, the priestly identity of Ephraim is more pronounced, as the prophet exclaims that God's instruction has become utterly foreign to Ephraim. In fact, May is probably correct in regarding this as a poignant reference to the priestly responsibility to teach (cf. Hos 4:6 - chapter 5).10 Ephraim's priestly identity is made explicit in verse 13, not only by its change from singular to plural, but also by the references to the sacrificial cult. The verse itself is difficult to interpret. Beginning with 13aa, the meaning of the phrase mar 'anan t u t is unclear. The best interpretation is probably to follow the scholars who emend 'aran to "arm ("they love"), in syntactic agreement with the following 13ab. This emendation gives the translation "They love My sacrifices and they sacrifice". 11 The following 13ab is more lucid, stating literally that "they eat meat, but the Lord does not accept them" (am n1? 'n -bain ira). Taking both statements together, we receive a picture of priests who love the sacrifices and the sacrificial cult. What they love, however, is not God, but to eat the meat of the sacrifices themselves.12 The prophet thus accuses the priests of showing disregard for God in their performance of the sacrificial cult in a similar manner to that attested by Hos 4:8 and 1 Sam 2:12-17 the priests neglect God and His cult in their manner of consuming the sacrifices. 2.4. Conclusion To sum up, the three passages 2 Sam 2:12-17; Hos 4:8 and 8:11-13 all target the priests' neglect of God when performing the sacrificial cult. 8

See further Mays, Hosea, pp. 121-22. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, p. 508. 10 Mays, Hosea, p. 122. 11 B. Duhm, Die zwölf Propheten, in den Versmassen der Urschrift (Tübingen, 1910), p. 35 (Schachtopfer liebt man), Wolff, Hosea, p. 170, Mays, 114. Alternatively, W. Rudolph, Hosea (KAT, Gütersloh, 1966), pp. 156, maintains the MT and suggests a substantive 'anan = "voracious greed" (hastige 12 Mays, Hosea, p. 122. Cf. Wolff, Hosea, p. 186. 9

übersetzt Hosea, p. 160-61, Gier).

3. Malachi

211

Furthermore, the accusation that the priests were more interested in their own privilege of eating the sacrifices than in communicating with God is common to them all. As we shall see shortly, the same self-centredness is found in Malachi's accusations of the priesthood in his time. Although the idea of eating the sacrifices is absent from Malachi, Malachi uses strong language to indicate the priests' neglect of God in the midst of their cultic performances.

3. M a l a c h i The priests' attitude towards God and His cult is one of the key issues of the prophetic criticism in the book of Malachi. Mai 1:6-14 forms the kernel of this criticism, speaking primarily about the priests' neglect of the temple and, as such, indirectly of God. In this section, we shall look at two areas of criticism: the priests' attitude towards the cult and the resulting acts of negligence. 3.1. Malachi 1:6-7, 12 - The priests'

attitude

The prophet accuses the priests of despising God in Mai 1:6-7, 12. Interestingly, verses 6-7 portray in many respects a circular discussion. The prophetic accusation leads to the priests' declaration of innocence, which in turn leads to a new accusation. The discussion contains two key notions: the verb "despise" (Paul, root nn) and the root "defile'V'unclean" 0?íu). We can learn from this discussion and from the use of these two notions about what the prophet accused the priests of having done and what attitudes he attributed to them. Verse 6 opens with Malachi accusing the priests of not having honoured God enough. The priests are addressed as "the priests who despise My name" ('a© 'tin o^ron). In response, the priests declare their ignorance of having committed such an offence: "in what have we despised Your name" (naw-nx una naa). The prophetic answer is that the priests have brought unclean offerings (food) to the altar C?iun nrf?) (7aa), again prompting an answer expressing the priests' ignorance of any misdemeanour "how did we make You defiled"13 ("p^tu nan omaNi, 7ab). 7b gives the definite answer: God has become defiled due to the priests' declarations that God's 13 There is a discrepancy between the prophetic accusation and the following question asked by the priests. Nonetheless, it is unnecessary to emend the priests' saying. Instead, their question points forward to the core of the matter. As portrayed by Malachi, the priests' response anticipates the following prophetic accusation (7b): they are aware of the fact that by bringing unclean animals to the altar, God Himself is rendered unclean. Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 50-51 for a similar view.

212

Chapter 10: The priests' cultic neglect

altar is despised (Kin nrm 'n in1?© DDiaxa). Later in verse 12, the prophet continues by declaring God's altar to be unclean (sin Vsia ^nx in1?©), since the priests have polluted it (lmx n ^ n n onto). Thus, we see that through this discourse, the prophet conveys the message that the priests' attitude has an impact: it is the priests' despising of God and His cult that has caused them both to be defiled. Notably, the key notion "defile/unclean" (the root "7X1, vv. 7, 12) is used in other post-exilic texts in conjunction with priests, in particular in Ezra and Nehemiah with regard to lineage and intermarriages. In the list in Ezra 2:62 // Neh 7:64, for example, the Niphal of refers to those who could not prove their priestly heritage and, as a result, were excluded from the priesthood as unclean (mron-p i^xn). Impure priestly lineage is also the matter in Neh 13:29 but in a different context. Here, the root Vki appears in the context of intermarriage: the expression runan ^ s i ("defiling the priesthood") refers to the marriage of one of the high priest Joiada's sons with one of Sanballat's daughters. Nehemiah considered this intermarriage to defile the priesthood, together with the whole covenant of the priesthood and the Levites (D'l^m n:non m m rnnnn ^xi Vu 'n1?« an1? max). In view of this shared use of the root *?!«, we can conclude that both Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi share the same concern for the ritual purity of the priesthood.14 3.2. Malachi 1:8, 13ab-14a - Faulty animals After criticizing the priests' way of thinking about the cult, the prophet turns his attention to their behaviour when carrying out their cultic responsibilities. We shall first look at the accusations in Mai 1:8 and D a b Ma where the priests are accused of sacrificing second-rate animals and determine that even though the people bringing the offerings are partly to blame, most of the guilt belongs to the priests who accepted the offers. Following this, we shall compare the evidence in the book of Malachi with Isa 61:8. The main accusation in verses 8 and 13ab is that the sacrificial animals fail to meet the accepted standards, an accusation based on the regulations for sacrifices recorded in Lev 22:17-25 and in Deut 15:9-23. 15 Verses 8 and 13ab are in many respects parallel to one another in their descriptions of the faulty animals, although differences exist: while both verses list animals who limp (nos) and who are ill (nbn), only verse 8 includes blind

14

Petersen, Malachi, p. 179. For more details, see Petersen, Malachi, p. 180. Note that the list in Deuteronomy is a discussion of the particular case of firstborn sacrifice, in contrast to the material in Malachi and Leviticus which concerns general animal sacrifices. 15

3. Malachi

213

animals (nv) 16 and only verse 13 mentions those which are stolen (bin see further below). In these cases, the people bringing the animals are at fault. They should have known better. At the same time, the textual allusions to the legal corpus serve to point out the priests' share in the fault. The animals had to be unblemished (Lev 1:3) and it was the priests' responsibility to determine what sacrifices could be offered and to refuse those which did not fulfil the requirements (Lev 22:17-25; Deut 15:21).17 They should have rejected the animals and made sure that God received His rightful due. Moreover, to offer an unclean animal led to excommunication (Lev 7:19-21). Therefore, by admitting unclean animals, the priests lay themselves under judgement. As Mason points out, the priests' supposed conduct was not only a breach of ceremonial regulation but betrayed a neglect of God which affected the whole community.18 Mai l:13ab-14a introduces a new element: deceit.19 In verse 13, some of the animals are described as bin. In the same vein, verse 14 tells how a deceitful person (bin:) is bringing animals that are not male (IDT) but nna>a. I shall first clarify the technical terms bin and nma and then offer an interpretation of this text. The first word bin (v. 13) describes the animals. Accordingly, several scholars and translations render it as "torn", comparing it with Exod 22:30 (31) (HDIQ M ® A U S A ) and Lev 17:15 (NSIOI nbm) which states that a "torn" animal was considered unfit for human consumption or as an offering. 20 The obvious difficulty with this comparison is the fact that the legal material uses the verb fpo rather than bin. In fact, there is little evidence for equating the two terms. The LXX, for example, renders Mai 1:13 as apiraynata = "prey, spoil, booty", clearly understanding bin to mean "stolen". Similarly, the V (rapinis = "stolen") carries connotations of stealing. In view of this, I hold that the meaning of bin in Mai 1:13 is "stolen". What we then have is an accusation that the people brought animals for sacrifices that were stolen rather than purchased by honest means, and that the priests accepted these animals. The ideas of cheating and dishonesty bring to mind the not uncommon theme in the Bible that God desires right

16 Owing to the reference to both blindness and lameness, Mai 1:8 corresponds closer to Deut 15:9:23 than Mai 1:13 does. 17 Perowne, Malachi, p. 18. 18 Mason, Haggai, p. 143. 19 Petersen, Malachi, p. 185. 20 E.g., Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 63, Redditt, Haggai, p. 167 ("maimed").

214

Chapter 10: The priests' cultic neglect

living more than sacrifices (e.g., Ps 50:1; Isa 1:12-13; 58:2-3 [above]).21 In connection with this, the material might also hint at social injustice; stolen animals point to a society where property is not safe and where thieves run free (cf. Zech 5:1-4, above). Taken together, I suggest that the prophetic critique here may hint at a deeper problem. What the prophet criticizes is a situation where the people have no respect for God and His cult, and where the priests do not look deeper than necessary, being more concerned with getting their share of the meat than making sure that God receives his due, in a manner similar to 1 Sam 2:12-17; Hos 4:8 and 8:11— 13. The next term for discussion is nntra. Mai 1:14 describes a person who pledges to bring a male animal in his flock but nevertheless chooses to sacrifice a nnwa. The description in Mai 1:14 alludes to Lev 22:18-19 which prescribes that the required animal had to be an unblemished male animal. Thus, the kernel of the accusation in Mai 1:14 concerns the gender of the animal. The nominal form of the root mra is normally masculine, but the attested nnwa is a rare feminine form (cf. Prov 25:26). Hence, what we have in Mai 1:14 is likely to be a small, but barbed, criticism: the man has a male animal but chooses to sacrifice a female one, thus deviating consciously from what is required.22 In this manner, he earns himself the name i.e. a "deceitful person". Similarly to the previous case of faulty animals, the prophetic critique here is directed both to the common people and the priests. The person bringing the sacrifices, the one called a ^m:, is partly to blame: he should have brought acceptable animals. But even so, this person does not carry the whole burden of guilt. According to the regulation for the substitution of a blemished animal for an unblemished one (Lev 27:9-12), it was the priests' prerogative to determine whether an animal was acceptable or not. Thus, if an improper sacrifice was performed, the priests would bear the blame.23 To conclude, the prophetic criticism in Mai 1:8, 13ab-14a targets anew the priests' negligence, this time accusing them of insufficient care for God's cult to ensure that the sacrificial animals fitted the prescribed regulations. As such, the critique stands in continuity with that of the surrounding verses in the book of Malachi as well as with pre-exilic concerns.

21 22 23

Cf. Mason, Haggai, p. 144. Perowne, Malachi, pp. 21-22. Petersen, Malachi, p. 186.

4. Malachi 1:13 and Isaiah 61:8

215

4. Malachi 1:13 and Isaiah 61:8 The idea of stolen sacrifices in conjunction with the prophetic critique of the priesthood also occurs outside the book of Malachi. In this section, we shall focus on the expression rftwa *?u XJ© ostra nnx 'n ^x "»a = ("because I am the Lord who loves justice and hates robbery rftisn") in Isa 61:824 and see how this verse fits together with the evidence from Malachi. We shall discover that even though the two verses have much in common, they differ on a fundamental level: while Malachi speaks of stolen animals, Isaiah speaks of stolen sacrifices. Our main interest lies in the translation of the word nbwa. There are two reading traditions: "sacrifice" or "injustice": 1. The Masoretic vocalization (nViya) indicates a noun derived from the root n^y i.e. "sacrifice", giving the meaning "I hate robbery in sacrifice". This reading is supported by V which translates rapinam in holocausto = "robbery in burnt offering". A small number of scholars maintain the MT.25 In most of these latter cases, the prepositional -a is translated as "with" 26 or as a descriptive i.e. "sacrilegious robbery" (den frevelhaften

Raub).21

2. In contrast, the LXX translates it as "injustice" or "lie" (éi; áSixíoo;), deriving rf?isa from the root ^VJ = "injustice, unrighteousness", pointed nbiyx The reading of the T (XDINI) and S (XBIIN x'DI^N x:x XÍWI)28 stand in the same tradition, with the slight difference of suggesting a Hebrew Vorlage nVun rather than rftwa. The majority of critical scholars follow the reading of LXX or that of the S and T.29 In addition, some scholars suggest that the word rftii/a, whilst keeping the Masoretic pointing, can nevertheless be derived from the root Vi», due to the vocalization with a holem attested to in Job 5:16 (nrfjsn), Pss 58:3 (rf?iy); 64:7 (nViu).30 3. In addition to those readings supported by the ancient versions, other suggestions have also been put forward. Among these, Koenen's proposition is of note. In a critique of the commonly accepted reading of the LXX, Koenen argues that the idea that God hates "robbery in/ 24

The larger section of Isa 60-62 will be discussed further below in chapter 14. E.g., Barthélémy, Critique, 4, p. 426, Hanson, Dawn, p. 58, note s. 26 Duhm, Jesaia, pp. 456-57. 27 Volz, Jesaja, p. 259, Westermann, Jesaja, p. 293, Pauritsch, Neue Gemeinde, p. 113. 28 It is possible that the reading H'si^n either steins from a Hebrew Vorlage in rather than ^n, or represents the misreading of the b for a 1. 29 E.g., Marti, Jesaja, p. 387, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 244. 30 See D. Barthélémy, Critique textuelle de l'ancien testament, 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes (OBO 50/3, Göttingen, 1992), p. 425. Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 588, acknowledges these parallel verses and so opposes the translation "offering". 25

Chapter 10: The priests' cultic neglect

216

with injustice" is peculiar, robbery being unjust by definition. Therefore, he suggests reading the consonantal text as a pass.part. f.sg. of the root bun = "the married one". He translates "hasse den Raub 'der Verheirateten'", understanding this expression as an eschatological name for Jerusalem, in line with r^vji -ins1?! in Isa 62:4.31 While this is an interesting proposition, it is in my view unlikely that the name n*7U?a in Isaiah is an actual name which could be used in other contexts. Rather, it is a symbolical description of Jerusalem, created in order to stress the accompanying metaphor ( t o n isisi) in Isa 62:4 only. Therefore, Koenen's interpretation, although innovative, must remain doubtful. In the midst of this bewildering situation, there are in fact several reasons in favour of retaining the Masoretic pointing of n^ivn in Isa 61:8. Hanson points out three supporting exegetical factors: 1. The contrast between cultic observance and violence is a central part of the message in Isa 56-66 (58:3-4; 66:3). 2. The MT of Isa 61:8 is similar to Isa 1:13 (mssn lis ^dis-sV). 3. The attested preposition -3 fits badly with the suggested "in iniquity".32 Hanson's view has not passed unchallenged. In particular, Koenen questions Hanson's first point on the basis that the immediate context of Isa 61:8 does not deal with the conflict between different parties in Judah but rather focuses on the relation between Israel and the nations.33 This is true. Even so, while Isa 61:5-6 speaks about the relationship between the Judahites and the foreigners, verse 8 itself contains no allusions to strangers. Hence, this observation does not necessarily negate the reading of the MT. In conclusion, in view of the exegetical considerations pointed out by Hanson, together with the textual evidence of the MT and the V, I suggest that the translation "in robbery" reflects the most original reading.34 Having accepted the probable primacy of the MT, the interpretation of the expression n^im 'm remains to be discussed. It literally means "robbery in/with sacrifices", which can be interpreted in two ways. The majority of those scholars who accept the MT maintain that it is the animals which are stolen.35 In that case, however, the Hebrew expression to be expected 31

Koenen, Ethik, pp. 117, note 347, p. 250 (translation). Hanson, Dawn, p. 58, note s. 33 Koenen, Ethik, p. 116, note 347. 34 It should also be noted that even though MT and V represent the most difficult reading, those scholars who prefer the reading of the LXX have, to my knowledge, made few attempts to explain the reasons behind Masoretic pointing. 35 See Rashi, Rabbinic Bible, Isa 61:8, followed by Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4, p. 219, who argues that the sacrifices are labelled ^n because they are stolen. Furthermore, 32

J. Conclusion

217

would be "7TJ3 nbiy i.e. sacrifices with stolen [animals]. Here, the opposite word order indicates that it is the sacrifices which are stolen. In other words, rather than the sacrificial animals being stolen from their earthly owners, it is the sacrifices which have been stolen from God, their heavenly owner. Therefore, I suggest that the message of Isa 61:8 is that the sacrifices, by being offered to someone else, are stolen from God (cf. Isa 57:7, above, chapter 7). The situation in Mai 1:13 is similar, yet reversed. The critique in this verse is that the priests are offering stolen sacrifices. Even so, the idea of cheating God remains the same.

5. Conclusion To conclude, the priests were the target audience of the accusations in Mai 1:6-14. While the people who provided the unworthy animals carried some responsibility, the heavier burden nevertheless rested upon the priests: theirs was the knowledge of the stipulations of the law, and theirs was the primary duty to perform the sacrificial cult. Their task as leaders was to inform the people concerning what was acceptable or not. By failing to do this, they caused the whole people to go astray. 36 Even so, the accusations concern negligence rather than wilful disobedience. 37 The priests are accused of not attaching too much importance to the quality of the animals. In retort, Malachi asks them to consider bringing similar offerings to the governor, i.e. to the secular power in the land (v. 8).38 What does not work in the secular world will not work in the spiritual one. 39 We shall continue to explore the idea of a defunct cult in the next chapter, with the focus on its consequences rather than on its performance: as a result of the priests' behaviour towards the cult, the prophets declared them to be impure.

Radak offers the reference to faulty sacrifices in Mai 1:13 (7m nntam) as a parallel: as the sacrifices in Malachi were not acceptable to God due to their second rate quality, so too with the sacrifices in Isa 61:8. 36 Perowne, Malachi, p. 18. 37 Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Divine Messenger, p. 53, who describes the priests' attitude to the blemished animals as "not bad" 38 The identity of the governor is not specified. We may, based on the discoveries of N. Avigad, Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive (Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 4, 1975), pp. 34-35, assume a Judahite identity, even though the possibility of a Persian official cannot be excluded. 39 Petersen, Malachi, pp. 180-81.

Chapter Eleven

The Priests' Impurity 1. Introduction In this and the following chapter, we shall deal with the accusations of impurity and of the subsequent cleansing of the Judahite clergy. In the present chapter, we shall focus on the first aspect. As we shall see, no one prophet agrees with the next about the reasons for the priests' impurity; in wide strokes, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 connect the priests' impurity primarily with their lack of orthodoxy, while Malachi lays the blame on the priests' slackness and their failure to give God the very best. Despite this variance, however, we shall discover that these accusations all point to a shared concern: if the priests are impure, the whole people are doomed to impurity. I shall demonstrate that according to these three prophets, the priests' impurity disqualified them from fulfilling their sacrificial duties, with the result that no atoning sacrifices could take place which, in turn, led to a general state of impurity among the people of Judah. The material in this chapter proceeds chronologically. First, in order to set the background of the latter post-exilic evidence, I begin with the accusation in Zeph 3:4 concerning the failure of the priests to uphold ritual purity. I discuss Hag 2:10-14 next, where I suggest how a new translation of Hag 2:14 stresses the priests' impurity. Similarly, close readings of Zech 3:1-5 and, subsequently, of Mai 2:13 reveal the priesthood's impurity and need of cleansing.

2. Pre-exilic criticism - Zephaniah 3:4 The idea of an impure priesthood is less attested in pre-exilic and exilic than in post-exilic sources. Two examples come to mind: Zeph 3:4 and Ezek 22:23-31. In the present context, I shall focus on the former where the priests are accused of "profaning what is holy and doing violence to the law".1 The latter, although testifying to the same critical disposition, shall 1

I follow the dating of the book of Zephaniah as given in verse 1, i.e. to the reign of Josiah. For a defence of this date, see the discussions by J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum,

2. Pre-exilic criticism - Zephaniah 3:4

219

be discussed later in conjunction with in Hag 2:10-14, owing to the direct relevance of that passage. In Zeph 3:1-4, the situation in "the city", i.e. Jerusalem,2 is lamented. In verse 1, the city is called rebellious and polluted (n1?^: - cf. Mai 1:7, chapter 10), a city that oppresses. The following verse 2 contains more explicit critique, accusing Jerusalem in a four-fold enumeration of not listening to God, of not accepting His discipline, of not trusting in Him and of not drawing near (to Him). In the subsequent verses 3-4, the criticism narrows down to embrace her leadership: the priests, the judges, the officials and the prophets (onif, trraw, and cnro). The critique of the political leaders, i.e. the judges and the officials, targets their lack of care for the rest of the people: they are likened to lions and wolves, i.e. animals symbolizing violence and oppression, that "prey on those who are under their authority".3 By contrast, the critique of the religious leaders, i.e. the prophets and the priests, focuses on their less violent but equally harmful deeds that hurt not only the people but, indirectly, also God. In the case of the prophets, Zephaniah calls his prophetic colleagues "arrogant" (anno) and "treacherous men" (nraa , sm), accusations that target their credibility. Thus, from Zephaniah's perspective, his contemporary priests have failed to faithfully represent God's words to the people, but have instead offered their own opinions as God's words, and possibly also shaped their oracles to suit whoever was willing to pay for a favourable oracle (cf. Mic 2:11; 3:5). The result is a people deceived (cf. Ezek 22:28).4 In the case of the priests, Zephaniah's accusations fit their clerical office: he accuses them of "profaning what is holy [and] violating the instruction" (mm loan &>7p-iV?n mm). Lev 225 contributes to our understanding of Zephaniah's accusation that the priests "profane what is holy". Lev 22 postulates rules and regulations concerning unclean priests,

Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991), pp. 163-64. See also Smith, Micah, pp. 121-23. For a later dating, immediately preceding the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, see D.L. Williams, "The Date of Zephaniah", JBL 82 (1963), pp. 77-88. For an alternative post-exilic dating, see E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (BZAW 198, Berlin, 1991), p. 356 (concluding remarks), A. Berlin, Zephaniah (AB 25A, New York, 1994), pp. 33-47, offers a detailed evaluation of both dates, reaching the conclusion that even if the book of Zephaniah was not written in the pre-exilic times, its supposed setting is that of the reign of Josiah (p. 38). 2 1 identify "the city" with Jerusalem owing to the general content of the passage here in Zephaniah. Cf. Smith, Micah, p. 137, Robert, Nahum, p. 211. 3 Robert, Nahum, p. 213. 4 Robert, Nahum, p. 213. 5 There are no direct verbal connections between the two texts. Thus, it is not clear whether one of the texts depends on the other or if both texts reflect a common custom.

220

Chapter 11: The Priests' impurity

and outlines their responsibility not to profane holy things. Setting the tone of the section, verse 2 cautions the priests to be careful with the offerings lest they profane God's name ('n-D!f nx lV^rr kVi). This warning is a precaution, the point being that the priests should not take their responsibility as priests lightly but to beware the risks involved.6 The priests' behaviour in Zeph 3:4 stands in sharp contradiction to the particular ruling in Lev 22:15 that the priests should not profane the gifts given ('nb la'T-nwN m ^¡cuzr '«np-nx iV?rr ¡Oi).7 This precept belongs within the context of the prohibition of any non-priest to eat of the sacrifices (22:10-16). The priests are thus charged with preventing nonauthorized persons from eating and, thus, defiling the gifts. Failing to prevent them would cause guilt (nam lis; - verse 16, cf. Lev 5:1—2).8 With this background, I suggest that Zeph 3:4 is best understood as an emphatic statement accusing the priests of failing to maintain an appropriate cultic distinction between what is holy and what is impure.9 This interpretation receives additional support from the similar situation described in Hag 2:10-14 where, as I shall demonstrate below, the prophet confronts the priests with their failure to distinguish between pure and impure. In the case of the second part of the accusation - "doing violence to [God's] instruction - it is possible that we have an example of critique of the priests' teaching (cf. chapter 5). I suggest that similarly to the accusation of the prophets for deceiving the people, the priests are accused here of giving biased rulings.10 To conclude, Zeph 3:4 is a rare but significant example of a pre-exilic prophetic text where the priests are charged with failing to uphold cultic purity.

3. Haggai 2:10-14 The prophets active during the post-exilic era were much more interested in impurity and cleansing of the priesthood than their pre-exilic forerunners. Beginning with the earliest dated material, i.e. that of Haggai, I shall demonstrate that the text of Hag 2:10-14 forms a polemical 6

P.J. Budd, Leviticus (NCBC, London, 1996), p. 306. Berlin, Zephaniah, p. 129. 8 Cf. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, p. 299. 9 Cf. Robert, Nahum, p. 213. 10 Cf. Berlin, Zephaniah, pp. 129-30, who translates 4bb as "they corrupt the teaching", and who argues that 4b contains one accusation: the priests intentionally interpret the law wrongly which permits the profaning of the holy. See also NJPS ("they give perverse rulings") and TNK ("they give perverse rulings"). 7

3. Haggai 2:10-14

221

statement against the Jerusalemite priesthood, with regard to their impurity. My interpretation depends on three factors. First, I shall argue that the reason for the inquiry about purity and impurity in 2:11-13 is to serve as a platform for the subsequent critique of the priests in verse 14. Secondly, I shall show that the issue at stake in 2:12-13 is to determine that the state of impurity is more influential than the state of holiness. Thirdly, through a syntactical study of verse 14, I shall establish that Haggai declared not only the people of Judah but also their religious leaders to be unclean. In addition, I shall briefly address the implication of my interpretation for the understanding of Isa 56-66. 3.1. Sitz-im-Leben

— The reason for the inquiry

Hag 2:11-13 records a conversation between the prophet Haggai and the priests, where the prophet asks questions and the priests answer. There are two main way of interpreting this conversation: 1. Haggai had genuine questions about matters of purity.11 2. Haggai wanted to highlight a fact which he already knew in order to support his own argumentation.12 In my view, the key to the interpretation lies in the general structure of 2:10-14.1 propose that the occurrence of the root xao in both verses 13 and 14, as well as the use of the word p in verse 14 which indicates a comparison with the previous material, indicate that verse 14 forms the conclusion of the preceding inquiry. Thus, we can reasonably assume that any interpretation of verse 14 should depend on the content of verses 1113.13 This in turn makes the latter scenario the more plausible one; given 11 E.g., Perowne, Haggai, pp. 39—40, von Orelli, Kleine Propheten, p. 171, Beuken, Haggai, p. 65, H.W. Wolff, Dodekaprofeton 6 Haggai (BKAT, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986), p. 70, Verhoef, Haggai, p. 116, Reventlow, Haggai, p. 25. See also E.M. Meyers, "The use of Tora in Haggai 2:11 and the Role of the Prophet in the Restoration Community", The word of the Lord shall go forth. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (eds. C.L. Meyers, M.P. O'Connor, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1983), pp. 69-75. He argues that the use of min in Hag 2:11 is part of a new idiom mm bNtff, which is also attested to in a slightly different form in Mai 2:7 min Wpn. He sees this expression as an example of a "proto-Rabbinic" term, equivalent to the later TH ¡70S. Thus, in Hag 2:11 the priests are "asked" to make a "ruling", i.e. to render a decision on a matter of ritual purity. 12 Rudolph, Haggai, pp. 48-49, Baldwin, Haggai, p. 50, Redditt, Haggai, pp. 26, 27. See also Kessler, Haggai, p. 213, who treats Haggai's question as a "prophetic-symbolic action, the goal of which is to "baffle the hearers and thereby stimulate their curiosity". 13 Cf. Kessler, Haggai, pp. 201, 204. Yet not all scholars agree with this. For example, Beuken, Haggai, p. 70, opposes the idea that the prophet is interested in ritual issues. Instead, he argues that the torah given by the priests (vv. 12-13) functions merely as a link to the actual issue, which is God's authority. Beuken's assumption concerning Haggai's indifference towards ritual matters is, however, purely conjectural.

222

Chapter 11: The Priests' impurity

the likelihood that verse 14 is the conclusion of the preceding conversation, it is unlikely that the prophet first asked a question to which he did not know the answer, and then used his new knowledge to deliver an apt reproach. Instead, it is more credible that Haggai knew the answer beforehand, and used the form of inquiry as a platform upon which to build his oracle.14 Thus, Haggai did not approach the priests in search of knowledge but rather, by asking rhetorical questions, sought to bring a particular issue to light. A related question concerns the identity of Haggai's interlocutors: why did Haggai go to the priests rather than anyone else with his questions? Again, there are two main interpretative possibilities: 1. The priests were merely the source of information, in their role as experts of ritual issues. 15 2. The priests were targeted in their role as religious leaders. We concluded earlier that it is unlikely that Haggai's visit to the priests was a quest for knowledge. In fact, the questions in 2:12-13 were of such simple character that any layman would have been able to answer them correctly, as Sellin points out. Therefore, the reason for Haggai's questions to the priests must be found elsewhere.16 Instead, I suggest that 2:10-14 is polemical.17 The priests, being the religious authority of that day, were knowledgeable in matters of ritual purity. They were also, as already seen above in Lev 22:15-16, responsible for teaching the laws of purity to the people as well as ensuring that they were maintained. Thus, if the people went astray, the priests would have carried the main part of the blame. Haggai, by turning to the religious authorities, emphasises this very point: he uses the inquiry as a means to condemn the priests, pointing on the one hand to their knowledge of what is right and wrong, and, on the other hand, as will be clear in my

Furthermore, his claim is unconvincing that the questions and answers in Hag 2:12-13 are merely a matter of determining God's authority, without any significance for the following oracle in verse 14. 14 Cf. Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", p. 61. 15 E.g., Perowne, Haggai, pp. 39—40, J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten (Berlin, 1898), p. 175, Marti, Dodekapropheton, p. 387, Mitchell, Haggai, pp. 66-67, W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten (HAT, Göttingen, 1922), p. 320,. 16 Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, p. 463. His suggested interpretation (that there was a difference in opinion between the priests and Haggai concerning the participation of the Samarians in the temple building), however, cannot be accepted. 17 Contra Verhoef, Haggai, p. 116, who opposes the idea that the priests are criticized in this passage. Similarly, Beuken, Haggai, p. 70, states that there is no foundation to focus one's attention on the priests in Hag 2:10-14. They are merely instruments for providing the torah rather than being the intended audience of the word of God.

3. Haggai

223

2:10-14

interpretation of 2:14 below, stressing that they are failing to act upon this knowledge in their own lives. 3.1.1. The absence of Joshua Before we continue with more exegetical matters, we need to address Joshua's seeming absence from Hag 2:10-14. 18 The question is whether the high priest is incorporated with the rest of the priests or not, and if so, if he is included in Haggai's critique against them. On the one hand, all overt references to Joshua in the book of Haggai display an uncritical disposition towards him, something which might suggest that he alone of the priests was excluded from the criticism in Hag 2:10-14. On the other hand, the mention of Joshua together with the people in 1:12 probably indicates that he was part of those people criticized in the preceding oracle (1:2—11). Thus, the possibility that Joshua was included among the priests in 2:10-14 cannot be dismissed. 3.2. The inquiry — Holy versus impure Haggai asks the priests two questions that both concern purity and impurity. In order to reach a correct understanding of this dialogue, we shall first look at the treatment of purity and impurity in other biblical material, and then seek to determine the message the prophet seeks to convey by asking his two questions. 3.2.1. The priestly duty of separating between purity and impurity Lev 10:10-11 lists the two primary priestly duties, and both commands are relevant for our understanding of the critique of the post-exilic priesthood: 1. to distinguish between pure and impure, and between holy and profane 2. to teach the Mosaic laws to the people of Israel (cf. above, chapter 5) The first task underlies the message in Hag 2:10-14: to separate between pure and impure is one of the priests' chief tasks and they are failing to carry it out. The same command is attested to also in Ezek 22:26, although in a negative form: 19

"Her priests have violated my instruction and have profaned My holy matters. They have not separated between holy and profane, and they have not taught [the difference] 18 Cf. Marti, Dodekapropheton, p. 387, who explains his absence by stating that the priests formed a collegium where the high priest was only first among equals. Thus, any priest could give an authoritative answer. See also Sellin, Zwdlfprophetenbuch, p. 463, who states that there was no need for the high priest to be present since the questions were of such a character that any priest would be qualified to answer them. 19 The word 'B>7p is pointed as a plural noun.

224

Chapter 11: The Priests' impurity

between the unclean and [the] pure (lsnin iO "iintf? NDDn-l'll Vrian ¡O ^n'7 ©7p they have hid their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them".

and

The dating of Ezek 22:26 is uncertain but we may assume that it postdates the material in Zeph 3:4 (above) and, as such, depends on it. In its present context, Ezek 22:26 may refer to a situation in Judah after the fall of Jerusalem, even though the original audience most probably consisted of exiles in Babylon. 20 My suggestion is that Haggai's questions here are a conscious echo of Ezekiel's earlier critique: in the not-too-distant past, Ezekiel accused the priests of not distinguishing satisfactorily between holy and secular, impure and clean. Rather, they profaned God's holy items, treated His law disdainfully and neglected the Sabbath, and as a result, God was profaned. Thus, Haggai's question serves as a reminder of that accusation, pointing out that by failing to fulfil this duty, the priests are profaning God. 3.2.2. Secondary touch We concluded above that the inquiry in Hag 2:12-13 forms the prelude to the reproach in verse 14. Accordingly, in order to understand the message of the passage as a whole, a correct understanding of the matters discussed in verses 12-13 is vital. The questions in 2:12-13 deal with the transference of ritual states via secondary touch. 21 In short, we learn that while an item which is in contact with something holy cannot render a third object holy, another item in contact with something impure can render a third object impure. 22 Therefore, impurity is stronger than holiness. In view of this, I suggest that the issue in 2:12-13 concerns the power which a particular state entails. The biblical material is silent about the ability of something nnu or to pass on their qualities. In contrast, the contagious states of ttmp and xao are well attested. Beginning with the contagious state of impurity (two), Lev 11 informs us that the dead bodies of certain animals can render a person or item unclean (N»D) by touch (vv. 24ff. - see also Lev 5:2-4; Numb 5:2). The issue of transmission of holiness (2:12) is more ambiguous and we can find seemingly different views in the Bible. First, something holy can render something else holy. Exod 29:37, for example, states that anyone 20

W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 - Chapter 1-24 (Hermeneia, Philadelphia, 1979), p. 467. The only other passage that deals with secondary touch is Ezek 44:19 (further below) where the priests' clothes, made holy by their bearers' holiness, could convey this state to any person touching them. 22 Normally, the binary opposites are nno/nao (pure/ impure) and ^n/Bnp (profane/ holy) (cf. Lev 10:10; Ezek 22:26 above). Yet, sometimes these two sets overlap. For example, Deut 14 states that Israel is holy (Blip) (v. 2) and should not eat any abominable things (n3yin-7D) (v. 3) which are later described as NOT (v. 10). 21

3. Haggai 2:10-14

225

touching the altar will be sanctified (©ip1 roraa yrun-1?} D'enp unp narnn rrm) and Exod 30:2923 and Lev 6:11 (Eng. 6:18) make similar claims. Furthermore, Lev 6:20 (Eng. 6:27) claims that sacrificial meat will render anyone who touches it holy (W7p' m®aa s;r--nt?K "?:>), and Ezek 44:19 states that the garments of priests could consecrate others (iwip1). Holiness, however, is only a positive trait if the person or item in contact with it has the ability to become holy. In other cases, God's holiness is lethal: according to Exod 19:12-13, whoever touches the mountain of the Lord will die. Similarly, Exod 30:33 makes explicit that the oil mentioned in Exod 30:29 (above) can only be used on certain persons or items. Application to someone/something foreign (it) will lead to his/its extinction.24 Along similar lines, Lev 6:21 (Eng. 6:28) legislates that an earthenware vessel used for boiling an offering must be destroyed; Numb 4:15 states that Aaron and his sons must cover the holy items before the children of Kohath can carry them, lest they die (mm wipn-^N K*7i); and finally, Uzzah died when touching the holy ark of the covenant (2 Sam 6:6-11). In post-biblical literature, the Rabbinical convention to describe something holy as "a"Tn nx ("rendering the hands unclean") points in a similar direction: only certain items or people become holy when coming in contact with something holy. Other things are often rendered their very opposite: mo.25 When we evaluate this comparative information, we find that with regard to an ability to transfer status, holiness (®np) and impurity (KM) are true opposites, and of these two, impurity is the stronger state. Something impure can render anything else impure while something holy can only transfer holiness to those other objects with an inherent capacity to become holy. In the light of this complicated situation, the priests' straight "no" to the question in Hag 2:12 is somewhat surprising. We have seen that holiness can be transmitted, although not as simply as impurity. To conclude, I suggest that the purpose behind Haggai's question in 2:12-13 was to establish, with the priests' own consent, which state is more influential: that of holiness or that of impurity. We find that impurity overshadows holiness.

23

See M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford, 1978), p. 176, who, on the basis of Exod 29-30, suggests that Emp> is contagious in the same way as NOD. 24 The syntax of Exod 30:33 is not wholly clear:

vnsn iron IT-1?y una irr

inns npT HPS WN 30:33

Thus, it is grammatically possible, although not likely in the present context, that it is the one anointing who will be cut off. 25 Petersen, Haggai, p. 78.

226

Chapter 11: The Priests ' impurity

3.3. The message of Haggai 2:14 With the dominance of impurity over holiness in mind, we turn now to the heart of the prophetic message: Hag 2:14. In the following section, I shall demonstrate that this verse declares that not only the people of Judah but also their religious leaders are unclean. My interpretation rests on two factors. First, I shall suggest that the expression nin 'un-pi nrn-nun p in 14aa refers to the inhabitants of Judah, and second, I shall argue that the statement xin xao qw mnp' iwki in 14b implies a reference to the priests. 3.3.1. The identity of nin-nm and nrn The identity of ntn-nyn ("this people") and nrn i un ("this nation") is a question much discussed. TJ alone among the ancient translations 26 offers a hint of their identification by translating ¡nn xrura pi f i n sas? to "so is this nation and so is this congregation". The word for MT ,-u, more likely an interpretation rather than a textual witness for a different Hebrew Vorlage, shows that the translator understood this expression as a reference to God's people. 27 Along these lines, earlier scholars identified these people with the returned exiles.28 The turning point came when Rothstein, influenced by Ezra 4:1-5, suggested that nrn-Diin and nrn 'un refer to the Samarians, i.e. the people who had been settled in the Northern kingdom by the Assyrians. Rothstein's proposal was based on three assumptions: 1. Haggai would never call God's own people a or regard them as "unclean", especially not merely two months after the positive prophecy in Hag 2:1-9. God's spirit could not dwell in the midst of an unclean people (cf. 2:5).29

26

The LXX follows the MT (outük ô Xaôç oôtoç Kai oikuç tô ê9voç toûto) as do the V (sic populus iste et sic gens ista) and the S (Nin Nrm© 'n MDm ¡un KQiî Nn XJDn), thus not committing themselves to a definite interpretation. 27 Cf. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of the Minor Prophets, p. 180, note 9. 28 See Radak, Rabbinic Bible, C.F. Keil, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten (BKAT, Leipzig, 1888), pp. 520-21, Wellhausen, Kleine Propheten , pp. 175-76, Marti, Dodekapropheton, p. 388, Von Orelli, Kleine Propheten, p. 172, van Hoonacker, Petits prophètes, pp. 567-68, Perowne, Haggai, p. 39, etc. In many of these commentaries, the Judahite identity of the people is not explicitly stated but rather taken for granted. Mitchell, Haggai, p. 68, albeit being later than Rothstein, does not take the latter's interpretation into account. He suggests a temporal interpretation in order to facilitate the contradiction between this oracle of judgement and the preceding oracles of encouragement. He gives the translation "So hath it been with this people, and so with this nation before me, saith Yahweh", i.e. Hag 2:14 is a reference to the past behaviour of the people rather than to their present behaviour. 29 Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner, pp. 7-9, 11.

3. Haggai 2:10-14

227

2. The word carries pagan overtones, and the author's use of the pronoun nrn was his way of differentiating between God's people and "that people". 30 3. The claim that the people were impure would contradict Hag 1:12 where they heeded God's word.31 Thus, the message of Hag 2:12-13 would be that the holiness of the people from Babylon was insufficient to sanctify the Samarians. On the contrary, the impurity of the latter could easily taint the exilic community. Over the years, Rothstein's interpretation has been adopted and modified by a large number of scholars.32 Among them, Beuken's defence of this position is noteworthy. Among his arguments, he draws attention to the importance of the third person reference to the people in Hag 2:14, claiming that to address the audience in the third person is uncharacteristic of a prophetic oracle. Rather, 2:14 pictures two sets of people: those spoken to directly, i.e. the Judahites, and those referred to in the oracle, i.e. the Samarians.33 Beukens' arguments are compelling. Nonetheless, a comparison with Hag 1:2-3 shows that the prophet can refer to his audience in both the third person (nan nin avn, v. 2) and the second person (v. 3) in the same oracle. Hence, nothing prevents 2:14 from referring to people in the audience. The identification of mn-ayn and nrn 'lin with the Samarians has not remained unchallenged.34 There are three main objections to his view: 1. It is unlikely that the demonstrative pronoun nrn refers to the Samarians since they are nowhere else mentioned in the book of Haggai. 2. Haggai uses the singular run am in 1:2 to refer to the Judahite community, in contrast to the plural o'lin which denotes non-Judahites (2:7, 22). 3. The appellation 'ii is sometimes used to denote God's people.35

30

Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner, p. 7. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner, p. 63. 32 E.g., Nowack, Kleine Propheten , pp. 316-18, 320, Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, pp. 462-64, Horst and Robinson, Kleine Propheten, p. 208, W. Thomas, Haggai, Zechariah (IB, New York, Nashville, 1956), p. 1046, Elliger, Kleine Propheten, pp. 94-96, Beuken, Haggai, pp. 67-70, Rudolph, Haggai, pp. 49-50, and Wolff, Haggai, pp. 68, 71-75. 33 Beuken, Haggai, pp. 68-69. 34 See especially H.G. May, '"This People' and 'This Nation' in Haggai," VT 18 (1968), pp. 190-97, and Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", pp. 61-62. 35 See A. Cody, "When is the Chosen People Called a Goy", VT 14 (1964), pp. 1-6. In this article, he lists six categories where Israel is called a 'U. His interpretation was adopted by May, '"This People", pp. 190-97, and Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", p. 62. 31

228

Chapter 11: The Priests' impurity

With regard to the possible negative overtones of the demonstrative nm, scholars are divided.36 In my view, Kessler makes a convincing case that run can carry a negative nuance and does so in this particular context.37 Having said this, negative overtones do not in and by themselves exclude a Judahite audience. On the contrary, as we shall see further below, the message of verse 14 is critical of the Judahites owing to their impurity. As such, a reproach is intended and negative overtones appropriate. To conclude, I agree with several recent exegetes38 that the people referred to as nn-asn and ntn 'un are the Judahites themselves, both returned exiles and people who had remained in the land during the exile. In the case of Rothstein's interpretation, we need to keep in mind its reliance upon Ezra 3-5, a text that is likely to have been written at a date significantly later than the events it describes and, as such, influenced by events contemporary with its author.39 Therefore, it is appropriate to be cautious about allowing it to determine our interpretation of material stemming from a less remote time. 3.3.2. The reason for the impurity of the Judahites in Haggai 2:14 Having determined that Haggai considered the people of Judah to be unclean, the question remains as to why this was the case. Scholars have offered several interpretations regarding the impurity of the Judahites, out of which we shall determine the one which best fits the textual evidence. There are three main lines of reasoning: failure to live a moral life, failure to build the temple/altar, and lastly, failure to abstain from unorthodoxy/ idolatry. In my opinion, the latter option is the most compelling. Even so, rather than idolatry being a general problem, I shall demonstrate that Haggai regarded the priests to be the main culprits, an interpretation based on an intransitive reading of the verb ianp\ the probability that nil? refers to the altar, and finally, the cultic overtones of the verb nrnp\ 3.3.2.1. Failure to live a moral life The interpretation which sees the impurity stemming from the immoral lifestyles of those who are sacrificing originates in the LXX of 2:14 which attests to material not found in the MT: eveicev 1(51/ Xrn-iiiaiwy auxcov tolv 36 See, e.g., Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", p. 61, who points out correctly that the same pronoun is used in the expressions ntn JVnn (Hag 1:4; 2:3, 9) and nrn DVn (Hag 2:15, 18) without any negative overtones 37 Kessler, Haggai, pp. 213-14. 38 Chary, Aggee, pp. 30-31, Baldwin, Haggai, p. 51, Smith, Micah, pp. 160-61, Petersen, Haggai, p. 81, Meyers, Haggai, p. 57, Reventlow, Haggai, p. 26, Redditt, Haggai, pp. 28, 30-33 and Kessler, Haggai, p. 205. 39 For the dating of Ezra 1-6, see Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. xxxv-xxxvi

3. Haggai

opOpivwv

65uvr|0TiaovTca

229

2:10-14

atro irpoocjTrou irovcov a u t u v

Kal

enioeite

ev

The expression eveKev T U V A,ri|j.NATA)v a u t u v I M V opQpivwv (lit. "because of their profits/income of morning"), however, makes little sense in the present context. This caused Wellhausen to suggest a different Hebrew Vorlage. Rather than iniz; nnnp^ IU1 = "because of their "takings/receivings of morning" (nnnp1? = noun, pi. + 3m.pl. poss. pronoun), however, which is reflected in the LXX, Wellhausen proposes the orthographically near identical 7nw nnnp1? is;1 = "because you have taken bribes" (nnnp1? = verb, perfect, 2m.pl.).41 The ease of this emendation, combined with resulting legible text, validates the claim that the expression discussed was already present in the Hebrew text lying before the translators. 42 Having established a Hebrew Vorlage for the LXX, the question arises whether the LXX depends on an original Hebrew text of which the MT is an abbreviated version or vice versa. In my view, the originality of the MT seems the more likely. The moral interpretation of verse 14 as attested in the LXX disturbs the logical development of the section. The content of the preceding verses 12-13 causes us to expect that the people in verse 14 are considered unclean because they have been in contact with something s»o, rather than due to any morally repugnant action or negligence. 43 Ackroyd, attempting to forestall this argument, argues that "we must be careful not to be too literal-minded in making the application from the directive of the priests to the situation of the people. There is a general relationship between the two, but not necessarily a specific appellation of each phrase of the directive to the situation envisaged." 44 This exegesis, however, renders the preceding verses more or less redundant and is thus not ideal. Instead, given our conclusion that verses 12-13 form the platform upon which the message of verse 14 is directly based (above), it is likelier that the uncleanness in verse 14 is the result of ritual impurity: if the prophet had sought to convince the priests that the people were unclean due to their immoral living, it is difficult to imagine why he would have used such an unsuitable prelude to prove his point. TrulaLt; e l e y x o v t a c ; . 4 0

40 The LXX of verse 14 can be translated as "[...] because of their morning profits (what is received), they will suffer pains from the appearance of their sufferings/ toil. And you hated in the gates those who reprove in the gates". The latter part of the addition (Kai quaeite ev niUaic ii-iyxoviac.) is clearly based on Amos 5:10. 41 Wellhausen, Kleine Propheten, p. 176. 42 Cf. P.R. Ackroyd, "Some Interpretive Glosses in the Book of Haggai", JJS 7 (1956), p. 165, and Rudolph, Haggai, p. 45, note 14b. 43 Cf. Petersen, Haggai, p. 71, note c. 44 Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, p. 168.

230

Chapter 11: The Priests ' impurity

To conclude, the longer reading attested by the LXX is most likely to be secondary. It may have been added by the translator for the purpose of explaining the condemnation in verse 14.45 As such, it testifies to the early existence of the interpretation that the people's moral failure brought about their impurity, even though this is unlikely to have been the prophet's original intentions.46 3.3.2.2. Failure to build the temple

Another interpretation, held by the majority of scholars prior to Rothstein's identification of the target audience with the Samarians (above),47 but also by later scholars who reject his identification,48 is that the failing to build the temple has caused the Judahites' impurity. Thus, the prophet delivered the oracle in Hag 2:10-14 because of the people's renewed hesitancy towards the building of the temple. This interpretation is partly connected with the issue of the dating of 2:10-14 three months after the beginning of the building project (2:10 cf. 1:15).49 The people would have been disappointed by the delay in the fulfilment of the promises of increased fertility of the crops (2:15-19), and so felt justified in letting their zeal towards the building project fail. The strength of this interpretation lies in its consistency with Haggai's message in general. Its weakness lies in the lack of support from 2:10-14 in particular. First, Hag 2:10-14 does not mention the temple, only sacrifices and possibly the altar (nw - see below). Secondly, the idea that the people complained or failed in their building zeal is conjecture without textual basis. As I argued above (chapter 2), it is unlikely that Hag 2:15-19 portrays the repeated failure to build the temple. Instead, it functions as a rhetorical repetition of the earlier theme (1:6-11), referring back to the date in 1:15. Therefore, this interpretation fails to convince. A variation of this interpretation exists, namely that it is the altar, existing without the temple, which is unclean. This interpretation depends on Ezra 3:2-6 which speaks about the building of the altar prior to that of the temple. Petersen, its main advocate, argues that it is this altar which is the source of impurity referred to in Hag 2:10-14. After having built the 45

Wellhausen, Kleine Propheten, p. 176. Cf. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 169-70, who suggests two plausible interpretations along these lines. 47 E.g., Radak, Rabbinic Bible, Hag 2:14, Keil, Kleine Propheten, p. 521, Van Hoonacker, Petits Prophètes, pp. 567-68, Perowne, Haggai, pp. 39, 41. 48 E.g., T.N. Townsend, "Additional Comments on Haggai II 10-19", VT 18 (1968), pp. 559-560, Amsler, Aggée, p. 39, Verhoef, Haggai, p. 120, Hildebrand, "Temple Ritual", pp. 163-64, Meyers, Haggai, p. 58, and Reventlow, Haggai, p. 27. 49 See, e.g., Mitchell, Haggai, p. 66. 46

3. Haggai

2:10-14

231

altar, the people no longer cared about the actual temple, which, in God's eyes, would have been a prerequisite for His promised blessings. Petersen suggests that what is missing is an official rededication of the altar, as prescribed in Ezek 43:18-27. Owing to the absence of this ceremony, the offerings sacrificed upon the altar had become unclean. Presupposing that the text from Ezekiel was known to the priests in Judah at this time, Petersen puts a twofold blame upon the priests. First, they were wrong in letting people bring sacrifices upon the not-yet dedicated altar. Secondly, being the only people who could cleanse the altar and the temple, they were negligent in their duty to rededicate it.50 This interpretation is difficult to accept for several reasons. First, there is nothing in Ezra 3:2-6 which indicates that the sacrifices offered upon the altar were or would ever become unclean. Rather, the making of the altar is retold in a positive manner, enabling the community in Jerusalem to follow the instruction of Moses and offer up suitable sacrifices. This means that in order to accept Peterson's interpretation, we would have to assume that Haggai and the author of Ezra 1-6 differed in their outlook of the altar. In contrast to the latter's favourable recording of the building of the altar, the former would then have regarded the altar as a pretext for procrastination, its existence lulling the people and their leaders into complacency and causing them to neglect their subsequent obligation to build the temple. Such a dichotomy is indeed possible but Peterson fails to provide an explanation for it. Connected with this issue is the envisioned time span. Again, if we hold the events retold in Ezra 3:2-6 to have taken place during the reign of Cyrus, we would indeed be dealing with procrastination. If, however, we follow the near scholarly consensus and assume that the altar was built during the second year of the reign of Darius I, too little time would have passed for the originally positive building of the altar to have become a reason for impurity. Finally, there is little reason to assume that the priests neglected to rededicate the altar, assuming that Ezek 43:18-27 would have been known to the people in Judah. Although this ritual is not recorded in Ezra 3:2-6, these verses are filled to the brim with the desire to act in accordance with the "law of Moses". Thus, unless Ezra 3:2-6 is a complete rewriting of history, we must assume that the people mentioned in Ezra performed the building of the altar with all due care. In view of this, Petersen's interpretation is doubtful.

50 See especially Petersen, Haggai, pp. 84-85. His interpretation is followed by W.E. March, The Book of Haggai (NIB, Nashville, 1996), pp. 727-28.

232

Chapter 11: The Priests' impurity

3.3.2.3. Failure of the people and their leaders to remain pure The last possibility is to regard the apostasy/unorthodox worship of the people and their leaders as the reason for their impurity. Those scholars who identify the ntn-avn and run 'lin with the Samarians (see above) naturally connect the issue of impurity with either their unorthodox cult of YHWH or their worship of other deities. Understanding xin NOD as a collective statement referring to the whole of the preceding verse, they translate the last clause i n p 1 "TON as "and whatever they bring". Furthermore, they mostly understand the word av as a reference to the altar in Jerusalem. 51 Accordingly, everything is impure: the people, the work of their hands and whatever they sacrifice. Some recent scholars have suggested a variation of this interpretation, namely that it is the people themselves, independent of any apostasy, who are unclean. 52 Notably, Koch argues that people become unclean due to everyday activities and thus nothing extraordinary. Normally, however, they would be made clean by the sacrifices offered up in the temple. It is its ruined state which is the problem here in Hag 2:10-14, making it impossible for them to become clean. 53 The solution, according to Koch, is stated in verse 15 which marks the decisive change between impurity and renewed blessings. 54 In response, while Koch's insight that the people are unclean due to a lack of sacrifices is significant and we shall return to this matter shortly, his interpretation as a whole fails to convince for three reasons: there are strong reasons in favour of treating Hag 2:10-14 as a self-contained oracle (cf. chapter 2), Koch's interpretation fails to take the content of verses 1213 into consideration, and finally, there is no evidence in the text that the altar, being built prior to the temple and the place where sacrifices of atonement would have been performed, was not functioning (cf. above). 51 E.g., Elliger, Kleine Propheten, p. 95, Wolff, Haggai, p. 73 (Eng., p. 94). Exceptions do exist, such as the interpretation of Beuken, Haggai, p. 72, who suggests that QW refers to another, Samarian, altar. In view of my rejection of an identification of ntn-nsn and nin 'nn with the Samarians above, however, this interpretation cannot be maintained. 52 Along similar lines, Kessler, Haggai, pp. 215-17, argues that the issue in verse 14 is the impurity of the whole Judahite community, comparing it with the view expressed in Ezekiel (e.g., 20:43; 22:4) where the people are deemed to be impure due to a variety of practices, including idolatry, shedding of blood, oppression, adultery etc. Nonetheless, Kessler refrains from suggesting a reason for the people's impurity here in Hag 2:10-14, arguing that the text does not describe its source. Instead, he proposes that the focal point of the longer section of Hag 2:10-19 is not so much to convict the nation for its need of purification but to affirm that purification is soon to be accomplished (vv. 18-19). 53 Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", pp. 62-63. 54 Koch, "Haggais unreines Volk", p. 64.

3. Haggai 2:10-14

233

In the case of Clines' interpretation, he adheres to the syntactical understanding of the clause of those who regard the Samarians to be impure (cf. above). Accordingly, he argues that Haggai declares the inhabitants of Judah, together with their work and sacrifices, to be unclean. According to him, the elite (i.e. Haggai, Zerubbabel and Joshua) despised the people upon whom they had to rely in order to get the temple rebuilt, and Haggai conveys this distaste by pronouncing them unclean.55 Despite its novelty, Cline's exegesis must nonetheless be rejected, if only for its rather cynical view of Haggai which is unsupported by the text. More specifically, the idea that Haggai separated between the people and its leaders is without foundation. Haggai's interaction with the priests, among them possibly the high priest, emphasizes that his critique concerned them as well (2:11-13). Furthermore, Haggai often addresses the leaders and the people as one group (1:12, 14). In fact, as we shall see next, the leaders bore the larger part of the blame for the current situation. In line with my understanding of Hag 2:11-13 as mainly targeting the priests, I propose that this critique culminates in verse 14. My interpretation is based on three criteria: I. A singular, intransitive

understanding

of imp''

Looking at the verse syntactically, two features stand out: • First, the three expressions nin-nvn, run-^n and a m 1 ruran-^D are syntactically equal: all three expressions are immediately preceded by the word p and no verb is attached closely to either of them. Hence, none of these are likely to be the accusative object of the following verb imp 1 . • Secondly, the waw attached to "iwx in the subsequent clause limp1 numi sin rao aw effectively disconnects this new statement from what precedes it. In this manner, the general structure of the sentence leads us to expect the following sin xau nw imp 1 iswi to be yet another antecedent in the nominative case, in analogy with the preceding expressions ntn-aun, ntn 'in, and on1!1 nawa-^D. This impression is further strengthened by the lack of the accusative marker ns. In view of all this, the reader expects an intransitive meaning of the only attested verb lanp1. Despite these syntactical considerations, however, a transitive meaning "to offer up" with preceding •rPT nwya-^D ("all the work of their hand") as its object is normally suggested. In order to accommodate such a 55

D.J.A. Clines, "Haggai's Temple Constructed, Deconstructed and Reconstructed", Second Temple Studies 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period (eds. T.C. Eskenazi and K.H. Richards, JSOTS 175, Sheffield, 1994), pp. 71-76.

234

Chapter 11: The Priests ' impurity

translation, the MT is commonly read as if it were written D© imp 1 "IWK nxi Kin xaa, i.e. "and [what] is sacrificed there is unclean". Such a reading receives support from Exod 4:12bb where the ns is omitted before the direct object (lain hps T m n i = "and I shall teach you [what] you will say"). Similarly, Numb 22:6b ("i«r -ixn -rosi -pa» -|-on--itt>x nx VOT'D) omits the nx before the second object while attesting it before the first. Even so, it is much more common that nx precedes "itsx when an object is referred to (e.g., Exod 4:15bb [iiwvn -iwx nx conx 'mini]). Another possible solution is to understand the waw as a causative waw, as suggested by Joiion who compares the use of the waw here in Hag 2:14 with that in 2:9; Gen 22:12; Exod 23:9; 1 Kgs 22:23; and Ps 60:13. 56 According to this view, the text would be translated "and thus this people [...] because [what] they sacrifice there is unclean". On an exegetical level, this means that the people have become unclean because of their sacrifices. This reading is attractive and grammatically possible. Even so, it does not solve the problem of "iwx. Taking these aspects together, a transitive understanding of lanp' is unsatisfactory. The alternative is then to explore whether imp 1 can take an intransitive meaning. This possibility was first suggested by Ehrlich who translated iT-ip1 as "to draw near", based on its use in Exod 14:10 ( nsno •RRRY-NX ^XIW-^N IREH :mpn).57 The use of mpn in Numb 7:2, 18 may also be intransitive. In verse 2, the leaders of Israel i m p \ while their bringing of offerings is described in the following verse 3 (cump-nx is'Ti). Similarly, verses 18-19 describe how Nathaniel first m p n and then mpn mnp-nx. While it could be argued that the omission of the object in verses 2 and 18 is an example of abbreviated language, it is equally possible that the people in question first drew near, before they offered up their gifts. An intransitive interpretation of mnp 1 is also supported by the LXX where the MT's KIN xao am mnp 1 iti>KI is rendered as KAI o 11

E.g., Torrey, Isaiah, p. 429. In support for the use of 7- for by or vice versa, Delitzsch, Jesaia, p. 547, quotes Gen 48:22 ("pnN-75) i n s CD® i1? 'nnj ^Nl) where '?]? indicates the dative. 13 E.g., Radak, Rabbinic Bible, Isa 56:8 ( bv D'lns O'Xip:) nn'^S? rnps IIS) "jN-lur rnpxttf rS3p>3), Rashi, Rabbinic Bible, Isa 56:8 ON-Utf' 'sup 71) n'DOi: - l,!np:n), Williamson, "Israel in Transition", p. 150, Smith, Rhetoric, p. 66. 14 For example, Hitzig, Jesaja, p. 589, and Knobel, Jesaja, pp. 458-59, propose that the proselytes would serve (im©1?) as temple servants, while Cheyne, Prophecies, p. 64, assigns Levitical and priestly duties to the proselytes (cf. McKenzie, Isaiah, p. 151, Watts, Isaiah, p. 249). See also Snaith, Isaiah, p. 228, who suggests that Isa 56:3-8 represents the voice of the Judahite Aaronites who, according to him, had served in Bethel during the exile. 15 E.g., Volz, Jesaja, p. 205, Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 658, Oswalt, Isaiah, p. 460. 16 E.g., Ibn Ezra, Rabbinic Bible, Isa 56:6, Duhm, Jesaia, p. 422, Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4, pp. 198-99, Marti, Jesaja, p. 364, Whybray, Isaiah, p. 198, Smith, Rhetoric, p. 58, Childs, Isaiah, p. 459. 12

2. The definition and understanding of the key words

279

in BH in general, we find that although the verb mw denotes both clerical and secular service in Isa 60-62, it is chiefly connected with the temple: the majority of attested examples of this verb are in the books of Exodus, Numbers, Ezekiel and Chronicles where it is employed almost exclusively to indicate priestly or Levitical service.17 The use of mtP in Ezek 44:15 where it denotes the priestly service of the Zadokites is particularly noteworthy. In the light of this, the likeliest connotations of the root mw in Isa 56:1-8 are in the cultic sphere, denoting priestly service. Thus, the foreigners in Isa 56:1-8 are portrayed as serving God ritually in the temple. Adding together these three issues, we can conclude that the author of Isa 56:1-8 envisioned foreigners, here to be identified with proselytes, to join the people of Israel and to participate in their cultic obligations. Not only that, given the particularly priestly nuance of the root mi?, they will even be able to serve as priests of YHWH. 2.3. Isaiah 56:1—8 and Isaiah 60-62 — An inter-textual

comparison

Given these similarities on a textual level and the differences on an exegetical level, the question arises how to understand the relationship between Isa 56:1-8 and 60-62. In this section, I shall investigate the reuse of the four key expressions as found in 60:7, 10 and 61:5-6, and show that 56:1-8 functions as a corrective to 60-62 concerning the place of foreigners in relation to the temple cult. 2.3.1. The expression ID] p The use of the expression "D3 p ("foreigners") in Isa 56:1-8 modifies the earlier 60-62 in three ways: 1. Individuals versus peoples - while 56:3 and 6 speak of foreign individuals serving God on an equal footing as the indigenous Judahites, 60:10 and 61:5 (and 62:8) refer to foreigners as part of the larger theme of Jerusalem's glorification and the reversal of fate when her former oppressors will atone for their destruction of her. 2. Participation versus servitude - while 56:1-8 lets foreigners serve God, 60-62 limits the performance of His cult to the Judahites. 3. Present versus future times - while Isa 60-62 is a vision about the future to come, 56:3 and 6 speak of the present time, as indicated by the participles m^n and CH^n. Thus, while these proselytes' service in 17

Outside of these books, the verb Ttffn is attested to in a small number of places where it denotes more secular service, such as serving at the royal court (Esth 1:10) or domestic service (Gen 39:4).

280

Chapter 14: The original vision and its modification

the temple is yet to come ("^"Tp in-^x DTnEPnm), their presence in Jerusalem is already a fact. I suggest that this modification is not a contradiction of Isa 60-62 but rather a clarification. In contrast to 60-62 where all foreigners belong in one category, 56:1-8 refers to a subsection in it, i.e. proselytes, a difference stressed by using the participle m1?] and by defining the temporal aspect of the narrative. By reusing the expression 133 p from Isa 60-62, the later author of Isa 56:1-8 stresses that the proselytes should no longer be counted together with the other foreigners (Isa 61:5) but instead be regarded as part of the people of Israel (Isa 61:6). 2.3.2.

The expressions

lrara

Tim-1™ V j j t and Turn-1?!? iix-i1? nrrmn

arm1?™

The use of the expression ^mm-by TiXl1? nrrmn •rpnVil? in 56:7 brings to mind the similar imro ii^n-^i? •py in 60:7. The main difference between them concerns the relationship between the cult and the foreigners: while 60:7 focuses on the foreign origin of the sacrificial animals, 56:7 stresses that the sacrificing people are foreigners. Given this lexical similarity, combined with the contradictory content of the two passages, I find it likely that the author of 56:1-8 consciously utilized the vocabulary of 6062 in order to create a new, reconsidered picture: proselytes will be in charge of the offerings, rather than merely supplying the sacrificial animals as the other foreigners do. 2.3.3.

The root T\~W

The use of the root mw ("serve") provides yet another contrast. In Isa 6062, foreigners and their flocks will serve (m®) Jerusalem (60:7, 10) while the Judahites will serve God (irn1?« 'rnira 'n 'ana) as priests (61:6). Differently from this, in 56:6 the foreigners will serve (mill''?) the Lord directly. Again, the conscious allusion of the author of 56:1-8 to 60-62 is unmistakable. 2.3.4.

The root

f3p

As with the reuse of the root mK>, a similar contrast can be detected in the reuse of the root f3p ("to gather"): while 60:7 says that sacrificial animals will be gathered Osap') from foreign nations, 56:8 states that foreigners will be gathered to Israel (vmp]1? vbv fnpx TO) in addition to those of Israel already gathered. According to the later text, foreigners are no longer valued merely for their commodities but for their own sake.

3. Isaiah 66:20-21 - The vision of the future priesthood

2.3.5. The interpretation of Isaiah 56:1-8 as a corrective of Isaiah

281 60-62

The question is how to interpret these allusions. One possibility is that Isa 56:1-8 contradicts Isa 60-62, regarding 56:1-8 as a reaction against the future subjugated role of foreigners assigned to them in 60-62. As such, it would seek to comfort the proselytes, contemporary with this oracle, who feared that their status would be reduced to servanthood in the prophesied future of 60-62. 18 This interpretation is by and large convincing. Nevertheless, as seen, the two texts depict a more nuanced situation. Therefore, I suggest instead that 56:1-8 clarifies the message of 60-62. The lexical allusions to the earlier text serve to set apart the proselyte from the foreigner. In fact, the proselytes should consider themselves as belonging to the Judahites addressed in 61:6 rather than to the foreigners in 61:5. Accordingly, they will serve as priests alongside the rest of the Judahites.

3. Isaiah 66:20-21 - The vision of the future priesthood Isa 66:18-21(24) provides us with yet another view of the future. These verses paint a picture of the future priesthood and of the related role of foreigners that is reminiscent of, yet different from, those in Isa 60-62 and Isa 56:1-8. Our interpretation of these verses in this respect depends largely on the exegesis of 66:20-21, and in particular, on the identification of the people referred to in 66:21. The interpretation of 66:21 is partly a matter of pronouns. Beginning with verse 18, God will gather the nations to His glory. Among them (the nations) God will make a sign, and from them (the nations) God will send fugitives (•,d,1?d) to the nations to proclaim His glory. Verse 20 continues that they (presumably still the nations) will bring back your brothers (presumably the exiles), from among the nations, as an offering (nmn) to the Lord. Thus far, the identification of the pronouns has been without major problems. The difficulties begin with the statement in verse 21 "and also from them shall I take to be Levitical priests" (D-nV? nnm1? npx ana mi). The identity of ana ("from them") can be understood in one of two ways: they are either identical with the subject of the verb is^n 1 9 in verse 20, which

18

Smith, Rhetoric, pp. 59-60. The last phrase ^NUtf' 'U IS':' T^ND is a parenthetical clause and may be disregarded for syntactical purposes. 19

282

Chapter 14: The original vision and its modification

goes back to the •,D,17D, i.e. the nations,20 or with the object wnx-ho, i.e. the exiles.21 Nonetheless, the textual evidence favours the former reading: 1. The fact that the same word ana in verse 19 refers to the nations supports the former interpretation. 2. The reference to ma- 1 » ("all flesh") in verse 23 suggests a broader Gentile perspective.22 3. The word DAI ("and also", v. 21) indicates that new information is being added. Three possibilities come to mind: a. The foreigners bringing back the exiles will serve as priests. b. These particular returning exiles will serve as priests. c. The returning priests will be Levitical priests rather than any other kind of priests, focusing on the expression D'iro The second option is unlikely: given that we know from Ezra 2:36-40 that functioning priests and Levites returned from the exile, a statement that (some) returning exiles could serve as priests would not have been a novelty and should therefore be ruled out. The third option is also doubtful in that it fails to take the word Oil into consideration: rather than speaking with a novel type of priests, the text indicates that we are dealing with an additional group of people who beforehand were not able to be priests. In view of this, the first option is the most plausible interpretation. In view of this, I surmise that 66:21 most likely depicts a future priesthood comprised of both Judahites and foreigners. In this manner, the vision of the future priesthood in 66:18-24 is radically different from that presented in 60-62 and 56:1-8. 3.1. Isaiah 66:20—21 and the rest of Isaiah 56-66 This brings us to the next issue, namely how Isa 66:20-21 should be understood in the context of the larger corpus of Isa 56-66. In order to answer this question, we need to look at two issues: first, what is the textual relationship of 66:20 with 60-62, and second, what is its textual relationship with 65:1-66:17? 3.1.1. Isaiah 66:20 and 60:7 -An inter-textual comparison Beginning with the textual relationship between Isa 66:20 and Isa 60-62, we find that 60:7 and 66:20 share the idea of sacrifices but yet relate to it in two contrasting manners. As noted already, the earlier 60:7 tells of foreign sacrificial animals being brought to Jerusalem. Without it being 20

E.g., Westermann, Jesaja, p. 338, Whybray, Isaiah, pp. 291-92. E.g., Schramm, Opponents, p. 172. 22 Muilenburg, Isaiah, p. 772. Cf. also the expression 137 'n 'S "o HIT lin-Vs 1K11 in Isa 40:5 which clearly speaks about the whole world. 21

3. Isaiah 66:20-21 - The vision of the future

priesthood

283

explicitly stated, the context leads us to assume that these foreign animals will be brought by foreigners to Jerusalem where they will be sacrificed by Judahite priests. Hence, foreigners are depicted as worthy only of bringing the animals to the temple but not of sacrificing them. By contrast, the later 66:20 describes how foreigners will bring the exiles as a nmn (Minhah), an act likened to the bringing of the nmn [in/to] the temple by the children of Israel. Thus, we see that according to 66:20, rather than losing their importance after delivering the sacrifices, as is the case in 60:7, these foreigners will have a clerical role. This conceptual link between 60:7 and 66:20 is in my opinion not random but serves as a conscious reference to 60:7: by echoing the theme of the earlier passage, the author of 66:20 tells of a new and different future relation between strangers and the temple. 3.1.2. Isaiah 66:20 and

65:1-66:17

Next, we can detect textual allusions in Isa 66:18—24 to 65:1-66:17. I suggest that the words nmn and ("vessel") in 66:20 echoes the earlier 65:4 (^n) and 66:3 (nmn),23 two verses criticizing the Judahite priests (chapter 7). In 65:4, in a context enumerating their non-orthodox religious activities, the priests are accused of carrying something unclean (•,1?1D) in their bowls (DIVVD).24 By contrast, the foreigners in 66:20 are portrayed as carrying the exiles as the children of Israel bring the nma in pure bowls (Tina ^ m ) . In this way, we see that 66:20 creates a contrasting picture: the priests of Judah carry impurity while the foreigners' bowls are pure. Similarly, I propose that the use of the word nrna in 66:20 alludes to the claim in 66:3 that the one who sacrifices the nma (i.e. the priest) also [eats] pork. Hence, the author of 66:20 hints at the alternative: in contrast to the Judahite priests' unorthodoxy, the foreigners will serve YHWH. Looking at both cases together, I suggest interpreting these lexical echoes as a reaction to the preceding 65:4 and 66:3: instead of the local priesthood with their unclean sacrifices and their syncretism, the author of Isa 66:20 portrays the coming foreigners as priests bringing a pure

23

Cf. Smith, Rhetoric, p. 169, who suggests that the clean vessels here are a reference back to Isa 65:4; 66:3 and a reversal of the conditions of impure sacrifice pictured in the whole of Isa 65:1-66:17. He does not, however, develop the thought further. 24 The word 711D is elsewhere a technical term for unclean sacrificial flesh: it describes a too-old "sacrifice of wellbeing" ( D w w n m i ) in Lev 7:18 and 19:7, and "unclean meat" C711S iBn) is one of several unclean items which Ezekiel declares never to have eaten (Ezek 4:14). Taking Ezekiel's priestly background (Ezek 1:3) into account, the meat mentioned in Ezek 4:14 can, in all likelihood, be identified with that of the two instances in Leviticus: as a priest serving in the temple, he would have had the opportunity to eat a too-old cra^Bn m i .

284

Chapter 14: The original vision and its modification

offering. It is out of these foreigners that God will take His priests rather than from the existing priesthood.

4. Three revolutionary views of the priesthood By comparing the three key verses, Isa 61:6; 56:7 and 66:21, three different views of the priesthood emerge, all of them revolutionary against the background of the strict division between clergy and laity found elsewhere in the Bible, especially in the book of Ezekiel. 4.1. Isaiah 61:6 — The democratization of the priesthood for all Judahites Beginning with the earliest of the three texts, Isa 61:6 depicts a future without the existing division between the priesthood and the laity. The priesthood's monopoly on ritual service is no more and in its place, the whole of God's people will function as priests while strangers provide for their material needs. Hanson aptly calls the message of this verse "an astonishing democratization of the formerly exclusive sacerdotal office". 25 Until this point, access to the priestly office had been a matter of lineage: you did not become a priest, you were born one. According to this new view of the priesthood, any male person, regardless of his family lineage, would serve as a priest. Moreover, the text treats indigenous Judahites and returning exiles as one. Assuming that Isa 60-62 addresses the whole population of Judah, 26 the future of the priesthood, as portrayed in these verses, is not tied up with the returning exiles. Their return is eagerly awaited but the future priesthood of the future temple is envisioned to contain both returned exiles and indigenous Judahites. This view of the future priesthood differs from the view expressed in the book of Ezekiel. First, Ezek 33:23-29 denies the people who remained in Judah during the exile any right to be part of God's people. Hence, the idea that they could be part of the chosen people, let alone serve as priests, contradicts the message of Ezekiel outright. Secondly, Ezek 44:13-15 limits the priesthood to the sons of Zadok, thus excluding all other persons of Israelite descent. In this light, we can see that the vision in Isa 61:6 is 25

Hanson, Dawn, pp. 67-68. A Judahite setting of Isa 60-62 is generally accepted by scholars today. This is further supported by the similarity in style and content of Isa 40-55 and 60-62: following especially Smart, History and Theology, pp. 16-23 and Barstad, Babylonian Captivity, who argue that DI prophesied on Judahite soil, an identical geographical setting of Isa 56-66 is preferable. Furthermore, given a very early post-exilic dating of Isa 60-62, there cannot yet have been many returned exiles present in Judah. Thus, the main target of this material must be the indigenous people of Judah. 26

4. Three revolutionary views of the priesthood

285

already a complete reversal of the prophesied future found in the book of Ezekiel.27 4.2. Isaiah 56:1-8 - The participation of proselytes in the priesthood Going one step further, the later text of Isa 56:1-8 foresees a time when not only all indigenous Israelites but also proselytes will be able to serve as priests. Isa 56:6 seemingly disagrees with Ezek 44:7-9 in this respect: while Isa 56:6 allows foreigners (idj ^n) to serve in the temple, Ezek 44:9 condemns the fact that "the house of Israel" allows entry to foreigners ("an "D3) "with uncircumcised heart and uncircumcised flesh". Due to this apparent disagreement, some scholars see a contradiction between these two texts.28 As others point out, however, there is a fundamental difference in the supposition of the two texts: while Ezek 44:7-9 refers to foreigners "Drp'ho) who are not circumcised (ibo ^iv), Isa 56:3-7 speaks of proselytes ( m ^ n ) , namely who are circumcised.29 Hence, the right of the proselytes to enter the temple is not contested in Ezek 44, and no contradiction concerning the issue of admittance into the temple should be seen. Nevertheless, alongside Isa 61:6, Isa 56:6 remains contradictory to Ezek 44:15 with regard to its limitations of the priesthood to Zadok's descendents. 4.3. Isaiah 66:21 - The globalization of the priesthood Finally, the latest text, i.e. Isa 66:21, contains the most revolutionary view of the future. Isa 56:1-8 introduces the novel idea of proselytes serving as priests, yet 66:21 opens the scope even wider. As we shall discover, this change in perspective is not only a matter of who can become a priest but also where and when this change will take place: 1. The foreigners referred to in 56:1-8 are proselytes. In contrast, the people who will become priests in 66:21 are probably Gentiles. 2. While the foreigners in 56:1-8 are most likely living in Judah, 66:18 24 speaks about a global pilgrimage. 3. While 56:1-8 refers to an actual issue in contemporary Judah, 66:1824 deals with an end-time vision of God's direct intervention in history, combined with the expected gathering of all the exiles and the general adoration of God by all flesh. In view of these differences I propose that Isa 56:1-8 and 66:21 mirror a gradual development rather than two parallel accounts. While 56:1-8, 27 28

Cf. Snaith, Isaiah, pp. 227-28, Hanson, Dawn, p. 268. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 138, and Vermeylen, Prophète, pp. 4 5 5 -

56. 29

Blenkinsopp, "Second Isaiah", p. 96, and Schramm, Opponents, p. 122.

286

Chapter 14: The original vision and its modification

speaking of the immediate future, limits the priesthood to Judahites and proselytes, 66:18-24, speaking of the end-times, includes all Gentiles. In this way, I suggest viewing the later text as representing the final drastic step in the democratization or, rather, globalization of the priesthood, to become true at the time of the final ingathering of the nations. Comparing the view of the priesthood, as attested by Isa 66:2, with that of the book of Ezekiel, we then find that Isa 66:21 contradicts Ezekiel's entire vision. We noted earlier that Ezek 44:15 cannot be harmonized with Isa 61:6, 56:6-7 and 66:21 owing to its limitation of the priesthood to the Zadokites. Furthermore, while Isa 56:6-7 and Ezek 44:7-9 agree with regard to the ban on foreigners entering the temple, the same cannot be said about Isa 66:21: given that 66:21 speaks of Gentiles in general rather than of proselytes becoming priests, harmonizing between this verse and Ezek 44:7-9 is impossible.

5. Conclusion Drawing to a close, we have discovered that Isa 61:6; 56:6-7 and 66:21 represent a gradual democratization and globalization of YHWH's priesthood: • Isa 61:6, found in the earliest stratum of Isa 56-66, envisions a general, Judahite priesthood. This is a drastic innovation in regard to both the pre-exilic view of the priesthood and that recorded in Ezek 44. • The later Isa 56:1-8 both limits and widens the vision of Isa 61:6. On the one hand, this oracle encompasses also proselytes, people who hitherto had not been able to serve as priests. On the other hand, their participation is subject to conditions, such as keeping the Sabbath and God's covenant (56:1-2, 6), in contrast to 61:6 where priestly service is without conditions. • The changing view of the priesthood reaches its climax in Isa 66:1824. This text describes how, at the end of time, all flesh will worship YHWH and how the priesthood will be open to persons outside the people of Israel. At the same time, the gap between the faithful and the faithless ones is also widened. Many from the nations will be destroyed in God's wrath or perish in His judgment (v. 24). I propose further that the reason for this development is hinted at by the lexical echoes of 65:4 and 66:3 in 66:20 (^D, nma): Isa 56:1-8 and 66:1824 reflect the disillusionment with the unorthodoxy of the existing Judahite priesthood and are examples of the search for a viable alternative. The step-by-step widening of the priesthood just described is one of its results.

Concluding Remarks We have now seen that much of the post-exilic prophetic material preserved in the Hebrew Bible testifies to a critical disposition towards the priesthood. In most cases, the priests are often the sole recipients of this criticism, but there are also cases where the Judahite leadership in general as well as the majority of the Judahite population are included. The kernel of the critique concerns the priests' worship of YHWH: the prophetic texts claim that the priests' unorthodox worship had brought about the defilement of the cult and the inability of the people to attain ritual purity. In addition, the prophets raged against the priests' failure to perform the existing cult of YHWH in a satisfactory manner, their failure to teach the people, and finally, their failure to be the champions of social justice. The prophetic critique of the priests should, however, not be understood as an expression of a dichotomy between the priests and the prophets. On the contrary, many of the prophets who fumed against the priests were their fellow brothers, sharing their priestly vocation (Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah 1-8). What we have here instead is a situation where prophetic voices, unhappy with the state of the priesthood, sought its renewal and reform. Only in a few cases (Isaiah 56-66) are we speaking of a rejection of the current priesthood, and even there, what is envisioned is not the abolishment of the temple worship and the priesthood but rather its transformation. At the same time, this study of the early post-exilic prophetic texts shows a different picture of the post-exilic priesthood than often previously assumed. Rather than attributing the post-exilic priests with orthodoxy, reformed through their suffering following the destruction of Jerusalem and/or through their exilic experience, I have endeavoured to show that the emerging new clergy were not so very different from their pre-exilic predecessors. Furthermore, it points to a similarity between the thoughts and ideas displayed throughout Isaiah 56-66, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Malachi in contrast to the common assumption that these authors display contradictory views. In this study, we have looked at the various prophetic accusations against the priests and discovered that prophetic critique of the priesthood forms a

288

Concluding

Remarks

part of both pre-exilic and post-exilic prophecy. Notably, nearly all aspects of the critique, e.g. failure to teach, social injustice, unorthodox worship, cultic neglect and impurity, have their roots in pre-exilic prophecy. Nonetheless, the critique against the priests comes to its forte in the postexilic period. Looking at the post-exilic material chronologically, an interesting development emerges: First, Isa 60-62 functions as a background to the critical tradition of Is. 56-66. In these chapters, a very early post-exilic prophet envisioned a priesthood that differed from that of pre-exilic Judah and Israel, a priesthood that encompasses every Judahite rather than only a restricted elite. Given these expectations, it is easy to imagine the acute disappointment felt by this prophet's followers in view of the behaviour of the actual clergy in power in Jerusalem. One of his followers, or at least someone who belonged in the same tradition as Isa 60-62, then penned Isa 56:959:21 and 65:1-66:17. This text, probably composed around 520 BC during the rebuilding of the temple, is partly characterized by the critique of the priesthood in the area of their worship of YHWH (57:5-8; 65:3-5; 66:1-6). Particularly in Isa 66:1-6, we read about the rejection of the present priests and the way they perform the temple worship, and about their final judgement (66:6). At a later stage, yet another author standing in the same tradition as that of Isa 60-62; 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17 modified the original vision of the general priesthood, as found in Isa 60-62, to include proselytes as well (Isa 56:6-7). Finally, either the same author, or yet another, abandoned all restraint and, as part of his end-time vision, also included God-fearing Gentiles among God's priests (66:20-21). At about the same time as the author of Isa 56:9-59:21 and 65:1-66:17, in 520 BC, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah criticize the Judahite priesthood from a different angle. Focusing on the cultic and ritual aspects of the priests' sins, Haggai declares the clergy impure. Furthermore, as a result of their impurity, the people of Judah are also impure since the priests, normally the ones responsible for performing the sacrifices which bring cleansing to the people, are rendered unable to carry out this duty. At the time of the oracle in Hag 2:10-14, Haggai proclaims that the situation has reached an impasse. Yet the solution was to come two months later. As in Hag 2:10-14, Zech 3 declares the priests, represented by the high priest Joshua, to be impure (vv. 1-2). Owing to God's compassion for Jerusalem, however, Joshua is miraculously cleansed of his impurity and proclaimed fit to resume his role as high priest (vv. 4-7). Immediately following this, the

Concluding Remarks

289

Day of Atonement is celebrated (v. 9) which cleanses the whole people of Judah. Unfortunately, the ideal situation described in Zech 3:7, with the high priest obeying God's command and leading the clergy according to God's will, deteriorated fairly quickly. At the time of the prophet Malachi, the priests are neglecting God and giving Him second rate sacrifices. In addition, they have abandoned the worship of God for other gods, as a result of intermarriage (Mai 2:10-16). At about the same period of time, first Ezra and then Nehemiah recorded that several priests have intermarried with people of non-Israelite descent. As in Zech 3, the priests are declared impure, and also, as in Zech 3, the prophet Malachi describes their cleansing as the solution to the problem: their cleansing will cause the resumption of the sacrificial cult (Mai 3:3-4). It is possible that the author of Isa 56:1-8 and/or the author of Isa 66:18-24 also belong to this period of time. As we have seen, however, these two texts have radically different future visions in mind: rather than the restoration of the existing priesthood, they envision a transformed future priesthood that encompasses many more people than the existing one, envisioning not only proselytes but also Gentiles to take part. To conclude, this book is an attempt to provide a new exegesis of some of the material in Isaiah 56-66, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Malachi. My hope is that this new insight will trigger off further discussion concerning the interpretation of these texts as well as further our understanding of the situation in Judah in the early post-exilic period.

Bibliography The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1956-). ACKERMAN, S., Under Every Green Tree. Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46, Atlanta, Georgia, 1992). ACHTEMEIER, E., The Community and the Message of Isaiah 56-66. A Theological Commentary (Augsburg, 1982). ACKROYD, P.R., "Some Interpretative Glosses in the Book of Haggai", JJS 1 (1956), pp. 163-67. -, Exile and Restoration (OTL, London, 1968). AHLSTRÖM, G.W., Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem (Leiden, 1971). ALBANI, M., '"WO sollte ein Haus sein, das ihr mir bauen könntet' (Jes 66,1). Schöpfung als Temple JHWHs'", Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Community without Temple (eds. B. Ego, A. Lange, P. Pilhofer, WUNT 118, Tübingen, 1999), pp. 37-56. AMSLER, S., Aggée, Zacharie 1-8 (CAT, Neuchâtel-Paris, 1981). ANDERSEN, F.I. and FREEDMAN, D.N., Hosea (AB 24, New York, 1980). -, Micah (AB 24E, New York, 2000). APTO WITZER, V., "Asenath, the Wife of Joseph", HU CA 1 (1924), pp. 239-306. - Parteipolitik der Hasmonäerzeit im rabbinischen und pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum (VAKMF 5, Vienna, 1927). AVIGAD, N., "A New Class of Yehud Stamps" IEJ1 (1957), pp. 146-153. -, Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive (Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 4, 1975). BALDWIN, J.G., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TOTC, Leicester, 1972). - , "Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the OT", TB 23 (1972), pp. 117-24. BARSTAD, H.M., The Myth of the Empty Land (SOFS 28, Oslo, 1996). -, The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah. "Exilic " Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40-55 (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Oslo, 1997). BARTHÉLÉMY, D., Critique textuelle de l'ancien testament, 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations

( O B O 50/2, Göttingen, 1986).

-, Critique textuelle de l'ancien testament, 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes (OBO 50/3, Göttingen, 1992). BARTON, J., Reading the Old Testament (London, 1984). BECKWITH R.T., "The Pre-History and Relationships of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes: A Tentative Reconstruction", RQ 41 (1982), pp. 3-46. BENNETT, T.B., "Malachi", Hosea-Malachi (BBC 7, Nashville, 1972). BEN ZVI, E., A Historical-Critical Study of the Book ofZephaniah (BZAW 198, Berlin, 1991).

Berlin, A., Zephaniah (AB 25A, New York, 1994).

292

Bibliography

BEUREN, W.A.M., Haggai-Sacharja 1-8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN, Assen, 1967). - , "Isa. 56:9-57:13 - An Example of the Isaianic Legacy of Trito-Isaiah", Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Essays in Honor of Jürgen C.H. Lebram (eds. J.W. van Henten, H.J. de Jonge, P.T. Van Rooden and J.W. Wesselius, Leiden, 1986), pp. 48-64. - , "Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple? An Intertexual Inquiry into Isa. 66.1-6", Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma, Kamplen, 1989), pp. 53-66. - , "The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah 'The Servants of YHWH'", JSOT 47 (1990), pp. 6787. - , "Isaiah Chapters LXV-LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah", Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J.A. Emerton, VTSup 43, Leiden, 1991), pp. 20421. BIC, M., Das Buch Sacharja (Berlin, 1962). BLANK, S.H., "'And All Our Virtues' - An Interpretation of Isa 64 4b-5a", JBL 71 (1952), pp. 149-54. BLENKINSOPP, J., "Second Isaiah - Prophet of Universalism", JSOT 41 (1988), pp. 83103. -, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL, Philadelphia, 1988). - , "A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period", CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 5-20. -, Sage, Priest, Prophet. Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (LAI, Louisville, Kentucky, 1995). - , "The Judean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction", CBQ 60 (1998), pp. 2 5 ^ 3 . -, Isaiah 56-66 (AB 19B, New York, 2003). BONNARD, P.E., Le second Isaïe, son disciple et leurs éditeurs Isaïe 40-66 (EBib, Paris, 1972). BOSSHARD. E., and KRATZ, R.G., "Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch", BN 52 (1990), p. 27-46. BOSSMAN, D., "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined", BTB 9 (1979), pp. 32-38. BOTTERWECK, G.J., "Ideal und Wirklichkeit der Jerusalemer Priester. Auslegung von Mal 1,6-10; 2,1-9", BibLeb 1 (1960), pp. 100-9. BRICHTO, H.C., The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS 13, Philadelphia, 1963). BRIGHT, J., Jeremiah (AB 21, New York, 1965). BROWN, F . , DRIVER, S . R . , a n d BRIGGS, C . A . , A Hebrew

and English

Lexicon

of the

Old

Testament (Oxford, 1907). BROWNE, L.E., "A Jewish Sanctuary in Babylonia", JTS 17 (1916), pp. 400-1. -, Early Judaism (Cambridge, 1929). BRUGGEMANN, W., Isaiah 40-66 (WeBC, Louisville, Kentucky, 1998). BUDD, P.J., Leviticus (NCBC, London, 1996). BUDDE, K., "Zum Text der drei letzten kleinen Propheten", ZA W 26 (1906), pp. 1-28. CALVIN, J., Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol. 5 Zechariah and Malachi (Transi. J. Owen, The Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, 1849). CARROLL, R.P., "Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apocalyptic?", JSOT 14 (1979), pp. 3-35. CATHCART, K.J., and GORDON, R.P., The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14, Edinburgh, 1989).

Bibliography

293

CHARY, T., Aggée-Zacharie, Malachi (SB 5, Paris, 1969). CHILDS, B.S., Isaiah (OTL, Louisville, Kentucky, 2001). CHEYNE, T.K., The Prophecies of Isaiah, II (London, 1881). -, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London, 1895). CLINES, D.J.A., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCBC, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984). - , "Haggai's Temple Constructed, Deconstructed and Reconstructed", Second Temple Studies 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period (eds. T.C. Eskenazi and K.H. Richards, JSOTS 175, Sheffield, 1994), pp. 60-87. CODY, A., "When is the Chosen People Called a Goy?", VT 14 (1964), pp. 1-6. -, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35, Rome, 1969). COGGINS, R.J., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (OTG, Sheffield, 1987). CONRAD, D„ "Zu Jes 65 3b", ZAW80 (1968), pp. 232-34. CONRAD, E.W., Zechariah (Sheffield, 1999). CROSS, F.M., "The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri", BA 26 (1963), pp. 110-21. - , "Papyri of the Fourth century B.C. from Dâliyeh: A Preliminary Report on Their Discovery and Significance", New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (eds. D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield, Garden City, 1969), pp. 41-62. - , "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration", JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18. DAHOOD, M, "Textual Problems in Isaiah", CBQ 22 (1960), pp. 400-9. - , "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV", Biblica 47 (1966), pp. 403-19. - , and T. PENAR, "Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs", Ras Shamra Parallels, Fischer, AnOr 49, Rome, 1972), pp. 73-382.

1, (ed. L.R.

DAVIES, G.I., "The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah", The Book of Isaiah (ed. J. Vermeylen, Leuven, 1989), pp. 93-120. DAY, J., Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (UCOP 41, Cambridge, 1989). DELITZSCH, F., Das Buch Jesaia (Leipzig, 1889). DENTAN, R.C., Malachi

(IB, 6, Nashville, 1950).

DOZY, R., Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes (Leiden, Paris, 1927 - second edition). DRIVER, G.R., "Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets", Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Presented to T.H. Robinson (ed. H.H. Rowley, Edinburgh, 1950), pp. 52-72. - , "Isaianic Problems", Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers (ed. G. Wiessner, Wiesbaden, 1967), pp. 43-57. DRIVER, S.R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (1902, Edinburgh). -, The Minor Prophets II (CB, Edinburgh, 1906). DUHM, B., Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen, 1922), p. 423, K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (KHAT, Tübingen, 1900). -, Die zwölf Propheten, in den Versmassen der Urschrift übersetzt (Tübingen, 1910). DUMBRELL, W.J., "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms", RTR 35 (1976), pp. 4 2 52. EHRLICH, A.B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 4 (Leipzig, 1912). -, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 5 (Leipzig, 1912). ELLIGER, K., Die Einheit des Tritojesaia (Jesaia 56-66) (BWANT 3/9, Stuttgart, 1928). -, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, II (ATD, Göttingen, 1959). EWALD, G.H.A., The Prophets of the Old Testament, IV (Edinburgh, 1880).

294

Bibliography

FENSHAM, F.C., Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT, Grand Rapids, MI., 1983). FLSHBANE, M., "Form and Reformulation of the Biblical Priestly Blessing", J AOS 103 (1983), pp. 115-121. -, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985). FISCHER, I., Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7-64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung (SBB 19, Stuttgart, 1989). FISCHER, J., Das Buch Isaias II. Kapitel 40-66 (HSAT, Bonn, 1939). FISCHER, R.W., "The Herald of Good News in Second Isaiah", Rhetorical Criticism. Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (eds. J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler, Pittsburgh, 1974), pp. 117-32. FLOYD, M.H., "Cosmos and History in Zechariah's view of the Restoration (Zech 1:76:15)", Problems in Biblical Theology. Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (eds. H.T.C. Sun and K.L. Eades, Grand Rapids, MI., 1997), pp. 125 44. -, Minor Prophets, 2 (FOTL 22, eds. R.P. Knierim, G.M. Tucker and M.A. Sweeney, Grand Rapids, MI./ Cambridge, UK, 2000). FOHRER, G., Das Buch Jesaja, 3 (ZBK, Zürich, 1964). GADD, C.J., Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East (London, 1948). GEIGER, A., Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau, 1857). GERSTENBERGER, E.S., Das Dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD 6, Göttingen, 1993). GIBSON, J.C.L., Davidson 's Introductory Hebrew Grammar - Syntax (Edinburgh, 1994). GLAZIER-MCDONALD, B., Malachi, the Divine Messenger (SBLDS 98, Atlanta, 1987). - , "Intermarriage, Divorce and the bat-el nekär. Insights into Mai 2:0-16", JBL 106 (1987), pp. 603-11. GOLDENSTEIN, J., Das Gebet der Gottesknechte. Jesaja 63,7 - 64,11 im Jesajabuch (WBANT 92, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2001). GRÄTZ, H., Emendationes in Plerosque Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Testamenti Libros (Breslau, 1892). GRUBER, M., "The Many Faces of Hebrew t n s NtM >Lift up the Face