The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’: Luke's Model from Isaiah for the Disciples in Luke–Acts 9780567662163, 9780567656520, 9780567656537

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

535 Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS AS THE ‘SERVANT’

Luke’s Model from Isaiah for the Disciples in Luke–Acts

Holly Beers

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

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

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 Paperback edition fi rst published 2016 © Holly Beers, 2015 Holly Beers has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56765-652-0 PB: 978-0-56767-190-5 ePDF: 978-0-56765-653-7 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beers, Holly. The followers of Jesus as the servant : Luke’s model from Isaiah for the disciples in Luke-Acts / by Holly Beers. – 1 [edition]. pages cm. – (Library of New Testament studies; 535) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-567-65652-0 (hardback) 1. Bible. Luke–Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. Acts–Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Servant of Jehovah–Biblical teaching. 4. Jesus Christ–Servanthood–Biblical teaching. 5. Bible. Isaiah, XL-LXVI–Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS2589.B44 2015 226.4’06–dc23 2014030898 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 535 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

For Max

CONTENTS Abbreviations Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION: JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES AS THE SERVANT Chapter 2 INTERTEXTUALITY: PHILOSOPHY AND METHOD I. Introduction a. Critique b. The Problem of Objectivity c. Readers, Authors, the Other, and Interpretive Oppression II. Epistemological Reconstruction: Positivism, Phenomenalism, and Storied Critical Realism a. Fully Human Knowing, Veri¿cation, and Intentionality III. Epistemological Reconstruction: Speech Act Theory a. A Speech Act in Three Aspects b. Intentional and Conventional Speech Acts c. The Implied Author and Implied Reader, and the Text as a Speech Act IV. Intertextuality and Luke–Acts a. How a Text Uses Another Text b. Metalepsis and Luke’s Implied Reader c. Criteria for Detecting Allusions and Echoes d. Dialogical Intertextuality and Luke’s Purpose Chapter 3 ISAIAH AND THE SERVANT I. Introduction a. Isaiah 40–41: The Co-Text of the Servant – The New Exodus b. Isaiah 42–48: My Servant Israel c. Isaiah 49–50: An Expansion of the Servant’s Task d. Isaiah 51–53: The Climax of the Servant’s Task 1

xiii

1

6 6 9 11 12 14 17 19 20 20 21 23 23 25 27 29

31 31 34 37 38 39

viii

II.

Contents

Isaiah 54–66: The Vindication of the Servant – the Realization of the New Exodus a. Isaiah 54–60: The Community of the Servants b. Isaiah 61: A Non-Traditional Servant Song c. Isaiah 62–66: The Final Vindication of God’s Servants

Chapter 4 SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM AND THE SERVANT I. Introduction II. The Old Testament a. Zechariah b. Daniel c. The Septuagint (LXX) III. The Dead Sea Scrolls a. Texts that Employ the New Exodus Theme from Isaiah b. Allusions to Servant Texts 1. 1QS (Community Rule) 2. 1QIsaª (Qumran Isaiah Scroll A) 3. 4Q540 and 4Q541 (Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi) 4. 4Q491c, 4Q427 fragment 7, 4Q471b, 4Q491 fragments 11 and 12, 1QHª 25.35–26.10 (Self-Glori¿cation Hymn) 5. 11Q13 (Melchizedek) 6. 4Q521 (Messianic Apocalypse or On Resurrection or Messiah of Heaven and Earth) 7. 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q427–432 (Thanksgiving Hymns) 8. 4Q436 and 4Q437 (Barki Naphshi) 9. CD (Damascus Document) IV. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha a. Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Sirach or Ecclesiasticus) b. Parables (Similitudes) of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) c. Wisdom of Solomon d. Psalms of Solomon e. 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees f. Testament of Benjamin V. Other Relevant Texts a. Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the Peshitta b. Targum Isaiah (Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel) c. The New Testament d. The Synagogue and Rabbinic Material VI. Excursus: Luke and Greco-Roman Imitation VII. Conclusion: Luke as a ‘Typical’ Second Temple Author 1

41 42 44 46

49 49 51 51 52 55 60 60 63 63 65 66

66 69 70 71 73 73 74 74 75 77 79 79 80 80 80 81 81 82 83 84

Contents

Chapter 5 LUKE AND THE SERVANT I. Introduction a. A Narrative Reading of Luke’s Narrative Method b. Luke, Isaiah, and the Servant c. Other Preliminary Matters: Genre, Luke’s Use of the LXX, and His Audience II. Luke 1–2: The Birth Narratives a. Isaianic New Exodus Vocabulary b. A Political Restoration for Israel? c. Israel as God’s Servant and the Bene¿ciary of His Promises d. Simeon, Anna, and Isaiah 1. A Closer Look: Simeon’s Song and the Isaianic Servant III. Luke 3–8: Enacting Isaianic Restoration as the Servant a. Jesus and the Disciples as the Servant b. The Vocation of ‘Release’ c. The Problem of Division d. An Isaianic Answer to the Question of Identity 1. A Closer Look: John the Baptist’s Mission and Jesus’ Baptism (3.1-6, 21-22) 2. A Closer Look: Jesus’ Sermon in Nazareth and His Ensuing Mission (4.16-43) 3. A Closer Look: The Beatitudes and Eschatological Reversal for the Servants (6.20-25) IV. Luke 9–19: Journeying with Jesus – Training in Servanthood a. Mission and Rejection/Division b. Identity/Passion Predictions 1. A Closer Look: Jesus’ Passion Predictions and Trans¿guration, and Suffering/Passion for his Disciples (9.22-36; 44; 12.50; 13.33-34; 17.25; 18.31-33) V. Luke 20–24: The Climax of Jesus’ Servant Task and Its Transfer to His Disciples a. A Quote from Isaiah and Other Allusive Uses of Isaianic Language b. Conceptual Allusions

1

ix

85 85 87 88 89 91 91 93 94 94 95 97 98 98 99 100 101 103

105 107 107 109

110 113 114 115

Contents

x

c. 1.

The Disciples’ Commission as the Servant A Closer Look: The Transfer of the Servant Mission – Jesus Completes His Task and Commissions His Followers (with a Special Focus on Lexical Ties, Luke 21–24)

Chapter 6 ACTS AND THE SERVANT I. Acts 1–2: The Inauguration of the Disciples’ Servant Mission a. Suffering, Death, Resurrection, and the Ascension (as Exaltation and Vindication) b. The Holy Spirit c. Chosen d. Witness and Release e. Mission to Israel and the Nations 1. A Closer Look: The Integration of Servant Themes in Acts 1.8 II. Acts 3–7: Servant Activity in Jerusalem a. Servant Vocabulary Used of Jesus and the Disciples b. Isaiah 50 and 53: A Cluster of Related Servant Themes 1. A Closer Look: The Servant in Peter’s Speech (3.11-26) III. Acts 8–12: To Judea, Samaria, and Beyond a. Isaiah 53, Jesus, and the Disciples b. New Exodus Imagery c. Proclaiming Good News: Whose Task? d. Servant Terminology and Actions e. The Gentiles and Israel 1. A Closer Look: Isaiah, Philip, and the Ethiopian Eunuch (8.26-40) 2. A Closer Look: Saul’s Call to, and Ananias’ Enactment of, the Servant Vocation (9.10-19) 3. A Closer Look: Cornelius and Gentile Eligibility for the Servant Task (10.1-48) IV. Acts 13–20: A Focus on the ‘Ends of the Earth’ (Gentiles) a. New Exodus Language and Imagery b. To the Jew First, then the Gentile c. The Bright Side of the Servant Task

1

118

119

126 126 126 128 129 130 130 131 133 134 136 138 140 141 142 143 145 146 147 149 151 154 155 156 158

Contents

d.

The Dark Side of the Servant Task A Closer Look: Paul’s Speech in Pisidian Antioch and the Servant (13.16-52) 2. A Closer Look: Paul’s Farewell Speech and Isaiah (20.18-35) V. Acts 21–28: Paul, the Servant, and the Climactic Ends of Isaiah and Acts a. Suffering, Rejection (i.e. Division) and the Gentiles b. A Chosen, Innocent Witness c. Isaianic New Exodus Language 1. A Closer Look: Paul’s Speech to the Jews and Servant Themes (22.1-21) 2. A Closer Look: The Servant in Paul’s Speech Before Agrippa (26.2-32) 3. A Closer Look: The Servant and the Conclusions of Acts and Isaiah (Acts 28.17-31; Isaiah 65–66)

xi

158

1.

160 164 166 166 167 168 169 170 173

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION

176

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

180 194 210

1

ABBREVIATIONS Old Testament Gen. Exod. Lev. Deut. Ps. (pl. Pss.) Isa. Jer. Dan. Zech.

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Deuteronomy Psalms Isaiah Jeremiah Daniel Zechariah

Apocrypha or Deutero-Canonical Books Wis. Bar. 2 Macc.

Wisdom of Solomon Baruch 2 Maccabees

New Testament Mt. Mk Lk. Jn Acts Rom. 1 Cor. 2 Cor. Gal. Phil. 1 Pet.

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Philippians 1 Peter

Pseudepigrapha 1 En. 4 Macc. Pss. Sol. T. Mos.

1 Enoch 4 Maccabees Psalms of Solomon Testament of Moses

Abbreviations

xiv

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q427–432 1QM 1QS 1QIsaª 4Q491c, 4Q427 fragment 7, 4Q471b, 4Q491 fragments 11 and 12, 1QHª 25.35–26.10 4Q434, 4Q436, 4Q437 4Q521 4Q540 and 4Q541 11Q13

Damascus Document Thanksgiving Hymns War Scroll Community Rule Qumran Isaiah Scroll A

Self-Glori¿cation Hymn Barki Naphshia, c, d Messianic Apocalypse or On Resurrection or Messiah of Heaven and Earth Aramaic Apocryphon of Levi Melchizedek

Bibliographical Sources AB AnBib ATAbh BASOR BBR BDAG

BETL BFCT BLit BSac BTB BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CBQ CRBS DSD EdF ExpTim FAT FB FBBS FRLANT HTKNT HTR 1

Anchor Bible Analecta biblica Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. William Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 3rd edn, 1999) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Bibel und Liturgie Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Dead Sea Discoveries Erträge der Forschung Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Facet Books, Biblical Series Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review

Abbreviations Int JAAR JBL JETS JJS JPTSup JRT JSem JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup KAT LD LQ MTSR Neot NICNT NovT NovTSup NTS ÖTK OTP OTS PTMS RB RevQ SBLMS SBLSCS SBT SNT SNTA SNTSMS STDJ SUNT TDNT

TFT-Studies THKNT TTKi TU TynBul TZ VT VTSup 1

xv

Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Supplement Series Journal of Religious Thought Journal of Semitics Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament Lectio divina Lutheran Quarterly Method and Theory in the Study of Religion Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Testament Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York, 1983) Old Testament Studies Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studies in Biblical Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids, 1964–) Theologische Faculteit Tilburg Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke Texte und Untersuchungen Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements

xvi WBC WUNT ZAW ZNW ZTK

1

Abbreviations Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES AS THE SERVANT

My thesis is that Luke1 builds aspects of his portrayal both of Jesus and the disciples in Luke–Acts on the human agent of the Isaianic New Exodus (NE) in Isaiah 40–66, the servant. In the Isaianic NE the servant is integral to the restoration; the servant’s mission being embodied is, to a great extent, how the NE comes to fruition.2 The servant connection is at times explicit, as Jesus is identi¿ed with the servant in Lk. 4.18-19 (quoting Isa. 61.1-2 [with 58.6]); Lk. 22.37 (citing Isa. 53.12); and Acts 8.32-33 (citing Isa. 53.7-8). Regarding the disciples, Isa. 49.6 is quoted by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13.47 in reference to themselves, though a focus only on quotations is too limiting. Allusions to servant passages abound (e.g. Acts 26.18 suggestively alludes to Isa. 42.7, 16). Luke’s point is that Jesus ful¿lls the servant role par excellence, but that his followers, in Luke but especially in Acts, also embody that vocation. M. D. Hooker, K. D. Litwak, D. L. Bock, R. I. Denova, D. W. Pao and P. Mallen3 have all investigated the use of Isaiah in Luke–Acts, but none

1. By ‘Luke’ I mean the implied author, which I will discuss below. 2. W. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), p. 13; P. D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66 (Int; Louisville: John Knox, 1995), pp. 6, 11. 3. M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK, 1959); K. D. Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke–Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup, 282; London: T&T Clark International, 2005); D. L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup, 12; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1987); R. I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke–Acts (JSNTSup, 141; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1997); D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002); P. Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke–Acts (LNTS, 367; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008).

2

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

of them argue extensively that Luke paints Jesus and his disciples as the Isaianic servant. The reasons for this are varied and include the focus of each and/or their hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps the most famous discussion of the servant motif in relation to Jesus is that of Hooker. However, her larger concern is not simply the NT use of the OT but the atonement, and whether the doctrine originated with Jesus or his followers. The atonement thus brackets her discussion, making Isaiah 53, with its notion of vicarious suffering, an important and problematic passage in its co-text as well as in Luke and Acts.4 Though she is careful to point out that in Isaiah the servant is predominantly the collective ¿gure of Israel,5 her minimal investigation of the Second Temple sources restricts her ability to see the plausible presence and function of the servant motif in NT texts.6 It is not surprising, then, that her ¿nal results are negative: the Synoptics do not give conclusive proof that Jesus saw himself as the servant,7 and other NT works such as Acts and Paul’s letters give ‘little evidence that the Servant-Christology held any important place in Christian thought of the New Testament period’.8 Hooker is too preoccupied with Isaiah 53 and the servant’s suffering, and this limits her ability to see the multi-faceted nature of the servant’s experience and task. She also focuses almost exclusively on Jesus as opposed to his followers, though this is understandable in light of her conclusion. Litwak is interested in proving that Luke’s agenda is to validate the Jewish-Gentile church in Acts as God’s true people,9 and his ecclesial focus is thus related to my project. However, his scope is much broader, including not just Isaiah but the various OT passages quoted and especially alluded to in Luke–Acts. He does not wish to subordinate any of the source texts to a larger ‘programmatic’ text, and emphasizes the importance of letting each aspect and echo be heard on its own terms.10 He trumpets Luke’s pervasive use of the OT, claiming it ‘play(s) a critical hermeneutical role in shaping the entirety of Luke’s narrative’.11 His overall goal, then, is to focus ‘upon the way in which Luke shaped or 4. Hooker, Jesus, pp. 45–8. 5. Ibid., Chapter 2. 6. Ibid., Chapter 3. 7. Ibid., p. 102. 8. Ibid., p. 128. 9. Litwak, Echoes, p. 32. 10. Ibid., p. 31. 11. Ibid., p. 1. 1

1. Introduction

3

“framed” his account’12 with Israel’s Scriptures, thus giving cues to the attentive reader or hearer in their understanding of the OT context/ parameters of the story of Jesus and his followers. I too argue that Luke’s use of Scripture shapes his portrayal not just of Jesus but also his followers, though my focus is narrower, in that I am primarily interested in the book of Isaiah as the scriptural source (though, where relevant, I discuss other possible OT intertexts). Bock’s study centers on christology rather than ecclesiology, and because of this he necessarily excludes some of the texts relevant to my project’s focus on the disciples. He does make the point that Jesus is depicted as the servant in Lk. 22.37 (citing Isa. 53.12),13 though he does not consider the larger Isaianic and Lukan co-texts and the implications for Jesus’ followers. His case is that ‘Luke’s use of the OT for Christology involves the direct proclamation of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ promised in the Scriptures’, and he calls Luke’s methodology ‘proclamation from prophecy and pattern’.14 Bock ends his study with Acts 13, arguing the supreme lordship of Jesus (which for him is built upon the foundational servant-messiah category) is established by Acts 10, and that Luke’s christology ends three chapters later.15 Because his energy is restricted to Luke’s portrayal of Jesus, he does not demonstrate how the identity of the disciples is intricately related to that of Jesus. Denova’s method is literary criticism, and she interprets Luke–Acts within the larger narrative grid of Isaiah. She critiques scholars like Bock who have not seen a great deal of scriptural inÀuence beyond Acts 13 or 15, insisting that a recognition of ‘ful¿llment’ and ‘restoration’ texts from the OT leads to a different conclusion.16 More speci¿cally, she claims the author’s main point is that ‘everything foretold by the prophets concerning the “last days” has been accomplished among us’.17 To recognize this, interpretive attention must focus not upon individual citations or motifs but on the relationship between the ful¿lled prophetic tradition and the narrative of Luke–Acts.18 She argues that Luke constructs his narrative events from ¿ve Isaianic themes: the prediction of a 12. Ibid., p. 2. 13. Bock, Proclamation, pp. 264–5. 14. Thus OT patterns (not just predictions) may also culminate in Jesus. Ibid., p. 274. 15. Ibid., p. 279. 16. Denova, Things Accomplished, p. 19. She admits some scholars note scriptural inÀuence on the ‘rejection’ episodes in the latter part of Acts. 17. Ibid., p. 20. 18. Ibid., p. 24. 1

4

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

remnant; the release of the captive exiles; the inclusion of the nations who worship God; prophetic condemnation of the unrepentant; and the restoration of Zion.19 Three literary devices of scriptural citations, biblical typology, and narrative parallelism help the reader to recognize the themes in Luke’s narrative.20 While Denova’s approach allows her to see the connections between Jesus and his followers, including the way the latter ‘complete’ the claims inaugurated by Jesus,21 she does not focus on the servant motif from the second half of Isaiah. Because her main OT source is Isaiah, many of our emphases do overlap, though my distinct focus is largely unnoticed in her project. Pao has argued that Luke develops a narrative NE theme in his twovolume work. Using linguistic and thematic coherence he traces the NE motif from Isaiah 40–55 in Acts, with the word as the agent who travels on the exodus journey.22 His case is well argued, though a major weakness is the that pivotal ¿gure of the servant is rarely mentioned.23 In the Isaianic NE the servant is the agent of the restoration; the embodiment of his mission brings God’s promises to fruition.24 Pao makes an ecclesial claim regarding the restoration: it functions to assert that the group who experiences it, the group centered in Jesus, is the true people of God.25 I make a similar point regarding the servant: those who embody this Isaianic vocation thus prove their status as God’s faithful people. In this way I see my project as complementary to Pao’s. Mallen’s focus is on what he calls the ‘transformation’ of Isaiah in Luke–Acts, or the way in which Luke has re-used this sacred text of Israel. As part of his project he focuses on the servant ¿gure from Isaiah especially in its relation to Jesus, and his method, which accounts for quotations as well as lexical and conceptual allusions, allows him to construct a fairly comprehensive case. He is also the only scholar who argues in any detail that the followers of Jesus continue his mission as servant, seen especially in the quote of Isa. 49.6 in Acts 13.47.

19. Ibid., p. 26. 20. Ibid., p. 81. 21. Ibid., p. 29. 22. Pao, New Exodus, Chapter 5. 23. Ibid., pp. 32, 57, 76–7, 100–101, 116. These are the only places where the servant ¿gure is discussed in any detail. Another weakness of Pao’s work for my purposes is that his discussion ends with Isaiah 55. 24. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 13; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 6, 11. 25. Pao, New Exodus, p. 143. 1

1. Introduction

5

However, Mallen’s emphasis on Isa. 49.6 overshadows the other servant passages in Isaiah (e.g. 42.1-7; 49.1-6; 50.4-10; 52.13–53.12; 61.1-3), which are given little exposure. He claims the importance of Isa. 49.6 is seen in Acts in its programmatic mission for Jews and Gentiles,26 though this is but one of the ways that Jesus’ followers take up the Isaianic task. In sum, there is warrant for an exploration and analysis of Luke’s use of the multi-faceted servant motif from Isaiah. Before such an investigation can take place, however, preliminary matters such as philosophical parameters and intertextual method must be outlined.

26. Mallen, Reading, pp. 182–3. 1

Chapter 2

INTERTEXTUALITY: PHILOSOPHY AND METHOD

I. Introduction As I argued in my introduction, there is warrant for an investigation into Luke’s use of the servant motif from Isaiah. First, the notion of intertextuality plays a role, for Luke makes frequent use of Isaiah.1 How Luke appears to incorporate Isaiah takes account of how Jews in the Second Temple period were plausibly interpreting the book, which was, ¿rst, as a whole, and second, eschatologically; the second half of Isaiah with its vision of a servant of God as the agent of an unparalleled second exodus was a story in search of embodied reality. Various Jewish factions claimed ful¿llment of these passages in their groups; this background illuminates (what I argue is) Luke’s similar move.2 Because intertextuality is a popular term in recent works and is often used vaguely or in different ways, I will discuss it at this point.3 The person most often credited with coining the term is J. Kristeva, a FrenchBulgarian philosopher and literary theorist writing in the post-structuralist climate of 1960s’ France. Appropriating the work of Russian literary theorist M. M. Bakhtin, she is careful not to stress the simple 1. This is easily seen with a glance through the Greek NT (NA28 or UBS4) appendices. 2. See Chapter 4. 3. M. Fishbane labels the use of earlier texts by later biblical writers ‘innerbiblical exegesis’ in Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), p. 10. His approach has been labeled ‘intertextual’, though he operates without assuming or articulating the philosophical baggage often carried by the term. See also his essay ‘Types of Biblical Intertextuality’, in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (ed. A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø; VTSup, 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 39–44 (39), where he argues ‘intertextuality is the core of the canonical imagination’. Cf. A. C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (London: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 39; U. Broich and M. P¿ster, eds., Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985).

2. Intertextuality

7

concept of literary inÀuence, instead de¿ning intertextuality as the ‘transposition of one (or several) sign system(s) into another; but since this term has often been understood in the banal sense of “study of sources”, we prefer the term transposition because it speci¿es that the passage from one signifying system to another demands a new articulation’.4 In other words, a new context or frame of reference changes everything for the signi¿ed, though such contexts refer endlessly to other contexts and do not stabilize the boundaries of meaning.5 In Kristeva’s words: ‘If one grants that every signifying practice is a ¿eld of transpositions of various signifying systems (an inter-textuality), one then understands that its “place” of enunciation and its denoted “object” are never single, complete, and identical to themselves, but always plural, shattered, capable of being tabulated’.6 Her main point is the un¿nished text, which is always transforming and being transformed by other texts.7 Kristeva’s basic program has Àourished in literary circles, though to varying degrees among biblical scholars. Of course, some do not engage the philosophical parameters of this kind of intertextuality (e.g. Bock, Hays).8 For those who do, however, the most restrictive use comes in the form of those who cite Kristeva as inspiration for recognizing that texts are not isolated, but still prioritize authorial intention, even if meaning cannot be limited to it (e.g. Nielsen and Weren).9 4. J. Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language (trans. M. Waller; New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), pp. 59–60. 5. Cf. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 42. 6. Kristeva, Revolution, p. 60. 7. Kristeva also emphasizes the place of social conditioning as a relative and unstable constraint on meaning (Revolution, pp. 25, 29). Cf. Thiselton, New Horizons, pp. 129, 504. 8. D. L. Bock, ‘Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Luke’s Use of the Old Testament for Christology and Mission’, in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner; JSNTSup, 104; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, 3; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1994), pp. 280–307 (284); R. B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 173. See also Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 227 n. 60. 9. K. Nielsen, ‘Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible’, in Lemaire and Sæbø, eds., Congress Volume, pp. 17–31 (18–19). She also emphasizes the reader and his tradition. W. Weren, ‘Psalm 2 in Luke–Acts: An Intertextual Study’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Festschrift B. van Iersel; ed. S. Draisma; Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989), pp. 189–203 (190), insists on including diachronic factors and literary context. 1

8

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

A bit further to the left on the spectrum is an intertextual approach that does not privilege authorial intention but insists upon a certain autonomy for texts; this autonomy allows them to dialogue with other texts without being completely absorbed (e.g. Delorme). The reader is given more weight in this situation, though each choice of intertext may vary in its pro¿tability for textual interpretation, thus implying the presence of some kind of external barometer.10 However, because of the diversity of readers and the reader’s intertextual choices there is a limitless ‘virtual intertextuality of a text’11 leading to interpretive openness. A more radical approach removes external interpretive barometers altogether (including pro¿tability), de-privileging authorial intention and focusing on the reader and the (open-ended) process of the text as opposed to its sources and inÀuences (e.g. Derrida, Voelz, Beal).12 This means that a diachronic approach is critiqued as unhelpful and limiting, and priority is given to the synchronic. Relevant intertexts for a given text may be chronologically earlier or later than it, and because of this Àuidity of choice (by the reader) interpretation and meaning are in continual Àux. Intertexts may even not be ‘texts’ in the common sense, for verbal and non-verbal signs such as nature, relationships, and actions may qualify for this role.13 In this scenario the priority of the reader often leads to a focus on her ideology, for interpretation is the production of meaning and controlling it ‘is always an ideological activity’.14 A different way to state this is to avoid the term interpretation altogether and to use the notion of reading, which remains to a great extent ‘with texts and with words and does not totally and ¿nally put them aside in favor of some meaning or belief – authorial or historical – that is presumed to be what the texts and the words are about’.15 In this way intertextuality is used to level the 10. J. Delorme, ‘Intertextualities About Mark’, in Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, pp. 35–42 (35, 41). 11. Ibid., p. 35. 12. J. Derrida, Of Grammatology (trans. G. C. Spivak; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), pp. 43–4; J. Voelz, ‘Multiple Signs and Double Texts: Elements of Intertextuality’, in Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, pp. 27–34 (28); T. K. Beal, ‘Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production’, in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (ed. D. N. Fewell; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), pp. 27–39 (27–30). 13. Voelz, ‘Multiple Signs’, p. 34. Cf. P. D. Miscall, ‘Isaiah: New Heavens, New Earth, New Book’, in Fewell, ed., Reading Between Texts, pp. 41–56 (43). 14. Beal, ‘Ideology’, p. 28. 15. Miscall, ‘Isaiah’, p. 43. 1

2. Intertextuality

9

interpretive playing ¿eld by de-historicizing and de-contextualizing texts and language. A related focus is the reader’s lack of autonomy; just as texts are products of their time and cannot be read in isolation, so the reader is a product of the culture and codes of his time. Even more powerful is the claim that the reader can be only rudimentarily aware of his entrapment and the effect this has on interpretation. Within this constraint, however, the reader still has much interpretive freedom, though the emphasis is not on the reader so much as on the text, and on intertextuality as ‘less a name for a work’s relation to particular prior texts than a designation of [a text’s] participation in the discursive space of a culture’.16 The interpretive goal can thus be to understand the larger structures or systems of thinking of the time period in question and how readers exhibit them.17 Often the philosophical backdrop of instability in meaning for this most radical intertextuality is a phenomenology concerned with power and privilege. The fear is oppression of the weak by the strong, a delegitimization of some by others, which can take the form of prioritizing one tradition or interpretation over others. The goal, then, based on the notion of the perpetual interdependence of texts, is to eliminate the grounds for such a move, to ‘decenter’ the center.18 This translates into equality for every interpretation, no matter how varied. a. Critique While the weightier philosophical underpinnings of Kristeva’s brand of intertextuality have rightly stressed the automatic participation of authors, texts, and readers in the wider culture,19 such an intertextuality is not without its philosophical weaknesses. These weaknesses, however, cannot be critiqued from a modernistic ‘scienti¿c’ viewpoint,20 the positivism of which is philosophically bankrupt. A more nuanced epistemology is needed in addressing the shortcomings of a philosophically

16. J. Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 103. 17. E. van Wolde, ‘Trendy Intertextuality’, in Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, pp. 43–9 (45). Culler, Pursuit, p. 5, also appears to take this approach. Cf. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 496. 18. Advocates include Beal, ‘Ideology’, p. 31; Miscall, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 43, 45. 19. S. Moyise, ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, in The Old Testament in the New Testament (Festschrift J. L. North; ed. S. Moyise; JSNTSup, 189; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000), pp. 83–117 (15). 20. A. Schoors, ‘(Mis)use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis’, in Lemaire and Sæbø, eds., Congress Volume, pp. 45–59 (45), argues for ‘scienti¿c study’. 1

10

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

phenomenalistic intertextuality, beginning with its claim of openness and instability for all texts but also including the priority of the reader (as a helpless person of her time, culture, and codes) and her ideology for determining meaning, as well as the concern about privileging any larger interpretive power.21 My argument is that the intertextuality espoused by Kristeva and her followers is not on ¿rm philosophical footing. First, it is ultimately self-defeating, for it elevates itself to a universal even though such an intertextuality allows no universal.22 In other words, Kristeva’s claim that ‘any text is the absorption and transformation of another’23 is a fallacy; by claiming to be universally true it misrepresents reality.24 I claim that it is possible to stress that texts are always connected to other texts (and culture, codes, etc.) without negating each text’s integrity.25 This both/and intertextual approach ¿nds foundation in an epistemology that accounts for the intersubjectivity of everyday life. In Kristeva’s thought intersubjectivity and intertextuality are at odds;26 texts are semiotic systems divorced from persons (including authors) and phenomenal reality.27 Texts are thus intra-linguistic, not descriptive of the external world, which means that any notion of ¿nal textual meaning is problematic. While this view of intertextuality is often argued as a semiotic system, such a move (replacing intersubjectivity with intertextuality) ‘is a philosophical, not a semiotic or linguistic move’.28 If one asserts an endless delay of ‘true’ knowledge or contact with external reality, the interpretive goal becomes individual, relative meaning or an understanding of the culture and codes assumed by the text at hand.29 What this fails to realize is that the text’s writer has assumed the

21. J. H. Charlesworth, ‘Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek ha-Yahad’, in The Quest for Context and Meaning (Festschrift J. A. Sanders; ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 197–224 (201), calls for such an epistemology. 22. Thiselton, New Horizons, pp. 122, 130. Cf. B. F. Meyer, Reality and Illusion in New Testament Scholarship: A Primer in Critical Realist Hermeneutics (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1995), pp. 24, 41. 23. J. Kristeva, The Kristeva Reader (ed. T. Moi; New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), p. 37. 24. Charlesworth, ‘Intertextuality’, pp. 203–4. 25. Ibid., pp. 198, 201. 26. Kristeva, Reader, p. 37 (original emphasis): ‘the notion of inter-textuality replaces that of intersubjectivity’. 27. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 41; Charlesworth, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 203. 28. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 97 (original emphasis). 29. Culler, Pursuit, pp. 5, 103. 1

2. Intertextuality

11

codes of her culture by her act of writing, and these codes are an intersubjective reality.30 La langue is not the end point, for in using codes parole operates within contextual boundaries which limit meaning. I suggest that an understanding of codes and culture is a starting point; when placed within the larger horizon of intersubjective judgements and choices interpretation can begin to investigate meaning, intention and communicative action. Only within such horizons, which include the notions of worldview and story, can readers take interpretation beyond the text’s place in a culture and open the door for reader transformation as the text impacts the reader from outside the reader’s personal and/or reading community boundaries.31 In sum, an intertextually atomistic view of language is weak, for any philosophy of language must justify itself in its use in life.32 An intertextual program cannot account for the intentionally meaningful interpersonal communication that happens every day.33 Of course, humans cannot step outside language to critique their use of it, but even if we grant that humans do not have unmediated access to the extra-linguistic world, we are left with more options than non-realism. In other words, to carry this to the point of an individualistic, linguistic solipsism is to go too far.34 In life signs are intersubjective; they are grounded ‘in a pre-linguistic realm of shared practices’,35 in the larger storied worldviews of active human sign-users. b. The Problem of Objectivity It is just such a storied worldview and theory of communicative action that I will defend, though several more comments regarding a Kristevaesque approach are necessary ¿rst. Philosophically it is an all-or-nothing approach, and here enters its strange bedfellow: positivism. Though intertextuality critiques positivism’s claim to a true, objective interpretation, it apparently also craves absolute knowledge. This makes sense, for both positivism and phenomenalism assume the epistemological parameters set by the Enlightenment; their starting points are the same

30. Ibid., p. 101. Culler makes this point, though he (somewhat inconsistently, to my mind) prioritizes semiotic theory over contextual realities. 31. Thiselton, New Horizons, pp. 102, 537. 32. Ibid., pp. 115, 127; P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), pp. 1–9. 33. K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 202. 34. Thiselton, New Horizons, pp. 125–6. 35. Ibid., p. 125 (original emphasis), following Hubert Dreyfus. 1

12

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

but their conclusions are different. The former rejoices in the possession of certain knowledge, while the latter rejoices (or despairs) at the impossibility of any knowledge.36 There is a third viable option, for while humans may not have absolute knowledge, they have adequate knowledge, or human knowledge. This is the human condition,37 and an all-or-nothing approach to the epistemological problem of language and access to reality fails to see it.38 The need is for a nuanced critical realism that accounts for intertextuality’s critiques of naïve realism but also critically assesses its skepticism. While intertextuality is right to stress the shaping of all humans (and texts) by larger cultural codes that affect interpretation, this does not give license to validate any interpretation. The world may present itself to us through various ¿lters, but what is needed is not an interpretive free-forall based on an absolute denial that humans can be aware of or control those forces but rather development along epistemological lines of how humans know or understand anything. The epistemological category of story as it ¿ts within critical realism is relevant here, for only within the larger con¿nes of story does the notion of the individual ¿nd its true place. c. Readers, Authors, the Other, and Interpretive Oppression Critiques of the notions of author, reader, and other (in the Kristeva school) are also needed. Her basic approach appears to respect the reader as other in pursuit of freedom from interpretive oppression, but it fails to engage either the author or text as other because any beyond-the-reader meaning is inde¿nitely delayed. This seems to be an inappropriate way of respecting the other (of text or author), for what is apparently encouraged is not respect but indifference and avoidance. 39 Phenomenalistic intertextuality in fact refuses to see the author as a legitimate other, for the claim is that the author exists outside the text and is inaccessible.40 The text is considered an other by scholars such as

36. This basic case was argued by N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 32–5. See also Meyer, Reality, pp. 62–6; Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 300. 37. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 300. 38. J. Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), p. 144. 39. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 404, makes this point about deconstructionism, but it is also relevant here. Cf. Wright, New Testament, p. 64. 40. Cf. Ricoeur’s notion of the semantic autonomy of the text (Interpretation, pp. 29–30). 1

2. Intertextuality

13

Derrida,41 but ‘if meaning is the creation of the reader, how can the text ever be something “other”, with the power to affect us?’42 A text alone, then, is not a true other, for it assumes a human dimension. It is not a natural object like a pebble, which does not speak; it is created by a human, and only humans speak.43 It is not even enough to appeal to the ‘sense’ of a text, as Ricoeur does,44 for this ‘is logically inseparable from “the intention of the author”’.45 The human aspect gives signs their sense potential,46 which means a text-as-other assumes authorial presence. The author is then the ultimate other and deserves respect. Intertextuality (in the Kristeva guild) may admit that a historical author created the text, but still claim the author has no control after the text’s completion. Thus authorial intention, if even possible, is not accessible. However, a theory of language that prioritizes both parole and langue insists that language used in life (parole) occurs in contextual, communicative situations. Because only humans are capable of using the system of language, what is needed is a theory of language and interpretation that does justice to both sides of speaker and hearer, author and reader. I will argue below that the implied author and implied reader help here. Another need is a better understanding of human agency and intention. Gadamer claims ‘the hermeneutical reduction to the author’s meaning is just as inappropriate as the reduction of historical events to the intentions of their protagonists’.47 My basic contention and critique, however, is that without the intention of historical protagonists, their history is only a descriptive history of effects rather than an analysis of what the characters were attempting (and sometimes succeeding) intentionally to do.48

41. J. Derrida, Writing and Difference (trans. A. Bass; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 91. 42. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 368. 43. Ricoeur, Interpretation, p. 30. For him the author’s intention is a dimension of the text. Cf. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 216; Martin Soskice, Metaphor, p. 136; M. Turner, ‘Historical Criticism and Theological Hermeneutics of the New Testament’, in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 44– 70 (47). 44. Interpretation, p. 87. 45. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 109. 46. Ibid. 47. H.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (trans. J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall; London: Continuum, 2nd edn, 2006), p. 366. 48. See Wright, New Testament, pp. 91, 94, 111–12. 1

14

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

Speech act theory, which af¿rms ‘language as a communicative social practice’,49 enters here, for it asserts that the practice, or action, of speech is signi¿cant. Actions can only be understood when the actor’s intention is understood;50 if speech is action and texts embody speech, then text as speech equals text as action. It is thus not true that humans can only be rudimentarily aware of their cultural codes and traditions as van Wolde claims,51 for while they may assume these they may also use them to act intentionally within intersubjective contexts. It is important for the reader to recognize the historical situatedness of the text and author as legitimate others whose otherness cannot be conÀated into the reader’s person; such contextual placement is surely a limit on meaning. The goal is to enter the world of the text created by the (implied) author, for this world limits the scope of the text’s empirical parameters for interpretation without diminishing them.52 The reader ideally attempts both to understand the intentional action and meaning of the other and to be aware of personal bias. Of course, even when one is aware of his historical placement it is still true that he cannot stand outside his situation, but this is simply the human condition.53 II. Epistemological Reconstruction: Positivism, Phenomenalism, and Storied Critical Realism In order to bring resolution to the above issues a more philosophically nuanced epistemology is needed, and at this point critical realism ¿nds its place. Critical realism occupies a mid-range position on the spectrum from positivism to phenomenalism. While the dangers of positivism’s belief in and supposed hold on ‘objective’ knowledge based on empirical veri¿cation alone are well known,54 the dangers of phenomenalism are less known. Lack of complete knowledge does not equal zero knowledge. Wright calls this the ‘positivist trap, the false either–or of full certainty versus mere unsubstantiated opinion’.55 Phenomenalism seems to assume the safe, humble position by claiming that humans only can be sure of their sense-data (as opposed to the real experienced through sense-data).56 What is often 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 1

Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 214, in reference to Ricoeur. Ibid., p. 216. Van Wolde, ‘Trendy Intertextuality’, pp. 45–6. Cf. Gadamer, Truth, pp. 302, 305, 310. He calls this the fusion of horizons. Ibid., pp. 271–2, 298, 300–301. Wright, New Testament, pp. 32–3. Ibid., p. 34. Ibid.

2. Intertextuality

15

unrecognized, however, is that ‘it is as much a matter of judgment to hold that an object is not real but apparent as it is to hold that an object is not apparent but real’.57 Another problem is that its logical end point is solipsism: that I and I alone exist.58 Thankfully, the above positions are not the only options. Knowledge is possible, though we may not have absolute knowledge. We have, rather, human knowledge, adequate knowledge, and it is for this reality that critical realism wants to account.59 Critical realism, then, is an epistemology that acknowledges external reality (as separate from the knower), while also recognizing that the knower’s access to it is indirect and necessitates the hermeneutical spiral (i.e. dialogue) between the two (knower and reality).60 Knowledge of the real is not quickly assumed, for critical judgement and af¿rmation are required.61 Critical realism and phenomenalism agree the knower is not an autonomous ¿gure. The difference is critical realism insists the knower does have access to reality, though it is mediated through language which is socially oriented and relative to contexts. The need, then, is re¿nement of such access, though because of different contexts an exclusive theory of the ‘real’ world is not necessary (or possible). The realist may in fact be in error, but such is the risk of realism. The realist’s claim, however, is that the world does enlighten human perspectives on it, even though the latter may never exactly match the former.62 A strength of critical realism is its base in life, and life experience often testi¿es to successful communication, true judgements, and the acquisition of truth and knowledge. It is self-reversing to deny that this is so.63 Another strength of critical realism is its incorporation of the concepts of horizon64 and the more developed notion of story. Horizon, or ‘the limit of what one knows and cares about’,65 has limits because one’s 57. Meyer, Reality, p. 63. 58. Wright, New Testament, p. 35. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 126, argues ‘the critic cannot logically prove to me that he or she is not a projection of my mind, although he or she knows that this is not the case’ (original emphasis). 59. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 300. 60. Wright, New Testament, p. 35. 61. Meyer, Reality, p. 67. 62. Martin Soskice, Metaphor, pp. 131, 139, 149. Cf. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 323. 63. Meyer, Reality, pp. 22, 43–4. 64. This concept is important especially after Gadamer. 65. Meyer, Reality, p. 49. 1

16

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

horizon does not necessarily correspond to what is real and truth/ knowledge may be truncated because nothing outside of one’s horizon makes sense. Also, different people have different horizons, and this grounds their differences and further complicates the attainment of knowledge.66 However, critical realism insists that such a situation is not ¿nal: ‘One’s horizons change: not often perhaps, nor easily, but we do move from one set of horizons to another. Old horizons yield to new when it turns out that the old cannot accommodate some quite new and irresistibly persuasive truth or value.’67 This is especially helpful when applied to interpretation, for to understand another’s meaning one needs to align her horizons as closely as possible to the other’s; this movement is part of interpretive openness which expects truth and common understanding to be accessible.68 The concept of horizon is the logical jumping-off point for the notion of story, for both concepts are attempts to solve the epistemological problem of how humans know anything.69 To say that humans know things that ¿t within their horizons is helpful, but story makes the connection more speci¿c in a way that also has rami¿cations for the entry point of interpretation. Instead of working, as it were, in a bottom-up fashion (from sense-data to conclusions), a storied critical realism recognizes that ‘knowledge takes place…when people ¿nd things that ¿t with the particular story or (more likely) stories to which they are accustomed to give allegiance’.70 This insight is paramount: humans are storied creatures; we live our lives within the context of overarching stories, and it is only within that context that our actions make sense.71 We tell ourselves and each other stories, explicitly and implicitly (the most fundamental are cultural 66. B. F. Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament (Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 17; San Jose: Pickwick, 1989), p. 81. 67. B. F. Meyer, Christus Faber: The Master-Builder and the House of God (PTMS, 29; Allison Park: Pickwick, 1992), p. 11. 68. Meyer, Reality, p. 96. 69. My focus is story as an epistemological category, not as an antithesis to history (cf. the biblical theology movement and J. Barr). 70. Wright, New Testament, p. 37 (original emphasis). Similar points are made by A. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), Chapter 15; S. Crites, ‘The Narrative Quality of Experience’, JAAR 39 (1971), pp. 291–311 (291, 295–6). 71. Cf. S. E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup, 36; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1990), p. 199; MacIntyre, After Virtue, pp. 194–5. 1

2. Intertextuality

17

foundation myths), and these stories ground human existence by making sense of the world and partly construct worldviews,72 the grids through which humans view reality. Worldviews, however, can be reinforced or challenged, and this is story’s greatest development in comparison to horizon, for it is able to clarify how reinforcement and challenge happen. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this happens through story. While the worldview of a family, culture, and so on, is bolstered by its stories (which tell how and why each of these ‘worlds’ work), it may come into contact with a different story that undermines it. The most subversive stories do not attack directly, but rather are related to familiar stories and thus gain entrance and affect suppositions usually guarded.73 A storied critical-realist epistemology also helps to address the problem of meaning by correcting the de¿ciencies of positivism and phenomenalism. From the above, it follows that ‘the meaning of a story is its place in a worldview’.74 This is an argument for context, yes, but in a ‘worldviewish’ sense which extends beyond personal preference. In other words, this model safeguards the concerns of positivism (that knowledge can be had) and phenomenalism (the knower is part of the process) while critiquing them. It critiques the former by arguing that knowledge is a story or worldview category, not an empirical one, and it critiques the latter by stressing that knowledge is not private, for larger stories supply interpretive controls.75 a. Fully Human Knowing, Veri¿cation, and Intentionality Critical realism sets itself apart from the extremes of positivism and phenomenalism by making a distinction between elementary knowing (i.e. using the senses) and fully human knowing (i.e. using intelligence and reason),76 and here the process of critical realism becomes clear. Elementary knowing equates sense knowledge with reality, while fully human knowing uses sense knowledge to provide ‘data for higher-level operations that terminate in judgment’.77 Judgement is not the ¿rst step 72. Wright, New Testament, p. 40. Cf. T. Moritz, ‘Critical but Real: ReÀecting on N. T. Wright’s Tools for the Task’, in Renewing Biblical Interpretation (ed. C. Bartholomew, C. Greene, and K. Möller; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, 1; Cumbria: Paternoster, 2000), pp. 172–97 (185). 73. Wright, New Testament, p. 40. Also Hays, Faith, p. 229. 74. Wright, New Testament, p. 116. See also Moritz, ‘Critical’, p. 186. 75. Moritz, ‘Critical’, p. 180; Wright, New Testament, pp. 45, 117. 76. These are B. Lonergan’s categories, used by B. F. Meyer in, among other places, Critical, p. 10. 77. Ibid., p. xi. 1

18

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

after sense-data; that step is insight. Wonder about sense-data leads to insight, an active process of questioning and formulating a possible answer to that question. Such insight must be veri¿ed, which is pivotal for critical realism; suf¿cient evidence appropriate to the subject is needed, after which reasonable judgement is given. Of course, judgements may be incorrect if some evidence is overlooked or wrongly included; such is the risk of the critical realist. On the other hand, true judgements do happen, as life experience testi¿es.78 This process of veri¿cation is only validated within the larger categories of worldview and story. For in the question/answer framework described above, what counts even as a suitable question is dependent upon larger stories, as is the answer to the question.79 If one’s current story is de¿cient and therefore unable to account for the experienced reality and hypothesis (or story) about it (i.e. there’s no ‘¿t’), new or revised stories must be incorporated, and the successful one will be the one that best explains the sense-data. In other words, the question, or hypothesis, is not neutral, and neither is the answer. What counts is not a supposed objectivity, but rather how well the new or revised story ¿ts, including the simplicity of its outline, how it incorporates all the data, and how it relates to and critiques other stories.80 The basic hypothesis-and-veri¿cation model remains, in other words, but it is now storied. And such an epistemology is proven true not with the proofs of positivism, for ‘all epistemologies have to be, themselves, argued as hypotheses: they are tested not by their coherence with a ¿xed point agreed in advance, but (like other hypotheses, in fact) by their simplicity and their ability to make sense of a wide scope of experiences and events’.81 Intentionality also belongs within the sphere of storied critical realism, for a speaker’s intention can only be determined in reference to the storied layers of her worldview. How exactly her intention is accessible to others will be discussed in the next section on speech act theory; the important point at this stage is that a storied worldview gives determinacy to intention, which satis¿es critical realism’s desire for some kind of control in interpretation. Of course, as stated above, this epistemology involves the worldviews of all parties involved: the ‘interpretive 78. Meyer, Reality, pp. 1, 6, 24, 28, 68. 79. Wright, New Testament, pp. 37, 42. 80. Ibid., pp. 42–4. I. W. Scott, Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit (WUNT 2/205; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), p. 210, argues similarly in reference to Paul’s meta-story. 81. Wright, New Testament, pp. 45–6. See also Scott, Implicit Epistemology, pp. 237–8. 1

2. Intertextuality

19

hypothesis’ of the hearer, grounded by his worldview, must ‘¿t’ with the worldviews of the speaker in order for an interpretation of the former’s intention to be correct.82 III. Epistemological Reconstruction: Speech Act Theory One further development is necessary in my epistemological reconstruction, and that is speech act theory (SAT). SAT, as part of the stream of ordinary language philosophy, directly critiques various philosophical weaknesses of phenomenalistic intertextuality. In response to its nonrealism, focus on the reader and discounting of the author, SAT is critically real, based in life, and respectful of the author as an other. More speci¿cally, the reader-oriented focus of Kristeva’s program (among others) accounts for only half of SAT. SAT insists upon the incorporation of both reader and author without contending that the author is always successful in communicating intention. The implied author and implied reader are important here, for the implied reader is the ideal candidate for understanding whatever the author successfully embodied in the text. Ordinary language philosophy argues for a theory of language that ¿nds its basis in life experience and its speci¿c, contextual situations.83 In other words, ‘Ordinary language philosophy analyzes what we say when; circumstances and speci¿c situations are every bit as important as the words themselves’.84 The point is that the concern is communication, not just signi¿cation. Signi¿cation in the abstract is not helpful; language used in contextual situations is what matters.85 This insistence on language in life experience leads to a functional and descriptive, rather than explanatory, philosophy of language.86 SAT ¿nds its place here.87 82. Cf. Moritz, ‘Critical’, p. 186. 83. Ordinary language philosophers include (among others) L. Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, and J. Searle. The early Wittgenstein adhered to a traditional view of language, exempli¿ed especially in statements like ‘the proposition is a picture of reality’, in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922), 4.01. His later work is more philosophically nuanced and more relevant here. 84. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 209. 85. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (trans. G. E. M. Anscombe; repr., Malden: Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1997), secs. 49, 115, 132, 271. Cf. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 102. 86. H. C. White, ‘Introduction: Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism’, Semeia 41 (1988), pp. 1–24 (2). 87. J. L. Austin’s work, especially his famous How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), is the underlying foundation of this section, though the work of J. Searle, who developed Austin’s work, will take prominence. Cf. White, ‘Introduction’, p. 1. 1

20

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

a. A Speech Act in Three Aspects Ordinary language philosophy makes the point that ‘speaking a language is engaging in a (highly complex) rule-governed form of behavior’.88 In other words, speaking is doing; speaking is an action.89 This action is complex, for it includes not just the sign, word, or even the sentence, but how the sign or sentence is used in the speech act.90 The speech act, one of the means by which humans act upon one another, has three interconnecting aspects. There is the locution, or propositional content (e.g. the words spoken/on a page); the illocutionary act, or force of the propositional content (e.g. to argue); and the perlocutionary act, the consequence or effect of the illocutionary act (e.g. to persuade).91 Illocutionary force is achieved by a variety of means, including ‘word order, stress, intonation contour, punctuation, [and] the mood of the verb’.92 In other words, the propositional content is delivered by the speaker with an intended force to act upon the hearer in an intentional way.93 b. Intentional and Conventional Speech Acts SAT is also helpful for the concept of meaning in communication, for like storied critical realism, SAT insists that human intention is key. The important point is only humans can communicate; natural objects cannot. In speaking, then, both speaker and hearer must understand the intention for what it is.94 Of course, some dispute the notion of knowing another’s intention (e.g. BeDuhn),95 but such a view is refuted by daily experience. The notion of intention connects with the speech act in the illocutionary act, for the force of the illocution conveys the intention of the speaker. Intention, then, is part of the speech act itself.96 Its connection is 88. J. R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 12. Cf. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 209. 89. D. Patte, ‘Speech Act Theory and Biblical Exegesis’, Semeia 41 (1988), pp. 85–102 (89). 90. Searle, Speech Acts, p. 16. 91. Ibid., p. 25. 92. Ibid., p. 30. 93. See Searle’s SAT formula on ibid., p. 31. 94. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 210; Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 297; Searle, Speech Acts, p. 43. Cf. Ricoeur, Interpretation, p. 18. 95. J. D. BeDuhn, ‘The Historical Assessment of Speech Acts: Clari¿cations of Austin and Skinner for the Study of Religions’, MTSR 12 (2000), pp. 477–505 (500). 96. Meyer, Critical, p. 22. Cf. Q. Skinner, ‘On Performing and Explaining Linguistic Actions’, Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 82 (1971), pp. 1–21 (2, 16), where he connects illocution and intention. 1

2. Intertextuality

21

internal in the sense of an adverbial ‘directedness’. It is ‘the quality of addressing an utterance or a text to a person, persons, or situation “intentionally”, i.e. with some degree of context-speci¿city and involvement of will’.97 In other words, it is important to recognize that the extralinguistic world is affected through the intentional force of the illocution (i.e. the speaker does something to the hearer);98 this makes intention accessible in principle and avoids the critique of intention masquerading as the (internally inaccessible) motive of the speaker.99 Determining the meaning of a speech act involves not only intention but convention.100 BeDuhn argues we access illocutions by convention (not intention),101 but he fails to recognize that conventions help a hearer to understand the illocutionary intent or force of speech. Story is relevant here, for story and worldview are connected to convention. All are important contextual grounds for meaning; in other words, meaning is not anchored in consciousness (which for non-realists is unstable and contaminated by language), but in storied intersubjective interactions and convention.102 c. The Implied Author and Implied Reader, and the Text as a Speech Act Because speech acts are publicly accessible (as intersubjective realities) and intentionally meaningful (via illocutionary force) for a speaker, it follows that for an author the same is true; the author is a communicative agent.103 Fowl disagrees, arguing that SAT cannot ‘provide either a theory of meaning or the basis for arguing for the interpretive priority of the communicative intention of authors’.104 He calls it arbitrary and question-begging because we do not know what ‘meaning’ is, and he mentions other valid interpretive priorities (e.g. gender issues).105 Fowl’s careful distinctions appear overly skeptical, as especially his ‘problem of 97. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 599, following Wittgenstein and Searle (560). 98. Ibid., p. 597. 99. Cf. Q. Skinner, ‘Hermeneutics and the Role of History’, New Literary History 7, no. 1 (1975), pp. 209–32 (213–14). 100. Searle, Speech Acts, p. 45; Q. Skinner, ‘Conventions and the Understanding of Speech Acts’, Philosophical Quarterly 20, no. 9 (1970), pp. 118–38 (130–5). 101. BeDuhn, ‘Assessment’, p. 480. 102. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 213, referring to Wittgenstein, Austin, and Searle. 103. Ibid., pp. 213, 231. 104. S. E. Fowl, ‘The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture’, in Green and Turner (eds.), Between Two Horizons, pp. 71–87 (77). 105. Ibid., pp. 79–80. 1

22

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

meaning’ allows him to avoid heavy interpretive work. His main weakness is his truncated epistemology, which does not include critical realist story categories and is not based in life. In a SAT-based theory of authorial communicative intention it is still true that the author acts through writing, and as such releases the text and is distanced to a degree.106 However, all interpretive control is not lost, for the implied author, or ‘that sense of authorial presence, of an ordering mind whose values and beliefs “control” the text’,107 ¿lls this void. The implied author is a literary construct,108 and that is the point, for the implied author is the bridge between the speech act of the text and the empirical author. In other words, the empirical author releases the text, but the implied author’s intention is guarded as a function of the text. This means a text can function as a speech act. It is ‘a communicative act of a communicative agent ¿xed by writing’.109 Just as a legal will affects reality in a public sense, a biblical text may also affect extralinguistic reality and function as an act of judgement, love, promise, encouragement, or identity-formation.110 As a speech act, a text has propositional content, illocutionary force, and perlocutionary effect. These aspects are possible to communicate because writing preserves the signs of speech that indicate (to a degree at least) expression, tone, gesture, and so on. Such marks give an intersubjective structure to the event; in this way writing can be an illocutionary act.111 Just as contextual factors determine the meaning of spoken speech acts, a text is ¿xed by literary genre and relevant conventions, storied, social, and otherwise.112 To understand a text, then, is to understand the intended speech act of the implied author that is embodied by the text.113 This is where the implied reader is relevant, for the implied reader is a literary construct who shares the stories and symbolic world of the implied author and is the ideal interpreter of the text.114 106. This is Ricoeur’s point regarding the semantic autonomy of the text. 107. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 68. This distinction was ¿rst made by W. C. Booth, Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 269. 108. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 521, following Booth. 109. Vanhoozer, Meaning, p. 225 (original emphasis). 110. Thiselton, New Horizons, pp. 2, 17. 111. Patte, ‘Speech’, p. 89; Culler, Pursuit, pp. 116–17; Ricoeur, Interpretation, pp. 17–18. 112. Vanhoozer, Meaning, pp. 228, 343; Q. Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory 8 (1969), pp. 3–53 (43–4). 113. Skinner, ‘Meaning’, p. 48. 114. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 522. This is W. Iser’s label. See his The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to 1

2. Intertextuality

23

The intended meaning is whatever has been successfully embodied in the text.115 Intended meaning is intrinsic to the text. The writer may have an intended meaning in his mind,116 but the object of interpretation is the intended meaning as embodied in the text and secured by the implied author.117 The (empirical and implied) reader will bring meaning from his own resources, but a responsible empirical reader will make the effort to read well by aligning himself as closely as possible to the stories and position of the implied reader.118 IV. Intertextuality and Luke–Acts Within the framework expounded above, it is now possible to construct a viable intertextual theory and method that is also speci¿c to Luke– Acts.119 Because a storied epistemology and SAT assume certain historical parameters, intertextuality also does; in other words, for an intertextual connection (that interests me) between two texts to occur it must be chronologically possible.120 Later texts such as Luke–Acts use an earlier text like Isaiah, and it is theoretically possible to study the function of the latter in the former.121 Both Luke–Acts and Isaiah, then, while situated within a cultural and textual matrix that gives them life, are also unique and their integrity must be respected.122 a. How a Text Uses Another Text A text can use another text in ways that include citation, allusion, and echo. Citation is the most straightforward; a later text quotes directly from an earlier source. An allusion is more dif¿cult to categorize and Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), esp. pp. 274–84. Cf. Turner, ‘Historical Criticism’, p. 62; Scott, Implicit Epistemology, pp. 173–7. 115. Meyer, Critical, p. 19. 116. This approach does not deny the text may contain things the author did not intend. Cf. Wright, New Testament, p. 62. 117. Meyer, Reality, p. 94. 118. Ibid., pp. 3, 89. See also Moritz, ‘Critical’, p. 186. 119. M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); and P. Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence (SNTSMS, 145; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), have raised questions about the unity of these two works, though the general scholarly consensus links them in authorship, purpose, theology, etc. 120. Hays, Echoes, p. 30. 121. Charlesworth, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 200. 122. Ibid., pp. 198, 201. 1

24

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

detect in a text, though a semantic and pragmatic appraisal helps to clarify. Such an approach categorizes allusion ‘semantically as a species of the genus reference, and pragmatically as a speech act used to do things with words’.123 This means ¿rst that an allusion is a sign that directs the (empirical and implied) reader or hearer to a referent, and that such signs are understandable. Also, additional factors (both inter- and intra-textual) are evoked once the allusion is recognized, and this assumes a knowledgeable (implied) reader or hearer. The pragmatic side stresses the illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects of the allusion as a speech act.124 This de¿nition establishes allusion within a storied hermeneutic and SAT boundaries. On the practical side, allusions are often made through lexical or conceptual ties. Convincing allusions (to the servant motif, for example) often occur in a cluster in a passage; their viability is increased when their number grows. If an allusion can be dif¿cult to de¿ne and then use methodologically, an echo is even more dif¿cult. Because of this some draw the boundaries tightly in an effort to keep interpretive control. One example is Charlesworth’s approach, which uses only citation and echo, eliminating allusion. An echo is then de¿ned ‘as words in the quotation that appear either just prior to or just after the line in which the quotation appears’.125 Such narrow parameters are an attempt to move beyond subjective interpretation to the ‘possible intended meaning of an author, compiler, and perhaps community’.126 My contention is that it is not necessary to limit allusions or echoes in this way to gain interpretive control; a storied hermeneutic that accounts for communicative action via speech act theory (SAT) does a better job. Because of the conceptual connection between allusion and echo, I will use ‘allusion’ for seemingly obvious intertextual connections, and ‘echo’ for less obvious ones (though of course it is often dif¿cult to know what an insider would hear as an allusion or echo).127 The intention of the implied author, whom I will refer to as ‘Luke’,128 also plays a role 123. W. S. Kurz, ‘Intertextual Use of Sirach 48.1-16 in Plotting Luke–Acts’, in Evans and Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, pp. 308–34 (313). He references C. Perri, ‘On Alluding’, Poetics 7 (1978), pp. 289–307. 124. Perri, ‘On Alluding’, pp. 290–301, quoted in Kurz, ‘Intertextual Use’, p. 313. 125. Charlesworth, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 202. 126. Ibid., p. 202 n. 27. 127. I am following Hays, Echoes, p. 29. 128. The historical author is of course anonymous. In line with common scholarly opinion I assume he is a well-educated Gentile who is familiar with at least some of the stories and texts of Israel. For discussion see B. Witherington III, The 1

2. Intertextuality

25

here, as it cannot be absolutely answered. However, Luke does explicitly cite from Isaiah, and his storied, symbolic world has seemingly been indelibly shaped by Scripture. His use of Isaiah proves how embedded his discourse is in its language, stories, and structure, and that he assumes a knowledgeable (implied) reader’s ability to understand subtle interpretive points.129 Allusions and echoes, then, while not always certain, are only discerningly heard by trained, insider ears within this larger paradigm.130 Within the context of these admissions, the distinction between obvious and subtle intertextual references will be made.131 The ambiguity of the above contention leads to the admission that identifying allusions and echoes is not a scienti¿c process, but this is no surprise within a storied epistemology. The identi¿cation is rather ‘an art practiced by skilled interpreters within a reading community that has agreed on the value of situating individual texts within a historical and literary continuum of other texts’. In other words, it is an aesthetic judgement, but it is not purely arbitrary, for ‘there are norms and standards internal to the practice’.132 The aim may be historical (i.e. proving the inÀuence of a source) or literary and theological (i.e. understanding how the implied author uses a source text to communicate and thus act upon his readers).133 For me the latter is more of an emphasis, though the historical piece must be done well in order to do the theological piece well. b. Metalepsis and Luke’s Implied Reader It seems true, then, that ‘allusions and echoes are for those who have ears to hear’.134 This process of noticing and understanding allusions may be called metalepsis. It ‘is a rhetorical and poetic device in which one text alludes to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited. The result is that the interpretation of a Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 51–60; Denova, Things Accomplished, p. 12 n. 6. 129. For similar arguments see Hays, Echoes, p. 92; Moyise, ‘New Testament’, p. 19; R. W. Wall, ‘The Intertextuality of Scripture: The Example of Rahab (James 2:25)’, in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. P. W. Flint with T. H. Kim; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 217–36 (217–18). 130. Hays, Conversion, pp. 28–9, makes this point about Paul. 131. I am following Hays’ approach. See his Echoes, pp. 15, 29, 33. He cites Hollander, for whom echo does not depend on conscious intention. 132. Hays, Conversion, p. 30. 133. Ibid., pp. 30–1. 134. Ibid., p. 2. 1

26

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

metalepsis requires the reader to recover unstated or suppressed correspondences between the two texts.’135 What is invited and required is an imaginative act by a knowledgeable insider to the symbolic, storied world intimated by the text.136 The implied reader is the perfect knowledgeable insider.137 While much could be said about the implied reader of Luke–Acts, for my purpose it is a Gentile God-fearer or new convert who is familiar with the Hebrew Bible and its stories of Israel (and ¿nds them authoritative), speci¿cally the stories of the Exodus and Isaiah’s New Exodus (and, thus, the servant’s role within the NE restoration).138 Interpretive perfection is impossible for empirical readers, even if they assume as best as possible the stance of the implied reader, but, as I argued above, absolute knowledge does not equal zero knowledge. The goal ‘is literary or reading “competence”’139 in reference to the implied reader and her grasp of various interpretive factors (intention, convention, story).140 It is here that the inter-dependency of SAT and storied critical realism becomes even more apparent, for narrative speech acts such as Luke– Acts, which identify the followers of Jesus with the servant of Isaiah, are necessarily subtle. This, however, does not mean that interpretive clarity is unobtainable. Such indirect or allusive speech acts are even more powerful than direct ones, for they require an intimate insider to catch all the nuances. To be forced to clarify the point to an outsider, to one unaware of the various storied layers involved, weakens its force and ‘equally suggests that I have already in some way failed to do it’.141 The reality is ‘speakers do not usually articulate those parts of their meaning that they can assume of their hearers’.142 135. Ibid. (original emphasis). He made the term metalepsis famous in biblical studies. He credits J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). 136. Cf. M. Fishbane, ‘The Hebrew Bible and Exegetical Tradition’, in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. J. C. de Moor; Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 15– 30 (27); Hays, Echoes, pp. 23–4. 137. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 522. Cf. Scott, Implicit Epistemology, pp. 173– 7. 138. Theophilus is the named recipient. See Witherington, Acts, pp. 63–5; Litwak, Echoes, p. 60; Turner, ‘Historical Criticism’, p. 63 n. 36. 139. Thiselton, New Horizons, p. 517. 140. See R. S. Briggs, ‘The Uses of Speech-Act Theory in Biblical Interpretation’, CRBS 9 (2001), pp. 229–76 (237). 141. Skinner, ‘Conventions’, p. 128. Cf. Turner, ‘Historical Criticism’, pp. 49– 50. 142. Turner, ‘Historical Criticism’, p. 48. 1

2. Intertextuality

27

c. Criteria for Detecting Allusions and Echoes Allusions can be made, and metalepsis can occur, through vocabulary, themes, motifs, imagery, and/or symbols.143 A word or phrase may be enough to evoke an earlier text; in Second Temple circles, the recalling of an important theme like the Exodus plausibly brings with it a spectrum of texts and motifs (e.g. reward for the faithful; the faithfulness of God). This is simply how a storied worldview works. Speci¿cally, a writer may allude to a verse or section of a prior text or develop a theme throughout his work.144 To allow for this kind of diversity is important, as is the awareness that too stringent criteria may inappropriately limit results.145 Criteria for detecting an allusion or echo are important, though of course they cannot be labeled objective. While such standards are useful, the criteria are only part of the discussion. The theological import of a possible allusion is equally important.146 Hays made famous seven criteria for detecting allusions or echoes: availability, volume, recurrence or clustering, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction.147 For my study the availability of a source text (criterion one) is connected to the historical plausibility of an alleged allusion (criterion ¿ve), because both deal with the wider Second Temple environment and how Jews were using texts.148 In Chapter 4 I argue that Luke uses the book of Isaiah in ways similar to other Second Temple authors. Volume (criterion two) is ‘the degree of verbatim repetition of words and syntactical patterns’ and is dependent ‘on the distinctiveness, prominence, or popular familiarity of the precursor text’ and ‘the rhetorical stress placed upon the phrase(s) in question’.149 This is tied to criterion three, recurrence or clustering, which details how often a passage is cited or alluded to. A related point is that if there is a quotation, the likelihood of an allusion to the quoted

143. See the classi¿cation in I. Paul, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in Revelation 12’, in Moyise, ed., The Old Testament in the New Testament, pp. 256– 76 (261). 144. Ibid. 145. H. W. M. van Grol, ‘Exegesis of the Exile – Exegesis of Scripture? Ezra 9:6–9’, in de Moor, ed., Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, pp. 31–61 (40–1), critiques an intertextual approach that requires at least two common vocabulary words and a unique syntactical connection. His broader approach includes genreelements like the call to confession. 146. Paul, ‘Use’, p. 261. 147. Hays, Echoes, pp. 29–32. 148. Cf. Litwak, Echoes, p. 63. 149. Hays, Conversion, pp. 35–7 (original emphasis). 1

28

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

text is greater.150 Since Luke quotes from Isaiah in Lk. 4.18-19; 8.10; 19.46; 22.37; Acts 7.49-50; 8.32-33; 13.34, 47; and 28.26-27,151 allusions to Isaiah are even more likely. Criteria four and seven, thematic coherence and satisfaction, are also connected because they involve judgements about how well the allusion or echo ¿ts within its co-text and how it helps make sense of the larger section. For my project these criteria are ful¿lled because the servant passages in Isaiah 40–66 characterize both Jesus’ mission in Luke and that of his followers in Acts. Isaiah provides the necessary story parameters for why the disciples in Acts live (and preach the good news, suffer, etc.) the way they do. The history of interpretation (criterion six) is not always helpful, and because my argument has not been advanced in this form and scope it will not be important. However, the other six, falling into three main categories – availability and use in Second Temple Judaism, repetition and stress of a source text in a later text, and the coherence which recognition of the Isaianic servant allusions gives to my reading of Luke–Acts – are helpful and must be used together to garner the most comprehensive argument for the occurrence of an allusion or echo. Applying the above to Luke’s use of Isaiah in Luke–Acts requires a focus on the text as a speech act and the implied author. Narrative texts exhibit the features of a communicative act at least partly through the way the implied author has selected and interpreted his story. And while it may be true that narratives project a ‘world’ rather than assert direct propositional content, the broader storied co-text and context of such projections Àeshes them out into speech acts.152 In other words, the stories, when read/heard well, act upon a reader/hearer and demand a response. Because the parameters for my project include a storied epistemology, what is needed is an investigation of Luke’s explicit uses of Isaiah, with an emphasis on what Luke is highlighting. Because of the storied nature of Isaiah (with its exodus theme, among others), effort should be exerted to see whether the themes, ideas, and so on, from Isaiah form part of an overarching narrative in Acts.153 This is likely because of Luke’s clear tendencies; his prologue (Lk. 1.1-4; Acts 1.1-2) indicates both his intended perlocutions and that he arranged episodes in a strategic manner. Also, he uses OT plotlines in 150. 151. 152. 153. 1

Ibid., p. 2 n. 4. Taken from the ‘Index of Quotations’ in UBS4. Turner, ‘Historical Criticism’, pp. 62, 65. Cf. Hays, Conversion, p. 45.

2. Intertextuality

29

Acts 3, 7, and 13.154 This tendency ‘adds to the plausibility of his using similar Old Testament summary plotlines to structure the overall plot of Luke–Acts’.155 As I outlined earlier, Pao has argued that Luke develops a narrative New Exodus (NE) theme from Isaiah 40–55 in Luke–Acts.156 What his proposal is missing is a detailed discussion of the servant ¿gure,157 for in the Isaianic NE the servant is the human agent of the restoration.158 I will argue in detail throughout the next chapters that in Luke–Acts both Jesus and his followers are portrayed as ful¿lling the vocation of the Isaianic servant; here it is enough to state it and note that in Lk. 2.32; 4.18-19; 6.21; 7.22; 9.35; 22.37; 23.33-34; 24.27, 46; Acts 3.13; 4.27; 8.32-33; 10.38, 43; 13.34, 47; 17.24-25; 26.18, 23, Isaianic servant passages are either quoted from or alluded to;159 these connections are powerful within Luke’s symbolic, storied world.160 d. Dialogical Intertextuality and Luke’s Purpose The intertextuality best suited for my study of Luke’s use of Isaiah (speci¿cally the servant ¿gure) is dialogical intertextuality. This means that ‘the interaction between text and subtext is seen to operate in both directions’,161 and it stresses that while the subtext contributes to its new co-text the new co-text also changes it. In other words, while Luke’s use of the servant passages contributes to his description of Jesus and the disciples by interpreting their actions and lives, the new placement in the post-Jesus reality of the early church interprets the somewhat allusive Isaianic portrayal of the servant in the NE.162 Luke’s interpretive move is not exegesis per se, but is rather a recon¿guration of an earlier part of the story (Isaiah) in light of climactic new 154. Turner, ‘Historical Criticism’, p. 62; Kurz, ‘Intertextual Use’, pp. 314–15. 155. Kurz, ‘Intertextual Use’, p. 315. 156. Pao, New Exodus. 157. Pao (ibid.) only discusses the servant ¿gure in any detail on pp. 32, 57, 76– 7, 100–101, 116. 158. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 13; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 6, 11. 159. This includes references to Isa. 61.1-3 as a servant song (and interpretation of Isa. 42), as argued by J. Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 253–4. The references are from the UBS4 ‘Index of Quotations’ and ‘Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels’. 160. Hays, Echoes, p. 35, argues this for Paul. 161. Moyise, ‘New Testament’, p. 17. 162. See Wall, ‘Intertextuality of Scripture’, p. 218, for a similar argument; cf. Moyise, ‘New Testament’, p. 32. 1

30

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

developments surrounding Jesus.163 He is using the servant role to (re)interpret his post-Jesus world by claiming that the Isaianic restoration is present in Jesus and his followers, who embody it as the servant. This kind of interpretive claim is the epitome of biblical allegiance, for ‘recon¿guration of a narrative is part of faithfulness to that story, and while old readings may die, this is a death brought about in some sense by the narrative itself’.164 Because dialogical intertextuality af¿rms a certain mutual interpretation between texts, I am not limited to a causal approach or a search for a text’s sources.165 My focus is on Luke’s citations, allusions, and echoes of Isaianic servant material, with the goal to situate them within Luke’s storied worldview to see what Luke is doing with them. The question concerns Luke’s speech acts.166 I contend, then, that Luke’s illocutionary act in using Isaianic servant material is to portray Jesus and the disciples as embodying the servant vocation, to narrate them into the Isaianic story by (explicitly and implicitly) transferring the language, imagery (such as suffering), and actions (such as preaching the good news) of the servant ¿gure ¿rst to Jesus and then to his followers.167 The assumed perlocutionary effect is ¿rst for the implied reader/hearer to be persuaded of this identi¿cation and second, to recognize her place as a follower of Jesus in the story and then act accordingly.168 I will argue throughout for the ¿rst step: persuasion. In other words, Luke sees Jesus as the ultimate embodiment of the servant vocation, though he is convinced that the disciples also personify the servant in the footsteps of Jesus.

163. For a similar argument regarding Paul, see Scott, Implicit Epistemology, pp. 173, 244–5. 164. Ibid., p. 286 (original emphasis). 165. This is a common intertextual critique leveled against more traditional scholarly approaches. Cf. Hays, Echoes, p. 15. 166. Hays, Conversion, p. 29, makes a similar point, though without using SAT. Cf. P. K. Tull, ‘The Rhetoric of Recollection’, in Lemaire and Sæbø, eds., Congress Volume, pp. 71–8 (78), who argues that asking whether an echo is present is not enough. Rather, we should ask: ‘What does it do? What does it mean to invoke previous speech, to recollect it, reformulate it, react against it, reinterpret it, and resurrect it as new speech?’ 167. Cf. Hays, Conversion, p. xi, and Scott, Implicit Epistemology, p. 127, who argue something similar for Paul and his audience. 168. Cf. Scott, Implicit Epistemology, p. 124. 1

Chapter 3

ISAIAH AND THE SERVANT

I. Introduction My claim is that Luke builds (part of) his intertextual portrayal of Jesus and the disciples from the ¿gure of the servant in Isaiah. Because of this, it is necessary to examine the servant and how it functions within its co-text, the larger New Exodus (NE) vision in Isaiah 40–66. However, though the NE is important as the setting of the servant’s work, it will not in itself be a major focus of my project. I will mention it when relevant, especially as its intertextual occurrence in Second Temple texts including Luke–Acts raises the question of the co-textual presence of the servant (as the agent of the restoration). My primary goal is to illustrate the presence and activity of the servant ¿gure, both in Isaiah and later works. Critical scholarship argues for at least two or three ‘Isaiahs’.1 Within the NE the servant is already an intertextual ¿gure, developed from and related to earlier messianic prophecies such as Isa. 11.1-10.2 This is relevant especially for Isaiah 56–66 or ‘Third Isaiah’. The servant in this section is a plural group of servants, and as a community they have claimed servant traits and experiences (from Isa. 40–55) for themselves. Already in this early period, then, there is a (historically) later group that utilizes the servant ¿gure in the service of its own identity.3 My method 1. E.g. J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002), pp. 42–3. 2. M. D. Carroll R., ‘The Power of the Future in the Present: Eschatology and Ethics in O’Donovan and Beyond’, in A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically: A Dialogue with Oliver O’Donovan (ed. C. Bartholomew et al.; Scripture and Hermeneutics, 3; Carlisle: Paternoster; 2002), pp. 116–43 (132 n. 57), illustrates the line of imagery from the Immanuel child in ch. 7 through the royal language of chs. 9 and 11. Finally, the servant in chs. 40–66 picks up the theme of hope. 3. See E. Achtemeier, The Community and Message of Isaiah 56–66: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), p. 16; C. R. Seitz, ‘The

32

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

of and concern for intertextuality is thus germane to the development of Isaiah itself, and I will argue that other Second Temple texts (including Luke–Acts) are making a similar move here: claiming ful¿llment/ embodiment of Isaiah’s servant texts in their own communities. However, authors of the Second Temple period, Luke included, seemed to view Isaiah as the uni¿ed work of one prophet.4 Thus a historical-critical analysis alone is insuf¿cient if my goal is to see how Luke and others were utilizing this important part of their Scripture. My primary attention, then, will be on the literary features and themes of Isaiah, especially as they relate to the servant, and historical-critical attention (especially as it relates to sources) will only be relevant in making the point about how servant texts were later used. There is warrant for a literary approach within the book itself, as the similarities in structure and themes (e.g. heavens and earth, condemnation of false worship, Zion, blessing for the faithful and judgement for the unfaithful) of the ¿rst and last chapters seem to indicate that the ¿nal editor(s) shaped the book to be read as a whole.5 Other topics sustained throughout the book include a focus on Jerusalem/Zion and the blindness and deafness of Israel,6 and themes that cut across chs. 40–55 and 56–66 more speci¿cally consist of comfort, the way, the coming of God (with power), the glory of God, the creator God, justice/righteousness/salvation, the servant and the servants, return and reintegration of Israel,7 and ‘the refrain “there will be no peace for the wicked” (48:22; 57:21)’.8

Book of Isaiah 40–66: Introduction, Commentary, and ReÀections’, in New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), vol. 6, pp. 307–552 (473–4). 4. Second Temple writers use passages from all three ‘Isaiahs’ without distinction. See the discussion in Chapter 4. 5. J. T. Willis, ‘Rhetorical Strategy in Isaiah 1–5’, in Renewing Tradition (Festschrift J. W. Thompson; ed. M. W. Hamilton, T. H. Olbricht, and J. Peterson; Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 65; Eugene: Pickwick, 2007), pp. 163–80 (180); J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 19B; New York: Doubleday, 2003), p. 35; A. J. Tomasino, ‘Isaiah 1.1–2.4 and 63–66, and the Composition of the Isaianic Corpus’, JSOT 57 (1993), pp. 81–98 (83). 6. B. G. Webb, ‘Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah’, in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Shef¿eld (ed. D. J. A. Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S. E. Porter; JSOTSup, 87; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1990), pp. 65–84 (71); Tomasino, ‘Isaiah’, p. 81. 7. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, pp. 30–4. 8. R. Heskett, Messianism Within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah (OTS, 456; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 253–4. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

33

Isaiah 40–55 is the co-text for the traditionally-named Servant Songs (42.1-7; 49.1-6; 50.4-9; 52.13–53.12),9 which some say are a grouping and should be interpreted without reference to co-text (e.g. Duhm, Stuhlmueller, Grelot, Kaiser),10 while others argue each should be interpreted either in its own setting (e.g. Orlinsky)11 or in its setting as well as the larger co-text of the book (e.g. Knight, Wilcox and Paton-Williams, Beuken, Mettinger).12 Mettinger has famously argued that the ¿rst position (i.e. the songs are a separate group) fails because the language, meter, genre, and function of the songs are not homogeneous; they do not seem to have been composed all together and separate from the rest of the book.13 For these reasons, and because my interest is in the narrative or literary Àow of the book, the ¿rst and second positions (i.e. to interpret the songs only in their immediate co-texts) are not helpful. The servant ¿gure has historically been of great interest for interpreters,14 with some identifying the servant as Israel or a remnant of Israel,15 9. The ¿rst critical scholar to separate these ‘servant songs’ from the rest of Isaiah was B. Duhm in 1892 (Das Buch Jesaja [Göttingen Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, 3/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd edn, 1914]). 10. C. Stuhlmueller, ‘Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship’, CBQ 42 (1980), pp. 1–29 (24). P. Grelot, Les Poèmes du Serviteur: De la Lecture Critique a l’Herméneutique (LD, 103; Paris: Cerf, 1981), interprets the songs with only brief references to their co-texts, as does O. Kaiser, Der königliche Knecht: eine traditionsgeschichtlichexegetische Studie über die Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder bei Deuterojesaja (FRLANT, 70; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959). 11. H. M. Orlinsky, ‘The So-Called “Suffering Servant” in Isaiah 53’, in Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition (ed. H. M. Orlinsky; Library of Biblical Studies; Cincinnati: The Hebrew Union College Press, 1969), pp. 227–73 (252). 12. G. A. F. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah: A Theological Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (New York: Abingdon, 1965), p. 12; P. Wilcox and D. Paton-Williams, ‘The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah’, JSOT 42 (1988), pp. 79–102 (79); W. A. M. Beuken, ‘MišpƗ৬: The First Servant Song and its Context’, VT 22 (1972), pp. 1–30 (2). 13. T. N. D. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom (trans. F. H. Cryer; Scripta Minora 1982–83, 3; Lund: Gleerup, 1983), pp. 14–15, 17, 28. 14. The most famous surveys include C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), pp. 6–116; H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1965), pp. 3–60; S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (New York: Ktav, 1969). 15. E.g. H. L. Ginsberg, Introduction to The Book of Isaiah (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973), pp. 22–3; S. B. Freehof, Book of Isaiah (The Jewish Commentary for Bible Readers; New York: Union of American 1

34

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

and others as Jesus16 or another historical ¿gure.17 The servant is identi¿ed as Israel multiple times in Isaiah (41.8; 44.1, 2, 21 [twice]; 45.4; 48.20), and this co-textual warrant gives the ‘servant as Israel’ position the strongest weight.18 Signi¿cantly, the LXX clari¿es the servant’s identity as Israel, adding ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ in the song in 42.1 and including an explanatory note about servant Israel’s task in 49.5.19 The second view, that Jesus is the servant, reads backwards from the NT to the OT and is thus the least plausible. The third position, that the servant is a historical ¿gure (in the OT), often has much to commend it. Reasons include the servant’s suffering, which seems to be individualistic (e.g. Isa. 50.4-9), as well as the NE co-text, which could suggest the servant is Moses. However, the co-textual repetition of Israel as the servant still points, in a literary reading, to the servant as Israel. a. Isaiah 40–41: The Co-Text of the Servant – The New Exodus Isaiah 1–39 is dominated by the idea ‘that Israel should not “turn and be healed”’.20 The motif is exile, though the emphasis is theological rather than geopolitical.21 At ch. 40 comfort is announced to the people, here symbolized as Jerusalem.22 This return from exile (‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD’, Isa. 40.3; people see God’s salvation in Hebrew Congregations, 1972), p. 271; A. Phillips, ‘The Servant: Symbol of Divine Powerlessness’, ExpTim 90 (1979), pp. 370–4 (372). 16. E.g. F. D. Lindsey, ‘Isaiah’s Songs of the Servant Part I: The Call of the Servant in Isaiah 42:1-9’, BSac 139 (1982), pp. 12–31. 17. For suggestions that include Cyrus (esp. in ch. 42), a prophet, Zion, Darius, the messiah, and (a new) Moses, see Blenkinsopp, ‘Servant and the Servants’, pp. 164–5; R. G. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55 (FAT, 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), p. 141; L. E. Wilshire, ‘The Servant-City: A New Interpretation of the “Servant of the LORD” in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah’, JBL 94 (1975), pp. 356–67; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66 (WBC, 25; Waco: Word, 1987), pp. 117, 186, 197, 201; W. Zimmerli, ‘ȸėË ¿¼Çı’, TDNT vol. 5, pp. 654–77 (662, 667–8); J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 108; A. Bentzen, Messias, Moses redivivus, Menschensohn: Skizzen zum Thema Weissagung und Erfüllung (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1948), pp. 64–7. 18. Mettinger, Farewell, p. 45; K. Kiesow, ‘Die Gottesknechtlieder – Israels Auftrag für die Menschheit’, BLit 63 (1990), pp. 156–9 (157–8). 19. My base LXX Isaiah text is the critical edition by J. Ziegler (Isaias [Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967]). The English translations are my own, unless otherwise noted. 20. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 5. 21. Ibid., p. 9. Cf. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 21. 22. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 23. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

35

v. 5) and counterpoint to 6.1-13’s judgement and exile theme (including eyes that do not see)23 has as its emphasis not just the return of the people, but the return of Yahweh to his people, to reign in Jerusalem/ Zion.24 This ‘gospel’, appearing lexically in 40.9 for the ¿rst time in the OT,25 is an assertion of ‘a theological turn in the fortunes of the world’.26 The comfort of return – from exile, of Yahweh – is, along with the blessings (and justice) that accompany it, the NE motif that governs chs. 40–66.27 Blenkinsopp, however, cautions against seeing a relationship between Isaiah 1–39 and 40–66.28 Part of the reason is his allegation that the NE theme is important only up to Isaiah 48.29 His concerns are largely historical rather than literary, so they are not directly relevant to my construction. Also, the Second Temple tendency to read the work as a whole mitigates his concern for my project.30 Because the larger motif of these chapters is a/the NE, it seems appropriate to interpret the servant’s role within this return from exile.31 My goal is not to establish a speci¿c identity for Isaiah’s servant, though I already argued that within Isaiah Israel often emerges as the servant ¿gure. Rather, my focus is on the way the servant functions in the context of the NE.32 This approach is more relevant to the Second Temple context of Luke–Acts, where the servant serves as the agent of the NE and is identi¿ed with Jesus and his followers. A review of the servant’s portrayal in various texts from the Second Temple period will help make the Luke–Acts connection.33 23. Cf. Mallen, Reading, p. 65. 24. R. E. Watts, ‘Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus’, TynBul 41 (1990), pp. 31–59 (33–4). 25. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 20. 26. Ibid., p. 12 (original emphasis). 27. Ibid., p. 17. Those who focus on a NE motif in chs. 40–55 include K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (ed. P. Machinist; trans. M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), p. 53; Watts, ‘Consolation’, pp. 32–3. 28. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, p. 34. 29. J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Servant and the Servants in Isaiah and the Formation of the Book’, in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans; VTSup, 70; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997), vol. 1, pp. 155–76 (157). 30. See Chapter 4. 31. Cf. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 316. 32. For a similar approach see C. J. Dempsey with A. J. Tambasco, ‘Isaiah 52:13–53:12: Unmasking the Mystery of the Suffering Servant’, in The Bible on Suffering: Social and Political Implications (ed. A. J. Tambasco; New York: Paulist, 2001), pp. 34–50; Webb, ‘Zion’, p. 65. 33. See Chapter 4. 1

36

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

The servant, then, is integral to the NE, and ‘may function to assert (a) that emancipation is linked to willing sufferers who suffer for the sake of the community and (b) that emancipation is perhaps for a larger purpose than simply the gift of homecoming – perhaps an invitation to mission that concerns the well-being of the world’.34 In other words, Isaiah 40–66 tells of the restoration of the world described as a NE, and of the servant’s role in embodying the NE and bringing it to fruition.35 Kaminsky argues that while Second Isaiah is universal in scope, it is only with Third Isaiah that the Gentiles are converted and included on an equal level with Israel.36 Because Luke’s Second Temple context apparently read Isaiah as a whole, Luke seems either to have highlighted the more inclusive Gentile passages from Second Isaiah, or to have understood the book as detailing Gentile conversion in light of how it ends. Kaminsky does acknowledge this possibility.37 The servant’s role continues through the servants of the LORD in chs. 54–66. These servants are the seed of the servant promised in ch. 53 and the remnant who continues the servant’s vocation.38 They are functionally similar to the servant, as they carry out the same mission. Because of this correspondence, and because of the likelihood of even the servant (sg.) label as Israel-based, I will not stress the distinction between the servant and servants. The vision of the NE restoration is at once idealistic and realistic; because the invitation is to join in restoring justice and shalom as God’s servant, the picture Àuctuates ‘between bold envisioning of God’s order of righteous compassion and pragmatic description of the real-life situations of the people’.39 In other words, the accusations, complaints, and failures of this section are the labor pains of the birth of Yahweh’s new creation.40

34. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 13. J. W. Adams, The Performative Nature and Function of Isaiah 40–55 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2006), p. 91, argues that Isaiah 40–55 invites the addressee to ‘embrace the role of [Yahweh’s] servant’, among other things. 35. B. Bedenbaugh, ‘The Doctrine of God in Deutero-Isaiah’, LQ 11 (1959), pp. 154–8 (158). Cf. Watts, ‘Consolation’, p. 52. 36. J. Kaminsky, ‘God of All the World: Universalism and Developing Monotheism in Isaiah 40–66’, HTR 99 (2006), pp. 139–63. 37. Ibid., pp. 162–3. 38. See Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 317–20; Blenkinsopp, Opening, pp. 70, 253, 256–66. 39. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 7. 40. Ibid., p. 6. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

37

b. Isaiah 42–48: My Servant Israel In Isaiah 42 the servant is called out of his preoccupation with himself to a missional vocation that resonates with Abrahamic story features (e.g. covenant, the nations).41 It also alludes to the beginning of Isaiah, for in 2.2-4 the nations stream to Zion for !:#= (‘teaching’42) and here in 42.4 ‘the coastlands wait’ for the servant’s !:#=. As Yahweh’s agent, the servant’s vocation is to bring justice on a universal scale (42.1, 4).43 However, this justice ‘is more a situation, a state of being to be realized than a decision to be proclaimed’.44 The restoration is to exemplify societal wholeness,45 as in the call ‘to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness’ (v. 7). The servant who takes up this calling, who embodies justice, is portrayed as a victim; he attracts nations not through warfare but by living a democratized existence and embodying compassion in the midst of brokenness (vv. 2-3). He absorbs evil yet gives grace, rede¿ning what it means to have power (v. 4).46 As God’s servant Israel is not perfect; he is blind and deaf in 42.18 (preoccupied with exile) in a way that recalls Isaiah 6. The key factor, however, is the servant’s memory of God’s presence and actions.47 In the following chapters the servant Israel/Jacob is given the task of Yahweh’s witness(es) (43.10, 12; 44.8),48 but he fails often, described ‘as blind and/or deaf…in 43:8, 48:8, 18-20 (cf. 42:7) and often in conjunction with the motif of understanding (42:16, 18-25; and 48:8)’.49 That is not the end of the story, for Israel as Yahweh’s servant was formed ‘in the womb’ (44.2; cf. 43.1), emphasizing the longevity of his calling,50 and Yahweh’s Spirit is promised as a blessing in 44.3 to Israel’s descendants (44.3; cf. 42.1). The Spirit’s presence removes 41. See Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 42; Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 361–3; J. Goldingay, Isaiah (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001), p. 241. 42. Goldingay, Isaiah, p. 240. Translations of the Hebrew are my own, unless otherwise noted. 43. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 364; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 42–3; Beuken, ‘MišpƗ৬’, p. 23. 44. Beuken, ‘MišpƗ৬’, p. 7. See also Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 88. 45. Oswalt, Book of Isaiah, p. 110. 46. Ibid., p. 111; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 45–8; Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 73. 47. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 48–9; Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 68; R. E. Clements, ‘Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes’, JSOT 31 (1985), pp. 95–113 (104). 48. Adams, Performative Nature, p. 101. 49. Watts, ‘Consolation’, p. 47. 50. Freehof, Isaiah, p. 231. 1

38

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

barriers between people (groups); this is how the vocation is accomplished, for through these descendants foreigners will ‘adopt the name of Israel’ (44.5), though the emphasis on Israel’s redemption is the priority.51 Because the servant’s mission is one in search of enÀeshment, the summons is also an invitation to announce and bring Yahweh’s salvation and the new reality this entails for all.52 c. Isaiah 49–50: An Expansion of the Servant’s Task In Isa. 49.3 the servant is Israel, though in 49.5-6 the servant has a mission to Israel. Many have suggested ‘Israel’ in v. 3 is a gloss,53 though the earliest textual witnesses include it. Because of this, and since the LXX includes it (and Luke prefers the LXX),54 the text as it stands gives the best reading.55 It encourages an interpretation where either a remnant and/or an individual as true Israel has a mission to the rest of Israel.56 For my purposes, the servant’s literary function as oriented to Israel (and the nations) in bringing the NE is most signi¿cant. As in 44.1-2, the servant here is chosen and formed in the womb (49.1, 5, 7). The invitation to listen is a global one (v. 1),57 though the servant has an integral role in the enterprise that includes being a faithful partner with Yahweh. His role as Yahweh’s agent is to announce and bring the NE to the ‘peoples from far away’ and ‘to the nations’ (49.1, 6).58 The primary task, however, is not necessarily a verbal one, as the passage illustrates. Being a ‘light to the nations’ involves obedienceinduced hardship and suffering (v. 4), and through this faithfulness witnessing to God.59 Verse 7 af¿rms that in this task the servant is deeply despised, but there is a strength in weakness, for Yahweh has chosen him and is with him (vv. 4-7). He is God’s partner.60 The servant in Isaiah 50, who is closely aligned with Yahweh’s plan, having ‘the tongue of a teacher’ (50.4), suffers abuse from others in his 51. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 83. Cf. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 385. 52. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 91, 107; cf. Adams, Performative Nature, p. 100. 53. E.g. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 128. 54. 1QIsaa and 1QIsab also include it. 55. Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 90; Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 429. 56. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 128. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah; pp. 179, 184, suggests the remnant; while Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 92, see the prophet. Cf. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, p. 186. 57. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 130. 58. Freehof, Isaiah, p. 253. 59. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 433. 60. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 113–14. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

39

community.61 The servant is empowered by the word here, and it allows him ‘to accept the hostility his message evokes with the quiet con¿dence that the ¿nal victory lies with those who are faithful to God’.62 However, his response is not simply passive, but ‘positive and recreative’63 as he turns the other cheek (v. 6). Because he is sure of his vindication, he even challenges his opponents (v. 8). The servant has an open ear in 50.5, due to God’s act, and this is a reversal of Isaiah 6 and stresses the servant’s faithfulness. Though he is mistreated, God helps the servant more with strength to endure physical persecution than with retaliation (50.7).64 It is important that already in this chapter we see intra-community division (vv. 6-11); this occurs again in Isaiah 65–66 where the servants are set against the unfaithful among God’s people.65 d. Isaiah 51–53:66 The Climax of the Servant’s Task Isaiah 51.1–52.12 calls the nation to bring justice (e.g. 51.4), but many do not rally ‘behind the Servant’s task’ but rather ‘abuse the faithful’67 (vv. 7, 13). The divine messenger in 52.7 announces that God reigns, and this second Exodus is better than the ¿rst because the ¿rst was hurried (v. 12).68 The messenger’s call is for the people to embrace a vision and live it. In Isa. 52.13 '3Û !1! (‘behold my servant’) probably alludes to 42.1’s '3 0! (‘behold my servant’).69 This lexical tie strongly suggests that the same servant and mission is in view in both passages. More generally, what is true in the other servant passages is true here: ‘What is occurring in the experience of the Servant bears signi¿cance that extends far beyond the life of the Servant’.70 In Isa. 53.4-6, 8, 10-12, the vicarious bene¿t of the servant’s work is described. 61. Ibid., p. 122. 62. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 140–1. 63. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 204. 64. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 437. Cf. Adams, Performative Nature, p. 165. 65. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 439. 66. For sources on Isaiah 53 see W. Hüllstrung and G. Feine, updated by D. P. Bailey, ‘A Classi¿ed Bibliography on Isaiah 53’, in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 462–92. 67. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 145. 68. Ibid., pp. 149–50, 153. 69. Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 95, following C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1969), p. 258. 70. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 154. 1

40

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

In 52.13–53.12 (hereafter: 53) the double themes of humiliation and exaltation dominate.71 In light of the rest of the book, where ‘the adjectives “exalted”, “lifted up” and “very high” are virtually technical terms, applied almost exclusively to Yahweh’, the theme of exaltation here is important. ‘The implication is not necessarily that the servant is Yahweh, or even divine; but there is an implication here that the servant’s work is Yahweh’s work, and the language used to make the point is daring, to say the least’.72 In Isa. 53.1-6 a ‘we’ group belatedly realizes that the servant’s suffering was on their behalf.73 The servant may be Israel as a group or an individual/remnant,74 though what is most important is that the servant’s exaltation is witnessed by those for whom he suffered. His suffering is powerful, breaking the cycles of pain and death.75 He absorbs the violence done to him; it ends at his place of pain as he offers himself innocently and willingly (vv. 7-9).76 The seed or offspring of the servant (53.10) are important because they link this section with the servants of Yahweh in chs. 54–66; this group is the book’s answer to the question of the offspring’s identity. It is through them ‘and the message they perpetuate, that [the servant] will prolong his days, see the fruit of his travail, and bring about righteousness by communicating his (divinely inspired) knowledge, i.e. his teaching’.77 71. Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 142. 72. Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 95. 73. This group may be disobedient Israel or the nations, though the identi¿cation is not relevant for my project. For disobedient Israel see, e.g., Heskett, Messianism, p. 176. For the nations see, e.g., M. Weippert, ‘Die “Konfessionen” Deuterojesajas’, in Schöpfung und Befreiung (Festschrift C. Westermann; ed. R. Albertz, F. W. Golka, and J. Kegler; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1989), pp. 104–15 (110). Cf. K. Koch, ‘Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit’, in Spuren des hebräischen Denken (ed. K. Koch; Gesammelte Aufsätze, 1; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), pp. 184–205 (203), who because of the vicarious suffering calls the passage an ‘erratic block’ that was not understood until the NT. 74. J. van Oorschot, Von Babel zum Zion: eine literarkritische und redactionsgeschichteliche Untersuchung (BZAW, 206; Berlin: de Gruyter 1993), p. 193, argues the servant here is a group, following Whybray. See also L. Ruppert, ‘ “Mein Knecht, der Gerechte, macht die Vielen gerecht, und ihre Verschuldungen – er trägt sie”: (Jes 53,11) Universales Heil durch das stellvertretende StraÀeiden des Gottesknechtes?’ BZ 40 (1996), pp. 1–17 (9); Kiesow, ‘Gottesknechtlieder’, p. 158. 75. Cf. J. A. Soggin, ‘Tod und Auferstehung des leidenden Gottesknechtes Jesaja 53:8-10’, ZAW 87 (1975), pp. 346–55, who claims the servant approaches death but does not die. 76. Cf. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, pp. 156–60. 77. Blenkinsopp, ‘Servant and the Servants’, p. 173. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

41

In faithfully suffering the servant, the righteous one (53.11), makes ‘many’ righteous (vv. 11-12);78 this is not a forensic quali¿cation, but an ethical one; he helps others ‘attain a new quality of life’,79 and the end result of his suffering is exaltation (e.g. vv. 11-12). In sum, the servant’s task is to suffer; it is how he ful¿lls his vocation.80 The servant songs, then, ‘complete the picture in the second chapter of Isaiah of the nations streaming to Zion to learn God’s ways as the basis for an alternative to war’. The emphasis is the way in which power is rede¿ned; it is ‘power to place God’s will over sel¿sh desire and thereby to become an instrument of God’s healing’.81 II. Isaiah 54–66: The Vindication of the Servant – the Realization of the New Exodus Isaiah 54–66 highlights the servants (pl.) as the protagonists of the continuing NE motif, and I will trace their characterization. The point is to show how important the servant motif is in Isaiah 40–66, not just in chs. 40–53. The singular–plural distinction is not critical, especially since the identity of the singular servant of chs. 40–53 is probably Israel and/or a representative of Israel (i.e. a remnant or person).82 What is noteworthy is the continuance of the mission and experience of the servant by the servants (¿rst mentioned in 54.17) in these chapters. There is much similarity in function, and from a historical-critical perspective this is the ¿rst indication that in Second Temple Judaism at least some Jews thought it hermeneutically legitimate to take earlier servant

78. The ‘many’ as an Israelite group is argued by O. H. Steck, ‘Aspekte des Gottesknechtes in Jes 52,13–53,12’, ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 36–58 (40); H.-J. Hermisson, ‘Israel und der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja’, ZTK 79 (1982), pp. 1–24 (23–4). 79. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 243. 80. Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 97; Phillips, ‘Symbol’, p. 373. 81. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 166. This rede¿nition of power helps to show that salvation in Isaiah is larger than the servant’s sacri¿cial suffering (conceived narrowly). God’s restoration includes societal peace and justice, achieved through a transformation of worldly values. Thus a singular notion of ‘ransom’ as salvation, drawn from Isaiah 53, does not do justice to Isaiah itself. I thank my friend, colleague, and OT scholar Tim Senapatiratne for this point, discussed during a Ph.D. seminar on June 29, 2010. 82. Cyrus as God’s anointed in Isa. 45.1 (cf. 44.28) is a possible exception to the ‘servant Israel’ motif. 1

42

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

texts and claim their embodiment within their own community.83 I will argue that Luke is in good company within his historical context, as he makes a similar hermeneutical move regarding Jesus and the disciples in Luke–Acts. In other words, he portrays Jesus as embodying or ful¿lling the servant vocation, after which his followers take it up. a. Isaiah 54–60: The Community of the Servants The ¿nal chapters of Isaiah have as their main concern the servant’s vindication by God, promised in ch. 53. This vindication is not straightforward, partly because a focus throughout is not the servant but the servants and Zion.84 Generally, Zion symbolizes the people of God,85 and the servants/city embody the exaltation and vindication of the servant even as they are promised vindication of their own in 54.17.86 Seitz argues that Zion’s fate in these chapters is mostly painted in hyperbolic and poetic language; the temple is only rarely mentioned.87 This is consistent with the idea that Zion symbolizes not a city and building, but a people. A related point is Spykerboer’s claim that the people coming to Jerusalem, which he sees in 55.1, equals coming to God in 55.3.88 If Jerusalem/Zion symbolizes the servants, then coming to the servants equals coming to God. These theological assertions are also important for Isaiah in Luke–Acts, where Luke minimizes the temple in the restoration and uses a schema that sends the disciples outward from Jerusalem (i.e. the location of the temple) into the world.89 Similar to the discord already seen between the servant and his opponents, a theme throughout Isaiah 56–66 is intra-community conÀict. 83. See Achtemeier, Community, p. 16; Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 473–4. Cf. Beuken, ‘Servant and the Servants’, pp. 171–2. 84. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 477; W. A. M. Beuken, ‘Isaiah Chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah’, in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 204–21 (205). 85. Wilshire, ‘Servant-City’, p. 367; Wilcox and Paton-Williams, ‘Servant Songs’, p. 82. 86. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, pp. 424, 473–4; P. Tull Willey, ‘The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s Community’, in SBL Seminar Papers, 1995 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), pp. 267–303 (302); W. A. M. Beuken, ‘The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah: “The Servants of YHWH”’, JSOT 47 (1990), pp. 67–87 (83). 87. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 474. 88. H. C. Spykerboer, ‘Isaiah 55:1-5: The Climax of Deutero-Isaiah: An Invitation to Come to the New Jerusalem’, in The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaʀe: Les Oracles et Leurs Relectures: Unité et Complexité de L’ouvrage (ed. J. Vermeylen; BETL, 81; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 357–9 (359). 89. See Chapters 5 and 6. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

43

The faithful remnant (servants) over against the unfaithful are those who listen and incline the ear (55.2-3), in a reversal of Isa. 6.9-10.90 In 55.3 the Davidic covenant as it concerns the nations gets extended to these same ones who listen. Thus the servants (and through them, Zion) take up the servant’s role as light to the nations.91 Heskett contends the promises are not transferred to the people; they are shared with Israel.92 The distinction between transferring and sharing or extending the promises is not important, especially since a king or leader represents the people. What does matter is that now the people (as servants) are speci¿cally given the Davidic role of witness to the nations (55.4-5; cf. the servant in this role in 43.10-12; 44.8).93 The nations and outsiders are also a concern of these last chapters of Isaiah, and the response of the faithful community to these groups causes division. This section insists upon an inclusive vision that welcomes foreigners and eunuchs (56.3-8), for the criteria for membership in the servants include doing justice and being faithful to the covenant (56.1-2, 4, 6).94 After 56.8 the term ‘servants’ does not appear until 63.17, but the servants are still a signi¿cant theme, as is seen through the use of the concepts of 3:$ (‘seed’, 57.3-4; 59.21; 61.9) and !98 (‘righteous[ness]’), along with some related forms in 56.1; 57.1, 12; 58.2, 8; 59.4, 9, 14, 1617; 60.17, 21; 61.3, 10-11; 62.1-2; 63.1), which are closely connected to the servant ¿gure in chs. 40–53.95 In 56.9–63.16 the righteous (servants) are a focus, for they withstand oppression as the servant’s offspring.96 In 57.1 the ‘righteous’ who ‘perish’ is likely playing on the language of the servant of Isaiah 53. The experiences of the righteous servant(s) here parallel the righteous servant in suffering (53.5, 8; 57.4) and in being taken away (53.8; 57.1). Also, the servants ‘enter into peace’ (57.2) because the servant provided for that peace (53.5).97 The Exodus (high)way is mentioned in 57.14 (‘prepare the way’; cf. 40.3; 62.10), stressing again the NE theme,98 and then in ch. 58 Jubilee is 90. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 482. 91. See A. Rofé, ‘Isaiah 59:19 and Trito-Isaiah’s Vision of Redemption’, in Vermeylen, ed., The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaʀe, pp. 407–10 (410); Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, p. 80. 92. Messianism, p. 268. 93. Mettinger, Farewell, p. 44. 94. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 485; Webb, ‘Zion’, p. 78. 95. Beuken, ‘Closure’, pp. 205–6. 96. Ibid., p. 206. 97. Beuken, ‘Main Theme’, p. 70. 98. Freehof, Isaiah, p. 287. 1

44

The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’

proclaimed, showing Yahweh’s commitment to economic and social wellbeing.99 This Jubilee is action-oriented; freeing the oppressed, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and covering the naked (58.6-7) will cause the light of the people to ‘break forth like the dawn’ (58.8).100 This passage is important because 58.6 gets linked with Isaiah 61, a servant passage, in Jesus’ synagogue sermon in Nazareth (Lk. 4.18-19). Jubilee activity is thus part of the mission of God’s servant(s). In 59.20-21 God makes a covenant only with those who turn from transgression, and he promises to put his Spirit on them and his words in their mouths and the mouths of their children to the third generation. The confession and covenant af¿rmation of this group (vv. 9-21) uses servant terminology and probably identi¿es them with the servants (cf. v. 9 with 50.10 and v. 21 with 42.1; 51.16, 53.10).101 The focus is on Zion in ch. 60, but the close connection between Zion and the servants has already been illustrated. All that was said earlier of the servant – his mission of being light to the nations (42.6; 49.6), that nations and kings will acknowledge him (52.15), that he will be high and lifted up (52.13) – is said of Zion (and thus the servants) here.102 In this section, then, the servants are to ‘arise, shine; for your light has come’ (60.1). They take up the servant’s role of being light to the nations.103 This vocation is not easy, but faithfulness amid hardship and suffering is an active part of bringing the NE.104 b. Isaiah 61: A Non-Traditional Servant Song In Isaiah 61 a ¿gure speaks, and from a literary and functional perspective this ¿gure speaks in the voice and takes on the role of the servant from Isaiah 42 and 49 and/or the offspring of the servant promised in 53.10 (possibly also the herald of 52.7-8).105 Any distinction between the 99. See J. S. Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation (VTSup, 115; Leiden: Brill, 2007), p. 198. 100. Knight, New Israel, pp. 25, 51; Achtemeier, Community, pp. 55–6. 101. Beuken, ‘Main Theme’, p. 70. Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, pp. 64, 200, 202. 102. Knight, New Israel, p. 42; Beuken, ‘Main Theme’, pp. 70–1; Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 508. 103. Seitz, ‘Isaiah’, p. 482; Beuken, ‘Main Theme’, p. 69. 104. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, p. 223. 105. Blenkinsopp, Opening, pp. 161–2, calls Isaiah 61 a servant passage. W. A. M. Beuken, ‘Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40–55’, in Vermeylen, ed., The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaʀe, pp. 411–42 (416–17, 432), argues both the speaker and audience in Isaiah 61 are the servant’s offspring. 1

3. Isaiah and the Servant

45

servant and servants (i.e. offspring) is minor, as both carry out the same mission. It is also probable, as Wright argues, that there are echoes of Isa. 11.110 here, a messianic and pointedly Davidic passage.106 However, in terms of literary progression, the servant ¿gure is the likely development of the messianic motif, and is more immediate (co-textually) to Isaiah 61. Both the herald and the speaker are sent to announce the :