Zion's Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations Oudtestamentische Studiën Old Testament Studies published on behalf of the Societies fo...

Author: Dekker | J.

26 downloads 529 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations

Oudtestamentische Studiën Old Testament Studies published on behalf of the Societies for Old Testament Studies in the Netherlands and Belgium, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Ireland

Editor

B. Becking Utrecht Editorial Board

H.G.M. Williamson Oxford

H.F. Van Rooy Potchefstroom

M. Vervenne Leuven

VOLUME 54

Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16

by

Jaap Dekker

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

Translated by Brian Doyle with financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dekker, Jaap. [Rotsvaste fundering van Sion. English] Zion’s rock-solid foundations : an exegetical study of the Zion text in Isaiah 28:16 / by Jaap Dekker. p. cm. — (Oudtestamentische Studiën, ISSN 0169-7226 ; 54) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15665-4 (hard : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 90-04-15665-8 (hard : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah XXVIII, 16— Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BS1515.52.D4513 2007 224'.106—dc22

2006050012

ISSN 0169-7226 ISBN 978 90 04 15665 4 Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Foreword ..................................................................................... List of Abbreviations ..................................................................

ix xiii

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................. 1.1. Situating the issue ............................................................ 1.2. Relevance ......................................................................... 1.3. Goals and methodology ..................................................

1 1 2 6

Chapter 2. The Zion Text of Isaiah 28:16 in the History of Exegesis ...................................................................................... 2.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 2.2. Septuagint ........................................................................ 2.3. New Testament ................................................................ 2.3.1. Romans 9:32b –33 and 10:11 ............................... 2.3.2. 1 Peter 2:6 ............................................................. 2.3.3. Evaluation ............................................................... 2.4. Judaism ............................................................................ 2.4.1. Qumran ................................................................. 2.4.2. Targum .................................................................. 2.4.3. Talmud .................................................................. 2.4.4. Evaluation ............................................................. 2.5. Early Church ................................................................... 2.5.1. The Letter of Barnabas ....................................... 2.5.2. Tertullian and Cyprian ......................................... 2.5.3. Jerome and Augustine ........................................... 2.5.4. Cyril and Theodoret ............................................. 2.5.5. Evaluation ............................................................. 2.6. Middle Ages .................................................................... 2.7. Reformation .................................................................... 2.8. Modern biblical research ................................................ 2.8.1. The future kingdom of God ................................ 2.8.2. The new Israel ...................................................... 2.8.3. The true religion of yhwh ................................... 2.8.4. The new temple / new Zion ................................ 2.8.5. Metaphorical interpretation ................................. 2.8.6. The existing temple / Zion .................................. 2.9. Conclusions .......................................................................

9 9 11 13 13 17 22 24 25 28 30 33 34 34 37 40 45 47 48 51 54 56 56 57 58 58 59 60

vi

contents

Chapter 3. The Literary and Historical Context of the Zion Text of Isaiah 28:16 ............................................................... 3.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 3.2. Colometric subdivision of Isaiah 28 .............................. 3.3. Pericope delineation within Isaiah 28 ............................ 3.4. Isaiah 28:14–22 as original unity ................................... 3.5. Isaiah 28:14–22 as Isaianic prophecy ............................. 3.6. Dating Isaiah 28:14–22 ................................................... 3.7. Dating the reign of Hezekiah ......................................... 3.8. Hezekiah’s revolt and Sennacherib’s campaign ............. Excursus 1: Prophetic historiography in 2 Kings 18–19 ............................................................................. Chapter 4. Exegesis of Individual Pericopes within Isaiah 28 and their Reciprocal Relationships ........................................ 4.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 4.2. Isa. 28:14–22 ................................................................... 4.2.1. Isa. 28:14–15: Complaint ..................................... 4.2.2. Isa. 28:16: Salvation-historical retrospective ........ 4.2.3. Isa. 28:17a: The benchmarks of justice ............... 4.2.4. Isa. 28:17b–18: Actual announcement of judgement ............................................................. 4.2.5. Isa. 28:19–21: Twofold conclusion to the announcement of judgement ............................... 4.2.6. Isa. 28:22: Exhortation ......................................... Excursus 2: The ‘covenant with death’ and necromancy ....................................................... 4.3. Isa. 28:7–13 ..................................................................... 4.3.1. Isa. 28:7–8: Accusation ......................................... 4.3.2. Isa. 28:9–10: Rejoinder ........................................ 4.3.3. Isa. 28:11–13: Announcement of judgement ...... 4.4. Evaluation ........................................................................ 4.5. Isa. 28:1–6 and 28:23–29 ............................................... 4.5.1. Isa. 28:1–6: Prophecy of judgement and promise of salvation ............................................................ 4.5.2. Isa. 28:23–29: Prophetic instruction .................... 4.5.3. Evaluation .............................................................

65 65 66 73 78 83 86 90 94 101 109 109 110 112 124 144 147 153 163 166 177 177 182 189 197 203 204 218 234

contents Chapter 5. The Place and Function of Isaiah 28:14–22 in the Context of Isaiah 28–33 ........................................................ 5.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 5.2. Isaiah 28–33 as a redactional unit ................................. 5.2.1. Structural cohesion ............................................... 5.2.2. Content based cohesion ........................................ 5.2.2.1. Themes .................................................... 5.2.2.2. Metaphors ................................................ 5.2.3. Evaluation ............................................................. 5.3. Isaiah 28 as overture ....................................................... 5.4. Isaiah 28:14–22 as key text and guide ........................... Chapter 6. The Zion Text of Isaiah 28:16 and the Zion Tradition in Isaiah .................................................................. 6.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 6.2. Zion in the first part of the book of Isaiah (1–39) ........ 6.3. Results of the exegesis of the Zion text of Isaiah 28:16 ................................................................................ 6.4. The place of the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah ............................................................................... 6.4.1. Research into the Zion tradition .......................... 6.4.1.1. Identification of an independent Zion tradition ................................................... 6.4.1.2. The Zion tradition and the Jebusite cultic tradition ......................................... 6.4.1.3. The Zion tradition and the Ark tradition ................................................... 6.4.1.4. The Zion tradition as a specifically Israelite election tradition ........................ 6.4.2. Further research into the Zion preaching of Isaiah ..................................................................... 6.4.2.1. Isaiah and the Zion tradition .................. 6.4.2.2. Zion and Isaiah’s preaching of judgement and salvation ............................................

vii 243 243 245 245 249 249 255 257 258 262 265 265 266 275 282 283 283 299 303 317 318 318 325

viii

contents

Chapter 7. Summary and Conclusions ..................................... 1. The Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 in the Septuagint, the New Testament and Judaism .......................................... 2. The Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 in the History of Interpretation ................................................................... 3. The Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 in its Literary and Historical Context ........................................................... 4. Exegetical Conclusions with Respect to the Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 .................................................................... 5. The Covenant with Death .............................................. 6. Isa. 28:14–22 in the Context of Isaiah 28 and Isaiah 28–33 ............................................................................... 7. Zion in Isaiah 1–39 ......................................................... 8. Research into the Zion Tradition and its Origins .......... 9. Isaiah and the Zion Tradition ........................................ 10. Zion and Isaiah’s Preaching of Judgement and Salvation ..........................................................................

339 339 340 342 343 345 346 347 348 349 351

Appendix: The Zion text of Isaiah 28:16 and the New Testament ................................................................................

355

Bibliography ................................................................................

367

Index of Authors ........................................................................

391

Index of Biblical Texts ...............................................................

397

FOREWORD In the prologue to his Latin translation of the book of Isaiah, Jerome writes: “Isaiah deserves to be called an evangelist more than a prophet. He offers such a clear description of all the mysteries of Christ and the Church that one would think he was writing about recent history rather than prophesying about the future.”1 For the same reason, the book of the prophet Isaiah came to be referred to in later centuries as the fifth gospel. If one bears in mind the significant place the book has enjoyed since New Testament times in both Christian preaching and Christian art, the aforementioned qualification is understandable in every respect.2 With the possible exception of the book of Psalms, no other Old Testament book has provided such inspiration for our reflection on the gospels and our understanding of the works of Jesus Christ than that of Isaiah. Jesus’ allusion to the scribe, trained for the kingdom of heaven, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old (see Mt. 13:52), certainly applies in equal measure to the book of Isaiah. The treasures to be found in the book and the prophetic preaching that forms its foundations serve as a guarantee that those who devote themselves to the study of Isaiah are sure to encounter the Lord and his wondrous deeds. The present study focuses its attention on the statement referring to the ‘stone in Zion’ to be found in Isa. 28:16. The statement represents just one of many drawn from the book of Isaiah that came to enjoy an important place in New Testament preaching by being brought into association with the advent of Jesus Christ (see Rom. 9:32b–33; 10:11 and 1 Pet. 2:6). In the first instance, however, our research will address the interpretation of Isa. 28:16 in its Old Testament context. Employing this Zion statement as point of access, I have endeavoured to establish a picture of the prophetic preaching of Isaiah and the place ascribed to Zion therein. 1 See B. Fischer et al. (eds.), Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Stuttgart 19944, p. 1096: “Deinde etiam hoc adiciendum, quod non tam propheta dicendus sit quam evangelista. Ita enim universa Christi Ecclesiaeque mysteria ad liquidum persecutus est, ut non eum putes de futuro vaticinari, sed de praeteritis historiam texere.” 2 Cf. J.F.A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel. Isaiah in the History of Christianity, Cambridge 1996.

x

foreword

Given the fact that available literature on the book of Isaiah is virtually endless and that my study thereof had to run parallel with my other daily activities, the present research project has been roughly ten years in the making. While there were difficult moments during this period, when it appeared that my research was stagnating, hindsight reveals that these were moments of genuine maturation. With gratitude to God for the gift of health and strength, however, I am now able to present the results of my research in the awareness “that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1:20–21 NRSV) The same can be said with respect to the reference to the ‘stone in Zion’ in Isa. 28:16. My exegetical research has its roots in a desire to understand this word of God concerning Zion, which later came to be of such significance for the church. Grounded in a tradition that endeavours to hold theology and church community, academic study and preaching in close relationship with one another, I genuinely hope that the present volume, including those passages where I have been obliged at times to call the traditional interpretation of Isa. 28:16 into question, does not merely represent my ‘own interpretation’, and I hope that it will ultimately be of service to the continuing witness of the church. A number of individuals deserve recognition for their unfailing support during the years of research and writing. Particular gratitude is due to my respected teacher and promoter, H.G.L. Peels, who guided the entire process with kindness and expertise. While my enthusiasm for the Old Testament, and for the prophetic literature in particular, was first aroused under the watchful eye of the late B.J. Oosterhoff, his successor Prof. Peels was ultimately responsible for ensuring that this enthusiasm was sustained and that my research could bear its present fruit under his tutelage. Without the stimulating discussions that nourished the genesis and evolution of the present work, I would not have been able to muster the necessary courage to stay on track, especially when faced with often lengthy interruptions. The willingness of W.A.M. Beuken, an internationally renowned authority on the book of Isaiah, to serve as the co-promoter of my dissertation came as a pleasant surprise and an added bonus. His valued contribution and amicable engagement in the final phase of this study served to expedite its completion considerably. On January 23rd, 2004, my dissertation was defended cum laude at Apeldoorn Theological University. K.R. Veenhof and M.C. Mulder deserve recognition for their willingness to read and comment on a number of passages from the per-

foreword

xi

spective of their own field of specialisation (Veenhof for the material relating to Hezekiah and Sennacherib’s military campaign, Mulder for the material relating to the interpretation of Isa. 28:16 in the Targum and the Talmud, together with the appendix on the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 in the New Testament). I am likewise grateful to J. Hoftijzer and J.P. Lettinga for the linguistic observations they provided during the early stages of my research. Particular gratitude is due to H. de Jong, my teacher and predecessor at the Theological Study Advice Service, for his willingness to review my exegesis and refine it with his critical observations. (The Theological Study Advice Service, Theologische Studiebegeleiding —TSB, has recently been transformed into a theological seminary for the Dutch Reformed Churches and is accommodated at Apeldoorn Theological University.) De Jong also deserves thanks for the fact that his courses were ultimately responsible for convincing me of the importance of ‘Zion’ as one of the two core salvific themes in the Old Testament (the other being ‘David’). The recent publication of this material (Van oud naar nieuw. De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen 2002) has facilitated reference thereto in the present publication. My work on the present publication would not have been possible without the willingness of the church council and community of the Dutch Reformed Churches in Nijverdal and Amstelveen to grant me an annual period of study leave. Given the fact that research, preaching and the preparation of lectures were not always easy to combine, I came to depend on these moments of freedom from other duties to focus on research. I am also grateful to the Board of Trustees of the TSB and to my colleagues for affording me extra liberty to concentrate on the completion of my work. For translating this present study into English I wish to thank B. Doyle (K.U. Leuven). His work was carried out with considerable care and he was always more than willing to improve my often amateurish suggestions in achieving a readable text. Furthermore, the success of this project was also partly due to the substantial financial support made available from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). I also feel sincerely privileged that the editors of Oudtestamentische Studiën (OTS) were willing to accept my study in their renowned series, and that Brill was willing to offer their professional services in the publication of this book. The primary environment that was necessary for my work was ultimately created by my wife Gerda. Her selfless care and engagement on behalf of our growing family made it possible for me to devote

xii

foreword

myself to study. The knowledge that we could also rely on the practical support of our parents, especially during the more hectic moments at home and at work, likewise provided for some welcome moments of rest and relaxation. Our children Jolanda, Irene, Pieter Dirk and Henri each in their own way expressed an interest in the ‘book’ their father was writing, although it may have taken up more of his time than they would have preferred. We share the joy of completing this work as a family and with all who are close to us. Amstelveen, October 2006

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The list provided has made use where possible of the collection of abbreviations found in S.M. Schwertner in Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Abkürzungsverzeichnis, Berlin-New York 19942. AB ACEBT AfO.B AnB AnBib AJSL AOAT ATD BA BASOR BAT BBB BEThL BEvTh BHK BHS BHTh Bib. BibOr BJRL BKAT BN BOT BrSyn BS BTB

Analecta Bruxellensia, Brussels Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie, Kampen Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft, Graz The Anchor Bible, New York Analectica Biblica, Rome American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Chicago Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Kevelaer-Neukirchen Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Göttingen The Biblical Archaeologist, New Haven Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem-Baghdad-New Haven Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart Bonner Biblische Beiträge, Weinheim Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, Leuven Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie, Munich Biblia Hebraica Kittel, 3rd edition Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie, Tübingen Biblica. Commentarii periodici ad rem biblicam scientifice investigandam, Rome Biblica et Orientalia, Rome Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Neukirchen Biblische Notizen. Beiträge zur exegetischen Diskussion, Bamberg De Boeken van het Oude Testament, Roermond C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, Neukirchen 1956 Bibliotheca Sacra, London Biblical Theology Bulletin, Jamaica

xiv BWANT BZ BZAW CNEB CB.OT CBQ CChr.SL COHP CRBS DCH DDD EB EdF EeT ET EThL EvTh FAT FZB FOTL FRLANT Fs GAT GKG GrTS HAHAT HALAT HAR HBS

list of abbreviations Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart Biblische Zeitschrift, Paderborn Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, Cambridge Coniectanea Biblica—Old Testament Series, Lund Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington, D.C. Corpus Christianorum—Series Latina, Turnhout Contributions to Oriental History and Philology of the Columbia University, New York Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, Sheffield D.J.A. Clines et al. (eds.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Sheffield 1993ff K. van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden 19992 Études Bibliques, Paris Erträge der Forschung, Darmstadt Eglise et Theologie, Paris The Expository Times, Edinburgh Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniences, Leuven Evangelische Theologie, Munich Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Tübingen Forschung zur Bibel, Würzburg The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Grand Rapids Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Göttingen Festschrift Grundrisse zum Alten Testament. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Ergänzungsreihe, Göttingen E. Kautzsch et al., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Oxford 19102 Grazer Theologische Studien, Graz R. Meyer et al., Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18. Auflage, Berlin 1987ff L. Köhler, W. Baumgartner and J. Stamm, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Leiden 1967–1996 Hebrew Annual Review, Columbus, Ohio Herders Biblische Studien, Freiburg

list of abbreviations HCOT HSAT HSM HThKAT HThR HUCA IDS Interp. IntBCTP JAOS JBL JES JETS J-M JNES JNWSL JPOS JRT JSJ JSOT JSOT.S JSNT.S JSP JSP.S JSSt JThS KAT KBL KHC KTU

xv

Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, Leuven Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes, Bonn Harvard Semitic Monographs, Cambridge Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Freiburg Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati, Ohio In die Skriflig, Potchefstroom Interpretation. A Journal of Bible and Theology, Richmond, VA Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Louisville Journal of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Philadelphia Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Wheaton P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew I–II, SubBi 14/I–II, Rome 1991 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, Leiden Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, Jerusalem Journal of Religious Thought, Washington, D.C. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, Leiden Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, Sheffield Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series, Sheffield Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Sheffield Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series, Sheffield Journal of Semitic Studies, Manchester The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Leipzig L. Köhler & W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros, Leiden 1985 Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, Tübingen M. Dietrich et al., Die keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit, AOAT 24, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976

xvi

list of abbreviations

KVHS Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift, Kampen LXX Septuagint MSSNTS Monograph Series—Society for New Testament Studies, Cambridge MT Masoretic Text MThA Münsteraner Theologische Abhandlungen, Altenberge NBG Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap, Haarlem NCBC The New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids NEB Neue Echter Bibel, Würzburg NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament, London NSKAT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament, Stuttgart NT.S Novum Testamentum, Supplements, Leiden NTS New Testament Studies, Cambridge OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Freiburg OTL Old Testament Library, London OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën, Leiden PCC.PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Patrologiae Graecae, Paris PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London PJ Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem, Berlin POT De Prediking van het Oude Testament, Nijkerk PThMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, Pittsburgh RB Revue Biblique, Paris REJ Revue des Études Juives, Paris RHPhR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, Strasbourg RNBC Readings: A New Biblical Commentary, Sheffield RdQ Revue de Qumran, Paris (N)RSV (New) Revised Standard Version SAT Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl, Göttingen SBB Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge, Stuttgart SBL.SPS Society of Biblical Literature—Seminar Papers Series, Missoula SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, Stuttgart SBT Studies in Biblical Theology, London ScrB Scripture Bulletin, Birmingham SDPI Schriften des Deutschen Palästina-Instituts, Gütersloh

list of abbreviations SHCANE SJOT SJT StANT StTh STL StrB SubBi TA TBST TB THAT ThLZ ThSt TR ThR TRE TTh TTZ TWAT TWNT TynB TZ(W) UF VF VIKJ VL VR

xvii

Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, Leiden Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Åarhus Scottish Journal of Theology, Edinburgh Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Munich Studia Theologica. Scandinavian Journal of Theology, Lund Studia Theologica Lundensia, Lund H.L. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Band I–IV, Munich 1926–1928 Subsidia Biblica, Rome Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv The Bible Speaks Today, Leicester Theologische Bücherei. Nachdrücke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert, Munich E. Jenni & C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, 2 volumes, Munich 19783 and 19792 (first edition: 1971 and 1976 resp.) Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig Theologische Studien, Zurich Theologia Reformata, Woerden Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin Tijdschrift voor Theologie, Nijmegen Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift, Trier G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1970–2000 G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart 1933–1979 Tyndale Bulletin, London Theologische Zeitschrift, Vienna Ugarit-Forschungen, Neukirchen Verkündigung und Forschung. Beiheft zu Evangelische Theologie, Munich Veröffentlichungen aus dem Institut Kirche und Judentum, Berlin De Voorzeide Leer, Barendrecht Vox Reformata. Faculty of the Reformed Theological College, Geelong, Victoria

xviii VT VT.S VWGT

list of abbreviations

Vetus Testamentum, Leiden Vetus Testamentum, Supplements, Leiden Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, Gütersloh WA D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar WBC World Biblical Commentary, Waco WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Neukirchen WStB Wuppertaler Studienbibel, Wuppertal WTJ Westminster Theological Journal, Philadelphia WuD Wort und Dienst, Jahrbuch der Theologischen Schule Bethel, Bielefeld WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebräistik, Stuttgart ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Zurich ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Wiesbaden ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin ZRGG Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Cologne ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen First Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 of Qumran 1QIsa Second Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 Qumran 1QIsb

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1.1. Situating the issue No other biblical book ascribes such a prominent place to the theme of ‘Zion’ than the book of Isaiah. Any endeavour to provide a reasonable explanation for this fact is obliged to presume that its inspiration must ultimately be sought in the original preaching of the prophet Isaiah himself. While it remains difficult for the exegete to establish a precise distinction between the prophet’s original preaching and the work of later redactors, it is likewise unimaginable that Zion would have been afforded such prominence in the present canonical form of the book of Isaiah if it had not been occasioned by Isaiah of Jerusalem himself. Old Testament scholars tend to share this hypothesis with a significant degree of unanimity.1 Major differences of opinion emerge, however, when one is required to determine what place the theme of Zion had in Isaiah’s preaching and the extent, moreover, to which the prophet was dependent on an already existent Zion tradition. One of the most important statements regarding Zion is to be found in Isa. 28:16, a text that speaks of the laying of a foundation stone in Zion: “thus says the Lord God: See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: ‘One who trusts will not panic’.” (NRSV 1991) This statement, which the remainder of the present study will refer to as a ‘Zion text’, enjoys a place of some importance in Isaiah 28 as a whole. It is explicitly introduced as a word of the Lord YHWH via the use of the so-called messenger formula ‘thus says . . .’ whereby the statement that follows is ascribed additional Becker (1999:5–6) laments the fact that recent research has been inclined to ascribe more theological weight to the statements of the prophet Isaiah than to the contribution furnished by the redactors of the book of Isaiah. While it is indeed correct to insist that the theological deposit established by the redactors should not be underestimated and that the meaning of the text should not be forced to depend on the question of authorship, it is difficult to imagine how the book of Isaiah could have acquired the name of the prophet and retained it throughout the process of transmission if the impulses rooted in the preaching of the prophet Isaiah himself were not substantial. This is certainly the case with respect to the theme of Zion. 1

2

chapter one

accentuation. Furthermore, the Zion text of 28:16 gives the impression of being a promise of salvation, while the immediate context resounds with nothing more than words of judgement. The publishers of the NRSV provide the said segment of Isaiah 28 with the superscription ‘Judgement on corrupt rulers, priests and prophets’. The average Bible reader would thus be surprised to encounter an explicitly accentuated promise of salvation. In the context of Isaiah 28, therefore, the reader’s attention is unavoidably drawn to the Zion text of 28:16. It is thus hardly surprising that the Zion text of 28:16 drew the attention of the writers of the New Testament. Indeed, both the Letter of Paul to the Romans (see Rom. 9:32b–33 and 10:11) and the First Letter of Peter (see 1 Pet. 2:6) explicitly refer thereto. This, together with the continued influence of Isa. 28:16 in the Christian church (see § 2.5.– § 2.7.), serves to provide the background against which the importance of the Zion text can be measured. The scholarly endeavour to explain Isa. 28:16 is nevertheless faced with a number of difficulties on the level of translation and exegesis. The results of exegetical research up to the present have been and remain a source of significant dispute.2 Nevertheless, the critical degree of scholarly consensus concerning the authenticity of this Zion text, together with the importance ascribed thereto in later tradition, tends to raise the expectation that a correct understanding of the message of Isa. 28:16 is likely to shed significant light on the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah.3 Summary: The issue at stake in the present study is exegetical in nature. It can be described in short as an endeavour to determine the meaning of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 and the significance of the latter for our understanding of the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah. 1.2. Relevance Towards the end of the last century an important shift in accent was to be observed in the arena of biblical studies. Since the emergence of 2 Lindblom 1955:125 already sighted a “große Uneinigkeit betreffs der Erklärung des wichtigen Jesajaworts vom Eckstein.” Roberts 1987:27 even refers to Isa. 28:16 as “one of the most notable cruxes in the Hebrew Bible.” 3 Cf. Roberts 1987:27: “. . . in the case of Isa 28:16 the struggle to resolve the technical difficulties is at the same time a struggle to understand one of Isaiah’s central theological affirmations.”

introduction

3

historical-critical research, diachronic analysis tended to dominate the scholarly study of the Old Testament for the best part of a century. The advent, however, of structuralism and literary criticism on the one hand, and the approaches that have placed the canonical form of the text centre stage on the other, have brought about a radical change in the overall situation. More than ever before, the attention of exegetes is currently focused on a synchronic approach to a particular segment of the Bible (c.q. an entire book of the Bible) in its present textual form.4 The consequences of this accent shift are perhaps most evident with respect to the study of the prophet Isaiah.5 The history of the latter can be divided in broad terms into three distinct periods. In the period prior to the emergence of historical-critical research, interpreters generally accepted the view that the entire book was to be ascribed to the prophet Isaiah who had been active in the eighth century BCE. Since the end of the nineteenth century, most scholars were inclined to regard the present book of Isaiah as having been constructed on the basis of three independent works stemming from three different periods in time. The first part (1–39) eventually acquired the designation Proto-Isaiah and was ascribed for the most part to the prophet himself; the second part (40–55) was designated Deutero-Isaiah and was dated to the period of the Babylonian exile; the third part (56–66) was designated Trito-Isaiah and was considered to have been written against the background of the post-exilic period.6 Characteristic of this second phase in Isaiah research was the appearance of commentaries written by individual authors that focused on each of the three aforementioned segments independently. During the last decades of the twentieth century, however, the book of Isaiah came to be seen as a literary unity and, as a consequence, prevailing opinion has tended to suggest that the book should be studied as a single work and no longer as an amalgamation of three distinct and independent parts.7 It should 4 Cf. Barton 1999:348: “On all sides today we are told that we should be attending to the final form of Old Testament texts, not to the earlier stages in their development that interested people in the heyday of historical criticism.” “Synthesis, rather than analysis, is the watchword now.” The volume De Bijbel Literair (Fokkelman & Weren 2003) represents a recent example of such an accent shift/paradigm change. 5 For an outline of developments in Isaiah research see Hardmeier 1986:3–31, Sweeney 1993(A):141–162, Tate 1996:22–56, Becker 1999:1–37, 117–152 and Höffken 2004. 6 This threefold division has its roots in the work of Duhm 19143 (1st edition: 1892). 7 Berges 2003:203 describes the current motto as giving priority to the prophetic books as a whole before the individual words of the prophets.

4

chapter one

be noted, nevertheless, that this development did not signify a return to the pre-critical period in which the entire book of Isaiah had been ascribed to the prophet himself. The historical figure of the prophet in this third period of Isaiah research has more or less disappeared into the background since it is no longer considered possible to distil the original words of the prophet from the tradition as a whole. Attention now tends to be focused on the one book of Isaiah and the significance of its present redactional composition rather than on the prophet Isaiah as an historical figure.8 It cannot be denied that recent interest in the present literary unity of the book of Isaiah has given rise to important and valuable research. At the very least this makes a welcome change when considered against the background of a lengthy period in the history of Isaiah research in which attention tended to be focused one-sidedly on the diachronic analysis of individual textual units that had frequently left the book of Isaiah in exegetical tatters.9 The advantages and results of recent studies, however, cannot eliminate the fact that contemporary approaches to the book of Isaiah as a redactional composition also exhibit a degree of one-sidedness. The synchronic approach characteristic of literary criticism tends to maintain an a-historical attitude to the text when it considers the ‘Sitz im Buch’ to be more important for our understanding of a biblical text than the ‘Sitz im Leben’. Indeed, there is even a tendency to be anti-historical, especially when the historical roots of a prophetic word are considered to be irrelevant for our present understanding thereof.10 In such instances, the historical figure of the prophet Isaiah disappears from view and the original content of his

8 Cf. Rendtorff 1984:295–320. Tate 1996:22–25 tersely characterises these three successive periods in the history of Isaiah research as ‘The One-Prophet Interpretation’, ‘The Three-Book Interpretation’ and ‘The One-Book Interpretation’. The two-volume commentary of Watts 1985/1987 on the complete book of Isaiah can be seen as one of the first examples of the said accent shift. Childs’ recent 2001 commentary on the entire book of Isaiah represents a further illustration of this trend. 9 Cf. Rendtorff 1999:153: “Die wissenschaftliche Auslegung hat sich überwiegend darauf konzentriert und sich auch damit begnügt, die unterschiedlichen ‘ursprünglichen’ Bestandteile des Jesajabuches zu rekonstruieren und je für sich auszulegen.” 10 Conrad 1991:27ff argues in favour of reading the book of Isaiah as an aesthetic monument. Becker 1999:10 gives expression to this tendency as follows: “Die Frage nach der Entstehung wird dabei nicht grundsätzlich abgelehnt, aber doch als unnötig eingestuft, weil sie an der Intention des Buches vorbeigeht.” In addition to this literaryaesthetic motif, Becker has also identified a religious background and a growing aversion towards the results of historical-critical research, both of which have contributed to the predominance of a synchronic approach to the book of Isaiah.

introduction

5

preaching is no longer considered to be of any particular interest.11 In order to avoid such bias, which is essentially docetic in nature, it is vital that the synchronic approach be allowed to interact with a thorough diachronic analysis.12 The present work will focus on the preaching of the historical prophet Isaiah and the role of Zion therein. Our aim is thus to offer a contribution to present day understanding of one of the most important elements in the preaching of Isaiah. Throughout the history of Isaiah research, scholars have struggled with the specific character of Isaiah’s preaching, especially with respect to the relationship between his words of judgement and his words of salvation. It almost goes without saying that an enormous variety of positions have been adopted in this regard. The understanding of the element of ‘obduracy’ in Isaiah’s call vision (Isaiah 6) has also tended to occupy an important place in the discussion. While interest in the character of Isaiah’s preaching has clearly diminished as a result of the contemporary predominance of literary and book-redactional approaches, the present author is convinced nevertheless that the contours of our understanding of the message of the book of Isaiah will become more apparent against the background of a study of the message of the prophet Isaiah. It is likewise the author’s expectation that a study of the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah can provide an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between words of judgement and words of salvation in general and in the book of Isaiah in particular. Summary: Against the background of the shift in accent evident in biblical research, whereby attention is focused one-sidedly on the book of Isaiah and the historical figure of the prophet himself is inclined to disappear beyond the horizon, the significance of the present contribution lies in its endeavour to assist our understanding of the role played by Zion in the preaching of the prophet Isaiah, in particular with respect to the relationship between his words of judgement and his words of salvation.

Perhaps the most explicit example of an anti-historical approach to the book of Isaiah can be found in the postmodern exegesis of Brueggemann in which the emphasis is placed squarely on the power of rhetoric. Perdue 1994 characterises this accent shift in Old Testament exegesis, with its particular consequences for biblical theology, as a result of the ‘collapse of history’. 12 Cf. Rendtorff 1991:8–20 and Talstra 2002:112–117. 11

6

chapter one 1.3. Goals and methodology

The present study takes the important Zion text of Isa. 28:16 as its point of departure with a view to establishing a clear picture of the place of the Zion tradition in the prophet Isaiah. The following chapter (2) provides a survey of the various ways in which this Zion text has been understood in the course of history. We begin with the Septuagint reading of 28:16 (§ 2.2.), followed by the interpretation thereof in the New Testament (§ 2.3.) and by a number of prominent exegetes in the early church (§ 2.5.). The reception of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 within Judaism is treated separately (§ 2.4.). After a brief review of pertinent medieval exegesis (§ 2.6.), we focus our attention on the interpretation of Luther and Calvin, bearing in mind that one of the goals of the Reformation movement had been to realign Christianity with the Scriptures (§ 2.7.). We conclude our survey of the history of exegesis of Isa. 28:16 with a review of twentieth century interpretations (§ 2.8.). The third chapter focuses on a number of important preliminary issues as a necessary foundation for our own exegetical study of the text: colometric analysis of Isaiah 28 (§ 3.2.), delineation of pericopes within Isaiah 28 (§ 3.3.), the unity of the pericope in which the Zion text of 28:16 is to be found (§ 3.4.), the authenticity and date of the said prophecy (§ 3.5. and § 3.6.) together with a sketch of the historical situation coinciding with the proposed date (§ 3.7. and § 3.8.). An excursus dealing with the prophetic historiography of 2 Kings 18–19 is added at this juncture (Excursus 1). The fourth chapter is devoted in its entirety to our own exegesis of Isa. 28:16 within the immediate context of the pericope in which it is located (§ 4.2.) and against the broader background of Isaiah 28 as a whole (§ 4.3.–§ 4.5.). A further excursus related to the exegesis of the text follows § 4.2. and deals in particular with the relationship between the ‘covenant with death’ referred to in 28:15, 18 and necromancy (Excursus 2). This fourth chapter represents a pivotal stage in our research since it endeavours to provide an adequate answer to the question regarding the exegesis of the Zion text in 28:16. Having offered an exegetical analysis of the individual pericopes of Isaiah 28 and their relationship with one another, we then widen the circle in the fifth chapter to focus on the place of Isaiah 28 as a whole and 28:14–22 in particular within the redactional unit Isaiah 28–33 (§ 5.2.–§ 5.4.).

introduction

7

Following a survey of the place of the ‘Zion’ theme in Isaiah 1–39 (§ 6.2.), chapter six endeavours to draw a number of conclusions based on the results of our exegesis (§ 6.3.). We then turn our attention to the question of the potential significance of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 for our understanding of the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah. While a comprehensive investigation of the Zion tradition would take us beyond the established boundaries of the present study, it remains our conviction nevertheless that a number of elements important for further research into the Zion preaching of the prophet Isaiah can be derived from the exegesis of 28:16 (§ 6.4.). The seventh and final chapter of the present study offers a summary of the main conclusions that represent the results of our research. In light of the fact that Isa. 28:16 plays an important role in a variety of New Testament texts, we conclude the present volume with an appendix in which the results of our research are further examined from a New Testament perspective. Summary: The primary goal of our study is to offer an exegesis of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 in its present context. Based on the results of this study, we endeavour to determine the extent to which an adequate understanding of the said text can contribute to contemporary research into the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah.

CHAPTER TWO

THE ZION TEXT OF ISAIAH 28:16 IN THE HISTORY OF EXEGESIS 2.1. Introduction If one accepts the hypothesis that every new study of the Bible or a part thereof rests on the shoulders of its predecessors, then it makes sense to explore the way in which Isa. 28:16 has been explained in the course of history before endeavouring our own exegesis of the text in question. The reception history of a biblical text also has a place among the exegete’s areas of interest since it raises the questions and hypotheses necessary to enter into dialogue with the various religious reading traditions and thereby provides the foundations for one’s own exegetical perspective. The importance of such a dialogue is aptly expressed by Talstra: “The exegesis of the Old Testament is not about trying to explain a recently discovered work from the ancient past. Academic institutions are not likely to do themselves much of a service should they pretend that such is indeed the case. Exegesis, rather, is about explaining texts that have been ascribed a fundamental value as they passed through the hands of many generations up to and including the contemporary faith community.”1 In order to obtain an adequate picture of the history of exegesis, one is obliged to focus one’s attention on a cross-section thereof, taking a number of standard benchmarks as one’s point of departure. Given the necessary limits of space, the said benchmarks have to be chosen with care in order to avoid any potential misrepresentation or distortion. The most appropriate point of departure with respect to the text of Isaiah is the Septuagint, bearing in mind that every translation already contains an element of exegesis.2 The Greek translation of the Talstra 2002:73. I am aware of the difficulties surrounding the idea of ‘the’ Septuagint, as if the latter can be understood as a unified translation, while in fact it is more of a collection of Greek translations stemming from a variety of different places and dates. I will maintain the use of the term, nevertheless, for the sake of ease and because it has long been the convention to do so. 1 2

10

chapter two

Old Testament might even be considered as one of the earliest witnesses in the history of exegesis.3 This is certainly the case with respect to the Greek translation of the book of Isaiah, which is well-known for its relatively free rendition. Furthermore, the Septuagint extends backwards into pre-Christian times and is of major significance from a variety of perspectives for the way in which the New Testament dealt with the Old Testament in terms of both text and content.4 A second benchmark in our exploration of the history of exegesis can be found in the New Testament’s interpretation of the Isaiah text. New Testament allusions to the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 are to be found in the Letter of Paul to the Romans (Rom. 9:32b–33; 10:11) and in the First Letter of Peter (1 Pet. 2:6). Prior to continuing the line of Christian exegesis from the New Testament to the early church, however, it makes sense to include Jewish exegesis of the Isaiah text in our survey, beginning with the function of the Zion text within the community of Qumran and further discussing the information found in the Targum and the Talmud. A third benchmark in our exploratory survey has its roots in the early church (2nd to 5th century). After a brief intermezzo in the Middle Ages, in which we will focus on the Glossa Ordinaria and Thomas Aquinas, we will turn our attention to the period of the Reformation (16th century). Influenced by the Renaissance and by Humanism, the Reformation was determined to return to the original sources. Luther and Calvin will serve as our representatives of the exegesis characteristic of the Reformation and their explanation of Isa. 28:16 as the fourth benchmark in our historical survey. Our fifth and final benchmark consists of the highly diverse contributions of modern biblical research. Our discussion of the latter will be thematic and summarising in character, given that the contributions in question cannot strictly speaking be considered a part of the reception history of Isa. 28:16. With a view to our own exegesis of the text, however, and within the framework of the present chapter, we consider it relevant to offer a brief overview of the various interpretations of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 provided by modern biblical research. 3 See Jobes/Silva 2000:146: “. . . the LXX may be regarded as the earliest surviving interpretation of the Bible, and the exegesis of the translators, even when wrong, can be very valuable in our own exegetical process.” (cf. p. 89) 4 Cf. Jobes/Silva 2000:23: “The Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible, was the primary theological and literary context within which the writers of the New Testament and most early Christians worked.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

11

2.2. Septuagint The Septuagint translation of the book of Isaiah evidently introduced its own exegesis of the text in the process of translation. This becomes immediately clear when one compares the Greek text of Isa. 28:16 with the Hebrew of the Masoretic text: hwIhy“ yn:doa} rmæa; hKo ˆk´l; ˆb≤a;= ˆwOYxiB] dS'yI ynIn“hi dS;Wm ds;Wm tr"q]yI tN"Pi ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, .vyjiy: alø ˆymia}M'h'

διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος ᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ

Basing itself on the Masoretic text as found in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; second emended edition 1983), the NRSV translates the Zion text of 28:16 as follows: “therefore thus says the Lord GOD: See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: ‘One who trusts will not panic’.” It should be evident from the text provided in parallel form above that the Septuagint contains a number of unusual readings, two of which are of particular interest with respect to the present chapter. The reader’s attention is to be drawn in the first instance to the expression ᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ. The verb ἐμβάλλω in the Septuagint takes the form of a future (1st person), while the Masoretic text employs a pi el perfect (3rd person) for the corresponding Hebrew verb. It is reasonable to assume that the Greek translators read the Hebrew construction dsy ynnh as dseyO ynIn“h,i whereby the pi el perfect of the Masoretic text is understood as a qal participle. Such a reading is hardly surprising since a construction combining ynnh with a participial form is fairly common (cf. the same ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ as the translation of ˆtewOn ynIn“hi in 37:7). As a consequence, however, and with respect to content, the Greek translation now advocates an interpretation of the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise for the future: ‘See, I shall lay a stone . . .’. The second major point upon which important Septuagint manuscripts differ from the Masoretic text has to do with the plus in the final clause of 28:16,5 namely the expression ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ,6 whereby the verb 5 In line with a variety of Septuagint researchers I speak here of a ‘plus’ rather than an ‘addition’ since the latter term is not without prejudice. Indeed, one cannot insist in advance that the Vorlage of the Septuagint was the same as the Hebrew text established by the Masoretes. See Jobes/Silva 2000:52n. 6 The words ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ are lacking in the Codex Vaticanus and in the translations of

12

chapter two

πιστεύω is immediately provided with an object in contrast to ˆymia}M'h' in the Hebrew Masoretic text which is employed in the absolute sense. While it remains difficult to determine the precise origin of the plus in question, it seems reasonable to assume that the addition of the words ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ was intended as a means to clarify the text.7 As a consequence, however, the expression ‘one who trusts’ must now be directly associated with the stone referred to in the first half of the verse since the said stone functions in the Greek text as the antecedent of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ and as such can be personified.8 In summary, it seems fair to argue that the Septuagint has passed on a more unequivocal text of Isa. 28:16. If the same Hebrew text version lay at the basis of this tradition as that of the Masoretic text then we are even at liberty to speak of an important exegetical decision on the part of the Septuagint translators. Where the syntax employed in the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, cf. Stanley 1992:124. The translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion serve as Jewish recensions aimed at bringing the text of the Septuagint closer to the original Hebrew text. An explanation can be offered as to why they lack the words ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ. In comparison with Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus is generally considered the most reliable manuscript. With respect to the book of Isaiah, however, the Codex Alexandrinus would appear to be the better witness. The Greek translation of the book of Isaiah found in the Codex Vaticanus is representative of the Hexaplaric recension (the text of Codex Sinaiticus agrees for the most part with Codex Vaticanus, although it occasionally contains Hexaplaric readings; Ziegler 1939:32f signals traces of an Egyptian recension). For this reason, the text of Isa. 28:16 found in the Codex Vaticanus cannot be considered a witness to the original LXX text. See Jobes/Silva 2000:59f, 190. Bearing these considerations in mind, the presupposition of K.H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe—Der Judasbrief, Freiburg 1976/2002:61, that the plus in the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) should be understood as a Christian gloss (cf. Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6), must be rejected. 7 Van der Kooij 1977:91 considers the Septuagint of Isaiah to be an important pre-Christian witness to Jewish exegesis. He insists (1997[B]:24) that the interpretations and actualisations of the book of Isaiah in both the Septuagint and the Isaiah Scrolls from Qumran stem from the same Hellenistic period and that both text witnesses, therefore, are of importance in acquiring a picture of the exegetical tradition which the New Testament writers may also have employed. 8 Oss 1989:186f draws attention to the shift in faith perspective implied by the text of the Septuagint. The translation of vyjiy: by καταισχυνθῇ associates faith with the avoidance of risking being put to shame on the day of judgement rather than stability in one’s daily life. The question remains, however, as to whether we must interpret the verb καταισχύνω as found in the Septuagint in a strictly eschatological sense. This is clearly not the case elsewhere in the book of Isaiah (see 3:15 and 54:4). As a matter of fact, the Septuagint of Isaiah makes more frequent use of the verb αἰσχύνω (eighteen times), usually as the translation of vwb. It is probable that the Septuagint read vwObyE aOl in 28:16, which means ‘he shall not be put to shame’ (cf. 29:22). The translation provided by the Septuagint may have been inspired by the emphasis on the theme of ‘being ashamed’ in relation to the covenant with Egypt so detested by the prophet in 30:1–5 (cf. 20:5).

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

13

Hebrew text allows for a degree of ambiguity in terms of temporal aspect (the construction dsy yggb can be read in a variety of ways; see exegesis § 4.2.2.), the Septuagint has clearly understood the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise for the future. Moreover, where the Hebrew text leaves a certain openness with respect to the interpretation of the expression ‘one who trusts’, the Septuagint would appear to have made an unequivocal decision in this regard by alluding explicitly to the aforementioned stone. While a definitive decision in the matter remains difficult to achieve, it is nevertheless possible that the Septuagint translation already presupposed a Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in 28:16.9 Whatever the truth may be, the Septuagint’s addition of the words ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ has evidently facilitated a Messianic interpretation of the said biblical text.10 2.3. New Testament Isa. 28:16 is cited in three places in the New Testament, twice in the Letter of Paul to the Romans and once in the First Letter of Peter. We will examine each of these witnesses and their interpretation of the Zion text in turn. 2.3.1. Romans 9:32b –33 and 10:11 The apostle Paul makes reference to Isa. 28:16 on two occasions in his Letter to the Romans: Rom. 9:32b–33 and Rom. 10:11. In order to facilitate an adequate comparison with the Septuagint translation of 28:16 (see above), we will first provide both texts in Greek together with an English translation:11

Cf. Jeremias 1942:276. Cf. Snodgrass 1977:100: “With regard to the LXX, if the ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ of Isa. xxviii.16 is not messianic, it is at least personal.” Jobes/Silva 2000:97 suggest with caution: “It is very difficult to decide, for instance, if a rendering that could be read as evidence of a developing messianism actually reflected the state of messianic thinking when the translation was made or was simply the result of happenstance, a result that later during the Christian era was congenial to a messianic reading.” In general, Jobes/Silva 2000:300 conclude that the Messianic expectation did not acquire a prominent place in the Septuagint when compared with contemporary texts from Palestine itself. 11 In both this and the following sub-paragraph I will make use of the NRSV (1991). 9

10

14

chapter two

Rom. 9:32b–33: προσέκοψαν τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος, καθὼς γέγραπται, ᾽Ιδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεταὶ

Rom. 10:11: λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή, Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται

They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” The scripture says: “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”

Aside from the remarkable intermingling of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 with the text concerning the stumbling stone found in Isa. 8:14, the reader is immediately struck by the fact that Paul only follows the text of the Septuagint in part. Instead of ᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον in 28:16, Rom. 9:33 reads ᾽Ιδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον. Paul thus employs a different verb (τίθημι instead of ἐμβάλλω) and exhibits a preference for the present rather than the future. The verb form employed at the conclusion of the text (καταισχυνθήσεται, indic. fut.) likewise differs to a degree from that employed by the Septuagint (καταισχυνθῇ, conj. aor.). It is possible that Paul either had a different version of the Greek text at his disposal or that he deliberately adapted the text with a view to his own interpretation thereof. Given the fact that the text of the quotation of 28:16 as found in 1 Pet. 2:6 agrees to a significant degree with the text of Rom. 9:33 (1 Pet. 2:6 also reads ᾽Ιδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον) while mutual dependence is difficult to determine, it would thus appear that the former possibility deserves preference with respect to the Zion text of Isa. 28:16.12 This does not exclude the possibility that Paul also had a theological preference for the verb τίθημι, namely as a description of the deeds of God.13 Similarly, the text version employed would appear to fit in well with Paul’s intentions from an alternative perspective: the expression ἐν Σιὼν

12 Wilk 1998:33–34 thinks of “eine dem hebräischen Text angenäherte LXX-Version.” Cf. Wagner 2002:128–131. 13 Cf. Maurer 1969:157 (in relation to Rom. 9:33): “Darin zeigt sich, wie sehr Paulus diese Vokabel für geeignet hält, das Handeln Gottes in seiner Vielschichtigkeit auszudrucken.” Muller 1969:81 suggests the possibility that the choice of the verb τίθημι may have been influenced by the Greek translation of Isa. 50:7. It is striking that the latter text also makes reference to not being put to shame (ἔγνων ὅτι οὐ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶ).

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

15

offers more opportunity to identify the stone mentioned in 28:16 with the stumbling stone of 8:14 than the foundation stone terminology employed by the Septuagint in εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων. With respect to content, one is immediately aware of the fact that the quotations of 28:16 in Rom. 9:33 and 10:11 are both incomplete. Of greater importance, however, is the fact that the text version employed by Paul agrees with the major Septuagint manuscripts with respect to the additional ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ.14 The plus in question made it possible for Paul to interpret the Zion text of 28:16 in Messianic terms. While Christ is not mentioned by name in the immediate context of Rom. 9:32b–33, the suggestion that the stone ought to be related to the coming of Christ is already unmistakable.15 Given that Rom. 10:11 only quotes the conclusion of 28:16 without mention of the stone in Zion, the originally intended antecedent of ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ would appear in this instance to be lacking.16 In the context of Rom. 10:11, however, the place of the lacking antecedent is taken by the κύριον ᾽Ιησοῦν referred to in 10:9. While the quotation from 28:16 functions as a core text in Rom. 9:33, the context that occasioned Paul’s use of the Zion text is to be found in his polemical exposition with respect to Israel in which the stumbling stone of 8:14 was already introduced into the argument in the preceding verse. It remains surprising, however, that Paul’s ingenuity allowed him to introduce this allusion to 8:14 into his quotation of the Zion text of 28:16. Isa. 8:14 speaks of a stone one strikes against and a rock one stumbles over.17 The text version of this verse found in the

14 Cf. Stanley 1992:124. Jobes/Silva 2000:190 consider Rom. 9:33 as the oldest evidence that the words ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ belonged to the original text of the Septuagint from the very beginning. 15 With respect to Rom. 9:33 Wagner 2005:122f (see also 2002:155–157) suggests the possibility of an intentional polyvalence of the stone metaphor. The stone could refer to God, Christ or the law. Arriving at Rom. 10:11, however, it is clear that the stone should be identified with Christ. 16 Paul adds the word Πᾶς at the beginning of the quotation because it fits his argument that there can be no distinction between Jew and Greek. See also the quotation from Joel 3:5 (LXX; NRSV 2:32) in Rom. 10:13. It is worthy of note that Paul apparently considered himself free to render the same scriptural text in two different versions in short succession. Cf. Koch 1986:133–134, Stanley 1992:133f and Jobes/Silva 2000:192f. 17 According to Stanley 1992:120–124, this interpolation does not hark back to an earlier tradition but has its roots rather in Paul himself. See also Koch 1980:180.

16

chapter two

Septuagint, however, differs considerably from that of the Masoretes. In order to facilitate comparison we once again provide both text versions (the Masoretic text followed by the Septuagint) together with an English translation: v=D;q]mil] hy:h;w“ l/vk]mi rWxl]W πg
He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against, for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over, a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

καὶ ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασμα καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι ὁ δὲ οἶκος Ιακωβ ἐν παγίδι καὶ ἐν κοιλάσματι ἐγκαθήμενοι ἐν Ιερουσαλημ

And if you trust in him, he will be a sanctuary for you and you shall not encounter him as a stone one strikes against nor as a stumbling block, but the house of Jacob ( falls) in a trap and the inhabitants of Jerusalem in a snare.

It is evident that Paul has mixed his quotations at this juncture, melting 8:14 and 28:16 together.18 Given that Paul’s use of 8:14 is closer in terms of content to the Masoretic text than to the Septuagint, which has cast the stumbling stone in a strikingly negative statement,19 it is probable that he made use of a revised Greek text.20 While it is 18 The use of the Old Testament in the form of mixed quotations is found only sporadically in the rabbinic literature. Muller 1969:71f concludes from this “daß Mischzitate keine lehramtliche Billigung erfuhren” and is surprised that Paul explicitly appeals to the authority of scriptural revelation for his mixed quotation. The combination of various scriptural quotations, however, would appear to be fairly common in the Qumran documents. See Stanley 1992:296–306. Cf. Oss 1989:183–184: “It is a creative use of the Biblical text quite in conformity with the LXX, targums and Qumran.” See also Oss 1989:188: “The use of textual variants to fit the text to one’s interpretation was a common method in Qumran exegesis. Thus by his very inclusion or rejection of the LXX modifications, by substituting one word for another, perhaps by his omission of other material from the MT/LXX-text, and certainly by combining two texts in a merged quotation, the NT author is doing theology.” Generally speaking, one can argue that the freedom with which Paul quoted the Old Testament was in line with the way people of his day quoted texts (see Stanley 1992:338–360). 19 According to Oss 1989:185f, the theological motivation of the translator is evident here in his effort to present yhwh more as the protector of faithful Israel than as the judge of unfaithful Israel. He refers in this regard to LXX 6:9–12 and 8:21–23. 20 Wilk 1998:23. There are numerous indications that would make the existence of such text revisions plausible, both in order to bring the text into agreement with a Hebrew source and to correct the Greek (see Stanley 1992:44–48). Stanley (1992:73–79) explains the diversity of the text versions employed by Paul on the basis of a sort of florilegium of written texts that had come into existence during Paul’s journeys and

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

17

not certain whether the words ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ‘If you trust in him . . .’ formed a part of the text version employed by Paul, it seems reasonable to suggest that his merging of quotations from the book of Isaiah came about, at least in part, as a result of this plus in the Greek text of Isa. 8:14. On account of the said clause, which would appear to have been borrowed from 8:17 (πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ) and which should be understood as a clarification, a clear affinity emerged in the Septuagint with the final words of 28:16. The expressions ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πέποιθα and πιστεύω ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ came to function as more or less synonymous expressions.21 Since the antecedent of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ in 8:14 would appear to be the term κύριον referred to in 8:13, Paul’s identification of the stone referred to in 28:16 with Christ thus seems to be understandable. He saw the Zion text of 28:16 fulfilled in Christ. Surprisingly enough, however, by merging the quotation of 28:16 with the text alluding to the stumbling stone in 8:14 in the form of a mixed quotation, Paul has ascribed to the former the primary significance of an announcement of judgement. 2.3.2. 1 Peter 2:6 The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 has also been ascribed a place of significance in 1 Pet. 2:6. The fact that the stone motif would also appear to play an important role in the surrounding verses, however, suggests that a review of the entire passage of 1 Pet. 2:4–8 might be appropriate at this juncture. Once again we provide the Greek text together with an English translation:

which the latter had put together in the course of his studies of the scriptures with a view to his letters. Muller 1969:73 observes that where Isa. 8:14 is concerned, the text of Rom. 9:33 exhibits similarities with the translation of Symmachus, according to Eusebius’ version thereof. Given that an alternative version of Symmachus’ translation exists, there can be no certainty as to the text version employed by Paul. 21 Snodgrass 1977:99 is of the opinion that the plus ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς in 8:14 came into existence under the influence of the Septuagint translation of 28:16 and concludes that the New Testament tendency to associate prophetic texts concerning faith with one another harks back to the early translations of the Old Testament: “The connection of the two verses in Christian literature then is not an innovation based on theological necessity, but follows Jewish tradition.” See also Betz 1987:95. The plus ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς in 8:14, however, can also be explained on the basis of 8:17. See Jobes/Silva 2000:198 and Wagner 2002:140ff. Compared to the opinion of Snodgrass mentioned above, Wagner 2002:145 argues the other way round, supposing that the LXX translator rendered 28:16 with 8:14, 17 in mind.

18

chapter two

πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι λίθον ζῶντα ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον παρὰ δὲ θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους [τῷ] θεῷ διὰ ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ, ᾽Ιδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, ἀπιστοῦσιν δὲ λίθος ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας καὶ λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου· οἳ προσκόπτουσιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν.

4 Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals, yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, 5 and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever believes in him, will not be put to shame.” 7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner,” 8 and “A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Of the three New Testament texts in which reference is made to Isa. 28:16, 1 Pet. 2:6 would appear to be the most explicit in its Messianic interpretation. The ‘stone in Zion’ is identified unequivocally with Christ. The invitation ‘come to him’ in verse 4 enjoys an immediate link with the previous verse, which concluded with the expression ὁ κύριος, further explaining the said κύριος with the metaphor of the living stone. And even though κύριος in the quotation from Ps. 34:9 in verse 3 alludes to yhwh, it is impossible to deny that 1 Pet. 2:6 understands the living stone to be Christ. It may even be possible that the term χρηστός (χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος), stemming from the Greek translation of Ps. 34:9 (LXX Ps. 33:9), already represents an allusion to Christ in the context of 1 Peter 2. The text version of 28:16 employed in 1 Pet. 2:6 agrees to a significant extent with that found in Rom. 9:33.22 In contrast to the text transmitted by the Septuagint of 28:16 (᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων

22 It would appear from the study of Ellis 1957:12 that Paul usually gives preference to the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament (see also Stanley 1992:67f ), whereas Peter seems to prefer agreement with the Hebrew text. See also Voorwinde 1987:5–6. Peter’s quotation of the Zion text from Isa. 28:16, however, constitutes an important exception in this regard.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

19

λίθον), 1 Pet. 2:6 likewise makes use of the clause ᾽Ιδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον. Given the fact that mutual dependence of one form or another does not seem possible (in contrast to Rom. 9:33, 1 Pet. 2:6 does not mix the quotations from 28:16 and 8:14) it is probable that both New Testament texts were dependent in this instance on the same text version.23 While it is possible to argue that Paul exhibits a theological preference for the verb τίθημι, it is equally arguable that the choice of the same terminology in 1 Pet. 2:6 can be associated with the theme of election (cf. the use of the same verb in 1 Pet. 2:8).24 The plus ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ in the second verse half of 28:16 is shared by all three New Testament texts, but the use of οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (conj. aor.) serves to associate 1 Pet. 2:6 more closely with the Septuagint than is the case with respect to Rom. 9:33 and 10:11 (οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται, indic. fut.).25 The citation of 28:16 in 1 Pet. 2:6 is also more extensive than in Rom. 9:33. In reasonably close agreement with the Septuagint, the stone to be set in Zion is further qualified as a chosen and precious cornerstone. When compared with the Septuagint, the term πολυτελῆ is lacking in 1 Pet. 2:6 and the word order differs slightly: λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον instead of λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον. The reference to the Zion text of 28:16 in 1 Pet. 2:6 functions more explicitly than in Rom. 9:33 as a salvific promise for the future. Both the context and the form in which the Zion text is spoken of in 1 Peter differ from the Pauline references. While Paul employs the Zion text of 28:16 in order to substantiate his argument with respect to the mystery of Israel’s rejection of Christ, the text functions in 1 Peter 2 in the context of an invitation to come to Christ. As a consequence, the Zion text of 28:16 is treated in more positive terms in 1 Pet. 2:6. 23 According to Muller 1969:74–75, this presupposition is confirmed by the fact that the combination πιστεύειν ἐπι + dat. in the sense ‘to believe in’ does not occur in the letters of Paul (Muller does not include the pastoral letters) or in 1 Peter beyond the quotation of Isa. 28:16. 24 See Bauckham 1988:311: “τίθημι is a natural word to use for laying a foundation, and so probably simply a variant translation, not originally designed for any special interpretative purpose. But the author of 1 Peter has selected it for his purpose, because it can also mean ‘appoint’, and so again stresses the theme of election at the outset of his series of texts.” 25 Bauckham 1988:313 points to an interesting connection between 1 Pet. 2:6 and Ps. 34:6, which boils down to the expression οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ in the Greek translation (LXX 33:6). Given that 1 Pet. 2:3–4 already alludes to Ps. 34:9 (and possibly also to Ps. 34:5) and the psalm in question also has an important role to play in 1 Pet. 3:8–12, Bauckham presumes that the psalm must have been important for the author of 1 Peter.

20

chapter two

In contrast to Rom. 9:32b–33, which appears to employ a mixed quotation, the various allusions to Old Testament texts in 1 Pet. 2:4–8 are more deftly woven together.26 In addition to 28:16 references are made to ( parts of ) Isa. 8:14 and Ps. 118:22. While the characterisation of the living stone as παρὰ δὲ θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον already given in verse 4 is borrowed from 28:16, the preceding ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μὲν ἀποδεδοκιμασμένον alludes to the stone mentioned in Ps. 118:22. Verse 7 quotes Ps. 118:22 in its entirety and in complete agreement with the text of the Septuagint.27 The reference to Isa. 8:14 in verse 8a, however, is more in line with the text as cited in Rom. 9:33 than with the Septuagint.28 This reinforces our argument that both New Testament texts are dependent on the same Greek text version.29 It is possible that the quotation from Ps. 118:22 has to do with a proverb30 in which reference is made to a stone rejected by the builders that nevertheless became the cornerstone.31 While the Septuagint provides a more or less literal translation of the text, Symmachus differs from the Septuagint by translating the unique Hebrew construct hN:Pi vaOr with ἀκρογωνιαῖος instead of the literal κεφαλὴ γωνίας. The term ἀκρογωνιαῖος, however, is only employed in the Septuagint in the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 and is unknown to profane Greek literature. One is inclined to conclude, therefore, that even before the date of Symmachus there may have been a Jewish tradition, independent of the New Testament, that had already associated both ‘stone texts’ with one another.32 26 Oss 1989:183 suggests that Paul and Peter employ different methods in their quotation of the Old Testament, both of which were customary in their day. The method employed by Paul whereby two biblical texts are mixed together is known as gĕzērâ šāwâ and is particularly familiar to us from the documents of Qumran. The method employed by Peter whereby various biblical texts are chained together is frequently employed in the Talmud and is referred to as hārāz. 27 On the text and function of Ps. 118:22 in 1 Pet. 2:7, see Woan 2004:215–219. 28 The difference berween the two is minimal: 1 Pet. 2:8 employs a nominative construction while Rom. 9:33 employs an accussative construction on account of the close connection with the quotation from 28:16. 29 See Stanley 1992:121f. 30 Cf. Schröten 1995:82: “V.22 ist ein Sprichwort, das aufgrund seines allgemeinen Charakters auch aus anderen Zusammenhängen entnommen sein kann.” 31 For reasons of logic and on account of the fact that hN: P i can also mean ‘corner turret’, Cahill 1999:345–357 is of the opinion that hN:Pi vaOr does not refer to the cornerstone but rather to ‘the capstone of the castle’. The translation of the expression as ‘cornerstone’ is the result of a later fusion of ‘stone texts’. 32 Cf. Berder 1996:169: “On peut sans doute comprendre le choix du mot par Symmaque en référence à ce texte prophétique.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

21

Acts 4:11 relates how Peter employed the ‘stone text’ from Ps. 118 in his confrontation with the Sanhedrin in order to provide the events of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection with scriptural foundations.33 This application of Ps. 118:22 to the death and resurrection of Christ is completely in line with the psalm’s own content as a song of deliverance from death (cf. Ps. 118:17–18).34 Nevertheless, the explicit identification of the stone with Christ and the builders with the Jewish leaders in Acts 4:11 is exceptional. The naturalness with which Peter alludes to the text of the psalm and applies it to the person and work of Christ makes it reasonable to assume that Ps. 118:22 had already been ascribed a Messianic interpretation at an early date and that it had played an important role among the first Christians.35 Confirmation of the aforementioned assumption can be derived from the synoptic gospels, all three of which have preserved a parable of Jesus in which he himself alludes to the text in question. Jesus relates how the owner of a vineyard finds himself in a conflict situation with his leaseholders (Mk. 12:1–12; Mt. 21:33–46; Lk. 20:9–19)36 employing an image borrowed from the song of the vineyard in Isa. 5:1–7. At the beginning of this song, the lord of the vineyard is qualified three times as ‘my beloved’. By using the same qualification with respect to the son of the vineyard owner in his parable (υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν) and relating his death at the hands of the leaseholders, Jesus intentionally ascribes a Messianic charge to his parable (cf. ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός in Mk.

33 The text of Acts 4:11 deviates to a degree from the Septuagint in terms of verb forms: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος, ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. On the text of Acts 4:11, see Berder 1996:306–309 and Doble 2004:97–105. 34 Some discussion exists as to whether the ‘I’ of the psalm refers to an individual or to the people. Given the groups mentioned in vv. 2–4, the nature of the situation of need, the kinship with Exodus 15 (see v. 14) and the liturgical character of the psalm, Schröten 1995:76 suggests that we identify the ‘I’ with the people of Israel, although the ‘I’ passages would probably have been recited by a soloist in the context of the liturgy. Even understood as a collective subject, the cohesion between verse 22 and the preceding description of need remains important. Cf. Schröten 1995:77 and 134: “Das Sprichwort greift also das im Danklied Formulierte wieder auf und zeichnet die Rettung aus der Not in der Geschichte Israels als etwas unendlich Kostbares, als die Basis für Neues, das entstehen will und wird.” For a survey of the various possible interpretations of the ‘I’ of Psalm 118, see Berder 1996:74–79. 35 It is possible that the explicit allusion in Ps. 118:23 to the wonderful event of a rejected stone being transformed παρὰ κυρίου into a cornerstone may have contributed to the association of this text with Christ. 36 For a comparison of the synoptic descriptions and a discussion of the function of the psalm quotation, see Berder 1996:249–297.

22

chapter two

1:11 and 9:7). Thus, in a context already laden with Messianic implications, the synoptic Jesus quotes Ps. 118:22–23 according to the text of the Septuagint: “Have you not read this scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? ” (Mk. 12:10–11; Mt. 21:42).37 2.3.3. Evaluation In the context of the present review of the history of exegesis of Isa. 28:16 a number of observations can be made with respect to the interpretation of the text provided by the New Testament: • The fact that the Zion text from 28:16 is associated with the stumbling stone text from Isa. 8:14 in both Rom. 9:32b–33 and 1 Pet. 2:4–8, implies that a Messianic interpretation of the various ‘stone texts’ already constituted an element of the early Christian tradition.38 The significant degree of agreement at the level of terminology also tends to point in this direction. While the quotations of Isa. 28:16 and 8:14 are more extensive in 1 Pet. 2:4–8 than in Rom. 9:32b–33, neither text is in complete agreement with the Septuagint, although they do agree for the most part with one another.39 • One of the first ‘stone texts’ to acquire a Messianic interpretation in the early Christian tradition was clearly Ps. 118:22. This is apparent from the important place the text in question came to acquire in the New Testament tradition as a whole (see Mk. 12:10–11; Mt. 21:42; 37 In contrast to the customary hypothesis that the quotation from Psalm 118 does not stem from Jesus himself but was added to the parable by the community after the Easter event, Noordegraaf 1987:251–255 defends the authenticity of the quotation. For a recent survey of the different hypotheses in this regard together with the arguments employed thereby, see Berder 1996:281–290. According to Oss 1989:183, Jesus himself is also the source of the New Testament stone tradition. Cf. Snodgrass 1977:106: “I would suggest that the Church was attracted to the stone testimonia through the use of Psa. cxviii.22 at the conclusion to the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark xii.1–12//) and in the early apologetic for the resurrection (Acts iv.11). Quite naturally and early the already popular Isaiah passages were adapted for use alongside Psa. cxviii.22.” 38 According to Koch 1980:183, we should not only ascribe the interpolation of 8:14 into the Zion text of 28:16 to Paul, but we should also ascribe the Christological explanation of 8:14 as such to him. While it is obvious that a Christological interpretation of 8:14 fits well within Paul’s theology, the present author is not convinced that it can be considered a decisive argument. 39 Based on a comparative study, Snodgrass 1977:99–102 and Oss 1989:187, 189 conclude that Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6 probably hark back to a common tradition. Cf. Snodgrass 1977:98n: “The form of the NT quotations apparently resulted from the frequent use of Isa. xxviii.16 in the Jewish world.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

23

Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11 and 1 Pet. 2:4–8). Furthermore, the Messianic interpretation of Ps. 118:22 must have contributed to its use in 1 Pet. 2:4–8 in one and the same context with the ‘stone texts’ from 28:16 and 8:14.40 The fact that reference is made in both 28:16 and Ps. 118:22 to a cornerstone clearly facilitated the association of the said ‘stone texts’ in the New Testament as well as possibly in early Jewish tradition (cf. Eph. 2:20).41 • When compared with the text of the Septuagint, the change of verb and verb form found in Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6 remains striking 40 Cf. Merklein 1973:150: “Überhaupt scheint von den atl ‘Stein’-Worten ein Anreiz zu messianischer oder eschatologischer Interpretation ausgegangen zu sein. Dieser Usus der ‘Stein’-Theologie hat sich auch im NT niedergeschlagen.” Ellis 1957:98–107 describes the emergence of the hypothesis which claimed the existence of a so-called Book of Testimonies that had preceded the documents of the New Testament. The hypothesis in question, in which the ‘stone texts’ had an important role to play, was propagated at the beginning of the last century primarily by J.R. Harris (Testimonies, Cambridge 1916–1920). After achieving almost general acceptance, the hypothesis fell subject to more and more doubt after the studies of Dodd 1952 and B. Lindars (New Testament Apologetic, 1961), based, among other things, on the enormous textual diversity between the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament. It was considered possible, nevertheless, that an oral tradition of Old Testament proof texts had come into existence at an early stage and later acquired written form. Cf. Snodgrass 1977:105f: “There was no testimony book but there were texts that were grouped thematically to assist in worship, proclamation, teaching and defense of faith. The stone testimonia are still the first witness to such collections.” Since the recognition of some sort Testimonia in the legacy of the Qumran community (4QFlorilegium and 4QTestimonia), the possibility that such collections may also have existed in early Christianity in one or other written form has gained credibility. See Snodgrass 1994:29–51. Albl 1999 has recently argued anew in favour of the existence of so-called ‘Testimonia collections’ upon which the authors of the New Testament are said to have based themselves. See also Moyise 2001:17–18. Skarsaune 1996:420 is much more cautious when he states: “Very likely one should rather think of the ‘testimony tradition’ as part and parcel of the growing theological heritage within early Christianity, which was transmitted within the ‘mainstream’ of early Christian literature, in varying literary formats. Each author within this tradition borrowed Old Testament quotations from his predecessors, but only some of these are known to us.” 41 Based on the common appearance of θεμέλιος and ἀκρογωνιαῖος Merklein 1973:137 considers it possible that Eph. 2:20 was also dependent on Isa. 28:16. Cf. Berder 1996:341: “Si renvoi il y a, il ne passe que par l’intermédiaire du vocabulaire de la pierre angulaire, qui est manifestement emprunté Is 28,16 (ἀκρογωνιαῖος), mais qui peut spontanément évoquer Ps. 118,22 dans la mesure où l’on admet, à l’arrièreplan du texte, une tradition mettant en relation les deux passages vétérotestamentaires appliqués au Christ.” Jeremias 1930:264–280 (see also 1933:792–793) understood ἀκρογωνιαῖος in Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:6 and κεφαλὴ γωνίας in Mk. 12:10 par.; Acts 4:11 and 1 Pet. 2:7 to be a keystone that was introduced above the gate. In his opinion the term ἀκρογωνιαῖος means ‘cornerstone’ only in LXX Isa. 28:16. While Jeremias’ vision initially found significant following it has been abandoned in recent years. For a critical discussion and rejection of Jeremias’ vision, see McKelvey 1962:352–359 and Merklein 1973:144–152. Cf., however, Cahill 1999:345–357.

24

chapter two

(τίθημι instead of ἐμβαλῶ εἰς). At the same time, however, the version of the Zion text of 28:16 offered by Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6 presupposes a Hebrew text in which the verb dsy in the construction dsy ynnh is understood as a participle. • Rom. 9:33; 10:11 and 1 Pet. 2:6 have preserved the plus ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ so characteristic of the Septuagint at the end of 28:16.42 This plus has an important role to play in the Messianic interpretation of the Zion text of 28:16 ascribed to it by the New Testament. • The Zion text of Isa 28:16 as quoted in 1 Pet. 2:6 is understood as a promise of salvation for the future. The same text in Rom. 9:33, on the other hand, has acquired the sense of an announcement of judgement on account of its intermingling with the text concerning the stumbling stone from Isa. 8:14. • The context within which the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is quoted in 1 Pet. 2:6 is more notably determined by ecclesiological motifs than is the case with respect to Rom. 9:33. This is clearly voiced in the appeal in 1 Pet. 2:5 to let oneself be used as living stones in the construction of a spiritual house and in the qualifications employed for the faithful as people of God both in 1 Pet. 2:5 and in 1 Pet. 2:9. 2.4. Judaism Before continuing our line of research from the New Testament to the early church, it goes without saying that attention is due at the present juncture to the Jewish explanation of our text. I will limit myself in this instance to Jewish exegesis of Isa. 28:16 as found in Qumran, the Targum and the Talmud. Since their discovery more than fifty years ago, the writings of the community of Qumran have become our most significant source of information concerning Judaism in the final centuries before the Common Era. The importance of the Aramaic Targums has its roots in the centuries old tradition of synagogue preaching that ultimately evolved into a written form. The Talmud represents the most important written material stemming from the late rabbinic period. This work harks back for the most part to the originally oral rabbinic tradition dating from the period following the exile. The core of the Talmud is formed by the Mishnah, which provides further explanation 42

In addition to Isa. 28:16; Rom. 9:33; 10:11 and 1 Pet. 2:6, the expression πιστεύειν

ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ is only found elsewhere in 1 Tim. 1:16.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

25

to the Torah. The Gemarah, which should be dated around the 3rd to the 5th century CE, offer a commentary on the Mishnah based on the Toseftah that constitute the oldest interpretation of the Mishnah. While it is true that the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature make frequent reference to the book of Isaiah43 and similarly frequent allusion to Zion and to the temple, there are no direct quotations of Isa. 28:16 or the elaboration thereof to be found in the material in question.44 2.4.1. Qumran Two scrolls of the book of Isaiah were found in the caves of Qumran.45 It is striking with respect to the text of Isa. 28:16 found in both Isaiah scrolls that the verb dsy is rendered as a participial form. The First Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) employs a pi el participle dsym the Second (1QIsab) a qal participle dswy.46 While the First Isaiah Scroll itself already bears something of an interpretative character and occasionally offers clear expression to ideas current within the Qumran community,47 we are nevertheless directed in particular to two other documents bequeathed by Qumran where the community’s interpretation of 28:16 is concerned. Both the ‘Rule of the Community’ (1QS) and the ‘Thanksgiving Scroll’ (1QHa) make reference to the Zion text from Isa. 28:16, although neither context provides it with a Messianic interpretation. Both texts explain it, in fact, as a prophecy of the new eschatological community that God is to establish in the future. While the book of Isaiah would appear to have been popular in the community of Qumran and to have been used as a basic text for the Pesharim,48 not a single fragment is available to us among the Pesher manuscripts in which allusion is made to the Zion text of 28:16.49 See Knibb 1997:633–650. Ps. 118:22 is quoted in the Testament of Solomon 22–23, a document of Jewish origin with a Christian final redaction. While allusion to Isa. 28:16 is possible, the primary focus remains Ps. 118:22. See Berder 1996:170–180. 45 For a description of the smaller fragments of text from the book of Isaiah that have been discovered, see Ulrich 1997:477–480 and Flint 1997:481–489. 46 See Burrows 1950: Plate XXII. 47 See Pulikottil 2001. At the end of his study on the textual transmission of 1QIsaa Pulikottil 2001:199 concludes among other things that: “The scroll has a definite conceptual orientation, which is distinctly that of certain Qumran texts. This affinity reflects the ideology of the Yachad documents. The cardinal themes of the Yachad documents are attested in the interpretative readings of the scroll.” 48 See Brooke 1997:609–632. 49 A fragment has been discovered in which the characterisation found in 28:14 43 44

26

chapter two

The ‘Rule of the Community’ (Serek ha-yahad, 1st century BCE) sets out the rules and regulations governing the life of the community and its membership (1QS 1–7). From 1QS 8–9 onwards, however, we are offered a draft design for the foundation of a future community, a spiritual temple in the wilderness.50 This part of the document dates from a period prior to the actual formation of the community around 120 BCE and represents an originally independent document. It states, among other things, that in Israel’s immediate future “the Community council shall be founded on truth (. . .) to be an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel and the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron, true witnesses for the judgement and chosen by the will (of God) to atone for the land and to render the wicked their retribution.” A clear allusion to 28:16 follows: “This (the Community) is the tested rampart, the precious cornerstone that does not (. . .) whose foundations shake or tremble from their place. (It will be) the most holy dwelling for Aaron . . .” (1QS 8,5–8).51 According to this text, the community of Qumran understood itself as the fulfilment of the prophecy in question. It is striking in this regard that the designation ˆwyxb ‘in Zion’ is dropped from the quotation from 28:16, which is now effectively stripped of its character as a Zion text. This reflects the difficulties evident within the community of Qumran with respect to Jerusalem and its temple, which was considered to have been desecrated by the priesthood. The fact that the community of Qumran considered itself to be God’s living temple is expressed in the ‘Thanksgiving Scroll’ (1QHodayot a, 1st century BCE), a document containing a collection of hymns that were composed within the community and were profoundly inspired

reverberates (4QpIsab = 4Q162: μylvwryb rva ˆwxlh yvna). See Brooke 1997:625. Of greater importance in this regard is a Pesher manuscript in which an explanation is given of 54:11–12, which is related to 28:16 (4QpIsad = 4Q164). The restoration of Jerusalem described in this text is associated with the community of Qumran itself and with its leaders. See Garcia Martínez & Tigchelaar 1997:319, 327 and Berder 1996:191. 50 For the community of Qumran’s understanding of itself as the spiritual temple, see Dimant 1986:165–189. In a document known to us as 4QFlorilegium reference is made to three temples in the context of a Pesher on 2 Samuel 7: the temple of Israel, the temple of human persons and the temple of yhwh. The first of these is the temple of Solomon and the last is the temple to be established in the future by yhwh himself. The community identifies itself with the construction of the ‘temple of human persons’ (μda vdqm), dedicated by God, in which the works of Torah had to be offered because the temple of Israel had been destroyed and the eschatological temple of yhwh still had to be built (see 4QFlor 1,6–7 = 4Q174 1,6–7). 51 See Garcia Martínez & Tigchelaar 1997:89. For a short discussion of the text of this passage see also Berder 1996:188–189.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

27

by the language of the biblical Psalms. Allusion is made to 28:16 on two occasions among the hymns of this document. The first is to be found in 1QHa 14,25–27: “I have become like someone who enters a fortified city, and finds shelter on the high wall until salvation. My God, I le[an] on your truth, for you place the foundation upon a rock, and beams to the correct size, and a t[rue] plumb line to [str]etch out, tested stones to build a fortress which will not shake. All those who enter there will not stagger, for a foreigner will not penetrate it . . .” 52 In the hymn from which this passage is taken, the poet sings of his liberation from ‘the assembly of futility’ and of the new life that he has found in ‘the holy council’ (read: the community of Qumran) (cf. 14,5). In order to be able to stand up to the temptations and dangers that he has experienced among his fellow people (who allow themselves to be led by Belial, cf. 14,21–22), the poet seeks and finds security and a sure footing in a fortified city (read: the community of Qumran). The second allusion to 28:16 follows in 1QHa 15,8–9 where the same thematic elements are evident: “. . . You placed me like a sturdy tower, like a high wall, you founded upon rock, my building and everlasting foundations as my base, all my walls are like a tested unshakeable wall.” 53 We can thus argue, in summary, that the interpretation of 28:16 in the documents of Qumran is eschatological in character, with the conviction that the end time had already commenced taking centre stage.54 The Zion text of 28:16 is directly associated with the community as such. While the name Zion appears to have been avoided, the community in question is nevertheless spoken of as a spiritual house, employing language (esp. in 1QS 8,5–8) that exhibits considerable kinship with the way in which 28:16 has found its way into 1 Pet. 2:4–8.55

See Garcia Martínez & Tigchelaar 1997:177. See Garcia Martínez & Tigchelaar 1997:179. Cf. Merklein 1973:123, Betz 1987:95–96 and Tan 1997:37–38. 54 Cf. Brooke 1997:613: “. . . those responsible for the scrolls were certain that the prophets had spoken predictively directly or indirectly about them and their contemporary situation in the first centuries BCE and CE.” 55 The technique whereby prophetic texts from the Old Testament were applied directly to the community itself is characteristic of the community of Qumran. This is particularly evident from the many fragments of biblical commentaries—the socalled Peshers—that have been preserved. See Muszynski 1975:35–39 and Dohmen 1982:86–87. 52

53

28

chapter two 2.4.2. Targum

In our discussion of the data provided by the New Testament it was evident that the Messianic interpretation of the so-called ‘stone texts’ (Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14; 28:16) was relatively old. Indeed it is probable, moreover, that such Messianic interpretations are pre-Christian in origin, given the fact that the (Babylonian) Targum of the prophets (referred to as Targum Jonathan after Jonathan ben Uzziel), which is rooted in synagogue preaching, already offers a Messianic explanation of the stone from Isa. 28:16. The expectation of Israel’s restoration evident in the Isaiah Targum and already prominent in the tradition surrounding chapter 28 (to be dated around 70 CE),56 is associated with the figure of the Messiah (4:2; 9:5f; 11:1; 14:29b; 16:1,5; 28:5; 43:10; 52:13; 53:10).57 While the Isaiah Targum does not employ the designation ‘Messiah’ with respect to the Zion text of 28:16, it nevertheless alludes explicitly to a strong, mighty and terrible king whom God shall install on Mount Zion.58 It is noted, in addition, that the righteous ones who believe will not be shaken.59 The notion of ‘being shaken’ most likely refers to the final judgement.60 Elsewhere in the Targum we encounter further examples whereby an important ‘stone text’ is clearly associated with the kingship of David but not directly linked with the Messiah. With

56 Isaiah 28 plays an important role in the Isaiah Targum. Cf. Chilton 1983:15: “Chapter twenty-eight in the Targum will figure prominently in our discussions of several of the characteristic terms and phrases. In it, the meturgeman (a general designation for the various exegetes who had contributed explanations to the Targum, JD) expresses his hope for Israel’s vindication even as he bitterly laments her apostasy (especially in respect of Temple service). The ground of both his expectation and his bitterness is his assurance that Israel has been chosen by God and that the law is the seal of her election (vv. 9, 10).” See also Chilton 1983:39: “. . . a coherent and primitive paraenesis is reflected in chapter 28 of the Targum.” 57 See Chilton 1983:86–96. With regard to the identification of the servant of yhwh and the Messiah Chilton 1983:94 notes that “in his messianic reading of the Isaian servant, the meturgeman attests a primitive exegesis common to Judaism and Christianity.” For Messianic readings in the Isaiah Targum see also Chilton 1997:547–562. 58 Cf. Chilton 1983:115f: “Understood as a metaphor for the Temple, ‘stone’ (and similar words) is probably rendered by reference to the messiah because the messiah is understood to build the Temple . . .” (cf. Targum Zech. 4:7 and 10:4). 59 Chilton 1987:56 translates the said passage as follows: “therefore thus says the LORD God, ‘Behold I am appointing in Zion a king, a strong, mighty and terrible king. I will strengthen him and harden him,’ says the prophet, ‘and the righteous who believe in these things will not be shaken when distress comes’.” Cf. StrB III,276 and 593, Jeremias 1942:276, Wildberger 1982:1076 and Roberts 1987:33. 60 Betz 1987:95 argues that this eschatological interpretation of the Targum is influenced by Hab. 2:4b.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

29

regard to the stone mentioned in Ps. 118:22, the Targum speaks of a young man among the sons of Jesse who had become king and ruler, an unmistakeable allusion to the kingship of David.61 A number of exegetes have expressed their suspicion that the frequent allusion to God as a ‘rock’ in the Old Testament has contributed to the Messianic interpretation of this and other ‘stone texts’.62 While this hypothesis is difficult to prove, a brief examination of the text of 8:14 will serve to illustrate the credibility of such a position. As we observed in § 2.3., this text, which was associated with the Zion text of 28:16 relatively early in the tradition, refers to yhwh with both the word ˆb,a, ‘stone’ as well as the word rWx ‘rock’. In spite of the fact that both terms are employed in a negative sense in 8:14—πg
30

chapter two

the stone mentioned in 28:16, it is not unthinkable that the relatively common allusion to yhwh as ‘rock’ may indeed have promoted the Messianic interpretation of this and other ‘stone texts’. 2.4.3. Talmud A relatively early Messianic interpretation is likewise identifiable in the Rabbinic literature with respect to a number of ‘stone texts’ from the Old Testament. This is certainly the case with regard to the stone referred to in Dan. 2:34 (Midrash Tanchumah, cf. 4 Ezra 13:32–36), as well as those referred to in Gen. 28:18 and Zech. 4:7,10 (see also the Messianic explanation offered by Rashi with regard to the stone mentioned in Ps. 118:22).65 The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 similarly enjoys a position of some significance in the Talmud. This is not so much due to the frequency with which the latter ‘stone text’ is quoted or to the fact that it is ascribed a Messianic interpretation, but rather because the text contributed to the emergence of a complex of images relating to the sacred rock on Mount Zion. The Jewish tradition speaks of the sacred rock in question as the hY:tiv] ˆb,a, Shetiyyah. It is said of the Shetiyyah, as early as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, that God had used the said stone to close off access to the depths of the primal sea and that his name is inscribed therein.66 The customary picture, which is already evident in a passage from the Mishnah (end 2nd century/beginning 3rd century; Yoma V,2)67 and the Tosephtah (redaction end 4th century; TYoma III,6),68 represents the Shetiyyah as See StrB III,506 and IV,879. See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (= Jerushalmi I) of Ex. 28:30, Le Déaut 1979:227: “Car sur eux (Urim and Tummim, JD) se trouve gravé en toutes lettres le Nom grand et saint par lequel ont été créés les trois cent dix mondes; (il est) aussi gravé en toutes lettres sur la pierre fondamentale avec laquelle le Maître de l’univers scella la bouche du grand abîme à l’origine.” 67 Meinhold 1913:53 translates Joma V,2 as follows: “Nach der Fortführung der Lade, war dort seit den Tagen der ersten Propheten ein drei Finger breit aus der Erde herausragender Stein, den man Schetijja nannte.” Cf. also Sanhedrin 26b in which reference is made once again to the Shetiyyah in relation to the foundations referred to in Ps. 11:3. 68 Schmidt 1933:97–98 translates TJoma III,6 as follows: “Ein Stein war dort (im Allerheiligsten) seit den Tagen der ersten Propheten. Schetijja wurde er genannt. Er ragte drei Finger breit aus der Erde hervor. An der Stelle hatte nämlich ursprünglich die Lade gestanden. Seitdem nun die Lade fortgenommen war, pflegte man das Räucheropfer des Allerheiligsten darauf darzubringen. Rabbi Jose sagt: Von ihm aus wurde die Welt gegründet; denn es heißt: ‘Aus Zion, der Krone der Schönheit, strahlte Gott auf ’ (Ps. 50:1f ).” Cf. Böhl 1974:257. 65 66

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

31

already having been present in the days prior to the exile in the place where the temple later stood and that it only became visible when the Ark was removed. The same Shetiyyah is later named in association with representations of the ‘navel of the earth’.69 The Palestinian Talmud ( beginning 5th century), for example, alludes to the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 within the framework of the Shetiyyah depictions referred to above and endeavours to explain the name Shetiyyah with the help of the Zion text. Reference is made in pYoma 42c to the stone that became visible when the Ark was removed from the temple. A rabbi then asks why the stone in question bears the name Shetiyyah and the response states that the world was founded from out of the said stone. Reference is thus made in this context to both Ps. 50:1–2 and Isa. 28:16.70 From the etymological perspective it is possible that the term hY:tiv] has its semantic roots in the verb htv ‘to weave’.71 Others take the notion of a ‘foundation stone’ as their point of departure.72 Something similar is written of the Shetiyyah in the slightly younger but no less authoritative Babylonian Talmud (6th century; cf. bYoma 54b), referring explicitly to Zion as the place from which the world is founded without, however, directly quoting the text of Isa. 28:16.73 Böhl 1974:259ff. See the translation by Avemarie 1995:135: “R. Yochanan sagte: Warum heißt er ‘Stein der Shetiyya’? Weil von ihm aus die Welt gegründet wurde (‘hushta’). R. Chiyya lehrte: Und warum heißt er ‘Stein der Shetiyya’? Weil von ihm aus die Welt getränkt wurde (‘hushta’). Es steht geschrieben: Ein Psalm Asafs. Gott, Gott, der Herr, spricht und ruft die Erde usw., aus Zion, der vollkommnen Schönheit, leuchtet Gott auf (Ps 50,1–2), und heißt: Darum (spricht Gott, der Herr:) Siehe, ich lege einen Grundstein in Zion usw. ( Jes. 28,16).” 71 See Böhl 1974:258. 72 Cf. Meinhold 1913:53 and Avemarie 1995:135. 73 See Epstein 1974: “And it was called shethiyah: A Tanna taught: [ It was so called] because from it the world was founded. We were taught in accord with the view that the world was started [created] from Zion on. For it was taught: R. Eliezer says: The world was created from its centre, as it is said: When the dust runneth into a mass, and the clods keep fast together ( Job 38,38). R. Joshua said: The world was created from its sides on, as it is said: For He saith to the snow: ‘Fall thou on the earth’, likewise to the shower of rain, and to the showers of His mighty rain ( Job 37,6). R. Isaac the Smith said: The Holy One, blessed be He, cast a stone into the ocean, from which the world then was founded as it is said: Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner-stone thereof ? ( Job 38,6) But the Sages said: The world was [started] created from Zion, as it is said: A Psalm of Asaph, God, God, the Lord [ hath spoken], whereupon it reads on: Out of Zion, the perfection of the world (Ps. 50,1–2), that means from Zion was the beauty of the world perfected. It was taught: R. Eliezer the Great said: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven (Gen. 2,4). The generations [the creations] of heaven were made from the heaven and the generations of the earth were made from the earth. But the Sages said: Both were created from Zion, as it is said: ‘A Psalm of Asaph: God, God, the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth 69 70

32

chapter two

The representations thus associated with the Shetiyyah are made clear from a couple of passages stemming from a few later Midrashim. Midrash Tanchumah (Qedoshim 10), for example, speaks of the central location of the Shetiyyah. Just as Israel constitutes the centre of the world and Jerusalem the centre of Israel, so the temple building is located in the centre of Jerusalem and the Ark and the Shetiyyah are located in the centre of the temple. The conviction is likewise expressed in this context that the world is founded from out of the Shetiyyah. Elsewhere in Midrash Tanchumah (Achareimot 3) further reference is made to the Shetiyyah as having been present in this place since the days of the first prophets. It could thus be said of the first temple that the Holy One dwelt on the rock.74 In addition to contexts in which the Shetiyyah is part of the discussion, the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is also alluded to on a few other occasions in the midrashic literature, in this instance more by way of association. A midrash on Lev. 14:42, for example, offers stipulations concerning the removal of stones from a house infected by a plague of leprosy and their replacement with new stones. Reference is thus made to Isa. 28:16 in this regard.75 In a midrash on Deut. 10:1, in which Moses is given the charge to carve out two stone tablets, a reference is made to Qoh. 3:5 with its application to emperor Hadrian and is followed with a question asking when God shall rebuild the temple. The response to the question is a quotation from the Zion text of Isa. 28:16.76 It would appear from the Talmud passages referred to above that the rabbis were not inclined to interpret Isa. 28:16 in association with the Messiah but rather, and in particular, with the temple: as a component in the complex of images surrounding the presentation of the Shetiyyah, the sacred rock on Mount Zion, and as a promise concerning the future reconstruction of the temple. It is not unimaginable that the significant role played by the said ‘stone text’ of Isa. 28:16 in the conceptualisation of the Shetiyyah may have served to limit the space available for a Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16.

from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof.’ And Scripture further says: ‘Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God has shined forth’, that means from it the beauty of the world was perfected.” 74 See the text of this passage in Schmidt 1933:99–100. 75 See Israelstamm-Slotki 19613:222. 76 See Rabbinowitz 19613:82–83.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

33

2.4.4. Evaluation The following conclusions can be drawn from our brief survey of the Jewish explanation of Isa. 28:16: • The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is interpreted within the Qumran community in ecclesiological terms and associated directly with the community itself. The community of Qumran saw itself as the new eschatological community that God was to establish at the end of time. In like fashion to the New Testament community in 1 Pet. 2:4–8, the community of Qumran also understood itself as a spiritual house. In neither the ‘Rule of the Community’ (1QS) nor the ‘Thanksgiving Scroll’ (1QHa), two extremely important documents left to posterity by the Qumran community, is the stone referred to in the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 given a Messianic interpretation. • The rendition of Isa. 28:16 found in the Isaiah Targum (Targum Jonathan), on the other hand, alludes explicitly to a strong, mighty and terrible king whom yhwh shall install on Mount Zion. This is in line with a tendency observable within the Isaiah Targum that associates the expectation of Israel’s restoration with the Messiah. Such a Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16 exhibits a degree of kinship with the way in which the Targum is similarly able to link the stone mentioned in Ps. 118:22 with the ascendance of King David. Targumic explanations such as these serve to reinforce the suspicion that the Messianic explanation of the Old Testament ‘stone texts’ already enjoyed a pre-Christian heritage. A number of passages from the Midrash likewise point in this direction. • In the Talmud we find reference to the Zion text of 28:16 primarily with respect to the temple and almost exclusively within the framework of explanations related to the Shetiyyah, the sacred stone or rock on Mount Zion. The stone/rock in question served as the location from which the world was founded and as the place upon which the ark had stood in the days of the prophets. On one single occasion, the Zion text of 28:16 is linked with the promise of a future restoration of the temple. In light of the Messianic interpretation of other ‘stone texts’ found in a number of places in the Midrash (Gen. 28:18; Dan. 2:34; Zech. 4:7,10), it is surprising that the Talmud contains no Messianic interpretations of the stone referred to in 28:16. It is possible that this coincides with the significant place occupied by the said Zion text in the conceptualisation of the Shetiyyah. It is thus

34

chapter two

reasonable to argue that the space occupied by our ‘stone text’ in the conceptualisation of the Shetiyyah limited the space available for a Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in 28:16. 2.5. Early Church Having reviewed the Jewish exegesis of Isa. 28:16 as found in the documents of Qumran, in the Targum and in the Talmud, we will now focus our attention on the Christian reception history of our text in the early church. The Letter of Barnabas dates from the beginning of the 2nd century and serves as one of the most important documents related to the church’s beginnings. The first sub-paragraph will endeavour to determine the manner with which the document in question interprets the Zion text of Isa. 28:16. In the second sub-paragraph we will turn our attention to the explanations of Tertullian and Cyprian as representatives of Christian exegesis from the 3rd century. The third sub-paragraph will then address itself to relevant works of Jerome and Augustine, two prominent Church Fathers from the 4th and 5th century whose significance for the western (Latin) church is considerable. The fourth sub-paragraph will be dedicated to the explanations found in the work of two exegetes who came to be very significant for the eastern (Greek) church, namely Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus, both from the 5th century. The final sub-paragraph will offer a summary of our findings with respect to the explanation of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 in the early church. 2.5.1. The Letter of Barnabas With its roots in the church’s earliest beginnings, the Letter of Barnabas has proven its value for the study of this period time and again. Probably written around 130 CE, the document alludes to a number of Old Testament texts in the service of Christian preaching. A passage on the soteriological significance of Christ’s work of suffering makes reference to Isa. 28:16 as a proof text (Barn. 6:2b–3).77 For the sake

77 Cf. Skarsaune 1996:386: “Barn. 5.1–6.7 is mainly a collection of Christological proof-texts, most of which can be traced in Christian writers earlier than Barnabas, and which recur in later writers. In other words: ‘Barnabas’ is here working with Christological ‘mainstream’ testimonies.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

35

of clarity we quote the entire passage from Barn. 6:1–4, together with an English translation:78 Ὅτε οὖν ἐποίησεν τὴν ἐντολήν, τί λέγει; Τίς ὁ κρινόμενός μοι; ἀντιστήτω μοι· ἤ τίς ὁ δικαιούμενός μοι; ἐγγισάτω τῷ παιδὶ κυρίου. οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὑμεῖς πάντες ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιωθήσεσθε, καὶ σὴς καταφάγεται ὑμᾶς. καὶ πάλιν λέγει ὁ προφήτης, ἐπεὶ ὡς λίθος ἰσχυρὸς ἐτέθη εἰς

1 And so, when he issued the commandment, what did he say? “Who is the one who takes me to court? Let him oppose me! Or who acquits himself before me? Let him approach the servant of the Lord! 2 Woe to you, for you will all grow old like a garment and a moth will devour you.” And again, since he was set in place as a strong stone used for crushing, the prophet says,

συντριβήν, See, I will cast into Zion’s foundation a ᾽Ιδού, ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιὼν precious stone that is chosen, a cornerstone, λίθον πολυτελῆ, ἐκλεκτόν, one to be valued.” ἀκρογωνιαῖον, ἔντιμον. 3 Then what does he say? “The one who believes in him will live forεἰτα τί λέγει; Καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ζήσεται ever.” Is our hope then built on a stone? May it εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ἐπὶ λίθον οὗν ἡμῶν ἡ ἐλπίς; never be! But he says this because the Lord has set his μὴ γένοιτο· flesh up in strength. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐν ἰσχύϊ τέθεικεν τὴν For he says, σάρκα αύτοῦ ὁ κύριος. “He set me up as a hard rock.” λέγει γάρ· 4 And again the prophet says, Καὶ ἔθηκέ με ὡς στερεὰν πέτραν. “A stone that the builders rejected has become λέγει δὲ πάλιν ὁ προπφήτης· the very cornerstone.” λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ And again he says, οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. καὶ πάλιν λέγει· Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη καὶ θαυμαστή, ἣν ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος.

“This is the great and marvellous day the Lord has made.”

In contrast to the quotations found in Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6, the Zion text from Isa. 28:16 cited in the Letter of Barnabas is in almost exact agreement with the Septuagint.79 Only the concluding words of the quotation as found in the letter would appear to differ to any degree Ehrman 2003:31. Of the almost 100 Old Testament quotations in the Letter of Barnabas, one quarter are taken from the book of Isaiah. In contrast to quotations from the Pentateuch and the other prophets, references to Isaiah exhibit strong affinity with the text of the Septuagint. See Kraft 1960:337. 78 79

36

chapter two

from the Septuagint (καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν instead of καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ).80 They are linked by way of allusion to Gen. 3:22b (ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα instead of οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ). Surprisingly enough, the quotation of 28:16 in Barn. 6:2–4 is likewise linked by way of allusion to Isa. 50:6–8 (Barn. 5:13–14). Given the fact that this Isaiah text also speaks of a stone, it would seem that one allusion/ quotation calls to mind the other. The link itself is somewhat associative. Isa. 50:6–8 makes reference to the voluntary suffering of the servant of yhwh, but also to the assistance of yhwh who did not allow his servant to be put to shame. The allusion in question ends in Barn. 5:14 with the words:81 και πάλιν λέγει· ᾽Ιδού τέθεικά μου τὸν νῶτον εἰς μάστιγας´ τὰς δὲ σιαγόνας εἰς ῥαπίσματα· τὸ δὲ πρόσωπόν μου ἔθηκα ὡς στερεὰν πέτραν.

Again he says,

“See! I have set my back to whips and my cheeks to blows; and I have set my face as a hard rock.”

In light of the information garnered from New Testament sources, it is hardly surprising that the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16 is likewise identified in the Letter of Barnabas with Christ, although it is surprising that the said identification is borrowed in the first instance from the already quoted segment (50:7b), which is repeated in Barn. 6:3 in direct association with the quotation of 28:16. With a view to establishing a sound scriptural foundation for the salvific significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, and in line with 1 Pet. 2:4–8, the text goes on to speak of the rejected stone from Ps. 118:22 (Barn. 6:4). The observant reader, however, will already have noted the indirect allusion to the stone from 8:14 in the introduction to the quotation from 28:16 (Barn. 6:2). The sequence of ‘stone texts’ in the Letter of Barnabas provides further evidence in support of the hypothesis derived from New Testament sources, namely that the various Old Testament ‘stone texts’ were already linked with one another at an exceptionally early stage and that they enjoyed an established place in the Messianic witness of the early church from the very beginning.82

80 A single manuscript has: ὅς ἐλπίσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ‘those who hope in him’. See Barnard 1966:120. 81 See Ehrman 2003:29. 82 Cf. Prostmeier 1999:253: “Hierbei ist die Wahl der Segmente aus dem seman-

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

37

2.5.2. Tertullian and Cyprian Although Tertullian (circa 150–223) lived most of his life in the second century, his exegesis of the Scriptures can be considered together with that of Cyprian (circa 200–258) as representative of Christian exegesis of the 3rd century. Tertullian deals with the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 for the most part in his five volume Adversus Marcionem,83 an apologetic work in which the Old Testament ‘stone texts’ pass in review on more than one occasion in order to prove that the Christ promised by the Creator in the Old Testament is none other than the Christ of the New Testament gospels. In III,7,2–3, for example, he relates the stumbling stone referred to in Isa. 8:14 to the first coming of Christ, a coming in lowliness, via an allusion to Isa. 53:2–3. He then relates the rejected stone from Ps. 118:22, which subsequently became the cornerstone, with the second coming of Christ. Tertullian immediately associates the said cornerstone with the stone referred to in Dan. 2:34, which broke loose from a mountain and crushed the image of the kingdoms of the earth.84 Tertullian makes no explicit allusion to 28:16 in this passage, nor does he do so in IV,35,14–15 in which he returns for a second time to the Messianic explanation of Ps. 118:22. In V,17,16 he returns to Ps. 118:22 for the third time, in this instance as a source for Paul’s claim in Eph. 2:20 that Christ is the cornerstone. The Zion text from Isa. 28:16 is dealt with for the first time in V,5,9. On the occasion of Marcion’s treatment of 1 Corinthians 1, Tertullian

tischen Potential der Steinmetapher signifikant durch das Interesse geleitet, das Christusereignis als die Erfüllung der Prophetien ad vocem πέτραν zu erweisen.” See also Albl 1999:279–281. 83 Tertullian published in total three editions of this work, the first possibly as early as 198, the third in 208. See Evans 1972:xviii. 84 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem III,7,3: “Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competunt, sicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem templi, ecclesiae scilicet, et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret.” Translation Evans 1972 I:189: “These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second, when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of the world.” This passage is more or less identical to Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos XIV,2–3. See CChr.SL 2,1392 and Tränkle 1964.

38

chapter two

remarks that even though the proclamation of Christ is a stumbling block for the Jews, it can, however, still be understood as a guarantee of a prophecy of the Creator. In this regard, Tertullian quotes the Zion text of 28:16 in such a way that the text in question merges with that of 8:14,85 thereby giving rise to a striking agreement with the way in which these texts are quoted in Rom. 9:33. The only, and at once surprising difference is the fact that Tertullian quotes the text in the perfect tense (‘posui’). In V,6,10 Tertullian introduces 28:16 once again, this time in relation to 1 Cor. 2–3. While the combination with Isa. 8:14 is no longer employed, we find a surprising combination with Isa. 3:3 in its place in which it is announced that the Lord is about to remove every form of support from Jerusalem and Judah. Tertullian explains this text as a prediction of Paul’s break with Judaism, since the wise builder (‘sapientem architectum’) was also to be removed from Judah. Paul was thus taken away from Judaism in order to establish Christianity and to set its foundations in Christ. With an allusion to 28:16, Tertullian goes on to illustrate the fact that the creator had already spoken of this one and only foundation. This time his quotation is in the present tense (‘inicio’) and makes use of a verb that would appear to be more in line with the Septuagint’s ἐμβάλλω than with the verb τίθημι as employed in the New Testament. Tertullian also takes a text version as his point of departure that contains the characteristic plus of the Septuagint in the second half of 28:16 (‘in eum’).86

85 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V,5,9: “Etiam quod scandalum Iudaeis praedicat Christum, prophetiam super illo consignat creatoris, dicentis per Esaiam, Ecce posui in Sion lapidem offensionis et petram scandali. Petra autem fuit Christus: etiam Marcion servat.” Translation Evans 1972 II:539: “Even in saying that his preaching of Christ is to the Jews an offence, he sets his seal on the Creator’s prophecy about that, who speaks by Isaiah, Behold I have placed in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. But the rock was Christ. Even Marcion has kept that.” 86 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V,6,10: “Et numquid ipse tunc Paulus destinabatur, de Iudaea, id est de Iudaismo, auferre habens in aedificationem Christianismi, positurus unicum fundamentum, quod est Christus? Quia et de hoc per eundem prophetam creator, Ecce ego, inquit, inicio in fundamenta Sionis lapidem pretiosum, honorabilem, et qui in eum crediderit non confundetur.” Translation Evans 1972 II:547: “And was that not a presage of Paul himself, who was destined to be taken away from Judaea, which means Judaism, for the building up of Christendom? For he was to lay that one and only foundation which is Christ. Indeed of this too the Creator speaks, by the same prophet: Behold I insert into the foundations of Sion a stone precious and honourable, and he that believeth in it shall not be put to shame.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

39

Cyprian, who considered himself to be a pupil of Tertullian, deals with the Zion text of 28:16 in Testimonia ad Quirinum addressed to his son. This document contains a chapter entitled ‘Quod idem et lapis dictus sit’ (liber II, caput XVI) in which Cyprian strings together all sorts of scriptural quotations relating to a stone or to stones in the plural. In addition to the now familiar texts of Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118:22ff and Acts 4:8–12, allusion is also made to Zech. 3:8–9 (the stone with seven eyes), Deut. 27:8 (the memorial stones on Mount Ebal) and Jos. 24:26–27 (the memorial stone at Shechem).87 The evident ease with which such unrelated ‘stone texts’ are ascribed a Messianic interpretation is apparent from the commentary Cyprian supplies to this string of allusions in which the stone of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 28:18), the stone upon which Moses sat during Israel’s confrontation with Amalek (Ex. 17:12), the stone at Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. 6:14), the stone with which David knocked out the giant Goliath (1 Sam. 17:49) and the stone Ebenezer set up by Samuel between Mizpah and Jeshanah (1 Sam. 7:12) are directly associated with one another.88 Even though the work of Tertullian shows the anchoring of the Messianic interpretation of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 firmly in place in the early church, it is primarily in the work of Cyprian that we encounter a considerable expansion of the number of ‘stone texts’, all of which are interrelated. The possibilities created by the allegorical method would appear to have provided the Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament ‘stone texts’ with some extra stimulus.

87 Dan. 2:31–35 is treated by Cyprian separately in the following chapter (see caput XVII). 88 See CChr.SL 3,51–53: “Hic est lapis in Genesi, quem ponit Iacob ad caput suum, quia caput viri Christus, et dormiens videt scalam ad caelum pertingentem, in quia constitutus erat Dominus, et anguli ascendebant et descedebant: quem lapidem consecravit et unxit sacramento unctionis Christum significans. Hic est lapis in Exodo, super quem sedit Moyses in cacumine collis, quando Iesus Naue contra Amalech dimicabat, et sacramento lapidis et stabilitate sessionis Amalach superatus est ab Iesu, id est diabolus a Christo victus est. Hic est lapis magnus in Basilion primo, super quem posita est arca testamenti, quando eam ab allophylis remissam et redditam in plaustro boves reportaverunt. Hic est lapis item in Basilion primo, quo David frontem Goliae percussit et occidit, significans diabolum et servos eius inde prosterni victos scilicet ea capitis parte, quam signatam non habent: quo signo nos et tuti summus semper et vivimus. Hic est lapis, quem cum alienigenas Israhel vicisset, statuit Samuhel et appellavit nomen ens Abbennezer id est lapis auxiliator.”

40

chapter two 2.5.3. Jerome and Augustine

In order to establish an accurate picture of the way in which the ancient church understood the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 in later centuries, we do well to turn our attention to the exegetical works of Jerome and Augustine. There can be little doubt that Jerome (circa 347–420) and Augustine (354–430) are the two most prominent exegetes of the 4th and 5th centuries. The ease with which Jerome associates all the Old Testament ‘stone texts’ with Christ is apparent from a treatise on Ps. 134. In a fashion highly reminiscent of Cyprian, Jerome speaks of Christ as cornerstone in the context of his comments on verse 3 (“May the Lord . . . bless you from Zion”). He alludes in detail to the dream of Jacob at Bethel whereby he identifies the stone under Jacob’s head with Christ. He then goes on to associate this stone with the cornerstone from Ps. 118:22 and ‘the Stone of Help (Ebenezer)’ from 1 Sam. 7:12.89 Isa. 28:16 is alluded to in the sermon In Dei Dominica Pascha, in which Jerome complains about the Jews, for their rejection of Christ and their inability to understand that the stone referred to in 28:16 is the Messiah and Son of God.90 Jerome’s interpretation of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is to be found for the most part, however, in his Bible commentaries. It is evident in this regard that the accent has shifted from the stone to be set in Zion to the construction in which the stone is to function as a cornerstone. The emphasis likewise shifts from a Messianic interpretation to an ecclesiological one,91 a shift that would appear to go hand in hand with

89 See CChr.SL 78,292: “Sub capite ipsius lapis erat Xpistus.” “Vultis scire quia lapis ille, qui erat ad caput Iacob, Xpistus erat lapis angularis? Lapis quem reprobaverunt aedificantes hic factus est in caput anguli. Lapis ille, qui scriptus est in Regnorum libro, Abenezer. Lapis iste Xpistus est. Abenezer autem interpretatur lapis adiutorii. Consurrexit, inquit, Iacob mane. Et quid dixit? Haec, inquit, domus Dei est. Et quid fecit? Tulit, inquit, oleum, et inxit lapidem . . .” 90 See CChr.SL 78,549: “O vere infelices Iudaei, o vere miseri atque miserabiles, qui non intellexistis lapidem, qui per Esaiam repromissus est, quod poneretur in fundamentis Sion, et populum utrumque coniungeret, esse Dominum Salvatorem, esse Dei Filium. Hunc vos reprobastis aedificantes quondam congregationem Domini et templi eius mysteria custodientes. Qui reprobatus a vobis, factus est in caput anguli, et primam ecclesiam de Iudaeorum populo congregatam et credentes ex nationibus in unum gregem et mysterium faederavit. A Domino factum est istud. . . .” 91 Cf. Maiburg 1984:252: “Wegen des zumeist ekklesiologischen Anliegens der Väter interessieren die früheren Fragen nicht mehr, sondern das Bild vom Bau als Ganzem, der Ekklesia, wird relevant, in das das Bild vom Eckstein als Bestandteil eingefügt

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

41

the new status of the Christian faith as an established religion. The defence of the truth of the Christian faith as opposed to the Jewish faith is thus no longer the primary focus when interpreting the Old Testament. Given the focus on the ecclesiological aspect at this juncture, it is striking how the imagery of the cornerstone comes to be elaborated further and further and to acquire all sorts of associations, less and less related to the original architectural intention of the cornerstone. As a matter of fact, Jerome merges together all the instances in the Scriptures that have anything to do with a cornerstone, combining them into a single whole in such a way that the texts serve to mutually interpret one another.92 In line with the tradition, Jerome combines Isa. 28:16 in his Commentarium in Esaiam with texts such as Ps. 118:22 and Dan. 2:31–35. The shift towards emphasis on the ecclesiological dimension only becomes apparent, however, when he establishes an immediate link between 28:16 and the church foundational work of Paul who refers to himself in 1 Cor. 3:10–11 as an expert architect who has established the foundation in Christ and in Christ alone. Reference to the cornerstone is then explained on the basis of Eph. 2:20 in which the unity of the community is central and the cornerstone is ascribed a connective function in the amalgamation of two walls, in casu the Jews and the Gentiles, into one people of God: ‘angularis lapis, quia circumcisionis et gentium populos copulavit’.93 The New Testament community is built upon this stone. Jerome likewise makes reference to the cornerstone in relation to Isa. 54:11 whereby he alludes to the well-known ‘stone texts’. Once wird. Nicht mehr das ‘Schicksal’ des Steins ist von Belang, sondern seine Funktion im Gebäude der Kirche.” The shift in accent from a Messianic to an ecclesiological interpretation is also evident in Eusebius (circa 265–339) who associates the stone mentioned in 28:16 in the first instance with Mt. 16:18 in his commentary on Isaiah. See Ziegler 1975:183: οὗτος δ᾽ ἂν εἴη ὁ λίθος, ὁ αὐτός τε πέτρα περὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἔλεγεν· >ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν<. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν λίθον ἐπαγγέλλεται θήσειν εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιών, ὃ δὴ καὶ ἔργῳ πεποίηκεν εἰπὼν καὶ ἐπιτελέσας τό· >ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν<. Σιὼν γὰρ ὄρος τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν κήρυγμα καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τούτῳ τεθεμελιωμένην ἐκκλησίαν πολλάκις ἐξειλήφαμεν. πολυτελῆ δὲ ὄντα τὸν λίθον τοῦτον καὶ ἐκλεκτὸν καὶ τίμιον θησειν εἰς τὰ θεμέλια τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐπαγγέλλεται. ἐντεῦθεν γωνιαῖος καὶ ἀκρογωνιαῖος κέκληται.

92 Maiburg 1984:254. A highly unusual association is also to be found in a sermon by Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna based on Lk. 17:1–2 in which he associates the millstone to be hung round a person’s neck with the cornerstone, the stone of help and the stone that freed itself from the mountains without human interference. See CChr.SL 24,158–159 (Sermo XXVII). 93 See CChr.SL 73,363.

42

chapter two

again, and with allusion to Eph. 2:20 and Hebr. 11:10, he places the emphasis on the ecclesiological function of the cornerstone.94 In his Commentarium in Hiezechielem, Jerome makes allusion to the stones of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20) and the precious stones on the breastpiece of the High Priest (Ex. 28:9,17) in relation to the precious stones mentioned in the lament concerning the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:13). He then associates the latter with the living stones referred to in 1 Pet. 2:5, the construction referred to in Eph. 2:20–21 and lapis lazuli referred to in Isa. 54:11. Other now familiar ‘stone texts’ then pass the review.95 Against the background of the four tablets of hewn stone referred to in Ezek. 40:42, Jerome even proposes an allegorical explanation whereby the number four is associated with the four gospels and the three equal measures with the mystery of the Trinity. The stones themselves serve as symbols for the living stones, whereby the cornerstone is mentioned as the stone that holds together the walls of the old and new covenant.96 Jerome’s specifically ecclesiological interests are also expressed in his Commentarium in Zachariam Prophetam. In order to arrive at an adequate explanation of the stone with seven eyes alluded to in Zech. 3:8–9 he turns once again to Eph. 2:20.97 Similarly, when he speaks of the cornerstones from Ps. 118:22 and Isa. 28:16 in relation to the Corner Gate referred to in Zech. 14:10–11, his explanation is completely determined by the ecclesiological perspective of Eph. 2:14–22. The cornerstone binds two walls and thereby two peoples.98 The development evident in the work of Jerome, moving from an originally Messianic to a more ecclesiological explanation of the cornerstone, is also a characteristic feature of the writings of Augustine. Indeed, where Augustine is concerned, both the Messianic and the ecclesiological interpretations are bound together inseparably. Augustine’s confrontation with the Manichean Faustus places particular emphasis

See CChr.SL 73,610: “Qui factus est in caput anguli, et duos populos continet, gentium et Israel; qui aedificavit civitatem, cuius artifex et conditor Deus est.” 95 See CChr.SL 75,393. 96 See CChr.SL 75,582: “. . . isti sunt vivi lapides qui volvuntur super terram et habent secum angularem lapidem quo veteris et novi testamenti parietes continuentur . . .” 97 See CChr.SL 76A,775. 98 See CChr.SL 76A,887: “Qui angularis lapis parietem utrumque connectit, et duos populos in unum redigit, de quo et Deus loquitur per Esaiam: Ecce ponam in Sion lapidem angularem, electum et pretiosum in fundamentis eius; et qui crediderit in eum, non confundetur.” 94

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

43

on the Old Testament as a source of statements about Christ. Faustus had considered it a sign of weakness in a person’s faith if he or she was unable to believe in Christ apart from the search for Jewish witnesses. While the Manicheans were even of the opinion that the New Testament itself required a good deal of weeding out, their opinion on the Old Testament was entirely negative: a corporal book that bore no relationship whatsoever with Christ and deserved to be rejected.99 For Augustine, Christ was the fulfilment of the Old Testament and everything therein had to be related to him: “if we desire to follow the path of right judgement and wish to avoid deviation from the cornerstone and risk suffering shipwreck in our judgement.” Augustine understands Christ not only as Head, but when he thinks of Christ, he also thinks of the body of Christ, his church on earth. This implies that his interpretation of the Old Testament is both christocentric and ecclesiocentric.100 If we turn in particular to Augustine’s explanation of the cornerstone referred to in Isa. 28:16, it is striking that the identification of this stone along with other ‘stones’ alluded to in the Old Testament, with Christ functions as an obvious point of departure. In his commentary on Jn. 1:52, Augustine is able to draw a connection, in line with Cyprian and Jerome, between the stone of 28:16 and the stone of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 28:18), which as a matter of fact was also anointed.101 It is evident from a significant portion of Augustine’s work that he found the imagery of Christ as cornerstone attractive. When writing on particular biblical texts, he frequently alludes to the ‘lapis angularis’.102 It

See Polman 1955:75–82. Polman 1955:86–87. 101 See CChr.SL 36,80: “. . . et lapidem quem sibi posuerat ad caput, unxit. Audistis quia Messias Christus est, audistis quia unctus Christus est. Non enim sic posuit lapidem unctum, ut veniret et adoraret; alioquin idololatria esset, non significatio Christi. Facta est ergo significatio, quo usque oportuit fieri significationem, et significatus est Christus. Lapis unctus, sed non in idolum. Lapis unctus: lapis quare? Ecce pono in Sion lapidem electum, pretiosum, et qui crediderit in illum, non confundetur. Quare unctus? Quia Christus a charismate. Quid autem vidit tunc in scalis? Adscendentes et descendentes angelos. Sic est et ecclesia, fratres; angeli Dei, boni praedicatores, praedicantes Christum . . .” As a matter of fact, the same texts are effortlessly linked together by Augustine’s friend and contemporary Quodvultdeus of Carthage. See his Liber Promissionum I, caput XXIII in CChr.SL 60,40–41. 102 See, for example, CChr.SL 36 (Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium), 99, 161, 175, 207, 407, 442; CChr.SL 38 (Enarrationes in Psalmos I–L), 23, 539–542; CChr.SL 39 (Enarrationes in Psalmos LI–C), 751, 1063, 1139, 1199–1200, 1203, 1221, 1337, 1354, 1356; CChr. SL 40 (Enarrationes in Psalmos CI–CL), 1437, 1567, 1570, 1626, 1636, 1857; CChr.SL 41 (Sermones de Vetere Testamento I–L), 33, 523; CChr.SL 47–48 (De Civitate Dei ), 185, 618. 99

100

44

chapter two

is striking, however, that while he regularly alludes to Eph. 2:14–22 in this regard, and quotes it directly from time to time, the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is virtually always absent from his considerations. It is clear that Eph. 2:14–22 serves as an important interpretative framework for Augustine, understandable in light of his ecclesiological interests. By way of illustration we can refer to his interpretation of the plural ‘montes Sion’ in the Latin text of Ps. 47:3 (NRSV Ps. 48:2). Augustine explains the plural with an allusion to Eph. 2:14–22 in combination with Ps. 118:22, seemingly overlooking the fact that the presence of the term Zion left open the possibility of establishing an association with Isa. 28:16.103 In his explanation of Ps. 118:22, Eph. 2:14–22 functions similarly as the interpretative framework without any reference to the Zion text of Isa. 28:16.104 It is only in Augustine’s discussion of the superscription to the Latin text of Ps. 111 (NRSV Ps. 112), in which reference is made to Haggai and Zechariah and their involvement in the construction of the temple, that we find an allusion to Isa. 28:16, albeit as part of a quotation from 1 Pet. 2:4–6, which Augustine immediately associates thereafter with a quotation from Eph. 2:19–22.105 It is also apparent that Christ and the church are inseparably linked in the Old Testament exegesis found in Augustine’s major work De Civitate Dei (413–426).106 The same applies at this juncture as noted above, however, namely that the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is not dealt with separately, in spite of the fact that Augustine’s discussion of the period and the writings of the prophets explicitly states that Isaiah

103 See CChr.SL 38,540: “An qui ad Sion pertinuerunt etiam qui de diverso venerunt, ut sibi occurrerent in lapidem angularem, et fierent illi duo parietes tamquam duo montes, unus ex circumcisione, alter ex praeputio, unus ex Iudaeis, alter ex gentibus; non iam adversi, etsi diversi, quia ex diverso, iam in angulo nec diversi? Ipse est enim, inquit, pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum. Ipse ille angularis lapis, quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, factus est in caput anguli. Duos iunxit in se mons montes . . .” 104 For Ps. 118:22, see CChr.SL 40,1662: “At istum quem dicimus? Lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes: nam hic factus est in caput anguli; ut duos conderet in se, in unum novum hominem, faciens pacem, et connecteret utrosque in uno corpore Deo, circumcisionem scilicet et praeputium.” 105 See CChr.SL 40,1626. 106 Cf. Book XVI,2 “However, what is certain to all men of faith is, first, that these things were not done and recorded without some prefiguring of what was to come and, second, that they are to be referred only to Christ and His Church, which is the City of God . . .” (R.J. Deferrari [ed.], The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol. 7, Writings of Saint Augustine, City of God Books VIII–XVI (tr. G.G. Walsh & G. Monahan), CUA Press, Washington, 1950, p. 489).

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

45

was more an evangelist than a prophet because he spoke more about Christ and the church than the other prophets.107 Counter to expectations, the ‘lapis angularis’ is only referred to on one single occasion throughout De Civitate Dei, in a passage (book XVIII,28) in which the author alludes to the cornerstone of Eph. 2:20 in the context of the vocation of the Gentiles and in association with Hos. 1:10–11: “Let the reader, therefore, on his own, bring to mind that ‘chief cornerstone’ and those two ‘walls’ and he will recognise the one made up of the Jews under the designation ‘Juda’, and the other made up of Gentiles under the designation ‘Israel’, both of them built upon, and supported by, a single ‘foundation’ and both rising ‘out of the earth’.”108 It would appear from the writings of both Jerome and Augustine that a shift in emphasis has taken place in the direction of a more ecclesiological interpretation of the cornerstone spoken of in the Old and the New Testaments. Eph. 2:14–22 seems to have functioned as a primary interpretative framework in the 4th and 5th centuries, also with respect to our understanding of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16. 2.5.4. Cyril and Theodoret Two commentaries have been preserved from the time of the christological struggle between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools, one ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria (378–444), who played a primary role in the said struggle and was a fierce opponent of the ideas of Nestor, the other by one of his opponents, the Antiochian Theodoret of Cyrus (393–circa 466). The Antiochian school included the renowned exegete of the day Theodore of Mopsuestia (circa 350–428) and the latter’s friend John Chrysostom (circa 354–407), who had acquired considerable fame as a preacher. While Theodore and John are both known to have written commentaries on the prophet Isaiah, that of the former, 107 Cf. R.J. Deferrari (ed.), The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol. 24, Writings of Saint Augustine, City of Books XVII–XXII (tr. G.G. Walsh & D.J. Honan), CUA Press, Washington, 1954, pp. 123–126. (Book XVIII, 29). In order to bring his work to a conclusion, Augustine limits himself in this regard to Isa. 52:13–53:12 and 54:1–5. 108 R.J. Deferrari (ed.), The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol. 24, Writings of Saint Augustine, City of God Books XVII–XXII (tr. G.G. Walsh & D.J. Honan), CUA Press, Washington, 1954, p. 122. See the Latin text in CChr.SL 48, 618: “Recolatur tamen lapis ille angularis et duo parieter, unus ex ludaeis, alter ex gentibus; ille nomine filiorum luda, iste nomine filiorum Israel, eidem uni principatui suo in id ipsum innitentes et ascendentes agnoscantur a terra.”

46

chapter two

like so many of his other works, has been lost, while that of the latter breaks off suddenly at Isa. 8:10.109 Cyril relates the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16 directly to Jesus Christ whom he characterises as foundation and place of refuge, stating that Christ has become the immovable foundation of the spiritual Zion, that is, the church. Cyril’s standpoint in the christological struggle of his day is expressed in the association he establishes between the preciousness of the stone mentioned in 28:16 and Christ’s all-surpassing divine glory and excellence.110 Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 265–339), on the other hand, had associated the stone with the human body of Christ.111 In line with Jerome and Augustine, Cyril likewise leans in the direction of Eph. 2:14–22 in his explanation of the cornerstone, pointing out how two nations have been joined together in a spiritual unity through faith in Christ.112 In his treatment of 28:16, Theodoret of Cyrus fiercely opposes any explanation of this prophecy that would attempt to relate the stone in Zion with king Hezekiah. He even goes so far as to refer to such an explanation as the height of ignorance.113 It is possible that Theodore of Mopsuestia had proposed such an explanation. Theodoret of Cyrus refers to a number of scriptural passages in order to show that the Scriptures in fact forbid us from placing our trust in human beings and that Isa. 28:16 certainly cannot be understood as an appeal to do so. The cornerstone referred to in 28:16 can be none other than Jesus

109 See Dumortier 1983. At the end of the 19th century an Armenian version of Chrysostom’s commentary was found that continues surprisingly enough to Isaiah 54 while exhibiting a large lacuna consisting of chapters 21–30. 110 See PCC.PG 70,632: Λίθον μὲν οὖν ἐκλεκτὸν´, πολυτελῆ καὶ ἔντιμον, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾽Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀποκαλεῖ, καὶ τῇ τῆς θεότητος δόξῃ καὶ ὑπεροχῃ διαπρέποντα. Ὅτι δὲ αὐτὸς κρηπίς τε καὶ ἔρεισμά, καὶ ἀκλόνητος ὑποβάθρα γέγονε τῇ νοητῇ Σιὼν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, τῃ ᾽Εκκλησίᾳ, διατρανοῖ λέγων εἰς τά θεμέλια βεβλῆσθαι αὐτὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός. 111 See Ziegler 1975:183: εἴη δ᾽ ἂν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν οὕτως ὠνομασμένον σῶμά ἐπεὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸν ∆ανιὴλ >λίθος τμηθεὶς ἄνευ χειρῶν< ἑωρᾶτο· λίθου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου νοουμένου σώματος, ὄρους δὲ τῆς θεότητος τῆς κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα. 112 See PCC.PG 70,632f: ᾽ακρογωνιαῖον δὲ εἶναί φησιν, ὡς διὰ πίστεως μιας κατασφίγγοντα πρὸς ἑνοτητα τὴν πνευματικὴν τοὺς δύο λαοὺς, τόν τε ἐξ ᾽Ισραὴλ, φημὶ, καὶ μέν τοι τὸν ἐξ ἐθνῶν· ἀεὶ γάρ πως ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν οἰκοδομημᾶτων δύο συμβαίνουσι τοῖχοι, καὶ ἀλλὴλοις συναρμολογούμενοι κατασφίγγονται πρὸς ἑνότητα. 113 See PCC.PG 81:373: ᾽ανοίας ἐσχάτης εἶναι νομίζω τὸ ταύτην τῷ ᾽Εζεκίᾳ

προσαρμόζειν τὴν προφητείαν·

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

47

Christ.114 Even within the exegetical tradition of the Antiochian school, which was characterised by its rejection of the allegorical method and its preference for literal-historical interpretation, it would appear that the Messianic explanation of the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16 was firmly anchored. Theodoret also makes direct reference to Eph. 2:14 and to Paul’s statement on Christ as the only foundation in 1 Cor. 3:11. With respect to the threat confronting the kingdom of David in Isa. 28:16—he locates the text in the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic war —Theodoret considers it important that an element of the invincible character of this foundation stone be allowed to emerge in the prophecy. He compares the latter with the stone mentioned in Daniel 2. 2.5.5. Evaluation It is apparent from what we have said so far that the Messianic interpretation of Isa. 28:16 probably has pre-Christian credentials and may even have already been presupposed by the text of the Septuagint (see § 2.2. and § 2.4.). In any event, this explanation was stimulated to a significant degree by the New Testament (see § 2.3.). With respect to the contribution of the early church to the reception-history of the Zion text of 28:16, the following observations are important: • In line with the New Testament, the early church associated the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 with the advent of Christ. Nevertheless, the number of allusions to Christ as the cornerstone in the first centuries remains relatively limited.115 • The New Testament tradition whereby the stone referred to in 28:16 was related in particular to Isa. 8:14 and Ps. 118:22 is continued in the early church. It is evident from the Letter of Barnabas that the said ‘stone texts’ enjoyed an established place in the Messianic witness of the early church (2nd century) from the very outset. • At the service of Christian witness in opposition to Jews and heretics, the tendency arose relatively early to thread more and more ‘stone texts’ from the Old Testament together and to provide them with a Messianic interpretation. This is clearly evident in the documents ascribed to Tertullian and Cyprian (3rd century). The allegorical

114

See PCC.PG 81:373: Ἀκρογωνιαῖος δὲ λίθος ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς < ὁ ποιήσας

τά ἀμφότερα ἕν > etc. 115

Maiburg 1984:252–253.

48

chapter two

method with its highly associative character played an important role in this regard. • It is hardly surprising against such a background that the Zion text of 28:16 was likewise applied to Christ in the Alexandrian tradition as a more or less obvious given. Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on the book of Isaiah represents a clear witness in this respect (5th century). Even the Antiochian tradition, with its strong preference for a literal-historical interpretation, would appear to have commonly included the Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in 28:16. Theodoret of Cyrus’ comment on Isa. 28:16 is no less Messianic in this regard than that of his Alexandrian colleague Cyril (5th century). • In the 4th and 5th centuries, however, the exegesis of Isa. 28:16 and of the other Old Testament ‘stone texts’ underwent something of a shift of emphasis. The originally Messianic interpretation made way for an ecclesiological interpretation, whereby Eph. 2:14–22 came to function more and more explicitly as the interpretative framework.116 The shift in emphasis can be clearly observed in the biblical commentaries of the Church Fathers Jerome and Augustine. The shift towards a more ecclesiological interpretation forced the Zion element in 28:16 into the background to some degree while the focus was turned to the designation of the stone in 28:16 and Ps. 118:22 as a cornerstone. In light of Eph. 2:20, the said cornerstone came to be understood in the first instance in relation to its uniting function, especially in a church made up of both Jews and Gentiles. 2.6. Middle Ages The so-called Glossa Ordinaria function as a standard work of exegesis in the Middle Ages. This Bible commentary came into existence in the 12th century and consisted of a sort of florilegium made up of all sorts of explanatory notes based on the Church Fathers. The church of the 116 Given the fact that the ecclesiological element was not absent in older interpretations it is thus better to speak of a shift in emphasis. Cf. Snodgrass 1977:105: “The stone testimonia were used to help the church to express her Christology, her understanding of Christ’s rejection and exaltation, her soteriology, her ecclesiology, and her understanding of judgement. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that wherever the stone testimonia appear in the NT and Qumran the concept of the people of God is usually present in the immediate context.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

49

Middle Ages ascribed a great deal of authority to just such explanatory material stemming from the Church Fathers. The source and norm of biblical exegesis was to be found in this tradition.117 Consistent reference was made to this authoritative work for a considerable period of time, including its explanation of the book of Isaiah to which the Middle Ages, in line with the New Testament and the early church, had ascribed significant importance, both for its demonstrations that Jesus was the Messiah and for its condemnation of Judaism.118 The Glossa Ordinaria read 28:16 as a word of compassion against the background of the fact that the addressees were in a state of great distress and desperation (‘quia desperastis’; cf. the interlinear gloss in relation to 28:15: ‘semel salutem desperavimus’). In relation to the construction referred to in 28:16, God is compared with a wise architect (‘quasi sapiens architectus’). The shift of emphasis towards an ecclesiological interpretation observed in the preceding centuries would appear to have likewise determined the exegesis of the Middle Ages since the Glossa Ordinaria immediately adds that the verse in question has to do with the church. While the stone in question is evidently Christ, the Zion text of 28:16 is likewise associated with Eph. 2:14–22 in the Glossa Ordinaria: Gentiles and Jews are united (‘gentes et iudeos copulate’). The preciousness of the stone mentioned in 28:16 is then related to Christ’s work of redemption: the world is redeemed by Him (‘quo redimitur mundus’). In a marginal note adjacent to verse 16 reference is made to Ps. 118: ‘lapidem quem edificantes reprobaverunt, viri scilicet illusores.’119 In order to gain access to the exegetical insights prevalent during the Middle Ages, we need to go beyond the Glossa Ordinaria and focus our attention in particular on the work of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). Immediately following his appointment as professor in Paris, Thomas wrote a commentary on the book of Isaiah as one of his first theological works (1252–1253).120 His work harks back to the work of Jerome and

See De Knijff 19852:28ff. See McMichael 1996:144–151 and likewise Sawyer 1996. 119 See Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria III, 1992:46. 120 Both the authenticity and the dating of Thomas’ commentary on Isaiah have been the subject of dispute for a considerable period of time. Based on a striking parallel with a passage from the work of Albertus Magnus, R. Guindon has argued that the commentary must stem from the early period of Thomas’ appointment in Paris. See Thomas Aquinas 1974:20* (Préface). 117 118

50

chapter two

to the aforementioned Glossa Ordinaria.121 The designation of this work as a ‘commentary’ is somewhat misleading, however, since Thomas offers detailed commentary on only the first eleven chapters while the rest of his work contains little more than a few very concise exegetical observations.122 Bearing this in mind, it is evident that we should not expect anything much in terms of innovative insights with respect to the explanation of Isa. 28:16, not even from Thomas Aquinas. In relation to 28:14ff, Thomas remarks that Isaiah speaks of two ‘remedia’. The first is that upon which the Israelites trusted, namely the covenant with idols, the so-called ‘covenant with death’ referred to in 28:15, which Thomas sees as a covenant with the devil.123 The second is the ‘remedia’ that God ordained for the saints, namely Christ. Thus, in line with the tradition of the early church, Thomas also establishes a direct link between the stone mentioned in the Zion text of 28:16 and Christ. He likewise makes immediate reference to the quotation from Ps. 118:22 in the margin of the Glossa Ordinaria.124 Based on the Glossa Ordinaria and the work of Thomas Aquinas, all we can establish is the fact that the Middle Ages offered no new exegetical insights with respect to the explanation of the Zion text of 28:16. This evidently goes hand in hand with the fact that considerable efforts had been made at the time to follow the traditional explanation of the Church Fathers, the latter serving as authoritative figures: auctor and auctoritas.125 The norms for the explanation of biblical texts, moreover, were so embedded in the teaching of the church that it was practically impossible to introduce anything in the way of genuinely innovative exegetical insights during the Middle Ages, in spite of the positive things that could be said of the aforementioned hermeneutic orientation on the Fathers. See Thomas Aquinas 1974:52* (Préface). The publishers of his Isaiah commentary explain this as follows: “Il semble que le jeune bachelier, pressé par le rythme de ses cours, n’a pas pu poursuivre le genre magnanime du début. Peut-être cette faiblesse de l’ouvrage explique-t-elle que l’auteur ait renoncé à la publier . . .” See Thomas Aquinas 1974:20* (Préface). 123 Such an identification of the ‘covenant with death’ and a covenant with the devil can already be found in the Glossa Ordinaria. The connecting hinge is to be located in the reference to the ‘refuge of lies’ (Isa. 28:17), the devil being the ‘father of lies’ (“diabolo qui est pater mendacii”). See Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria III, 1992:46. 124 Thomas Aquinas 1974:131: “Secundum est remedium Deus sanctis parat, scilicet Christum: Ecce ego, Ps. «Lapidem quem reprobaverunt edificantes»; Qui crediderit non festinet, sed expectet, Abacuc II3 «Si moram fecerit, expecta eum», et hoc contra malorum blasphemiam.” 125 See De Knijff 1985:28–38. 121 122

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

51

2.7. Reformation From the period of the Reformation, the biblical interpretation of Luther (1483–1546) and Calvin (1509–1564) exercised considerable influence. Their exegesis of Isa. 28:16 represents the focus of the following paragraph. In similar fashion to the Church Fathers, the Reformers considered the stone mentioned in Isa. 28:16 as referring to Christ as self-evident. Luther in particular, in his ‘Vorlesung über Jesaja’, was quick to establish a link between the cornerstone and Christ.126 The reference to Zion is completely ignored in this regard while every effort is made to elaborate the significance of the cornerstone for his teaching on justification by faith. It is striking to note how Luther is able to relate one thing to another and thereby arrive at a robust soteriological exegesis. He understands the Zion text of 28:16 in the first instance as a word of comfort and encouragement for the pious, since Christ is the cornerstone upon whose righteousness the pious can rely in order themselves to be righteous. Such knowledge provides the conscience of the pious with certainty.127 The person with a bad conscience will take flight even at the sound of rustling leaves, but the person of faith knows no fear and does not allow him or herself to be terrorised because faith relies on Christ and not on the self or one’s own works. In this regard, Luther refers to Christ as the Lord not only of life and death but also, surprisingly enough, of sin.128 The extent to which he involves his teaching on righteousness in his explanation of the biblical text is more than apparent from his interpretation of the concluding words of Isa. 28:16. He 126 See ‘Vorlesung über Jesaja 1527–1529—Scholia 1532/4’, WA 25,187–188. Luther likewise speaks of the identification of the cornerstone with Christ in his explanation of the gospel. With regard to Mt. 21:42–44 he notes: “Es ist aber Christus der Stein, so zum Eckstein worden. Den keine Historien leret, das andere Ecksteine verworffen werden, oder das Jherusalem ein verworffen Stein sei. Aber von Christo, gottes sohn, mus man das verstehen, wie den von dem Eckstein S. Petrus und Paulus viel reden, und Esaias am 8. und 28. cap. spricht: ‘Sihe da, ich lege einen in grund zu Sion, einen edelen Stein, ein bewerten, polirten stein und ein eckstein, alle, die sich auf in verlassen, sollen nicht zu schanden werden. Und hat Esaias den vers Davids im 118. Psalm wol verstanden, das er in nennet ein kostlichen Eckstein, ein polierten stein, ein grossen Jaspis, Demant oder Schmaragd, der wol versucht, der durchs leiden und creutz glatth und poliret worden ist und zum eckstein gemacht . . .” (see ‘Matthäus Kapitel 18–24 in Predigten ausgelegt 1537–1540’, WA 47,417–418). 127 WA 25,187: “Simul autem hoc Propheta significat, cum dicit ‘Fundabo lapidem’ fore, ut certae sint conscientiae: Certo statuentes se huius lapidis iusticia iustos esse.” 128 WA 25,188: “Novit enim Christus esse dominum mortis et vitae et peccati.”

52

chapter two

likewise associates the expression ‘he who believes’ with Christ129 and considers it to represent a condemnation of all works, as such works are unable to rectify one’s conscience in God’s judgement.130 It is probable that Luther’s soteriological exegesis of 28:16 was influenced by the context within which the Zion text in Rom. 9:33 is quoted. It is in this very context that Paul raises the question concerning justification by faith or by works (see Rom. 9:30–32). It goes without saying, therefore, that Luther explicitly associated the concluding statement of 28:16 concerning the one who believes with his teaching on justification in his commentary on Rom. 9:33.131 As with Luther, Calvin also identified the stone in Zion with Christ. More than Luther, however, he explained the legitimacy of such a Messianic interpretation. Calvin was aware that the apostles had made use of the Septuagint and that their own identification of the stone with Christ was closely related thereto. Nevertheless, he did not allow this fact to stand in the way of his use of the New Testament in his exegesis of 28:16. He explicitly appeals in this regard to the authority of the evangelists and the apostles. Calvin is convinced that they had done justice to the original significance of the text, in spite of the freedom they sometimes allowed themselves when quoting texts from the Old Testament.132 When compared with Luther’s highly soteriological exegesis, the exegesis of Calvin is much more ecclesiological in character.133 This interest in ecclesiology brings him into line with the 129 WA 47,418: “Aber auf den stein gebawet werden, ist glauben an Christum, das er unser Heiland sei.” 130 WA 25,188: “Sic per Verbum ‘qui crediderit’ simpliciter omnia opera damnat, quod non possint conscientiam in iudicio Dei erigere. Est enim exclusice accipiendum ‘qui crediderit’, quasi dicat: Omnis qui operatus fuerit, festinat.” 131 See ‘Vorlesung über die Römerbrief 1515–1516’, WA 56,97: “Quia Iustitia Christi est eius, qui credit in eum, Et peccatum credentis est Christi, in quem credit. Ideo non potest stare peccatum cum credente, sicut nec in Christo peccatum potest perseverare.” 132 See Pringle 1948:290–291: “Yet they never changed the meaning, but taking care to have it properly applied, they gave the true and genuine interpretation. Whenever, therefore, they quote any passage from the Old Testament, they adhere closely to its object and design.” 133 Not that the ecclesiological element is lacking in Luther’s explanation. Cf. WA 47,418: “Und hat Esaias den vers Davids im 118. Psalm wol verstanden, das er in nennet ein kostlichen Eckstein, ein polierten stein, ein grossen Jaspis, Demant oder Schmaragd, der wol versucht, der durchs leiden und creutz glatth und poliret worden ist und zum eckstein gemacht, der zwo mauern oder seitten fasse. Den es ist ein unterschied zwisschen diesem Eckstein und andern steinen. Dan der Eckstein reckt seine beide arm in beide seitten, als solt er sagen: bisher hab ich nur ein maur, ein volck allein gehabt,

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

53

exegetical insights of Jerome and Augustine. Calvin similarly underscores the fact that the redemption of the human person depends on Christ and that the promise of peace and rest is only given in Him. Unlike the Church Fathers in question, however, Calvin does not go on to accent the unifying function of Christ as cornerstone, preferring rather to focus on the foundational significance of Christ for the church: He is the cornerstone upon which the entire structure of the church rests. The prophets were only able to speak of this as a future event because Christ still had to be revealed. Isa. 28:16–17a presents this event more or less as a reformation of the existing church.134 Calvin thus draws attention to the foundational significance of the cornerstone and even goes so far as to distance himself explicitly—with regard to the cornerstone mention in Ps. 118:22, for example—from the interpretation found in Jerome and Augustine, hallmarked as it was by Eph. 2:14–22.135 The consequence of an explanation based on Eph. 2:14–22 was that the Zion element of 28:16 had disappeared into the background. Luther had likewise more or less ignored the allusion to Zion in his soteriological interpretation. Calvin’s explanation of 28:16, however, returns to the specific significance of Zion once again. Zion, for Calvin, is the place from which Christ must come forth and did come forth. He sees the fact of Christ’s coming forth from this place, long since designated for this purpose, as a support to the faith.136

als zu Jerusalem, aber itzt wil ich ein gebeu, ein neu Jherusalem aufrichten, das sol ein solch gebew sein, das sich schicke zum hause und zur wohnung. Die Aposteln haben diesen spruch weitleuftig gehandelt, als zun Ephesern am 2. cap: . . .” 134 See Pringle 1948:291: “On this account the Prophet speaks of it as a future event, that believers may be fully persuaded that the Church, which they saw not only tottering and falling, but grievously shaken and almost laid in ruins, will yet be made firm by a new support, when it shall rest on a stone laid by the hand of God.” 135 See Morrison 1972:20: “The stone is said to be the head of the corner not in that He is only a part of the building (since it is clear from other passages that the Church is founded solidly on Him alone) but because the prophet wishes to make Him the chief support of the structure. There is some ingenious argument over the word corner, that Christ is placed in the corner because He brings together the two different walls, that is to say, the Gentiles and the Jews. In my opinion David meant nothing more than that the cornerstone takes the chief weight of the building.” See also Johnston 1963:261: “The subtle meaning that some have given to the word ‘corner’, as though it meant that Christ joins together Jews and Gentiles, as two distinct walls, is not well founded. Let us be content with the simple explanation, that He is so called, because the weight of the building rests on Him.” 136 In his commentary on 1 Pet. 2:6, Calvin emphasises the idea that the church stems from Zion in which the beginning of God’s spiritual temple is to be found. He refers in this regard to Isa. 2:3. See Johnston 1963:261.

54

chapter two 2.8. Modern Biblical Research

The Messianic interpretation of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16, whereby the stone in question is associated directly with Christ, has held its ground down through the centuries. Scholarly reorientation on the Masoretic text together with the emergence of modern biblical research, however, slowly but surely introduced a change in this state of affairs. The classical Messianic interpretation survived, nevertheless, into the 20th century and would appear to have likewise influenced a number of modern exegetes. A clear example in this regard is the indirect Messianic interpretation of, among others, Delitzsch and Procksch. Delitzsch, for example, associates the stone to be set in Zion with the Davidic monarchy, whereby he focuses attention, not on the institution of the monarchy in general, but rather on the specific promise of durability and the promise of the one true king who is to come.137 Entirely in agreement with traditional exegesis, Delitzsch then explicitly associates the concluding words of 28:16 concerning the person who believes with the promised king.138 Even a figure such as Procksch, who is well aware of the absolute use of ˆymia}M'h,' considers the traditional interpretation, whereby the stone is associated with the Messiah, as still the most natural. The Messiah stands in 28:16 for the foundation of the new temple.139 In spite of the respectable tradition upon which the Messianic interpretation of the Zion text of 28:16 is able to appeal for support, there are few exegetes nowadays who are inclined to maintain this line of exegesis.140 There can be little doubt that this goes hand in hand with the efforts of modern biblical research to avoid the use of the 137 Delitzsch 1889:316 alludes in this regard to the prophecies of Isaiah 7, 9 and 11. Ridderbos 1922:173 likewise associates the stone in Zion with David’s royal house and in the deepest sense with Christ, in whom the royal house of David ultimately achieved its full significance. See also Fischer 1937:189. Cf. Kraus 1951:98: “Dieser ‘Grundstein’ ist kein anderer als der nach Jahwes grundlegendem Erwählungs- und Einsetzungswort erwartete und in der Erwartung um die Verheißung Gottes willen bereits als gegenwärtig geglaubte Heilskönig aus Davids Geschlecht.” 138 Delitzsch 1889:317: “Wer an den Verheißenen glaubt, wird nicht flüchtig . . .” 139 Procksch 1930(A):358. Wildberger 1982:1076 also mentions Driver, Sellin, Fischer and Virgulin as exponents of a Messianic explanation of Isa. 28:16. Cheyne’s explanation, which understands the cornerstone to allude to yhwh, is related to a degree to the Messianic interpretation. See Lindblom 1955:125 and Wildberger 1982:1076. Ziegler 1948:86 likewise associated the cornerstone with yhwh. 140 Exceptions: Ohmann s.d.:99, Vonk 1980:114 and Mare 1992:1096.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

55

New Testament interpretation of Old Testament texts in its exegesis of the latter, in contrast, for example, to Calvin. The text of the Old Testament deserves to be interpreted according to its own historical and literary context. Such an emphasis on its own context implies at the same time that the Hebrew text ought to be the primary point of departure for Old Testament exegesis. Given the fact that the text of the Septuagint, on account of its additional ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, was responsible to a significant degree for the Messianic interpretation of 28:16, an exegesis that focuses more specifically on the Hebrew text will thus be granted the freedom to arrive at a different set of conclusions. It will be evident from the following survey that while the new interpretations acquired by the Zion text of 28:16 in modern biblical research do not, on the whole, exhibit a Messianic character, a large number thereof can nevertheless be typified as eschatological interpretations. Characteristic of such new interpretations is the fact that the single focus of attention is no longer the significance of the cornerstone itself but that the entire act of foundation is included in the explanation. This shift in focus stands to reason, given the perspective of the new orientation on the Hebrew text, which implies that the object of ˆymia}M'h' no longer has to be sought exclusively in the stone. In order to provide a convenient survey of the plurality of interpretations, we can begin by distinguishing four specifically eschatological interpretations. The interpretations in question can be identified as eschatological because the Zion text of 28:16 is explained in each instance as the announcement of a future activity of God at the end of time. The concretisation of this future activity, however, takes a variety of different forms. While it remains impossible to establish a water-tight distinction between the various concretisations, it remains possible nevertheless to distinguish the following eschatological interpretations: the Zion text of 28:16 is associated with the construction of the future kingdom of God (1), with the formation of the New Israel on the basis of the faithful remnant (2), on the realisation of the true religion of yhwh (3) or on the new temple to be constructed in the future (4). In addition to these eschatological interpretations we can also distinguish a further two that do not exhibit eschatological features: the strictly metaphorical interpretation whereby the Zion text is understood as an announcement of judgement (5) and a more historical interpretation that associates the Zion text with the existing temple and with the Zion of that day (6).

56

chapter two 2.8.1. The future kingdom of God

A number of exegetes interpret the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 as an announcement concerning the construction of the future kingdom of God and the stone as its foundation. In light of the fact that modern biblical research has more or less let go of a Messianic explanation of the text in question, alternative possibilities for understanding the stone have emerged. Marti, for example, considers the stone to be a determination of faith in yhwh, spoken of in the concluding words. He thus translates these words as “He who believes, remains steadfast ” and argues that this is a further specification of the cornerstone used in the kingdom that God is planning to establish. The foundation of the future kingdom would appear to be ethical in character and, like the cornerstone itself, hidden from the eye yet bearing the weight of the whole.141 Duhm had likewise drawn attention to the invisibility of the cornerstone implied in 28:16, although he associated the stone itself with yhwh’s attitude towards his people, of which Zion is the head (cf. Isa. 7:8).142 2.8.2. The new Israel Instead of the impersonal category of the future kingdom of God, the more personal category of the new Israel can also function as a further concretisation of the building activity announced in 28:16. The representatives of this interpretation, in particular figures such as Hans Schmidt, Mowinckel and Eichrodt, generally emphasise the idea that this new Israel is made up of the faithful remnant of God’s people that had survived subsequent to the implementation of judgement. This remnant is to form the firm foundation of a new and future faith community.143 Faith as foundation and as characteristic of the new community is likewise proposed in this variant of the eschatological

141 Marti 1900:208: “Also: Wer glaubt, weicht nicht ist der kostbare Eckstein der Gründung Jahwes auf Zion; der Glaube, der so verborgen und unsichtbar ist, wie der Eckstein des Fundamentes, aber dennoch alles trägt, das Vertrauen auf Jahwe ist der feste Punkt, der nicht wankt . . .” Lindblom 1955:124 also refers to Buhl as a representative of this standpoint. 142 Duhm 19143:175: “. . . ein Verhältnis, das aüßerlich so wenig sichtbar ist, wie das Fundament eines Hauses, trotzdem aber die Unvergänglichkeit Zions verbürgt.” 143 See, for example, Donner 1964:152 and Schoors 1972:168. Snijders 1969:285–286 likewise considers 28:16 to contain an announcement of a new temple, i.e. a new community that is not determined by blood kinship but by faith in yhwh. Cf. Berges 1998:224–225.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

57

interpretation of the Zion text. Scholars frequently argue that the concluding words of 28:16 are intended to represent an inscription carved into the cornerstone. The background of such a proposal is said to have its roots in the more or less magic custom, whereby God’s blessing is proclaimed over the building work and any abuse thereof placed under threat of a curse.144 In contrast to the exegetes referred to in the preceding paragraph, emphasis is now placed on the solid and immovable character of the stone in question rather than its invisibility.145 2.8.3. The true religion of

YHWH

Closely related to both perspectives outlined above, Lindblom’s interpretation maintains that the establishment of a stone in Zion refers to the true religion of yhwh rather than the coming kingdom of God or the new Israel. This true religion of yhwh is characterised by faith, uprightness and justice and is already to be found among Isaiah’s own disciples. Lindblom is not inclined to speak of the so-called remnant in this regard, since the latter is only revealed after the catastrophe. This remnant is nevertheless prefigured in the disciples of Isaiah. The true religion of yhwh stands in contrast to the external cult in which the people had sought their security (cf. Isa. 1:10–17).146 Lindblom emphasises the strictly metaphorical character of the building terminology employed in 28:16–17a. In line with the exegetes referred to in the preceding paragraphs, he also associates the stone of the Zion text with faith in yhwh.147

144 Cf. Schmidt 1923:94: “Jene Inschrift des Grundsteins wird die Losung sein, an der die Gemeinde der Heiligen sich erkennt; sie wird der Triumphgesang der Geretteten sein, das Grundgebot der Religion in der neuen Welt.” The inscription hypothesis is also supported by Herbert 1973:164, Procksch 1930(A):358, Rohland 1956:154, Eichrodt 1967:131, Schoors 1972:168, Tsevat 1973:591 and Clements 1980(B):231, among others. Fohrer 1973:59 and Oswalt 1986:519 are undecided. 145 Cf. Eichrodt 1967:131: “. . . eine menschliche Gemeinschaft, die die Bürgschaft ihrer unzerstörbaren Dauer in jenem Zusammenschluß mit Gott trägt, den Jesaja schon einmal als Glauben bezeichnet hat . . .” (cf. Isa. 7:9). 146 Lindblom 1955:130: “Wenn das trügerische Versteck die verfälschte Religion und der entartete Kultus ist, muß diese geistliche Schöpfung Jahwes—und das ist das Ergebnis dieser Untersuchung—die unverfälschte, wahre Jahwereligion sein, deren Hauptelemente Glaube, Recht und Gerechtigkeit sind.” 147 Lindblom 1955:127. Cf. Graffy 1984:30.

58

chapter two 2.8.4. The new temple / new Zion

The fourth non-Messianic eschatological interpretation associates the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 with the temple as a future construction. Gese, for example, maintains that the text alludes to the new Zion that is to replace the old temple along with its official but meaningless cult.148 Roberts holds to a position closely related to this perspective, but prefers nevertheless to avoid any suggestion of a literal temple building. While the construction terminology is borrowed from the latter, the temple in 28:16 is intended in the first instance as a symbol of the presence of yhwh. Given that yhwh refuses to dwell in a city built of blood and injustice, He announces a restoration project aimed at a construction based on uprightness and justice. The demolition of the present construction is necessary, however, for the realisation of the new project.149 2.8.5. Metaphorical interpretation In addition to the preceding eschatological interpretations of Isa. 28:16, Wildberger’s strictly metaphorical explanation deserves separate mention. In spite of the differences evident between the interpretations outlined thus far, they nevertheless exhibit significant agreement when it comes to the expectation of future salvific activity.150 Wildberger’s 148 Gese 1977:134. Watts 1985:370, on the other hand, emphasises the continuity in God’s actions with respect to Zion and suggests that “the Temple, its function and its witness, is the abiding element in Zion.” Cf. Watts 1985:372: “The Kingdom was doomed. But the values inherent in Zion and the temple, symbols of Yahweh’s presence and purpose, would remain the foundations of faith.” 149 Roberts 1987:44–45. The rabbinic literature also contains material whereby the foundation of the stone in Zion is similarly associated with the temple as future reality. In a midrash on Qoheleth, the Zion text of 28:16 is linked in a surprising fashion with Qoh. 3:5, where reference is made to the throwing away of stones and to the collection thereof. In a midrash on Deut. 10:1, the throwing away of stones is associated with the destruction of the temple by Hadrian. The collection of stones is explained with a view to the future presupposed in Isa. 28:16, the future in which God is to reconstruct his sanctuary. See StrB III,276. Oddly enough, the text of Isa. 28:16 referred to in the rabbinic documents is translated in the perfect in contrast to the Targum of Isaiah. See also the quotation from 28:16 in Midrash Tanchuma, StrB III,506. 150 Without being specific as to what he understands by the construction referred to in 28:16, Kaiser 19762:202–203 associates the stone with a promise of salvation and with faith respectively: “So dürfte der Eckstein formal die Verheißung, material aber der Glaube sein, der eine Bergung gewährt wie die Fundamentsteine, denen Hagel und Regenfluten nichts anzuhaben vermögen.” Cf. Oswalt 1986:518: “Perhaps no identification is correct. The cornerstone may be the whole complex of ideas relating to the Lord’s revelation of his faithfulness and the call to reciprocate with the same kind of faithfulness toward him.”

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

59

explanation, however, focuses on the here and now. He concludes that the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 should not be understood as an eschatological promise of salvation but rather as an announcement of judgement. He bases himself in this regard on the basic pattern of the prophecy of judgement that consists of an accusation/complaint (‘Scheltwort’) followed by an announcement of judgement (‘Drohwort’). Given the fact that Isa. 28:16 is clearly preceded by an accusation/complaint, it is reasonable to assume, Wildberger would maintain, that the Zion text was intended to be understood as precisely such an announcement. The text does not imply the construction of one or other new building project, therefore, but rather yhwh’s intent to submit the present Jerusalem to his judgement with the help of a testing stone and a plumbline. The stone is thus intended as a judgement metaphor. According to Wildberger, any endeavour to further concretise the stone would take us beyond the boundaries of the metaphor. The message remains that Jerusalem is to be subjected to God’s judgement.151 2.8.6. The existing temple / Zion Wildberger’s strictly metaphorical interpretation already implies the abandonment of characteristically eschatological explanations of Isa. 28:16. This is even more clearly the case among those exegetes who associate the establishment of the stone in Zion in very concrete terms with the existing temple rather than some future divine activity. Isa. 28:16 is thus considered to allude to the existing temple in Zion as a place of refuge for those who had remained faithful to yhwh. Such an explanation can be found as early as Ewald.152 Bentzen is similarly of the opinion that the existing temple is designated by God in Isa. 28:16 as a refuge for all who believe. At the same time, the terminology employed by the text is considered to have formed part of the liturgy of the feast of accession (to the throne), the existence of which Bentzen accepted.153 In addition to Ewald and Bentzen, Jeppesen likewise associates the Zion text of 28:16 with the existing temple.154 In his interpretation, content based and semantic kinship with the Zion text of Isa. 14:32 plays an important role. Since the verb form dsy in both texts is vocalised as a pi el perfect, the action referred to in 28:16 is thus also understood 151 152 153 154

Wildberger 1982:1063–1082. Ewald 18672:421. See Lindblom 1955:124. Jeppesen 1984:93–99.

60

chapter two

to refer to the past.155 In order to further clarify the agreement with 14:32, Huber and Irwin argue that we should read the b of ˆ/YxiB] as a b-essentiae.156 In such an event, the b is no longer to be understood in its locative sense ‘in’ but rather as ‘in the quality of ’.157 2.9. Conclusions The preceding chapter has offered a cross-section of the history of the exegesis of Isa. 28:16. We can now establish some conclusions based on more than twenty centuries of exegesis. • The Greek translation of 28:16 found in the Septuagint determined the orientation of its exegesis for centuries to come. The translation in question is characterised by its clear future orientation (future: ᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον instead of the potentially polysemic ˆba ˆwyxb dsy ynnh) and by the addition of the expression ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ to the conclusion of verse 16. It is possible that the plus in the Greek text presupposes an already existent Messianic interpretation of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16. Whatever the case, the addition of the words ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ offer significant reinforcement to such an interpretation. • In practice, the exegesis of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 was determined to a significant degree by the way in which the New Testament understood the text in question. The New Testament’s content based (rather than textual) adhesion to the future orientation found in the Septuagint ultimately ascribed canonical authority to the Messianic interpretation of the said Zion text. The stone referred to in Isa. 155 Delitzsch, Duhm, Hans Schmidt, Eichrodt and Kissane likewise prefer the Masoretic vocalisation of dsy as a perfect, in spite of the fact that they interpret 28:16 as a promise of future salvation. A distinction is usually made between the foundation that has already been laid (v. 16) and the building that God is to complete in the near future (v. 17a). The interpretation of Fohrer also deserves mention in this regard. While he is unwilling to explain the Zion text of 28:16 as an explicit announcement of salvation (1962:58–59), he nevertheless emphasises that a certain salvific perspective is being opened at this juncture, namely on account of the designation of the possibility of a solid and reliable construction on the basis of faith. 156 Irwin 1977:31: “I have founded Zion as a stone . . .” Cf. Motyer 1993:233: “A stone in Zion could be ‘a stone, namely Zion’.” The hypothesis was already supported in the nineteenth century by Hitzig and Knobel. See Lindblom 1955:125 and Wildberger 1982:1076. 157 Cf. GKG § 119i, J-M § 133c and BrSyn § 106g.

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

•

•

•

•

61

28:16 is unequivocally identified with Christ in the New Testament (Rom. 9:32b–33; 10:11 and 1 Pet. 2:6). Based on information from the New Testament, it would appear that a Christian tradition had emerged at a relatively early date in which various Old Testament ‘stone texts’ were linked together and given a Messianic interpretation. The texts in question are Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14 and 28:16. The text found in Ps. 118:22 concerning the stone rejected by the builders that unexpectedly became the cornerstone enjoys a place of significant importance in the New Testament tradition (Mk. 12:10–11; Mt. 21:42; Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11 and 1 Pet. 2:4–8). It is probable that this particular ‘stone text’ was the first to acquire a Messianic interpretation and that this contributed considerably to the Messianic interpretation of the other two Old Testament ‘stone texts’. It is striking in this regard that the Zion text of 28:16 is associated in Rom. 9:32b–33 (though in the form of a mixed quotation) and 1 Pet. 2:6, with the ‘stone one strikes against’ from Isa. 8:14. Both New Testament texts would appear to agree with one another in terms of word usage. This is an important argument in support of the suggestion that the association of Old Testament ‘stone texts’ with one another had already taken place prior to the composition of the said New Testament letters. The unique mixed quotation in Rom. 9:33, however, is almost certainly the work of Paul himself. In light of the fact that the early Jewish Targumic tradition was inclined to ascribe a Messianic interpretation to the Old Testament ‘stone texts’, the suggestion that such an interpretation has preChristian roots is not unthinkable. The text of Ps. 118:22 concerning the stone initially rejected and the text of Isa. 28:16 concerning the stone in Zion are both interpreted by the Targum with the Davidic king in mind. In contrast to other Old Testament ‘stone texts’, the stone referred to in the Zion text of 28:16 is associated in the Talmud with the temple rather than the Messiah. The text of 28:16 functions almost exclusively in the Talmud with reference to explanations of the Shetiyyah, the sacred stone/rock on Mount Zion. It would appear that the formation of ideas concerning the Shetiyyah and the important role fulfilled therein by the Zion text of 28:16 served to limit the space available for a Messianic interpretation of this text. The community of Qumran likewise steers clear of a Messianic interpretation of the stone mentioned in 28:16, preferring rather to

62

chapter two

associate the text in question with the community itself in ecclesiological terms. The emphasis on ecclesiology is akin to the way in which 28:16 functions in 1 Pet. 2:4–8. • In the first days of the early church, more and more Old Testament ‘stone texts’ came to be laced together and provided with a Messianic interpretation. While the number of allusions to Christ as the cornerstone remained relatively limited in the first centuries, the Letter of Barnabas bears clear witness to the fact that the Zion text of 28:16 together with other Old Testament ‘stone texts’ had acquired an established place in the Messianic witness of the early church (see Barn. 6:2–4). One can observe in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian (3rd century) that other texts, in which mention is made of a stone, were associated with one another according to the allegorical method and subsequently provided with a Messianic interpretation. • From the 4th and 5th century onwards, when Christianity had acquired the status of an established religion, the text of Eph. 2:14–22 came to function more and more explicitly as the interpretative framework for the ‘stone texts’. In the early period, the Old Testament ‘stone texts’ were employed in the first instance to demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith on the basis of the Old Testament itself. The altered ecclesial situation had its consequences for the interpretation of 28:16, focusing attention on the ecclesiological function of the cornerstone. This is clearly evident in the biblical commentaries of Jerome and Augustine. Their works, together with those of the Alexandrian exegete Cyril and the Antiochian exegete Theodoret of Cyrus, ascribe a specifically unifying function to the cornerstone referred to in Eph. 2:14–22, namely in the unification of Jews and Gentiles. Theodoret insisted, in the meantime, that the stone referred to in the Zion text in question was to be associated with Christ alone and not with worldly kings. In spite of its ecclesiological orientation, therefore, the Messianic interpretation of 28:16 remained the natural point of departure for exegesis in the first centuries of the history of the church. • In the Middle Ages and the period of the Reformation, the Messianic interpretation of Isa. 28:16 remained undisputed. Both the Glossa Ordinaria and the commentary on the book of Isaiah by Thomas Aquinas seek explicit points of contact with the exegetical tradition established by the Church Fathers. Luther’s interpretation of the Zion

isaiah 28:16 in the history of exegesis

63

text of 28:16 is highly soteriological. He is particularly interested in the concluding words of the verse, concerning the one who believes, which he deftly associates with his teaching on justification. Christ, for Luther, is the cornerstone upon whose righteousness the pious can rely in order to attain righteousness themselves. While many of his predecessors took the Messianic interpretation of the stone mentioned in 28:16 for granted, it is Calvin in particular who considers himself obliged to give account of his own Messianic interpretation. He does so by appealing to the authority of the New Testament in which Christ is designated as the cornerstone given by God and stemming from Zion. As cornerstone, Christ is the foundation of the Church. While Calvin’s explanation is profoundly ecclesiological, he distances himself from an interpretation in which the text of Eph. 2:14–22 functions as the interpretative framework for the meaning of the cornerstone. Calvin thus emphasises the foundational function of Christ as cornerstone rather than the unifying function thereof. • The emergence of modern biblical research implied an inevitable end to a centuries long tradition of Messianic interpretation of the Zion text of 28:16. The hermeneutical context that would determine the orientation of the text’s interpretation was to be sought from this point on within the Old Testament itself. The concentration on the Hebrew text of 28:16 that accompanied this change ultimately implied a radical reorientation with respect to the direction taken by the Septuagint. Only a few modern exegetes continue to maintain a Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in 28:16. The majority offer an eschatological interpretation of the stone as referring to either the future kingdom of God, the new Israel, the true religion of yhwh or the new temple or new Zion. Based on the hypothesis that the Zion text of 28:16 constitutes part of a prophecy of judgement that is constructed according to the established pattern of accusation and announcement of judgement, Wildberger is the only exegete to offer a strictly metaphorical interpretation of the stone alluded to in 28:16. He understands the stone in question to be a testing stone and explains it as an instrument of God’s judgement. • In association with the Messianic interpretation of 28:16, the construction dsy ynnh employed in the Hebrew text has been translated down through the centuries, and almost without exception, as a present or a future. While both Isaiah scrolls from Qumran confirm the legitimacy of this translation, it can also be argued that the text

64

chapter two

of the Septuagint and the rendition of 28:16 in the New Testament have had a decisive influence in this regard. Within modern biblical research, those interpretations that consider the Zion text to be an announcement of some future activity are strongly represented. The majority of exegetes favour salvific activity in this regard; a few an act of judgement. A minority of exegetes relate the reference to the establishment of a stone in Zion in 28:16 to the past, focusing on the existing temple or on Zion itself.

CHAPTER THREE

THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ZION TEXT OF ISAIAH 28:16 3.1. Introduction A number of preliminary questions need to be raised in the present chapter by way of introduction to the exegesis of Isa. 28:16. The first of these is related to the colometric subdivision of Isaiah 28, followed by a closely related question concerning pericope designation. Given the fact that the Zion text of 28:16 does not stand on its own, but forms rather a constitutive part of a larger whole, it is necessary that we establish the boundaries of the latter with the greatest possible precision. In addition, it is important that we establish clarity with respect to the extent of the context within which the exegesis of 28:16 ought to take place. Once the various pericopes have been determined, we will endeavour to provide an albeit provisional answer to the question whether the pericope in question can be understood as an original unity or whether the present text exhibits traces of later redactional intervention. The question of the originality of the textual unit is important because prophetic texts, like others, are primarily rooted in history. While it will not be possible to establish certainty in every instance with respect to the origins of a particular prophecy, a clear perspective on the roots of a prophetic text in history will ultimately contribute to the understanding of its message. In line with the question of original unity, further questions will need to be asked with regard to the authenticity and dating of the Zion text of 28:16 and the pericope in which it is found. If the Zion text can be ascribed to the prophet himself, then we must search for indications that might help us delimit the dating of the text to one of the active periods of Isaiah’s life. With the assistance of a number of biblical and extrabiblical sources, the concluding paragraphs will endeavour to sketch the historical situation associated with the dating proposed. Given the unique character of the biblical sources, an excursus on prophetic historiography in 2 Kings 18–19 has been included.

66

chapter three 3.2. Colometric subdivision of Isaiah 28

In order to establish a correct subdivision of the various text units within Isaiah 28 and to carry out the actual exegesis thereof, it is important to pay due attention to the indicators already introduced into the Hebrew text itself during the process of textual transmission. In addition, it is not simply a question of subdividing the text into larger units, which function as individual pericopes, but also, and more specifically, a question of subdividing into smaller units that can be designated as strophes, verse lines and cola. The colometric version of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 28 provided below makes use of the method outlined by M.C.A. Korpel in an article in which she discusses the importance of the indicators that have survived the process of textual transmission.1 I limit myself in the colometric analysis to the indicators found in the Masoretic text, although research into the indicators transmitted in other textual traditions may provide interesting comparative material. Up to the present, however, comparative study has tended to conclude that the Masoretic accentuation system is, for the most part, extremely reliable.2 In order to subdivide the larger units within a given textual segment, the Masoretes made use of spaces in the text, known to us as Setumot and Petuchot, which BHS renders with the help of a detached s and a detached π respectively. A Petuchah stands for an ‘open’ unit (a new Petuchah begins after a space at the end of a line or after a completely open line), a Setumah for a ‘closed’ unit in the text (a new Setumah begins after a space in the middle of a line). While the reliability of the transmitted indicators designating such larger textual units in the Masoretic text can, on occasion, be called into question, and in spite of the many errors that may have found their way into the text in the copying process,3 Old Testament research has become more and more convinced that their importance cannot simply be ignored.4 The subdivision maintained by See Korpel 2000:1–50. Cf. De Hoop 2000(A):47–73 and 2000(B):65–100. Cf. De Hoop 2000(B):94: “Recent studies of the colometry of Hebrew verse in which the Masoretic accentuation was compared to other traditions has demonstrated (with regard to dichotomic structures) that the colometry suggested by the Masoretes is to a very large extent reliable.” 3 Korpel 2000:12f quotes De Moor: “We think to have found convincing evidence that from an early date on all scribes, even the medieval Hebrew scribes, did not fully understand the function of the major delimiters anymore which unfortunately has resulted in a rather sloppy transmission.” 4 The discovery of the Qumran scrolls has played an important role herein, suggesting that a pre-Masoretic tradition of demarcating larger and smaller units may have existed. See in this regard Korpel 2000:2–13. 1 2

the literary and historical context

67

the Masoretes ultimately has something to say about the way in which they interpreted a text. The importance of the transmitted indicators is even more evident with respect to the demarcation of smaller textual units introduced by the Masoretes. The reliability of the Masoretic tradition is significantly greater in this regard. Indeed, there are indications that the colometric subdivision of the text established by the Masoretes harks back to an ancient reading tradition.5 The demarcation of strophes, verse lines and cola took place with the help of a series of disjunctive accents that were placed above and below the transmitted text. According to the Tabula Accentum of BHS, the most significant disjunctive accents—in order of importance—are the following: [1] Sillûq (with Sôf pāsûq); [2] Atnāch; [3] Segôltā; [4] Šalšèlet; [5] Zāqēf parvum; [6] Zāqēf magnum; and [7] Revî a . These accents are mostly employed in ascending order (= descending enumeration), e.g. [5]—[2] in Isa. 1:2a. Should a less important accent with a higher number immediately follow an important accent with a low number (e.g. [2] or [1]) then it is usually possible to determine the beginning of a new verse line, e.g. [5]— [1] in Isa. 1:2b. While exceptions are possible they nevertheless tend to confirm the rule. Regardless, syntax and content remain important, if only to avoid overdependence on the Masoretic accentuation. In the colometric subdivision of Isaiah 28 presented below I take the location of the aforementioned seven disjunctive accents as my point of departure.6 The first column contains the Hebrew text according to the Masoretic vocalisation, including the two most important accents they employed, namely Sillûq (with Sôf pāsûq) [1] and Atnāch [2]. The second column contains an enumeration of the various verses, following the customary verse divisions (1, 2, 3, etc.), further divided into half verses (lower case a and b) on the basis of the Atnāch. The upper case letters (A, B, C, etc.) serve to enumerate the individual cola in each half verse. The third column contains the disjunctive accent employed by the Masoretes presented in square brackets according to the summary outlined above. The less important disjunctive accents are not included in the present survey. Where the latter have contributed to the subdivision of a colon reference will be made to them in the exegesis. The fourth column

Korpel 2000:18. Cf. Korpel 2000:31: “The relative weight of the distinctive Masoretic accents is well-known and does not need discussion here. In general the Masoretic colometry is very reliable, as recent research has shown and may well serve as the point of departure for any discussion about the meaning of the text.” 5 6

68

chapter three

indicates the type of colon observed in the verse lines of the text. The different types are known to us as monocolon, bicolon or tricolon. The term ‘anacrusis’ serves to designate a word or word group that would appear to stand outside the metre. The fifth and final column provides the number of metrical beats contained in each verse line. Individual words and words joined by a maqqeph represent a single beat. While the strophic division of a Hebrew text remains a question of some dispute, the survey below nevertheless endeavours to provide an accurate rendition thereof. Once again I have followed the method proposed by Korpel.7 Korpel’s point of departure is that a strophe coincides for the most part with a text unit rounded off by the Masoretes with Sôf pāsûq (confirmed on occasion by Setumah or Petuchah) and frequently consists of two, regularly of three and sometimes of four verse lines. The beginning of a strophe is occasionally marked by the reversal of the usual syntactical word sequence or by the use of particles that imply a certain degree of emphasis. It is important to realise with respect to the method followed by the present study and elsewhere that the establishment of the colometry of Old Testament texts remains a much discussed and complicated endeavour.8 While I have taken the Masoretic indicators as my point of departure for the analysis of the colometry of Isaiah 28, I have nevertheless deviated from the Masoretic accentuation in a number of places. Such deviations will be explained in the exegesis. Colometric rendition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 28 Strophe 1

y/h μyIr'p]a, yrEKOvi tWaGE tr
Colon

Acccents MT Tabula

Verse lines

Metre

1aA 1aB 1aC 1bA 1bB

[7] [5] [2]

anacrusis bicolon

1 4+4

bicolon

3+2

[1]

See Korpel 2000:40–43. Cf. Korpel/De Moor 1988:6: “. . . the re-establishment of the colometric division intended by the ancient poets is often a hazardous undertaking. Even the most conscientious researcher would do well to recognize this in all fairness.” 7 8

the literary and historical context

69

Table (cont.) Colometric rendition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 28 Strophe 2

yn:doal' ≈Mia'w“ qz:j; hNEhi bf,q;= r['c' dr:B; μrdy:B] ≈r
/Tr“a'p]ti ybiix] lbenO tx'yxi ht;y“h;w“ μyn–Im;v] ayGE vaOrAl[' rv,a} ≈yIq' μr,f,B] [hr;WKbiK]] (Hr;WKbiK)] Ht;/a ha,roh; ha,r“yI rv,a} s .hN:[,l;b]yI /Pk'B] Hd:/[B] Strophe 4

aWhh' μ/YB' ybix] tr,f,[}l' t/ab;x] hw:hy“ hy
Wgv; ˆyIY"B' hL,aeAμg"w“ W[–T; rk;Veb'W rk;Veb' Wgv; aybin:w“ ˆheKo yIyIY"h'Aˆmi W[l]b]nI rk;Veh'Aˆmi W[T; ha,roB; Wgv; .hY:liyliP] WqP; t/nj;l]vuAlK; yKi ha;=xo ayqi Wal]m; s .μ/qm; yliB] Strophe 6

h[;de hr,/y ymiAta, h[;=Wmv] ˆybiy: ymiAta,w“ bl;j;me yleWmg“ .μyId;V;mi yqeyTi[' wx;l; wx' wx;l; wx' yKi wq;=l; wq' wq;l; wq' .μv; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“

Colon

Acccents MT Tabula

Verse lines

Metre

2aA 2aB 2bA 2bB 3aA 3bA

[5] [2]

bicolon

4+4

[1] [2] [1]

bicolon

4+3

bicolon

2+4

4aA 4aB 4bA 4bB 4bC

[5] [2] [5] [5] [1]

bicolon

5+4

tricolon

3+4+3

anacrusis bicolon

2 5+4

bicolon

4+4

bicolon

3+2

tricolon

4+2+2

bicolon

2+2

tricolon

2+3+2

bicolon

3+3

bicolon

2+2

tricolon

5+4+4

5aA 5aB 5a/bC 6a/bA 6bB

[7] [5] [5] [2] [1] [2] [5] [5] [1]

7aA 7aB 7bA 7bB 7bC 7bD 7bE 8aA 8aB 8bA

[5] [2] [7] [5] [5] [1] [5] [2] [1]

9aA 9aB 9bA 9bB 10aA 10aB 10bA

[5] [2] [5] [1] [5] [2] [1]

70

chapter three

Table (cont.) Colometric rendition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 28 Strophe 7

hp;c; ygE[}l'B] yKi tr=,j,a' ˆ/vl;b]W .hZ
hw:hy“Arb'D“ μh,l; hy:h;w“ wx;l; wx' wx;l; wx' wq;l; wq' wq;l; wq' μv=; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“ r/ja; Wlv]k;w“ Wkl]yE ˆ['m'l] π .WdK;l]nIw“ Wvq]/nw“ WrB;v]nIw“ Strophe 9

hw:hy“Arb'd“ W[m]vi ˆkel; ˆ/x–l; yven“a' hZ
μT,r“m'a} yKi tw<m;Ata, tyrIb] Wnt]r'K; h–z<jo Wnyci[; l/av]Aμ[iw“ [ rb-o[}y"] (rb'[); AyKi πfe/v [f/v] (fyvi) Wnae/by“ alø Wnsej]m' bz:k; Wnm]c' yKi s .Wnr“T;s]nI rq,V,b'W Strophe 11

hwIhy“ yn:doa} rm'a; hKo ˆkel; ynIn“hi ˆb,a;= ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, tr'q]yI tN"Pi dS;Wm ds;Wm .vyjiy: alø ˆymia}M'h'

Colon

Acccents MT Tabula

Verse lines

Metre

11aA 11aB 11bA 12aA 12aB 12aC 12aD 12bA

[5] [2] [1] [7]

tricolon

3+2+3

tricolon

3+2+2

bicolon

2+3

13aA 13aB 13aC 13aD 13bA 13bB

[7]

[5] [1]

14aA 14aB 14bA 14bB

[2] [5] [1]

15aA 15aB 15aC 15bA 15bB 15bC 15bD 16aA 16aB 16aC 16bA 16bB 16bC 16bD

[5] [2] [1]

[5] [2]

[7] [5] [2] [5] [1] [7] [5] [2] [5] [1]

monocolon 3 tricolon 4+4+4 bicolon

4+3

bicolon

3+2

bicolon

3+2

monocolon bicolon

2 3+3

bicolon

3+2

bicolon

4+2

monocolon anacrusis bicolon

5 1 3+2

bicolon

2+2

monocolon

3

the literary and historical context

71

Table (cont.) Colometric rendition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 28 Strophe 12

wq;l] fP;v]mi yTim]c'w“ tl,q;=v]mil] hq;d;x]W Strophe 13

bz:k; hsej]m' dr;b; h[;y:w“ .Wpfov]yI μyIm' rt,sew“ tw<m;Ata, μk,t]yrIrB] rP'kuw“ μWq–t; alø l/av]Ata, μk,t]Wzj;w“ rbo[}y" yKi πfe/v f/v .sm;r“mil] /l μt,yyIh]wI Strophe 14

/rb][; yDemi μk,t]a, jQ'yI rbo[}y" rq,BoB' rq,Bob'AyKi hl;y“L;=b'W μ/YB'' h[;w:z“Aqr' hy:h;w“ .h[;Wmv] ˆybih; Strophe 15

["r=eT;c]hime [X;M'h' rx'q;AyKi .sNEK't]hiK] hr;x; hk;SeM'h'w“ Strophe 16

hw:hy“ μWqy: μyxir;P]Arh'k] yKi z=G:r“yI ˆ/[b]gIB] qm,[eK] Whce[}m' t/c[}l' Whce[}m' rz: /td;bo[} dbo[}l'w“ ./td;bo[} hY:rIk]n: Strophe 17

Wxx;/lt]TiAla' hT;['w“ μk=e,yres]/m Wqz“ j]y
yli=/q W[m]viw“ WnyzI a}h' .ytir;m]ai W[m]viw“ Wbyviq]h'

Colon

Acccents MT Tabula

Verse lines

Metre

17aA 17aB

[5] [2]

bicolon

3+2

17bA 17bB 18aA 18aB 18bA 18bB

[5] [1] [5] [2] [5] [1]

bicolon

4+3

bicolon

3+4

bicolon

4+3

bicolon

2+2

bicolon

3+2

bicolon

2+2

19aA 19aB 19aC 19aD 19bA 19bB

[1]

20aA 20bA

[2] [1]

bicolon

3+3

21aA 21aB 21bA 21bB 21bC 21bD

[5] [2]

bicolon

4+3

bicolon

2+2

bicolon

2+2

bicolon

2+2

tricolon

4+4+3

bicolon

3+3

[5] [2]

[5] [5] [1]

22aA 22aB 22bA 22bB 22bC

[5] [2] [7]

23aA 23bA

[2] [1]

[1]

72

chapter three

Table (cont.) Colometric rendition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 28 Strophe 19

μ/Yh' lkoh} ["ro=z“li vrejoh' vroj}y" ./tm;d“a' dDec'ywI jT'p'y“ Strophe 20

a/lh} h;yn
fP;v]Mil' /rS]yIw“ .WNr,/y wyh;løa‘ Strophe 22

≈Wrj;b, alø yKi jx'q, vd'Wy hl;g:[} ˆp'/aw“ bS;=Wy ˆMoK'Al[' jx'q, fb,j;yE hF,M'b' yKi .fb,V;B' ˆMok'w“ Strophe 23

qd:Wy μj,l, WN=v,Wdy“ v/da; jx'n
ha;=x;y: t/ab;x] hw:hy“ μ[ime taOzAμG" hx;[e aylip]hi s .hY:viWT lyDig“hi

Colon

Acccents MT Tabula

Verse lines

Metre

24aA 24aB 24bA

[5] [2] [1]

tricolon

2+3+3

anacrusis tricolon

1 2+2+2

tricolon

3+2+2

bicolon

2+2

bicolon

3+2

bicolon

2+2

bicolon

4+2

25aA 25aB 25aC 25aD 25bA 25bB 25bC

[5] [1]

26aA 26aB

[1]

27aA 27aB 27aC 27aD 27bA 27bB

[5] [2]

[5] [5] [2] [1]

28aA 28aB 28bA 28bB

[5] [2] [1]

29aA 29bA 29bB

[6] [2] [5] [1]

monocolon 2 tricolon 4+4+2

tricolon

5+2+2

the literary and historical context

73

3.3. Pericope delineation within Isaiah 28 The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 does not stand on its own. Rather, it constitutes part of a larger textual composition. This larger unit can be described in the first instance as the pericope to which 28:16 belongs. The beginning and the end of the pericope in question must be determined as accurately as possible after which the circle can be widened to include questions concerning the redactional embedment of the pericope within the broader context of the chapter as a whole. The goal of the present paragraph is to establish clarity concerning the extent of the context within which the exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16 ought to take place. The end of the pericope of which 28:16 forms a part is simpler to determine than its beginning. While the Masoretes did not designate verse 23 as the beginning of a new Petuchah or Setumah,9 the emphatic call for attention in 28:23 (a sequence of four imperatives!) is known to us as characteristic of wisdom teaching (in German ‘Lehreröffnungsformel’). The latter usually functions as the introduction to a textual unit that can be qualified as a teaching.10 In the present instance, the end of the teaching in question is also clearly recognisable, since 28:29 provides a summary conclusion formulated as a so-called ‘summary appraisal’.11 As a teaching, Isa. 28:23–29 thus constitutes a new unit that is evidently delineated from the preceding unit. This leads us to suspect that the pericope to which the Zion text of 28:16 belongs in the present composition reaches its conclusion in 28:22. By explicitly tracing back the preceding announcement of judgement in this verse to the authority of t/ab;x] hwIhy“ yn:doa} ‘the Lord YHWH Zebaot ’, the text also presents itself as a conclusion in terms of content. In principle, it is conceivable that the pericope to which the Zion text of 28:16 belongs reaches its conclusion prior to verse 22. In such an instance either verse 18 or verse 21 might then serve as a concluding verse. An important argument in favour of considering verse 18 as the conclusion to the pericope is the fact that the actual announcement of judgement has already taken place by this point, and that verses 17b–18 9 In 1QIsaa, by contrast, 28:23 is marked as the beginning of a new unit. See Olley 1993:31–32. 10 The ‘Lehreröffnungsformel’ is familiar to us from Wisdom Literature (cf. Ps. 49:2; 78:1; Prov. 4:1,20; 5:1; 7:24; Job 13:17; 33:1; 34:2; see also Gen. 4:23; 49:2; Deut. 32:1; Judg. 5:3; Hos. 5:1), although it is also used elsewhere in Isaiah (Isa. 1:2,10; 32:9; cf. Isa. 34:1; 49:1; 51:4). 11 The designation ‘summary appraisal’ stems from Childs 1967:128.

74

chapter three

explicitly hark back to the content of the complaint expressed in verse 15. Verse 21 might also function in its turn as a concluding verse since the following verse, verse 22, contains an exhortation that together with hT;['w“ would appear at first sight to constitute a new initiative. In the present composition of Isaiah 28, however, verse 22 is related to the “ ' ‘boasters’ in verse 14 by way of its use of the verb expression ˆ/xl; yvena ≈yl ‘to boast’. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that both these verses belong to the same pericope. Bearing in mind that verses 19–21 do not present themselves as an independent pericope and noting that the twice repeated use of the verb rb[ ‘to pass through’ in verse 19 clearly elaborates on a preceding theme (see verses 15 and 18), our already expressed suspicion that the pericope in which the Zion text of 28:16 is located reaches its conclusion in the present composition in verse 22 is thus confirmed to some degree. As noted above, the beginning of the pericope in question is more difficult to determine than its conclusion. Three possibilities present themselves at this juncture. 28:14 is first to qualify as an opening verse because the verse in question is designated by the Masoretes as the beginning of a new Petuchah. Verse 14 represents a clear call to hear the word of yhwh, a call addressed to a carefully designated addressee. On the other hand, the particle ˆkel; that precedes the call suggests a direct association with the preceding verses.12 In light of the fact that the content of 28:14–22 is also akin to that which precedes it, 28:7 represents the second possible opening verse. Verse 7 is marked in MT as the beginning of a new Setumah. While a specific addressee is absent, the verse in question begins unmistakeably with a complaint addressed to a category of people that had not been mentioned in the previous verses, namely the priest and the prophet. The thus established pericope (28:7–22), however, also begins with a particle, in this instance μg"w“, which establishes a direct link with the prophecy of 28:1–4(6) in which the same theme of drunkenness is dealt with. We could see in 28:1, therefore, a third potential opening verse. In the latter case the pericope to which the Zion text of 28:16 belongs would consist of Isa. 28:1–22. In order to weigh up the possibilities in a responsible manner we can best begin with the third option. The number of exegetes that consider 28:1–22 to be a single unit is extremely limited.13 Although scholars 12 The fact that both MT and 1QIsaa mark 28:16 itself as the beginning of a new unit is probably due to the messenger formula employed. 13 Lindblom 1955:128 mentions Kissane and Bentzen. Wildberger 1982:1056 also refers to Scharbert. Procksch 1930(A):359 considers 28:1–4,7–13,14–15,17b–22 to be a closed unit. Delitzsch 1889:311 is even of the opinion that Isaiah 28 in its entirety should

the literary and historical context

75

generally recognise that the theme of drunkenness relates the prophecy of 28:7ff with that of 28:1–4—the promise of salvation found in 28:5–6 is considered to be a late addition—,14 a significant shift in addressation nevertheless takes place in 28:7–22. While the prophecy of 28:1–4 is addressed against Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Ephraim, 28:7–22 addresses its complaint against the priest and the prophet and those who rule in Jerusalem. Such a shift simultaneously implies an alternative dating. The prophecy of 28:1–4 must have been uttered prior to the fall of Samaria in 722/720,15 at a time when the Assyrians were threatening the northern kingdom of Ephraim, while 28:7–22 presupposes a time when the Assyrian threat had also become a reality for Judah and Jerusalem. Shifts of this type within 28:1–22 are too significant to be able to speak of a single pericope. Moreover, the prophecy of 28:1–4 is characterised by a high degree of internal cohesion that is expressed in the copious use of metaphors, comparisons and wordplays.16 The Masoretes also introduced a certain division within Isaiah 28. Verses 5 and 7 are both marked as the beginning of a new unit (Setumah).17 The copulative particle μg"w“ with which the new pericope commences in verse 7 is probably due to redactional intervention. Indeed there is much to be said for the idea that verse 7a in its entirety enjoys redactional be considered as a single independent prophecy. He bases himself in this regard on the fact that five new segments are introduced by a so-called ‘woe formula’ in 28–33 (28; 29; 30; 31–32; 33). Such a structure, however, tends to suggest that a later compiler was responsible for the configuration of the prophecies in this part of the book. See § 5.2. 14 Marti 1900:204 was among the first to point to formal and content related kinship with 4:2–6 and the presupposed knowledge of 11:1ff. Cf. Driver 1968:47–67. Procksch 1930(A):351 argues that 28:5–6 originally preceded 4:2–3 and stems from a later period in the activities of the prophet. Ziegler 1948:84 likewise considers it possible that 28:5–6 belongs to a different context and is addressed to Judah/Jerusalem. Snijders 1969:279 considers pinpointing the original location of 28:5–6 to be difficult and takes the current link with 28:1–4 as his point of departure. Sweeney 1996:361 is more inclined to establish a link with the verses that follow (28:5–29). In contrast to Procksch, Eichrodt 1967:121 dates 28:5–6 to the beginning of Isaiah’s activities, when the prophet had still expected that a remainder would change their ways. Fohrer 1962:46 and Schoors 1972:165 maintain that 28:5–6 is a later interpolation designed to complete the preceding threat with an eschatological promise of salvation. In order to reinforce his hypothesis that 28:5–6 is a later addition, Wildberger 1982:1044 bases himself on the use of prose, the presence of aWhh' μ/YB' common for such interpolations and the transition from Ephraim/Samaria to the rest of the people. 15 For the problems surrounding the date of the siege and fall of Samaria, see Galil 1996:83–97. Becking 1992 dates the fall of Samaria to 723. See also Becking 2003:54. 16 See Beuken 2000:17. 17 1QIsaa likewise marks 28:5 as the beginning of a new unit. This is consistently the case in 1QIsaa, however, when a verse begins with the formula aWhh' μ/YB'. See Olley 1993:32–33.

76

chapter three

origins.18 Such a redactional connection with 28:1–4(6) transforms the fate of Samaria into a warning example for Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 17:17– 23).19 Only one exegete argues, however, that the addressees should only be sought in Jerusalem from 28:14 onwards, and that the segment running from vv. 7–13 is still addressed to the northern kingdom. This would imply that the priest and prophet referred to in 28:7 are to be localised in the aforementioned Ephraim and that 28:1–13 must thus be treated as a single pericope.20 If one is inclined to argue that 28:1–22 should not be considered a single pericope, however, then one is obliged to address the question whether verses 7–22 then constitute an original unity. This seems to be a fairly reasonable possibility since there is much to be said for the suggestion that the addressees from verse 7 onwards should be sought in the southern kingdom of Judah and in Jerusalem.21 Nevertheless, there are a number of arguments that would appear to support the hypothesis that in spite of the already mentioned cohesion between 28:7–13 and 28:14–22, 28:7–22 should likewise not be considered an original unity:

18 Wildberger 1982:1055–1056. See also Donner 1964:148, Kaiser 19762:194, Dietrich 1976:151, Clements 1980(B):226, Gonçalves 1986:188 and Kilian 1994:159. In line with Duhm 19143 (1st edition:1892):171 Marti 1900:205 sees the passage 28:7–8 as a bridge between 28:1–4 en 28:9–22 inserted at a later date by Isaiah himself. 19 See Snijders 1969:278, 280, Schoors 1972:164 and Schneider 1988:378. Cf. Sweeney 1996:367: “The present form of the passage is not directed to announce the fall of the northern kingdom, but to warn the southern kingdom of a potential disaster based on the example of the north.” Sweeney associates this, however, with 28:1–13 as a whole. Together with Fohrer 1962:43, Wildberger 1982:1046 sees the motif of drunkenness as a connecting factor. In his view, the compilers were no longer interested in Samaria as such but rather in the arrogance of the drinkers, a phenomenon that might be considered timeless. Roberts 1987:37–38 doubts whether 28:7–13 ever existed independently of 28:1–4 and presupposes, in line with Procksch 1930(A):353, that Isaiah himself reused the old prophecy against Samaria of 28:1–4 as an introduction to a prophecy against the Judean leaders in the Assyrian period. Marti 1900:204 points out that Wellhausen and others were of the opinion that Jerusalem is being addressed as a Samaria in 28:1–4. 20 See Oswalt 1986:506, 509. With regard to the addressees in 28:7–13, the explanation of Exum 1982:108–139, Tanghe 1993:235–260 and Sweeney 1996:365 is related to that of Oswalt. While Beuken 2000:18 already sees Jerusalem coming into view in 28:7–13, he nevertheless considers 28:7–13 to be a climax in relation to 28:1–6. He speaks in this regard of a dynamic progression that is given expression in the more realistic character of the prophecy in question, in the threat of divine eclipse and in the semantic contrast between the proud and glorious drunkards of Ephraim, on the one hand, and the perversity of the drunken priests and prophets on the other. 21 Van der Toorn 1988:200 argues in favour for understanding of 28:7–22 as a literary unit. See also Stewart 1988:376.

the literary and historical context

77

1. The powerful appeal hw:hy“Arb'd“ W[m]vi ‘hear the word of YHWH’ which opens 28:14 marks the beginning of a new prophecy.22 2. The phrase μIl;v;WryBi rv,a} hZ
Cf. Dietrich 1976:152 and Wildberger 1982:1068. Commentators occasionally simplify identification with priest and prophet mentioned in 28:7 by translating ylev]mo in 28:14 as ‘proverb makers’. See Fohrer 1962:54–56 and Snijders 1969:283. 24 Cf. Dietrich 1976:152. 25 See Olley 1993:32: “ ‘Hear the word of YHWH’ occurs 4 times, each commencing a major division (i 10, xxviii 14, xxxix 5, lxvi 5).” 26 The hypothesis proposed by Eichrodt 1967:127 that an originally more illuminating connection with the preceding text has disappeared from 28:14 cannot be established with any degree of certainty. Cf. Westermann 19683:121–122 for the use of the third person in announcements of judgement addressed to the entire people. 27 Cf. Exum 1982:123 and Tanghe 1993:242. 28 See Marti 1900:207, Rohland 1956:147, Donner 1964:148, Kaiser 19762:199, Dietrich 1976:161, Clements 1980(B):230 and Wildberger 1982:1068. 22 23

78

chapter three

link unresolved.29 Whatever the case, the prophecy of 28:14–22 is to be understood as an independent pericope. The exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16 should thus focus itself within the context of this pericope. Of course, it goes without saying that the exegesis of 28:16 need not be strictly limited to the immediate context. It became apparent in our delineation of 28:14–22 that the pericope enjoyed redactional associations with 28:7–13 in particular. Cohesion in terms of content can also be established between the two pericopes. Furthermore, both 28:14–22 and 28:7–13 would appear to presuppose a period in which the Assyrian threat against Jerusalem was a real one. It makes sense, therefore, to pay particular attention to the prophecy of judgement in 28:7–13 in our exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16. In addition, the prophecy relating to Ephraim/Samaria in 28:1–4(6) and the didactic material found in 28:23–29 can also be included within the broader context. Within the context of Isaiah 28 as a whole, both external pericopes are linked to the central pericopes 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 by way of numerous semantic and redactional cross-connections. This is most clearly the case with respect to the prophecy of 28:1–4(6),30 though the didactic material of 28:23–29 should also be read in association with the preceding text.31 Within the framework of the present study, however, we will be obliged to content ourselves with a limited treatment of 28:1–4(6) and 28:23–29. 3.4. Isaiah 28:14–22 as original unity Having established in the preceding paragraph that the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 constitutes part of the prophecy delineated in 28:14–22, the present paragraph will have to address questions concerning the original 29 While Roberts 1987:37–38 doubts whether the connection between verses 13 and 14 is secondary, he maintains nevertheless that Isaiah himself would have been responsible for such a secondary association (idem Duhm 19143:174). Schoors 1972:167 explains the connection on the basis of the fact that 28:14–22 does indeed deal with ‘boasters’, but in this case with ‘boasters’ from the ruling classes. 30 Cf. Roberts 1987:38: “At any rate, this wider literary context of 28:1–22, as well as other passages that share the same themes and reflect the same historical setting, may be drawn to elucidate Isaiah’s meaning in Isa 28:16.” Donner 1964:149f refers to Isaiah 28 as a redactional unity. He argues, nevertheless, that this does not give us permission to interpret one saying on the basis of another. 31 Wildberger 1982:1069 goes a little too far when he insists that 28:23–29 is an absolutely new segment that does not even have a redactional link with the preceding verses.

the literary and historical context

79

unity of the said prophecy or the possibility that it exhibits traces of later reworking. The concluding verses 19–22 represent a particular problem for a number of exegetes, many of whom consider them to be a later extension of the prophecy. The primary argument in this regard maintains that 28:18 bears the character of a concluding verse since all the elements of the complaint in 28:15 have been picked up already in the announcement of judgement of 28:17b–18. The concluding word sm;rm “ il] is likewise said to function as a sort of climax, thus raising the question as to what remains to be said thereafter. In addition, the fact that verses 19–22 are fairly disparate reinforces the impression that we are dealing here with a number of secondary additions. Dietrich characterises 28:19–22 as a collection of broken fragments.32 In order to provide an impression of the distinct origin often ascribed to these ‘broken fragments’ we can take the vision of Wildberger as an illustration. Based on the apparent weakening of the message of 28:18 by the first verse half of 28:19, Wildberger considers 28:19a as a typical gloss introduced by a reader who wanted to underline the fact that the words announced by Isaiah to his own age could be repeated in every age.33 The second verse half of 28:19, however, is said to be ascribed to a redactor who wanted to associate both pericopes (28:7–13 and 28:14– 22) more closely with each other than was possible on the basis of the particle ˆkel; alone. As a matter of fact, the clause h[;Wmv] ˆybih; ‘the understanding of the message’ harks back to h[;Wmv] ˆybiy: ‘he will explain the message’ in 28:9.34 Moreover, Wildberger recognises evidence of a proverb in 28:20 and presupposes that the latter could have been introduced by Isaiah himself. He notes, however, that others have ascribed the said proverb to a later redaction.35 Evidence of a typically Isaian way of speaking of the work of yhwh in 28:21 suggests that this verse also decidedly stems from Isaiah himself.36 With respect to 28:22, however, Wildberger can Dietrich 1976:152. Wildberger 1982:1070. Cf. Dietrich 1976:152. 34 Wildberger 1982:1070. Rohland 1956:147–148 is of the opinion that Isaiah himself was responsible for the redaction of Isaiah 28 as a whole and that he thereby introduced 28:19a as a transition to what follows and 28:19b as a link with the preceding proverbs. Donner 1964:149 favours a prosaic addition stemming from the period in which 28:7–13 and 28:14–18 were already associated at the literary level. Dietrich 1976:153 argues that 28:19b was originally located after 28:13a. 35 Wildberger 1982:1070. Cf. Marti 1900:209 and Procksch 1930(A):362. See also Clements 1980(B):230. Kilian 1994:163 insists that the origin of the proverb cannot be determined. 36 Wildberger 1982:1070f. According to Kilian 1994:163, however, 28:21 also 32 33

80

chapter three

only say that such a conclusion in the form of an exhortation is simply unthinkable after the preceding prophecy of judgement.37 Wildberger considers 28:22 as the actualising gloss of a reader whereby the second verse half is to be understood as reminiscent of 10:23.38 While absolute certainty with regard to the origins of the various component parts of 28:19–22 is difficult to achieve, the typification of the verses in question as a collection of broken fragments would appear nevertheless to be out of place. In the present textual composition, the verses in question exhibit more mutual cohesion than such a typification would lead one to believe. In any case, it remains quite reasonable to accept that verses 19–21, which, as with the preceding verses 14–18, are thoroughly poetic in nature and likewise leave an authentic impression in terms of content, constitute an integrative component of the preceding prophecy of judgement from more or less the outset.39 While the exegesis of these verses will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter, reference to the internal structure of these verses should not go unmentioned at this point. It is indisputable that the first verse half of 28:19 is closely associated with 28:18 by way of the verb rb[ ‘pass through’ and can be considered the first conclusion to the announcement of judgement. Instead of weakening the preceding announcement of judgement as Wildberger presupposes, the conclusion in question serves rather to underline the fact that there can be no escape whatsoever from the judgement to come. Verses 19b–21 then function as a sort of second

constitutes a part of a later eschatological interpolation: “eine spätere eschatologische Erweiterung, die die Totalität des Endgerichtes ausmalt, das allgemeines Entsetzen hervorruft.” Cf. Kaiser 19762:203 and Clements 1980(B):230. Petersen 1979:112 sees 28:20–22 as “a collection of three separate pieces, each of which provides a commentary on the earlier oracle.” Donner 1964:153 maintains with respect to 28:20–21 that origin and character remain uncertain. 37 The originality of 28:22 is also seriously questioned by Rohland 1956:147–148. 38 Wildberger 1982:1071. According to Duhm, Guthe and Procksch, only the ; Al[' allude to 10:23. Clements 1980(B):229 and Gonçalves concluding words ≈r
the literary and historical context

81

conclusion to the announcement of judgement. This passage likewise serves to underline the seriousness of the announced judgement and offers, among other things, a theological explanation as to why escape is no longer possible. Each in its own fashion, the saying of 28:20 and the comparison of 28:21, serve to explain why the understanding of the preceding announcement of judgement represents ‘sheer terror’ (28:19b).40 Both verses begin with the motivating particle yKi. Wildberger’s argument that the exhortation of 28:22 is simply inconceivable as a conclusion to a prophecy of judgement is dictated by the presupposition that a prophecy of judgement cannot by definition leave open any possibility of a change of heart. It remains very much a question, however, whether we can apply the conventions of contemporary logic in this regard.41 Based on the inclusio formed with 28:14 via the use of the verb ≈yl ‘to boast’, it is quite possible that the exhortation of 28:22a belonged to the prophecy of judgement in its original form. The possibility of a later interpolation can only be considered with any degree of certainty with respect to verse 22b on account of the apocalyptic character of the expression hx;r;j‘n<w“ hl;K; ‘destruction irrevocably determined ’ (see Dan. 9:27; cf. Dan. 9:26 and 11:36). Of greater consequence than the questions surrounding the originality of 28:19–22 are those doubts raised from time to time with respect to the Zion text of 28:16 itself. A variety of exegetes have difficulty in accepting 28:16–17a as an original component of the prophecy of 28:14–22. In his commentary on Isaiah, Procksch launched the idea that 28:16–17a was originally located after verse 13 and that it found its present location in the prophecy against the boasters (28:14–15,17b–22) by accident. Procksch’ most important argument in support of removing 28:16–17a from its present context is based on the simple presupposition that the verses in question can be missed without interrupting the cohesion of the remainder. For Procksch, the Zion text leaves the impression of being something of an aside in its present location, and this does not do justice to its great significance in Isaiah’s vision of the future as a whole. The text concerning the cornerstone becomes

Given the fact that no lesson would appear to have been learned from 28:20, the designation ‘saying’ seems more appropriate than ‘proverb’. Cf. Beuken 2000:55. 41 Cf. Beuken 2000:58: “There is a growing insight that logic cannot account for the relationship between admonition and verdict in Old Testament Prophecy. They do not appear to be mutually exclusive. The ruin of Israel and the possibility of a return to God are, in the prophetic vision, on the same level of feasibility.” 40

82

chapter three

all the more effective when it is allowed the opportunity to shine its own light. The relationship with 28:12 likewise becomes more visible when, in direct continuation of 28:7–13, yhwh’s new construction is predicted, one which is certainly able to bring the longed for rest and reprieve.42 Herrmann likewise questions the originality of 28:16–17a in its present context. Given the fact that 28:16–17a bears the features of a promise, the verses in question would appear to be all the more out of place within the judgement character of the surrounding verses.43 For the same reason, Childs characterises 28:16–17a as a secondary, interpolated, oracle of promise.44 His position can be summed up in the following three arguments: 1. Prophecy of judgement is characterised by a complaint followed by an announcement of judgement. This genre is so well established in the Old Testament that the deviation apparent in 28:14–22 would appear to be virtually unique. 2. 8th century prophets rarely locate a promise in such a context. 3. A literary seam is evident in 28:17b. Childs’ arguments against the originality of 28:16–17a in its present location, however, are far from convincing. While the content of 28:12 and 28:16 clearly gives us reason to speak of cohesion, yhwh’s construction in Zion referred to in 28:16 also functions in its present context as an appropriate antithesis to the deceptive constructions of the boasters in Jerusalem.45 The relocation of the text proposed by Procksch is unnecessary and clearly misunderstands the fact that the said antithesis is even explicitly called to mind through the use of the verb μyc both in 28:15 and 28:17a.46 Placing the exegetical question as to whether 28:16–17a should indeed be understood as a promise to one side, and bearing Childs’ genre-critical argumentation in mind, one is obliged Procksch 1930(A):356–357. Fey 1963:122 agrees with Procksch. Cf. Herrmann 1965:143: “Es wäre doch zu merkwürdig, annehmen zu wollen, daß diese verheißende Verse mitten in einer Unheilsweissagung ihren legitimen Ort haben sollten.” Cf. also Blenkinsopp 2000(B):473: “Allusion to an eventual new foundation in Jerusalem (vv. 16–17a) would be rhetorically ineffective at this point and does not fit the pattern of prophetic diatribe.” 44 Childs 1967:30–31 (cf. Childs 2001:207). Cf. Boehmer 1923:84–93. 45 Lindblom 1955:132. See also Eichrodt 1967:135. 46 Cf. Melugin 1974:309: “The scoffers say, Wnsej]m' bz:k; Wnm]c' (vs 15), but Yahweh says, wq;l] fP;v]mi yTim]c'w“ (vs 17). This wordplay exhibits the basic unity of vss. 14–19.” Gonçalves 1986:197–199 describes how verse 15 on the one hand and verses 16–17a on the other represent each other’s logical counterparts. 42 43

the literary and historical context

83

nevertheless to ask a methodological question concerning whether it is correct to deny the prophet the artistic freedom to deal with the established patterns of a genre in his own creative fashion.47 As a matter of fact, form-critical arguments alone provide insufficient reason to treat 28:16–17a as a secondary interpolation. Moreover, if 28:16–17a originally circulated as an independent promise of salvation, as Childs presupposes, then its present condition is surprisingly fragmentary. Needless to note, in addition, that the transition from complaint to announcement of judgement in the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 would lack the conventional transitional characteristics without 28:16–17a.48 Together with the majority of exegetes, one can conclude that the Zion text of 28:16 constitutes an integrative and central component part of the context in which it is currently located.49 3.5. Isaiah 28:14–22 as Isaianic prophecy In our discussion of the unity of 28:14–22, the question of authenticity was also raised, albeit in the margins. Definitive certainty is difficult to establish with respect to the concluding verses 19–22. The most serious doubts are raised in relation to the second verse half of 28:19 and the conclusion of 28:22. Both clauses hark back to earlier texts, 28:9 and 10:23 respectively, and may therefore stem from the hand of a redactor. In the case of 28:19b, the apocalyptic motif of history as teacher50 and the fact that the term h[;w:z“ occurs almost exclusively in the book of “ i with Qere hw:[}zl " ] ‘[I will make them] a horJeremiah (always as Ketib h[;w:zl ror’) might be considered evidence of a later redaction.51 In 28:22b it is primarily the expression hx;r;j‘n<w“ hl;K; ‘destruction irrevocably determined’ that exhibits apocalyptic features (see Dan. 9:27; cf. Dan. 9:26 and 11:36), 47 In reaction to Childs, Melugin 1974:308 asks himself the fundamental question: “Should we agree with him that in Isa 28:14–22 the elements which do not normally belong to the genre are the work of a redactor? Or should we see in these unique features of the text the prophet’s artistic freedom to modify the customary pattern of the genre?” 48 Roberts 1987:38–39. 49 See also the critique of Eichrodt 1967:135 on the perspective of Procksch. Wildberger 1982:1073 points out that the word field of verse 16 is borrowed from the ideology of the temple and adds that the terms hsjm and rtsn employed in verse 15 also constitute a part thereof (cf. Ps. 27:5). 50 Clements 1980(B):232 and Beuken 2000:55. 51 See Jer. 15:4; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17; 2 Chron. 29:8. Cf. hw:[}z"l] in Deut. 28:25 and Ezek. 23:46.

84

chapter three

although Isaianic authenticity cannot be excluded in this instance with any degree of certainty either (cf. 10:22–23).52 In any event, the divine designation t/ab;x] hwIhy“ yn:doa} ‘the Lord YHWH Zebaot’ employed in 28:22b is characteristic of the prophet Isaiah.53 While a degree of hesitation is evident among scholars with respect to the authenticity of 28:19b and 28:22b, there are no convincing reasons to deny the Isaian authorship and thus authenticity of the saying in 28:20 or the comparison in 28:21. The saying found in 28:20 may have been borrowed from the wisdom tradition with which Isaiah was very familiar.54 The verse is characterised by its high poetic content, given expression to by its use of rare vocabulary as well as its choice of style features. The comparison in 28:21 likewise exhibits clear poetic structure and speaks of the work of YHWH in typically Isaianic style (cf. 5:12,19; 10:12; 19:25; 29:23). Within the framework of the present study the question of the authenticity of the Zion text of 28:16 is naturally a high priority. While some discussion exists concerning whether 28:16–17a is in its original place in its present context, there would appear to be a considerable degree of consensus as to the authenticity of these verses. Even Childs, who considers 28:16–17a to be a secondary interpolation and considers the said verses to be the work of a redactor, nevertheless, and along with Procksch, recognises the Isaianic character of the passage in question. Fey goes a step further, convinced that only Isaiah himself could have been responsible for the interpolation of 28:16–17a into the present context. He supports his hypothesis by pointing to the unusual and radical character of the interpolation.55 It remains difficult to understand, however, why Isaiah’s creativity could not have left its mark on the current form of the prophecy from the very beginning. The fact that such creativity is a particular characteristic of Isaiah is apparent, for example, from the way in which the prophet is able to disrupt the typical pattern of prophetic judgement in texts such as 28:12 and 30:15 (both taken to 52 53

19:4.

See Beuken 2000:59. See Isa. 3:15; 10:23–24; 22:5,12,14–15; cf. t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ˆ/da;h; in 1:24; 3:1; 10:16,33;

See Whedbee 1971. Fey 1963:122: “Die Zusammenstellung ist zu eigenwillig, die Störung des Grundbestandes zu entscheidend, als daß man sie einem Schüler oder späteren Redaktor Jesajas zutrauen könnte. So blieben Ursach und Zweck dieses Einschubs weiterhin ungeklärt.” Jeppesen 1984:93–99 considers the Zion text of 28:16 (he understands 28:17a to be part of the threat) to be an independent Isaianic unit that was only placed in its current position by Deutero-Isaiah. 54 55

the literary and historical context

85

be authentic) by inserting a quotation containing words of expectation and hope.56 A number of exegetes are inclined, nevertheless, not only to deny the redaction of 28:16–17a to Isaiah but also the text’s authorship. Kaiser ascribes 28:16aβb–17a to an early exilic editor,57 while Vermeylen even goes so far as to date the Zion text in the post-exilic period.58 Kilian considers the authenticity of 28:16–17a an open question, but leans nonetheless in the direction of rejecting Isaianic authorship. In his opinion, the Isaianic origin of the Zion text can only be maintained if 28:16aβ is translated as a perfect (“dann ist der Gerichtscharakter gewahrt”) and 28:16bβ is understood as an interpolation, which brings us to a later period and demands eschatological explanation.59 It is apparent from an earlier study of the same author that he himself is completely convinced that 28:16–17a should be understood as a promise of salvation. He concludes on this basis that we are dealing with a secondary redactional expansion, because the current context of judgement (28:14–22) does not permit us to ascribe Isaianic origin to the said message of salvation.60 It is clear that the difficulties concerning the presupposed Isaianic authorship of 28:16–17a expressed by the exegetes to whom we have referred are not only based on form-critical considerations, bearing in mind that the hypothesis of a later interpolation need not exclude the possibility that Isaiah was the original author of the Zion text. Their difficulties with the authenticity of 28:16–17a are related rather to their vision of the character of Isaiah’s preaching. When one considers Isaiah a prophet of judgement and nothing more, then ascribing words of salvation to him would, by definition, make no sense. Whether such a position does justice to reality, however, remains open to question. Whatever the case, it is methodically incorrect to exclude in advance the possibility that Isaiah may have spoken words of salvation based on the presupposed judgement character of his preaching. In Kilian’s case, moreover, his inclination to challenge the authenticity of the Zion text 56 Melugin 1974:309. Cf. also Irwin 1977:26. Delitzsch 1889:316 alludes to 7:14 in which a promise instead of an expected announcement of judgement follows ˆkel;. Roberts 1987:38–39 ascribes the frequent mixture of threat and promise in a single form to the creativity of the prophet. Hermisson 1973:69 refers to the latter as the ambivalence of Isaiah’s expectation of the future. Kilian 1983:61 by contrast, characterises this notion as “ein recht zweifelhaftes Postulat.” 57 See Kaiser 19762:199. 58 See Jeppesen 1984:97 and Becker 1997:232. 59 Kilian 1994:162. 60 Kilian 1983:58–63. Idem Becker 1997:231.

86

chapter three

of 28:16 is related to his vision of the origin and date of the so-called Zion tradition. Kilian’s argument leaves one with the strong impression that he desires to exclude 28:16 in advance from any discussion of the Zion tradition relating to Isaiah. His opinion is thus in sharp contrast to that of Herrmann who considers the Zion text in question to be the very seed of Isaiah’s Zion expectation.61 Even Hardmeier, who follows Kilian to a considerable degree with respect to the Zion texts in the book of Isaiah, insists that a more thorough discussion is necessary concerning, among other things, Isa. 28:16.62 3.6. Dating Isaiah 28:14–22 Having discussed the question of the authenticity of the prophecy of 28:14–22, we must now address ourselves to the dating of these verses. It goes without saying, of course, that the dating of the Zion text of 28:16 depends on one’s perspective on the authenticity thereof. With respect to the latter, we were able to discern a high degree of unanimity among exegetes. There is no convincing reason to deny the authenticity of 28:16 in advance. There would likewise appear to be a solid consensus concerning the dating of the prophecy of judgement of which the Zion text constitutes an integrative and central part. A significant majority of exegetes date both the prophecy of 28:7–13 and that of 28:14–22 in the later years of the prophet’s active life, in the period around 701, when Jerusalem came under threat from the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705–681). Globally speaking, four different periods can be distinguished in the active life of the prophet Isaiah. The first period falls under the reign of King Jotham who ruled at the latest up to 742 during a period in which social turmoil gave the prophet occasion to deliver a biting critique of all forms of social injustice. The second period coincides with the reign of King Ahaz (742–727). Isaiah was particularly vocal in this period during the years of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734–732). The third and fourth periods of Isaiah’s activities both fall under the reign of King Hezekiah (727–698).63 The third period coincides with Ashdod’s futile 61 Herrmann 1965:144: “Jes. 28,16.17a ist die Keimzelle der Zion-Erwartung Jesajas.” 62 Hardmeier 1986:10: “so wird mindestens um 1,21–26 und 28,16 noch länger und gründlicher zu ‘kämpfen’ sein.” 63 See § 3.7. for the various issues surrounding the date of King Hezekiah.

the literary and historical context

87

revolt against Sargon II (722–705) of Assyria in 713–711; the fourth with the similarly futile revolt against Assyria in 705–701, on which occasion Hezekiah himself was also directly implicated. The majority of prophecies collected in Isaiah 28–33 would appear to stem from this latter period. According to most exegetes, this is also the case with respect to the prophecies of judgement found in 28:7–13 and 28:14–22. The covenant with Egypt, to which 28:15 seems to allude (cf. 30:1–5 and 31:1–3), fits most appropriately in the period in which Hezekiah himself revolted against Assyria. A few exegetes argue in favour of an earlier date with respect to 28:14–22. While it is customary to date the prophecy in question to the time of King Sennacherib (705–681), some have been inclined to date the prophecy during the reign of one or other of his predecessors: Sargon II (722–705), Shalmaneser V (727–722) and even Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727).64 Schmidt, for example, locates the prophecy of 28:14–22 during the reign of King Sargon II and associates it in particular with the revolt of Ashdod in 713–711.65 Although Egypt was also implicated in the latter revolt (cf. Isaiah 20), Jerusalem’s involvement remained on this occasion relatively limited. While the revolt of Ashdod enjoyed King Hezekiah’s sympathy—he may even have been personally involved in negotiations with Egypt (cf. 18:1–6)—, he did not revoke his status as a vassal on this occasion. The radicality of the judgement announced in 28:14–22, however, would thus appear to be inappropriate to this particular situation. Hayes and Irvine opt for an even earlier dating during the reign of Shalmaneser V (727–722). They are of the opinion that Isaiah 28 follows Isaiah 18 in chronological terms and is to be dated to the final years of Ephraim. Upheaval is evident in Ephraim from the latter years of Tiglath-Pileser III to the moment Sargon II appeared in the west (722). In the intervening years, Shalmaneser V was unsuccessful in subjugating the west. While he was in Assyria in 726, the west had the opportunity to seek support from Egypt. Ephraim was certainly not alone in hoping for such support since it would appear that sympathy was growing at the time in both Judah and Jerusalem for the idea of turning to Egypt for assistance. Hezekiah had just succeeded to the throne in Jerusalem at that very moment. According to Hayes and Irvine, the prophecy of 28:14–22 must have been uttered during this period together with 64 65

For the chronology of the Assyrian kings we follow Veenhof 2001:315. H. Schmidt 1923.

88

chapter three

the prophecies in the following chapters. The prophecy of 30:6–7, for example, is said to allude to the emissaries from Ephraim that Hezekiah had allowed to pass through his land. Shalmaneser V returned to the west in 725, however, from which point the fall of Samaria was virtually guaranteed.66 While there is little doubt that the dating proposed by Hayes and Irvine is original, it nevertheless falls outside the four working periods of Isaiah’s life that are familiar to us. Their vision is based entirely on the unusual presupposition that Isaiah 28–33 deals with the final years of Ephraim and Samaria.67 They make the dating of the entire textual segment dependent on the opening verses thereof in 28:1–4. The probability of such a dating remains limited, however, if one accounts for the fact that the judgement announced in 28:14–22 had not yet become a reality for Jerusalem in 725. While Hezekiah may indeed have already acceded to the throne in 727, it is more or less certain that he would have been too young in 725 to be able to offer political support to Ephraim’s endeavours to seek help from Egypt. A few exegetes go even further and argue in favour of an extremely early dating of 28:14–22 during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (745– 727), when Ahaz was king of Judah. Lindblom is even inclined to date 28:1–22, which he considers an original unity, to Isaiah’s earliest years, prior to the outbreak of the Syro-Ephraimitic war in 734. He is of the opinion that a dating after the Syro-Ephraimitic war is undermined by the fact that Isaiah does not appear to be aware of the war in the prophecy of 28:1–4 addressed against Samaria. Isaiah’s attack is ultimately focussed on the moral decline in Samaria and is independent of political considerations. According to Lindblom, the prophet took the opportunity to go public with his prophecy during a disorderly cultic feast in Jerusalem. In order to add strength to his words, Isaiah then linked this revelation concerning Ephraim/Samaria with a prophecy of judgement against the drunken priests and prophets who were described in 28:14 as those who rule the people and who despise yhwh.68 Besides Lindblom, Fey also dates the prophecy of 28:14–22 in Isaiah’s earliest

66 Hayes and Irvine 1987:320–330. According to Lindblom 1955:128, Bentzen 1943/44 also opts for a dating immediately prior to 722. 67 Hayes and Irvine 1987:13–15. 68 Lindblom 1955:128–129. Kissane 19602 likewise leans towards a dating of Isaiah 28 as a whole in the period of King Ahaz: “Indeed, if this poem were placed after Chapter vii, there would be no question about its late date.”

the literary and historical context

89

years, although he considers 28:16–17a to be an interpolation made by the prophet himself at a later date. According to Fey, the prophecy of 28:1–4 must at the very least have come into existence before Isaiah’s opinion with respect to the Assyrians had changed, in other words before 10:5–19 and 14:24–27.69 In like fashion to the dating proposed by Hayes and Irvine, Lindblom’s early dating is entirely determined by the prophecy addressed to Samaria in 28:1–4. Apart from the fact that there is no single reason to date 28:1–4 prior to the Syro-Ephraimitic war, the dating of the prophecy in question ultimately has nothing to say with respect to dating the remainder of Isaiah 28. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that 28:1–22 should be understood as an original unity.70 The curious situation sketched by Lindblom of a prophet who has received a revelation yet still has to search for the appropriate moment to make it public remains implausible.71 Furthermore, the focal point of Isaiah 28 is thus concentrated in the prophecy of 28:1–4, while the remainder of the chapter is ascribed a subordinate function. In the present author’s opinion, it is more reasonable to trace the focal point of Isaiah 28 to the prophet’s preaching against Jerusalem, whereby the prophecy of 28:1–4 is ascribed a subordinate function. The fate of Samaria was to serve as a warning example for Jerusalem. With respect to Fey’s hypothesis one can argue that Isaiah’s opinion of Assyria represents a separate question in Isaiah research, whereby the exegesis of the relevant texts alone can provide for any degree of certainty. It is methodically incorrect to turn matters around and to arrive at an early date for 28:14–22 on the basis of a supposed change in Isaiah’s thinking. Bearing all the above considerations in mind, a date for the prophecy of 28:14–22 is best sought during the reign of Sennacherib, when the Assyrian threat against Jerusalem was at its height and help was sought in desperation from Egypt. The place ascribed to the prophecy in question in the book of Isaiah supports such a dating. Indeed, the segment of Isaiah consisting of chapters 28–33 would appear to contain a large number of prophecies from the period 705–701. This leads to the conclusion that the dating of 28:14–22 during the period of Hezekiah’s revolt against Sennacherib ultimately enjoys the best credentials. Fey 1963:122. See the discussion hereof in § 3.3. 71 Cf. Lindblom 1955:128–129: “Er fühlte den Drang, diese Revelation irgendwie öffentlich bekannt zu machen.” 69 70

90

chapter three 3.7. Dating the reign of Hezekiah

The deliberations presented in the preceding paragraph led us to the conclusion that the prophecy of 28:14–22, within which the Zion text of 28:16 is set, should be understood against the background of Hezekiah’s revolt against Sennacherib. In the following paragraph, we will offer a sketch of the historical situation relative to this background. In order to do so, however, we must first register a number of details relevant to the reign of King Hezekiah. Few kings of Judah have been as important for the history of Israel as King Hezekiah. It seems surprising, therefore, that the extent of his reign is among the most difficult to establish of all the kings of Judah. The biblical data relevant to the chronology of Hezekiah present the exegete with a number of problems that remain impossible to resolve at the present moment. The literature contains a minimum of three different perspectives on the dates of Hezekiah’s reign:72 1. The first perspective is based on the reference found in 2 Kgs 18:1 to Hezekiah’s accession to the throne in the third year of the reign of Hoshea, the last king of the northern kingdom. Given that the fall of Samaria (722/720) is dated in 2 Kgs 18:10 in the ninth year of Hoshea’s reign, and bearing in mind that 2 Kgs 18:2 informs us that Hezekiah reigned for 29 years, we are left with a reign dating from 727 to 698 (Tadmor). 2. The second perspective is based on 2 Kgs 18:13 in which the campaign of Sennacherib (701) is dated in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign. Given that Hezekiah fell ill during the same period and was granted, according to 2 Kgs 20:6, an extension to his life of 15 years, it would appear that Hezekiah remained in power until 686. If we account for the 29 years referred to in 2 Kgs 18:2, we are left with a reign dating from 715/714 to 686 (Thiele/Bright). 3. The third perspective endeavours to harmonise the information supporting the first two by presupposing that Hezekiah began his reign in 727 as co-regent and only later, from 715/714, acceded to the throne as sole monarch. The 29-year reign referred to in 2 Kgs

72 The three distinct perspectives are to be found in Na’aman 1994:236. See also Hutter 1982:52–55, Gonçalves 1986:51–60 and the literature referred to in Herrmann 1986:398.

the literary and historical context

91

18:2 can thus be calculated on the basis of both dates. This leaves us with two alternative reigns: 727(715/714) to 698 or 727(715/714) to 686 (Gonçalves).73 The discussion does not only revolve around the contradictory features of the information relating to Hezekiah himself but also the problem of determining the year in which his father Ahaz died. In spite of the fact that there is no consensus on the matter, a dating of the year of Ahaz’ death in 727 seems likely. If we take the data from 2 Kgs 16:20 and 2 Kgs 18:1 together then the year of Ahaz’ death coincides with the third year of the reign of Hoshea, the last king of Israel. Based on the fact that the fall of Samaria (722/720) is dated in 2 Kgs 18:10 in the ninth year of Hoshea’s reign, the year in which Ahaz died can be established in 727. This dating is unexpectedly reinforced by the prophecy concerning Philistia passed on to us in Isa. 14:28–32.74 The said prophecy is dated in the year of Ahaz’ death and would appear to have been uttered on the occasion of the recent death of an Assyrian king and the arrival of a Philistine emissary in Jerusalem. The Assyrian king in question is described as ‘the rod that struck you’ and is difficult to identify with anyone other than Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727).75 The arrival of the Philistine emissary in Jerusalem probably relates to an attempt to make use of the death of Tiglath-Pileser III to stimulate the formation of an anti-Assyrian coalition. The fact that other sources cannot confirm that such an endeavour to form a coalition took place in 727 should not be understood as conclusive evidence in rejection of the proposed date. The efforts of the Philistines were apparently unsuccessful. In any event, the fact that Judah did not want to join such a coalition is hardly surprising given the interregnum that must have followed, more or less, the simultaneous death of King Ahaz. Moreover, Judah had voluntarily submitted itself to Assyrian vassalship a couple of years earlier on King Ahaz’ initiative and had been witness to the atrocities committed by the Assyrians at the end of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734–732) in Aram and Ephraim. According to 2 Kgs 16:2, Ahaz was 20 years old when he took to the throne and he reigned for 16 years in Jerusalem. This implies that 73 Becking 2003:55 presupposes the Hezekiah’s co-regentship had already commenced in 730/729. 74 Cf. Ahlström 1993:688–689. 75 Other perspectives are listed in Schoors 1997:86–87.

92

chapter three

Ahaz died when he was 36 years of age. The idea that his son Hezekiah was 25 years old when his father died, as related in 2 Kgs 18:2, implies that Ahaz had become a father at the age of 11, which is more or less unimaginable. By contrast, however, there is much to be said for the ancient tradition that the announcement to Ahaz of the birth of the Emmanuel, son of David, in Isa. 7:14, was to be fulfilled in the birth of Hezekiah. In such an instance, the birth of Hezekiah can be dated to the beginning of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734–732), thus making Hezekiah 8 years old at the most when his father died and far too young to be able to exercise his reign. Other senior officials must have attended to the running of the royal court for a number of years until Hezekiah was old enough to succeed to the throne.76 Bearing in mind the accession to the throne in the third year of the reign of Hoshea related in 2 Kgs 18:1 on the one hand, and the date of Sennacherib’s military campaign provided by 2 Kgs 18:13 in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign on the other, this means that Hezekiah was already king in name from 727 but did not come to exercise his reign as such until 715/714 or thereabouts. Instead of the co-regentship proposed by the third perspective outlined above, a solution might be found in the idea of temporary guardianship. The fact that no mention can be found of the latter, however, remains a source of dissatisfaction.77 2 Kgs 18:2, however, poses a problem to this dating. It states that Hezekiah was 25 years old when he took to the throne. According to the information outlined above, however, Hezekiah had not reached the age of 25 when his father Ahaz died in 727 nor was he 25 when he actually acceded to the throne in 715/714. At his father’s death, he was probably no more than 8 years old, and when he actually acceded to the throne in 715/714 he was 20 years of age at the most. In order to uphold the age of 25 years referred to in 2 Kgs 18:2, we would have to set the year of Hezekiah’s birth back by a minimum of five years. This would not provide Hezekiah’s age during the third year of the 76 B.J. Oosterhoff, Bijbels Handboek 2a, Kampen 1982:366 speaks of guardianship. Hutter 1982:55–57 suggests the queen mother Abu and the priest Uriah (Isa. 8:2). He also considers it possible that Isaiah himself had an important role to play in the royal court at the time, but admits that there is no conclusive evidence in support of such a hypothesis. 77 Galil 1996:102 presupposes that the dating of Sennacherib’s campaign in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign as given in 2 Kgs 18:13 is not original, but due rather to the calculations of the redactor. The redactor in question endeavoured in vain to harmonise the length of Hezekiah’s reign (= 29; see 2 Kgs 18:10) with the 15-year extension to the king’s life promised around the time of the siege of Jerusalem (see 2 Kgs 20:6).

the literary and historical context

93

reign of Hoshea (the year in which his father Ahaz died, 727) alluded to in 2 Kgs 18:1 but rather the actual age at which he acceded to the throne in 715/714. It is highly improbable, however, that two different dating systems were at work within the context of 2 Kgs 18:1–2. Based on the information we have at our disposal, it would appear that the problem of Hezekiah’s age will have to be left for the time being without a satisfactory solution. A second intractable problem evident in current research is related to the 15-year extension granted to Hezekiah’s life and referred to in 2 Kgs 20:6. The year of Hezekiah’s death can be established as 698, since a later date would unavoidably disrupt the chronology of his successors. The 55-year reign of Hezekiah’s son Manasseh came to an end in 642 at the latest. If we date Hezekiah’s reign as 727(715/714)–698, we are left with little if any room to be able to offer a meaningful place to the 15-year extension to his life. The promise of an ample life extension was related to the promise of deliverance for Jerusalem from the might of Assyria. Hezekiah’s illness must thus be located in the years prior to Sennacherib’s campaign and, in spite of the reversal of events narrated in the Bible, prior to the liberation of Jerusalem.78 It would appear that 78 The reversal of the chronological order, whereby the story of Hezekiah’s illness and the arrival of the emissaries from Babylon (2 Kings 20) is only related after the liberation of Jerusalem (2 Kings 18–19), can be explained as follows. Given that the prophecy uttered by Isaiah on the occasion of the arrival of the emissary from Babylon already speaks of the future deportation to Babylon and the exile that followed (2 Kgs 20:17–18; verse 18 may be a later interpolation), it is possible that the biblical authors found occasion herein to remove the prophecy with regard to Babylon from its historical context, which was characterised by the threat from Assyria. The miraculous liberation of Jerusalem, moreover, may have created the impression that the core of Isaiah’s prophecy was no longer valid. By relating the story of Hezekiah’s illness and cure after that of Jerusalem’s liberation, the suggestion is avoided that Jerusalem was also to be kept free of future hostile conquest. In fact, a number of prophets of salvation would later give vivid expression to this suggestion in their pronouncements (cf. Jeremiah 28). The reversal of narrative sequence emphasises the fact that both Jerusalem and Hezekiah had been granted a miraculous reprieve. This implied, however, that judgement had been postponed and not withdrawn. It is worthy of note that the book of Chronicles tries to straighten out the creases brought about by this reversal of chronological order. According to 2 Chron. 32:23, Hezekiah is said to have received all sorts of valuable gifts from every side after the liberation of Jerusalem. This is intended to remove the tension in the narratives of the second book of Kings between the riches revealed by Hezekiah to the emissaries from Babylon (2 Kgs 20:13) and his earlier payment of tribute to the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:15–16). The actual reason for the Babylonian visit is likewise obscured to a degree by the absence of any reference to a tour granted to the emissary (of the armoury, among other things! Cf. 2 Kgs 20:13) or to Isaiah’s harsh words. The sin of Hezekiah is presented as pride and ingratitude (2 Chron. 32:25), while it is suggested that Babylon was driven by astronomical concerns (2 Chron. 32:31).

94

chapter three

the number 15 is based on a later reconstruction whereby an endeavour was made to harmonise the 29-year reign referred to in 2 Kgs 18:2 with Sennacherib’s campaign, which is dated in 2 Kgs 18:13 in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign. In light of the visit of emissaries from Babylon around 704/3 referred to in 2 Kgs 20:12, when MerodachBaladan reigned as king for nine months, Hezekiah must have lived no more than five years after his illness, returning thus to rest with his fathers in 698.79 3.8. Hezekiah’s revolt and Sennacherib’s campaign The description of the situation surrounding Hezekiah’s revolt and the subsequent campaign of Sennacherib is based on the proposed dating of Hezekiah’s reign outlined above, namely 727(715/714)–698. When Hezekiah was old enough to rule in his own name in 715/714, it became apparent that he had aspirations that made him sensitive from the outset to any initiative that might lead to a break with Assyria. The first opportunity arose when King Yamani of the Philistine city of Ashdod attempted revolt in 713.80 Hezekiah sympathised with the rebels, which gave rise to the prophecy passed on to us in Isaiah 20. While it is possible that he was involved in negotiations with Egypt (cf. Isa. 18:1–6), Hezekiah did not seek to shake off his own vassal status at this stage and he judiciously withdrew his support of Ashdod’s revolt.81 This appeared in hindsight to be a sensible decision, given the fact that the Assyrian king Sargon II immediately dispatched an expedition to punish Ashdod in 712.82 In perfect line with the prophecy of Isaiah 20, placing one’s hope in Egypt would indeed prove pointless. Ashdod was captured and turned into an Assyrian province. King Yamani, who had fled to Egypt in the interim, was handed over to Assyria. All these events must have A dating of the emissary of Merodach-Baladan around the time of the revolt of Ashdod in 713 seems unlikely. Clements 1980(A):67, Hutter 1982:67–71, Vogt 1986:2; Galil 1996:104 and Goldberg 1999:363ff nevertheless follow this option. MerodachBaladan already occupied the throne of Babylon from 722 to 710. Reference to this event in the context of the history of Sennacherib’s campaign, however, argues in favour of a dating in 704/3 (cf. 2 Kgs 20:6). Galil 1996:104 dates Hezekiah’s reign from 726 to 697/6. 80 Cf. Ahlström 1993:692–694. 81 Cf. Mittmann 1990:91, 95–96. 82 Sargon had already engaged in a campaign in southern Palestine in 716, prior to Hezekiah’s autonomous reign. The impact thereof on Judah, however, remains unclear. See Veenhof 2001:257. 79

the literary and historical context

95

convinced the young Hezekiah that revolt against Assyria would have to be extremely well prepared if it was to stand any chance of success.83 Hezekiah was to busy himself with these preparations in the years that followed. This period includes the reformation he pushed through in the first years of his reign (2 Kgs 18:4; cf. 2 Chron. 29:3).84 While there is no need to call Hezekiah’s religious motives into question, it cannot be denied that they were not exclusively religious in nature. The implementation of his reformation was also made to serve his political aspirations to restore the kingdom of David to its former glory.85 Of course, the opposite is also true, namely that Hezekiah allowed himself to be driven in his political aspirations by religious motives. The extraordinarily positive evaluation given by the biblical authors with respect to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:5–6; cf. 23:25) can only be explained on the basis of the Messianic expectation that had been evoked by his activities. Hezekiah is one of the few kings who could be compared to David when it came to religious passion (2 Kgs 18:3; see also Asa in 1 Kgs 15:11 and Josiah in 2 Kgs 22:2; cf. Jehoshaphat in 2 Chron. 17:3). Just as yhwh had once been with David and made him prosper in all his ways (1 Sam. 18:14), so yhwh appeared also to be with Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:7a), although it must be pointed out that this statement does not seem to be in keeping with the results of the excavations. Hezekiah’s devotion to yhwh reinforced the idea that he was a David Redivivus.86 The fact that Hezekiah’s devotion made little sense in political terms and the fact

83 Miller/Hayes 1986:353. Based on the dating of the so-called Azekah Inscription in 712 (instead of the now accepted dating in 701), Goldberg 1999:369ff argues that Sargon’s 712 campaign must also have been directed against Hezekiah and the tribute mentioned in 2 Kgs 18:14–16 should be associated with this occasion and not the events of 701. 84 For further information on Hezekiah’s reformation see Hutter 1982:61–67. Spieckermann 1982:170–175 considers the said reformation to have been a construction of the Deuteronomistic historiographer who employed Hezekiah to further elaborate the antithesis between Manasseh and Josiah. Spieckermann follows the classic Wellhausian line in this regard. See also Schoors 1998:34, 100–101 in association with H.-D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (1980). Ahlström 1993:701–707 and Naxaman 1995:179–195 also raise significant doubt as to the historicity of Hezekiah’s reformation. 85 Borowksi 1995:148–155. See also Hutter 1982:65–66 and Miller/Hayes 1986:356– 357. Gonçalves 1986:73–101 (see also 533) concludes that both Hezekiah’s revolt and his reformation were part of one and the same national reform movement. In his opinion, Hezekiah’s cultic reform was intended in the first instance to counter Canaanite influence and thereby protect Judah from the fate that had overcome Israel. 86 Cf. the Messianic expectation surrounding Jesus’ entry into and purification of the temple (Mt. 21:1–17).

96

chapter three

that his political behaviour attracted Isaiah’s condemnation time after time does not seem to have had a negative influence on the positive evaluation of Hezekiah’s piety furnished by the biblical authors. One is left in the meantime, however, with a highly tendentious historiography, determined to a large extent by religious motives. Together with a number of cultic measures, Hezekiah also implemented a series of changes at the level of government and the economy.87 The latter had become necessary in part because of the enormous population increase that had taken place in Judah in the preceding years as a result of the arrival of large numbers of refugees from the northern kingdom of Ephraim.88 Jar handles have been found in several locations with the inscription lmlk ‘from the king’, which provide a clear indication as to the way in which Hezekiah organised the distribution of food.89 Numerous building projects, among them the so-called tunnel of Siloam, which was designed to secure the supply of water to Jerusalem in the event of a siege (2 Chron. 32:30; cf. 2 Chron. 32:4), fit well in the context of Hezekiah’s preparations for a possible revolt.90 The appropriate moment for the planned revolt presented itself on the sudden death of Sargon II in 705. Merodach-Baladan had managed to recapture the throne in Babylon and hold it for a period of nine months in 704/3. The illness and miraculous healing of Hezekiah should be dated to the same period (2 Kgs 20:1–11), at which occasion Merodach-Baladan sent emissaries to visit Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:12–21). The visit in question is not as innocent as its presentation in 2 Kgs 20:12 would lead us to believe. Hezekiah’s illness and healing would appear to have functioned as a front, since one can deduce both from the inspection of Hezekiah’s treasure house and armoury (!) and from Isaiah’s reaction to this inspection that the envoys from Babylon also had political intentions, namely the organisation of a major revolt against Assyria. It is probable that Merodach-Baladan was aware of Hezekiah’s political aspirations and the various activities he had undertaken in this regard and that he wanted to fan the flames of revolt. Hezekiah thus seems See Hutter 1982:77–80. Zwickel 1999:356–377. 89 Borowski 1995:152. See also Ahlström 1993:699–701. 90 Miller/Hayes 1986:354. For a survey of Hezekiah’s building activities see Ahlström 1993:697–699 and Gonçalves 1986:60–68. Rogerson/Davies 1996:138–149 recently tried to redate the Siloam tunnel and its inscription to the Hasmonean period. Hendel 1996:233–247 and Norin 1998:37–48, however, demonstrated serious weaknesses in their argumentation. 87 88

the literary and historical context

97

to have been the right man for the job at that moment in time, given that he quickly became the driving force behind a broad anti-Assyrian coalition.91 Even the Philistine cities joined in the fray, although in light of their painful experiences during the campaign of Sargon II in 712 it will have been likely that they were not all equally enthusiastic members of the coalition. King Mitinti of Ashdod had to be forced to participate and when King Padi of Ekron continued to refuse to join the coalition, Hezekiah took him prisoner and annexed his city. The city of Gaza, however, was successful in keeping out of the coalition, although it did not remain completely unscathed, having lost a significant portion of its territory to Judah.92 Reference is also made in 2 Kgs 18:8 to this politics of expansion into Philistine territory. It seems apparent that Hezekiah did not appear to shy away from annexations and crusades of retribution. Surprisingly enough, and contrary to what one might expect, his successes are viewed as the expression of God’s blessing. In order to cover his back, Hezekiah likewise reassured himself of Egypt’s support, much against Isaiah’s repeated warnings. Assyria did not hesitate to react. Having dealt provisionally with Merodach-Baladan in 704/3,93 Sennacherib initiated a campaign against Palestine in 701 in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 18:13).94 The precise course of the campaign is difficult to trace in 91 Becking 2003:68 doubts whether Hezekiah was the real leader of the revolt. The emissary from Merodach-Baladan, Hezekiah’s actions against the Philistines, the gradual yet strategic fortification of Jerusalem, and the way in which the Assyrian annals describe Hezekiah as one of their most important enemies, however, all serve to reinforce the opposite position. 92 See Mittmann 1990:92–103. 93 It is possible that the prophecy of 21:1–10 should be understood against this background. See Gallagher 1999:22–46. Gallagher 1999:60–74 makes an intriguing attempt to persuade the reader that it is also acceptable to read 22:1–14 against the same historical background. 94 Given the fact that the sources contradict one another in places, namely with respect to the outcome of the campaign, many have endeavoured to arrive at a reliable reconstruction of events. Although Childs 1967:118–120 concluded that a precise reconstruction of the events surrounding 701 was probably impossible, attempts to arrive at such a reconstruction continued nevertheless (Gonçalves 1986; Van der Kooij 1986; Laato 1987, 1988; Seitz 1992; Gallagher 1999). It has become clear in the meantime that the proposed possibility of two different campaigns, the first in 701 resulting in Assyrian victory, the second around 689–687 resulting in Assyrian defeat (see, among others, Van Leeuwen 1965:267–272 and Shea 1985:401–418), suggested by some scholars should be rejected on the grounds that it lacks any form of supporting evidence (see the discussion in Hutter 1982:99–102, Gonçalves 1986:125–131, Van der Kooij 1986:106, Yurco 1991:35–45 and Gallagher 1999:8–9). A variant of the same hypothesis is suggested by Goldberg 1999:360–390 who maintains that a minor campaign led by Sargon in 712 preceded the major campaign led by Sennacherib in 701.

98

chapter three

every detail. The annals of Sennacherib allude to major conquests but do not always follow the correct chronological order in their reference to particular victories.95 Generally speaking, however, we can subdivide the campaign into three stages.96 In the first instance, Sennacherib focused his attention on Judah’s allies along the Phoenician coast. He then turned against the Philistine cities after which he headed towards the territory of Judah itself. It was evident from the beginning that the coalition front was neither strong enough nor resolved enough to oppose Sennacherib’s advance. The cities of Arvad and Byblos, Hezekiah’s allies in Phoenicia, quickly surrendered to the Assyrians. King Luli of Sidon (also of Tyre?) fled to Cyprus and Sidon capitulated, while Tyre remained unconquered.97 The Philistine front was also unable to hold firm against Sennacherib’s forces.98 Ashdod, which had never been a solid member of the coalition, quickly capitulated, followed thereafter by the conquest of Ashkelon, Elteke, Timna, Azekah and finally Ekron.99 It is not completely clear at what moment the Egyptian forces, under the leadership of Prince Taharqa, arrived on the scene. The battle of Elteke that followed their arrival must, in any case, have taken place prior to the conquest of Ekron.100

Becking 2003:46–72 likewise presupposes an earlier campaign led by Sargon, although he dates this around 715/714. The campaign in question may have been led by crown prince Sennacherib. For a recent and succinct survey of the history of research into Sennacherib’s campaign see Grabbe 2003:20–36. 95 For the text of the annals of Sennacherib and a description thereof, see Frahm 1997. For a critical evaluation of the historicity of the Assyrian annals see Laato 1995:198–226. 96 See Na’aman 1979:64–65, Gonçalves 1986:109–115, Frahm 1997:10–11, Gallagher 1999:7 and Veenhof 2001:263–267. 97 The annals of Sennacherib make no reference to the fate of Tyre in 701, in spite of the fact that it must have been the most important city in Phoenicia at the time. According to Vogt 1986:9, Tyre was intentionally left alone. For a discussion of the difficulties involved in determining the fate of Tyre see Gallagher 1999:91–104. It would appear from the Rassam-Cylinder of Sennacherib that Ammon, Moab and Edom also directly capitulated (cf. Gallagher 1999:105–112). 98 For this phase of the confrontation see Gallagher 1999:113–128. 99 Mittmann 1990:100, 103. 100 Laato 1995:216–217 presupposes that the battle of Elteke took place prior to the invasion of Judah because Philistia and Judah participated therein. In line with Kitchen, Ahlström 1993:713 maintains that there were two confrontations with the Egyptian army. The first took place prior to the conquest of Ekron, while the second took place at Libnah. In the latter instance, Taharqa was able to withdraw his troops in time to avoid a battle. There is some discussion surrounding the question of Taharqa’s age at the time and whether he would have been old enough to lead the Egyptian army against Sennacherib.

the literary and historical context

99

Based on 2 Kgs 18:17ff, it is probable that Sennacherib had already sent a military attachment to Jerusalem prior to his confrontation with the Egyptians at Elteke, in an endeavour to provoke Hezekiah to give up the revolt and open the gates of the city to him. While Hezekiah remained firm at this juncture, one can deduce from the report found in 2 Kgs 18:14–16 that he was surprised at the speed with which the coalition had disintegrated and that he had endeavoured to mitigate impending disaster even before the arrival of the Assyrian envoy. By way of a delegation to Sennacherib, who was encamped outside Lachish at the time, Hezekiah offered to submit to Assyria and asked Sennacherib, under confession of his sin,101 to withdraw from him (2 Kgs 18:14).102 Although Sennacherib went on to impose a hefty tribute,103 it is possible that he was not satisfied with Hezekiah’s surrender and the compensation he had been willing to pay,104 since he sent his officials to Jerusalem nonetheless105 and demanded that the gates of the city, the focal point of 101 Hezekiah’s sin refers to the violation of the vassal oath he had sworn in the presence of yhwh; cf. Ezek. 17:11–21. 102 According to Gallagher 1999:256, surrender at this point was conditional on the departure of Sennacherib and his troops. This would explain why the Assyrian annals state that Hezekiah dispatched his tribute to Sennacherib in Nineveh. It seems improbable, however, that Hezekiah would have been in a position to negotiate conditions. 103 In line with Seitz 1993(B):50–52, Goldberg 1999:362 also maintains that 2 Kgs 18:14–16 should be dated during an earlier Assyrian campaign (712). In contrast to that of 701, the campaign of 712 would actually have taken place in the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah. In Goldberg’s opinion, the invasion in question was a limited one, under the leadership of Sargon, which got mixed up in the process of transmission with that of Sennacherib, in like fashion to the conquest of Samaria, which is wrongly ascribed in 2 Kgs 17:3; 18:9 (according to Goldberg) to Shalmaneser V, while it actually took place under Sargon. The most important argument in support of this hypothesis revolves around 2 Kgs 18:14 and the observation that the imposed tribute did not square with the description thereof in the Assyrian annals. Goldberg also insists on a post-invasion dating of both Hezekiah’s illness and the visit of the envoys from Babylon in 2 Kings 20, whereby he endeavours to account for the fact that Hezekiah still possessed riches after the presupposed invasion of 712 by appealing to the statement in 2 Chron. 32:23. It is more likely, however, that the statement found in 2 Chron. 32:23 is itself the result of a harmonisation effort. 104 2 Chron. 28:21 relates how King Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, pointlessly emptied the house of yhwh and his palaces, giving everything to Tiglath-Pileser III (cf. 2 Kgs 16:8). 105 I am aware that this reconstruction does not entirely square with the evidence. The narrative of Sennacherib dispatching his officials follows the report of Hezekiah’s payment of tribute, but both events are not explicitly related to one another in the text, in spite of suggestions to the contrary found in some translations. As a matter of fact, both 2 Kgs 18:13 and 2 Kgs 18:17 are marked by the Masoretes as the beginning of a new Petuchah. This might signify that the report of 2 Kgs 18:14–16 originally bore a more independent character and that it was intended as a very brief summary of the events surrounding 701. If this were the case then the tribute paid by Hezekiah

100

chapter three

the resistance, be opened to him.106 Given the fact that he still had one last card to play, namely military reinforcements from Egypt, Hezekiah refused to open the gates to Sennacherib, in spite of the fact that he was now locked up ‘like a bird in a cage’. The Egyptian army was defeated, however, and the Assyrians then went on to capture the city of Ekron.107 Sennacherib’s accelerated advance and the destruction left in its wake placed Hezekiah and his city under ever increasing pressure. In spite of the enormous threat posed by the Assyrian army, Jerusalem was unexpectedly spared. The annals of Sennacherib are silent about the events that followed and disguise the fact that the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem had to be abandoned prematurely.108 Reference is made in 2 Kgs 19:35 to the miraculous liberation of the city upon the intervention of an angel of yhwh. The allusion to an angel of yhwh may be related to an outbreak of plague in the Assyrian military camp (cf. 2 Sam. 24:15–17). The epidemic in question did not only claim a large number of victims, but it was also probably seen by Sennacherib as a divine sign that his campaign had to be brought to an abrupt end.109 and the tribute sent to Sennacherib in Nineveh, as recorded in the Assyrian annals, may have been one and the same. The narrative of 2 Kgs 18:17ff might then be understood as an interpolation for the sake of completeness and at the service of the prophetic imagination. 106 Cf. Gallagher 1999:111: “Through the imprisonment of Padi and his attacks on pro-Assyrian cities in Philistia, Hezekiah had made himself Sennacherib’s main enemy and main target.” Gallagher 1999:256ff presupposes that Sennacherib was only willing to accept Hezekiah’s surrender in the second instance and that he made an agreement with him at this juncture and departed from Jerusalem. The fact that Sennacherib considered Hezekiah to be a rebel leader, however, makes such a scenario highly implausible. 107 Sennacherib is probably referring to the city of Ekron in the so-called Azekah Inscription. The latter alludes to the conquest of a royal city in the land of Philistia. Na’aman (1974:25–39) was first inclined to identify the said city as Gat (idem Ahlström 1993:711), but was later convinced by Mittmann 1990:98–99, albeit with some lingering doubts, that the city in question must have been Ekron, which had been annexed and fortified by Hezekiah (Na’aman 1994:245). In recent years, however, some scholars have ascribed the Azekah Inscription to Sargon and dated it in 712 (see Goldberg 1999:363). For this reason, Gallagher 1999:12–13 does not include the inscription in his study of Sennacherib’s campaign. Becking 2003:56–57 dates the inscription to 715, during an Assyrian offensive intended to reinforce the border with Egypt. The sources remain unclear as to the moment Hezekiah set his captive, King Padi of Ekron, free. Hutter 1982:94 links the latter to the second Assyrian mission to Jerusalem. While this sounds plausible, it remains speculation. 108 Van der Kooij 1986:93–109 has written an interesting article claiming that the siege of Jerusalem took the form of a blockade. He appeals in support of his hypothesis to the Assyrian sources and to the information contained in 2 Kgs 19:32–33. 109 See Laato 1995:225n. For a discussion of the usefulness of Herodotus as a source for reconstructing the closing stages of Sennacherib’s campaign see Grabbe 2003: 119–140.

the literary and historical context

101

Since Hezekiah had been the driving force behind the revolt, it does not seem reasonable to presume that Sennacherib had already reached his goal with the payment of tribute referred to in 2 Kgs 18:13–16,110 or that he had given up his plans to capture Jerusalem for political reasons.111 It seems more likely that Sennacherib would have preferred to replace the ambitious Hezekiah, all the more so since Hezekiah’s revolt in 703– 701 had not been his first attempt, but that he was forced to abandon his plans due to unforeseen circumstances. According to the Assyrian annals, Hezekiah later dispatched significant tribute to King Sennacherib in Nineveh in the probable hope that the Assyrian army would not return to Jerusalem.112 In spite of the fact that Jerusalem had been miraculously spared, Judah as a whole was in a sorry state. The annals of Sennacherib refer to the conquest of 46 fortified cities and countless other minor locations. Reference is also made to mass deportations. Excursus 1: Prophetic historiography in 2 Kings 18–19 Scholars generally maintain that two parallel sources have been combined in the narrative of Jerusalem’s liberation as described in 2 Kings 18–19. To distinguish these sources from the fragment in which Hezekiah endeavours to purchase Jerusalem’s freedom (2 Kgs 18:13–16 designated as A), the sources in question are generally designated as B1 (2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a + 2 Kgs 19:36–37) and B2 (2 Kgs 19:9b–35).113 Although the textual unit running from 2 Kgs 18:17 to 2 Kgs 19:37 can easily be read as one single prophetic account, it is not improbable that

110 Gonçalves 1986:133–134, 543–544 even argues that Sennacherib never had the intention of changing the status of Judah or of replacing King Hezekiah. 111 Berges 1998:208 (see also 282) presupposes that the relief of Jerusalem was a result of “rein machtpolitischem Kalkül,” intended to avoid destabilising the region and thereby favouring Egypt. 112 Laato 1995:218 considers it possible that the tribute referred to in the Assyrian annals is not a second tribute following the one Hezekiah had offered to Sennacherib in Lachish but rather the first annual tribute following Hezekiah’s capitulation. The Assyrian annals want to suggest the idea of a victory and camouflage the fact that Jerusalem was not taken captive. For a description of the tendency in the Assyrian annals to glorify the king and his divinity see Millard 1985:61–77. 113 Childs 1967:69–103. For a recent endeavour to date B1 and B2, see Naxaman 2000:393–402 and 2003:201–220. With a few minor variations, this account of Jerusalem’s liberation (B) can also be found in Isaiah 36–37. Opinions differ considerably as to the original location of this account, although the hypothesis that it stems from the book of Isaiah is gaining ground. See in this regard, for example, Smelik 1986:70– 93; 1992:97–101; Konkel 1993:462–482 and Vermeylen 1997:95–118. A good survey of the various positions is provided by Berges 1998:266–277. For the present state of research on Isaiah 36–39, see also Höffken 2004:134–139.

102

chapter three

a number of sources lie at its origins.114 The account itself does indeed appear to contain a number of repetitions: the twofold reference to the threatening words of the officials of Sennacherib, the twofold appeal to yhwh for help and the twofold announcement of Jerusalem’s liberation on the part of the prophet Isaiah. The book of Chronicles would appear to have weeded out these doublets to the best of its ability and transformed the account into a single, uninterrupted narrative (see 2 Chron. 32:1–23).115 On closer inspection, however, the dual character of the account found in 2 Kings 18–19 would appear to be rooted in a deliberate, prophetic compositional technique.116 The story of Jerusalem’s liberation would appear to consist of two phases. While it is no longer possible to determine with any degree of certainty whether this two-phase sequence matches reality, it would seem that distinguishing the two phases is nevertheless important in our understanding of the prophetic exposition of the events surrounding Hezekiah and the liberation of Jerusalem. Indeed, the second phase is not simply a repetition of the first, since it is evident that the scenes presented in twofold form do not agree with one another in every respect, but differ rather in a number of highly telling ways.

Gallagher 1999:143–159 rejects the division of B into two separate and parallel sources and defends the suggestion that B is intended to be read as one single whole. He has collected a large amount of information in support of the historical reliability of B (see pp. 160–254). While Van der Kooij 2000:108–111 accepts the current subdivision into B1 and B2 (in line with Hardmeier 1990:157–159 he considers B2 as a secondary interpolation and not as an originally independent source), he defends the suggestion that the entire composition of A + B1 + B2 exhibits thematic cohesion and is intended to be read as one single account: “The motif of bwv—the ‘withdrawal’, ‘return’, of Sennacherib—constitutes a golden thread through the entire story. The fact that Sennacherib does not return the first time, nor the second, but only at the third occasion, creates a great deal of suspense: as a reader, one becomes curious to know if and when the king of Assyria will actually withdraw and return to his country.” (110) Van der Kooij notes the dramatic effect of the bwv motif: Sennacherib does not disappear after receiving silver and gold nor on account of rumours concerning Taharqa, but only on account of the devastating activities of the angel of yhwh. In terms of historical reliability, Van der Kooij gives priority to the Assyrian annals in spite of their propagandist character (112–113). 115 For a comparison with Kings and an appraisal of the ideological motives of the Chronist see Ben Zvi 2003:85–89. 116 Cf. Smelik 1992:123 “. . . repetition is a literary device in order to clarify the author’s intention and to enhance the reader’s suspense.” See also Hess 1999:39: “This concept of narrative parallelism has its poetic correspondent on a smaller scale in poetic parallelism, especially synonymous parallelism whose purpose may be to reinforce the statement in psalms and proverbs.” 114

the literary and historical context

103

In the first instance, there is a clear difference in the presentation of the behaviour of the Assyrian field marshal (the Rabshakeh). When he arrives for the first time by himself, he mocks Hezekiah and tries to undermine his confidence (2 Kgs 18:19–20). In so doing he suggests two possibilities, namely that Hezekiah either trusts in Egypt (2 Kgs 18:21) or he trusts in yhwh (2 Kgs 18:22). In the eyes of the field marshal, however, there is little difference between the two since Hezekiah is going to be cheated in the end anyway. Pharaoh is just as unreliable as a broken reed and no other god, including yhwh, has ever been able to deliver a people from the might of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:33–35). He explicitly calls upon the people of Judah not to let themselves be cheated and misled by Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:29,32). In the second phase of the narrative, the field marshal is even more pointed in his choice of words. Instead of saying to the people ‘don’t let yourselves be cheated by Hezekiah . . .’ he has his envoys declare to Hezekiah himself ‘Do not let your God on whom you rely deceive you . . .’ (2 Kgs 19:10).117 In the second instance, the field marshal’s mockery is directed less against the person of Hezekiah and more against yhwh. It is possible that his directness goes hand in hand with the hurriedness of his words this time round, since it would appear that an Egyptian army led by the Ethiopian prince Taharqa had arrived to offer Hezekiah assistance. It is clear that the field marshal’s second appearance is not a simple repetition of the first, but rather that it represents a climax. In the second phase of the narrative, the issue surrounding Hezekiah and the God of Jerusalem is pushed to its limits. This fact is an important indication that the two-phase structure of the narrative of Jerusalem’s liberation is an intentional composition and can be characterised as prophetic historiography.118 117 For the importance of the notion jfb ‘trust’ in this narrative see Olley 1999:59– 77. The concept occurs ten times in 2 Kings 18–19 and only three times elsewhere in the books Genesis to Kings (Deut. 28:52; Judg. 9:26; 20:36). In the book of Isaiah, by contrast, jfb occurs 17 times (excluding Isaiah 36–39; see Olley 1999:66–69) and in the book of Psalms no less than 52 times (see Olley 1999:69–71). Based on the contexts in which the concept jfb is employed, Olley contests Clements’ idea that the narrative of Jerusalem’s liberation should be read against the background of a faith in the inviolability of Zion that arose in 701: “. . . the integral place of jf'B; in the narrative points to the absence of an ‘inviolability of Zion’ theology as crucial to the narrative from the beginning. The key is ‘trust’ in yhwh.” (73) 118 Cf. Rudman 2000:101: “It has been argued that the purpose of the passage is not merely to explain the apparently miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E. but to render a literary portrait of a duel between two warrior-antagonists, Yahweh and Sennacherib.” Fewell 1986:79–90 speaks in this regard of ‘words at war’. Cf. also Ben Zvi 1990:79–92 and Clements 1994:231–246.

104

chapter three

The prophetic character of the account is given expression in the prophetic depiction of the field marshal’s intervention.119 Indeed, the very location in which he delivers his message (2 Kgs 18:17) has prophetic attributes, since it is the same location in which the prophet Isaiah had earlier confronted King Ahaz and appealed to him not to place his trust in Assyria but rather in yhwh. The question of trust is at issue once again in the present text.120 As a matter of fact, the Assyrian field marshal is presented as the prophet Isaiah’s opposite.121 Not only does this come to expression in the location in which the message is delivered and in the theme of his speech, but it also finds expression in his threefold use of the messenger formula (2 Kgs 18:19,29,31; cf. the messenger formula in Isaiah’s response in 2 Kgs 19:6) whereby Sennacherib is explicitly referred to as l/dG:h' Ël,M,h' ‘the great king’ (2 Kgs 18:19,28), a term of address employed exclusively of yhwh in the Psalms: Ël,m, ≈r,a;h;AlK;Al[' l/dG: ‘great king over all the earth’ (Ps. 47:3) and Ël,m,W l/dG: lae μyhiløa‘AlK;Al[' l/dG: ‘a great God, and a great King above all gods’ (Ps. 95:3; cf. Mal. 1:14).122 When the field marshal turns to address the people, moreover, he employs an introductory formula with prophetic associations: rWVa' Ël,m, l/dG:h' Ël,M,h'Arb'D“ W[m]vi ‘Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria! ’. In addition, the field marshal presents himself in 2 Kgs 18:25 as one sent by yhwh (cf. Isa. 10:5,7). The extent to which he has taken the prophetic mantle upon himself, however, becomes all the more explicit in 2 Kgs 18:31–32 when he combines the promise of an ‘eschatological’ blessing (cf. Mi. 4:4; Zech. 3:10) with the appeal to listen to him.123 The prophetic features already evident in the field marshal’s message in the first phase of the account serve to depict him as a false prophet in contrast to the true prophet Isaiah.124 The suggestion that this antitheti119 Cf. Rudman 2000:101: “One of the most remarkable features of the Rabsakeh’s speech in Account B1 is that it is full of prophetisms.” See also Smelik 1981:58–64. 120 The account concerning Ahaz, however, does not employ the Hebrew word jfb, but rather the word ˆma (see 7:9; cf. 28:16). 121 Cf. Rudman 2000:103: “One is tempted to ask whether the narrator’s intention in this passage may be to portray the Rabshakeh as being, in a sense, ‘among the prophets’.” 122 It would appear that even the hr;Wbg“W hx;[e ‘strategy and power’ referred to in 2 Kgs 18:20 and associated with the Spirit of yhwh in Isa. 11:2 is claimed, albeit implicitly, by Sennacherib. Cf. Rudman 2000:14. 123 According to Rudman 2000:106–108 the words of the field marshal even imply a new exodus and a new covenant that will exceed the old covenant with yhwh in power. 124 Cf. Rudman 2000:103: “By this reading, the Rabshakeh is to be considered as an

the literary and historical context

105

cal juxtaposition is intentional is further supported by the fact that both ‘prophets’ speak to the king in the first round via intermediaries.125 In the second round, the appearance of the field marshal moves towards its climax in that he now aims his ‘arrows’ directly at yhwh (2 Kgs 19:10). The same climactic movement is also evident in the appearance and message of Isaiah. While Isaiah’s first announcement of Jerusalem’s liberation is striking on account of its succinctness (2 Kgs 19:6–7), the second announcement is introduced in great detail (2 Kgs 19:20–34). The evolution in yhwh’s address via his prophet Isaiah (first succinct, then detailed), is inversely similar to that of Sennacherib via his ‘prophet’ the field marshal (first detailed, then succinct). In terms of content, the latter’s words represent an intensification but in terms of form there is evidence of a weakening, a weakening also made manifest in the fact that the field marshal no longer threatens Jerusalem in person but does so rather by dispatch. At the same time, as the climax is reached in the second round of the confrontation between the field marshal and Isaiah (Sennacherib and yhwh respectively), a certain shift of control takes place.126 The form of the account already makes clear that Sennacherib had lost ground and that yhwh was the stronger of the two.127 The climactic process is further underlined by the fact that the prophet Isaiah no longer has to wait for an envoy from Hezekiah but is able to react directly to Hezekiah’s prayer addressed to yhwh. This directness typifies the entirety of Isaiah’s message. Having first addressed Hezekiah in person, he even goes on to address himself directly to the field marshal and his king (2 Kgs 19:22–28). The fact that Isaiah does this head on corresponds to the direct verbal attack aimed at yhwh in the field marshal’s second appearance. Isaiah emerges from the second ‘anti-Isaiah’ and the passage as a whole construed not just as a confrontation between Sennacherib and Yahweh, but also as a prophetic duel between the Rabshakeh and Isaiah.” 125 Rudman 2000:103 presents this in the following schema: ‘Sennacherib Eliakim/Shebna/Joah Hezekiah Servants of Hezekiah Isaiah Yahweh’. 126 The designation is borrowed from Fewell 1986:82. 127 This evolution is part of the development of the narrative as a whole. The narrative begins with an impressive witness to the fierce and formidable undertakings of Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:13), but ends with an even more impressive witness to the sovereignty of yhwh. Cf. Fewell 1986:82: “Thus, the story is framed by two dominant, self-autonomous characters playing symmetrically opposing roles. The crisis begins with the presence and power of Sennacherib; the crisis is resolved through the presence and power of Yahweh.”

106

chapter three

round as the true prophet, delegated to speak on yhwh’s behalf and to offer a sign of blessing in yhwh’s name (2 Kgs 19:29) to counter the false promise of blessing held up by the field marshal to the people (2 Kgs 18:31–32).128 The climax, which is not only evident in the second appearance of the field marshal but also in the second response of Isaiah, reinforces the hypothesis that the phased structure of the narrative in question is the result of prophetic motivations rather than historical reconstruction.129 In addition to the intensification of the field marshal’s presence and the reaction on the part of yhwh, there is also evidence of an important shift of accent in the words of King Hezekiah himself. Although it is stated in both instances that Hezekiah entered the house of yhwh (2 Kgs 19:1,14), it is striking in the first instance that he asks the prophet Isaiah to pray for the city, while his twofold use of the expression ‘yhwh, your God’ (2 Kgs 19:4) suggests a certain distance on the part of the king. In the second part of the account, however, Hezekiah no longer asks Isaiah to pray for him and we are informed that Hezekiah himself prayed to yhwh and interacted with yhwh in a very direct fashion. The way in which the narrative of Jerusalem’s liberation is constructed creates the unmistakable impression that Hezekiah has come closer and closer to God in the midst of hardship. It is not only the mockery and threatening statements of the field marshal that reach their climax in the second phase of the account but also Hezekiah’s faith and trust in his God. The prayer in 2 Kgs 19:14–19 is an eloquent witness to Hezekiah’s faith in YHWH alone (cf. ÚD,b'l] at the beginning and end of Hezekiah’s prayer) and confirms the hypothesis that this narrative form has been chosen from the perspective of prophetic historiography. The two-phase structure of the narrative makes it clear that Hezekiah’s faith had to be born in and through the crisis he was facing. 128 Cf. Fewell 1986:86: “The ironic contrast of Yahweh’s promise of bounty with Sennacherib’s promise of bounty brings a new dimension to the theme of blasphemy. From the beginning the Assyrian has intimated that he has control over life and death. Only he can offer such a choice to the oppressed city. In this oracle, Yahweh reasserts his autonomy over life and death. It is his choice to offer (Deut. 30.15), not Sennacherib’s. Thus, in his claiming control over life and death, Sennacherib has not simply ridiculed Yahweh’s power, but he has attempted to usurp the role of Yahweh. His own death, then, at the will of Yahweh becomes the ultimate irony.” 129 Smelik 1992:125–126 argues that the discourses of the field marshal should be understood as a dramatisation of 10:5–19. Gallagher 1999:74–87 disputes this suggestion and argues in favour of the opposite, namely that 10:8–11 can be designated as a summary of the field marshal’s words.

the literary and historical context

107

The fact that Hezekiah’s faith grew significantly in the context of a major crisis stands in sharp relief to reports of his endeavour to fend off approaching disaster with ‘money’. We are told in 2 Kgs 18:15–16 that the king plundered all his treasure houses, including that of the temple, and how the occasion was used to strip the very doors and doorposts of the temple which he had recently had gilded.130 The succinctness of the account serves to underline the humiliation and shame that must have accompanied such a deed. Hezekiah considered himself compelled to personally clean out the very temple he had purified with his reforms. From the biblical-theological perspective, one can argue that this restrained account ultimately implies the bankruptcy of Hezekiah’s Messianic dream. In spite of his great piety, Hezekiah was unable to bring the Messianic kingdom closer to reality. The narrative of the siege of Jerusalem reveals how Hezekiah was forced to learn the painful lesson that the Messianic kingdom was not to be realised on political grounds. The deconstruction of the temple related in 2 Kgs 18:14–16 reveals the failure of Hezekiah’s Messianic endeavours. The two-phase account of Jerusalem’s liberation portrays the lengthy process Hezekiah had to undergo in order to move from rock bottom, through crisis, to arrive at a purity of faith in yhwh alone. It would appear from the narrative of Jerusalem’s liberation that the abortive arrival of the Egyptian army serves as an important pivotal point. While the prophet Isaiah had held out the possibility of Jerusalem’s deliverance after the first address of the field marshal, it appears to have taken the failure of his final trump card, namely Egypt, before Hezekiah was finally able to have complete faith in yhwh.131 The prophetic elucidation of the said narrative seems to imply that yhwh intentionally forced Hezekiah further and further into a corner. The phased structure with which the narrative is constructed suggests that Hezekiah had first to behold the failure of his final trump card and the disappearance of every form of human support before he dared place his trust in yhwh alone.132 130 In essence, Hezekiah does the same as his father Ahaz had done (2 Kgs 16:8; cf. 2 Chron. 28:21). 131 Cf. Smelik 1981:54: “Alliance with a foreign prince cannot bring deliverance, only yhwh brings deliverance.” 132 It would also appear from the prophecies of Isaiah that Hezekiah did not arrive at this position without difficulty. Isaiah had to insist time and again that he should not place his trust in Egypt (cf. Isa. 30:1–7 and 31:1–3). The statement concerning Hezekiah’s trust in YHWH found in 2 Kgs 18:5 (a unique statement applied in the Old

108

chapter three

By way of summary, one can conclude that the narrative of Jerusalem’s liberation, as it is related in 2 Kings 18–19, can be characterised as prophetic historiography. The twofold form of the account is based on a premeditated prophetic composition that leads the reader towards a climax at a variety of different levels. While it remains difficult to reconstruct the exact chronology of events from the historical perspective, it would appear nevertheless that the narrative makes theological sense.

Testament only to Hezekiah, see Olley 1999:63) is ultimately brought into line with the final outcome of the account related in 2 Kings 18–19. Ackroyd 1987 (1984):183 characterises 2 Kgs 18:5 as ‘a kind of anticipatory summary’.

CHAPTER FOUR

EXEGESIS OF INDIVIDUAL PERICOPES WITHIN ISAIAH 28 AND THEIR RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIPS 4.1. Introduction In dealing with the issues surrounding the delineation of pericopes in § 3.3., we were able to conclude that the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 constitutes part of the pericope 28:14–22. Although we were able to carefully delineate the said pericope within its immediate context, it appeared nevertheless to exhibit both redactional and content based associations with the preceding pericope, namely 28:7–13. The redactional association between the two pericopes is established by the particle ˆkel; at the beginning of 28:14, while reciprocal cohesion is determined in terms of content by the fact that both 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 presuppose a period of time in which Judah and Jerusalem were under threat from the Assyrians. In spite of the fact that the pericope 28:7–13 in its turn exhibits both thematic and redactional links with 28:1–4(6) and that semantic and redactional cross-references would likewise appear to exist with respect to 28:23–29, there is much to be said for the suggestion that both 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 should be considered central pericopes within the context of Isaiah 28. Within the framework of the present study, with its focus on the Zion text of 28:16, the exegesis of both pericopes will thus be given pride of place. The next paragraph will deal, therefore, with the exegesis of 28:14–22, followed by an excursus on the so-called ‘covenant with death’ referred to in 28:15 and 18, and a paragraph dedicated to the exegesis of 28:7–13. Once the exegesis of both 28:14–22 and 28:7–13 is complete, we will compare the results of both studies, by way of evaluation, in order to determine the degree of cohesion evident between the pericopes as well as the apparent differences. A concluding paragraph will focus attention on the outermost pericopes of Isaiah 28, namely 28:1–4(6) and 28:23–29 respectively. The exegetical method we intend to follow can be described as a combination of both synchronic and diachronic analyses, whereby historical and structural questions are treated together. Based on the

110

chapter four

pericopes delineated in § 3.3., we will endeavour to establish the literary structure of the individual textual units, paying due attention to the genre of the text in question. Genre, after all, determines to an extent the nature of the message that the text intends to communicate. While the establishment of genre has long been employed in the context of traditional form criticism as an important aid in the historical reconstruction of a text, it ought to serve in the first instance as a means to determine the singularity of a given text. This is of particular importance where prophetic texts are concerned, since the creativity of the prophet is often given expression, albeit in part, in the way he employs a specific genre. Based on its literary structure, we will divide the text of the most important pericopes for the present study (28:7–13 and 28:14–22) into a number of segments which, for the sake of convenience, will be treated separately in sub-paragraphs. Our study will focus significant attention on the poetical features of the various segments of the text, bearing in mind that such features fulfil an important function in the communication process. Form and content in this regard are inseparably linked. The Masoretic text serves as the point of departure. It goes without saying, however, that readings based on other textual traditions (such as Qumran or the Septuagint) will be discussed in relation to the text in question where they are considered important for our exegesis. To conclude our discussion of the individual text segments, an evaluative review will return, among other things, to the question of the historical situation and authenticity of the textual units already considered in some detail in § 3.3. to § 3.6. in connection with Isa. 28:14–22. It is important to determine whether the conclusions reached in the said paragraphs can be confirmed by the exegesis of the individual textual units. 4.2. Isa. 28:14–22 In order to guarantee a thorough and systematic exegesis of 28:14–22, it makes sense to begin by determining the genre thereof and provide a more detailed picture of the structure of the said pericope. The genre to which 28:14–22 belongs can be recognised quite simply as a prophecy of judgement. Characteristic of the pattern associated with this genre is that it commences with a complaint which is then followed by an announcement of judgement. This pattern is clearly evident in 28:14–22. The complaint is unmistakeably recognisable and is formed by verses 14–15. An introductory call to listen addresses and accuses

exegesis of individual pericopes

111

a clearly identified group of people. The complaint is formulated as a statement explicitly introduced as a quotation. The way in which 28:16 then begins, employing the formula familiar to the genre of prophetic judgement hwIhy“ yn:doa} rm'a; hKo ˆkel,; leads one to expect the announcement of judgement to commence at that point. This expectation would appear to remain unfulfilled, however, until 28:17b where judgement is announced and explicit reference is made to elements contained in the initial complaint. In the present composition, the announcement of judgement covers verses 17b–22, whereby the command not to boast in 28:22 functions as a conclusion. An important question for the exegesis of this text thus concerns the function of verses 16–17a within the context of the prophetic judgement genre. In § 3.4., where we discussed the unity of the present pericope, we already posed the methodical question concerning the prophet’s artistic freedom to creatively manipulate the established pattern of the prophetic judgement genre. Some degree of moderation is certainly called for when dealing with form critical arguments. In order to determine the function of 28:16–17a within the context of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, however, we will have to establish clarity with respect to the element of salvation usually associated with these verses.1 For the sake of clarity, we will divide the exegesis of this prophecy of judgement into a number of sub-paragraphs, taking the structure outlined above as our point of departure. Given the crucial role played by the Zion text of 28:16 in the present study, verses 16 and 17a will be treated separately. A series of six sub-paragraphs will thus deal with 1 Graffy 1984:24–31 considers 28:14–19 to belong to the ‘disputation speech’ genre. He distinguishes this genre from the ‘disputation’ or ‘dialogue disputation’ characteristic of a dialogue in direct speech (9). According to Graffy, the most important criterion for establishing the genre of the disputation speech prophecy is the formal structure of an explicit and faithfully rendered ‘quotation’ that is then subject to prophetic ‘refutation’. For a variety of reasons, however, Graffy’s association of 28:14–19 with the ‘disputation speech’ can be called into question. In contrast to what Graffy considers to be characteristic of the disputation speech prophecy (119–120), we shall see in the context of our exegesis of the passage that the ‘quotation’ in 28:15 should not be understood as a genuine quotation but rather as bearing the characteristics of a fictional quotation. The said fictional quotation is employed as a style feature to reinforce the complaint. The point of the prophecy is not to be found in the refutation of incorrect reasoning, but rather in the announcement of God’s judgement. Graffy himself notes that the ‘quotation’ in 28:15 is conspicuously lengthy when compared with what he presumes to be the convention (26, 110). He likewise considers the appeal to listen at the beginning of the pericope to be unique (25) and is even inclined to understand 28:14–19 as an exception to the rule that the genre of the disputation speech prophecy was used around the time of the exile, in particular by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah and Haggai (119). Cf. Graffy 1989:2–8.

112

chapter four

verses 14–15; 16; 17a; 17b–18; 19–21 and 22. The discussion will be preceded in each instance with both the Hebrew text and an English translation. In order to avoid significant disruption to the flow of the discussion, we will dedicate an excursus at the end of the present paragraph to the question of the ‘covenant with death’ referred to in verses 15 and 18 and the extent if any to which allusion is being made to the phenomenon of necromancy. 4.2.1. Isa. 28:14–15: Complaint hw:hy“Arb'd“ W[m]vi ˆkel] 14 Therefore hear the word of YHWH, ˆ/x–l; yven“a' you boasters hZ
it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter.”

In spite of the fact that verse 14 begins with the copulative particle ˆkel,; the summons hw:hy“Arb'd“ W[m]vi unmistakably marks the beginning of a new prophecy, a prophecy of judgement addressed against the political leaders of Jerusalem who are designated as ˆ/xl; yven“a' and μIl;v;WryBi rv,a} hZ
In Isa. 1:10, the same appeal hw:hy“Arb'd“ W[m]vi is parallel with the appeal WnyzIa}h'

Wnyheløa‘ tr'/T.

exegesis of individual pericopes

113

begins immediately with the designation hZ
114

chapter four

μIl;v;WryBi rv,a} hZ
exegesis of individual pericopes

115

case, it is more than apparent that Jerusalem’s leaders do not enjoy the prophet’s favour, a fact underlined by the expression hZWnr“T;s]nI rq,V,b'W

for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter.

13 Cf. J-M § 143d: “hz does not in itself contain a nuance of contempt, but it can sometimes have this nuance by the omission of a fuller expression.” In 28:14, hZ
116

chapter four

Both external bicola of verse 15 serve to frame the second or central bicolon:17 ?rbo[y} ¿" ñrb'[Ñ; AyKi πfe/v ?f/v¿ ñfyviÑ when the overwhelming scourge passes through, Wnae/by“ aOl it will not come to us The recognition of the concentric structure of verse 15 is of essential importance for the exegesis of the complaint. Although the prophet formulates the complaint as a quotation, the latter is perhaps best understood as fictional, since it is difficult to imagine that the words contained in both external bicola were actually spoken word for word by the rulers in Jerusalem. It is likewise hard to imagine that the prophet’s opponents would have boasted publicly about the fact that they had entered into some kind of deal with death and Sheol.18 Indeed, the suggestion that they were proud of the fact that lies and deceit had become their refuge is virtually out of the question. The statement in the central bicolon, on the other hand, is quite plausible as a statement of Jerusalem’s leaders, although the metaphorical designation of Assyria as πfe/v f/v ‘the overwhelming scourge’ clearly stems from the prophet (cf. 10:26a). I would argue that the words of the central bicolon, which are heavily accented within the framework of the external bicola, contain the actual ‘boasting’ that the prophet accuses his audience of engaging in: ‘When the overwhelming scourge passes through, it shall not come to us! ’19 The prophet allows himself the freedom, however, to include, in his own words, the less explicit motivation of the boasters in Jerusalem in his complaint. The highly ironic external bicola thus serve to this end.20 In order to grasp the full significance of verse 15, it seems appropriate to begin in the centre of the verse and establish first the significance of the actual boasting. Reference is made to a πfe/v ?f/v¿ ñfyciÑ, which clearly represents an enormous threat when one considers that

The accent Paštā [10] in rbo[}y"AyKi serves to demarcate the first colon. While l/av] refers in fact to the underworld, we leave it untranslated in line with the NRSV. 19 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:204. 20 Cf. Barthel 1997:318: “Das Zitat ist weder als Protokoll eigener Rede der Gegner Jesajas noch überhaupt als direkter Ausdruck ihres Selbstverständnisses mißzuverstehen. Es dient vielmehr der kritischen Charakterisierung ihres Verhaltens durch den Propheten, wie sie in der Bezeichnung ‘Prahler’ bereits anklang.” Barthel would appear to understand the first bicolon as a direct expression of Isaiah’s opponents. Graffy 1984:27, 119 mistakenly understands 28:15 in its entirety to be a genuine quotation: “The quotation is a true life expression of the rulers’ limitless arrogance.” This perspective goes hand in hand with his vision of 28:14–19 as a ‘disputation speech’. 17 18

exegesis of individual pericopes

117

the boasters maintain that in actual fact they will remain unharmed: Wnae/by“ alø ?rbo[}y"¿ ñrb'[;ÑAyKi. While the expression πfe/vi ?f/v¿ ñfyv) itself is not without ambiguity, it clearly alludes to Assyria and its characteristic imperialist and expansionist policies. The verb πfv literally means ‘to flow’ (cf. 28:2), but the preceding fyvi does not appear to fit such an interpretation. Indeed, it is apparent from the difference between verses 15 and 18 that the Masoretes also had a problem with the expression. The natural option would be to follow the Qere f/v (cf. 28:18 and 1QIsaa) and to interpret the term as ‘scourge’ (cf. 10:26a).21 An alternative option, however, would be to presuppose the existence of a noun IIfwv meaning ‘a sudden flood of water’ (cf. Job 9:23),22 though the existence of II fwv remains uncertain.23 Based on a number of Versions, including the Septuagint which has καταιγὶς φερομένη ‘a sudden storm wind’,24 some scholars have proposed the reading πf,v,.25 It would appear, however, that the Versions were ultimately trying to smooth out the text. It seems advisable, therefore, to remain with the more difficult reading of the Masoretic text. Gese’s comments in this regard are worthy of note. He translates the expression literally as ‘strömende Geissel’, pointing by way of explanation to the weather god Hadad who is portrayed with a scourge in his hand.26 One remains confronted, nevertheless, with the question as to why the prophet felt it necessary to resort to the use of a Hadad mythologoumenon when referring to the advance of Assyria?27 Moreover, Gese’s explanation does not relieve the tension between the designation ‘scourge’ and the verb ‘to flow’. It would seem 21 According to Wildberger 1982:1065, it is possible that the Masoretes wanted to leave the choice open between f/v ‘scourge’ and fyIv' ‘oar/paddle’ (hapax in 33:21). 22 See Barth 1913:306–307, Poznanski 1916:119–120, Fullerton 1920:13–14, Procksch 1930(A):361 and Graffy 1984:27. Supporting himself with a number of Psalm texts, Kaiser 19762:200 suggests that the advancing flood of water alludes to the waters of death and the underworld. 23 See Waschke 1993:1183. 24 Cf. LXX 29:6 and καταιγὶς φέρουσα in LXX 17:13. 25 Dietrich 1976:161 refers in this regard to Joüon and notes that Isaiah employs the verb πfv, in contrast to fwv, more frequently (8:8; 28:2,17). Cf. Schmidt 1923:92–93: ‘flutende Flut’. Wildberger 1982:1065 agrees de facto with the Versions, because a scourge cannot flow, but remains at a loss to explain the origin of the corruption of the Hebrew text. 26 Gese 1970:127–134. 27 Cf. Dietrich 1976:161. Sweeney 1996:370 considers the use of a Hadad mythologoumenon acceptable because Assyria advanced against Israel from Aram and because Assur was also a weather god. As an imaginative literary construction in service of the polemical context, Blenkinsopp 2000(B):478 likewise considers an allusion to Hadad reasonable.

118

chapter four

most appropriate, therefore, to understand the expression ?f/v¿ ñfyviÑ πfe/v as a combination of two metaphors, that of the scourge and that of the flood of water.28 This then accounts for the translation ‘the overwhelming scourge’. Both metaphors combined in the expression πfe/v ?f/v¿ ñfyviÑ point without question in the direction of Assyria. The representation of Assyria as a scourge is in harmony with the presentation of this world power elsewhere in the book of Isaiah and serves to emphasise the imperialistic character of the Assyrian empire in those days. Its goal was so fixed on absolute supremacy that many nations in the second half of the eighth century experienced Assyria in reality as a scourge. The metaphor incorporated in the verb most closely associated with the scourge, namely πfv, serves in the first instance to emphasise the expansionist character of the Assyrian empire at the time. The kings of Assyria continually sought to extend their sphere of influence, so much so that the prophet Isaiah frequently resorted to the image of a great flood to describe their activities (see 8:5–8 and 28:2).29 When the prophet makes use of the combined metaphor ‘the overwhelming scourge’ in the complaint of verse 15, he underlines from the outset the naiveté of the bragging that follows, namely, that Assyria will not come to those who rule in Jerusalem.30 The formulation of their boasting itself raises questions concerning the basis of such a naive sense of security in the face of the Assyrian advance. In both external bicola, which surround the bragging in the central bicolon, the prophet exposes the background to this bragging. The structural cohesion evident between the first and last bicolon, which together serve to frame the central bicolon, raises expectations of similar cohesion with respect to their content. It is reasonable to 28 The prophet uses a similar combination of metaphors (Oswalt 1986:516 speaks of a ‘mixed metaphor’) in 14:29 where the imagery shifts from fb,ve ‘rod’ to vj;n: ‘serpent’. See also the sudden change of metaphor in 28:4 and 30:12–14. Duhm and Marti decrease the tension by translating πfv as ‘to scourge’ (‘Stachelpeitsche’, ‘eine geißelnde Geißel’), but this remains an artificial solution since the remainder of the text speaks of being ‘swept away’ (see v. 17b). Eichrodt 1967:130 speaks of ‘ein terminus technicus der Volkseschatologie’ and understands πfe/v [f/v] (fyvi) to refer to a new flood against which the addressees claim to have found a place of refuge. 29 This image was also used by the Assyrian kings themselves to underline their irrepressible strength. Cf. Hartenstein 2004:497–498: “Mit der Flutmetaphorik würde eine direkte Anspielung auf die textliche und bildliche Propaganda der assyrischen Herrscher der Zeit vorliegen.” 30 The Qere rbo[}y" (cf. 1QIsaa) should also be followed here. Duhm 19143:175 prefers to maintain the Ketib rb'[; and Oswalt 1986:514 similarly suggests that the use of an inf. abs. is possible in principle.

exegesis of individual pericopes

119

suppose that both external bicola, which surround the bragging of the addressees in the central bicolon, are closely related to one another and deliver more or less the same message.31 Such a presupposition is of great importance for our interpretation of the ‘covenant with death’ and the ‘agreement with Sheol’ in verse 15a. Both these expressions should not, therefore, be explained as references to the phenomenon of necromancy, which was also known to be at work in Israel (cf. 8:19; 19:3; 29:4).32 The expressions ‘covenant with death’ and ‘agreement with Sheol’, rather, are probably intended to mean something like ‘lies as refuge’ and ‘falsehood as shelter’.33 Both expressions—with bz:K; and rq,v,—are not intended in verse 15 to designate a specific refuge or shelter but rather to typify them. The prophet reproaches the leaders of Jerusalem for having sought a place of refuge that will ultimately deceive them. He does not name the place of refuge in question but simply typifies it (cf. Jer. 28:15; 29:31). His opponents will not have appreciated his reproach but they will certainly have understood the place of refuge to which the prophet is alluding.34 It is extremely telling in this regard, that the term bz:K; is also to be found in Hos. 12:2 (NRSV 12:1), in a prophecy addressed against those, among others, who enter into illegitimate political alliances: “Ephraim herds the wind, and pursues the east wind all day long; they multiply falsehood and violence; they make a treaty with Assyria, and oil is carried to Egypt.” 35 Presuming, therefore, that both external bicola of 28:15 carry more or less the same message, it is likewise extremely probable that tw<m; and l/av] are not intended as designations of a particular covenant or agreement but rather as typifications thereof. Jerusalem’s leaders have entered into a covenant and in so doing have in fact signed their own death warrant.36 Counter to their own expectations they will emerge from their agreement deceived. Given the fact that the covenant upon which the prophet bases his 31 Barthel 1997:320 considers verse 15bß to contain the motivation behind the central statement of bragging as well as verse 15a. 32 See Excursus 2 below. 33 Beuken 2000:46 speaks in this regard of a ‘mirror symmetry’. 34 Graffy 1984:26 is of the opinion that Isaiah’s opponents prided themselves in their own cunning and were not ashamed to admit that they had used lies and treachery in their negotiations with their covenant partner. This explanation clearly stems from Graffy’s conviction that verse 15 is a genuine quotation. 35 There is no reason to suggest that the background to Hos. 12:2 represents a form of communication with foreign gods as Blenkinsopp 2000(B):479 proposes. The same can also be said with respect to the background to Isa. 28:15. See further in Excursus 2. 36 Cf. Wolff 19733:84: “Bringt Jesaja die Wahrheit über die Bundesgenossen innerhalb des Zitates, so wird den Bündnisgesonnenen damit indirekt die Aktivität vorgehalten,

120

chapter four

complaint is actually left unmentioned, it is not immediately clear which covenant or agreement he is referring to in verse 15.37 The political situation resulting from Assyria’s expansionist policy, however, is characterised by one particular temptation, a temptation mentioned by many a prophet, concerning the suggestion that Judah should seek help from Egypt and rely on the power of Pharaoh. It is highly likely, therefore, that the prophet’s complaint in verse 15 refers to a covenant

mit der sie ihr eigenes Unheil besorgen.” Cf. also Galling 1928:32: “Jesaja nimmt ihre Worte auf, aber er zitiert sie so, wie sie Jahwe beurteilt: ihre Sicherheit ist auf Lug und Trug gebaut, ihr Bund ist mit der schreckenvollen Scheol und mit dem Tode geschlossen; der wahre Jahwebund führt zum Leben (Wer da glaubt, bleibt!), ihr Bund führt zum Tode!” 37 The translation of hz<jo is a source of difficulty since the customary meaning ‘seer’ does not fit the context of 28:15. We offer a summary presentation of the most prominent ‘solutions’: a. Marti 1900:207 mentions the suggestion of O.R. Krätzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Marburg 1896, p. 52, that we read tWsj; ‘place of refuge’ (cf. 30:3 hapax). b. Köhler 1930:227–228 suggests that we read ds,j, and translate the term as ‘community’. He notes in this regard that ds,j, occurs in parallel with tyrIB] on 15 occasions. See also KBL/HALAT, Rohland 1956:148 and Fohrer 1962:57. c. Procksch 1930(A):359–361 considers it better to read hz:jo in line with Buhl (see also BHS) or tzUj; on the basis of 28:18 and understands the term to refer to a ‘Schau mit der Unterwelt’, a magical variant of divination using sacrificed animals in order to provide a vision of the future. Duhm 19143:174–175 follows a similar line of inquiry: “wir haben ein Gesicht mit Scheol gemacht, heißt: wir haben einen Toten oder die Todesgottheit selber zitiert und mit der Erscheinung einen Vertrag abgeschlossen.” Cf. Marti 1900:207. d. Driver 1968:58 associates hz
exegesis of individual pericopes

121

or agreement with Egypt. The word tyrIB] functions in this context as a political concept.38 Comparison with the prophecy of 30:1–5, a prophecy considered authentic, might serve to clarify the situation. In 30:1–5, the prophet explicitly takes issue with Judah’s efforts to attract Egypt as an ally and their willingness to submit themselves to the protective hand of the Pharaoh. Reference is also made in this regard to the establishment of a covenant, although the conventional formula tyrIB] tr'K; is not used at this juncture. In parallel to hx;[e t/c[}l' in 30:1, the prophet uses the expression hk;Sem' Ëson“li which literally means ‘to pour out a libation’.39 Directly thereafter, however, the verb hsj ‘to take refuge’ and the related term z/[m; ‘shelter’ are used in 30:2, the latter of which can function as a parallel to hs,j]m'; employed in 28:15 (cf. 25:4). In the context of the prophecy of 30:1–5, the words in question, which are particularly at home in the psalms, acquire an undeniably political charge. Against the explicit will of yhwh, the leaders in Jerusalem sought refuge under the protection of Pharaoh, and shelter in the shadow of Egypt.40 In 30:3, the prophet then announces that the h[or“P' z/[m; will become their shame and the μyIr'x]miAlxeB] tWsj; their humiliation. The prophecy of 30:1–5 would appear in terms of semantics and content to be closely related to the complaint of 28:15. Based on the kinship observed with respect to 30:1–5, one can argue that the prophet’s complaint in 28:15 likewise alludes to the alliance established by the leaders of Jerusalem with Egypt and that the characterisation of this alliance as a covenant with death and an agreement with Sheol is rooted in the profound conviction that Judah would not profit from such an alliance.41 While it is not unthinkable that the prophet may have been alluding simultaneously to the Egyptian cult

Cf. Wildberger 1982:1073. The Septuagint of 28:15 first speaks of the agreement with Sheol (διαθήκην μετὰ τοῦ ᾅδου) and then of the covenant with death (μετὰ τοῦ θανάτου συνθήκας). In verse 18, the Septuagint maintains the sequence of the Hebrew text although its formulation differs slightly from that of verse 15: ὑμῶν τὴν διαθήκην τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν ᾅδην. 40 Cf. Huber 1976:90. 41 In reaction to Day 1989:58–64, who rejects every allusion to an alliance with Egypt and dates the present prophecy in the time of Ahaz, Blenkinsopp 2000(B):474 argues: “It is true that the covenant does not refer directly to an alliance with Egypt, but the context of chapters xxviii–xxxiii strongly favours reference to a political situation under Hezekiah between the years 704 and 701 when the Egyptian connection was politically crucial.” 38

39

122

chapter four

of the dead, I am not inclined to believe that tw<m; and l/av] themselves should be understood as designations for Egypt or as references to gods involved in the establishment of the alliance.42 Judah’s option for Egypt, however, is clearly typified as an option for death. It is difficult to deny the presence of a degree of irony in the way in which the prophet formulates his complaint and places the statement concerning the covenant with death on the lips of his opponents.43 Given that the first and last bicola of verse 15 correspond with one another and the fact that the expressions ‘lies as refuge’ and ‘falsehood as shelter’ in the last bicolon would be unthinkable on the lips of the leaders of Jerusalem (the expression employed in verse 17b bz:k; hsej]m' is even a contradictio in terminis!), it is hardly likely that the covenant with death represents a sort of life insurance policy or a non-aggression treaty about which the infinitely self-assured politicians of Jerusalem might have boasted.44 It is thus a simulated quotation intended to underline the irony associated with boasting of a ‘covenant with death’.45 Isaiah makes use of this irony to ridicule the boasting of Jerusalem’s leaders who are under the illusion that they enjoy some kind of immunity against death while they are in fact guilty of embracing death with their ‘kamikaze’ politics. The covenant with Egypt that was to bring redemption from disaster was 42 Some exegetes detect an allusion to the Egyptian gods Isis and Osiris in the use of the terms tw<m; and l/av]. See Duhm 19143:174, H. Schmidt 19232:93 and Auvray 1972:250–251. 43 Cf. Wolff 19733:71, Eichrodt 1967:130, Good 1981:119–120 and Brueggemann 1998:225–226. Clements 1980(B):229 speaks of ‘heavily satirical language’. Oswalt 1986:516 even of sarcasm. The suggestion proposed by Klopfenstein 1964:148–149 that Isaiah deliberately placed the words tw<m; and l/av] instead of an original ‘Egypt’ and ‘Ethiopia’ on the lips of his opponents is impossible to substantiate and difficult to accept. The same is true for the suggestion that Isaiah’s opponents mockingly reiterated his complaint in order to show how little effect it had on them. It seems more appropriate that we ascribe the ironic formulation of the complaint to the creativity of the prophet. 44 Cf. Fohrer 1962:58, Driver 1968:58 and Gonçalves 1986:204. Reference is made in Hos. 2:20 (NRSV 2:18) to a non-aggression treaty with the animal world. 45 According to Wolff 19733:69f, the most important characteristic of a simulated quotation is the ‘Stichwortverknüpfung’ between the quotation as such and the rest of the prophecy. The most important element in terms of content with regard to such quotations is the fact that the prophetic judgement is already apparent therein. From the theological perspective, however, it is not a question of the authenticity of the quotation but rather of its truth “wäre das echte Zitat unwahr, so bildet er (the prophet, JD) selbst das Zitat.” (19733:99) Galling 1928:32 was among the first to understand the reference to the covenant with death as an ironic condemnation on the part of the prophet himself. Instead of associating the covenant in question with one or other political alliance, however, he maintains that the words ‘death’ and ‘Sheol’ can be replaced by YHWH, since rigid adhesion to faith in Israel’s election always made its appeal to YHWH (cf. Am. 5:14; Hos. 8:2 and Mi. 3:11).

exegesis of individual pericopes

123

ultimately ill-fated and bound to lead to enormous disillusionment.46 In like fashion to 30:2–3, the semantic field employed in the final bicolon of verse 15 is reminiscent of the language of the psalms. The psalms frequently speak of seeking refuge in yhwh (see, for example, Ps. 14:6; 46:2),47 a conviction closely associated with the temple cult of Jerusalem and belief in yhwh’s presence in Zion (cf. Isa. 4:6; 14:32; 16:4; 25:4; 32:2).48 The use of this religiously shaded terminology associated with the Zion tradition contrasts with what is stated in the Zion text of 28:16 and functions as such as a religious disqualification of Jerusalem’s coalition politics.49 Judah’s sin is ultimately a form of idolatry.50 It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the later Wisdom of Solomon quotes 28:15 in order to describe the attitude of the godless.51

46 Cf. Burns 1973:338: “Their political manoeuvres are ‘a covenant with death’, for their outcome will be fatal.” Barthel 1997:318n objects to this explanation based on the statement in verse 18 concerning the ‘annulment’ of the covenant with death and the claim that the agreement with Sheol will not stand. His objection need not be understood, however, as a decisive factor. In his announcement of judgement, the prophet harks back to the ironic statement he had placed on the lips of his adversaries. He uses the announcement of judgement to make explicit the expectation that was implicit in the complaint, namely that Jerusalem’s leaders would not emerge unscathed from their coalition politics. As already expected on the basis of the characterisation provided, the covenant with death will be annulled and the agreement with Sheol will not stand. While some might argue that the use of words here is verging on the pleonastic, they nevertheless have a clear function in the context of the prophecy of judgement. They underline the naiveté of Jerusalem’s leaders and the blatant palpability of the outcome announced by the prophet. 47 It is striking that the Septuagint translates Wnsejm ] ' with τὴν ἐλπίδα ἡμῶν. The Greek translator of Isaiah 28 would appear to have had a significant preference for the word ἐλπίς ‘hope’, given the fact that he employed it no less than ten times; see verses 4, 5, 10 (2x), 13 (2x), 15, 17, 18 and 19. 48 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:208: “Cette présentation est liée à la présence de Yahvé dans son Temple, et constitue l’un des éléments des traditions de Sion.” 49 Cf. Gamberoni 1982:79: “Religiös geprägte Sprache ist absichtlich für gottwidriges Tun verwendet.” 50 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:158: “Et en faisant leur refuge et leur abri, les Judéens attribuent au Pharaon et à l’Égypte un rôle que la prière célébrait comme étant le privilège exclusif de Yahvé, la politique judéenne est une idolâtrie, sans doute plus subtile, mais non moins grave et dangereuse que celle qui consiste dans le culte des idoles de métal et de bois.” 51 See Wisdom 1:16 in which it is argued that death was not created by God (1:13) but summoned rather by the godless: ἀσεβεῖς δὲ ταῖς χερσὶν καὶ τοῖς But the ungodly by their words and deeds λόγοις προσεκαλέσαντο αὐτόν summoned death; φίλον ἡγησάμενοι αὐτὸν considering him a friend, ἐτάκησαν καὶ συνθήκην ἔθεντο πρὸς they pined away and made a covenant with him, αὐτόν because they are fit to belong to his company. ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν τῆς ἐκείνου μερίδος (NRSV)

εἶναι

124

chapter four 4.2.2. Isa. 28:16: Salvation-historical retrospective hwIhy“ yn:doa} rm'a; hKo ˆkel; 16 Therefore, thus says the Lord YHWH: ynIn“hi “See, I am the one ˆb,a;= ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI who laid in Zion a foundation stone, ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, a weighty stone, tr'q]yI tN"Pi a precious cornerstone, dS;Wm ds;Wm a sure foundation. >vyjiy: alø ˆymia}M'h' One who trusts shall not hurry off.”

Having made his scathing complaint against the leaders of Jerusalem within the confines of a single verse, the prophet is now expected to turn to the announcement of judgement in verse 16, in line with the conventional pattern of the prophecy of judgement. Indeed, verse 16 clearly opens with the traditional introductory particle of an announcement of judgement ˆkel,; followed by the familiar messenger formula hwIhy“ yn:doa} rm'a; hKo.52 The said messenger formula is employed with the greatest frequency in the book of Ezekiel, although it is also to be found on a number of occasions in Isaiah (see 7:7 and 30:15; cf. 10:24; 21:16; 22:15). As introduction to the expected announcement of judgement, the messenger formula adds an extra accent to what follows in verse 16,53 although the content of the verse is surprisingly enough not directly recognisable as an announcement of judgement. Attention is first drawn to a deed of yhwh that implies a promise of salvation. It is not clear in advance, however, whether the said deed should be situated in the past, the present or the future. A decision in this regard depends in part on our interpretation of the construction dS'yI ynIn“h.i Given that the combination of ynIn“hi with dS'yI vocalised as a pi el perfect is uncommon and that ynIn“hi is usually associated with a participle (see, for example, 37:7 and 38:8),54 several exegetes opt to depart from the The historical background and political context of Isa. 28:15 no longer figure at this juncture. In a more neutral sense, Sir. 14:12 also alludes to Isa. 28:15, totally detached from its political-historical context: μνήσθητι ὅτι θάνατος οὐ χρονιεῖ Remember that death does not tarry, καὶ διαθήκη ᾅδου οὐχ ὑπεδείχθη σοι and the decree of Hades has not been shown to you. (NRSV) The decree of Hades alludes in this regard to the preordained day of a person’s death. See further Schwemer 1996:84–85. 52 Procksch 1930(A):357 suggests we add t/ab;x] for metrical reasons. Cf., however, 7:7 and 30:15. 53 The Masoretes probably based their decision to mark 28:16 as the beginning of a new pericope on the basis of the messenger formula (Setumah, cf. 7:7). The same applies with respect to 1QIsaa, see Olley 1993:29f. 54 Cf. GKG § 116p; J-M § 121e and Humbert 1958 (orig. 1934):54–59.

exegesis of individual pericopes

125

Masoretic text in this regard and vocalise dsy as a qal participle dseyO.55 Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this proposed emendation has enjoyed the support of both Isaiah scrolls from Qumran.56 In spite of the readings found in the Qumran scrolls, however, a number of exegetes continue to argue to the present day in favour of the pi el perfect dS'yI, translating the construction dS'yI ynIn“hi in the past tense: ‘See, I am the one who laid . . .’. Agreement with 14:32b with respect to content and semantics has an important role to play in this regard, since 14:32b contains the related statement that yhwh has established Zion, likewise employing the pi el perfect dS'yI. In order to intercept the objection that the pi el perfect dS'yI in 28:16 is preceded by ynIn“hi and that ynIn“hi is generally followed by a participle, reference is usually made to 29:14 and 38:5, in both of which ynIn“hi is followed by a hiph il imperfect πsi/y.57 Ezek. 25:7 is also referred to in this regard because it contains ynIn“hi followed by a qal declarative perfect (1st person) ytiyfin:.58 Why then did the Masoretes opt to vocalise dsy in 28:16 as a pi el perfect dS'y?I The accentuation of the text with the distinctive Tevîr [12] in relation to ynIn“hi is also surprising in this regard since the construction ynIn“hi + participle usually takes a conjunctive accent. If one bears in mind that the Masoretic distinctive accents probably hark back to a pre-Masoretic tradition, it goes without saying that they should not be dismissed as insignificant.59 In establishing the pronunciation and articulation of the Hebrew text according to the tradition passed down to them, the Masoretes apparently made use of vocalisation and punctuation in order to prevent the careless reader of the Zion text of 28:16 from accidentally reading dsy as a futurum instans and 55 See, among others, Marti 1900:208, Fullerton 1920:10, Procksch 1930(A): 356, Driver 1968:59, Roberts 1987:27–29, Blenkinsopp 2000(A):392 and Childs 2001:208. 56 1QIsaa reads a pi el participle dsym and 1QIsab a qal participle dswy. 57 BHS suggests we vocalise πswy both in 29:14 and in 38:5 as a participle πs´wOy. See also Roberts 1987:28. While the orthographic from πswy would appear to support such a suggestion, the hiph il imperfect of πsy is frequently written with a w and thus remains a possibility. Indeed, the use of the matter lectionis y with the hiphil of πsy is much less frequent than is generally the case. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that neither 29:14 nor 38:5 have πysi/y (see also πysi/y in 1 Sam. 14:44; 1 Kgs 6:31 and Prov. 10:22; the orthograpic forms πysiwyO and πysiyO each occur 15× in the Old Testament). 58 GKG § 155f. See also Delitzsch 1889:317, Duhm 19143:175, Fohrer 1962:54 and Irwin 1977:31–32. 59 De Moor/Watson 1993:xv. Cf. Korpel/De Moor 1988:vii: “. . . we make use of the Masoretic accents which often, though by no means always, prove to be a more reliable guide than is generally assumed.”

126

chapter four

thereby mistakenly associating it with some future salvific action on God’s part.60 While material for comparison remains limited, it would appear nevertheless from the combination ytiyfin: ynIn“hi in Ezek. 25:7 that the possibility of ynIn“hi followed by a perfect should not be dismissed in advance.61 The combination πsi/y ynIn“hi in 29:14 and 38:5 even presupposes the possibility of a change of subject from the first to the third person, although such changes tend to be rare. This implies that from the grammatical and syntactic perspective the construction dS'yI ynIn“hi in 28:16 is not impossible and that the vocalisation of the Masoretic text thus deserves preference as the lectio difficilior.62 Given the fact, moreover, that the pi el of the verb dsy always relates to the technical construction of foundations, the reading of dsy as a pi el perfect dS'yI fits well within the semantic context of verse 16.63 The pi el perfect dS'yI can be understood Should one prefer to vocalise dsy as a qal participle dseyO on grammatical/syntactic grounds, this need not imply that the expression dseyO ynIn“hi should be translated per se as a futurum instans, since the latter option depends entirely on the context (cf. GKG § 116m and Kaiser 19762:201). The possibility of translating a participle in the past tense is supported by Gen. 41:17 in which the clause raoy“h' tp'c]Al[' dme[o ynIn“hi must be translated as ‘See, I was standing on the banks of the Nile’ (see GKG § 116o, J-M § 121f, Huber 1976:91, Petersen 1979:121n and Kilian 1994:162; Rohland 1956:151 and Schreiner 1963:171 likewise translate the qal participle dseyO in the past tense). 61 While Childs 2001:208 himself would appear to prefer a participle, he recognises in the meantime that the Masoretic vocalisation can also be upheld: “This construction is grammatically possible, but extremely rare. It would be translated: ‘Behold, I am the one who laid a stone for a foundation’.” 62 See also Gonçalves 1986:196 and Beuken 2000:14–15. According to Roberts 1987:28, 28:16 is a clear example in which the lectio difficilior should not be followed because we are unaware of an adequate parallel for the construction employed in MT. Cf., however, Wildberger 1982:1523: “Es gilt zudem zu bedenken, daß das Alte Testament durchaus Aussagen machen kann, welche für modernen Exegeten nur schwer nachvollziehbar sind. Gerade auch bei der Textkritik müssen die Grenzen unserer Einfühlungsgabe, aber auch unserer linguistischen Kenntnisse bedacht und respektiert werden.” 63 Mosis 1981:668–682 discusses a striking difference in meaning between the qal and the pi el of dsy. The meaning of the verb in the qal is broader than that of the pi el. In the qal, dsy frequently means more than simply the laying of foundations and can include the entire building process, including restoration work (cf. 2 Chron. 24:27). In the pi el, however, dsy always enjoys the specific technical significance of ‘laying foundations’. With regard to 28:16, Jenni 1968:212 states: “In der textlich schwierigen Stelle Jes. 28,16 ‘Siehe, ich lege in Zion einen Stein’ wäre demnach das Pi el beizubehalten, wie auch immer die Stelle aufzufassen ist.” Mosis suggests nonetheless that we should read a pi el participle dsym (cf. 1QIsaa) and is of the opinion that the m, which can easily be confused with the ending yn in Phoenician script, has been omitted due to haplography. This latter hypothesis is somewhat speculative, since we do not know enough about ancient palaeography to determine which letters resembled one another (cf. Seeligmann 1948:61). Retaining the pi el perfect thus deserves preference. 60

exegesis of individual pericopes

127

at this juncture as the beginning of an asyndetic subordinate clause in relation to ynIn“hi, which implies that the text ought best to be translated ‘See, I am the one who laid . . .’.64 Although difficult to prove, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the Masoretic vocalisation of dsy as a pi el perfect dS'yI may be due to a reaction to the New Testament use of 28:16 in which the Zion text is understood in Messianic terms and related to the advent of Jesus (Rom. 9:32b–33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6).65 Nevertheless, the Messianic interpretation of the so-called ‘stone texts’ established within the Jewish tradition certainly seems to make this possibility less likely (see § 2.4.2.). The fact that the Zion text of 28:16 was no longer ascribed a Messianic significance in later rabbinic literature, at least as far as we could determine, probably has more to do with the place acquired by the text in the Shetiyyah tradition (see § 2.4.3.) than with potentially anti-Christian tendencies.66 Such a tendency need not be sought, therefore, behind the Masoretic vocalisation of 28:16. Semantic and content based agreements between the Zion texts in 14:32b and 28:16 would thus appear to serve as the most important motivating factor behind the Masoretic vocalisation and punctuation.67 While form-critical considerations are not in themselves of overriding importance in the analysis of a prophetic text, the translation of dsy as a futurum instans would imply nevertheless that the prophetic judgement genre had been interrupted in verse 16 by a promise of

64 See GKG § 155f. It is also possible to understand the combination dS'yI ynIn“hi as an asyndetic main clause and to translate it as ‘See, I myself have . . .’, although one would expect the use of a first person perfect rather than a participial form in such an instance (cf. Ezek. 25:7). 65 Cf. Fullerton 1920:50: “It looks as if they wished to prevent the Christian use of the passage which saw in it a prediction of Jesus.” 66 Cf. Stemberger’s 1996:573–574 appeal for caution at this juncture: “Certain shifts in Jewish exegesis, changes in comparison with Jewish interpretations of the Second Temple period, may frequently be explained with good reason as reactions against the theological use of a biblical text in the Christian tradition. But in most cases this remains at the level of educated guesses; too much has changed in Judaism after 70 CE to attribute every break of continuity directly and exclusively to rabbinic reaction against Christianity.” 67 Marti 1900:208 suspects that the vocalisation dS'yI in 28:16 came about under the influence of 14:32b and refers the reader in this regard to Cheyne and König, Syntax § 344b. Roberts 1987:28 follows a similar line of thought. Procksch 1930(A):357 presupposes that the vocalisation of the Masoretic text is inspired by a refusal to accept a new foundation stone in addition to that of the temple in Zion. Laberge 1978:10 considers it possible that the Masoretes endeavoured to avoid anthropomorphism by using the 3rd person.

128

chapter four

salvation. This possibility cannot be excluded in advance since one cannot deny the prophet a certain degree of artistic licence in his work.68 To further support the understanding of 28:16 as a promise of salvation, one can compare the present text with the Immanuel prophecy of 7:14. This latter text would appear to represent the most striking example of a promise of salvation located in the context of a prophecy of judgement.69 In like fashion to the Zion text of 28:16, the Immanuel prophecy of 7:14 is also introduced by the particle ˆkel;, which, in relation to the preceding complaint (7:13) and in agreement with the conventional structure of the prophecy of judgement would lead one to expect an announcement of judgement to follow rather than a promise of salvation.70 It is difficult, nonetheless, to read the Immanuel prophecy of 7:14 as anything other than a promise of salvation.71 It appears, however, that the introduction to the Immanuel prophecy of 7:14 has been composed as an announcement of judgement. In contrast to Ahaz’ sanctimonious refusal to ask for a sign we are confronted with the indignant announcement that yhwh himself will provide a sign in spite of Ahaz. Given that the possibility offered in the first instance by yhwh to ask for a sign from Him represents the powerful confirmation of an announcement of salvation (7:7–9; cf. 7:4), it should not surprise us in the present context that the sign ultimately provided by yhwh in the second instance also contains the features of a promise of salvation (cf. 7:16). The fact that this Immanuel prophecy is introduced as an indignant announcement of judgement, however, sets the given sign in a particular light. No matter how he attempts to portray his rejection

Melugin 1974:301–311 employs three examples to point out that the prophet Isaiah could be creative in his use of the existing prophecy of judgement genre and that he introduced variations thereto that differ from the already common variations. Based on the idea that 28:16 contains a promise of salvation for the future, 28:14–22 is one of the examples he treats. The other texts are 30:15–17 and 28:7–13. 69 Cf. Delitzsch 1889:316: “Auf das wieder aufgenommene ˆkel; v. 16 folgt ebenso wie 7,14 Verheißung statt Drohung . . .” See also Snijders 1969:283. 70 Cf. Wildberger 1972:288. 71 The present author disagrees with Fohrer 1956:55 (see also 1960:102) on this point who denies any salvific significance to 7:14: “Das Zeichen, das der Prophet ankündigt, kann aber nicht den gleichen Sinn haben wie das zuvor dem Ahas angebotene und von diesem abgelehnte, also nicht die Vergewisserung darüber, daß Jahwe die Bedrohung von Jerusalem abwenden werde. Auf das Versagen des Ahas folgt keine Heilszusage, sondern eine Unheilsdrohung.” In order to advance this thesis, Fohrer is obliged to deny that the announced sign is to be found in the birth and naming in 7:14. In his opinion, the intended sign is described in vv. 15–16. For a survey of literary critical questions relating to Isaiah 7, see Höffken 1989:25–42. 68

exegesis of individual pericopes

129

of a sign as piety, Ahaz’ response ultimately represents a rejection of the fidelity (‘stand firm’) called for in 7:9b. To Ahaz’ personal shame, the Immanuel prophecy of 7:14, the birth and naming of the son announced by the prophet, is set in sharp contrast to his rejection.72 In a certain sense, therefore, the sign given in 7:14 carries a degree of ambivalence.73 Directly following the sign given by yhwh, Ahaz is made to understand the consequences of his lack of faith. The liberation announced will come to pass and there is thus no reason to be afraid of the kings of Aram and Ephraim (7:16; cf. 7:4). The depopulation, however, of the land of Aram and that of Ephraim are to prefigure the fate that will ultimately confront the kingdom of Ahaz. In the not so distant future, Ahaz and his house will have to face an even greater threat, namely the king of Assyria (7:17).74 The comparison of 28:16 with 7:14 thus allows us to see that within the context of an announcement of judgement room is sometimes available for a promise of salvation, without devaluing the general character of the prophecy of judgement. This ought to serve, therefore, as an important argument in support of reading the Zion text of 28:16 primarily as a promise of salvation. Of course, the meaning and function of the Immanuel prophecy of 7:14 cannot simply be placed on an equal footing with the Zion text of 28:16, since the former is emphatically associated with a promise of salvation already given within the context of Isaiah 7 (7:7–9).75 This is not the case in 28:16, however, whereby the transition to a potential reading of the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise of salvation within the context of Isaiah 28 is much more abrupt.76 Should one ascribe salvific significance to the Cf. Beuken 2003:205: “Der Name gibt nicht den aktuellen Glauben des Ahas wieder, sondern den Glauben, den eigentlich von ihm verlangt wird. Einst soll die Daseinsberechtigung dieses Namens deutlich werden.” 73 Cf. Wildberger 1972:295: “Grundsätzlich beinhaltet das Zeichen Heil, für Ahas selbst, aber schwerste Drohung, eine Drohung, die paradoxerweise gerade in der Ankündigung sichtbar wird, daß Jahwe zu seiner Verheißung steht.” 74 Cf. Beuken 2003:188: “Das Zeichen wird in seiner Erfüllung wiederum zu einem Zeichen. Die Geburt des Kindes und sein Name Immanuel verheißen, dass jhwhs Gegenwart bei seinem Volk (»Gott mit uns«) unverzüglich in der Katastrophe sichtbar wird, die die angreifenden Völker trifft (V 16). Aber in dieser Erfüllung des Immanuelzeichens ist zugleich ein Hinweis auf die Not des Landverlustes mitgegeben, mit der jhwh mittels des Königs von Assur das Haus David strafen wird (V 17).” 75 Cf Childs 2001:67: “The giving of the sign to Ahaz (vv. 10–17) is a continuation of the previous challenge for faithfulness to the promise of God given to the house of David in vv. 3–9.” 76 While the Zion text of 28:16 is related within the context of Isaiah 28 to 28:12 (likewise designated by the present author as a Zion text), the latter text does not 72

130

chapter four

Zion text of 28:16, then one should do so first and foremost on the basis of its context in Isaiah 28.77 According to the traditional pattern of the prophecy of judgement, the announcement of judgement should follow at this juncture, after the complaint of verse 15 and the messenger formula at the beginning of verse 16. The remainder of verse 16, however, does not appear to live up to expectations in this regard. Should the Masoretic vocalisation imply that dS'yI ynIn“hi relates to a salvific deed from the past and not some future event, then the interruption of the traditional genre structure would appear to be less radical and it becomes possible to include the Zion text of verse 16 as a formal element of the announcement of judgement. Within the framework of the announcement of judgement, the salvific act being called to mind serves as the norm against which the seriousness of the actual judgement can be measured. The seriousness of the judgement that the prophet is obliged to announce from verse 16 onwards is underlined from the outset by explicit reference to God’s salvific activities with respect to Zion, which, based on the complaint of verse 15, were misunderstood.78 Comparison of MT with 1QIsaa / 1QIsab and LXX—spotlighted Having explained that the Masoretic text of 28:16 presupposes an interpretation whereby the Zion text of 28:16 is not to be understood as a promise of salvation given for the future, it is now important to focus attention on the Qumran Isaiah scrolls and their interpretation of the said text.79 The scrolls in question, with respect to which there relate to an actual promise of salvation or one given for the future but consists rather of a reference to an earlier statement on the part of yhwh with respect to Zion. See § 4.3.3. 77 For a discussion of the position of Wildberger, who translates dsy as a futurum instans but interprets it nevertheless as an announcement of judgement, see below. 78 Cf. Beuken 2000:44: “It is a unique feature of this oracle that the announcement of doom is projected against a salvific act in the past, i.e. God’s founding of Zion.” Blenkinsopp 2000(B):473 states with reference to 28:21: “Bringing up salvific interventions of Yahweh in the past would be equally (i.e. just as the allusion to a future, new foundation in Jerusalem, JD) out of place in a sentence of doom.” By way of comparison, however, reference can be made to important allusions to God’s earlier words in 28:11–12, a reference that constitutes a part of an announcement of judgement in similar fashion to the Zion text of 28:16 (see also 30:15 in which the prophet prefaces his complaint with reference to a promise of salvation given in the past; complaint and announcement of judgement are woven together in 30:15–17, cf. Gonçalves 1986:167f ). 79 For the characteristics of both scrolls see Tov 1997:491–511. For an introduction to 1QIsaa and a German translation thereof see Steck 1998. Steck 1998:18 typifies

exegesis of individual pericopes

131

is no absolute certainty that they were both composed in Qumran,80 read a participle form in verse 16 after ynnh and thus serve as primary witnesses in support of emending the Masoretic vocalisation. While the use of the pi el participle dsym or a qal participle dswy after ynnh need not automatically imply that the text of verse 16 should be translated in a future sense, it would appear from the documents discovered at Qumran that the community took such an interpretation as its point of departure and thus understood the Zion text of 28:16 to be a prophecy of salvation for the future. The use of 28:16 in both ‘The Rule of the Community’ (1QS 8,5–8) and ‘The Thanksgiving Scroll’ (1QHa 15,8–9) leads one to believe that the text in question was interpreted in an eschatological sense and that the community of Qumran saw itself as the fulfilment thereof (see § 2.4.1.). For this interpretation to be possible, reference to the word Zion is left out of any allusions to 28:16. This can be understood against the background of the community’s own belief—together with its lack of interest in the temple in Jerusalem—that it was with God’s living temple that the designation ‘Zion’ was associated.81 The same is likewise expressed on occasion in the text of 1QIsaa itself.82 For the interpretation of the community of 1QIsaa as ‘eine interpretative Fassung des MT-nahen Jes-Textes, die anderen Zwecken als allein der Textüberlieferung dienen sollte’, resp. as ‘ein Gebrauchstext zur Lektüre oder allenfalls eine Vorlage für die Herstellung interpretativer Lektürekopien’. 80 Cf. the cautious position held by Steck 1998:17 with respect to 1QIsaa: “Daß sie ein spezifisches Produkt der essenischen Gemeinschaft von Qumran darstellt und gar von vornherein den Jes-Text da und dort mit besonderen Absichten dieser Gemeinschaft in Verbindung brachte, ist heute weniger selbstverständlich als früher. Sollte die ausgedehnte Siedlung von Qumran nämlich erst gegen 100 v.Chr. bezogen wurden sein, ist nicht mehr sicher, daß 1QIsa wirklich in Qumran geschrieben wurde.” While Pulikottil 2001:160ff recognises the heterogeneous character of the Qumran documents, he nevertheless endeavours to gain support for the idea that the author of the first Isaiah scroll should in all probability be located within the Qumran community. Pulikottil places the emphasis on the interpretative character of 1QIsaa and concludes that the author of this scroll was oriented towards the community of Qumran: “The foregoing discussion of the reading of the scroll has illustrated the overall conceptual relationship of the scroll with that of certain Qumran texts, most of which can certainly be termed as Yachad documents. Though not all the changes to the scroll can be said to have this ideology only, most of the major themes of these texts are reflected in the scroll.” (2001:185) 81 Cf. Dohmen 1982:86: “Wenn in Jes. 28,16 Jahwe sagt: ‘Seht, ich lege in Zion einen Grundstein, einen bewährten Stein, einen kostbaren Eckstein’, dann wird es hier so verstanden, daß Jahwe dies in der Gründung von Qumran vollzogen hat mit dem Ziel, ‘den Bund nach ewigen Gesetzen aufzurichten’. Hier klingt an, was später für die Gemeinschaft von Qumran spezifisch wird, daß sie sich gegen bzw. anstelle des offiziellen Judentums stellt.” See also W.H. Schmidt 19783:738, Muszynski 1975:5 and Betz 1987:95–96. 82 Pulikottil 2001:143–145 draws attention to the text of 2:3, where the expression

132

chapter four

Qumran, it was essential that the verb dsy in 28:16 could be understood as a participle and translated in the future sense. A pi el perfect dS'yI would ultimately have represented an obstacle to the application of the text to the community. The theological perspectives of the community at Qumran thus made it desirable to read dsy as a participle. It should be clear, therefore, that the emendation of the Masoretic vocalisation of dsy as a pi el perfect dS'yI on the basis of the text of both Isaiah scrolls from Qumran is not to be recommended. The Septuagint, with its interpretation of the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise of salvation associated with the future, is more explicit than the readings found in both Qumran scrolls. The Septuagint of Isaiah is characterised by the fact that the Greek translator employed a surprising degree of freedom and independence in his work.83 As a consequence, the translation in question provides a specific interpretation in several places and is even considered to represent an important pre-Christian witness to Jewish exegesis.84 The combination dsy ynnh is translated in the Septuagint with an explicitly future orientation: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον. This translation corresponds with a possible presence of an already Messianising tendency given expression in the plus of ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ in the concluding passage of 28:16: καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ.85 The plus serves to relate the expression ‘one who trusts’ directly to the stone in such a way that the latter is personified.86 Given the considerable freedom the Greek translator hw:hy“Arh'Ala, is absent and where the task of teaching is ascribed to an undetermined

plural ‘they’ and not to YHWH. Pulikottil thus interprets the concluding words of 2:3 in the sense that the Law has departed from Zion and concludes: “. . . the passage brings a radical difference in portraying Jerusalem deprived of its privilege as a centre of religious instruction in the end of the days, as the Law has departed from it. The centre of religious instruction is now the bwq[y yhwla tyb (‘house of the God of Jacob’), where a group represented by an unidentified ‘they’ will be in charge of instruction.” 83 Cf. Seeligmann 1948:56: “With this we come to a characteristic trait in our translator; he often sacrifices grammatical accuracy to his own stylistic text-formulation. He deals pretty arbitrarily with gender and mood of the verb, with person and number.” Seeligmann signals a clear tendency on the part of the Greek translator to give his work a more Greek style and to employ a more Greek sentence structure. He thus presupposes that the latter’s knowledge of Hebrew was probably more theoretical and lexicographical than grammatical and syntactical. 84 Van der Kooij 1977:91. See also Van der Kooij 1997(A):513: “. . . a free translation which reflects at several places an actualizing interpretation of the Isaianic prophecies.” Cf. Van der Kooij 1989:127–133 and 1997(B):9–25. 85 For a discussion of the problem ‘Messianisms’ in the Septuagint see Harl 1988: 219–222 and 282–288. 86 In its translation of Ps. 118:22, the Septuagint has likewise promoted a Messianic interpretation by way of the plus of the explicative οὗτος.

exegesis of individual pericopes

133

of Isaiah permitted himself, it goes without saying that a significant degree of caution should be employed when using the Septuagint in order to establish the correct reading of 28:16.87 It is the present author’s conclusion that the textual renditions found in Qumran and the Septuagint do not provide decisive reasons to emend the Masoretic vocalisation of 28:16. It would appear that the Masoretes employed unusual vocalisation and punctuation precisely in order to avoid accidently associating the Zion text with some future salvific activity on the part of God. The form-critical considerations outlined above tend rather to reinforce the impression that verse 16 should be understood as a salvation-historical retrospective moment intended to underline the seriousness of the judgement being announced. The content of the salvation-historical retrospective moment in verse 16 is determined by the mention of the stone that yhwh has established in Zion. It is in fact the stone that is given particular emphasis. This is not only evident from the variety of characterisations with which the stone is described, but also from the poetical structure ascribed by the prophet to the Zion text. Following the introductory particle ˆkel; and the messenger formula hwIhy“ yn:doa} rm'a; hKo we have what would appear at first sight to be a bicolon after which the verse is rounded off with a monocolon. In that case, with verse 14, the prophet employs the poetic technique of the ‘ballast variant’ for this crucial statement concerning the stone that yhwh has established in Zion. In verse 16, however, this can be further specified as a form of the so-called ‘expanded repetition’. In the second half of verse 16 there is no parallel for the statement ynIn“hi ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI, but rather the word ˆb,a, ‘stone’ is taken up once again and then supplemented with a variety of typifications.88 The printed form of verse 16 in BHS, however, interferes with the recognition of the apparent structure. An alternative typography even makes the chiasm visible whereby the structure of verse 16 can be characterised: at the beginning and end a form of dsy, and at the pivotal point between both halves of the verse twice ˆb,a:,

Cf. Seeligman 1948:58–66 and Wildberger 1982:1518–1520. Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion do not follow the translation of dsy ynnh as a future ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ but opt rather for the participle θεμελιῶν. 88 Cf. Watson 1984:343–348 and Bühlmann/Scherer 19942:39. 87

134

chapter four ˆb,a;= ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI ynIn“hi “See, I am the one who laid in Zion a

dS;Wm ds;Wm tr'q]yI tN"Pi ˆj'Bo ˆb,a,

foundation stone, a weighty stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.”

The ‘expanded repetition’ in the second half of the verse calls for particular attention, because ˆb,a, has been supplemented to such a degree that the balance would seem to have tilted in the wrong direction. While this is not an exceptional phenomenon in Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry,89 the chain of characteristics typifying the ˆb,a, in 16b leaves one with a sense of exaggeration. In order to reduce the length of the Zion text to some degree, the course of history has witnessed a variety of proposed emendations: 1. Several exegetes have suggested that we scrap the first ˆb,a., 90 This proposal not only removes an element of weight from a verse in which the stone as such is being emphasised, it also misinterprets the style feature referred to above, namely the ‘ballast variant’, in which both the first ˆb,a, and the second are essential! 2. Others have suggested that we consider tr'q]yI as an interpolation.91 In spite of the fact that tr'q]yI creates problems with respect to the translation of the text, this hypothesis has gained little if any following. 3. The suggestion that we scrap the second dS;Wm has received the most approval because its presence can be explained as a simple example of dittography.92 It is striking, however, that the second dS;Wm has a dageš in the s. This suggests that we are dealing with a hoph al

89 See Korpel/De Moor 1988:16: “In accordance with the tendency towards symmetry in this kind of poetry the number of feet of the cola forming a verse is usually the same. However, unbalanced verses are quite common.” Korpel and De Moor maintain the following rule of thumb with respect to poetry: “Within certain limits every structural unit could be expanded or contracted, as the singers saw fit.” (2) 90 Marti 1900:208 is of the opinion that the first ˆb,a, stems from a gloss ds;Wm ˆb,a,, which was later divided over two verse segments. Fullerton 1920:10 and Procksch 1930(A):356 scrap the first ˆb,a, metri causa and support their action with an appeal to the Septuagint, which only has one λίθον. Boehmer 1923:90 presupposes that the original reading must have been hr;q;y“ hN:Pi ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI ynIn“hi and considers every elaboration hereof to be artificial (see, in this regard, the critique of Dietrich 1976:164). 91 Duhm 19143:175. 92 See Marti 1900:208, Fullerton 1920:10, Procksch 1930(A):356, Rohland 1956:148, Donner 1964:148, Wildberger 1982:1064 and Gonçalves 1986:197, KBL/HALAT, BHS, HAHAT.

exegesis of individual pericopes

135

participle (cf. hoph al perfect ds'Wh in Ezra 3:11).93 Based on a count of the number of syllables it has also been suggested that we read the second dS;Wm as part of the last verse line.94 Over and against the various attempts to ‘restore’ the balance within verse 16 by way of emendation, the present author is inclined to follow the possibility that allows for taking the presence of two bicola instead of one as its point of departure. Given the fact that the particle ynIn“hi enjoys a deictic function and has a distinctive accent Tevîr [12], it is possible that the term should be understood as anacrusis.95 In light of the fact that the words ˆj'Bo and tr'q]yI likewise have distinctive accents, Gèreš or Tères [13] and Paštā [10] respectively, the Masoretic accentuation leads to the presupposition that the Zion text of verse 16 is made up of two bicola, with 3 + 2 and 2 + 2 metrical beats: ynIn“hi “See, I am the one ˆb,a;= ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI who laid in Zion a foundation stone, ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, a weighty stone, tr'q]yI tN"Pi a precious cornerstone, dS;Wm ds;Wm a sure foundation.” I consider myself supported in this rendition of the poetic structure of verse 16 by the observation that dS;Wm ds;Wm tr'qy] I tN"Pi ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, read in the first instance as a single clause, actually consists of three end-rhyming pairs: ˆj'Bo ˆb,a,—tr'qy] I tN"Pi—dS;Wm ds;Wm.96 Any attempt to eliminate one of the components thus disrupts the pattern. The exaggerated impression created in the meantime by the build-up of characteristics of the stone, may serve to establish the greatest possible emphasis. Oswalt 1986:519 registers the possibility of an alternative spelling for the same word, but his suggestion lacks plausibility. GKG § 71 points out that dsy functions here as a strong verb because the y is understood as a full consonant that is assimilated in the following consonant. 94 See Roberts 1987:35. Without counting the syllables, Hartenstein 2004:499 makes the same suggestion but proposes an alternative vocalisation. He reads dswm in both instances as ds;/m ‘foundation’, although this singular form never occurs in the Old Testament. 95 This suggestion was proposed by Beuken, although he himself opts for a bicolon with 5 + 4 beats, which is indeed less unusual than a bicolon with 4 + 6 beats: 93

ˆh'Bo ˆb,a, ˆb,a;= ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI dS;Wm ds;Wm tr'qy] I tN"Pi

The disadvantage of this construction, however, lies not only in the fact that the Atnāch must be ignored but also in the fact that the style feature of the ‘ballast variant’ is less manifest. 96 For the function of rhyme as a style feature see Watson 1984:229–234. Cf. the typography of 28:16 in Jeremias 1930:265.

136

chapter four

The provision of an accurate translation of the various characteristics of the stone given in verse 16 is not a simple task. Traditionally, the word ˆj'Bo has been associated with the verb ˆjb ‘to test’. In that case, two possibilities present themselves with respect to the translation of ˆj'Bo ˆb,a,: ‘testing stone’ 97 or ‘tested stone’.98 The latter can be objected to on the basis of the fact that, with one single exception, the verb ˆjb always has God or human beings and their ‘heart’, ‘kidneys’, ‘thoughts’, ‘ways’ or ‘words’ as its object.99 This makes the translation of ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, as ‘tested stone’ implausible, in spite of the fact that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion translated ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, with λίθον δόκιμον and the Vulgate with lapidem probatum.100 Moreover, the context (verse 17) does not relate to the testing of the foundation but rather to the building constructed thereupon.101 A translation opting for ‘testing stone’ thus fits the context better, but given the fact that the subject of the verb ˆjb is likewise always personal (God or humans), the sense of such a translation is not immediately apparent.102 Given the fact that a satisfactory translation was hard to establish, scholars have also endeavoured to explain ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, as a specific sort of stone. Köhler, who considered ˆj'Bo to be an Egyptian loanword referring to a particular type of stone used especially for monuments, is associ-

Clements 1980(B):231 and Wildberger 1982:1067. Fullerton 1920:3, Exum 1982:126, Klopfenstein 1964:147f. 99 Tsevat 1973:590: “es hat keine sachlich-praktischen Haupt- oder Nebenbereiche, die die Aufmerksamkeit vom Seelischen oder Religiösen abziehen könnten (Ausnahme Sach 13,9, ein Gleichnis).” “Somit ist ˆjb das Wort, das von allen Synonyma das geistigste ist; bei ihm geht es ganz speziell um die Person.” Cf. Jenni 19783:273. 100 As is evident from the translation of ˆj'Bo by ἐκλεκτὸν, the Septuagint would appear to have based itself on the verb rjb ‘to choose’. Cf. λίθους ἐκλεκτοὺς in LXX 54:12. 101 Cf. Roberts 1987:30. 102 Wildberger 1982:1076–1077 translates ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, as ‘testing stone’ and offers a strictly metaphorical explanation. Jerusalem is to be subjected to God’s judgement on account of its faith or lack thereof. According to Wildberger, the ‘testing stone’ mentioned in verse 16 is one of the instruments of God’s judgement in addition to the ‘measuring line of justice’ and the ‘plummet of righteousness’ in verse 17a. It is clear that Wildberger bases his interpretation on the presupposition that verse 16 is referring to the future, although the verse cannot be a promise of salvation for form-critical reasons. This leads to his somewhat artificial metaphorical interpretation of the stone in verse 16. The stone in question, however, is given so much emphasis that one cannot avoid the conclusion that the prophet is explicitly drawing attention to the object itself. The use of ‘foundation’ terminology likewise makes a metaphorical explanation of the stone as an instrument of divine judgement virtually impossible. 103 Köhler 1947:390–393. See also KBL/HALAT. This perspective is followed by Fohrer 1962:54, 59, Donner 1964:152, Driver 1968:59, Huber 1976:91 and Petersen 1979:110. Dietrich 1976:164 is of the opinion that Köhlers interpretation is not of essential significance for the interpretation of the text. 97 98

exegesis of individual pericopes

137

ated in particular with this interpretation.103 The question remains, however, whether the said Egyptian bhn-stone was already being used in ancient Jerusalem at the time of the prophet Isaiah.104 Inspired by the potentially Egyptian associations of ˆj'Bo, others have suggested that we identify ˆba ˆba with the Egyptian bn bn ‘obelisk’.105 The question of the suitability of such an obelisk as a foundation stone to one side,106 this interpretation simply ignores the structure of verse 16 as outlined above. Others still have endeavoured to identify the Egyptian bhn with the Greek βάσανος, the well-known testing stone employed since the end of the sixth century BCE to establish the purity of gold.107 Egyptian bhn-stone, however, turns out to be a material used for statues, steles and sarcophaguses quarried at Wadi Hammamat and commonly known today as greywacke (a sort of grey sandstone).108 More acceptable than the idea that ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, represents one or other type of Egyptian stone is the possibility of associating ˆj'Bo with ˆWjB' in 23:13 (Ketib wyn:yjib] with Qere wyn:Wjb'; NRSV: ‘their siege towers’) and with ˆj'B' in 32:14 (NRSV: ‘watchtower’). It is probable that the first Qumran Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa) read ˆj'B' in 28:16 rather than ˆj'Bo, otherwise a mater lectionis would have been introduced and the term written as ˆjwb.109 The community of Qumran thus identified ˆjb in 28:16 with ˆj'B' employed in 23:13 and 32:14. This would also appear to be the case in the passages that make reference to 28:16 in ‘The Rule of the Community’ (1QS 8,5–8) and in ‘The Thanksgiving Scroll’ (1QHa 14,25–27 and 15,8–9). Basing himself on the manuscripts of Qumran, Tsevat is thus able to propose the translation ‘fortification stone’.110 While Wildberger is critical

Tsevat 1973:591 and Wildberger 1982:1066 argue that such stones were only imported into Palestine at a later date. Roberts 1987:30 does not ascribe much weight to this objection, arguing that ˆj'Bo might likewise be a loanword for a different type of stone. There is no evidence to support this argument. 105 LeBas 1950:103–115. 106 Wildberger 1982:1066. 107 See Köhler 1947:390–393. 108 See Harris 1961:78–82 and Nicholson/Shaw 2000:57–58. 109 See Otzen 1957:94–95 and Wernberg-Møller 1958:248. Cf. Gonçalves 1992 III:471: “Every instance of the vowels o and u, whether long or short, is rendered by waw.” 110 Tsevat 1973:591: “d.h. der für den Burgbau der Königszeit charakteristerische Quader.” Tsevat refers in this regard to the image and description found in Galling 1937:372f. Roberts 1987:33 agrees with Tsevat and concludes: “Indeed all three of the Qumran passages interpret Isa 28:16 as referring to a place of refuge and therefore emphasize the solidity of the structure envisioned.” See also HAHAT, DCH and Betz 1987:95–96. 104

138

chapter four

of this translation, given that the three documents from Qumran only offer general allusions to 28:16 and therefore do not permit far reaching conclusions,111 it is striking to say the least that a similar sort of explanation governed the later Jewish tradition.112 The suggestion that we read ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, as a reference to a sort of fortification stone fits well in verse 16 in which foundation terminology is given such a particular accent. The combination ˆj'Bo ˆb,a, might therefore be translated as ‘heavy stone’.113 Any endeavour to establish the reasons behind the Masoretic vocalisation ˆj'Bo, however, remains guesswork.114 The heavy stone mentioned in verse 16 is further described with the term tN"P,i a word that is to be found, for the most part, in the context of building and construction. A few references can be found elsewhere in the Old Testament in which allusion is made to a hN:Pi ˆb,a, ‘cornerstone’ (see Job 38:6; Jer. 51:26 and Ps. 118:22).115 In verse 16, the cornerstone in question is further qualified as tr'q]yI ‘precious’. The combination ˆb,a, hr;q;y“ ‘precious stone’ or ‘jewel’ is likewise to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament.116 Where verse 16 is concerned, the plural form μynIb;a} t/rq;y“ employed in 1 Kgs 5:31 (NRSV 5:17) and 7:9–11 is of primary significance. The ‘precious stones’ referred to in 1 Kgs 5:31 in particular are used for the foundation of the temple, while those mentioned in Wildberger 1982:1066. Roberts 1987:33–34 points to the Targum’s Messianic interpretation, which places the emphasis on the power of the future king and recognises in ˆjb in 28:16 the same word as in 32:14 and 23:13. He goes on to speak of the medieval Jewish scholars Rashi and David Kimchi who both explain ˆjb in 28:16 as rx;b]mi ‘fortification’ with reference to 32:14. Ibn Ezra follows a similar line of thought but without the use of rx;b]mi. Saadia’s Arabic translation likewise employs one and the same word in the three Isaiah texts: ‘fortification’. 113 Cf. the translation found in Beuken 2000:12: ‘a massive stone’. 114 Intentional ambiguity based on a conscious allusion to the verb ˆjb ‘to test’, belongs among the various possibilities but remains uncertain. 115 Jer. 51:26 places t/ds;/ml] ˆb,a, next to hN:pil] ˆb,a,. Cf. Oeming 1989:627. The Septuagint of 28:16 translates tN"Pi with ἀκρογωνιαῖον. This term is also employed in Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:6. Jeremias 1930:264–280; 1933:792–793 understands ἀκρογωνιαῖος in Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:6 and κεφαλὴ γωνίας in Mk 12:10 par.; Acts 4:11 and 1 Pet. 2:7 as a capstone introduced above an entrance. The Greek term ἀκρογωνιαῖος should only be understood as ‘cornerstone’ in LXX Isa. 28:16. This vision initially attracted a considerable following that has dissipated in recent years. Cf. Merklein 1973:144–152. Cf., however, Cahill 1999:345–357. 116 See 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Kgs 10:2,10,11; 1 Chron. 20:2; 29:2; 2 Chron. 3:6; 9:1,9,10; 32:27; Ezek. 27:22; 28:13; Dan. 11:38. GKG § 130f1 considers tr'q]yI to be a noun and not an adjective: ‘a cornerstone of the preciousness of a fixed foundation’, or: ‘a precious cornerstone of surest foundation’. Roberts 1987:34 points out, however, that Deut. 21:11 contains a similar construction of noun and adjective, both in the status constructus and followed by a further noun. 111

112

exegesis of individual pericopes

139

1 Kgs 7:9–11 are used for the foundation as well as the construction of the palace of Solomon. It should not go unnoticed that the verb dsy ‘to lay a foundation’ is employed in both texts in close association with the said t/rq;y“ μynIb;a} and in like fashion to the Zion text in 28:16.117 The ; } must in any event have referred to substanaforementioned t/rq;y“ μynIba tial stones suitable for tooling that could be used in the foundations of a building.118 The important parallel between the Zion text of 28:16 on the one hand and 1 Kgs 5:31 and 7:9–11 on the other run counter to the explanation of Köhler who considers tr'q]yI to be a hapax, derived from the verb hrq ‘to encounter’. Köhler thus understands the ‘corner’ in 28:16 to be the place at which the foundation walls meet.119 The use of the construct form associates tr'q]yI tN"Pi directly with the following dS;Wm ds;Wm. The first ds;Wm is a substantive meaning ‘foundation’ (cf. 2 Chron. 8:16).120 The second dS;Wm should probably be understood as a hoph al participle of dsy (cf. Ezra 3:11), functioning in 28:16 to reinforce the first ds;Wm. We are thus left with the figura etymologica ‘a founded foundation’, whereby significant emphasis is placed on the said foundation.121 In order to understand what the prophet had in mind when he spoke of the weighty and precious cornerstone laid by yhwh in Zion as an immovable foundation, it makes sense to include the statement found in 14:32b in our considerations. In the text in question, which, in addition to the Zion text of 28:16 itself, also exhibits semantic conformity with its direct context via the use of the verb hsj ‘to hide, take refuge’ (cf. the references to the hs,j]m' ‘hiding place, refuge’ chosen by the leaders of Jerusalem in 28:15,17 and related to the Zion tradition), Zion itself is seen as the object of foundation:

117 See 1 Kgs 5:31: tyzIg: ynEb]a' tyIB;h' dSey"l] t/rq;y“ μynIb;a} t/ldoG“ μynIb;aÄ W[SiY"w" Ël,M,h' wx'y“w" (NRSV 5:17: “At the king’s command, they quarried out great, costly stones in order to lay the foundation of the house with dressed stones.”); 1 Kgs 7:10: t/ldoG“ μynIb;a} t/rq;y“ μynIb;a} dS;yUm]W t/Ma' hn<mov] ynEb]a'w“ t/Ma' rc,[, ynEb]a' (NRSV: “The foundation was of costly stones, huge stones, stones of eight and ten cubits.”) 118 Cf. Wagner 1982:858: “Da das Steinmaterial in Palästina in der Qualität unterschiedlich ist, wird diese Notiz besagen, daß es feste und hinsichtlich ihres Maßes besonders große Steine sein müssen, die als Fundamentsteine zu Quadersteinen bearbeitet werden können.” “jqr gewinnt die Bedeutung von ‘geeignet’.” 119 Köhler 1947:391. 120 The feminine form hd;s;Wm occurs in 30:32 and the plural form t/ds]Wm in the Qere associated with Ezek. 41:8. 121 Cf. GKG § 117pr and J-M § 125p. Krauss 1945:31 compares the statement ds;Wm dS;Wm with μyrIyVih' ryvi and translates ‘the best of the foundation, the peak of them’.

140

chapter four ˆ/Yxi dS'yI hw:hy“ yKi s ./M[' yYEnI[} Wsj‘y< Hb;W

For YHWH has founded Zion, and the needy among his people will find refuge in her.

Given the significant agreement between both texts in terms of content and semantics, the preposition B] in ˆ/YxiB] in 28:16 is sometimes understood as a b-essentiae, meaning ‘in the quality of ’.122 Roberts is of the opinion, however, that the b-essentiae should have been placed before ˆb,a, and not ˆ/Yxi and he argues in favour of a locative interpretation with respect to the preposition B].123 The present author is inclined to agree that in this instance the interpretation of the preposition as a b-essentiae is not entirely adequate, given the use of the b-essentiae elsewhere.124 A strictly locative interpretation, however, leaves the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the stone and Zion are to be distinguished from one another, while the said stone would appear rather to allude to the secret of Zion. The formulation in 28:16 (ˆb,a; ˆ/YxiB] dsy) is clearly more elaborate than in 14:32 (ˆ/Yxi dsy), but in essence they are virtually synonymous. In any case, it is in all respects probable that the prophet Isaiah used the foundation stone set in Zion (cf. t/ds;/ml] ˆb,a, in Jer. 51:26) to allude to God’s election of Zion as his dwelling place (see 8:18 for yhwh’s dwelling in Zion). The semantic field employed in verse 15 also points in this direction.125 Zion thus functions as a symbol of God’s presence and thereby as synonymous with the temple. This would also appear to be evident from the semantic field employed by the prophet in the verse following verse 16. Verse 16 concludes with the short monocolon vyjiy: alø ˆymia}M'h' which serves structurally to delineate the verse in question from verse 17 following.126 The Septuagint closely associates this clause with that which precedes it by translating καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. The plus ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ refers to the stone already mentioned that can now

122 See GKG § 119i (“I make Zion a foundation”), Huber 1976:91, Irwin 1977:31 and Gonçalves 1986:213. 123 Roberts 1987:29. Beuken 2000:15 follows along similar lines. 124 Cf. J-M § 133c, DCH, and in particular Jenni 1992:79–89. Jenni does not dedicate a separate discussion to Isa. 28:16, although he does list the text under the locative use of b. 125 See also Beuken 2000:49. 126 For the given function of the monocolon in Biblical Hebrew Poetry see Watson 1984:168–172. Fokkelman 2000:54 characterises the monocolon literally as a “peripheral phenomenon: it mostly occupies a demarcating position at the beginning or the end of a higher textual unit such as a strophe or stanza.”

exegesis of individual pericopes

141

be understood in Messianic terms.127 While the New Testament has adopted the said plus (see Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6) and understands the Zion text of 28:16 in Messianic terms, this interpretation does not square with the significance of the Hebrew text, which uses the verb ˆma hi. ‘to believe’ in the absolute sense.128 As far as the latter is concerned, there is a surprising agreement with the way in which ˆma hi. is similarly employed in 7:9 in the absolute sense. The statement yKi Wnymia}t' alø μai Wnmea;te alø in 7:9 (NRSV: “If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all.”) lacks an explicit reference to an antecedent.129 In addition to the aforementioned syntactic agreements between the ‘faith statements’ of 28:16 and 7:9, agreement can also be established with respect to their content. The background against which the statement of 7:9 resounds is that of yhwh’s salvific deeds in relation to the royal house of David. In 2 Sam. 7:16, yhwh promises David by way of the prophet Nathan that his house and monarchy will last. In Isa. 7:4–9, King Ahaz is encouraged to hold on to this promise, which is confirmed once again in the Immanuel prophecy explicitly directed to the house of David in 7:14. If Ahaz trusts in yhwh’s salvific intervention, his throne also shall stand firm. Yhwh himself will ensure that the hostile plan to make the son of Tabeel king of Judah comes to nothing (7:6–7). Just as the ‘faith statement’ of 7:9 should be understood against the background of yhwh’s salvific activity on behalf of the house of David, so the ‘faith statement’ of 28:16 acquires its expressiveness from the salvific activities of yhwh with respect to Zion. Given that ˆma hi. is also used in the absolute sense in 28:16, it seems evident that the concluding ‘faith statement’ should not only be related to the stone as Eichrodt 1967:134 considers the text of the Septuagint to be a degeneration of prophetic grandeur because faith in the Septuagint is no longer focused on God but on the foundation stone set by God. Faith is thus no longer an all-embracing spiritual attitude but is related rather to the temple. In the New Testament, the original meaning of faith as a personal relationship emerges once again because it focuses faith on Christ. 128 For a survey of the discussion surrounding the meaning of ˆma hi. see Ridderbos 1970:167–178 and Jepsen 1973:320–333. In light of Ridderbos’ critique, Wildberger’s contribution 19783:187–193 will have to be treated with a degree of reserve. Even when ˆma hi. is used in the absolute, as in 7:9 and 28:16, it is apparent from the context that ‘to believe’ can be related to the prophetic word that has been uttered and need not represent a designation of a particular personal attitude. Cf. Jepsen 1973:329: “ˆymah ist hier (in 7:9, JD) das Ernstnehmen eines ganz konkreten Gotteswortes; an diesem Ernstnehmen hängt die Existenz.” See also Sedlmeier 2000:38–53 and the recent study of Hagelia 2001:26–53. 129 The formulation in 7:9, by contrast, is supported by an antecedent in 2 Chron. 20:20: Wnmea;tew“ μk,yheløa‘ hw:hyB' Wnymia}h' ‘Believe in YHWH your God and you will be established.’ 127

142

chapter four

such but also to the entire Zion text.130 In our study so far, it has become apparent that the Zion text should not be interpreted as a promise for the future but as a salvation-historical retrospective moment offered within the framework of an announcement of judgement. The explicit remembrance of God’s salvific deeds on behalf of Zion underlines the seriousness of the judgement being announced. If the rulers of Jerusalem were only to trust in yhwh’s salvific deeds then they would have no reason to seek their refuge elsewhere (cf. 30:2). The interpretation of vyjiy: a Ol clearly represents an exegetical crux. The verb form vyjiy: is to be understood as a hiph il imperfect of the verb vwj ‘to hurry oneself ’, but the precise meaning of the hiph il is difficult to determine in the semantic context. Given their deviation from the Masoretic text, the ancient translations would already appear to have had the necessary problems with the text. The Septuagint probably read v/byE alø ‘he shall not be ashamed’ (cf. bqo[}y" v/byE hT;['Aalø in 29:22).131 The Syriac translation and the Targum may have read lyjiy: alø ‘he shall not be anxious’ (cf. yBir“qiB] lyjiy: yBili in Ps. 55:5).132 In spite of the fact that proposed emendations are numerous, remaining with the Masoretic text is recommended when searching for an adequate translation.133 The primary meaning of the verb vwj qal/hi. is ‘to hurry oneself ’ (cf. 5:19), but the hiph il can also be understood in the transitive sense ‘to speed up’ (cf. 60:22).134 Based on 28:16 the majority of the lexica presuppose a third 130 Cf. Beuken 2000:50. I see no reason to consider the statement concerning faith as an originally independent proverb without direct relationship to the context as Hagelia 2001:41 proposes. Hagelia would appear to need this presupposition in order to be able to include 28:16 in his research into the Yahwistic spirituality of ancient Israel. Together with 7:9, Hagelia sees 28:16 as ‘the core of the man-God-relation in Isaiah’. (53) 131 Procksch 1930(A):358 suggests that we emend the Masoretic text in this sense. Wildberger 1982:1067 correctly counters this suggestion, arguing that vyjiy: alø cannot be explained as a corruption of v/byE alø. Seeligmann 1948:56 has noted, moreover, that free rendition of verb forms in the hiph il is particularly characteristic of the Septuagint of Isaiah. 132 Donner 1964:148 points also to Ps. 29:6, although a hiph il lyjiy: is used at this juncture. 133 BHK mentions the option tj;yE aløø ‘do not be shocked’ (cf. 30:31), Fullerton 1920:42, Wolff 19733:31 and many others give preference to the reading vWmy: alø ‘shall not shift from his place’ (cf. 54:10). Procksch 1930(A):358 mentions the option vl;j,y< alø ‘do not be weak’ (cf. Job 14:10), but gives preference to the reading v/byE alø on the basis of the Septuagint. 134 The verb vwj is employed in the Old Testament for the most part in the qal (15x), primarily in the Psalms and in the context of the psalmist’s appeal to God to hasten to help him (see Ps. 22:20; 38:23; 40:14; 70:2,6; 71:12; 141:1). Beyse 1977:821–822 points to similar prayers in Ugaritic texts.

exegesis of individual pericopes

143

meaning, namely ‘to show oneself agitated’ or ‘to give way’.135 The most obvious interpretation of the vwj hi., however, remains ‘to hurry oneself ’, whereby the allusion to the alliance with Egypt in the complaint of verse 15 suggests ‘hurrying elsewhere’. Reference to Ps. 55:9 may be of value in this regard, the verse in question being one of the few places in which the verb vwj is likewise employed in the hiph il.136 Strikingly enough, Ps. 55:9 speaks of the hasty search for a place of refuge whereby the metaphor of the storm is used as in Isa. 28:16. Given the fact that the semantic field of verse 15 is related to numerous psalms, it is possible to determine the meaning of vyjiy: alø along similar lines and translate ‘he shall not hurry off ’.137 The advantage of such a translation is that, given the background of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, it can refer to the search for refuge in Egypt and to a more general religious sense of inner conflict.138 Yhwh’s salvific activity with respect to Zion implies the promise of a safe refuge for his people (cf. 14:32). The leaders in Jerusalem misunderstand yhwh’s deed, however, and they hurry off in search of refuge elsewhere (cf. 30:2). In light of God’s salvific deeds on

135 See KBL: ‘sich aufgeregt zeigen’; DCH: ‘give way, be dislodged’; HALAT: ‘weichen’. KBL and HALAT refer hereby to Driver 1931:253f. Based, among other things, on the Akkadian ašu ‘to stumble’, Driver translates: ‘shall not be agitated’, ‘shall not be moved’. Wildberger 1982:1067 argues that this translation strays too far from the Hebrew, while Oswalt 1986:514 and Beuken 2000:15 agree with Driver. Roberts 1987:36 similarly appeals to the Akkadian ašu, but relates it to the foundations on the basis of 1QS 8,8 and translates ‘a foundation which will not shake for the one who trusts’. Cf. Hartenstein 2004:499–505 who changes the vocalisation, ignores the syntactic agreement with Isa. 7:9 and translates as follows: ‘ein Fundament, das fest ist, nicht weicht es.’ To support his proposed translation, Hartenstein not only refers to 1QS 8,8, but also to a few Hittite and Mesopotamian iconographic and textual examples that demonstrate the symbolic significance attached to the founding of temple buildings in the Near Eastern world. Founding rituals stressed the idea of the building’s stability. It is not necessary, however, to follow the vocalisation and translation proposed by Hartenstein to admit that the said idea of stability does indeed play an important role in the stone metaphor of Isa. 28:16. 136 vwj hi. occurs only five or six times in the Old Testament (see Judg. 20:37; Ps. 55:9; Isa. 5:19; 28:16 and 60:22; Job 31:5 is uncertain). 137 The suggestion has been made that we read /l in 28:16 instead of alø: ‘the one who believes will hasten to this sure foundation’. Wildberger 1982:1067 mentions the name of Montgomery Hitchcock in this regard. In spite of the fact that vwj hi. is used in its absolute form, Tsevat 1973:591–592 considers the possibility of a causative translation: ‘wer vertraut, drängt nicht’, or in other words: he can wait. 138 Beyse 1977:821–822 observes that the verb vwj can also be used for inner movement with respect to human beings and presupposes that vwj in 28:16 functions as a designation of internal restlessness: “Die Haltung der Glaubende beschreibt Jes 28,16 ‘Der Glaubende wird nicht fliehen’, wobei hier wie bei Ps 55,9 weniger an eine wirkliche Flucht gedacht ist, sondern vwj die innere Unruhe bezeichnet.”

144

chapter four

Zion’s behalf, the prophet considered this behaviour reproachable and rooted in a lack of faith. It thus serves to underline the seriousness of the pending announcement of judgement.139 There is no adequate reason to conceive the words vyjiy: alø ˆymiaM } h' ' as a sort of inscription carved into the foundation stone. The monocolon with which verse 16 concludes does not draw attention to a possible inscription but rather to the implications of yhwh’s act of laying a stone in Zion. The emphasis is placed entirely on the reliability of God’s salvific acts with respect to Zion.140 4.2.3. Isa. 28:17a: The benchmarks of justice wq;l] fP;v]mi yTim]c'w“ 17a “Thus I will make justice the line, tl,q;=v]mil] hq;d;x]W and righteousness the plummet.” In light of the fact that the Zion text of verse 16 is often incorrectly understood as a promise of salvation with a view to the future, scholars have frequently taken the words of verse 17a to be a component of the said promise. Verse 17a does indeed follow seamlessly after verse 16, not only at the level of syntax (the consecutive perfect gives the verse the character of a continuation), but also because the statement in verse 17a is in the first person and it extends the use of building terminology. Even the 3 + 2 meter employed in verse 17a echoes the short cola out of which the Zion text of verse 16 is constructed.141 Everything would appear to suggest, therefore, that verse 17a should be read together with the Zion text of verse 16 as a single unit. It has become apparent from our exegesis in the meantime that the Zion text of 28:16 constitutes part of an announcement of judgement and not 139 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:201–202: “Loin d’atténuer la gravité de la faute des destinataires ou d’adoucir la menace, cette promesse ne fait que souligner l’une et renforcer l’autre. En effet, la faute des destinataires devient d’autant plus grave qu’ils refusent formellement les conditions du salut que Yahvé leur avait explicitement dictées et leur opposent leurs propres plans.” 140 Based on the use of the singular, Beuken 2000:50–51 considers it possible that the final clause in the present context should be associated with the prophet himself as a sort of encouragement following the mocking reaction of his opponents (28:9). Similar encouragement is found elsewhere (see 8:11–18). According to Beuken, the final redaction of the book of Isaiah is characterised by a tendency to present Isaiah to its readers as an example of obedience in faith. The final words of verse 16 are thus indirectly addressed to the readers of the book. 141 The prophet makes use of a bicolon in verse 17a with synonymous parallelism whereby the second colon lacks an equivalent for the verb form yTim]c'w.“ This style figure is familiar to us as ellipsis. Watson 1984:174–177 speaks of an ‘abc // b’c’ couplet’.

exegesis of individual pericopes

145

a promise of salvation. In light of the apparent unity between verse 16 and verse 17a, therefore, it would be strange to say the least if the latter were to contain just such a promise of salvation. At any rate, the syntactic cohesion between the two verses strongly suggests that we read verse 17a within the framework of an announcement of judgement. The place occupied by verse 17a within such a framework, however, is not the same as that occupied by the Zion text of verse 16, which we characterised as a salvation-historical retrospective moment. Verse 17a is unmistakably future oriented. This temporal transition does not come entirely out of the blue, however, since it has already been heralded by the fact that verse 16 ends with a monocolon, whereby the Zion text is, to a degree, structurally detached from what follows.142 In order to express this transition in the translation, therefore, verse 17a is presented as a concluding clause. The evident syntactic cohesion between verse 16 and verse 17a can be understood in the meantime as intended to underline the unity of God’s activities.143 The content of verse 17a confirms our suspicion that the passage should indeed be interpreted as an announcement of judgement. Reference is made to two instruments of measurement, namely wq' ‘(measuring) line’ and tl,q,v]mi ‘plummet’, which belong among the standard tools of the carpenter (cf. 44:13). Unlike wq', tl,q,v]mi only occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament in one other place (2 Kgs 21:13). On the surface, both wq' and tl,q,v]mi can be understood as neutral terms for tools that carry no specific positive or negative connotations (cf. 1 Kgs 7:23; 2 Chron. 4:2; Jer. 31:39; Ezek. 47:3). The building terminology employed in 28:16–17a is also to be found in Job 38:4–6, in which reference is made to the foundations of the earth, using not only the verb dsy ‘to found’ but also the expression Ht;N:Pi ˆb,a, ‘her cornerstone’. The use of wq' ‘a (measuring) line’ is likewise presupposed. Similarities with Job 38:4–6, however, should not lead to the conclusion that 28:17a is referring to the construction of a (new) building (cf. Zech. 1:16), since it would appear that wq' is repeatedly used as a metaphor in the context of judgement (2 Kgs 21:13; Isa. 34:11,17; Lam. 2:8).144 2 Kgs 21:13 is of particular importance in this regard because it represents the only other place in 142 For the function of the monocolon in Hebrew poetry see Watson 1984:168–172 and Fokkelman 2000:54. 143 Cf. Beuken 2000:52: “. . . the past founding act (v. 16) and the present establishment of a measuring line (v. 17a) can be seen as forming the one building activity of yhwh.” 144 Cf. Beyse 1989:1224.

146

chapter four

which wq' and tl,q,v]mi are used in parallel with one another, while the judgement context is comparable with that of 28:17a. In 2 Kgs 21:13, yhwh announces that He intends to employ the same measuring line in his judgement of Jerusalem as He once did with respect to Samaria and the house of Ahab: tyBe tl,qov]miAta,w“ ˆ/rm]vo wq; tae μIl'v;Wry“Al[' ytiyfin:w“ ba;j]a' (NRSV: “I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line for Samaria, and the plummet for the house of Ahab . . .” ).145 In contrast to 2 Kgs 21:13, the measuring line and plummet are further concretised in verse 17a. fP;v]mi and hq;d;x] are referred to as benchmarks of judgement. While fP;v]mi stands for legal order in general, the word hq;d;x] places the emphasis more specifically on the actual ] i in general. The combinabehaviour that would be expected from fP;vm tion of fP;v]mi and hq;d;x] is characteristic of the idiom of the prophet Isaiah.146 According to the prophecy of 1:21–26, it was God’s intention that Jerusalem be filled with fP;v]mi and hq;d;x,] but that He was forced to observe that the opposite was the case. The same disappointment is expressed in the Song of the Vineyard (5:1–7), which concludes with the familiar and unambiguous statement: hq;d;x]li jP;c]mi hNEhiw“ fP;v]mil] wq'y“w" hq;[;x] hNEhiw“ (NRSV: “He expected justice, but saw bloodshed; righteousness, but heard a cry.”). It could not have been considered other than threatening, ] i when yhwh states in verse 17a that it is precisely these two things, fP;vm ; ,] that would be used as measuring line and plummet by which and hq;dx his own people would be measured (cf. Amos 7:7–8).147 In spite of the fact that the building terminology employed in verse 17a is ascribed negative connotations in contrast to the Zion text of

145 It is striking that the Septuagint understood wq' to have stemmed from the verb hwq ‘to hope ( for)’ and translated tl,q,v]mi with the noun σταθμός ‘balance’, ‘weight’ (also:

‘stopping place’, ‘doorpost’; cf. τὸ μέτρον and τὸ στάθμιον in 2 Kgs 21:13). The words fP;v]mi and hq;d:x] are translated by the Septuagint as κρίσις ‘judgement’ and ἐλεημοσύνη ‘compassion’: καὶ θήσω κρίσιν εἰς ἐλπίδα ἡ δὲ ἐλεημοσύνη μου εἰς σταθμούς. In 1:27 : ] as ἐλεημοσύνη (cf. Deut. 6:25; 24:13; and 59:16 the Septuagint likewise translates hq;dx Ps. 23:5 = MT 24:5; 32:5 = MT 33:5; 102:6 = MT 103:6), although the translation δικαιοσύνη is also to be found in the book of Isaiah and the term ἐλεημοσύνη is the usual translation of the Hebrew term ds,j, (see Prov. 3:3; 15:27; 19:22; 20:28; 21:21; 31:28). The announcement of judgement in verse 17a is thus unmistakably transformed into an announcement of salvation: ‘and I will cause judgement to be for hope, and my compassion shall be for just measures.’ 146 For the combination of fP;v]mi and hq;d:x] see Johnson 1989:907–908. Von Rad II 19807:156 notes that these words have a central role to play in the preaching of Isaiah whom he calls ‘ein unerbittlicher Wächter und Sprecher des Gottesrechtes’. 147 Donner 1964:153 incorrectly understands fP;v]mi and hq;d:x] to be instruments in the service of the construction work of verse 16.

exegesis of individual pericopes

147

verse 16, it remains important that we have a clear picture of the cohesion between the two verses. In order to underline the seriousness of the judgement, the prophet offers a salvation-historical retrospective in verse 16, thus calling to mind yhwh’s salvific activity with respect to Zion. It is precisely this activity towards Zion, however, that has implications for the maintenance of justice. YHWH’s inhabitation of Mount Zion (8:18) is inseparably linked to the demand for justice and righteousness (5:16; cf. 1:27).148 Without making use of the terms fP;v]mi and hq;d;x,] the important Zion text of 14:32 would likewise appear to underline the relationship between God’s salvific activity on Zion’s behalf on the one hand, and the maintenance of justice on the other.149 It would appear implicit from the final words of verse 16 that the rulers of Jerusalem misunderstood yhwh’s deeds on behalf of Zion. In verse 17a, therefore, the conclusion is drawn that yhwh has the right to ‘measure’ his people on the basis of his former deeds of salvation. The instruments of his act of judgement are determined by his own deeds of salvation.150 The announcement of judgement thus flows immediately forth from the misunderstanding of God’s salvific deeds on behalf of Zion. By way of summary, therefore, we can state that the wq' and tl,q,v]mi referred to in verse 17a are not intended for a (new) building project, but function rather as instruments intended to take measure of the existing situation.151 The use of the metaphor of the measuring line should be understood against the background of the fact that the rulers of Jerusalem were expected to build further on the foundations established by yhwh, according to the same norms of justice and righteousness that are now being introduced as benchmarks of judgement.152 4.2.4. Isa. 28:17b–18: Actual announcement of judgement bz:k; hsej]m' dr;b; h[;y:w“ .Wpfov]yI μyIm' rt,sew“ tw<m;Ata, μk,t]yrIB] rP'k¨w“ μWq=t; alø l/av]Ata, μk,t]Wzj;w“

17b Then shall hail sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter; 18 then your covenant with death will be wiped out! and your agreement with Sheol will not stand;

148 The motif of salvific expectation associated with fP;v]mi and hq;d:x] enjoys a place of primary importance (see 9:6; 11:3–5; 16:5; 32:1,16; 33:5; 56:1). 149 Cf. Beuken 2000:49. 150 Cf. Petersen 1979:111. 151 See Fohrer 1962:60, Kaiser 19762:202, Clements 1980(B):231, Wildberger 1982:1077 and Schneider 1988:387. 152 Cf. 1 Pet. 3:10–15.

148

chapter four rbo[}y" yKi πfe/v f/v when the overwhelming scourge passes through, .sm;r“mil] /l μt,yyIh]wI you will be beaten down by it.

Having first established the benchmarks of judgement in verse 17a, the actual announcement of judgement is further concretised in verses 17b–18. The content of the announced judgement corresponds with the content of the accusation formulated in verse 15. A chiastic structure is evident in both passages. The sequence in verse 15 runs as follows: A tw<m;Ata, tyrIb] Wnt]r'K; B C Wnsej]m' bz:k; Wnm]c' yKi

// hz<jo Wnyci[; l/av]Aμ[iw“ Wnae/by“ alø [rbo[}y]" (rb'[); AyKi πfe/v [f/v] (fyvi) // Wnr“T;s]nI rq,V,b'W

The sequence in the announcement of judgement in verses 17b and 18 runs: C’ bz:k; hsej]m' dr;b; h[;y:w“ A’ tw<m;Ata, μk,t]yrIB] rP'kuw“ B’

// //

Wpfov]yI μyIm' rt,sew“ μWqt; alø l/av]Ata, μk,t]Wzj;w“ sm;r“mil] /l μt,yyIh]wI rbo[}y" yKi πfe/v f/v

The accusation in verse 15 and the announcement of judgement in verses 17b–18 thus mirror one another more or less.153 The chiastic structure is disrupted, however, by the fact that the expression relating to ‘the overwhelming scourge’ is removed from the central position in the announcement of judgement. Although Fullerton is of the opinion that the announcement of judgement would have been more eloquent had the chiastic structure been maintained, this is open to question.154 In our treatment of the accusation in verse 15, we were able to determine that the central bicolon contained the bragging statement of which the prophet is accusing his opponents: ‘When the overwhelming scourge passes through it will not come to us! ’ (B). In both the surrounding bicola of verse 15 (A and C), the prophet provides the background to the said boasting in his own, decidedly ironic terms. The fact that the bicolon (B’), which corresponds with the boasting statement, is no longer central but rather concludes the chiasm, has the effect of focusing attention on the judgement given in response to the boasting. The judgement is

Fey 1963:123 speaks of a ‘nahezu spiegelbildliche Gerichtsankündigung.’ Cf. Watson 1994:61: “The chiastic pattern (. . .) is evident as is its function: to express the reversal of existing conditions.” 154 Fullerton 1920:18. 153

exegesis of individual pericopes

149

devastating. The prophet exposes the naïve self-confidence of his opponents, confronting them with hard reality: the overwhelming scourge will beat them down. Given the incomplete chiasm, this segment of the announcement of judgement thus concludes with the inauspicious sm;r“mil]. In like fashion to the corresponding bicola in verse 15 (A and C), both bicola of verses 17b and 18a (C’ and A’) exhibit a chiastic structure. While the chiasm is complete in the first bicolon (C’: abc // c’b’a’), the second bicolon (A’), in line with the corresponding bicolon from verse 15 (A), can be understood as examples of ‘split-member chiasmus’ (a-bc // b’c’-a’).155 The chiastic structure of verses 17b and 18 results in the avoidance of a sequence of weqatal clauses (cf. v. 13b). The poetic character of the announcement of judgement is reinforced by the imagery employed by the prophet. He refers to dr;B; ‘hail’ and μyIm' ‘waters’ as the elements yhwh is going to use in order to carry out his judgement. Such imagery points unmistakably in the direction of Assyria (cf. 8:5–8) and is also determinative for the prophecy of judgement against Samaria/Ephraim in 28:2.156 In verse 15, Assyria’s imperialistic and expansionist character had already been indicated with the expression πfe/v [f/v](fyvi) ‘the overwhelming scourge’. The prophet consciously returns to this allusion to Assyria in verse 17b in his use of the verb πfv ‘to flow’. As a matter of fact, the rulers of Jerusalem must face the same misfortune as that encountered by the drunkards of Ephraim (28:2f ). The expression bz:k; hsej]m' ‘refuge of lies’ and the term rt,se ‘shelter’ (bicolon C’) echo the terminology employed in the accusation in verse 15 (bicolon C).157 It is now evident why the prophet was already able to characterise the refuge in verse 15 as bz:K; ‘lies’ and the shelter as rq,v, ‘falsehood ’. The rulers of Jerusalem are to emerge deceived from yhwh’s judgement, because the said refuge and shelter have no protection to offer in spite of exaggerated expectations.158

155 Bicolon A from verse 15 is characterised by the pattern ab-c // c’-a’b’. Cf. Exum 1982:127. See Watson 1984:203; 1994:337–338 on so-called ‘split-member chiasmus’. 156 Kaiser 19762:201 points out that here and elsewhere, hail represents an instrument of eschatological judgement. Cf. also 30:30 and 32:19. 157 Donner 1964:148 considers verse 17b to be an addition intended to allow all the elements from the accusation to return in the announcement of judgement. In his opinon, the storm images would have been out of place in the original proverb. See also Petersen 1979:112. 158 Verse 17b is rendered rather freely in the Septuagint: καὶ οἱ πεποιθότες μάτην

150

chapter four

The contrast between the word-pair fP;vm ] i and hq;dx; ] on the one hand and the word-pair bz:K; and rq,v, on the other, leads one to suspect that the prophet’s references to lies as a refuge and to deceit as a shelter are not only aimed at a lethal politics of coalition but also at the failure of justice as a whole.159 One can indeed argue that the use of fP;v]mi and hq;d;x] as the benchmarks of yhwh’s judgement introduces the motif of social justice—or in this instance the lack thereof—into the prophecy of judgement.160 Reference can also be made in this regard to the fact that the term rq,v, is particularly at home in the legal context and is frequently used to designate a sort of ‘breach of faith’.161 At the same time, however, the motif of social justice evident in the use of the word-pair bz:K; and rq,v, in 28:15,17 clearly does not enjoy a foreground position, since it is particularly apparent that the words hsej]m' and rt,se in verse 17b play the most important role in determining the primary focus of this prophecy of judgement, namely Jerusalem’s deadly alliance politics.162 It is clearer here that the term bz:K; in the combination bz:k; hsej]m' is intended as a further characterisation of the refuge than is the case in verse 15, in which the formulation employed remains more or less ambiguous.163 This makes sense when one considers the basic meaning of the word bz:K; which can be described as ‘untrustworthiness’ or ‘deceitfulness’. Rooted in this basic meaning, therefore, the term should not in the first instance be understood in the ethical sense but rather as a statement concerning the object in relation to which it is employed,164 in this case the chosen refuge to which a deceitful character ψεύδει ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ὑμᾶς καταιγίς (‘and you believe in vain in the lie that the storm wind will not reach you’). The lie is thus no longer seen as a characterisation of the place of refuge but related rather to the bragging of verse 15. The refuge and shelter are no longer mentioned, nor are the hail and the waters. The author of 1QIsaa likewise places the emphasis on the word ‘lie’ via the subtle interpolation of an extra m. 1QIsaa runs: bzk hsjmm drb h[yw (‘and the hail shall wash the lie out of the shelter’). Pulikottil 2001:112 considers this alteration to be one of the many interpretative emendations introduced into the text by the author of the Isaiah scroll. 159 Barthel 1997:320. 160 Cf. Beuken 2000:53: “It is here, therefore, that we meet the ethical message of the historical Isaiah expressed in words which were considered worthy of constituting a refrain throughout the book.” 161 See Seebass/Beyerle/Grünwaldt 1994:466–467. Klopfenstein 19792:1012 describes the original meaning of rqv as ‘Bruch eines vertraglich geregelten oder sonst selbstverständlich vorausgesetzten Treue- und Vertrauensverhältnisses’. 162 See Excursus 2. 163 In line with Duhm, Marti 1900:209 considers bz:K; to be a gloss from verse 15b. 164 See Mosis 1982:115–117: “Was kzb I primär meint, gehört zunächst nicht in den Bereich des verantwortlichen Tuns und somit nicht in den Bereich der Ethik, sondern dient zur Beschreibung dessen was ist, gehört also insofern in den Bereich einer ‘Ontologie’.”

exegesis of individual pericopes

151

is ascribed. The fact that the word rq,v, is not repeated in verse 17 is likewise striking in this regard.165 The lies and deceit are not going to be washed away by the hail and the water but rather the refuge of lies and the shelter. This serves to suggest that the motif of social justice, in as far as it has an echo in the chosen terminology, is not intended at this juncture to be read in the foreground. In our discussion of the accusation in verse 15 we noted that both the refuge/shelter and the covenant/agreement alluded to the protection the rulers in Jerusalem believed they had found in Egypt. In order to characterise the deceitfulness of such political manoeuvre, the prophet introduces a contradictio in terminis in his announcement of judgement in verse 17b, referring to a ‘refuge of lies’ and speaking anew in verse 18a of a ‘covenant with death’ and an ‘agreement with Sheol’.166 In this instance, both of the latter phrases function as subject of the clause. The prophet is convinced that judgement will not only shed light on the deceitful character of Jerusalem’s coalition partner (verse 17b), but also on that of Jerusalem’s coalition politics (verse 18a). By engaging in such politics, the rulers have in fact embraced death instead of protecting themselves against it and are now facing the disastrous consequences thereof (verse 18b). The precise meaning of the verb form rP'kuw“ in the context of verse 18a is not entirely clear.167 The form in question is derived from the verb rpk, the pu al of which means ‘to be reconciled’ (see, for example, Isa. 6:7; 22:14; 27:9). There is no consensus, however, on the etymology of this verb. The lexica, on the one hand, presuppose a possible association with the Arabic kafara ‘to cover’. Others are inclined to associate rpk with the Akkadian kapāru or kuppuru, basically meaning ‘to wipe away/purify’.168 In relation to 28:18, others have proposed ‘to be annulled ’ as a possible meaning for rpk.169 Given the fact that alternative texts 165 Procksch 1930(A):361 presumes that a word is missing from verse 17b, because he had expected a ‘Siebener’. He suggests that we read μk,r,t]si instead of the unclear rt,se. In line with several other scholars, Fullerton 1920:18 suggests we supplement rt,se with rq,v,. 166 The same translation problems arise with respect to μk,t]Wzj;w“ as with hz< jo in verse 15. The Septuagint translates in this instance with ἡ ἐλπὶς ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν ᾅδην. 167 GKG § 145o makes reference to the clause μk,t]yrIB] rP'kuw“ as a deviation from the rule that predicate and subject must agree in terms of number and gender. The verb remains in the initial position and remains at first undetermined. See also J-M § 150j. 168 Cf. Maass 19783:842–843 and Lang 1984:304–305. 169 See Driver 1933:34–38, KBL/HALAT. Wildberger 1982:1077 understands the semantic development along the following lines: the covenant is gradually muffled away = annulled, because no one wants to be reminded of it. Beuken 2000:53 suggests

152

chapter four

supporting such a usage are unavailable, however, some have given preference to emendation. Based on the Septuagint (μὴ καὶ ἀφέλῃ ὑμῶν τὴν διαθήκην) some suggest that we read rp'tuw“ ‘and it shall be broken’ (cf. 8:10 in which rp'tuw“ functions as a parallel of μWqy: aløw)“ .170 While arguments against such emendation point out its syntactic impossibility,171 the primary objection thereto is in fact a matter of content. Verse 18a is not referring to the breaking of a covenant (by one or other of the covenant partners, cf. 24:5; 33:8), but of its failure on account of external (divine) intervention. In order to understand the significance of rP'kwu “, it is important that we bear its relationship with verse 17b closely in mind. In the latter verse, the prophet announces that the refuge of lies is to be swept away by hail and that the waters are to overwhelm the shelter. Hail and water appeared to be a metaphor for Assyria. This metaphor continues to function when the verb rpk is employed with alø μWqt;.172 The violence that is to break loose when ‘the overwhelming scourge’ passes through will not only sweep away the refuge of lies and wipe out the shelter, but the same violence will also wipe out the covenant with death, and the agreement with Sheol will be unable to stand.173 The presupposed subject of the activity referred to by rP'kuw“ is thus not, in the first instance, yhwh (indirectly so, of course), but the hail and the waters referred to in verse 17b. This is supported by the fact that the metaphor of the waters, explicit in verse 17b and implicit in verse 18a, is made explicit once more in verse 18b. The verb πfv thus establishes the surrounding framework of verse 18a and provides an indication for our understanding of the verbs employed in the said bicolon. The announcement of judgement in verse 18 concludes with the devastating statement sm;r“mil] /l μt,yyIh]wI whereby the boasting of verse that we likewise take the basic meaning as our point of departure in 28:18: “It is (. . .) the basic meaning of the root which applies here: removing the tension between two partners—here the rulers of Jerusalem and yhwh who has laid its foundation stone — by removing the cause of the outrage.” 170 See, for example, Fullerton 1920:17, Rohland 1956:148, Kissane 19602:303 and Dietrich 1976:161. 171 Kaiser 19762:198. 172 The use of the formulation μWqt; alø in 28:18a is closely related to the use thereof in 7:7 and 8:10. In both these texts, reference is likewise made to the concoction of political plans that cannot be maintained when they are confronted with the plans of yhwh (cf. 14:24 and Prov. 19:21). Beuken 2000:53 points out that the prophet borrowed this theme from wisdom circles. 173 The verb h[y would appear to be a hapax. In line with Delitzsch (1889) and Duhm 19143:176, Wildberger 1982:1068 refers in this regard to the Arabic and Hebrew [y: that designates the shovel with which the altar was purified.

exegesis of individual pericopes

153

15 (Wnae/by“ alø) is completely turned on its head. There are no adequate reasons to emend sm;r“mil] as some have suggested.174 Although the verb smr ‘to trample’ seems less appropriate in the context of the metaphor of ‘the overwhelming scourge’, this was also in fact the case with respect to the verb rb[ ‘to pass through’. Furthermore, the verb smr is used in other instances to indicate the severity of God’s judgement (cf. 26:6; 28:3).175 The imagery surrounding ‘to trample’ might stem from the activities of the potter (cf. 41:25; Nah. 3:14) or from the treading of grapes (cf. 63:3), but may also be related to horses’ hoofs (Ezek. 26:11; cf. 2 Kgs 9:33) or indeed to trampling by human feet (2 Kgs 7:17,20). The same verb is employed in 28:3 as part of the description of the fall of Samaria. It would appear that Judah and Jerusalem respectively must undergo the same fate as Ephraim.176 Similarly, the construction hyh sm;r“mil], whereby sm;r“mi functions in fact as an infinitive,177 is employed elsewhere in the book of Isaiah to designate God’s judgement (5:5; 7:25; cf. Mi. 7:10). In 10:6, sm;r“mi even refers explicitly to Assyria as God’s instrument. 4.2.5. Isa. 28:19–21: Twofold conclusion to the announcement of judgement /rb][; yDemi 19 As often as it passes through, μk,t]a, jQ'yI it will take you; rbo[}y" rq,BoB' rq,Bob'AyKi yes, morning by morning it will pass through, hl;y“L;=b'W μ/YB' by day and by night; h[;w:z“Aqr' hy:h;w“ and it will be sheer terror .h[;Wmv] ˆybih; to understand the message. ['=reT;c]hime [X;M'h' rx'q;AyKi 20 For the bed is too short to stretch oneself on, .sNEK't]hiK] hr;x; hk;SeM'h'w“ and the covering too narrow to wrap oneself in. hw:hy“ μWqy: μyxir;P]Arh'k] yKi 21 For YHWH will rise up as on Mount Perazim, z=G:r“yI ˆ/[b]gIB] qm,[eK] He will rage as in the valley of Gibeon, Whce[}m' t/c[}l' to do his deed— Whce[}m' rz: strange is his deed! /td;bO[} dbo[}l'w“ and to work his work— ./td;bO[} hY:rIk]n: alien is his work!

174 Duhm 19143:176 suggests we read rs;Wml] ‘to discipline/chastise’ (cf. 30:32). The said emendation, however, had already been rejected as unnecessary by Marti 1900:209. 175 The verb smr is primarily employed in the context of prophetic announcements of judgement; see Waschke 1993:533. 176 Cf. Exum 1982:127 and Beuken 2000:54. 177 See Waschke 1993:533. According to KBL/HALAT, sm;r“mi is a deverbative noun meaning ‘trampled pasture’ (cf. 7:25 and Ezek. 34:19). See also DCH.

154

chapter four

Given the fact that verse 18 reaches a climax in the final word sm;r“mil] and all the elements from the accusation contained in the announcement of judgement have been recapitulated, we would appear to have reached the appropriate place for the prophet to draw his prophecy of judgement to a conclusion. A significant number of exegetes are of the opinion that Isaiah did indeed do so and that verses 19–22 are due to a later addition stemming from more than one hand. When compared with the clause construction in verses 14–18, it is striking that verses 19–21 make frequent use of the infinitive construct (six in total). Nevertheless, the clause type characteristic of the preceding verses is also employed. Whatever the case, it is clear that the degree of cohesion in terms of content that was so characteristic of verses 14–18 is also present in verses 19–21. The exhortation of verse 22 will require separate treatment. Verse 19a can be understood as the first conclusion to the preceding announcement of judgement that, in light of the repeated use of the verb rb[, would appear to be closely associated with verse 18. The association is in fact already established by way of preparation in verse 18, where the clause concerning ‘the overwhelming scourge’ (bicolon B’) has been located at the end of the announcement of judgement and not in the middle thereof. As a result, the chiastic relationship between the accusation in verse 15 and verses 17b–18 is disrupted at an important point. In addition to the fact that this places all the emphasis on the said bicolon, it also has the effect that verse 19a can easily take up the verb rb[ and provide further elaboration on the activity it represents. Scholars have raised questions, however, as to whether verse 19a’s extension of the preceding announcement of judgement can still be considered poetry. If this is not the case, then the idea of a later interpolation or a reader’s gloss becomes all the more probable.178 In an ancient language such as biblical Hebrew, however, the establishment of a clear distinction between prose and poetry is far from simple. How one distinguishes the one from the other depends on the presence of a number of characteristically poetic style features.179 It makes sense Cf. Wildberger 1982:1070. Alonso Schökel 1988:19 insists that there is no watertight division to be established in Hebrew between poetry and prose: “Just as we cannot distinguish strictly between prose vocabulary and poetic vocabulary, neither can we distinguish techniques which are exclusively poetic.” “We must speak rather of frequency, predominance, density, intensity.” De Moor/Watson 1993:xiii agree and propose the following criteria as useful in distinguishing poetry from prose (xiv): “acrostic pattern, comparison with passages 178 179

exegesis of individual pericopes

155

at this juncture, therefore, to examine verse 19a to determine whether it exhibits the style characteristics that would allow us to determine whether the passage in question is to be qualified as poetry. If we take the most important Masoretic distinctive accents as our point of departure, then it would appear at first sight that verse 19a consists of two parallel cola of unequal length (4 + 5 beats). The long clause hl;y“L;b'W μ/YB' rbo[}y" rq,BoB' rq,Bob'AyKi, however, is easily identifiable as a bicolon with 3 + 2 beats, whereby the expressions rq,BoB' rq,BoB' ‘morning after morning’ and hl;y“L;b'W μ/YB' ‘by day and by night’ are unmistakably intended as parallels.180 The absence of a parallel for the verb form rbo[}y" in the second half of the bicolon leaves the parallelism incomplete. This phenomenon is referred to as ‘verb-gapping’ and is known to be one of the most common forms of ellipsis (cf. 28:17a). The recognition of this style feature represents an important argument in qualifying the passage in question in verse 19a as poetry.181 If we understand the clause hl;y“L;b'W μ/YB' rbo[}y" rq,BoB' rq,Bob'AyKi to be a bicolon with 3 + 2 beats, then we are obliged to ascribe a demarcative function to the accent Tifchā [8]. The question then arises whether the same can be said of the less important distinctive accents Paštā [10] and Tifchā [8] employed at the beginning of verse 19a and in verse 19b. It would appear to be acceptable at the present juncture to presuppose evidence of short cola as before. While it would be possible to construe verse 19a as a tricolon, the emphatic yKi is more commonly found at the beginning of a bicolon. The poetic structure of verse 19 can thus be best understood as consisting of three bicola (2 + 2, 3 + 2 and 2 + 2 beats respectively). The first bicolon establishes the link in verse, denseness of corresponding features, lineation or stichometry, metre or rather rhythm, repetition.” The most characteristic criteria are “parallelism, ellipsis, forms of chiasmus, vertical grammar, overall analysis of structure.” Explicit indications with respect to the structure of a text are likewise of importance in this regard. De Moor and Watson also include the Masoretic distinctive accents, in the conviction that they hark back to a pre-Masoretic tradition (xv). See in this regard Watson 1984:44–62; 1994:27, 31–44. 180 Procksch 1930(A):362 is completely without justification in suggesting that we scrap hl;y“L;b'W μwOYB' because it does not fit well with the distributive rq,BoB' rq,BoB'. Driver 1968:61 likewise suggests that a gloss had been made in order to avoid the misunderstanding that only the morning would bring disaster. It is conceivable, however, that the expression rq,BoB' rq,BoB', which occurs thirteen times in the Old Testament, acquires the meaning ‘day after day’ in a poetic context, just as rq,Bo can be employed in combination with hl;y“l' as pars pro toto for the entire day. Cf. Barth 1973:751. 181 In the context of determining the poetic character of a particular passage, Watson 1984:48 maintains that the use of ellipsis “is a powerful test and would outweigh any other criterion . . .”

156

chapter four

with the preceding verse 18 with the help of the verb rb[. The goal of the second bicolon is to reinforce the statement made in the first. The continued use of the verb rb[ functions once again as a link with the preceding bicolon, while the parallel expressions rq,BoB' rq,BoB' ‘morning after morning’ and hl;y“L;b'W μ/YB' ‘by day and by night ’ serve as a concretisation of the conjunction yDemi ‘as often as’.182 Wildberger is of the opinion that verse 19a exhibits a weakening of the announcement of judgement made in verse 18. He presupposes that a reader had wanted to emphasise the point that the judgement announced by Isaiah for his own time was repeatable in every day and age.183 It is more probable, however, that verse 19a was intended to emphasise the impending judgement rather than to enfeeble it, because it underlines the fact that it is inescapable. The boasting of the rulers of Jerusalem consisted in the claim that the ‘the overwhelming scourge’ would not touch them as it passed through (verse 15). The conclusion to verse 18 clearly counters this claim, whereafter verse 19a underlines the fact that the painful encounter will not be a one-off experience. Each time Assyria passes through, they will not escape its destructive force. In order to emphasise the unavoidability of the scourge, the expression ‘as often as’ is further reinforced with the expressions ‘morning after morning’ and ‘by day and by night ’.184 It is possible that the reference at this juncture to a repeated confrontation with Assyria represents a later explanatory intervention.185 Given the fact that such an explanation can neither be confirmed nor excluded, and in light of the explicit association between both bicola of verse 19a and the end of verse 18, I am inclined to argue that verse 19a ought to be understood as an original and integrative constituent part of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22.186 The statement made in verse 19a brings the preceding announcement of judgement to an initial and provisional conclusion. Having reached this initial and provisional conclusion to the announcement of judgement, the words of verse 19b predict even further disaster: 182 yD' means ‘what is enough/necessary for’. yDemi means ‘with a view to the need’. As a conjunctivum with an infinitive, it means ‘as often as . . .’ (see, for example, 2 Kgs 4:8). 183 Wildberger 1982:1070. See also Clements 1980(B):231f. 184 This explains my translation of the originally deictic particle yKi with the emphatic ‘yes’ and not with the explanatory ‘for’. Oswalt 1986:514 is of the opinion that this verse fits well with Assyrian military procedure: several campaigns in the same territory. 185 Beuken 2000:54 presumes that the formulation of verse 19 implies an extension of its addressees to include the readers of the book of Isaiah up to and including the present day. The conflict between the prophet and the rulers of Jerusalem thus acquires an exemplary character. 186 Cf. Graffy 1984:25.

exegesis of individual pericopes

157

h[;Wmv] ˆybih; h[;w:z“Aqr' hy:h;w“ ‘and it will be sheer terror to understand the message’.

Verse 19b is a bicolon that is linked as summarising conclusion to that which precedes it on the one hand while serving on the other as an introduction to a new passage constituted by verses 20 and 21. Verses 20 and 21 function together as a second conclusion to the announcement of judgement in the present composition of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22. Verses 20 and 21 are linked to verse 19b by way of the particle yKi. The bicolon of verse 19b is immediately striking on account of the unusual sequence whereby the subject does not follow directly after the verb but is preceded rather by the predicate. This serves to place the emphasis firmly on the words h[;w:z“Aqr' ‘sheer terror’. The fact that the word h[;w:z“ is found almost exclusively in the book of Jeremiah, albeit in every instance as Ketib h[;w:z“li with Qere hw:[}z"l] ‘as a horror’, is frequently employed as one of the reasons supporting the hypothesis that verse 19b is a later expansion of the text.187 Moreover, the words h[;Wm]v] ˆybih; would appear to hark back to an earlier passage in Isaiah 28, namely in verse 9 (h[;Wmv] ˆybiy: ymiAta,w)“ , while the emphasis in verse 19b on the terror to be experienced at the understanding of the message exhibits a content related association with the motif of history as teacher as is found in later apocalyptic literature.188 In spite of the elements of agreement with 28:9, however, the context of prophetic judgement found here in 28:14–22 suggests that we would be better advised to associate h[;Wmv] in verse 19b in the first instance with the appeal W[m]vi in verse 14. The prophet calls his audience to listen to a message and once he has delivered it he observes its terrifying effects. In the present context of 28:14–22, h[;Wmv] is to be associated with the preceding announcement of judgement,189 the understanding of which will be a source of terror. In line with the customary syntactic sequence, some exegetes suggest that we read h[;w:z“Aqr' as subject of the sentence instead of h[;Wmv] ˆybih;. 187 Cf. Jer. 15:4; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17; 2 Chron. 29:8. Cf. hw:[}z"l] in Deut. 28:25 and Ezek. 23:46. 188 See, for example, Clements 1980(B):232 and Beuken 2000:55. 189 Wildberger 1982:1078 suggests the report of an uninterrupted flood of enemy forces. According to Melugin 1974:301–311, h[;Wmv] refers to the message of 28:16–17a. Its intention is ironic, since one only understands the said message at the moment one is swept away. Eichrodt 1967:135 relates what is heard to the revelation received in visionary form. According to Clements 1980(B):232, h[;Wmv] refers to the prophetic message as a whole, which is explained at this juncture as an apocalyptic unfolding of God’s plan. Fohrer 1962:60–61 speaks in broad terms about hearing the spoken voice of revelation, which, in the context of judgement, can no longer be misunderstood.

158

chapter four

The text then no longer implies that the understanding of the message will be sheer terror but that the terror of the judgement itself will make an essential contribution to the understanding of the message according to the adage ‘those who refuse to listen will feel the consequences’.190 By analogy with 28:9, h[;Wmv] ˆybih; in verse 19b can thus also be translated as a causative ‘cause to/make understand ’ instead of the transitive ‘understand’.191 While there is much to be said for making the points of agreement with 28:9 visible in the translation of verse 19b, verses 20 and 21, which are linked to verse 19b by way of the particle yKi, are best understood as an elaboration of h[;w:z“Aqr'. This is most clearly expressed when h[;w:z“Aqr' is read as a predicate and verse 19b is translated ‘sheer terror shall be the understanding of this message’. The fact that the understanding of the announcement of judgement is designated as sheer terror and not so much the announcement itself probably goes hand in hand with the revelatory insight that none other than yhwh is at work behind Assyria’s military activities (cf. verse 21).192 In order to reinforce the statement made in verse 19b, namely that the understanding of the message will bring sheer terror, two additional explanations follow in verses 20 and 21, both bound to the terrifying announcement in the preceding verse with the particle yKi. The first explanation stands out on account of the fact that it is formulated as a qatal clause, most likely because it is a saying or proverb. The second explanation is adjoined to verse 19 via two yiqtôl formulations and takes the form of a comparison. The first reinforcing explanation takes the form of a saying or pro-

190 Cf. Procksch 1930(A):362: “und eitel Graus lehrt Offenbarung verstehen” and Schreiner 1963:169: “Erst Schrecken lehrt Offenbarung verstehen.” Luther also understands h[;w:z“Aqr" as the subject: “Denn allein die Anfechtung lehrt aufs Wort merken.” According to Möller 1984:272–274, Luther’s interpretation here is in line with the Vulgate. Möller is inclined to follow Luther’s translation because h[;Wmv] in both verse 9 and verse 19 can thereby be associated with Isaiah’s message (see also Fullerton 1920:17). The entire chapter is saturated with the idea that God leads his people to inner reflection and knowledge of salvation via judgement. 191 Beuken 2000:55 offers a translation that attempts to expose the relationship with verse 9 without making h[;w:z“Aqr" into the subject: “It will be sheer terror to be made to understand the message.” Beuken understands the scourge of verse 18 to be the subject of ‘to be made to understand’. 192 The Septuagint translates verse 19b with ἔσται ἐλπὶς πονηρά μάθετε ἀκούειν, thereby exhibiting its preference for the term ἐλπὶς once again: ‘there shall be an evil hope’. The words μάθετε ἀκούειν possibly function as a new sentence: ‘learn to listen’.

exegesis of individual pericopes

159

verb, the content of which is taken from day to day life.193 Understanding the message will be sheer terror because the disappearance of the refuge of lies and the collapse of the covenant with death implies that no level of protection against the might of Assyria remains. As the saying explains, every means employed to escape will turn out to be inadequate: ‘the bed is too short to stretch oneself on, and the covering too narrow to wrap oneself in’.194 Given that this adage from verse 20 leaves the impression of having been borrowed from the wisdom tradition, and bearing in mind that the prophet Isaiah was decidedly familiar with the said tradition, there is no reason to doubt the authorship of the verse in question. In terms of both structure and content, moreover, the verse is closely related to that which precedes it. The presence of assonance based on the repetition of ‘a’ sounds in verses 19b–20 further reinforces the link between them. The location of the assonant ‘a’ sound in the final syllable of several words in these verses also has a rhyming effect.195 Verse 20 is structured as a bicolon with 3 + 3 beats. The poetic content of the verse is augmented by the use of a form of chiasm (ab-c // b’a’-c’) on the one hand, and the employment of relatively uncommon words on the other. While the verb IIrxq ‘to be (too) short’ is reasonably common (see, for example, 37:27; 50:2; 59:1),196 the terms used in the parallel colon—[X;M'h' ‘bed ’ and hk;SeM'h' ‘covering/ blanket’—occur only rarely if ever in this sense.197 Likewise, both the

193 Irwin 1977:34 suggests ‘the motif of the bed in the underworld’ (cf. Job 17:13), but this seems a little far-fetched given the context of verse 20. 194 Once again the Septuagint offers a significantly free ‘translation’: στενοχωρούμενοι οὐ δυνάμεθα μάχεσθαι αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀσθενοῦμεν τοῦ ἡμᾶς συναχθῆναι (‘Cornered, we are unable to fight and we are even too weak to rally ourselves.’). The Greek text would appear to have understood verse 20 as a reaction on the part of Isaiah’s opponents. 195 For further explanation of assonance as a style figure and its cohesive function see Watson 1984:222–225. With regard to rhyme, Watson 1984:229 notes: “There is some overlap with both repetition and assonance, and in Semitic particularly it is sometimes difficult to make sharp distinctions.” 196 See Marböck 1993:112–117. 197 [X;m' ‘bed’ is a hapax (cf. Qoh. 10:20 where BHS proposes Ú[}X;m'B)] , while IIhk;Sem'; in the sense of ‘blanket’ is only found elsewhere in 25:7. The interpretation of Ëson“li hk;Sem' in 30:1 is uncertain. Scholars are inclined for the most part to opt for ‘to pour out a libation’ as a synonym for ‘to establish a covenant’ (see Schoors 1973:178, Kaiser 1976:224, Wildberger 1982:1147–1148, Clements 1980(B):243–244), but Snijders 1969:297 favours taking IIhk;Sem' ‘blanket’ as the point of departure and translates the expression hk;Sem' Ëson“li with ‘to weave a refuge’. He thus understands the blanket that is too small in 28:20 to be Egypt. It is indeed surprising that hk;Sem' also functions here in the context of establishing a covenant and that Ihk;Sem' is not found elsewhere in the sense of ‘libation’ (where one would normally expect Ës,n<).

160

chapter four

hithpa el infinitives—x"reT;c]hi ‘to stretch oneself ’ (cf. Lev. 21:18; 22:23) and sNEKt]hi ‘to wrap oneself’—occur only here.198 Verse 21 follows the adage in verse 20 with a second additional reinforcement of the statement found in verse 19b concerning the terrifying character of the judgment announced in the preceding verses. In this instance, the verse takes the form of a comparison whereby the work of yhwh is spoken of in typically Isaianic fashion.199 While the said comparison would seamlessly follow on from verse 19b without the intervening saying in verse 20, each of the verses nevertheless establishes its own unique accent in reinforcing the expected terror. The accent in verse 20 revolves around the notion of protection, which is ultimately insufficient to fend off the impending threat. The accent in verse 21 focuses on the threat as such, against which no protection is possible because its source is unexpected to say the least. While the saying of verse 20 continues to hark back to the threatening advance of the Assyrian forces, ‘the overwhelming scourge’ against which no adequate protection is possible, the comparison in verse 21 refers explicitly to yhwh as the one whose hand is at work in the approaching judgement. It is this insight in particular that transforms the understanding of the announcement of judgement into sheer terror. It is in fact yhwh himself who is at work when the overwhelming scourge sweeps away everything in its path. In similar fashion to the adage of verse 20, the comparison in verse 21 exhibits a clear poetic structure and there is no convincing reason to doubt its authenticity. Verse 21 begins with a parallel bicolon—with ellipsis of the subject—following the pattern abc // a’b’: hw:hy“ μWqy: μyxir;P]Arh'k] yKi For YHWH will rise up as on Mount Perazim; zG:r“yI ˆ/[b]gIB] qm,[eK] He will rage as in the valley of Gibeon, The second half of verse 21 consists of two perfectly parallel bicola. The object is repeated in the second segment of each bicolon and further qualified, whereby the predicate precedes the substantive in both instances for the sake of emphasis:200 198 It is striking that the first infinitive takes the preposition ˆmi while the second takes the preposition Ki. If one is intent on restoring the parallelism one ought then to follow the suggestion offered by BHK and read sNEK't]him.e This is unnecessary, however, since the interchange of prepositions occurs elsewhere in the chapter (cf. 28:6 and 28:15a) and it has no effect on the translation. For the use of ˆmi in a comparison meaning ‘to . . .’, see GKG § 133c. 1QIsaa reads snkthb and is supported by Donner 1964:149, Wildberger 1982:1068 and Oswalt 1986:515. 199 Cf. 5:12,19; 10:12; 19:25 and 29:23. 200 Cf. GKG § 132b.

exegesis of individual pericopes Whce[}m' t/c[}l' Whce[}m' rz: /td;bo[} dbo[}l'w“ ./td;bo[} hY:rIk]n:

161

to do his deed— strange is his deed; and to work his work — alien is his work.

Both parallel bicola together provide the second conclusion to the announcement of judgement with a shocking climax. The comparison with which verse 21 begins is twofold in character. With the help of the verb μwq ‘to rise up’201 and the verb zgr ‘to rage’, the latter being employed for the most part in poetical contexts, the author announces a new intervention on the part of yhwh.202 The said new intervention will be comparable with two of yhwh’s previous interventions. The first part of the comparison calls to mind an event that took place on Mount Perazim; the second an event that took place in the valley near Gibeon.203 Mount Perazim is close to Jerusalem and the reference alludes to David’s victory against the Philistines in the same location (2 Sam. 5:17–25 // 1 Chron. 14:8–17).204 David explicitly ascribed his victory on this occasion to yhwh’s intervention, comparing the latter to a flood of water with a wordplay based on the name Perazim. A similar flood motif is also evident in 28:21 (cf. 28:17b–18). The allusion to an intervention on the part of yhwh in the valley of Gibeon is more difficult to establish, however. Some exegetes relate it to the battle against the five kings of the Amorites at Gibeon mentioned in Joshua 10, whereby the victory is similarly ascribed directly to yhwh ( Jos. 10:10–14).205 The hailstone motif ( Jos. 10:11) exhibits a degree of kinship with the way in which judgement is announced in 28:17. It remains unlikely, however, that verse 21 is alluding to the days of Joshua in addition to and even subsequent to the allusion to the time of David. It would seem more obvious to seek an association between the reference made in the first part of the comparison—David’s conflict 201 Cf. 2:19,21; 14:22; 31:2; 33:10. See Amsler 1979 3 :639 and Gamberoni 1989:1268–1271. 202 When the verb zgr is employed with God as subject (8x), it is always related to the revelation of his power. See Vanoni 1993:330. 203 While the expected preposition B] is lacking in both instances, this is not particularly unusual after the preposition K]; see J-M § 133h and GKG § 188t. 1QIsaa drops the comparative particle K] and reads rhb and qm[b. 204 The Septuagint has translated the name μyxirP : A] rh' as ὄρος ἀσεβῶν ‘mountain of the godless’. It is possible that the Greek translator had the word ≈yrIP; ‘tyrant’ in mind. 205 See Wildberger 1963:91–92, Kaiser 19762:203, Petersen 1979:113, Clements 1980(B):232, Exum 1982:128, Oswalt 1986:520, Schneider 1988:390 and Brueggemann 1998:227.

162

chapter four

with the Philistines—and the reference here to Gibeon.206 As a matter of fact, David’s conflict with the Philistines consisted of a sequence of two confrontations. In 2 Sam. 5:25, it is stated after the second confrontation that David struck down the Philistines ‘from Geba all the way to Gezer’. The Septuagint translates Geba in this instance as Γαβαων ‘Gibeon’, while the Masoretic text likewise speaks of ˆ/[b]gI ‘Gibeon’ instead of Geba in the parallel text in 1 Chron. 14:16.207 It is likely, therefore, that the prophet was alluding in verse 21a to these events, which were presumably familiar to his audience in Jerusalem. Given that David’s conflict with the Philistines took place immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem, the reference in question also exhibits historical proximity to verse 16 in which reference is made to the establishment of a stone in Zion. The allusion to events from the time of David ascribed by the tradition to the intervention of yhwh is intended to shock its present addressees. Yhwh’s intervention in the time of David was on the side of his people, on their behalf. The prophecy of judgement contained in 28:14–22, however, implies that yhwh’s imminent intervention is to be directed against his people.208 In typically Isaianic ' style, verse 21b describes the said intervention as yhwh’s hc,[}m209 210 and hd; b o [ }, which it then goes on to qualify as rz: ‘strange’ and hY:rIk]n: ‘alien’.211 Such an intervention against his own people stands in 206 Marti 1900:209, Ziegler 1948:86, Fohrer 1962:61, Dietrich 1976:183, Wildberger 1982:1078. 207 Based on the connection with the designation Gibeon in 1 Chron. 14:16, Kilian 1994:163 favours a late dating for verse 21a, maintaining that even the painful experience of 587, when yhwh sided with the Babylonians, ought to be presupposed. 208 Cf. Vanoni 1993:330: “die Anknüpfung an 2 Sam. 5 weist auf einen pervertierten JHWH-Krieg [rgz qal].” 209 See Wildberger 1963:87–89, 94ff for Isaiah’s use of hc,[m } ,' l['Po and hxexe (see 28:29) for yhwh’s engagement in history: “es geht nicht um einzelne Werke, die Jahwe in der Geschichte tut, sondern um das eine Walten Gottes, das sie durchgehend bestimmt. So darf man den Satz wagen: Die Geschichte ist das Werk des einen Jahwe der Heere, der auf dem Zion thront und sie vollzieht sich nach dem Plan, der von ihm beschlossen ist.” (89) Cf. Von Rad 1966:290–298, Vollmer 19792:367–369 and Ringgren 1989:429–430. 210 Cf. Westermann 19792:200: “Der uns geläufige Begriff des Wirkens und des Werkens Gottes ist hier, soweit wir sehen, zum erstenmal konzipiert.” 211 The Septuagint translates verse 21b with μετὰ θυμοῦ ποιήσει τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

πικρίας ἔργον ὁ δὲ θυμὸς αὐτοῦ ἀλλοτρίως χρήσεται καὶ ἡ πικρία αὐτοῦ ἀλλοτρία

(‘In wrath He shall do his deeds, a work of bitterness, and his wrath shall act strangely and his bitterness shall be strange.’). The Septuagint already makes reference to ὁ θυμὸς κυρίου ‘the wrath of the Lord’ in 28:2. Cf. 28:28: οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐγὼ ὑμῖν ὀργισθήσομαι οὐδὲ φωνὴ τῆς πικρίας μου καταπατήσει ὑμᾶς (‘for I shall not be wrathful towards you for ever, nor shall the voice of my bitterness trample you.’).

exegesis of individual pericopes

163

sharp contrast to yhwh’s familiar deeds that were recalled in the salvation-historical retrospective of verse 16. Indeed, in light of yhwh’s past salvific activity on behalf of Zion, the present condemnation of Jerusalem can only be understood as ‘strange’ and ‘alien’.212 The shocking dimension of these qualifications becomes clear if one bears in mind that yhwh’s deeds normally reveal who He is.213 4.2.6. Isa. 28:22: Exhortation Wxx;/lt]TiAla' hT;['w“ μ=k,yres]/m Wqz“j]y
22 Now therefore do not be such boasters, or your bonds will be made stronger; for I have heard a decree of destruction from the Lord YHWH Zebaot upon the whole land.

While the announcement of judgement has reached a conclusion in verses 19–21, an explicit exhortation still follows in the present composition of the prophecy of judgement comprising 28:14–22. Given the fact that the presence of an exhortation at the end of an announcement of judgement is surprising, many an exegete has come to the conclusion that verse 22 should not be counted as part of the original prophecy.214 While the phenomenon of an exhortatory appeal at the end of a prophecy of judgement may be unusual, it is not as such unique (cf., for example, Jer. 29:20). Moreover, there is a growing insight among biblical scholars that the prophets were more creative in their employment of particular genres than certain exegetes are willing to admit. The originality of the first half of verse 22a—a bicolon—is supported by clear terminological agreements with the preceding prophecy of judgement. The imperative Wxx;/lt]TiAla' harks back creatively to the adressation ˆ/xl; yven“a' ‘boasters’ in the imperative of verse 14. In order to make this connection clear, the appeal Wxx;/lt]TiAla' is best translated as ‘do not be such boasters’.215 212 According to Beuken 2000:57, the foundation for this qualification was already established in the Song of the Vineyard (5:1–7). Based on the fact that the word rz: is frequently used to refer to the enemy or the aggressor, Snijders 1977:560 remarks: “jhwh wird sich nicht benehmen wie ein Partner, sondern wie ein Feind, z.b. ein Assyrer oder Edomiter; die Folgen sind für die Gemeinschaft vernichtend.” The term yrikn] : is likewise used for another people, although it would appear to enjoy figurative significance in 28:21 and Jer. 2:21 (cf. Martin-Achard 19792:67–68; Lang 1986:456–460). 213 Cf. Vollmer 19792:367: “Wer Jahwe ist, erweist sich in seinem ‘śh. Sein Tun ist Explication seines Namens.” 214 Cf. Wildberger 1982:1071. 215 For the translation ‘boasters’ instead of ‘scoffers’ see the exegesis of verse 14. The

164

chapter four

In terms of content, it remains surprising that the exhortation of verse 22a appears to leave open the possibility of a change of heart even though following an emphatic statement in which judgement is proclaimed as irreversible. A number of exegetes are inclined, therefore, to consider the link with the preceding text as artificial.216 Much depends, however, on one’s interpretation of the term μk,yres]/m ‘your bonds’. The mention of bonds or tethers usually alludes to a situation of imprisonment or some similar limitation of personal freedom.217 In the context of the present prophecy of judgement, μk,yres]/m can be understood as a reference to the threat that emanates from Assyria, a threat that must likewise have been felt by Jerusalem as a whole.218 In spite of the knowledge that ‘the overwhelming scourge’ was surely to pass through, the rulers of Jerusalem were still of the opinion that they could maintain their freedom and avoid subjection to Assyrian constraints.219 The prophet’s conviction that they are wrong in this regard is apparent from the pointedness with which he exposed their boastfulness in the preceding verses. The content of verse 22a is thus appropriate in this regard. While verse 22a has the character of an exhortation and presupposes the possibility of a change of heart, this need not be seen as a weakening of the preceding message of judgement. It is possible to make an announcement of irreversible judgement without by definition being required to exclude the possibility of a change of heart.220 The prophet wants to warn his audience that the rulers of Jerusalem might become even more indurate and by their boasting make the judgement even worse. The exhortation in verse 22a is reinforced in verse 22b with a reference to the decree of destruction that yhwh has decided to enforce. The reference in question would appear to have been borrowed to a reflexive (reduplicative) verbal root usually has an intensive significance, but it can also be understood in the sense of reciprocity: ‘do not be such boasters to one another’. For hithpa el and hithpolel see GKG § 54 and § 72m; J-M § 53 and § 80h. The Septuagint translates with ὑμεῖς μὴ εὐφρανθείητε ‘do not rejoice’ (cf. 14:29 and LXX 28:26 εὐφρανθήσῃ). 216 See § 3.4. 217 See Ps. 116:16 and Isa. 52:2; cf. the use of the feminine equivalent form t/rs]/m in Ps. 2:3; 107:14; Jer. 2:20; 5:5; 27:2; 30:8; Nah. 1:13. 218 Irwin’s suggestion that the tethers refer to the covenant with death and that we should understand verse 22a as irony seems a little contrived. See Irwin 1977:37; see also Exum 1982:128 and Watson 1984:311. 219 For Wqz“j]y< as a comparative see J-M § 141gN. The root qzj is also employed in 28:2 with respect to the power of Assyria. 220 Cf. Beuken 2000:58.

exegesis of individual pericopes

165

significant degree from the text of Isa. 10:23 (hwIhy“ yn:doa} hx;=r;j‘n<w“ hl;k; yKi ≈r,a;h;AlK; br,q,B] hc,[o t/ab;x]; NRSV: “For the Lord GOD of hosts will make a

full end, as decreed, in all the earth.”) and ought therefore to be considered a potentially later interpolation.221 In contrast to the preceding verses, verse 22b leaves the impression of being more prose than poetry. While the unusual syntax whereby hx;r;j‘n<w“ hl;K; and ≈r,a;h;AlK;Al[' are separated from one another by t/ab;x] hwIhy“ yn:doa} taeme yTi[]m'v; (cf. 21:10) gives the verse half something of a poetic tint, this may also be inspired by the sequence of terms employed in 10:23. Based on the syntax, it is possible to consider verse 22b as a tricolon.222 The only semantic connection with the preceding verses is formed by the verb [mv ‘to hear’, which is also employed in the appeal of verse 14 (W[m]v)i and the statement of verse 19b (h[;Wmv]). The expression hx;rj; n‘ w< “ hl;K; ‘a decree of destruction’ can be understood as a hendiadys in the sense of ‘an unavoidable destruction’.223 The expression in question is even emphasised by the fact that it precedes the verb form yTi[]m'v.; A variety of exegetes are of the opinion that verse 22b should be understood in an eschatological-apocalyptic sense.224 The use of the ; n‘ w< “ hl;K; (Dan. 9:27; cf. Dan. 9:26 and 11:36) may indeed expression hx;rj point in this direction, although an originally Isaianic construction cannot be excluded from the outset (cf. the connection between 10:22 ; A; lK;Al[' ‘over and 10:23).225 The scope of the impending devastation ≈r,ah all the earth’ can also be understood as an apocalyptic feature. In the present context of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, however, the expression ≈r,a;h;AlK;Al[' ought best to be translated as ‘upon the whole ; A; lK; elsewhere in the book land’. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that ≈r,aj of Isaiah usually refers to the whole earth,226 it is probable that this meaning is being echoed here also in verse 22b and that the horizon is being deliberately extended. The judgement confronting the rulers See § 3.4. It is difficult to determine the metre here with any degree of certainty. It is hard to imagine the final colon as having one single beat, in spite of the fact that the words ≈r
166

chapter four

of Jerusalem thus comes to serve as a model for the judgement that will one day confront the entire world.227 Excursus 2: The ‘covenant with death’ and necromancy In 1988, K. van der Toorn suggested that virtually every study of 28:7–22 to date had failed to determine the nature of the opposition to which the prophet is reacting in this passage. In his opinion, the addressees of verse 14 should not be sought in political circles but rather among the priests and (cultic) prophets. In a detailed contribution, Van der Toorn endeavours to persuade his readers that Isaiah’s opponents not only believed in yhwh, but they also practiced necromancy.228 In so doing, Van der Toorn argues against a political explanation of the ‘covenant with death’. In the same year, A.C. Stewart also published an article calling this now common interpretation into question and proposing a relationship with the practice of necromancy.229 In the present excursus I will endeavour to determine whether the interpretation of the ‘covenant with death’ offered by Van der Toorn and Stewart stands up to test. The primary building blocks of Van der Toorn’s hypothesis can be summarised in seven points: 1. The basic presupposition that Van der Toorn takes as his point of departure is the unity of 28:7–22. This presupposition implies that the passages 28:7–13 and 28:14–22, which are generally distinguished from one another, are addressed to the same audience. Those addressed in verse 14 with ˆ/xl; yven“a' and rv,a} hZ
exegesis of individual pericopes

3.

4.

5.

6.

167

Old Testament, and understood as the names of divinities. The Canaanite belief in the gods of the underworld had also established itself among the people of Israel.231 Against the background of the tendency prevalent in the Old Testament to camouflage traces of Israel’s idolatry wherever possible, Van der Toorn suggests that we consider the designations bz:K; and rq,v, in verse 15 as a cryptic allusion to the gods Chemosh and Milcom/Moloch. He finds evidence in support of his suggestion in : ] ‘gods of lies’ in Am. 2:4 and in the presthe reference to idols as μybizK ence of cultic centres dedicated to the chthonic gods Chemosh and Milcom in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Both deities are identified with Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the underworld.232 While the mention of a ‘covenant with death’ says nothing as such with respect to the religious practices associated therewith, Van der Toorn argues on the basis of the addressees mentioned in verse 7, namely the priests and (cultic) prophets, that necromancy was one of the forms adopted by the cult of the gods Chemosh and Milcom.233 With the help of this explanation, Van der Toorn is likewise convinced that he is able to offer a satisfying exegesis of verses 10 and 13. Instead of the commonly accepted dialogue between the prophet and his opponents in verses 9–11, Van der Toorn maintains that only the prophet himself is speaking in the said verses. He considers the words of verse 10 as an imitation or even a literal report of the oracle-like utterances of the necromancers. The potential significance of wx' and wq' is of secondary importance, because verse 10 is to be understood as a transcription of the bird-like sounds that emanate from the spiritist séances.234 Counter to the generally accepted exegesis, the people referred to in verse 11 who speak tr,ja, ' ˆ/vl;bW] hp;c; ygE[l} B' ] ‘with stammering lip and with alien tongue’ are not to be identified with the Assyrians but rather with the priests and prophets of verse 7. Stammering lip and alien tongue do not thus refer to the language of the Assyrians but to an esoteric language accessible only to the initiated. The image portrayed in verses 7–8 is that of a cultic banquet, akin to the marzē a familiar 231 232 233 234

Van Van Van Van

der der der der

Toorn Toorn Toorn Toorn

1988:202–203. 1988:203–204. 1988:204. 1988:205–212.

168

chapter four

from Ugaritic texts, at which alcohol was employed as a means to enter into a visionary trance and thereby pass on messages from the dead.235 7. The verb form h[;Wmv] employed in verses 9 and 19 is a terminus technicus for a specific prophetic message that was received (heard) in a half-conscious state. Van der Toorn suggests we read h[;Wmv] as the Hebrew equivalent of the Akkadian egirrû, which is used, among other things, in the context of divination.236 In like fashion to Van der Toorn, Stewart presupposes that the prophet issued his complaint against the background of a cultic feast. Stewart agrees with Gese who considered the πfe/v f/v in 28:15 and 18 to be a mythologoumenon that referred to the weather god Hadad who is portrayed with a scourge in his hand. Inspired by the said Hadadmythologoumenon, Gese also asks himself whether the covenant partners tw<m; and l/av] should not also be understood in the mythological sense. Given the problems he encountered in transposing the characteristics of a god of vegetation into the arena of history, Gese considered it better to interpret tw<m; and l/av] as personifications only, as they occur in numerous places elsewhere in the Old Testament.237 Stewart is able to get round Geze’s objection by presupposing a cultic ‘Sitz im Leben’ for the prophet’s complaint rather than a political one. Arguing that the text as such contains no reference to an historical event, he maintains that the prophet did not speak his word for political reasons but rather on the occasion of an orgiastic feast celebrating the covenant with Mot. Since reference is made to a covenant, the intended ritual must have involved something more than so-called necromancy. Stewart is of the opinion that no other interpretation can explain the presence of a metaphor borrowed from Baal-Hadad. He suggests that the Canaanite myth was consciously turned on its head by the prophet when he announced that Mot would be defeated by yhwh.238 While the practice of necromancy was also known in Israel (see 8:19; 19:3; 29:4) and the interpretation of the ‘covenant with death’ offered by Van der Toorn and Stewart provides us with a relatively closed image, it remains problematic on account of the fact that it is

235 236 237 238

Van der Toorn 1988:212–213. Van der Toorn 1988:213–215. Gese 1970:127–134. See also § 4.2.1. Stewart 1988:375–377.

exegesis of individual pericopes

169

based on a series of presuppositions and hypotheses. The first weak link in the interpretative chain is the presupposed unity of 28:7–22 and the derived identification of the ˆ/xl; yven“a' and the rv,a} hZ
240

170

chapter four

a covenant with one or other god, Mot must ultimately be excluded from such a possibility since he did not belong to the heavenly pantheon. The same has to be said with respect to Sheol. There is no single indication that Sheol was ever considered a divinity.244 One has to be particularly careful when speaking of personification and demythologisation in the present instance.245 In any event, there is nothing forcing us to understand a personification of the kingdom of the dead as having its roots in mythology, since such a personification can easily be explained on the basis of day to day experience: death significantly influences life.246 In rejecting a literal interpretation of verse 15 as a reference to the Canaanite gods Mot and Sheol, we are nevertheless left with a residual question concerning the possibility of a concealed allusion to one or other ritual of invocation. While Wildberger interprets the ‘covenant with death’ metaphorically and relates it to the political situation, he considers it conceivable nevertheless that the prophet was able to use the metaphor because certain parties in Jerusalem were familiar with 244 Day 1989:62f is of the opinion that allusion is being made here to the cult of Moloch, given the fact that the latter was considered to be the Canaanite god of the underworld. Day is surprised that other exegetes appear to be unaware of this. Blenkinsopp 2000(B):477, in turn, is surprised at the fact that, should Day’s interpretation be correct, Moloch is not simply named in the text. While there is evidence of a revival of the cult of Moloch during the Assyrian period, Day is nevertheless obliged to admit that there is no evidence in the said cult of establishing a covenant. The ‘do ut des’ principle has facilitated such an interpretation. Day sees a parallel with 57:9 in this regard. As a consequence of his interpretation, we would be obliged to date 28:14–22 during the reign of King Ahaz who, in contrast to King Hezekiah, was associated with the cult of Moloch (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6). Doyle 1999:190 is of the opinion that the discoveries at Ugarit do not provide sufficient evidence to associate Moloch directly with Mot. Heider 1999:585 considers it reasonable to accept that Moloch was a god of the underworld, but draws the line at an association with the worship of ancestors. 245 Gerleman 19783:893–897 speaks with respect to tw<m; of weak traces of personification in the Old Testament. He notes, in any case, that the Old Testament never ascribes personifying attributes to death. Cf. Barstad 1999:769: “Since the texts in which we find descriptions of Sheol personified in their present shape are purely poetical, any attempt to go beyond the texts and ask whether these texts ultimately go back to mythological descriptions is bound to end as sheer speculations.” “The whole issue becomes even more vital when we know that no deity Sheol has ever been attested.” 246 Cf. Blenkinsopp 2000(B):476: “. . . some degree of personification is inevitably present in the metaphoric language used about death . . .” He considers it equally unavoidable “that personified Death would be identified with the deity Mot . . .” I would venture to call the latter into question. The Old Testament itself contains no evidence in support of such an identification. Moreover, Blenkinsopp’s claim does not square with the observation that he himself makes, namely that Mot does not have a place in the cult of Ugarit.

exegesis of individual pericopes

171

magical rites with which they endeavoured to protect themselves against the power of death. Wildberger refers in this regard to an amulet found at Arslantas in 1939 to support his hunch. There is a possibility that the invocation inscribed on the said amulet speaks of an eternal covenant established with humanity and of a pact set up by Asherah on behalf of humanity with all the sons of the gods and with the entire heavenly pantheon.247 The reference to a covenant is striking indeed and would appear to agree with Isa. 28:15. Before jumping to conclusions and identifying the content of the amulet with that of our text, it should be borne in mind that the incantation on the amulet makes no reference to a covenant established by human beings, as is the case in 28:15, but rather of a covenant established on behalf of human beings. The suggestion that we are dealing here with a veiled allusion to magical rituals is further undermined by the fact that such incantations always appeal to the great and the good among the gods, precisely because protection is being sought from demons and from death. A ‘covenant with death’ thus becomes difficult to place within the context of such an incantation. The same can be said with respect to the concept of necromancy itself, which generally addresses itself to deceased ancestors and not to Mot and Sheol.248 It is also difficult to understand why the prophet should speak only in veiled terms in 28:15 if the text were in reality a reference to necromancy (cf. 8:19).249 Van der Toorn’s interpretation of the designations bz:K; and rq,v, from the perspective of his explanation of tw<m; and l/av] is hypothetical to say the least and ultimately leads to a somewhat artificial understanding of the terms bz:K; and rq,v, as cryptic references to the gods Chemosh and Milcom.250 His appeal in this regard to the idols designated in Am. 2:4 as μybiz:K] ‘gods of lies’, remains unconvincing. The meaning of this Wildberger 1982:1073–1074. Cf. Day 1989:61–62 and B.B. Schmidt 1996:161. In a recent study on the family and private religion in Babylon, Syria and Israel, Van der Toorn has endeavoured to chart the presence of ancestor worship in Israel (1996:206–235): “A hidden heritage: the Israelite cult of the dead.” Van der Toorn makes a distinction in this regard between the cult of the dead found within family circles, and necromancy as practised among specialists. 249 Cf. B.B. Schmidt 1996:160: “it should be noted that rites related to the ancestor cult or necromancy are nowhere explicitly mentioned in Isa. 28:7–22.” 250 Gruber 1999:517 agrees with Van der Toorn’s interpretation without further motivation. Cf. also the more general interpretation of Blenkinsopp 2000(B):479: “From the point of the prophetic author of Isa. xxviii 15 the lie and the falsehood refer, in the last analysis, to foreign deities, the cult offered to them, and accommodations with them which, on the prophetic view, were endemic in foreign alliances sealed by treaty.” 247 248

172

chapter four

designation has its roots in the fact that the gods tempt and mislead. In Am. 2:4, there can be no misunderstanding: μh,ybez“Ki is not a designation but rather a typification of the idols in question.251 The idols are characterised as unreliable.252 When 28:15 speaks of bz:K; as a refuge, it is reasonable to assume that also in this instance the intention is not to name the refuge but to typify it. This is further reinforced by the use of bz:k; hsej]m' ‘refuge of lies’ in 28:17. It is highly unlikely that a cryptic designation of one or other idol is intended here. It is a question, rather, of an unambiguous typification of the refuge as a place from which one is likely to emerge deceived. The political leaders in Jerusalem have allowed themselves to be misled.253 A meaningful comparison can also be made in this regard with Ps. 62:10, in which the vyai ynEB] ‘those of high estate’ are designated as bz:K; because they are not to be trusted.254 It is better to trust in God and to say WnL;Ahs,j}m' μyhiløa‘ (Ps. 62:9). There is no conclusive reason to read the terms bz:K; and rq,v, in 28:15 as a 251 Cf. Klopfenstein 1964:236f: “Eine bestimmte, in ihrem Wesen liegende Haupteigenschaft der Götzen wird hier zum Namen für sie: Ihr Wesen ist Lüge, Täuschung, Schein; sie scheinen zu existieren und etwas zu vermögen, wo sie doch nichts sind. So heißen sie denn einfach ‘Lügen’.” Klopfenstein argues that this designation of the idols signifies more or less the same as the designation μh,yleb]h' ‘(their) vanities’ in Deut. 32:21, referring in support of his argument to Jer. 10:14f; 16:19; Ps. 62:10 and to the Septuagint, which translates μh,ybez“Ki in Am. 2:4 with τὰ μάταια. Klopfenstein considers Am. 2:4 as the only scriptural text in which bz:K; refers with certainty to the religious domain. 252 Van Leeuwen 1985:74 argues that idols are not only spoken of as lies “because they cannot save and thus proclaim lies when they present themselves as saving gods, but primarily because they themselves are the product of the false notions of human beings.” The aspect to be emphasised depends on the primary significance one ascribes to bzk. Klopfenstein 19783:817–823 takes the notion of ‘speaking lies’ as his point of departure whereby a speaking subject is presupposed. Mosis 1982:111–130 is more inclined to associate the primary significance of the term with the object: ‘unreliable’, ‘deceptive’. 253 Mosis 1982:126 makes note of the important theological perspective that bz:K; also contains an implicit critique, not only of the object designated by the term but also of those who allow themselves to be deceived by expecting reliability and truth therefrom. 254 Klopfenstein 1964:151 concludes that bz:K; and rq,v, designate rather ‘eine religiös verkehrte innere Haltung’: “bz:K; und rq,v, in v. 15c sind theologische Urteile Jesajas über eine falsche religiöse Haltung des judäischen Volkes in einer Zeit äußerster Bedrängnis durch die Assyrermacht.” This conclusion goes hand in hand with Klopfenstein’s understanding of the primary meaning of bz:K; (speaking untruths, see 19783:818). The word bz:K; thus represents an ethical statement with respect to the people of whom it is employed. The significance ascribed by Mosis 1982:116–117 to bz:K; (unreliability, deceptiveness), however, does greater justice to 28:15. bz:K; is thus employed in the first instance in direct relationship to the object. In determining this primary significance, Mosis points out that bzk is frequently employed as an antonym for ˆma, ˆwk and dsy. Two of the aforementioned verbs are also employed in the context of 28:15.

exegesis of individual pericopes

173

reference to specific gods. Van der Toorn’s interpretation is speculative since it bases the identification of bz:K; and rq,v, with the gods Chemosh and Milcom on the presupposition that tw<m; and l/av] also refer to gods.255 The fact that Milcom is known to have had a connection with the underworld and to have potentially played a role in necromancy256 remains an insufficiently stable basis upon which to justify such an exegesis of the clause in question. Since the interpretation of the ‘covenant with death’ as an allusion to the phenomenon of necromancy is now barely tenable on exegetical grounds, the most important pillar of Van der Toorn’s exegesis of verses 10 and 13 is also forced to collapse. His presupposition that the verses in question represent a transcription of birdlike utterances stemming from spiritist séances is likewise considerably speculative. Moreover, his explanation completely ignores the relationship between the words wx' and wq' in verse 10 and the terms ayqi ‘vomit’ and ha;xo ‘filth’ in verse 8. The association between the words of the prophet (verse 8) and the words of his opponents (verse 10) is intended to give expression to the incomprehensibility of Isaiah’s message as well as its indigestibility. While Van der Toorn does indeed suggest that we understand verse 10 as an echo of verse 8, his exegesis offers no further explanation in this regard. A further weak link in the chain of Van der Toorn’s explanation lies in the fact that the relationship between verses 11 and 12 is insufficiently accounted for in his exegesis. Verse 12 is clearly connected at the level of syntax to the preceding verses via the relative pronoun rv,a.} Given that the content of verse 12 is determined by the motif of ‘rest’ and the latter clearly has a political tone in the preaching of Isaiah, the announcement of judgement in verse 11 thus calls for a political interpretation. Van der Toorn does not factor this political context into his argument when he presupposes that the incomprehensible language and alien tongue should be understood as an allusion to the esoteric utterances of the priests and prophets referred to in verse 7. There can be little doubt that verse 11 is intended to announce the arrival of the Assyrians (cf. 33:19). Van der Toorn ignores the association between God’s words in the near future and God’s words in the past established in verses 11 and 12. Ultimately this is due to the fact that 255 Tromp 1969:47, 97 considers rt,se in Isa. 45:19 and Ps. 139:15 to be one of the many names for the kingdom of the dead. Irwin 1977:28–29 concludes on this basis that bz:K; and rq,v, in 28:15 are symbolic names for tw<m; and l/av]. 256 Cf. Puech 1999:575.

174

chapter four

he still considers this passage to be a complaint, while the customary pattern of the prophecy of judgement would clearly have us begin the announcement of judgement in verse 11. Furthermore, the obvious character of the link drawn by Van der Toorn and others between the phenomenon of the marzē a (cf. tyBe j"zEr“m' in Jer. 16:5) and necromancy is open to negotiation in a variety of ways.257 In a detailed study of the cult of the dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Lewis has called the apparent obviousness of this link into question.258 His study points out that only one single text (KTU 1.21) would appear to suggest a link with a funeral ritual, while the majority of texts in which marzē a occurs relate it to a drinking party.259 Lewis’s conclusion that the marzē a refers exclusively to a drinking party has been reconfirmed in a recent monograph by McLaughlin on the phenomenon. After a thorough discussion of all the relevant texts, McLaughlin concludes that the phenomenon of the marzē a can be recognised throughout the centuries as having three different characteristics: 1. the participants at a marzē a belong to the upper echelons of the population,260 257 For the association in question see also Jackson 1974:94–96, Pope 1981:176–179 and Halpern 1986:109f. 258 Lewis 1989:80–94. See also Fabry 1986:11–16. 259 Cf. Lewis 1989:88: “In other words, the raison d’être of the marzē a organizations may have been the desire to have a drinking club. The men of the marzē a organization could have been known for their drinking.” And: “its association with funerary customs could have arisen due to the abundant beer imbibed by mourners to console themselves. It would also have been consoling to the mourners to know that their ‘dear departed loved one’ is having a jolly good time drinking away with the rp’m and El, the ‘partier’ par excellence.” Lewis 1989:134–135 is not particularly consistent in his treatment of 28:15,18 when he agrees with Halpern 1986:109f who suggests that Isaiah was ridiculing his opponents as ‘participants in the ancestral cult’ with reference to the phenomenon of the marzē a . Halpern even states that “The logical home of this complex is in the ancestral or funeral cult.” Halpern bases his conclusion in this regard, however, entirely on the study of Pope 1981:176–179, while Lewis himself had introduced a necessary degree of nuance with respect to Pope’s opinions on the marzē a as a ‘funerary banquet’ in an earlier chapter (1989:80–94). Cf. also Lewis’ own conclusion: “In fact, there is nothing explicitly funerary about the marzē a documented at Ugarit. The strongest evidence for its funerary character (though problematic) is the association of the rp’m with the [m]rz‘ in KTU 1.21 (CTA 21).” “In other words, the evidence looked at above does not demonstrate that the marzē a can ever be dissociated from the funerary ritual. Yet the case for the marzē a as always involving a funerary banquet is quite weak.” (172) B.B. Schmidt arrives at the same conclusion in a recent study 1996:62–66, 144–147, 246–249. 260 McLaughlin 2001:66–68. The suggestion that those who participated at a marzē a enjoyed a relatively elevated social status is not only apparent from the texts that speak

exegesis of individual pericopes

175

2. the marzē a took place in a religious context in the sense that a particular deity served as its patron,261 and 3. the most important goal of the marzē a was the excessive intake of alcohol.262 The suggestion that the marzē a also had something to do with the dead is firmly denied in McLaughlin’s study.263 Bearing this in mind, it is difficult to understand why McLaughlin explicitly agrees with Van der Toorn’s interpretation of 28:7–22264 and even concludes that the text in question represents an important development in the study of the phenomenon of the marzē a , since it would seem for the first time to establish a relationship with the cult of the dead (cf. Jer. 16:5).265 If Van der Toorn’s explanation of 28:7–22 is no longer tenable for the reasons outlined above and McLaughlin fails to introduce new elements into the argument beyond those already proposed by Van der Toorn, then the of the marzē a themselves but also from the place in which they were found: “Simply put, the sites where the various marzē a tablets were excavated favour situating the marzē a itself among the upper levels of society.” (67) 261 McLaughlin 2001:68–69. It is important to note in this regard that the marzē a , according to McLaughlin, cannot be typified as a cultic activity: “So while the various deities are best interpreted as divine patrons, worship of these patrons does not seem to be the primary purpose of the marzē a s dedicated to them. The marzē a and its gathering was religious, in the sense that it was connected with a patron deity or deities, but it was not cultic.” (69) 262 McLaughlin 2001:69–70: “. . . it is likely that a major purpose of the marzē a itself was to get drunk.” 263 McLaughlin 2001:66: “A fourth element, namely a funerary connection, is often claimed as an essential aspect of the marzē a , but the evidence does not support that view.” For the argumentation in support of this claim see McLaughlin 2001:70–79. 264 See McLaughlin 2001:179: “More directly, since Moth is their patron, he is the more probable source of a revelation. Thus, I think Karel van der Toorn is correct when he suggests that the syllables in v. 10 are a slightly deformed reproduction of that revelation.” McLaughlin is nevertheless inclined to consider Van der Toorn’s proposed identification of bz:K; and rq,v, with the gods Chemosh and Milcom somewhat speculative. 265 See McLaughlin 2001:180: “In conclusion, vv. 7–8 reflect the basic elements of a marzē a , namely a definable portion of the elite getting drunk in an explicitly religious context. At the same time, the larger context presents the first clear connection between a marzē a and the cult of the dead.” Cf. McLaughlin 2001:184: “This has great importance for the marzē a ’s history. Isa 28:7–22 is the first instance of a marzē a text that also exhibits an explicit link with the cult of the dead. As such it sets a precedent, but not a requirement, for subsequent instances of a marzē a . Since this particular one was a means for contacting the realm of the dead, the possibility that later ones might be as well is increased. But that possibility should not be mistaken for a necessity. Funerary elements cannot establish a passage as a marzē a allusion. Drinking in a religious context by a definable portion of the elite remain essential characteristics of a marzē a , and subsequent texts will still have to be evaluated on the basis of those criteria.”

176

chapter four

most important grounds for presupposing a development with respect to the said text in the direction of the cult of the dead is completely undermined. It is unfortunate that McLaughlin’s critical yet careful analysis of extra-biblical texts is not maintained to the same degree in his exegesis of 28:7–22.266 The hypothesis maintained by Stewart, namely that 28:7–18 should not be understood as a historical text as there would appear to be no particular historical event to which it alludes, must also be rejected. When Stewart argues that the storm and hail mentioned in verses 17 and 18 do not refer to Assyria but rather to yhwh himself, to whom the attributes of Baal-Hadad are ascribed, then it becomes clear that he is not familiar with the function of the said metaphor elsewhere in the preaching of Isaiah (cf. 28:2 and 8:5–8). Stewart’s endeavour to get round any political explanation of the ‘covenant with death’ is clearly contrived. He is of the opinion that the only point of support for a political explanation of the text is lost when we translate the term μyliv]mo in verse 14—together with Fohrer—as ‘composers of proverbs’ and he presupposes that the context itself must have given initial impetus to a political interpretation of the ‘covenant with death’.267 I am inclined to argue, however, that the addressees referred to in verse 14 (see above) as well as the contrast with Zion in verse 16 together favour a political explanation of the ‘covenant with death’, with Egypt serving as background. The prophet similarly refers to Zion in 14:32 as a safer place of refuge against the background of political negotiations in which the assistance of Egypt had an important role to play. Stewart takes the easy way out when he argues that both verses 16–17a and verses 11–13 are later interpolations, when the political explanation of the ‘covenant with death’ had already been introduced.268 We can affirm, in summary, that there are no convincing arguments

266 It is worthy of note that in spite of his agreement with the careful conclusions of Lewis, Blenkinsopp 2000(B):481 nevertheless asserts a relationship between the ‘covenant with death’ and the practice of necromancy: “These reservations having been expressed, it seems that some form of necromantic practice is not only compatible with the making of a covenant with Death but a necessary part of it.” Blenkinsopp appeals in this regard to 57,8b–9, which he is inclined to consider a parallel text. In so doing, however, he is forced to emend the clause μh,me Ël;Atr;k]Tiw" ‘you have agreed on your wage from them (whose copulation you have loved)’ (57:8b) to read μh,M;[i Ël;Ayti/rk]Tiw" ‘you made a pact for yourself with them.’ 267 Stewart 1988:376. 268 Cf. Stewart 1988:377: “Before the addition of this material we have one unified oracle, the work of a cult prophet.”

exegesis of individual pericopes

177

available to relate the ‘covenant with death’ referred to in the context of the prophecy of 28:14–22 with the phenomenon of necromancy. The arguments proposed in support of such an association are hypothetical to say the least and, to a degree, even speculative in character. 4.3. Isa. 28:7–13 In like fashion to the prophecy of 28:14–22, Isa. 28:7–13 also belongs to the prophecy of judgement genre and clearly exhibits the usual pattern of accusation and announcement of judgement. The accusation is made up of verses 7–10 and the announcement of judgement of verses 11–13. At the same time, however, both the accusation and the announcement of judgement contain an element that deviates to a certain degree from the expected pattern. The accusation is dramatised in verses 9–10 by the insertion of a quotation borrowed by the prophet from the words of his opponents. In the context of the announcement of judgement, the prophet also inserts a quotation in verse 12, but in this instance taken from the words of yhwh. Once again, the prophet appears to have employed the pattern of the prophecy of judgement in his own creative fashion. Two important questions need to be raised with respect to the exegesis of these verses. The first concerns the cohesion between 28:7–13 and the preceding prophecy against Samaria/Ephraim in 28:1–4(6). The second concerns the addressees and the context of the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13. The discussion will be divided into three sections and will focus on verses 7–8, 9–10 and 11–13 respectively. As with our treatment of 28:14–22, the discussion of each segment is preceded by the Hebrew text and an English translation. 4.3.1. Isa. 28:7–8: Accusation Wgv; ˆyIY"B' hL,aeAμg"w“ 7 But these also reel with wine W[=T; rk;Veb'W and stagger with strong drink: rk;Veb' Wgv; ayb]n:w“ ˆheKo priest and prophet reel with strong drink, ˆyIY"h'Aˆmi W[l]b]nI they are clouded with wine, rk;Veh'Aˆmi W[T; they stagger with strong drink; ha,roB; Wgv; they totter in vision, .hY:liyliP] WqP; they stumble in giving judgement. t/nj;l]vuAlK; yKi 8 Yes, all tables h=a;xo ayqi Wal]m; are covered with filthy vomit, s .μ/qm; yliB] no place is clean!

178

chapter four

The accusation with which the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13 begins is connected to the preceding prophecy concerning Samaria/ Ephraim at the levels of both content and redaction. Everything would seem to suggest that the entire bicolon with which verse 7 (ˆyIY"B' hL,aeAμg"w“ W[T; rk;Veb'W Wgv;) commences is in fact redactional.269 While verse 7b is characterised by a sequence of asyndetic qatal clauses, verse 7a consists of two we-x-qatal clauses, which are intended to establish a link between the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13 and that of 28:1–4. The use of ' a] , yrEKvo i ‘drunkards of the opening hL,aAe μg"w“ harks back explicitly to the μyIrp Ephraim’ (cf. the same formula hL,aAe μG" in Prov. 25:1) already mentioned in e W' Wgv; ˆyIYB" ' anticipate the woe statement of 28:1 while the words W[T; rk;Vb what follows. The accusation of this prophecy of judgement must have originally started in the tricolon with which verse 7b begins.270 The fact that the redactor responsible for the redactional passage of verse 7a had acquired a degree of sensitivity with respect to style, is apparent from the reversal of the clause sequence when compared with what follows. The location of both ˆyIY"B' and rk;VeB' in verse 7a before the verb, draws attention to this important word-pair.271 The said word-pair ˆyIy" ‘wine’ and rk;ve ‘strong drink’ is not only used in verses 7a and 7b, it also has an important role to play in the woe statement of 28:1. In terms of meaning, the verbs hgv ‘reel’ and h[t ‘stagger’ are virtually synonymous, both referring in the context of this accusation to the uncontrolled progress of someone who has had too much to drink.272 Verse 7b is structured as a tricolon (4 + 2 + 2) and a bicolon (2 + 2), which together form a single sentence. The tricolon begins with an introductory formulation in which the spiritual leaders against whom the accusation is directed are presented. Moreover, aybin:w“ ˆheKo ‘priest and prophet’ are given a foreground position in verse 7b as the subject of all

269 See Donner 1964:148, Kaiser 19762:194, Dietrich 1976:151, Petersen 1979:108, Clements 1980(B):226, Wildberger 1982:1055–1056, Gonçalves 1986:188, Kilian 1994:159 and Beuken 2000:36. 270 Beuken 2000:11 considers the beginning of verse 7b to be a bicolon followed by a tricolon. Bearing in mind the use of the word-pairs ˆyIy" ‘wine’ and rk;ve ‘strong drink’ on the one hand and ha,ro ‘vision’ and hY:liyliP] ‘judgement’ on the other, however, such a subdivision of the text is not so evident. 271 Cf. Watson 1984:134. For the use of word-pairs in general see Watson 1994:262– 312 and Alonso Schökel 1988:61–63. 272 Seidl 1994:1059. See also Sawyer 19792:1056. The Septuagint of verse 7a twice employs a form of the verb πλανάω ‘to mislead’: οὗτοι γὰρ οἴνῳ πεπλανημένοι εἰσίν ἐπλανήθησαν διὰ τὸ σικερα.

exegesis of individual pericopes

179

the expressions relating to drunken behaviour that follow.273 The motif of drunkenness is already evident in the first introductory colon. In the remainder of the tricolon and the associated bicolon, the motif is elaborated in pairs with the ellipsis of the subject. The emerging pattern can be visualised as follows: rk;Veb' Wgv; aybin:w“ ˆheKo ˆyIY"h'Aˆmi W[l]b]nI rk;Veh'Aˆmi W[T; ha,roB; Wgv; hY:liyliP] WqP;

A a-b-c B *-b-c // *-b’-c’ B’ C *-b-d // *-b’-d’ C’

It is striking that each of the four cola that elaborate the motif of drunkenness in pairs begins with a different verb: III[lb ‘confuse’ (B),274 h[t ‘stagger’ (B’), hgv ‘totter’ (C) and qwp ‘stumble’ (C’).The parallel cola B and B’ (ˆyIY"h'Aˆmi W[l]b]nI // rk;Veh'Aˆmi W[T;) continue the motif of drunkenness while the parallel cola C and C’ (ha,roB; Wgv; // hY:liyliP] WqP;) let the reader see what the combination of spiritual leadership and drunkenness can signify. Drunkenness obstructs the priest and the prophet in the exercise of their duties and is even explicitly forbidden where priests are concerned in Lev. 10:8–11. The words ha,ro ‘vision’ and hY:lyi liP] ‘judgement’ allude to the exercise of spiritual leadership, the former focusing on the prophet’s visionary qualities,275 and the latter on the

273 The Isaiah Targum of 28:7 and indeed 9:14 reads rps ‘scribe’ instead of aybin: ‘prophet’. According to Wildberger 1982:1053, this is an indication that the rabbis wanted to spare the prophets the serious accusation of drunkenness. Nevertheless, the wordpair aybin:w“ ˆheKo ‘priest and prophet’ occurs with relative frequency in the Old Testament, especially in texts from the late period of kings (cf. Jer. 2:8,26; 6:13; 8:10; 14:18; 18:18; 23:11,33; 32:32). The function of both must have been particularly similar in those days (see Jeremias 19792:10; Müller 1986:158 and Dommershausen 1984:77–78). It is probable that Isaiah saw himself—in line with his older colleague Amos—more as a hz<jo ‘seer’ (cf. 1:1; 2:1; 30:10) than as a aybin: ‘prophet’ (cf. 37:2; 38:1; 39:3). 274 HAHAT derives W[l]b]nI from I[lb ‘to devour’ (cf. hN:[,l;b]yI in 28:4). A derivative of III [lb ‘to confuse’ (an equivalent form of llb), however, seems closer to the parallels employed in 7b (in DCH II[lb). The translation ‘clouded’ is an attempt to give adequate expression to the confusion brought on by wine. See also 3:12 and 9:15 in which the verb III[lb is used as here in 28:7, in both instances side by side with a form of the verb h[t ‘to stagger’. Cf. Duhm 19143:172, KBL/HALAT, Wildberger 1982:1053, Barthel 1997:291. 275 Given the fact that the vocalisation of the Masoretic text is unusual, BHS suggests in line with Procksch 1930(A):352/354 that we vocalise as follows: ha;roB.; While this does indeed appear to be better Hebrew, it is not impossible to presume that we are dealing here with a form of IIha,ro ‘apparition, vision’ (cf. Vetter 19792:700 and Fuhs 1990:263).

180

chapter four

( judicial) statements expected among other things from the priest.276 The prophet’s formulation of verse 7b effectively expresses the core of his accusation.277 In order to underline his accusation of spiritual incompetence, the prophet offers his readers a portrayal of the drunkenness of their spiritual leaders in verse 8. The structure of this verse is usually taken to be a bicolon278 although the individual cola differ considerably from one another in length (5 + 2). Given that the first colon appears to be too long and the second to be too short, the suggestion is sometimes made that we should relocate the Atnāch to ayqi.279 The present author is of the opinion that this relocation would be ill-advised. When the Masoretic distinctive accents are taken as the point of departure, verse 8 is clearly to be understood as a tricolon with three short cola (2 + 3 + 2). This obviates the need to relocate the Atnāch. The resulting structure, moreover, fits well with the fact that ha;xo ayqi can be understood as a hendiadys (see below). The use of short cola in both verse 7 and verse 8, furthermore, can be understood as an expression of outrage or indignation. The scene portrayed by the prophet is far from edifying. The subject t/nj;l]vuAlK; ‘all tables’ is placed in first position for emphasis (cf. the same sequence at the beginning of verses 7a and 7b). The tables intended for sacrificial meals in the temple are completely soiled.280 The prophet expresses his disgust with the terms ayqi ‘vomit’ and ha;xo ‘filth’. The word ayqi is also used elsewhere in relation to drunkenness—cf. 19:14 and Jer. 48:26. The term ha;xo suggests images of human filth Von Rad 19787:257: “Auf dem Dienst des Priesters stand der gesamte Verkehr des Jahwevolkes mit seinem Gott; so war er vor allem als Vermittler jeder Art von Gottesentscheiden zuständig.” The verb llp is used in this sense in 1 Sam. 2:25. A nominal form hl;yliP (hapax) is also to be found in Isa. 16:3 (see Gerstenberger 1989:613). Several exegetes suggest we place a b before hY:liyliP] by analogy with ha,roB.; Wildberger 1982:1053 is even inclined to consider such an emendation unavoidable. GKG § 119hh points out, however: “In poetic parallelism the governing power of a preposition is sometimes extended to the corresponding substantive of the second member.” Isa. 28:7 can thus be added to GKG § 119hh as an example. 277 The structure of verse 7b is no longer recognisable in the Septuagint, which has combined colon A and B to read ἱερεὺς καὶ προφήτης ἐξέστησαν διὰ τὸν οἶνον and rewritten colon B’ as ἐσείσθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς μέθης τοῦ σικερα. Colon C is translated as ἐπλανήθησαν τοῦτ’ ἔστι φάσμα, while colon C’ has disappeared in the translation. 278 See, for example, Beuken 2000:11. 279 See BHS and Wildberger 1982:1053. 280 Reference is also made in the books of Chronicles to the presence of various tables in the temple (1 Chron. 28:16; 2 Chron. 4:8,19; cf. Ezek. 40:39–43). 276

exegesis of individual pericopes

181

in general (cf. Út,a;xe in Deut. 23:14 and μd;a;h; ta'xe in Ezek. 4:12; see also the use of ha;xo in 4:4; Qere 36:12 and Prov. 30:12),281 although it probably functions in the present context of 28:8 as a parallel concept to ayqi, albeit with strongly negative connotations. Given the fact that ayqi and ha;xo are joined together asyndetically, it is possible to understand the combined expression ha;xo ayqi as a hendiadys in the sense of ‘filthy vomit’. The prophet’s abhorrence of the way in which the priests and the prophets go about their duties could not be more pointedly expressed.282 The short colon of verse 8b functions in this regard as a climax and can be understood as an expression of profound indignation: nothing is sacred! The intended climax would be missed if one were to relocate the Atnāch to ayqi and transform the verse into a bicolon.283 The meaning of this exclamation is that there is actually nothing left that is clean.284 In light of the purity that had to be maintained in the (temple) service of yhwh, the prophet’s accusation is grave and requires no further explanation.285 In a recent study based, among other things, on the phenomenon of the marzē a known to us from Ugarit, McLaughlin presupposes that 28:7–8 contains reference to such a drinking feast. While the criteria established by McLaughlin are indeed useful, the question remains nevertheless whether they are also applicable to 28:7–8. As a matter of fact, McLaughlin himself has explicitly argued that a marzē a should not be understood as a cultic activity but rather as a drinking feast at which one or other god served as patron.286 The scene portrayed in Tanghe 1993:236. Cf. Ernst 1994:78: “Drastischer als Jes 28,8 kann ein prophetischer Schuldaufweis fehlende Erkenntnis von Priester und Prophet in religiös-sittlichen Bereich kaum ausdrücken.” Strangely enough, B.B. Schmidt 1996:161 interprets Wal]m; as a prophetic perfect. Such an interpretation, however, is out of place in the context of an accusation and interrupts the recognisable pattern of the prophecy of judgement evident in 28:7–13. 283 Cf. Oswalt 1986:503. 284 Dietrich 1976:153 suggests we scrap both concluding words because they do not fit well with t/nj;l]vu. The present author can see no valid reason to agree with him. 285 The Septuagint would appear to offer a rather free translation of verse 8: ἀρὰ ἔδεται ταύτην τὴν βουλήν αὕτη γὰρ ἡ βουλὴ ἕνεκεν πλεονεξίας ‘a curse shall devour that plan, for this plan is (rooted in) greed ’. The Septuagint thus clearly understood verse 8 as an announcement of judgement, the plan in question being a possible allusion to the politics of those days that had been rejected by the prophet. Cf. the use of βουλή in LXX 29:15; 30:1 and 31:6. See also LXX 24:6 in which reference is made to a curse that will devour the earth. 286 See McLaughlin 2001:69: “So while the various deities are best interpreted as divine patrons, worship of these patrons does not seem to be the primary purpose of 281 282

182

chapter four

28:7, however, would appear to be cultic in nature, as McLaughlin readily admits.287 The fact that McLaughlin’s description of 28:7–8 argues nevertheless in favour of the presence of the phenomenon of the marzē a , has to do with the association he establishes, in line with Van der Toorn, with the ‘covenant with death’ in 28:15,18.288 Based on this association, he argues that the god Mot functioned as the patron of the marzē a described in 28:7–8. In the excursus on the ‘covenant with death’ and necromancy (Excursus 2) preceding § 4.3., I offer a detailed rejection of such an explanation. If the association between the description offered in 28:7–8 and the ‘covenant with death’ in 28:15,18 is removed and one upholds the basic criteria proposed by McLaughlin, it becomes difficult to maintain the idea that the scene presented in 28:7–8 should be understood as a marzē a .289 The situation described in 28:7–8 is better understood in general terms as a cultic activity in the temple. 4.3.2. Isa. 28:9–10: Rejoinder h[;de hr,/y ymiAta, h=[;Wmv] ˆybiy: ymiAta,w“ bl;j;me yleWmG“ .μyId;V;mi yqeyTi[' wx;l; wx' wx;l; wx' yKi wq;=l; wq' wq;l; wq' .μv; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“

9 “Whom will he teach knowledge and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from milk, those taken from the breast? 10 For it is all filth that he vomits over us; a little here, a little there.”

Having reached its climax in verse 8, the prophet’s accusation is followed in verses 9–10 by a passage in which two critical questions are posed (9a), provisionally answered (9b) and further motivated (10). Verse 9 consists of two carefully paralleled bicola; verse 10 is a tricolon of the type A-A’-B. The character of verses 9–10 is not immediately evident. A difference with verses 7–8 in which qatal clauses predominated consists nevertheless the marzē a s dedicated to them. The marzē a and its gathering was religious, in the sense that it was connected with a patron deity or deities, but it was not cultic.” 287 Cf. McLaughlin 2001:178: “. . . intoxication coincides with the performance of their religious duties.” 288 Cf. McLaughlin 2001:178: “In sum, Isa. 28:7–8 reflects the basic elements of a marzē a . But further information about the religious component of this particular marzē a can be derived from the larger context of those verses.” 289 Other Old Testament texts in which McLaughlin 2001:80–213 detects allusion to the phenomenon of the marzē a include Am. 4:1; 6:1,3–7; Hos. 4:16–19; Jer. 16:5 and Ezek. 29:17–20.

exegesis of individual pericopes

183

in the use of yiqtôl clauses (verse 9) and a series of nominal clauses (verse 10). It is not exactly clear how the Masoretes understood the relationship between these and the preceding verses. The transition from verse 8 to verse 9 is provided with a pericope indicator (Setumah), while this is lacking at the beginning of the announcement of judgement in verse 11. It is possible that the Masoretes also struggled in determining the correct interpretation of these verses. This surely goes hand in hand with the fact that it is not immediately clear who is speaking in verses 9–10 or who should be understood as the subject of hr,/y and ˆybiy: in verse 9a. There are four possibilities: 1. The prophet himself is the subject of hr,/y and ˆybiy: and he is quoting his opponents. The priest and the prophet from verse 7 are included in the dialogue and they respond with indignation to the accusation addressed against them by the prophet in verses 7–8. They are no longer open to correction and they see the prophet as a know-it-all who is treating them as if they were children. This is the most current hypothesis. 2. The priest and the prophet are the subjects of hr,/y and ˆybiy.: The prophet himself is speaking and he is still addressing the same ˆheKo aybin:w“ referred to in verse 7. In 9a, he poses a twofold sarcastic question: to whom do the spiritual leaders think they are going to impart knowledge in their drunken condition? The prophet has no need to wait for an answer, however, since he is able to provide one for himself in verse 9b: they can only teach infants. 3. Yhwh is the subject of hr,/y and ˆybiy:. Verses 9–10 are spoken by the prophet and addressed to the aybin:w“ ˆheKo referred to in verse 7. The question is posed with a degree of irony: to whom shall yhwh now direct his attention inasmuch as the spiritual leaders have given up? With whom should yhwh now share knowledge and revelation? 4. Yhwh is the subject of hr,/y and ˆybiy:, but as with the first option, it is the opponents of the prophet who are speaking in verses 9–10. According to this option, the speakers not only reject the prophet but their reaction represents an open rejection of the message of yhwh. Our preference with respect to the four interpretative possibilities will ultimately determine our understanding of the difficult words in verse 10. Options two and three are supported by the fact that the text does not contain any explicit indication that verses 9–10 should be read

184

chapter four

as a quotation as is the case with respect to the accusation in 28:15. Moreover, reference to God as the explicit subject of hry hi. ‘to teach’ in verse 26 (WNr,/y wyh;løa‘ ‘his God teaches him’) supports the option in which verse 9a likewise presupposes yhwh to be the subject of hr,/y and ˆybiy: (option 3).290 The fact that yhwh is left unmentioned while the prophet himself is said to be speaking in these verses, however, represents an insurmountable objection to such an explanation. The same objection applies to the fourth interpretative option, which is likewise improbable on account of its presupposed explicit blasphemy (option 4).291 The words h[;De ‘knowledge’ and h[;Wmv] ‘revelation’ would appear to point more in the direction of the priest and prophet referred to in verse 7, since the terms in question respectively designate the activity of both.292 In verse 7, the exercise of their tasks had already been designated with the terms ha,ro ‘vision’ and hY:liyliP] ‘judgement’, whereby the former was to be associated with the prophet and the latter with the priest. In verse 9a, the presupposed subject of h[;De hr,/y can easily be understood as the priest and the subject of h[;Wmv] ˆybiy: as the prophet (option 2).293 Two important objections can be raised against this explanation. In the first instance, the presupposed subjects aybin:w“ ˆheKo (verse 7b) are actually located at too great a distance from the verbs in question, namely hr,/y and ˆybiy: (verse 9a). In the second instance, the said aybin:w“ ˆheKo would appear to continue to function as the plural subject of the verb forms employed in verse 7b. Similarly, the function of prophet and priest is not split into two distinct subjects with respect to the designations ha,ro and hY:liyliP] employed in verse 7b, but this verse continues rather to use the plural form. This fact undermines the hypothesis which posits an unexpected and otherwise unexplained division into two single subjects in relation to the verb forms employed in verse 9a. 290 Cf. Calvin and the translators of the Dutch Authorized Version. See also Petersen 1979:109, Exum 1982:120 and Halpern 1986:114. 291 Gonçalves 1986:189 mentions this option as a tempting interpretation but in the end does not accede to it. 292 Cf. Wildberger 1982:1059. The term h[;De (cf. Ps. 73:11; Jes. 11:9; Jer. 3:15) employed here is closely related to the expression μyhiløa‘ t['D,' which is to be found in Hosea and Jeremiah in particular as a key concept and can be seen as a ‘terminus technicus für das priesterliche Berufswissen’ (Schottroff 19783:695–696; see also Liedke/Petersen 19792:1035, Botterweck 1982:509–510 and Wagner 1982:925–926). For the connection between priesthood and knowledge see Hos. 4:6: the rejection of t['D'h' by the priests leads to the rejection of the ˆheKo by God! Rüterswörden 1994:278 speaks with respect to h[; W mv] of a ‘Bezeichnung für prophetische Offenbarung’ (cf. 28:19; Jer. 49:14 and Ob. 1:1). 293 For this hypothesis see in particular Deck 1991:243–244 and Barthel 1997: 298.

exegesis of individual pericopes

185

The present author is thus inclined to follow the most current option (option 1) and to understand verses 9–10 as a response addressed to the prophet on the lips of his opponents.294 The argument that there is no evidence of an explicit introduction to the quotation at this juncture cannot be taken as critical.295 The location of a Setumah at the end of verse 8 suggests that the Masoretes had accepted the presence of some kind of caesura between verses 8 and 9. This need not imply that the connection between verses 7–8 and 9–13 was not original.296 By introducing his opponents into the dialogue, the prophet allows them to demonstrate the effects of their ‘cloudedness’ in person. The drunken stupefaction of the aybinw: “ ˆheKo is not only evident in their facial expression but also in their speech. They consider themselves insulted and react with indignation, as if the prophet still had to teach them knowledge and as if they needed his help to achieve any degree of insight into the message. In addition, this option also incorporates the fact that the words h[;De and h[;Wmv] serve to designate the specific character of the priestly and prophetic task respectively. The priest and the prophet pose the questions in verse 9a, considering themselves slighted in their spiritual competence. When compared with verse 7, it is striking that the priestly is mentioned first in verse 9a and that the prophetic is associated with hearing (h[;Wmv]) instead of with seeing (ha,r)o .297 In the second half of verse 9 it becomes clear that the opponents of the prophet consider themselves to have been slighted in their professional competence by his critique. Indignant and not without a degree of scorn, they ask him if he sees them as infants.298 By referring to the bl;j;me yleWmG“ ‘those who are weaned from milk’ and the μyId;V;mi yqeyTi[' ‘those

See, for example, Gonçalves 1986:189 and Beuken 2000:36. For dialogue as a style feature see Alonso Schökel 1988:170–179. 296 The connection between verses 7–8 and 9–13 is occasionally considered to be problematic because the priest and the prophet are no longer mentioned in what follows. In addition, verses 9–13 do not repeat concepts that are reminiscent of verses 7–8. Cf. Van Selms 1973:332 and Exum 1982:137n. The fact that the images of staggering and falling backward portrayed in verse 13 correspond with the images of drunkenness portrayed in verse 7, however, already serves as sufficient argument in support of the unity of 28:7–13 (cf. Gonçalves 1986:190–191). Duhm 19143:171 and Marti 1900:205 consider verses 7–8 as a later redactional association with 28:1–4 inserted by the prophet himself. 297 Given its use of the first person plural, the Septuagint would also appear to have considered verse 9 as a reaction on the part of the priest and the prophet: τίνι ἀνηγγείλαμεν κακὰ καὶ τίνι ἀνηγγείλαμεν ἀγγελίαν (‘to whom have we revealed misfortune, to whom have we revealed tidings? ’). Instead of h[;De ‘knowledge’the Septuagint probably read h[;r; ‘evil’. 298 Beuken 2000:36 characterises this argumentation as a reductio ad absurdum. 294 295

186

chapter four

taken from the breast’ they suggest an answer to their own question. The bl;j;me yleWmG“ are children who have recently made the transition from the breast-feeding phase to the phase of playing and learning (cf. qnE/y ‘nursing child’ and lWmG: ‘weaned child’ in 11:8).299 The parallel designation μyId;V;mi yqeyTi[' functions in this regard as a synonym.300 Verse 10 likewise forms a part of the passage in which the prophet introduces his opponents into the dialogue in the context of his accusation. This verse is a crux interpretum and has given rise to many and various interpretations. Everything revolves around the words wx' and wq', the most important question being whether one should ascribe any meaning to the said terms or simply take them to suggest something incomprehensible. While wx' is sometimes associated with the verb hwx ‘to command’ and wq' with the verb hwq ‘to hope’, the majority of exegetes have nevertheless abandoned any efforts in finding substantial meaning in the terms wx' and wq'.301 The sound of the clause wq' wx;l; wx' wx;l; wx' yKi wq;l; wq' wq;l; is taken to be more important than its meaning. The entire phrase is understood as the imitation of a speech deficiency on the part of Isaiah302 or as the imitation of the prophet’s ecstatic speech.303 Others presume that we are dealing with meaningless ‘babble’304 or the imitation of the slurred speech of a drunkard.305 Others still sugSee Seybold 1977:28. Cf. Schmoldt 1989:488. 301 The NRSV proposes a meaningful interpretation: “For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.” As is apparent from the translation θλῖψιν ἐπὶ θλῖψιν προσδέχου ἐλπίδα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ἔτι μικρὸν ἔτι μικρὸν (‘distress upon distress, expect hope upon hope, still a while, still a while’), the Septuagint also seems to have made an effort to discover meaning in the words in question. It is probable that the Septuagint read rx' ‘distress’ instead of wx' and derived wq' from hwq ‘to hope’. By introducing the imperative προσδέχου in connection with ἐλπίδα, the Septuagint appears to aim at a positive interpretation of verse 10 and to appeal for perseverance hope in the context of distress. The words ἔτι μικρὸν ἔτι μικρὸν likewise point in this direction. Cf. LXX Job 2:9: ἰδοὺ ἀναμένω χρόνον ἔτι μικρὸν προσδεχόμενος τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας μου (‘see, I continue to have hope in my salvation a little longer ’). The suggestion of Rise 1973/4:16 that we read rx at this juncture and translate: ‘A stone, a stone, a stone, a stone, a line, a line, a line, a line, a few here, a few there’ is unusual and in the context of 28,7–13 somewhat confusing. Kissane 19602:306 is of the opinion that the root of wq' can also mean ‘to speak’ and he translates the term as ‘oracle’. He sees verse 10 as a summary of the content of Isaiah’s preaching: obedience to the law – the threat of judgement – promise of restoration. 302 Wildberger 1982:1059 makes reference to I.P. Seierstad (1946) in this regard. 303 See KBL under wx'. 304 Duhm 19143:173. Beuken 2000:38 refers to the translation of The Revised English Bible: “A babble of meaningless noises, mere sounds on every side.” 305 Ridderbos 1922:171. Driver 1968:56, 64 interprets verse 10 as a call for ‘another little drink’. 299 300

exegesis of individual pericopes

187

gest it has to do with a sort of baby-talk306 or sounds intended to help children learn to walk.307 Several exegetes have followed the suggestion that verse 10 constitutes an allusion to the teaching of the Hebrew alphabet.308 Van Selms even argues that the apparently meaningless words are to be understood as an Assyrian transcription.309 Van der Toorn understands verse 10 as the imitation of the spiritist oracular utterings of Isaiah’s opponents.310 None of these explanations do justice to the careful structure to be found in the first part of the prophecy of judgement (accusation, including response). After the redactional verse 7a, the prophet pieces together his accusation in two corresponding parts, structured in a more or less parallel fashion. In the first part (7b–8) it is the prophet himself who is speaking, while in the second part (9–10) he lets his opponents have their say. For the sake of clarity and to allow for comparison we have printed both parts of the accusation side by side: Verse 7b

Verse 9

rk;Veb' Wgv; aybin:w“ ˆheKo ˆyIY"h'Aˆmi W[l]b]nI rk;Veh'Aˆmi W[T; ha,roB; Wgv; .hY:liyliP] WqP;

h[;de hr,/y ymiAta, h=[;Wmv] ˆybiy: ymiAta,w“ bl;j;me yleWmG“ .μyId;V;mi yqeyTi['

306 Schoors 1972:166. Cf. Kilian 1994:160: “Was soll sein Gestamel, sein Papperlapapp, sein Geschwätz bald hier, sein Geschwätz bald dort?” 307 Marti 1900:206 is even of the opinion that the verse imitates the patter of tiny feet. 308 See Montgomery 1912:141–142, Procksch 1930(A):354, Kennett 1933:12, Driver 1948, Hallo 1958:237f, Herbert 1973:163, Jackson 1974:86, Fohrer 1962:51–52, Snijders 1969:282, Pfeiffer 1972:343–345, Irwin 1977:22f, Petersen 1979:109, Clements 1980(B):228, Gonçalves 1986:189, Brueggemann 1998:223 and HALAT. For Wildberger 1982:1053, the possibility of this interpretation depends on our understanding of μv; ry[ez“, which is mostly taken as a neutral form in the sense of ‘a little’. Procksch 1930(A):355 presupposes a masculine form: ‘Kleiner hier, kleiner dort’ and understands the expression as the words of a school teacher addressing his pupils one after the other. Driver 1948:90 proposes that we should read μv; as μyci and translate: ‘Attend child!’ Kaiser 19762:193 follows this suggestion. Twenty years later, Driver 1968:62 offers an alternative translation ‘another drop here’, seeing the expression as an invitation to have another drink of wine. Dietrich 1976:155 follows this suggestion. 309 Van Selms 1973:338 translates: “Go out! Let him go out! Go out! Let him go out! Wait! Let him wait! Wait! Let him wait! Servant, listen! Servant, listen!”, arguing that the entire statement is an appeal to those Judeans set aside for exile. Watson 1984:277 agrees with this suggestion. See also Jackson 1974:98. 310 Van der Toorn 1988:206 is of the opinion that verse 10 does not contain a quotation. He argues that the prophet himself is speaking at this juncture and that he is imitating the speech of his opponents as they pursue their necromantic practices. See Excursus 2.

188

chapter four Verse 8

Verse 10

t/nj;l]vuAlK; yKi h=a;xo ayqi Wal]m; s .μ/qm; yliB]

wx;l; wx' wx;l; wx' yKi wq;=l; wq' wq;l; wq' .μv; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“

Words are employed in both verse 7b and verse 9 that refer to the professional activities of the priest and the prophet: in verse 7b ha,ro ‘vision’ and hY:lyi liP] ‘judgement’, in verse 9 h[;De ‘knowledge’ and h[;Wmv] ‘message’. Both word-pairs cross-reference one another: ha,ro and h[;Wmv] allude to the work of the prophet, hY:liyliP] and h[;De to the work of the priest. At the beginning of verse 7b, the prophet designates his opponents as ˆheKo aybin:w“ ‘priest and prophet’. This designation is not repeated in verse 9, but set in contrast with the small children referred to in the second half of the verse, whereby the term bl;j; ‘milk’ functions as a counterpart to the word-pair ˆyIY" ‘wine’ and rk;ve ‘strong drink’ employed in verse 7b. Verse 7b refers to the professional functioning of the priest and the prophet while verse 9 refers to the professional status of the priest and the prophet. The prophet’s accusation with respect to the unbefitting behaviour of his opponents elicits a reaction on their part whereby they consider themselves treated unbefitting their status. They resort to a familiar defence strategy and ask the prophet if he is at all aware of the status of his addressees. He should address them as professionals and not as if they were little children. Verses 8 and 10 likewise correspond with one another. Both verses are introduced with the particle yKi and provide further motivation with respect to the preceding accusation and response. Once again there is an evident terminological cross-reference. The words wx' and wq' in verse 10 correspond with ayqi and ha;xo in verse 8, whereby the multiple repetition is intended as a caricature of Isaiah’s accusation. In an effort to arrive at a correct interpretation of this crux interpretum, I follow the line established by Driver who argued that the words wx' and wq' are an allusion to the words ayqi and ha;xo in verse 8a.311 An appropriate translation in which the allusion continues to be evident is virtually impossible. As a matter of fact, no translation can do justice to the striking sounds of the Hebrew, which as such already confirm that 311 Driver 1968:55. Schmidt 1923:80 and Kennett 1933:12 already offered suggestions in this direction, although Kennett himself was inclined to think of the letters of the alphabet. It is probable, however, that Theodotion’s translation of Isaiah read wx' as ha;x:o δεισαλια and wq' as (a)yqi: ἔμετος (see Van der Kooij 1981:152 and Halpern 1986:113). Görg 1985:16 and Halpern 1986:119 return to this ancient interpretation and Sweeney 1996:371 follows. Görg 1985:15–16 endeavours to find an etymological basis in Egyptian. Floß 1990:77 correctly insists on prudence in this regard.

exegesis of individual pericopes

189

the priest and the prophet are indeed in a state of inebriation. In an endeavour to maintain this important allusion to verse 8a, the present author opts for a paraphrasing and perhaps unconventional translation: ‘For it is all filth that he vomits over us’. 312 Isaiah’s opponents find his critique just as hard to digest as ayqi and ha;x.o The striking accumulation of the words wx' and wq' in verse 10 is not only intended to express the incomprehensibility of Isaiah’s message from the perspective of his opponents but also the indigestibility thereof. In light of the evidently artistic formation of verses 7b–10, one might consider the question whether the clause μv; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“ in verse 10b is intended in one way or another to correspond with μ/qm; yliB] in verse 8b. With the exception of the present text, the word ry[ez“ is to be found only one more time elsewhere. It is a diminutive form related to the root r[z, which has the primary meaning ‘to be/become small’ and is regularly used to designate ‘triviality’ and ‘insignificance’.313 It became apparent from the exegesis of verse 8b that the text functions as a climax and as an expression of serious outrage, the prophet employing the expression μ/qm; yliB] ‘no place is clean!’ to illustrate his horror at the fact that the vomit left by his opponents is everywhere. Given the association observed between verses 8a and 10a, it is reasonable to suggest that the clause μv; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“ ‘a little here, a little there’ should likewise be understood as a climax in verse 10b. In their turn, Isaiah’s opponents are also outraged that nothing is spared the prophet’s critique. It seems that no matter when or where, Isaiah always has a comment about everything: something insignificant here, something trivial there. There always seems to be something the matter. 4.3.3. Isa. 28:11–13: Announcement of judgement hp;c; ygE[}l'B] yKi tr,=j,a' ˆ/vl;b]W .hZ
11 Truly, with stammering lip and with alien tongue, He will speak to this people, 12 to whom He has said, “This is the resting place; give rest to the weary; and this is the place of repose.” But they would not listen.

312 As a variant on the interpretation that sees these words as baby-talk (Papperlapapp), Tanghe 1993:246–248 speaks of ‘Kackerlakack’. 313 Cf. Saebø, 1989:1083–1087. See GKG 86g1 on diminutives, which are mostly formed in Semitic languages by the insertion of a y after the second radical.

190 hw:hy“Arb'D“ μh,l; hy;h;w“ wx;l; wx' wx;l; wx' wq;l; wq' wq;l; wq' μ=v; ry[ez“ μv; ry[ez“ r/ja; Wlv]k;w“ Wkl]yE ˆ['m'l] π .WdK;l]nIw“ Wvq]/nw“ WrB;v]nIw“

chapter four 13 Therefore the word of YHWH will be to them: it is all filth which is vomited over them; whenever and wherever, in order that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken prisoner.

The announcement of judgement begins in verse 11. Following the accusation, the announcement constitutes the second part of the prophecy of judgement. This is introduced by the particle yKi, which functions here in its original deictic sense, and as such is not out of place at the beginning of a proverbial statement. The judgement being announced corresponds with the mocking rebuttal on the lips of priest and prophet, spiritual leaders who no longer understand a simple word from yhwh. They are no longer open to correction and refuse to let Isaiah teach them anything. For this reason, yhwh is now obliged to speak to them in a different way, namely ‘with stammering lip and with alien tongue’. This statement should be understood as an allusion to the people of Assyria, the clause hp;c; ygE[}l'B] being associated with the stammering impression made by the Assyrians when they spoke.314 In verse 11, the expression in question stands in cross-referenced parallel with tr,j,a' ˆ/vl;b]W. Isaiah thus introduces the incomprehensibility of the Assyrian language (see the similar designation of the people of Assyria in Isa. 33:19: yqem][i μ[' hn:yBi ˆyae ˆ/vl; g['l]nI x"/mV]mi hp;c; ‘the people of an obscure speech, which you cannot comprehend, stammering in a language that you cannot understand’) and refers thereby to the incomprehensibility that will characterise yhwh’s future communications.315 314 While the customary meaning of the verb g[l is ‘to mock ’ (cf. Septuagint: διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων), this meaning does not fit in the present instance. For this reason

we have opted for the translation ‘stammer ’, though aware that this word also carries connotations of mockery. GKG § 116b translates with ‘men of stammering lips’ and notes thereby that “a character is ascribed to them which is inseparably connected with their personality.” Wildberger 1982:1054 likewise places the emphasis on the stammering aspect of Assyrian speech: ‘unter Lippengestammel’. 315 Tanghe 1993:249 has difficulty designating God’s speech as stammering and prefers to interpret the verb as meaning ‘mock’ (see Barth 1984:583; similarly, KedarKopfstein 1984:602 can see no reason to ascribe the meaning ‘to stammer ’ in 28:11 and 33:19 instead of the more usual ‘to mock ’: “Die unverständliche Laute einer fremden Sprache reizen uns zu Spott, wie sie andererseits auch uns zu verhöhnen scheinen.” At a later date, however, Kedar-Kopfstein 1992:844 is nevertheless inclined to employ ‘Stammellippe’). According to Tanghe, the expression tr,j,a' ˆ/vl; should be understood in the same sense, namely as ‘slanderous language’ rather than ‘alien language’. He appeals for support in this regard to the Babylonian Talmud, which is said to understand ‘slander’ as a sort of ‘third language’. YHWH speaks “mit spottender Lippe und in zweideutiger

exegesis of individual pericopes

191

The poetic structure of verse 11 is that of a tricolon. Although verse 12 begins with the relative rv,a} (see the comparable situation in verse 1b), the Masoretic accentuation supports the suggestion that we should envisage the beginning of a new tricolon at this juncture. In spite of this suggestion, a semantic link can be found between verse 12 and the preceding verse in the correspondence between the verbs rbd (verse 11b) and rma (verse 12a) on the one hand, and the designation of the addressees via hZ
192

chapter four

8:6,11,12; 9:15; 28:14; 29:13,14) is an expression employed consistently in the book of Isaiah in reference to the population of Judah.318 In the context of verse 11, the expression emphasises the strange and extraordinary character of the alternative manner with which yhwh is soon going to address his people. The fact that the entire people is involved in the judgement while the spiritual leaders are its actual target should not be surprising since the leaders represent the people and the people bear the consequences of their shortcomings.319 In order to underline the change in yhwh’s speech as well as its newness and strangeness, verse 12 offers a brief summary of yhwh’s words in former times employing a relative clause. This summary reference to the past deviates from the customary pattern expected within the framework of an announcement of judgement. A similar deviation had been observed in 28:16, in which instance reference was made to yhwh’s deeds in former times rather than to his words (cf. also 30:15–17).320 While the relative clause with which the link with the preceding verse (11) is established comes across as rather prosaic, verse 12 as a whole is nevertheless characterised by a recognisable poetic structure in which the clauses hj;WnM]h taOz ‘this is the resting place’ and taOzw h[;GEr“M'h' ‘and this is the place of repose’ and the exclamations πyE[;l, WjynIh; ‘give rest to the weary!’ and x'/mv] aWba; aløw“ ‘yet they would not listen’ correspond with one another. Given the fact that verses 11 and 12 are also clearly linked at the level of content, there is insufficient reason to accept the

See Beuken 2000:38. Barthel 1997:300 is of the opinion that the people in general are not the targets of judgement but rather the religious and political uppercrust mentioned in verse 12a. There is no evidence to support the reading of hZ
exegesis of individual pericopes

193

suggestion that verse 12 should be considered a later addition.321 The explicit reference to yhwh’s words in former times serves to underline the strangeness with which his dialogue with his people is about to be continued and thus functions exceptionally well in the context of the present announcement of judgement. The words of yhwh in former times were characterised by intelligibility and consisted in concrete terms of directions to the path of rest. The prophet, however, has announced a divine utterance in which this is no longer the case. YHWH is going to conceal himself behind the incomprehensible language of the Assyrians and as a consequence any form of rest will disappear. Reference to the designated place of rest and place of repose in the words of yhwh in former times was made with the two parallel key words hj;WnM]h' and h[;GEr“M'h' (cf. Mi. 2:10: hj;WnM]h' taOzAalø). The word hj;Wnm] ‘place of rest’, is best understood in the first instance as an actual place of rest and not as an abstract concept. This is in agreement with the use of the term elsewhere in the Old Testament (see, for example, Num. 10:33; Deut. 12:9; Isa. 11:10; Mi. 2:10; Ps. 95:11 and 132:8,14).322 It falls within the contours of Isaiah’s preaching, however, to then associate the said place of rest with Zion, the place in which yhwh himself had found a hj;Wnm] (Ps. 132:8,14), which could be extended to the people of Israel (1 Kgs 8:56; cf. Isa. 14:32).323 While a link with the motif of entry into the promised land is less evident in the context of the book of Isaiah, the entry into the promised land and the election of Zion line up well with each other elsewhere (see, for example, Ex. 15:17 and Psalm 132) and while they can be distinguished from one another they cannot be separated. Ps. 95:11, for example, makes the close association between the land and Zion as place of rest particularly clear. Given the fact that the retrospective glance towards Israel’s period in the wilderness is to be found in the context of a psalm that calls upon pilgrims to bow down before yhwh, the latter’s oath that the hardened generation shall never find its place of rest can refer to either the land or the temple.324 The second word 321 Kaiser 19762:196 speaks of “eine aus dem Rückblick formulierte Zusammenfassung der Predigt Jesajas durch den frühestens zwischen 597 und 587 anzusetzenden Bearbeiter.” Kilian 1994:161 follows this opinion. Clements 1980(B):228, Wildberger 1982:1060 and Oswalt 1986:513 correctly reject the idea as unnecessary. 322 See Gonçalves 1986:193f and Beuken 2000:39–40. 323 Cf. Preuß 1985:305, Gonçalves 1986:194 and in particular De Jong 2002:12–43. For Becker 1997:231, the allusion to Zion is already sufficient reason to consider verse 12 as secondary. 324 Braulik 1986:33–44 offers a plausible argument for interpreting Ps. 95:11 as a

194

chapter four

h[;GrE m“ ' ‘repose’ is only found here (cf. x"/Gr“m' ‘rest’ in Jer. 6:16), although the meaning is clear on the basis of the verb [gr ‘to rest’ and the parallel with hj;Wnm].325 It is striking that the Septuagint translates h[;GEr“m' ‘repose’ with τὸ σύντριμμα ‘rupture’ or ‘destruction’ (cf. LXX Isa. 22:4; 30:14,26; Rom. 3:16): τοῦτο τὸ ἀνάπαυμα τῷ πεινῶντι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ σύντριμμα ‘this is the place of rest for the hungry and this is the destruction’ rather than as a parallel of hj;Wnm] ‘place of rest’. As was the case with verse 10 (and 13), the Septuagint would appear to have conjoined the preaching of salvation and of doom at this juncture as well. The short appeal to give rest to the weary is central to verse 12.326 The appeal in question, which is absent oddly enough in the Septuagint, indicates yhwh’s intention with respect to the place of rest He has designated. From the very beginning, the choice of God’s resting place enjoyed a social dimension. Zion was intended as the place of rest and refuge for the unfortunate (cf. 14:32). The term πyE[; ‘weary’ stands for those who are exhausted and in need of compassion whatever the reason (cf. Job 22:7). It is part of the prophetic expectation that God himself will replenish the hp;yE[} vp,n< ‘the weary soul’ ( Jer. 31:25). In line with the other prophecies of Isaiah, we can observe in the final colon of verse 12 that the realisation of the said social justice had not taken place in the prophet’s day, though not as a consequence of impotence but rather as a result of the obstinacy of the spiritual leaders of Judah and Jerusalem respectively. In their very refusal to give ear to yhwh’s appeal and to grant rest to the weary, the incapacity of the priest and the prophet to provide spiritual leadership is painfully exposed. Their stubborn reaction to the words of yhwh in former times is summarised in a brief but powerful statement: x"/mv] aWba; aløw“ ‘but they would not listen’ (cf. 30:15: μt,ybia} aløw“ ‘but you refused . . .’).327 This disappointing reaction reference to the temple, but incorrectly opposes this to interpreting the said place of rest as the land. The psalm itself does not occasion such a contrast. The land and Zion can be seen as a continuation of one another (cf. 1 Chron. 23:25). 325 See Kronholm 1990:347–350. 326 I see no reason to follow Roberts 1980:50 and supplement πyE[;l, WjynIh; ‘give rest to the weary’ with ˆwybal w[ygrh ‘let the poor rest’. While such a suggestion serves to restore a degree of symmetry, it misunderstands existing correspondence between the expressions πyE[;l, WjynIh; ‘give rest to the weary’ and x"/mv] aWba; aløw“ ‘but they would not listen’. 327 The orthography of aWba; is unusual. GKG § 23i presupposes the possibility that the concluding a may represent an early scribal error (cf. Aramaic aba). 1QIsaa and many other mss have wba. Given the fact that this reading would appear to be the more correct (cf. 30:9), Procksch 1930(A):356, Donner 1964:148 and others emend the text. Wildberger 1982:1054 points out, however, that similarly unusual orthography can be encountered elsewhere in the Masoretic text. Oswalt 1986:503 refers in this regard

exegesis of individual pericopes

195

on the part of the spiritual leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, which was already evident in verses 9 and 10, is now extended to include the people themselves. Given the fact that the subject of x"/mv] aWba; aløw“ is not nominalised in verses 12 and 13, it is possible to understand it as both the aybin:w“ ˆheKo ‘priest and prophet’ referred to in verse 7 and μ[;h; hZ
196

chapter four

snared and taken prisoner.’). If yhwh turns against his people, the consequences are devastating. The piling up of verb forms (1 × yiqtôl and 4 × weqatal ) at this juncture underlines the totality of the destruction in similar fashion to the fact that piling up of verb forms in verse 7b (5 × qatal ) demonstrated the total character of the ‘confusion’ of the priest and the prophet on account of their drinking.329 As a matter of fact, verses 7b and 13 also correspond with one another in terms of content: drunken confusion and devastation both result in one massive fall!330 The fact that the terms employed in verse 13b transcend those employed in verse 7b in terms of force, serves to underline the seriousness of the refusal to listen. The destructive force of the word of yhwh is ultimately more powerful than that of wine! The poetic structure of verse 13 is surprising in the sense that a monocolon is followed by a tricolon, an unusual phenomenon in Old Testament poetry.331 The use of the tricolon in verse 13a, however, is related to the fact that it refers back literally to verse 10. The precise configuration of the bicolon in verse 13b requires a slight deviation from the Masoretic accentuation. It is difficult to determine why the Masoretes placed a Zāqēf parvum [5] with the word WrB;v]nIw“. This is somewhat unexpected if one bears in mind the imbalance it creates in the bicolon (5 + 2) and the interruption it introduces into the series of verb forms WdK;l]nIw“ Wvq]/nw“ WrB;v]nIw“ ‘they shall be broken, snared and taken prisoner’, which are otherwise closely associated with one another in terms of form and content (cf. 8:15). A departure from the Masoretic accentuation is thus advised in this instance with a bicolon consisting of 4 + 3 beats. I can see no reason, however, to consider verse 13 as a secondary interpolation.332 The fact that the conclusion to verse 13 agrees with 8:15 is insufficient reason to support the designation of verse 13 as secondary. Indeed, both 13a and 13b are too closely related to the accusation of the present prophecy of judgement to be considered secondary. In addition, verses 11 and 13 do not contain mutually exclusive announcements of judgement. The hw:hy“Arb'D“ contained in verse 13 can be considered a further concretisation of hZ
exegesis of individual pericopes

197

verse 11, the effect of yhwh’s new and strange manner of speaking as described in the concluding verse 13 is given priority (cf. 28:4, likewise a weqatal clause). After the observation of the refusal to listen to the words of yhwh in former times at the end of verse 12, a concluding description of the approaching judgement is far from out of place at this juncture (cf. 30:15–17). Indeed, without verse 13, verse 12 would constitute a rather unusual conclusion to a prophecy of judgement and a further concretisation of the judgement alluded to in verse 11 would thus be lacking. The delay in revealing yhwh himself as the subject of the words spoken in verses 11 and 12 until verse 13, serves to confirm that the announcement of judgement only reaches its final conclusion in this latter verse. 4.4. Evaluation Given that the pericopes 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 are closely related with one another in the present composition of the book of Isaiah, it seems appropriate at this juncture to provide an evaluation of the exegesis so far. In so doing, we will endeavour to establish a picture of the similarities and points of connection between the two pericopes as well as the differences. The relationship between 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 goes much further than the redactional connection created by the particle ˆkel; at the beginning of verse 14. The careful comparison of both pericopes provides evidence of formal points of association together with agreement in terms of content: • Both 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 belong to the prophecy of judgement genre, whereby the common pattern of accusation followed by announcement of judgement is clearly recognisable. In the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, the accusation consists of verses 7–10, with the announcement of judgement following in verses 11–13. In the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, the accusation consists of verses 14–15 and the announcement of judgement of verses 16–22. • Both prophecies of judgement likewise agree with one another in the sense that the traditional pattern of the accusation is interrupted in each instance in a comparably creative fashion. The prophet has integrated a quotation which is clearly marked as such in the accusation of the second prophecy of judgement (28:15). In the exegesis of 28:7–13, it likewise became apparent that verses 9–10 can best

198

•

•

•

•

•

chapter four

be explained as a reaction on the part of Isaiah’s opponents. The prophet thus appears to have incorporated this latter reaction into his accusation in the form of a quotation. While verses 9–10, in contrast to 28:15, are not explicitly introduced as a quotation, both prophecies of judgement have nevertheless created space in the formulation of the accusation for the words of the accused (see also 30:16). A similar interruption in the customary pattern of the announcement of judgement is likewise evident in both prophecies. In the announcement of judgement in the first prophecy, the prophet makes an explicit reference to the past, namely to the words spoken by yhwh in former times (verse 12). The announcement of judgement in the second prophecy contains a similar reference to the past in verse 16, namely to the deeds undertaken by yhwh in former times (see also 30:15).333 The connection between the prophecies of judgement in 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 is not only a formal one, it is also content based. Both prophecies refer to the past and are related specifically to Zion. God’s designation of Zion as place of rest (verse 12) corresponds with the establishment of Zion or, more specifically, of a stone in Zion (verse 16). While both 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 clearly belong to the prophecy of judgement genre and the reference to Zion has been ascribed a place in the context of the announcement of judgement, the allusion in both instances is related nevertheless to yhwh’s original plan of salvation. It became evident from our exegesis of the texts in question that both prophecies presuppose Judah/Jerusalem as addressees. While 28:14 explicitly identifies its addressee, the content of 28:7–13 makes it clear that the addressee of the prophecy in question should be identified as Judah and Jerusalem respectively. This can be determined on the basis of the reference to ‘this people’ in verse 11 as well as the words concerning the place of rest in verse 12. It would appear that the expression hZ
333 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:201: “C’est à la lumière de Is., XXVIII, 7b–13 et XXX, 15–17 que l’on doit interpréter la fonction de Is., XXVIII, 16.”

exegesis of individual pericopes

199

is to be understood as the executor of divine judgement. Allusion is made in 28:11 to the incomprehensible language of the Assyrians with the words tr,ja , ' ˆ/vl;bW] hp;c; ygE[l} B' ]. In 28:(15,)18, the designation πfe/v f/v constitutes a reference to the imperialism and expansionism that characterised the Assyrians. • The prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 correspond in the way they make reference to the hiddenness of God in the approaching judgement. Both prophecies allude to the fact that yhwh is going to conceal himself behind Assyrian hostilities. This takes the form of a dramatic transformation in the speech of yhwh in 28:7–13. God is going to continue his interaction with his people in an incomprehensible language and in an alien tongue (verse 11). The suggestion emerging from this observation is that God’s own words are going to become incomprehensible and alien. In the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, this element of alienation is related to God’s deeds—as opposed to his words—, which shall be strange and out of the ordinary (verse 21). There is thus a clear link between the strange deeds of yhwh in verse 21 and the strange words of yhwh in verse 11. The announcement of judgement in both prophecies implies a complete turnabout in God’s interaction with his people. Yhwh conceals himself behind the hostile advance of Assyria. Judah is about to undergo the shocking experience of a hitherto unknown divine eclipse. The shocking aspect is not only related to the divine judgement as such but primarily to the insight that yhwh himself is at work behind the Assyrian advance (cf. verse 19b). A number of differences in accent, however, are also evident between 28:7–13 and 28:14–22, which are likewise both formal and content based: • The prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 is explicitly addressed to the political leaders to whom it refers as the hZ
200

chapter four

timbre of both the accusation and the announcement of judgement of 28:14–22. The prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13 is composed entirely in the third person. • While both prophecies have included a significant reference to God’s salvific plan in their announcement of judgement, the accent in 28:12 is placed on yhwh’s words in former times and in 28:16 on his deeds in former times. • Likewise in terms of content, both Zion texts have a specific accent. In 28:12, the socio-ethical implications of God’s choice of Zion are in the foreground, in 28:16 the political implications thereof. One can derive from 30:15 that the refusal of Jerusalem’s leaders to listen had to do with both the social and the political dimension related to God’s choice of a place of rest. While both aspects can be distinguished in practice, they nevertheless cannot be strictly separated. It is possible that a political background existed to the statement of 28:12, since it would primarily have been the ordinary citizen who would have suffered as a result of the political options stemming from Jerusalem.334 In the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, however, politics does not enjoy a foreground position. One can conclude on the basis of the differences in accentuation evident between 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 that both prophecies of judgement can be distinguished from one another in terms of clarity and focus. The prophecy of 28:7–13 is characterised by a striking degree of reserve in the orientation of its message. While it is unmistakably clear that the prophecy in question intends to be understood in relation to Jerusalem and Zion, further detailed localisation is lacking. The effect of the composition of Isaiah 28 as we now have it is thus a visible increase in clarity and focus with respect to 28:7–13 and 28:14–22. This increasing definition is also expressed in the use of direct speech in the second person. Together with the explicit localisation of the addressees and the mention of Zion, the said direct speech provides the prophecy of judgement of Isa. 28:14–22 in its present literary context with the character of a climax.335 Given the fact that both prophecies of judgement (28:7–13 and 28:14–22) are closely connected with one another in terms of form and 334 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:534–536. The term πyE[; is used here as “kollektivisch den Israeliten der Jesajazeit, der durch alle Kriegswirren und Ausbeutung erschöpft ist.” (Hasel 1982:716) 335 Cf. Beuken 2000:44.

exegesis of individual pericopes

201

content, it would thus seem reasonable to date them both to the same period.336 The message in both instances is best understood against the background of the revolt against Sennacherib, which reached its dramatic conclusion in the year 701. Terminological kinship, in particular between 28:14–22 and 30:1–5, serves to support such a dating. The prophet expresses his revulsion concerning the policy adhered to in Jerusalem during the years of the revolt, a policy that sought help from Egypt as a means of protection against the power of Assyria. He denounces the bragging self-assuredness of the political authorities with stern language in 28:14–22. In their endeavour to seek the help of Egypt they have ultimately signed their own death warrant. Their covenant with Egypt will turn out to be a covenant with death. Their self-destructive policy is explained by the prophet as a grave misunderstanding of God’s salvific deeds in former times. In opting for Zion, God established a rock-solid foundation, a rock-solid foundation that invites faith. Judgement is the natural consequence of such a misunderstanding of God’s former salvific deeds. The prophet announces this forthcoming judgement by staying as close as he can to the words of the initial accusation. The security sought by Jerusalem’s leaders in a covenant with Egypt will not hold out against the violence of the Assyrians that is about to be let loose upon them. The seriousness of the said judgement is underlined by the divine eclipse with which it is accompanied. The prophecy of 28:7–13 is likewise best understood against the background of Judah’s uprising against Sennacherib. In 28:7–13, the prophet expresses his disgust concerning the spiritual leaders of Judah, namely the priests and (cultic) prophets who overindulge themselves by participating in extravagant feasts. Much is made of the motif of drunkenness in exposing the incompetence of Judah’s spiritual leaders. The priests and prophets of Jerusalem are completely incapable of providing the people with spiritual leadership.337 This incompetence is evident in the first instance in their refusal to allow the place Cf. Gonçalves 1986:195. A difference of opinion exists with respect to the cultic or political nature of the feast in question. In line with Procksch 1930(A):353, Dietrich 1976:155 emphatically opts for the latter. It is probable, however, that both cult and politics are being mixed together at this juncture, although a more or less generalising description is not unthinkable (see Barthel 1997:296). In any event, the focus of Isaiah’s critique is without doubt the drunken confusion of Judah’s spiritual leaders (see also 22:12–14). Cf. Donner 1964:151 and Clements 1980(B):226. 336

337

202

chapter four

designated by yhwh as a place of rest to be likewise a place of social justice. Once again God’s salvific plan with respect to Zion has been completely misunderstood. The judgement subsequently announced by the prophet at this juncture again corresponds with the accusation and likewise implies a dramatic divine eclipse expressed in the transformation of yhwh’s words. Instead of a clear message of rest, the people are now confronted with an incomprehensible and unpalatable message of judgement, which, in line with 28:14–22, will be brought about at the hands of the Assyrians. It is probable that the Assyrians already constituted a growing threat to Judah at the moment both prophecies were uttered. Bearing in mind the remaining prophecies collected in this segment of the book (chapters 28–32[33]), it seems reasonable to date both 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 to the period prior to the siege of Jerusalem in 701.338 There would appear to be no reason to call the authenticity of either prophecy of judgement into question. Theme and terminology together with creative interaction with the genre of prophetic judgement and masterful use of poetic technique point in both instances to the prophet Isaiah himself. There is no evidence to suggest that one or both of the prophecies in question was not composed by Isaiah. Significant unanimity in this matter exists among exegetes. The Isaianic character of the prophecy of 28:7–13 is virtually undisputed and the same is true, albeit to a lesser degree, of the prophecy of 28:14–22. The question of authenticity has already been discussed in considerable detail in § 3.5. The fact that both prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 exhibit such a degree of cohesion further reinforces our conviction that the Isaianic authorship of 28:14–22 cannot be denied. While it is difficult to be certain with respect to the concluding verses 19–22, it would be exegetically irresponsible to question the authenticity of verses 14–18. The same can thus be said for the Zion text of 28:16. The evident structural and content based agreement with the 338 Fohrer 1962:49 dates 28:7–13 to the period of Ashdod’s uprising against Sargon (713–711). A similar suggestion is to be found in Schoors 1972:165 and Schneider 1988:382. The location of this prophecy prior to 28:14–22, and the associations between both prophecies in terms of form and content, make a later date more probable. Wildberger 1982:1057 considers this prophecy to be the earliest statement of Isaiah on the occasion of the revolt against Sennacherib. Cf. also Ridderbos 1922:169, Procksch 1930(A):353, Donner 1964:151, Eichrodt 1967:122, Kaiser 19762:187 and Clements 1980(B):226. The date ascribed by Schmidt 1923:82 during the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734–732) is striking, but highly improbable. Cf. also Kissane 19602:299 and Lindblom 1955:128–129.

exegesis of individual pericopes

203

preceding prophecy in which allusion is made within the framework of an announcement of judgement to the words of YHWH uttered in the past concerning Zion (28:12), leads unavoidably to the conclusion that the allusion to the deeds of JHWH performed in the past on behalf of Zion (28:16), likewise within the framework of an announcement of judgement, must also be ascribed to the prophet Isaiah. The fact that some exegetes nevertheless find it difficult to accept the authenticity of verses 16–17a has to be seen in combination with two additional factors. On the one hand, their reticence is a consequence of the hitherto widely affirmed hypothesis that the verses are to be interpreted as a promise concerning the future, and that they do not fit well in their present context for this reason. On the other hand, the assignment of a later date to the Zion tradition likewise has a clear role to play in this regard. It has become evident from the exegesis, however, that verses 16–17a should not be explained as a statement of promise. Indeed, verse 16 does not appear to make reference to God’s salvific deeds in the future but rather to his salvific deeds in the past. The content of verse 17a likewise makes it clear that this verse should not be interpreted as a promise of future salvation but rather as already containing the announcement of judgement. While the use of the first person and the striking location of the verses in question—in between a pair of statements that more or less mirror one another—do indeed distinguish verses 16–17a from their context, one would misunderstand the content-based and terminological associations with their own context and the content-based and structural associations with the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, were one to remove these verses from their context and question their Isaianic origins. The exegesis of our text still has to draw its final conclusions with respect to the dating of the Zion tradition. It goes without saying, however, that one should not exclude the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 from the discussion in advance. On the contrary! The present author is convinced that his exegesis of both prophecies (28:7–13 and 28:14–22) has provided sufficient evidence to include the Zion text of 28:16 as part of the authentic preaching of the prophet Isaiah. 4.5. Isa. 28:1–6 and 28:23–29 While the exegesis of both the prophecies of judgement 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 is of primary importance for our research, it nevertheless seems appropriate to conclude the present chapter with some

204

chapter four

considerations related to the external pericopes of chapter 28, namely 28:1–6 and 28:23–29. Both texts constitute a part of the transmitted composition of Isaiah 28 and function thereby as the most proximate context for the central pericopes of the chapter. Following a discussion of the individual texts we will endeavour to determine and evaluate the relationship of both with the prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 within the context of Isaiah 28 as a whole. 4.5.1. Isa. 28:1–6: Prophecy of judgement and promise of salvation The pericope formed by verses 1–6 of Isaiah 28 consists of a prophecy of judgement (28:1–4) and a promise of salvation (28:5–6), both of which are linked at the thematic level. The pericope can thus be understood as a redactional unity. A prophecy of judgement is commonly made up of a complaint and an announcement of judgement. In the case of 28:1–4, the function of the complaint is fulfilled by a woe saying (28:1), which is followed immediately by the announcement of judgement (28:2–4), introduced by the interjection hNEhi.339 In rather ‘florid’ language, the prophet announces the fall of Samaria, the once so proud capital of the northern kingdom, Ephraim. The challenging message of the prophecy of judgement is followed in 28:5–6 by a promise of salvation, which sets an understandably more friendly tone. Although the Masoretes have marked the latter off as a separate unit (Setumah), it remains closely linked to the preceding prophecy of judgement in terms of theme and terminology. In the exegesis of the text in question, we will discuss whether the promise of salvation of 28:5–6 was linked to the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 from the outset or whether it should be understood as a later addition. A further yet related question concerns the addressation of the pericope, whether the promise of salvation is addressed to Samaria, the primary addressee of the prophecy of judgement. We will conclude our discussion of this part of the text with a number of considerations related to the authenticity of 28:1–6. We begin, as usual, with the Hebrew text and its English translation:

339 According to Janzen 1972:54, the formal characteristics of a prophecy of judgement are not evident in 28:1–4: “While punishment is to come upon the haughty, the formal structure is determined by this ‘reversal of imagery’, rather than the balance of Begründung und Ankündigung.”

exegesis of individual pericopes

205

1 Woe the proud garland of Ephraim’s drunkards, the fading flower, its glorious jewel, which is at the head of the fertile valley, of those overcome with wine. 2 See, the Lord has one who is mighty and strong like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest. Like a storm of mighty overflowing waters, he slaps to the ground with his mighty hand, 3 trampled underfoot he will be, the proud garland of Ephraim’s drunkards. 4 And the fading flower, its glorious jewel, which is at the head of the fertile valley, will be like a first-ripe fig before the summer, whoever sees it and while it is still in his hand, eats it up. 5 On that day YHWH Zebaot will be a garland of glory and a diadem of beauty to the remnant of his people. fP;v]Mih'Al[' bve/Yl' fP;=v]mi j"Wrl]W 6 And (he shall be) a spirit of justice to s .hr;[v] ; hm;jl; m] i ybeyvim] hr;Wbg“lwi “ the one who sits in judgement, and (a spirit of ) strength to those who turn back the battle to the gate.

y/h μyIr'p]a, yreKovi tWaGE tr,f,[} /T=r“a'p]ti ybix] lbenO ≈yxiw“ μynIm;v]AayGE vaOrAl[' rv,a} .ˆyIy: ymeWlh} yn:doal' ≈Mia'w“ qz:j; hNEhi bf,q;= r['c' dr;B; μr,z
The complaint with which the judgement prophecy of 28:1–4 begins takes the form of a woe saying, a frequently employed genre borrowed from the funerary lament or mourning cry.340 Prophets regularly made use of the woe saying to make clear that the judgement they had announced was inevitable.341 The fact that the exclamatory y/h stands outside the metre of verse 1 (anacrusis), serves to reinforce this inevitability.342 The object of the woe saying is referred to as ‘the proud

340 Westermann 19683:137–140 presumes that the woe saying has its roots in the imprecation, but this hypothesis no longer enjoys any following. Whedbee 1971:80–110 follows Gerstenberger ( JBL 81, 1962) who argues that the genre of the woe saying originated from wisdom circles, in spite of the fact that the expression rarely occurs in wisdom literature as such. Whedbee bases himself, nevertheless, on Isa. 3:10–11 and Qoh. 10:16–17. On the genre of the woe saying see Williams 1967:75–91, Wolff 1969:284–287, Janzen 1972, Zobel 1977:382–388, Jenni 1978:474–477 and Hillers 1983:185–188. 341 Zobel 1977:387: “Wenn die hoj-Worte der Propheten auf den Totenklageruf zurückgehen, dann bedeutet das Lautwerden des hoj soviel wie Todesansage, wie Verkündigung des Gerichts jhwhs.” Cf. Beuken 2000:3: “It colours the prophetic oracles with the suggestion of death as the inevitable consequence of immoral behaviour.” 342 Beuken 2000:23.

206

chapter four

garland of Ephraim’s drunkards’. The word tr,f,[} represents the most important key to the entire pericope (see also verses 3 and 5). In spite of the fact that the term is commonly translated as ‘crown’, our option for ‘garland’ is not without reason and is related to the motif of drunkenness that sets the tone of the prophecy.343 It would appear that wealthy individuals from the upper echelons of society frequently gathered in those days for drinking feasts at which it was the custom to tie a garland of flowers around one’s head.344 Ezek. 23:42 likewise appears to allude to this custom.345 In the woe saying of 28:1, the prophet denounces such drinking sprees and masterfully transforms the garland associated therewith into an image for Samaria, the proud capital of Ephraim located high above the valley (cf. 7:9: ˆ/rm]vo μyIr'p]a, vaOrw“). By typifying the garland as tWaGE ‘proud’, the prophet underlines its metaphorical character from the outset.346 The parallel between tWaGE tr,f,[} ‘proud garland’ and lbenO ≈yxi ‘fading flower’ confirms the translation of tr,f,[} as ' t] i ybix] ‘garland’.347 The syntactical connection between lbenO ≈yxi and /Tr“ap ‘the jewel of its glory’, or ‘its glorious jewel’, is not entirely clear.348 Some exegetes understand the segment to be a nominal clause, describing the pathetic state of the proud garland: ‘for its glorious jewel is a fading ' t] i ybix] flower’.349 The present author is more inclined to understand /Tr“ap as appositional to lbenO ≈yxi350 or to treat the ‘stilted’ sentence structure as 343 Cf. Steins 1989:1030. According to Kellermann 1989:24, ‘garland’ even precedes ‘crown’ in terms of etymology. 344 See Asen 1996:73–87 whose explanation revolves around the relationship between flowers, drunkenness and religion. Asen argues that Ephraim’s leaders, in like fashion to their counterparts in Judah (cf. 28:7–13), “participated in lavish banquets reminiscent of the ancient marzē a , where flowers, food, unguents and wine were essential ingredients.” (73) McLaughlin 2001:169 disputes the suggestion that the presence of flowers in 28:1–4 serves as evidence in support of an allusion to the marzē a . On the marzē a see Excursus 2. 345 Ezek. 23:42: “The sound of a raucous multitude was around her, with many of the rabble brought in drunken from the wilderness; and they put bracelets on the arms of the women (i.e. Oholah and Oholibah = Samaria and Jerusalem, JD), and beautiful crowns (tr,a,p]Ti tr,f,[}) upon their heads.” (NRSV) 346 Reference is made in Ps. 93:1; Isa. 12:5 and 26:10 to the tWaGE of God which clearly alludes to God’s magnificence. When used of persons, however, the term quickly acquires the negative connotation of ‘pride’. See Kellermann 1973:881–882 and Stähli 19783:381. 347 The word ≈yxi literally means ‘blossom’, but can also serve to designate a form of headdress with a flower motif (cf. the golden rosette on Aaron’s turban in Ex. 28:36). 348 On the strength of a number of philological and archaeological considerations, Gilula 1974:128 suggests that we understand ybix] as the designation of a form of headdress. Görg 1977:17–23 has disputed this proposal. 349 See Deck 1991:80 and Barthel 1997:280, both of whom appeal to Vogt. 350 Wildberger 1982:1042.

exegesis of individual pericopes

207

a conscious allusion to the pompousness of the accused drunkards.351 In spite of these alternatives, however, the message of the woe saying is clear: from the prophet’s point of view, Samaria already counts as part of Ephraim’s faded glory. In the subordinate clause that forms the second part of verse 1, the allusion to Ephraim’s capital is more explicit, although the name Samaria remains unspoken both here and in the remainder of the prophecy.352 A number of exegetes are of the opinion that μynIm;v]AayGE ‘the fertile valley’ in verse 1 is a later interpolation taken from verse 4, insisting that the original text only referred to the garland on the heads of those drunk with wine.353 In such an instance, reference to the city of Samaria would thus have to be deferred until verse 4.354 The use of the suffix in /Tr“a'p]ti ybix] ‘its (not: their) glorious jewel’ suggests, however, that the prophet is referring to Samaria from the start. It would seem ill advised, therefore, to take the expression μynIm;v]AayGE as a later interpolation. Other exegetes point their arrows at the concluding expression ymeWlh} ˆyIy: ‘those overcome with wine’.355 Arguing that it is syntactically clumsy to associate the expression ˆyIy: ymeWlh} as a genitive with the preceding μynIm;v]AayGE ‘the fertile valley’, they suggest relocating these words to the beginning of the verse where they then take their place as parallel to μyIr'p]a, yreKovi ‘Ephraim’s drunkards’,356 or alternatively to understand the words ˆyIy: ymeWlh} as a gloss.357 Nevertheless, the association of ˆyIy: ymeWlh}

Beuken 2000:24. The suggestion proposed by Marti 1900:202, namely that μynImv ; ] is a corrupt gloss rooted in ˆrom]vo ‘Samaria’ is unacceptable. It is more likely that the prophet intentionally left Samaria unidentified as an expression of his contempt. This style figure is known as aposiopesis. See Beuken 2000:24. 353 Kaiser 19762:189 draws this conclusion on the basis of the syntax and refers in this regard to GKG § 128c in which the text is determined to be ‘almost certainly corrupt’ on account of the unusual genitive following a status absolutus. Cf. also Williams 1967:79. Duhm 19143:169 and Procksch 1930(A):349, however, had already objected to this solution because it suggests that the drunkards in question wore Samaria on their heads. 354 Wildberger 1982:1042. 355 See also Prov. 23:35 for the use of the verb μlh ‘to cast down’ in relation to drunkenness. 356 Kissane 19602:303. Loretz 1977:362 considers the entire intervening clause as a gloss on account of its presumed prose character. Donner 1964:76 relocates the words ˆyIy: ymeWlh} to the end of verse 2. Laberge 1982:162 maintains that verse 1b as a whole exhibits a secondary character. 357 Barthel 1997:281. In an attempt to get round the problem of the genitive, Driver 1968:48 suggests we accept an ancient text correction and read in line with 1QIsaa, 351 352

208

chapter four

with vaOrAl[', without the elimination of μynIm;v]AayGE, deserves serious consideration. We would then be left with a translation along the following lines: ‘Woe the proud garland of Ephraim’s drunkards, the fading flower, its glorious jewel, which is at the head of the fertile valley, (on the heads) of those overcome with wine.’ Such a solution is the least problematic in terms of syntax, requires minimal interference with the text and respects the ambiguity of the woe saying.358 The poetic structure of verse 1 becomes clear if one takes two bicola as one’s point of departure, verse 1a consisting of a bicolon with 4 + 4 beats (y/h taken as anacrusis), and verse 1b consisting of a bicolon with 3 + 2 beats. At first sight, however, the Masoretic system leaves one with the impression of a tricolonic structure, since the important distinctive accent (see nr. 1 to 7 of the Tabula Accentuum in BHS) is missing with respect to μynIm;v]AayGE. The fact that ˆyIy: ymeWlh} is syntactically dependent on vaOrAl[' rv,a} , however, suggests the presence of ellipsis in verse 1b. This firmly supports the reading of verse 1b as an independent bicolon. By way of exception, the accent Tif hā [8] related to μynIm;v]AayGE thus serves to demarcate a colon. The announcement of judgement in verses 2–4 follows the woe saying in verse 1, the latter functioning as a complaint or accusation. The former also begins with a nominal clause introduced with the help of an interjection. This syntactical datum confirms the connection between verses 2–4 and the woe saying. Prediction is made, in the first instance, of God’s (yn:dao )} imminent intervention in verses 2–3. Emphasis, however, is not placed on yn:doa} himself, but rather on the fronted expression qz:j; ≈Mia'w“ ‘one who is mighty and strong’, which serves as subject.359 Reference is clearly being made here to Assyria. The emphasis with which the said subject is presented in the text corresponds with the activities ascribed thereto in verses 2–3.360 As part of his announcement of the coming μynmvAyag ‘men proud of fat things’. He agrees with Rost 1935:292 in this regard. Herbert 1973:160–161 and Asen 1996:83 follow Driver’s explanation. For further information on this text-critical question, see De Waard 1997:118. 358 See Oswalt 1986:507 and Beuken 2000:14. 359 Laberge 1982:164 considers it possible that the expression ≈Mia'w“ qz:j; ‘one who is mighty and strong’ represents an allusion to the familiar exhortation ≈m;a‘w< qz"j} ‘be strong and courageous’, which is often used in the context of the War of YHWH (see, for example, Jos. 1:6–9). 360 Verses 2–3 are structured as three bicola (4 + 4, 4 + 3 and 2 + 4 beats respectively). An important distinctive accent is missing in verse 2b. From the perspective of consistency, however, it seems reasonable to take this likewise as a bicolon (4 + 3). The accent T evîr [12] thus functions at this juncture as the demarcation of a colon.

exegesis of individual pericopes

209

judgement, the prophet makes use of metaphors that function elsewhere as phenomena accompanying a theophany (cf. Hab. 3:10 and Ps. 18:13; see also Isa. 30:30). Reference is made to a hailstorm, a whirlwind and a powerful flood of water.361 The presence of theophanic terminology in 28:2–3, however, is completely focused on the appearance of Assyria rather than the appearance of God. The phenomena accompanying the theophany function here and in other prophecies in the book of Isaiah as metaphors for the Assyrian army (cf. 8:7–8; 17:12–13 and 28:17). The fact that the name of Assyria is not explicitly mentioned is likely related to the prophet’s desire to focus attention completely on the activity of God, which goes hand in hand with the suggestion of a theophany called to mind by the metaphors he employs. The announced divine judgement is presented in the form of a double comparison (2x μr,z
361 For the various semantic nuances associated with these words for rainstorm see Zobel 1984:827–830. Zobel is of the opinion that 28:2,17 takes ancient images from the context of the War of yhwh and redirects them against Israel (835–836). It is also possible that the verses in question contain a reminiscence of the cosmic chaos powers, particularly when reference is made to the μypif]vo μyrIyBiK' μyIm' (cf. Clements 1984:853, 861). 362 See also Wildberger 1982:1048. Exum 1982:115–116 argues that the subject should be left open on account of the ambivalent character of the metaphorical language. Cf. also Beuken 2000:27.

210

chapter four

that reference is being made to the garland metaphorising Samaria in verse 3 (taken up from the woe saying of verse 1).363 It is thus Ephraim’s proud garland that is being slapped to the ground with force . . . and trampled underfoot. While verse 2 limits itself to the humiliation of the city of Samaria, the message of verse 3 clearly suggests that the destruction of Samaria is imminent. The use of the verb smr ‘to trample’ leaves little over to the imagination (cf. sm;r“mil] ‘to be beaten down’ in 28:18).364 After being cast to the ground with mighty hand, the proud garland of Ephraim will be trampled underfoot by the Assyrian army. It would appear in the first instance that the plural hn:s]m'r;Te ‘they will be trampled’ does not square with the singular subject tr,f,[} ‘garland’. In order to solve this problem, some suggest the emendation of the subject to read a plural: trof][' or t/rf;[} ‘garlands’.365 The difficulty with this suggestion, however, , } is used throughout the pericope in the singular, lies in the fact that tr,f[ and a plural trof][' in verse 3 would make the imagery—the garland alluding to Samaria—incomprehensible. The solution, therefore, is best found in an alternative vocalisation of the verb, namely as a forma energica of the third person singular (fem.): hN:s'm]r;Te ‘she (i.e. the garland) will be trampled’.366 The announcement of God’s intervention is concluded in verse 4 with a depiction of the consequences of the said intervention. The poetic structure of this verse can be determined without difficulty on the basis of the Masoretic accents, namely a bicolon followed by a tricolon. Verse 4 initially gives the impression of being a later expansion of the announcement of judgement.367 The opening ht;y“h;w“ (w eqatal ) represents 363 Donner 1964:76 suggests we relocate the expression ˆyIy: ymeWlh} ‘those overcome with wine’ from verse 1 to verse 2 and take it as the object of j"yNIhi. Such an emendation of the text seems to the present author, however, to be unnecessary. 364 The verb smr ‘to trample’ is used primarily in the context of prophetic announcements of judgement. See Waschke 1990:533. 365 See BHK, Kissane 19602:304 and Kaiser 19762:189. Cf. the Dutch Authorised Version. 366 See Procksch 1930(A):350, Driver 1968:50, BHS and Wildberger 1982:1043. There is some difference of opinion among scholars with respect to the existence of (the remains of ) a modus energicus in Hebrew. GKG § 42c maintains that there is little evidence in support of the suggestion that the remains of a modus energicus with ending -anna should be accepted in Hebrew by analogy with the Arabic. Cf., however, Lettinga § 42c. Landy 1993:140 considers the unusual combination hn:s]m'r;Te μyIl'g“r'B] to be “a conflation of ‘feet shall tread down’ and ‘with feet it (the crown, etc.) is trodden down’, thereby achieving an ellipsis, a collision of active and passive experiences.” 367 Cf. Laberge 1982:163.

exegesis of individual pericopes

211

a new beginning whereby verse 4a harks back almost literally to the imagery of verse 1 with the imagery in question suddenly changing in verse 4b. Moreover, the expression μyIr;p]a, yre/Kvi tWaGE tr,f,[} ‘the proud garland of Ephraim’s drunkards’ at the conclusion of verse 3 forms a perfect inclusion with the same expression in verse 1. The manner with which the words from verse 1 are recapitulated in verse 4a does indeed suggest evidence of redactional activity in the text. Nevertheless, it is not unusual to find reference to the consequences of a divine intervention in the context of an announcement of judgement (see 28:13, likewise a weqatal clause; cf. also 29:4). In order to give expression to these consequences, the author first employs the metaphor of the fading flower, taken almost literally from verse 1, and then uses it as the subject of a strikingly new comparison. The prophet compares the fading flower, Ephraim’s glorious jewel, with a first-ripe fig that is greedily devoured. The repetition of the subordinate clause μynIm;v] ayGE vaOrAl[' rv,a} ‘which is at the head of the fertile valley’ from verse 1 with the omission of ymeWlh} ˆyIy: ‘of those overcome with wine’, makes verse 4 less ambiguous than the woe statement of verse 1 and facilitates the introduction of the new metaphor. Only Samaria, Ephraim’s capital, can now be understood as the subject of the comparison. In spite of this fact, some exegetes still consider the transition from fading flower to first-ripe fig to be too sudden. They suggest that we “ w; “ with which verse 4 begins to the beginning relocate the verb form ht;yh of the second half of the verse,368 thereby getting rid of the somewhat strange comparison between the fading flower and the first-ripe fig. According to this scenario, the expressions lbenO ≈yxi ‘fading flower’ and ybix] /Tr“a'p]ti ‘its glorious jewel’ are to be taken in apposition to tr,f,[} ‘garland’ (verse 3). Such an emendation, however, remains unnecessary. Given that the ambiguity of the metaphor employed in verse 4 has disappeared and the fading flower is to be identified exclusively with Samaria, there is no reason to argue that the prophet would not have made such a 368 See, for example, Duhm 19143:169, Procksch 1930(A):347, Donner 1964:76, Wildberger 1982:1043 and Barthel 1997:282. According to some, the relocation of ht;y“h;w“ to the beginning of verse 4 simultaneously led to the unexpected feminine form of the subject in verse 1 lbenO tx'yxi ‘the fading flower ’. The use of this feminine form, however, also goes hand in hand with the equally feminine /Tr“a'p]ti ybix] ‘its glorious jewel’. Since verse 1 lacks a verb form, such gender harmonisation was thus irrelevant with respect to verse 1. It is thus unnecessary to reconstruct the text of verse 4 on the basis of verse 1 as proposed by Marti 1900:203, Donner 1964:76 and Steins 1989:1031. For the verb forms employed in the text reference should be made to GKG § 128p and 128w and to J-M § 135n and 141f.

212

chapter four

sudden transition in his use of imagery.369 Indeed, a similarly sudden transition can be found in 30:12–14.370 The new comparison with the greedy consumption of the first-ripe fig371 does not only underline the attractiveness Samaria must have had to those who beheld her, but also the inevitable and unavoidable destructiveness of God’s judgement.372 We are left with the impression that Assyria is impatient, as it were, and ready to attack with greater speed that many will have expected. The fact that Assyria’s siege of Samaria was to last two years, does not detract from the swiftness of the judgement that has befallen the city and as such does not provide reason to suggest that these words are not original. The contrary seems much more probable. The consequences for Samaria of the announcement of divine intervention will be dramatic in every respect. The prophecy of judgement against Samaria is followed in verses 5 and 6 with a promise of salvation for the remnant of the people of yhwh. The most important key words from the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 return in the promise of salvation: tr,f,[,} ybix] and hr;a;p]T,i serving as evidence of a conscious endeavour to link up with the preceding material.373 The use of terminology in this promise of Cf. Laberge 1982:165: “The image is new in the context, but it agrees with the general source of wealth for the northern kingdom . . .” 370 Based on 30:12–14, Exum 1981:334 has demonstrated that it is typical for the style of Isaiah that the core of one comparison forms the point of departure for the following comparison. With respect to 30:12–14 she speaks of an “enclosed simile, or a simile within a simile, in which a vehicle of the first has become the tenor of a second.” The present author is of the opinion that the same can be said of 28:4. 371 It is preferable to read Hr;WKbiK] without a suffix in line with the MT. See, for example, Driver 1968:50. The suffix, which is lacking in the ancient Versiones, may be a later endeavour on the part of the MT to associate the comparison with the metaphor of the ‘garland’ (μynIm;v] ayGE as antecedent). 372 Cf. Hausmann 1990:28: “Nach Jes 28,4 werden die Früchte gleich von der Pflanze weggegessen—analog, und d.h. vernichtend, wird es auch Samaria ergehen.” The term employed—[lb—means ‘verschwindenlassenden Verschlingens’ and is used in contexts of judgement and destruction (see Schüpphaus 1973:658–661). While some exegetes emend the expression ha,roh; ha,r“yI ‘whoever sees’ to read ha,roh; hray ‘whoever sees it, plucks . . .’ (IIhra ‘to pluck’; see, for example, Procksch 1930(A):351, Kissane 19602:303, Driver 1968:50 and Asen 1996:84), the present author is inclined to consider this unnecessary. As it now stands, the imperfect in combination with a determined participle of the same verb functions perfectly in designating the impersonal ‘whoever’ (cf. Lettinga § 65i and J-M § 155d). 373 Ziegler’s 1948:84 hypothesis that 28:5–6 originally stems from a different context I am inclined to consider unlikely. The same can also be said for the concretisation of the said hypothesis by Procksch 1930(A):351, who was of the opinion that the verses in question originally preceded 4:2–3. Terminological kinship and (partial) agreement 369

exegesis of individual pericopes

213

salvation likewise bears a typically Isaianic character. In spite of this, however, it is quite likely that the promise of salvation of verses 5 and 6 was added to the preceding prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 at a later period. The following information serves to confirm the secondary character of this promise of salvation: 1. The use of the typically redactional formula aWhh' μ/YB' ‘on that day’, frequently employed in the context of such interpolations.374 2. The designation of God with t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH Zebaot’ instead of yn:doa} ‘Lord’ in verse 2. 3. Reference to the /M[' ra;v] ‘the remnant of this people’ instead of yrEKovi μyIr'p]a, ‘Ephraim’s drunkards’ in verse 1. 4. The alternative association that is created between the key words tr,f,[}, ybix] and hr;a;p]T.i Verse 1 speaks of the tWaGE tr,f,[} ‘the proud garland’ and of the /Tr“a'p]ti ybix] lbenO ≈yxi ‘the fading flower, his glorious jewel’, while verse 5, by contrast, speaks of yhwh becoming tr,f,[}l' hr;a;p]Ti tr'ypix]liw“ ybix] ‘a garland of glory and a diadem of beauty’. 5. The introduction to the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, which harks back to the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 and ignores the promise of salvation of 28:5–6. This secondary promise of salvation is intended to be read as a clear antithesis to the preceding text. Given its use of the same key words as those employed in the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4, it is probable that it never existed independently. While the garland with which Ephraim is itself adorned is to be cast to the ground and trampled underfoot, a different garland is introduced in these verses. The first garland is characterised by ‘pride’, and that which is characterised by pride will not survive. The second garland is identified with t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH Zebaot’, a designation frequently employed in the first part of the

at the level of content with 4:2–3 is unmistakably evident. Petersen 1979:107 thus presupposes that the author of 28:5–6 also wrote 4:2–4 and that he interpreted 28:1–4 with the help thereof. 374 In the book of Isaiah, this redactional formula occurs more than thirty times, and almost exclusively in the first part of the book. De Vries 1995:38–63 has made a detailed study of the formula. After a discussion of each relevant passage in Isaiah 1–35 he concludes: “There are no authentic futuristic transitions in Isaiah with integral bayyôm hahû ; this is therefore eo ipso a mark of redaction.” (124) De Vries 1995:118 dates the interpolation of 28:5–6 in the period before the exile. Cf. Beuken 2000:28: “The expectation of a decisive appearance of YHWH who would put the world in order, entailed the projection of all particular divine interventions into one unknown moment in the proximate future.”

214

chapter four

book of Isaiah and an expression indicating that God’s exaltedness puts every form of human pride to shame (cf. 2:12). In contrast to the preceding prophecy of judgement, the divine name now functions as subject. This syntactic fact corresponds with the message of verse 5–6, namely that in the future yhwh will draw complete attention to himself and that the divine eclipse is over. The contrast with the garland mentioned in 28:1 could not be greater. The first garland already bore the seed of its own decay while the second garland brings salvation and justice (cf. 60:19). In order to do justice to the antithetical character of the promise of salvation in 28:5–6, the term tr,f,[} ought likewise to be translated as ‘garland’ in preference to ‘crown’. The future expectation of God’s people is that yhwh himself will be its true garland.375 It is striking, however, that of the four key words in the text, the word employed for flower in verse 1 and 4 (≈yxi / tx'yxi) is the only one to be avoided in the promise of salvation of 28:5–6! Associations with excessive drinking and drunkenness would appear to be inappropriate with respect to yhwh! Instead of ≈yxi or tx'yxi the writer employs the term tr'ypix,] which in the sense of ‘diadem’ is probably a no hapax.376 In contrast to the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4, which is addressed to ‘Ephraim’s drunkards’—Samaria’s leading upper crust—, the promise of salvation of 28:5–6 is intended for the /M[' ra;v] ‘the remnant of his (i.e. YHWH’s) people’. It is perfectly clear that the designation ‘remnant’ in the promise of salvation presupposes a preceding judgement. In itself, reference to the remnant of God’s people bears a degree of ambivalence, since it implies both doom and salvation (‘a mere remnant’ . . . ‘a remnant nevertheless’). The negative aspect of such expression will originally have enjoyed priority (cf. 10:19; 14:22; 16:14; 17:3; 21:17). One can determine on the basis of the name ascribed to one of Isaiah’s sons— bWvy: ra;v] ‘a remnant shall return’ (7:3)—that reference to ‘a remnant’ here harks back to the witness of the prophet himself and is not of post-exilic origin. The exile nevertheless stimulated such language, shifting the emphasis to the salvific character of the notion of the remnant. The Isaianic familiarity with the concept, however, is difficult to deny. Bearing this in mind, the promise of salvation in 28:5–6 is most probably to be dated in the exilic or post-exilic period, since it not 375 Cf. Asen 1996:85. In the post-exilic prophecy found in Isa. 62:3, the people of Zion are themselves referred to as hw:hy“Ady"B] tr,a,p]Ti tr,f,[} ‘a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord’. 376 The same word is only found elsewhere in Ezek. 7:7,10, but its meaning remains unclear.

exegesis of individual pericopes

215

only appears to presuppose the fall of Samaria in 722 but also that of Jerusalem in 586. The connection with the prophecy of salvation in 4:2–6 clearly points in this direction.377 While the expression ‘the remnant of my people’ consistently refers to those who had remained in I ' ‘those who are left in Zion’ // μIlv' W; ryBi rt;/Nh' ‘those Zion (cf. 4:3: ˆ/YxiB] ra;vN] h who remain in Jerusalem’), it is possible that the point of reference in 28:5 is intentionally more general with a view to including the northern kingdom of Ephraim in the promise of salvation.378 Although the primary focus of references to the remnant of the people of yhwh will have been Judah and Jerusalem respectively, the absence of the name ‘Zion’ can be explained on the basis of an intentional association with the preceding prophecy of judgement.379 Following the more generally formulated promise of salvation in verse 5, verse 6 introduces a more specific concretisation. It would appear from verse 5 that an honourable existence has been set aside for the remnant of God’s people whatever the circumstances and that yhwh himself is the guarantor thereof. The concretisation of this honourable existence is provided in verse 6 in which yhwh promises to establish a well-ordered and safe society, a society that will be characterised internally by the maintenance of justice and externally by resolute protection. Reference is made in the first half of the verse to a fP;v]mi h"Wr ‘spirit of justice’. Reference is likewise made to a fP;v]mi h"Wr in 4:4. Given the context and the parallel with r[eB; j"Wr ‘spirit of burning’, however, the fP;v]mi h"Wr in 4:4 acquires a negative connotation. God has cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem with ‘the spirit of justice and of burning’. In 28:6, by contrast, the fP;v]mi h"Wr acquires a positive connotation on account of the context and the parallel with hr;WbG“ ‘(spirit of ) strength’. By way of the spirit of justice, God ensures a new future in which justice shall be maintained.380 The term fP;vm] i belongs among Isaiah’s typical vocabulary Cf. also 62:3. Cf. Höffken 1993:194: “Nach Lage der Dinge handelt es sich um eine Stimme, die die samaritanische Gemeinschaft nicht aus dem kommenden Heilsbereich Israels ausgeschlossen sein lassen möchte.” See also 11:11–16 where reference to ‘the remnant of his people’ forms an inclusion in a prophecy of salvation in which Ephraim is also explicitly involved. The prophecy of salvation found in 10:20–23, which would appear to be exclusively addressed to the northern kingdom, speaks of ‘the remnant of Israel’ and ‘the remnant of Jacob’. 379 Krauss 1945:18–21 derives the meaning of the name ‘Zion’ from ybix], whereby verse 5 becomes more than just a fine metaphor. While a phonological allusion to Zion may be present, Krauss’ etymology is far from certain. 380 The connection between the granting of God’s spirit and the presence of justice is also expressed in 32:15–16 and in the first song of the servant in 42:1. 377 378

216

chapter four

and refers to legal order in general. A king, for example, is expected to ensure fP;v]mi in his kingdom (cf. 32:1). Given the fact that yhwh presents himself here in regal fashion as ‘a garland of glory and a diadem of beauty to the remnant of his people’, this also implies that He will take the responsibility for legal order upon himself as befits a king.381 As such, it is possible to explain the second half of verse 6 on the basis of the same theme of legal order. The gate referred to is the place in which justice is given concrete form. Nevertheless, the expression ‘those who turn back the battle at the gate’ would seem more obviously to refer to a hostile, external threat that has found its way into the city and now has to be repelled. Indeed, the enemy’s forces need to be kept outside the city gate.382 Such a notion fits better with hr;WbG“ ‘(spirit of ) strength’. Given the parallelism with the first half of the verse, it is not inconceivable that hr;Wbg“li should be understood as an ellipsis of hr;Wbg“ j"Wrl]. This idea is reinforced by 11:2, which speaks of a hx;[e j"Wr hr;Wbg“W ‘a spirit of counsel and might’. The fact that the word j'Wr is not repeated in the second half of verse 6 may have its roots in metrical considerations.383 The latter remains tentative, however, since the Masoretic accentuation of verses 5 and 6 is not unambiguous enough to determine the poetic structure of the verses with absolute certainty. At first sight, the many distinctive accents might appear to point in the direction of short cola (a tricolon + bicolon in verse 5 and two bicola in verse 6). The final bicolon of verse 6, however, then acquires the improbable metrical pattern of 1 + 3 beats, unless the addition of the now absent h"Wrl to hr;Wbg“li is presupposed. On account of the speculative character that tends to typify such metrical emendations, I am inclined to ignore the Atnāch in both verse 5 and verse 6 and to presuppose the presence of long cola. The formula aWhh' μ/YB' in verse 5 is understood as an extra-metrical element (anacrusis).384 In this instance, verses 5 and 6 381 The return of justice and righteousness is a familiar eschatological motif in the book of Isaiah. 382 In line with Delitzsch, Barthel 1997:282 associates the words hm;j;l]mi and hr;[]v; with one another: ‘the battle against the gate’ (cf. 22:7). 383 In Qoh. 10:17, the term hr;WbG“ is employed in contrast to getting drunk. The rulers of a land should excel ytiV]b' aløw“ hr;Wbg“Bi ‘in strength and not in drinking’. Cf. Kosmala 1973:904. A similar contrast is evident in 28:1–6. Given the fact that the promise of salvation of 28:5–6 is located in a context of drunkenness, a sharp contrast is evident here also between the ‘drunkards of Ephraim’ and the ‘(spirit of ) power of YHWH Zebaot’. 384 While the formula aWhh' μ/YB' functions as a temporal indicator and does not enjoy any particular deictic value, its syntactic significance for what follows is irrelevant and can thus be understood as anacrusis.

exegesis of individual pericopes

217

can be seen as consisting of a single bicolon each with 5 + 4 and 4 + 4 beats respectively. Looking back at the exegesis of 28:1–6, one can conclude that the prophecy of judgement in 28:1–4 and the promise of salvation in 28:5–6 form a clear unity at the thematic and redactional levels. Nevertheless, only the prophecy of judgement in 28:1–4 can be ascribed to the prophet Isaiah with any degree of certainty. Generally speaking, scholars have expressed little doubt as to the authenticity of the two central prophecies of judgement in this chapter 28:7–13 and 28:14–22. The Isaianic character of 28:7–13 is virtually undisputed and the same is at least true with respect to 28:14–18 as the core of the second prophecy of judgement. The most important indicators of authenticity revolve around their use of Isaianic themes, typically Isaianic terminology, the creative employment of the prophecy of judgement genre and the clear-cut poetic structure evident in both texts. On the basis of the same arguments, it is likewise possible to accept the prophecy of judgement in 28:1–4 as authentic. Reference should be made in the first instance to the creative manner with which the prophecy of judgement genre is employed. The genre in question follows a fixed structure of complaint followed by announcement of judgement. In 28:1–4, however, the prophet has creatively employed the said structure by presenting the complaint of 28:1 as a woe saying. In so doing, the prophet has in fact ingeniously combined two different genres into one, with the result that the complaint element of the prophecy of judgement already implies in fact an element of the announcement of judgement itself. Borrowed from the dirge or funerary lament genre, the woe saying is employed to underline the inescapability of the imminent judgement. Similarly, the prophet has introduced an element of complaint into the announcement of judgement segment of both central prophecies of judgement in 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 by referring to God’s salvific words from the past (28:12) and God’s salvific deeds from the past (28:16). The rhythm of the text, its abundant use of metaphors, the initial ambiguity and the surprising combination thereof, all contribute to the poetic contours of 28:1–4 and reveal the work of a master. The use of one comparison as the starting point of the following comparison is typical of the style of the prophet Isaiah (cf. 30:12–14).385 385

See Exum 1981:334.

218

chapter four

The theme of the prophecy of judgement concerning Samaria is likewise unmistakably Isaianic. As a matter of fact, the prophet Isaiah turned against every form of pride and self-aggrandisement as no other (cf. 2:12ff ). The announcement of the coming of Assyria as the instrument of God’s judgement counts in equal measure as an important element of Isaiah’s preaching (cf. Isa. 10:5ff ). The metaphor of hail and flood employed for Assyria’s intervention is also to be found in other prophecies of Isaiah (cf. 8:7–8; 17:12–13 and 28:17). While there are no indications that the prophet Isaiah himself had already used the prophecy of judgement concerning Samaria as a warning example addressed to the people of Judah, the arguments outlined above make it difficult to call the authenticity of the prophecy into question. The same cannot be said, however, for the promise of salvation of 28:5–6, which was introduced into the prophecy of judgement at a later date. While the vocabulary employed in the said promise exhibits Isaianic characteristics and there is little doubt that the remnant theme harks back to the prophet himself, other more conclusive arguments nevertheless confirm that the promise of salvation should be understood as a secondary addition. Given its strong connections with the prophecy of salvation in 4:2–6, it can be argued that the promise of salvation of 28:5–6 must have been added to the preceding prophecy of judgement after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 at the earliest and as a result, the text can no longer be understood to stem from Isaiah himself.386 4.5.2. Isa. 28:23–29: Prophetic instruction Up to this point, the various pericopes we have been examining in Isaiah 28 have belonged for the most part to the genre of the prophecy of judgement. The concluding pericope of Isaiah 28, however, no longer presents itself as a prophecy of judgement but can be understood rather as a teaching or instruction based on the opening formula. The instruction itself can be divided into two more or less analogous parts, the first consisting of the verses 24–26, the second of the verses 27–29. Both parts conclude with an explicit reference to God and yhwh Zebaot. The instruction genre is typically chokmatic in character. Our task is to determine whether the instruction of 28:23–29 also contains prophetic elements and, if so, whether it is possible to speak of a comparison or even a prophetic discussion, as several exegetes presuppose. The present

386

See the exegesis of 28:5–6 in § 4.5.1.

exegesis of individual pericopes

219

sub-paragraph will conclude with some observations concerning the authenticity of 28:23–29. Prior to the exegesis, however, we present the Hebrew text and the English translation: yl=i/q W[m]viw“ WnyzIa}h' .ytir;m]ai W[m]viw“ Wbyviq]h' μ/Yh' lkoh} ["r=oz“li vrejoh' çroj}y" >/tm;d“a' dDec'ywI jT'p'y“ a/lh} h;yn
23 Listen, and hear my voice; Pay attention, and hear my speech! 24 Is it continually, that the farmer ploughs for sowing, that he opens his ground and harrows? 25 Is it not like this? When he has leveled its surface, Then he scatters dill and sows cumin. Then he plants wheat in rows, and barley in its proper place, and spelt as the border. 26 For He instructs him well, his God teaches him. 27 However, it is not with a threshing sledge that dill is threshed, nor is the wheel of a cart rolled over cumin. But dill is beaten with a stick, and cumin with a rod. 28 Grain on the other hand is crushed for bread. But even then one does not thresh it forever; one drives the cart wheel and horses over it, but does not pulverize it. 29 This also comes from YHWH Zebaot. He is wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom.

The introductory formula in verse 23 with which this pericope begins, generally referred to as a ‘Lehreröffnungsformel’,387 is familiar to us from wisdom literature (cf. Ps. 49:2; 78:1; Prov. 4:1,20; 5:1; 7:24; Job 13:17; 33:1; 34:2), and contains a strongly worded appeal to listen. The same opening formula is likewise employed by the prophet Isaiah on a number of occasions (1:2,10; 32:9; cf. 34:1; 49:1; 51:4).388 Such an opening line qualifies the words that follow as an instruction. The appeal to listen in verse 23 consists of a perfectly parallel bicolon, each of the cola containing two imperatives that give rise to a persuasive 387 See Wolff 1961:122–123. Mosis 1993:202 prefers to speak of a more general ‘feierliche Aufforderung zur Aufmerksamkeit’, which is not tied to a specific genre. 388 See also Gen. 4:23; 49:2; Deut. 32:1; Judg. 5:3; Hos. 5:1.

220

chapter four

appeal. The imperative W[m]viw“ repeated in both cola serves to reinforce the first imperative. It is already striking that, in contrast to its use elsewhere, the appeal in verse 23 does not appear to have a specific addressee. The absence of the latter creates the initial impression that the instruction that will follow enjoys a timeless character (see however vv. 27–29). Similarly, the subject contained in the words yli/q ‘my voice’ and yTir;m]ai ‘my speech’ is not further identified. This need not imply, however, that the instruction of 28:23–29 was intended for a reading audience rather than a listening audience.389 The option for the expression yli/q ‘my voice’ makes it clear that the prophet was addressing himself in the first instance at least to a listening audience (cf. Gen. 4:23 and Isa. 32:9).390 The first part of the instruction to which the audience is called to give ear begins in verse 24. Two rhetorical questions are employed to present a general truth related to the agricultural activities of the farmer. As a matter of fact, vrejoh' ‘the farmer’ (lit. ‘the one who ploughs’, cf. Am. 9:13; Ps. 129:3), is the subject of all the active verbal formulations in verses 24–25. The rhetorical question as style feature has a didactic purpose and presupposes a positive or negative response from those to whom it is addressed. In the case of verse 24, a negative reaction is to be expected. It goes without saying that a farmer, whose activities require more than ploughing and harrowing, does not continue to repeat the same activities ad infinitum.391 While verse 24 would appear at first sight to be a bicolon (5 + 3 beats), the Masoretic accentuation suggests that the verse is intended 389 Kaiser 19762:206 speaks of an originally literary Sitz im Leben. Idem Beuken 2000:63. 390 Based on the use of yli/q and ytir;m]ai and the absence of any clear reference to the word of yhwh, Whedbee 1971:65 deduces that Isaiah is rendering his own thoughts at this juncture and cannot speak with the same degree of certainty as he does elsewhere: “I have no special message from Yahweh; so I cannot give a special word of promise. Yet I can give you my reflections as to the probable course of Yahweh’s future actions.” The text of verse 23, however, does not support such a distinction. If a prophet employs the wisdom style, this need not imply that his prophetic authority is thereby mitigated. By way of comparison: the presence of the same formula in the prophecy of 32:9 is unlikely to lead to a similar distinction! 391 The verb ddc pi. ‘to harrow’ is only found elsewhere in Job 39:10 (MT) and Hos. 10:11. In the latter text, it is found in parallel with the verb vrj ‘to plough’, as is the case here in 28:24. The verb htp ‘to open’ is employed as a synonym for ‘to harrow’. As a matter of fact, there is some doubt as to the adequacy of the translation ‘to harrow’, since some maintain it to be a practice that was still unknown in ancient Palestine. Healey 1984:114 presupposes, therefore, that the term refers to a form of ploughing: “We see here then a progression of three types of ploughing, repeated ploughing of the type already referred to. śiddēd may be the climax.”

exegesis of individual pericopes

221

to be read as a tricolon (2 + 3 + 3 beats). The first colon consists of a short interrogative clause,392 upon which both the second and third cola are dependent. The latter cola parallel one another in terms of content and in part in terms of syntax. The two verb forms dDev'ywI jT'p'y“ ‘he opens and harrows’ correspond with the preceding verb form vroj}y" ‘he ploughs’. While the second colon makes explicit reference to the subject (vrejoh' ‘the farmer’) and, anticipating the following verse, the purpose of his activities (["roz“li ‘for sowing’),393 the third colon only makes explicit reference to the object (/tm;d“a' ‘his land’). Verse 25 is closely linked to the preceding verse and is also formulated in terms of a rhetorical question. The style feature that employs the sequence of two rhetorical questions would appear to have been a respected didactic technique.394 In response to this second rhetorical question, however, an affirmative answer is expected. Reference is made once again to a general and familiar fact. Verse 25 begins with the interrogative a/lh}, which in the present context is best translated with a separate clause: ‘Is it not like this?’ 395 The verse goes on to detail the various and highly systematic activities of the farmer. The poetic structure can be designated as follows: verse 25 consists of two tricola. The establishment of the structure of the verse is based in part on the presence of the Masoretic accents Tifchā [8] (see jx'q,) and Paštā [10], which enjoy a demarcative function. The same can be said for the use of the accent Paštā [10] in relation to the interrogative a/lh}. Partly because this interrogative does not make an essential contribution to the syntax of the following sentence, one can consider

For our translation of the expression μ/Yh' lkoh} see J-M § 139g. In line with Duhm 19143:178 and Marti 1900:210, BHS suggests we scrap ["roz]li for metrical reasons. See also Procksch 1930(A):364, Kaiser 19762:205, Clements 1980(B):233, Barthel 1997:329 and Beuken 2000:64. Irwin 1977:38 suggests we read ['roz]li as part of the second colon and translates the expression as an equivalent [rzm ‘without sowing’, but this is somewhat contrived. Watson 1984:219, however, refers to verse 24 as an example of a ‘pivot pattern’ couplet, a style figure he describes as follows: “Basically, the ‘pivot pattern’ is a couplet where the expected final word is not expressed as it is implied by the last word (or words) of the first line.” (214) According to Watson, the said ‘pivot pattern’ functions primarily to demarcate the beginning of a new text unit. 394 Whedbee 1971:60 refers by way of example to Am. 6:12; Jer. 12:5; Prov. 6:27–28; Job 6:5–6 and 8:11. 395 The word a/lh} at the beginning of a clause does not always have the value of an interrogative particle, but sometimes functions rather in the same sense as hNEh.i See Beuken 1992:50 and Brongers 1981:180–181. 392 393

222

chapter four

it as extra-metrical (anacrusis). The first tricolon, which is made up of 2 + 2 + 2 beats, begins with a short initial clause. This is followed by a long concluding clause that runs on into the second tricolon and in terms of both structure and content is made up of two parts. The first part of the concluding clause consists of two cola in chiastic formation: verb—object // object—verb. The objects referred to are jx'q, and ˆMoK,' two different types of herb that only occur in the present pericope and can be translated as ‘dill’ and ‘cumin’ respectively. The verb forms, both of which designate a ‘sowing’ movement, are more common.396 The second part of the concluding clause is formed by the second tricolon (verse 25b, a tricolon of 3 + 2 + 2 beats) and characterised by the ellipsis of the verb in the second and third cola. Following the verb referring to a careful placing of the seed, we are introduced to three different sorts of grain as object: hF;j,i hr;[oc] and tm,S,Ku. The first two terms are the most common. The term hF;ji means ‘wheat’ and the term hr;[oc] ‘barley’.397 The term tm,S,Ku is less common (found only two times elsewhere) and means something like ‘spelt’.398 The three sorts of grain are each explained in further detail with respect to the manner in which they are sown. The precise significance of the terms hr;/c] and ˆm;s]nI raises some difficulties, however, since both are hapax legomena.399 This has led some exegetes to follow the Septuagint and propose that we scrap the terms in question, but such a solution is hardly adequate.400 Only one exegete is of the opinion that the terms refer to different spe-

396 The verb ≈wp hi. means ‘to disperse’ or ‘to scatter’ and is usually employed for the scattering of people or nations. The verb qrz means ‘to sprinkle’ and is frequently used for blood sprinkled around an altar; it can also be used for sprinkling with water and dust. Cf. Ringgren 1989:545 and André 1977:687. 397 Both words are used more frequently in the plural (Ruth 2:23; 2 Sam. 17:28; 2 Chron. 2:9,14; 27:5; Jer. 41:8; Ezek. 4:9; 45:13) than in the singular (Deut. 8:8; Job 31:40; Joel 1:11) and occur together with some regularity. 398 See sg. in Ex. 9:32; see pl. in Ezek. 4:9. 399 According to Wildberger 1982:1084, hr;/c] can be understood as an example of dittography on account of the following hr;[oc] and on the basis of the metre and the LXX (see also Fohrer 1962:63). KBL opts for the translation ‘millet’ (HALAT speaks of an undetermined grain sort), but a fourth grain sort (also presupposed by Eichrodt 1967:138, Auvray 1972:254, Schoors 1972:170, Kaiser 19762:207 and De Waard 1997:120) would disrupt the structure of the verse. The word ˆm;s]nI is explained by KBL/HALAT as a niph al ptc. of ˆms, but left untranslated. According to Wildberger 1982:1084, the word does not fit the metre. The majority of exegetes follow the translation found in the Targum, which renders the words hr;/c] and ˆm;s]nI as locatives: ‘in rows’ and ‘in its proper place’. 400 See Duhm 19143:178, Marti 1900:211, Procksch 1930(A):366, Kaiser 19762:205 and Clements 1980(B):234.

exegesis of individual pericopes

223

cies of grain.401 The structure of the tricolon, however, favours three similar subordinate clauses. Given the fact that /tl;buG“ clearly functions as a locative, it therefore makes sense to understand hr;/c] and ˆm;s]nI likewise as locatives.402 Verse 26 concludes the first part of the instruction. In a tersely formulated bicolon, in which the Masoretes have surprisingly enough employed the less important distinctive accent Tifchā [8] instead of the expected Atnāch, the farmer’s systematic approach is brought back to its divine origins: ‘For He instructs him well, his God teaches him’ (cf. Ex. 35:30–35).403 While the use of the term fP;v]mi ‘justice’ is characteristic of the prophet Isaiah, it reflects more in the present instance on the order of creation than on the legal order to which it usually refers (cf. 28:6,17). Nevertheless, it can also be used to designate a certain rule or customary order (see, the expression fP;v]miW t[e ‘time and way’ in Qoh. 8:6). The verb forms rsy ‘to instruct’, ‘to discipline’ (see also 8:11) and III hry ‘to teach’ (see also 2:3; 9:14; 28:9) have a primary role to play in the wisdom literature.404 It is worthy of note that the subject of /rS]yIw“ in the present verse is only identified in the second colon: ‘his God teaches him’ (cf. the same phenomenon in 28:11–13!).405 The bicolon of verse 26 may be short (2 + 2 beats), but it has a great deal to say. It marks the conclusion of the first part of the instruction. After the conclusion to the first broadly chokmatic part of the instruction with its reference to God in verse 26, verse 27 introduces the second part thereof, which distinguishes itself in terms of syntax by its exclusive use of passive verb forms (in verse 27: vd'Wy ‘. . . is threshed’, bS;Wy ‘. . . is rolled over’ and fb,j;yE ‘. . . is beaten’; in verse 28a qd;Wy ‘. . . is crushed’).406 What is important at this juncture, however, is the shift in content within the instruction that goes hand in hand with the verb forms employed. The first part of the instruction gave pride of place to the process of sowing while the second focuses rather on the process of harvesting. As such, Schuman 1981:92–93, cf. the Dutch Authorised Version. For a detailed analysis see Barthélemy 1986:195–200. 403 Cf. Whedbee 1971:55. 404 See Saebø 19783:738–742, Branson 1982:688–697 and Wagner 1982:920–930. 405 Watson 1984:336–337 refers to this style feature as ‘delayed identification’. Irwin 1977:40 spoke earlier of ‘delayed explicitation’. 406 1QIsaa has changed the verb forms in the second part of the instruction from passive to active. 401 402

224

chapter four

therefore, the chokmatic instruction takes on an unmistakably prophetic character, the harvest being a familiar metaphor for judgement among the prophets (see, for example, Jer. 51:33; Joel 3:13 and Hab. 3:12)! Our initial question concerning whether the instruction of 28:23–29 also exhibits prophetic features can now, in principle, be answered in the affirmative. While the agricultural terminology continues apparently without interruption, the use thereof cannot conceal the fact that the prophet has shifted from culture to history, a shift the attentive reader/listener will not have missed. The shift of focus to the process of harvesting and its associated judgement metaphors deprives the instruction of its initially timeless character.407 In the second part of the instruction, the prophet endeavours to convince his audience that the events confronting them at the level of history also come from God. With hindsight, even the word ‘to plough’ in verse 24 now acquires negative connotations (cf. Ps. 129:3). The instruction of 28:23–29 is evidently not intended to be a lesson in agriculture—otherwise the powerful call to listen in verse 23 would have been exaggerated to say the least—but is related to the contemporary history of its audience! Verse 27 consists of three bicola, the first and the last of which begin with the particle yKi:408 ≈Wrj;b, alø yKi However, it is not with a threshing sledge jx'q, vd'Wy that dill is threshed, hl;g:[} ˆp'/aw“ nor is the wheel of a b=S;Wy ˆmoK'Al[' cart rolled over cumin. jx'q, fb,j;yE hF,M'b' yKi But dill is beaten with a stick, .fb,V;B' ˆmok'w“ and cumin with a rod. The first two bicola are dependent on the negative particle alø and thus contain a negative statement. The third bicolon, on the other hand, is affirmative. We noted a similar interchange in the use of rhetorical questions in the first part of the instruction. The question in verse 24 expects a negative answer and that of verse 25 an affirmative answer. The structural relationship between the first part (28:24–26) and the second part (28:27–29) of the instruction, however, extends beyond this observation: 407 Wildberger 1982:1085 speaks incorrectly of a ‘double comparison’ whereby both segments are intended to say the same thing. 408 Without justification, Kaiser 19762:205 suggests we scrap the first yKi on account of the metre. In so doing he ignores the important bridging function of the said particle, joining the two segments of the instruction.

exegesis of individual pericopes

225

• Verse 27a begins with the negation alø, which is determinative for both bicola. The question μ/Yh' lkoh} ‘is it continually . . .?’ fulfils the same function with respect to the cola following this phrase in verse 24.409 • In like fashion to the tricolon in verse 25b, the bicolon of verse 27b is characterised by an ellipsis of the verb. The verb form fb,j;yE ‘. . . is beaten’ is not repeated. As was the case with sowing, there are rules for the harvest of every sort of crop. The crops in question now function as the subjects of almost all of the verbs, whereas attention was focused on the vrejoh' ‘the farmer’ as subject in the first part of the instruction. Reference is first made to the herbs jx'q, ‘dill’ and ˆMoK' ‘cumin’. The suggestion that the instruction of 28:23–29 also exhibits prophetic elements is further supported by the choice of words in verse 27. The verb vwd ‘to thresh’, together with the instruments thereof, ≈Wrj; ‘threshing sledge’, hF,m' ‘stick’ and fb,ve ‘rod’, are all used elsewhere in the book of Isaiah in the figurative sense, particularly where there is reference to punishment by God or by human persons.410 This represents an important confirmation of the prophetic character of the instruction given in the present pericope. The precise significance of the hl;g:[} ˆp'/a ‘the wheel of a cart’ is difficult to determine since it can refer to the wheel of a cart carrying the harvest or the wheel of a threshing cart.411 It is not unimportant to note, however, that the same term—ˆp'/a—is employed more than once for the wheel of a battle chariot (Ex. 14:25; Nah. 3:2; cf. esp. Prov. 20:26), : } in Ps. 46:10 clearly refers to such chariots!412 At the while the term hl;g[ very least, therefore, one should bear in mind that the expression ˆp'/a hl;g:[} ‘the wheel of a cart’ may be introducing an association with battle chariots. Such an association establishes a degree of ambiguity in verse 27, reinforcing the prophetic character of the instruction. See J-M § 160q. For vwd ‘to thresh’ see 21:10; 25:10 and 41:15 (cf. Judg. 8:7; 2 Kgs 13:7; Am. 1:3; Mi. 4:13 and Hab. 3:12). For ≈Wrj; ‘threshing sledge’ see 41:15 (cf. Am. 1:3). For hF,m' ‘stick’ and fb,ve ‘rod ’ see 10:5,15,24,26; 11:4; 14:5,29 and 30:31–32. Cf. Schuman 1981:94–96. In 27:12, the verb fbj ‘to beat (out)’ likewise acquires a figurative meaning, albeit in the positive sense. 411 See the discussion in Kellermann 1986:1065. Kellermann himself follows the : } “nur den Lastwagen hypothesis proposed by Gese 1962:419, which maintains that hl;g[ als Erntewagen, nicht jedoch einen Dreschwagen oder eine Dreschwalze bezeichnen kann.” (cf. 1 Sam. 6:7; 2 Sam. 6:3) 412 Procksch 1930(A):364 suggests we scrap ˆp'/a, while Kaiser 19762:205 suggests we scrap hl;g:[.} The present author is inclined to agree with Wildberger 1982:1084 who considers neither suggestion convincing. 409 410

226

chapter four

Verse 28 is firmly adjoined to the preceding verse via the use of a passive verb form in the first colon ( qd;Wy ‘. . . is pulverized’), although it also marks the transition from herb sorts to grain sorts. The second part of the instruction thus follows the same sequence as the first in this respect (see verse 25). With the emphasis now placed on threshing and the various instruments employed in the process, verse 28 restricts its reference to the various grain sorts mentioned in verse 25b to the summary μj,l, ‘grain for bread’.413 The structure of verse 28 is unusual. It consists of four cola, of which the first and the last form an inclusion based on the use of the verb qqd ‘crush’, ‘pulverize’:414 qd;Wy μj,l, WN=v,Wdy“ v/da; jx'n
Grain on the other hand is crushed for bread. But even then one does not thresh it forever; one drives the cart wheel and horses over it, but does not pulverize it.

The relationship in terms of content between the first and last colon is not clear at first sight. The suffix attached to WNQ,duy“Aal ‘but does not pulverize it’ refers back to the ‘grain for bread’ in the first colon. Both statements, however, would appear to contradict one another: ‘grain is crushed for bread’—‘one does not pulverize it’. The problem here can be solved in a variety of ways: 1. The first colon can be understood as a (rhetorical) question: ‘Is grain not crushed for bread? ’415 2. The words hx'n
exegesis of individual pericopes

227

4. The last colon can also be understood as adding further nuance to the first. In the last analysis, grain is indeed crushed for bread, but not during the threshing process.418 Our evaluation of the various options requires us to account for the contrast with the preceding verse established by the striking location of μj,l, ‘grain for bread’ at the beginning of the first colon. The said contrast has already been prepared for in verse 27 via its reference to the threshing sledge and cartwheel, two instruments utilised for heavy-duty types of work. The use of such instruments with herbs such as dill and cumin would be disastrous. The herbs in question call for much more careful handling, but grain for bread is a different matter. Grain for bread has to be crushed, finely ground, but this does not take place during the threshing process! The entire clause beginning with hx'n
228

chapter four

word order to obtain the same construction as in verse 27 (2nd option), then one loses the said contrast. Such is clearly not the intention, however, since the short monocolon with which verse 28 begins and which is asyndetically linked via the passive verb form with verse 27, deliberately implies contrast. The contrast in question is then further elaborated in the tricolon that follows (yKi as adversative) in order to introduce elements of hope into the message of judgement: ‘But even then one does not thresh it forever.’ The expression jx'n
exegesis of individual pericopes

229

• The verb μmh, which normally means ‘to confuse’, is almost exclusively employed in the Old Testament in the context of the so-called Wars of yhwh (see, for example, Ex. 14:24; Jos. 10:10 and Judg. 4:15).423 It is quite possible that the prophet had the same idea in mind in verse 28. • The use of the word lG"lGi I for ‘wheel’ as an alternative for the word ˆp'/a ‘wheel’ employed in verse 27 is striking. We noted that the term ˆp'/a, in some instances, is used to refer to the wheel of a war chariot (Ex. 14:25; Nah. 3:2; cf. Prov. 20:26). Wherever the term lG"lGi I is employed to designate a wheel, however, it always refers to the wheel of a war chariot (Isa. 5:28; Jer. 47:3; Ezek. 23:24; 26:10; cf. Ps. 77:19)!424 • Given the preceding remarks, it is remarkable that the text employs the term hl;g:[} (cf. verse 27) instead of the term bk,r< ‘(war) chariot’ (cf. Jer. 47:3; Ezek. 23:24; 26:10). Nevertheless, the prophet speaks in this regard of wyv;r;P; ‘its horses’ rather than the ‘oxen’ usually associated with a hl;g:[}.425 The term vr;P; normally refers to a horse used in battle (see 31:1)!426 • The word μj,l, ‘(grain) for bread’ is used more than once in the book of Isaiah in a situation of threatening annihilation (3:1,7; 4:1; 21:14; 30:20,23; cf. 33:16 and 36:17).427 It is evident from the above survey that the instruction of 28:23–29 has made ample use of words that allude to battle and war. This confirms our suspicion that 28:23–29 is not an ordinary wisdom poem, but is intended rather to be understood against the background of contemporary history and as focusing primarily on the realisation of God’s judgement. In the context of the book of Isaiah, it is difficult to imagine anything but the appearance of Assyria in this regard. Even the element of hope implicitly present in verse 28 acquires different contours against such a background. YHWH used Assyria as an instrument of his judgement, but did not desire to annihilate his people completely See Stolz 19783:503 and Müller 1977:450–453. See Münderlein 1977:22. Instead of the vocalisation lg"l]gI ‘wheel’, which is employed only here, BHS suggests we read the more conventional lg"lg". The present author sees little need to adopt this suggestion. 425 Cf. Kellermann 1986:1065: “Die Erwähnung der Pferde ist insofern auffällig, als man im Altertum Pferde nicht zu wirtschaftlichen Arbeiten gebrauchte.” See also Schuman 1981:98. De Waard 1997:120 and Barthel 1997:331, 338 maintain that there are indications that horses were also employed in farming. 426 Niehr 1989:785–786. 427 Beuken 2000:66. 423

424

230

chapter four

(cf. 10:5ff ). Even when God comes for judgement, He nevertheless deals carefully with his people.428 In the course of history, however, it became evident that Assyria had surpassed itself in fulfilling its task. Its advance was characterised by the brute violence of its chariots and horses.429 Nevertheless, even in this situation God’s people had the right to know that yhwh would not allow his people to be completely pulverized by his judgement. While it is evident that God opted for a firm approach in the current circumstances, even the grain for bread that requires such an approach in the process of threshing as opposed to dill and cumin is not pulverised completely. The element of hope implicitly ascribed to the instruction of 28:23–29 by this verse consists of the fact that although it is yhwh who is at work in the judgement confronting his people, He is also in control of the situation! Believers can thus console themselves in the midst of judgement that yhwh’s anger will not be forever (cf. 57:16). The Septuagint translation has even made this aspect of the message explicit: μετὰ ἄρτου βρωθήσεται οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐγὼ ὑμῖν ὀργισθήσομαι οὐδὲ φωνὴ τῆς πικρίας μου καταπατήσει ὑμᾶς

The bread, by contrast, shall be eaten, for I shall not be angry with you forever and the voice of my bitterness shall not crush you.

The second part of the instruction is rounded off in verse 29. The ] i and lyDIgh“ i) immediately surprising use of three qatal clauses (ha;xy; :, ayliph draws our attention, bearing in mind the preceding use of primarily yiqtôl and weqatal clauses.430 This can be understood as a formal indication that the intended scope of the entire pericope is being presented in the tricolon of verse 29. It is here that the instruction reaches its goal. Childs characterises such concluding formulations as ‘summary appraisals’ (cf. Job 8:13; 18:21; 20:29; 27:13; Ps. 49:14; Prov. 1:19; Isa. 14:26).431 Emphasis is placed on the fronted expression taOzAμG" ‘this also’ in 28:29. From the structural perspective, taOzAμG" joins together both analogous parts of the pericope. In terms of content, it refers to the instruction concerning threshing provided in the second part of the

428 Cf. Botterweck-Freedman-Lundbom 1982:233: “Israel ist in seinen Augen wie Dill und Kreuzkümmel und muß mit einer Rute oder einem Stock geschlagen werden.” 429 Cf. Simian-Yofre 1984:825: “Assyrien hatte einen Auftrag, den es mit Stock und Stab vollbringen sollte, hat ihn aber mit den Rädern seiner Streitwagen vollbracht.” 430 Cf. Schuman 1981:105. 431 Childs 1967:128. See also Whedbee 1971:75–79.

exegesis of individual pericopes

231

pericope. The first part of the instruction was concluded in verse 26 and concerned a general truth that could count on self-evident approval. Such is not the case with respect to the second part of the instruction. It is difficult to understand judgement in the form of Assyrian aggression as likewise stemming from yhwh. It is the prophet’s goal, nevertheless, to bring his audience to this realisation and he thus states with emphasis: ‘This also comes from YHWH Zebaot. He is wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom.’ Should a member of his audience have missed the transition in the preceding verses and not have interpreted the statement on threshing as a metaphor, then the terminology employed in verse 29 insists once again that the instruction is related to history and is thereby prophetic in nature: • The expression t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH Zebaot’ makes it clear that the prophet is speaking of the God of history and not only the God who instructs the farmer.432 As a matter of fact, the expression μ[ime t/ab;x] hw:hy“ is typically Isaianic (see 8:18 and 29:6). • The use of the verb alp ‘to deal wonderfully’ almost always refers to the activities of God in history. It is used of divine salvific activity in specific situations in which human imagination ultimately falls short. The Psalms in particular make frequent reference to God’s t/al;p]nI ‘wonderful deeds’ (cf. al,P, t;yci[; // t/x[e) in Isa. 25:1; see also the name ≈[e/y al,P, ‘Wonderful Counsellor’ in 9:5).433 The prophet uses the verb alp in 28:29, however, with the same negative connotations as in 29:14: God’s wonderful intervention implies judgement and not salvation (cf. Lam. 1:9).434 The same is true for the great things that God does (in contrast to the use of ldg hi. ‘do great things’ in 1 Sam. 12:24; Joel 2:21 and Ps. 126:2,3). God’s dealings bring about alienation because they appear to be directed against his own people (cf. 28:21).

432 Wildberger 1982:1094. See also Schuman 1981:100. Procksch 1930(A):364 and Kaiser 19762:206 consider t/ab;x] to be a later addition. 433 Cf. Albertz 19792:417 and Conrad 1989:570–575. 434 I thus do not share the conclusion reached by Clements 1980(B):234: “The meaning of the various questions is clear: there is a time for gentler, ‘saving’ work on the farm, and so also is this true of God in his dealings with Israel.” Clements’ 1980(B):233 suggestion that “the parable seems to be directly designed to soften the implication of v. 21 that God will execute a strange work of judgment against his people” is untenable in light of the exegesis.

232

chapter four

• One can determine on the basis of Jer. 18:18b that the word hx;[e ‘counsel’ probably stems from the wisdom tradition (cf. Isa. 19:11).435 This likewise holds true for the term hY:vWi T ‘policy’, ‘plan’, use of which is almost exclusively confined to the books of Job and Proverbs (Isa. 28:29 and Mi. 6:9 serve as the only exceptions). The primary function of the term hx;[e in the book of Isaiah, however, is as a terminus technicus for (the possibility of ) God’s intervention in human history (see 5:19; 14:26–27; 19:17; 25:1; 46:10–11). As is the case in 5:19, where the words laer;c]yI v/dq] tx'[} ‘the plan of the Holy One of Israel’ parallel Whce[}m' ‘his work’ (cf. 28:21), the emphasis in 28:29 is placed on judgement.436 By way of summary we can state that 28:23–29 clearly exhibits the character of an instruction from start to finish. Indeed, the very opening formula presents the textual unit as an instruction. In the second part thereof, however, there would appear to be a significant number of prophetic features that transcend the framework within which the general wisdom orientation of the first part is located. The use of rhetorical questions as a style feature in both parts of the instruction confirms from the outset that it was the prophet’s intention to convince his audience of the veracity of a particular insight,437 an insight that had to do with contemporary history. In concrete terms, the prophet wants to convince his audience that the judgement confronting them in the form of Assyrian aggression stems from yhwh, and that God’s hand is at work therein. The statement found in 5:19 implies that not everyone had accounted for such an eventuality. God’s wonderful wisdom, however, is diametrically opposed to the wisdom of Jerusalem’s politicians. Its core is as follows: God has the capacity to intervene in human history and that in so doing He can also turn against his own people (cf. 29:14; 31:2). This insight is both shocking and encouraging at the same time. It is shocking because it confirms that the misfortune confronting the people of God comes from God Himself and contradicts all the plans of the politicians of Jerusalem who consider themselves to be wise. It is encouraging because God, in like fashion to the farmer whom He instructs, proves to work according to a plan

Cf. Whedbee 1971:111–148. Cf. Wildberger 1972:188–189, 192, Stähli 1978 3:752 and Ruppert 1982: 738–742. 437 Cf. Barthel 1997:338. 435

436

exegesis of individual pericopes

233

and is not interested in total destruction. God’s hand is not only at work in judgement, it is also in control of it. Given the fact that the terminology employed in the present instruction is consciously ambiguous and repeatedly suggests metaphorical significance, 28:23–29 has been frequently defined as a parable.438 While a certain degree of kinship with the parable genre is unmistakably present, such a designation is not completely adequate with respect to 28:23–29. Not only does the pericope lack the characteristically narrative form of the parable, it also lacks an interpretation of the metaphors employed, which is consistently present where a parable or an allegory is concerned (cf. Judg. 9:8–15; 2 Sam. 12:1–4 and Isa. 5:1–7).439 A few commentators are inclined to typify 28:23–29 as a ‘prophetic discussion’ or as a ‘prophetic dispute’.440 The evident associations with wisdom incline the present author to speak of an instruction or didactic teaching, more specifically defined as a ‘prophetic instruction’. This prophetic instruction clearly bears an authentic character. Indeed, our discussion of the authenticity of the prophecy of judgement in 28:1–4 can be repeated here with slight variation concerning 28:23–29. In his use of the genre—in the present instance that of instruction—the prophet exhibits a surprising degree of creativity. Scholarly research has revealed that the prophet Isaiah was decidedly familiar with the wisdom tradition. He made use of it in a creative fashion, however, in order to communicate his prophetic message. The prophetic instruction of 28:23–29 represents a fine example of poetic artistry both with respect to the two-part, more or less analogous structure of the instruction as a whole as to the repeated use of compact and powerful rhythm in the individual verses. This reinforces our conviction that the textual unit stems from Isaiah himself.441 Similarly, several of the words employed in the instruction are typically Isaianic 438 See Delitzsch 1889:319, Procksch 1930(A):364, Ziegler 1948:87, Eichrodt 1967:138, Snijders 1969:288, Whedbee 1971:51–68, Schoors 1972:170, Kaiser 19762:208, Clements 1980(B):232, Watts 1985:373 and Motyer 1993:235. Sweeney 1996:366 is even inclined to speak of an allegory. For a detailed survey of the various opinions concerning 28:23–29 see Schuman 1981:114–126 and Wildberger 1982:1087–1089. 439 Cf. Schuman 1981:105, 127, 131–132. 440 Schuman 1981:131–132. Cf. Burden 1981:42–45: “I (. . .) conclude that this passage is in form a parable and in function a disputation-mashal.” Fohrer 1962:64 speaks of a wisdom poem, implying a prophetic ‘Diskussionswort’. 441 Wildberger 1982:1084 considers the rhythm to be an indication of a decisive Isaianic statement.

234

chapter four

(verses 26 and 29), while the ambiguity of the agricultural terminology (verses 27 and 28)442 as well as the theme of judgement stemming from yhwh together with his wonderful plan that is simultaneously expressed therein (verse 29), unmistakably point in the direction of the great prophet. The number of exegetes who dispute the Isaianic origin of this prophetic instruction is fairly limited.443 4.5.3. Evaluation Having now discussed both external pericopes of Isaiah 28, we are now obliged to focus our attention on the question as to how the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4(6) and the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29 relate to the prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22. Is there a degree of cohesion within the present context of Isaiah 28 that associates the two external pericopes with the two internal pericopes and if so what is its nature? To begin with the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4, the thematic association with 28:7–13 is perhaps the most apparent. The said association is based on the drunkenness motif, which represents a significant portion of 28:1–4 and is firmly present in the first verse of 28:7–13. While the orientation of the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4—Samaria—differs from the orientation of both central prophecies of judgement 28:7–13 and 28:14–22—Jerusalem—the accusation elements of both texts are in clear agreement: both the leaders of Ephraim/Samaria and those of Judah/Jerusalem are subject to accusation on account of their deteriorating leadership. As a matter of fact, the motif of drunkenness functions as the adjoining link. The nature of the deteriorating leadership, however, is not further elaborated in the woe saying of 28:1, while it clearly is in both the central prophecies of judgement—28:7–13 and 28:14–22. The accusation of 28:7–10 makes reference to a spiritual elite in decline while that of 28:14–15 makes reference to a similarly degenerating political elite. Important motifs that serve to associate the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 with those of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 are not only evident 442 In line with Fohrer 1962:69–70, Snijders 1969:289 and Schoors 1972:170–171, Beuken 2000:65 is also of the opinion that the farmer mentioned in the first part of the instruction functions as a symbol for the prophet Isaiah who himself was instructed by God concerning God’s activities in history. See also Höffken 1993:201. 443 See Cheyne 1895:184ff, Marti 1900:210, Kaiser 19762:206–207, Clements 1980(B):233 and Kilian 1994:164.

exegesis of individual pericopes

235

in the accusation element but also in the announcement of judgement itself. Without explicit reference to the name Assyria, it remains clear nevertheless that the unmistakably brutal advance of this world power is being announced in each of the prophecies of judgement. The metaphors of hail and flood serve as the primary points of association between the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 and what follows, particularly with the announcement of judgement in 28:17b–18. An important motif that likewise exhibits an associative function in the context of Isaiah 28 is the element of divine eclipse that accompanies Assyria’s advance. In both 28:2ff, 28:11–13 and 28:17b–22, emphasis is placed on the divine intervention that is being announced. While the name Assyria is not mentioned explicitly, 28:2 refers nevertheless to yn:da o } who has someone mighty and strong at his disposal. In the announcement of judgement of 28:11–13, it is hw:hy“ who will speak (through human persons) with stammering lip and with alien tongue, while 28:21 explicitly refers to hw:hy“ rising up for a strange deed and an alien work. The hiddenness of yhwh in the announcement of judgement is made explicit in both of the central judgement prophecies in which the contrast is indicated between yhwh’s former salvific words (28:12) and deeds (28:16), and yhwh’s words (28:11) and deeds (28:21) of judgement now being announced.444 The motif of divine eclipse is already implicitly present in the announcement of judgement of 28:2. From the perspective of syntax, the term yn:doa} does not function as subject in verse 2 but rather ≈Mia'w“ qz:j; ‘one who is mighty and strong’. Moreover, though the metaphors employed in the text would suggest a theophany, it is rather the destructive advance of Assyria that is announced where one might expect a divine manifestation. While the announcement of Assyria’s aggression represents a thematic link between the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 on the one hand and the central prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 on the other, the origin of the prophecies cannot be reduced to the same historical situation. While both central prophecies of judgement of Isaiah 28 are best understood as having been born against the background of Judah’s revolt against Sennacherib (705–701), the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 is to be situated twenty years earlier and dated prior to the fall of Samaria (722). The prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 will thus have been intended originally for the northern kingdom of Ephraim rather than Judah. This important difference in 444

See also § 4.4.

236

chapter four

historical origin, however, does not undermine the fact that 28:1–4 in its present literary context must be understood as being addressed to Judah and Jerusalem respectively. In the literary context of Isaiah 28, the prophecy concerning Samaria is primarily a warning addressed to Judah and Jerusalem inviting them to learn a lesson from the fate of Ephraim’s former pearl. This is evident in the first instance from the way in which the prophecy of 28:7–13 is redactionally associated with that of 28:1–4 (via verse 7a), but also with respect to the terminological correspondences between 28:1–4 and the two central prophecies of Isaiah 28. The schematic survey below makes it clear that a significant number of cross-references are apparent in the use of terminology in Isaiah 28: 28:1–4(6)

28:7–13

1 yreKovi 3 yre/Kvi ‘drunkards’

7 rk;ve ‘strong drink’ (3x)

1 ˆyIy" ‘wine’

7 ˆyIy" ‘wine’ (2x)

28:14–22

2 qz:j; ‘strong’

22 Wqz“j]y< ‘they become stronger’

2 yn:doa} ‘Lord’

22 yn:doa} ‘Lord’

2 dr;B; ‘hail ’

17 dr;B; ‘hail ’

2 μyIm' ‘waters’

17 μyIm' ‘waters’

2 μypif]vo ‘overflowing’

15 en 18 πfe/v ‘overflowing’

2 ≈r,a;l; ‘down to the earth’

22 ≈r,a;h;AlK;Al[' ‘upon the whole land’

3 hn:s]m'r;Te ‘he is trampled underfoot’

18 sm;rmil] ‘to be beaten down’

4 ha,roh; ha,r“yI ‘whoever sees’

7 ha,ro ‘vision’

4 hN:[,l;b]yI from the verb [lb ‘he eats it up’

7 W[l]b]nI from the verb III[lb ‘they are confused’

28:23–29

exegesis of individual pericopes

237

Table (cont.) 28:1–4(6)

28:7–13

28:14–22

28:23–29

5 t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH Zebaot’

22 t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH Zebaot’

29 t/ab;x] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH Zebaot’

6 fP;v]mi ‘justice’

17 fP;v]mi ‘justice’

26 fP;v]mi ‘justice’

9 hr,/y ‘he shall teach’

26 WNr,/y ‘he teaches him’

9 h[;Wmv] ˆybiy: ‘he shall explain the message’

19 h[;Wmv] ˆybih; ‘understanding the message’

10 wq' ‘vomit’

17 wq' ‘measuring line’

11 hZ
14 hZ
12 rm'a; ‘he said’

15 μT,r“m'a} ‘you say’ 16 rm'a; ‘he says’

12 ["/mv] ‘listen’

14 W[m]v] ‘hear!’ 22 yTi[]m'v; ‘I have heard’

13 hw:hy“Arb'D“ ‘the word of YHWH’

14 hw:hy“Arb'D“ ‘the word of YHWH’ 15 Wnm]c' ‘we have made’ 17 yTim]c'w“ ‘I will make’

23 W[m]v]w“ ‘and listen!’ (2x)

25 μc;w“ ‘and he places’

The above survey offers evidence of an extensive terminological kinship between the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 and both central prophecies of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22. This fact reinforces the introductory function fulfilled by the prophecy of judgement against Ephraim/ Samaria in the present context of Isaiah 28. The fall of proud Samaria is held up as a warning example to Judah/Jerusalem.445 Bearing this in mind, therefore, it does not come as much of a surprise that a promise of salvation would be added at a later date to the 445 Stansell 1996:80–82 is even inclined to see 28:1–6 as a thematic link serving to join together Isaiah 1–12 and 28–33.

238

chapter four

prophecy of judgement against Samaria, a promise that now addresses itself to the remnant of Judah. The verses 5 and 6 contain a promise of salvation that is closely related to the preceding prophecy concerning Samaria in terms of themes and word options. The relationship is clearly antithetical in character, making it unlikely that the promise of salvation ever enjoyed an independent existence. In spite of the relationship with the preceding verses, however, a remarkable shift in focus takes place in 28:5–6. Although Judah and Jerusalem are not mentioned by name, it is evident from the context of the book of Isaiah that the remnant referred to in verse 5 should be sought precisely in Judah and Jerusalem. Based on the parallel text in 4:2, it is plausible that the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE announced in 28:1–4 was already presupposed in the interpolated verses 5 and 6 together with the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The addition of a promise of salvation for the remnant of Judah to the prophecy of judgement against Samaria was in fact prepared for in advance by the redactional process in which the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4 was held up to Judah/Jerusalem as a warning example. The interpolation of the promise of salvation of 28:5–6 presupposes that the warning contained in the fall of Samaria had little lasting effect on Judah.446 Not only did Samaria succumb to Assyrian aggression, but Jerusalem was also to encounter the same fate a century and a half later at the hands of the Babylonians. The promise of salvation of 28:5–6 makes it clear that these dramatic events did not augur the end of God’s involvement with his people. The remnant of his people were to expect a glimmering new future, which would be guaranteed against assault from within and without. When that day dawned, yhwh himself would be the glorious garland of his people. It is likewise apparent from the above survey that the instruction of 28:23–29 is associated terminologically with both the central prophecies of judgement of Isaiah 28. In contrast to the preceding prophecies of judgement, however, the instruction of 28:23–29 is primarily characterised by its use of typically chokmatic terminology (rsy ‘instruct’, ‘admonish’; IIIhry ‘teach’; hx;[e ‘counsel’ and hY:viWT ‘policy’, ‘plan’) and style features typical of the wisdom tradition (‘Lehreröffnungsformel’, sequence of 446 Beuken 2000:22 prefers to avoid the word ‘interpolation’ and is inclined to consider 28:1–6 as a whole as the work of a post-exilic redactor. The said redactor, Beuken maintains, reworked an originally Isaianic prophecy and addressed it to his own time. The connection between 28:7 and 28:1–4, however, leaves the impression that 28:1–4 originally functioned without verses 5 and 6 and alerts the reader to the secondary character of the verses in question.

exegesis of individual pericopes

239

rhetorical questions, ‘summary appraisal’). The genre of instruction as such already exhibits the tone of the wisdom tradition.447 It became apparent in our exegesis of the text that the instruction of 28:23–29 also contained prophetic elements and that it can thus be best defined as a ‘prophetic instruction’. Within the present context of Isaiah 28, this combination of prophetic and chokmatic elements gives the instruction of 28:23–29 the character of a summary conclusion. The fact that the motif of divine eclipse resounds once again in 28:23–29 is particularly appropriate for such a summary conclusion. The motif in question is most explicit in the two central prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22, but it is also implicitly present in the announcement of judgement of 28:2. It would appear to be a thread that runs through the whole of Isaiah 28 and serves to bind its various textual units together. This is likewise true for the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29. The concluding verse, in which the instruction reaches its goal, speaks emphatically of yhwh’s wonderful deeds and the great things that He has done. Such words usually refer to God’s salvific actions for which He is worthy of praise. As was the case in 29:14, however, yhwh’s wonderful deeds and the great things that yhwh does refer in 28:29 to the fulfilment of his judgement! Indeed, the wonder of God’s actions would appear to be the fact that they are turned against his own people. The use in this regard of terminology from the domain of the Wars of yhwh (verse 28) makes this fact all the more painful (cf. 28:21). Based on this observation with regard to the motif of divine eclipse, it is apparent that the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29 is thematically closely related to the central prophecies of judgement of Isaiah 28. While the audience addressed in 28:23 is not further defined, it is conceivable nonetheless that the addressees of the prophetic instruction may have enjoyed their home at the court of Jerusalem, more specifically within the circles of wise men who would have functioned more or less as political advisors (cf. 5:19). In the present context of Isaiah 28, these circles of wise men coincide with the rulers of Jerusalem referred to in 28:14. We were already able to determine in our exegesis of verses 14–22 that the ˆ/xl; yven“a' ‘scoffers’ (cf. μyxil)e addressed in 28:14 represent the opposite counterpart to the μymik;j} ‘the wise’! Given that the opponents addressed by the prophet considered themselves to be

447

Cf. Whedbee 1971:54–55.

240

chapter four

wise and understanding in political terms (cf. 29:14), it is possible to identify the same group as the addressees of the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29.448 Bearing in mind the instructional character of 28:23–29, however, it is also possible that Isaiah’s own followers qualify as his addressees as well. Since the instruction of 28:23–29 does not appear to be a general wisdom poem, but is focused rather on the fulfilment of God’s judgement, it seems evident that it would owe its historical origins to the experiences endured in confrontation with Assyria. The eclipse of God preached by Isaiah and potentially experienced in the meantime by his audience will doubtless have raised the same question among his disciples as he himself had been inspired to ask at the moment of his calling: yt'm;Ad[' ‘how long?’ (6:11). It is possible that this question, or one similar to it, served as the direct occasion of the instruction and that it received its answer in verse 28 in the words jx'n
exegesis of individual pericopes

241

a promise of salvation. The statement in verse 29, however, in which the scope of the entire prophetic instruction is to be found, does not revolve around the promise of Jerusalem’s liberation. On the contrary, God’s wonderful deeds consist precisely of his capacity to intervene in human history and even to turn against his own people in judgement! The suggestion proposed by Beuken that 28:23–29 bestows a certain paradigmatic character to the conflict between the prophet and the leaders of Jerusalem deserves consideration in this regard.451 Indeed, it is not by accident that a prophetic instruction, in which the language of wisdom is employed, is located precisely at the end of Isaiah 28. It is conceivable that the said paradigmatic expansion of the present conflict was prepared for in redactional terms in the verses 19–22.452

Beuken 2000:20. Childs 2001:211 underlines the theocentric character of 28:23–29 and refers specifically to 28:21 in this regard: “The transition is made in v. 21: ‘The Lord will rise up . . . to do his work.’ Strange and alien is this work. Yet the final oracle makes clear that even the farmer’s activity seems strange and incoherent as he tears open the ground before sowing his seed, so also Yahweh’s apparently violent acts of judgment also follow a wise purpose. In his own time and according to his own counsel he will also bring forth suitable fruits from his creation (cf. 4:1).” 451

452

CHAPTER FIVE

THE PLACE AND FUNCTION OF ISAIAH 28:14–22 IN THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH 28–33 5.1. Introduction An important shift has arisen within scholarly research into the book of Isaiah in recent years.1 For a considerable time, the threefold subdivision proposed by Duhm as far back as 1892 (Proto-Isaiah: 1–39; DeuteroIsaiah: 40–55; Trito-Isaiah: 56–66) served as the immutable point of departure for every study of the book. The value of this approach for our historical understanding of the book of Isaiah remains to the present day. On the other hand, however, the said threefold subdivision created a tendency to presupposition with respect to the historical situation of the various individual texts within each of the three parts of the book and to the simplification of the origin and evolution of the book as a whole. Indeed, it ultimately led to a threefold division of the book, whereby researchers exhibited little if any interest in the present unity of the book of Isaiah. An important and necessary correction can be observed in the last twenty years in this regard. More than before, contemporary scholarly research into the book of Isaiah addresses the book according to its present unity.2 The question remains nevertheless whether one should be looking for the unity of the book of Isaiah in a strictly determined total structure. The search for such a total structure has lead in practice to a variety of highly sophisticated analyses that often lack the capacity to convince. The danger of a degree of arbitrariness seems to be substantial in this regard. An example thereof can be found in the work of O’Connell who considers the book of Isaiah to be an extremely complex composition

1 For a recent survey of the current state of affairs in Isaiah research see Becker 1999:1–37, 117–152 and Höffken 2004. The disadvantage of Becker’s descriptions and evaluations is to be found in the fact that he allows himself to be lead by the much disputed literary-critical and redaction-historical insights of Kaiser. 2 Cf. Sweeney 1993:141: “Studies of the component parts of Isaiah continue to appear, but the recent focus on the final form of the book has clearly established itself as the central issue of Isaiah studies.” See also § 1.2.

244

chapter five

made up of seven asymmetric, concentric units, each supported by a complex framework of repetitions.3 The slightly more dated work of Watts might be less complex, but given its speculative character it is no less implausible. Watts characterises the book of Isaiah as a vision presented in the form of a drama in twelve acts, each of which is geared towards a new and different historical situation.4 Berges typifies the book of Isaiah as a sevenfold literary drama concerning the fate of Judah and Jerusalem in the midst of great misfortune.5 While this latter typification is attractive, and Berges is not pressed to introduce forced demarcations within the book of Isaiah as a whole, it is nevertheless necessary to bear in mind that every endeavour to search for a unifying literary total structure within a book that clearly exhibits the character of a redactional collection might perhaps be doomed to failure from the outset.6 The characterisation of the book of Isaiah as a drama maintained by Berges and others, for example, seems to work better for the second part of the book than for the first. The present author is nevertheless inclined to support the idea that the final redactors of the book of Isaiah probably allowed themselves to be guided more by religious motivations than by literary-aesthetical ones.7 The unity of the book of Isaiah appears more often in practice to be theological and lexicographic in nature rather than literary-aesthetic.8 3 See O’Connell 1994:19–20. O’Connell interprets the entire book of Isaiah as ‘an exemplar of the prophetic covenant disputation genre’. 4 Watts 1985:xliv–liv. 5 Berges 2003:207. The seven acts distinguished by Berges are 1–12; 13–27; 28–35; 36–39; 40–48; 49–55 and 56–66. He considers the central act as the narrative climax of the book of Isaiah. 6 Cf. Childs 2001:7: “. . . it is a modern anachronism to require a clear and rational reason for every structural division.” The designation of the book of Isaiah as a ‘collection’ is no longer burdened with negative connotations. Cf. Tate 1996:50: “The collection concept can accommodate the highly complex unity in Isaiah without having to assume a tight, precisely fitted macro-literary structure. A collection should not be regarded as simply a haphazard agglomeration of materials.” 7 Cf. Höffken 2004:90: “Die Lektüre des Gesamtzusammenhangs ist ein modernes Leseinteresse. Dagegen ist nichts zu sagen, aber antike Juden und Christen pflegten ganz offensichtlich eine andere Lesepraxis, die nicht am Gesamtbuch, sondern an Texten im Gesamtbuch interessiert und orientiert war. Sie hat immer wichtig erscheinende Texte und Aussagen hervorgehoben. Das Buchganze war ein Sammelbecken für diese wichtigen Texte.” 8 Cf. Clements 1997:6: “It is then an exciting and stimulating advance of recent methodology to have begun the task of tracing carefully the basic motives and themes which give the book its essential unity.” Cf. also Clements 1982:126: “the factors which have led to the bringing together of its various sections of sayings were essentially thematic and religious rather than literary or biographical.”

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

245

While differences of opinion exist with respect to the various subdivisions of the book of Isaiah, there is a reasonable degree of unanimity when it comes to the global division of the book into a number of redactional units that can be distinguished yet but not separated from one another: 1–12; 13–23; 24–27; 28–33; 34–35; 36–39; 40–55; 56– 66.9 Given the fact that the present study focuses on Isa. 28:14–22, I will limit myself in the present chapter to determining the place of the said pericope within the redactional unit of Isaiah 28–33. Redactionhistorical questions will have to be left aside in this process. While such questions, which touch on the origins of the book of Isaiah, are enjoying an increasing amount of attention in contemporary research, consensus has yet to be achieved on the matter.10 5.2. Isaiah 28–33 as a redactional unit The most accessible studies written in recent years on Isaiah 28–33 as a redactional unit within the book of Isaiah are the articles of G. Stansell from 1996 (“Isaiah 28–33: Blest Be the Tie that Binds (Isaiah Together)”)11 and W.A.M. Beuken from 1998 (“Women and the Spirit, the Ox and the Ass. The First Binders of the Booklet Isaiah 28–32”).12 I will use both studies as a guide in describing first the structural and then the content based cohesion that is evident within Isaiah 28–33.13 I will restrict myself at the present juncture to the main lines of inquiry. 5.2.1. Structural cohesion Following a brief status quaestionis, in which he focuses on the long and complex origins and evolution of Isaiah 28–33, Stansell endeavours to read the said chapters as a redactional unity in the book’s present

Traditionally speaking, and in line with Duhm, the transition to Isaiah 40 is seen as the most important demarcation within the book of Isaiah. Recent endeavours have been made nonetheless to include chapters 34–39 within the second part of the book. Such endeavours go hand in hand with the bridging function both 34–35 and 36–39 would appear to fulfil. See Watts 1985/1987 and especially Sweeney 1996. 10 See, for example, Seitz 1991, Barthel 1997, Becker 1997 and Berges 1998. The first steps towards a redaction-historical approach to the book of Isaiah were taken by Kaiser 19762 (1973), Barth 1977 and Vermeylen 1977. 11 Stansell 1996:68–103. 12 Beuken 1998:5–26. Unfortunately, the dissertation of M.J. O’Kane, Isaiah 28–33: a literary and contextual analysis, diss. Edinburgh 1989, was unavailable for consultation. 13 For the present state of research on Isaiah 28–35, see Höffken 2004:129–134. 9

246

chapter five

canonical form. The first formal element he takes as his point of departure is the structure of this segment of the book, which, as Duhm already noted in 1892, is determined by the six so-called woe statements: μyIr'p]a, yr´Kovi tWaGE tr,f,[} y/h 28:1 Woe to the proud garland of Ephraim’s la´yrIa} la´yrIa} hx;[e rTis]l' hw:hyme μyqiymi[}M'h' μyrIr“/s μynIB; Hr:z“[,l] μyIr'x]mi μydIr“YOh' dWdv; aúl hT;a'w“ dd´/v

y/h y/h y/h y/h y/h

29:1 29:15 30:1 31:1 33:1

drunkards Woe, Ariel, Ariel Woe! You who hide a plan too deep for YHWH Woe, rebellious children Woe, to those who go down to Egypt for help Woe, you destroyer, who yourself have not been destroyed

The six woe statements serve as a skeleton framework for Isaiah 28–33 and fulfil a unifying function.14 It is striking, however, that the first rib of the skeleton, the woe statement addressed to Samaria in 28:1, bears a paradigmatic character. The sixth and last rib, the woe statement in 33:1, even appears to be something of a floating rib since it is addressed against the enemy (Assyria)15 while the first five are addressed against God’s own people (the first against Samaria; the second against Ariel/ Jerusalem; the third to the fifth against the leaders of Jerusalem).16 The sixth woe statement in 33:1 thus exhibits a different character to those who hear/read it. The call to mourn in 32:9–14 appears, moreover, to function as an appropriate conclusion to a segment of the book that is structured around a pattern of woe statements.17 Based in part on the remaining content of Isaiah 33, certain authors hesitate in associating this chapter with Isaiah 28–32 as a component of the same segment of the book.18 The fact that Isaiah 33 begins with a woe statement, however,

Cf. Laberge 1982:157–190. Cf. Laberge 1982:157–190. 16 Barthel 1997:269–270 draws attention to the content based and terminological cohesion between the third, fourth and fifth woe statements, which provide a degree of focus to the series after beginning with Samaria and Jerusalem. Berges 1998:209–214 points out that the five woe statements found in Isaiah 28–31 exhibit a logical structure. He maintains that the first two woe statements allow for a certain degree of hope, while this is no longer the case in the third woe statement. Berges considers the statement made in 31:3 to be the prophet Isaiah’s last word. 17 Cf. Beuken 2000:3 “. . . one can justifiably consider the five woe cries together with the call to go into mourning (28:1–31:9 and 32:9–14) as an original literary composition. Given its content, the announcement of disaster, this composition clearly stems from before the exile.” See also Beuken 1998:6–7. 18 Fohrer 1962 and Kaiser 19762 consider Isaiah 28–32 to be a literary unity, while Wildberger 1982 takes Isaiah 28–31 as his point of departure. 14 15

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

247

represents a formal indication that this chapter also constitutes a part of the redactional unit Isaiah 28–33 in the present form of the book of Isaiah.19 On account of its compositional character and the multiple allusions it contains with respect to both earlier and later texts in the book of Isaiah, Isaiah 33 functions in addition as the conclusion to the said redactional unit and demarcates the transition to the second part of the book.20 The diptych Isaiah 34–35, which can be comfortably read as an independent redactional unit in spite of its various connections with preceding chapters, probably fulfils a bridge function within the context of the book of Isaiah as a whole towards Isaiah 40ff.21 The same can be said for the narratives concerning the liberation of Jerusalem contained in Isaiah 36–39. The very presence of diverse textual units, each fulfilling one or other bridging function, allows us to argue that the present form of the book of Isaiah was preceded by an extremely complex process of genesis and evolution. In addition to the structuring principle provided by the woe statements, Stansell has pointed out an even more complex structuring principle in Isaiah 28–33 based on the interchange of prophecies of judgement and prophecies of salvation.22 He illustrates the said principle with the following diagram: Judgement Salvation

Woe 28:1–4 28:5–6

Woe Woe 28:7–22 29:1–4 29:9–14 29:15–16 28:23–29 29:5–8 29:17–24

Judgement Salvation

Woe Woe 30:1–17 31:1–4 30:18–26 31:5–8

Woe 32:9–14 33:1 32:1–8 32:15–20 33:2–24

It is indeed striking that the woe statements do not follow one another in any form of sequence, but are interrupted rather by words of salvation. 19 Berges 1998:199 considers the pithy statement at the end of Isaiah 33 concerning the forgiveness of injustice for the people that live in Zion (33:24), as a content based confirmation of the structure based conclusion that Isaiah 28–33 ought to be read as a unity. 20 Beuken 1991:5–35 characterises Isaiah 33 as a ‘Mirror text’ in the book of Isaiah. Cf. also Beuken 2000:245. 21 For Isaiah 34 and 35 as a diptych see Peels 1995:148–160. Berges 1998:199–265 treats Isaiah 34–35 in association with 28–33 (idem Childs 2001:199–258) and refers in this regard to a consistency of motifs between 32–33 on the one hand and 34–35 on the other (202–203). He goes on, however, to focus on the elaboration of the function fulfilled by Isaiah 34–35 in the broader context of the book of Isaiah as a whole (203–207). 22 Stansell 1996:70–71.

248

chapter five

The pattern that thus emerges, however, taking chapters 28 to 33 as a whole, is not consistent enough to speak of a genuine structuring principle. Moreover, 28:23–29 is better understood as an example of judgement preaching rather than salvation preaching.23 It is also unclear why the woe statement in 33:1 is counted as part of the preaching of judgement. This is confusing since the target of the judgement expressed therein is Assyria and not Jerusalem. Judgement for Assyria thus implies salvation for Jerusalem. Moreover, had 30:27–34, in which God’s judgement concerning Assyria is announced, not been missing from his diagram, Stansell would doubtless have included it as part of the preaching of salvation. Stansell’s observations are only relevant with respect to chapters 28–31 whereby one can speak prudently of a structuring principle.24 While the redaction history of the book of Isaiah falls outside the framework of the present study, it remains worthy of note that precisely these chapters—Isaiah 28–31—are frequently considered to be the original core of this part of the book. The particle ˆhe ‘see’ with which Isaiah 32 begins, stands in contrast to the fivefold y/h ‘woe’ of the preceding chapters and functions more or less as a point of demarcation.25 In the present form of the book of Isaiah, however, chapters 28–33 are intended as a redactional unit. See § 4.5.2. Cf. also Berges 1998:202 and 2003:212 who adopts Stansell’s diagram, but modifies it with respect to 28:16–17 (word of salvation) and 28:23–29 (word of judgement). Berges also adds Isaiah 34 ( judgement) and 35 (salvation) to the survey of texts. 24 Barthel 1997:256f also typifies the interchange of prophecies of judgement with words of salvation as a structural characteristic of Isaiah 28–32. In contrast to the subdivision proposed by Stansell, Barthel takes larger units as his point of departure, maintaining that the character of the various words of salvation is not always the same. In some instances the judgement announced is overturned, by way of ‘Fortschreibung’, in the following message of salvation (the latter presupposing a judgement that has already taken place), while in other instances the message of salvation consists of a judgement against one of the nations (styled by Barthel, in line with Barth, as a non-Isaianic layer, but dated in part later than the Josianic period presupposed by Barth). As such, the structure of the text would appear to be more complex than Stansell’s subdivision would lead us to believe. Barthel distinguishes four large substructures within Isaiah 28–32, each being characterised by the interchange of judgement and salvation: A. 28:7–29:24; B. 30:1–33; C. 31:1–32:8; D. 32:9–20. Given the exemplary character of the interchange of judgement and salvation apparent at the beginning of this segment of the book, Barthel considers Isa. 28:1–6 as ‘eine Art Exposition des Ganzen’. 25 Sweeney 1996:354f is even inclined to consider the particle ˆhe here as the introduction to Isaiah 32–33 as a ‘climactic unit’. Sweeney sees the focus of Isaiah 28–33 in the announcement of a royal redeemer in Jerusalem who will take the place of the city’s corrupt leadership. The suggestion that 28–31 represents the original core is confirmed by the study of Beuken 1998:16–17, although the latter also includes the prophecy of 32:9–14 as part of the said original core. 23

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

249

5.2.2. Content based cohesion In addition to the structural cohesion evident in Isaiah 28–33, one can clearly observe elements of consistency at the level of content within these chapters. The prophecy of judgement with which this segment of the book begins in 28:1–4 is continued in the present redactional state of the book in an announcement with respect to the exaltation of yhwh as a garland/crown of glory and a diadem of beauty for the remnant of his people (28:5). This corresponds with the announcement at the end of the segment, namely that yhwh is exalted and dwells on high (33:5). Reference is likewise made in 33:17 to a King who will be looked upon in all his beauty.26 As King, yhwh shall also be Judge and Lawgiver (33:22). This expression corresponds with what was already implied in 28:6, namely that yhwh will establish a safe and well-ordered society (cf. also 33:5). As a consequence, Zion/Jerusalem may also be looked upon in the future. It is to become a safe city (33:20). The contrast with Isaiah’s observations concerning the Jerusalem of his own day is enormous. Isaiah 28–33 cuts through the announcement of judgement and destruction with a visionary experience that is reminiscent of the prophet’s vocational vision (6:1–5). Even the inhabitants of Zion will behold yhwh as King, an experience that is inconceivable without the observation that the purification from injustice undergone by Isaiah himself (6:7) will also be the fate of the inhabitants of Zion (33:24; cf. the contrast with 1:4 and the elaboration of this motif in 40:1–2). 5.2.2.1. Themes Cohesion in terms of content within the framework of Isaiah 28–33 as outlined above is largely determined on the basis of a number of important themes that represent a continuous presence throughout this part of the book. No less than eight important themes return time and again in the segment under analysis. Once we have established a list of the said themes we will describe them in sequence and make reference to relevant texts in each instance:27 26 Beuken 2000:246–247 considers it plausible that the king in question does not refer to yhwh, but rather to the Davidic king promised in 32:1–8, since one would be more likely to speak of the glory of yhwh rather than of his beauty. See also Childs 2001:247–248. While there is certainly something to be said for this argument, the accent on the beauty of yhwh is not out of place if one accounts for the imagery employed in 28:5–6. It is possible that 33:17 is intentionally ambiguous. 27 Stansell 1996:72–78 maintains a more global identification of four themes: Zion/ Jerusalem, the exaltation of yhwh, hearing/seeing/insight, and foreign alliances and

250 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

chapter five

Judgement concerning Zion/Jerusalem, Liberation and a new future for Zion/Jerusalem, Exaltation of yhwh, (Not) hearing/(not) seeing/(lack of) insight on the part of Judah, Social injustice and the restoration of justice respectively, Turning to Egypt for support, Assyria as instrument of God’s judgement, Judgement concerning Assyria.

1. Judgement concerning Zion/Jerusalem The first time Zion/Jerusalem becomes the explicit point of discussion in Isaiah 28–33 it is as the object of God’s judgement in the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22. The leaders of Jerusalem are confronted with strongly worded accusation and presented with unavoidable judgement. Jerusalem returns again in 29:1–6 under the name Ariel/altar hearth and is referred to as a city that will be visited by yhwh Zebaot. In the prophecy of 32:9–14, allusion is made for the last time in this segment of the book to God’s judgement of Jerusalem, the latter designated in this instance as ‘the city’.28 2. Liberation and a new future for Zion/Jerusalem While the prophecy of 28:5–6 alludes early in the segment to a new future for the remnant of the people of yhwh in Judah and Zion respectively, clear associations with the preceding prophecy of judgement addressed to Samaria restrict such an allusion to general terminology. The first time that explicit reference is made to the liberation of Zion is in 29:7–8. Somewhat surprisingly, it appears that the struggle of the hostile nations against Ariel and Mount Zion respectively is pointless. Liberation is at hand, but further motivation thereof remains lacking. The reader is presented with the motivation, however, in the prophecy of salvation of 30:18–26: yhwh is a God of justice and He shall respond with mercy to the cry of the people that live in Zion. 31:4–5 presents us once again with an intervention on the part of yhwh in favour of Zion. Yhwh descends on Mount Zion to engage in battle with those the threat from Assyria. Along with the central themes of judgement and restoration for Jerusalem, Brueggemann 1998:217–218 draws special attention to the motifs of ‘ears and eyes’ and ‘Jerusalem’s readiness for obedience to Yahweh’. 28 According to some exegetes, the theme of yhwh Zebaot visiting Zion/Jerusalem is also present in 31:4–5 (see Wildberger, Fohrer, Schoors). See, however, Beuken 2000:194–203.

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

251

who threaten Zion. He shall protect and liberate Jerusalem. Without explicit reference, 32:15–20 also describes a new future set aside for Zion. The theme of liberation and a new future for Zion/Jerusalem ultimately reaches its climax in 33:20–24, in which the eye of the reader is turned towards the new Zion/Jerusalem. 3. Exaltation of YHWH The third theme that enjoys significant presence in Isaiah 28–33 is that of the exaltation of yhwh with its antithesis in the humiliation of every form of human power and every form of human pride. The theme is immediately and robustly present in 28:5–6 in a magnificent set of images intended to be read in contrast with 28:1. Yhwh Zebaot will be a garland of glory and a diadem of beauty for the remnant of his people. The second place in which we find reference to the theme of the exaltation of yhwh is in 30:18, the beginning of the prophecy of salvation. Yhwh will rise up and show mercy to Zion. The third place in which the theme is evident is 33:5 (cf. also 33:3,10,21). Stansell makes the important observation that a close association is apparent in all the aforementioned texts between the exaltation of yhwh and the establishment of justice (fP;v]mi). In addition, 30:18 and 33:2 would also appear to contain a link with the reception of mercy (ˆnj).29 4. (Not) hearing/(not) seeing/(lack of ) insight in Judah The fourth theme occurs in a variety of different forms in Isaiah 28– 33.30 In the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, the priests and the prophets of Judah are accused of refusing to listen to God’s earlier words in which He had shown them the path to rest (28:12). Both the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 and the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29 make an urgent appeal to the reader/listener to pay heed to yhwh’s present message. Lack of insight among the spiritual elite of Judah is already evident in the mocking question of 28:9 and in the sheer terror predicted in 28:19. The theme is also implicitly present in the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29 (see 28:26). In the prophecy of

29 Stansell 1996:74: “These three texts, 28.1–6; 30.18; and 33.2–24, occurring at the beginning, middle, and end of the section, exhibit close thematic and linguistic ties which further suggest a thematic unity of the section.” 30 Carroll 1997:79–93 points to the importance of this theme for our understanding of the entire book of Isaiah: “From 1:2–3 to 66:24 the book of Isaiah is about seeing and perceiving, lacking understanding and being blind.” (80)

252

chapter five

judgement of 29:9–14, the accent is placed on the spiritual blindness of Judah’s prophets, which would appear to serve as a reason for guilt and an element of judgement simultaneously. While allusion to the said theme was already evident in 28:7, it is elaborated at this juncture in greater detail. ‘Refusal’ in God’s judgement becomes a ‘no longer able’.31 In both instances this is associated with the motif of drunkenness. Cohesion in terms of content is confirmed with respect to Isaiah 28– 33 when the prophecy of salvation of 29:17–24 presents the renewed capacity to hear and to see (29:18) and to receive insight (29:24) as essential elements of the predicted new future. Once again, the theme of refusal to hear and refusal to see is part of the complaint in 30:9–11 (cf. 30:15), while the promise of future seeing and hearing returns in 30:20–21.32 The prophecy of salvation in 32:1–8 is even more explicit in this regard, speaking as it does of the future restoration of Judah’s capacity to hear and see, including the capacity to receive insight and knowledge. It is worthy of note that 32:3–4 exhibits particular kinship with 29:18. The presence of the theme in question constitutes an important point of association between 32:1–8 and Isaiah 28–31,33 while the presence of the motif of the royal redeemer also establishes a firm link between this prophecy and 33:17–24. The theme of (not) hearing/(not) seeing/(lack of ) insight on the part of Judah is also evident, albeit in a slightly modified form, in the last pericope of this segment of the book. ‘Seeing’ is no longer oriented towards the way revealed by yhwh to his people or the way along which He accompanies his people, but rather towards the King who is to come (33:17; cf. 30:11 by way of contrast) and towards Zion/Jerusalem (33:20).34 For the motif of hardening within God’s judgement, see in particular Isaiah’s vision of call in Isaiah 6. Beuken 1998:19 sees a connection between the call to lament in 32:9–14 and the motif of Judah’s inability to listen. The call to listen (32:9) is intended to connect the call to lament (32:11f ) with Isaiah 28–31: the addressees who refused to listen to the message of yhwh are now forced to listen to the call to lament. 32 Stansell 1996:76 includes 30:30–31 in his treatment of this motif, but the question of hearing and seeing refers in this instance to the enemy Assyria and not Judah. 33 Beuken 1998:14–15 points to additional semantic associations with the preceding text. 34 After his discussion of this motif, Stansell 1996:77 concludes: “The many instances of the theme, albeit in a variety of forms and contexts, and their close interrelationships are further indicative of coherence and unity of chs. 28–33.” Stansell 1996:78–87 also turns his attention in this regard to the important points of cohesion between Isaiah 28–33 and Isaiah 1–12. He begins by noting a number of structural agreements and then goes on to emphasise the importance of the introductory 28:1–6, which functions as an important associative link with Isaiah 1–12. Stansell speaks of a pattern with respect to the theme of ‘Zion’ (“Zion indicted/threatened then rescued”), which enjoys 31

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

253

5. Social injustice and the restoration of justice respectively The theme of justice is already present in the promise of salvation of 28:5–6. Yhwh promises that He will stand as guarantor of a future, well-ordered society. In the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, it becomes clear that said well-ordered society is not yet a reality since Judah’s priests stumble in giving judgement (28:7). They refused to listen to God’s earlier words, which also bore social implications (28:12). Given the fact that justice and righteousness are so important to God, it should not come as much of a surprise that they would appear to serve as the measure of God’s judgement in the announcement of judgement of 28:17. The need to restore justice is referred to once again in the prophecy of salvation of 29:17–24. The new future will primarily bring joy to the socially weak, for those who commit injustice will be no more (29:19–21). It is probable that 30:8–11 and 30:12–14 also contain allusion to all the injustices of which the people are guilty.35 They have turned aside from the path God has shown them. Nevertheless, the first part of the prophecy of salvation of 30:18–26 also makes reference to a future change in this regard (30:18–21), for yhwh is a God of justice (30:18). While the prophecy of judgement of 31:1–3 is addressed in the first instance against Judah’s political activities, allusion is also made in 31:2 to the social injustice present within Judah itself. The same theme of social injustice is also prominent in Isaiah 32–33, although the emphasis here is placed on the restoration of justice. Firstly, it is stated in 32:1–8 that the future king will reign in righteousness and the princes will rule with justice (32:1). Social injustice will be no more.36 Some forms of social injustice are mentioned by name in 32:5–8 (cf. 29:21). 32:16–17 once again presents a transformation. The future shall be filled with justice and righteousness. In 33:15 this new future

a thematic and structural parallel in Isaiah 1–12. In 28–33, however, a further development takes place of the complex presence of yhwh in Jerusalem, already referred to in Isaiah 1–12. On the basis of this further development of the theme of ‘Zion’, Stansell is inclined to consider Isaiah 28–33 more as a complement to Isaiah 1–12 than a supplement to it (thus Clements 1980[B]:3): “These chapters also participate in the function of enhancing and completing the ‘presentation of a prophet’ begun in chs. 1–12. It may therefore be suggested that chs. 28–33 are not a supplement but rather a complement to chs. 1–12.” (85) This conclusion is further reinforced with a reference to the ongoing development of the theme of (not) seeing/(not) hearing in Isaiah 28–33. 35 Exum 1981:335–336 has Judah’s coalition politics in mind with regard to 30: 12–14. 36 Beuken 1998:14 underlines the conscious antithesis between the king and princes in 32:1 on the one hand, and the princes referred to in 31:9 on the other.

254

chapter five

is focused on Zion: God has filled Zion with justice and righteousness. The consequences of this become visible in 33:14–16 where it is stated that there is only place in a renewed Zion for those who have radically rejected every form of social injustice. 6. Turning to Egypt for support In spite of the fact that Egypt is not yet mentioned by name, it is clear that allusion is already being made in 28:15 to Judah’s political endeavours to seek the support of Egypt in defending itself against Assyrian imperialist expansionism. In the eyes of yhwh, such a policy is ultimately a dead end street since Egypt is unreliable as a place of refuge. The woe statement in 29:15 likewise gives expression to yhwh’s abhorrence of Judah’s behaviour in this regard. This only becomes explicit, however, in the prophecy of judgement of 30:1–5, which exhibits terminological kinship with 28:15ff. The oracle concerning the animals of the Negev (30:6–7) represents a similar rejection of Judah’s foreign policy. Egypt is disqualified as a source of help and designated ‘Rahab who sits still’. Egypt is a nation that brings no advantage (30:6; cf. 30:5). The last time we find reference in Isaiah 28–33 to the theme of turning to Egypt for support is in the prophecy of judgement of 31:1–3, which begins with a woe statement. Egypt’s unreliability as an ally is succinctly stated one final time in the almost axiomatic formulation found in 31:3: ‘the Egyptians are human, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not spirit.’ The presence of the theme of turning to Egypt for support is limited to what is generally seen as the original core of the present segment of the book (Isaiah 28–31). 7. Assyria as instrument of God’s judgement While the threat of Assyrian aggression (a consequence of Judah’s rebellion) also represents the occasion whereby help was sought from Egypt, the threat itself is only discussed within Isaiah 28–31 as a consequence of Judah’s coalition politics. God will use Assyria as an instrument of his judgement. It is striking that Assyria is never mentioned by name within the framework of the theme under discussion. This only happens when Assyria itself is confronted with God’s judgement (see below). The presence of Assyria as instrument of God’s judgement is palpably evident, however, in a variety of metaphors. This begins immediately in 28:2 (‘one who is mighty and strong, like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest . . .’ ), although the prophecy in question refers strictly speaking to Ephraim and not to Judah. In the prophecy of judgement of 28:11, the expression

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

255

‘people with an incomprehensible language’ likewise refers to Assyria. In the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, the threat of Assyrian aggression is first portrayed with the metaphor of ‘the overwhelming scourge’ (28:15,18), and then with a return to the metaphors of hail and water (28:17; cf. 28:2). An allusion to the Assyrian army is similarly contained in the terminology employed in verse 28 of the prophetic instruction (28:23– 29; see exegesis above). 29:3 also alludes to the army of Assyria, which will be used by God together with its towers and siege-works as an instrument of God’s judgement. To conclude, the ‘pursuers’ mentioned in 30:16 refer to none other than the forces of Assyria. 8. Judgement concerning Assyria While the varied announcements of judgement concerning Judah/ Jerusalem tend to dominate in terms of number, the theme of God’s judgement concerning Assyria also occurs from time to time. The first allusion to a change in the fortunes of the nations is to be found in 29:7–8, but explicit reference to God’s judgement concerning Assyria only emerges in 30:27–33. The fall of Assyria is likewise spoken of in 31:8–9, a text that makes emphatic allusion to God’s personal involvement in the said fall. Finally, the woe statement concerning the destroyer in 33:1 alludes to Assyria, which is now to be the subject of destruction. Yhwh’s intervention on behalf of Jerusalem clearly has consequences for the nations that threaten the city (33:3–4,12). The fact that God is bringing about a change in the fortunes of his people unavoidably implies that Assyria must be removed from the scene (33:19). 5.2.2.2. Metaphors Cohesion at the level of content within Isaiah 28–33 is not only determined by a variety of recurring themes, the text also employs a number of metaphors with a degree of regularity that likewise enjoy a cohesive function within the framework of this segment of the book. The three most important metaphors are drunkenness, waters/rainstorms and fire. The first chapter of the segment of Isaiah under analysis is conspicuous for its various references to the drunkenness of the spiritual leaders of both Ephraim (28:1–3) and Judah (28:7–8). While there is doubtless a degree of reality behind these references, the motif of drunkenness functions in the first instance as a metaphor for failing leadership. The same metaphor is employed in 29:9 to express the reasons for Judah’s inability to see (cf. 32:10,12).

256

chapter five

The metaphor of waters/rainstorms is primarily employed in the book of Isaiah in reference to the threat emanating from Assyria (see, for example, 8:5–8). The frequency of this usage is particularly striking in Isaiah 28–33. The first text to be mentioned in this regard is the prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4. The words employed within the framework of the said metaphor are: dr…B… μr
the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

257

is a devouring fire (tl,k;ao vaeK,] 30:27) and his wrath a devouring flame of fire (hl;ke/a vae bh'l', 30:30). The same message addressed to Assyria is to be found in a slightly different form in 30:33, in which reference is made to the presence of a place for burning (hT,p]T;), its pyre (Ht;r;dum]), and of fire and wood in abundance (hBer“h' μyxi[ew“ vae). While the metaphor of devouring fire is not explicitly present in Isaiah 31, verse 9 announces nevertheless that yhwh’s fire is in Zion (ˆ/YxiB] /l rWa) and his furnace is in Jerusalem (μIl;iv;WryBi /l rWNt'w“). 33:11, however, explicitly returns to the fire that will consume (μk,l]k'aOT vae). The extraordinary aspect of the use of the metaphor at this juncture lies in the fact that the devouring fire that will consume the destroyer comes from himself. The metaphor reaches its highpoint in 33:14 when the inhabitants of Zion are asked ‘who can live with a devouring fire?’ (hl;ke/a vae). This is close to the statement found in Deut. 4:24 (cf. Hebr. 12:29), in which God himself is referred to as a devouring fire. 5.2.3. Evaluation The chapters of Isaiah 28–33 would appear to exhibit a high degree of cohesion at the level of both structure and content. The six woe statements (28:1; 29:1; 29:15; 30:1; 31:1 and 33:1) serve as the skeleton of this segment of the book. Nevertheless, the tone and content of Isaiah 28–33 is not only determined by the said woe statements, since it is characteristic of these chapters that the woe statements are interchanged to an increasing degree with words of salvation. Cohesion at the level of content within Isaiah 28–33 is evident in the themes described above, which present themselves repeatedly throughout the chapters in question. Together with the repeated use of certain metaphors, the aforementioned themes confirm the conclusion already established by the structure of the segment, namely that it is intended to be read as a redactional unity.38 Cohesion at the level of content within Isaiah 28–33 can be explained to a significant degree on the basis of the historical background against which the original core of this part of the book in all probability came into existence: Isaiah’s involvement during the Assyrian crisis, while Hezekiah was on the throne, which culminated in the ‘siege’ of Childs 2001:200 also points out that this segment of the book of Isaiah, to which he adds chapters 34 and 35, is characterised by an abundant use of expressions stemming from the wisdom tradition together with the technique of intertextual allusion. He borrows the latter insight from the studies of Beuken in particular. 38

258

chapter five

Jerusalem around 701.39 As a matter of fact, the crisis in which Jerusalem found itself under threat from Assyria forms the narrative setting within which a variety of texts, some of a later date, have been incorporated on the basis of redactional reworking and actualisation.40 What is clear, nevertheless, is that the content of Isaiah 28–33 as we now have it is not only determined by the threat from Assyria but also—and in increasing measure—by Jerusalem’s liberation therefrom.41 5.3. Isaiah 28 as overture Within the structure of Isaiah 28–33 as outlined above, the woe statement with which Isaiah 28 begins constitutes the first of a series of six woe statements. While this initial woe statement has to do with Samaria, its present place in this segment of the book of Isaiah is unmistakably related to Jerusalem. The location of a prophecy of judgement against Samaria (28:1–4) prior to the prophecies of judgement against Jerusalem and Judah has been determined by a redactional motif. The fate of Ephraim had to be held up as a warning example to Judah. It is conceivable as such that 28:1–6 is intended as an introduction to Isaiah 28–33 as a whole, certainly in light of the motif of yhwh’s exaltation that connects 28:1–6 with 33:5,17 (see § 5.2.2.). Given that the prophecy of 28:7–13 resolutely continues the theme presented in 28:1–4 and given that the four pericopes of Isaiah 28 form a close unity at the level of both redaction and content within the larger redactional unit of Isaiah 28–33, it seems more reasonable to accept that Isaiah 28 in its entirety is intended as a sort of overture. 39 Cf. Gonçalves 1986:138: “Indépendant de leur position au sujet de l’histoire de la rédaction de Is., l-XXXIX, la plupart des critiques situe entre 705–701 la plus grande partie sinon la totalité des oracles isaïens de Is., XXVIII, 7–XXXII (XXXIII). De l’avis d’un grand nombre, à la base de ces chapitres il y aurait justement un recueil d’oracles isaïens relatifs aux événements des années 705–701.” 40 Childs 2001:200 calls this ‘the context of the narrative sequence’. 41 Watts’ 1985:352 one-sided characterisation of Isaiah 28–33 as a ‘Requiem for the Kingdom of Judah’ does not do justice to the way in which the present form of this segment of the book of Isaiah presents itself. Indeed, the characterisation ‘requiem’ is based in part on the fact that Watts reads Isaiah 28–33 against the background of the final period of Judah’s existence as an independent nation during the reigns of kings Josiah and Jehoiakim (640–605). This unusual choice of historical setting does not make Watt’s characterisation any less one-sided. The characterisation proposed by Sweeney 1996:353 of Isaiah 28–33 as a ‘Prophetic instruction concerning yhwh’s plans for Jerusalem: announcement of royal saviour’ is for the present author similarly one-sided, since it places all the emphasis on chapters 32–33. Cf. Berges 2003:199: “The divine king and the Zion community” (Isaiah 28–35).

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

259

An important argument in favour of my suggestion that Isaiah 28 be read in its entirety as the overture to the chapters 28–33, lies in the observation that Isaiah 28 leaves the impression of being a highly intentional composition. Both prophecies of judgement (28:7–13 and 28:14–22) constitute the core and function together as a diptych (see § 4.4.). The said diptych is enclosed on one side by the introductory prophecy of judgement of 28:1–4(6) and by the summarising prophetic instruction of 28:23–29 on the other. The presupposition that Isaiah 28 is an intentional composition is confirmed by the realisation that three of the four individual pericopes of which the chapter is made up are connected with one another at the redactional level by copulative particles: μg"w“ in 28:7 (it is probable that 28:7a as a whole is redactional) and ˆkel; in 28:14. In the chapters that follow this never emerges as prominently as it does here in chapter 28. It also became apparent that the individual units within Isaiah 28 are closely related to one another via a striking degree of word repetition and the use of words of the same root. One or more cross-references can be found between all four pericopes of Isaiah 28 (see § 4.5.3.). Not only does the composition of Isaiah 28 support our understanding of the chapter as the overture to a new segment of the book, the content thereof also favours such a reading. As a matter of fact, the most important themes treated in Isaiah 28–33 are already present in Isaiah 28: 1. While judgement concerning Jerusalem/Zion is the central message of 28:14–22, this is already prepared for in the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13. 2. Allusion is already made in the prophecy of 28:5–6 to the deliverance/ new future for the remnant of the people of yhwh in Judah/Zion. 3. The exaltation of yhwh is referred to explicitly in 28:5–6, where it is overtly held up against the pride and arrogance of Ephraim’s leaders (28:1). The same theme is also implicitly present in the announcement in 28:21 that yhwh will rise up to confront the boasters mentioned in 28:14. 4. The theme of (not) hearing/(not) seeing/(lack of ) insight is explicit in 28:12. 5. The theme of justice is present in 28:5–6. Yhwh promises that He will stand as guarantor of a well-ordered society. This contrasts with 28:7 in which reference is made to priests who stagger and reel in the exercise of justice. The theme of justice and righteousness also resounds in the important prophecy of 28:14–22 (see verse 17). 6. Turning to Egypt for support is alluded to in 28:15.

260

chapter five

7. The theme of Assyrian threat is very prominently present in 28:2–4; 28:11 and 28:15,17–19. The theme of deliverance for Jerusalem/Zion, which becomes increasingly important in the remainder of Isaiah 28–33, is only spoken of in general terms in Isaiah 28. The same can also be said of a closely related theme, that of the judgement concerning Assyria. The centre of gravity of Isaiah 28 turns unmistakably around the divine judgement announced concerning Jerusalem that is to be realised through the instrumentality of Assyria. Nevertheless, the references to yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion in 28:16 and the element of hope enclosed within the prophetic instruction of 28:23–29, already constitute the necessary points of departure for further elaboration in what follows. As the reader progresses in his or her reading of Isaiah 28–33, he or she will discover that echoes of salvation are becoming louder and louder, reaching their climax in the final chapter in the woe statement (33:1) concerning the destroyer (Assyria). Before the reader arrives at the joyful tidings of the final woe statement, however, he or she must still pass through four other woe statements that function as tidings of misfortune for Jerusalem/Judah (29:1; 29:15; 30:1; 31:1). After the first introductory and paradigmatic woe statement of 28:1, the four central woe statements of this segment of the book exposes the seriousness of the situation in which Jerusalem finds itself. For the reader who has read beyond Isaiah 28, this revelation should come as no surprise. The announcement of imminent judgement concerning Jerusalem already constitutes the focal point of the individual pericopes of this first chapter. The emphasis on judgement fits hand in glove with the message of the four woe statements that are central to Isaiah 28–33. Taken together, the woe statements in question give expression to the inevitability of the judgement with which Jerusalem/Judah are to be confronted. At the same time, however, the woe statements are increasingly interrupted with words of salvation. The message of this structural feature of the text is clear: the salvation towards which this part of the book is working, which constitutes its ultimate goal, reveals God’s deepest plans for Jerusalem and its leaders, but remains a goal that can only be achieved in and through judgement.42 42 From the perspective of the book of Isaiah as a whole, Berges favours an abstracting interpretation of the five woe statements in 28–31, claiming that they are not intended to expose concrete guilt but rather to draw attention to the behaviour expected of the Zion community; cf. Berges 1998:200: “Sie dienen im Gegensatz zu ihren

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

261

In terms of the judgement itself, Jerusalem is to undergo the same fate as Samaria. The reader is lead to this conclusion on the basis of the first woe statement in 28:1. The fact that Samaria functions as the paradigm for Jerusalem and its leaders, however, only becomes evident in the course of the chapter. Initially, 28:1–4 appears to be nothing more than the continuation of the prophecies against the nations described in Isaiah 13–23. Via the motif of drunkenness, which connects the prophecy of judgment of 28:7–13 with the woe statement of 28:1, however, a surprising analogy is established between Ephraim and Judah: ‘Judah also staggers with wine’. Nevertheless, the addressees are only explicitly localised in Jerusalem in the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22. While the place of rest mentioned in 28:12 refers unmistakably to Zion, the absence of a more precise localisation in the prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13 might initially leave the impression that the drunkards of Ephraim are its addressees. Isaiah 28 is edited in such a way that the transition from Samaria to Jerusalem is only gradually made explicit. The effect of such a refined structure is that the paradigmatic woe statement of 28:1 ascribes the character of an introduction to Isaiah 28 as a whole. By placing Samaria and Jerusalem on an equal footing, it assures itself of an attentive audience and raises the albeit implicit question how such a confrontational identification can be reconciled with God’s past salvific deeds on behalf of Jerusalem/Zion (cf. 28:16). It is this question that ultimately receives an answer in the remainder of this segment of the book with its characteristic structure. God’s plan of salvation for Zion is to be maintained, but it implies that Jerusalem must first endure judgement. Based on the above considerations and observations, which relate to the internal structure and content of Isaiah 28 as well as the place of this chapter within the framework established by the six woe statements around which Isaiah 28–33 is constructed, one can conclude that Isaiah 28 enjoys a unique character and a unique function within Isaiah 28– 33, thus justifying its typification as an overture.

Vorgängern (the woe statements from Isaiah 5, JD) nicht mehr dem Nachweis konkreter Schuld, sondern sind die dunkle Folie, auf der sich hell abzeichnet, was von Volk und Führern erwartet wird, die jhwh als ihren Richter, König und Retter bekennen: alleiniges Vertrauen auf ihn, auf keine andere Macht im Himmel oder auf Erden!” The present author does not share Berges’ position in this regard.

262

chapter five 5.4. Isaiah 28:14–22 as key text and guide

If we are correct in understanding Isaiah 28 as the overture to the redactional unit Isaiah 28–33, then the next step would be to further determine the place of Isa. 28:14–22 in the given context. We already noted in § 4.4. above that the prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 occupy a central place in the context of Isaiah 28 and are both closely connected in terms of structure and content. Given the fact that both prophecies differ from one another in clarity and pointedness, however, and that an increase in clarity and pointedness is evident with respect to 28:14–22, everything would seem to suggest that the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 functions as a core text within the context of Isaiah 28. While the prophecy of 28:7–13 is striking on account of its guardedness with respect to the setting of its message and limits itself to the spiritual elite, the political leaders, who are responsible for the imperfect course that is being followed, are directly addressed for the first time in the prophecy of 28:14–22 (cf. the use of the 2nd person) and explicitly located in Jerusalem. This provides the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 with the character of a climax within Isaiah 28. Moreover, the said prophecy informs us for the first time of the precise situation in which Jerusalem finds itself: political crisis resulting from a misplaced alliance policy. Jerusalem is under serious threat from the imperialistic and expansionist advance of Assyria and its leaders are of the opinion that their alliance with Egypt offers them sufficient protection. This proEgyptian policy serves as the historical background to the majority of the prophecies of judgement in the remainder of the present segment of the book. The fact that yhwh despises this coalition policy is made increasingly explicit in the four central woe statements. While the first woe statement of 29:1 addresses Jerusalem itself under the name Ariel, the following woe statement of 29:15 speaks of a clandestine plan. The woe statement of 30:1 characterises this plan as not having stemmed from yhwh and refers to it as an alliance. In the further elaboration of this woe statement mention is made of Egypt as the alliance partner sought by Jerusalem. The woe statement of 31:1 addresses itself most directly against the content of the alliance policy so despised by yhwh, namely the request for assistance in the form of Egyptian horses and chariots instead of assistance from yhwh, the Holy One of Israel. The fact that this alliance policy is already referred to in the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 and that the alliance with Egypt is typified as a

the place and function of isaiah 28:14–22

263

covenant with death, underlines the core character of 28:14–22 within the context of Isaiah 28. If the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 does indeed function within Isaiah 28 as a core text, and if the chapter as a whole bears the character of an overture, then we are obliged to ask ourselves what the precise meaning of the said prophecy might be for the reader faced with this entire segment of the book of Isaiah, namely the chapters 28–33. It has become apparent from our exegesis of 28:14–22 that the uniqueness of these verses lies primarily in their theological dimension, which this prophecy of judgement discloses. The judgement announced concerning Jerusalem would appear to contain a profound theological motif, a motif expressed in the extremely fundamental statement made with respect to Zion. Yhwh’s salvific engagement on behalf of Zion, an engagement intended to establish a reliable foundation for the future of God’s people, has been rejected. It is this rejection of his salvific engagement that is so offensive to yhwh and that functions as the deepest motif of the judgement facing Jerusalem and its leaders in the prophecy of 28:14–22 and in the remainder of this segment of the book of Isaiah. If the reader bears this theological motif of the announced judgement in mind, it will help him or her to understand the woe statements that directly follow the overture of Isaiah 28 as they give expression one by one to the inevitability of the impending judgement. At the same time, the reader will find security in the knowledge— which he or she can derive from both central pericopes of the overture— that the judgement announced in this segment of the book is a matter of divine eclipse. The prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 are both characterised by their emphasis on the element of alienation that is to accompany the divine judgement (see 28:11 and 28:21). Yhwh’s words and deeds will be strange because it appears that He is behind the advance of Assyria. In addition to the fact that Jerusalem’s experience of divine eclipse is in itself extremely dramatic and an extraordinary shock, the very notion of divine eclipse implies that, for yhwh, speaking and acting in judgement are profoundly uncharacteristic divine features. In other words, following the initial shock (see verse 19b), the careful reader will already be able to derive an element of hope from the way in which divine judgement is announced in the central pericopes of the overture, namely that judgement is not God’s final word with respect to Jerusalem. In other words, the statement concerning Zion in 28:16 in particular is so fundamental that its significance and eloquence rises above the context of the announcement of judgement within which

264

chapter five

it is located. The emphasis placed by the Zion text of 28:1643 on the rock-solid character of the foundation being established by yhwh has the capacity to stimulate the expectation among its readers that yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion will endure through the period of divine eclipse and will never be undone by the announced judgement, no matter how inevitable the latter presently seems. While there is an absence of faith among its addressees, the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 does not state that yhwh intends to go back on his plan of salvation for Zion. Even in the context of the prophecy of judgement, therefore, the terminology employed for ‘the stone in Zion’ serves to underline the reliability of the foundation laid by yhwh in the past. It should not come as a complete surprise to the reader of Isaiah 28–33 that the remainder of this segment of the book contains an increasing number of promises of salvation for Zion. Based on the abovementioned considerations, the present author is able to conclude that the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 serves as a guide for the reader of Isaiah 28–33, more so than the closely related prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, and in particular because of the Zion text of 28:16.43 As a salvation-historical retrospective in the context of the announcement of judgement, the Zion text exposes the theological motif behind the various statements of judgement concerning Jerusalem and yhwh’s detestation of the alliance politics of its leaders. As a reference to the reliability of yhwh’s salvific deeds, the Zion text simultaneously opens a new perspective for its readers, namely that the impending judgement of Jerusalem cannot be yhwh’s last word. This is underlined by the fact that the judgement itself is designated in this prophecy as an uncharacteristic and strange work of yhwh. As core text within the context of Isaiah 28 understood as an overture, the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 can thus be understood as an interpretative key to the remainder of this segment of the book.

43 Cf. Watts 1985:368–369: “The strategic position of this episode (28:14–22, JD) in Act V (Isaiah 28–33, JD) is clear. It states the terms of tension which will dominate the act as they had the history of Judah during its final decades of existence.”

CHAPTER SIX

THE ZION TEXT OF ISAIAH 28:16 AND THE ZION TRADITION IN ISAIAH 6.1. Introduction The present volume has limited itself to the Zion text of Isa. 28:16, with the presentation of an exegesis of the said Zion text in its present context as its primary goal. This exegesis is to be found in the fourth chapter, in which Isaiah 28 as a whole serves as the context. In chapter five, the context of our study was expanded to include Isaiah 28–33. In the present chapter, we will offer the results of our research with a view to drawing some provisional conclusions as a point of departure for further research into the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah. Given that the only point of access we have at our disposal to the preaching of the prophet Isaiah is via the book that bears his name, we will begin the present chapter with a survey of the extent to which ‘Zion’ as a theme is represented in the first part of the book of Isaiah (1–39) together with the manner with which it is presented therein. While limiting ourselves to the first part of the book of Isaiah might seem strange at a time in which the book in question has come to be considered more and more as a unity, the procedure nevertheless goes hand in hand with the goal of our study, which is oriented in the first instance towards the preaching of the prophet Isaiah. As a matter of fact, Isaiah’s preaching serves as the point of departure that ultimately made it possible for the book of Isaiah to evolve and crystallise through the centuries into the book we now have at our disposal, the book in which the theme of ‘Zion’ has acquired such a prominent role. Even though contemporary research into the book of Isaiah tends to approach the text as a unity and is less inclined to speak of a ProtoIsaiah, a Deutero-Isaiah and a Trito-Isaiah, it remains a fact that the book of Isaiah as a whole came into existence against the background of a variety of temporal frameworks (globally subdivided as pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic) and that the original preaching of the Jerusalemite prophet was ultimately written down in the first part of the book. The

266

chapter six

survey we plan to provide in the present chapter, therefore, is intended to offer an impression of the prominent place already enjoyed by the theme of ‘Zion’ in this first part of the book. The promised survey will be followed by a presentation of the results of our exegesis of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16. To this end, we will refer back to the observations made in chapter four of the present volume and to the step by step evaluation already provided therein. The said observations can now be brought together with the results of chapter five concerning the place of 28:14–22 in the context of Isaiah 28–33 as we move towards the formation of a more complete picture. A detailed and extensive study of the Zion tradition would take us far beyond the boundaries of the present work. The numerous biblicaltheological dimensions of the theme and the many religio-historical questions that accompany them, deserve independent study. The same is ultimately true even if we were to limit ourselves to a study of the Zion tradition within the preaching of Isaiah as a whole. Indeed, an adequate treatment of the subject would demand the submission of many more texts from the book of Isaiah to exegetical analysis than has been possible in the present study. The author remains convinced nevertheless that this exegetical study of the Zion text of 28:16 can contribute to the understanding of the place of Zion and the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah. Bearing this in mind, a survey of the history of research into the Zion tradition represents an essential element of this chapter. The survey will limit itself to the more significant moments in this history, confronting them with the results of our research into the Zion text of 28:16. 6.2. Zion in the first part of the book of Isaiah (1–39) The name ˆ/Yxi ‘Zion’ occurs with considerable frequency in the book of Isaiah: 47 references in total, consisting of roughly one third of the references found in the Old Testament as a whole (153)1 and precisely the same number as all of the remaining prophetic texts taken together.2 1 Otto 1989:1007 arrives at a total of 152 references in the Old Testament and 46 in Isaiah because he does not include Isa. 30:19. Stolz 19792:544 arrives at a total of 154 places in which Zion is referred to in the Old Testament because he counts more references in the Psalms. 2 For the sake of comparison: Jeremiah: 17x, Joel: 7x, Amos: 2x, Obadiah: 2x, Micah: 9x, Zephaniah: 2x, Zechariah: 8x. Among the historical books of Samuel, Kings and

the zion tradition in isaiah

267

Of the 47 references in the book of Isaiah, no less that 29 are to be found in the first part of the book (Proto-Isaiah, 1–39).3 In the present paragraph we will offer a brief overview of the various contexts in which the name Zion is referred to in the first part of the book of Isaiah. In order to establish a clear picture of the various contexts in which the name Zion is employed in Isaiah 1–39, we subdivide its usage into three distinct categories: 1. Texts in which explicit reference is made to Mount Zion (9);4 2. Texts in which reference is made to the daughter of Zion (3);5 and 3. Texts in which Zion is employed independently (17).6 1. Mount Zion References to ˆ/YxiArh' ‘Mount Zion’ in the book of Isaiah are numerous. The designation usually bears theological connotations, in the sense that Mount Zion no longer represents a hill in the south-eastern part of Jerusalem with a fortified stronghold on top as was originally the case (see 2 Sam. 5:7; 1 Chron. 11:5), but rather the hill to the northeast of Jerusalem upon which the presence of the temple can be dated back to the tenth century. The said theological connotations are already evident in 8:18, in which Mount Zion is explicitly designated as the dwelling place of yhwh Zebaot (ˆ/Yxi rh'B] ˆkeVoh' t/ab;x] hw:hy“).7 Mention of Mount Zion in Isaiah 1–39 is consistently related to the presence of yhwh and his temple in the location. This is evident, for example, from 18:7, in which t/ab;x] hw:hy“Aμve μ/qm] ‘the place of the name of Chronicles, the name Zion is only found 6x. The Psalms contain 37 references, Song of Songs 1, and Lamentations 15. 3 When compared with the Masoretic text, the name Zion is found on 8 more occasions in the Septuagint of Isaiah. In the following texts, the presence of the name represents a plus in the LXX: 1:21; 9:10; 22:1,5; 23:12; 25:5; 32:2 and 52:1. The only Old Testament biblical book to exhibit the same phenomenon is the book of Daniel. This information stems from a reading given by A. van der Kooij to the Jesaja Werkplaats (Isaiah Workshop) on September 20th, 2002. 4 See Isa. 4:5; 8:18; 10:12; 18:7; 24:23; 29:8; 31:4 and 37:32. I also include 10:32 (Ketib: ‘the mountain of the house of Zion’) in this category. Cf. 16:1 (‘the mountain of the daughter of Zion’). 5 See Isa. 1:8; 16:1; 37:22; cf. Qere 10:32. 6 See Isa. 1:27; 2:3; 3:16,17; 4:3,4; 10:24; 12:6; 14:32; 28:16; 30:19; 31:9; 33:5,14,20; 34:8; 35:10. 7 Cf. Ps. 74:2: /B T;n“k'v; hz< ˆ/YxiArh' ‘Mount Zion, where you came to dwell’. The same idea is also present in Ps. 68:17: /Tb]vil] μyhiløa‘ dm'j; rh;h; ‘the mount that God desired for his abode’. See also Ps. 78:68: bhea; rv,a} ˆ/Yxi rh' ‘Mount Zion, which He loves’.

268

chapter six

YHWH Zebaot’ is identified with Mount Zion, and from 24:23, in which Mount Zion is explicitly associated with the kingship of yhwh Zebaot (ˆ/YxI rh'B] t/ab;x] hw:hy“ Ël'm;AyKi ‘for YHWH Zebaot will reign on Mount Zion’). The connection between Mount Zion and the temple of yhwh present upon it is most clearly expressed in 10:32, in which the unaltered Masoretic text speaks of ˆ/YxiAtyBe rh' ‘the mountain of the house of Zion’.8 This designation is akin to the manner with which reference is made to hw:hy“AtyBe rh' ‘the mountain of the house of YHWH’ in 2:2. Even where the connection between mountain and temple is not explicit, as in 10:12, its implicit presence should nevertheless be maintained.9 A less emphatic association with the temple is only evident in 37:32, in which Mount Zion is mentioned as a parallel of the house of Judah and of Jerusalem. In the majority of instances, however, the sequence is the other way round with Jerusalem functioning as a parallel of Mount Zion (see 10:12 and 24:23; cf. 2:3).10 If the presence of the temple or the dwelling of yhwh is included within the reference to Mount Zion, then it is understandable that the mountain also functions as a place of religious assembly. This is clearly the case in 4:5, in which Mount Zion is mentioned in connection with the gathering of the holy remnant (ˆ/YxiArh' ˆ/km]AlK; l[' // h;a,r;q]miAl['w“).11 While the prophecy of 1:14 announces that yhwh abhors Israel’s festive assemblies (μk,yde[}/m) and that his people are ripe for judgement, Zion in the future, in its capacity as Wnde[}/m ty"r“qi ‘city of our festive assemblies’, shall be a secure habitation, a tent whose stakes will never be pulled up (33:20). The book of Isaiah not only makes reference to the assemblies of God’s own people of Israel on Mount Zion but also alludes to the surrounding nations. In 2:2–5, the otherwise unidentified peoples come

8 The Targum of 10:32 speaks of ‘the mountain of the sanctuary in Zion’ (see Chilton). The reference to the sanctuary follows the Ketib of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint translates, however, with τὸ ὄρος τὴν θυγατέρα Σιων (cf. the Qere of the Masoretes: ˆ/YxiAtB' rh' ‘the mountain of the daughter of Zion’). 9 Via the plus ‘Mount Zion’ in 9:10, the Septuagint also indicates that this mountain is the place in which God is at work: καὶ ῥάξει ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ἐπανιστανομένους ἐπ’ ὄρος Σιων ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς. 10 The author of 1QIsaa has adapted the text of 37:32 to the usual sequence. Pulikottil 2001:46, 65–66 mentions this as an example of the harmonising tendency of 1QIsaa. 11 It is announced in 27:13 that the lost and driven out children of Israel will come from Assyria and Egypt to bow down before yhwh μIl;v;WryBi vd,Qoh' rh'B] ‘on the holy mountain in Jerusalem’.

the zion tradition in isaiah

269

to Mount Zion to receive teaching from the Torah and the word of yhwh. While the designation ˆ/YxiArh' ‘Mount Zion’ is itself not present in this prophecy, related terminology is used that makes it clear that the Zion referred to in 2:3 is primarily a reference to Mount Zion. The text alternates between hw:hy“AtyBe rh' ‘the mountain of the house of YHWH’ (2:2) and hw:hy“Arh' ‘the mountain of YHWH’ (2:3; cf. 30:29). In 18:7, a more specific announcement is made that the people of Ethiopia are going to bring a gift for yhwh Zebaot on Mount Zion. Mount Zion, however, can also stand for the place against which all the nations set out to war (29:8). In 31:4, Mount Zion is the place upon which yhwh Zebaot descends in order to go to war against those who threaten Zion!12 Only the first part of the book of Isaiah speaks of ˆ/YxiArh' ‘Mount Zion’ as such.13 In the remainder of the book of Isaiah, Zion appears to function as a person, both the subject and object of spoken address. Reference to Zion as a mountain would seem to be less appropriate in such instances.14 The third part of the book of Isaiah evidently exhibits a strong preference for the designation yvid“q;Arh' ‘my holy mountain’ (56:7; 57:13; 65:11,25; 66:20; cf. 11:9 and μIl;v;WryBi vd,Qoh' rh'B] in 27:13), a designation that is also to be found in the Psalms (see Ps. 2:6), albeit in the majority of cases with a different suffix.15 Reference is also made to Mount Zion outside the book of Isaiah, especially, once again, in the Psalms (see Ps. 48:3,12; 74:2; 78:68; 125:1; cf. Ps. 133:3).16 2. Daughter of Zion A number of references are made in the first part of the book of Isaiah to the ˆ/YxiAtB' ‘daughter of Zion’.17 This designation, which exhibits a degree of affection, is consistently used as a personification of the city of 12 The expression ˆ/YxiArh'Al[' in 31:4 is sometimes translated as ‘against Mount Zion’ instead of ‘on Mount Zion’. This interprets the text in question in light of yhwh’s coming judgement rather than as a defensive operation on his part (cf. 29:1–4). 13 The Septuagint also refers to a ‘valley of Zion’. The expression ˆ/yZ:ji ayGE ‘valley of the vision’ is translated in 22:1 as τῆς φάραγγος Σιων and in 22:5 as ἐν φάραγγι Σιων. 14 See Berges 2001:64. 15 Cf. /vd“q;Arh' in Ps. 3:5; 48:2; 99:9 and Úv,d“q; rh' in Ps. 15:1; 43:3. 16 The remaining locations are: 2 Kgs 19:31 (= Isa. 37:32); Lam. 5:18; Joel 2:32; Ob. 1:17,21 and Mi. 4:7. 17 Stinespring 1976:985 suggests we translate ˆ/YxiAtB' as ‘maiden Zion’, meaning something like ‘darling Zion’. While such a translation correctly renders the intention of the expression, ‘daughter of Zion’ has become a fairly standard expression in Old Testament exegesis and thus deserves to be maintained if for this reason only. In some manuscripts of the Septuagint, ˆ/dyxiAtB' ‘daughter of Sidon’ in 23:12 is also translated as τὴν θυγατέρα Σιῶν ‘daughter of Zion’.

270

chapter six

Jerusalem (and its inhabitants).18 The said personification is most explicit in 37:22 in which the name μIl;v;Wry“ tB' ‘daughter of Jerusalem’ is used by analogy with ˆ/YxiAtB' (tl'WtB]).19 The fact that ˆ/YxiAtB' already functioned as a personification of Jerusalem at a relatively early date is apparent from a particular Isaianic text—1:8—in which ˆ/YxiAtB' is identified with hr;Wxn“ ry[i ‘a besieged city’ (BHS: hr;/xn“ ry[i). Of particular interest in this regard is the expression ˆ/YxiAtB' rh' ‘the mountain of the daughter of Zion’, employed in 16:1. The theological connotations originally associated with reference to Mount Zion would appear to be lacking here. It is conceivable that the designation ˆ/YxiAtB' in 16:1 already refers to the community of the remnant that had gathered round Mount Zion. If we follow the Masoretic Qere, then it might be possible to say the same with respect to 10:32, in which ˆ/YxiAtB' rh' ‘the mountain of the daughter of Zion’ would then be read instead of ˆ/YxAtyBe rh' ‘the mountain of the house of Zion’, further designated in the same verse as μIl;v;Wry“ t['b]GI ‘the hill of Jerusalem’.20 In the remainder of the book of Isaiah, the expression ˆ/YxiAtB' ‘daughter of Zion’ is only found elsewhere in 52:2 and 62:11. The designation is much more frequent in Jeremiah and Lamentations. The same can be said for the related expression yMi['AtB' ‘daughter of my people’, which, as far as the book of Isaiah is concerned, only occurs in 22:4.21 3. Zion (used independently) The majority of examples of the name Zion in the first part of the book of Isaiah represent independent use. This occurs within a variety 18 Van der Kooij (reading Jesaja Werkplaats [Isaiah Workshop] dated September 20th, 2002) presupposes that the expression ‘daughter of Zion’ in the Septuagint of Isaiah serves as a designation of Mount Zion and not of the city of Zion. He appeals in this regard to 10:32, in which the words ˆ/YxiAtB' rh' ‘mountain of the daughter of Zion’ (Qere MT) are rendered in the Greek text in such a fashion that both expressions are unrelated: τὸ ὄρος τὴν θυγατέρα Σιῶν. The designation ‘daughter of Zion’ would appear in this instance to function as an explicitation of ‘the mountain’. 19 The designation ˆ/YxiAtB' tl'WtB] ‘virgin Zion’ only occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament in 2 Kgs 19:21 (= Isa. 37:22) and Lam. 2:13. Cf. yMi['AtB' tl'WtB] in Jer. 14:17; laer;c]yI tl'WtB] in Jer. 18:13; 31:4,21; Am. 5:2 and hd:Why“AtB' tl'WtB] in Lam. 1:15. The designation μIl;v;Wry“ tB' ‘daughter of Jerusalem’ is also found in 2 Kgs 19:21 (= Isa. 37:22); Lam. 2:13,15; Mi. 4:8; Zeph. 3:14 and Zech. 9:9. 20 Cf. 31:4 in which Ht;[;b]GI ‘her hill’ is used as a parallel for ˆ/YxiArh' ‘Mount Zion’. 21 Of the 23 uses of the expression ˆ/YxiAtB' ‘daughter of Zion’ in the Old Testament, the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations account for no less than 11. Distribution throughout the remaining books is as follows: Kings: 1x, Psalms: 1x, Micah: 4x, Zephaniah: 1x, Zechariah: 2x. In addition to Isa. 22:4, the expression yMi['AtB' is only found elsewhere in Jeremiah (9x) and Lamentations (5x).

the zion tradition in isaiah

271

of semantic frameworks. While it is impossible to make a strict distinction between them, the texts containing an independent use of Zion can nevertheless be subdivided into two groups: (a) those in which Zion stands for the city of Jerusalem, with or without its inhabitants; (b) those in which Zion stands for the place of God’s presence and/or salvific deeds.22 a. The name Zion can be used simply to designate the city of Jerusalem. This is the case in 1:27, in which it is stated that Zion shall be redeemed by justice. Reference here is being made to the city of Jerusalem. According to 1:21, Jerusalem was once known as hy:r“qi hn:m;a‘n< ‘a faithful city’ and via the intervention of yhwh it will once , ' ry[i ‘a city of righteousness’ and hn:ma; n‘ < hy:rq “ i ‘a faithagain be called qd,Xh ful city’ (1:26).23 Given the fact that the parallel second colon of 1:27 makes reference to h;yb,v;w“ ‘those in her who repent’, it is highly likely that the use of the name Zion in the first colon includes its inhabitants. A statement similar to that of 1:27 can be found in 33:5, which states that yhwh has filled Zion with justice and righteousness. It is likewise evident at this juncture that reference is being made to the city of Jerusalem, which will once again do justice to the name already mentioned in 1:26. This element is also part of the expression found in 33:20, in which Zion/Jerusalem is designated as hw
22 Rendtorff 2001:149–159 maintains a slightly different subdivision: a. Zion as location of the temple; b. Zion as location of God’s throne; and c. Zion as designation of the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. Given that the association between Zion and both the temple and the motif of the kingship of yhwh is most explicitly employed in reference to ˆ/YxiArh' ‘Mount Zion’ in the first part of the book of Isaiah, I have not adopted Rendtorff’s distinction. When the name Zion is employed with a theological connotation, it seems preferable to speak in more general terms of Zion as the place of God’s presence and/or his salvific deeds. It remains true, of course, that both these notions can only be explained against the background of Jerusalem as the temple city and that the kingship of yhwh had an important role to play in Isaiah’s conceptualisation of God. 23 The Septuagint of 1:26 has translated the words hn:m;a‘n< hy:r“qi as μητρόπολις πιστὴ Σιων, whereby the name Zion comes from the following verse 27. The Greek translator has likewise anticipated verse 27 in 1:21 by adding the name Zion and translating πόλις πιστὴ Σιων. The designation of Zion as μητρόπολις in 1:26 is striking, given that LXX speaks elsewhere of Zion as πόλις.

272

chapter six

also to be understood as inclusive of the city’s inhabitants and/or the entire people of God (see, for example, 46:13; 49:14; 51:16). When reference is being made to the population of Jerusalem in the first part of the book of Isaiah, this is generally made explicit. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, for example, can be spoken of as ˆ/Yxi bveyO yMi[' ‘my people who live in Zion’ (10:24) or in short as ˆ/Yxi tb,v,/y ‘the inhabitants of Zion’ (12:6). The expression employed in 30:19 is a little more elaborate: μIl;v;WryBi bveyE ˆ/YxiB] μ[' ‘people in Zion, inhabitants of Jerusalem’. All three of the aforementioned expressions are used in the context of encouragement. This is likewise the case, in a certain sense, with respect to the only text in which reference is made to ˆ/YxiB] ra;v]NIh' ‘those who are left in Zion’ (4:3 // μIl'v;WryBi rt;/nh'w“ ‘those who remain in Jerusalem’) or ˆ/Yxi rh'me hf;yleP] ‘a band of survivors from Mount Zion’ (37:32 // tyrIaev] axeTe μIl'v;Wrymi ‘from Jerusalem a remnant shall go out’). Such language presupposes that divine judgement has been brought to bear upon Zion and the people of Jerusalem respectively (cf. 1:9). It is striking that—with the exception of 2 Kgs 19:31 (= Isa. 37:32)—there are no Zion texts outside the book of Isaiah itself that speak of a remnant in Zion, although there are numerous texts in which a return to Zion and a restoration of Zion are presented as future events. The prophecies in the second part of the book of Isaiah in particular reveal that Zion is to remain God’s beloved in spite of his judgement and that yhwh will comfort her (see, for example, 51:3). The name of Zion acquires a broader significance at this juncture, which then functions as a synonym for Israel as a whole (cf. 46:13 and 51:16). A small number of places in the first part of the book, however, already make reference to a return to ; m] i ≈r,aB, ] μyjiDN; hI w' “ rWVa' ≈r,aB, ] μydIba] ho ; Jerusalem/Zion on the part of μyIrx ‘those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt’ (27:13), and of hw:hy“ yyEWdP] ‘the ransomed of YHWH’ (35:10; cf. 51:11). Reference is similarly made in 34:8 to ˆ/Yxi byrI ‘Zion’s cause’, namely that yhwh plans to side with the city and seek his revenge against the enemies of his people.24 The necessity of such judgement is evident, for example, from texts in which reference is made to ˆ/yxi t/nB] ‘the daughters of Zion’. In 24 52:8 even speaks concisely of the return of yhwh to Zion. According to the prophecy of 60:14, Zion shall even be called laer;c]yI v/dq] ˆ/Yxi hw:hy“ ry[i ‘the city of YHWH, Zion of the Holy One of Israel’.

the zion tradition in isaiah

273

contrast to Song 3:11, this designation is not used as a respectable term of address in the first part of the book of Isaiah. It would appear from Isa. 3:16–17 that the expression ˆ/Yxi t/nB] refers to female inhabitants of Jerusalem who are noteworthy for their whorish behaviour whereby they have called yhwh’s judgement upon themselves. Isa. 4:4 even speaks of a spirit of judgement and a spirit of burning, whereby the Lord shall wash away ˆ/YxiAt/nB] ta'xo ‘the filth of the daughters of Zion’ and cleanse the bloodstains of Jerusalem. In more general terms, 33:14 makes reference to μyaiF;j' ˆ/YxiB] ‘the sinners in Zion’.25 b. The designation μyaiF;j' ˆ/YxiB] ‘the sinners in Zion’ employed in 33:14 is actually a contradictio in terminis, since the presence of yhwh would appear to be included along with the name of Zion. There is an evident awareness that people who behave unjustly cannot live in proximity to yhwh, for He is hl;ke/a vae ‘a devouring fire’ (see also 29:6 and 30:30) and μl;/[ ydeq/] m ‘an everlasting furnace’ (cf. 31:9). Several texts can be mentioned in which the presence of yhwh echoes explicitly in the use of the name Zion. In addition to the aforementioned 33:14, this is clearly the case with respect to 31:9, which states that ; W; ryBi ‘in Jerusalem’. yhwh has a fire ˆ/YxiB] ‘in/on Zion’ and a furnace μIlv In spite of the parallel with the name Jerusalem, the use of Zion in this instance does not refer to the city as such, but rather to the place of God’s presence. Zion is likewise placed in the foreground here. Reference is also made in the immediate context to Mount Zion (see 31:4), a designation with explicit theological connotations. It can also be said of Isa. 2:5 that the name Zion does not function in this instance as a simple parallel for the city of Jerusalem. In the preceding verses, reference is made to the pilgrimage of the nations to hw:hy“AtyBe rh' ‘the mountain of the house of YHWH’ (2:2), hw:hy“Arh' ‘the mountain of YHWH’ and bqo[}y" yheløa‘ tyBe ‘the house of the God of Jacob’ (2:3). When it is then stated that Torah goes forth from Zion and the word of yhwh from Jerusalem, it is clear that allusion is being made to the temple as the place of God’s presence. Once again, Zion enjoys pride of place in this instance.

Rendtorff 2001:158 concludes: “Bei allen Unterschieden im einzelnen zeigt sich, daß die Bezeichnung ›Zion‹ für die Stadt und ihre Bewohner vor allem dort verwendet wird, wo von ihrer Bedrohung und Verletzlichkeit bis hin zur Zerstörung, dann aber auch von ihrer Tröstung und Wiederherstellung die Rede ist.” 25

274

chapter six

While the name Zion in the remainder of the book of Isaiah usually functions as the addressee of salvation and thereby as representative of the people of yhwh, the return of yhwh to Zion (52:8) implies at the same time that Zion can be designated ˆ/Yxi hw:hy“ ry[i laer;c]yI v/dq] ‘city of YHWH, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel’ (60:14). Jerusalem is similarly referred to in the second part of the book as vd,Qho ' ry[i ‘the holy city’ (48:2; 52:1; cf. Úv]dq “ ; yre[; ‘your holy cities’ in 64:9, translated by LXX as: πόλις τοῦ ἁγίου σου ‘city of your sanctuary’). The Psalms in particular make frequent reference to Zion in this theological sense.26 An important theological connotation is also present in the two texts in which reference is made to the foundation of Zion. The Zion text of 14:32 proclaims that yhwh has founded Zion (dS'yI hw:hy“ ˆ/Yxi) and that the afflicted of his people find refuge in her. Isa. 28:16 makes reference to the foundation stone that yhwh has laid in Zion

In Ps. 9:12 we find the expression ˆ/Yxi bveyO hw:hy“ ‘YHWH, who dwells in Zion’ (cf. also ; W; ry“ ˆkevo ˆ/Yximi hw:hy“ ËWrB; ‘blessed be YHWH from Zion, He who dwells in Jerusalem.’). Ps. 135:21: μIlv Ps. 76:3 explicitly proclaims that God’s dwelling is in Zion (ˆ/Yxib] /tn:/[m]), a fact that has its roots in a choice that ultimately gives expression to God’s love (Ps. 87:2; cf. Ps. 78:68 and 132:13). Psalm 132 in particular employs a selection D of words to describe God’s dwelling on Zion: hw:hyl' μ/qm; ‘a place for YHWH’ (v. 5), bqo[}y" rybia}l' t/nK;v]mi ‘a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob’ (v. 5; cf. v. 7: wyt;/nK]v]mi ‘his dwelling place’), wyl;g“r' μdoh' ‘his footstool’ (v. 7), Út,j;Wnm]li ‘your resting place’ (v. 8; cf. v. 14: ytij;Wnm] ‘my resting place’) and /l bv;/m ‘his habitation’ (v. 13). It is possible that Psalm 132 was one of the songs of Zion, sung on joyous occasions (cf. Ps. 137:3), especially while travelling along ‘the roads to Zion’ (ykerD“ " ˆ/Yxi, Lam. 1:4). Rooted in God’s preference, the Psalms describe Zion as μyhiløa‘Ary[i (Ps. 46:5 // ˆ/yl][, ynEK]v]mi vdoq] ‘the holy habitation of the Most High’), and μyhiløa‘h; ry[i ‘the city of God’ (Ps. 87:3). This also explains the call to count Zion’s towers in Ps. 48:13. While the latter clearly has to do with Jerusalem as a city, it also goes hand in hand with the fact that the city in question is br; Ël,m, ty"r“qi ‘the city of the great King’ (Ps. 48:3) as well as t/ab;x] hw:hy“Ary[i ‘the city of YHWH Zebaot’ (Ps. 48:9 // Wnyheløa‘ ry[i ‘the city of our God’, cf. v. 1). Ps. 101:8 likewise makes reference to Jerusalem as hw:hy“Ary[i ‘the city of YHWH’. Indeed, Jerusalem is the place in which his temple is located (cf. Ps. 68:30). Given that yhwh dwells in/on Zion, it is possible to address Him as ˆ/YxiB] μyhiløa‘ ‘God in Zion’ (Ps. 65:2; see also 84:8), and praise Him as ˆ/YxiB] hw:hy“ ‘YHWH in Zion’ (Ps. 99:2). It is clear in both Psalm 65 and Psalm 84 that the temple is the point of reference. Since Zion functions as the dwelling place of yhwh, the Psalms likewise give relatively frequent expression to the expectation that help and salvation for Israel is to come from Zion (Ps. 14:7 = 53:7). Particular reference can be made in this regard to the sanctuary, as is evident from the parallel use of vd,Qomi ‘from the sanctuary’ and ˆ/YXimi ‘from Zion’ in Ps. 20:3 (cf. Ps. 3:5). The appeal to yhwh to bless those who fear God/his servants from Zion echoes repeatedly throughout the Psalms (Ps. 128:5; 134:3). Zion is the location par excellence from which the glorious manifestation of God can be expected (Ps. 50:2) and from which the priest-king receives divine legitimation for the exercise of his rule (Ps. 110:2). Observed from this perspective, it is thus inconceivable that anyone who hates Zion should go unpunished (Ps. 129:5). 26

the zion tradition in isaiah

275

(ˆb,a; ˆ/YxiB] dS'yI ynIn“hi). It would be wrong to argue that the name of Jerusalem could just have easily been employed in both texts. Yhwh’s salvific deeds are associated in particular with the name of Zion. The foundation of Zion refers to the place created by yhwh for his deeds of salvation. The moment of Zion’s foundation coincides with the actual realisation of yhwh’s option to dwell therein. In the remainder of the book of Isaiah, no further reference is made to the earlier foundation of Zion. Yhwh presents himself as the one who founded the earth (48:13; 51:13,16). In 51:16, the said foundation of the earth is mentioned in one and the same context as God’s deeds in relation to Zion: ˆ/Yxl] rmoalew“ ≈r,a; dsoyliw“ μyIm'v; x"fon“li hT;a;AyMi[' ‘I, who stretch out the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, and say to Zion: You are my people.’ Reference is also made in a few places to a new foundation in Zion. In 54:11, for example, Zion is informed that yhwh intends to lay her foundations on sapphires (μyrIyPiS'B' ËyTid“s'ywI ËyIn"b;a} ËWPB' ≈yBir“m' ykinOa; hGEhi ‘See, I will set your stones in sparkling ore and lay your foundations with sapphires’). In the context of the announcement of the advance of Cyrus, moreover, Jerusalem is similarly informed that the temple shall be provided with a new foundation (44:28). One can conclude, by way of summary, that the name Zion is most frequently used independently in the first part of the book of Isaiah (1–39). In contrast to the remainder of the book of Isaiah, Mount Zion is also referred to with regularity. Much less frequent reference is made to the daughter of Zion. When Zion is used independently it often refers to the city of Jerusalem, sometimes including its inhabitants. Of greater importance are the texts in which the name Zion functions as the place of God’s presence and/or his salvific deeds. Such theological connotations resound, for the most part, automatically when reference is made to Mount Zion, since the latter is primarily associated with the presence of the temple. 6.3. Results of the exegesis of the Zion text of Isaiah 28:16 The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 constitutes part of a prophecy of judgement that stretches from verse 14 to verse 22. This represents the text’s most immediate context, which is particularly determinative for the way in which the Zion text functions. While the expression concerning ‘the stone in Zion’ in the New Testament and in the tradition of the

276

chapter six

church is almost universally understood as a promise of salvation for the future, there are four important indications to suggest that such an interpretation of Isa. 28:16 is not so evident as it might seem: 1. In the first instance, the Masoretic vocalisation and punctuation of the construction dS'yI ynIn“hi would appear to point in a different direction. Indeed, the Masoretes used their vocalisation and punctuation in all probability to prevent the careless reader from interpreting the verb dsy as a futurum instans (dseyO ynIn“h)i and thereby associating the Zion text with some future salvific deed on the part of God. While Qumran and the Septuagint presuppose an interpretation of 28:16 as a promise of salvation in contrast to the Masoretic text, there is no compelling reason to suggest that the vocalisation of the latter (the lectio difficilior) be thus emended. Theological conviction within the community of Qumran and the liberty the Greek translators permitted themselves provide sufficient explanation of the variant readings of 28:16. 2. The reading of the Masoretic text is supported by the semantic value of the pi{el of the verb dsy. While the qal of dsy has a broader meaning, the pi{el thereof has a specific architectural significance, namely ‘to lay a foundation’. The Masoretic vocalisation dS'yI thus fits well within the semantic field of 28:16. 3. Agreement with the Zion text of 14:32b, moreover, likewise represents an important indication that the Zion text of 28:16 should not be ascribed a future meaning but should be understood rather as calling to mind a former salvific deed with respect to Zion. 4. The Zion text 28:16 is located within the framework of a prophecy of judgement. In line with the usual pattern exhibited by such a prophecy (accusation + announcement of judgement), we would expect an announcement of judgement from verse 16 onwards, following the formulation of the accusation in verses 14 and 15. A salvation-historical retrospective moment fits better within such a context than a promise of salvation for the future. Based on this information it seems logical not to understand the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise of salvation but rather as a salvation-historical retrospective moment within the framework of an announcement of judgement. The seriousness of the judgement being announced by the prophet is underlined by an explicit reminder of God’s misunderstood salvific deeds with respect to Zion: ‘See, I am the one who laid in Zion a foundation stone, a weighty stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.’

the zion tradition in isaiah

277

With the reference to the foundation stone laid in Zion, the prophet alludes to the tradition that yhwh has chosen Zion as his dwelling place. While this tradition is referred to explicitly in 8:18, the belief that yhwh dwelt on Zion is implicitly contained in a number of statements concerning Zion, particularly those in which Zion is referred to as Mount Zion. The appositional expression ‘in Zion’ should not therefore be understood in the locative sense, which would otherwise mean that the said stone was to be distinguished from Zion as such and further located within Zion, but rather as functioning as an additional qualification. Yhwh has established a rock-solid foundation in Zion itself. The message of 28:16 agrees more or less with that of 14:32b, which speaks of the founding of Zion. In line with the text of the Septuagint, the stone referred to in 28:16 acquires a Messianic interpretation in the New Testament and in the Early Church (Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6). This Messianic interpretation presupposes an understanding of 28:16 as a promise of salvation for the future, whereby the stone and Zion are automatically distinguished from one another. We are then in fact dealing with the announcement of something new, of a new deed on the part of yhwh that is to take place in an already existing Zion. The faith referred to at the end of 28:16 is associated in the New Testament with Christ, as personification of the stone laid in Zion. As the plus in the Septuagint (ἐπ’ αὐτῷ) and the New Testament suggests, however, the Masoretic text does not associate the said faith with the foundation stone as such but rather with the entirety of the aforementioned salvific deed with respect to Zion. The verb ˆma hi., employed in the absolute form, is intended to underline the reliability of this salvific deed. The concluding words of 28:16 also implicitly expose a lack of faith in the case of the rulers of Jerusalem, since those who believe in God’s salvific deeds would not have had reason to hurry off. The prophet implies at this juncture that he is already aware that Jerusalem’s political leaders had misunderstood the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion. The announcement of judgement in 28:17a is the immediate result of this knowledge. Yhwh is going to take measure of his people on the basis of his previous salvific deeds with respect to Zion. The norms of justice and righteousness that were established together with yhwh’s dwelling in Zion would now appear to be employed as the standard criteria for judgement. In the context of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, the political implications of the foundation stone laid in Zion are perhaps the most conspicuous. The salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion

278

chapter six

imply the promise of a safe refuge for his people (cf. 14:32). The fact that the leaders of Jerusalem misunderstand these deeds, however, forces them to depart in haste in search of an alternative place of refuge. Their behaviour is evocatively described in the accusation as establishing a covenant with death. This latter expression does not serve to name the futile efforts of the powerful in Jerusalem in seeking refuge in the protection of Egypt against the Assyrian advance but rather to characterise these efforts. In order to disqualify Jerusalem’s coalition politics on religious grounds also, the prophet employs words of a strikingly religious hue. In spite of their expectations, their choice of refuge will turn out in reality to be deceptive. The prophet gives expression to this conviction by speaking about the ‘covenant with death’ with a degree of irony. By looking to Egypt for refuge instead of placing their trust in the promise contained in God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion, the leaders of Jerusalem ultimately signed their own death warrant. In the deluded process of securing sufficient protection against death they ultimately embraced death. There would appear to be no convincing arguments in support of a connection between the said ‘covenant with death’ and the phenomenon of necromancy. The arguments raised in this regard tend to be extremely hypothetical and, in certain instances, even speculative. The broader context of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is constituted by the prophecies of judgement found in 28:7–13 and 28:14–22, which function together as a sort of diptych. Both prophecies of judgement are closely related to one another in terms of structure and content. Taking the traditional structure of a prophecy of judgement as our point of departure, namely the formulation of an accusation followed by an announcement of judgement, it is striking that both prophecies each contain two surprising elements: 1. In the formulation of the accusation, the prophet has integrated a quotation into both prophecies, whereby the accused themselves are given a verbal role in the debacle. In the accusation of the first prophecy of judgement, the quotation consists of verses 9 and 10; verse 15 is marked as a quotation in the accusation of the second prophecy. 2. In the announcement of judgement of both prophecies, the prophet includes a reference to the past: in verse 12 to the salvific message spoken by yhwh in the past, in verse 16 to a salvific deed performed by yhwh in the past.

the zion tradition in isaiah

279

Cohesion at the level of content between both prophecies of judgement (28:7–13 and 28:14–22) is both historical and theological in nature: 1. From the historical perspective it is important that the world power Assyria represents the executor of God’s judgement in both instances. Although the name of Assyria is not mentioned explicitly, the prophet alludes to the incomprehensible language of the Assyrians in verse 11, and employs a metaphor in verse 18 (cf. v. 15), which refers to their imperialism and expansionism. Both prophecies are best understood against the background of Judah’s revolt against Sennacherib and both can thus be dated to the period prior to the siege of Jerusalem in 701. 2. From the theological perspective it is important to note that both prophecies of judgement introduce the theme of Zion. This takes place in verse 12 without reference to the name of Zion as such. It would be difficult to identify the place of rest designated by yhwh, however, as anywhere else. The name Zion is explicitly mentioned in verse 16. While the theme of Zion is raised in both instances in the context of the announcement of judgement, it nevertheless enjoys a special place therein as a salvation-historical motif intended to underline the seriousness of the announced judgement. Already proclaimed in former times and now misunderstood by the accused, yhwh’s salvific plans are here associated with the theme of Zion. 3. While requiring separate treatment, a further theological component is evident that goes hand in hand with the above, namely the motif of divine eclipse, which binds both 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 together. Both prophecies allude to the fact that yhwh is concealed behind the advance of the Assyrians. The said concealment is present in verse 11 in the incomprehensible speech and alien language of the Assyrians. It is in fact God’s own speech that has become alien and incomprehensible. The motif of divine eclipse is present in verse 21 in the unusual and strange deeds of yhwh. Reference is made to a complete turnaround in God’s dealings with his people against the background of God’s salvific message and salvific deeds respectively. Based on the kinship outlined so far, with its structural, content-based, historical and theological features, it is clear that both prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 function as a diptych. They can be understood as two originally independent prophecies, each addressed to a specific addressee, namely the spiritual leaders in Jerusalem on the

280

chapter six

one hand (see v. 7) and the political leaders in Jerusalem on the other (see v. 14). Both prophecies are now so closely associated that they can be read as complementing one another. If we expand the context a little further, Isaiah 28 as a whole comes into view. The individual prophecies out of which this chapter is constructed would appear to be linked redactionally with one another to such an extent that the entire chapter can be understood as a redactional composition. The prophecy with which this chapter begins in 28:1–4, was originally addressed to the deteriorating leaders of Samaria and should thus be dated prior to the fall of Samaria. In the present context, however, the prophecy in question is so closely adjoined to what follows with the help of the redactional verse 7a that it now functions as a warning to the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, that they should learn a lesson from the fate of Samaria, the former pearl of Ephraim. In addition to the semantic cross-references between the prophecy of 28:1–4 and both central prophecies of judgement of Isaiah 28, evident cohesion is also observable at the level of content. The said cohesion is created in particular via the motif of drunkenness (accusation) and the motif of divine eclipse (announcement). In the present context of Isaiah 28, the prophecy of 28:1–4 enjoys an introductory function. Against the background of the fall of Samaria, which was also announced in advance, the lack of historical awareness on the part of Jerusalem’s leaders becomes all the more apparent. Their misunderstanding of yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion is now supplemented by their misunderstanding of God’s righteous judgement that had already been executed against Samaria. They are faced with an urgent question: what guarantee does Jerusalem have that Samaria did not that can protect her against the aggressive advance of the Assyrians? The most important difference between Jerusalem and Samaria is to be found in the promise hidden within God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion. If these salvific deeds are misunderstood, then Jerusalem’s downfall will be just as inevitable as that of Samaria. It is conceivable that the prophetic instruction with which Isaiah 28 concludes originally also existed independently of the preceding prophecies. In contrast to the introductory pericope of 28:1–4, this concluding instruction is probably uttered in the same historical context as Jerusalem’s revolt against Sennacherib. In the present literary and redactional context of Isaiah 28, however, 28:23–29 functions as a summarising conclusion. Once again the motif of divine eclipse

the zion tradition in isaiah

281

enjoys an important place. In contrast to what one would expect in relation to the announcement of God’s wonderful deeds, it appears that yhwh’s wonderful deeds announced in 28:29 are directed against his own people. This motif establishes a strong link between 28:23–29 and the preceding material, including the semantic association with the diptych of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22. At the same time, the combination of prophetic and chokmatic material suggests summary and conclusion. With the introductory prophecy of 28:1–4 and the summarising instruction of 28:23–29, Isaiah 28 as a whole can be understood as a redactional composition within which the diptych of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 has been given a central place. Within the present arrangement of the book of Isaiah, the redactional composition of Isaiah 28 functions as introduction to the segment of the book consisting of chapters 28–33. The narrative setting of this segment of the book is determined by the Assyrian threat confronting Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah (701) and Jerusalem’s liberation from Assyria’s grip. The framework of Isaiah 28–33 is made up of six woe statements, the first directed against Samaria (28:1), the second to the fifth against the leaders of Jerusalem (29:1; 29:15; 30:1; 31:1) and the sixth against Assyria (33:1). Given its compositional character and the multitude of allusions to both earlier and later texts from the book of Isaiah, Isaiah 33 has the capacity to function as a redactional conclusion to this segment of the book. In comparison with the chapters that follow, however, Isaiah 28 has a unique function as well. It not only leaves the impression of being a consciously redactional composition, but also the content related fact that the most important themes dealt with in 28–33 are already present in Isaiah 28, argues in favour of understanding the said chapter as an overture. Given the fact that the paradigmatic character of the first woe statement (28:1), which identifies the fate of Jerusalem with the fate of Samaria, becomes more and more evident in the course of Isaiah 28, the chapter as a whole thus acquires an introductory flavour. As noted above, the diptych constituted by the two prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 enjoys a central place within the context of Isaiah 28. The more explicit character of the second prophecy of judgement (28:14–22) grants it the flavour of a climax, allowing us to designate the prophecy in question as a core text within Isaiah 28 as a whole. The prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22, moreover, is important in respect to what follows Isaiah 28–33, and can thus be considered at the literary level as a key text

282

chapter six

and guide. It is the Zion text of 28:16 that gives this pericope such a function. The statement concerning the rock-solid character of the foundation laid by yhwh enjoys a degree of eloquence that sets the significance of the said Zion text above the context of the announcement of judgement in which it has been located. The Zion text of 28:16 reveals the theological motif for the judgement concerning Jerusalem announced in Isaiah 28–33. Judgement is, according to the repeated woe statements, completely unavoidable. At the same time, however, the Zion text’s emphasis on the reliability of yhwh’s salvific deeds on behalf of Zion already kindles the expectation that yhwh, in spite of the judgement now confronting Jerusalem, will not abandon the work of his hands. 6.4. The place of the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah Prior to the presentation of the results of my exegesis, an overview was offered (§ 6.2.) of the extent to which Zion is referred to in the first part of the book of Isaiah (1–39) together with the manner with which the given references are made. It became evident from the overview that ‘Zion’ as a theme already enjoyed a place of prominence in the first part of Isaiah. The question that now confronts us is the following: does this conclusion, which is related to the book of Isaiah, also apply to the actual preaching of the prophet in the historical context of the 8th century? Given the fact that the book of Isaiah exhibits a long and complex genesis and evolution that extends over more than two centuries, establishing a picture of the original preaching of the Jerusalemite prophet is clearly no simple matter. It is generally accepted that the original core of the book of Isaiah can be traced back to the prophet himself and that his preaching ultimately acquired its written form in the first part of the book that bears his name. At the same time, however, it is also generally accepted that the texts that now constitute Isaiah 1–39 have undergone a complex redaction-historical evolution. It is for this reason that contemporary exegetes must exercise great care in their endeavour to distinguish the ipsissima verba of the prophet himself from the later redactional contours thereof. In any event, consensus on the question of authenticity, so important for academic research, is lacking with respect to a significant portion of the texts that have been passed down to us. While this might not seem the most auspicious point of

the zion tradition in isaiah

283

departure, it need not prevent us from endeavouring to explore the role of the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah. We do so supported by the positive conviction that no other explanation can be found for the prominent place enjoyed by the theme of ‘Zion’ in the present book of Isaiah than that it was inspired by the original preaching of the prophet Isaiah himself. My point of departure is taken from the Zion text of 28:16. The exceptional fact that a considerable degree of consensus has been reached within the world of Old Testament studies with respect to the authenticity of this text enkindles the expectation that a correct understanding of Isa. 28:16 can shed significant light on the question of the preaching of the prophet. Before we endeavour to draw conclusions relevant to the question of the Zion tradition in the preaching of Isaiah on the basis of our exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16, however, and before we propose topics for further research in this regard, it is important that we address our attention to the Zion tradition as such: what does it mean and how can it be described? 6.4.1. Research into the Zion tradition 6.4.1.1. Identification of an independent Zion tradition The designation ‘Zion tradition’ was introduced by E. Rohland, who defended his doctoral dissertation in Heidelberg in 1956 with a study on the significance of Israel’s election traditions for the eschatological preaching of the prophets (Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten).27 Rohland was the first to speak in this regard of the existence of a Zion tradition and to endeavour to describe it. In so doing he made an important contribution to research into the theme of ‘Zion’ in the Old Testament. Rohland’s work would be unthinkable, however, without that of his predecessors, the most important of whom we mention below: Modern academic interest in the place of Zion in the Old Testament was stimulated by the historical reality that marked the beginning of the 20th century. With the fall of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem came under British authority on December 9th, 1917. From that moment on it was taken as a matter of course that Jerusalem was to be seen as the capital and seat of government of Palestine. The fact that Jerusalem’s privileged position 27

See Rohland 1956.

284

chapter six

could not, in the light of history, be taken as a matter of course, however, was explained in detail by A. Alt, who published an important article in 1925 on the rise of Jerusalem (“Jerusalems Aufstieg”).28 For centuries, both the Romans and the Arabs had shown preference for other cities as political centra (Caesarea, Lydda and Ramla respectively). Moreover, in ancient history, up to the 1st millennium BCE, Jerusalem had been a minor city state, in which even the Judeans and Benjaminites, already established in the hill country, had no particular interest (cf. Judg. 1:21). Alt underlines the fact that the city of Jerusalem had ultimately been condemned to a ‘Winkelexistenz’ in history on account of its natural geographical location, but that the conquest of the fortress Zion by David had led to the city acquiring a significant role in the course of history. In 1928, K. Galling published his dissertation on Israel’s election traditions (Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels—defended in 1924).29 In order to study Israel’s awareness of election, however, Galling limited himself to a discussion of the Exodus tradition and that of the Patriarchs, although he notes at the same time that the election of Zion should likewise be mentioned within the framework of Israel’s political-religious awareness of its election. Galling characterises Zion’s election as pars pro toto and as such did not elaborate the idea as an independent election tradition.30 In 1933, H. Gunkel published his now classic introduction to the Psalms (Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels),31 in which he distinguished twelve different genres and introduced the expression ‘Songs of Zion’ (in line with Ps. 137:3) to designate a particular group of psalms that he included among the hymn genre, a genre abundantly represented throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 46; 48; 76; 84; 87 and 122). A characteristic feature of these psalms is the fact that they not only praise God but also, and in particular, his sanctuary. While the latter is also to be found with some regularity in a number of other hymns (Ps. 29:9; 68:16f; 93:5; 96:6; cf. Ps. 78:68f), greater emphasis on the praise of the sanctuary is evident in the Songs of Zion.32 Gunkel already suggested the possibility that certain feast days existed on which the sanctuary was the focus of attention and the Songs of Zion were recited.33 He makes particular reference in this regard to Psalm 132, which, given its lack of hymnic structure, he includes among the Royal Psalms and not the Songs of Zion.34 With respect to the relationship between the Songs of Zion and the prophets, Gunkel presupposes the priority of prophetic preaching. He explains the

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

See Alt 1925:1–19. This article was later included in Alt 1959:243–257. See Galling 1928. Galling 1928:4. See Gunkel 19662. Gunkel 19662:80. Gunkel 19662:63, 81, 368f. Gunkel 19662:140.

the zion tradition in isaiah

285

presence of prophetic-eschatological elements in the Songs of Zion against the background of the fact that Zion had come to play a significant role in the future expectations of the prophets precisely after Isaiah.35 Moreover, Gunkel interprets the fact that God is presented as speaker in a few of the Songs of Zion as evidence of the dependence of the said psalms on the prophets.36 This dependence, according to Gunkel, is given expression in terms of content in the manner with which the joy of the eschatological time of salvation is concretised in the Songs of Zion.37 It should be noted for the sake of clarity, that Gunkel limits the dependence on the prophets observed, among others, in the Songs of Zion, to the eschatological message of the prophets of salvation.38 It is not surprising that Gunkel dates the majority of the psalms he considers to be eschatological in character to the post-exilic period. He makes an exception, however, for the motif of the hostile advance of the nations against Zion and their ultimate downfall before the walls of the city of Jerusalem. He considers it probable that such motifs had already been taken up in the Psalms from the time of Isaiah, referring in this regard to Psalm 48. Gunkel presupposes that the historical experience of 734 and 701 played an important role herein.39 Perhaps the most powerful initiative in the drive to recognise the existence of a Zion tradition was to come from G. von Rad who published an important study in 1949 on the presentation of Zion as the chosen city of God (“Die Stadt auf dem Berge”).40 In an endeavour to readjust the image of the prophets that had remained in force since the time of Duhm, an image whereby the prophets were seen as the founders of a new religion, Von Rad suggests that

Gunkel 19662:81f, 345. Gunkel 19662:82: “die Abhängigkeit dieser Hymnendichter von dem Propheten wird auch daran deutlich, daß jene es zuweilen wagen, den Gott selber redend auftreten zu lassen (Ps. 46:11; 68:23; 75:3f; vgl. 84:7f ), was in den überlieferten Hymnen Israels sonst unerhört (. . .), in der prophetischen Redeweise aber bekanntlich sehr häufig ist.” 37 See the detailed paragraph Gunkel 19662:329–381 devotes to the said theme: § 9 Das Prophetische in den Psalmen. Gunkel describes the joy of the eschatological time of salvation in seven forms: 1. the restoration of the city of Jerusalem and the people of Israel (333–334); 2. the end of the dominion of the nations (334–337); 3. victory over the great natural disasters of the end time (337); 4. the victory of yhwh over the nations attacking Zion (337–340); 5. the dawn of durable peace and a kingdom of justice under yhwh’s kingship (340–341); 6. the glorification of the sanctuary on Zion (341–342); 7. the subjugation of the gods to yhwh (342–343). 38 Cf. Gunkel 19662:361: “nicht die Eschatologie der großen Unheilspropheten, sondern nur die der Heilspropheten mit ihren lichten, Israel freundlichen Botschaft hat in der Psalmendichtung Widerhall gefunden.” (. . .) “Die Auswahl, welche die Psalmendichtung aus den prophetischen Enderwartungen trifft, bestätigt noch einmal, daß sie nicht der Ursprungsort der Eschatologie ist, daß sie vielmehr die Propheten voraussetzt. Ihnen gegenüber steht die Psalmendichtung durchaus auf zweiter Stufe, und bei ihr ist Nachahmung, was bei den Propheten Original ist.” 39 Gunkel 19662:379f. Gunkel nevertheless considers Psalms 46 and 76 to be postexilic. 40 See Von Rad 1948/49:439–447. 35 36

286

chapter six

the prophets had employed existing traditions in the formulation of their message.41 As an example of such an actualisation of a notion rooted in the tradition, Von Rad draws attention to the place ascribed by the prophets, and in particular the prophet Isaiah, to Zion as the city of God chosen by yhwh.42 While Von Rad makes no reference to an independent Old Testament election tradition with respect to Zion, he speaks nevertheless of “ein eigentümlicher Vorstellungskreis vom Gottesberg, dessen Herkunft aus der gemeinorientalischen Mythologie ziemlich deutlich ist.” He considers it conceivable that the presentation of Zion as divine mountain was associated with the tradition of the Davidic covenant for the first time by Isaiah.43 Given the limited goals and perspectives of his study, it is understandable that Von Rad did not achieve a systematic analysis of the various motifs associated with the Zion tradition. His primary intention was to make it clear that the preaching of the prophet Isaiah harked back to existing eschatological propositions and he illustrates this with a discussion of the prophecy found in Isa. 2:1–4. According to Von Rad, the said prophecy is authentically Isaianic and constitutes the first and perhaps the oldest representation of Zion as divine mountain. While Von Rad is not yet inclined to speak of an independent Zion tradition and would appear to prefer to group the Old Testament references to Zion under the Davidic tradition, he refers nevertheless to 14:32 and suggests in this regard that for the prophet, the legitimacy of Zion consisted exclusively in the fact that yhwh had established it and that the throne of David was the address of great promises. The reference to 14:32 and the striking qualification of Zion as ‘der Ort, an den Jahwe sein Heil gebunden hat’,44 already provide an implicit picture of the possibility that the prophetic statements concerning Zion might also be recognised as an independent and important election tradition within the Old Testament. Shortly after Von Rad—and apparently independent of him—M. Noth also provided an important stimulus to the growing academic interest in the significance of Jerusalem/Zion within the faith tradition of Israel (“Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition”).45 In line with Alt, Noth also insists that Jeru41 Von Rad 1948/49:439: “Wir sehen die Propheten vielmehr als Träger und Verkündiger von eschatologischen Vorstellungen, die in der Volksüberlieferung schon in allem Wesentlichen durchaus fertig ausgestaltet vorlagen.” 42 Cf. Von Rad 1948/49:439: “Jesajas ganze Prophetie kreist um die von Jahwe erwählte Gottesstadt, den Zion.” 43 Von Rad 1948/49:440. Von Rad appeals in this regard to the study of J. Jeremias published in 1919 (Der Gottesberg. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der biblischen Symbolsprache) among others. Prior to the important discoveries at Ugarit (from 1929), Jeremias had endeavoured to chart the various propositions associated with the divine mountain. While his references to Mount Zion as such are few (134–141), it is striking nevertheless that he is inclined to search for the origins of the motif of Zion’s inviolability in the liberation of Jerusalem in 701 (138) and that he attaches a late date to the Zion Psalms (140). 44 Von Rad 1948/49:441. 45 See Noth 1950:28–46. The article in question is also included in Noth 1957:172– 187.

the zion tradition in isaiah

287

salem did not play a significant role until the time of King David.46 Noth’s observation does not allude so much to the political significance of the city of Jerusalem as to its religious significance, focused in particular on the people of Israel.47 The primary transformation of the religious significance of the city of Jerusalem lies in the transfer of the Ark thereto by King David. Noth was in fact the first to write in detail on the importance of this event. Given that the latter had significant doubts as to the cultic legitimacy of this deed48 and was even inclined to characterise it as high-handedness,49 he considers the hypothesis that yhwh had chosen Jerusalem as the divine city as an attempt on the part of the Davidic court to justify the king’s removal of the Ark to Jerusalem.50 Indeed more than Von Rad, who also appears to have included references to Zion as divine city as part of the Davidic tradition, Noth was inclined to give priority to the said tradition in both historical and theological terms. According to Noth, Jerusalem needed the monarchy of David and his ‘court theology’ in order to evolve into a city of God. In short, if the city of Jerusalem had not first been the city of David, then it would never have been able to become the city of God! Noth ascribes the fact that Jerusalem was able to maintain this religious status for both north51 and south after the division of the kingdom52 to the presence of the Ark in the city and to the enormous significance the Ark had enjoyed in the history of Israel as a whole

46 While a reference to Alt’s article is absent, Noth 1950:33, 45 would appear to allude to it on no less than two occasions when speaking of Jerusalem’s ‘Aufstieg’. 47 Cf. Noth 1950:30: “Jerusalem hatte keine Beziehungen zu den fundamentalen Überlieferungen des israelitischen Stämmeverbandes, auf denen seine Existenz, sein Selbstverständnis und seine Glaube ruhten.” “Bis zum Ende der vorstaatlichen Zeit bedeutete Jerusalem für die israelitischen Stämme, für ihren Glauben und ihr Leben schlechterdings nichts.” 48 Cf. Noth 1950:32: “Es war—das verdient ausdrücklich hervorgehoben zu werden— ein kühner und in seiner Legitimität durchaus fragwürdiger königlicher Eingriff.” 49 Noth 1950:45. Noth writes on p. 31 that David’s decision to bring the Ark to Jerusalem was based “aus anscheinend eigener Machtvollkommenheit unter dem Gesichtspunkt politischer Klugheit.” 50 Cf. Noth 1950:33. 51 Noth 1950:35ff refers in this regard to the report—which he considered to be Northern Israelite—of the activities of the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh. According to the prophetic narrative, Ahijah considered the abandonment of Jerusalem and the Davidic monarchy to be legitimate in the political sense, although he likewise strongly disapproved of the idea of distancing oneself from the cultic significance of Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kgs 11:36 and 14:1–18). Noth also maintains on the basis of Jer. 41:5 that a Northern Israelite tradition of pilgrimage to Israel must have existed, which presupposes an ongoing recognition of the cultic significance of Jerusalem’s sanctuary. 52 Noth 1950:39ff is struck by the fact that the prophets of the 8th century do not make reference to Jerusalem within the context of their Messianic prophecies (apparently finding Jerusalem as royal city not so essential for the Messianic monarchy), although they do speak of Jerusalem as the place of God’s presence and set aside an important role for Jerusalem as divine city in the future. In this regard Noth refers to Isa. 2:2–4 and 28:16.

288

chapter six

immediately prior to its transportation to Jerusalem.53 As a consequence, the significance attached to the Ark came to be transferred more and more to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, and Mount Zion was able to evolve into a sacred mountain, the holiness of which was no longer dependent on the presence of the Ark. Thanks to this development, Jerusalem was able to maintain its importance even after the demise of the Ark and the temple.54 In the 1950’s, O. Eißfeldt was the primary figure who continued to embroider with the threads first exposed by Noth. Noth’s contribution had spoken in more general terms of Israel’s tradition that had been associated inseparably with the Ark and transferred to Jerusalem. His hypothesis of the amphyctionic structure of ancient Israel unmistakably provided the background hereby. Beginning in 1950, Eißfeldt published a number of articles in an endeavour to chart a few of the traditions that had accompanied the Ark to Jerusalem. In so doing, he drew attention to the role played by the sanctuary at Shiloh at the end of the period of the judges. The Ark had in fact enjoyed more or less permanent residence in Shiloh for a considerable period of time (cf. Jer. 7:12). In addition to the article published by Eißfeldt in 1950 on yhwh Zebaot,55 reference should be made in the first instance to his study on Shiloh and Jerusalem dating from 1956 (“Silo und Jerusalem”).56 The latter article was written to encourage the resumption of excavations at Shiloh. Eißfeldt argues that the use of the title Zebaot, a virtually untranslatable epitheton used to give expression to the glory of yhwh, emerged at the time of Samuel and was associated in all probability with the sanctuary at Shiloh where the Ark was located (cf. 1 Sam. 1:3,11; 4:4).57 The same was true, he maintained, for references to the throne of cherubs which, together with the epitheton Zebaot, gave expression to ‘die Machtfülle und Majestät Gottes.’58 The title yhwh Zebaot must then have quickly spread throughout Israel and have remained alive in Israel’s consciousness even after the destruction of the sanctuary by the Philistines (around 1050).59 Both the title yhwh Zebaot and the originally Canaanite notion of the throne of cherubs travelled together with the Ark to Jerusalem (cf. Psalm 24). Eißfeldt is convinced in any case

53 Cf. Noth 1950:43: “Denn nur ein Kultobjekt mit schon gefestigter und einmaliger Tradition konnte dem nicht israelitischen Jerusalem zu jener kultischen Rolle verhelfen, die bald die Stütze des Königtums nicht mehr brauchte.” 54 Noth 1950:44f. 55 See Eißfeldt 1950:128–150. This article was published anew in Eißfeldt 1966:103–123. 56 See Eißfeldt 1957:138–147. This article was published anew in Eißfeldt 1966:417– 425. See also the articles written by Eißfeldt in 1973: “Kultzelt und Tempel”. In: H. Gese and H.P. Rüger (red.), Wort und Geschichte, FS K. Elliger, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 51–55 and “Monopol-Ansprüche des Heiligtums von Silo”, OLZ 68 (1973), 327–333. Both articles are also included in R. Sellheim and F. Maass (red.), Kleine Schriften VI, Tübingen 1979. 57 Eißfeldt 1950:139ff. 58 Eißfeldt 1950:142ff. 59 Eißfeldt 1950:148.

the zion tradition in isaiah

289

that Jerusalem would not have become what it ultimately became without Shiloh.60 With the Ark as ‘Trägerin alter in Israels vorkanaanäische Zeit zurückreichender gesamtisraelitischer Werte’, David transferred the national-religious values embodied in Shiloh to Jerusalem.61 Eißfeldt sees the importance of this action, among other things, in the counterbalance David was thus able to offer to the supremacy enjoyed by the Canaanite-Jebusite cultic tradition, which could have endangered Israel’s inheritance of service to yhwh.62 At more or less the same time as the studies of Von Rad and Noth discussed above, H.-J. Kraus was likewise engaged with the theme of Zion, and in an entirely unique manner. Kraus defended his doctoral dissertation in 1948 with a study in which he endeavoured to convince scholars of the existence of a royal Zion feast. Building further on the latter, he published his vision of things in a book which appeared in 1951 on the kingship of yhwh (Die Königsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament. Untersuchungen zu den Liedern von Jahwes Thronbesteigung).63 Kraus’ study primarily represents a rejection of the hypothesis proposed by S. Mowinckel, who had claimed the existence of a pre-exilic Israelite feast of accession to the throne by analogy with the feast of the accession of the god Marduk in the Babylonian tradition. While there is no evidence in the Old Testament of the existence of such a feast, Mowinckel nevertheless maintained that a feast celebrating the accession to the throne must have taken place on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth). Mowinckel had gone on to ascribe a cultic-mythical interpretation to the so-called psalms of accession.64 On account of its unsound foundations, Kraus vehemently rejects the idea of an Israelite accession feast for yhwh.65

Eißfeldt 1957:140. With respect to Gen. 49:10, Eißfeldt 1957:140ff points out that the proverb in question must stem from the time prior to the destruction of Shiloh and that David may have been known on account of this proverb. In any event, King David did not bring about the fulfilment of the proverb by going to Shiloh (hløyvi aboy:AyKi d[' ‘until he comes to Shiloh’; the Masoretes mention a Qere /lyvi at this juncture), but rather by bringing Shiloh to Jerusalem. Von Rad 19787:55 quotes Eißfeldt on this point and with agreement. 62 Cf. Eißfeldt 1957:145: “Aber dank der Tat Davids hat sich Jahwe stärker erwiesen als El ‘Eljon, so stark, daß sogar die Priesterschaft dieses El, Zadok und seine Nachkommen, ergebene und zuverlassige Anhänger Jahwes geworden sind.” 63 See Kraus 1951. 64 Kraus 1951:17–19. Mowinckel associates no less than 46 psalms with his presupposed feast of accession to the throne. Gunkel took only five psalms of accession as his point of departure (47; 93; 96; 97; 99), favouring a post-exilic dating thereof, although he considered the introduction of a feast of accession already conceivable during the end of the period of the kings. Gunkel favoured a cultic-eschatological interpretation of the so-called psalms of accession. See Kraus 1951:19–20. 65 Cf. Kraus 1951:23: “Solange ein israelitisches Thronsbesteigungsfest nicht durch überzeugende Argumente aus dem Alten Testament gestützt werden kann, ist die Existenz einer solchen Feier in Israel sehr zweifelhaft.” See also Kraus 1960(A):201–205; 19622:239–242 and 1979:103–125. 60 61

290

chapter six

In line with Mowinckel, Kraus claims nonetheless that the story of the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem by King David in 2 Samuel 6 and the story of the dedication of the temple by King Solomon in 1 Kings 8 were both written on the basis of annually repeated festal customs. Given the fact, however, that the chapters in question make no mention of an accession to the throne on the part of yhwh, and that 2 Samuel 6 should be read in close association with 2 Samuel 7, Kraus presupposes that a cultic feast was already being celebrated at the time of David, a feast in which the election of Zion and the election of David and his dynasty held pride of place (cf. 1 Kgs 8:16). Kraus refers to the said feast, albeit provisionally, as the ‘Royal Zion Feast’ and places it on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles.66 In any event, important moments during the feast included the procession with the Ark as a verbum visibile of Zion’s election, and the repetition and actualisation of the prophecy of Nathan. Kraus goes on to derive evidence for the existence of a Royal Zion Feast from Psalm 132 (cf. Ps. 78:65–72).67 He also includes Songs of David such as Psalm 2; 72 and 89, and Songs of Zion such as Psalm 84; 87 and 122 as part of the cultic hymnal of the Royal Feast of Zion.68 Only after the exile, and under the influence of the preaching of Deutero-Isaiah (see, in particular, Isa. 52:7–10), would it have been possible for the said Royal Zion Feast to be transformed into an accession feast of yhwh.69 The feast in question would have been celebrated during the Jewish New Year (1 Tisri).70 It would also have been possible to associate the so-called psalms of accession with this feast.71 For our present purposes, an important element in Kraus’ view of things lies in the fact that he explicitly makes the election of Zion dependent on the election of David. Noth had characterised David’s transportation of the Ark as a deed of royal high-handedness and had questioned the cultic legitimacy thereof. According to Kraus, however, the religious legitimation for the removal of the Ark as described in 2 Samuel 6 is to be found in the Nathan prophecy of 2 Samuel 7. The prophecy in question contains an answer to the question

66 Kraus 1951:44ff. On the presupposed Royal Zion Feast see also Kraus 1960(B):879– 883 and 19622:215–220. 67 Kraus 1951:51–59. 68 See Kraus 1951:65–81. Kraus excludes Zion Psalms 46; 48 and 76 on account of their eschatological character (1951:78). 69 Kraus 1951:100–111. Cf. the summarising conclusion of Kraus 1951:108: “Deuterojesaja hat die innere Umgestaltung der Botschaft des königlichen Zionfestes der vorexilischen Zeit herbeigeführt, indem er—in den Formen und Bildern seiner Verkündigung durch den babylonischen Kultus beeinflußt—die Wiedererwählung des Zion und den Anbruch der Königsherrschaft Jahwes in Jerusalem kundtut.” 70 Kraus 1951:112–122. 71 Kraus 1951:123–143. In his commentary on the Psalms, Kraus is less inclined to speak of the psalms of accession to the throne. Based on syntactic considerations (a forefronted subject) Kraus agrees that the formula Ël;m; hw:hy“ designates a state of affairs and as such ought to be translated in the present tense. Only Ps. 47:9 calls for an alternative translation. See Kraus 1960(A):201–205 and 19622:240.

the zion tradition in isaiah

291

addressed by the pilgrims as to the legitimacy of Jerusalem as Israel’s central cultic location. As one chosen by yhwh as king, David considered himself authorised to remove the Ark to Jerusalem.72 The election of Zion is thus contained within the election of David.73 Inspired by Galling, and with research oriented more towards the original cultic traditions of Jerusalem, H. Schmid published an abbreviated version of his doctoral dissertation in 1955 (“Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem”).74 Schmid argues that the cult of El Elyon had long been associated with Jerusalem and that this god was worshipped as creator and king. The passage concerning Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18–24 plays a crucial role in Schmid’s argumentation.75 In line with Mowinckel, Schmid postulates the existence of an accession feast in Jerusalem that originally focussed on the god El Elyon. Yhwh, by contrast, had not been worshipped as creator and king from the beginning.76 Schmid likewise rejects the hypothesis that the kingship of yhwh came from Shiloh together with the title Zebaot.77 Yhwh only took on the characteristics of the god El Elyon after his arrival in the city of Jerusalem,78 after which He likewise took the place of El Elyon in the accession feast.79 An important element in Schmid’s vision of events is the suggestion that Jerusalem was already known as the divine mountain of El Elyon prior to the time of King David.80 In the meantime, the removal of the Ark from Shiloh to Jerusalem by David saw to it that both the Sinai tradition and the traditions of Israel’s salvation history were now anchored in Zion and could be associated with the cultic traditions of Jerusalem.81 This association becomes Cf. Kraus 1951:36: “Ohne dieses prophetisches Orakel ist die ganze LadeErzählung in Gefahr, von den anderen israelitischen Stämmen als Ausdruck einer politischen Machenschaft der Judäer oder eines dynastischen Machtstrebens abgewertet und sogar abgelehnt zu werden.” 73 Cf. Kraus 1951:37: “Im Orakel des Propheten Nathan, in der Erwählung und Ermächtigung Davids und seiner Dynastie, liegt die göttliche Legitimation des Einzuges der Lade nach Jerusalem und damit zugleich die Erwählung der neuen Kultstätte auf dem Zion beschlossen.” See also Kraus 19622:214: “Die Erwählung Jerusalems konnte auf die Dauer nur mit der Erwählung Davids erklärt und legitimiert werden.” 74 See Schmid 1955:168–197. 75 Schmid 1955:177. Schmid dates the text concerning Melchizedek to the period after the division of the kingdom when Jerusalem had also to be made acceptable as a cultic location for the northern kingdom and was therefore brought into association with the patriarchal tradition. 76 In so doing, Schmid 1955:171f turns his back on the hypothesis of Buber (1932). 77 This was the suggestion of Alt (1946); see Schmid 1955:173f. 78 For the theologoumenon of yhwh as creator see Schmid 1955:181–183. 79 Schmid 1955:186. In contrast to Kraus (1951), for example, Schmid maintains a pre-exilic date for the accession psalms. He seeks support in this regard in Ps. 47:6. Deutero-Isaiah did not transform an original Royal Zion Feast into a post-exilic accession feast as Kraus had argued, but harked back rather to an already existing accession feast of yhwh. 80 Schmid 1955:187–192. 81 Schmid 1955:192–195. 72

292

chapter six

visible, for example, in the Song of Moses in which Israel’s ancient traditions are given a place side by side with the temple mountain in Jerusalem and the confession of the kingship of yhwh (Ex. 15:17–18).82

Continuing the work of his predecessors, E. Rohland was the first to speak of the existence of a Zion tradition as one of Israel’s most important election traditions. It is clear from the outset that Rohland’s study follows in the footsteps of Von Rad. Von Rad had based his explanation of the prophets on the presupposition that the latter had harked back to existing traditions for their eschatological preaching.83 Rohland’s study is in fact an endeavour to provide Von Rad’s important hypothesis with broad exegetical foundations and thereby, where possible, to arrive at a new definition of the eschatological statements of the pre-exilic prophets. Instead of searching for the origins of eschatology in mythology (following Greßmann),84 in the unique experience at Mount Sinai (following Sellin)85 or in the cult (following Mowinckel),86 Rohland considers it more likely that the eschatological expectation of the prophets emerged from Israel’s own traditions, which bear witness to the intervention of yhwh on behalf of his people.87 Rohland goes 82 Schmid 1955:171, 196f. In order to establish the features of Israel’s credo in the period prior to merging with the traditions of El Elyon, Schmid 1955:168 takes Joshua 24 as his point of departure in which he distinguishes three traditions: the patriarchal tradition (vv. 2–4), the exodus and entry into the land tradition (vv. 5–13) and the covenant tradition (vv. 14–28). In contrast to Von Rad and in line with Weiser, Schmid identifies the latter with the Sinai tradition. 83 See Von Rad 1948/49:439. 84 See H. Greßmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie, FRLANT 6, Göttingen 1905. 85 See E. Sellin, Der alttestamentliche Prophetismus, Leipzig 1912. 86 See S. Mowinckel, Psalmen Studien II. Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwes und der Ursprung der Eschatologie, Kristiania 1922. Rohland 1956:11 considers the radical correction of the understanding of the influence of the prophets on the Psalms, expressed among others by Gunkel, to be one of the most important results of Mowinckel’s study. The origin of numerous mythological motifs found in the Psalms should not be sought in the prophetic tradition but rather in the cultic tradition. 87 Rohland 1956:18 describes the goal of his study in the following words: “Es muß gefragt werden, ob die alttestamentliche Eschatologie, das ‘Ende der Zeit’, nicht in erster Linie auf die von Israel selbst bezeugte Geschichte Jahwes mit seinem Volk bezogen werden muß. (. . .) Aufgabe dieser Studie wird es daher sein, das Verhältnis der Zukunftserwartung der Propheten zu den Traditionen von den Erwählungstaten Jahwes in der Geschichte eingehend zu untersuchen.” He points out that Th.C. Vriezen (Prophecy and Eschatology, VT.S 1, Leiden 1953) likewise placed emphasis on Israel’s election faith rooted in its salvation history, but laments the fact that Vriezen did not allow this information to sufficiently influence his description of eschatology. Rohland is determined to obtain a more refined definition of the relationship between the deeds of yhwh in the past and his future deeds.

the zion tradition in isaiah

293

on to observe that a total of three election traditions are spoken of independently among the pre-exilic prophets: the exodus tradition, the Zion tradition and the Davidic tradition. His work is thus dedicated in the first instance to the study of these three traditions.88 One observes immediately in the study of Rohland that he was not only the first to treat the Zion tradition as an independent election tradition,89 but also that he allowed his treatment of the Zion tradition to take precedence to that of the Davidic tradition. In light of Noth’s hypothesis outlined above, which describes references to Jerusalem as divine city as a form of ‘court theology’, this represents an important evolution. Rohland agrees with Noth that Jerusalem likewise appears to have had early significance as a cultic centre independent of its associations with the Davidic tradition, but he argues that this independence was already part and parcel of the origin of the Zion tradition. Noth had appealed to historical transmission in support of his hypothesis whereby priority was given to the Davidic tradition. Rohland recognises that the said historical transmission did indeed presuppose a basis for the election of Zion within that of the house of David, even though historical transmission as such offers little information with respect to the Zion tradition.90 Information gleaned from the Psalms, however, would appear to point in the opposite direction. Rohland is particularly critical in this regard of the hypothesis supported by Kraus who had found his most important evidence for the proposition that the election of Zion was contained in the election of David in Psalm 132 and who went on to postulate the existence of a Royal Zion Feast.91 Based on the position held by the priests (vv. 9 and 16), the Deuteronomistic references to God’s covenant with David (v. 11f ) and the election of

88 In contrast to Galling 1928, Rohland does not discuss the patriarchal tradition because reference thereto in the prophets is only sporadic. This is even more evident with respect to the Sinai covenant tradition, which Rohland likewise does not handle as an independent election tradition. See Rohland 1956:20–23. 89 Rohland 1956:23n appeals in this regard to Noth 1950, who was first to suggest that we make a distinction between the Zion tradition and the Davidic tradition. 90 In line with Noth, Rohland 1956:120 similarly refers to the tradition surrounding the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh (1 Kgs 11:29–39; 12:1–20,26–31 and 14:1–18) and concludes: “Wir werden also in dieser Erzählung—abgesehen von der Lade-Erzählung selbst—eines der frühesten Belege für die Tradition von der Erwählung des Zion innerhalb der geschichtlichen Überlieferung sehen dürfen, die Lösung der Verbindung mit der Erwählung der davidischen Dynastie jedoch aus der besonderen Situation des Nordreiches mit seinem von Jerusalem unabhängigen Königtum sehen müssen.” 91 See Kraus 1951:36–37.

294

chapter six

Zion (v. 13), Rohland is more inclined to date Psalm 132 in the time of King Josiah. Moreover, he is attentive to the fact that the election of David in Psalm 78 is only mentioned after the election of Zion and that the holiness of Mount Zion is likewise presupposed in Ps. 2:6 in the context of the appointment of a successor to the throne.92 It is primarily on the basis of the fact that the Davidic tradition is not even mentioned in the most important Zion Psalms (46, 48 and 76), however, that Rohland argues in favour of the priority of the Zion tradition.93 Rohland thus takes the said psalms as the point of departure for his discussion of the Zion tradition. The most significant contribution made by Rohland to the study of the Zion tradition is to be found in his description of the various motifs associated therewith. Based on three Zion Psalms, namely Psalm 46, 48 and 76,94 Rohland observes that Zion is praised as dwelling place of yhwh with the help of the Ancient Near Eastern notion of the divine mountain, which extended in fact beyond the actual dimensions of Zion. Four motifs are evident within this notion, motifs that can also be found in Psalms 46; 48 and 76 and that can be reduced to a common tradition: 1. 2. 3. 4.

the the the the

motif motif motif motif

of of of of

the highest mountain; the source of the river of paradise; yhwh’s victory over the chaos waters; yhwh’s victory over kings and nations.95

Rohland 1956:121–122. Rohland 1956:123. 94 In contrast to Gunkel 1933, Rohland does not characterise Psalm 46 as a hymn but rather as a ‘psalm of trust’ recited at the end of a ‘Volksklagefeier’, with a view to an approaching battle (cf. 2 Chron. 20:19). He considers Psalm 48 to be a hymn and Psalm 76, to which he ascribed a late date, as a mixed form: hymn and thanksgiving. 95 See Rohland 1956:141–142: “Um die Erhabenheit des Zion als Wohnung Jahwes zu preisen, sind auf ihn in Israel Züge des vorderorientalischen Urbildes vom Götterberg übertragen worden. Zu diesen Motiven gehörten vor allem die im Folgenden genannten: 1) der Zion ist der Gipfel des Zaphon, d.h. der höchste Berg (48,3f ). 2) Von ihm geht der Paradies-Strom aus (46,5). 3) Gott hat dort den Ansturm der Chaos-wasser besiegt (46,3). 4) Gott hat dort die Könige und ihre Völker besiegt (46,7; 48,5–7; 76,4.6f ). Als besonders charakteristisch galt dabei für diesen Sieg: a) er erfolgte durch einen Gottesschrecken, sei es als Theophanie (48,6), sei es durch das Schelten Gottes (46,7; 76,7). b) Er erfolgte vor Morgengrauen (46,6). c) Gott zerbrach dabei die Waffen und machte jenem großen Krieg ein definitives Ende (76,4).” 92 93

the zion tradition in isaiah

295

The last motif referred to, for which the pre-Israelite origin is least clearly demonstrable,96 is understood by Rohland as the heart of the Zion tradition. Rohland is convinced that the election tradition, as expressed in the Zion Psalms, stems from the period prior to the prophets. He appeals in this regard to existing consensus concerning the age of Psalm 46. The fact that the other Zion Psalms tend to be younger in date is no longer relevant because it is not a question of the age of the said psalms but rather the age of the motifs they employ. While the prophets were at liberty in stating their message to hark back to the cultic tradition expressed in these psalms, they were also free in the manner with which they employed the motifs identified above.97 In order to reinforce this proposition, which ultimately represents the reverse of the dependence hypothesis proposed by Gunkel, Rohland’s study pays a visit to all the pre-exilic prophets (incl. Deutero-Isaiah) and discusses the various texts in which the motifs of the Zion tradition are employed by the prophets in question.98 An important moment in Old Testament studies in general and in the study of Israel’s tradition history in particular was the publication of the influential two-volume theology of G. von Rad, in 1957 and 1960 respectively. The second volume is of particular significance when it comes to the Zion tradition (Theologie des Alten Testaments. Band 2: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels).99 The most important 96 After a discussion of the motifs present in Psalm 48, Rohland 1956:137 concludes: “Immerhin bestätigt über die Tatsache, daß sich das Motiv vom Völkerkampf zwischen zwei sicher ursprünglich nichtisraelitischen Motiven vom Gottesberg findet, die Vermutung, daß auch der Völkerkampf möglicherweise eine Vorstellung ist, die zu dem durch den vorisraelitischen Kult auf dem Zion vermittelten Bild vom Gottesberg gehörte.” With respect to Psalm 76 Rohland 1956:140 notes: “Ist aber die Verbindung des Sieges Jahwes mit der Tatsache der Erwählung des Zion als Gottesberg aus der geschichtlichen Überlieferung Israels nicht zu erklären, so bleibt nur die—schon aus Ps. 46 und 48 erschlossene und damit zu großer Wahrscheinlichkeit erhobene—Möglichkeit, daß hier eine außerisraelitischen Tradition vorliegt, die nachträglich auf Jahwe übertragen worden ist. Ihr inhalt ist, daß Gott, der auf dem Zion wohnte, sich dort nach einem großen Sieg niedergelassen hatte.” Rohland 1956:141 then borrows supportive evidence from Ps. 110:4f, which speaks of a victory over foreign kings, in combination with the motif of Melchizedek that stems from Jerusalem’s cult. 97 Rohland 1956:143–144. 98 Rohland 1956:19 offers two reasons in support of the fact that he limits himself to the pre-exilic prophets: in the first instance, he wants to demonstrate in contrast to older hypotheses (see, for example, Wellhausen and Marti) that eschatology is not only a post-exilic phenomenon; secondly, he wants to demonstrate that eschatology already received its most important expression in the pre-exilic period. 99 See Von Rad 19807:162–175. With respect to the Zion tradition see also Von Rad 19787:55–61.

296

chapter six

hypothesis on the basis of which Von Rad wrote this book is the suggestion that the prophets were not independent religious personalities but firmly rooted their message rather in the ancient traditions and that they continually actualised and interpreted the said traditions of Israel.100 This dependence on Israel’s traditions is particularly evident with respect to the prophet Isaiah, whose preaching Von Rad characterises somewhat lyrically as ‘das gewaltigste theologische Phänomen des ganzen Alten Testamentes’.101 Von Rad states his explicit agreement with the study of Rohland, which he sees as a necessary supplement to the article written by Noth in 1950. The necessary supplementation consists in the recognition of the existence of a specific Zion tradition in Jerusalem, which had been integrated into the religion of yhwh.102 In line with Rohland, Von Rad alludes in this regard to the Zion Psalms 46; 48 and 76, which are to be reduced to a common tradition, namely the tradition of Zion as the mountain and dwelling place of God. The mythological presentations of this tradition have Canaanite roots and were only transferred to Zion in a second phase.103 With reference to the prophets through whom the said tradition acquired great significance, Von Rad likewise characterises the Zion tradition as an independent election tradition.104 Von Rad motivates his designation of the Zion tradition as an election tradition with a reference to the legitimacy certain circles derived therefrom during the period of the kings.105 See Von Rad 19807:13–15. Cf. Von Rad 19807:156: “Es läßt sich nämlich zeigen, daß die breite, ausladende Fülle der Botschaft Jesajas auf ganz wenigen religiösen Vorstellungen ruht, die ihm von der Tradition, vor allem der jerusalemischen, vorgegeben waren.” 102 Von Rad 19807:163. While Von Rad 19787:56f recognises that we know little of the cultic situation that preceded David’s conquest of Jerusalem, he argues nevertheless that the worship of the god El Elyon in Jerusalem was a given fact and that the presentation of yhwh as heavenly king also stems from the Jerusalem cult. Von Rad follows the findings of Schmid 1955:168–197 and Kraus 1960(A):197–201 in this regard. 103 Von Rad 19787:59–60. 104 See Von Rad 19787:60: “Die Zion-Gottesbergtradition ist also nichts anderes als eine selbständige Erwählungstradition; sie stellt sich, wenn auch als die jüngste dieser Traditionsbildungen, selbständig neben die älteren Erwählungstraditionen von den Erzvätern und der Herausführung aus Ägypten. Inhaltlich ist sie bestimmt von dem Bewußtsein unbegrenzter Sicherheit und Geborgenheit bei Jahwe, und gerade dieser Klang wird von den Weissagungen Jesajas aufgenommen und sogar nog überboten.” 105 See Von Rad 19807:180–181: “So kann man also sagen, daß die gesamte Verkündigung Jesajas auf zwei Überlieferungen steht, der Zion- und der Davidüberlieferung. Beides sind Erwählungstraditionen, d.h. von ihnen aus haben sich in der Königszeit gewisse Kreise in Israel vor Jahwe legitimiert; auf die göttliche Setzungen, die diese Überlieferungen verbürgten, haben sie ihre ganze Existenz vor Jahwe, ihren Glauben und ihre Zuversicht gegründet.” 100 101

the zion tradition in isaiah

297

Of course, it goes without saying that research into the Zion tradition did not come to an end with the fundamental contributions of Rohland and Von Rad. The existence of an independent Zion tradition is now generally accepted as a given fact and the hypothesis that Zion’s election should be considered dependent on the election of David has, since Rohland, been the subject of dispute from a variety of quarters. Reference should primarily be made in this regard to the study of H. Gese, in which the author endeavoured to arrive at an alternative determination of the relationship between the election of David and that of Zion (“Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung”).106 Witness to the election of Zion in the Old Testament remains inseparably linked to the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem initiated by David (2 Samuel 6). Kraus has insisted, however, that historical and theological priority should be given to the election of David (2 Samuel 7), otherwise it would have been difficult for David to legitimate the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem. According to Kraus, the extraordinary position granted by yhwh to David included the authority, as it were, to have the Ark transferred to Jerusalem and to transform Jerusalem into Israel’s central cultic location. Gese dryly observes nonetheless that this proposition does not fit the sequence of events found in 2 Samuel 6–7: The Nathan prophecy is explicitly linked to David’s plan to build a temple for the Ark, which has been transferred in the meantime to Jerusalem. Gese seeks support in addition from Psalm 132 in defence of his hypothesis that the covenant with David should be understood more as a divine response to his removal of the Ark to Jerusalem. In practice, the removal of the Ark did not require David’s election to legitimate it because the act itself was sufficiently legitimated by David’s victory against the Philistines as well as the loss of significance undergone by the Ark in the preceding decades.107 Permission from a higher authority than the king at that moment was simply not necessary.108 Based on Psalm 132, which he dates in the early pre-exilic period,109 Gese argues that David’s vow to find a place of rest for the Ark (Ps. See Gese 1964:10–26. This article is also included in Gese 1974:113–129. Gese 1964:12 presupposes a period of 50 years between the destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh and the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem. 108 Gese 1964:14n rejects the suggestion made by Kraus, namely that the Ark still had an amphyctionic significance at the time that would have impeded self-authorised action on the part of David. 109 Rohland 1956:120ff still presupposed a dating of Psalm 132 to the later period of the kings. 106 107

298

chapter six

132:2–5) and yhwh’s promise to David (Ps. 132:11–12) belong together and that the election of David and his house is founded in the election of Zion (Ps. 132:13).110 To reinforce his position, Gese points to the fact that David had become Jerusalem’s landowner by right of his victorious conquest. As a matter of fact, the election of Jerusalem by yhwh ultimately included the election of the house of David.111 Attention is likewise drawn in 2 Samuel 24 to the fact that David is the rightful owner of the new cultic centre on account of the bill of purchase. According to Gese, therefore, the close relationship between the election of Zion and that of the house of David is located in the king’s property rights concerning Jerusalem.112 It is for this reason that the Davidic kingship is so explicitly associated with Zion in a number of the Psalms (see, for example, Ps. 2:6).113 With reference to 2 Samuel 7, Gese goes on to argue that the prophecy contained therein, which he maintains was only written in the post-Solomonic period and can be explained as a polemic reaction to the ideas contained in Psalm 132, was intended to emphasise the mercy character of the covenant with David. The chapter in question does not, therefore, draw associations with David’s removal of the Ark to Jerusalem, as if he deserved to be rewarded for doing so, but rather with his plans to build a temple.114 The said plans are ultimately rejected because yhwh alone, and not a human being, has the right to introduce such an initiative. Yhwh nevertheless promises to build a house for David, that is to say that He will place Solomon on the throne and let him build the temple.115 Gese 1964:14ff. Gese 1964:17: “Ergreift Jahwe Besitz von diesem Grund und Boden Davids, indem er sich für immer daran bindet, diesen Grund und Boden erwählt, so ist auch die Davidfamilie, das Haus Davids, für immer erwählt.” According to Gese, the relationship between the Ark and David’s ownership of the land is already alluded to in the reference to Ephrathah in Ps. 132:6. According to him, mention of Ephrathah = Bethlehem already suggests “den auf seinem angestammten Grundbesitz wohnenden David.” 112 Gese 1964:17: “Aus den urtümlichen bodenrechtlichen Anschauungen ergibt sich eine tiefe Beziehung zwischen der Zionserwählung und der Erwählung der Davidsfamilie durch Gott. Beides scheint dem Wesen nach ein und dasselbe zu sein, nur nach zwei Seiten hin interpretiert.” 113 Cf. Gese 1964:18: “Die Dynastieverheißung ist der politisch-religiöse Ausdruck der kultisch-religiöse Bindung Jahwes an den Zion.” 114 Gese 1964:24: “In der rein negativen Art der Anknüpfung wird polemisch das sola gratia der Davidverheißung zum Ausdruck gebracht: nicht ist die Dynastiezusage ein Lohn des frommen Davidwerkes, der Ziongründung, sondern Jahwe spricht aus freiem Entschluß von sich aus die Verheißungen David zu.” 115 Gese 1964:21–26. Gese concludes in summary: “2 Sam 7 geht wohl aus von dem 110

111

the zion tradition in isaiah

299

The general conviction at the present moment is that the Zion tradition cannot be subsumed into the Davidic tradition, but rather that it should be ascribed an independent significance. There is no consensus, however, on the question whether one can actually refer to an election tradition when one speaks of the Zion tradition. In order to obtain a correct description of the Zion tradition it is important that we face this question. We will return to this question in § 6.4.1.4. below. 6.4.1.2. The Zion tradition and the Jebusite cultic tradition While Rohland and Von Rad insisted on describing the Zion tradition as an Israelite election tradition, it is striking nevertheless that Rohland’s description of the various motifs that characterise the said tradition is borrowed from three Zion Psalms and that he relates the origin of the motifs in question to the Ancient Near Eastern presentation of the divine mountain. It is for this reason that Kraus objected to the treatment of the tradition of the divine mountain with ‘election tradition’ as its common denominator. Given that the election of Zion constituted a specifically Israelite event, closely associated with the history of the Ark, Kraus considered it better to designate the originally mythological tradition of the divine mountain expressed in the Zion Psalms as ‘a cultic tradition to the glorification of Zion’.116 It was primarily this durch die Tradition gegebenen inneren Zusammenhang zwischen Zionserwählung und Davidsbund. Aber gegen diesen Zusammenhang wird entschieden protestiert, da er den theologischen Vorstellungen nicht entsprach. Allein aus sich heraus, aus eigener Freiheit und Autorität habe Gott die Dynastie verheißen. Hier liege keine reactio Gottes auf eine actio Davids vor.” 116 Cf. Kraus 19622:237n: “Die mythologischen Rudimente der kanaanäischjebusitischen Welt wurden vom Jerusalemer Kult als ‘Verherrlichungsaussagen’ rezipiert; mit der Erwählung des Zion haben sie nur in einem untergeordneten Sinne zu tun—nämlich in der Angliederung an den hieros logos, der die erwählte Stadt bezeichnet.” See also Kraus 1960(A):345: “Es müßte scharf getrennt werden zwischen den (vorisraelitischen) Kulttraditionen (. . .) und dem genuin israelitischen Akt der ‘Erwählung des Zion’. Es muß auffallen, daß in den (vorisraelitischen und tief im Mythos verwurzelten) Kultüberlieferungen die Lade nicht erwähnt wird. Dagegen ist z.B. in Ps 132 ausdrücklich von der Einführung der Lade und von der Erwählung des Zion die Rede. Man müßte also die in diesem Exkurs erfaßten Aussagen unter das Thema ‘Kulttraditionen zur Verherrlichung des Zion’ stellen.” See also Kraus 1979:102. In addition to Kraus, Ollenburger 1987:61–63 also objected to the designation of the Zion tradition as an election tradition. Although Ollenburger emphasises the importance of the Ark tradition for the genesis of the Zion tradition, he argues nevertheless that Zion was more associated with creation motifs in the earliest cultic traditions of Jerusalem and that reference to the election of Zion in Psalm 132 harks back to a later Deuteronomistic development: “. . . Zion, in Jerusalem’s earliest cultic traditions, is associated with creation (dsy) of the earth and is itself created by Yahweh (Isa 14.32) as his dwelling-place. This tradition, originating in connection with traditions from the Shiloh Ark in the

300

chapter six

presupposed non-Israelite origin of the said cultic tradition that captured the attention of further research into the Zion tradition. In the context of a study on the book of Lamentations (Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations), B. Albrektson has also offered a description of the Zion tradition.117 Albrektson considers the motif of Zion’s inviolability, as found in the Zion Psalms 46, 48 and 76, to be central to the tradition and guaranteed by the presence of God.118 He insists that the said motif should not be explained against the background of the historical event of Jerusalem’s liberation in 701, as many, for the most part older commentaries were inclined to argue,119 but that it already constitutes a part of a pre-Israelite, Jebusite cultic tradition.120 Albrektson speaks in this regard of a Zion tradition deeply rooted in the Canaanite cult. Even more insistent than Albrektson, J.H. Hayes has also underlined the Jebusite origin of the motif of Zion’s inviolability. Indeed, he devotes an entire study to the question entitled: “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability”.121 Hayes defends the position that the tradition of Zion’s election was associated with the Jebusite tradition by analogy with the adoption of Jebusite elements (the Melchizedek tradition) into the Davidic tradition. In more concrete terms, Hayes singles out the motif of divine protection that Zion could rely on as a sacred place.122 The origin of this motif, according to Hayes, should not be

pre-Jerusalem period, is the basis for the development of an independent Zion tradition. It is in the later literature, principally Deuteronomistic, that Zion is ‘elected’ as Yahweh’s chosen city.” “Originally (. . .) Zion is simply the place of Yahweh’s dwelling created primordially through the defeat of the powers of chaos.” 117 See Albrektson 1963. 118 Albrektson 1963:220. 119 See, for example, Jeremias 1919:138. 120 Cf. Albrektson 1963:222: “Probably such motifs were already incorporated into the Jerusalem traditions before David captured the city; thus they would belong to the Jebusite heritage within Israel.” 121 See Hayes 1963:419–426. 122 Hayes 1963:421: “It is thus quite clear that the special Davidic tradition concerning Yahweh’s unique election was interspersed with pre-Israelite traditions regarding a Jebusite king-succession. In a similar manner, I think it can be shown that the special tradition concerning Zion’s election, which was originally based on Yahweh’s presence in Zion symbolized by Ark and temple, incorporated pre-Israelite traditional thought concerning Zion as a holy place protected by the divine. This is apparent in certain of the Zion Psalms (46, 48 and 76) and is witnessed to by some of the Zion speeches in Isaiah.”

the zion tradition in isaiah

301

sought in the historical event of 701, or in the preaching of Isaiah, in spite of the fact that Isaiah made frequent use of the tradition of Zion’s inviolability and exposed the blindness of Israel’s faith in the protection of Zion.123 In an article dealing with Jerusalem’s El tradition, W.H. Schmidt has also endeavoured to map out the contribution the original cultic traditions of Jerusalem might possibly have made on Israel’s faith in yhwh (“Jerusalemer El-Traditionen bei Jesaja. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich zum Vorstellungskreis des göttlichen Königtums”).124 Based on the texts discovered at Ugarit, Schmidt concludes that references to the kingship of yhwh, his holiness and glory (cf. Isaiah 6), can all be traced back to the Canaanite El traditions.125 Schmidt presupposes that the said Canaanite divine predicates were taken up into the Zion tradition via El Elyon, the city god of Jerusalem who can be understood as a local manifestation of El. The prophet Isaiah harked back to important elements of this tradition, thus allowing Schmidt to argue that Jerusalem’s El tradition had more or less remained alive in the words of Isaiah.126 F. Stolz’s book entitled Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem, even attempts a complete reconstruction of the basic features of the Canaanite cult in Jerusalem.127 On the basis of this reconstruction, Stolz endeavours to determine the extent to which Israel’s faith was modified in the encounter with the given cult. Stolz takes it as a matter of course that the cultic traditions of Jerusalem exercised significant influence on the faith of Israel because David, having captured the city from the Jebusites, would appear to have taken the original cultic functionaries of the city—including the priest Zadok and the cultic prophet Nathan (possibly also Araunah)—into his own service. Following closely in line with Stolz and with multiple references to his work, O.H. Steck has also endeavoured to provide a detailed description

Hayes 1963:425–426. See Schmidt 1964:302–313. 125 Cf. Schmidt 1964:311: “Es scheint sich also bei allen hier kurz gekennzeichneten Vorstellungen der kanaanäischen Religion, wie sie uns aus den Texten von Ras Schamra/Ugarit bekannt werden, um einen einzigen großen Aussagenkreis zu handeln: Dem Götterkönig El, der als ‘heilig’ gilt, wird von seinem Pantheon ‘Ehre’ dargebracht.” 126 Schmidt 1964:312–313. 127 See Stolz 1970. 123 124

302

chapter six

of Jerusalem’s cultic tradition (“Jerusalemer Vorstellungen vom Frieden und ihre Abwandlungen in der Prophetie des alten Israels”).128 Steck understands the said cultic tradition, as expressed in a large number of the psalms, as the result of a religious concept reworked by Israel that is to be located in the first instance in Jebusite Jerusalem. He refers in this regard to ‘the city theology of Jerusalem’,129 central to which is not the relationship between yhwh and Israel but rather between yhwh and the Mount/City of Zion. Together with Stolz, Steck also insists that the motif of ‘Völkersturm’ should also be seen as a Jebusite element in Jerusalem’s cultic tradition.130 Steck suggests the early period of the kings as the most acceptable time at which Jerusalem’s cultic tradition acquired its Israelite form. When the Zion tradition as expressed in the Zion Psalms is insistently understood as an extension of the pre-Israelite cultic tradition of Jerusalem, the danger of a degree of conceptual confusion is not far from the surface. While it is true that the Zion Psalms contain all sorts of elements which, in all probability, have a pre-Israelite origin, this does not mean that the said elements provide us a clear picture of the essence of the Zion tradition. One should not be left with the impression that the Zion tradition is essentially a continuation of the Jebusite cultic tradition and that one can in fact already speak with respect to the latter of a pre-Israelite Zion tradition. Such an impression is often incorrectly encouraged by the fact that the motifs identified by Rohland are frequently identified in practice with the Zion tradition itself.131 When the origin of a variety of motifs employed in relation to Zion is to be sought in the pre-Israelite cult, this need not imply that 128 See Steck 1972(A):75–95. An expanded version of this lecture, which Steck gave to a study group in 1971, appeared in 1972 together with a detailed argumentation. See Steck 1972(B). 129 Cf. Steck 1972(B):12: “Die Annahme liegt am nächsten, daß wir es hier met einer israelitischen Modifikation der religiösen Konzeption im jebusitischen Jerusalem zu tun haben, die mit dem Übergang Jerusalems in den politischen und kultischen Besitz Israels eingesetzt hat.” 130 Steck 1972(B):18f recognises the absence of consensus on this point, although he maintains four guiding arguments in support of his position: 1. The ‘Völkersturm’ is not described with formulations from the War of yhwh, but in terms of cosmic chaos; 2. The conquest of the said cosmic chaos and the related global dominion of God in Jerusalem hark back to pre-Israelite notions; 3. The deliverance that dawns in the morning refers to the worship of the gods Salem and Sachar; 4. The nations are restrained on occasion with the help of a cosmic deed. 131 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:15.

the zion tradition in isaiah

303

the beginning of the Zion tradition as such is to be found in the same location. It is thus important to inquire whether points of association are to be found in Israel’s own history and faith traditions that might help to explain the origins of the Zion tradition. In this regard, the history of the Ark and the traditions related thereto are of particular interest for further research if one bears in mind that the emergence of Jerusalem/Zion as Israel’s most important cultic location is closely related to the conquest of the said city by David and his decision to relocate the Ark of yhwh within its walls. 6.4.1.3. The Zion tradition and the Ark tradition While Noth and Eißfeldt had already drawn attention to the crucial role played by the Ark and its traditions in the development of Jerusalem into Israel’s most prominent cultic location, J. Schreiner in particular has made an impressive attempt to describe not only the religio-historical but also the biblical-theological dimension that binds the Ark tradition and the Zion tradition together. Schreiner was the first to set about a systematic-thematic treatment of the theme of ‘Jerusalem as holy city in the Old Testament’ (Sion-Jerusalem. Jahwes Königssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament).132 While Schreiner agrees with the suggestion that the city of Jerusalem must already have been an important religious centre for the worship of El Elyon = Šalem prior to its conquest by David,133 he takes his point of departure from the texts that relate how Jerusalem became the holy city of yhwh, namely 2 Samuel 6 and 2 Samuel 24.134 With respect to 2 Samuel 6, Schreiner concurs with the hypothesis current since the studies of L. Rost,135 namely that the history of the Ark found in 1 Samuel 4–6/2 Samuel 6 is intended as ἱερὸς λόγος of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, dating from the period of David and Solomon.136 In contrast to the preceding, more religio-historical studies of the history of the Ark, however, Schreiner draws attention to the biblical-theological relationship between the history of the Ark and Zion. As a matter of See Schreiner 1963. Schreiner 1963:19–20. 134 Cf. Schreiner 1963:13: “. . . seitdem Sion Davids Stadt geworden ist (2 Sm 5,7), hat der Sion seinen festen Platz in dem Handeln Gottes an seinem Volk, rückt er in die Mitte der Heilsgeschichte und bleibt dort.” 135 See Rost 1926:4–47. 136 Schreiner 1963:22. Cf. Rost 1926:38: “Somit dürfte daran festzuhalten sein, daß die Ladeerzählung als ἱερὸς λόγος des Ladeheiligtums zu Jerusalem im Priesterkreisen zur Zeit Davids bzw. im Anfang der Regierung Salomos entstanden ist.” 132 133

304

chapter six

fact, he maintains that the history of the Ark is to be read from the perspective of Zion, its final destination. In other words, one should always bear Zion in mind when one considers the events that occurred with and around the Ark. In this regard, Schreiner not only emphasises the indisputable status conferred by the Ark upon Jerusalem as a sacred place, but also that the presence of yhwh both in the history of the Ark and in Zion theology137 is not simply an evident fact but rather an expression of God’s grace.138 The history of the Ark itself, however, already contains the message that yhwh is not powerless if He relinquishes the place of his presence for a period of time into the hands of the pagans. It is this latter fact that the prophets were first to proclaim with respect to Zion.139 The pilgrims in the temple will have thought in the first instance of Zion upon hearing the words of the Philistines who said that the Ark should return to its own place (/mqom]li, 1 Sam. 5:11; cf. 1 Kgs 8:6).140 The delay in the transportation of the Ark to Jerusalem that occurred near Beth-shemesh not only underlines the holiness of yhwh, it also draws particular attention to the grace character of the election of Zion by yhwh.141 In the meantime, the blessing experienced by the house of Obed-Edom (2 Sam. 6:11) stimulates the expectation that Zion will also become a place of blessing on account of the presence of yhwh. The Michal episode at the end of the history of the Ark served to convince the pilgrims that the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem

137 Schreiner 1963:27, 55 would appear to prefer the expression ‘Zion theology’ instead of the expression ‘Zion tradition’ which continues in current usage to the present day. The biblical-theological intentions of his study may explain this fact. Within the framework of the present study, however, we give preference to the use of the expression Zion tradition instead of Zion theology. The concept ‘theology’ presupposes a degree of unity of concept that is not always evident wherever reference is made to Zion. 138 Schreiner 1963:27: “Gottes Gegenwart ist nicht eine absolut feste oder von vorneherein festgelegte, eine auf die Dauer sicher und auf alle Fälle zur Verfügung stehende, sondern sie ist eine jeweils ungeschuldete und immer neu geschenkte Gnade. Diese Erfahrung hatte Israel schon aus seinem Wüstenaufenthalt mitgebracht.” 139 Cf. Schreiner 1963:32: “Doch werden sie (the pilgrims in the temple of Jerusalem, JD) wahrscheinlich nicht herausgehört haben, was hier schon mitschwingt, aber erst von den Propheten klar und immer wieder ausgesprochen worden ist: Auch wenn Jahwe im Gericht sein Volk beinahe untergehen läßt und den Ort seiner Gegenwart in den Augen der Menschen aufgibt, ist er nicht ohnmächtig oder etwa einem der Götter unterlegen. Gerade dann wird er zeigen, daß er der erhabene, große und einzige Gott ist.” 140 Schreiner 1963:33. 141 Cf. Schreiner 1963:42: “Von seinem Willen hing es ab, daß Jerusalem wurde, was es für das Gottesvolk ist: Nicht menschliche, sondern Gottes Gründung, durch die göttliche Zusage steht ‘Sion’.”

the zion tradition in isaiah

305

did not take place to the greater glory of David but rather to the glorification of yhwh.142 Based on Psalms 78 and 132, Schreiner goes on to emphasise the importance of the concept of Zion’s election by yhwh.143 Bearing in mind the age of the use of the election formula with regard to Zion, he agrees with the hypothesis proposed by K. Koch, who had demonstrated that the use of the verb rjb ‘to choose’ in the Psalms cannot be ascribed to the influence of Deuteronomy, but that the employment of the verb for the king and for Zion should be associated with the rise of the monarchy in the time of David.144 Schreiner himself insists that the construction of Solomon’s temple should be understood in any event as the terminus a quo.145 Schreiner also introduces 2 Samuel 24 into the discussion in this regard. While the Ark narrative legitimises the election of the city of Jerusalem as the central cultic location, Schreiner maintains that 2 Samuel 24 deals with the permanent character of this election and the determination of the specific location for the later temple. He suggests that we conceptualise this chapter chronologically prior to 2 Samuel 7, and that its current position has to do with the required connection with the narrative concerning the construction of Solomon’s temple, which the book of Kings relates. The reason that Jerusalem has been spared can be explained on the basis of God’s love for the city (cf. Ps. 87:2). In comparison with the Ark narrative, however, the altar narrative of 2 Samuel 24 introduces a number of important theological notions into the discussion, an important one being the explicit promise on the part of yhwh that He desires to dwell in Jerusalem as his holy place. 2 Samuel 24 likewise underlines the fact that Jerusalem is the place of God’s mercy, while the accent was placed in 2 Samuel 6 on Jerusalem as the place of God’s blessing. The sacrificial liturgy that acquires an established place in Jerusalem in conjunction with the establishment of

Cf. Schreiner 1963:45–46: “Am Ende der Ladeerzählung aber steht vor dem hörenden Pilger Jerusalem, die heilige Stadt, erkoren durch Gottes gnädige Herablassung, Zustimmung und freien Willen als Ort seiner besonderen Gegenwart zum Segen für ganz Israël, geschaffen durch den demütigen, eifrigen und frommen König David im Auftrage Jahwes.” 143 Cf. Schreiner 1963:56: “Die Auserwählung des Sion besteht nicht in einem allmählichen Übergang von Bedeutsamkeiten, die vom Heiligtum auf den Ort im Laufe der Zeiten übergeströmt wären, sondern in einer geschichtlichen Entscheidung und Tat Jahwes. Bezeichnenderweise wird auch niemals gesagt, David habe sich die Stadt ausgesucht (rjb). Israels Gott ist es, der die Wahl getroffen hat.” 144 See Koch 1955:205–226. 145 See Schreiner 1963:52, 55. 142

306

chapter six

the altar by David, represents both a gesture of thanksgiving for God’s mercy as well as prayer for its continuation.146 In the second part of his study, which deals with Jerusalem as the seat of yhwh’s monarchy, Schreiner argues that the promise of Nathan from 2 Samuel 7, although intentionally located after 2 Samuel 6, is not intended as having a close relationship with that which precedes it and does not contribute to any significant extent to the response to the question regarding the legitimacy of the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem by David. 2 Samuel 7 says more about the legitimacy of the Davidic monarchy.147 Taking a presupposed distinction between the verbs bvy and ˆkv as his point of departure, Schreiner suggests that the prophecy of Nathan with respect to yhwh’s inhabitation of Jerusalem rejects any notion that would bind yhwh too specifically to this location. The prophecy of Nathan thus underscores the freedom of yhwh and the mercy character of his presence.148 While Psalm 132 at first sight would appear to suggest otherwise, Schreiner insists that the promise for the house of David is itself a gesture of mercy and is not intended as a reward for the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem. It is not David but yhwh who has chosen Zion, and the election of the house of David is anchored within the election of Zion (cf. Ps. 132:13).149 Zion thus has an important role to play in the relationship between God and king, as is evident, for example, in royal psalms such as Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 (cf. also Ps. 20:3 and 101:8).150 Indeed, the actual King of Jerusalem is yhwh. 146 Schreiner 1963:62ff agrees with the proposal of Schmidt 1933:78–83, among others, namely that two different traditions relating to the construction of the altar have been amalgamated in 2 Samuel 24. In the one tradition, David’s sacrifice is an expression of gratitude for the cessation of the plague epidemic and the emphasis is placed on yhwh’s change of heart, while in the other the purchase of the threshing floor and the construction of the altar by David has reconciliation as its goal. In both traditions, however, it is yhwh alone who chooses the location and the means of his mercy: “Unmißverständlich wird zum Ausdruck gebracht, daß Gott sich die Stelle wählt, an der er in Jerusalem verehrt werden will, nicht der König, der wohl die äußere Macht besaß, einen geeigneten Platz auszusuchen.” (66) 147 Schreiner 1963:77–78. 148 Schreiner 1963:89–94. 149 Schreiner 1963:103–107. 150 Cf. Schreiner 1963:111: “Er, Sion, ist die Grundlage für alle Ansprüche und Erwartungen des Königtums in Jerusalem, des Davidshauses.” Cf. also Schreiner 1963:129: “Von hier, von Jahwes heiliger Stadt aus, werden alle Aussagen über und alle Zusagen an den König, mögen sie auch Formulierungen altorientalischen Hofstils an sich tragen, ins rechte Lot gerückt, finden sie ihre wahre Grundlage und ihren theologischen Ort.”

the zion tradition in isaiah

307

The narrative of the dedication of the temple and the procession with the Ark that accompanied it (1 Kings 8) leads Schreiner to observe that the event in question was of great significance for the status of Jerusalem as holy city and city of yhwh respectively.151 The established dwelling place that yhwh had found in the temple naturally led to questions surrounding the ‘how’ of God’s presence. By way of an answer to this difficult question, the book of Deuteronomy speaks emphatically of the dwelling of the Name of yhwh in Jerusalem. Schreiner refers to this as ‘Shem theology’ and endeavours to locate the origins thereof in the Ark tradition. Indeed, it is said of the Ark that it was called by the name of ‘yhwh Zebaot, who is enthroned upon the cherubs’ (see 2 Sam. 6:2; cf. Jer. 7:12). In the darkness of the Holy of Holies, however, the Ark receded more and more into the background in a process that came about as a result of the growing significance of ‘Name theology’ and as a reinforcement thereof.152 The construction of the temple in Jerusalem in the meantime stimulated the use of building terminology to represent God’s salvific activity. Both the verb hnb ‘to build’ and dsy ‘to establish/found’ are no longer used exclusively against the background of creation but also in the context of the building of the temple (see, for example, Ps. 78:69; 87:1f and Isa. 14:32).153 This is evidently the case with respect to the Zion text of Isa. 28:16. According to Schreiner, however, exegetes draw too much attention to the question of the identity of the stone mentioned in 28:16. What is important is that the text is reminiscent of 1 Kgs 5:31 (= NRSV 1 Kgs 5:17; cf. 1 Kgs 7:9–11), in which reference is made to an earlier foundation likewise established with precious stones on Zion, namely that of the temple.154 Isa. 28:16 thus refers to God’s salvific project in association with Zion, a spiritual edifice, which, in principle, also bears a Messianic promise.155 151 Cf. Schreiner 1963:148: “In Jahwes Stadt besteht von da an eine feste Stätte seines Zugegenseins, und damit wird Jerusalem selber auf Dauer und nicht nur, was bis dahin noch immer offen war, für ene begrenzte Zeit zum heiligen Ort für Israels Gott, zur Heiligen Stadt.” 152 Schreiner 1963:158–164. Cf. 1963:156: “Als dann die Schem-Theologie die Anwesenheit Jahwes als das Verweilen seines Namens erklärte und betonte, daß Gott im Himmel throne, verlor die Lade als Thron Jahwes ihre Bedeutung. Sie wurde nicht vermißt, nachdem sie der Zerstörung der Stadt zum Opfer gefallen war.” 153 Schreiner 1963:165–168. 154 Cf. Schreiner 1963:171: “Es wurde bereits einmal in israelitischer Zeit auf dem Sion ein Fundament eingesenkt, das für die Religion und das Leben des Jahwevolkes große Bedeutung hatte. Das waren die Grundmauern des Hauses Jahwes.” 155 Cf. Schreiner 1963:172: “Es ist die mit Sion fest verbundene Heilsveranstaltung Gottes, die alles umfaßt, was Jahwe hier und von hier aus für sein Volk zu wirken

308

chapter six

The third part of Schreiner’s study is dedicated to Jerusalem as the unshakable city of God. Under this heading he discusses the psalms that glorify Jerusalem as the city of yhwh, namely the now familiar Zion Psalms 46, 48 and 76. While Schreiner considers it conceivable that the notion of Zion’s inviolability stems from pre-Israelite traditions relating to the city of Jerusalem,156 he simultaneously emphasises a possible association with the Sinai tradition in which the unapproachability of yhwh represents an important motif (cf. Ex. 19:12,23).157 In line with Rohland, however, Schreiner considers the idea that the emergence of this motif was dependent on the events around 701 to be unacceptable.158 With respect to the motif of yhwh’s victory over kings and nations, Schreiner similarly presupposes pre-Israelite roots, although he also detects the continued working of the exodus tradition.159 Since Schreiner, a number of other scholars have also employed a more biblical-theological approach in their endeavour to describe the theme of Zion and its associated motifs. Reference can be made, for example, to the work of G. Fohrer and that of his student G. Wanke, both of whom support a late dating of the Zion tradition in contrast to Rohland en Schreiner. According to Fohrer and Wanke, there is no evidence of a connection with the Ark tradition. While the work of Wanke was already prepared for by the studies of his mentor and teacher Fohrer,160

gedenkt.” Schreiner adds in an explanatory note: “Darin ist auch das davidische Königtum miteingeschlossen, das in der Weiterführung der Idee schließlich auf den Messias zielt.” 156 Schreiner 1963:279 suggests that a ‘city theology’ was alive in Jerusalem for a considerable time before David. 157 Cf. Schreiner 1963:223. See also 1963:235: “Die auf Sion übertragenen Aussagen werden mit israelitischen Gedankengut durchsetzt und mit den alten Erlebnissen der Heilsgeschichte in Verbindung und Beziehung gebracht.” 158 Schreiner 1963:224. Schreiner nevertheless describes the importance of the events around 701 for Jerusalem as the city of yhwh in two separate chapters (236–242 and 271–278). 159 Cf. Schreiner 1963:226: “Man kann sicherlich nicht leugnen, daß Jerusalem, schon bevor es an David kam, Erfahrungen von einem Ansturm feindlicher Volksscharen haben mochte, die es nicht bezwangen, und daß diese sich bereits zu einer Tradition verdichtet haben konnte. Man muß aber sagen, daß die wunderbare und vollständige Überwindung feindlicher Heeresmacht, wie Israel sie beim Auszug sah, in der Ausbildung der Vorstellung von der Abwehr eines Angriffs der Völker auf Jerusalem durch Jahwe mitgewerkt hat. Jahwes machtvolle Heilstat ist nur an einen anderen Ort verlegt.” Schreiner 1963:29 already sees a connection between the history of the Ark and the exodus tradition in the words of the Philistines in 1 Sam. 4:7f. 160 See Fohrer 1960(A):401–420; 1964:291–318 = 1969:195–241.

the zion tradition in isaiah

309

Wanke deserves respect for having presented a complete draft of what he refers to as ‘the Zion theology of the Korahites’.161 Wanke disputes the hypothesis generally upheld since the contributions of Rohland and Von Rad, namely that a more or less pre-Israelite Zion tradition existed in Jerusalem. He argues that this hypothesis was inspired by the early dating of the tradition incorporated in the Zion Psalms. He himself endeavours to gather support for a later dating of the tradition by taking his point of departure in a post-exilic positioning of the Korahites.162 Wanke presupposes that the Korahites were not only collectors, but that they had also made an essential contribution to the very genesis of the Zion Psalms. A characteristic feature of their highly developed Zion theology was the fact that yhwh’s dwelling in the temple and on the temple mountain with its associated attribute of holiness, was ultimately transferred to the city of Jerusalem itself. In the pre-exilic period, such a concept would have been inconceivable.163 Wanke also suggests that the association of ancient mythological motifs with Jerusalem (divine mountain, paradise, victory over chaos), is best explained from the (post-)exilic perspective, because attention was concentrated as a matter of course on Jerusalem during that period.164 With respect to the origins of the important ‘Völkerkampf ’ motif, Wanke presupposes a connection with the prophecy concerning Gog in Ezekiel 38 and 39. According to Wanke, Ezekiel made use of the concept of an enemy from the north for the said prophecy, a concept already employed by the prophet Jeremiah and one that can be traced back as a motif to a legend that arose in association with the arrival of the sea peoples. In the context of post-exilic eschatological prophecy, this concept acquired a different elucidation and was applied for the first time to Jerusalem (see, for example, Zech. 12:2–9; 14:1–3,12–15). According to Wanke, we can only speak of the existence of a ‘Völkerkampf ’ motif from that moment onwards.165 In his opinion, the Zion theology of the Korahites should thus be understood in close relationship with the eschatological preaching of the post-exilic prophets. The late dating of the Zion Psalms that results from this hypothesis then provides Wanke with the space to endeavour to locate a point

161 162 163 164 165

See See See See See

Wanke Wanke Wanke Wanke Wanke

1966. 1966:23–31. 1966:34–35, 105. 1966:64–70, 108. 1966:74–93.

310

chapter six

in the history of Israel itself for the emergence of the ‘Völkerkampf ’ motif: the advance of Sennacherib in 701 and his sudden withdrawal thereafter. Wanke considers the narratives concerning Isaiah in 2 Kings 18 and 19 to be an important factor that contributed to the development of the said motif. Particular attention is drawn to Psalm 46 as an example of a psalm in which an echo of the events in question continues to resound.166 In a certain sense, Wanke’s proposal brings us back to an exegetical position current in the first half of the twentieth century, against which Von Rad in particular was outspoken. J. Jeremias, by contrast, convincingly maintains the hypothesis that the Zion tradition is an ancient and specifically Israelite tradition, the origins of which are associated inseparably with the Ark and its traditions (“Lade und Zion”).167 Jeremias set himself the goal of arriving at the best possible description of the relationship between the Ark tradition on the one hand and the Zion tradition on the other.168 He was in fact of the opinion that scholars such as Wildberger and Von Rad, both in the footsteps of Rohland, had ascribed a much too one-sided emphasis to the Zion tradition with a presupposed pre-Israelite foundation for its most important motifs in response to the question concerning the origins of the primary religious significance of Jerusalem for the faith of Israel. In line with Noth, Jeremias observes that Jerusalem owed its actual religious significance in particular to the removal of the Ark to the city by David. This deed not only led to the intermingling of Israel’s faith with all sorts of Canaanite elements (cf. Gen. 14:18–20), it also created the conditions for the formation of an independent Davidic tradition that would have been simply inconceivable without the removal of the Ark.169 Given the fact that the significance of the Ark, once it had arrived in Jerusalem, was quickly and surprisingly overshadowed by the city itself, Jeremias asks himself whether the Zion tradition did not ultimately take the place of the Ark tradition and whether it might thus be understood as its successor (cf. Jer. 3:16–17). See Wanke 1966:93–99. See Jeremias 1971:183–198. D.L. Eiler appears also to have referred to the importance of Shiloh and the Ark traditions, although his study (The Origin and History of Zion as a Theological Symbol in Ancient Israel, diss. Princeton 1968) was not available for consultation. For a presentation of Eiler’s position see Ollenburger 1987:18. 168 Cf. Jeremias 1971:183: “Es ist nötig, das Verhältnis von Lade- und Ziontradition möglichst exakt zu bestimmen, wenn man erklären will, wie die ursprünglich kanaanäische Stadt Jerusalem eine für den Glauben Israels so bedeutsame Rolle spielen konnte.” 169 See Jeremias 1971:185–186. 166

167

the zion tradition in isaiah

311

In this regard, Jeremias disputes the post-exilic dating of the Zion tradition and of the ‘Völkerkampf ’ motif upheld by Wanke, pointing out that Wanke’s hypothesis would appear to be based on a large number of unlikely presuppositions. Jeremias agrees with Wanke on one point, however, namely that the Zion tradition cannot be explained in its totality on the basis of the Jebusite tradition. Jeremias considers Stolz’ renewed endeavour to associate the ‘Völkersturm’ motif with pre-Israelite, mythological origins to be unsuccessful.170 According to Jeremias, the origins of the Zion tradition are best explained on the basis of the Ark tradition. In spite of the fact that the pre-Israelite origin of the predicates with which Zion is characterised in the Zion Psalms cannot be denied, this need not yet imply that the existence of a Jebusite-Canaanite Zion tradition ought to be accepted.171 Jeremias considers it unlikely that the hill of Jerusalem was already referred to as the ‘city of Elyon’, as ‘divine Mount Zaphon’ and as ‘cosmic global mountain’ prior to the period of David. Based on the emphasis placed in particular by the Zion Psalms on the dwelling of yhwh on Mount Zion, he considers it more likely that youthful Israel itself combined the Canaanite notions together and used them to further describe the Ark-related dwelling of yhwh.172 The Ark tradition had in the meantime become determinative for the way in which the said Zion tradition was shaped. Jeremias draws particular attention in this regard to the motif of the battle of the nations against Zion, which is to be understood against the background of the Ark-related tradition of the Wars of yhwh.173 Jeremias concludes in summary that the Zion tradition is in fact nothing more and nothing less than a modern interpretation of the Ark tradition put together with the support of Canaanite motifs.174 This See Jeremias 1971:188–189. Cf. Jeremias 1971:193: “Die Zion-Prädikationen hängen zwar durch ihre gemeinsame Herkunft zweifellos zusammen, doch nicht so, daß sie in sich einen festen Traditionskomplex bilden würden.” 172 Cf. Jeremias 1971:194: “Die statische Aussagen der Ziontradition wollen dann letztlich nichts anderes, als—weithin mit Hilfe kanaanäischen Vorstellungsgutes—explizieren und interpretieren, was die Gegenwart des auf der Lade thronenden Jahwe für Israel und speziell Jerusalem bedeutet.” 173 Cf. Jeremias 1971:195: “Der Völkerkampf in den Zionpsalmen ist letztlich wiederum nichts anderes als Explikation dessen, was das Handeln des mit der Lade verbundenen Kriegers Jahwe bedeutet.” 174 Cf. Jeremias 1971:197: “Es sind somit entscheidend die Lade und die mit ihr verbundenen Vorstellungen gewesen, die zur Aufnahme wesentlicher kanaanäischer Überlieferungen und zur Bildung einer Ziontradition geführt haben, und zwar sowohl 170

171

312

chapter six

simultaneously explains how the place and significance of the Ark could be taken over by Mount Zion at a given moment in time. In any event, however, the Zion tradition in Jerusalem quickly acquired a degree of independence from its origins. In addition to the work of Schreiner, Wanke and Jeremias, we are likewise obliged in the present sub-paragraph to examine the contribution made by J.J.M. Roberts to research into the Zion tradition. In a series of studies, Roberts has also endeavoured to focus attention on the specifically Israelite character of the Zion tradition (“The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition”;175 “Zion Tradition”;176 “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire”).177 In the first instance, Roberts turns his critical attention to the still dominant so-called ‘Jebusite Hypothesis’ in research into the Zion tradition. The hypothesis in question seeks the origins of the Zion tradition and its most important motifs in a presupposed pre-Israelite and specifically Jebusite cultic tradition.178 Roberts is convinced that this popular hypothesis ultimately stands in the way of a correct understanding of the Zion tradition. He thus endeavours to demonstrate on the basis of a series of arguments that the ‘Jebusite Hypothesis’ is based on a number of presuppositions in support of which, on closer inspection, little if any evidence is to be found.179 Roberts underlines the fact that the theological insights of the Jebusites did not differ essentially from those maintained by the Canaanites. The combination of the various motifs related to the Zion tradition and consisting of mythological elements from both the cult of Baal and the cult of El cannot simply be ascribed to the Jebusites without succumbing to circular argumentation.180 This is particularly the case with respect to the important motif of Zion’s inviolability.181 Texts such as 2 Sam. 5:6 and Ps. 110:4–5 are not able die statischen Vorstellungen vom thronenden Jahwe als auch die dynamischen von Jahwe als Krieger. Die gesammte Ziontradition ist in ihrer ältesten Gestalt für das damalige Israel nichts anderes gewesen als eine moderne, mit Hilfe kanaanäischer Motive vollzogene Exegese der Lade und ihrer Tradition.” 175 See Roberts 1973:329–344. 176 See Roberts 1976(B):985–987. 177 See Roberts 1982(A):93–108. 178 Among the supporters of the ‘Jebusite Hypothesis’, Roberts 1973:329–330 includes Schmid, Rohland, Kraus, Von Rad, Hayes, Schreiner, W.H. Schmidt, Lutz and in particular Stolz. 179 Cf. Roberts 1973:331: “Thus the Jebusite theory remains the most popular view, and it must be destroyed before a new hypothesis can be constructed in its place.” 180 Roberts 1973:332–336. 181 In terms of the description of the Zion tradition, Roberts 1973:329 initially

the zion tradition in isaiah

313

to bear the burden of proof for the Jebusite origins of this motif.182 Roberts concludes that the city of Jebus did not enjoy sufficient political or religious significance to allow us to ascribe the development of the Zion tradition to the Jebusites.183 Roberts is also critical of the extremely late dating of the motifs associated with the Zion tradition as proposed by Wanke,184 arguing that it is more acceptable to locate the motif of Zion’s inviolability and the other motifs associated with the Zion tradition in the golden age of David and Solomon.185 He suspects that the identification of yhwh with the Canaanite El and Elyon had already taken place prior to the time of David (cf. Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8–9), but that David’s conquest of the city gave an extra impulse to the said identification in order to provide theological legitimation for his extensive territorial dominion. The same is true, Roberts maintains, for the intermingling of mythological material from the cult of Baal.186 While he argues that the various motifs that glorify Jerusalem as the city of yhwh may contain elements that are probably to be dated prior to the period of the kings, Roberts nevertheless insists that the Zion tradition in its present form presupposes the conquest of Jerusalem by David and that its credibility depends on the latter.187 Roberts detects the religious justification required by David for the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem in the various prophetic utterances related to the election of Zion together with that of David himself in Psalm 132. As a matter of fact, the belief that yhwh had chosen Zion as his dwelling place serves as a point of crystallisation out of which the various motifs of the Zion tradition were ultimately able

agrees with Rohland, who had identified four motifs, to which Wildberger 1957:62–81 later added a fifth (see also Roberts 1976[B]:985f ). At a later date, however, he offers his own description, emphasising two fundamental concepts associated with the Zion tradition and its related motifs: (1) yhwh is the great king and (2) yhwh has chosen Jerusalem as his dwelling place. See Roberts 1982(A):93–108. 182 Roberts 1973:337–338. 183 Roberts 1976(B):986. 184 See Roberts 1973:338–339. 185 Cf. Roberts 1973:339: “I suggest that all the features in the Zion tradition can be explained most adequately by positing an original Sitz im Leben in the era of the DavidicSalomonic empire.” For detailed argumentation see Roberts 1982(A):93–108. 186 Cf. Roberts 1973:342: “Politico-religious propaganda has never been overly concerned with keeping its mythology straight.” (. . .) “Thus to give Yahweh full supremacy, the Israelites had Yahweh absorb some of the mythological traits and functions of Baal, as well as those of El.” 187 See Roberts 1976(B):986.

314

chapter six

to develop.188 While there is little information available to us from the period of David and Solomon concerning insurrection among vassal states, Roberts nevertheless considers the fact that David had to deal with various vassal states and that the Philistines—according to 2 Sam. 5:17–25—definitely came close to the city as sufficient explanation for the emergence of the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion189 and for that of Zion’s inviolability.190 According to Roberts, it is thanks to the authority of the prophet Nathan that any resistance to the association of yhwh with Zion was quickly defeated.191 It is reasonable to say that Roberts is not alone in his critique of the ‘Jebusite Hypothesis’. Despite the various studies that continue to further elaborate upon the said hypothesis,192 it would appear to have had its day or at least to have lost its indisputable character. After Roberts, R.E. Clements likewise expressed the necessary criticism of the presupposed Jebusite origins of the Zion tradition (Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem).193 Clements had particular difficulty with the motif of Zion’s inviolability, arguing that the inhabitants of many a city would have had the conviction that their god would protect them in time of need. Jerusalem, he thus maintains, was not unique in this regard. Clements rejects the presupposition of a historicisation of the myth of the chaos waters as a hypothesis that cannot be proven. Based on the description of the insurgent peoples in Psalm 2 and in the Zion Psalms, he concludes a possible correlation between the motif of victory against the rebellious nations and the rise of the kingdom of David.194 Roberts 1982(A):105. Wildberger 1957:62–81 was the first to consider this motif as original to the Zion tradition. Not everyone has followed him in this regard, especially on account of continuing hesitations related to the dating of Isa. 2:2–4. Cf. Ollenburger 1987:16: “Even if the text is pre-exilic it seems insufficient to establish the presence of a pilgrimage of the nations as a constituent motif of the Zion tradition.” 190 See Roberts 1973:343–344. Roberts is later more inclined to allow for the possibility of a mythological background to the motif of Zion’s inviolability. See Roberts 1982(A):99ff. 191 Roberts 1973:343. 192 See, for example, Otto 1980(B):316–329; Laato 1988:80–87 and Preuß 1992:47. 193 See Clements 1980(A):72–89. 194 Cf. Clements 1980(A):79–80: “There are strong reasons therefore for concluding that the theme of the Conflict with the Nations, with its portrayal of the defeat of rebellious nations by Yahweh to bring in an age of peace, was an aspect of the royal Davidic ideology which had become established in Jerusalem.” (. . .) “We may therefore conclude that it is virtually certain that this motif entered into Israel as a part of the Davidic royal ideology which flourished in the cult of Jerusalem. There is no reason therefore why we should continue to look for its origin in a hypothetically reconstructed Jebusite mythology concerning a sacred mountain.” 188

189

the zion tradition in isaiah

315

He maintains, nevertheless, that the actual dogma of Zion’s inviolability is an interpretation of the said original motif dating from the time of Josiah and against the background of the events of 701. Clements even considers it misleading to ascribe the dogma of Zion’s inviolability to an already existing Zion tradition, because this would give rise to the suggestion that Isaiah was already familiar with the said motif and the relationship with Davidic theology thereby disappears from view.195 While I agree with both Roberts and Clements that the origins of the Zion tradition are best dated in the Davidic period, both authors place enormous emphasis on the influence of Davidic theology, as if the Zion tradition as such was a creation of the Davidic court. While it is evident that the emergence of the Davidic dynasty went hand in hand with the Zion tradition, scholarly research thus far has led to the conclusion that the Zion tradition cannot be subsumed into the Davidic tradition, but must be understood rather as an independent tradition.196 It is of singular importance that justice be done to the connection between the Zion tradition and the Ark tradition. J.D. Levenson and B.C. Ollenburger provide a more synchronic description of the Zion tradition and its motifs. In line with the work of Clifford (The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament),197 Levenson (Sinai and Zion)198 places the emphasis on the description of the motif of the cosmic mountain (1) as meeting place of the gods; (2) as battle place of conflicting natural powers; (3) as meeting place of heaven and earth; (4) as administrative centre of the cosmos; and (5) as location of the miraculous streams of water. With respect to the relationship between Zion and Sinai, Levenson is convinced that the former as heir must always remain subordinate to the latter.199

Clements 1980(A):83–84. Cf. Ollenburger’s critique 1987:60ff: “. . . the two traditions formed around Zion and David had different traditio-historical origins. The Zion tradition, whatever its indebtedness to previous traditions associated with Jerusalem may have been, is traditiohistorically related to the Ark and specifically to the Ark of the Shiloh sanctuary. The Davidic tradition, on the other hand, while very difficult to assess, evidently arose in connection with the problems of legitimation and succession in the Davidic-Solomonic Court.” See also Levenson 1992:1100–1101. 197 See Clifford 1972. 198 See Levenson 1985. 199 See Levenson 1985:188: “God’s continuing availability is at Zion, not Sinai, but the canonical division of the Pentateuch from the rest of the Hebrew Bible, adumbrated in Deut. 34:10, insures that the heir will be eternally subordinate to the testator, Zion to Sinai, David to Moses.” (. . .) “The presence is the presence of Zion, but the voice is the voice of Sinai.” See also Levenson 1992:1098–1102. 195 196

316

chapter six

Ollenburger (Zion the City of the Great King),200 a student of Roberts, is aware of the value of tradition-historical research into the origins and development of the Zion tradition, although he addresses his attention in the first instance to the message thereof, ‘the central elements of the Zion tradition’s theological character’.201 Ollenburger sees the heart of the Zion tradition in the confession of the kingship of yhwh on Zion. Everything that can be said about Zion beyond this is ultimately rooted therein. In this regard, Ollenburger also underlines the importance of the Ark tradition in order to arrive at a correct understanding of the Zion tradition. With respect to the origins of the notion of the kingship of yhwh, he explicitly agrees with Jeremias, who considers the Zion tradition to be an exegesis of the Ark traditions.202 Ollenburger is also aware in this context of the creation features (conquest of chaos) associated with the kingship of yhwh and the connotation integrated therein of the protection of Israel.203 Partly in line with the position

See Ollenburger 1987. Ollenburger 1987:14. Cf. Ollenburger 1987:145: “This means (. . .) that the investigation of Zion symbolism here undertaken has been guided not by the traditio-historical development of the ‘Zion tradition’ or Zion mythology, but by the nature of Zion as a symbol, as this is elaborated in the theology of the Jerusalem cult tradition.” 202 See Ollenburger 1987:43 Cf. 1987:48: “We have also endeavoured to show that much of the material associated with Yahweh’s kingship in Jerusalem was not created ad hoc by the theologians of David’s court, nor need its origins be sought in a hypothetical Jebusite tradition, but it was already in existence in association with the Ark at Shiloh.” See also Levenson 1992:1101: “Though the evidence is more exiguous than we would like, it does suggest strongly that one antecedent of the Zion traditions lay in the Ark traditions, especially as they developed at Shiloh just before the emergence of the monarchy.” In reaction to the emphasis placed by Jeremias on the Ark tradition in his study of the origins of the Zion tradition, Janowski 1991:231–264 introduced the somewhat speculative and—in light of the available texts—more or less unacceptable hypothesis that it was not the Ark in Jerusalem but rather the cultic symbol of the cherubs set up in the temple of Solomon that made an essential contribution to the genesis of the Zion tradition. In this regard, he disputes the originality of the for the most part presupposed association between the cherub throne and the title yhwh Zebaot on the one hand and the Ark on the other. According to Janowski, the title Zebaot was already associated with the Ark in Shiloh, while the cherub throne was associated with Shiloh by way of retro-projection from within the temple cult of Jerusalem. As a consequence, the origins of the Zion tradition are not to be sought in the Ark tradition but rather in the Canaanite presentations of the cosmic divine mountain. Janowski likewise maintains that the presentation of the cherub throne (“Thronsitz des unsichtbar darauf vorgestellten Zionsgottes, Symbol der Entsprechung von irdischer und himmlischer Präsenz jhwhs”) is to be associated with the notion of the divine mountain. Based on this argumentation, Janowski considers a dating of the Zion tradition in the period of the early monarchy unthinkable. 203 See Ollenburger 1987:57–58. Cf. Ollenburger 1987:21–22: “We will argue that the Ark’s transfer to Jerusalem provided such conditions (the conditions under which 200 201

the zion tradition in isaiah

317

of Kraus, Ollenburger presupposes that the kingship of yhwh was celebrated annually at an autumn feast in Jerusalem.204 6.4.1.4. The Zion tradition as a specifically Israelite election tradition By way of conclusion to the survey provided in the preceding subparagraphs of questions related to research into the Zion tradition, we must now endeavour to answer the following question: what should we understand as the actual core of the Zion tradition to which the variety of motifs associated therewith through time have given expression? Our response to the question is brief: Israel’s conviction that Zion enjoys a special place and significance in the journey God has made with his people. I speak here intentionally of a special place and significance ascribed to Zion on the journey God has made with Israel, because the factor of God’s deeds with respect to Zion is consistently determinative of the way in which Zion is presented in the Old Testament. It may therefore be clarifying in this regard to define the Zion tradition along similar lines: The Zion tradition is that group of Israel’s traditions related to the unique place and significance of Zion on the journey God has made with his people. Defined as such, there would be no objection to speaking of an election tradition. Kraus was among the most vehement critics of this designation because he sought the uniqueness of the Zion tradition in the originally mythological tradition related to the divine mountain. He himself thus prefers to speak of ‘a cultic tradition to the glorification of Zion’.205 Nevertheless, when it would appear that the Zion tradition is closely associated with the Ark tradition, the concept of election lends itself as the concept par excellence for giving expression to the specifically Israelite character of the said tradition. Even without reference to the question concerning the time at which the term rjb ‘to elect’ became a more or less technical term in the context of the relationship between God and Zion (cf. Ps. 132:13), the essence of what is implied thereby is already present in the genesis of the Zion tradition. In spite of the it was possible for Zion to evolve into a theological symbol, JD) and also supplied the ‘set of denotations’ or primary meanings for which Zion is an iconic vehicle.” 204 See Ollenburger 1987:33: “On the basis of the evidence available it would seem best to conclude that Yahweh’s kingship, which was seen to endure from his primordial victory over chaos, and to be exercised on Zion from the time of the Ark’s transfer there, was celebrated as part of the Autumn festival which incorporated many Canaanite and traditionally Israelite notions.” 205 Kraus 1960(A):345.

318

chapter six

structure given to the Zion tradition in the Zion Psalms, whereby use is made of all sorts of originally mythological forms of expression, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Zion tradition is essentially a specifically Israelite tradition, the origins of which are inseparably bound to the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem and its associated traditions. 6.4.2. Further research into the Zion preaching of Isaiah 6.4.2.1. Isaiah and the Zion tradition If the Zion tradition can be understood as a specifically Israelite tradition, the origin of which is closely associated with the arrival of the Ark and its traditions in Jerusalem, then it would be reasonable to suggest that Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, would also have been familiar with the Zion tradition and its associated motifs and that he would have used them in his preaching. In spite of the ongoing points of discussion and surviving questions surrounding the Zion tradition, a growing consensus can be observed within the world of Old Testament studies on this point. The post-exilic dating of the Zion tradition supported by Fohrer and Wanke has not found a broad basis of agreement.206 Consensus is less apparent with respect to the influence of the ‘miraculous’ liberation of Jerusalem in 701 on the development of the Zion tradition. Indeed, when the motif of Zion’s inviolability is seen as the core of the Zion tradition, the temptation is great to ascribe the remarkable events of 701 an important and constitutive significance.207 It is important to note, however, that the Zion tradition should not be reduced to a presupposed faith in Zion’s inviolability. As a matter of fact, a sufficient explanation for the Zion tradition as a whole is difficult to find in the story of Jerusalem’s liberation. The heart of the Zion tradition lies in the belief that yhwh chose Zion as his dwelling place

206 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:17: “There is no scholarly consensus regarding the date and origin of the Zion tradition, but we are now able to say with some certainty that the efforts of Fohrer and Wanke, for example, to date the origin of this tradition to a period later than Isaiah of Jerusalem have failed.” Without awareness of the work of Ollenburger, Laato 1988:41 laments the ongoing influence of the vision of Wanke. 207 Cf. Clements 1980(A):84: “The doctrine of the inviolability of Jerusalem, therefore, which several scholars have come to regard as a central feature of the socalled ‘Zion tradition’, must rather be understood as a particular adaptation of the interpretation placed upon what happened in 701.” A similar option is maintained by Otto 1989:1015: “Vorexil. Zionstheologie ist ein vornehmlich in der Assyrerzeit ausgearbeiteter Partikularaspekt Jerusalemer Tempeltheologie, der die Sicherheit der Stadt in Zeiten ihrer Gefährdung theologisch begründet.”

the zion tradition in isaiah

319

and that Zion is thus the city of the great King.208 It is probable nevertheless that the event of Jerusalem’s liberation in 701 gave a powerful endorsement to the people’s faith in the inviolability of Zion, as the preaching of the prophet Jeremiah appears to presuppose.209 At the same time, however, it is not inconceivable that the earliest origins of this motif are already to be found in the Ark tradition, given the fact that it includes a certain belief in the inviolability of the Ark’s location and in the sign of God’s presence (cf. 1 Samuel 4).210 If one bears the Ark tradition in mind, then the belief in the inviolability of Zion should, in any event, not come as much of a surprise. In a certain sense, this belief was inherent in the very fact of yhwh’s royal presence in Zion (cf. Mi. 3:11).211 This implies that the prophet Isaiah would also have been familiar with this motif of the Zion tradition in one form or another. I can see no compelling reason to deny in advance the authenticity of the texts that bear witness to this fact and date them in a later period of Israel’s history. Bearing in mind, however, that it would be impossible to provide an in-depth analysis of all the issues associated with the texts in question and with the Zion tradition as a whole within the present

See Ollenburger 1987 and Roberts 1982(A):93–108. While Gowan 1986:6f associates the emergence of the Zion tradition with the period of David and Solomon and the Davidic royal theology, he emphasises the impact that the liberation of Jerusalem in 701 must have had on the people’s faith. He does not appear to take a position, however, on whether the belief in Zion’s inviolability can be ascribed to this event: “The miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib’s army, which captured every other city in Judah in 701, no doubt added to the aura that was developing about this city and either reinforced or produced the belief in its invulnerability, depending on whose theory one accepts.” 210 I am inclined to disagree with Levenson on this point and his belief in the possibility of a Jebusite influence on the Zion tradition with respect to the given motif. Cf. Levenson 1992:1101–1102: “If the cultus of Jerusalem in the early Monarchy was influenced by Jebusite traditions, it is entirely possible that those elements in the Zion tradition that seem to lack secure rooting in old Israelite tradition came in from this Canaanite source.” Ollenburger 1987:23n argues plainly that the notion of Zion’s inviolability is given together with the notion of the royal presence of yhwh on Zion and need not be associated with the original sacrality of Mount Zion itself. 211 Cf. Mettinger 1982:37: “We have not here had the occasion to discuss the notion of the inviolability of Zion, but it would perhaps be appropriate to ask whether those scholars who assign it to a late date and derive its origins from the Assyrian crisis in 701 have done justice to the fundamental importance of the motif of the Presence in the Zion tradition. If the heavenly King is present in his capital city, that city must ipso facto enjoy a privilege of security guaranteed by God himself.” See also Ollenburger 1987:46: “This Kingship is exercised on Zion and it is only natural that the rejoicing over Yahweh’s kingship there should be extended to the security of Zion itself. (. . .) The annual celebration of Yahweh’s kingship is thus at the same time a celebration of Zion’s security under the protection of her king.” 208 209

320

chapter six

volume, I am obliged to limit myself to a presentation of a number of particular lines of research that can be drawn from my exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16. The Zion text of 28:16 allows us to see the way in which the prophet Isaiah made use of the Zion tradition during the period of the Assyrian crisis. It is remarkable, however, that many studies of the Zion tradition draw little if any attention to this Zion text.212 Where attention is given, the tendency is to treat the Zion text of 28:16 as a future oriented text, referring to the future Zion as an important theme in the preaching of the prophet.213 While it cannot indeed be denied that the prophet Isaiah also spoke of Zion in terms of the future (see below), it should be observed that Isaiah’s preaching was, in the first instance, closely linked to the concepts of contemporary Zion passed on to him in the tradition, namely Zion as the dwelling place of yhwh. My exegesis has demonstrated that the Zion text of 28:16 should not be understood as a promise of salvation nor should it be related to some future salvific deed on the part of yhwh. The Zion text of 28:16 functions as a salvation-historical retrospective moment within the framework of an announcement of judgement. The prophet underlines the seriousness of the announced judgement by explicitly recalling a salvific deed of yhwh with respect to Zion situated in the past. The stone referred to in 28:16 alludes to the rock-solid foundation that yhwh himself has established in Zion. In so doing, the prophet draws attention to the reliability of the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion as the foundation for God’s salvific plans for his people Israel. This foundation is inseparably bound to yhwh’s decision to make Zion a hiding place for the wretched among his people (14:32), a place of rest and respite for the weary (28:12). In order to establish a clear picture of the way in which Isaiah harked back in his preaching to the Zion tradition, it is important that we pay due attention to the close relationship between the texts 14:32; 28:12 and 28:16. Isa. 28:12, a verse we likewise designated as a Zion text 212 The absence of any discussion of 28:16 is most striking in the studies of Fohrer 1964; 1969 and Wanke 1966. Roberts 1982:93–108 likewise leaves the Zion text of 28:16 untreated. Roberts only focuses attention of 28:16 in a separate study (1987:27–45). 213 See, for example, Rohland 1956:147; Wildberger 1957:71 and Herrmann 1965:142–143. Cf. also Gowan 1986:9n. Zion is dealt with in Gowan’s study for the most part as the centre of Israel’s hope and expectation. Gowan describes Israel’s eschatological expectation as a threefold transformation of human society (“Peace in Zion”), the human person (“The People of Zion”) and nature (“Highest of All the Hills”).

the zion tradition in isaiah

321

referring to the place of rest and respite for the weary, is associated in terms of content with the Zion text of 14:32. The Zion text of 28:16 and its reference to the Zion stone as the foundation of yhwh even has literal agreements with 14:32. The various components of the Zion text of 14:32 are further elaborated in 28:12 and 28:16 in two different directions: in 28:12 in a more socio-ethical direction and in 28:16 in a more political direction. In like fashion to the Zion text of 28:16, the Zion text of 14:32 would also appear to have been uttered in a political context. Reference is made to the arrival of an emissary. If we are at liberty to take the unity of 14:28–32 as our point of departure, then the emissary in question must stem from among the Philistines and the Zion text is to be dated in the earlier years of Isaiah’s preaching, in the year in which both Ahaz and the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III died (727). In speaking of the foundation of Zion, Isaiah exhorts his audience not to let themselves be tempted to participate in an antiAssyrian coalition. Such would appear to be the political implication of the statement that yhwh had established Zion. The fact that the prophet makes reference to Zion as a hiding place for the wretched in precisely the same context, however, introduces us also to the social implications of the foundation of Zion. The ‘wretched of his people’ refers to those who have nothing to hope for in life except yhwh. In practice, social circumstances frequently led to such wretchedness. In the Zion text of 14:32, however, the social and political implications of God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion go hand in hand. In 28:12 and 28:16, on the other hand, the social and political dimensions of Zion are explored separately, although it can also be noted at this juncture that while both dimensions can be distinguished from one another it is impossible to separate them entirely. Based on the evident points of cohesion between the Zion text of 14:32 on the one hand (date: around the year 727) and the two Zion texts of 28:12 and 28:16 on the other (date: around the year 701), I am able to conclude that the manner with which the prophet gives expression to the Zion tradition in his preaching exhibits a high degree of consistency through the years. The attitude Isaiah expects of Jerusalem’s leaders in both political and socio-ethical terms, is repeatedly and explicitly based on Zion and the salvific deeds of yhwh that have been associated with Zion from of old.214 The prophet’s appeal for faith and his critique of the actions 214 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:116: “The fundamental position of Isaiah’s salvation message is then that Yahweh associates himself with Zion as the place of security

322

chapter six

of Jerusalem’s political leaders are both rooted in his conviction that yhwh founded Zion.215 Where the activities of Jerusalem’s politicians are concerned, the preaching of Isaiah during the years of the Assyrian crisis is much sharper than before. The statement in 14:32 is clearly rooted in a different political climate than that of 28:12 and 28:16. In contrast to the Zion text of 14:32, which is formulated more in terms of a confession than a promise and as such likewise implies the expectation that it is accepted by God’s people, each of the latter Zion texts was uttered within the context of a prophecy of judgement that no longer has any illusions about the possibility of a receptive audience and even presupposes a situation in which the audience refuses to listen (see 28:12). It is important to bear in mind that it is not Isaiah’s vision of the Zion tradition as such that changes thereby but only the context in which Isaiah speaks of the Zion tradition. It would appear from both prophecies of judgement (28:7–13 and 28:14–22) that the prophet Isaiah also harked back to the Zion tradition with which he was familiar during the years of Hezekiah’s revolt against the king of Assyria, but he does so in the present instance in order to underline the serious and outrageous character of the judgement of yhwh he is proclaiming. In the context of Isaiah’s judgement preaching, yhwh’s deeds of judgement with respect to Jerusalem—together with the instruments used in the process—are motivated firmly on the basis of the actual rejection of yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion. It is frequently suggested that the prophet Isaiah adapted the Zion tradition he had inherited by making the deliverance of Zion dependent on faith.216 It is presupposed in this regard that this was not yet the case with respect to the so-called Zion Psalms (see Psalm 46; 48 and 76) and that the psalms in question promise salvation to Zion without

and peace for those who do not attempt to secure their own or Jerusalem’s defence through ‘practical’, military means, leaving the matter of security absolutely in the hands of Yahweh.” 215 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:149: “Thus for Isaiah the security of Jerusalem is grounded in the kingship of Yahweh on Zion and is dependent upon the acknowledgment of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative. Hence, security is not something intrinsic to Jerusalem by virtue of its location, but is rather the result of Yahweh’s royal presence and is available insofar as Judah and its leaders exercise faith, by resisting the temptation to seek security through armaments and alliances that would infringe upon a prerogative exclusively Yahweh’s.” 216 See, for example, Huber 1976:239.

the zion tradition in isaiah

323

condition. While it is indeed true that Isaiah’s preaching is unique in its insistence on the necessity of a faith response, this need not imply that the latter should be understood as an adjustment of the content of the Zion tradition. On the one hand, it is far from certain that the Zion Psalms should be understood as speaking of an unconditional promise of salvation. On the other hand, it is striking that the prophet Isaiah, even when he preaches God’s impending judgement to the leaders of Jerusalem, takes the inseparable bond between yhwh and Zion as his point of departure.217 The fact that Isaiah frequently insists on an attitude of faith, moreover, does not imply that this condition need be expressed explicitly in all his prophecies with respect to Zion.218 In one of the preceding chapters, I already made note of the comparable manner with which the prophet Isaiah harks back in Isaiah 28 to salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion and in Isaiah 7 to salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to the house of David. During the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis, it was the royal house of David that was under particular threat (cf. 7:2,13) because Ahaz’ enemies endeavoured to make the son of Tabeel king of Judah (see 7:6). The prophet Isaiah, however, was then able to ensure King Ahaz that this would not take place (7:7). This reassurance is to be understood against the background of the promise already made in the prophecy of Nathan that the royal house of David would endure (see 2 Sam. 7:16). The said promise also forms the background of the Emmanuel prophecy that follows in Isa. 7:14.219 The prophet insists on faith in response to both yhwh’s 217 Cf. Laato 1988:233: “Even though Yahweh would deliver Zion he would destroy the ungodly ones there. We can really say that, in Isaiah’s opinion, Zion could never be captured. The inviolability of Zion was unconditional for Isaiah.” See also Ollenburger 1993:830: “Zion will endure even beyond Jerusalem’s destruction.” 218 On account of the unconditional character of the salvation preaching contained in 8:9–10 and 17:12–14 and addressed to the people in Jerusalem and Judah, Barth 1977:49–54 considers both these texts to be secondary. On the basis of 1:21–26; 14:32; 28:12,16, however, he recognises that Isaiah’s preaching presupposes a bond between yhwh and Zion, “die auch durch die Frevelhaftigkeit seiner Bewohner und das Vernichtungsgericht an ihnen nicht aufgehoben wird.” Barth considers it essential to Isaiah that he never preached unconditional salvation for Jerusalem but insisted rather on a corresponding reaction of faith/trust upon which he considered salvation to be dependent. To this extent, Isaiah is thus said to have adjusted the Zion tradition he had inherited in his preaching. 219 Cf. Wildberger 1972:293: “Wenn das Zeichen von 7,14 irgendwie in Verbindung mit dem Heilsorakel von 7,4–9 steht, dann muß also der Name lawnm[ aus dem Zusammenhang der Davidstradition gedeutet werden.” See also Beuken 2003:49. I am inclined to disagree with Ollenburger 1987:124ff on this point who disputes the connection between Isaiah 7 and 2 Samuel 7: “What Ahaz is asked to believe (v. 9b)

324

chapter six

salvific deeds with respect to the house of David and yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion (7:9; 28:16). The refusal to have faith—by King Ahaz in response to the promise contained in the Davidic tradition and by the political elite in the days of King Hezekiah in response to the promise contained within the Zion tradition—provides Isaiah with the occasion to announce judgement. It is also conceivable that in the context of the Syro-Ephraimitic war, Isaiah not only harked back to the Davidic tradition but also to the Zion tradition (cf. 8:9–10). The context of Isaiah’s Zion preaching, however, is more determined by the threat posed by Assyria than it is by the threat posed by Aram and Ephraim. The threat in question begins in Judah at the moment King Ahaz turns for help to the king of Assyria, determines the politics of Jerusalem for decades thereafter and culminates in the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. The concentration of Zion texts in Isaiah 28–33 confirms the impression that Isaiah’s preaching was particularly inspired by the Zion tradition during the Assyrian crisis. From the Judean perspective, the threat from Assyria was directed at the time more specifically towards the city of Jerusalem itself (cf. 10:32) rather than against Judah and the royal house of David. In the context of the Syro-Ephraimitic war, by contrast, mutual rivalry between Israel and Judah still had a role to play, a rivalry that had become explicit in those days in the open schism between Israel and the house of David (cf. 1 Kgs 12:16). Roberts presupposes that Isaiah was still close to the original Zion tradition during the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis, but that his disappointment in the attitude of the leaders of Jerusalem led him thereafter to adopt a more critical stance and to make use of the Zion tradition he had received in a more critical way.220 I can see no evidence, however, for such a change in Isaiah’s preaching. As a matter of fact, continuity in Isaiah’s preaching during both major crises that faced Jerusalem is much more striking than difference. In both crises, the prophet harked back to Jerusalem’s salvific traditions and he expected an attitude of faith in response to God’s deeds with respect to the house of David and Zion alike.

is not that the head of Jerusalem is the Davidic house, or some such, but that Yahweh, whose exclusive prerogative it is to provide security, is sufficient for the defence of Zion.” (127) Roberts 1982(B):139 presupposes that Isaiah harked back to both the Davidic tradition and the Zion tradition in 7:7–9. 220 Roberts 1982(B):138.

the zion tradition in isaiah

325

6.4.2.2. Zion and Isaiah’s preaching of judgement and salvation An important consequence of our exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16 is to be found in the fact that one is not obliged to accept contradiction between Isaiah’s preaching of judgement on the one hand and his preaching of salvation on the other. This has been one of the most disputed questions in the history of research into the prophet Isaiah. Down through the years, scholars have proposed countless ‘images’ of Isaiah, each of which exhibits its own accents. It is often the case that such images of Isaiah lie at the foundation of the suggestion that Isaiah was primarily if not exclusively a prophet of judgement.221 While scholars have refined their position on this point in numerous ways, the presupposition nevertheless continues to represent a characteristic feature of Isaiah research. In the following paragraph we will focus on the most striking perspectives on the nature and content of Isaiah’s preaching. G. von Rad can serve as the prototype of a scholar whose image of the prophet Isaiah is highly determined by salvation-historical matters. Von Rad endeavoured to maintain the unity of Isaiah’s judgement and salvation preaching by emphasising the course of salvation history, whereby salvation is realised in and through judgement. The vision of H. Wildberger is generally understood to be in line with that of Von Rad. In line with G. Fohrer (“Wandlungen Jesajas”),222 H.W. Hoffmann (Die Intention der Verkündigung Jesajas)223 characterises Isaiah as ‘Prophet der Umkehrforderung’, a preacher of repentance. Isaiah endeavoured to convert his audience by speaking about the future. To achieve this goal, his preaching revolved for the most part around judgement. Fohrer and Hoffmann claim that most promises of salvation are not authentically Isaianic and where the prophet did preach salvation it was always in the service of the call to repentance. While it is clear from 6:9–10 that 221 Cf. Childs 1967:63: “It has long been observed by critical scholars that the oracles of promise play a subordinate role in the primary Isaianic tradition. In fact, for some scholars of the last century it became a petitio principii that Isaiah spoke only words of judgment.” Based on 7:3ff; 28:12 and 30:15, Childs himself maintains that Isaiah’s preaching must have contained a promise of hope (cf. also the prophecies against the nations in 14:25; 17:12ff ). He nevertheless considers the Zion text of 28:16 to be the only prophecy of Isaiah that exhibits the formal structure of a promise. Given the specific context of the said promise, he calls for prudence in drawing general conclusions with regard to the motif of Zion’s inviolability in Isaiah’s preaching. 222 See Fohrer 1981:11–23. 223 See Hoffmann 1974:37–80.

326

chapter six

the commission to make God’s people obdurate was part of Isaiah’s vocation, Hoffmann is nevertheless of the opinion that this was not the goal of Isaiah’s preaching. He maintains that the words of 6:9–10 were intended on the one hand to expose Israel’s obduracy as sinful and on the other to give expression to Isaiah’s own understanding of God, according to which no one is capable of doing anything that is against God’s will. The possibility of conversion was thus not excluded by the commission Isaiah received at his call. According to Hoffmann’s ‘image of Isaiah’, however, the exclusion of this possibility was only the case after Jerusalem’s liberation in 701 (cf. 22:14). W. Werner (Eschatologische Texte in Jes 1–39. Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker)224 and R. Kilian ( Jesaja 1–39)225 strongly disagree with the ‘image of Isaiah’ maintained by Fohrer and Hoffmann. H.W. Wolff was among the first to argue that Isaiah should be understood as a prophet of judgement only. In Kilian’s presentation, Isaiah’s exhortations only functioned to point to Israel’s guilt and did not open up the possibility of conversion. According to Kilian, the commission to make God’s people obdurate given in the context of Isaiah’s vocation excludes such an option. For Kilian it has become axiomatic that Isaiah was not a prophet of salvation. Even if authentic prophecies of salvation are to be found in the book of Isaiah, they are to be read from the perspective of the commission to make the people obdurate. Kilian is completely convinced, however, that no such original prophecies of salvation written by Isaiah are to be found, and he recognises that his ‘image of Isaiah’ is dependent on literary-critical considerations. P. Höffken (Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39)226 upholds a vision of the prophet similar to that of Kilian. The vision developed by O. Kaiser (Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja)227 on the nature and content of Isaiah’s preaching takes us a step further than that of Kilian. For Kaiser it is an open-and-shut case that only a few texts found in the book of Isaiah are actually to be ascribed to the prophet himself. He is even inclined to deny the authenticity of texts such as 6:1–11 and 7:1–9, which are generally accepted as authentic. An important point of departure for Kaiser is the methodically debatable conviction that every text that can be explained on the basis of 224 225 226 227

See See See See

Werner 1982. Kilian 1983:112–140. Höffken 1993:26. Kaiser 1981:19–27.

the zion tradition in isaiah

327

a different time should be denied Isaianic authenticity.228 Kaiser thus radically reverses the burden of proof. As a result, he no longer considers Isaiah to be a great prophet whose preaching was coloured by his commission to make the people obdurate and who was characterised by Von Rad as a theological phenomenon. Kaiser understands Isaiah to be a simple preacher, who was aware of impending disaster and tried to warn his people about it with his woe statements. Based on and in line with the literary-critical insights of his teacher and mentor Kaiser, U. Becker ( Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch)229 developed a radical new vision of the preaching of Isaiah. Becker argues that Isaiah was not originally a prophet of judgement but rather a prophet of salvation (associated with the cult), as the slightly later narratives found in Isaiah 36–39 still presuppose. It was only in the post-exilic period, he maintains, when Judah’s downfall could be subject to theological reflection, that Isaiah could be transformed into a prophet of judgement via the interpolation of the commission to make the people obdurate and other prophecies of judgement addressed to Judah (the oldest prophecies in Isaiah 28–31 are thus said to have already been dependent on Isaiah 36–39). Isaiah’s call vision related in Isaiah 6 along with its commission to make God’s people obdurate has played a primary and important role in the establishment of the variety of scholarly positions on the prophet. Indeed, the explanation thereof seems to have been crucial for the theological vision that scholars have developed with respect to the prophet and his preaching.230 On the other hand, it is also the case that personal theological perspectives have had an important role to play in the scholarly explanation of Isaiah’s vision of call and his commission to make the people obdurate. A detailed discussion of the latter would take us far beyond the boundaries set for the present study. The vision of Isaiah 6 is sometimes explained as a one-off commission that cannot be identified with Isaiah’s initial vocation.231 In such instances, the commission appears less objectionable since its See Kaiser 1976:4. See Becker 1997 and 1999:130ff. 230 Cf. Becker 1999:146: “Beinahe jeder Beitrag zum (Proto-)Jesajabuch befaßt sich auch mit dem Berufungs- bzw. Sendungsbericht, weil sich in ihm wie in einem Brennglas alle Probleme der Jesajaforschung zu konzentrieren scheinen.” 231 See, for example, Snijders 1969, Watts 1985, Evans 1989, Sweeney 1996, Rendtorff 1999:160 and Beuken 2003. A similar explanation can also be found in Calvin. 228 229

328

chapter six

sting has thus been removed. More frequently, however, it is argued as opinio communis that the commission of 6:9–10 is both theologically and psychologically difficult to conceive and that it must have been projected back into Isaiah’s call vision at a later date.232 By projecting Israel’s refusal to listen back into his vision of call, Isaiah thus endeavoured to come to terms with his own disappointments at both the theological and psychological level. At the same time, such an explanation tends to separate the theophany from the commission as described in Isaiah 6. The text itself, however, which is clearly a unity running from verse 1 to verse 11, does not provide arguments in support of such a separation.233 The description of the vision already anticipates the character of the commission Isaiah receives. This is particularly true with respect to the shaking of the thresholds and the smoke that filled the temple. Such phenomena accompanied the theophany and gave the vision a threatening character from 6:4 onwards. Besides, it would be ill-advised to allow our own opinions of theology and logic to play a decisive role in the exegesis of texts of this sort. I am inclined to consider it acceptable that the present formulation in which Isaiah describes his commission to make the people obdurate may in part have been influenced by later personal experiences and later events but that this is not necessarily true of the content. The retrojection hypothesis is not only speculative, it also implies that, from the hermeneutical perspective, the exegete has opted for a position outside the text.234 In the end, the hypothesis in question does not solve the theological problem because it does not make the present text of

See, for example, Hoffmann 1974 and Kilian 1983. Berges 1998:97–98 offers a succinct articulation of the commonly held opinion concerning Isaiah’s commission to make God’s people obdurate: “Die Verbindung von Sendung und Verstockungsauftrag, die im Endtext vorliegt, ist eine logische und theologische Unmöglichkeit.” 233 The text of Isaiah 6 is structured by the use of four imperfect consecutives in the first person: I saw (v. 1), I said (v. 5), I heard (v. 8), I said (v. 11). The more or less parallel construction is worthy of note. The second and fourth passage both begin with Isaiah’s reaction to what he has seen or heard. With regard to the conclusion to Isaiah 6, it might be argued that verses 12 and 13a do not belong to the original vision. Verse 12 breaks the chain of imperfects with a perfect consecutive in the third person. While this might point in the direction of a later interpolation, it is equally possible that Isaiah deliberately allowed the description of his vocation to flow over at this juncture into preaching. The formulations are Isaianic and it would not be the first time that a change of subject was employed in the service of preaching (see the same phenomenon in 8:11–15). Isaiah 6 as a whole can thus be characterised as a prophetic retrospective with a view to preaching. 234 Cf. Von Rad 19807:160. 232

the zion tradition in isaiah

329

Isaiah 6 any less objectionable and because a ‘theology of obduracy’ is to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament. The present location of Isaiah’s call vision in chapter 6 would appear in the meantime to have been intended as an indication that a period of obduracy had preceded the commission to make obdurate. As a matter of fact, the people are accused of lacking understanding and insight as early as 1:3 (see also 5:12–13). The commission accepted by the prophet demarcates an important change in yhwh’s dealings with his people Israel.235 The judgement Isaiah is now expected to execute according to the commission he received at his call would appear to consist of the fact that God’s people are to be handed over to their own sin.236 Isaiah’s preaching is to serve as an instrument designed to expose unrepentant Israel in the clearest of terms. By asking ‘how long?’ in 6:11 (cf. Psalm 13), the prophet gives expression to his own belief that judgement cannot be God’s final word and that there is a path to be followed in and through judgement along which yhwh continues to accompany his people (see also 8:17).237 It is also important to note in this regard that Isaiah’s call does not state that the obduracy his preaching ought to bring about will only be realised by his judgement preaching. If the commission to make the people obdurate demonstrates the result and goal of Isaiah’s preaching, namely the exposition of Israel’s refusal to change its ways, then the commission as such ultimately says nothing concerning the content of Isaiah’s preaching.238 The content of Isaiah’s preaching, therefore, need not be reduced to judgement preaching, not any more so than were the parables of Jesus, which were likewise characterised by the people’s obduracy and were intended to expose the choices people had made with respect to the Kingdom of God (cf. Mt. 13:13–15; Mk. 4:12; Lk. 8:17).239 The limitation of Isaiah’s preaching to judgement preaching 235 Cf. the considerations concerning Isaiah’s commission to make the people obdurate in Childs 2001:57. 236 Cf. the principle as articulated in Mt. 13:12: “For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” See also Rev. 22:11. 237 Cf. Beuken 2003:163: “… seine Frage: »Bis wann?« (V 11) ist stark genug, um das Szenario eines vollständigen Unterganges im Sinne einer neuen, letzten Chance positiv zu durchbrechen. Diese Perspektive beherrscht das gesamte Buch.” 238 Cf. Childs 2001:57: “His commission is not one of strategy of how he is to preach, but concerns the effect of his proclamation.” 239 The quality of such a comparison with Jesus’ speaking in parables is to be found in the fact that Jesus’ message did not suddenly change into judgement preaching only.

330

chapter six

could even be understood as somewhat remarkable for a prophet who bore the hope-giving name ‘yhwh is salvation’ and one who himself had undergone a paradigmatic purification from sin (6:7). At the moment of his call, however, Isaiah was already informed that even his salvation preaching would reinforce the people’s refusal to change their ways. While it sounds like a contradiction in terms, even Isaiah’s words of salvation were to contribute to the ripening of Israel for God’s judgement. Nevertheless, Isaiah’s commission need not be understood so exclusively that there was no one among all his listeners who paid due attention to his preaching.240 His commission makes it clear, however, that such individuals were the exception to and thereby the confirmation of the rule given in his call vision.241 The majority were ultimately to reject his preaching. It is within such a framework that references to a remnant that listened and changed are appropriate. Only a holy remnant was to survive judgement (cf. 6:13).242 The suggestion that the rejection of God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion served as the primary motivating force for Isaiah’s announcement of judgement in 28:16, need not automatically imply that the prophet had thus abandoned the Zion tradition and the expectations associated therewith. On the contrary, Isaiah’s preaching appears to be saturated with notions of salvation that were associated with the Zion tradition from of old. This is particularly the case with respect to the notion of Zion as a guarantee of safety and that of Zion as a place of refuge. Closely related to one another and sharing political and social Even in his parables, Jesus continues to announce the message of the Kingdom, to be understood by all those to whom the secrets of the Kingdom have been revealed. For all those who had cut themselves off from the Kingdom, however, even Jesus’ salvation preaching now has a hardening effect, an effect made most visible in the parable of the unjust tenants (reminiscent of the preaching of Isaiah, see Isa. 5:1–7!). The one need not necessarily exclude the other. 240 Based on an exclusive understanding of Isaiah’s commission to make the people obdurate, Berges 1998:98 argues that exegesis can no longer do without the retrospection hypothesis. In Berges’ opinion, the commission excludes the possibility that Isaiah’s preaching may have enjoyed a positive hearing among the circles of his followers (8:16–18): “. . . wäre Jesaja wirklich Verstockungsprediger gewesen, hätte er gerade in seinem engsten Schülerkreis ‘erfolgreichen’ Mißerfolg gehabt!” 241 Cf. the same phenomenon in Jn. 12:42 and Acts 28:24, where reference is made to Isaiah’s commission in Isa. 6:9–10. The said commission to make the people obdurate does not appear to be understood in such exclusive terms in the New Testament, in the sense that no one would remain to give ear to his preaching. More favourable exceptions would appear to have been possible with regard to the ‘rule of obduracy’, although only with respect to a ‘remnant’. 242 For the importance of ‘the remnant’ as a theme in the Old Testament see Rendtorff 2000:265–279.

the zion tradition in isaiah

331

implications, both these notions are inseparably bound to the Zion tradition and have their roots in the confession of the kingship of yhwh on Zion so central to the said tradition.243 Given the relationship between yhwh and Zion, it was possible to refer to both as a place of refuge (cf. Ps. 46:2; Isa. 14:32). Zion serves in particular as a place of refuge for the weary (cf. Ps. 9:12–13; Isa. 28:12), spoken of in New Testament terms as the ‘poor in spirit’ (Mt. 5:3). They place their trust in yhwh on Mount Zion, in contrast to the arrogant and proud who trust only in themselves (cf. Ps. 10:6). If yhwh is king then his kingship is an exclusive one and only yhwh can be the object of faith and trust.244 This is also an important notion, one already present in the song of Hannah sung in the sanctuary of the Ark in Shiloh. It is a notion that was combined with the Zion tradition in the cult of Jerusalem and it can be found in the preaching of Isaiah.245 As no other, the prophet Isaiah confronted Cf. Ollenburger 1987:66: “As the dwelling-place of Yahweh, creator of the cosmic order and defender of Israel, Zion functions pre-eminently as a symbol of security. This component of Zion symbolism has been traditionally viewed as the predominant aspect of the Zion tradition, leading scholars to speak of the inviolability of Zion/Jerusalem. For our present purposes it is sufficient to note that the security symbolized by Zion is rooted first of all in Yahweh’s presence.” With regard to the notion of Zion as refuge, Ollenburger 1987:75 points to the origin of this motif in the Ark traditions: “The development of Zion as a symbol of refuge is most likely associated, traditio-historically, with the Ark sanctuary as a place of refuge—i.e., the site of the Ark was a sanctuary in the true sense of the term.” 244 Ollenburger 1987:84 considers yhwh’s claim to exclusivity to be an important notion that has been given little attention in the context of Zion research: “It is this component of Zion symbolism that we wish to emphasize here: that Yahweh reserves to himself the exclusive prerogative as the effective agent in providing security and refuge for his people. That is, he reserves his power to himself in the exercise of his dominion. That is why all human attempts to insure security which rely on the power or capacity of humankind are repudiated in the Jerusalem cult tradition as acts of arrogance and rebellion against Yahweh. Within the language of the Jerusalem cult the opposite of ‘poor’ is not ‘rich’, but ‘proud’.” 245 See Ollenburger 1987:107–129. Cf. Ollenburger 1987:140: “In our discussion of the prophets, and particularly Isaiah, it became clear that the notion of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative is dependent upon earlier traditions, namely those traditions stemming form the Ark sanctuary of Shiloh which emphasized the kingship of Yahweh and consequently his exclusive status as saviour and sovereign over Israel. In Isaiah this notion is bound up so completely with the symbol Zion that the symbol itself entails or evokes the entire range of notions inherited by Isaiah from the Jerusalem cult, chief among which is the notion of Yahweh’s kingship.” “We can say, then, that for Isaiah the source of the notion of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative was the Zion symbolism of the Jerusalem cult.” Ollenburger 1987:134f locates the origins of the combination of yhwh’s kingship and yhwh’s claim to exclusivity in the sanctuary of the Ark in Shiloh: “The notion of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative is then precisely derived from the exercise of his prerogative as king and hence as the exclusive refuge of his people.” (135) 243

332

chapter six

his audience with the consequences of faith in the kingship of yhwh on Zion.246 The flip-side of this important notion from the Zion tradition lies in the fact that Zion can also be understood as a symbol of judgement for those who seek their security elsewhere. Such a notion of judgement is also bound inseparably with the kingship of yhwh on Zion.247 In his call vision, Isaiah became deeply imbued with this aspect of the kingship of yhwh and its close association with the notion of the holiness of yhwh.248 It is reasonable to assume that his encounter with the King, yhwh Zebaot, set the tone for his judgement preaching and continued to influence it throughout his active life. The dialectic character of Zion as a theme in Isaiah’s preaching is particularly visible in 28:16. The kingship of yhwh in Zion implies a promise of security but likewise calls for trust and faith.249 The guarantee of security and the place of refuge that yhwh has offered his people in Zion, however, are faced with the stubbornness and lack of faith of the religious and political leaders in Jerusalem. Instead of Zion, they seek a guarantee of security and refuge in Egypt. For Isaiah, such a manoeuvre

246 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:128f: “It is because Yahweh is exalted as king on Zion that Zion is secure, and it is because Yahweh as king assumes all responsibility for Zion’s security that the responsibility of Jerusalem’s leaders is exhausted in trusting in Yahweh and making Zion that for which it was founded, namely a refuge for the poor.” “. . . Isaiah’s development of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative in association with the Zion symbol is not simply the artificial conjunction of a theme with an appropriate symbol, but is the consistent, reflective exegesis of that symbol within the tradition of the Jerusalem cult itself.” 247 See Ollenburger 1987:70–72. 248 For the motif of the holiness of yhwh in Isaiah’s theology see Roberts 1982(B): 132–134. 249 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:120: “In ch. 28 Isaiah not only connects Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative to the Zion symbol, and derives from this combination the demand for faith on the part of Judah’s leaders, but he also makes the presence of faith, defined as the recognition of Yahweh’s exclusive prerogative, a discriminatory instrument on the basis of which Yahweh decides the fate of Judah. That is to say that while Yahweh makes unconditional promises regarding his intention to defend Zion, these promises can be turned precisely against the leaders of Judah who, if they act faithlessly and turn to Assyria or Egypt for deliverance, become the enemies of Yahweh and are thus the object of his saving action on behalf of Zion. Thus, Yahweh, who characteristically battles the hostile forces assembled against Zion, can himself become the leader of these forces brought against the city to purge from its midst those who have become its true enemy. Yahweh’s enemy is thus defined simply as anyone who makes plans contrary to his plan, that Zion should be a refuge for the poor who rely solely on the exercise of his exclusive prerogative for their security. So (1) those who rely on any other power for their security and (2) those who try to battle against Zion are equally in opposition to Yahweh’s plan and are hence his enemy. They are instances of the arrogance against which Yahweh is exalted in his day (2.6–22).”

the zion tradition in isaiah

333

exposes a lack of confidence in the Holy One of Israel and a lack of faith in the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion. What they seek in Egypt, they ought to be able to find in Zion. In addition to 28:12 and 28:16, particular reference can be made in this regard to 30:1–5 and 31:1–3. In light of the Zion tradition, it is not accidental that in these texts Isaiah makes full use of cultic expressions—as he does in the direct context of 28:16—similar to those that appear with frequency in the Psalms. Isaiah’s familiarity with the central notions of the Zion tradition is also given expression in 2:6–19(22) and 30:15–17. In line with the preceding considerations, one can argue that God’s former salvific deeds with respect to Zion, as pointedly expressed in 28:16, determine Isaiah’s judgement preaching on the one hand but give rise to his expectations for the future on the other. Zion functions in this sense as the point at which Isaiah’s judgement and salvation preaching coincide. The fact that Isaiah motivates the judgement he is announcing with reference to God’s salvific deeds on behalf of Zion, does not exclude the possibility that the same prophet may also have uttered words of salvation with respect to Zion.250 An important consequence of our exegesis is that the authenticity of the words of salvation with respect to the future of Zion that were already present in the first part of the book of Isaiah need not be denied in advance. The same is true for those statements in which Assyria is explicitly threatened with God’s judgement. Particular reference can be made in this regard to statements such as those found in 8:9–10 and 17:12–14. H. Barth, whose hypothesis has acquired a considerable following, ascribes this (and other) statement(s) relating to the fall of Assyria to a so-called Assyrian redaction dating from the time of King Josiah.251 For Clements, Barth’s hypothesis even enjoys an axiomatic function and he presumes without further ado that the prophet himself cannot have made specific reference to the fall of Assyria within the framework of his preaching during the Assyrian crisis.252 Such a presupposition,

Cf. Ollenburger 1987:119: “Although Isaiah sees clearly that Jerusalem is doomed to destruction because of her rulers’ reliance on the wisdom of her wise men (29,14b), he sees just as clearly that this doom does not mark the end of Yahweh’s promise to his people nor for his commitment to Zion. While Judah’s ‘Hauptstadt’ may be violated, the ‘heilige Stadt Jahwes’ is indeed inviolable.” (with reference to Schreiner 1963:256) 251 Barth 1977:178–183. Clements 1980(A):41–51 in particular has sided for the most part with Barth. 252 Clements 1980(A):33 sees no reason to presuppose that Isaiah uttered judgement concerning Assyria at a later date (Schreiner) or at the same time (Dietrich): “We must 250

334

chapter six

however, remains open to dispute. The fall of Assyria is announced in several places in the book of Isaiah, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly in the context of an announcement of deliverance in favour of Judah/Jerusalem. Reference can be made, for example, to 10:5–34; 14:24–27; 18:1–6; 29:5–8; 30:27–33 and 31:5,8–9, although the authenticity of all these texts has been called into question. While the existence of a Josian/Assyrian redaction is quite conceivable since the fall of the Assyrian empire would have been experienced in Josiah’s days as a confirmation of Isaiah’s preaching, it is nevertheless important to be aware that the danger of circular argumentation is very real in this regard. Clements’ hypothesis that the prophet Isaiah himself did not announce the fall of Assyria, in any event not in relation to the events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem in 701, is based to a significant degree on a presupposed late dating of the Zion tradition, particularly with respect to the motif of Zion’s inviolability.253 Given the fact that there are sufficient indications to support an earlier dating of the said tradition, however, and bearing in mind that Isaiah must

assume that he (Isaiah, JD) remains consistent in his attitude, so that the only way in which we could find room for a warning of the impending destruction of the Assyrian armies which were attacking Jerusalem would be to argue that, at some point, he turned sharply against them, after initially regarding them as having fulfilled the chastisement upon Judah determined by God.” Clements is convinced that the defeat of Sennacherib at Jerusalem cannot have been predicted by Isaiah: “We do not need to doubt the Isaianic origin of the prophecy (10:5–15, JD) therefore, but with equal certainty we cannot find in it any evidence at all to suggest that Isaiah had expected the year 701 to provide a spectacular setback, or defeat, for the military might of Assyria.” (38–39) He traces his most important argument to 22:1–14, in which no indication can be found of an unusual and unexpected destruction of the Assyrian army and in which the joy of the people is condemned as a new sin that will carry new judgement in the future. Clements recognises the same situation in 1:4–8 and is convinced that the passage in question cannot be squared with an expectation on the part of the prophet of Assyrian defeat. He concludes that the image of Isaiah’s preaching is consistent although he recognises that specific utterances are distributed throughout the book of Isaiah that speak of a time at which Assyria is to be punished by yhwh on account of its blasphemous pride (esp. 10:5–15). Nevertheless, Clements 1980(A):37 sees no reason to date this prophecy in the period 705–701 and he presupposes that it is related to the period 722–715, after the fall of Samaria and before the outbreak of revolt in Ashdod. While the prophecy in question does indeed make reference to the judgement of Assyria it does not suggest that the said judgement was imminent. Clements considers verses 16–19 as well as verse 12 as a later interpolation intended to make clear that the judgement of Assyria would only take place when God was finished with his work against Jerusalem. In his opinion, therefore, Isaiah may indeed have announced judgement over Assyria in the general sense of the term, but he did not associate it with the period around 701. 253 Cf. also Gonçalves 1986:539–540.

the zion tradition in isaiah

335

have been familiar with the motif of Zion’s inviolability in a more or less detailed form, an important pillar of this hypothesis is thus removed.254 Statements inspired by the Zion tradition such as those found in 8:9–10 and 17:12–14 allow us to see what is being implied precisely by the faith called for in 28:16. There is no reason to interpret these words as unconditional promises of salvation, which would run counter to the emphasis placed by Isaiah himself on the necessity of faith. It would be remarkable to say the least if no prophecies of salvation concerning Zion had been preserved elsewhere in the book of Isaiah that one could ascribe to the prophet himself. As a matter of fact, the faith referred to in the Zion text of 28:16 has to do with the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion and implies that the latter need not fear hostile attack from the nations.255 While the question of authenticity needs to be investigated text for text—an investigation that falls outside the boundaries of the present study—it is clear nevertheless from our exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16 that a greater degree of reserve should be shown in questioning the authenticity of prophecies concerning Zion than is currently the case in contemporary research into the book of Isaiah. The fact that Isaiah also makes it clear in both prophecies of judgement of 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 that the judgement God’s people are to undergo implies a divine eclipse presupposes that the prophet has held firm to the continuing significance of yhwh’s salvific deeds with

254 Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria has been the repeated subject of scholarly research. Laato 1988:210–247 distinguishes three different perspectives in this regard that have been adopted in the course of time: a. Isaiah’s image of Assyria changed under the influence of events around 713 or 705–701; he initially envisages Assyria as the rod of yhwh but later announces God’s judgement against Assyria (Procksch, Fohrer; Dietrich likewise takes a degree of change in Isaiah’s preaching as his point of departure but in this case in the opposite direction!); b. Isaiah never preached judgement against Assyria (Werner, Kilian, Hardmeier); c. Isaiah’s preaching with respect to Assyria is characterised by a certain dialectic (Childs, Huber, Wildberger). Based on an analysis of 29:1–7(8); 30:27–33 and 31:4–9, which he designates the ‘Ariel songs’ on account of their thematic kinship, Laato himself concludes that Isaiah preached Jerusalem as the place of the downfall of the ungodly as well as the downfall of Assyria. “The central idea in these texts is the theophany of Yahweh. The Lord who dwells in Zion will descend to war against the ungodly of Jerusalem and Assyria.” (216) 255 Cf. Ollenburger 1987:121: “We are justified, I believe, in seeing Isa 8.9–10 and 17.12–14 as providing the rationale for Isaiah’s demand for faith.”

336

chapter six

respect to Zion. While it would take us beyond the limits of the present study to elaborate this in greater detail, it remains reasonable to accept the possibility that the prophet had developed a more future oriented Zion preaching rooted in his faith in the ongoing significance of yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion.256 It would be difficult to determine whether the Zion text of 28:16 may have functioned as the germ cell for such Zion preaching. Nevertheless, the ideas expressed in this and related Zion texts—such as 14:32 and 28:12—most probably contributed to a more future oriented salvific expectation with respect to Zion. Bearing this in mind, it would thus be incorrect to exclude the possibility of Isaianic authorship of Zion texts such as 2:2–4 and 33:20–21 without further question, in spite of the fact that current opinion dates these texts in the post-exilic period.257 Whatever the case may be, there is no reason whatsoever to deny the authenticity of the salvation preaching with respect to Zion contained in the book of Isaiah as if the prophet only made use of the Zion tradition in a negative manner.258 While it is clear nevertheless that the texts in question, being more eschatological in character, presuppose a certain shift of accent, it is not inconceivable that this shift did not already take place in the prophet’s own time since the attitude of faith and trust he had expected did not transpire.259 The fact that Isaiah was obliged first of 256 In our opinion, Berges 1998:214 is too categorical in his exclusion of this possibility: “Auch und gerade Jesaja ist in seinem Bemühen, die pro-ägyptischen Kräfte in Jerusalem vom eingeschlagenen Weg der Rebellion gegen Assur abzubringen, gescheitert!” Taking a (chrono)logical construction based on the five woe statements as his point of departure with respect to Isaiah 28–31, Berges presupposes that authentic statements on the part of the prophet can no longer be expected after 31:4. 257 Cf. Beuken 2000:247 with respect to Isaiah 33: “Although redaction critics tend to date the entire chapter late, the chapter itself is surprisingly attuned to the core of Isaiah’s preaching: yhwh exercises his kingly dominion on Zion as an exclusive privilege (6:1,5) and thereby transforms the mountain into an inviolable place of safety for his people (28:16). In his unwillingness to endure other conquerors, God offers security on Zion.” Roberts 1983(B):16 supports the Isaianic authorship of Isaiah 33 in its entirety, in spite of the composite character of the chapter in question: “Once one has recognized the temporal priority of the Zion tradition and Isaiah’s dependency on that tradition, there remains no compelling reason to deny the Isaianic authorship of Isaiah 33.” 258 Cf. Otto 1989:1012f: “Unumstritten nachjesajanisch sind die von der Zionstheologie beeinflußten Heilsankündigungen in Jes. 1,27f; 4,2–6; 10,12.24–27a; 18,7; 29,8; 33,1–6.7–16.17–24; 35,1–10.” “Auf Jesaja zurückzuführen ist die negative Wendung von Elementen der Zionstheologie in den Unheilsankündigungen Jes. 1,4–9.21–26(a); 3,16f; 8,5–8.11–15.18; 10,27b–32; 28,16f; 29,1–4; 31,1.(2).3.4 sowie Jes 7,1–17*.” See also Preuß 1992:48. 259 Cf. Roberts 1982(B):138: “Isaiah picks them up from the Zion tradition where they were already at home, but he does alter the significance of the tradition by projecting

the zion tradition in isaiah

337

all to preach a message of judgement on account of the fact that his audience misunderstood yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion does not make this any less the case.260 As a matter of fact, Isaiah typified the realisation of judgement against the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the alien work of yhwh (28:21). The eclipse of God that went hand in hand with this strange work implies the conviction that the realisation of judgement could not have spelled the end of God’s concern for Zion (see also 1:24–28). Furthermore, the eloquence of the Zion text of 28:16 is simply too great for such a purpose. The foundation of Zion is proclaimed by Isaiah as a rock-solid foundation. From the very outset, Isaiah’s preaching must have been rooted in the conviction that yhwh, even in and through judgement, would uphold the salvific institutions He had once established, Zion being the most important of all in this regard.261 Based on such insights it is even possible to identify Isaiah as a prophet of salvation, in accord with the name he bears.262

the vision into the future. These features are no longer present realities, but future promises. The vision of the future Jerusalem has the effect of devaluing the present city.” 260 Childs 1967:116 considers the notion of judgement preceding the deliverance of Zion characteristic of the post-exilic period: “. . . the fact of inner judgement preceding deliverance is a prophetic note which was not present in the ancient Zion tradition and indicates an alteration which becomes characteristic of the post-exilic age.” 261 Later prophecies and expectations of salvation would appear to have been able to follow upon Isaiah’s preaching without difficulty. Cf. Roberts 1982(B):144: “Isaiah’s transformation of the royal ideology and the Zion tradition became the wellspring from which the later messianic expectations and the hopes for a new Jerusalem arose.” See also Beuken 2000:9: “According to those who passed on Isaiah’s oracles, the prophet had also announced that yhwh was resolute in his intention to remain faithful to Zion. For this reason, they expected that after the fall of Jerusalem, God would bring about new salvation (ch. 33).” 262 Cf. Sweeney 1996:62: “Isaiah is ultimately a prophet of salvation, and it is this perspective that motivates the continued growth of the book from the time of the 8th-century prophet to the emergence of the final edition of chs. 1–66 in the late 5th century.”

CHAPTER SEVEN

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The present and final chapter will present the most important conclusions of our research in summary fashion. We shall endeavour to follow the sequence maintained in the other chapters of the book. The conclusions are grouped together on the basis of content. Reference is made in brackets to the respective paragraphs from which a given conclusion has been distilled. 1. The Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 in the Septuagint, the New Testament and Judaism In many studies of the Zion tradition, the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 has been unjustly given little if any attention. It is possible that this is due in part to the degree of difficulty associated with the text itself. Where 28:16 is treated nevertheless, this usually takes place within the framework of a description of Isaiah’s future expectation, whereby the Zion text is seen as a promise for the future. Such an explanation of the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise of salvation can look for support to an exegetical tradition that stretches back more than twenty centuries and, in principle, as far back as the Septuagint’s translation of this particular biblical text. When compared with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint translation of 28:16 is characterised by a clear future orientation (᾽Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον instead of the—in principle—polysemic Hebrew ˆba ˆwyxb dsy ynnh) and by a plus (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ) that presupposes or at least facilitates a Messianic reading of the text (see § 2.2.). Given the fact that the New Testament explicitly associated the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 with Christ (Rom. 9:32b–33; 10:11 and 1 Pet. 2:6) and adopted thereby the characteristic plus of the Septuagint—ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ—the Messianic explanation of 28:16 ultimately acquired a degree of canonical authority. A number of indications suggest that a Christian tradition emerged at a relatively early date with respect to the Messianic interpretation of a number of so-called ‘stone texts’ from the Old Testament. The fact that the Zion text of 28:16 is related in

340

chapter seven

several places with the text concerning the stumbling stone from Isa. 8:14 and the evident agreement between the said texts at the level of language would seem to point in this direction. Based on the fact that Ps. 118:22 in particular had acquired an important place in the New Testament tradition (Mk. 12:10–11; Mt. 21:42; Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11 and 1 Pet. 2:4–8), it is possible to conclude that this very ‘stone text’ had been understood in the Messianic sense at an early date. It is thus probable that the Messianic interpretation of the ‘stone text’ of Ps. 118:22 promoted a similar interpretation of and an alignment with other Old Testament ‘stone texts’ (see § 2.3.). The fact that the Targum was able to associate both Ps. 118:22 and Isa. 28:16 with the advent and expectation of a Davidic king confirms our suspicion that the Messianic explanation of Old Testament ‘stone texts’ already enjoyed pre-Christian origins. It is all the more striking, therefore, that the Qumran community and the rabbis represented in the Talmud did not understand the Zion text of 28:16 in the Messianic sense. Where the Qumran community is concerned this goes hand in hand with its self-understanding as the new eschatological community established by God, concerning which Isa. 28:16 is also said to have prophesied. In the case of the rabbis, the significant role played by the Zion text of 28:16 in their conceptualisation of the Shetiyyah tended to limit the space available for a Messianic interpretation of the stone referred to in 28:16, in spite of their Messianic interpretation of other Old Testament ‘stone texts’ (see § 2.4.). 2. The Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 in the History of Interpretation Under the influence of the New Testament, the Messianic explanation of Isa. 28:16 determined the manner with which the Zion text was read from the early beginnings of church history up to the last century. While references to Christ as the cornerstone are relatively limited in number in the first centuries, Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the stone in Zion together with other Old Testament ‘stone texts’ quickly acquired an established place in the Messianic witness of the early church (see Barn. 6:2–4). The possibilities presented by the allegorical method of interpreting scripture contributed to the fact that more and more Old Testament texts that made reference to one or other stone came to be provided with a Messianic explanation (see Tertullian and Cyprian). From the 4th and 5th centuries, the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16

summary and conclusions

341

came more and more emphatically to be associated with the cornerstone referred to in Eph. 2:14–22, whereby a shift in accent can be detected at this time from a primarily Messianic orientation to a more ecclesiological explanation. The combining function ascribed to the cornerstone in Eph. 2:14–22, namely the establishment of spiritual unity between Jews and pagans, increasingly came to serve as interpretative framework also for Isa. 28:16 (see Jerome and Augustine). The fact that the stone referred to in the Zion text was to be related exclusively to Christ, continued in the meantime to be the natural point of departure that even the exegetes of the Alexandrian and those of the Antiochian traditions would appear to have shared with one another (see Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus) (see § 2.5.). The period of the Middle Ages produced no new exegetical insights with respect to the interpretation of 28:16 because an effort was made to remain as close as possible to the traditional explanation of the Church Fathers (see Glossa Ordinaria and Thomas Aquinas), and because the hermeneutical key for the explanation of the Bible was established by the teaching of the church (see § 2.6.). It would appear from the works of Luther and Calvin that the Zion text of 28:16 was also explained in soteriological and ecclesiological terms (see Luther and Calvin respectively) during the period of the Reformation. When compared with medieval exegesis and its strong orientation towards the Church Fathers, Calvin nevertheless appears to have arrived at a critical evaluation of the explanation the Church Fathers produced. He explicitly distances himself from the long tradition in which Eph. 2:14–22 functions as the interpretative framework for understanding the significance of Christ as cornerstone. Instead of the combining function of the cornerstone, Calvin emphasises the foundational function thereof for the church. While the identification of the stone referred to in Isa. 28:16 with Christ remains beyond dispute for Calvin, he nevertheless endeavours to take the notion of Zion into account in his explanation as the place from which Christ came forth. When compared with the exegesis of the Middle Ages and its ecclesio-dogmatic constrictions, it is particular striking that Calvin was the first to account for the legitimacy of his Messianic interpretation in significant detail (see § 2.7.). With the emergence of modern biblical research, however, it became evident that the Messianic explanation of Isa. 28:16 no longer enjoyed the same influence and that scholars were more and more interested in the Old Testament context of the biblical text. Of all the different

342

chapter seven

explanations that can be observed in the meantime, one particular interpretation tends still to dominate among modern exegetes whereby the Zion text of 28:16 is understood in eschatological terms and explained as an announcement of a future salvific deed. Explanations vary from a clarification with respect to the future kingdom of God or the new Israel to a concretisation in the direction of a new temple. It is remarkable that only a few endeavour to explain 28:16 as an announcement of a future deed of judgement, whereby the stone referred to in the Zion text is related in the strictly metaphorical sense as a testing stone to the announcement of God’s judgement (see § 2.8.). 3. The Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 in its Literary and Historical Context The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 is part of a pericope that consists of verses 14 to 22 in the composition as we now have it. In spite of the redactional connections introduced into verse 7a and the beginning of verse 14, it is possible to identify four pericopes within Isaiah 28, which serve as the point of departure for exegetical exploration: 28:1–4(6); 28:7–13; 28:14–22 and 28:23–29. While the addressees of the two central prophecies—which follow the established pattern of complaint and announcement of judgement characteristic of the judgement genre—are located in the southern kingdom of Judah and in Jerusalem and both prophecies also exhibit cohesion at the level of content, numerous indications suggest nevertheless that 28:7–13 and 28:14–22 should be understood as two distinct prophecies. The most important of these indications are the new beginning in verse 14 and the clear addressation of Jerusalem’s political leaders who do not coincide with the spiritual leaders (priests and prophets) addressed in the prophecy of 28:7–13. The exegesis of the Zion text of 28:16, however, is obliged to account for redactional and content based cohesion that is particularly evident between these two prophecies of Isaiah 28 (see § 3.3.). While it is impossible to achieve one hundred percent certainty at this juncture with respect to the origin of verses 19 to 22, the verses in question, which are frequently understood as a collection of unrelated fragments, nevertheless leave one with the impression of authenticity with regard to the form and content thereof. They seem to have formed an integrating component of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 from the outset. The possibility of a later apocalyptic interpolation

summary and conclusions

343

cannot be excluded with respect to 22b only. The arguments employed from time to time against the original character of verses 16–17a are not convincing. Together with the majority of exegetes one can conclude that the Zion text of 28:16 is at home within the context of the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 in which it occupies a central position. There would also appear to be a high degree of consensus among exegetes with respect to the authenticity of 28:16. In terms of content and method there is no single reason to deny the Isaianic authenticity of this Zion text in advance (see § 3.4. and § 3.5.). The prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 presupposes a period in which Jerusalem was under significant threat from Assyria and in response to this threat sought assistance from Egypt. The prophecy can thus best be dated during the reign of King Hezekiah (727/715–698) and in particular during the time of the well-prepared and broadly supported revolt against the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705–701). In the course of Sennacherib’s campaign in response to this revolt, Hezekiah was obliged to stand and watch as all his trump cards failed, including his covenant with Egypt. In spite of this, and in contrast to the remaining cities in Judah, Jerusalem was surprisingly spared. Since Hezekiah functioned as the driving force behind the revolt and it is improbable that Sennacherib would have allowed such a key figure to go unpunished, the suggestion that the miraculous event of Jerusalem’s liberation was due to the payment of tribute on the part of King Hezekiah and political tactics on the part of King Sennacherib is difficult to support (see § 3.6.–§ 3.8.). 4. Exegetical Conclusions with Respect to the Zion Text of Isa. 28:16 While the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 has been read for many centuries as a future oriented promise of salvation, it nevertheless constitutes part of a prophecy of judgement (28:14–22) and, given the Masoretic vocalisation and punctuation, it ought to be associated with an event in the past. Bearing this information concerning the text and its genre in mind, I would support an exegesis whereby the Zion text of 28:16 is explained as a salvation-historical retrospective moment within the framework of an announcement of judgement: ‘See, I am the one who laid in Zion a foundation stone, a weighty stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.’ The seriousness of the judgement announced by the prophet is

344

chapter seven

underlined by an explicit reference back to a former deed of yhwh with respect to Zion. In terms of text and content, the Zion text of 28:16 thereby exhibits a close kinship with the Zion text of 14:32b, which also contains a reference to a salvific deed of yhwh with respect to Zion. In spite of the fact that the text versions of Qumran and the Septuagint presuppose, in contrast to the Masoretic text, that 28:16 is to be interpreted as a promise of salvation, there would appear to be no compelling reason to emend the Masoretic vocalisation in this regard and bring it into line with the latter. Theological convictions within the Qumran community and the freedom the Greek translators permitted themselves are sufficient to explain the different renderings of 28:16 (see § 4.2. and § 6.3.). Justice is done to the intrinsic and structural coherence between the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 and that of 28:7–13, both of which constitute a diptych, when the Zion text of 28:16 is read as a salvation-historical retrospective moment within the framework of an announcement of judgement. Although the name of Zion is not yet mentioned, 28:12 nevertheless makes a statement concerning Zion, likewise within the framework of an announcement of judgement, a statement harking back to the past and intended to underline the seriousness of the judgement being announced. The difference lies in the fact that the Zion text of 28:12 harks back to a message of salvation uttered by yhwh in the past, while the Zion text of 28:16 harks back to a salvific deed performed by yhwh in the past (see § 4.3., § 4.4. and § 6.3.). The stone mentioned in 28:16 refers to the rock-solid foundation that yhwh has established in Zion. Attention is thus focused in the first instance on the reliability of the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion. In concrete terms, the salvific deed in question has to do with yhwh’s choice to dwell in/on Zion, a choice most explicitly described within the context of the entire book of Isaiah in 8:18. The belief that yhwh dwelt on Zion is implicit in other statements concerning Zion, in particular those that refer to Zion as Mount Zion. The rock-solid foundation established by yhwh in Zion has both social and political implications. The implications evident in the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 are primarily political in relation to his choice of Zion, implications misunderstood by the leaders of Judah/Jerusalem. The said misunderstanding on the part of the political leadership is given expression in a coalition policy oriented towards Egypt, which Isaiah somewhat ironically characterises as a ‘covenant with death’ on account

summary and conclusions

345

of the evident futility thereof. An attitude of faith and trust rooted in yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion is nowhere to be found. In the preceding prophecy of judgement of 28:7–13, emphasis was placed on the misunderstanding of the social implications of yhwh’s salvific plans with respect to Zion. Designated by yhwh as a place of rest, Zion was also intended as a place of social justice. Isaiah considers the misunderstanding of the political implications of the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion primarily as a question of unbelief and he ultimately ascribes the misunderstanding of the social implications of the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion as obstinacy (see § 4.2.–§ 4.4. and § 6.3.). If the Zion text of 28:16 is not intended to be understood as a promise of salvation, then the stone referred to therein—in spite of the long exegetical tradition to the contrary—should not be interpreted in the Messianic sense within the context of the book of Isaiah. This need not imply that there is no evidence of a Messianic secret hidden within the references to yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion. The faith spoken of in absolute terms at the conclusion to 28:16, however, does not allude to a person to be identified with the said stone, but rather to the entirety of yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion called to mind by the prophet (see § 4.2.). 5. The Covenant with Death There would appear to be no convincing arguments to associate the ‘covenant with death’ referred to in Isa. 28:15,18 with the phenomenon of necromancy. Arguments proposed in this regard by K. van der Toorn and A.C. Stewart are too hypothetical in character and might even be referred to as speculative in certain aspects. The hypothesis of Van der Toorn and Stewart is based on the presupposed original unity of 28:7–22, a unity that cannot be substantiated on the basis of the text. Given the fact that Môt and Sheol were not the object of worship, there is no good reason to maintain that the terms tw<m; and lwOav] employed in these verses refer to the Canaanite gods Môt and Sheol, let alone that the terms bz:K… and rq,v, likewise employed in these verses should be identified with the gods Chemosh and Milcom/Moloch. The personification of the kingdom of the dead can be explained on the basis of daily experience, namely that death has an enormous influence on life. The reference to the ‘covenant with death’ can thus

346

chapter seven

best be understood as an ironic typification of the coalition politics of Jerusalem’s governing political leaders so despised by the prophet. In entering into such political alliances they are ultimately signing their own death warrant (see Excursus 1). 6. Isa. 28:14–22 in the Context of Isaiah 28 and Isaiah 28–33 The Zion text of 28:16 is part of a prophecy of judgement (28:14–22), which is closely associated at the redactional level with the preceding prophecy of judgement (28:7–13). At the same time, however, it is also evident that the remaining prophecies of which chapter 28 is constructed exhibit such clear semantic and content-related coherence that the entire chapter can be considered as a deliberate redactional composition. The diptych constituted by both central prophecies of judgement—28:7–13 and 28:14–22—is introduced by a prophecy of judgement formulated on the basis of a woe statement addressed to Ephraim/Samaria (28:1–4(6)) and is concluded by a summarising prophetic instruction (28:23–29) (see § 4.4. and § 4.5.). Within the structure of the present book of Isaiah, chapter 28 marks the beginning of a new segment consisting of chapters 28–33. The skeleton framework of Isaiah 28–33 consists of six woe statements that give collective and individual expression to the inevitability of the announced judgement. In contrast to the four central woe statements (29:1; 29:15; 30:1; 31:1), all of which are directed towards the leadership of Jerusalem, the first (28:1) and the sixth (33:1) are directed to Samaria/Ephraim and Assyria respectively. It is a characteristic feature of this part of the book that the woe statements are interchanged in increasing number with words of salvation. The narrative setting of both is determined by the Assyrian threat to Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah and Jerusalem’s deliverance from the hold of Assyria in 701 (see § 5.2.). The redactional composition of Isaiah 28 functions as an overture to the segment of the book consisting of chapters 28–33. In addition to the fact that chapter 28 strongly exhibits the character of an intentionally structured composition, the content of this chapter points in a similar direction since the main themes that are dealt with within this segment of the book (28–33) are already treated in the first chapter (28). The woe statement with which Isaiah 28 begins exhibits a paradigmatic character that becomes all the more clear in the course of the chapter.

summary and conclusions

347

In spite of God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion, Jerusalem is to undergo the same fate as Samaria. In light of the fact that the analogy between Samaria and Jerusalem is revealed gradually in Isaiah 28, the paradigmatic woe statement of 28:1 thus provides the chapter as a whole with an introductory character. The message as such is already made crystal clear in the said overture, raising the question how God’s salvific plans with respect to Zion (cf. 28:16) are to be squared with the identification of Jerusalem and Samaria expressed in the judgement. The answer, to be derived from the structure and content of the following chapters, is that salvation for Jerusalem can only be established in and through judgement (see § 5.3.). Within the context of Isaiah 28, it would appear that the prophecy of judgement of 28:14–22 functions as a core text. In relation to the chapters that follow Isaiah 28–33, the prophecy in question can be understood at the literary level as a key text and guide for the reader of this part of the book of Isaiah. This goes hand in hand with the significance and eloquence of the Zion text of 28:16. On the one hand, the said Zion text discloses the theological motif behind the judgement proclaimed in this part of the book over the city of Jerusalem and the coalition politics of its leaders so detested by yhwh, while revealing, on the other hand, that the given judgement will not be yhwh’s final word for his people by emphasising the reliability of his salvific deeds with respect to Zion (see § 5.4.). 7. Zion in Isaiah 1–39 Based only on the prominent place ascribed to the theme ‘Zion’ in the book of Isaiah, one is already inclined to suspect that Zion likewise enjoyed a prominent role in the Jerusalemite prophet’s original preaching. The absence of consensus concerning a significant number of the texts that have been passed down to us and the difficulty one encounters in distinguishing between the ipsissima verba of Isaiah himself and the later redactional modifications thereof, need not stand in the way of such a conclusion. There can be little doubt that it was Isaiah’s preaching that stimulated the creation of the book of Isaiah and that the same preaching must have served as guide for the unique theological message the book contains. A considerable percentage of the references to Zion are already to be found in the first part of the book of Isaiah, namely chapters 1–39.

348

chapter seven

The name Zion is used most frequently in this part of the book in its independent form (17×), although—and in contrast to the remainder of the book of Isaiah—reference is also made in these chapters to Mount Zion (9×). The number of references in these chapters to the daughter of Zion as personification of the city of Jerusalem or as designation of the remnant community remains limited (3×). When the name Zion is employed independently it is frequently used to designate the city of Jerusalem, on occasion including its inhabitants. The places in which the name Zion functions as a designation of the place of God’s presence or of his salvific deeds, however, are of the greatest theological significance. The said theological connotation likewise resounds automatically when reference is made to Mount Zion, since the latter is primarily associated with the location of the temple (see § 6.2.). 8. Research into the Zion Tradition and its Origins Given the fact that it is difficult to refute the authenticity of the Zion text of 28:16, one is obliged to conclude that the prophet Isaiah was familiar with and harked back to an already existing tradition relating to the unique place and significance enjoyed by Zion in the journey travelled by God with his people Israel. The tradition in question, which can be referred to as the Zion tradition, most likely had its origins in the Davidic period, although it should not be included as part of the Davidic tradition as such, as if it were merely a theological product of the court of David. E. Rohland and H. Gese expended considerable energy in disputing every detail of this hypothesis as it was represented by M. Noth and H.-J. Kraus. By identifying the Zion tradition as an independent election tradition, Rohland in particular has been able to shed light on the uniqueness of the said tradition and to make an essential contribution to scholarly research into the religio-historical origins thereof (see § 6.4.1.1.). For a considerable period of time, scholars sought the religio-historical origins of the Zion tradition and the various motifs associated therewith in a presupposed Jebusite cultic tradition. Exegetes such as H.J. Hayes and F. Stolz are particularly associated with this view. Little can be said with any degree of certainty, however, on the existence of a specifically Jebusite cult. One is at liberty to argue, moreover, that when one is obliged to seek the origins of the various motifs associated with Zion in a pre-Israelite cult, this need not imply that the Zion tradition as

summary and conclusions

349

such is pre-Israelite in origin. The suggestion that a pre-Israelite Zion tradition once existed of which the Old Testament Zion tradition is a continuation, goes hand in hand with the fact that the pre-Israelite motifs associated with the Zion tradition are often identified in practice with the Zion tradition itself. Such a suggestion ought to be carefully avoided since the origin of a tradition cannot be identified with that of a number of its motifs (see § 6.4.1.2.). The emergence of the Zion tradition was most probably closely associated with the Ark and its traditions. In any event, the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem by King David must have had inestimable significance for the development of the Zion tradition. While the importance of this event was already underlined by M. Noth and O. Eißfeldt, J. Schreiner and J. Jeremias distinguished themselves with their description of the religio-historical and biblical-theological relationship that binds the history of the Ark with the Zion tradition (see § 6.4.1.3.). Given the importance of history as a constituent factor in the emergence of the Zion tradition, the latter can be characterised as an exclusively Israelite tradition, to be defined more specifically as the entirety of Israel’s traditions relating to the unique place and significance of Zion in the journey travelled by God with his people. No difficulties arise in this regard when one speaks of an election tradition, precisely because the origin of the Zion tradition appears to be so closely associated with the history of the Ark. Apart from the question as to the period in which the explicit use of the more or less technical term rjb ‘to elect’ ought to be dated, the essence of the concept of Zion’s election is already provided in terms of content in the historical origins of the Zion tradition (see § 6.4.1.4.). 9. Isaiah and the Zion Tradition Somewhat in contrast to prevailing views, G. Fohrer and G. Wanke endeavoured to make a late dating of the Zion tradition an acceptable option. While they likewise maintain that the Zion tradition bears a specifically Israelite character, they prefer to date it in the period after the exile. Such an extremely late dating of the Zion tradition is difficult to maintain, however, in the light of the results of the present study. Not only does the reconstruction of Fohrer and Wanke clearly misunderstand the religio-historical and biblical-theological relationship with the history of the Ark and its traditions, but the concrete results of the

350

chapter seven

present study of the Zion text of 28:16 allow us no other conclusion than to admit that the Jerusalemite prophet Isaiah was familiar with the Zion tradition and its most important motifs (see § 6.4.2.1.). The latter conclusion is confirmed by the contribution made by J.J.M. Roberts to research into the Zion tradition and its motifs. Roberts employed a variety of arguments in support of his hypothesis that the birth of the Zion tradition should be associated with the time of David and Solomon. He does an injustice to previous research, however, when he presents the Zion tradition once again as a theological product of the Davidic court. It is indeed impossible to do justice to the uniqueness of the Zion tradition if one does not treat it as an independent tradition, the origin of which is closely bound with the history of the Ark and its traditions. There is much to be said for the position adopted by J. Jeremias, who maintained that the Zion tradition is in essence a modern interpretation of the Ark tradition accomplished with the help of Canaanite motifs (see § 6.4.2.1.). The heart of the Zion tradition should not be sought in the motif of Zion’s inviolability but rather in the conviction that yhwh had chosen Zion for his dwelling place and that Zion was therefore the city of the great King. The motif of Zion’s inviolability naturally evolves from such a conviction. While it is possible that the origin of this motif is already to be found in the Ark tradition, there can be little doubt that the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem in 701 would have provided enormous impetus to the belief in Zion’s inviolability. The Zion tradition as a whole, however, should not be reduced to this single motif, nor should the emergence of the tradition be ascribed to the events around 701 (see § 6.4.2.1.). The salvation-historical framework within which the Zion text of 28:16 functions serves as an important indication that the Zion tradition also bore a specifically Israelite character for the prophet Isaiah. In his preaching, Isaiah intimately shared the traditions passed down to him with respect to contemporary Zion as the dwelling place of yhwh. It would appear from our study of the meaning and function of the Zion text of 28:16 that Isaiah did not only motivate the imminent judgement of God in his preaching on the basis of the social injustice that governed in Jerusalem. The deepest motivation behind God’s judgement was to be found in the people’s rejection of God’s salvific deeds (see § 6.4.2.1.). Based on the coherence between the Zion text of 14:32 on the one hand and both Zion texts of 28:12 and 28:16 on the other, each of

summary and conclusions

351

which elaborates on an important component from 14:32, it is possible to argue that the manner with which the Zion tradition is given expression in the preaching of Isaiah down through the years exhibits a high degree of consistency. It is the conviction that yhwh had established the foundations of Zion that provides the basis not only of Isaiah’s call to faith but also of his critique of the political leadership in Jerusalem. While it is true that the political and historical context within which Isaiah made reference to the Zion tradition with which he was familiar changed, this did not imply a change in the prophet’s understanding of the content of the Zion tradition. The emphasis placed by Isaiah on faith in 28:16, likewise does not imply an adjustment to the Zion tradition as some have argued. Even in the midst of his judgement preaching addressed to the leaders of Jerusalem, Isaiah continues to take the indissoluble bond between yhwh and Zion as his point of departure (see § 6.4.2.1.). In the preaching of Isaiah, the Davidic tradition in 7:9 functions in much the same way as the Zion tradition in 28:16. A degree of parallel is to be observed in the way in which Isaiah has made use of both traditions and introduced the necessity of faith into the discussion. The salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to the house of David and the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion constituted the two most important pillars that supported the preaching of Isaiah in the political crises of his day. The remarkable concentration of words inspired by the Zion tradition found in Isaiah 28–33 confirms our suspicion that the prophet was inspired by the Davidic tradition in particular during the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis (734–732) and that during the Assyrian crisis (705–701) the Zion tradition served as his primary source of inspiration (see § 6.4.2.1.). 10. Zion and Isaiah’s Preaching of Judgement and Salvation Since yhwh’s deeds of judgement and the instruments employed therein—as expressed in the judgement prophecy of Isa. 28:14–22—are motivated at their deepest level by the salvific deeds of yhwh, there is no need to presuppose a level of contradiction between Isaiah’s preaching of judgement on the one hand and salvation on the other. The rejection of God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion observed by Isaiah in the context of his judgement preaching does not mean he had abandoned the Zion tradition and the expectations associated

352

chapter seven

therewith of old. Isaiah is not only a prophet of judgement. As a matter of fact, God’s former deeds of salvation with respect to Zion serve as the source of inspiration for both his judgement preaching and his future expectation. The preaching of Isaiah is permeated with the most important ideas of the Zion tradition, each of which is rooted in the confession central to the said tradition, namely the kingship of yhwh on Zion (see § 6.4.2.2.). The commission to make the people obdurate extended within the framework of Isaiah’s vision of call likewise does not imply that Isaiah’s preaching was limited to judgement preaching alone since the commission in question does not describe the content of Isaiah’s preaching but rather the effect and the intention thereof. The commission to make the people obdurate received by Isaiah in the context of his call cannot possibly serve to deny the authenticity of every salvific utterance in the book of Isaiah, not even if we were to understand the said commission in exclusive terms, the necessity of which I would be inclined to question. This stylised commission was intended to make clear from the outset that Isaiah’s preaching, and thus also his words of salvation, were to ready Israel for judgement. The so-called retrojection hypothesis, which presupposes that Isaiah’s commission was based on a later construction, is speculative in character and does not do justice to the unity of the text of Isaiah 6. The hypothesis in question says more about the theological perspective of its proponents than about the character of Isaiah’s preaching and fails, moreover, to solve the theological ‘problem’ associated with the people’s obduracy (see § 6.4.2.2.). Given the results of the exegesis of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 provided in the present study, scholars would be better advised to exercise a greater degree of caution when calling the authenticity of the Zion texts contained in Isaiah 1–39 into question than is currently to be observed. The same can be said for statements referring to the fall of Assyria. The attribution of important texts such as 8:9–10 and 17:12–14 to a later so-called Assyrian redaction is frequently founded on a circular argumentation whereby a later date is presumed with respect to the emergence of the Zion tradition and the motif of Zion’s inviolability respectively (see § 6.4.2.2.). As a matter of fact, Zion serves as the point of conjunction between Isaiah’s preaching of judgement and his preaching of salvation. The ambivalence evident in Isaiah’s preaching is related to the realisation that the judgement of yhwh is inescapable when his salvific deeds with respect to Zion are misjudged on the one hand and to the conviction

summary and conclusions

353

that yhwh has established an inseparable union with Zion on the other. Against the background of this latter conviction, it is understandable why Isaiah’s preaching characterises the impending judgement as a divine eclipse in a variety of ways. This is related to the fact that the ongoing relationship between yhwh and Zion was never a question of dispute, not even in Isaiah’s judgement preaching. While the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 functions in the context of an announcement of judgement, its power of expression is so great that the idea expressed therein and in related Zion texts must doubtless have contributed to a more future oriented salvific preaching with respect to Zion. The conviction that yhwh would uphold the salvific institutions He had once established (Zion being the most important)—even in and through judgement—must be understood as characteristic of the preaching of Isaiah (see § 6.4.2.2.).

APPENDIX

THE ZION TEXT OF ISAIAH 28:16 AND THE NEW TESTAMENT Bearing in mind that Isa. 28:16 plays an important role in a variety of places in the New Testament, we offer here an appendix in which the exegetical results of the present study are examined from the New Testament perspective. We already noted in § 2.3. that the Zion text of 28:16 is quoted three times in the New Testament, twice in the letter of Paul to the Romans (Rom. 9:33; 10:11) and once in the first letter of Peter (1 Pet. 2:6). The quotation in Rom. 10:11 is the least complete of the three since it only refers to the conclusion to 28:16. We present the most important observations of this paragraph in summary: 1. In all three of the aforementioned New Testament texts, the Zion text of 28:16 is associated with the stumbling stone from 8:14. 2. The Zion text of 28:16 is spoken of in 1 Pet. 2:6 in one and the same breath as the ‘stone text’ from Ps. 118:22. 3. In both Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6, the Zion text of 28:16 has been given a Messianic interpretation. 4. The Zion text of 28:16 is understood explicitly in 1 Pet. 2:6 as a promise of salvation for the future. 5. Due to intermingling with the statement on the stumbling stone in 8:14, the Zion text of 28:16 in Rom. 9:33 has acquired the character of an announcement of judgement. 6. The Zion text of 28:16 does not agree completely with the Septuagint in any of the three New Testament quotations although the latter agree with each other to a significant degree. 7. The New Testament quotations of the Zion text of 28:16 include the concluding expression ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, a characteristic plus in the Septuagint. 8. The context within which the Zion text of 28:16 is quoted in 1 Pet. 2:6 is more explicitly determined by ecclesiological motifs than is the case with respect to its quotation in Rom. 9:33. It became apparent from our exegesis of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 that the text, in its original Old Testament context, constituted part of

356

appendix

a prophecy of judgement. Rather than alluding to a future salvific deed on the part of God, it functioned as a salvation-historical retrospective moment within the framework of an announcement of judgement. The seriousness of the judgement being announced is underlined by an explicit reference to God’s misunderstood salvific deeds with respect to Zion: ‘See, I am the one who laid in Zion a foundation stone, a weighty stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.’ Given the fact that this Zion text of 28:16 is understood as a promise of salvation for the future in 1 Pet. 2:6 and is given a Messianic interpretation in Rom. 9:33, in spite of the different tenor of the latter, one is obliged to ask whether the New Testament appeal to Scripture is legitimate in this regard. Before turning to the specific appeal to the Zion text of 28:16, however, it seems appropriate to begin with some observations concerning the New Testament appeal to Scripture in general.1 When the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, the high degree of freedom the New Testament authors permitted themselves is apparent and striking. The said freedom relates to both the original text and the original significance of the scriptural text being quoted. An important factor that has to be accounted for in this regard is the fact that the New Testament authors mostly made use of the Septuagint or other Greek translations of the Old Testament in circulation at the time which from their perspective enjoyed the authority of Scripture.2 1 The New Testament quotation of Old Testament texts has been the subject of extensive research since the time of Jerome. Studies such as those of Ellis 1957 (cf. also 1985 and 1991), Koch 1986, Hays 1989 (cf. also 2005), Stanley 1992, Wilk 1998 and Wagner 2003, which limit themselves to the letters of Paul, would be unthinkable without the work of countless predecessors in the field and contain extensive bibliographical references (see esp. Stanley 1992:8–28). In this respect the collection of studies in Beale 1994, though not restricted to the letters of Paul, provides an interesting overview. From a more recent date are the numerous studies of Moyise and Menken. See, among others, Moyise 2001 and Evans 2004. Hübner was even inclined to take the New Testament use of the Old Testament as the point of departure for his threevolume biblical theology of the New Testament. See Hübner 1990:28. 2 The Septuagint was not only of great importance for early Christianity, it also served ancient Judaism to a significant degree. The hypothesis proposed by Hübner 1990:64 that the Septuagint enjoyed theological priority over the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament is nevertheless a step too far: “Die LXX-Prädominanz im Neuen Testament impliziert natürlich die theologische Prädominanz des griechischen Textes vor dem hebräischen.” (cf. 1990:45–46) The fact that various revisions entered into circulation that were intended to bring the Greek translation more into line with the Hebrew text demonstrates the importance of the Greek translation at the time as well as the ultimate theological priority ascribed to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. See Stuhlmacher 1999:291.

isaiah 28:16 and the new testament

357

While the nature and extent of textual variants differed from book to book, the translations in question frequently deviated on numerous points from the original Hebrew text and often exhibited an interpretative character. The process of interpreting Old Testament texts thus harks back to a period prior to the New Testament. It is likewise the case that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament underwent a long and complex evolution and that its ancient and not so ancient readers have left their mark in the process of textual transmission.3 Where the New Testament authors had a Hebrew text of the Old Testament at their disposal in addition to a Greek translation, moreover, it is important to bear the possibility in mind that alternative Hebrew text versions were available on occasion over and above the text version that, due to the efforts of the Masoretes, has acquired virtual exclusivity down through the centuries and which lies at the foundations of our interpretation of the Old Testament. The discoveries at Qumran in particular have demonstrated that both the Hebrew and the Greek text of the Old Testament had not been established in a uniform text version in the New Testament period, but rather that various text versions were in circulation at the time. Even though these text versions differ little from one another in practice—with a few exceptions to the contrary such as the book of Jeremiah—and the lack of uniformity should not be exaggerated, there can be little doubt that the actual situation with respect to the available basic text must have been responsible for a number of textual and content-related differences that we can observe today between the text of the Old Testament and the form it had acquired in the New Testament.4 Apart from the translation employed and the original text versions that were available, it must be observed, however, that the New Testament exhibits a degree of freedom in the way it quotes and/or interprets

3 Talstra 2003:10 illustrates this effectively with reference to the world of architecture: “anyone opening the Bible is not going to be confronted with a unique work of art written by an individual creative spirit. Anyone opening the Bible is walking into a classical monument, a centuries old building. Like all ancient monuments, the building they are entering exhibits traces of centuries of occupation and renovation.” Berges 2003:203 makes use of a similar metaphor, that of the medieval cathedral which took centuries to complete and was the work of countless master builders. 4 Stanley 1992:31–61 has made every effort to put together a workable method designed to identify the texts in the letters of Paul that can be designated as quotations, the text version at the basis thereof, and to what degree one can speak of potential adaptations in the text.

358

appendix

Old Testament Scripture.5 Nevertheless, such freedom should not be taken as arbitrary. While we might consider the manner with which the New Testament read the Old Testament somewhat unusual in the light of contemporary hermeneutical insights and scholarly exegetical methods, its procedures do not only agree with the characteristic Jewish approach to the interpretation of Scripture current at the time (see the writings of the Qumran community in particular),6 they are also in line with the literary conventions of the Graeco-Roman world of the day.7 The most significant difference with the Jewish approach to exegesis is related to the results thereof, since the exegesis of the New Testament authors was determined in terms of content by the fact that they had become disciples of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt. 13:52).8 In other words, the New Testament authors read the Old Testament from the perspective of their knowledge of Christ.9 This observation, of course, does not completely satisfy questions pertaining to the persuasiveness of the scriptural appeal made in the New Testament. It does, however, place the question of the legitimacy

5 Ellis 1985:199 speaks in this regard of “deliberate alteration, i.e. by ad hoc translation and elaboration or by the use of a variant textual tradition, to serve the purpose of the New Testament writer.” This is also what Stanley 1992 was trying to demonstrate in his study: “the present study aims to demonstrate two basic theses: (1) that Paul actively adapted the wording of his biblical quotations to communicate his own understanding of the passage in question and to obviate other possible readings of the same text, and (2) that, in offering such ‘interpretive renderings’ of the biblical text, Paul was working consciously but unreflectively within the accepted literary conventions of his day.” (29) In order to prevent misunderstanding, as if Paul had been guilty of some form of manipulation, Stanley 1992:359 concludes his study by emphasising that: “The bulk of the adaptations uncovered in the present study have little effect on the meaning of the original text, and those that do can normally be explained as the result of a sincere attempt to understand the context of the author’s own culture and/or community.” 6 See Snodgrass 1994:29–51 and Moyise 2001:9–20. 7 See Stanley 1992:338–360. It would be interesting and informative to compare the freedom observed in the New Testament rendering of quotations from the Old Testament with the literary conventions that governed the rendering of speeches or the use of direct speech in narrative contexts. 8 Cf. Ellis 1957:83: “If Paul used Jewish interpretations, he culled and moulded them to a Christological understanding of the OT; if he was ‘a child of his times’, they were for Paul the times of Messiah, His Cross and resurrection, and His revelation of the true meaning of Scripture. Paul was a disciple of Christ not of Gamaliel.” 9 Cf. Stuhlmacher 1999:295: “Der entscheidende Unterschied zum jüdischen Schriftverständnis bestand freilich darin, daß der die Schriften durchwehende Geist Gottes für das Neue Testament nicht mehr nur der Geist war, der sich Israel und der ganzen Welt in der mosaischen Lehrtradition mitteilt, sondern der Geist des Vaters Jesu Christi und des erhöhten Christus selbst.” See also Enns 2003:263–287.

isaiah 28:16 and the new testament

359

of appeal in a different light. As a matter of fact, it would be incorrect to endeavour to measure the legitimacy of the New Testament appeal to Scripture according to our modern academic standards. The standards according to which the New Testament makes reference to the Old Testament may not be the same as those upheld by modern scholarly exegesis, but this need not imply that the message of the Old Testament is thereby subject to some form of violation. Such a conclusion would not only be premature, it would also imply an unjustified absolutising of modern exegetical methods. Where modern exegetes are used, in the first instance, to focus on the direct textual context of scriptural references, one can argue that the New Testament not only ascribed meaning to the said textual context but it also ascribed meaning to the scriptural context beyond particular texts. In other words, the context within which individual Old Testament texts are to be read is often more extensive than that of the pericope, the chapter or even the biblical book. In principle, the entire Old Testament can serve as the context when an individual biblical text is quoted and interpreted. This need not imply that the direct textual context within which a text quoted from Scripture is to be found is less important from the New Testament perspective. Scholars have become more and more aware of the fact that the direct context is also a frequent factor in the rendering of scriptural quotations.10 In addition to the textual context, the New Testament would appear to attach importance to the scriptural context of the texts quoted or alluded to from the Old Testament. Texts stemming from a variety of different biblical books can thus be related to one another and allowed to interpret one another in spite of their unrelated origins.11 It is here that we find the basis of 10 Cf. Dodd 1952:126: “The method included, first, the selection of certain large sections of the Old Testament scriptures, especially from Isaiah, Jeremiah and certain minor prophets, and from the Psalms. These sections were understood as wholes, and particular verses or sentences were quoted from them rather as pointers to the whole context than as constituting testimonies in and for themselves. At the same time, detached sentences from other parts of the Old Testament could be adduced to illustrate or elucidate the meaning of the main section under consideration. But in the fundamental passages it is the total context that is in view, and is the basis of the argument.” Recently, Wagner 2002 has made a strong case for Paul knowing larger portions of Israel’s scriptures by heart, even if he made use of written texts for his Old Testament quotations. According to Wagner—and with the focus on the book of Isaiah—, Paul was always aware of the larger context of his scriptural quotations. He thus selected these quotations for reasons beyond simple catchword association. 11 Boertien 1974:20 characterises this more associative method upheld by the New Testament authors in quoting the Old Testament, which in essence presupposes the

360

appendix

the conviction that the Scriptures are one and that the one God speaks through the texts thereof. All this means that the authors of the New Testament consciously or unconsciously, or at the very least without scruples of any sort, allowed other biblical texts to resonate in their quotation of Old Testament texts. In so doing they were able to extract both old and new things from the Scriptures, whereby they considered themselves legitimated by their belief that Christ was the fulfilment of the Old Testament. Indeed, in such instances, whereby other biblical texts echoed in the background of a particular biblical quotation, it would perhaps be better to argue from the contemporary perspective and with a view to the phenomenon of inter-textuality that the New Testament ultimately made use of the Old Testament texts in order to reinforce its own message rather than quoting the latter. Such ‘making use of ’ served to actualise ancient words of Scripture and even made it possible on occasion for the scriptural texts to be cast anew with a view to New Testament proclamation. In practice, therefore, while the function of the appeal to Scripture did not always play a constitutive role in the argumentation of the New Testament authors it often served both to illustrate and affirm. The expression ‘appeal to Scripture’ is thus more appropriate than the expression ‘scriptural evidence’ in this regard. Indeed, the New Testament authors were not primarily interested in establishing logical and conclusive arguments. Their goal was to reinforce what they had witnessed in Christ and to expose a degree of continuity with Old Testament revelation.12 While it would take us beyond the limits of the

explanatory rules maintained by the midrash, as scribal exegesis and contrasts the latter to the literal approach of those who focus on single words and forget that the entire context must also be accounted for. Ellis 1985:201–208 illustrates and confirms the suggestion that the New Testament did indeed make use of the exegetical methods of the midrash on the basis of a number of illustrations. He distinguishes two methods: implicit midrash and explicit midrash. The former has to do with the interpretation of a text incorporated in the translation while the latter has to do with a separate explanation in relation to a text. As an example of an implicit midrash he refers to the addition of πᾶς in Rom. 10:11. Mixed quotations, such as that found in Rom. 9:33, can also be understood as implicit midrash. On account of his objections to the use of the designation midrash, Hays 1989:10–21—in line with M. Fishbane—prefers to speak of the phenomenon of inter-textuality: “the revisionary hermeneutical operations that later came to be called midrash were already manifest in the work of the writers of the biblical texts, who collected, interpreted, and transmuted still earlier texts and traditions.” (14) 12 Up to this time, studies concerning the use of the Old Testament in the New have tended to focus on the hermeneutical strategy followed by the New Testament

isaiah 28:16 and the new testament

361

present appendix to examine this hypothesis in greater detail, it should be stated nevertheless that the kerygmatic and parenetic character of the New Testament appeal to Scripture needs to be accounted for in the analysis of the New Testament use of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16.13 Bearing these general remarks in mind, we now turn our attention to the question whether and if so to what extent the manner with which the New Testament made use of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 still exhibits any degree of continuity with the original message of the text. Would it be more accurate to say that the New Testament use of this Zion text is so novel and different that all that remains to observe in the relationship is discontinuity? Our response to this question serves an important hermeneutical purpose, given that the compelling nature of the now current New Testament interpretation of the Zion text of 28:16 is related thereto. It is clear that the New Testament authors read the Zion text of 28:16 in a different manner than the present author, whose study is based on the Masoretic text. This fact is related to a significant degree to the influence exercised by the Greek translation of the book of Isaiah. Where the Septuagint is concerned, one can demonstrate that the translators endorsed a Messianic interpretation of 28:16 on two particular points. Where the Hebrew text exhibited a degree of ambiguity with respect to temporal aspect, the Septuagint is clearly unequivocal. By translating the Hebrew construction dsy ynnh as ᾿Ιδοὺ

authors. This is still the case in Wilk 1998 and Wagner 2003. Stanley 2004 recently focused attention on the rhetorical strategy underlying Paul’s arguing with Scripture, thus exploring a new field of research in this area of New Testament studies. Stating that the majority of Paul’s addressees would have been unable either to read or study the biblical text for themselves—since both illiteracy and scarcity of bible scrolls were historical realities in the ancient world—Stanley tries to demonstrate weaknesses in a number of the assumptions scholars traditionally make about the way in which Paul and his churches interacted with the biblical text. According to Stanley, in every instance of quotation from Scripture more attention should be paid to the rhetorical effect Paul wanted to achieve with it. 13 Versteeg 1989:38–42 characterises the New Testament appeal to Scripture as typological (see also Ellis 1985:210–212) and distinguishes the use of the said designation from the allegorical method: “The NT quotation does not indicate a particular meaning or a deeper meaning of the OT text. The NT quotation places the OT text in the light of NT fulfilment. The constant between the OT biblical text and the NT quotation is not to be found in a plurality of meaning. The constant is the reliability of God in which the relationship can be located between type and anti-type, between promise and fulfilment.”

362

appendix

ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια, the Septuagint interpreted the Zion text of 28:16 without further ado as a promise for the future. While Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6 would appear to have depended on a different Greek text version on this point—since both texts read ᾿Ιδοὺ τίθημι—, both text versions nevertheless appear to point in a similar direction. This is even more evident with respect to the conclusion of Isa. 28:16, where the Greek text—the Septuagint and the version employed in the New Testament—has a noticeable plus when compared with the Hebrew text, namely the expression ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. Reference is made thereby to the aforementioned stone as object of faith, while the Hebrew text speaks of ‘believing’ in the absolute sense. The Septuagint’s addition of the words ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ made it possible to personify the stone mentioned in 28:16 and the possibility of a Messianic interpretation thus emerged. The manner with which the Zion text of 28:16 is explained in the New Testament can be traced back to a significant degree to the Greek translation of the book of Isaiah. Having established continuity between the New Testament use of the Zion text of 28:16 and the Greek translation thereof in the book of Isaiah, the question of continuity with the original message of the said Zion text and the question of the present day persuasiveness of this New Testament appeal to Scripture nevertheless remain unanswered. Since the Reformation, the Hebrew text of the Old Testament has served the churches of both the Catholic and the Protestant traditions as the point of departure for exegesis and preaching rather than the Greek, since the books of the Old Testament were written in the Hebrew language. In response to our initial question, therefore, it would seem reasonable at the very least that the Hebrew text of Isa. 28:16 be accounted for. Without any suggestion of completeness, I consider the following observations to be of importance in this regard:

1. In the context of the prophecy of judgement of Isa. 28:14–22, the prophet refers to the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion in 28:16. While the said salvific deeds are situated in the past, they were nevertheless oriented towards the future. The stone established by yhwh in Zion serves as a rock-solid and reliable foundation for God’s salvific plans for his people Israel. Yhwh’s decision to make Zion his dwelling place implies likewise his decision to create a place of hiding in Zion for the less fortunate among his people (14:32), a place of rest and a breathing space for the weary (28:12). Although Jerusalem’s leaders lack faith with respect to this salvific deed of

isaiah 28:16 and the new testament

363

yhwh and the said lack of faith occasions a dramatic announcement, the prophecy of judgement does not leave one with the impression that yhwh is going back on the promises He once made with respect to Zion. Even in the context of Isaiah’s prophecy of judgement, the terminology employed for ‘the stone in Zion’ precisely reinforces the reliability of the foundation yhwh had established in the past. It is here that we find the most important point of association with the New Testament preaching of Christ since the emphasis on the ongoing reliability of God’s salvific deeds contains an implicit opening towards the future. 2. In § 6.4.2. we observed that the manner with which the Zion tradition is given expression in the preaching of Isaiah has remained consistent to a large extent down through the years. The years of the Assyrian crisis must clearly have had an influence on the tone of Isaiah’s preaching. It was not Isaiah’s perspective on the Zion tradition itself that may have been subject to change through the years in terms of content, however, but the context within which the prophet made use of the Zion tradition. Even when we take the wider framework of Isaiah’s Zion preaching into consideration, there is no reason to presuppose that the other side of the coin of the prophet’s announcement of judgement over Jerusalem represented a rupture of the bond between yhwh and Zion. While the rejection of God’s former salvific deeds with respect to Zion are determinative in part of Isaiah’s judgement preaching in the context of 28:14–22, the same salvific deeds also disclose the prophet’s expectations for the future. The said salvific expectation is not dependent on the presence or absence of faith on the part of Israel. Faith as a precondition determines whether one is going to share in the expected future but does not determine the expected future itself, which can even come about in and through judgement. In line with Isaiah and inspired by his Zion preaching, later prophecies embroidered further on this apparent thread of salvific expectation with respect to Zion. The seed of the said salvific expectation, however, is to be found in the salvific deeds of yhwh with respect to Zion situated in the past as uniquely expressed by Isaiah in the Zion text of 28:16. 3. The New Testament considers the Old Testament salvific expectation with respect to Zion to have come to fulfilment in Jesus Christ. Just as the text from Ps. 118:22 in which the stone that had been rejected becomes a cornerstone, one of the first ‘stone texts’ to be explained early in the Christian tradition (see § 2.3.2.) and probably

364

appendix

likewise in the Jewish tradition (see § 2.4.2.) in Messianic terms, so too were the words of Isaiah concerning the stone in Zion from 28:16 related to the coming of Christ in the New Testament. Compared with the preaching of Isaiah, this association is a new perspective. The direct context within which the Zion text of 28:16 functions in Isaiah itself does not occasion a Messianic interpretation of the stone mentioned in the said text. Even though the Hebrew text of 28:16 does not provide a direct occasion for the New Testament preaching of Christ, however, this does not mean that the Zion text in question does not provide some kind of anchor for the said preaching. In the present instance, however, the movement clearly runs in the opposite direction, not from the Old to the New Testament but from the New to the Old.14 The explanation given by the New Testament to Zion as the place that bears the secret of Christ goes further than the words of Isaiah in 28:16, although it is not alien to the salvation-historical perspective within which Isaiah made use of the Zion tradition. 4. It is striking that the context within which Paul makes use of the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 in Rom. 9:33 exhibits a degree of similarity with the context within which the said Zion text functions in the book of Isaiah. In both instances, the context in question is loaded with words that bear the character of materialising judgement. In the case of Isaiah, this has to do with an explicit complaint and announcement of judgement addressed to the leaders of Jerusalem (28:14–22). The prophet detests their Egypt-oriented coalition politics, which he considers doomed to failure, although the deepest motivation of his announcement of judgement is rooted in their evident rejection of yhwh’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion (28:16). The rejection of yhwh’s salvific deeds is not only referred to in Isaiah 28, however, but also in Romans 9. In the chapter in question, Paul reflects on the mystery of his Jewish brothers’ rejection of Christ as ‘the end of the law, so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes’ (Rom. 10:4). He observes that Israel is not open towards righteousness by faith and that his brothers have stumbled against the stumbling stone that God established in Zion. We noted in

14 One of the focal points of the study of De Jong 2002 is that, seen from the perspective of the Old Testament as a whole, a movement from Old to New can also be observed with respect to the theme Zion.

isaiah 28:16 and the new testament

365

§ 2.3.1. that by mixing his reference to Isa. 28:16 with the ‘stone text’ of 8:14, Paul gave the said Zion text the significance of an announcement of judgement. In the context of Romans 9–11, the mixture of allusions is intended to underline the said rejection of Christ.15 The stumbling stone established in Zion was ultimately placed there by God himself.16 While it is clear that Paul interpreted the Zion text of 28:16 as a promise with respect to the future salvific deeds of God in Christ, it would appear to function in Romans within the framework of a rejection thereof of which Paul is sadly aware. The fact that Paul’s reflection on the mystery of this rejection makes appeal to the motif of obduracy and explicitly refers thereby to the same segment of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 28–33; Isa. 29:16 in Rom. 9:20 and Isa. 29:10 in Rom. 11:7; cf. Acts 28:25–28), confirms that Paul had accounted for the judgement context in which the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 originally resounded.17 5. In 1 Pet. 2:6, the Zion text of Isa. 28:16 functions in the context of an invitation to come to Christ. In contrast to Rom. 9:33, the Zion text of 28:16 is not mixed in 1 Peter with the words of Isaiah from 8:14. It is thus presented in a more positive formulation as a promise of salvation. The original judgement context of the Zion text of 28:16 also continues to resound in the context of 1 Pet. 2:6, however, on account of the fact that reference is likewise made to the ‘stone texts’ of 8:14 and Ps. 118:22 directly following the reference to 28:16. Furthermore, the notion of judgement is also given expression in the statement that those who stumble against

15 See Koch 1986:161f: “Erst die Einbeziehung von Jes 8,14b ergibt den Schriftbeleg, den Paulus im Zusammenhang von Röm 9,30–32 benötigt.” (See also Koch 1980:179) Cf. Stanley 1992:120: “Rather than extending the quotation several more lines to include the negative pronouncements already present in Isa 28, Paul chose to introduce words from a similar ‘stone’ passage in Isa 8 that would make the same point in clearer and more concise terms.” 16 Cf. Hofius 1993:169: “Hinsichtlich dessen, was in V. 32b+33a über Israel gesagt ist, darf nun allerdings auf keinen Fall übersehen werden, daß dem Schriftwort zufolge Gott selbst den ‘Stein des Anstoßens’ und ‘Fels des Zu-Fall-Kommens’ in Zion gelegt hat. Damit führt Paulus das Nein, mit dem die überwältigende Mehrheit Israels die δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ abweist, auf Gottes eigene Setzung zurück.” 17 I am inclined to question the position maintained by Dodd 1952:83 in this regard, which suggests that the Zion text of 28:16 is only employed to explain the prophecy concerning the stumbling stone from 8:14, “but does not seem to have been used as a testimony in its own right, or related to its context.”

366

appendix

the stone established in Zion (read: Christ) are destined to do so (1 Pet. 2:8). This statement is related in terms of content with Paul’s words concerning Israel’s obduracy in Romans 9–11. Taking the observations outlined above into account, it is possible to conclude that the Greek translation of Isa. 28:16 unmistakably influenced the New Testament interpretation of this Zion text. At the same time, however, the way in which the Zion text in question functions in the New Testament preaching of Christ is not in itself completely at odds with the Zion preaching of the prophet Isaiah as represented by the Hebrew text of 28:16. The foundations of Zion are proclaimed by Isaiah to be rock-solid. These foundations are rooted in yhwh’s decision to create a place of refuge in Zion for the unfortunate of his people (14:32), and place of rest and a breathing space for the weary (28:12). The rock-solid character of the foundations implies that yhwh, even in and through judgement, will continue to maintain Zion and ‘the spiritual reality for which Zion stands’ (cf. Mt. 11:28).18 Continuity between Isaiah’s Zion preaching on the one hand and the New Testament preaching of Christ on the other is to be found in the reliability of God’s salvific deeds with respect to Zion. The Zion text of Isa. 28:16 acquires its ongoing power of persuasion from the reliability of the said salvific deeds, which ultimately call for a response of faith in both the Old and the New Testaments. The persuasiveness of the New Testament witness to Christ is likewise based on the reliability of the same salvific deeds.

18

I borrow the latter formulation from De Jong 2002:42.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, P.R., “The Death of Hezekiah: A Pointer to the Future?”. In: P.R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament, London 1987, 172–180 (originally published in: M. Carrez et al. (ed.), De la Tôrah au Messie. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique biblique, Fs H. Cazelles, Paris 1981, 219–226). ——, “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah”. In: P.R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament, London 1987, 181–192 (originally published in: W.B. Barrick & J.R. Spencer (eds), In The Shelter of Elyon. Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature, Fs G.W. Alhström, JSOT.S 31, Sheffield 1984, 247–259). Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography, London 1967. Ahlström, G.W., The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. With a contribution by G.O. Rollefson (ed. D. Edelman), JSOT.S 146, Sheffield 1993. Aitken, K.T., “Hearing and Seeing: Metamorphoses of a Motif in Isaiah 1–39”. In: P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds), Among the Prophets. Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, JSOT.S 144, Sheffield 1993, 12–41. Albertz, R., “alp” in THAT II (19792), 413–420. Albl, M.C., “And Scripture Cannot be Broken.” The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, NT.S 96, Leiden 1999. Albrektson, B., Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations, STL 21, Lund 1963. Alonso Schökel, L., A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, SubBi 11, Rome 1988. Alt, A., “Jerusalems Aufstieg”, ZDMG 79 (1925), 1–19 (also published in: A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III (ed. M. Noth), Munich 1959, 243–257). Amsler, S., & Mury, O., “Jahweh et la sagesse du paysan. Quelques remarques sur Esaïe 28,23–29”, RHPhR 53 (1973), 1–5. Amsler, S., “μwq” in THAT II (19793), 635–641. André, G., “qrz” in TWAT II (1977), 686–689. Asen, B.A., “The Garlands of Ephraim: Isaiah 28.1–6 and the Marzē a ”, JSOT 71 (1996), 73–87. Auvray, P., Isaïe 1–39. Sources Biblique, Paris 1972. Avemarie, F., Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi (ed. H.-J. Becker et al.), Band II/4: YomaVersöhnungstag, Tübingen 1995. Barnard, L.W., “The Use of Testimonies in the Early Church and in the Epistle of Barnabas”. In: L.W. Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background, Oxford 1966, 109–135. Barré, M.L., “Of Lions and Birds: A Note on Isaiah 31.4–5”. In: P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds), Among the Prophets. Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, JSOT.S 144, Sheffield 1993, 55–59. Barstad, H.M., “Sheol lwav”. In: DDD (1999), 768–770. Barth, Ch., “rqb” in TWAT I (1973), 745–754. ——, “lvk” in TWAT IV (1984), 367–375. ——, “≈yl” in TWAT IV (1984), 567–572. ——, “g[l” in TWAT IV (1984), 582–586. Barth, H., Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, Neukirchen 1977. Barth, J., “πfevo f/v”, ZAW 33 (1913), 306–307. ——, “Zu f/v ‘Flut’ ”, ZAW 34 (1914), 69.

368

bibliography

Barthel, J., Prophetenwort und Geschichte. Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes. 6–8 und 28–31, FAT 19, Tübingen 1997. Barthélemy, D., Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 2: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations, OBO 50/2, Göttingen 1986. Barton, J., “Looking back on the 20th Century: 2. Old Testament Studies”, ET 110 (1999), 348–351. Bauckham, R., “James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude”. In: D.A. Carson & H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Fs B. Lindars, Cambridge 1988, 303–317. Beale, G.K., (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1994. Becker, U., Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178, Göttingen 1997. ——, “Jesajaforschung ( Jes 1–39)”, ThR 64 (1999), 1–37 and 117–152. Becking, B.E.J.H., The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study, SHANE 2, Leiden 1992. ——, “Chronology: A Skeleton without Flesh? Sennacherib’s Campaign as a CaseStudy”. In: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), “Like a Bird in a Cage.” The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOT.S 363, Sheffield 2003, 46–72. Beentjes, P.C., “Hezekiah and Isaiah: A Study on Ben Sira xlviii 15–25”. In: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament, Fs OTW & M.J. Mulder, OTS 25, Leiden 1989, 77–88. Begrich, J., “Jesaja 14,28–32”, ZDMG 86 (1933), 66–79. In: J. Begrich, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. W. Zimmerli), TB 21, Munich 1964, 121–131. Ben Zvi, E., “Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?”, JBL 109 (1990), 79–92. ——, “Malleability and its Limits: Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah as a CaseStudy”. In: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), “Like a Bird in a Cage.” The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOT.S 363, Sheffield 2003, 73–105. Berder, M., “La Pierre Rejetée par les Bâtisseurs”: Psaume 118,22–23 et son Emploi dans les Traditions Juives et dans le Nouveau Testament, EB 31, Paris 1996. Berger, U., Bohn, U., & Löffler, P., Jerusalem—Symbol und Wirklichkeit. Materialien zu einer Stadt, VIKJ 1, Berlin 1976. Berges, U., Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt, HBS 16, Freiburg 1998. ——, “Sion als thema in het boek Jesaja. Nieuwe exegetische benadering en theologische gevolgen”, TTh 39 (1999), 118–138. ——, “ ‘Ich bin der Mann, der Elend sah’ (Klgl 3,1) Zionstheologie als Weg aus der Krise”, BZ 44 (2000), 1–20. ——, “Personifications and Prophetic Voices of Zion in Isaiah and Beyond”. In: J.C. de Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet. The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist, OTS 45, Leiden 2001, 54–82. ——, “Jesaja”. In: J. Fokkelman & W. Weren (eds), De Bijbel Literair. Opbouw en gedachtegang van de bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties, Zoetermeer 2003, 203–221. Betz, O., Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte, Tübingen 1960. ——, “Zungenreden und süßer Wein. Zur eschatologischen Exegese von Jesaja 28 in Qumran und im Neuen Testament”. In: Bibel und Qumran. Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft, Fs H. Bardtke, Berlin 1968, 20–36. ——, “Firmness in Faith: Hebrews 11:1 and Isaiah 28:16”. In: B.P. Thompson, Scripture: Meaning and Method, Fs A.T. Hanson, Hull University Press 1987, 92–113. Beuken, W.A.M., “Jesaja 33 als Spiegeltext im Jesajabuch”, EThL 67 (1991), 5–35. ——, “Isa 29,15–24: Perversion Reverted”. In: F. Garcia Martínez, The Scriptures and the Scrolls, Fs A.S. van der Woude, Leiden 1992, 43–64. ——, “Isaiah 28: Is It Only Schismatics That Drink Heavily? Beyond The Synchronic Versus Diachronic Controversy”. In: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, OTS 34, Leiden 1995, 15–38.

bibliography

369

——, “Isaiah 30: A Prophetic Oracle Transmitted in Two Succesive Paradigms”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 1, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 369–397. ——, “Women and the Spirit, the Ox and the Ass. The First Binders of the Booklet Isaiah 28–32”, EThL 74/1 (1998), 5–26. ——, Isaiah II/2, HCOT, Leuven 2000. ——, Jesaja 1–12, HthKAT, Freiburg 2003. Beyse, K.-M., “vwj” in TWAT II (1977), 820–822. ——, “hax” in TWAT VI (1989), 856–858. ——, “wq” in TWAT VI (1989), 1223–1225. Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria, Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, Volume III, Brepols-Turnhout 1992. Blau, J., “Adverbia als psychologische und grammatische Subjekte/Praedikate im Bibelhebräisch”, VT 9 (1959), 130–137. Blenkinsopp, J., Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AnB, New York 2000 (A). ——, “Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah XXVIII 14–22)”, VT 50 (2000 B), 472–483. Boehmer, J., “Der Glaube und Jesaja. Zu Jes. 7,9 und 28,16”, ZAW 41 (1923), 84–93. Boertien, M., Het joodse leerhuis, van 200 voor tot 200 na Christus, Kampen 1974. Böhl, F., “Über der Verhältnis von Shetija-Stein und Nabel der Welt in der Kosmogonie der Rabbinen”, ZDMG 124 (1974), 253–270. Borowski, O., “Hezekiah’s Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria”, BA 58 (1995), 148–155. Botha, Ph., “ ‘No King Like Him . . .’: Royal Etiquette According to the Deuteronomistic Historian”. In: J.C. de Moor & H.F. van Rooy (eds), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, OTS 44, Leiden 2000, 36–49. Botterweck, G.J., Freedman, D.N., Lundbom, J., “≈rj” in TWAT III (1982), 230– 234. Botterweck, G.J., “[dy” in TWAT III (1982), 486–512. Branson, R.D., “rsy” in TWAT III (1982), 688–697. Braulik, G., “Gottes Ruhe—Das Land oder der Tempel? Zu Psalm 95,11”. In: E. Haag & F.-L. Hossfeld (eds), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen, Fs H. Groß, SBB 13, Stuttgart 1986, 33–44. Brenton, L.C.L., The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament with an English Translation and with Various Readings and Critical Notes, Grand Rapids 19757 (reprint; original edition: 1844). Brongers, H.A., “Some Remarks on the Biblical Participle halō ”. In: “Remembering All the Way . . .” A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentische Werkgezelschap in Nederland, OTS 21, Leiden 1981, 177–189. Brooke, G.J., “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 609–632. Broyles, C.C., & Evans, C.A., (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 1 + 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997. Bruce, F.F., “New Wine in Old Wine Skins: III. The Cornerstone”, ET 84 (1973), 231–235. Brueggemann, W., Isaiah 1–39, Westminster Bible Companion, Louisville-London 1998. Bühlmann, W., & Scherer, K., Sprachliche Stilfiguren der Bibel. Von Assonanz bis Zahlenspruch. Ein Nachschlagewerk, Giessen 19942. Burden, J.J., “The Use of a Parable in Isaiah 28:23–29”. In: W.C. van Wyk (ed.), Studies in Isaiah, OTWSA 22 (1979) and 23 (1980), Pretoria 1981, 42–52.

370

bibliography

Burns, J.B., “The Mythology of Death in the Old Testament”, SJT 26 (1973), 327– 340. Burrows, M., (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Vol. I: The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, New York 1950. Cahill, M., “Not a Cornerstone! Translating Ps 118,22 in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures”, RB 106 (1999), 345–357. Camp, L., Hiskija und Hiskijabild. Analyse und Interpretation von 2 Kön 18–20, MThA 9, Altenberge 1990. Carroll, R.P., “Blindsight and the Vision Thing: Blindness and Insight in the Book of Isaiah”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 1, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 79–93. Childs, B.S., Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, SBT II/3, London 1967. ——, Isaiah, OTL, Louisville 2001. ——, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture, Grand Rapids 2004. Chilton, B.D., The Glory of Israel; the Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum, JSOT. S 23, Sheffield 1983. ——, The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, The Aramaic Bible Vol. II, Edinburgh 1987. ——, “Two in One: Renderings of the Book of Isaiah in Targum Jonathan”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 547–562. Clements, R.E., God and Temple. The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1965. ——, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, JSOT.S 13, Sheffield 1980 (A). ——, Isaiah 1–39, NCBC, Grand Rapids 1980 (B). ——, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah”, Interp. 36 (1982), 117–129. ——, “μym” in TWAT IV (1984), 847–865. ——, “rav” in TWAT VII (1993), 933–950. ——, “The Politics of Blasphemy. Zion’s God and the Threat of Imperialism”. In: I. Kottsieper et al. (ed.), “Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, Fs O. Kaiser, Göttingen 1994, 231–246. ——, “A Light to the Nations: A Central Theme of the Book of Isaiah”. In: J.W. Watts & P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honour of John D.W. Watts, JSOT.S 235, Sheffield 1996, 57–69. ——, “Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest.” In: J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah, Fs W.A.M. Beuken, BEThL 132, Leuven 1997, 3–17. Clifford, R.J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, HSM 4, Cambridge 1972. ——, “Book of Isaiah (second Isaiah)”. In: Anchor Dictionary Bible, New York 1992, III 490–501. ——, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language”, CBQ 55 (1993), 1–17. Collins, T., Line-forms in Hebrew Poetry. A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets, Studia Pohl: Series Maior. Dissertationes scientificae de rebus orientis antiqui, Rome 1978. Conrad, J., “alp” in TWAT VI (1989), 569–583. Conrad, E.W., Reading Isaiah, Minneapolis 1991. Dalman, G., Jerusalem und sein Gelände, SDPI 4, Gütersloh 1930. Darr, K.P., Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God, Louisville 1994. Day, J., Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, Cambridge 1989. Déaut, R. le, Targum du Pentateuque, Tome II Exode et Lévitique (Sources Chrétiennes), Paris 1979.

bibliography

371

Deck, S., Die Gerichtsbotschaft Jesajas: Charakter und Begr ündung, FZB 67, Würzburg 1991. Deferrari, R.J., (ed.), The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol. 7, Writings of Saint Augustine, City of God Books VIII–XVI (tr. G.G. Walsh & G. Monahan), Washington 1950. ——, (ed.), The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Vol. 24, Writings of Saint Augustine, City of God Books XVII–XXII (tr. G.G. Walsh & D.J. Honan), Washington 1954. Delitzsch, F., Commentar über das Buch Jesaia, Leipzig 1889. Dietrich, W., Jesaja und die Politik, BEvTh 74, Munich 1976. Dillard, R.B., & Longman, T., An Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1994. Dimant, D., “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple”. In: A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, & J. Riaud (eds), Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Leuven-Paris 1986, 165–189. Doble, P., “The Psalm in Luke-Acts”. In: S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken, The Psalms in the New Testament, London-New York 2004, 83–117. Dodd, C.H., According to the Scriptures. The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology, London 1952. ——, “The Old Testament in the New.” In: G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1994, 167–181 (originally published in 1963 as a summary of According to the Scriptures). Dohmen, Ch., “Zur Gründung der Gemeinde von Qumran (1QS VIII–IX)”, RdQ 11 (1982), 81–96. Dommershausen, W., “ˆhk” in TWAT IV (1984), 68–79. ——, “μj,l”, in TWAT IV (1984), 538–547. Donner, H., Israel unter den Völkern. Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda, VT.S 11, Leiden 1964. ——, “Der Felsen und der Tempel”, ZDPV 93 (1977), 1–11. ——, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen, Teil 2, GAT 4, Göttingen 1987. Doyle, R., “Molek of Jerusalem?” In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 171–206. Driver, G.R., “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament II”, JThS 32 (1931), 250–257. ——, “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament V”, JThS 34 (1933), 33–44. ——, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX”, JThS 38 (1937), 36–50. ——, Semitic Writing from Pictograph to Alphabet. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1944, London 1948. ——, “Another Little Drink—Isaiah 28:1–22”. In: P.R. Ackroyd & B. Lindars (eds), Words and Meanings, Fs D.W. Thomas, London 1968, 47–67. Duhm, B., Der Prophet Jesaja, Göttingen 19143 (1st edition: 1892). Dumortier, J., Jeanne Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe. Introduction, texte critique et notes, Paris 1983. Eaton, J., “The Isaiah Tradition”. In: R. Coggins, A. Phillips & M. Knibb (eds), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, Fs P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 58–76. Ehrman, B.D., The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II, Epistle of Barnabas. Papias and Quadratus. Epistle to Diognetus. The Shepherd of Hermas, Cambridge 2003. Eichrodt, W., Der Herr der Geschichte. Jesaja 13–23/28–39, BAT, Stuttgart 1967. Eißfeldt, O., “Jahwe Zebaoth”. In: Kleine Schriften III, Tübingen 1966, 103–123 (originally published in: Miscellanea Academica Berolinensa, Berlin 1950, 128–150). ——, “Silo und Jerusalem”. In: Kleine Schriften III, Tübingen 1966, 417–425 (originally published in: Volume du Congrès Strasbourg 1956, VT.S 4, Leiden 1957, 138–147). Ellermeier, F., “Das Verbum vwj in Koh. 2,25. Eine exegetische, auslegungsgeschichtliche und semasiologische Untersuchung”, ZAW 75 (1963), 197–217. Ellis, E.E., Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, Edinburgh 1957.

372

bibliography

——, “How the New Testament uses the Old”. In: I.H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation. Essays on Principles and Methods, Exeter 1985, 199–219. ——, The Old Testament in Early Christianity, Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research, Tübingen 1991. Enns, P., “Apostolic Hermeneutic in the New Testament”, WTJ 65 (2003), 263–287. Epstein, I., (ed.), Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, London-JerusalemNew York 1974. Ernst, J., “ˆjlv” in TWAT VIII (1994), 71–79. Etz, D.V., “The Genealogical Relationships of Jehoram and Ahaziah, and of Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah”, JSOT 71 (1996), 39–53. Evans, C.A., To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, JSOT.S 64, Sheffield 1989. ——, “From Gospel to Gospel: The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 651–691. ——, (ed.), From Prophecy to Testament. The Function of the Old Testament in the New, Peabody 2004. Evans, E., Tertullian Adversus Marcionem. Books 1 to 3, Oxford 1972. Ewald, H., Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. Erster Band: Jesaja mit den übrigen älteren Propheten, Göttingen 18672. Exum, J.C., “Of Broken Pots, Fluttering Birds and Visions in the Night: Extended Simile and Poetic Technique in Isaiah”, CBQ 43 (1981), 331–352. ——, “Whom Will He Teach Knowledge? A Literary Approach to Isaiah 28”. In: D.J.A. Clines, Art and Meaning. Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, Sheffield 1982, 108–139. Fabry, H.-J., “rWx” in TWAT VI (1989), 973–983. ——, “j"zEr“m”' in TWAT V (1986), 11–16. Fewell, D.N., “Sennacherib’s Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18.13–19.37”, JSOT 34 (1986), 79–90. Fey, R., Amos und Jesaja. Abhängigkeit und Eigenständigkeit des Jesaja, Neukirchen 1963. Fischer, J., Das Buch Jesaias, übersetzt und erklärt, I. Teil: Kapitel 1–39. HSAT VII 1./1., Bonn 1937. Fischer, I., Tora für Israel—Tora für die Völker. Das Konzept des Jesajabuches, SBS 164, Stuttgart 1995. Flint, P.W., “The Isaiah Scrolls from the Judean Desert.” In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 481–489. Floß, J.P., “Biblische Theologie als Sprecherin der ‘Gefährlichen Erinnerung’ dargestellt an Jes 28,7–12”, BN 54 (1990), 60–80. Fohrer, G., “Zu Jes 7,14 im Zusammenhang von Jes 7,10–22”, ZAW 68 (1956), 54–56. ——, “Die Struktur der alttestamentlichen Eschatologie”, ThLZ 85 (1960 A), 401– 420. ——, Das Buch Jesaja. Band I, ZBK, Zurich 1960 (B). ——, Das Buch Jesaja. Band II, ZBK, Zurich 1962. ——, “Σιων —A. Zion-Jerusalem im Alten Testament”. In: TWNT VII (1964), 291– 318. ——, “Zion-Jerusalem im Alten Testament”. In: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1949–1966), BZAW 115, Berlin 1969, 195–241. ——, “Wandlungen Jesajas”. In: Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966– 1972), BZAW 155, Berlin 1981, 11–23 (originally published in Ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung, Fs Eilers, Wiesbaden 1967, 58–71). Fokkelman, J., Dichtkunst in de bijbel. Een handleiding bij literair lezen, Zoetermeer 2000. Fokkelman, J., & Weren, W., (eds), De Bijbel Literair. Opbouw en gedachtegang van de bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties, Zoetermeer 2003.

bibliography

373

Ford, J.M., “The Jewel of Discernment (A Study of Stone Symbolism)”, BZ 11 (1967), 109–116. Frahm, E., Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften, AfO.B 26, Horn 1997. Fuhs, H.F., “vWD” in TWAT II (1977), 195–199. ——, “har” in TWAT VII (1993), 225–266. Fullerton, K., “The Stone of Foundation”, AJSL 37 (1920/1), 1–50. ——, “Isaiah’s Attitude in the Sennacherib Campaign”, AJSL 42 (1925 A), 1–25. ——, “Isaiah 14:28–32”, AJSL 42 (1925 B), 86–109. Galil, G., The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah, SHCANE 9, Leiden 1996. Gallagher, W.R., Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. New Studies, SHCANE 18, Leiden 1999. Galling, K., Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels, BZAW 48, Giessen 1928. ——, “Jerusalem”. In: K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexicon, Tübingen 1937, 297–307. ——, “Serubbabel und der Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem”. In: A. Kuschke, Verbannung und Heimkehr, Fs W. Rudolph, Tübingen 1961, 67–96. Gamberoni, J., “hsj” in TWAT III (1982), 71–83. ——, “μwq” in TWAT VI (1989), 1252–1274. Garcia Martínez, F., & Tigchelaar, E.J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Volume One 1Q1–4Q273, Leiden 1997. Volume Two: 4Q274–11Q31, Leiden 1998 (20002). Gelston, A., “The Foundation of the Second Temple”, VT 16 (1966), 232–235. Gerleman, G., “twm” in THAT I (19783), 893–897. Gerstenberger, E., “hba” in THAT I (19783), 20–25. ——, “hsj” in THAT I (19783), 621–623. ——, “llp” in TWAT VI (1989), 606–617. Gese, H., “Kleine Beiträge zum Verständnis des Amosbuches”, VT 12 (1962), 417– 438. ——, “Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung”, ZThK 61 (1964), 10–26 (also in: H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion. Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie, BEvTh 64, Munich 1974, 113–129). ——, “Die strömende Geissel des Hadad und Jes. 28,15 und 18”. In: A. Kuschke & E. Kutsch, Archäologie und Altes Testament, Fs K. Galling, Tübingen 1970, 127–134. ——, “Der Messias”. In: H. Gese, Zur biblischen Theologie. Alttestamentliche Vorträge, Munich 1977, 128–151. Giesebrecht, F., “Über die Abfassungszeit der Psalmen”, ZAW 1 (1881), 276–332. Gilula, M., “ybix] in Isaiah 28,1—A Head Ornament”, TA 1 (1974), 128. Goldberg, J., “Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology”, Bib. 80 (1999), 360–390. Gonçalves, F.J., L’Expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la Littérature Hébraïque Ancienne, Paris 1986. ——, “The Isaiah Scroll”. In: Anchor Dictionary Bible, New York 1992, III 470–472. Good, E.M., Irony in the Old Testament, Sheffield 1981. Görg, M., “Die Bildsprache in Jes 28,1”, BN 3 (1977), 17–23. ——, “Jesaja als ‘Kinderlehrer’? Beobachtungen zur Sprache und Semantik in Jes. 28,10 (13)”, BN 29 (1985), 12–16. Gosse, B., “Isaïe 14,28–32 et les traditions sur Isaïe d’Isaïe 36–39 et Isaïe 20,1–6”, BZ 35 (1991), 97–98. ——, “Isaïe 28–32 et la rédaction d’ensemble du livre d’Isaïe”, SJOT 9 (1995), 75–82. Gowan, D.E., Eschatology in the Old Testament, Edinburgh 1986. Grabbe, L.L., (ed.), “Like a Bird in a Cage.” The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOT.S 363, Sheffield 2003. ——, “Of Mice and Dead Men: Herodotus 2.141 and Sennacherib’s Campaign in 701 BCE”. In: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), “Like a Bird in a Cage.” The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOT.S 363, Sheffield 2003, 119–140.

374

bibliography

Graffy, A., A Prophet Confronts His People. The Disputation Speech in the Prophets, Rome 1984. ——, “ ‘The Lord However Says This’. The Prophetic Disputation Speech”, ScrB 20 (1989), 2–8. Greßmann, H., “Der Eckstein”, PJ 6 (1910), 38–45. Grol, H.W.M. van, De versbouw in het klassieke Hebreeuws. Fundamentele verkenningen. Deel Een: Metriek, Amsterdam 1986. Groß, H., “dkl” in TWAT IV (1984), 573–576. ——, “lvm II”, TWAT V (1986), 74–77. Gruber, M.I., “Lies μybzk”. In: DDD (1999), 517–518. Guinot, J.-N., Théodoret de Cyrille, Commentaire sur Isaïe, introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, Sources Chrétiennes 276–295–315, Paris 1980–1984 (3 volumes). Gunkel, H., “Jesaja 33, eine prophetische Liturgie”, ZAW 42 (1924), 177–208. ——, Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels; zu Ende geführt von Joachim Begrich, Göttingen 19662 (1st edition: 1933). Haacker, K., “Glaube II/2. Altes Testament”, TRE 13, Berlin-New York 1984, 279– 289. Hagelia, H., Coram Deo. Spirituality in the Book of Isaiah, with Particular Attention to Faith in Yahweh, CB.OT 49, Stockholm 2001. Hallo, W.W., “Isaiah 28,9–13 and the Ugaritic Abecedaries”, JBL 77 (1958), 324– 338. ——, “Jerusalem under Hezekiah: An Assyriological Perspective”. In: L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York 1999, 36–50. Halpern, B., “ ‘The Excremental Vision’: The Doomed Priests of Doom in Isaiah 28”, HAR 10 (1986), 109–121. Hannah., D.D., “Isaiah within Judaism of the Second Temple Period”. In: S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament, London-New York 2005, 7–33. Hanson, A.T., The Living Utterances of God. The New Testament Exegesis of the Old, London 1983. Hardmeier, C., “Jesajaforschung im Umbruch”, VF 31 (1986), 3–31. ——, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas. Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–40, BZAW 187, Berlin 1990. Harl, M., Dorival, G., Munnich, O., La Bible Grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, Cerf 1988. Harris, J.R., Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, Berlin 1961. Hartenstein, F., Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHS in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition, WMANT 75, Neukirchen 1997. ——, “Tempelgründung als ‘fremdes Werk’. Beobachtungen zum ‘Ecksteinwort’ Jesaja 28,16–17”. In: M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog, Band I, FS O. Kaiser, BZAW 345/I, Berlin 2004. Hasel, G.F., The Remnant. The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, Michigan 1972. ——, “π[y” in TWAT III (1982), 710–718. Hausmann, J., Israels Rest. Studien zum Selbstverständnis der nachexilischen Gemeinde, BWANT 124, Stuttgart 1987. ——, “≈yq” in TWAT VII (1993), 26–29. Hayes, J.H., “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability”, JBL 82 (1963), 419–426. Hayes, J.H., & Irvine, S.A., Isaiah The Eighth-Century Prophet. His Times and His Preaching, Nashville 1987. Hays, R.B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven-London 1989. Hays, R.B., & Green, J.B., “The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers”. In: J.B. Green (ed.), Hearing the New Testament. Strategies for Interpretation, Grand RapidsCarlisle 1995, 222–238.

bibliography

375

Hays, R.B., The Conversion of the Imagination. Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture, Grand Rapids 2005. Healey, J.F., “Ancient Agriculture and the Old Testament (with Special Reference to Isaiah xxviii 23–29)”. In: J. Barton et al., Prophets, Worship and Theology. Studies in Prophetism, Biblical Theology and Structural and Rhetorical Analysis and the Place of Music in Worship, OTS 23 (1984), 108–119. ——, “Mot twm”. In: DDD (1999), 598–603. Heider, G.C., “Molech ˚lm”. In: DDD (1999), 581–585. Heim, K.M., “The Personification of Jerusalem and the Drama of Her Bereavement in Lamentations”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 129–169. Hendel, R.S., “The Date of the Siloam Inscription. A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies”, BA 59 (1996), 233–247. Herbert, A.S., The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Chapters 1–39, CNEB, Cambridge 1973. Hermisson, H.-J., “Zukunftserwartung und Gegenwartskritik in der Verkündigung Jesajas”, EvTh 33 (1973), 54–77. ——, “Die Frau Zion”. In: J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah, Fs W.A.M. Beuken, BEThL 132, Leuven 1997, 19–39. Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel, BWANT 5, Stuttgart 1965. ——, “Hiskia”, TRE 15, Berlin-New York 1986, 398–404. Hertzberg, H.W., “Der heilige Fels und das Alte Testament”, JPOS 12 (1932), 32– 42. Hess, R.S., & Wenham, G.J., (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999. Hess, R.S., “Hezekiah and Sennacherib in 2 Kings 18–20”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 23–41. Hillers, D.R., “Hôy and Hôy-Oracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect”. In: C.L. Meyers & M. O’Connor (eds), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, Fs D.N. Freedman, Winona Lake 1983, 185–188. Höffken, P., “Grundfragen von Jesaja 7,1–17 im Spiegel neuerer Literatur”, BZ 33 (1989), 25–42. ——, Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 1–39, NSKAT 18/1, Stuttgart 1993. ——, “Jesus Sirachs Darstellung der Interaktion des Königs Hiskija und des Propheten Jesaja (Sir 48:17–25)”, JSJ 31 (2000), 162–175. ——, Jesaja. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion, Darmstadt 2004. Hoffmann, H.W., Die Intention der Verkündigung Jesajas, BZAW 136, Berlin 1974. Hofius, O., “Zur Auslegung von Römer 9,30–33”. In: J. Mertin et al. (ed.), “Mit unsrer Macht ist nichts getan”, Fs D. Schellong, Frankfurt a.M. 1993, 163–174 (also published in: O. Hofius, Paulusstudien II, WUNT 143, Tübingen 2002, 155–166). Høgenhaven, J., “The Prophet Isaiah and Judaean Foreign Policy under Ahaz and Hezekiah”, JNES 49 (1990), 351–354. Holladay, W.L., Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage, Grand Rapids 1978. Honor, L.L., Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study, COHP 12, New York 1926. Hooke, S.H., “The Cornerstone of Scripture”. In: The Siege Perilous. Essays in Biblical Anthropology and Kindred Subjects, London 1956, 235–249. Hooker, M.D., “Beyond the Things That Are Written? Saint Paul’s Use of Scripture.” In: G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1994, 279–294. Hoop, R. de, “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach (Part I)”, JNWSL 26/1 (2000 A), 47–73 ——, “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach (Part II)”, JNWSL 26/2 (2000 B), 65–100. Howe, F.R., “Christ, the Building Stone, in Peter’s Theology”, BS 157 (2000), 35–43.

376

bibliography

Huber, F., Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja, BZAW 137, Berlin-New York 1976. Hübner, H., Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1. Prolegomena, Göttingen 1990. ——, “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament”. In: M. Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation I/1, Göttingen 1996, 332–372. Hulst, A.R., “μ[/ywg” in THAT II (19792), 290–325. Humbert, P., “La formule hébraïque en hineni suivi d’un participe”. In: P. Humbert, Opuscules d’un Hébraïsant, Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel 26, 1958, 54–59 (originally published in REJ 97 (1934), 58–64). ——, “Note sur yasad et ses dérivés”. In: Hebraïsche Wortforschung, VT.S 16, Fs W. Baumgartner, Leiden 1967, 135–142. Hutter, M., Hiskia König von Juda. Ein Beitrag zur judäischen Geschichte in assyrischer Zeit, GrTS 6, Graz 1982. Irwin, W.A., “The Exposition of Isaiah 14:28–32”, AJSL 44 (1927/8), 73–87. Irwin, W.H., Isaiah 28–33. Translation with Philological Notes, BibOr 30, Rome 1977. Israelstamm, J., & Slotki, J.J., Midrash Rabbah, Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, Leviticus (eds H. Freedman & M. Simon), London 19613. Jackson, J.J., “Style in Isaiah 28 and a Drinking Bout of the Gods (RS 24.258)”. In: J.J. Jackson & M. Kessler (eds), Rhetorical Criticism, Fs J. Muilenberg, PThMS 1, Pittsburgh 1974, 85–98. Jacob, E., “La pierre angulaire d’Esaïe 28.16 et ses échos néotestamentaires”, RHPhR 75 (1995), 3–8. Janowski, B., “Keruben und Zion. Thesen zur Entstehung der Zionstradition”. In: D. Daniels et al. (ed.), Ernten, was man sät, Fs K. Koch, Neukirchen 1991, 231–254. Janzen, W., “Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle”, BZAW 125, Berlin 1972. Jenkins, A.K., “Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13–xix 37”, VT 26 (1976), 284–298. Jenni, E., Das hebräische Pi el, Syntaktisch-semasiologische Untersuchung einer Verbalform im Alten Testament, Zurich 1968. ——, “ˆjb” in THAT I (19783), 272–275. ——, “lwdg” in THAT I (19783), 402–409. ——, “ywh” in THAT I (19783), 474–477. ——, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 1: Die Präposition Beth, Stuttgart 1992. Jensen, J., “Weal and Woe in Isaiah: Consistency and Continuity”, CBQ 43 (1981), 167–187. Jeppesen, K., “The Cornerstone (Isa 28:16) in Deutero-Isaianic Rereading of the Message of Isaiah”, StTh 38 (1984), 93–99. Jepsen, A., “ˆma” in TWAT I (1973), 313–348. ——, “hzj” in TWAT II (1977), 822–835. Jeremias, J. ( Johannes), Der Gottesberg. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der biblischen Symbolsprache, Gütersloh 1919. Jeremias, J. ( Joachim), “Κεφαλὴ γωνίας—᾿Ακρογωνιαῖος”, ZNW 29 (1930), 264–280. ——, “γωνία—ἀκρογωνιαῖος—κεφαλὴ γωνίας”, in TWNT I (1933), 792–793. ——, “Eckstein—Schlußstein”, ZNW 36 (1937), 154–157. ——, “λίθος”, in TWNT IV (1942), 272–283. Jeremias, J. ( Jörg), “Lade und Zion”. In: H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme Biblischer Theologie, Fs G. von Rad, Munich 1971, 183–198. ——, “aybn” in THAT II (19792), 7–26. Jobes, K.H., & Silva, M., Invitation to the Septuagint, Grand Rapids, 2000. Johnson, B., “hba” in TWAT I (1973), 24–27. ——, “fpvm” in TWAT V (1986), 93–107. ——, “qdx” in TWAT VI (1989), 903–924. Johnston, W.B., Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Hebrews and I and II Peter, Grand Rapids 1963 (eds D.W. Torrance & Th.F. Torrance).

bibliography

377

Jong, H. de, Van oud naar nieuw. De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen 2002. Joüon, P., “Une série de beth essentiae méconnus”, Bib. 4 (1923), 318–320. Juel, D., Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity, Philadelphia 1988. Kaiser, O., “Die Verkündigung des Propheten Jesaja im Jahre 701”, ZAW 81 (1969), 304–315. ——, Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 13–39, ATD 18, Göttingen 19762 (1st edition: 1973). ——, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja. Kapitel 1–12, ATD 17, Göttingen 19815 (1st edition: 1960). ——, “Jesaja/Jesajabuch”, TRE 16, Berlin-New York 1987, 636–658. Kedar-Kopfstein, B., “ˆwvl” in TWAT IV (1984), 595–605. ——, “hpc” in TWAT VII (1993), 840–849. Kellermann, D., “hag” in TWAT I (1973), 878–884. ——, “hl…g:[}” in TWAT V (1986), 1062–1066. ——, “rf[/hrf[” in TWAT VI (1989), 21–31. Kennett, R.H., Ancient Hebrew Social Life and Custom as Indicated in Law, Narrative and Metaphor. Schweich Lectures 1931, London 1933. Kilian, R., Jesaja 1–39, EdF 200, Darmstadt 1983. ——, Jesaja II 13–39, NEB, Würzburg 1994. Kissane, E.J., The Book of Isaiah, Translated From a Critically Revised Hebrew Text With Commentary, Vol. I (I–XXXIX), Dublin 19602 (1st edition: 1941). Klopfenstein, M.A., Die Lüge nach dem Alten Testament. Ihr Begriff, ihre Bedeutung und ihre Beurteilung, Zurich 1964. ——, “bzk” in THAT I (19783), 817–823. ——, “rqv” in THAT II (19792), 1010–1019. Knibb, M.A., “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 633–650. Knierim, R., “ggv” in THAT II (19792), 869–872. Knijff, H.W. de, Sleutel en Slot. Beknopte geschiedenis van de bijbelse hermeneutiek, Kampen 19852. Knipping, B., “rbv” in TWAT VII (1993), 1027–1040. Knoppers, G.N., “Jerusalem at War in Chronicles”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 57–76. Koch, D.-A., “Beobachtungen zum christologischen Schriftgebrauch in den vorpaulinischen Gemeinden”, ZNW 71 (1980), 174–191. ——, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHTh 69, Tübingen 1986. Koch, K., “Zur Geschichte der Erwählungsvorstellung in Israel”, ZAW 67 (1955), 205–226. ——, Was ist Formgeschichte? Methoden der Bibelexegese, Neukirchen 19743. ——, “qdx” in THAT II (19792), 507–530. Köhler, L., “Mitteilungen zu Jes. 28,15a und 18b”, ZAW 48 (1930). ——, “Alttestamentliche Wortforschung. Zwei Fachwörter der Bausprache in Jes. 28,16”, TZ(W) 3 (1947), 390–393. Konkel, A.H., “The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah”, VT 43 (1993), 462–482. Kooij, A. van der, “Die Septuaginta Jesajas als Dokument jüdischer Exegese. Einige Notizen zu LXX-Jes. 7.” In: Übersetzung und Deutung. Studien zu dem A.T. und seiner Umwelt, Fs A.R. Hulst, Nijkerk 1977, 91–102. ——, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments, OBO 35, Göttingen 1981. ——, “Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr.”, ZDPV 102 (1986), 93–109.

378

bibliography

——, “The Septuagint of Isaiah: Translation and Interpretation”. In: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah, BEThL 81, Leuven 1989, 127–133. ——, “Isaiah in the Septuagint”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997 (A), 513–529. ——, “Zur Theologie des Jesajabuches in der Septuaginta”. In: H.G. Reventlow (ed.), Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik, VWGT 11, Gütersloh 1997 (B), 9–25. ——, “The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18–19). In: J.C. de Moor & H.F. van Rooy (eds), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, OTS 44, Leiden 2000, 107–119. Korpel, M.C.A., & Moor, J.C. de, “Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry”. In: W. van der Meer & J.C. de Moor (eds), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry, JSOT.S 74, Sheffield 1988, 1–61. Korpel, M.C.A., “Introduction to the Series Pericope”. In: M.C.A. Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation Criticism. A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, Pericope 1, Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity, Assen 2000. Kosmala, H., “rbg” in TWAT I (1973), 901–919. Kraft, R.A., “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis”, JBL 79 (1960), 336–350. Kraus, H.-J., Die Königsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament. Untersuchungen zu den Liedern von Jahwes Thronbesteigung, BHTh 13, Tübingen 1951. ——, Psalmen. 1. Teilband, BKAT XV/1, Neukirchen 1960 (A), 342–345: “Exkurs 5: Die Verherrlichung der Gottesstadt.” ——, Psalmen. 2. Teilband, BKAT XV/2, Neukirchen 1960 (B), 879–883: “Exkurs 6: Königtum und Kultus in Jerusalem.” ——, Gottesdienst in Israel. Grundriß einer alttestamentlichen Kultgeschichte, Munich 19622. ——, Theologie der Psalmen, BKAT XV/3, Neukirchen 1979. Krauss, S., “Zion and Jerusalem. A Linguistic and Historical Study”, PEQ 77 (1945), 15–33. Kronholm, T., “[gr” in TWAT VII (1993), 347–350. Kuriakos, L.M., Non-paradigmatical Form of Weak Verbs in Masoretic Hebrew, Kerala State (India) 1973. Kutsch, E., “tyrb” in THAT I (19783), 339–352. Laato, A., “Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis in 701”, SJOT 2 (1987), 49–68. ——, Who is Immanuel? The Rise and Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations, Åbo 1988. ——, “Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib”, VT 45 (1995), 198–226. ——, “About Zion I will not be silent”: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity, CB.OT 44, Stockholm 1998. Laberge, L., La Septante d’Isaïe 28–33: Etude de tradition textuelle, Ottawa 1978. ——, “The Woe-Oracles of Isaiah 28–33”, EeT 13 (1982), 157–190. Labuschagne, C.J., “The Particles ˆhe and hNEhi”. In: C.J. Labuschagne et al. (ed.), Syntax and Meaning. Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis, OTS 18 (1973), 1–14. Landy, F., “Tracing the Voice of the Other: Isaiah 28 and the Covenant with Death”. In: J.C. Exum & D.J.A. Clines, The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, JSOT. S 143, Sheffield 1993, 140–162. Lang, B., “rpk” in TWAT IV (1984), 303–318. ——, “rkn” in TWAT V (1986), 454–462. LeBas, E.E., “Zechariah’s Enigmatic Contribution to the Cornerstone”, PEQ 82 (1950), 102–122. ——, “Zechariah’s Climax to the Career of the Cornerstone”, PEQ 83 (1951), 139– 155.

bibliography

379

Leeuwen, C. van, “Sanhérib devant Jérusalem”, OTS 14, Leiden 1965, 245–272. ——, Amos, POT, Nijkerk 1985. Levenson, J.D., Sinai and Zion. An Entry Into the Jewish Bible, Minneapolis 1985. ——, “Zion Traditions”. In Anchor Dictionary Bible, New York 1992, VI 1098–1102. Lewis, T.J., Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, HSM 39, Atlanta 1989. Liedke, G., & Petersen, C., “hrwt” in THAT II (19792), 1032–1043. Lindars, B., “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena”. In: G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1994, 137–145 (originally published in NTS 23 (1976), 59–66). Lindblom, J., “Der Eckstein in Jes. 28,16”. In: Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes S. Mowinckel septuagenario missae, Oslo 1955, 123–132. Lindemann, A., & Paulsen, H., (eds), Die Apostolischen Väter. Griechisch-Deutsche Parallelausgabe, Tübingen 1992. Lipiński, E., “μ[” in TWAT IV (1984), 177–194. Liwak, R., “Die Rettung Jerusalems im Jahre 701 v.Chr. Zum Verhältnis und Verständnis historischer und theologischer Aussagen”, ZThK 83 (1986), 137–166. Loader, J.A., “Was Isaiah a quietist?”. In: W.C. van Wyk (ed.), Studies in Isaiah, OTWSA 22 (1979) and 23 (1980), Pretoria 1981, 130–142. Löhr, M., “Jesaja-Studien III. Schlußwort: Zur Komposition der Kapp. 28–31”, ZAW 37 (1917–18), 73–76. Lohse, E., “Σιων—B. Zion-Jerusalem im nachbiblischen Judentum/C. Zion-Jerusalem im Neuen Testament”. In: TWNT VII (1964), 318–338. Lorenz, B., “Bemerkungen zum Totenkult im Alten Testament”, VT 32 (1982), 229–234. Loretz, O., “Das Prophetenwort über das Ende der Königstadt Samaria ( Jes. 28:1–4)”, UF 9 (1977), 361–363. Ludwig, T.M., “The Traditions of the Establishing of the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah”, JBL 92 (1973), 345–357. Lund, N.W., “The Presence of Chiasmus in the O.T.”, AJSL 46 (1930), 112–113. Lutz, H.M., Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Völker: Zur Vorgeschichte von Sach 12,1–8 und 14,1–5, WMANT 27, Neukirchen 1968. Maass, F., “rpk” in THAT I (19783), 842–857. Machinist, P., “Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah”, JAOS 103 (1983), 719–737. Madl, H., “ybx” in TWAT VI (1989), 893–898. Maiburg, U., “Christus der Eckstein. Ps. 118,22 und Jes. 28,16 im Neuen Testament und bei den lateinischen Vätern”. In: Vivarium, Fs T. Klauser, Münster 1984, 247–256. Maisler, B., “Das vordavidische Jerusalem”, JPOS 10 (1930), 181–191. Manross, L.N., “Bêth Essentiae”, JBL 73 (1954), 238–239. Marböck, J., “rxqII” in TWAT VII (1993), 112–117. Mare, W.H., “Zion”. In: Anchor Dictionary Bible, New York 1992, VI 1096–1097. Marti, K., Jesaja, KHC, Tübingen 1900. Martin-Achard, R., “rz” in THAT I (19783), 520–522. ——, “rkn” in THAT II (19792), 66–68. Maurer, Chr., “τίθημι”, in TWNT VIII (1969), 152–170. Mayer, W., “Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 BCE: The Assyrian View”. In: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), “Like a Bird in a Cage.” The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOT.S 363, Sheffield 2003, 168–200. McCarthy, D.J., “The Uses of w ehinnēh in Biblical Hebrew”, Bib. 61 (1980), 330–342. McHugh, J., “The Date of Hezekiah’s Birth”, VT 14 (1964), 446–453. McKelvey, R.J., “Christ the Cornerstone”, NTS 8 (1962), 352–359. McLaughlin, J.L., The Marzēa in the Prophetic Literature. References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence, VT.S 86, Leiden 2001.

380

bibliography

McMichael, S.J., “Did Isaiah Foretell Jewish Blindness and Suffering for not Accepting Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah? A Medieval Perspective”, BTB 26 (1996), 144–151. Meinhold, J., Joma—Der Versöhnungstag. Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang (G. Beer & O. Holtzmann, eds, Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung mit eingehenden geschichtlichen und sprachlichen Einleitungen und textkritischen Anhängen), Giessen 1913. Melugin, R.F., “The Conventional and the Creative in Isaiah’s Judgment Oracles”, CBQ 36 (1974), 301–311. Melugin, R.F., & Sweeney, M.A., (eds), New Visions of Isaiah, JSOT.S 214, Sheffield 1996. Melugin, R.F., “The Book of Isaiah and the Construction of Meaning”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 1, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 39–55. Merklein, H., Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief, StANT 33, Munich 1973. Mettinger, T.N.D., The Dethronement of Sabaoth. Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, CB.OT 18, Lund 1982. ——, “The Name and the Glory: the Zion-Sabaoth Theology and Its Exilic Successors”, JNWSL 24 (1998), 1–24. Millard, A.R., “Sennacherib’s Attack on Hezekiah”, TynB 36 (1985), 61–77. Miller, J.M., & Hayes, J.H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia 1986. Miscall, P.D., Isaiah, RNBC, Sheffield 1993. Mittmann, S., “Hiskia und die Philister”, JNWSL 16 (1990), 91–106. Möller, H., “Abwägen zweier Übersetzungen von Jes. 28,19b”, ZAW 96 (1984), 272– 274. Monson, J.M., “The Temple of Solomon: Heart of Jerusalem”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 1–22. Montgomery, J.A., “Notes on the Old Testament”, JBL 31 (1912), 140–146. Moor, J.C. de, & Watson, W.G.E., Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, AOAT 42, Neukirchen 1993. Morrison, A.W., Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. A Harmony of the Gospels, Grand Rapids 1972 (eds D.W. Torrance & Th.F. Torrance). Mosca, P.G., “Jes. 28:12e. A response to J.J.M. Roberts”, HThR 77 (1984), 113–117. Mosis, R., “ld'g”: in TWAT I (1973), 927–956. ——, “dsy” in TWAT III (1981), 668–682. ——, “bzk” TWAT IV (1982), 111–130. ——, “bvq” in TWAT VII (1993), 197–205. Motyer, J.A., The Prophecy of Isaiah, Leicester 1993. Moyise, S., “Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament out of Context?”, Anvil 11 (1994), 133–143. ——, (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament, Fs J.L. North, JSNT.S 189, Sheffield 2000. ——, “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” In: S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament, Fs J.L. North, JSNT.S 189, Sheffield 2000, 14–41. ——, The Old Testament in the New. An Introduction, London-New York 2001. ——, “Intertextuality and Biblical Studies: A Review”, Verbum et Ecclesia 23 (2002), 418–431 (A). ——, “Can We Use the New Testament the Way the New Testament Authors used the Old Testament?”, IDS 36 (2002), 643–660 (B). Moyise, S., & Van Rensburg, F.J., “Isaiah in 1 Peter 2:4–10. Applying Intertextuality to the Study of the Old Testament in the New”, Ekklesistikos Pharos 84 (2002), 12–30 (C). Moyise, S., “Die Ou Testament in die Nuwe Testament: interpretasiemodelle”, IDS 37 (2003), 131–142.

bibliography

381

Moyise, S., & Menken, M.J.J., (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament, London-New York 2005. Moyise, S., “Isaiah in 1 Peter”. In: S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament, London-New York 2005, 175–188. Müller, H.-P., “Die Konstruktionen mit hinnē ‘siehe’ und ihr sprachgeschichtlicher Hintergrund”, ZAH 2 (1989), 45–76. ——, “μmh” in TWAT II (1977), 449–454. ——, “aybn” in TWAT V (1986), 140–163. ——, “Chemosh vwmk”. In: DDD (1999), 186–189. Muller, K., Anstoß und Gericht. Eine Studie zum jüdischen Hintergrund des paulinischen SkandalonBegriffs, StANT 19, Munich 1969. Münderlein, G., “llg” in TWAT II (1977), 21–24. Muraoka, T., Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, Leiden 1985. Muszynski, H., Fundament, Bild und Metapher in den Handschriften aus Qumran. Studie zur Vorgeschichte des ntl. Begriffs ΘEMELIOS, AnBib 61, Rome 1975. Na aman, N., “Sennacherib’s Letter to God on His Campaign to Judah”, BASOR 214 (1974), 25–39. ——, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps”, VT 29 (1979), 61–86. ——, “Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria”, TA 21 (1994), 235–254. ——, “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research”, ZAW 107 (1995), 179–195. ——, “New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b–35)”, Bib. 81 (2000), 393–402. ——, “Updating the Messages: Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kings 19.9b–35) and the Community of Babylonian Deportees”. In: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), “Like a Bird in a Cage.” The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, JSOT.S 363, Sheffield 2003, 201–220. Nicholson, P.T., & Shaw, I., (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge 2000. Nicole, R., “The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament”. In: G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1994, 13–28 (originally published in C.F.H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible, Grand Rapids 1958, 135–151). Niehr, H., “Bedeutung und Funktion kanaanäischer Traditionselemente in der Sozialkritik Jesajas”, BZ 28 (1984), 69–81. ——, “vr…P…” in TWAT VI (1989), 782–787. Noordegraaf, A., “Psalm 118:22,23 in het Nieuwe Testament”, TR 30 (1987), 244– 263. Norin, S., “The Age of the Siloam Inscription and Hezekiah’s Tunnel”, VT 48 (1998), 37–48. Noth, M., “Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition”. In: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. H.W. Wolff ), TB 6, Munich 1957, 172–187 (originally published in ATS 8 (1950), 28–46). O’Connell, R.H., Concentricity and Continuity. The Literary Structure of Isaiah, JSOT.S 188, Sheffield 1994. Oded, B., “History vis-à-vis Propaganda in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions”, VT 48 (1998), 423–425. Oeming, M., “hnp” in TWAT VI (1989), 626–629. ——, “ lqv” in TWAT VIII (1994), 454–458. Ohmann, H.M., Een woord gesproken op zijn tijd. Hoe lezen wij Jesaja 1–39, Franeker s.d. O’Kane, M., “Isaiah: A Prophet in the Footsteps of Moses”, JSOT 69 (1996), 29–51. Ollenburger, B.C., Zion, the City of the Great King. A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult, JSOT.S 41, Sheffield 1987.

382

bibliography

——, “Zion”. In: The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford 1993, 830. Olley, J.W., “Notes on Isaiah XXXII 1, XLV 19, 23 and LXIII 1”, VT 33 (1983), 446–453. ——, “ ‘Hear the Word of Yahweh’: The Structure of the Book of Isaiah in 1QIsaa”, VT 43 (1993), 19–49. ——, “ ‘Trust in the Lord’: Hezekiah, Kings and Isaiah”, TynB 50 (1999), 59–77. Oss, D.A., “The Interpretation of the ‘Stone’ Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study”, JETS 32 (1989), 181–200. Oswalt, J.N., The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39. NIC, Grand Rapids 1986. ——, “The Kerygmatic Structure of the Book of Isaiah”. In: J.E. Coleson & V.H. Matthews (eds), “Go to the Land I Will Show You”, Fs D.W. Young, Winona Lake 1996, 143–158. Otto, E., Jerusalem—die Geschichte der Heiligen Stadt. Von den Anfängen bis zur Kreuzfahrerzeit, Stuttgart 1980 (A). ——, “El und jhwh in Jerusalem: Historische und theologische Aspekte einer Religionsintegration”, VT 30 (1980 B), 316–329. ——, “ˆwyx” in TWAT VI (1989), 994–1028. Otzen, B., “Some Text-problems in 1QS”, StTh 11 (1957), 89–98. ——, “Israel under the Assyrians. Reflections on Imperial Policy in Palestine”. In: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, Vol. XI, Fs G. Gerleman, Leiden 1978, 96–110. Peels, H.G.L., The Vengeance of God. The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament, OTS 31, Leiden 1995. Perdue, L.G., The Collapse of History, Minneapolis 1994. Person, R.F., “II Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39: A Text Critical Case Study in the Redaction History of the Book of Isaiah”, ZAW 111 (1999), 373–379. Petersen, D.L., “Isaiah 28, A Redaction Critical Study”. In: P.J. Achtemeier (ed.), SBL. SPS 1979 vol. 2, Missoula, 101–122. Petersen, D.L., Richards, K.H., Interpreting Hebrew Poetry, Minneapolis 1992. Pfeiffer, G., “Entwöhnung und Entwöhnungsfest im Alten Testament: der Schlüssel zu Jesaja 28,7–13?”, ZAW 84 (1972), 341–347. Polman, A.D.R., Het Woord Gods bij Augustinus, Kampen 1955. Pope, M.H., “The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit”. In: G.D. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect, Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, Winona Lake 1981, 159–179. Porter, S.E., & Pearson, B.W.R., “Isaiah through Greek Eyes: The Septuagint of Isaiah”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 531–546. Porter, S.E., “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament”. In: C.A. Evans & J.A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, JSNT.S 148, Sheffield 1997, 79–96. Porteous, N.W., “Jerusalem-Zion: The Growth of a Symbol”. In: A. Kuschke, Verbannung und Heimkehr, Fs W. Rudolph, Tübingen 1961, 235–252. Poznanski, S., “Zu πfevo f/v”, ZAW 36 (1916), 119–120. Preuß, H.D., “j/n/hjwnm” in TWAT V (1986), 297–307. ——, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Band 2 (Israels Weg mit jhwh), Stuttgart 1992. Pringle, W., J. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Translated From the Original Latin, and Collated with the Latest French Version, Vol. II, Grand Rapids 1948. Procksch, O., Jesaia I, KAT, Leipzig 1930 (A). ——, “Das Jerusalem Jesajas”, PJ 26 (1930 B), 12–40. Prostmeier, F.R., Der Barnabasbrief, Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern, Achter Band, Göttingen 1999. Provan, I.W., Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomic History, BZAW 172, Berlin 1988. Puech, E., “Milcom μklm”. In: DDD (1999), 575–576.

bibliography

383

Pulikottil, P., Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran. The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa, JSP.S 34, Sheffield 2001. Rabbinowitz, J., Midrash Rabbah, Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, Deuteronomy (eds H. Freedman & M. Simon), London 19613. Rad, G. von, “Die Stadt auf dem Berge”, EvTh 9 (1948/1949), 439–447. ——, “Das Werk Jahwes”. In: Studia Biblica et Semitica, Fs Th.C. Vriezen, Wageningen 1966, 290–298. ——, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Band 1: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels, Munich 19787. ——, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Band 2: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels, Munich 19807. Reider, J., “Etymological Studies in Biblical Hebrew”, VT 2 (1952), 113–130. Rendtorff, R., “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja”, VT 34 (1984), 295–320. ——, “The Book of Isaiah: A Complex Unity, Synchronic and Diachronic Readings”. In: E.H. Lovering (ed.), SBL.SPS 1991, Atlanta, 8–20 (also published in: R.F. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney (eds), New Visions of Isaiah, JSOT.S 214, Sheffield 1996, 32–49). ——, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Ein kanonischer Entwurf. Band 1: Kanonische Grundlegung, Neukirchen 1999. ——, “Israels ‘Rest’. Unabgeschlossene Überlegungen zu einem schwierigen Thema der alttestamentlichen Theologie”. In: A. Graupner et al. (ed.), Verbindungslinien, Fs W.H. Schmidt, Neukirchen 2000, 265–279. ——, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Ein kanonischer Entwurf. Band 2: Thematische Entfaltung, Neukirchen 2001. Renz, Th., “The Use of the Zion Tradition in the Book of Ezekiel”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 77–103. Ridderbos, J., Jesaja I, KVHS, Kampen 1922. Ridderbos, N.H., “Enkele beschouwingen naar aanleiding van ta aminu in Jes. 7:9”. In: Schrift en Uitleg, Fs W.H. Gispen, Kampen 1970, 167–178. Ringgren, H., “vqy” in TWAT III (1982), 866–868. ——, “db[” in TWAT V (1986), 982–997. ——, “hc[” in TWAT VI (1989), 413–432. ——, “≈WP” in TWAT VI (1989), 544–547. ——, “ayq” in TWAT VII (1993), 18–19. Rise, G., “Isa 28:1–22 and the New English Bible”, JRT 30 (1973/1974), 13–17. Roberts, B.J., “The Second Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsb)”, BJRL 42 (1959/ 1960), 132–144. Roberts, J.J.M., “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition”, JBL 92 (1973), 329– 344. ——, “Myth Versus History”, CBQ 38 (1976 A), 1–13. ——, “Zion Tradition”. In: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible —Suppl., Nashville 1976 (B), 985–987. ——, “A Note on Isa. 28:12”, HThR 73 (1980), 49–51. ——, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire”. In: T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, Tokyo-Winona Lake 1982 (A), 93–108. ——, “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology”, Interp. 36 (1982 B), 131–143. ——, “The Divine King and the Human Community in Isaiah’s Vision of the Future”. In: H.B. Huffmon, F.A. Spina & A.R.W. Green (eds), The Quest for the Kingdom of God, Fs G.E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake 1983 (A), 127–136. ——, “Isaiah 33: An Isaianic Elaboration of the Zion Tradition”. In: C.L. Meyers & M. O’Connor, The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, Fs D.N. Freedman, Winona Lake 1983 (B), 15–25. ——, “Yahweh’s Foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16)”, JBL 106/1 (1987), 27–45. ——, “Double Entendre in First Isaiah”, CBQ 54 (1992), 39–48.

384

bibliography

Rogerson, J., & Davies, P.R., “Was the Siloam Tunnel built by Hezekiah?”, BA 59 (1996), 138–149. Rohland, E., Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten, diss. Heidelberg, 1956. Rost, L., Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, BWANT III 6, Stuttgart 1926. ——, “Mitteilungen zu Jesaja 28,1ff ”, ZAW 53 (1935), 292. Routledge, R.L., “The Siege and Deliverance of the City of David in Isaiah 29,1–8”, TynB 43 (1992), 181–190. Rowley, H.H., “Hezekiah’s Reform and Rebellion”, BJRL 44 (1961/1962), 395–431. Rudman, D., “Is the Rabshakeh also Among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings xviii 17–35”, VT 50 (2000), 100–110. Ruiten, J. van, & Vervenne, M., (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah, Fs W.A.M. Beuken, BEThL 132, Leuven 1997. Ruppert, L., “≈['y:” in TWAT III (1982), 718–751. Rüterswörden, U., “[mv” in TWAT VIII (1994), 255–279. Sabottka, L., “Is 30,27–33: Ein Uebersetzungsvorschlag”, BZ 12 (1968), 241–245. Saebø, M., “rsy” in THAT I (19783), 738–742. ——, “ry[x” in TWAT VI (1989), 1083–1087. Satterthwaite, Ph E., “Zion in the Songs of Ascents”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 105–128. Sawyer, J.F.A., “h[t” in THAT II (19792), 1055–1057. ——, The Fifth Gospel. Isaiah in the History of Christianity, Cambridge 1996. Schmid, H., “Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem”, ZAW 67 (1955), 168– 197. Schmidt, B.B., Israel’s Beneficent Dead. Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition, Winona Lake 1996 (reprint of Tübingen 1994). Schmidt, H. (Hans), Die großen Propheten ( Jesaja), SAT 2,2, Göttingen 19232. ——, Der Heilige Fels in Jerusalem. Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie, Tübingen 1933. Schmidt, H. (Helmut), Israel, Zion und die Völker, Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Verständnis des Universalismus im Alten Testament, Marburg 1968. Schmidt, W.H., “Jerusalemer El-Traditionen bei Jesaja. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich zum Vorstellungskreis des göttlichen Königtums”, ZRGG 16 (1964), 302–313. ——, “dsy” in THAT I (19783), 736–738. Schmitt, J.J., Isaiah and His Interpreters, New York 1986. ——, “Samaria in the Books of the Eighth-Century Prophets”. In: S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken. Memorial Essays for G.W. Ahlström, JSOT.S 190, Sheffield 1995, 355–367. ——, “The City as Woman in Isaiah 1–39”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 1, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 95–119. Schmoldt, H., “qt[” in TWAT VI (1989), 487–489. Schneider, D., Der Prophet Jesaja, 1–39, WStB, Wuppertal 1988. Schoors, A., Jesaja, BOT, Roermond 1972. ——, “Historical Information in Isaiah 1–39”. In: J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah, Fs W.A.M. Beuken, BEThL 132, Leuven 1997, 75–93. ——, Die Königreiche Israel und Juda im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Die assyrische Krise, Biblische Enzyklopädie Band 5 (eds W. Dietrich & W. Stegemann), Stuttgart 1998. Schottroff, W., “[dy” in THAT I (19783), 682–701. ——, “bvq” in THAT II (19793), 684–689. Schreiner, J., Sion-Jerusalem. Jahwes Königssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament, StANT 7, Munich 1963. Schröten, J., Entstehung, Komposition und Wirkungsgeschichte des 118. Psalms, BBB 95, Weinheim 1995.

bibliography

385

Schuman, N.A., “Jesaja 28:23–29: Een boerengelijkenis als politieke profetie. Ook een manier van exegetiseren”. In: T. Baarda et al. (ed.), Segmenten: Studie op het gebied van de theologie, VU Amsterdam 1981, 83–141. Schüpphaus, J., “[lb” in TWAT I (1973), 658–661. Schwemer, A.M., “Zum Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos in den Schriften der jüdischen Diaspora Ägyptens in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit”. In: F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger (eds), Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition, WUNT 92, Tübingen 1996, 67–109. Scobie, C.H.H., “Israel and the Nations: An Essay in Biblical Theology”, TynB 43.2 (1992), 283–305. Sedlmeier, F., “‘Wer glaubt, der wird nicht weichen’ ( Jesaja 28,16)”, TTZ 109 (2000), 38–53. Seebass, H., Beyerle, S., & Grünwaldt, K., “rqv” in TWAT VIII (1994), 466–472. Seeligmann, I.L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of Its Problems, Mededelingen en Verhandelingen no. 9 van het Voor-aziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux”, Leiden 1948. Seidl, Th., “hgv/ggv” in TWAT VIII (1994), 1058–1065. Seitz, C.R., Zion’s Final Destiny. The Development of the Book of Isaiah. A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39, Minneapolis 1991. ——, “Book of Isaiah (first Isaiah)”. In: Anchor Dictionary Bible, New York 1992, III 472–488. ——, “Book of Isaiah (third Isaiah)”. In: Anchor Dictionary Bible, New York 1992, III 501–507. ——, “On the Question of Divisions Internal to the Book of Isaiah”. In: E.H. Lovering (ed.), SBL. SPS 1993 (A), Atlanta, 260–266. ——, “Account A and the Annals of Sennacherib: A Reassessment”, JSOT 58 (1993 B), 47–57. ——, Isaiah 1–39. IntBCTP, Louisville 1993 (C). Selman, M.J., “Jerusalem in Chronicles”. In: R.S. Hess & G.J. Wenham (eds), Zion, City of Our God, Grand Rapids 1999, 43–56. Selms, A. van, “Isaiah 28,9–13: An Attempt to Give a New Interpretation”, ZAW 85 (1973), 332–339. Seybold, K., “lmg” in TWAT II (1977), 24–35. Shea, W.H., “Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign”, JBL 104 (1985), 401– 418. Simian-Yofre, H., Fabry, H.-J., “hF,m”' in TWAT IV (1984), 818–826. Skarsaune, O., “Scriptural Interpretation in the Second and Third Centuries”. In: M. Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation I/1, Göttingen 1996, 373–450. Smelik, K.A.D., “ ‘Zegt toch tot Hizkia’; een voorbeeld van prophetische geschiedschrijving”. In: K.A. Deurloo et al. (ed.), ACEBT 2, Kampen 1981, 50–67. ——, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii”. In: J.C. de Moor et al., Crises and Perspectives. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and International Literature, OTS 24, Leiden 1986, 70–93. ——, “King Hezekiah Advocates True Prophecy. Remarks on Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii // II Kings xviii and xix”. In: K.A.D. Smelik, Converting the Past, Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography, OTS 28, Leiden 1992, 93–128. Smith, J.Z., “Jerusalem: The City as Place”. In: P.S. Hawkins (ed.), Civitas. Religious Interpretations of the City, Atlanta 1986, 25–38. Snijders, L.A., Jesaja I, POT, Nijkerk 1969. ——, “rwz/rz” in TWAT II (1977), 556–564. Snodgrass, K.R., “I Peter II.1–10: Its Formation and Literary Affinities”, NTS 24 (1977), 97–106. ——, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New”. In: G.K. Beale (ed.), The Right

386

bibliography

Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids 1994, 29–51 (originally published in D.A. Black & D.S. Dockery, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids 1991). Soggin, J.A., “lvm”, THAT I (19783), 930–933. ——, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. Second, completely revised and updated edition, London 1993. Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. III: The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan, Leiden 1962. ——, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. A Presentation of Problems with Suggestions to Their Solution, Leiden 1966. Spieckermann, H., Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, Göttingen 1982. ——, “Stadtgott und Gottesstadt. Beobachtungen im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament”, Bib. 73 (1992), 1–31. Stähli, H.-P., “hag” in THAT I (19783), 379–382. ——, “≈[y” in THAT I (19783), 748–753. Stanley, C.D., Paul and the Language of Scripture. Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, Cambridge 1992. ——, Arguing with Scripture. The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul, New YorkLondon 2004. Stansell, G., “Isaiah 32: Creative Redaction in the Isaiah Tradition”. In: K.H. Richards (ed.), SBL.SPS 1983, Chico, 1–12. ——, “Isaiah 28–33: Blest Be the Tie that Binds (Isaiah Together)”. In: R.F. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney (eds), New Visions of Isaiah, JSOT.S 214, Sheffield 1996, 68–103. Steck, O.H., “Jerusalemer Vorstellungen vom Frieden und ihre Abwandlungen in der Prophetie des alten Israels”. In: G. Liedke (ed.), Frieden—Bibel—Kirche, StuttgartMunich 1972 (A), 75–95. ——, Friedensvorstellungen im alten Jerusalem. Psalmen. Jesaja. Deutero-jesaja, ThSt 111, Zurich 1972 (B). ——, “Strömungen theologischer Tradition im Alten Israel.” In: O.H. Steck, Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien, TB 70, Munich 1982, 291–317. ——, “Zion als Gelände und Gestalt. Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testaments”, ZThK 86 (1989), 261–281. ——, Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsa). Schreibweise als Leseanleitung für ein Prophetenbuch, SBS 173/1 and 173/2 (Textheft), Stuttgart 1998. Stegemann, U., “Der Restgedanke bei Isaias”, BZ 13 (1969), 163–186. Steins, G., “≈yx” in TWAT VI (1989), 1028–1034. Stemberger, G., “Exegetical Contacts between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire”. In: M. Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation I/1, Göttingen 1996, 569–486. Stenning, J.F., The Targum of Isaiah. Edited with a Translation, Oxford 1949. Stewart, A.C., “The Covenant with Death in Isaiah 28”, ET 100 (1988), 375–377. Stinespring, W.F., “Daughter of Zion”. In: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible—Suppl., Nashville 1976, 985. Stolz, F., “μmh” in THAT I (19783), 502–504. ——, “ˆwyx” in THAT II (19792), 543–551. ——, “jwn” in THAT II (19792), 43–46. ——, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem. Studien zur altorientalischen, vor- und frühisraelitischen Religion, BZAW 118, Berlin 1970. ——, “Der Streit um die Wirklichkeit in der Südreichsprophetie des 8. Jahrhunderts”, WuD 12 (1973), 9–30. Stuhlmacher, P., Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 2. Von der Paulusschule bis zur Johannesoffenbarung. Der Kanon und seine Auslegung, Göttingen 1999. Sweeney, M.A., “The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research”, CRBS 1 (1993–A), 141– 162.

bibliography

387

——, “On Multiple Settings in the Book of Isaiah”. In: E.H. Lovering Jr. (ed.), SBL. SPS 1993, Atlanta 1993 (B), 267–273. ——, Isaiah 1–39. With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16, Grand Rapids 1996. Talmon, S., “The Biblical Concept of Jerusalem”, JES 8 (1971), 300–316. Talstra, E., Oude en Nieuwe Lezers. Een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van het Oude Testament, Ontwerpen deel II, Kampen 2002. ——, “Zou er ook wetenschap zijn bij de Allerhoogste?” (Psalm 73:11), inaugural address, Amsterdam 2003. Tan, K.H., The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, MSSNTS 91, Cambridge 1997. Tanghe, V., “Dichtung und Ekel in Jesaja XXVIII 7–13”, VT 43 (1993), 235–260. Tate, M.E., “The Book of Isaiah in Recent Study”. In: J.W. Watts & P.R. House (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve, Fs J.D.W. Watts, JSOT.S 235, Sheffield 1996, 22–56. Thexton, S.C., “A Note on Isaiah XXVIII 25 and 28”, VT 2 (1952), 81–83. Thomas Aquinas, Expositio Super Isaiam Ad Litteram. In: Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae De Aquino, Iussu Leonis XIII P.M. Edita, Tomus XXVIII, Rome 1974. Toorn, K. van der, “Echoes of Judaean Necromancy in Isaiah 28,7–22”, ZAW 100 (1988), 199–217. ——, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel. Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, SHCANE 7, Leiden 1996. Tov, E., “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT-S 52, Leiden 1997, 491–511. Tränkle, H., Q.S.F. Tertulliani Adversus Iudaeos. Mit Einleitung und kritischem Kommentar, Wiesbaden 1964. Tromp, N.J., Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, Rome 1969. Tropper, J., Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, NeukirchenVluyn 1989. Tsevat, M., “ˆjb” in TWAT I (1973), 588–592. Ulrich, E., “An Index to the Contents of the Isaiah Manuscripts from the Judean Desert”. In: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, Vol. 2, VT.S 52, Leiden 1997, 477–480. Vanoni, G., “zgr” in TWAT VII (1993), 326–330. Veenhof, K.R., Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Großen, GAT 11, Göttingen 2001. Vermeylen, J., Du prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël I, Paris 1977. ——, (ed.), The Book of Isaiah. Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, Leuven 1989. ——, “Hypothèses sur l’Origine d’Isaïe 36–39”. In: J. van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (eds), Studies in the Book of Isaiah, Fs W.A.M. Beuken, BEThL 132, Leuven 1997, 95–118. Versteeg, J.P., “Het gebruik van het Oude Testament door het Nieuwe Testament, met name in het evangelie naar Mattheüs”. In: J.P. Versteeg, Geest, ambt en uitzicht. Theologische opstellen, Kampen 1989, 32–42. Vetter, D., “hnh”, THAT I (19783), 504–507. ——, “hzj” in THAT I (19783), 533–537. ——, “har” in THAT II (19792), 692–701. Vogt, E., Der Aufstand Hiskias und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr., AnBib 106, Rome 1986. Vollmer, J., Geschichtliche Rückblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaja, BZAW 119, Berlin 1971.

388

bibliography

——, “hc[” in THAT II (19792), 359–370. Vonk, C., Jesaja, VL, Barendrecht 1980. Voorwinde, S., “Old Testament Quotations in Peter’s Epistle”, VR 49 (1987), 3–16. Vries, S.J. de, From Old Revelation to New. A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction, Grand Rapids 1995. Vriezen, Th.C., Jahwe en zijn stad, Amsterdam 1962 (A). ——, “Essentials of the Theology of Isaiah”. In: B.W. Anderson (ed.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, Fs J. Muilenberg, New York 1962 (B), 128–146. Waard, J. de, A Handbook on Isaiah. Textual Criticism and the Translator, Vol. 1, Winona Lake 1997. Wagner, J.R., Heralds of the Good News. Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the Letter to the Romans, NT.S 101, Leiden 2002. ——, “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians”. In: S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken (eds), Isaiah in the New Testament, London-New York 2005, 117–132. Wagner, S., “rqy” in TWAT III (1982), 855–865. ——, “hryIII” in TWAT III (1982), 920–930. ——, “rts” in TWAT V (1986), 967–977. Wanke, G., Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97, Berlin 1966. Waschke, G., “smr” in TWAT VII (1993), 532–534. ——, “fwv” in TWAT VII (1993), 1182–1187. Watson, W.G.E., “Review of W.H. Irwin, Isaiah 28–33: Translation with Philological Notes”, Bib. 59 (1978), 132–134. ——, “Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the Old Testament”, JBL 99 (1980), 321–341. ——, Classical Hebrew Poetry, A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOT.S 26, Sheffield 1984. ——, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse, JSOT.S 170, Sheffield 1994. Watts, J.D.W., Isaiah 1–33, WBC, Waco 1985. ——, Isaiah 34–66, WBC, Waco 1987. Watts, J.W., & House, P.R., (eds), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve, Fs J.D.W. Watts, JSOT.S 235, Sheffield 1996. Webb, B.G., “Zion in Transformation. A Literary Approach to Isaiah”. In: D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter, The Bible in Three Dimensions. Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, JSOT.S 87, Sheffield 1990. Webb, B., The Message of Isaiah: On Eagles’ Wings, TBST, Leicester 1996. Wehmeier, G., “rts” in THAT II (19783), 173–181. Weinfeld, M., “tyrb” in TWAT I (1973), 781–808. ——, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia”. In: R.E. Friedmann (ed.), The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism, Chicago 1983, 75–115. Wernberg-Møller, P., “Reflections on the Biblical Material in the Manual of Discipline”, StTh 9 (1955), 40–66. ——, “Studies in the Defective Spellings in the Isaiah-Scroll of St. Mark’s Monastery”, JSSt 3 (1958), 244–264. ——, “Observations on the Hebrew Participle”, ZAW 71 (1959), 54–67. Werner, W., Eschatologische Texte in Jes 1–39. Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker, FZB 46, Würzburg 1982. Westermann, C., Grundformen Prophetischer Rede, BEvTh 31, Munich 19683 (1st edition: 1960). ——, “db[” in THAT II (19792), 182–200. Westphal, G, Jahwes Wohnstätten nach den Anschauungen der alten Hebräer. Eine alttestamentliche Untersuchung, BZAW 15, Giessen 1908. Whedbee, J.W., Isaiah and Wisdom, Nashville-New York 1971.

bibliography

389

Wildberger, H., “Die Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion. Jes. ii 1–5”, VT 7 (1957), 62–81. ——, “Jesajas Verständnis der Geschichte”. In: Congress Volume Bonn 1962, VT.S 9, Leiden 1963, 83–117. ——, Jesaja 1–12, BKAT X/1, Neukirchen 1972. ——, “ˆma” in THAT I (19783), 177–209. ——, “rav” in THAT II (19792), 844–855. ——, Jesaja 28–39, BKAT X/3, Neukirchen 1982. Wilk, F., Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus, FRLANT 179, Göttingen 1998. Williams, J.G., “The Alas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets”, HUCA 38 (1967), 75–91. Williamson, H.G.M., “Hezekiah and the Temple”. In: M.V. Fox et al. (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake 1996, 47–52. Willis, J.T., “David and Zion in the Theology of the Deuteronomistic History: Theological Ideas in 2 Samuel 5–7”. In: B.F. Batto & K.L. Roberts (eds), David and Zion, Fs J.J.M. Roberts, Winona Lake 2004, 125–140. Wilson, R.R., “The City in the OT”. In: P.S. Hawkins (ed.), Civitas. Religious Interpretations of the City, Atlanta 1986, 3–13. Woan, S., “The Psalms in 1 Peter”. In: S. Moyise & M.J.J. Menken, The Psalms in the New Testament, London-New York 2004, 213–229. Wolff, H.W., “Die Begründungen der prophetischen Heils- und Unheilssprüche”. In: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Munich (19733), 9–35 (originally published in ZAW 52 (1934), 1–22). ——, “Das Zitat im Prophetenspruch. Eine Studie zur prophetischen Verkündigungsweise”. In: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Munich (19733), 36–129 (originally published in: Beiheft 4 zu Evangelische Theologie, Munich 1937). ——, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea, BKAT XIV/1, Neukirchen 1961. ——, Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos, BKAT XIV/2, Neukirchen 1969. Wong, G.C.I., “On ‘Visits’ and ‘Visions’ in Isaiah XXIX 6–7”, VT 45 (1995), 370–376. ——, “Isaiah’s Opposition to Egypt in Isaiah XXXI 1–3, VT 46 (1996), 392–401. Woude, A.S. van der, “rWx” in THAT II (19792), 538–543. ——, “Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4”. In: W. Claassen, Text and Context. Old Testament and Semitic Studies, Fs F.C. Fensham, JSOT.S 48, Sheffield 1988, 237–248. Younger, K.L., Ancient Conquest Accounts. A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, JSOT.S 98, Sheffield 1990. Yurco, F.J., “The Shabaka-Shebitku Coregency and the Supposed Second Campaign of Sennacherib against Judah: A Critical Assessment”, JBL 110/1 (1991), 35–45. Ziegler, J., Septuaginta auctoritate Societas litterarum Gottingensis editum Vol. XIV Isaias, Göttingen 1939. ——, Isaias, EB, Würzburg 1948. ——, Isaias, Septuaginta 14, Göttingen 1967. ——, Eusebius Werke, Band IX: Der Jesajakommentar, Berlin 1975. Zimmerli, W., “Jesaja und Hiskia”. In: H. Gese & H.P. Rüger, Wort und Geschichte, Fs K. Elliger, AOAT 18, Neukirchen 1973, 199–208. Zobel, H.-J., “ywh” in TWAT II (1977), 382–388. ——, “rfm” in TWAT IV (1984), 827–842. ——, “fb,ve” in TWAT VII (1993), 966–974. Zwickel, W., “Die Wirtschaftsreform des Hiskia und die Sozialkritik der Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts”, EvTh 59 (1999), 356–377.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, P.R. 108 Ahlström, G.W. 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100 Albertz, R. 231 Albl, M.C. 23, 37 Albrektson, B. 300 Alonso Schökel, L. 113, 154, 178, 185 Alt, A. 284, 291 Amsler, S. 161 André, G. 222 Asen, B.A. 206, 208, 212, 214 Augustine, A. 34, 40–45, 46, 48, 53, 62, 341 Auvray, P. 122, 222 Avemarie, F. 31 Barnard, L.W. 36 Barstad, H.M. 170 Barth, Ch. 114, 155, 190, 196 Barth, H. 245, 248, 323, 333 Barth, J. 117 Barthel, J. 116, 119, 123, 150, 179, 184, 192, 196, 201, 206, 207, 211, 216, 221, 227, 228, 229, 232, 240, 245, 246, 248 Barthélemy, D. 223, 228 Barton, J. 3 Bauckham, R. 19 Baumgartner, W. (HALAT) 114, 120, 134, 136, 143, 153, 179, 187, 222, 227 Baumgartner, W. (KBL) 120, 134, 136, 143, 151, 153, 179, 186, 222, 227 Beale, G.K. 356 Becker, U. 1, 3, 4, 85, 192, 193, 243, 245, 327 Becking, B.E.J.H. 75, 91, 97, 98, 100 Bentzen, A. 59, 74, 88 Ben Zvi, E. 102, 103 Berder, M. 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 Berges, U. 3, 56, 101, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 258, 260, 261, 269, 328, 330, 336, 357 Betz, O. 17, 27, 28, 131, 137 Beuken, W.A.M. x, 75, 76, 81, 83, 84, 119, 126, 129, 130, 135, 138, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 163, 164, 165, 178, 180, 185, 186, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 205, 207, 208, 209,

213, 220, 221, 228, 229, 234, 240, 241, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 257, 323, 327, 329, 336, 337 Beyerle, S. 150 Beyse, K.-M. 142, 143, 145 Billerbeck, P. (StrB) 28, 29, 30, 58 Blenkinsopp, J. 82, 117, 119, 120, 121, 125, 130, 170, 171, 176 Boehmer, J. 82, 134 Boertien, M. 359 Böhl, F. 30, 31 Borowski, O. 95, 96 Botterweck, G.J. 184, 230 Branson, R.D. 223 Braulik, G. 193 Bright, J. 90 Brongers, H.A. 221 Brooke, G.J. 25, 26, 27, 114 Brueggemann, W. 5, 122, 161, 187, 250 Buber, M. 291 Buhl, F.P.W. 56, 120 Bühlmann, W. 113, 133 Burden, J.J. 233 Burns, J.B. 123 Burrows, M. 25 Cahill, M. 20, 23, 138 Calvin, J. 6, 10, 51–53, 55, 63, 184, 327, 341 Carroll, R.P. 251 Cheyne, T.K. 54, 127, 234 Childs, B.S. 4, 73, 82, 83, 84, 97, 101, 125, 126, 129, 230, 241, 244, 247, 249, 257, 258, 325, 329, 335, 337 Chilton, B.D. 28, 268 Clements, R.E. 57, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 94, 103, 115, 122, 136, 147, 156, 157, 159, 161, 166, 178, 187, 193, 196, 201, 202, 209, 221, 222, 226, 231, 233, 234, 240, 244, 253, 314–315, 318, 333, 334 Clifford, R.J. 315 Clines, D.J.A. (DCH) 113, 137, 140, 143, 153, 179 Conrad, E.W. 4 Conrad, J. 231 Cyprian 34, 37–39, 40, 43, 47, 62, 340

392 Cyril of Alexandria 340

index of authors 34, 45–47, 48, 62,

Davies, P.R. 96 Day, J. 121, 170, 171 Déaut, R. le 30 Deck, S. 184, 206 Deferrari, R.J. 44, 45 Delitzsch, F. 54, 60, 74, 85, 125, 128, 152, 216, 226, 233 Dietrich, W. 76, 77, 79, 80, 115, 117, 134, 136, 152, 162, 178, 181, 187, 192, 201, 240, 333, 335 Dimant, D. 26 Doble, P. 21 Dodd, C.H. 23, 359, 365 Dohmen, Ch. 27, 131 Dommershausen, W. 179, 226 Donner, H. 56, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 114, 134, 136, 142, 146, 149, 160, 166, 178, 192, 194, 196, 201, 202, 207, 210, 211 Doyle, B. xi Doyle, R. 170 Driver, G.R. 54, 75, 120, 122, 125, 136, 143, 151, 155, 186, 187, 188, 207, 208, 210, 212 Duhm, B. 3, 56, 60, 76, 78, 80, 113, 118, 120, 122, 125, 134, 150, 152, 153, 165, 179, 185, 186, 207, 211, 221, 222, 226, 227, 228, 240, 245, 246, 285 Dumortier, J. 46 Ehrman, B.D. 35, 36 Ehrlich, E.L. 228 Eichrodt, W. 56, 57, 60, 75, 77, 82, 83, 114, 118, 122, 141, 157, 202, 222, 226, 228, 233 Eiler, D.L. 310 Eißfeldt, O. 288–289, 303, 349 Ellis, E.E. 18, 23, 356, 358, 360, 361 Enns, P. 358 Epstein, I. 31 Ernst, J. 181 Eusebius of Caesarea 41, 46 Evans, C.A. 327, 356 Evans, E. 37, 38 Ewald, H. 59 Exum, J.C. 76, 77, 114, 136, 149, 153, 161, 164, 184, 185, 195, 196, 209, 212, 217, 240, 253 Fabry, H.-J. 174 Fewell, D.N. 103, 105, 106

Fey, R. 82, 84, 88, 89, 148 Fishbane, M. 360 Fischer, B. ix Fischer, J. 54 Flint, P.W. 25 Floß, J.P. 188 Fohrer, G. 57, 60, 75, 76, 77, 114, 120, 122, 125, 128, 136, 147, 157, 162, 187, 191, 202, 222, 227, 228, 233, 234, 240, 246, 250, 308, 318, 320, 325, 335, 349 Fokkelman, J. 3, 140, 145 Frahm, E. 98 Freedman, D.N. 230 Fuhs, H.F. 179 Fullerton, K. 115, 117, 125, 127, 134, 136, 142, 148, 151, 152, 158 Galil, G. 75, 92, 94 Gallagher, W.R. 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 106 Galling, K. 120, 122, 137, 284, 291, 293 Gamberoni, J. 123, 161 Garcia Martínez, F. 26, 27 Gerleman, G. 170 Gerstenberger, E. 180, 195, 205 Gese, H. 58, 117, 168, 225, 288, 297–298, 348 Gilula, M. 206 Goldberg, J. 94, 95, 97, 99, 100 Gonçalves, F.J. 76, 80, 82, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 114, 116, 122, 123, 126, 130, 134, 137, 140, 144, 178, 184, 185, 187, 192, 193, 198, 200, 201, 258, 334 Good, E.M. 122 Görg, M. 188, 206 Gowan, D.E. 319, 320 Grabbe, L.L. 98, 100 Graffy, A. 57, 111, 116, 117, 119, 156 Greßmann, H. 292 Groß, H. 114, 169, 196 Gruber, M.I. 171 Grünwaldt, K. 150 Guindon, R. 49 Gunkel, H. 284–285, 289, 292, 294, 295 Guthe, F.W.L.H. 80 Hagelia, H. 141, 142 Hallo, W.W. 187 Halpern, B. 114, 174, 184, 188 Hardmeier, C. 3, 86, 102, 335 Harl, M. 132

index of authors Harris, J.R. 23, 137 Hartenstein, F. 118, 135, 143 Hasel, G.F. 200 Hausmann, J. 212 Hayes, J.H. 87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 300–301, 312, 348 Hays, R.B. 356, 360 Healey, J.F. 169, 220, 226 Heider, G.C. 170 Hendel, R.S. 96 Herbert, A.S. 57, 187, 208 Hermisson, H.-J. 85 Herrmann, S. 82, 86, 90, 320 Hess, R.S. 102 Hillers, D.R. 205 Hitzig, F. 60 Höffken, P. 3, 101, 128, 215, 234, 243, 244, 245, 326 Hoffmann, H.-D. 95 Hoffmann, H.W. 325–326, 328 Hoftijzer, J. xi Hofius, O. 365 Holladay, W.L. 114 Honan, D.J. 45 Hoop, R. de 66 Huber, F. 60, 114, 121, 126, 136, 140, 322, 335 Hübner, H. 356 Hulst, A.R. 115 Humbert, P. 124 Hutter, M. 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100 Ibn Ezra 138 Irvine, S.A. 87, 88, 89 Irwin, W.H. 60, 85, 114, 125, 140, 159, 164, 173, 187, 221, 223, 227, 228 Israelstamm, J. 32 Jackson, J.J. 174, 187 Janowski, B. 316 Janzen, W. 204, 205 Jenni, E. 126, 136, 140, 205 Jeppesen, K. 59, 84, 85 Jepsen, A. 141 Jeremias, J. ( Joachim) 13, 23, 28, 29, 135, 138 Jeremias, J. ( Johannes) 286 Jeremias, J. ( Jörg) 179, 300, 310–312, 316, 349, 350 Jerome ix, 34, 40–45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 62, 341, 356 Jobes, K.H. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 John Chrysostom 45, 46 Johnson, B. 146 Johnston, W.B. 53

393

Jong, H. de xi, 193, 364, 366 Joüon, P. ( J-M) 60, 115, 124, 126, 139, 140, 151, 161, 164, 211, 212, 221, 225, 228 Kaiser, O. 58, 76, 77, 80, 85, 114, 117, 126, 147, 149, 152, 159, 161, 178, 187, 193, 196, 202, 207, 210, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 233, 234, 243, 245, 246, 326–327 Kautzsch, E. (GKG) 124, 125, 126, 127, 135, 138, 139, 140, 151, 160, 161, 164, 180, 189, 190, 194, 195, 207, 210, 211, 227, 228 Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 190 Kellermann, D. 206, 225, 229 Kennet, R.H. 187, 188 Kilian, R. 76, 79, 85, 86, 114, 126, 162, 166, 178, 187, 193, 226, 234, 326, 328, 335 Kimchi, D. 138 Kissane, E.J. 60, 74, 88, 152, 186, 202, 207, 210, 212, 226, 227 Kitchen, K.A. 98 Klopfenstein, M.A. 122, 136, 150, 172 Knibb, M.A. 25 Knijff, H.W. de 49, 50 Knipping, B. 196 Knobel, A. 60 Koch, D.-A. 15, 22, 356, 365 Koch, K. 305 Köhler, L. 120, 136, 137, 139 Köhler, L. (HALAT) 114, 120, 134, 136, 143, 153, 179, 187, 222, 227 Köhler, L. (KBL) 120, 134, 136, 143, 151, 153, 179, 186, 222, 227 König, F.E. 127 Konkel, A.H. 101 Kooij, A. van der 12, 97, 100, 102, 132, 188, 267, 270 Korpel, M.C.A. 66, 67, 68, 125, 134 Kosmala, H. 216 Kraft, R.A. 35 Krätzschmar, O.R. 120 Kraus, H.-J. 29, 54, 289–291, 293, 296, 297, 299, 312, 317, 348 Krauss, S. 139, 215 Kronholm, T. 194 Kutsch, E. 120 Laato, A. 97, 98, 100, 101, 314, 318, 323, 335 Laberge, L. 127, 207, 208, 210, 212, 246 Landy, F. 210

394

index of authors

Lang, B. 151, 163 LeBas, E.E. 137 Leeuwen, C. van 97, 172 Lettinga, J.P. xi, 210, 212, 228 Levenson, J.D. 315, 316, 319 Lewis, T.J. 174, 176 Liedke, G. 184 Lindars, B. 23 Lindblom, J. 2, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 74, 82, 88, 89, 202 Lipiński, E. 115 Loretz, O. 207 Lundbom, J. 230 Luther, M. 6, 10, 51–53, 62, 63, 158, 341 Lutz, H.M. 312 Maass, F. 151, 288 Maiburg, U. 29, 40, 41 Marböck, J. 159 Mare, W.H. 54 Marti, K. 56, 75, 76, 77, 79, 118, 120, 125, 127, 133, 150, 153, 162, 185, 187, 207, 211, 221, 222, 226, 228, 234, 295 Martin-Achard, R. 163 Maurer, Chr. 14 McKelvey, R.J. 23 McLaughlin, J.L. 174, 175, 176, 181, 182, 206 McMichael, S.J. 49 Meinhold, J. 30, 31 Melugin, R.F. 82, 83, 85, 128, 157 Menken, M.J.J. 356 Merklein, H. 23, 27, 138 Mettinger, T.N.D. 319 Meyer, R. (HAHAT) 120, 134, 137, 143, 151, 179, 227 Millard, A.R. 101 Miller, J.M. 95, 96 Mittmann, S. 94, 97, 98, 100 Möller, H. 158 Monahan, G. 44 Montgomery, J.A. 187 Montgomery Hitchcock, F.R. 143 Moor, J.C. de 66, 68, 125, 134, 154, 155 Morrison, A.W. 53 Mosis, R. 126, 150, 172, 219 Motyer, J.A. 60, 233 Moyise, S. 23, 356, 358 Mowinckel, S. 56, 289, 290, 291, 292 Mulder, M.C. x Müller, H.-P. 179, 229

Muller, K. 14, 16, 17, 19 Münderlein, G. 229 Muraoka, T. ( J-M) 60, 115, 124, 126, 139, 140, 151, 161, 164, 211, 212, 221, 225, 228 Muszynski, H. 27, 131 Na’aman, N. 90, 95, 98, 100, 101 Nicholson, P.T. 137 Niehr, H. 229 Noordegraaf, A. 22 Norin, S. 96 Noth, M. 286–288, 289, 290, 293, 296, 303, 310, 348, 349 O’Connell, R.H. 243, 244 Oeming, M. 138 Ohmann, H.M. 54 O’Kane, M.J. 245 Ollenburger, B.C. 299, 302, 310, 314, 315–317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 331, 332, 333, 335 Olley, J.W. 73, 75, 77, 103, 108, 124 Oosterhoff, B.J. x, 92 Oss, D.A. 12, 16, 20, 22 Oswalt, J.N. 57, 58, 76, 115, 118, 122, 135, 143, 156, 160, 161, 181, 193, 194, 208 Otto, E. 266, 314, 318, 336 Otzen, B. 137 Peels, H.G.L. x, 247 Perdue, L.G. 5 Peter Chrysologus of Revenna 41 Petersen, C. 184 Petersen, D.L. 80, 126, 136, 147, 149, 161, 178, 184, 187, 213 Pfeiffer, G. 187 Polman, A.D.R. 43 Pope, M.H. 174 Poznanski, S. 117 Preuß, H.D. 193, 314, 336 Pringle, W. 52, 53 Procksch, O. 54, 57, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 114, 117, 120, 124, 125, 127, 134, 142, 151, 155, 157, 165, 179, 187, 194, 201, 202, 207, 210, 211, 212, 221, 222, 225, 226, 227, 231, 233, 240, 335 Prostmeier, F.R. 36 Puech, E. 173 Pulikottil, P. 25, 131, 132, 150, 268 Quodvultdeus of Carthage

42

index of authors Rabbinowitz, J. 32 Rad, G. von 146, 162, 180, 285–286, 289, 292, 295–296, 297, 299, 309, 310, 312, 325, 327, 328 Rashi 138 Rendtorff, R. 4, 5, 271, 273, 327, 330 Ridderbos, J. 54, 186, 202 Ridderbos, N.H. 141 Ringgren, H. 162, 196, 222 Rise, G. 186 Roberts, J.J.M. 2, 28, 58, 76, 78, 83, 85, 114, 125, 126, 127, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 143, 194, 312–314, 315, 316, 319, 320, 324, 332, 336, 337, 350 Rogerson, J. 96 Rohland, E. 57, 77, 79, 80, 120, 126, 134, 152, 283, 292–295, 296, 297, 299, 302, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 320, 348 Rost, L. 208, 303 Rudman, D. 103, 104, 105 Rüger, H.P. 288 Ruppert, L. 232 Rüterswörden, U. 113, 184 Saebø, M. 189, 223 Sawyer, J.F.A. ix, 49, 178 Scharbert, J. 74 Schelkle, K.H. 12 Scherer, K. 113, 133 Schmid, H. 291–292, 296, 312 Schmidt, B.B. 171, 174, 181 Schmidt, H. (Hans) 29, 30, 32, 56, 57, 60, 87, 117, 122, 188, 202, 306 Schmidt, W.H. 131, 301, 312 Schmoldt, H. 186 Schneider, D. 76, 114, 147, 161, 202 Schoors, A. 56, 57, 75, 76, 78, 91, 95, 159, 187, 202, 222, 226, 228, 233, 234, 250 Schottroff, W. 184 Schreiner, J. 126, 158, 303–308, 312, 333, 349 Schröten, J. 20, 21, 29 Schuman, N.A. 223, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233 Schüpphaus, J. 212 Schwemer, A.M. 124 Sedlmeier, F. 141 Seebass, H. 150 Seeligmann, I.L. 126, 132, 133, 142 Seidl, Th. 178 Seierstad, I.P. 186 Seitz, C.R. 97, 99, 245

395

Sellheim, R. 288 Sellin, E. 54, 292 Selms, A. van 185, 187 Seybold, K. 186 Shea, W.H. 97 Shaw, I. 137 Silva, M. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 Simian-Yofre, H. 230, 240 Skarsaune, O. 23, 34 Slotki, J.J. 32 Smelik, K.A.D. 101, 102, 104, 106, 107 Snodgrass, K.R. 13, 17, 22, 23, 48, 358 Snijders, L.A. 56, 75, 76, 77, 128, 159, 163, 187, 233, 234, 327 Soggin, J.A. 114, 169 Spieckermann, H. 95 Stähli, H.-P. 206, 232 Stamm, J. (HALAT) 114, 120, 134, 136, 143, 153, 179, 187, 222, 227 Stanley, C.D. 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 356, 357, 358, 361, 365 Stansell, G. 245, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253 Steck, O.H. 130, 131, 301–302 Steins, G. 206, 211 Stemberger, G. 127 Stewart, A.C. 76, 166–177, 345 Stinespring, W.F. 269 Stolz, F. 229, 266, 301, 302, 311, 312, 348 Stuhlmacher, P. 356, 358 Sweeney, M.A. 3, 75, 76, 117, 188, 233, 243, 245, 248, 327, 337 Tadmor, H. 90 Talstra, E. 5, 9, 357 Tan, K.H. 27 Tanghe, V. 76, 77, 181, 189, 190 Tate, M.E. 3, 4, 244 Tertullian 34, 37–39, 47, 62, 340 Theodore of Mopsuestia 45, 46 Theodoret of Cyrus 34, 45–47, 48, 62, 341 Thexton, S.C. 226 Thiele, E.R. 90 Thomas Aquinas 10, 49–50, 62, 341 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 26, 27 Toorn, K. van der 76, 166–177, 187, 191, 345 Tov, E. 130 Tränkle, H. 37 Tromp, N.J. 173 Tropper, J. 169 Tsevat, M. 57, 136, 137, 143

396 Ulrich, E.

index of authors 25

Vanoni, G. 161, 162 Veenhof, K.R. x, 87, 94, 98 Virgulin, S. 54 Vermeylen, J. 85, 101, 245 Versteeg, J.P. 361 Vetter, D. 179 Vogt, E. 94, 98, 206 Vollmer, J. 162, 163 Vonk, C. 54 Voorwinde, S. 18 Vries, S.J. de 213 Vriezen, Th.C. 292 Waard, J. de 208, 222, 229 Wagner, J.R. 14, 15, 17, 356, 359, 361 Wagner, S. 139, 184, 223 Walsh, G.G. 44, 45 Wanke, G. 308–310, 311, 312, 313, 318, 320, 349 Waschke, G. 117, 153, 210 Watson, W.G.E. 113, 114, 115, 120, 125, 133, 135, 140, 144, 145, 148, 149, 154, 155, 159, 164, 178, 187, 221, 223 Watts, J.D.W. 4, 58, 227, 228, 233, 244, 245, 258, 264, 327 Weinfeld, M. 120 Weiser, A. 292 Wellhausen, J. 76, 95, 295 Weren, W. 3

Wernberg-Møller, P. 137 Werner, W. 326, 335 Westermann, C. 77, 162, 205 Whedbee, J.W. 84, 205, 220, 221, 223, 230, 232, 233, 239 Wheelock, J.H. 113 Wildberger, H. 28, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 114, 117, 120, 121, 126, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 147, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 170, 171, 178, 179, 180, 184, 186, 187, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196, 202, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 240, 246, 250, 310, 313, 314, 320, 323, 325, 335 Wilk, F. 14, 16, 356, 361 Williams, J.G. 205, 207 Woan, S. 20 Wolff, H.W. 119, 122, 142, 169, 205, 219, 326 Woude, A.S. van der 29 Yurco, F.J.

97

Ziegler, J. 12, 41, 46, 54, 75, 114, 162, 212, 226, 233 Zobel, H.-J. 205, 209 Zwickel, W. 96

INDEX OF BIBLICAL TEXTS Genesis 2:4 3:22b 4:23 11 14:18–24 14:18–20 28:18 41:17 41:54 49:2 49:10 49:24

31 36 73, 219, 220 191 291 310 30, 33, 39, 43 126 226 73, 219 289 29

Exodus 3:21 5:22 9:32 14:24 14:25 15:14 15:17–18 15:17 17:12 19:12,23 24:9–11 28:9,17 28:30 28:36 35:30–35

115 115 222 229 225, 229 21 292 193 39 308 120 42 30 206 223

Leviticus 10:8–11 14:42 21:18 22:23

179 32 160 160

Numbers 10:33 24:16 Deuteronomy 4:24 6:25 8:8 10:1 12:9 21:11

23:14 24:13 27:8 28:25 28:49 28:52 30:15 32:1 32:4 32:8–9 32:15,18 32:21 32:30,31 34:10

181 146 39 83, 157 191 103 106 73, 219 29 313 29 172 29 315

Joshua 1:6–9 10 10:10–14 10:10 10:11 10:24 24 24:2–4 24:5–13 24:14–28 24:26–27

208 161 161 229 161 195 292 292 292 292 39

Judges 1:21 4:15 5:3 8:7 9:8–15 9:26 20:36 20:37

284 229 73, 219 225 233 103 103 143

193 313

Ruth 2:23

222

257 146 222 32, 58 193 138

1 Samuel 1:3,11 2:2 2:25 4–6 4 4:4

288 29 180 303 319 288

398 4:7f 5:11 6:7 6:14 7:12 12:24 14:44 17:49 18:14 22:3,32,47 23:3

index of biblical texts 308 304 225 39 39, 40 231 125 39 95 29 29

2 Kings 4:8 7:17,20 9:33 13:7 16:2 16:3 16:8 16:20 17:3 17:17–23 18–19 18:1–2 18:1 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:5–6 18:5 18:7a 18:8 18:9 18:10 18:13–16 18:13

24:15–17

162 312 267, 303 161, 314 162 297 290, 297, 303, 305, 306 307 225 304 26, 290, 297, 298, 305, 306, 323 141, 323 233 138 222 226 298, 303, 305, 306 100

1 Kings 5:31 6:31 7:9–11 7:10 7:23 8 8:6 8:16 8:56 10:2,10,11 11:29–39 11:36 12:1–20 12:16 12:26–31 14:1–18 15:11

138, 139, 307 125 138, 139, 307 139 145 307 304 290 193 138 293 287 293 324 293 287, 293 95

2 Samuel 5 5:6 5:7 5:17–25 5:25 6–7 6 6:2 6:3 6:11 7 7:16 12:1–4 12:30 17:28 22:43 24

18:14–16 18:14 18:15–16 18:17–19:37 18:17–19:9a 18:17ff 18:17 18:19–20 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:25 18:28 18:29 18:31–32 18:31 18:32 18:33–35 19:1 19:4 19:6–7 19:6 19:10 19:14–19 19:14

156 153 153 225 91 170 99, 107 91 99 76 6, 65, 93, 101–108, 310 93 90, 91, 92, 93 90, 91, 92, 94 95 95 95 107, 108 95 97 99 90, 91, 92 101 90, 92, 94, 97, 99, 105 95, 99, 107 99 93, 107 101 101 99, 100 99, 104 103 104 104 103 103 104 104 103, 104 106 104 103, 104 103 106 106 105 104 103, 105 106 106

index of biblical texts 19:19b–35 19:20–34 19:21 19:22–28 19:29 19:31 19:32–33 19:35 19:36–37 20 20:1–11 20:6 20:12–21 20:12 20:13 20:17–18 21:6 21:13 22:2 23:25

101 105 270 105 106 269, 272 100 100 101 93, 99 96 90, 92, 93, 94 96 94, 96 93 93 170 145, 146 95 95

1 Chronicles 11:5 14:8–17 14:16 20:2 23:25 28:16 29:2

267 161 162 138 194 180 138

2 Chronicles 2:9,14 3:6 4:2 4:8,19 8:16 9:1,9,10 17:3 20:19 20:20 24:27 27:5 28:21 29:3 29:8 32:1–23 32:4 32:23 32:25 32:27 32:30 32:31

222 138 145 180 139 138 95 294 141 126 222 99, 107 95 83, 157 102 96 93, 99 93 138 96 93

399

Ezra 3:11

135, 139

Job 2:9 6:5–6 8:11 8:13 9:23 13:17 14:10 17:13 18:21 20:29 22:7 27:13 31:5 31:40 33:1 34:2 37:6 38:4–6 38:6 38:38 39:10

186 221 221 230 117 73, 219 142 159 230 230 194 230 143 222 73, 219 73, 219 31 145 31, 138 31 220

Psalms 2 2:3 2:6 3:5 9:12–13 9:12 10:6 11:3 13 14:6 14:7 15:1 18:3 18:13 18:32,47 19:15 20:3 22:20 24 24:5 27:5 28:1 29:6 29:9 31:4

290, 306, 314 164 269, 294, 298 269, 274 331 274 331 30 329 123 274 269 29 209 29 29 274, 306 142 288 146 83 29 142 284 29

400 33:5 34:5 34:9 38:23 40:14 42:10 43:3 44:24 46 46:2 46:3 46:5 46:6 46:7 46:10 46:11 47 47:3 47:6 47:9 48 48:1 48:2 48:3f 48:3 48:5–7 48:6 48:9 48:12 48:13 49:2 49:14 50:1–2 50:2 53:7 55:5 55:9 62:3,7,8 62:9 62:10 65 65:2 68:16f 68:17 68:23 68:30 70:2,6 71:3 71:12 72

index of biblical texts 146 19 18, 19 142 142 29 269 228 284, 285, 290, 294, 295, 296, 300, 308, 310, 322 123, 331 294 274, 294 294 294 225 285 289 44, 104 291 290 284, 285, 290, 294, 295, 296, 300, 308, 322 274 269 294 269, 274 294 294 274 269 274 73, 219 230 31 274 274 142 143 29 172 172 274 274 284 267 285 274 142 29 142 290

73:11 73:26 74:1 74:2 74:10,19 75:3f 76 76:3 76:4,6f 76:7 77:9 77:19 78 78:1 78:35 78:65–72 78:68f 78:68 78:69 79:5 84 84:7f 84:8 87 87:1f 87:2 87:3 89 89:27 89:47 92:16 93 93:1 93:5 94:22 95:1 95:3 95:11 96 96:6 97 99 99:2 99:9 101:8 103:6 103:9 104:14 107:14 110 110:2 110:4–5

184 29 228 267, 269 228 285 284, 285, 290, 294, 295, 296, 300, 308, 322 274 294 294 228 229 294, 305 73, 219 29 290 284 267, 269, 274 307 228 274, 284, 290 285 274 284, 290 307 274, 305 274 290 29 228 29 289 206 284 29 29 104 193 287 284 287 287 274 269 274, 306 146 228 226 164 306 274 295, 312

index of biblical texts 111 116:16 118:2–4 118:17–18 118:22ff 118:22–23 118:22

132:14 132:16 133:3 134:3 135:21 137:3 139:15 141:1 144:1

44 164 21 21 39 22 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 61, 132, 138, 340, 355, 363, 365 21 284, 290 269 231 274 220, 224 274 193, 274, 284, 290, 293, 294, 297, 298, 299, 305, 306, 313 298 274 298 274 193, 274 293 293, 298 274, 294, 298, 306, 317 193, 274 293 269 40, 274 274 274, 284 173 142 29

Proverbs 1:19 1:22 3:3 3:34 4:1,20 5:1 6:27–28 7:24 9:8 10:22

230 113, 114 146 113 73, 219 73, 219 221 73, 219 113 125

118:23 122 125:1 126:2,3 128:5 129:3 129:5 132

132:2–5 132:5 132:6 132:7 132:8 132:9 132:11–12 132:13

401

13:1 15:12 15:27 19:21 19:22 20:26 20:28 21:11 21:21 23:35 25:1 29:8 30:12 31:28

113 113 146 152 146 225, 229 146 113 146 207 178 113, 114 181 146

Qohelet Qoh. 3:5 Qoh. 8:6 Qoh. 10:16–17 Qoh. 10:17 Qoh. 10:20

32, 58 223 205 216 159

Song of Songs 3:11

273

Isaiah 1–66 1–39

1–35 1–12 1:1 1:2–3 1:2 1:2a 1:2b 1:3 1:4–9 1:4–8 1:4 1:8 1:9 1:10–17 1:10 1:14 1:19–20 1:21–26 1:21 1:24–28 1:24

337 3, 7, 243, 258, 265, 266–275, 282, 326, 347–348, 352 213 237, 244, 245, 252, 253 179 251 73, 219 67 67 329 336 334 249 267, 269 272 57 73, 77, 112, 113, 114, 219 268 195 86, 146, 323, 336 267, 271 337 84

402 1:26 1:27f 1:27 2:1–4 2:1 2:2–5 2:2–4 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:6–22 2:6–19(22) 2:12ff 2:12 2:19,21 3:1 3:3 3:7 3:10–11 3:12 3:15 3:16–17 3:16,17 4:1 4:2–6 4:2–4 4:2–3 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6 5 5:1–7 5:5 5:12–13 5:12 5:16 5:19 5:28 6 6:1–11 6:1–5 6:1 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:8 6:9–12

index of biblical texts 271 336 146, 147, 267, 271 286 179 268 287, 314, 336 268, 269, 273 53, 131, 132, 223, 267, 268, 269, 273 273 332 333 218 214 161 84, 229 38 229 205 179 12, 84 273, 336 267 229, 241 75, 215, 218, 336 213 75, 212, 213 28, 238 215, 267, 272 181, 215, 267, 273 267, 268 123 261 21, 146, 163, 233, 330 153 329 84, 160 147 84, 142, 143, 160, 232, 239 229 5, 252, 301, 327–330, 352 326, 328 249 328, 336 165 328 328, 336 151, 249, 330 328 16

6:9–10 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:13a 7 7:1–17 7:1–9 7:2 7:3ff 7:3–9 7:3 7:4–9 7:4 7:6–7 7:6 7:7–9 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:9b 7:10–17 7:13 7:14 7:15–16 7:16 7:17 7:24 7:25 8 8:2 8:5–8 8:6 8:7–8 8:8 8:9–10 8:10 8:11–18 8:11–15 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14

8:14b 8:15 8:16–18

325, 326, 328, 330 115, 191 191 240, 328, 329 328 330 328 53, 88, 128, 129, 323 336 326 323 325 129 214 141, 323 128, 129 141 323 128, 129, 324 124, 152, 323 56 57, 104, 141, 142, 143, 206, 324, 351 129, 323 129 128, 323 85, 92, 128, 129, 141, 323 128 128, 129 129 165 153 365 92 118, 149, 256, 336 115, 192 209, 218 117 323, 324, 333, 335, 352 46, 152 144 328, 336 115, 192, 223 192 17 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 36, 37, 38, 47, 51, 61, 340, 355, 365 365 195, 196 330

index of biblical texts 8:17 8:18 8:19 8:21–23 9 9:5f 9:5 9:6 9:10 9:14 9:15 10:5ff 10:5–34 10:5–19 10:5–15 10:5 10:6 10:7 10:8–11 10:12 10:14 10:15 10:16–19 10:16 10:19 10:20–23 10:22–23 10:22 10:23–24 10:23 10:24–27a 10:24 10:26 10:26a 10:27b–32 10:32 10:33 11 11:1ff 11:1 11:2 11:3–5 11:4 11:8 11:9 11:10 11:11–16 12:5 12:6 13–27 13–23 13:5

17, 329 140, 147, 231, 267, 336, 344 119, 168, 171 16 53 28 231 147 267, 268 179, 223 179, 192 218, 230 334 106 209, 334 104, 225 153 104 106 84, 160, 267, 268, 334, 336 165 225 334 84 214 215 84 165 84 80, 83, 165 336 124, 225, 267, 272 225 116, 117 336 267, 268, 270, 324 84 53 75 28 104, 216 147 225 186 184, 269 193 215 206 267, 272 244 245, 261 165

14:5 14:7 14:22 14:24–27 14:24 14:25 14:26–27 14:26 14:28–32 14:29 14:29b 14:32

14:32b 16:1 16:3 16:4 16:5 16:14 17:3 17:10 17:12ff 17:12–14 17:12–13 17:13 18 18:1–6 18:7 19:3 19:4 19:11 19:14 19:17 19:25 20 20:5 21 – 30 21:1–10 21:10 21:14 21:16 21:17 22:1–14 22:1 22:4 22:5 22:7

403 114, 169, 225 165 161, 214 334 152 325 232 165, 230 91, 321 118, 164, 225 28 59, 60, 123, 140, 143, 147, 176, 193, 194, 267, 274, 278, 286, 299, 307, 320–322, 323, 331, 336, 350, 351, 362, 366 125, 127, 139, 276, 277, 344 28, 114, 169, 267, 270 180 123 28, 147 214 214 29 325 323, 333, 335, 352 209, 218 117 87 87, 94, 334 267, 269, 336 119, 168 84 232 180 232 84, 160 87, 94 12 46 97 165, 225 229 124 214 97, 334 267, 269 194, 270 84, 267, 269 216

404 22:12–14 22:12 22:14–15 22:14 22:15 23:12 23:13 24–27 24:5 24:6 24:23 25:1 25:4 25:5 25:7 25:8 25:10 26:4 26:6 26:10 27:9 27:12 27:13 28–35 28–33

28–32 28–31 28

28:1–22 28:1–13 28:1–6 28:1–4(6) 28:1–4

28:1–3 28:1

index of biblical texts 201 84 84 151, 326 124 267, 269 137, 138 245 152 181 267, 268 231, 232 121, 123 267 159 165 225 29 152 206 151 225 268, 269, 272 244, 245, 258 6, 75, 87, 88, 121, 202, 237, 243–264, 265, 266, 281, 282, 324, 346–347, 351, 365 245, 246, 248 246, 248, 252, 254, 260, 327, 336 1, 2, 6, 28, 65–108, 109–241, 258–264, 280, 281, 323, 332, 342, 346–347, 364, 365 74, 75, 76, 78–89 76 76, 203, 204–218, 237, 238, 248, 251, 252, 258 74, 76, 78, 109, 177, 234–241, 259, 342, 346 74, 75, 76, 88, 178, 185, 204, 205, 206, 212, 213, 214, 217, 233, 234–241, 247, 249, 256, 258, 261, 280, 281 255 68, 74, 178, 205–208, 210, 211,

28:2ff 28:2–4 28:2–3 28:2

28:3 28:4 28:5–29 28:5–8 28:5–6

28:5 28:6 28:7–29:24 28:7–22 28:7–18 28:7–13

28:7–10 28:7–8 28:7

28:7a 28:7b–10 28:7b–8

213, 214, 217, 234, 236, 246, 251, 257, 259, 260, 261, 281, 346, 347 235 204, 208, 260 69, 149, 208–210 117, 118, 149, 162, 164, 176, 207, 209, 213, 235, 236, 239, 254, 255, 256 153, 206, 211, 236 69, 118, 123, 179, 207, 210–212, 214, 236 75 176 69, 75, 204, 212–217, 218, 238, 247, 249, 250, 251, 253, 259 28, 75, 123, 206, 237, 238, 249 160, 223, 237, 238, 249 248 74, 75, 76, 166, 169, 171, 175, 176, 247, 345 176 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 86, 87, 109, 110, 112, 128, 166, 169, 177–197, 197–203, 204, 206, 213, 217, 234–241, 251, 253, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 278–280, 281, 322, 335, 342, 344, 345, 346 177, 197, 234 69, 76, 167, 175, 177–182, 183, 185, 255 74, 75, 76, 77, 166, 167, 169, 173, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185, 191, 199, 236, 238, 252, 253, 259, 280 75, 178, 180, 187, 236, 259, 280, 342 189 187

index of biblical texts 28:7b 28:8 28:8a 28:8b 28:9–22 28:9–13 28:9–11 28:9–10 28:9 28:10 28:11–13 28:11–12 28:11 28:12

28:13 28:13a 28:13b 28:14ff 28:14–22

28:14–19 28:14–18 28:14–15 28:14

178, 179, 180, 184, 187, 188, 196 172, 180, 181, 183, 185, 188 188, 189 189 76 185 167 69, 177, 182–189, 197, 198, 278 79, 83, 144, 157, 158, 166, 168, 223, 237, 251 123, 166, 167, 173, 175, 192, 237 77, 176, 177, 189–197, 223, 235 70, 130 115, 167, 173, 174, 199, 235, 237, 254, 260, 263, 279 82, 84, 112, 129, 173, 177, 198, 200, 203, 217, 235, 237, 251, 253, 259, 261, 278, 280, 320–322, 323, 325, 331, 333, 336, 344, 350, 362, 366 70, 77, 78, 81, 123, 166, 167, 173, 185, 211, 237 79 149 50 6, 74, 76, 77, 78–89, 90, 109, 110–177, 197–203, 204, 217, 234–241, 243–264, 265, 275, 277, 278–280, 281, 322, 335, 342, 343, 344, 346–347, 351, 362, 363, 364 82, 111, 116 79, 80, 154, 192, 202, 217 74, 77, 81, 110, 112, 112–123, 197, 234, 276 25, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 81, 88, 109, 112–115, 133, 157,

28:15ff 28:15

28:16–22 28:16–17 28:16–17a 28:16

28:17–19 28:17

28:17a 28:17b–22 28:17b–18 28:17b 28:18

405 163, 165, 166, 169, 176, 192, 197, 198, 199, 237, 239, 259, 280, 342 254 6, 49, 50, 70, 74, 77, 79, 82, 83, 87, 109, 111, 112, 115–123, 130, 139, 140, 143, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 160, 166–177, 182, 184, 197, 198, 199, 236, 237, 254, 255, 256, 259, 260, 278, 280, 345 197 248, 336 53, 57, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 111, 145, 157, 176, 203, 343 ix, x, xi, 1, 2, 6, 7, 9–64, 65–108, 109, 111, 112, 123, 124–144, 145, 146, 147, 162, 176, 192, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 218, 235, 237, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265–337, 339–345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355–366 260 50, 82, 117, 123, 136, 139, 140, 150, 151, 161, 166, 172, 176, 209, 218, 223, 236, 237, 253, 255, 256 71, 82, 84, 112, 136, 144–147, 148, 155, 203, 277 74, 81, 111, 235 71, 73, 79, 112, 147–153, 154, 161, 235 82, 111, 118, 122 6, 73, 74, 79, 80, 109, 112, 117, 120, 121, 123, 147–153, 154, 156, 166–177, 182, 199, 210, 236, 255, 256, 280, 345

406 28:19–22 28:19–21 28:19b–21 28:19 28:19a 28:19b–20 28:19b 28:20–22 28:20–21 28:20 28:21

28:22

28:22a 28:22b 28:23–29

28:23 28:24–26 28:24–25 28:24 28:25 28:25b 28:26 28:27–29 28:27 28:28 28:28a 28:29 29

index of biblical texts 79, 80, 81, 83, 154, 202, 240, 342 74, 80, 112, 153–163 80 71, 74, 79, 80, 83, 123, 158, 166, 168, 184, 237, 251 79, 80, 154–156 159 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 155, 156–158, 160, 165, 199, 263 80 80 71, 79, 81, 84, 157, 158–160 71, 73, 74, 79, 81, 84, 130, 157, 158, 160–163, 199, 231, 232, 235, 239, 241, 259, 263, 280, 337 71, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 111, 112, 154, 163–166, 236, 237 81 81, 83, 84, 343 73, 78, 109, 203, 204, 218–234, 234–241, 247, 248, 251, 255, 259, 260, 280, 281, 342, 346 71, 73, 219–220, 224, 237, 239 218, 224 220 72, 220–221, 224, 225, 227, 228 72, 221–223, 224, 226, 237 225, 226 72, 164, 184, 223, 231, 234, 237, 251 218, 220, 224 72, 223–225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234 72, 162, 196, 226–230, 234, 239, 240, 255 223 72, 73, 162, 230–232, 234, 237, 239, 241, 281 75

29:1–7(8) 29:1–6 29:1–4 29:1 29:2 29:3 29:4 29:5–8 29:6 29:7–8 29:7 29:8 29:9–14 29:9 29:10 29:13 29:14 29:14b 29:15–16 29:15 29:16 29:17–24 29:18 29:19–21 29:20 29:21 29:22 29:23 29:24 30 30:1–17 30:1–7 30:1–5 30:1 30:2–3 30:2 30:3 30:5 30:6–7 30:6 30:8–11 30:9–11 30:9 30:10 30:11 30:12–14 30:14

335 250, 256 247, 269, 336 246, 256, 257, 260, 261, 281, 346 256 255 119, 168, 211 247, 334 117, 231, 256, 257, 273 250, 255 256 267, 336 247, 252 255 365 115, 192 114, 125, 126, 192, 231, 232, 239, 240 333 247 181, 246, 254, 257, 260, 261, 281, 346 365 247, 252, 253 252 253 113 253 12, 142 84, 160 252 75, 248 247 107 12, 87, 121, 201, 254, 333 121, 159, 181, 246, 257, 260, 261, 281, 346 123 121, 142, 143 120, 121 254 88, 254 254 253 252 194, 195 179 252 118, 212, 217, 253 194

index of biblical texts 30:15–17 30:15 30:16 30:18–26 30:18–21 30:18 30:19 30:20–21 30:20 30:23 30:26 30:27–34 30:27–33 30:27 30:28 30:29 30:30–31 30:30 30:31 30:31–32 30:32 30:33 31–32 31 31:1–32:8 31:1–4 31:1–3 31:1 31:2 31:3 31:4–9 31:4–5 31:4 31:5–8 31:5 31:6 31:8–9 31:9 32–33 32 32:1–8 32:1 32:2 32:3–4 32:5–8 32:9–20

128, 130, 192, 198, 333 84, 123, 130, 194, 198, 200, 252, 325 198 247, 250, 253 253 251, 253 266, 267, 272 252 229 226, 229 194 248 255, 256, 334, 335 257 256 29, 269 252 149, 209, 256, 257, 273 142 225 139, 152 257 75 257 248 247 87, 107, 253, 254, 333 229, 246, 257, 260, 261, 281, 336, 346 161, 232, 240, 253, 336 246, 254, 336 335 250 267, 269, 270, 273, 336 247 334 181 255, 334 253, 257, 267, 273 247, 248, 253, 258 248 247, 249, 252, 253, 254 147, 216, 253 123, 254, 267 252 253 248

32:9–14 32:9 32:10 32:11f 32:12 32:14 32:15–20 32:15–16 32:16–17 32:16 32:19 33 33:1–6 33:1 33:2–24 33:2 33:3–4 33:3 33:5 33:7–16 33:8 33:10 33:11 33:12 33:14–16 33:14 33:15 33:16 33:17–24 33:17 33:19 33:20–24 33:20–21 33:20 33:21 33:22 33:24 34–39 34–35 34 34:1 34:8 34:11,17 35 35:1–10 35:10 36–39 36–37

407 246, 247, 248, 250, 252 73, 219, 220, 252 255 252 255 137, 138 247, 251 215 253 147 149, 256 75, 246, 247, 281, 336, 337 336 246, 247, 248, 255, 257, 260, 281, 346 247, 251 251 255 251 147, 249, 251, 258, 267, 271 336 152 161, 251 257 255 254 257, 267, 273 253 229 252, 336 249, 252, 258 173, 190, 255 251 336 249, 252, 267, 268, 271 117, 251, 256 249 247, 249 245 245, 247 248, 257 73, 219 267, 272 145 248, 257 336 267, 272 103, 244, 245, 247, 327 101

408 36:12 36:17 37:2 37:7 37:22 37:27 37:32 38:1 38:5 38:8 39:3 39:5 40ff 40–55 40–48 40 40:1–2 40:9 41:15 41:25 41:27 42:1 43:10 44:8 44:13 44:28 45:19 46:10–11 46:13 48:2 48:13 49–55 49:1 49:7 49:14 50:1f 50:2 50:6–8 50:7 51:3 51:4 51:11 51:13 51:16 52:1 52:2 52:7–10 52:8 52:13–53:12 52:13 53:2–3 53:10 54 54:1–5

index of biblical texts 181 229 179 11, 124 267, 270 159 267, 268, 269, 272 179 125, 126 124 179 77 247 3, 243, 245 244 245 249 271 225, 226 153 271 215 28 29 145 275 173 232 272 274 275 244 73, 219 114, 169 271 30 159 36 14, 36 272 73, 219 272 275 271, 272, 275 267, 274 164, 270 290 272, 274 45 28 37 28 46 45

54:4 54:5 54:10 54:11–12 54:11 54:12 56–66 56:1 56:7 57:8b–9 57:9 57:13 57:16 59:1 59:16 60:14 60:19 60:22 62:3 62:11 63:3 64:9 64:10 65:11,25 66:5 66:20 66:24

12 165 142 26 41, 42, 275 136 3, 243, 244, 245 147 269 176 170 269 228, 230 159 146 272, 274 214 142, 143 214, 215 270 153 274 271 269 77, 113 269 251

Jeremiah 2:8 2:20 2:21 2:26 3:15 3:16–17 5:5 5:15 6:13 6:16 7:12 8:10 10:14f 12:5 14:17 14:18 15:4 16:5 16:19 18:13 18:18 18:18b 23:11,33 24:9 27:2 28

179 164 163 179 184 310 164 191 179 194 288, 307 179 172 221 270 179 83, 157 174, 175, 182 172 270 179 232 179 83, 157 164 93

index of biblical texts 28:15 29:15 29:18 29:20 29:31 30:8 31:4,21 31:25 31:39 32:32 34:17 41:5 41:8 47:3 48:26 49:14 51:26 51:33

119 115 83, 157 163 119 164 270 194 145 179 83, 157 287 222 229 180 184 138, 140 224

Lamentations 1:4 1:9 1:15 2:8 2:13 2:15 5:18 5:20

274 231 270 145 270 270 269 228

Ezekiel 3:5–6 4:9 4:12 7:7,10 17:11–21 23:24 23:42 23:46 25:7 26:10 26:11 27:22 28:13 29:17–20 34:19 38–39 40:39–43 40:42 41:8 45:13 47:3

191 222 181 214 99 229 206 83, 157 125, 126, 127 229 153 138 42, 138 182 153 309 180 42 139 222 145

Daniel 2 2:31–35

47 39, 41

409

2:34 9:26 9:27 11:36 11:38

30, 33, 37 81, 83, 165 81, 83, 165 81, 83, 165 138

Hosea 1:10–11 2:20 4:6 4:16–19 5:1 8:2 10:11 12:2

45 122 184 182 73, 219 122 220 119

Joel 1:11 2:21 2:32 3:5 3:13

222 231 269 15 224

Amos 1:3 2:4 4:1 5:2 5:14 6:1,3–7 6:12 7:7–8 9:13

225 167, 171, 172 182 270 122 182 221 146 220

Obadiah 1:1 1:17,21

184 269

Micah 2:10 3:11 4:4 4:7 4:8 4:13 6:9 7:10

193 122, 319 104 269 270 225, 226 232 153

Nahum 1:13 3:2 3:14

164 225, 229 153

Habakkuk 1:12

29

410

index of biblical texts

2:3 2:4b 3:10 3:12

50 28 209 224, 225

Zephaniah 3:14

Luke 8:17 17:1–2 20:9–19 20:17

329 41 21 23, 61, 340

270

Zechariah 1:16 3:8–9 3:10 4:7 4:10 9:9 10:4 12:2–9 13:9 14:1–3 14:10–11 14:12–15

145 39, 42 104 28, 30, 33 30, 33 270 28 309 136 309 42 309

John 1:52 12:42

43 330

Malachi 1:14

104

Romans 3:16 9–11 9 9:20 9:30–32 9:32b–33

Sirach 14:12

124

9:33

4 Ezra 13:23–36

30

Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 1:16

123 123

Matthew 5:3 11:28 13:12 13:13–15 13:52 16:18 21:1–17 21:33–46 21:42–44 21:42

331 366 329 329 ix, 358 41 95 21 51 22, 61, 340

Mark 1:11 4:12 9:7 12:1–12 12:10–11 12:10

22 329 22 21, 22 22, 61, 340 23, 138

Acts 4:8–12 4:11 28:24 28:25–28

39 21, 22, 23, 61, 138, 340 330 365

10:13 11:7

194 365, 366 364 365 52, 365 ix, 2, 10, 13–17, 20, 22, 61, 127, 339, 365 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 35, 38, 52, 61, 141, 277, 355, 356, 360, 362, 364, 365 364 15 ix, 2, 10, 12, 13–17, 19, 24, 61, 127, 141, 277, 339, 355, 360 15 365

1 Corinthians 1 2–3 3:10–11 3:11 14:21

37 38 41 47 191

10:4 10:9 10:11

Ephesians 2:14–22 2:14 2:19–22

42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 62, 63, 341 47 44

index of biblical texts 2:20–21 2:20

42 23, 37, 41, 42, 45, 48, 138

1 Timothy 1:16

24

Hebrews 11:10 12:29

42 257

1 Peter 2:3–4 2:4–8 2:4–6 2:5

19 17–22, 23, 27, 33, 36, 61, 62, 340 44 24, 42

2:6

411

2:7 2:8 2:9 3:8–12 3:10–15

ix, 2, 10, 12, 14, 17–22, 23, 24, 35, 53, 61, 127, 138, 141, 277, 339, 355, 356, 362, 365 20, 23, 138 19, 20, 366 24 19 147

2 Peter 1:20–21

x

Revelation 21:19–20 22:11

42 329

Zion's Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study

The Protocols of Zion

Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context (Oudtestamentische Studien)

The Protocols of Zion

The Question of Zion

A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called Plagues Narrative in Exodus 7.14–11.10 (Oudtestamentische Studien, Old Testament Studies)

The Gospel of Isaiah

Isaiah

The Romance of Zion Chapel

The Fatherhood of God: an Exegetical Study From the Hebrew Scripture

The Foundations of Research (Palgrave Study Guides)

Foundations of Education (Student Text) , Tenth Edition

Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Elders of Zion

Elders of Zion

Between Fear And Freedom: Essays On The Interpretation Of Jeremiah 30-31 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

The Theology of the Book of Isaiah

Studies in Isaiah

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

Between Fear And Freedom: Essays On The Interpretation Of Jeremiah 30-31 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

Aquaculture: An Introductory Text

Epidemiology an Introductory Text

Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Спор о Сионе. The Controversy of Zion

Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor (JSOT Supplement)

The Foundations of Nursing: An Integrated Approach

Studien

Studien

Zion's Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study

The Protocols of Zion

Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context (Oudtestamentische Studien)

The Protocols of Zion

The Question of Zion

A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called Plagues Narrative in Exodus 7.14–11.10 (Oudtestamentische Studien, Old Testament Studies)

The Gospel of Isaiah

Isaiah

The Romance of Zion Chapel

The Fatherhood of God: an Exegetical Study From the Hebrew Scripture

The Foundations of Research (Palgrave Study Guides)

Foundations of Education (Student Text) , Tenth Edition

Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Elders of Zion

Elders of Zion

Between Fear And Freedom: Essays On The Interpretation Of Jeremiah 30-31 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

The Theology of the Book of Isaiah

Studies in Isaiah

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

Between Fear And Freedom: Essays On The Interpretation Of Jeremiah 30-31 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The DVD and the Study of Film: The Attainable Text

Aquaculture: An Introductory Text

Epidemiology an Introductory Text

Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31 (Oudtestamentische Studien)

Спор о Сионе. The Controversy of Zion

Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor (JSOT Supplement)

The Foundations of Nursing: An Integrated Approach

Studien

Studien

Recommend Documents