Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires [1 ed.] 9783666560354, 9783525560358

Citation preview

Reinhard Gregor Kratz / Joachim Schaper (eds.)

Titel Visions Titel Titel Imperial The Prophet and Untertitel the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Edited by Ismo Dunderberg, Jan Christian Gertz, Hermut Löhr and Joachim Schaper Volume 277

Reinhard Gregor Kratz / Joachim Schaper (eds.)

Imperial Visions The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: textformart, Göttingen | www.text-form-art.de Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0939 ISBN 978-3-666-56035-4

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Part I: Texts from First Isaiah and the discourse on the Assyrian Empire Hugh G. M. Williamson The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah . . . . . . . . 15 Matthijs J. de Jong Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah 6+8 and 28–31 Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Reinhard Müller From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah. Paradigmatic Images of Imperial Hubris in Isa 10:5–15 . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Jacob Stromberg Figural History in the Book of Isaiah. The Prospective Significance of Hezekiah’s Deliverance from Assyria and Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Ronnie Goldstein Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message, Hebrew ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬, and Akkadian urbῑ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Graeme Auld Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Part II: Babylon and Persia in the Book of Isaiah and texts from Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic times Uwe Becker Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Anja Klein Babylon Revisited. A New Look at Isa 13 and Its Literary Horizon . . . . . 141

6

Contents

Reinhard G. Kratz Isaiah and the Persians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Joachim Schaper Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66. Trito-Isaiah as an Example of Resistance Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Alison Salvesen LXX Isaiah as Prophecy? Supposed Historical Allusions in LXX Isaiah . . . 185

Preface

“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”1 Gramsci’s famous dictum was intended to express the situation in which his generation found itself during the transition from late European imperialism to a new, bipolar world order which he did not live to see. While we today, after the collapse of the Soviet empire, live in a world with only one remaining empire (one that does not want to be perceived as such), research into certain historical empires and concepts of imperialism are very much the order of the day. Eric Hobsbawm’s The Age of Empire: 1875–1914 was published in 1987 and can be considered as one of the triggers of the overwhelming interest in the subject in recent years. The field of modern history is now saturated with literature devoted to empires and imperialisms, with Niall Ferguson’s Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World and Priyamvada Gopal’s Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Universities offer full-scale programmes in what is referred to as “empire studies” (cf. the course of study leading towards a “Graduate Certificate in Empire Studies” at the University of Houston), and there is an online publication named the Journal for Empire Studies. Popular culture is equally affected by this phenomenon: to name just one example, a collection of real-time strategy computer games is called Age of Empires … To some degree, all of this may be seen as a revival of the intense interest which the works of Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, contemporaries of Gramsci, generated in the twentieth century, in historical situations very different from our own age. But then—is our own situation really so very different? We too live in an age of transition characterized by insecurity and a lack of orientation which is reflected in Gramsci’s dictum, just as his own age was. The interest in empire(s) which has emerged in Assyriology, Old Testament / ​ Hebrew Bible Studies and in other areas of the study of the ancient world expresses the same concerns that drive the work of the modern historians mentioned earlier. There are collaborative research projects devoted to questions of empire and imperialism, like the Centre for Advanced Studies (Kollegforschungsgruppe 2615) at the Free University of Berlin, under the title Rethinking Oriental Despotism: Strategies of Governance and Modes of Participation in the Ancient Near East, and the Centre of Excellence in Ancient Near Eastern Empires at the University of Helsinki. The volume of collected essays that sprang from a conference held in Auckland in 2011 1 A. Gramsci, Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, ed. by Q. Hoare / ​ G. N. Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 276.

8

Preface

is another example of the significant interest with which the topic meets in the study of antiquity, in this case in Hebrew Bible studies.2 Published under the title Isaiah and Imperial Context, the volume explores Isaiah with foci on postcolonial interpretation and the “imperial imagination” that permeates the book. The present volume, containing essays which are the fruits of the fifth meeting of the Aberdeen Prophecy Network, entitled “Imperial Visions: The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires” and held at the Lichtenberg-Kolleg of the University of Göttingen from the 18th to the 21st of October 2015, takes a different perspective. It is inspired by the fact that the book of Isaiah enables us to follow the vagaries of a particular prophetic tradition through five centuries under three different empires. While there is one essay that approaches Trito-Isaiah in a manner inspired by “postcolonial” readings (i. e., Joachim Schaper’s “Land, freedom and the kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66: Trito-Isaiah as an example of resistance literature”), the other contributions focus mainly on the history of composition of the constituent parts of the book of Isaiah as well as their correlations with the political and cultural histories of the empires under which they were produced. The first part of the volume provides contributions dealing with texts from First Isaiah and the discourse on the Assyrian Empire. This section starts with Hugh Williamson’s essay, “The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah”. Williamson surveys the great variety of references to Assyria in the book of Isaiah and concludes that “Assyria was not used by Isaiah as a cipher for oppression in general of the people of God”—“‘The Evil Empire’ is therefore not a concept which developed broadly from the historical particulars but was Isaiah’s own initial preference as a way of drawing out the wider principles which he sought to convey”. Yet the vast majority of references to Assyria in the book of Isaiah originate in the exilic and post-exilic periods. The historical prophet’s allusions to Assyria generated numerous glosses which tried to apply Isaiah’s pronouncements to specific historical events, giving succour to “the … powerless people of God in a spiritual Zion, so that the prospect of a future universalist hope developed at the end of the process”. The overall survey of the references to Assyria is followed by two essays dealing with relatively early texts of First Isaiah and their correlations with the political history and ideology of the Assyrian Empire. Matthijs de Jong’s “Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah: Isaiah 6+8 and 28–31 Revisited” throws light on the connection between the Isaiah tradition and Assyrian imperialism. Since Isaiah’s messages and their earliest literary development relate to events such as the destruction of Samaria, Judah’s revolt against Assyria, and Sennacherib’s campaign

2 A. T. Abernethy et al. (ed.), Isaiah and Imperial Context: The Book of Isaiah in the Times of Empire (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2013).

Preface

9

of 701 BCE, de Jong explores Isaiah’s and the book of Isaiah’s response to Assyrian imperialistic ideology. In his contribution, “From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah: Paradigmatic Images of Imperial Hubris in Isa 10:5–15”, Reinhard Müller takes Julius Wellhausen’s observations regarding Ashur in Isaiah 10 as his starting-point. Wellhausen, in focusing on “the paradigmatic character of the Assyrian empire … depicts the Assyrians as the first who built a world-wide imperium, followed by Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, and Romans”. Müller is particularly interested in the significance of the theological interpretation of Ashur as “a tool or weapon in Yhwh’s hand” in Isa 10:5–15 and explores its history and ramifications. The following three essays are focused on the Isaiah legends in Isa 36–39 which have a parallel in 2 Kings 18–20 and 2 Chron 32. Jacob Stromberg’s “Figural History in the Book of Isaiah: The Prospective Significance of Hezekiah’s Deliverance from Assyria and Death” is devoted to exploring “both the historiographical logic that governed the formation of this material as well as the literary strategies set in place to give that logic voice in the text” and concentrates on chapters 7 and 36–39. Stromberg sees them as exemplars of “a single strategy that has as its aim the framing of the larger Isaianic corpus in terms of a particular understanding of history”. The Isaianic corpus can thus be perceived not just as an assemblage of prophecies but as a prophetic history which lays the foundations for a future that is grounded in that history. Ronnie Goldstein’s “Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message, Hebrew ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬, and Akkadian urbi” concentrates on a linguistic detail which is significant for the historical and cultural context in which the legends were produced. Goldstein explores Rabshakeh’s message in 2 Kings 18:19–35//Isa 36:4–20 and supports the view that memories from 701 BCE may well have been preserved in the story told in that passage. Goldstein focuses on the meaning of ‫ ִה ְת ָע ֶרב‬in 2 Kings 18: 23–24//Isa 36:8–9 and discusses the implications of his new interpretation for the understanding of the relationship between the passage in question and other biblical and extra-biblical texts. Graeme Auld focuses his attention on the parallels in 2 Kings 18–20 and 2 Chronicles 32. In his “Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings”, Auld follows up on his earlier study “Recovering the Oldest Prophetic Roles in Biblical Narrative”. Since the opinio communis holds that Chronicles as a whole is a reworking of the books of Samuel and Kings, Chronicles is typically not adduced when the development of 2 Kings 18–20//Isa 36–39 is explored. The Fortschreibung approach to the longer version in Kings and Isaiah enables exegetes to reconsider the relationship with Chronicles 32. Since the Chronicles account may not have been based on the report in Kings and Isaiah as we know it but on an earlier stage in that report’s development, Auld reconsiders the relationship between 2 Kings 18–20//Isa 36–39 and 2 Chron 32.

10

Preface

The second part of this volume presents contributions which deal with Babylon and Persia in the Book of Isaiah and texts from Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic times. Uwe Becker’s study “Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality” acts as a transition from the first to the second part of our collection of essays. Becker explores how the concept of “intertextuality” is used in current research on Isaiah 24–27 to produce readings which avoid any Literarkritik and redaction-critical differentiations. In his view, “[t]he book of Isaiah confounds such unified readings, precisely because it is not a book in the modern sense”. However, with regard to Isaiah 24–27 and its very special place in the book of Isaiah and its history, and as a “seemingly relatively independent, but also to a certain extent puzzling, collection”, those seemingly independent, unified chapters invite a reading that is, on the one hand, informed by the concept of intertextuality and, on the other hand, needs a diachronic perspective on intertextuality. Thus, Becker offers a proposal of his own for the literary stratigraphy of this complex text which never existed as an independent collection. According to this proposal, the literary core of Isa 24:1–20 originally bridged the oracles against the nations in Isa 13–23 and the Assyrian cycle in Isa 28–31 and was successively supplemented (fortgeschrieben) to reach its present form. In her “Babylon Revisited: A New Look at Isa 13 and Its Literary Horizon”, Anja Klein focuses on the links between the Babylon oracle and other prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible, especially with regard to the prophecies in Jeremiah 4–6 and 50–51. While the opinio communis argues for the dependence of Jeremiah 50–51 on Isaiah 13, Klein explores indications of the reverse direction of dependence. She sees the Babylon oracle in Isaiah 13 as part of a wider theological and literary development that helped to interpret the significance of Babylon in post-exilic prophecies. Reinhard G. Kratz’s study, “Isaiah and the Persians”, focuses on the question of ancient Near Eastern and especially Persian influences on the formation and dating of the book of Isaiah, such as the significance of the person of Cyrus and of concepts of creation, monotheism, universalism and dualism. Kratz argues against the assumption that religio-historical analogies make literary-critical distinctions superfluous and draws attention to the fact that even “the conjecture of a separate corpus in Isa 40–66 is based on a literary and redaction-critical hypothesis, as is the postulate of a ‘Second Isaiah’” and that it is typically “accepted implicitly”. By contrast, Kratz discusses the Assyrian, Late Babylonian and Persian traces in Second Isaiah and asks what they can contribute to assessing the dating and the unity (or lack thereof) of the texts in question. Joachim Schaper’s contribution, “Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66: Trito-Isaiah as an Example of Resistance Literature”, sees Isaiah as a key to a better understanding of Judah under the rule of three successive empires, and of the Judahites’ political and religious reactions towards those

Preface

11

empires. In that vein, he interprets Trito-Isaiah as a document of intellectual resistance against the Achaemenids and their imperialism, focusing on the desire for land and freedom expressed in Isa 56–66. Alison Salvesen’s essay, “LXX Isaiah as Prophecy? Supposed Historical Allusions in LXX Isaiah”, invites the reader to explore passages that are sometimes thought to be examples of updated prophecy and of historical allusions in LXX Isaiah and concludes that they may be due to “non-exegetical factors such as an alternative Vorlage, non-masoretic vocalisations of the text, or expected translation equivalents”. There are other passages in LXX Isaiah, however, that indicate “a minor degree of contemporisation” in the book, and “more striking renderings” are also in evidence, as in Isa 11:16. Salvesen discusses the various examples and their significance in the history of interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Isaiah in the Hellenistic period. The present volume thus navigates some of the key points of the history of Isaiah and the book named after him. We are glad now to present it to the academic public, in the hope that it may help further to elucidate the history of Judahite prophecy in an age of empires. Göttingen and Aberdeen, September 2019 Reinhard G. Kratz and Joachim Schaper

Part I: Texts from First Isaiah and the discourse on the Assyrian Empire

Hugh G. M. Williamson

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah The name Assyria occurs 44 times in the Masoretic text of the book of Isaiah. Of these there is only one in the second half of the book, namely at 52:4,1 where we are told that ‫ואשור באפס עשקו‬, usually rendered “and Assyria oppressed them [my people] without cause”. This is part of a curiously disjointed passage whose position in the text is the source of disagreement. It might also be considered odd to find a reference in this part of the book to Assyrian oppression rather than, say, Babylonian. Be that as it may, given the immediately preceding reference to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, it looks as though the author is here recording what he regarded as an element of his people’s earlier history. Although Assyria is therefore clearly the object of implied criticism, his reference is evidently to the historical Assyria of earlier times, so that to that extent his usage here is perfectly straightforward. Within Isaiah 1–39 the majority of occurrences come in the third-person prose narratives—19 in chapters 36–38 and 3 in chapter 20—where there is no dispute that these are historical records relating to the historical Assyria. How historical these records are by modern standards may be discussed, but, as with 52:4, the author’s intended referent is not in question. I should associate the material in 7:1–17 with these other two passages in terms of composition history as well, but Assyria is not mentioned in the primary layer there, so that it is not necessary to defend that claim here against those who would see it rather as some part of an original Isaiah Memoir.2 Assyria does come as the last word in that passage, however, in what is generally regarded as a later historicizing gloss (‫)את־מלך אשור‬, and the same is proposed for the comparable occurrences at 7:20 and 8:7.3 1 I can only dismiss as an ill-considered foible the suggestion that a reference to Assyria should be discovered by a change of vocalization at 43:4 to give “you are more precious to me than the Assyrians” (hardly a reassuring sentiment!); cf. K. Maalstad, “Einige Erwägungen zu Jes. xliii 4”, VT 16 (1966) 512–14, inexplicably followed by NEB and REB. 2 See provisionally my presentation in H. G.M. Williamson, “Deuteronomy and Isaiah”, in J. S.  DeRouche / J.  Gile / K. J.  Turner (ed.), For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel O. Block (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013) 251–68, on pp. 257–61. 3 This is accepted by the large majority of commentators and others; see, for instance, J. Werlitz, Studien zur literarkritischen Methode: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1–17 und 29,1–8 (BZAW 204; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 197–8; so correctly in this regard C. Balogh, “Historicising Interpolations in the Isaiah-Memoir”, VT 64 (2014) 519–38, with references to some earlier literature, though I do not follow him in all his other proposals. For a broadly historical reading

16

Hugh G. M. Williamson

This leaves us with 18 passages, of which some again seem to refer to the historical Assyria (e.g. 8:4, which is almost universally ascribed to the very earliest layer in the book) while others are equally widely regarded as very much later in composition, so that at best Assyria could refer only to the territory which Assyria had once occupied (e.g. 27:13) or perhaps even as a cipher for one of the later empires (whether Persian or Seleucid) which followed them (19:23–25, including no less than six occurrences).4 All this leaves us with a relatively small number of passages where there is room for significant disagreement about dating and consequent interpretation in relation to the nature of the reference to Assyria. Needless to say, other material needs also to be drawn into the discussion where a later writer may have expanded on an earlier reference to Assyria. An important step in the scholarly study of Isaiah was taken when H. Barth published his thesis with Assyria explicitly in his title: Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung.5 Starting from an analysis of chapter 10 – a cardinal passage in all these debates—he sought to demonstrate that a number of passages which were unlikely to belong to the work of Isaiah himself and which had been dated later (sometime in the post-exilic period) by most scholars should in fact be attributed to the days of Josiah when the Assyrian Empire was in terminal decline. One of the great attractions of this theory was that the references to Assyria could still, therefore, be taken at face historical value while avoiding the danger of retreating to an implausible eighth century date. The changed historical circumstances also gave a reasonable explanation for the changed nature of the prophecies, namely the anticipated fall of Assyria, whereas in earlier oracles it had been portrayed as God’s instrument of judgment upon his people. The ideological clash could thus be accommodated and explained by this new theory. of all this material within the context of the study of empire, see M. J. Boda, “Walking in the Light of Yahweh: Zion and the Empires in the Book of Isaiah”, in S. E. Porter / C. L. Westfall (ed.), Empire in the New Testament (McMaster New Testament Studies Series 10; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011) 54–89. For a variety of approaches to the subject in general, see A. T. Abernethy et al. (ed.), Isaiah and Imperial Context: The Book of Isaiah in the Times of Empire (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013). 4 For a defence of the Persian identification, see, for instance, H. Wildberger, Jesaja (3 vol.; BKAT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978 [English title: Isaiah (3 vol.; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 2.279–81]), 2.743–6, and of the Seleucid option see, for instance, O. Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja (2 vol.; ATD 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973 [English title: Isaiah: A Commentary (2 vol.; OTL; London: SCM, 1974), 2.109–12]), 2.90–92. These and other views are surveyed by P. M. Cook, A Sign and a Wonder: The Redactional Formation of Isaiah 18–20 (VTSup 147; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 118–22—and he is surely right to dismiss the assumption of an eighth-century origin for 19:23–25 by S. Dalley, “Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh”, JSOT 28 (2004) 387–401. 5 H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977).

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

17

Barth’s conclusions were comparable in some respects with those reached at around the same time by Vermeylen, who cites Barth’s unpublished dissertation in his own work while at the same time criticizing it as being too narrow and restricted,6 so that there are equally important differences between them that need to be acknowledged. Again with some (though fewer) differences, the theory was quickly and enthusiastically embraced in England by Clements,7 through whom in the English-speaking world the theory came to be known more familiarly as the Josianic Redaction. Many others have adopted it since in one shape or another, among whom in the context of contributors to the present volume I note especially de Jong.8 The extent of what Barth ascribes to this redactor, whether by fresh composition or by expansion of inherited material, may be noted from his own summarizing chart on p. 299 (and note too the italicized material in the translation in the appendix on pp. 311–36): 5:30; a small part of 7:20; 8:9–10; 8:23b–9:6; 10:4b(?), 16–19; 14:5 with one element in 6, 20b–21, 24–27; 17:12–14; 28:23–29; 29:8; 30:27–33; 31:5, 8b–9; 32:1–5, 15–20.9 Within this, there are explicit references to Assyria at 7:20, 14:25, and 30:31. Of these, however, he agrees that the reference to the King of Assyria in 7:20 should be ascribed to the same historicizing glossator as the others noted above,10 so that it should not be ascribed to his redactor. That, therefore, leaves only two references to Assyria in the redactor’s own material. Of those places where the name occurs which have survived my introductory screening, he seems to attribute 10:5, 12b, and 31:8a to Isaiah’s own composition (I use that as a shorthand way of referring to the earliest layer in the book without necessarily engaging with the detailed question of whether Isaiah himself actually wrote it), so leaving 10:24 to the exilic period and 11:11, 16; 19:23 (x4), 24, 25, and 27:13 to the post-exilic period; he also regards 23:13 as later (see p. 7) though without, so far as I can see, specifying its date more precisely. I have shown elsewhere that there are serious grounds for questioning whether the arguments in favour of identifying an Assur-Redaktion are cogent, and I do 6 J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe, I—XXXV, miroir d’un demimillénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël (2 vol.; EB 3; Paris: Gabalda, 1977–1978), 1.25. 7 Among a number of his publications, we may here note especially R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (JSOTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), and Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980). 8 M. J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VTSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 9 For a broad survey of earlier research on many of these texts, see R. Kilian, Jesaja 1–39 (Erträge der Forschung 200; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983), 40–106. 10 Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 198–200. He also ascribes the references in 7:18 and 8:4 to this glossator, though in these two cases I disagree; in my analysis, 7:18 is altogether later, whereas 8:4 is probably an original part of the composition.

18

Hugh G. M. Williamson

not intend to revisit that discussion here.11 In fact, however, it transpires from our rather tedious statistical survey that, despite the way the virtues of that theory have been lauded, it does not really make any major difference to the essential exegetical task of exploring why, how, and to what effect the name of Assyria came to be used in literature well after the demise of the historical empire. While I will sometimes refer in what follows to the reasons why I disagree with some of the details of Barth’s analysis, it is clear that we need in any case to look elsewhere for an answer to our questions. As we try to build up a picture of the early Judean perception of Assyria, the first curious feature to note is how infrequently it is in fact named. Probably only two passages would be generally recognized as early. At Isa 8:4 we find: “before the lad knows how to call ‘Daddy’ or ‘Mummy’, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried off (and placed) before the king of Assyria.”12 It is true Barth wanted to include this final phrase in the verse among the group of generally agreed historicizing glosses, and there can be no doubt that the verse could be construed meaningfully without this phrase. It nevertheless seems more likely to be an original and integral part of the narrative; as Wildberger suggests, it may further imply a triumphal march before the victorious king. It seems more probable to conclude on balance that the glossator derived his wording from the present verse. Either way, the reference here is relatively neutral from an ideological standpoint. It is Syria and Israel who are the subject of defeat in this passage—presumably, therefore, a reassuring word to Judah, whom they were threatening—and the king of Assyria thus represents the source of Judah’s security. Although the military arm of the empire will no doubt have been in mind in the background, it is merely the person of the king who here represents the victors. From Judah’s point of view, the whole emphasis in the passage is on the defeat of her enemies, not the status of Assyria. More significant by far is the reference to Assyria in 10:5: “Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger and the staff of my rage [it is in their hand].”13 This introduces a 11 H. G.M. Williamson, “The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination”, in T. Wasserman / G. Andersson / D. Willgren (ed.), Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology and Reception (LHBOTS 654; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2017) 3–21. 12 For the use of the 3rd person masculine singular to express an indefinite subject, see GK § 144d; JM § 155d–e; J. C.L.  Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar—Syntax (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 13; I have therefore rendered as a passive. With regard to the preposition ‫לפני‬, I am not aware that there is any justification for the rendering “be carried away by” (e.g. NRSV), as it is never used to introduce the agent. I prefer to appeal to the well-established idiom in which prepositions may imply an appropriate verb of motion; cf. GK § 119ee: “one will carry off … (and place) before”. 13 Despite the fact that the LXX goes its own way in this verse, it can be shown to presuppose a rendering close to, if not identical with, MT. T also paraphrases, but the other versions follow MT, while 1QIsaa and such fragments of 4QIsae of this verse as survive also attest the same text.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

19

poem which has certainly been expanded in later times by vv. 10–11 and 12.14 Greater uncertainty concerns identifying the close of the poem. As we shall see later in an important step in the overall argument of the present analysis, vv. 16–19 should certainly be construed as a later development of the poem. The position of v. 15 is less clear, however. The first half of the verse uses rhetorical questions to reinforce the main “message” of the preceding passage while the second half consciously links this back to the wording and imagery of the opening v. 5. Many commentators find this a satisfying conclusion to the earliest layer of composition, and I am in agreement with them. Others disagree. Some express themselves memorably but in a manner that is closer to a value judgment than an argument: “Dies weitschweifige, gegen die vorhergehenden Strophen so stark abfallende, jedenfalls sie nicht fortsetzende Gedicht kann nicht von Jes. sein” (Duhm). Vermeylen finds the use here of “rod” and “staff ” differs from its use in v. 5 and so consigns the verse to a later hand; like Marti before him, he compares 29:16 and 45:9 as illustrative of the same sort of outlook. Opinions here may evidently differ, but it seems difficult to me to press such considerations as far as these commentators have done. There is thus no ancient evidence to support emendation (though many have been proposed). There have traditionally been three different ways to try to construe the text as it stands, but they all face difficulties: (i) everywhere else in this poem Assyria is taken as a singular, not a plural as in ‫בידם‬, and (ii) the obviously expected parallelism of ‫ שבט אפי‬and ‫ מטה זעמי‬is interrupted by ‫הוא בידם‬. More recent attempts to circumvent these difficulties either by appeal to the enclitic mem or by postulating the AXB pattern of syntax (here, effectively a broken construct chain), are equally unconvincing. In my opinion, the most likely solution remains that which has been widely proposed, namely, without any change to the text, to bracket ‫ הוא בידם‬as a later explanatory gloss, added for good reasons which need not, however, detain us now; see, for instance, F. Hitzig, Der Prophet Jesaja (Heidelberg: Winter, 1833), who seems first to have proposed this; H. Ewald, Jesaja mit den übrigen älteren Propheten (Stuttgart: Krabbe, 1840), 281–3; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT 3/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892; 41922); K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (KHAT 10; Tübingen: Mohr, 1900); G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I–XXXIX (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912); J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapters, XXXIX (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897); A. Condamin, Le livre d’Isaïe (EB; Paris: Lecoffre, 1905); G. W. Wade, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 21929); G. R. Driver, “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament”, Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 1 (1957) 123–61, on p. 125; H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern (VTSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964), 142; A. Schoors, Jesaja (De Boeken van het Oude Testament 9A; Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1972); C. Hardmeier, Texttheorie und biblische Exegese: zur rhetorischen Funktion der Trauermetaphorik in der Prophetie (BEvTh 79; Munich: Kaiser, 1978), 230; Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 23; J. D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco: Nelson, 1985; 2nd rev. edn, 2005); de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 127. 14 In this I agree with many other commentators. For my own defence of this position against a few recent attempts to salvage some elements from these verses for the original poem, see my article H. G.M. Williamson, “Idols in Isaiah in the Light of Isaiah 10:10–11”, in R. I.  Thelle / T.  Stordalen / M. E.J.  Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (VTSup 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 17–28.

20

Hugh G. M. Williamson

More important, because more evidence based, is the argument of Blenkinsopp, who takes v. 15 with what follows on the ground that the use of a rhetorical question followed by comment is a common feature of prophetic discourse and this comment Blenkinsopp finds in vv. 16–19, introduced by “therefore”. He lists some ten passages in support of this, but in fact not one of them includes “therefore”. In my opinion his correct observation of this technique is fully satisfied by v. 15 on its own, with the second half commenting appropriately on the questions in the first half (see also below on the use of “therefore” to introduce material which has been added later). On this basis, too, I do not share the view of some that merely the first half of the verse should be accepted as original.15 Nearly all commentators have agreed that the original poem should be ascribed to Isaiah. The sentiments expressed fit well with his outlook, as we shall see, and the allusions to the Northern Kingdom, as found in v. 6, are clearly his,16 whereas there are no allusions apparent to later passages (contrast vv. 16–19). The apparent climax of the list of place names in v. 9 as well as the sense of immediacy that the verse exudes also fits best within Isaiah’s period.17 The opening verse is of crucial importance for our investigation. There are three differences in the usage of “woe” here from all those which have come previously in ch. 5 and at 10:1. First, unlike all these previous woes, this is directed against a foreign power, and is not internal to Judah or Israel; it is thus cast in the third person and not addressed directly to the object of the woe. The same considerations apply at 28:1–4, where again a “foreign” nation is in view and where again the woe is cast as third person; this shows both that this feature is not an argument against an early date and also that the author was sensitive to practical 15 Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.279–81; Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 23; H. Liss, Die unerhörte Prophetie: Kommunikative Strukturen prophetischer Rede im Buch Yesha‘yahu (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003), 145; so correctly W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik (BEvTh 74; Munich: Kaiser, 1976), 119; J. Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: eine Untersuchung zur biblischen Theologie (AThDan 24; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 117; Kaiser, Jesaja; S. Mittmann, “‘Wehe! Assur, Stab meines Zorns’ (Jes 10,5–9.13ab–15)”, in  V.  Fritz / K.-F.  Pohlmann / H.-C.  Schmitt (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW 185; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989) 111–32. 16 There are close analogies for the wording at 8:1–4 and 9:16–18, and see also 5:25 and 28:18, for instance. 17 Only a few have disagreed with this assessment. U. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 200–5, draws particular attention to some similarities with 36:18–20 and 37:12–13 (curiously, see also Watts, Isaiah 1–33), though of course it is difficult to be sure which way any dependence may lie (cf. A. Laato, “About Zion I will not be silent”: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity (ConB, OT Series 44; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998), 104–5); furthermore the references to idol gods, at least, relate to the secondary material in vv. 10–11. His arguments have been examined in detail by Liss, Die unerhörte Prophetie, 166–71. For the few contrary opinions about Isaianic authorship in previous scholarship, see the list at Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 26 n. 50, and add Kaiser, Jesaja.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

21

circumstances in relation to the intended target, not just writing in complete abstraction. Second, this is the only example of this type of prophecy in Isaiah 1–12 which is presented as divine speech rather than as a prophetic word.18 Third, what immediately follows is not the source of the implied condemnation but rather a statement of God’s purpose in the current circumstances. From one point of view, therefore, the immediate sequel is surprising indeed, since it is not the cause of woe against Assyria; that comes only with v. 7 and beyond.19 The passage is thus quite distinctive within the Isaianic woe-cycles. The crucial point to derive from all this is that Assyria is God’s chosen instrument of judgment on his people but at the same time is itself the subject of the woe. In addition, as the poem proceeds Assyria seems quickly to become embodied in the person of its king (see especially v. 8). If these are the only two references to Assyria which could have been included in the earliest collection of Isaiah’s sayings (see below on 10:12 and 31:8), then we should draw the obvious consequence that the threatened judgment which we find elsewhere was deliberately cast in a more generalized manner. Although no doubt most hearers or readers would have quickly thought of Assyria, the aim of the descriptions was not so much to pinpoint the agent of God’s work as to develop a portrayal that would impress, if not intimidate, the first audience, presumably to provoke an appropriate response. We may look briefly at a few obvious examples. Perhaps the clearest example comes in 5:26–29. I share the widespread (though not universally agreed) view that this passage has been moved to its present position for reasons that need not detain us now from its setting as the last stanza in the refrain poem in 9:7–20.20 It thus describes the culmination of God’s attempts to draw his people back to himself in repentance by way of a series of admonishing events. It implies an end of the process so that it cannot be followed, 18 De Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 127; A. van der Kooij, “‘Nimrod, A Mighty Hunter before the Lord!’: Assyrian Royal Ideology as Perceived in the Hebrew Bible”, Journal for Semitics 21/1 (2012) 1–27, on p. 14; 1:24 is not a woe-oracle, of course. 19 Calvin suggested that “woe” had different meanings, including that it could be used simply as a call to attention, and that one should translate accordingly in varied contexts (see here the “O” and “Ho” of AV and RV respectively). In the present case, however, it seems unlikely that the word serves only as a summons (J. A. Alexander, Commentary on The Prophecies of Isaiah [repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978; original publication in 2 vols: 1846–1847]), especially as (unlike at 1:24 and 17:6, to which K. Schmid, Jesaja 1–23 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011) appeals) the woe introduces the passage rather than coming within it and to that extent is difficult to put into a wholly different category from 10:1 and the series in chap. 5. 20 I have discussed this in H. G.M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5 (ICC; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 400–3; see also the wider but equally relevant issues discussed in The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-​ Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 125–43. As part of this redactional activity I have speculated that an originally singular “nation” has been made plural in its new context (v. 26) in order to align the verse with its partners in 11:12 and 49:22. The continuation with singular verbs strongly supports the view that “nation” was originally singular as well when it stood with the rest of the poem, but that is no reason to emend it here.

22

Hugh G. M. Williamson

as the previous stanzas were, by the refrain that implies that there is still a way of escape. The image of the invader is vivid in the extreme but curiously lacking in localized specificity. He comes swiftly “from the ends of the earth” (see also, for instance, Deut 28:49; Isa 10:3, 30:27, etc.) but is tireless and immaculate. Weapons are at the ready and his chariots’ wheels are like the whirlwind. Indeed, he can be likened to a lion about to pounce on its prey. All this suggests that the description is consciously open; Assyria may well have been in mind at one level, but such a description can also equally legitimately be used of Babylon (as perhaps by the redactor who placed the material in its present position) and indeed of any of their later successors. Another passage that fits this same pattern, in my opinion, is 1:7–8, which refers to “aliens” and “foreigners” again in circumstances which can be easily related to the events of 701 BCE, with Judah completely overrun, many of its cities destroyed, and Jerusalem blockaded, but which is equally open to alternative, or rather complementary, applications. Indeed, its setting within the first chapter of the book, which seems to have been assembled in some way as an introduction to the whole, suggests that early on it was already being reapplied to the later Babylonian invasion. Now, it is true that there are other ways of referring rather clearly to Assyria without the use of the name itself, and twice in what I regard as early material we find references to “the River”. At 8:7, in contrast with “the waters of Shiloah which flow gently and joyfully”,21 we find a reference to “the mighty and many waters of the River”. The imagery of the River for the Assyrian invading forces is clear enough, and indeed the Assyrians themselves could use flood-like imagery to describe the defeat of their enemies. In addition, several of the following descriptive terms can be used equally for rivers or for troops, and certainly the language of the second half of the verse and the first half of v. 8 is more obviously suitable for a group than an individual. Thus the word for “mighty” (‫)עצום‬, according to Lohfink,22 “oscillates between ‘numerous, many’ and ‘mighty, powerful’”. Both aspects are always present, with only the context determining which is uppermost in each case. Furthermore, since the same oscillation applies to ‫רב‬, “many”, their use in combination, here as elsewhere, does not pre-determine that only the numerical element is in mind. In this connection, Wildberger, Jesaja, cites the following passages as referring “mighty” specifically to armed forces: Deut 4:38, 7:1, 9:1, 11:23; Josh 23:9; Joel 1:6, 2.2, 5, 11. In these passages the word is collocated both with “great” (‫ )גדול‬and with 21 For discussion of this admittedly difficult text and an attempt to justify the rendering above, see H. G.M. Williamson, “The Waters of Shiloah (Isaiah 8:5–8)”, in I. Finkelstein / N. Na’aman (ed.), The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011) 331–43. 22 N. Lohfink, ThWAT vi., 313–14 = TDOT xi, 292–3.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

23

“many” (and once with “without number”). It is thus likely that, despite the fact that the adjectives here strictly speaking qualify the waters, the words have been chosen as a pair to invoke invincible power through numerical strength rather than that the words “many waters” have been chosen in isolation as a recollection of the primeval chaotic waters, as has occasionally been suggested;23 contrast 17:12–13, where the phrase certainly occurs with the threatening nations more generally in view. This imagery of the river continues directly in the last part of the verse (so that the slightly different interpretation in terms of the king of Assyria is clearly interruptive, confirming the opinion expressed above that it is one of the series of historicizing glosses). The picture of an overflowing river as a destructive agent of judgment occurs elsewhere as well; cf. Jer 47:2 (the possibility of literary dependence does not seem to have been raised before, but there are several noteworthy coincidences of vocabulary between this verse and Isa 8:7–8). While “channels” (‫ )אפיקים‬is used elsewhere quite often as a general word for streams or watercourses, its association here with the Euphrates has sometimes been thought to recall in particular the way in which that river is divided into canals and the like around major cities. This seems improbable as an allusion, however, especially in view of the parallel with “overflow(ing)…its banks”. More likely the description simply reflects the experience (in Palestine as much as in Mesopotamia) of overflowing rivers at times of heavy rain or with melting snow; cf. 28:2. Finally, the first part of v. 8 indicates even more clearly that imagery rather than physical reality is the dominant feature of this passage as it depicts the flood waters reaching into and, indeed, overwhelming, Judah. It is true that only here is “sweep on” (‫ )הלף‬used of flood waters, but its use elsewhere with reference to a storm wind (21:1; Hab 1:11) makes its sense here clear enough. The remaining vocabulary is common.24 Thus, without in any way denying that the reference to 23 Reference is generally made to H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of mayyim ­rabbîm, ‘Many Waters’”, JBL 74 (1955) 9–21, though he mentions our passage only in passing (p. 18 n. 37). 24 Of particular interest in this regard are the significant parallels in ch. 28. There, in a passage usually associated with the background to the 701 BCE events, though occasionally linked with the earlier Syro-Ephraimite affair (for a survey of opinions, see J. Dekker, Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16 (OTS 54; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 86–9), the prophet represents the Jerusalem leaders of the people as saying inter alia, “when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us” (‫שיט שוטף כי עבר לא יבואנו‬, v. 15), to which the prophet’s response is, “when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then you will be trodden down by it” (v. 18). While there are some significant textual issues in these verses which would have a bearing on our issue, MT seems to combine two images to describe the threat, that of scourge (itself perhaps picked up by the later 10:26) and of an overflowing river. In addition, the imagery is also exploited in v. 17: “the hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters will overflow (‫ )מים ישטפו‬the hiding place”. It seems that the leaders are portrayed as rejecting Isaiah’s previous warning but that he reaffirms it (note in addition that the language in 28:18 about being “trodden down” may echo the earlier 28:3; since one cannot be literally “trodden down” by an overflowing scourge, the mixing of images is again suggestive of their dependence

24

Hugh G. M. Williamson

Assyria is in view, it is noteworthy that its introduction by way of a reference to the River is primarily determined by the need for a contrast with the waters of Shiloah and the desire to introduce an image which could be exploited for purposes of the depiction of judgment by colourful and resonant language. The case of 7:20 is less straightforward: On that day the Lord will shave    with a razor hired25 in the regions beyond the river, even the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet,    and it will also sweep away the beard. 20 

First, my arguments that it is an original fragment of an Isaianic saying will by no means be universally agreed, but I summarize them here as making what I regard as a strong case: (i) Unlike all the other verses in 7:18–25, this is the only one which does not include a strong collection of citations, reinterpretations, or reapplications of earlier Isaianic material. (ii) It starts with ‫ביום ההוא‬, that is to say without a conjunction and without the ‫ והיה‬which precedes the phrase at the start of each of the other sections; (iii) it alludes to Assyria alone as the threat to Judah, which suits the eighth century satisfactorily; (iv) it makes use of a colourful image that is not paralleled elsewhere in Isaiah; and (v) it uses the divine title ‫אדני‬, “Lord”, in contrast with the commoner ‫ יהוה‬in v. 18; this was characteristic of Isaiah’s language in ch. 6. There is thus much to be said for concluding that v. 20 may have been added to 7:1–17 at an early stage, perhaps when that passage was edited and added into its present location; the inclusion of the gloss ‫ במלך אשור‬might come on usage elsewhere). In further support of this general position, we may note also that at 30:28 there is another probable echo of our verse, thus pointing to it once again as the source from which these later passages drew (“And his breath / wind is as an overflowing stream [‫]נחל שטף‬, that reaches even to the neck [‫)”]עד צואר‬. We may conclude that the significance of our passage was recognized early and exploited more than once. For broader reflections, though without specific reference to the connections I have suggested here, see R. G. Kratz, “Rewriting Isaiah: The Case of Isaiah 28–31”, in J. Day (ed.), Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHBOTS 531; New York: T & T Clark, 2010) 245–66. 25 ‫ תער‬is usually masculine. Apparently assuming that to be the case here too, the Masoretes have vocalized as construct before ‫ שכירה‬as an (feminine for) abstract noun (“an object for hire”?). This would be awkward in itself (though cf. Wildberger, Jesaja), but more significantly ‫ תספה‬at the end of the verse seems to confirm that ‫ תער‬here is feminine. (There is, in fact, quite a large number of nouns which may be of either gender; see K. Albrecht, “Das Geschlecht der hebräischen Hauptwörter”, ZAW 15 (1895) 313–25 and 16 (1896) 41–121; M. Zehnder, “Variation in Grammatical Gender in Biblical Hebrew: A Study on the Variable Gender Agreements of ‫ ֶּד ֶרְך‬, ‘Way’”, JSS 49 (2004) 21–45, with further bibliography. A. J. Koller, The Semantic Field of Cutting Tools in Biblical Hebrew: The Interface of Philological, Semantic, and Archaeological Evidence (CBQMS 49; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2012), 220, speculates that the feminine form might have been preferred here because the word is being used metaphorically.) We should thus vocalize with the definite article (‫) ַּב ַתעַ ר‬, as Hebrew idiom requires (against normal English usage; cf. GK § 126q–t), and take ‫ השכירה‬as an adjective in agreement.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

25

from the same hand, comparable with ‫ את מלך אשור‬in v. 17. Where the saying would have been preserved in the early Isaianic corpus cannot now be known. It could well have been pronounced in connection with Isaiah’s opposition to Hezekiah’s policy in the years running up to 701 BCE. Second, even if early, the saying is now so fragmentary that we should need to be cautious about drawing any far-reaching consequences from it. While it is usually interpreted as reflecting the Assyrian threat against Judah, the possibility that it originally referred to the threat against either Aram26 or Israel27 should not be discounted. If the latter were the case, it would come much closer in conception to 8:4. Third, while, as already indicated, the reference is usually thought to be to Assyria, this is not entirely clear. The wording used, ‫בעברי נהר‬, is noteworthy: the plural of ‫ עבר‬is rare, and ‫ נהר‬without the definite article in such a position is also unusual. While he and yod were more alike in Palaeo-Hebrew than in the square script, so that the suggestion to read ‫ בעבר הנהר‬is not impossible,28 it is not clear that we should emend just to avoid the unusual,29 especially if the unusual elements can, in fact, be paralleled elsewhere.30 While the suggestion to emend to the singular form is perfectly possible, of course, I tentatively leave MT unchanged and suggest that it is consciously less specific than the glossator supposed. Even on the usual view the verse expresses itself in the lightest possible way, downplaying Assyria’s own might by way of referring to it as merely a hired tool. While not as strong as 10:5, the implication is clear that there is a specific job to be done and no more; there is nothing in the image used to suggest that Assyria will be a permanent foreign oppressor. Finally, as with 8:7, the glossator evidently felt that the reference needed greater specification, so that in both the two verses we have just considered we have comparable glosses referring to the king of Assyria. It has rarely been asked why the glossator felt the need to intervene here and elsewhere in the way that he did but it may be that our survey of the relevant material as a whole suggests a solution. For the most part, the passages of Isaiah which most probably refer to the threat as envisaged by the eighth century prophet are deliberately expressed in general 26 So M. A.  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 157–8; for discussion of this and other uncertainties, see especially G. Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah (ConB, OT Series 56; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 32–6. 27 See Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja, 99. 28 LXX πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ renders more or less as it was bound to do, and so is weak evidence for emending to ‫בעבר הנהר‬, contra Gray, Isaiah, 141. 29 Cf. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia; A. B.  Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel (7 vol.; Leipzig: Hinrich, 1912), 4.30–1. 30 For “plurals of local extension”, see GK § 124b, and for the absolute use of ‫ נהר‬see Jer 2:18; Mic 7:12; Zech 9:10; Ps 72:8.

26

Hugh G. M. Williamson

and even hyperbolic terms without specific historical reference, rather akin to the more modern coinage of an “evil empire”.31 It may well be that Assyria was in mind as the most likely candidate to fill that role, but this was evidently not considered sufficiently specific for the glossator, so that he wanted to tie the reference down historically, no doubt in the light of experience. That this was contrary to Isaiah’s own preference is shown especially by his own two mentions of the Assyria of his day, the one as effective deliverer of Judah in 8:4 and the other as indicating that there was a very strict limit on Assyria’s freedom of action when dealing with Judah herself (10:5). Isaiah may have presented his assessment in terms of an “evil empire” as a way of maintaining an openness to the future, allowing the force of his depictions and imagery to stir his audience to response. The glossator, with all the restricting specificity of a politician, tied the vision to a particular and ultimately temporary super-power. That may have been appropriate for the writer of the historical-like prose narratives that I bracketed out previously, but in the poetry it rises no higher than an illustrative example of how vision may be applied at the expense of wider principle. How, we must now go on to ask, was this somewhat mixed presentation received by later contributors to the book? The answer, it seems to me, is as mixed as in the early material, and the varied strains of thought are therefore carried forward, each in their own way. First, we should note that in Fortschreibungen or other additions to earlier material, the descriptions remain as poetically powerful but as politically allusive as Isaiah’s own apparent style. Isaiah 10:16–19, for instance, is, in my opinion, certainly to be treated as a later expansion on the original core of vv. 5–15. It includes a number of midrashic-like allusions to other passages elsewhere in the book which I need not spell out in detail here, but most significant of all in this regard is what I have argued elsewhere is the Achilles heel of the Josianic redaction theory (which started out from this passage), namely that v. 18 explicitly draws on 35:2. There, in a passage which exults in the transformation of nature as a token of God’s glorious self-manifestation and the restoration of his people’s fortunes, we read that “the glory (‫ )כבוד‬of Lebanon shall be given to it (i. e. the Arabah desert), the majesty of Carmel (‫ )הכרמל‬and Sharon. They shall see the glory of the Lord, the majesty of our God.” In this passage, the use of glory is fully intelligible: probably in dependence upon 40:5 (“Then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together”),32 the notion of the glory and the majesty of the fertile land is dependent on (or even a reflection of) the revelation of the glory and majesty of God. In other words, the use of language in the first part of the verse is driven by

31 The popular modern use of the phrase is generally ascribed to the American President Ronald Reagan, though the combination of words as such had, of course, been used before him. 32 See especially O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBS 121; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985), 14–20.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

27

the second, which delivers the theological climax.33 In v. 18 of ch. 10, however, the use of the word “glory” does not seem to have any such particular motivation. The word occurred previously in v. 16, where it referred to the Assyrian and probably in particular to his military might.34 Here, however, such a sense would not be suitable, so that some alternative stimulus for its use needs to be predicated. The proposal that this relates to ch. 35 is reinforced by the use of “his garden land” (‫)כרמלו‬. In 35:2 this is the place name Carmel, as suggested by its use in juxtaposition with two other place names which equally stand for famously productive regions (Lebanon and Sharon).35 In our verse, however, this word has been used as a common noun, “plantation, garden-land”.36 This change may well have been motivated by an allusion to another appropriate passage, namely God’s ridicule through Isaiah of the boasting of the Assyrian king in 37:21–29. There, one of the things that the king is depicted as bragging about is that he has gone to the far recesses of Lebanon to fell its choicest trees, and he continues, “I have entered into its farthest height, the forest of his fruitful land (‫( ”)יער כרמלו‬v. 24). This is very close to our phrase “of his forest and of his garden land (‫ ”)יערו וכרמלו‬and accounts especially for the introduction of “forest” vis-à-vis 35:2.37 It also underlines the appropriateness of this kind of imagery here, since it introduces a characteristic 33 T. Wagner, Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament (VTSup 151; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 213–16, discusses the use of ‫ כבוד‬in this verse, but without reference to 10:16. He is more concerned with the links between 35:2, 33:9, 40:5, and 60:13. 34 The initially curious sounding phrase “under his glory” in this verse no doubt owes its presence here to the occurrence of “glory” also in 17:4, a verse which seems to be the inspiration for an earlier part of the verse as well, and it should probably be related to the use of “glory” seen elsewhere, especially at 8:7, where the link with the Akkadian melemme is apparent. Contra Gray, Isaiah, 200, the reference will therefore again be to military might rather than clothing; see already R. Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation; with a Preliminary Dissertation, and Notes (2 vol.; London: Thomas Tegg, 1778), 2.108, who wrote of “all that he could boast of as great and strong in his army”, and A. Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia (KeHAT 5; Leipzig: Hirzel, 51890), 109, who writes of “seiner imposanten Kriegsmacht”. The usage is here slightly strained, which may be partly due to the fact that it is later imitation, but T. H. Gaster, “Notes on Isaiah”, in A. I.  Katsh / L.  Nemoy (ed.), Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1979) 91–107, on p. 93, long ago saw a possible element of satire as well: “instead of his blazing glory there will be a blazing fire.” 35 Note that this same triplet occurs also in 33:9, where, with Bashan as well, the passage is speaking about how they will become like a desert. It is likely in this case that 35:2 has been influenced by 33:9; see Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr, 16. 36 This occurs also in a few other places in Isaiah, some of which are generally considered to be very late; 32:15–16 and 29:17 (with three occurrences in the first case and two in the second) must be related to each other, as part of the phraseology is identical (‫ )כרמל ליער יחשב‬and both speak of miraculous restoration. In 16:10, however, the imagery is used to help depict devastation, but without any other particular connection with our present verse. 37 Nonetheless, the cluster of allusions in 10:18 to 35:2 shows that the latter is the main inspiration for the author, so that this influence from 37:24 cannot overturn my major conclusion.

28

Hugh G. M. Williamson

type of correspondence between sin and judgment that is much favoured by the prophets.38 As an expansion on the pronouncement of woe on Assyria in the older poem, this modest addition combines several images of destruction, including sickness, fire, flight in terror, and forest felling.39 Furthermore, the divine name “the Light of Israel”, that on the basis of the image of light we should normally expect to bespeak joy and deliverance, is here turned to represent flame and fire.40 In addition, these are all represented as the result of God’s direct intervention. Assyria had previously been depicted as God’s agent in the judgment of his people, but her own end will be unmediated. Thus from this passage we may conclude that the fate of Assyria magnifies the kind of imagery that we have already seen was characteristic of Isaiah himself in his depiction of the evil empire: no specific agent is in view and the nature of the judgment is highly pictorial. Importantly, however, it follows from the unavoidably late date of the passage that the Assyria which it tacitly addresses can no longer be the Assyria of history but has to be regarded as the enemies of God’s people, whoever they may be. The vivid and yet unspecific language allows the reader to treat the earlier named “Assyria” as a cipher, with the result that this terrifying spectacle turns out also to be a word of secure reassurance to post-exilic Judah and its later successors. Indeed, that seems to be precisely how it was taken in the jumble of brief later statements which follow concerning the remnant. And amidst that jumble we indeed find Assyria again mentioned: Therefore thus has the Lord God of hosts said: “O my people who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of Assyria, (when) he smites you with a rod and lifts up his staff against you in the manner of Egypt, for within a very short space of time the period of rage will be at an end and my anger [against the world] will cease”. But the Lord of hosts will brandish a scourge against him as he did when he smote Midian at the rock of Oreb; and as for his staff over the sea, he will lift it up as he did in Egypt. (Isa 10:24–26)

From the point of view of content, this passage joins most effectively with vv. 5–15; those verses are clearly presupposed by some of the material in this passage, and the logical connection implied by “therefore” works quite well: given that Assyria has clearly overstepped its divine commission, therefore God’s people need not 38 See P. D.  Miller, Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis (SBLMS 27; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), though he does not cite this particular example. 39 There are some formidable textual and philological problems in these verses, discussion of which would exceed the bounds of what is practical here. The general summary picture I have outlined is not in doubt, however, even if some of its details may be. 40 See H. G.M. Williamson, “A New Divine Title in Isaiah 10.17”, in M. C.A. Korpel / ​ L. L.  Grabbe (ed.), Open Mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking (LHBOTS 616; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015) 315–20.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

29

fear her in the long run; once she has completed her task, she will in turn be overthrown. There are some significant differences of emphasis, of course, so that this cannot be an original continuation of vv. 5–15, but as its reprise of phraseology makes clear, it was written later in order to build on and develop the Isaianic oracle. Of course, v. 16 also begins with “therefore”, and I have just argued that it too was added secondarily to 5–15. Clearly, therefore, there is a question of which of the two passages, 16–19 or 24–26, was added first. It would be natural to suppose that it was 24–26 and that 16–19 then displaced it later; this is the obvious explanation for the current order. As with other material of this kind, a date is hard to establish, so that opinions vary widely. Clements (partially following Schoors) ascribes the passage to the Josianic redactional layer (though it is noteworthy that this view is not shared by Barth), and de Jong elaborates on this in a more intricate analysis.41 He regards vv. 24–25 as Isaianic (probably 720 BCE at the time of Sargon’s campaign) and then argues that vv. 26a and 27a are part of a commentary on it from the time of Josiah; v. 26b is a further, later comment, though he judges that its “meaning is difficult to grasp”. I find this solution difficult, however. There are good grounds for upholding the integrity of vv. 24–26, while to date the whole section to the period of Josiah seems unlikely in view of the density of scriptural allusions throughout the paragraph. In addition, the theology of v. 25 seems more likely to refer to the end of the exile as coinciding with the end of the period of rage, but there has been disappointment; however, the oracle gives assurance that this change will indeed happen soon. For such reasons the majority of commentators ascribe the passage to the post-exilic period, though again without agreement as to a more precise date. There is no very specific evidence for narrowing down the precise date except the probability (on the basis of composition history) that it is earlier than vv. 16–19. The language of v. 24 clearly marks this passage as a Fortschreibung (sensu stricto) of v. 5, and the implication that Assyria now stands for oppressive foreign overlords more generally is perhaps strengthened by its being combined here with Egypt, which serves as her prototype. Equally, their destruction is also compared to the deliverance from Midian as recounted in Judges 6–8: the allusion to Jud 7:25 specifically is patent. Thus the passage draws together familiar stories of deliverance from the community’s cultural memory, facilitating the typological application of the name of Assyria. As a final footnote to this discussion of chapter 10, it should be added that the reference to the king of Assyria in v. 12 should not be salvaged for the original 41 De Jong, Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 131–4, and in greater detail in M. J. de Jong, “A Window on the Isaiah Tradition in the Assyrian Period: Isaiah 10:24–27”, in M. N. van der Meer et al. (ed.), Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (VTSup 138; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 83–108.

30

Hugh G. M. Williamson

poem, as Childs, Barth, and others have suggested.42 The verse is self-evidently in prose. It starts, at least, with reference to both God and the Assyrian king in the third person, which does not fit the prevailing context of direct speech by them both. It also differs from the wider context by referring to the Assyrian in this manner and by introducing Mount Zion. In fact, a reference to Jerusalem is altogether out of place in a poem which is dealing primarily with the Assyrian’s punishment of Samaria on God’s behalf. While it is possible to read the second half as a long line followed by a short one, with “I will punish” governing two paralleled objects, this hardly makes it poetry: the rhythm is not persuasive and the convoluted construct chain in the first half is most unpoetic. There does not, therefore, seem to be any realistic chance of salvaging a line of original Isaianic material here. It looks very close, at least, to the thought world of vv. 24–26, so that the possibility that it was added at the same time should not be excluded. I conclude, therefore, that in the light of the composition history of this whole passage (only the relevant elements of which I have abstracted for the purpose of the present analysis), the name Assyria was first applied in vv. 24–26 to oppressors other than the historical Assyria and that this was then applied with the use of more far-reaching imagery to unnamed oppressors in general by the interposition of vv. 16–19. Other verses which Barth ascribed either to Isaiah himself or to his Josianic redactor fall very much into the same pattern. His proposal that 31:8a could be salvaged as an early line within a later context has not proved persuasive. In most recent analyses, the unity of vv. 4–5 + 8–9 (with v. 4 speaking of God’s defence of Jerusalem, not his attack against it) has been favoured against the older view of Duhm and others that the first and second halves of verse 8 are self-contradictory. Furthermore, its later origin than the Isaianic verses 1–3 seems probable, so that we are left with the question of date. For many, the Josianic redaction seems likely, and if one adheres to that theory as a whole it may be taken more or less as a given. As elsewhere there is a reference to Assyria’s fall and to deliverance for Zion / ​Jerusalem. The evidence for a later date is not so decisive in this case as in some of the other passages commonly ascribed to the Josianic redaction that I have discussed elsewhere, but it nevertheless needs to be aired for the simple reason that it has not been noted before. As with 10:16–19, the dependence of this passage on some earlier ones in Isaiah is well recognized. (i) Commentators regularly and rightly observe how the imagery of v. 4 seems to draw on 5:29 (the lion with its prey and so on), while Kreuch adds to this main point the further details from this same

42 B. S.  Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT, 2nd series 3; London: SCM, 1967), 39–44; Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 24; Z. Weisman, Political Satire in the Bible (SBLSS 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 87–8.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

31

context of ‫ נס‬in v. 9 and 5:26, and ‫ נפל‬in v. 8 alongside ‫ אין כושל‬in 5:27;43 this latter point is weak, since influence from v. 3 of our present chapter seems far more likely, but it is interesting to find the two verbs used together at 3:8 and 8:15 as well as in 31:3 in what I regard as a series of related exilic additions. (ii) Verse 5 may act as a counterpoint to 10:14 (but Kreuch’s suggestion that this justifies postulating dependence on 10:5–19* as a whole is seriously exaggerated). (iii) Verse 8 certainly builds on v. 3 of this same chapter with regard both to the divine / mortal contrast and the use of ‫נפל‬, perhaps indicating that the passage was written deliberately to supplement the opening woe saying. Weaker points (which I discount from consideration) also mentioned by Kreuch include ‫ אריה‬in v. 4 together with the reference to the fire and furnace in Jerusalem in v. 9 as some kind of an echo of the Ariel speech in 29:1–8 (but there is no overlap of vocabulary), the use of common vocabulary in vv. 4, 8, and 9 with 30:17 (‫נוס‬, ‫גבעה‬, ‫הר‬, and ‫)נס‬, making the threat to Assyria a reversal of the threat to Judah (though the vocabulary is differently used, and we had ‫ נס‬already in 5:26), and the topical similarity of our verses to 30:27–33. Finally, some also observe links with the Assyrian narratives in Isaiah 36–39, though in that case the direction of dependency is disputed. Barthel, for instance, draws attention to the uncommon use of ‫ גנן‬in v. 5 with 37:35 and 38:6, ‫( נצל‬hiph‘il) in v. 5 with its 8 occurrences in 36:12–20 as well as in 37:12 and 38:6, and the possible connection between the sword, not of men or mortals (v. 8), and the destroying angel of 37:36, as well as the sword of 37:7 (with 38).44 How persuasive some of these latter points are may be left open for discussion, but the first three I have listed seem reasonably secure and are sufficient to make the point. At first sight, the three examples seem all to relate to early Isaianic sayings, so that they could not help us with the dating of our present passage, but it may be that included in this should also be a reflection of 5:30, since there we read that the lion will growl over its prey (‫)וינהם עליו‬. This, I suggest, is the inspiration for the disputed lines ‫כאשר יהגה האריה והכפיר על־טרפו … כן ירד יהוה צבאות לצבא על־הר־ציון ועל־גבעתה‬ in v. 4, helping us to conclude that the repeated use of ‫ על‬here in relation to God’s relationship with Zion is to be compared with the protective guarding of its prey by a lion. This link in a context where the use of 5:29 is widely agreed is curious but to my mind important. It not only helps with the exegetically disputed interpretation of 31:4, but it is also significant for dating the passage. As I have argued at length elsewhere,45 and as I think is already widely agreed, 5:30 is to be taken as a later Fortschreibung of the preceding verse, picking up precisely the 43 J. Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31 (WMANT 130; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2011), 378–86. 44 J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 442. 45 Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, 135–41. It may be noted that I there defend a different interpretation of ‫ וינהם‬from Barth.

32

Hugh G. M. Williamson

‫ וינהם‬of v. 29 and developing that away from a quasi-historical application in the

direction of something more cosmic, from the lions of foreign invaders to the roaring of the chaotic sea. Now, the date of 5:30 is not agreed by all, and I myself have argued for a late exilic date on several grounds while others might date it even later. But of importance for our present purposes is the fact that if it was part of the inspiration of 5:26–30 on 31:4, then the latter cannot be of Josianic date but must itself be considerably later. I conclude, therefore, that 31:4–5 + 8–9 belongs to the exilic period or later, and that this includes the mention of Assyria in v. 8. While the descriptive language of its fall is less vivid than some of the other passages surveyed earlier, we should note that the chief thought of the passage is the contrast between Zion and Assyria. God will deliver Zion, where his “fire and furnace” are said to be located, while the seemingly invincible Assyrian and his officers will flee in terror. And at this point we should note in addition that, although the contrast was not so pronounced as here, Zion was also explicitly mentioned in both 10:12 and 24. It therefore seems that in these passages, at least, part of the purpose of mentioning Assyria as a typological oppressor is to establish the conceptual contrast between hubristic human concepts of empire and those relating to counter-cultural Zion.46 It is probable that we should fit in here the reference at 30:31 as well. For the most part we may certainly agree with de Jong, who concludes his analysis of the relevant passage (30:27–33) by saying that it “contains various elements that allude to other early texts within First Isaiah, in particular the motif of the striking rod (cf. 10:5; 10:24 [not early in my opinion, but in this case that is not decisive]; 11:4; 14:29), and the motif ‫‘ נוף‬to wane [sic; I presume he means wave], to shake’, which occurs in 10:15 and 10:32”.47 Familiar imagery for the Assyrians’ burning anger as a devouring fire is now used in respect of the Lord; in addition, as an echo of 8:8 God’s breath resembles the Assyrian’s “like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck”, and these points are effectively picked up again in v. 30 with regard to God’s use of the same images against the enemy. It is at this point that the identification with Assyria is made plain, whose reaction to being smitten by God’s rod is shattering dismay (‫)יחת‬, a relatively common verb in Isaiah to describe military defeat (see 7:8 [later gloss]; 8:8, 9; 20:5; 31:4, 9; 37:27 [the hiph‘il at 9:3 is slightly different]), all in post-Isaianic texts but used in the same way as here specifically in relation to Assyria only at 31:9. The indications, therefore, are that

46 For some broader reflections on the mentality of exile in the ancient Near East and the Old Testament’s generally negative attitude towards it, see D. K. Stuart, “The Old Testament Context of David’s Costly Flirtation with Empire-Building”, in S. E. Porter / C. L. Westfall (ed.), Empire in the New Testament (McMaster New Testament Studies Series 10; McMaster Divinity College Press: Hamilton (On), 2011) 17–53. 47 De Jong, Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 118; see too Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja, 366–78.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

33

this passage should be closely paired with 31:4–5 + 8–9 (see too 29:5–7) and that it reflects a broadly similar outlook. There are two references to Assyria that feature in Barth’s analysis which remain to be considered. That in 14:24–27 has provoked a great deal of discussion and no settled opinion seems to be within sight. Vermeylen and others have argued that it was the original direct continuation of 10:5–15* from which it came increasingly to be separated by the accumulation of later material that was added in between, starting with 10:27b–34;48 others regard it as authentically Isaian but independent of the earlier passage;49 Barth ascribes it to his Assyrian redaction;50 and others date it even later.51 The issues here are too complex all to be sorted out in the present context, but a few observations may be made.52 First, the oracle undoubtedly draws on a variety of material in chapters 5–10 in ways which make it seem improbable that it was the original direct continuation of 10.5–15* alone. The final clauses of both verses 26 and 27, for instance, clearly resume part of the refrain as familiar from 5:25 and 9:11, 16, 20.53 The second half of v. 25 is extremely close to 10:27; the latter is joined with v. 26 (Midian) to link back to 9:3 in order to clarify more precisely how that prophecy will now be fulfilled, so that its wording is tied to its wider immediate context, making borrowing by 14:25 more probable than the reverse. In a case where the direction of dependence cannot be securely established, the clause at the end of v. 24 (‫וכאשר יעצתי היא תקום‬, “as I have planned, so shall it stand”) stands as a nice contrast with the frustration of human plans in 8:10 (which itself echoes 7:7, of course; see too 5:19), ‫ ;עצו עצה … ולא יקום‬equally, there is an echo of this same verse from ch. 8 in v. 26: ‫זאת העצה היעוצה‬, and again at the start of v. 27: ‫ יעץ ומי יפר‬beside ‫עצו‬ ‫ עצה ותפר‬‎(8:10). Second, 14:28 clearly provides the strong introduction to a new

48 Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 252–4; see previously T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895), 79–80; O. Procksch, Jesaia I (KAT 9/1; Leipzig: Deichert, 1930), 179–82; F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (BZAW 1976; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976), 41–50, and others. 49 See, for instance, Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.367–8 (English 80–82); J. J.M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 217–19. 50 Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 103–119; cf. Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 145–7; Høgen­ haven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja, 126–7; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 209; de Jong, Isaiah Among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 142–4. 51 See, for instance, Kaiser, Isaiah, 2.45–9; W. Werner, Eschatologische Texte in Jesaja 1–39: Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker (FzB 46; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982), 190–3. 52 For reasons of space I do not here go into the fraught question of the literary unity of this short passage, even though it might be argued that this has some bearing on the subject. 53 In a separate study I have tried to demonstrate that this refrain was also used elsewhere by a later editor; see H. G.M. Williamson, “‘An Initial Problem’: The Setting and Purpose of I­ saiah 10:1–4”, in R. J. Bautch / J. T. Hibbard (ed.), The Book of Isaiah: Enduring Questions Answered Anew. Essays Honoring Joseph Blenkinsopp and His Contribution to the Study of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014) 11–20.

34

Hugh G. M. Williamson

section in the book54 whereas our oracle does not have a conventional introductory rubric, suggesting that it is somehow to be relatively closely construed with the preceding poem; no verbal form of ‫ שבע‬appears anywhere else in the first half of the book of Isaiah (a participial form being used adjectivally appears once at 19:18), but, as Blenkinsopp points out,55 close equivalents occur at 5:956 and 22:14, each time in immediate continuation of what precedes. Third, the prophecy of the breaking of Assyria in v. 25 is extended in a markedly universalistic direction in v. 26 (‫ על־כל־הארץ‬and ‫)על־כל־הגוים‬, a characteristic feature of the use of citations of Isaianic material in the much later chapters 24–27.57 Some of these features are already suggestive of a relatively late date for this passage, but I should like in particular to follow a suggestion by Blenkinsopp that explains these features neatly and as a whole. Noting the oddity of a switch back to Assyria after the long passage of two poems editorially joined and applied to Babylon in 13:2–14:23, he suggests that rather than this being the result of accident or of poor editing “it is more likely that it was deliberate and designed to make the point that the destruction of Babylon represents the final fulfillment of the anti-Assyrian prophecies”.58 In developing this insight we might add that it is not so much a final fulfilment that is found here as an anticipation of the final universal triumph that v. 26 expects. It offers a key to the wider interpretation of the Assyrian oracles as types of God’s plans and purposes for his people in their land. If that is true, then it pairs very well with a possible interpretation of the reference to Assyria very near the end of the oracles against the nations in the textually impossible verse 23:13,59 where (following NRSV) an editor has added to the oracle against Tyre in relation to who should conquer her that “Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre 54 See The Book Called Isaiah, 163–4. 55 J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 289. 56 The text here seems to have suffered loss and some commentators have in fact restored ‫ ;נשבע‬I have argued that in fact ‫ נגלה‬is more likely, just as at 22:14; see Isaiah 1–5, 347–8. 57 See M. A. Sweeney, “Textual Citations in Isaiah 24–27: Toward an Understanding of the Redactional Function of Chapters 24–27 in the Book of Isaiah”, JBL 107 (1988) 39–52. 58 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 289; cf. M. K.Y. H. Hom, The Characterization of the Assyrians in Isaiah: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (LHBOTS 559; New York / London: T & T Clark, 2012), 62–6, who follows Blenkinsopp with only slight refinements and with reference to several other studies. 59 Opinions are almost as numerous as the number of commentaries, so that little purpose would be served by cataloguing them all here; see the partial survey in Hom, The Characterization of the Assyrians in Isaiah, 92–6. The background considerations favouring NRSV’s rendering are sketched out by C. R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39 (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 168, though his approach is not entirely new; see, for instance, Gray, Isaiah, 392–4; E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary (2 vol.; Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1941), 1.263–4.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

35

for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin.” At the least we may agree that this offers good sense and that it seems very appropriate at the end of the oracle, rather like 16:13–14 at the end of chapters 15–16 and Blenkinsopp’s proposal for the understanding of 14:24–27. A final group of references to Assyria, which everyone agrees must be much later than Isaiah’s time, link the name with Egypt in contexts that are encouraging towards Judah. There are two such references in 11:11–16, namely in the opening and closing verses of that passage. In v. 11 Assyria and Egypt are mentioned as the first two in a long list of places from which the dispersed remnant will return, and in v. 16 we are told that there will be a highway for the remnant to return from Assyria, just as formerly there had been when they came up from Egypt (we may note similarly that in v. 15 there is a paralleling of the sea of Egypt and “the River”). According to my own analysis of this passage, vv. 11 (with which 12 is joined by content) and 15–16 are more prosaic than the verses which they enclose. As is well known, this kind of distinction is not as clear cut as we might wish in the modern world and there are undoubtedly gradations of style in classical Hebrew where the boundaries between poetry and prose are blurred. I do not, however, take the extreme view that denies that it is a mistake to use the term poetry at all. Whatever labels we use, however, the use of prose particles, lack of parallelism, the use of a long list of place names, and uneven line length combine to indicate that there is a difference of style between the two sections I have mentioned and the remainder of the passage. Second, the first and last parts of the passage are closely associated thematically with each other. As I have already mentioned, they concentrate on the regathering of those in the diaspora, and in this they come very close to some of the themes and forms of expression that we find in Isaiah 40–55. The middle section, by contrast, speaks of the reunion of the sharply opposed factions within the land and of their military triumphs over the traditional enemies of Israel and Judah (a theme, incidentally, in which Isaiah 40–55 shows no interest whatsoever). While it is possible imaginatively to join these two very different topics, the passage itself does not furnish any such join, and the fact that it returns at the end to the theme with which it began tends to highlight the difference. A few commentators have argued on this basis that one part or another of this passage was therefore added only after the rest had already found its place here in the book;60 indeed, Berges even thinks in terms of three successive additions.61 That is not a convincing solution to the problem, however, because the first and 60 As a complementary view to this, M. Rehm, Der königliche Messias im Licht der Immanuel-​ Weissagungen des Buches Jesaja (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1968), 248–53, found in 11:10–16 four originally independent sections of varying dates which were only then brought together by a final redactor, to whom, however, nothing actually in the text seems to be ascribed. 61 U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS 16; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1998 [English title: The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form (Hebrew Bible Monographs 46; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012]), 129.

36

Hugh G. M. Williamson

last parts are those which show the strongest connections both with the preceding chapters of Isaiah and with chapter twelve immediately following, making it probable that they were composed for their present setting.62 Equally (though this can admittedly be little more than a subjective judgment), it seems to me more likely that vv. 13–14 have been deliberately framed by the surrounding verses than that they have been added secondarily; there is no textual trigger that might help explain the addition of vv. 13–14 as a Fortschreibung, for instance. In fact, the most plausible trigger for vv. 13–14 is the refrain poem in ch. 9. There too we read of enmity between Ephraim and Judah (9:20), and there too the “Philistines in the west” and “Aram in the east” are depicted as the archetypical enemies of Israel (9:11). Our two verses seem to represent an idealized reversal of the bad situation which was depicted in that poem. It may therefore be suggested that these two verses were developed independently as some sort of responsive expansion of that longer poem and that this was picked up by the author of our passage who enclosed them in an explanatory manner between verses which both unite the passage with its present context in the book and at the same time locate the tradition within that which was also developed principally in chs 40–55. While there is room for debate about the most probable date for this editorial activity,63 the detail is not so important for our present purposes as the observation that at some point well after the fall of the Assyrian empire the name was now being used in relation to the land of exile from which deliverance was anticipated. At this point, Assyria is not so much an archetypical opponent as a notional geographical area (just as Egypt had long since become) from which deliverance was expected; she had brought the people into their present predicament but would not be able to stop its reversal. Finally there are no less than six references to Assyria in the closing three verses of chapter 19, and in each case there is a matching reference to Egypt. These verses represent the last two in a series of “on that day” sayings which have probably been attached later (and perhaps in successive order) to an earlier core in the first part of the chapter. As has been frequently observed they are theologically quite astonishing, anticipating as they do the equal sharing with Israel of worship and blessing. I do not intend to list and evaluate here the many suggestions as to what may lie behind this (needless to say, allusions to the Seleucids and Ptolemies are

62 Because these connections are recognized by E. Ortlund, I find it difficult to follow his argument that there is redactional significance in the fact that the two main parts of this chapter must have been “reversed for rhetorical or literary reasons” from what he assumes on the basis of pedantic chronology must have been their original order; see E. Ortlund, “Reversed (Chrono-) Logical Sequence in Isaiah 1–39: Some Implications for Theories of Redaction”, JSOT 35 (2010) 209–24, on pp. 211–13. 63 My own preference is for the late exilic period (see H. G.M. Williamson, Isaiah 6–12 (ICC; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2018), 677–704), but others set the passage even later.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

37

frequently detected),64 but content myself for present purposes by observing that these verses, which represent the complete reversal of the earlier views about Assyria which we have found in the preceding layers in the book, are driven entirely by the author’s developing thought concerning Egypt. That development of thought is itself of considerable interest, of course, but goes well beyond the bounds of what may legitimately be considered here.65 In this regard too the passage may be seen as a continuing development of the ideological turn already found in chapter 11, albeit taken much further than could possibly have been guessed from that passage itself. I suspect, however, that the author would not have come up independently with such statements about Assyria alone had he not been associating her with the main focus of his attention here, namely Egypt. Following this lengthy survey of material it is time to try to draw together the strands of thought that we have found in references in Isaiah to Assyria. While fully recognizing that ancient authors did not write in such neat and tidy ways as we might wish, so that for every blanket statement it is possible to find some sort of exception, and while acknowledging too that there is room for disagreement about the dating of this passage or that, the following broad outline seems to me nevertheless to come through and in some respects to differ from what we might intuitively have first expected. Isaiah himself did not refer much to Assyria, and when he did it was either to encourage his Judean audience (8:4) or to pronounce a woe on Assyria (10:5) because God’s use of her for present judgmental purposes on Judah would not be enduring. In other words, Assyria was not used by Isaiah as a cipher for oppression in general of the people of God. On the contrary, where we find such threats in material usually ascribed to the eighth-century prophet, it is couched in less specific language but with the full force of violent imagery to instil terror. “The Evil Empire” is therefore not a concept which developed broadly from the historical particulars but was Isaiah’s own initial preference as a way of drawing out the wider principles which he sought to convey. Of course, had anyone asked, Assyria would have seemed the obvious candidate to fulfil the role, but Isaiah’s concern was more with the role than with the actor. With the immediate experience and close hindsight of history, we find next a series of glosses which—all scholarly like—wanted to tie down Isaiah’s sayings to the specifics of history. Thus, just as by far the greatest concentration of references to Assyria comes in the historical narratives, so the glossator specified several 64 For two recent substantial and independently written surveys and discussions, see Cook, A Sign and a Wonder, and C. Balogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 Concerning Egypt and Cush (OTS 60; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 65 See H. G.M. Williamson, ‘Egypt in the Book of Isaiah’, in A. Salvesen / S. Pearce / M. Frenkel (ed.), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity; Leiden: Brill, forth­coming), which treats this passage at much greater length.

38

Hugh G. M. Williamson

points in chapters 7 and 8 where he thought that Assyria or her king was the subject of the sayings. In this, he seems to me to have been perfectly correct from one point of view, but his additions have a tendency to make us read the text more narrowly than is perhaps strictly warranted. In my opinion there is no justification for finding other pre-exilic references to Assyria in Isaiah, and all the other references which we have surveyed come from either the exilic or the post-exilic periods. And here, I suggest, we have found two different but complementary trajectories. On the one hand, relatively neutral and basically geographical references indicate that Assyria could be used as an archetypal name for the place of exile whence a return was expected; to 11:11 and 16 which we have just looked at we should also add the somewhat later use at 27:13 (where, incidentally, there is again a close association with Egypt). And with that neutral but potentially hopeful perspective we may add the development through to the idealistically positive references at the end of chapter nineteen. The other trajectory amplifies the predictions of the downfall of Assyria (notably 10:5) but now with the added consequence that this also bespeaks the salvation of God’s people, usually expressed in the immediate context by way of a contrast between Assyria and Zion. The language of terror and destruction in these passages is quite close sometimes to that used in other related Fortschreibungen which do not actually mention Assyria, such as 10:16–19. While the primary guilt of Assyria in these passages is hubris and the exercise of their legendary military power, the emphasis now is that Zion should not be afraid of them because their supremacy is drawing to a close and God’s protection of Zion is ever more strongly affirmed. Finally, there are indications that some editors, at least, sought consciously to suggest that Assyria can stand as a cipher for Babylon and thence for other nations as well. In other words, the name comes increasingly to stand for the archetypical enemy,66 as we know, of course, that it did sometimes elsewhere as well (e.g. Ezra 6:22; “the Kittim of Assyria” in the War Scroll 1:267). So, Isaiah himself presented his readers with the portrayal of an evil empire. This was historicized in the immediately following period in the light of distressing experience. This was far from the last word, however. Later editors, reflecting on Isaiah’s own style and presentation, invited their readers to treat Isaiah’s words as typological, with reference not only to Babylon but also to all succeeding world empires, drawing out the comfort for the enfeebled, oppressed, and powerless people of God in a spiritual Zion, so that the prospect of a future universalist hope developed at the end of the process. The portrayal of the evil empire was thus 66 In this regard it is interesting to note the possible early reapplication of Assyria in Isaiah 10 to the “Syria” of the book of Daniel; see G. B. Lester, Daniel Evokes Isaiah: Allusive Characterization of Foreign Rule in the Hebrew-Aramaic Book of Daniel (LHBOTS 606; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015). 67 For this curious expression, see especially B. Schultz, “The Kittim of Assyria”, RevQ 23 (2007) 63–77.

The Evil Empire: Assyria in Reality and as a Cipher in Isaiah 

39

not linear from historical Assyria to a more abstract principle, as I had initially supposed it would be, but circular and spiral, in probably a more faithful later reinterpretation of Isaiah’s own standpoint. I suppose we might conclude that Martin Luther had it more or less right all along: Nehmen sie den Leib, Gut, Ehr’, Kind und Weib: Lass fahren dahin, Sie haben’s kein’n Gewinn, Das Reich muss uns doch bleiben.

Matthijs J. de Jong

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah: Isaiah 6+8 and 28–31 Revisited The Isaiah tradition is strongly connected with Assyrian imperialism. Isaiah’s public activity coincided with Assyria’s takeover of the Levant and Judah’s integration into the Assyrian empire. Isaiah’s messages and their earliest literary development relate to dramatic events such as the destruction of Samaria, Judah’s revolt against Assyria, and Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE. Scholars increasingly are noticing that the message of Isaiah and its literary development in the Assyrian period speak the language of its day and in many respects respond to Assyrian imperialistic ideology.1 This article explores the beginnings of the Book of Isaiah against the background of Assyria’s imperialism.

I. Isaiah 6:1–11 as a portrayal of Isaiah’s prophetic ministry I.1 The function of 6:9–10 within 6:1–11 This section on Isa 6:1–11 focuses on 6:9–10.2 Many attempts have been made to explain 6:9–10, but no truly convincing solution has been offered. Most scholars try to relate it to the historical Isaiah. Although they acknowledge the secondary character of this message, they still locate it within the prophetic ministry and authorship. 6:9–10 is however anything but a straightforward message. It can be called a meta-prophecy, a “message” relating to Isaiah’s prophetic messages.3 Furthermore, it can be called an anti-prophecy, since it explicitly seeks Judah’s

1 For this recent trend, see K. Schmid, “Jesaja als altorientalisches Buch: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte”, HeBAI 6 (2017) 7–25. 2 6:12–13 is commonly regarded as an additional comment that provides further explanation based on 6:11. This addition is usually interpreted as an exilic updating of 6:1–11. See H. G.M. Williamson, “In Search of the Pre-exilic Isaiah”, in J. Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 406; London: T.&T. Clark International, 2004) 181–206, on pp. 195–7; R. Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht: Jesajas “Ver­ stockungsauftrag” (Jes 6,9–11) und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts (BTS 124; Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 2012), 4–14. 3 The term meta-prophecy is taken from Seth Sanders.

42

Matthijs J. de Jong

annihilating punishment—exactly the opposite of what prophecies normally aimed at: the collective well-being and survival.4 Several scholars have taken a different direction and suggest a dating after 587 BCE. Uwe Becker proposed a redactional separation between an earlier vision report of 6:1–8* and a later redaction which added the reflective message of 6:9.11.5 This suggestion is helpful in major respects (for instance, the prophecy of doom is identified as a post-Isaianic, redactional phenomenon), and I followed it in my study of 2007.6 Yet, this suggestion brings difficulties of its own. Hugh Williamson and Reinhard Müller have argued that the case for a redactional separation within 6:1–11 is weak.7 Furthermore, Torsten Uhlig has provided strong arguments for the literary integrity of Isa 6:1–11,8 and I will use his analysis as a starting-point here. Uhlig deals extensively with 6:9–10 and defends its literary unity.9 First, YHWH summons Isaiah to speak to the people of Judah: “Go and say to this people” (verse 9a). In verse 9b we find what the prophet has to say: “Keep on hearing, and you will not understand. Keep on seeing, and you will not perceive.” This is a double appeal to pay attention, both times followed by the assertion that paying attention will result in incomprehension. The use of the verbs without a direct object and the figura etymologica show that the emphasis is on the process of hearing and seeing and not understanding.10 Although formulated as a direct message, the words of verse 9b point beyond themselves. The idea is that paying attention—to something—will lead to an inability to comprehend it. This “something” lies outside 6:1–11 and obviously refers to the prophetic messages of Isaiah elsewhere.11 Verse 10a, “make the heart of this people fat”, has imperatives again, in continuation of 9a.12 YHWH again directs the prophet and makes clear what the desired 4 For the function of prophecy and divination, see M. J. de Jong, “Isaiah and the Emergence of Biblical Prophecy”, HeBAI 6 (2017) 53–78, on pp. 53–7. 5 U. Becker, Jesaja–von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997). 6 M. J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stage of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VTSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), e.g. 54–7 and 68–9. 7 H. G.M. Williamson, “Isaiah: Prophet of Weal or Woe?”, in R. P. Gordon / H. M. Barstad (ed.), “Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela.” Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013) 273–300, on pp. 291–3; Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 18–23. 8 T. Uhlig, The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah. An Analysis of Communicative Action (FAT II/39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), in particular 78–82. 9 Uhlig, Hardening, 96–116. 10 Uhlig, Hardening, 97–100. 11 Uhlig, Hardening, 108, 120. 12 The literary-critical status of verse 10 is debated, see Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 14–18. Uhlig, Hardening, 106–16, defends the unity of 6:9–10 by distinguishing three different “speech acts”: (1) YHWH’s commission of Isaiah to speak (verse 9a) orders him to perform a locutionary

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

43

effect of his prophetic ministry is: the malfunction of the heart, ears and eyes of the people. The incomprehension asserted in verse 9b, is according to verse 10a the very aim of Isaiah’s ministry. The desired result of Isaiah’s performance is expressed in figurative language, it does not literally describe the actions Isaiah has to carry out.13 Finally, verse 10b states that all this serves a particular purpose: it will prevent the people from escaping divine punishment.14 It is important to note that in 6:1–11 the sinfulness of the people is a given fact. It is implied and referred to in passing (in verse 5 and verse 7).15 They are on the wrong side, and Isaiah’s ministry must prevent them from returning to the right path. His task is to secure the coming judgement. The text implies a connection between deeds and consequences: the “unclean lips” of the people stand for their perverted communication (cf. e.g. 29:13) to which YHWH reacts with a disturbance of communication.16 6:9–11 gives the following portrayal: Isaiah speaks YHWH’s true words, but his message does not have the purpose of changing the people’s fate for the better, but of hardening them and increasing their lack of understanding, so that they will perish.

I.2 Expectations turned upside-down Within 6:1–11 there is tension between the vision and the message. The vision alludes to an intervention by YHWH, but it is not clear against whom he will take action.17 The natural expectation would be that God is coming to rescue his own people from their enemies. A positive expectation has some ground in the vision: in the scenery of 6:1, the credal formula of 6:3, and in the fact that Isaiah, who describes himself as a member of the people, is purified and thereby rescued (6:7). It is the message of 6:9–11 that cuts short any positive expectation and turns it upside down. act; (2) the “message” of verse 9b paradigmatically stands for Isaiah’s prophetic message and its consequences; this is an illocutionary act; (3) verse 10 refers to perlocutionary acts: the effect that Isaiah’s speaking and acting will have according to YHWH. 13 Uhlig, Hardening, 100–2, 107. 14 Uhlig, Hardening, 103–4, argues that verse 10b in its entirety is part of the unity of 6:9–10. 15 Uhlig, Hardening, 110, 113. 16 Uhlig, Hardening, 110, 116, 141–2. 17 Uhlig, Hardening, 89, rightly notes that 6:4 does not connote the hiding of YHWH; contra F. Hartenstein, Die Unzugänglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum: Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (WMANT 75; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997). The “trembling” and “smoke” are features accompanying YHWH’s warrior-like theophany. Hartenstein, Unzugänglichkeit, 150–61, refers to Hittite texts that depict the temple as filled with smoke after the gods have abandoned it, but these texts, unlike Isa 6, explicitly mention the divine departure and absence.

44

Matthijs J. de Jong

The vision scene however also includes ambiguous elements that introduce the harsh message of 6:9–11, such as the presence of the seraphs instead of other, less ambiguous, heavenly figures, and the reference to the unclean lips of the people (6:5).18 The unclear lips point to the sinfulness of the people, in which Isaiah takes part.19 As the glowing coal touches Isaiah’s lips, his lips are burned. This refers to fire and burning which stands for divine judgement. The “purification ritual” (6:7) symbolises that Isaiah has gone through divine judgement.20 The vision thus contains threatening elements, but these are of an oblique character and are only fully understood in the light of 6:9–11. 6:9–10 forms, as I see it now, the climax of Isaiah’s encounter with YHWH. This encounter brings about Isaiah’s transition from a participant of his people to a messenger of YHWH opposing the people. The transition is marked terminologically by the distinction between ‫(“ ְוּבתֹוְך ַעם‬I dwell) in the midst of a people”, in 6:5, and ‫“ ָה ָעם ַהזֶ ה‬this people” from which Isaiah is excluded, in 6:9. It is in 6:9 that we must conclude that Isaiah has not been purified as a representative of the people, for their benefit, but in order to become God’s messenger in opposition to the people, to secure their judgement. The concluding 6:11 makes clear what will be the end result of Isaiah’s commission. The “emptiness” denoted in verse 11 contrasts with the “fullness” in verse 1 and 3, and this tension can only be solved by realising, finally, that the smoke “filling” the temple (verse 4) should be understood as referring to YHWH’s forceful actions against his own people. 6:1–11 is marked by a change from positive to negative.21 The normal expectation was that God would deliver his people, granting them peace and blessings. But as 6:1–11 makes clear—obliquely and ambiguously in 6:1–8, openly in 6:9–11—the normal expectations are turned upside-down. YHWH not only refuses to rescue his people. He seeks to destroy them.

I.3 The reflective character of 6:1–11 Uhlig’s analysis gives support to the view that 6:1–11 portrays Isaiah’s prophetic ministry as a whole. It is not to be connected with one particular stage of Isaiah’s ministry, but portrays his entire prophetic work as such.22 Furthermore, the 18 In my study of 2007 I underestimated these ambiguous elements. 19 Uhlig, Hardening, 90–3. 20 Uhlig, Hardening, 94–5. 21 Williamson, “Weal or Woe”, 293–5, points out a further ambiguity in the text: despite the clearly negative message of verse 10, the imperatives in verse 10a seen as such have surprisingly positive overtones: “to make fat / to bless”, “to make heavy / to glorify”, “to close / to make smooth”. This is a further indication of the change from positive into negative that marks 6:1–11. 22 Uhlig, Hardening, 83, 119 note 205. For this position, see de Jong, Isaiah, 54–7, 68–72.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

45

recipients of the message, “this people” (‫) ָהעָ ם ַהזֶ ה‬, are not just one group within society, but the people of Judah as a whole.23 The question is: who wrote this text, when, and for what purpose? There is consensus on two basic points: (1) the imagery of the temple vision in 6:1–8 requires a pre-exilic setting, and (2) 6:9–10 is not a direct prophetic message but a secondary, reflective formulation.24 Following Uhlig’s view on the coherence and literary integrity of 6:1–11, the first point of consensus implies a pre-exilic dating for 6:1–11 as a whole. The second point will bring us, as I will argue, to a dating after 701 BCE. The conceptual and literary coherence of 6:1–11 renders unlikely all scholarly proposals to read 6:9–10 as a secondarily phrased message within an otherwise authentic account.25 Since the secondary nature of 6:9–10 can hardly be denied, the conclusion must be that 6:1–11 as a whole is written from hindsight. This can be supported in a number of ways. We have already seen above that 6:9b refers to Isaiah’s words outside 6:1–11. 6:9–10 is a constructed “prophecy” relating to Isaiah’s prophecies to be found outside 6:1–11. 6:9–10 evidently was not the message Isaiah received at his commission. Here lies the partial right of the retrojection hypothesis (Rückprojizierungsthese), the view that the “message” of 6:9–10 was formulated from hindsight, possibly in response to the apparent failure of Isaiah’s ministry.26 But we have to take one further step. It is not just 6:9–10 that is formulated from hindsight, being part of an otherwise authentic prophetic self-report. 6:1–11 as a whole was written from hindsight, though still in the pre-exilic period. Ex eventu the ministry of Isaiah was cast in a different light. The secondary character of 6:1–11 has been pointed out on other grounds as well. Ernst Axel Knauf, for instance, argues that a narrative account of a prophetic commission does not belong to the primary stage of prophecy in action, but rather 23 Uhlig, Hardening, 118 note 204, 121. On this many scholars agree; see e.g. Becker, Jesaja, 73–5; Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 88; de Jong, Isaiah, 54–7, 68–72. 24 See e.g. K. Schmid, “Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs”, in C. M. Maier (ed.), Congress V ­ olume Munich 2013 (VTSup 163; Leiden: Brill, 2014) 426–53, on pp. 448–52; T. Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft: Eine Analyse der Denkschrift (Jes 6,1–9,6) (VTSup 108; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 118–22. 25 Uhlig, Hardening, 104–6, 114–16, explicitly challenges a variety of such interpretations, among them the idea of reading verses 9–10 as “irony”; also the suggestion to take verses 9–10 as a “pseudo-citation” (J. Joosten, “La prosopopée, les pseudo-citations et la vocation d’Isaïe (Is 6,9–10)”, Bibl 82 (2001) 232–43); the idea that the formulation of verses 9–10 was intended as a final, desperate call to repentance; and the interpretation of 6:9–10 as mere theological reflection. 26 Thus also Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 88–9. According to Uhlig, Hardening, e.g. 141, the retrojection hypothesis fails to convince, because Isa 6 does not explain but continues to harden. This is however not necessarily the case. 6:1–11 may have been written after 701 BCE by an author who sees himself and his audience as living beyond the time limit of 6:11. A vital point is that Uhlig, Hardening, 73–4, sees the retrojection hypothesis applied in three different ways: (1) shortly after the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis, (2) at the end of Isaiah’s ministry, and (3) after 587 BCE. A fourth application however may prove to be the most convincing one: after 701 BCE.

46

Matthijs J. de Jong

to the secondary stage of prophecy in literature.27 First came Isaiah’s prophetic activity, then subsequently the commission-account to underscore his prophetic authority.28 6:1–11 is likely to stem from a circle that treasured the Isaianic legacy and assigned an ongoing relevance to it. If 6:1–11 is a commission-account of Isaiah written after his prophetic work had come to an end, a dating after 701 BCE seems feasible. Although this dating is gaining increasing support,29 it also raises a question: how to account for the fact that the events of 701 BCE were not the complete destruction of Judah as depicted in 6:11? Various scholars suggest that precisely because the complete destruction of Judah and Jerusalem had not become a reality in 701 BCE, the Isaianic prophecies were formed into textual compositions out of the belief that complete destruction was still to come.30 This explanation does not convince me. The historical Isaiah in my view never announced the complete destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. As we will see (in section II.2), he predicted the fatal consequences of the revolt, and the events of 701 BCE proved him right. There were no predictive elements in his prophecies that after 701 BCE were still waiting for fulfilment. It is the later formulation in 6:11 that depicts a complete destruction. Does this reflect an early seventh-century conviction that Jerusalem would not escape the fate of Samaria?31 A different explanation is more likely in my view: 6:11 refers to what had happened in 701 BCE. The depiction of 6:11 is not contradicted by the events of 701 BCE. On the contrary, emphasis on complete destruction—although an exaggeration compared with the historical facts on the ground—is precisely what one expects to find in a text that connects Isaiah’s prophetic commission with the outcome of 701 BCE. Portrayals of a complete destruction were a frequent

27 E. A. Knauf, “Vom Prophetinnenwort zum Prophetenbuch: Jesaja 8,3 f im Kontext von Jesaja 6,1–8,16”, Lectio Difficilior. European Electronic Journal for Feminist Exegesis 2 (2000) 1–9, on p. 4; republished in H. M. Niemann (ed.), Data and Debates. Essays in the History and Culture of Israel and Its Neighbors in Antiquity (AOAT 407; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013). 28 So also Schmid, “Anfänge”, 450–1. 29 Various recent contributions support this dating, with different views on the relation between the textual composition and the historical prophet. E.g. R. G. Kratz, Die Propheten Israels (München: C. H. Beck, 2003), 57–63; Knauf, “Prophetinnenwort”, 1–9; F. Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesaja und zur Zionstheologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit (BThS 74; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011), 160; Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 94; Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft, 292–3. 30 E.g. Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft, 292–3; J. Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31 (WMANT 130; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2011), 503–4; Hartenstein, Archiv, 160. 31 See e.g. Kratz, Die Propheten Israels, 58–9, 71; Schmid, “Anfänge”, 449–51; K. Schmid, “De la Prophétie orale à la Prophétie écrite. Les origines littéraires du livre d’Ésaïe”, in J.-M. Durand / T.  Römer / M.  Bürki (ed.) Comment devient-on prophète? Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, 2011 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014) 121–37, on pp. 125–6.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

47

topos in ancient Near Eastern texts even if in reality the destruction was limited.32 Sennacherib’s inscriptions dealing with the campaign of 701 contain a similar depiction: “The wide district of Judah I devastated” (ušalpit rapšu nagû Iaudi).33 For the author of 6:1–11 it made perfect sense to refer to the events of 701 BCE in terms of a general destruction and annihilation. According to Müller, the words in 6:11 echo the curse terminology of vassal treaties.34 In such treaties the complete ruination of the land is a well-known punitive motif. Since Judah by rebelling against Assyria had broken the oath of loyalty, it received in the depiction of 6:11 the punishment it deserved. The logic behind this is easy to grasp: 6:1–11 portrays the people as having completely gone astray. Isaiah’s message will have as its only effect the people’s perseverance in their deception, and the end-result will be complete ruination. This is the logic of collective sin and punishment that shapes the biblical prophetic literature.35 6:1–11 in this way “predicts” the outcome of 701 BCE, depicted as a disaster for Judah. Historically this makes sense, but it is remarkably different from the later, positive, even glorifying, reception of 701 BCE (see below section III.1).

I.4 The compositional intent of Isa 6:1–11 There was a clear difference between the prophetic activity of Isaiah aimed at Judah’s political survival and collective well-being,36 and the “message” in 6:9–11 presenting Isaiah’s ministry designed to harden the people in order to secure their ruination. The prophetic messages followed the logic of divination, aiming at survival and well-being. Whether their tone is encouraging, critical or reproaching, in every case the prophetic messages originally were intended to secure the collective well-being.37 The later textual compositions however are marked by a quite different logic, that of collective sin and divine punishment. This was in full agreement with the common ancient Near Eastern explanation for disasters as being due to divine anger with the sins of the people as a whole.38 Whereas the original prophecies belong to the sphere of divination, the textual compositions belong to the sphere of scribal activity. This is, of course, not to deny the prophetic,

32 For examples see S. Dalley, “The Language of Destruction and Its Interpretation”, BaghM 36 (2005) 275–85. 33 E.g. one of the bull inscriptions, see B. B. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 77, lines 20–21. 34 Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 72–84. 35 See de Jong, “Emergence”, 7–12. 36 For this see de Jong, Isaiah, in particular 345–51. 37 See de Jong, “Emergence”, 5–7. 38 See de Jong, “Emergence”, 7–14.

48

Matthijs J. de Jong

revelatory character of the text: though written after the events, it reveals to a post-701 audience how to ‘read’ the disastrous events that had occurred. 6:1–11 is therefore best regarded as a post-Isaianic portrayal of Isaiah’s ministry. It reveals how Isaiah’s ministry effectuated Judah’s ruination. As the text makes clear, the pre-701 generation had no idea about this. They were completely blind to the true situation and to the anger of their God who was about to destroy them. And this was due to YHWH’s decision. However, this text was not written for a pre-701 audience, but for a post-701 audience. And here lies the key to understanding 6:1–11. Because for hearers / readers after 701 BCE things could be different. For the pre-701 generation Isaiah’s words only brought more incomprehension, since YHWH had already decided to punish them for their wickedness. But the intended audience of 6:1–11 were living beyond the ordeal of 6:11. For them there could be hope. They might come to a true perception of what had really happened to Judah and why it had happened that way. They might have a change of mind and heart. They could become ready to follow the model of Isaiah as presented in 8:17: “I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him.”

II. The connection between Isa 6–8* and Isa 28–31* II.1 on Isa 28–31* If Isa 6:1–11 is a portrayal of Isaiah’s ministry reflecting on 701, the next question is: why was his ministry presented in this way, and where does this portrayal come from? As we saw, 6:9–10 implicitly refers to Isaiah’s messages to be found elsewhere. The best place to look for them is Isa 28–31. There we find the critical, reproachful messages on the basis of which 6:9–10 makes the extraordinary claim that they were from the very beginning intended by YHWH to blindfold the people to secure their punishment. This accords well with the proposal by Reinhard Müller to read 6:9–10 against the background of Isa 28–31* and the situation in 705–701 BCE.39 I agree with Müller that 6:9–10 is to be understood as reflection on Isaiah’s message in 705–701 BCE, but with the following qualification: 6:9–10 not only depends on sayings that presumably stem from the historical Isaiah, but also, and in my view more fundamentally so, on the literary complex of Isa 28–31* in which these prophecies were incorporated and reframed after 701 BCE.40 It is 39 Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 33–68, deals with 28:7–13*, 28:14–18*, 29:9–10*, 30:6–7*, and 31:1–3*. 40 6:9–10 is particularly related to passages from Isa 28–31* that belong to the secondary reflection on the prophecies, such as 28:11–13, 29:10, 29:13–14, 30:9–14. See de Jong, Isaiah, 83–9.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

49

likely that 6:9–10 (and hence 6:1–11) is based on Isa 28–31*, and the same can be argued for 8:1–18*. Isa 6*+8* and 28–31* are closely related. Both complexes include elements of Isaiah’s sayings and activity encased in reflection on the effect of his ministry; both draw a parallel between the fates of Ephraim and Judah (8:1–8* and 28:1–22*); both assert that YHWH has withdrawn his “Heilangebot” because the people stubbornly rejected it (6:9–10, 8:6; 28:12, 29:9–10, 30:15). The two complexes share many motifs and themes.41 But there is also a difference. Isa 28–31* contains a series of original prophetic messages placed within a later, reflective literary framework. Isa 6*+8*, by contrast, is further removed from actual prophecy—which in my view is limited to 8:1–4—and represents a further step in the textualisation of the Isaiah tradition. To sustain this view, I will deal first with Isa 28–31* as an early post-701 composition, and secondly corroborate the view that the Isa 6*+8* is dependent on the composition of 28–31*, focusing on 6:9–10, 8:5–8* and 8:16–17.42

II.2 Isa 28–31*: prophecies and their literary reworking The basic literary layer of Isa 28–31 is usually held to contain 28:1–4.7–22*, 29:1–16*, 30:1–17*, 31:1–3*. This complex forms a literary reworking of a series of earlier prophecies, to be found within 28:1–4*, 28:7–10*, 28:15–18*, 30:1–5*, 30:6–7*, 31:1.3*.43 Whereas the prophecies relate to the situation of 705–701 BCE,44 the literary composition presumably is of a later date: it reflects not only the rejection of Isaiah’s message but also the disastrous consequences of this.45 After Sargon’s death in 705 BCE, Judah revolted against Assyria. Sargon’s violent death was seen as a sign that the Assyrian rulers had lost divine favour. Leading figures in Judah may have claimed that this annulled the oath of loyalty to Assyria. 41 See de Jong, Isaiah, 84–8. 42 R. G. Kratz, “Rewriting Isaiah: the Case of Isaiah 28–31”, in J. Day (ed.), Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHB / OTS 531; London: T&T Clark international, 2010) 245–66, argues that Isa 28–31* depends on 6–8*. Although my proposal seems at first sight a reversal of Kratz’s position, this is only partly the case. I regard it likely that Isa 28–31 also contains elements taken over from Isa 6–8, such as 28:13b adopted from 8:15. My only point is that Isa 6*+8* in its most basic literary form is based on Isa 28–31*. During subsequent stages of development, the borrowing may well have gone the other way around as well. 43 For this position on Isa 28–31, see de Jong, Isaiah, 53–123; furthermore J. Barthel, Prophe­ tenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja; Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft, esp. 248–52; Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 33–68. 44 Apart from 28:1–4 which relates to the situation of before 720 BCE. 45 While upholding the distinction between the original prophecies and the later literary complex, I depart from my earlier view with respect to the dating: a dating after 701 BCE now seems to be more likely to me instead of after 587 BCE.

50

Matthijs J. de Jong

A policy of rebellion was adopted: Judah concluded a treaty of assistance with Egypt and threw off the Assyrian yoke.46 Isaiah’s prophecies within Isa 28–31* relate to these circumstances. His prophecies address the political leaders of the revolt (e.g. 28:15–18*) and the religious experts sanctioning the revolt (e.g. 28:7–10*). Isaiah condemns the revolt as being against the will of YHWH. His prophecies contain a threat: persisting in the anti-Assyrian policies against the will of YHWH will lead to punishment. He does not predict Judah’s downfall generally but the terrible outcome for those opting for rebellion. Isaiah’s message contained an implicit appeal: “submit to Assyria in order to secure Judah’s welfare.” It may be significant that king Hezekiah is not mentioned in these prophecies. Isaiah had a good reason for this: it was the king who could turn the political tide. Isaiah’s criticism is aimed at the king’s advisors, depicting them as blind and godless leaders. Thereby he implicitly appeals to the king to obey God’s will and submit to Assyria.47 Isaiah’s prophecies were intended to guide the political decision making by revealing YHWH’s decisions: Assyria will maintain supremacy, Egypt will prove to be a useless ally, so Judah’s only chance of survival lies in submission to Assyria. Isaiah however was not the only prophet on the scene; different prophetic messages competed with each other. In opposition to Isaiah there were other prophets who in YHWH’s name supported the policy Judah had taken. Secular politics did not exist; no revolt was begun without divine permission. There were Judean prophets who sanctioned this political stance and promised that YHWH would bless Judah’s struggle for independence from Assyria. Glimpses of Isaiah’s opponents are visible in Isa 28:7–8 and, indirectly, in 30:10. In the midst of the events, it was impossible to decide which prophetic message contained the true word of YHWH. The contested nature of prophecy, with one oracle contradicted by the other, must have been a very real problem for a society in which prophecy played such an important role.48 The message of Isaiah’s opponents made sense according to the logic of divination: it sanctioned the revolt and promised Judah’s deliverance and well-being. Isaiah’s message made sense according to the logic of divination too. He announced the terrible outcome of the revolt with the intent of preventing this disastrous outcome from coming true through obeying YHWH and submitting to Assyria.49 But his message was not heeded.

46 For the historical circumstances, see de Jong, Isaiah, 224–49. 47 This explanation adds to the one mentioned in de Jong, Isaiah, 248: “Since the king was the divinely appointed head of the state, it was hardly possible to criticise the king, at least not in a direct way, without becoming an enemy of the state oneself.” 48 See de Jong, Isaiah, 239–42 and 348–9. 49 See furthermore de Jong, “Emergence”, 5–7.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

51

Assyria’s campaign against Judah in 701 BCE was disastrous for Judah. The Shephelah was completely devastated,50 the kingdom was reduced in size, and Hezekiah sent an exceptionally high tribute to Nineveh to show his submission to Sennacherib.51 The revolt had failed. After 701 BCE it was clear that Isaiah’s message should have been heeded. This “outcome knowledge” retrospectively cast Isaiah’s prophecies in a new light. It not only vindicated Isaiah’s message and falsified that of his opponents, but it also made the disasters appear as a form of punishment for not heeding the word of God. In the literary complex of Isa 28–31* we see this ex eventu hermeneutics at work. This composition presents Isaiah’s prophetic message in a new framework: Isaiah’s words are true, those of his opponents false. His opponents were blind to the real situation that their own God did not accept the revolt. The ex eventu framework adds a new perspective, whereby Isaiah’s criticism of the leaders of the revolt is applied to the nation as a whole. Isa 28–31* emphasises that not only the political leaders, but also the people as a whole are rebellious and sinful, and that not only the religious experts fail, but also the entire nation (e.g. 29:9–10; 30:10–11). The threat of punishment, originally focusing on the political leadership, is generalised into the announcement of complete and collective destruction.52 Death and destruction no longer are something to be prevented, as in Isaiah’s prophecies. On the contrary, the punishment is now described as being inescapable because of the sins of the people. YHWH himself has ordered their destruction. The literary complex of 28–31* reveals that the destruction brought about by the Assyrians is the work of YHWH. Isa 28–31* is dominated by a framework of collective sin and punishment. Such a perspective on human sin and divine anger and punishment is found in many texts throughout the ancient Near East. It was standard to explain calamities and national disasters as being due to divine anger caused by the sins of the people.53 Significantly, such explanations of disasters always were applied after the events. This presumably applies to Isa 28–31* as well. It makes sense to distinguish between (1) predictive announcements of disaster intended as threatening scenario’s to be avoided, and (2) the view that society as a whole had to collapse by divine verdict as a retrospective explanation of disastrous events. Whereas the former follow the logic of divination, the latter is marked by an ex eventu logic.

50 A. Faust, “Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib’s Campaign”, PEQ 140 (2008) 168–94. 51 According to the recent reconstruction by N. K. Matty, Historical Reconstruction of Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B. C. (BZAW 487; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016). 52 De Jong, Isaiah, 83–9. 53 See de Jong, “Emergence”, 7–14.

52

Matthijs J. de Jong

II.3 Isa 6:9–10 based on Isa 28–31* The collective senselessness of the people and their complete lack of understanding, which is at the core of 6:9–10, is an ongoing theme in 28–31* (e.g. 28:7–12, 28:15, 29:9–10, 29:13–14 and 30:9–14). It is in these same passages that the pejorative designation of the people as ‫ ָהעָ ם ַהזֶ ה‬, “this people” occurs (28:11, 28:14, 29:13–14, also in 6:9–10 and 8:6, 8:11, 8:12). The people are depicted as blind, unable to ‘read’ the situation. They reject the right message and follow a deceptive one (29:9–10; 30:9–10). Among these passages are those most closely related to 6:9–10 with regard to shared terms and phraseology: 28:9, 29:9–10, and 29:13–14. The Isaianic prophecies within Isa 28–31* criticise the leaders of the revolt and the religious experts, in 28:7b–10, 28:15–18*, 29:9*, 30:6–8*, 31:1.3a. Their stupidity and senselessness is vividly expressed by various (fictitious) quotations. In 28:10, Isaiah mocks the prophetic and priestly messages of his opponents. By imitating their supposedly drunken talk, Isaiah portrays his opponents as talking sheer nonsense.54 In 28:15* Isaiah quotes the political leaders of Judah: “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement; when the overwhelming scourge passes through it will not come to us”. This obviously fictitious quotation is intended to reveal their blindness and self-delusion.55 The composition of 28–31* extended Isaiah’s criticism to the people of Judah as a whole. In 30:10–11 the sinful people are referred to. They are portrayed as betraying and deluding themselves by demanding deceptive prophecies and as actively promoting the wrong course of actions against the will of God. The closest parallel to 6:9–10 is 29:9–10.56 Whereas Müller may be right that 29:9* represents an Isaianic saying against the leaders of the revolt,57 29:10 belongs to the later stage of the composition of Isa 28–31*. Focusing on the people as a whole it explains their blindness and lack of understanding as being due to YHWH’s action. He himself has blinded them because of their refusal to obey him. 6:9–10 echoes 29:9, and also 29:10, with the motif of their inability to comprehend due to YHWH’s action. Furthermore, 6:9–10 echoes 29:13–14, another compositional passage within Isa 28–31*, which deals with the refusal of the people to pay heed to YHWH’s will. They pay lip service to him, but do not really care for what he wants from them. YHWH therefore caused them to be stupefied them by doing the utterly unexpected, thus revealing the stupidity of even the wisest among them. 54 Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 36, with note 15; de Jong, Isaiah, 104–5. 55 Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 60–1; de Jong, Isaiah, 109–11. 56 The close relation between 29:9–10 and 6:9–10 is often noted and various scholars have suggested that 6:9–10 is based on 29:9–10; e.g. E. Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament: Beob­ achtungen zu Jes 1–11 (Teil II)”, ZAW 109 (1997) 12–29, on p. 24. 57 Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 44–5.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

53

The senselessness and blindness of the people, polemically laid out in Isa 28–31*, is solemnly proclaimed in 6:9–10. 6:9–10 succinctly brings together the main themes of 28–31* and adds one significant element to it: it is through Isaiah’s ministry that YHWH carries out his decision to blind the people and to let them delude themselves in order to secure their punishment. This portrayal of Isaiah’s ministry is precisely on a par with YHWH’s proclamation in 29:14, “so I will again do amazing things with this people, shocking and amazing. The wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the discernment of the discerning shall be hidden.” And 6:9–10 makes clear how YHWH carries out this verdict: through Isaiah’s ministry. The people, expecting to be rescued by their God, blindly walk the path to their destruction. This is what YHWH decreed for them because of their refusal to heed his words. The most amazing thing is that, as we see in 6:1–11, YHWH’s decree is effectuated through Isaiah’s ministry. When we look at his ministry from the perspective of divine wisdom (29:14), we see how Isaiah leads the people on the divinely decreed road to destruction. The proclamation of 6:9b is phrased in general terms: “Keep on hearing, and you will not understand. Keep on seeing, and you will not perceive.” This refers to Isaiah’s messages in which he announced the fatal consequences of the revolt against Assyria. At the same time it refers, in a broader sense, to the whole situation as presented in the composition of Isa 28–31*, with the people of Judah being unable to assess their situation rightly. Instead of listening to God’s will, represented by Isaiah’s messages, they followed their own will, supported by deceptive messages. 6:9–10 adopts the perspective of 28–31* in that it portrays the people as being blind to the signs of their time. Isa 28–31* points out that their blindness was due to YHWH’s action. What 6:1–11 adds is that YHWH had ordained this long ago and commissioned Isaiah to effectuate his verdict. It is important to note that 6:9–10 does not blame YHWH. The people alone are accountable. Isa 28–31* explicitly blames the people, and 6:1–11 follows this view (see above). 6:9–10 makes clear that Judah’s choice of heeding the wrong prophetic message and rejecting the right one, was not due to heavenly failure, but to divine decision. 6:1–11 reveals how Isaiah’s ministry with divine necessity effectuated Judah’s ruination. The purpose of 6:1–11 is probably not to vindicate Isaiah and his prophetic activity. This was hardly necessary, as the destruction of 701 BCE had made clear that his message should have been heeded. 6:1–11 probably served a different purpose. It explained the disaster of 701 BCE from the pattern of sin and punishment, with the commissioning of Isaiah as a means to secure the punishment of the people until its completion. And all this was meant to bring understanding and repentance to a post-701 audience.

54

Matthijs J. de Jong

II.4 8:5–8* and 8:16–17 based on 28–31* 8:1–18* is likely to be based on Isa 28–31* as well. To support this, I will deal with 8:5–8 and 8:16–17.58 8:5–8 adds a judgemental perspective to the pro-­Judean message of 8:1–4.59 Friedhelm Hartenstein suggested that 8:6–8* is an Isaianic saying stemming from the critical period shortly before 701 BCE, that was reworked to make it part of the composition of Isa 6–8* after 701 BCE.60 I consider it more likely however that 8:6–8* was a literary piece from the start, based on the post701 literary complex of 28–31*.61 From the text itself it is not clear what exactly the people are accused of. Verse 6 accuses the people of having “rejected (‫ )מאס‬the gently flowing waters of Shiloah”.62 The expression “waters of Shiloah” stands for YHWH’s blessings.63 But how, or in what way, did they reject their God and his blessings? For the answer we must look, again, in Isa 28–31*. The same verb ‫ מאס‬occurs within a similar accusation in 30:12. In 30:9–14, the people are accused of having rejected the instructions and guidance of YHWH, represented by the messages of YHWH’s prophet Isaiah, and of having embraced falsehood and deception. Isaiah’s oracles revealed the road to survival and well-being, but the people refused to listen. Isa 28–31* contains more illustrations of the people rejecting YHWH’s “Heilangebot” represented by Isaiah’s message, and opting for delusion and, ultimately, self-destruction, as in 28:12–13 and 30:15–16. Isa 8:6* compresses these accusations into one short statement. Furthermore, with the characterisation of the people as ‫ ָהעָ ם ַהזֶ ה‬we are not in the 58 In discussing the basic literary unit of Isa 8* I concentrate on 8:1–8* and 8:16–17, given the secondary character of 8:9–10, and possibly also of 8:11–15. On the secondary character of 8:18 below. 59 The kernel of 8:1–4 may be found in the symbolic act recorded in 8:3–4, see M. Krebernik / U. Becker, “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 8,1–8”, in Ch. Karrer-Grube et al. (ed.), Sprachen– Bilder–Klänge: Dimensionen der Theologie im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Festschrift für Rüdiger Bartelmus zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AOAT 359; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009) 123–37, on pp. 123–35. 60 Hartenstein, Archiv, 1–30. 61 In Isaiah’s original prophecies, such as 28:15–18*, YHWH does not cause the Assyrian power to overcome Judah, but refrains from protecting Judah’s leaders against Assyria; see Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 61. The formulation of 8:7 belongs to the compositional perspective of 28–31* and 6*+8*: YHWH brings the Assyrians in order to punish his people. The secondary character of 8:5–8* is furthermore pointed out by Krebernik and Becker, “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 8,1–8”, 131–4; R. G. Kratz, “Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments”, in I.  Fischer / K.  Schmid / H. G.M.  Williamson (ed.), Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard Von Rads (ATM 11; Hamburg: Lit Verlag, 2003) 1–22, on pp. 11–13. 62 The reference to “Rezin and the son of Remaliah” in 6b probably is a later gloss, see de Jong, Isaiah, 69 note 67, and 83 note 137. 63 De Jong, Isaiah, 69; Hartenstein, Archiv, 10. 

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

55

sphere of Isaiah’s prophecies, but in the sphere of collective sin and punishment that dominates the compositions of 6*+8* and 28–31*. The announcement of punishment in 8:7* is also expressed in general terms: “therefore, see, the Lord is about to bring up against them the waters of the river, mighty and many.”64 This phrase, neatly mirroring the accusation, can be seen as a summary statement of a theme more fully explored in 28–31*, in particular in 28:15–18 (cf. also 28:1–4). 8:5–8* in a few brief lines extends the punishment of Judah’s enemies (8:1–4) to Judah itself. This extension is quite unexpected after 8:1–4 and difficult to explain in the context of 734–732 BCE.65 Read alone, 8:6–7* is enigmatic and cryptic; read against the background of Isa 28–31* it makes perfect sense. The final passage to be discussed is 8:16–17. I follow the suggestion to take 8:18 as a later addition, presumably relating to the adoption of 7:1–17 within the complex of Isa 6–8.66 The earliest composition of Isa 6*+8* probably ended with 8:16–17, presumably as some sort of colophon.67 I regard it likely that 8:16–17 takes up its theme from 30:8, and expresses it more dramatically in relation to Isaiah’s prophetic ministry, quite similarly to 6:1–11. According to Hugh Williamson, 8:17 and 30:8 reflect the expectation of the historical prophet at different points in time. While writing 8:17 in the early stage of his ministry, Isaiah expected the return of God’s favour during his lifetime, whereas later in his career, when writing 30:8, he had come to the understanding that God’s favour would be withheld for much longer.68 This biographical interpretation does not seem convincing to me. The historical Isaiah in my view did not present Judah’s situation during the early stage of his activities as a time of divine disfavour (cf. 8:1–4*, 28:1–4*). Furthermore, 8:17 does not imply that the Isaiah expected the return of YHWH’s favour during his lifetime. Instead, 8:17 contains the confession that, even in the midst of darkness and doom, the prophet keeps hoping in YHWH.69 This is not the personal expectation of the historical prophet, but a model showing the right attitude to take. It means that the misery (of 701 BCE) is to be accepted as a justified punishment brought about by YHWH—“who is hiding his face”. For it is this acceptance (and the necessary repentence following from it) that opens a path to the future; one day, God’s anger will be over and will he favour his people again.70 8:17 with the participle 64 The phrase “the king of Assyria and all his glory” is probably a later addition; see de Jong, Isaiah, 69 note 67, and 83 note 137. 65 For the circumstances, see de Jong, Isaiah, 193–202. 66 Williamson, “Weal or Woe”, 288–9; Barthel, Prophetenwort, 239–42. 67 Hartenstein, Archiv, 4.  68 Williamson, “Weal or Woe”, 290–1. 69 I agree with Williamson, “Weal or Woe”, 290, note 38, on the positive sense of the verbs in 8:17. 70 So also R. G. Kratz, “Israel in the book of Isaiah”, JSOT 31/1 (2006) 85–103, on p. 119.

56

Matthijs J. de Jong

‫“( ַה ַמ ְס ִתיר‬who is hiding”) refers to a situation that will endure for an undetermined

period of time.71 The pious statement—“I will wait, I will hope in him”—implies the conviction that one day, YHWH’s anger will be over. But when this will be falls outside the scope of these words. Our analysis of 6:1–11 above supports the view that 8:17 is a later presentation of the prophet rather than a biographical report. The tight connection between 6:9–11 and 8:17 has often been pointed out. Isa 6:11+8:17 present an overall perspective, telescoping Isaiah’s complete ministry.72 8:16–17 is likely to be based on 30:8 and its literary extension in 30:9–11. Isa 30:8, firstly concludes the passage of 30:6–8*.73 The suffixes in ‫“( כָ ְת ָבּה‬write it”) and ‫“( ֻח ָקּה‬inscribe it”) in 30:8 refer back to the message of 30:7.74 In this respect, 30:7–8 parallels 8:1–2, also dealing with the inscription of a symbolic name functioning as a testimony for the truth of the prophetic message. Whereas 30:6–8*, like 8:1–4*, preserves an early, Isaianic message, 30:9–11 has been added as part of the literary composition of 28–31*.75 In the present literary context 30:8 is to be read in the light of vs 9–11. The extension of vs 9–11 gives a twist to the earlier tradition, whereby the act of inscribing now refers to the documentation of the prophetic testimony as such—this is paralleled by the transition from 8:1–2 to 8:16.76 The accusation that the people reject YHWH’s ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ generalises the earlier, prophetic message. The people as a whole are accused, and what they reject is YHWH’s guidance and instruction represented by the ministry of Isaiah. Quite similarly, 8:16 with the terms ‫עּודה‬ ָ ‫ ְּת‬and ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ refers generally to the words of Isaiah throughout his ministry. It seems likely therefore that this verse builds upon 30:8.9–11. Both texts present a similar picture: the message had to be written down and to be safeguarded to serve a later time. Whereas “this people”, the pre-701 population, follow their own wisdom (cf. 29:14), and therefore do not fear YHWH in the right way, Isaiah’s testimony, the true words of God, will be preserved by those instructed by Isaiah (8:16), i. e. the post-701 recipients of the textualised Isaiah tradition. 8:16–17 is closely related to 30:8.9–11 but the formulation is much more per­ sonalised. In 8:16–17 the prophetic persona plays a pronounced role, just as in 6:1–11. In addition, the hope for a return to renewed divine favour is more articulated in 8:17. This makes it likely that 8:16–17 is the later text. It adopts the theme of 28–31* with its sin-punishment explanation, and takes it one step further: Isaiah

71 Hartenstein, Archiv, 55, 151. 72 E.g. Becker, Jesaja, esp. 73–5; de Jong, Isaiah, 54–7. 73 See Barthel, Prophetenwort, 404–6; de Jong, Isaiah, 85–6. 74 Barthel, Prophetenwort, 404. 75 De Jong, Isaiah, 112–13. 76 De Jong, Isaiah, 85–6, 113.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

57

is turned into a model of the right attitude to take. To accept the view of Judah’s sin and YHWH’s punishment, means to distance oneself from the collective delusion of Judah before 701 BCE. This is the path to take to a better future.

III. A shift in the depiction of Assyria III.1 The changing perspective on 701 BCE In Isaiah’s prophecies Assyria functions as a military superpower ordered by YHWH. In the early prophecies, such as 8:1–4* and 28:1–4*, YHWH orders Assyria to punish Judah’s enemies. In the prophecies relating to 705–701 BCE, Assyria appears as a fatal threat against which YHWH will not provide protection for those who revolt. After 701 BCE, the compositions of 6*+8* and 28–31* again point out the role of Assyria, e.g. in 8:5–8 (as an expansion on 8:1–4*) and in 28:11–13 (as an expansion on 28:7–10*). These compositions present the events of 701 BCE as a disaster, framed in terms of sin and punishment. The earliest part of 2 Kings 18–19, consisting of 2 Kings 18:13–16, commonly referred to as version A,77 probably dates from around the same period. This early record underlines that the revolt was a mistake (cf. ‘I have sinned’, 2 Kings 18:14) and a failure. In one way however this report manages to frame Hezekiah’s role slightly more positive in comparison to what had happened. According to N. K. Matty’s recent reconstruction,78 Hezekiah had just been very lucky. Sennacherib was compelled to break off his campaign (presumably because of unrest in Babylonia) before he had successfully besieged Jerusalem by putting up blockades to cause starvation in the city. After Sennacherib’s withdrawal, Hezekiah took his chance and sent an exceptionally high tribute to Nineveh (which included his own daughters), to pay for his offence, to show his submission, and to prevent the Assyrians from coming back.79 In 2 Kings 18:13–16 however Hezekiah’s role is increased, as he now takes the initiative. Here Hezekiah succeeds in ending the Assyrian campaign by showing his humility and submission and by offering his tribute.80 At a later stage, in the course of the seventh century BCE, the perspective on 701 BCE changed fundamentally. After the earlier, negative view, a positive recep 77 Reinhard Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, in R. I. Thelle / T. Stordalen / M. E.J. Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History (VTSupp 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 143–60, on p. 156. 78 See note 51 above. 79 Matty, Sennacherib’s Campaign. 80 2 Kings 18:13–16 stands on its own as an early report, recording how through Hezekiah’s initiative the campaign against Judah was ended. Read this way, it is not necessary to assume that 2 Kings 19:36–37 was the original ending of this report, as is argued by Kratz, “Siege of Jerusalem”, 157.

58

Matthijs J. de Jong

tion broke through. This positive perspective comes to the fore in the narrative of 2 Kings 18:17–19:37 (Isa 36–37). Jerusalem’s deliverance is narrated from a perspective of sin and punishment, but now Assyria is the sinner, represented by Sennacherib, who is rightfully punished by YHWH. The earliest version of this story, consisting of 2 Kings 18:17–19:9a.36–37, is commonly referred to as version B1.81 This story depicts Isaiah as announcing Jerusalem’s deliverance and Sennacherib’s violent death. His death is presented as YHWH’s revenge, the well-deserved punishment for Sennacherib’s aggression against Jerusalem and his scorn towards YHWH. Sennacherib was killed in 681 BCE, twenty years after the campaign against Judah, but the B1-story presents his death as the direct result of his sin against YHWH.82 This suggests that it was Sennacherib’s violent death that in fact opened the way for presenting the events of 701 BCE from a new perspective. Whereas the perception changed, Isaiah kept his role: in the B1-story Isaiah foretells Jerusalem’s deliverance and Sennacherib’s death. The rescue of Jerusalem became the iconic event of 701 BCE, as a celebration of God’s intervention for the sake of his holy mountain of Zion.83

III.2 Assyria Redaction A similar reversal, with Assyria punished and Judah rescued, became part of the Isaiah tradition. This happened presumably during the later part of the seventh-century after Assyria lost its hegemony in the West. At that stage, the Isaiah tradition probably received a significant update. This idea of a seventh-century Assyria redaction, first proposed by Hermann Barth in 1977,84 has been followed by many scholars.85 Hugh Williamson, in the present volume, critically examines this theory and concludes that it has been founded on weak grounds.86 Williamson’s significant criticism asks for an extensive discussion, but at present I can 81 Kratz, “Siege of Jerusalem”, 151–6; de Jong, Isaiah, 361–5; Arie van der Kooij, “The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18–19): A Sample of Ancient Historiography”, in J. C. de Moor / H. F. van Rooy (ed.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OtSt 44; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 107–19. 82 See M. Cogan, “Sennacherib and the Angry Gods of Babylon and Israel”, IEJ 59 (2009) 164–74. 83 See Hartenstein, Archiv, 127–73. 84 H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977). 85 Recently Kreuch, Unheil und Heil, 365–405. 86 I am grateful to Hugh Williamson for sending me his article before publication. See furthermore H. G. M. Williamson, “The Theory of a Josianic Edition of the First Part of the Book of Isaiah: A Critical Examination”, in T. Wasserman / G. Andersson / D. Willgren (ed.), Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology and Reception (LHBOTS 654; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2017) 3–21.

Assyria and the Beginnings of the Book of Isaiah

59

only argue briefly why a seventh-century redaction of the Isaiah tradition still seems likely to me. In my view, the literary compositions of Isa 6*+8* and 28–31* were reshaped into an extended form during the late seventh century. The clearest extension of Isa 6–8* is found in 9:1–6; that of Isa 28–31* in 31:8–9 + 32:1–5.87 Both are new endings of an extended literary complex. In these new endings YHWH’s violent termination of Assyria’s suppression goes hand in hand with the reign of a righteous Judean king and a new leadership.88 A combination of three factors makes a seventh-century dating plausible, in my view. (1) The reversal of roles: from being the instrument of YHWH’s wrath Assyria now becomes the victim of his wrath; (2) the nationalistic interest behind the depiction of the new Judean king; and (3) the points of resemblance with the ideology of the B1-story (see above). Josiah’s reign still seems to me the most likely time for this update of the Isaiah tradition. The loss of imperial power after the death of Assurbanipal fuelled Judah’s nationalistic ideology. Although the increase of Judah’s political autonomy may have been marginal, with Egypt acting as some sort of successor-state of Assyria, the ideological victory was great, and Josiah’s reign was celebrated as a new and glorious era.89 In addition to 6–9* and 28–32*, 10:5–11:5* may be a third textual unit on which the Assyria redaction put its stamp, but this case is uncertain.90 Its climax however has the same twofold theme of Assyria’s destruction (10:33–34) connected with the reign of a new, righteous Judean king (11:1–5).91 Although some argue that ­10:33–34 deals with Judah’s punishment,92 it seems more likely that Assyria is meant.93 87 Williamson , “Josianic Edition”, 14, leaves a certain room for the possibility of 9:1–6 being part of a seventh-century anti-Assyrian update; furthermore, his argument against a pre-exilic dating of 31:4-5.8-9 (in this volume, 30–32) mainly rests on a possible dependence on Isa 5:30, which does not seem conclusive in my view. See de Jong, Isaiah, 118–22, 136, for my treatment of these texts. 88 For an extensive discussion, de Jong, Isaiah, 373–85. 89 De Jong, Isaiah, 365–73, 385–92. 90 Williamson deals extensively with 10:16–19, which for Hermann Barth was an example par excellence for the Assyria redaction. In Williamson’s assessment, the dependency of 10:18 on 35:2 plays a major role. Isa 35:2, however, connects “Carmel” not directly with “glory” (‫)כָ בֹוד‬ but with “majesty” (‫) ַָה ָדר‬, a term not appearing in 10:18. Note that M. Chan, “Rhetorical Reversal and Usurpation: Isaiah 10:5–34 and the Use of Neo-Assyrian Royal Idiom in the Construction of an Anti-Assyrian Theology”, JBL 128 (2009) 717–33, gives a different interpretation of the element “glory” in 10:18, referring to Assyrian royal inscriptions that describe the destruction of the enemy’s orchards and forests in terms similar to Isa 10:18. 91 De Jong, Isaiah, 135–6; W. A.M. Beuken, “‘Lebanon with its Majesty shall fall. A Shoot shall come forth from the Stump of Jesse’ (Isa 10:34–11:1): Interfacing the Story of Assyria and the Image of Israel’s Future in Isaiah 10–11”, in F. Postma / K Spronk / E. Talstra (ed.), The New Things. Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy. Festschrift for Henk Leene (Maastricht 2002) 17–33. 92 G. C.I. Wong, “Deliverance or Destruction? Isaiah X 33–34 in the Final Form of Isaiah X–XI”, VT 53 (2003) 544–552. 93 E.g. Beuken, “Lebanon”, 17–33. The “stump” of 11:1 is not to be seen as the remnant of the trees of 10:33–34. Identified as “the stump of Jesse” it is distinguished from the trees cut down

60

Matthijs J. de Jong

M. Chan interprets it as a reversal of a motif from Assyrian royal texts: the westwards journey of the Assyrian king to cut down the cedars of the Lebanon. It is now YHWH who cuts down the tall trees: Assyria.94 So presumably the Isaiah tradition during the later part of the seventh century was updated from the view that YHWH violently had brought Assyria’s suppression to an end to make room for a new, righteous Judean king. The compositions of 6*+8* and 28–31* both received an update marked by this new perspective (most notably 9:1–6 and 31:8–9+32:1–5*). Whereas earlier the violent death of Sennacherib probably stimulated a change of perspective on 701 BCE (in the B1 version), now Assyria’s loss of imperial dominance after Assurbanipal’s death stimulated the view of a role reversal: from an instrument of YHWH’s anger directed at others, Assyria now became the victim. With this update, Isaiah became the prophet announcing Assyria’s destruction. The oppressor is finally punished.

IV. Conclusion This article focuses on Isa 6–8* and 28–31*, two centre-pieces of the early Isaiah tradition, and argues that Isa 6+8* in its basic literary form is dependent on Isa 28–31*. Isa 28–31*, written after 701 BCE, presumably was the first literary complex which presented Isaiah’s message of 705–701 BCE in a revised and developed form. It presents the events of 701 BCE as a disaster and interprets them as YHWH’s rightful punishment of his sinful nation. Isa 6+8*, based on 28–31*, was composed in the same period and likewise reflects on 701 BCE. But it adds the view that it is through Isaiah’s prophetic ministry that YHWH brings about the deserved punishment of Judah. Both Isa 6+8* and 28–31* aim to reveal to a post-701 audience the truth behind the disastrous events that had taken place, as a lesson to be heeded. The texts were written from the conviction that after punishment a time of divine favour would come again. This positive intent is indicated in 8:17, put into the mouth of Isaiah. The final part discusses how the negative reception of 701 BCE that marks 6+8* and 28–31*, in the course of the seventh century BCE was followed by a very different, glorifying view of 701 BCE, focusing on the survival of Jerusalem and the violent death of Sennacherib. This paved the way for an anti-Assyrian update of the Isaiah tradition in the latter part of the seventh century BCE when Assyria had lost its grip on the western part of its empire.

in 10:33–34. The trees of Lebanon (Assyria) are cut down, but from the stump of Jesse (Judah) a shoot comes up. 94 Chan, “Rhetorical Reversal”, 731–3.

Reinhard Müller

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah Paradigmatic Images of Imperial Hubris in Isa 10:5–15

I. Introduction The first part of the book of Isaiah (Isa 1–39) is full of memories of the NeoAssy­rian Empire. The name Ashur (‫ )אשור‬occurs frequently in Isa 1–39,1 and, although Ashur is mentioned also in “Proto-Isaianic” texts for which a late origin is discussed, such as Isa 19,2 the book contains oracles that undeniably relate Ashur to the political events of the 8th century BCE. The clearest example is Isa 8:4,3 an oracle that announces the simultaneous downfall of the kingdoms of Damascus and Samaria, which seems to have no knowledge of the historical fact that Samaria fell only a decade later than Damascus.4 When describing the political agenda of the Assyrian empire, Julius Wellhausen in his Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte alluded distinctly to the extensive woe-saying against Ashur in Isa 10: Wie Vogelnester nahmen sie die Völker aus, und wie man Eier sammelt, sammelten sie die Schätze der Welt, da half kein Flügelschlagen und Schnabelaufsperren und 1 I.e., Isa 7:17–18, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:5, 12, 24; 11:11, 16; 14:25; 19:23–20:1; 20:4, 6; 23:13; 27:13; 30:31; 31:8; 36:1–2, 4, 8, 13, 15–16, 18; 37:4, 6, 8, 10–11, 18, 21, 33, 36–37; 38:6. It is noteworthy that in Isa 40–66, by contrast, Ashur is mentioned only once (52:4). 2 B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (HKAT 3.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 128–9. 3 E.g., M. A.  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 171–2; J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 184–93; U. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 98–100; M. J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VTSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 67–8; R. G. Kratz, “‘Siehe, ich lege meine Worte in deinen Mund’: Die Propheten des Alten Testaments”, in R. G. Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 18–31, on pp. 24–5; R. Müller, “Vom verschrifteten Orakelspruch zum Prophetenbuch: Schriftliche Übermittlung göttlicher Botschaften im Licht von Jes 8,1.16 und Jes 30,8”, in F.-E. Focken / M. R. Ott (ed.), Metatexte: Erzählungen von schrifttragenden Artefakten in der alttestamentlichen und mittelalterlichen Literatur (Materiale Textkulturen 15; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016) 99–122, on pp. 101–11. 4 Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 99.

62

Reinhard Müller

Gezirp. Sie zerrieben damals die Volksindividualitäten des Altertums, sie rissen die Zäune nieder, in denen dieselben ihre Sitte und ihren Glauben hegten, und leiteten so das Werk ein, welches nach ihnen Chaldäer Perser und Griechen fortsetzten und welches die Römer vollendeten. Sie führten einen neuen Faktor, den des Weltreiches oder allgemeiner den der Welt, in die Geschichte der Völker ein. Dem gegenüber verloren dieselben ihren geistigen Schwerpunkt, die raue Tatsache, vor die sie sich unversehens gestellt sahen, vernichtete ihre Illusionen, sie warfen ihre Götter in die Rumpelkammer, zu Ratten und zu Fledermäusen.5

It is remarkable that Wellhausen in this implicit reference to Isa 106 highlights the paradigmatic character of the Assyrian empire; he depicts the Assyrians as the first who built a world-wide imperium, followed by Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Against this backdrop, Wellhausen continued by summarizing how the Assyrian expansion, which rapidly changed the face of the ancient world, was addressed by Israelite prophecy: Nur die israelitischen Propheten ließen sich nicht von den Ereignissen überraschen und dann von der Verzweiflung aus allen Sinnen ängstigen, sie lösten zum voraus das furchtbare Problem, das die Geschichte stellte. Sie nahmen den Begriff der Welt, der die Religionen der Völker zerstörte, in die Religion, in das Wesen Jahves auf, ehe er noch recht in das profane Bewußtsein eingetreten war. Wo die anderen den Zusammensturz des Heiligsten erblickten, da sahen sie den Triumph Jahves über den Schein und über den Wahnglauben. Was auch fallen mochte, das Wertvolle blieb bestehn. Die Gegenwart, die sie erlebten, wurde ihnen zum Mythus eines göttlichen Dramas, dem sie mit vorausempfindendem Verständnis zuschauten. Überall dieselben Gesetze, überall das gleiche Ziel der Entwicklung.7

The woe-saying in Isa 10:5–15 exemplifies what Wellhausen meant. It refers to a crucial theological problem related to the notion of Ashur being a tool or weapon in Yhwh’s hand. By addressing this problem, Isa 10 does not only speak about a particular historical period in which Ashur was used by Yhwh to punish his people, it also reflects in general on the relationship between the universal deity Yhwh and human empires.

II. Observations on the Structure and Logic of Isa 10:5–15 The literary structure and logic of Isa 10:5–15 is complicated. The passage begins and ends as divine speech, preceded and followed by passages speaking of Yhwh in the 3rd person (10:1–4 and 10:16–19). In v. 12a, the divine speech of 10:5–15 is briefly interrupted by the prophet’s voice:

5 J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 71914), 106. 6 At the same time, the mention of “rats and bats” alludes to Isa 2:20. 7 Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, 106–7.

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

63

(12) But when my Lord will finish8 all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem: …

This phrase divides the divine speech into two parts, 10:5–11 and 10:12b–15. Both contain a citation of a third speaker. This speaker seems to be either the Assyrian king or Ashur as a political entity (10:8b–11 and 10:13aα2 –14). Both citations are introduced similarly but not identically (‫ כי יאמר‬in v. 8a and ‫ כי אמר‬in v. 13aα1). Beginning with a woe exclamation in v. 5 (‫)הוי‬, which will be discussed later,9 the divine speaker describes in three synonymous bicola which task he has attributed to Ashur. He has commanded Ashur to plunder and to tread down “the people of his wrath” (vv. 5–6): (5)

Woe to Ashur, the rod of my anger and the staff—it is in their hand –10 of my fury!

(6)

Against an impious nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him,



to take spoil and to seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.11

After this initial description, another synonymous bicolon unfolds a crucial turn in the logic of the speech:

8 ‫ בצע‬pi., lit. “cut off ”, i. e. the thread of …, cf. W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (18th edn Rudolf Meyer and Herbert Donner; Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010), 167; on the meaning of this motif see below III. 9 See below IV. 10 The words ‫ הוא בידם‬that do not fit in with the syntax of the colon in v. 5b are most likely a gloss, see, e.g., K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (KHC 10; Tübingen: J. C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1900), 102; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 71–2; G. B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah (2 vol.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949), 1.195–6 (“probably the words of a reader who had remarked that in v. 24 Assyria wields the rod”); H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda (VTSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964), 142; H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (WMANT 48; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 23; H. Liss, Die unerhörte Prophetie: Kommunikative Strukturen prophetischer Rede im Buch Yesha῾yahu (ABG 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003), 141–2, n. 377; de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 127, n. 370. Differently F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Edinburgh, 1890 [German original: Commentar über das Buch Jesaia (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 41889)]), 260; A. Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja (Leipzig: Hirzel, 61898), 104; H. Wildberger, Jesaja (3 vol.; BK 10.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 1.391; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah (2 vol.; NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), 1.261, n. 1; Becker, Jesaja, 202; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vol.; AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1.251–2; W. A.M.  Beuken, Jesaja (3 vol.; HTKAT; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2003), 1.274; J. J.M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress, 2015), 164, n. a. On the logic of this gloss, see below V. 11 Translations based on NRSV, with substantial modifications.

64

Reinhard Müller

(7a) But he—this is not what he means, and his heart does not think so.

In other words, Ashur’s intention is completely different than what has been attributed to him by Yhwh, and this seems the reason why Yhwh opens his speech by exclaiming “Woe to Ashur!” This discrepancy poses the question what is Ashur’s own intention that underlies his political deeds. The ensuing text gives a highly differentiated answer. It begins three times with the conjunction ‫“ כי‬for” in order to explain Ashur’s intentions and aims (vv. 7b, 8, 13). Verse 7b, another synonymous bicolon, unfolds a first idea: (7b) For (‫ )כי‬it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few.

This implies that Ashur does not acknowledge to have been commissioned by Yhwh to punish his people, but, by subjugating many peoples, widely overstretched the divine mandate. Another ‫ כי‬at the beginning of v. 8 introduces a second explanation of Ashur’s will, this time in a longer pseudo-citation comprising vv. 8b–11. The introduction in v. 8a ‫“ כי יאמר‬for he says” implies that Ashur himself, the subject of the preceding lines, is now speaking. The citation begins in v. 8b with a single colon (which is, in the BHS and many reconstructions, incorrectly pressed into a bicolic structure together with v. 9a12): (8)

For he says,



Are my officials not all kings?

This rhetorical question seems to stress the immense political power of the Assyrian empire, although the precise meaning of this sentence at first does not get entirely clear.13 After that, the speaker enumerates seven Syro-Palestinian cities which are known as capitals of smaller Iron Age kingdoms: Carchemish, Calno, Arpad, Hamath, Damascus, Samaria, and Jerusalem. The first six cities are mentioned in pairs in a tricolic structure: (9)

Is not like Carchemish Calno, or is not like Arpad Hamath, or is not like Damascus Samaria?

With this second rhetorical question, the speaker boasts of having conquered all of them, and stresses that for him there was no real difference between them.

12 Thus, e.g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.390; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.272. Correctly, e.g., Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1.195. 13 See below IV.

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

65

Verse 10 is again misleadingly pressed by the BHS into a bicolic structure; the verse does not contain any parallelism and has to be read as prose:14 (10) As my hand has found the kingdoms of the worthless god, and their graven images were more than those of Jerusalem and Samaria.

This seems to be meant as an explanation of the fact that the aforementioned capitals have been conquered by the speaker. The logic is however not easy to follow, since this verse distinguishes Jerusalem and Samaria from the other five cities by implying that Carchemish, Calno, Arpad, Hamath, and Damascus possessed more graven images than Jerusalem and Samaria, while in the preceding text the speaker has stressed that for him Samaria did not differ from the other cities. Verse 11, which has a rough bicolic structure,15 seems to extend this logic to Jerusalem: (11) Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and her worthless gods, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?

After v. 8b and v. 9, this is a third rhetorical question; it stresses that Jerusalem, which seems not yet conquered by the speaker, will suffer the same fate as Samaria. This line of thought continues the rhetorical question of v. 9. On the other hand, the mention of the “worthless gods” and “idols” of Samaria and Jerusalem connects v. 11 with v. 10. In v. 12a, suddenly the prophet speaks, as the term ‫“ אדני‬my Lord” indicates, but only in a short and incomplete phrase formulated in prose: (12a) But when my Lord will finish all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem: …

In v. 12b, Yhwh resumes his speech with a short oracle of doom against the king of Ashur; this oracle is again formulated in prose:16 (12b) I will punish the fruit of the prideful heart of the king of Ashur and the glory of his high looks.

It seems that the prophetic introduction in v. 12a defines which point in time the oracle of v. 12b envisages. Yet, the combination of the prophetic “I” in v. 12a with the divine “I” in v. 12b reads awkwardly, and the Septuagint has a smoother text in which the prophet is speaking in the entire verse.17 14 Correctly, e.g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.392; Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 21. Pace, e.g., Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 72; Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 1.261; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.272. 15 Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.392, takes also this verse as prose. 16 E.g., Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1.198; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.392; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.272. 17 καὶ ἔσται ὅταν συντελέσῃ κύριος πάντα ποιῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σιων καὶ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, ἐπάξει ἐπὶ τὸν νοῦν τὸν μέγαν, τὸν ἄρχοντα τῶν Ἀσσυρίων, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕψος τῆς δόξης τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ. “And it shall be that when the Lord has finished doing all the things on Mount Sion and

66

Reinhard Müller

A third explanation of Ashur’s intentions begins in v. 13, introduced similarly to v. 8a with ‫“ כי אמר‬for he has said”, therefore styled as another pseudo-citation. In a first synonymous bicolon (v. 13a), the speaker boasts of his strength and wisdom, which can be read as revealing what is really “in Ashur’s heart” according to v. 7a: (13a) For he has said,

By the strength of my hand I have done it and by my wisdom, for I have understanding!

This is continued in vv. 13b–14 with a longer description of Ashur’s political programme. Verse 13b, which is divided into three parallel cola, contains a number of grammatical and semantical problems. The verbal forms seem to switch between imperfective and perfective aspects, according to the Masoretes, and two times the Qerê differs from the Ketîb;18 particularly, the third colon (v. 13bβ) is difficult to understand: (13bβ) And I bring down like a bull (?)19 those who sit (on thrones?).

The three cola of v. 13b seem to resume the thematic line of v. 7b. Ashur’s intention is not only the conquest of the world, but also the removal of—in Wellhausen’s words—the “Volksindividualitäten des Altertums”: (13b) And I remove the boundaries of peoples, and I have plundered their treasures20, and I bring down like a bull (?) those who sit (on thrones?).

Verse 14 continues this line of thought. The poetic structure of this verse is not entirely clear; although one can divide v. 14 into three bicola,21 parallel structures can be found only in the second and third bicola, while a strict synonymous parallelism is only found in the third bicolon: (14) And my hand has found, like a nest, the wealth of the peoples,

and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken, I have gathered all the earth,



and there was none that moved a wing, or that opened the mouth, or chirped.

in Ierousalem, he will bring his wrath against the great mind, the ruler of the Assyrians, and against the loftiness of the glory of his eyes.” (NETS). 18 I.e., K ‫ ועתידתיהם‬Q ‫ ועתודותיהם‬and K ‫ כאביר‬Q ‫ ;כביר‬see, e.g., Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja, 104. 19 Thus the Ketîb ‫כאביר‬. The Qerê ‫ ּכַ ִּביר‬creates a different meaning: “And I bring down the mighty one(s) of those who sit.” It seems that the Qerê intends to avoid the potentially blasphemous image of a bull in the Ketîb, see, e.g., Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja, 107; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.274. 20 With Ketîb. 21 E.g., Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 73; Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1.195; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.272.

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

67

The description, introduced with the narrative ‫“ ותמצא‬and (my hand) has found”, looks back on the achievements of the speaker. The introductory phrase ‫ותמצא כקן ידי‬ “and my hand has found like a nest” resumes the motif of the speaker’s hand from v. 13a (‫“ בכח ידי‬by the strength of my hand”) and connects it with the iconic comparison of the speaker with someone collecting eggs in nature. This comparison impressively depicts the helplessness of Ashur’s victims, and it is certainly no coincidence that Wellhausen mainly alluded to this passage of Isa 10 when describing the Assyrian expansion. The crucial terms in 10:14 are clearly ‫חיל העמים‬ “the wealth of the peoples” and ‫“ כל הארץ‬all the earth”; this motif of a world-wide dominion within which the “Volksindividualitäten” vanish continues the thematic line of v. 7b (“For it is in his heart … to cut off nations not a few”). The second pseudo-citation of Ashur ends with v. 14. The first two cola of v. 15, which form a bicolon with a rather classic synonymous parallelism, express a completely different point of view than v. 14: (15abα) Shall the ax boast itself over the one who wields it, or the saw magnify itself over the one who handles it?

This rhetorical question can be understood either as speech of the prophet or as speech of Yhwh; the latter seems more logical, since the prophet is in the entire passage only briefly speaking in v. 12a, and the divine speech that is opened in v. 5 and continued in v. 12b needs a conclusion after the embedded citations of Ashur’s voice. The rhetorical question in v. 15abα formulates a strong critique of Ashur’s boast, and this lies particularly in the line of v. 13a (“By the strength of my hand I have done it / and by my wisdom, for I have understanding!”). Verse 15 is concluded with another synonymous bicolon (v. 15bβγ) that seems to give a brief commentary on the preceding rhetorical question: (15aβb) As if a rod should handle those22 who raise it, as if a staff should raise the one who is not wood!

The parallel terms “rod” (‫ )שבט‬and “staff ” (‫ )מטה‬create a frame for the woe-saying of 10:5–15 by referring back to the opening of the passage in v. 5 (‫“ שבט אפי‬the rod of my anger”/‫“ מטה … זעמי‬the staff … of my fury”).

III. Diachronic Considerations The passage seems composite at first glance, and most commentators take parts of it as secondary additions. However, it is not easy to reconstruct in detail how the text has developed, and—although there is agreement on some parts—the 22 Read, with many medieval manuscripts, ‫( את‬e.g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.391–2); ‫ ואת‬in Codex L must be due to a scribal error, possibly induced by the peculiar syntax of the bicolon.

68

Reinhard Müller

models all in all widely disagree. Bernhard Duhm aptly noted on this passage: “In der Scheidung des Echten und des Zugesetzten lässt sich natürlich ein etwas subjektives Verfahren nicht vermeiden.”23 A crucial point is certainly related to v. 12. The prosaic style, the awkward syntactical shift from v. 12a to v. 12b, and the fact that the prophetic speech in v. 12a interrupts the long divine speech in vv. 5–15 raise suspicions about the originality of the verse, and many commentators take either v. 12 as a whole (together with ‫ כי אמר‬in v. 13)24 or v. 12a25 as a late addition. The intrusive character of the verse is evident. Regarding the literary unity of the verse, it is difficult to imagine that, despite the awkward grammar of the verse, v. 12a was secondarily added to v. 12b. Verse 12b cannot have been phrased as an immediate continuation of v. 11; the fact that in v. 12b Yhwh himself is speaking needs to be somehow introduced after v. 11, which belongs to the pseudo-citation of Ashur introduced in v. 8a, and such an introduction is found only in v. 12a. The strange syntax of v. 12 can better be explained in relation to its content. It is the prophet who envisages a certain moment in the future when Yhwh “finishes his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem”, and related to this moment, the prophet quotes a divine oracle of doom for the king of Ashur. It has to be noted that the peculiar term ‫ יבצע‬literally means “he cuts off ”, i. e., the thread of his work26—which implies the idea of a pre-determined thread of future events. Duhm convincingly ascribed the entire verse to a prophetic scribe who claimed to know the sequence of eschatological events from his studies of the prophetic books.27 It might be no coincidence that the phrase ‫“ בהר ציון ובירושלם‬on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem” can be found in two other eschatological visions as well, namely Isa 24:23 and Joel 3:5.28 At the same time, the verse resumes the term ‫“ גדל לבב‬prideful heart” from 9:8, a verse of the preceding refrain poem (9:7–20 [10:1–4]) that talks about Israel’s prideful heart.29 The sapiential expression ‫“ תפארת רום עיניו‬the glory of his high looks”30 can 23 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 71. 24 E.g., Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja, 107; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 73; Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1.195, 198–9; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.392; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apo­ calyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d’un démimillénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israёl (2 vol.; EBib 1; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1977), 1.255–8; O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja (2 vol.; ATD 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51981), 1.218, 226; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 1.252; ­Beuken, Jesaja, 1.284; H. G.M. Williamson, “Idols in Isaiah in the Light of Isaiah 10:10–11”, in R. I.  Thelle / T.  Stordalen / M. E.J.  Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History (VTSup 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 17–28, on pp. 17–18. 25 B. S.  Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2.3; London, 1967), 39–43; Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 23–4; Becker, Jesaja, 202. 26 See above n. 8. 27 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 73. 28 See Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 256–7. 29 Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 257. 30 Cf. ‫ עינים‬+ ‫ רום‬in Prov 6:17; 21:4; 30:13; Ps 18:28 // 2 Sam 22:28; Ps 131:1.

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

69

be explained as an anticipating interpretation of the ensuing quotation of Ashur’s speech (vv. 13–14). At the same time, it is reminiscent of the description of Yhwh’s day of judgment in Isa 2:11 (“the haughty eyes of people shall be brought low”). Another question is how the divine punishment of the king of Ashur is imagined here. The combination of v. 12 with v. 11 suggests to think of Jerusalem’s salvation from Sennacherib in 701 BCE which, according to the Isaiah legends, culminated in the disastrous reduction of the Assyrian army and in Sennacherib’s murder after he had returned home (2 Kings 19:35–37 // Isa 37:36–38). On the other hand, the eschatological perspective of v. 12a suggests that “the king of Ashur” is here understood as a paradigmatic figure that can be identified also with other rulers who have a prideful heart; in the 2nd century BCE, there was another (As-)Syrian king who was said to have been full of hubris against the God of Israel.31 Another compositional problem is related to vv. 10 and 11. As shown above, the logic of vv. 9–11 is not easy to follow, which is mainly related to v. 10.32 The series of rhetorical questions in v. 9 aims at the main idea of v. 11. The speaker claims that all these kingdoms suffered the same fate from his hands and therefore nothing will prevent him from doing the same to Jerusalem. This line of thought is interrupted and blurred by v. 10, which adds two side aspects. Firstly, five of the six kingdoms that have been already conquered were ‫“ ממלכת האליל‬kingdoms of the worthless god”. This statement seems to give a theological justification for their downfall. Secondly, they possessed more graven images than Jerusalem and Samaria, which seems to imply that graven images should not be found in Samaria and Jerusalem, in contrast to the other kingdoms. The second aspect is continued in v. 11, according to which Ashur’s actions against Samaria and Jerusalem were particularly directed against the “worthless gods” (‫ )אלילים‬and “idols” (‫ )עצבים‬of these cities. Readers of the Bible know that neither ‫ אלילים‬nor ‫ עצבים‬should be found in Samaria and Jerusalem, and therefore Ashur’s conquest of Samaria and the expected conquest of Jerusalem appear as a justified punishment of the idolatrous cities.33 In other words, by destroying these cities Ashur seems to fulfill Yhwh’s will, which resumes the initial description of Ashur’s divinely given task in vv. 5–6. However, this does not fit the basic idea of v. 7a according to which Ashur had 31 See Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 143, who implies that v. 12 refers to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV; cf. Dan 7:8, 25; 11:36–39. On the other hand, Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 256, who, in the context of showing that Isa 24:21–23 probably resumes Isa 10:12, rejects a connection of the verse with Antiochus IV in light of its presence in the LXX; on this aspect see however I. L. Seeligmann, “The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems”, in I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies, ed. R. Hanhart / H. Spieckermann (FAT 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 119–251, on pp. 249–51, who cautiously proposes to date the LXX of Isaiah to the middle of the second century BCE. 32 See above II. 33 See Williamson, “Idols in Isaiah in the Light of Isaiah 10:10–11”, 26, who proposes that the anti-idolatric passages in Isa 1–39 should be “understood as referring to idol worship within the Yahwistic religion”, in contrast to the corresponding passages in Isa 40–48.

70

Reinhard Müller

different intentions in his mind than what had been attributed to him by Yhwh. Scholars like Bernhard Duhm, George Gray, and Hans Wildberger therefore took vv. 10–11 as a whole (together with v. 12) as later additions,34 but Brevard Childs observed that the tension is found in v. 11 itself.35 The rhetorical question “Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria, / so do to Jerusalem?” continues the thought of v. 9 and is a necessary completion of the passage, since without mention of Jerusalem the purpose of the questions in v. 9 does not become clear. The mention of the gods and idols disturbs this logic and connects v. 11 to the secondary v. 10. Based on this, Childs convincingly proposed that the phrases ‫“ ולאליליה‬and to her worthless gods” and ‫“ ולעצביה‬and to her idols” were secondarily added to link the two verses more closely:36 (9)

Is not like Carchemish Calno, or is not like Arpad Hamath, or is not like Damascus Samaria?

(10) As my hand has found the kingdoms of the worthless god, and their graven images were more than those of Jerusalem and Samaria. (11) Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and to her worthless gods, so do to Jerusalem and to her idols?

Apart from this, a main difficulty of the final text is related to the fact that the text places two citations of Ashur side by side (vv. 8–11 and vv. 13–14). Both unfold arguments that seem crucial to the logic of the entire passage, but it is not clear how they relate to each other. Ashur’s first speech aims at a threat of doom for Jerusalem, as its climax in v. 11* reveals; the speaker promises that the Judean capital will suffer the same fate as Samaria: “Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria, / so do to Jerusalem?” This did not come true, as readers of the biblical texts know (see particularly 2 Kings 19 // Isa 37; 2 Chron 32), and Isa 10:8–11* seems to aim at the contrast between the speaker’s self-confident announcement and the factual outcome of 701 BCE. In other words, Isa 10:8–11* seems to presuppose that its readers know that Jerusalem could not be conquered by the Assyrian king.37 The 34 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 72–3; Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1.195, 197; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.390, 401–2; thus also Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 142–3; Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 1.218, 226; Williamson, “Idols in Isaiah in the Light of Isaiah 10:10–11”, 19–20; Liss, Die unerhörte Prophetie, 144–5. Differently Roberts, First Isaiah, 166, who takes vv. 11–12 as Isaianic adaptations of an older oracle in 701 BCE. 35 B. S.  Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2.3; London: SCM, 1967), 42–3. 36 Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, 42–3. Thus also Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josia­zeit, 23; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 255; E. Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament: Beobachtungen zu Jes 1–11 (Teil I)”, ZAW 108 (1996) 547–68, on p. 560, n. 57; Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 202, 304. 37 Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 205; R. S. Salo, “Assur als Werkzeug Gottes im Alten Testament”, in M. L.G. Dietrich et al. (ed.), Religion und Krieg (MARG 22; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015) 61–83, on p. 73.

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

71

second speech, by contrast, reveals in a much more general way how the speaker boasts of his own strength and wisdom, which fundamentally conflicts with the idea that, according to vv. 5–6, he was Yhwh’s tool or weapon and only received political power for punishing the people of Yhwh’s wrath. The concluding question in v. 15abα: (15abα) Shall the ax boast itself over the one who wields it, or the saw magnify itself over the one who handles it?

clearly reacts to Ashur’s boast in v. 13a: (13a)

“By the strength of my hand I have done it and by my wisdom, for I have understanding!”

Ashur’s ensuing speech in vv. 13b–14 about how he erected his world-wide empire is subordinated to the main line of thought between vv. 13a and 15. Regarding the relationship between both pseudo-citations, it has to be noted that Ashur’s second speech (vv. 13–15) is in its basic idea closely connected with the initial speech of Yhwh in vv. 5–7a. Ashur’s boast of his strength and wisdom (v. 13a) can be read as a logical explanation of v. 7a:38 (7a)

But he—this is not what he means, and his heart does not think so.

Ashur does not acknowledge to be sent and commanded by Yhwh; instead, he thinks that his deeds are purely his own achievement—a habit that is, according to v. 15, unnatural ignorance about the true source of political power. In attributing all its success to its own power (v. 13 f.), Assyria had vaunted itself against Yahweh (cp. Jg 72), or, being in the terms of v.5 a rod and stick in the hand of Yahweh, had vaunted itself of guiding the hand that used it.39

The basic idea of vv. 8–11* diverges from this critique of Ashur’s habit. To be sure, Ashur speaks here in a similar, overly confident tone, full of hubris. But the enumeration of conquered kingdoms culminating in the prospect of Jerusalem’s conquest—of which the readers of the book know it did not happen—does not entirely fit the exposition in vv. 5–7a; it remains unclear why the attempt of conquering Jerusalem would be in fundamental conflict with the task that Yhwh had given to Ashur according to v. 6 (“Against an impious nation I send him, / and against the people of my wrath I command him …”). In addition, the image of 38 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 72, aptly notes on v. 7a: “Der Gegensatz gilt nicht v. 6b, sondern v. 6a, ist allerdings nicht sehr klar ausgedrückt, würde vielmehr beträchtlich gewinnen, wenn man v. 7b abtrennen und v. 13 ff. an v. 7a anschließen dürfte,” and 73 on vv. 13–14: “… beide Verse würden sich vortrefflich an v. 7a anschliessen. Der Assyrer hat nicht als Sendbote Jahves, sondern durch eigene Kraft und Weisheit die Völker niedergetreten (v. 6).” 39 Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 1.199.

72

Reinhard Müller

Ashur changes slightly between vv. 5–7* and vv. 8–11*; the speaker of vv. 8–11* seems to be the Assyrian king, which is made explicit in the secondary v. 12, while vv. 5–7* speak of Ashur as an encompassing political entity40—which is also found in vv. 13–15*. A further important argument is related to v. 8b. In the context of 10:5–15, it does not get entirely clear what shall be stated with this rhetorical question that opens Ashur’s first speech: (8b) “Are my officials not all kings?”

Bernhard Duhm observed that the sentence does become clear in light of a corresponding passage in the Isaiah legends, namely 2 Kings 18:24 // Isa 36:9 where the Rabshake claims that king Hezekiah is not even able to repulse the lowest servant of the Assyrian king.41 If we relate v. 8b to the siege of Jerusalem, it becomes evident that the question alludes to the situation in which king Hezekiah saw himself surrounded by Assyrian officials who were all as powerful as kings. The close relationship with 2 Kings 18–19 // Isa 36–37 affects vv. 8–11* as a whole. It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand vv. 8–11* without having the Isaiah legends in mind, as Uwe Becker convincingly showed.42 The conquered cities Hamath, Arpad, and Samaria are mentioned in the legends in the context of a similar argument (2 Kings 18:34 // Isa 36:19; 2 Kings 19:13 // Isa 37:13), and it is easy to imagine that the three pairs “Carchemish—Calno”, “Arpad—Hamath”, “Damascus—Samaria” in Isa 10:9 were formed based on these parallels. In this context one should note that the memory about the factual course of events that is contained in Isa 10:9 is historically remarkably unclear,43 since Calno / Kullania / Kunulua (Tell Tayinat)44 was conquered prior to Carchemish,45 and Hamath was probably conquered only shortly after the downfall of the Samarian kingdom.46 Also, the obviously intended geographical order of the place names from north 40 Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaja, 104; Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, 102. 41 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 72. 42 Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 205. Thus also already G. Beer, “Die Zukunfts­ erwartung Jesajas”, in K. Marti (ed.), Studien zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte (BZAW 27; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1914) 13–35, on p. 26; Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 1.225. 43 Cf. Roberts, First Isaiah, 165–6, who nevertheless retains an Isaianic origin of the oracle. 44 See T. Harrison, “Royal Self-Representation and the Legitimation of Authority at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua)”, in C. Levin / R. Müller (ed.), Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit (ORA 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) 277–99. 45 I.e., 738 BCE (Harrison, “Royal Self-Representation and the Legitimation of Authority at Tayinat”, 291), while Carchemish fell in 717 BCE (J. Elayi, Sargon II, King of Assyria (SBLABS 22; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017), 66, 89). 46 I.e., 720 BCE (K. Lawson Younger Jr., A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities (SBLABS 13; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 496–9; Elayi, Sargon II, King of Assyria, 61–5).

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

73

to south is not entirely correct, since Calno / Kullania was located south-west of Arpad. The historical and geographical disorder of v. 9 militates against the traditional assumption that Isa 10:9 did not originate much later than 717 BCE,47 the year of the conquest of Carchemish—the latest of all conquests mentioned here. All these observations can be explained with the assumption that the first speech of Ashur in vv. 8b–11* was added later.48 The first speech is not so closely integrated into the logic of the chapter as the second. The second speech revolves around the topic of Ashur’s paradigmatic hubris, and v. 7a forms a logical introduction for this topic: (7*) But he—this is not what he means, and his heart does not think so.

It is well imaginable that the ensuing introductory phrase in v. 8a “for he says” (‫ )כי יאמר‬was originally continued with Ashur’s boast in v. 13aα2: (8*)

For he says:

(13a*) By the strength of my hand I have done it and by my wisdom, for I have understanding!

The second introduction of Ashur’s speech in v. 13aα1 (“for he has said” ‫)כי אמר‬ may have been added only when the long quotation of Ashur was interrupted by the addition of v. 12.49 Another matter is the relationship between the basic layer that can be clearly found in vv. 5–7a and those passages that criticize Ashur for his brutal expansionist policy, by which the “Volksindividualitäten des Altertums” were dissolved, namely vv. 7b, 13b and 14. These passages do not necessarily all lie on the same literary level; vv. 13b and 14 widen the horizon of v. 7b, as Becker noted.50 In any case, however, is v. 7b neither a necessary continuation of v. 7a, nor are vv. 13b–14 a ­necessary continuation of v. 13a. The critique of Ashur’s worldwide expansion may be understood as illustrating the consequences of Ashur’s boast according to v. 13a, but these illustrations deviate from the main line of thought, which may indicate their secondary character.51 At least the bicolon that opens v. 15 with the 47 Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 205. Pace, e.g., Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 26; Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament”, 561; Liss, Die unerhörte Prophetie, 163–5; Roberts, First Isaiah, 165–7. 48 Pace Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 203–5, who proposes the opposite development (vv. 8–11 as belonging to the original layer, and vv. 13–15* as secondary additions). 49 Thus also Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 202, who correctly notes that ‫כי אמר‬ “for he has said” in v. 13aα1 is best be explained as a Wiederaufnahme (resumptive repetition) of v. 8a in the context of the addition of v. 12b. 50 Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 204–5. 51 Cf. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 204, 304, who ponders whether v. 13b or vv. 13b–14 may have been added to vv. 13a, 15, but seems to opt for the secondary nature only of v. 13b.

74

Reinhard Müller

crucial statement “Shall the ax boast itself over the one who wields it?” does not react to the immediately preceding text of vv. 13b–14, but to the boast in v. 13a. It can also be asked whether v. 15*52 really implies that Ashur’s worldwide expansion corresponds to the task given to him by Yhwh; v. 15abα criticizes Ashur for ignoring the true source of his political power, and not for having conquered “all the earth”, which is the object of the critique formulated in v. 14.

IV. Forms, Motifs, and Literary Contexts of the Reconstructed Basic Layer (10:5–7*, 13–15*) (5*)

Woe to Ashur, the rod of my anger and the staff of my fury!

(6)

Against an impious nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him,



to take spoil and to seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

(7*)

But he—this is not what he means, and his heart does not think so.

(8*)

For he says:

(13a*) By the strength of my hand I have done it and by my wisdom, for I have understanding! (15*) Shall the ax boast itself over the one who wields it, or the saw magnify itself over the one who handles it?

The passage begins with a remarkable modification of a classic prophetic form (v. 5*): ‫הוי אשור‬. This sounds at first like the traditional exclamation lamenting the dead: “Alas, Ashur!” The form of the ‫ הוי‬exclamation has been taken up in prophecies of doom for announcing the inescapable downfall of those mentioned, and therefore the exclamatory ‫ הוי‬secondarily received the meaning “woe to!”53 Examples of the political use of this prophetic form can be found in Isa 18:1–2*; 28:1–4*; 29:1–4* or 31:1–3*,54 and, outside the book of Isaiah, particularly in 52 Verse 15bβγ is most likely a gloss connecting the end of the saying closer with the opening in v. 5* and stressing the absurdity of Ashur’s boasting in rationalistic fashion (Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 23; also, e.g., Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.391, 393; de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 130). 53 C. Hardmeier, Texttheorie und biblische Exegese: Zur rhetorischen Funktion der Trauer­ metaphorik in der Prophetie (BEvT 79; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1978), 154–255. 54 See, on the one hand, Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 227–8, 234–41, 257–63, 275–7, on the other, J. Kreuch, Unheil und Heil bei Jesaja: Studien zur Entstehung des Assur-Zyklus Jesaja 28–31 (WMANT 130; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011), 77–95,

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

75

Amos 5:18–20*, which may be the earliest witness of the prophetic use.55 A slightly different use of the form can be observed in the seven woe-sayings collected in Isa 5:8–24 and 10:1–4, since here the political perspective has gained an ethical dimension.56 The way in which the ‫ הוי‬form is used in 10:5–15* differs from all this in two aspects. It is much longer than the classic woe sayings, and, while the classic ‫ הוי‬exclamation is prophetic speech, in 10:5* Yhwh himself is raising the cry; the same modifications are found in Isa 30:1–5, a passage that speaks about Yhwh’s rebellious sons, which presupposes a certain concept of how Israel should ideally behave, similarly also in 1:4–6. Isaiah 10:5–6* speaks in a very similar tone when referring to the object of Yhwh’s wrath. After the initial exclamation, Yhwh calls Ashur with a very peculiar expression formulated in synonymous parallelism (v. 5*). Ashur is “the rod of ” his “anger” and “the staff of ” his “fury”. The second expression has been clarified by a parenthesis that seems to have come into the text as a marginal gloss (v. 5b): ‫הוא בידם‬ “it is in their hand”57 means that Yhwh’s staff is in the hand of the Assyrians; this clarification might be influenced by Isa 9:3, which speaks about the staff and rod of the oppressor of the people that was broken by Yhwh. The original text in 10:5* is much more direct by identifying Ashur itself with Yhwh’s rod. This expression seems to allude to the image of the divine king since the Hebrew terms ‫ שבט‬and ‫מטה‬ can both refer to the scepter of a ruler.58 Yet, the text ascribes a particular function to the scepter; Yhwh calls it ‫“ שבט אפי‬the rod of my anger” and ‫“ מטה זעמי‬the staff of my fury”. It has to be noted that the preceding text speaks emphatically about Yhwh’s anger, namely in the refrain ‫“ בכל זאת לא שב אפו‬in all this his anger has not turned away” (9:11, 16, 20; 10:4), which is repeated a last time immediately prior to our passage (10:4). It seems probable that 10:5* takes up the motif of Yhwh’s anger from the preceding refrain poem. The object of Yhwh’s anger and fury is mentioned in v. 6a: (6a) Against an impious nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him …

The conspicuous term ‫“ חנף‬impious” gives a hint as to why Yhwh is angry against this people, although the precise reason of his anger does not become entirely clear; this motif presupposes a more extensive exposition. Such an exposition is again found in the refrain poem in 9:7–20 (10:1–4) where the term ‫ חנף‬also 177–213, 312–28; R. Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht: Jesajas “Verstockungsauftrag” (Jes 6,9–11) und die judäische Politik am Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 124; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2012), 46–52, 62–5. 55 See R. Müller, “Der finstere Tag Jahwes: Zum kultischen Hintergrund von Am 5,18–20”, ZAW 122 (2010) 576–92, on p. 581. 56 See particularly Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 134–45, 155–9. 57 See n. 10. 58 Cf., e.g., ‫ שבט‬in Gen 49:10; Isa 14:5; Ps 2:9, and ‫ מטה‬in Isa 14:5; Ps 110:2.

76

Reinhard Müller

occurs.59 In 9:16 the poem laments that “everyone was impious and an evildoer” (‫)כלו חנף ומרע‬, and the entire poem describes in much detail how the nation60 went into this rotten state. Apart from that, a similar expression can be found in the programmatic opening of the book in 1:4, where a divine “woe”-exclamation—the same form as in 10:5*—refers to ‫“ גוי חטא‬a sinful nation”.61 The peculiar genitive clause ‫“ עם עברתי‬the people of my wrath”, in 10:6, which is similar to the expressions in v. 5 ‫ שבט אפי‬and ‫מטה זעמי‬, takes up two words from 9:18 (i. e., ‫ עברה‬and ‫ )עם‬and condenses what is the consequence of the people’s impiousness. At the same time, it breaks up the expression ‫“ עמי‬my people”, which also occurs in the opening of the book (1:3) and is furthermore found in combination with the motif of Yhwh’s anger in 5:25, a passage that announces the coming of nameless conquerors. Thus, it is not likely that the people of Yhwh’s wrath is here equated only with the Northern kingdom; rather, in light of 1:4, continued by 9:7–20 (10:1–4), the “impious nation” seems to comprise Israel and Judah alike.62 10:6b describes the task that is given to Ashur by Yhwh: (6b) … to take spoil and to seize plunder and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

The first colon is clearly influenced by the oracle ‫ מהר שלל חש בז‬in 8:1–4;63 this oracle refers to the plundering of Damascus and Samaria, while 10:6 refers to the plundering of the people of Yhwh’s wrath—which does not differentiate between Israel and Judah. Konrad Schmid recently proposed the opposite development, namely that the oracle in 8:1–4 is influenced by Isa 10:6.64 This is difficult to 59 Further in Isaiah only in 33:14, outside the book of Isaiah in Ps 35:16; Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13; Prov 11:9. 60 Starting out with looking back on the divine judgment on the kingdom of Israel by alluding to the book of Amos (E. Blum, “Jesaja und der ‫ דבר‬des Amos: Unzeitgemäße Überlegungen zu Jes 5,25; 9,7–20; 10,1–4”, DBAT 28 (1992/93) 75–95), but extending this judgment to the present so that it comprises Judah as well; see K. Schmid, “Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs”, in C. M. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013 (VTSup 163; Leiden: Brill, 2014) 426–53, on p. 445: “Das von Jesaja gegen Juda angekündigte Gericht ist kein neuer Vorgang, es beruht auf dem Zorn Gottes gegen Israel, der noch immer gegen sein Volk gerichtet ist. Das Gericht an Juda ist also die Verlängerung und Weiterführung des Gerichts am Nordreich Israel.” 61 On the literary horizon of 1:4 see particularly Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 175–92. 62 Correctly K. Schmid, Jesaja 1–23 (ZBKAT 19.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011), 1.115; pace K. Schmid, “Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs”, 435; also, e.g., Williamson, “Idols in Isaiah in the Light of Isaiah 10:10–11”, 17–18. 63 E.g., Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 200; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 1.253–4; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.282. 64 Schmid, “Die Anfänge des Jesajabuchs”, 436; differently idem, Jesaja, 115: “Die Wortfolge in Jes 10,6 … erinnert an den Sohn Jesajas … aus Jes 8,1.3. Allerdings geht es in 10,6 wahrscheinlich nicht mehr nur darum, dass die Beute aus Aram und dem Nordreich Israel, sondern auch aus Juda selbst nach Assur gebracht wird. 10,6 setzt also bereits die Sachabfolge 8,1–4.5–8 voraus und weitet nun die Beuteaussage aus 8,1.3 auch auf Juda aus.”

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

77

imagine, since Isa 8:1–4 does not recognizably presuppose the critique of Ashur in 10:5–15; in addition, the phrase in 10:6 ‫“ לשלל שלל ולבז בז‬to take spoil and to seize plunder” smoothes the inconsistencies and grammatical difficulties contained in ‫מהר שלל חש בז‬.65 The second colon of 10:6b takes up a motif that can also be found prominently in the song of the vineyard (see the term ‫“ מרמס‬trampling” in 5:5). The reference to the “streets” (‫ )חוצות‬is in the nearer context also found in 5:25, the passage that announces the coming of a nameless army. The basic layer of Isa 10:5–15*, as shown above, criticizes Ashur for not acknowledging to be sent by Yhwh and boasting instead of his own strength and wisdom.66 The mention of Ashur’s wisdom and understanding is indirectly reminiscent of Isaiah’s call according to 6:9 to make his addressees listen but not understand.67 A more direct parallel is, however, the woe-saying in 5:21: ‫הוי חכמים בעיניהם‬ ‫ונגד פניהם נבנים‬

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and have understanding in their own sight!

This saying is in its context primarily addressed to Israel, but Isa 10:13a precisely applies it to Ashur. At the same time, the critique of the boasting of one’s own strength is conspicuously similar to Deut 8:17, a warning of the danger of forgetting Yhwh and of relying instead on one’s own strength.68 Finally, the proverbial-like saying about the ax and the saw resembles Isa 29:16: Shall the thing made say of its maker, ‘He did not make me?’, or the thing formed say of the one who formed it, ‘He has no understanding?’

The theology underlying Isa 10:13a and Isa 29:16 is almost the same. Who was the author of the basic layer of Isa 10:5–15*? Is it conceivable that this text goes back to Isaiah?69 Any answer to this question is of course determined by the way one imagines the historical figure of the prophet, and a high degree of circularity is inevitable.70 A potential solution is based on the observation that 65 On these see Müller, “Vom verschrifteten Orakelspruch zum Prophetenbuch”, 105–9. 66 On the comparison between this critique and the factual boasting of the Assyrian kings in their inscriptions see Salo, “Assur als Werkzeug Gottes im Alten Testament”, 74–9. 67 On Isa 6:9 see Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 28–31. 68 Cf. also Judg 7:2, and see the quotation of Gray above (III., with n. 39). 69 Thus, e.g., Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 144–5; Wildberger, Jesaja, 1.393; Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit, 26; Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique, 262; Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 203–11; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.279; de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern ­Prophets, 347; Roberts, First Isaiah, 167. 70 Cf. exemplarily Blum, “Jesajas prophetisches Testament”, 561: “Wesentlich für die diachrone Zuordnung bleibt, daß Assur gerade nicht wegen des Vorhabens, gegen Jerusalem zu ziehen, getadelt wird (sondern wegen der selbstherrlich-imperialen Machtanmaßung), daß es

78

Reinhard Müller

this text differs in a certain way from passages that can be understood as political prophecies from the 8th century, such as 8:1–4,71 the woe sayings in 28:1–472 and 31:1–3,73 perhaps also 8:5–8.74 To be sure, these texts likewise imply that Ashur received its political power from Yhwh, and that Yhwh used Ashur, firstly, to save Judah from its hostile northern neighbor, and, secondly, to punish Judah for its suicidal policy at the end of the 8th century.75 In this regard, Isa 10:5–15* makes explicit what these texts imply. However, Isa 10:5–15* goes beyond all this. By using the peculiar expression “the people of my wrath” (‫ עם עברתי‬in v. 6), it refers to the concept of Yhwh’s people that in its entirety proved to be impious (‫ )חנף‬and therefore justly became the object of Yhwh’s wrath. This concept is not recognizable in texts like Isa 8:1–4 or 28:1–4, not even in 8:5–8. Instead, Isa 10:5–15* seems to presuppose the refrain poem of Isa 9:7–20 (10:1–4) that explains why Yhwh’s anger endures to the present and is directed against both Israel and Judah, and it stands near to Yhwh’s woe against his sinful people in Isa 1:4–6 and his woe against his rebellious sons in Isa 30:1–5.76 However, the punishment of Israel’s unfaithfulness is not the main focus of Isa 10:5–15*. It revolves around Ashur’s failure of recognizing and accepting his divinely assigned role. To be sure, it cannot be vielmehr eben damit als Werkzeug JHWHs fungiert …, aber gleichwohl von JHWH her seine Grenzen aufgezeigt werden. Von daher ist eine nachjesajanische Entstehung ausgesprochen unwahrscheinlich. Umgekehrt fügt sich das inhaltliche Profil des Textes nahtlos in die von Jes 2,12 ff. usw. her erkennbare jesajanische Theologie.” 71 See esp. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 94–102; R. G. Kratz, “Der Zorn Kamoschs und das Nein JHWHs: Vorstellungen vom Zorn Gottes in Moab und Israel”, in R. G.  Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 71–98, on pp. 96–7. 72 See esp. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 227–8; cautiously also R. G. Kratz, “Jesaja 28–31 als Fortschreibung”, in R. G. Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 177–97, on pp. 196–7. 73 See Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 46–52; differently Kratz, “Jesaja 28–31 als Fortschreibung”, 187–8. 74 See esp. F. Hartenstein, “JHWH und der ‘Schreckensglanz’ Assurs (Jesaja 8,6–8): Tra­ ditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur ‘Denkschrift’ Jesaja 6–8*”, in F. Hartenstein, Das Archiv des verborgenen Gottes: Studien zur Unheilsprophetie Jesajas und zur Zions­ theologie der Psalmen in assyrischer Zeit (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 74; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011) 1–30, on pp. 16–23. 75 See Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 71–94. 76 Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 283–4, postulates a comprehensive redactional layer addressing the disobedience of the people (p. 289 etc.: “Ungehorsamstheologische Neuedition des Jes-Buches”) to which both Isa 1* and 30* belong; while I disagree with his model of the oldest core of the Isaiah tradition (see Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 85–94), the evidence for this redactional layer is in my eyes all in all very substantial. By resuming Isa 9:7–20 (10:4), Isa 10:5–15* probably indirectly presupposes texts like Isa 1:4–6 or 30:1–5; Becker ascribes Isa 10:5–15* to a comprehensive “Assur-Redaktion” that serves to integrate the Isaiah legends in chs 36–39 into the book (Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 284). According to my analysis, this redactional aim is limited to Isa 10:8–11* which (pace Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 203–5) is likely secondary to the basic layer of 10:5–15*.

From Carchemish and Calno (Isa 10:9) to the Book of Isaiah 

79

entirely excluded that a Judean prophet of the late 8th century reflected on Ashur’s hubris in such words; this remains a theoretical possibility.77 However, the fact that the image of Ashur drawn in Isa 10:5–15* is from the outset highly paradigmatic points in a different direction; such a paradigmatic tone is not found in the oldest political oracles in Isaiah.78 In Isa 10:5–15*, Ashur is depicted as a model of human empires that forget having received their power from the one God of the world.79 This critique of mundane hubris is not directly linked to the political conflicts of the 8th century, which led to the downfall of Samaria and brought Jerusalem to the verge of a similar catastrophe. Therefore it can be suspected that Isa 10:5–15* was conceived much later than in Isaiah’s time.

V. Summary and Conclusion The image of Ashur in Isa 10:5–15 is drafted as a paradigm of imperial hubris. According to the original stratum (vv. 5–7a, 13a*, 15abα), Ashur boasts of its mighty achievements, attributing them to its own strength (v. 13a), while it is Yhwh who had commissioned Ashur being his tool for punishing his impious people (vv. 5–6). Because of Ashur’s failure to acknowledge the divine plan (v. 7a), it is condemned by the opening ‫ הוי‬exclamation (v. 5). But the teaching of this text goes far beyond Ashur and its political destiny. Culminating in the rhetorical question, “Shall the ax boast itself over the one who wields it, / or the saw magnify itself over the one who handles it?” (v. 15abα), the woe speech depicts Ashur as an example of the inherent tendency of human empires to attribute their achievements to their own power. Isaiah 10:5–15* reveals such thinking as utterly wrong. A secondary layer (vv. 8–11*) relates all this to the situation of 701 BCE. The Assyrian king threatens to conquer Jerusalem (v. 11*), just like six other kingdoms conquered before, including Samaria (v. 9). Readers of the book know that this did not come true—which reveals also this version of imperial planning as hubris. Additional elements in vv. 7b and 13b–14 generalize this imagery and relate it to Ashur’s world-wide dominion that destroyed the individual identities of the peoples. Further additions in vv. 10 and 11* depict the Assyrian wars against the seven kingdoms, particularly against Samaria and Jerusalem, as directed against their graven images—which implicitly presupposes Jerusalem’s conquest in 587/6 BCE

77 See particularly Liss, Die unerhörte Prophetie, 141–66. 78 See, on the one hand, Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 282, on the other, Müller, Ausgebliebene Einsicht, 33–68. 79 See R. G. Kratz, “Jesaja in den Schriften vom Toten Meer”, in R. G. Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 243–71, on p. 267, who stresses that at least the expansions in Isa 10:20–27a and 11:11–16 understand Ashur in 10:5–19 as a “cipher” (“Chiffre”) for any Mesopotamian empire.

80

Reinhard Müller

and therefore understands Ashur as a model for later empires.80 In this line of thought, v. 12 finally announces Yhwh’s future judgment of the Assyrian king’s pride—which places the entire saying into an eschatological frame; because of this announcement, the respective readers of the book can expect such judgment also for political rulers of their own time who are boasting of their power and achievements in a similar way.81

80 In light of these implicit perspectives, it seems no coincidence that 4QIsac (4Q163) f4.7:1–5 relates Isa 10:12 and 13 to Babylon (see Kratz, “Jesaja in den Schriften vom Toten Meer”, 264). 81 The second volume of the commentary on the Book of Isaiah by H. G. M. Williamson only appeared after I had submitted my manuscript for the present collected volume: Isaiah 1–27, vol. 2: Commentary on Isaiah 6–12 (ICC; London: T & T Clark 2018). I have therefore not yet been able to discuss Williamson’s detailed interpretation of Isaiah 10:5–15. This has to be be done in another context.

Jacob Stromberg

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah The Prospective Significance of Hezekiah’s Deliverance from Assyria and Death*1

The composition history of the book of Isaiah spans at least two centuries. It saw the concerns of the great empires impinge on the histories of the two kingdoms, and then, we might say, that of the Jews. During this whole period of time, as one great empire was eclipsed by the next and so on, the early Isaianic deposit was being preserved by those anonymous bookmakers, whose study of this material ultimately lead to its expansion into the form of the book we know today. Two centuries or more can bring much change in the life of a nation, as they can in that of a book. One important consequence of this long composition history is that, as well as preserving an extremely diverse and uneven body of texts, this textual corpus presents to the reader an historical record of a very particular sort. As valuable as the book of Isaiah may be for reconstructing the spatio-temporal realities of the eighth through sixth centuries BC, it is more immediately an historical record of how those realities were remembered, how they were construed in words, and how those words were designed to teach the reader a lesson about the providential dealings of Israel’s God in those events. To the naked eye, those events may do nothing more than demonstrate the principle of the survival of the fittest, but to the Isaianic bookmakers, they were a function of the divine plan. And, judging from what we have preserved in the book of Isaiah, one may reasonably conclude that these tradents made every effort to present this history in precisely those theological terms, a task that required both literary skill and a definite historiographical logic. My aim in this paper is to explore both the historiographical logic that governed the formation of this material as well as the literary strategies set in place to give that logic voice in the text. Naturally, any comprehensive treatment of this topic is simply out of the question in this context. Instead, I will focus my attention * I wish to express my gratitude for the insights of the organizers and participants of the conference upon which this volume is based. The conference was an ideal opportunity further to develop some of the arguments sketched in a rather preliminary way in J. Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (London: T & T Clark International, 2011). Above all this essay owes much for whatever is good within it to innumerable conversations with Andrew Teeter. Finally, I am grateful to a former student, Daniel Stulac, for prodding me to clarify my argument at several points.

82

Jacob Stromberg

on the narratives regarding Ahaz and Hezekiah in chs 7 and 36–39 respectively. I will argue that these narratives belong to a single strategy that has as its aim the framing of the larger Isaianic corpus in terms of a particular understanding of history. In the present form of the text, these narratives work together to present the Isaianic corpus not merely as a collection of prophecy from the past, but as a prophetic history, a history wherein the shape of the future is grounded in the shape of the past. This line of inquiry involves asking two related questions. First, can we discern a literary strategy in these Isaianic narratives by which the editors have sought to make sense of this diverse and uneven material for the reader? Second, can we discern within this organizational strategy a historiographical principle, that is, a principle by which history was understood and consequently presented to the reader? While I hope the nature of the second question is reasonably clear, the first, I believe, calls for further definition in the present context. The notion of literary strategy accepts the commonly held idea—also a postulate of much empirical research on reading—that, in their default mode, humans process texts with a bias “towards making them cohere”.1 This coherence bias on the part of readers in turn informs the work of text producers who want their words to be understood in a meaningful way. Accordingly, text producers embed within their texts mechanisms by which readers can make coherent sense of what they are reading, or hearing. Perhaps one of the most important of these mechanisms that an author will use to enable a reader to create coherence beyond the sentence level is that of meaningful repetition with strategic variation. Such repetition can be the product of whole cloth composition, or—as is often the case in the Hebrew Bible—it can be the product of redactional intervention that builds upon preexisting sources and strategies,2 as in the case of Fortschreibung. In either case, it is quite evident that such strategies are designed to help the reader make sense of the text as it stands. This is not to say that those responsible for such a strategy will always achieve, or, in the case of the composite texts of the Hebrew Bible, even seek to achieve a text that is perfectly coherent to the reader in every detail. Nevertheless, such strategies 1 A. Samely, “Jewish Studies and Reading”, in C. Cordoni / G. Langer (ed.), “Let the Wise Listen and Add to Their Learning” (Prov 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday (STJ 90; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016) 757–89, on p. 780. To this postulate may be compared the Gestalt principles of perception that are illuminatingly applied to the problem of lineation in Hebrew poetry by E. Grosser, “A Cognitive Poetics Approach to the Problem of Biblical Hebrew Poetic Lineation: Perception-Oriented Lineation of David’s Lament in 2 Samuel 1:1–19”, HS, forthcoming. 2 This is amply demonstrated by the books of Chronicles. See, e.g., H. G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982); T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (­FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

83

are coherence enabling mechanisms put in the text by the ancient text producers, making their description an indispensable part of any historical understanding of this literature. This paper explores the strategy under consideration as it seeks to make historical sense of this corpus for the ancient reader. What does this strategy tell us about how the ancient reader was supposed to encounter this material? Such strategies were not put in place so that the ancient readers could reverse engineer the text in the manner of a modern critic. I do not wish to deny the legitimacy of that procedure as a step on the way towards accessing the spacio-temporal realities that produced the present form of the text. But the process that produced the final form of the text should not be confused with the altogether different (even if fundamentally related) historical object that is the aim of this paper to describe. Here my focus will be on what the literary structure consisting of Isa 7 and 36–39 tells us about how the text was to be read, rather than on what it might be able to tell us about the textual process that led to its present form. I do believe that such diachronic inquiry can underscore the deliberate and strategic nature of an edited text in its present form, so that I will not abandon such inquiry altogether in what follows. Certainly, important light is shed on the text by those models of Isaiah’s formation such as are developed by modern scholars. But I am not persuaded in the present instance that these have been assigned the value of a meaning signal for the ancient reader. That function has been granted to the literary strategy itself, which narrates an altogether different history. Isa 7:1–17 and 36–39 are narrative accounts of the Syro-Ephraimite and Assyrian attacks on Jerusalem, during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah respectively. Likely redactional, their present position in the book is widely regarded as deliberate. Isa 7:1–17 has been made immediately to follow ch. 6, so that the disobedience of Ahaz and consequent issuance of judgment by means of foreign invasion become an illustration of the gloomy forecast in 6:9–13 that the people would not listen to the prophet resulting in the devastation of the land.3 Moreover, Isa 7 has been made to precede ch. 8, both chapters offering a prophetic response to the Syro-Ephraimite crisis with reference to the name Immanuel (‫)עמנו אל‬. Underlying this juxtaposition and other features present in each chapter appears to be a 3 Cf. W. A.M.  Beuken, Jesaja (3 vol.; HThK; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2003), 1.193–4; M. J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VTSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 58; K. Schmid, Jes 1–23 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare AT 19.1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2011), 93. Regarding the reference to Ahaz as ‫ בן עזיהו‬in 7:1, Jörg Barthel has insightfully commented: “Wenn Ahas ausdrücklich als Enkel Usias eingeführt wird, so bedeutet das: An Ahas vollzieht sich exemplarisch jener Verstockungsprozeß, der Jesaja im Todesjahr Usias (6,1) aufgetragen worden ist,” J. Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28–31 (FAT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 158. In this respect, see also the comments of U. Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997), 57–8.

84

Jacob Stromberg

deliberate editorial attempt to identify the child Immanuel with Hezekiah, the announcement of the child who would one day belong to a remnant that survives the Assyrian onslaught of Judah finding its fulfillment in Hezekiah.4 The positioning of chs 36–39 vis-à-vis their immediate literary context appears no less deliberate. As scholars have repeatedly noted, Isa 39 announces the Babylonian destruction of the Davidic kingdom that chs 40 ff. look back on as having happened, so that this sad last chapter of the Hezekiah story now functions as a fitting introduction to what follows it in the book.5 In the light of this exilic connection, other scholars have ascribed great significance to the fact that Isa 36 is now immediately preceded by ch. 35:10, an announcement of return that certainly anticipates, and many regard as having been written up in the light of, 51:11. Thus, for Odil Hannes Steck, this connection with 51:11 was a consequence of the fact that ch. 35 was composed as a bridge-text between the two halves of the book

4 This conclusion emerges from several pieces of evidence: (1) In the text as we have it, the identity of Immanuel is to be understood in the light of the narrative analogy established between 7 and 36–39 that is discussed later in this essay. This analogy suggests that the failure of Ahaz leads to the announcement of the birth of his successor whose reign is narrated in chs 36–39. (2) The identification of Immanuel with Hezekiah is encouraged by 7:15 which clarifies the “sign” by identifying Immanuel as part of the post-Assyrian remnant, precisely the presentation of Hezekiah in relation to a “sign” confirming a post-Assyrian remnant in 37:30–32. On Isa 7:15, I argue elsewhere that this editorial comment (noting that Immanuel will eat ‫חמאה‬ ‫ )ודבׁש‬locates the child among the remnant that survives the devastation of the land at the hand of the Assyrians, a remnant that will eat ‫ חמאה ודבׁש‬‎(7:20, 22). See J. Stromberg, Isaiah after Exile: The Author of Third-Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 223–5. (3) In a similar manner, 8:5–10 twice employs ‫ עמנו אל‬in relation to the destruction of Judah brought by Assyria, a destruction announced in vv. 5–8, only to be undermined in vv. 9–10. This pattern of announcement of judgment followed by reversal of the announcement is a scenario that maps precisely onto the relationship between Isa 7 and 36–39, where Ahaz is succeeded by his son Hezekiah, who undermines the destruction announced in the days of his father. Moreover, having 8:5–8 immediately followed by 8:9–10 suggests that the Assyrian destruction of Judah announced in the former passage will not be complete, leaving a remnant. Thus, like 7:15, 8:9–10 locates ‫ עמנו אל‬among a remnant that survives the onslaught of Assyria, which (again) suggests Hezekiah as the child to be born. (4) Finally, 8:5–10 is taken up in 14:24–27 in relation to the breaking of Assyria in the land, which suggests a situation like that in chs 36–38, so that the name ‫ עמנו אל‬has been employed in a sequence that points to Hezekiah. A recent attempt to identify Immanuel as Hezekiah (though along different lines than these) is R. A.  Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition (VTSup 155; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 181–9. 5 Many scholars now regard Isa 39 as a deliberate (even if secondary) introduction to the latter half of the book, a point already argued by P. R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function”, in W. C. Delsman et al. (ed.), Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für J. P.M. van der Ploeg OP zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4 Juli 1979 (AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 3–21, on pp. 3–4. See also Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 251; W. A.M.  Beuken, Isaiah (2 vol.; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 2.408; H. G.M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 189–211.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

85

of Isaiah, this chapter exhibiting especially close connections to Isa 40:1–11.6 In partial development of Steck’s work on this point, Ulrich Berges argues that the Hezekiah narratives have been deliberately sandwiched by Isa 35 and 40, so that Hezekiah becomes an example of strength (‫ )חז״ק‬and a lack of fear (‫ )אל תירא‬to those addressed (35:4; 37:6; 40:9). Hence, the significance of this juxtaposition finds expression in Isa 35:4 (‫)חזקו אל תיראו‬, words now presented as a play on those regarding the man (‫ )חזקיהו‬who obeyed the divine imperative, “fear not” (‫)אל תירא‬.7 For the addressees of chs 35 and 40, argues Berges, Hezekiah becomes an example of one seeking God’s help and being delivered in the midst of foreign oppression. This point nicely complements Steck’s earlier argument that the Hezekiah narratives become a sort of guarantee of the deliverance spoken of in ch. 35 and 40:1–11.8 If these scholars are correct, there is both a negative and a positive side to Hezekiah’s portrayal in relation to its larger Isaianic context. As portrayed by ch. 39, Hezekiah is blamed for the destruction presupposed in chs 40 ff. But as portrayed by chs 36–38, Hezekiah becomes an example for those who—having inherited this destruction—are exhorted to a posture of courage and hope for deliverance by God. While such a conclusion is certainly relevant for what I shall argue later, the more immediately relevant point that needs to be made here is the following: the present positions of these two Isaianic narratives (chs 7 and 36–39) show every sign of having been carefully considered in relation to their respective literary contexts in the book as we have it. As further confirmation of the macro-structural significance of these Isaianic narratives, Peter Ackroyd noted several years ago that the Ahaz and Hezekiah stories have been shaped to form a single literary strategy, a point now widely acknowledged.9 Thus, what Isaiah prophesies in the Ahaz narrative is fulfilled in the Hezekiah account: Hezekiah, the child Immanuel whose birth is announced 6 O. H.  Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBS 121; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985). The basic point of Steck’s argument is now widely accepted. 7 U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS 16; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1998), 256–7. 8 “Jes 36–39 aber wurde jetzt offenbar als Verbürgung der Rettung betrachtet, von der Jes 33 und 35,4 sprechen, die ihrerseits die Voraussetzung der eschatologischen Heimkehr ist, in der Jes 35 den zentralen Inhalt der Weissagungen von Jes 40 ff gesehen hat,” Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr, 59. 9 Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36–39: Structure and Function”, 3–21. Many scholars since have recognized the parallels that bind 7:1–17 together with 36–39, though there is much debate as to the compositional development that led to the present form of this sequence. See, for example, Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 134–5; Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 220–2; Beuken, Jesaja, 1.187; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2 vol.; AB19; New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1.231; E. W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (OBT; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), 34–51; De Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets, 64–6; Schmid, Jes 1–23, 95–6; C. R.  Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), 57–61;

86

Jacob Stromberg

in ch. 7, inherits the consequences of his father’s failure. According to Isa 7:17, the Assyrian aggression towards Jerusalem was a consequence of Ahaz’s lack of faith in the midst of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis. In this way, a deed-consequence structure binds the two narratives together. Presumably to reinforce this relationship for the reader, both accounts employ precisely the same elements in exactly the same sequence.10 1. The first verse reports that an invading army has moved into the vicinity of Jerusalem, posing a threat to the city (7:1; 36:1). In both cases the invading army includes a foreign king (‫ )מלך‬who goes up (‫ )על״ה‬against (‫ )על‬the city / cities. And in both cases the foreign invader seeks to replace the reigning Davidic king with someone else.11 2. A message is then sent to the Judean king at “the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s field” (‫[ תעלת הברכה העליונה אל מסלת ׂשדה כובס‬Isa 7:3; 36:2]). 3. The Judean king is distressed (7:2; 37:1). 4. The prophet Isaiah then delivers a “fear not” (‫ )אל תירא‬oracle to assure the king (7:4; 37:6). 5. Isaiah also offers the king a “sign” (‫ )אות‬to confirm God’s word (7:11; 37:30). 6. Finally, both narratives report that the king and city are spared, only to announce that a worse threat will come in the future (7:15–17; 39:6–7). In both cases, Isaiah announces the new threat in terms of days (‫ )ימים‬that are coming (‫באים‬/‫)יביא‬, the last two words of the prophet to Hezekiah (‫ )מלך בבל‬echoing his last two words to Ahaz (‫)מלך אׁשור‬. More parallels could be added,12 but for the time being these are sufficient to show the close relationship between the narratives, strongly suggesting that they M. A.  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with An Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 151; Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, 191–4. 10 Conrad, Reading Isaiah, 38–39. 11 The son of Tabeel was to replace Ahaz (7:6). “The great king, the king of Assyria” was to take the position that Hezekiah currently held over the people (36:13). Thus, in Isa 36:11–20 the people are to choose either the kingdom of Hezekiah or that of Sennacherib, a point made by the Assyrian speech as it explicitly contrasts the differing fates accompanying each choice. If the people fail to heed the words of the Assyrian messenger, instead choosing to “listen” (‫ )ׁשמ"ע‬to Hezekiah (vv. 14–16; 18–20), then they will “eat” (‫ )אכ"ל‬their own feces and “drink” (‫ )ׁשת"ה‬their own urine together with the officials of Hezekiah (v. 12). But if they “listen” (‫ )ׁשמ"ע‬to “the great king, the king of Assyria”, then each one of them will “eat” (‫ )אכ"ל‬from his own vine and “drink” (‫ )ׁשת"ה‬from his own well, and be taken to a land with “grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards” (vv. 13–17), a promise clearly reminiscent of that description of the height of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings 5:5. 12 See, for example, the network of analogues between Isa 7:9–14 and 38:7–19, which cannot be examined in any detail here due to space constraints. To perceive the full scope of this analogy, it is essential to note that the sign given Hezekiah foreshadows his deliverance from death as this is construed in his psalm. Just as God had returned the “shade” that had “descended” (‫)ירדה‬

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

87

now form a single literary strategy. And since their current respective positions vis-à-vis their immediate contexts also appear deliberate, I would conclude that the single literary strategy constituted by these narratives was deliberately put in place to influence the reader’s understanding of the broader Isaianic corpus.13 This literary strategy adopts the form of narrative, the characteristics of which determine the nature of the influence this strategy exerts on the reader’s understanding of the broader Isaianic corpus. This strategy gives the oracular material in the book a narrative context. The oracular material is to be absorbed into the historical world generated by these narratives. In other words, the narratives have an “integrative force”.14 Not unlike the narrative material interspersed throughout the laws of the Pentateuch, these Isaianic narratives aim to place the non-narrative material within a history, albeit not the sort of history most modern critics would imagine. Though such narrative material (titles included) constitutes just a fraction of the Isaianic corpus, its hermeneutical significance for the rest of this material can be underscored by the fact that, were it removed, there would be little the steps (38:8), so he brought Hezekiah up from among “those who go down (‫ )יורדי‬to the pit” (38:18; cf. v. 17). It is in the light of the sign’s coherence with the construal of deliverance in the psalm that the analogy between this passage and 7:9–14 is to be understood. The parallels between 7:9–14 and 38:7–19 are as follows: ‫ עלמה‬,‫( למעלה‬Isa 7:11, 14) // ‫ אעלה‬,‫ מעלות‬‎5x (Isa 38:8, 22); ‫ לכם אות‬,‫) לך אות‬7:11, 14( // ‫ ) לך האות‬‎(38:8); ‫( אחז‬Isa 7:10; 38:8);‫ לא תאמנו‬,‫( לא תאמינו‬Isa 7:9) //  ‫אל אמת‬ ‫( … אל אמת‬Isa 38:18, 20); ‫ ׁשאלה‬,‫( ׁשאל‬Isa 7:11) //  ‫ ׁשאול‬‎ 2x (Isa 38:10, 18). Regarding the last set, it should be noted that, while 7:11 pairs ‫ מעלה‬with ‫( ׁשאלה‬emended here to “Sheol”), almost everywhere else ‫ מעלה‬is paired with ‫( מטה‬e.g., Deut 28:13, 43; 2 Kings 19:30 = Isa 37:31; Jer 31:37; Ezek 1:27; 8:2; Eccl 3:21). Only one other passage has ‫ ׁשאול‬alongside ‫( מעלה‬Prov 15:24), though even there the true parallel to ‫ מעלה‬is ‫מטה‬, whereas ‫ ׁשאול‬is contrasted with ‫ארח חיים‬. The pairing in Isa 7:11 is therefore exceptional; and the explanation for this presents itself readily in the light of the above parallels: the pairing in 7:11 was chosen in order to reinforce the analogy with Hezekiah’s rescue from death in ch. 38. 13 The presence of this narrative strategy, which spans a large portion of the book of Isaiah, should be taken as strong evidence against the claim made by J. J.M. Roberts that the ancient audiences of this literature were generally uninterested in finding macro-structural coherence in the Isaianic collection, J. J.M. Roberts, First Isaiah (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015), 2–3. The ancient text producers knew the literary habits of their target audiences much better than anyone living in the modern world. And if they produced a macro-structural strategy like that constituted by the Isaianic narratives, then it follows that their audiences were competent at, and interested in, processing such a strategy. Such a strategy does not come into being in a cultural vacuum. In fact, a strong case has been made that the earliest readers of the book of Isaiah were very aware of such macro-structural strategies. See, for example, A. Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As / Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis’”, in E. F. Mason et al. (ed.), A Teacher For All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (JSJSup 153/I; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 169–99. 14 For more on this notion in relation to the early history of Jewish literature, see A. Samely; in collaboration with P.  Alexander / R.  Bernasconi / R.  Hayward, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 351.

88

Jacob Stromberg

in the collection to associate it with the prophet Isaiah in the first place. Yet, as a testament to the power of this narrative strategy over readers of the book, almost all theories regarding the book’s formation still locate its origins in the ministry of Isaiah of Jerusalem, even those that regard the process of bookmaking as having radically changed or expanded the prophet’s original message.15 In short, the narratives project an historical sequence within which the reader is to imagine the oracular material as having originated. If this is correct, then the argument in the narratives themselves becomes crucial to understanding how this strategy was to function with respect to that larger body of material that it was put in place to govern. With that conclusion in place, I will divide the remainder of my argument into three parts: (1) the Davidic promise as the subtext of the narratives; (2) Hezekiah’s piety and the defeat of the Assyrians as the organiszing principle of the narrative structure; (3) the analogical argument of the narratives.

I. The Davidic Promise as the Subtext of the Ahaz and Hezekiah Narratives In both the Ahaz and Hezekiah narratives, a foreign army poses a threat to Jerusalem and the Judean king. Both narratives frame this threat in terms of God’s promise to David. In Isa 7:2, the threat of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition is reported to the “house of David” (‫)בית דוד‬, which fears along with its people. In 7:13, after Ahaz disobeys the divine command to ask for a sign, God says, “Listen O house of David” (‫)בית דוד‬. In both cases, one might have reasonably expected simply the name “Ahaz”. In 7:17, God responds to the king’s disobedience by announcing the consequence that days of trouble will come on “the house of your ancestor” (‫בית‬ ‫)אביך‬, no doubt a reference back to the earlier ‫בית דוד‬. In 7:9, Ahaz is given a choice: “If you do not believe, then you will not be established” (‫)אם לא תאמינו כי לא תאמנו‬. This too is aimed at the larger house of David, as is clear both by the plural verb forms and the widely recognized allusion to the language of the Davidic covenant

15 See, for example, Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch; de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets. “Jesaja war ein Heilsprophet, der dem Staat Juda gegen die Feinde im Norden, Israel und Aram, den Sieg verheißen hat. Erst in der Retrospektive wird aus ihm in der Denkschrift Jes 6–8 ein Gerichtsprophet für Israel und Juda, was die Überlieferer mit dem Topos der Ablehnung des Propheten begründen,” R. G. Kratz, “Die Redaktion der Prophetenbücher”, in R. G. Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 32–48 on p. 44. For an evaluation of recent proposals of the sort advocated by these ­authors, see H. G.M. Williamson, “Isaiah: Prophet of Weal or Woe?”, in R. P. Gordon / H. M. Barstad (ed.), “Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela”: Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013) 273–300.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

89

elsewhere: “Established will be your house (‫ )נאמן ביתך‬and your kingdom before you forever” (2 Sam 7:16).16 Like the Ahaz account, the Hezekiah narrative has also been framed in terms of the Davidic covenant. In ch. 37, after Hezekiah prays in the “house of the Lord”, the prophet delivers an oracle, in the last line of which God states, “I will defend this city to save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant (‫”)דוד עבדי‬ (v. 35; cf. 38:6), a phrase that suggests God was motivated to act in deliverance by his commitment to David, and not just by Hezekiah’s righteous prayer. Both were needed to motivate God. In ch. 38 (an episode deliberately set on analogy to ch. 3717), Hezekiah is told that he is about to die (v. 1). So he prays to God, “Remember how I walked before you in faithfulness (‫( ”)אמת‬v. 3). Since the root ‫ אמ"ן‬occurs elsewhere in connection with the Davidic promise,18 it is hardly surprising that God’s response is to send the prophet with the following message: Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father (‫)אלהי דוד אביך‬, I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold I am adding fifteen years to your days; and I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city (38:5–6). 16 On 7:9 in this respect, see, with further references, Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte, 169–70; Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 49–52; Roberts, First Isaiah, 114. 17 (1) In both accounts, a threat is announced to Hezekiah, after which he “prays” (‫)ויתפלל‬ “to the Lord” (‫( )אל יהוה‬Isa 37:15; 38:2). (2) In both, God responds with the same word of deliverance, “I will defend this city” (‫( )וגנותי על העיר הזאת‬Isa 37:35; 38:6). (3) This word of deliverance is referred to with an almost identical locution in each passage (‫ הדבר הזה אׁשר‬// ‫זה הדבר אׁשר דבר‬ ‫[ דבר‬Isa 37:22//38:7]). (4) In both cases, the deliverance is explicitly grounded in God’s relationship with ‫( דוד‬Isa 37:35; 38:5). (5) In both cases, God confirms the word of deliverance with the same statement, “and this will be for you a sign” (‫( )וזה לך האות‬Isa 37:30; 38:7). (6) Both the signs and that which they portend are construed in a similar manner. The sign in 38:8 looks like it combines that which the sign was to confirm in 37:31 and the conditions necessary for this to happen in 37:29, 34. ‫( יספה פלטת בית יהודה הנׁשארה ׁשרׁש למטה ועׂשה פרי למעלה‬Isa 37:31). ‫הׁשיבתיך בדרך אׁשר‬ ‫( באת בה‬Isa 37:29bb). ‫( בדרך אׁשר בא בה יׁשוב‬Isa 37:34a). The parallels in syntactic construction and lexical selection between these passages and 38:8 are unmistakable (‫הנני מׁשיב את צל המעלות אׁשר ירדה‬ ‫)במעלות אחז בׁשמׁש אחרנית עׂשר מעלות ותׁשב הׁשמׁש עׂשר מעלות במעלות אׁשר ירדה‬. In this connection, note also the possible further word play between ‫ אׁשור‬in 37:33 and ‫ עׂשר‬in 38:8. (8) In both narratives, great importance is placed on Hezekiah’s desire to be at “the house of the Lord” (‫)בית יהוה‬: in 37:14, he goes to the “house of the Lord” to pray in response to the Assyrian threat; in 38:20, 22, Hezekiah expresses his desire to return there after he has been healed. (9) In part through a clever play on words, the last line of Hezekiah’s poem clearly echoes the last line of Isaiah’s oracle of deliverance from the Assyrians: “The Lord will save me (‫ )להוׁשיעני‬and we will play on my stringed instruments (‫ )ונגנותי ננגן‬all the days of our lives at (‫ )על‬the house of the Lord” (38:20) // “I will defend (‫)וגנותי על‬ this city to save it (‫ ”)להוׁשיעה‬‎(37:35). This echo explains why 38:20 employs the oft (but wrongly) emended infinitive (‫ )להוׁשיעני‬and the perhaps awkward use of the preposition ‫ על‬before ‫בית יהוה‬ as a complement to ‫ננגן‬. The echo of 37:35 in 38:20 is reinforced by the conflation of Hezekiah’s healing with precisely this line of the promise of deliverance from the Assyrians in 38:5–6. 18 E.g. 2 Sam 7:16; Psalm 89:29; Isa 55:3.

90

Jacob Stromberg

In this way, the narrative presents Hezekiah’s life of “faithfulness” (‫ )אמת‬as the basis for the deliverance by “the God of David your father” (‫)אלהי דוד אביך‬. As before, the piety of Hezekiah alone is not enough. The use of the rare title, “the God of David your father”, implies that, as in ch. 37, so here too God is motivated by his commitment to David, which according to ch. 38 is stronger than death. Just like Isa 7, then, this narrative employs the root ‫ אמ"ן‬to describe the basis for activating God’s commitment to David, a point reinforced by the psalm Hezekiah composes after he recovers, the last three lines of which echo this narrative account. According to the psalm, God rescued Hezekiah from the “pit of destruction” (v. 17), so that he was able to “hope” in God’s ‫ אמת‬and make it known to his sons (vv. 18–19). As was just noted, the basis for this divine deliverance is given in the narrative account immediately preceding the poem where Hezekiah grounds his supplication in the claim that he had walked before God in ‫אמת‬. Hezekiah did ‫אמת‬. And after God is reminded of this, he rewards Hezekiah with ‫אמת‬, which Hezekiah could now make known to his sons.19 This reciprocity between God and the Davidic king, characterized by the root ‫ אמ"ן‬in ch. 38, is precisely what one finds in 7:9 (‫)אם לא תאמינו כי לא תאמנו‬. The reciprocity in both draws the two passages even closer together, thereby further underscoring both the fact that the Ahaz and Hezekiah episodes belong to a single literary strategy and that this strategy concerns the conditions governing the activation of the Davidic promise. This lesson is reinforced by the negative example of Hezekiah in ch. 39. Here, after Hezekiah sins, the prophet delivers another oracle, in the last line of which God states, “some of your sons who come from your body (‫… )מבניך אׁשר יצאו ממך‬ will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon” (v. 7). The obvious threat this posed to the line of David, and therefore to the Davidic promise, is brought out in the first phrase whose complicated syntax appears to serve no other purpose than to draw attention to it as a reversal of the language of the Davidic covenant: “When your days are done and you lie with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who will come from your loins (‫)זרעך אחריך אׁשר יצא ממעיך‬, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:12). Thus, both narratives (Isa 7 and 36–39) indicate that God would honor the Davidic covenant in the face of threat only when the Davidic king turned to God in trust. 19 According to Hugh G. M. Williamson, the Isaianic editor has assigned to the account of the healing of Hezekiah a significance that is oriented towards the future of the Davidic line: “Whereas in the Kings account the focus of attention is entirely on the individual Hezekiah, in Isaiah his restoration is seen typologically as adumbrating the restoration of the community, and of the royal line in particular, characterized by worship in the house of the Lord,” H. G.M. Williamson, “Hezekiah and the Temple”, in M. V. Fox et al. (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: a Tribute to Menachem Haran (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 47–52, on p. 52. Here Williamson develops the insights of P. R. Ackroyd, “An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: a study of II Kings 20, Isaiah 38–39”, JST 27 (1974) 329–52, on p. 345. Further literature and discussion of this issue with respect to Third-Isaiah in particular may be found in Stromberg, Isaiah after Exile, 205–28.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

91

Finally, since in all of this it is clear that the narratives of Isa 7 and 36–39 share as their subtext a formulation of the Davidic covenant that is particularly close to that of 2 Sam 7, it is highly significant that these two Isaianic narratives can be seen to complement one another in a manner that reflects rather precisely the occasion and the articulation of the content of that promise in the Samuel passage. According to 2 Sam 7:1–16, God promised David a “dynasty” (‫ )בית‬and an offspring to build God a “temple” (‫)בית‬, because David, having perceived the incongruity of his dwelling in a “palace” (‫ )בית‬while God dwelt in a tent, purposed to build him a “temple” (‫)בית‬. This particular twofold formulation of the Davidic promise (a “dynasty” and a “temple” both referred to as a ‫ )בית‬is reflected in the Isaianic narratives as each episode complements the other. Isa 7 twice frames the issue at stake in terms of ‫“( בית דוד‬the house of David” [vv. 2, 13]) – a phrase not used in chs 36–39 –, whereas Isa 36–39 portray the plot as one that turns on Hezekiah’s relation to ‫“( בית יהוה‬the house of the Lord” [37:1, 14; 38:20, 22]) – a phrase not used in ch. 7. In a rather tidy way, then, Isa 7 and 36–39 combine to reflect Samuel’s formulation of the Davidic promise with its twofold play on ‫בית‬, understood as a reference both to the “temple” and to David’s “dynasty”. Echoing this formulation of the promise to David, the Isaianic narratives complement each other, like two sides of the same coin.

II. Hezekiah’s Piety as the Organizing Principle for the Book’s Narrative Frame The two narratives are joined in such a way as to form a single history whose narrative line stops in the period of the Assyrian defeat in the land, the basis for which is Hezekiah’s piety. Where Isa 7 looks forward to the Assyrian invasion, chapters 36–39 periodize all of the individual episodes found there in relation to this event. The main narrative thread is found in chs 36–37 which recount the invasion and subsequent repelling of the Assyrians. The two subsequent episodes are made to follow this account and are subordinated to it by means of a generalized periodization: 38:1 begins the episode of Hezekiah’s deliverance from death with “in those days” in reference to the preceding account; and 39:1 introduces the account of the Babylonian delegation’s visit to Hezekiah with a simple “at that time”, which locates the episode in what is conceived of as the period of the Assyrian threat, since this is referred to in the prior narrative (38:5).20 Thus, the 20 The reference to Hezekiah’s healing in 39:1 would place the episode sometime after 38:1–8, but roughly contemporaneous with 38:9, the title of the psalm. Ch. 38 includes a promise of the defeat of the Assyrians (v. 6), but it lacks a report of this actually happening. Such a report is hardly necessary since 38:1 refers back to chs 36–37 where the defeat is narrated, though (as 38:6 indicates) this sequence is not designed to imply that the events of 38:1–8 occurred after those in chs 36–37. The promise of fifteen additional years of life for Hezekiah in 38:5 suggests

92

Jacob Stromberg

individual episodes in 38 and 39 are subordinated to the account in chs 36–37 not only by being placed after this material, but also by the periodization schema placed at the head of each episode. Such a structure attaches great importance to that moment in Hezekiah’s day when, through his piety, the Assyrians are defeated. In the light of what was said earlier, the primary reason for this structuring of the material resides in the desire to portray this moment of piety as paradigmatic, illustrating how to activate God’s commitment to the Davidic covenant. Confirmation that this moment was to control the reader’s encounter with the Isaianic corpus as a whole comes from a point made at the outset of this paper. The Ahaz and Hezekiah narratives are both related to their immediate contexts in a strategic fashion. At the same time, these narratives clearly belong together as part of a single narrative sequence. Taken together, these two points indicate that these narratives—which place great emphasis on the moment of Hezekiah’s piety—were to give the reader an historical frame of reference for reading the book, casting a great narrative arc over the first thirty-nine chapters that concludes with a foretelling of the Babylonian destruction, a destruction which is then presupposed in the remainder of the book. This conclusion is further reinforced by the shift in the book’s self-presentation after ch. 39. In chs 1–39 one finds several titles and small narratives that are arranged chronologically in a sequence leading up to Hezekiah’s confrontation with the Assyrians. This chronographic material explicitly relates the first thirty nine chapters to the prophet Isaiah.21 At the very beginning of this sequence of chronological references is the book’s title in 1:1. Since this title defines the entire historical scope of the prophet’s ministry as spanning the years from Uzziah to Hezekiah, it hardly seems like a coincidence that immediately after chs 36–39— the narratives concerning Hezekiah—all such references to the prophet disappear, and there is no attempt to locate the “voice(s)” of chs 40–66 within the period of this retrospective narrative account of Isaiah’s ministry. There are no titles or narratives of this sort within chs 40–66. The prophet as himself is not present in person within the self-presentation of chs 40–66. Rather, as these chapters would have it, the prophet’s presence is in his word passed to a new generation through prophetic disciples.22 To put it another way, the narratives in chs 1–39 do not seek to locate the speaker(s) of chs 40–66 within the history they tell. But chs 40–66 38:1–8 belongs roughly in the same year as 36:1 (the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign), since the twenty-nine-year rule of Hezekiah mentioned by 2 Kings 18:2 seems to be assumed here. On the issues involved in reconstructing the sequence of the actual events that lie behind this textual schematization in chs 38–39, see W. R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE 18; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 144–5; Roberts, First Isaiah, 477–90. 21 Isa 1:1; 2:1; 6; 7:1–17; 13:1; 14:28; 20; 36–39. 22 Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, 94–115; C. R. Seitz, “How is the Prophet Isaiah Present in the Latter Half of the Book? The Logic of Chapters 40–66 within the Book of Isaiah”, JBL 115 (1996) 219–40.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

93

do locate the origins of their message in the history told in chs 1–39. Though the prophet Isaiah is not present in person as himself in the latter half of the book, he is present there in a word handed down. One can see clearly this macro-structural shift in the self-presentation of the book after ch. 39 by a simple comparison of chs 13–14 with chs 40–66. Chs 13–14 are titled a vision of “Isaiah son of Amoz” and envision a time when Babylon falls and the people, having been returned from exile, will sing a ‫ מׁשל‬against the king of that city, looking back on his demise (14:1–4). This may be compared, for instance, with 48:20, which regards such a day as at hand: “come out of Babylon; flee from the Chaldeans.” That chs 13–14 may be the product of editing from the exilic period or later only serves to underscore the point: a large-scale shift in the way the Isaianic corpus presents itself to the reader takes place precisely after the Hezekiah narrative. The positioning of the Hezekiah narrative right at the seam of the most significant structural shift in the book’s self-presentation suggests that the vantage point offered by this narrative to the reader was indeed intended to govern the reader’s encounter with the larger corpus of material found in the book. With the narrative about Hezekiah, the period of Isaiah the prophet in chs 1–39 comes to an end. Looking back to this history of Isaiah’s ministry, the latter half of the book carries forward the word of the prophet for its own later days. As the last moment in the Isaianic history and coming just before the announcement of a new age of hope for Israel, the Hezekiah narrative has surely been assigned a significance for the book as a whole. To summarize: first, both Isa 7:1–17 and 36–39 are deliberately positioned with respect to their immediate respective contexts: ch. 7 illustrates ch. 6 while also complementing ch. 8; and ch. 39 introduces the main presupposition of chs 40–66 (the Babylonian exile) while also being positioned at the most significant macro-structural shift in the book’s own self-presentation. Second, Isa 7:1–17 and 36–39 are strategically interrelated in a single narrative sequence. These two points combine to suggest that this single history was to govern the reader’s encounter with the larger corpus of oracular material in the book. And because these narratives are structured in such a way as to highlight Hezekiah’s piety as the basis for the defeat of the Assyrians, this moment was likely meant to be determinative for the ancient reader’s understanding of the Isaianic collection. In short, the narrative framework given the book raises Hezekiah’s piety to a level of macro-structural significance.

94

Jacob Stromberg

III. The Analogical Argument of the Narratives The analogical structuring of these narratives is basic to their argument. Using a structuring device that is ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible,23 these narratives establish an analogy between the Ahaz and Hezekiah episodes. Such devices structure the presentation of two or more different events in an analogous manner, to enable the reader to bring the different episodes into comparison in the process of reading. This literary strategy exploits the human capacity to think analogically, that is, “to think about relational patterns”24. Analogy, it is now argued, “lies at the core of human cognition”25. As a literary technique, analogical structuring was not confined to a single function for the authors and editors who gave us the Hebrew Bible.26 In the presentation of Joshua and the conquest on analogy to Moses and 23 Narrative analogy has been given different names in the secondary literature. Cf. Y. Amit, The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing (Biblical Interpretation Series; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 343–45; J. A.  Berman, Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and Their Equivalent Non-­ battle Narratives (VTSup 103; Leiden: Brill, 2004); M. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), 34–41, 48–61; A. R. Pete Diamond, “Portraying Prophecy: Of Doublets, Variants and Analogies in the Narrative Representation of Jeremiah’s Oracles—Reconstructing the Hermeneutics of Prophecy”, JSOT 57 (1993) 99–119, on pp. 111–15; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 350–79; M. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat Gan: Revivim, 1985); R. Gilmour, Juxtaposition and the Elisha Cycle (LHBOTS 594; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2014), 38–45; R. P. Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24–26”, TynB 31 (1980) 37–64; J. J. Kraus, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Joshua 1–5 (VTSup 161; Leiden: Brill, 2014); R. H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 134–7, 281–304; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 365–440; H. G.M. Williamson, “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles”, VT 26 (1976) 351–61; Y. Zakovitch, “And you shall tell your son …”: The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1991); Y. Zakovitch, “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections / Inversions of Genesis Stories in the Bible”, BibInt 1 (1993) 139–52; Y. Zakovitch, Through the Looking Glass: Reflection Stories in the Bible (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz HaMeuchad, 1995 [Hebrew]). 24 K. J. Holyoak / D. Gentner / B. N. Kokinov, “Introduction: The Place of Analogy in Cognition”, in K. J.  Holyoak / D.  Gentner / B. N.  Kokinov (ed.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001) 1–20, on p.2. 25 K. J. Holyoak / D. Gentner / B. N. Kokinov, “Introduction: The Place of Analogy in Cognition”, 2. See also J. P. Blevins / J. Blevins, “Introduction: Analogy in Grammar”, in J. P. Blevins /​ J. Blevins (ed.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 1–13, on p. 1. 26 Narrative analogy is to be distinguished from the type-scene. With narrative analogy, two or more narratives are to be read together. Here the narratives are mutually illuminating by design, the meaning of the similarities and differences between the episodes being activated only by a comparison of the stories themselves. With the type-scene, however, two or more narratives draw from the independent cultural convention of an established narrative pattern, a grid “upon which, and against which, the individual work operates”, R. Alter, “Biblical Type-Scenes and the

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

95

the exodus, for example, the point seems to be one of continuity.27 In the present instance, however, there are clear elements of continuity and contrast. There is not space here to explore all elements of the analogy between Ahaz and Hezekiah in Isaiah.28 Nevertheless, those elements discussed below are sufficient to show that the narrative analogy set up between Ahaz and Hezekiah in Isaiah displays clear elements of continuity and contrast between these two figures, between the historical circumstances that confronted them, and between the consequences of their reactions to those events.

III.1 Hezekiah versus Ahaz The response of Ahaz to the Syro-Ephraimite crisis is deliberately contrasted with that of Hezekiah to the Assyrian crisis. Both accounts begin with the report of a military threat, each initially similar to the other in kind, but each resulting in the opposite outcome: the Syro-Ephraimite coalition “went up” to fight “against” Jerusalem, but was unable to prevail over it (7:1); whereas the king of Assyria “went up” “against” “all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them” (36:1). In the latter, the first verse forces the reader to contemplate the fate of Hezekiah and Jerusalem and the possibility that it will not end well as the Assyrian threat works its way out in the narrative; whereas in the former, the first verse prevents the reader from ever entertaining this possibility, by assuring him / her in advance of a positive outcome for Ahaz and the city. After each introductory report, an accompanied messenger is sent to both kings at “the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s field”, a detail given at the outset of both episodes further to enable the comparison that follows (7:3; 36:2). Two bodies, or entities, Uses of Convention”, Critical Inquiry 5 (1978) 355–68, on p. 355. With the type-scene, the parallels are not activated by reading the two or more parallel episodes together as a deliberately constructed sequence in the manner of narrative analogy. Rather, the similarities and differences are activated by reading each episode against the only partly recoverable conventional type-scene, to which each individual episode independently relates as the key to that episode’s meaning. In this sense, the literary critic working on ancient Israel’s literature can only partly recover the typescene by collecting all instantiations of it and inferring from these its conventional form, which is the key that unlocks any one instantiation of it. Drawing on the work of Alter on type-scenes in the Hebrew Bible, Conrad regards the Isaianic narratives being considered here as instances of the type-scene, Conrad, Reading Isaiah, 36–38. For his definition of type-scene, he appeals to R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 96; Alter, “Biblical Type-Scenes and the Uses of Convention”, 355–68. It is entirely possible that a sequence involving narrative analogy has been inspired by a type-scene, but the literary phenomena themselves (as well as the procedures required for their proper activation) would still remain quite distinct. At any rate, Alter does not have such a scenario in mind when discussing the type-scene. 27 See, e.g., Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 358–60. 28 See, for example, those parallels mentioned in footnote 12.

96

Jacob Stromberg

are sent to each king. Isaiah and his son Shear-yashub are sent to Ahaz (7:3), whereas the Rabshakeh and “a great army” are sent to Hezekiah (36:2), in the latter case the number two being achieved by means of editorial omission.29 Isaiah’s message to Ahaz is one of assurance: God will not allow the invading army to prevail over the king (7:7). But the Rabshakeh’s message to Hezekiah is one of threat: God has sent the Assyrian army to destroy, and it will prevail over the king (36:10; 37:10–13).30 By initiating the comparison between the two kings in this manner, the literary strategy is preparing for the contrast. At the outset, the reader is being led to believe that Hezekiah has far more reason to fear than Ahaz, which casts into deeper relief their opposite responses: Ahaz rejects the divine offer of assurance, whereas Hezekiah seeks God’s help. Intensifying this contrast, the narrative recounts how, in the Syro-Ephraimite crisis, God was proactive with Ahaz, sending the king a word of assurance without the king’s request; whereas, in the Assyrian crisis, Hezekiah had to be proactive, going to the temple to pray in response to the word of threat sent to him (36:2). Only then did he receive the same word of assurance as Ahaz (‫)אל תירא‬. The behavior of each king issues in a predictable divine response, furthering the contrast: Ahaz receives the word of judgment that the Assyrian king will wreak havoc in Judah, whereas this is the very disaster from which Hezekiah and the city are saved. The aim of this strategy is clearly to present Hezekiah’s response in chs 37–38 as the ideal response in the moment of crisis: his is the response that will activate God’s commitment to David. That this is the intent behind chs 36–38 may be underscored by the observation that the author of this account has omitted Hezekiah’s payment of tribute to the Assyrian king, a payment said to have been taken from the temple (2 Kings 18:14–16). Retaining this episode in the Isaiah account would seriously weaken the contrast with the Ahaz of Isa 7. The tribute payment can be found in the parallel Kings version of the Hezekiah narrative (2 Kings 18:13–20:19), which most scholars regard as the basis for the present form of the Isaiah version of this story.31 Several of the parallels between Isa 7 and 36–39 discussed here appear to have been achieved by means of editorial alterations of 29 See footnote 32. 30 Cf. Isa 5:26–30; 6:11–13; 7:17–20; 8:7–8; 10:5–26. 31 This position has long convinced the majority of scholars, though it need not imply that the sources drawn on by the Kings account were totally unrelated to an early Isaianic collection. Since the heart of my present argument does not require a position be taken on this issue, there is no need here to enter into this debate beyond noting those recent arguments in favor of this position, each of which includes much further literature: see Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 143; R. G. Kratz, “Jesaja und die Belagerung Jerusalems”, in R. G. Kratz, Mythos und Geschichte (FAT 102; Τübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015) 315–31; Williamson, The Book Called ­Isaiah, 189–211; Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition, 123–50; Stromberg, Isaiah after Exile, 205–22.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

97

those texts transferred to Isaiah from Kings, which underscores the deliberate nature of the analogy under consideration.32

III.2 Hezekiah and Ahaz So far I have argued that in chs 36–38 Hezekiah’s response to the Assyrian king is contrasted with that of Ahaz to the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. In ch. 39, however, Hezekiah’s response to the Babylonian king leads to contrast and continuity: contrast, because Hezekiah’s response to the Babylonian king is the opposite of his response to the Assyrian king; continuity, because Hezekiah’s sin, in doing so, brings the same consequences as does the failure of Ahaz. Chapter 39 deliberately sets up a contrast between Hezekiah’s reaction to the Babylonian envoy and his response to the Assyrian messengers. This contrast is clearly designed to explain why the fate of Jerusalem at the hands of the Assyrians differed so dramatically from its later fate with the Babylonian empire. In chs 36–37, the “king of Assyria” “sends” (‫ )ׁשל״ח‬an envoy with “writings” (‫)ספרים‬ to Hezekiah, threatening the king’s existence (36:2; 37:9, 11–13, 14). Hezekiah responds by spreading these “writings” out before God in the “house of the 32 There is not space here fully to elaborate these examples nor to mention the other examples present in the narratives. Several of these editorial alterations involve creating a cleaner parallel between the introduction to each account (Isa 7:1–4; 36:1–3), parallel introductions helping the reader to spot the analogy at the outset and initiate the comparison in reading. The largest of these is the omission of the payment of tribute mentioned above (2 Kings 18:14–16). In addition to this, mention must be made of the following differences in 36:1–3 vis-a-vis 2 Kings 18:13–18: (1) the omission of ‫( את תרתן ואת רב סריס‬present in 2 Kings 18:16, but absent in Isa 36:2) leaves only two entities sent to Hezekiah in 36, echoing the two sent to Ahaz in 7:3. (2) ‫ויעלו ויבאו‬ ‫( ירוׁשלם ויעלו ויבאו‬present in 2 Kings 18:17, but absent in Isa 36:2) has been omitted and ‫( ירוׁשלמה‬in the same verses) has been relocated after ‫ לכיׁש‬in Isa, so that now the reference to the two entities echoing 7:3 can be juxtaposed more immediately in 36:2 to the reference to the “conduit”, as they are in 7:3. (3) The absence of ‫ אׁשר‬in Isa 36:2 (present in 2 Kings 18:17 [‫ )]העליונה אׁשר‬firms up the link to 7:3 which also does not have this relative marker. Moreover, many regard 2 Kings 16:5 as the source of Isa 7:1. Where Isa 7:1 differs from 2 Kings 16:5 it has stronger parallels to Isa 36:1 because of those differences. On the theory just mentioned, this fact suggests that the Kings text was used as a template, but modified to form a stronger analogy to Isa 36:1 when it was taken over into Isa 7:1, a case advanced by Becker, Jesaja—von der Botschaft zum Buch, 48. The following items are noteworthy: (1) In Isa 7:1, ‫( ויהי בימי אחז בן־יותם בן־עזיהו מלך יהודה‬absent in 2 Kings 16:5) has been added, matching ‫ ויהי בארבע עׂשרה ׁשנה למלך חזקיהו‬in 36:1. Moreover, instead of ‫ יעלה‬in 2 Kings 16:5, Isa 7:1 has ‫ עלה‬as in 36:1. (2) Instead of ‫ על אחז‬in 2 Kings 16:5, Isa 7:1 has ‫עליה‬. Moreover, Isa 7:1 adds an additional ‫ עליה‬at the end of the line, both modifications allowing for a closer parallel to ‫ על כל ערי יהודה‬in Isa 36:1. (3) ‫( ויצרו‬present in 2 Kings 16:5) is absent in Isa 7:1. Retaining this reference to the siege against Ahaz would have suggested a situation comparable to Isa 36:1 where the “fortified (‫ )בצרות‬cities” are captured. It was therefore omitted as it threatened to spoil the contrast in circumstances detailed at the conclusion of each verse (‫ולא יכל להלחם עליה‬ [Isa 7:1] //  ‫[ ויתפׂשם‬Isa 36:1]).

98

Jacob Stromberg

Lord” (‫ )בית יהוה‬after which he confesses in prayer: “you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth” (37:14, 16). As a consequence, the Assyrians are defeated and retreat, with Jerusalem, the temple, and Hezekiah saved by God. Immediately inviting a comparison with this whole episode, chapter 39 opens with a report telling of how “the king of Babylon” also “sent” (‫ )ׁשל״ח‬an envoy with “writings” (‫ )ספרים‬to Hezekiah, but now with a “gift”, since “he had heard that [Hezekiah] had been sick, but recovered.” Where chs 36–37 present the Assyrian envoy as malignant, ch. 39 depicts the Babylonian delegation as benign, which is a move designed to cast into deeper relief Hezekiah’s opposite responses to the two kings. (Ironically and not coincidentally, this is precisely the technique that was used earlier to contrast Hezekiah with Ahaz.) Hezekiah responds to the Babylonian envoy by “rejoicing”. (Here, ‫ ויׂשמח‬in Isa 39:2 has replaced ‫ ויׁשמע‬in 2 Kings 20:13, so that, where editing has improved Hezekiah’s image in Isa 36 by omitting his payment of tribute found in 2 Kings, here in Isa 39 editing has apparently worsened his image vis-à-vis 2 Kings). He shows them the “house” of his treasury (‫)בית נכתה‬,33 the “house” of his weapons (‫)בית כליו‬, and his own “house” (‫)ביתו‬. Then Isaiah shows up and asks, “what did they see in your house (‫”)בביתך‬, to which Hezekiah responds: “everything that is in my house (‫ )בביתי‬they saw”. This issues in a word of judgment: “everything in your house (‫ )בביתך‬and that which your fathers have stored up till this day will be taken to Babylon.” The fronting of ‫ בביתך‬in the sentence representing the prophet’s proclamation of doom echoes the six-fold repetition of ‫ בית‬in the description of Hezekiah’s deed, suggesting that the judgment has been designed to match the crime, an impression deliberately reinforced further by the fact that those whom Hezekiah shows “his kingdom” are later to become the instruments of its demise. In the light of the prior narratives, with which the opening of ch. 39 urges the reader to compare this episode, the repetition of ‫ בית‬points quite clearly to a conspicuous absence in Hezekiah’s otherwise comprehensive response to the Babylonian envoy. In chapter 37, Hezekiah twice goes to the “house of the Lord” (‫ )בית יהוה‬to seek God’s deliverance from the Assyrians, the second time spreading the Assyrian ‫—ספרים‬the reproachful words of the Rabshakeh—before the Lord at the temple. This is presented as the critical turning point, to which God responds by sending the angel to see the Assyrians off. The account of the Assyrian defeat concludes in such a way as to further underscore the importance of Hezekiah’s appeal for deliverance at “the house of the Lord” (‫)בית יהוה‬. Where Hezekiah is delivered from a vast Assyrian army because he sought help at “the house of the Lord” (‫)בית יהוה‬, Sennacherib is struck down by his own children while “worshiping in the house of Nisrok (‫)בית נסרך‬, his god”, in fulfillment of the prophetic word (37:37–38; cf. 37:7). Where the deliverance of Hezekiah signaled that Sennacherib

33 Qĕrē’: nĕkōtô.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

99

would not take his place as king,34 the death of Sennacherib meant that one of his own children would succeed him as king. Thus, the account ends with the reminder, “and Esarhaddon his son became king in his place” (37:38). In chapter 38 (which, as we shall see, is quite clearly patterned on the whole account of deliverance in 3735), the emphasis on Hezekiah’s zeal for the “house of the Lord” becomes even more pronounced with the introduction of Hezekiah’s psalm which is not in the 2 Kings version. This psalm ends by looking forward to the restoration of the king, singing with his sons “all the days of our lives in the house of the Lord (‫( ”)בית יהוה‬Isa 38:20). And it is hardly coincidence that the very next verses, the last two in the chapter, have been relocated from earlier in the narrative (if the 2 Kings parallel is any guide), so as to conclude the whole episode with a reference to Hezekiah’s desire to go up to “the house of the Lord” (‫)בית יהוה‬.36 In this way, the last words of the chapter (38:22) echo the last words of the psalm (38:20). Indeed, an Isaianic editor has removed from Hezekiah’s question the reference to his life, so that in the last verse of ch. 38 he asks simply: “what is the sign that I will go up to the house of the Lord (‫”)בית יהוה‬, a move probably made to show that what Hezekiah really feared in his sickness unto death was that it would separate him from worship in God’s house. As he puts it in the psalm, “Sheol does not give you thanks; death does not praise you; … the living, the living, he gives you thanks, as I do today” (38:18–19). Hezekiah’s question about “the house of the Lord” is literally the last sentence before 39:1. In short, chs 37–38 portray Hezekiah as a king filled with zeal for his father’s house, to use the language of the Davidic covenant, the subtext of these episodes. The final chapter of the Hezekiah episode urges the reader to compare the portrait of him in chs 37–38 as one filled with zeal for “the house of the Lord” with that depiction of him in ch. 39 with its six-fold repetition of ‫בית‬. In doing so, the final chapter of the Hezekiah episode points in no uncertain terms to a conspicuous absence in his otherwise comprehensive response: Hezekiah showed the Babylonians every “house” in his kingdom except the “house of the Lord”, 34 See footnote 11. 35 See footnote 17. 36 The absence of precisely the same material in Isa 38:5 and 38:22 (evident vis-à-vis the parallel passages in 2 Kings 19:5–6 and 19:8)—namely, the reference to Hezekiah’s healing and the “third day”—suggests that these two Isaianic verses stem from the same redaction. If that is correct, then Emanuel Tov (E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 3rd revised and expanded edn 2012), 311) has probably mistaken the secondary character of 38:22 in 1QIsa as evidence for the secondary nature of the line in the redaction of the book, since 38:5 is not secondary in this manuscript, but does make the mentioned omissions. Rather, the secondary character of 38:22 in 1QIsa likely merely indicates the secondary nature of the verse in this particular manuscript. Tov does not explain why 38:22 omits the same material as 38:5. See further J. Stromberg, “The Role of Redaction Criticism in the Evaluation of a Textual Variant: Another Look at 1QIsaa XXXII 14 (38:21–22)”, DSD 16 (2009) 155–89.

100

Jacob Stromberg

an inference demanded by the juxtaposition that is damning on both counts. By means of the reference to the “king of Babylon” sending “writings” to Hezekiah, Isa 39:1 seeks to remind the reader of God’s deliverance of the king from the Assyrians in ch. 37, where Hezekiah responds to their threatening “writings” by spreading them out before God in his “house”. And by means of a reference to Hezekiah’s recovery in 39:1, this verse also points to his deliverance from death in ch. 38, where Hezekiah’s sole concern in death is worship in God’s house.37 The inference is damning on both counts because 39:1 introduces the story of Hezekiah’s failure by means of a reminder of both acts of divine deliverance recounted in chs 37–38. The nature of Hezekiah’s failure in ch. 39 comes into greater relief when his response to the king of Babylon is compared with that decisive turning point in his deliverance from the Assyrians, namely, his prayer at the temple, more specifically, the moment of petition in his prayer: “And now, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Lord, are (God) alone” (37:20). Hezekiah’s desire that the deliverance of Jerusalem issue in a knowledge of God amongst the kingdoms is noticeably absent in ch. 39. When Hezekiah is paid a visit by the king of Babylon because he had been delivered, he fails to make known the source of his deliverance, the one who dwells in the “house of the Lord”. Thus, by design Isa 39 contrasts Hezekiah’s response to the Assyrians with his response to the Babylonians, in an obvious attempt to explain Judah’s differing fates at the hands of the two empires. Arguably the two most important moments in the southern kingdom’s encounter with these great empires are ascribed to him. Hezekiah, whose piety delivered Jerusalem in his own day, in the end failed, bringing down on the kingdom an even worse fate in the future. And it is precisely here, in the last gloomy verses of ch. 39, that the analogy with Ahaz returns; for the judgment rendered in Hezekiah’s day now deliberately echoes that in Ahaz’s time. The prophet proclaimed to both kings that “days” (‫ )ימים‬were coming (‫ באים‬/ ‫)יביא‬ when the nation would face the consequences of each king’s failure (7:17; 39:6). Isaiah’s final words to Hezekiah (‫ )מלך בבל‬echo those to Ahaz (‫)מלך אׁשור‬. In each account, these are literally the last two words of the prophet to the king.

37 In this respect, again the Isaianic editor has worsened the portrait of Hezekiah in the Isaiah version, since the reference to his recovery entails the alteration of ‫“( חזקיהו‬Hezekiah”) in 2 Kings 20:12 to ‫“( ויחזק‬and he recovered”) in Isa 39:1.

Figural History in the Book of Isaiah

101

III.3 The Predictability of History Above all, what the Ahaz and Hezekiah narratives work in tandem to demonstrate is the predictability of Israel’s omnipotent God in working out his commitment to David. God would honor his covenant in the face of threat when the Davidic king turned to him in trust. The converse of this truth is told to Ahaz by the prophet: “If you do not believe, then you will not be established” (7:9). And here the plural form of address together with the reference to “the house of David” make clear that the relevance of the prophet’s words transcended the days of Ahaz. The portraits of Ahaz and Hezekiah aim to teach this lesson to subsequent generations of readers, thereby enabling them to predict the future outcomes of their own choices in the divinely governed history within which the text would locate them. Such analogical structuring, then, turns out to be both a literary strategy and a principle of history. This has been noted by Meir Sternberg, who has argued convincingly that divine omnipotence figured into the mechanics of biblical narration as a basic assumption. Regarding narrative analogy, he comments: [I]n a God-ordered world, analogical linkage reveals the shape of history past and to come with the same authority as it governs the contours of the plot in fiction. Having traced the rhythm of Genesis, for example, we can predict future developments which the agents in their shortsightedness can only yearn for or still hope to block: that Rachel too will be delivered from sterility, say, or that Joseph will get into trouble but finally prevail.38

The analogical structuring of the Isaianic narratives gives them just such a rhythm. For the reader, the past has been given a prospective function. Just as God honored his commitment to David during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis, so also did he do so in the midst of Assyrian destruction. And just as he did this in the midst of Assyrian destruction, so—the reader is compelled to believe—can he act again in the midst of that devastation brought by the Babylonian empire, provided the necessary condition is met. And this whole history has been structured in such a way as to model that condition, when Hezekiah, faced by a sure end at the hand 38 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 114. See also Michael Fishbane’s comments on the repeated structuring of biblical texts on the Exodus paradigm: “The simultaneous capacity of the exodus paradigm to elicit memory and expectation, recollection and anticipation, discloses once again its deep embeddedness as a fundamental structure of the biblical historical imagination. But it further discloses just what is so variously and diffusely indicated elsewhere in the Bible; namely, that the events of history are prismatic openings to the transhistorical. Indeed, the very capacity of a historical event to generate future expectation is dependent on the transfiguration of that event by the theological intuition that in it and through it the once and future power of the Lord of history is revealed. Without such a symbolic transformation, the exodus would never have given birth to hope,” M. Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A literary reading of selected texts (Oxford: Oneworld, 1998), 140.

102

Jacob Stromberg

of the Assyrian king, prays to God, confessing: “you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth … save us from his hand” (37:16, 20). The Babylonian destruction of the kingdom posed no more of a threat to God’s covenant than did the devastation by the Assyrians. That God had not abandoned the covenant with David altogether when Hezekiah failed is argued by the other side of the analogical coin: just as God honored the Davidic covenant because of Hezekiah’s piety and despite Ahaz’s failure, so is he willing to do so again if such piety is shown. Hezekiah’s failure was not the end any more than was that of Ahaz. Thus, the analogical structuring of these narratives gives them a prospective, even figural, significance – a significance that extends to the deliverance of Hezekiah from death itself.39 If such an understanding of the analogical strategy of these narratives is correct, then it can scarcely be doubted that this whole structure was designed to address an audience whose inheritance had been the loss of land and kingdom at the hands of the Babylonians. And, in this light, it is surely significant that the Hezekiah narrative now introduces that section of the book which explicitly addresses just this audience, and whose last chapter exhorts the reader: “Incline your ear, and come to me; listen so that you may live. Then I will make an eternal covenant with you, the sure mercies of David (‫( ”)חסדי דוד הנאמנים‬Isa 55:3). The story of Hezekiah is indeed a fitting introduction to all that follows.

39 Hence, the deliverance of Hezekiah from illness unto death in Isa 38 has been set on analogy to the deliverance of Jerusalem from Assyria in ch. 37 (see footnote 17). For the sake of David (the servant of God), the divine commitment to Jerusalem is more powerful than Assyria (37:35). And for the sake of David (the ancestor of Hezekiah), the divine commitment to the life of the Davidic king is stronger than death, a point accentuated by the contrast with Sennacherib’s death (38:5). Just as the deliverance from Assyria in ch. 37 becomes prospective in this larger strategy, so too does the deliverance from death in ch. 38, an effect achieved by means of its having been structured on the prior episode involving empire. The episode in Isa 38 piggy backs, as it were, on the argument of this larger empire oriented strategy. The deliverance of Hezekiah from illness unto death has been placed after the defeat of Assyria and related to it by the temporal marker “in those days”. Thus, not only does the structuring of Isa 38 on the pattern of ch. 37 fit this episode into that larger figural, prospective, and ‘repeatable’ history concerning these empires, it also casts the divine power manifest in that history in terms of its relevance for the threat that death posed to the Davidic house, and, therefore, to the Davidic covenant. The continuity between these two episodes and the consequent prospective function of the latter are already anticipated back in Isa 7 with God’s call to Ahaz, “Ask for yourself a sign, making it as deep as Sheol (‫)ׁשאלה‬ or as high as above (‫( ”)למעלה‬v. 11). This verse anticipates and was likely written up in the light of both Isa 37 and 38 (for a fuller set of parallels involving ch. 38 in this respect, see footnote 12). In the former chapter, Hezekiah is given a “sign” indicating that a remnant from Jerusalem “will make fruit upwards (‫”)למעלה‬. In the latter chapter, he is given a “sign” indicating that his descent into “Sheol” (‫ )ׁשאול‬will be reversed (like the shadow on the steps [‫ )]מעלות‬so that he will be able to go up (‫ )על״ה‬to the temple. In a way, the offer denied to Ahaz by his unbelief (7:11) had been granted twofold to Hezekiah because of his piety (37:30–32; 38:7–22).

Ronnie Goldstein

Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message, Hebrew ‫עֶ ֶרב‬, and Akkadian urbῑ  Introduction Rabshakeh’s message, according to the story in 2 Kings 18:19–35 || Isaiah 36:4–20 has attracted intensive scholarly attention in the last generation. In particular, much thought has been devoted to its reliability, on the one hand, and its relationships with other biblical and extra-biblical sources, on the other. While some conclude that “It can hardly be denied that the Hebrew text preserves the original argumentation of Rab-shakeh, whose Hebrew rhetoric so impressed his hearers that it became the focus of the B1 tradition,”1 others present more skeptical views concerning the accuracy of these recollections or even their actual existence.2 The present paper provides additional support for the possibility that memories from 701 BCE were preserved in the story about Hezekiah, Rabshakeh and Isaiah, and it examines the shaping of these memories in the story3. This will be done by * My thanks go to Prof. Noam Mizrahi, for insightful comments on a draft of this study. 1 M.  Cogan / H.  Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1988), 243. 2 Much attention has been given to the question of the authenticity of Rabshakeh’s words and to their possible connections with Assyrian propaganda on the one hand and to their possible connections with other biblical ideas and motifs on the other. There is a vast quantity of scholarship on those matters, which need not be fully quoted here. See esp. C. Cohen, “NeoAssyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Saqe”, IOS 1 (1979) 32–48; E. Ben Zvi, “Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?”, JBL 109 (1990) 79–92; P. Machinist, “The Rab Šaqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other’”, Hebrew Studies 41 (2000) 151–68; D. Rudman, “Is the Rabshakeh also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings XVIII 17–35”, VT 50 (2000) 100–10; H. J. van Rensburg, “The Attack on Judah in Sennacherib’s Third Campaign: An Ideological Study of the Various Texts”, OTE (2004) 560–79; R. E.  Clements, Jerusalem and the Nations: Studies in the Book of Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011); P. S. Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19 (SVT 125; Leiden: Brill, 2009); I. Kalimi / S. Richardson (ed.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 71; Leiden: Brill, 2014); R. Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, in R. I.  Thelle / T.  Stordalen / M. E.J.  Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (SVT 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 143–60. 3 Rabshakeh’s speech is part of the story in 2 Kings 18:17–19:9a; 36–37//Isa 36:2–37 9a; 37–38, as already delineated by Bernard Stade, and known today as version B1. See esp. B. Stade, “Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21”, ZAW 6 (1886) 156–189; B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2/3; London: S. C.M. Press, 1967), 69 ff. The verses here are part of this version even

104

Ronnie Goldstein

focusing on the meaning of the verb ‫ ִה ְתעָ ֶרב‬in 2 Kings 18:23–24 || Isaiah 36:8–9.4 In the first part of the article, I propose a new understanding of the meaning and the etymology of this verb, based on biblical sources. I then turn to discuss the implications of this interpretation for understanding the relationship of this passage to other biblical and extra-biblical passages. This discussion leads to a reconsideration of our appreciation of the way in which the encounter between Assyrians and Judeans in 701 BCE was portrayed from the perspective of this passage, written in the last decades of the seventh century BCE, certainly after the murder of Sennacherib in 681 BCE, and probably after the decline of the Assyrian empire. As I will try to show, the proposal offered here regarding the meaning and etymology of the verb ‫ ִה ְתעָ ֶרב‬can provide further evidence in support of the idea that the present story indeed includes some memories from the encounter in 701 BCE, but that these memories, written decades after the account, were also shaped by the author’s need to depict the disastrous consequences of Hezekiah’s adventure as a success.5

II. The verb ‫ התערב‬in 2 Kings 18:23–24 || Isaiah 36:8–9 ‫סּוסים ִאם ּתּוכַ ל לָ ֶתת לְ ָך רֹכְ ִבים עֲ לֵ ֶיהם וְ ֵאיְך ָת ִשיב ֵאת‬ ִ ‫וְ ַע ָתה ִה ְת ָע ֶרב נָ א ֶאת ֲאדֹנִ י ַה ֶמלֶ ְך ַאּׁשּור וְ ֶא ְתנָ ה לְ ָך ַאלְ ַפיִ ם‬ ‫ְפנֵ י ַפ ַחת ַא ַחד ַע ְב ֵדי ֲאדֹנִ י ַה ְק ַטנִ ים וַ ִת ְב ַטח לְ ָך ַעל ִמצְ ַריִ ם לְ ֶרכֶ ב ּולְ ָפ ָר ִשים‬

Come now, ‫ ִה ְתעָ ֶרב נָ א‬with my master, the great king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses if you can produce riders to mount them: So how could you turn down one of my master’s minor servants, relying on Egypt for chariots and horsemen? (2 Kings 18:23–24 || Isaiah 36:8–9).6

Within the long-debated speech of the Rabshakeh, this passage got relatively small attention. Scholarship on the speech has focused mainly on the Assyrian blasphemy displayed in it, as also on the internal attitude towards “Hezekiah’s

according to those who identify late expansions and revisions within it; compare Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, 154–6, and n. 47. 4 In this specific case, there is no difference between the versions in Isaiah and Kings. On the relationship between those two versions, see the summary of Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, 148–9, and the references there. 5 On the dating of the stories (Stade’s B1 and B2) see esp. N. Na’aman, “New Light on Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kgs 19,9b–35)”, Biblica 81 (2000) 393–402; E. Weissert, “Jesajas Beschreibung der Hybris des assyrischen Königs und seine Auseinandersetzung mit ihr”, in J. Renger (ed.), Assur—Gott, Stadt und Land: 5. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 18–21. Februar 2004 in Berlin (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesell­ schaft 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011) 287–309. 6 All quotations from the Hebrew Bible are according to the NJPS2 unless mentioned otherwise.

Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message

105

reform”.7 It has been correctly compared to other passages on the reliance on Egyptian help, and especially in relation to the similar views regarding the alliance with Egypt given in Isaiah 31.8 However, whereas in 2 Kings 18:21 and 24b the claims regarding the unproductive alliance with Egypt are indeed close to the claim found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, in verse 23 this topic is presented in a peculiar manner, without real parallels in other places. This peculiarity calls for our attention, and hints at the possibility that the passage is not based on the commonplace phrases and clichés of the period regarding the alliance with Egypt.9 Rabshakeh’s words in this passage have usually been explained as inviting the king to make a wager with the Assyrian king, and the verb ‫ ִה ְת ָע ֶרב‬is regularly translated in this verse as “make a bargain” or “give pledges” based on Hebrew ‫ ערב‬in the sense of “to give pledges”.10 However, a different meaning better fits the context of the verse, and the hitpa‘el form of the verb should be interpreted as “become my ‫” ֶע ֶרב‬, i. e. “become an auxiliary force”. The Hebrew term ‫ עֶ ֶרב‬meaning “mercenaries” or “auxiliary forces” was already recognized in several passages in the Hebrew Bible.11 The clearest example is attested in Jer 50:35–38, which reads as follows: ‫ֶח ֶרב ַעל כַ ְש ִדים נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה וְ ֶאל י ְֹש ֵבי ָב ֶבל וְ ֶאל ָש ֶר ָיה וְ ֶאל ֲחכָ ֶמ ָיה‬

§ 1. A sword against the Chaldeans—­declares the Lord—and against the inhabitants of Babylon, against its officials and its wise men!

‫ֶח ֶרב ֶאל ַה ַב ִדים וְ נ ָֹאלּו‬

§ 2. A sword against the diviners, that they be made fools of!

‫ּבֹור ָיה וָ ָחּתּו‬ ֶ ִ‫ֶח ֶרב ֶאל ג‬

§ 3. A sword against the warriors, that they be dismayed!

‫סּוסיו וְ ֶאל ִרכְ ּבֹו וְ ֶאל כָ ל ָה ֶע ֶרב ֲא ֶשר ְבתֹוכָ ּה וְ ָהיּו לְ נָ ִשים‬ ָ ‫ֶח ֶרב ֶאל‬

§ 4. A sword against its horses and chariots, and against all the ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬in its midst, that they become like women!

… ‫ֶח ֶרב ֶאל אֹוצְ ר ֶֹת ָיה ֻּובזָ זּו‬

§ 5. A sword against its treasuries that they be pillaged! …

7 For example: Cohen, “Neo-Assyrian elements”; Machinist, “Rab Šaqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem”, esp. 157–8. 8 See esp. Ben Zvi, “Who wrote”, 84; H. G.M Williamson, “In search of Pre-Exilic Isaiah”, in J. Day (ed.), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 406; London: T & T Clark International, 2004) 181–206; Kratz, “Isaiah and the siege of Jerusalem”, 155, n. 46. 9 Comp. for example, Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, 145: “Much of what is supposed to be significant for the Assyrian period, such as the polemic against the alliance with Egypt, is also true of the Babylonian period” 10 Thus, for example, Cogan / Tadmor, II Kings, 231, according to whom the hitpa‘el form conveys a reciprocal action. Compare: “make a bargain” (NIV); “give pledges” (KJV); “make a wager” (JPS). 11 This meaning has been recognized by some scholars, see most recently S. Bar, “Who were the ‘mixed multitude’?

106

Ronnie Goldstein

This passage is arranged in the form of a list, depicting the groups within the city of Babylon that are the subjects of direct hit. After portraying the fall of the court, including the ministers and the sages (§ 1) and the diviners (§ 2),12 the list moves to the fall of the army: the warriors (§ 3), the horses, chariots and all the ‫( עֶ ֶרב‬‎ § 4)”—all of whom are expected to lose their courage and to be fearful. Noteworthy is a clear parallelism, which establishes that the people designated by the term ‫ עֶ ֶרב‬are considered warriors and part of the army:13 ‫וְ ֶאל כָ ל ָהעֶ ֶרב ֲא ֶשר ְבתֹוכָ ּה‬

‫ּבֹור ָיה‬ ֶ ִ‫ֶח ֶרב ֶאל ג‬

‫וְ ָהיּו לְ נָ ִשים‬

‫וָ ָחּתּו‬

This meaning is generally accepted, following the Aramaic Targum Jonathan ‫על‬ ‫כל סומכותא די בגוה‬, though normally without supplying a fitting explanation of the term and its etymology.14 The more specific and technical sense of “mercenaries” or “auxiliary forces” can be established on the basis of additional biblical texts, which employ the term ‫ֶע ֶרב‬ in reference to auxiliary forces joining the Egyptian army:15 Jer 25:19–20

‫ת־שׂרָ֖יו וְ ֶאת־‬ ָ ‫ְך־מצְ רַ֛יִ ם וְ ֶאת־עֲ ָבדָ֥יו וְ ֶא‬ ִ ֶ‫ת־פּ ְר ֹע֧ה ֶ ֽמל‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ל־מלְ כֵ֖י א ֶֶ֣רץ ָהעוּץ‬ ַ ָ‫עֶ֔רב וְ אֵ֕ת כּ‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ָ‫ת כּ‬ ֙ ‫ וְ ֵא‬:‫ל־ע ֽמֹּו‬ ַ ָ‫כּ‬ ‫ת־אַשׁ ְקלֹ֤ון וְ ֶאת־‬ ְ ‫ל־מלְ כֵ י֙ א ֶֶ֣רץ ְפּלִ ְשׁתִּ֔ים וְ ֶא‬ ַ ָ‫וְ אֵ֗ת כּ‬ ‫אַשׁ ֽדֹּוד‬ ְ ‫ַעזָּ ֙ה וְ ֶאת־עֶ ְקרֹ֔ון וְ אֵ֖ת ְשׁ ֵארִ֥ית‬

Pharaoh king of Egypt, his courtiers, his officials, and all his people; all the ‫ ; ֶע ֶרב‬all the kings of the land of Uz; all the kings of the land of the Philistines—Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and what is left of Ashdod.

Ezek 30:4–5

‫ָוּבאָ֥ה ח ֶֶ֙רב֙ ְבּ ִמצְ רַ֔יִ ם וְ ָהיְ תָ֤ה ַחלְ ָחלָ ה֙ ְבּכ֔וּשׁ ִבּנְ ֹפ֥ל‬ ‫ כּ֣וּשׁ‬:‫ָחלָ֖ל ְבּ ִמצְ רָ֑יִ ם וְ לָ ְקח֣וּ ֲהמֹונָ֔הּ וְ נֶ ֶה ְרס֖וּ יְ סֹוד ֶ ֹֽת ָיה‬ ‫עֶ֣רב וְ כ֔וּב ְוּבנֵ֖י א ֶֶ֣רץ ַה ְבּרִ֑ית ִאתָּ֖ם‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ָ‫וּפ֤וּט וְ לוּד֙ וְ כ‬ ‫ַבּח ֶֶ֥רב יִ ֹֽפּלוּ‬

A sword shall pierce Egypt, and Nubia shall be seized with trembling, when men fall slain in Egypt and her wealth is seized and her foundations are overthrown. Nubia, Put, and Lud, and all the ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬, and Cub, and the inhabitants of the allied countries shall fall by the sword with them.

Here again, the meaning “auxiliary forces” was already identified by Targum Jonathan: (‫ואת כל סומכותא (מלכי‬. This rendition is the best fit here, better than various other translations that had been offered for both texts, based on different meanings of ‫ עֶ ֶרב‬such as “and all the mingled people” or “and all the foreign people there”. In Ezekiel 30, in particular, the term ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬clearly appears with various ethnic units, auxiliaries of the Egyptians. Note especially that later in the prophecy, the prophet speaks about Egypt’s military helpers: “Those who support Egypt shall fall 12 This is most probably the sense of ‫הברים‬, i. e., the Babylonian bārȗ. See the summary of W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vol.; ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1986–1996), 2.1289. 13 See the review of opinions by McKane, Jeremiah, 2.1289. 14 See Bar, “mixed multitude 15 See most recently Bar, “mixed multitude

Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message

107

(‫( ”)ונפלו סמכי מצרים‬Ezek 30:8). The Nubians, Put and the Libyans mentioned in Ezekiel 30 are also mentioned in Nah 3:9 and in Ezek 27:10 as Egypt’s military helpers (‫ אנשי מלחמתך‬,‫)היו בעזרתך‬.16 It is not easy to decide on the exact etymology of the noun ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬in this military sense. It seems that the best solution is to keep here the basic meaning of the root ‫“ ערב‬to enter” (preserved clearly in Akkadian erēbu, and in Ugaritic), and to understand the term as referring to a unit that entered the army from the outside, i. e., as consisting of foreigners, alternatively as referring to auxiliaries that entered into a contract or covenant with the main army.17 Whatever the case may be, the existence of the Hebrew term ‫ עֶ ֶרב‬meaning “mercenaries” seems firmly based.18 As for the grammatical form of ‫התערב‬, namely, its taking the hitpa‘el stem, it should be noted that this form appears on some other occasions, where it is normally rendered as “getting involved with someone” or “being associated”.19 More reasonably, however, it should be viewed in this case as a denominative verb denoting the process of becoming an ‫עֶ ֶרב‬.20

III. The phrase ‫התערבות‬ ֻ ‫ בני‬in 2 Kings 14:14 I propose that the same meaning of “auxiliary forces” is also applicable to a slightly different term, ‫ ְבנֵ י ַה ַת ֲע ֻרבֹות‬in 2 Kings 14:14. According to this passage, following a diplomatic exchange between Amaziah and Jehoash, the kings of Israel and Judah had a military encounter in Beth Shemesh, ending with a Judean defeat, and 16 The use of the term ‫ ערבי מערבך‬in Ezek 27:9–11, 26–27 is not directly related to our problem. Here, the terms ‫ מערב‬and ‫ מערבך‬are clearly situated in an economical, context meaning incoming merchandise, as pointed out by several scholars and corroborated by Ugaritic and Akkadian. However, it is not impossible that here too the military term is used alongside the economical one, mainly in vv. 26–27, where ‫ ערבי מערבך‬are mentioned in a military context together with ‫אנשי‬ ‫מלחמתך‬. Note also the similarity between Ezek 30:5 and 27:9–10, as well as the resemblance between these verses and Nah 3:9. 17 See below regarding the urbī in Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah, who are depicted as a unit introduced (Akk. ušēribuma) by Hezekiah into the city. Several scholars recognized the meaning “mercenaries” but suggested that it is based on ‫ ערב‬in the sense of “taking on a pledge”, referring “to mercenaries who pledge their allegiance” (Bar, “mixed multitude 18 The same meaning may be ascribed to the phrase ‫ ערב רב‬of Exod 12:38, as was recognized by Bar, “mixed multitude 19 Esp. Prov 20:19 ‫ּגֹולֶ ה ּסֹוד הֹולֵ ְך ָרכִ יל ּולְ פ ֶֹתה ְׂש ָפ ָתיו ל ֹא ִת ְתעָ ָרב‬, “The slanderer reveals secrets, so do not associate with a big mouth”, See M. V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18b; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 671; Prov 24:21 is a difficult text, and regularly emendated to ‫ תתעבר‬meaning “to be angry” (see, for example, Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 752). But in light of the meaning suggested here, it is possible now to offer a different solution to this verse, as a warning not to join (i. e., to enter into a covenant or military alliance with) the forces of the dissidents and rebels. 20 For this sense of the Biblical hitpa‘el see R. C. Benton, Jr., Aspect and the Biblical Hebrew Niphal and Hitpael (Ph.

108

Ronnie Goldstein

Amaziah being taken captive by Jehoash. The description of the consequence of this encounter includes a list of the plunder taken by the Israelite king: ‫וְ לָ ַקח ֶאת כָ ל ַהזָ ָהב וְ ַהכֶ ֶסף וְ ֵאת כָ ל ַהכֵ לִ ים ַהנִ ְמצְ ִאים ֵבית יְ הוָ ה ְּובאֹצְ רֹות ֵבית ַה ֶמלֶ ְך וְ ֵאת ְבנֵ י ַה ַתעֲ ֻרבֹות וַ יָ ָשב ש ְֹמרֹונָ ה‬

He carried off all the gold and silver and all the vessels that there were in the House of the Lord and in the treasuries of the royal palace, as well as the ‫ ְבנֵ י ַה ַת ֲע ֻרבֹות‬and he returned to Samaria (2 Kings 14:14).

As in other passages of the Hebrew Bible, this list includes the spoils taken by the Israelite king from both the Temple and the Palace.21 The ‫ ְבנֵ י ַה ַתעֲ ֻרבֹות‬are normally understood as “hostages”, in line with Hebrew ‫ ערב‬in the sense of “guarantee”.22 However, a different solution seems preferable here, namely, that ‫ ְבנֵ י ַה ַתעֲ ֻרבֹות‬is a biform of the term ‫ עֶ ֶרב‬meaning “mercenaries”. The use of the form ‫ בני ה־‬in ‫ְבנֵ י‬ ‫ ַה ַתעֲ ֻרבֹות‬fits well here as a designation of a specific group of people, and it is partially comparable with ‫ בני הגדוד‬in 2 Chron 25:13, denoting the auxiliary forces originating in the Kingdom of Israel that were contracted by Amaziah according to 2 Chron 25:6–13.23 This meaning, “mercenaries” or “auxiliary forces”, fits the context well, as part of the loot taken by the Israelite king. Noteworthy is the similarity between the aforementioned list in Jer 50:37, describing the fall of Babylon and mentioning together the treasuries of the city and the mercenaries (‫) ֶע ֶרב‬, and the list of spoils taken by Jehoash according to 2 Kings 14. This point is reinforced by Assyrian sources, discussed below. If ‫( ֶע ֶרב‬in Jer 50:37; 25:20; Ezek 30:4–5), like the ‫( ְבנֵ י ַה ַתעֲ ֻרבֹות‬in 2 Kings 14:14), indeed designates the same kind of group, i. e., mercenaries or auxiliary forces entering the main force, then both terms likely have the same etymology. This brings us back to the suggested meaning of ‫( ִה ְת ָע ֶרב‬in 2 Kings 18:23 || Isa 36:8) as “become my auxiliary force (‫”)עֶ ֶרב‬. Note the similarity between Jer 50:37a and 2 Kings 18:23, which associates the verb with the mentioning of horses and riders: Jer 50:37

2 Kings 18:23

‫חרב אל סוסיו ואל רכבו‬

‫התערב נא את אדני את מלך אשור‬

‫ואל כל הערב אשר בתוכה‬

‫ואתנה לך אלפים סוסים אם תוכל לתת לך רכבים עליהם‬

21 For this passage, see meanwhile: N. Na’aman, “The Historical Background of the Battle between Amaziah and Jehoash”, Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9 (1985) 211–17 (Hebrew). 22 See HALOT, s.v. 1‫ערב־‬, ‎876; HALOT s.v. ‫תערובה‬, ‎1771; J. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964), 611; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 157. 23 Seen in this light, there is noteworthy resemblance between the accounts regarding Joash and Amaziah on the one hand, and the account of the Assyrian conquest of Judah in 701 BCE on the other; I suggest that the account of 2 Kings 14 was shaped in the light of the events of 701 BCE, in order to stress the dangers of a misguided foreign policy, which might end in a disaster for Judah. On the resemblances between the reigns of Hezekiah and of Amaziah, see below n. 39.

Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message

109

According to the B1 source, Rabshakeh ironically offers Hezekiah to join his forces, rendering the Judean army an auxiliary force of the Assyrian army, so that the Assyrian king will supply horses to the Judeans. The implication of the Assyrian officer’s claim is that the whole of Hezekiah’s army cannot count even as an auxiliary force for the great Assyrian army. This implication further fits the next verse, according to which Rabshakeh argues against Hezekiah’s reliance on Egyptian auxiliary forces: ‫ותבטח לך על מצרים לרכב ולפרשים‬. Thus both vv. 23–24 deal with the theme of auxiliary forces and with the Judean reliance on them, arguing that since the whole Judean army cannot count even as an auxiliary force for the Assyrians, Judah cannot rely on the Egyptian forces for supplying chariots and horsemen.24 Hezekiah’s reliance on auxiliary forces is indeed reflected in the Assyrian inscriptions as well, and the present case offers a further opportunity to explore the relationship between the Assyrian and the Judean sources for the events of 701 BCE.

IV. The Akkadian term urbī According to the famous passage dealing with Sennacherib’s third campaign against Judah, Sennacherib took a large amount of loot with him to Assyria, including military forces: As for Hezekiah himself, the awe-inspiring splendor of my lordship overwhelmed him. He sent me after my (departure) to Nineveh …, the urbī (LÚurbī) and his elite troops (LÚṣabē damqūti), which he had brought in (ušēribuma) to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, and were auxiliary troops (iršû tillāti), together with 30 talents of gold…25

The term urbī, designating here a certain kind of troop or band, has long been the subject of scholarly debate.26 The term appears in two further passages in the corpus of Assyrian royal inscriptions. According to a passage about Sennacherib’s first campaign (703 BCE), “The urbī (LÚurbī), Arameans (LÚaramu) (and) Chaldeans (LÚkaldu) who were in Uruk, Nippur, Kish … together with the citizens, the 24 The first half of v. 24: ‫ וְ ֵאיְך ָת ִשיב ֵאת ְפנֵ י ַפ ַחת ַא ַחד עַ ְב ֵדי ֲאדֹנִ י ַה ְק ַטנִ ים‬is difficult, and especially the meaning of the phrase ‫ תשיב את פני‬here. It is possible to keep here the sense “to deny a request”, as in the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible; Rabshakeh claims against Hezekiah that he relies on the Egyptian forces, instead of agreeing to the terms presented by him: “how is it that you refuse the request of one of my master servants, relying on Egyptian horses and riders?” Yet a different common interpretation of ‫תשיב את פני‬, understanding it as a military term meaning “to retreat” cannot be ruled out. 25 Sennacherib’s third campaign against Judah (RINAP 3/1 65 f: ll.55–8), according to the Rassam Cylinder. 26 See N. Na’aman, “Ḫabiru-like Bands in the Assyrian Empire and Bands in Biblical Historiography”, JAOS 120 (2000) 621–4.

110

Ronnie Goldstein

rebels, I brought forth and counted as spoil.”27 In a later passage, the same term is mentioned in a similar context regarding Assurbanipal’s third campaign against Elam (Prism A; 653 BCE): I brought as spoils from the land of Gambulu to the land of Ashur the rest of Bel-iqisha’s sons… together with the urbī (LÚurbī), the rebels, the inhabitants of the land of Gambulu, cattle, sheep and goats … .28

The term urbī was first interpreted by many scholars as a designation of an ethnic group, probably the Arabs.29 This interpretation was dismissed already by Theo Bauer, and it was finally disproven by Israel Eph‘al.30 Hugo Winckler and Bauer suggested the meaning “fugitives” or “bandits”, and Leo Oppenheim adopted and adapted this meaning in his translation of the description of Sennacherib’s third campaign, where he translated it as “irregular troops”.31 In a study focused on the meaning of the term urbī, Hayim Tadmor suggested that the term should be understood as “elite troops”, and claimed that it is related to the Hebrew verb ‫ארב‬, “lie in wait”.32 Nadav Na’aman has recently suggested, following Winckler and Bauer, that the term urbī should be interpreted as an Assyrian form derived from the verb nērubu 27 RINAP 3/1 36:52. 28 BIWA, pp. 39, 228, A III 61–67. 29 D. Neiman, “Urbi = ‘Irregulars’ or ‘Arabs’”, JQR 60 (1970) 237–58. The history of scholarship has been elegantly described recently by Na’aman, “Ḫabiru-like Bands”, and again recently by F. M. Fales, “The Road to Judah: 701 B. C.E. in the Context of Sennacherib’s Political-Military Strategy”, in I. Kalimi / S. Richardson (ed.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 71; Leiden: Brill, 2014) 223–48, here on pp. 241–2, n. 67. 30 T. Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals vervollständigt und neu bearbeitet (2 vol.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1933), 2.1; I. Eph῾al, “‘Arabs’ in Babylonia in the 8th Century B. C.”, JAOS 94 (1974) 108–15, on p. 110, n. 16; F. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1881), 305–6; Neiman, “Urbi”, 237–58. See also M. Elat, “Arguments to the Identification of the Urbi in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions”, in G. Galil / M. Weinfeld (ed.), Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 232–8. 31 H. Winckler, “Besprechungen: Erasmus Nagel, Die nach-davidische Königsgeschichte Israels”, OLZ 9 (1906) 330–6, on pp. 333–4; T. Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, 2.1; A. L. Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts”, in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), ANET (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 31969) 265–317, on p. 288; cf. CAD, B, 176b. 32 H. Tadmor, “The Aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact”, in H.-J. Nissen / J.  Renger (ed.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn (2 vol.; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982) 2.449–70, on p. 454; H. Tadmor, “The urbi of Hezekiah”, in H. Tadmor (ed.), ‘With My Many Chariots I Have Gone up the Heights of Mountains’: Historical and Literary Studies on Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2011) 337–46; Cogan / Tadmor, II Kings, 247, n. 2. This meaning was partly adopted by E. Frahm, who further suggested that the meaning “elite troops” was coined after an assumed Arab tribe. See E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universitat Wien, 1997), 104–5. See also A. M. Bagg, “Interaktionsformen zwischen Nomaden und Sesshaften in Palästina anhand neuassyrischer Quellen”, WO 40 (2010) 190–215, on pp. 206–7.

Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message

111

(“to flee, run away, escape”), closely related to other derivatives of this verb, such as arbu (“fugitive, person without family”), arbitu (“flight”), munnarbu (“runaway”) and nērubtu (“flight”). He proposed that the term refers to groups of fugitives who, in the face of Assyrian military campaigns, fled from their homeland and found shelter in peripheral areas. According to Na’aman, such people tried to adapt themselves to new circumstances by forming bands, restricted in number and characterized by their predatory nature and military ability, and they served on occasion as mercenaries in the armies of neighboring rulers.33 Apparently, the exact meaning for the term in Akkadian is indeed “mercenaries”. Furthermore, a new etymology can be offered in the light of the biblical passages discussed above, since Hebrew ‫( עֶ ֶרב‬Jer 25:20; 50:37; Ezek 30:5) and ‫ְבנֵ י‬ ‫( ַה ַת ֲע ֻרבֹות‬‎2 Kings 14:14) and Akkadian urbī basically denote the same kind of military group, i. e., a special unit of auxiliary forces or mercenaries.34 Akkadian urbī is arguably related to Hebrew ‫ערב‬, akin to Akkadian erēbu, and probably referring to mercenaries who joined (“entered”) the main army. It is noteworthy that the literary context of the urbi in the Akkadian inscriptions is similar to that of the biblical sources mentioned above: they all appear in lists of spoils taken by an Assyrian king after his triumph over his enemy (Judah, the Chaldeans, and the Babylonians). These passages, and especially the one about Hezekiah (“the urbi and his elite troops, which he had brought in (ušēribuma) to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, and were auxiliary troops, together with 30 talents of gold”), are especially close to the biblical passages which mention the ‫ֶע ֶרב‬ together with the city treasures, taken as spoil.35 Most probably, Akkadian urbī, and Hebrew ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬and ‫ ְבנֵ י ַה ַתעֲ ֻרבֹות‬are an indication that this kind of military groups maintained its existence for some time in the history of the ancient Near East. They are mentioned, according to the present suggestion, in texts from the late 8th century through the second half of the 6th century BCE. Regardless of its exact etymology and provenance, the Hebrew term ‫ עֶ ֶרב‬was employed when the biblical story about the Rabshakeh was written.36 The meaning of the Hebrew terminology was most likely forgotten after these times, and readers since then have mostly guessed (sometimes rightly, as in the 33 Na’aman, “Ḫabiru-like Bands”, 621–4, and the references there. Recently, Mario Fales dealt again with the term: he accepted basically the understanding of it as some type of irregular troops, and pointing to the fact that two of the occurrences of the term are connected with anti-Assyrian struggles in Babylonia, he opted for the possibility that those fighting units “had been sent all the way to Jerusalem from the southern Mesopotamian alluvium”. Fales, “The Road to Judah”, 241–2, n. 67. 34 It is probable that the origin of the term is West Semitic and that it was adopted, for a short while, in Assyria. 35 Note also the similarity between the list in 2 Kings 14 and the list of spoil in the Akkadian passage. 36 For the date of composition of the B1 story see esp. Na’aman, “Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story”. There are good reasons to date it sometime in the last part of the seventh century BCE.

112

Ronnie Goldstein

Targum of Jeremiah and Ezekiel) its sense in the various passages mentioning them. The fact that a very close term is attested in the Assyrian inscriptions helps us to understand the meaning of the biblical term and supports our suggestion regarding its interpretation.

V. ‫ה ְת ָע ֶרב‬,ִ ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬, and the urbī of Hezekiah These findings bring us to the next question to be raised: Is there any direct connection between the Akkadian and Hebrew terms? More specifically, is there any relationship between the mention of the urbī in the Sennacherib inscriptions and the sarcastic suggestion to Hezekiah, embedded in Rabshakeh’s speech, offering him to join the Assyrian army as a mercenary? In my view, a positive answer can be given to these questions, albeit with due caution. The use of the verb ‫ ִה ְתעָ ֶרב‬in Rabshakeh’s speech and the use of the term urbī in the Assyrian inscription does not appear to be a mere coincidence, and the presence of these uncommon terms in the same context is significant. Although it is possible to understand the mention of the term in the biblical passage (which deals with the hopes of the Judeans for help from the Egyptian forces) in the light of the passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel mentioning the ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬as the mercenaries of Egypt, the peculiarity of Rabshakeh’s offer to Hezekiah to join him as a mercenary indicates a different direction. It seems that the use of the verb ‫ ִה ְת ָע ֶרב‬in the biblical account regarding the Rabshakeh preserves a memory from the events of 701 BCE, and some knowledge regarding the assistance that Hezekiah received from the ‫ֶע ֶרב‬ that were later deported to Assyria. Hezekiah’s voluntary surrender to the Assyrian king is reflected in 2 Kings 18:13–16 and is evident in the detailed list of tribute sent by Hezekiah to Sennacherib according to the Assyrian report.37 The place of Hezekiah’s urbī in this list, probably known in Jerusalem as the ‫ ֶע ֶרב‬, reflects the importance given by the Assyrians to their deportation to Assyria, which stressed the failure of Hezekiah’s military alliances against Assyria, including the Egyptians and other mercenaries.38 It seems that our passage (which refers to both the Egyptian forces and to the (‫ ֶערב‬is a late response to the events of 701. There is a clear difference between what happened in Judea in 701 BCE and Rabshakeh’s speech: whereas in reality Hezekiah’s ‫עֶ ֶרב‬, the mercenaries hired by him, were certainly taken to Assyria as spoils by Sennacherib’s forces, according to the story in Kings / Isaiah, written after Sennacherib’s death in 681 BCE and most likely in 37 As well summarized by Fales, “The Road to Judah”, 247 and n. 86. 38 See recently Fales, “The Road to Judah”, 241–2: “Hezekiah may have even borne (or shared) responsibility for a much vaster project of regional uprising against Sennacherib, possibly involving Egypt, but also other allies, such as the much-discussed LU.urbi and the ‘choice troops’ that he had brought into Jerusalem to help out, who were in the end deported to Assyria along with the tribute”.

Military Terminology in Rabshakeh’s Message

113

the last part of the seventh century BCE, the story ended with the Assyrian withdrawal from Jerusalem and Sennacherib’s death at his sons’ hands, and not with the looting of Jerusalem by the Assyrian forces.39 In this version of the story, there is of course no place for those mercenaries, but they are still reflected in Rabshakeh’s sarcastic offer to Hezekiah to join the Assyrian army as mercenaries. It seems that here the author of the story applies, perhaps intentionally, a literary technique known from ancient times in order to reshape the previous tradition about the events in 701 BCE. Instead of simply denying the historical and humiliating fact that Hezekiah’s mercenaries were taken by Sennacherib, he mentioned en passant the possibility that Hezekiah’s forces will join the Assyrians as mercenaries, in the offer of the Rabshakeh.40 If this suggestion is correct, it possibly indicates that the authors of the narrative about Sennacherib, Rabshakeh, Isaiah and Hezekiah, preserved in 2 Kings and Isaiah, were aware of a different narrative which told about Hezekiah’s surrender to Sennacherib.41 Once more, although Rabshakeh’s speech is apparently a composition written many years after the dramatic events in Judea in 701 BCE, it is an interesting example of the ways in which the memory of those events was preserved and reshaped decades after they took place.42 39 It seems that a different kind of memory of the events in 701 BCE was preserved in the passage regarding Jehoash and Amaziah mentioned above. The close similarities between this story and the narratives and events dealing with Hezekiah and Sennacherib are significant. The story of Amaziah ended in a catastrophic way for the Judeans, similarly to the real events in 701 BCE, as we know from the Assyrian inscriptions. It seems that the story about Amaziah is a reaction to the events in the time of Hezekiah, most probably by a pro-Assyrian author, and with a propagandistic goal, i. e., to claim that it is better to stay quiet and pay the Assyrians annual taxes (as was done in the times of Manasseh), and not to follow the dangerous policies of both Hezekiah and Amaziah. In my view, this is the best explanation for the mention of the ‫ בני התערבות‬in the text in 2 Kings 14, closely resembling the loot of the urbī in Hezekiah’s times: it seems that both passages about Amaziah and Hezekiah were shaped, possibly during the time of Manasseh, by a scribe calling for the adoption of a quietist attitude towards the empires. I intend to deal with this passage at length elsewhere. 40 For similar strategies used by biblical and other ancient writers in their reshaping of earlier versions see: R. Goldstein, “The Lie and the Rumor: The Double Account of Jeremiah’s Meeting with Zedeqiah and Ancient Techniques for Challenging the Existence of Rival Versions”, in M. Bar-Asher et al. (ed.), Shay le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and Language Presented to Sara Japhet (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; 2007) 23–35, on pp. 17–35 (Hebrew). 41 Compare, for instance, Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, 157, who suggests that version B1 was an addition to the tribute episode A. In my view, the narrative B1 was intended originally not as an addition to the A narrative, but to replace it. At the same time, the possibility that B1 is a conscious reaction to narrative A (or a similar one) has to be taken into account now. 42 In this case, the main goal of this literary endeavor was perhaps to simply reshape the memory of the catastrophe, in order to become one of Judean success. However, other options should not be ruled out, such as an internal debate over military collaboration with Assyria in the time of Manasseh (for the possible internal implications of Rabshakeh’s speech see esp. Machinist, “Rab Šaqeh at the Wall of Jerusalem”, 163–4).

Graeme Auld

Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings I. Fortschreibung und Trigonometrie In this paper I am developing work presented in two contributions to the Utrecht meeting (in 2013) of the (then Edinburgh) Prophecy Network. My “Recovering the Oldest Prophetic Roles in Biblical Narrative” explored both the longer narratives and the short notes that describe divine / human interaction and are reported in both Samuel-Kings and Chronicles—from David seeking divine rulings on whether he should attack Philistines to Josiah sending members of his court to Huldah the prophetess: 2 Sam 5:19, 23

David asks for divine guidance before attacking Philistines

2 Sam 7

Nathan on building a house, and David’s prayer

2 Sam 24

Gad and David’s choice between 3 punishments

1 Kings 3:4–15

Solomon’s vision at Gibeon

1 Kings 8

Solomon prays at the dedication of the Jerusalem temple

1 Kings 9:1–9

Solomon’s vision in Jerusalem

1 Kings 12:15

confirmation of words spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite

1 Kings 12:22–24

oracle spoken by Shemaiah

1 Kings 22

Micaiah and the prophets with the two kings

[2 Kings 18–20

Isaiah and Hezekiah]

2 Kings 22:13–20

Huldah the prophetess and Josiah

The wording of these synoptic notes and stories is remarkably stable between the two books. The parade examples are Solomon’s prayer, Micaiah and the two kings, and the consultation of Huldah. The greatest variety between Kings and Chron comes in their accounts of Solomon’s two visions. The paper as read in Utrecht simply noted the one large exception that proved the rule: the Hezekiah / Isaiah narratives. The expanded paper as published1 began a discussion of this major exception. 1 A. G. Auld, “Isaiah and the Oldest ‘Biblical’ Prophetic Narrative”, in B. Becking / H. Barstad (ed.), Prophets and Prophecy in Stories. Papers Read at the Fifth Meeting of the Edinburgh Prophecy Network, Utrecht October 2013 (OTS 65; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 45–63.

116

Graeme Auld

Then Reinhard Kratz’s contribution to the Utrecht meeting was a discussion of “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”.2 I liked his application of the Fortschreibung model to exploring the development of this narrative, but was not persuaded by all of his results. In principle, his use of the successive rewriting model and my interest in an even-handed synoptic approach to Samuel-Kings and Chronicles could be mutually supportive, and also mutually corrective; and I want to develop such an approach here. A synoptic approach to the Hezekiah narratives is all the richer because we have inherited not two but three principal biblical sources: 2 Kings 18:13–20:19; Isa 36–39; and 2 Chron 32:9–32. When mapping the earth, observations recorded from at least three known positions permit more accurate reconstruction. Each of the accounts in the books of Kings, Isaiah, and Chronicles, about Hezekiah and the Assyrian embassy, Hezekiah’s illness, and Hezekiah and the visit of messengers from Babylon, is unusual in its own immediate context. And each is sufficiently different from the others, although of course Kings and Isaiah are much closer to each other in length and detail than either is to Chronicles. In Kings, the very large role played by the prophet Isaiah is without parallel in the narratives about Jerusalem’s kings. In Isaiah, no other piece of prose narrative is nearly so extensive. And in Chronicles, no other royal report is quite so different from—or so much shorter than—its synoptic parallel in Kings. However, comparisons between these three should permit reconstructions of their development that are more secure than if we possessed only two of these accounts. Triangulation helps. Most scholars consider Chronicles irrelevant to the study of the development of 2 Kings 18–20||Isa 36–39, and this for two reasons. The first is the more general one: we “know” that Chronicles as a whole is a reworking of Samuel and Kings. The second is more particular, and gives support to the first. Most scholars accept Bernhard Stade’s division of 2 Kings 18:17–19:37||Isa 36–37 between two once-separate reports of the Assyrian embassy that were only secondarily combined.3 Some elements of the shorter 2 Chron 32 correspond to material in one of these sources and some to material in the other. It follows that it must have been after these were combined that the Chronicler had written his abbreviated account. However, just one of the benefits of a Fortschreibung or “successive rewriting” approach to the longer version in Kings / Isaiah advocated by Kratz is this: that it enables the relationship with Chronicles to be reconsidered. What if Chronicles was based not on the completed report in Kings and Isaiah but on an earlier stage in its complex development? If the longer report had been drafted in several stages, not every element of the so-called “B1” need have been in its present 2 R. G. Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, in R. I. Thelle / T. Stordalen / M. E.J. Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Prophecy and History in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (VTS 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 143–60. 3 B. Stade, “Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21”, ZAW 6 (1886) 156–92.

Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings

117

position before “B2” began to be drafted: the several stages in the successive rewriting of B could in principle have included some changes to the order of the material. And, if B had its origins in a narrative much shorter than Stade’s B1, then comparison with the relevant portion of 2 Chron 32 which is also shorter could be relevant and should be explored.

II. Isaiah in Chronicles and Isaiah / Kings The relevant portions of all three books share the same three main topics: first and at greatest length in each, the Assyrian threat to Jerusalem; then more briefly the life-threatening illness of Hezekiah and the visit of a Babylonian embassy that was shown his wealth. But the relationships between the three topics are differently handled. In Kings / Isaiah, the king prays first about the siege (19:15–19) and then about his illness (20:2–3); and two explicit spoken answers are recorded (19:20; 20:5). In Chronicles too, the king prays twice (32:20, 24), but here the divine responses are simply acted, not spoken: a destroying ‫“( מלאך‬envoy”) is sent and a ‫“( מופת‬portent”) is given. In Kings and Isaiah, the two situations of national and royal distress are closely and explicitly linked (19:34; 20:6). And of course the precise dating of the invasion to Hezekiah’s fourteenth year in 2 Kings 18:13||Isa 36:1 already implies this linkage. In Chronicles, the king also prays twice; but the troubles of city and king are not explicitly connected—one simply follows the other, linked loosely by “in these days” (‫)בימים ההם‬: no date is specified. Did the Chronicler disentangle into its original elements what Kings / Isaiah had secondarily put together? Or is Chronicles a witness to how these traditions were shaped before the Kings / Isaiah linkage? By contrast, Chronicles like Kings / Isaiah does link the Babylonian embassy with the king’s illness (and recovery): in 2 Kings 20:12/Isa 39:1 Babylon had heard that Hezekiah had been sick (though not that he had surprisingly revived), while in 2 Chron 32:31 they came to enquire about the (unspecified) ‫ מופת‬done in the land—in both versions Hezekiah had great riches. If we focus on the king, the only major thematic difference between Isaiah / Kings on the one side and Chronicles on the other concerns the explicit linkage in the two longer versions between the fate of Jerusalem and of Hezekiah. But, when we focus on the prophet, the differences are much greater. Isaiah is present in 2 Chron 32 only at the end of the first scene: as the king prays for his city, the prophet is with him. However, he plays no role at all in the next two scenes. In Isaiah and Kings, the prophet features in all three scenes and his words actually form part of the linkage between the first two scenes. It is he who articulates the explicit divine response to each of the king’s prayers, and in the second response he speaks of delivering “you and this city” (38:6||20:6). Did the Chronicler write Isaiah out of much of the Hezekiah narrative he inherited from the books of Kings or Isaiah? Or did he draw on a source very

118

Graeme Auld

different from the alternative we know so well from both Former and Latter Prophets? I need to be more specific about what I mean by “the Chronicler”. We should distinguish in principle between the main royal reports in Chronicles on the one hand and on the other hand the references to an alternative account at the end of each section—at least until we find evidence to conflate them. The sentence immediately before the note of Hezekiah’s death (2 Chron 32:33) reads as follows in MT: ‫ויתר דברי יחזקיהו וחסידיו הנם כתובים בחזון ישעיהו בן־אמוץ הנביא על־ספר‬ ‫“( מלכי־יהודה וישראל‬As for the remainder of the deeds of Hezekiah and his acts of loyalty—they are of course written in the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet, upon the book of the kings of Judah and of Israel.”). LXX has two differences: “… written in the prophecy of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet and in the book of the kings …” Two things are plain. The author of the cross-reference[s] was aware of the Hezekiah / Isaiah story as told in Kings and / or Isaiah. And the author of the main text had a very different story to tell: not only radically shorter, but also very much less concerned with Isaiah. Indeed it is fair to ask whether the mention of Isaiah alongside the king at prayer (‫ )ויתפלל יחזקיהו המלך וישעיהו בן־אמוץ הנביא על־זאת‬was original to the main text, or whether it was added by the author of the cross-­ reference[s]. By associating Isaiah with the praying king (32:20), was he simply drawing on the alternative report in which Isaiah had played a much larger role in the story of Hezekiah—the alternative report identified in the cross-reference (or is it a double reference?) that immediately precedes the note of Hezekiah’s death (2 Chron 32:33)? Perhaps not. The only mention of Isaiah in the main body of 2 Chron 32 is at the end of the siege; and this corresponds to an important stage in the portrayal of the prophet in Kings / Isaiah. We meet him first at the start of 2 Kings 19 || Isa 37 (towards the end of Stade’s B1). He is approached by representatives of the king; and the scene mirrors Josiah’s appeal to Huldah. Like Huldah, and in fact like all the synoptic intermediaries in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, this Isaiah responds: he voices the divine answer to a royal question. However, the Isaiah we meet in the remainder of Kings / Isaiah shows more initiative: he is more like Elijah or Elisha in non-synoptic Kings. Chronicles only mentions Isaiah at the same point in the story as Kings / Isaiah first introduces him; and, at this first introduction, he behaves differently from the Isaiah who has left no trace in Chronicles. That other Isaiah is a later development.

III. Where Kings and Isaiah differ It remains hotly debated whether the largely shared material in Isa 36–39 and 2 Kings 18–20 had its origins more in one of these books or the other. Some of this argument is focused, not on what they do share, but rather on the two portions in which they are most different from each other.

Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings

119

(1) The short narrative in 2 Kings 18:14–16 about Hezekiah paying off Sennacherib that immediately follows the shared opening verse (2 Kings 18:13 || Isa 36:1) is not represented at all in Isa 36. (2) The end of the second topic, about the illness of Hezekiah, is written very differently in 2 Kings 20:1–11 and Isa 38:1–22. The two versions of the healing start in almost identical terms (20:1–3||38:1–34); then 20:4–65 is a little fuller than 38:4–66 (and the traditional verse-division is different). However, the reports in 20:7–11 and 38:7–8, 21–22 about signs and treatment by a compress of figs diverge still further: – Only 2 Kings 20:5, 8 talks of “healing” (‫ )רפא‬but not Isa 38:5, 22, although this verb is commoner in Isaiah than Kings. – Only 2 Kings 20:5, 8 specifies “the third day” for the king’s return to the temple but again not Isa 38:5, 22. “The third day” measures time elsewhere in Samuel-Kings;7 however, it is never found in Isaiah, and appears in Chronicles only in the synoptic 2 Chron 10:12||1 Kings 12:12. – Then the extra detail in 2 Kings 20:10 (this verse as a whole is without parallel in Isa 38) about the direction in which the shadow should move includes ‫נקל‬ (“is easy”). This verb is found in several late portions of Sam-Kings (a significant plus in 2 Sam 6:22 related to 1 Sam 18:23; 1 Kings 16:31; and 2 Kings 3:188), but it too is never found in Isaiah. On the other hand, Hezekiah’s extended response to his recovery (the so-called “psalm” in Isa 38:9–20) has no parallel at all in Kings. Yair Zakovitch, when exploring assimilation in biblical narratives9, took his start from the version of the story in 2 Kings 20:1–11 and found that “verse 7 is not only contradictory to verse 8 but is also opposed to the general character of the story … the verse was added to enhance Isaiah’s similarity to Elisha.” This narrative judgment found support in text-critical details of the version in Isa 38. For Zakovitch, the first stage of the story was “1 (sic) Kings 20:1–6, 8–11, reflected in abridged form10 in 1QIsa 38:1–8, minus the later addition of verses 21–22”. 4 LXX attests ‫ ויהי‬at the opening of Isa 38:1, but simply ‫ לאמר‬at the start of 38:3 where MT has ‫ויאמר אנה יהוה‬. 5 In place of the puzzling ‫ לא יצא העיר‬‎(2 Kings 20:4), “in the hall” (LXX) may attest ‫בחצ[י]ר‬. 6 In Isa 38:5 “the sound of [your prayer]” is LXX+, while in 38:6 ‫ ואת העיר הזאת‬is MT+. 7 1 Sam 30:1; 2 Sam 1:2; 1 Kings 3:18; 12:12; 2 Kings 20:5, 8. 8 Here, significantly part of a divine promise through Elisha—late Isaiah was compared above with Elisha. 9 Y. Zakovitch, “Assimilation in Biblical Narratives”, in J. H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models of Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 175–96, on p. 183. 10 “Abridged” (p. 185) does appear to be a deliberate choice of words, although it is less than clear in n. 21 just what is “original”: “Note that the version of the story in Isaiah was originally

120

Graeme Auld

Raymond Person’s starting-point is text-critical, rather than literary; and he concludes that only a short text such as Isa 38:7–8 originally stood between 38:6 (=2 Kings 20:6) and 39:1 (=2 Kings 20:12). Five observations combine to suggest the secondary nature of all the other verses: that they were added in 1QIsa by a different, later hand at the end of a short line continuing into the margin; that we find them in different positions in Kings (both MT and LXX) over against Isa (MT, LXX, and 1QIsa); that Hezekiah’s question in these verses does not receive an answer; that these verses are closely related to the addition in 2 Kings 20:5; and that they are lacking in the parallel account in 2 Chron 32:24–26. He suggests that “a probable source for this addition is 19:29 which has references to a sign and three years.”11 In Kings, and only there, we have a tension between Hezekiah paying a large tribute to Sennacherib of Assyria in 18:14–16 and (still) having a treasury to display to his Babylonian visitors in 20:12–19. Isaiah and Chronicles share only the display at the end; and 2 Chron 32:23 reports that Hezekiah’s wealth was enhanced through gifts brought to the king after Sennacherib’s withdrawal. Have Chronicles and Isaiah resolved the tension by omission, or has Kings created it by the late addition of 18:14–16?12 We shall return to this issue. The fact that the relevant portions of Kings and Isaiah are otherwise so similar to each other might already suggest that these two larger (sets of) differences arose at the latest stages in the development of each text. The different ordering of the shared verses towards the end (2 Kings 20:7–11 and Isa 38:7–8, 21–22) reinforces the effect of the pluses in each text. The book of Isaiah stresses the piety of king Hezekiah, but the book of Kings emphasises the efficacy of the prophet Isaiah. Then the presence in Kings at the beginning, and the absence there from Isa, of the short report about Hezekiah paying tribute to Sennacherib is also relevant to the estimate of king Hezekiah in each book. Ray Person has proposed that 2 Kings 18:14–16 was added for the purpose of “downplaying Hezekiah as a model king”.13 Nadav Na’aman has dismissed Person’s case as “arbitrary”: vv. 14–16 were omitted towards “the idealization of the figure of Hezekiah in exilic and postexilic periods”.14 shorter than that in Kings and lacked verse 8—part of the original story—as well as verse 7. When 2 Kings 20:7 was interpolated in Isaiah, part of verse 8 was brought along as well.” 11 R. Person, The Kings—Isaiah and Kings—Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW 252; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 72. 12 For Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The biblical account simply ignores the problem that ­Hezekiah had only recently handed over all his gold and silver to the Assyrians …” (J. Blenkinsopp, ­Opening the Sealed Book. Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity (Grand Rapids MI: ­Eerdmans, 2006), 42). 13 Person, Recensions, 79. 14 N. Na’aman, “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 (JSOTS 363; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003) 201–20, on p. 203.

Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings

121

We may expand on the fifth “observation” of Ray Person noted above. There is no trace in Chronicles of material similar to any one of these significant shorter and longer pluses in Isa and Kings. From our three-book point of view, this fact supports the suggestion that all of them were added quite late to Kings and Isaiah. At the very least, these shared absences give further encouragement to continue what we have already begun: comparing the shorter account in Chronicles with those portions of the longer versions that Kings and Isaiah actually share.

IV. Chronicles compared with shared Isaiah / Kings The prophet has a major role in Isaiah / Kings, but is only just mentioned in Chronicles, and may even be a secondary afterthought there. And there are two further very striking differences. “Life” and “hearing” are key terms of the longer version, but completely absent from 2 Chron 32. The Assyrians scorn Yahweh, though he alone is “a living god”; and Hezekiah, though illness brought him close to death, revives (literally “lives”). The life of Jerusalem’s god and the life of its king are both important to the longer narrative; but none of this is reflected in the shorter one. As for the common verb “hear” (‫)שמע‬, it is used as many as 17x in portions shared by Isaiah and Kings, but never in 2 Chron 32. Neither of these differences is unique within the wider synoptic narrative about the house of David—each has a single partner. ‫“( חרף‬scorn / taunt”) is used in only two contexts—the same two contexts— in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. In 1 Sam 17 and 2 Sam 21:21 || 1 Chron 20:7 (‫ )ויחרף את־ישראל‬it describes the slighting behaviour of Philistines towards Israel and Israel’s god; and, in 2 Kings 19:4, 16||2 Chron 32:17, of Assyrians towards Israel’s god. 1 Sam 17:26, 36 and 2 Kings 19:4, 16—but not the parallels in Chronicles—are also the only passages in which Samuel-Kings speak of “living god”: 2 Sam 21:21||1 Chron 20:7

‫“( ויחרף את־ישראל‬and he scorned Israel”)

1 Sam 17:36

‫“( כי חרף מערכת אלהים חיים‬for he scorned the ranks of living god”)

2 Chron 32:17

‫“( לחרף ליהוה אלהי ישראל‬to scorn Yahweh god of Israel”)

2 Kings 19:4, 16||Isa 37:4, 16

‫“( לחרף אלהים חי‬to scorn living god”)

Within the biblical accounts of monarchy, Yahweh is claimed as “living god” in only two narrative situations: in each case Samuel-Kings is dealing very much more expansively than Chronicles with the threat of an external and mocking foe. By contrast with ‫ חרף‬and with ‫אלהים חי‬, the common verb ‫ שמע‬is used throughout the royal narratives. When it comes to “hearing”, we find only minimal variation between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles across almost all synoptic contexts. But “hear” is also absent from the report in 2 Chron 1 of Solomon’s vision at Gibeon,

122

Graeme Auld

though it is used twice in the synoptic version (1 Kings 3:9, 1115)—and this, despite appearing 19x in the remainder of the Solomon story in 2 Chron 1–9. The total absence of this common verb from 2 Chron 32 is equally surprising. If we adopted the normal critical perspective, that Kings has priority, we would expect at least some of the seventeen instances of the verb in the “original” version shared by Kings and Isaiah16 to have survived in the Chronicler’s abridgement. The Chronicler was manifestly not averse to this verb: he used it nearby in his own material, both before ch. 32 in 29:5 and 30:20, and after it in 33:13. From a synoptic viewpoint, we should suppose instead that “hear” was part of the more ample re-telling (Fortschreibung) within Kings of both Solomon’s vision and the Hezekiah story. As often in the re-writing of Sam-Kings, the narrative was amplified by drawing on synoptic material from elsewhere. Hezekiah responds to the threat to Jerusalem by tearing his clothes (2 Kings 19:1) and responds to his own illness by weeping (2 Kings 20:3). Both of these reactions anticipate synoptic Josiah (2 Kings 22:11, 19 || 2 Chron 34:19, 27). In that synoptic passage, Huldah links Josiah “hearing” how Yahweh had spoken and Yahweh in turn “hearing” his response (22:19); and this exchange is also anticipated in Isaiah’s interpretation of Yahweh and Hezekiah hearing each other. The final instance of ‫ שמע‬‎(2 Kings 20:16) also has synoptic resonance. Micaiah prefaces his threat of disaster for the king (1 Kings 22:19) in identical but relatively uncommon terms: ‫שמע דבר־יהוה‬. It seems unlikely that every single instance of “hear” would have been eliminated by a Chronicler abbreviating the longer Kings / Isaiah narrative, especially since some of these constituted unique echoes of narratives which he retained in full.

V. 2 Kings 18:14–16 Some of my results overlap with proposals made by Kratz or at least noted sympathetically by him.17 He also finds it possible that Isaiah was not original to the report of the embassy from Babylon, but he is less sympathetic to Würthwein’s reconstruction of an original version of B1 without Isaiah at all.18 Not only has the second speech of the Rabshakeh been added,19 but also the reference to Hezekiah’s 15 “A hearing heart” (‫ )לב שמע‬is a combination unique to 1 Kings 3:9; and “to hear a case” (‫ לשמע משפט‬in 3:11) may represent the sole combination of these terms in this judicial sense—in Deut 5:1; 7:12, Israel is required to listen to divine “judgments”. 16 2 Kings 18:26, 28, 31; 19:1, 4, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 16, 25; 20:5, 12, 16|| Isa 36:11, 13, 16; 37:1, 4, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 17, 26; 38:5; 39:1, 5. 17 Kratz, “Siege of Jerusalem”, 154–6. 18 E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige (2 vol.; ATD 11,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 2.421. 19 I note in support that the content of the single speech by the envoy in 2 Chron 32 is shared between the 1st and 3rd speeches in Kings / Isa—the repetition in the 2nd is rhetorically significant but does not add fresh information or argument.

Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings

123

cultic reform in the first. However, there is one key point where our proposals are diametrically opposed. My preliminary judgment that the brief report in 2 Kings 18:14–16 about Hezekiah paying off Sennacherib is late, rests on the fact that it is unique to Kings and is not reflected at all in Isaiah or Chronicles. Kratz on the other hand accepts that “the tribute episode of version A is the oldest account of the siege of Jerusalem” (156), and he supposes therefore that the B account is dependent on it. He also agrees with those who claim that the Isaiah narrative presupposes A even although it does not include it all, for it retains its opening verse (18:13) in 36:1. There are two separate issues at stake: (1) Was v. 13 drafted along with vv. 14–16? (2) Relative to the whole narrative, is the tribute-report early or late? (1) 2 Kings 18:14–16 need 18:13; but the reverse is not true. The date and the reported arrival of Sennacherib in Judah are an introduction to something; but the good sense evident at the start of Isa 36 demonstrates that that “something” need not be 2 Kings 18:14–16. There is more: even although the Fortschreibung model is in general very attractive to me, I have a problem with viewing even the kernel of Stade’s B as fortgeschrieben from his A. The payment reported in A had presumably solved the Sennacherib problem, in the short term at least; and further military pressure of the sort reported in B would have gained nothing from empty coffers in Jerusalem. A and B, as these labels suggest, work better as different and even divergent sources than as successive stages in a linear development. (2) There is nothing remarkable about Sennacherib’s demands (v. 14), or the general statement about Hezekiah employing the resources he found in the treasuries of Yahweh’s house and the king’s house (v. 15). But the detail in the final verse 16 is more unusual, and therefore potentially diagnostic: ‫בעת ההיא קצץ‬ ‫“—חזקיה את־דלתות היכל יהוה ואת־האמנות אשר צפה חזקיה מלך יהודה ויתנם למלך אשור‬At that time Hezekiah cut off [the gilt from] the doors of Yahweh’s palace and the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave them to the king of Assyria.” Kings and Chronicles report the details of Ahaz’s cultic innovations very differently; but they share in 2 Kings 16:17||2 Chron 28:24 the unique instance in synoptic texts of the verb ‫“( קצץ‬cut off ”). The context there is Ahaz’s destruction of (or removal of elements from) temple furnishings in favour of or under pressure from Aram and Assyria. The author of 2 Kings 18:16 re-used a verb that his synoptic source had employed only once, in its report of Ahaz; and he thereby aligned Hezekiah’s action with the behaviour of his wicked father. An author of Kings combines ‫ קצץ‬with ‫ היכל יהוה‬first in 2 Kings 18:16 and only once again, in his report of the Babylonian sack of the temple (24:13):20 20 Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem is routinely called his “house” (‫ ;)בית‬and it is called ‫היכל‬ (literally “palace”) in synoptic texts or contexts only in relation to its construction by Solomon (1 Kings 6–7||2 Chron 3–4) and to actions by Hezekiah, differently reported in 2 Kings 18:16 and 2 Chron 29:16.

124

Graeme Auld

‫ויקצץ את־כל־כלי הזהב אשר עשה שלמה מלך־ישראל בהיכל יהוה‬. This fact encourages readers of

this element of the Hezekiah story to see the king’s action in 2 Kings 18:14–16 as an anticipation of his foolish dealings with the envoys from Babylon in 2 Kings 20:12–19.21 However apparently credible the information, we are dealing in 2 Kings 18:14–16 (as already in the date formula in 18:13) not with a historian’s use of archive or of reliable memory, but with exegesis. Hezekiah’s extra 15 years were not well used. The unusual date-formula in 18:13 (‫ובארבע עשרה שנה למלך חזקיה‬ ‫ )עלה סנחריב מלך־אשור על כל־ערי יהודה הבצרות ויתפשם‬had set the divine action in favour of Jerusalem and Hezekiah in the context of Solomon building the ‫היכל יהוה‬, Josiah reforming cult and Passover, and the improved status of Jehoiachin in Babylon. The terms in which 18:16 is drafted hint at a similar arc stretching from Solomon to Babylon. Admittedly, that observation could be used to support the unity of Stade’s A (13–16); but it serves quite as well to demonstrate sensitive exegetical development from an existing v.13 to a new v.16. The opening date in Kings / Isa and the developed role of Isaiah in these longer versions may both be secondary to an earlier, shorter telling of the story. The date is certainly not reflected in Chronicles, and Isaiah’s bit-part in 2 Chron 32 may itself be a supplement to that version. It is likely that the presence of Isaiah and the date belong together. Both of these features relate intimately to the king’s return to life after his illness. The initial specification of the fourteenth year implies the parallel between Hezekiah and Amaziah, who had surprisingly outlived disaster for fifteen years. And Isaiah, having first (2 Kings 20:1) underscored “you are dying” (‫ )מת אתה‬by “and you shall not live” (‫)ולא תחיה‬, turns back to give explicit voice to the divine promise of life for a further fifteen years (20:7).22

VI. ‫ אות‬and ‫מופת‬ Trigonometry suggests that expansive rewriting can explain most of the divergences between our three accounts of Hezekiah. But at least one element of the drafting and redrafting of the several versions of Hezekiah was not linear: the shift from ‫ אות‬to ‫מופת‬, or the other way round. The shorter version in 2 Chron 32:24, 31 is rather enigmatic: the king prays when close to death and Yahweh grants him a “portent” (‫ ;)מופת‬and later the Babylonian envoys are sent to “examine the portent 21 G. Knoppers, “Treasures Won and Lost: Royal [Mis]Appropriations in Kings and Chronicles”, in M. P. Graham / S. L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Author (JSOTS 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 181–208, on p. 201, n. 65, while conceding the possibility “that Chron.’s Vorlage of Kings did not contain … all the treasury incidents in Kings”, does reckon that Chron not only removed this blot from Hezekiah’s record but had him build and endow treasuries. 22 Not only does Isaiah’s presence alongside the praying Hezekiah in 2 Chron 32:20 seem secondary, but the chapter appears to lack any obvious borrowing from the book of Isaiah.

Chronicles—Isaiah—Kings

125

there has been in the land” (‫)לדרוש המופת אשר היה בארץ‬. It is unclear what constitutes the ‫ מופת‬in the land; but we may presume it is one and the same as the divine response to the king’s prayer. The Chronicler never uses the term “sign” (‫ ;)אות‬and “portent” (‫ )מופת‬is found only once more—in the quotation of Ps 105:5 at 1 Chron 16:12.23 Twice in Isaiah (8:18; 20:3) and quite frequently in several other books ‫אות‬ and ‫ מופת‬are found paired. Where this is not the case, ‫ אות‬is much more common than ‫( מופת‬as, for example, in Isa 7:11, 14; 19:20; 44:25; 55:13; 66:19); and only ‫אות‬ is used in Sam-Kings. I have the impression, in English at least, that “sign” is more open or positive than “portent”. And William Johnstone has shown that in Exodus ‫ מופת‬on its own refers to bad things done to Egypt, while ‫ אות‬on its own refers to good things done to Israel.24 If there is an element of puzzling menace in ‫מופת‬, then the Babylonian envoys may not have been alone in seeking to decode it. In Kings / Isa, two of the three instances of “sign” also concern the king’s recovery, but are not reported in the same order. Isaiah is shorter in the relevant verses. Immediately after the double declaration that his god will lengthen the king’s life and save both him and his city from the king of Assyria (38:6), the prophet first promises a “sign from Yahweh” that he will do what he has spoken (38:7). This sign is turning back the sun’s shadow by ten steps on the steps of Ahaz (38:9). Then, at the end of the episode, the king asks for a sign that he will go up to Yahweh’s house; but no response is offered (38:22). In Kings as in Isaiah, we read first the double promise (20:6||38:6). But here, Hezekiah goes on to request a sign that Yahweh will heal him and that he will go up to Yahweh’s house on the third day (20:8, similar to but fuller than 38:2225), and the prophet announces a more complex version of the sign of the shadow on the steps immediately afterwards (20:9). In the relevant verses, Isaiah and Kings both use the word ‫ אות‬twice within very similar sentences. In Isaiah, the prophet promises one sign and the king later asks for another. In Kings despite using many more words, only one sign is narrated: the king asks for it and the prophet announces it. Kings / Isaiah has already reported a further sign in which Isaiah speaks of gradual relief and recovery of the land. This, his second response to H ­ ezekiah’s prayer (19:15–19 || 37:16–20), is set towards the end of the siege narrative (19:29– 31 || 37:30–32). There is no immediate parallel in the Chronicler’s account of the siege, but the images in this sign of improvement to agriculture do resonate with “the portent there has been in the land”.

23 Ps 105:27 has ‫ אתות‬and ‫ מפתים‬in parallel, but the citation in 1 Chron 16 finishes at 105:15. The unique combination ‫ לדרוש המופת‬could allude to Ps 105:4–5 (=1 Chron 16:11–12) as a whole, since v. 4 opens with ‫דרשו‬. 24 W. Johnstone, “The Deuteronomistic Cycles of ‘Signs’ and ‘Wonders’ in Exodus 1–13”, in A. G.  Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets. Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (JSOTS 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 166–85. 25 No one else in HB puts the question ‫מה אות‬.

126

Graeme Auld

VII. Afterword As we noted earlier, the only mention of Isaiah in the main body of 2 Chron 32 is at the end of the siege (v. 20); and this corresponds to an important (and earlier) stage in how the prophet is portrayed in Kings / Isaiah. The first time we meet him in the longer version, he is reactive—like a synoptic Micaiah or Huldah. On later occasions he is proactive, like non-synoptic Elijah and Elisha. It is also true, from the first mention of him in the Kings / Isaiah Hezekiah story, that the prophet Isaiah is constructed from both the books Kings and Isaiah, and from Jeremiah too. Told that Rab-shakeh has been sent “to scorn living god” (‫)לחרף אלהים חי‬, he is reminded of (his “own” words according to) Isa 51:7—‫“( אל־תיראו חרפת אנוש ומגדפתם אל־תחתו‬do not fear a human’s scorn, and at their reviling be not broken”). These in turn inspire his response in 2 Kings 19:6 –‫אל־תירא מפני הדברים אשר שמעת אשר גדפו נערי מלך־אשור‬ ‫“( אתי‬do not fear before the words you have heard, with which the king of Assyria’s lads have reviled me”).26 Then in 19:7, ‫“( הנני נתן בו רוח‬see I am putting a spirit in him”) is a unique repetition of Micaiah’s words to the king of Israel (1 Kings 22:23); ‫“( ושמע שמועה‬and he’ll hear a rumour”) appears to know Jer 49:14, 23; and ‫והפלתיו‬ ‫“( בחרב‬and I’ll make him fall by the sword”) is said again in HB only in Jer 19:7.27 Two final words: (1) This first and earliest Isaiah within the Kings / Isaiah Hezekiah story develops a text drawn from II-Isaiah—it is subsequent Isaiahs within this story that engage with I-Isaiah. (2) In whatever literary contexts the Isaiah legends developed—and Kings and Isaiah and a once-independent literary unit have all been proposed—Isa 36–39 is a prime witness to a late stage in the development of 2 Kings 18–20. The material in this study is re-presented more briefly, but set in a wider context, in A. Graeme Auld, Life in Kings: Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible (AIL 30), Atlanta GA, 2016.

26 Strangely, H. Wildberger, Jesaja (3 vol.; BK X; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 3.1410 notes the other occasions in HB where ‫ חרף‬and ‫ גדף‬appear together, but not this one instance in Isaiah. 27 It was noticeable during the meeting of the network in Göttingen just how many of the papers proposed that the book of Jeremiah had influenced later stages in the development of Isaiah.

Part II: Babylon and Persia in the Book of Isaiah and texts from Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic times

Uwe Becker

Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality I. Introduction It is a commonplace: A scientific method must be appropriate to its subject. Whoever turns to the literature of the Old Testament must therefore examine the specific conditions of the growth of the text and consider the ancient understanding of literary and textual production, which is so different from that of today. Modern notions of authorship and originality should not be imposed upon the literature of former times.1 Thus it is a misunderstanding to think that the biblical books of antiquity like Isaiah 1–66 were read primarily as complete literary works. Even apart from the, as it is sometimes disparagingly called, typical middle-European fixation on the conditions under which a text originated, it would appear that literary-critical (not “literarkritisch” in the German sense!) or canonical reading strategies have gained the upper hand throughout the scholarly world. Arguments for the “unity” of a book, or essential parts of it, are sometimes established more narrowly by appealing to the modern concept of “intertextuality”. This keyword, however, is no longer just a descriptive term, restricted to the juxtaposition of various literary cross-references. Rather, it has in the meantime taken on programmatic and even ideological features. According to this approach, it doesn’t matter what the given text is. Much more decisive is the new meaning which a text takes on in the interconnectivity of its new, canonical context. It should come as no surprise then, that in such an approach the book of Isaiah represents an inviting field of inquiry. Furthermore, those who have attempted to describe the book of Isaiah in its final form, or even to explicate its (true) intention, quickly encounter the limitations of the method. One is either compelled to stick with generalities (“a great panorama of God and the world”), or must rely on descriptions of the structure of the text’s final form, which are as numerous as their authors. The book of Isaiah confounds such unified readings, precisely because it is not a book in the modern sense. In a brief but excellent article, John Barton poses the apparently simple question: “What is a Book?” His surprising conclusion, which he formulates in connection with some hermeneutical reflections of Benjamin Sommer, reads as follows:

1 See, for instance, T. A. Schmitz, Moderne Literaturtheorie und antike Texte. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 22006).

130

Uwe Becker

“while the diachronic division has some anticipations in Judaism, notably in the comments of ibn Ezra and in the use of material only from Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah for haphtarot, the synchronic approach of recent literary interpreters finds little support in traditional Jewish commentaries.”2

Therefore Barton draws the conclusion: “So long as a holistic approach makes no historical claims about how the text was read in the past, it is impregnable.”3 And then he states: “On the whole the model of composition implied by the rabbinic preference for small units, verses and paragraphs over whole books is highly compatible with a historical-critical atomization of the existing biblical books into smaller units put together secondarily.”4

Exegetical experience also supports Barton’s thesis. Alongside redactions affecting the entire book, which in the past were probably regarded too highly,5 the book of Isaiah contains numerous context-specific expansions which can develop into entire expansionary chains (Fortschreibungsketten). Not infrequently these supplemental chains are limited to a narrow contextual field. Thus current research, when working on literary history, concerns itself with the reconstruction of a book’s growth and development. Formerly such reconstruction was based on B. Duhm’s three-part division, whereas today it is often undertaken from the perspective of the entire book of Isaiah. However, one particular collection, which more than 100 years ago was designated as “very late”, has played, and continues to play, a significant role, namely the so-called Isaiah Apocalypse of Isa 24–27. For Hans Wildberger, representing many others who could be named, it is “indisputably clear that these chapters, in a certain sense … constitute a clearly delineated segment within the entire book of Isaiah.”6 In other words, chapters 24–27 have little to do with the origin of the 2 Cf. J. Barton, “What is a Book?”, in J. Barton, The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology (MSSOTS; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007) 137–47, on pp. 138–9. Barton refers to B. D. Sommer, “The Scroll of Isaiah as Jewish Scripture, Or, Why Jews Don’t Read Books”, SBL.SP 35 (1996) 225–42. 3 Barton, “What is a Book”, 140. 4 Barton, “What is a Book”, 140. 5 Cf. especially O. H. Steck in his numerous and highly impressive studies on Isa 1–66 (“Großjesajabuch”): Bereitete Heimkehr. Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBS 121; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985); Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203; Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991). See also U. Becker, “Jesajaforschung (Jes 1–39)”, ThR 64 (1999) 1–37, 117–52; “Tendenzen der Jesajaforschung 1998–2007”, ThR 74 (2009) 96–128; P. Höffken, Jesaja. Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 19–90. 6 H. Wildberger, Jesaja (3 vol.; BK X; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978), 2.892: Es “steht indiskutabel fest, daß die Kapitel in einem gewissen noch näher zu bestimmenden Sinn im Ganzen des Jesajabuches einen klar abgegrenzten Teil für sich bilden.”

Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality

131

rest of the book. Despite the revolutionary changes that have taken place in Isaiah research since Wildberger—I mention here only O. H. Steck and his orientation towards the whole book7—it would appear that the special role of Isa 24–27 has persisted. For in the mainstream of current research, in which the “Isaiah Apocalypse” has once again experienced an astonishing boom, this is exactly the way it is represented: these chapters stand on their own, and are literarily unified. It is no secret that I find both assertions to be rather unconvincing. One thing is clear, however. There is above all one reason for the current increasing interest in Isa 24–27.8 It is the conviction that this seemingly relatively independent, but also to a certain extent puzzling, collection should be subjected to new methodological approaches in order to strive for solutions beyond the “old” literary criticism. And this is precisely where the keyword “intertextuality” plays a major role.

II. Trends in contemporary research on Isaiah 24–27 The composition found in Isa 24–27 is conventionally called the “Isaiah Apocalypse” and read as if it were a relatively independent unit in itself. Even the designation “apocalypse” can rightly be called into question, though it reflects the thematic orientation of these chapters. They exhibit a vivid panorama of the end-time, whereby catastrophe envelops the entire earth and takes on cosmic dimensions. The threat is directed in particular against a city which is not 7 See n. 5. 8 To name only the monographs and conference volumes (and additionally one commentary) published since 2000: H. J. Bosman / H. van Grol (ed.), Studies in Isaiah 24–27. The Isaiah Workshop—De Jesaja Werkplaats (OTS 43; Leiden: Brill, 2000); B. Doyle, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking. A Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27 (BEThL 151; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); R. Scholl, Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat. Stilistisch-kompositorische Untersuchungen zu Jesaja 24–27 (BZAW 274; Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000); D. C. Polaski, Authorizing an End. The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality (Bibl.-Interpr.S 50; Leiden: Brill, 2001); J. T. Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions (FAT II/16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); S. A.  Nitsche, Jesaja 24–27: ein dramatischer Text. Die Frage nach den Genres prophetischer Literatur des Alten Testaments und die Textgraphik der großen Jesajarolle aus Qumran (BWANT 166; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006); W. A.M. Beuken, Jesaja (24–27; HThKAT; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2007); C. B.  Hays, Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah (FAT 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); J. T.  Hibbard / P. H.C.  Kim (ed.), Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27 (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 17; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013); W. D. Barker, Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic. An Exegetical Study in Isaiah 24–27 (FAT II/70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). See also the review of R. Scholl, “Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat”, by U. Becker, ThRv 97 (2001) 303–5. With a special focus on the Septuagint: W. de Angelo Cunha, LXX Isaiah 24:1–26:6 as interpretation and translation. A methodological discussion (SBL.SCSt 62; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014).

132

Uwe Becker

named. Interwoven in the declarations of judgment are prayers and song-like compositions, in which the assembly is proleptically assured of its own salvation (Isa 25:1–5, 9–12; 26:1–6, 7–19). The assembly is further identified apparently as “the righteous”, or “the poor”, while the opponents are portrayed as “doers of violence” and “the wicked”. The righteous ones among God’s people, as well as those from all nations, will overcome even death in the end (Isa 25:8; 26:19). The train of thought is difficult to follow and often simply unclear. Different kinds of themes, motifs and genres are melted into an almost impenetrable whole. One also notices multiple affinities to other Isaiah texts. It is no surprise then that the older research was inclined to find literary-critical solutions, and considered the inherent complexity of these chapters to result from a multi-layered composi­tion process.9 The differentiation between future-oriented declarations and hymns was the primary impetus for such conclusions. For example, H. Wildberger proposes, in his aforementioned Isaiah commentary of 1978, a multi-level stratification which exhibits virtually no point of connection with the substance of other proto-Isaianic materials.10 Since Isa 24–27 can no longer be said to reflect an Isaianic vocabulary, Wildberger can to a certain extent call his own shots as far as redaction-history is concerned. Therefore he considers a hypothesis of literary “growth” as quite appropriate. “The signs of unevenness are to be understood as tensions resulting from the course of the hermeneutical process, and that can be evaluated as evidence for periodic attempts to actualize the tradition.”11

Today one would designate such a process Fortschreibung, “compositional ex­pansion”. Two of Wildberger’s essential decisions are of particular importance for our consideration. First, he eliminates the city hymns as secondary, as B. Duhm had already proposed.12 He is guided here by completely classical form-critical premises. Second, he assumes a successively expanded, or “compositionally extended”, core in Isa 24:1–20*, though he considers essential sections, like vv. 7–12 (including the mention of the city!), as secondary.13 9 Short but substantial surveys of previous scholarship can be found in: O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja (2 vol.; ATD 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973 [31983]), 2.141–4; Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.893–6. For the recent history of research cf. especially J. T. Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions (FAT II/16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 20–36. 10 Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.896. Similar Kaiser, Buch des Propheten, 2.141–5. 11 Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.897: “Die Unebenheiten sind als Spannungen zu begreifen, die sich im Ablauf des hermeneutischen Prozesses ergeben haben, und sind als Zeugnisse des jeweiligen Bemühens um Aktualisierung der Überlieferung zu werten.” 12 Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.898–911; B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51968), 172. 13 Many scholars assume that the core material of Isa 24–27 is to be found in 24:1–20*; cf. for example Kaiser, Buch des Propheten, 2.141–4; Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.897–8.

Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality

133

But how does the explanation of Isa 24–27 appear if one proceeds from a deliberately redaction-historical approach to the Isaiah book, as introduced into the discussion by O. H. Steck? Steck himself noticeably avoids classification of the collection and identifies it—in a strangely undifferentiated manner—as part of the redaction-history of the whole book of Isaiah in the 3rd century.14 This gives the impression that a necessary literary-historical distinction has been overlooked, since a (very) late origin of Isa 24–27 is accepted. A certain capitulation to these difficulties is represented by Ulrich Berges’ term Textmosaik, “textual mosaic”. For him the unit was added to the rest of the book of Isaiah after the combining of its discrete parts had been accomplished outside the actual process of textual expansion. The fact that no substantial connections can be detected speaks against the notion of a successive expansion of chs 24–27 within the scroll.15 We will see that this conclusion is in need of revision in every respect. In the past two decades scholarly interest in Isa 24–27 has again increased substantially, as the publication of a plethora of monographs and collected essays attests. Nevertheless three trends can be discerned, which I will introduce with a brief, critical overview of representative works.16 1) Recently there have been more determined attempts to establish the unity and integrity of these chapters, rejecting literary-critical solutions for programmatic reasons. As examples one can point to the works of Reinhard Scholl (2000) and Stefan Ark Nitsche (2006), though expressed differently in each case.17 In his extremely meticulous examination, Scholl views chs 24–27 as a literary unit that essentially revolves around the fate of the fallen city (namely, Jerusalem). Therefore he speaks of “the great city poem of the book of Isaiah”, and associates the text as a whole with a great Isaianic (großjesajanische) redaction along the lines of O. H. Steck. On account of numerous connections with other Isaiah texts (e.g., Isa 13), he even has in mind the “final redaction of the book of Isaiah”.18 No literary-critical distinctions are drawn. To a certain extent Scholl is making a

14 O. H.  Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (BThSt 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 80–3; see also for example K. Schmid, “Zion bei Jesaja”, in T. Pilger / M. Witte (ed.), Zion. Symbol des Lebens in Judentum und Christentum (SKI N. F. 4, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013) 11–25, on p. 13. 15 U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS 16; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1998), 179. 16 The different methodological approaches are presented in the volume edited by Bosman / Van Grol, Studies in Isaiah 24–27. Highly remarkable is the absence of redaction-historical approaches or considerations (with only one exception: W. A.M. Beuken, “The Prophet Leads the Reader into Praise. Isa. 25:1–10 in Connection with Isa. 24:14–23 Seen against the Background of Isaiah 12”, pp. 121–56 in the above-mentioned volume). 17 Scholl, Die Elenden; Nitsche, Jesaja 24–27. 18 Scholl, Die Elenden, 223: “Schlußredaktion des Jesajabuches”.

134

Uwe Becker

virtue of necessity, since he attempts to explain the apparently broken and cumbersome line of thought in Isa 24–27 as a mosaic style, Musivstil, in which many ostensible references are made to texts from Isa 1–66, the Pentateuch, the Book of the Twelve Prophets and the Psalms. Coming to similar conclusions, but through a completely different route, the reception-aesthetically oriented study of Nitsche is the second book to be discussed here. He understands Isa 24–27 as a dramatic text that is to be read as totally separate, a complex dialogue in which the prophet, a choir (Zion) and Lady Zion have parts, and in which the presence of Yahweh is most likely to be understood as an unstaged, or in other words, purely acoustic element.19 The reader is surprised that the numerous intertextual connections upon which Scholl puts so much weight, are never mentioned here. Chapters 24–27 represent a unity in and of themselves (the Isaiah scroll from Qumran is also evoked as external evidence in support of the thesis). It is astonishing that, of all people, a representative of the “holistic” approach would proceed from the barely scrutinized idea that Isa 24–27 could be considered a literary block in its own right. Despite their fundamentally differing points of departure, Scholl and Nitsche come to a similar literary-historical conclusion, namely, that Isa 24–27 is a unified text from the late period. 2) Another group of studies might be referred to as history of religion contex­ tualization. Isa 24–27, again as a literary unit in and of itself, is considered in light of Ugaritic texts and conceptions. William D. Barker’s study, “Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic” (2014) may serve as an example.20 The book sets itself the task of not only exploring a possible Ugaritic background for the key passages Isa 25:6–8 and 27:1, but to represent the entire collection of Isa 24–27 as reflecting decisive influence from its religious environment. His thesis is as follows: “Isaiah 24–27 is not a series of isolated allusions to various segments of the Ba῾al Myth, but a coherent framework and narrative progression that has been intentionally adopted and creatively adapted from either the Ba῾al Myth itself or a shared tradition between ancient Ugarit and ancient Israel.”21

Thus Isa 24–27 is to be considered a polemic for the kingdom of Yahweh and opposed to the worship of West Semitic gods. It is striking, first of all, that the

19 In a methodologically quite different way, the Ph.D. thesis of B. Doyle, Apocalypse which was written under the supervision of W. A.M. Beuken in Leuven and thoroughly examines the metaphors used in Isa 24–27, treats the chapters as a unified whole. 20 The Cambridge dissertation (Doktorvater: R. P. Gordon) was already submitted in 2007. A similar approach (and with reference to Isa 24–27) is represented by Christopher B. Hays, A Covenant with Death. Death in the Iron Age II and its Rhetorical Uses in Proto-Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015). 21 Barker, Kingship, 14–15.

Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality

135

history of religion parallels drawn here enjoy very different levels of supporting evidence.22 Secondly, the parallels are essentially relevant only to the classic passages 25:6–8 and 27:1. When Barker proposes, at the end of the work, a dating in the 8th century based on these references to Ugaritic literature, it is apparent that the intertextual references in the book of Isaiah have not been evaluated at all. The collection of Isa 24–27 is read as a completely isolated block. 3) Methodologically interesting is another line of inquiry which one can call the “intertextual approach”. It turns its attention directly to the literary interconnectedness of the book of Isaiah and beyond. Particularly noteworthy are the works of Donald Polaski (2001) and J. Todd Hibbard (2006).23 I will limit myself here to a consideration of the methodologically reflective study of Hibbard, which began as a dissertation under Joseph Blenkinsopp. That which was missing entirely from the history of religion approach to the text is now at the center, namely the “textual interconnectedness, or intertextuality”24 of Isa 24–27. Intertextuality functions here as a kind of descriptive overarching concept which is further explained by two additional terms: allusion and echo. “Allusion is generally taken as the conscious reference by one text to another in a way that bears on the meaning of the former in some way.”25 On the other hand, an “echo” remains indistinct: “An echo may be a subconscious evocation of an earlier text with no rhetorical or meaningful end in mind.”26 The texts under consideration include not only the book of Isaiah but above all the primeval history of Gen 1–11 (cf. Isa 24:1–20), the Sinai pericope (cf. Isa 24:21–23) and the royal accession psalms (cf. Isa 24:21–23). Not only are there a significant common vocabulary with the respective reference texts and a certain thematic coherence, but there is a relationship that one might call “meaningful”. On the other hand, only seldom does an explicit engagement with one of the parallel texts take place. More often older texts are used indirectly to describe and unfold the new message, the goal of which is the establishment of the universal kingdom of God on Mount Zion. The three new research directions introduced here share two aspects in common: the almost complete absence of consideration of redaction-critical issues and a comparatively isolated treatment of the chapters. In light of the complex nature of the text in Isa 24–27, this in itself is surprising. My own proposal, which I can outline here only in broad strokes, begins with the formation of these chapters

22 Cf. the list of “Additional Evidence of a Shared Tradition in KTU 1.1–1.6 and Isaiah 24–27” (Barker, Kingship, 186–97). 23 Polaski, Authorizing an End; Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. 24 Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, 3. 25 Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, 13. Cf. also B. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture. Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversion. Jews and Other Differences; Stanford, CA: University Press, 1998), 152–67. 26 Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, 14.

136

Uwe Becker

and draws in the numerous “allusions” as assembled by Scholl and Hibbard. In the context of this study I focus for the most part on what I consider to be the core element, namely Isa 24:1–20.

III. Isaiah 24–27 within the Book of Isaiah: A Redaction-critical Proposal As previously pointed out, a literary-critical solution to the problems found in Isa 24–27 seems most appropriate to me. Without being able to present the critical decisions in any detail here, it is my view—in agreement with earlier exegesis— that the basic element of this collection is to be found in Isa 24:1–20, the announcement of a comprehensive judgment of the earth because of the guilt of its inhabitants. In terms of the larger unit only 24:14–16aα doesn’t fit. Here the (proleptic?) rejoicing of the time of salvation is unexpectedly evoked, whereas the continuation of the judgment theme unfolds immediately afterwards. As many others have already suggested, this core segment may have at one time closed out the collection of oracles against the nations in Isa 13–23. “Thereby the fate of the nations in 13–23 become actualizations of the more general judgment of the world.”27 Thus Isa 24:1–20* offers not only an expansion of the previous chapters but also a summary. As J. Todd Hibbard has once again demonstrated in detail, Isa 24 is animated by distinctive “allusions” to the Primeval History of Gen 1–11. It is no accident that these parallels refer exclusively to Isa 24:1–20, the core segment being considered here. Thus 24:1 evokes both Gen 6:13 and Gen 11:1–11, whereas 24:4–6 similarly reflects several echoes of the (priestly) Flood Story (cf. v. 5 “for they have broken the everlasting covenant”28 and v. 6). By evoking Gen 1–11 the coming catastrophe covering the entire earth is interpreted as a reversal of the act of creation that nevertheless—and this is important!—leaves behind a remnant, as the allusion to Noah and his family in v. 6 suggests. But what about this remnant? In my view the solution is found in the following chapters, that is, in Isa 28 ff. There are in fact a series of indications that the expansion of the original version of Isa 24:1–20* not only brings to a conclusion the oracles against the nations, but also was a conscious attempt to introduce the Assyria cycle of Isa 28–31 (to which the Isaiah legends in 36–39 should also be accounted). In order to understand 27 P. Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja (2 vol.: NSK.AT 18; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993), 1.176: “Damit wurden die Schicksale der Völker von 13–23 Konkretionen eines allgemeinen Gerichts über die Welt.” Cf. also Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.892–3; Beuken, Jesaja, 2.311, and many other scholars. 28 The phrase “for they have transgressed laws (tôrôt), violated the statute (ḥôq)” in v.5 is apparently a secondary addition, cf. Kaiser, Buch des Propheten, 2.146.

Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality

137

ch. 24*, in other words, these chapters (Isa 28–31) should also be read alongside it.29 The connection is suggested first of all by several literary references: 1) the keyword nbl “to wither” found in 24:4 and 28:1; 2) the image of the drunken man and the theme of wine (yāyin)/strong drink (šēkār) is present not only in 24:9, 11, 20 but also in 28:1, 3, 7; 29:9) the conceptual framework of 28:2 (storm, flood) evokes 24:1–20 as a whole. The most important clue, however, is associated with the problem of the city in Isa 24:1–20*. In light of Isa 28 ff. it is quite clear that the city mentioned can only be Jerusalem, a city which according to Isa 28 f. is enduring great hardship and yet is being miraculously protected by Yahweh. It is also clear, therefore, that the city in Isa 24 should not be eliminated on literary-critical grounds, since then the chapter would be left without its point: as was Noah and his family, so now Zion too will be preserved at the end. Although the destruction of the city of God is portrayed as part of the comprehensive judgment of the world, nevertheless it cannot be Yahweh’s last word: “few people are left” (24:6bβ). The city lies in ruins (cf. 24:12, similarly Ch. 29), but in the end it is preserved and becomes the nucleus of new Jewish life. Isa 24:1–20* was never a stand-alone unit, in other words, but is dependent on what follows in Isa 28 ff. Otherwise the declarations against the city remain enigmatic and one might suspect, as is sometimes proposed, that it is not about Jerusalem at all, but rather Babylon.30 Furthermore, 24:20 serves very well as an introduction to the course of events narrated in ch. 28 and gives the appearance of an intentionally designed transition. In the course of time, the bridging function of Isa 24:1–20* between the oracles against the nations and the Assyria cycle became more and more obscured by repeated stages of expansion. The concept of an all-encompassing judgment of the world was followed by a number of later interpretations that were eventually extended into an expansionary chain (Fortschreibungskette). In this way, to name one example, the threat oracle against cosmic and earthly powers in 24:21–23 as well as the banquet of the nations on Mount Zion in 25:6–8 were subsequently appended to 24:1–20*. Isa 25:9–10a constituted the conclusion of this expansion, which is focused on the expectation of a new presence of God “on this mountain” (25:10a; cf. 25:6). This statement too is shaped with a view towards ch. 28 that follows, where the aspect of deliverance is emphasized and further developed. I will

29 The connections between Isa 24–27 and 28–33 have been noted occasionally, but without redaction-critical considerations and without reference to the problem of the city in Isa 24–27. See, for example, G. Stansell, “Isaiah 28–33: Blest Be the Tie that Binds (Isaiah Together)”, in R. F.  Melugin / M. A.  Sweeney (ed.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOT.S 214; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996) 68–103, on pp. 90–2. 30 Cf. M. A.  Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 318–19.

138

Uwe Becker

refrain from sketching the redactional history any further now, except to point out that both of the passages that deal with the vanquishing of death (25:8 and 26:19) prove to be rather late “rereadings”.31 The dating of the so-called Isaiah Apocalypse cannot depend therefore on these very late passages. And another point seems to be very clear: There was never a separate section like an “Isaiah Apocalypse” that could be analyzed independently of its immediate and wider context.

IV. The Phenomenon of Intertextuality A brief interlude must now be devoted to the phenomenon of “intertextuality”. In its original sense the concept of intertextuality consciously refrained from a diachronic formulation of the question, to say it with the well-known words of Julia Kristeva: “Diachrony is transformed into synchrony, and in light of this transformation, linear history appears as abstraction.”32 Therein is expressed the total renunciation of the diachronic question—including ultimately the question which is the “taking” text and which the “giving”. These are far-reaching problems in a literature that must be designated, properly speaking, as expansionary. Certainly at some level (as, for example, at that of the canon) it is possible to observe a new tangle of meanings in texts. It may even happen that a new kind of reading is thereby created, a reading within broader contexts. At the same time intertextual modes of reading assume a modern conception of reading itself which cannot be uncritically transferred to antiquity. The work of Hibbard has demonstrated furthermore that it is not enough to simply make an inventory of cross references, but that they must be analyzed. The intertextual links in the book of Isaiah must be more deeply investigated, as it were, from the perspective of redaction-history. A decidedly different conception is represented by Wim Beuken, as applied to the book of Isaiah.33 In his view the very presence of textual relationships between two texts or works “produces meaning”34. The “question of whether a textual connection in any given case represents a ‘quote’ or an ‘allusion’, in other words if it is rendered intentionally or unintentionally, is of secondary significance.”35

31 Cf. (regarding 25:8) already Duhm, Buch Jesaja, 181–2. 32 J. Kristeva, Desire in Language. A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York: Columbia University Press, edn L. S. Roudiez 1980), 65 (cited by Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, 13). 33 Cf. Beuken, Jesaja, 2.29–34. 34 Beuken, Jesaja, 2.30: “bedeutungsstiftend”. 35 Beuken, Jesaja, 2.30: Die “Frage, ob der textliche Zusammenhang im Einzelfall ein ‘Zitat’ oder eine ‘Allusion’ darstellt, d. h. ob er absichtlich hergestellt wurde oder sich unabsichtlich ergibt, ist somit zweitrangig.”

Isaiah 24–27 and Intertextuality

139

Furthermore, Beuken assumes in his analysis of the book of Isaiah that there was something like a definitive final redaction which deliberately produced the literary links located in the same book or made them recognizable for the reader.36 Apart from the question of whether or not there actually was such a final redaction of the book of Isaiah (there are reasons for doubt), they offer no help in understanding Isa 24–27. It makes a difference if a text itself intentionally produces “empty spaces” (Leerstellen) that are filled in the course of reading the book (as for instance with 24:1–20), or whether a text is understandable on its own (as Isa 28–29).

V. Conclusion I would like to reiterate the conclusions of this short study with the following points: 1) The so-called Isaiah Apocalypse of Isa 24–27 was never literarily independent. On the contrary, it rather reflects a complex redactional development that is closely tied to the origin of the book of Isaiah in its late phases. On the one hand there is the successive inclusion of the entire table of nations, and on the other hand there is the cosmic dimension (cf. 24:21–23).37 2) Until now the retrospective orientation of Isa 24 to the oracles against the nations in Isa 13–23 has been rather one-sidedly emphasized in research. What has been overlooked in the process is that the core element in 24:1–20* could also have been formulated in anticipation of the following chapters in Isa 28 ff. At the beginning there was the pronouncement of the cosmic judgment against the earth and the city (= Jerusalem) in 24:1–20*. With this text the expansionary editor created a (new) bridge between the oracles against foreign nations in Isa 13–23* and the Assyria cycle of Isa 28–31*. Both collections were once closely bound together and have since been divided more and more by Isa 24 and its expansions. 3) Several “old” problems within Isa 24–27 virtually solve themselves by this hypothesis. The unnamed city can only be Jerusalem; intimations about the preservation of the city of God within the context of the judgment of the world literarily anticipate the Assyria cycle (cf. especially Isa 29). 4) What is noteworthy from a methodological perspective is the manner in which texts are utilized. The keyword “intertextuality” does not sufficiently encompass the process, because it leaves the direction of dependence open and 36 Cf. Beuken, Jesaja, 2.30–1. In Beuken’s view, one must make a distinction between “Intratextualität” (refers to the same book) and “Intertextualität” (refers to other books). 37 The integration of the table of nations and the cosmic dimension can best be explained in the third century BCE, cf. K. Schmid, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 192–4.

140

Uwe Becker

stops with an inventory of links. The phenomenon of “allusion” which J. T. Hibbard lays out so thoroughly seems more appropriate. If Isa 24:1–20 alludes to the story of the flood in Gen 6–9, then this reference is crucial for a proper understanding. “Intertextuality” without the depth of redaction-history is nothing more than concordance work. It is important, but not sufficient.

Anja Klein

Babylon Revisited A New Look at Isa 13 and Its Literary Horizon

I. Introduction It is well known that the Babylon oracle in Isa 13 shares a number of links with other prophetic texts, above all with the prophecies in Jer 4–6 and 50–51. While there is some agreement that the Babylon chapters Jer 50–51 represent a later exegesis of the prophecies about the foe from the north in Jer 4–6, the literary relationship between Isa 13 and the oracles in the book of Jeremiah still remains debated. It is for a reason that the renowned Isaiah scholar Hugh Williamson in his 1994 monograph on the prophetic book advised caution in this matter: “At the very least, however, one should be aware of the methodological issues involved and so alert to the possible pitfalls.”1 The lurking pitfalls are quickly outlined: Even though the parallels between Isa 13 and the oracles in the book of Jeremiah are obvious, their respective assessment is influenced by the scholars’ different approaches to the texts and their general understanding of the books’ development. At present, the majority of exegetes argue for the dependency of Jer 50–51 on Isa 13, while others content themselves with pointing out the common features.2 1 H. G. M.  Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 170 FN 24. 2 On the dependency of Jer 50–51 on Isa 13 see exemplarily B. Duhm, Jesaja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51968 [original 1892]), 112; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT I/12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1947), 275; S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (CB.OT 4; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1970), 154–9, 165; O. Kaiser, Isaiah: A Commentary (2 vol.; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1974 [German original 1973]), 2.9–10; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah (2 vol.; AncB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1.277–8, and B. M. Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie—Jes 13 und die Komposition des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Redaktionsgeschichte des Jesajabuches (fzb 75; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1995), 176, 204. Finally, E. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit (OBO 154; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 89–90, 225–8, suggests the general priority of Jer 50–51, or a contemporary dating in comparison with the basic oracle in Isa 13* (ibid., 90). Differently, B. Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23: Dans la Tradition littéraire du Livre d’Isaïe et dans la Tradition des Oracles contre les Nations (OBO 78; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 263, assumes a more reciprocal relationship. D. Reimer, The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: A Horror Among the Nations (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993), 273–7, discusses Isa 13 in connection with his analysis of Jer 50–51, but does not comment on the literary relationship of these texts.

142

Anja Klein

However, I think that the question deserves to be revisited, and that there is actually good evidence to suggest a reverse direction of dependency. The following argument will start from a short structural analysis of Isa 13 (II.1) that serves as a basis to investigate the links between the Isaianic oracle and the prophecies in Jer 4–5; 50–51 (II.2). Next, I will reflect on the relationship between the Babylon oracle in Isa 13 and the Babylon texts in Jeremiah, evaluating the results from the preceding comparison (II.3). Finally, taking into account the literary development in Isa 13 will show that a diachronic perspective can enhance our understanding of the connections (III.). By answering how the prophecies relate to each other, I want to demonstrate that the Babylon oracle in Isa 13 is part of a wider literary-theological development that shaped Babylon as the dominating empire in post-exilic prophecies (IV.).

II. Babylon in Isaiah and Jeremiah II.1 The Burden of Babylon: Isa 13 The oracle against Babylon in Isa 13 commences the collection of oracles against foreign nations in chapters 13–23. It is followed by another Babylon-themed text, the taunt song about the king of Babylon in Isa 14. However, other than their mutual interest in Babylon (13:1, 19; 14:4, 22), the two chapters are rather unrelated. It is only the introductory verse 13:1 along with the prose units in 14:1–4a and 14:22–23 that serve as redactional hinges to join the two chapters and link them to their present literary context. Thus, the oracle in Isa 13 can be considered as a separate literary unit. The chapter starts from a superscription in verse 13:1 that characterises the following as an oracle against Babylon that had been seen by the prophet Isaiah (‫ן־אמֹוץ‬ ָ ‫) ַמ ָּׂשא ָּב ֶבל ֲא ֶׁשר ָחזָ ה יְ ַׁש ְעיָ הּו ֶּב‬. While the Hebrew genre classification ‫ַמ ָּׂשא‬ (“word”, “burden”)3 affiliates the text with the following oracles against the nations (cf. Isa 14:28; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 21:1, 11, 13; 22:1, 25; 23:1; cf. 30:6), the introductory note on the prophet’s visionary action (‫ ) ָחזָ ה‬reaches back to the book’s opening chapters Isa 1:1 and 2:1, thus indicating a new section that now deals with oracles against foreign nations.4 With regard to the actual prophecy in 13:2–22, it divides clearly into three parts, recognising the structuring function of verses 13:6 and 3 The Hebrew term ‫ ַמ ָּׂשא‬is recorded with the two possible meanings “load, burden” and “utterance” (see KBL), and agreement has not been reached as to its essential meaning (on the discussion see H.-P. Müller, Art. ‫ ַמ ָּׂשא‬, TDOT IX [1998] 20–4; Erlandsson, Burden, 64–5; J. D.W.  Watts, Isaiah 1–33: Revised [WBC 24; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005]), 236–7. 4 The structural break in 13:1, opening the oracles against foreign nations in Isa 13–23, is widely recognised; see exemplarily Duhm, Jesaja, 12–13; H. Wildberger, Jesaja (3 vol.; BK X; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 2.497–8; Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 223–34.

Babylon Revisited

143

13:17:5 a call to arms in 13:2–5, a passage on the day of Yhwh in 13:6–16, and another judgement oracle against Babylon in 13:17–22. The first part in 13:2–5 starts in verse 13:2 from a summons to raise a signal (‫ ) ְׂשאּו־נֵ ס‬on a bare hill, so that a group not elsewhere qualified can enter “the gates of the nobles” (‫ ;) ִּפ ְת ֵחי נְ ִד ִיבים‬an expression that has puzzled scribes and exegetes from early on.6 It remains furthermore unclear if the raising of the signal is meant to indicate the threat of an advancing army or if it serves as a symbol of rescue and gathering (“Sammlungszeichen”7). However, in light of the preceding literary context that deals with the fate of Israel in Isa 10 and 11, it is more likely that the summons addresses the Israelites, who are gathered by way of the sign to Jerusalem, where they shall find shelter behind the city gates.8 In the following verse 13:3, the address of a plural group changes to a divine speech in first person, in which Yhwh states that he has commanded his holy ones and his warriors to fulfil his wrath (‫ּבֹורי לְ ַא ִּפי‬ ַ ִ‫אתי ג‬ ִ ‫) ֲאנִ י צִ ּוֵ ִיתי לִ ְמ ֻק ָּד ָׁשי ּגַ ם ָק ָר‬. The next unit in 13:4–5 comprises firstly two interjections (13:4: ‫ )קֹול … קֹול‬that draw attention to the assembly of a mighty army that Yhwh will lead from a distant land (13:5: ‫) ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ֶמ ְר ָחק‬. He announces to deploy them as weapons of his indignation in order to destroy the whole earth (13:5: ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ָ‫)ּוכְ לֵ י זַ עְ מֹו לְ ַח ֵּבל ּכ‬.9 5 There is some agreement on the structuring function of verses 13:6 and 13:17 within the chapter, leading to an overall three-partite structure, see Kaiser, Isaiah, 2.6–23; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980), 132–8; Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 23–219; P. Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja (2 vol.; NSK.AT 18.1; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel­ werk, 1993), 1.129; Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 240–54. Yet K. Schmid, Jesaja 1–23 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011), 126–32, differs slightly by suggesting a three-partite division into verses 13:1–4, 5–16, and 17–22, while Erlandsson, Burden, 114–18, distinguishes four sections in 13:2–5, 6–13, 14–18, 19–22 (similarly also Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 110–69). 6 The LXX attests the variant ἀνοίξατε οἱ ἄρχοντες, which suggests to read an imperative (‫ )פתחו‬in place of the noun ‫פתחי‬., making the nobles the subject (‘open, you rulers’). However, this reading facilitates the text, so that the MT reading should be retained, following Erlandsson, Burden, 18; Kaiser, Isaiah, 2.6; Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.245; differently Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 133. On the discussion see in detail Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 28–31, who argues for a different vocalisation in the form of ‫ ְּפתׇחׇי‬, making the noun ‫ נְ ִד ִיבים‬the subject, which can be translated as “they shall enter through my gates the nobles”; referring to the temple gates in Jerusalem (see Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 37). 7 On the understanding of ‫ נֵ ס‬in terms of a “Sammlungszeichen” see Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 78–80. The noun ‫ נֵ ס‬serves “primarily as a marker, indicating where the army is to assemble … or pointing in the direction of advance and attack” (H.-J. Fabry, Art. ‫נֵ ס‬, TDOT IX [1998] 437–42, on p. 440), but the recorded specific use as “an orientation signal for the expected deliverance” (ibid., 438) can support our interpretation. 8 On this interpretation see Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 78–9; yet more common is the understanding of 13:2 as the muster of an army, see Erlandsson, Burden, 114; Kaiser, Isaiah, 2.8; Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.513–14; Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 247. Against this speaks the observation that the text distinguishes quite clearly between the group in 13:2 and the foreign army that is mustered from a distant country in 13:4 only. 9 In 13:5, it is unclear if the term ‫ ארץ‬denotes a single country or the whole earth; in the perspective of 13:1, a reference to Babylon suggests itself; however, the following description of

144

Anja Klein

The imperative to wail in 13:6 introduces the second part, 13:6–16, in which the focus changes to the imminent day of Yhwh (13:6: ‫) ֵהילִ ילּו ּכִ י ָקרֹוב יֹום יְ הוָ ה‬. The following two verses describe the effect of this approaching threat on humankind: Their hands will be feeble, their hearts will melt (13:7: ‫עַ ל־ּכֵ ן ּכָ ל־יָ ַדיִ ם ִּת ְר ֶּפינָ ה וְ כָ ל־לְ ַבב ֱאנֹוׁש‬ ‫)יִ ָּמס‬, and they shall be in anguish like in childbirth labour (13:8: ‫ֹאחזּון ּכַ ּיֹולֵ ָדה‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲח ָבלִ ים י‬ ‫)יְ ִחילּון‬. Verse 13:9 represents another caesura, as the arrival of the day of Yhwh is announced for a second time, using the particle ‫) ִהּנֵ ה יֹום־יְ הוָ ה ָּבא) ִהּנֵ ה‬. Furthermore, the account of events in 13:9–13 is framed by an inclusion that introduces semantics of emotion, describing the judgement as an expression of Yhwh’s wrath and fierce anger (13:9: ‫ ַאכְ זָ ִרי וְ ֶע ְב ָרה וַ ֲחרֹון ָאף‬/‎ 13:13: ‫) ְּבעֶ ְב ַרת יְ הוָ ה צְ ָבאֹות ְּוביֹום ֲחרֹון ַאּפֹו‬. The day is described further as an event of cosmic proportions that will lead to the extinction of the sinners from the earth (13:9: ‫)וְ ַח ָּט ֶא ָיה יַ ְׁש ִמיד ִמ ֶּמּנָ ה‬. Both aspects, the cosmic dimensions and the extinction of mankind, are elaborated further in the following verses 13:14–16. With regard to man, however, this account seems to convey a different idea of judgement. While the first description in 13:9–13 provides for an individual judgement, focusing on the sinners (13:9: ‫) ַח ָּט ֶא ָיה‬, the wicked (13:11: ‫) ְר ָׁש ִעים‬, the arrogant (13:11: ‫)זֵ ִדים‬, and the violent ones (13:11: ‫) ָע ִריצִ ים‬, the further details in 13:14–16 rather fit with a situation of general and arbitrary punishment: Everyone will be pursued into their countries (13:14), where those that are seized shall be killed along with their families (13:15–16).10 Even though the third part in 13:17–22 continues the first-person speech from the preceding context, verse 13:17 can be deemed another caesura, which is highlighted by the use of the particle ‫( ִהּנֵ ה‬in connection with the suffix 1. Person singular) at its beginning. The particle draws the attention to Yhwh’s announcement that he is going to stir up the Medes against them (13:17: ‫ִהנְ נִ י ֵמעִ יר עֲ לֵ ֶיהם‬ ‫ת־מ ָדי‬ ָ ‫ ;) ֶא‬an enemy who will have no mercy, neither on man nor on children—they will not even spare the unborn foetus (13:18: ‫י־ב ֶטן ל ֹא יְ ַר ֵחמּו‬ ֶ ‫) ְּופ ִר‬. Verse 13:19 finally mentions Babylon that is now named explicitly as the recipient of Yhwh’s wrath. The Babylonian empire shall share the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (13:19: ‫ת־עמ ָֹרה‬ ֲ ‫ת־סדֹם וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫)ּכַ ְׂש ִּדים ּכְ ַמ ְה ֵּפכַ ת ֱא‬, and will lie uninhabited by the people (13:20), providing living space for the animals of the wild instead (13:21). The last verse, 13:22, enlarges upon the settlement of the wild beasts in its first half, while the second part closes the judgement oracle in Isa 13 by stating that “her time is near and her days will not be prolonged” (‫)וְ ָקרֹוב לָ בֹוא עִ ָּתּה וְ יָ ֶמ ָיה ל ֹא יִ ָּמ ֵׁשכּו‬. The suffixes

the divine judgement clearly outlines an event of worldwide consequences, so that the understanding of “earth” is retained here; on the discussion see Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.514, 517. 10 On the different emphases in 13:9–13 and 13:14–16 see Höffken, Buch Jesaja, 1.130–31; Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 70. See also K. Jeppesen, “The Massa Babel in Isaiah 13–14”, PIBA 9 (1985) 63–80, on p. 68, who remarks on 13:11: “namely the people who in the actual situation represent the wickedness in this world”.

Babylon Revisited

145

3. Person feminine singular refer back to the former references to Babylon (13:1, 13:19), addressing the city as a feminine figure. In summary, the structural analysis of Isa 13 has confirmed the three-part structure of the oracle, though a number of observations will have to be taken into account in the further course of analysis: First of all, beyond the structural breaks in verses 13:6 and 13:17, verse 13:9 has been established as another caesura, opening a further account on the day of Yhwh. Secondly, verses 13:14–16 stand out clearly from their preceding context that provides for an individual judgement with moral implications. In contrast, 13:14–16 revert back to the account in 13:6–8, describing the day of Yhwh as an event of general judgement. Finally, it strikes the observer that Babylon gets a mention only in 13:1 and the third part, 13:17–22.11 Yet the Babylon topic is interestingly present by way of numerous links with the Babylon oracles in the book of Jeremiah throughout the chapter Isa 13. In the following, I want to investigate these innerbiblical links and show how they contribute to our understanding of the oracle.

II.2 A Comparison of Isa 13 and Jer 4–6, 50–51 On the literary horizon of Isa 13 loom clearly two sets of texts from the book of Jeremiah that relate to each other: The oracles about the foe from the north in Jer 4–6, and their subsequent exegesis in the Babylon oracles Jer 50–51.12 The numerous links between these texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah have been widely noted, even though no consensus has yet been reached when it comes to explaining the textual evidence.13 In the following, I will give an overview of the links between the texts on the basis of Isa 13 and then discuss their significance. 11 See already Jeppesen, “Massa Babel”, 63–80, who draws the consequences and distinguishes a “Day of Yahwe text” in 13:1–16 and “a real oracle against a nation, Babylon” in 13:17–23 (sic!) (ibid., 66). 12 On the literary analysis see K. Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), esp. 327–46; R. G. Kratz, “Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1 f. und das Jeremiabuch”, ZAW 106 (1994) 243–61, on pp. 247–8, and id., “Babylon im Alten Testament”, in J. Renger (ed.), Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne: 2. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (Saarbrücken: SDV, 1999) 477–90. 13 For an overview of the links and their discussion see J. Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, Miroir d’un Demi-Millénaire d’Expericence Religieuse en ­Israël (2 vol.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1977–78), 1.290–1; Erlandsson, Burden, 154–9; B. Gosse, “Un Texte Pré-Apocalyptique du Règne de Darius: Isaïe XIII, 1–CIV, 23”, RB 93 (1985) 200–22, on pp. ­210–12, and Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 225–8; Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 21–217, offers a detailed study of the semantic field in Isa 13, incorporating a wider range of comparison materials.

146

Anja Klein

Starting with the beginning of the oracle in Isa 13:2, the summons to raise up a signal (‫ ) ְׂשאּו־נֵ ס‬has four parallels in Jeremiah (4:6,14 [21;]15 50:2; 51:12, 27), while it is also a recurring motif in the book of Isaiah, where it occurs five times (5:26; 11:12; 13:2; 18:3; 49:22, see also 30:17; 31:9; 33:23; 62:10). Among these, the summons in Jer 4:6 comes closest, as it equally deals with a sign that indicates the route to safety in Zion, when the people are faced with the impending threat from the north (‫) ְׂשאּו־נֵ ס צִ ּיֹונָ ה‬. By contrast, the three further references in Jeremiah link the sign with the fate of Babylon: While in Jer 51:12 and 51:27 (‫) ְׂשאּו־נֵ ס‬, the sign indicates the impending judgement on the foreign empire, in 50:2 the sign stands for the capture of Babylon that has already taken place. Finally, the two occurrences in Isa 5:26 and 11:12 have also been discussed as reference texts for 13:2.16 In the case of 5:26, however, the sign serves to call an army for the judgement of Yhwh’s own people, while 11:12 deals with the gathering of Israel from exile and diaspora (cf. Isa 49:22; 62:10), which points to a clear postexilic setting and might be later than the focus on the foe from the north. Hence Jer 4:6 stands as the closest match for the summons in Isa 13:2. A further case is the designation of Yhwh’s warriors in terms of his “holy ones” in Isa 13:3 (‫)לִ ְמ ֻק ָּד ָׁשי‬. The term recalls the summons in Jer 6:4, where the enemy from the north is called to consecrate war against the daughter Zion (‫) ַק ְּדׁשּו ָעלֶ ָיה ִמלְ ָח ָמה‬, while in Jer 51:28, it is the kings of the Medes who are consecrated to inflict war on Zion (‫ת־מלְ כֵ י ָמ ַדי‬ ַ ‫) ַק ְּדׁשּו ָעלֶ ָיה גֹויִ ם ֶא‬. A further parallel is the information in Isa 13:5 that the enemy comes from a distant land (‫) ָּב ִאים ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ֶמ ְר ָחק‬, a location that firstly concurs with the origins of the foe in Jer 4:16 (‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ַה ֶּמ ְר ָחק ָּב ִאים‬, cf. 5:15: ‫) ֵמ ִביא עֲ לֵ יכֶ ם ּגֹוי ִמ ֶּמ ְר ָחק‬,17

14 In Jer 4:6, the LXX reads φεύγετε, an imperative 2. Pers. pl. from φεύγω, “to flee”, which suggests a different vocalisation of the MT consonants (‫ ;)נֻ ֻס‬however, the LXX variant can be explained as lectio facilior, replacing the mention of the sign with an imperative that fits with the following summons in the verse; on the preference of the MT see W. L. Holladay, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (2 vol.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 1.140; W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vol.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 1.91, and the translation by G. Fischer, Jeremia (2 vol.; HThK.AT; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2005), 1.208. 15 In Jer 4:21, the versions with the exception of the Targum (=MT) read a verbal form of “to flee” (see LXX: φεύγοντας), which similarly to the LXX variant in 4:6 suggests a different vocalization of the MT (see FN 14). However, as Vulgate and Peshitta followed the MT in 4:6, it can be assumed that their variant in 4:21 attests to an original wordplay in the text, which originally spoke about the fugitive in 4:21—as attested to by the versions, while the later Masoretes followed 4:6 in their vocalization (see Holladay, Jeremiah, 1.143; differently McKane, Jeremiah, 1.102; Fischer, Jeremia, 1.208: “ein Signal”). 16 See Erlandsson, Burden, 139; Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 119, and Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 32–4, all of which quote especially Isa 5:26 as reference. 17 On this reference see D. S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (Harvard Semitic Monographs 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 126.

Babylon Revisited

147

while it has also been related to Isa 5:26 (‫)לַ ּגֹויִ ם ֵמ ָרחֹוק‬.18 The oracle in Isa 13 continues to describe the enemy as Yhwh’s “instruments of indignation” (13:5: ‫ ;)כְ לֵ י זַ עְ מֹו‬an expression that has one parallel only in the Hebrew Bible in Jer 50:25 (‫) ֶאת־ּכְ לֵ י זַ ְעמֹו‬, where, however, the tools are applied to the judgement on Babylon.19 When it comes to further loose parallels, in the context of the oracle in Isa 13 the noun ‫ זַ ַעם‬refers to the might of Assyria as an instrument of Yhwh’s wrath in Isa 10:5, 25, while in the book of Jeremiah, the use of the term ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬points to the hammer song Jer 51:20, in which Yhwh addresses his weapon of war (‫ץ־א ָּתה לִ י ּכְ לֵ י ִמלְ ָח ָמה‬ ַ ‫) ַמ ֵּפ‬. With regard to the second part in Isa 13:6–16, the central announcement of the day of Yhwh in 13:6 lacks a parallel in the book of Jeremiah. However, the expectation of a day of divine judgement occurs in the preceding literary context in the book in Isa 2:11, 12, 17, 20, while the prophecy in Jer 4:9 equally connects the threat from the north with a specific day (‫ּיֹום־ההּוא‬ ַ ‫)וְ ָהיָ ה ַב‬.20 The connection with Jer 4:9 is further strengthened by the fact that both in Isa 13:6 and Jer 4:8 the impending menace gives cause to wail (‫ ;) ֵהילִ ילּו‬a reaction that has also been advised in view of the invasion of the Assyrians in Isa 14:31. In the following, the prophecy in Isa 13:7–8 describes the effect of the threat on the people with the double motif that all hands will be feeble and that every human heart will melt (13:7: ‫ ;)ּכָ ל יָ ַדיִ ם ִּת ְר ֶּפינָ ה וְ כָ ל־לְ ַבב ֱאנֹוׁש יִ ָּמס‬to add to the distress, everyone shall be seized like a woman in labour (13:8: ‫ֹאחזּון ּכַ ּיֹולֵ ָדה יְ ִחילּון‬ ֵ ‫)י‬. With this combination of motifs, Isa 13:7–8 assembles a number of references to the oracles in Jeremiah: First of all, Jer 4:9 speaks in similar terminology of the meltdown of the hearts of king and officials (‫ֹאבד לֵ ב ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך וְ לֵ ב ַה ָּׂש ִרים‬ ַ ‫)י‬, while both the weakness of the hands and the birth-metaphor are frequently used together. Here, Jer 6:24 describes the people’s reaction on hearing the news of the foe’s approach, using the same imagery (‫) ָרפּו יָ ֵדינּו … ִחיל ּכַ ּיֹולֵ ָדה‬. In Jer 50:43, however, it is the king of Babylon, whose hands fall down and who is pained like a woman in labour on learning the news of the approaching foe (‫)וְ ָרפּו יָ ָדיו צָ ָרה ֶה ֱחזִ ַיק ְתהּו ִחיל ּכַ ּיֹולֵ ָדה‬.21 Furthermore, Jer 49:24 reports that Damascus has become weak (‫ ) ָר ְפ ָתה‬and seized like a woman in child labour (‫) ֲא ָחזַ ָּתה ּכַ ּיֹולֵ ָדה‬. Finally, the verb ‫ תמה‬that in Isa 13:8 describes the stunned expression of the people, has a parallel in Jer 4:9, where the terms stands for the shocked reaction of the prophets in view of the invading threat (‫)וְ ַהּנְ ִב ִיאים יִ ְת ָמהּו‬. 18 On Isa 5:26 as reference for the location in Isa 13:5 see again Erlandsson, Burden, 139, and Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 119. 19 See in detail Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 62–3. 20 There also are some striking parallels between the description of the day of Yhwh in Isa 13 and the book of Joel, which, however, can be explained by the scribal character of the book of Joel that draws regularly on previous prophecies; see Vermeylen, Prophète Isaïe, 291–2; S. ­Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ 16; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1988). See further Zapff, Schrift­ gelehrte Prophetie, 96–9. 21 The weakening of the hands is further used as a motif for the loss of courage in Isa 35:3 and Jer 38:4.

148

Anja Klein

The coming day of Yhwh is described further in an inclusion in Isa 13:9, 13 as a cruel event, a day of Yhwh’s fierce anger (13:9: ‫ ַ אכְ זָ ִרי וְ ֶע ְב ָרה וַ ֲחרֹון ָאף‬/ ‎13:13: ‫ְּב ֶע ְב ַרת‬ ‫)יְ הוָ ה צְ ָבאֹות ְּוביֹום ֲחרֹון ַאּפֹו‬. While the adjective ‫ ַאכְ זָ ִרי‬points to Jer 6:23 (par. 50:42),22 where the charging enemy is similarly described as cruel (‫) ַאכְ זָ ִרי הּוא‬, the genitive construct ‫ ֲחרֹון ָאף‬occurs eight times in Jeremiah (4:8, 26; 12:13; 25:37, 38 [2]; 30:24; 49:37; 51:45), compared with two occurrences only in Isaiah (13:9, 13). It is especially the prophecies in Jer 4:8, 26 and 51:45, describing the judgement on Israel and Babylon respectively as a manifestation of divine wrath, that come close to the present use in Isa 13. With regard to 13:14–16, there is a stunning parallel between Isa 13:14 and Jer 50:16. Both texts use the identical wording to describe the hapless flight of the people, who will all turn to their own kin and their own country. However, while in Isa 13:14 this scenario describes the flight on the day of Yhwh (‫ל־א ְרצֹו יָ נּוסּו‬ ַ ‫ל־עּמֹו יִ ְפנּו וְ ִאיׁש ֶא‬ ַ ‫) ִאיׁש ֶא‬, in Jer 50:16 it refers to the judgement on Babylon, when everyone will flee from the sword (‫) ִאיׁש ֶאל־עַ ּמֹו יִ ְפנּו וְ ִאיׁש לְ ַא ְרצֹו יָ נֻ סּו‬. Further loose parallels comprise the motif that the fleeing people shall be thrust through (Isa 13:15: ‫ יִ ָּד ֵקר‬/ Jer  51:4: ‫ ) ְּומ ֻד ָּק ִרים‬and the explicit mention of the children (13:16: ‫ וְ עֹלְ לֵ ֶיהם‬/ Jer  6:11: ‫)עֹולָ ל‬. These will suffer a horrible end in both books, dashed to death in Isa 13:15, while in Jer 6:11, they shall be subjected to the divine wrath together with the other fugitives. In the third part Isa 13:17–22, parallels are more numerous. The initial announcement in 13:17 that Yhwh will stir up the Medes (‫ת־מ ָדי‬ ָ ‫) ִהנְ נִ י ֵמעִ יר עֲ לֵ ֶיהם ֶא‬ recalls a number of prophecies in the book of Jeremiah, where the kings of the Medes play a decisive part in the judgement on Babylon (cf. Jer 51:11, 28). While in 51:28, the kings of the Medes are called to prepare war against Babylon, 51:11 announces that Yhwh stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes (‫ֵהעִ יר יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ת־רּוח ַמלְ כֵ י ָמ ַדי‬ ַ ‫ ) ֶא‬as his instruments to destroy the city. The prophecy in Jer 51:11 shows further connections to Isa 13:17 by the use of the Hebrew verb ‫ עור‬hiphcil (“to stir up”), which describes in both texts Yhwh’s utilisation of the Medes. It can be assumed that this root was used firstly in Jer 6:22 with regard to the foe from the north, who stirs up himself from a distant country (‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫)יֵ עֹור ִמּיַ ְרּכְ ֵת‬. Term and motif have then undergone a literary reinterpretation in Jer 50–51, aiming now at the judgement on Babylon by suggesting different agents (Jer 50:9, 41; 51:1, 11):23 In Jer 50:9 Yhwh stirs up the nations from the north (‫ל־ּב ֶבל‬ ָ ‫ּומ ֲעלֶ ה ַע‬ ַ ‫)ּכִ י ִהּנֵ ה ָאנֹכִ י ֵמ ִעיר‬, Jer 50:41 mentions many kings stirring from the distant land (‫ְּומלָ כִ ים ַר ִּבים יֵ עֹרּו ִמּיַ ְרּכְ ֵתי־‬ ‫) ָא ֶרץ‬, while 51:1 refers to a destructive wind being stirred up (… ‫רּוח ַמ ְׁש ִחית ֵמעִ יר‬ ַ ). However, the closest parallel to Isa 13:17 is the above-mentioned prophecy in

22 There is only one other occurrence of the adjective ‫ ַאכְ זָ ִרי‬in the book in Jer 30:14, where the term refers to the past punishment of Zion. 23 On the reinterpretation of the oracle Jer 6:22–25 in 50:41–43 see Schmid, Buchgestalten, 117–18, and Kratz, “Babylon”, 482–3.

Babylon Revisited

149

Jer 51:11 that combines the notion of Yhwh as initiator of judgement with the idea of the Medes as his agents against Babylon. A further significant link can be found in the description of the effects on the land in Isa 13:19–20 that is nearly identical with the picture painted in Jer 50:39–40, even though the order of images differs. Firstly, the comparison of the pending destruction of Babylon with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isa 13:19 parallels the description of the judgement on Babylon in Jer 50:40 (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ּכְ ַמ ְה ֵּפכַ ת ֱא‬ ‫ת־סדֹם וְ ֶאת ֲעמ ָֹרה‬ ְ ‫) ֶא‬,24 while, secondly, the statement that Babylon will never again be inhabited in Isa 13:20 (‫ֹא־ת ֵׁשב לָ נֶ צַ ח וְ ל ֹא ִת ְׁשּכֹן ַעד־ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬ ֵ ‫ )ל‬matches the description in Jer 50:39 (‫ֹא־ת ֵׁשב עֹוד לָ נֶ צַ ח וְ ל ֹא ִת ְׁשּכֹון ַעד־ּדֹור וָ דֹור‬ ֵ ‫)וְ ל‬. The two accounts are also linked by mention of the ostriches (Isa 13:21: ‫ ; ְּבנֹות יַ ֲענָ ה‬cf. Jer 50:39), a rather rare species in the Hebrew Bible.25 Further loose parallels connect the third part of Isa 13 with Jeremiah: Firstly, the bow is the weapon of choice not only in Isa 13:18, but also in the prophecies of Jer 4–6 and 50–51 (see 4:29; 6:23; 50:14, 29, 42; 51:3, 56). Secondly, the feature in Isa 13:18 that the enemies are without pity for the children (‫)ל ֹא יְ ַר ֵחמּו‬, has a loose parallel in Jer 6:23 (par. 50:42: ‫)וְ ל ֹא יְ ַר ֵחמּו‬, in which, however, the lack of compassion serves as a general characteristic of the enemy.26

II.3 Evaluating the Evidence In view of the manifold and significant parallels between the oracle in Isaiah 13 and the texts in the book of Jeremiah, it is easy to see why so many scholars assume literary dependency. Yet determining the direction of dependency presents the exegete with a challenge, especially as the different parts of Isa 13 seem to relate in different ways to the prophecies in Jeremiah. There are, however, two parts that stand out: the introductory passage in 13:(1)2–527 and the third part in 13:17–22. As to the first section in 13:2–5, it catches the eye that, with a sole exception, references in this part of Isa 13 either point just to Jer 4–6, or—if they occur in Jer 50–51 also—they are closer to their parallels in the first chapters of Jeremiah. It is especially the distinct prophecy about the foe from the north in Jer 4:5–928 that can be traced through Isa 13:2–5, starting with the raising of the signal to gather the people to Zion / Jerusalem in 13:2 (cf. Jer 4:5–6), and the ensuing muster of the 24 See further Jer 49:18 (‫)ּכְ ַמ ְה ֵּפכַ ת ְסדֹם וַ ֲעמ ָֹרה ְּוׁשכֵ נֶ ָיה‬, where the comparison with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and their neighbouring cities) applies to the judgement on Edom. 25 Beyond our texts, the ostriches can be found only in Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15; Job 30:29; Isa 43:20, and Mic 1:8. 26 See Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 179. 27 Verse 13:1 represents the introduction to the whole oracle and seems to have specific connections with 13:17–22; cf. below. 28 The close relationship between Isa 13:2 ff. and Jer 4:5 ff. has been observed already by Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 80, who assumes priority of Jer 4.

150

Anja Klein

threat in Isa 13:3–5 and Jer 4:6–7. Actually, the links to Jer 4:4–9 continue into the next part of the oracle in Isa 13:6–16 that introduces the notion of the day of Yhwh. Linking the description to Jer 4:8, the day of Yhwh in Isa 13:6 is likewise reason to wail, while the description of the meltdown of the people and their wild stare in 13:7–8 has parallels in Jer 4:9. The one reference that does not fit the picture is the mention of Yhwh’s instruments of indignation in Isa 13:5 that parallels Jer 50:25. This overall pattern, though, changes with the further description of the day of Yhwh in Isa 13:9–13, where the important link to Yhwh’s fierce anger in 13:9, 13 points to Jer 4:8, while the rest of the references relate to chapters Jer 50–51 and their literary context, such as the negative characteristics of the day (Isa 13:9: ‫ ; ַאכְ זָ ִרי וְ עֶ ְב ָרה‬cf. Jer 50:42; 48:30). The second part that stands out is Isa 13:17–22 that features numerous and decisive links with Jer 50–51 only. It is first of all the Babylonisation—that is the launching of Babylon as the enemy—that connects Isa 13:17–22 with the oracles in Jeremiah, and they further share the idea that the Medes play a decisive part in the judgement on Babylon (13:17; cf. Jer 51:11; 28). In particular, the prophecy in Jer 50:39–43 features as an intertextual partner to Isa 13, sharing both the idea that the enemy is stirred up (13:17; cf. Jer 50:41) and the comparison with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (13:19; cf. Jer 50:40); they further agree in the statement that the land will not be inhabited anymore (13:20; cf. Jer 50:39). That leaves us with the verses in Isa 13:14–16, which similarly to 13:9–13 feature loose parallels to both sets of oracles in Jeremiah. Assessing the evidence, Isa 13 as a whole seems to be the more concise account that assembles references to different texts in Jeremiah and adjusts them to fit the heading “the day of Yhwh”. This new angle can be explained with a reference to Isa 2 that sets the topic of the day of Yhwh in the preceding literary context of Isa 13.29 Furthermore, some features in the oracle demonstrate exegetical embellishment, such as the combining of the feebleness of the hand and the labour metaphor with the melting of the heart in 13:7—motifs that go back to different pre-texts in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 4:9; 6:24). However, assuming thus general literary priority for the Babylon oracles in Jeremiah,30 it is striking that the clustering of the lexical evidence in Isa 13 seems to correlate with the structuring of the oracle. These specific findings cannot be explained with a synchronic analysis alone, but call for the diachronic perspective. Hence the following part will demonstrate how the literary development of the oracle in Isa 13 can enhance our understanding of its relationship with the texts in Jeremiah.

29 On this question see Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 83–5. 30 In general, the reverse direction of dependency is assumed, considering Isa 13 to provide the Vorlage for the Babylon texts in the book of Jeremiah, see FN 2. 

Babylon Revisited

151

III. Another Look at Isa 13 The textual analysis has shown that the oracle in Isa 13 can be structured into three parts in 13:(1)2–5, 13:6–16 and 13:17–22, noting an additional caesura in 13:9 that fits with the observation that the individual and cosmic dimensions of the day of Yhwh in 13:9–13 mark off this part from its context in 13:(1)2–8, 14–16.31 Not surprisingly, the question of literary integrity in Isa 13 has led—in the truest sense of the word—to a Babylonian confusion. Even though the majority of scholars assume textual unity,32 there is a growing number of studies suggesting literary growth. Evidence of this is first of all the notion that even though the oracle is directed at Babylon in the introduction 13:1, the empire makes a late appearance only in the third part 13:17–22, while the rest of the oracle reads more like a universal judgement.33 This judgement, however, does not paint a consistent picture either, but the second discourse on the day of Yhwh in 13:9–16 stands out for a number of reasons.34 First of all, it is here that the cosmic dimensions of heaven and earth come into play, while, secondly, these verses seem to convey two different ideas of judgement. In the first part, 13:9–13, it is not the annihilation of mankind as a whole that is announced, but the day of Yhwh targets the foul specimen of humankind, thus focussing on individual judgement.35 It is only in the following flight depiction 13:14–16 that the description reverts back to the general judgement that had been anticipated in 13:1–8. Thus, both the literary assessment of 13:9–13 and the affiliation of 13:14–16 have to be considered together with the wider question if the prophecy in Isa 13 provides for a Babylonian judgement or a universal event. Critical scholarship has predominantly referred to the idea about a basic oracle directed at Babylon in Isa 13* that was later reworked to reflect a universal

31 See above Chap. II.1. 32 On the representatives of literary unity, see e.g. Vermeylen, Prophète Isaïe, 286–92; Wildberger, Jesaja, 2.506–9; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 1.276–7; Gosse, “Texte Pré-Apocalyptique”, ­199–202, and id., Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 110–69; finally Erlandsson, Burden, 109–18. 33 This differentiation led O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (SBS 121; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985), 54–5, to distinguish between an original oracle against Babylon in 13:2–5, 17–22, and a later universal judgement in 13:6–16; see similarly Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 220–39. Previously, Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 132, suggested a literary core in 13:2–3, while Kaiser, Isaiah, 2.8–9, and Höffken, Buch Jesaja, 1.130–1, address redactional activity, without specifying its extent. 34 On the special status of 13:9–13 see also Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 70–2. 35 On the differentiation of judgement in Isa 13 see already Höffken, Buch Jesaja, 1.130–1; Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 145, 152 (“une dimension morale”), and Reimer, Oracles, 274; Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 70, has been the first to draw the literary-critical consequences from this observation; see in the following.

152

Anja Klein

judgement;36 a solution that, however, cannot account for the different concepts of judgement. This observation led Erich Bosshard-Nepustil to develop further the existing models and to come up with a convincing proposal in turn, which will be the basis for the following argument.37 Starting from the different conception of the day of Yhwh in 13:9–13, this section should be identified as a later continuation, which leaves us with 13:1–8 and 13:14–22. Here, the caesura-function of 13:17 together with the introduction of the Medes is sufficient evidence for a later reworking in the part 13:17–22 that focuses on the destruction of Babylon. Due to the Babylon focus, it suggests itself to add the introductory verse 13:1 to this literary layer. Having thus identified two reworkings in 13:9–13 and 13:1, 17–22, there is the question if verses 13:2–8 and 13:14–16 form a two-partite original oracle, or if further literary growth has to be assumed. The first part deals with the assembly of a mighty army gathered from the nations that shall destroy the whole earth on the day of Yhwh. The second unit in 13:14–16 connects well, as it continues the description of the effects of the day of Yhwh on humankind. With the statement in 13:14 that “all will turn to their own people and flee into their own land” (‫ל־א ְרצֹו יָ נּוסּו‬ ַ ‫ל־עּמֹו יִ ְפנּו וְ ִאיׁש ֶא‬ ַ ‫) ִאיׁש ֶא‬, the account in 13:14–16 can be understood as a further elaboration on the expression “one at another” (‫ל־רעֵ הּו‬ ֵ ‫ ) ִאיׁש ֶא‬in 13:8, but the connection could be original as well as secondary.38 At this point, I would like to revisit the comparison of Isa 13 with the Babylon oracles in Jeremiah, the results of which can be enhanced by the literary analysis of Isa 13 in a number of respects. First of all, nearly all of the references in the suggested basic oracle 13:2–8(14–16) point to a literary background in Jer 4–6 with a special focus on the prophetic word Jer 4:5–9. Assuming literary priority of Jer 4–6,39 the basic oracle in Isa 13:2–8(14–16) can be understood as an exegesis of the threat by the foe from the north in Jeremiah. In Isa 13, this event has been interpreted in terms of a universal day of Yhwh by further reference to Isa 2. Zion-Jerusalem no longer is the target of the attack, but the city constitutes shelter for the people of Israel, while the enemy will overrun the earth. As to the exceptions, it is first of all the expression “instruments of his indignation” (‫ )כְ לֵ י זַ עְ מֹו‬in Isa 13:5 that does not occur in Jer 4–6, but has a parallel in Jer 50:25 only. Yet the noun ‫ זַ עַ ם‬appears in the literary context of Isa 13 (cf. Isa 10:5, 25), while the use of ‫ ּכְ לִ י‬points to the book of Jeremiah (cf. Jer 51:20). It is difficult to decide on literary priority due to the few occurrences of the formulation, and one might even consider reverse 36 See the literature discussed in FN 33. 37 Cf. Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 68–72. 38 However, Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 70, is quite confident about assigning 13:14–16 to an original oracle in Isa 13:2–8, 14–16. See previously, Höffken, 1.Buch Jesaja, 130–1, who reasons: “Man kann überlegen, ob V. 14 nicht direkt an V.5 anschloß.” 39 See above, section II.3. Firstly, the basic oracle in Isa 13* is the more concise text, and, secondly, an exegetical interest can be detected, as its author adjusts the references to fit under the heading “Day of Yhwh”, drawing on Isa 2.

Babylon Revisited

153

dependency here. In this case, the reference in Jer 50:25 could represent a later gloss in Jer 50–51 that goes back to a redactor, who added a reference to Isa 13 in the hammer song on recognizing the general literary relationship.40 The second case in Isa 13:14 that parallels the formulation in Jer 50:16 can be explained more simply. Within the literary growth of Isa 13, the motif that everyone will turn to their own people and their own land can be derived from the preceding context in 13:8, so that Isa 13:14 can be assumed to constitute the literary birthplace for this expression that has then been taken up in Jer 50:16. During the further literary growth of Isa 13, the picture changes slightly. Contrary to the basic oracle in 13:2–8(14–16), the references in the first literary continuation 13:1, 17–22 point clearly to the Babylon oracles in Jer 50–51. References to Jer 4–6 only occur in cases when there are references also to Jer 50–51, which are more significant in comparison. Thus, I would like to suggest that a later redactor retraced the development in the book of Jeremiah in Isa 13 and made Babylon the specific target of the formerly universal judgement. In this way, the redactor created a Babylon oracle at the beginning of the collection of oracles against foreign nations in Isa 13–23 that serves as a kind of literary overture.41 There remains finally the second continuation in Isa 13:9–13 that develops further the idea of the day of Yhwh from the basic oracle 13:2–8(14–16). Here, significant references to Jer 6:23 (par. 50:42), and Jer 4:8, 26; 51:45 frame the prophecy in verses Isa 13:9, 13, while the rest of the passage shows a different literary background.42 This reference frame functions as something like a literary resumption that recalls the reference texts in the book of Jeremiah and at the same time prepares for their reinterpretation. In this last supplementation Isa 13:9–13, the day of Yhwh is reworked to encompass an individual judgement of cosmic effects, but it is still painted applying the Babylonian colour palette of the book of Jeremiah.

IV. Babylon Revisited This contribution cannot claim to have solved all the riddles of Isa 13 and its literary horizon, and the results are certainly not so clear-cut that they will not invite alternative models. However, some of the observations might contribute to the further discussion. First of all, the analysis has demonstrated that the different literary backgrounds in Isa 13 can be correlated with the literary development of the chapter. Comparable to the exegesis of Jer 4–6 in Jer 50–51, a dynamic process 40 See Reimer, Oracles, 49–51, who comments on the “rather loose” character of the unit Jer 50:24–25, without, however, drawing any literary-critical conclusions. 41 Similarly Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen, 89. 42 See Gosse, Isaïe 13,1–14,23, 145–52; Zapff, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie, 125–66.

154

Anja Klein

in terms of a Babylonisation emerges that transforms the basic oracle in Isa 13* into a judgement oracle against Babylon. This judgement is finally elevated in terms of an event with cosmic impact that affects every human individual and takes pride of place in opening the series of oracles again the foreign nations in Isa 13–23. It is certainly the historical events of the 6th century BC that stand behind the picture of the Babylonian Empire in the book of Isaiah. However, the oracle Isa 13 attests to the emergence of Babylon in the shape of a literary-theological chiffre, the importance of which far supersedes the historical events. To come back to Hugh Williamson, he has proposed that the prophet Deutero-Isaiah had his hand in the composition and redaction of Isa 13.43 However, with regard to this oracle, I want to suggest that it was an author in the tradition of Jeremiah rather than Deutero-Isaiah, who brought Babylon into play.

43 Cf. Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 160–75; he assumes an exilic date for chapters Isa 13– 14 and considers their “present setting and redactional shaping … the work of Deutero-Isaiah himself ” (ibid., 175). Previously, Jeppesen, “Massa Babel”, 69–70, 74–5, has found traces of a “Deutero-Isaianic redaction” (ibid., 74) in Isa 13–14.

Reinhard G. Kratz

Isaiah and the Persians

Cyrus, creation, monotheism, universalism and dualism—these are the topics on the agenda when it comes to the question of Persian influence on the book of Isaiah. This question is aimed primarily at what is known as Second Isaiah in Isa 40–66, and it addresses three aspects: first, it enquires about general religio-historical analogies; secondly, it examines the relationship between distinct— Late Babylonian and Persian—sources or historical constellations and texts in Second Isaiah; thirdly, it aims to identify and date the postulated anonymous prophet. The religio-historical comparison is quite often in dispute with, or rather against hypotheses that envisage a gradual literary growth of Isaiah 40–66. It is thought that the Late Babylonian and Persian analogies would prove a literary or at least conceptual uniformity of the Deutero-Isaianic tradition, as well as the historicity of a prophet who should have existed around 539 BCE in Babylon or Judah. The fact that even the conjecture of a separate corpus in Isa 40–66 is based on a literary and redaction-critical hypothesis, as is the postulate of a “Second Isaiah”, is accepted implicitly, and does not seem to confuse critics of literary criticism. In this paper I am going to address the Assyrian, Late Babylonian and Persian influences in Second Isaiah and, using selected examples, consider what they contribute to the dating and unity of the texts, as well as to the subject of this volume, “Imperial visions in the book of Isaiah”. I will not be taking part in the fruitless search for the historical prophet anymore (a search in which I myself was once involved).

I. Cyrus The mention of Cyrus twice by name in Isa 44:28 and 45:1, most likely referring to the Persian king Cyrus II (559–530 BCE), has always been the access point for historical and literary criticism. In the 18th century, as a result of suggestions from Abraham Ibn Ezra and Baruch Spinoza, the prevailing opinion was that chapters 40–66 of Isaiah could not have originated from the same Isaiah to whom chapters 1–39 could be traced back. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn summarised the consensus as follows: Ferner, je öfter ich die Orakel vom 40sten bis 52sten Kapitel Jesajas lese, desto weniger will es mir einleuchten, daß sie vor dem babylonischen Exil abgefaßt sein sollen … In

156

Reinhard G. Kratz

der genannten Reihe von Orakeln (Jes. XL–LII) ist überall das babylonische Exilum die Scene; der Dichter spricht, als lebte er im Exil, als spräche er zu Exulanten, welche bei der Zögerung ihrer Wiederkehr schon verzweifeln, ob auch die Verheißungen ihrer alten Propheten in Erfüllung gehen würden. Sollte nicht der Verfasser der darin enthaltenen tröstlichen Verheißungen im Exil selbst gelebt haben?1 Furthermore, the more I read the oracle from the 40th to the 52nd chapter of Isaiah, the less evident it appears to me that it should have been written before the Babylonian exile … In the series of oracles already mentioned (Isa. XL–LII) the scene is the Babylonian exile; the writer speaks as if he were living in exile, as if speaking to exiles, who, because of the delay of their return, are already doubting whether the prophecies of their ancient prophets will be fulfilled. Should not the author of the comforting prophecies contained therein himself have been living in exile?

Since then it has generally been agreed that the “Second Isaiah” in Isa 40–66, reduced by Bernhard Duhm to “Deutero-Isaiah” in Isa 40–55 and distinguished from “Trito-Isaiah” in Isa 56–66,2 was a prophet who lived and worked among Judean exiles in Babylonia at the turn of the Babylonian to the Persian era, shortly before the capture of Babylon around 539 BCE. With a few exceptions,3 this dating has been widely accepted. It is rarely challenged even today, although it is based on a conclusion which is quite uncertain, namely a conclusion that derives historical reality from the imagined literary situation. The strongest evidence for dating is provided by the reference to Cyrus, who, in addition to Isa 44:28 and 45:1, presumably is referred to in other texts such as Isa 41:2–3, 25; 45:13; 46:11; 48:14–15 and 42:5–7.4 In these texts a figure is 1 J. G.  Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (5 vol.; Leipzig: Weidmann & Reich, 1783), 3.84–6. 2 B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (HK III/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892, 41922), 14–15. 3 C. C.  Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (New York: T. and T. Clark, 1928); M. Haran, “The Literary Structure and Chronological Framework of the Prophecies”, in Is. XL–XLVIII”, in Congress Volume Bonn 1962 (VT.S 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963) 127–55; P. Davies, “God of Cyrus, God of Israel: Some Religio-Historical reflections on Isaiah 40–55“, in J. Davies / G.  Harvey / W. G.E.  Watson. (ed.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer (JSOT.S 195, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1995) 207–25. 4 R. G.  Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55 (FAT 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), for the previous literature ibid. 18 n. 47. For the subsequent discussion, see Davies, “God of Cyrus”; M. Albani, Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen: Zur Begründing des Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im Alten Orient (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000); id., “Deuterojesajas Mono­ theismus und der babylonische Religionskonflikt unter Nabonid”, in M. Oeming / K. Schmid (ed.), Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003) 171–201; L. S. Fried, “Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1”, HTR 95 (2002) 373–93; K. Schmid, “Herrschererwar-

Isaiah and the Persians

157

described which is designated as a “bird of prey” from the east (46:11; see also 41:2) or northeast (41:25), “shepherd” (44:28), “Messiah” (45:1) and “friend of Yhwh” (48:14). The primary object of this figure is to subjugate peoples, kings and cities on Yhwh’s behalf. Scholars assume these to be Babylon,5 although this is far from clear, and is stated expressly in only one place (48:14–15). In addition, Cyrus receives the commission to arrange for the reconstruction of the city and the temple in Jerusalem (44:28) and to release Yhwh’s Golah (45:13; see 42:7). Two types of sources seem to suggest a dating of these texts in the period around 539 BCE: firstly, the biblical Cyrus edict that is presented in two passages in the book of Ezra (Ezra 6 and Ezra 1); and secondly, extra-biblical evidence that reflects the changeover from Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, to the Persian rule over Babylon, including in particular the Cyrus Cylinder, which welcomes Cyrus as a new ruler, appointed by Marduk and bringing salvation.6 In addition, tungen und -aussagen im Jesajabuch: Überlegungen zu ihrer synchronen Logik und zu ihren diachronen Transformationen”, in F.  Postma / K.  Spronk / E.  Talstra. (ed.), The New Things: Escha­ tology in Old Testament Prophecy, Festschrift for H. Leene (ACEBT.S 3; Maastricht: Shaker, 2002) 175–209, repr. in id. (ed.), Prophetische Heils- und Herrschererwartungen, (SBS 194; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005) 37–74; R. Albertz, “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–52.12) in 521 BCE”, JSOT 27 (2003) 371–83; P. Höffken, “Religiöse Deutungen von Kyros d. Gr. im Kontext der Einnahme Babylons 539 vor Chr.”, BN 128 (2006) 5–18; S. Petry, Die Entgrenzung JHWHs: Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium, in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch (FAT II/27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); U. Berges, “Dareios in Jes 40–55? Zu einem Vorschlag von Rainer Albertz”, in I. Kottsieper / R.  Schmitt / J.  Wöhrle. (ed.), Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt, Festschrift für R. Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AOAT 350; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008) 253–66; R. Achenbach, “Das Kyros-Orakel in Jesaja 44,24–45,7 im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen”, ZAR 11 (2005) 155–94; M. Leuenberger, “Ich bin Jhwh und keiner sonst”: Der exklusive Monotheismus des Kyros-Orakels Jes 45,1–7 (SBS 224; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010); J. R. Linville, “Playing with Maps of Exile: Displacement, Utopia, and Disjunction”, in E. Ben Zvi / C. Levin (ed.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts (BZAW 404; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010) 275–93; J. Blenkinsopp, “Abraham and Cyrus in Isaiah 40–48”, in R. Thelle / T. Stordalen / M. E.J. Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (VT.S 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 29–41. 5 Even this assumption, however correct it may be in some cases, is hardly ever challenged. See, e.g., F. Hartenstein, “Was sind die Götter bei Deuterojesaja und in den späten Psalmen?”, in C. Schwöbel (ed.), Gott—Götter—Götzen: XIV: Europäischer Kongress für Theologie (11.–15. September 2011 in Zürich (VWGTh 38; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013) 221–37, on p. 229: “Dabei werden die ‘Götter’ immer in Bezug auf die ‘Völker’, also die Babylonier, thematisiert.” (Here the ‘gods’ are always addressed in relation to the ‘peoples’, in other words, the Babylonians.). 6 The relevant material is found in H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik (AOAT 256; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001); R. G. Kratz, “Nabonid und Kyros”, in id., Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels, Kleine Schriften I (FAT 42;Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 22013), 40–54, English version: “From Nabonidus to Cyrus”, in A. Panaino / G. Pettinato (ed.), Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena, Melammu Symposia III (Proceedings of the

158

Reinhard G. Kratz

scholars usually refer to the Achaemenid ideology and practice of rule, the— politically motivated—so-called “tolerance policy” of the Persians, as described in the Persian royal inscriptions and by Greek historians (especially Herodotus).7 Both the extra-biblical evidence from Babylon (since Cyrus) and Egypt (since Cambyses) and the biblical sources in Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, Ezra 1–6 and Dan 1–6 fit into this image of a “tolerant” Persian empire since Cyrus II which Persian and Greek sources nurture. However, the historical evaluation of the sources causes considerable problems. The authenticity of the Cyrus edict is not beyond all doubt, at least Ezra 1 is indisputably a reformulation (rewriting) of Ezra 6, and the release of the Golah is prescribed only in the more recent version in Ezra 1. The reconstruction of the city is only mentioned in Ezra 4,8 which is a later, secondary insertion, and in the book of Nehemiah. Admittedly the Tendenzliteratur (or Political Memory) on the controversy over Nabonidus and Cyrus is written from a Babylonian perspective, but most of it originates from the period after 539 BCE. Documentation of the ideology and practice of Achaemenid rule is only attested from Darius onwards; the few inscriptions written in the name of Cyrus are considered by experts to be retrojections from the Darius era. The Greek historians in turn are pursuing their own agenda. In my work on Cyrus in the book of Isaiah and the Neo-Babylonian controversy over Nabonidus and Cyrus I have tried to take a differentiated view of the historical sources from the key date of 539 BCE onwards.9 Some have followed this approach10—including Rainer Albertz. He accepted the dating of what I have Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Chicago, USA, October 27–31, 2000; Milano: Ed. Mimesis, 2002) 143–56; with slightly different emphasis Höffken, “Deutungen”; recently C. Waerzeggers, “Facts, Propaganda, or History? Shaping Political Memory in the Nabonide Chronicle”, in J. M. Silverman / C. Waerzeggers (ed.), Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire (ANEM 13; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015) 95–124. On the biblical reflections of this dispute, see Kratz, Kyros; id., Translatio Imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (WMANT 63; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991); Albani, Der eine Gott; id., “Deuterojesajas Monotheismus”; Petry, Entgrenzung; Leuenberger, Monotheismus. 7 See G. Ahn, Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im Achämenidischen Iran: Die Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer Argumentation (Acta Iranica 31, Textes et Mémoires XVII; Leiden / ​ Leuven: Brill / Peeters, 1992); P.  Frei / K.  Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO 55; Fribourg Schweiz / Göttingen: Universitätsverlag / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21996). For a fresh approach to all these sources, see J. M. Silverman / C. Waerzeggers (ed.), Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire (ANEM 13; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015). 8 Different in 1 Esd 2:15–25. 9 Kratz, Kyros; id., “Nabonid und Kyros”; on the reflections in Dan 1–6, see id., Translatio. 10 See O. H.  Steck, Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (FAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 149–207; M. Wischnowsky, “Das Buch Deuterojesaja—Kom­ position und Wachstum in Jes 40–55”, BN 69 (1993) 87–96; J. Werlitz, Redaktion und Komposition: Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40–55 (BBB 122; Berlin: Philo, 1999), 22–3, 162–88; Petry, Entgrenzung, 105–240.

Isaiah and the Persians

159

denoted as the Cyrus additions (including the reference in Isa 44:28 and 45:1) in the time of Darius. However, he modified the proposal, if not to say turned it upside down by suggesting that some texts, such as 42:5–7; 45:11–13 and 48:12–16, do not speak about Cyrus but about Darius.11 This bold brainchild is based on the assumption that only those persons can be mentioned in our biblical texts who were still alive and known to the recipient at the time of writing. This means that Isa 44:28 and 45:1 must belong to the Cyrus era, and that, on the other hand, those passages that reflect on the Darius era can only allude to Darius. A similar way of thinking is to be found in the postulate that the announcement of the temple construction and the release of the Golah can only be prior to the actual date or the date supposed in research. This is a desperate attempt to bring historical reality, which is a hypothetical reconstruction anyway, into harmony with the biblical text. From the wording that connects the texts in question with those passages in which Cyrus is referred to by name, there can be no doubt that here Cyrus is being alluded to and not Darius, whether or not this coincides with the historical reality. Our task can lie only in explaining this fact historically, even if it is incompatible with reality. The reference to Cyrus in Isa 44:28 and 45:1, whether original or secondary, thus marks a terminus a quo, no more and no less. Whether the Cyrus texts belong to the Cyrus era or emerged later in order to link the announced salvation process, corresponding to 2 Chron 36 and Ezra 1–6, with the founder of Achaemenid rule in Babylon, is an open question which must be answered by other means than just projecting the imagined literary situation onto historical reality. The same applies to the Late Babylonian and Persian analogies to the image of Cyrus and all other topics or concepts in Deutero-Isaiah.12 The fact that the biblical text is influenced by traditio-historical or religio-historical analogies is obvious and has long been seen to be the case. In the salvation oracles of Isa 40–55 we can even recognise Neo-Assyrian influence. This does not mean, however, that the text should be put on the same level as the analogies and dated according to them. Rather, biblical tradition itself lives in the ideas and conceptions which are evidenced by ancient Near Eastern sources and—like these—deals freely with them. This does not result in a dating. An interpretation that only focuses on the historical realities mentioned in the text or on ancient Near Eastern analogies and ignores the individual text, the literary stratification, and the relative chronology of the sources falls short both methodologically and historically. Entitling Cyrus as “shepherd”, “messiah” and “friend of Yhwh” who rebuilds the temple and city 11 Albertz, “Darius”, followed by Berges, “Dareios”, with one exception. 12 On the introduction of the return of Yhwh in the (secondary) framework Isa 40:1–5 and 52:7–10, see C. Ehring, Die Rückkehr JHWHs: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Jesaja 40,1–11, Jesaja 52,7–10 und verwandten Texten (WMANT 116; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007). I find the arguments for the originality of 40:9–11 (ibid. 20, 90–5) unconvincing.

160

Reinhard G. Kratz

of Jerusalem and releases the Golah only makes sense—even in prophetic proclamation—in retrospect and in the light of the interpretation of history in 2 Chron 36 and Ezra 1–6. The memory of Cyrus the Great lived on in Babylon, Egypt, Iran and Greece long after 539 BCE, and only later gained form and meaning. For this reason, I maintain that a dating after 539 BCE remains plausible for the basic writing (Grundschrift) in Isa 40–48 (framed by 40:1–5 and 52:7–10) as well as for further amendments, in particular the Cyrus additions.13 As James Linville has recently shown in an original comparison with the cargo cult, the importance of Cyrus does not lie so much in the historical figure.14 The anonymous conqueror “from the east” or the “north”, who Yhwh “has a­ wakened”,15 as well as the name of Cyrus, invoke the theme of world domination, which brings us to the theme of this volume. The conqueror, who stands pars pro toto for the Persian Empire, is placed over Babel, the “mistress of kingdoms” (Isa 47:5), and all other empires, is at the same time subordinated to the rule of the God Yhwh, namely, “for the sake of Jacob-Israel” (Isa 45:4).16 Thus the glorification and exploitation of the Persian world power, or in other words, universality and particularity, are in balance.17 From the perspective of compositional history it is interesting that the theme Cyrus and Babel is focused on Isa 40–48 and then displaced by other issues. In my opinion, this change of subjects has something to do with the literary history of the book. If we are correct in assuming that Isa 42:5–7 refers to Cyrus (or at least could have been referred to him by a reader) and identifies him as being the servant of Yhwh in 42:1–4 and 49:1–6,18 then we can see how the balance of political and divine world domination in the further literary development of the book of Isaiah shifts in favour of the sole rule of God. So in Isaiah 49:1–6 the “servant of Yhwh”, which is Israel, according to the final text (49:3), is called to be 13 For the basic writing (Grundschrift), see Kratz, Kyros, 169–72, for the Cyrus additions, ibid. 183–91. From today’s perspective, I would be even more cautious regarding the “words of the prophet” that precede the Grundschrift, and no longer exclude a later dating for them, too; for the discourse situation (described ibid. 161–168) regarding the trial speeches, a dating after 539 BCE does not change anything since the Babylonian controversy over Nabonidus and Cyrus did not end with the capture of Babylon, but only began to be documented epigraphically afterwards. 14 Linville, “Playing with Maps”. 15 This recalls Elam and Media in Isa 13:17; 21:2; Jer 51:11, 28; see also Jer 50:9, 41. 16 Even this formulation cannot be automatically restricted to the liberation from Baby­ lonian captivity (e.g., Werlitz, Redaktion, 188). 17 See Davies, “God of Cyrus”; Linville, “Playing with Maps”. The balance between political and divine rule also includes the balance in the distribution of royal characteristics. Cyrus shares many of his merits and honorary titles with Abraham, “God’s friend”, and Jacob-Israel, the chosen “servant” (Isa 41:8–16; 43:1–7; 44:1–5), the “servant” of the Ebed-Yhwh songs (42:1–4; 49:1–6) as well as Zion-Jerusalem, the bride of Yhwh, who inherits (Isa 49–54; 60–62) the royal status of Babylon (Isa 47). 18 Kratz, Kyros, 128–47.

Isaiah and the Persians

161

a “light to the nations”; in Isa 42:5–7 this function is transferred to the ruler of the world (Cyrus), who is to liberate the people from prison. In Isa 60, however, it is Yhwh himself, whose “glory” shines on Zion, so that Zion becomes a “light” for the people who deliver their tributes there. What according to Ezra 7:27 should be effected politically, namely the glorification of the temple in Jerusalem, is accomplished in the imperial vision of Isa 60 through the direct intervention of Yhwh (Isa 60:7, 13).

II. Creation A statement on creation is often associated with the figure of Cyrus (Isa 42:5; 45:12; 48:13; also 44:24; 45:7). This brings us to a second topos, which has both Babylonian and Persian analogies. The topic was taken up by Jacques Vermeylen and treated in terms of a redaction-critical approach.19 Whatever we may think about this approach, we owe to Vermeylen the insight that the statements on the creation of heaven and earth (or earth and heaven) associated with Cyrus must not only be distinguished from other statements, such as the creation of Israel or the creation of salvation,20 but also from other world-creation statements in Deutero-Isaiah.21 Here, too, a differentiated approach is appropriate, and it does not matter whether we differentiate the conceptual divergences in the texts only as different voices of a discourse or also in terms of their literary history. Numerous Mesopotamian (Neo-Assyrian as well as Babylonian) parallels can also be found for the statements on creation in Deutero-Isaiah. The influence of these parallels lies very much in the past and therefore does not help in dating. Only those statements on the creation that are associated with Cyrus (42:5; 45:12; 48:13; and 45:18) offer a hint. They have a striking affinity with Achaemenid royal inscriptions, which themselves draw on Mesopotamian models but have their own profile.22 One feature of this profile is that the statement on creation represents a stable, constituent element of the imperial Persian ideology. Placed at the top in this ideology is the god Ahura Mazda, who, like Yhwh in Isa 42:5; 45:12 and 48:13, created earth and heaven (usually in that order!), the people on earth and the blessings for the people, and finally called and appointed the Persian king (DNa 1–5). Just as the “servant of Yhwh” in Isa 42:1–4, identified probably as Cyrus in 19 J. Vermeylen, “Le motif de la création dans le Deutéro-Isaïe”, in F. Blanquart / P. Beauchamp (ed.), La création dans l’Orient Ancien: Congrès de l’ACFEB Lille (1985) (LeDiv 127; Paris: Éd. Du Cerf., 1987) 183–240; cf. Kratz, Kyros, 108–13. 20 Isa 45:7 also belongs to the latter. 21 Isa 40:12, 21–28; 45:18; 51:13, 16; I also include 44:24 here. 22 C. Herrenschmidt, “Les créations d’Ahuramazda”, StIr 6 (1977) 17–58; Koch in Frei / Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation, 137–205; see Kratz, Translatio, 202–12, the evidence ibid. 207–8; id., Kyros, 112; Achenbach, “Kyros-Orakel”.

162

Reinhard G. Kratz

vv. 5–7, carries Mishpat and Torah to the people, so it is also one of the main tasks of the Persian king to establish and enforce the world order and law (datā), as set down in creation, in the global multi-ethnic state, which has been subordinated to him by Ahura Mazda (DB 6–8).23 If we can expect the statements on creation in the Cyrus texts in Deutero-Isaiah to have been influenced by Achaemenid ideology, then this would achieve a terminus a quo. The epigraphic evidence and the gradual spread of this ideology in the various national languages begins with Darius I, which means that the relevant Cyrus texts in Deutero-Isaiah can hardly have originated beforehand. It is even more difficult to assess the relationship to Zoroastrian literature, in particular to the Gathas, which are sometimes taken as the religio-historical background not only for the Achaemenid inscriptions, but also for the statements on creation in Deutero-Isaiah.24 A classic example is the seemingly dualistic statement in Isa 45:6–7: “I am Yhwh, and there is no other, who forms light and creates darkness, who provides weal (1QIsaa: good) and creates woe, I am Yhwh, who does all this.” The closest parallel in the Gathas (Yasna 44) is: “What man, O Mazda, is the creator of good thinking? This do I ask Thee, O Ahura and wish you tell me truly, Ahura: Which master workman has created light and darkness?” However, the comparison is affected with great uncertainty.25 The Zoroastrian tradition, the Avesta, like the Hebrew Bible before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, is documented only in late medieval manuscripts and is therefore difficult to date. The dating of Zoroaster and his teachings, which are assumed to be found mainly in the Gathas, is as certain or uncertain as the dating of Moses and the laws of Sinai. Dates put forward by Iranologists range from the 2nd millennium BCE to the Achaemenid era or even later.26 Nonetheless, scholars generally assume 23 For the Persian inscriptions, see R. G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (AOS 33; New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 21953); for the Behistun inscription, see CII: R. Schmitt, The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Version (CII 1.1.1; London: Lund Humphries, 1991); E. N. von Voigtlander, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian Version (CII 1.2.1; London: Lund Humphries, 1978); J. C. Greenfield / B. Porten, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic Version (CII 1.5.1; London: Lund Humphries, 1982). 24 Koch in Frei / Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation, 142, 144–6; Achenbach, “Kyros-​ Orakel”; T. Römer, “Tendances dualistes dans quelques écrits bibliques de l’époque perse”, Trans. 23 (2002) 45–58. 25 See J. Barr, “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity”, JAAR 53 (1985) 201–35. 26 See M.  Boyce / F.  Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism (3 vol.; HdO I: Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten VIII 2/2A; Leiden: Brill 1975–1991), vol. 2; 3.473–4; M. Boyce, “The Religion of Cyrus the Great”, in A. Kuhrt / H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory (Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1988) 15–31; M. Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathustras: Geschichte, Gegenwart, Rituale (3 vol.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002–2004), 1.26–31 and 157–86; id., Zarathustra und seine Religion (München: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2005). For the discussion, see C. Herrenschmidt, “La religion des Achéménides: État de la question”, StIr 9 (1980) 325–39.

Isaiah and the Persians

163

as a matter of course that the Achaemenid inscriptions had been influenced by the teachings of Zoroaster applying the religious beliefs to the political domain. Not being an expert in the field of Iranian studies, I do not presume to make a judgement on this. Nevertheless, I venture to speculate that it could have been the other way round, which, in my opinion, is much more plausible and would agree much better with the evidence. This would mean that the political concepts in the Achaemenid inscriptions—including religious aspects such as the concept of the supreme deity Ahura Mazda as the royal god—occurred at the beginning of a development that, in the (later) Zoroastrianism, then led to religious radicalisation and eschatological charging of the political concept, and subsequently to a Zoroastrian variant of the royal ideology under the Sasanids. But perhaps both processes originated independently of each other. Whichever process is favoured, it still remains the case that the Zoroastrian teachings are not suitable parallels for the statements on creation in Deutero-­ Isaiah and indeed are not even necessary to explain these statements. They can be explained adequately by Israelite-Judean traditions, especially from West Semitic and Mesopotamian background,27 and the Cyrus texts in particular can be explained with the analogy in the Achaemenid inscriptions. The latter brings us back to the subject of “Imperial Visions in the Book of Isaiah”. In the Cyrus texts the notion of the creation of the world serves to provide the space for a universal, political world order. It is this function of creation that makes the difference between the Cyrus texts and the older concepts of creation in the speeches of disputation and oracles of salvation, which are part of the basic writing (Grundschrift) in Isa 40–48. In the speeches of disputation, the creation of the world is used as an argument for Yhwh’s will and ability to bring salvation to Israel. In the oracles of salvation, the creation encounters Israel-Jacob, which is a metaphor of the election. In contrast, the reference to creation in the Cyrus texts, as in the Persian royal inscriptions, constitutes a space in which a royal figure (Cyrus) is instituted as the earthly representative of the divine world order for the salvation of Israel and of all nations, as a “covenant of the people (of mankind)” and as “light of the nations”, as stated in Isa 42:6 (in allusion to and reformulation of Isa 49:6). Terminologically the Cyrus texts agree with the story of creation in the Priestly Writing in Gen 1, in which man takes the royal position in the world order created by Yhwh. In Gen 9 Yhwh makes a covenant with mankind, so that finally, in Gen 17, Abraham and his descendants (“peoples and kings”), in other words: Israel, receive a special covenant. The concept of the Priestly Writing could also have originated under the influence of the Persian imperial ideology. It is difficult to say whether the political conception in Deutero-Isaiah, which—as in the Achaemenid inscriptions—introduces its own royal figure as a representative 27 Psalm 104 shows how both traditions merge.

164

Reinhard G. Kratz

of the world order, precedes or follows the Priestly Writing, or whether they both arose independently from each other. Be that as it may, it is certain that Gen 1 influenced the further literary development of Isaiah and prevailed in an eschatological transformation. In the interpretation of the Deutero-Isaianic texts, Isa 65:17 proclaims the creation of a new heaven and a new earth, in which all the peoples will worship Yhwh, without a political intermediary. This will be a reality that is apparently impossible in the old world-order and cannot be expected of any world power.

III. Monotheism The third topos, which I would like to discuss briefly here, is Deutero-Isaianic monotheism, which is often verbalised in such expressions as “I am Yhwh, there is no other,” etc.28 The exclusive monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah is closely associated with the figure of Cyrus.29 In what are known as the “trial speeches against the nations and their gods” which structure the basic writing (Grundschrift) in Isa 40–48,30 the conqueror—subjugating all peoples (not only Babylon!) in his sleep, so to speak—is used as a decisive argument for the uniqueness of Yhwh. The argument is submitted in a “prediction proof ” (Weissagungsbeweis), which raises the question of who foresaw and effected the “former things” and also predicted the “things to come.” The “prediction proof ” is to decide who is God (Isa 41:23: “That we may know that you are gods”). Whilst the peoples and their gods addressed in the trial speech do not know the answer, Yhwh can point to the “bird of prey” from the east or northeast, i. e. someone from among the peoples which he himself had called and appointed to overrun peoples and kings, without touching the ground (41:3, 25; 46:11). The reference is to none other than Cyrus, whose appointment is described in Isa 45:1–7. The appointment transpired for the sake of Jacob-Israel (45:4) and as proof of the uniqueness of God Yhwh to all the world: “I am Yhwh, and there is no other; besides me there is no god” (45:7). It has long been seen that this historically-based demonstration of Yhwh’s uniqueness is the Jewish response to the internal Babylonian controversy over Nabonidus and Cyrus, and the question of the supreme god.31 Concerning issues 28 For the monotheistic formulae, see Kratz, Kyros, 31 n. 93. 29 For the following, see Kratz, Kyros, on the critical differentiation, see ibid. 30–3 and 148–74. Whether the trial speeches and the Cyrus oracle led an independent existence before the basic writing (Grundschrift) seems doubtful to me now; both could have been drawn up then and there for the composition. 30 Isa 41:1–4; 41:21–29; 43:9–13; 44:6–8; 45:20–21 + 46:6–11; see Kratz, Kyros, 152. 31 For the trial speeches, see Kratz, Kyros, 163–8, on their position and function within the basic writing (Grundschrift) from the time after 539 BCE, ibid. 170–4. For the details, see Albani,

Isaiah and the Persians

165

of prophecy (destiny, divination) as well as the role of Cyrus, the Deutero-Isaianic texts follow the position of the Babylonian priests of Marduk to a certain extent. If the polemic is directed against Nabonidus and his favoured moon god Sin and Cyrus is commandeered to their god Marduk, then, from a Jewish perspective, Yhwh takes the position of the supreme god instead of Marduk or Sin. At the same time, however, Yhwh is declared to be the only god, instead of just the highest amongst many—this being the first time in the history of religion of Israel and Judah.32 Since the discourse in the Babylonian literature occurs before and after 539 BCE, it does not contribute much to the issue of the dating of Deutero-Isaiah. The same particularly applies to the polemic on idols, which make reference to the trial speeches. The polemic does not justify the uniqueness of God on the basis of the historical figure of Cyrus, but on the production and material of the statues of the gods.33 Since the polemic in 46:1–2 is directed explicitly or otherwise implicitly against the Babylonian gods (statues), scholarship likewise frequently associates the polemic on idols with the internal Babylonian controversy over Nabonidus (Sîn) and Cyrus (Marduk), dated around 539 BCE, and declares it to be original.34 However, in my opinion, there are two objections to this: on the one hand, other than in the trial speeches, the uniqueness of Yhwh in the polemic against idols is not justified expressly, but taken for granted, as shown, not least, by the literary references to the trial speeches. Secondly, the confrontation with the (Babylonian) idolatry in no way becomes irrelevant after 539 BCE, since Cyrus and his successors, with a few exceptions, did not destroy the statues of the Babylonian gods, but, on the contrary, treated them with care and actively supported the Babylonian cults. If we follow the reasoning of Matthias Albani, who believes that after the capture of Babylon by Cyrus Babylonian idolatry no

Der eine Gott; id., “Deuterojesajas Monotheismus”; for further discussion, Petry, Entschränkung; Leuenberger, Monotheismus. 32 The few other places in the Hebrew Bible where we find the monotheistic formula are rather late and seem to presuppose Second Isaiah: 2 Kings 19:15, 19/Isa 37:16, 20 belong to version B2 of the Isaiah narrative and presuppose the older version B1 as well as the tribute episode A (in 2 Kings 18:13–16 + 19:36–37); both versions B1 and B2 are usually dated in Babylonian times, but in parts might be even younger; see R. G. Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem”, in R.  Thelle / T.  Stordalen / M. E.J.  Richardson (ed.), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (VT.S 168; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 143–60, on pp. 146, 153–4. Deut 4 interprets the First Commandment in light of the Deutero-Isaianic monotheism (Deut 4:35), both passages, Deut 4 and 2 Kings 19:14–19/Isa 37:14–20, are closely related to the polemics against other gods in Second Isaiah; see Kratz, Kyros, 201–2. 33 See Kratz, Kyros, 192–6; recently S. Ammann, Götter für die Toren: Die Verbindung von Götterpolemik und Weisheit im Alten Testament (BZAW 466; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 18–106. 34 See Werlitz, Redaktion, 40–53, 221–37; Albani, Der eine Gott, 22–4; Ehring, Rückkehr, 220–67.

166

Reinhard G. Kratz

longer posed a challenge for the Judeans in exile,35 then we would have to date the pseudepigraphic Epistula Ieremiae in the period prior to 539 BCE and declare it to be authentic, not to talk about the Wisdom of Solomon or the Apocalypsis of Abraham. If, however, we free ourselves from an overly rigid fixation on the date 539 BCE, a different background for the Deutero-Isaianic monotheism can be considered: the Iranian (Zoroastrian) monotheism. But also here, we have to be very careful constructing a direct dependency. In the Achaemenid inscriptions since Darius I, with the exception of Artaxerxes II, virtually only one deity, Ahura Mazda is mentioned.36 Ahura Mazda incorporates all things for the Persian kings: the creator of the world, the dynastic and imperial god, and the guarantor of the cosmic and political world order in all peoples on earth, which he handed over to the Achaemenid dynasty. It is, of course, very tempting to perceive a political concretion of Zoroastrian monotheism which is effective in the Gathas and the Avestan literature.37 But as we have already seen in section two above, this relationship is far from being definite and is rather unlikely. Not only do the exceptions under Artaxerxes II (which name the goddess Anahita, and Mitra as well as Ahura Mazda) speak against such a relationship, but also the mode of rule in the country itself (Persepolis) as well as in the conquered territories. The promotion of Babylonian, Egyptian, Asia Minor and Judean-Samarian Yhwh cults is documented epigraphically. Also documented is the identification of the Iranian supreme god Ahura Mazda with the high gods of the conquered ethnic groups (Marduk, Re, Yhwh).38 This identification was not only tolerated by the Persians, but was also initiated by them. All this is difficult to reconcile with Zoroastrian monotheism. The singularity of Ahura Mazda in the Achaemenid inscriptions can be explained much more easily from the literary form, which basically says that Ahura Mazda is a dynastic and imperial god alongside whom, for other regions, “other gods” existed and were allowed to 35 Albani, Der eine Gott, 24; see also Hartenstein, “Götter”, 225: (“Je später in der Perserzeit man indes den Kernbestand der Grundschicht datiert, desto weniger einsichtig wird die reli­ giös-kulturelle Konfliktsituation, die sich in den Anfangstexten der Prophetenschrift spiegelt.” (However, the later we date the core component of the basic layer in the Persian period, the less understanding do we have of the religious and cultural conflict situation which is reflected in the early texts of the prophets.). 36 See Ahn, Herrscherlegitimation; Frei / Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation (taking also the iconographic evidence into account); C. Herrenschmidt, “Désignation de l’empire et concepts politiques des Darius Ier d’après ses inscriptions en vieux-perse”, StIr 5 (1976) 33–65; eadem, “Religion”; adapted in Kratz, Translatio, 201–12, 225–6. 37 See Koch in Frei / Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation, 142, 144–6, 156–9, 175–184, 193–7 and the literature given in note 26 above. Occasionally the Daeva inscription of Xerxes I (XpH) is invoked here (Frei / Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation, 142), but it is not clear which “idolatries” it refers to. 38 Kratz, Translatio, 213–4; Fried, “Cyrus”.

Isaiah and the Persians

167

exist. Even the terms of imperial Achaemenid ideology, which linguistically echo the teachings of Zarathustra (such as law and order, truth or falsehood),39 can themselves be readily explained by political conceptions with mythical connotations. Whoever reads the Zoroastrian dualism of “truth” and “lie” into this could just as well find the Old Testament conception of God’s covenant in ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. The question still remains: where does the Deutero-Isaianic monotheism comes from?40 There is no doubt that both the central role of Marduk in the internal Babylonian controversy over Nabonidus and Cyrus and the dominant position of the god Ahura Mazda in the imperial Achaemenid ideology since Darius I imply a religio-historical situation in which Deutero-Isaianic monotheism could emerge. This monotheism goes further than the politico-religious and theological interests of the Babylonian Marduk priests or the Persian kings, and puts these into perspective. It could, in this respect, be seen as a specific Jewish, or perhaps more correctly, as a specific biblical response to the imperial context of the Persian Empire. The decisive impetus for formulating an exclusive monotheism, however, is more likely to have come from inside, in other words, from the biblical tradition itself. The exclusive monotheism found in Isa 40–48 (and Deut 4) is preceded by a long history of theological reflection, in which the relationship between Yhwh and his people Israel was deliberated upon. I will mention only the most important stages: the prophetic message of doom that unites the people of “Israel” and prepares the ground for “the law” as a new benchmark for the relationship with God; the centralisation of the cult and the Shema‘ Israel, which unify the cultic sites and the deity; the Decalogue and especially the first commandment, which calls for the exclusivity of Yhwh and prohibits “other gods” for Israel.41 Only in this context can we understand how, in the religio-historical conditions of the Persian Empire, the step from the exclusivity of Yhwh to his uniqueness within the biblical tradition was able to be taken and an imperial vision of the one and only God created. However, this exclusive monotheism was neither a dogma nor a philosophical construct, and it was not the final word. In the biblical and parabiblical tradition up to the writings of Qumran, “other gods” and divine beings 39 The relevant terms are: arta “world order, truth (Avestan aša)”, xšaça “right rule, kingship”, gathu “place” (in the order of creation), šiyāti “joy, welfare, peace”, datā “law”, and the antonym for right order drauga “lie”. 40 Some scholars think of an Egyptian import following the religious “revolution” of Akhena­ ten in the Amarna epoch (14th century BCE), others of the dominant role of the god Ashur in the Neo-Assyrian empire (8–7th century BCE). Both options lack the evidence in the biblical sources, where the monotheistic formula occurs first in Second Isaiah. Here, the emergence of the idea fits the original context in Isa 40–48, at the other places it is secondary in its literary context (see above n. 32). 41 See E. Aurelius, “Der Ursprung des Ersten Gebots”, ZThK 100 (2003) 1–21; Petry, Ent­ schränkung.

168

Reinhard G. Kratz

(good and evil angels or powers) were still envisaged. These co-existed alongside or under Yhwh and acted for good or bad in heaven and on earth. The subject in the book of Isaiah, however, is confined to chapters Isa 40–48, and in its place, other issues push themselves into the foreground. Instead of divine beings or powers42 other entities within the text of Second Isaiah take over, or contribute to, what is expected to be the role of god and are set in relationship to both YHWH and the peoples of the whole world: Jacob-Israel, Zion-Jerusalem, the servant of God, and the servants (the elect, the righteous). Thus, the imperial vision in Isa 40–48 changes into an eschatological vision of the universal rule of Yhwh.

42 See Isa 45:8; 55:20–21 of heaven and earth, justice and the word as efficacies of God.

Joachim Schaper

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 Trito-Isaiah as an Example of Resistance Literature

I. Empires, resistance literature and Trito-Isaiah No empires exist in today’s world (apart from the American one, which we are not supposed to call an empire). But empires are fashionable. Many recent publications are witnesses to that fact. The field of modern history abounds with them. Just compare works like The Age of Empire: 1875–1914, by the late Eric Hobsbawm, a book which was published in 1987 and probably acted as a trendsetter, inaugurating what we have come to call “empire studies”. And there is, of course, Niall Ferguson’s spectacularly successful Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Ferguson, a rightwinger characterized by the Marxist Hobsbawm as an “excellent historian”, was called, by the same man, “a nostalgist for empire”. There are many such nostalgists these days—which also becomes obvious from the fact that a collection of real-time strategy computer games inspired by events in world-history is called Age of Empires. Reverting to academic examples, there is an online publication called the Journal for Empire Studies, and you can take a course of study leading towards a Graduate Certificate in Empire Studies (at the University of Houston). And it is also interesting to see that these fashions come in waves; one such previous wave of heightened interest in empire and empires had men like Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee riding it to great effect. Many examples could be added to the list of recent products spawned by the (often quite unhealthy) interest in empires. As if all of that was not enough, the essays in the present volume are the results of a conference dedicated to The Prophet and the Book of Isaiah in an Age of Empires. Isn’t that a bit of an overkill? Well, maybe not. For the following reason, among others: The book of Isaiah gives us the opportunity to look at empires—not one, but three!—from the perspective of the underdog, from the point of view of the people at the receiving end. That is rewarding in itself. With regard to Isaiah as a key to a better understanding of Judah under the rule of three successive empires, and of the Judahites’ political and religious reactions towards those empires, Trito-Isaiah has probably received least attention, compared to that devoted to Proto- and Deutero-Isaiah. There are, of course, notable

170

Joachim Schaper

exceptions, amongst them Hanson’s Dawn of Apocalyptic.1 Overall, however, there is not that much, and Trito-Isaiah as a document of intellectual resistance against the Achaemenids and their imperialism remains largely unexplored. In this essay, I should like to draw the reader’s attention to some of those aspects of Trito-Isaiah. All I aim to do here is to question some of the usual perspectives on the intended function of “Trito-Isaiah” as a piece of prophetic literature; the present study is an attempt to understand that function more deeply by adducing insights from other areas of the study of literature, to apply them to the exegesis of Isa 56–66 and to point out the importance of the desire for land and freedom expressed in Isa 56–66. I mentioned the term “resistance”, and that may sound like an overstatement. Wilhelm J. Wessels sees the book of Nahum as an example of resistance literature, and C. B. Hays has drawn attention to the book of Isaiah as resistance literature, concentrating on Isa 1–39, which he reads against the background of F. Fanon’s work.2 What is “resistance literature”? Barbara Harlow’s study under that title, published in 1987, was a milestone in the history of postcolonial studies.3 As one reviewer writes, it broke new ground in western literary studies by not only calling for a wider, more serious consideration of previously ignored Third World texts, but also for demanding that critics abandon their New Critical mantle of neutrality and objectivity in favor of a methodology that takes the social, political, and historical circumstances of these works into account. The assertion at the center of Resistance Literature is straightforward: literature represents an essential ‘arena of struggle’ for those peoples who seek liberation through armed fighting from oppressive colonialism. As Harlow explains, ‘the historical struggle against colonialism and imperialism of such resistance movements … is waged at the same time as a struggle over the historical and cultural record.’4

It is easy to see that it makes sense to apply this category to ancient texts that originated in the context of confrontation between empires and subject nations. Particularly interesting is the insight that resistance movements often do not conduct armed struggles, but “a struggle over the historical and cultural record”. And sometimes, one might add, resistance is indeed focused particularly intensely 1 P. D.  Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975) and idem, Isaiah 40–66 (IBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), building on O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968). 2 Cf. W. J. Wessels, “Nahum: An Uneasy Expression of Yahweh’s Power”, Old Testament Essays 11 (1998) 615–28 and C. B. Hays, “Isaiah as Colonized poet: His Rhetoric of Death in Conversation with African Postcolonial Writers”, in A. T. Abernethy et al. (ed.), Isaiah and Imperial Context (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013) 51–70. 3 B. Harlow, Resistance Literature (New York / London: Methuen, 1987). 4 E.  Hurt, Review of B.  Harlow, Resistance Literature, https://www.dwrl.utexas.edu/orgs/​e3w/ volume-8-spring-2008/the-shape-of-resistance-literature/erin-hurt-on-resistance-literature.

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

171

on the historical and cultural record, including the religious record with its beliefs, practices and expectations. In a critical discussion of James C. Scott’s concept of the “hidden transcript”, A. E. Portier-Young points out that “the veiled and unveiling discourse of apocalyptic literature that is at the same time secret and disclosure, obscure and transparent, tantalizes the critic with its parallels to Scott’s theory of the hidden and public transcript.”5 Of central importance is the apocalypses’ “exposure of the hidden structures of false power and assertion of a more potent invisible power”.6 This is true of many proto-apocalyptic biblical texts as well, and, as we shall see, it is equally true of Trito-Isaiah. Research into prophetic texts especially of the Second Temple period can recover a dimension of the texts which an exclusively religious and theological interest tends to obscure, and has often obscured for a long time. Reading and interpreting these prophetic texts from the point of view of an interest in resistance literature can be helpful in the endeavour to rediscover the multidimensionality and the political-historical settings of the texts, especially of those of an eschatological, proto-apocalyptic or apocalyptic nature. Here it is beneficial to listen to Jacob Taubes when he discusses apocalypticism and freedom in his remarkable book Abendländische Eschatologie,7 a tour d’horizon of concepts of the end-time from ancient Israel to Marx and Kierkegaard that is deeply inspired by works of H. U. von Balthasar and K. Löwith.8 Taubes’ book has been criticized for the simplistic contrast he claims existed between the eschatological world-view of Near Eastern cultures (specifically ancient Israel) and the “cyclical” view of time that was allegedly characteristic of ancient Greek and related Western cultures. The contrast he posits has rightly been pointed out by H. Cancik and H. Cancik-Lindemaier as owing more to Taubes’ reading of Nietzsche than to his knowledge of ancient Greece.9 Taubes’ view of Greek philosophy and religion is indeed skewed by a specific reading of Nietzsche that was endemic in certain circles in the time between the world wars. Cancik and Cancik-Lindemaier rightly adduce a wealth of material from classical and later Greek literature that betrays a noncyclical, linear and indeed eschatological view of time and history and directly and thoroughly contradicts Taubes’ understanding of the Greek tradition. However, Taubes’ knowledge of the cultures on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean was 5 A. E.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Eerdmans, 2011), 37. 6 Ibid. 7 J. Taubes, Abendländische Eschatologie (Beiträge zur Soziologie und Sozialphilosophie 3; Bern: Francke, 1947; repr. Munich: Matthes & Seitz, 1991 [English title: Occidental Eschatology (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009). 8 H. U. von Balthasar, Apokalypse der deutschen Seele (3 vol.; Salzburg: Pustet, 1937–8) and K. Löwith, Von Hegel bis Nietzsche (Zürich: Europa, 1941). 9 H. Cancik  /  H. Cancik-Lindemaier, “Nietzsches Antike und die jüdische Kritik”, in H.  Cancik / H.  Cancik-Lindemaier, Philolog und Kultfigur: Friedrich Nietzsche und seine Antike in Deutschland (Stuttgart / Weimar: J. B. Metzler) 131–50, on pp. 145–8.

172

Joachim Schaper

considerable deeper, and less prejudiced, than his understanding of the Greeks. And he had a keen eye for connections where others saw none. Taubes writes: The question of freedom is the fundamental theme in apocalypticism, and all of its motifs point to the turning point, when the structure of this world prison will burst apart. This turn does not refer in the first instance, or exclusively, to the existing social order. Apocalypticism is at first not concerned with changing the structure of society, but directs its gaze away from this world. If revolution were to mean only replacing an existing society with a better one, then the connection between apocalypticism and revolution is not evident. But if revolution means opposing the totality of this world with a new totality that comprehensively founds anew in the way that it negates …, namely, in terms of the basic foundations, then apocalypticism is by nature revolutionary.10

And Taubes adds: Apocalypticism negates the world in its fullness. It brackets the entire world negatively. … Apocalypticism is revolutionary because it beholds the turning point not in some indeterminate future but entirely proximate. Apocalyptic prophecy thus focuses on the future and yet is fully set in the present.11

This ties in with a crucial observation made by J. Blenkinsopp who stresses the anti-ruling class impetus of so much of Israelite and Judaean prophetic literature.12 In that respect, too, apocalypticism was the heir of prophecy. Taubes’ sketch of the characteristics of what he calls apocalypticism and apocalyptic prophecy has significant heuristic value for our understanding of texts like Trito-Isaiah, Zech 1–8; 9–11, and 12–14 and other prophetic key texts on the way to full-blown apocalypticism later in the Second Temple period. In order to draw attention to what is at the heart of Trito-Isaiah’s theology, it will be helpful to determine what distinguishes it from earlier forms of prophecy. As we shall see, Taubes’ view is of special significance when we attempt to understand the apocalyptic expectations expressed in texts like Isa 60:19; 65:17 and 66:22 in greater depth. We shall hear more of that later.

II. Eschatological, yet concrete expectations in Trito-Isaiah We can read and interpret the eschatological expectations expressed in Trito-­ Isaiah by concentrating on their place in the history of the Yahweh religion or, more specifically, by seeing them as milestones on the way of the development 10 Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, 11. 11 Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, 11–12. 12 J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, rev. and enl. edn, 1996), 5.

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

173

of Israelite prophecy. However, necessary and rewarding as that is, such readings often ignore the texts’ political and social dimensions. If exegetes restrict themselves to purely theological or “history-of-religion” points of view, they are prone to walking into the trap of reading the texts in question as instances of a quietistic attitude, as an expression of the disappointment of a defeated people in the process of adjusting its religious self-expression. Goldingay yields to that temptation, in the same section in which he rightly discusses the potential of a postcolonial reading of Trito-Isaiah. He writes: One could call Isaiah 56–66 quietist in stance. While it does not explicitly stress trust in the manner of Isaiah 1–39, it implies the same stance. The restoring of Jerusalem will come about, but by Yhwh’s action. Nahum does not urge rebellion on Judah, but does believe that a process of conscientization or consciousness-raising needs to happen, whereby the colonized people can cut the imperial power down in its thinking, pending the day when Yhwh cuts it down politically. Isaiah 56–66 has a similar aim.13

As we shall see, this rather understates the case. Goldingay’s view can probably be seen as being representative of the mainstream tradition of interpretation of Trito-Isaiah in that it more or less systematically excludes a genuinely political-historical reading of the text, in spite of his deliberations about “a postcolonial reading” of Trito-Isaiah.14 There is a marked tendency to understate the political dimension of the belief in the coming kingdom of Yahweh and of the divine warrior motif. And there also is a tendency to negate or at least understate the apocalyptic dimension of the hope for a new heaven and a new earth expressed in chs 65 and 66. I think that the eschatological passages in Trito-Isaiah texts can, and should, be read in a manner quite different from the one just summarised. And it is my contention that such a political-historical reading of Trito-Isaiah is not a matter of choice, not a matter of giving in to some kind of exegetical fad, but the result of a careful appreciation of passages such as Isa 60:19 and Isa 65:17. Trito-Isaiah, so many exegetes agree, has a concentric structure, or, to put it differently, that of a “chiasm or stepped structure or inverted pyramid”: “Preface and postscript: the place of foreigners in the service of Yhwh”: 56:1–8 // 66:18–24; “Yhwh’s challenges concerning the Jerusalem community’s life”: 56:9–59:8 // ​65:1– 66:17; “Prayers for Yhwh’s forgiveness and restoration”: 59:9–15a // 63:7–64:11; 13 J. Goldingay, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 56–66 (London / New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 40. 14 See Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 38–44: “A Postcolonial Reading”. Also see, from the same year, idem, “Isaiah 56–66: An Isaianic and a Postcolonial Reading”, in A. T. Abernethy et al. (ed.), Isaiah and Imperial Context (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013) 151–66. In the same volume, see M. G. Brett, “Imperial Imagination in Isaiah 56–66”, 167–81.

174

Joachim Schaper

“Visions of Yhwh acting in judgment”: 59:15b–21 // 63:1–6; “Visions of Jerusalem restored”: 60:1–22 // 61:10–62:12; “The prophet’s commission”: 61:1–9.15 Similarly, Blenkinsopp sees chs 60–62 “as the central panel” and arrives at the “outline of a pyramidal structure converging at its apex on the apostrophe to Jerusalem in 60–62 and the first-person declaration of the prophetic author’s identity and mission in 61:1–3”.16 The lower steps of the pyramid are demarcated by the following “set[s] of parallels”, starting with the highest of those steps: 59:15b–20; 63:1–6 (“YHVH as warrior and vindicator”); 59:1–15a; 63:7–64:11 (“communal lament”); 56:9–58:14; 65:1–16 (“condemnation of heterodox cult practices and the religious life of the community in general”); 56:1–8; 66:18–24 (“positive attitude to proselytes and mission to the Gentile world”).17 I shall not enter into a discussion of the book’s literary history, but I assume, with Blenkinsopp and others, that 56–66* at some point existed independently as a redactional unity and was combined with 40–55*, whereupon 40–66* were united with 1–39*, which accounts for the existence of three successive conclusions to Isa 66.18 At the centre of Isa 56–66 we find Isa 61:1–719 (Goldingay: 61:1–9: “[t]he prophet’s commission”). The key themes treated in Isa 56–66 are encapsulated here: amongst them, and this is crucially important, the liberation of the indentured (on which more below), the “day of vengeance of our God” and the future subjugation of the “nations”, resulting in them toiling as the servants of the Judahites. In 61:1–3a, in the first part of the bi-partite pericope 61:1–7,20 at the very heart of the book,21 we read: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,   because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the poor (‘ănāvîm; the RSV translates “afflicted”);   he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the indentured (RSV: captives),   and release to those who are bound (RSV: and the opening of the prison to those   who are bound); to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour,   and the day of vengeance of our God;   to comfort all who mourn; 15 Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 2.  16 J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vol.; The Anchor Yale Bible 19; New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 2000–3), 3:60–1. 17 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:61. 18 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:54–66, especially pp. 62–3. 19 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:54–66, 218–19. 20 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:218–19. 21 Cf. the analysis of Trito-Isaiah’s literary structure in J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:60–3 as well as U. Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS 16; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1998), 419–21.

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

175

to grant to those who mourn in Zion—   to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning,   the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.22

Right at the heart of Trito-Isaiah, we thus find a statement which encapsulates the book’s central tenet and was already foreshadowed, and will be taken up again, on the previous and following steps of the “pyramid”. Bringing good tidings to the ‘ănāvîm and proclaiming freedom for the indentured is an integral part of the prophet’s commission, and that liberation is part and parcel of what is considered the beneficent divine violence of the “day of vengeance of our God”. The result of that violence will be God’s rule over the “foreigners”, a rule in which the liberated will participate and from which they will greatly benefit (61:5–7): Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks,   foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers; but you shall be called the priests of the Lord,   men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations,   and in their riches you shall glory. Instead of your shame, a double portion (RSV: you shall have a double portion):   instead of dishonor they (RSV: you) shall rejoice in their (RSV: your) lot; therefore in their (RSV: your) land they (RSV: you) shall inherit (RSV: possess) a double portion (‫;) ְב ַא ְרצָ ם֙ ִמ ְשנֶ֣ה יִ ירָׁ֔שּו‬   theirs (RSV: yours) shall be everlasting joy.23

The emphasis on the land is significant in the context of liberation because the land is the basis of survival, and it is in the context of the good tidings for the ‘ănāvîm that the double portion (of land) is promised. In v. 7, the listeners / readers are first addressed directly (“your shame”); then the perspective is switched, and the liberated captives are referred to in the third person: “they shall inherit” etc. The biblical contexts in which ‘ānāv and the closely related ‘ānî (cf. the reference to the ‘ānî in 66:2) occur “and the terms denoting poverty and destitution with which they are associated (’ebyôn, dal, rāš) lead to the conclusion that the socioeconomic connotation is the basic one.”24 The promise of land, which finds its strongest expression in 58:14, must have meant very much to the ‘ănāvîm, “a class that also includes widows, orphans, and 22 All translations of Isaianic texts are taken from the RSV and have been modified wherever necessary. 23 See B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51968), 456–66 for an in-depth, but also unnecessarily contorted discussion of the complex textual problems posed by v. 7. Our translation of the verse stays as closely as possible to the MT and arrives at a result that is similar to the one offered by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:219. 24 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:223.

176

Joachim Schaper

displaced persons (Amos 2:7 cf. Isa 3:14; 10:2)”.25 While small-time farmers were dependent, for their survival and that of their families, on their small inherited plots of land (sg. naḥălâh) that typically were just about sufficient for subsistence agriculture, the ‘ănāvîm, to whom the prophet’s good tidings are addressed, were members “of a peasant underclass detached from the basic securities of household and land”. Its emergence “can be traced back to the consolidation of the state apparatus in the eighth century BCE”.26 The fact that freedom is proclaimed not simply for non-specific “captives” but for the indentured labourers of the peasant underclass “can be deduced from the language. The expression liqrō’ dĕrôr (‘proclaim freedom’) is a technical term for the solemn proclamation of the šĕmitṭâ” when the indentured Israelites were set free and had their debts cancelled,27 and the freedom which Isa. 61:1 announces is going to be brought about by Yahweh as the ultimate ruler of his empire and owner of its land.28 It is to the Judahite poor that, according to the prophetic author, freedom will be given and the divinely owned agricultural land will be apportioned. At the very heart of Trito-Isaiah thus stands a very concrete promise of land to the poor, and it goes hand in hand with a promise of victory over “aliens” and “foreigners” that will result in Yahweh’s poor partaking of the “wealth of the nations”—once again, a very concrete promise of material welfare that will have appealed greatly to the lower echelons of Judahite society. This promise is intertwined with the expectation of the “day of vengeance of our God” (v. 2). The key components of the content of the whole of Isa 61:1–7 are also found in other sections of Isa 56–66: most importantly, the promise of land.29 But, as we shall see, this is not the only promise expressed in Isa 61:1–7 that is taken up elsewhere in Isa 56–66. Let us move from the centre to the outer circles. As we have seen, in the overall structure of Isa 56–66 the centre (according to Goldingay, 61:1–9) is flanked—in 60:1–22 and 61:10–62:12—by the “visions of Jerusalem restored”, and it is here that we have the announcement of the imminent kingdom of Yahweh, in 60:5: Then you shall see and be radiant,   your heart shall thrill and rejoice; 25 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:223. 26 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:223. 27 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:225. 28 See Brett, “Imperial Imagination in Isaiah 56–66”, 180: “Yet it is only YHWH who ultimately has the power to declare liberty in Isa 61, as in Lev 25 … Whatever the ambiguities of the poetry in Isa 61:1–3, the underlying claim of YHWH’s divine sovereignty is absolutely clear: contrary to [the] imagination of the Achaemenid administration, it is YHWH’s empire that has jurisdiction in Yehud.” 29 It is interesting to see that key terminology that often (but of course not always) relates to the inheritance of land is found throughout the book: yrš: 57:13; 60:21; 61:7; 63:18; 65:9 (bis); ’erez: 58:14; 60:18; 61:7; 62:4 (bis); 62:7; 62:11; 63:6; 65:16 (bis); naḥălâh: 58:14; 63:17.

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

177

because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,   the wealth of the nations shall come to you.

And again in v. 10: Foreigners shall build up your walls,   and their kings shall minister to you; for in my wrath I smote you,   but in my favour I have had mercy on you.

Also in 60:19–22: The sun shall be no more   your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon   give light to you by night; but the Lord will be your everlasting light,   and your God will be your glory. 20 Your sun shall no more go down,   nor your moon withdraw itself; for the Lord will be your everlasting light,   and your days of mourning shall be ended. 21 Your people shall all be righteous;   they shall possess the land for ever, the shoot of my planting, the work of my hands,   that I might be glorified. 22 The least one shall become a clan,   and the smallest one a mighty nation; I am the Lord;   in its time I will hasten it.

This last passage especially is remarkable because it demonstrates that the expected eschatological changes go well beyond the “standard” expectations, so to speak, of the eschatological and proto-apocalyptic literature of the time: this is a passage that actually anticipates “the abolition of night and day and the seasons generally”,30 as Plöger puts it. By contrast, Goldingay thinks that the reference to Yahweh in v. 19 as the “everlasting light” replacing the sun is metaphorical. Goldingay says: “The point of the line is not the prosaic one that Yhwh will reconfigure the cosmos so that sun and moon no longer shine because they are unnecessary. It again speaks metaphorically.”31 Quite apart from the fact that I find a reference to the reconfiguring of the cosmos much less prosaic than the interpretation which Goldingay offers, I wonder why he can be so sure that vv. 19–20 can only have 30 Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology, 91. 31 Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 278. Cf. ibid: “For the community, the gloom that counts is the darkness of their political and physical circumstances; into these Yahweh will shine in a way that makes sun and moon seem unimportant.”

178

Joachim Schaper

been intended to be read metaphorically. “New creation” terminology elsewhere in Trito-Isaiah makes it much more likely that the two verses are intended to be understood literally. On a different, but no less important, note, it is remarkable that in this scenario we find embedded another promise of the physical possession of actual agricultural land, viz. in v. 21. The terminology chosen to express the promise is virtually identical with that used in 61:7: the verb used is yrš, and the term used for the land is ’erez. The eschatological scenario painted in 60:1–22 is thus bound up with the very concrete promise of inheriting the “land”, which in 60:21 carries the connotations both of “land of Israel” and of “agricultural land”. The circle that contains the “visions of Jerusalem restored” is itself surrounded, in Isa 59:15b–21 and 63:1–6, by the one that comprises “visions of Yhwh acting in judgment”. Here we have passages that are steeped in the imagery of the “divine warrior” motif. Let us first look at Isa 59:15b–20: The Lord saw it, and it displeased him   that there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no man,   and wondered that there was no one to intervene; then his own arm brought him victory,   and his righteousness upheld him. 17 He put on righteousness as a breastplate,   and a helmet of salvation upon his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,   and wrapped himself in fury as a mantle.  18 According to their deeds, so will he repay,   wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies;   to the coastlands he will render requital.  19 So they shall fear the name of the Lord from the west,   and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream,   which the wind of the Lord drives.  20 And he will come to Zion as Redeemer,   to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord.

This passage is complemented perfectly by the equivalent in 63:1–6, which excels in bloodthirsty language and supplies the military detail which 59:15b–21 is less replete with. Once again it is remarkable how many scholars downplay the graphic violence of the imagery and come up with statements like the following: “It is almost as though the Day of Judgement is too cruel, too painful to contemplate, and the exhausted, bloodstained victor is thankful that it is all over.”32 This is an 32 J. Sawyer, Isaiah (2 vol.; Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1986), 2:196. Cf. Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 358: “The passage [i. e., Isa 63:1–6] gives no description of an act of slaughter. It confines

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

179

instance of academic exegesis being apologetic about the nature of the material it is supposed to interpret sine ira et studio. The texts will not be fully understood when such apologetics are going on. For the “divine warrior” texts in Trito-Isaiah are just that: warlike. In the next circle, which consists of 59:9–15a and 63:7–64:11 (Goldingay: “Prayers for Yhwh’s forgiveness and restoration”), we find the following interesting passage (64:3–4a): From of old no one has heard   or perceived by the ear, no eye has seen a God besides thee,   who works for those who wait for him. Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness,   those that remember thee in thy ways.

This is interesting both in its own immediate context and in relation to 59:15b–21. According to 61:4–5, waiting is necessary, but it is not the result of passivity—this kind of waiting is not characteristic of quietists: v. 5 “clarifies that waiting for God also involves doing”.33 The doings, the acts of work of God and man correspond to each other and complement each other in bringing about liberation and salvation. The fourth circle contains 56:9–59:8 and 65:1–66:17 (Goldingay: “Yhwh’s challenges concerning the Jerusalem community’s life”). Let us turn to Isa 65:17: For behold, I create new heavens   and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered   or come into mind.

This introduces a passage that ends with vv. 21–22: They shall build houses and inhabit them;   they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit;   they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,   and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

Even in the new creation (“new heavens and a new earth”) will the possession of agricultural land for subsistence be of central importance. “Apocalyptic prophecy thus focuses on the future and yet is fully set in the present.”34 Vv. 21–22 make a point that is similar to that made in 61:7 and 60:21, and again we are alerted to itself to metaphorical [!] language and describes the event only from a perspective set miles from any gory battle scene and in a time when the battle is long over.” 33 Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 265. 34 Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, 11–12. See above.

180

Joachim Schaper

the centrality of the promise of land, even and especially in the context of eschatological expectation. The expectation of a new earth does not diminish the desire for land, which is the prized possession of the free farmer, the basis of his welfare and that of his family. “A land without scarcity is also a land without oppression; the pastoral and agricultural imagery of the original promise [in the book of Exodus; J. S.] is easily given a moral turn, as in the words of comfort spoken by the prophets,” states M. Walzer and adduces Isa 65:21–22 as a typical example.35 In 65:17, the imagery of apocalypticism again comes to the fore, in a manner reminiscent of 60:19–22, and it is again correlated with the concrete promises of land and riches which Yahweh utters through the prophetic voice of 61:1–9, as we saw earlier. The fifth and final circle consists of 56:1–8 and 66:18–24 (Goldingay: “Preface and Postscript: the place of foreigners in the service of Yhwh”). In Isa 66:22 we are told: For as the new heavens and the new earth   which I will make shall remain before me, says the Lord;   so shall your descendants and your name remain.

Goldingay sees the “notion of creation” in 66:22 as being “taken up from Isaiah 40–55, where it had a prominent place (cf. also 57:19)”. According to him, “[t]here, Yhwh’s coming creative activity denotes Yhwh’s imminent sovereign activity in the historical and political events that will shape Jacob-Israel’s imminent destiny (e.g. 41:20; 45:7, 8; 48:7), and the preceding content would suggest it has the same implication here.”36 Goldingay concludes: In other words, the line does not signify a transition to ‘eschatological’ or apocalyptic thinking. The prophecy is not referring to the creation of a new planetary system or implying that Yhwh is going back to square one of the process of creation and repeating the event described in Genesis 1 in order to improve on results.37

Of course, Isa 65:17 and 66:22 may not literally be about a new physical cosmos, about the creation of a new universe. But at the very least they are about the transformation of the world as the Judahites knew it. It seems odd that Goldingay wants to avoid both “eschatological” and “apocalyptic” as designations of such an expectation: according to common usage of the terms in Biblical Studies, it can clearly be classified as an “eschatological” hope, and more specifically—and ­following the majority-use of the term—as an “apocalyptic” one. Also, contradict 35 M. Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 105. 36 Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 467. 37 Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 467–8.

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

181

ing further the view expressed by Goldingay, there actually are texts in Trito-Isaiah that are literally about a new physical cosmos, or at least about the cosmos changing beyond recognition: Isa 60:19–22 is the most obvious example, as we have seen. One therefore wonders how Goldingay can be quite so sure that Isa 65:17 and 66:22 are just “an image for a transformation of the way life works out for the community”.38 As we pointed out earlier, these passages could be considered as instances of apocalyptic thought, certainly if seen in the light of Taubes’ view of apocalypticism. In contemporary exegetical literature, texts in Trito-Isaiah which Taubes would have identified as examples of apocalyptic literature are typically not seen that way. However, regardless of the ways in which we might like to classify them, it remains a fact that they are dedicated to “opposing the totality of this world with a new totality”, to use Taubes’ words. So far, we have followed the structure of Trito-Isaiah from the centre to the periphery. Some of its most salient statements are found at the periphery, or rather, seen differently, at the beginning and the end. Reading the text in a linear fashion from beginning to end, from 56:1 to 66:24, the book of Trito-Isaiah takes its readers from the greatest possible extension of the people of Yahweh, including foreigners and eunuchs (56:1–8), on to the next step of the pyramid, where “Yhwh’s challenges concerning the Jerusalem community’s life” are described and it is made clear to what kind of desperate situation the action of Yahweh is responding (56:9–59:8). On the following step (59:9–15a), the reader is confronted with the desire for Yahweh’s judgement and forgiveness in the face of all the aberrations of those who are supposed to follow the god of Israel. The next step is made, and the reader is introduced to Yahweh, the divine warrior, who finally takes military action against the iniquity that has been wrought (59:15b–21), which is followed, in 60:1–22, by the “visions of Jerusalem restored”. Then the reader arrives at the heart of the matter: the prophet’s call, including the vision of the subjugation of the foreign nations (61:5). From then on, the reader leaves the centre, step by step, reversing the journey, and in the descent down the “pyramid” mirrors the former ascent until he or she arrives at the end—which mirrors the beginning, as is characteristic of apocalyptic literature, and indeed of the (proto-)apocalyptic literature of the book of Trito-Isaiah.

III. Concrete hope as literary resistance in Trito-Isaiah The expectations at the heart of Trito-Isaiah, we can now safely say, are not those of a group of quietists. Rather, they express the hopes of people who reveled in apocalyptic language in order to provide sustenance to their fellow-Judahites in a struggle that was not an openly violent one but was conducted over what we have 38 Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 468.

182

Joachim Schaper

earlier called the “historical and cultural record”—and over more than that: about a perspective on the future that completely negates the presence. Trito-Isaiah opposes “the totality of this world with a new totality”. We are reminded of Taubes’ remark: If revolution were to mean only replacing an existing society with a better one, then the connection between apocalypticism and revolution is not evident. But if revolution means opposing the totality of this world with a new totality that comprehensively founds anew in the way that it negates …, namely, in terms of the basic foundations, then apocalypticism is by nature revolutionary.39

The example of Trito-Isaiah teaches us that there is a most interesting affinity between “resistance literature” and apocalyptic thought, as has been demonstrated by Portier-Young with regard to later, Hellenistic Jewish texts. In the discipline of biblical studies, perceptive contributors to the debate have drawn attention to the fact that apocalyptic literature coexists with—or rather: is an expression of—theocratic beliefs. The best-known examples of secondary literature that stress this fact are Otto Plöger’s Theocracy and Eschatology and Paul Hanson’s Dawn of Apocalyptic, which is in many ways indebted to Plöger’s groundbreaking work. Gese makes a related point when he writes about the correlation between Ezra’s reform and the apocalyptic expectations of salvation expressed in Zech 11:4 ff., and he formulates very cautiously: “Es ist für uns wichtig zu erkennen, daß diese Esrareform durchaus in einen apokalyptischen Geschichtsrahmen einfügbar war und daß die Apokalyptik sich nicht unberührt und unbeeinflußt von der theokratischen Idee entwickelte.”40 I think we can go much further than that: apocalypticism in fact went hand in hand with theocratic concepts, or at least had the potential to do so. In the case of Trito-Isaiah, that potential was realised. Apocalyptic hopes gave rise to desires for theocratic rule. Theocratic concepts of community are multi-­ dimensional; they oscillate, so to speak. Today, on hearing the term “theocracy”, we think of certain oppressive regimes. But there also is a very different aspect to theocracy: under certain conditions, it is the egalitarian aspect of theocracies that comes to the fore. This is the scenario envisaged by Taubes. He writes: Theocracy … expresses the human desire to be free from all human, earthly ties and to be in covenant with God. The first tremors of eschatology can be traced to this dispute over divine or earthly rule. The concept of theocracy can stir up passionate action. Viewed in terms of immanence, theocracy is a utopian community.41 39 Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, 11. 40 H. Gese, “Nachtrag: Die Deutung der Hirtenallegorie Sach 11,4 ff ”, in idem, Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 64; Chr. Kaiser, 1984) 231–8 on p. 238. 41 Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, 19.

Land, Freedom and the Kingdom of Yahweh in Isaiah 56–66 

183

And, we might add, of an egalitarian community of equals under God. Theocracy and egalitarianism can be two sides of the same coin. In Isa 56–66, it is precisely such an understanding of Israel as an egalitarian community under Yahweh that drives the eschatological expectations so characteristic of the book. While it is simply not possible to reconstruct the history of the supposed struggle of “visionary disciples of Second Isaiah” on the basis of the text of Isa 56–66,42 as Paul Hanson attempted to do, we can nevertheless learn a few things about the theology of the author(s) and redactor(s) of Isa 56–66 and of the material they took over and arranged so artfully. Trito-Isaiah (here understood as the author of chs 60–62*), the authors of the other material arranged in Isa 56–66, and the final redactor(s) provided their readers on the endangered periphery of a world empire with an arsenal of images of hope that furnished their faith and their imagination at a difficult time. To cut a long matter short: What Taubes said in his sketch of apocalypticism fits Trito-Isaiah: it negates the world in its fullness. It brackets the entire world negatively. … Apocalypticism is revolutionary because it beholds the turning point not in some indeterminate future but entirely proximate. Apocalyptic prophecy thus focuses on the future and yet is fully set in the present.43

Reading Isa 56–66 with a keen eye for its revolutionary characteristics will enable exegetes to perceive the book’s theo-political expectations in greater depth. As Blenkinsopp rightly says: “One of the most characteristic themes of chs 56–66 is the assurance that the present unsatisfactory situation will be reversed by a divine intervention in the affairs of the Jewish community that will bring history as we know it to an end.”44 And Duhm was right when he said about the conceptualisation of the state and society in Isa 56–66: “die weltliche Gesetzgebung wird mehr und mehr zu einer direkt göttlichen, der Staat zur Theokratie.”45 Proclaiming theocratic views has been a key characteristic of a certain type of revolutionaries. Whether, in the case of Isa 56–66, we classify their literature as “prophetic” or “apocalyptic” is not that important—it is resistance literature, and it has the desire for land and freedom at its heart.

42 Cf. the title of the second chapter (“Isaiah 56–66 and the Visionary Disciples of Second Isaiah”) of P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975). 43 Taubes, Occidental Eschatology, 11–12. 44 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:225. 45 Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 421–2.

Alison Salvesen

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy? Supposed Historical Allusions in LXX Isaiah

I. Abstract The Septuagint (LXX) version of Isaiah has attracted much attention over the last seventy years, principally regarding the claims of some scholars that the freer renderings in the Greek may reflect the intention of the translator to update certain prophecies and provide allusions to recent and contemporary history. This essay will discuss the claims and counter-claims for the identification of revitalised prophecy and historical allusions in LXX Isaiah, noting the essential methodology to be kept in mind.

II. Debates on the nature of LXX Isaiah The Septuagint version of Isaiah may be at once the most fascinating, influential and infuriating book of the Septuagint corpus. It has attracted an increasing amount of scholarly attention over the past century, owing to two key features: its often loose relationship to the Masoretic Text, and its importance for early Christianity. What most scholars agree is that the book was translated from a Hebrew Vorlage not too much unlike MT; by a single translator; in the large Jewish Diaspora in Egypt (possibly Alexandria); sometime in the mid-second century BCE. Some items of the Greek vocabulary used are paralleled in the Hellenistic documentary papyri preserved in Egypt.1 There are also some features that show the translator had some knowledge of Greek literature, even if it was somewhat superficial.2 There is also consensus that the correspondence between the Greek and Hebrew texts of Isaiah varies greatly throughout the sixty-six chapters of the book. This inconsistency is where the problem lies. 1 J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 12/3; Münster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934), 175–212, and more recently M. van der Meer, “Papyrological Perspectives on the Septuagint of Isaiah”, in A. van der Kooij / M. N. van der Meer (ed.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives (CBET 55; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 107–33. 2 J. A.L. Lee, “The literary Greek of Septuagint Isaiah”, Semitica et Classica 7 (2014) 135–46.

186

Alison Salvesen

In the early twentieth century, Richard Ottley produced a two volume monograph containing a translation and notes on LXX Isaiah. He disparaged the Greek translation from a text-critical point of view, complaining, [T]he translators’ mistakes in reading (however ample their excuse) are so numerous, ranging in their effect from minute points to the wreck of whole sentences, that their view cannot carry weight as to the real Hebrew text of their day. The Hebrew text, as we know it, is rather negatively fortified by the disclosure of their mistakes, than impugned on real authority derived from them. Yet our respect for the Alexandrian translators is likely to increase rather than lessen, as we learn to appreciate their difficulties, while noting their errors. They deserve all the honour due to pioneers, thanks to whose struggles other and weaker men walk safely, where they stumbled.3

Isac Seeligmann’s important monograph on LXX Isaiah, published in 1948, took a very different line from Ottley.4 Seeligmann argued that the divergences between Hebrew and Greek Isaiah were not due to incompetence. Instead they stemmed from the insertion of the translator’s own theology. Seeligmann focused on what he called “isolated free renderings”, in other words the short passages in the Greek rendering that varied considerably from the Hebrew. Seeligmann believed that these free renderings revealed the translator contemporising elements in the message of Hebrew Isaiah for his own Egyptian Jewish community in Alexandria. 3 R. C.  Ottley, The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) (2 vol.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), 1.viii. (Unlike modern scholars, Ottley assumed that more than one translator was responsible for LXX Isaiah.) Ottley was more polite than Paul de Lagarde, who described the LXX Isaiah translator as “das dumme geschöpf ” (P. Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863), 7). Ottley does go on to say, “[The translators’] praise is even in the Gospel”, alluding to the significance of LXX Isaiah for the New Testament, where it is so often cited, particularly in Paul’s letter to the Romans. The distinctive wording and interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecies in Greek are fundamental to the message of early Christianity. See for example F. Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches fur Paulus (FRLANT 179; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); J. R.  Wagner, Heralds of the Good News. Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002); C. Evans, “From Gospel to Gospel. The Function of Isaiah in the NT”, in C. C.  Broyles / C. A.  Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 2.651–91; F. Watson, “Mistranslation and the Death of Christ: Isaiah 53 LXX and its Pauline Reception”, in S. E. Porter / M. J. Boda (ed.), Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans 2009) 215–50. 4 And after he himself had been liberated from Theresienstadt, a circumstance that puts scholarly endeavour into perspective. I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: a discussion of its Problems (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1948 [republished in 2004 as I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies (FAT 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck]). Seeligmann’s ideas were taken up by J. C. das Neves in his dissertation J. C. das Neves, A Theologia da Traduçao Grega dos Setenta no Livro de Isaías (Cap. 24 de Isaías) (Lisbon: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, ­Faculdade de Teologia, Departamento de Teologia Bíblica, 1973); and by J. Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du judaísme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982), but with greater stress on the deliberate and conscious aspect of “actualisation”.

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

187

LXX Isaiah therefore “repeatedly reflects contemporaneous history”, and focuses on events in the translator’s “more or less immediate neighbourhood”, not just to events in the prophet Isaiah’s own lifetime.5 These free renderings included both what Seeligmann termed the translator’s “unconscious tendency” to identify his own period with the message of Isaiah, and also some deliberate exegesis reflecting the translator’s belief that the prophecies would be fulfilled in the present time. Seeligmann’s ideas were further developed and extended by Arie van der Kooij, most notably in his 1981 doctoral monograph Die alten Textzeugen des Jesaja­ buches, and in his 1998 book The Oracle of Tyre. Van der Kooij has also published a number of articles on other passages in LXX Isaiah.6 Like Seeligmann, van der Kooij argues that LXX Isaiah deliberately references the fall of Carthage to the Romans in 146 BCE. This is because the Greek of Isaiah chapter 23 translates the four occurrences of Tarshish as “Carthage” (Καρχηδών). So van der Kooij also situates the translation of LXX Isaiah just after this event, in around 140 BCE. His book The Oracle of Tyre centres on the thesis that ch 23 in its Greek form is really talking about the fall of Carthage, not of Tyre and makes further specific historical links to details of the Greek rendering of Isaiah chapter 23.  Van der Kooij identifies the Isaiah translator as a priest associated with the circle of the Oniad high priestly dynasty that fled from Jerusalem to Alexandria. Our main source for these events is the late first century CE historian Flavius Josephus, who states in his Jewish Antiquities that Onias IV, the son of the murdered high priest Onias III, persuaded Ptolemy VI Philometor (176–145 BCE) to let this group of priests build the Jewish temple of Leontopolis in Heliopolis in the eastern Delta, around 160. According to Josephus’s account in Antiquities, Onias cited to Ptolemy the prediction in Isa 19:19 that an altar to the Lord would be built in Egyptian territory (Ant. 13.68, cf. War 7.432).7

5 Seeligman, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 4 [2004: 128]. 6 A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO 35; Fribourg–Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1981); A. van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre. The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision (VTSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 1998); A. van der Kooij, “The OG of Isaiah 9,6–7 and the Concept of Leadership”, in W.  Kraus / S.  Kreuzer (ed.), Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fach­ tagung veranstaltet von LXX.D Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012 (WUNT 325; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 333–45. Arie van der Kooij has also written on LXX Isaiah chs 7; 9:16–25; 9:5; 2:22; 36:7;8–9; 49:1–6. 7 Ant. 12.388; 13.62–73. However, Josephus gives conflicting accounts in Antiquities and his earlier work, Jewish War 1.31–33; 7.420–36. In Jewish War he says it was Onias the high priest (i. e. Onias III) who fled Antiochus IV Epiphanes before 170 BCE, whereas Antiquities suggests that it was his son (Onias IV) who took refuge in Egypt in 161 after the appointment of Alcimus as high priest. The best explanation of the differences between the accounts remains that of E. Gruen, “Origins and objectives of Onias’ Temple”, SCI 16 (1997) 47–70.

188

Alison Salvesen

Thus van der Kooij associates the Isaiah translation not with Alexandria and the synagogues there, as Seeligmann did,8 but with Oniad circles at the Leontopolis Temple. Also, van der Kooij interprets several passages in LXX Isaiah as reflective of the situation in Judaea, the lost homeland of the Oniads, rather than referring to the community in Egypt. He has argued that some verses allude to the existence of different parties in Jerusalem (for instance a Torah-observant group versus priestly antinomians).9 Because of the influence of the work of Seeligman and van der Kooij on studies of LXX Isaiah, one could rather crudely define this approach of identifying contemporisation in Greek Isaiah as a “Dutch school” of scholarship. However, in recent years an “American school” has emerged, largely in opposition to the “Dutch school”, with Ronald Troxel as its main exponent. In his own book LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, published in 2008, Troxel argues that the translator was only trying to produce out of a difficult Hebrew Vorlage a Greek text that would make sense in literary terms to its readers.10 He takes issue with van der Kooij’s interpretation of the Greek rendering of ch. 23 in The Oracle of Tyre, and he rejects the identification of the Isaiah translator as a priestly refugee from Jerusalem involved in the cult in Leontopolis. Instead, Troxel suggests that the translator was influenced by the Hellenistic Greek culture of the Alexandrian Mousaion, notably by the work of Aristarchus and the grammatikoi.11 While van der Kooij sees deliberate references to recent and contemporary history and an updating of prophecy in some of the free renderings of LXX Isaiah, Troxel denies that there is evidence for a systematic method of translation, regarding the translator’s expansions and insertions as “ad hoc attempts to make sense of the text for the reader, not evidence of a ‘method’”.12 He finds evidence of both ingenuity and haplessness on the part of the translator who was dealing with a Hebrew text beyond his capabilities.13 Yet, even Troxel perceives some degree of intentionality in the rendering, and argues that the translator saw that some themes were “so integral to the book that novelly weaving them into a context gives expression to what is essential in the book”.14 8 Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 4–5. 9 A. van der Kooij, “Isaiah in the Septuagint”, in C. C. Broyles / C. A. Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (2 vol.; VT Sup 70; Leiden / New York / Köln: Brill, 1997) 2.513–29. 10 R. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation. The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (VTSup 124; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2008), 1–35. 11 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 290. 12 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 288. 13 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, esp. 288–91. Troxel cites James Barr’s observation that a LXX translator could vary between literal and free rendering, “whichever seemed to work out according to the character of the original text and its immediate context” (J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (MSU 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 7). 14 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 289.

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

189

Troxel has been followed by Ross Wagner, in his monograph Reading the Sealed Book. In this Wagner develops some of Troxel’s points about how the Isaiah translator negotiated a challenging Vorlage, but he also takes up some of the broader LXX-translational issues raised by the work of Gideon Toury and Cameron Boyd-Taylor.15 Troxel’s and Wagner’s own interpretations of the nature of LXX Isaiah have not been without their critics in Septuagint circles.16 Yet there are also areas where the “Dutch” and “American” schools are not so far apart: for instance, van der Kooij and others have stressed that themes and vocabulary operate over a large number of passages, suggesting that the translator had a larger scheme of interpretation in mind, and Troxel and Wagner do not regard the translator as unintelligent or robotic, noting the sensitive use of particles to structure the flow of the translation.17 The difference between the two approaches lies mainly in van der Kooij’s conviction that there are deliberate historical allusions in the translation, and Troxel’s denial that these are anything of the sort. How has it been possible for scholars to come to such different conclusions on the existence of “revitalised” prophecy in Greek Isaiah? The problem is mainly due to the inconsistent nature of the rendering: sometimes this can closely match the consonantal text of MT (or align with attested variants from Qumran), while at other times the translator must have gone well beyond the “dynamic equivalent” translational approach to produce such a different meaning in Greek. The following two examples are taken from adjacent chapters, showing how in one case the translation follows the general sense that we attribute to MT and how the other produces an entirely different meaning.

15 J. R.  Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book: Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics (Tübingen / Waco, TX: Mohr Siebeck / Baylor University Press, 2013). 16 See van der Kooij’s review of Troxel, LXX-Isaiah in BIOSCS 42 (2009) 147–52, and the documentation of the panel discussion on Reading the Sealed Book in JSCS 47 (2014) 17–47. There are many other recent studies on LXX Isaiah that focus on issues of interpretation within LXX Isaiah, but on the whole they are less concerned with historical allusions and updated prophecy: on the Servant of the Lord (Eugene Ekblad), Community (David Baer), Egypt ­(Keunjoo Kim), Messianism (Abi Ngunga), Messianism and Eschatology (Rodrigo de Sousa), Isaiah 24–26 (Wilson Angel da Cunha), literary structure (Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs). Their approaches fall somewhere between those of the “Dutch” and “American” schools I have outlined in this essay. 17 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 287; Wagner, Sealed Book, 230.

190

Alison Salvesen

III. Two examples of close and free translation in LXX Isaiah Isaiah 17:6–7:

‫ֹלשה גַ ְרגְ ִרים ְברֹאׁש ָא ִמיר ַא ְר ָבעָ ה ֲח ִמ ָשה ִב ְסעִ ֶפ ָיה פ ִֹריָ ה‬ ָ ‫וְ נִ ְש ַאר־ּבֹו עֹולֵ ֹלת כְ נ ֶֹקף זַ יִ ת ְשנַ יִ ם ְש‬ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬ ֵ ‫נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ל־קדֹוׁש יִ ְש ָר ֵאל ִת ְר ֶאינָ ה‬ ְ ‫ַבּיֹום ַההּוא יִ ְש ֶעה ָה ָא ָדם ַעל־ע ֵֹשהּו וְ ֵעינָ יו ֶא‬

NRSV:18 Gleanings will be left in it, as when an olive tree is beaten—two or three berries in the top of the highest bough, four or five on the branches of a fruit tree, says the Lord God of Israel. On that day mankind will regard his Maker, and his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel. καὶ καταλειφθῇ ἐν αὐτῇ καλάμη ἢ ὡς ῥῶγες ἐλαίας δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἐπ᾿ ἄκρου μετεώρου ἢ τέσσαρες ἢ πέντε ἐπὶ τῶν κλάδων αὐτῶν καταλειφθῇ· τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ. τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ πεποιθὼς ἔσται ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτόν, οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Ισραηλ ἐμβλέψονται … NETS: …and as if a stalk should be left in it, or like berries of an olive tree—two or three on the topmost height, or four or five left on its branches. This is what the Lord God of Israel says: On that day a man will trust in the One who made him, and his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel…

Isaiah 16:3–4:

ְ ‫ָה ִביאוּ ֵעצָ ה ֲעשׂוּ ְפלִ ילָ ה ִשׁ ִיתי כַ לַּ יִ ל צִ לֵּ ְך ְבּתֹוְך צָ ֳה ָריִ ם ַס ְתּ ִרי נִ ָדּ ִחים נ ֵֹדד‬ 19‫אַל־תּגַ לִּ י׃‬ ‫ן־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫י־א ֵפס ַה ֵמץ כָ לָ ה שֹד ַתּמּו ר ֵֹמס ִמ‬ ָ ִ‫ׁשֹודד כ‬ ֵ ‫י־ס ֶתר לָ מֹו ִמ ְפנֵ י‬ ֵ ִ‫מֹואב ֱהו‬ ָ ‫יָ גּורּו ָבְך נִ ָד ַחי‬

NRSV: Give counsel, grant justice; make your shade like night at the height of noon; hide the outcasts, do not betray the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab settle among you; be a refuge to them from the destroyer. πλείονα βουλεύου, ποιεῖτε σκέπην πένθους αὐτῇ διὰ παντός· ἐν μεσημβρινῇ σκοτίᾳ φεύγουσιν, ἐξέστησαν, μὴ ἀπαχθῇς. παροικήσουσίν σοι οἱ φυγάδες Μωαβ, ἔσονται σκέπη ὑμῖν ἀπὸ προσώπου διώκοντος, ὅτι ἤρθη ἡ συμμαχία σου, καὶ ὁ ἄρχων ἀπώλετο ὁ καταπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. NETS: take further counsel, and make for her a shelter for mourning for all time. They flee in darkness at noon; they were astonished; do not be taken away. The fugitives of Moab will sojourn with you; they will be a shelter to you from before a pursuer, because your alliance has been taken away and the ruler who trampled on the land has perished.

18 With adjustment to the gender-inclusive language which does not usefully represent the Hebrew here. 19 Qere ‫ה ִב ִיאי‬.ָ

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

191

As the second example demonstrates, LXX Isaiah can vary considerably from a modern understanding of MT. Broadly, there could be three possible explanations for the very different sense given to this passage in Greek: a different Vorlage; a conscious change by the translator to offer a specific message; or simply rather random guesswork on the part of the translator. It is not an easy task to decide which of them was operative, and the three explanations are in fact not mutually exclusive here.

IV. Methodological issues In assessing claims for and against the deliberate updating of prophecy and the introduction of historical allusions in LXX Isaiah, a number of text-critical and translational issues need to be considered in those places where the Greek deviates from the generally agreed meaning of Hebrew Isaiah as represented by MT and Qumran texts. Such methodology needs to be applied consistently in order to rule out alternative explanations before it is legitimate to conclude that the translator was consciously updating or actualising any text of Isaiah. 1. Alternative Vorlage: First of all, a discrepancy between our Hebrew text and the Greek rendering may be due to a different Hebrew Vorlage. This especially applies if there is already a variant attested in a Hebrew manuscript or in another version such as the Peshitta, but also if the Greek can be plausibly retroverted to an alternative Hebrew form.20 The Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa ) is particularly useful for the study of LXX Isaiah. It is usually dated paleographically to around 125 BCE, and so is only a little younger than the Greek translation (usually dated to the mid-second century BCE). It demonstrates that texts of Hebrew Isaiah in the early second century BCE, including the Vorlage of LXX Isaiah, are likely to have varied in minor details from the consonantal text of MT. 2. Reading tradition: As 1QIsaa the Vorlage of LXX Isaiah would have had no ­niqqud or accentuation to “disambiguate” Hebrew homographs. We know little about how the reading tradition of Hebrew scriptures was transmitted in this period. It certainly cannot be assumed that the translator was familiar with a reading tradition that matched the vowels of the rabbinic MT:21 even if a reasonably standard reading tradition existed for the Torah, this may not have been the case 20 See the discussion in Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 75–7. Yet Arie van der Kooij is not insensitive to the issue: see ch. 5 of Oracle of Tyre, 110–61, on the Vorlage of Isaiah ch. 23, though he is more inclined then Troxel to attribute divergences between MT and LXX to creative interpretation. 21 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 102–4, summarizes the debate between James Barr and Emanuel Tov on the completeness of a vocalization tradition available to LXX translators, and agrees with Barr that the Isaiah translator lacked such a tradition.

192

Alison Salvesen

for other books. In the case of the many homographs in the unvocalised text, the translator is likely to have adopted the commonest meaning of that group of consonants, or the one that best fitted the context as he understood it. 3. Script and legibility. The script of 1QIsaa also suggests that the Vorlage of LXX Isaiah offered scope for misreading, since contemporary copyists often did not clearly distinguish between similar letter forms (e.g. resh–daleth, waw–yod). They did not always space words in a regular fashion nor divide them in the same way as MT. 4. Lexical choice. A small number of Greek terms occur many times in LXX Isaiah to represent a wider range of Hebrew words. These include δόξα,22 (ἐγ) καταλείπειν, πεποιθώς, συνάγειν, παραδίδωμι.23 Does this phenomenon reflect a deliberate strategy to enhance what the translator considered to be certain key themes in Isaiah? Or was his vocabulary in both Greek and Hebrew insufficiently nuanced and his lexical choices the result of laziness?24 Conversely, little exegetical significance can be attributed to the use of a standard lexical equivalent (i. e. one that is regularly used in the LXX Pentateuch and / or Isaiah). 5. Literary context of the Hebrew. Troxel has argued that in order to establish that a rendering is indeed exegetically motivated, it needs to be proved that the translator consciously ignored the clear literary context of the Hebrew.25 However, there are many places in Hebrew Isaiah where the literary context is barely clear even to modern scholars. The translator may have operated by guesswork or by some tradition of interpretation within his community. As Wagner comments, misreading “might derive from the translator’s determined attempt to make sense of a Vorlage that he could decipher clearly enough yet struggled to understand”.26

22 See L. H. Brockington, “The Greek Translator and his Interest in Δ Ο Ξ Α”, VT 1 (1951) 23–32. 23 Such repeated lexical items Troxel terms “slot words” (LXX-Isaiah, 78–79), and Ziegler (Untersuchungen, 12), “Lückenbüßer”. 24 Cf. the discussion in F. Austermann regarding the intentionality behind the “themes” in LXX Psalms: F. Austermann, Von der Tora zum Nomos. Untersuchungen zur Übersetzungsweise und Interpretation im Septuaginta-Psalter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 180–203. 25 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 164: “[O]nly if the translator can be shown to refer deliberately to people, countries, ethnic groups, circumstances, or events by deliberately deviating from his Vorlage is it legitimate to entertain the possibility that he sought to identify such entities as the “true” referents of his Hebrew exemplar … More stringently, it must be shown that the translator did not arrive at a rendering by reasoning from the immediate or broader literary contexts, but that he fashioned it with an eye to circumstances or events in his day.” 26 Wagner, Sealed Book, 49.

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

193

6. Ambiguity of Greek renderings. The meaning of some renderings in LXX Isaiah can be understood in more than one way. This is demonstrable already in patristic commentaries on LXX Isaiah, as well as in differences between modern renderings of LXX Isaiah.27 7. General translation practice of the book as a whole. When looking for possible historical allusions, we should set them in the light of the translator’s general translation practice. Since LXX Isaiah is agreed to be the work of a single translator,28 ideally the book should be studied in its entirety, rather as selections of isolated passages. What appears as a remarkable phenomenon in one place may be standard practice if it appears five times elsewhere in the book. However, life is short, and scholars face three choices: carrying out an in-depth study of a section, the findings for which may not be representative of the book as a whole;29 “cherry-picking” passages as Seeligmann did; or attempting to cover the whole book and thus risk the accusation of superficiality. The starting point for any investigation of free renderings in LXX Isaiah should be, “Can the Greek be understood as a legitimate translation of a Hebrew consonantal text largely corresponding to MT, for a translator familiar with the LXX Pentateuch (but possibly no other books)?” For instance, LXX Isa 16:1a has Ἀποστελῶ ὡς ἑρπετὰ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν “I will send creatures like reptiles against the land”, where MT Isa 16:1 gives the obscure phrase ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫( ִשלְ חּו־כַ ר מ ֵֹש‬rendered by NRSV as “Send lambs to the ruler of the land”). The translator evidently understood or read his Hebrew text as *‫כרמש לארץ‬, i. e. with an alternative word division compared with MT. He therefore translated according to the common equivalent of ‫ ֶר ֶמׂש‬in the LXX Pentateuch, ἑρπετόν.30 The resulting Greek rendering of v. 1a is a threat that God will send a plague of reptiles. Yet this is unlikely to be a deliberate creation of a new prophecy by the translator: it is merely his attempt to make sense of a difficult text. The guidelines described above can be used examine several examples in LXX Isaiah for which claims of historical allusions have been made. The passages concerned are grouped according to the schema above, but usually an explanation of the rendering involves more than one factor. 27 See A. Le Boulluec, “Le recours aux commentaries patristiques pour l’etude du lexique d’Isaie LXX”, in A. van der Kooij / M. N. van der Meer (ed.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspective (CBET 55; Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2010) 49–69. 28 However, David Baer sees evidence of recensional activity in the Greek of ch. 66 (D. Baer, “What happens in the end? Evidence for an early Greek recension in LXX Isaiah 66”, in A. van der Kooij / M. N. van der Meer (ed.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives (CBET 55; Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2010) 1–32. 29 Wagner’s Reading the Sealed Book focuses on chapter 1 for in-depth study. 30 Throughout LXX Genesis chs 1–9; Leviticus; Deuteronomy, and thus also in 1 Kings 5:13; Ezek 8:10; 38:20; Hos 2:20; Hab 1:14; Pss 69/68:35; 104/103:25; 148:10.

194

Alison Salvesen

An alternative Vorlage? Isa 23:10 in MT is quite obscure, giving the apparent sense “cross your land like the Nile, daughter of Tarshish, there is no more restraint”.31 Van der Kooij believes the LXX rendering ἐργάζου τὴν γῆν σου, καὶ γὰρ πλοῖα οὐκέτι ἔρχεται ἐκ Καρχηδόνος, “work your land, for indeed ships no longer go out from Carthage” indicates that the destruction of Carthage meant that Tyre “had no other choice but to change to agriculture”.32 However, the rendering ἐργάζου strongly indicates that the translator’s Vorlage read ‫עבדי‬, as does 1QIsaa.33 Therefore v.10a in Greek is not a deliberate reference to a change in the Tyrian economy from commercial ventures to an agrarian focus: ἐργάζου τὴν γῆν σου merely follows the Hebrew Vorlage. The enigmatic remainder of the verse in Hebrew is rendered freely by LXX (καὶ γὰρ πλοῖα οὐκέτι ἔρχεται ἐκ Καρχηδόνος). This appears to be a literary rendering to mirror the “ships of Carthage” mentioned in LXX vv.1, v. 14, while circumventing the difficulty of the Hebrew.

An alternative reading tradition? The LXX of Isa 19:13, ἐξέλιπον οἱ ἄρχοντες Τάνεως, καὶ ὑψώθησαν οἱ ἄρχοντες Μέμφεως, καὶ πλανήσουσιν Αἴγυπτον κατὰ φυλάς is rendered by NETS as, “The rulers of Tanis have failed, and the rulers of Memphis have been exalted, and they will lead Egypt astray tribe by tribe”. Michaël van der Meer describes the rendering ὑψώθησαν “they have been exalted” (against MT ‫“ נִ ְּׁשאּו‬be deluded”) as “a striking variant … promoting the prominence of Memphis over other Egyptian cities”,34 Memphis being the Egyptian religious capital near Leontopolis, where Arie van der Kooij believes that LXX Isaiah was produced around 140 BCE.35 Yet the Greek in fact reproduces the most obvious sense of its Hebrew consonantal text, which would not have distinguished the letters sin and shin. So it is no surprise that the translator understood ‫ נשאו‬as the Niph‘al of the much more common verb ‫נׂשא‬, 31 In fact the NRSV employs the LXX rendering to make sense of the Hebrew. “Cross over to your own land, O ships of Tarshish; this is a harbour no more”. Van der Kooij renders ‫ מזח‬as “girdle” (Oracle of Tyre, 62). 32 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 83. 33 Conversely, van der Kooij categorises this reading, shared by LXX and 1QIsaa, as the result of a common interpretation, and therefore a deliberate choice on the translator’s part, not a reflection of his Vorlage (Oracle of Tyre, 138–9). 34 M. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis. The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the light of contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt”, in M. van der Meer et al. (ed.), Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (VTSup 138 Leiden / Boston 2010) 281–316, on p. 313. 35 A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 65.

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

195

“raise up”. For this reason it is unlikely that this represents an intentional allusion to the translator’s contemporary situation.

Script and legibility? In the Oracle of Tyre, Isaiah ch. 23, the MT of verses 2 and 6 speaks of “dwellers of the island” (‫)ישבי אי‬, referring apparently to Tyre. But LXX for v.6 renders as οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ταύτῃ, “those living in this island”. Here van der Kooij argues that the demonstrative ταύτῃ36 is an addition indicating that the reference is to Carthage, which was built on a peninsula, and was therefore almost an island.37 Yet ταύτῃ could conceivably arise from the translator’s accidental double reading of the word ‫ הזאת‬at the beginning of the next verse:38 hence οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ νήσῳ ταύτῃ οὐχ αὕτη ἦν (< *‫)ישבי אי הזאת הזאת‬. So the use of the demonstrative in the Greek of v. 6 (against v. 2) may have no particular significance. Furthermore the rendering of ‫ אי‬as νῆσος, “island”, is hardly unexpected, being the standard equivalent throughout the LXX. So the idea that “this island” in LXX c.6 is a deliberate reference to the peninsula of Carthage is not well supported. Finally, it would also be strange if the “dwellers of this island” referred to the Carthaginians, as van der Kooij claims: how could they go to Carthage (ἀπέλθατε εἰς Καρχηδόνα) if that city had been destroyed?39

Significance of lexical choice a) Van der Kooij believes that in LXX Isa 49:5, the Servant of the Lord is portrayed as a collective entity, and that one of the indications of this collectivity is the use of the verb συναχθήσομαι (καὶ δοξασθήσομαι ἐναντίον κυρίου), “I shall be gathered and glorified before the Lord” corresponding to MT “he shall be gathered; and I shall be glorified in the eyes of the Lord”, ‫יֵ ָא ֵסף וְ ֶאכָ ֵבד ְבעֵ ינֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬.40 Van der Kooij argues that a single individual cannot be described as “gathered”, and so the use of συναχθήσομαι indicates that the speaker is speaking on behalf of his community.41 36 Van der Kooij renders ταύτῃ incorrectly as “that” (Oracle of Tyre, 57). 37 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 79. 38 It is unlikely to have been present in the Vorlage, since ‫ אי‬is masc. 39 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 57–8; 79–80. However, he suggests that the call for the Carthaginians to depart to Carthage is therefore an ironic one. 40 A. van der Kooij, “‘The Servant of the Lord’. A Particular Group of Jews in Egypt according to the Old Greek of Isaiah. Some comments on LXX Isa 49,1–6 and related passages”, in J. van Ruiten / M.  Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah, Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (BETL 122; Leuven: Peeters, 1997) 383–96. 41 Van der Kooij, “‘The Servant of the Lord’”, 388, 390.

196

Alison Salvesen

By association with other passages in LXX Isaiah, he believes that this Servant in ch. 49 “is to be equated, within the whole of LXX Isaiah, with ‘my people in Egypt’ in 11,16”, namely “the (priestly) group of Onias, a group that understood themselves as the Servant of the Lord”.42 This example of the significance of συναχθήσομαι in Isa 49:5 is just one element of van der Kooij’s wider argument about the origins of LXX Isaiah among the Oniads in Leontopolis. However, συνάγω is a very regular equivalent for ‫אסף‬ throughout the LXX corpus. It was therefore an almost automatic rendering, even for the Niph‘al, and it is even used three times elsewhere in the LXX to describe separate individuals being “gathered”.43 So it is hard to argue that this lexical choice shows that the translator saw the Servant of the Lord in ch. 49 as a collective entity.44 Van der Kooij does not give much discussion over the translator’s choice of a Greek 1st person sing “I shall be gathered” to render the Hebrew 3rd masc. sing. “he shall be gathered”, though he observes that both MT and 1QIsaa have the 3rd masc. sing. The Peshitta also renders ‫ יֵ ָא ֵסף‬as a 1st person form but in the active, “I shall gather” (’ekanneš), making it unlikely that the Peshitta was influenced here by LXX. It should also be noted that there is another indication of instability in the Hebrew text at this point: the MT has a Qere / Kethiv, ‫ לו‬/‎ ‫ לֹא‬immediately before the verb ‫יֵ ָא ֵסף‬. All in all, what exactly the translator had in front of him is rather uncertain, and it may be that he was not attempting anything more significant than trying to represent an unclear Vorlage. b) In an article on Isa 8:11–16, van der Kooij suggested that the passage as a whole is about the Hellenising priestly leaders in Jerusalem who reject the right way of the Lord and “seal up the Law”: the phrase “this people” indicated the group approved by the translator.45 Ross Wagner’s wider examination of the phrase “this people” as used in both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Isaiah chs 1–12 demon-

42 Van der Kooij, “‘The Servant of the Lord’”, 394, 396. 43 Judg 19:18 “there is no one gathering me into the house” (for hospitality); 2 Sam 11:27 of Bathsheba being “gathered” into David’s house (καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτὴν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγενήθη αὐτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα); 2 Kings 22:20 of a king whom God promises will be “gathered” into his tomb. The last two of these passages are from the literalistic recension known as Kaige, but even freer translators evidently tended to render the root ‫ אסף‬rather automatically with συνάγω. 44 Compare the thematically and verbally similar passage, Mic 2:12a , ‫ָאסֹף ֶא ֱאסֹף יַ ֲעקֹב כֻ לָ ְך‬ ‫ ַק ֵבץ ֲא ַק ֵבץ ְש ֵא ִרית יִ ְש ָר ֵאל‬, especially in its LXX form: συναγόμενος συναχθήσεται Ιακωβ σὺν πᾶσιν·ἐκδεχόμενος ἐκδέξομαι τοὺς καταλοίπους τοῦ Ισραηλ. Here LXX displays the opposite phenomenon to Isa 49:5: the Hebrew 1st active imperfect (with God as subject) “I shall surely gather all of you, Jacob: I shall surely assemble the remnant of Israel” is rendered in LXX Micah as a 3rd masc. sg. future passive with Jacob as subject: LXX “being gathered, Jacob shall be g­ athered together with all; receiving, I shall receive the remnants of Israel”. 45 Van der Kooij, “Isaiah in the Septuagint”, 2.513–29

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

197

strates that this group is in fact the one opposed by the Lord and his prophet,46 thus undermining an identification with this specific historical situation. c) The MT of Isa 23:13 is obscure, and the NRSV renders, Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin.

The LXX makes a little more sense: καὶ εἰς γῆν Χαλδαίων, καὶ αὕτη ἠρήμωται ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Ασσυρίων, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖ σοι ἀνάπαυσις ἔσται, ὅτι ὁ τοῖχος αὐτῆς πέπτωκεν. And to the land of Chaldeans, it too has become deserted of Assyrians, neither shall there be rest for you there, because its wall has fallen.

Van der Kooij argues that the translator treats the Assyrians as a cipher for the Syrian Seleucid rulers, and that this verse alludes “to a disaster that befell Seleucid Babylonia resulting from an invasion by some enemy”.47 The fallen wall, he says, should be identified with the so-called Median wall at the northern frontier of Babylonia.48 In line with a passage in Sibylline Oracles III.303 ff., van der Kooij suggests this verse may “predict” the events of 141–140 BCE when the Parthian king Mithridates I invaded and occupied Babylonia, defeating the Seleucid army.49 The word used by the translator for “wall” is τοῖχος. It seems to represent both ‫בחיניו‬‎50 and ‫ארמנותיה‬: the translator probably guessed these were structures of some sort because of the reference to collapse at the end of the verse (‫)למפלה‬. However, the usual Greek word for a defensive wall is τεῖχος,51 and τεῖχος is certainly the word used by Xenophon to describe precisely this “Median” wall in Babylon.52 In contrast, when τοῖχος appears in the LXX corpus, it refers to a wall acting as a support or to separate the rooms in a house or temple, not to city walls or defensive structures.53 τοῖχος and τεῖχος are not treated as synonyms by LXX translators, and an allusion to the Median defensive wall appears unlikely. 46 J. R. Wagner, “Identifying ‘Updated’ Prophecies in Old Greek (OG) Isaiah: Isaiah 8:11–26 as a Test Case”, JBL 126/2 (2007) 251–69. Van der Kooij has accepted the validity of Wagner’s criticisms for this passage. 47 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 99. 48 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 68. 49 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 100. 50 Qere ‫בחּונָ יו‬.ַ 51 Cf. Isa 15:1 (ἀπολεῖται) τὸ τεῖχος (τῆς Μωαβίτιδος) for ‫קיר‬. 52 See Xenophon, Anabasis 6.II.4.§ 12, τὸ Μηδείας καλομενον τεῖχος. 53 τοῖχος: e.g. Exod 30:3; Lev 5:9; 14:37, 39; Num 22:25; Judg 16:13,14; 1 Sam 19:10; 20:25; 25:22, 34; 1 Kings/3 Kgdms ch. 6; 12:24; 20:21; 2 Kings 3:25; 9:8,33; 20:2; 29; Amos 5:19; Hab 2:11; Tob 2:9,10; Sir 14:24; 22:17; 23:18. See also Isa 5:5; 25:12; 38:2; 59:10; and Ezek chs 12, 13, and 41. Contrast the use of τεῖχος in LXX Isaiah, 2:15; 16:11; 22:10,11; 24:23; 26:1; 27:3; 30:13; 36:11,12; 49:16; 56:5; 60:10,18; 62:6.

198

Alison Salvesen

So on closer examination, the claimed reference to the Parthians’ defeat of the Seleucids in Babylonia looks more like the translator’s attempt to render some obscure Hebrew.54 d) Van der Kooij believes that the different words used for merchants in ch. 23 (μεταβόλοι and ἔμποροι) imply a significant difference of status between them, and that each group belongs to a different place—one to Tyre, and the other to Carthage.55 Against this Troxel argues that the use of μεταβολή in 47:15 and ἐμπορία twice in 23:18 indicates that the translator regards such terms as near synonyms.56 e) Many of Troxel’s criticisms of van der Kooij’s identifications are well-founded. But as van der Meer has observed, Troxel himself can be tempted to historicise on the basis of a minor detail in the text.57 Troxel connects the words of LXX Isa 33:18 ποῦ εἰσιν οἱ γραμματικοί; “where are the scholars?”58 to the expulsion of the grammatikoi, the “scholar-scribes” from the Alexandrian Mousaion in 145 BCE.59 The Mousaion is the place that Troxel considers to be the cultural setting for LXX Isaiah, and he argues for the translator’s “familiarity with the work of the Alexandrian γραμματικοί”, noting “affinities between his linguistic interpretation and exegetical impulses attested” for these scholars.60 However, this is a great deal to hang on a single word out of sixty-six chapters of Greek. Moreover, Van der Meer points out that the Mousaion was the place to preserve epic poems and collect knowledge, certainly not to translate Hebrew into Greek.61 f) Perhaps the most significant feature of the Greek rendering of ch. 23 is the choice of “Carthage” to render Hebrew “Tarshish”. It is certainly unexpected: elsewhere in Isaiah, “Tarshish” is transliterated twice (Θαρσις in 60:9 and 66:19), and in 2:16 it is rendered as “sea”, θάλασσα, perhaps for reasons of homoio­ phony.62 However, LXX Ezekiel renders Tarshish as Καρχηδόνιοι “Carthaginians” in 27:12,25 in a similar context to Isaiah ch. 23, so this identification is hardly confined to LXX Isaiah.63 Peter Flint convincingly argues that Carthage appears in Isaiah 23 for the same reason as in LXX Ezekiel 27: it supplies a reference to a 54 Cf. Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 144. 55 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 60, 81. 56 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 198. 57 Van der Meer, “Visions”, 287. 58 MT “where is the scribe?” (‫)ספר איה‬. 59 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 290–1. 60 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 150–1; 132. 61 Van der Meer, “Visions”, 287. 62 Emanuel Tov has pointed out that LXX Isaiah is inconsistent with geographical renderings: E. Tov, “Personal Names in the Septuagint of Isaiah”, in M. van der Meer et al. (ed.), Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (VTSup 138 Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2010) 413–28, on pp. 427–8. 63 Ezek 27:12 Καρχηδόνιοι ἔμποροί σου ἀπὸ πλήθους πάσης ἰσχύος σου; 27:25 πλοῖα, ἐν αὐτοῖς Καρχηδόνιοι ἔμποροί σου.

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

199

city associated with Tyre and Sidon that would be familiar to Jewish readers in Hellenistic Egypt. Therefore it is unlikely to be a deliberate reference to the fall of Carthage.64

Ambiguity of the Greek rendering a) The main thesis of van der Kooij’s book The Oracle of Tyre is that “LXX refers to a destruction of Carthage which has serious consequences for Tyre”.65 However, there is much ambiguity in the Greek rendering. Take v.1, Τὸ ὅραμα Τύρου. ᾿Ολολύζετε, πλοῖα Καρχηδόνος, ὅτι ἀπώλετο, καὶ οὐκέτι ἔρχονται ἐκ γῆς Κιτιαίων ἦκται αἰχμάλωτος, “The vision of Tyre. Wail, ships of Carthage, because it was destroyed, and they no longer go from the land of the Kitaieis. It has been led captive”. Since the heading of this section is Τὸ ὅραμα Τύρου “The Vision of Tyre”, as in the Hebrew text Tyre still seems to be the focus of the LXX version of ch. 23. Therefore the most obvious subject of ἀπώλετο and ἦκται is Tyre. Yet van der Kooij argues that the subject of ἀπώλετο and ἦκται is picked up thirteen verses later in 23:14 (ὀλολύζετε, πλοῖα Καρχηδόνος, ὅτι ἀπώλετο τὸ ὀχύρωμα ὑμῶν), with ὀχύρωμα indicating the stronghold of Carthage. This assumes an abnormally good attention span on the part of the reader. Moreover, LXX v. 5 foretells that the Egyptians will be seized with pain concerning Tyre (as in MT), rather than Carthage.66 In LXX v. 8, the speaker asks, “who planned these things against Tyre?” (τίς ταῦτα ἐβούλευσεν ἐπὶ Τύρον;), as does MT. Both MT and LXX v.15 speak of Tyre being abandoned for seven years, with a promise of its restoration by God in v.17. The only indication that the LXX translator may have 64 See P. Flint, “The LXX of Isaiah 23:1–14”, BIOSCS (1988) 35–54, on p. 53: “The use of Karchedon to translate ‫ תרשיש‬is not literal and may be considered ‘exegetical’—but only on the level of clarification, just as ‫ צידון‬was rendered by Φοινίκης in verse 2a”. Also Troxel, LXX-­Isaiah, 199: there is “no indication that Karchedon was chosen due to contemporaneous political circumstances”. On Qumran-like readings in the Hebrew Vorlage of Isa 23:10, see M. L. Barré, “‘Tarshish Has Perished’: The Crux of Isaiah 23,10”, Biblica 85/1 (2004) 115–19. See also J. Day, “Where was Tarshish?”, in I. Provan / M. J. Boda (ed.), Let us Go Up to Zion. Essays in Honour of H. G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (VTSup 153; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2012) 359–69, and another version, “Where was Tarshish (Genesis 10:4)?”, in J. Day (ed.), From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (LHBOTS 592; London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013) 154–65. Many Greek manuscripts (including one of the earliest fragments, the probably Christian third to fourth century papyrus Rahlfs 844) have the reading “Chalcedon”, a scribal slip or even an unconscious contemporization, which may have generated all kinds of new associations among readers. See B. E. Donovan, “An Isaiah Fragment in the Library of Congress”, HTR 61 (1968) 625–9, and A.-M. Luijenduik, “A new fragment of LXX Isaiah 23 (Rahlfs-Fraenkel 844)”, BASP 47 (2010) 33–43. 65 Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, e.g. 186. 66 λήμψεται αὐτοὺς ὀδύνη περὶ Τύρου.

200

Alison Salvesen

wanted also to portray the destruction of Carthage is v.10, where he renders, καὶ γὰρ πλοῖα οὐκέτι ἔρχεται ἐκ Καρχηδόνος, “for ships no longer go out from Carthage” (see above); however, it could equally be argued that this implies that ships can no longer sail from Carthage, because their destination Tyre has been destroyed. b) The subject of the verb ἔρχονται “they come” in 23:1 is unclear.67 Van der Kooij believes it to be the “ships of Carthage”, πλοῖα Καρχηδόνος, but Troxel observes that this may not be the case, since πλοῖα is neuter plural, and we would generally expect a singular verb in Greek (as in fact in v. 10).68 If the ships were indeed the subject of ἔρχονται there would also be an awkward switch from a 2nd pl. imperative (Ὀλολύζετε) to a 3rd pl. finite verb (ἔρχονται). Also in v.1, the subject of LXX’s statement “because it has been destroyed” could equally apply to Tyre (as implied by the title of the passage, Τὸ ὅραμα Τύρου “The Vision of Tyre”), rather than to Carthage (as van der Kooij believes). c) LXX diverges from MT at the end of 23:7, with the rendering οὐχ αὕτη ἦν ὑμῶν ἡ ὕβρις ἡ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πρὶν ἢ παραδοθῆναι αὐτήν; “was this not your (pl.) arrogance69 from the beginning, before it was handed over?” A closer Greek rendering of MT (NRSV “Is this your exultant city whose origin is from days of old, whose feet carried her to settle far away?”) would have better supported van der Kooij’s view that in ch. 23 there is lamentation over the fall of Tyre’s colony Carthage, than the actual, divergent rendering of LXX here. The verb παραδίδωμι “hand over” is a favourite word of the LXX Isaiah translator, and it often appears when the Hebrew text is difficult.70 But to which of the feminine nouns in the passage does αὐτήν refer? Is it the island of v. 7 (νῆσος) or either Carthage or Tyre (with πόλις understood), or even ὕβρις? Such lack of clarity, far from indicating a historical allusion, suggests that the translator was unsure of the meaning of v. 7 and took refuge in being vague. All in all, v. 7 in Greek is unlikely to be a reference to the Roman capture of Carthage, but to the fate of Tyre (as suggested by vv. 5 and 8).

V. Conclusions As the discussions above demonstrate, in spite of the complex and careful arguments advanced for the presence of updated prophecy and historical allusions in LXX Isaiah, many of these undoubtedly interesting renderings may be the result of non-exegetical factors such as an alternative Vorlage, non-masoretic vocalisations 67 Τὸ ὅραμα Τύρου. ᾿Ολολύζετε, πλοῖα Καρχηδόνος, ὅτι ἀπώλετο, καὶ οὐκέτι ἔρχονται ἐκ γῆς Κιτιαίων·ἦκται αἰχμάλωτος. “The vision of Tyre. Wail, ships of Carthage, because it was destroyed, and they no longer go from the land of the Kitaieis. It has been led captive”. 68 Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 196–7. 69 Van der Kooij renders ὕβρις as “pride (of strength)” (Oracle of Tyre, 57). 70 See Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 14.

LXX Isaiah as Prophecy?

201

of the text, or expected translation equivalents. Other passages in the Greek itself are susceptible of more than one interpretation. So it is hard to prove that the LXX translator of Isaiah regularly, deliberately, and unambiguously created new oracles in Greek differing from their Hebrew counterparts, in order to reference recent events.71 However, a minor degree of contemporisation in LXX Isaiah must be admitted. As Rodrigo de Sousa notes, the updating of place names is normal in ancient translations such as the Targumim and other LXX books.72 So for instance MT “Cush” becomes Greek “Ethiopia” in some places in Isaiah, and MT “Philistines” in Isa 9:12(11) becomes Ἕλληνες, “Greeks”.73 On the other hand, there are occasionally some more striking renderings, as in Isa 11:16, where the Hebrew phrase “the remnant of his people that is left from Assyria” is rendered in LXX as “the remnant of my people in Egypt”.74 (Yet, as de Sousa notes, even this particular example may not be the result of conscious exegesis, but an accidental slip influenced by the parallel clause at the end of the verse, where we find ‫ מצרים מארץ‬ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου.75) It may surprise us that the translator is not more systematic in his identifications. Such inconsistency can lead us to give undue significance to the passages in which names are updated, as in the case of the identification of Tarshish with Carthage in ch. 23: the simplest explanation for this is the need to identify the otherwise unknown city of Tarshish with a familiar port that would be affected by the fortunes of Phoenician Tyre. One factor which would militate against a very obvious process of actualisation is that the translator would surely have wanted his rendering to enjoy reasonable longevity. Therefore it seems unlikely that he would offer historical references that were specific and contemporary, since these would run the risk of the message of Greek Isaiah going out of date and becoming irrelevant to his community. Like its Hebrew exemplar, and the later Aramaic Targum Jonathan to Isaiah, the Greek rendering needed to be sufficiently enigmatic and its allusions veiled, in order to ensure its longevity.76 It also seems unlikely that the translator operated as a 71 R. F. de Sousa, “Isaiah”, in A. G. Salvesen / T. M.Law (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint (forthcoming): “One needs to be careful not to think that contemporizations necessarily point to ‘actualizing interpretation’ in the sense of a reference to the situation of the translator and his community”. 72 De Sousa, “Isaiah”, Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint (forthcoming). 73 Isa 11:11; 18:1; 43:3 (cf. Gen 2:13); Αίθιωψ 20:3,4,5; 37:9; 45:14. “Bashan” is rendered by Γαλιλαία in Isa 33:9, but by Βασαν in Isa 2:13. Regarding Ἕλληνες for MT Philistines, Troxel notes that it is “notable because it is atypical” (Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 192–3; 199). 74 R. F. de Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12 (LHBOTS, 516; HBIV, 4; New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 155. 75 De Sousa, “Isaiah”, Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint (forthcoming). 76 Cf. van der Meer, “Visions”, esp. on pp. 293–311. He discusses the fragments of Egyptian prophetic-polemic literature from the mid-second century BCE, translated into Greek from older Demotic texts. Van der Meer perceives a process of deliberate contemporisation in the

202

Alison Salvesen

lone interpreter: many of the theological themes brought out in LXX Isaiah could have been due to a tradition of interpretation of the Hebrew book on which the translator built. In the next stage of the translation’s existence, once contact with the Hebrew Vorlage was lost, the more obscure passages in LXX Isaiah would themselves have required oral explanations alongside its reading, perhaps in synagogues or schools. This would have allowed teachers to make their own oral contemporisations, if they wished. However, it is likely that the translator unconsciously (and therefore unsystematically) updated some of the prophetic message(s) of the Hebrew text simply because he was familiar with Hellenistic Egypt, and not with the worlds of the original Judean writers of Isaiah. De Sousa similarly speaks of the “accidental character of the insertion of ideological and cultural factors in the translation of the LXX books in general, and Isaiah in particular”,77 also noting that “a misreading of the [Hebrew] text can steer the translator in unexpected ways”.78 One could further add, misreading and misunderstanding on the part of the translator could lead to creativity in the later reception of the translation: not a small factor in the role of LXX Isaiah in formative Christianity.

Demotic oracles, since there is evidence of drafts that were significantly updated according to circumstances. Whether the process is truly comparable to LXX Isaiah is a good question. 77 As de Sousa has argued, especially for the themes of eschatology and messianism in LXX Isaiah: Eschatology and Messianism, 159. 78 De Sousa, “Isaiah”, Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint [forthcoming]. Likewise, Wagner also notes the difficulty of separating “‘accidental’ from ‘deliberate’ misreadings” and of distinguishing either of these from a true variant in the Hebrew Vorlage (Sealed Book, 49 n. 65).