Mother Zion in Deutero-Isaiah: A Metaphor for Zion Theology (Studies in Biblical Literature) [New ed.] 9781433121579, 9781453911686, 1433121573

Table of contents :
Cover
Editor’s Preface
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Contents
Introduction
CHAPTER ONE: METHODS
I. METAPHOR THEORY
A. DEVELOPMENT OF METAPHOR THEORY
B. REVIEW OF METAPHOR THEORY IN BIBLICAL STUDIES
C. APPLICATION OF METAPHOR THEORY IN THIS STUDY
II. INTERTEXTUALITY
A. THE THEORY
B. REVIEW OF METHODS
C. INTERTEXTUALITY OF DI
CHAPTER TWO: ZION THEOLOGY IN DEUTERO-ISAIAH
I. ZION IN DI AND PI
A. THE ZION TRADITION
B. SYNCHRONIC STUDIES OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
C. REDACTION THEORIES OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
D. SUPPLEMENTARY THEORIES OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
II. ZION THEOLOGY AND PERSONIFIED ZION IN DI
A. ZION AS THE HOLY CITY
B. YHWH AS CREATOR
C. YHWH AS DEFENDER
CHAPTER THREE: A SURVEY OF PERSONIFIED ZION: PEOPLE OR PLACE?
I. ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CONTEXT
II. PERSONIFIED ZION IN THE PROPHETIC TRADITION
A. ZION/JERUSALEM AS THE PEOPLE – JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL
B. ZION AS THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE – LAMENTATIONS
C. ZION AS THE CITY – PI AND DI
SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR: MOTHER ZION’S INNOCENCE
I. ISAIAH 50:1-3 MOTHER ZION’S SEPARATION
A. TRANSLATION
B. THE UNIT: FORM STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT
C. ISSUES OF ZION’S INNOCENCE
II. ISAIAH 49:14-26 MOTHER ZION’S COMPLAINT
A. TRANSLATION
B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT
C. ISSUES OF ZION’S INNOCENCE
III. ISAIAH 51:17-52:2 MOTHER ZION’S CUP OF WRATH
A. TRANSLATION
B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT
C. THE CUP OF WRATH
IV. ISAIAH 54:1-10 ZION – SINFUL OR SUFFERING WIFE?
A. Translation
B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT
C. ISSUES OF GUILT
SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE: THE BIRTH OF ZION’S CHILDREN
I. ISAIAH 49:14-26 WHO HAS BORNE FOR METHESE?
A. ISA 49:21 THE ONE WHO BORE
B. ISA 49:15 THE ONE WHO WILL NOT FORGET
II. ISAIAH 42:10-17 LIKE A WOMAN IN LABOR
A. TRANSLATION
B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, CONTEXT
C. ISSUES ABOUT BIRTH
III. ISAIAH 46:1-7 CARRIED FROM THE WOMB
A. TRANSLATION
B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT
C. ISSUES ABOUT PREGNANCY
VI. ISAIAH 54:1 SING, O BARREN ONE WHO DID NOT BEAR
A. THE READING THAT ZION GIVES BIRTH
B. THE READING THAT ZION DOES NOT GIVE BIRTH
EXCURSUS on ISA 45:9-13 “With What Are You In Labor?”
SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX: ZION’S NATIONALISM
ASSESSMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP
I. ISAIAH 45:14-17 EGYPT, ETHIOPIA, AND SABEANS IN CHAINS
A. TRANSLATION
B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, CONTEXT
C. THE ISSUES: NATIONS SUBJUGATED TO ZION
II. ISAIAH 49:22-26 I WILL LIFT MY HAND TO THE NATIONS
III. ISAIAH 51:21-52:2 THE UNCIRCUMCISED AND UNCLEAN
IV. ISAIAH 54:3 YOU WILL DISPOSSESS NATIONS
SUMMARY
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION
I. SUMMARY
II. IMPLICATIONS
A. HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS – For Real Mothers
B. THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS – For Metaphorical Mothers
C. HERMENEUTICAL IMPLICATIONS – For Other Mothers
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SCRIPTURE INDEX

Citation preview

ADVANCE PRAISE FOR

Mother Zion in Deutero-Isaiah “Maggie Low’s Mother Zion in Deutero-Isaiah provides a substantial, fresh, and insightful study of a trope in Isaiah 40–55 that has been long recognized but not thoroughly investigated. Passionately argued, this book highlights several gynomorphic metaphors in the text, always attuned to their broader literary contexts, rhetorical effects, and abiding theological relevance. It demonstrates yet again the vitality of an ancient tradition at the hands of an imaginative exilic poet.” Choon-Leong Seow, Henry Snyder Gehman Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary

Mother Zion in Deutero-Isaiah

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 155

PETER LANG

New York · Washington, D.C./Baltimore · Bern Frankfurt · Berlin · Brussels · Vienna · Oxford

Maggie Low

Mother Zion in Deutero-Isaiah A Metaphor for Zion Theology

PETER LANG

New York · Washington, D.C./Baltimore · Bern Frankfurt · Berlin · Brussels · Vienna · Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Low, Maggie. Mother Zion in Deutero-Isaiah: a metaphor for Zion theology / Maggie Low. pages cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; v. 155) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bible. Isaiah XL–LIV—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Jerusalem in the Bible. 3. Metaphor in the Bible. I. Title. BS1520.L69 263'.042569442—dc23 2013012582 ISBN 978-1-4331-2157-9 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-1168-6 (e-book) ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2013 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

v

Editor’s Preface More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Maggie Low examines the figure of Zion in Deutero-Isaiah, noting that DI does not condemn Zion as the adulterous wife as has been the conventional way of viewing Zion, but rather asserts her innocence and blames the people. The author employs both Metaphor theory and Intertextual studies in analyzing how a metaphor is used in a rhetorical context and the manner in which textual allusions are employed. Employing what the author terms a “stereo vision,” this study pursues a development of Zion as a metaphor, placing Zion in Isaiah’s theological and rhetorical context. Zion theology as a large framework illuminates trajectories for DI’s use of Zion as a metaphor. Low argues that Zion is correlated with Zion theology in three ways: 1) Zion is innocent and did not precipitate the exile because Zion is YHWH’s holy city; 2) YHWH is creator and the birthing mother of the royal city; 3) it is Zion as YHWH’s royal city not Israel that is exalted over all nations. This study, beyond the immediate interest that it is sure to generate, expands the manner in which the metaphor of Zion might be viewed, if for no other reason than to enrich the discourse and remind us that certain narrowly construed conventions that maintain troubling and even destructive norms must be challenged. This study is certain to expand our thinking in significant ways. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

vii

Acknowledgments This is an updated and slightly revised dissertation completed in 2009 under the supervision of Prof. Andreas Schuele, at Union Theological Seminary and Prebsyterian School of Christian Education, Richmond, Virginia. Thanks are due to my many teachers, without whom this project would not have been conceived, carried to term, and delivered. My Doktorvater, Andreas Schuele, had an uncanny way of pointing me in the right direction with his breadth of English and Continental scholarship. He was unrelenting in his demand for clarity of thought, depth of analysis, and breadth of imagination and yet unstinting in his encouragement whenever needed. My two readers, Professors Julie Galambush and Sam Balentine, made the end result far better than it would have been by their insightful comments and challenging questions. Prof. Dean McBride also contributed his rigorous scholarship in my initial study of Isaiah. To the Old Testament faculty at Princeton Theological Seminary, I owe the foundation for my study of the Hebrew Scripture: Professors J. J. M Roberts introduced Zion Theology to me, Jacqueline Lapsley initiated me into feminist studies of the Old Testament, and C. Leong Seow made sure I learnt my Hebrew properly. I am indebted to several organizations and friends for their support during my studies: The Council of World Mission, The Presbyterian Church (USA), The Mrs Lee Choon Guan Trust, The Presbyterian Church of Singapore, Princeton Theological Seminary, Union-PSCE, Trinity Theological College (Singapore), Mr and Mrs Goh Wei Ming and Katherine, Mr and Mrs Harold and Christy Or, Mr and Mrs Philip and Angie Ong, Mr and Mrs Nua We Boon and Shwu Ling, Mr and Mrs Joseph and Sok Bee John, Mr and Mrs Paul and Janet Tan, Mr and Mrs Joe and Irene Chow, Mr and Mrs Ong Say Teong and Sze Min, Mr and Mrs Michael and Sok Ching Pang, Mr and Mrs Michael and Elena Low, Mr and Mrs Ng Hern and Lan Eng, Ms Michelle Tan, Ms Chua Guat Beng, and my parents, Mr and Mrs Choo Yut Shing. I thank them and many others for their partnership with me in God’s kingdom. The publishing of this monograph is made possible with a grant from the Foundation for Theological Education in South East Asia. Jean Luah, a graduate student, was an invaluable research and proofreading assistant. Most of all, I owe a debt of gratitude to my long-suffering husband, David Low who, believing in God's call for us, sacrificially and steadfastly supported me in my studies by putting his career on hold for six years in order to take up the more difficult task of being both father and mother to our two children, Micah and Debbie. Thanks, kids, for making do without mom on many nights

viii because you also believed in God’s call. This study would not have seen the light of day without my husband’s labor, and so to him I dedicate not only this dissertation but also my life-long appreciation and love. It is ironical that, as I was writing about mother Zion longing for her children to return, I was halfway across the world from my own children, longing to return home to them. Nonetheless, even as Zion is comforted by mother God who says, "Can a mother forget her child or have no compassion on her newborn? Even these may forget, but I will never forget" (Isa 49:15), so also I was greatly comforted that God is the one who watches over my children and who brings my writing to fruition. Maggie Low Jan 2013

ix

Abbreviations AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992.

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969.

ATD

Das Alte Testament Deutsch

BDB

Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907.

BHS

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983.

Bib

Biblica

BibOr

Biblica et orientalia

BibThBul

Biblical Theology Bulletin

Bijdr

Bijdragen

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBSC

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

CC

Continental Commentaries

CTA

Corpus des tablettes en cunéiforms alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1829 à1939. Edited by A. Herdner. Mission de Ras Shamra 10. Paris, 1963.

DI

Deutero-Isaiah

Enc

Encounter

HBT

Horizons in Biblical Theology

HCOT

Historical Commentary on the Old Testament

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

x IB

Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick et al. 12 vols. New York, 1951-1957.

IBC

Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching.

ICC

International Critical Commentary

Int

Interpretation

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JPS

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

LXX

The Septuagint

MT

Masoretic Text

NCB

New Century Bible

NIB

New Interpreter’s Bible

NIBC

New International Biblical Commentary

NIBCOT

New International Bible Commentary on the Old Testament

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NJPS

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

OBT

Overtures to Biblical Theology

OTL

Old Testament Library Commentary Series

OTS

Old Testament Studies

OtSt

Oudtestamentische Studiën

PI

Proto-Isaiah

PRSt

Perspectives in Religious Studies

PSB

Princeton Seminary Bulletin

RB

Revue Biblique

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

xi SBS

Stuttgarter Bibelstudiën

SBLSP

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SBT

Studies in Biblical Theology

SEÅ

Svensk exegetisk årsbok

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SNTSMS

Society for the New Testament Studies Monograph Series

TDOT

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974-

TI

Trito-Isaiah

TLOT

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody. Mass., 1997

TynBul

Tyndale Bulletin

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Vetus Testamentum Supplements

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xiii

Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE. METHODS .............................................................................. 5 I.

Metaphor Theory ........................................................................................... 5

II.

Intertextuality ............................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER TWO. ZION THEOLOGY IN DEUTERO-ISAIAH ...................... 37 I.

Zion in DI and PI......................................................................................... 37

II.

Zion Theology and Personified Zion in DI ................................................. 46

CHAPTER THREE. A SURVEY OF PERSONIFIED ZION: PEOPLE OR PLACE ................................................................................................................ 53 I.

Ancient Near Eastern Context..................................................................... 53

II.

Personified Zion in the Prophetic Tradition................................................ 56

CHAPTER FOUR. MOTHER ZION’S INNOCENCE ...................................... 71 I.

Isaiah 50:1-3 Mother Zion’s Separation ..................................................... 73

II.

Isaiah 49:14-26 Mother Zion’s Complaint.................................................. 77

III. Isaiah 51:17-52:2 Mother Zion’s Cup of Wrath ......................................... 86 IV. Isaiah 54:1-10 Zion – Sinful or Suffering Wife? ........................................ 96 CHAPTER FIVE. THE BIRTH OF ZION’S CHILDREN .............................. 111 I.

Isaiah 49:14-26 Who Has Borne For Me These ....................................... 111

II.

Isaiah 42:10-17 Like a Woman in Labor .................................................. 119

III. Isaiah 46:1-7 Carried From the Womb ..................................................... 133 IV. Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O Barren One Who Did Not Bear ................................. 138 Excursus on Isaiah 45:9-13 “With What Are You in Labor?” ................. 145

xiv CHAPTER SIX. ZION’S NATIONALISM ..................................................... 149 Assessment of Scholarship ........................................................................ 150 I.

Isaiah 45:14-17 Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sabeans in Chains ......................... 157

II.

Isaiah 49:22-26 I Will Lift My Hand to the Nations ................................ 164

III. Isaiah 51:21-52:2 The Uncircumcised and Unclean ................................. 173 IV. Isaiah 54:3 You Will Dispossess Nations ................................................. 176 CHAPTER SEVEN.CONCLUSION ................................................................ 181 Summary

........................................................................................... 181

Implications

........................................................................................... 183

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 193 SCRIPTURE INDEX ........................................................................................ 215

1

Introduction The figure of Zion has attracted much feminist attention, with the literature either defending or criticizing YHWH’s violent treatment of YHWH’s metaphorical wife. Those who want to salvage the prophets’ theological message from its patriarchal medium point out that Zion is an adulteress spouse who deserves to be punished because, after all, she represents the idolatrous and faithless people of Judah. However, it is seldom recognized that Deutero-Isaiah (henceforth, DI) uses the metaphor of Zion differently because not only does he not condemn her, but he asserts her innocence and puts the blame on her people. This is undeniaby clear in Isa 50:1: “For your (the people’s) transgressions, your mother was sent away.” In his message of restoration, DI makes abundant reference to the people’s sin, albeit in a context of forgiveness, but he never points his finger at mother Zion except to defend her. It is the mother’s innocent suffering that evokes the readers’ empathy and that leads to YHWH’s promises of restoration. She is the focal point of YHWH’s reign and the exiles’ return. On what basis, then, does DI diverge from the usual prophetic condemnation of woman Zion? The answer to this question depends not just on a study of the prophetic imagery of personified Zion but also on a closer understanding of the Book of Isaiah itself, specifically regarding the theme of Zion. Recent scholarly interest in Isaianic studies has shifted away from the identity and role of the suffering servant to the feminine figure of Zion. Some writers propose that she is to be merged with the servant, while others argue that she has a different identity, viz., the physical location of Jerusalem and the temple as distinct from the people of Israel. Zion’s significance has been recognized in diverse types of studies: in analyses of the cultic traditions that DI relies on, in synchronic surveys of DI’s themes, and in diachronic examinations of the formation of the Book of Isaiah. For example, Gerhard von Rad suggests that, besides the exodus and Davidic traditions, DI also relies on the Zion tradition, referring to pre-exilic beliefs in the inviolability of the temple mount expressed in some of the cultic psalms (e.g. Psalms 48; 76; 87).1 Scholars also argue that Zion is the main literary theme in the entire Isaianic corpus, and according to redactional and supplementary theories of the formation of the Book of Isaiah, Zion is believed to be the central theological concern of both Proto-Isaiah (henceforth, PI) and DI. I propose that reading mother Zion with a stereo vision will help us gain a greater appreciation for DI’s metaphorical use of Zion. This means keeping one 1

Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 239-40.

2 eye on the metaphor within DI’s rhetorical and theological context and the other eye on DI’s allusions to and adaptations of the metaphor from earlier prophetic texts, thus viewing his distinctive emphases in greater relief. This approach requires the use of two methods: Metaphor theory will provide the tools for analyzing how a metaphor is used in its rhetorical context, while intertextual studies will ascertain what texts DI alludes to and how he reuses them. I propose that the importance of Zion theology in the Book of Isaiah has implications for DI’s usage of the Zion metaphor. The tenets of that theology will be spelt out in Chapter Two, but basically I refer to the pre-exilic temple cult that understands Zion as the divinely chosen mount from where YHWH dwells and rules. This is a belief based on the ancient Near Eastern chaoskampf myth in which the deity that creates order out of chaos is proclaimed as the sovereign king. If mother Zion in DI is influenced by Zion theology, then it is expected that she would represent the dwelling place of YHWH rather than her inhabitants. Thus, the first step in the analysis of the metaphor would be to determine its referent or target, i.e., the object represented. A survey of personified Zion in the prophetic literature will show that the metaphor is appropriated differently by different prophets for their own theological and rhetorical purposes. If Zion represents the divinely chosen city rather than the sinful people in DI, then I suggest that mother Zion is correlated with Zion theology in three ways: (1) Zion is innocent of the sin that caused the exile because she is YHWH’s holy city, not YHWH’s rebellious people; (2) although Zion is the personified mother of the people, YHWH is the one who gives birth to her children because Zion theology is rooted in YHWH as the creator; and (3) it is mother Zion as YHWH’s royal city, not Israel, that is exalted over all the nations as a demonstration of YHWH’s sovereignty. Thus, DI uses the female metaphor of Zion not just as a rhetorical device to evoke sympathy from the hearers but also to convey theological convictions that shape the exilic audience’s thoughts and experience. Chapters One to Three lay the foundation and proposals that will be demonstrated in Chapters Four to Six by a close reading of DI’s Zion passages. Chapter One explains the methods of metaphor theory and intertextuality, Chapter Two examines the significance of Zion theology in the Book of Isaiah and proposes how it influences the Zion metaphor, and Chapter Three surveys the usage of personified Zion in various prophetic books to show that different targets (i.e., people or place) influence the issue of Zion’s culpability. Chapters Four to Six undertake the exegetical work of the Zion passages. Chapter Four on Zion’s innocence focuses on four texts (Isa 50:1-3; 49:14-26; 51:17-52:2; 54:1-10) to show that DI highlights Zion’s suffering but attributes

3 guilt to the people, thereby reversing past judgment against the people through YHWH’s compassion upon the city. In Chapter Five on the birth of Zion’s children, three texts using gynomorphic imagery for YHWH are examined (Isa 49:14-26; 42:10-17; 46:1-7). In the first two of these texts, the juxtaposition of maternal and martial metaphors for YHWH highlights the Deity’s power and compassion in birthing (i.e., delivering) the people, but hides the element of birth for mother Zion. Chapter Six discusses the issue of nationalism and universalism in DI and argues that it is Zion the city, not Israel the people, to whom all the nations come in subjugation because Zion is the locus of YHWH’s universal sovereignty. This is demonstrated in two texts, Isa 45:14-17 and 49:22-23, while two other texts, 51:21-52:2 and 54:3, deal primarily with retribution against Zion’s enemies. Finally, Chapter Seven concludes with some implications for feminist, metaphor, and hermeneutical studies regarding mothers. Although the fate of the physical city waxes and wanes over history, the image of Zion as mother has not ceased to captivate readers both Jewish and Christian. She continues to be our spiritual mother, awaiting our return home.

5

CHAPTER ONE METHODS

Two methods will be employed to elucidate DI’s theological characterization of Zion: Metaphor theory will be used to explore the referents of personified Zion, the issue of her culpability, and the portrayal of the birth of her children. Secondly, intertextual analysis will compare how DI presents wife Zion differently from other prophetic traditions with regards to her referent and the question of her guilt.

I. METAPHOR THEORY In a recent study, Sarah Dille (2004) uses metaphor theory to study the parental imagery for God in DI. She applies the theories of various cognitive linguists such as I. A. Richards, Max Black, and George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in her analysis of the texts. By examining how metaphors interact with each other as well as with their literary contexts, Dille offers new insights into the metaphors employed by DI. For example, the “travailing woman” metaphor, while normally portraying fear in a siege, interacts with the context of Isa 42:14 to signify divine power. Dille’s use of metaphor theory is helpful for my study of personified Zion in DI, and like her, I will use Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of cognitive metaphor. However, unlike her, rather than using all three theories, I will only employ Lakoff and Johnson’s theory because it incorporates and moves beyond Richards’ and Black’s ideas and because recent developments of Lakoff and Johnson’s theory will help to further refine Dille’s approach.1

A.

DEVELOPMENT OF METAPHOR THEORY

Beginning with Aristotle, a metaphor was thought merely to be a substitution in which a metaphor replaces one term for another and, thus, functions only at the 1

Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah, JSOTSup 398 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004); George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1980); George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).

6 level of the word, without being influenced by the larger context of the sentence or discourse. It was not thought to add any cognitive content and was only for ornamental purposes.2 However, an important counterproposal to the substitution model was put forth by Richards in 1935. 1.

I. A. Richards (1935)

Richards argues against the “superstition” that a word has only one particular meaning. Rather, he points out that “most words, as they pass from context to context, change their meanings; and in many different ways.” Thus, meaning is determined by the whole utterance, not by individual words in isolation, and it is this interaction between words that forms the principle of the metaphor for Richards. He defines a metaphor as “two thoughts of different things active together and supported by a single word, or phrase, whose meaning is a resultant of their interaction.” He calls the two units in the metaphor the “tenor” and the “vehicle.” The tenor is “the underlying idea or principal subject which the vehicle or figure means.” Further, the tenor and the vehicle interact and result in “a meaning of more varied powers than can be ascribed to either.” That is, a metaphor is more than the sum of its parts: It is not just a verbal shift but a “borrowing between and intercourse of thoughts, a transaction between contexts. Thought is metaphoric, and proceeds by comparison, and the metaphors of language derive therefrom.” This hints at the cognitive role of metaphor later developed by Lakoff and Johnson.3 2.

Max Black (1962)

In 1962, Richards’ theory was further developed by Black. Like Richards, he rejects the substitution theory because “likeness always admits of degrees,” and so a metaphor “has its own distinctive capacities.”4 He follows Richards’ principle that the meaning of the metaphor is the interaction between the “tenor” and the “vehicle” but adds further that the latter imposes extension of meaning

2 3 4

P. Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 16-21. I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), 11, 93, 97, 100, 94. Unless otherwise noted, italics in quotations are the author’s. Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press), 37. He allows, though, that some metaphors may be intended merely as substitution.

7 upon the former through a “system of associated commonplaces,” i.e., through what is commonly believed about the subject, whether true or not.5 Black uses the statement, “Man is a wolf,” to illustrate how the interaction works. To call a man a “wolf” is to “evoke the wolf-system of related commonplaces. If the man is a wolf, he preys upon other animals, is fierce, hungry, engaged in constant struggle, a scavenger, and so on.” He notes that these are implications not commonly associated with the literal “man.” Nonetheless, “any human traits that can without undue strain be talked about in wolf-language will be rendered prominent, and any that cannot, will be pushed into the background.” In sum, “the metaphor selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and organizes features of the principal subject by implying statements about it that normally apply to the subsidiary subject.” Black notes that a system of commonplaces may vary in different cultures: For example, another culture may view a wolf positively rather than negatively. This has implications for the study of biblical metaphors in that one needs to be aware of culturally associated commonplaces.6 In addition, Black recognizes that the speaker’s intentions also affects the meaning of the metaphor: “Recognition and interpretation of a metaphor may require attention to the particular circumstances of its utterance.”7 This suggests that the larger context affects, and may even change, the meaning of a metaphor. 3.

Lakoff and Johnson (1980)

While Black and Richards recognize that a metaphor has cognitive content, Lakoff and Johnson argue that people fundamentally think in terms of metaphors and that “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.”8 They offer as an example of a conceptual metaphor: ARGUMENT IS WAR. This metaphor structures how one thinks about,

5 6 7 8

Black, Models, 38-40. Black, Models, 41, 44. Black, Models, 29. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 3, 5. Janet M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 81, dismisses Lakoff and Johnson’s theory as a metaphor-as-myth thesis – “the idea that metaphors represent concealed myths in everyday speech.” She thinks that they fall into the fallacy of confusing word derivation with word meaning. Dille, Mixing, 8 n. 41, counters that Lakoff and Johnson show little interest in the etymologies of single words but are interested, rather, in the underlying roots of fuller expressions or systems of expression. I would also add that the roots that Lakoff and Johnson explore are based on embodied experiences, not myths.

8 speaks of, and experiences “argument,” which leads to common expressions such as winning or losing, attacking or defending an argument, etc.9 Lakoff and Johnson call such statements “metaphorical linguistic expressions” that are tied to metaphorical concepts in a systematic way.10 A different conceptual metaphor for an argument would influence our thought and expressions in other ways. For example, the conceptual metaphors ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING, A JOURNEY, or A 11 CONTAININER would hide the competitive element. Lakoff and Johnson also recognize that conceptual metaphors are based on embedded values that may vary from culture to culture, and thus, a metaphor has to be understood in its cultural context.12 Lakoff and Turner subsequently refined the theory by describing it as understanding the target domain (i.e., Richards’ tenor) in terms of the source domain (i.e., Richards’ vehicle). The constituent elements of the source domain correspond to the constituent elements of the target domain, and such conceptual correspondences are called “mappings.” For example, the structure of LIFE IS A JOURNEY means that there are a number of correspondences between the two conceptual domains of life and journeys:13 Elements in source domain of journey traveler maps onto destination maps onto distance traveled maps onto

Elements in target domain of life person leading a life purpose in life progress made in life

It may be seen that the constituent elements of the source domain are similar to Black’s system of associated commonplaces, but they are now related more specifically to various aspects of the target domain. Elements of the source domain are also affected by culture.14 Other elements of Lakoff and Johnson’s

9

10 11 12 13 14

Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 4-5. Zoltan Kovecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 5, explains the conventions of cognitive linguistics: small capitals for statements of conceptual metaphors and italics for metaphorical linguistic expressions. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 7. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 99. Although an argument is usually competitive, it also contains other elements, such as logical deduction, that may be more collaborative. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 22-4. Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 3-4, 63-5. Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 66, takes account of this briefly by noting that cultural models may be at variance with scientific knowledge. For example, while experts maintain that wolves prefer to avoid humans, the common view is that they are vicious beasts that attack humans.

9 theory, such as highlighting, hiding, downplaying, extending, entailments, and coherence, help to explain more fully how a metaphor functions. a.

Highlighting, Hiding, Downplaying, and Extending

Lakoff and Johnson point out that a metaphor will highlight some aspects of a target (e.g., argument as a battle), but at the same time, it will hide other aspects (e.g., argument as cooperation). Downplaying means that a given metaphor “is consistent with, but does not focus on” certain aspects of the concept. Using the example LOVE IS A COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART, they show that it highlights the “active side” of love, hides the emotional part of love, and downplays the aspect of love as a physical force.15 Further, they point out that linguistic expressions may extend the “unused” parts of a metaphor in a figurative or imaginative way. Using the example THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, metaphorical linguistic expressions would usually refer to the “used” part of the building, such as the foundation and framework (e.g., his theory has a good foundation), while a metaphorical extension would activate the “unused” part of a building (e.g., his theory has thousands of little rooms and long, winding corridors). Or as Zoltan Kovecses, another cognitive metaphor theorist, puts it, “We talk about partial metaphorical utilization in the course of conventional thought and language use. When we think and speak unconventionally, we can extend our conventional patterns of thought and language into what we called the ‘unutilized parts of the source.’”16 b.

Entailments

Conceptual metaphors may be linked together to form “systems” through what Lakoff and Johnson call “entailment relationships.” Such entailments coherently link together all the metaphorical linguistic expressions that derive from a conceptual metaphor. Kovecses explains that entailments arise from our everyday knowledge about the elements of sources, and when this rich knowledge is mapped onto target domains, we have cases of metaphorical entailments. He uses the metaphor ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER as an example and lists several entailments such as: WHEN THE INTENSITY OF ANGER INCREASES, THE FLUID RISES; INTENSE ANGER PRODUCES STEAM; and INTENSE ANGER PRODUCES PRESSURE ON THE CONTAINER. Kovecses describes such everyday knowledge as folk theory or folk understanding of a domain.17

15 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 10, 149. 16 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 52-3; Kovecses, Metaphor, 82. 17 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 9; Kovecses, Metaphor, 94-104.

10 Dille points out that entailments, like Black’s concept of associated commonplaces, “primarily function as a system of stereotypical associations, culturally defined.”18 She suggests that entailments, like elements of a source, may also be extended: A rhetorical expression may extend the conventional network of associations that ‘characterize’ the conceptual metaphor by highlighting potential entailments that are normally not commonplace to transform the metaphor and create new meaning. Rhetorical extensions give new meaning to the conventional metaphor by highlighting what was previously downplayed.19

She cites Galambush’s study on Jerusalem in Ezekiel as an example of how a conventional ancient Near Eastern metaphor of a city as a woman and the wife of a deity is extended by Ezekiel to include the entailment of impurity. It is an entailment that was not previously highlighted but is a potential entailment of a woman in the context of a priestly culture. Impurity, though downplayed, is not a hidden entailment in the city-as-wife metaphor, and Ezekiel highlights it by his rhetorical expressions, thus extending the metaphor in a new way.20 Metaphorical entailments also help to explain how metaphors function coherently when juxtaposed together. c.

Metaphoric Coherence

A metaphor only focuses partially on the target, and so Lakoff and Johnson write that “the reason we need two metaphors is because there is no one metaphor that will do the job.”21 They point out that two metaphors would be consistent if one clearly delineated concept can explain both. However, complete consistency across metaphors is rare; more likely, there is a partial overlap of their entailments that results in coherence. For example, the metaphors AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY and AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER are inconsistent, yet they share the common entailment that AN ARGUMENT COVERS MORE OF A SURFACE (whether of the ground in a journey or of the content in a container), thus resulting in a pair of coherent mixed metaphors.22 Dille applies this idea of coherence to the study of mixed metaphors for God in DI. She emphasizes that “each textual unit of Deutero-Isaiah has a unique

18 Dille, Mixing, 12. 19 Dille, Mixing, 12. 20 Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City As Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Dille, Mixing, 12-3. 21 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 95. 22 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 89-96.

11 combination of metaphors and what is highlighted is what overlaps.” An example of inconsistent metaphors having coherence is found in Isa 42:10-17, where YHWH is described both as a warrior and as a woman in labor. Citing Katherine Pfisterer Darr’s analysis that both warrior and birthing mother act by shouting, Dille points out that this is a shared entailment, along with others such as danger, courage, the threat of death, the preservation of life. She notes that by juxtaposing these two inconsistent metaphors, “The author highlights the entailments that they share and downplays aspects of the metaphors that are not shared.”23 However, because Dille does not distinguish between the constituent elements of a source domain and the entailments of a metaphor, her explanation needs some refinement. While she is right that some correspondence between the two metaphors are the result of overlapping entailments (e.g., shouting in the above text), other are more properly the constituent elements of the source domains themselves rather than their entailments. For example, the attribute of “power” would be associated with a warrior and so should be considered a constituent element of the source rather than an entailment. In juxtaposition with the woman in labor metaphor, it highlights the culturally downplayed element of strength that a woman in labor has to exercise. Admittedly, this modifies Lakoff and Johnson’s proposition that coherence lies in overlapping entailments, but where the source domains of juxtaposing metaphors consist of human roles and attributes, it is possible that some elements of the source domains may also overlap.

B.

REVIEW OF METAPHOR THEORY IN BIBLICAL STUDIES

Biblical scholarship in the last few decades has begun to apply insights from metaphor theory to the interpretation of biblical texts.24 I will only review works

23 Dille, Mixing, 15, 16. 24 These include: Paul A. Porter, Metaphors and Monsters: A Literary-Critical Study of Daniel 7 and 8 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983); Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Carol Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre,” in The Place is Too Small for Us: Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. R. Gordon (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 192, reprint from Int 38 (1984): 151-65; Marc Z. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, JSOTSup 76 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); Kirsten Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, JSOTSup 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991); Claudia V. Camp and Carole R. Fontaine, eds., Women, War, and Metaphor: Language

12 that are relevant to my study – those involving the use of metaphorical language for Zion as a woman and those focusing on metaphors in DI in general. 1.

Biblical Studies of the CITY AS A WOMAN Metaphor

In her 1992 study on Jerusalem in Ezekiel, Julie Galambush uses Black’s and Lakoff and Johnson’s theories to show that a dead metaphor, such as the CITY AS WIFE, could be revived “by activation of facets not previously recognized amongst the ‘associated commonplaces’ of the vehicle.” While Hosea and Jeremiah portray the city as an adulterous wife, Ezekiel recasts the adultery metaphor “to highlight the woman’s sexual pollution, which becomes a symbol of the pollution of the city’s ‘holy place,’” and thus, justifies YHWH’s revenge and abandonment. Galambush believes that personified Zion in DI is also presented as a sinful wife, but her work is not intended to be a close reading of DI.25 Nelly Stienstra (1993) explores the corresponding metaphor, YHWH as the husband of his people, in the prophetic books.26 She notes that Ezekiel employs and Society in the Study of the Hebrew Bible, Semeia 61 (Atlanta: SBL, 1993); Bernhard Oestreich, Metaphors and Similes for Yahweh in Hosea 14:2-9 (1-8): A Study of Hoseanic Pictorial Language (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998); William P. Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Mary E. Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1-4.4, JSOTSup 387 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004) studies the functional rather than conceptual meaning of metaphor; P. van Hecke, ed., Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (Leuven: Leuven University Press; Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2005); Alec Basson, Divine Metaphors in selected Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), takes note of orientational metaphors; Andrea L. Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), uses a linguistic, rather than cognitive, approach to metaphor. 25 Galambush, Jerusalem, 8, 89, 59. Gary Harlan Hall, “The Marriage Imagery in Jeremiah 2 and 3: A Study of Antecedents and Innovations in a Prophetic Metaphor” (Ph.D. diss., Union-PSCE, 1980), traces the use of the marriage metaphor in Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. He notes that Ezekiel radicalizes the marriage metaphor so that “it no longer serves as primarily prophetic, covenant preaching, but rather as a vehicle to show the various ways that Israel has become impure and unclean” (p. 184). However, Hall does not apply any metaphor theory, thus overlooking some details such as the target of the metaphor (who is the “wife” of the marriage?) as well as other associated commonplaces. 26 Nelly Stienstra, YHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with special reference to Translation (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), 186. Stienstra (pp. 33-4) also cites the semantic field theory of Eva F. Kittay and Adrienne Lehrer, “Semantic Fields and the Structure of Metaphor,” in Studies in Language 5 (1981): 31-

13 the metaphor in a way that does not correspond with reality. For DI, she finds it puzzling that the wife is blamed for the misdeeds of the children in Isa 50:1 – “This is in direct conflict with the marriage metaphor as we have developed it so far,” and “this way of using the marriage metaphor is peculiar to Isaiah.”27 Stienstra does not explain how or why DI uses the metaphor differently, but I will show that reading Zion as the personified place rather than as the people will explain the shift in guilt. James A. Durlesser (2006) explores Ezekiel’s metaphors using Peter W. Macky’s method and also taking Galambush’s findings into consideration. Macky proposed a six-step method for interpreting biblical metaphors, but his method is rather general in that he does not consider how a common metaphor may be used to highlight or downplay different aspects of the target.28 As a result, Durlesser makes the usual conclusion that the marriage metaphor in Ezekiel 16 and 23 depicts a covenant but overlooks the other aspect of ritual purity that is rhetorically highlighted.29 Brian Doyle (2000) also relies on the work of Macky, amongst others, to analyze the metaphors in Isaiah 24-27. He proposes that the central metaphor in these chapters is that of “YHWH as the husband of Zion and of Zion as a collective term for Jerusalem, its inhabitants and the people as a whole.” He further links this to the metaphor of YHWH as a husband in DI and suggests that Isaiah 24-27 may have been the work of the same redactor who harmonized both segments.30 As pointed out above, Macky’s method does not give enough

27 28

29 30

63, a theory similar to mapping developed in Lakoff’s later works, viz., George Lakoff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 276, and Lakoff and Turner, More, 63-5. Stienstra, YHWH is the Husband, 171. James A. Durlesser, The Metaphorical Narratives in the Book of Ezekiel (Lewiston, N.Y.; Queenston, Ontario; Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen, 2006), 4-7; Peter W. Macky, The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting the Bible (Lewiston, N.Y.; Queenston, Ontario; Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen, 1990). Macky proposes a six-step method: 1. Determine the type of metaphor. 2. Determine the author’s purposes. 3. Determine whether the metaphor is artistic or expository. 4. Determine the subject of the symbol of the metaphor. 5. Discern the positive and negative analogies. 6. Explore the neutral analogies. Durlesser, Metaphorical Narratives, 142. Brian Doyle, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: The Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27 (Leuven: Leuven University Press; Leuven-Sterling, Va.: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2000), 371-2.

14 attention to the rhetorical context, and similarly, Doyle simply assumes that there is a marriage metaphor between YHWH and Zion in Isaiah 24-27 and that Zion represents the people. However, the assumption of a marital relationship is based only on a few ambiguous words in the text,31 and he does not determine the target of Zion in the larger context of PI and DI. I will show, rather, that DI uses personified Zion for the city and not for the people. Gerlinde Baumann (2003) adopts Lakoff and Johnson’s theory to explore the prophetic marriage metaphor, especially focusing on the aspect of sexual violence.32 Based on parallels between DI and ancient Near Eastern texts dealing with adultery and divorce, she finds that sexual violence is part and parcel of marriage. Though it is used in the prophetic marriage imagery in order to interpret the experience of the exile, she argues that such violent God-image should not be accepted today. Concerning Zion in DI, her reading is somewhat inconsistent: While saying that YHWH abandoned his wife because of her wicked behavior, as expounded by Hosea and Ezekiel, Baumann also acknowledges that the “mother” in Isa 50:1 has not been punished for her own sins.33 Again, I suggest that this confusion is due to Baumann’s failure to distinguish between the referents of “Zion” in the different prophetic texts. Brad E. Kelle (2005) employs Lakoff and Johnson’s theory to find the source of the marriage metaphor in Hosea 2. He proposes that this is based on the marriage/divorce laws of the ancient Near East, but he believes that such practices do not emphasize physical punishments. Thus, he suggests that the violent metaphors come from the military destruction of cities. While Kelle may have underestimated the use of violence as punishment for adultery, his reading of the literary context shows how a marital metaphor may be extended by juxtaposition with a martial one.34 However, his explanation of the “city” as a

31 Doyle, Apocalypse, 179, 273 e.g., OG[ “cease” in 24:8 (which does not necessarily refer to the end of menstruation), UJV “shut up” in 24:10 (which does not necessarily refer to the closing of a womb), and “YHWH’s hand will rest on this mountain” in 25:10 (which is too vague a way to refer to marriage). 32 Gerlinde Baumann, Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship between YHWH and Israel in the Prophetic Books, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 33-4. 33 Baumann, Love and Violence, 184, 224. 34 Brad E. Kelle, Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 90-1. Unfortunately, Kelle does not seem to have considered ancient Near Eastern Laws that mete out drowning for proven cases of adultery and trial by water for wives suspected of being unfaithful. For examples,

15 metonymy for the ruling elite, while appropriate in Hosea, needs to be examined afresh in the context of different prophetic books. Carleen R. Mandolfo (2007) undertakes a dialogic analysis of the Book of Lamentations, reading against the grain of the privileged voice (God’s or the prophet’s) and crafting a counterstory for the subjugated voice (Zion’s). She regards the target of personified Zion as the city and her inhabitants,35 yet when it comes to Zion in DI, she seems to distinguish mother Zion from both the golah and those left behind in Judah because Zion does not quite speak for either.36 What is lacking in Mandolfo’s work is also an analysis of the target of the Zion metaphor in different contexts. While providing valid warnings against patriarchal readings of the speeches (or silence) of Zion, a recognition that she represents different targets would help to provide further explanations for the varying Zion discourses in different prophetic books. Christl M. Maier (2008) applies space theory, metaphor theory, and feminist perspectives on body in her study of personified Zion. Based on Henri Lefebvre’s theory of space, she examines different prophetic uses of Zion in terms of perceived space (physical topography), conceived space (ideological significance), and lived space (collective experience of the inhabitants).37 Where it comes to DI’s Zion texts, however, Maier admits that the application of lived space is difficult because it “marks the transitory situation between desolation and new settlement.”38 Taking Zion as representing those who remained in Judah after the city’s destruction,39 she overlooks explicit references to the city’s

35 36 37 38 39

Law of Hammurabi 129 (dated 1750 B.C.E.): “If a man’s wife should be seized lying with another male, they shall bind them and throw them into the water; if the wife’s master allows his wife to live, then the king shall allow his subject (i.e., the other male) to live.” Law of Hammurabi 132: “If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.” Middle Assyrian Law 15 (dated 1076 B.C.E.) states that in a proven case of adultery, the punishment are that “if the woman’s husband kills his wife then he shall also kill the man; if he cuts off his wife’s nose, he shall turn the man into a eunuch and they shall lacerate his entire face; but if [he wishes to release] his wife, he shall [release] the man.” Translated by Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 105, 106, 158. Carleen R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 25, 59. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back, 109, 118. Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 11-2. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 166, 180. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 163-4.

16 walls, land, gates, and foundation in Isa 49:14-21 and 54:11-12. Instead of applying one theory to all the Zion texts, it would be better to adapt the theory as necessary, i.e., not all three types of Lefebvre’s space may be in view in each text. DI’s Zion passages may be focusing more on perceived space and conceived space, rather than lived space (involving the inhabitants). But apart from this, Maier’s study is helpful in tracing the development of Zion’s personification from a vulnerable daughter in preexilic books to a suffering mother in Lamentations and to her restoration in DI and Trito-Isaiah (henceforth, TI). Julia M. O’Brien (2008) suggests a different feminist reading strategy regarding the treatment of personified Zion. Rather than giving more weight either to the theology of the text (i.e., accepting the prophetic message but not its patriarchal medium) or to a critique of its ideology (i.e., rejecting both the medium and the message), she calls on readers to use both theology and ideology to question one’s own contemporary assumptions about relationships.40 Due to the nature of her study, O’Brien focuses more on the source rather than the target of a metaphor, and in her discussion of personified Zion as a daughter, she makes the general observation that Zion may at times be the people or the city itself.41 O’Brien’s theological examination of the source of a metaphor is thought-provoking, but a consideration of the target may also play a role in shaping theological reflection. For instance, the power relation inherent in the metaphors of Zion as wife or daughter of YHWH may be understood differently if she represents the land rather than the people. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (2011) argues for a Judahite rather than a Babylonian provenance for DI, and part of her argument is that Zion is a representation of the city and its Judahite inhabitants, thus excluding Zion as a symbol for the exilic community or for the post-exilic returnees.42 She begins with the presumption that the prophetic tradition (specifically Ezekiel and Lamentations) uses the city to implicate its human population, but like previous scholars, she does not attend to the different targets of the metaphor in their respective

40 Julia M. O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets (Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 44, 60. 41 O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor, 129-131, 138,140. 42 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 251-310. The issue of the provenance of DI may determine to whom the figure of Zion primarily appeals to, i.e., either the exiles or the Judahites, but it does not affect the crux of my argument, viz., that mother Zion is a cognitive metaphor embodying Zion theology, a theological assurance about the restoration of the city that would still be relevant to either audience.

17 contexts. Like the earlier scholars, Tiemeyer also stumbles over Isa 50:1 where mother Zion is separated from her guilty children. She offers the explanation that the “sons” symbolizes the wider community of descendants of pre-exilic Judah, including both of those who died in 586 B.C.E. and the descendants of those who survived, as well as both the people in the Diaspora and those in Judah, leaving mother Zion as the personification of the innocent victims of violence in Jerusalem. This is a artificial distinction that is not found anywhere else in DI, a distinction that Tiemeyer cannot consistently maintain in the rest of her exegesis because it would mean that passages regarding the restoration of Zion (e.g., Isa 51:17-52:2 and 54:1-10) should only apply to innocent victims and not to all the Judahite inhabitants, as she claims. It is best, therefore, to understand personified Zion in DI as representing the innocent city rather than her inhabitants, innocent or otherwise. The above studies show that Zion in the prophetic texts is commonly understood as the adulterous wife of YHWH, representing the sinful people. While this is true for books such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the assumption is often made that this applies to DI as well. Some scholars (Stienstra, Baumann, Mandolfo, Maier, and O’Brien) recognize in passing that this assumption does not quite work for DI. I will argue that this is because wife Zion is not the usual suspect in DI but that this particular prophet uses her to represent the blameless physical city rather than the corrupt populace. 2.

Metaphor Theory in Deutero-Isaian Studies

There are three major studies that apply metaphor theory to DI: Darr (1994), Paul del Brassey (1997), and Dille (2004).43 Darr focuses on the imageries of children and women in the Book of Isaiah and largely uses Black’s theory.44 She

43 Besides these works, Peter D. Miscall, “Isaiah: The Labyrinth of Images,” Semeia 54 (1991): 103-21, traces the image of light through the book of Isaiah without the analysis of metaphor theory. 44 Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 39. However, instead of Richards’ “tenor” and “vehicle,” Darr thinks that Sapir’s language, though more cumbersome, is more accurate. J. David Sapir, “The Anatomy of Metaphor,” in The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric, ed. J. D. Sapir and J. C. Crocker (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), 3-32, speaks of a metaphor’s “topic” (i.e., “what we are talking about or referring to when we use the metaphor”), its “continuous term(s)” (those implying the topic), and its “discontinuous term(s).” Unfortunately beyond her introductory chapter, Darr does not use these terms in her analysis of the metaphors.

18 explores the commonplaces associated with women in the ancient Near Eastern culture, traces the female imagery of personified cities through the book of Isaiah, and concludes that such imagery is used to awaken sympathy and to show what has gone wrong with the divine-human relationship.45 Darr understands that personified Zion represents the innocent city rather than the guilty exiles, but because her approach is that of a survey, she does not provide an in-depth exegesis of the literary contexts nor a critical assessment of the issues arising in the larger context of DI. For instance, she does not discuss the problem that negative terms such as “cup of wrath” (Isa 51:17), “the shame of your youth,” and “the disgrace of your widowhood” (Isa 54:4) poses for mother Zion’s innocence. She notes Zion’s exaltation but does not discuss how this nationalism is to be reconciled with the universal message of DI.46 Darr’s purpose is to give an overview of the rhetorical use of the kinship tropes in Isaiah, whereas I seek to explicate the theological basis for personified Zion in DI. Brassey’s (1997) study focuses on divine metaphors in DI and uses various metaphor theories, including Black’s.47 Basically, he explores the commonplaces of the metaphors of YHWH as king and creator in their historical and literary contexts. I disagree with Brassey’s argument that Zion refers “to the people who dwell there, to the whole area over which the city’s government holds sway, i.e., to the nation as a whole, and even to its natives or representatives living outside the nation.”48 He takes issue with Darr’s distinction between the city and the people, but he only relies on the general observations of scholars like Elaine R. Follis and Tikva Frymer-Kensky and, thus, overlooks how Zion is used specifically in DI’s context.49

45 Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 122. 46 Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 165-83. 47 Paul del Brassey, Metaphor and the Incomparable God in Isaiah 40-55 (North Richland Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 1997, 2001), 5; Other theories mentioned are Norman Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976); Israel Scheffler, Beyond the Letter: A Philosophical Inquiry into Ambiguity, Vagueness and Metaphor in Language (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979); and Ricoeur, Rule. Unfortunately, like Darr, his theory is not explicity applied in his exegesis. 48 Brassey, Metaphor, 181. 49 Elaine R. Follis, “The Holy City as Daughter,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, JSOTSup 40 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987); Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press Macmillan, 1992). Brassey pays no attention to the distinction between Zion and her children in 50:1.

19 Such a close reading of DI is undertaken by Dille (2004) in her study on the parental metaphors for God in DI. She uses Richard’s, Black’s, and Lakoff and Johnson’s theories to analyze how metaphors interact with each other and with their literary contexts to highlight different aspects of the Deity. Like Darr, Dille distinguishes Zion from her children in 50:1 and writes that “in Deutero-Isaiah, the rhetoric directed at the city is consistently that of compassion. Sin is assigned implicitly to the city in 40:2, but with words of comfort. Elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah sin is assigned to the people….” Although I agree with Dille that Zion represents the city rather than the people in DI, I will dispute that sin is attributed to her at all, even in 40:2. Further, in 49:14-26, Dille infers that Zion is a “forgetful” mother because she asks: “Who bore me these?” In contrast, I will argue that Zion’s question merely reflects her bewilderment and implies that it is YHWH who bore her children. Although Dille concludes that “the father image and the mother image advance a common message – God’s creative power,” she does not note the incongruity that both God and Zion are presented as the mother of the people. In my study, I will argue that YHWH is the one who gives birth to the people and that this arises from DI’s reliance on Zion theology.50 In terms of methodology, my study comes closest to Dille’s analysis of divine metaphors, although I will apply a more refined development of Lakoff and Johnson’s theory and examine the interplay between maternal metaphors both for the deity and the city. In terms of content, Darr’s survey of feminine metaphors in Isaiah provides a helpful background, but I will attend to a closer exegetical and theological reading of the personification of mother Zion.

C.

APPLICATION OF METAPHOR THEORY IN THIS STUDY

Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of cognitive metaphor will show that mother Zion is not just a poetic device but a metaphor that is rooted in basic Israelite beliefs that DI uses to shape the exilic community’s thoughts and experiences. First, it is important to understand whether the target “Zion” refers to the physical city or the people of Israel. Although Zion has various referents in the prophetic literature, I will demonstrate that DI uses it primarily for the city where YHWH dwells. This makes a critical difference in determining whether the city, the people, or both are accused of sin. Second, the constituent elements in the source domain of the metaphor need to be understood in their cultural context. The source “mother” would include elements of birth and of nurture, but in the ancient world, motherhood is also associated with grave risks at labor as well as 50 Dille, Mixing, 166, 144, 176.

20 with increased social status when a son is born.51 Such elements are relevant in DI’s maternal metaphor both for Zion and for YHWH. Finally, it will be determined how the context highlights, downplays, hides, or extends various source elements or entailments. Such effects may be evoked by a “particular, innovative rhetorical expression (that) extends the older, general, structural metaphor”52 or by the juxtaposition of different metaphors. For example, though the source domain of mother includes the element of birth, this may be highlighted or hidden by the context. A close study of DI’s usage of personified Zion will show that he deviates from how she has been presented in earlier prophetic text, leading to the scholarly confusion in my review over who she represents (the city or the people) and whether she is guilty. This raises the question of DI’s rhetorical and theological intent for his adaptation, an intent that will become clear through the method of intertextuality.

II. INTERTEXTUALITY Isaiah 40-55 is believed to be one of the most allusive ancient Israelite texts, reformulating words and sections from the work of his predecessors.53 Recognizing an allusion is, however, a rather subjective task, and there is no clear consensus on the controls for determining and interpreting an allusion. I will, therefore, undertake a a survey of various works on intertextuality and then consolidate the most pertinent criteria. This will be followed by a review of the scholarship on the intertextuality of DI in particular.

A.

THE THEORY

French literary theorist Julia Kristeva is the first to coin the term “intertextuality” in the late 1960s.54 She derives the concept based on Mikhail

51 Dille, Mixing, 7, 26-9; Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 98-100; Leo G. Perdue, “The Israelite and Early Jewish Family,” in Leo G. Purdue et al., Families in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1977), 189-90. 52 Dille, Mixing, 13. 53 Benjamin Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford, Calif.,: Stanford University Press, 1998), 3. 54 Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, ed. T. Gora and A. Jardine, trans. L. S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 36-63, 64-91.

21 Bakhtin’s notion of “dialogism,”55 i.e., the “open-ended, back-and forth play between the text of the sender (subject), the text of the addressee (object), and the text of the culture,” thus creating a dynamic instability in the text.56 Such intertextuality focuses not on the author of a text but the text itself (as part of a larger system) or on the reader who then “interprets signs in the text by associating them with related signs in the reader’s own mind.” Since such an understanding of intertextuality allows for very fluid interpretations, Benjamin Sommer, a biblical scholar, prefers the terms “allusion and influence” to describe the study of specific diachronic connections between texts.57 Ironically, Kristeva herself has since dropped the term intertextuality because “this term has often been understood in the banal sense of ‘study of sources,’” and prefers, instead, to use the term “transposition” to denote the transposition of one (or several) sign systems(s) into another.58 However, Donald C. Polaski argues that authorship is one legitimate way of controlling intertextuality. He regards diachronic studies, therefore, as “a species of intertextuality” that “foregrounds the kinds of choices made which limit the intertextual field, choices that may be marked by both ‘critical rigor’ and ideological assumptions.”59 Such a study requires dating the texts, and though this may be a problem for ancient texts such as the Hebrew Bible, I believe there is sufficient textual evidence to show that DI made use of writings that are chronologically earlier. A careful method for examining parallel passages is required because, as Patricia Tull Willey points out, “There do exist very real problems of slippage between the allusions a writer may intend and the allusions

55 Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981; Russian, 1975). 56 Timothy K. Beal, “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 29. 57 Sommer, Prophet, 7-9. Similarly, Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1989), 15, notes the authority of earlier texts: “Paul repeatedly situates his discourse within the symbolic field created by a single great textual precursor: Israel’s Scripture.” 58 Julia Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. M. Walker (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 59-60. 59 Donald C. Polaski, Authorizing and End: The Isaiah Apocalypse & Intertextuality (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2001), 36 n. 134. However, Polaski (pp. 45-6) eschews using the “author” or “contemporary reader” as controls for the study of Isaiah 24-27, turning instead to the interplay between text and social context (specifically the social context out of which the proto-apocalyptic emerges).

22 a reader may recognize.”60 Various scholars have offered different methods to determine intertextual dependence, and while there are different emphases, there is also much that overlaps.

B.

REVIEW OF METHODS

Methods for the study of intertextuality have been proposed by Ziva Ben-Porat (1976), Michael Fishbane (1984), Richard Hays (1989), James D. Nogalski (1996), and Richard L. Schultz (1999). Sommer’s and Willey’s intertextual studies of DI apply Ben-Porat’s and Hay’s methods respectively. After reviewing these works, I will offer an eclectic method that incorporates the most useful aspects. 1.

Ziva Ben-Porat (1976)

Ben-Porat, from the Tel Aviv School of Poetics, defines literary allusion as “a device for the simultaneous activation of two texts.”61 She offers a four-stage method: (1) Identification of a marker. A marker is an identifiable element or pattern in one text belonging to another independent text. Sommer explains further that “the sign may be a poetic line or a sentence or a phrase, or it may consist of a motif, a rhythmic pattern, an idea, or even the form of a work or its title.”62 (2) Identification of the evoked text. (3) Modification of the referent by the evoked text. The alluding text is read and modified in the light of the evoked text. (4) Activation of the evoked text as a whole in an attempt to form maximum intertextual patterns. Connections are made between the evoked text and the alluding text, going beyond the markers and the marked. “Additional thematic patterns in the texts which initially had not seemed related now

60 Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah, SBLDS 161 (Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997), 78. Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 58, lists possible explanations for verbal similarities: coincidence, formulaic, proverbial or cultic language, oral transmission, mutual dependence on unpreserved material, similarity of background and circumstances, and redactional glosses. 61 Ziva Ben-Porat, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion,” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 107. 62 Sommer, Prophet, 11.

23 come into play, further enriching one’s understanding not only of the sign containing the marker but the alluding text as a whole.”63 Sommer applies Ben-Porat’s method to his study of allusions in Isaiah 4066. He distinguishes allusions from influence (broader relations between authors, whole works, or traditions), echo (a marker that does not affect the interpretation of the alluding text), and exegesis (an attempt to analyze, explain, or give meaning to a text but that does not utilize the larger context of the evoked text). He makes an important qualification that one must distinguish between cases in which one writer relies on another and cases in which two writers use similar language coincidentally. Therefore, an important limit is that “we cannot view an older text as a source for a passage in Deutero-Isaiah if both utilize stock vocabulary, exemplify a literary form such as a lament, or treat a subject that calls for certain words.”64 Sommer then lists five ways in which DI reuses earlier texts: reversal, reprediction (historical recontextualization of positive or negative oracles), fulfillment of earlier prophecies, typological linkages, and echo. He also deduces four stylistic traits that DI makes use of when dealing with a source: (1) sound play, (2) word play, (3) split-up pattern (splitting up a phrase from the source into two parts that are separated by several words or even verses), or (4) word order (repeating vocabulary in the order of its appearance in the source). He argues that these techniques make it less likely that a similarity between DI and an older text results from their common use of a literary topos.65 Sommer concludes that DI was most dependent on Jeremiah and Isaiah (in that order), and thus “it becomes clear that Deutero-Isaiah did not attempt to connect himself to First Isaiah in any special or unique way.” He suggests that DI appealed most to Jeremiah and Isaiah because they were useful sources of authority, and in any case, the other prophets were shorter collections. As for Ezekiel, he speculates that though Ezekiel’s work was larger, he probably had less authority as DI’s exilic contemporary. While not all the allusions that Sommer finds are convincing, particularly when based on a few markers in a large amount of text, he is on firmer ground when he is able to show that the evoked text has a contextual similarity to the alluding text. Also, despite Sommer’s stated intention of studying DI’s sources, he fails to discuss the dating 63 Sommer, Prophet, 12-5. Ben-Porat’s approach is not strictly diachronic. She writes that the intertextual patterns affects and enriches the evoked text as well. “Familiarity with the later text…can change or modify the interpretation of the evoked text.” (Ben-Porat, “Poetics,” 114.) 64 Sommer, Prophet, 15-7; 32-3. 65 Sommer, Prophet, 35-71.

24 and chronology of the various texts, perhaps because Ben-Porat’s approach is not strictly diachronic in the first place.66 2.

Michael Fishbane (1985)

Fishbane argues that exegetical practices in post-biblical Judaism were rooted in the development of the Bible itself. He considers how a written traditum in the Hebrew Bible may be adapted, transformed, or reinterpreted in the traditio (process of transmission) for a variety of theological and historical reasons.67 For the recognition of inner-biblical exegesis, Fishbane uses three considerations: (1) Formal indication through technical formulae. “By means of explicit citations or text referrals, the traditum is set off from the traditio which reapplies or reinterprets it.” (2) Comparing parallel texts within the MT or between the MT and its principal versions. (3) Dense occurrence of terms in one text found in another text. “In these cases a traditum is incorporated into a traditio – which transforms it or re-employs it.”68 The first two requirements (citation formulae and parallel versions) are not always available for the comparison of texts, which leaves only the third very general consideration of repeated terms. Also, while many of Fishbane’s examples of inner-biblical exegesis are convincing, he makes assumptions about the date and sequence of certain texts that require critical assessments. Further, his recognition of a traditum in a traditio is at times questionable. For instance, Willey points out that Fishbane relates the splitting of a rock in Isa 48:21 to pentateuchal traditions, overlooking closer linguistic affinities to Psalm 78.69 In

66 Sommer, Prophet, 105, 168. 67 Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). Fishbane examines such “inner-biblical exegesis” under four major headings: scribal comments and corrections, legal exegesis, aggadic exegesis (legal traditions in the prophetic literature, transformations of non-legal pentateuchal traditions, and aggadic exegesis in the historiographical literature), and mantological exegesis (omens, dreams, and oracles). Although Fishbane uses the term “exegesis,” Sommer, Prophet, 30, points out that he employs it in a much broader sense where “a writer alludes to an older text for some purpose in his own text, not to suggest a particular understanding of the old one.” 68 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 291. 69 Willey, Remember, 77-8.

25 addition, Fishbane does not reflect on whether the context of the traditio is relevant to the traditum. 3.

Richard B. Hays (1989)

Hays, a New Testament scholar, lists seven “tests” for allusions in Paul’s letters:70 (1) Availability. Was the proposed source available to the author? (2) Volume. This is “determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns” or by how much rhetorical stress the echo receives in the alluding text. (3) Recurrence. Does the author cite the same passage elsewhere? (4) Thematic coherence. Does the proposed precursor text illuminate the present text? (5) Historical Plausibility. Does the point of the allusion make sense in the historical and social context of the new text? (6) History of interpretation. Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes? (7) Satisfaction. This is an intuitive category that asks whether the proposed reading make sense. “Does it produce for the reader a satisfying account of the effect of the intertextual relation?” 71 Willey applies Hays’ method to Isaiah 49-54, which she regards as the most densely and continuously allusive part of DI. She finds that DI exhibits continuity and discontinuity with previous texts: “By recoiling from Lamentations, intersecting with the lament psalms, aligning with Jeremiah, and merging with pentateuchal stories, Second Isaiah locates itself in relation to its discursive context.”72 She also concludes that DI shows little sign of influence from the eighth-century prophets PI, Micah, Amos, and Hosea and that the prophecies of Ezekiel are not recalled at all. It is interesting to observe the differences between Willey’s and Sommer’s findings. For one, in line with Hays’ first criterion, Willey is more concerned about dating the antecedent texts. However, following Ben-Porat’s first step, Sommer pays more attention to the style of DI’s markers, while Willey only looks for verbal similarity. Because of Sommer’s wider criteria in identifying 70 Hays, Echoes, 30-2. 71 Sommer, Prophet, 219 n.12, suggests an eighth rule to tighten Hays’ methodology: “The critic must be reasonably sure that similarity does not result from the common use of an Israelite or ancient Near Eastern literary topos (e.g., the lament genre or the royal oracle).” 72 Willey, Remember, 270.

26 markers, he finds more parallels with PI than Willey does. Willey, however, finds more allusions to Lamentations than does Sommer, perhaps due to her interest in Zion both in DI and Lamentations. In the end, both Willey and Sommer arrive at the same conclusion: DI reverses previous prophetic judgments, reappropriates earlier promises, and applies such promises in a contemporized setting.73 4.

James D. Nogalski (1993)

Nogalski evaluates intertextual relationships in the Book of the Twelve to determine how the Minor Prophets were redacted into a literary unity.74 He defines intertextuality as “the interrelationship between two or more texts which evidence suggests (1) was deliberately established by ancient authors/editions or (2) was presupposed by those authors/editors.”75 An allusion, he says, “consists of one or more words whose appearance intends to elicit the reader’s recollection of another text (or texts) for a specific purpose.”76 Nogalski lists five factors to rule out the random recurrence of suspected words: word frequency, word pairings, motif development, literary homogeneity, and specific text combinations.77 Nogalski’s guidelines for identifying allusions are more specific than the general rules of Ben-Porat’s markers and Hay’s volume and recurrence, and some of them will be especially helpful in the study of DI’s allusion. For instance, a word pairing may be regarded as allusive if it appears regularly in a specific writing and helps to develop a continuing motif. Another helpful indication of allusion is a specific text combination, meaning that if “several words (common and/or uncommon) recur in two specific texts…one suspects that the two texts were somehow related in the mind of the writer.”78 5.

Richard L. Schultz (1989, 1999)

This was originally a 1989 dissertation that was revised in 1999, which explains why Schultz gives little attention to the works of Hays and Ben-Porat that came

73 Willey, Remember, 265, 269, 268. 74 James D. Nogalski, Redaction Processes in the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 218 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993). 75 James D. Nogalski, “Intertextuality and the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House, JSOTSup 235 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 102. 76 Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 109. 77 Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 109. 78 Nogalski, “Intertextuality,” 110.

27 to prominence after his first writing. He looks for verbal parallels consisting of “a few significant words to several sentences, which display identical or minimally divergent wording” that indicates a prophet’s conscious repetition of words from another.79 He proposes three steps in his analysis: (1) The use of two complementary criteria. Verbal and syntactical correspondence. Schultz writes that “rather than setting an arbitrary minimum of words, it is more useful to seek both verbal and syntactical correspondence, that is, phrases and not just words.”80 Contextual awareness, including interpretive use. The speaker or author should show knowledge of the quoted context.81 (2) A twofold analysis. Diachronic analysis. This requires examining the historical settings of both the original and present passages to determine what exigencies may have led to the quotation. Synchronic analysis. This involves interpreting the quotation within the context of the entire book in which it is placed, focusing on the effect of the quotation, and a detailed comparison between the parallel texts and their respective contexts. (3) Acknowledgement of the multi-functionality of quotations.82 Although Schultz makes some useful proposals, his method overlaps in many ways with the others already reviewed. 6.

An Eclectic Method

As can be seen from the above, each method has its strengths and weaknesses, and so, rather than adopt any single one of them, I propose to combine their most helpful aspects.83 Essentially, there are two parts in intertextual analysis: identifying an allusion and interpreting it in the new context.

79 80 81 82

Schultz, Quotation, 19. Schultz, Quotation, 223. Schultz, Quotation, 224. Schultz uses the term “quotation” for “allusion.” Schultz, Quotation, 239, lists the various functions of a quotation: To actualize an earlier oracle, to reinterpret a text, to give structure to a text or link several passages, to acknowledge the validity of a previous statement and appropriate its authority, to utilize a felicitous or familiar formulation for its aesthetic or emotional impact. 83 J. Todd Hibbard, Intertextuality in Isaiah 24-27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 20, also applies an eclectic method.

28 (1) Identifying the allusion Since I will be focusing on how DI uses the ideas of his predecessors, the dating of the texts will be an important criterion. Second, in terms of identifying the markers, some of Nogalski’s factors are particularly relevant: word frequency, word pairings, and specific text combinations. Sommer’s identification of DI’s four stylistic traits (sound play, word play, split-up pattern, and word order), although somewhat subjective, is also indicative of allusions when corroborated by the other factors. Third, thematic coherence (per Hays or contextual awareness per Schultz) ensures that the texts are meant to be connected. (2) Interpreting the allusion All the above studies emphasize that the evoked text affects the alluding text in some way. Sommer’s five categories of how DI reuses an earlier text provide a helpful analysis: reversal, reprediction, fulfillment, typological linkages, and echo. Finally, when interpreting the effect, the evoked text as a whole, from the immediate unit to the extant of the composition known to the later author, should be considered in relation to the alluding text. With regards to the literature that DI alludes to, Willey has reviewed the scholarship on DI’s intertextuality and the dating of his respective sources.84 Below, I update and expand on her work where it is relevant to my study. DI’s relationship with PI will be discussed in the next chapter on Zion.

C.

INTERTEXTUALITY OF DI

1.

Jeremiah

The redaction of Jeremiah is an important consideration in analyzing DI’s allusions, since only the earlier Jeremianic collection can be appealed to. Sigmund Mowinckel’s seminal work divided the book into four literary sources (apart from the late additions of chapters 46-52): Source A, consisting primarily of poetic oracles in chapters 1-25, is attributed to Jeremiah and collected by a redactor between 580 and 480 B.C.E; Source B contains later narrative in chapters 26-45; Source C includes even later prose speeches in the Deuteronomistic style and theology; and Source D comprises oracles about the future in chapters 30-31.85 Most scholars have accepted these divisions but generally date the redactions earlier. Even Robert Carroll, who usually argues

84 Willey, Remember, 34-55. 85 Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1914).

29 for post-exilic contexts, places the oracles in Jeremiah 2-6 between 605 and 587.86 DI’s relationship with Jeremiah is well documented by John Skinner (1917), Shalom Paul (1969), U. Cassuto (1973), and William Holladay (1989). Victor Eldridge’s 1978 dissertation examined Cassuto’s and Paul’s suggestions and concluded that DI borrowed selectively from the parts of Jeremiah that coincides with Mowinckel’s Sources A and D, and Sommer independently comes to the same conclusion.87 There is an issue, however, with the undateable D source, also called the Book of Consolation. On the one hand, these texts mention Ephraim, Samaria, and Rachel, terms that are associated with the Northern Kingdom, but on the other hand, they also contain material similar to DI. Many scholars attribute these texts to the preexilic period, and Carroll is nearly alone in holding on to a post-exilic date.88 While most would concede at least 31:2-6 and 15-22 to Jeremiah, others like John Bright and Holladay view the similarities to DI as postexilic interpolations.89 Willey, however, points out that the intertextual relationships between Jeremiah and DI extend beyond chapters 30-31 to the earlier part of the book, especially chapters 1-3. She notes that Jeremiah 30-31 is also closely related to Hosea so that both the early part of Jeremiah and Hosea “account for this section far more adequately than supposed

86 Robert Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 116. 87 John Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters XL-LXVI, rev. ed., CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917); Shalom Paul, “Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah,” in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. Pinchas Peli (Jerusalem: R. H. Hacohen, 1969), 102-120; U. Cassuto, “On the Formal and Stylistic Relationship between Deutero-Isaiah and other Biblical Writers,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 144-60; William Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26-52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 86-88; Victor Eldridge, “The Influence of Jeremiah on Isaiah 40-55” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978); Sommer, Prophet, 36, writes that he was not aware of Mowinckel’s theory before he identified such illusions (p. 221 n. 20). 88 William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 2:clvii; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 552. 89 Marvin Sweeney, “Jeremiah 30-31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform,” ZAW 108 (1996): 569-583, argues on redaction-critical grounds that Jer 30:5-31:26 and 31:35-37 are preexilic. John Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 284-5; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 160.

30 dependence on Second Isaiah would.”90 Thus, it is more likely that DI was dependent on Jeremiah 30-31 rather than vice versa.91 Willey also observes that DI’s allusions to Jeremiah occur mostly in the Zion sections of Isaiah 49, 51, and 54. She writes: Jeremiah’s time and message are the logical antecedents of Second Isaiah’s time and message – there can be no return without an exile, no divine forgiveness without divine anger, no comfort without a sorrow over which to be comforted, no redemption without a predicament from which to be redeemed.92

Sommer notes similarly that DI alludes to Jeremiah and reuses the earlier metaphor of a woman in a new way to provide reasons for God’s loyalty “which are unrelated to Israel’s behavior or worthiness – and which are therefore more believable to a guilt-ridden exilic audience.”93 2.

Ezekiel

Scholars have found little evidence for DI’s relationship with Ezekiel. Cassuto lists several parallels between them, but he rules out those that show dependence on Jeremiah. This leaves him with four parallels between Ezekiel and DI that do not depend on a common source.94 He thus concludes that “the style and form of the prophecies of DI are not at all dependent on Ezekiel, or only to a very small extent”95 and that their ideological resemblance is simply due to shared historical circumstances. Willey refers to two dissertations that study DI’s relationship with Ezekiel: J. K. Eakins (1970) finds that Ezekiel influenced DI’s theological ideas but not his vocabulary; Klaus Baltzer shows that Ezekiel’s langauge is more priestly, while DI’s is more psalmic, but he allows for the 90 Willey, Remember, 93. She details the similarities between Jer 30: 10-11, 31:7-14, 31:35, and Jeremiah 1-6, as well as Hosea in her Appendix (pp. 273-9). 91 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 97-8, argues that the earlier edition of 30-31 is built upon a core of poetry (30:5-31:22) whose terminus a quo would be 597 B.C.E. when the exile of Judah is imminent (although the oracles regarding the return of the northern exiles would be earlier), while this first compilation of the Book of Restoration could have been at the end of Zedekiah’s reign or soon afterward. 92 Willey, Remember, 94. 93 Sommer, Prophet, 38. 94 Cassuto, “Formal,” 166, lists the four parallels with DI: Isa 40:5//Ezek 21:4 “all flesh shall see;” Isa 49:26//Ezek 21:10 “all flesh shall see that I am YHWH;” Isa 58:11//Ezek 20:9, 14, 22 “for my sake I will act, why should (my name) be profaned?” Isa 52:10//Ezek 5:8; 20:9; 14; 22; 22:16; 28:25; 38:23; 29:27 “before the eyes of all the nations.” 95 Cassuto, “Formal,” 167.

31 possibility of some influence by Ezekiel on DI.96 Sommer lists a few texts from DI that he thinks allude to or echo Ezekiel, largely overlapping with Cassuto’s list above.97 In this study, I will argue for one clear allusion in Isa 51:17-52:2 to Ezek 23:31-35 that reverses the fate of woman Jerusalem and another possible allusion in Isa 54:3 to Ezekiel 36 that reappropriates prophecies about the restoration of the city. Therefore, though DI may have alluded to Ezekiel sparingly, he seems to be conscious at least of texts that personify the city. 3.

Lamentations

Eikhah Rabbah, the primary midrashic commentary on Lamentations, states that “all the severe prophecies that Jeremiah prophesized against Israel were anticipated and healed by Isaiah.”98 The rabbis regard Jeremiah as the author of Lamentations, and while modern interpreters disagree with that ascription, many have noted DI’s reliance on Lamentations. Although Lamentations does not provide information about its provenance, the traumatic destruction of the city in the text is usually related to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E., and this is supported by F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp’s linguistic evidence dating Lamentations to the exilic period.99

96 J. K. Eakins, “Ezekiel’s Influence on the Exilic Isaiah” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1970); D. Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heiserwartung der beiden grossen Exilsprophete, BZAW 121 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971). 97 Sommer, Prophet, 316-25, leaves out Isa 52:10 but points out that Isa 54:10 refers to aZOYW\UE “covenant of peace” that is found only in Ezek 34:25 and 37:26 (p. 256 n. 85). 98. Midrash Rabbah , trans. A. Cohen (London: Soncino, 1939), 7:57, cited in Tod Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament, and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 63. 99. The only dissenting voices are Otto Kaiser, “Klagelieder,” in Sprüche; Prediger; Das Hohelied; Klagelieder; Das Buch Esther, ATD 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 300-2, Iain Provan, Lamentations, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 11, Claus Westermann, Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1994), 105. However, Kaiser, who dated chapter 3 to the fourth century and other chapters to the fifth century, has now withdrawn this view, according to Westermann, Lamentations, 55. Westermann himself states that chapter 3 originated much later but offers no evidence for this claim, while Provan doubts that the book can be dated with certainty. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations,” Journal of the near Eastern Society of Columbia University (1998):1-36, argues that the vocabulary, syntactic usages, orthography, and use of Aramaisms in Lamentations reflects at least

32 Norman Gottwald (1954) lists parallel phrases, themes, and rhetorical strategies found in both DI and Lamentations. Norman W. Porteous (1961) traces the symbolic significance of Jerusalem from preexilic literature to New Testament writings. He writes that Lamentations is a turning point that brought Israel from despair to hope by the acceptance of God’s judgment for her guilt (Lam 5:22), a hope that DI affirms. In Alan Mintz’s (1984) reading of Lamentations 1-3, he writes: “The text of Second Isaiah displays a consciousness of its role as an antidote to the discourse of lamentation,” with the Zion figure constituting one of the most powerful correspondences in such discourse. Mary Turner’s (1992) dissertation explores the personification of Jerusalem in the prophetic books and Lamentations. She follows Claus Westermann’s observation that the image of the childless woman in DI is based on the sorrowful mother in Lamentations and that the Zion songs in DI are intended to reverse the “elements of lamentation into elements of restoration.”100 Carol Newsom (1992) not only regards DI as engaging dialogically with Lamentations but also as offering a rereading for social and ideological purposes: While Zion in Lamentations is used in a fluid way to represent the exiles and the city, DI stresses Zion’s geographical location rather than her exile or wandering, thus identifying the Judahites with the mother city and making it their role to welcome the returnees as Zion’s children. Willey follows Newsom’s observation but notes that the Judahites have disappeared from the new text in DI, and “they are represented, if at all, by Daughter Zion, the personification of the city itself.”101 On the other hand, Dobbs-Allsopp (1998) is reluctant to accept that Isaiah drew on Lamentations because he is not confident of the direction of influence. He suggests that both Lamentations and DI may be drawing on standard motifs and language of the city laments. Sommer and Willey have, however, made a seventeen features typical of Late Biblical Hebrew. This is not as many as in post-exilic books, however, and so Lamentation falls in the transitional stage of the Hebrew language, like Ezekiel. Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 8-9, follows Dobbs-Allsopp’s argument. 100 Norman Gottwald, Studies in the Book of Lamentations, SBT 14 (London: SCM, 1964), 44-5; Norman W. Porteous, “Jerusalem-Zion: The Growth of a Symbol,” in Verbannung und Heimkehr, ed. Arnulf Kusche (Tübingen: Mohr, 1961), 245-6; Alan Mintz, Hurban: Responses to Catastrophe in Hebrew Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 44-5; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 245, 271; Mary Turner, “Daughter Zion: Lament and Restoration” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1992), 157-9, 184, 219. 101 Carol Newsom, “Response to Normal Gottwald, ‘Social Class and Ideology in Isaiah4055: An Eagletonian Reading,’” Semeia 59 (1992): 76; Willey, Remember, 265.

33 convincing case for DI’s allusions to Lamentations by showing the echoes of unique words and phrases that are not related to the lament genre, e.g., “at the head of every street” (Isa 51:20; cf. Lam 2:19; 4:1) and “depart, unclean, do not touch” (Isa 52:11; cf. Lam 4:15).102 Tod Linafelt’s 1995 article explores DI’s and the Targum’s interpretations of Lamentation. In his 2000 monograph, Linafelt notes that while there is continuity between Zion in Lamentations and DI, there is also discontinuity: In Lamentations, Zion speaks often and intercedes vigorously for her children, but in DI, it is YHWH who speaks and vigorously declares the restoration of the children.103 I will argue that this change in Zion’s character is due to her representing different targets in the two texts. In Lamentations, the city plays a role similar to the city-goddess in the Mesopotamian city-lament, but in DI, she is the place personified according to Zion theology. Thus, while the city, acting like the city-goddess, bewails YHWH’s destruction in Lamentations, in DI, Zion as the temple city simply awaits the restoration of YHWH’s reign. Her previous lament is only briefly recounted in DI (Isa 49:14), while the preponderence of YHWH’s speeches strive to assure the royal city of her coming salvation. 4.

Psalms

The similarities between DI and the Psalter have long been observed, but scholars have conflicting opinions about the direction of infuence. Skinner (1917) makes no assessment of this issue in his early commentary, while Otto Eissfeldt (1962), based on a comparison between Psalm 89 and Isa 55:1-5, concludes that there is no relationship between the two texts because DI did not share the same negative view on the monarchy. Other scholars, like Moshe Seidel (1935), are more inclined towards DI’s dependence on the psalms. Westermann 1966 commentary on Isaiah 40-66 seems similarly disposed when he notes DI’s use of community laments from the Psalter, despite having attributed the enthronement psalms to DI in his 1961 monograph. While Westermann makes no comment on the enthronement psalms in his

102 Dobbs-Allsopp, “Linguistic Evidence,” 34; Sommer, Prophet, 129; Willey, Remember, 163-5. 103 Tod Linafelt, “Surviving Lamentations,” HBT 18:45-61; Linafelt, Surviving, 74-9. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back, 114, 117, argues that Zion’s silence in DI is a resistance against God’s overtures and that the deity’s answer in DI is a controlling discourse that is not genuinely empathetic. However, understanding that there is a shift in the targets of the Zion metaphors in Lamentations and DI would better explain why they are portrayed differently.

34 commentary, Linda Deming (1978) and Tryggve Mettinger (1986) note that DI’s hymnic material are dependent on the enthronement psalms.104 Willey finds that psalms associated with Jerusalem and the monarchic tradition are remembered and that communal laments are answered in DI, but there are radical changes with regard to the royal tradition. She explains: “Jerusalem is promised protection, but no earthly king. Instead, the absent monarch’s roles are distributed among YHWH (who now is the king who shares glory with nobody), Israel (YHWH’s new chosen servant), Cyrus (YHWH’s anointed), and Zion (the recipient of YHWH’s covenant).” Sommer also concludes that DI nationalizes the Davidic promise and vouchsafes royal prerogatives to a foreign king, but Sommer overlooks Zion as a fellow recipient of the royal promises.105 In view of the above wide ranging views on DI’s dependence on the psalms, it will not be possible in this study to come to a definitive conclusion regarding DI’s reliance on the entire Psalter. Rather, I will discuss the dating of each specific psalm when relevant to DI’s allusions.

104 Willey, Remember, 44-7; Skinner, Isaiah: Chapters XL-LXVI; Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isa 55:1-5,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962) 196-7, 206; Moshe Seidel, “Parallels between the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms,” Sinai 38 (1965): 149-72; Claus Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1961), 146; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 23-7; Linda Deming, “Hymnic Language in Deutero-Isaiah: The Calls to Praise and their Function in the Book” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1978); Tryggve Mettinger, “In Search of the Hidden Structure: YHWH as King in Isaiah 40-55,” in SEÅ 51-52 (1986): 148-157. 105 Willey, Remember, 269; Sommer, Prophet, 119. R. E. Clements, “Psalm 72 and Isaiah 40-66: A Study in Tradition,” PRSt 28 no 4 (2001): 333-41, disagrees with Sommer that Cyrus takes over the Davidic prerogatives, since the Persian king is simply an agent who brings all foreign kings into submission (Ps 72:10-11). However, Clements fails to explain why Cyrus is described in the same terms (e.g, “anointed”) as the Davidic king. Some scholars not only see an intertextual relationship between DI and the psalms but also a compositional relationship. Jerome Creach, “The Shape of Book Four of the Psalter and the Shape of Second Isaiah,” JSOT 80 (1998): 63-76, argues that Book Four of the Psalter was shaped with Isaiah 40-55 as a model. Ulrich Berges, “Who Were the Servants? A Comparative Inquiry in the Book of Isaiah and the Psalms,” in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, ed. Jonannes C. de Moor and Harry F. Van Rooy (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000), 1-18, attributes the similarities between DI and the psalter to the work of a common group called the “Servants.” However, both Creach and Berges do not present evidence for the dating of these psalms.

35 In this chapter, I have reviewed the two methods that will be used to examine the role of personified Zion in DI both metaphorically and intertextually. The next chapter will investigate the significance of Zion theology in DI and how it forms the basis for the prophet’s recasting of the city.

37

CHAPTER TWO ZION THEOLOGY IN DEUTERO-ISAIAH

The importance of Zion theology in DI will be shown in the first part of this chapter through various studies that seek to explain the relationship between DI and PI. First, analyses of common traditions between PI and DI will show that both prophetic collections appeal to the Zion tradition. Second, synchronic observations of literary themes throughout the Book of Isaiah point to Zion as a central motif. Third, diachronic investigations into the formation of the Isaianic corpus, whether through redactional or supplementary processes, indicate that the fate of Zion was a common concern both before and after the Fall of Jerusalem. It will thus be seen that DI is deeply imbued with Zion theology. The second part of this chapter reviews the tenets of Zion theology and argues that they influence DI’s portrayal of Zion. For one, Zion as YHWH’s holy place implies that she does not represent the sinful people but is the innocent city. In fact, the priority of Zion theology outweighs the natural use of the metaphor: Instead of mother Zion giving birth to the children, it is YHWH who births them because of the emphasis on YHWH as creator. Finally, Zion’s blatant nationalism in DI is an expression of Zion theology’s assertion of YHWH’s universal sovereignty rather than a narrow claim of ethnic superiority. Thus, DI transforms the earlier prophetic metaphor of YHWH’s wife through the lens of Zion theology.

I. ZION IN DI AND PI Despite the continuing disagreement over the formation of the book of Isaiah, there is a general consensus among Isaianic scholars that Zion is a prominent theme in the book. At the least, it is believed that there is a common dependence on the Jerusalem cult tradition.

A.

THE ZION TRADITION

Von Rad (1960) argues that DI reinterprets the three election traditions of the Exodus, Davidic, and Zion covenants. He writes that PI’s preaching is largely based on the Zion tradition and to a lesser extent on the Davidic tradition. Texts

38 such as Isa 17:12-24 allude to the Songs of Zion (Psalms 46, 48, and 76), and though YHWH paradoxically rises up against Zion in Isaiah 29, YHWH will still repulse her enemies thereafter. In Isaiah 31, YHWH turns against those who rely on alliances instead of trusting in YHWH’s protection of Zion. As for DI, von Rad believes that he relies largely on the Exodus but is also indebted to the Zion tradition: “For the Exodus, of course, leads to a city destined to be re-built, guaranteed by Jahweh (Is XLI. 19, XLIX, LIV. 11ff.), and the future home of God’s scattered people and even of the Gentiles (Is. XLIV. 22ff., XLV. 14). Deutero-Isaiah’s thoughts dwell continually on Zion.” Regarding the Davidic tradition, von Rad argues that DI democratizes it by applying it to all of Israel.1 However, other scholars since von Rad have argued that creation theology is more significant to DI than the Exodus tradition. Ph. B. Harner (1967) points out that the Exodus tradition is no longer an adequate basis for salvation because the exile has ended the old era of salvation history. Rather, it is creation faith that serves as the basis for Yahweh’s sovereignty over history and nations and so makes the return possible. H. H. Schmid (1973) recovers creation as a theological framework for Israel’s understanding of historical experiences. He shows that creation mythology in the ancient Near East is not just a concern with the origin of the cosmos but with the establishment of natural, social, and political order over the forces of chaos. Historical events like the exodus and the return from exile are described in terms of creation to show the triumph of YHWH the creator over political powers. Thus, Rolf Knierim argues that “Yahweh is not the God of creation because he is the God of the humans or of human history. He is the God of the humans and of human history because He is the God of creation.” So also, Terence Fretheim writes that DI does not equate creation with redemption, but rather, the redemptive work of God is a dimension of God’s more comprehensive activity as creator. The emphasis on creation theology explains the importance of the Zion tradition in DI, for the victory of the creator in the chaoskampf myth leads to the deity’s kingship and the building of his temple, which for YHWH is Zion the temple-city.2

1 2

Von Rad, Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Tradition, 239-40, 155-75. Ph. B. Harner, “Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah,” VT 17, no. 3 (1967): 305; H. H. Schmid, “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology (1973),” in Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1985), 102-117; Rolf Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 13; Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 12.

39 Graham Davies (1989) is the most recent scholar to ground the unity of Isaiah in the Zion tradition.3 He disagrees with both the supplementary and redaction theories on the formation of the book of Isaiah: With regards to the former, he finds that Jeremiah is more likely than PI to be the source of DI’s allusions, and for the latter, he finds inconsistency in the supposed redactional layers. Rather, noting the similarity of motifs about the nations in the Psalms, he concludes that “the primary focus of unity in Isaiah is, I suggest, the tradition which underlies it, and that means above all the Jerusalem cult tradition with its cosmic and universal perspective.”4 Besides a general appeal to the Zion tradition, other scholars specifically trace the motif of Zion in their synchronic studies of the Book of Isaiah.

B.

SYNCHRONIC STUDIES OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

There are several types of synchronic studies, but I will only review those that are related to the theme of Zion, namely those presented by J. J. M. Roberts (1982), William J. Dumbrell (1985), Barry Webb (1990), and Ulrich Berges (2001). Robert argues that the concept central to the whole book is Isaiah’s vision of YHWH as the Holy One of Israel in chapter 6. However, while PI emphasizes the holiness of YHWH, DI focuses on YHWH as “the Holy One of Israel,” implying a special relationship between YHWH and YHWH’s people based on the older Zion tradition. Roberts writes that DI attributes Jerusalem’s plight to Israel’s sins like PI but asserts that YHWH has not deserted the city forever. “The great king will return to his city,…Zion will be glorified, and the nations will stream to her….”5 3

4 5

Graham Davies, “The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah,” in The Book of Isaiah: Le Livre d’Isaïe, ed. J. Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 93120. Davies, “Destiny,” 119. There are synchronic studies using structural analysis: L. J. Liebrich, “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah,” JQR 46 (1955-6):259-77; 47 (1956-7): 114-38; R. Lack, La Symbolique du Livre d’Isaïe: Essai sur l’image littéraire comme element de structuration, AnBib 59 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973); W. H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible, with special attention to the Book of Isaiah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 247-49; Craig A. Evans, “On the Unity of Parallel Structure of Isaiah,” VT 38 (1988): 129-47. Synchronic studies using reader-response criticism: J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah, 2 vols., WBC 24-5 (Waco: Word, 1985 and 1987); Peter D. Quinn-Miscall, Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); E. W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

40 Dumbrell (1985) agrees with Roberts but gives more attention to Zion by exploring the thesis that “Yahweh’s interest in and devotion to the city of Jerusalem” forms the “overmastering theme which may be said effectively to unite the whole.”6 He points out that Isaiah 1 threatens Jerusalem, while Isaiah 2:1-4 outlines hope for the city. The following chapters alternate between threats and promises, ending with chapter 12 where praise is offered from Zion. Dumbrell also believes that the oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13-23 are offshoots of the Zion tradition. Foreign alliances are to be rejected because “Yahweh has founded Zion and he will protect it.”7 Isa 17:24-25 describe Zion’s attackers using the typical chaos imagery of “many waters” that will be thwarted by YHWH. Isaiah 24-27 ends with the return of Israel’s scattered people to worship YHWH on the holy mountain at Jerusalem, and Isaiah 28-33 focuses on Zion as “the cornerstone on which faith ought to have relied (28:16).”8 Isaiah 34-35 expects a return to Zion, but 36-39 closes with a prophecy of the exile and threat to Jerusalem. However, 40:1-11 comforts Jerusalem with the message that God will return as the Shepherd-King (40:9-11; 52:7), and chapters 49-55 describe the return of God’s people to Zion. Dumbrell concludes: Isaiah makes it clear that there can be no thought of a restored Israel without the prior restoration of Zion. For it is Yahweh’s presence alone which makes Israel the people of God. Davidic king and temple have little space devoted to them in the latter half of the book, for Isaiah is talking about the ultimate end. His Zion is an ideal – the perfected community, the righteous people of God.9

Dumbrell has shown the prominence of Zion throughout the book of Isaiah, but his reading of Zion as the ideal people of God does not fit comfortably with DI’s portrayal of Zion as the soon-to-be-rebuilt city that the people will return to. He also does not discuss Isa 50:1 where Zion is distinguished from the people. Based on Dumbrell’s analysis, Webb (1990) proposes that “the transformation of Zion is the key to both the formal and the thematic structure of the book as a whole.”10 He argues that Zion is transformed through God’s Synchronic studies using canonical criticism: Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 325-33; Walter Brueggemann, “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition,” JSOT 29 (1984): 89-107; J. J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology,” Int 36 (1982), 136, 140. 6 William J. Dumbrell, “The Purpose of the Book of Isaiah,” TynBul 36 (1985):112. 7 Dumbrell, “Purpose,” 118. 8 Dumbrell, “Purpose,” 121. 9 Dumbrell, “Purpose,” 128. 10 Barry Webb, “Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. D. J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 67.

41 purifying judgment, resulting in a righteous remnant. Webb then traces the theme of the remnant in the book of Isaiah: In chapters 1-12, the remnant becomes the community of the eschatological Zion; 13-27 end with praise sung by the saved remnant in Zion; 28-35 begin and end with the remnant enjoying God’s rule in Zion; and 36-39 promise that a surviving remnant will go out from Zion. In 40-55, the remnant is now the exiles (46:3) who will return to Zion (51:11), and in 56-66, they become the eschatological community upon “the holy mountain” (56:7 and 66:20). Although Webb’s outline works better for PI than DI (primarily because DI hardly uses the language of remnant), it is clear that Zion is an important theme in the book. However, like Dumbrell, Webb regards Zion as the community, and thus his reading suffers the same exegetical problems as the former.11 Berges (2001) also traces the role of Zion in the book of Isaiah. He notes that one third of the 154 occurrences of “Zion” in the Hebrew Bible are found in Isaiah (47 times) but only 17 times in Jeremiah and not even once in Ezekiel. The restoration of Zion in Isa 2:2-4 shows that the Torah goes forth from Mount Zion, not from Mount Sinai.12 Concerning the Fall of Jerusalem, Berges writes: At this point of the ‘drama’, the Book of Isaiah shows a specific interest, different from that of Jeremiah or Ezekiel. While those books record explicitly the fall of Judah and Jerusalem the same is not true for Isaiah. Here the exilic disaster forms without doubt too the background for the book, but at no point does one hear about the burning of the city, the killing or the deportation of her inhabitants. This lacuna has to do with the ideological outlook of the Book of Isaiah: Zion cannot fall into the hands of the enemy because YHWH protects her.13

Like Roberts, Berges understands Zion as the dwelling place of God and concludes that in no other prophetic writings does Zion form a “thread” as she does in the Book of Isaiah.14 In a more recent essay (2011), Berges follows the thread of Zion more closely and correlates the royal temple city with the kingship of YHWH. In Isa 40:1-11, YHWH undertakes a new initiative to restore Zion; in 44:26-28, the re-foundation of the temple by Cyrus demonstrates YHWH’s control over the forces of chaos leading to a universal acknowledgment of YHWH (Isa 45:14, 22-23); Zion will be restored like the garden of Eden (51:3), and though there is a lament for Jerusalem in 51:17-23,

11 Webb, “Zion,” 82. 12 Ulrich Berges, “Personifications and Prophetic Voices of Zion in Isaiah and Beyond,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist, ed. Johannes C. De Moor (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2001), 55, 59. 13 Berges, “Personifications,” 63. 14 Berges, “Personifications,” 75, 81.

42 YHWH will act against her enemies and restore her as the kingly bride in 51:12. Berges believes that the climax is in 52:7-10 where God’s reign is announced to Zion, concluding with a universal call to all to come to Zion in Isaiah 55.15 It can be seen that synchronic studies that take Zion as the city rather than as the people (Roberts, Berges) offer a more consistent explanation of the theme in DI, but all of them demonstrate that Zion is a leitmotif in the book of Isaiah. We will now turn to diachronic studies, particularly those that attempt to explain how the concern for Zion influenced the redaction of the book.

C.

REDACTION THEORIES OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Scholars have offered different models for the redaction of Isaiah,16 but I will only review those that help to clarify the role of Zion. Rolf Rendtorff (1984) argues that PI and TI were redacted in the light of DI17 based on his observation that there are theological themes going through all three parts of Isaiah, e .g., Jerusalem, YHWH as the Holy One of Israel, and TGF/KTGF (righteousness), but he concludes that Zion “forms the strongest link binding the three together.”18 He notes that in DI, Zion is extensively personified in chapters 40 and 49-55 and that there is “a fluid transition from the metaphor of Jerusalem as woman to sayings about the city which is to be rebuilt.”19 Rendtorff observes, however, that the Zion sayings in PI find no correspondence in the other two parts and are

15 Ulrich Berges, “Zion and the Kingship of YHWH in Isaiah 40-55,” in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent,’ The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah, The Isaiah Workshop – De Jesaja Werkplaats, OtSt 58, ed. Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 95-119. 16 J. Becker, Isaias – der Prophet und sein Buch, SBS 30 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholsches Bibelwerk, 1968); O. H. Steck, Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwixcehn dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja, SBS 121 (Stuttgart: Katholsches Bibelwerk, 1985); Peter Ackroyd, “Isaiah i-xii: Presentation of Prophet,” and “Isaiah 3639: Structure and Function,” in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987); J. Vermeylen, “L’Unité du livre d’Isaïe,” in The Book of Isaiah, ed. J. Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 11-53. 17 Rolf Rendtorff, “The Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” in Canon and Theology, trans. Margaret Kohn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 155. He notes that motifs in Isaiah 40 (e.g., “comfort,” “YHWH’s glory,” “guilt”) are found in the first and third parts of the book as well (i.e., chaps. 1, 12, 33, 35, and 66). 18 Rendtorff, “Composition,” 167. He shows that while “the Holy One of Israel” in PI is used in judgment speeches, it is used only in salvation speeches in DI (p. 161). Similarly, “righteousness” is used with “justice” in PI, but DI associates it with “salvation,” while TI (56:1) combines both ideas of human righteousness and divine salvation (pp. 163-4). 19 Rendtorff, “Composition,” 158.

43 formulated in completely different language (with the exception of Isa 12:6 and 35:10 in chapters that he believes intentionally connect PI to DI). Thus, he believes that DI was written independently of PI but that Zion is important to both. Marvin Sweeney (1988) also accepts the redaction of PI in the light of DI and studies this in detail in Isaiah 1-4. He traces three layers of redaction: Isaiah in the eighth century warns of judgment, then a sixth century redactor adds that a time of restoration had begun, and finally, a fifth century redactor states that only the righteous will enjoy the restoration.20 He argues that each of these layers present their own views of the Zion tradition. The prophet Isaiah presupposes the Zion tradition but also pronounces judgment on the city (cf. 1:21-26). The second redactor, writing during the time of the rebuilding of the Temple, modifies the Zion tradition “by portraying the nations as peacefully approaching Zion to ask for YHWH’s Torah, whereas earlier Zion traditions indicated that the nations approached Zion to attack and were soundly defeated by YHWH.” The last redaction, completed toward the end of the fifth century, explains why the idealistic hopes had not yet been realized: “The promise had been made to the righteous, but judgment still remained for the wicked. Thus, YHWH’s promises still held and so did His judgment, but their realization was projected into the future. Zion would still serve as YHWH’s capital for His world rule.”21 Thus for Sweeney, the redactions of PI revolve around Zion. While redaction theories argue that PI was modified in the light of DI, the question remains whether DI was influenced by PI in any way.

D.

SUPPLEMENTARY THEORIES OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

The supplementary approach argues that DI intentionally continues PI’s message, and several works explain that this was due to DI’s concern for Zion. John McKenzie (1968) proposes that similarities in PI’s and DI’s vocabulary and thought imply that DI not only knew the oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem, but also “that he thought of himself as the continuator of Isaiah of Jerusalem.” He writes that “there is no pre-exilic prophet who gives Jerusalem the position which Isaiah of Jerusalem gives it” and that DI resumes this theology.22

20 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition, BZAW 171 (Berlin; New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1988), 200. 21 Sweeney, Isaiah 1-4, 190, 193, 196. 22 John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 19 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), XXXI-II, LXII.

44 R. E. Clements first wrote in 1982 that a major written collection of Isaiah’s prophecies was extant before the death of Josiah in 609 B.C.E. and that, therefore, DI “could have known and made allusion to the earlier prophetic collection now embedded in Isaiah 1-35.”23 Clements’ 1985 article then claims more explicitly that DI was intended as a supplement to PI, going beyond von Rad’s notion of DI’s dependence on the Zion and Davidic traditions.24 Finally in his 1997 essay, he points to Zion as the central Isaianic quest: “In reality, the connection between chapters 1-39 and 40-66 can be fully understood in terms of the centrality of the theme of Zion-Jerusalem as the centre of divine rule and authority for the formation of the book of Isaiah.”25 He notes that Isaiah 36-37, which describes Jerusalem’s miraculous deliverance from Sennacherib, is shaped by the cult mythology of Mount Zion. The message of the Book after the disasters of 598 and 587 B.C.E. is clearly, “Let Jerusalem live – even though the temple has been destroyed.”26 Clements writes that the concern to re-assert the dominant position of Zion provides a key to understanding the growth and connections between the different parts of Isaiah. For example, Isa 37:30-32 is a redaction that connects the remnant to Mount Zion with a saying that clings to the belief in the unique role of Zion, despite the loss of the temple and the Davidic family after 587 B.C.E.27 Clements thus presents Zion’s role as the political center and symbol of Jewish hopes in the Book of Isaiah. Christopher R. Seitz (1991) raises the question why DI was added to PI rather than to some other prophet, such as Micah. His answer focuses on Isaiah 36-38, which he dates prior to DI and argues that since PI’s emphasis on the salvation of Zion in the “Hezekiah-Isaiah” narrative became dissonant after 587, the problem of Zion’s destiny was taken up by DI. Seitz notes that unlike

23 R. E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 no. 2 (1982): 124. He illustrates this with the metaphor of blindness and deafness found in Isa 6:9-10 and taken up in Isa 42:18-20 and 43:8. 24 R. E. Clements, “Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985): 95-113. Clements supports his argument by tracing two themes (Israel’s blindness and election) as well as other verbal connections between the two parts of Isaiah. 25 R. E. Clements, “Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. Van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 8. 26 Clements, “Zion,” 10. 27 Clements, “Zion,” 15. He also adds that if Isa 14:32 is dated after 587 B.C.E., it shows a significant shift away from the ark-throne theology of a temple sanctuary to an insistence “that the very location of Mount Zion, as Yahweh’s chosen throne-foundation still fulfilled such a special role.”

45 Lamentations and Ezekiel, the sinfulness of Zion is not a major theme; rather, the focus is on her state of wretchedness.28 H. G. M. Williamson (1994) disagrees with Seitz about the dating of Isaiah 36-39, taking them as included after DI, perhaps by TI.29 However, he argues for PI’s influence on DI by pointing out their thematic and linguistic similarities.30 Williamson concludes that DI appealed to PI because, unlike Jeremiah and Ezekiel who worked too close to the devastation of Jerusalem to offer a wider perspective, “It is in Isaiah alone that the larger sweep of God’s dealings with Zion in both judgment and mercy is to be found….It is thus difficult to see where else he could have gone for an accepted and authoritative setting for his own work on the literary level,…”31 However, other scholars argue that such similarities between DI and PI could also be attributed to DI’s reliance on Jeremiah, but Seitz’s earlier question why DI was attached to PI rather than to some other book still needs to be answered, and the proposal that the answer lies in their common concern for Zion is a credible one.32 Richard J. Clifford (1993) assumes that DI is interpreting PI for the sixthcentury exiles and argues that DI’s use of exodus, creation, and Cyrus as YHWH’s king are derived from the Zion tradition. He argues that the exodus has already become associated with the Zion tradition (Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32, Psalms 77; 78; 114; 135; 136) and that DI uses creation as the basis for the rebuilding of Zion because like first-millennium Mesopotamian cosmogonies, the Zion tradition involves “the building of the temple or temple city, the appointment of the king as builder of the temple and agent of the god(s), and the

28 Christopher R. Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah, A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 127; 203. He argues that Isaiah 39 was composed about a century later after the chapters 36-38 and added as a preface to DI (p. 188). 29 H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 210-11. 30 Williamson, Isaiah, 30-93, points out the echoes between Isaiah 6 and 40 as well as seven other motifs (the potter and the clay, God raising a signal, first and last, fading flowers, mouth of YHWH, Rahab, and torah). Like Clements and Seitz, he also takes DI’s “former things” as a reference to PI, meaning that DI deliberately included the earlier work as his own and edited chapter 33 as a transition to chapters 40-55 (p. 113). 31 Williamson, Isaiah, 242. He notes that DI’s use of the Exodus traditions “is more by way of illustration, contrast, and example than of furnishing him with the theological groundwork on which he built.” 32 John Goldingay and David Payne, Isaiah 40-55, 2 vols., ICC (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 1:2, follow Williamson’s theory.

46 promulgation of justice and peace.”33 Thus, the rebuilding of Zion is carried out by Cyrus acting as YHWH’s king. Clifford concludes, then, that DI innovatively draws out what is implicit in the Zion tradition. It is beyond the scope of my dissertation to resolve the issue of Isaiah’s formation, but it is clear from the above survey that regardless of whether DI was joined to PI by dependence on a common tradition, by redacting or supplementing PI with DI, or by a combination of the above, Zion theology is pivotal in the composition of the book. In the rest of this chapter, I will argue that DI’s personification of Zion is based on key tenets of Zion theology.

II. ZION THEOLOGY AND PERSONIFIED ZION IN DI Ben C. Ollenburger and Roberts have written extensively on Zion theology, which provides us with a helpful overview. Ollenburger investigates Zion as a theological symbol in his 1987 dissertation, stating that the central feature of the Jerusalem cult tradition is the belief that YHWH dwells among the people in Jerusalem as king (Psalms 47; 93-99).34 He relies on Rohland’s four principal motifs concerning Zion: 1. Zion is the peak of Zaphon, the highest mountain in the north (Ps 48:3-4) 2. The river of paradise flows from it (Ps 46:5) 3. There YHWH triumphed over the flood of chaos waters (Ps 46:3) 4. There YHWH triumphed over kings and nations (Pss 46:7; 48:5-7; 76:4, 67)35 The first two motifs describe Zion as a geographical location, and since Zion is the Deity’s dwelling place, it is also regarded as holy. The third motif is based on the chaoskampf myth that validates YHWH’s kingship by the defeat of chaos. The fourth motif of YHWH’s triumph means that Zion is protected and elevated over the nations.

33 Richard J. Clifford, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language,” CBQ 55, no. 1 (1993):10. 34 Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult, JSOTSup 41 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 23-4. 35 Edzard Rohland, “Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten” (DTh diss., University of Heidelberg, 1956), 142. Ollenburger, Zion, 15, writes that Hans Wilderberger adds a fifth motif - the pilgrimage of the nations, but Ollenburger thinks it is more likely that the “Völkerwallfahrt” motif was a later combination of the pre-exilic motifs of pilgrimage to a shrine and the “pilgrimage” of kings and/or nations to the king in Jerusalem (Ps 72:8-11).

47 Ollenburger believes that the Zion tradition originated with the Ark of Shiloh where YHWH was first explicitly recognized as king and that such kingship was drawn from Canaanite mythological traditions.36 He argues that the Davidic covenant is a later addition distinct from the Zion tradition. Although Roberts argues for the origin of the Zion tradition in the Davidic-Solomonic era, Ollenburger points out that the Songs of Zion (Psalms 46, 48, and 76) make no mention of David or of an earthly king. Rather, he argues that the royal theology co-opted the Zion tradition in order to give legitimacy to the Davidic hegemony.37 Ollenburger’s distinction between the Zion and Davidic traditions is reflected in DI, where the restoration of Zion is described independently of the Davidic covenant. I will argue that DI’s personification of Zion is influenced by motifs from Zion theology in three ways. First, Zion is presented as a holy place distinct from her guilty people. Second, mother Zion does not give birth because YHWH is the creator who births the people. Third, Zion is a nationalistic figure because YHWH is her sovereign king and defender.

A.

ZION AS THE HOLY CITY

1.

Zion as a Mythic Place

In Zion theology, the topographies of Baal’s and El’s mountains are incorporated into the mythological description of Zion. “Since Yahweh had replaced Baal as king of the gods, it was possible to identify Mt. Zion with Baal’s famous Mt. Zaphon (Ps 48:3).”38 Even when it is not identified with Zaphon, Zion is thought of as a high mountain where the divine king dwells (e.g., Ps 68:19 [68:18]; Isa 2:2). YHWH also takes over El’s abode, which is described as “at the sources of the two rivers midst the streams of the two seas.”39 This description is re-applied to Zion in Ps 46:3, which speaks of a river whose streams make glad the city of God. Roberts points out that this motif also

36 Ollenburger, Zion, 36-46. 37 J. J. M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002; reprint, JBL 92, 1973), 31330; Ollenburger, Zion, 49-66, notes that Psalm 132 also maintains Zion’s priority over David. 38 J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002; reprint, Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 340-1. 39 Roberts, “Zion in the Theology,” 339, citing CTA 2 iii 4; 3 E v 14-15; 4 iv 21-22.

48 plays a major role in late prophetic descriptions of the new Jerusalem (Ezek 47:1-12; Joel 4:18; Zech 14:8; Isa 33:21-23). Zion theology is replete in the psalter, and out of the thirty-nine occurences of the word “Zion,” thirty-three of those times specifically refer to it as a place rather than as a people. While she is personified six times in the Psalms, the context indicates that in almost all of them, the target of the metaphor is the geographical location.40 If personified Zion in DI is based on Zion theology, then it is expected that the referent/target for Zion is the place rather than the people. This would be consistent with arguments made by scholars such Newsom, Darr, Dille, Roberts, and Berges. 2.

Zion as a Holy Place

In the Ugaritic and Mesopotamian cosmogonic myths, the victories of Baal and Marduk over the chaos of the sea are crowned with the building of their temples.41 YHWH also establishes YHWH’s temple in Zion, and since YHWH is holy, so Zion is also a holy place (Ps 99:9: “Extol the LORD our God, and worship at his holy mountain; for the LORD our God is holy” NRSV). Zion is called a holy mountain nine times in the psalms, twice as a holy place, and once as a holy refuge.42 PI also refers to Zion twice as a holy mountain (Isa 11:9; 27:13), and DI calls it a holy city twice (Isa 48:2; 52:1). DI never calls Zion a holy mountain, perhaps because it is the city that is conventionally personified as a woman. There are also ethical implications for those who dwell on YHWH’s mountain. Ollenburger emphasizes the response of trust, which is demonstrated by the poor, while the proud who rely on their own or other sources of security will be judged. He notes that in PI, YHWH’s kingship (Isa 2:6-22) and commitment to Zion (Isa 8:9-10; 17:12-14) calls for trust and obedience (30:15; 28:12) to make Zion what she was intended to be – a place of rest for the weary

40 In Ps 9:14, “daughter Zion” is mentioned with her gates. In Ps 97:8, Zion is exhorted to hear and be glad, and being an enthronement psalm, Zion is to be understood as the place where YHWH reigns. In Ps 102:14-15, God is asked to have compassion on Zion, a place of stones and dust. Pss 147:12 and 149:2 personify Zion as a mother: In the former, she is described as a city with gates and borders, and in the latter, the “children of Zion” rather than “Zion” is used as a parallel for “Israel” (v. 2), thus indicating that Zion represents the city. Only in Ps 146:10 where YHWH is called “your (feminine singular) God, O Zion” is the referent of the personification not explicit. 41 Ollenburger, Zion, 56. 42 Zion as “holy mountain”: Pss 2:6; 3:4; 15:1; 43:3; 48:1; 78:54; 87:1; 99:9; 110:3; Zion as a “holy place”: Pss 24:3; 134:2; Zion as a “holy refuge”: Ps 68:5.

49 or poor (14:32; 28:12). Roberts stresses that only those who meet God’s standards can live in God’s presence (Isa 33:13-16; Ps 24:3-4).43 In the light of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians, the question arises whether the cause of that judgment lies with the people, the city, or both. If Zion is the holy city of YHWH, then the blame should lie with the unworthy inhabitants rather than with the divinely chosen city. Chapter Three will survey the prophetic books to compare how guilt is assigned, and Chapter Four will examine the culpability of mother Zion in DI. Attention will be given in particular to Isa 50:1, which states that mother Zion is sent away because of her children’s transgressions. Other texts that seem to indict Zion will also be examined, e.g., “the cup of wrath” that she drinks in 51:17, her “shame” and “disgrace” in 54:4, the Flood that she suffers in 54:9. An analysis of these metaphors will clarify whether they highlight Zion’s sin or only her suffering. Intertextual allusions will also show how DI allocates blame to the children while appropriating promises of restoration for Zion.

B.

YHWH AS CREATOR

YHWH’s kingship is based on YWHW’s role as creator, just as Baal was proclaimed king after bringing order to the cosmos through the defeat of rebellious Sea. Ollenburger traces the combination of kingship and creation in the Enthronement Psalms and other related texts in the Psalter. In Psalm 93, for example, the opening announcement of YHWH’s kingship is followed by a description of the conquest of the waters that threaten YHWH’s throne (vv. 1-4), and in Psalm 29, YHWH is described as sitting enthroned over the flood. YHWH’s kingship is also based on the creation of the world (Psalms 24, 89), and Psalm 65 proclaims that the creator who established the mountains, stills the waves, and provides grain dwells in Zion.44 Ollenburger cites Ludwig’s study that relates the tradition of establishing the earth to the Jerusalem cult. In Ps 78:69, for example, the building of the sanctuary in Zion is paralleled to the building of the heavens and earth. Ludwig concludes:

43 Ollenburger, Zion, 70, 128; Roberts, “Zion in the Theology,” 342-3, citing Pss 48:12-14; 133:3; 147:13; Isa 33:17-24. Roberts adds that those inhabitants who are fit to live with God will enjoy the security and abundant life that YHWH’s presence brings (Pss 48:1214; 132:13-18; 133:3; Isa 33:17-24). The promise of Ps 147:12-14 is similar to that in Isa 54:11-17, where Zion’s children will be taught by God and be given prosperity and protection. 44 Ollenburger, Zion, 54-5.

50 In the cult tradition, the establishing of the temple at Zion is considered to be the same divine activity as the establishing of the earth; building the temple is a repetition of the cosmogony.45

In the Zion tradition, as in the Baal cosmogony, God creates the world but there is no record of God creating humanity. In the Enuma Elish, however, after Marduk defeats Tiamat the primordial sea and establishes the world from her body parts, he goes on to create human beings from the blood of a slain god, for the purpose of servitude to the gods.46 Similarly in DI, YHWH creates both the world and humanity. Isa 45:12: I made the earth, and created humankind upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. (NRSV)

For the Israelites in particular, DI describes their creation through a uniquely intimate and personal mode – by divine birth. Not only does YHWH form Israel/Jacob in the womb (Isa 44:2, 24; 49:5), YHWH is also described in gynomorphic terms as a woman in travail (42:14) and as the one who carried Israel from the womb (46:3). If YHWH is the one who gives birth to the Israelites, does mother Zion also give birth to them? Chapter Four explores this issue, beginning with Zion’s cryptic question in Isa 49:21, “Who bore for me these?” The chapter will analyze maternal imagery for Zion and YHWH, and it will be shown that the element of birth is hidden for Zion but highlighted for YHWH. This unexpected metaphorical twist makes sense when understood in the light of Zion theology that asserts YHWH’s role as the creator, a belief that DI extends metaphorically to include the birth of Israel,47 so affirming YHWH’s irrefutable relationship with YHWH’s people.

C.

YHWH AS DEFENDER

Another motif associated with Zion theology is YHWH’s defense of Israel. Even YHWH’s historical deliverance of Israel is described in terms of creation: Exodus 15 describes the defeat of Pharaoh’s army as a cosmic battle by YHWH

45 Theodore M. Ludwig, “The Traditions of Establishing the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah,” JBL 92 (1973): 354, in Ollenburger, Zion, 55. Ludwig also draws attention to Psalms 24, 89, and 102. 46 Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 231-74. 47 This is not an entirely innovative metaphor, since God is also described as giving birth to the people at the Exodus (Num 11:12; Deut 32:18), but DI uses it more extensively.

51 using the Sea as an instrument. Psalms 65, 74, and 77 refer to YHWH’s historical deliverance in creation terminology, and Psalm 99 describes the God who answered Moses, Aaron, and Samuel as the king in Zion. Ollenburger writes: The significance of the integration of the notion of Yahweh as Israel’s defender with that of Yahweh as creator and king is that Yahweh’s saving activity, or defense, on behalf of Israel is placed within the comprehensive framework of creation. The order wrought by Yahweh in vanquishing his cosmic foes is at the same time an order wrought among the earthly forces with which Israel was confronted.48

Because of YHWH’s defense of Zion, Ollenburger concludes that Zion functions pre-eminently as a symbol of security and refuge. “Even after Jerusalem has been destroyed this language can be employed to urge Yahweh to remember Zion his dwelling-place as the symbol of Israel’s past and future security (Ps 74.2; cf. Zeph 3:15; Ps 122).” Regarding the Songs of Zion (Psalms 46, 48, 76), Ollenburger writes that “it is probable that the hostile forces here led by the enemy kings are the counterpart to the forces of chaos which Yahweh has conquered in his primordial act of creation.” Roberts notes that Ps 46:2-4 [3-5] hints at that mythological chaos: 2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea; 3 though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult. (NRSV) 49

The end result of YHWH’s triumph over the hostile powers is the establishment of Zion (Psalms 46, 48, 78).50 Roberts elaborates on this as a time when the weapons of war are shattered, peace is established on earth (Pss 46:10; 76:4-9), and a vast amount of booty is collected (Ps 76:5-6; Isa 33:4, 23; Ezek 39:9-10; Zech 14:14). Finally, the nations must acknowledge YHWH’s

48 Ollenburger, Zion, 57. 49 Ollenburger, Zion, 69-70; 73. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology,” 93-108. Further, Roberts suggests that Ps 48:8 [7]: “With an east wind you smashed the ships of Tarshish” (NRSV), which seems geographically out of place in terms of an attack on Jerusalem, may derive from mythological antecedents in the Canaanite tradition of a seaborne assault on Baal’s abode. He points out that CTA 4 vii 30-37 seems to refer to an attempt to storm Baal’s mountain after he has established his palace there, an attempt that Baal turns back by the thunder of his voice. The gory picture of Anat’s slaughter of the people of the seashore and of the sunrise may refer to the same enemies (CTA 3 B ii 3-39). 50 Ollenburger, Zion, 76.

52 sovereignty and honor YHWH with praise and tribute, a motif explicitly found in Psalm 76.51 Ps 76:11-13 [10-12]: 10 Human wrath serves only to praise you, when you bind the last bit of your wrath around you. 11 Make vows to the LORD your God, and perform them; let all who are around him bring gifts to the one who is awesome, 12 who cuts off the spirit of princes, who inspires fear in the kings of the earth. (NRSV)

DI also contains references to a cosmic battle, most evidently in Isa 51:9-10: 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD! Awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago! Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? 10 Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over? (NRSV)

The goal of this cosmic battle is to free the exiles to return to Zion (Isa 51:3, 11), thus demonstrating the victory of YHWH over all opposing forces. Since Zion theology declares YHWH’s sovereignty over all nations, the personified city in DI is also exalted over all nations. In Chapter Five, I will discuss the issue of universalism vis-à-vis nationalism in DI and examine Zion’s relationship with her oppressors (49:24-26; 52:1-2; 54:3) and other nations in general (45:14; 49:22-23). In summary, if DI’s personification of Zion is based on Zion theology, then it would be expected, first, that wife Zion is innocent because she represents the holy place where YHWH dwells, not the people who betrayed their God; second, that mother Zion does not give birth to her children because YHWH is the creator of the people; and third, that in the midst of DI’s apparent message of universal salvation, Zion remains a nationalistic figure symbolizing YHWH’s sovereign kingship. Chapters Four to Six will substantiate these propositions by a close reading of the Zion passages in DI, but first the next chapter will review the different ways Zion is personified in the various prophetic literature in order to show how DI reappropriates this metaphor from his predecessors.

51 Roberts, “Zion in Theology,” 342.

53

CHAPTER THREE A SURVEY OF PERSONIFIED ZION: PEOPLE OR PLACE?

This chapter will explore the personification of Zion as a woman in its ancient Near Eastern context and survey its usage in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible. Since my study seeks to determine how DI transforms previous ideas about Zion, only the corpora that he alludes to as discussed in Chapter One (i.e., Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, PI, and DI) will be covered. After exploring the possible origins for the female personification of cities in the first part, the main focus will be on the target of the metaphor and the issue of her culpability, both of which will be shown to vary in the different literature. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, she is the people who are indicted for their sins; in Lamentations, she represents both the city and the inhabitants and so, both are held guilty for their destruction; and finally in PI and DI, she is YHWH’s dwelling place with the blame directed only at her rebellious citizenry rather than at God’s royal city.

I. ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CONTEXT The phrase bat-PN (where PN is the name of a city or nation) is generally understood as an appositional genitive, referring not to the daughter of some city but to the city itself, i.e., it is better translated as “daughter Zion” rather than “daughter of Zion.”1 This is despite a recent attempt to revive the objective genitive intepretation by Michael H. Floyd, who argues that the singular 1

William Franklin Stinespring, “No Daughter of Zion: A Study of the Appositional Genitive in Hebrew Grammar,” Enc 25 (1965):133-41. Berlin, Lamentations, 11-2, defends this view against F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Syntagma of bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the Hebrew Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar,” CBQ 57, no. 3 (1995): 469-70. The latter argues that bat-PN is a normal construct chain signifying a genitive of location in which bat signifies the goddess as an inhabitant of a particular city or country, but Berlin points out that this does not explain the usage of \PDWE (my Daughter People), a phrase that occurs fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible, because there is no extra-biblical analogy to understand this phrase as “the goddess who lives among my people.” Rather, she writes that \PDWE is a personification of the people, just as Z\FWE is a personification of the city.

54 daughter represents the female inhabitants of the city, and by extension, the entire citizenry. In reponse, J. Andrew Dearman points out the clumsiness of this reading, as it requires a two-step logic that is not necessary if it is the city that is personified rather than the female inhabitants. Dearman points out, amongst other things, that “Daughter Zion” is usally associated with geographic details, such as her “wall” and “gates.” However, he concludes that the city also metaphorically represents the inhabitants, a conclusion that I will show to be an over generalization in the rest of this chapter.2 Regarding the origin of the female personification of cities, many scholars rely on the works of Aloysius Fitzgerald and J. Lewy who trace the usage to a West Semitic notion that capital cities were understood to be goddesses who were married to the patron god of their respective cities.3 Fitzgerald argues that this explains the use of adultery by Israelite prophets as a metaphor for the people’s idolatry and foreign alliances. However, Peggy Day challenges this thesis on several bases, one of which is that there is no evidence of goddesses who have the title WE or any extra-biblical examples of either WOZWE4 or WE as 2

3

4

Michael H. Floyd, “Welcome Back, Daughter of Zion!” CBQ 70 (2008): 484-504; J. Andrew Dearman, “Daughter Zion and Her Place in God’s Household,” HBT 31 (2009): 144-159. Aloysius Fitzgerald, “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT,” CBQ 34 (1972): 403-16; J. Lewy. “The Old West Semitic Sun God Hammu,” HUCA 18 (1944): 429-88. They have been followed by Willey, Remember, 107; Mark Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Personification of Cites in the Ancient Near East,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, ed., K. L. Younger Jr., (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1991), 179-81; Mary Callaway, Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 65; Galambush, Jerusalem, 20; John Schmitt, “The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother,” RB 92 (1985):557-69. On the other hand, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the CityLament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Rome: Pontifical Bible Institute, 1993), 87, and Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 131, follows Frymer-Kensky, Wake, 269 n. 13, in rejecting Fitzgerald’s thesis on the basis that there is no evidence that the city was imagined as married to the god of the city. Follis, “The Holy City as Daughter,” 173-84, does not mention Lewy or Fitzgerald but proposes grammatical and sociological reasons for the personification of the city as a daughter. Berlin, Lamentations, 12, writes that WOZWE does not connote “chaste, unsullied, virtuous” as “virgin” does in English but rather, a woman in her prime, a woman ripe for marriage, best translated as “maiden.” Peggy Day, “The Personification of Cities as Female in the Hebrew Bible: The Thesis of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C.,” Reading from this Place, vol. 2, ed. Fernando Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 283 n. 2, suggests more specifically that it denotes a female who has begun to menstruate, and she remains a WOZWE until the birth of her first child. It is used as a personification of Israel

55 city titles.5 It is therefore not certain that WE reflects an early concept of the city as goddess or of the city goddess. Both Follis and Frymer-Kensky suggest a psychological reason for the female personification of the city based on the perception of women as nurturers.6 However, Frymer-Kensky herself notes that this is not a universal image as cities are addressed as masculine in Akkadian. Mark Biddle argues that West Semitic languages, which address cities as females, make it easier to deify the city.7 As mentioned, Day challenges the aspect of deification, but it seems that the West Semitic feminine gender for city does facilitate the personification of a city as a woman.8 Kelle, agreeing with Day, writes that “one may jettison

5

6 7 8

(Jer 18:13; 31:4, 21) and Judah (Lam 1:15). As a title for a city, it seems at odds with the personification of a city as a mother, and indeedZ\FWE WOZWE only occurs three times: 2 Kgs 19:21 = Isa 37:22; Lam 2:13. In the first two references, Zion is personified as a warrior rather than as a mother, and while its occurrence in Lam 2:13 is somewhat anomalous, Berlin thinks that its metaphoric usage is an expression of pitifulness. Day, “Personification of Cities,” 283-302. She also points out that Fitzgerald’s evidence of Greek inscriptions on Hellenistic coins, referring to the city of Sidon as a goddess, postdates the biblical phenomenon of personifying cities as females, and given that the Phoenician inscriptions on these coins do not reiterate Sidon’s divinity, it is questionable whether the coins are evidence of a West Semitic mythological tradition. She adds that there is no evidence that the city as goddess was thought to be married to a patron god, and it would be inconsistent to consider a married and maternal city/goddess as a WOZWE (virgin). The goddess Anath is called a virgin, and Day writes that there is no evidence that she gives birth either as the wife of Baal or of any other deity. Finally, she argues that Fitzgerald confuses polytheism with polyandry – the latter is not accepted in West Semitic societies but the former is, and thus, the prophetic description of idolatry as adultery was not necessarily developed in contrast to this West Semitic culture. Berlin, Lamentations, 12, and Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 63ff., follow Day’s arguments. H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, ICC (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 68, also notes that no goddess is ever called “daughter” in the Hebrew Bible. Christl M. Maier, “Daughter Zion as Queen and Iconography of the Female City,” in Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Martti Nissenen and Charles E. Carter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 147-62, studies iconographic and epigraphic sources from the thirteenth century B.C.E. to the third century C.E. and also notes that the deification of the city is a late development beginning in the second century B.C.E. Follis, “Holy City,” 177; Frymer-Kensky, Wake, 172. Biddle, “Figure,” 175. Berlin, Lamentations, 12, writes that WE is best understood as a term for a female member of a group that “connotes an emotional tenderness or protectiveness toward a female person of lesser power or authority.” It may also have an ironic twist in certain contexts, e.g., Isaiah 47:1, in an oracle of judgment against Daughter Babylon.

56 the idea of a West Semitic goddess background but still affirm that capital cities are often personified as females in both biblical and extrabiblical texts. …the Hebrew Bible, more so than any extrabiblical text, contains the explicit identification of cities as the metaphorical wives of the deity and not just as personified females.”9 What then does personified Zion represent? Follis’ answer is that it is the personification of the city and its inhabitants. However, Jon Levenson lists four referents for the term “Zion:” First, it is the name of the fortress that David captured (2 Sam 5:7, 9); second, it is a designation for the Temple Mount that is connected to the Zion tradition; third, by a process of metonymy it came to refer to Jerusalem itself, that is, the entire temple city; and fourth, by a further use of metonymy, it came to refer to the people Israel. Therefore, personified Zion may represent either the place and/or the people, and this has to be determined from the context. As Darr says, “The referent evoked in female form must be identified text by text.”10

II. PERSONIFIED ZION IN THE PROPHETIC TRADITION In the following survey, I will show that different prophetic books alluded to by DI use the personified city in distinctive ways. A survey is, of course, limited in depth but offers the advantage of a comparative study; thus, not every text that mentions a personified female will be examined but only those that contribute toward determining the metaphor’s target or culpability. I submit that there are three different ways in which personified Zion is used in the prophetic books: First, Jeremiah and Ezekiel predominantly identify the wife of YHWH with the Follis, “Holy City,” 174, notes that the expression, Z\FWE, occurs twenty-six times in the Old Testament, all in poetic contexts. In “Zion, Daughter of,” ABD 6:1103, she classifies half of the occurrences as reflecting dignity, joy, favor, and exaltation (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:21 = Isa 37:22; Isa 16:1; 52:2; 62:11; Mic 4:8, 13; Jer 6:2; Lam 4:22; Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14[10]; 9:9; Ps 9:15 [14]), while the other half focuses on the city as the object of wrath, mortification, and destruction (Isa 1:8; 10:32; Mic 1:13; 4:10; Jer 4:31; 6:23; Lam 1:6; 2:1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 18). Actually, Jer 6:2 fits in the latter category, for though Zion is likened to the loveliest pasture, it is used in the context of other nations coming to surround her. Thus, all three occurrences of Daughter Zion in Jeremiah are used in the context of suffering, but the same address in Psalms, DI, and the post-exilic books (TI, Zephaniah, and Zechariah) is used only in positive contexts. 9 Kelle, Hosea 2, 88. 10 Follis, “Zion,” 1103; Jon Levenson, “Zion Traditions,” ABD 6:1098; Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 148.

57 sinful people, thus presenting her as an adulterous spouse. Lamentations shows a variation where Zion is largely the city but is also closely identified with the people such that both are regarded as guilty. PI and DI, however, use personified Zion to represent the place rather than the people so that guilt is imputed to the corrupt populace, not the chosen city.

A.

ZION/JERUSALEM AS THE PEOPLE – JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL

Jeremiah identifies “Jerusalem” as YHWH’s bride in 2:2, but the address changes in the next verse into an accusation against “Israel” the people: 2 Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD: I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. 3 Israel was holy to the LORD, the first fruits of his harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty; disaster came upon them, says the LORD. (NRSV; italics mine)

In fact, there are frequent variations in masculine and feminine addressees in chapter 2, implying that Jerusalem is closely identified with the people. Such people-as-wife imagery allows Jeremiah to speak of their idolatry as sexual infidelity (2:23-25, 33). The metaphor of the wanton wife of YHWH continues in Jeremiah 3, with the wives called “Israel” and “Judah” in 3:6-11, but with an invitation addressed to faithless sons in 3:14 to return. This leads Galambush to surmise that “the metaphorical woman of the previous three chapters is effectively replaced with her literal referent.”11

11 Galambush, Jerusalem, 57. Galambush notes that after the first three chapters, Jerusalem is personified as a woman only briefly: as a woman attacked (4:30-31), exposed (13:22, 26), and bereaved (15:5, 9). Additionally, in 30:12-17, Zion’s lovers have forgotten her, but God promises to heal her wounds. The same interchangeability between singular feminine and masculine plural pronouns can also be observed in Jer 13:21-27 and 15:5-9. Jer 13:21-27 begins and ends with invectives against a feminine addressee, but vv. 23-24 warn a masculine plural audience that they will be scattered like chaff. (McKane, Jeremiah, 1:307, thinks that vv. 23-24 are a separate section interpolated into this unity, but Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1:684-692, simply takes them as a change of addressees and interprets the city as the people.) Similarly in 15:5-9, YHWH asks who will moan for Jerusalem, but the focus is on the destruction of the people (vv. 7-9). Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back, 44, writes that repentance and restoration is available for the males in Jer 3:14, leaving females with a sinful or no identity. This is not

58 In the next chapter, Zion is heard lamenting over her suffering in 4:30-31: 30 And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress in crimson, that you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life. 31 For I heard a cry as of a woman in labor, anguish as of one bringing forth her first child, the cry of daughter Zion gasping for breath, stretching out her hands, "Woe is me! I am fainting before killers!"

Frymer-Kensky distinguishes daughter Zion in v. 31 from the “desolate one” in v. 30, saying that Zion is not indicted but is only heard mourning for herself as well as her children, i.e., the people.12 However, to behave “like a woman in labor” is a conventional expression for anguish that does not involve an actual birth, and certainly, no children are mentioned in this unit (4:27-31). Claudia D. Bergman surveys the use of the birth metaphor in the ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible and categorizes their usage for cases of local crisis (e.g., Jer 6:24; 49:23-24; 50:43; Isa 37:3=2 Kgs 19:3), universal crisis (Jer 4:19-31; Isa 13:1-22; 26:7-27:1; and Joel 2:1-11), and personal crisis (e.g., Ps 18:4-7=2 Sam 22:4-7; Psalm 88; 55:4-9).13 In view of how the metaphor is typically employed, Jack Lundbom identifies Zion with the “desolate one” in v. 30 and writes that daughter Zion “is no more having a child than the defeated soldiers are.”14 For Jeremiah then, Zion is not distinguished

totally accurate (see 13:23-24 where male subjects are also accused), but I recognize the patriarchal bias of the metaphor in general. 12 Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake, 169. She believes that Jeremiah uses “Zion” only in contexts of love, sorrow, and hope and does not accuse her of conduct deserving punishment. 13 Claudia D. Bergmann, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1-18 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). Bergman’s survey is more comprehensive than Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 100-110, that focuses specifically on the eleven occurences of KGOZ\N (in Ps 48:5; Isa 13:2-17; 21:2-10; 42:10-17; Jer 6:22-26; 22:20-23; 30:3-6; 49:23-27; 50:41-43; and Mic 4:9-13) and two texts that use similar terminology (Isa 26:17-18 and Jer 4:29-31). Furthermore, Bergmann, Childbirth, 111, and Dille Mixing, 63-5, note that the metaphor may be unconventionally extended to include birth, e.g., in Micah 5 and Isaiah 42, which will be discussed in Chapter Five. 14 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 369. He notes that it is unusual that GZGY (desolate one) is a masculine passive participle and follows Freedman’s suggestion that it be repointed as an infinitive absolute, making it suitable for either feminine or masculine. However, this

59 from her people but, in fact, represents them. Just as the people are indicted by YHWH in 4:22: “For my people are foolish, they do not know me; they are stupid children, they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil, but do not know how to do good" (NRSV), so also Zion is accused of futile vanity in v. 30. Thus while “daughter Zion” is often used to express lament, based on the metaphor of “daughter” as denoting vulnerability and dependence,15 it does not necessarily exclude an accusation of guilt when she personifies the people. The only place where the city is separated from her people is in Jer 10:1720: 17 Gather up your bundle from the ground, O you who live under siege! 18 For thus says the LORD: I am going to sling out the inhabitants of the land at this time, and I will bring distress on them, so that they shall feel it. 19 Woe is me because of my hurt! My wound is severe. But I said, "Truly this is my punishment, and I must bear it." 20 My tent is destroyed, and all my cords are broken; my children have gone from me, and they are no more; there is no one to spread my tent again, and to set up my curtains. 21 For the shepherds are stupid, and do not inquire of the LORD; therefore they have not prospered, and all their flock is scattered. (NRSV)

In this text, a feminine addressee is told to gather her bundle from the ground because God is going to fling out the inhabitants of the land (vv. 17-18), indicating that the feminine figure is the people who will go into exile. However, in v. 20, a voice bewails that her children are gone and that there is no one to spread her tent. This produces an inconsistency in the use of the female imagery: In v. 17, she is told to leave, but in v. 20, she is left behind. It seems there is a slippage of the metaphor’s targets here – the feminine addressee becomes alternately the people and then the city when the exile forces both apart.16 Jer 10:21, however, directs the blame for the judgment at the shepherds of the people, not the mother city.17 Apart from this text that transits to the exile, variation between the feminine and masculine addressees may indicate that Jeremiah uses the feminine city for the masculine people, as in Jeremiah 2. 15 Dille, Mixing, 161; Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 91-3; O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor, 125-51; Kathleen O’Connor, “Speak Tenderly to Jerusalem: Second Isaiah’s Reception and Use of Daughter Zion,” PSB 10, no. 3 (1999): 283-4, notes that Zion is identified with Judah, i.e., the people, only in battle poems that depict the horrors of destruction (4:6, 31; 6:2, 23; 8:19; 9:19). 16 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 603, writes that there is general agreement that a personified Jerusalem is speaking in v. 20. 17 Thompson, Jeremiah, 35, suggests that the shepherds may be the kings or the prophets.

60 personified Zion in Jeremiah represents the people, and as Willey notes: “In much of Jeremiah the female’s role as faithless or suffering woman, and thus a representative of the people’s faithlessness or suffering, seems more important than her identification with the city of Jerusalem.”18 In the book of Ezekiel, YHWH’s wife described at length in chapters 16 and 23 is closely identified with the people. Galambush writes that the metaphor of adultery is used as “a vehicle for relating the history of Jerusalem and its political alliances.”19 She notes, for instance, that Ezek 16:7 describes the infant girl multiplying “like the sprouts of the field,” abandoning the metaphor of a child in favor of another that reflects the nation’s numerical growth. Ezekiel first personifies Jerusalem in 5:5-17, but there are many changes from addressing the city (feminine singular) to the people (masculine plural in 5:7, 13, 16). Galambush observes that in Ezek 6:8-10, the language typical of chapter 16 is applied to the people: Interestingly, 6:8-18 refers to the period after the fall of the city, that is, after Ezekiel ceases to personify the city as a woman. Ezekiel claims that after the city has fallen, the (male) populace will remember that they used to behave “like prostitutes” and will therefore repent.20

Also in Ezekiel 22, where Jerusalem is called a bloody city, it is the people in her whose sins are described (22:6-12; 23-31), and so God concludes that the “house of Israel” will be gathered into Jerusalem for smelting. Similarly in chapter 24, the parable of the boiling pot, equated to the bloody city, is meant for “the rebellious house” (v. 3), i.e., the people of Israel.21 Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel offer prophetic critiques of the exile and put the blame squarely on the people for their foreign alliances and idolatry. By personifying the populace as YHWH’s adulterous and unclean spouse, they justify YHWH’s punishment of the people.22 18 Willey, Remember, 109. She thinks that in Jeremiah 4-6, Zion is portrayed as a mother lamenting over her children’s suffering. However, there is no discussion of Zion’s children until 10:20. 19 Galambush, Jerusalem, 90. 20 Galambush, Jerusalem, 132. 21 Further, Galambush, Jerusalem, 147-8, argues that the new temple city in Ezekiel’s vision of restoration (40-48) is never personified as a woman nor even called “Jerusalem” because the lady had so defiled herself that she is removed to prevent any hint of infidelity by the new city, or more specifically, by the restored inhabitants of the new city. 22 Several feminist approaches dealing with the metaphor of the whore are reviewed by O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor, 29-48. My purpose here, however, is to determine the target of the metaphor.

61

B.

ZION AS THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE – LAMENTATIONS

Newsom observes that Zion is represented in Lamentations in a fluid way: She is the people when she is said to go into exile (1:3; 4:22) and to experience wandering (1:7), but mostly she represents the physical city (2:15) with references to her roads, gates, walls, ramparts, streets, and sanctuary. Zion the city is presented as the people’s mother, and Kathleen O’Connor notes that: “The most salient feature of her pain is the children’s suffering and her separation from them (1:5, 16; 2:11-12, 19, 20-21; 2:14; 4:2).”23 That Zion is a separate persona from her children fits with the genre of Mesopotamian city laments in which she takes on the role of the weeping city goddess. These laments consist of five classic texts depicting the destruction of particular cities and their most important shrines.24 The attack is brought about by an usually capricious decision of the divine assembly and is carried out by the chief god Enlil through the agency of an attacking enemy. The city’s chief goddess is portrayed as challenging the gods’ decision and bewailing the destruction of her city. The city laments typically close by celebrating the return of the gods and depicting the restoration of the city and temples.25 However, Dobbs-Allsopp writes that Lamentations also shows significant differences: For one, it is YHWH in the guise of the divine warrior who is cast as the divine agent of destruction instead of Enlil. For another, the restoration of the city and the return of the gods are undermined in Lamentations but highlighted in Ezekiel (1-3; 8-11; 40-47) and DI.26 Further, instead of a weeping city goddess, it is the personified city who mourns the fate of her inhabitants. Daughter Zion takes the place of the weeping goddess “as possessor of the temple and its treasures (and) her image as mother,

23 Newsom, “Response,” 76; O’Connor, “Speak Tenderly,” 286. 24 F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 2002), 7, lists the five classic compositions: “Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur,” “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur,” “Nippur Lament,” “Eridu Lament,” and “Uruk Lament.” These originate from the destruction of Sumer at the end of the UR III period and more local calamities in the following early Isin period. 25 Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 9. Dobbs-Allsopp points out nine important features that Lamentations holds in common with the Mesopotamian city laments: subject and mood, structure and poetic technique, divine abandonment, assignment of responsibility, divine agent of destruction, destruction, weeping goddess, lamentation, and restoration of the city and return of the gods. 26 Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 9-11. Dille, Mixing, 135, argues that the Zion passages in DI serve as the completion of Lamentations by providing the genre’s missing feature of restoration, including the return of the abandoning deity.

62 mourner, and exiled slave.”27 While Zion is not the abandoning goddess but the abandoned city, she shares the same grief as the city goddess “over the destruction of her city and temple and the killing, suffering and dispersement of her people.”28 As a parallel to the city goddess, Zion the mother city is a distinct persona who cries out to God for the lives of her children (Lam 2:19), but at the same time, she is closely identified with her inhabitants. Turner lists seven adjectives/verbs that are applied to both city and people (lonely, having tears, desolate, afflicted, sighing, transgressing, and losing precious things).29 Thus, Zion in Lamentation is primarily the personified physical city, but like the city goddess, she also reflects the state of her citizenry, and this identification with her people will have implications for the issue of her guilt. Dobbs-Allsopp notes that the assignment of guilt is another major difference between the Mesopotamian and Israelite city laments. In the former, the people and their city goddess are innocent victims of the decision of the gods, but in Lamentations, the people are held responsible for their own destruction.30 Dille observes that Dobbs-Allsopp does not address the issue of whether there can be a split between the personified city and her inhabitants regarding guilt but that he seems to imply that either both are guilty or both are innocent, and indeed, both people and personified city are said to have transgressed (1:5, 8, 9, 14, 18, 22; 2:14; 3:39, 42; 4:6, 13, 22; 5:7, 16).31 Unlike the diatribe of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Lamentations calls attention to the sorrow more than to the sin of the people and so, personified Zion is presented not just as the guilty spouse of YHWH but also as a bereaved mother lamenting the fate of her children. As noted regarding Jer 10:17-20 above, mother Zion begins to be an independent metaphor apart from her people when thy are taken into exile, and similarly in Lamentations, the mother city, 27 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 83. 28 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 75. He also points out that in the city lament, the goddess may address a god, and sometimes the chief male god is also given a voice. In comparison, God does not speak in Lamentations, but in DI, God answers the lament. 29 Turner, “Daughter Zion,” 124. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 52, also describes Zion’s communal identity: “She is the people personified as well as the city’s leading citizen.” 30 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 52-54. However, he also adds that the community’s sin is always attributed to or confessed by the personified city so that “the community is, at least symbolically, relieved from the burden of its sin through a kind of literary displacement.” The point, he says, is not to absolve the community of guilt but to provide relief from the burden of guilt and to enable hope. However, it is not certain that the text is meant to be read in this way because blame is also attributed to the people and their leaders (Lam 2:14; 3:39, 42; 4:6, 13; 5:7, 16). 31 Dille, Mixing, 165.

63 paralleling the role of the lamenting city-goddess, takes on a distinct persona, albeit one that is still closely identified with her people and their sin.

C.

ZION AS THE CITY – PI AND DI

Unlike Jeremiah and Ezekiel and more akin to Lamentations, PI uses Zion/Jerusalem for the physical location that YHWH will dwell in and reestablish,32 e.g., Isa 8:18, “YHWH of hosts dwells on Mount Zion.” PI personifies Zion only in a few but well-known texts: as daughter Zion in 1:18 and as a whore in 1:21.33 Concerning 1:8, which is attributed to PI, “daughter Zion” is left “like a booth in a vineyard, like a shelter in a cucumber field, like a guard-city.”34 As with most scholars, Willem A. M. Beuken argues that daughter Zion represents the inhabitants on the basis that it would not make sense to compare a city to a city. However, Williamson explains that “besieged city” can refer to a guardcity, i.e., a border fortress, so that the capital city is being compared in this verse 32 Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake, 173, also notes that PI, in particular, focuses on Jerusalem as God’s dwelling place that God will re-establish. 33 Other texts regarding a feminine figure will be mentioned here briefly: 3:25-26; 12:6; 29:1-8; and 37:22. 3:25-26 clearly addresses a city, indicated by reference to her gates. 12:6 calls on a feminine addressee to praise YHWH: “Shout aloud and sing for joy, Inhabitant/Enthroned Zion (Z\FWEYZ\), for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.” Isaiah 12 is generally agreed to be a redaction that shows similarities to DI (Rendtorff, “Composition,” 158), but in answer to some scholars who take WEYZ\ as referring to the people who dwell on Zion, Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake, 173, points out that PI refers to the people either in the plural or as a masculine singular participle, EYZ\ (10:24; 33:24). Hence, the feminine participle here is a reference to the city rather than to the people. In 29:1-8, God speaks to Ariel, a city that God both threatens and delivers. The city is also identified as Mount Zion in v. 8, but this prose verse is usually regarded as a late addition. In any case, Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39: A Commentary, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, 3 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991-2002), 3:79, writes that the redactor is correct to equate Ariel with Mount Zion because the Assyrians’ “ability to use their power has its limitations, since Zion is the place where Yahweh dwells.” In this oracle against Ariel/Zion, there is no indictment against the city, while it is the people who are accused of being blind and far from YHWH (29:9-14). Finally in 37:22, daughter Zion is personified as a warrior who defies Sennacherib’s threat of invading the city, but Isaiah 36-39 is also a late addition to PI, with scholars disagreeing about whether it was added before or after DI (see Seitz, Zion’s Final Destiny, 189-90, and Williamson, Isaiah, 191-211). Nonetheless, the personified female is presented as a distinct figure from the leaders: While the men are distressed by Sennacherib, virgin daughter Zion boldly despises the enemy. 34 Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 10-1. Apart from the redactionally late vv. 2-3 and 29-31, the rest of chapter 1 may be attributed to PI.

64 to various isolated constructions.35 Hans Wildberger writes that “the mention of Zion would immediately remind the hearers of the promises about the city of God which were still in force,….”36 The recalling of the Zion tradition is supported by reference to WZDEF KZK\ (YHWH of hosts) in v. 9, a title that derives from the Jerusalem cult tradition, “associated with the notion of God as king, dwelling enthroned in his royal palace.”37 Thus, daughter Zion in PI refers to the place of God’s dwelling but whose security is undermined by the transgressions of her people. The city is then personified as a whore in 1:21, but 1:22-26 directs the indictment and judgment on the people: 21 How the faithful city has become a whore! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her— but now murderers! 22 Your silver has become dross, your wine is mixed with water. 23 Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan, and the widow's cause does not come before them. 24 Therefore says the Sovereign, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah, I will pour out my wrath on my enemies, and avenge myself on my foes! 25 I will turn my hand against you; I will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy. 26 And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city. (NRSV)

Darr argues that the reference to murderers populating the city (vs. 21b) deflects the reader’s attention from Zion “herself,” focusing it instead upon an element in Zion that is the cause of the (once) faithful city’s current debased state…. Verse 23 identifies 35 Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Literary Emergence of Zion as a City in the first Opening of the Book of Isaiah (1,1-2,5),” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburstag, BZAW 345/I (Berlin; New York: Water de Gruyter, 2004), 459; Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 51-2, although he takes “Daughter Zion” in Isa 1:8 as a metaphor for the city itself and also by extension for its inhaitants (p. 67). On the other hand, Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 10, takes Zion here as the literal city, comparing the verse to Isaiah’s commission in 6:11 to preach until cities lay waste without inhabitant. 36 Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:30-1, although he equates daughter Zion with the people. 37 Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:29. See also Ollenburger, Zion, 37-8.

65 Jerusalem’s contaminants, her greedy and unscrupulous leaders. Rather than charge Jerusalem using extended promiscuity metaphors, then, the poet chooses several different tropes focusing not upon the “nature” or behavior of Jerusalem herself, but rather upon those elements debasing her. …The prompt, pointed move from harlotry accusation to indictment of Jerusalem’s leaders foregrounds the prostitute as victim toward strategic ends.38

I agree with Darr’s analysis that the personified city represents the place because her population is distinguished from her. Beuken also understands 1:21 as a real city: “Terms like ‘full off’ and ‘to lodge’ strengthen the aspect of a space enclosed for habitation (v. 21).”39 Wildberger relates the image of a whore to the fact that the inhabitants of the city had put themselves up for sale,40 i.e., they sell their services for bribes in the perversion of justice (1:23). It is the whorish behavior of the people that has made the city a whore. Further, the following vv. 27-28, although a post-exilic addition,41 also refer to Zion independently of her inhabitants: 27 Zion shall be saved in the judgment; Her repentant ones, in the retribution.” 28 But rebels and sinners shall all be crushed, And those who forsake the LORD shall perish. (NJPS)

Williamson thinks that Zion here “stands as a more or less abstract concept for the ideal people of God – those who have been saved through the judgment of the preceding paragraphs,”42 but this means that he has to define Zion in v. 27 differently from v. 21 where she is a whore. Further, the second colon of v. 27 makes Zion a separate entity from those who repent, indicating that Zion is the city rather than the people.43 38 Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 138, 140. I disagree with John N. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 105, that the personification of the city as a whore means that “Israel has deserted the Lord, her husband, and has prostituted herself with other lovers the gods….” There are no lovers mentioned in this text, whether gods or political allies. Rather, the focus is on internal social injustice. 39 Beuken, “The Literary Emergence of Zion,” 464-5. 40 Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:64. 41 Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 154. 42 Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 155. 43 Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 134; Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:63, further points out that the city is addressed as KQPDQK\UT (faithful city), and the rare word for city is also found in a Zion song: Ps 48:3, OPEU K\UT (city of the great king). Wildberger suggests that this might be the reason behind Isaiah’s frequent use of the word (22:2; 29:1; 32:13). Further, he argues that PD (support, confirm) is a synonym for ZN (firmly established), a term found in songs of praise for the city of God (Pss 48:9; 87:5), implying that PI reinterprets the ancient tradition by arguing that the “firmly established” city of God can have

66 Like PI, DI also uses Zion as a reference to the physical location: In 44:26, 28, Jerusalem will be inhabited and rebuilt by Cyrus; in 46:12-13, God will put salvation in Zion for Israel; and in 51:3, 11, God will restore Zion like Eden. However, DI occasionally uses Zion/Jerusalem to refer to the people. In 51:16, God says to Zion: “You (masculine plural) are my people,” and 52:9b has: “For the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem” (NRSV). Below, I will argue that Jerusalem is also used as a parallel for the people in 40:1-2. R. N. Whybray explains that the use of “Jerusalem” to designate a people no longer resident in their city shows the intensity of their identification with their home.44 Thus, Zion in DI may refer to the place or, less frequently, to the people, but when personified as a mother, I submit that the target is always the place (49:14-26; 51:17-52:2; 54).45 Earlier in DI, Zion is also personified as a heraldess (40:9), and Jan L. Koole comments that it is from this place that “Israel’s salvation may be expected, Ps 14:7; 134:3 etc. In this way the prophet links up with the ‘Zionstheologie’….”46 In other words, the personified heraldess is the divinely chosen city that anticipates the return of her victorious shepherd-king (40:11-12). It is in the second half of DI that personified Zion takes on a greater role as a mother: In 49:14-26, she laments and awaits the return of her children; in 50:1-3, she is sent away by her husband because of the sins of her children; in 51:17-52:2, she is the bereft mother who will be restored to royalty by YHWH, and in chapter 54, confidence in its future and stability only if its king and people continue as faithful believers. However, other scholars like Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 71, 134, are less certain of a reference to Zion theology in Isaiah 1, given that these associated terms are also used in other contexts. I submit, however, that the overall focus on Zion theology in the Book of Isaiah provides the background for references to Zion. 44 R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1975), 49. Also, Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1: 68. 45 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1: 42, also notes the different possibilities. Newsom, “Response,” 76, Willey, Remember, 265, and Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., trans. David Green, Studies in Biblical Literature 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 421-2, write that the remaining Judahites are identified with personified Zion so as to welcome back the exiles. While this may be the ideological purpose or result of the Zion texts, the Judahites are not strictly in view as the target of the metaphor; rather it will be shown that the literary contexts point to the physical city. 46 Koole, Isaiah 40-55, 1: 72. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 19-19B; 3 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 2002-2003), 2:185, also notes that Zion/Jerusalem in 40:9 is the city, not the people. On the other hand, Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 44, reads 40:9 as referring to the people in exile, but he does not explain how they are to proclaim to “the cities of Judah.”

67 she becomes the happy mother of children and the reconciled wife of God. Berges writes: With the exception of Isaiah there is no trace of a dramatic relationship between Zion and her population. There she represents merely Israel or the exilic community. The idea that Zion stands in a dramatic relationship with YHWH, her children and even with herself is exclusive to the Book of Isaiah.47

As Berges implies, a dramatic relationship with Zion is possible because she is identified not with the people but with another entity – the city who awaits the return of her citizens. In fact, Odil H. Steck points out that not only is Zion capable of having relationships with her children as “mother” or with YHWH as “wife” or “widow” but also with her enemies as “captive” or “queen.”48 In the following chapters, I will look at the above mentioned four texts in DI (49:14-26; 50:1-3; 51:17-52:2, 54:1-10) to show that the target of the metaphor is the location rather than the populace. I will also argue that these passages do not incriminate mother Zion but only highlight her suffering.49 However, it is often thought that some blame is attributed to Zion/Jerusalem in 40:1-2, but in that context, “Jerusalem” should be understood as the people rather than in the city. 40:1 Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. 2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her iniquity is paid, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. (NRSV)

47 Berges, “Personifications,” 76. To qualify Berges, there are traces of a dramatic relationship between Zion and her children in other prophetic books (e.g., in Jer 10:20, the city laments that her children are gone; in Lamentations 2, Zion mourns for her children), but certainly none is as extensive as in DI. Newsom, “Response,” 76, also comments that “Second Isaiah emphasizes the most affectively charged image relating the exiles’ relationship to Jerusalem.” 48 Odil H. Steck, “Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament,” ZTK 86 (1989): 261-81. He writes that the personification of Zion the city developed only in the exilic period (p. 279). This is not wholly accurate since, as discussed above, a few texts in Jeremiah and PI refers to a personified city in the context of laments. So also Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 91. 49 Frymer-Kensky, Wake, 176, writes that in Lamentations, Zion is a failed mother, but in DI, there is no punishment to pronounce. Similarly, O’Connor, “Speak Tenderly,” 293, agrees with Darr’s Isaiah’s Vision, 183, that Zion offers “a clean start” for Israel.

68 In this text, the female references to Jerusalem do not personify her as a mother, but rather, the context points to the “people” in v. 1 as a parallel for “Jerusalem.” John Goldingay admits that the parallelism between vv. 1 and 2a need not be synonymous, but he proposes that “Jerusalem” means “my people” because the context of vv. 1-11 focuses on the people:50 Verses 3-4 depict the return of the people through the wilderness; the people are like grass in vv. 5-8; and v. 11 describes God as the shepherd who takes care of the people. Elsewhere, DI attributes blame to the people: They are accused of Z> (iniquity; 43:24; 50:1), DM[ (sin; 43:24, 25; 44:22), and >YS (transgression; 46:8; 48:8; 50:1), and God declares forgiveness for such (43:27; 44:22). It is also noteworthy that “Jerusalem” rather than “Zion” is used in 40:1 because as Goldingay explains, “‘Zion’ has more the connotations of Israel’s religious center and of the place to which YHWH is committed. ‘Jerusalem’ is more capable of a purely geographical and political reference.”51 Thus, 40:2 addresses and implicates only the people.

SUMMARY The above review shows that the personified city is used in varying ways in different prophetic literature. This has been observed by various scholars but only at the level of the rhetorical use of the metaphor. Antje Labahn, for example, writes that Daughter Zion in Isaiah is used in a context of rejoicing associated with Zion theology, while Daughter Zion in Lamentations is used in a context of grief without any implications of Zion theology.52 However, such an approach fails to properly analyze the metaphor and its target. Unlike personified Zion in Isaiah, Daughter Zion in other prophetic literature may not

50 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1: 67. Similarly, Jan L. Koole, Isaiah III: Isaiah 40-66, trans. Anthony P. Runia, 3 vols., HCOT (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 1:72; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:180; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 49; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 35, read “Jerusalem” in 40:1 as the people. Although Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 49-50; Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, trans. Margaret Kohl, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 51, 53, read “Jerusalem” as the city, they end up describing divine forgiveness for the people. 51 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1: 42, 67. 52 Antje Labahn, “Metaphor and Intertextuality: ‘Daughter Zion’ as a Test Case, Response to Kirsten Nielsen “From Oracles to Canon” – And the Role of Metaphor,” SJOT 17:1 (2000): 49-67. Labahn overstates her case by saying that when the metaphor is used for Zion theology, it is only used positively. This ignores the requirement that those who dwell in God’s city should live righteously, and their failure to do so leads to judgment that may result in the city’s ruin.

69 represent the temple mount, and that is the reason why there is no appeal to Zion theology. Therefore, basic to a correct understanding of the personified city is to discern its target in each specific context, which will in turn determine the issue of her guilt. Where she stands for the sinful people, she is inevitably the adulterous wife, as portrayed in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. When the focus is on suffering as in Lamentations, she is the weeping mother city that is closely identified with her people’s pain as well as their fault. However in the Isaianic corpus, she personifies the place of God’s reign as a vulnerable virgin in PI and as a bereaved mother in DI, and the following chapter will show how DI assigns guilt not to her but to her people.

71

CHAPTER FOUR MOTHER ZION’S INNOCENCE

Most scholars attribute Zion’s destruction to her own idolatry and foreign alliances. Kamila Blessing writes that “it is noteworthy that all of the texts which make use of the mother-city metaphor demonstrate that guilt is the source of the desolation,” and Galambush believes that “condemnation of the city’s ‘adultery’ is virtually the only reason the metaphor is employed in depicting the cities of Israel.” Regarding Zion in DI, Galambush notes that “Daughter Zion” has been punished with bereavement of her children (51:18), forced drunkenness (51:17, 21-22), shameful widowhood (54:4), and God’s anger.1 Yet, other scholars such as Leland E. Wilshire, John F. A. Sawyer, Knud Jeppesen, Willey, Darr, and Dille argue for Zion’s innocence in DI.2 Wilshire and Sawyer identify mother Zion with the servant figure and point out that both are innocent. I will not enter into the debate of the identity of the servant but will only discuss his comparison with Zion. Wilshire points out, among other things, that just as the Servant is depicted as a vicarious sufferer (53:9), so Zion as a cult-center is an innocent representative sufferer for the people. He writes: The idea that Jerusalem has served its sentence and received “double for its sins” (40:2) is unique to this passage and is difficult to interpret. The word for sin (hatta’t) is not used elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah to refer to Zion-Jerusalem and is found in this book only in a few references to the sins of the nation Israel 1

2

Kamila Blessing, “Desolate Jerusalem and Barren Matriarch: Two Distinct Figures in the Pseudepigrapha,” JSP 18 (1998): 61-2. Thus, she contends that barren Jerusalem is never identified with the barren matriarch because the latter is barren through no fault of her own, while Jerusalem is made desolate because of her idolatry (p. 54). Galambush, Jerusalem, 27, 59. She cites 2 Sam 20:19 as the only instance where a personified city is not said to have committed adultery (p. 27 n. 5). Leland E. Wilshire, “Servant-city: A New Interpretation of the Servant of the Lord in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah,” JBL 94 (1975): 356-67; John F. A. Sawyer, “Daughter of Zion and Servant of the Lord in Isaiah: A Comparison,” JSOT 44 (1984): 89-107; Knud Jeppesen, “Mother Zion, Father Servant: A Reading of Isaiah 49-55,” in Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honor of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines, JSOTSup 162 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 109-25; Patricia Tull Willey, “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s Community,” SBLSP 34 (1995): 267303; Dille, Mixing; Darr, Isaiah’s Vision.

72 (43:24, 25; 44:22; 50:1). In Isa 48:2, however, a distinction is drawn between the sinful and the “holy city.”3 Wilshire explains that the reference to sin with regards to Jerusalem in 40:2 may be due to the merging of Israel and Zion-Jerusalem in the prologue of DI, but I have argued that “Jerusalem” in 40:2 is a parallel for the “my people” in 40:1 and not for Zion. Sawyer holds a similar view to Wilshire concerning Zion’s innocence. He adds that YHWH is like a bridegroom to Zion, wooing her and even apologizing for her suffering. In identifying Zion with the servant, Wilshire and Sawyer read Zion as a collective for the people in exile.4 However, not all agree with the identification of Zion with the servant. Jeppesen argues that the two metaphors run parallel but never cross each other. Willey notes that the masculine plural audience is enmeshed with the servant but is separated from Zion.5 Despite their similarities, there are also fundamental differences between Zion and the servant: The servant is described as suffering vicariously for the transgressions of others (Isaiah 53), but Zion’s suffering is the consequence of her children’s iniquities (50:1), and the servant is given a universal commission (e.g., 49:6 “light to the nations”), while Zion has a nationalistic role (e.g., 49:23 “they shall lick the dust of your feet”). Hence, the servant and Zion are better understood as metaphors of different entities. Nonetheless, Jeppesen and Willey also point out the innocence of Zion. Jeppesen says: In the preaching of Deutero-Isaiah, Zion/Jerusalem never played the harlot. “The shame of youth” refers probably to what happened in history and not to her sins. In Deutero-Isaiah there are no bills of divorcement for the mother, the children are sent away for their own iniquities, and the mother is sent away for the same reason.…As Zion/Jerusalem is not a harlot and not a figure who is responsible for the disaster, in Deutero-Isaiah no guilt is placed upon the Servant. In a way it is the guiltlessness of the mother and the father that forms the background of salvation, but the children must also recognize their own guilt.6 3

4 5

6

Wilshire, “Servant-city,” 362. He points out five other areas of similarities between the imageries of Zion and the Servant: both are formed in the womb (49:14-15//49:5); God will gather people to both (49:18//49:5); both suffer bodily punishment (51:17,18//50:6), are revived by the power of God (52:1//52:13), and will experience peace and prosperity (54:13//53:10). Additional similarities are noted by Willey, “Alternating Visions,” 302: both will have enemies bowing down to them (49:23//7), and YHWH’s arm is revealed before the nations through both (52:10/53:1). Sawyer, “Daughter of Zion,” 95, 104-5. Jeppesen, “Mother Zion,” 124; Willey, “Alternating Visions,” 302. She writes that the people are identified with Zion only at the last verse, 54:17, when they seem to have become servants of YHWH in Zion. Jeppesen, “Mother Zion,” 125.

73 Hence, scholars who make a distinction between Zion and the people recognize her innocence. The study of mother Zion’s innocence will focus on four passages in DI (49:14-26; 50:1-3; 51:17-52:2; 54:1-10).

I. ISAIAH 50:1-3 MOTHER ZION’S SEPARATION The interpretation of this text involves two issues: Is mother Zion justifiably divorced or merely separated, and is she identified with the children? It will be shown that Zion is the city that is only separated from YHWH.

A.

TRANSLATION 1 Thus says YHWH: Where then is your mother's certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? See, because of your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away. 2 Why when I came and there was no man? Why when I called none answered? Is my hand too short to ransom? Or have I no power to deliver? See, by my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a desert; their fish stink for lack of water, and die of thirst. 3 I clothe the heavens with darkness, and make sackcloth their covering.

B.

THE UNIT: FORM STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT

50:1-3 is distinguished from the preceding and following texts by a change of speaker and addressee. YHWH turns to Zion’s children after addressing Zion herself in 49:14-26, and in 50:4-11, it is the Servant who speaks to people. Nonetheless, the text has close links with the surrounding oracles. Like the earlier unit, 50:1-3 continues the imagery of Zion and her children within a disputation framework, and like 50:8-11, 50:1-3 uses a similar stylistic device: questions answered by a statement beginning with K (see).7 Also, 50:1-3 ends on a note of judgment rather than salvation, forming an inclusio with 50:10-11. Therefore, this text functions as a bridge between the oracles of salvation in 49:14-26 and the servant’s song in 50:4-11. After God’s promise to rescue Zion’s children, the latter still refuse to respond, accusing God of having divorced their mother and doubting God’s ability to save. This passive

7

Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 317, and Roy F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40-55, BZAW 141 (Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter,1976), 153, highlight questions beginning with \P (who) that are found in 50:1, 8, 9, 10.

74 disobedience is then contrasted with the faithful response of the Servant in the following section 50:4-9.8 In terms of form-criticism, the pericope may be read as a disputation or as a trial speech. Roy F. Melugin prefers the first description within which vv. 1-2a imitate a trial speech, while Westermann reads the whole unit as a trial with v. 2b as the rejoinder to the implied charge that God no longer had the ability to help Israel.9 A. Schoors and Melugin argue that the divine speech in v. 2a employs technical legal conventions: DZE (come), DUT (call), and KQ> (answer), which also occur in the trial speech of Isa 41:26b, 28. Thus, they interpret v. 2a as the plaintiffs’ silent admission of guilt. However, Koole disagrees that these are legal terms: In a trial, DZE is always followed by MSYPE (into judgment), DUT is also used for the calling of Israel, the servant, and Cyrus, and the word pair KQ>DUT also occurs with a call to repentance (65:12; 66:4).10 50:2a is, therefore, better read as a call for response rather than as a trial speech.11 The failure to respond then leads to the questions in v. 2b that inveigh against the people for their inaction and lack of faith. Based on the above interpretation, I propose the following outline for Isa 50:1-3: v. 1

YHWH disputes the first complaint: Disputation questions: Where is evidence of your mother’s bill of divorce? To which of my creditors are you sold? Assertion of Innocence: See, because of your transgression you were sold, and your mother was put away.

vv. 2-3 YHWH disputes the second complaint : v. 2a,b Disputation questions: Why did no one answer when I came? Is my hand too short to ransom? v. 2c-3 Assertion of Power: See, YHWH’s power to judge 8

Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 393-4, suggests that the ones who refused to listen to God in 50:2 are the ones who inflict abuse on the servant and are condemned in 50:6-11. 9 Melugin, Formation, 53; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 224. 10 A. Schoors, I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. xllv, VTSup 24 (Leiden, Brill, 1973), 198; Melugin, Formation, 51; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:92; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:316. 11 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:92, interprets 50:2a as God’s past call for repentance before the exile, but most commentators (e.g., Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:316; Childs, Isaiah, 393-4) read it as a call to respond to DI’s exilic message to depart from Babylon (48:20). Dille, Mixing, 166, suggests that v. 2a is spoken by Zion as an accusation against YHWH, but this would disrupt YHWH’s dispute with the children, and as pointed out above, v. 2a reflects the language of YHWH’s arraignment against the people.

75 The first part of the implicit complaint that YHWH has divorced Zion is not reflected in any communal lament. However, the second part that YHWH has sold the people to creditors is echoed in psalms of lament (e.g., Ps 44:12). Both of these complaints are rejected by YHWH for lack of evidence. Rather, the responsibility for the people’s sorry state of affairs is laid upon their own heads. Where 50:1 had demanded evidence for the people’s accusations, 50:2c-3 presents evidence for YHWH’s power that ironically has to do with destruction rather than deliverance, thus implying that judgment will fall on those who refuse to share in the “new exodus.”12

C.

ISSUES OF ZION’S INNOCENCE

1.

Zion – Separated or Divorced?

YHWH’s disputation in 50:1 appears contradictory at first sight because on the one hand, there is no bill of divorce (as required by Deut 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house… [NRSV]) with which the mother was “sent away,” but on the other hand, the mother is indeed “sent away.” Some commentators explain this as YHWH denying that the mother was divorced for arbitrary reasons and that the accusers are being told to check the divorce paper for the reason. That is, they think that Zion has indeed been divorced and that YHWH is merely justifying that divorce based on Israel’s transgressions.13 However, this interpretation does not fit with YHWH’s rhetorical questions in 50:1a that there is indeed (stated emphatically by K]\D)14 no certificate of divorce nor are there any creditors to whom YHWH is indebted. Nonetheless, 50:1b says that the children are “sold” because of their sins and that Zion is “sent away” because of their transgressions. This implies that “sold” and “sent away” in v. 1b are not used in the same way as in v. 1a, but as Whybray proposes, there is a play on the double meanings of these words. The first “sold” in v. 1a refers to “a transfer of the custodianship of Israel from YHWH to the Babylonians, an arrangement which was not necessarily permanent” and should be translated as “handed over.”15 However, the second “sold” refers to the military defeat of Israel on account of their sins, a judgment that is also described in other texts as YHWH “selling” the people (Deut 32:30; 12 13 14 15

Koole, Isaiah III, 2:99; Childs, Isaiah, 394. Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:201; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:89; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 225. BDB, 32, explains that a contracted \D is strengthened by an enclitic K]. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 149; followed by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:315.

76 Judg 2:14; 3:8, etc). In the same way, while “sent away” in 50:1a is a legal term for divorce (cf. Deut 24:1), in 50:1b, it refers to a physical separation or a hiatus in the relationship and so, there is no hindrance to a resumption of the marital relationship. The piel of [OY used in Isa 50:1 is also found in 2 Sam 3:16 where Tamar pleaded with Amnon not to send her away after raping her. This is not a case of divorce but of physical and social separation. Another text in Gen 21:8-14 provides a close comparison of a woman who was “sent away” because of her son’s deeds. At Sarah’s behest, Abraham “sent” (piel of [OY) Hagar and Ishmael away because of Ishmael’s behavior toward Isaac, thus denying him a share in the paternal inheritance. This is primarily a case of disinheritance of one’s slave children, which is provided for by ancient Near Eastern laws. Laws of Hammurabi 171 states: If the father during his lifetime should not declare to (or concerning) the children whom the slave woman bore to him, “My children,” after the father goes to this fate, the children of the slave woman will not divide the property of the paternal estate with the children of the first-ranking wife. The release of the slave woman and of her children shall be secured; the children of the first-ranking wife will not make claims of slavery against the children of the slave woman….16

Despite this act of disinheritance, God promised to bless Ishmael because he is regarded as Abraham’s offspring (Gen 21:13; 25:9). As for Hagar, it is not clear whether her being “sent away” is a legal or physical separation, but it was certainly on account of her son. Thus, Darr writes that Zion’s “dismissal resulted from the children’s rebellion, and not from misdeeds on her part. Since Zion is blameless and no formal statement of divorce exists, Yahweh can reclaim his wife.”17 2.

Zion – Personification of People or City?

Some scholars, like Goldingay and Koole, think that the children are seen as one with their literal parents in this text.18 However as pointed out above, 50:1-3 is closely related to the preceding 49:14-26 where mother Zion clearly represents 16 Roth, Law Collections, 114. 17 Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 176. Interestingly, this is consistent with Jeremiah’s portrayal: Wife Israel is given a certificate of divorce (Jer 3:8) so that according to the law against palingamy (Deut 24:1-4), YHWH will not accept her again (Jer 3:1), but no certificate is given to wife Judah even though she follows in Israel’s footsteps. Thus, the people as wife Judah are sent away, but there is the possibility of return. 18 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:201; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:52.

77 the city, indicated by reference to her “walls,” “land,” and “space” for settlement. Further, Willey points out that the masculine plural addressees in DI (identified as “my witnesses,” “offspring of Israel/Jacob,” “house of Israel/Jacob”) are distinct from Zion to whom they are returning as her children from across the expanse of the wilderness. She adds, “Perhaps the frequent alternation between the servant and Zion in chapters 49-55 is on some level an attempt to bridge the barrier of distance between the city and exilic Israel.”19 In sum, Zion does not represent the people and their guilt, but as the city, she is the innocent mother that was separated from YHWH because of the children’s sins.

II. ISAIAH 49:14-26 MOTHER ZION’S COMPLAINT Zion complains in 49:14 that YHWH has forsaken her, but is this an implied admission of guilt or a valid protest? I will show that Zion is acting aptly by calling on YHWH to restore the people to her and that the various metaphors for Zion in this text also affirm her innocence.

A.

TRANSLATION 14 But Zion said, "YHWH has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me." 15 Can a woman forget her nursing child, or have no compassion20 for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, but as for me, I will not forget you. 16 Lo, upon my palms I have inscribed you, your walls are before me always. 17 Your sons/builders21 come quickly,

19 Willey, Remember, 181. 20 The MT has a[HUPH, but BHS suggests that this should be pointed as a participle, i.e., “one having compassion.” This, together with “woman,” would then be the antecedents for the plural KOD in the next colon. However, such a proposed participle would lack a feminine ending. M. Dahood, “Denominative rihham, “to conceive, enwomb,” Bib 44 (1963), 204, relates a[HUP to the noun a[U (womb) and translates it as “one pregnant,” a word that would not need a feminine ending. But Koole, Isaiah III, 2:54, argues that the word does not occur in this sense in biblical Hebrew. Moreover, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:308, points out that the infinitive is supported by the LXX. The plural KOD may be understood as referring to mothers like the one described, since many mothers do forget in times of crisis, e.g., Lam 4:10.  21 \QEin the MT is pointed as “your sons,” which is supported by Symmachus, the Peshitta and a version of the Targum. It is also substantiated contextually by the children motif in the literary unit, e.g., vv. 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25. However, it is vocalized as “your builders” in 1QIsaa, Aquila, Theodotian, the Vulgate, another version of the Targum, and

78 and your destroyers22 and ravagers will go away from you. 18 Lift up your eyes all around and see – all of them are gathered, they come to you. As I live, declares YHWH, all of them like ornaments you will put on, and will bind them on like a bride. 19 Surely your wastelands and your desolations and the land of your destructionssurely now you will be cramped with settlers, while those who engulfed you will be far away. 20 The children of your bereavement will yet say in your ears: "The place is too cramped for me; make room for me so that I may settle." 21 Then you will say in your heart, "Who has borne for me these? I was bereaved and barren,23 so these who has reared? Lo, I was left all alone, but these - where have they come from?" 22 Thus says the Lord YHWH: Behold, I will lift up my hand against24 the nations, and raise my ensign against the peoples; and they shall bring your sons in their bosom, the LXX’s “you will be built.” This is also supported by the context in v. 16 with the reference to “walls” and in v. 17 with the contrast to “destroyers” and “those who laid you waste.” The consonantal word, thus, functions as a double entendre for the builders who are also the sons. See Shalom Paul, “Polysemous Pivotal Function,” in Texts, Temples and Traditions (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 372; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:58. Since this is impossible to show in English, I have included both words in the translation. 22 MT points \VUKP as piel participle, but LXX and IQIsaa may suggest a comparative P with the more common qal participle, \VUK (than your destroyers). Although the latter results in a better metrical balance, the former presents a better contrast in the parallel colons. The MT is better because the alternative reading “your sons are faster than your destroyers,” implying a delayed retreat by the enemies, does not make sense, especially when they are expected to be far away in 49:19. 23 The MT and 1QIsaa have an additional phrase KUZVZKOJ “exiled and turned away” that is lacking in the LXX. Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:192, follows the MT as the words echo Amos 6:7, “they will go into exile at the head of those who go into exile, and the revelry of the carefree will pass away.” However, Koole, Isaiah III, 2:65, and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:309, point out that the phrase is metrically intrusive. Further, Koole adds that DI does not describe Zion as being exiled, rather it is her children who return from foreign parts, and Blenkinsopp explains the phrase as a gloss on the metaphoric “bereaved and barren.” Koole and Blenkinsopp are correct to say that Zion is portrayed as a city that needs to be rebuilt and repopulated rather than returned from exile. 24 Contrary to the usual understanding in most English versions, I translate the preposition OD as “against” rather than “to.” This will be extensively discussed in Chapter Six (pp. 224-8).

79 and your daughters shall be lifted on their shoulders. 23 Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing maids. With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and the dust of your feet they shall lick. Then you will know that I am YHWH; those who wait for me shall not be ashamed. 24 Can plunder be taken from the strong man, or captives of a victor be rescued? 25 But thus says YHWH: Even the captives of the warrior shall be taken, and the plunder of the tyrant be rescued; for with your contender, I myself will contend, and your children, I myself will save. 26 I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am YHWH, your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

B.

THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT

The unit begins with v. 14 after the previous section that focuses on the Servant’s mission. However, there are some disagreements about whether the unit should end with vv. 21, 23, or 26. Koole argues that Zion’s speeches in v. 14 and v. 21 form an inclusio,25 which is supported by the petucha after v. 21 in MT and 1QIsaa, while messenger formulas begin new units in vv. 22-23 and 2426, both of which end with a setuma. However, Westermann points out that vv. 14-26 makes up a disputation with proclamations of salvation in response to Zion’s three laments in vv. 14, 21, and 24.26 While agreeing with Westermann’s form-critical analysis, several commentators clarify that the questions in v. 21 (“Who has borne for me these?...these who has reared?...where have they come from?”) are not laments but expressions of Zion’s joyful bewilderment at the return of her children.27 Schoors sees v. 21 as a transition to the next proclamation of salvation: “It is a reflection of Zion on the first salvation word, but at the same time it acts as the beginning of another proclamation.” And even though Melugin thinks that v. 21 does not contain genuine questions to be answered, the present arrangement of 25 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:50. 26 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 217. 27 Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 143; Melugin, Formation, 150, also points out that v. 24 is not a typical lament but is a complaint occasioned by the exile.

80 the text provides the answer in vv. 22-23.28 In fact, it should be noted that v. 21 attributes Zion’s words to YHWH rather than to herself, and so it is not strictly an inclusio with v. 14. In fact, Graffy points out that KQK (behold) in v. 22 parallels K (lo) in v. 16 so that vv. 22-23 may be understood as the resumption of the refutation began in v. 16.29 That vv. 24-26 is also part of this unit is highlighted by Graffy’s observation that vv. 24-25 have a similar grammatical structure with v. 15: K (interrogative particle) answered by Z…aJ (even…but/and), and is, therefore, a continuation of the disputation:30 15 Can a woman forget ([NYWK) her nursing child, or have no compassion for the child of her womb? Even (aJ) these may forget, but (Z) as for me, I will not forget you. 24 Can plunder be taken ([T\K) from the strong man, or captives of a victor be rescued? 25 But thus says YHWH: Even (aJ) the captives of the warrior shall be taken, and (Z) the plunder of the tyrant be rescued; …

Unfortunately, Graffy omits v. 26 in his analysis and overlooks the fact that it parallels the recognition formula in v. 23 (“Then all flesh shall know that I am YHWH…” //”Then you will know that I am YHWH…”). Thus, vv. 24-26 are part of the entire disputation with Zion beginning in v. 14, while the following section 50:1-3, which was discussed previously, is YHWH’s disputation with Zion’s children. Verses 14-26 consist of two complaints by Zion that God disputes and refutes: first, a lament with a two-part refutation in vv. 16-23, and a second complaint and refutation in vv. 24-26.

28 Schoors, I Am God, 107; Melugin, Formation, 151. 29 Adrian Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, AnBib 104 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984), 92. Additionally, these two verses also refer to YHWH’s hand – a\SN (palms) in v. 16 and G\ (hand) in v. 22. 30 Graffy, A Prophet Confronts, 91. Graffy interprets both v. 15 and vv. 24-25 as YHWH’s rhetorical questions and solemn declarations to assure Zion, taking the exiles in vv. 24-25 as YHWH’s captives, rather than as Babylon’s. However, it is in v. 25 that YHWH begins to speak as indicated by the messenger formula. Thus, the questions in v. 24 should be regarded as Zion’s complaint, which in the context raises an objection to the preceding promise in vv. 22-23 (cf. Koole, Isaiah III, 2:71). This reading would be consistent with the messenger formula in v. 22 that supplies God’s response to Zion’s questions in v. 21.

81 Both Graffy and Murray offer rhetorical analysis of the disputation speech31 that I adapt and present below: v. 14 Zion’s lament:

YHWH has forsaken and forgotten me

v. 15 Dispute by YHWH: vv. 16-20

vv. 22-23

v. 23c

Can a mother forget? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you. First Refutation by YHWH: vv. 16-17 See YHWH’s inscription on palms: Zion rebuilt vv. 18-20 See YHWH’s oath: Zion repopulated v. 21 Zion’s response: Who has borne for me these? Second Refutation by YHWH (with messenger formula): v, 22 See YHWH lifts hand: Children returns v. 23a,b Reversal of foreign nations Recognition formula: You will know that I am YHWH

v. 24 Zion’s second complaint: Can prey be taken from the warrior? v. 25 Dispute by YHWH (with messenger formula): Even captives of the warrior shall be taken, for I will contend for you. v. 26a v. 26b

Refutation by YHWH: Reversal of the oppressors Recognition formula: All flesh will know that I am YHWH

The first lament questions God’s willingness to save Zion, and the second questions God’s ability to do so, especially in the face of Babylonian might. In terms of the larger context, there are several links to the Servant in 49:1-13 by references to YHWH’s compassion (a[U) in vv. 10, 13, 15 (which do not appear in chapters 40-48), desolate places (aPY) in vv. 8, 19, and kings falling prostrate (KZ[) in vv. 7, 23.32 The copula with which v. 14 begins (but/and) suggests a close link with what precedes but is, nonetheless, a new section where Zion 31 Graffy, A Prophet Confronts, 92; D. F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Reexamination of a Prophetic Genre,” JSOT 38 (1987): 105, also does a similar rhetorical analysis but only of 49:14-21. He sees v. 14 as the thesis of Zion’s lament, v. 15 as YHWH’s dispute, and vv. 16-21 as a further counter-thesis by YHWH. 32 Andrew Wilson, The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study on Composition and Structure (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986), 283-4, points out other parallels: The careers of the Servant and Zion both begin in the womb (vv. 1, 15), both complain and are assured by YHWH (vv. 4, 15), YHWH lifts up (aZU) his highway and his banner for the return of the exiles (vv. 11, 22), a threefold repetition of KOD denotes the exiles as they return from all corners of the earth to Zion (vv. 12, 21), and finally, there is universal recognition by all nature and all flesh (vv. 13, 26).

82 speaks for the first time.33 However, there are also differences between the servant and Zion: The servant laments but ends with a word of hope in v. 4, but Zion only laments. Further, the subjection of the kings to the Servant is not as abject as that to Zion (vv. 7, 23 “the dust of your feet they shall lick”), and the military description of the Servant only applies to his mouth (v. 2), while Zion’s enemies are made to eat their own flesh (v. 26). Finally, the universal recognition of YHWH in v. 13 is one of joy and comfort to Israel, while v. 26 is an implicit threat to Israel’s enemies. These distinctions will be taken up in the chapter on Zion’s nationalism. 50:1-3 follows 49:14-26 with a similar disputation concerning Zion and her children, beginning also with rhetorical questions.34 However, the addressee changes from Zion to her children, and 50:1-3 is a message of rebuke rather than salvation, indicating that it is a separate though related unit.

C.

ISSUES OF ZION’S INNOCENCE

1.

Zion’s Lament (v. 14)

Zion’s lament in v. 14, “YHWH has forsaken (E]>) me, my Lord has forgotten ([NY) me,” recalls Lam 5:20, “Why have you forgotten ([NY) us completely? Why have you forsaken (E]>) us these many days?” This allusion raises two issues: If Zion is identified with the people, is she also identified with their confession of sin in Lamentations? Second, is Zion raising a petulant complaint or a legitimate accusation against YHWH? The allusion to Lamentations is identified by markers consisting of the word pair [NY and E]>. Willey points out that the pairing of these two verbs, while seemingly common, rarely appear together, and in no other instance in reference to YHWH’s abandonment.35 There is also a thematic coherence between the two texts based on their lament over the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. The second step is then to consider the evoked text as a whole in relation to the alluding text, and in fact, Willey points out many other reminiscences of Lamentations in the whole unit of Isa 49:14-26:

33 Dille, Mixing, 138-9, connects the hymn in v. 13 with Zion rather than with the preceding servant passage because she links “comfort” and “compassion” with Zion. However, v. 13 focuses on God’s “people” (v. 8, 9), while vv. 14-26 focus on comfort for mother Zion. 34 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:182. 35 Willey, Remember, 189. [NY and E]> appear only in two other verses: Prov 2:17 and Isa 65:11.

83 Jerusalem’s wall ($/%,L Lam 2:5; see also verse 2, 8), but now the swallowers \,>/EP, Isa 49:19) are sharply distinguished from YHWH, and are far away. Once Zion begged YHWH to see her narrow straits brought on by death and bereavement (\OLUF, Lam 1:20), but now the returning children will complain of narrow straits – of overcrowding (\OLUF, Isa 49:20)….Whereas once the kings of the earth (UD \NHOP   Lam 4:12) witness in horror the city’s destruction, now these kings (a\NLOP, Isa 49:7; 49:23) bear witness to its exaltation, bringing home its exiles and bowing to Zion. Affirming the hope of Lam 3:25, “Good is YHWH to one who hopes in him” (Z$ TO KZK\! E$M), YHWH announces, “The one who hopes in me will not be ashamed (\ZTR :YER\( DO^, Isa 49:23). In accordance with the request of Lam 3:58, “Contend, Lord, with my contenders” (\YLSQ  \EH\U, \QGD R @ 7 EU) , YHWH promises “I myself will contend with your contenders” (E\U,D \NLQD 2  EH\UL\! WDZ! Isa 49:25). In fact, YHWH promises to make Zion’s enemies resort to the atrocities to which her people had resorted: “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and as with wine with their own blood they will be drunk” (Isa 49:26; see Lam 2:20; 4:10, 21). Thus Zion’s introductory complaint has unleashed a cascade of arguments that YHWH has not forgotten at all.36

Because Zion echoes Lamentations, Seitz thinks that this implies her guilt.37 However, while Lam 5:20 is spoken by the people who acknowledge their sin, Zion in Isa 49:14 is the city, indicated by references to her “walls” (v. 16), “ruins” (v. 19), and “place” (v. 20).38 Moreover, while Lam 5:20 is spoken to YHWH, Zion in Isa 49:14 does not address YHWH but some third person, probably the audience. This compares with the speech of the servant to other peoples in 49:1-4 and indicates that Zion is not representing the people but is speaking to them, and therefore, she does not necessarily identify with their sins. Willey further argues that the prayer of Lam 5:20 is recontextualized and recast in the mouth of Zion so that it is no longer a question but an accusation of YHWH. Because Zion’s statement comes after the panoramic context of divine 36 Willey, Remember, 191. 37 Christopher R. Seitz, “Isaiah 40-66,” NIB 6:341. He writes: “Lamentations contains a far greater proportion of acknowledged guilt and wrongdoing on Zion’s part than we find in Isaiah. That is because that discourse and those circumstances are presupposed here,….” 38 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:52, recognizes these references but argues that Israel can only live as God’s people in Jerusalem and that Zion is the symbol and realization of Israel as God’s people. Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:187, and Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 219, take a similar view. However, Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 143, Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 305, and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:310, regard Zion as the city.

84 assurances recounted by DI, Willey says that her words “exhibits blindness to all that God has been doing to renew and restore,….”39 However, Linafelt has a different view: The description of YHWH’s comfort for the afflicted ones in 49:13 in fact has nothing to do with Zion, but rather with YHWH’s people, that is those in exile…. It is Zion’s complain in 49:14 that marks the point of transition to Jerusalem. Zion has remained, in the ideology of Second Isaiah if not in reality, abandoned and forgotten,….40

Linafelt has the better view because in 49:1-15, God announces that the prisoners will be liberated through the servant, but there is no picture of them reaching home yet. The copula “but” beginning in v. 14 implies that Zion raises an issue in connection with their return: How can the people have a home if God has abandoned and forgotten the city? Thus, DI transforms the lament of a sinful people into a poignant protest by the city, and this time, instead of the people being met with YHWH’s chilling silence in Lamentations, mother Zion is herself comforted by YHWH’s motherly assurance. 2.

Metaphors for Zion

a.

Infant

In 49:15, God is presented as the ideal mother, which casts Zion as God’s child. Specifically, she is identified with a nursing newborn child whose wants God is obliged to meet. Darr examines the constituent elements associated with children in her study: limited knowledge and competence for which there is no criticism (e.g., Isa 10:11; 11:8), and stereotypical notions of weakness, vulnerability, and innocence (e.g., Isa 10:8; 65:20). Because of such vulnerability, young children require adult nurture and protection without which they fall victim to natural or social endangerment. In ancient times, progeny were precious to their parents and constituted a family’s only hope for a future beyond the lifespan of its adult members so that profound love and familial longevity are associated with infants (e.g., Isa 9:1-6). Thus, the metaphor of a suckling child for Zion highlights her vulnerability, dependence, and innocence. Though needy, she is not at fault.

39 Willey, Remember, 190. Dille, Mixing, 139, reiterates that Zion’s statement is an accusation. 40 Linafelt, Surviving, 74-5.

85 b.

Bride

Verse 18b describes Zion as a bride who puts on her children/builders like ornaments.41 The cultural elements in the source “bride” include leaving her family (2 Sam 17:3; Ps 45:10), being adorned (Isa 61:10; Jer 2:32), devoted love (Jer 2:2; Song 4:10), joy (Isa 62:5; Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11), and virginity (Song 4:12, Deut 22:20-21). DI thus presents Zion as a virtuous bride rather than as a whoring wife.42 The similarities between Isa 49:15, 18 and Jer 2:23 have been noted: “Can a girl forget her ornaments, or a bride her bands? Yet my people have forgotten me, days without number.” Four markers are found in Isa 49:15, 18 that do not occur elsewhere: [NY (forget), \G> (ornaments), KON (bride), and UYT (band), and in fact, Willey points out that the feminine verb [NYWK is found nowhere else in the Bible other than in these two verses.43 In terms of coherence, both texts discuss the theme of forgetfulness in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem. DI reverses the judgment in Jer 2:32-37 by showing that in contrast to forgetful human beings, God will not forget Zion but will restore her to her bridal state. Willey writes that “Second Isaiah has changed the ingredients of an accusation into those of a promise.”44 Notably, the metaphor is applied to different targets: In Jeremiah, the bride is the people who forget God, but in DI, the bride is the city that God will not forget. Since Zion is not the people, she is not the amnesiac maiden in Jeremiah. In summary, Zion takes up the people’s questions at the end of Lamentations and turns them into crucial remonstrations. While the people in Lamentations repent of their sins, Zion is treated as a blameless newborn and as 41 It has been observed that this metaphor is awkward since a bride is not yet a mother, but the people that she puts on are also the builders in v. 17 who return to beautify her. 42 In v. 16, Zion’s walls are said to be inscribed on God’s palms. Some commentators think this is a parallel to 44:5 where God’s people have God’s name written on their hands. But Blenkinsopp disagrees, and indeed, these two verses employ different vocabulary. Rather, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:311 and Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 144, compare the inscription to the statue of King Gudea holding the outline of the Sumerian city of Lagash on his lap. Zion is, thus, the city that God builds, implying that she must be fit for the presence of God. Further, since Zion is personified as a woman, Islwyn Blythin, “A Note on Isaiah xlix 1617,” VT 16 (1966): 229-230, suggests that the word “walls” may also be taken as a metaphor for the virtues of a woman as described in Song 8:9, 10. “This literary device is apposite for expressing the idea of imposing beauty and that of guardianship of the seed of life and hope for the future.” 43 Willey, Remember, 198. 44 Willey, Remember, 200. Sommer, Prophet Reads, 37, also points out that the motif of jewelry from Jer 2:32 is not used to criticize Zion.

86 a remembered bride. In DI, Zion is neither the unclean people of Lamentations nor the absentminded people of Jeremiah but the innocent city that God cares for. We will now turn to another text where the use of a metaphor in relation to Zion may seem less innocuous.

III. ISAIAH 51:17-52:2 MOTHER ZION’S CUP OF WRATH The issue in this text is whether the “cup of wrath” that Jerusalem drank from YHWH’s hand connotes her guilt. I will show that DI downplays the element of guilt and highlights Zion’s suffering instead, and by intertextual allusions to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, he attributes guilt for the cup to the people.

A.

TRANSLATION 51:17 Rouse yourself, rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of YHWH the cup of his wrath, the goblet, the cup of reeling, you have drunk, you have drained. 18 There is none guiding her from all the children she has borne; none taking her by the hand from all the children she has brought up. 19 These two things have befallen you, who will grieve with you? wrack and ruin, famine and sword, who am I to comfort you?45 20 Your children have fainted, they lie at the corner of every street like antelopes in a net; the ones filled with the wrath of YHWH, the rebuke of your God.

45 The MT has a first person singular P[QD (I will comfort you) in the phrase P[QD \P that is usually emended to a third person with P[Q\, i.e., “who will comfort you?” The third person is found in all the versions including 1QIsaa, with the exception of the Targum that reads, “Who am I to comfort you?” Some have explained the D as an orthographical variation of \ at the beginning at a word. However, as Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:251, argues, it is not clear why one isolated instance should be misspelled. Mitchell Dahood, “Isaiah 51,19 and Sefire III22,” Bib 56 vol. 1 (1975): 94-95, suggests that it should be read as P[QD \P (who will groan over you?), But Koole, Isaiah III, 2:202, points out that [QD only occurs in the niphal, and “over you” should be written as PP. The MT is the lectio difficilior and may be read like the Targum. The first person verb is also found in similar passages Lam 2:13 and Nah 3:7. In fact, it is likely that the prophet had Lam 2:13 in mind, since he also quotes Lam 2:19 in Isa 51: 20 concerning Zion’s children fainting “at the head of every street.” Although Koole objects to this reading, saying that DI is always comforting Zion, Isa 51:17-20 is describing Zion’s past suffering. Sommer, Prophet, 130, also argues that DI borrowed from Lamentations without harmonizing its grammatical forms with its new context. He says, “This practice, which results in slight incongruities, occurs often in allusion in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East.”

87 21 Therefore please hear this, afflicted one, drunk but not with wine: 22 Thus says your lord YHWH, your God who contends for his people: Herewith I take from your hand the cup of reeling; the goblet, the cup of my wrath, you shall never drink again. 23 And I will place it in the hand of your tormentors, who said to your soul, "Bow down, that we may pass over;” and you have placed your back like the ground and like the street for passer-bys. 52:1 Awake, awake, clothe yourself with your strength, O Zion! Clothe yourself with your garments of splendor, O Jerusalem, holy city; for never again shall the uncircumcised and unclean enter you. 2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, sit enthroned46 O Jerusalem; loose the bonds from your neck, O captive lady Zion!

B.

THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT

51:17-23 is a unit addressing Zion, while 52:1-2 is usually regarded as a separate unit that belongs more closely with 52:3-7. That the unit begins in 51:17 is clear, as the text turns from a largely masculine singular address in 51:12-1647 to a second feminine singular address. This continues into 52:1-2, followed by oracles to masculine plural persons in vv. 3-6. Despite the \N (for) at the beginning of v. 3, the difference in addressees argues against v. 3 as the continuation of vv. 1-2. The MT also has a setuma after v. 2. In fact, vv. 3-6 are often regarded as secondary because of the prose form, the profusion of framing formulas, and the expression DZKKaZ\E (on that day) that is not found elsewhere in DI.48 52:7-10 should then continue after vv. 1-2, and though it is similarly about Zion, the text describes her less as a woman and more as a city with sentinels (v. 8) and ruins (v. 9): 7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, "Your God reigns." 46 The MT and other versions have \EY, the feminine imperative of EY\, although some emend it to K\EY as a parallel with “O captive Maiden Jerusalem.” However, to be enthroned fits the imagery of putting on “garments of splendor.” It also functions as an antithesis to Isa 47:1 where Babylon is personified as a woman judged by God and is told, “Sit (\EY) on the ground, with no throne, O Lady Chaldea.” 47 51:12 is an exception: “I, I am he who comforts you (masculine plural); why then are you (feminine singular) afraid of a mere mortal who must die,…?” (NRSV). The feminine reference would be to Zion, but in this context, she represents the people, cf. 51:16: “You (masculine singular) are my people.” 48 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 248.

88 8 Listen! Your sentinels lift up their voices, together they sing for joy; for in plain sight they see the return of the LORD to Zion. 9 Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. 10 The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. (NRSV)

Zion is also referred to in the third person in vv. 7 and 8 so that the message seems directed more at the audience, indicated by the reference in v. 10 to the salvation of “our” God, and indeed, vv. 11-12 continue with imperatives to the people to leave Babylon. Further, Melugin points out echoes of 51:9-11 in 52:710: the arm of YHWH (51:9, 52:10), a[Q (51:12, 52:9), and ODJ (51:10; 52:9)49 so that 51:9-11 and 52:7-10 form a chiastic parallel surrounding 51:12-16 addressed to the people and 51:17-52:2 addressed to Zion (taking 52:3-6 as an interpolation). Melugin points out that 52:1-2 is a thematic continuation of 51:17-23, functioning as a word of comfort that exhorts mourner Jerusalem to put on new clothes.50 In fact, 51:17-52:2 is a chiastic antithesis to the judgment of personified Babylon in 47:1-9:51 two (a\WY) calamities are pronounced in 51:19 and 47:9; “WD]DQ\>PYK\Q>” (“Hear this please, afflicted one”) in 51:21 parallels “KQ\G> WD]\>PY” (“Hear this, dainty one”) in 47:8; Zion will \S\VZWDO (no longer) drink the cup in 51:22, while Babylon will also \S\VZW DO be called the mistress of kingdoms in 47:5; Zion is to clothe herself in 52:1, but Babylon is to strip off her robe in 47:2; and finally, 52:2 exhorts Zion to “rise up,” “shake of the dust (US>),” and to “sit enthroned (\EY),” while Babylon is to “sit (\EY) in the dust (US>)” and to “sit, dethroned, on the ground” in 47:1. Finally, the first and last verses of 51:17-52:2 form an inclusio with imperatives of UZ> (awake; repeated twice) and \PZT (arise). Form-critically, 51:17-23 is a mixture of a word of comfort (vv.17-20) that culminates in an announcement of salvation (vv. 21-23).52 Verses 17-20 presuppose a lament that Schoors points out has two motifs: accusation against YHWH (v. 17bc) and a picture of distress (vv. 18-20).53 52:1-2, according to 49 Melugin, Formation, 164-5. 50 Melugin, Formation, 152; Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 213, also takes the unit as 51:9-52:2. 51 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:253-4; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:205; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:340; Mark Biddle, “Lady Zion’s Alter Egos: Isaiah 47:1-15 and 47:6-13 as Structural Counterparts,” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. R. F. Melugin and M. Sweeney (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1997): 132. 52 Schoors, God Your Savior, 128; Melugin, Formation, 161; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:196. 53 Schoors, God Your Savior, 129; also Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 245.

89 Melugin, is an imitation of a word of comfort to mourners. I propose, then, the following structure for 51:17-52:2: 51:17-20

Words of comfort to mourner Jerusalem v. 17 Call: to rouse self Lament: cup of wrath from YHWH’s hand v. 18-20 Mourning over Zion: No children to take her by the hand, but who lie at the head of every street who are full of the rebuke of her God

51:21-23

Announcement of salvation v. 21 Call to hear: to the wounded one v. 22a Messenger formula: YHWH, her God who contends for his people v. 22b Announcement of Intervention: YWHH has taken cup of wrath from Zion’s hand v. 22c-23 Consequences of Intervention: YHWH puts cup into the hand of her tormentors who walked on her back like a street

52:1-2

Words of Comfort to mourner Zion/Jerusalem v. 1 Call to awake and put on garments v. 2 Call to rise up and sit enthroned54

As noted above, 51:17-52:2 is part of the larger context of 51:9-52:10. It was pointed out that 52:11-12 continues with imperatives to the exiles to come out of Babylon, and in fact, the double imperatives (ZUZV) in 52:11 mirror the double imperatives (UZ>) found in 51:9, 17, and 52:2. As Melugin points out, the images of 52:11-12 are also cultic like those in 52:1-2 (e.g., DPM “unclean” is repeated in both sections). Also, 51:9-52:12 begins and ends with the Exodus imagery – it moves from a lament that appeals to YHWH’s arm to perform an Exodus like 54 Besides the inclusio in 51:17 and 52:2, there is a chiastic reversal of Jerusalem’s past and present conditions around the motifs of “hand,” “cup of wrath,” “street,” and “her God.” At the beginning in 51:17-20a, Jerusalem drinks from the hand of YHWH the cup of his wrath, with the result that there is no one to take her by the hand because her children have fainted and lie on the head of every street. At the end in 51:22b-23, God removes from her hand the cup of his wrath and puts it into the hand of her tormentors who had walked on her back like a street. In the middle of the chiasm, her children faint at the rebuke of her God in 51:20b, but in 51:22, her God is described as the one who contends for his people. 51:21 is thus the pivotal point with the compassionate call to Zion to hear what God is going to do.

90 before (51:9-11) to a command that inaugurates a new and better Exodus (52:1112).55 At the center of this movement is the restoration of Zion so that she can awake from her drunken stupor and act like the arm of YHWH (52:1). Yet, her strength is not to do battle but to claim her rightful place of royalty – the place where her God reigns (52:7).

C.

THE CUP OF WRATH

This section explores the constituent elements of the cup of wine that is used as a metaphor for YHWH’s wrath and considers how DI downplays or highlights those elements in his rhetorical context. Various aspects are associated with the cup: The cup coming from YHWH’s hand shows the element of YHWH’s sovereignty, an element demonstrated in Jer 25:15, 17, 28 where Jeremiah is told to take the cup from God’s hand and make the unwilling nations drink it. Another element is that of judgment56 because the cup of wrath is given to those deserving punishment, such as “the wicked of the earth” (Ps 75:8), the guilty (Jer 25:29, 31), Edom (Jer 49:12; Lam 4:22), and even faithless Jerusalem (Ezek 23:31). Further, the effects of drunkenness (shaking, going mad, vomiting, falling in Jer 25:16, 27; 51:7, stripping in Lam 4:21, sorrow, gnawing of sherds, and tearing of breast in Ezek 23:33) signify the element of suffering for one’s judgment. However, it will be shown that DI highlights and hides different elements of the metaphorical cup in his context. 1.

Drinking the Cup: Highlighting Suffering, Hiding Guilt

a.

Mother Zion: Sin or Suffering?

In v. 18, Zion’s drunken helplessness is not despised but pitied: “There is none guiding her from all the children she has borne; none taking her by the hand from all the children she has brought up.” This is similar to the condition of the childless King Danel in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Baal pleads with El on behalf of Danel, saying that he had no son “who takes him by the hand when he’s drunk, carries him when he’s sated with wine.”57 There is no indictment of Danel’s drunkenness, only pity for a need that a son is expected to fulfill, along with other needs like setting up a shrine, defending against enemies, patching a 55 Melugin, Formation, 166. 56 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:198, disagrees with the idea that the cup comes from the custom of testing a wife suspected of adultery in Num 5:11ff because the cup of God’s anger is not given to suspects but to guilty persons. Rather, he describes the cup as “a particularly measured portion, which must be accepted and the effect of which is intensely felt.” 57 “The Tale of Aqhat,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg (ANET, 150).

91 leaky roof, and washing laundry. Similarly, DI presents Jerusalem’s drunken state as a pitiful and legitimate need of a parent.58 The genre of words of comfort would also focus on sorrow rather than on blame. Anomalously in this unit, v. 18 speaks of Jerusalem in the third person (“There is none guiding her from all the children she has borne; none taking her by the hand from all the children she has brought up”) so that the prophet seems to rhetorically address the audience at this point and imply that it is they, as her children, who have failed to do their duty to her. The next two verses reinforce Jerusalem’s misfortune over the loss of her children. 51:19: “These two things have befallen you, who will grieve with you? Wrack and ruin, famine and sword, who am I to comfort you?” The poet recognizes the hardship that has fallen on Jerusalem, but with his piercing rhetorical questions, he drives home the point that the greater tragedy is not having her children to mourn her. Willey also makes connections between this text and Lamentations 4, which begins with the “children” of Zion scattered like stones “at the head of every street” (4:1-2), distressed by “famine,” “sword,” and “destruction” (4:9,10) because of the “wrath” of YHWH (4:11) and ends with the “cup” passing to Edom. Outside of Isaiah 51 and Lamentations, the phrase “at the head of every street” appears only twice in Ezekiel and once in Nahum, but the volume of markers in Isaiah 51 indicates that DI was alluding to Lamentations 4. The texts also show thematic coherence in describing the suffering of the people in the destruction of Jerusalem. DI repeats the concerns of Lamentations in order to reverse them, but Willey notes that while the speaker in the lament was appalled at the suffering of the children, DI focuses on the suffering of the mother: It is not these people, but Zion, who has drained the cup, who lacks care and guidance, who needs mourners and comforters, and who is finally promised an end to her suffering…. By displacing the locus of suffering from the children to Zion, Second Isaiah sets the stage for envisioning the comfort of comfortless Zion in the form of the return of the exilic community.59

Although Lam 4:22 attributes the cup to the iniquity of Zion who is in exile, there is no accusation in DI against Zion who waits for the exiles’ return. Who, then, does Zion in DI represents?

58 Danel is also mentioned in Ezek 14:14, 20 referring to his righteousness and in 28:3 concerning his wisdom. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC 28 (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1994), 218, writes that the foreign and ancient factors of the context indicate that Danel is not the Judean figure in Daniel 1-6 but the one in the Ugaritic text. This shows a knowledge of the Aqhat legend amongst exilic biblical writers. 59 Willey, Remember, 163-5.

92 b.

The Recipients of the Cup – Deserved or Undeserved?

Koole thinks that Jerusalem in Isa 51:17 refers to the people, but then he points out that a distinction between Zion and her children occurred in 50:1 and 49:14ff. Whybray is also inconsistent, for though he regards Zion as the city and the exiles, he writes that 51:19 refers to the city because of the descriptions of destruction. With Joseph Blenkinsopp, Christopher R. North, and Willey, it would be more consistent to regard Zion as a personification of the city in this entire unit, for after all, her people personified as her “sons” are clearly distinct from her (5:18, 20).60 In other prophetic texts, it is the people who are given the wine to drink. In Jeremiah 25, the prophet is told to give the cup of God’s wrath to Jerusalem, and in Jeremiah, Jerusalem clearly represents the people: God will bring Babylon against “this land and their inhabitants” (25:9), it is “their deeds and the work of their hands” that God will repay (25:14), and the cup is for their “kings and officials” (25:18). Thus Jeremiah portrays the people as the ones who drink the cup for their guilt. An intertextual reference to the same metaphor in PI also shows that the cup is given to the guilty people. Sommer argues that DI alludes to Isa 29:9-10 (NRSV): 9 Stupefy yourselves and be in a stupor, blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not from wine (\\DOZZUNY); stagger, but not from strong drink! 60 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:197, 200; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 162-3; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:336; Christopher R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary to chapters XL-LV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 216; Willey, Remember, 165. Willem A. M. Beuken, “YHWH’s Sovereign Rule and His Adoration on Mount Zion: A Comparison of Poetic Visions in Isaiah 24-27, 52, and 66,” in The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah, ed. A. Joseph Everson and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, Ancient Israel and Its Literature (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 95-6, claims that Isa 52:1-2 alludes to Isa 35:810. The relevant markers are shown in parentheses below: 35:8 And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called “the holy way” (YGTK). The unclean (DPM) shall not pass over (UE>) it, and fools shall not err therein... 35:10 The ransomed of YHWH shall return, and come (DZE) to Zion with singing. Beuken points out that UE> (pass over) is also found in Isa 51:23. This set of markers are found only in these two Isaianic texts, and there is also a thematic coherence, viz., the restoration of the exiles. However, the dating of Isaiah 35 as either pre- or post-587 cannot be determined with certainty (Goldingay, Isaiah, NIBC [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001], 200), and therefore, we cannot be sure of the direction of the influence. Nonetheless, whether as the precursor or as the interpretation of Isa 52:1-2, it is clear that Isa 35:10 understands Zion as the exiles’ destination city, rather than as the exiles themselves.

93 10 For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep (KPGUW); he has closed your eyes, you prophets, and covered your heads, you seers.

Wildberger and Kaiser believe that this text originates from PI and may be dated to the period of the revolt against Sennacherib.61 Sommer writes that although the cup of God’s anger appears in several other biblical passages, the nearly identical phrase “drunk, but not from wine” (\\P DOZ WUNYZ) in Isa 51:23 appears only in these two texts. He also suggests that DI’s use of KO>UW (reeling) may be a sound play of KPGUW (sleep) in 29:10. Thus, DI recontextualizes and reverses his predecessor’s text, replacing the Assyrians with the Babylonians and putting the cup into the hands of the tormentors. However, the wine that was drunk by the people for their obduracy is now drunk by Zion the mother city, though no fault is attributed to her in DI. Yet another allusion is to Ezekiel 23, where Jerusalem is made to drink the cup of her sister Samaria for following in her whoring ways. Commentators date this chapter with its condemnation of Judah’s reliance on Egyptian help to a time after Zedekiah’s defection from Babylon but before the capture of Jerusalem in 586.62 The markers in DI found in Ezek 23:31-35 are indicated below in parentheses: 31 You have gone the way of your sister; therefore I will give her cup (VZN) into your hand (G\). 32 Thus says the Lord GOD: You shall drink (KWY) your sister's cup, deep and wide; you shall be scorned and derided, it holds so much. 33 You shall be filled with drunkenness (UNY) and sorrow (ZJ\). A cup of horror and desolation is the cup of your sister Samaria; 34 you shall drink it (KWY) and drain it out (KFP), and gnaw its sherds, and tear out your breasts (GY); for I have spoken, says the Lord GOD. 35 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you have forgotten me and cast me behind your back (ZJ), therefore bear the consequences of your lewdness and whorings.

Some of the words, such as VZN (cup), G\ (hand), KWY (drink), and UNY (drunken), are commonly associated with the metaphor of the cup, but KFP (drain) appears only one other time in Ps 75:8. Further, ZJ\ (sorrow) in Ezek 23:33 and \JZP (your tormentors) in Isa 51:23 share the root KJ\ (suffer). GY is a homonym for “breasts” in Ezek 23:34 and “devastation” in Isa 51:17, and finally, ZJ (back) 61 Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 3:82. 62 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2 vols., Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 1:482-3; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC 29 (Dallas: Word, 1990),46-7; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 493.

94 appears both in Ezek 23:35 and Isa 51:23. The volume and specific texts combination of the markers suggest that DI used Ezekiel as his source, and both passages share the theme of woman Jerusalem being made to drink the cup of wrath. DI shows the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prediction: The woman suffered sorrow (ZJ\) under her tormentors (\JZP), the one who will tear out her breasts (GY) suffered devastation (GY), and because she cast YHWH behind her back (ZJ), her back was walked upon. DI then reverses this prophecy by announcing that YHWH will remove the cup from Zion and give it to her tormentors. However, as argued in Chapter Three, wife “Jerusalem” in Ezekiel is a metaphor for the people of Judah, and in the concluding verses of the chapter (23:43-49), when the indictment against wanton Jerusalem is explicitly directed against the hearers, there are frequent slippages between feminine and masculine pronouns. An example is in the last verse: 23:49 They shall repay you (feminine plural) for your (feminine plural) lewdness, and you (feminine plural) shall bear the penalty for your (feminine pural) sinful idolatry; and you (masculine plural) shall know that I am the Lord GOD. (NRSV)

This shows that the target of personified Jerusalem, i.e., the idolatrous people, is very much in the mind of the prophet Ezekiel, and by alluding to the above texts in PI and Ezekiel, DI points to the people as the ones who deserve the cup and who caused Zion to suffer the effects of the cup. The metaphor of the cup is also used without implication of guilt in one other text. Ps 60:5 [3] contains the only other occurrence of KO>UW (reeling) in Isa 51:17, 22. I cite part of the psalm below for comparison: 1 To the leader: according to the Lily of the Covenant. A Miktam of David; for instruction; 2 when he struggled with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah, and when Joab on his return killed twelve thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt.

…

3 O God, you have rejected us, broken our defenses; you have been angry; now restore us! 4 You have caused the land to quake; you have torn it open; repair the cracks in it, for it is tottering. 5 You have made your people suffer hard things; you have given us wine to drink that made us reel (KO>UW). 6 You have set up a banner for those who fear you, to rally to it out of bowshot. Selah 12 Have you not rejected us, O God? You do not go out, O God, with our armies. 13 O grant us help against the foe,

95 for human help is worthless. 14 With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes. (NRSV)

The editors of the psalter have provided a context for the psalm, associating it with the time when David fought with two Aramean states in 2 Samuel 8, but commentators date it either after the fall of the Northern kingdom or after the fall of Judah. Nonetheless, as Goldingay notes, the kind of context it presupposes is clear, i.e., a time when people experience reversal.63 DI does not make any clear allusion to Psalm 60, but the psalm demonstrates that the element of guilt conventionally associated with the cup metaphor may be hidden by its context. The defeat, after all, was suffered by people who feared God (v. 6 [4] ) and are loved by God (v. 7 [5] ). Goldingay writes that “although the psalm does not include an explicit ‘declaration of innocence’ like that in Ps. 44, this implies one. The people God has treated in this way are worshippers and servants of God.”64 In the same way, Zion the mother city innocently suffers the consequences of the cup that was brought down upon her by her guilty children – the ones “filled with the wrath of YHWH, the rebuke of her God” (Isa 51:20). 2.

Giving the Cup: Highlighting Reversal, Hiding Guilt

In Isa 51:13, the people are afraid of the wrath (KP[) of the oppressors, but DI establishes the sovereignty of God by attributing Jerusalem’s fall to God’s wrath (KP[) rather than to the might of her enemies. In the same way, God has the power to transfer that wrath to her enemies (51:23), and the passing of the cup from Zion to her tormentors indicates a reversal of Babylon’s fate. It was already shown above that the restoration of Zion in 51:17-52:2 is a contrast to Babylon’s downfall in Isaiah 47, and 52:1-2 in particular emphasizes the reversal of Zion’s captive, not corrupt, past. When the cup is passed to her enemies, Zion is to “awake” (UZ>) and “put on strength” (52:1), just like the arm of YHWH in 51:9. Bernard F. Batto argues that the motif of the sleeping god in the ancient Near Eastern texts does not connote inattention but the exercise of a divine prerogative, especially after the 63 Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, NIBCOT (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1999), 252; A. A. Anderson, Psalms, 2 vols., NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972), 1:441, suggests a date after the fall of the Northern kingdom. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 50-100, WBC 20 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1990), 104 and Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms, A Continental Commentary, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 2:3, argue for a time after the fall of Jerusalem where the animosity toward the Edom would fit well; Goldingay, Psalms 42-89 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 226. 64 Goldingay, Psalms 42-89, 228.

96 completion of creation from chaos, and that such rest symbolizes the unchallenged authority of the supreme deity.65 To call on God to awake is to acknowledge the divine sovereignty of the creator who can be counted on to restore order. Thus, just as the arm represents YHWH’s power, so Zion is YHWH’s seat of power, and she is to put on her garment of glory as YHWH’s royal city. Just as YHWH’s arm would be considered holy, so Zion/Jerusalem is called the “holy city” (52:1), thus hiding any element of guilt. Instead of being presented as a perpetrator, it is “the uncircumcised and unclean” who have sinned against her, and only her liberation from enemy captivity is highlighted (52:2). In summary, the element of guilt for the cup highlighted in other prophetic traditions is downplayed in DI. Rather, guilt is attributed to the people, while no blame is attached to the mother city. Instead, DI highlights Zion’s suffering and glorification, calling on her to awake like the arm of God because the people’s restoration depends on her reinstatement as YHWH’s holy royal city.

IV. ISAIAH 54:1-10 ZION – SINFUL OR SUFFERING WIFE? This last text seems to contain the most negative implications of Zion with words such as “desolate,” “shame of your youth,” “dishonor of your widowhood,” “forsaken wife” and by recalling the Noachic flood. However, a closer examination of the text will show that DI refers to Zion’s suffering rather than guilt, and metaphor analysis will demonstrate that Zion is portrayed positively, even in relation to the Flood.

A.

Translation 1 Sing, O barren one who did not bear! Break forth in joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who did not labor! For the children of the desolate woman are more than the children of the married woman, said YHWH. 2 Enlarge the site of your tent, and let them stretch out66 the curtains of your tabernacle!

65 Bernard F. Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Bib 68 (1987): 153-177. 66 ZM\is a hiphil third person masculine plural jussive in the MT that is usually repointed as a passive hophal or a feminine singular imperative found in 1QIsaa and the LXX. However, the MT is the lectio difficilior in a series of feminine singular imperatives, and it may be understood as an impersonal passive construction (Koole, Isaiah III, 2:354), or it may refer to the children mentioned in 54:1b and again in 54:3c. The reversal of Jer

97 Do not hold back! Lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes! 3 For you will spread out to the right and to the left, and your offspring will dispossess the nations, and will inhabit the desolated towns. 4 Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; do not cringe, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the dishonor of your widowhood you will remember no more. 5 For your husband is your Maker, YHWH of hosts is his name; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth he is called. 6 For like a wife forsaken and forlorn in spirit, YHWH has called you; like the wife of one's youth, how67 can she be cast off? said your God. 7 For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. 8 In a surge of anger I hid my face for a moment from you, but with everlasting loyalty I have compassion on you, says YHWH your Redeemer. 9 For this is the waters68 of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would never again go over the earth, so I have sworn never to be angry with you nor to rebuke you. 10 For the mountains may depart and the hills shake, but my loyalty shall not depart from you,

10:20 supports the latter interpretation (see below), so 54:1-3 contains not only the imagery of a mother but also her brood of children who helps her to extend the dwelling place. 67 \N is interpreted as “when” (NRSV), but the word can only have a temporal meaning with indications of time and infinitives (Koole, Isaiah III, 2:364). It may be concessive, and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:357, reads it as “though.” However, Marjo C. A. Korpel, “Female Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 54,” in Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Kijk-Hemmes, ed. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 157, notes that reading \N as an asseverative avoids reading KZK\DUT (YHWH has called you) in 54:6aȕ as a verbal ellipsis, a poetic device which is not employed in this unit. Rather, each colon emphasizes YHWH’s promise of restoration and the rhetorical question, “How can she be cast off?” would parallel the phrase “YHWH has called you.” This reading is reflected in the NJPS. 68 \P\N (for the waters) may be emended to \P\N(like the days of Noah), found in 1QIsaa and followed by NRSV. However, the water imagery is a strong link from #FY (flood) in 54:8 to KU>V (storm-tossed one) in 54:11. Further WD] (this) would refer to the event of destruction rather than to a time period. Koole, Isaiah III, 2:370, also points out that \N introduces the motivation for the restoration of Zion as part of the series of substantiating clauses in this pericope. This translation is found in LXX and NJPS.

98 and my covenant of peace shall not shake, says YHWH who has compassion on you.

B. THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT Isaiah 54 speaks to a feminine addressee, which distinguishes it from the preceding chapter on the suffering servant and from the following chapter that calls to a masculine plural audience. It has been suggested that a division of the chapter may be made based on the distinction between vv. 1-6 as prophetic speech and vv. 7-17 as the divine speech proper. But both vv. 1 and 6 use the messenger formula to quote YHWH’s words, so this does not seem like a valid division. Based on the Hebrew manuscripts, the MT provides a setuma after vv. 8, 10, and 17, while 1QIsaa begins a new line after v. 10 and 17a. This corresponds to a distinction between an address to a woman in vv. 1-8 and to a city in vv. 11-17a, with vv. 9-10 providing a transition. However, vv. 9-10 are closely connected to vv. 7-8 by the causal \N and by the verbal repetitions of #FT (vv. 8 and 9), GV[ (vv. 8 and 10), and a[U (vv. 7, 8, and 10). Verses 11-17 are also linked to vv. 1-10 by the echoes of Zion’s “children” (vv. 1 and 13), DU\ (vv. 4 and 14), and aZOY (vv. 10 and 13). Koole highlights the use of creation terminology in this unit: UV\ (v. 11), ZN (v. 14), DUE, KI>, and UF\ (v. 16),69 which connects with the Noachic covenant in v. 10. Thus, chapter 54 is a coherent unit that describes the restoration of Zion: Verses 1-10 emphasize her change from the past to the present, while vv. 11-17 focus on her future. The imageries change from that of a mother (54:1-3), to a wife (54:4-10), and finally to a city (54:11-17). However, as my study focus on the female imagery of Zion, I will only concentrate on the unit 54:1-10. Form-critical analysis of vv. 1-10 divides it into three modified genres in vv. 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10.70 Verses 1-3 combine a hymn with prophetic promises beginning with the substantiating \N clauses introducing YHWH’s promises rather than the usual recital of YHWH’s deeds. Verses 4-6 imitate a salvation oracle using the “fear not” formula and is motivated by a nominal (v. 5) and a verbal clause (v. 6), but uncharacteristically, there is no first person assurance from YHWH, and some of the clauses appear in the imperfect (v. 4). The modification of this salvation oracle features the extensiveness of its motivation clauses. Verses 7-10 consist of an announcement of salvation in which God answers the laments in v. 7a and v. 8a. In vv. 9-10, the promise of restoration is substantiated by the Noachic covenant as the basis for God’s everlasting love.

69 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:339; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:378. 70 Watts, Isaiah 36-66, 236; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:348; Melugin, Formation, 169-71.

99 Based on the above genres, I propose the following outline: 54:1-3 v. 1a v. 1b v. 2 v. 3

Hymn of Praise: Addressed to the Mother Hymnic introduction: Call to sing Substantiating clause: Promise of many children Call to enlarge tent Substantiating clause: Promise of spreading out

54:4-6 Oracle of Salvation: Addressed to the Wife v. 4a “Fear not” v. 4b,c Substantiating clauses: For you will not be ashamed, disgraced For you will forget shame of youth, disgrace of widowhood v. 5 Nominal clauses: Your husband is your Maker v. 6 Substantiating clauses: For God has called you like a wife How can the wife of his youth be cut off? 54:7-10 Announcement of Salvation: Addressed to the Covenant Partner vv.7-8 Reference to the complaint: Zion forsaken Announcement of YHWH’s intervention: YHWH’s compassion vv.9-10 Substantiating clause: YHWH’s covenant with Zion like that with Noah Isaiah 54 follows the fourth servant song (Isa 52:13-53:12) and is itself followed by an invitation to the people to return (Isaiah 55). There are many connections to the fourth song: a\EU (54:1 and 53:11), >U] (54:3 and 53:10), a\ZJ (54:3 and 52:15), aZOY (54:10 and 53:5), and a\QSU\WVK (54:8 and 53:3). Just as God vindicates the servant by his revitalization, so God vindicates Zion by her restoration.

C.

ISSUES OF GUILT

Analysis of several negative descriptions of Zion in this passage will determine whether they depict her guilt or merely her suffering.

100 1.

54:1 The Desolate Woman (KPPZY)

Blessing believes that guilt is always the cause of the mother city’s desolation.71 However, the word aPY itself does not connote guilt, and according to F. Stolz: “The basic meaning of the root may be rendered by the expressions ‘to be desolate, cut off from life.’”72 The KPPZY in Isa 54:1 is simply one who is abandoned by her husband, or as Koole renders it – “the lonely one.”73 Tamar in 2 Sam 13:20 is called “desolate” after being raped and rejected by Amnon because she had to live alone, cut off from a conjugal life. Hence, whether desolation is attributed to guilt has to be determined from the context. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the land is often said to be “desolate” because of the people’s sin,74 but in DI, there is no accusation against Zion, apart from the questionable terms that will be clarified below. 2.

54:4 \PZO>WYE (shame of your youth) and \WZQPODWSU[Z (dishonor of your widowhood)

a.

Definitions

North points out that “shame” does not necessarily have the nuance of moral wrong as it does in English. He cites an example in 2 Kgs 2:17, “They urged him [Elisha] till he was ashamed,” meaning “till he felt embarrassed” or “disconcerted.” Other examples may also be cited: In 1 Sam 20:30, Saul reprimands Jonathan for the shame of befriending David, and 1 Chron 32:21 refers to the shame of military defeat. Shame, therefore, has a connotation of social rather than moral failure. Similarly, Baltzer explains shame as calling into question one’s reputation, dignity, and honor. “Since it is a matter of a person’s standing within a social group, a distinction can be made between shame and guilt, even if the two cannot be separated from one another completely.” Thus, Westermann explains that a nation can be ashamed because “its defeat costs it its honour in the eyes of the rest of the nations.”75 H. Seebass sums it up:

71 72 73 74 75

Blessing, “Desolate Jerusalem,” 61-2. F. Stolz, “aPY,” TLOT, 3:1372. Koole, Isaiah III, 2:352. Jer 12:11; 18:16; 19:8; 33:10; Ezek 25:3; 33:28; 35:12,15; 36:3, 4, 34-36. North, Second Isaiah, 249; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 438. YZE (shame) is connected with childlessness, which Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 418, describes as a moral problem, but Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 273, has the opposite opinion saying that “it is not anything she does, such as behaving immorally that involves her in shame, but childlessness as such.”

101 Bosh expresses the idea that someone, a person, a city, a people, a professional organization, or the like, underwent an experience in which his (or its) former respected position and importance were overthrown.76

Therefore, whether YZE is associated with guilt or not has to be determined from the context. Similarly for the parallel expression, \WZQPOD WSU[ (dishonor of your widowhood), KSU[ primarily refers to social shame, such as being taunted by enemies, conditions having to do with sex, barrenness, widowhood, hunger, disease, uncircumcision, and injuries from enemies.77 In Gen 30:23, Rachel refers to the dishonor of her childlessness, 2 Sam 13:13 speaks of Tamar’s dishonor after being raped by Amnon, and Isa 4:1 describes the dishonor of unmarried women. None of these has to do with the moral failings of the woman in question; rather, it is her pitiful social state that is described. A widow is to be pitied because without a husband, she is left in a vulnerable position with little legal rights. Like YZE, the connection of KSU[ with sin has to be determined from the context. The meaning of YZE and KSU[ will be compared with their use in the Jeremianic texts that DI recalls. b.

Allusions to Jeremiah

Willey notes that Isa 54:4-6 alludes to Jer 3:24-25 and 31:19 as indicated by the words in parentheses below. 3:24 But from our youth (a\UZ>Q) the shameful thing (YZE) has devoured all for which our ancestors had labored, their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. 25 Let us lie down in our shame (YZE), and let our dishonor (KPON) cover us; for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our ancestors, from our youth (a\UZ>Q) even to this day; and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God. (NRSV) 31:19 For after I had turned away I repented; and after I was discovered, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed (YZE), and I was dismayed (aON) because I bore the disgrace (KSU[) of my youth (a\UZ>Q). (NRSV)

Besides YZE and KSU[, aON (dishonor, dismay) is also found in Isa 54:4, and a\UZ>Q is used in Isa 54:6. Although YZE, KSU[, and aON occur together in various combinations quite frequently, they appear with a\UZ>Q (youth) only in these 76 H. Seebass, “YZE,” TDOT 3:52. 77 “KSU[,” BDB 357-6. E. Kutsch, “#U[,” TDOT 5:211, states that the immediate context of the verb lends various nuances.

102 texts and in Psalm 71. However, only Jer 3:24-25 and 31:19 have a thematic coherence with Isaiah 54 in terms of describing Judah’s and Israel’s destruction. Willey points out that in Jer 3:22 and 31:21, YHWH responds by exhorting the people to return, but in Isaiah 54, the discussion of return is significantly missing: It is not Jerusalem who is imagined needing to return in Second Isaiah, but rather YHWH (52:8) and the exiles (44:22; 49:5-6; 51:11) who return to Jerusalem.…The poet informs Jerusalem that she will forget the shame Jeremiah had said resulted, not from YHWH’s abandonment of the city, but from their abandonment of YHWH.…Second Isaiah’s references to disgrace, using the vocabulary of Jeremiah, put the audience on notice that even though YHWH is offering reconciliation, YHWH was not really the one in the wrong.78

DI’s allusion fulfills the prophecy in Jer 3:21-25 and recontextualizes the prediction of Ephraim’s restoration in Jer 31:18-20 by applying it to the exiles. In Jeremiah, the people are morally ashamed because they abandoned YHWH, but in DI, Zion is socially ashamed because she is abandoned by YHWH. DI shows that Zion’s shameful state is a result of the people’s shameful action and that the latter’s return is now dependent on YHWH’s commitment to Zion. In fact, YHWH’s compassion for Ephraim in Jer 31:20 (ZQP[UDa[U) is transposed to Zion in Isa 54:8, 10 (\WP[U, P[UP). c.

Allusion to Psalm 89

DI also alludes to Ps 89:45 [46] where YZE (shame) appears with a\PZO> (youth) in a context where they refer to a setback suffered without blame. Willey notes that Psalm 89 contains many words echoed in Isaiah 54, indicated by words in parentheses below:79 34 But I will not remove from him my steadfast love (GV[), or be false to my faithfulness. 35 I will not violate my covenant (W\UE), or alter the word that went forth from my lips. 36 Once and for all I have sworn (>EY) by my holiness; I will not lie to David. 37 His line shall continue forever (aOZ>O), and his throne endure before me like the sun. 38 It shall be established (ZN) forever (aOZ>), like the moon, an enduring witness in the skies." 39 But now you have spurned and rejected (VDP) him; you are full of wrath against your anointed. 78 Willey, Remember, 245-6. 79 Willey, Remember, 250-5.

103

...

…

40 You have renounced the covenant (W\UE) with your servant; you have defiled his crown in the dust. 41 You have broken through (US) all his walls; you have laid (a\Y) his strongholds in ruins (KW[P). 42 All who pass by plunder him; he has become the scorn (KSU[) of his neighbors. 46 You have cut short the days of his youth (a\PO>); you have covered him with shame (KYZE). 47 How long, O LORD? Will you hide (UWV) yourself forever? How long will your wrath burn like fire? 50 Lord, where is your steadfast love (GV[) of old, which by your faithfulness you swore to David? (NRSV)

It is generally agreed that the hymnic section of this royal psalm is preexilic but that the lament (vv. 39-52) was added later. A. A. Anderson and Marvin E. Tate suggest a wide range of dates, including the death of Josiah in 609 B.C.E., Jehoiachin’s aborted reign in 597 B.C.E, and a post-exilic date when hopes revived for the restoration of Davidic kingdom. However, Artur Weiser and Hans-Joachim Kraus argue for a preexilic date on the basis that vv. 42-46 do not describe the Fall of Jerusalem but only a battle lost by the king (v. 44). Their proposal is further strengthened by Willey’s argument that the markers in DI are found in both the earlier hymnic and later lament sections of Psalm 89, indicating that the whole psalm was early enough for DI to use.80 Besides “steadfast love,” “covenant,” “swear,” and “forever” that form a common cluster of words, there are seven other markers including aPZO>, a word that occurs elsewhere only twice in Job (Job 20:11; 33:25).81 The volume and specific texts combinations indicate that DI alludes to Psalm 89, and both texts are also concerned with God’s promise to restore the nation, although in the psalm, it is through the continuation of the Davidic dynasty, while in Isaiah 54, it is through the restoration of Zion. In answer to this psalmic lament for the 80 Anderson, Psalms, 2:631; Tate, Psalms 50-100, 461-7; Artur Weiser, The Psalms, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 592; Kraus, Psalms, 1:203. Willey, Remember, 97. 81 Antoon Schoors, “Two Notes on Isaiah,” VT 21, no. 4 (1971): 504, proposes that the word a\PZO> for “youth” in 54:4 also means “bondage” on the basis that the related cognate aO> (young man) and KPO> (young woman) can also mean servant or slave. For evidence, he cites Ugaritic data from the Legend of Krt and also Hebrew usage in 1 Sam 20:22 and Song 6:8. Thus, “shame of your youth” may be a word play for the exile in Isa 54:4. However, this does not work for the other occurrences of a\PZO>, certainly not for Ps 89:45, and so, Schoors’ suggestion remains speculative. More likely, as Willey, Remember, 254, suggests, a\PZO> was used in DI because it is a near homonym for WZQPOD (widowhood).

104 king, DI overturns the “shame” of Zion’s “youth” and her “scorn” (Isa 54:4). She will no longer be “rejected” (54:6), and though YHWH “hid” from her, it is only for a while, whereas YHWH’s “steadfast love” will be “forever” (54:8). Though YHWH “burst” the walls of David’s city and “set” his strongholds in “ruins,” Zion will “burst” with people (54:3), and YHWH will “set” her pinnacles (54:12) and keep “ruins” far away from her (54:14). Like the promise of the psalm, YHWH “swears,” makes a “covenant” with Zion (54:9-10), and will “establish” her in righteousness (54:14). Willey points out that the language of an oath (>EY), used in the Davidic tradition but never in the Noah story, is now utilized by DI to do something new: “The divine oath to David is now offered directly to Jerusalem without the royalty’s mediation.”82 Ps 89:46 speaks of the king’s “youth” and “shame,” which is applied to Zion in Isa 54:4. The end of the king’s “youth” in the context of the psalm may mean the death of the king or, more broadly, the fall of the Davidic monarchy, and “shame” would mean the ignominy of a military defeat. As is common of psalmic laments, there is no mention of any sin on the part of the Davidide, so also, the “shame” of Zion’s youth in Isa 54:4 points to Zion’s sorry state rather than to any sordid past.83 3.

54:6 The Forsaken “Wife of One’s Youth” (a\UZ>QWYD)

In Prov 5:18 and Mal 2:14, the “wife of one’s youth” describes a spouse to whom a man should be intimately committed. Conversely, Prov 2:17 rebukes the immoral woman who abandons the partner of her youth (K\UZ>Q#ZOD). The deserted spouse of one’s youth is thereby regarded as the innocent party. The description of the forsaken wife in Isa 54:6-8 also alludes to Lamentations 5. The words reused in Isa 54:6-8 are indicated in Lam 5:20-22 below: 20 Why have you forgotten ([NY) us completely? Why have you forsaken (E]>) us these many days? 21 Restore us to yourself, O LORD, that we may be restored;

82 Willey, Remember, 254. 83 Jeppesen, “Mother Zion,” 124, comments: “The shame of youth refers probably to what happened in history and not to her sins.” Commentators have different opinions as to what period of history Zion’s youth would refer to. Since her widowhood is usually related to the Babylonian exile (cf. Lam 1:1), most think that her youth should refer to an earlier period, whether the Egyptian bondage (Koole, Isaiah III, 2:360), the Assyrian conquest (Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 185), or both (Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 438). But DI is focusing on the restoration in this chapter, and so the two colons in 54:4 may be taken as parallels for the Fall in 586 B.C.E. that shamed Zion as a widow.

105 renew our days as of old -22 unless you have utterly rejected (VDP) us, and are angry (#FT) with us beyond measure. (NRSV)

Willey points out that VDP and #FT appear together nowhere else except in Lam 5:22 and Isa 54:4, 6-8:

…

4 Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; do not cringe, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget ([NY) the shame of your youth, and the dishonor of your widowhood you will remember no more. 6 For like a wife forsaken (E]>) and forlorn in spirit, YHWH has called you; like the wife of one's youth, how can she be cast off (VDP)? said your God. 7 For a brief moment I forsook (E]>) you, but with great compassion I will gather you. 8 In a surge of anger (#FT) I hid my face for a moment from you, but with everlasting loyalty I have compassion on you, says YHWH your Redeemer.

The appearance of this unique cluster of words in practically the same order shows that DI again alludes to Lam 5:20-22. Also, the theme of these two texts concerns YHWH abandoning the people/Zion in anger during the exile. However, in Lamentations 5, the abandoned people admit their culpability (Lam 5:7, 16), while Zion is portrayed by DI simply as the abandoned and possibly wronged wife of YHWH’s youth. 4.

54:7-9 God’s Anger (#FT) and Noah’s Flood

The anger, rebuke, and hiddenness of God are compared to the Noachic flood,84 which raises the question of whether Zion is to be equated with the sinful people who provoked God’s flood of wrath. a.

Definitions

DI uses the flood (#FY) of Noah as a word play and metaphor for God’s anger (#FT). It is true that #FT is largely used as the motivation for God’s judgment against sin; however, F. V. Reiterer points out that divine #FT can have 84 Outside of Genesis and the genealogy in Chronicles, Noah is mentioned only here in Isa 54:9 and in Ezek 14:14, 20. The latter does not mention the flood but speaks of Noah’s righteousness. As Willey, Remember, 248, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:364, and Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 186, note, DI knew the Noachic tradition but not necessarily its exact form in Genesis, since the latter does not use the language of oath nor call the Noachic promise “a covenant of peace” (Isa 56:10).

106 consequences that affect not just those who caused the anger but others as well.85 For example, in Ps 106:32, Moses suffered because the Israelites aroused God’s anger; in Num 16:22, the revolt of Korah, Dathan and Abiram led to the threat of God’s anger upon all the people; Achan’s contravention of the ban in Josh 22:20 brought wrath upon the unsuspecting congregation; and 1 Chron 21:3 records that God’s wrath against David for taking a census fell upon Israel. Thus, God’s #FT is always provoked by sin,86 but it may affect others who did not take part in the sin but are related to the sinner. So also, God’s wrath upon Zion may either be provoked by Zion herself, or it may be the consequence that overflowed from her children’s sin. The parallel word for #FT in 54:9 is U>J (rebuke), a word that is used for addressing “various enemies of Yahweh, everything that is symbolized by chaos in nature and revolt in history.” Thus, A. Caquot concludes that the central point of U>J “lies in the fearful and threatening voice of Yahweh, which he utters in the thunder and which functions as a battle cry when he puts various enemies to flight.”87 He also points out that U>J does not necessarily mean “reprimand,” as reflected in Ruth 2:12 where Boaz instructs his workers not to “rebuke” Ruth when she comes to glean. Caquot points out that the word here conveys the idea of “rebuff” rather than “reproof.”88 Similarly, in Jer 29:27, Shemiah the prophet is astonished that the priest Zephaniah has not “rebuked” Jeremiah, which in the context means to stop him from prophesying. The noun, KU>J, is used in Isa 30:17 for the “threat” (NRSV) or the “shout” (NJPS) of the enemies against rebellious Israel. Thus, U>J is mainly the making of an aural threat in order to stop an opposing entity, and whether such an entity deserves punishment depends on the context. Similarly, the hiding of God’s face in 54:8 does not necessarily connote guilt. S. E. Balentine writes that in the Psalms, God’s hiddenness is not attributed to sin, whereas in the prophets, it is a response to the people’s sin. However, he observes that a transition begins to take shape in DI where God’s hiddenness is increasingly associated with the language of hope and promise

85 F. V. Reiterer, “#FT,” TDOT 13:89-96. He adds that “this does not imply that qFp possesses a sphere of influence that takes effect automatically: it is always Yahweh who has sovereign control over this dynamic” (p. 93). 86 Ps 102:10 [11] may be one exception where the psalmist laments that God’s #FT has thrown him aside, but there is no mention of his sin. I omit discussion of the enigmatic verse in 2 Kgs 3:27 where the Moabite king’s sacrifice of his first-born child caused great wrath upon Israel, since it is not clear whether this refers to divine or human wrath. 87 A. Caquot, “U>J,” TDOT 3:51, 53. 88 Caquot, TDOT 3:50.

107 (e.g., Isa 8:17; 54:7-8).89 The hiding of God’s face in Isa 54:8 may, therefore, be more akin to the psalms where it is connected to innocent suffering, an idea corroborated by how the Noachic Flood is applied to Zion. b.

The Flood Metaphor

Koole thinks that just as the Flood was on account of sin, so God had to act wrathfully to end the national existence of Israel.90 The problem is that Koole equates Israel with Zion, but as argued above, Zion is the personified city not the people. Reading Isa 54:9 as “for this is the waters of Noah” rather than “this is like the days of Noah,” DI highlights Zion’s devastation rather than the evil of Noah’s days. Further, God’s promise to stop the waters from passing over (UE>) the earth (54:9) parallels God’s declaration to stop the enemies from walking over (UE>) Zion’s back (51:23),91 thus mapping the earth on to Zion. She is the storm-tossed city (54:11) that suffered rather than the sinful people that provoked God’s anger. Further, allusion to the preexilic Zion song in Psalm 46 shows that DI regards Zion as the city sanctioned by Zion theology.92 Psalm 46 contains several words echoed in Isaiah 54 shown below in parentheses: 2 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. 3 Therefore we will not fear (DU\), though the earth should change, though the mountains (a\UK) shake (MZP) in the heart of the sea; 4 though its waters (a\P) roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult. Selah 5 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. 6 God is in the midst of the city; it shall not be moved (MZP); God will help it when the morning dawns. (NRSV)

In DI, Zion is told not to “fear” (Isa 54:4), even though God’s anger is like the “waters,” (54:9) because though the mountains may “shake” (MZP, 54:10), neither God’s city nor God’s covenant of peace with the city will be “moved” (MZP, Ps 46:6 and Isa 54:10). The occurrence of three of the words (shake, waters, and mountains) occurs only in one other place, Ps 104:5-6, but there, the 89 Samuel E. Balentine, “Isaiah 45: God’s ‘I Am,’ Israel’s ‘You Are,’” HBT 16 (1994), 1156. 90 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:370. 91 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:370, and Willey, Remember, 248-9, links these two occurrences of

UE>.

92 The preexilic dating of Psalm 46 is supported by Anderson, Psalms, 1:355; Kraus, Psalms, 1:450; Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC 19 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 343; Anderson, Psalms, 1:355.

108 theme is God’s creation rather than Zion’s security. Thus, based on the volume and specific texts combination of the above four markers, Isaiah 54 recalls the promise in Psalm 46 that Zion is the place that will prevail against the Flood and the Babylonians because she is “reinstated as YHWH’s dwelling-place, the geographical anchor of Judah’s religious self-understanding.”93 Another element of the Flood metaphor is the Noachic covenant that is compared to the covenant of peace with Zion (54:10), meaning that Noah is also mapped onto Zion. Willey further points out that both Noah and Zion are instructed to repopulate and refill the empty lands after the Flood.94 This implies that just as Noah was saved because he was righteous, so Zion is saved because she is innocent. As for the element of guilt, it is mapped not on to Zion but to her children. Though this is not explicitly stated, the intertextual allusions discussed above (i.e., “shame of your youth” to Jer 3:24-25 and 31:19 and “forsaken” wife to Lam 5:20-22) point to the shame and disgrace of the people. So, just as the Flood was due to the people’s sin, the destruction of Zion was caused by her guilty people. DI applies the Flood story to Zion, but he has given her a dual role – that of the devastated earth as well as of righteous Noah. Like Noah who marks a new beginning in human history, the restoration of Zion also begins a new chapter in Israel’s history. In summary, I have argued that the negative terms in Isa 54:1-10 may be read in a more innocuous way. The term “desolate woman” in 54:1 merely means a woman bereft of husband and children. Allusions to Jeremiah show that it is the moral “shame” and “dishonor” of the people that brought social “shame” and “dishonor” upon Zion in Isa 54:4. Reference to Psalm 89 also likens her shame to a military defeat that is lamented without any indictment. The forsaken “wife of one’s youth” in Isa 54:6 is an innocent spouse like the one in Prov 5:18 and Mal 2:14-16, and intertextual links with Lamentations 5 show that YHWH’s abandonment of this spouse is attributed to the children’s fault, while the answer to their lament is found in YHWH’s reconciliation with Zion. The waters of Noah in 54:7-9 convey punishment for the guilty people but highlight, instead, Zion’s destruction and restoration as a city and her innocence like that of Noah’s.

SUMMARY According to Isa 50:1, Zion is the innocent mother, while her children are the ones blamed for her suffering. She is never divorced but only separated, opening 93 Willey, Remember, 256. 94 Willey, Remember, 248.

109 the way for her reconciliation with YHWH. In 49:14-26, she voices a complaint against YHWH’s abandonment that echoes the people’s confession of sin in Lamentations 5, but in DI, Zion the city reminds YHWH to restore the people’s home, and YHWH assures her that she will be rebuilt because she is remembered like an innocent child and virginal bride. Similarly, the “cup of wrath” in Isa 51:17-52:2 alludes to Ezekiel 23 and Lamentations 4 that point to the people’s liability, but DI uses the metaphor to highlight Zion’s suffering and hides any guilt. Finally in 54:1-10, the various negative descriptions of Zion are actually ambiguous and do not necessarily impugn her. Rather, DI’s allusions to Jeremiah and Lamentations reveal that such “shame” and “dishonor” refer to the people’s apostasy, while reference to Psalm 89 shows that Zion’s “shame” is innocent suffering. Likewise, the metaphor of the Noachic flood highlights Zion’s ruination, restoration, and righteousness but hides her guilt by assigning it to the people. Thus, DI reverses past judgment against the people by appealing to YHWH’s promise to the city because according to Zion theology, YHWH is committed to the holy city, even as a man must be committed to the wife of his youth. Having established mother Zion’s innocence, the next chapter will explore whether she is the one who gives birth to her children or whether that birth event is anomously attributed to YHWH as the Creator of the people.

111

CHAPTER FIVE THE BIRTH OF ZION’S CHILDREN

Zion asks a perplexing question in Isa 49:21: “Who has borne (GO\) for me these?” How could a mother not be aware of giving birth to her children? Scholars usually try to explain this incongruity as an expression of mother Zion’s confusion or forgetfulness, but I submit that in the context of Isa 49:1426, the implied answer is that it is YHWH rather than Zion who gave birth to the children. This may sound incredulous, but the logic of the metaphor is grounded in and governed by Zion theology. The basic tenet of Zion theology is that YHWH is the creator of the world, and this is evidenced by DI’s extensive descriptions of YHWH as the maker of Israel, the one who forms the servant/Jacob in the womb (43:1, 7, 21; 44:2, 21, 24; 45:11; 49:5). While such creation often uses the imagery of pottery, DI also employs the metaphor of birth for the return of the people from exile, e.g., in 42:14, YHWH saves the people like a woman in labor (KGO\N), and in 46:3-4, YHWH carries Israel from the womb to old age. Reliance on Zion theology means that YHWH defeats Israel’s enemies like the forces of chaos, (re)establishes YHWH’s city, and (re)creates her inhabitants. Such divine creation is depicted by the metaphor of a birthing mother, which also highlights YHWH’s constant care and compassionate effort to give the oppressed people a new lease of life. At times, the maternal metaphor is juxtaposed with a martial one, highlighting the additional element of power in delivering the captives. This chapter will study three texts that present YHWH as the one who gives birth to the people: Isa 49:14-26, 42:14, and 46:3-4. A fourth text, Isa 54:1, seems to imply that it is barren Zion who will give birth to many children, but the text does not explicitly mentions Zion giving birth, and in fact, a close reading will show that the element of birth is downplayed.

I. ISAIAH 49:14-26 WHO HAS BORNE FOR ME THESE? This passage was analyzed in Chapter Four, but here, the focus is on 49:21: 21 Then you will say in your heart, "Who has borne for me these? I was bereaved and barren, so these who has reared? Lo, I was left all alone, but these - where have they come from?"

112 Did mother Zion forget that she gave birth to her children, or were they indeed borne by another?

A.

ISA 49:21 THE ONE WHO BORE

1.

Meaning of qal of GO\ – as beget or bore?

The main issue is this verse has to do with the masculine qal form of GO\ – is Zion asking whether a male subject begot her children or whether he bore her children for her? The use of the qal for GO\ to mean beget appears only in a few places, whereas it is the hiphil that is normally used to denote beget. The occurrences of the qal for beget are found only in the so-called “J” texts of the Pentateuch and in three other verses in Proverbs.1 In DI, the hiphil is found in 45:10: “Woe to anyone who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting (hiphil of GO\)?’” Since DI uses the hiphil for beget, the qal in 49:21 should mean bear rather than beget. There are two other places in the Hebrew Bible where the masculine qal form of GO\ is used of males giving birth.2 Jer 30:6: “Ask now, and see, can a man bear a child (GO\)?” Here, Jeremiah states that it is literally impossible for a man to give birth. However, in Num 11:11-12, Moses likens himself to a woman who gives birth: 11 So Moses said to the LORD, "Why have you treated your servant so badly? Why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of all this people on me? 12 Did I conceive all this people? Did I give birth (GO\) to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a sucking child,’ to the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors? (NRSV)

While it may be metaphorically possible for a man to give birth if he were the founder of the nation, Moses is pointing out that it is YHWH who conceived and birthed the people and who is, thus, responsible for meeting their needs. Similarly in Isa 49:21, it may be understood that YHWH is the one who bore Zion’s children by delivering them from the exile, just as YHWH bore the people by rescuing them from Egypt. However as discussed below, most commentators are unable to accept this interpretation.

1 2

BDB 408. Texts that use the qal to mean beget: Gen 4:18; 10:8, 13, 15, 24, 26 = 1 Chron 1:10, 11, 13, 18, 20; 22:23; 24:3; Prov 17:21; 22:22, 24. There are also metaphorical references of people giving birth to evil or worthless consequences: Job 15:35; Ps 7:15; Isa 33:11; 26:18.

113 2.

Who bore Zion’s children?

Koole notes that the feminine form of GO\ is used with the preposition O to speak of a woman who bears a child for a man, e.g., Gen 6:4; 16:1, 15; 21:2; 30:1, which makes the formulation of this verse in Isa 49:21 totally at odds with its normal usage. Although Koole cites earlier scholars who believe that it is God who bore the children for Zion, he himself thinks that the strange construction was deliberately chosen to describe Zion’s confusion about the mysterious fulfillment of God’s promise. Blenkinsopp similarly concludes that Zion’s question is a hyperbolic expression of her perplexity, and Dille surmises that Zion is a confused mother who has forgotten her children.3 However, mental confusion does not have to be reflected by grammatical mistakes, especially when Zion’s words are put into her mouth by YHWH. Blenkinsopp offers another proposal that GO\ is an allusion to the foreign countries considered as surrogate or proxy wives,4 but the foreign countries are described only as nurses and suckling maids, not as parents of the children (Isa 49:23). Therefore, I agree with one of the lone voices, P. E. Bonnard, who believes that the masculine verbs refer to YHWH: Devant leur grand nombre, elle sera stupefaite et se demandera qui les a enfantes et fait grandir; ces verbes qui sont au masculine, insinuent que le prophete pense sans doute a Dieu, comme a celui qui a engendre cette multitude.5 Before their large number, she will be amazed and ask who bore the children and reared them; those verbs that are masculine imply that the prophet believes without a doubt that it is God, as one who creates the multitude. (translation mine)

It is God, therefore, who bore children for Zion, and Ruth 4:17 offers an interesting comparison of a child borne for another woman, specifically Naomi (\P>QO), to be an heir for her family.6 So also, God acts as a surrogate mother for bereft Zion. That God is the one who creates and births the multitude is affirmed in the next verse (49:22) where God signals to the nations for the return of Zion’s sons and daughters, i.e., God is the one who restores them, whether by the metaphor of birth or battle. More recently, Seitz argues that the answer to Zion’s question

3 4 5 6

Koole, Isaiah III, 2:66; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:312; Dille, Mixing, 144-8. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:312. P. E. Bonnard, Le Second Isaïe: Son Disciple et leurs Editeurs, Isaïe 40-66 (Paris: Librarie Lecoffre, 1972). Similarly, A. Penna. Isaia (Torino, Italy: Marietti, 1958), 505. Galambush, in a private correspondence (April 2009).

114 lies with God who “has brought a people into being, out of exile, out of death, out of the ‘stuff of nothingness.’”7 There are also other texts that use the imagery of God giving birth to the people. Besides Num 11:11-12 above, Deut 32:18 also uses a birth metaphor for the exodus. Here, Moses accuses the people: 18 You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you (GO\); you forgot the God who labored to bring you forth (O\[).8

While GO\ may refer either to the mother’s bearing or the father’s begetting, O\[ refers distinctly to the mother laboring in birth, “to bring forth in pain,” or “to writhe in labor.”9 Therefore, just as the exodus event is depicted as divine birth, so also the return from exile is described metaphorically in the same way. 3.

Juxtaposition of Metaphors

In 49:21-26, God is portrayed both as a mother who bore (v. 21) and as a warrior who declares war (v. 22). Lakoff and Johnson argue that two different metaphors may be put together to create coherences not previously evident. While they point out that coherences are found in overlapping entailments, it seems in this case that coherences may also be found in overlapping constituent elements, especially where the sources are human roles (e.g., mother and warrior) that can convey similar qualities. I will show that the juxtaposition of these two metaphors emphasize the compassion and power of YHWH.

7 8

9

Seitz, “Isaiah 40-66,” 432. He explains that God creates simply by God’s will and word, but he stops short of saying that God gives birth to the people. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 63-4, notes that when GO\ parallels O\[, it may be used as a complementary parental metaphor referring to the father (e.g., Isa 45:10), or it may be an identical parental metaphor referring to the mother (e.g., Isa 66:7). Trible argues that in the context of Deuteronomy 32, it is an identical maternal metaphor and should mean “bear.” She points out that Deut 32:18 provides a complementary balance with the paternal metaphor in 32:6. Moreover, the imageries in 32:10-15 are consistent with the maternal care of God in feeding and suckling the people. Thus v. 18 may be understood as God bearing (GO\) the people and laboring in birth (O\[). Julia A. Foster, “The Use of ‫ۊ‬yl as God-Language in the Hebrew Scriptures,” in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. Lewis M. Hopfe (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 93-102, discusses four passages using O\[ in reference to God: Prov 8:24; Ps 90:2, Isa 45:10, and Deut 32:18. The first three texts are not about the creation of humanity but of Wisdom (Prov 8:24), the earth (Ps 90:2), and God’s plan (Isa 45:10, see excursus below).

115 a.

Compassion

A constituent element of the source “mother” would be compassion, for although a father is also described as being compassionate to his children (Ps 103:13), the mother has a unique role in caring for the young, specifically in suckling the child. It is interesting that variations of TQ\ (to suckle) appear in all three texts where God is personified as a mother: In Numbers, Moses expects God to take care of the sucking child (11:12) by providing food for the people in the desert; in Deuteronomy, God feeds and suckles them from the produce of the land in the wilderness (32:13-15); and in DI, God returns the children through kings and queens who nurse them (49:22). Other texts also demonstrate that a mother is associated with compassion, e.g., in 1 Kgs 3:16-27, Solomon assumes that the real mother would be the one who acts self-sacrificially for her child,10 and in 2 Sam 21:7-14, Rizpah tirelessly protects the impaled bodies of her two sons from wild animals. Further, Darr writes: So strong were motherhood’s associations with love and care that the obverse, maternal cannibalism, served to express the ultimate horror threatened by Yahweh in some texts (e.g., Deut 28:51-57) and bewailed in others (e.g., Lam 2:19-20; 4:10).11

Thus, the maternal metaphor highlights God’s attentive care for the people, like that of a mother for her newborn, an assurance sorely needed by a helpless people. In terms of metaphoric coherence with the warrior image, the compassion of the mother overlaps with and highlights the warrior’s zeal (KDQT), a quality associated with the warrior in Isa 42:13. God’s KDQT is also associated with God’s compassion, as shown in Isa 63:15: Look down from heaven and see, from your holy and glorious habitation. Where are your zeal (KDQT) and your might? The yearning of your heart and your compassion? They are withheld from me. (NRSV)

God’s compassion for the people is the flip side of God’s wrath against their enemies, as demonstrated in Zech 1:14-16: 14 So the angel who talked with me said to me, Proclaim this message: Thus says the LORD of hosts; I am very jealous (KDQT) for Jerusalem and for Zion. 15 And I am extremely angry with the nations that are at ease; for while I was only a little angry, they made the disaster worse.

10 Dille, Mixing, 137. She also cites Hos 11:3-4, which uses parental language to describe YHWH’s relationship with Israel. 11 Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 110.

116 16 Therefore, thus says the LORD, I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion; my house shall be built in it, says the LORD of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. (NRSV)

Koole explains KDQT as God’s wrath over the violation of God’s right, either by Israel’s idolatry or by their enemies.12 John N. Oswalt describes a warrior stirring up his zeal by putting himself in the right frame of mind by thinking of the wrongs that the enemy has done to him and those he loves. Then at the moment of attack he lets out a blood-curdling scream, both to fortify himself and to cow the defenders.13

Thus, the juxtaposition of the mother and the warrior highlights God’s compassion for the people. b.

Power

Darr’s survey of the expression “like a woman giving birth” in the Hebrew Bible shows that the simile functions stereotypically to describe people who experience anguish in the face of destruction (usually a siege), but when applied to YHWH in Isa 42:14, it is given a new twist such that “events are not always as they seem.”14 The word for a warrior, UEJ, literally means a strong man, and the parallel KPNOPY\D (man of war) implies not only strength but also expertise in fighting (1 Sam 17:33; 2 Sam 17:8). When juxtaposed with the warrior metaphor, the downplayed element of the mother’s strength in giving birth is highlighted. Dille cites ancient Near Eastern texts in which a woman in labor is compared to a warrior as she battles to deliver her child in a difficult birth: The woman in labor has trouble giving birth… She lies in her blood like a hero who has fought…15 The woman in childbirth has pangs at delivery, At delivery she has pangs, the babe is stuck fast, The babe is stuck fast. The bolt is secure – to bring life to an end,… Like a chariot she is enveloped in the dust of battle… Like a warrior in the fray, she is cast down in her blood.16 12 13 14 15

Koole, Isaiah III, 249. Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 125. Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 100-110; also Darr, “Warrior,” 566. Dille, Mixing, 56, citing K. van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman, trans. Sara J. DenningBolle, Biblical Seminar Series 23 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 89. 16 Dille, Mixing, 56, citing W. G. Lambert, “A Middle Assyrian Medical Text,” Iraq 31 (1969): 32. Lambert dates the birth incantation to the late second millennium on the basis of its relationship with the medical prescription on the same tablet (p. 33).

117 These examples suggest that while a woman in labor is usually portrayed as being in distress, she may also be described as a warrior fighting to save the life of her infant, even at the cost of her own life. “The mother becomes the champion of the infant.”17 Therefore, when Zion’s question in v. 21: “Who bore for me these?” is answered by the warrior who liberates her children, the act of birth is highlighted as a work of power. The answer to Zion’s question, then, is that her children are delivered by YHWH as the divine mother and warrior. Already in Isa 49:15, we are introduced to God as a mother, albeit of Zion rather than of her children.

B.

ISA 49:15 THE ONE WHO WILL NOT FORGET

Isa 49:14-15: 14 But Zion said, "YHWH has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me." 15 Does a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, but as for me, I will not forget you.

The issue is whether this verse likens God to a mother or whether the closing qualification of the metaphor implies that God is not like a mother at all. Oswalt warns against an over zealous appropriation of this verse to deny the exclusivity of the Bible’s masculine images of God. He argues that “this passage does not talk about the motherhood of God, just as Ps 27:10 does not talk about the parenthood of God” and that Isa 49:15 is simply saying that God’s love is greater than a mother’s love.18 However, it will be shown that God is indeed like a mother because the qualification of the metaphor actually serves to reinforce the stereotype of an ideal mother. 1.

God as Mother

Metaphorical language points to commonplaces or stereotypes, and the stereotype used here is the bond represented by a mother and her nursing child. Verse 15 seems like a rhetorical question that expects the answer, “No, a woman cannot forget her nursing child,” so it is surprising to hear that some may indeed forget. Dille writes that it is unusual “that the limits of the metaphor are pointed out even as the metaphor is being utilized. This would seem to weaken the rhetorical impact of the metaphor.”19 However, she adds that the qualification is 17 Dille, Mixing, 56. 18 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 305. 19 Dille, Mixing, 145.

118 necessary because Zion’s lament in v. 14 alludes to Lam 5:20: “Why have you forgotten us completely? Why have you forsaken us these many days?” (This intertextual reference was discussed in Chapter Four.) The reference to Lamentation recalls the gruesome description of the breakdown of social life in the city, and in particular, the disintegration of the relationships between mother and child: Look, O LORD, and consider! To whom have you done this? Should women eat their offspring, the children they have borne? (2:20, NRSV) Even the jackals offer the breast and nurse their young, but my people has become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the infant sticks to the roof of its mouth for thirst; the children beg for food, but no one gives them anything. (4:3-4, NRSV) The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children; they became their food in the destruction of my people. (4:10, NRSV)

Mesopotamian city laments also portray the same pathos: The mother left before her child’s eyes…(“Lamentations over the Destruction of Ur” 223) The mother turned away from her child (“Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur” 96) The birth mother abandoned her child… (balag 6.32) The wife of a warrior abandoned the little child, her child… (balag 6.33)20

The normal loving protective relationship between mother and child completely disintegrates when their world is destroyed. Thus, because Zion’s lament in 49:14 recalls the horrifying failures of mothers, the metaphor’s qualification is necessary to emphasize that YHWH does not behave like these mothers. The metaphor of a compassionate mother still holds true generally because “even the most negative portrayals of mothers are rooted in the commonplace image that the relationship of a mother to her small child is one of the most powerful images of love, care, and compassion available.”21 Thus, it would make more sense to understand that God is being compared to the ideal mother rather than that God is not like a mother – though human mothers may fail, the divine mother will not. To deny the maternal comparison is to rob the descriptive content of God’s compassion. 20 Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 133-4. Translations of Sumerian city laments (dated from 1925 B.C.E. to the Old Babylonian period) and balags (dated from the Old Babylonian period to the Seleucid Period) provided by Dobbs-Allsopp. 21 Dille, Mixing, 149.

119 2.

God’s Compassion

DI employs the maternal metaphor in this oracle because it is the most appropriate response to Zion’s lament. Kathryn L. Roberts points out: “The prophet reminds mother Zion of her own strong maternal feelings for her suffering and lost children by reassuring her that God’s love and concern for the exiled far exceeds even her own.”22 The divine compassion is compared especially to that of a nursing mother – a time when the child is uppermost in the mind of its mother for not only must she stay near and available to the infant, but her infant’s hungry cries will also remind her of its needs.23 The nursing mother is a particularly poignant portrayal of compassion because it is a time when her infant is utterly dependent on her, and she must be totally attentive to its needs. Although it is logically inconsistent that YHWH is the mother of Zion (v. 15) and also of her children (v. 21), metaphorical coherence is found in the overlapping element of YHWH’s compassion for both that moves YHWH to restore both. In this passage, the personification of Zion as a mother highlights her concern for her children (v. 18, 20) and her provision of land for them to settle (v. 19). However, the element of Zion giving birth is rhetorically hidden by her query in v. 21, a query that is answered by YHWH as the one who bears and liberates her children (v. 21-22). In the next text, YHWH is again compared to a warrior and a mother.

II. ISAIAH 42:10-17 LIKE A WOMAN IN LABOR This text speaks of YHWH as a woman in labor, and two issues regarding this simile will be considered: Is YHWH portrayed as giving birth? And, what does the metaphor highlight about YHWH? 22 Kathryn L. Roberts, “Isaiah 49:14-18,” Int (2003): 59. This raises the issue of whether Zion is speaking in v. 14 as a mother or as a deserted wife. The argument for the husband-wife imagery is rather weak in this text: The address to a husband as “lord” would be vocalized as \Q,GRD (Gen 18:12; Amos 4:1) rather than as \QGRD. Also, Koole, Isaiah III, 2:53 points out that E]> (forsake) may be used not only for a wife but also more generally for the poor and oppressed, as in Isa 41:17. Further, the central imagery in 49:14-23 is that of Zion as a mother who has her children restored to her, and even the bridal imagery is more about gaining children like a bridal ornament than about being wedded to a husband. Even if husband-wife imagery is present in 49:14, it is surprising that God responds as a mother rather than as a husband. This implies that the motherchild metaphor is even stronger than the husband-wife metaphor in conveying an unbreakable and compassionate bond. 23 Dille, Mixing, 150.

120

A.

TRANSLATION 10 Sing to YHWH a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth You who go down to the sea24 and its fullness, You coastlands and their inhabitants! 11 Let the desert and its towns lift up their voice, the villages where Kedar inhabits; Let Sela's inhabitants shout for joy, from the mountain tops cry aloud; 12 Let them give honor to YHWH, and his praise to the coastlands declare. 13 YHWH like a mighty man will go forth, like a man of wars he will arouse his zeal;25 He will yell a battle cry, yea, he will roar, upon his enemies he will show himself mighty. 14 I have kept silent far a long time, keeping still, restraining myself. 26 Like a woman in labor I will cry out,27 I will gasp and pant28 all at once.

24 Some commentators, such as Robert Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation, 14th ed. (London: Tegg, 1848), 322; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 101-2; Wilson, Nations, 38) emend \GUZ\ a\K (those who go down to the sea) to a\K a>U\ (let the sea roar) on the basis of similarity with Ps 96:11 and 98:7, but the MT is supported by all the versions. Also, the focus on people is a suitable parallel with “inhabitants” in the next colon and in v. 11. 25 David Noel Freedman, “Isaiah 42,13,” CBQ 30 (1968), 225-6 (followed by Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:241), proposes that KDQT (zeal) should be moved from the end of the second colon to the beginning of the third, and that #D (yea) should be interpreted as “wrath” so as to form a parallelism: [\UF\#D//>\U\KDQT (he will yell his zeal//he will roar his wrath). However, it is not necessary to emend the MT, for as Koole, Isaiah III, 1:249, points out, DI uses #D as a particle in enumerations, besides the fact that UZ> (arouse) usually has a transitive meaning. 26 The first verb \W\Y[K is perfect, but the following two verbs, Y\U[D and TSDWD, are imperfect. The LXX translates the first as an aorist and the latter as future questions. However, it is possible to understand the last two verbs as iterative, following Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:243. 27 K>S is a hapax legomenon, which BDB 821 renders as “groan” based on the Arabic root “to bleat.” However, Darr, “Warrior,” 571, cites post-biblical usage that includes “to cry,” “to open the mouth,” or “to blow.” She prefers the last translation in view of the following two verbs “gasp” and “pant” that are related to breath. I use “to cry out” because that is a natural action of a woman in labor and because it makes a clearer link to the cry of the warrior in v. 13. 28 “I will gasp (aYQ) and pant (#DY).” aYQ is another hapax legomenon that most commentators relate to the same root as the feminine noun KPYQ (breath) and is, thus, translated as “gasp.” Darr, “Warrior,” 568-9, points out that this noun, which appears in parallelism with [ZU in Isa 42:5 and elsewhere, may refer to the breath of God that at times can be a destructive force (e.g., Ps 18:6; Isa 30:33; Job 4:9; Isa 40:7, 24). #DY appears in various places of animals or humans panting (e.g., Jer 14:6; Job 7:2). Thus, she

121 15 I will scorch29 mountains and hills, and all their herbage I will dry up; and I will turn rivers into islands,30 and marshes I will dry up. 16 I will lead the blind by a road they did not know, by paths they did not know I will lead them. I will turn darkness before them to light, rough places into level ground. These things I do and I not forsake them. 17 They are driven back and utterly ashamed, those who trust in an idol, who say to molten images, 'You are our gods!'"

B.

THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, CONTEXT

The boundaries of this text have important implications for understanding the woman in labor metaphor for God in v. 14. Scholars who take the unit as vv. 1017 interpret the simile of the travailing mother in the light of the warrior in v. 13 by reading their cries as a common link.31 Others who see a break between vv. 13 and 14 argue that the woman in labor is unrelated to the warrior image and that going into labor is primarily a contrast to God’s long held silence in the

concludes that the powerful breaths of a woman in travail serve to describe YHWH’s breath that dries up herbage and water in v. 15. Schoors, God Your Savior, 91, interprets the colon as “I will destroy (aPY) and also devour (#DY)” on the basis that aPY is an alternative root of aYQ, and “devour” is an alternate meaning of #DY found in Amos 2:7; 8:4, etc. (BDB 983). Goldingay, Isaiah 4055, 1:244, follows this interpretation, noting that it is also in the ancient versions. While this is consistent with the destruction in v. 15, Darr argues that this overlooks the role of the breath that dries up nature, and Koole, Isaiah III, 1:254, thinks it is unlikely that the image of the woman in labor should be limited to one colon since DI likes to elaborate on an image (e.g., the warrior image in v. 13). Thus, I agree with Darr, “Warrior,” 564 n. 18, that these two words may be read as auditory puns foreshadowing the destructive acts by God’s breath. 29 Clifford, Fair Spoken, 95 n. 2, alone has argued that the drying up (EU[) of mountains and herbage should be understood as YHWH freeing the mountains and hills from the salt waters. However, the sense of EU[ as “dry up” is almost always used with water (except Gen 8:13 where it is the ground that is dried from the flood), so it is better to understand EU[ in the alternate but related sense of “lay waste, desolate,” or as suggested by Koole, Isaiah III, 1:255, as “scorch.” 30 BHS suggests amending a\\DO (coastlands) to WZ\FO (deserts) or a\EDOW (barren land), but since a\\D can also mean “islands” (e.g., Jer 2:10; 47:4), there is no need to emend the MT if we understand the description as referring to sandbanks or mud flats revealed by low water levels (Koole, Isaiah III, 1:256). 31 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:232-6; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:214; Darr, “Warrior,” 567; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 122; Wilson, Nations, 43.

122 opening line of v. 14.32 Yet a third option is taken by Dille and George Adam Smith who treat vv. 8-17 as a unit, thus including the announcement of new things in v. 9, See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them.” (NRSV)

This move allows Dille to conclude that the woman in labor gives birth to something new.33 Dille bases her argument on two main points: first, that the negative references to “idols” in vv. 8 and 17 are an inclusio, and second, that there is a shift from the second person singular (addressed to the servant) in the preceding verses to the second person plural in v. 9ff, indicating a shift from the servant (vv. 1- 7) to YHWH (vv. 8-17). However, vv. 8-9 are a better inclusio with the previous unit beginning in 41:21-23, a disputation with idols that challenges them to tell of former and new things: 41:21 Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, so that we may consider them, and that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. 23 Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be afraid and terrified. (NRSV)

Also, the repetition of “I am YHWH” in 42:6 and 8 forms a framework for the servant’s call. As for the second person plural addressees in 42:9, this is a different audience from the ones in 42:10-11 – the former includes the idols of the disputation speeh,34 while the latter are the inhabitants of the world (the ends of the earth, those who go down to the sea, the inhabitants of the costlands, the desert and its towns, the villages of Kedar, and Sela’s inhabitants). Commentators who argue for a break between vv. 13 and 14 do so primarily on the basis that hymnic passages such as 42:10-13 mark the end of major 32 Koole, Isaiah III, 1:241; Childs, Isaiah, 331; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 138; Westermann, Isaiah 40-55, 106; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 77. 33 Dille, Mixing, 43, 72; George Adam Smith, The Book of Isaiah II (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1927), 136-60. 34 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:232. Koole, Isaiah III, 1:236, suggests that the audience of 42:1-9 should be Israel, but in any case, it is different from the addressee in v. 10.

123 divisions in the book.35 However, Andrew Wilson notes that while some hymns do conclude their respective units (44:23; 48:20-21; 55:12-13), others do not: 45:8 is in the midst of a Cyrus oracle, and 49:13 is at the transition between the servant and Zion unit. Thus, 42:10-13 does not necessarily mark the end of a section. Nonetheless, some exegetes believe that vv. 10-13 should be connected to vv. 1-9 by verbal links such as YG[ (new), GZEN (glory), KOKW (praise) and a\\D (coastlands). However, vv. 14-17 also contain links with vv. 1-9 with words such as UZ> (blind), UZD (light), Y[ (darkness) and idol (O\VS v. 8, OVS v. 17) so that it is vv. 10-17 as a whole that is connected to the preceding vv. 1-9. Another argument against the unity of vv. 10-17 is that they are stylistically different in genres and content and that it would be contrived to interpret the hymnic call (vv. 10-13) as an introduction to the divine oracle (vv. 14-17). However, North shows that psalms with forms similar to those found in vv. 1013 also continue with statements of God’s judgment on the earth (e.g., Psalms 33, 40, 96, 98). Additionally, Goldingay points out that it is possible for a hymn to conclude with a direct speech from YHWH, such as is found in Psalm 95.36 In fact, Ps 95:8-11 is a warning (to Israel), which is similar to the warning (to idolaters) in Isa 42:14-17. Further, Darr argues that the auditory portrayal of the shouting warrior in v. 13 and the groaning woman in v. 14 links the two stanzas together, an aural emphasis in this passage that begins with a call to “sing to YHWH a new song” and ends with the empty declaration of the idolaters, “You are our gods!”37 Thus vv. 10-17 should be read as a unit consisting of two different genres. Form-critically, vv. 10-13 is an “eschatological hymn” that Westermann and Melugin characterize as consisting of an imperative call to praise, expanded by jussives, and followed by the substantiation of the summons to praise. However, instead of the normal ending in the perfect with a description of God’s majesty and goodness, DI ends with a divine act of a mighty man going forth.38 The speech in vv. 14-17 is a form of “salvation oracle” in response to a community lament that Westermann points out is alluded to in v. 14a, as part of “the allegation made against the deity.”39 The word YU[ (to keep still) is usually 35 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 28; Melugin, Formation, 81-2; Childs, Isaiah, 331; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:261. 36 North, Second Isaiah, 114; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:234. 37 Darr, “Warrior,” 567. Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:234, regards v. 17 as an inclusio with v. 10 or vv. 10-12, and this is further supported by the reappearance in v. 17 of enjambment that is found in v. 10. He also cites 1QIsaa which indents v. 13 but, in contrast to the MT, presents vv. 10-17 as one paragraph. 38 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 102; Melugin, Formation, 99. 39 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 106.

124 found in laments (Ps 28:1; 35:22; 39:13; 83:2): It occurs in the community lament of Isa 64:11 together with the word TSD (to restrain oneself) and also with KY[ (to be silent) in the lament of Ps 28:1. Melugin compares the structure to Psalm 12 and Isa 41:17-20 that also refer to Israel in the third person: There is a complaint (v. 14a), followed by an announcement of YHWH’s intervention (v. 14b), an elaboration of that intervention (vv. 15-16), and a summary statement (v. 17). Further, Schoors argues that the polemic against idols in v. 17 belongs to the classical motif of the confusion of enemies that is a variation on the purpose of the proclamation, viz., the recognition of YHWH. Such an emphasis is consistent with the overall context of 41:1-42:17 as a trial against the gods.40 Based on the above discussed genres, I propose the following outline for vv. 10-17: vv. 10-13 Hymn of Praise v. 10-12 Call to praise: To all inhabitants v. 13 Substantiation: YHWH will go forth like a warrior vv. 14-17 Proclamation of Salvation v. 14a Admission of Complaint: YHWH’s silence v. 14b Announcement of YHWH’s intervention: YHWH will cry out like woman in labor v. 15-16b Elaboration of YHWH’s intervention: v. 15 destruction of nature v. 16ab deliverance of Israel v. 16c Summary statement of God’s promise: God will do and not forsake v. 17 Goal: Humiliation of idolaters Wilson and Goldingay make cogent arguments for the parallel structure between 41:1-20 and 41:21-42:17 so that 42:10-17 reflects 41:17-20 (according to Goldingay; or 41:14-20 according to Wilson).41 Each of the two sections has a three-fold sequence beginning with trial scenes against the gods of the nations (41:1-7, 41:21-29), followed by passages about the servant (41:8-13, 42:1-8), 40 Melugin, Formation, 23; Schoors, God Your Savior, 92. The summary-appraisal in v.16 is not part of a proclamation of salvation, but it echoes 41:17, 20 (E]> DO, KI>) in the parallel unit, 41:17-20. 41 Wilson, Nations, 42-3; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:136.

125 and ending with announcements of deliverance that portray YHWH’s transformation of nature that is acknowledged by all (41:14-20, 42:10-17). Goldingay sees 42:10-17 as a bridge between 41:1-42:9 and what follows in 42:18-43:21 where the people’s blindness is expanded upon42 and where God is again presented as a warrior (43:17). What is unique about 42:10-17 is that the deliverance of God is not only described as the act of a warrior but also as the behavior of a woman in labor. Does this then imply that YHWH gives birth to the people?

C.

ISSUES ABOUT BIRTH

1.

Does YHWH Give Birth?

James Muilenburg suggests that the woman in labor portrays YHWH bringing forth a new creation, a view followed by Whybray, Phyllis Trible, and Dille.43 Most scholars, on the other hand, avoid the implication that God gives birth either by following Darr’s argument that the laboring woman in Isa 42:14 is solely an image of power (in connection with the warrior in 42:13) or that she only illustrates the timing of God’s intervention (in response to the silence of 42:14a). Furthermore, Darr points out that the divine deliverance is proclaimed without reference to birth imagery: “Rather, the poet depicts this deliverance as an exodus-like victory march: Yahweh will lead the blind people, marching them from darkness to light upon unknown paths that will be made smooth.”44 However, the overlapping elements of the juxtaposed metaphors of God as a warrior and as a woman in labor are found not only in the powerful cries that Darr points out but also in the delivery of lives. In other words, the element of a victorious liberation in vv. 15-16 highlights the element of a successful birth by the laboring woman in v. 14. I have discussed above in Chapter Three that the KGOZ\N (like a woman giving birth) simile is a conventional expression of fear and anguish, especially during a siege, and that nothing is actually being born. However, Dille notes that there are a few notable exceptions where the prophetic writers extend the KGOZ\N convention to highlight the normally downplayed element of birth in order to indicate some outcome.45 She points out that Isa 26:17-18 uses the simile to convey fruitlessness of effort rather than distress:

42 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:234, 293. 43 James Muilenburg, “Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-55, Introduction and Exegesis,” IB 5:467-74; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 78; Trible, Rhetoric, 64; Dille, Mixing, 71-2. 44 Darr, “Warrior,” 571. Also, Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:247; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:258. 45 Dille, Mixing, 63-5. Also see p. 77.

126 17 Like a woman with child, who writhes and cries out in her pangs when she is near her time, so were we because of you O LORD; 18 We were with child, we writhed, but we gave birth only to wind. We have won no victories on earth, and no one is born to inhabit the world. (NRSV)

While Isa 26:17-18 describes a negative result, Mic 4:9-13 uses the KGOZ\N simile in relation to a triumphant outcome, and like Isa 42:10-17, Micah also brings the figures of the warrior and the birthing woman together: 9 Now why do you cry aloud? Is there no king in you? Has your counselor perished, that pangs have seized you like a woman in labor? 10 Writhe and groan, O daughter Zion, like a woman in labor; for now you shall go forth from the city and camp in the open country; you shall go to Babylon. There you shall be rescued, there the LORD will redeem you from the hands of your enemies. 11 Now many nations are assembled against you, saying, "Let her be profaned, and let our eyes gaze upon Zion." 12 But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD; they do not understand his plan, that he has gathered them as sheaves to the threshing floor. 13 Arise and thresh, O daughter Zion, for I will make your horn iron and your hoofs bronze; you shall beat in pieces many peoples, and shall devote their gain to the LORD, their wealth to the Lord of the whole earth. (NRSV)

Daughter Zion is like a woman in labor when she is under siege, but ultimately she is called to be a warrior who will devote her conquest to YHWH, following the practices of a holy war. That the labor should be understood positively is indicated by Zion being commanded to writhe and bring forth (v.10), paralleled by commands to arise and thresh (v. 13), ending with Zion’s victory over her enemies. That this victory of restoration from the exile is pictured as birth is already foreshadowed in Mic 5:2: 5:2 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. (NRSV)

Claudia D. Bergmann writes concerning this chapter in Micah: Now, childbirth is applied as a sign that pain and suffering can lead to new life, an image that especially appeals to modern readers who often underestimate the ancient

127 metaphorical conection between childbirth and crisis. As described above, this happy outcome is not automatically implied whenever the Birth Metaphor is used, which is why Mic 5:2 explicitly repeats the image of childbirth.46

Thus, the travailing woman simile may be unconventionally extended to include birth itself so as to describe a result, and further, it may be juxtaposed with a battle imagery, which transforms the KGOZ\N metaphor from one of helpless panic into one of purposeful action. So also in Isa 42:14, God is described as acting forcefully (crying out, gasping, and panting), resulting in the destruction of enemies (v. 15 cf. Mic 4:13) and the deliverance of the people (v. 16). As Dille writes: If the phrase ki-yoledah were being used in its conventional sense in Isaiah 42, then the implication that something is being born would be remote indeed (a hidden entailment), but never entirely absent. Note how easily it is revived in Isa. 26.17-18 (above). While the entailment of something being born may be hidden or downplayed in some uses of the simile, it remains a potentially live entailment.47

(What Dille calls an entailment should properly be a constituent element of the source “mother,” since one becomes a mother by giving birth.) Similarly, in Isa 42:10-17, the downplayed element of birth is evoked by describing the end result of God’s labor – the freeing of the people. 2.

Other Highlights of the Laboring Woman Metaphor

a.

Power

Following Darr, many scholars link the woman’s cry in v. 14 to the warrior’s shout in v. 13 and understand that it is the forceful breaths of the woman that bring about the desiccation of nature in v. 15, resulting in a way for the exiles to return in v16. In fact, the words for the woman’s “gasp” (aPY) and “pant” (#DY) 46 Bergmann, Childbirth, 111. 47 Dille, Mixing, 71. She goes on to argue that the literary context of Isaiah 42 highlights that something is being born in three ways: “By association with YHWH who, for Deutero-Isaiah, is the creator of all things; in the immediate literary unit which speaks of ‘new things’ sprouting (v.9); and in the movement from darkness to light in v. 16 (something is coming to light).” She concludes that what is born may be the new event announced in v. 9 or the exiles, or both. While I agree with Dille’s conclusion, I find her arguments from DI’s literary context rather weak. First, while YHWH is the creator of all things, God may create through other means besides birth (e.g., God “forms” (UF\) Jacob in the womb in 44: 2, 24). Second, her citation of “new things” in v. 9 does not properly belongs to the present unit. Third, although birth may be depicted as coming out from darkness into light (Job 3:16; Ps 58:8), infants are not said to be blind as in Isa 42:16. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of the warrior with the laboring woman metaphor points to liberation as birth.

128 are also puns for “destroy” and “crush” respectively, thus subverting the travailing woman metaphor from one of frailty into one of potency. By twisting an old cliché, Darr points out that DI transforms images of human terror and anguish into images of unparalleled power. After all, as Bergman notes, the text makes it unmistakably clear how YHWH cries and breathes as a woman giving birth – without any fear or anxiety. So, “while the Birth Metaphor usually rules the behavior of peope in crisis, in Isa 42, YHWH rules the Birth Metaphor.” Bergman also points out that the heavy breathing of YHWH corresponds to the heavy breathing expected of a warrior as he marches on into battle. Thus, by juxtaposition with the warrior metaphor, the element of power overlaps with and highlights the strength that a woman in labor must exert to deliver her child. Dille writes pertinently: “The yoledah is the destroyer rather than the destroyed.”48 b.

Timeliness

Scholars who do not see a connection between the woman and the warrior interpret the labor in the light of 42:14a: “I have been silent for a long time past, I have kept still and restrained myself,” and read the laboring woman’s cry as announcing the timeliness of God’s response, just as a child is delivered in due time. Westermann suggests that 42:14a alludes to a community lament to which God admits: “I have been silent for a long time past; I have kept still and restrained myself.” Now, however, God proclaims a change: Like a woman in labor, God will cry out and bring destruction upon the foes and deliverance for the people.49 By this expression of time, DI extends the conventional laboring woman metaphor to highlight the anticipation of birth. Dille lists various biblical texts to show that birth is associated with timeliness and inevitability: Sarah and the Shunammite woman delivered in due time (K\[W>N) just as God promised (Gen 18:10, 14; 2 Kgs 4:16-17). The idea of timeliness is also found in Mic 5:2 (NRSV): “Therefore he shall give them up until the time (W>G>) when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel.”50 In view of these 48 Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 105; Bergman, Childbirth, 140-1; Dille, Mixing, 68. 49 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 106. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 144, believes that the simile rests on “the inescapability and logical nature of birth” as the assurance of God’s coming salvation. Koole, Isaiah III, 1:255, explains that “the execution of God’s purpose must abide God’s time.” Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40-66, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 50-2, notes an urgency in the simile: “God, like a woman in the final throes of labor, can wait no longer.” 50 Dille, Mixing, 71.

129 associations, for God to act like a woman in labor after a time of silence shows that salvation will come as surely as labor contractions. Metaphoric coherence also means that the timing of the labor highlights a usually downplayed element in the warrior image: Just as there is a season for birth, 2 Sam 11:1 also indicates “a time (W>) when kings go out to battle.” Dille writes that what is perceived as silence and inaction on the part of the pregnant woman overlaps with the time when a soldier is making preparations for war.51 c.

Compassion

Sommer argues that Isa 42:10-16 is a reversal of Jer 14:2-9, with DI supplying responses to prayers and laments in the earlier prophet’s work.52 The verbal similarities in Jer 14:2-9 are indicated in the parentheses below: 2 Judah mourns and her gates languish; they lie in gloom (ZUGT)53 on the ground (UD), and the cry (K[ZF) of Jerusalem goes up. 3 Her nobles send their servants for water; they come to the cisterns, they find no water, they return with their vessels empty. They are ashamed (YE) and dismayed and cover their heads (YDU), 4 because the ground is cracked. Because there has been no rain on the land (UD) the farmers are dismayed (YE); they cover their heads (YDU). 5 Even the doe in the field forsakes (E]>) her newborn fawn (KGO\) because there is no grass. 6 The wild asses stand on the bare heights, they pant (#DY) for air like jackals; their eyes fail because there is no herbage (EI>). 7 Although our iniquities testify against us, act (KI>), O LORD, for your name's sake; our apostasies indeed are many, and we have sinned against you. 8 O hope of Israel, its savior in time of trouble, why should you be like a stranger in the land (UDE), like a traveler turning aside for the night? 9 Why should you be like someone confused (aKGQY\DN), like a mighty warrior (UEJN) who cannot give help? 51 Dille, Mixing, 71. 52 Sommer, Prophet, 44-5. 53 Sommer, Prophet, 44, adds that ZUGT (to become dark) is a sound play with UGT (Kedar) in Isa 42:11.

130 Yet you, O LORD, are in the midst of us, and we are called by your name; do not forsake us! (NRSV)

Sommer notes that the two passages share many vocabulary items that do not appear together elsewhere.54 In fact, Isa 42:11 uses [ZF, a verbal form of K[ZF in Jer 14:2 (cry of distress), which appears nowhere else. Holladay dates the text to the time of Jehoiakim and argues that the natural disaster of a drought in Jer 14:2-6 is a parallel to the military disaster described in 15:5-9, with both “sword” and “famine” reflected in Jer 14:13-18.55 Thus, there is thematic coherence between the two passages in Jeremiah and DI based on God’s judgment upon the people through nature and the Babylonians. DI then reverses and answers the negative tropes in Jeremiah’s passage: The drought that punishes the people in Jeremiah becomes an image of destruction against the enemies in DI (Jer 14:3; Isa 42:15); the failing eyes of the wild asses who stand on bare heights are like the blind who are led out on smooth roads (Jer 14:6; Isa 42:16); the phenomenon of darkness will be turned to light (Jer 14:2 cf. Isa 42: 16); and the appeal not to be forsaken is answered with the assurance that God will not abandon the people (Jer 14:9; Isa 42:16). In terms of specific vocabulary, instead of Jerusalem’s “cry of distress,” there will be “cries of joy from the earth” (Jer 14:2; Isa 42:11-12); instead of Israel being “ashamed” and covering their “heads,” idolaters will be put to “shame,” while mountains “heads” will shout (Jer 14:3-4; Isa 42:17, 11). As for YHWH, unlike the doe who “gives birth” and “forsakes,” YHWH “gives birth” and “does not forsake” (Jer 14:5; Isa 42:14, 16), and unlike the wild asses who “pant” pathetically, YHWH “pants” powerfully (Jer 15:6; Isa 42:14), thereby answering the people’s plea to the Deity to act (Jer 14:7; Isa 42:16). In fact, God admits in DI that God has restrained Godself, probably as Sommer suggests, for the reasons cited in Jeremiah: Their sins testified against them.56 Therefore, their lament in Isa 42:14 that God has not acted is admitted and then reversed.

54 While indicating a number of verbal parallels, Sommer overlooks a few other key words and verses. He overlooks the use of YE (shame) in Jer 14:3-4 because he did not include Isa 42:17; he omits Jer 14:5 and thus overlooks GO\ (birth) and E]> (forsake), and finally he misses YDU (“head” in Jer 13:3-4) and KI> (“do” in Jer 14:7). I have included these in the parentheses above. 55 Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:427-8. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:324, suggests an exilic date for this text as a reflection on the failure of Jeremiah’s intercession. However, Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 693, attributes the vocabulary of the poem to Jeremiah, and Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah, 1:200, point out that the rhetoric parallels that of Jeremiah 8, thus dating the text to the time of Jehoiakim. 56 Sommer, Prophet, 45.

131 More specifically, DI reverses the similes in Jer 14:8-9: 8 O hope of Israel, its savior in time of trouble (KUFW>E), why should you be like a sojourner (UJN) in the land, like a traveler ([UDN) turning aside for the night? 9 Why should you be like a helpless man (aKGQY\DN), like a mighty man (UEJN) who is unable to save? Yet you, O LORD, are in the midst of us, and we are called by your name; do not forsake us!

In Isa 42:13, YHWH is no longer aKGQ Y\DN (like a helpless man) but Y\DN [ZP[OP (like a man of war) and no longer >\YZKOONZ\DOUZEJN (like a mighty man who is unable to save) but DF\UZEJN (like a mighty man who goes forth) who shows himself mighty (UEJW\) against his enemies. DI reverses the order of Jeremiah’s similes by mentioning the warrior first instead of last, and thus, DI’s second simile of a woman in labor may be seen as a chiastic reversal of Jeremiah’s first two parallel similes of a stranger and a traveler in Jer 14:8.57 While the simile of a mighty warrior questions God’s ability, the similes of a stranger and a traveler lament God’s apathy. Carroll explains that in times of disaster, the community appeals to the god to wake up and perform. A stranger, in contrast, sleeps with no care for the land. William McKane writes that the land is YHWH’s possession and its well-being is his primary responsibility. Why then should God behave as if it were a peripheral matter, or as Fretheim puts it, why do God’s commitments run no deeper than those of a passing stranger?58 God’s silence in Isa 42:14a reflects this lament that God has done nothing like a traveler and shown no concern like a stranger. DI proceeds to overturn this lament with the imagery of a woman in labor who, unlike a disinterested stranger, risks her life for her child and in contrast to a slumbering traveler, brings to bear all her effort to deliver her infant safely. DI thus affirms that YHWH is intimately related to the people and will spare no efforts to save 57 Job 31:32 also uses stranger and traveler as parallels. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 701, thinks that a traveler is less concerned than a sojourner since he is here today and gone tomorrow (cf. Wis Sol 5:14). That the birthing woman is a reversal of Jer 14:8 is also indicated by the cry for timely help in Jer 14:8a: “O hope of Israel, its savior in time of trouble (KUFW>E).” As discussed above, W> is used to refer to the time of delivery (cf. Gen 18:10, 14; 38:27; 2 Kgs 4:1617; Job 39:1-2), and labor is also often expressed as KUF (distress, cf. 2 Kgs 19:3 = Isa 37:3; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 49:24; 50:43). In fact, Jer 30:6-7 uses the phrase W>E KUFin a trope of a woman giving birth. For God to save at a time of distress in Jer 14:8 may therefore be likened to a woman giving birth in due time as in Isa 42:14. 58 Carroll, Jeremiah, 311; McKane, Jeremiah, 1:320; Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Macon: Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 220.

132 them. During a mother’s labor, the role of the father pales in comparison, and so at this stage of Israel’s history, when the attention and action of God is desperately needed, it is the image of the laboring woman that assures DI’s audience of God’s deep compassion and willingness to act on their behalf. Like a mother who for the sake of her child endures the pain of birth, so also God exerts Godself for the sake of delivering the people. Further, Dille observes that Ishtar’s cry of travail in the Epic of Gilgamesh provides evidence that the laboring woman simile may convey compassion: The gods were frightened by the deluge, And, shrinking back, they ascended to the heaven of Anu. The gods cowered like dogs Crouched against the out wall. Ishtar cried out like a woman in travail, The sweet-voiced mistress of the [gods] moans aloud: ‘The olden days are alas turned to clay, Because I bespoke evil in the Assembly of the gods, Ordering battle for the destruction of my people, When it is I myself who give birth to my people? Like the spawn of the fishes they fill the sea!’ The Anunnaki gods weep with her, The gods, all humbled, sit and weep…59 (emphasis hers)

Here is an example of a deity crying out like a woman in labor, providing a comparison for YHWH in Isa 42:14. Ishtar is crying in distress out of compassion for her people who are being destroyed in a battle. Dille points out that YHWH, like Ishtar, attributes the disaster to her own wrath, but unlike YHWH, Ishtar is unable to save her people. The cry of YHWH may therefore be understood as a cry of anguish and pain over the suffering of the people, but it is a cry of compassion not of helplessness. It has been discussed above that the compassion of a travailing mother overlaps with and highlights the warrior’s zeal (KDQT) in Isa 42:13. Thus, the juxtaposition of the woman in labor shows that the warrior also acts out of compassion for his oppressed people – like the cry of the travailing woman, the warrior’s battle cry bursts forth from zealous compassion for his people. In summary, the simile of the woman in labor in the context of Isa 42:14 highlights that God gives birth to the people, just as the warrior delivers the captives. Other overlapping elements of the two metaphors highlight God’s powerful, timely, and compassionate actions. The KGOZ\N simile illustrates these qualities in a unique way because unlike the role of a father, the mother’s involvement at the time of giving birth is one that requires all her attention, 59 Dille, Mixing, 66, citing “Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser (ANET, 94).

133 effort, and even her very life. It is this image that is used to assure Israel that God will break the silence and will spare no effort in coming to their aid. In the next text, the focus is on God’s pregnancy rather than on the labor itself.

III. ISAIAH 46:1-7 CARRIED FROM THE WOMB This text says that God carries Israel from the womb, and the issue is whether this means that God carried Israel from inside the womb, implying that God was pregnant with Israel, or whether it only means that God carried Israel from outside the womb, like a man carrying his child (as in Deut 1:31).

A.

TRANSLATION 46:1 Bel bowed down, Nebo is stooping,60 their images are for the beasts and cattle; things you would carry are being loaded61 as a burden for the weary. 2 They stooped, they bowed down together; they cannot save the burden, but themselves into captivity went. 3 Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, the ones loaded from62 the belly, carried from the womb; 4 until old age I am the one, until gray hair I myself will bear.63 I myself made64 and I myself will carry; I myself will bear and deliver.

60 VUT(stoop) is a participle in MT but a perfect in 1QIsaa and LXX. I follow MT as the harder reading that Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:70, regards as a rhetorical variation. It may be noted that another passive participle WZVZP> (being loaded) is also used in the last colon and both convey immediacy. 61 The root VP> refers to a heavy load, especially one carried by beasts of burden (Gen 44:13; Neh 13:15). This is the same root in v. 3 that describes God carrying Israel from the belly. 62 \QPin MT is the archaic poetic form of P that is misunderstood by 1QIsaa as \QPP (from me). Koole, Isaiah III, 1:501, notes that some older commentators (e.g., Luther, Calvin) similarly misread it. 63 OEV (bear a heavy burden) and its related nouns are also used figuratively, generally with negative connotations to refer to forced labor (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:29), foreign oppression (e.g., Isa 9:3), and iniquities (e.g., Lam 5:7). The pual participle is used in Ps 144:14 to refer to cattle laden with young. OEV in this verse, therefore, implies that God will carry Israel till old age despite its rebelliousness. 64 BHS notes the proposal to emend \W\I> (I made) to \WIP> (I carried), a biform of VP> used in vv. 1 and 3. This is followed by several commentators (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:265; Wilson, Nations, 154; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 188). However, 1QIsaa and the Versions support MT, and KI> also occurs in v. 6 where it is used for the making of an idol. Therefore, I agree with Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:76, against Koole, Isaiah III,

134 5 To whom will you liken me to make me equal, or compare me, so that we are alike? 6 Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, They hire a smith to make it a god to which they prostrate, and even worship. 7 They carry on their shoulders; they bear it, to set it in its position so that it stands. From its place it cannot leave; And even though one cries out to it, it cannot answer; From one’s trouble, it cannot save.

B.

THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, AND CONTEXT

This text is closely related to the previous chapter in DI that describes God’s soverignty in raising Cyrus as a deliverer, and in fact, there is no break in the MT before 46:1. The bowing of the idols and idolaters in 46:1-2 echoes the verb >UN (bow) from 45:23. Westermann notes that the “remnant of Israel” in 46:3 parallels “survivors of the nations” in 45:20, a verse that also speaks of carrying (DYQ) idols and praying to a god (OD) that cannot save. Blenkinsopp suggests that there is a progressive indictment against the idols in Isaiah 45, to the named gods in Isaiah 46, ending with a full-scale attack against Babylon in chapter 47. Within this context, 46:1 begins a new unit in which God moves from addressing the Gentiles (45:18-25) to assuring Israel. Goldingay also notes that unlike the surrounding verses, 46:1-2 uses perfect rather than imperfect verbs, thus conveying the immediacy of the idols’ downfall in the genre of a victory song, perhaps as a parody of the religious procession in 45:20.65 There have been several suggestions for the boundaries of this text. Some commentators consider the whole chapter as a unit with vv. 1-2 as the foundation for the three-fold imperatives to listen and remember in vv. 3, 8, and 12.66 Others regard vv. 1-4 as an independent unit based on the vocabulary and the strong contrast between idols that have to be carried and YHWH who carries Israel.67 This fits with the form-critical analysis of Melugin, who argues that vv. 1:502, that the verb is used transitively (I made) rather than intransitively (I acted), just as the following three verbs are also transitive. 65 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 177; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:266; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2: 66. 66 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:66; Childs, Isaiah, 359; Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 165-6. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 178, considers vv. 5-8 as an interpolation based on the argument that its polemic against idolatry differs from vv. 1-4 in which there is a supposed differentiation between the gods and their images. However, this differentiation is disputed in n. 72 below. 67 Koole, Isaiah III, 1:495; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 113.

135 1-4 is a speech of salvation that uses a victory song in vv. 1-2, while vv. 5-11 is a disputation speech.68 In fact, he thinks that vv. 1-4 and 5-11 were originally independent oracles based on their different genres and emphases. However, Wilson points out several chiastic and parallel linkages between each of the four stanzas (vv. 1-4, 5-7, 8-11, 12-13), showing that they are a unity. While vv. 1-4 may be considered quite independently, I will include vv. 5-7 in my discussion, since they continue the theme of carrying idols and provide a further contrast to YHWH carrying Israel.69 Both Blenkinsopp and Oswalt also regard vv. 1-7 as a unit with its arguments against the idols. Blenkinsopp observes that v. 7 forms an inclusio with vv. 1-2 regarding the motif of a god that needs to be carried (DYQ in vv. 1 and 7) and that cannot save.70 Verses 1-4 and 5-7 also share other common words: KI> (make; vv. 4 and 6) and OEV (bear; vv. 4 and 7; appearing in DI again only in chapter 53). Based on these links, vv. 1-7 is a viable unit with the following outline: vv. 1-2

Victory Song – Downfall of Idols and Idolaters v. 1 Idols have to be carried as a load v. 2 Idolaters cannot deliver their idols but go into captivity

vv. 3-4

Salvation Speech – God’s Devotion to Israel v. 3,4a God carries Israel as a load from the womb to old age71 v. 4b God makes, carries, bears, and delivers Israel

vv. 5-7

Disputation Speech – Derision of Idolaters and Idols v. 6 Idolaters make a god, carry, and bear it v. 7 Idols are unable to move, speak, and save

The first stanza speaks of the idols being a load that cannot be saved by the Babylonians.72 In contrast, the second stanza declares that God carries Israel 68 Melugin, Formation, 131-133. Schoors, God Your Savior, 273f, also characterizes vv. 513 as a disputation speech. 69 Wilson, Nations, 161. 70 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 227. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:265, also argues that vv. 5-7 share common stylistic features with vv. 1-4, especially the use of alliteration. 71 Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 258, notes that KE\YG>Z (until gray hair) in v. 4 is a paronomasia with \EYE (into captivity) in v. 2. 72 Scholars dispute whether vv. 1-2 make a distinction between the gods and their images so that in v. 2, it is the gods who cannot save their images and thus go into captivity. Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:70; Baltzer, Deutero- Isaiah, 256; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 228; and Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 179, hold to such a distinction, but Childs, Isaiah, 360, points out that such a division is foreign to the biblical writers, as exemplified in vv. 5-7. Further, as Goldingay himself notes, the suffix of other occurrences of aK\EF> (“their images” in v. 1) refers to the worshippers of the idol (e.g., 1 Sam 31:9; 2 Sam 5:21), and

136 from the womb to old age. God made and will carry Israel, even if they are a burden, and God will save them. The third stanza again describes the idols made by the Babylonians that are carried as a burden and are unable to save.

C.

ISSUES ABOUT PREGNANCY

Most commentators deny God’s pregnancy in this text. For example, Oswalt writes that the writer would wish to “distance God from the fertility rites of pagan religion with their sexualizing of deity.…” On the other hand, a few others read this as a metaphor for God as a mother: Sommer compares this metaphor to Ps 71:6, where God is described as taking care of the psalmist when he is taken out of his mother’s womb, but in DI, God is the mother. Similarly, Marc Z. Brettler writes: “It is as if even when Israel gets old, YHWH still carries them and cares for them as in pregnancy.” So also, Seitz comments that “Israel has been borne, carried, and conducted from the womb.” Fretheim observes that DI uses the imagery of birth as part of his emphasis on creation and cites Isa 46:3 to show that Israel was formed in the divine womb.73 While Isa 46:3 does not make it explicit whose womb it is, I will argue that the syntax of the verse indicates that YHWH carried Israel from within the womb rather than just from birth. 1.

In Utero or Ex Utero? Meaning of the Preposition P with Womb (ME, a[U)

While the uses of E with womb refer to the time in utero (Gen 25:23; 25:24; 39:27; Hos 12:3; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13; Eccl 11:5; Jer 1:5), a study of relevant texts shows that P includes the time in utero and thereafter, unless it is accompanied by verbs that denote separation, in which case it refers only to the time ex utero. P is used independently in Judg 13:5, 7, and 16:17 to describe Samson being a Nazirite from the time he was in his mother’s womb, indicated by Samson’s mother also being instructed to observe the Nazirite food restrictions while pregnant. Similarly in Job 10:19, Job wishes he had died from (P) the womb so that none could see him, meaning that he wants to have died similarly, aYSQ is used in Isa 44:20 and 47:14 with reference to the idol worshippers. Although Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:73, reads DIP (burden) in v. 2 as the people whom the gods are supposed to carry, DIP is used in v. 1 to refer to the idols. Therefore, I read the masculine plural suffixes in vv. 1-2 as referring to the Babylonians rather than to the gods, which is in agreement with Koole, Isaiah III, 1:499. 73 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 230 n. 18; Sommer, Prophet, 122; Seitz, “Isaiah 40-66,” 406; Marc Zvi Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40-66,” JSOT 78 (1998): 117; Fretheim, God and World, 182.

137 within the womb. In other places, P is used with verbs such as DF\ (come forth) in Job 1:21, 38:29, Eccl 5:14, [ZJ (burst forth) in Ps 22:10 [9] , OY (cast out) in Ps 22:11 [10] , and K]J (sever) in Ps 71:6 to indicate the time ex utero.74 In Isa 46:3, no such verb of separation is used, indicating that God carried Israel from the time inside the womb. Further, other uses of P with womb in DI also include the notion of time from within the womb. In Isa 44:2, 24, and 49:5, the preposition P is used rather than E(as in Jer 1:5), but it is understood as God forming the Servant “in” rather than “from” the womb. Isa 49:1 speaks of God having called the Servant from (P) the womb, which parallels the first colon that YHWH called the Servant before he was born.75 Therefore, in view of the usage of P with womb in DI, we may understand 46:3 as God carrying Israel from the time they were in the womb. What then is the significance of Israel being carried from God’s womb? 2.

Highlights of the Pregnant Woman Metaphor

The pregnancy metaphor in 46:3 is extended in an unusual way in v. 4 by the same mother carrying her child until old age. This highlights the mother’s compassion in carrying a child not only for nine months but for life and also her strength in bearing the child not only as a fetus but as an adult. This imaginary extension highlights YHWH’s extraordinary compassion and strength, which are contrasted with those of the idols who, instead of carrying their worshippers, are a burden to them (vv. 1-2) and instead of answering, are silent to their pleas (vv. 6-7). Sommer writes that 46:3 provides “a reason for God’s reliability that goes beyond a covenant or contractual relationship that can be broken by one side. YHWH, as Israel’s mother, is bound irrevocably to the nation and will never fully forsake it.”76 However, the same unbreakable parental relationship would also hold true for a paternal relationship, so what does the maternal metaphor add to DI’s point? The extended metaphor highlights the unchanging solicitousness of God in carrying the child until it is old and gray, which overlaps with a pregnant mother carrying a child continuously in her womb. In 74 Ps 58:4 describes the wicked who stray from the womb and err from the belly, and while “stray” and “err” are not verbs that denote separation from the womb, they indicate actions that happen after birth. 75 These verses may imply that God forms or calls the Servant from and after the time of birth. In Isa 44:2, 24 and 49:5 the word “form” is a participle describing God and is, thus, not restricted to a past activity – a notion that suits DI’s emphasis on God’s help and purpose for the Servant in the exilic period. 76 Sommer, Prophet, 122.

138 the womb, the passive child is exhaustively cared for, whereas passive idols exhaust those who carry them. Thus, God as the pregnant mother of Israel assures the people of God’s unceasing compassion. While a pregnant woman is usually associated with vulnerability (2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16; Hos 13:6; Amos 1:13 describe the horrors of war by the ripping of pregnant women), DI highlights the conventionally downplayed effort of a pregnant woman in carrying the fetus by extending the metaphor to that of a mother carrying her grown child. The literary context also corroborates the emphasis on power: Where the weight of the idols bears down upon the animals (v. 1), YHWH bears up the weight of Israel (vv. 4 and 7) from womb to maturity. In summary, although this text does not explicitly mention birth, it is implied by Israel being carried from the time in utero to ex utero, and the metaphor highlights God’s continual care and extraordinary power. We now turn to the fourth and last text that is usually understood as barren Zion giving birth to many children.

VI. ISAIAH 54:1 SING, O BARREN ONE WHO DID NOT BEAR The exegetical analysis of this passage is found in the previous chapter. The focus for our discussion here is only on the first three verses: 1 Sing, O barren one who did not bear! Break forth in joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who did not labor! For the children of the desolate woman are more than the children of the married woman, said YHWH. 2 Enlarge the site of your tent, and let them stretch out the curtains of your tabernacle! Do not hold back! Lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes! 3 For you will spread out to the right and to the left, and your offspring will dispossess the nations, and will inhabit the desolated towns.

Willey argues that the marital reconciliation in chapter 54 implies that “children are born of the reunion of YHWH and the now fertile wife.”77 Further, many commentators argue that the metaphor of Zion as a barren woman recalls the narratives or cultic tradition of women who miraculously gave birth. However, Willey qualifies her own statement above by saying that the 77 Willey, Remember, 247.

139 implication of Zion giving birth “is not drawn out explicitly.” In fact, I will argue that the metaphor of barren Zion is based not on the tradition of barren women but on the convention of defeated cities that has no association with birth. Further, I will show that this text reverses Jer 10:17-25 and implies that the children are brought back by YHWH. Thus, while the metaphor of Zion as the reconciled wife of YHWH seems to depict her as giving birth to their children, this remains ambiguous in the immediate and larger literary contexts.

A.

THE READING THAT ZION GIVES BIRTH Most scholars believe that the adjective KUT> (barren) in Isa 54:1 deliberately alludes to the barren women in the Hebrew Bible who bore a child only after divine intervention: KUT> is used of Sarah (Gen 11:30), Rebecca (Gen 25:21), Rachel (Gen 29:31), Manoah’s wife (Judg 13:2,3), and Hannah (1 Sam 2:5), and there are also references to barren women in general in Deut 7:14, Exod 23:26, Job 24:21, and Ps 113:9. Beuken argues at length that the imagery of the woman in vv. 1-3 refers to Sarah, and Baltzer writes that this is “a reference to a particular text, for in Gen 11:30, the text reads: ‘Now Sarah was barren; she had no child.’” After all, DI mentions Sarah in 51:2 (NRSV): “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when I called him, but I blessed him and made him many.”78 Alternatively, some scholars, like Oswalt, see a closer connection to the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10) with its rivalry between the barren and fertile women. Isa 54:1 also contrasts “the desolate woman” with “the married woman” whom Blenkinsopp suggests is Babylon.79 Such comparisons of Zion to the actual barren mothers seem to suggest that she will also miraculously give birth. Other scholars are hesitant to pin the reference down to any specific barren woman. Brevard S. Childs disagrees with Beuken, pointing out that the theme of the barren mother occurs elsewhere in the settlement and monarchial periods so that it does not in itself constitute a reference to the patriarchal period. Baltzer’s reference to Gen 11:30 is uncertain because the Genesis uses an expression, GOZ KO\D (no child for her) that is different from Isa 54:1, KGO\DO (who did not bear).80 Additionally, the reference to Sarah in Isa 51:2 does not say that Sarah 78 W. A. M. Beuken, “Isaiah LIV: The Multiple Identity of the Person Addressed,” OtSt 19 (1974): 37-42; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 434; also Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55,2:341; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:350. 79 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 416 (see also Hanson, Isaiah 40-6, 171, and Clifford, Fair Spoken, 185); Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:361. The Targum identifies the “married woman” with Rome. 80 The exact phrase is found in Judg 13:2.

140 was barren but that it was Abraham who was one and became many – an exilic tradition that is also verbally reflected in Ezek 33:24. In contrast, Genesis never describes Abraham as being “one” (G[D) who became “many.” It is not certain, then, that DI is recalling the Genesis account of Sarah and her barrenness. Alternatively, some scholars believe that DI alludes to barren mothers in the cultic rather than narrative tradition. Westermann suggests that DI appropriates the age-old lament of childless women, together with motifs from hymns of praise, such as Ps 113:9 where God is praised for giving the barren woman a home and making her the joyous mother of children. F. Crüsemann suggests that the original Sitz im Leben of such a hymn was the assurance of salvation given to a woman in the sphere of the fertility cult. Blenkinsopp argues that such cultic prayers and thanksgivings for the blessing of fertility were “transformed into a narrative topos in the stories about the ancestors” that DI resumes.81 Thus, whether 54:1 is alluding to barren women in particular or in general, the inference is that Zion will also give birth by divine intervention. However, it is doubtful that Isa 54:1 refers to actual barren women because such women are never called KPPZY (desolate) in the biblical texts. The feminine singular form of aPY is found only in Lam 1:13, where Zion describes her condition as inflicted by YHWH and in 2 Sam 13:20, where it describes Tamar’s condition after she was raped by Amnon and ruined for marriage – “and thus for childbearing.”82 Similarly, Baltzer interprets KPPZY as being cut off from sexual intercourse,83 which was not the problem in the stories of the barren wives. In DI, the KPPZY has no husband, since she is contrasted with the KOZ>E (married woman), a comparison that differs from the rivalry between Hannah and Peninnah because not only was Hannah married, she was, in fact, the favored wife (1 Sam 1:5). Therefore, it is debatable whether Isa 54:1 is comparing two rival women or whether, as some scholars believe, it is comparing two different phases of the same woman. Goldingay says that 54:1b is an ellipsis so that the currently desolate will regain her marital status and will have more children than she had when she was married. Being interpreted, Yhwh is restoring the relationship with Jerusalem and will bring her population back in vast numbers (cf 49:17). The promise does not say that she will bear them; in fact, Yhwh is going to bring them.

81 Childs, Isaiah, 428; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 272; F. Crüsemann, Studiën zur Formgeshichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 55; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:361. 82 Willey, Remember, 247. 83 Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 434.

141 Indeed, it says nothing about where they will come from, unlike chapter 49. As in 49:21, they already exist, unbeknown to their mother.84 (emphasis mine)

As Goldingay points out, Isa 54:1 never says that Zion is the one who bears her children, a contrast with Hannah’s statement in 1 Sam 2:5: “The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn” (NRSV). Rather, Isa 54:1 simply says that her children are more than the one who is married, without stating who bears them. From the above, it can be seen that Zion does not fit the stereotype of actual barren mothers. 54:1 also contradicts other texts in DI that describe Zion as a bereaved mother (49:20-21; 51:18-20). Childs counsels the reader not to look for consistency within the variety of images, and Willey suggests that DI extends the metaphor of Zion in a new direction by using the traditions of female childlessness.85 Nonetheless, this inconsistency of images indicates that the basis of the metaphor for Zion’s barrenness may lie elsewhere.

B.

THE READING THAT ZION DOES NOT GIVE BIRTH

The barren woman metaphor in the context of Isa 54:1-3 highlights the abundance rather than the origin of her children: They are more than the children of the married; they require the enlargement of her tent; and they possess the nations. Another basis for the barren woman metaphor, one that does not predict birth, may be found in the description of devastated cities. Further, DI’s reversal of Jer 10:17-25 suggests that the children are brought back by God rather than birthed by Zion. 1.

Defeated Cities as the Basis of the Metaphor

Isa 23:4 describes Sidon in terms similar to Zion: Be ashamed, O Sidon, and speak, the fortress of the sea, saying "I have neither labored (KO[) nor given birth (GO\), I have neither reared (OGJ) young men nor brought up young women.”86 84 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:341; similarly, Koole, Isaiah III, 2:352, and North, Second Isaiah, 247. A comparison with Jer 10:17-25 (see below) would also favor this view, although in the light of Isaiah 47, the married woman may be a polysemous reference to Babylon as well (47:8). 85 Childs, Isaiah, 428; Willey, Remember, 247. 86 My translation is an emendation of the MT, which scholars have recognized as being corrupt in many parts of Isaiah 23. Isa 23:4a in the MT has a\K ]Z>Pa\UPD\NZG\F\YZE UPDO (Be ashamed, Sidon, for the sea has spoken, the fortress of the sea, saying). However, Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary, OTL (Bloomsbury Street, London: SCM, 1974), 160 n. g, points out that it could not be the sea who speaks since the sea is

142 Dille points out that a city’s loss of citizens is depicted as never having children at all. For a city to say that she has never borne or raised children is to lament that her past efforts in bearing and raising her children were all for naught – a rhetorical exaggeration that George B. Gray also applies to Zion in Isa 54:1 and 49:21. Dobbs-Allsopp explains that Isa 54:1 is the image of a woman “who either has not borne and raised children or can do so no longer.”87 Thus, a defeated city is aptly described as barren because while a bereaved mother might still reproduce, a ruined city would not be able to have children in her devastated state. Thus in Isa 49:21, Zion calls herself both KOZNY (bereaved) and KGZPOJ (sterile, unproductive, barren), and the description of Zion as KUT> (barren) in 54:1 should be interpreted in the same way to mean that her children have all been taken captives and gone into exile, and she can no longer have children. However, would the restoration of Zion entail that she gives birth to the people? As noted before, Zion’s question in Isa 49:21, “Who has borne for me these?” implies that it is not her but YHWH who bore the children by returning them from exile. For Isa 54:1-3, we will see that DI’s allusion to Jer 10:17-25 also suggests that it is YHWH who returns Zion’s children rather than that she gives birth to them. 2.

Reversal of Jer 10:17-25

Sommer notes the similarity of vocabulary between Isa 54:1-3 and Jer 10:17-25 indicated by the parentheses below: 17 Gather up your bundle from the ground, O you who live (EY\) under siege! 18 For thus says the LORD: I am going to sling out the inhabitants (EY\) of the land at this time, and I will bring distress on them, so that they shall feel it. 19 Woe is me because of my hurt! My wound is severe (KO[Q). But I said, "Truly this is my punishment, and I must bear it." masculine, while the lament of v. 4b is only possible from a woman. Therefore, he suggests emending a\UPD\Nto WUPDK(the one saying) and deleting UPDOa\K]Z>P. On the other hand, Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 2:407, 426, and Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 430, think that it is possible for a male sea to speak metaphorically as a female parent. However, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 1:342, notes that 1QIsaa has KUPD (she spoke) and, therefore, suggests emending a\UPD\N to \UPD\N (feminine imperative). I agree with Blenkinsopp that this makes good sense since \UPD would parallel the feminine imperative \YZE addressed to the city Sidon personified as a woman (cf. Isa 23:12 “virgin daugther Sidon”), leaving the Pas a dittography with the following word ]Z>P. 87 Dille, Mixing, 144; George B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1949), 389; Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, 119.

143 20 My tent (OKD) is destroyed, and all my cords (UW\P) are broken; my children (E) have gone from me, and they are no more; there is no one to spread (KMQ) my tent (OKD) again, and to set up my curtains (K>\U\). 21 For the shepherds are stupid, and do not inquire of the LORD; therefore they have not prospered, and all their flock is scattered. 22 Hear, a noise! Listen, it is coming – a great commotion from the land of the north to make the cities (U\>) of Judah a desolation (aPY), a lair of jackals. 23 I know, O LORD, that the way of human beings is not in their control, that mortals as they walk cannot direct their steps. 24 Correct me, O LORD, but in just measure; not in your anger, or you will bring me to nothing. 25 Pour out your wrath on the nations (\ZJ) that do not know you, and on the peoples that do not call on your name; for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste (aPY) his habitation. (NRSV)

Sommer adds that aZTP (space) in Isa 54:2 is a word play with a\TP (raise up) in Jer 14:20, both of which have to do with tents. In addition, KO[ (labor) in Isa 54:1 is a sound play with KO[Q (to be sick) in Jer 10:19. Willey observes that it is only in these two passages that specialized vocabulary about the setting up of a tent (tent, curtains, cords, stretch out) is applied to a personified mother.88 Further, the word UW\P (cords), apart from meaning bowstrings in Ps 21:13 [12] and its association with building the Temple in Exodus and Numbers, is used only in these two prophetic texts. Jer 14:17-25 is usually dated to the eve of 597 or 586 B.C.E., and the two prophetic texts have a common theme of dealing with the Babylonian destruction of the city.89 Thus, it may be concluded that DI is alluding to Jer 10:17-25. As argued in Chapter Three, Jer 10:17-18 is addressed to the people who are personified as a woman going into exile, while v. 20 is spoken by the personified city who bemoans the departure of her children. As for v. 19, it was suggested that the first colon is the personified woman’s lament, while the second colon is Jeremiah’s speech. It is not clear whether the personified woman 88 Sommer, Prophet, 38-9; Willey, Remember, 241-3. Seitz, “Isaiah 40-66,” 476-7, suggests that Isa 54:2 recalls Isa 33:20: “Look on Zion…an immovable tent, whose stakes will never be pulled up, and none of whose ropes will be broken” (NRSV). However, there are only two words, “tent” and “stakes,” repeated in DI, and though there is coherence of theme, Isa 54:1-3 primarily alludes to Jeremiah and perhaps, secondarily, to PI. 89 Holladay, Jeremiah, 1: 340, and Lundbom, Jeremiah, 1: 606, prefers the earlier date, while Carroll, Jeremiah, 162, and Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah, 1:163, think that both are possible.

144 who bewails the hurt represents the people or the city, but in any case, DI reverses her sickness (KO[Q) by proclaiming that Zion will have children though she did not labor (KO[). Jeremiah’s judgment against the city is then overturned point by point: Where Zion laments that her “tent” is destroyed, and her “cords” are broken, DI announces that her “tent” must be enlarged and her “cords” lengthened; where Zion grieves that her “children” are no more, DI tells her that she will have more “children” than before;90 where Zion says there is none to “stretch” her “tent” and “curtains,” DI announces that many will “stretch” her “curtains;” and where other “nations” make the “cities” of Judah “desolate,” DI pronounces that Zion’s children will dispossess the “nations,” and the “inhabitants” who were slung will “inhabit” the “desolate cities.” This intertextual reference to Jeremiah explains some aspects of Isaiah 54:13. For one, the puzzling absence of the woman’s identity in DI parallels the unnamed feminine addressee in Jeremiah.91 For another, “tent” in Isa 54:2 is an echo of Jeremiah rather than a recollection of the nomadic patriarchal period that Sarah lived in.92 Finally, DI reverses the prophecy that YHWH is going to sling out the inhabitants of the land by proclaiming that the children of the desolate woman will inhabit the cities. Such a reversal would imply that YHWH who flung out the people would bring them back again. In sum, while the metaphors of Zion as YHWH’s wife and as Israel’s mother seem to indicate that she gives birth to the children, this is never overtly stated. Locating the basis of the barren woman metaphor in the convention of ruined cities rather than in the tradition of childless women suggests that it is YHWH who returns the children, as shown by the reversal of Jer 10:17-25. Therefore, Isa 54:1-3 highlights the joyous abundance of children but downplays the element of birth by mother Zion.93 90 I have noted above that this connection with Jer 10:20 helps to explain the plural imperative :-\ in Isa 54:2 as a reference to the children needed to stretch out Zion’s tent. 91 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 415, notes that while “Zion” occurs 8 times between 49:14 and 52:8, it does not occur against until 59:20. However, he over-interprets the absence of the term as suggesting that “all who feel barren and dejected and alone as a result of their sins have reason to shout for joy now. All, Gentiles and Jews alike, may become the blessed people of God.” 92 Contra Koole, Isaiah III, 2:353; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:362; Beuken, “Multiple Identities,” 43. Willey, Remember, 242, explains the destruction of the tent in Jer 10:20 as a metaphor for personal death (cf. Isa 38:12 and Ps 52:5, where death is described as removal of one’s tent). 93 The ambiguity of whether Zion gives birth in Isaiah 54 is reflected in TI. Chapters 60-62 reflect the repatriation of children to mother Zion and echo the marital reconciliation between YHWH and Zion with no indication that the city gives birth to her children. In

145

EXCURSUS on ISA 45:9-13 “With What Are You In Labor?” Some commentators regard Isa 45:9-13 as another indication of divine birth, but I exclude this from my consideration, because the text is more accurately a reference to God’s plan through Cyrus rather than to God’s birth of Israel or humanity. 9 Ho! You who strive with your Form-er, a pot amongst earthen pots. Does the clay say to its form-er, "What are you doing?" or "Your work (O>S) has no hands"? 10 Ho! The one saying to a father, "What are you begetting?" or to a woman, "With what are you in labor?" 11 Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and its Form-er: Will you question me (\Q,:OD Y) about what is to come (W$S, which she translates as “artifact” and thus applies the source of the metaphor (birthing) to the wrong target, i.e., Cyrus, when it should be God’s plan through him.

147 3.

WZ\WDK (what is to come) refers to God’s plan.

The parallel of O>Sis WZ\WDK in v. 11c, and the root KWD is used to speak of God raising Cyrus to deliver Israel: In 41:23, YHWH challenges the idols to foretell “coming” events; in 41:25, YHWH declares that it is Cyrus who has “come;” in 44:7, YHWH announces from of old “the things to come;” and in 45:11, God will not allow anyone to dispute the “things to come.” Thus, both WZ\WDK and O>S in v. 11 refer to God’s deliverance through Cyrus (cf. 41:23-25), not to the creation of Israel or humanity. 4.

a\G\ (hands) refers to a plan rather than an object.

a\G\ in v. 9 is usually translated as “handles,” but the word for “handles” is WZG\ (Exod 26:17; I Kgs 10:19). Koole suggests that “hands” should be understood as the potter’s power or skill, and Leene points out that v. 12 also refers to God’s “hands” in stretching out the heavens, an expression for “ordering power.”100 God’s order in creation effectively counters the accusation in v. 9 that the potter’s work has no “hands.” Thus, the questioner is criticizing God’s act rather than God’s artifact. Accordingly, Isa 45:9-13 is not relevant to the question of who gives birth to Israel, since it is about the origin of YHWH’s saving plan through the foreign king Cyrus.

SUMMARY Zion’s question in Isa 49:21, “Who has borne for me these?” points to YHWH as the one who gives birth to Zion’s children, a metaphor that was also used for the Exodus (Num 11:11-12; Deut 32:18). That YHWH is the one who creates the people is consistent with Zion theology and its emphasis on YHWH as the creator of the world. The maternal metaphor also highlights God’s constant care for the people, portrayed intimately by a mother nursing her child. Isa 49:15 stresses YHWH’s compassionate commitment even in the worst crisis, in contrast to the weaknesses of human mothers. The birth metaphor in juxtaposition with the warrior metaphor in Isa 49:22-26 also highlights YHWH’s power in delivering the people: Just as the warrior delivers the people from their enemies, so also the mother delivers her children through the dangers of birth. Similarly in Isa 42:13-17, the shouting warrior is juxtaposed with the woman in labor such that her cries are highlighted as powerful breaths that destroy the enemies. The military deliverance of the people also extends the 100 Koole, Isaiah III, 1:454; Leene, “Universalism,” 312.

148 laboring woman metaphor to include the outcome of birth. In addition, the rhetoric of Isa 42:14 highlights the timeliness of God’s action, and the reversal of Jer 14:2-9 highlights God’s devotion as a mother. The gynomorphic imagery of God is also found in 46:3-4 where God carries Israel like a pregnant woman, demonstrating God’s comprehensive care for the people in contrast to the impotency of the idols. Finally, although the metaphors of Zion as a mother and as a wife in chapter 54 would logically imply that she bears the children, this is neither explicit nor inevitable when the barren woman metaphor is understood in the light of defeated cities (as in Isa 23:4), and in fact, DI’s reversal of Jer 10:17-25 points to YHWH as the one who returns the people. As the devastated city, Zion is a bereft and barren mother waiting for her children to be brought back by YHWH, the creator who is depicted as a mother giving birth to the people. While Zion is not the one who gives birth to the people, she is certainly the one to whom all nations come in subservient obeisance, and in the next chapter, I will argue that this is a corollary of Zion theology.

149

CHAPTER SIX ZION’S NATIONALISM

Zion theology asserts the inviolability of the city because YHWH is her defender, and all nations are expected to come to Zion in recognition of YHWH’s sovereignty. I propose that this is the basis for Zion’s exalted position in DI and that such an understanding will throw light on the debate of whether DI preaches a message of universalism or one of nationalism. “Universalists” point to the servant as a light to the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6), to peoples waiting for salvation through God’s teaching and justice (Isa 42:4, 23; 49:6; 51:4-6), and to nations running voluntarily to Israel (Isa 55:4, 5), while “nationalists” argue that the nations are but a ransom for Israel (Isa 43:3-4), that they come to Zion in chains (45:14), licking the dust of her feet and even eating their own flesh (49:23, 26).1 In view of these differences, a third group of scholars try to reconcile the contradiction in various ways. Rather than attempting to harmonize the universalistic and nationalistic texts, I submit that there is a crucial distinction between these two groups of texts: The nationalistic texts revolve around Zion, while the universalistic texts are related to the servant. The nations come in submission to Zion the city, not to Israel the people, i.e., they come in obeisance because of the sovereignty of YHWH, not because of the superiority of Israel. Thus, while the universal role of the servant extends YHWH’s salvation to the nations, the nationalistic role of Zion affirms YHWH’s sovereignty. This chapter will review how scholars have attempted to resolve DI’s paradoxical preaching before embarking on a closer examination of the nationalistic texts.

1

Richard L. Schultz, “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2009), 123, lists six distinct perspectives on the nations in the Book of Isaiah: as agents of God’s judgment, as objects of divine wrath and judgment, as recipients of unmediated divine blessing and election, as witnesses to God’s salvific and punitive action, as facilitators and servants following Israel’s post-exile restoration to Jerusalem, and as participants in the salvation and worship of the one true God mediated through and alongside Israel.

150

ASSESSMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP Universalism The traditional inclusive approach is espoused by H. H. Rowley who argues that universalism is the corollary of monotheism. He is followed by Sheldon Blank, who sees DI as “enthusiastically evangelistic” because God wants the world to be saved. Exegetes who take this view offer various explanations for the nationalistic texts. One is that the narrower views do not originate from DI himself: C. C. Torrey thinks that some are interpolations (e.g., a\T]E “in fetters” in 45:14), while others are adopted from earlier prophecies (e.g., 52:1 cf. Joel 4:17). Similarly, Westermann assigns texts about the enemies’ humiliation either to an old war oracle (49:23b, 26a) or to later expansions (45:14 cf. 60:12).2 Another way to account for the nationalistic texts is to regard them as the prophet’s earlier belief. J. Lindblom suggests that DI only acquired a more missionary view after 539 B.C.E., when Cyrus occupied Babylon but did not destroy it as the Israelites had hoped. DI then understood God as having a greater purpose for Israel: to be a witness to the Gentiles, as expressed in the Servant Songs. Similarly, Carroll Stuhlmueller argues that DI wrote chapters 4955 in the shadow of Babylon’s fall and tried to counter the exiles’ disillusionment by appealing to God’s eternal covenant with Noah and Abraham. The universalism underlying these covenants is then reflected in the Servant Songs.3 These attempts to discredit the nationalistic texts as mere interpolations or as the prophet’s early views do not rest on strong exegetical grounds. There are no indications in the texts to excise the nationalistic parts that Torrey and Westermann dislike. Even if DI did adopt nationalistic oracles, this study has shown that he freely reverses many older prophecies in Lamentations, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and thus, he is unlikely to have cited older traditions in toto if they were inimical to his message. As for the evolution of DI’s beliefs, Lindblom’s and Stuhlmueller’s arguments are dependent on reading the universalistic 2

3

H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord, and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth Press, 1952), 88; idem., Israel’s Mission to the World (London: SCM, 1939), 15; idem., The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought (London, SCM Press, 1956), 185; Sheldon Blank, Prophetic Faith in Isaiah (New York: Harper, 1958), 148158; C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1928), 121, 129; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 169, 222, 360. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 402-3; Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship,” CBQ 42 (1980): 1-27.

151 Servant Songs as late additions to DI’s otherwise nationalistic corpus. However, this presumption no longer commands scholarly consensus.4 Therefore, there remains a nationalistic vein in DI, and scholars who emphasize DI’s narrower view take a different approach by reinterpretating the universalistic passages. Nationalism There are three different ways in which DI’s universal oracles may be read as applying only to Israel. The earliest approach was to redefine the meaning of certain inclusive phrases, especially those found in Isa 42:6: 42:6 I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people (a>W\UE), a light to the nations (a\ZJUZD),... (NRSV)

Norman H. Snaith, for instance, argues that the role of the servant as a a\ZJUZD (42:6; 49:6) is not to be “a light of the nations” but “a light to the nations,” meaning that the servant is a light through all the Gentile lands “that my salvation may be to the end of the earth,” i.e., my salvation of Israel, since this is the only salvation in which the prophet is interested. The Servant will be a light to guide every Israelite wanderer home. His mission is to gather in all exiles wherever they may be scattered.5

The parallel phrase a>W\UE (covenant of the people) in 42:6 is then taken as a reference to Israel rather than to all people. The singular a> is a crux: The preceding verse (42:5) uses a> to refer to all humanity, but Snaith points out that DI uses the singular a> to refer to Israel in other places. In addition, he interprets the MSYP that goes out to the nations (42:4; 51:4) as strict retribution rather than as justice or right religion. P. A. H. de Boer agrees with Snaith but explains a> W\UE as the consolidation of Israel after a period of disintegration and a\ZJ UZD as the renewed people being “a light respected by the nations.” Harry M. Orlinsky likewise follows Snaith and de Boer on the basis that the contexts of DI’s oracles focus solely on Israel’s restoration. A second way to reinterpret the universal texts is attempted by D. E. Hollenberg who reads terms like a\ZJ UZD and a> W\UE positively but suggests 4

5

Albertz, Israel in Exile, 382-5, surveys the scholarship on the redactional issue of the Servant Songs: from Duhm’s secondary interpolations to scholars who see them as integral parts of the book. Norman H. Snaith, “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented to Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950), 198.

152 that “nations” in some contexts (e.g., 45:20-22) is a reference to “cryptoIsraelites,” i.e., Jews who have forsaken YHWH and have gone over to other nations and other gods. Thus, when “nations” are to be saved, they are the crypto-Israelites, but when they are to be subjugated, they are the foreigners.6 More recently, Joel Kaminsky proposes a third approach by allowing for the universal role of Israel to bring about the recognition of YHWH’s sovereignty, but such recognition does not amount to inclusion in Israel’s salvation. He reads a>W\UE as “covenant people,” referring to Israel who bears witness of YHWH’s glory to the nations, the offer of “salvation” to the ends of the earth (49:6) as the proclamation of Israel’s salvation, and the invitation to be saved as a call only to the exiles who are the \M\OS a\ZJK (survivors of the nations) in 45:20, 22.7 These approaches are not completely satisfactory because they rely on rather forced interpretations of some terms. D. W. Van Winkle points out that UZD and MSYP also occur in 51:4-5 as that which the nations O[\ (wait for), implying that a\ZJUZD and MSYP are positive expectations rather than terms of exclusion and judgment: 51:4 Listen to me, my people, and give heed to me, my nation; for a teaching will go out from me, and my justice (MSYP) for a light to the peoples (a\P>UZD). 5 I will bring near my deliverance swiftly, my salvation has gone out and my arms will rule the peoples; the coastlands wait for me, and for my arm they hope (O[\). (NRSV)

Although Snaith interprets O[\ as “wait with dread,” Van Winkle argues that the word never appears in the Hebrew Bible with negative connotations and that UZD is always used in prophetic literature as a metaphor for salvation. In view of these positive interpretations, Van Winkle reads a> W\UE as referring to all humanity, explicating it as “the self-obligation on the part of Yahweh for the benefit of the people and that the addressee is to become an agent of salvation

6

7

Norman H. Snaith, “Isaiah 40-66 – A Study of the Teaching of the Second Isaiah and Its Consequences,” in Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 157, 164; P. A. H. de Boer, Second Isaiah’s Message, OTS 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1956), 9294; Harry M. Orlinsky, “The So-Called ‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah,” in Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 97-117; D. E. Hollenberg, “Nationalism and “the Nations” in Isaiah XL-LV,” VT 19, no. 1 (1969): 23-36. Joel Kaminsky, “God of All the World: Universalism and Developing Monotheism in Isaiah 40-66,” in HTR 99:2 (2006): 139-41. He also notes (pp. 146-155) that while “covenant people” would require W\UE a>, there are a few syntactical exceptions (Gen 15:12; Prov 15:20; 21:20; Isa 9:5).

153 for the ‘am.”8 As for Hollenberg’s approach, there has been much criticism of his subjective and inconsistent interpretations of “nations” because, as Van Winkle says, one may read the term in any way according to one’s own presumptions.9 Regarding Kaminsky, his insistence that DI is only seeking universal recognition of YHWH leads him to interpret some positive terms too narrowly and to ignore other negative terms. A case in point is Isa 45:20-22: 20 Assemble yourselves and come together, draw near, you survivors of the nations (a\ZJK\M\OS)! They have no knowledge -- those who carry about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that cannot save. 21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? There is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is no one besides me. 22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. (NRSV)

Kaminsky does not consider the positive offer of salvation to other nations in 45:22 because he reads a\ZJK\M\OS as an objective genitive (i.e., the Israelites as the survivors from the nations). However, Beuken points out from the general use of \M\OS in other biblical texts that its nomen rectum, a\ZJK, is a partitive genitive rather than an objective genitive, i.e., “the survivors” are part of the nations. Thus, YHWH’s invitation in 45:22, “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth,” is addressed to survivors of other nationalities.10 While Kaminsky interprets “all the ends of the earth” as referring to exiles scattered 8

D. W. Van Winkle, “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh and to Israel in Isaiah XL-LV,” VT 35, no. 4 (1985): 456. He also points out that a>is used in parallel to a\ZJ in Ps 18:44; Isa 13:4; 25:3. Mark S. Smith, “BƟrît ’am/ BƟrît ’ôlƗm: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6,” JBL 100 no. 2 (1981): 241-8, has a plausible but uncertain suggestion that the phonetic similarity between a>WUE and aO>WUE (everlasting covenant) implies that Israel takes over as the new Davidic king who mediates YHWH’s blessings to the peoples. 9 Van Winkle, “Relationship,” 454. He also mentions R. Halas, “The Universalism of Isaias,” CBQ 17 (1950): 162-70, who employs a similar approach but comes to the opposite conclusion by reading “nations” as referring to ungodly Jews and Gentiles and “Israel” as the godly Jews and Gentiles. 10 Anthony Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” JTS 43 (1992): 390-1, provides some insights into the nature of such salvation as one that is “essentially of a political and possibly even military nature, perhaps best expressed in the world ‘liberation’.” Further, “the nations’ salvation consists not only of their worship of Yahweh but also of their living in a world in which Yahweh’s justice is manifest.”

154 throughout the earth, Beuken observes that the phrase is paralleled by “all the nations” in Isa 52:10:11 52:10 The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. (NRSV)

It may be seen that Kaminsky has forced his exegesis to fit his thesis, and furthermore, he does not deal with the overtly nationalistic texts listed at the beginning of this chapter. Nonetheless, such scholars have rightly pointed out that DI’s agenda is not so much about global missions as much as it is about the restoration of Israel. Both Universalism and Nationalism A third group of scholars recognize the bipolar views in DI and try to reconcile them in various ways. The earliest suggestion was by Robert Davidson who sees particularism as the means of achieving universalism, i.e., YHWH’s triumph in the life of Israel is the light that draws others to faith.12 In his earlier 2001 article, Kaminsky held a similar view that, though less missionary than Davidson’s, was somewhat wider than his later 2006 position. He wrote that the restoration of Israel as the elect people of God brings about the recognition of God’s sovereignty throughout the world, resulting “in a renewed cosmos in which God’s blessing will become fully manifest to the benefit of all.” Nonetheless, he cautioned that the service of the elect is not to bring about the conversion of the Gentiles but to mediate God’s blessing to the nations, “who remain non-elect even while benefiting from this divine plan.”13 A second approach argues that not everyone would accept the offer of salvation. Leene and Beuken write that it is those who reject YHWH that will be put to shame, while those who turn to YHWH are identified with “the seed of Israel” (45:25).14 Leene writes:

11 W. A. M. Beuken, “The Confession of God’s Exclusivity By All Mankind: A Reappraisal of Is.45,18-25,” Bijdr 35 (1974): 341-2. 12 Robert Davidson, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” SJOT 16 (1963): 181. 13 Joel S. Kaminsky, “The Concept of Election and Second Isaiah: Recent Literature,” BibThBul 31 no. 4 (2001): 142, 141. Kaminsky cites Jon D. Levenson, “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark Brett (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 143-169, who argues that Israel is elected to be a witness of YHWH, and nations who recognize YHWH remain non-elect but equal. 14 H. Leene, “Universalism,” 333; Beuken, “Confession,” 356, writes: “By joining Israel and her tradition the nations become incorporated into ‘all the seed of Israel’, which we consequently may understand as being larger than ‘the seed of Jacob’ (vs. 19).” Beuken’s

155 Thus, the ‘survivors of the nations’ are those who now, at this stage of Cyrus’ advance, have not yet been captured. They do not yet share in the shameful fate that the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Sabeans of 14-17 will undergo….And as long as this proclamation is not yet fulfilled, there is still time for them to turn to Yahweh. Evidently there is still a chance to escape the shame, a change (sic) to relinquish the struggle with Yahweh (9).15

Childs makes a similar distinction between the nations: It is highly misleading to set up a polarity between passages allegedly universalistic and those of ethnic narrowness. Much turns on the specific issue at stake in the oracle. If the prophet is addressing the scope of God’s salvific will toward his creation, the free inclusion of the nations is an integral part of the prophet’s message. However, if the issue turns on rival claims of power and authority exercised by the mighty and powerful rulers of the world, then the harshest possible rejection of their pretensions is made.16

Schultz comes close to Childs’ view in his argument that “it is more helpful to consider how a ‘nationalistic’ or ‘universalistic’ emphasis functions in a particular text and context in the light of the primary theme or emphasis of that text.”17 Thus, the expression of self-cannibalism in Isa 49:26 is not about subjugation of the nations but about the demonstration of “who’s in charge here,” and the the dispossession of land in Isa 54:2-3 is not about acquiring real estate but about a restored relationship with YHWH. A third method at harmonizing gives more weight to the nationalistic asseverations in DI by postulating that the nations are both saved and subjugated. Robert Martin-Achard suggests that the nations’ recognition of God may lead them to salvation “only when Israel becomes their mediator, only when they become Israel’s slaves.” Van Winkle is willing to acknowledge that some oracles offer salvation to Gentiles (e.g., 42:4-6; 42:5-9), but at the same time, other oracles make them subservient (e.g., 49:22-23), and so he concludes that “the salvation of the nations does not preclude their submission to Israel.” Wilson comes to the same conclusion based on DI’s democratization of the royal theology:

reading of “the seed of Israel” is somewhat of a stretch and is, in fact, unnecessary for the claim that the nations are saved when they turn to God as invited in 45:22. 15 Leene, “Universalism,” 331. 16 Childs, Isaiah, 392. 17 Schultz, “Nationalism,” 141.

156 The nations become Yahweh’s vassals, and hence are subservient to his servant Israel. As vassals, the nations will be punished should they rebel; but with loyal service they will receive benefits from their divine suzerain.18

The first two approaches (Leene and Beuken, Childs and Schultz) based respectively on God’s missionary purpose and the nations’ response actually lean toward universalism by failing to give any or sufficient weight to nationalistic texts, such as wealthy nations coming in chains to Zion (45:14) or neutral nations coming as slaves to Zion and licking the dust of her feet (49:2223), and the fact that they do so irrespective of whether they accept or reject the offer of salvation. The third view (Martin-Achard, Van Winkle, Wilson) that the nations are both saved and subjugated to Israel takes both nationalistic and universalistic texts seriously but fails to note a crucial difference between the two types of oracles, viz., that the nationalistic texts are all connected to Zion rather than to the Servant.19 18 Robert Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel’s Mission to the World, trans. John Penny Smith (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962), 17; Van Winkle, “Relationship,” 457; Wilson, Nations, 226, 328. Other scholars who follow this view includes Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” 385, 391, 396; Barnabas Lindars, “Good Tidings to Zion: Interpreting Deutero-Isaiah Today,” BJRL 68 no. 2 (1986): 473-497; Roy F. Melugin, Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Keith L. Eades, James Robinson, and Henry T. C. Sun (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 261, says that DI has only taken a limited step beyond the traditional Jerusalemite theology; and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:302, argues that the proclamation of salvation involves the imposition of a just order, which therefore, involves coercion. 19 Two servant texts may seem to be rather nationalistic: 41:15-16 and 49:7. 41:15 Now, I will make of you a threshing sledge, sharp, new, lord of many mouths; you shall thresh the mountains and crush them, and you shall make the hills like chaff. 16 You shall winnow them and the wind shall lift them, and the tempest shall scatter them. Then you shall rejoice in YHWH; in the Holy One of Israel you shall glory. (NRSV) Most commentators relate the mountains and hills to those mentioned in the prologue (40:4) and explain them as obstacles set up by the foes to block the exiles’ return (Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:175; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:171; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 94; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 76-7). Thus, this is a text directed only at those who oppose Israel and not all nations at large. On the other hand, nations and kings in general are mentioned in Isa 49:7: Thus says YHWH, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one despised of soul, to one abhorred by the nations,

157 Nationalism and Zion Those who suggest that the nations are both saved and subjugated to Israel identify the people with both the servant and Zion. However, I have argued that personified Zion in DI does not represent the people but the city in which YHWH dwells. While YHWH entrusts a universal role to the servant, YHWH ensures Zion’s nationalistic position by destroying her enemies and requiring other nations to pay homage at the city, whether willingly or unwillingly, in acknowledgement of YHWH’s sovereignty. Thus, to submit to Zion is to submit, not so much to the people, but to YHWH who reigns from the city. This distinction between the roles of the servant and Zion means that while the people of Israel may have confidence in YHWH’s universal protection and may even be assisted by other nations, their calling is not to subjugate but to be a witness to the peoples (55:4). I will examine four texts in DI to show that his nationalism has to do with the restoration of Zion: In 45:14-17, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba come in chains to Zion; in 49:22-26, God raises a signal (of war) to the nations to return Zion’s children in submission; in 51:21-52:2, Babylon will drink the cup of wrath and will no longer enter Zion; and in 54:3, Zion’s children will dispossess the nations. While some of the texts (49:24-26, 51:21-52:2, and 54:1-3) are directed at the destruction of Zion’s enemies, others (45:14-17 and 49:22-23) make all nations subservient to Zion.

I. ISAIAH 45:14-17 EGYPT, ETHIOPIA, AND SABEANS IN CHAINS A.

TRANSLATION 14 Thus says YHYH: The toil of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia,20

to the slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and rise up, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, because of YHWH, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.” (NRSV) However, the prostration of the kings to the Servant differs from the prostration to Zion in 49:23 where their servility is expressed by bowing with their faces to the ground and licking the dust of Zion’s feet. The bowing to the Servant, on the other hand, is presented as an act of respect to the one who is a light to the nations and who brings salvation to the end of the earth (49:6). 20 BHS reports that >\J\ (toil) and U[V (merchandise) should be pointed as substantive participles (toilers and merchants), corresponding with “the Sabean,” since it is people

158 and the Sabeans, men of stature,21 to you shall pass over, and yours they shall be, after you they shall follow. In chains they shall pass over and to you they shall bow, to you they shall pray: "Only in you is God, and there is none other; no other god." 15 Truly, you are God, O Hidden One,22 God of Israel, Savior! 16 Shamed and, yea, humiliated all of them, together they go in humiliation the engravers of forms. 17 But Israel is saved in YHWH with an eternal salvation; you shall not be shamed or humiliated to all eternity. who can bow and pray. However, the terms may be read as metonyms since toil and merchandise must be brought by toilers and merchants. Further, as Leene, “Universalism,” 324, points out, >\J\ is closely related to U\[P (price) in v. 13 (both appearing again only in 55:1-2). This explains the contradiction between the ransom (Egypt, Ethiopia, Seba) that was promised for Cyrus in 43:3 but then denied him in 45:13 because such booty will go to Israel instead (43:14). 21 KGP may mean “stature” or “tribute,” and Wilson, Nations, 90, suggests that the preceding word \YQD (men) is an error by metathesis of \DYQ (bearers) so that the phrase should read “bearers of tribute.” However, there is no textual evidence for this variation, and Ethiopians are also traditionally regarded as people with tall physiques, cf. Isa 18:2, 7. The phrase “WZGP \YQD” is also used in Num 13:32 to emphasize the inconquerability of the promised land, and therefore, the capture of such men shows the sovereignty of Israel’s God. 22 This verse is usually understood by commentators as a declaration of God’s hiddenness that is explained variously as God’s transcendence (Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 217), God’s strange and uncanny ways (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:259), or God’s inscrutability to the nations (Leene, “Universalism,” 327). Others (Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:46-7; Koole, Isaiah III, 1: 469; Balentine, “Isaiah 45,” 103-20) relates the text to God hiding God’s face (a\QSU\WVK), an expression often used in psalms of lament and also in the prophets to describe God’s rejection (cf. 54:8). However, it is it is hard to understand why UWWVP (hidden one) would be emphasized in a declaration of God’s victory. I propose, rather, that the emphasis is on the preceding statement, “you are God,” with UWWVP as a vocative, i.e., the one who has been hidden (whether to the enemies or to Israel) now reveals shows himself to be truly God by the restoration of Zion (v. 14) and by the humiliation of idol-makers (v. 16). The declaration that YHWH is God exclusively is repeated several times in Isaiah 45: “I am YHWH, and there is none other” in vv. 5, 6, 18, 21, “I am God (OD), and there is none other” in v. 22, and in v. 14, the nations acknowledge that God (OD) is in Zion, “and there is none other.” The first part of the parallel colon in 45:15, “God of Israel (ODUI\\KOD),” also echoes the self-identification of God in 45:3, “so that you may know that it is I YHWH the one who calls you by name, the God of Israel (ODUI\\KOD).”

159

B.

THE UNIT: FORM, STRUCTURE, CONTEXT

In the MT and 1QIsaa, the boundaries of the unit are marked off by petuchas before v. 14 and after v 17, which correspond with the occurrences of the resumptive messenger formula at the end of v. 13, a new one that introduces v. 14, and a longer one that introduces v. 18. However, Oswalt ends the unit with vv. 18-19 based on the word \N (for, because) at the beginning of v. 18, arguing that the description of God as creator provides the basis for the submission of the idol-making nations in vv. 14-17. Oswalt and Blenkinsopp also point out that the same root UWV (hide) occurs in v. 15 and v. 19 so that v. 19 (God did not speak in a hidden place) is taken as a qualification of the declaration in v. 15 (God hides Godself).23 Nonetheless, \N may be asseverative rather than causal, and the description of God as creator is part of an elaborate messenger formula introducing the main statement in v.18: “I am YHWH, and there is none other.” Therefore, vv. 18-19 are reiterating the confession of the nations in v. 14 rather than providing the reasons for their submission. The repetition of UWV shows that the stanzas in this chapter are closely linked, but there is a change of addressees between vv. 14-17 and vv. 18-19. The former begins with God speaking to Zion and ends with a second plural address to Israel, but in vv. 18-19, Israel is addressed in the third person as the “offspring of Jacob,” implying that God has turned to speak to the nations as in vv. 20, 22. In terms of the larger context, Wilson takes vv. 14-17 as forming an inclusio with vv. 24-25, thus framing the trial speech in vv. 18-21. I think it would be more accurate to take the inclusio as the expanded unit of vv. 22-25 because echoes are also found in vv. 22-23 by the repetition of >Y\ (vv. 15, 17, 22), the declaration that YHWH is “God (OD), and there is none other” (vv. 14, 22), the bowing of the nations (vv. 14, 23), the particle D (vv. 14, 24), the shaming (YE) of the idol-makers and those incensed against YHWH (vv. 16, 24), and the vindication of the Israel by YHWH (KZK\E; vv. 17, 25).24 All peoples will therefore acknowledge that YHWH alone is God, whether unwillingly or willingly. Wilson also notes that vv. 14-25 are closely connected to the Cyrus oracle in 44:24-45:13 by repetitions of the phrase “I am YHWH and there is none other” (45:5, 6, 18, 21, 22) and by the roots >Y\ and GF occurring fifteen times in 45:825. However he argues that 44:24-45:13 and 45:14-25 have respective chiastic structures so that the latter is a companion chapter to the Cyrus oracle.25 The connection between the two sections explains a few issues in vv. 13 and 14. 23 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 214; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:259. 24 Wilson, Nations, 95; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:42, sees an inclusio with v. 25. 25 Wilson, Nations, 94.

160 First, the second person feminine singular addressee in v. 14 would refer to the feminine antecedents in v. 13: either the city (U\>) that Cyrus will rebuild or the exiles (WZOJ) that he will set free. (I will argue below for the former.) Further, the lack of a price (U\[P) for Cyrus in v. 13, when he had been promised a ransom in 43:3, is explained by such wealth (>\J\) passing over to Zion. These two words “price” (U\[P) and “wealth” (>\J\) appear together in Isa 55:1-2 and Lam 5:4-5 as parallel terms.26 Thus, vv. 14-25 recite the outcomes that God will bring about through Cyrus: the submission of enemies to Zion, the deliverance of Israel, and an offer of salvation to the ends of the earth (v. 22). Westermann denies the unity of this text, regarding v. 14 as a Trito-Isaianic addition, v. 15 as an “amen gloss,” and vv. 16-17 as fragments belonging to the polemic against idols. However, as noted above, v. 14 follows logically from v. 13, and Koole argues for the unity of vv. 15-17 by noting the repetition of “Israel” and >Y\ (vv. 15 and 17), besides YE and aON in vv. 16 and 17. Leene also sees a parallelism between ZNOK KPONE (go in humiliation) in v. 16 and a\T]E ZNO\ (go in chains) in v. 14, such that “‘go in chains’ was the pictorial concretizing of the more general ‘go in shame.’”27 Contradictory to Westermann, the polemic against idols is not out of place because it is continued in v. 20, together with the shaming of those who oppose YHWH in v. 25. Verses 14-17 is, therefore, a unity, but opinions differ as to who speaks in the different parts. There are various suggestions for the delineation of the nations’ confession: It may end with v. 14 (Blenkinsopp,), v. 15 (Whybray, Leene, Oswalt), or v. 17 (Goldingay, Koole). The remaining verses would be spoken by the prophet, but Balentine proposes that v. 15 is a confession by Israel, while vv. 16-17 is a continuation of the divine speech from v. 14.28 Commentators who regard the nations’ confession as continuing beyond v. 14 have to explain the change of addressee from Zion in v. 14 to God in v. 15. Some follow Duhm’s suggestion to amend K7 D (you) in v. 15 to 7 DL (with you), but there is no textual evidence for such a change. Koole thinks that a correction is not necessary as v. 15 contains the prayer addressed to YHWH by the nations. However, that would be an unexpected change since v. 14 specifically describes the nations as bowing, praying, and addressing Zion. It also seems rather incongruous that the nations would call God “Savior” when they are coming in chains as prisoners to Zion, 26 Leene, “Universalism,” 324; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:464. 27 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 169; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:464; Leene, “Universalism,” 327-8. 28 Balentine, “Isaiah 45,” 107; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:257; Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 110; Leene, “Universalism,” 327; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 216-7; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:467; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:465.

161 just as it seems rather odd that they would condemn themselves in the third person in v. 16, and then speak to Israel in the second person plural in v. 17. Balentine suggests that vv. 16-17 are part of the divine speech, but then v. 17 refers to God in the third person (“But Israel is saved in YHWH..”), implying that another is speaking about God. It would be better to regard vv. 16-17 as spoken by the prophet to Israel, which leaves us to consider Balentine’s suggestion that v. 15 is Israel’s confessesion. Though plausible, there is no indication of a change of speaker between v. 15 and vv. 16-17 so that vv. 15-17 appears as the prophet’s response to God’s act in v. 14. The unit does not fit form-critical categories although Melugin calls it “a type of salvation speech addressed to Zion,” which includes passages about nations coming to Zion with their treasures, bowing down to Zion or YHWH, and making confession. However, as Goldingay notes, this only establishes a link of traditions rather than a formal category.29 Based on the analysis above, the following outline is presented: v. 14

Divine oracle: The submission and confession of the nations to Zion

vv. 15-17

Prophetic Declaration: v. 15 “You are God” v. 16 Humiliation of idol-makers v. 17 Salvation of Israel

C.

THE ISSUES: NATIONS SUBJUGATED TO ZION

Three issues are relevant to the question of nationalism in this text: whether the feminine addressee in v. 14 is Zion, whether coming “in chains” indicates a voluntary act of submission or an involuntary act by subjugation, and finally, whether Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sabeans are representatives of all nations. I will argue that it is Zion who is addressed here, that the chains are enforced submission, and that the three wealthy nations represent nations indicted for idolatry. 1.

The Addressee in v. 14

The MT has pointed all the second person suffixes in this verse as feminine, and scholars variously suggests that this refers to Cyrus, the exiles in 45:13, or the city Zion (the last two are feminine antecedents in the preceding v. 13). Baltzer, with some earlier exegetes, opts for Cyrus on the basis that this would require no change in the consonantal text and that only the vocalization of the suffixes 29 Melugin, Formation, 127; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:42.

162 would have to be changed. He adds, further, that from 44:24 onward, the focus is on the triumph of Cyrus, to whom God would give Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba as ransom for Israel’s release (43:3). J. D. W. Watts also interprets the verse as addressed to Cyrus and sees it as historically fulfilled when Egypt falls to Persia during Cambyses’ invasion in 525 B.C.E.30 However, not only is there no textual evidence for such an emendation, it would contradict v. 13 that says Cyrus will restore Israel without price or reward, and it is also unlikely that nations would be said to “pray to” Cyrus. Leene argues that the antecedent for the feminine suffix should be the exiles (WZOJ) in v. 13 because “Israel” is referred to in vv. 15 and 17.31 However, in other places, WZOJ is referred to with masculine plural pronouns (Jer 24:5-6) or with masculine plural verbs (Jer 28:4; 40:1; Obad 1:20). Therefore, I agree with Koole and most other commentators who regard the feminine suffixes in v. 13 as referring to the city. Koole argues that OOS (pray) never means a respectful request to people but is always a prayer to God or to idols, and in 1 Kgs 8:30, 35, 42, it is used with OD for prayer directed toward the holy place. As for KZ[ (bow), Koole points out that it is always constructed with the preposition O (before) when used to show respect for God and people, but when used with OD (to), it occurs only in connection with the temple (Ps 5:8; 138:2).32 Thus, it is specifically to the city Zion that Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba come in submission and confession.33 Some believe that this is a picture of a pilgrimage to Zion (Amos 5:5; Ps 52:5), but this is hard to reconcile with the pilgrims coming a\T]E (in chains). Do the chains then represent voluntary or involuntary submission? 2.

The Significance of a\T]E (in chains)

Some scholars find the features of “chains” incongruous in this text and have suggested various explanations: Torrey wishes to omit it as a later expansion; North thinks that the chains are fastened by the Africans themselves to show that they have no hostile intent, and Oswalt and Goldingay also believe that the chains are self-imposed to show submission (cf. Isa 60:11-12). However, Blenkinsopp writes that even if the chains were borne willingly, those who bear 30 31 32 33

Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 240; Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 161. Leene, “Universalism,” 326. Koole, Isaiah III, 1:466-8. P. Lugtigheid, “The Notion of the City in Isaiah 44:21-46:13,” in ‘Enlarge the Site,’ 150, argues that the addressee is the city based on his observation that besides the three mentioned nations, “the escaped of the nations” (v. 20) are invited to “come” (vv. 20,24) together with “the house of Jacob and all the rest of the house of Israel” (Isa 46:3), “who are far from the right order” (46:12).

163 them become the property of Israelites, and Wilson takes it as the submission of conquered peoples to YHWH’s imperium. Koole points out that the Hebrew usage of a\T]E denotes affliction and powerlessness (cf. Job 36:8; Ps 149:8; Nah 3:10), and Leene argues that the chains signify the capture of goods and men by Cyrus. I agree with Leene’s interpretation given that in 43:3, God had already announced that Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba will be a ransom given to Cyrus for Israel.34 The interpretation of a\T]E as captivity means that UE> (pass over) is not merely a pilgrimage but a “passing into other hands” as argued by Leene and followed by Koole. Leene points out that the captives become Zion’s property as indicated by the following phrase Z\K\OZ (and they shall be yours), and the use of UE> to mean transference is also found in Ezek 48:14, Jer 8:13, and Lam 4:21. Koole writes: “Cyrus takes possession of the nations with all their wealth and manpower, but now gives them to Israel, chains and all.…As Zion’s possession they now carry out the task that is expected of them, service in God’s holy dwelling-place.”35 This explanation fits with the preceding verse in 45:13 where Cyrus is to rebuild God’s city. If the chains are involuntary, what do we make of the nations’ confession that the God of Zion is the only God? Wilson thinks that this is a confession of allegiance to YHWH by the foreigners who repudiate their prior idolatry, but Leene points out a forced acknowledgement would not imply that they are joining Israel. Moreover, their confession only acknowledges Zion’s deity as the only God, while they themselves do not call YHWH their own God or Savior.36 Thus, Isa 45:14 is a nationalistic verse that subjugates nations to Zion, but who and why are they enslaved? 3.

“Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Sabeans”

The only other place where these three countries appear together is in Isa 43:3, where they are a ransom that God will give in exchange for Israel. This implies that they are a weighty payment, and indeed, many resources are traditionally associated with these three countries (Egypt’s wealth in Ps 68:31; Ezek 30:4; Dan 11:43; Ethiopia’s chrysolite in Job 28:19; gifts from Seba in Ps 72:10). They formed the part of Africa that was then known, and Koole and North suggest that they are mentioned because they have been able to stay outside 34 Torrey, Second Isaiah, 360; North, Isaiah 40-55, 158; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 215; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 44; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:257; Wilson, Nations, 98-100; Koole, Isaiah III, 1:467; Leene, “Universalism,” 326. 35 Leene, “Universalism,” 325-7; Koole, Isaiah III, 467. 36 Wilson, Nations, 99-100; Leene, “Universalism,” 327-8.

164 Babylon’s influence but will later be given to the Persians in exchange for Israel.37 It is the wealth of these three countries that is specifically mentioned in 45:14, and such assets will come through Cyrus for the rebuilding of Zion. However, in the context of Isa 45:14-17, these three countries are given a more negative portrayal.38 Leene argues that v. 16, “Shamed and, yea, humiliated all of them, together they go in humiliation the engravers of forms,” refers to Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba. He points out that the phraseKPONE ZNOK (go in confusion) in v. 16 harks back to a\T]EZNO\ (go in chains) in v. 14 so that the chains are the representation of their shame.39 Further, the root OOS (pray) in v. 14 is also used in v. 20: “those who carry about their wooden idols, and keep praying (OOS) to a god that cannot save” (NRSV), implying that Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba are the idolaters who are now forced to pray toward Zion and acknowledge YHWH as God. The idolatry of Egypt is also known in PI – Isaiah 19: “The idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence” (19:2); “They will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead and the ghost and the familiar spirits” (19:3). Thus, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba are humiliated before Zion because they are portrayed as trusting in their idols, and if such wealthy nations cannot escape God’s judgment, then neither can others. In sum, 45:14 proclaims that nations who deny YHWH are made subject to Zion where YHWH reigns. It is the physical city that will be rebuilt rather than the people therein; thus, the captives come in submission to the God of Zion rather than to the people of Israel. DI, however, does not elaborate how the nations’ enforced or voluntary acceptance of YHWH (as in vv. 23-24) would determine their relationship vis-a-vis Israel, a matter that will be discussed in the following text.

II. ISAIAH 49:22-26 I WILL LIFT MY HAND TO THE NATIONS 22 Thus says the Lord YHWH: Behold, I will lift my hand against the nations, and against the people I will raise my ensign, 37 Koole, Isaiah III, 1:292; North, Isaiah 40-55, 120. Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 1:276, points out that Seba is closely linked with Cush (Gen 10:7), both located in north-east Africa. 38 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-66, 2:43, writes that Egypt is the country of Israel’s oppression, and Sudan and Ethiopia appear alongside it as added weights. However, Koole, Isaiah III, 1:467, points out more judiciously that the three African nations did not themselves take part in Israel’s destruction, but he regards them as slave-owners for whom the roles are now reversed. However, he does not give evidence for this. 39 Leene, “Universalism,” 217-8.

165 and they will bring your sons in their bosoms, and your daughters on their shoulders will be lifted. 23 And kings will be your nurses, and their queens your suckling maids; faces to the earth they will bow to you, and the dust of your feet they will lick. And you will know that I am YHWH, in whom those who wait will not be ashamed. 24 Is it possible to take prey from the strong man, or can captives be rescued from the victor40? 25 Thus says YHWH: Even captives from the warrior can be taken, and prey from the tyrant be rescued; and with your contender I will contend, and your children I will save. 26 and I will cause your oppressors to eat their own flesh, they will be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine. And all flesh will know that I am YHWH, your Savior and Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

49:14-26 was analyzed in Chapter Four, but the harshness of vv. 22-26 is the issue here. There have been various attempts to soften the offensiveness of this text either by interpreting vv. 22-23 as a pilgrimage or by regarding v. 25b as the

40 The MT has T\GF (righteous one), which does not seem to fit the context and is usually emended to \U> (tyrant), repeated in v. 25. However, T\GF is supported by the Targum and reflected in the LXX. The latter anomalously reads, “If one takes someone captive unrighteously, will he be saved?” This is probably an attempt to make sense of T\GF. Aq and Theod read the phrase as the “righteous” exiles, but this breaks the parallelism, and it is unlikely that DI calls the exiles “righteous.” On the other hand, 1QIsaa has \U>, and Syriac and Vulgate has “giant” and “mighty one.” However, Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 312, points out that 1QIsaa shows a regular tendency to smooth out difficult readings in MT. For instance, while MT reverses the order of “prey” and “captive” in vv. 24 and 25, 1QIsaa makes the order the same in both verses. The MT should be retained as the lectio difficilior. Koole, Isaiah III, 2:78-9, takes T\GF as the owner of the captives, explaining that the word implies “some justice, either in martial law or otherwise.” That T\GF implies legal right is supported by E\U(contend) in v. 25b, a word used in the context of a trial. Similarly in 41:2, God raises Cyrus as a TGF (victor) from the east, thus the mighty man in 49:24 is the one who has the right over Israel by conquest. However, Koole points out that this is part of a question raised by Zion under the misconception that her conqueror, Babylon, has the right over her. In contrast, when YHWH answers in v. 25, T\GF is changed to \U> (tyrant) – the conqueror is actually a tyrant because the one who has a right over the captives is YHWH, who is T\GFOD (righteous God; 45:21).

166 incorporation of an old war oracle. I will show, rather, that God is signaling for a conquest of the nations by Cyrus in order to make them subject to Zion. 1.

\G\a\ZJODDID (I lift my hand against the nations, v. 22a)

Westermann understands lifting the hand as an act of war but argues that DI is only adopting an old war oracle.41 However, he overlooks other places where DI speaks of war against “nations” and “kings:” In 41:2, God will deliver “nations” to Cyrus who will trample “kings” under foot and make them like dust and stubble, and similarly in 45:1, God will subdue “nations” before Cyrus and will strip “kings” of their robes. As a result of such victory, nations such as Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba will be taken prisoners by Cyrus and handed over to Zion (45:14). From the oracles of DI, the nations, peoples, kings and queens of 49:2223 are the countries conquered by Cyrus that will be made to assist with the repatriation of the exiles. Other scholars, such as Koole and Baltzer, interpret lifting of the hand as a signal to gather the nations for a pilgrimage to Zion. Van Winkle thinks that the phrase is ambivalent, following Schoors’ critique of Westermann: While G\KMQ implies a punitive action, Schoors argue that the nuance of G\DIQ depends on the context.42 Schoors points out that YHWH’s lifting of the hand (G\ DIQ) in Ezek 36:7; 44:12; and Ps 106:26 is punitive but that it refers to salvation in Ps 10:12 and Ezekiel 20. However, it should be noted that in all the verses cited, except for Ps 10:12, G\DIQ is a phrase for making an oath whose full expression is found in Deut 32:40: “I lift my hand to the heaven and say, ‘As I live forever.’” When G\DIQ is used as an oath, it is usually followed by the particle aD to indicate a negative oath, or by the preposition O to indicate whom God swears to, e.g., aKO (to them) or what God swears to do, e.g., WWO (to give), but no such terms occur in Isa 49:22. This explains why Schoors and Van Winkle find that G\DIQ is ambivalent because it would depend on the substance of the oath. However, G\DIQ is not always used as an oath, as Ps 10:12 illustrates: “Rise up, O LORD; O God, lift up your hand; do not forget the oppressed” (NRSV). Here, the context has to do with calling on God to arise and destroy the wicked, and instead of “lift up your hands,” the NJPS translates it as “strike at him!” Sirach 36:3 contains a similar prayer that calls on God to wipe out the enemy: “Lift up your hand against foreign nations and let them see your might” (NRSV). Therefore, to lift up the hand, apart from making an oath, indicates a 41 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 221. 42 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:74; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 330; Van Winkle, “Relationship,” 451; Schoors, God Your Savior, 110.

167 show of force. Both “hand” and “signal” also appear in the post-exilic text of Isa 11:11-1243 regarding the return of the remnant from the nations: 11On that day my Lord will again be lifting44 his hand to recover the remnant that is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. 12 He will lift a signal for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (emphasis mine)

Oswalt comments that YHWH’s lifted hand in this text shows that “the kings of the earth may claim sovereignty as they destroy the peoples around them, but the Sovereign can pluck their prey out of their hands at will.”45 Thus, lifting the hand is a sign of power. The reference to God’s hand is followed up in 11:15: And YHWH will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt; and will wave his hand (ZG\#\QK) over the River with his scorching wind; and will split it into seven channels, and make a way to cross on foot. (emphasis mine)

Wildberger argues that G\DIQ (raise the hand) cannot be distinguished from #\QK G\ (swing his hand) and that in 11:15, G\ #\QK is synonymous with G\ KMQ (stretch out hand) from the exodus story (Exod 14:16, 21, 26f.).46 Variations of G\#ZQ (swing/wave hand) as a threatening gesture also occur in Isa 10:32, 13:2, and 19:16. Lifting the hand in 11:11, then, is a show of might against the nations, calling for the return of God’s people.47 43 Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 164; Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:489-90; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 1:268; Clement, Isaiah 1-39, 125; contra Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 286. Amongst other things, the conflict between Judah and Ephraim (11:13-14) is typical of the post-exilic era. 44 The MT has W\QI (for a second time), which is superfluous with #\VZ\ (again). The LXX reads “the Lord will stretch forth his hand again.” BHS suggests emending to WZQI on the basis of the Arabic KQI, but Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:287, argues that there is no evidence for a Hebrew word with this meaning. Rather, he suggests that it is best emended to WDI (lifting), which is followed by Clements, Isaiah 1-39, 126. 45 Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 287. 46 Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 1:491, 497. 47 A similar phrase is found in Isa 26:11, part of the post-exilic Isaian Apocalypse: YHWH, your hand is lifted up (G\KPU), but they do not see it. Let them see your zeal for your people, and be ashamed. Let the fire for your adversaries consume them. (NRSV)

168 That God’s hand refers to judgment is further supported by the context of Isa 49:22. It was pointed out in Chapter Four that 50:1-3 is a bridge between 49:14-26 and 50:4-11, and in 50:2, God asks: “Is my hand too short to ransom?” Thus, the hand that is lifted in 49:22 for the return of Zion’s children is the same hand that ransoms them in 50:2; the hand that acts against the nations in 49:22 is also the hand that rebukes the sea in 50:2. In other words, God’s hand of power acts against other forces in order to deliver Zion’s children. 2.

\VQa\UDa\P>ODZ (and against the peoples I will raise my ensign, v. 22b)

Van Winkle again argues that raising the ensign in itself does not indicate whether the beckoning will result in the advantage or disadvantage to the one summoned. He bases his argument on Isa 5:26 where the ensign summons a nation to fight against Israel to its advantage. Further, he believes that the ensign in 11:12 and 62:10 has no military connotations but is only for calling nations to bring gifts to Zion.48 However, I have shown above that Isa 11:11-16 describes God destroying obstacles to the people’s return. Also, Van Winkle overlooks an important syntactical difference regarding the raising of the ensign in Isa 5:26 and 49:22b that will be discussed below. Williamson argues that Isa 49:22-25 reverses 5:25-29, a text ascribed to Isaiah.49 Both texts share three similar words, indicated in parentheses below: 25 Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand (G\) against them and struck them; the mountains quaked, and their corpses were like refuse in the streets. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand (G\) is stretched out still. 26 He will raise a signal (VQ) for a nation far away, The lifting of God’s hand here is also a warning to the adversaries – “an expression of God’s authority and imminent judgment” (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 480). Gray, Isaiah IXXXVII, 442, explains that dropping the hands shows the absence of power or power held in check (2 Sam 4:1; 17:2; 24:16). 48 Van Winkle, “Relationship,” 451. Regarding Isa 62:10, Koole, Isaiah III, 3:322 and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 3:242, read the ensign as a call for a pilgrimage, although they mention some other scholars who interpret it as judgment. However, the same procession to Zion in Isa 60:11-12 is described in a military manner: Nations are to bring their wealth to Zion with their kings led in procession, while those who do not serve Zion are to perish and be utterly laid waste. Nonetheless, since the military aspect is not emphasized in Isa 62:10, Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 251, simply reads the ensign “as a signal to the nations that Jerusalem’s triumph is accomplished.” What this might mean for the nations is not spelled out in this passage. 49 Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 65-6, followed by Sommer, Prophet, 242 n. 14. Kaiser, Isaiah 112, 112, is the lone exception in ascribing authorship to a theologian in the fifth century.

169 and whistle for a people at the ends of the earth; Here they come, swiftly, speedily! 27 None of them is weary, none stumbles, none slumbers or sleeps, not a loincloth is loose, not a sandal-thong broken; 28 their arrows are sharp, all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs seem like flint, and their wheels like the whirlwind. 29 Their roaring is like a lion, like young lions they roar; they growl and seize their prey, they carry it off (MOS), and no one can rescue. (NRSV)

Besides the post-DI text of 11:11-16, only Isaiah 5 and 49 speak of God as the subject of “hand” and raising a “signal.”50 Also, there is a word play between MOS (carry off) in 5:29 and MOP (escape) in 49:24. In addition, Davies writes that both texts refer to “prey” which can only with great difficulty be rescued from a strong enemy, and though different words are used (#UM in 5:29 and [ZTOP 49:24), he argues that they show DI’s fresh use of older materials.51 Although PI is referring to the Assyrians, the thematic coherence lies in how other nations are used by God to carry out God’s will regarding Israel. Where God lifted a “signal” for a nation to capture the Israelites, God now raises a “signal” to the nations to return them; and where lions “carried off” the “prey,” God will “rescue” the “prey” from the tyrant. The question, though, is whether DI’s reversal implies that he uses the signal as a threat or as an invitation to the nations. To answer this question, it should be observed that Isa 49:22 uses a different preposition from 5:26 for the raising of the banner. While 5:26 uses O (for) in the phrase TZ[UP a\ZJO VQDIQZ (and he will lift an ensign for a nation far away), 49:22 uses OD (to) in \VQa\UDa\P>ODZ (and to peoples, I will raise my ensign). Two other texts in PI also use O with the raising of the ensign: 11:12, VQ DIQZ a\ZJO (and he will raise an ensign for the nations), and 13:2, OZT ZP\UK VQZDI aKO (lift an ensign, raise a cry for them). From the context of these uses, the preposition O determines neither advantage nor disadvantage: In 5:26, a nation is called to attack Israel to their advantage, but in 11:12, nations are to return Israel to their disadvantage, while in 13:2, nations are summoned to attack Babylon to their advantage. Rather, these instances of O are used for calling one’s own army. In 5:26, YHWH whistles for a nation to attack Israel, just as a bee-keeper whistles for his bees (cf. 7:18). Kaiser explains that this is theologically 50 Isa 13:2 gives plural commands to raise the banner and wave the hand; it is also late, describing the Medes’ attack against Babylon (Wildberger, Isaiah 1-39, 2:16-18; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 1:277). Ps 60:6-7 [4-5] also refers to God’s “banner” but uses \P\ (right hand) and different verbs (giving, saving) from “raising.” 51 Davies, “Destiny,” 115; followed by Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 65.

170 significant because it means that even as Israel faces defeat, it is still YHWH who controls the nations and who, thus, has the power to save them.52 The reversal in 11:12 also demonstrates YHWH’s sovereignty in calling nations to return the dispersed Israelites even though it is now to their disadvantage. And in 13:2-3, YHWH calls for the Medes to do battle against Babylon, addressing the attackers as “my consecrated ones,” “my warriors,” and “my proudly exulting ones.” Therefore, to raise the banner with the preposition O is to summon one’s own agents, whether it is to their advantage (5:26; 13:1) or not (11:12). However, the prepositionOD in Isa 49:22 has a different usage, shown by its other occurrence in Jer 51:12, VQZDIOEEWPZ[OD (against the walls of Babylon lift an ensign). This act indicates a hostile attack against those whom the ensign is raised, and in fact, Jer 51:11-12 instructs the Medes to prepare for the destruction of Babylon with attention to aspects of the final assault – a strong guard is to be posted, a watch kept to block possible sorties from the city, and an ambush to catch those who escaped.53 Therefore, although Isa 49:22 alludes to 5:26, the change of the preposition from O to OD implies that YHWH is neither calling for a pilgrimage nor for YHWH’s army but that YHWH is going to act against the nations and cause them to come in submission to Zion. So, contrary to most English versions of Isa 49:22, which has God lifting God’s hand to the nations and raising God’s ensign to the peoples, I have translated it as 22 Thus says the Lord YHWH: Behold, I will lift my hand against the nations, and against the people I will raise my ensign,… Such subjugation of the nations is seen even more clearly in the next verse.

3.

“Faces to the earth, they will bow, and the dust of your feet, they will lick” (v. 23b)

Many commentators attempt to soften this line by arguing that it is a hyperbole. Westermann, for example, describes DI as giving metaphors “for the careful protection, and the deference and attention, to be accorded to those who return home.” Others explain this as merely an ancient Near Eastern sign of homage, and Blenkinsopp cites court protocol in a fourteenth century B.C.E. letter from the ruler of Tyre to the Pharaoh: “I fall prostrate at the feet of the king my lord; I am the dirt under the feet of the king my lord.” P. Volz’s argument that the nations are not said to serve Israel in perpetuity is also usually cited. However, Van Winkle notes that licking dust in Ps 72:9 and Mic 7:17 refer to the conquest 52 Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 113. 53 Thompson, Jeremiah, 753.

171 of enemies, and though North proposes that licking dust from the feet is less degrading than licking dust from the ground, Van Winkle points out from Sargon’s and Sennacherib’s boasts that kings of conquered peoples kiss their feet in abject submission.54 In terms of intertextual allusions, Willey has shown that Psalm 72 is extensively alluded to in Isa 54:13-14 where the promises of peace, righteousness, and protection made to the king are given to Zion instead.55 Thus, the reference to licking dust very likely recalls Ps 72:9-11, shown below with words echoed in Isa 49:22-23 in parentheses: 9 May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick ([O\) the dust (US>). 10 May the kings (OP) of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts. 11 May all kings (OP) fall down (KZ[) before him, all nations (\ZJ) give him service. (NRSV)

The phrase “to lick dust” occurs elsewhere only in Mic 7:17 but without the same cluster of words. This royal psalm about the Davidic king is understood to be preexilic in origin.56 There is thematic coherence in that both concern exaltation of royalty by other nations – one of YHWH’s king, the other of YHWH’s city. Thus, DI shows that the nationalistic aspect of the Davidic promise is fulfilled but to Zion the city rather than to the monarchy or the people. DI also augments the psalmic promise: Where it was the foes who licked dust, now it is all nations; where such foes only licked dust, nations now lick the dust of Zion’s feet; and where they brought tribute, kings now bring Zion’s children as lowly nursemaids. Nations once envisaged as vassals of the monarchy are now brought under Zion as the royal residence of sovereign YHWH. Further, the kings and queens of these nations are degraded by making them Israel’s nurses and suckling maids (v. 23a). Some, like Westermann, read this as an innocuous description of the nations serving Israel, but Blenkinsopp writes that child-minder is a role often filled by slaves. He suggests that PD may be 54 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 221; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:72; and Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 311, read it as a hyperbole. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:313; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:195; and North, Isaiah 40-55, 196, consider it an ancient oriental custom; P. Volz, Jesaja II: Übers. u. Erklärt (Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1932), 104-5; Van Winkle, “Relationships,” 452; North, Isaiah 40-55, 196. 55 Willey, Remember, 256-8. Also, Sommer, Prophet, 115. Willey notes that Ps 72:3-4, 7 and Isa 54:13-14 contain six words/phrases in common: peace, righteousness, children, oppressor, abundant peace. 56 Anderson, Psalms, 1:518; Kraus, Psalms, 2:76-7; Tate, Psalms 51-100, 222.

172 translated as “tutor” or “child-minder,”57 but the term PD actually debases the kings by depicting them as nursemaids, an image also found in Isa 60:16: “You shall suck the milk of nations, you shall suck the breasts of kings.” Therefore, 49:23 feminizes the kings and emasculates the powerful (in the context of a patriarchy).58 4.

“I will cause your oppressors to eat their own flesh” (v.26a)

Westermann considers these words as “unusually ferocious and cruel” and argues that they must be from an old war oracle DI used to proclaim the breaking of Babylon’s power, while “the punishment, destruction and castigation of the Babylonians does (sic) not interest him.”59 However, this verse is not about all nations but only focuses on Zion’s oppressors, i.e., the Babylonians, against whom YHWH promises judgment. Eating each other’s flesh usually depicts a siege, such as that faced by Zion in Jer 19:9; Ezek 5:10; Lam 2:20; 5:10, and Oswalt affirms that simple justice demands that those who had meted out the violence should receive some of it in return.60 Therefore, these “unusually cruel and ferocious words” represents the execution of lex talionis by YHWH against the Babylonians. 5.

“And all flesh will know that I am YHWH, your Savior and Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” (v. 26b)

Oswalt reads this line as having universalistic implications of YHWH as Savior because “there is no sense in which he restricts his deliverance to Israel alone (49:6; 66:18-21).” However, as Kaminsky points out, the nations are only witnesses to God’s glory within Israel, and their acknowledgement of God does not imply salvation. After all, YHWH is specifically called Zion’s Savior and Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob, the last being a title that Ollenburger shows is connected to Zion theology.61 57 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:312. 58 Gale Yee, Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 121, writes that Ezekiel emasculates Israel’s upper class by portraying them as an adulterous woman who is punished by YHWH her husband. 59 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 222. 60 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 314. M. Dahood, “Textual Problems in Isaiah,” CBQ 22 (1960): 400-409, based on a parallel with a Phoenician inscription, suggests that the descriptions are not literal but represents the enemies “reduced to their last extremity.” The focus on the enemies being destroyed internally rather than externally seems to be a trope that emphasizes God’s power in protecting Israel against a far more powerful enemy, e.g., Gideon’s battle against the Midianites (Judg 7:22), Jonathan’s battle against

173 In summary, Isa 49:22-26 begins with the raising of God’s hand and banner against the nations, implying that they will be conquered (by Cyrus) and then assist in repatriating the exiles. The nations will come subserviently, not to the Israelites who are portrayed as being carried by the kings and queens, but to Zion as the locus of YHWH’s rule. At the same time, retributive justice will be executed against Zion’s oppressors (vv. 24-26), a theme also found in the next text.

III. ISAIAH 51:21-52:2 THE UNCIRCUMCISED AND UNCLEAN The issue of nationalism involves the interpretation of the following verses: 51:21 Therefore please hear this, afflicted one, drunk but not with wine: 22 Thus says your lord YHWH, your God who contends for his people: Herewith, I take from your hand the cup of reeling; the goblet, the cup of my wrath, you shall never drink again. 23 And I will place it in the hand of your tormentors, who said to your soul, "Bow down, that we may pass over”; and you have placed your back like the ground and like the street for passer-bys. 52:1 Awake, awake, clothe yourself with your strength, O Zion! Clothe yourself with your garments of splendor, O Jerusalem, the holy city; For they shall never enter you again, the uncircumcised and unclean. 2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, sit enthroned O Jerusalem; loose the bonds from your neck, O captive lady Zion!

The extent of exclusivism in this text depends on the identification of “the uncircumcised and unclean” in 52:1. Rather than equating them with all nations, I submit that they refer specifically to the Babylonians who invaded Zion. 1.

“Your tormentors” in 51:23

That the Babylonians are the focus of this text was shown in Chapter Four by the contrast between Zion and Babylon in Isaiah 47. Although it was God’s purpose to punish Zion (Lam 1:5, 12; 3:32), Koole writes that the instruments used by God have sinned in their arrogance and cruelty and, thus, will receive

the Philistines (I Sam 14:20), and Jehoshaphat’s victory against Ammon et al. (2 Chron 20:23). 61 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 315; Kaminsky, “God of All,” 144; Ollenburger, Zion, 41-2.

174 their due reward (Isa 47:6; 10:13).62 The impartiality of God is indicated by being described as the one “who contends (E\U) for his people” (51:22a). North points out that the verb E\U is used of going to law with someone (45:9; 49:25; 50:8) or as in 51:22, of initiating or conducting an action on behalf of another (1:17; 2 Sam 24:16; Mic 7:9). Koole adds that it may be used outside a forensic context but even then, retains a legal connotation.63 Thus, God will render justice by punishing the Babylonians for Zion’s affliction. 2.

“The uncircumcised and unclean”(DPM) in 52:1b

North and Goldingay take the “uncircumcised” as referring to all Gentiles, while Westermann and Baltzer write that they stand only for the enemies of Israel.64 A closer study of the inner- and inter-textual contexts of 52:1-2 will clarify who DI is referring to. The use of “unclean” (DPM) is echoed in Isa 52:11: Turn away (UZV), turn away (UZV), go out from there! The unclean (DPM) do not touch (>JQ); go out from her midst, purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of YHWH.

This verse, in turn, is a reversal of Lam 4:15: “Turn away (UZV)! Unclean (DPM)!” they shouted at them; “Turn away (UZV)! Turn away (UZV)! Do not touch (>JQ)!” So they fled and wandered; they said among the nations, “They shall no longer stay.”

The repetition of the plural imperative UZV (turn away) together with DPM (unclean) and >JQ (touch) occurs nowhere else. There is also thematic coherence, since both texts describe the fate of Israel’s prophets, priests, and elders. Willey points out that Isa 52:11 reverses the unclean image of Zion’s leaders in Lam 4:15:65 The ones who were unclean are now to purify themselves; those from whom the people turned away are now to turn away from Babylon; those who were warned against touching the clean are now warned not to touch the unclean; and just as they can no longer stay in Jerusalem after the Fall, they are now to go out from Babylon at the return. Thus, the DPM (unclean) in 52:l are no 62 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:208. Similarly, Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 356, cites the oracles against the nations (Isaiah 13-23; Jeremiah 46-51; Ezekiel 25-32; Obadiah; Nahum) to show that the nations God used to judge Israel are not immune to judgment themselves. 63 North, Isaiah 40-55, 271; Koole, Isaiah III, 2:206. 64 North, Isaiah 40-55, 219; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:256; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 246; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 371; 65 Willey, Remember, 127.

175 longer the unclean Israelites in Lamentations but are identified as the unclean Babylonians in 52:11. Further, DI also alludes to Nah 2:1 [1:15]: Look! On the mountains the feet of one who brings good tidings, who proclaims peace! Celebrate your festivals, O Judah, fulfill your vows, for never again shall the wicked pass into you; they are utterly cut off.

Nahum is widely understood to coincide with the decline of the Assyrian empire, and thus, it would precede DI.66 As for markers, Willey notes that the messenger of good news is echoed in Isa 52:7, while the promise that the wicked shall never again pass over into you (EUE>O GZ> #\VZ\ DO \N) is repeated in 52:1, GZ>EDE\#\VZ\DO\N, and the string “GZ>#\VZ\DO\N” occurs nowhere else. The UVZP (bonds) in Nah 1:13 that God will break are also the bonds that Zion is to loosen in Isa 52:2. Further, the verb UE> (to pass) in Nah 2:1 [1:15] is used in Isa 51:23 where the enemy says to Zion: “‘Bow down, that we may pass over (UE>); and you have placed your back like the ground and like the street for passer-bys ( a\UE>).”67 DI thus reapplies the prophecy against the Assyrians to the Babylonians, and both texts also address a personified feminine figure (Judah in Nahum and Zion in DI). DI’s allusion to Nahum’s prophecy indicates that the “wicked” who are proscribed from Judah are the invaders, so correspondingly, the “uncircumcised and unclean” in Isa 52:1 refers to the Babylonian aggressors. Baltzer notes that when Jerusalem was threatened by Sennacherib in Isaiah 36-37, the prophet says in 37:33, “Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city (DZE\DOU\>KOD).” From this, he concludes that DI is referring to YHWH’s protection of Zion against hostile foreign attacks and not the barring of Gentiles altogether.68 Likewise, 51:21-52:2 does not ban 66 Julia Myers O’Brien, Nahum, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 14; Klaas Spronk, Nahum, HCOT (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 12; J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 38; and Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 63, believe that the terminus a quo is the fall of Thebes in 663 B.C.E. (Nah 3:18) and the terminus ad quem is 612 B.C.E., when Nineveh fell. 67 Willey, Remember, 119. 68 Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 372. Also, Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:256, Koole, Isaiah 40-55, 2:216, and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:340, refer to Ps 79:1: “O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins” (NRSV). The psalm is usually dated to 586 B.C.E. (Tate, Psalms 51-100, 298), and

176 nations in general from Zion but only those who come as invaders. The question of whether all nations or only enemy nations are subdued also arises in the next text.

IV. ISAIAH 54:3 YOU WILL DISPOSSESS NATIONS Isa 54:3 states: For you will spread out (US) to the right and to the left, and your offspring (>U]) will dispossess (YU\) the nations (a\ZJ), and will inhabit (EY\) the desolated (aPY) towns (a\U>).

The extent of Zion’s nationalism in this verse revolves around two issues: whether YU\ (dispossess) refers to a peaceful familial right of inheritance or a military conquest of other nations and whether the dispossessed are all nations in general or only those who had wrongfully occupied Israel’s territory. I will argue that this text only envisages the restoration of Israel’s land that had been seized by neighboring enemies. 1.

Meaning of YU\

Scholars who interpret DI’s message universally argue that YU\ here has the familial meaning of inheritance found in the patriarchal traditions. Thus, Koole reads YU\ as “inherit, be given possession of the land” (Gen 15:3f; 21:20; 22:17; 24:60; 28:4) and concludes that Zion “inherits” her children from the nations (cf. 49:21-23), implying that they are children by conversion rather than by ethnicity. Similarly, Baltzer and Knight suggest that “inherit” is a reference to the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion depicted in Isaiah 2 and is an achievement of the suffering servant in 53:12. Although North recognizes that YU\ indicates irredentism based on the conquest of the promised land, he also invokes God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12:3 that the giving of the land leads to the blessing of all the families of the earth.69 Further, many scholars links Isa 51:3 with Gen 28:14 by pointing out that the latter also contains the words “spread out” (US) and “seed” (>U]): 14 And your offspring (>U]) shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad (US) to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring (>U]). (NRSV). similarly, it is foreign nations who invade the city that violates the holiness (YGT) of the temple (Ps 79:1) and the city (Isa 52:1). 69 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:356-7; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 437; North, Isaiah 40-55, 249.

177

US for the spreading out of Israel in Canaan occurs only in these two texts. (US is used another time in Exod 1:12 for the multiplication of the Israelites in Egypt.) It seems, then, that Isa 51:3 is a fulfillment of God’s promise to Jacob. However, in the patriarchal narrative, the object of YU\ is never a\ZJ (nations) as in Isa 54:3 but is either “land” (UD; in Gen 15:7; 28:4) or the “gates of the enemies” (Gen 22:17; 24:60). On the other hand, YU\ with a\ZJ as the object appears frequently in Deuteronomy (e.g., 4:38; 7:17; 9:1; 11:23) where it has a clear meaning of conquest and annihilation (e.g., 2:12, 21 parallel YU\ with GPY).70 As for the allusion to the patriarchal narratives, DI always uses Jacob to refer to the contemporary Israelites and never for the historical ancestor. Nonetheless, even if DI is alluding to Gen 28:14, his use of the phrase a\ZJYU\ (dispossessing the nations) recontextualizes the Genesis promise because instead of inheriting land, the offspring of Zion are to drive out the nations. Who, then, are the nations to be dispossessed and the towns to be reoccupied? 2.

Dispossessing Nations and Settling Desolate Towns

Koole lists three options for the identity of the nations: the whole earth who will share in the patriarchal blessing through the servant, constituents of the old Davidic-Solomonic empire, or, lastly, those who conquered the areas of Judah lost in 597 and 586 B.C.E. Koole follows the first view based on the meaning of YU\ from the patriarchal narratives,71 but I have argued that the Deuteronomic usage is more relevant in DI. Secondly, it is unlikely that DI is thinking of a literal restoration of the former kingdom since he has democratized the Davidic covenant (Isa 55:3). Hence, several commentators adopt the third view that Israel is only seeking to recover its own land that was occupied by the surrounding nations during the exile.72 A survey of “desolate cities” in other prophetic literature shows that the phrase refers to conquered Judean cities, sometimes with the promise of restoration for such cities (e.g., Jer 33:10, Amos 9:14). Two relevant examples in DI are Isa 49:8 and 19: 49:8 Thus says YHWH: In a time of favor I answer you, on a day of salvation I help you;

70 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:343, and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:362, point out the military connotation of the verb from the Deuteronomistic background. 71 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:357; also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 437. 72 Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:434; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 417; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 2:362.

178 I keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to cause to inherit the desolate inheritance (WZPPYWZO[Q). 49:19 Surely your wastelands and your desolations (\WPPYZ) and the land of your destructionssurely now you will be cramped with settlers, while those who engulfed you will be far away.

In 49:8, YHWH promises the restoration of the desolate inheritance (WZO[Q), i.e., the property that was given by YHWH to Israel as their possession. Isa 49:19 is addressed to Zion, and therefore, her desolations (\WPPYZ) would refer to the the land of Judah, which God now promises to restore to her children. Finally, it was shown in the previous chapter that 54:1-3 reverses Jer 10:17-25, and Jer 10:25 in particular calls for divine judgment against the enemies: 25 Pour out your wrath on the nations (a\ZJK) that do not know you, and on the peoples that do not call on your name; for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste (aPY) his habitation” (NRSV).73

Isa 54:3 now reverses what the enemies had done to Jacob with the promise that Zion’s offspring will (once again) inhabit Jacob’s desolate (aPY) habitation. Further, Koole, Goldingay, and Baltzer note that aPY (desolate) occurs several times in the salvation oracle of Ezek 36:33-38.74 In fact, Ezek 36:1-15 contains several words echoed in Isa 54:1-3 (“desolate cities,” “nations,” “multiply,” “inhabitants,” and “possession”). Where Ezekiel 35 condemns Edom for encroaching on Judah’s territory, Ezek 36:1-15 assures Israel that God will judge their enemy and restore their land in greater prosperity than before.75 However, it is uncertain whether this Ezekiel passage is earlier than DI because Ezek 36:8 anticipates that the return from exile is near. Although Leslie C. Allen thinks that this should not be taken too literally, Walther Zimmerli and Moshe Greenberg suggest that this expectation may have arisen in the period of DI.76 The similarity of theme and vocabulary in the two texts may, therefore, be due to similar historical concerns rather than to a literary allusion. Nevertheless, it is helpful to compare their understanding of Israel’s restoration: Where Ezekiel 73 Sommer, Prophet, 38; Willey, Remember, 242. 74 Koole, Isaiah III, 2:357; Goldingay, Isaiah 40-55, 2:344; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 437. 75 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, 722; Block, Ezekiel, 2: 324; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:232, argue that Ezek 35:1-36:15 is an editorial unity. 76 Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, 171; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2: 234. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, 719-20, lists three possible dates for this text: King Jehoiachin’s release from prison in 561, the rise of Cyrus in 550, or the completion of forty years of punishment (4:6) in 557.

179 announces God’s promise of restoration to the personified mountains of Israel, DI addresses the promise to the personified city of Zion, leading Allen to comment on the Ezekiel text that “the role of the destroyed Jerusalem in the oracles of Second Isaiah is that of the desolated land here. Both prophets appealed to the land-centered theology of pre-exilic times and insisted that it still represented the divine intent.”77 For DI, such land-centered theology is encapsulated by Zion theology that guarantees the establishment of God’s city. Thus, just as Ezekiel condemns Edom for taking possession of Israel’s land (Ezekiel 35), so DI attacks those who invaded Israel’s land and cities. To recapitulate, YU\ with the object a\ZJ does not refer to inheritance in the patriarchal narratives but to the Deuteronomistic idea of conquest. The a\ZJ are not the objects of Abrahamic blessing but the targets of God’s wrath for the invasion of Zion’s (and thus, God’s) territory. Accordingly, the nationalism of this Zion text is not about annexing new territories but about reclaiming Zion’s land from foreign occupation.

SUMMARY It may be seen that the nationalistic texts in DI revolve around Zion. Some of the texts express retribution against Zion’s enemies: In 49:24-26, Zion’s oppressors will eat their own flesh; in 51:21-52:2, her tormentors are the uncircumcised and unclean who will be excluded from entering Zion; and in 54:3, Zion’s descendants will reclaim their own land from foreign occupation. However, other nations in general are also portrayed as Zion’s slaves, although unlike the enemies, the emphasis is on their service rather than on their destruction: In 45:14-17, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba are brought to Zion in chains to acknowledge YHWH rather than idols, and in 49:22-23, God signals an attack against the nations so that they will bring back Zion’s children and be subject to her. In conclusion, DI may be said to be a nationalist, but the nations are made subject to Zion rather than to Israel. DI does not present the nations coming as vassals to a Davidic monarchy nor to the people of Israel, and although respect is accorded to YHWH’s servant, that figure brings salvation rather than subjugation. DI’s portrayal is consistent with Zion theology that ensures the security of the city against her enemies and that also expects all other nations to offer homage in Zion because of YHWH’s sovereignty. The nationalism of DI is not about Israel’s political dominance but about YHWH’s sovereign authority. 77 Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, 174. So also, Block, Ezekiel, 2:336, speaks of “the deity-nation-land relationship.”

181

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION

I. SUMMARY The study of personified Zion in DI shows that this metaphor is not just a poetic expression to evoke empathy from the readers through the suffering of a female figure. More fundamentally, the figure of mother Zion also communicates beliefs from Zion theology to assure the hearers that YHWH will bring about restoration because YHWH the creator remains committed to YHWH’s city. Such an understanding of Zion in DI explains various apparent incongruities in her presentation: Unlike other prophetic texts, DI portrays Zion as an innocent mother and not as an adulterous wife because she is not the sinful people but the holy city; secondly, despite being a mother, it is not Zion who gives birth to Israel but YHWH, since YHWH is the creator of YHWH’s people; and thirdly, DI depicts Zion nationalistically as a demonstration of YHWH’s and not Israel’s, sovereignty. Chapter One reviews two methods used to analyze DI’s depiction of Zion. First, Lakoff and Johnson’s metaphor theory provides the principles and terminology for understanding how mother Zion functions as a cognitive metaphor. This involves determining the target of the source Zion, i.e., whether it is the place or the people that is represented and recognizing how the rhetorical context may highlight, downplay, hide, or extend a metaphor in different ways. The second method is the study of intertextual allusions, and I offer an eclectic approach to ascertain how DI appropriates and transforms former prophetic usages of the personified city. This involves first identifying the allusion by pertinent markers and thematic coherence, and secondly, by interpreting the allusion using the evoked text as a whole. Chapter Two shows the centrality of Zion theology in DI, and in view of its prominence in the Book of Isaiah, I propose that DI’s portrayal of personified Zion reflects the same set of beliefs. Based on Ollenburger’s and Roberts’ studies, I suggest that, first, the personified city should be regarded as innocent, second, that it is YHWH who births her children, and third, that she dominates other nations as the city of the great king. Chapter Three explores the wider background for the female personification of cities. A survey of prophetic books alluded to by DI shows that the metaphor

182 of Zion/Jerusalem is used for different targets that in turn determine the issue of her guilt. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the target of the personified wife is the people, and because of their sins of idolatry and foreign alliances, Jerusalem/Zion is depicted as a wanton wife. The figure of Zion is more complex in Lamentations in which she parallels the role of the weeping goddess in the Mesopotamian city laments and so, represents both city and people in terms of their suffering and culpability. In PI and DI, however, Zion generally refers to the place where YHWH reigns, and personified Zion in DI always represent the city rather than the people, and thus, mother Zion suffers not because of her own wrongdoings but because of the transgressions of her children (cf. Isa 50:1). Zion’s innocence in DI is the subject of Chapter Four. A close reading of four Zion passages shows that DI highlights Zion’s suffering but attributes guilt to the people. The clearest vindication of Zion is found in Isa 50:1, which explains that the mother city is separated from YHWH because of her rebellious children, but since she is not divorced, she may be reconciled with YHWH. In 49:14-26, the bereaved mother decries that YHWH has abandoned her, and while this alludes to the people’s lament and confession in Lamentations 5, YHWH responds to Zion as YHWH’s blameless child and remembered bride. Regarding the “cup of wrath” that Zion drinks in Isa 51:17-52:2, the context and intertextual allusions to Lamentations 4 and Ezekiel 23 highlight Zion’s anguish but hide her guilt by attributing it to the people. Finally, in 54:1-10, the negative descriptions of Zion, such as “the desolate woman,” “the shame of your youth,” “the dishonor of your widowhood,” and references to God’s wrath are actually ambiguous and do not necessarily imply guilt. In fact, the comparison of the Noachic Flood only serves to highlight her suffering like the devastated earth and hides her guilt by comparing her to righteous Noah, since God makes a covenant with both Noah and Zion. Thus, DI reverses past judgment against the people through YHWH’s compassion upon the innocent city. Chapter Five argues that it is not mother Zion but YHWH who gives birth to the people. Since Zion theology emphasizes YHWH as the creator, DI presents YHWH as the one who forms as well as births Israel. Three texts using gynomorphic imagery for YHWH are examined, and a fourth text in which Zion seems to give birth is also discussed. In Isa 49:21, Zion’s question, “Who has borne for me these?’” tellingly points to YHWH as the one who gives birth to Zion’s children. In juxtaposition with a warrior metaphor in Isa 49:22-26, the element of the mother’s strength is highlighted, showing YHWH’s power in delivering the people. Isa 42:13-17 uses the same combination of maternal and martial metaphors. Although the travailing woman metaphor conventionally highlights hopelessness and does not include the element of birth, it is extended

183 by the warrior’s victory to include the divine mother’s birth of the people through a defeat of the enemies. Isa 46:3-4 states that God carried Israel from within the womb, and while a pregnant woman typically portrays vulnerability, DI stretches the metaphor to depict YHWH’s power by having the mother carry her child to old age. Finally, although Isaiah 54 says that barren Zion will have many children, the text does not say explicitly that it is Zion who gives birth, and I have argued that the background for this metaphor is not drawn from actual barren women whether from the narrative or cultic traditions but from conventional descriptions of defeated cities as bereaved or barren mothers. In fact intertextual allusion to Jer 10:17-25 suggests that it is YHWH who returns the people. Chapter Six deals with DI’s nationalistic presentation of Zion, an issue that seems to conflict with his message of universal salvation. Rather than harmonizing the inclusive and exclusive texts, I submit that the nationalistic texts point to Zion as the royal residence of YHWH so that foreign peoples come in acknowledgment of YHWH’s universal sovereignty, not of Israel’s exclusive superiority. While Isa 49:24-26, 51:21-52:2, and 54:3 focus on retribution against Israel’s enemies in particular, Isa 45:14-17 and 49:22-23 depict the submission of all nations in general to Zion. Such subservience affirms YHWH’s sovereignty over the world.

II. IMPLICATIONS A.

HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS – For Real Mothers

As a female personification, Zion shows that mothers are appreciated in ancient Israel for their care and compassion, so much so that adult children are expected to have a close relationship with their mothers in terms of empathizing with their suffering and assisting with their needs. Barbara Bakke Kaiser suggests various reasons for the prophets’ use of the female metaphor in their laments: psychological imperative, simple observation of the pains of childbearing, or the availability of songs from professional women mourners.1 Perhaps most pertinent of all is the recognition that there is no sorrow quite like that of a parent who suffers the death of a child. A bereaved mother, in particular, would be in a more vulnerable position because upon widowhood, she would be left with no means of support and protection. DI uses such empathy for mothers to evoke guilt in the people by making them responsible for their mother’s 1

Barbara Bakke Kaiser, “Poet as “Female Impersonator”: The Image of Daughter Zion as Speaker in Biblical Poems of Suffering,” JR 67 (1987): 166, 176.

184 separation in 50:1 and also to arouse pity for her lonely suffering in 51:17-20, admiration for her royal restoration in 52:1-2, and hope in her marital reconciliation in 54:1-10. Thus, the people are made to identify with the fate and future of their city based on deep emotional ties and respect for mothers. DI uses the maternal metaphor not only for Zion but also for YHWH, which in contrast to other prophetic books that picture YHWH as the angry husband or the controlling father, is a very audacious picture in a patriarchal society. Such a rhetorical move helps to present women in a positive light, albeit specifically in the roles of birthing and nurturing. Further, DI’s highlight of the element of power in the act of birthing introduces a different perspective to the customary understanding of the travailing mother as weak and helpless. Rather, the woman’s great personal effort and sacrifice in giving birth is admired and held up as the epitome of compassion. Nonetheless, such positive views of women still operate within a patriarchal framework where a woman’s primary role is to produce heirs, where they are dependent on husbands and sons, and where they have little defense in the event of a divorce. Even though DI says that the wife of one’s youth should not be cast off, yet wife Zion is abandoned (Isa 54:6-8), and even though Zion is considered innocent, yet she was sent away for her children’s sin (50:1). As many feminist critics argue, one has to differentiate between the theology and ideology of a prophetic text – between the message of restoration and the medium of the patriarchal metaphor. Following O’Brien’s proposal, readers can also reflect on our own assumptions in light of the text’s ideology. For example, with respect to the role of mothers, the debate continues today in some Christian circles over whether mothers should work outside the home. Without undermining the importance of parenting, especially in infancy where biological fact dictates the mother’s role in breastfeeding, one needs to recognize the worth of a woman beyond her reproductive capacity as well as the importance of the father in child-rearing responsibilities, both of which are biblical values that may be suppressed by patriarchy.

B.

THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS – For Metaphorical Mothers

1.

YHWH as Mother

As pointed out, DI uses maternal metaphors for the deity at a frequency rarely found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars have proposed various reasons for this occurrence. Mayer I. Gruber, for one, argues that this has to do with DI’s polemic against the cults, suggesting that previous prophets’ exclusive use of male metaphors for God and negative feminine metaphors for the people resulted in women being kept at a distance from the official Israelite cult and

185 driving them to the idolatrous cult of goddesses. Gruber believes that as a result of this realization, DI deliberately makes use of both masculine and feminine similes for God. However, it is not clear that DI is concerned about the idolatry of women in particular. Rather, as Maier puts it, DI’s purpose is to persuade a doubting and desperate audience, women and men, that their national deity has not abandoned them.2 Other scholars offer a sociological reason for DI’s tendency to draw imagery from family and female experience. Leila Leah Bronner writes that the family became the only stable feature of life left to the exiles. “The father as husband, shepherd, warrior and king feature but so does the mother and her care of the children.” She points out that when the Bible recalls forbears, it is only the patriarch who is mentioned, but DI calls on the people to remember both Abraham and Sarah in Isa 51:2. She concludes: He draws his imagery from the one form of security left to an exiled people – the family, and in that sphere the women’s role is most significant; and this may account for the numerous gynomorphic images found in these chapters.3

Dille makes the similar point that DI’s language seems to have been suggested “not by an implicit systematic theology, but by the experience of exile.” She writes: The people were wrenched from their homeland, their own families, their history and their hopes and expectation for the future. The language of family is the language of rootedness, of past and future, of identity and belonging, and the language of home. The language of childbirth evokes new life, and thus continuity, into a new generation as creation continues. The unusual prevalence of explicitly feminine language may be especially evocative of the home, since home is stereotypically and archetypically the realm of the mother.4

Bronner and Dille make cogent observations, but along with the experience of exile, I submit that DI’s use of maternal imagery for YHWH is largely influenced by Zion theology. Zion theology is predicated on YHWH as the one who conquered chaos and created the world, and it has been pointed out that DI appeals to creation as the basis for salvation in the exilic period because the covenant with Israel has been broken. Redemption of YHWH’s people now rests on this prior and unconditional relationship with YHWH through creation, depicted in DI by the 2 3 4

Mayer I. Gruber, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Atlanta : Scholars Press, 1992), 14; Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion, 203. Leila Leah Bronner, Stories of Biblical Mothers: Maternal Power in the Hebrew Bible (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2004), 82-3. Dille, Mixing, 176-7.

186 imageries of pottery and of birth. The metaphor of birth is actually not novel, having been used for the Exodus in Numbers and Deuteronomy, and it is now employed again for the re-creation of Israel as a nation. The maternal efforts of pregnancy, labor, and nursing demonstrate divine compassion to a degree greater than other creation metaphors, whether of the potter or of the father. Thus, it is the maternal metaphor that gives Israel the assurance desperately needed in the face of divine abandonment. This affirms the cognitive use of metaphors to shape people’s thoughts and experience: Despite political and religious appearances to the contrary, the metaphor of Zion conveys the assurance that YHWH will restore the city to world-wide acclaim. One wonders, then, whether the maternal metaphor would be more suited for the deity in order to avoid the problem of violence that feminist critics resist in the metaphors of God as husband and father. However, O’Brien astutely notes that “all human relationships are complicated by the dynamics of power and human failings.”5 Like all metaphors for the divine, the maternal metaphor also has its limits. DI recognizes one such limit when he writes that human mothers may forget (49:15), and human mothers may also worry, nag, and manipulate. It would be best to understand the function of a metaphor in its context, viz., to highlight God’s intimate compassion and creative power at a time of crisis. No one metaphor will do justice in representing YHWH, but a multiplicity of metaphors will help us gain a better understanding of the divine. O’Brien’s careful analysis of a metaphor’s ideology also raises awareness of possible abuse of the metaphor in contemporary contexts. For example, she points out that the vulnerability of a daughter can lead to enforced control over that daughter, whether she is a person, a city, or a country.6 Similarly, using the mother metaphor implies that her children are in a relationship of total dependence, and while this is appropriate at a time of Israel’s helplessness, it would fail to encourage growth and independence. However, it may be noted that with regards to Zion, the people take on the role of adult children who are expected to exercise filial piety toward their mother when she is in a state of need. While such piety is commendable, a potential danger is the suppression of dissent and protest against whoever is presented as mother – God, leaders, tradition – because obedience may be elicited on the questionable basis of guilt. It is helpful to note, then, that Zion raises a lament against mother YHWH in Isa 49:14, an example that her own children can follow when the target does not act like the mother that he/she claims to be.

5 6

O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphors, 45. O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphors, 142-51.

187 Nonetheless, YHWH IS A MOTHER is an indispensable complement to the entrenched male imagery that YHWH IS A FATHER, and as Claudia V. Camp points out, the former seems disjunctive to us now only because of what we have previously presumed to know about God. Camp writes: The metaphor will only achieve efficacy, however, as it approaches the level of literalness as images of the male God. It must be more than mere theologial decoration; it must seem to derive from our experience; it must seem real-to-us or we will not shape our lives by it.…it becomes one we live by.7

It was certainly one that DI lived by, using it to shape the lives and hopes of the exiles in a time of historical and spiritual crisis, and one that also can also nourish us in our present social or personal crises. 2.

Earliest Reception History of “Zion as Mother”

Isaiah 54 envisions Zion as a place of perpetual peace, protection, and prosperity, but in TI, this vision still awaits fulfillment and is eventually pushed to an eschatological end in later literature. In fact, the apocryphal books of 2 Baruch and 2 Esdras, written around 70 C.E., promote the view that Zion, “the mother of us all” (2 Esd 10:7), is already built and existing in glory, despite her earthly ruins. That these texts view mother Zion as a place rather than as the people is evidenced by her descriptions as a vast city with huge foundations (2 Esd 10:55), as a building that is engraved on God’s palm, and as a location existing from the time of Adam (2 Bar 4:2-7). Such an eschatological view of Zion is also found in New Testament writings. Recent studies show that Zion is a key theme in the Gospels and the Epistle to the Hebrews,8 but here, I will only point to New Testament passages that employ the maternal metaphor of Zion and briefly suggest how DI’s understanding of mother Zion will enrich our reading of such texts. In Gal 4:26, Paul allegorizes the story of Sarah and Hagar, with Sarah representing Jerusalem above as “our mother.” I cite the relevant parts of Gal 4:26-31 below: 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is mar7 8

Claudia V. Camp, “Metaphor in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: Theoretical Perspectives,” in Women, War, and Metaphor, 33-4. Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2005); Tan Kim Huat, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, SNTSMS 91 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

188 ried." 28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman." 31 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. (NRSV)

This idea of the heavenly church is interpreted by most commentators as the church of the new age, standing in contrast with the proponents of Judaism in the earthly city of Jerusalem.9 This assumes that the target of Jerusalem above is the redeemed people of God, but such a comparison fails to elucidate the basis for Jerusalem’s freedom, not unless the city is understood as representing Zion theology and thus, the victorious reign of God. That the latter is what Paul had in mind is indicated by his allusion in Gal 4:27 to Isa 54:1 where the exiles return to the city as her numerous children. Interestingly, while Paul calls Jerusalem “our mother,” he states that her children are birthed “according the Spirit” (Gal 4:29), the Spirit that was sent by God the Father in Gal 4:6. This is consistent with Zion theology that is founded on God as the Creator of life, and in the context of Galatians, God is the Creator of a life that gives freedom from slavery. Richard N. Longenecker points out that the background of heavenly Jerusalem has to do with “the culmination of God’s redemptive purposes in human history, the realization of God’s reign in its totality now experienced by Christians in inaugurated fashion.”10 Such a view allows for a more comprehensive interpretation of this Pauline text – for instance, gospel freedom may be understood in the light of Zion theology not as freedom from the demands of righteousness but as freedom from oppressive requirements (i.e., the elemental spirits or principles in Gal 4:9). Revelation 12 also contains an intertextual allusion to mother Zion, specifically to Isaiah 66 where Zion gives birth to a male child, but in Revelations, the story continues with a dragon seeking to destroy both the woman and her other offsprings. Again, as with Galatians, most scholars interpret the unnamed woman in Revelation 12 as the Christian church, whether ideal or real, who is given the assurance that the church is preserved by God even though individuals may be persecuted and martyred.11 However, if we 9

F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 222; Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 210; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 440. 10 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 213-4. 11 The woman as the ideal heavenly church is proposed by George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 167, 170; followed by G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGCT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;

189 understand the woman as representing God’s city rather than God’s church (especially in the light of Revelation 21 where the bride is the city and home of God), then the text can be interpreted against the background of Zion theology and the chaoskampf motif (e.g., Rev 12:16 refers to a battle with a dragon and his flood of water). Rather than representing the persecuted church, woman Zion as the indomitable kingdom of God would provide a firmer assurance for a people going through tribulations. Mother Zion is our final and true home where we will find deepest rest and fullest comfort that our earthly homes and biological mothers represent in an imperfect but yet sacramental way. Further, the exaltation of Zion, as this study shows, is not about self-centered nationalism (whether ethnic, religious, or political) but about YHWH’s sovereignty – a sovereignty that intends to bring peace and righteousness both to Israel (Isaiah 54) and to all the world (Isa 51:4-5 cf. Isa 2:2-4).12 Present day Zion is a historical symbol of that divine kingship, a kingship whose eschatological fulfillment we can long for and work toward.

C.

HERMENEUTICAL IMPLICATIONS – For Other Mothers

1.

Mother Zion in Lamentations and DI

It has often been pointed out that DI provides the divine response to Lamentation, but Linafelt and Mandolfo note that mother Zion’s voice in Lamentation is largely silenced in DI, except for 49:14. For Mandolfo, this silence is indicative of resistance to God’s overtures of reconciliation: “She is not going to make amends easily. She may be viewed as refusing to take part in a discursive event that still refuses to engage authentically her point of view.”13 While it is true that mother Zion is much more subdued in DI than in Lamentations, this may not be a conscious suppression of the target’s voice but is simply the effect of using different targets. Mother Zion in DI represents the city, not the golah (identified with the servant) or the Judahites (as in Lamentations). In Lamentation, Zion acts as the weeping goddess who expresses her people’s suffering, while in DI, she is the city that epitomizes YHWH’s sovereignty. Thus, DI’s Zion does not reflect the people’s distress, and even Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1999), 676-7. The woman as the real church is argued by G. R. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974), 197; and David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, WBC 52B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 691. 12 Together with Sommer, A Prophet Reads, 80-2, Williamson, Isaiah 1-5, 177-8, argues that DI is dependent on Isa 2:2-4. 13 Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back, 114.

190 when she takes up the people’s lament from Lam 5:20 in Isa 49:14, the focus is not on them but on herself. Also, the suffering of Zion’s children in Isa 51:1720, which alludes to Lamentations, redirects attention from the dying children to the lonely mother. Thus, Mandolfo is right in her observation that Zion in DI is spoken about, spoken to, and alluded to, but not allowed a voice of her own, except once. However, contrary to Mandolfo, Zion is not blamed at God’s expense in DI;14 instead, DI maintains her innocence because she, and not her children, is God’s city. DI’s agenda is to initiate the return based on YHWH as the universal creator and king, and so he focuses on Zion as the recipient of YHWH’s promises, not as the mediatrix in Lamentations. Zion’s silence may be understood, then, not so much as tacit resistance but as quiet reliance. However, it must be admitted that the voice of the Judahites seems to be ignored, and if DI’s vision of Zion as a place of peace and righteousness is to be followed through, then attention should also be given to the needs and rights of diverse peoples. 2.

Mother Sarah in the Patriarchal Narratives

Mother Sarah and mother Zion share a common motif of barrenness, and it is often assumed that Sarah is the precedent for Zion in DI in Isa 54:1 where the barren woman is told to sing because she will have many children. Sarah is, after all, mentioned in Isa 51:2, but as I have discussed in Chapter Five, it is unlikely that the Isaianic texts allude to the patriarchal narratives as we have them in the book of Genesis. In fact, it is suggested by a growing number of scholars such as Rendtorff, John Van Seters, Erhard Blum, Blenkinsopp, and David M. Carr that the patriarchal narratives may be exilic or post-exilic writings,15 and as such, it may be possible that the portrayal of Sarah is influenced by Zion rather than vice versa. Perhaps reading Sarah in the light of DI’s mother Zion would provide a new hermeneutical lens that explains certain awkward problems in the narratives. For instance, it may be that the endangered ancestress stories in Genesis 12 and 20 show that just as God defends Zion, so also Sarah is kept safe 14 Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back, 114-118. 15 Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, JSOTSup 89, trans. by John J. Scullion (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990); John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975); Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984); Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992); David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996).

191 from foreign kings despite Abraham’s failure. Sarah’s seemingly callous treatment of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21 may be a reflection of the subjugation of other nations to Zion. And, just as Zion responds with incredulity at the birth of her children (Isa 49:21), so also Sarah laughs at God’s promise that she will give birth (Gen 18:12).16 In both the stories of the barren matriarch and barren Zion, it is God’s power and sovereignty that is accentuated in the creation of God’s people.

CONCLUSION The maternal imagery for God and for Zion, especially when used as cognitive metaphors for Zion theology, is seldom taught and reflected on, yet it is an imagery that provides a much needed balance in our perception of God, one that sustains us in times of crisis and chaos, times when we need to be assured that God’s motherly compassion and power will not fail, times when we need to be reminded along our trek through life’s wilderness that mother Zion waits to welcome us to our true home, both now and at the eschaton.

16 The motif of barrenness in Genesis seems to differ from that in the Deuteronomistic History. In the latter, the women’s faith (Samson’s mother, Hannah, and the Shunammite woman) is highlighted, but in the patriarchal narratives, this is not an essential element for the matriarchs.

193

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, Peter. Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: SCM,1987. Albertz, Rainer. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E.Translated by David Green. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel. 2 vols. WBC 28-29. Dallas: Word, 1990-94. Anderson, A. A. Psalms. 2 vols. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972. Aune, David E. Revelation 6-16. WBC 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Balentine, Samuel E. “Isaiah 45: God’s ‘I Am,’ Israel’s ‘You Are.’” HBT 16, no. 2 (1994): 103-120. Baltzer, Dieter. Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartungder beiden grossen Exilspropheten. BZAW 121. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971. Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Basson, Alec. Divine Metaphors in Selected Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Batto, Bernard F. “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty.” Bib 68, no. 2 (1987): 153-177. Baumann, Gerlinde. Love and Violence: Marriage as Metaphor for the Relationship Between YHWH and Israel in the Prophetic Books. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003.

194 Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. NIGCT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1999. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Revelation. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974. Becker, J. Isaias – der Prophet und sein Buch. SBS 30. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholsches Bibelwerk, 1968. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105-128. Berges, Ulrich. “Who Were the Servants? A Comparative Inquiry in the Book of Isaiah and the Psalms.” In Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets, ed. Johannes C. de Moor and Harry F. Van Rooy, 1-18. Leiden; Boston; Cologne: Brill, 2000. _____________. “Personifications and Prophetic Voices of Zion in Isaiah and Beyond.” In The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist, ed. Johannes C. de Moor, 5482. Leiden; Boston; Cologne: Brill, 2001. _____________. “Zion and the Kingship of YHWH in Isaiah 40-55.” In ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent,’ The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah, The Isaiah Workshop – De Jesaja Werkplaats, OtSt 58, ed. Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude, 95-119. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Bergmann, Claudia D. Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1-18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Berlin, Adele. Lamentations. OTL. Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Beuken, Willem A. M. “Isaiah LIV: The Multiple Identity of the Person Addressed.” OTS 19 (1974): 29-70. ___________________. “The Confession of God’s Exclusivity by All Mankind: A Reappraisal of Is.45,18-25.” Bijdr 35 (1974): 335-356.

195 ___________________. “The Literary Emergence of Zion as a City in the First Opening of the Book of Isaiah (1,1-2,5).” In Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburstag, ed. Markus Witte, 457470. BZAW 345/I. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. ___________________. “YHWH’s Sovereign Rule and His Adoration on Mount Zion: A Comparison of Poetic Visions in Isaiah 24-27, 52, and 66.” In The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah, ed. A. Joseph Everson and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, 91-107. Ancient Israel and Its Literature. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. Biddle, Mark. “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East.” In The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context 4, ed. Bernard F. Batto, William W. Hallo, K. Lawson Younger Jr., 173-94. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 11. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1991. ____________. “Lady Zion's Alter Egos: Isaiah 47:1-15 and 57:6-13 as Structural Counterparts.” In New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, 124-139. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1962. Blank, Sheldon. Prophetic Faith in Isaiah. New York: Harper, 1958. Blessing, Kamila. “Desolate Jerusalem and Barren Matriarch: Two Distinct Figures in the Pseudepigrapha.” JPS 18 (1998): 47-69. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. _________________. Isaiah 40-66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 3 vols. AB 19-19B. New York: Doubleday, 2000-2003. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. Blythin, Islwyn. “A Note on Isaiah xlix 16-17.” VT 16 (1966): 229-230.

196 Boer, P. A. H. de. Second Isaiah’s Message. OTS 11. Leiden: Brill, 1956. Bonnard, P. E. Le Second Isaïe: Son Disciple et leurs Editeurs, Isaïe 40-66. Paris: Librarie Lecoffre, 1972. Botterweck, G. J. and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1974-. Brassey, Paul Del. Metaphor and the Incomparable God in Isaiah 40-55. North Richland Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 2001. Brettler, Marc Z. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. JSOTSup 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. _____________. “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40-66.” JSOT 78 (1998): 117. Bright, John. Jeremiah. AB 21. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965. Bronner, Leila Leah. Stories of Biblical Mothers: Maternal Power in the Hebrew Bible. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2004. Brown, William P. Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Brownlee, W. H. The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible, with special attention to the Book of Isaiah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Broyles, Craig C.. Psalms. NIBCOT. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Bruce, F. F. Commentary on Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Brueggemann,Walter. “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition.” JSOT 29 (1984):89-107. Callaway, Mary. Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

197 Camp, Claudia V. and Carole R. Fontaine, eds. Women, War, and Metaphor: Language and Society in the Study of the Hebrew Bible. Semeia 61. Atlanta: SBL, 1993. Carr, David M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Carroll, Robert. Jeremiah. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Cassuto, U. “On the Formal and Stylistic Relationship between Deutero-Isaiah and other Biblical Writers.” In Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, trans. Israel Abrahams, 144-60. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ______________. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1-39. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980. ____________. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah.” Int 36, no. 2 (1982): 117129. ____________. “Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes.” JSOT 31 (1985): 95-113. ____________. “Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest.” In Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. Van Ruiten and M. Vervenne, 3-17. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______________. “Psalm 72 and Isaiah 40-66: A Study in Tradition.” PRSt 28, no. 4 (2001): 333-41. Clifford, Richard. Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah. New York: Paulist, 1984. _____________. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language.” CBQ 55, no. 1 (1993): 1-17.

198 Conrad, E. W. Reading Isaiah. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. WBC 19. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983. Creach, Jerome. “The Shape of Book Four of the Psalter and the Shape of Second Isaiah.” JSOT 80 (1998): 63-76. Crüsemann, F. Studiën zur Formgeshichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Dahood, Mitchell. “Textual Problems in Isaiah.” CBQ 22 (1960): 400-409. ______________. “Isaiah 51,19 and Sefire III22.” Bib 56, vol. 1 (1975): 94-95. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Davidson, Robert. “Universalism in Second Isaiah.” SJOT 16, no. 2 (1963): 16685. Davies, Graham. “The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah.” In The Book of Isaiah: Le Livre d’Isaïe, ed. J. Vermeylen, 93-120. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989. Day, Peggy. “The Personification of Cities as Female in the Hebrew Bible: The Thesis of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C.” In Reading from this Place, vol. 2, ed. Fernando Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert, 283-302. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Dearman, J. Andrew. “Daughter Zion and Her Place in God’s Household.” HBT 31 (2009): 144-159. Deming, Linda. “Hymnic Language in Deutero-Isaiah: The Calls to Praise and their Function in the Book.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1978.

199 Dille, Sarah J. Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. JSOTSup 398. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible. BibOr 44. Rome: Pontifical Bible Institute, 1993. _________________. “The Syntagma of bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the Hebrew Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar.” CBQ 57, no. 3 (1995): 469-70. _________________. “Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Lamentations.” Journal of the Near Eastern Society of Columbia University (1998):1-36. _________________. Lamentations. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 2002. Doyle, Brian. The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: The Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27. Louvain: Leuven University Press; Leuven-Sterling, Va.: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2000. Dumbrell, William J. “The Purpose of the Book of Isaiah.” TynB 36 (1985): 111-28. Durlesser, James A. The Metaphorical Narratives in the Book of Ezekiel. Lewiston, N.Y.; Queenston, Ontario; Lampeter, Wales: Mellen, 2006. Eakins, J. K. “Ezekiel’s Influence on the Exilic Isaiah.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1970. Eissfeldt, Otto. “The Promises of Grace to David in Isa 55:1-5.” In Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, 196-207. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Eldridge, Victor. “The Influence of Jeremiah on Isaiah 40-55.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978. Evans, Craig A. “On the Unity of Parallel Structure of Isaiah.” VT 38 (1988): 129-47.

200 Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Fitzgerald, Aloysius. “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT.” CBQ 34, no. 4 (1972): 403-16. Floyd, Michael H. “Welcome Back, Daughter of Zion!” CBQ 70 (2008): 484504. Follis, Elaine R. “The Holy City as Daughter.” In Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. JSOTSup 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Foster, Julia A. “The Use of তyl as God-Language in the Hebrew Scriptures.” In Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. Lewis M. Hopfe, 93-102. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Freedman, David Noel. “Isaiah 42,13.” CBQ 30 (1968): 225-6. Fretheim, Terence E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ________________. Jeremiah. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. ________________. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Free Press Macmillan, 1992. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1988. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City As Yahweh’s Wife. SBLDS 130. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Gelston, Anthony. “Universalism in Second Isaiah.” JTS 43 (1992): 390-1. Goldingay, John. Isaiah. NIBC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001.

201 _____________. Psalms 42-89. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Goldingay, John and David Payne. Isaiah 40-55. 2 vols. ICC. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Gottwald, Norman. Studies in the Book of Lamentations. SBT 14. London: SCM, 1964. Graffy, Adrian. A Prophet Confronts His People. AnBib 104. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984. Gray, George B. The Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1949. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21-37. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Gruber, Mayer I. The Motherhood of God and Other Studies. Atlanta : Scholars Press, 1992. Halas, R. “The Universalism of Isaias.” CBQ 17 (1950): 162-70. Hall, Gary Harlan. “The Marriage Imagery in Jeremiah 2 and 3: A Study of Antecedents and Innovations in a Prophetic Metaphor.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1980. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ____________. Isaiah 40-66. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Harner, Ph. B. “Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah.” VT 17, no. 3 (1967): 298-306. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1989. Hecke, P. van, ed. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Louvain: Leuven University Press; Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2005. Hibbard, J. Todd. Intertextuality in Isaiah 24-27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

202 Holladay, William. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26-52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Hollenberg, D. E. “Nationalism and ‘the Nations’ in Isaiah XL-LV.” VT 19 no. 1(1969): 23-36. Jenni, E. with assistance from C. Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997 Jeppesen, Knud. “Mother Zion, Father Servant: A Reading of Isaiah 49-55.” In Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honor of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines, 109-25. JSOTSup 162. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. K. Beal, Timothy. “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production.” In Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell, 27-39. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Kaiser, Barbara Bakke. “Poet as ‘Female Impersonator’: The Image of Daughter Zion as Speaker in Biblical Poems of Suffering,” JR 67, no. 2 (1987): 164-82. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. __________, Helmer Ringgren, and Walther Zimmerli. Sprüche; Prediger; Das Hohelied; Klagelieder; Das Buch Esther. ATD 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Kaminsky, Joel S. “God of All the World: Universalism and Developing Monotheism in Isaiah 40-66.” HTR 99, no. 2 (2006): 139-41. _______________. “The Concept of Election and Second Isaiah: Recent Literature.” BibThBul 31, no. 4 (2001): 135-144. Kelle, Brad E. Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective. Academia Biblica 20. Atlanta: SBL, 2005.

203 Knierim, Rolf. The Task of Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Koole, Jan L. Isaiah III: Isaiah 40-66. Translated by Anthony P. Runia. 3 vols. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997. Korpel, Marjo C. A. “Female Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 54.” In Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Kijk-Hemmes, ed. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra, 153-67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Kovecses, Zoltan. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms. 2 vols. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Edited by T. Gora and A. Jardine. Translated by L. S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. ___________. Revolution in Poetic Language. Translated by M. Walker. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984. Lack, R. La Symbolique du Livre d’Isaïe: Essai sur l’image littéraire comme element de Structuration. AnBib 59. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973. Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. ____________ and Mark Turner. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Leene, H. “Universalism or Nationalism? Isaiah XLV 9-13 and Its Context.” Bijdr 35 (1974): 309-34.

204 Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday,1992. Levenson, Jon. “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism.” In Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark Brett, 143-169. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Lewy. J. “The Old West Semitic Sun God Hammu.” HUCA 18 (1944): 429-88. Liebrich, L. J. “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah.” JQR 46 (1955-6):25977; 47 (1956-7): 114-38. Linafelt, Tod. “Surviving Lamentations.” HBT 17, no. 1 (1995): 45-61. __________. Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament, and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Lindars, Barnabas. “Good Tidings to Zion: Interpreting Deutero-Isaiah Today.” BJRL 68, no. 2 (1986): 473-497. Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas: Word, 1990. Lowth, Robert. Isaiah: A New Translation, 14th ed. London: Tegg, 1848. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lugtigheid, P. “The Notion of the City in Isaiah 44;21-46:13.” In ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent,’ The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah, The Isaiah Workshop – De Jesaja Werkplaats, OtSt 58, ed. Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude, 121-158. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. Macky, Peter W. The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting the Bible. Lewiston, N.Y.; Queenston, Ontario; Lampeter, Wales: Mellen, 1990. Maier, Christl M. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.

205 ______________. “Daughter Zion as Queen and Iconography of the Female City.” In Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Martti Nissenen and Charles E. Carter, 147-62. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Mandolfo, Carleen R. Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Martin-Achard, Robert. A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel’s Mission to the World. Translated by John Penny Smith. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. AB 19. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968. Melugin, Roy F. The Formation of Isaiah 40-55. BZAW 141. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1976. ____________. “Israel and the Nations in Isaiah 40-55.” In Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Keith L. Eades, James Robinson, and Henry T. C. Sun, 249-264. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Mettinger, Tryggve. “In Search of the Hidden Structure: YHWH as King in Isaiah 40-55.” SEÅ 51-52 (1986): 148-157. Midrash Rabbah. Translated by A. Cohen. London: Soncino, 1939. Mintz, Alan. Hurban: Responses to Catastrophe in Hebrew Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984. Miscall, Peter D. “Isaiah: The Labyrinth of Images.” Semeia 54 (1991): 103-21. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia. Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1914.

206 Muilenburg, James. “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, Introduction and Exegesis.” In The Book of Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, The Book of Isaiah, The Book of Jeremiah, vol. 5 of IB, ed. George Arthur Buttrick et al., 381-773. New York; Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Murray, D. F. “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre.” JSOT 38 (1987): 95-121. Newsom, Carol. “Response to Normal Gottwald, ‘Social Class and Ideology in Isaiah 40-55: An Eagletonian Reading.’” Semeia 59 (1992): 73-8. ____________. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre.” In The Place is Too Small for Us: Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. R. Gordon, 191-204. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Reprint from Int 38 (1984): 151-65. Nielsen, Kirsten. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. JSOTSup 65 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Nogalski, James D. Redaction Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993. _______________. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House, 102-24. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. North, Christopher R. The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. O’Brien, Julia Myers. Nahum. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. _________________. Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets. Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox, 2008. O’Connor, Kathleen. “Speak Tenderly to Jerusalem: Second Isaiah’s Reception and Use of Daughter Zion.” PSB 10, no. 3 (1999): 281-94.

207 Oestreich, Bernhard. Metaphors and Similes for Yahweh in Hoseah 14:2-9 (18): A Study of Hoseanic Pictorial Language. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTSup 41. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Orlinsky, Harry M. “The So-Called ‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah.” In Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah, 97-117. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Paul, Shalom. “Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah.” In Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. Pinchas Peli, 102-120. Jerusalem: R. H. Hacohen, 1969. __________. “Polysemous Pivotal Function.” In Texts, Temples and Traditions. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Penna. A. Isaia. Torino, Italy: Marietti, 1958. Perdue, Leo G. “The Israelite and Early Jewish Family.” In Leo G. Purdue et al., Families in Ancient Israel,189-90. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1977. ___________. Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991. Polaski, Donald C. Authorizing and End: The Isaiah Apocalypse & Intertextuality. Leiden; Boston; Cologne: Brill, 2001. Porteous, Norman W. “Jerusalem-Zion: The Growth of a Symbol.” In Verbannung und Heimkehr, ed. Arnulf Kusche, 235-2.Tübingen: Mohr, 1961. Porter, Paul A. Metaphors and Monsters: A Literary-Critical Study of Daniel 7 and 8. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983.

208 Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Provan, Iain. Lamentations. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Quinn-Miscall, Peter D. Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Rad, Gerhard von, Old Testament Theology, vol. II: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by John J. Scullion. JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. ____________. “The Composition of the Book of Isaiah.” In Canon and Theology, trans. Margaret Kohn. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Renz, Thomas. “The Use of the Zion Tradition in the Book of Ezekiel.” In Zion, City of our God, ed. Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham , 77-103. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999. Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press, 1936. Ricoeur, P. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Roberts, J. J. M. “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology.” Int 36 (1982): 130-43. ____________. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. ____________. “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” In The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Reprint from JBL 92 (1973): 313-30. ____________. “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire.” In The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Reprint from Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other

209 Essays: Papers read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979, ed. Tomoo Ishida and Masao Sekine, 93108. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Roberts, Kathryn L. “Isaiah 49:14-18.” Int (2003): 58-60. Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Rowley, H. H. The Servant of the Lord, and Other Essays on the Old Testament. London: Lutterworth Press, 1952. ___________. Israel’s Mission to the World. London: SCM, 1939. ___________. The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM Press, 1956. Sawyer, John F. A. “Daughter of Zion and Servant of the Lord in Isaiah: A Comparison.” JSOT 44 (1984): 89-107. Schmid, H. H. “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology (1973).” In Creation in the Old Testament, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson, 102-117. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1985. Schmitt, John. “The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother.” RB 92 (1985): 557-69. Schoors, Antoon. “Two Notes on Isaiah.” VT 21, no. 4 (1971): 501-5. _____________. I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. xl-lv. VTSup 24. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets.JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. _______________. “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah.” In Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson, 122-44. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2009.

210 Seidel, Moshe. “Parallels between the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms.” Sinai 38 (1965): 149-72. Seitz, Christopher R. Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah, A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ________________. “The Book of Isaiah 40-66: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” In Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, vol. 6 of NIB, ed. Leander E. Keck et al, 307-52. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Seters, John Van. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. Shields, Mary E. Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1-4.4. JSOTSup 387. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Skinner, John. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters XL-LXVI, rev. ed. CBSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917. Smith, Mark S. “BƟrît ’am/ BƟrît ’ôlƗm: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6.” JBL 100 no. 2 (1981): 241-8. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984. Snaith, Norman H. “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah.” In Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented to Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley, 187-200. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1950. _______________. “Isaiah 40-66 – A Study of the Teaching of the Second Isaiah and Its Consequences.” In Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Sommer, Benjamin. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford, Calif.,: Stanford University Press, 1998. Son Kiwoong. Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2005.

211 Soskice, Janet M. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Spronk, Klaas. Nahum. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997. Steck, O. H. Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja. SBS 121. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985. _________. “Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament.” ZTK 86 (1989): 26181. Stienstra, Nelly. YHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with special reference to Translation. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Stinespring, William Franklin. “No Daughter of Zion.” Enc 25 (1965):133-41. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. “Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet’s Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship.” CBQ 42 (1980): 1-27. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Jeremiah 30-31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform.” ZAW 108 (1996): 569-583. ________________. Isaiah 1-4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. BZAW 171. Berlin; New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1988. Tan Kim Huat. The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus. SNTSMS 91. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 50-100. WBC 20. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1990. Thomson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia For the Comfort of Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40-55. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.

212 Toorn, K. van der. From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life ofthe Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. Translated by Sara J. Denning-Bolle. Biblical Seminar Series 23. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. Torrey, C. C. The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Turner, Mary. “Daughter Zion: Lament and Restoration.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1992. Vermeylen, J. “L’Unité du livre d’Isaïe.” In The Book of Isaiah, ed. J. Vermeylen, 11-53. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989. Watts, J. D. W. Isaiah. 2 vols. WBC 24-5. Waco: Word, 1985-1987. Webb, Barry. “Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah.” In The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. D. J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter, 65-84. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Weiss, Andrea L. Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. ________________. Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1994. ________________. The Praise of God in the Psalms. Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1961. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40-66. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1975. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1-39: A Commentary. 3 vols. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991-2002.

213 Willey, Patricia Tull. “The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s Community.” SBLSP 34 (1995): 267-303. ________________. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah. SBLDS 161. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1997. Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. _________________. Isaiah 1-5. ICC. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Wilshire, Leland E. “Servant-city: A New Interpretation of the Servant of the Lord in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah.” JBL 94 (1975): 356-67. Wilson, Andrew. The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study on Composition and Structure. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1986. Winkle, D. W. Van. “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh and to Israel in Isaiah XL-LV.” VT 35, no. 4 (1985): 446-458. Yee, Gale. Poor Banished Children of Eve:Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

215

SCRIPTURE INDEX Genesis 4:18, 112 6:4, 113 8:13, 121 10:7, 164 10:8, 112 10:13, 112 10:15, 112 10:24, 112 10:26, 112 11:30, 139 12, 190 12:3, 176 15:3f, 176 15:7, 177 15:12, 152 16, 191 16:1, 113 16:15, 113 18:10, 128, 131 18:12, 119, 191 18:14, 128, 131 20, 190 21, 191 21:2, 113 21:8-14, 76 21:13, 76 21:20, 176 22:17, 176, 177 24:60, 176, 177 25:9, 76 25:21, 139 25:23, 136 25:24, 136 28:4, 176, 177 28:14, 176 29:31, 139 30:1, 113 30:23, 101 38:27, 131 39:27, 136 44:13, 133 49:21-23, 176 Exodus 1:12, 177 14:16, 167 14:21, 167 14:26f, 167 15, 45, 50 23:26, 139 26:17, 147 51:9-11, 90 52:1, 90

52:7, 90 52:11-12, 90 Numbers 5:11ff, 90 11:11-12, 112, 114, 147 11:12, 50, 115 13:32, 158 16:22, 106 32:13-15, 115

1 Samuel 1:5, 140 2:1-10, 139 2:5, 139, 141 14:20, 173 17:33, 116 20:22, 103 20:30, 100 31:9, 135 2 Samuel

Deuteronomy 1:31, 133 2:12, 177 2:21, 177 4:38, 177 7:14, 139 7:17, 177 9:1, 177 11:23, 177 22:20-21, 85 24:1, 75, 76 24:1-4, 76 28:51-57, 115 32, 45 32:1, 146 32:6, 114 32:10-15, 114 32:18, 50, 114, 147 32:30, 75 32:40, 166 Joshua 22:20, 106

3:16, 76 4:1, 168 5:7, 56 5:9, 56 5:21, 135 8, 95 11:1, 129 13:13, 101 13:20, 100, 140 17:2, 168 17:3, 85 17:8, 116 20:19, 71 21:7-14, 115 22:4-7, 58 24:16, 168, 174 1 Kings 3:16-27, 115 5:29, 133 8:30, 162 8:35, 162 8:42, 162 10:19, 147

Judges 2 Kings 2:14, 76 3:8, 76 7:22, 172 13:2, 139 13:3, 139 13:5, 136 13:7, 136 16:17, 136 Ruth 2:12, 106 4:17, 113

2:17, 100 3:27, 106 4:16-17, 128, 131 8:12, 138 15:16, 138 19:3, 58, 131 19:21, 55, 56 1 Chronicles 1:10, 112 1:11, 112 1:13, 112 1:18, 112 1:20, 112

216 22:23, 112 24:3, 112 27:23, 106 32:21, 100 2 Chronicles 20:23, 173 Nehemiah 13:15, 133 Job 1:21, 137 3:16, 127 4:9, 120 7:2, 120 10:19, 136 15:35, 112 20:11, 103 24:21, 139 28:19, 163 31:15, 136 31:32, 131 33:25, 103 36:8, 163 36:24, 146 38:29, 137 39:1-2, 131 Psalms 2:6, 48 3:4, 48 5:8, 162 7:15, 112 9:14, 48 9:15 [14], 56 10:12, 166 12, 124 14:7, 67 15:1, 48 18:4-7, 58 18:6, 120 18:44, 153 21:13 [12], 143 22:10 [9], 137 22:11 [10], 137 24, 49 24:3, 48 24:3-4, 49 27:10, 117 28:1, 124 29, 49 33, 123 35:22, 124 39:13, 124

40, 123 43:3, 48 44, 95 44:2, 146 44:12, 75 45:10, 85 46, 38, 47, 51, 107 46:2-4 [3-5], 51 46:3, 46, 47 46:5, 46 46:6, 107 46:7, 46 46:10, 51 47, 46 48, 1, 38, 47, 51 48:1, 48 48:3, 47, 66 48:3-4, 46 48:5, 58 48:5-7, 46 48:8 [7], 51 48:9, 66 48:12-14, 49 52:5, 144, 162 55:4-9, 58 58:4, 137 58:8, 127 60, 95 60:3, 94 60:5, 94 60:6 [4], 95 60:6-7 [4-5], 169 60:7 [5], 95 64:10, 146 65, 49, 51 68:5, 48 68:19 [68:18], 47 68:31, 163 71, 102 71:6, 136, 137 72, 171 72:3-4, 171 72:7, 171 72:8-11, 46 72:9, 170 72:9-11, 171 72:10, 163 72:10-11, 34 74, 51 74:2, 51 75:8, 90, 93 76, 1, 38, 47, 51, 52 76:4, 46 76:4-9, 51 76:5-6, 51 76:6-7, 46 76:11-13 [10-12], 52 77, 45, 51 78, 24, 45, 51

78:54, 48 78:69, 49 79:1, 175 83:2, 124 87, 1 87:1, 48 87:5, 66 88, 58 89, 33, 49, 102, 103, 108, 109 89:39-52, 103 89:42-46, 103 89:44, 103 89:45, 103 89:45 [46], 102 89:46, 104 90:2, 114 93, 49 93:1-4, 49 93-99, 46 95, 123 95:8-11, 123 95:9, 146 96, 123 96:11, 120 97:8, 48 98, 123 98:7, 120 99, 51 99:9, 48 102:10 [11], 106 102:14-15, 48 103:13, 115 104:5-6, 107 106:26, 166 106:32, 106 110:3, 48 113:9, 139 114, 45 122, 51 132, 47 132:13-18, 49 133:3, 49 134:2, 48 134:3, 67 135, 45 136, 45 138:2, 162 139:13, 136 144:14, 133 146:10, 48 147:12, 48 147:12-14, 49 147:13, 49 149:2, 48 149:8, 163

217 Proverbs 2:17, 82, 104 5:18, 104, 108 8:24, 114 15:20, 152 17:21, 112 21:20, 152 22:22, 112 22:24, 112 Ecclesiastes 11:5, 136 Song of Solomon 4:10, 85 4:12, 85 6:8, 103 8:10, 85 8:9, 85 Isaiah 1, 42, 64, 66 1:2-3, 64 1:8, 56, 64 1:9, 64 1:17, 174 1:18, 63 1:21, 63, 64, 65, 66 1:21-26, 43 1:22-26, 64 1:23, 65 1:27, 66 1:27-28, 65 1:29-31, 64 1-4, 43 1-12, 41 1-35, 44 1-39, 44 2, 176 2:1-4, 40 2:2, 47 2:2-4, 41, 189 2:4-5, 189 2:6-22, 48 3:25-26, 63 4:1, 101 4:6, 59 4:22, 59 4:27-31, 58 4:30, 58, 59 4:30-31, 57, 58 4:31, 58, 59 5, 169 5:12, 146 5:18, 92

5:20, 92 5:25-29, 168 5:26, 168, 169, 170 5:29, 169 6, 39, 45 6:2, 59 6:9-10, 44 6:11, 64 6:23, 59 7:18, 169 8:9-10, 48 8:17, 107 8:18, 63 8:19, 59 9:1-6, 84 9:3, 133 9:5, 15210:11, 84 9:19, 59 10:8, 84 10:13, 174 10:24, 63 10:32, 56, 167 11:8, 84 11:9, 48 11:11, 167 11:11-12, 167 11:11-16, 168, 169 11:12, 168, 169 11:15, 167 12, 40, 42, 63 12:6, 43, 63 13:1, 170 13:1-22, 58 13:2, 167, 169 13:2-3, 170 13:2-17, 58 13:4, 153 13:22, 57 13:26, 57 13-23, 40, 174 13-27, 41 14:32, 44, 49 15:5, 57 15:9, 57 16:1, 56 17:12-14, 48 17:12-24, 38 17:24-25, 40, 41 18:2, 158 18:7, 158 19, 164 19:2, 164 19:3, 164 19:16, 167 21:2-10, 58 22:2, 66 23, 141 23:4, 141, 148 23:12, 142

24:8, 14 24:10, 14 24-27, 13, 21, 40 25:3, 153 25:10, 14 26:7-27:1, 58 26:11, 167 26:17-18, 58, 125, 127 26:18, 112 27:13, 48 28:12, 48, 49 28:16, 40 28-33, 40 28-35, 41 29, 38 29:1, 66 29:1-8, 63 29:8, 63 29:9-10, 92 29:9-14, 63 29:10, 93 30:12-17, 57 30:15, 48 30:17, 106 30:33, 120 31, 38 32:13, 66 33, 42, 45 33:4, 51 33:11, 112 33:13-16, 49 33:17-24, 49 33:20, 143 33:21-23, 48 33:23, 51 33:24, 63 34-35, 40 35, 42, 92 35:8-10, 92 35:10, 43, 92 36-37, 44, 175 36-38, 44, 45 36-39, 40, 41, 45, 63 37:3, 58, 131 37:22, 55, 56, 63 37:30-32, 44 37:33, 175 38:12, 144 39, 45 40, 42, 45 40:1, 68, 72 40:1-2, 66, 68 40:1-11, 40, 41, 68 40:2, 19, 68, 71 40:3-4, 68 40:4, 156 40:5, 30 40:5-8, 68 40:7, 120

218 40:9, 66 40:9-11, 40 40:11, 68 40:11-12, 67 40:24, 120 40-48, 81 40-55, 20, 34, 41, 45 40-66, 23, 33, 44 41:1-7, 124 41:1-20, 124 41:1-42:9, 125 41:1-42:17, 124 41:2, 165, 166 41:2-4, 146 41:8-13, 124 41:14-20, 124 41:15-16, 156 41:16, 124 41:17, 119, 124 41:17-20, 124 41:21-23, 122 41:21-29, 124 41:21-42:17, 124 41:23, 147 41:23-25, 147 41:25, 147 41:26, 74 41:28, 74 42, 58, 127, 128 42:1-7, 122 42:1-8, 124 42:1-9, 122, 123 42:2, 145 42:4, 149, 151 42:4-6, 155 42:5, 120, 151 42:5-9, 155 42:6, 122, 149, 151, 153 42:8, 122, 123 42:8-9, 122 42:8-17, 122 42:9, 122, 127 42:10, 122, 123, 126 42:10-11, 122 42:10-12, 123 42:10-13, 122, 123 42:10-16, 129 42:10-17, 3, 11, 58, 119, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127 42:11, 129, 130 42:11-12, 130 42:13, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132 42:13-14, 146 42:13-17, 147, 182 42:14, 5, 50, 111, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 148

42:14-17, 123 42:15, 121, 127, 130 42:15-16, 124, 125 42:16, 127, 130 42:17, 122, 123, 124, 130 42:18-20, 44 42:18-43:21, 125 42:20, 124 42:23, 149 42:24, 145 43:1, 111, 145 43:3, 158, 160, 162, 163 43:3-4, 149 43:7, 111 43:8, 44 43:14, 158 43:17, 125 43:21, 111 43:24, 68, 72 43:25, 68, 72 43:27, 68 44:2, 50, 111, 127, 137 44:5, 85 44:7, 147 44:20, 136 44:21, 111 44:21-46:13, 162 44:22, 68, 72, 102 44:23, 123 44:24, 50, 111, 127, 137, 162 44:24-25, 146 44:24-45:13, 159 44:26, 66 44:26-28, 41 44:28, 66, 146 45, 134, 158 45:1, 146, 166 45:3, 158 45:5, 158, 159 45:6, 158, 159 45:8, 123 45:8-25, 159 45:9, 146, 147, 174 45:9-13, 145, 147 45:10, 112, 114, 146 45:11, 111, 145, 146, 147 45:12, 50, 147 45:13, 146, 158, 159, 161, 163 45:14, 41, 52, 149, 150, 156, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 166 45:14-17, 3, 157, 159, 160, 179, 183 45:14-25, 159, 160 45:14-27, 164 45:15, 158, 159, 160, 162 45:15-17, 160, 161

45:16, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164 45:16-17, 160, 161 45:17, 159, 160, 161, 162 45:18, 158, 159 45:18-19, 159 45:18-21, 159 45:18-25, 134 45:19, 154, 159 45:20, 134, 152, 159, 160, 162, 164 45:20-22, 152, 153 45:21, 158, 159, 165 45:22, 152, 153, 155, 158, 159, 160 45:22-23, 41, 159 45:22-25, 159 45:23, 134, 159 45:23-24, 164 45:24, 159, 162 45:24-25, 159 45:25, 154, 159, 160 46, 134 46:1, 134, 135, 136, 138 46:1-2, 134, 135, 137 46:1-4, 134 46:1-7, 3, 133, 135 46:2, 135 46:3, 41, 50, 133, 134, 136, 137, 162 46:3-4, 111, 148, 183 46:4, 135, 137, 138 46:5-7, 135 46:5-8, 134 46:5-11, 135 46:5-13, 135 46:6, 135 46:6-7, 137 46:7, 135, 138 46:8, 68, 134 46:8-11, 135 46:12, 134, 162 46:12-13, 66, 135 47, 95, 134, 141, 173 47:1, 55, 87, 88 47:1-9, 88 47:1-15, 88 47:2, 88 47:5, 88 47:6, 174 47:6-13, 88 47:8, 88, 141 47:9, 88 47:14, 136 48:2, 48, 72 48:8, 68 48:20, 74 48:20-21, 123 48:21, 24

219 49, 30, 141, 169 49:1, 81, 137 49:1-4, 83 49:1-13, 81 49:1-15, 84 49:2, 82 49:4, 81, 82 49:5, 50, 72, 111, 137 49:5-6, 102 49:6, 72, 149, 151, 152, 157, 172 49:7, 72, 81, 82, 83, 156 49:8, 81, 82, 177 49:9, 82 49:10, 81 49:11, 81 49:12, 81 49:13, 81, 82, 84, 123 49:14, 33, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 118, 119, 144, 186, 189 49:14-15, 72, 117 49:14-21, 16, 81 49:14-23, 119 49:14-26, 2, 3, 19, 66, 67, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 109, 111, 165, 168, 182 49:14ff, 92 49:15, 77, 80, 81, 84, 85, 117, 119, 147, 186 49:16, 77, 80, 83, 85 49:16-21, 81 49:16-23, 80 49:17, 78, 85, 140 49:18, 72, 83, 85, 119 49:19, 78, 81, 83, 119, 177 49:20, 77, 83, 119 49:20-21, 141 49:21, 50, 77, 79, 80, 81, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 119, 141, 142, 147, 182, 191 49:21-22, 119 49:21-26, 114 49:22, 77, 80, 81, 113, 114, 168, 169, 170 49:22-23, 3, 52, 79, 80, 155, 157, 165, 166, 171, 179, 183 49:22-25, 168 49:22-26, 147, 157, 164, 165, 173, 182 49:23, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 113, 149, 150, 157, 170, 171 49:24, 79, 80, 165, 169 49:24-25, 80 49:24-26, 52, 79, 80, 157, 173, 179, 183

49:25, 77, 80, 83, 165, 174 49:26, 30, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 149, 150, 155, 172 49-54, 25 49-55, 40, 42, 77, 150 50:1, 1, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 40, 49, 68, 72, 73, 75, 76, 92, 108, 182, 184 50:1-2, 74 50:1-3, 2, 67, 73, 74, 76, 80, 82, 168 50:2, 74, 168 50:2-3, 75 50:4-9, 74 50:4-11, 73, 168 50:6, 72 50:6-11, 74 50:8, 73, 174 50:8-11, 73 50:9, 73 50:10, 73 50:10-11, 73 51, 30, 91 51:1-2, 42, 95 51:2, 139, 185, 190 51:3, 41, 52, 66, 176 51:4, 151 51:4-5, 152, 189 51:4-6, 149 51:9, 88, 89, 95 51:9-10, 52 51:9-11, 88 51:9-52:2, 88 51:9-52:10, 89 51:9-52:12, 89 51:10, 88 51:11, 41, 52, 66, 102 51:12, 87, 88 51:12-16, 87, 88 51:13, 95 51:16, 66, 87 51:17, 18, 49, 71, 72, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94 51:17-20, 86, 88, 89, 184, 190 51:17-23, 87, 88 51:17-52:2, 2, 17, 31, 66, 67, 73, 86, 88, 89, 95, 109, 182 51:18, 71, 72, 90 51:18-20, 88, 141 51:19, 88, 91 51:20, 33, 86, 89, 95 51:21, 88, 89 51:21-22, 71 51:21-23, 88 51:21-52:2, 3, 157, 173, 175, 179, 183 51:22, 88, 89, 94, 174

51:22-23, 89 51:23, 92, 93, 94, 95, 107, 173, 175 52:1, 48, 72, 88, 95, 96, 150, 173, 174, 175, 176 52:1-2, 52, 87, 88, 89, 92, 174, 184 52:2, 56, 87, 88, 89, 96, 175 52:3, 87 52:3-6, 87 52:3-7, 87 52:7, 40, 88, 175 52:7-10, 42, 87 52:8, 87, 102, 144 52:9, 66, 87, 88 52:10, 30, 31, 72, 88, 154 52:11, 33, 89, 174, 175 52:11-12, 88, 89 52:13, 72 52:13-53:12, 99 52:15, 99 53, 72, 135 53:1, 72 53:3, 99 53:5, 99 53:9, 71 53:10, 72, 99 53:11, 99 53:12, 176 54, 30, 66, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 107, 138, 144, 148, 183, 187, 189 54:1, 96, 98, 99, 100, 108, 111, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 188, 190 54:1-3, 97, 98, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 157, 178 54:1-6, 98 54:1-8, 98, 145 54:1-10, 2, 17, 67, 73, 96, 98, 108, 109, 182, 184 54:2, 143, 144 54:2-3, 155 54:3, 3, 31, 52, 96, 99, 104, 157, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183 54:4, 18, 49, 71, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108 54:4-6, 98, 101 54:4-10, 98 54:5, 98 54:6, 97, 98, 101, 104, 108 54:6-8, 104, 105, 184 54:7, 98 54:7-8, 98, 107 54:7-9, 105, 108 54:7-10, 98 54:7-17, 98

220 54:8, 97, 98, 99, 102, 104, 106, 158 54:9, 49, 98, 105, 106, 107 54:9-10, 98, 104 54:10, 31, 98, 99, 102, 107 54:11, 97, 98, 107 54:11-12, 16 54:11-17, 49, 98 54:12, 104 54:13, 72, 98 54:13-14, 171 54:14, 98, 104 54:16, 98 54:17, 72, 98 55, 42, 99 55:1-2, 158, 160 55:1-5, 33, 34 55:3, 177 55:4, 149, 157 55:5, 149 55:12-13, 123 56:1, 42 56:7, 41 56:10, 105 56-66, 41 58:11, 30 59:20, 144 60:11-12, 162, 168 60:12, 150 60:16, 172 60:21, 145 60-62, 144 61:10, 85 62:5, 85 62:10, 168 62:11, 56 63:15, 115 64:11, 124 65:11, 82 65:12, 74 65:20, 84 66, 42, 188 66:4, 74 66:7, 114 66:7-14, 145 66:18-21, 172 66:20, 41 Jeremiah 1:5, 136, 137 1-3, 29 1-6, 30 1-25, 28 2, 57, 59 2:2, 57, 85 2:10, 121 2:23, 85 2:23-25, 57

2:32, 85 2:32-37, 85 2:33, 57 2-6, 29 3, 57 3:1, 76 3:6-11, 57 3:8, 76 3:14, 57 3:21-25, 102 3:22, 102 3:24-25, 101, 102, 108 4-6, 60 4:19-31, 58 4:29-31, 58 4:31, 56, 131 6:2, 56 6:22-26, 58 6:23, 56 6:24, 58, 131 7:34, 85 8, 130 8:13, 163 10:17, 59 10:17-18, 59, 143 10:17-20, 59, 63 10:17-25, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 148, 178, 183 10:19, 143 10:20, 59, 60, 67, 97, 143, 144 10:21, 59 10:25, 178 12:11, 100 13:3-4, 130 13:21-27, 57 13:23-24, 57 14:2, 130 14:2-6, 130 14:2-9, 129, 148 14:3, 130 14:3-4, 130 14:5, 130 14:6, 120, 130 14:7, 130 14:8, 131 14:8-9, 131 14:9, 130 14:13-18, 130 14:17-25, 143 14:20, 143 15:5-9, 57, 130 15:6, 130 16:9, 85 18:13, 55 18:16, 100 19:8, 100 19:9, 172 22:20-23, 58

24:5-6, 162 25, 92 25:9, 92 25:10, 85 25:14, 92 25:15, 90 25:16, 90 25:17, 90 25:18, 92 25:27, 90 25:28, 90 25:29, 90 25:31, 90 26-45, 28 28:4, 162 29:27, 106 30:3-6, 58 30:5-31:22, 30 30:5-31:26, 29 30:6, 112 30:6-7, 131 30:10-11, 30 30-31, 28, 29, 30, 211 31:2-6, 29 31:4, 55 31:7-14, 30 31:15-22, 29 31:18-20, 102 31:19, 101, 102, 108 31:20, 102 31:21, 55, 102 31:35, 30 31:35-37, 29 33:10, 100, 177 33:11, 85 40:1, 162 46-51, 174 46-52, 28 47:4, 121 49:12, 90 49:23-24, 58 49:23-27, 58 49:24, 131 50:41-43, 58 50:43, 58, 131 51:7, 90 51:11-12, 170 51:12, 170 Lamentations 1:1, 104 1:3, 61 1:4, 83 1:5, 61, 63, 173 1:6, 56 1:7, 61 1:8, 63 1:9, 63

221 1:13, 140 1:14, 63 1:15, 55 1:16, 61 1:18, 63 1:20, 83, 173 1:22, 63 1-3, 32 2, 67 2:1, 56 2:2, 83 2:4, 56 2:5, 83 2:8, 56, 83 2:10, 56 2:11-12, 61 2:13, 55, 56, 86 2:14, 61, 62, 63 2:15, 61 2:18, 56, 83 2:19, 33, 61, 62, 83, 86 2:19-20, 115 2:20, 83, 118, 172 2:20-21, 61 3:25, 83 3:32, 173 3:39, 62, 63 3:42, 62, 63 3:58, 83 4, 91, 109 4:1, 33 4:1-2, 91 4:2, 61 4:3-4, 118 4:6, 62, 63 4:9, 91 4:10, 77, 83, 91, 115, 118 4:11, 91 4:12, 83 4:13, 62, 63 4:15, 33, 174 4:21, 83, 90, 163 4:22, 56, 61, 63, 90, 91 5, 104, 105, 108, 182 5:4-5, 160 5:7, 62, 63, 105, 133 5:10, 172 5:16, 62, 63, 105 5:20, 82, 83, 118, 190 5:20-22, 104, 105, 108 5:22, 32, 105 Ezekiel 1-3, 62 4:6, 178 5:5-17, 60 5:7, 60 5:8, 30

5:10, 172 5:13, 60 5:16, 60 6:8-10, 60 6:8-18, 60 8-11, 62 14:14, 91, 105 14:20, 105 16, 13, 60 16:7, 60 20, 166 20:9, 30 20:14, 30 20:22, 30 21:4, 30 21:10, 30 22, 60 22:6-12, 60 22:16, 30 22:23-31, 60 23, 13, 60, 93, 109, 182 23:31, 90 23:31-35, 31, 93 23:33, 90, 93 23:34, 93 23:35, 94 23:43-49, 94 24, 60 24:3, 60 25:3, 100 25-32, 174 28:25, 30 29:27, 30 30:4, 163 33:24, 140 33:28, 100 34:25, 31 35, 178 35:1-36:15, 178 35:12, 100 35:15, 100 36, 31 36:1-15, 178 36:3, 100 36:4, 100 36:7, 166 36:8, 178 36:33-38, 178 36:34-36, 100 37:26, 31 38:23, 30 39:9-10, 51 40-47, 62 40-48, 60 47:1-12, 48 48:14, 163 Daniel 1-6, 91

11:43, 163 Hosea 2, 14 11:3-4, 115 13:6, 138 Joel 2:1-11, 58 4:17, 150 4:18, 48 Amos 1:13, 138 2:7, 121 4:1, 119 5:5, 162 6:7, 78 8:4, 121 9:14, 177 Obadiah 1:20, 162 Micah 1:13, 56 4:8, 56 4:9-13, 58, 126 4:10, 56 4:13, 56, 127 5, 58 5:2, 126, 128 7:17, 170, 171 7:9, 174 Nahum 1:13, 175 2:1 [1:15], 175 3:7, 86 3:10, 163 3:18, 175 Zephaniah 3:14, 56 3:15, 51

Zechariah 1:14-16, 115

222 2:10, 56 2:14, 56 9:9, 56 14:8, 48 14:14, 51 Malachi

2:14, 104 2:14-16, 108 Galatians 4:6, 188 4:9, 188 4:26, 187 4:26-31, 187

4:27, 188 4:29, 188 Revelations 12, 188 12:16, 189 21, 189

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, Maryland 21014-1246 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM