Undisclosed Speech: Patterns of Communication in the Book of
Isaiah[1]
Hanna Liss Hochschule für Jüdische Studien,
Heidelberg 1.
Preliminary remarks on modern research on Isaiah
1.1.
Modern research on Isaiah has made tremendous
progress during the last twenty years. This advance is primarily due to the
fact that redactional questions concerning the development of the book as a
whole have resulted in a number of challenging conclusions.[2]
Nevertheless, many of the axioms by which the interpretation of the prophet’s
message is determined have never been called into question. The eighth-century
Isaiah had a good eye for the abuses in his own society; reproaching his
society, in particular its political and cultic representatives, for their
transgressions. The picture drawn of the Judean society is extremely decadent:
addiction to luxury (Isaiah 3), roaring celebrations (Isaiah 5), law-breaking
(Isaiah 5), and drunken priests (Isaiah 28). Isaiah sharply exposed the system
in which crushing pledges and taxes drove the small farmers into debt-induced
slavery, while at the same time big landowners increased their large
landholdings and indulged in Dolce Vita. But the prophet does not only
attack the Judean society in relation to these internal problems. In view of
the Assyrian western expansion that cast its long shadows in the Ancient Near
East, at the latest since 745, foreign policy and the question of policy
vis-à-vis the allies was Isaiah’s topic in particular. There is widespread
agreement, that the eighth-century prophet announced total “judgment”[3]
to a generation generally characterized as “stubborn sons of Judah.” With this
characterization, it is argued, he claimed that the destruction of large parts
of the Judean shefela could have been averted if the kings (Ahab, Hezekiah)
had abstained from military aid by Assur and Egypt and instead had trusted in
God.[4]
The prophet had acted in vain for at
least 30 years against the
resistance of a rebellious people. 1.2. This interpretation is generally linked to the so-called ‘command not to comprehend’ (Isa 6:9-10). We read for instance:
1.3. These conclusions by R. Kilian (1977) and U. Berges (1998) are quoted here pars pro toto for many Biblical scholars. There has hardly been a passage in the biblical corpus that has placed upon its interpreters such difficulties of interpretation as Isaiah ben Amoz’s ‘command not to comprehend.’ Kilian’s and Berges’ interpretations show in remarkable clarity the exegetical ‘bag of tricks’ that has to be opened to master these difficulties. We find unanimity especially on two issues: first, the ‘command not to comprehend’ describes a situation that negates any purpose of communication; second, prophetic speech is “intended communication,” “clear instruction. This combination presents us with a problem: clear instruction seeks to be heard and understood, but what exactly is “clear instruction?” Who are its addressees? And, did Isaiah truly speak clearly at all times? What does it mean, when it is written that the prophet spoke with strange lips and with an alien tongue (Isa 28:11a), or when we read that God will work his alien work (Isa 28:21)? 1.4. The concept of stubborn-resistance, as we find it in the classical passages referring to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Book of Exodus, is often applied to the Book of Isaiah. This concept (in German: ‘Verstockung’) does not have a direct linguistic equivalent in Hebrew. A determinative concept, however, that is common to both Exodus and Isaiah is a negative communicational relationship between God and a human being (or collectively: the people of Israel).[7] This negative communication is seen where the word of God to the people is either simply not heard, or where human action occurs in contradiction to the intentions of God. The hermeneutical starting point of almost every exegetical interaction with the non-comprehension statements in Isaiah is the classification of prophetic proclamation as “message of salvation” on the one hand and “proclamation of judgment” on the other. The polarity of this classification is based on the hypothesis that God, in all instances, wants to create a positive communicational relationship between himself and his people, and that only the negative response of the people leads to a ruinous act of judgment. The “hardening” is seen as God’s judicial reaction to the wrongful behavior of the people or, specifically, of their political and cultic representatives. 1.5. Only a few scholars so far (such as G. von Rad[8], F. D. Hubmann[9] and recently F. Landy[10]) have gone against this hypothesis. One of its consequences is very often a psychological or historical explanation of the (literary) genesis of the ‘command not to comprehend.’ The advocates of the so-called ‘Rückprojizierungsthese’ (first introduced by F. Hesse)[11] separate the command itself in Isaiah 6:9ff. from Isaiah’s activities (in word and deed) as recorded in First Isaiah. These advocates subsequently do not ask the question of how the command influenced the practical shaping of the prophet’s action in word and in prophetic sign. In other words, they do not ask about the execution of the command itself. 1.6. In the following, I would like to raise the question of whether or not the premise of what will be introduced shortly can be accepted without question. Can Isaiah’s message actually be reduced to the argument of a “pious prophet” on one hand, and the “obstinate people” on the other? Was Isaiah essentially offering clear instruction as support for the formation of opinion for the political and cultic elite? Does the Isaianic tradition convey that listening to and acting according to the prophetic message could have dammed the Assyrian expansion, and thereby could have prevented the destruction of large portions of the Judean empire? And, last but not least, with regard to the question of whoever handed down the Isaianic tradition, one might ask whether these agents, as part of ‘this people’ (still!), wanted to portray themselves only in terms of a “stubborn people.” 1.7. The hermeneutical starting point for the following observations will be the structure created by the lack of communicational equivalence between prophet and people caused by the ‘command not to comprehend.’ This structure will be used as the basis to develop a constructive assessment of Isaiah’s prophetic effectiveness (as well as its reception by later agents of tradition).[12] The exegesis will concentrate primarily on stylistic aspects of the text. The textual basis of the following arguments is constituted by texts, which are classified according to form and content by many scholars as Isaianic.[13] 2.
The foundation of a structure of ‘non-communication’
2.1. The ‘command not
to comprehend’ (Isa 6:9-10)
6:9 He said: Go then, and say to this people: ‘Keep hearing, but do not comprehend - Keep seeing, but do not understand!’ 6:10 Make dull the mind of this people, Stop their ears, and glue their eyes shut! Lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed (...) 2.1.1. Isaiah
6:9ff. (שמעו
שמוע ואל
תבינו)describes the actual ‘command not to
comprehend.’ The grammatical structure (verbs of perception without direct
object) serves as a first indication that the imperatival call to hear and to
see does not refer to anything concrete, but merely constitutes the initial
situation between speaker and listener:[14]
The speaker asks the audience repeatedly for a communicative interaction (Isa
6:9bαβ) which, at the same time, is not upheld. Isa 6:9bαβ
implies, therefore, that a basic communicative readiness on the part of the
people, triggered by the command for hearing and seeing (שמעו שמוע), is
inverted by the requests for not understanding and not recognizing, that is, by 2.1.2. V10ab describes a second command, which is directed to the prophet as its immediate subject. Compare the following outline of the different levels of communication (= Lc).
2.1.3. Like the ‘command not to comprehend,’ the second command imposed on Isaiah not only shows an imperatival structure (Imp. hiph. *שמן; *כבד; *שמע), but also a metaphorical usage of its verbs. Since v10 uses an identical vocabulary (*שמע; *בין; *ראה), a close relationship between both commands is established: by transmitting the ‘command not to comprehend,’ the prophet causes the condition illustrated in v10 (פן יראה…) to come into being. As a first result, one can say that the ‘command not to comprehend’ in Isa 6:9-10 presents as its primary intention the formation of a negative communicative interaction. According to our text, the negation of hearing, seeing, and understanding is not rooted in the people’s transgressions, but in the appearance of the prophet. Isa 6:9-10 explicates that the creation of non-communication, i.e. the rejection of the word of YHWH, is not left to the people, but rather arises from the command itself. If this call has any positive meaning at all, then this meaning can only be found on the level of communication, not within the logic of the text. This leads us to the next interpretative step. The ‘command not to comprehend’ reveals a higher goal, namely the intention to create a negatively qualified communication between the prophet and the people. All this points to the first assumption that the inner structure of the ‘command not to comprehend’ does not render the speech recorded in Isa 6:9ff. as a clearly understandable prophetic word, i.e., a word that would open a real possibility of decision for the people. The command thus does contain a prophetic mission that at first glance is a contradiction in terms:[15] YHWH intends to move the people, through the prophetic word, into the status of non-comprehension. 2.2.
The
vision as an experience of ‘non-communication’ (Isa
6:1-8)
6:1 In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord seated on a throne raised up on high, his lower area[16] filling the palace. 6:2 seraphim were in attendance above him: Each of them had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 6:3 (Each) called out to the other, saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is YHWH Zeva’ot: This, what
the whole earth fills, is his glory’[17] 6:4 The pivots of the threshhold shook at the sound of their call, and the house began to fill with smoke. 6:5 And I said: ‘Woe is me, for I am silenced![18] For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips. For my eyes have seen the king, YHWH Zeva’ot.’ 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, (holding) a hot coal in his hand that he had taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. 6:7 He touched (it) to my mouth, and said: ‘Behold! (Now) this has touched your lips, your
guilt is removed, and your sin is purged[19]
away.’[20] 6:8 Then I heard the call of the Lord saying: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ And I said: ‘Here I am! Send me!’ 2.2.1. In the following, the visionary experience in Isa 6:1-8[21] shall be described mainly in terms of its communicative structure: how does the text depict the relationship between the dramatis personae? How does the speaker, the “prophetic I” (PI ), describe his visionary confrontation with the (sovereign) Lord, and what implications arise from the visionary experience with regard to the ‘command not to comprehend?’ 2.2.2. At the center of the introductory segment of these verses stands the attribute of holiness expressing the existing distance between YHWH and the prophet. The entire scene is thus dominated by the dialectic movement between the Lord’s immediacy and his simultaneous distance to the observer. There is no construction of a communicative relationship to Isaiah. During the entire introductory scene (vv1-4), Isaiah remains in the role of a passive observer. He can only respond to the immediacy and close proximity of the Lord with the awareness of his own distance from God (v5).[22] Therefore, the text presents as corresponding elements on Lc2 the ‘Holy, holy’-call of the seraphim[23] and the ‘Woe’-cry of Isaiah:
2.2.3.
The vision-report (vv1-5) defines the lack of
communicative equivalence between Isaiah and YHWH as a necessary element of a
meeting between “impure” human beings, in particular the ‘people of unclean
lips,’ and the divine king. In that respect, Isaiah does not hold any
particular status. The text portrays him as part of the people among whom he lives. 2.2.4.
The moment Isaiah becomes aware of his “impurity,”
he is approached by the divine sphere through one of the seraphim.
‘Guilt’ and ‘sin’ (חטאת;
עון) are not elucidated in any more detail.
Yet, by correlating the ‘purification’ and the unclean lips, the speech of the saraph
clearly puts a connection forward between ‘guilt/sin’ on the one hand and
‘unclean lips’ on the other.[24]
Consequently, one can say that the phrase of the ‘unclean lips’ expresses in
general the deficient status of man facing the Holy One. Isaiah’s ‘silence’ (* דמה II [=* דמם]
ni.) is the necessary consequence of the vision. It is a relationship of
non-communication[25] as well as
recognition of one’s forlornness[26]
not caused by a specific transgression, but as a characteristic of the
relationship between God and man. The
immediate visionary proximity of God causes the prophet’s awareness of his own
distance from God: the ‘silenced man’
is the human being who can not even dare to come within reach of God.[27] The purification of Isaiah by one of the seraphim
expresses that the inability to establish a communicative interaction between
the pure and the impure can only be overcome by the divine sphere, i.e. on
order of YHWH, who alone can create a positive communicative correspondence
between Isaiah and himself.[28]
From this point (v7) on, Isaiah is permanently different from the people, since
he is able to respond to the divine call meaningfully: The ‘Woe’-cry is
replaced by the answer ‘Here I am! Send me!’ The purification not only forms
the prerequisite for the prophetic task, but
rather establishes a sharp demarcation line between the prophet and the
people who remain in the status of “a people of unclean lips,” i.e. within a relationship of
non-communication. 2.2.5.
The vision report, therefore, encompasses two
different types of communication with the Divine: whereas Isaiah is depicted as
part of his people in the beginning (vv1-5), vv6ff. move him to a distinctly isolated position[29] that lays the foundation for his ability to communicate with God. Since the
people do not experience such a ‘purification,’ they are kept in the
status of a ‘people of unclean lips.’ As a corollary, a second characteristic
of Isaiah’s prophecy is thus made coherent. Whether Isaiah wanted it or not, he
no longer stood on the side of his people: the people will never “get it,”[30]
but this inability for communicating (hearing and listening!) results from
Isaiah’s distinctive position. 2.2.6. My preliminary conclusions are that Isaiah 6 describes the lack of communicative equivalence between the prophet and the people, and thus Isaiah’s rejection by the people as something initiated by YHWH himself. This non-comprehension is a necessary result of the prophetic word and describes the impossibility of comprehending what Isaiah himself could only understand after the event of his purification. Hence, prophetic message and its rejection are complementary elements. With regard to the ‘command not to comprehend,’ one can say that the relations of non-communication between Isaiah and the people are not presented as a result of the behavior of a ‘stubborn people,’ but rather as an entity of its own quality: a necessary tool in the course of the meeting between prophet and people. 2.2.7. This structure of a lack of communicative equivalence is now to be proven in Isaiah’s message, as laid out in particular in Isaiah 1-12 and 28-32. Methodologically, we will ask less about social-historical events behind the text, but rather confine ourselves to stylistic means and features presented in the text. Four different types of language patterns shall be mentioned that shed light on Isaiah’s prophetic discourse and bear relevance for the structure of non-communication: (a) The use and function of “quotations” in the prophetic speeches; (b) the creation of fiction; (c) the use of metaphorical language; and (d) the (depiction of the) prophetic signs. 2.2.8. Several questions concerning the form and function of the different kinds of quotations arise. Are there any kinds of distinguishing marks between “faked” and “authentic” quotations? What purpose do they serve? Why does Isaiah allow his enemies (e.g. the Assyrian king) to turn to the (implicit) audience/reader by means of ironic speech? How do the metaphors function in these quotations? What do the narratives on the prophetic signs say about the temporal correlation between ‘seeing’ and ‘comprehending?’ 3. Quotations, Metaphors, and Signs: Enigmas of Prophetic
Speech
3.1. The Assyrian ‘rod’ as mirrored in the prophetic word: Isa
10:5-15*
10:5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger, the stick - it is in their hand[31] - of my fury! 10:6 Against a dastardly nation I send him, and against a people of my fuming rage I command him, to take spoil, and to seize plunder, to trample him down[32] like ‘gutter mud’ in the streets. 10:7 Yet, he: this is not what he is inclined to, his mind does not see it that way. Rather: destroying is in his mind, cutting off not (only) a few nations. 10:8 For he says: ‘Are not my commanders all kings?[33] Is not Calno[34] like
Carchemish, Hamath like Arpad, Samaria like Damascus? (...) 10:13 for he said: ‘By the strength of my (own) hand I have done it, by my wisdom, for I have understanding. I remove[35] the boundaries of peoples, deprived them
of their ‘bellwethers’,[36] like
a bull I have brought down (their) inhabitants.[37] 10:14 My
hand has grasped the wealth of peoples like a nest: as one gathers eggs that have
been abandoned, I have gathered all the earth. There was no one that (excitedly)
fluttered with its wings, Or opened its ‘beak’ to cheep. 10:15 Does
the axe boast over the one who hews it, or
the saw magnify itself against the one who wields it? (...) 3.1.1. Isa 10:5-15* can be characterized as a consistent literal unit, bound together by the motifs of “rod” and “stick” (שבט; מטה).[38] The remarkable feature of the opening verse (v5) is caused by the fact that the metaphorical speech does not declare Judah (or another small political entity) to be the “rod” of YHWH’s anger. Instead it is the mighty Assyrian empire and the Assyrian king respectively; and the empire, in fact, at the peak of its political power (this touches the question of the exact dating of this expression only indirectly). During the eighth century B.C.E. Assyria was the main political actor within the Syro-palestinian territories.[39] It was Assyria who claimed to hold the scepter and, therefore, systematically collected the rods or scepters (GIŠhu-ta-ra-teMEŠ or h9attu GIŠPA) of the smaller and inferior states, thereby changing their status into that of a vassal- or “puppet”-state.[40] Isaiah turns the powerful Assyrian empire into a tool in the hand of a strange and, from Assyria’s point of view, even powerless God. This metaphor takes up the motif of the Assyrian king as the kašūš ilāni [rabûti])[41], the destructive weapon of the (Great) Gods, a title which has been attached to the Assyrian Kings since Salmanassar I and Tukulti-Ninurta I,[42] acting as representatives of their gods.[43] The Assyrian kings waged wars mainly for the execution of the divine anger (uzzu ili; kimiltu). Within this ideology the Assyrian kings became executors of the divine judgement[44] and were thus also assured of military victory.[45] Isaiah, who must have known these topoi, took them and consciously defamiliarized them, letting the Assyrian king take a stand according to his own religious and political ideology against a “dastardly nation.”[46] At the same time, Isaiah puts him under a foreign divine commander. To proclaim Assyria as the “rod” of the Lord is, therefore, rhetorically seen a “re-evaluation of all current values.” 3.1.2. Vv8-14 contain an extensive quotation put into the mouth of the Assyrian king (or better: a typos of the Assyrian king). The first paragraph lists six cities according to their geographical order (north to south) and corresponds to the “display-inscriptions” that also list events in their geographical order as seen in the palace of Sargon II in Dūr-Šarru-ukīn = Khorsabad,[47] unlike the so-called “annals” that list the events in chronological order. The chronological order of the Assyrian campaigns can be listed up as follows:
3.1.3. Without going into the campaigns mentioned here in more depth,[48] the description (according to the geographical order) clearly alludes to the method of the Assyrian western expansion, in which small states were sooner or later incorporated into the Assyrian provincial system, losing their political and cultural independence (vv13-14). Likewise, the image of the bird’s nest reflects the situation of the small states in the Syro-Palestinian territories in light of the Assyrian military strength: the small state rulers often left their cities, their families and population and fled westward, so that many towns could be taken with lowest use of military force.[49] 3.1.4. The power and the self-confidence of Assyria are a dominant factor in vv13-14. For many modern exegetes, the “Anti-Typos” Assyria discloses itself from here. The demonstration of the power of the Assyrian king (v13a) is mostly characterized in terms of “hubris” and Assyrian “over-estimation” of its military abilities. One has to assume not only for the bird image with its different semantic determinations (i.e. the metaphor of the abandoned nest; the excited behavior of the wing-beating bird mother[50]), but also for the complete characteristic style of vv8-9, 13-14 that Isaiah by and large adopts the style of the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.[51] 3.1.5. The literary and visual Assyrian “propaganda” (or better: ideology) pursued internal as well as external purposes: directed towards the inside of the Assyrian society, it emphasized not only the military performances of the single king but also the glorification of the Great Gods in whose names wars were initiated and who equipped the king with military power and helped him towards the victory. At the same time potential opponents were supposed to be be intimidated and weakened at the onset of every military action taken. One can see very clearly that Isaiah’s “image of Assyria (...) was the same as that defined and promulgated in the official literature of the Neo-Assyrian kings” (P. Machinist). Recently, W. R. Gallagher has been able to prove with further detailed individual comparisons that the expression in Isa 10:8ff. takes up Assyrian propaganda.[52] One has, therefore, to assume that Isaiah had either direct access to official Assyrian documents like obelisks, steles[53] and reliefs, or had gained indirect knowledge of the Assyrian literal propaganda as a member of the political and cultic elite.[54] 3.1.6. Isaiah 10 is often understood as if Isaiah wanted to make its opponents recognize Assyrian hubris by a means of the final rhetorical question. His audience should appreciate the Judean God as the “master of the history.”[55] But did Isaiah really intend for his listeners to take such a view? One can assume that the royal elite knew not only about the successful military campaigns, but also about the ideological self-portrayals of Assyria. Therefore, such a claim would have been doomed to failure from the start: Isaiah’s characterization of Assyria as “the rod of the Lord” is a theopolitical judgment against every contemporary historical and political expertise, and could have evoked nothing other than derision by his audience.[56] If one denies that Isaiah wanted to persuade his contemporaries of Assyrian hubris, then one has to explain the meaning and the function of the “Assyrian quotations” even more. 3.1.7. In my view, two points have to be emphasized. First, by means of the Assyrian propaganda in the prophetic speech, Assyria indeed becomes a tool in the hand of God and his prophet. Assyria is transformed only within and by means of the prophetic speech into a completely heteronomous instrument of God’s power in history. Second, and even more important, Isa 10:5ff. contains a fictitious element[57] whose essential function lies in the expansion of the semantic realm of the text. The historical and theological context given in the text is exceeded in this manner. The prophet selects single elements from available reference rooms (in our case: intertextually) and puts them into another literary context.[58] He removes them from their traditional system of reference (i.e. the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions) and establishes simultaneously a new reference system in which these de-contextualized elements are fit in. In this, Isaiah reaches a kind of “ambiguity within the fictional text.” By means of the prophetic speech, the Judean God is given the possibility of escaping previous patterns of expectation and of establishing his own theo-political reality, or, as Z. Radman put it:
3.1.8. By proclaiming Assyria as the “rod of God’s anger,” using the Assyrian idiom, the prophet breaks out of previous semantic realms, thereby leaving behind not only the previous system of reference but likewise the primary audience that still adheres to these previous categories. The fiction gives up the original reference and instead arranges what seems impossible or what remains concealed in reality. The audience cannot yet establish any relationship of mental or intellectual understanding for what the prophet proclaims. This will be possible only in hindsight, following historical events (i.e. 701 BCE). 3.2. “Covenant with Death” (Isa 28:14-19*)
More
than Isa 10:5ff.,*
our second example describes a dramatic confrontation between Isaiah and his
opponents, the “scoffers.” 28:14 Therefore, hear the word
of YHWH, you scoffers, ‘patter-merchants’[60] of this people in
Jerusalem. 28:15 Because you have said: ‘We have made a covenant with
death, and with She’ol we have a pact.[61] When the overwhelming scourge
passes through, it will not come to us. For we have made a lie our
refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter.’ 28:16 Therefore, thus says the Lord, God: ‘Behold, I am the one who[62] laid in[63] Zion a stone, a massive stone,[64] a precious cornerstone[65] set firmly in place. The one who trusts will not act hastily.[66] 28:17 And I will make justice
the measuring line, and righteousness the plummet. Hail will sweep away[67] the refuge of lie, and waters will overflow
the shelter. 28:18 Then your covenant with
death will be annulled, and your pact with She’ol will not stand: When the overwhelming scourge
passes through, you will be battered and trampled down by it. As
often as it passes through, it will take you - morning by morning it will pass
through, by day and by night; and it will be sheer terror to
understand the message.’ 3.2.1. Isa 28:14ff. displays a parallel structure to Isa 10:5ff.* integrating “quotations” of Isaiah’s opponents (… כי אמרתם; v15) and showing extensive use of metaphorical language as well. With regard to the literary structure, one can see that the prophetic threat corresponds to the “quotation” of his opponents almost as a mirror image: Vv15a.18a
Vv15b.18b
Vv15bβ.17b
3.2.2. There is widespread agreement that v15 contains a “faked” quotation.[68] Modern exegesis mostly concentrates on the content(s) of the prophetic threat: Isaiah criticizes the royal elite[69] who seem to feel very safe and, therefore, behave as if they were in league with death and the underworld.[70] In addition, some exegetes see in this text an allusion to necromancy and the occult.[71] Yet, such an interpretation seems to be insufficient because it pays too little attention to the fact that the quotations contain metaphorical language, and that the proposition is established by means of the metaphors, not behind them. 3.2.3. The passage vv15, 18 is based on the structure of the confrontation between “quotation” and “threat” as kind of a “counter-quotation.” In this, the textual construction shows a dialogical character. This structure forces us to consult not only one element for the interpretation of the section but to determine both elements in their relation to each other. The “quotation” put into his opponents’ mouth formally fulfills the function of a basic outline of Isaiah’s own threat. In other words: Isaiah’s forecast that ‘your covenant with death will be annulled, and your pact with She’ol will not stand’ needs this quotation, since otherwise his threat as a threat would not have fit. It is only in this manner that the “quotation” of Isaiah’s opponents is to be considered a “faked quotation.”[72] There are no other clues for this at a semantic level; the text says…כי אמרתם. In terms of the communicative patterns of the passage one can assume that the situation arises from a correction by his opponents: Isaiah quoted “incorrectly” in order to formulate his own threat.[73] However, his opponents would have objected that such a word had ever been spoken. In this case the point of Isaiah’s prophecy would have been lost. The bogus quotation serves only to establish a sharp confrontation to the political behavior of his opponents.[74] Furthermore, by means of this “quotation” the political behavior of the opponents is raised to a ‘meta-level.’ It does not arise from any real political perspective and, therefore, does not meet any political reality either. 3.2.4. The quotations in Isa 28:15,18 are based on a structure that has been characterized by H. Weinrich as ‘Konterdetermination’ = ‘counter-determination.’ It concerns the composition of the individual units of the metaphor. Each one originates from a clearly outlined meaning in its original context (‘determination’).[75] For example: מחסה “refuge”[76] and סתר “shelter” (*סתר, often hi.)[77] originate in prayer and refer to God’s protective care for either the individual or for the whole people. Isaiah’s contemporaries probably relied on this promise and on its divine protection. Likewise the expression ברית refers to the covenant between God and Israel.[78] In contrast, שאול // מות, [79] and שקר // כזב, [80] especially when used in prophetic language, depict the distance between God and Israel and a wrong relationship between the two in general. The “semantic shock effect” consists in the dissolving of the previous semantic coherence fields[81] and the re-composition of these concepts with expressions and ideas from a semantic realm not compatible with the previous meanings: § covenant ≠ death// Sheol ≠ pact §
lie
≠ refuge///falsehood ≠ shelter 3.2.5. By means of the metaphorical language, the prophetic interpretation establishes a new horizon of meaning that could not have been within the scoffer’s horizon of comprehension.[82] Their horizon was, of course, not the prophetic one. It was limited due to the fact that they had to deal with political realities rather than with prophetic realms. By means of the quotations, therefore, prophetic language realizes a kind of audiatur et altera pars: the scoffers are presented with an everlasting voice. In this, Isaiah’s threat has indeed become a ‘provoking’ word, bringing about action and consequence (‘Tun-Ergehen’) on one and the same level. 3.3.
Communicative structures of prophetic activity:
the symbolic actions
3.3.1. The action
3.3.1.1.Prophetic signs can be seen as a genuine part of prophetic appearance. They should, therefore, be considered when interpreting prophetic activity.[83] Two prophetic signs are found in First Isaiah (8:1-4; 20:1-6). In the following, I will examine the first of these two signs (Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz) more closely. I will not focus on the question of how the prophetic action might have taken place historically, but rather concentrate on the literary structure of the text. The subject matter is particularly concerned with the problem of the temporal sequence as represented in the text. 3.3.1.2.Isaiah writes in the presence of two witnesses (Uriah and Zechariah represent the cultic and political elite)[84] the phrase: למהר שלל חש בז ‘[for[85]] Soon-Spoil-Haste-Prey’ on a large tablet.[86] The expression בחרט אנוש[87] ‘in common characters’ emphasizes that Isaiah is not writing some illegible Menetekel on the tablet, but something that is completely understandable on the level of the semantics of the Judean language.[88] After his (second) son is born, Isaiah receives the command from God to give the child the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This command to name the child leads to the announcement of the upcoming destruction of Damascus and Israel (Isa 8:4). 3.3.1.3.The announcement of these future events is thus the explanation of the name. It is remarkable that the text describes the prophetic sign as something the witnesses can see, but not understand. Nowhere does the text contain an explanation for the act of writing directed to these two witnesses, nor does it contain an interpretation of the name that is communicated to the public.[89] In addition, the sequence of events fails to make an explicit connection between the command to name the son and the public act of writing. Isa 8:1-4 thus describes a negative situation of communication, as the witnesses are integrated into the events at one point, but simultaneously excluded from any extended understanding of what has happened. The prophetic sign, through which both the prophet as well as the witnesses are lifted into the same sequence of events, impedes the creation of a common ground of communication through its factual realization. The non-comprehension of Isaiah’s contemporaries is a result of the prophetic action. 3.3.1.4.The peculiarity of the story lies in the fact that the second divine speech to Isaiah (Isa 8:3b,4) connects the command to name his son with a future historical event. The name of the son is thus defined as a sign for a historical event that will be realized only in the future. This sign does not correspond to anything real at the time of its enactment.[90] The immediate inner motivation of the sign is therefore found only in its own factual realization.[91] The prophetic signs can thus be described as outwardly visible but not understandable: the signs could only be said to have immediate meaning, if they indeed corresponded to a real event, which could provide the key to their decoding. Furthermore, the interpretation of the name is known only to the prophet. From what we have described, we can infer a relative chronological sequence of the events:
3.3.1.5.On the level of communication, we must credit the sign with complete ‘meaninglessness,’ because, at the time of its enactment, it contributes nothing to the communication between Isaiah and the people, nor does it serve any pedagogical purpose. And even if we took the sign as an ‘iconic sign,’[93] it would cover only single aspects of the event still due to happen.[94] To take it the other way around: an ‘iconic sign’ would, at best, provide the audience with what might be called a ‘surplus of undisclosed meaning,’ thereby causing even more confusion. The symbolic action impedes communication. What, then, is its purpose? 3.3.2. The sign
3.3.2.1.A sign always shows a triadic structure,[95] as we can only speak of a sign in the combination of the shape of a sign (the ‘signifier’), the meaning of a sign (the ‘signified’) and the user of a sign.[96] This holds true both for ‘conventional’ and also for 'non-conventional' signs, as in this case with the prophetic signs. For a sign to be recognized as a sign, there always has to be a fact or event that can be put in relation to the sign.[97] Only the appearance and realization of that which is signified can verify or falsify a certain interpretation and can legitimize or reject the one who has proposed the interpretation. 3.3.2.2.It is because of these thoughts that we cannot characterize Isa 7:3 as
a symbolic action bearing a sign. Neither the naming of the son, nor the fact
that the son comes along to the meeting with Ahaz are interpreted at any point.
The text does not establish any correlation between signum and significatum.
We can assume that the king knew the meaning(s) of the name (he could, after
all, speak Judean!), but it is doubtful whether he realized the extended
meaning of the name. The name She’ar-Yashuv
is still translated and interpreted today in at least two contrary ways:[98]
(positively: “A remnant of the people will return;”[99]
negatively: “A mere remnant will return from the battle”).[100] Modern biblical scholars
thus expect something from Isaiah’s contemporaries which they cannot even
accomplish in retrospect.[101]
The mere fact that Isaiah takes a son with him who bears a significant name does not
transform this action into a symbolic action. 3.3.2.3.The verification of the sign occurs always after completion of the (signified) event. What does this fact have to say in regards to the function of a prophetic sign? Very often, prophetic signs are said to have a pedagogical function. In this case the sign would not refer to an actual event in the future, but would merely describe the most negative possible picture of future events, in order to provoke a reaction in the people who would then work against these possible future events. With this interpretation, the intention of a prophetic sign would not be the transportation of a future reality into the present. On the contrary, the sign as warning intends to prevent this reality from ever happening. An even stronger point is also the fact that the narrative in Isa 20:3 does not define the prophetic sign as a mere warning, but rather as a true sign; or, better, as אות ומופת, a portent. The instances of prophetic signs insist on a retrospective correlation between the prophetic sign and historical reality. This historical reality is enriched by qualifying it as divine action, which, however, can only be recognized as such when looking back into the past. The people remain in their prevailing ways of being and doing; their subjective influence upon the signified historical reality does not occur. Based on the analysis of the texts containing prophetic signs, we can further postulate, that the continuing non-comprehension of Isaiah’s contemporaries is a historical constellation which can only be understood through a retrospective meta-historical interpretation as done by later agents of the Isaianic tradition. 3.4.
Intermediate results
3.4.1. The literal traditions of the prophetic heritage contain the prophet’s voice as well as the voice of his opponents. Isaianic prophecy consists of several different modes of language that bear relevance regarding the topic of non-comprehension: § The metaphors: Isaiah uses the metaphors as an instrument of defamiliarization. The metaphorical expressions create new semantic realms in which God as the ‘rock of refuge’ is transformed into a ‘stumbling-stone.’[102] At the same time, metaphorical language encloses a destructive element, since it destroys fundamental ideas and beliefs that Isaiah’s contemporaries still adhere to. § The quotations: the quotations fulfill a very important task within prophetic language. These quotations hand down not only the prophet’s theo-political view of history, but also the confrontation with the prophetic word and thereby the people’s status of non-comprehension. The prophetic word and the word of Isaiah’s contemporaries contrast with each other anti-thetically. The literary tradition of the prophetic heritage includes the confrontation and preserves it for later generations without repealing it at a later point. Thus, later generations can not only understand God’s “alien work” in history (cf. Isa 28:21), but they will also be able to recognize Isaiah’s contemporaries as an integral part of this work without blurring the boundaries between the theo-political sphere of the prophet and the political realm of history. § Fictitious realms: By means of the fiction elements, the prophet creates a “theo-political” sphere over and against the “geo-political appearance,” thereby giving his God the possibility of escaping the previous patterns of expectation. In view of the political and military circumstances at the end of the eighth century, prophetic fiction represents a kind of Judean “counterpropaganda” for later generations. 3.4.2. In this structure of non-communication, the prophecy of Isaiah differs decisively from its Near Eastern parallels. Notwithstanding the different types of Ancient Near Eastern oracles (in Mari or the Neo-Assyrian Prophetic texts), all these oracles share one crucial aspect: by means of prophetic oracles the gods (e.g. dAššur or dIštar) sought to enter into a positive communicative relationship, i.e. Divine action and human deeds should correspond to each other in a meaningful way. Most of the oracles (to a great extent oracles of encouragement or salvation)[103] deal with a dangerous situation for the king, either with regard to domestic issues or with regard to foreign policy. The king demands an oracle (or acts in response to an oracle going out spontaneously), in order to (re)assure himself of the victory over his enemies. Almost all of the ›lā tapalla h~‹-oracles, notwithstanding their respective distinctive facets, share two crucial matters: (a) the liability of the divinity to the oracle given; and (b) the liability of the king to the (military or political) instructions being issued with the oracle. Therefore, the god is not only committed to a positive communicative intention (mediated by a so-called šaprû,[104] due to a vision), but also to the lack of ambiguity of the instructions and promises offered by the oracle. 3.4.3.
This structure of politics based on prophetic
oracles had determined Assyrian political ideology for centuries. Yet, politics
relying on prophecy is unproblematic only as long as politics and military
campaigns turn out positively, as can clearly be seen in Assyrian history: the royal
representatives were dependant on the successful outcome of foreign policy and
military campaigns as much as their gods. The defeat of Harran (609/10), where
the fate of Assyria was finally sealed, led not only to the burial of the last
Assyrian king (Ashur-uballit II), it also signaled the burial of his God dAššur.
A fatal end was enacted for both sides: the Assyrian king was deserted by dAššur,
and dAššur became the divine loser within history. In opposition to
the Ancient Near Eastern oracles, Isaiah’s prophecy insisted on the
incompatibility between men’s policies and God’s action in history. The
prophecy of the “strange work” of God (Isa 28:21) sets out to draw a sharp
demarcation between God’s action and the policy of the Judean kings: no one should
refer to God for his military plans within the course of history; no one should
make demands on God for his own purposes. In that, Isaiah’s prophecy gains
significance as a testimony to a truth that was to be comprehended by
his contemporaries only at a later
point. 4. The
implied author and the implied reader
4.1.1. As a final point, we shall briefly discuss the question of the transmission of the (literary) heritage of Isaiah’s oracles. The debate on the problem of who collected prophetic oracles, at what time, and for which purpose shows a wide-ranging disagreement among modern Biblical scholarship. This issue is in particular related to the question how much of the material preserved is due to later redaction. Recently, E. Blum has presented the crystallization of the early Isaianic tradition, in particular chs. 1-11 and 28-32, as a ‘prophetic testament,’ as Isaiah’s ‘self-reflection of the prophetic tasks and functions since Amos.’[105] According to Blum, this ‘self-reflection’ was caused by the failure of Isaiah’s prophetic mission in light of the events of the year 701. Likewise, Chr. Hardmeier has characterized the literary tradition of the prophets as a ‘literature of prophetic opposition’ (“Oppositionsliteratur”) against the contemporary cultic and political elite. According to Hardmeier, Isaiah’s so-called ‘Denkschrift’[106] fulfilled its main task as a document for the stabilization of the identity of a prophetic support-group facing the Judean crisis immediately after 701.[107] 4.1.2.
By assuming a prophetic support group (which is
hardly covered by the text) Blum, Hardmeier and others argue that the literary
heritage of the prophetic message was collected and re-shaped from a ‘prophetic
point of view.’ Isaiah’s successors presented the material through the ‘lenses
of the prophet,’[108]
i.e. pro domo.[109]
In contrast, U. Becker, J. Høgenhaven, Chr. Seitz and others maintain that a
large part of the Isaianic tradition (including large portions of chs. 1-12,
28-32) was written by deuteronomistic redaction(s) as a response to the
catastrophe of 597/585 BCE. The main issue for this theological school was the
supposition that the catastrophe could have been avoided if Israel’s
representatives had acted with justice and righteousness. According to
Høgenhaven, the prophetic traditions were collected in post-exilic times “by
redactors who were, undoubtedly, most strongly influenced by 'oppositional' or
'anti-official' viewpoints (...),” as kind of an ‘opposition in retrospect.’[110] 4.1.3.
One
may take as fact the idea that the Isaianic traditions as a literary product
were collected and selected by an immediate support-group, or that they
represent (post)-exilic theological reflection. However, one assumption common
to all these arguments is presupposed: the idea that the prophetic message in
its oral as well as in its later literary stage faced a twofold group of
addressees to be assigned as the primary recipients of ‘oral communication’ on
one hand and ‘literary tradition’ on the other. In that, the primary
addressees of the prophecies of doom and the later agents of tradition, i.e. the secondary
addressees, are regarded as two independent and in any case non-identical
groups of people.[111]
4.1.4.
According
to the above-mentioned scholars, the oral communication, which was directed
mainly against the political representatives, had never been taken up
positively. As for its literary function, it have been converted into a mere
pedagogical and educational instrument for later generations. 4.1.5.
At
this point I would like to propose a ‘third way’ to elucidate not only the
beginnings of the literal prophetic tradition, but also the question of the
agents of tradition. A crucial indication for the transmission of prophetic
oracles are the two commands for writing down the oracles addressed to Isaiah
in Isa 8:16 and Isa 30:8. Without entering here into the exegesis of Isaiah 8
and 30 in more detail, one has to assume that the process of literal
crystallization must have started at the time of the primary confrontation
between the prophet and his contemporaries. Like the ‘sealing of the
instruction’ (Isa 8:16), Isa 30:8 presents a twofold element: the public proclamation of the prophet’s message,
accompanied by a writing act (→
synchronic time-level), and the transformation of this inscription into a
‘witness stand’ for a later date, performed in front of the same public.
Those who do not listen to the
prophetic word ‘now’ (i.e. at the time when the message is written down)[113] shall be reminded of it at a later
stage of history (→ diachronic time-level). Given that, the text’s function is that of a
witness,[114] cf. Isa 30:8:
4.6. The element of ‘witness’ forms a constitutive aspect for the process of the
literary tradition of the prophetic message. A written testimony as a ‘witness’
contains documentary elements. It preserves the communicative process and,
thereby, encompasses both parties involved in the communicative
relationship. The literary witness serves as the foundation of a successive
development of ‘understanding,’ in which the historical agents
(subjects) find themselves as literary entities (objects) of the events
described. This applies to the prophet as well as to ‘this people.’ It seems,
therefore, reasonable to claim that a historical confrontation was
adopted on a literary level and transformed into a theological dichotomy
between ‘this people’ and the prophet, in order to the preserve the status of
non-communication for later generations. Against Hardmeier and others, who
consider Isaiah’s literary testimony to be a document for the stabilization
of a prophetic support group’s identity, I would propose that the written
Isaianic tradition served as a tool for the remaining cultic and political
elite[115]
to (re)-gain their identity as ‘God’s people’ from which God had dissociated himself by means of the prophetic word in the course of history.[116] It was only then that the prophetic oracles of
doom found their way as a collective traditum into the literary heritage
of the people of Israel.[117] 5. Frequently quoted Bibliography
Le Glossaire de Bâle. Corpus Glossariorum Biblicorum
Hebraico-Gallicorum Medii Aevi, vol. 1: Introduction, vol. 2: Texte, ed. by. M. Banitt, Jerusalem 1972. Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions Part 2.
From Tiglath-pilesar I to Ashur-nasir-apli II, Wiesbaden 1976. Gesenius, W., Hebräische Grammatik. Völlig
umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch, Ndr. Darmstadt 1985. Aichele, G., Sign, Text, Scripture. Semiotics and
the Bible, Sheffield 1997. Barthel, J., Prophetenwort und Geschichte. Die
Jesaja-Überlieferung in Jes 6-8 und 28-31, Tübingen 1997. Berges, U., Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und
Endgestalt, Freiburg - Basel u.a. 1998. Blenkinsopp, J., Isaiah 1-39. A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, New York - London u.a. 2000. —, Judah’s Covenant With Death (ISAIAH XXVIII
14-22), in: VT 50, 2000, p. 472-483. Broyles,
C. C. - Evans, C. A. (Ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies
of an Interpretive Tradition, 2 vol., Leiden - New York a.o. 1997. Brueggemann, W., Isaiah 1-39, Louisville 1998. Chakham,
A., Sefer Yesha’yahu, 2 vol., vol. 1: Jerusalem 101996, vol. 2: Jerusalem 61992. Dietrich, M. - Loretz, O. (Hg.), Mesopotamica -
Ugaritica - Biblica, FS K. Bergerhof, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993. Eco, U., Einführung in die Semiotik, München 61988. Fales, F. M., The Enemy in Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions: ›The Moral Judgement‹, in: Nissen - Renger p. 425-435. Gallagher, W. R., Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah.
New Studies, Leiden – Boston u.a. 1999. Gitay, Y., Isaiah and His Audience. The Structure
and Meaning of Isaiah 1-12, Assen - Maastricht 1991. Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Rulers of the Early first
Millennium BC. I (1114-859 BC), Toronto - Buffalo u.a. 1991. Hardmeier, Chr.,Texttheorie und biblische Exegese.
Zur rhetorischen Funktion der Trauermetaphorik in der Prophetie, München 1978. Hayes, J. H. - Irvine, S. A., Isaiah. The
Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching, Nashville 1987. Hubmann, F. D., Der Bote des Heiligen Gottes. Jesaja
6,1-13 im Kontext von Berufung, in: ThPQ 135/4, 1987, p. 328-339. Kaiser, O., Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, vol. 1:
Kapitel 1-12, Göttingen 51981, vol. 2: Kapitel 13-39, Göttingen 31983. Knauf, E. A., War ›Biblisch-Hebräisch‹ eine Sprache?
Empirische Gesichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annäherung an die Sprache der
althebräischen Literatur, in: ZAH 3, 1990, p. 11-23. Koch, K., Spuren des hebräischen Denkens. Beiträge
zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Ges. Aufsätze Band 1, ed. by B. Janowski - M.
Krause, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991. Landy, F., Strategies of Concentration and Diffusion
in Isaiah 6, in: Biblical Interpretation 7, 1999, p. 58-86. —, Tracing the Voice of the
Other: Isaiah 28 and the Covenant with Death, in: Exum, J. Ch. - Clines, D. J.
A. (Ed.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield 1993, p.
140-162. —, Vision and Voice in Isaiah, in: JSOT 88, 2000, p.
19-36. Machinist, P., Assyria and Its Image in the First
Isaiah, in: JAOS 103, 1983, p. 719-737. Mayer, W., Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer,
Münster 1995. Nissen, H. J. - Renger, J (Hg.), Mesopotamien und
seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien
vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Berlin 21987. Oded, B., War, Peace and Empire. Justifications for
War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Wiesbaden 1992. Orton,
D. E., (Hg.), Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. Selected Studies from Vetus
Testamentum, Leiden - Boston u.a. 2000. Roberts, J. J. M., Double Entendre in First Isaiah,
in: CBQ 54, 1992, p. 39-48. Sonnet, J.-P., Le Motif de
l’endurcissement (Is 6,9-10) et la lecture d’»Isaie«, in:
Biblica 73, 1992, p. 208-239. 6. Notes
[1] This paper was delivered at
the Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations Department, University of Toronto, in
February 2002, and was revised and enlarged for publication. I wish to thank
Joachim Vette, University of Heidelberg, for amending and modifying my English. [2] Cf., among others, Berges,
U., Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt, Freiburg - Basel a.o. 1998;
Beuken, W. A. M., Isaiah. Part II, Volume 2: Isaiah Chapters 28-39, Leuven
2000; Clements, R. E., Beyond Tradition-History:
Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes, in: JSOT 31, 1985,
95-113; ibid., Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. A Study of the
Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament, Sheffield 1980; ibid., The
Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., in: Orton, D. E.,
(Ed.), Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum,
Leiden - Boston a.o. 2000, p. 148-163; Melugin, R. F. - Sweeney, M. A. (Ed.),
New Visions of Isaiah, Sheffield 1996; Seitz, Ch. R., Zion’s Final Destiny. The
Development of the Book of Isaiah. A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39, Minneapolis
1991; Sweeney, M., Isaiah 1-39. With An Introduction To Prophetic Literature,
Grand Rapids/Mich. - Cambridge 1996; Vermeylen, J. (Ed.), The Book of Isaiah. Le Livre D’Isaïe. Les oracles et leur relectures unité et complexité de
l’ouvrage, Leuven 1989; ibid., Du prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique. Isaïe,
I-XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience en Israël, Tome I, Paris 1977,
Tome II, Paris 1978. [3] As far as I know, it was in
particular K. Koch who rejected the term ‘judgement’ since, according to him,
this is a term taken from Christian dogmatic and which should, therefore, not
be adopted within a study of Biblical literature; see Koch, K., Gibt es ein
Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?, in: ibid., Spuren 65-103; see also Koch,
Die Entstehung der sozialen Kritik bei den Profeten, in: ibid., Spuren p.
146-166, 147; Nielsen, K., Yahweh as Prosecutor and
Judge. An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern), Sheffield 1978,
p. 28.31.75; Tucker, G. M., Sin
and ‘Judgement’ in the Prophets, in: Sun, H. T. C. - Eades, K. L. a.o. (Ed.),
Problems in Biblical Theology. Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, Grand Rapids
1997, p. 373-388, 379.383ff. [4] Compare the rather critical
discussion on that interpretation in Carroll, When Prophecy Failed, 187-88.:
“The European Jews were destroyed by the Nazis because of their corrupt way of
life and their departure from the Law of God. Furthermore God used the Nazis to
punish the Jews (...) There can be no denying that the Jews and Europe suffered
terribly during the second European war but this explanation for such suffering
is not verified by the fact of a destructive war. Few biblical scholars would
tolerate such an equation between event and explanation yet many might be
tempted to do so in terms of biblical prophecy and accept the fall of Samaria
and Jerusalem as confirmation of the prophetic diagnostic predictions. Why is
this so often the case? (...) Yet were Assyria and Babylonia so much more virtuous
than Israel or Judah that they could be freely used to punish the smaller
nations? Such ways of discussing the matter belong more to biblical ideology
but they do illustrate some of the problems inherent in the interpretation of
the prophetic traditions.” [5] Kilian, R., Der
Verstockungsauftrag Jesajas, in: H.-J. Fabry (Ed.), Bausteine biblischer
Theologie, FS G. J. Botterweck, Köln - Bonn 1977, p. 209-225, 215 [in German]. [6] Berges, U., Das Buch
Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt, Freiburg - Basel a.o. 1998, p. 99 [in
German]. [7] See esp. Liss, H., Die
Funktion der “Verstockung” Pharaos in der Erzählung vom Auszug aus Ägypten (Ex
7-14), in: Biblische Notizen 93, 1998, pp. 56-76, esp. 60 ff. [8] See von Rad, G., Theologie
des Alten Testaments, Vol. II: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferung
Israels, München 91987 (= ibid., Old Testament Theology, vol. 2: The
Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, Edinburgh a.o. 1965), esp. p. 158ff. [9] See Hubmann, F. D., Der
Bote des Heiligen Gottes. Jesaja 6,1-13 im Kontext von Berufung, in: ThPQ
135/4, 1987, p. 328-339. [10] See Landy, F., Strategies of Concentration and Diffusion in Isaiah 6, in: Biblical
Interpretation 7, 1999, 58-86; ibid., Vision and Voice in Isaiah, in: JSOT 88,
2000, p. 19-36. [11] See Hesse, F., Das
Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament. Eine frömmigkeitsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung, Berlin 1955, p. 84. [12] This study presents in
short the main topics and issues discussed in my book Die unerhörte
Prophetie. Kommunikative Strukturen prophetischer Rede im Buch Yesha’yahu,
Leipzig (forthcoming; in German). [13] It should be emphasized,
however, that the question of communicative structures can (and perhaps even
should) include those texts, that owe their origin to the subsequent traditions
that handed down Isaiah’s activity. [14] See also Gitay, J., Isaiah and His Audience. The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1-12, Assen
- Maastricht 1991, p. 121: “‘Hear,’ indeed, but do not understand’” (...) should not be read
literally, but has to be heard according to its function and rhetorical
impact.” [15] Brueggemann, W., Isaiah 1-39, Louisville 1998, p. 61 regards it as ‘countermessage.’ [16] See Görg, M., Die Funktion
der Serafen bei Jesaja, in: BN 5, 1978, p. 28-39, esp. 39. Keel, O.,
Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst. Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in
Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4, mit einem Beitrag von A. Gutbub über die vier
Winde in Ägypten, Stuttgart 1977, p. 62ff. shows in detail that the
Ancient Near Eastern relief portrayals representing rulers in their garments do
not depict trains hanging down or hems; see also Driver,
G. R., Isaiah 6:1 ‘His train filled the temple’, in: H. Goedicke
(Ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honour of W. F. Albright, Baltimore - London
1971, p. 87-96; Eslinger,
L., The Infinite in a Finite Organical Perception (Isaiah VI 1-5), in: VT 45,
1995, p. 145-173, esp. p.146ff. [17] See Brockelmann, C.,
Hebräische Syntax, Neukirchen 1956, §14b; Irsigler, H., Gott als König in
Berufung und Verkündigung Jesajas, in: F. V. Reiterer (Ed.), Ein Gott - eine
Offenbarung. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, FS N. Füglister, Theologie und
Spiritualität, Würzburg 1991, p. 127-154, 134 incl. note 15. [18] Most scholars translate
with ‘I am lost’ with regard to Ex 3,6; 33,20; Ri 13,22. For the translation
proposed here see also RaDaQ’s commentary ad loc.: נדמתי
נשתתקתי. [19] See Brown, M., Kippēr and
Atonement in the Book of Isaiah, in: R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo a.o. (Ed.), Ki
Baruch Hu. Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of B. A.
Levine, Winona Lake 1999, p. 189-202, esp. 194ff.; Lind, M. C.,
Political Implications of Isaiah 6, in: Broyles, C. C. - Evans, C. A. (Ed.),
Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition,
2 vol., Leiden - New York a.o. 1997, vol. I, p. 317-338, esp. 321. – Compare also RaShY’s
commentary on Isa 28:18.; see also the commentaries of R. Yosef Qara ad loc. and R.
Yeshaya ben Eliyah di Trani and RaDaQ on Isa 28:18; 47:11. [20] Comp. Gesenius, W.,
Hebräische Grammatik. Völlig umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch, Ndr. Darmstadt 1985,
§112x. [21] I will leave out in this
place the question of whether Isa 6 describes an inaugural vision. [22] See RaShY’s commentary on
Isa 6:5. [23] Landy, Strategies 64
regards even the twofold repetition of the ‘qadosh’-call
of the seraphim as “a failure of language, which is reduced to tautology.” [24] According to Janowski, Isa 6 does not mirror neither the
Mesopotamian mouth purification rites nor the Egyptian mouth opening rites (see
Janowski, B., Sühne
als Heilsgeschehen. Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Sühnetheologie
der Priesterschrift, Neukirchen-Vluyn 22000, esp. p. 127ff.); for a different view see Hurovitz, A. (= V.),
Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Mouth Purification and
Mouth Purity in Akkadian Sources, in: HUCA 60, 1989, p. 39-89, esp. 73ff.; Weinfeld, M., Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature, in:
Orton p. 84-101, 86f.
For further details see also Berlejung, A., Washing the Mouth: The Consecration
of Divine Images in Mesopotamia, in: van der Toorn, K. (ed.), The Image and the
Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the
Ancient Near East, Leuven 1997, p. 45-72. [25] See also Landy, Strategies
66.68; Roberts, J. J. M., Double Entendre in First Isaiah, in: CBQ 54, 1992, p.
39-48, esp. 45f. [26] * דמה /
דמם connotating
דומה ‘name of underworld’ as well. [27] In that, the concept of
God’s holiness resembles remarkably the concept expressed in the Priestly code,
comp. Knohl, I., The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness
school, Minneapolis 1995, p. 151: “Such an encounter necessarily engenders
feelings of guilt and sin and the need for atonement. This guilt is not
associated with any particular sin; rather, it is a result of human awareness
of insignificance and contamination in comparison with the sublimity of God’s
holiness.” The relationship between Isaiah’s concept of the Holy One and P
will be examined in more detail with special regard to the question of the
dating of P in a study of its own. [28] Cf. … הא שויתי
פתגמי נבואתי
בפומך, Targum Isa 6:7. See also RaDaQ on Jer 1:9. [29] Comp.
also Mic 3:8. [30] Cf. Brueggemann, Isaiah
233. [31] הוא בידם has to be taken as a gloss; see
e.g. Childs,
B.S., Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, London 1967, p. 39 incl. note 36; Ehrlich,
A. B., Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, Sprachliches und
Sachliches, Vierter Band: Jesaia, Jeremia, Leipzig 1912, Ndr. Hildesheim 1968,
p. 41; Hardmeier, Chr., Texttheorie und biblische Exegese. Zur rhetorischen
Funktion der Trauermetaphorik in der Prophetie, München 1978, p. 230; comp.
also Blenkinsopp, Isaiah p. 252. [32] Qere: ולשומו. [33] This phrase represents a
subtle wordplay based on reciprocal exchange of monarchic designations in
Hebrew and Akkadian: Akk. šarru
(‘king’) corresponds to Hebr. שר (‘commander’; ‘local official’; ‘prince’);
Akk. malku (‘prince’) corresponds to
Hebrew מלך (‘king’). The
expression alludes to the Assyrian practice of leaving the מלך -title
to the rulers of the subjugated small states, see Machinist,
P., Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah, in: JAOS 103, 1983, p. 719-737, 734f;
Wildberger, H., Jesaja, 1. Teilband: Jesaja 1-12, Neukirchen-Vluyn
1972; ibid., Jesaja, 2. Teilband: Jesaja 13-27, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978; ibid.,
Jesaja, 3. Teilband: Jesaja 28-39. Das Buch, der Prophet und seine Botschaft,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, vol. 1, p. 397. [34] Kalno/Kalne = akk. kullāni (cf. Am 6:2); see Forrer,
E., Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches, Leipzig 1920, p. 57;
Na’aman, N., Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign
to Judah, in: BASOR 214, 1974, p. 25-39, 37; according to Lamprichs, R., Die Westexpansion des
neuassyrischen Reiches. Eine Strukturanalyse, Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995,
p. 115 is the city kullania, which is
mentioned in the Eponym canon, identical to Kinalia,
capital of Tutamu of Pattina. [35] Based on the translation of
the Septuagint (LXX) and Targum, some read Impf. cons. ואסיר; comp.
Ibn Ezra ad loc. who takes the Impf. as present tense (comp. also Ibn Ezra on
Isa 64:4; Ps 73:17; 80:9 e.fr.); see also Machinist,
Assyria 725
incl. note 27. [36] The term ועתידתיהם (qere: ועתודותיהם) was given widespread
explanations: RaShY’s explanation is based on Q, he regards it as מעמדם
ומצבם (← עתוד II); see also Yeshaya ben
Eliyah di Trani’s understanding of the term as כל עתודי
ארץ (similar also Yosef Qara, Ibn Ezra and RaDaQ ad loc.). Only Mittmann’s
interpretation, in: Mittmann, S., ‘Wehe! Assur, Stab meines Zorns’ (Jes
10,5-9.13aβ-15), in: Fritz, V.
- Pohlmann, K.-F. a.o. (Ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch. FS Otto Kaiser, Berlin - New York 1989, p. 111-132, 120 is based on עתוד II,
and translated as ‘bellwethers’ (‘Leitböcke’). [37] Gallagher, W. R.,
Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. New Studies, Leiden – Boston a.o. 1999, 77
incl. note 77 translates יושבים as “those who are enthroned;” see also
Brueggemann, Isaiah 92 (‘those who sat on thrones’). [38] I will neither discuss here
the different problems of literary or redactional unity, nor the question of
the rhetorical function of the Woe-oracles in general. See in particular
Hardmeier, Texttheorie. [39] See e.g. Lamprichs,
Westexpansion; Mayer, W., Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer, Münster 1995. [40] The
handing over of the rod is the symbolic handing over of property (people;
cattle; estate). Compare e.g. the representation of King Sua of Gilzanu on the
so-called ‘black obelisk’ who submits to Shalmaneser III by handing over his
rods (GIŠhu-ta-ra-teMEŠ); see Bär, J.,
Der assyrische Tribut und seine Darstellung. Eine Untersuchung zur imperialen
Ideologie im neuassyrischen Reich, Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996, esp. 151f. [41] (Ka-šu-uš DINGIR.MEŠ
GAL.MEŠ); see e.g. Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Rulers of the Early
first Millennium BC. I (1114-859 BC), Toronto - Buffalo a.o. 1991, p. 288.357 (Aššur-Nasir-apli
II) a. fr.; see also Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions Part
2. From Tiglath-pilesar I to Ashur-nasir-apli II, Wiesbaden 1976, p. 118ff. [42] See von Soden, W., Die
Assyrer und der Krieg, in: Iraq 25, 1963, p. 131-144, 137 incl. note 1; Oded, B., “The Command of the God” as a Reason for Going to War in the
Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, in: Cogan, M - Eph’al, I. (Ed.), Ah, Assyria ...
Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented
to Hayim Tadmor, Jerusalem 1991, p. 223-230, esp. 226f.; Oded, B., War, Peace and Empire. Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Wiesbaden 1992,
p. 18ff. [43] Compare e.g. the idioms ina qibīt DN, ina tukulti DN a.o. (see Liverani, M., Kitru, katāru, in: Mes.
17, 1982, p. 43-66, esp. 60). [44] Compare the examples in
Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, Graz 1956, Ndr.
Osnabrück 1967, §65, S. 98; Otto, E., Die besiegten Sieger. Von der Macht und
Ohnmacht der Ideen in der Geschichte am Beispiel der neuassyrischen
Großreichspolitik, in: BZ 43, 1999, p. 180-203, 194; Grayson, Assyrian Rulers
p. 280.323. [45] See Oded, War, esp. p.
146ff. [46] For the Assyrian characterization
of the “dastardly” foreigns nations (the enemy of Ashshur is ‘evil’ [nākiru limnu, ēpiš limutti]
and, therefore, due to destruction), see Fales,
F. M., The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: ‘The Moral Judgement,’ in: Nissen, H. J. - Renger,
J (Ed.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle
Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,
Berlin 21987, p. 425-435, esp. 428ff.; Grayson, Assyrian
Rulers p. 280.323; Liverani, M., The Ideology of the Assyrian
Empire, in: Larsen, M. T., (Ed.), Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient
Empires, Kopenhagen 1979, p. 297-317, esp. 309ff.; Zaccagnini, C., The
Enemy in the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: The “Ethnographic” Description,
in: Nissen - Renger p. 409-424, esp. 412f. [47] See Renger, J., Aspekte von
Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in den assyrischen Königsinschriften, in:
Waetzoldt, H. - Hauptmann, H. (Ed.), Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten. XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Heidelberg 1997, p. 169-175, 174; ibid.,
Neuassyrische Königsinschriften als Genre der Keilschriftliteratur. Zum Stil
und zur Kompositionstechnik der Inschriften Sargons II. von Assyrien, in: K.
Hecker - W. Sommerfeld (Ed.), Keilschriftliche Literaturen - Ausgewählte
Vorträge der XXXII. Recontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster 1985,
Berlin 1986, p. 109-128, esp. 119ff.; Schramm, W., Einleitung in die
assyrischen Königsinschriften. Zweiter Teil: 934-722 v. Chr., Leiden - Köln
1973, p. 126.131; Reade, J., Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art, in:
Larsen p. 329-343, esp. 330ff.; Levine, L. D., Preliminary Remarks on the
Historical Inscriptions of Sennacherib, in: Tadmor,
H. - Weinfeld, M. (Ed.), History, Historiography and Interpretation.
Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, Jerusalem - Leiden 1984, p.
58-75, 64ff. [48] See also Lamprichs,
Westexpansion, esp. p. 112ff. [49] The
Assyrian annals report for instance of Mutallu, ruler of the Kummu h~u region
who fled at the advance of the Assyrian troops and left his family as well as
the population and his property (see Luckenbill, D. D.,
The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago 1924, II p. 44; Lamprichs p. 141f.). The
king of Assa (H~anūnu) fled from Tiglat-Pil’eser III to Egypt (see Alt, A., Tiglathpilesers III
erster Feldzug nach Palästina, in: ibid., Kleine Schriften II , p. 150-162,
esp. 157ff.). King Luli of Zidon leaves the city of Tyros and fled to
Cyprus by the time the troops of Sennacherib were approaching (see Lamprichs 149; Laato, A.,
Assyrian Propaganda and the Falsification of History in the Royal Inscriptions
of Sennacherib, in: VT 45, 1995, 198-226, p. 223f.). [50] See the report
of Sargon’s campaign against Urartu, in: Mayer, W., Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu - 714 v.
Chr. Text und Übersetzung, in: MDOG 115, 1983, p. 65-132, 99, line 291. [51] See already Machinist,
Assyria 729: “In
Isaiah we are evidently dealing with the effects of Assyrian Propaganda” (compare the
examples given here); see also Gallagher, esp. p. 77ff. In particular the
inscriptions of Asarhaddons and Assurbanipals present as one
distinctive stylistic feature the use of quotations in direct speech, see Fales, Enemy p. 431; Gerardi, P., Thus, He Spoke: Direct Speech in Esarhaddon’s Royal
Inscriptions, in: ZA 79, 1989, p. 245-260, esp. 247ff.; Renger, Aspekte p. 173. [52] See Gallagher, p. 75ff. [53] See dazu Mayer, Kriegskunst
481; Na’aman, N., Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan, in: IEJ
50, 2000, p. 92-104, 94f.); Nevling Porter, B., Assyrian
Propaganda for the West: Esarhaddon’s Stelae for Til Barsip and Sam’al, in:
Bunnens, G. (Ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Louvain 2000, p.143-176; Röllig, W., Aramäer und
Assyrer: die Schriftzeugnisse bis zum Ende des Assyrerreiches, in: Bunnens
(Ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age 177-186. [54] This question of how Isaiah
gained access to the Assyrian literal sources is discussed in Machinist,
Assyria 732ff.; Tadmor, H. The Aramaization
of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact, in: Nissen - Renger 449-470; ibid., On the Use of Aramaic in
the Assyrian Empire: Three Observations on a Relief of Sargon II, in: A.
Ben-Tor - J. C. Greenfield a.o. (Ed.), Eretz-Israel. Archaeological, Historical
and Geographical Studies, Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume, Jerusalem 1989, p.
249-252 (in Hebrew), esp. 250. - Tadmor,
Aramaization, esp. p. 452ff. and Mayer, Kriegskunst p. 314 refer to
bi-lingual relief-inscriptions (Assyrian; Aramaic) and to the fact that Aramaic
had been introduced as the language of administration by Tiglat-Pil’eser III at the
latest; see
also Knauf, E. A., War ‘Biblisch-Hebräisch’ eine Sprache? Empirische
Gesichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annäherung an die Sprache der althebräischen
Literatur, in: ZAH 3, 1990, p. 11-23, 12 incl. note 5; Lipiński,
E., The Linguistic Geography of Syria in Iron Age II (c. 1000-600 B.C.), in:
Bunnens (Ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age 125-142; vSoden, W., Gab es im
vorexilischen Hebräisch Aramaismen in der Bildung und Verwendung von
Verbformen?, in: ZAH 4, 1991, p. 32-45, 33f.. [55] See for instance Gitay,
Isaiah p. 192: “Isaiah’s goal is to assure his audience that there is a divine
plan which incorporates Assyria as well. Actually, Isaiah argues that Assyria’s
power is limited by God.” [56] Likewise already Murray, D. F., The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-Examination of a
Prophetic Genre, in: JSOT 38, 1987, p. 95-121, 109: “to have made such a claim at all
[Assyria as Yahweh’s instrument] must have struck most of the prophet’s
contemporaries as eccentric; to have persisted in that claim when all around
them the evidence seemed to give it the lie, as perverse.” [57] See in particular Iser, W.,
Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre. Perspektiven literarischer Anthropologie,
Frankfurt/M. 1991, esp. P. 24-51; Das Fiktive, bes. 24-51; Moers, G.,
Fiktionalität und Intertextualität als Parameter ägyptologischer
Literaturwissenschaft. Perspektiven und Grenzen der Anwendung zeitgenössischer
Literaturtheorie, in: Assmann, J. - Blumenthal, E. (Ed.), Literatur und Politik
im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten, Le Caire 1999, p. 37-52, 40ff. [58] See Iser, W., Der Akt des
Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung, München 41994, esp. p. 155ff. [59] Radman, Z., Fictional
Meanings and Possible Worlds - A Case of Metaphor, in: Danneberg, L. - Graeser,
A. a.o. (Ed.), Metapher und Innovation. Die Rolle der Metapher im Wandel von
Sprache und Wissenschaft, Bern - Stuttgart a.o. 1995, p. 126-137, 137. [60] LXX reads a!rxontej tou~ laou~ . The Poterim translated the term מושלי as אישנפלנצ èsenplanç (“qui inventent des fables”, in: Le Glossaire de Bâle. Corpus
Glossariorum Biblicorum Hebraico-Gallicorum Medii Aevi, Vol. 1: Introduction,
Vol. 2: Texte, ed. by M. Banitt, Jerusalem 1972, II p. 310); RaShY’s
explanation is based on the twofold meaning of *משל: מושלי
העם הזה
האמרים לצון
בלשון משל (a
similar reading is proposed by Yeshaya ben Eliyah di Trani; see also Barthel 306f.; Exum, J. C., “‘Whom will he Teach Knowledge?’ A Literary Approach to
Isaiah 28,’’ in: Clines - Gunn p. 108-139, 124). Ibn Ezra and Elieser aus Beaugency translated
according to Targum. - Since the phrase כי
אמרתם forms the introduction of the משל as mocking sayings of those in
Jerusalem, I prefer * משל I
(comp. also Barth,
J., Beiträge zur Erklärung des Jesaiah, in:
Berichte des Rabbinerseminars zu Berlin 1883/84, p. 23; Wildberger, Jesaja III
p. 1064¸ Kaiser, O., Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, Kapitel 1-12, Göttingen 51981;
ibid., Der Prophet Jesaja, Kapitel 13-39, Göttingen 31983, II p.
197). [61] See LXX: sunqh/kh; V: pactum; see also RaShY and Ibn Ezra ad loc. [62] See
RaShY ad loc.: … הנני
הוא אשר יסד
כבר בציון אבן; see also Beuken, W. A. M, Isaiah 28: Is It Only Schismatics That Drink
Heavily? Beyond the Synchronic Versus Diachronic
Controversy, in: J. C. de Moor (Ed.), Synchronic Or Diachronic? A Debate in Old
Testament Exegesis, Leiden - New York a.o. 1995, p. 15-38, 16; Chakham, A., Sefer Yesha’yahu, 2 vol, vol. 1:
Jerusalem, 10th. ed., 1996, vol. 2: Jerusalem, 6th. ed.,
1992 (Hebrew), I p. 290; Gesenius.-Kautzsch §155f. Most scholars read according
to 1QIsa (מיסד Pt. pi.) and Qb (יוסד Pt. qal), see e.g. Barthel
308f.; Kaiser, Jesaja II 198; Roberts, J. J. M., YAHWEH’s Foundation in Zion
(Isa 28:16), in: JBL 106, 1987, p. 27-45, 28f. [63] b-essentiae; see Gesenius-Kautzsch §119i; Irwin, W. H., Isaiah 28-33.
Translation with Philological Notes, Rom 1977, p. 30f. [64] The Poterim translated as פיירא
פורט piyère fort (“une pierre
solide”; see Glossaire de Bâle II 310); compare Chakham, Yesha’yahu I 290.
Roberts, Foundation p. 29ff. (based on the term בחן as
used in Qumran text’s) translates “a stone used in building a fortress” (see also Ibn
Ganâch, Sefer ha-Shorashim, ed. by
Bacher [Bacher, W., Sepher Haschoraschim. Wurzelwörterbuch der hebräischen
Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (Rabbi Jona). Aus dem Arabischen in’s
Hebräische übersetzt von Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, Berlin 1896, Repr. Amsterdam 1969]
p. 60 and Ibn Ezra ad loc.). [65] See also Gesenius-Kautzsch
§130f incl. note 3; see also Roberts, Foundation 34. [66] See Driver, G. R., “‘Another
Little Drink’ - Isaiah 28:1-22,” in: Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to D.
W. Thomas, ed. by P. R. Ackroyd - B. Lindars, Cambridge 1968, p. 47-67, 60; Roberts, Foundation 36. [67] For *יעה (see also Ex 38:3) see Ibn
Ganâch, Sefer ha-Riqma, ed. by
Wilensky [Abu al-Walîd Merwân Ibn Ganâch (R. Yona Ibn
Ganâch), Sefer ha-Riqma, ed. by M.
Wilensky, 2 vol., Jerusalem, Repr. Jerusalem 1964] p. 165 and Ibn Ganâch, Sefer ha-Shorashim, Ausg. Bacher p. 199
(likewise Ibn Ezra und RaDaQ ad loc.). [68] See esp. Wolff, H. W., Das
Zitat im Prophetenbuch, in: ibid., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament,
München 1964, p. 36-129, 71. [69] The root *משל (v14) is but one of the many
puns used in Isaianic oracles as a means for obfuscating the message and
thereby confusing the audience; see e.g. the alliteration of * קשר und
*קדש
in Isa 8:12-14,
the pun in Isa 29:9 based on the use of root * תמה
(qal; hitp.),
or the hidden characterization of בשת (‘shame’) enclosed in *tb# in Isa 30:3a.5b (see also
Beuken, W. A. M., Isaiah 30: A Prophetic Oracle Transmitted in
Two Successive Paradigms, in: Broyles - Evans, Isaiah I, p. 369-397, 374). - In this respect, the term אנשי
לצון might also refer to Isaiah’s rebuke of the priests and prophets Isa
28:7ff. Halpern proposes for Isa 28:9ff. (Zaw la-Zaw…) an interpretation according to which
Isaiah reproaches the priests and prophets of having participated in a marzeach
and providing the audience with prophecies exposed by Isaiah as ‘babyisms’ (see Halpern, B., “The Excremental Vision;’ the Doomed Priests of Doom in
Isaiah 28,” in: HAR 10, 1986, p. 109-121, 110ff., with reference to Montgomery,
J. A., Notes on the Old Testament, in: JBL 31, 1912, p. 140-146, 141. See also
Asen, B. A., The Garlands of Ephraim: Jes 28.1-6 and the marzēah, in: JSOT 71, 1996, p.
73-87, 82ff.).
Consistent with
that is another
interpretation that understands Zaw la-Zaw as an onomatopoeia which then would have to
be translated as ‘chitchat.’ It is the prophetic
‘chitchat’ that is taken up by the rulers of Jerusalem, and by which Jerusalem
is ruled (see also Roberts, Double Entendre p. 43). [70] See e.g. Barthel 319. [71] See e.g. Blenkinsopp, J., Judah’s Covenant With Death (ISAIAH XXVIII 14-22), in: VT 50, 2000, p.
472-483, esp. 476ff.; Toorn, K. van der, Echoes of Judaean Necromancy in Isaiah
28,7-22, in: ZAW 100, 1988, p. 199-217, esp. 203f.; Wildberger, Jesaja III p.
1073ff. [72] See also Wolff, Zitat p.
70. [73] See
already RaShY ad loc.; see also Blenkinsopp, Covenant p. 473f.; Klopfenstein, M. A,
Die Lüge nach dem Alten Testament. Ihr Begriff, ihre Bedeutung und ihre
Beurteilung, Zürich - Frankfurt/M. 1964, p. 148; Wildberger, Jesaja III
p. 1073; Wolff,
Zitat p. 123 (with reference to Isa 30:10). [74] See also Landy, F., Tracing the Voice of the Other: Isaiah 28 and the Covenant with Death,
in: Exum, J. Ch. - Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.), The New Literary Criticism and the
Hebrew Bible, Sheffield 1993, p. 140-162, 142: “Poetry, as player, is the
antagonist of death.” [75] See Weinrich, H., Sprache
in Texten, Stuttgart 1976, p. 319. [76] Ps 46:2; 61:4; 62:8f.;
71:7; 91:2 a. fr. [77] Ps 17:8; 27:5. [78] Comp. Hos 2:20 (see also
Hos 10:4; 12:2); Ps 50:5.16; 132:12 a.fr. [79] Comp. Hos 13:14; Ps 6:6;
18:6; 49:15; 89:49 a.fr. [80] Hos 7:1.13; 12:2; Am 2:4;
Mi 2:11; Ps 33:17; 40:5; 101:7 a.fr. [81] Cf. also Landy, Vision 27: “The prophetic word is (...) metaphorical,
transporting us somewhere beyond, or to a different place, unsettling and
destroying, the familiar.” Landy, Tracing the voice p. 147 characterizes
Isaiah’s poetics as a “breakdown of symbolic order.” [82] Compare in particular the
distinction made by Ricœur between ‘rhetoric’ and ‘poetic’ language patterns:
rhetoric speech seeks to persuade, whereas a poetic idiom seeks to depict
reality in an innovative way: The new is constituted by the relationship of the
metaphoric elements of the metaphor (comp. Ricœur, P., Stellung und Funktion
der Metapher in der biblischen Sprache, in: Ricœur, P. - Jüngel, E., Metapher.
Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache, München 1974, p. 45-70, 53f.). See also Ricœur,
P., Die Metapher und das Hauptproblem der Hermeneutik, in: Haverkamp, A. (Ed.),
Theorie der Metapher, Darmstadt 1983, p. 356-375. [83] See e.g. Fohrer, G., Die
symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten, Zürich - Stuttgart 21968, p.
109. [84] With regard to Urijah, the
High Priest, see 2Ki 16:10ff. (see already Ibn Ezra ad loc.); Secharya ben
Yeverechya represents a high-ranking public. Traditional exegesis has always
identified Urijah with Uriah, the prophet, son of Shemaiah, (Jer 26:20ff.; comp. bMak
24b; EkhaR 5,18; RaShY ad loc.). In this context, the witnesses represent the
‘spiritual’ and ‘secular’power, of which none should be excluded from Isaiah’s
sphere of action. The fact that, according to the text, apparently both
personalities made themselves available without any problems, underlines once
again Isaiah’s prominent position within the elite of Jerusalem. [85] According to Barthel p. 185
incl. note 14; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119u; Hayes,
J. H. - Irvine, S. A., Isaiah. The Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His
Preaching, Nashville 1987, p. 142 a.o. to be understood as a Lamed
Inscriptionis, this view being rejected by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 238; for
further reference see also Avigad, N., Hebrew
Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Remnants of a Burnt Archive, Jerusalem 1986. [86] RaShY explains: מגילה
או לוח (cf. Targum ad loc.; see also
RaDaQ). Tur-Sinai, N. H. (= Torczyner), Lachish I (Tell
ed Duweir). The Lachish Letters, London - New York a.o. 1938, p. 16 incl. note 1 refers to Isa
3:22f. (see already Ibn Ezra ad loc.), in which חריטים and גלינים are mentioned equivalent to one another, and therefore
translates as ‘cape; cloth’. Galling, K., Tafel, Buch und Blatt, in: H. Goedicke (Ed.), Near Eastern
Studies in Honor of W.F. Albright, Baltimore 1971, p. 207-223, 221f. derives
the word from * גלה pi ‘(to) polish; smooth’, a procedure indispensable
for papyrus as well as for leather (see also Haran, M., Scribal Workmanship in Biblical
Times - The Scrolls and the Writing Implements, in: Tarb. 50, 1980/81, p. 65-87
[Hebrew], 82 incl. note 33); Krauss, S., Talmudische Archäologie, 3 vol.,
Leipzig 1910-1912, vol. 3, p. 176 considers גליון to be part of a scroll of
parchment, in particular the edge of the parchment, which is unrolled first. [87]
RaShY’s understanding of the term is based on the Targum in the sense ‘for
everybody readable/understandable’; the suggestion made by Kaiser, Jesaja I p.
174 incl. note 2, to vocalize אָנוּשׁ instead of אֱנוֹשׁ is not necessary (see also
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah p. 237). Talmage also vocalized אָנוּשׁf. See
Talmage, F., בחרט
אנוש in Isaiah 8:1, in: HTR 60, 1967,
465-468, esp. 467. He understands the expression on the basis of the basic
meaning of (assyr.) enēšu(m) “to be(come) weak” as “broad nibbed, flexible pen
capable of making the bold stroke expected in the context.” Presupposed
is the understanding of גליון as (a sheet
of) papyrus. [88] See Knauf, War
‘Biblisch-Hebräisch’ eine Sprache?, p. 125-142. [89] The כי-sentence (v4) follows immediately the request for the naming of
the child. The interpretation of the name is thus given only to Isaiah and is
not meant to be explained in public by that time. [90] The same structure holds
true for the second prophetic sign described in Isa 20, despite the fact that
here we have a third person narrative. [91] See also Hayes - Irvine p.
144: “By means of their [Uriah’s and Zechariah’s] official testimony, Isaiah
could later protect himself against the sceptical charge of ex eventu prophecy.” [92] Cf. Isa 8:4 (a child - even
a prophetess’ child - learns to say ‘Mummy’ and ‘Daddy’ not earlier than by the
age of 10 months). [93] See in particular Eco, U.,
Einführung in die Semiotik, München 61988, p. 200ff. , Blenkinsopp,
Isaiah 238 considers the name to be a “slogan” or “war cry.” [94] Regarding different factors
of ‘codification’ see esp. Eco, Semiotik p. 206ff. [95] “A Sign or Representamen, is
a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its
Object, as to be capable of
determining a Third, called its Interpretant,
to assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to
the same Object. The triadic relation is genuine,
that is, its three members are bound together by it in a way that does not
consist in any complexus of dyadic relations. That is the reason the
Interpretant, or Third, cannot stand in a mere dyadic relation to the Object,
but must stand in such a relation to it as the Representamen itself does” (Peirce, Ch. S., Collected Papers, Vol. I: Principles of Philosophy, Vol.
II: Elements of Logic, ed. by Ch. Hartshorne u. P. Weiss, Cambridge/Mass. 21960,
2.274); see
also Peirce, Semiotische Schriften, Vol. 1, ed. by Ch. Kloesel u. H. Pape,
Frankfurt/M. 1986, p. 64.72ff. [96] See Aichele, G., Sign,
Text, Scripture. Semiotics and the Bible, Sheffield 1997, esp. P. 62ff.; Eco,
U., Lector in fabula. Die Mitarbeit der Interpretation in erzählenden
Texten, München 31998, p. 31ff.; Eco, Semiotik 76ff.; Schönrich, G.,
Zeichenhandeln. Untersuchungen zum Begriff einer semiotischen Vernunft im
Ausgang von Ch. S. Peirce, Frankfurt/M. 1990, p. 96ff. [97] See Morris, Ch. W.,
Grundlagen der Zeichentheorie. Ästhetik der Zeichentheorie. Mit einem Nachwort
v. F. Knilli, Frankfurt/M. 1988, p. 20ff.; ibid., Zeichen, Sprache und
Verhalten. Mit einer Einführung von K.-O. Apel, Düsseldorf 1973, p. 77ff. [98] See e.g. Barth, H., Die
Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven
Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977, p. 38ff.;
Hayes - Irvine 123; Irvine, St. A., Isaiah, Ahaz, and the
Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, Atlanta 1990, p. 142ff.; Irvine, Isaiah’s
She’ar-Yashub and the Davidic House,
in: BZ NF 37, 1993, 78-88, p. 79; Steck, O. H., Bemerkungen zu Jes 6, in: ibid., Wahrnehmungen Gottes
im Alten Testament. Ges. Studien, München 1982, p. 149-170, 163f. incl. note
30. [99] See already the commentary
by Abravanel ad loc. (Don Yizchaq Abravanel, Perush ‘al Nevi’im Acharonim, Pesaro 1511/12, Repr. Jerusalem - Tel Aviv 1976, ad. Loc. p. 62b.) [100] See RaDaQ ad loc. [101] With regard to Isa 10:20-23
see e.g. Barthel p. 240. [102] Isa 8:14. [103]In recent years scholars
have worked in particular on the relationship between Biblical prophecies and
the Neo-Assyrian prophecies with special reference to the biblical אל
תירא formula and the Assyrian ‘lā tapalla h~’-formula (Lā tapalla h~ [...] atabbe uššab; Atta lū qālāka Aššur-a h~u-iddina, a.fr.); see the examples given in Nissinen,
M., Die Relevanz der neuassyrischen Prophetie für die alttestamentliche
Forschung, in: Dietrich - Loretz 217-258, esp. 247ff.; Parpola, S., Assyrian
Prophecies, Helsinki 1997; Weippert, M., Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit
Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals, in: F. M. Fales (Ed.), Assyrian Royal
Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literal, Ideological and Historical Analysis, Rom
1981, p. 71-115, 81ff.; Weippert, M., Aspekte israelitischer Prophetie im
Lichte verwandter Erscheinungen des Alten Orients, in: G. Mauer - U. Magen (Ed.),
Ad bene et fideliter seminandum, FS K. Deller, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, 287-319,
and recently Weippert, M., Ich bin Jahwe - Ich bin Istar von Arbela.
Deuterojesaja im Lichte der neuassyrischen Prophetie, in: Huwyler, B. – Mathys,
H.-P. a.o. (Ed.), Prophetie und Psalmen, Festschrift Klaus Seybold, Münster
2001, p. 31-59, esp. 37ff. [104] One of the temple
officials, see e.g. Weippert, Assyrische Prophetien 97f. incl. note 62. [105] See Blum, E., Jesajas
prophetisches Testament. Beobachtungen zu Jes 1-11 (part I), in: ZAW 108, 1996,
p. 547-568; (part II), in: ZAW 109, 1997, p. 12-29 Testament II 27. The first
to use the expression ‘(kind of) testament’ was Duhm (see Duhm, B., Das Buch
Jesaia, Göttingen 51968, p. 64). [106] See Budde, K., Jesaja’s
Erleben. Eine gemeinverständliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des Propheten (Kap.
6,1-9,6), Gotha 1928, p. 1ff.; ibid., Über die Schranken, die Jesajas
prophetischer Botschaft zu setzen sind, in: ZAW 41, 1923, p. 154-203, esp.
165f. Budde’s hypothesis has gained wide acceptance, see e.g. Barthel, esp. p.
37ff.; Berges, Jesaja p. 87ff.; Hardmeier, Verkündigungsabsicht p. 237f.;
Hubmann, Bote p. 331f.; Steck, Bemerkungen, bes. 161ff. Only a few scholars
reject the assumption of a ‘Denkschrift’, see Irvine, St. A., The Isaianic Denkschrift:
Reconsidering an Old Hypothesis, in: ZAW 104, 1992, p. 216-231, 231; Reventlow, H. Graf, Das
Ende der sog. ‘Denkschrift’ Jesajas, in: BN 38/39, 1987, p. 62-67. [107] See Hardmeier, Chr.,
Verkündigung und Schrift bei Jesaja. Zur Entstehung der Schriftprophetie als
Oppositionsliteratur im alten Israel, in: TGl 73, 1983, p. 119-134, 120.131. [108] See also Wieringen, A. L.
H. M. van: The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6-12, Leiden - Boston a.o. 1998, p.85:
“This means that the implied author helps the implied reader to accept God’s
word’s just as some characters have done with the help of the character Isaiah.
Both communication instances, the implied authors and the character Isaiah,
function as a prophet: Isaiah is a prophet for the other characters, the
implied author, in the wake of Isaiah, for the implied reader;” similarly
determines Laato, A., History and Ideology in the
Old Testament Prophetic Literature. A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction
of the Proclamation of the Historical Prophets, Stockholm 1996, p. 328 Amos as the ‘implied
prophet’ and his contemporaries as the ‘implied audience’ and prolongs the
relationship between the prophet and his contemporaries to the relationship
between the ‘implied author’ and the ‘implied reader’ (criticized by K. Nielsens
in: K. Nielsen, History and Ideology in the Old Testament
Prophetic Books. Response
to Antti Laato, in: SJOT 8, 1994, p. 298-301, esp. 300). [109] This is the case even when
scholars, like the representatives of the Scandinavian school, in particular H.
Birkeland; I. Engnell; S. Mowinckel; E. Nielsen (comp. e.g. J. Engnell, Gamla
Testamentet. En traditionshistorisk inledning, Uppsala 1945; ibid. Profetia och
Tradition, 1948; S. Mowinckel, Oppkomsten af profetlitteraturen, in: NTT 43,
1942, p. 65-111), assume a literary prophetic tradition to be initiated at a
late stage of Israelite history, i.e. in post-exilic times. According to
Engnell, prophetic oracles were collected within oral tradition, and only later
(re-) written by a prophetic support-group: “The prophet-master and his group
are one” (Engnell, I., The Call of Isaiah. An
Exegetical and Comparative Study, Uppsala - Leipzig 1949, p.23; see also ibid.
Prophets and Prophetism in the Old Testament, in: ibid. Critical Essays on the
Old Testament, London 1970, p. 123-179, 152ff.). [110] Høgenhaven, J., Prophecy and Propaganda. Aspects of Political and Religious Reasoning in
Israel and the Ancient Near East, in: SJOT 3, 1989, p. 125-141, 141. [111] Becker, Jesaja, p. 113f.
labels those who took up the message as ‘ecclesiola
in ecclesia’ This understanding illustrates very clearly how and to
what extant the exegesis of prophetic literature books is influenced by the
reading of the New Testament: In opposition to Isaiah’s contemporaries (the
‘impious’), the agents of the literary transmission of the prophetic oracles are
declared ‘disciples’ as described in the New Testament, and the New Testament’s
disciples’ relationship to the ‘master’ simply assigned to the generation of
the 8th- and 7th-century prophets. [112] Jeremias, J., Das Proprium
der alttestamentlichen Prophetie, in: ibid., Hosea und Amos. Studien zu den
Anfängen des Dodekapropheton, Tübingen 1996, p. 20-33, 30. [113] Cf. also Jer 36:10.15: Baruch
reads from the book the words of Jeremiah (...) to all the people. [114] See also Blenkinsopp,
Isaiah p. 238; Sonnet, J.-P., Le Motif de l’endurcissement (Is 6,9-10) et la
lecture d’ ‘Isaie’ in: Biblica 73, 1992, p. 208-239, esp. 220f. [115] See already Sonnet, Le
Motif, p. 216. [116] This interpretation
corresponds to an explanation given by K. Nielsen. According to Nielsen, the
fact that the prophet initiates a lawsuit, yet never concludes with a final
judgment, proves that the final verdict is to be asserted by the people
themselves, i.e. the political and cultic elite: “It is the people who are
accused; it is likewise they who must pronounce judgment upon themselves,” in:
Nielsen, K., Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge. An
Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern), Sheffield 1978, p. 31;
see also Nielsen,
K., Das Bild des Gerichts (Rib-Pattern) in Jes. I-XII. Eine Analyse der
Beziehungen zwischen Bildsprache und dem Anliegen der Verkündigung, in: VT 29,
1979, p. 309-324, esp. 315. [117] In that, Clements (in: Clements, R. E., Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest, in: Ruiten, J. van - Vervenne, M. (Ed.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. FS W. A. M. Beuken, Leuven 1997, p. 3-17, 5) is right, when he defines “prophecy (...) as a marker for community identity.” |